From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jan  2 16:20:55 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:20:55 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] For Parshat Va'eyra - shiur #1
Message-ID: <003d01c84d85$61a21360$0200000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

             PARSHAT VA?ERA  --   "ANI HASHEM" 

	Should Bnei Yisrael's redemption from slavery be
'unconditional'?  
	According to God's original promise to Avraham
Avinu, the redemption should begin as soon as its four
hundred year 'time limit' had expired.  [See Breishit
15:13-15.]
    Furthermore, could God have any expectations from a
nation that had endured so many years of oppression?  
    On the other hand, when considering the primary
theme of Sefer Breishit - that Bnei Yisrael are chosen
in order to become God's special Nation - it would also
be logical to expect at least some sort of 'spiritual
readiness' on the part of Bnei Yisrael - to be worthy of
their redemption.
    
    Even though the opening lines of Parshat Va?era
leave us with this impression that the forthcoming
redemption will be unconditional - in the the following
shiur, we will re-examine those psukim (i.e. Shmot
6:2-9) - to show how and why Israel's redemption from
Egypt emerges as a reciprocal process.
    
INTRODUCTION 
	In our study last week of the 'burning bush'
narrative, we explained how Moshe Rabeinu received a
'double mission' - as  God instructed him to both:
* INFORM Bnei Yisrael that God has come to fulfill His
promise to the Avot to take them to Eretz Canaan.
AND
* ORDER Pharaoh to allow Bnei Yisrael to journey a three
day distance into the desert - to worship their God.

    At first glance, Moshe's mission to Pharaoh appears
to be much more difficult than his mission to Bnei
Yisrael.  After all, Moshe must convince the Egyptian
ruler to do something against his will; while Bnei
Yisrael need only to be told 'good tidings'. 
	However, as the story continues, we will see how
Moshe's 'mission' to Bnei Yisrael becomes no less
difficult, and how that mission emerges as a primary
theme of Sefer Shmot!
    To explain how and why, we must first consider the
setting as Parshat Va?era begins. 

GETTING BETTER, OR GETTING WORSE
	Recall from Parshat Shmot, how Bnei Yisrael
immediately believed Moshe's tidings of their
forthcoming redemption:
"...and the people believed that God had come to redeem
His people..."  (see 4:29-31). 

	However, this initial enthusiasm quickly turned
into bitter disappointment when Moshe's first encounter
with Pharaoh resulted in a 'double workload' (see
5:18-21).  Instead of the redemption they had cried for
(see 2:23-25); their plight only became worse.
Understandably, the people accuse Moshe - their new
leader - for this aggravation of their condition;
whereupon Moshe turns to God in prayer, asking:
"Why have you made things worse for this people, why
have you sent me!  From the time I have gone to Pharaoh
to speak in Your Name, their situation has only gotten
worse, and You have not saved Your nation!" (5:22).

	It is precisely at this point when Parshat
Va?era opens, i.e. as Moshe awaits God's answer
concerning what to tell the people. As the people raise
a rather 'legitimate' complaint, Moshe needs to know how
to respond.
	Note how God's response to this complaint is
found in the opening eight psukim of Parshat Va?era
(i.e. 6:2-9) - and how it divides into two sections:
    1) What God tells Moshe (see 6:2-5), and 
    2) What Moshe must tell Bnei Yisrael (see 6:6-8).
      
    In our shiur, we will focus on God's answer to Bnei
Yisrael (i.e. 6:6-8), while our additional shiur on
Parshat Va?era (to follow) will discuss how and why God
first mentions "brit Avot" in his preliminary remarks to
Moshe in 6:2-5.]

ANI HASHEM
	Review the opening line of God's response to
Moshe (see 6:2), as it appears to contain a rather
superfluous statement:
"And Elokim spoke to Moshe, and told him: ANI HASHEM".  

    Even though Moshe Rabeinu already knows who God is
(see Shmot 3:6-7 & 3:13-15), nonetheless, God finds its
necessary to preface his response with this statement of
"ani Hashem".

	Then, in the message that God instructs Moshe to
convey to Bnei Yisrael (see 6:6-8), this same statement
of ?ANI HASHEM? forms the opening, closing, and
'central' clause.  Pay special attention to this, as
your review those psukim:
    "Therefore, tell Bnei Yisrael: 
    ANI HASHEM,
    and I will take them out from their suffering in
Egypt...
    and I will save them from their enslavement, 
    and I shall redeem them with an outstretched arm....
    and I shall take them for Me as My Nation
    and I will be their God... then they shall know
that:
    ANI HASHEM ELOKEICHEM 
    who has taken them out of Egypt. 
And I will take them to the Land... 
and I will give it to them as an inheritance...
	ANI HASHEM." 
     (see 6:6-8, read carefully!)

	As these psukim emphasize, God certainly wants
Bnei Yisrael need to hear this 'message' of "Ani
Hashem".

	But how was this statement supposed to answer
the people's complaint?  Did God think that by simply
repeating this phrase, and/or by repeating once again
His promise of redemption - that Bnei Yisrael would stop
complaining?  If so, it certainly didn't help - as we
are told in the next pasuk:
	"But they did not listen to Moshe..."  (see
6:9).
	
	In other words, Moshe relayed this message from
God to the people, but they did not listen.  So what was
the whole point?

A STATEMENT, or A COMMAND?
	To answer this question, we will now show how
the phrase 'ANI HASHEM' (in the context of these psukim)
should not be understood as simply a 'statement', but
rather as a 'command'.  In other words, God's response
in not simply: Be patient - and redemption is on its
way; rather - Accept Hashem as your God, to enable your
redemption! 
    Even though this may not appear to be the simple
meaning of this phrase, a careful reading (in Hebrew) of
this entire section in Sefer Shmot, with a little help
from Sefer Yechezkel, will help us prove this
conclusion.
    To do so, let's take a careful looks at Bnei
Yisrael's response (in 6:9) to God's message (in 6:6-8):
"And Moshe relayed this [message] to Bnei Yisrael...
- ve'lo SHAM?U el Moshe mi'kotzer ruach u'm'avoda kasha-
But they did not LISTEN to Moshe, due to their crushed
spirits and hard work.  (see 6:9).

	In our quotation of this pasuk, we have
translated the phrase of "ve'lo shamu" as they did not
'listen'.  However, as we shall now explain, this
translation is problematic.

'TO BELIEVE' OR 'TO OBEY'?
	What does the phrase "ve-lo SHAM?U" mean in
Hebrew?

	Let's consider several possible translations,
based on the various meanings of the Hebrew verb
?lishmoa?, such as - to hear, or to comprehend, or to
listen, or to obey, etc.:

*  They did not HEAR what Moshe said.
That can't be its meaning in this pasuk, as they
obviously (physically) heard what Moshe said.  

*  They did not COMPREHEND what he said.
This would also seem unlikely, for nothing in Moshe's
statement seems particularly complex or intellectually
demanding.

*  They did not PAY ATTENTION to what Moshe told them.
Based on its context, this seems to be the simplest
understanding, the problem only being that this is not
what the word "sham?u" means. 

*  They did not BELIEVE (or accept) what Moshe told
them.
Even though this is the popular understanding of ?ve-lo
sham?u? (in this pasuk), this translation is problematic
as well, for the Torah should have used the Hebrew word
?ve-lo he'eminu?, as it did to describe Bnei Yisrael's
original belief in God's first promise of redemption -
see 4:30-31.

*  They did not OBEY what Moshe told them.
Although this is the most common translation of ?ve-lo
sham?u? elsewhere in Chumash [see for example Devarim
28:15 & Vayikra 26:14], such a translation in our
context seems entirely untenable, as Moshe's remarks
contained no commandment or imperative for the people to
obey!  
    Or did they? 
    
    Based on the above analysis, the best translation
for "ve-lo sham?u" would be - that the people did not
'obey'  -  but if so, it would require that we identify
some sort of commandment in God's statement to the
people, as recorded in 6:6-8.  
    To explain how and why the statement of ANI HASHEM
could be understood as a commandment, we must study a
parallel source that describes these same events, as
recorded in the book of Yechezkel.

A PROOF FROM YECHEZKEL
[Before continuing, it is recommended that you first
read Yechezkel 20:1-12 and carefully compare it to Shmot
6:2-13; noting the obvious textual parallels, e.g.
20:5-6 w/ 3:6-8.]

	Yechezkel chapter 20 opens in the seventh year
[i.e. seven years after the Exile of King Yehoyachin and
the aristocracy   from Jerusalem], as the elders of
Yehuda (the leaders of the Exile in Bavel) visit
Yechezkel to inquire in regard to their predicament. 
[Based on chapter 28 in Yirmiyahu, we can assume that
rumors of Bavel's imminent fall are spreading (as Egypt
will come to their rescue/ see also Yirmiyahu 37:1-10),
kindling [false] hope among the people that God may soon
redeem the Exile and return them to Jerusalem.]
  
	In response to their inquiry, God tells
Yechezkel that the people need to hear rebuke (rather
than 'good tidings' /see 2:4).
[Study 20:2-8 carefully, noting how God is basically
telling them "don't ask what God can do for you (i.e.
for your redemption), ask rather what you can do to
deserve redemption!" / This was a few thousand years
before JFK.] 

	In that rebuke, God instructs Yechezkel to
remind the people that they are not worthy of
redemption, just as their forefathers in Egypt did not
deserve redemption!  [See 20:5-10.]  
    As your review these psukim, note how Yechezkel
describes the set of events that took place just prior
to the Exodus, and their obvious parallels to the
opening psukim of Parshat Va?era:
"And you shall say to them... on the day that I chose
Israel ... [va-ivada lahem -] when I made Myself known
to them in the land of Egypt... and I stretched out My
Hand to them saying ANI HASHEM ELOKEICHEM" . 
    [Compare with Shmot 6:3 & 6:6]
"... on that same day ["nasa?ti et yadi"] I lifted out
My Hand  to take them out of Egypt into a land flowing
with milk and honey"  (Yechezkel 20:5-6),
 	[Compare with Shmot 6:8 and 3:7-8].

    Note especially the repetition of the phrase of ANI
HASHEM as well as "ve-lo avu l'shmo'ah".

TAKING 'EGYPT' OUT OF THE JEWS
	However, the most important piece of information
in these psukim, that (for some reason) was left out of
Sefer Shmot, is the COMMANDMENT that God had given Bnei
Yisrael at that time:
    "And I said to them [at the time of Yetziat
Mitzrayim]: -
?Each man must rid himself of his detestable ways and
not DEFILE himself with the fetishes of Egypt - [for]
ANI HASHEM ELOKEICHEM?  (see 20:7).

?But they REBELLED against Me -'ve-lo avu liSHMOA eilai'
- and they did not want to listen to Me (i.e. obey) -
for no one rid himself from his detestable ways, nor did
anyone give up the fetishes of Egypt, and I resolved to
pour out My anger upon them..." (see 20:8).

    It becomes quite clear from Yechezkel, that when God
told Moshe to tell Bnei Yisrael ANI HASHEM (as recorded
in Parshat Va'era), this included an implicit COMMAND as
well - to rid themselves from Egyptian culture- a
command which Bnei Yisrael DID NOT OBEY.  
	Much to our amazement, Sefer Yechezkel states
explicitly that which Sefer Shmot only alludes to.  God
had called upon Bnei Yisrael to repent prior to the
Exodus, to cleanse themselves from the "tum?a" of their
Egyptian culture - in preparation for their redemption.
Unfortunately, at that time Bnei Yisrael did not OBEY
[?ve-lo avu liSHMOA" / see 20:8] and thus deserved to be
destroyed in the land of Egypt.
    Nevertheless, as Yechezkel explains in the next
pasuk, the redemption process did continue, but it was
only for the 'sake of God's Name' (see Yechezkel
20:9-10).
[These psukim in Yechezkel support the popular Zohar
that explains how Bnei Yisrael in Egypt had reached the
49th level of ?tum?a? before the redemption began.  See
Further Iyun section for additional sources that are
based on (or quote) these psukim in Yechezkel.]

	Thus, these psukim in Yechezkel can help us
understand the deeper meaning of the phrase ?Ani Hashem?
in Parshat Va?era.  God's instruction to Moshe to tell
Bnei Yisrael ? ?Ani Hashem? - implies not only that they
must accept God, but they must also reject any other
gods (and/or culture).  Basically, God is telling His
nation that He will indeed redeem them from Egypt, as
they request; but this redemption demands that they
become a 'loyal partner' in this relationship.
	If this understanding is indeed correct, then
Bnei Yisrael's response of "ve-lo sham?u el Moshe" would
definitely mean that they did not OBEY.  Instead, they
continued their evil ways, and clung to their Egyptian
culture! 

A LOGICAL ?KAL VA-CHOMER?
	Additional proof of this interpretation of
?ve-lo sham?u? can be inferred from the next three
psukim that follow in Parshat Va?era:
"Then God told Moshe, go speak to Pharaoh... that he
should SEND Bnei Yisrael from his land.   [Clearly, a
command!]

Then, Moshe retorted [employing a ?kal va-chomer?],
saying: 
"If even Bnei Yisrael - LO SHAM?U eilai - didn't
'listen' to me ? ve-eich YISHMA'ENI Pharaoh - why should
Pharaoh 'obey' me?" (see 6:10-12).

	Note how the Torah uses the word ?sham?u? on
each side of the ?kal va-chomer?.  In the context of
Pharaoh's refusal to comply with God's command -
?sham?u? definitely means to OBEY - for Moshe commands
Pharaoh to grant Bnei Yisrael permission to leave Egypt
(to worship their God).  
	However, for this ?kal va-chomer? to make sense,
the verb ?sham?u? in both halves of the pasuk must carry
the same meaning.  Thus, if ?sham?u? in the second half
of the pasuk means 'obey', then ?sham?u? in first half
of the pasuk - in reference to Bnei Yisrael - must also
mean to OBEY. 
    In other words, the ?kal va-chomer? should be
translated as follows:
"Why should Pharaoh OBEY me, if Bnei Yisrael did not
OBEY me!" 

	Once again, we find proof that the phrase ?ve-lo
sham?u? in 6:9 should be understood as: Bnei Yisrael do
not obey.

TO KNOW or TO INTERNALIZE 
	When we first encountered the statement of ANI
HASHEM, it was understood as a 'statement of fact' -
i.e. something that needs to be known.   However, based
on our analysis, one could suggest that knowing ?Ani
Hashem? encompasses much more than pure intellectual
knowledge.  This statement is not simply a fact that
must be understood, rather it constitutes a precept that
must be INTERNALIZED.  In other words, a true
recognition of ?Ani Hashem? generates an immediate,
inner drive to perform God's will and thus, a
willingness to OBEY any command He may request.  
    Hence, the internalization this statement obviously
requires the rejection of any other god
	From this perspective, the statement of ANI
HASHEM in Parshat Va'era constitutes a commandment,
implicitly demanding that Bnei Yisrael prepare
themselves spiritually for their redemption - to perform
proper ?teshuva?, and hence reject their Egyptian
culture.

THE FIRST TWO ?DIBROT?
    This interpretation can help us appreciate the
deeper meaning of the first two commandments that Bnei
Yisrael receive at Matan Torah.  Recall that when Bnei
Yisrael finally arrive at Har Sinai to receive the
Torah, the first commandment is simply another format of
the ANI HASHEM statement  
"ANOCHI HASHEM ELOKECHA asher HOTZEITICHA me-eretz
Mitzrayim..." (see 20:2-3, compare w/6:6!). 
Furthermore, this also explains why the next
commandment:
"Lo yihiyeh lachem elohim acherim al panai..." - not to
have any other gods.  

    In fact, this also explains why some commentators
consider Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh as one commandment, for
the first statement automatically implies the second
(like two sides of a coin)! 
	Even though Bnei Yisrael did not internalize
this message of ANI HASHEM before they left Egypt (as
6:9 implies), their redemption process would not be
complete until that message was totally accepted.  [We
will soon cite several examples.]

A DIFFICULT MISSION
	From this perspective, Moshe's mission to Bnei
Yisrael is no less difficult than his mission to
Pharaoh.  His assignment involves not only informing the
people, but also EDUCATING them, teaching Bnei Yisrael
how to prepare themselves for their redemption.  Just as
Pharaoh must be convinced to recognize God, so too Bnei
Yisrael must be convinced that it is indeed God who is
coming to redeem them.  Accordingly, they must perform
proper ?teshuva? in order to be worthy of that
redemption.  
    In this manner, Moshe's "shlichut" to Bnei Yisrael,
just like his mission to Pharaoh, is also a 'mission' in
the fullest sense of the word.  Not only must he INFORM
Bnei Yisrael of their forthcoming redemption, he must
also COMMAND and TEACH them to perform proper ?teshuva?
- to become worthy of that redemption.
	This interpretation can also explain the
interesting wording of God's response to Moshe's
objection in 6:11-12: 
"And God spoke to Moshe & Aharon, and COMMANDED them
[va-yetzavem] TO Bnei Yisrael AND TO Pharaoh the king of
Egypt to take Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt" (6:13).

	God once again gives Moshe a double mission - to
command Pharaoh to allow them to leave, AND to command
Bnei Yisrael to 'become worthy' of that redemption.
	[See Ramban's interpretation of this pasuk!]

SOME HELP FROM SEFER VAYIKRA
	So what were Bnei Yisrael doing in Egypt that
was so terrible?  Considering that these events took
place before the Torah was given, what did they need to
do ?teshuva? from?
	A possible answer can be found in Parshat
Acharei Mot, where we find once again an interesting
textual and thematic parallel to Yechezkel chapter 20
and Shmot chapter 6.  
    In Vayikra chapter 18 (which just so happens to be
the Torah reading for Yom Kippur afternoon, and not by
chance), God bids Bnei Yisrael not to follow the corrupt
lifestyle of the Egyptians.  Note once again the
repetition in these psukim of the phrase ?ANI HASHEM?:
"And God spoke to Moshe: speak to Bnei Yisrael and TELL
them ANI HASHEM! 
    Do not act as the Egyptians do... and do not follow
their customs.  Follow My laws instead... for ANI HASHEM
ELOKEICHEM.  
    Keep My laws, for by them man lives... ANI HASHEM" 
				(see Vayikra 18:1-5).

	This short introduction is followed by a long
list of forbidden marital relationships [better known as
the ?arayot?], which had apparently become common in the
Egyptian and Canaanite cultures (see 18:24-25!).  Thus,
God's call for ?teshuva? may have included a demand that
Bnei Yisrael's refrain of their decadent Egyptian
lifestyle, and accept instead whatever mitzvot God may
command.

A THEME IN SEFER SHMOT
 	This interpretation not only helps us understand
the phrase "ve-lo sham?u  el Moshe" in 6:9, it also
explains a whole series of events that take place up
until Bnei Yisrael arrive at Har Sinai. 
	Recall that God had originally planned (at the
?sneh?) for Bnei Yisrael to travel a three-day journey
directly to Har Sinai immediately after the Exodus (see
3:12-18).  Instead, they arrive at Har Sinai only some
six weeks later.  Why?
	Based on the excerpt quoted from Sefer
Yechezkel, the answer is quite simple.  As the prophet
explained, God saved Bnei Yisrael for the 'sake of His
Name' - even though they were undeserving at that time
(see 20:8-9).  Hence, the redemption process could not
continue, i.e. Bnei Yisrael cannot travel on to Har
Sinai, until something is done to improve their
spiritual readiness.
	 Therefore, even before Bnei Yisrael leave
Egypt, they must offer a special Korban [Pesach] to
affirm their faithfulness.  [See shiur on Parshat Bo.]
Then, after their first 'three-day journey' into the
desert, they must pass the test at 'Mara' (see
15:22-26), where they are given one more chance to
accept what they had earlier rejected in Parshat Va?era.
Note what God commands Bnei Yisrael at MARA:
"And He said - IM SHAMO?A TISHMA - If you OBEY the voice
of the Lord your God, do what is upright and listen to
His commandments, then the afflictions that I brought
upon Egypt [which you deserved as well!] I will not
bring upon you, for ANI HASHEM, your Healer" (16:26).
[This topic will be discussed in greater detail in our
shiur on Parshat Beshalach.]

	Finally, immediately upon their arrival at Har
Sinai, God again demands as a PRE-REQUISITE for
receiving the Torah a similar 'pledge of allegiance':
"And now, IM SHAMO?A TISHME'U BE-KOLI - if you agree to
obey My instruction and keep My covenant..."  (see
19:3-6).

	Of course, this time Bnei Yisrael agree to
follow God and 'listen' [obey] to whatever He may
command them (see 19:7-8). 
	Finally, as we explained above, this explains
why the very first DIBUR of the Ten Commandments is
"ANOCHI [=ANI] HASHEM ELOKECHA who took you out of Egypt
- LO YIHIYEH... Do not have any other gods INSTEAD of
Me" (see 20:2).  
	As we saw in Sefer Yechezkel, these two
statements - ANI HASHEM and LO YIHIYEH - act as 'two
sides of the same coin' - for the statement of ANI
HASHEM automatically implies that you shall have no
other gods.

ELIYAHU AT LEIL HA-SEDER
	In closing, the conclusions of this week's shiur
can also help us appreciate our custom to ?invite?
Eliyahu ha-navi to our 'seder table?.  On Pesach night,
as we commemorate the events of Yetziat Mitzrayim, we
conclude the SEDER with our hope for the final
redemption.  However, before we begin Hallel & Nirtza,
we first invite Eliyahu.  Most likely, this custom is
based on the final pasuk of Mal?achi, which promises:
"Behold I am sending you Eliyah the prophet, BEFORE the
great and awesome day of the Lord, and he will return
the hearts of sons to their fathers, and the hearts of
fathers to their sons, lest I come and smite and land
instead."  

	In the final redemption, just as in the first
redemption, our obligation to perform ?teshuva? is as
important an ingredient as God's readiness to redeem us.
After all, what purpose would there be in our redemption
if we were not ready to fulfill our covenantal
obligations? 
	In order for redemption to succeed, a constant
recognition of ANI HASHEM must become not only a 'frame
of mind?, but even more so, it must become a 'way of
life?.

					shabbat shalom,
					menachem

===================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
1. Review Shmot 2:23-25.  Note how Bnei Yisrael cry to
Hashem for salvation.  In your opinion, does this
indicate that they did teshuva, or was this simply a cry
for help.
	See Ibn Ezra (2:23 / aroch), Ramban (2:25), and
Seforno (2:23-24) on these psukim, noting how they all
relate to this question, and how they all relate to the
psukim in Yechezkel 20:1-9 as well!

2. See Seforno's introduction to Sefer Shmot (in some
Chumashim it is found in the first volume of Sefer
Breishit, where Seforno provides and intro to all five
books of Chumash).
    Note how his commentary on what transpires in Sefer
Shmot is based on what is described in Yechezkel chapter
20!
    Note also how he relates to this information in
Sefer Yechezkel in his commentary on almost every pasuk
in Shmot chapter one, as well as his commentary on
2:23-24.

3. See Amos 5:18!  There he claims that it would be
better for Bnei Yisrael not to desire a YOM HASHEM.
Based on the context of that pasuk (considering the
people's behavior during the time period of Uziyahu) and
the conclusions of this week's shiur, explain Amos'
warning in that pasuk
.	See also Yirmiyahu 29:10-14, and relate it to
the above shiur!

ADDITIONAL NOTES AND SOURCES
The Forty-nine ?sha'arei tum'a?
	The concept that Bnei Yisrael plummeted to the
forty-ninth ?gate of impurity? appears in the Zohar
Chadash, vol. 1, Parshat Yitro 52a.  The Zohar there
writes that while Hashem had promised Avraham Avinu only
that He will redeem his offspring from bondage, He in
fact did much more: He took them from the forty-nine
?gates of impurity? and raised them to the forty-nine
?gates of wisdom?.  This, explains the Zohar, is why
Hashem constantly reminds Bnei Yisrael, "I am Hashem
your God who took you from Egypt?, to emphasize that He
did more than fulfill His promise to Avraham Avinu.  
	The Zohar adds that the forty-nine days we count
between Pesach and Shavuot commemorate this elevation
from the forty-nine ?gates of impurity?.  This concept
is developed later by the Ramchal, in Choker U-mekubal,
18.
"Ve-lo Sham'u El Moshe" (6:9)
	Our explanation, that this pasuk refers to Bnei
Yisrael's unwillingness to give up their idolatrous
practices, appears explicitly in several Midrashim.  The
Mechilta, Parshat Bo - Mesechta De-pischa 5 and Shemot
Rabba 6:5 explain that Bnei Yisrael could not extricate
themselves from idolatry, and the Midrashim make
reference to Yechezkel 20 as evidence.  Targum Yonatan
Ben Uziel also explains this pasuk as suggesting Bnei
Yisrael's refusal to abandon idolatry, though he adds as
well the element of ?kepidut rucha?, anger and
frustration.  Perhaps this means that the intensified
labor that resulted from Moshe's initial meeting with
Pharaoh contributed in no small measure to the people's
refusal to heed his call for teshuva.
	It is worth noting that we find two different
approaches in the Midrashim as to why Bnei Yisrael
resorted to avoda zara: either for theological reasons,
or due to circumstances they deemed out of their
control.  The Torah Shleima quotes a "Midrash Aggada"
that Bnei Yisrael lacked faith and claimed that Hashem
did not have the ability to save them.  They thus
resorted to avoda zara, on ideological grounds.  The
Midrash Hagadol, by contrast, records the following
response of Bnei Yisrael to Moshe's call for their
return to monotheism: "Where do you find a slave who
acquires for himself two masters?  We are slaves to
Pharaoh; how can we violate his decrees - we are
afraid!"  Their subjugation to Pharaoh precluded the
possibility of their service to Hashem.
	The Netziv, in his comments to Shmot 13:9, finds
what he considers a clearer source in Chumash for Bnei
Yisrael's involvement in avoda zara.  The pasuk there
instructs them with regard to the mitzva of tefillin and
concludes, "for with a mighty hand Hashem took you out
from Egypt?.  The Netziv explains this clause as a
response to the anticipated question as to why Hashem
must issue so many commandments to ensure Bnei Yisrael's
trust and belief in Him.  He answers by reminding the
people that they agreed to leave Egypt only after
witnessing Hashem's mighty hand.  Although they happily
welcomed Moshe's initial announcement of their freedom
(4:31), they rejected his second proclamation because,
as we noted in the shiur, it required them to accept
Hashem as their God.  Only after witnessing the miracles
in Egypt did they agree to forsake idolatry and accept
Hashem. 

VE-LO SHAM?U EL MOSHE
	By and large, the "mefarshim al derech ha-pshat"
interpret "ve-lo sham'u el Moshe" differently.  We list
here the three general directions taken by the
mefarshim:
BELIEVE
	They did not believe: We dismissed this approach
in the shiur, but several prominent mefarshim adopt -
either explicitly or implicitly - this interpretation.
The Rashbam contrasts the nation's response here with
their reaction to Moshe's initial announcement, as
recorded in Parshat Shmot - 4:31.  Although then, they
believed Moshe ("Va-ya'amen ha-am"), having seen their
hopes crushed by the decree of more intensive labor they
no longer believed.  In quoting this pasuk in Parshat
Shmot, the Rashbam may have implicitly addressed the
possible objection to this approach, as we asked in the
shiur: why did the Torah not say, "Ve-lo he'eminu"?  The
answer may be that in that very pasuk the Torah writes,
"va-yishme'u ki pakad Hashem et Benei Yisrael? "  There,
?va-yishme'u? seems to parallel ?va-ya'amen?, to mean
?they believed?.  Other mefarshim who claim that Bnei
Yisrael did not believe Moshe include the Ralbag and
Seforno.
PAY ATTENTION
	Another group of mefarshim explain ?ve-lo
sham'u? to mean a rough equivalent of, ?they did not pay
attention?.  For one of several reasons, Bnei Yisrael
did not or could not pay attention to Moshe as he spoke
to them - either because of the pressure of their
workload, their emotional distress, or because Pharaoh
had already ordered them to disregard the ?words of
falsehood? spoken by Moshe and Aharon (5:9). 
	 This approach is taken (though in slightly
different forms) by the Ramban, Chizkuni, Abarbanel,
Netziv and Meshech Chochma in their commentaries on this
pasuk.  One interesting variation of this approach
appears in the work of Rav Hirsch.  He explains, along
the same general lines as our analysis in the shiur,
that in Moshe's speech he does more than inform the
people of redemption; he charges them with a mission,
the destiny and purpose of Am Yisrael.  Due to the
pressures of their work, however, Bnei Yisrael had no
patience for such lofty ideas and concepts.  All they
could concentrate on was the immediate tasks at hand;
they therefore could not pay any attention to Moshe's
description of their spiritual mission as a free nation.
CONSOLATION
	The final approach is that of Rashi: "They did
not accept consolation."  Unlike our explanation in the
shiur, Rashi apparently understood Moshe's address as
simply an attempt at consoling the people whose lives
had become even more unbearable as a result of Pharaoh's
new decree.  Rashi expresses this interpretation of the
pasuk in other writings, as well.  In Sefer Hapardes
(compiled by Rashi's students) and in Siddur Rashi
(414), this pasuk is cited as proof that those who seek
to offer consolation should do so ?me'at me'at?, by
expressing modest hopes for better things to come.  In
Rashi's words, one who does not do so: "is like one who
says to a beggar, 'Tomorrow you will be a king' - he
does not believe him."  Here, too, Bnei Yisrael suffered
from physical torment, and Moshe consoles them with
promises of a glorious life as God's nation in the land
of Canaan.  This offered them little consolation; they
wished only for a respite from their current hardship.
	The Malbim (on our pasuk) explains along these
lines, as well, that Moshe here was to console Bnei
Yisrael, but did not succeed.

TESHUVA IN EGYPT
	In sharp contrast to the line taken in the
shiur, Ibn Ezra in his peirush Ha-aroch(2:23) says that
the words "Va-yeanchu Bnei Yisrael min ha-avoda
va-yiz?aku" implies that they did do teshuva and thus
were worthy of being redeemed from Egypt.

?Ani Hashem? 
	The centrality of this phrase within this
opening unit of Parshat Va?era is demonstrated by
Nechama Leibowitz (Studies, Parshat Va?era 1).  She
shows that within this segment, which consists of
Hashem's speech to Moshe (6:2-8), ?Ani Hashem? appears
at either end (6:2&8) as well as in the middle (6:6).
Clearly, the notion of ?Ani Hashem? comprises the most
important message Moshe is to convey to Bnei Yisrael at
this point.
	In the shiur we suggest that ?Ani Hashem?
involved an educational message, that Bnei Yisrael must
rid themselves of Egyptian culture and prepare
themselves spiritually for redemption.  This approach
appears in the works of two twentieth-century writers,
Rav Zalman Sorotzkin (Oznayim La-Torah) and Rav Yoel
Leib Herzog (Imrei Yoel).  They both claim that ?Ani
Hashem? was meant as an admonishment that Bnei Yisrael
relinquish their attachment to idolatry.  Rav Sorotzkin
adds that Bnei Yisrael could not accept the fact that
the same God who brought about this bitter exile would
also come to their assistance and redeem them.  They
fell under the influence of pagan ideology and so
believed in the existence of different gods with
different powers.  Moshe was thus to teach them the
message of ?Ani Hashem?, that there is only one God who
governs every force in the universe.  Indeed, the same
God who subjected them to hardship will lead them to a
life of freedom.
	This interpretation of ?Ani Hashem? may shed
light on the passage in the Zohar mentioned earlier.
The Zohar asks, why does Hashem so often remind Bnei
Yisrael that ?Ani Hashem Elokeichem asher hotzeiti
etchem me-eretz Mitzrayim" (or similar)?  After all, by
taking them out of Egypt, Hashem simply fulfilled the
promise He had made to Avraham; why does this act merit
such emphasis?  The Zohar answers that these
proclamations stress the fact that Hashem went beyond
His promise to Avraham.  He had promised Avraham only to
redeem his offspring from bondage, not to raise them
from the quagmire of the forty-nine ?gates of impurity?.
Why must Hashem emphasize this point?  Is He trying to
?brag??
	In light of our discussion, the answer becomes
clear.  Hashem constantly reminds Bnei Yisrael of the
commandment He issued to them when they were in Egypt,
?Ani Hashem? - the commandment that they failed to heed.
It is as though He reminds them, "You did not
internalize this message in Egypt, so I must reiterate
it to you again and again!"
	We list here three alternative explanations that
appear in the Midrashim and mefarshim as to the meaning
of ?Ani Hashem? in this context:
	The Midrash Hagadol and Mechilta De-Rashbi
understand ?Ani Hashem? as a disclaimer of sorts.
Hashem here declares that although He knows the future,
and thus foresees Bnei Yisrael's future abandonment of
Hashem, He will nevertheless redeem them.
	Several mefarshim interpret the phrase as a
source of encouragement for Bnei Yisrael, underscoring
Hashem's unlimited power that enables Him to redeem
them.  This approach appears in various forms in the
commentaries of Rashi, Seforno and Abarbanel.  The Ibn
Ezra posits a slight variation of this approach, that
?Ani Hashem? emphasizes the nature of the Almighty's
promise; as He is God, Bnei Yisrael may confidently
trust that He will fulfill His guarantee of redemption.
	The Malbim explains that Hashem here informs
Bnei Yisrael that He will redeem them with the divine
attribute of ?Shem Havaya?, entirely outside the bounds
of the natural order.  Amos Chacham, in Da'at Mikra,
takes a similar approach, as does Rav Chayim Yaakov
Goldvicht (Asufat Ma'archot - Haggada Shel Pesach,
p.113).

"Va-yetzavem El Bnei Yisrael?" (6:13)
	The glaring problem in this pasuk, as noted by
many commentaries, is the absence of any content to this
?command? Hashem issued to Moshe and Aharon.  We claim
that this refers to the spiritual preparation of Bnei
Yisrael for redemption.  This appears explicitly in two
Midrashim - the Mechilta cited earlier, and the Midrash
Lekach Tov on our pasuk.  This may be the deeper meaning
of two other Midrashim as well.  One Midrash brought
down in the Sefer Ha-mivchar (as quoted in the Torah
Shleima on our pasuk) says that Moshe commanded Bnei
Yisrael to prepare wood for the construction of the
Mishkan.  This may symbolize Bnei Yisrael's preparation
for hashra'at ha-Shechina - Hashem's residence within
the nation.  Secondly, the Yerushalmi in Masechet Rosh
Hashana 3:5, based on the pasuk in Yirmiyahu 34:13,
explains this command as referring to the obligation to
free one's slaves.  (Apparently, as Rav Menachem Kasher
notes in Torah Shleima ? milu?im to Parshat Va?era, 3,
there were noblemen among Bnei Yisrael who, not only
were excused from slave labor, they themselves owned
servants.)  As the Torah explicitly writes in Vayikra
25:42, the laws concerning the freeing of slaves relate
to the notion that Bnei Yisrael are ultimately
subservient to Hashem alone.  Before realizing their
freedom from bondage, Bnei Yisrael must internalize this
critical lesson, that they are freed from slavery in
order to become the servants of Hashem.
	Three other general approaches to this pasuk
appear in the mefarshim:
	The Sifrei in Parshat Beha'alotcha (91), quoted
by Rashi here, understands the command to Moshe and
Aharon as urging them to exercise patience when dealing
with Bnei Yisrael and speak respectfully when they
address Pharaoh.  Though Rashi views this explanation as
drash, as the pasuk makes no mention of patience and
respect, this approach does accommodate the context of
this pasuk.  Moshe had just expressed his frustration
over Bnei Yisrael's refusal to listen and the likely
prospect of a similar reaction on Pharaoh's part.
Hashem thus urges him and Aharon to retain their
composure despite the intransigence of both the people
and Pharaoh.  This explanation appears in the Zohar
Ha-chadash (2:26) as well as in the Rambam's Mishneh
Torah (Hilchot Sanhedrin 25:2), and in a slightly
different form in the Pesikta De-rav Kahana (14).  In a
similar vein, the Ibn Ezra quotes a Karaite exegete,
Yeshua, who explains this pasuk as a charge to Moshe and
Aharon not to become angry as a result of their growing
frustration.  Whereas in his peirush ha-katzar the Ibn
Ezra mentions this possibility without any further
comment, in his peirush ha-aroch he writes that ?there
is no need? for this interpretation.  (This approach
brings to mind an interesting comment by the Ralbag on
the immediately preceding pasuk.  He claims that the
?kotzer ruach? which led Bnei Yisrael not to listen to
Moshe refers to Moshe's - rather than Bnei Yisrael's -
frustration.  His growing impatience led him to speak
irritably, and his words thus met upon deaf ears.  If
so, it would then stand to reason that Hashem must urge
Moshe to exercise more patience.)   
	The Akeidat Yitzchak interprets ?va-yetzavem?
here as referring to the conferral of a given status,
rather than the issuance of a command.  Citing examples
from Tehillim 33:9 and Melachim I 17:4, the Akeidat
Yitzchak explains that Hashem granted Moshe and Aharon
prominence and respect among both Bnei Yisrael and
Pharaoh's court, such that their words would be heard.
Other mefarshim adopting this approach include the
Abarbanel (as his first suggestion), the Or Hachayim
(though he adds as well the third approach that we will
soon see) and the Tzror Hamor.
	Several mefarshim see this pasuk's mention of
Aharon as the key to its meaning.  Moshe had just
expressed his discouragement, compounded by his poor
verbal skills(see 6:12), and so Hashem calls upon Aharon
and commands both brothers to return to Bnei Yisrael and
to speak to Pharaoh.  This was Hashem's answer to
Moshe's complaint - that he take Aharon with him and
address the nation (for a second time) and then the
king.  The Ibn Ezra (peirush ha-aroch), Chizkuni, Rabenu
Yosef Bechor Shor and Abarbanel (as his second approach)
explain along these lines.  The Jerusalem Publication
Society Bible also seemed to have this approach in mind
when it translated this pasuk.

Inviting Eliyah Hanavi to the Seder
	We suggest in the shiur that Eliyahu's
?participation? in our seder reminds us that before the
final redemption we must perform teshuva, and for this
reason Eliyahu will come before the unfolding of the
redemption.  Just as Hashem called upon Bnei Yisrael to
repent before leaving Egypt, so must we correct our ways
in anticipation of the final redemption.
	The Rema - Orach Chayim 480 - mentions the
custom of opening the door at the seder and cites the
explanation of the Mahari Brona that this demonstrates
our belief in Pesach night as a ?leil shimurim? - a
night of watching, when Hashem grants us special
protection.  The Maharal, in his Haggada "Divrei
Negidim" rejects this explanation and claims that we
open the door to publicize our belief in the coming of
Eliyahu Hanavi prior to the final redemption.  (See also
Aruch Hashulchan.)  He does not, however, relate this to
the concept of teshuva, as we suggest in the shiur.  
	Though our explanation does not appear
explicitly in earlier sources, it may relate to the
approach taken by the Netziv to explain the fifth cup
poured at the seder.  As we know, the four cups drunk at
the seder correspond to the four expressions describing
Yetzi'at Mitzrayim in the beginning of Parshat Vaeyra
(?ve-hotzeiti?, ?ve-hitzalti?, ?ve-ga'alti?,
?ve-lakachti?).  The Netziv, in his "Ha-amek Davar"
commentary to 6:7, suggests that the fifth cup - which
we pour but do not drink - commemorates the promise,
"and you shall know that I am Hashem your God who takes
you out from Egypt?.  According to the Netziv, this
promise speaks of a level of comprehension unattainable
by the masses; it refers to the unique knowledge and
insight acquired by the nation's spiritual elite.
Therefore, given the exclusive nature of this
?knowledge?, we do not drink this fifth cup.
	In contemporary times, Rabbi Eliezer Ginsburg,
in his "Shirat Yehuda" commentary on the Haggada,
associates the Netziv's explanation with the common
reference to this fifth cup as ?kos shel Eliyahu? (see,
for example, Mishna Berura 480:10).  Eliyahu will come
before the final redemption to teach, guide and inspire,
such that we may all attain this lofty level of "you
shall know that I am Hashem your God?, and we thus
appropriately name this fifth cup after Eliyahu Hanavi.
This closely relates to our suggestion, that the
inclusion of Eliyahu at the seder reminds us of the
spiritual growth required before the final redemption.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.11 - Release
Date: 12/27/2007 12:00 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vaeyra2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 62991 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080102/11a47ba6/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jan  2 16:20:55 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:20:55 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] for Parshat Va'eyra - shiur #2
Message-ID: <004101c84d85$6321d590$0200000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

PARSHAT VA'ERA  & Brit Avot

	Was it really so necessary for Bnei Yisrael to
suffer so much in preparation for their redemption?
	From a cursory reading of "brit bein ha'btrarim"
in Sefer Breishit (see 15:13-18), it would certainly
seem so.  Furthermore, from the events that transpire in
Sefer Shmot, when Pharaoh doubles their workload
immediately after Moshe Rabeinu makes his first plea for
redemption (see Shmot chapter 5), it seems that this
'extra affliction' is part of God's 'master plan'!
	Can one find any logical reason for this?
	Is 'suffering' a value in itself?  Does God
simply want His nation to suffer, just so they can later
appreciate Him?
    In our first shiur on Parshat Va'era, we suggested
[based on psukim from Yechezkel 20:5-9] that the length
of their slavery and its intensity may have been a
direct result of Bnei Yisrael's unwillingness to accept
God.  However, we did not discuss why that very 'slavery
in a foreign land' (see Breishit 15:13) was necessary in
the first place.
    To shed some light on this difficult question, the
following shiur returns to the opening psukim of Parshat
Va'era, to explain why God prefaces His 'tidings of
redemption' by reminding Moshe Rabeinu of His special
relationship with the forefathers. 

INTRODUCTION - A 'DOUBLE MENTION'
    As Parshat Va'era opens, God reassures Moshe that
despite his first setback (see 5:21-23), the redemption
process will continue.  Let's take a careful looks at
what God tells Moshe at this time, paying careful
attention to how and when the word 'brit' [=covenant] is
mentioned:
"And Elokim spoke to Moshe, telling him I am Hashem.
And I appeared to Avraham, Yitzchak & Yaakov using the
Name KEL SHADAI, but My Name HAVAYA, I did not make
known to them.
** And also I had established [upheld?] My BRIT with
them [the Avot] to give them the land of Canaan... 

** And I have also heard the cries of Bnei Yisrael, for
Egypt is oppressing them, and I have remembered My BRIT.
Therefore, tell Bnei Yisrael...ANI HASHEM"  (6:2-6)

	As you should have noticed, the word "brit" is
mentioned twice in these psukim.  But what specific
covenant is God referring to?  
    To answer this question, we must return to our study
of Sefer Breishit and recall that God had established
two covenants with Avraham Avinu: 
  *	Brit Bein ha-btarim (see Breishit 15:1-20);
[Recall how this covenant was given b'shem Havaya.]  
  *	Brit Mila (see 17:1-14),
 		[Recall how this covenant was given
b'shem Elokim.]

	Even though both covenants focused on God's
promise to Avraham of 'zera' [numerous offspring] and
'aretz' [the Land of Israel], each covenant related to a
different aspect of God's future relationship with the
nation of Israel.
	Let's review the main aspects of each covenant.

BRIT BEIN HA-BTARIM
	As we explained in our shiurim on Sefer
Breishit, "brit bein ha-btarim" forecasted the long
historical process by which Avraham's offspring would
become God's Nation. 
"And Hashem (be-shem Havaya) said to Avram: Know well
that your offspring shall be strangers in a LAND NOT
THEIRS, and they shall be ENSLAVED and OPPRESSED, for
400 years...and that nation that oppresses them I will
punish, and afterward they SHALL GO FREE with GREAT
WEALTH...  [This won't happen in Avraham's lifetime]
only the fourth generation will return here, for the sin
of Emorite will not be complete until then... 
On that day God made a covenant to Avram saying: To your
offspring I assign this land..." (see 15:13-18) 

    In contrast to all other nations, who begin as a
group of people who share a common land - and then
become a nation; God's special nation is destined to
become a nation 'in someone else's land' ["baretz lo
lahem"] - through common suffrage ["v'avdu v'inu otam"],
and only afterward will they attain sovereignty of the
Land of Canaan (and only after the original nations
living there deserve to be expelled for their bad
behavior ["ki lo shaleym avon ha'Emori ad heyna"]).

	In this manner, "brit bein ha'btarim" sets the
framework for the set of historical events that will
later unfold in Sefer Shmot. Note however, that this
covenant did not specify 'who' [specifically] this
'other nation' will be; nor did it describe how intense
that affliction would become.  [See Rambam Hilchot
Teshuva chapter six.  See also Seforno's commentary on
the first chapter of Sefer Shmot!]]
	Even though Sefer Breishit did not explain why
this entire historical process was necessary, it becomes
rather clear from Sefer Shmot (and later on in Sefer
Devarim) that this 'suffering in Egypt' was supposed to
sensitize the nation of Israel in such a manner, that
when they become a sovereign nation - they would be sure
to treat their 'strangers' & the downtrodden in a proper
manner.  [See for example, Shmot 22:20 and 23:9, and
Devarim15:12-15, 24:17-22 etc. etc. ]

BRIT MILA
	Many years after "brit bein ha'btarim", but
immediately before Avraham fathers his first child, God
(b'shem Elokim) enters into another covenant, including
once again the promise of 'zera va-aretz':
"Avram was 99 years old, and God appeared to him saying
I am KEL SHA-DAI, HITHALEYCH L'FANEI v'HEYE TAMIM - walk
before Me and be perfect.  And I will make a covenant
between Me and you... 
"...And I will uphold/establish My covenant with you -
"lihiyot lachem le-Elokim" - and for your offspring
after you...and I have given you and your offspring
'eretz megurecha' - the land that you are living in -
the land of Canaan... and I will be for them their
God..." (17:7-8).

	In this covenant we find an emphasis on God's
special relationship with Am Yisrael on more personal
level.  Its key phrase - "lihiyot lachem le-Elokim" [to
be a close God for you] reflects a type of 'partnership'
- He will be our God (and hence look after our special
needs), and we will become His people - to represent Him
before other nations (see 17:3-4, based on the themes of
God's earlier promises in 12:1-3).
	In other words, Brit Mila describes a
relationship where God and Am Yisrael will work as a
'team'.  Bnei Yisrael will serve as God's agent, keeping
His commandments.  In return, God will oversee their
daily needs.  
    For example, a more detailed framework for this
relationship is described by the 'tochacha' in Vayikra
chapter 26. [Note textual parallel to brit Milah in
26:9,12!]  Should Bnei Yisrael diligently keep God's
mitzvot, He will make sure that there is ample rain and
produce, while guaranteeing safe and secure borders.  On
the flip side, should they fail to be loyal in this
partnership, God will need to punish them (until they
obey once again).
	It should be noted that the actual mitzva of
'mila' [circumcision] is not the covenant itself; rather
that mitzva serves as symbol of this covenant [an 'ot
brit'] - a constant sign [reminder] of this special
relationship. Nonetheless, the covenant itself is the
actual 'working relationship' between God and His
people.

HOW THEY DIFFER
	Even though each covenant complements the other,
each 'brit' remains distinct.  In regard to God's
different Names in each covenant - Ramban [on Breishit
17:1] explains how this reflects a different 'mode' of
God's behavior within the framework of each 'brit'.  In
'brit mila' (shem Elokim] God's relationship manifests
itself through natural events [what he refers to as
'hashgacha nisteret'].  It was within this framework
that God had looked after the needs of the Avot, and
came to their rescue; but even if there was a need for a
miracle, it took place in a 'hidden' manner.  In
contrast, within the framework of 'brit bein ha-btarim'
- given be-shem Havaya - God may act in a more
miraculous fashion, as was the case in our redemption
from Egypt ['hashgacha nigleit'].
	[See Ramban on Breishit 17:1 and Shmot 6:3.]

A TRADITION PASSED DOWN
	From our above explanation, we would certainly
expect for the entire process of redemption from Egypt
to relate to 'brit bein ha-btarim'.  Nonetheless, we
will show how there maybe an aspect of 'brit mila'
involved as well.
	Let's explain:
	Recall God's final 'hitgalut' to Yaakov as he
left Eretz Canaan on his way to see Yosef in Egypt (see
TSC shiur on Parshat Vayigash).  At that time, God
[be-shem Elokim] had promised Yaakov that He would be
WITH HIM in Egypt, make his offspring a great nation
there, and one day eventually bring them back (see
46:3-4).  Yaakov passed this tradition on to Yosef (see
48:21), and later (at the conclusion of Sefer Breishit),
Yosef passes this tradition to his brothers:
"Pakod yifkod ELOKIM etchem... - God will surely
remember you and bring you up from this land to the land
that He promised on oath to Avraham, Yitzchak, and
Yaakov" (50:24).

	Based on this promise alone, and within the
framework of BRIT MILA, Bnei Yisrael can (and should)
expect God, b'shem Elokim, to look after their needs in
Egypt and eventually tell them when to return to Eretz
Canaan. 
	In contrast, "brit bein ha-btarim" foresees a
severe oppression in a foreign land, followed by a
glorious redemption (including the punishment of the
oppressor and the attainment of great wealth),
culminating with the conquest of the Promised Land.
However, this BRIT does not specify either where this
foreign land is, or when the '400 year clock' starts
ticking.
	Nonetheless, within the framework of this
covenant, Bnei Yisrael have ample reason to expect a
miraculous redemption [b'shem Havaya] from their
oppression in Egypt.
	Hence, it is logical to assume that both these
traditions were ingrained in the heart and soul of Bnei
Yisrael in Egypt, as they were passed down from
generation to generation.  Even though their slavery in
Egypt intensified, Bnei Yisrael patiently waited for
their redemption, as promised by God according to either
one or both of His covenants.  
[See Shmot 3:13-17, where Moshe Rabeinu anticipates that
Bnei Yisrael will ask: 'Which Name of God' has promised
to redeem us?  - See also Rashbam's amazing commentary
on those psukim.]

TWO BRITOT IN PARSHAT VA'ERA
	With this background, we can return to the
opening psukim of Parshat Va'era in order to show how
God, in his conversation with Moshe Rabeinu, refers to
BOTH of these covenants: 
	First note how the opening pasuk constitutes a
'fitting' introduction:
6:2	"And ELOKIM spoke to Moshe and said to him I am
HAVAYA"
	Note how shem Elokim introduces shem Havaya!
[Compare with the opposite phenomena in the opening
psukim of Brit Mila / see Breishit 17:1-3!]

6:3	"And I appeared to Avraham Yitzchak & Yaakov as
Kel Shakai, but in MY Name HAVAYA I did not make Myself
known to them" 

    Although God had appeared (be-shem Havaya) numerous
times to the Avot, He had never performed miracles for
them in the eyes of other nations ('hashgacha nigleit').
Instead, He watched over them from the perspective of
shem Elokim, (alternately - shem Kel Shakai, i.e.
'hashgacha nisteret'):
		[Be sure to see Ramban on this pasuk!]
[One could also suggest that these words may allude to
how the forefathers diligently followed God's commands
of "hithaleych l'fanei v'heye tamim" - and hence did not
need miraculous intervention, nor severe punishment - to
encourage improved behavior.]

	In contrast, God now informs Bnei Yisrael that
they will soon witness a level of God's providence that
the Avot themselves did not see!  As background, God
first reminds them:

6:4	"I also established My covenant [-BRIT MILA-]
with them [the Avot] to give them the LAND OF CANAAN..."


	Based on an obvious textual parallel with
Breishit 17:7-8, the covenant described in this pasuk
clearly must be 'brit Mila' (see Rashi on this pasuk)!
Even though that covenant remains in the 'background',
God now explains how Bnei Yisrael's present predicament
in Egypt relates to another covenant as well:

6:5	"I have NOW heard the cries of Bnei Yisrael, for
Egypt is OPPRESSING them, and I have remembered My
COVENANT."

	Clearly the covenant referred to in this pasuk
must be 'brit bein ha-btarim' [again, see Rashi!].  In
addition to the obvious thematic connection, textual
proof can be found as well when we compare this pasuk
with Breishit 15:13-14, noting the parallel to
"va-avadum ve-inu otam".  With this background from
'Sefer Breishit', God now instructs Moshe concerning
what he must now tell Bnei Yisrael:

6:6	"Therefore, tell Bnei Yisrael that I am HAVAYA,
and I will take them out... and save them from their
BONDAGE, and I will redeem them with an outstretched
hand and GREAT PUNISHMENTS (e.g. the Ten Plagues)" [Bein
Ha-btarim]

	The word 'lachen' - therefore - connects this
forthcoming statement with the background in 6:2-5.
Because God is coming to fulfill His covenants, God
first mentions ANI HASHEM - for He has come to fulfill
'bein ha-btarim' (given be-shem Havaya), and hence He
will redeem them and punish their oppressor in a
miraculous manner, as promised in that 'brit'.  However,
in addition:

6:7	"And I will take you to be My people, and I will
be your God..."
[See and compare with Brit Mila, Breishit 17:7-8, noting
phrase: lihiyot lachem le-Elokim] 

"And you shall know that: I am HAVAYA ELOKEICHEM who is
taking you out from your suffering in Egypt." 

	This pasuk appears to combine both covenants, as
both are going to be fulfilled in the process of Yetziat
Mitzrayim.   It also clearer alludes to what will take
place at the covenant at Har Sinai, as these verses form
the opening line of the Ten Commandments (see Shmot
20:1-3), which in itself serves as the completion of
"brit Milah".
    Note how this will all lead the fulfillment of God's
promise to make Avraham's offspring a nation in the
land- 
     Therefore:
6:8	"And I will bring you into the Land which I
promised to give to Avraham Yitzchak and Yaakov [in Brit
Mila], and I will give it to you as a possession -
'MORASHA' ['yerusha', as in Br. 15:7-8] for I am Havaya
[Brit Bein Ha-btarim]." 

	Recall that the word YERUSHA was mentioned some
five times in 'brit bein ha-btarim'!  This final promise
confirms that when Bnei Yisrael will enter the land
after Yetziat Mitzrayim, it will entail the military
conquest of the land, resulting in Bnei Yisrael's
sovereignty over the land.

BACK TO THE SNEH
	This background can also explain several
difficult psukim that we encountered in our study of
Moshe's conversation with God at the burning bush.  For
example, recall that after God had given Moshe his
mission to tell Bnei Yisrael that God is now coming to
redeem them, Moshe's first question was:
"When I come to Bnei Yisrael and say to them 'The God of
your fathers has sent me to you' and they ask me 'WHAT
IS HIS NAME?' - what shall I say to them?"  (see Shmot
3:13).

	What provokes this question?  Why is Moshe so
sure that Bnei Yisrael will inquire as to the nature of
God's Name?
	Based on our shiur, this question is quite
understandable.  Moshe's query regarding God's Name (in
3:13) relates precisely to these two family traditions.
Moshe is aware of their future redemption, yet they will
want to know which Divine Promise is being fulfilled at
this time, i.e. will the redemption be only be-shem
ELOKIM (1), i.e. within the framework of Brit Mila, (as
promised to Yaakov); or will it ALSO be be-shem HAVAYA
(2), within the framework of Brit Bein Ha-Btarim.  [See
Ramban & Ibn Ezra on 3:13!]
	Moshe's question is not merely a technicality,
it relates to the very nature of Yetziat Mitzrayim:
	If Bnei Yisrael's redemption is only be-shem
Elokim (1), then they should expect a natural process
('hashgacha nisteret'), similar to the manner in which
Yaakov was saved from Lavan (see Br. 31:9-13,24-29 &
48:15-16!).  Furthermore, they should not expect the
Egyptians to be punished, nor to receive great wealth
[an important 'nafka mina'!].  Furthermore, if this is
only 'brit mila', then their redemption may a temporary
salvation, for the full four hundred year time period
may not be over yet.
	However, if their redemption will also be
be-shem Havaya (2), then Bnei Yisrael should expect a
miraculous process ('hashgacha gluya') including the
punishment of Mitzrayim, attaining great wealth, and
finally the conquest of the fullest borders of the
Promised Land.  By knowing which specific Name of God
has come to redeem His people, Moshe will be able to
tell Bnei Yisrael more details concerning the nature of
the forthcoming redemption. 

I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE
	With this in mind, let's see how God answers
Moshe's question.  Note how God's immediate answer
appears at first to be quite vague:
"'Eheyeh asher eheyeh' [I Will Be what I Will Be], go
tell Bnei Yisrael that 'Eheyeh' has sent you" (3:14). 
[See Rashbam in 3:15 'zeh zichri' - for an amazing
'encrypted' explanation of this answer that follows
perfectly according to our discussion in this shiur!
You'll have to 'decode' it to appreciate it.]

God expounds upon His answer in the next pasuk:
"... Thus tell Bnei Yisrael: HAVAYA [who is] ELOKEI
AVOTEICHEM... has sent me... this is My Name..." (3:15).

	God answers that He is coming not only be-shem
Elokim, but also be-SHEM HAVAYA, i.e. He has come to
fulfill BOTH covenants!  Accordingly, God instructs
Moshe to relay this message (3:16-17):
"Gather the elders of Israel together and tell them:
HAVAYA [who is] ELOKEI AVOTEICHEM appeared to me...
saying:
    (1) "PAKOD PAKADTI ETCHEM..."
			 [Brit Mila/ see Br. 50:24]
(2) "I will bring you up ME-ONI MITZRAYIM to ERETZ
HA-CAN'ANI E-'HACHITI..." 
			[Brit Bein Ha-Btarim / see
Br.15:13,20)

	Next, God instructs Moshe to take the elders
with him to Pharaoh (this makes Moshe the official
representative of Bnei Yisrael) to demand that he allow
Bnei Yisrael to worship God in the desert (3:18).  The
fact that Pharaoh will not agree (see 3:19) sets the
stage for the fulfillment of two additional elements of
Brit Bein Ha-Btarim, namely punishing the oppressor and
great wealth:  "I will stretch out My Hand and SMITE
Egypt...after that he shall let you go... When you go,
you will not go empty handed: Each woman will borrow...
vessels of SILVER and GOLD and clothing [compare Br.
15:14]..."   (3:20-22).
	At the conclusion of God's lengthy answer, Moshe
still remains doubtful whether Bnei Yisrael will truly
believe that Shem Havaya has appeared to him (4:1).  To
solve this problem, God (obviously now be-shem Havaya)
provides Moshe with several 'otot' (signs/
mini-miracles) to prove that a 'miraculous' redemption
is indeed forthcoming (see 4:2-9). 

AND YOU WILL KNOW THAT I AM HASHEM
	As we have shown, a deeper understanding of the
purpose of the covenants that God had made with Avraham
Avinu  can help us appreciate the necessity for the
miraculous nature of Yetziat Mitzrayim.  The goal of the
Exodus was not merely to fulfill a divine promise to the
forefathers.  Rather, it was to prepare the nation of
Israel to become a nation that would know how to
represent God in the proper manner.
    The miracles of the Exodus, and in the Desert would
only be the first stage in this difficult process. In
our study of Ma'amad Har Sinai, we will show how the
laws that Bnei Yisrael will receive at Har Sinai will
constitute the framework by which God's goals of "brit
Avot" - "lihiyot lachem le-Elokim" can ultimately become
fulfilled.
	Till then, 
					shabbat shalom,
					menachem

==================
FOR FURTHER IYUN

OT OR MOFET
	The background from the above shiur can help us
understand why the first 'ot' that Bnei Yisrael are
given is the 'mateh' turning into a 'nachash' (see
4:2-5), in contrast to the first 'ot' that Pharaoh is
given of the 'mateh' turning into a 'tanin' (see
7:8-12). 
	Pharaoh, as he doesn't believe in God at all
(see 5:2!), needs to be shown a 'MOFET' (see 7:9) - a
wonder - to prove that God exists and was the Creator of
the Universe.  Therefore, the symbol of a 'tanin' is
used, relating back to the story of Creation (see
Breishit 1:21).  
	In contrast, Bnei Yisrael believe in God, yet
they feel that God has neglected them, for no one has
come to redeem them.. Therefore, they require an 'OT' -
a sign - that God indeed has not forgotten them (see
4:1-2).  The symbol of a 'nachash' is used, which may
relate back to the story of the 'nachash' in Gan Eden
(see Breishit chapter 3).  That story focuses on God's
providence over man, and the complex relationship of
'sechar ve-onesh' - [divine retribution].  In a similar
manner, one can understand the other two 'otot' in
4:6-9; Moshe's hand turning leperous (definitely a
symbol of 'sechar ve-'onesh'), as well as the contrast
between life and death, as symbolized by water (life)
turning into blood (death).


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.11 - Release
Date: 12/27/2007 12:00 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vaeyra1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 38592 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080102/19da7f4d/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jan  9 09:21:56 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 09:21:56 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Bo - shiur #1  - Two reasons for matza
Message-ID: <01f701c852cb$0f5d7180$1600000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

                     PARSHAT BO
                               
            TWO REASONS FOR MATZA - OR ONE?

     Ask anyone - why do we eat Matza on Pesach?
Invariably
you will hear one of the two following answers:
  
  *? To remind us of the 'poor man's bread' that we ate
when
       we were slaves in Egypt ['lechem oni'];
          [As we say in the Haggada - "ha lachma
anya..."]
          
  *  Because we left Egypt in haste and our dough didn't
have
      time to rise ['chipazon'].
        [As we say in the Haggada - "Matza - al shum ma?

           al shum she-lo hispik betzeikam
le-hachmitz..."]

     So, which reason is correct?
     In the following shiur, we uncover the biblical
roots of
these two reasons in Parshat Bo - in an attempt to
better
understand and appreciate why we eat matza on Pesach.

INTRODUCTION
     In Parshat Bo, we find two Biblical commands that
relate
to eating matza:
     In relation to korban Pesach, we are instructed to
eat matza
& maror together with the meat of this offering. [See
Shmot
12:8.]
     In relation to "chag hamatzot", we are instructed
to eat
matza (and not eat chametz) for seven days.  [See Shmot
12:15-
20 and 13:3-8.]

     In Part One of our shiur, we study these two
sources to
show how (and why) each of these two mitzvot stems from
a
totally different reason.
     In Part Two, we study the intricate manner of the
Torah's
presentation of these two mitzvot - and together with
some
historical considerations, we will explore an underlying
theme
that may tie these two separate reasons together.

          PART ONE -
REMEMBERING SLAVERY or REMEMBERING FREEDOM
     In the middle of Parshat Bo (right before the story
of
the Tenth Plague), God instructs Moshe concerning
several
mitzvot that Bnei Yisrael must keep - more specifically,
the
laws of the korban Pesach (see 12:3-14) and a
commandment to
eat matza for seven days (see 12:15-20).
  [This section (12:1-20) is better know as "Parshat ha-

  Chodesh", as it is read on the shabbos prior to Rosh
Chodesh
  Nisan.]
  
     As both of these mitzvot relate in some manner to
eating
matza, we begin our shiur by reviewing their definitions
in
regard to how they are to be kept in future generations:

* The KORBAN PESACH - An Offering of Thanksgiving
Definition:
     Each year we are commanded to offer a special
korban on
  the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan, and eat the korban
on that 
  evening, together with matza & maror; while thanking
God for
  our deliverance from 'makkat bechorot'.
               (See 12:24-27, based on 12:8-14)
Reason:
  Because God 'passed over' the houses of Bnei Yisrael
on that
  evening when He smote the Egyptians (see 12:26-27).
As we
  eat the korban, we are supposed to explain this reason
to
  our children.

* CHAG HA-MATZOT- A Holiday to commemorate the Exodus
Definition:
     To eat matza (& NOT to eat chametz, own it, or even
see
      it) for seven days, from the 15th to the 21st of
Nisan.
       (See Shmot 13:3-8, based on 12:15-20.)
Reason:
  To remember the events (and their miraculous nature)
by
  which God took Am Yisrael out of Egypt.  (See Shmot
12:17
  and 13:8.)

     Even though these holidays 'overlap' on the night
of the
fifteenth of Nisan and both holidays include eating
matza;
each holiday serves a different purpose.  By offering
the
korban Pesach we thank God for saving us from the Tenth
Plague.  In contrast, on Chag Ha-matzot we remember
leaving
Egypt into the desert, and hence our freedom from
slavery.
     [Note that each holiday has ample reason to stand
alone.]

MATZA - A PRIMARY or SECONDARY MITZVA
     With this background, let's examine the purpose for
eating matza in each mitzvah.  Clearly, on "chag
ha-matzot"
[the name for the holiday when we eat matza for seven
days] -
eating matza for seven days is presented as the primary
mitzvah:
  "Seven days you shall eat MATZA, even on the first day
you
  shall rid yourselves from any unleaven in your
houses..."
  (Shmot 12:15, see also 13:2-8).

     As we shall soon explain, by eating matza (and not
eating
'chametz') during those seven days, we remind ourselves
of how
God helped us when we left Egypt.

     In contrast, eating matza with the korban Pesach is
presented in a secondary manner, while the primary
mitzvah is
to eat the meat of the korban:
  "And you shall eat the meat on this night, roasted on
fire
  with MATZOT, together with bitter herbs..." (Shmot
12:8).
     [Review from 12:3-13, noting how most of these
psukim
     deal with how the korban is to be eaten, while
matza is
     presented in a very secondary manner.]

     Unfortunately, the Torah is not very specific in
regard
to WHY the Korban Pesach should be eaten with matza. It
simply
states in 12:8 to eat the meat roasted, together with
matza &
maror, without explaining why.
     On the other hand, in regard to eating matza for
the
seven days of chag ha-matzot, the Torah is much more
explicit:
  "And you shall keep the (laws regarding) MATZOT, for
on this
  very day I have taken your hosts out of the land of
  Egypt..." (see Shmot 12:17, see also 13:3!).

     This pasuk suggests that eating matza for seven
days will
cause us to remember that God took us out of Egypt.  But
why
should eating matza cause us to remember those events?
     To understand why, we must return to the story of
the
Exodus in Chumash, and follow the narrative very
carefully to
show why 'eating matza' would remind Bnei Yisrael of the
Exodus.

THE COMMON 'EXPERIENCE'
     Contrary to the popular understanding, Bnei Yisrael
had
plenty of time to prepare for the Exodus.  After all,
already
two weeks before the Tenth Plague, Bnei Yisrael had
already
received early warning (see Shmot 12:1-13).
Furthermore,
Moshe had already advised them to be ready to 'borrow'
from
their Egyptian neighbors the necessary gold & silver and
clothing for their journey (see 11:1-3!).  However, even
though they had plenty of time to prepare, they were
also in
no special hurry to leave on the evening of the 15th of
Nisan.
In fact, Bnei Yisrael were under a specific directive to
remain in their homes that entire evening:
  "And Moshe told the leaders of Israel: Everyone should
take
  a lamb... and none of you shall leave the entrance of
your
  houses UNTIL THE MORNING" (see Shmot 12:21-22).

  Hence, Bnei Yisrael most likely assumed that they
would not
be leaving Egypt until sometime the next morning.
Considering
that they were planning to embark on a long journey into
the
desert (see 11:1-3, read carefully), the people most
probably
prepared large amounts of dough on the previous day,
with the
intention of baking it early on the morning of the 15th
of
Nisan (before their departure).  [The fresher the bread,
the
better!]
     However, due to the sudden nature of the events
that
transpired that evening, these original plans changed.
Recall
how the Egyptians (after realizing the calamity of the
Tenth
Plague), rushed the Hebrews out of their homes.  Pharaoh
demanded that Moshe lead his nation out to worship their
God
(see 12:29-32), in hope that the sooner they would
worship
their God, the sooner the Plague would stop, see 12:33
/and
5:3!).  The Egyptians were so eager for them to leave
that
they willingly lent their belongings.
  It was because of this 'rush' that Bnei Yisrael didn't
have
time to bake their 'fresh bread' as planned.  Instead,
they
quickly packed their bags and took their dough ('and
ran'):
  "[So] Bnei Yisrael carried their DOUGH before it had
time to
  rise ['terem yechmatz'], as they wrapped with their
garments
  and carried it over their shoulders.
                         [See Shmot 12:34.]

     Two psukim later, the Torah tells exactly what Bnei
Yisrael did with this dough.  After setting up camp in
Succot,
on their way towards the desert (see 12:37-38), we are
told:
  "And Bnei Yisrael baked their DOUGH that they took out
of
  Egypt as MATZOT, for it had not risen ['ki lo
CHAMETZ'], for
  they were EXPELLED from Egypt, and they could not wait
[in
  the their home to bake the dough properly], nor had
they
  prepared any other provisions [and hence the only
bread they
  had to eat was from this dough]" (see 12:39).
    [This seems to be the simplest translation of this
pasuk
    (see JPS).  Note, however, that Ramban explains this
pasuk
    in a different manner.  The reason for this is
discussed
    in the further iyun section.]

     In this manner, everyone who left Egypt shared a
common
experience.  As they set up camp on their way to the
desert
(the first time as a free nation) everyone shared the
common
predicament of: no bread; 'lots of dough'; and only
makeshift
methods for baking it.  Therefore everyone improvised by
baking their dough as thin matzot on makeshift
'hot-plates'.
     This background explains the first instruction that
Moshe
Rabeinu commanded Bnei Yisrael on that momentous day:
  "And Moshe said to the people: REMEMBER THIS DAY that
you
  have LEFT EGYPT from slavery, for God has taken you
out with
  an outstretched hand - you shall not eat CHAMETZ.  You
are
  leaving in the month of the spring [therefore] when
you come
  in the Promised Land... on this month EAT MATZA FOR
SEVEN
  DAYS... you shall not see or own CHAMETZ in all your
  borders.  And you shall tell you children on that day,
it
  was for the sake of this [MATZA] that God took us out
of
  Egypt..." (see Shmot 13:3-8, read carefully!).

     In other words, the next year, by eating matza (and
not
owning any chametz) this generation would remember this
special experience together with the miraculous events
of the
Exodus.  To preserve this tradition (and its message),
the
Torah commands all future generations as well to eat
matza for
seven days, while telling over these events to their
children
(see again Shmot 13:8).
     In a shorter form, this is more or less the reason
that
we cite in the Haggada when we explain why we eat matza:
  "MATZA... AL SHUM MA?  This matza that we eat, for
what
  reason (do we eat it)? - For the dough of our
forefathers
  did not have time to become leaven when God the King
of all
  kings revealed Himself and redeemed us, as it is
stated
  (followed by the quote of Shmot 12:39)."

     This certainly provides us with a logical reason
for the
commandment to eat matza for the seven days of "chag ha-
matzot", but it certainly doesn't explain why Bnei
Yisrael
were first commanded to eat matza with the Korban Pesach
BEFORE they left Egypt (see again 12:1-8).  It simply
wouldn't
make sense for God to command Bnei Yisrael to eat matza
in
Egypt with the korban - to remember how they left Egypt!
  Therefore, there must be an independent reason for
eating
matza with the korban Pesach, unrelated to the events
that
transpired when Bnei Yisrael left Egypt
  To find that reason, we must return to Parshat
ha'Chodesh,
and consider the thematic connection between the mitzva
to eat
matza and all of the other mitzvot that accompany the
Korban
Pesach.

PESACH MITZRAYIM - A FAMILY AFFAIR
     Certainly, the primary purpose of offering the
Korban
Pesach in Egypt was to sprinkle its blood on the
doorposts to
save Bnei Yisrael from the Tenth Plague (see 12:12-13).
However, this commandment also included several other
special
laws that focus primarily on how this offering was to be
eaten
by its owners.
     This in itself is noteworthy, for one would expect
that a
korban (an offering) set aside for God would be
forbidden for
human consumption, as is the case in an OLAH offering.]
Yet,
in regard to the Korban Pesach, eating this korban seems
to be
no less important than the sprinkling of its blood (see
12:3-
11).  Let's take a closer look at these special laws.
  First of all, note how it was necessary to carefully
plan
this 'dinner' in advance:
  "Speak unto all the congregation of Israel -On the
tenth day
  of this month everyone must take a lamb, according to
their
  fathers' houses, a lamb for a household; and if the
  household be too little for a lamb, then shall he and
his
  neighbor next to him shall take one according to the
number
  of the souls; according to every man's eating you
shall
  count them for the lamb... (see Shmot 12:3-4)

  Clearly, this was supposed to be a 'family meal' (see
12:3),
and planned well in advance.  Now, let's consider the
cuisine.
  " And they shall eat its meat on that night:
       *  roasted over the fire
       *  with MATZA
       *  with MAROR (bitter herbs)
       *  Do not eat it raw (uncooked)
       *  [nor can you eat it] cooked in water
       *  eat it only roasted,
           its head, legs, and entrails, (together)
       *  No 'leftovers', anything left over must be
burnt.
     And this is how you should it eat it:
       *  your loins girded
       *  your shoes on your feet
       *  your staff in your hand
       *  and you shall eat it in haste [CHIPAZON]
     it is a PESACH [offering] for God."  (Shmot
12:7-11)

  As you review these psukim, note once again how eating
matza
is only one of many other instructions that go along
with how
this korban is to be eaten.  Let's begin our discussion
with
some of the 'other' laws; afterward we'll return to the
matza.

NO LEFTOVERS
     The law that no meat can be left over relates once
again
to the special atmosphere of this evening.  When someone
knows
that any leftovers 'go to the garbage', it is more
likely that
he will eat to his heart's content and enjoy the meal
(ask any
"Yeshiva bachur").  If it was permitted to save the
meat, then
people would refrain from eating to their heart's
content,
preferring to save some of the meat for another meal
(ask any
poor man).
     Coming to the meal fully dressed, and eating with
eagerness and readiness, certainly would make this
evening
more memorable.  [Remember as well that in ancient time
a
staff ("makelchem be-yedchem") is not necessarily a
walking
stick for the aged, but rather a sign of importance.]
     It also goes without saying that lamb is most tasty
when
barbecued, as opposed to being boiled in water (ask
anybody).

   With this background, let's consider the wider
picture:
      A family meal - planned well in advance,
      by invitation only,
      fresh lamb - well done, roasted on an open spit
           (roasting is much most tasty than cooking)
      with fresh pita ('eish tanur' style), i.e. matza
      with a spicy salad (bitter herbs), i.e. maror
      no leftovers allowed
      everyone coming well dressed (best attire)
      eating it with readiness, zest, excitement
('chipazon')

     Any of us who have attended a formal dinner should
not be
surprised by these laws, for this seems to be their
primary
intention - to create a full fledged 'shabbos table'
atmosphere.
     Consider the circumstances.  A nation of slaves,
now
about to become free, and ready to embark on a momentous
journey to Har Sinai and then to the Promised Land.
Certainly, we want this to be an 'evening to remember',
and
hence 'only the fanciest restaurant' will do!
    [Recall as well that it would not be often that
slaves
    could afford to eat 'fleishigs' for dinner.]
    
     Our main point is that the PRIMARY reason for all
of
these special laws was to assure that every family would
participate in a formal meal, in order to make this a
memorable evening.  Therefore, only the best meat,
cooked in
the best manner, with bread and salad; with the eager
participants in their best attire.

  With this in mind, let's return to consider the reason
for
eating matza at this meal.
  Considering our discussion thus far, it would have
made more
sense to enjoy the korban with a fresh 'chametz' bun,
rather
than simple 'matza'!
     To appreciate why, let's return to our analogy of
'going
out to eat' to celebrate an important occasion.  Now the
question becomes: What restaurant would be most
appropriate?
     Will it be Chinese?  Italian?  French?
     In the case of korban Pesach, the best way to
describe
the menu would be - 'anti-Egyptian'!
     Let's explain.
     Not only does God want Bnei Yisrael to enjoy a
family
meal on this important evening, He also wants this meal
to
carry a theme.  The menu should not only be 'formal',
but it
should also carry a 'spiritual message'.  [For those
Americans
on the list, just ask your neighbors why turkey is
traditionally served for Thanksgiving dinner.]
  Let's consider the menu.
  
LAMB FOR DINNER
     As we explained, eating meat is in itself special.
But
why specifically lamb?  Let's explain why eating lamb
would be
considered 'anti-Egyptian
     Recall when Yaakov and his sons first went down to
Egypt,
Yosef was embarrassed by their profession, that they
were
shepherds, for anyone who raised sheep was a 'to'eva'
[an
'abomination'] to Egyptians.  (See Breishit 43:32.)
     Furthermore, when the Plagues began, Pharaoh first
agreed
that Bnei Yisrael could offer their korbanot in Egypt,
but not
in the desert.  To this offer Moshe replied, should Am
Yisrael
offer 'to'evat Mitzrayim' [an abomination to the
Egyptians] in
Egypt, would they not be stoned?  (See Shmot 8:22.)
     From that interchange, it becomes quite clear that
offering a 'lamb' would be antithetical to Egyptian
culture.
Rashi's commentary on this pasuk seems to imply that a
'lamb'
was considered a type of a god to the Egyptians, and
hence
offering a 'lamb' in Egypt would be a desecration in
their
eyes.  [Sort of like burning someone's national flag.
See
Ramban 12:3!]
  [Note Ibn Ezra (on Shmot 8:22) quotes a Kaarite who
  explained that a 'lamb' was the symbol of the god who
  controls their land.  He himself argues that it was
not just
  a lamb, but any type of animal, for he claims that the
  Egyptians were vegetarians.]
    [One could also suggest an 'astrological'
explanation
    that relates to the fact that the Nile (Egypt's
source of
    water) reaches its highest level in the spring
during the
    zodiac of 'taleh' [a lamb, see Nile mosaic in
Tzipori!]
    See also a similar explanation in Sefer Ha-toda'a by
    Eliyahu Ki-tov, re: Nisan (page 14).]

     Therefore, burning a lamb, complete with its head,
and
legs and entrails, etc. on an open spit (see Shmot
12:9), and
then eating it, would serve as a sign to Bnei Yisrael
that
they are now free from Egyptian culture, and its gods.

MATZA & MAROR
     As we explained, the primary reason for eating
matza
would be no different than having rolls at a cook-out.
But
eating specifically matza could be considered once again
symbolic.  The simplest reason would be simply to remind
Bnei
Yisrael that on this evening God is taking them out of
slavery.  As 'matza' is the typical bread of a poor-man,
or a
slave, it would be most fitting to eat the meat together
with
this style of bread.
    [This would reflect our statement of "ha lachma
anya"
    that we say at the beginning of the Haggada.]
     This doesn't mean that a poor-man's bread tastes
bad.  It
is merely a simple style of bread that can actually
taste
good!

     However, one could also suggest that 'chametz'
itself may
have been a symbol of Egyptian culture.  It is
well-known
among historians that the art of making leaven was first
developed in Egypt, and it was the Egyptians who
perfected the
process of 'bread-making'.
  [See 'On Food and Cooking -'The Science and Lore of
the
  Kitchen' - by Harold McGee / Page 275 - based on
  archeological evidence, raised bread began in Egypt
around
  4000 BCE.  On page 280 - then beer froth was
eventually used
  as first yeast.  And page 615 - bread-making became
refined
  with invention of ovens around 3000 BCE in Egypt.]

     Similarly, eating bitter herbs with the korban
certainly
makes the meat 'tastier' - but why specifically bitter
herbs
rather than sweet ones?  Like matza, one could suggest
that
the reason would be to remind us on this evening of the
bitterness of the slavery that we are now leaving.  In
fact,
this is exactly what we explain in the Haggada in the
section
"MAROR - AL SHUM MA".
  [One could also explain that the reason for eating the
  korban 'well dressed' and in hurriedness (even though
Bnei
  Yisrael would not be leaving until the next morning)
was to
  emphasize the need be 'ready & eager' for their
redemption.]
  
     In this manner, all of the mitzvot relating to
Pesach
Mitzrayim can relate to both the need to make this a
memorable
evening, with a formal family dinner etc.; but at the
same
time, every action also carried a symbolic function as
well.
This evening was to leave a lasting impression on its
participants, in order that they would pass on this
memory to
their children and grandchildren.  It had to be special!

     In summary, we have shown how there may be two
totally
independent reasons for eating matza on the night of the
fifteenth of Nisan:
  ?    One matza - 'lechem oni', poor man's bread - is
to be
     eaten with the korban Pesach, in order to make this
korban
     tasty, but at the same time to remind us to thank
God for
     being saved from Makkat Bechorot & slavery.
?    The second matza - "bread that was made in haste",
'chipazon' - is an integral part of the mitzva of chag
ha-
matzot (eating matza for seven days) which we eat in
order
that we remember the events of how God took us out of
Egypt.

     In Part Two we will search for a deeper connection
between these two reasons for eating matza.

==========
PART II / FROM PESACH MITZRAIM TO PESACH DOROT

INTRODUCTION
  In Part One, we offered two reasons for eating matza
with
the Korban Pesach:  Either to remind us of the hardships
of
slavery (similar to the reason for why we eat 'maror');
or to
remind us of the need to reject Egyptian culture as a
pre-
requisite for redemption (similar to the reason for why
we
sacrifice a lamb).
     If the following shiur, we will pursue this second
line
of reasoning, and apply its logic to help explain some
of the
peculiar laws of "chag ha'matzot" [i.e. the commandment
to eat
matza (and not eat chametz) for seven days].

     Let's begin with the very pasuk in Chumash that
appears
to explain the reason for "chag ha'matzot":
  "And Moshe said to the people: REMEMBER THIS DAY that
you
  have left Egypt...- you shall not eat CHAMETZ....
   [therefore] when you come in the Promised Land... EAT
MATZA
  FOR SEVEN DAYS... you shall not see or own CHAMETZ in
all
  your borders...  " (see Shmot 13:2-8).

     This commandment implies that by eating matza (and
not
eating chametz) for seven days, we will remember the
events of
the Exodus.  In Part One of our shiur, we explained how
(and
why) eating matza would remind us of that experience.
  However, based on that explanation, it would have made
more
sense for Moshe to say: "Remember this day... by eating
matza".  Instead, he commands them to remember this day
by not
eating chametz!

     Furthermore, from the laws that follow, it seems
like the
Torah puts a greater emphasis on the prohibition of
"chametz",
more so than it does on the obligation to eat "matza".
If we
assume, as most people do, that the Torah forbids eating
'chametz' as a means to ensure the we eat 'matza'
instead, it
certainly wouldn't make sense for the prohibition
against
'chametz' to be more important than the commandment to
eat
matza!
  It also seems rather strange that the Torah would
forbid not
only eating chametz, but also owning or seeing it - if
the
only purpose of these prohibitions was to ensure that we
eat
matza.
  Finally, there doesn't appear to be any obvious reason
for
the need to observe this holiday for seven days.
  [Recall that all these laws were originally given way
before
  the story of the splitting of the Red Sea took place.]
  
  Therefore, it would be difficult to conclude that all
of
these strict prohibitions against 'chametz' stem merely
from
the need to provide an incentive to eat matza - which
are
eating solely  to remember an 'incidental' event that
took
place when Bnei Yisrael were 'rushed out' of Egypt.

     Instead, we will suggest that 'chametz' should be
un
understood as a symbol of Egyptian culture.  If so,
then many
of these severe prohibitions begin to make a lot more
sense.
To explain how, we must return to Sefer Yechezkel
chapter 20;
and our discussion in last week's shiur on Parshat
Va'era.

BACK TO YECHEZKEL
  Let's quote once again from Yechezkel's rebuke of the
elders
of Yehuda, as he reminds them of the behavior of their
forefathers - PRIOR to Yetziat Mitzraim:
  "On the day that I chose Israel... that same day I
swore to
  take them out of Egypt into a land flowing with milk
and
  honey... And I said to them [at that time]: Each man
must
  RID himself of his detestable ways, and not DEFILE
('tum'a')
  himself with the fetishes of Egypt - [for] ANI HASHEM
  ELOKEICHEM . But, they REBELLED against Me, and they
did not
  OBEY me, no one rid himself from his detestable
ways...and I
  resolved to pour out My fury upon them..." (Yechezkel
20:5-
  8).

  In other words, God had called upon Bnei Yisrael to
rid
themselves of their 'avoda zara', i.e. their Egyptian
culture,
BEFORE the redemption process began.
     Unfortunately, Bnei Yisrael did not 'listen', and
hence
deserved to be destroyed! Nevertheless, God saved Bnei
Yisrael, Yechezkel explains, for the sake of His Name:
"va-
a'as lema'an shmi, levilti hachel le-einei ha-goyim"
(see
20:9).

  This background helped us understand the need for
"korban
Pesach" in Egypt.  This offering gave Bnei Yisrael one
last
chance to show their loyalty to God prior to 'makkat
bechorot'.
  [The word 'pesach' - the name of this korban, reflects
this
  purpose, as God must 'PASS OVER' the houses of Bnei
Yisrael
  (who otherwise deserve to be punished (see 12:27).]
  
     To show their rejection of Egyptian culture, Bnei
Yisrael
were instructed to offer a lamb and eat it with matza
(instead
of chametz), due their symbolic nature.
  [For a similar explanation that shows the connection
between
  chametz and Avoda Zara, see Rav Kasher in Torah
Sheleima vol
  #19, miluim #20.]

     This can explain why 'chametz' becomes such a
central
theme when these events are commemorated in future
generations.  For example, not only must the korban
Pesach of
future generations must be eaten with matza, but one is
also
prohibited from owning 'chametz' before he can offer
that
korban:
  "Lo tishchat al CHAMETZ dam zivchi" - "You shall not
offer
  the Korban Pesach with chametz still in your
possession"
  (see Shmot 23:18 and its context from 23:13-20).

  If indeed chametz is symbolic of Egyptian culture,
then it
makes sense that one can not offer this korban, without
first
showing his rejection of that culture. When we offer the
korban Pesach, we must remember not only WHAT HAPPENED,
but
also WHY God saved us, i.e. for what purpose!
     To help concretize these sentiments of teshuva, a
symbol
is required.  Hence, the korban Pesach - the 'korban
Hashem'
(see Bamidbar 9:7 and context) - is not just an
expression of
thanksgiving but also a DECLARATION of loyalty; - a
willingness to obey; - a readiness to fulfill our Divine
destiny.

     Furthermore, in Parshat Re'eh, when Moshe Rabeinu
explains the laws of the Pesach to the generation that
is
about to enter the Land, he reminds them:
  "Keep the month of the spring, and offer a korban
Pesach...
  You shall not eat any CHAMETZ with it, instead for the
seven
  days [afterward] you shall eat MATZA - 'lechem oni',
because
  you left Egypt in a hurried manner - IN ORDER that you
  remember the day that you left Egypt for every day of
your
  life" (see Devarim 16:1-3).

     This source also suggests that the matza that we
eat for
seven days relates directly to the korban Pesach, and
hence it
makes sense that they would share a common reason.

BACK TO PARSHAT HA'CHODESH
     This interpretation can also help us understand why
God's
original commandment to Moshe to tell Bnei Yisrael about
"chag
ha-matzot" (in 12:15-20) was recorded 'pre-maturely'
(i.e.
before they ever left Egypt) - immediately after the
laws of
korban Pesach (see 12:11-15).
     After instructing the nation to offer korban Pesach
in every
future generation (see 12:14), the Torah records the
laws
prohibiting 'chametz' for the next seven days.  Even
though
eating matza for those seven days reminds us of how we
left
Egypt, the prohibition of 'chametz' reminds us of how
must
reject 'avoda zara' in order to be deserving of future
redemption.  This can also explain yet another difficult
pasuk
in Parshat ha'Chodesh:
  "Seven days you should eat matza, but EVEN ON THE
FIRST DAY
  you must REMOVE ALL CHAMETZ from your houses, for
whoever
  eats chametz on these SEVEN days, that person shall be
cut
  off from the nation of Israel" (see Shmot 12:15).

     Chazal understand that 'yom ha-rishon' refers to
the 14th of
Nisan (not the 15th), i.e. at the time when the Korban
Pesach
is offered. This makes sense, for one must rid himself
from
the symbol of Egyptian culture before offering the
korban
Pesach.  [Note as well Shmot 23:18 - "lo tishchat al
chametz
dam zivchi"!]
     The reason for Chag Ha-Matzot now becomes clear.
Our
declaration of thanksgiving when offering the korban
Pesach is
meaningless if not accompanied with the proper spiritual
preparation.  Just as Bnei Yisrael were commanded to rid
themselves of their 'avoda zara' in anticipation of
their
redemption, future generations must do exactly the same
when
they commemorate those events.  By getting rid of our
chametz
in preparation for Korban Pesach, we remind ourselves of
the
need to first cleanse ourselves from any corrupt culture
that
we may have adopted.

     From this perspective, the matza that we eat for
seven
days, and the matza that is eaten with the korban Pesach
both
serve as powerful reminders that Bnei Yisrael must
become
active and faithful partners in any redemption process.

                              shabbat shalom,
                              menachem

FOR FURTHER IYUN
=================f
ELIYAHU AT THE SEDER
     Based on the above shiur, we can explain why we
invite
Eliyahu ha-navi to the seder (after we finish our last
'kezayit' of matza) to remind us of the need to perform
teshuva in preparation for future redemption (see
Mal'achi
3:23-24).  It also explains why we read these psukim
(that
form the final message of the Neviim in Tanach) for the
Haftara of Shabbat Ha-gadol, in preparation for Pesach.

BE-ETZEM HA-YOM HA-ZEH
     An important phrase that the Torah uses in its
presentation of the laws of chag ha-matzot provides
further
support for this approach.  Recall the original pasuk in
which
the Torah provides the reason for chag ha-matzot:
  "And you shall keep [the laws] of the matzot, for ON
THIS
  VERY DAY  [BE-ETZEM HA-YOM HA-ZEH] God has taken your
hosts
  out of the land of Egypt..." (see Shmot 12:17).

     It is not often that the Torah employs this phrase
"be-
etzem ha-yom ha-zeh", and when it does, it always marks
a very
important event.
     In relation to Yetziat Mitzrayim we find this very
same
phrase mentioned two more times at the conclusion of
chapter
12, as the Torah recaps the events of Yetziat Mitzraim -
in
the context of God's fulfillment of His promise to
Avraham
Avinu at Brit bein Ha-btarim:
  "And the time of Bnei Yisrael's stay in Egypt was 400
years
  and 30 years, and it came to pass after 430 years - ON
THIS
  VERY DAY [be-etzem ha-yom ha-zeh] all of God's hosts
were
  taken out of Egypt..."  (see 12:40-41, see also
12:51!)

     It is not by chance that we find specifically this
phrase
"be-etzem ha-yom ha-zeh" in relation to God's
fulfillment of
brit bein ha-btarim.  In Sefer Breishit, we find this
same
phrase in two instances, and each relating to the
fulfillment
of a 'brit' between God and man.  The first instance was
God's
'brit' with Noach:
  "And I shall keep My covenant with you, and you will
enter
  the ark, you and your sons and wife..." (see Breishit
6:18).

     Then, when Noach actually enters the ark, the Torah
uses
this phrase when informing us how God kept His covenant:
  "Be-etzem ha-yom ha-zeh - on that very day, Noach and
his
  sons and wife... entered the ark..." (see 7:13).

     Similarly, when God enters into a covenant with
Avraham
Avinu concerning his future, better known as BRIT MILA;
God
promises:
  "And I shall keep My covenant between Me and you and
your
  offspring an everlasting COVENANT to be Your God...
this is
  [the sign] of My covenant that you shall keep,
circumcise
  every male child..." (see Breishit 17:7-10 and its
context).

     Then, when Avraham performs this mitzva, the Torah
once
again uses this phrase when informing us how Avraham
kept His
part of the covenant:
  "be-etzem ha-yom ha-zeh - on this very day - Avraham
was
  circumcised and his son Yishmael..." (see 17:26, &
17:23).

     Considering that these are the only times that we
find
this phrase in Sefer Breishit, and both relate to the
fulfillment of a major covenant between God and man;
when we
find that the Torah uses this phrase in Sefer Shmot, we
should
expect that it too relates to the fulfillment of a
covenant.
Clearly, this phrase in both Shmot 12:17 and 12:41 must
relate
to God's fulfillment of Brit bein ha-btarim.  Hence, one
can
suggest that its use in 12:17 in relation to the mitzva
to eat
matza for seven days relates to Bnei Yisrael's need
remain
faithful to its side of the covenant with God.  Based on
the
psukim quoted above from Yechezkel, the thematic
connection is
rather obvious.  If Am Yisrael is truly thankful for
their
redemption from slavery, they must show their dedication
by
totally removing themselves from the 'avoda zara' of
Egypt.

  Note as well that the phrase of be-etzem ha-yom ha-zeh
also
appears in Sefer Vayikra, once in relation to Shavuot
(see
23:21) and twice in relation to Yom Kippur (see
23:28-30).
[Note that it does not appear in relation to any of the
other
holidays in Emor!]
     On could suggest that here again this relates to
'britot'; Shavuot relating to 'brit sinai' - the first
luchot,
and Yom Kippur relating to 'brit sinai' - the second
luchot.
See TSC shiur on Parshat Ki Tisa on the 13 midot of
rachamim.
     One last mention of this phrase is found at the end
of
Parshat Ha'azinu in relation to 'brit Arvot Moav'.
     Finally, we find this phrase in Yehoshua 5:11,
mentioned
as Bnei Yisrael performed both BRIT MILA & KORBAN PESACH
when
they crossed the Jordan River and began conquest of
Eretz
Canaan!  Again the fulfillment of yet another stage of
both
brit mila and brit bein ha-btarim.

RAMBAN's APPROACH
  See Ramban on Shmot 12:39, how he explains that Bnei
Yisrael's original intention was to bake matza, the
rushing
only caused them to bake the dough matza on the road
instead
of in their homes in Egypt.  Even though this does not
appear
to be the simple pshat of the pasuk, it stems from the
Ramban's approach of yesh mukdam u-me'uchar, and hence
God's
commandment to Moshe in 12:15-20 was indeed given before
Bnei
Yisrael left Egypt, and hence applied to the first
generation
as they left Egypt as well!

BA'ZMAN HA'ZEH
  It should be noted that since we don't offer a Korban
Pesach
now of days, we obviously cannot fulfill the mitzva of
eating
matza with it.  Therefore, the matza that we make the
'bracha'
of 'achilat matza' on at the Seder night is for the
second
reason, based on the pasuk "ba-erev tochlu matzot" (see
Shmot
12:17-18, and its context).  On the other hand, to
remember
this matza, we eat an extra piece of matza together with
maror
- "zecher le-mikdash ke-Hillel" - to remember how this
mitzva
was fulfilled during the time when the Temple stood.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1213 -
Release Date: 1/7/2008 9:14 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bo1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 66389 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080109/9f616717/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Jan 10 08:43:02 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:43:02 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Bo - shiur #2
Message-ID: <012a01c8538e$b8c55260$9d00000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

            PARSHAT BO  - Part Two

- KORBAN PESACH AND BRIT MILA -
     In our shiur on Parshat Bo discussing Parshat
ha-Chodesh
/ Shmot 12:1-20, we discussed why the Torah
'prematurely'
presented the laws of 'chag ha-matzot'.  In the
following
shiur, we discuss why the Torah 'belatedly' [i.e. after
Bnei
Yisrael leave Egypt] presents the laws of 'chukot
ha-Pesach'.

INTRODUCTION
     To clarify the problem that our shiur deals with,
we
begin with a quick overview of the Torah's presentation
of the
story of Yetziat Mitzraim by charting the progression of
'parshiot' (and their respective topics) in chapters 12
and
13.  As you review these two chapters, note how the
topics of
these 'parshiot' alternate between "mtizvot" [LAWS] and
"sipur" [STORY, i.e. narrative]

PSUKIM         TOPIC
12:1-20     Hashem commands Moshe to tell Yisrael the
LAWS of:
       a. Korban Pesach in Egypt (12:3-13)
       b. Korban Pesach for future generations (12:14)
       c. The laws of eating matza for seven days
(12:15-20)

12:21-28  Moshe relays these laws to Bnei Yisrael,
    but only the LAWS of:
        a. Korban Pesach in Egypt (12:21-23)
        b. Korban Pesach for future generations
(12:24-28)

12:29-36  The STORY of the Tenth Plague and the Exodus
        [How the Egyptians rushed Bnei Yisrael out of
Egypt.]

12:37-42  The STORY of traveling from Egypt, baking
matza,
          and concluding remarks  regarding the '430
years'...

12:43-50  Some more LAWS re: offering Korban Pesach
        [This section is titled -"zot chukat
ha-Pesach".]

12:51     A short summary pasuk

13:1-10   Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael more the LAWS
        13:1-2 -God commands Moshe
           re: 'kedushat bechor'. [laws of the first
born]
        13:3-10  Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael the laws of:
         eating matza for seven days ["chag ha'matzot"]
         not eating (or owning) chametz for 7 days
       
13:11-16  Moshe tells Yisrael the LAWS of the 'first
born'.

     As you study the above chart, note how the LAW
sections
relate directly to the STORY sections.  For example, the
laws
for how to offer the korban Pesach precede the story of
the
Tenth the Plague, for the purpose of that offering was
to
protect Bnei Yisrael from that Plague (see 12:12-13 &
12:21-
23).
     However, at the conclusion of the story of the
Exodus (in
12:42), we find yet an additional 'parshia' concerning
additional laws that relate to offering the Korban
Pesach -
which obviously appears to be 'out of place'!
  "And God said to Moshe and Aharon: These are the laws
of the
  Pesach - anyone not circumcised may not eat from
it..."
    "Then Bnei Yisrael did just as God had commanded
Moshe
  and Aharon, so they did" (see 12:43-50).

     To our amazement, this entire 'parshia' appears to
be
recorded in Chumash a bit too late!  Let's explain why:
  The laws in 12:43-49 command Bnei Yisrael to perform
'brit
mila' BEFORE offering the Korban Pesach.  Therefore, it
must
have been taught BEFORE Bnei Yisrael left Egypt.
Furthermore,
this 'parshia' includes several other laws that would
apply to
offering the korban Pesach in Egypt (even though these
laws
apply to korban Pesach in future generations as well).
  Finally, the last pasuk of this unit informs us that
Bnei
Yisrael did exactly as Moshe commanded them (see 12:50).
  [Note now Rashi on 12:43 immediately concludes that
this
  'parshia' is 'out of place'; and even Ramban agrees!]
  
     Why then does the Torah record these laws only
AFTER the
story of the Exodus?  Shouldn't this 'parshia' have been
included together with all the other laws of Korban
Pesach
(i.e. somewhere along with 12:2-14 and 12:21-28)?
     Considering our discussion in our first shiur that
12:15-
20 may also be 'out of place' ( i.e. It really 'belongs'
with
13:2-8),  we find a very peculiar phenomenon in chapter
12:
The laws of chag ha-matzot (12:15-20), which technically
should have recorded AFTER the story of Yetziat
Mitzrayim, are
recorded beforehand - while the laws of 'chukat
ha-Pesach'
which should have been recorded earlier, are recorded
AFTER
the story of the Exodus.
  In other words, to put this chapter back into its
correct
'chronological order,' we would simply have to swap
these two
parshiot.
     Nevertheless, the Torah prefers to record them 'out
of
order', and the obvious question is WHY.

THEMATIC ORDER
     These questions relate to a wider topic of Chumash
study
known as "ein mukdam u-me'uchar" - that the parshiot in
Chumash do not necessarily follow chronological order.
However, this does not mean that Chumash follows a
completely
random sequence.  Rather, even though the Torah usually
does
follow chronological order, it occasionally prefers to
place a
certain 'parshia' in a different place IN ORDER to
emphasize a
THEMATIC connection.
   [One could say that this is the Torah's way of
saying:
  'darsheini'!]

     If this assumption is correct, then we can conclude
that
the Torah presented these parshiot in this manner in
order
that we should search for a thematic connection between:
     a) Korban Pesach and chag ha-matzot; and
     b) the concluding story of Exodus and chukat
ha-Pesach.

     In Part I we discussed (a); now we must discuss
(b).

     Let's begin by taking a closer look at the previous
'parshia' that concludes the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim:
  "...And the settlement of Bnei Yisrael in Egypt was
thirty
  years and FOUR HUNDRED years.  And it came to pass
after
  thirty years and FOUR HUNDRED years, on this day, all
of
  God's hosts LEFT from the land of Egypt..." (see
12:40-42).

     Clearly, these psukim focus on the completion of
FOUR
HUNDRED years; but the Torah is not precise in regard to
what
these four hundred years are counting from.

BRIT BEIN HA-BTARIM & CHUKAT HA-PESACH
     The commentators all agree that the 'four hundred
years'
mentioned in these psukim must relate in one form or
other to
God's promise to Avraham Avinu concerning the 'bondage
of his
offspring in a foreign land,' as promised in 'brit bein
ha-
btarim'.  [See Breishit 15:13-14, see also Rashi,
Ramban,
Rashbam, and Ibn Ezra on 12:40.]
     In other words, this final 'parshia' (12:37-42)
points to
the fact that this Exodus from Egypt marks God's
fulfillment
of His promise to Avraham Avinu at 'brit bein
ha-btarim'.

     With this in mind, let's take a look at the
'parshia'
that follows:
  "And God said to Moshe and Aharon: These are the laws
of the
  Pesach - a son of a non-Jew may not eat from it... and
if he
  owns a servant, then he must CIRCUMCISE him, and then
he may
  eat it... and if a stranger lives with you and wants
to
  offer a korban Pesach, first he must be CIRCUMCISED...
and
  anyone NOT CIRCUMCISED may not eat from it." (see
12:43-48).

     Note how the primary focus of these mitzvot in
'chukat ha-
Pesach' is the requirement to perform BRIT MILA before
offering the Korban Pesach (note 12:43,44,48).
     But as we noted above, the final psukim of the
preceding
story relate back to the theme of BRIT BEIN HA-BTARIM!
     Therefore, this juxtaposition may point once again
to
thematic connection between these two central covenants
of
Sefer Breishit.  [See last week's shiur on Parshat
Va'era.]

     In this manner, Chumash may be alluding to an
important
thematic message: If we consider Korban Pesach as the
manner
by which we thank God for His fulfillment of Brit bein
Ha-
btarim, then before doing so, we must first remind
ourselves
of our commitment to His covenant of 'brit MILA'.
  [Recall how Brit Mila reflects the special
relationship [or
  partnership] between God and Bnei Yisrael (to accept
Him as
  our God - "lihiyot lachem l-Elokim" / see Breishit
17:7-8).
  ]
  
  Hence, this intentional juxtaposition may emphasize
how one
must first confirm his commitment at a personal and
family
level - as reflected in Brit Mila, before he can
proclaim his
affiliation at the national level, as reflected in the
offering of the korban Pesach - to thank God for His
fulfillment of brit bein ha-btarim.
  
     This critical balance between one's commitment to
God at
both the personal and national level will emerge as a
primary
theme in Chumash, especially in our study of Sefer Shmot
and
Sefer Devarim.
     Iy"h, we will return to this topic in the shiurim
that
follow; Till then,

                            shabbat shalom,
                            menachem

===============
FOR FURTHER IYUN:

A. The Position of the parshia of 'Zot Chukat Ha-Pesach'
     Three answers as to why this section is
transplanted from
its chronological location appear in the following
commentators:

1) Ibn Ezra, Seforno and Chizkuni claim that the laws of
"chukat ha'pesach" apply only to future generations, and
hence
this entire section is not out of chronological
sequence.
  The Mechilta (on 12:43) quotes a debate between Rabbi
Yoshia
and Rabbi Yonatan as to whether these psukim refer only
to
Pesach Mitzrayim or to Pesach dorot, as well.  The Ibn
Ezra
disputes both views, and claims that this section deals
strictly with Pesach dorot.
      In regard to the concluding pasuk of this section
-"All
of Bnei Yisrael did just as Hashem commanded Moshe and
Aharon?
" - which we quoted as the strongest proof that these
psukim
belong earlier (see 12:50) - Ibn Ezra explains that
these
halachot bore relevance only for subsequent years, i.e.
when
they observed Pesach in the wilderness.
  Chizkuni explains differently, that this pasuk tells
of Bnei
Yisrael's acceptance of these laws for observance in
future
years (even though did not apply at that time).

2)  Ramban cites Ibn Ezra's approach and strongly
rejects it.
Despite his general aversion towards applying the
principle of
"ein mukdam u-me'uchar", the Ramban here nevertheless
accepts
Rashi's view, the one we adopt in the shiur, that this
section
was transmitted earlier, before Yetziat Mitzrayim.
     The Ramban explains that the Torah wished to first
record
the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim immediately after Moshe
conveys
to Bnei Yisrael God's promise of redemption - as they
express
their faith by prostrating themselves (see 12:23-27).
This
juxtaposition underscores Hashem's fulfillment of His
promise.
After the story of yetziat Mitzrayim, the Torah then
returns
to complete the transmission of the laws relevant to the
korban pesach.  Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi, in his work on
Rashi's
commentary, explains along similar lines.

3) A much different explanation is given by the
Abarbanel and,
later, by Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch.  They claim that
this
section, which deals primarily with the procedure
required
before a foreigner or a convert may partake of the
korban
Pesach, is directed towards the 'erev rav', about whom
the
Torah speaks just several verses earlier.  (In their
respective commentaries, both the Abarbanel and Rav
Hirsch go
through all the halachot mentioned in this section and
explain
how they all address the unique circumstance of the erev
rav.)

B. The Four Hundred and Thirty Years of Bondage
     As we noted, the Torah says in 12:40 that Bnei
Yisrael
spent 430 years in Egypt.  Rashi there notes that based
on the
genealogical record of Yaakov's family when he relocated
in
Egypt (in Parshat Vayigash - Breishit 46:8-27) as well
as that
in Parshat Va'era (Shmot 6:14-25), this is a
mathematical
impossibility.  (In short, Kehat, Moshe's grandfather,
is
included among those who moved with Yaakov to Egypt;
four
hundred years could not have passed from Kehat's move to
Egypt
until his grandson, Moshe, led the slaves to freedom at
the
age of eighty.)  Further confounding the issue is the
fact
that Hashem had informed Avraham of a 400-year period of
bondage, not 430 years.
     For this reason, most sources among Chazal and the
mefarshim claim - as mentioned in the shiur - that the
period
in question began with the birth of Yitzchak.  Hashem
had
promised that Avraham's offspring would be "foreigners
in a
land not their own" (Breishit 15:13).  This period began
when
his heir, Yitzchak, was born in a country where he was
deemed
a foreigner.  Why Yitzchak - and, after him, Yaakov and
his
children - held foreigner status in Canaan is not
entirely
clear.  Ibn Ezra (commenting on our pasuk) cites a
theory that
during this period Canaan was subject to Egyptian rule.
Although the Ibn Ezra claims that there is no source to
substantiate such a theory, Rav Menachem Kasher (Torah
Shleima
on our pasuk, footnote 601) indeed brings several
sources to
this effect.  The Maharal, by contrast, in his
commentary,
"Gur Aryeh" on our pasuk, posits a different explanation
for
this foreigner status.  As Hashem had decreed that
Avraham's
offspring would come under subjugation in a foreign
land,
their residence in Canaan before their descent to Egypt
was
not permanent.  As such, they could not be considered
anything
more than foreigners.  Rashi, in his commentary to
Breishit
15:13, cites psukim that imply that Yitzchak and
Yaakov's
residence in Canaan was indeed that of foreigners.
  In any event, the sixty years of Yitzchak's life
before
Yaakov's birth (Breishit 25:26) and Yaakov's one hundred
and
thirty years before moving to Egypt (Breishit 47:8)
combine to
comprise 190 of the 400 years of exile.  This leaves 210
years, the commonly accepted duration of the Egyptian
exile
(see Breishit Rabba 91:2).
     This theory, that the period of 'exile' began with
the
birth of Yitzchak, dates back as early as the
Septuagint,
which adds onto our pasuk the words, 'u-bish'ar
aratzot',
meaning, that the 430 years mark the period in which
Bnei
Yisrael were foreigners in Egypt as well as in other
lands.

     As for the discrepancy between the 400 and 430
years, we
find four approaches in the Midrashim and mefarshim:

1) The Mechilta on our pasuk, as well as Rashi here and
in
Breishit 15:13, maintain that the 400-year period began
with
the birth of Yitzchak, and the 430-year period began at
brit
bein ha-btarim, which took place thirty years prior to
Yitzchak's birth.  This raises a vexing problem: Avraham
was
100 years old when Yitzchak was born (Breishit 21:5),
which
would mean that he was only 70 at the time of brit bein
ha-
btarim.  Yet, he was already 75 years-old when he first
migrated to Canaan (Breishit 12:4).  How, then, could
Avraham
have been only 70 at brit bein ha-btarim, which occurs
three
chapters after his resettlement in Canaan?
     The Seder Olam Rabba therefore explains that
Avraham
originally moved to Canaan at age 70.  After the brit
bein ha-
btarim, he returned to Charan for five years, after
which he
once again settled in Canaan.  The presentation in
Parshat
Lech-Lecha thus does not follow chronological sequence.

2) The Ramban (in his commentary to our pasuk) argues
that the
430 years began with brit bein ha-btarim; the 400 years
which
Hashem mentioned to Avraham marked the minimum duration
of the
exile, not the definite period.  As a result of Bnei
Yisrael's
sins in Egypt, Hashem added thirty years to the decree,
resulting in a total of 430 years.  According to the
Ramban,
Bnei Yisrael were in Egypt for 240 years, not 210 as is
commonly understood.

3) The Ibn Ezra and Rabbenu Yosef Bechor Shor suggest
that the
430 years begin with Avraham's migration with his father
from
Ur Kasdim.  Towards the end of Parshat Noach (11:31),
the
Torah tells that Terach took his family from Ur Kasdim
to live
in Canaan, but for some reason he never made it past
Charan.
These mefarshim suggest that this event, which, they
claim,
occurred thirty years prior to brit bein ha-btarim,
marked the
beginning of Avraham's period of 'exile', as this was
the
point at which he uprooted himself from his homeland.
(The
Netziv adopts this approach, as well, and elaborates
further
on the significance of Avraham's move from Ur Kasdim.)

4) The Abarbanel cites a view that the pasuk in brit
bein ha-
btarim that speaks of 400 years was imprecise; it
rounded off
the number 430 to an even 400.  This view would then
yield the
same result that emerges from the Ramban's approach:
Bnei
Yisrael spent 240 years in Egypt.  (The Abarbanel
himself,
however, accepts the Ramban's position.)

     All these mefarshim agree that the 400 years of
bondage
foreseen at brit bein ha-btarim begin at that point,
when
Hashem informs Avraham of the exile.  They argue only as
to
the nature of the thirty years.  We do find two other
views,
which deny this assumption upon which all the
aforementioned
explanations are predicated:

Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer (48) cites the view of Rabbi
Elazar
Ben Arach that the 430-year period begins with the birth
of
Efrayim and Menashe, the last two tribes of Yisrael to
be
born.  Their birth occurred five years before Yaakov and
his
family moved to Egypt, such that 215 years passed from
their
birth to the Exodus.  Since the slavery required Bnei
Yisrael's service both by day and night, they served as
slaves
for the functional equivalent of 430 years.  (Haktav Ve-
hakabbala explains this based on another Midrash, that
the
Egyptian taskmasters forced the slaves to sleep in the
fields
rather than going home to their families; they thus
'worked'
both by day and by night.)  More familiar is the Midrash
cited
by the Vilna Gaon, in Kol Eliyahu on Parshat Shmot, that
states more simply that the torture and hardship of the
210-
year slavery term rendered it equivalent to a standard,
400-
year term.  According to this approach, that Bnei
Yisrael's
slavery equaled - but did not last for - 400 years, our
pasuk
does not at all relate to brit bein ha-btarim.
  Perhaps the most startling view is that of the Shadal,
who
claims, in opposition to all other commentators
(including the
Septuaginta, as quoted above), that Bnei Yisrael indeed
spent
four hundred and thirty years in Egypt.  Earlier, we
parenthetically noted the proof against this
possibility, that
the Torah identifies Kehat as Moshe's grandfather (Shmot
6:18,
20), and he was among the seventy members of Yaakov's
family
who descended to Egypt (Breishit 46:11).  The life-spans
of
Kehat and his son Amram, plus Moshe's eighty years
before
freeing Bnei Yisrael, do not add up to anywhere near 430
years.  The Shadal refutes this proof by claiming that
the
Torah omits several generations in its genealogical
record in
Parshat Va'era.  In fact, he brings a very strong proof
to his
claim: in Parashat Vaera, the Torah lists only eight
members
of the tribe of Levi in Amram's generation (Amram,
Yitzhar,
Chevron, Uziel, Machli, Mushi, Livni and Shimi - Shmot
6:17-
19).  Yet, when Moshe - Amram's son - took Bnei Yisrael
out of
Egypt, the tribe of Levi numbered 22,000 (Bemidbar
3:39).
Clearly, Levi's population could not have grown from 8
to
22,000 in a single generation.  Undoubtedly, the Shadal
argues, there were several interim generations that the
Torah
- for whatever reason - neglects to mention.

     Rav Yaakov Medan (of Yeshivat Har Etzion - Daf
Kesher
vol. 3, p.220) refutes this seemingly convincing proof
of the
Shadal.  He suggests quite simply that the Torah omitted
not
interim generations, as the Shadal claims, but rather
the
brothers of those eight levites, or even the brothers of
their
parents.  Rav Medan notes that when Yaakov bestows the
bechora
upon Yosef, whereby his sons, Efrayim and Menashe,
become
independent tribes, he adds that any future children
born to
Yosef will be included in those two tribes (Breishit
48:6).
In other words, 'less significant' brothers often became
formally included as part of their brothers' families.
It
stands to reason, then, that in each generation in the
genealogical listing the Torah records only several
brothers.
In fact, Rav Medan adds, the genealogical records in
Va'era,
Bemidbar and Pinchas do not mention any grandsons of
Yaakov
besides those listed as part of the family that
descended to
Egypt.  As Yaakov's sons were still relatively young
when they
relocated in Egypt, we have no reason to believe that
they did
not continue bearing children in Egypt.  Clearly, then,
there
were siblings omitted in the Torah's genealogical
record, thus
refuting the Shadal's proof.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.0/1216 -
Release Date: 1/9/2008 10:16 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bo2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 35787 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080110/c89a62b9/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jan 16 09:36:45 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:36:45 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Beshalach - shiur #1
Message-ID: <00aa01c8584d$38c379c0$0200000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

PARSHAT BESHALACH - A Desert Seminar
ALL ON THE WAY TO HAR SINAI

	Bnei Yisrael's journey from Egypt to Har Sinai
was certainly not easy.  Instead of the anticipated
cheerful 'three day journey', Bnei Yisrael endured
several weeks of life-threatening situations - including
lack of food & water, and military attacks by both Egypt
and Amalek.
	Did something go wrong, or were all of these
events part of God's original 'plan'?
	Furthermore, if these 'tests of faith' were
indeed part of a divine 'plan' - did God really expect
for Bnei Yisrael not to complain?
	To answer these questions, this week's shiur
analyzes the progressive nature of the events that occur
from the time that Bnei Yisrael leave Egypt until they
reach Har Sinai, while considering their relationship to
the overall theme of Sefer Shmot.  
		
INTRODUCTION - THREE DAYS OR SEVEN WEEKS?
	Prior to the actual Exodus, God had made several
specific promises that He would take Bnei Yisrael from
Egypt to the Promised Land (see Shmot 3:16-17 and 6:5-8,
as well as Breishit 15:13-18); yet we never found even a
hint that God wanted Bnei Yisrael to dwell for any
length of time in the desert (other than to cross it).
True, Moshe had told Pharaoh that Bnei Yisrael requested
a three day journey to worship God in the desert;
however, Moshe was never instructed to convey that
message to his own people. 
    Hence, it only makes sense that Bnei Yisrael would
expect to travel directly from Egypt to Eretz Canaan.  
    Furthermore, the opening pasuk of Parshat Beshalach
implies that traveling directly to Eretz Canaan remained
the primary goal of the Exodus, while the 're-routing'
of that journey (to the southeast) was simply a
'maneuver' taken due to 'military considerations' (see
13:17, and 14:1-3).
	However, in Parshat Beshalach, a very different
set of events unfold.  Instead of leading Bnei Yisrael
directly to Israel (or to stop at Har Sinai on the way
to Israel), God reroutes their journey towards the Red
Sea.  Then, after crossing the Red Sea, Bnei Yisrael do
embark on a 'three-day journey' into the desert, but
only to arrive at Mara, rather than Har Sinai.  Then,
over the course of their five-week excursion from Mara
to Har Sinai, they run out of food at Midbar Sin, run
out of water at Refidim and then face Amalek's
unprovoked attack.  Only after some seven weeks do they
finally arrive at Har Sinai. 
	In the following shiur we will attempt to find
the purpose of this sequence of events - by considering
the underlying reason for Bnei Yisrael's redemption from
Egypt.

A SECOND CHANCE
	In our study thus far of Sefer Shmot, we have
shown how the Exodus served as a fulfillment of God's
covenant with Avraham Avinu (at "brit bein ha'btarim").
However, the purpose of that covenant was not merely to
provide Avraham's offspring with salvation from a future
oppressor; rather, God entered that covenant  towards
the purpose that Avraham's offspring would become His
model nation, acting in an exemplary manner -to make
God's Name known to all nations.  
    From this perspective, the redemption that God
promised in "brit bein ha'btarim" was only the first
stage in a long historical process.  After their
redemption from Egypt, Bnei Yisrael would first need to
receive the special set of laws and guidelines (better
known as 'Matan Torah') - that would facilitate their
becoming that nation.  After receiving and studying
those laws, the nation would be 'spiritually' ready to
inherit the Promised Land.
	For this very reason, God found it necessary to
first call upon Bnei Yisrael to perform 'teshuva'
[repentance] even before the Exodus began.  [See
Yechezkel 20:4-10, and our shiur on Parshat Va'era.]
Presumably, had Bnei Yisrael indeed obeyed that original
call, the redemption process could have proceeded as
originally planned, i.e. the nation would have traveled
directly to Har Sinai (in three days) - to thank God and
receive the Torah.  (See Seforno's introduction to Sefer
Shmot; see also Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Ramban and Seforno on
2:23-25.)
	Unfortunately, the nation did not repent in the
manner that God had expected.  As we explained in last
week's shiur, the offering of the 'korban Pesach' may
have rendered them worthy 'just enough' to survive the
Tenth Plague; nevertheless, at the time of the Exodus
Bnei Yisrael were far from being 'spiritually ready' for
Matan Torah.   Therefore, we posit that God found it
necessary to first challenge His people with a series of
'tests' (as described in Parshat Beshalach) - to help
prepare them for Matan Torah!

THE NEW PLAN
	The following table lists the key events that
take place during Bnei Yisrael's journey from Egypt to
Har Sinai:

	LOCATION			EVENT
1)	Yam Suf (14:11)		Am Yisrael is attacked
by Mitzraim;
2)	Mara (15:24)			the water is
bitter;
3)	Midbar Sin (15:2)		there is no food
to eat;
4)	Refidim I (17:3)		there is no
water to drink;
5)	Refidim II (17:8)		Am Yisrael is
attacked by Amalek.
		  [Note the chiastic structure:
war-water-food-water-war.] 

	Despite the distinctive nature of each of these
events, we will show how and why God intentionally
initiates these incidents in order to catalyze Bnei
Yisrael's spiritual growth, to 'train' them to become
His Nation!
	To appreciate the specific purpose of each
individual event, we must first consider WHY Bnei
Yisrael had not performed proper 'teshuva' in Egypt.

BREAKING SLAVE MENTALITY
	It is extremely difficult for a slave, even
after having gained his freedom, to act or think like a
free man.  As we explained in Parshat Va'era, Bnei
Yisrael do not listen to God's original call because of
their 'crushed spirits and hard labor': "v'e-lo sham'u
el Moshe, mi-kotzer ruach u-meavoda kasha" (see 6:9). 
	The strain of their prolonged bondage and the
fatigue of their daily routine had drained them of all
spirituality. 
	Specifically because of this bondage - Bnei
Yisrael had grown instinctively dependent upon their
Egyptian masters.  Therefore, to facilitate their
transformation - from Pharaoh's slaves to God's servants
- they must change their instinctive physical dependence
on Egypt to a cognitive spiritual dependence on God.
[See an amazing Ibn Ezra on Shmot 14:10 which discusses
this topic.]
 
	We all know how difficult it is for an
individual to change his character, all the more so for
an entire nation.  Therefore, the rebuilding of Am
Yisrael's character becomes a very complex process.
This background can help us understand the need for the
variety of events that transpire from the time that Bnei
Yisrael leave Egypt.  To explain how, we will show how
that a change of character occurs in one of two patterns
- via:
  1)  A traumatic experience - which may facilitate a
sudden change.
  2)  A change of daily routine - which affects
instinctive behavior. 
	As we will see, God employs both approaches.
	
1)  KRIYAT YAM SUF - SPLITTING OLD TIES
	Kriyat Yam Suf [the splitting of the Red Sea]
may be understood as the traumatic experience that helps
Bnei Yisrael break away from their instinctive
dependence upon Egypt.
	Recall that, at Kriyat Yam Suf, God inflicted
His final punishment upon Pharaoh and his army (14:4).
Were God's sole intention merely to punish the
Egyptians, He could have done so during the Ten Plagues.
The fact that Bnei Yisrael must witness this Egyptian
defeat suggests that these events occur for the sake of
Bnei Yisrael as well.
    This purpose becomes clearer in light of Bnei
Yisrael's reaction to the imminent threat of the
approaching Egyptian army:
"And they complained to Moshe saying... What have you
done to us by taking us out of Egypt?  Is this not the
very thing we told you in Egypt: Let us be and we will
serve the Egyptians, for it is better for us to serve
the Egyptians than die in the desert?!"   (14:11-12)
[See Ibn Ezra on 14:13 where he explains why Bnei
Yisrael did not even consider confronting the Egyptians
in battle.]

	God responds to Bnei Yisrael's complaint by
commanding them to break away from this instinctive
dependence:
"Do not fear, stand upright and watch God's salvation...
for the manner in which you see Mitzraim today - you
will never see them again" ["lo tosifu lir'otam od ad
olam"] (14:13).

	Although God's reassurance appears to be a
promise, for some reason Chazal interpret this statement
as a commandment!  According to Ramban (14:13), Chazal
interpret this pasuk as follows:
"In the manner by which you look at Mitzraim today - do
not look at them this way ever again" (14:13).

	God here does not promise His nation that they
will never face an Egyptian army again.  Rather, He
commands them to 'never again' look to Egypt for their
salvation. 
	Although this interpretation of "lo tosifu
lir'otam" does not appear to be the simple 'pshat' of
this pasuk, it does find support in a parallel reference
in the 'tochacha' in Parshat Ki Tavo (see Devarim
28:1-69).  At the conclusion of that lengthy rebuke, God
warns Bnei Yisrael that - should they disobey Him - they
will be exiled and sold into slavery (see Devarim
28:62-67 / note "ki lo shama'ta be-kol Hashem...").
Their condition will deteriorate to such an extent, the
Torah warns, that they will actually hope that someone
will 'purchase them as slaves'.  
	To emphasize this point, note how the end of the
Tochacha uses a phrase very similar to the phrase used
to describe God's command before "kriyat Yam Suf":
"And God will return you to Egypt in ships, in the
manner that I told you: 'lo tosif od lir'otah" [do not
look at them this way again], and you will offer
yourselves to your enemies for sale as slaves and
maidservants, but no one will purchase you" (28:68).  
[The word 'ba-derech' - 'in the manner' - should not be
understood as a description of the ship-route to Egypt,
but rather as a description of the crisis Am Yisrael
will face as they are exiled to Egypt in those ships.]

	Ironically, the last stage of the 'tochacha' has
Am Yisrael returning to the same state they were in
before they left Egypt, where they yearn for total
dependence on their human masters!  Their only hope for
survival is for an Egyptian to buy them to become his
slave.  [See also Devarim 17:16 & Yeshayahu 31:1-3 to
support this interpretation of "lo tosifu li'rotam...".]

	Thus, after the miracle of "kriyat Yam Suf", it
appears as though God's plan had succeeded.  Upon seeing
the drowning of the Egyptians, Bnei Yisrael reach the
'proper' conclusion:
"...and Yisrael recognized His great Hand.. and the
people feared God and believed in God and Moshe His
servant" 
	
(Shmot 14:30-31).
Then,
	They instinctively respond with a song of praise
to God:
		 "Az yashir Moshe u-vnei Yisrael..."
(see 15:1).

2)  MARA - A DESERT SEMINAR
	 After crossing the Red Sea, Bnei Yisrael set
out on their 'three-day journey' into the desert.
However, instead of arriving at Har Sinai, they arrive
at Mara, where the only water they could find is bitter
and hence undrinkable (see 15:22-23).  As we'd expect,
the people complain to Moshe, their leader; who in turns
complains to God.  As their complaints appear to be
justified, God provides Moshe with a solution to
'sweeten' the water (see 15:24-25).
	Certainly God realized that the people could not
survive without water, nonetheless He led them to a
location without water - in order that the people would
complain.  In this manner, God teaches the nation not to
take their water supply for granted; rather - it now
becomes clear to them that their physical survival is
dependent upon God - who now tends to their water
supply.  [Recall that in Egypt, the Nile River supplied
drinking water for the entire country, and hence it
became like a God to Egypt - and Pharaoh considered
himself as the god-like master over the Nile / see
Yechezkel 29:1-3.]
    Now, after these two traumatic events have shown the
nation who their real 'master' is, Chumash informs us
how God gives the people another chance to show their
readiness to accept His laws:
"And He said - im shamoa tishma le-kol Hashem Elokecha -
Should you listen to the voice of God, and do what is
proper in His eyes, and listen to His commandments, then
the affliction that I put on the Egyptians I will not
put on you, for I am God your Healer"  (15:26 / see
shiur on Parshat Va'era.).

	Note how Bnei Yisrael's acceptance of this offer
can 'cure' their original 'attitude problem' reflected
by "ve-lo sham'u el Moshe..." (see 6:9, and our shiur on
Parshat Va'era).  
    Furthermore, by linking the sweetness of the water
to their readiness to obey His laws, God teaches Bnei
Yisrael an important lesson of spiritual dependence.
This connection between 'water' and 'following God' will
emerge numerous times in Chumash, and forms the basis of
the famous Midrash Chazal of 'ein mayim ela Torah' -
that the term 'water' in Tanach symbolically refers to
Torah.
[The 'message' of the 'eitz' which God instructs Moshe
to cast into the water (see 15:23-25) may also relate
back to Gan Eden, itself a motif of an environment that
demands obedience to God.  See also Mishlei 3:18 and its
context ("etz chayim hi la-machazikim bah...").]

	At their next camp-site, at Eilim (see15:27),
God gives them a short 'rest' - as there is plenty of
water and food.  However, as soon as Bnei Yisrael arrive
in Midbar Sin, God creates yet another crisis.

3)  MIDBAR SIN - BASIC TRAINING
	After arriving in Midbar Sin, the food supply
runs out, triggering yet another round of complaints
(16:2-3).  Even though Bnei Yisrael have the right to
ask for food, the way in which they ask is inexcusable:
"If only we had died by the Hand of God in Egypt, when
we had plenty of meat and bread to eat!  Now you have
brought us out into this desert to die of famine"
(16:3).

	The very tone of their complaint (and its
content), indicate that Bnei Yisrael had retained their
instinctive dependence upon Mitzraim.  Their instinctive
reaction to this terrible hunger includes reminiscing
about the 'good old days' in Egypt.  The trauma they had
experienced heretofore was not sufficient to totally
change their character.  To rectify this, God will force
them into a daily routine that hopefully will slowly
change their instinctive behavior.
	The manna served this very purpose, as it
provided a daily routine that transformed what was once
their physical dependence on Mitzraim into a physical
dependence on God.  As explained in Sefer Devarim:
"And He tormented you and starved you, then gave you
'manna' to eat... in order to teach you that man does
not live on bread alone, rather, man lives by whatever
God commands" (Devarim 8:3).

	By allowing only enough food for one day at a
time, Bnei Yisrael learn to become dependent solely on
God.  To emphasize this point, their food falls directly
from heaven.  Note how the Torah uses a key word -
'nisayon' (a test) in its description of the purpose of
the manna: 
"Behold I will rain down bread for you from the heavens,
and the people shall go out and gather each day that
day's portion - lema'an anasenu (= 'nisayon') - in order
that I may test them, to see whether or not they will
follow my instructions..." (16:4).

	The word "nisayon" here should not be understood
simply as a 'test' that will help God assess Bnei
Yisrael's obedience.   The purpose of this "nisayon" was
to raise the nation to a higher level in their
relationship with God.  In a similar manner, we find
that the Torah uses this same root in the story of the
Akeida where God 'tests' Avraham ["ve-Hashem nisa et
Avraham..." /see Breishit 22:1] - not to find out if he
is worthy, but rather to make him worthy.
	The manna served a similar purpose. God is not
testing Bnei Yisrael to find out IF they will obey Him,
rather He is training them in order that they learn HOW
to obey Him.

4)  REFIDIM - PREPARING FOR HAR SINAI
	The next stop on their journey (and the last
stop before arriving at Har Sinai) is Refidim - where
they can't find any water to drink (17:1-3).  But why
does God lead them to such a location?  Certainly He
realizes that Bnei Yisrael cannot survive without water.
	Once again, God wants Bnei Yisrael to complain! 
	However, this time God's plan is more complex,
as His scheme at Refidim will prepare Bnei Yisrael both
physically and spiritually for Har Sinai.  As you review
the details of that story (see 17:1-6), note how God
solves their water shortage.  
    As you probably remember, God instructs Moshe to hit
the rock - and it would supply water.  But we would
expect that rock (and hence the water source) to be in
Refidim - where the people are suffering from thirst.
Instead, God instructs Moshe to gather some elders (see
17:5-6) and travel from Refidim to the rock at "Chorev "
- the same site where God first appeared to him at the
burning bush (see 3:1)  - the same site that later
becomes Har Sinai! [See Shmot 3:12 & Devarim 5:2.] 
    But would it not have made more sense for God to
supply this dearly needed water at Refidim, where the
people are encamped!
    
    One could suggest that God is providing water
purposely only at Har Sinai, for He wants the nation to
first encounter Har Sinai as a source for their physical
salvation - that will quench their terrible thirst.  By
providing water at Har Sinai, the nation will now
eagerly travel from Refidim directly to Har Sinai. 
    Note the wording 17:5, where God instructs Moshe to
take his staff with which 'he hit the Nile' - to hit the
rock at Chorev.  Even though Moshe's staff also turned
into a "nachash", and had also split the sea, etc. - yet
God specifically refers to it here as the one with which
he 'hit the Nile' - for Har Sinai will now become the
new source of water for Bnei Yisrael, replacing their
old source of water - the mighty Nile River of Egypt. 
     
    Let's consider the reality of this situation.  After
Moshe hits the rock, the water would gush forth from
Chorev and flow into the desert.  But to drink that
water, Bnei Yisrael will need to travel from Refidim to
Har Sinai, to their new source of water.  [For proof
that hitting the rock created a gushing river flowing
down the mountain - see Devarim 9:21.]
	After this initial encounter with Sinai as their
source for physical existence, Har Sinai will later
become the site of Matan Torah - the source for their
spiritual existence.  Not only has heaven replaced earth
as the source of bread (the manna food), but also Har
Sinai has replaced the Nile as the constant source of
water.  
    In this manner, Bnei Yisrael's total dependence on
Mitzraim has now been replaced by their total dependence
on God. 
	
5)  THE WAR WITH AMALEK - LOOKING UP TO HAR SINAI
	As Bnei Yisrael begin their journey from Refidim
to Har Sinai (to their new source of water), Amalek
attacks. War breaks out, and God orders that Yehoshua
lead Bnei Yisrael in battle.  
    In contrast to the level of Bnei Yisrael's
participation in battle at the splitting of the Red Sea,
here Bnei Yisrael do the fighting themselves.  But in
order for the people to recognize that God Himself
brings them victory - despite their own military efforts
- God instructs Moshe to climb the hill and raise his
staff heavenward.  Upon which hill does Moshe stand?
	Based on the juxtaposition between this
narrative and the incident at 'masa u-meriva', Ibn Ezra
explains that Moshe stands with his hands raised high -
on Har Sinai!  Just as Har Sinai has become their source
of water, it now becomes their source of military
salvation, as well.  
    For Yisrael to become victorious, Moshe must raise
his hands (see 17:11) to show and teach the people to
look to Hashem, to Har Sinai, for their salvation.
    [See Midrash in Rashi (17:11) & Rosh Hashana 29:1.]

FROM PESACH TO SHAVUOT
	We have shown that during the seven weeks from
the Exodus to Har Sinai, Bnei Yisrael encounter several
traumatic experiences and changes in their daily routine
that helped prepare them for Matan Torah.  During this
'training period' they have also become more active in
the process of their redemption - they are now ready to
take on the next stage of the redemption process: to
receive the Torah in order to become God's special
Nation in His land.
	Not only was this seven week time period
significant for Bnei Yisrael at the time of Exodus, this
same time period of the year remains no less significant
for future generations as well.  It is not by chance
that Chazal identify a similar purpose in the seven
weeks of the Sefirat ha-Omer, where we count the seven
weeks from the celebration of our freedom from Egypt [on
Pesach] in preparation for our commemoration of Matan
Torah on Shavuot.  
	Each year, after we thank God for our freedom
from slavery, we prepare ourselves for seven weeks - to
be worthy of, and to be thankful for - our receiving of
the Torah.

						shabbat
shalom,
						menachem

=================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
	Many traditional sources indicate that Bnei
Yisrael required an educational process of one sort or
another upon their departure from Egypt in order to
recover from the effects of the lengthy period of
bondage.  The type of process required comes in two
forms: PHYSICAL & SPIRITUAL 
PHYSICAL
	Military training and the development of
confidence.  Several mefarshim emphasize that, as they
leave Egypt, Bnei Yisrael are in no position to conduct
a war - the implication of the opening pasuk of Parshat
Beshalach ("pen yinachem ha-am bir'otam milchama? ").
The Ibn Ezra stresses this point at least twice in his
commentary (peirush ha-katzar - 13:17; peirush ha-aroch
- 14:13).  
	The Ibn Ezra (in the second source mentioned)
goes so far as to say that Hashem had to see to it that
this generation would die in the wilderness rather than
enter the land, because the period of bondage had
crushed their spirits to the point where they would
never be able to fight for the land.  (This comment
obviously has ramifications with regards to the sin of
the spies and other related topics.)
    The Malbim (commenting on the parsha's opening
pasuk) likewise writes that Benei Yisrael needed time to
develop the courage necessary to wage war.  Hashem
therefore decided not to lead them along the shortest
route to Canaan.  
    The Abarbanel comments that the second pasuk of the
parsha mentions Bnei Yisrael's being equipped with arms
to emphasize that their resources were useless as they
had no heart for battle.  
    The Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 3:24, 32) writes that the
grueling experience of the wilderness travel was
necessary to physically prepare Bnei Yisrael for the
conquest.

SPIRITUAL
    Spiritual rehabilitation - the approach we take in
the shiur.  Within this approach, however, we find two
versions: Bnei Yisrael's spiritual growth is necessary
as preparation for Matan Torah, or for their entry into
Eretz Canaan.  
    In the shiur we adopt the former view, which appears
explicitly in Rabbenu Bechaye's comments to the opening
pasuk of the parsha.  He writes that all the travails
that Bnei Yisrael experienced constituted a 'nisayon' -
"in order that their inner intellect would grow in the
levels of trust [in Hashem], which forms the root of
faith, in order that they are worthy to receive the
Torah."  This approach may have a much earlier source,
as well.  The Midrash Tanchuma (Yitro 10) writes that
Hashem did not give Bnei Yisrael the Torah immediately
upon their departure from Egypt because they had
'blemishes'.  A recovery period was therefore necessary
before they could receive the Torah.  The Abarbanel
(Yitro 19) interprets these 'blemishes' as the spiritual
influence of Egypt.  As we claim in the shiur, he
explains that the miracles at sea and in the wilderness
cured these spiritual ills by reinforcing Bnei Yisrael's
trust in Hashem.  
    In a similar vein, the Alshich (14:10) writes that
the Yam Suf experience was necessary in order to prevent
any arrogance on Bnei Yisrael's part.  The threat posed
at the sea humbled them in preparation for Matan Torah.
Later, in his comments to 19:1, the Alshich compares the
process that Bnei Yisrael undergo during this period to
the period of purification required after the onset of
certain forms of tum'a.  Yetziat Mitzraim constituted
the cessation of tum'a; the following seven weeks
correspond to the 'shiv'a nekiyim' - the seven 'clean
days' - that spiritually prepared them for Matan Torah.

    On a more kabbalistic level, the Ramchal (Choker
U-mekubal 18) writes that after Bnei Yisrael had sunken
to the forty-nine 'levels of impurity' in Egypt, over
the next 49 days Hashem shone upon them the forty-nine
'levels of sanctity' to render them worthy of Matan
Torah.  All this relates to the point made in the shiur,
that the events that occurred in between yetziat
Mitzraim and Matan Torah served to spiritually prepare
Bnei Yisrael for Matan Torah.  
    By contrast, Rav Meir Simcha Hakohen of Dvinsk
(Meshech Chochma) and the Netziv (in He-amek Davar)
maintain that Hashem led the people into the wilderness
in order to spiritually prepare them for their entry
into the land.  
    Rav Meir Simcha focuses specifically on the need for
Bnei Yisrael to rid themselves of Egyptian paganism; the
Netziv speaks more generally about the need for Bnei
Yisrael to establish their individual character, which
necessitated a journey through the wilderness, far away
from other societies and cultures.  
    We should perhaps note in this context a passage in
Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer 42, which states that, as Bnei
Yisrael saw the Egyptians closing in on them at sea,
they repented and discarded their Egyptian idols.
Apparently, they had not adequately repented from their
avoda zara while in Egypt.
	There are also indications of the fact that Bnei
Yisrael had not yet broken their sense of dependence on
Egypt, for one reason or another.  The Mechilta (on the
first pasuk of the parsha) writes that Pharaoh had sent
escorts to accompany Bnei Yisrael as they departed from
Egypt.  
    Rav Baruch Epstein (Torah Temima) and Rav Dov
Rabinowitz (Da'at Sofrim) use this Midrash to explain
how Bnei Yisrael could have considered returning to
Egypt (as Hashem was concerned about - "ve-shavu
Mitzrayma").  As the Egyptians had begun treating Bnei
Yisrael with dignity, they felt that all the plagues and
miracles had brought about a change of heart on the part
of the Egyptians.  Thus, Bnei Yisrael had yet to turn
their backs entirely on Egypt. 
    Furthermore, the Da'at Sofrim notes that the
parsha's opening pasuk describes yetziat Mitzraim as
"be-shalach Par'o et ha-am" - Pharaoh letting the people
go, rather than Hashem taking them out.  (This was noted
already by the Abarbanel, who explains differently; see
also Oznayim La-Torah and Nechama Leibowitz's Studies on
this parsha, 1.) 
    Da'at Sofrim explains that Bnei Yisrael still felt
dependent on Pharaoh's decision to set them free, rather
than guided by Hashem's providence.  An extreme
expression of Bnei Yisrael's continued sense of
dependence on Egypt appears in the Akeidat Yitzchak, in
his comments to 14:11.  He claims that Bnei Yisrael had
thought that Hashem intended for them to live
permanently in Ramses (as they had when Yaakov and his
family first resettled in Egypt).  It was Moshe, they
felt, who forced them to leave Ramses and continue into
the wilderness.  This clearly reflects that they had not
yet seen themselves as an independent nation.  They were
content to live as free people under Egyptian rule; they
had not resigned themselves to the fact that they would
establish  their own society in Canaan.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.5/1228 -
Release Date: 1/16/2008 9:01 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bshal1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 54096 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080116/66fb3ce4/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jan 16 09:39:41 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:39:41 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Beshalach - shiur #2
Message-ID: <00b201c8584d$a10da050$0200000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

                    PARSHAT BESHALACH
 
             "AMALEK - - V'LO YA'RAY ELOKIM"
 
     Many nations have attacked and oppressed Am Yisrael
throughout its history. Yet, for some reason, Amalek is
singled out as Israel's 'arch enemy.' What was so
terrible
about Amalek's attack that requires a battle 'for all
generations'?
     To answer this question, we examine some very
interesting
details in the Torah's description of this event (that
are
often overlooked) in attempt to determine if Amalek is
something 'genetic' or 'generic'.

INTRODUCTION
  The details of Amalek's attack on Israel in Parshat
Besalach
are quite scant.  However, by considering when this
battle
takes place, as well as the parallel source in Sefer
Devarim,
a more complete picture emerges - that can help us
understand
why Amalek remains Israel's 'eternal' enemy.
  We begin our study with a discussion of 'who is where'
when
Amalek first attacks.

WHO'S IN REFIDIM?
     Note how the Torah begins the story of Amalek,
immediately after the story of "massa u'meriva":
     "And Amalek came, and attacked Israel at
REFIDIM..."
                         (see Shmot 17:8, after 17:1-7)
     From this pasuk alone, it would seem as though ALL
of
Bnei Yisrael are encamped in Refidim when Amalek
attacked.
However, when we consider what took place during the
previous
event (i.e. the story of "massa u'meriva"), a very
different
picture emerges.  Let's review those events:
  "And Bnei Yisrael traveled from MIDBAR SIN... and
encamped
  in REFIDIM, and there was no water for the people to
  drink... and they quarreled with Moshe..." (17:1-3)

     To solve this water shortage, God instructs Moshe
to take
his staff hit the rock etc.  However, recall where that
rock
is located:
  "God said to Moshe, PASS BEFORE the people, TAKE with
you
  SOME OF THE ELDERS, and take the staff... I will be
standing
  before you at the ROCK at CHOREV; strike the rock
[there]
  and water will issue from it..."  (17:5-6)

     The rock that Moshe hits is NOT in Refidim -
rather, it
is located at Har Sinai!  Therefore, to drink this
water, the
entire nation will now need to travel from Refidim to
Har
Sinai (as we discussed in our first shiur on Parshat
Beshalach).
     Imagine the resulting situation: The entire nation,
who
had suffered several days of life-threatening thirst in
a hot
desert, must now first quench its immediate thirst, and
then
move its camp to the new water source at Har Sinai.
Those who
still had strength probably went first to the water
source to
bring supplies back to those who were too weak to
travel.
  One could also assume that this journey was not very
organized, with the stronger men advancing ahead to set
up the
new campsite, while those who were 'weak and tired'
lingered
behind.

AMALEK ATTACKS
     It is precisely at this point when Amalek attacks:
"Amalek came, and attacked Israel at REFIDIM..." (see
17:8).
But who is in Refidim?  - Only a remnant of the camp -
the
weak and the tired - most probably, primarily the women
and
children.
  Agreed, our interpretation thus far has been based on
conjecture and 'reading between the lines.' However, in
the
parallel account of this story in Sefer Devarim, we find
precisely these missing details:
  "Remember what Amalek did to you BA'DERECH (on your
journey)
  when you left Egypt - for he surprised you BA'DERECH
[i.e.
  while you were traveling] and cut down ALL THE
STRAGGLERS IN
  YOUR REAR, while you were FAMISHED & WEARY..."    (see
  Devarim 25:17-18)

     Amalek capitalizes on Bnei Yisrael's disadvantage.
[They
break the laws of the 'Geneva Convention.']  Even in war
there
are accepted norms of conduct; men fight men, armies
engage
armies. Amalek's attack is outright unethical, even by
wartime
standards.
     [See Rashi & Ibn Ezra on "ayeif v'yagaya" on
Devarim
25:18.]

YIRAT ELOKIM
     Further support of this interpretation may be drawn
from
the conclusion of the pasuk cited earlier from Sefer
Devarim:
  "...v'LO YA'RAY ELOKIM - and he (Amalek) did not fear
God."
        (Devarim 25:18, see Rashi & Ibn Ezra in contrast
to
Chizkuni)

     This phrase - YA'RAY ELOKIM - in the context of
unethical
(or immoral) behavior is found numerous times in
Chumash. For
example, Avraham offers Avimelech the following
explanation
for lying about his wife:
  "And Avraham explained (to Avimelech), for I said (to
  myself) there is no YIRAT ELOKIM in this place, and
  therefore they will kill me (to take my wife)?"
(Breishit
  20:11)

     In this context, a lack of "yirat Elokim" describes
one
who would kill a visitor in order to take his wife.
[Quite
unethical according to even the lowest moral standards.]

     Similarly, Yosef - pretending to be an Egyptian
official
- tells the brothers that he will release them from
jail,
allowing them a chance to prove that they are not spies.
He
prefaces his decision to his brothers with the phrase:
"... ET
HA'ELOKIM ANI YA'RAY..." (see Breishit 42:15-18).  From
this
conversation, we see once again how the phrase "yirat
Elokim"
in the Bible seems to be 'internationally' understood as
a
description of ethical behavior.
     We find yet another example at the beginning of
Sefer
Shmot, as the Torah describes how the midwives 'feared
Elokim'
by not obeying Pharaoh's command to kill the male
babies:
"v'ti'rena ha'myaldot et ha'Elokim..."  (see Shmot
1:21).
  [Note as well Yitro's comment in Shmot 18:21,
suggesting to
  appoint judges who are "yirei Elokim", among a list of
other
  'ethical' characteristics. / See also our TSC shiur on
the
  Akeyda. (www.tanach.org/breishit/vayera.doc), which
  discusses this phrase in greater detail.]

     All of these examples support our interpretation of
the
phrase "v'lo yarey Elokim" by Amalek - as reflective of
their
unethical behavior - waging war on the weak and
unprotected.

     Based on this analysis, we conclude that Torah may
have
singled out Amalek as Israel's 'arch enemy' not merely
because
they were the first nation to attack Israel, but rather
due to
the unethical nature of that attack.
     In this sense, one could suggest that "zecher
Amalek" -
the remembrance of Amalek - could be understood as a
'generic'
term describing any aggressive nation that would act in
a
similar unethical manner, and not necessarily a
'genetic'
term, describing any family descendent of those people
who
attacked Israel at Refidim.
     Let's attempt to support this conclusion, and its
underlying logic.

AMALEK IN THE BIBLE
     The commandment to remember what Amalek did (see
both
Shmot 17:16 and Devarim 25:17) seems to apply to every
generation, even after the original ('genetic') Amalek
is
wiped out.  The eternal nature of this law - to
'remember
Amalek' - suggests that Amalek may also represent any
similar
('generic') type of enemy that may emerge in future
generations.
  To support this understanding, note how Amalek emerges
in
mass numbers during the time of David (see Shmuel Aleph
27:7-9
and 30:1-3!), only a short time after they were 'totally
wiped
out' by Shaul (ibid. chapter 15).
  Note as well how Amalek attacked the 'women and
children' of
David's camp in Tziklag, taking them captive - at the
same
time when David and his men had left on a mission.  [It
is
recommended that you read that entire account (see
30:1-19).]
Here, we find not only the name Amalek, but a very
similar
manner of ('unethical') warfare.
  In fact, if one follows Amalek's whereabouts in
Chumash - we
find them all over:
  * In the western Sinai desert -
     when Bnei Yisrael leave Egypt (Parshat Beshalach).
  * in the northen Negev (near Kadesh Barnea)
     when the spies return (in Parshat Shlach / see
14:25).
  * east of the Dead Sea (in Jordan),
    when Bilam 'blesses' them in Parshat Balak (see
24:20).

     Then, in Sefer Shoftim, we find them joining in
battle
against Israel, no matter who the primary enemy was:
     * joining the Moabites in battle in the time Ehud
               (see Shoftim 3:13)
     * attacking in the area of Efraim in the time of
Devora)
               (see Shoftim 5:14, precise context
unclear)
     * attacking Emek Yizrael, joining Midyan, in the
time of
Gidon
               (see Shoftim 6:3 & 6:33)
    [Not to mention the battles of Shaul and David
against
    Amalek, as mentioned above.]
    
  Yet in all of these battles, we never find Amalek
living in
any specific land, rather a nomadic tribe - roaming the
desert, looking for easy prey.  Furthermore, we never
find a
mention of their god.  Even when Sefer Shoftim mentions
the
gods of the other nations that Bnei Yisrael worshiped,
we find
the gods of Aram, Tzidon, Edom, Moav, Amon, and
Phlishtim (see
Shoftim 10:6), we never find even a mention of the god
of
Amalek.
     Amalek emerges as a nation with no god, and no
land.
Their primary goal appears to be the denial of Israel's
right
to exist.  At any time of Israel's weakness, they swoop
in and
attack.
     Another proof that Amalek must be destroyed because
of
their deeds, and not only because of their 'genes' is
found in
Sefer Shmuel when God commands Shaul to destroy them.
Note
how Shmuel describes Amalek (at that time) as a nation
who had
sinned against God (see Shmuel Aleph 15:18).
     Furthermore, from the commandment not to take any
booty
from that battle (see again 15:18 and context of that
entire
chapter), we find a parallel to Avraham's attitude to
the city
of Sedom.  Recall from Breishit 14:22-23, how Avraham
shunned
the very thought of taking anything that once belonged
to
Sedom - the city of iniquity.
     Therefore, it is not incidental that it becomes the
mitzvah of the King of Israel to defeat Amalek (see I
Shmuel
15:1-2 and Rambam Hilchot Melachim 1:1).  Recall how the
king
of Israel should be known for his ability to establish a
nation characterized by acts of "tzedaka & mishpat" -
see
Shmuel Bet 8:15, Melachim Aleph 10:9, and Yirmiyahu
22:1-5,13-
16 & 23:5-8.  From that perspective, it also becomes his
responsibility (when capable of doing so) to pursue
nations
such as Amalek, who wage war in unethical ways - taking
advantage of the weak and helpless.
  [Note as well at the end of Parshat Ki-teyze,
immediately
  before the mitzvah to 'remember Amalek', we find a set
of
  laws that emphasize the enforcement of "tzedek
u'mishpat" -
  see Devarim 25:13-16).]
  
  In summary, there definitely appears to be something
'genetic' about Amalek, at least in Am Yisrael's first
encounter with that nation.  However, the unethical
nature of
that attack, and the Torah's immediate command to
remember
that event for all generations, suggests a 'generic'
understanding as well, for by remembering what Amalek
had done
wrong - Am Yisrael is encouraged to remember their own
national goal - to do what is 'right and just'.
  
                                  shabbat shalom,
                                  menachem
FOR FURTHER IYUN
=================

PRO'S & CON'S
     There are certain pro's & con's that come with this
'generic' understanding of Amalek. The obvious
advantage, is
that it would solve the 'ethical' problem of how and why
would
God command us to kill any descendant of that nation,
even if
those later generations did nothing wrong.  After all,
Chumash
itself teaches us that: " parents should die for the
sins of
their children, nor children for the sins of their
parents,
each man is responsible for his own sin" (Devarim
24:16).
     The obvious disadvantage is that the simple pshat
of the
psukim suggests that this commandment applies
specifically to
the people Amalek, the descendants of Esav's grandson
(see
Breishit 36:12).  Furthermore, this nation appears again
several times in Tanach, which supports the 'genetic'
interpretation.  For example, in Bilam's blessings, he
sees
Amalek, in a manner very similar to how he sees Israel,
and
the Kenites etc. (see Bamidbar 24:20-22).  Later on, the
books
of Shoftim and Shmuel, the nation of Amalek appears
numerous
times, and appears to a nation like any other in the
Bible.
     Therefore, in our shiur, we have tried to find the
'middle ground'.

THE COUNTER ATTACK
     This interpretation also explains an enigmatic
detail in
the Torah's description of the counterattack, as
presented in
Parshat Beshalach.  When Moshe hears of Amalek's attack,
he
instructs Yehoshua to launch a counteroffensive - machar
- on
the next day:
    "Go fight Amalek... MACHAR - TOMORROW - I (Moshe)
will be
      standing at the top of the hill with the MATEH
ELOKIM..."
                (17:9/ See Ibn Ezra - "givah" = Har
Sinai!)
 
 Should not Yehoshua engage Amalek immediately? Why wait
for another day of hostilities to pass before mobilizing
the
nation's defense? According to our explanation, the
leaders
(Moshe & the elders) and most of the men are already at
Har
Sinai. It will therefore take a full day for Yehoshua to
organize the troops and march them back towards Refidim.

THE WATER AT SINAI
     The Moshav Zekeinim (Ba'alei Tosfot on the Torah)
cites
the question as to how the water-producing rock in
Chorev
(Sinai) gave water to Bnei Yisrael in Refidim.  However,
the
Ramban (17:5) claims, as we mentioned in the shiur, that
the
gushing water formed several rivers and streams that
flowed to
Refidim.
     As for the significance of the water flowing
specifically
from Har Sinai - this point is developed at length by
the
Abarbanel, in his commentary to this parsha.  He writes
that
as water symbolizes Torah, Hashem had intended all along
to
provide the nation's water needs from Sinai, the site of
the
giving of the Torah.  Refidim was to have been a brief,
preparatory stopover before the nation's arrival at
Sinai.
  The Abarbanel adds that for this reason Hashem ordered
Moshe
to bring the elders along with him to Sinai.  The
presentation
of water was to correspond to the presentation of the
Torah,
which also required the presence of the zekeinim (Shmot
24:9).
The Abarbanel also notes that the Beit Hamikdash, which,
like
Har Sinai, is the place where Torah is given ("ki
mi'Tzion
tetze Torah" - Yeshayahu 2:3; Michah 4:2), is also
destined to
serve as a source of water - Yoel 4:18; Zecharya 14:8.
  
SPOILING HAR SINAI
     Up until this point we have discussed the
particularly
unethical nature of Amalek's attack. Yet, the eternal
mitzvah
to 'erase the memory of Amalek' for all generations may
also
suggest a spiritual theme.  Recall from Part I that the
entire
journey from Egypt to Har Sinai served as a 'training
mission'
of sorts to spiritually prepare Bnei Yisrael for Matan
Torah.
At Refidim, the 'stage has been set' for Matan Torah -
but
Amalek's attack 'spoils' this encounter. [See Shir
Ha'shirim
1:4.] In effect, Amalek attempts to prevent Am Yisrael
from
achieving their Divine destiny.
  The nature of this struggle remains throughout our
history.
Even once Am Yisrael conquers its internal enemy and is
finally prepared to follow God, external, human forces
of
evil, unwilling to allow God's message to be heard, will
always make one last attack. Am Yisrael must remain
prepared
to fight this battle against Amalek for all generations:
"ki
yad al kes Kah, MILCHAMA l'HASHEM b'AMALEK, m'dor dor."
(17:16)


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.5/1228 -
Release Date: 1/16/2008 9:01 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bshal2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 40231 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080116/beff4515/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Jan 17 09:16:57 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:16:57 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Beshalach - shiur #1  [resending]
Message-ID: <002201c85913$9f343a70$0200000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

PARSHAT BESHALACH - A Desert Seminar
ALL ON THE WAY TO HAR SINAI

	Bnei Yisrael's journey from Egypt to Har Sinai
was certainly not easy.  Instead of the anticipated
cheerful 'three day journey', Bnei Yisrael endured
several weeks of life-threatening situations - including
lack of food & water, and military attacks by both Egypt
and Amalek.
	Did something go wrong, or were all of these
events part of God's original 'plan'?
	Furthermore, if these 'tests of faith' were
indeed part of a divine 'plan' - did God really expect
for Bnei Yisrael not to complain?
	To answer these questions, this week's shiur
analyzes the progressive nature of the events that occur
from the time that Bnei Yisrael leave Egypt until they
reach Har Sinai, while considering their relationship to
the overall theme of Sefer Shmot.  
		
INTRODUCTION - THREE DAYS OR SEVEN WEEKS?
	Prior to the actual Exodus, God had made several
specific promises that He would take Bnei Yisrael from
Egypt to the Promised Land (see Shmot 3:16-17 and 6:5-8,
as well as Breishit 15:13-18); yet we never found even a
hint that God wanted Bnei Yisrael to dwell for any
length of time in the desert (other than to cross it).
True, Moshe had told Pharaoh that Bnei Yisrael requested
a three day journey to worship God in the desert;
however, Moshe was never instructed to convey that
message to his own people. 
    Hence, it only makes sense that Bnei Yisrael would
expect to travel directly from Egypt to Eretz Canaan.  
    Furthermore, the opening pasuk of Parshat Beshalach
implies that traveling directly to Eretz Canaan remained
the primary goal of the Exodus, while the 're-routing'
of that journey (to the southeast) was simply a
'maneuver' taken due to 'military considerations' (see
13:17, and 14:1-3).
	However, in Parshat Beshalach, a very different
set of events unfold.  Instead of leading Bnei Yisrael
directly to Israel (or to stop at Har Sinai on the way
to Israel), God reroutes their journey towards the Red
Sea.  Then, after crossing the Red Sea, Bnei Yisrael do
embark on a 'three-day journey' into the desert, but
only to arrive at Mara, rather than Har Sinai.  Then,
over the course of their five-week excursion from Mara
to Har Sinai, they run out of food at Midbar Sin, run
out of water at Refidim and then face Amalek's
unprovoked attack.  Only after some seven weeks do they
finally arrive at Har Sinai. 
	In the following shiur we will attempt to find
the purpose of this sequence of events - by considering
the underlying reason for Bnei Yisrael's redemption from
Egypt.

A SECOND CHANCE
	In our study thus far of Sefer Shmot, we have
shown how the Exodus served as a fulfillment of God's
covenant with Avraham Avinu (at "brit bein ha'btarim").
However, the purpose of that covenant was not merely to
provide Avraham's offspring with salvation from a future
oppressor; rather, God entered that covenant  towards
the purpose that Avraham's offspring would become His
model nation, acting in an exemplary manner -to make
God's Name known to all nations.  
    From this perspective, the redemption that God
promised in "brit bein ha'btarim" was only the first
stage in a long historical process.  After their
redemption from Egypt, Bnei Yisrael would first need to
receive the special set of laws and guidelines (better
known as 'Matan Torah') - that would facilitate their
becoming that nation.  After receiving and studying
those laws, the nation would be 'spiritually' ready to
inherit the Promised Land.
	For this very reason, God found it necessary to
first call upon Bnei Yisrael to perform 'teshuva'
[repentance] even before the Exodus began.  [See
Yechezkel 20:4-10, and our shiur on Parshat Va'era.]
Presumably, had Bnei Yisrael indeed obeyed that original
call, the redemption process could have proceeded as
originally planned, i.e. the nation would have traveled
directly to Har Sinai (in three days) - to thank God and
receive the Torah.  (See Seforno's introduction to Sefer
Shmot; see also Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Ramban and Seforno on
2:23-25.)
	Unfortunately, the nation did not repent in the
manner that God had expected.  As we explained in last
week's shiur, the offering of the 'korban Pesach' may
have rendered them worthy 'just enough' to survive the
Tenth Plague; nevertheless, at the time of the Exodus
Bnei Yisrael were far from being 'spiritually ready' for
Matan Torah.   Therefore, we posit that God found it
necessary to first challenge His people with a series of
'tests' (as described in Parshat Beshalach) - to help
prepare them for Matan Torah!

THE NEW PLAN
	The following table lists the key events that
take place during Bnei Yisrael's journey from Egypt to
Har Sinai:

	LOCATION			EVENT
1)	Yam Suf (14:11)		Am Yisrael is attacked
by Mitzraim;
2)	Mara (15:24)			the water is
bitter;
3)	Midbar Sin (15:2)		there is no food
to eat;
4)	Refidim I (17:3)		there is no
water to drink;
5)	Refidim II (17:8)		Am Yisrael is
attacked by Amalek.
		  [Note the chiastic structure:
war-water-food-water-war.] 

	Despite the distinctive nature of each of these
events, we will show how and why God intentionally
initiates these incidents in order to catalyze Bnei
Yisrael's spiritual growth, to 'train' them to become
His Nation!
	To appreciate the specific purpose of each
individual event, we must first consider WHY Bnei
Yisrael had not performed proper 'teshuva' in Egypt.

BREAKING SLAVE MENTALITY
	It is extremely difficult for a slave, even
after having gained his freedom, to act or think like a
free man.  As we explained in Parshat Va'era, Bnei
Yisrael do not listen to God's original call because of
their 'crushed spirits and hard labor': "v'e-lo sham'u
el Moshe, mi-kotzer ruach u-meavoda kasha" (see 6:9). 
	The strain of their prolonged bondage and the
fatigue of their daily routine had drained them of all
spirituality. 
	Specifically because of this bondage - Bnei
Yisrael had grown instinctively dependent upon their
Egyptian masters.  Therefore, to facilitate their
transformation - from Pharaoh's slaves to God's servants
- they must change their instinctive physical dependence
on Egypt to a cognitive spiritual dependence on God.
[See an amazing Ibn Ezra on Shmot 14:10 which discusses
this topic.]
 
	We all know how difficult it is for an
individual to change his character, all the more so for
an entire nation.  Therefore, the rebuilding of Am
Yisrael's character becomes a very complex process.
This background can help us understand the need for the
variety of events that transpire from the time that Bnei
Yisrael leave Egypt.  To explain how, we will show how
that a change of character occurs in one of two patterns
- via:
  1)  A traumatic experience - which may facilitate a
sudden change.
  2)  A change of daily routine - which affects
instinctive behavior. 
	As we will see, God employs both approaches.
	
1)  KRIYAT YAM SUF - SPLITTING OLD TIES
	Kriyat Yam Suf [the splitting of the Red Sea]
may be understood as the traumatic experience that helps
Bnei Yisrael break away from their instinctive
dependence upon Egypt.
	Recall that, at Kriyat Yam Suf, God inflicted
His final punishment upon Pharaoh and his army (14:4).
Were God's sole intention merely to punish the
Egyptians, He could have done so during the Ten Plagues.
The fact that Bnei Yisrael must witness this Egyptian
defeat suggests that these events occur for the sake of
Bnei Yisrael as well.
    This purpose becomes clearer in light of Bnei
Yisrael's reaction to the imminent threat of the
approaching Egyptian army:
"And they complained to Moshe saying... What have you
done to us by taking us out of Egypt?  Is this not the
very thing we told you in Egypt: Let us be and we will
serve the Egyptians, for it is better for us to serve
the Egyptians than die in the desert?!"   (14:11-12)
[See Ibn Ezra on 14:13 where he explains why Bnei
Yisrael did not even consider confronting the Egyptians
in battle.]

	God responds to Bnei Yisrael's complaint by
commanding them to break away from this instinctive
dependence:
"Do not fear, stand upright and watch God's salvation...
for the manner in which you see Mitzraim today - you
will never see them again" ["lo tosifu lir'otam od ad
olam"] (14:13).

	Although God's reassurance appears to be a
promise, for some reason Chazal interpret this statement
as a commandment!  According to Ramban (14:13), Chazal
interpret this pasuk as follows:
"In the manner by which you look at Mitzraim today - do
not look at them this way ever again" (14:13).

	God here does not promise His nation that they
will never face an Egyptian army again.  Rather, He
commands them to 'never again' look to Egypt for their
salvation. 
	Although this interpretation of "lo tosifu
lir'otam" does not appear to be the simple 'pshat' of
this pasuk, it does find support in a parallel reference
in the 'tochacha' in Parshat Ki Tavo (see Devarim
28:1-69).  At the conclusion of that lengthy rebuke, God
warns Bnei Yisrael that - should they disobey Him - they
will be exiled and sold into slavery (see Devarim
28:62-67 / note "ki lo shama'ta be-kol Hashem...").
Their condition will deteriorate to such an extent, the
Torah warns, that they will actually hope that someone
will 'purchase them as slaves'.  
	To emphasize this point, note how the end of the
Tochacha uses a phrase very similar to the phrase used
to describe God's command before "kriyat Yam Suf":
"And God will return you to Egypt in ships, in the
manner that I told you: 'lo tosif od lir'otah" [do not
look at them this way again], and you will offer
yourselves to your enemies for sale as slaves and
maidservants, but no one will purchase you" (28:68).  
[The word 'ba-derech' - 'in the manner' - should not be
understood as a description of the ship-route to Egypt,
but rather as a description of the crisis Am Yisrael
will face as they are exiled to Egypt in those ships.]

	Ironically, the last stage of the 'tochacha' has
Am Yisrael returning to the same state they were in
before they left Egypt, where they yearn for total
dependence on their human masters!  Their only hope for
survival is for an Egyptian to buy them to become his
slave.  [See also Devarim 17:16 & Yeshayahu 31:1-3 to
support this interpretation of "lo tosifu li'rotam...".]

	Thus, after the miracle of "kriyat Yam Suf", it
appears as though God's plan had succeeded.  Upon seeing
the drowning of the Egyptians, Bnei Yisrael reach the
'proper' conclusion:
"...and Yisrael recognized His great Hand.. and the
people feared God and believed in God and Moshe His
servant" 
	
(Shmot 14:30-31).
Then,
	They instinctively respond with a song of praise
to God:
		 "Az yashir Moshe u-vnei Yisrael..."
(see 15:1).

2)  MARA - A DESERT SEMINAR
	 After crossing the Red Sea, Bnei Yisrael set
out on their 'three-day journey' into the desert.
However, instead of arriving at Har Sinai, they arrive
at Mara, where the only water they could find is bitter
and hence undrinkable (see 15:22-23).  As we'd expect,
the people complain to Moshe, their leader; who in turns
complains to God.  As their complaints appear to be
justified, God provides Moshe with a solution to
'sweeten' the water (see 15:24-25).
	Certainly God realized that the people could not
survive without water, nonetheless He led them to a
location without water - in order that the people would
complain.  In this manner, God teaches the nation not to
take their water supply for granted; rather - it now
becomes clear to them that their physical survival is
dependent upon God - who now tends to their water
supply.  [Recall that in Egypt, the Nile River supplied
drinking water for the entire country, and hence it
became like a God to Egypt - and Pharaoh considered
himself as the god-like master over the Nile / see
Yechezkel 29:1-3.]
    Now, after these two traumatic events have shown the
nation who their real 'master' is, Chumash informs us
how God gives the people another chance to show their
readiness to accept His laws:
"And He said - im shamoa tishma le-kol Hashem Elokecha -
Should you listen to the voice of God, and do what is
proper in His eyes, and listen to His commandments, then
the affliction that I put on the Egyptians I will not
put on you, for I am God your Healer"  (15:26 / see
shiur on Parshat Va'era.).

	Note how Bnei Yisrael's acceptance of this offer
can 'cure' their original 'attitude problem' reflected
by "ve-lo sham'u el Moshe..." (see 6:9, and our shiur on
Parshat Va'era).  
    Furthermore, by linking the sweetness of the water
to their readiness to obey His laws, God teaches Bnei
Yisrael an important lesson of spiritual dependence.
This connection between 'water' and 'following God' will
emerge numerous times in Chumash, and forms the basis of
the famous Midrash Chazal of 'ein mayim ela Torah' -
that the term 'water' in Tanach symbolically refers to
Torah.
[The 'message' of the 'eitz' which God instructs Moshe
to cast into the water (see 15:23-25) may also relate
back to Gan Eden, itself a motif of an environment that
demands obedience to God.  See also Mishlei 3:18 and its
context ("etz chayim hi la-machazikim bah...").]

	At their next camp-site, at Eilim (see15:27),
God gives them a short 'rest' - as there is plenty of
water and food.  However, as soon as Bnei Yisrael arrive
in Midbar Sin, God creates yet another crisis.

3)  MIDBAR SIN - BASIC TRAINING
	After arriving in Midbar Sin, the food supply
runs out, triggering yet another round of complaints
(16:2-3).  Even though Bnei Yisrael have the right to
ask for food, the way in which they ask is inexcusable:
"If only we had died by the Hand of God in Egypt, when
we had plenty of meat and bread to eat!  Now you have
brought us out into this desert to die of famine"
(16:3).

	The very tone of their complaint (and its
content), indicate that Bnei Yisrael had retained their
instinctive dependence upon Mitzraim.  Their instinctive
reaction to this terrible hunger includes reminiscing
about the 'good old days' in Egypt.  The trauma they had
experienced heretofore was not sufficient to totally
change their character.  To rectify this, God will force
them into a daily routine that hopefully will slowly
change their instinctive behavior.
	The manna served this very purpose, as it
provided a daily routine that transformed what was once
their physical dependence on Mitzraim into a physical
dependence on God.  As explained in Sefer Devarim:
"And He tormented you and starved you, then gave you
'manna' to eat... in order to teach you that man does
not live on bread alone, rather, man lives by whatever
God commands" (Devarim 8:3).

	By allowing only enough food for one day at a
time, Bnei Yisrael learn to become dependent solely on
God.  To emphasize this point, their food falls directly
from heaven.  Note how the Torah uses a key word -
'nisayon' (a test) in its description of the purpose of
the manna: 
"Behold I will rain down bread for you from the heavens,
and the people shall go out and gather each day that
day's portion - lema'an anasenu (= 'nisayon') - in order
that I may test them, to see whether or not they will
follow my instructions..." (16:4).

	The word "nisayon" here should not be understood
simply as a 'test' that will help God assess Bnei
Yisrael's obedience.   The purpose of this "nisayon" was
to raise the nation to a higher level in their
relationship with God.  In a similar manner, we find
that the Torah uses this same root in the story of the
Akeida where God 'tests' Avraham ["ve-Hashem nisa et
Avraham..." /see Breishit 22:1] - not to find out if he
is worthy, but rather to make him worthy.
	The manna served a similar purpose. God is not
testing Bnei Yisrael to find out IF they will obey Him,
rather He is training them in order that they learn HOW
to obey Him.

4)  REFIDIM - PREPARING FOR HAR SINAI
	The next stop on their journey (and the last
stop before arriving at Har Sinai) is Refidim - where
they can't find any water to drink (17:1-3).  But why
does God lead them to such a location?  Certainly He
realizes that Bnei Yisrael cannot survive without water.
	Once again, God wants Bnei Yisrael to complain! 
	However, this time God's plan is more complex,
as His scheme at Refidim will prepare Bnei Yisrael both
physically and spiritually for Har Sinai.  As you review
the details of that story (see 17:1-6), note how God
solves their water shortage.  
    As you probably remember, God instructs Moshe to hit
the rock - and it would supply water.  But we would
expect that rock (and hence the water source) to be in
Refidim - where the people are suffering from thirst.
Instead, God instructs Moshe to gather some elders (see
17:5-6) and travel from Refidim to the rock at "Chorev "
- the same site where God first appeared to him at the
burning bush (see 3:1)  - the same site that later
becomes Har Sinai! [See Shmot 3:12 & Devarim 5:2.] 
    But would it not have made more sense for God to
supply this dearly needed water at Refidim, where the
people are encamped!
    
    One could suggest that God is providing water
purposely only at Har Sinai, for He wants the nation to
first encounter Har Sinai as a source for their physical
salvation - that will quench their terrible thirst.  By
providing water at Har Sinai, the nation will now
eagerly travel from Refidim directly to Har Sinai. 
    Note the wording 17:5, where God instructs Moshe to
take his staff with which 'he hit the Nile' - to hit the
rock at Chorev.  Even though Moshe's staff also turned
into a "nachash", and had also split the sea, etc. - yet
God specifically refers to it here as the one with which
he 'hit the Nile' - for Har Sinai will now become the
new source of water for Bnei Yisrael, replacing their
old source of water - the mighty Nile River of Egypt. 
     
    Let's consider the reality of this situation.  After
Moshe hits the rock, the water would gush forth from
Chorev and flow into the desert.  But to drink that
water, Bnei Yisrael will need to travel from Refidim to
Har Sinai, to their new source of water.  [For proof
that hitting the rock created a gushing river flowing
down the mountain - see Devarim 9:21.]
	After this initial encounter with Sinai as their
source for physical existence, Har Sinai will later
become the site of Matan Torah - the source for their
spiritual existence.  Not only has heaven replaced earth
as the source of bread (the manna food), but also Har
Sinai has replaced the Nile as the constant source of
water.  
    In this manner, Bnei Yisrael's total dependence on
Mitzraim has now been replaced by their total dependence
on God. 
	
5)  THE WAR WITH AMALEK - LOOKING UP TO HAR SINAI
	As Bnei Yisrael begin their journey from Refidim
to Har Sinai (to their new source of water), Amalek
attacks. War breaks out, and God orders that Yehoshua
lead Bnei Yisrael in battle.  
    In contrast to the level of Bnei Yisrael's
participation in battle at the splitting of the Red Sea,
here Bnei Yisrael do the fighting themselves.  But in
order for the people to recognize that God Himself
brings them victory - despite their own military efforts
- God instructs Moshe to climb the hill and raise his
staff heavenward.  Upon which hill does Moshe stand?
	Based on the juxtaposition between this
narrative and the incident at 'masa u-meriva', Ibn Ezra
explains that Moshe stands with his hands raised high -
on Har Sinai!  Just as Har Sinai has become their source
of water, it now becomes their source of military
salvation, as well.  
    For Yisrael to become victorious, Moshe must raise
his hands (see 17:11) to show and teach the people to
look to Hashem, to Har Sinai, for their salvation.
    [See Midrash in Rashi (17:11) & Rosh Hashana 29:1.]

FROM PESACH TO SHAVUOT
	We have shown that during the seven weeks from
the Exodus to Har Sinai, Bnei Yisrael encounter several
traumatic experiences and changes in their daily routine
that helped prepare them for Matan Torah.  During this
'training period' they have also become more active in
the process of their redemption - they are now ready to
take on the next stage of the redemption process: to
receive the Torah in order to become God's special
Nation in His land.
	Not only was this seven week time period
significant for Bnei Yisrael at the time of Exodus, this
same time period of the year remains no less significant
for future generations as well.  It is not by chance
that Chazal identify a similar purpose in the seven
weeks of the Sefirat ha-Omer, where we count the seven
weeks from the celebration of our freedom from Egypt [on
Pesach] in preparation for our commemoration of Matan
Torah on Shavuot.  
	Each year, after we thank God for our freedom
from slavery, we prepare ourselves for seven weeks - to
be worthy of, and to be thankful for - our receiving of
the Torah.

						shabbat
shalom,
						menachem

=================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
	Many traditional sources indicate that Bnei
Yisrael required an educational process of one sort or
another upon their departure from Egypt in order to
recover from the effects of the lengthy period of
bondage.  The type of process required comes in two
forms: PHYSICAL & SPIRITUAL 
PHYSICAL
	Military training and the development of
confidence.  Several mefarshim emphasize that, as they
leave Egypt, Bnei Yisrael are in no position to conduct
a war - the implication of the opening pasuk of Parshat
Beshalach ("pen yinachem ha-am bir'otam milchama? ").
The Ibn Ezra stresses this point at least twice in his
commentary (peirush ha-katzar - 13:17; peirush ha-aroch
- 14:13).  
	The Ibn Ezra (in the second source mentioned)
goes so far as to say that Hashem had to see to it that
this generation would die in the wilderness rather than
enter the land, because the period of bondage had
crushed their spirits to the point where they would
never be able to fight for the land.  (This comment
obviously has ramifications with regards to the sin of
the spies and other related topics.)
    The Malbim (commenting on the parsha's opening
pasuk) likewise writes that Benei Yisrael needed time to
develop the courage necessary to wage war.  Hashem
therefore decided not to lead them along the shortest
route to Canaan.  
    The Abarbanel comments that the second pasuk of the
parsha mentions Bnei Yisrael's being equipped with arms
to emphasize that their resources were useless as they
had no heart for battle.  
    The Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 3:24, 32) writes that the
grueling experience of the wilderness travel was
necessary to physically prepare Bnei Yisrael for the
conquest.

SPIRITUAL
    Spiritual rehabilitation - the approach we take in
the shiur.  Within this approach, however, we find two
versions: Bnei Yisrael's spiritual growth is necessary
as preparation for Matan Torah, or for their entry into
Eretz Canaan.  
    In the shiur we adopt the former view, which appears
explicitly in Rabbenu Bechaye's comments to the opening
pasuk of the parsha.  He writes that all the travails
that Bnei Yisrael experienced constituted a 'nisayon' -
"in order that their inner intellect would grow in the
levels of trust [in Hashem], which forms the root of
faith, in order that they are worthy to receive the
Torah."  This approach may have a much earlier source,
as well.  The Midrash Tanchuma (Yitro 10) writes that
Hashem did not give Bnei Yisrael the Torah immediately
upon their departure from Egypt because they had
'blemishes'.  A recovery period was therefore necessary
before they could receive the Torah.  The Abarbanel
(Yitro 19) interprets these 'blemishes' as the spiritual
influence of Egypt.  As we claim in the shiur, he
explains that the miracles at sea and in the wilderness
cured these spiritual ills by reinforcing Bnei Yisrael's
trust in Hashem.  
    In a similar vein, the Alshich (14:10) writes that
the Yam Suf experience was necessary in order to prevent
any arrogance on Bnei Yisrael's part.  The threat posed
at the sea humbled them in preparation for Matan Torah.
Later, in his comments to 19:1, the Alshich compares the
process that Bnei Yisrael undergo during this period to
the period of purification required after the onset of
certain forms of tum'a.  Yetziat Mitzraim constituted
the cessation of tum'a; the following seven weeks
correspond to the 'shiv'a nekiyim' - the seven 'clean
days' - that spiritually prepared them for Matan Torah.

    On a more kabbalistic level, the Ramchal (Choker
U-mekubal 18) writes that after Bnei Yisrael had sunken
to the forty-nine 'levels of impurity' in Egypt, over
the next 49 days Hashem shone upon them the forty-nine
'levels of sanctity' to render them worthy of Matan
Torah.  All this relates to the point made in the shiur,
that the events that occurred in between yetziat
Mitzraim and Matan Torah served to spiritually prepare
Bnei Yisrael for Matan Torah.  
    By contrast, Rav Meir Simcha Hakohen of Dvinsk
(Meshech Chochma) and the Netziv (in He-amek Davar)
maintain that Hashem led the people into the wilderness
in order to spiritually prepare them for their entry
into the land.  
    Rav Meir Simcha focuses specifically on the need for
Bnei Yisrael to rid themselves of Egyptian paganism; the
Netziv speaks more generally about the need for Bnei
Yisrael to establish their individual character, which
necessitated a journey through the wilderness, far away
from other societies and cultures.  
    We should perhaps note in this context a passage in
Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer 42, which states that, as Bnei
Yisrael saw the Egyptians closing in on them at sea,
they repented and discarded their Egyptian idols.
Apparently, they had not adequately repented from their
avoda zara while in Egypt.
	There are also indications of the fact that Bnei
Yisrael had not yet broken their sense of dependence on
Egypt, for one reason or another.  The Mechilta (on the
first pasuk of the parsha) writes that Pharaoh had sent
escorts to accompany Bnei Yisrael as they departed from
Egypt.  
    Rav Baruch Epstein (Torah Temima) and Rav Dov
Rabinowitz (Da'at Sofrim) use this Midrash to explain
how Bnei Yisrael could have considered returning to
Egypt (as Hashem was concerned about - "ve-shavu
Mitzrayma").  As the Egyptians had begun treating Bnei
Yisrael with dignity, they felt that all the plagues and
miracles had brought about a change of heart on the part
of the Egyptians.  Thus, Bnei Yisrael had yet to turn
their backs entirely on Egypt. 
    Furthermore, the Da'at Sofrim notes that the
parsha's opening pasuk describes yetziat Mitzraim as
"be-shalach Par'o et ha-am" - Pharaoh letting the people
go, rather than Hashem taking them out.  (This was noted
already by the Abarbanel, who explains differently; see
also Oznayim La-Torah and Nechama Leibowitz's Studies on
this parsha, 1.) 
    Da'at Sofrim explains that Bnei Yisrael still felt
dependent on Pharaoh's decision to set them free, rather
than guided by Hashem's providence.  An extreme
expression of Bnei Yisrael's continued sense of
dependence on Egypt appears in the Akeidat Yitzchak, in
his comments to 14:11.  He claims that Bnei Yisrael had
thought that Hashem intended for them to live
permanently in Ramses (as they had when Yaakov and his
family first resettled in Egypt).  It was Moshe, they
felt, who forced them to leave Ramses and continue into
the wilderness.  This clearly reflects that they had not
yet seen themselves as an independent nation.  They were
content to live as free people under Egyptian rule; they
had not resigned themselves to the fact that they would
establish  their own society in Canaan.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.6/1229 -
Release Date: 1/17/2008 11:12 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bshal1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 54096 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080117/f209c11e/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jan 23 14:48:15 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:48:15 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Yitro  - shiur #1
Message-ID: <027c01c85df8$eeda5de0$0200000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

  PARSHAT YITRO - Intro to 2nd half of Sefer Shmot

     In Parshat Yitro, Chumash enters a new phase as its
primary focus now shifts from its ongoing narrative to
the
mitzvot that Bnei Yisrael receive at Har Sinai.
Nonetheless,
the manner in which the Torah presents the mitzvot is
far more
exciting than we would expect.  Instead of a formal
[organized] 'shulchan aruch' style of presentation,
Chumash
records the mitzvot in a very special manner.  In each
of our
shiurim from Parshat Yitro until Parshat Pekudei, our
study of
the sequence and progression of the mitzvot will be no
less
significant than the study of the mitzvot themselves!

INTRODUCTION - STRUCTURE AND THEME IN CHUMASH
     When we study Chumash, we encounter two types of
parshiot:
       (1) Narrative, i.e. the ongoing story;
       (2) Mitzvot, i.e. the commandments.

     Until Parshat Yitro, i.e. before Bnei Yisrael
arrive at
Har Sinai, Chumash consisted primarily of narrative
(e.g. the
story of Creation, the Avot, Yetziat Mitzrayim etc.).
In
contrast, beginning with Parshat Yitro, we find many
sections
consisting primarily of 'mitzvot' (e.g. the Ten
Commandments,
the 'mishpatim' (chapters 21->23), laws of the mishkan
(chapters 25->31), etc.).
     The reason for this is quite simple.  Sefer
Breishit
explained why and how God chose Avraham Avinu to become
the
forefather of His special nation.  Sefer Shmot began by
describing how God fulfilled His covenant with the Avot,
and
redeemed His nation from slavery in Egypt.  Now, before
this
nation enters the Promised Land where they are to live
as
God's nation, they must first receive the set of laws
[i.e.
Matan Torah] that will facilitate their becoming God's
special
nation.
     Assuming that Bnei Yisrael are to receive ALL of
the
mitzvot at Har Sinai before they continue on their
journey, we
would expect to find the following 'logical' order:
 I.   NARRATIVE
        The story of the Exodus from Egypt until Bnei
Yisrael's
        arrival at Har Sinai.

 II.  MITZVOT
        ALL of the mitzvot that Bnei Yisrael receive at
Sinai.

 III. NARRATIVE
        The story of Bnei Yisrael's journey from Har
Sinai to
        the Promised Land.

     However, instead of this clear and structured
order, we
find a much more complicated presentation.  First, 'ten
commandments' are given at a special gathering (i.e.
Ma'amad
Har Sinai).  After a short narrative, we find an
additional
set of mitzvot - that comprise most of Parshat
Mishpatim.  At
the end of Parshat Mishpatim, we find yet another short
narrative (chapter 24), followed by seven chapters of
mitzvot
that detail how to build the Mishkan (Teruma /
Tetzaveh).
This lengthy set of mitzvot is followed by yet another
narrative, which describes 'chet ha-egel' (32:1-34:10),
which
is then followed by yet another set of mitzvot (see
34:11-26),
etc.  In a similar manner, we find this pattern of a
'blend'
of mitzvot and narrative in the rest of Chumash as well.
     So why does the Torah present its mitzvot in this
complex
manner?  Would it not have made more sense to present
all of
the mitzvot together in one organized unit (like
'shulchan
aruch')?

     In the answer to this question lies the basis for
our
approach to studying Chumash - for the intricate manner
in
which the Torah presents the mitzvot 'begs' us to pay
attention not only to the mitzvot themselves, but also
to the
manner of their presentation.  Therefore, as we study,
we
search for thematic significance in the order and
sequence in
which the Torah presents the mitzvot.

     For example, the first step in our study will be to
identify the specific topic of each 'parshia' and/or
'paragraph'.  Then we analyze the progression of topic
from
one parshia to the next in search of a thematic reason
for
this progression.
  [Following this methodology will also help us better
  appreciate the underlying reason for the various
  controversies among the classic commentators.]

CHRONOLOGY IN CHUMASH
  This introduction leads us directly into one of the
most
intriguing exegetic aspects of Torah study - the
chronological
progression of 'parshiot' [better known as the sugya of
'ein
mukdam u-me'uchar..'].
  In other words, as we study Chumash, should we assume
that
it progresses according to the chronological order by
which
the events took place, or, should we assume that
thematic
considerations may allow the Torah to place certain
parshiot
next to each other, even though each 'parshia' may have
been
given at different times.
     In this respect, we must first differentiate once
again
between 'narrative' and 'mitzvot'.
     It would only be logical to assume that the ongoing
narrative of Chumash follows in chronological order,
(i.e. the
order in which the events took place/ e.g. the story of
Yitzchak will obviously follow the story of his father
Avraham).
     Nonetheless, we periodically may find that a
certain
narrative may conclude with details that took place many
years
later.  For example, the story of the manna in Parshat
Beshalach concludes with God's commandment that Moshe
place a
sample of the manna next to the Aron in the Mishkan.
This
commandment could only have been given after the Mishkan
was
completed, an event that does not occur until many
months
later.  Nevertheless, because that narrative deals with
the
manna, it includes a related event, even though it took
place
at a later time.
     The story of Yehuda and Tamar in Sefer Breishit is
another example.  See chapter 38, note from 38:11-12
that
since Tamar waited for Shela to grow up, the second part
of
that story must have taken place at least thirteen years
later, and hence after Yosef becomes viceroy in Egypt!
Recall
that he was sold at age 17 and solved Pharaoh's dream at
age
30.

     How about the 'mitzvot' in Chumash?  In what order
are
they presented?  Do they follow the chronological order
by
which they were first given?
     Because the mitzvot are embedded within the
narrative of
Chumash, and not presented in one unbroken unit (as
explained
above), the answer is not so simple.  On this specific
issue,
a major controversy exists among the various
commentators;
popularly known as: "ein mukdam u-me'uchar ba-Torah"
(there is
no chronological order in the Torah).
     Rashi, together with many other commentators (and
numerous Midrashim), consistently holds that 'ein mukdam
u-
me'uchar', i.e. Chumash does not necessarily follow a
chronological order, while Ramban, amongst others,
consistently argues that 'yesh mukdam u-me'uchar', i.e.
Chumash does follow a chronological order.
     However, Rashi's opinion, 'ein mukdam u-me'uchar',
should
not be understood as some 'wildcard' answer that allows
one to
totally disregard the order in which Chumash is written.
Rashi simply claims that a primary consideration for the
order
of the Torah's presentation of the mitzvot is thematic,
more
so than chronological.  Therefore, whenever
'thematically
convenient', we find that Rashi will 'change' the
chronological order of mitzvot, and sometimes even
events.
     For example, Rashi claims that the mitzva to build
the
Mishkan, as recorded in Parshat Teruma (chapters 25->31)
was
first given only after the sin of the Golden Calf, even
though
that narrative is only recorded afterward (in Parshat Ki
Tisa
/chapter 32).  Rashi prefers this explanation due to the
thematic similarities between the Mishkan and the story
of
'chet ha-egel'.
     In contrast, Ramban argues time and time again that
unless there is 'clear cut' proof that a certain parshia
is
out of order, one must always assume that the mitzvot in
Chumash are recorded in the same order as they were
originally
given.  For example, Ramban maintains that the
commandment to
build the Mishkan was given before 'chet ha-egel'
despite its
thematic similarities to that event!

     It should be pointed out that there is a very
simple
reason why the Torah is written in thematic order, which
is
not necessarily chronological.  Recall that the Torah
(in the
form that we received it) was given to us by Moshe
Rabeinu
before his death in the fortieth year in the desert.
[See
Devarim 31:24-25.]  When Moshe Rabeinu first received
the
laws, he wrote them down in 'megilot' [scrolls].
However,
before his death, he organized all of the laws that he
received, and the various stories that transpired into
the
Five Books.
  [See Masechet Megilla 60a, and Rashi on "Megilla
megilla
  nitna...".  See also Chizkuni on Shmot 34:32!  It's
not
  clear from these commentators whether God told Moshe
  concerning the order by which to put these 'megillot'
  together, or if Moshe Rabeinu made those decisions
himself.
  However, it would only be logical to assume that God
  instructed Moshe Rabeinu in this regard as well.]
  
     Considering that Chumash, in its final form, was
'composed' in the fortieth year - we can readily
understand
why its mitzvot and narratives would be recorded in a
manner
that is thematically significant.   Therefore, almost
all of
the commentators are in constant search of the deeper
meaning
of the juxtaposition of 'parshiot' and the order of
their
presentation.

WHEN DID YITRO COME (AND GO)?
     Even though this controversy of 'mukdam u-me'uchar'
relates primarily to 'parshiot' dealing with mitzvot,
there
are even instances when this controversy relates to the
narrative itself.  A classic example is found with
regard to
when Yitro first came to join Bnei Yisrael in the
desert.
     Recall how Parshat Yitro opens with Yitro's arrival
at
the campsite of Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai (see 18:5).
The
location of this 'parshia' in Sefer Shmot clearly
suggests
that Yitro arrives before Matan Torah, yet certain
details
found later in the 'parshia', (e.g. Moshe's daily
routine of
judging the people and teaching them God's laws/ see
18:15-
17), suggests that this event may have taken place after
Matan
Torah.
     Based on this and several other strong proofs, Ibn
Ezra
claims that this entire parshia took place after Matan
Torah
('ein mukdam u-me'uchar').  Ramban argues that since
none of
those proofs are conclusive, the entire 'parshia' should
be
understood as taking place BEFORE Matan Torah (i.e. when
it is
written - 'yesh mukdam u-me'uchar..'.).
     Rashi (see 18:13) suggests an interesting
'compromise' by
'splitting' the parshia in half!  His opinion would
agree with
Ramban that Yitro first arrives before Matan Torah
(18:1-12);
however, the details found later (in 18:13-27), e.g. how
Moshe
taught the people etc. took place at a much later time.
This
interpretation forces Rashi to explain that the word
'mi-
macharat' in 18:13 does not mean the 'next day', but
rather
the day after Yom Kippur (when Moshe came down from Har
Sinai
with the second Luchot), even though it was several
months
later.

     But even Ibn Ezra, who maintains that the entire
'parshia' takes place after Matan Torah, must explain
why the
Torah records this 'parshia' here instead.  Therefore,
Ibn
Ezra suggests a thematic explanation - based on the
juxtaposition of this 'parshia' and the story of Amalek:
  "...And now I will explain to you why this parshia is
  written here [out of place]: Because the preceding
parshia
  discussed the terrible deeds of Amalek against Israel,
now
  in contrast the Torah tells us of the good deeds that
Yitro
  did for Am Yisrael..."  [see Ibn Ezra 18:1]

     The dispute concerning 'When Yitro came'
illustrates some
of the various methodological approaches we can take
when
confronted with apparent discrepancies.  In general,
whenever
we find a 'parshia' which appears to be 'out of order',
we can
either:
  1)  Attempt to keep the chronological order, then deal
with
  each problematic detail individually.
  2)  Keep the chronological order up until the first
detail
  that is problematic.  At that point, explain why the
  narrative records details that happen later.
  3)  Change the chronological order, and then explain
the
  thematic reason why the Torah places the 'parshia' in
this
  specific location.

MA'AMAD HAR SINAI
     Let's bring another example in Parshat Yitro, from
the
most important event of our history: 'Ma'amad Har Sinai'
-
God's revelation to Am Yisrael at Mount Sinai.
  [Matan Torah - the giving of the Ten Commandments at
Har
  Sinai, together with the events which immediately
precede
  and follow it (chapters 19->24), are commonly referred
to as
  'Ma'amad Har Sinai'.]

     As we explained in our introduction, this 'ma'amad'
can
be divided between its basic sections of narrative and
mitzva:

19:1-25  [Narrative] - Preparation for the Ten
Commandments
20:1-14  [Mitzvot] - The Ten Commandments
20:15-18 [Narrative] - Bnei Yisrael's fear of God's
revelation
21:19-23:33 [Mitzvot] - Additional mitzvot
('ha-mishpatim')
24:1-11 [Narrative] - The ceremonial covenant
               (better known as 'brit na'aseh
ve-nishma')

     Note that Bnei Yisrael's declaration of 'na'aseh
ve-
nishma' takes place during the ceremonial covenant
recorded at
the end of Parshat Mishpatim (see 24:7).  In Parshat
Yitro,
when Bnei Yisrael accept God's proposition to keep His
Torah,
the people reply only with 'na'aseh' (see 19:8).
     If we would follow the simple order of these
parshiot
(see above table), we would have to conclude that the
'na'aseh
ve-nishma' ceremony took place after Matan Torah.
Nevertheless, Rashi [and most likely your first Chumash
teacher] changes the order of the 'parshiot' and claims
that
this ceremony actually took place before Matan Torah.
Why?
     Rashi ('ein mukdam u-me'uchar') anchors his
interpretation in the numerous similarities between
chapter 19
and chapter 24.  Therefore, he combines these two
narratives
together.  [However, one must still explain the reason
why
they are presented separately.]
     Ramban ('yesh mukdam u-me'uchar') prefers to accept
the
chronological order of the 'parshiot' as they are
presented in
Chumash, and explains that this ceremony takes place
after
Matan Torah.
     This dispute causes Rashi and Ramban to explain the
details of chapter 24 quite differently.  For example,
during
that ceremony, recall how Moshe reads the 'sefer
ha-brit' in
public (see 24:7).
  According to Rashi, 'sefer ha-brit' cannot refer to
any of
the mitzvot recorded in Yitro or Mishpatim, as they had
not
been given yet - therefore Rashi explains that it refers
to
all of Chumash from Breishit until Matan Torah!
  According to Ramban, 'sefer ha-brit' refers to the Ten
Commandments.  This topic will be discussed in greater
detail
in next week's shiur on Parshat Mishpatim.

     In this week's regular Parsha shiur (sent out
yesterday),
we discuss in greater detail the events that transpire
in
chapter 19.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.9/1239 -
Release Date: 1/23/2008 10:24 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yitro1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 34545 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080123/1844c8da/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jan 23 14:48:15 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:48:15 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Yitro - shiur on Maamad har Sinai
Message-ID: <026f01c85df8$eba634f0$0200000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

     PARSHAT YITRO - Ma'amad Har Sinai

     A wedding ceremony?  Well, not exactly; but many
sources
in Chazal compare the events at Ma'amad Har Sinai to a
marriage between God (the groom) and Am Yisrael (the
bride).
    [See for example the last Mishnah in Mesechet
Taanit!]
     In this week's shiur, as we study the numerous
ambiguities in Shmot chapter 19, we attempt to explain
the
deeper meaning of this analogy, as well as the
underlying
reason for those ambiguities.

INTRODUCTION
     Thus far, Sefer Shmot has discussed the story of
Yetziat
Mitzraim, and hence - how God had fulfilled His covenant
with
the Avot.  However, that covenant included not only a
promise
of redemption, but also the promise that Bnei Yisrael
would
become God's special nation in Eretz Canaan.  As Bnei
Yisrael
now travel to establish that nation in that 'Promised
Land',
God brings them to Har Sinai in order to teach them the
specific laws [mitzvot] that will help make them His
special
nation.
     Therefore, the primary purpose of Bnei Yisrael's
arrival
at Har Sinai was to receive God's LAWS.  Nevertheless,
the
Torah describes in no less detail the 'experience' of
how
those laws were given.  In the following shiur, we
undertake a
careful reading of Shmot chapter 19 (i.e. the events
that
precede the Ten Commandments), highlighting its
complexities,
in an attempt to better appreciate Chazal's
understanding of
Ma'amad Har Sinai.
 [Before you continue, it is highly recommended that you
 quickly review chapters 19 and 20 to refresh your
memory,
 noting its flow of topic. (While doing so, try to
notice how
 many psukim are difficult to translate.)  For a more
 comprehensive preparation, see the Questions for
self-study
 (sent earlier this week).]

THE 'PROPOSAL'
     Shmot chapter 19 opens as Bnei Yisrael arrive at
Har
Sinai - presumably, to receive the Torah.  However,
before the
Torah is given, God first summons Moshe to the mountain,
instructing him to relay a certain message to the
people.  As
you review these psukim (19:3-6), note how they form a
'proposal':
  "Thus shall you say to Beit Yaakov and tell Bnei
Yisrael:
    You have seen what I have done to Egypt... so NOW:
  IF - you will OBEY Me faithfully and keep My
COVENANT...and
  be my treasured nation, for all the Land is Mine.
  THEN: You shall be for Me a 'mamlechet Kohanim  v'goy
  kadosh' [a kingdom of priests and a holy nation]..."
(19:4-
  6)

  The 'if / then' clause proves that these instructions
constitute a proposal (and not just a decree) - to which
Bnei
Yisrael must answer either 'yes' or 'no'.  And that's
exactly
what we find:
 "And the people answered together and said, 'Everything
that
 God has spoken we shall keep,' and Moshe brought the
 people's answer back to God." (see 19:7-8)

  Clearly, Moshe Rabeinu acts as the 'middle-man' - who
must
relay the people's answer to this 'proposal' back to
God.
  [In regard to what would have happened had Bnei
Yisrael
  answered 'no', see the Further Iyun section.]
  
     Let's take a minute to discuss the meaning of the
two
sides of this 'proposition'.
  The first part of the 'IF' clause - "if you will OBEY
Me" -
makes sense, as God must first clarify if Bnei Yisrael
are
indeed now ready to follow His laws; in contrast to
their
previous 'refusals' (see Yechezkel 20:5-9, Shmot 6:9 &
15:26).
However, the precise meaning of the second clause - "and
if
you will keep My COVENANT" is uncertain, for it is not
clear
if this 'covenant' refers to something old - i.e. 'brit
Avot';
or something new - i.e. 'brit Sinai.
  
SOMETHING 'OLD' or SOMETHING 'NEW'
  It would be difficult to explain that the word
'covenant' in
this pasuk refers to 'brit Avot', for brit Avot doesn't
seem
to include any specific action that Bnei Yisrael must
keep.
More likely, it refers to 'brit Sinai' - whose details
will
soon be revealed, should Bnei Yisrael accept this
proposal.
  However, this ambiguity may be intentional, for this
forthcoming "brit Sinai" could be understood as an
'upgrade'
of "brit Avot".  In other words, 'brit Avot' discusses
the
very basic framework of a relationship (see Breishit
17:7-8),
while 'brit Sinai' will contain the detailed laws which
will
make that original covenant more meaningful.
  If so, then the proposition could be understood as
follows:
Should Bnei Yisrael agree to obey whatever God may
command,
and to remain faithful to this covenant, and act as His
treasured nation (see 19:5) - THEN, the result will be
that
Bnei Yisrael will serve as God's 'model' nation,
representing
Him before all other nations [a "mamlechet kohanim v'goy
kadosh"/ see 19:6].
     As a prerequisite for Matan Torah, Bnei Yisrael
must both
confirm their readiness to obey God's commandments while
recognizing that these mitzvot will facilitate their
achievement of the very purpose of God's covenant with
them.
     Whereas a covenant requires the willful consent of
both
sides, this section concludes with Bnei Yisrael's
collective
acceptance of these terms (see again 19:7-8).

MAKING PLANS (and changing them)
     Now that Bnei Yisrael had accepted God's proposal,
the
next step should be for them to receive the specific
MITZVOT
(i.e. the laws that they just agreed to observe).
However,
before those laws can be given, there are some technical
details that must be ironed out, concerning HOW Bnei
Yisrael
will receive these laws. Note how the next pasuk
describes
God's 'plans' for how He intends to convey these mitzvot
 "And God said to Moshe, 'I will come to you in the
thickness
 of a CLOUD, in order that the people HEAR when I SPEAK
WITH
 YOU, and in order that they believe in you [i.e. that
you
 are My spokesman] forever..." (19:9)

     It appears from this pasuk that God plans to use
Moshe
Rabeinu as an intermediary to convey His laws to Bnei
Yisrael,
consistent with Moshe's role as His liaison heretofore.
Nonetheless, God insists that the people will 'overhear'
His
communication with Moshe, so that they believe that
these laws
truly originate from God, and not from Moshe.
     At this point, in the middle of pasuk 9, we
encounter our
first major difficulty in following the flow of events.
Note
that God has just informed Moshe of HOW He plans to
convey His
laws. Hence, we would expect Moshe to convey this
message to
Bnei Yisrael (just as he did in 19:7).  However, when we
continue our reading of 19:9, something very strange
takes
place:
  "...Then Moshe reported the PEOPLE'S words to God."
(19:9)

     What's going on? The second half of this pasuk
seems to
omit an entire clause - for it never tells us what the
people
responded. Instead, it just says that Moshe relayed the
people's response back to God, without telling us WHAT
the
people said!

BE PREPARED!
     This question is so glaring (and obvious) that
Rashi,
taking for granted that the reader realized this
problem,
provides an answer based on the Midrash that fills in
the
'missing details'.
 "Et divrei ha'am" [the words of the people]... The
people
 responded: 'We want to hear from YOU [God] directly,
for one
 cannot compare hearing from a "shaliach" (a messenger)
to
 hearing from the King himself, [or they said,]: We want
to
 SEE our King!"  (see Rashi on 19:9)
       
     Note how Rashi adds an entire line to this
narrative.
According to his interpretation, Bnei Yisrael don't
accept
God's original plan that they would hear the MITZVOT via
Moshe. Instead, they demand to hear them directly - from
God
Himself!
     What allows Rashi to offer such a bold
interpretation?
     Rashi's interpretation is based on an apparent
contradiction between God's original plan in 19:9 and
what
appears to be His new plan, as described in the next two
psukim:
 "And God told Moshe, 'Go to the people and get them
ready...
 for on the third day God will reveal Himself IN VIEW OF
ALL
 THE PEOPLE on Har Sinai." (see 19:10-11)

     Note how God commands Bnei Yisrael to ready
themselves,
for in three days time they will actually SEE God.  This
declaration that He plans to reveal himself before the
'eyes
of the entire nation' suggests that God now plans to
convey
His mitzvot DIRECTLY to the people.  These instructions
appear
to describe a NEW PLAN for Matan Torah (in contrast to
His
original plan that Moshe will act as an intermediary -
as
described in 19:9).
     For the sake of clarity, from now on, we refer to
the
God's original plan (Dibrot via Moshe) as PLAN 'A'
(based on
19:9), and to the new plan (Dibrot Direct) as PLAN 'B
(based
on 19:11)'.
     Rashi claims that God's suggestion of Plan 'B'
stems from
the people's unwillingness to accept Plan 'A' - for Bnei
Yisrael want to hear the Commandments DIRECTLY.
     This 'change of plan' can explain why the people
now
require THREE days of preparation. In order to prepare
for
this DIRECT encounter, Bnei Yisrael must first attain a
higher
level of spiritual readiness, as reflected in the
three-day
preparation period. Note how the details of this
'preparation'
continue until 19:15.
     In 19:12-13, Moshe is commanded to cordon off the
entire
area surrounding the mountain. In 19:14-15, Moshe relays
these
commands to the people. Hence, from now on, we refer to
this
section (i.e. 19:9-15) as 'PREPARATION'.

     Are Bnei Yisrael capable of reaching this level?
Are they
truly ready to receive the DIBROT directly from God?
     If so, why did God not suggest this direct
encounter in
the first place?  If not, why does God now agree to
their
request?
  [As you may have guessed, we have encountered a
'dialectic'.]

     To answer these questions, we must analyze the
psukim
that follow to determine which of these two divine plans
actually unfolds.

RUNAWAY BRIDE
     According to the new plan, on 'day three' God
should
reveal Himself on Mount Sinai and speak the DIBROT
directly to
the entire nation.  Let's continue now in chapter 19 and
see
what happens:
 "And it came to pass on the third day in the morning,
and
 there were loud sounds and lightening, and a THICK
CLOUD on
 the mountain, and the SHOFAR sounded very strong, and
the
 people in the CAMP all became frightened." (19:16)

     If you read this pasuk carefully, you will most
probably
be startled by the fact that Bnei Yisrael never came to
Har
Sinai that morning!  Instead, they were so frightened of
God's
"hitgalut" [revelation] that they remained in the CAMP.
  [Our minhag to stay up (and learn Torah) the entire
night of
  Shavuot is based on the Midrash that Bnei Yisrael
'slept in'
  on that morning. Note how that Midrash is based on
this
  pasuk.]

     This background explains the next pasuk, where
Moshe goes
back to the camp, and brings everyone back to the foot
of the
mountain (see 19:17).  Now it's time to 'try it again'.
Let's
see what happens:
 "And Har Sinai was full of smoke, for God had DESCENDED
upon
 it in FIRE, and its smoke was like a furnace, and the
entire
 mountain shook violently..."  (see 19:18)

     This pasuk certainly describes God's "hitgalut",
and it
appears to follow according to PLAN 'B'.  Note how God's
descends onto the mountain (note the word "va'yered" in
both
19:11 and 19:18).  Nevertheless, one could also
understand the
intense smoke as reflective of the protective 'cloud'
described in 19:9 (Plan 'A').
     The stage has now been set for Matan Torah. The
people
are standing at the foot of Har Sinai and God has
revealed
Himself - He has descended upon Har Sinai. Therefore,
the next
pasuk should describe God's proclamation of the Ten
Commandments.
     Let's examine that pasuk (19:19) carefully:
  "The sound of the shofar grew louder and louder; as
Moshe
  would speak, God would answer him with a KOL." (19:19)

     This pasuk is quite ambiguous, for it does not give
us
even a clue as to WHAT Moshe was saying or what God was
answering. It is not even clear as to WHOM Moshe is
speaking,
to God or to the people!
     If Moshe is speaking to the people, then this pasuk
would
be describing how he conveyed the DIBROT.  If so, then
Moshe
speaking and God responding with a "kol" - implies that
the
DIBROT were given according to PLAN 'A', as Moshe serves
as
the intermediary.  [Compare with 19:9!]
     However, if "Moshe y'daber" (in 19:19) refers to
Moshe
speaking to God, then it not at all clear what their
conversation is about; nor can we make any deduction in
regard
to how the Dibrot were given!  [Note the range of
opinion
among the commentators on this pasuk!]

PLAN 'B' - MYSTERIOUSLY MISSING!
     Rashi's commentary on this pasuk is simply amazing.
Again quoting the Midrash, Rashi claims that Moshe is
speaking
to the people, telling them the Dibrot!   However,
what's
amazing is Rashi's explanation that the clause "Moshe
y'daber..." describes the transmission of the LAST EIGHT
Commandments, but not the first TWO.  This is because
Rashi
understands that the first two DIBROT were given
DIRECTLY from
God - in accordance with PLAN 'B' - while the last eight
were
given via Moshe - in accordance with PLAN 'A'.  As this
pasuk
(19:19) describes PLAN 'A' it could only be referring to
the
transmission of the last eight DIBROT!
   [See also Rambam in Moreh N'vuchim II, chapter 33.]
   
     Note that according to Rashi, chapter 19
intentionally
OMITS two key events relating to Plan B:
     1) Bnei Yisrael's original request for Plan B (in
19:9),
&
     2) The story of the two DIBROT given at the level
of Plan
'B'.

     For some thematic reason that remains unclear,
chapter 19
prefers to omit these two important details, leaving us
with
the impression that Plan 'B' may have never taken place!

     Ramban rejects Rashi's interpretation of 19:19 (as
do
many other commentators), arguing that 19:19 does NOT
describe
how the Dibrot were given.  Instead, Ramban explains
that
"Moshe y'daber..." describes the conversation between
God and
Moshe that immediately follows in 19:20-25.
 [As usual, Ramban prefers to keep the sequence of
events
 according to the order of the psukim, while Rashi is
willing
 to 'change' the order for thematic considerations.]

LIMITATION/  A FINAL WARNING
     To better appreciate this "machloket" between Rashi
and
Ramban, we must examine the last set of psukim in
chapter 19
(i.e. 19:20-25).
 "God descended upon Mount Sinai to the TOP of the
Mountain
 and summoned Moshe to the TOP of the Mountain, and
Moshe
 ascended... Then God told Moshe: Go down and WARN the
people
 lest they break through toward God to SEE, and many of
them
 will perish. And even the KOHANIM who are permitted to
come
 closer must prepare themselves..." (19:20-22)
    [Btw, note that 20:25 refers to Moshe's conveying
this
    warning to the people, NOT to his conveying the
"DIBROT,"
    as is commonly misunderstood.  See Rashi!]
    
     According to Ramban, this additional 'warning' is
given
BEFORE Matan Torah, and serves as the final preparation
before
the DIBROT are given.  However, according to Rashi's
interpretation, it remains unclear when, where, and why
this
conversation (in 19:20-25) takes place.
 [Even though Rashi explains 19:19 as depicting the
 presentation of the DIBROT, he maintains that 19:20-25
takes
 place beforehand - for it relates to the ceremony
described
 in 24:3-11, which Rashi himself claims to have occurred
 BEFORE the DIBROT.  This "sugya" lies beyond the scope
of
 our shiur.]
 
     In any case, this final 'warning' clearly reflects
the
mode of transmission of the Dibrot that we have referred
to as
PLAN 'A' - God will appear only to Moshe (at the top of
the
mountain), while everyone else must keep their distance
down
below. Only Moshe will be privy to witness the descent
of the
"shechina" onto the TOP of the mountain, while Bnei
Yisrael
are prohibited from ascending to see, "lest they die."
     As this section describes how God is now limiting
His
revelation to the top of the Mountain, we refer from now
on to
this section (19:20-25) as 'LIMITATION'.
     Note how chapter 19 now divides into four distinct
sections:
       I.  PROPOSITION (19:1-8)
      II.  PREPARATION (19:9-15)
     III.  REVELATION (19:16-19)
     IV.  LIMITATION (19:20-25) ]

     So what happened? Has God reverted to Plan 'A'
(that
Moshe is to act as an intermediary)? If so, why? On the
other
hand, if Plan 'B' remains in operation, why does God
restrict
His revelation to the TOP of the mountain? Could this be
considered some sort of 'compromise'?
     There appears to have been a change in plans, but
why?
     Even though chapter 19 does not seem to provide any
explanation for what motivated this change, a story
found
later in chapter 20 seems to provide us with all the
'missing
details'.

TREPIDATION [ or  'FEAR' STORY ONE']
     Towards the end of chapter 20, immediately after
the
Torah records the DIBROT, we find yet another story
concerning
what transpired at Har Sinai:
 "And the people all saw the KOLOT, the torches, the
sound of
 the SHOFAR and the mountain smoking; the people saw and
 MOVED BACK and stood at a distance. And they told
Moshe:
 'Why don't YOU SPEAK to us, and we will listen to you,
but
 God should NOT SPEAK to us, lest we die.'
         "Moshe responded saying: 'DO NOT BE FEARFUL,
for God
    is coming to 'test' you and instill fear within you
so
    that you will not sin.'
 "But the people STOOD AT A DISTANCE, and Moshe [alone]
 entered the CLOUD where God was." (see 20:15-18)

     This short narrative provides us with a perfect
explanation for WHY God chooses to revert from PLAN 'B'
back
to PLAN 'A'.  Here, the reason is stated explicitly: the
people changed their mind because they were frightened
and
overwhelmed by this intense experience of "hitgalut."
     But why is this story recorded in chapter 20?
Should it
not have been recorded in chapter 19?

     Indeed, Ramban does place this story in the middle
of
chapter 19.  Despite his general reluctance towards
rearranging the chronology in Chumash, Ramban (on
20:14-15)
explains that this entire parshia (20:15-18) took place
earlier, BEFORE Matan Torah. Based on a textual and
thematic
similarities between 20:15-18 and 19:16-19 (and a
problematic
parallel in Devarim 5:20-28), Ramban concludes that the
events
described in 20:15-18 took place before Matan Torah, and
should be read together with 19:16-18!
     Thus, according to Ramban, the people's request to
hear
from Moshe (and not from God) that took place within
19:16-18,
explains the need for the 'limitation' section that
follows
immediately afterward in 20:19-25. [See Ramban on
20:15.]

     Rashi and Chizkuni offer a different
interpretation. They
agree with Ramban that 20:15-18 - the Fear Story - is
'out of
place,' but they disagree concerning WHERE to put it.
While
Ramban places this story BEFORE Matan Torah, Rashi
(based on
his pirush to 19:19) & Chizkuni (on 20:15) claim that it
took
place DURING Matan Torah, BETWEEN the first two and last
eight
commandments.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS - FIRST OR THIRD PERSON
     In fact, this creative solution solves yet another
problem. It explains WHY the text of the Ten
Commandments
shifts from first to third person after the second
commandment. Whereas the first two commandments (20:2-5)
are
written in FIRST person, indicating that God conveyed
them
DIRECTLY to the people [reflective of Plan 'B'], the
last
eight commandments (20:6-14) are written in third
person,
suggesting a less direct form of communication
[reflective of
Plan 'A'].  This reflects Chazal's explanation that:
"Anochi
v'Lo Yihiyeh Lachem, m'pi ha'gvurah shma'um" - the first
two
commandments were heard directly from God (Makkot 24a);
see
also Chizkuni 20:2 and 20:15.]

     Rashi and Chizkuni's explanation has a clear
advantage
over Ramban's, as it justifies the 'transplantation' of
the
Fear story (20:15-18) from its proper chronological
location
to after the Dibrot.  Since this story took place DURING
the
Ten Commandments, the Torah could not record it
beforehand. On
the other hand, it could not have been recorded where it
belongs (i.e. in between the second and third DIBROT),
for the
Torah does not want to 'break up' the DIBROT (whereas
they
form a single unit).  Therefore, the Torah records this
'fear
story' as a type of 'appendix' to the Ten Commandments,
explaining afterward what happened while they were
given.
     To summarize, in chapter 19, it was unclear whether
or
not Bnei Yisrael would hear the DIBROT according to PLAN
'A'
(as God originally had planned) or at the higher level
of PLAN
'B' (as Bnei Yisrael requested).  Later, in chapter 20,
the
Torah describes how Bnei Yisrael were frightened and
requested
to revert back to PLAN 'A'.   Ramban claims that this
'fear
story' took place BEFORE Matan Torah, and hence the
people
heard ALL Ten Commandments through Moshe (Plan 'A').
Rashi
maintains that this story took place DURING the DIBROT;
hence
the first TWO DIBROT were transmitted according to PLAN
'B',
while the remainder were heard according to PLAN 'A'.
 [Ibn Ezra (see 20:15) takes an opposite approach,
 maintaining that the fear story is recorded right where
it
 belongs; it took place only AFTER Matan Torah.
Therefore,
 the people heard all Ten Commandments directly from
God, as
 mandated by Plan 'B'.]

A PROOF FROM SEFER DEVARIM
     Based on our discussion, we can resolve two
adjacent yet
seemingly contradictory psukim in the description of
Matan
Torah in Sefer Devarim:
 "Face to face God spoke to you on the mountain out of
the
 fire [PLAN 'B']. I stood BETWEEN God and you at that
time to
 convey God's words to you [PLAN 'A'], for you were
afraid of
 the fire and did not go up the mountain..." (see
Devarim 5:4-
 5)

 Once again, the Torah incorporates BOTH PLANS in its
description of Matan Torah. Evidently, both plans were
in fact
carried out, as we explained.
 Although we have suggested several solutions to
problems
raised by chapters 19-20, a much more basic question
arises:
why can't the Torah be more precise? Why does the Torah
appear
to intentionally obscure the details of such an
important
event in our history?

AHAVA and YIRAH
     One could suggest that this ambiguity is
intentional, as
it reflects the dialectic nature of man's encounter with
God.
     Man, in search of God, constantly faces a certain
tension. On the one hand, he must constantly strive to
come as
close to God as possible ("ahava" - the love of God). On
the
other hand, he must constantly retain an awareness of
God's
greatness and recognize his own shortcomings and
unworthiness
("yirah" the fear of God). Awed by God's infinity and
humbled
by his own imperfection, man must keep his distance (see
Devarim 5:25-26!).
     God's original plan for Matan Torah was
'realistic.'
Recognizing man's inability to directly confront the
"shechina," God intends to use Moshe as an intermediary
(Plan
'A').  Bnei Yisrael, eager to become active covenantal
partners, express their desire to come as close as
possible to
God. They want to encounter the "Shechina" directly,
without
any mediating agent (Plan 'B').
     Could God say NO to this sincere expression of
"ahavat
Hashem"? Of course not! Yet, on the other hand,
answering YES
could place the people in tremendous danger, as they
must rise
to the highest levels of spirituality to deserve such a
direct, unmediated manifestation of God.
     While Plan 'B' may reflect a more 'ideal'
encounter, Plan
'A' reflects a more realistic one. One could suggest
that by
presenting the details with such ambiguity, the Torah
emphasizes the need to find the proper balance between
this
realism as well as idealism when serving God.

GOD KNOWS BEST
     Although God knows full well that Bnei Yisrael
cannot
possibly sustain a direct encounter, He nonetheless
concedes
to their request to hear the Commandments directly. Why?
     One could compare this Divine encounter to a
parent-child
relationship. As a child grows up, there are times when
he
wishes to do things on his own. Despite his clear
incapability
to perform the given task, his desire to accomplish is
the key
to his growth. A wise parent will allow his child to
try, even
though he knows that the child may fail - for it is
better
that one recognize his shortcomings on his own, rather
than be
told by others that he cannot accomplish.
     On the other hand, although a child's desire to
grow
should not be inhibited by an overprotective parent, a
responsible parent must also know when to tell his child
STOP.
     Similarly, God is well aware of Bnei Yisrael's
unworthiness to encounter the Divine at the highest
level.
Nevertheless, He encourages them to aspire to their
highest
potential.  As Bnei Yisrael struggle to maintain the
proper
balance between "ahava" and "yirah," God must guide and
they
must strive.
     Our study of Parshat Yitro has shown us that what
actually happened at Ma'amad Har Sinai remains unclear.
However, what 'could have happened' remains man's
eternal
challenge.

                         shabbat shalom,
                         menachem

=================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
A. What would have happened had Bnei Yisrael said NO to
God's
proposition? The Midrash posits that had Bnei Yisrael
rejected
the offer, the world would have returned to "tohu
va'vahu"
(void) - the phrase used in Breishit 1:2 to describe the
state
prior to Creation! [See Shabbat 88a & Rashi 19:17.] From
this
Midrash, it appears that Bnei Yisrael had no choice but
to
accept. Why is the covenant binding, if Am Yisrael had
no
choice?
     Any covenant, by its very nature, requires the
willful
acceptance of both parties. Therefore, according to
"pshat,"
Bnei Yisrael have "bechira chofshit" to either accept or
reject God's proposition. Their willful acceptance makes
the
covenant at Har Sinai binding for all generations. Thus,
had
Bnei Yisrael said NO (chas v'shalom), Matan Torah would
not
have taken place! However, such a possibility is
unthinkable,
for without Matan Torah there would have been no purpose
for
Creation. Therefore, because the psukim indicate that
Bnei
Yisrael had free choice, the Midrash must emphasize that
from
the perspective of the purpose behind God's Creation,
the
people had no choice other than accept the Torah.

B. Most m'forshim explain that "b'mshoch ha'yovel
hay'mah
ya'alu b'Har" (19:13) refers to the long shofar blast
that
signaled the COMPLETION of the "hitgalut" - an 'all
clear'
signal.
     One could suggest exactly the opposite
interpretation,
that the long shofar blast indicated the BEGINNING of
Matan
Torah.
  Explain why this interpretation fits nicely into the
pshat
of 19:11-15, that limiting access to the Mountain is
part of
the preparation for Matan Torah. [What does an 'all
clear'
signal have to do with preparation?]   Explain as well
why
this would imply that during Matan Torah, Bnei Yisrael
should
have actually ascended Har Sinai!
     Relate this to concept of PLAN 'B' and Bnei
Yisrael's
request to SEE the "Shchina." Relate to Devarim 5:5 in
support
of this interpretation. Why would "kol ha'shofar holaych
v'chazak m'od" (19:19)  be precisely what God meant by
"b'mshoch ha'yovel."
     Relate to "tachtit ha'har" in 19:17!  Use this to
explain
why the psukim immediately following 19:19 describe
God's
decision to LIMIT his "hitgalut" to the TOP of the
mountain.

C. Compare the details of 19:20-24 to the Mishkan: i.e.
Rosh
ha'har = kodesh kdoshim; Har = Mishkan; Tachtit Ha'har =
azara, etc. Where can Moshe and Aharon enter? What about
the
Kohanim and the Am?  Explain how this may reflect a bit
of a
'compromise' between plans A & B.

D. You are probably familiar with Kabbalat Shabbat.
Based on
the above shiur, explain why our weekly preparation for
Shabbat could be compared to Bnei Yisrael's original
preparation for Matan Torah.
  Relate this to the verses of "l'cho dodi" and its
'wedding
like' imagery!

ADDITIONAL NOTES AND SOURCES
A.  WHAT WERE "DIVREI HA'AM" in 19:9:
     In the shiur we mentioned Rashi's interpretation
(based
on the Mechilta), that though the Torah does not state
this
explicitly, Bnei Yisrael insisted on hearing Hashem's
word
directly, rather than through a mediator.  Moshe then
reports
this request to Hashem.  This is also the implication of
the
Midrash in Shir Hashirim Rabba 1:2.  We will briefly
review
some of the other interpretations offered to resolve the
difficulty in this pasuk:
1.   The Abarbanel takes the same general approach as
Rashi,
that Moshe here tells Hashem of the nation's desire to
hear
His word directly.  However, he claims that this request
actually appears in the psukim (whereas according to
Rashi the
Torah never records the people making this request).The
Abarbanel claims that their acceptance of the
"proposition" -
"everything that Hashem said - we will do" - included
their
wish to hear Hashem directly.  (He appears to interpret
the
clause, "im shamo'a tishm'u b'koli? ," which we
generally
explain to mean, "if you obey Me faithfully," as, "if
you will
hear My voice."  Thus, when they accepted this
proposition,
they expressed the desire to hear Hashem's voice as
well.
  This approach appears more explicitly in the Netziv's
He'amek Davar (19:8.)  Hashem here tells Moshe that as
not
everyone is worthy of prophecy, He will speak to Moshe
"b'av
he'anan," which the Abarbanel explains as a physical
voice, as
opposed to the usual medium of prophecy, which involves
none
of the physical senses.  (This understanding of "av
he'anan"
appears as well in the Or Hachayim and Malbim.)  The
nation
will thus hear Hashem's voice without experiencing
actual
prophecy.  Moshe then informs Hashem that the people
want to
hear Hashem speaking to them, rather than to Moshe.
This
general approach of the Abarbanel appears to be the
intent of
the Midrash Lekach Tov on our pasuk.

2.  The Ibn Ezra, like Rashi, understands the "divrei
ha'am"
in this pasuk as referring to something not explicitly
mentioned in the psukim.  Whereas according to Rashi
that
something was the nation's desire to hear Hashem
directly, the
Ibn Ezra points to the skepticism on the part of
segments of
Bnei Yisrael.  He claims that "vayaged Moshe et divrei
ha'am"
means that Moshe had previously made this comment to
Hashem,
prior to the beginning of this pasuk.  It thus turns out
that
Hashem speaks to Moshe here in response to his report of
the
"divrei ha'am."  Moshe had reported that some among Bnei
Yisrael do not believe that a human being can survive a
revelation of Hashem; they therefore doubted the fact
that
Moshe had been appointed God's messenger.  Hashem
therefore
tells Moshe that Ma'amad Har Sinai will result in "v'gam
b'cha
ya'aminu l'olam" - Bnei Yisrael's complete trust and
faith in
Moshe's prophecy.

3.  Other Rishonim suggest that when Moshe "returns the
nation's words to Hashem" (see 19:8) -he does not
actually
tell Hashem what the nation said; he merely returned to
God
with the intention of telling Him.  It is only in 19:9
that
Moshe actually told this to God (see Ibn Ezra in Shmot
19:23
citing Rav Sa'adya Gaon's claim that just as in his day
people
could not initiate conversation with a monarch, but must
rather wait for the king to begin speaking with them, so
did
Moshe abstain from addressing God until after God spoke
with
him.)
  This explanation is also suggested by Rav Sa'adya Gaon
(as
explained by Rabbenu Avraham Ben ha'Rambam, and Rabbi
Yaakov
of Vienna in "Imrei Noam"), the Ba'alei HaTosfot (as
quoted in
both Hadar Zekeinim and Da'at Zekeinim), Rabbenu Yosef
Bechor
Shor, and the Ramban.  The Rashbam, too, appears to take
this
position.
  [Two Midrashic interpretations of this pasuk appear in
  Masechet Shabbat 87a and in the Mechilta on our
pasuk.]
This discussion surrounding 19:9 directly impacts
another
issue, one of the central points of our shiur: does
Hashem
introduce a "new plan" in psukim 10-11, after Moshe
"reports
the people's words" to Him?  According to Rashi, as
discussed
at length in the shiur, He clearly did.  The same is
true
according to the Abarbanel's approach.  However,
according to
the second and third explanations quoted here, it would
seem
that Hashem is not describing here an alternate
procedure.
Indeed, the Ramban (on this pasuk) explains Hashem's
original
"plan" as having Bnei Yisrael watch as Hashem appears to
Moshe.  Thus, pasuk 11, in which Hashem says that He
will
descend "in the view of the nation," does not mark a
change of
plans.  Similarly, in the introduction to his commentary
to
Shir Hashirim, as well as in his peirush to Shmot 3:12,
the
Ramban writes that Hashem's promise to Moshe at the
burning
bush, that Bnei Yisrael will "serve God on this
mountain,"
involved their "beholding His glory face-to-face."  This
was
God's intention all along.

B.  PLAN A & PLAN B
  In the shiur we worked with Rashi's view - i.e. God
originally had planned to speak only to Moshe, as Bnei
Yisrael
listened in.  In response to the nation's request,
however,
God switches to "plan B," by which He will address the
nation
directly.
  An interesting variation on this theme is suggested by
the
Malbim.  According to his explanation, plan B, which the
people requested, involved their hearing directly from
Hashem
the entire Torah, not only the Ten Commandments.  (The
Ramban
- 20:14 - writes that Bnei Yisrael feared that this was
God's
plan, though in actuality He had never intended to
transmit
the entire Torah to them directly.)  Hashem initially
agrees,
but their sense of terror upon hearing the thunder and
lightening signaling God's descent onto the mountain
(19:16),
and their consequent hesitation to go to the mountain
("vayotzei Moshe" - 19:17), reflected their unworthiness
for
this lengthy exposure to divine revelation.  Hashem
therefore
presented them directly either the Ten Commandments or
the
first two.  Only Moshe received the rest of the mitzvot
directly from Hashem.
     We should note that in contradistinction to our
understanding of Rashi, the Maharal of Prague (in his
Gur
Aryeh to 19:9) explains Rashi to mean that Moshe simply
confirms Hashem's plan.  God tells him that He plans on
revealing Himself to Moshe as the nation hears, and
Moshe
replies, "Indeed, this is what the people want."
Apparently,
the Maharal understands "hinei Anochi ba eilecha b'av
he'anan?
" to refer to the same level of "giluy Shechina" that
actually
occurs, such that there was never any change of plans.
(According to the Maharal's approach, it turns out that
there
is no difference between the approaches of Rashi and the
Ramban.)

C. "Moshe Yedaber Veha'Elokim Ya'anenu B'kol" (19:19)
  As we saw, Rashi, following the Mechilta, understands
this
pasuk as referring to the procedure of the transmission
of the
Asseret Hadibrot.  We also noted that the Ramban
disagrees,
claiming that it describes the manner in which the laws
in the
following psukim - concerning the "limitation" - were
presented.  This is the general approach of the
Abarbanel and
Rabbenu Yosef Bechor Shor, as well.  The Ibn Ezra claims
that
the pasuk does not reveal what it is that Moshe says
here, but
it definitely does not refer to the Asseret Hadibrot.
The
point of the pasuk is to stress that despite the
overpowering
sound of the shofar, it did not interfere with Moshe's
conversation with Hashem.  The Or Hachayim writes that
Moshe
here spoke words of praise to Hashem, and He would then
respond. According to all these views, this pasuk does
not
refer to Asseret Hadibrot, as Rashi claims.
  A particularly interesting interpretation is suggested
by
the Malbim, Netziv and "Hadrash Veha'iyun" (though with
some
variation).  They claim that the sound of the shofar
proclaimed, "Moshe yedaber veha'Elokim ya'anenu b'kol."
In
other words, they place a colon after the word "me'od"
in this
pasuk.  The shofar blast thus informed the people that
Moshe
will serve as the intermediary in between Hashem and
Bnei
Yisrael in transmitting the Torah.

D. What Did Bnei Yisrael Hear?
     The issue of whether or not Bnei Yisrael heard
Hashem
speak at Ma'amad Har Sinai involves both parshanut and
machshava.  In terms of parshanut, as we discussed in
the
shiur, we must accommodate several psukim: in our
parasha -
19:9, which, as discussed, implies that Hashem (at least
originally) planned to speak to Moshe as the nation
listened;
19:19 - "Moshe yedaber veha'Elokim ya'anenu be'kol,"
which, if
it refers to the Asseret Hadibrot (a point debated by
Rashi
and the Ramban, as discussed in the shiur), points to
the
involvement of both Hashem and Moshe in the transmission
of
the Commandments to Bnei Yisrael; 20:15-18, where Bnei
Yisrael
retreat from fear; and the transition from second to
third
person after the second Commandment.  We must also
resolve the
contradiction noted in the shiur between Devarim 4:4 and
4:5.
Devarim 5:19-28 strongly implies that Hashem said all
the
dibrot to the people and then they asked Moshe to serve
as an
intermediary.
     The philosophical issue involves the question as to
whether an entire nation can experience prophecy, or is
this
reserved only for the spiritual elite who have
adequately
prepared themselves.
     We briefly present here the basic positions that
have
been taken regarding this issue:
  Ibn Ezra (20:1) and Abarbanel (here and in Devarim
5:4)
maintain that Bnei Yisrael heard all Ten Commandments.
This
is also the majority view cited in Pesikta Rabbati 22,
and the
implication of the Yalkut Shimoni - Shir Hashirim 981.
Although in Parshat Vaetchanan Moshe describes himself
as
having stood in between Hashem and the people serving as
an
intermediary, the Ibn Ezra there explains that this
refers to
the situation after the Dibrot, when Moshe conveyed the
rest
of the Torah to Bnei Yisrael.
  It emerges from Rashi's comments to 19:19 and 20:1
that
Hashem first uttered, as it were, all Ten Commandments
in a
single moment and then began repeating them one by one.
After
the second Dibra, however, Bnei Yisrael became too
frightened
and asked Moshe to serve as their intermediary.  This is
the
position of the Chzikuni, and is found in an earlier
source,
as well - Midrash Asseret Hadibrot l'Rabbi Moshe
Hadarshan, as
cited by Rav Menachem Kasher (Torah Shleima, vol. 16,
miluim #
4).  In his commentary to Masechet Brachot 12a, however,
Rashi
seems to imply that Bnei Yisrael in fact heard all Ten
Commandments from Hashem.
  The Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 2:33) maintains that all
Bnei
Yisrael heard and understood the first two commandments
(without any need for Hashem to repeat them).  They then
asked
Moshe to hear the other commandments on their behalf; he
therefore heard the last eight Dibrot and conveyed them
to
Bnei Yisrael.  Though the Rambam claims that this is the
view
of Chazal, many later writers could not find any sources
in
Chazal corroborating this view.  Rav Kasher, however,
notes
that this is the implication of the Mechilta as quoted
by the
Da'at Zekeinim mi'Ba'alei ha'Tosfot (20:1; the Mechilta
is
cited differently in other sources).  The Rambam claims
that
since one can arrive at the first two Dibrot (the
existence
and singularity of God) through intellectual engagement,
even
without divine revelation, Bnei Yisrael understood these
Dibrot as clearly as Moshe did.  This philosophical
point
sparked considerable controversy and drew strong
criticism
from later rishonim and acharonim.  See Sefer Ha'ikarim
17,
the Abarbanel here and in Vaetchanan, Shut ha'Rashba
4:234,
and Shnei Luchot Habrit - Masechet Shavuot.
  The Ramban (on 20:6), explaining the Mechilta, claims
that
Bnei Yisrael heard all Ten Commandments but understood
only
the first two.  Moshe then explained to them the final
eight.
The Sefer Ha'ikarim (ibid.) concurs with this view.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.9/1239 -
Release Date: 1/23/2008 10:24 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yitro2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 67611 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080123/b71cff42/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jan 30 04:36:46 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 04:36:46 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Mishpatim - shiur #1
Message-ID: <001501c86323$a66521f0$0200000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

PARSHAT MISHPATIM    [shiur # 1]
  
WHEN DID BNEI YISRAEL SAY 'NA'ASEH VE-NISHMA'?

	When did Bnei Yisrael declare 'na'aseh
ve-nishma'? 
	Most of us would probably answer: before they
received the Ten Commandments (Rashi's opinion / and
most of all elementary school teachers).  However, many
other commentators (including Ramban) disagree!
	In the following shiur, we will uncover the
source of (and the reason for) this controversy.

WHERE DOES PARSHAT MISHPATIM REALLY BEGIN?
	Recall from Parshat Yitro that after Bnei
Yisrael heard the Ten Commandments directly from God,
they were overcome by fear and asked Moshe to act as
their intermediary (see Shmot 20:15-18).
	The result of this 'change in the plan' (i.e.
'transmission via Moshe' instead of 'directly from God')
becomes apparent in the very next pasuk.  Note how the
next 'parshia' (i.e. 20:19) begins as God commands Moshe
(now acting as His intermediary) to relay an additional
set of mitzvot to Bnei Yisrael:
"And God said to Moshe: "Ko tomar el Bnei Yisrael... "
     [Thus you shall say to Bnei Yisrael:]
  * "You saw that I spoke to you from the Heavens.
	  * Do not make any idols of Me...
       * An altar made from earth you shall make for
Me..."
     (see 20:19-23).

	However, this set of commandments that began
with 'ko tomar' does not end here with the conclusion of
Parshat Yitro.  If you follow these psukim carefully,
you'll note how these mitzvot continue directly into
Parshat Mishpatim with: 
"And these are the mishpatim (rules) that you shall set
before them..."  [see 21:1 / see also Rashi & Ibn Ezra].

	In fact, this set of laws that began with 'ko
tomar' continues all the way until the end of chapter
23!   It is only in 24:1 where this long quote (of what
Moshe is instructed to tell Bnei Yisrael) finally ends.
At that point, the Torah then resumes its narrative by
describing the events that take place at Har Sinai.
	Based on this simple analysis, we have basically
identified a distinct unit of 'mitzvot' [from 20:19 thru
23:33) embedded within the story of Ma'amad Har Sinai.
	In the following shiur, we will show how the
identification of this unit can help us understand the
controversy concerning when the story in chapter 24
takes place.  
[In our other shiur on Mishpatim, we discuss the content
of this special unit, which contains a special unit of
mitzvot.]

WHAT MOSHE DOES WHEN HE RETURNS
     Considering that this unit began with God's
commandment to Moshe of: 'ko tomar' [thus you shall say
to Bnei Yisrael]; once the quote of those mitzvot is
complete (i.e. at the end of chapter 23), we should
expect to find a narrative that tells us how Moshe
fulfilled this command by telling over these mitzvot to
Bnei Yisrael. 
     And indeed, this seems to be exactly what we find
in the beginning of chapter 24:
"... And Moshe came [back down from the mountain] and
told the people all the divrei Hashem (God's words) and
all the mishpatim" (see 24:3).

	If 'divrei Hashem' refers to the laws in
20:19-22, and 'ha-mishpatim' refers to the laws that
continue in Parshat Mishpatim (see 21:1), then this
pasuk is exactly what we're looking for!
     However, as you probably noticed, there is one
minor problem.  We would have expected this sentence
(i.e. 24:3) to be the first pasuk in chapter 24; but
instead it is the third.  For some reason, what should
have been the opening pasuk is preceded by a short recap
of another commandment that God had given Moshe:
"And Moshe was told to ascend the mountain [to God] with
Aharon, and Nadav & Avihu, and the seventy elders to bow
at a distance, after which Moshe himself will approach
closer, while the others will not ..." (see 24:1-2, read
carefully).

     It is important to note that 24:2 forms the
continuation of God's command that began in 24:1 - and
is not a description of what Moshe did after that
command!  In other words, these psukim describe some
sort of ceremony that God had commanded Moshe to conduct
at Har Sinai.  The question will be: When did this
ceremony take place, and why?
	Even though the meaning of these psukim (i.e.
24:1-2) may first seem unclear, later in chapter 24 we
find precisely what they refer to:
"Then Moshe, Aharon, Nadav & Avihu, and the seventy
elders ascended the mountain, and they 'saw' the God of
Israel..." (see 24:9-11).

     Therefore, to determine what Moshe is 'talking
about' in 24:3, we must take into consideration not only
the 'ko tomar' unit (20:19-23:33) that he was commanded
to convey, but also this ceremony where he and the
elders are instructed to ascend Har Sinai and bow down
from a distance, as 'parenthetically' described in
24:1-2.

RAMBAN'S APPROACH [the 'simple' pshat]
     Ramban explains these psukim in a very
straightforward manner.  He keeps chapter 24 in its
chronological order, and hence understands 24:1-2 as an
instruction for Moshe to conduct a ceremony immediately
after he relays the mitzvot of the 'ko tomar' unit. 
     Therefore, when "Moshe came and told the people the
divrei Hashem and all the mishpatim" (see 24:3), the
'divrei Hashem' and 'mishpatim' must refer to what was
included in the 'ko tomar' unit.  Hence, Ramban explains
that 'mishpatim' refers to the 'mishpatim' introduced in
21:1, while (by default) the 'divrei Hashem' must refer
to all the other 'mitzvot' in this unit that do not fall
under the category of 'mishpatim' (surely 20:19-22, and
most probably some of the laws and statements in chapter
23 as well).
 	As Bnei Yisrael now hear these mitzvot for the
first time, they immediately confirm their acceptance:
"... and the people answered together saying: 'All that
God has commanded us - na'aseh - we shall keep" (24:3).

     Even though Bnei Yisrael had already proclaimed
'na'aseh' before Matan Torah (see 19:5-8), this second
proclamation is necessary for they have just received an
additional set of mitzvot from God, even though it had
been conveyed to them via Moshe.

THE CEREMONY
	It is at this point in the narrative that Moshe
begins the 'ceremony' that was alluded to in 24:1-2.
Let's take a look at its details.
	First, Moshe writes down the 'divrei Hashem'
(see 24:4) in an 'official document' - which most all
commentators agree is the 'sefer ha-brit' described in
24:7.  Then; he builds a 'mizbeiach' [altar] and erects
twelve monuments (one for each tribe) at the foot of the
mountain.  These acts are in preparation for the public
gathering that takes place on the next day - when Bnei
Yisrael offer olot and shlamim on that alter (see
24:5-6).

  	The highlight of that ceremony takes place in
24:7 when Moshe takes this 'sefer ha-brit' - and reads
it aloud: 
"... Then Moshe took the sefer ha-brit and read it aloud
to the people, and they answered: Everything which God
has spoken to us - na'aseh ve-nishma [we shall keep and
obey] (24:7).
[Later in the shiur we will discuss what precisely was
written in this sefer ha-brit and why the people respond
'na'aseh ve-nishma'.]

	As a symbolic act - reflecting the people's
acceptance of this covenant:
Moshe then took the blood [from the korbanot] and
sprinkled it on the people and said: This is the dam
ha-brit - blood of the covenant... concerning these
commandments..."  (24:8).

	Afterward, the ceremony concludes as its
official leadership, representing the entire nation,
ascends the mountain and bows before God:
Then Moshe, Aharon, Nadav, and Avihu, and the seventy
elders of Israel went up (the mountain) and they saw the
God of Israel... And upon the nobles of Israel He laid
not His hand; and they beheld God, and ate and drank
(24:9-11). 

     Clearly, this ascent by the elders fulfills God's
command as detailed in 24:1.  In this manner, God had
instructed Moshe not only to convey a set of laws to
Bnei Yisrael, but also to present them as part of
national ceremony. 
	This seems to be a nice and simple
interpretation for 24:1-11, and reflects the basic
approach of Ramban, Ibn Ezra and Rashbam.
	Yet despite its simplicity, Rashi (and most
likely your first Chumash teacher) disagree!

RASHI'S APPROACH - LAST THINGS FIRST
     Quoting the Mechilta on 24:1, Rashi claims that
this entire ceremony - including Moshe telling over the
'divrei Hashem & mishpatim', writing down and reading
the 'sefer ha-brit', and proclaiming na'aseh ve-nishma ,
etc. (i.e. 24:1-11) - all took place before Matan Torah,
and hence before this 'ko tomar' unit was ever given to
Moshe Rabeinu. 
	This conclusion obviously forces Rashi to
provide a totally different interpretation for the
phrases 'divrei Hashem & 'ha-mishpatim' in 24:3 and for
'sefer ha-brit' in 24:7 - for they can no longer refer
to mitzvot in the 'ko tomar' unit. 
	At first glance, Rashi's approach seems
unnecessary (and rather irrational).  [Note how Ramban
takes issue with this approach in his opening comments
on 24:1!]
     However, by undertaking a more comprehensive
analysis, we will show how Rashi's interpretation is not
only textually based, but also thematically quite
significant.
	Let's first consider some factors that may have
led Rashi to his conclusion. 
	First of all, the very manner in which chapter
24 begins is quite peculiar - as it opens in 'past
perfect' tense ["Ve-el Moshe amar..." - and to Moshe it
was told  (see 24:1), indicating that all of the events
recorded in 24:1-11 may have occurred earlier.
Furthermore, if chapter 24 is indeed a continuation of
the 'ko tomar' unit, then 24:3 should have been the
first pasuk (as we discussed above).
	These considerations alone allow us to entertain
the possibility that these events may have taken place
at an earlier time.  Recall however that the events that
took place before Matan Torah were already described in
Shmot chapter 19.  Recall as well (from our shiur on
Parshat Yitro) that chapter 19 contained numerous
details that were very difficult to explain.
	Therefore, Rashi's approach allows us to 'weave'
the events described 24:1-11 into chapter 19, thus
explaining many of the ambiguities in that chapter.

FILLING IN THE MISSING LINKS 
     For example, recall from 19:22 how God tells Moshe
to warn the 'kohanim who stand closer', yet we had no
idea who these kohanim were!  However, if the events
described in 24:1-11 took place at that time (i.e.
before Ma'amad Har Sinai), then clearly the kohanim in
19:22 refer to the elite group (Nadav, Avihu, and the
seventy elders) singled out in 24:1 & 24:9 - who were
commanded to 'come closer' - but not as close as Moshe. 
	Furthermore, this interpretation explains the
need for the extra warning in 19:20-25 [what we referred
to as the 'limitation section'].  Recall how the
ceremony (described in 24:4-11) concludes as this
leadership group ascends the mountain and actually
'sees' God (see 24:10).  Nevertheless they are not
punished (see 24:11).  Despite God's leniency in this
regard at that time, He must command Moshe before
Ma'amad Har Sinai to warn both the people and the
kohanim not to allow that to happen once again!
[See 19:20-25.]
	Rashi's interpretation carries yet another
'exegetic' advantage.  Recall that Bnei Yisrael had
already proclaimed 'na'aseh' in 19:7-8.  If so, then
there appears to be no need to repeat this proclamation
in 24:3.  However, if 24:3 takes place before Matan
Torah, then 24:3 simply recaps the same event that
already took place in 19:7-8.
	Finally, Rashi's interpretation can also help us
identify the 'heim' mentioned in 19:13 - who are allowed
to ascend Har Sinai once the Shofar sounds a long blast.
Most likely, the 'heim' are that very same elite group
who are permitted to partially ascend Har Sinai during
the ceremony (as described in 24:1-2, 9).  
[See Ibn Ezra aroch on 19:13, quoting this peirush in
the name of Shmuel ben Hofni!]
	These 'textual' considerations supply the
'circumstantial evidence' that allows Rashi to place the
events of 24:1-11 within chapter 19, and hence before
Matan Torah!  With this in background, let's see how
Rashi explains the details of 24:3 based on the story in
chapter 19!
And Moshe came [see 19:14] and told the people 'divrei
Hashem' = the laws of 'prisha' [see 19:15] and 'hagbala'
[see 19:12-13] and the 'mishpatim' = the seven Noachide
laws and the laws that Bnei Yisrael received at Mara
(see Shmot 15:25).  [See Rashi on 24:3.] 

     In the next pasuk, Rashi reaches an amazing
conclusion.  Because these events took place before
Matan Torah, Rashi explains that the 'divrei Hashem'
which Moshe writes down in 24:4 [which later become the
'sefer ha-brit' that Moshe reads in 24:7] is no less
than all of Sefer Breishit (and the first half of Sefer
Shmot)!
	How about Bnei Yisrael's reply of 'naaseh
ve-nishma' (in 24:7)?  Even though Rashi doesn't explain
specifically what this refers to, since it was stated
before Matan Torah, it clearly implies Bnei Yisrael's
acceptance of all the mitzvot that God may given them,
before they know what they are!  Hence, this statement
is popularly understood as reflective of a statement of
blind faith and commitment. 
     Let's consider the thematic implications of Rashi's
interpretation, for they are quite significant. 
     
'WHY' BEFORE 'HOW'
	Identifying Sefer Breishit as the 'sefer
ha-brit' that Moshe reads in public (in 24:7) ties in
beautifully with our discussion of the primary theme of
Sefer Breishit.  It should not surprise us that Chumash
refers to Sefer Breishit as 'sefer ha-brit' - for this
highlights the centrality of God's covenant with Avraham
Avinu [i.e. brit mila & brit bein ha-btarim] as its
primary theme.  
	But more significant is the very fact that God
commands Moshe to teach Sefer Breishit to Bnei Yisrael
before they receive the Ten Commandments and the
remaining 'mitzvot' of the Torah.  Considering that
Sefer Breishit explains how and why Bnei Yisrael were
first chosen, it is important that Bnei Yisrael must
first understand why, i.e. towards what purpose - they
are receiving the Torah, before they actually receive
it.  [This would imply that before one studies how to
act as a Jew, it is important that he first understand
why he was chosen.]

	Finally, Rashi's interpretation (placing 24:1-11
before Matan Torah) adds tremendous significance to the
nature of the three-day preparation for Ma'amad Har
Sinai (see 19:10-16).  Recall how chapter 19 described
quite a 'repressive' atmosphere, consisting primarily of
'no's' [don't touch the mountain, don't come too close,
wash your clothes, and stay away from your wives, etc.].
But if we weave the events in 24:1-11 into this
three-day preparation, then what emerges is a far more
festive and jubilant atmosphere, including:
 *	Torah study (see 24:3-4),
 *	A 'kiddish'  i.e. offering (and eating) korbanot
(see 24:5-6,11),
 *	A public ceremony [sprinkling the blood on
everyone] 
	 - followed by public declaration of 'na'aseh
ve-nishma' 
     (see 24:7-8),
 *	The nation's leaders symbolically approach God
(see 24:9-11). 
     [What we would call today a full-fledged
'shabbaton'!]

YIR'A & AHAVA
	Despite the beauty of Rashi's approach, one
basic (and obvious) question remains: What does the
Torah gain by dividing this story of Ma'amad Har Sinai
in half; telling only part of the story in chapter 19
and the remainder in chapter 24?  Would it not have made
more sense to describe all of these events together in
chapter 19?
	One could suggest that in doing so, the Torah
differentiates between two important aspects of Ma'amad
Har Sinai.  Chapter 19, as we discussed last week,
focuses on the yir'a [fear] perspective, the people's
fear and the awe-inspiring nature of this event.  In
contrast, chapter 24 focuses on the ahava [love]
perspective, God's special closeness with Bnei Yisrael,
which allows them to 'see' Him (see 24:9-11) and
generates a joyous event, as they join in a festive meal
[offering olot & shlamim (which are eaten) / see
24:5-6,11].
	To emphasize the importance of each aspect, the
Torah presents each perspective separately, even though
they both took place at the same time.  Recording the
'fear' aspect' beforehand, stresses the importance of
the fear of God ['yir'at shamayim'] and how it must be
the primary prerequisite for receiving the Torah.  [See
Tehillim 111:10: "reishit chochma yir'at Hashem".]  
	By recording the 'ahava' aspect at the
conclusion of its presentation of the mitzvot given at
Har Sinai, the Torah emphasizes how the love of God (and
hence our closeness to Him) is no less important, and
remains the ultimate goal.  Hence, this 'ahava' aspect
is also isolated, but recorded at the conclusion of the
entire unit to stress that keeping God's mitzvot can
help us build a relationship of 'ahavat Hashem'.
	This lesson remains no less important as we
adhere to the laws of Matan Torah in our daily lives.
It challenges us to integrate the values of both 'yir'at
shamayim' and 'ahavat Hashem' into all our endeavors.

					shabbat shalom,
					menachem

==============
FOR FURTHER IYUN
A.  See Ramban on 19:5, especially "al derech
ha-emet..."!  Relate each part of this Ramban to the
above shiur.

B.  See Shabbat 88a, regarding the machloket when the
dibrot were given.  Relate this sugya to the above
shiur. 

C.  Based on the structure of the 'ko tomar' unit, which
is followed by 'brit na'aseh ve-nishma' and where Bnei
Yisrael build a mizbeiach and offer olot & shlamim,
explain why the primary mitzva in the opening section
(i.e. 20:21-23) is "mizbach adama ta'aseh li..."
[Does this insight support Rashi or Ramban's
interpretation?]

D.  Chizkuni, following Rashi, also explains that the
covenant in chapter 24 takes place before Matan Torah.
However, he explains that sefer ha-brit (in 24:7) is the
tochacha in Parshat Behar-Bechukotai, even though it is
only recorded much later in Chumash (see Vayikra chapter
26).  According to Chizkuni, the sefer ha-brit explains
how the land will serve as a vehicle to either reward or
punish Bnei Yisrael, depending upon their observance or
neglect of the mitzvot they are about to receive.  (This
peirush also neatly explains why the phrase "ki li kol
ha-aretz" appears in 19:5.)

E.  Note that Rashi's interpretation provides us with an
excellent example of his exegetic principle of 'ein
mukdam u-me'uchar' / see shiur on Parshat Yitro.
Because of the many textual and thematic parallels
between chapters 19 & 24, Rashi prefers to change the
chronological order of the 'parshiot' so as to arrive at
a more insightful interpretation.  In contrast, Ramban
prefers to keep these parshiot in chronological order.]
     Note as well that according to Rashi, the entire Ko
Tomar unit including the 'mishpatim') was given to Moshe
Rabeinu during his first forty days on Har Sinai (see
Rashi 31:18).


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.15/1249 -
Release Date: 1/29/2008 9:51 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mish1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 44185 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080130/ec064ab5/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jan 30 04:36:46 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 04:36:46 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Mishpatim - shiur #2
Message-ID: <001101c86323$a3fbc310$0200000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

PARSHAT MISHPATIM - shiur #2
 
 A SPECIAL UNIT / AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRESSION

	What's better - Chumash or Shulchan Aruch?  
    The question really isn't fair, but anyone who has
studied both books realizes how different they are.  
    As Parshat Mishpatim contains a set of laws that
sounds a bit like Shulchan Aruch [the Jewish Code of
Law], this week's shiur will analyze their progression,
to show how the Torah delivers its message through the
manner of their presentation.
    
INTRODUCTION
    In last week's shiur, we began our discussion of how
the laws in Chumash are presented in groups (or
'units').  For example, in Parshat Yitro, we saw how the
first 'ten' Commandments were given as part of Ma'amad
Har Sinai.  Afterward, we identified the next 'unit' of
mitzvot - which we referred to as the 'ko tomar' unit,
beginning in 20:19, and continuing until the end of
chapter 23 (which comprises most of Parshat Mishpatim).
Later on in Chumash we will find many additional 'units'
of mitzvot, embedded within its various narratives.
	Because Chumash presents its mitzvot in 'units',
we would certainly expect that the first 'unit', i.e.
the one that follows the Ten Commandments, to be
special.  In our shiur, we undertake an analysis of the
internal structure of this "ko tomar" unit, in an
attempt to understand why specifically these mitzvot are
recorded at this point, and in this manner.

SUB-DIVIDING THE UNIT
	At first glance, these three chapters appear to
contain simply a random set of laws, from all types of
categories - as it jumps back and forth from "bein adam
la'makom" [laws between man & God] to "bein adam
l'chaveiro" [laws between man and his fellow man (or
society)].  On the other hand, there does seem to be
some very logical internal structure within certain
groups of these laws, such as the civil laws in chapter
21. 
	To help make sense out of the overall structure
of this unit, we begin by noting how the laws that both
open and close this unit fall under the category of
"bein adam la'makom".
    Let's explain.
	Recall how this "ko tomar" unit began (at the
end of Parshat Yitro) with four psukim that discuss
various laws concerning idol worship and building a
mizbeiach [altar] (see 20:20-23).  Clearly, this short
'parshia' deals with laws between man & God, and more
specifically - how to worship (or not worship) Him.
	Similarly, at the end of this unit, we find
another set of laws that are "bein adam la'makom" -
explaining how we are expected to worship God on the
three pilgrimage agricultural holidays (the "shalosh
regalim" / see 23:13-19).  
[We consider these psukim the last set of laws, for
immediately afterward (i.e. from 23:20 till the end of
chapter 23) we find several conditional promises that
God makes concerning how He will help Bnei Yisrael
conquer the land, but the law section of this unit
definitely ends with 23:19. ]

	In this manner, we find that this lengthy set of
laws in Parshat Mishpatim is enveloped by a matching set
of laws (20:20-23 & 23:13-19) that discuss how to
properly worship God.
	Inside this 'sandwich' we will find numerous
laws (i.e. from 21:1 thru 23:12), however almost all of
them will fall under the category of "bein adam
la'chaveiro" - between man and his fellow man (or
society).

	The following table summarizes this very basic
sub-division of this "ko tomar" unit, which will set the
framework for our next discussion:

PSUKIM			TOPIC
20:19-20:23		How to worship God via the
'mizbeiach'
21:01-23:12 	 	  A misc. assortment of civil
laws
23:13-23:19		Worshiping God on the 3
pilgrimage holidays
23:20-23:33		 --- God's promises re: entering
the land

	With this in mind, lets examine the internal
structure of the "bein adam la'chaveiro" laws, that
begin with the Mishpatim in 23:1 thru 23:12.  As we will
now show, this 'middle section' of civil laws will
divide very neatly into two basic categories.
	1) Case laws  - that go before the "bet-din" [a
Jewish court]
	2) Absolute laws - that guide the behavior of
the individual

THE MISHPATIM - CASE LAWS
    Parshat Mishpatim begins with the laws of a Hebrew
slave (see 21:2-11) and are followed by numerous
'case-type' civil laws dealing primarily with damages
["nezikin'"] that continue thru the middle of chapter
22.  Their presentation develops in an organized,
structured manner, progressing as follows:
21:12-27 - a person killing or injuring another
[assault]
21:28-32 - a person's property killing or injuring
another person 
21:33-36 - a person's property damaging property of
others
21:37-22:3 - a person stealing from another
22:4-5     -  property damage to others caused by
grazing or fire
22:6-14  - responsibility of "shomrim" watching property
of others
22:15-16 -  financial responsibility for a 'seducer'

    Note how these various cases range from capital
offense to accidental property damage.

THE 'KEY' WORD
	As you most probably noticed, the 'key word' in
this section is 'ki' [pun intended], which implies if or
when.  Note how most of the parshiot from 21:1
22:18
begin with the word 'ki' [or 'im' / if/ when] and even
when it is not written, it is implicit.  In other words,
each of these 'mishpatim' begins with a certain case
[if...] and is followed by the ruling [then...].  For
example:
	If a man hits his servant then... (see 21:20);
	If an ox gores a man... then the ox must be
stoned (21:28).

	Basically, this section contains numerous
examples of 'case-law,' upon which the Jewish court (bet
din) arrives at its rulings.  This is the basic meaning
of a "mishpat" - a case where two people come to court -
one person claiming damages from another - and the
shofet (judge) must render a decision.
In fact, these cases can only be judged by a court, and
not by a private individual.
[As you review these cases, note how most of them fall
under the category of "choshen mishpat" in the shulchan
aruch.]

	As our above table shows, this section of
'case-laws' (beginning with the word "ki") continues all
the way until 22:16; after which we find an interesting
transition.  Note, that beginning with 22:17, we find
three laws, written in a more imperative form, that do
not begin with a specific 'case':
"A sorceress shall not be left alive.  Anyone lying with
an animal shall be killed, and one who sacrifices to
[other] gods shall be excommunicated..."  (see
22:17-19).

    These laws don't begin with the word 'ki' for a very
simple reason - there is no plaintiff coming to court to
press charges!  In all the cases until this point, the
process of 'mishpat' is usually initiated because the
plaintiff comes before the court.  In these three cases,
it is the court's responsibility to initiate the process
(see Rashi & Rashbam & Ramban on 22:17!), i.e. to find
the sorceress, or the person 'lying with the animal',
etc.  Therefore, even though these laws are presented in
the 'imperative' format, they remain the responsibility
of "bet-din".
    These three cases are also quite different from the
case-laws above, for they also fall under the category
of "bein adam la'makom" [between God & man].    
    Most significant is the third instruction -
"zoveyach la'elokim yo'cho'ram - bilti l'Hashem l'vado"
- one who sacrifices to [other] gods shall be
excommunicated..." - where once again we find a law
concerning 'how to (or not to) worship God' - just as we
find in the opening and closing sections that envelope
these civil laws.
    In this sense, these three laws will serve as a
'buffer' that leads us to the next category, where the
laws will continue in the 'imperative' format, however,
they will leave the realm of "bet-din" and enter the
realm of ethical behavior.  Let's explain:
    
THE ETHICAL LAWS
	Note the abrupt change of format that takes
place in the next law: 
"You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you
yourselves were strangers in the land of Egypt" (22:20).

	Not only is this law written in the imperative
format, it contains no punishment by "bet-din".
Instead, it includes an incentive for why every Jew
should keep this law - for we ourselves were also once
strangers in the land of Egypt!
	Note as well how this imperative format
continues all the way until 23:10.  In contrast to what
we have found thus far, we now find a collection of
imperative-style laws [i.e. do... or don't...], which
appear to be beyond the realm of enforcement by bet-din.
This section focuses on laws of individual behavior that
serve as guidelines that will shape the type of society
which God hopes to create within His special nation.
	Towards the conclusion of this 'ethical' unit,
we find a pasuk that seems to simply repeat the same
verse that opened this unit: 
"You shall not oppress a stranger, whereas you know the
feelings of a stranger, for you yourselves were once
strangers in the land of Egypt" (see 23:9).
[and compare it to the opening statement of this unit:
"You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you
were strangers in the land of Egypt" (see 22:20).

    As your review the numerous laws that are
'enveloped' by these two 'matching' psukim, note how
they are all written in the imperative form, and share a
common theme of living by a higher ethical standard.
    To prove this assertion, let's study the progression
of topic from 22:20 thru 23:9:
*	"You shall not mistreat any widow or orphan.  If
you do mistreat them, I will heed their outcry...."
*	"When you lend money... if you take his garment
as a pledge, you must return it by sunset... for if you
don't, when he calls out to me, surely, I will hear his
cry..." (see 22:20-26).

	In contrast to the previous section (see 20:12
thru 22:16), where the court enforced the punishment -
this section begins with a set of laws where God Himself
threatens to enact punishment!  As the court system
cannot 'force' every member of society to treat the poor
and needy with kindness, God Himself promises to
'intervene' should the 'less privileged' be mistreated.
	Furthermore, it is specifically the stranger,
the orphan, and widow who would least likely know how to
take their case to court.  As it is so easy to take
advantage of these lower social classes, God Himself
will punish those who take advantage.

BEING A 'GOOD CITIZEN'
	The next four psukim (22:27-30) form a
'parshia', and at first glance appear to fall under the
category of 'bein adam la'makom".  However, in their
context, it is also possible to understand them as laws
dealing with the behavior of the individual within
society, or stated more simply - being a good citizen.
Let's explain how.
"Do not curse Elokim [either God or a judge / see
22:7]:, nor curse a leader of your people"  (see 22:27).

    This instruction 'not to curse your leaders' can be
understood as a nice way of saying - respect your
leadership.  It would be difficult to develop a just
society, should the people consistently curse and show
no respect for their judges and political leaders.  
    The next law - "Do not delay to bring of the
fullness of thy harvest, and the outflow of thy presses"
(see 22:28) - could also fall under this category, as it
refers to the obligation of every individual to tithe
his produce.  As this tithe is used to cover the
salaries of civil servants (for example see Bamidbar
18:21 re: the salary of the Levi'im), this law could be
paraphrased as a demand that everyone must 'pay their
taxes' - and on time; yet another example of 'good
citizenship'.
    Similarly, the next law:
"Your shall give Me your first-born sons.  Likewise,
[the first born] of your oxen & sheep..." (see 22:28-29)
- was first given when Bnei Yisrael left Egypt (see
Shmot 13:1-2,11-14).  

    Obviously, this commandment does not imply that we
actually sacrifice our first born children; but rather
it relates to the obligation of each family to dedicate
their first-born son to the service of God.  The purpose
of this law was to assure that there would be an
'educator' (or 'civil servant') in each family - to
teach the laws of the Torah.
    Even though this 'family responsibility' was later
transferred to the entire tribe of Levi (after chet
ha-egel / see Devarim 10:8-9); at the time when the laws
of Parshat Mishpatim were given - this was supposed to
be the job of the first-born son.  Similarly, the value
of the 'first born' animals would also be dedicated to
the Temple treasury (or to feed the workers).  
    If this understanding is correct, then this command
serves as a reminder to each family to fulfill its
responsibility to provide its share of 'civil servants'
to officiate in the Mishkan and to serve as judges and
educators (see Devarim 33:10).  
[Re: viewing the first-born animals as a tax to
compensate those civil servants  - see Bamidbar
18:15-20!]
    
ACTING LIKE A 'MENSCH'
    In the final pasuk of this 'parshia' we find a very
general commandment to be not only a good citizen, but
also to act like a 'mensch':
"And you shall be holy men unto Me; [an example] should
you find the flesh that is torn of beasts in the field -
do not eat it -feed it instead to the dogs" (22:30).

	Even though the opening statement - to be holy
men- is quite vague; the fuller meaning of this
commandment is detailed in Parshat Kedoshim (see Vayikra
chapter19).  A quick glance of that chapter immediately
points once again to the need to act in an ethical
manner in all walks of life.  [Note the numerous
parallels between Vayikra chapter 19 and Shmot
22:20-33:10!]
	The commandment 'not to eat the flesh of a torn
animal' can be understood as an application of how to
'be holy', implying to act like a 'mensch', and not like
gluten who would devour (like a dog) the meat of animal
found dead in field. 
	In summary, we claim that this short section
focuses on the need to be a 'good citizen', consonant
with the general theme of ethical behavior - and
incumbent upon a member of a society who claims to be
representing God. 

A HIGHER ETHIC
	In chapter 23, this unit 'progresses' one step
further, with several mitzvot that emphasize an even
higher level of moral and ethical behavior.  
    The first three psukim discuss laws to ensure that
the judicial system will not be misused - For example,
not to plot false witness; to follow majority rule; and
not to 'play favorites' in judgment (see 23:1-3).  
[These laws could also be viewed as guidelines for the
'judges'	 who decide the laws in the first
section, i.e. the civil 'case-laws' in 21:12-22:16.]

    Next, we find two interesting laws that reflect the
highest level of ethical behavior, which worded in a
special manner.  
*	Returning a lost animal, even that of your
enemy, to its owner ('hashavat aveida') (see 23:4);
*	Helping your neighbor's animal (again, even your
enemy) with its load ('azov ta'azov imo') (see 23:5); 

    The Torah does not simply command us to return a
lost item, it describes an extreme case, where one must
go out of his way to be 'extra nice' to a person whom he
despises.  What may be considered 'exemplary behavior'
in a regular society - becomes required behavior for a
nation who represents God.
    Finally, this special section concludes with the
famous dictum "mi-dvar sheker tirchak" - keeping one's
distance from any form of dishonesty (see 23:7),
followed by a warning not to take bribes - 've-shochad
lo tikach' - (see 23:8).
	As mentioned earlier, this section, describing
the mitzvot of a higher ethical standard, closes with
the verse "ve-ger lo tilchatz..." (see 23:9) - almost
identical to its opening statement  (see 22:20).
    Despite the difficulty of their slavery in Egypt,
Bnei Yisrael are expected to learn from that experience
and create a society that shows extra sensitivity to the
needs of the less fortunate.  Specifically the Jewish
nation - because we were once slaves - are commanded to
learn from that experience, in order to become even more
sensitive to the needs of others!
 
SHABBAT & THE HOLIDAYS
	As we explained earlier, this 'ethical' section
is followed by yet another set of mitzvot (see
23:10-19), which appears to focus on 'mitzvot bein adam
la-Makom'.  It includes the following mitzvot:
	'Shmitta' - leaving the fields fallow every
seven years;
	'Shabbat' - resting one day out of every seven
days;
	'Shalosh regalim' - the three agricultural
holidays:
	 	'chag ha-matzot' - seven days eating
matza
	 	'chag ha-katzir' - wheat harvest (seven
weeks later)
	 	'chag ha-asif' - produce harvest (seven
days).
	
(23:10-19)

	Nonetheless, it should be noted how the laws of
shmitta and shabbat are actually presented from the
perspective of 'bein adam le-chavero'.  The 'shmitta'
cycle provides extra food for the poor and needy (see
23:11), while 'shabbat' provides a day of rest for the
'bondsman and stranger' (see 23:12).  In this sense,
these two laws form a beautiful transition from "bein
adam la'chaveiro" section to the concluding "bein adam
la'makom" section that 'closes' this entire unit.
	At this point, we find a short summary pasuk
that introduces the last section describing the
pilgrimage 'holidays' (see 23:13-19).  These 'shalosh
regalim' are described as three times during the year
when the entire nation gathers together 'in front of
God' (i.e. at the Bet Ha-Mikdash) to thank Him for their
harvest.  
[One could suggest that this mitzvah of 'aliya la-regel'
also influences the social development of the nation,
for it provides the poor and needy with an opportunity
to celebrate together with the more fortunate (see
Devarim 16:11,14-16.) ]

A 'DOUBLE' SANDWICH - TZEDAKA & MISHPAT
	Let's return now to note the beautiful structure
of this entire unit by studying the following table,
where a * denotes laws "bein adam la'makom" and a #
denotes laws "bein adam la'chaveiro".
	To clarify this layered nature of this internal
structure, in the following table we compare it to a
'sandwich' with two layers of 'meat', enveloped by
'bread', 

* TOP - Laws re: idol worship and the 'mizbeiach'
(20:19-20:23)
			[i.e. how to worship God]

LAYER 1 - # The civil laws - 'case' laws for "bet-din"
(21:1-22:16)
			- i.e.  laws that relate to
MISHPAT - judgement

* BUFFER - short set of laws "bein adam la'makom"
(22:17-19)

LAYER 2 - # The ethical laws -individual behavior
(22:20-23:12)			- i.e. laws that relate
to TZEDAKA - righteousness

* BOTTOM - Laws of the three pilgrimage holidays
(23:13-19)
		[again, how to properly worship God]

	In other words, the few mitzvot that relate to
how we are supposed to worship God (*) 'envelope' the
numerous mitzvot that explain how God expects that we
act (#).  However, those mitzvot that govern our
behavior also divide into two distinct groups.  The
first group (or layer) focuses on laws of justice that
must be enforced by the court system - i.e. MISHPAT;
while the second group focuses on ethical behavior -
i.e. TZEDKA or righteous behavior. 

BACK TO AVRAHAM AVINU!
	If your remember our shiurim on Sefer Breishit,
this double layered structure - highlighting elements of
both TZEDAKA & MISHPAT - should not surprise us.  After
all, God had chosen Avraham Avinu for this very purpose:
"For Avraham shall surely become a great and mighty
nation, and a blessing for all the nations of the earth.
For I have known him IN ORDER that he may command his
children and his household after him, that they may keep
the way of God to do TZEDAKA & MISHPAT [righteousness
and justice]..." (see Breishit 18:18-19, compare
Breishit 12:1-3)

	Now that Avraham Avinu's offspring have finally
become a nation, and now prepare to enter the land -
they enter a covenant at Har Sinai.  Therefore, the very
first set of detailed laws received at Sinai focus on
how the nation of Israel is expected to keep and apply
the values of "tzedaka & mishpat" - in order that this
nation can accomplish its divine destiny.

AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRESSION
	Before we conclude, we should note yet another
sequence that takes place within these various
subsections of laws.  As you review these various
sections, note how they follow a very meaningful
educational progression:

I.  THE FEAR OF MAN 
	The first section (21:1
22:19) contains civil
laws regarding compensatory obligations, common to any
civilized society (not unique to Am Yisrael).  These
case-type laws are enforced by bet-din.  The fear of
punishment by the courts ensures the compliance of the
citizenry.

II.  THE FEAR OF GOD
	The next section (22:20
26) contains imperatives
related to ethical behavior, emphasizing specifically
consideration for the less fortunate members of society.
Given the difficulty of enforcing this standard by the
bet-din, God Himself assumes the responsibility of
punishing violators in this regard.

III.  LOVE FOR ONE'S FELLOW MAN
	The final section of imperative civil laws
(23:1
9) contains mitzvot relating to an even higher
moral and ethical standard.  In this section, the Torah
does not mention any punishment.  These mitzvot are
preceded by the pasuk "ve-anshei kodesh tihiyun li"
(22:30) and reflect the behavior of a "mamlechet kohanim
ve-goy kadosh" (see 19:5-6).  When the civil behavior of
God's special nation is motivated not only by the fear
of punishment, but also by a high ethical standard and a
sense of subservience to God, the nation truly becomes a
'goy kadosh' - the purpose of Matan Torah (see 19:5-6!).
 
IV.  THE LOVE OF GOD
	After creating an ethical society, the nation is
worthy of a special relationship with God, as reflected
in the laws of shabbat, shmitta, and 'aliya la-regel' -
'being seen by God' on the three pilgrimage holidays
(see 23:10-17).

	This progression highlights the fact that a high
standard of ethical behavior (II & III) alone does not
suffice.  A society must first anchor itself by assuring
justice by establishing a court system that will enforce
these most basic civil laws (I).  Once this standard has
been established, society can then strive to achieve a
higher ethical level (II & III).  Then, man is worthy to
encounter and 'visit' God (IV).


ONE LAST PROMISE
	Even though the 'mishpatim' and mitzvot end in
23:19, this lengthy section (that began back with 'ko
tomar...' in 20:19) contains one last section -
23:20->33 - which appears as more of a promise than a
set of laws.  God tells Moshe to tell Bnei Yisrael that:
"Behold, I am sending a mal'ach before you, to guide you
and bring you to ... (the Promised Land).  ... for if
you obey him [God's 'mal'ach'] and do all that I say, I
will be an enemy to your enemies and a foe to your foes.
For My mal'ach will lead you and bring you to [the land
of] the Amorites, Hittites, etc."  (23:20-23).  [See
also 23:27-31!]

	This conclusion points to the purpose of the
entire unit.  By accepting these laws, Bnei Yisrael will
shape their character as God's special nation.  Hence,
if they obey these rules, then God will assist them in
the conquest of the Land.
	Considering that Bnei Yisrael are on their way
to conquer and inherit the Land, this section (23:20-33)
forms an appropriate conclusion for this entire unit.
Should they follow these laws, He will help them conquer
that land, where these laws will help facilitate their
becoming God's special nation. 

BACK TO BRIT SINAI
	This interpretation can provide us with a
beautiful explanation for why Bnei Yisrael receive
specifically this set of mitzvot immediately after the
Ten Commandments.  
	Recall God's original proposal to Bnei Yisrael
before Ma'amad Har Sinai - "should they obey Me and keep
My covenant... then they will become a - mamlechet
kohanim ve-goy kadosh"   (see Shmot 19:5-6).  After the
people accept this proposal (see 19:8), they receive the
Ten Commandments, followed by the laws of the "ko tomar"
unit.  

    This can explain why Bnei Yisrael receive
specifically these laws (of the "ko tomar unit") at this
time.  As these laws will govern the ethical behavior of
every individual in Am Yisrael and build the moral
fabric of its society, they become the 'recipe' that
will transform this nation into a "mamlechet kohanim
ve-goy kadosh". 
    Furthermore, they emphasize how laws that focus on
our special relationship with God, especially in
relation to how we worship him - such as the laws of the
holidays, are only meaningful when rooted in a society
that acts in an exemplary fashion.
    Because these guidelines for individual behavior are
'enveloped' by details of how to properly worship God,
we can essentially conclude that this entire unit
discusses how the nation of Israel is expected to
worship God - for the manner by which we treat our
fellow man stands at the center of our relationship with
God. 
						shabbat
shalom,
						menachem

=================
FOR FURTHER IYUN

A.  NISHMA VE-NA'ASEH!
	Based on this interpretation, we can suggest a
very simple explanation for why Bnei Yisrael declare
'na'aseh ve-nishma' at the ceremony at Har Sinai (as see
24:7).  [According to Ramban's approach that we keep
24:1-11 in its chronological order.]
	If indeed sefer ha-brit includes the unit from
20:19-23:33, then God's promise to help Bnei Yisrael
conquer the land should they listen to Him (23:20-23:23)
forms the most basic statement of this covenant:
"Ki im shamo'a tishma be-kolo, ve-a'sita kol asher
adaber - For if you listen to what He [the mal'ach]
says, and do whatever I will speak... then I will help
you defeat your enemies..."	(see 23:21-22).
One could suggest that it is in response to this phrase
that Bnei Yisrael declare:
	na'aseh - in response to: ve-asita kol asher
adaber;
	ve-nishma - in response to: im shamo'a tishma
be-kolo.
[Carefully read the middle section of Ramban's peirush
to 24:3 where he alludes to this interpretation. 

[Note that even according to Rashi's interpretation that
sefer ha-brit in 24:7 includes the laws at Mara, the
final words of God's charge at Mara (see 15:26) could
provide the background for a similar explanation.  One
could suggest that Bnei Yisrael respond by saying
na'aseh to ve-hayashar be-einav ta'aseh and nishma  to
"im shamo'a tishma..."!  Of course, this could also
relate to God's proposal in 19:5-6. ]

B.  Regarding to the order of NA'ASEH ve-NISHMA:
	According to our explanation above, Bnei Yisrael
should have said this in the opposite order, i.e. nishma
ve-na'aseh.  Relate this to Chazal's question in the
Midrash - "lama hikdimu na'aseh le-nishma", which
applauds Bnei Yisrael for first accepting the laws which
they haven't yet heard.  [Relate to "et asher adaber"!] 

C.  SOUND BYTES
	Many of the mitzvot in Parshat Mishpatim from
22:26-23:19 could be viewed as 'sound-bytes' for entire
'parshiot' that expound on these mitzvot in Sefer
Vayikra and Sefer Devarim.
1.  Attempt to find examples, e.g. 23:10 to Vayikra
25:1-8; 23:14 to Devarim 16:1-17.
2.  Use this to explain the nature of Parshat Mishpatim.
3.  How does this enhance our understanding of the
ceremony in perek 24?  Relate to 'sefer ha-brit'.
4.  Based on the above shiur, explain why Chazal
interpret the law of "va-avodo le-olam" (21:6) - when an
'eved ivri' agrees to work 'forever' - as referring to
the end of the seven cycles of shmitta, i.e. the 'yovel'
year - see Rashi 21:6 and Vayikra 25:8-11. 

D.  AVOT & TOLADOT
	We mentioned in the shiur that the mitzvot in
Mishpatim can be understood as 'toladot' of the Ten
Commandments.  See Ibn Ezra's observation of this point.
See also Abravanel.
1.  Attempt to find examples of dibrot V->X within the
civil laws.
2.  Explain why the laws concerning the mizbeiach should
be considered toladot of "lo tisa et shem Hashem
Elokecha la-shav."
3.  How does 'shem Hashem' relate to the concept of
mizbeiach?
	Relate to Breishit 12:8, 13:4, etc.
4.  How does 23:20-22 relate to this same idea of 'shem
Hashem'?  - see shiur below


THE 'TOLADOT' OF THE 'DIBROT'   [a mini shiur]
	In the following mini-shiur, we discuss once
again the progression of mitzvot in the "ko tomar" unit,
but this time from a different perspective. 
	Just as we have shown how these mitzvot follow
an 'educational progression,' we will now show how (and
why) they follow ('more or less') according to the order
of the Ten Commandments. 
	Let's begin by showing how the opening section
of mitzvot in this unit (i.e. 20:19-23 / the 'bein adam
la-Makom' mitzvot) can be viewed as 'toladot'
(sub-categories) of the first three Commandments:
 *1.  20:19 
"You have seen how I have spoken to you from heaven" -
thus emphasizing belief in God's hitgalut at Har Sinai.
This could be considered parallel to the first 'dibur' -
"Anochi Hashem Elokecha asher hotzeiticha..."
 *2.  20:20 
"Don't make [with] Me gods of gold and silver..." - This
prohibition of idol worship is obviously parallel to the
second 'dibur': "lo yihiyeh lecha..."
 *3.  20:21-23
"An earthen mizbeiach you shall make for Me...." - Even
though this parallel is not as obvious, this commandment
concerning how to build a mizbeiach may be compared to
the third 'dibur': "lo tisa et shem..." - not to mention
God's Name in vain.  The parallel can be based on our
study of Sefer Breishit where we saw how the mizbeiach
forms an avenue by which Avraham declared God's Name to
make it known to others.  [See Breishit 12:8 and 13:4
and Ramban on 12:8.] 

	As Parshat Mishpatim continues this "ko tomar"
unit, we can continue to find additional parallels to
the remaining dibrot.  Just as we found 'toladot' of the
first three 'dibrot', so do we find 'toladot' of the
fourth commandment - i.e. 'shabbat'.  In fact, both the
opening and closing sections of the mitzvot relate to
shabbat.  The opening mitzva, the law of a Hebrew
servant (21:1-6), is based on the concept of six years
of 'work' followed by 'rest' (=freedom) in the seventh
year.  The closing mitzvot of 'shmitta', shabbat, and
'aliya la-regel' (23:10-19), are similarly based on a
seven-day or seven-year cycle. 
	In between these two 'toladot' of shabbat, we
find primarily 'mitzvot bein adam le-chavero'
(21:1->23:9), which can be considered 'toladot' of the
fifth through tenth Commandments.
	The final section, describing God's promise to
help Bnei Yisrael conquer the land should they keep
these mitzvot, continues this pattern in descending
order:
	23:20-23 The mal'ach with "shmi be-kirbo" ->
III. "lo tisa"
	23:24 - Not to worship their idols -> II. -
"avoda zara"
	23:25 - Worshipping God and its reward... -> I.
Anochi

	This structure, by which the 'mitzvot bein adam
la-Makom' that govern our relationship with God (I->IV)
serve as 'bookends' enclosing the mishpatim [the civil
laws and ethical standards regarding one's relationship
to fellow men (V-X)], underscores an important tenet of
Judaism.  Unlike pagan religions, man's relationship
with other people constitutes an integral part of his
unique relationship with God. 

YITRO / MISHPATIM  - A CHIASTIC STRUCTURE
	The following table illustrates how this
progression of the  mitzvot according to the dibrot
helps form a chiastic structure, which encompasses the
entire unit from Shmot chapters 19->24.
	Note the chiastic A-B-C-D-C-B-A structure that
emerges:
A.  Brit  & the dibrot at Har Sinai (19:1-20:18)
|	B. Mitzvot 
  I, II, III (20:19-23) ['bein adam
la-Makom']
|	|	C. Eved Ivri (IV) [21:1-> 'bein adam
le-chavero']
|	|	|	D. Misc. civil laws (V-X) /
causative & imperative
|	|	C. Shmitta, shabbat, regalim (IV)
|	B. Mitzvot - III, II, I    (23:20-33) ["bein
adam la'makom"]
A. The 'Brit' of 'na'aseh ve-nishma' at Har Sinai and
Moshe's
	ascent to receive the 'luchot' containing the
'dibrot'.

	A chiastic structure (common in Chumash) usually
points to a common theme and purpose of its contents.
In our case, that theme is clearly 'Ma'amad Har Sinai'.
This unit of 'Ma'amad Har Sinai' (Shmot 19->24)
continues the theme of the first unit of Sefer Shmot
(1->18), the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim.
	We conclude our shiur by relating this structure
to the overall theme of Sefer Shmot, as discussed by
Ramban in his introduction to the sefer.
	As we explained, Yetziat Mitzrayim (our
redemption from Egypt) constituted the first stage in
God's fulfillment of brit avot.  Now, at Ma'amad Har
Sinai, Bnei Yisrael enter a second stage, as they
collectively accept God's covenant and receive the Torah
(brit Sinai).  These laws, especially those of Parshat
Mishpatim, will help form their character as God's
special nation - in order that they can fulfill the
final stage of 'brit Avot' - the inheritance of the
Promised Land and the establishment of that nation.



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.15/1249 -
Release Date: 1/29/2008 9:51 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mish2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 57734 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080130/967bc21f/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Feb  6 08:03:48 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:03:48 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Trumah -= shiur
Message-ID: <003b01c868c0$b9e066c0$9d00000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

               PARSHAT TERUMA

     Why do we need a Mishkan [Tabernacle]?
    It is commonly understood that ideally, God could be
worshiped
directly, i.e. without the need of a physical symbol.
However, due to the events of chet ha-egel [the sin of
the
Golden Calf], God changed His original plans; realizing
that
without providing some physical medium, Bnei Yisrael
would
inevitably turn to idol worship instead.

    This opinion is often attributed to Rashi, and the
host of
other commentators - who claim that the commandment to
build
the Mishkan [in Parshat Teruma] was first given, only
after
the sin of the golden calf [in Parshat Ki-tisa] - even
though
the Torah recorded the laws of Mishkan beforehand.
    Those who argue that the Mishkan was not an
'after-thought',
but rather part of God's ideal to have a 'meeting place'
with
His nation - are championed by Ramban, who claims
(arguing
with Rashi) that the Torah has recorded these events in
their
proper chronological order.  [According to this opinion,
it
was simply coincidental that Bnei Yisrael's sin with the
golden calf took place at the same time when God was
teaching
Moshe the laws of the Mishkan on Har Sinai.]

     Hence it would appear that the underlying reason
behind
this 'philosophical' debate (regarding the need for a
Mishkan)
lies in an 'exegetic' controversy concerning when the
commandment to build the mishkan was first given, before
or
after the sin of the golden calf.
     In this week's shiur, as we study this controversy
and
its ramifications, we will arrive at a very different
conclusion.  Our study will focus on the thematic
connections
between the Mishkan and Ma'amad Har Sinai, while trying
to
make sense out of Chazal's understanding of "ein mukdam
u-
me'uchar ba-Torah" - i.e. their exegetic assumption that
the
Torah may intentionally record certain events out of
their
chronological order.

INTRODUCTION
  - Four Units in the 2nd half of Sefer Shmot -
     To clarify our understanding this controversy
between
Rashi and Ramban, it is helpful to divide the last half
of
Sefer Shmot into four distinct (and rather obvious)
units.

1.  Chapters 19-24 - Ma'amad Har Sinai
  As we discussed in our shiurim on Yitro & Mishpatim -
this
  unit discusses both the covenants, and laws that were
given
  to Bnei Yisrael upon their arrival at Har Sinai.

2.  Chapters 25-31 - The commandment to build the
Mishkan
  This section includes a complete set of laws
concerning how
  to build (and operate) the Mishkan - that spans all of
  Parshiot Teruma & Tetzaveh, and the first half of Ki
Tisa.

3.  Chapters 32-34 - The sin of the Golden Calf
  These two chapters [i.e. the 2nd half of Parshat Ki
Tisa]
  form a distinct unit, as they describe the incident of
chet
  ha-egel and what takes place in its aftermath (i.e.
when
  Moshe ascends Har Sinai to receive the second luchot).

4,  Chapters 35-40  - The building of the Mishkan
  These six chapters [Parshiot Vayakhel/Pekudei] form
the
  final unit in Sefer Shmot, as they describe how the
Mishkan
  was built and assembled, concluding with God's
"schechina"
  descending upon it.

The following table reviews these four units:

CHAPTERS      TOPIC                 (PARSHA)
========      =====		    ========

(A) 19-24  MA'AMAD HAR SINAI       (YITRO/MISHPATIM)
             [the FIRST LUCHOT]

(B) 25-31  COMMANDMENT TO BUILD -  (TERUMAH/TEZAVEH)
		THE MISHKAN

(C) 32-34  CHET HA'EGEL         (2nd half of KI-TISA)
             [the SECOND LUCHOT]

(D) 35-40  BUILDING THE MISHKAN   (VA'YAKHEL/PEKUDEI)


     By referring to the above table, it is easier to
understand more precisely the basic controversy between
Rashi
and Ramban.  While Ramban keeps Chumash 'in order'
[A-B-C-D],
Rashi claims that God's commandment to build the Mishkan
[unit
'B'] was given only after the events of chet ha-egel
[unit
'C'], and hence the order would be A-C-B-D.  [See Rashi
on
31:18.]
     As Ramban's opinion appears to be most logical, we
begin
our study with a discussion of his approach.  Afterward,
we
study Rashi's approach to show how it fundamentally may
be
more similar to Ramban's than we originally assumed.

THE FIRST FORTY DAYS - FOR WHAT?
     Recall that at the conclusion of Parshat Mishpatim
[the
end of Unit A], Moshe ascends Har Sinai to receive the
"luchot, torah, & mitzva" (see 24:12).  As we know, the
luchot
are the tablets upon which God inscribed the Ten
Commandments.
Even though it remains unclear concerning what the words
torah
& mitzva refer to (note the different opinions among the
commentators on 24:12!), it would only be logical to
assume
that these laws that Moshe receives at this time, would
relate
in some form or other to these "luchot" that he now
ascends to
receive.
     In fact, the above chart illustrates the logic of
this
approach.  When Moshe ascends Har Sinai to receive the
luchot
at the conclusion of unit A (see 24:12-18) - he receives
exactly those commandments that follow immediately
afterward
in unit B - i.e. the laws of the Mishkan (i.e. chapters
25
thru 31).
  [For those of you familiar with computers, this is
similar
  to the concept of 'WYSIWYG' - What You See Is What You
Get.
  What the Torah records when Moshe goes up - is exactly
what
  Moshe received at that time.  It should be noted that
Ramban
  himself explains that the words "torah" & "mitzvah" in
24:12
  refer not only to the Mishkan, but to the laws that
Moshe
  teaches Bnei Yisrael in Sefer Devarim as well.]
  
     Furthermore, considering that the primary purpose
of
Moshe's ascent to Har Sinai is to receive the luchot -
which
serve as a symbol of the covenant at Har Sinai (see
19:5,
24:7); it only makes sense that he would receive at the
same
time a set of instructions to build an edifice that
would
house these 'tablets'.  [Recall that these "luchot" are
to be
housed in the aron - the holy ark - which is located at
the
center of the Mishkan.]
     Finally, it also appears that the Mishkan will also
serve
as the location from where God will continue to teach
Moshe
Rabeinu the remaining commandments.  Simply note the
Torah's
explicit explanation for the purpose of the "kaporet":
  "And you shall put the kaporet above upon the aron;
and in
  the aron you shall put the LUCHOT that I will give
you.
    And there I will meet with you, and I will SPEAK TO
YOU
  from above the kaporet - from between the two cherubim
-
  which are upon the ARON ha'EDUT, of all things which I
will
  command you concerning Bnei Yisrael."
        (see Shmot 25:21-22)

  This pasuk provides us with a perfect explanation for
why
the laws of the Mishkan come first.  Once the Mishkan is
built, the remaining mitzvot can be conveyed to Moshe
via the
kaporet!
   [In fact, note that immediately after the mishkan is
  assembled (see Shmot chapter 40), God transmits an
entire
  set of mitzvot to Moshe from the kaporet in the ohel
mo'ed -
  as described in book of Vayikra! [See Vayikra 1:1 and
our
  TSC shiur on Parshat Pekudei.]

     Therefore, even though Moshe Rabeinu may have
received
certain laws at this time in addition to those of the
Mishkan,
it certainly makes sense that God would have given the
laws of
the Mishkan to Moshe at this time as well.

 THE MISHKAN & HAR SINAI
     Not only does Ramban follow this approach, in his
commentary on the opening line of Parshat Teruma (see
25:1) he
suggests an even more profound reason for the Torah's
presentation of the laws of the Mishkan specifically at
this
time.
  Based on both textual and conceptual arguments, Ramban
argues that the primary purpose of the Mishkan was to
serve as
a vehicle that would allow Bnei Yisrael to perpetuate
the
experience of Ma'amad Har Sinai; and hence it becomes
the
first mitzva that Moshe receives when he ascends Har
Sinai.
Even though Moshe Rabeinu may have received other
mitzvot at
that time (see Ramban on 24:12), Sefer Shmot focuses
specifically on the laws of the Mishkan because it will
serve
as an everlasting symbol of the covenant that Bnei
Yisrael
accepted at Har Sinai.
     This provides us with yet another reason for why
the
first mtizva of this section is to build the "aron".
That
special ark will house the luchot - the symbol of their
covenant at Har Sinai.
     To summarize Ramban's approach, we will quote a few
lines
from his commentary [though it is highly recommended
that you
read the entire Ramban inside]:
  "After God had given the Ten Commandments directly to
  Yisrael and instructed them with a sampling of the
mitzvot
  (i.e. Parshat Mishpatim)... and Bnei Yisrael accepted
these
  laws and entered a covenant (24:1-11)... behold they
became
  His nation and He became their God, as was originally
  stipulated [at brit mila and Har Sinai]... Now they
are
  worthy to have a house - His dwelling - in their midst
  dedicated to His Name, and there He will speak with
Moshe
  and command Bnei Yisrael... Now the 'secret' ('sod')
of the
  mishkan is that God's glory ('kavod') which dwelled on
Har
  Sinai will now dwell [instead] on the mishkan
'be-nistar'
  [in a more hidden manner, in contrast to Har
Sinai]..." (see
  Ramban 25:1).

RASHI'S APPROACH
     Despite the beauty and simplicity of Ramban's
approach,
Rashi claims exactly the opposite (see 31:18): that the
commandment to build the mishkan came not only after,
but
actually because of, chet ha-egel.  In other words,
Rashi
posits that the parshiot are not presented according to
their
chronological order.  Rashi goes even further, claiming
that
during the first forty days Moshe received all the
mitzvot of
the Torah except the laws of the mishkan!
     At first glance, such an interpretation seems
untenable.
Why should the Torah record at this point specifically
the
mitzvot that Moshe did not receive at this time, while
omitting all the mitzvot which he did receive at this
time?
What could possibly have led Rashi to this conclusion?
     To answer this question, we must first explain the
exegetical principle of 'ein mukdam u-me'uchar ba-Torah'
[literally: there is no order in the sequence of
parshiot in
the Torah].  Despite a common misunderstanding, this
principle
does not imply that Chumash progresses in random
sequence.
Rather, it implies that when God instructs Moshe Rabeinu
to
write down the books of Chumash in the fortieth year,
its laws
and narratives are not necessarily recorded according to
their
chronological order.  Rather, for thematic
considerations,
Chumash may often record events in a different sequence
- in
order to convey a certain thematic message.
  [Most commentators, and especially many of the
Midrashim
  quoted by Rashi, employ this approach.  Ramban,
however,
  consistently disagrees with this assumption, arguing
that
  unless a certain technical detail 'forces' him to say
  otherwise, he will prefer to assume that Chumash is
written
  in chronological order.]

     The principle of "ein mukdam u-me'uchar" implies
that
when Moshe wrote down the Torah in its final form in the
fortieth year (see Devarim 31:25-26), its parshiot were
organized based on thematic considerations, and hence
not
necessarily according to the chronological order of when
they
were first given.  By doing so, the Torah conveys its
message
not only by the content of each parshia, but also by
intentionally juxtaposing certain parshiot next to one
another.
    [See Chizkuni on Shmot 34:32 for an important
insight
    regarding this explanation.]
     Rashi, following this approach, assumes that
Chumash (at
times) may prefer a conceptual sequence over a
chronological
one.  Therefore, Rashi will often explain that a certain
parshia actually took place earlier or later when the
progression of theme implies as such.
     With this background, we can better understand
Rashi's
approach in our context.  Employing the principle of ein
mukdam u-me'uchar, Rashi always begins with
considerations of
theme and content in mind.  He therefore cannot overlook
the
glaring similarities between the construction of the
mishkan
and chet ha-egel.  Could it  just be by chance that:
 *  Bnei Yisrael must collectively donate their gold to
build
    the mishkan (compare 25:1-2, 32:2-3);
 *  Betzalel, Chur's grandson, is chosen to build the
mishkan;
    [Rashi follows the Midrash which claims that Chur
was
    killed because he refused to allow Bnei Yisrael to
build
    the egel.  (See Chizkuni 31:2.)]
 *  The opening pasuk concerning the mishkan - "and they
shall
    make for Me a mikdash and I will dwell in their
midst"
    (25:8) - appears to rectify Bnei Yisrael's situation
in
    the aftermath of chet ha-egel, when Moshe must move
his
    tent (called the ohel mo'ed) far away - outside the
camp
    (33:7);
 *  Aharon must bring a par (a bull / an egel is a baby
bull)
    for a chatat offering during the mishkan's
dedication
    ceremony.  [The requirement of a chatat implies the
    committal of a sin; see Rashi 29:1.]

     Rashi therefore explains that the commandment to
build
the mishkan came after chet ha-egel (during the last
forty
days), for it served as a form of atonement for that
sin.
  [Nevertheless, it remains unclear according to Rashi
why the
  Torah chose to record these parshiot out of
chronological
  order.  We'll return to this question later in the
shiur.]

LECHATCHILA or BE-DI'AVAD?
     It is very tempting to consider this dispute
between
Rashi and Ramban a fundamental argument regarding the
reason
behind the mishkan.
     Clearly, according to Ramban, the mishkan is
'lechatchila' [ideal].  In other words, even had chet
ha-egel
never occurred, it still would have been God's desire
that
Bnei Yisrael build a mishkan, for it serves as a
physical
representation of God's presence in their midst and a
perpetuation of the Sinai experience.
     How should we understand Rashi?  Can we infer from
his
interpretation that the mishkan is 'be-di'avad' [a
compromise]?  In other words, had it not been for chet
ha-
egel, would there never have been a commandment to build
a
Temple?
  Was the mitzva to build the mishkan simply an 'after-
thought'?  Was it only in the aftermath of Bnei
Yisrael's sin
that God realized the people's need for a physical
representation of His presence?

     Despite the temptation to arrive at this
conclusion, we
posit that even according to Rashi's interpretation, one
can
(and must) agree that God had originally intended for
Bnei
Yisrael to have a Temple, or at least some form of
physical
symbol to represent Him.  To do so, i.e. to reconcile
Rashi's
interpretation with Ramban's explanation of the mishkan,
we
must differentiate between two key words (and concepts):
     (1) MISHKAN - the portable Temple in the desert
and
     (2) MIKDASH.- a permanent Temple

  Although both words describe a sanctuary dedicated to
the
worship of God, for the sake of clarity, each word (in
our
explanation that follows) will be given a more specific
meaning.

TEMPLE TERMINOLOGY
  * The mishkan is a temporary sanctuary (a Tabernacle),
a
    portable, tent-like structure.  [Good for travel.]

 *  The mikdash is a permanent sanctuary (a Temple),
such as
    the massive stone structure built by King Solomon in
    Jerusalem.

     We posit that Rashi would agree with Ramban's claim
that
the concept of a Sanctuary is "lechatchila, for it
serves as a
symbol of God's shchina (the divine presence) dwelling
with
Bnei Yisrael.  As anyone who has read the Bible must
notice,
the concept of a Temple emerges as a primary theme
throughout
the entire Tanach.
  To support this assumption, let's review several
related
themes that we have discussed at length in our shiurim
on
Sefer Breishit.
     Recall that we first encountered the theme of a
mikdash
when Avraham Avinu built a mizbeiach [altar] in Bet-El
and
"called out in God's Name" (see 12:8 & 13:4).  Later, at
that
same site, Yaakov Avinu awakes from his dream and
exclaims:
  "Alas, this is the site for a Bet Elokim, for it is
the gate
  to the heavens" (Br.28:17).

     Yaakov then erects a 'matzeva' (monument) and vows
that
upon his return to Canaan he will establish that site as
a Bet-
Elokim - a House for God. [See Breishit 28:17-22.]
     Thus, the very concept of a Bet-Elokim clearly
preceded
the golden calf.
     Furthermore, even in 'shirat ha-yam', the song that
Bnei
Yisrael sung after they crossed the Red Sea, we already
find
an allusion the establishment of a mikdash immediately
upon
their arrival in the land:
    "Tevieimo ve-titaeimo be-har nachalatcha, machon le-
    shivtecha... -  mikdash, Hashem konanu yadecha..."
    ["You shall bring them in, and plant them in the
mountain
    of  Your inheritance, the place, O LORD, which You
have
    set to dwell in, the MIKDASH (sanctuary), O Lord,
which
    Your hands have established"]
                   (See Shmot 15:17, and its context!)

     Finally, in Parshat Mishpatim we find conclusive
proof
that the basic concept of a Bet-Elokim is totally
unrelated to
the events of chet ha-egel.  Recall that even according
to
Rashi, the laws recorded in Parshat Mishpatim were
certainly
given before chet ha-egel.  [See Rashi on 31:18, where
he
explains that those laws (in Parshat Mishpatim) were
given to
Moshe Rabeinu during his first forty days on Har Sinai.]
     In that set of laws we find the mitzva of 'aliya
la-
regel' - to 'visit God' three times a year:
  "Three times a year you shall celebrate for Me... Keep
chag
  ha-matzot... and do not visit me empty-handed... Three
times
  a year all your males shall appear before me... " (see
23:14-
  17).
  
     If we find a commandment to 'be seen by God', it
implies
that there most be some type of sanctuary that would
represent
Him - i.e. a location where we can go to visit Him!
Therefore, without some sort of a mikdash, this mitzva
of
aliya la-regel could not be fulfilled.
     However, the next pasuk provides conclusive proof
that
this sanctuary corresponds to the concept of a
Bet-Elokim:
  "Your first fruits must be brought to bet Hashem
Elokecha -
  to the HOUSE of the Lord your God..." (23:19).

     This commandment to bring the first fruits to the
Bet
Elokim clearly implies that there would have to be some
sort
of 'sanctuary' that will serve as God's House.
     Hence, even Rashi must agree that there would have
been a
need for a Bet-Elokim even had Bnei Yisrael not sinned
at chet
ha-egel.
     Furthermore, there is no reason for Rashi not to
agree
with Ramban's explanation that the primary function of
the
mikdash (and its vessels) was to perpetuate Bnei
Yisrael's
experience at Har Sinai.  Instead, we will now show how
their
dispute over the chronological order of these events
stems
from a less fundamental issue - concerning the need to
construct a temporary sanctuary before entering the Land
of
Israel.

WHO NEEDS A TENT?
     According to Rashi's interpretation, one can still
assume
that God's original intention was for Bnei Yisrael to
build a
mikdash [a Temple].  However, had they not sinned with
the
Golden Calf, there would not have been any need to build
a
temporary one in the desert.  However, after they
sinned, the
conquest of the Land would now be delayed.  Furthermore,
the
nation needed to do something to show their repentance.
Therefore, God ordered them to build a temporary mikdash
[what
we call a mishkan] at Har Sinai - before they would
continue
on their journey.
     Ramban would argue that even had Bnei Yisrael not
sinned,
it would still have been necessary for them to build a
temporary mikdash [= mishkan] before they embarked on
that
journey.
     Let's attempt to explain why.

     Rashi's position may be based upon God's original
plan
that Bnei Yisrael would conquer the land through
supernatural,
divine intervention (see Shmot 23:20-28).  Assisted by
God's
miracles, Bnei Yisrael would have needed only a very
short
time to complete at least the first wave of conquest.
Had
that actually occurred, there would have been no need to
build
a temporary mishkan, for within a very short time it
would
have been possible to build a permanent mikdash instead.
     However, in the aftermath of chet ha-egel, the
entire
situation changes.  As God had removed His Shchina,
Bnei
Yisrael must first bring the Shchina back to the camp
before
they can conquer the Land.  Hence, according to Rashi,
the
actual process of building the mishkan could be
considered a
form of 'spiritual rehabilitation'.  Furthermore, the
mishkan
would now provide Aharon and Bnei Yisrael with the
opportunity
to offer korbanot and thus achieve atonement for their
sin.
     One could also suggest that due to chet ha-egel and
the
'lower level' of the 'mal'ach' that will lead them into
the
land (see Shmot 33:1-5 and the TSC shiur on  Parshat
Ki-tisa
re: the 13 midot), it may now take much longer for Bnei
Yisrael to complete their conquest.  Therefore, a
temporary
mikdash [= mishkan] is required, until a more permanent
mikdash can be built.

A CONCEPTUAL JUXTAPOSITION
     According to this interpretation, we can now
suggest
(according to Rashi) a beautiful thematic reason for the
Torah
placing the commandment to build the mishkan out of
chronological order:
     Even though the mitzva to build the 'temporary'
mishkan
was given after the story of chet ha-egel, the Torah
intentionally records it earlier - immediately after
Ma'amad
Har Sinai - to emphasize its thematic connection to that
event!  In other words, Rashi, like Ramban, can also
understand that the primary function of the mikdash was
to
perpetuate Ma'amad  Har Sinai.  In fact, had Bnei
Yisrael not
sinned, the laws of the 'permanent' mikdash may have
been
recorded at this spot in Chumash.  However, now that a
mishkan
was needed (due to the events of chet ha-egel), the laws
of
this temporary mikdash are recorded at this point in
Chumash,
to emphasize the very same thematic connection that
Ramban
describes in great detail!
     Now that Rashi makes so much sense, why wouldn't
Ramban
agree?  To answer this question, we must return to our
discussion of the differing approaches to 'mukdam
u-me'uchar'.
     Ramban prefers his principle that Chumash follows
chronological order.  Despite the similarities between
the
mishkan and the story of chet ha-egel (as listed above),
they
are not convincing enough to warrant, in Ramban's view,
a
distortion of the order of these parshiot.  Therefore,
Ramban
maintains that even had it not been for chet ha-egel,
there
still would have been a need for a temporary mishkan.
     In fact, one could suggest a very simple reason for
the
immediate need of a temporary sanctuary.  As we
explained
earlier, Bnei Yisrael must still receive many more
mitzvot
from God.  A mishkan - with the aron and keruvim at its
center
- is therefore necessary as the medium through which God
can
convey the remaining mitzvot to Moshe.  Furthermore,
once the
Shchina descended upon Har Sinai, some sort of vehicle
is
necessary to 'carry it' with them as they travel from
Har
Sinai towards Eretz Canaan.
  [Accordingly, Ramban explains that most of all the
mitzvot
  recorded in Sefer Vayikra and Sefer Bamidbar were
actually
  given from the ohel mo'ed (mishkan).  See Ramban
Vayikra 1:1
  & 7:38.  In regard to Sefer Devarim, see Ramban on
24:1 &
  24:12.]

     In summary, the dispute between Rashi and Ramban
stems
from their different exegetical approaches and pertains
only
to why a temporary mishkan was necessary before leaving
Mount
Sinai.  However, both would agree that a permanent
mikdash
would have been necessary even had Bnei Yisrael not
sinned at
chet ha-egel, for Bnei Yisrael, being God's special
nation,
require a symbol of His Presence in their midst.
     In our shiur on Parshat Tetzaveh, we will analyze
the
internal structure of this unit of chapters 25->31 in
order to
uncover additional parallels between the mishkan and the
events of Ma'amad Har Sinai.  Till then,

                                   shabbat shalom
                                   menachem


FOR FURTHER IYUN:
A.  In the shiur we argue that even according to Rashi,
the
concept of a required mikdash for serving Hashem existed
even
prior to the worship of the golden calf.  Along similar
lines,
Rav David Pardo, in his supra-commentary on Rashi
entitled,
"Maskil le-David", writes that even in Rashi's view, the
general command to build a mishkan was transmitted to
Moshe
during his first forty days atop the mountain.  Only the
details of the construction, as presented in parshiyot
Teruma
& Tetzaveh (and the beginning of Ki Tisa), were
transmitted
later.  Rav Pardo proves this from the repeated
reference in
parshat Teruma to Hashem's having shown Moshe the
appearance
of the mishkan "on the mountain" (25:40; 26:30; 27:8).
In the
final two of these three references, Hashem employs the
past
tense ("you have been shown"), suggesting that Moshe
viewed
the image the mishkan before receiving these detailed
instructions.  Apparently, as Rav Pardo argues, Moshe
learned
of the mishkan - albeit only the generalities - during
his
first forty days on the mountain, even before the calf.
Thus,
Rashi clearly did not view the mishkan as necessary only
in
response to the sin of the egel ha-zahav.

B.  RAMBAN / RASHI - earlier sources
     The argument as to whether Hashem ordered the
construction of the mishkan before or after the sin of
the
golden calf predates Rashi and the Ramban; conflicting
views
appear already in the Midrashim.  Rashi's view, that the
parshiyot appear out of order, is the position of the
Midrash
Tanchuma (Teruma 8, Pekudei 6), Yerushalmi (Shkalim 1:1)
and
Midrash Hagadol to Shmot 25:17.  The Ramban's opinion is
found
in Seder Eliyahu Rabba 17, which states explicitly that
Hashem
ordered the construction of the mishkan after Bnei
Yisrael
declared 'na'aseh ve-nishma'.  Ibn Ezra (25:1) adopts
the
Ramban's approach, as do the Abarbanel (31:18) and the
Netziv
(29:20).  Despite his general affinity for the Ramban's
commentary, on this issue Rabbenu Bechayei adopts
Rashi's
approach (25:6)

C.  Mikdash Before Chet Ha-egel:  Midrashic Sources
     Several Midrashic passages support our contention
that a
mikdash would have been necessary even had it not been
for the
golden calf.  Bemidbar Rabba 12:12 compares the world
before
the mishkan to a chair with two legs, which cannot
stand; the
construction of the mishkan added the third leg,
so-to-speak,
which enabled the world to stand independently.  However
one
understands the image of the chair, it clearly points to
the
indispensability of the mishkan - regardless of chet
ha-egel.
Similarly, Bemidbar Rabba 13:6 describes that from the
time of
creation, Hashem wished ('kivyachol') to reside on
earth.
When the mishkan was consecrated, Hashem announced that
on
that day the world was created.  Once again, we see that
the
construction of the mishkan marked a critical stage in
the
history of the world and was necessary since the dawn of
creation.  In the same vein, Bemidbar Rabba 13 writes
that
when Bnei Yisrael left Egypt, Hashem wished to "bring
them
into His quarters", and thus instructed them to build
the
mishkan.  This Midrash makes no mention of the incident
of the
golden calf as necessitating a mikdash.  A similar
passage
appears in the Tanchuma Yashan - Bechukotai 65.
     We suggested in the shiur that according to Rashi,
the
Torah presents Parshat Teruma immediately following
Matan
Torah - despite its having occurred later, after the
egel - to
emphasize the thematic relationship between the mishkan
and
Matan Torah.  Rabbenu Bechayei (25:6), however, explains
that
the Torah rearranged the sequence in order to
demonstrate how
Hashem is "makdim trufa le-maka" (recall that, as cited
earlier, Rav Kasher reads this explanation into the
Midrash
Lekach Tov).  Rav Zalman Sorotzkin (Oznayim La-Torah)
mentions
this explanation without quoting Rabbenu Bechayei.  A
different answer was suggested by the late Lubavitcher
Rebbe
("Be'urim Le-perush Rashi al Ha-Torah" - Shmot 31:18).
The
Torah specifically wanted to juxtapose the tzivuy
ha-mishkan
with the end of Parshat Mishpatim - the formal
establishment
of the 'brit' between Bnei Yisrael and Hashem.  As the
residence of the Shchina in the mishkan marked the
complete
fulfillment of that brit, it is only fitting that the
parsha
of the mishkan immediately follows that of the covenant.
(This explanation, too, seems to point to the fact that
the
mishkan is lechatchila even according to Rashi.)

D.  SEFORNO
     The Seforno takes a particularly extreme approach
to the
concept of the mishkan.  Already in his comments to
19:6, he
notes that as a result of the egel, Bnei Yisrael
forfeited
"all the goodness of the future" promised to them before
Matan
Torah.  As we will see in his comments elsewhere, this
refers
to God's direct revelation, which was supplanted by the
mishkan.  In his commentary to the final psukim of
Parshat
Yitro (20:20-22), the Seforno interprets these psukim as
informing Bnei Yisrael that they have no need to
construct a
sanctuary to God.  Matan Torah demonstrated that Hashem
would
descend, as it were, and reside among them even without
any
physical mediums.  Commenting on 25:9, Seforno writes
that
after the incident of the golden calf Bnei Yisrael were
required to construct a sanctuary; the direct
communication
experienced at Har Sinai could no longer be maintained.
Seforno expresses his position even clearer in 31:18,
where he
describes more fully Bnei Yisrael's spiritual descent as
a
result of the golden calf, as a result of which they did
not
achieve the divine plan initially intended at Matan
Torah.  In
this passage, he alludes to an interesting
interpretation of
the promise in 19:6 that Bnei Yisrael would be a
'mamlechet
kohanim' (a kingdom of priests): that they would have no
need
for kohanim to serve as intermediaries.  God had
originally
intended for all of Bnei Yisrael to serve God directly
as
kohanim.  (Curiously, however, this is not how the
Seforno
explains the term in his commentary to 19:6 -
"ve-tzarich
iyun".)  He develops this idea even further in Vayikra
11:2.
There he explains that in response to the golden calf,
Hashem
decreed that He would remove His Shchina entirely from
Bnei
Yisrael.  Moshe's intervention succeeded in restoring a
very
limited measure of 'hashra'at ha-Shchina', by which God
would
reside among Bnei Yisrael only through the structure of
the
mishkan.  (In this passage, Seforno spells out more
clearly
what he meant by "the goodness of the future" of which
he
spoke in his comments to Shmot 19:6 - the direct
presence of
the Shchina, without the need for a physical
representation.)
Later in Sefer Vayikra, in his commentary to the brachot
of
Parshat Bechukotai (26:11-12), Seforno describes the
ideal
condition of God's constant presence among Benei Yisrael
without it being confined to any specific location and
without
requiring any specific actions on Benei Yisrael's part.
In
direct contradistinction to the Ramban, Seforno there
reads
the pasuk in Truma, "Ve-asu li mikdash ve-shachanti
betocham",
as a punishment, confining the presence of the Shchina
to the
mishkan.  Seforno's most elaborate development of this
notion
appears in his treatise "Ma'amar Kavanot ha-Torah"
(published
as a separate volume by Rav Yehuda Kuperman in 5754; the
relevant material for our topic is found primarily in
chapter
6 in Rav Kuperman's edition).
     This position of the Seforno, of course, requires
some
explanation in light of the proofs mentioned in the
shiur to
the necessity of a mikdash even prior to the egel.  In
fact,
the Seforno himself identifies Yaakov's Bet Elokim
(Breishit
28:17) and the mikdash in the Shirat Ha-yam (Shmot
15:17) as
the beit ha-mikdash.  How could the concept of a mikdash
be
discussed before chet ha-egel - if it was never to have
been
necessary?
     The Seforno does not address this question, but in
at
least two instances he alludes to what may be understood
as a
moderation of his approach.  Commenting on the pasuk
"be-chol
ha-makom asher askir et Shmi avo eilecha" ("every place
where
I will have My Name mentioned I will come to you" -
Shmot
20:21), the Seforno explains, "[Every place] that I will
designate as a meeting place for My service".  He then
adds,
"You will not need to draw My providence to you through
mediums of silver and gold and the like, for I will come
to
you and bless you".  Apparently, even according to this
original plan, there would still be a place designated
as a
mikdash of sorts, only Bnei Yisrael would not need to
invest
effort in its lavish and intricate construction.  In
Ma'amar
Kavanot ha-Torah, Seforno makes a somewhat similar
comment in
explaining this same pasuk: "In any place that will
truly be
called a Bet Elokim, such as batei midrash and the like
- I
will come to you and bless you."  Here, too, he implies
that
there would be a special location - or perhaps several
or many
special locations - for avodat Hashem, only not what we
know
as the mishkan or mikdash.  However, in his commentary
to
Parshat Bechukotai (Vayikra 26:12), the Seforno strongly
implies that in the ideal condition Hashem reveals
Himself
anywhere, without any need for an especially designated
location - 've-tzarich iyun'.

E.  RAMBAM - Review Devarim chapter 12.  Note the
repeated use
of the phrase "ha-makom asher yivchar Hashem" and its
context.
Pay special attention to 12:5-12, noting when is the
proper
time to build the mikdash.  Relate this phrase to the
concept
of a permanent mikdash, as discussed in the above shiur.
Considering that Sefer Devarim contains the mitzvot that
God
originally gave Moshe at Har Sinai (before chet
ha-egel),
explain why Sefer Devarim makes no mention of the
mishkan, yet
mentions "ha-makom asher yivchar Hashem" numerous times.
      Although the Rambam did not write a commentary on
Chumash, we can infer his understanding of certain
psukim
based on his psak halacha in Mishneh Torah.
     The opening Rambam in Hilchot Beit Ha-bechira
(Sefer
Avoda) defines the source of the commandment to build a
mikdash (see 1:1).  Read that Rambam (and, if you have
time,
the first five halachot).  What is difficult about the
Rambam's wording in 1:1?  What is the source of our
obligation
to build a mikdash?  Why, according to the Rambam, is
the
phrase "ve-asu li mikdash" (25:8) insufficient as a
source for
this obligation?
     Why does the Rambam include the criteria, 'ready to
offer
upon it korbanot' and 'to celebrate there three times a
year'?
Can you relate these phrases to Shmot 23:14-19 and this
week's
shiur?  Why does the Rambam quote the pasuk from Devarim
12:9-
11?  Read those psukim carefully!

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1260 -
Release Date: 2/5/2008 9:44 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: truma1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 56098 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080206/66d63512/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Feb 13 16:15:23 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:15:23 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Tezaveh - shiur
Message-ID: <007201c86e85$8e05a720$0400000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

             PARSHAT TETZAVEH - The mizbach ha'ktoret

     Order in the 'court-yard'?  Certainly that's what
we'd
expect to find when the Torah presents the laws of the
mishkan; and that is exactly what we do find - most of
the
time.
     However, there is one glaring exception - that
relates to
the placement of the laws of the mizbach ha-ktoret at
the end
of Parshat Tetzaveh (instead of at the beginning of
Parshat
Teruma).
     In the following shiur, we will first clarify our
question; afterward we will offer an explanation that
relates
once again to the thematic connection between the
mishkan and
Ma'amad Har Sinai.

INTRODUCTION
     Recall, from last week's shiur how Parshat Tetzaveh
forms
part of the larger unit (chapters 25 thru 31), which we
referred to as tzivui ha-mishkan [the commandment to
build the
mishkan].  This unit contains a complete set of laws in
which
God explains to Moshe how the mishkan is to be built and
how
it will operate.

     In that shiur, we discussed the controversy
concerning
when and why this set of laws was first given to Moshe
Rabeinu.  In the following shiur, we analyze the
internal
structure of this unit, to show how (and why) it
actually
contains two distinct units - that overlap in a very
special
manner.

A VERY LONG 'DIBBUR'
     Before we begin, we must make one general
observation
concerning why parshiot Teruma and Tetzaveh (i.e. Shmot
25:1-
30:10) should be considered a distinct 'sub-unit'.  Note
how
Parshat Teruma begins with God's commandment to Moshe to
"speak to Bnei Yisrael and tell them..." (25:1) -
followed by
a lengthy set of instructions that continues all the way
until
the end of Parshat Tetzaveh (i.e. 30:10).  To prove
this,
simply note how the next "dibur" doesn't begin until the
opening pasuk of Parshat Ki Tisa. [See the new "dibur"
in
30:11, while noting that there has not been any similar
opening statement since 25:1.  However, from 30:11 till
the
end of chapter 31, every parshia in a separate "dibur"!
We'll
return to this observation later in the shiur.]

     Therefore, we begin our study with an analysis of
this
first 'sub-unit' (i.e. 25:1 thru 30:10).  Afterward, we
will
discuss how the six short 'parshiot' in Parshat Ki Tisa
(30:11
thru 31:18) that follow, even though they are outside
this
unit, complete the larger unit of "tzivui ha-mishkan" -
the
commandment to build the Mishkan.

AN OUTLINE OF TERUMA/TETZAVEH
     The following outline summarizes the topic of each
parshia within this unit of parshiot Teruma/Tetzaveh.
Study
it carefully, noting how it appears to follow in a
rather
logical order (at least until the very end).  It will
clarify
our opening question.
     [Follow this chart with a Tanach Koren at hand.]

Introduction - Donation of the materials  (25:1-7)
     & the purpose of this project:
      "Ve-asu li mikdash ve-shachantI betocham" (25:8-9)

Vessels in the Kodesh Kodashim (innermost sanctuary)
     Aron - the ark to house the "luchot"  (25:10-16)
     Kaporet -  the special lid for the ark (25:17-22)

Vessels in the Kodesh (main sanctuary)
     Shulchan - the table for the show-bread (25:23-30)
     Menora - the candelabra (25:31-40)

The Ohel Mo'ed [The tent housing these vessels]
(26:1-37)
     Yeriot  - The canvas of the tent - from cloth &
goatskins
     Krashim - the wooden beams supporting this tent
     Parochet - the curtain to partition the Kodesh
Kdoshim

The Chatzer  [The outer courtyard & its vessels]
     Mizbeiach Ha-Ola (the altar / 27:1-8)
     Chatzer - the outer courtyard
          its curtains and poles  (see 27:9-19)

Oil For The Menora  (27:20-21)
  [A priori, we would have expected to find this
commandment
  with the menorah.  See further iyun.]

The 'Bigdei Kehuna' - (28:1-43)
     Six parshiot describing the priestly garments

The Seven-Day Inaugural Dedication Ceremony (29:1-37)

Olat Tamid  (29:38-46)
     The daily offering on the altar (after its
dedication)

The Mizbach Ha-Ktoret - the incense altar (30:1-10)
  [This seems 'out of place', as we will discuss.']

     As you review this outline, note the logical order
of its
progression.  It begins by describing the 'aron' - the
most
sacred object in the mishkan, situated in the 'kodesh
kodashim'; then continues with the vessels located in
the
'kodesh', followed by the 'ohel mo'ed' [Tent of
Meeting],
which houses these vessels.  Afterward we find the
'mizbach ha-
ola' - which is located outside this tent - and the
courtyard
['chatzer'] that surrounds it.  This unit concludes with
the
'bigdei kehuna' - the special garments for the kohanim
who
will officiate in the mishkan, followed by the details
of its
seven-day dedication ceremony (and the daily sacrifice
that
will be henceforth offered).
     However, the final parshia describing the "mizbach
ha-
ktoret appears to be totally 'out of place'.  After all,
this
golden altar is one of the three vessels situated in the
kodesh.  Clearly, this parshia should have been recorded
in
chapter 26 together with the laws of the "shulchan and
menorah
- the other vessels located in the ohel mo'ed.

     To verify this point (that the mizbach ktoret is
recorded
out of place), simply note the parallel mention of these
vessels in Parshat Vayakhel (see 35:13-15, 37:10-29, &
39:35-39).  There the laws of the mizbach ktoret are
consistently recorded together with the laws of the
menorah
and the shulchan.
     Furthermore, this 'displacement' of the mizbach
ha-ktoret
is only half the problem.  We will now explain how the
psukim
that precede this parshia place this golden altar in
even
greater 'isolation'!

OUT OF 'PLACE'  and  'OUT' OF PLACE
     Review the above outline once again, noting how the
parshia of the olat tamid (29:38-46) forms what 'should
have
been' the conclusion of this unit.  Let's take a closer
look
at this parshia, noting how its concluding verses forms
a
beautiful summary for this entire unit (see 29:42-44):
  "Olat tamid for all generations, in front of the ohel
mo'ed
  - the place where we will meet to speak to you from
there."
       [note how this pasuk 'matches' 25:22!]
  And I will sanctify the OHEL MO'ED (& its vessels),
       [summarizing chapters 25 & 26]
     the MIZBEIACH (i.e. the chatzer),
          [summarizing chapter 27)
     and the KOHANIM... (i.e. their garments &
dedication)
          [summarizing chapters 28 & 29]
                                        (see 29:44)
  As you review these psukim, note how the words in CAPS
correlate to the primary topics in the above outline!
But
that's not all, for the next pasuk forms almost a
perfect
'bookend' for this entire unit: "ve-shachanti betoch
bnei
Yisrael..." (see 29:45) - matching: "ve-asu li mikdash
ve-
shachanti betocham" (see 25:8) -the opening commandment
of
this entire unit - found at the beginning of Parshat
Teruma!

  Finally, to top it off, this parshia concludes with
its
'grand finale' - that connects the purpose of this
mishkan to
the very purpose of the entire process of Yetziat
Mitzrayim:
  "And they shall know that I am their God who took them
out
  of Egypt - le-shochni betocham - in order to dwell
among
  them; I am the Lord their God"  (see 29:42-46).

     Thus, chapters 25 thru 29 form a clearly defined
unit
with 'matching bookends'.  But this only magnifies our
opening
question regarding the placement of the laws concerning
the
mizbach ha-ktoret (in the next parshia / see 30:1-10) -
for it
is not only 'out of place' - it is totally isolated -
outside
this 'shechina' unit!
     This total isolation of the mizbach ha-ktoret
forces us
to search for a thematic reason for the Torah's
intentional
placement of these laws after the closure of the
shechina
unit.

BACK TO HAR SINAI
     To suggest an answer to this question, let's return
once
again to the conceptual parallel between the mishkan and
Har
Sinai, as discussed in last week's shiur, and as
explicated by
Ramban:
  "... the hidden purpose ['sod'] of the mishkan is for
God's
  glory which dwelled ('shachan') on Har Sinai to dwell
upon
  it..." (Ramban on 25:1, see TSC shiur on Teruma).

     According to Ramban, the very purpose of the
mishkan was
to serve as a vehicle that could perpetuate the Sinai
experience!  This purpose is reflected in the numerous
parallels that exist between Ma'amad Har Sinai and the
mishkan.  For example:
 * The aron:
  contains the luchot ha-eidut (25:21), the everlasting
  testimony of the covenant forged between God and bnei
  Yisrael at Har Sinai (see 24:3-12).

 * The keruvim:
  situated above the kaporet (on top of the aron), serve
as
  the site from where God will continue to speak to
Moshe.
  There, Moshe will receive the remaining mitzvot, just
as he
  had received the dibrot from God on Har Sinai.

 * The mizbach ha-ola: -
  where Bnei Yisrael will offer their olot & shlamim, is
  similar to the mizbeiach that Bnei Yisrael built at
the foot
  of Har Sinai, upon which they offered olot & shlamim
(see
  24:4-8).

     Following this train of thought, we should expect
to find
a parallel as well between the mizbach ha-ktoret and
Ma'amad
Har Sinai - a parallel that may shed light on why the
Torah
places the mizbach ha-ktoret after the Shechina unit of
the
mishkan was completed.  To find it, we must first
consider a
more general parallel between Har Sinai and the mishkan.

THREE MECHITZOT
     One of the most striking parallels between the
mishkan
and Har Sinai relates to the concept of 'mechitzot' -
boundaries.  At Har Sinai, the people are instructed to
remain
at the foot of the mountain while the kohanim are
permitted to
come a bit closer (see 19:22;  24:1-2 & 24:9).  Only
Moshe is
granted access to the top of the mountain (see 19:20-24
& 24:2
& 24:12).

     In regard to the mishkan, we find a very
interesting
parallel.  The people are permitted to proceed only as
far as
the outer courtyard of the mishkan (where the mizbach
ha-ola
is located).  The kohanim are allowed into the "kodesh"
(where
the shulchan & menorah are located), and only Moshe (and
Aharon) can enter the "kodesh ha-kodashim" (where the
aron &
keruvim are located).
  [Additionally, Bnei Yisrael may enter the courtyard
only
  after first purifying themselves (i.e. they must be
  "tahor"), just as a purification process was required
in
  preparation for Ma'amad Har Sinai (see 19:10-15).]

     The following table summarizes this parallel:
     
GROUP    HAR         THE        FUNCTION
         SINAI      MISHKAN     ========
      	 =====	    =======	
Moshe    top of     Kodesh       dibur
         mountain   kodashim

Kohanim   mid-       Kodesh      meeting
         mountain  (ohel moed)
      
People    foot of    Chatzer     korbanot
         mountain   (courtyard)  
               

     So how does the mizbach ha-ktoret fit into all
this?

     In our shiur on Parshat Yitro, we discussed the
dialectic
nature of the encounter between God and Bnei Yisrael at
Har
Sinai.  Ideally, Bnei Yisrael should have heard the
commandments directly from God ['panim be-panim'].
However,
as mortal man is incapable of withstanding God's
Presence (see
Devarim 5:4-5, 20-25), God found it necessary to
'buffer' this
encounter.  due to this tension, God found it necessary
to
cover Har Sinai with a cloud before revealing himself:
  "Behold I am coming to you be-av he-anan - in the
thickness
  of a cloud - in order that they can hear as I speak to
  you..."  (see 19:9)
  "... And Har Sinai was full of smoke ['ashan'], for
God had
  come down upon it with fire... "
          (see 19:16-18 and the TSC shiur on Parshat
Yitro).

     In this manner, the anan (cloud) on Har Sinai
effectively
served as a buffer between:
 - Bnei Yisrael at the foot of the mountain, and
 - God's revelation at the top of the mountain.
     One could suggest that the mizbach ha-ktoret serves
a
similar function.  When the ktoret [incense] is offered
on the
coals of this small altar, it creates a cloud of smoke
(see
Vayikra 16:13) in the "kodesh".  In this manner, this
"anan"
[cloud of smoke] forms a buffer between Bnei Yisrael,
who
stand outside in the chatzer - and God, whose presence
dwells
in the "kodesh ha-kodashim".

THE AXIS: -Aron -- Mizbach Ktoret -- Mizbach Ola
     This interpretation is supported by two key psukim
that
describe the relationship between the mizbach ha-ola,
mizbach
ha-ktoret, and the kodesh kodashim.
     The first pasuk stresses the connection between the
mizbach ha-ola and the ohel mo'ed.  As you study this
pasuk,
note how redundant it appears to be:
  "olat tamid [the daily offering on the mizbach ha-ola]
   - for all generations,
   - in front of the entrance to the ohel mo'ed -
   - before God  [lifnei Hashem]
   - from where I will meet you
   - to speak to you there"   (see 29:42).

     Surely, the Torah could have explained where this
public
offering is brought in half the words; yet for some
reason the
Torah wishes to emphasize a thematic connection between
the
"olat tamid" and the place where God will speak to Bnei
Yisrael.
  Then, in the next 'parshia', the Torah provides
explicit
instructions concerning where to place the mizbach
ha-ktoret.
Note once again the 'wordiness' of this pasuk, and how
it
relates to the pasuk above:
  "And you shall place it [the mizbach ktoret]
   - in front of the parochet,
   - which is over the aron ha-eidut,
   - in front of the kaporet which is upon the eidut
   - from where I will meet with you."  (see 30:6).

  It is for this reason that the Torah emphasizes that
the
mizbach ktoret must be located between these two focal
points,
i.e. along this very same axis that connects the mizbach
ha-
ola with the kodesh kodashim.
  In fact, later on in the same chapter, when the Torah
explains how the ktoret was made, it emphasizes this
point
once again:
"...and you shall grind it very fine, and put it:
 - before the testimony  [lifnei ha'eidut]
 - in the tent of meeting [ohel moed],
 - where I will meet with you;  -  it shall be for you
most
holy."  (see 30:36)


A 'PROTECTED' DIVINE ENCOUNTER
     In a manner very similar to what took place at Har
Sinai,
God 'comes down' from the heavens, as it were, to the
kodesh
kodashim; while Bnei Yisrael come from their camp, to
stand
before God in the chatzer of the mishkan.
     Hence, the main section of the ohel mo'ed serves as
a
buffer between God and Bnei Yisrael.  There, the ktoret
must
be offered each time the kohen enters to perform his
service,
which creates an anan [cloud of smoke] to 'protect' the
kohen
when he enters the kodesh:
  "And Aharon shall offer the ktoret daily, in the
morning
  before tending to the menorah, and when lighting the
menorah
  in the evening..." (30:7-8).
  [Note also Vayikra 16:2, where Aharon must also offer
  ktoret to create a similar cloud of smoke to protect
  himself before entering the kodesh ha-kodashim on Yom
  Kippur!]
  
     With this background we can answer our opening
question.
One could suggest that by placing the commandment to
build the
mizbach ha-ktoret after the summary psukim at the very
end of
this unit, the Torah alludes to its unique function as a
'buffer' in this covenantal encounter.  As -
'realistically' -
Bnei Yisrael may not be worthy of this encounter, the
Torah
commands Bnei Yisrael to place the mizbach ktoret in the
kodesh to serve as a buffer, to protect them for the
Shechina
that dwells in the kodesh kedoshim.
  [Note the similarity between the nature of this
'protected
  encounter' in the mishkan and what we referred to in
our
  shiur on Parshat Yitro as 'plan A,' by which God
speaks to
  Moshe while 'covered by a cloud' so that the people
can only
  overhear their conversation.  See Shmot 19:9! See also
  Devarim 5:5.]

     Furthermore, the dialectic nature of this encounter
is
highlighted by the placement of the laws of the mizbach
ha-
ktoret outside this Shechina unit, yet within the same
dibur!

THE KTORET UNIT
     Up until this point, we have treated parshiot
Teruma/Tetzaveh as one, integrated unit, as indicated by
the
single dibur that introduces these two parshiot.  Now we
must
consider the remaining parshiot (in Parshat Ki Tisa)
that form
the final six paragraphs of the greater tzivui
ha-mishkan
unit.
     Take a minute to review the beginning of Ki-Tisa
(i.e.
30:11-31:17), noting how it describes several other
mitzvot
concerning the mishkan that were also 'left out' of the
Shechina unit.
     When we list these parshiot in order, we find once
again
a set of 'bookends':

30:1-10    mizbach ha-ktoret (* bookend 1 *)
              (as explained above)

30:11-16   Machatzit ha-shekel -
              money collected to fund the ohel mo'ed

30:17-21   Ki'yor
             the faucet for the kohanim to wash their
hands

30:22-33   Shemen ha-mishcha
           special oil to anoint the mishkan's
accessories and the
            kohanim

30:34-38  Ktoret (* bookend 2 *)
             the incense for the mizbach ktoret

  [At this point, the laws concerning the mishkan end.
  Chapter 31 discusses the appointment of Betzalel to
build
  the mishkan and the prohibition to work on Shabbat (to
  preclude the possible, mistaken notion the work for
the
  mishkan on shabbat is permissible).  Whereas these do
not
  involve laws directly relating to the construction of
the
  mishkan and its accessories, we have omitted them from
this
  table.]
  
     The above table shows how (1) the mizbach ktoret
and (2)
the mitzvah to make the ktoret delineate a second unit,
which
contains several peripheral commandments regarding the
mishkan.

A PARALLEL STRUCTURE
     As your review these parshiot, note how a rather
amazing
parallel structure emerges; pointing to the direct
connection
between this Ktoret unit and the previous Shechina unit.
Note
how each of these peripheral commandments in the Ktoret
unit
corresponds (in the same order!) to a related topic in
the
Shechina unit!
     The following table illustrates this parallel:

TOPIC         SHECHINA      KTORET
              UNIT           UNIT

Accessories    aron,        mizbach
 in the        kaporet,      ktoret
mishkan        shulchan,
               menorah

Ohel Mo'ed    yeriot,     machatzit
              krashim     ha-shekel
                          le-avodat
                          ohel mo'ed

Chatzer      mizbach      kiyor
              ha'olah

Dedication  bigdei        shemen ha-
            kehuna &       mishcha
            milu'im
            (to anoint
            the kohanim)

Daily       korban          ktoret
Offering    tamid on        tamid on
            mizbach ha-ola  mizbach ha-ktoret


      The mitzvot found in the Shechina unit, which
focus on
God's 'hitgalut' in the mishkan, are complemented by the
mitzvot in the Ktoret unit, which focus on the need to
protect
Bnei Yisrael in this special encounter.
     Note as well how all of the mitzvot in the Ktoret
unit
emphasize either kapara (see shiur on Yom Kippur, where
we
explained how kapara involves protection from God's
hitgalut)
or warn of impending death if not performed properly
(see
30:10; 30:12; 30:21; 30:33; 30:38; relate to Devarim
5:21-23!).  Protection is required from the potential
punishment enacted should man not prepare himself
properly for
this encounter with God in the mishkan.

     In this manner, the laws of the mizbach ktoret can
serve
as an eternal reminder of how man must not only value
his
ability to enjoy a relationship with God, but also
remain
aware of the natural limits of this encounter.

                                   shabbat shalom,
                                   menachem

==================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
A.  Be sure to see Ramban on 30:1, where he explains why
the
mizbach ha-ktoret is at the end of the unit.  See also
Seforno
& Chizkuni. Relate these approaches to our analysis of
this
unit in the above shiur.

B.  In our discussion of the overall structure, we noted
that
(B) comprises the complete unit of tzivui ha-mishkan.
Note
that this complete unit includes seven dibur's.  [A
dibur is
each time the Torah introduces God's speech to Moshe
with, "Va-
yedaber Hashem el Moshe leimor" or  "va-yomer ...", etc.
     [See 25:1, 30:11, 30:17, 30:22, 30:34, 31:1, and
31:12.]
     One could view these dibur's as allusions to the
seven
days of creation.  The first dibur, covering the entire
Shechina unit, may reflect the concept of God's creation
of
light / Shechina (see Rashi on Breishit 1:3).  The next
four
deal with other mitzvot of the mishkan.  [Admittedly,
they
don't work out as good as the rest.]  The sixth dibur
describes the appointment of Betzalel to build the
mishkan.
This may parallel God's creation of man on the sixth
day.
Just as man in Creation [perek aleph] was to master the
material world and utilize his God-given talents towards
a
divine purpose, so must Betzalel organize the materials
collected and use his God-given talents to oversee the
construction of the mishkan.  To do so, he requires
'ruach
Elokim' (31:3/ relate to the creation of man 'be-tzelem
Elokim').
     The seventh dibur is the mitzvah to keep Shabbat!
(See
31:15.)  This may serve as the basis for the many
Midrashim
that describe the mishkan as the pinnacle of the
creation
process.  This reflects, once again, the biblical theme
that
the natural world needs to be directed towards a divine
purpose.  This is the duty of man not only in the
mishkan, but
also throughout his daily life, as well.

C.  A FULL TIME JOB
     Recall from our original outline how the first two
psukim
of Parshat Tetzaveh (i.e. the mitzvah to light the
menorah
/see 27:20-21) also appears out of place.  If we follow
the
logic of the structure of the Shechina unit, it should
have
been recorded together with the mitzvah to build the
menorah
(just as  the mitzvah to offer the lechem ha-panim is
included
with the mitzvah to build the shulchan / see 25:30).
     Nevertheless, the Torah transfers these psukim from
chapter 26 and juxtaposes them with the mitzvah to make
the
bigdei kehuna (in chapter 28).  Why?
     One could suggest that in doing so, the Torah
alludes to
a more important role of the kohanim.  Aside from the
honor
and glory of their position, as reflected by their
special
garments, their primary job is to 'spread the light' of
Torah
- the message of mishkan, as represented by the aron
ha-eidut
at its focal point - to Bnei Yisrael.
     It is this mitzvah of the kohanim, to disseminate
the
Torah, which may explain why it referred to as a "chukat
olam
le-doroteichem - an everlasting law for all generations"
(see
27:31).  Even when the mikdash lay in ruins, this
mitzvah
forever remains the obligation of our religious leaders.

D.  ADDITIONAL SOURCES & RESEARCH
Re: The 'displacement' of the mizbach ha-ktoret
     We explained that the Torah 'transferred' the
discussion
of the mizbach ha-ktoret to the end of the mishkan unit
to
emphasize its role as a 'buffer', protecting Bnei
Yisrael from
the 'hashra'at ha-Shechina' that occurs in the mishkan.
This
general idea appears in the Vilna Gaon's "Aderet
Eliyahu".
The Gaon explains that neither the ktoret nor the
machatzit ha-
shekel (which the Torah discusses immediately following
its
discussion of the mizbach ha-ktoret) was indispensable
for
'hashra'at ha-Shechina'.  They come into play once the
Shechina has already descended, in order to bring kapara
for
Bnei Yisrael.  Though the Gaon does not mention the
'buffer'
idea developed in the shiur, his explanation does
feature the
concept of a need for kapara when the Shechina descends
and
the mizbach ha-zahav as filling that role.  Like the
Gaon, the
Seforno also writes that the mizbach ha-zahav is not
necessary
for the Shechina to descend.  However, rather than
pointing to
atonement as the ktoret's primary function, the Seforno
views
it as an expression of kavod to Hashem, and hence a
prayer of
sorts asking the Almighty to accept the korbanot offered
on
the other mizbeiach.  The Ramban also writes along the
lines,
describing the mizbach ha-zahav as an expression of
kavod
rather than a means of bringing the Shechina.
     This point, whether or not the ktoret is required
to
bring the Shechina, appears to be subject to dispute.
The
Midrash Tanchuma, Tetzaveh 15, writes clearly that the
Shechina would not descend into the mishkan until after
the
ktoret was offered.  This is also the view of the Da'at
Zekeinim mi-Ba'alei ha-Tosafot on Shmot 25:6.  This view
would
oppose the position of the Seforno and Vilna Gaon.
     Several different answers to the question of this
parsha's location appear in other mefarshim.  Some
Acharonim,
including the Meshech Chochma (30:1), view the location
of
this parsha as an allusion to the halacha allowing the
offering of ktoret even without the mizbach ha-ktoret.
The Or
Ha-chayim (25:9) also sees here a subtle allusion to a
technicality, that Shlomo Ha-melech built his own
mizbach ha-
ktoret rather than using Moshe's.  (This assumption is
somewhat controversial - see Torah Shleima, milu'im to
Parshat
Tetzaveh, 29.)  The Tzror Ha-mor (30:1) writes that the
Torah
places this parsha last to indicate the unique stature
of the
mizbach ha-ktoret as the most important of all the klei
ha-
mikdash.  A similar theory is advanced by Rav Dov
Rabinowitz
("Da'at Sofrim"), who claims that Bnei Yisrael are
worthy for
the ktoret, the most exalted of all the offerings, only
after
they have loyally executed all the commands of the
previous
chapters and the Shechina has taken it residence in the
mishkan.  Rav Zalman Sorotzkin (Oznayim la-Torah 30:1)
suggests precisely the opposite: lest one afford too
much
importance to the mizbach ha-zahav over the mizbach ha-
nechoshet, the Torah extracted the former from the
discussion
of the klei ha-mikdash in order to emphasize that the
mizbach
ha-nechoshet actually constitutes the primary altar.
The
Netziv understands the Torah's structure as intended to
underscore the distinct themes symbolized by the two
mizbachot.  The mizbach ha-nechoshet - along with the
menorah
- represents Torah, whereas the mizbach ha-ktoret
symbolizes
gemilut chasadim.  The Torah emphasizes their symbolic
distinction by separating them; their coexistence in the
heichal points to the need for the two to work in
tandem.  The
Malbim, who develops an elaborate system of symbolism
with
regard to the mishkan and its accessories, views the
mizbach
ha-ktoret as representing the spiritual result of the
avoda
performed in the mishkan.  It is therefore presented
last and
apart from the rest of the mishkan's components, as it
represents that which is attained as a result of that
was
discussed beforehand.



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.4/1276 -
Release Date: 2/13/2008 9:41 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: tzaveh1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 55182 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080213/f0e7dcb5/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Feb 20 16:44:07 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:44:07 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Kitisa - shiur
Message-ID: <008601c87409$b821ce10$0300000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

            for PARSHAT KI-TISA
                               
     No matter how one explains the story of 'chet
ha-egel'
[the sin of the Golden Calf], we encounter a problem.
If we understand (as the psukim seem to imply) that Bnei
Yisrael truly believed that it was this 'golden calf'
(and not
God) who took them out of Egypt - then it is simply hard
to
fathom how an entire nation would reach such a senseless
conclusion!
  But if we claim (as many commentators do) that Aharon
had
good intentions, for he only intended for the 'egel' to
be a
physical representation of God (who took them out of
Egypt) -
then why is God so angered to the point that he wants to
destroy the entire nation!
     In this week's shiur, we look for the 'middle road'
as we
attempt to find a 'logical' explanation for the events
as they
unfold, based on our understanding of the overall theme
of
Sefer Shmot.

INTRODUCTION
     According to the popular Midrash, quoted by Rashi
(see
32:1 'ba-shesh'), Bnei Yisrael's miscalculation of
Moshe's
return by one day led to the entire calamity of 'chet
ha'egel'.  However, when one examines the details of
this
story (as other commentators do), a very different
picture
emerges that provides a more 'logical' explanation for
the
people's request.
  In the following shiur, we follow that direction, as
we
examine the events as they unfold in Parshat Kitisa in
light
of (and as a continuation of) the events that transpired
at
the end of Parshat Mishpatim (see 24:12-18).
  Therefore, we begin our shiur by quoting the Torah's
description of Moshe's original ascent to Har Sinai for
forty
days, noting how Moshe never provided the people with an
exact
date of his expected return:
  "And God told Moshe, come up to Me on the mountain...
then
  Moshe ascended God's Mountain.  To the elders he said:
  'Wait here for us, until we return to you.  Behold,
Aharon
  and Chur are with you, should there be any problems,
go to
  them..." (see 24:12-14).

     Carefully note how Moshe had informed the elders
that he
was leaving 'until he returns', without specifying a
date!
Even though several psukim later Chumash tells us (i.e.
the
reader) that Moshe remained on the mountain for forty
days
(see 24:18), according to 'pshat', the people have no
idea how
long Moshe would be gone for.
  [And most likely, neither did Moshe or Aharon.  It is
  important to note that Rashi's interpretation carries
a
  very deep message re: the nature of patience and sin,
but
  it is not necessarily the simple pshat of these
psukim. ]

A LOGICAL CONCLUSION
     Considering this was not the first time that Moshe
had
ascended Har Sinai to speak to God (see 19:3,20;
24:1,2); and
in each previous ascent Moshe had never been gone for
more
than a day or two - Bnei Yisrael have ample reason to
assume
that this time he would not be gone much longer.  After
all,
how long could it possibly take to receive the 'luchot,
Torah,
& mitzva' (see 24:12): a few days, a few weeks?
     Days pass; weeks pass; yet Moshe does not return!
Add to
this the fact that the last time that Bnei Yisrael saw
Moshe,
he had entered a cloud-covered mountain consumed in fire
(see
24:17-18), hence - the people's conclusion that Moshe
was
'gone' was quite logical.  After all, how much longer
can they
wait for?
     Assuming that Moshe is not returning, Bnei Yisrael
must
do something - but what are their options?

 *   To remain stranded in the desert?
       Of course not!  They have waited for Moshe long
enough.

 *   To return to Egypt?
      "chas ve-shalom' / (of course not!).  That would
certainly
       be against God's wishes; and why should they
return to
       slavery!

 *   To continue their journey to Eretz Canaan?
      Why not!  After all, was this not the purpose of
Yetziat
      Mitzraim - to inherit the Promised Land (see
3:8,17 6:8)?

     Furthermore, that is precisely what God had
promised them
numerous times, and most recently in Shmot 23:20?

     This background helps us understand why Bnei
Yisrael
approached Aharon, whom Moshe had left in charge (see
24:13-
15) and why their opening complaint focused on their
desire
for new leadership - to replace Moshe.  Let's take a
careful
look now at the Torah's description of this event:
  "When the people saw that Moshe was so delayed in
coming
  down from the mountain, the people gathered on Aharon
and
  said to him: Come make us an elohim that will lead us
  [towards the Promised Land] because Moshe, who took us
out
  of the land of Egypt [and promised to take us to Eretz
  Canaan], we do not know what has happened to him"
(32:1).

     As your review this pasuk, note the phrase "elohim
asher
yelchu lefaneinu".  In other words, note how the people
do not
request a new god, but rather an elohim [some-one /or
thing]
that that will 'walk in front', i.e. that will lead them
[to
the Promised Land].
     To understand how 'logical' this request was, we
need
only conduct a quick comparison between this pasuk and
God's
earlier promise (in Parshat Mishpatim) that He would
send a
"mal'ach" to lead them and help them conquer the Land:
  "Behold, I am sending a mal'ach - lefanecha [before
you] -
  to guard you and bring you to the place that I have
made
  ready..."
    (see 23:20 / Note the Hebrew word 'lefanecha'!)

And two psukim later, God continues this promise:
  "ki yelech mal'achi lefanecha - For My angel will go
before
  you, and bring you to the Land..." (23:23)
          [Note again - lefanecha, and the word yelech.]

     Recall as well that this was the last promise that
they
had heard before Moshe ascended Har Sinai.  When Bnei
Yisrael
first heard this promise, they most probably assumed
that this
mal'ach would be none other than Moshe himself.  [Note
how the
mal'ach must be someone who commands them, leads them,
while
God's Name is in his midst (see 23:21-22, compare
19:9).]
  Now that Moshe is presumed dead, the people simply
demand
that Aharon provide them with a replacement for (or
possibly a
symbol of) this mal'ach, in order that they can continue
their
journey to the Promised Land.  Note once again:
  "Come make us an elokim - asher yelchu lefaneinu!"
(32:1)
  [Again, note yelchu & lefaneinu]

     In fact, from a simple reading of the text, it
appears as
though Aharon actually agrees to this request:
  "And Aharon said to them: Take off your gold... and
bring
  them to me... He took it from them and cast in a mold
and
  made it into a molten calf..." (32:2-4).

     If our interpretation thus far is correct, then the
people's statement (upon seeing this Golden Calf): "This
is
your god O' Israel - who brought you out of the land of
Egypt"
(32:4), does not need to imply that this Golden Calf
actually
took them out of Egypt.  [After all, they had already
stated
in 32:1 that Moshe had taken them out of Egypt!]
Rather, the
people are simply stating their own perception - that
this
egel (which Aharon had just made) represents the God who
had
taken them out of Egypt and will hopefully now act as
His
mal'ach who will lead them on their journey to Eretz
Canaan.
     In other words, in Bnei Yisrael's eyes, the egel is
not a
replacement for God, rather a representation of His
Presence!
  [See a similar explanation by Rav Yehuda HaLevi in
Sefer
  HaKuzari I.77!  See also Ibn Ezra & Ramban on Shmot
32:1]

     This would also explain Aharon's ensuing actions:
To
assure that the egel is properly understood as a
representation of God, Aharon calls for a celebration:
  "And Aharon saw, and he built a mizbeiach in front of
it,
  and Aharon called out and said: A celebration for God
  [note: be-shem havaya] tomorrow" (32:5).

     Furthermore, this 'celebration' parallels the
almost
identical ceremony that took place at Har Sinai forty
days
earlier - when Bnei Yisrael declared 'na'aseh
ve-nishma'.  To
verify this, we'll compare the Torah's description of
these
two ceremonies:

* In Parshat Mishpatim - after Moshe sets up 12
monuments:
  "...and they woke up early in the morning, and they
built a
  mizbeiach at the foot of the mountain and twelve
monuments
  for the twelve tribes of Israel... and they offered
olot
  and sacrificed shlamim" (24:4-5).

* In Parshat Ki-tisa - after Aharon forges the egel:
  "...and they woke up early in the morning [after
Aharon had
  built a mizbeiach in front of it /32:5], and they
offered
  olot and sacrificed shlamim..." (32:6).

     Note the obvious parallels: waking up in the
morning,
building a mizbeiach in front of a 'symbol'
(representing
their relationship with God), offering olot & shlamim,
and
'eating and drinking' (compare 24:11 with 32:6).
     Furthermore, recall how that ceremony included
Moshe's
reading of the 'divrei Hashem' - which most likely
included
the laws of Parshat Mishpatim - including God's promise
to
send a mal'ach to lead them (see 23:20-23.  Hence, not
only
are these two events parallel, they both relate to Bnei
Yisrael's acceptance of a mal'ach that will lead them to
the
land ['asher yelchu lefaneinu']!
     Finally, note how both ceremonies include a
mizbeiach
that is erected in front of a symbol representing God:

 *   In Parshat Mishpatim, the symbol is the twelve
monuments,
possibly representing God's fulfillment of brit avot.

 *   In Parshat Ki-tisa, the symbol is the egel,
representing
the mal'ach (which God had promised) that will lead
them.
  [Note, that this parallel actually continues in the
mishkan
  itself! In front of the mizbeiach upon which Bnei
Yisrael
  offer olot & shlamim, we find the aron & keruvim -
that
  serve as symbol of God's covenant with Bnei Yisrael at
Har
  Sinai.  Later, this very aron leads Bnei Yisrael
through
  the desert towards the land (see Bamidbar 10:33) as
well as
  in battle (see Bamidbar 10:35 & Yehoshua 6:6-10).
This can
  also explain why the Torah refers to this calf as an
'egel
  masecha' (see 32:4) - implying a 'face covering',
hiding
  the true face, but leaving a representation of what
man can
  perceive.]

WHY 'DAVKA' AN EGEL?
     Even though our interpretation thus far has shown
how the
egel can be understood as a symbol of God's Presence, we
have
yet to explain why specifically an egel is chosen as
that
representation.  Chizkuni offers a ingenious
explanation,
based on yet another parallel to Ma'amad Har Sinai.
     Recall that at the conclusion of the ceremony at
Har
Sinai (24:1-11), Aharon, Nadav, Avihu, and the seventy
elders
are permitted to 'see' God:
  "And they saw Elokei Yisrael and - 'tachat raglav' -
under
  His feet was like a shining sapphire..." (24:10)

     Obviously, God does not have 'feet'!  However, this
description reflects a certain spiritual level.  Moshe,
for
example, achieved the highest level - "panim be-panim" -
face
to face.  In contrast, the seventy elders perceived
'tachat
raglav' -(God's feet), reflecting a lower spiritual
level.
  [This may relate to the people's request for a more
  distanced relationship, where Moshe served as their
  intermediary (see 20:15-18 and Devarim 5:20-26).]

     Although it is very difficult for us to comprehend
the
description of God in such physical terms, Chizkuni (on
32:4)
notes that we find a very similar description of the
Shchina
in Sefer Yechezkel:
  "And their feet were straight, and the bottom of their
feet
  were similar to the feet of an egel..." (Yechezkel
1:7).
     [See also the textual parallel of 'even sapir' /
compare
     Yechezkel 1:26 with Shmot 24:10.]
  [Alternately, one could suggest that an egel was
chosen to
  represent the parim which were offered on Har Sinai
during
  the ceremony when God informed them about the mal'ach
(see
  24:5/ note that an egel is a baby 'par').]

     So if the people's original request was indeed
'legitimate', and Aharon's 'solution' a sincere attempt
to
make a representation of God - why does God become so
angered?
Why does He threaten to destroy the entire nation?
     To answer this question, we must once again return
to our
parallel with Parshat Mishpatim.

A CONTRASTING PARALLEL
     Despite the many parallels noted above, we find one
additional phrase that is unique to the story of chet
ha-egel,
and creates (what we refer to as) a contrasting
parallel.
Note the final phrase of each narrative:
 * At Har Sinai (in Parshat Mishpatim):
     "... and they beheld God and they ate and drank"
(24:11).
 * At chet ha-egel (in Parshat Ki-tisa):
     "they sat to eat and drink and they rose letzachek"
(32:6).
          [We call this a 'contrasting parallel'.]

     It is not by chance that many commentators find in
this
word the key to understanding Bnei Yisrael's sin.
  Even though the simple translation of 'letzachek' is
laughing or frivolous behavior, Rashi raises the
possibility
that it may refer to licentiousness (or even murder /
see
Rashi 32:7 and Breishit 39:17).  Certainly, Chazal
understand
this phrase to imply more than just 'dancing'.  To
Aharon's
dismay, what began as a quiet ceremony turned into a
'wild
party'.  The celebration simply seems to have gotten
'out of
hand'.  [Soon we will explain why.]
     To support this understanding of letzachek, let's
'jump
ahead' to the Torah's account of Moshe's descent from
Har
Sinai (when he breaks the luchot), noting what Moshe and
Yehoshua hear from the mountain.
     First of all, note Yehoshua's initial reaction to
the
'loud noise' that he hears:
  "And Yehoshua heard the sound of the people - be-rei'o
-
  screaming loudly, and said to Moshe: there are sounds
of
  war in the camp.  But Moshe answered - these are not
the
  sounds of triumphant, nor are they the groans of the
  defeated, they are simply sounds [of wildness/
frivolity]
  that I hear" (32:17-18).
     [Note Targum Unkelus of 'kol anot' in 32:18 - kol
de-
     mechaychin, compare with Tirgum of letzachek in
32:6 of
     le-chaycha; clearly connecting the loud noises to
the
     loud laughing of "va-yakumu letzachek"!
     Note also the word be-rei'o - from shoresh
'lehariya' -
     to make a sound like a tru'a, but the spelling is
     r.a.a.h. reflecting its negative context like the
word
     'ra'a' = bad or evil!  Compare also with 32:22!

     The noise from this 'wild party' was so loud that
it
sounded to Yehoshua like a war was going on!
     Note as well what provoked Moshe to actually break
the
tablets: "And he saw the egel and the dancing circles
and
became enraged" [va-yar et ha-egel u-mecholot...]
(32:19).
     Moshe was upset no less by the 'wild dancing' than
by the
egel itself!  [See commentary of Seforno on this pasuk.]
     With this in mind, let's return now to study the
Torah's
account of God's anger with chet ha-egel, as recorded
earlier
in chapter 32.
     First of all, as you review 32:5-7, note how God
only
becomes angry (and tells Moshe to go down) on the day
after
Aharon made the egel!  Now if Bnei Yisrael's primary sin
was
making the egel, God should have told Moshe to go down
on that
very same day.  The fact that God only tells him to go
down on
the next day, and only after we are told that -
"va-yakumu
letzachek" - supports our interpretation that this
phrase
describes the primary sin of chet ha-egel.

BACK TO OLD HABITS
     What led to this calamity?  What was this noise and
'wild
party' all about?  Even though it is based on'
circumstantial
evidence', one could suggest the following explanation:
     Even though the celebration around the egel
initiated by
Aharon began with good intentions (see 32:5 - 'chag l-
Hashem'), for some reason, Bnei Yisrael's behavior at
this
party quickly became wild and out of control.
Apparently,
once the drinking, dancing, and music began, the nation
impulsively reverted back to their old ways, regressing
back
to their Egyptian culture.  [Even though this may not
sound
very logical, as most of us are aware, it is
unfortunately
human nature.]
     To understand why, let's return to our discussion
of Bnei
Yisrael's spiritual level in Egypt, based on Yechezkel
chapter
20, and as discussed in length in our shiurim on parshat
Va'era and Beshalach:
  Before the exodus, Bnei Yisrael were so immersed in
Egyptian culture that God found it necessary to demand
that
they 'change their ways' in order to prepare for their
redemption (see Yechezkel 20:5-9).  Even though they did
not
heed this plea, God took them out of Egypt in the hope
that
the miracles of Yetziat Mitzraim, and their experiences
on the
way to Har Sinai would create a 'change of heart' (see
TSC
shiur on Parshat Beshalach).  When they arrived at Har
Sinai,
Bnei Yisrael's proclamation of na'aseh ve-nishma (see
19:3-8 &
24:7) showed God that they were finally ready to become
God's
special nation.

THE LAST STRAW
     Unfortunately, the events at chet ha-egel forced
God to
change this perception.  Bnei Yisrael's inexcusable
behavior
at this celebration reflected the sad fact that despite
His
numerous miracles, deep down, nothing had really
changed.  God
became more than angered; He became utterly
disappointed.  All
of God's efforts to 'train' His nation (since Yetziat
Mitzrayim) seemed to have been in vain.
     In summary, we have suggested that there were two
stages
in Bnei Yisrael's sin at chet ha-egel.
 *   The first - making a physical representation of God
-
even though this was improper, it was understandable.
 *   The second - the frivolous behavior after the
eating and
drinking at the conclusion of the ceremony - was
inexcusable.

     We will now show how these two stages are reflected
in
God's 'double statement' to Moshe (32:7-10) in the
aftermath
of this sin:
(1) - 32:7-8 / God's first statement:
  "And God spoke to Moshe: Hurry down, for your people
have
  acted basely ['ki shichet amcha']... they have turned
  astray from the way that I commanded them [see 20:20!]
-
  they made an egel masecha [a representation of Me]...
(2) - 32:9-10 / God's second statement:
  "And God spoke to Moshe: I see this nation, behold it
is an
  'am ksheh oref' [ a stiff necked people].  Now, allow
Me,
  and I will kindle My anger against them and I will
destroy
  them and I will make you a great nation [instead]."
     [Note, that "va-yomer Hashem el Moshe" is repeated
twice,
     even though Moshe does not speak in between.]
     
     God's first statement describes the act that began
with
good intentions but was nonetheless forbidden [see Shmot
20:20
-"lo ta'asun iti elohei kesef..." ].  Although this sin
requires rebuke and forgiveness (see 32:30), it was not
severe
enough to warrant the destruction of the entire Nation.
     God's second statement is in reaction to 'va-yakumu
letzachek', i.e. their frivolous behavior.  Because of
this
regression to Egyptian culture, God concludes that they
are
indeed a 'stiff-necked people' - unable to change their
ways.
Therefore, God concludes that He must destroy Bnei
Yisrael,
choosing Moshe to become His special nation instead.
     Similarly, these two stages are found in the
conversation
between Moshe and Aharon in the aftermath of this event:
  "And Moshe said to Aharon: What did this people do to
you
  that caused you to bring upon them such a terrible
sin?
  ... Aharon answered: You know this people - 'ki ve-ra
hu' -
  their ways are evil" (32:21-22).

     One could suggest that Aharon's conclusion is based
on
his previous experiences with Bnei Yisrael.  It is
clear,
however, that Moshe understands that Aharon had no
intention
that this situation would get out of hand.  After all,
Aharon
himself is not punished.  In fact, he later becomes the
Kohen
Gadol [High Priest].
     Once Aharon had explained to Moshe what transpired
(32:22-
24) in the first stage, Moshe already understood what
happened
in the second stage:
  "And Moshe 'saw' the people - 'ki paru'a hu' - that
they
  became wild (out of control), for Aharon had caused
them to
  become wild [to the point of] their demise,
be-kameihem -
  when they got up [to dance/ possibly reflecting
'va-yakumu
  letzachek'! [see 32:25].

     Finally, the two levels that we later find in Bnei
Yisrael's actual punishment may also reflect these two
stages.
First, the three thousand 'instigators' who incited this
licentious behavior (stage 2) are killed.  For that
rebellious
group, there is no room for forgiveness (32:26-29).
However,
on the second day, Moshe approaches God to beg
forgiveness for
the rest of the nation (see 32:30-32).  Even though they
had
sinned, Moshe hopes to secure them a pardon - because
their
actions began with good intentions (stage 1).
     Ultimately, Moshe will receive this pardon - but it
won't
be very simple.

DELAYED PUNISHMENT OR FORGIVENESS
     Even though God had originally agreed to Moshe
Rabeinu's
first request not to totally destroy His nation (see
"va-
yechal Moshe... va-yinachem Hashem al ha-ra;a..." /
32:11-14),
his next request for forgiveness in 32:31-32 clearly
indicates
that the execution of the 3000 'instigators' did not
absolve
the rest of the nation.
     To our surprise, Moshe's second tefilla (in
32:30-32)
does not achieve forgiveness!  To prove this point, take
a
careful look at God's response to Moshe's second
tefilla:
  "And God told Moshe: He who has sinned to Me shall be
  punished.  Now go lead the people to [the place] that
I
  said [i.e. to Eretz Canaan], behold My angel will
accompany
  you, and on the day that I will punish you, I will
punish
  you" (32:34).

     Note that God instructs Moshe to lead Bnei Yisrael
to the
Promised Land, thus fulfilling brit avot (as Moshe
demanded in
32:13), but He still plans to later punish them for chet
ha-
egel, at the time that He finds fit.  Note however, that
even
though brit avot will be fulfilled, brit Sinai remains
'broken'!  To prove this, note how chapter 33 explains
what
God told Moshe in 32:34:
  "And God said to Moshe - Set out from here, you and
the
  people that you have brought out of Egypt to the Land
that
  I swore to Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov (brit
avot)...
  but I will not go in your midst for you are a stiff-
necked
  people, lest I destroy you on the journey" (see
33:1-3).

     In contrast to God's original promise at Matan
Torah that
He will send a mal'ach with His name in their midst
['shmi be-
kirbo' / see 23:20-23], now He emphatically states that
He
will no longer be with them - "ki lo a'aleh be-kirbecha"
(33:3).  Due to chet ha-egel, Bnei Yisrael are no longer
worthy of the special relationship of brit Sinai.
     This 'downgrade' is reflected in God's next
commandment
that Bnei Yisrael must remove 'their jewelry' that they
received on Har Sinai, undoubtedly the symbol of the
high
level they reached at matan Torah (see 33:5-6).
Furthermore,
Moshe must now move his own tent away from the camp, in
order
that God can remain in contact with Moshe (see 33:7).

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
     A very strange predicament has arisen (that often
goes
unnoticed).  Even though Bnei Yisrael will not be
destroyed
(thanks to brit avot), God instructs Moshe to continue
on to
Eretz Canaan without brit Sinai.  [Imagine, a Jewish
State
without 'kedusha', several thousand years before
Theodore
Herzl!]
     As unthinkable as this sounds, God's decision is
very
logical.  Considering His conclusion that Bnei Yisrael
are an
'am kshe oref' - a stiff-necked people (see 32:9, 33:5),
and
hence will not change their ways, there appears to be no
other
solution.  After all, should He keep His Shchina in
their
midst, Bnei Yisrael would not be able to survive.
     Fortunately for Am Yisrael, Moshe Rabeinu is not
willing
to accept God's decision.  As we will see, his next
argument
will set the stage for the declaration of God's midot
ha-
rachamim:
  "And Moshe beseeched God: 'Look, you have instructed
me to
  lead this people... but recognize that this nation is
Your
  people!

     God answered: I will lead [only] you.  But Moshe
insisted: "Im ein panecha holchim al ta'alenu mi-zeh" -
Unless
Your presence will go with us, do not make us leave this
place.  For how should it be known that Your people have
gained Your favor unless You go with us..."  (33:12-16)
     [These psukim are quite difficult to translate, I
     recommend that you read the entire section inside.]
     
     Note how Moshe demands that God keep His Presence
[Shchina] with them, threatening a 'sit down strike'
should
God refuse.  Most powerful is Moshe's demand that God
recognize that they are His people - "u-re'eh ki amcha
ha-goy
ha-zeh" (see 33:13). God ['kivyachol'] now faces a most
difficult predicament.

 *   On the one hand, He cannot allow His Shchina to
return -
for according to the terms of brit Sinai - this 'am
ksheh
oref' could not survive His anger, and would eventually
be
killed.

 *   On the other hand, He cannot leave them in the
desert (as
Moshe now threatens), for brit avot must be fulfilled!

 *   But, He cannot take them to the land, for Moshe is
not
willing to lead them unless He returns His Shchina.

     Something has to budge!  But what will it be?
     It is precisely here, in the resolution of this
dilemma,
where God's 13 midot ha-rachamim enter into the picture.

A NEW COVENANT
     Let's take a look now at God's response to Moshe's
request. Note that here is first time in Chumash where
God
introduces the concept of divine mercy:
  "And God said to Moshe, 'I will also do this thing
that you
  request... [to return His Shchina / Moshe then asked
that
  God show His Glory -] then God answered: ' I will pass
all
  my goodness before you, and I will proclaim My name
before
  you, and I will pardon he whom I will pardon and I
will
  have mercy on he to whom I give mercy (ve-chanoti et
asher
  achon, ve-richamti et asher arachem")... (33:17-22).

     In contrast to His original threat of immediate
punishment should they sin (if God is in there midst),
now God
agrees to allow Bnei Yisrael a 'second chance' (should
they
sin).  This divine promise sets the stage for the
forging of a
new covenant though which brit Sinai can be
re-established,
for it allows the Shchina to return without the
necessity of
immediate severe punishment.
     Therefore, God instructs Moshe to ascend Har Sinai
one
more time, in a manner quite parallel to his first
ascent to
Har Sinai [but with significant minor differences], to
receive
the second luchot (see 34:1-5 and its parallel in
19:20-24).
     As we should expect, the laws should and do remain
the
same.  However, their terms must now be amended with
God's
attributes of mercy.  Hence, when Moshe now ascends Har
Sinai,
it is not necessary for God to repeat the dibrot
themselves,
for they remain the same.  Instead, God will descend to
proclaim an amendment to how He will act in this
relationship
- i.e. His attributes of mercy.
     As God had promised in 33:19 (review that pasuk
before
continuing), a new covenant, reflecting this enhanced
relationship, is now forged:
  "And God came down in a cloud...& passed before him
and
  proclaimed: ' Hashem, Hashem Kel rachum ve-chanun,
erech
  apayim ve-rav chesed ve-emet, notzer chesed la-alafim"
  (34:5-8).

THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE ATTRIBUTES
     With this background, we can now better appreciate
the
words that God chose to describe His new midot.  To do
so, we
must first quickly review God's midot as described at
Ma'amad
Har Sinai in parshat Yitro.
     Recall that the dibrot included not only laws, but
also
describe how God will reward (or punish) those who obey
(or
disobey) His commandments.  Let's review these
'original'
attributes by noting them (in bold) as we quote the
Commandments:
     "I am the Lord your God...
     You shall have no other gods besides Me...
  Do not bow down to them or worship them, for I the
Lord am
  a  Kel kana - a zealous God
  poked avon avot al banim ? remembering the sin of
parents
  upon their children... for those who reject Me
[le-son'ai],
  but
  oseh chesed - showing kindness... for those who love
me and
  follow my laws - [le-ohavai u-leshomrei mitzvotai]"
  (see 20:2-6).

     Note how the second Commandment includes three
divine
attributes:
          1) Kel kana - a zealous God
          2) poked avon avot al banim - le-son'ai
               harsh punishment for those who reject God
          3) oseh chesed la-alafim - le-ohavai
               Kindness & reward for those who follow
God.

     Similarly, in the third Commandment, we find yet
another
mida [divine attribute]:
  "Do not say in vain the name of God - ki lo yenakeh
Hashem
  - for God will not forgive he who says His Name in
vain"
  (20:7).

Let's add this fourth attribute to the above list:
     4) lo yenakeh Hashem - He will not forgive

     How should we consider these four attributes?  At
first
glance, most of them seem to be quite harsh!
     Even the mida of oseh chesed - Divine kindness,
does not
necessarily imply mercy.  Carefully note in 20:6 that
God
promises this kindness only for those who follow Him,
and
hence not for any others.  Most definitely, all four of
these
attributes are quite the opposite of mercy, they are
midot ha-
din - attributes of exacting retribution.
     Although these midot have their 'down side', for
they
threaten immediate punishment for those who transgress
(le-
son'ai), they also have their 'up side', for they assure
immediate reward for those who obey (le-ohavai).  In
other
words, these midot describe a very intense relationship,
quite
similar to [and not by chance] to God's relationship
with man
in Gan Eden (see Breishit 2:16-17).

MORE MIDOT HA-DIN
     Yet another example of this intense relationship,
and
another attribute as well, is found at the conclusion of
the
unit of laws in Parshat Mishpatim.  Recall that
immediately
after the Ten Commandments, Moshe was summoned to Har
Sinai to
receive a special set of commandment to relay to Bnei
Yisrael
(see Shmot 20:15-19).  At the conclusion of those laws,
God
makes the following promise:
  "Behold, I am sending an angel before you to guard you
on
  the way and help bring you into the Promised Land.  Be
  careful of him and obey him, Do not defy him - for he
shall
  not pardon your sins -"ki lo yisa le-fish'achem",
since My
  Name is with him...
       [On the other hand...]
  "...should you obey Him and do all that I say - I will
help
  you defeat your enemies...  (see Shmot 23:20-24).

     Once again, we find that God will exact punishment
should
Bnei Yisrael not follow His mitzvot and reward (i.e.
assistance in conquering the Land) should they obey Him.
Finally, after chet ha-egel, we find that God intends to
act
precisely according to these attributes of midat ha-din:
  "And God told Moshe, go down from the mountain for
your
  people has sinned... they made a golden image... and
now
  allow Me, and I will kindle My anger against them that
I
  may destroy them -ve-yichar api bahem..." (see Shmot
32:7-
  10).

     Here we find yet another divine attribute - charon
af
Hashem - God's instant anger.
  Let's summarize these six attributes that we have
found
thus far.  Later, this list will be very helpful when we
compare these midot to God's midot in the second luchot.
     1) Kel kana
     2) poked avon ... le-son'ai
     3) oseh chesed... le-ohavai
     4) lo yenakeh
     5) lo yisa le-fish'achem...
     6) charon af

     We will now show how these six examples of midat
ha-din
relate directly to the new attributes that God now
declares.
Note the obvious - and rather amazing - parallel that
emerges:

   FIRST LUCHOT                    SECOND LUCHOT
1) Kel kana                   Kel rachum ve-chanun
2) poked avon...le-son'ai          poked avon avot al
banim...
3) oseh chesed la-alafim      rav chesed ve-emet
         ... le-ohavai             notzer chesed
la-alafim...
4) lo yenakeh                 ve-nakeh, lo yenakeh
5) lo yisa lefisheichem       nosei avon ve-fesha...
6) charon af                  erech apayim

FROM DIN TO RACHAMIM
     Each attribute from the original covenant switches
from
midat ha-din to midat ha-rachamim.  [To appreciate this
parallel, it is important to follow these psukim in the
original Hebrew.]
     Let's take now a closer look:

A.  Hashem Kel rachum ve-chanun --> (1) Hashem Kel kana
          rachum ve-chanun based on 33:19 (see above)
          a merciful God in contrast to a zealous God

B.  Erech apayim  -->  (6) charon af
          slow to anger in contrast to instant anger

C.  Rav chesed ve-emet  -->  (3) oseh chesed...
le-ohavai
     abounding kindness for all, potentially even for
the wicked
     [This may allow the possibility of 'rasha ve-tov
lo']
     in contrast to exacting kindness, and hence,
limited
      exclusively to those who obey Him.
  [Note that the mida of emet is now required, for this
  abounding kindness for all must be complemented by the
  attribute of truth to assure ultimate justice.]

D.  Notzer chesed la-alafim --> (3) oseh chesed....
     le-ohavai
  He stores His kindness, so that even if it is not
rewarded
  immediately, it is stored to be given at a later time.
    [This may allow the possibility of 'tzadik ve-ra
lo']
  in contrast to immediate kindness and reward for those
who
  follow Him.

E.  Nosei avon ve-fesha... --> (5) lo yisa le-fish'achem
...
          forgiving sin in contrast to not forgiving
sin.

F.  Ve-nakeh, lo yenakeh   --> (4) lo yenakeh
          sometimes He will forgive, sometimes He may
not.
               [See Rashi, forgives those who perform
teshuva.]
          in contrast to never forgiving.

G.  Poked avon avot al banim..--> (2) poked avon
le-son'ai
          He withholds punishment for up to four
generations
                    [in anticipation of teshuva / see
Rashi]
  in contrast to extending punishment for up to four
  generations.
     [Even though these two phrases are almost
identical,
     their context forces us to interpret each pasuk
     differently.  In the first luchot, all four
generations
     are punished, in the second luchot, God may hold
back
     punishment for four generations, allowing a chance
for
     teshuva.  See Rashi.]

  These striking parallels demonstrate that each of the
'13
midot' lies in direct contrast to the midot of the
original
covenant at Har Sinai.
  This background can help us appreciate Moshe's
immediate
reaction to God's proclamation of these midot:
     "And Moshe hastened to bow down and said: 'If I
have
     indeed gained favor in Your eyes - let Hashem go in
our
     midst - 'ki' = even though they are an am ksheh
oref -a
     stiff necked people, and you shall pardon our
sin..."
     (34:8-9)

     God's proclamation that He will now act in a less
strict
manner enables Moshe to request that God now return His
Shchina to the people even though they are an am ksheh
oref.
Note how this request stands in direct contrast to God's
original threat that "he will not go up with them for
they are
a stiff necked people, less He smite them on their
journey..."
(see 33:3/ compare with 34:9)!
     These Divine attributes of mercy now allow the
Shchina to
dwell within Yisrael even though they may not be worthy.
     From a certain perspective, this entire sequence is
quite
understandable.  For, on the one hand, to be worthy of
God's
presence, man must behave perfectly.  However, man is
still
human.  Although he may strive to perfection, he may
often
error or at times even sin.  How then can man ever come
close
to God?  Hence, to allow mortal man the potential to
continue
a relationship with God, a new set of rules is necessary
- one
that includes midot ha-rachamim.
     The original terms of brit Sinai, although ideal,
are not
practical.  In this manner, midot ha-rachamim allow brit
Sinai
to become achievable.  These midot ha-rachamim reflect
God's
kindness that allows man to approach Him and develop a
closer
relationship without the necessity of immediate
punishment for
any transgression.

SELICHOT
This explanation adds extra meaning to our comprehension
and
appreciation of our recitation of the Selichot.
Reciting the
13 midot comprises more than just a mystical formula.
It is a
constant reminder of the conditions of the covenant of
the
second luchot.  God's attributes of mercy, as we have
shown,
do not guarantee automatic forgiveness, rather, they
enable
the possibility of forgiveness.  As the pasuk stated,
God will
forgive only he whom He chooses ("et asher achon...
ve-et
asher arachem" / 33:19).  To be worthy of that mercy,
the
individual must prove his sincerity to God, while
accepting
upon himself not to repeat his bad ways.

                              shabbat shalom,
                              menachem
====================

FOR FURTHER IYUN - for Part One
1.  It is not clear why Aharon does not insist that the
people
be patient and wait for Moshe.  Note that, according to
24:14,
the people are instructed to turn to Aharon and Chur,
should a
problem arise.  Interestingly enough, Chur is never
mentioned
again.
     Relate this to the Midrash that explains Aharon's
behavior because Chur had told them to wait and was
killed.

2.  Note the use of the word 'shichet' in 32:7.  In
Devarim
4:16 we find a similar use of this shoresh in relation
to
making a physical representation of God with good
intentions!
Read Devarim 4:9-24 carefully and note its connection to
the
events at chet ha-egel.  Use this parallel to explain
4:21-23.

3.  See the Rambam's first halacha in Hilchot Avoda
Zara.
Relate his explanation of the origin of Avoda Zara to
the
above shiur.

FOR FURTHER IYUN - for Part Two
A.  As the new covenant allows for mercy, the perception
of
God becomes less clear.  While the first covenant
boasted a
clear relationship of 'panim el panim' (face to face /
33:11),
this new covenant, even to Moshe, is represented by a
'face to
back' relationship:
   "But, He said, you can not see my face ... Station
yourself
on
   the Rock as My Presence passes by ... you will see my
back,
but
   My face must not be seen."["LoTuchal lir'ot panai -
ki lo
   yir'ani ha-adam va-chai -... ve-ra'ita et achorai -
u-panai
lo
   yira'u.]
   (33:20-23).
This new level has a clear advantage, midat ha-rachamim
-
however there is still a price to pay - the unclarity of
Hashem's
hashgacha.  No longer is punishment immediate; however,
reward
may also suffer from delay.  Hashem's hashgacha becomes
more
complex and now allows apparent situations of tzadik
ve-ra lo-
rasha ve-tov lo.
1.  See Chazal's explanation of "hodi'eni na et
drachecha"
(33:13)
How does this relate to our explanation?
2.  As communication is clearer when talking face to
face with
someone as opposed to talking to someone with his back
turned,
attempt to explain the symbolism of the above psukim.
3. Why must Moshe Rabeinu also go down a level in his
nevu'a?

B.  The second luchot are carved by man, and not by God.
Attempt to relate this requirement based on the nature
of the
13 midot.
     Relate this to the mitzva for Bnei Yisrael to build
the
Mishkan, which follows in parshat Vayakhel.
Compare this to the mitzva to begin building a sukka
immediately after Yom Kippur, and in general, why the
holiday
of Sukkot follows Yom Kippur.

C.  After God declares His 13 midot of Rachamim
(34:6-9), He
makes a promise (34:10), and then adds some commandments
(34:11-26).
     Are these commandments new, or are they a 'repeat'
of
mitzvot which were given earlier in Parshat Mishpatim?
           [Relate especially to Shmot 23:9-33.]
If so, can you explain why they are being repeated?
     [Hint: Which type of mitzvot from Parshat Mishpatim
are
not repeated?]  Relate your answer to the events of chet
ha-
egel.

D.  In the story of chet ha-egel, we find a classic
example of
a 'mila mancha', i.e. use of the verb 'lir'ot' - to see
[r.a.h.].
     Review chapters 32->34 in this week's parsha while
paying
attention to this word.  'See' for yourself if it points
to a
theme.  As you read, pay careful attention to: 32:1,
32:5,
32:9, 32:19, 32:25, 33:10, 33:12-13!, 33:20-23, 34:10,
34:23-
24!, 34:30, and 34:35.  What does it mean when God
'sees'...,
when man 'sees'..., and when man 'sees' (or is seen by)
God?
Relate also to the use of this verb (r.a.h.) at Ma'amad
Har
Sinai, especially 20:15, 20:19.  See also 19:21, 24:10,
&
Dvarim 5:21!  Could you say that 'seeing is believing'?
     If you had fun with that one, you can also try an
easier
one: the use of the word 'ra'a' [evil / reish.ayin.hey.]
in
32:12-14.
Relate to 32:17, 32:22, 32:25?, 33:4.  Relate to Shmot
10:10;
see Rashi, Ramban, Chizkuni, Rashbam.

E.  Chazal explain that God's original intention was to
create
the world with his attribute of 'din' [judgement], but
after
realizing that it could not survive, He included (in His
creation) the attribute of 'rachamim' [mercy] as well.
[See
Rashi Breishit 1:1 - 'bara Elokim...']
     Relate this to the above shiur.  Would you say that
this
Midrash reflects Sefer Shmot as well as Sefer Breishit.

F.  Note 'kol tuvi' in 33:19.  Relate this to "va-yar
Elokim
ki tov" mentioned after each stage of creation in
Breishit
chapter 1.
     Can you relate this to the above question and above
shiur?
     See also Rambam Moreh Nevuchim I:54 / second
paragraph.
          [page 84 in Kapach edition Mosad Harav Kook]

G.  Note 34:10 "hinei anochi koret brit..." &  34:29-30.
Relate this to why we refer to midot ha-rachamim in
selichot
as 'brit shlosh esrei' .

H.  Connect Part I of the above shiur to a similar
concept of
a mal'ach leading Bnei Yisrael, represented by a
physical
symbol - as in Bamidbar 10:33:"ve-aron brit Hashem
noseia
lifneihem derech shloshet yamim la-tur lahem menucha".
See
also Bmd. 10:35-36 & Yehoshua 6:6-11.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.8/1289 -
Release Date: 2/20/2008 10:26 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kitisa1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 71207 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080220/9b0c4ae3/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Feb 27 23:09:27 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:09:27 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Vayakhel - shiur
Message-ID: <001601c879bf$b7c00bb0$2d01a8c0@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

               PARSHAT  VAYAKHEL
                               
     Is Parshat Vayakhel simply a repeat of Parshat
Teruma?
     Indeed, the details of the mishkan are practically
identical in both parshiot - however, their manner of
presentation is quite different.
  To explain why, this week's shiur first considers the
different purpose of each Parsha.  Afterward, we will
attempt
to tackle the more difficult question concerning the
necessity
of this 'repetition'.

INTRODUCTION
     Before we discuss the similarities between Teruma
and
Vayakhel, let's first note the obvious difference
between
these two Parshiot.
  In Parshat Teruma / Tetzaveh, the Torah records God's
commandment to Moshe to build the mishkan - or in
Hebrew, what
we refer to as 'tzivui ha-mishkan'.  In contrast,
Parshat
Vayakhel / Pekudei describes how Moshe conveyed these
instructions to Bnei Yisrael.
  Let's explain how this affects their order:

THE ORDER IN PARSHAT TERUMA
     The primary focus of the tzivui ha-mishkan unit
(i.e.
chapters 25-29) is the tabernacle's function, hence this
unit
opens with its 'statement of purpose':
  "And you shall build for Me a mikdash in order that I
shall
  dwell among you" (see 25:1-8).
and closes with an almost identical statement:
  "And I shall dwell among Bnei Yisrael, and I will be
for
  them a God, and they shall know..." (see 29:45-46).

     In our shiur on Parshat Tetzaveh, we explained how
these
opening and closing psukim serve as 'matching bookends'
that
highlight how the Mishkan serves first and foremost as
the
place where God's shchina can dwell with His nation.
This
observation helped us understand the logic of its flow
in
topic.
     For example, that unit began by describing the aron
[ark
of the covenant], which will house the luchot [tablets]
- the
symbol of brit Sinai - and hence the focal point of the
mishkan, as well as the kaporet, the protective cover of
the
aron, from where God will speak to Moshe.
     The next set of parshiot described the various
'keilim'
(vessels) that are situated in the ohel mo'ed, such as
the
menora and shulchan (25:23-40).  This was followed by a
detailed description of the ohel moed -the portable
structure
[i.e. the canvas for the tent /'yeriot ha-mishkan' and
its
poles /'kerashim' (see 26:1-37)] that will house those
vessels.
  In this unit, the description of vessels precedes the
details of that tent, for they perform its key
functions,
while the structure that houses them serves only a
secondary
function.
     These instructions are followed by the commandment
to
build an altar ['mizbach ha-nechoshet'], which will be
placed
in front of this ohel mo'ed (see 27:1-8), and a
courtyard
['chatzer'] constructed from curtains and poles that
would
encompass it (see 27:9-19).
     This Shchina unit concludes with the laws
concerning the
kohanim who are to officiate in the mishkan (chapter
28), and
the seven day dedication ceremony (chapter 29).
  In chapters 30 and 31 we found an additional unit,
that
  contained a list of peripheral mitzvot relating to the
  mishkan (and its protection from the shchina],
including
  the 'mizbach ketoret' and the 'kiyor'.]
  
  At the very conclusion of the tzivui ha-mishkan we
find the
instruction to appoint Betzalel to build the mishkan,
and the
important reminder not to build it on Shabbat.
     The following table summarizes this order in
Parshat
Teruma according to its most general categories:

Intro - Shchina
 Keilim - the vessels  (chapter 25)
  *  The aron - which will house the luchot
  The kaporet - from where God will speak to Moshe
  *  The shulchan - on which the lechem will be placed
  *  The menora - which will provide light
 Structure - the ohel mo'ed (the tent - chapter 26)
  * The yeriot
  * The krashim
  * The "parochet"
 Chatzer - The courtyard (chapter 27)
  *  The mizbeiach - the altar in front of the ohel
mo'ed
  *  The courtyard - "amudei ve-kelei ha-chatzer"
 Kohanim (chapters 28 & 29)
  * The bigdei kehuna
  *  The dedication ceremony (milu'im)
 Misc. Topics (chapter 30)
 The Builder - Betzalel (chapter 31)
 Shabbat (not to build the mishkan on Shabbat/ 31:11-17)

     In contrast to this 'functional order', the order
in
Parshat Vayakhel is quite different, for in this unit -
Moshe
must explain to Bnei Yisrael how to build the mishkan.
Therefore, the sequence will follow a more practical
order,
reflecting the considerations of its construction.
     For example, the tent will precede the vessels, for
the
ohel moed will house them. Furthermore, this time, the
mizbach
ketoret will be included with the other vessels, even
though
its function in regard to the shechina is different.
Similarly, this time the kiyor will be recorded together
with
the mizbach ha'Olah.
     The following table summarizes this 'practical'
order, as
presented in Parshat Vayakhel:

 Shabbat
  *  Guidelines re: when construction work is permitted
(35:1-3);
 Teruma
  *  The collection of the building materials (35:4-29);
 The Builder
  * The appointment of the chief architect - Betzalel -
and
    his fellow artisans (35:30-36:7);
 Structure - the ohel mo'ed - the tent (36:8-38):
    * the yeriot
    * the kerashim
    * the parochet
 Keilim  (chapter 37)
    * the aron
    * shulchan
    * menora
    * mizbach ktoret (from misc. above)
 Chatzer (chapter 38)
    * the mizbeiach
    * the kiyor (from misc. above)
    * the courtyard
 Kohanim (chapter 39)
    * their garments
 Construction
    * assembly of the mishkan on the 1st of Nissan
(40:1-33)
 Shchina
    * God's glory dwells on the mishkan (40:34-38)

     As you review (and compare) these two tables, be
sure to
note their similarities and differences.  Doing so,
while
considering this distinction between 'function' and
'construction', will help you understand how and why the
order
in Vayakhel / Pekudei differs from the order in Teruma /
Tetzaveh.
    [Note as well that the mizbach ha-ktoret and the
kiyor
    that were omitted (for thematic reasons) from the
Shchina
    unit in Teruma / Tetzaveh are now included (for
practical
    reasons) in Parshat Vayakhel - right where they
belong!
          [See also TSC shiur on Parshat Tetzaveh.]

WHY THE REPETITION?
     With this distinction in mind, let's consider now a
more
basic question, i.e. the very need to repeat anything!
  After all, the building of the mishkan was only a
'one-
time' mitzva.  Would it not have been sufficient for the
Torah
to simply tell us in one pasuk that Bnei Yisrael
constructed
the mishkan 'as God commanded Moshe on Har Sinai'?
     To answer this question, we return to our study of
the
overall theme of Sefer Shmot.

THE MISHKAN EXCLUSIVE
     In Sefer Shmot, from the time that Moshe ascended
Har
Sinai to receive the first luchot (see 24:12), the
mishkan
emerged as its primary focus.  Even though Moshe
received
numerous other laws during these forty days, in chapters
25
thru 31 Sefer Shmot records only those mitzvot relating
to the
mishkan.
     Likewise, when Moshe descends from Har Sinai (after
the
last forty days), even though the Torah informs us that
he
conveyed all the mitzvot to Bnei Yisrael at that time
(see
34:32), nevertheless Sefer Shmot chooses to record only
Moshe's transmission of the mitzvot concerning the
mishkan
(i.e. chapters 35->40).  All the other mitzvot appear
only
later, in the books of Vayikra, Bamidbar and Devarim
(see
Chizkuni 34:32)!
     So the question is not only - why the 'repeat'; but
also
why the exclusivity of the mishkan in Sefer Shmot?

     Ramban, in his explanation of the overall theme of
Sefer
Shmot, suggests an answer:
  "... Sefer Shmot discusses the exile [i.e. the slavery
in
  Egypt]... and Bnei Yisrael's redemption from that
exile...
  for the descent of the children of Yaakov to Egypt
marked
  the beginning of that exile... and that exile does not
end
  until they return to the spiritual level of their
  forefathers... Even though Bnei Yisrael had left Egypt
  [i.e. physical redemption], they are not yet
considered
  redeemed... [However,] when they reach Har Sinai and
build
  the mishkan, and God returns His Shchina to dwell
among
  them, then they have returned to the spiritual level
of
  their forefathers [spiritual redemption]... Therefore,
  Sefer Shmot concludes with the topic of the mishkan
and the
  constant dwelling of God's Glory upon it [for this
marks
  the completion of the Redemption process]."
               (see Ramban, introduction to Sefer Shmot)

     According to Ramban, Sefer Shmot concludes with the
story
of the mishkan because its construction marks the
completion
of Bnei Yisrael's redemption.  His explanation can help
us
understand the manner in which the Torah repeats the
details
of the mishkan in parshiot Vayakhel / Pekudei.

SPIRITUAL REHABILITATION
     As Ramban explained, the 'spiritual level' that
Bnei
Yisrael had achieved at Ma'amad Har Sinai was lost as a
result
of chet ha-egel.  Consequently, God had removed His
Shchina
from Bnei Yisrael (see Shmot 33:1-7), effectively
thwarting
the redemption process that began with Yetziat
Mitzrayim.
     Moshe Rabeinu's intervention on Bnei Yisrael's
behalf
(see 32:11-14) certainly saved them from immediate
punishment
and secured their atonement (see 32:30, 34:9).  However,
that
prayer alone could not restore Bnei Yisrael to the
spiritual
level achieved at Har Sinai.  The Shchina, which was to
have
resided in their midst, remained outside the camp (see
33:7,
read carefully!).
     Moshe interceded once again (see 33:12-16),
whereupon God
declared his thirteen 'attributes of mercy'
(33:17-34:8), thus
allowing Bnei Yisrael a 'second chance'.  Nonetheless,
the
Shchina did not return automatically.  To bring the
Shchina
back, it would be necessary for Bnei Yisrael to do
something -
they must actively and collectively involve themselves
in the
process of building the mishkan.
     In other words, Bnei Yisrael required what we might
call
'spiritual rehabilitation'.  Their collective
participation in
the construction of the mishkan helped repair the strain
in
their relationship with God brought about by chet
ha-egel.
Or, using more 'kabalistic' terminology, the
construction of
the mishkan functioned as a 'tikkun' for chet ha-egel.
     A closer examination of parshiot Vayakhel / Pekudei
supports this interpretation and can explain why Sefer
Shmot
repeats the details of the mishkan in Vayakhel /
Pekudei.

TEXTUAL PARALLELS
     Let's take for example the Torah's use of the word
'vayakhel' at the beginning of the parsha.  This
immediately
brings to mind the opening line of the chet ha-egel
narrative:
  "Va-yikahel ha-am al Aharon - and the nation gathered
  against Aharon..." (32:1).

     This new 'gathering' of the people - for the
purpose of
building the mishkan, can be understood as a 'tikkun'
for that
original gathering to build the egel.  As opposed to
their
assembly to fashion the golden calf, Bnei Yisrael now
gather
to build a more 'proper' symbol of God's presence.
     Similarly, the commandment for the people to
'donate
their gold' and other belongings for this project (see
35:5)
can also be understood as a tikkun for Aharon's
solicitation
of the people's gold for the egel (32:2-3).
     However, the strongest proof is the Torah's glaring
repetition of the phrase: "ka'asher tziva Hashem et
Moshe"
["as God commanded Moshe"].  This phrase not only
appears in
both the opening commandment (35:1 & 35:4) and the
finale
(39:32 & 39:43), but it is repeated like a chorus over
twenty
times throughout Vayakhel-Pekudei, at every key point of
the
construction process.  [I recommend that you note this
using a
Tanach Koren.  See 35:29; 36:1; 36:5;
39:1,5,7,21,26,29,31,32,42,43; and especially in
40:16,19,21,23,25,27,29,32, as each part of the mishkan
is put
into its proper place.]
     Clearly, the Torah's repetition of this phrase is
intentional, and may very well point to the mishkan's
function
as a tikkun for chet ha-egel.  Let's explain why:
     Recall from our shiur on Parshat Ki Tisa that the
people's initial intention at chet ha-egel was to make a
physical representation of their perception of God.
Despite
the innocence of such aspirations per se, a man-made
representation, no matter how pure its intention, may
lead to
idol worship (see Shmot 20:20).  This does not mean,
however,
that God cannot ever be represented by a physical
symbol.
When God Himself chooses the symbol, it is not only
permitted,
but it becomes a mitzva.  It is this symbolism that
makes the
mishkan so important.  [See 23:17,19; 34:24, Devarim
12:5,11 &
16:16.]
     The Torah therefore stresses that Bnei Yisrael have
now
'learned their lesson'.  They construct the mishkan
precisely
'as God commanded Moshe,' down to the very last detail,
understanding that there is no room for human innovation
when
choosing a symbol for His Divine Presence.

AN APPROPRIATE FINALE
     This concept of tikkun for chet ha-egel finds
further
support in the very conclusion of Sefer Shmot.
     Although the aspect of Shchina (a central feature
in
Teruma / Tetzaveh) is mentioned nowhere throughout the
detail
of the mishkan's construction in Vayakhel / Pekudei, it
makes
a sudden reappearance at the very end of the sefer.
After
each component of the mishkan is put into place on the
first
of Nissan (see 40:1-33), this entire process reaches its
dramatic climax:
  "When Moshe had finished his work, the anan (cloud)
covered
  the ohel mo'ed and God's kavod ('glory') filled the
  mishkan" (40:34).

     This pasuk describes the dwelling of the Shchina on
the
mishkan in the exact same terms used to depict the
dwelling of
the Shchina on Har Sinai:
  "When Moshe ascended the har [Mount Sinai, to receive
the
  first luchot], the anan covered the har, and kvod
Hashem
  (God's glory) dwelled upon Har Sinai..."
(24:15-
  16).

     Clearly, the Torah intentionally parallels, thereby
associating, the descent of the Shchina onto Har Sinai
with
the dwelling of the Shchina on the mishkan.  Only after
Bnei
Yisrael meticulously complete the construction of the
mishkan
- precisely 'as God commanded Moshe' - does the Shchina
return
to Bnei Yisrael and dwell therein (40:34), just as it
had
dwelled on Har Sinai.
     Thus, the end of Sefer Shmot marks the completion
of the
tikkun for chet ha-egel.  Accordingly, as Ramban posits,
the
entire 'redemption process' - the theme of Sefer Shmot -
has
also reached its culmination.
     The Shchina's return to the camp also signifies
Bnei
Yisrael's return to the stature they had lost after the
golden
calf.  Recall that in the aftermath of that incident:
  "Moshe took his tent and set it up outside the camp,
far
  away from the camp, and called it the ohel mo'ed [tent
of
  meeting (with God)], such that anyone who would search
for
  God was required to go out to this ohel mo'ed, outside
the
  camp" [see 33:7 and its context in 33:1-11].

     This ohel mo'ed, located outside the camp,
symbolized the
distancing of the Shchina.  Once the mishkan is built,
God
will bring His Shchina back inside the camp.  [See 25:8
and
29:45.]

BACK TO BREISHIT
     Thus far, we have shown that the manner by which
Bnei
Yisrael construct the mishkan serves as a tikkun for
chet ha-
egel and relates to the overall theme of Sefer Shmot.
     One could suggest that the very concept of a
mishkan -
irrespective of its mode of construction - may
constitute a
more general tikkun, beyond the specific context of the
golden
calf.  In this sense, the mishkan relates to a more
general
biblical theme developed in Sefer Breishit.
     As explained in our shiurim on Sefer Breishit, the
Garden
of Eden reflects the ideal spiritual environment in
which Man
cultivates his relationship with God.  After Adam sinned
and
was consequently banished from the Garden, God placed
keruvim
to guard the path of return to the Tree of Life (see
Breishit
3:24).
     It may not be coincidental that the mishkan is the
only
other context throughout the entire Chumash where the
concept
of keruvim appears.  Recall how the mishkan features
keruvim:
    1) on the kaporet as protectors of the aron, which
    contains the luchot (Shmot 25:22), and
    2) woven into the parochet, the curtain which guards
the
    entrance into the kodesh ha-kodashim - the Holy of
Holies
    (where the aron and kaporet are located).

     This parallel suggests a conceptual relationship
between
Gan Eden and the mishkan.  The symbolic function of the
keruvim as guardians of the kodesh kodashim may
correspond to
the mishkan's function as an environment similar to Gan
Eden,
where man can strive to come closer to God:

  1)  The keruvim of the kaporet, protecting the aron,
  indicate that the 'Tree of Life' of Gan Eden has been
  replaced by the Torah, represented by the luchot
inside the
  aron.
     ["Etz chayim hi la-machazikim bah" - see Mishlei
3:1-18.]

  2)  The keruvim woven into the parochet remind man
that his
  entry into the kodesh kodashim, although desired,
remains
  limited and requires spiritual readiness.
     [Note that keruvim are also woven into the
innermost
     covering of the mishkan (see Shmot 26:1-2).]

     In this sense, we may view the mishkan as a tikkun
for
Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden.  Should man wish to
return
to the Tree of Life, he must keep God's covenant - the
laws of
the Torah - as symbolized by the luchot ha-eidut in the
aron,
protected by the keruvim.
     If so, then the Torah's repetition of the laws of
the
mishkan, as well as there exclusivity, may be alluding
to one
of the most important themes of Chumash - man's never
ending
quest to develop a relationship with his Creator.

                        shabbat shalom,
                              menachem

=====================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
A.  An important clarification
     It is important that we clarify this tikkun aspect
of the
mishkan.
     We do not claim that the mishkan itself constitutes
a
tikkun for chet ha-egel.  Rather, the manner by which
Bnei
Yisrael must build it serves as a tikkun.  Consequently,
our
analysis here stands independent of the controversy
between
Rashi and Ramban as to when God commanded the building
of the
mishkan.  As we explained in our shiur on Parshat
Teruma,
Ramban (mishkan commanded before chet ha-egel) and Rashi
(mishkan commanded after chet ha-egel) argue only
whether the
need for a temporary mishkan resulted from chet ha-egel.
However, Rashi must agree that the basic concept of a
mikdash
is necessary to perpetuate the experience of Har Sinai,
just
as Ramban in Parshat Vayakhel must agree that the manner
in
which Bnei Yisrael ultimately construct the mishkan
reflects
their correction of the sin of chet ha-egel.

B.  'Shchina tamid'
     We stated that Teruma / Tetzaveh describes the
function
of each object in the mishkan.  It may be suggested that
the
actual function of each 'kli' relates to the constant
presence
of the Shchina in the mishkan.
     The following table demonstrates the three levels
of
kedusha in the mishkan, according to the functions of
the
accessories contained in the three regions of the
mishkan:

Kodesh Kodashim
     the aron - contains the 'luchot ha-eidut'
     the kaporet - from where God will speak to Moshe

Kodesh
     the shulchan - 'lechem panim lefa'nai tamid'
     the menora -  'leha'alot ner tamid'
     the mizbach zahav - 'lehaktir ktoret tamid'

Chatzer ha-mishkan
     the mizbach nechoshet- 'lehakriv olat tamid'

     The kodesh kodashim contains the luchot, the
eternal
testament to the covenant at Har Sinai.  God speaks to
Moshe
from in between the keruvim (25:21-22), thus
perpetuating the
Har Sinai experience.  In this domain, God 'comes down'
to
man; as such, no 'avoda' (ritual) is performed.
     Outside this domain, in the kodesh, the kohanim
perform
their daily avodat tamid - lighting the menora, offering
the
ktoret, and keeping bread on the shulchan.
     Outside the mishkan is the chatzer (courtyard).
Here, Am
Yisrael collectively offer their korban tamid on the
mizbeiach.
[See shiur on Parshat Tetzaveh for a complete analysis.]
     Significantly, each 'kli' requires an 'avodat
tamid'.
The word tamid means everlasting or continuous.  Am
Yisrael
must perform their daily avodat tamid in order to
deserve the
continuous presence of the Shchina.
     A relationship with God does not come
automatically; it
requires constant effort on the individual's part.

C.  Beyond the parallels between the mishkan and Gan
Eden (as
noted in the shiur), there exist as well textual
parallels
between the mishkan and the story of Creation in the
first
perek of Sefer Breishit.  For example, "va-techel kol
avodat
ha-mishkan..." (39:32) and "va-yar Moshe et kol
ha-melacha..."
(39:43) correspond to Breishit 1:31 and 2:1.  Indeed,
several
Midrashim view the mishkan as the completion of the
Creation
process.
1.  Based on the above shiur, explain this parallel.
2.  The entire mishkan plan is repeated a total of seven
times
in Sefer Shmot: Teruma Tetzaveh - 25:10-30:38 / 31:7-11,
   Vayk.Pkd:  35:11-19 /36:8-39:32 /39:33-42 /40:1-16
/40:17-33.
   Connect this as well to Breishit 1 (the seven-day
process
of creation).
3.  Relate this parallel to the location of mitzvat
shabbat,
which concludes the tzivui ha-mishkan unit (31:12-17)
and
opens the binyan ha-mishkan  unit (35:1-4).

D.  The highest level of hitgalut, experienced by Moshe
(33:11) and Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai (Dvarim 5:4), is
known
as 'panim be-fanim' - literally, face to face.  When God
'changed' His attributes to 'midot ha-rachamim' (Shmot
33:17-
34:9), He states that man can no longer see His 'face',
only
His 'back' (33:20-23).
1.  Find the allusions to the human face in the mishkan:
     For example: menora=eyes, shulchan=mouth, etc.
2.  In your opinion, could this represent 'pnei Hashem'?
3.  How would the aron fit within this parallel?
   How about the function of the 'orot izim ve-elim' as
a
cover for the mishkan?
4.  Accordingly, what is the significance of the 'masach
le-
petach ha-mishkan" and the parochet, and the general
concept
of limited entry into the mishkan?
5.  According to Rashi, would this have been the
structure of
the mikdash before chet ha-egel?  According to Ramban?

E.  The theme of Sefer Shmot
     Throughout our study of Sefer Shmot, we traced
three
primary topics:     (1) the Exodus (Yetziat Mitzrayim,
chapters 1->17);
          (2) Ma'amad Har Sinai (chapters 19->24,
32->34);
          (3) the mishkan (chapters 25->31, 35->40).
     Based on the above shiur, we can suggest a
fundamental
relationship between these three sections:
1)  Through the process of Yetziat Mitzrayim, God
fulfills His
    covenant with the Avot (the theme of Sefer Breishit)
to
    redeem Bnei Yisrael from their bondage in Egypt so
as to
    facilitate their development into His special
nation.
2)  To become this special nation, God and Bnei Yisrael
enter
    into a covenant at Har Sinai (chapters 19->24).
Bnei
    Yisrael receive the commandments which will mold
their
    national and individual characters, transforming
them into
    God's special nation.
3)  The mishkan, the symbol of the special relationship
    established at Har Sinai, becomes the vehicle
through
    which that relationship can continue.  Although chet
ha-
    egel calls into question Bnei Yisrael's ability to
survive
    the terms of this covenant, the new terms of the
second
    luchot allow them to build the mishkan, to which the
    Shchina returns.

     An important pasuk in Parshat Tetzaveh highlights
this
overall theme.  As explained in our shiur on that
parasha,
chapters 25-29, which appear amidst God's instructions
regarding the mishkan,, form a distinct unit which we
may call
the 'Shchina unit' (compare 25:8 with 29:45).
     The closing pasuk of that unit - "And I shall dwell
among
the people of Israel, and I will be their God" (29:45) -
is
followed by an important summary pasuk:
    "And you shall know that I am the Lord your God who
took
    you  out of the Land of Egypt - leshochni betocham -
in
    order to dwell among you; I am the Lord your God"
    (29:46).

  This pasuk accurately reflects the overall theme of
Sefer
Shmot.  It ties together (1) Yetziat Mitzrayim, (2)
Matan
Torah, and (3) the mishkan with the concept of Shchina.
God
takes Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt in order that they
become His
nation, and this relationship reaches its highest level
with
the presence of the Shchina.  This level was attained at
Har
Sinai, and it forever remains within Bnei Yisrael's
reach
through the 'heir' and closest substitute to Har Sinai -
the
mishkan.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1301 -
Release Date: 2/27/2008 8:35 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayak1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 56925 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080227/c041d7fa/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Mar  5 23:17:43 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 23:17:43 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Pekudei
Message-ID: <009d01c87f41$090910d0$6e00000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

              PARSHAT PEKUDEI

     Sefer Shmot ends triumphantly, with the Torah's
detail of
how the shechina returns to dwell upon the Mishkan.
Nonetheless, this conclusion seems to include a 'sour
note',
for it also informs us that Moshe Rabeinu was not able
to
enter the Mishkan!  [See 40:34-35.]
     Did something go wrong?  Was Moshe unworthy?
     To answer this question, this week's shiur examines
a
textual parallel that will not only highlight the
thematic
connection between the Mishkan and Har Sinai, but it
will also
help us understand the relationship between the books of
Shmot, Vayikra, and Bamidbar.

INTRODUCTION
     A rather obvious parallel exists between the
concluding
five psukim of Sefer Shmot and Torah's description of
how
God's glory had descended upon Har Sinai, when Moshe
ascended
the mountain for the first forty days (see Shmot
24:12-18).
     As Ramban explains (in his opening commentary to
Shmot
25:1), this parallel lends irrefutable support to our
understanding that a primary goal of the Mishkan was to
perpetuate the special relationship between God and His
people
that had reached its apex at Ma'amad Har Sinai.
However, when
comparing these two sets of psukim, there also appears
to be
some rather significant differences.  Therefore, we
begin our
study by examining this parallel.

THE PARALLEL
     The final chapter of Parshat Pekudei describes how
the
Mishkan is assembled for the very first time on the
first day
of Nissan (in the second year /see 40:1-33).  Then, upon
the
completion of its assembly, the Torah informs us of what
happened:
  "Then the anan (cloud) covered the ohel mo'ed, and
kvod
  Hashem (God's glory) filled the Mishkan" (see 40:34).

     Let's compare this pasuk with a very similar
description
of Moshe Rabeinu's ascent to Har Sinai (as described at
the
end of Parshat Mishpatim):
  "And Moshe ascended the mountain and an anan covered
the
  mountain, and kvod Hashem dwelled upon Har Sinai..."
(24:15-16).
    [It is highly recommended that you compare these two
sets
    of psukim in their original Hebrew.]
    
     This obvious parallel highlights how the 'ohel
mo'ed' has
replaced 'the mountain' and, correspondingly, 'the
Mishkan'
has replaced 'Har Sinai.'
     In essence, the Mishkan will now serve a similar
purpose
as Har Sinai, as both serve as a medium whereby Bnei
Yisrael
can 'encounter' the shechina.
     Furthermore, as we discussed in our shiur on
Parshat
Tetzaveh, in both instances a completely 'direct'
encounter,
although desirable, is impossible.  Therefore, Bnei
Yisrael
must be shielded from God's Presence by the 'anan'.
     However, the next pasuk in each of these two
sources
seems to 'ruin' the completeness of this parallel.  In
contast
to Har Sinai, where Moshe actually enters the anan, as
we are
told:
  "And kvod Hashem dwelled on Har Sinai and the cloud
covered
  it for six days, and God called to Moshe on the
seventh
  day... and Moshe came inside the anan and ascended the
  mountain" (24:16-18).

In Parshat Pekudei, we find that he cannot enter:
  "And Moshe was unable to enter the ohel mo'ed, because
the
  anan was dwelling upon it..."(40:35).

     Certainly, had Sefer Shmot concluded with God
'calling'
upon Moshe to enter the Mishkan, just as He had 'called'
upon
him to enter the anan at Har Sinai, this parallel would
have
been complete;  Yet, for some reason, Moshe cannot enter
the
Mishkan!
     Has Moshe been demoted?

JUST TURN THE PAGE!
     Even though there may be a temptation to search for
a
reason for Moshe's 'demotion' (possibly due to the
events of
"chet ha'gel"), the truth is that there is no
'demotion'.  To
understand why, we simply need to 'turn the page', i.e.
to
read the opening pasuk of sefer Vayikra, where we find
the
precise pasuk that was 'missing' at the end of Sefer
Shmot:
  "And [God] called out to Moshe, and God spoke to him
from
  the ohel mo'ed saying..." (Vayikra 1:1).
    
     In other words, God did call upon Moshe to enter
the
'anan' that covered the Mishkan (just as He had called
him at
Har Sinai) - and indeed - the parallel to Har Sinai is
complete!
  [See commentaries of Ramban, Rashbam, & Ibn Ezra on
Shmot
  40:35 and on Vayikra 1:1; as they explain these psukim
in a
  similar manner!]

     The following table illustrates how the opening
pasuk of
Sefer Vayikra actually belongs at the conclusion of
Sefer
Shmot:

     HAR SINAI  (24:15-18)       MISHKAN (Shmot &
Vayikra)
     =================         =======================
the anan covers the har        the anan covers the
Mishkan

kvod Hashem dwells upon it     kvod Hashem fills Mishkan

Moshe must wait until called   Moshe cannot enter (Shmot
40:35)

God calls Moshe ("vayikra el...")  God calls Moshe
(Vayikra 1:1)

Moshe enters the anan &       Moshe enters the Mishkan &
  God speaks to Moshe           God speaks to Moshe

  Even though our parallel is complete, we now have a
new
problem, i.e. if the first pasuk of Vayikra actually
belongs
at the end of Sefer Shmot, why does the Torah begin a
new
sefer in the middle of a story?
     To answer this question, we must carefully study
the
remaining psukim at the conclusion of Sefer Shmot.

A DOUBLE FINALE
     Our understanding of Vayikra 1:1 as the logical
continuation of Shmot 40:34-35 works only if these
psukim had
indeed been the final psukim of the book.  However,
Shmot
40:35 is not the end of Sefer Shmot!  Rather, there
remain
three more psukim (i.e. 40:36-38), which appear to
'interrupt'
this logical progression.  Let's read them:
  "And when the anan lifted from the Mishkan, Bnei
Yisrael
  would travel.  If it would not lift, they would not
  travel...  For the anan was upon the Mishkan during
the day
  and fire would appear in it by night, before the eyes
of
  Bnei Yisrael throughout all their travels" (see
40:36-38).

     Even though all five psukim (40:34-38) relate to
the
topic of the anan that covered the Mishkan, these last
three
psukim discuss a topic which is quite different than the
first
two.  While the first two psukim discussed Moshe
entering the
Mishkan, the last three discuss the effect of this anan
on
Bnei Yisrael's journey through the desert.
  In fact, when you read these five psukim, the
transition
from 40:35 to 40:36 is rather disjoint.  And when you
consider
the logical flow from 30:35 to Vayikra 1:1 (as we
discussed
above), then these final psukim seem to form an
'interruption'.

   Furthermore, these final three psukim not only
interrupt the
natural flow of topic, they also appear to belong
somewhere
else!
   You may recall from Sefer Bamidbar that we find a
very
similar set of psukim in Parshat Beha'alotcha, when
theTorah
describes how Bnei Yisrael were supposed to travel in
the
desert:
  "On the day that the Mishkan was set up, the anan
covered
  the Mishkan... and in the evening it appeared as
fire... And
  when the anan lifted from the ohel [mo'ed], then Bnei
  Yisrael would travel, and at the place where the anan
rested
  Bnei Yisrael would set up their camp... "  (See
Bamidbar
  9:15-23, compare with Shmot 40:17 & 40:34-38.)
  
  Clearly, the opening pasuk (9:15) points us directly
to
Shmot chapter 40 - i.e. the assembly of the Mishkan and
the
'anan' etc. The psukim that follow describe how Bnei
Yisrael
were to travel, with almost the identical words that we
find
at the conclusion of Sefer Shmot.  Note as well how the
next
chapter in Sefer Bamidbar (i.e. 10:1-36) narrates Bnei
Yisrael's actual departure from Har Sinai.
    Thus, the three final psukim of sefer Shmot clearly
'belong'
in Sefer Bamidbar, as one of the primary themes of that
book
is Bnei Yisrael's journey through the desert as they
depart
Har Sinai.
     Now, we must explain why they are recorded
'prematurely'
at the conclusion of Sefer Shmot.

TWO POINTERS
     Note how our analysis thus far has shown that the
final
five psukim of sefer Shmot divide into two distinct
topics,
each of which points us to a different book of the
Bible:

  (A)  40:34-35 describes the anan dwelling upon the
Mishkan,
  and continues directly into Sefer Vayikra;
  
  (B)  40:36-38 describes how Bnei Yisrael journey
through the
  desert in accordance with this anan, and continues
directly
  into Sefer Bamidbar.

     A very interesting structure emerges from this
analysis.
Sefer Shmot concludes with two 'pointers': one to sefer
Vayikra (A) and one to sefer Bamidbar (B)!

     This 'double pointer' may be significant as it
highlights
the return to God's original plan after the Exodus,
despite
the events of "chet ha'egel".
  Recall the 'double purpose' of Yetziat Mitzraim, as
discussed in our shiur on Parshat Shmot (re: God's
hitgalut at
the 'burning bush'):

     (A) - For Bnei Yisrael to receive the Torah at Har
Sinai
and
     (B) - to travel to (& conquer) the Promised Land.

     As the events of chet ha-egel constituted a breach
in the
covenant between God and His People at Har Sinai, God
consequently threatened to break His end of the deal,
consequently taking His shechina away from the people
(see
Shmot 33:1-7).  Had it not been for Moshe Rabeinu's
intervention (see 33:12-17), Bnei Yisrael would not have
received the remaining mitzvot [A], nor would they have
been
worthy of God's direct assistance in conquering the Land
[B]
(see 33:1-7 and our shiur on Parshat Ki Tisa).
     Now that Bnei Yisrael have built the Mishkan and
God's
shechina has indeed returned, God once again commits
Himself,
as it were, to both elements of His original plan:

  (A) In Sefer Vayikra, Bnei Yisrael continue to receive
the
  special mitzvot that will reflect their special level
of
  kedusha;
  
  (B) In Sefer Bamidbar, Bnei Yisrael begin their travel
  towards the Promised Land, accompanied by God's
shechina.

     The shechina's 'dwelling' upon the Mishkan thus
yields a
dual effect, reflected in the distinct themes of Vayikra
and
Bamidbar:
(A)    First and foremost, it affects the Mishkan
itself, as
  explained and elaborated upon at length in sefer
Vayikra.
  The Shechina's dwelling upon the Mishkan allows man to
  approach God and offer korbanot (Vayikra / Tzav);
forbids
  one's entry into the Mishkan when one is 'tamei'
(Shmini,
  Tazri'a, Metzora); demands a special kapara
(atonement)
  ritual every Yom Kippur and forbids the offering of
korbanot
  outside the Mishkan (Acharei-Mot).  Finally, this
'kedusha'
  emanates into all three realms of existence: 'kedushat
adam'
  (Kedoshim), 'kedushat zman' (Emor) and 'kedushat
makom'
  (Behar).
      [Iy"h, we'll discuss all this in our shiurim on
Vayikra.]

(B)    Secondly, it affects the 'machaneh' - the camp of
  Israel, as reflected in sefer Bamidbar.  The presence
of the
  Shechina raises the entire camp of Israel to a higher
level,
  as God travels, as it were, with them.  The camp is
arranged
  in a formation that surrounds the Mishkan (as
described in
  parshiot Bamidbar and Naso), and Bnei Yisrael travel
through
  the desert following the anan over the Mishkan
  (Beha'alotcha).  Had Bnei Yisrael not sinned, Sefer
Bamidbar
  would have concluded with the story of their conquest
of the
  Land (Matot, Mas'ei).  Instead, it explains why that
  generation didn't enter the land (Shlach, Korach), as
well
  as the events of the fortieth year (Balak, Pinchas).

     In this manner, the triumphant conclusion of Sefer
Shmot
thematically points us in two directions: one - to the
laws of
Sefer Vayikra, and two - to Bnei Yisrael's journey in
Sefer
Bamidbar.

ONE DAY IN THREE BOOKS
     This interpretation can also help us appreciate why
the
events that transpired on the first of Nissan, the day
when
the Mishkan was first erected, are detailed in three
different
books instead of just one.

(1)    In Sefer Shmot (40:1-35), we find the commandment
to
  assemble the Mishkan on the first of Nissan, and the
details
  of how it was assembled on that day.
    These details are found in Sefer Shmot, for they
conclude
  the topic of building the Mishkan, as discussed in
Parshiot
  Teruma, Tetzaveh & Vayakhel.  Furthermore, Shmot
concludes
  by describing how the shechina returned to the Mishkan
on
  that day, signaling the its return despite the events
of
  chet ha-egel, as discussed in Parshat Ki Tisa.

(2)    In Sefer Vayikra we find the details of the
special
  korbanot offered on yom ha-shmini, and the tragic
event
  which occurred on that day - the death of Nadav and
Avihu.
  [See 9:1 thru 10:7.] According to most commentators,
that
  day coincides with the first of Nissan.
    As those events, as well as those special korbanot
  offered on that day, directly relate to many of the
mitzvot
  found in Sefer Vayikra, the narrative of those events
is
  recorded intentionally and specifically in Sefer
Vayikra.

(3)    In Sefer Bamidbar (7:1-89), we find the story of
the
  special gift brought by the nesi'im [the tribal
leaders] to
  the Mishkan on the day of its dedication - six wagons
and
  twelve oxen (see 7:1-4).  As these wagons were used by
the
  Levites to transport the Mishkan during their travel
through
  the desert to the Land of Israel, this account appears
in
  Sefer Bamidbar - the book that describes how Bnei
Yisrael
  traveled thru the desert.

     Hence, although all of these events took place on
the
same day - the first of Nissan, the Torah prefers to
record
them in three different books, corresponding to the
theme of
each sefer.
     We will iy"h return to this theme in our study of
both
sefer Vayikra and sefer Bamidbar.
			Till then,
 
 			shabbat shalom
                        menachem

=================
FOR FURTHER IYUN

A.  Note the importance of the date of the first of
Nissan in
Shmot chapter 40.  Relate God's selection and
designation of
this date to Parshat ha-chodesh / Shmot 12:1-20.  Relate
this
as well to the importance of this date in Divrei
Ha-yamim II
29:1-17.

B.  Relate the main points of the above shiur to Shmot
29:45-
46, specifically relating to the question if the purpose
of
Yetziat Mitzraim was to worship God in the desert or to
inherit the Promised Land / see also Shmot 3:6-12.
[Relate
your answer as well to the main point of our shiur on
Parshat
Tetzaveh.]


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.4/1313 -
Release Date: 3/5/2008 9:50 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pkud1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 37446 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080305/01416239/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Mar 13 07:38:15 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:38:15 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Sefer Vayikra - intro
Message-ID: <003f01c884fe$b9dc47c0$0200000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

          SEFER VAYIKRA - INTRODUCTION
          
     Most of us find Sefer Vayikra rather boring - at
least
until we reach Parshat Kedoshim.
     In our series on Sefer Vayikra we attempt to make
the
study of this book a bit more exciting, not only by
analyzing
its specific laws, but also by paying careful attention
to its
structure and theme.

WHAT MAKES SEFER VAYIKRA UNIQUE
     Before we begin our study, we must first clarify
how (and
why) Sefer Vayikra is 'structurally' different from the
other
books of Chumash.
    In general, when we study Chumash, we encounter two
basic
types of passages.  They can either be:
  
  1)  narrative - i.e. the ongoing 'story' of Chumash;
or
  
  2)  commandments - 'laws' that God commands Bnei
Yisrael

     Up until Sefer Vayikra, Chumash has essentially
been
narrative, i.e. the story of how God chose the Jewish
nation,
took them out of Egypt and gave them the Torah.  For
example,
Sefer Breishit begins with the story of Creation and
continues
with the story of God's 'bechira' (choice) of Avraham
Avinu
and his offspring to become His nation.  The few mitzvot
that
we do find in Sefer Breishit (e.g. 9:1-7, 32:32) are
presented
as part of that ongoing narrative.
     Similarly, Sefer Shmot begins with the story of the
Exodus and Bnei Yisrael's subsequent journey to Har
Sinai.
Surely, we find numerous mitzvot in Sefer Shmot;
however, each
set of laws is imbedded within the ongoing story.  For
example, the laws of Pesach (12:14-20) are presented as
part
of the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim, and the Ten
Commandments (&
the laws of Parshat Mishpatim / see 20:1-23:19)
constitute an
integral part of the story of the covenant between God
and His
nation at Ma'amad Har Sinai.  [Note from 24:3-7 how
those laws
become the Sefer Ha-brit.]

     Sefer Vayikra is radically different, as it not
only
begins with a set of commandments [mitzvot], the entire
book
(with the exception of two short narratives) is a
collection
of various mitzvot!  In other words, the ongoing
narrative of
Chumash that began in Sefer Breishit and continued with
Sefer
Shmot does not continue in Sefer Vayikra.  Instead, that
narrative resumes in Sefer Bamidbar - with the story of
how
Bnei Yisrael prepare to leave Har Sinai (after the
Mishkan has
been built).  Sefer Vayikra appears to stand alone, as
it
constitutes a book of laws, spanning a wide range of
laws
(mostly relating to the Mishkan and "kedusha"
[holiness]).
     As Sefer Vayikra is a book of laws (and not a
story), our
shiurim will focus on which specific types of laws are
found
in this book, as well as the significance of their order
and
progression.

THE LONE NARRATIVES
     Before we discuss the mitzvot, we should mention
the two
narratives that we do find in Sefer Vayikra:
     The first is that of the mishkan's dedication
ceremony -
chapters 8 thru 10, including the story of the seven day
"milu'im" ceremony and the special korbanot that were
offered
on the 'eighth day' ["yom ha'shmini"], followed by the
story
of the tragic death of Nadav and Avihu.  In our study of
that
narrative, we will show how that story actually
'belongs' at
the end of Sefer Shmot, while suggesting a reason why it
was
recorded in Sefer Vayikra instead.
     The second is the brief story of the "mekallel",
who was
executed for blaspheming God (see 24:10-23).  We will
show how
that story actually forms an introduction to a certain
set of
mitzvot.  In other words, when we do find a narrative in
Sefer
Vayikra, we will explain how and why it was included to
provide us with a better understanding of the
commandments
that follow that story.

TORAT KOHANIM
     If our above assumption (that Vayikra is
essentially a
book of laws) is correct, then it is very understandable
why
Chazal refer to Sefer Vayikra as "Torat Kohanim" [the
law
guide for the priests].  At first glance, it certainly
appears
that most of its laws are targeted for those who
officiate in
the Bet ha-Mikdash.  [See first Ramban on Vayikra.]
     Likewise, this also explains why the laws in
Vayikra
should progress in thematic order, and not necessarily
in the
chronological order of when they were first given.
  [Note how the laws (given earlier to Moshe) in Parshat
Behar
  (see 25:1) are recorded much later than the laws given
to
  Moshe from the ohel mo'ed in Parshat Vayikra (see
1:1).]

     Even though the name 'Torat Kohanim' implies that
the
mitzvot of Sefer Vayikra will relate primarily to
mishkan
related laws, nonetheless we do find numerous laws that
discuss other topics  (e.g. Parshat Kedoshim).
Furthermore,
we will also find many other laws regarding the mishkan
in
other books of Chumash, especially in Sefer Bamidbar.
Therefore, it would be difficult to conclude that Sefer
Vayikra deals exclusively with mishkan related laws.

     So what makes Sefer Vayikra unique?
     To answer that question, we will search for a
central
theme that will thematically connect all of the mitzvot
in
Sefer Vayikra and explain their progression.

THE THEME OF SEFER VAYIKRA
     To accomplish this task, we will follow a
methodology
that begins by first identifying 'units'.  Usually, each
set
of mitzvot can be categorized as belonging to a single
topic -
thus forming a 'unit'.  After identifying these units,
we will
discuss the logic of the progression from one unit to
the
next.  By doing so, we hope to be able to answer such
questions as:
  ?  Why does the sefer begin with the laws of korbanot?
  
?    Why are the korbanot outlined twice (in Vayikra &
Tzav)?

?    Why does the book abruptly switch topics in the
middle of
       Acharei Mot, from the mishkan to 'arayot' [in
chapter 18]?

?    Why does the sefer include Parshat Kedoshim, which
has
       little - if anything - to do with korbanot, but a
lot to do
       with the laws that were already discussed in
Parshat Mishpatim?
      
?    Why does Vayikra conclude with the laws of
'shmitta' and
       'yovel', that discuss how we are not permitted to
work the
       land once every seven years?
  
     In the shiurim to follow, we will attempt to answer
these
questions (and more).

A SPECIAL BOOK
     In closing, one general remark concerning the
relationship between Sefer Vayikra and our study of
Chumash
thus far, and hence the importance as the 'central' book
of
the 'Five Books.
     In Sefer Breishit we saw how God entered into a
covenant
with Avraham Avinu in order that his offspring ['zera']
would
become a nation dedicated to the representation of His
Name.
To facilitate that goal, God entered into a covenant
with the
Avot, promising both a special Land ['aretz'], and a
long
historical process to become that nation (i.e. 'brit
bein ha-
btarim' / see Br. 15:6-18).
     Sefer Shmot began as God began His fulfillment of
that
covenant by redeeming Bnei Yisrael from Egypt, and
giving them
the Torah at Sinai - i.e. the laws that would help
establish
this special nation.  The unfortunate events at chet
ha-egel
constituted a 'breach', raising the question if this
special
relationship could continue.
    Fortunately, God declared His attributes of mercy,
thus
enabling Bnei Yisrael an avenue for repentance, as
reflected
in their collective effort to construct of the mishkan.
The
return of God's Shechina to the mishkan at the
conclusion of
Sefer Shmot served as a climax, for it showed that this
covenantal relationship had returned to its original
level.

     It is precisely at this point - when God's Shechina
returns - where Sefer Vayikra begins.  Before Bnei
Yisrael
continue their journey towards Eretz Canaan (as will be
discussed in Sefer Bamidbar), God commands them with an
additional set of mitzvot that will not only provide a
guide
for how they can use the mishkan, but will also
facilitate
their becoming God's special nation - a "mamlechet
kohanim ve-
goy kadosh" (see Shmot 19:5-6).
     In this sense, Sefer Vayikra constitutes more than
simply
a technical list of the various rituals performed in the
mishkan.  As we will show, the laws of Sefer Vayikra
will
focus on the very nature of Am Yisrael's relationship
with
God, at both the individual and national level.

     In our shiur this week on Parshat Vayikra, we will
focus on
the first unit of laws in Sefer Vayikra, that deals
primarily
with 'korbanot' [sacrifices], to show how those laws
relate to
this general theme.

                    Till then,  shabbat shalom,
                              menachem


FOR FURTHER IYUN - A FEW IMPORTANT CLARIFICATIONS

A.  RAMBAN'S SHITTA
     Despite our observation that Sefer Vayikra is
basically a
book of mitzvot, it is important to note that a brief
narrative introduces each set of mitzvot.
     For example, most mitzvot begin with the classic
header:
          "And God spoke to Moshe saying..."
          ["va-'yedaber Hashem el Moshe leimor.."]
               [see 4:1; 5:14,20; 6:12 etc.]
     Sometimes, God directs His dibbur to Aharon, as
well:
"And God spoke to Moshe and Aharon saying" (see 11:1,
13:1).

     In some occasions, the opening phrase may even tell
us
where these mitzvot were given to Moshe.  Two classic
examples:
     1)  In the ohel mo'ed -
"And God called to Moshe and spoke to him from the ohel
mo'ed
saying: speak to Bnei Yisrael..."  Vayikra (1:1);
     2)  At Har Sinai -
          "And God spoke to Moshe at Har Sinai
saying..." (25:1).
      [the first pasuk of Parshat Behar/ see also
7:37-38,
      16:1, 26:46, and 27:34.]

     Therefore, 'technically speaking,' one could still
consider Sefer Vayikra 'narrative-based,' and perhaps
even a
continuation of Sefer Shmot.  In other words, Parshat
Vayikra
opens with the first dibbur that Moshe received from the
ohel
mo'ed, once the mishkan was completed (see shiur on
Parshat
Pekudei); and then records the mitzvot Hashem issues
from that
point onward.
     [This is more or less Ramban's shitta, who
maintains
     'yesh mukdam u-me'uchar ba-Torah'.  See the lengthy
Ramban
      on Vayikra 25:1 (till the end)!]

     In truth, however, the two examples mentioned above
could
demonstrate quite the opposite, i.e. that the mitzvot in
Sefer
Vayikra are not presented in chronological order.
According
to 1:1, the first set of mitzvot is transmitted from the
ohel
mo'ed, and thus this dibbur must have occurred only
after the
mishkan was built.  However, the mitzvot in chapter 25
were
given on Har Sinai (see 25:1), and therefore must have
been
given before the ohel mo'ed (1:1) was built!  [See also
26:46
& 27:34.]
     Further proof may be drawn from Parshat Tzav.
Although,
as mentioned, the first set of mitzvot in Sefer Vayikra
was
given from the ohel mo'ed (chapters 1->5, see 1:1), the
Torah
tells us that God taught Moshe the next set of mitzvot
(chapter 6->7 / Parshat Tzav) on Har Sinai (see 7:37-38)
-
before the mishkan was built!  Nevertheless, Sefer
Vayikra
juxtaposes them, evidently because of their thematic
connection (i.e. they both discuss the laws of
korbanot).
   [Note that Ramban on 7:38 seems to disagree.  Iy"h,
his
    shitta will be discussed in greater detail in our
shiur on
    Parshat Tzav.]

B.  SIGNIFICANT HEADERS
     As noted above, a brief header introduces each set
of
mitzvot.  In most cases, these introductions make no
mention
of where these mitzvot were given to Moshe, only that
"God
spoke to Moshe saying..."
    When the Torah does offer this information, the
commentators
will always find significance latent within the Torah's
specification in this regard.  (For example, see 25:1 -
Rashi,
Ramban, & Chizkuni.)
     Similarly, certain parshiot in the middle of the
sefer,
such as the laws of Yom Kippur (16:1/ "acharei mot..."),
were
given in the wake of a certain event.  These laws must
have
been given to Moshe only after the mishkan was
constructed,
while other laws may have actually been given earlier,
on Har
Sinai, but recorded only later on in Sefer Vayikra.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1325 -
Release Date: 3/11/2008 1:41 PM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayikpre.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 41024 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080313/d32ce86e/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Mar 13 07:39:31 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:39:31 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Vayikra - shiur
Message-ID: <004801c884fe$e76ba410$0200000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

             PARSHAT  VAYIKRA
                               
     Does God need our "korbanot"?
     Or, would it be more correct to say that we 'need'
to bring
them, even though He doesn't need them?
     In an attempt to answer this 'philosophical'
question,
this week's shiur undertakes an analysis of Parshat
Vayikra to
show how its specific topic of "korbanot" [sacrificial
offerings] relates to one of the primary themes of the
Bible.

INTRODUCTION
    The Mishkan certainly emerges as a primary topic in
both
the books of Shmot and Vayikra, and hence, it would only
be
logical to assume that its underlying purpose must be
thematically important.  To appreciate that purpose, we
must
first note a very simple distinction that explains which
details are found in each book.
    In Sefer Shmot, the Torah explains how to build the
mishkan,
and hence Shmot concludes (in Parshat Pekudei) with the
story
of its assembly.  In contrast, Sefer Vayikra explains
how to
use the mishkan, and hence Parshat Vayikra begins with
the
laws of the korbanot - i.e. instructions regarding the
sacrifices that will be offered there.
    Even though this distinction explains why Sefer
Vayikra
discusses korbanot in general, it does not explain why
the
Sefer begins specifically with the laws of korban ola
[the
burnt offering]; nor does it explain the logic of the
progression from one type of korban to the next.  In our
shiur, we begin with a technical analysis of its
internal
progression - but those conclusions will help us arrive
at a
deeper understanding of the purpose of korbanot in
general.

AN OUTLINE for PARSHAT VAYIKRA
    In our study questions, we suggested that you
prepare an
outline of chapters one thru five, by identifying the
primary
topic of each individual 'parshia'.  The following table
summarizes our conclusions.  Before you continue, study
it
carefully (with a Chumash at hand), noting how the
section
titles provide an explanation of the progression of its
topics.
  [Note how each 'parshia' corresponds to one line in
our
  chart.  Note also that each asterisk ('*') in the
outline
  marks the beginning of a new 'dibra', i.e. a short
  introduction for a new instruction from God to Moshe
[e.g.
  "va-yedaber Hashem el Moshe..."].       Note as well
how the
  outline suggests a short one-line summary for each
parshia,
  as well as a title for each section.  See if you agree
with
  those titles.]
  
          PARSHAT VAYIKRA - THE KORBAN YACHID
          ===================================
I.  KORBAN NEDAVA - Voluntary offerings (chaps. 1-3)
     A.  Ola  (the entire korban is burnt on the
mizbeiach)
          1. 'bakar' - from cattle
          2. 'tzon' - from sheep
          3. 'of' - from fowl

     B.  Mincha (a flour offering)
          1. 'solet' - plain flour mixed with oil and
'levona'
          2. 'ma'afeh tanur' - baked in the oven
          3. 'al machvat' - on a griddle
          4. 'marcheshet' - on a pan (+ misc. general
laws)
          5. 'bikkurim' - from wheat of the early
harvest

     C.  Shlamim (a peace offering, part is eaten by the
owners)
          1. bakar - from cattle
          2. tzon - from sheep
          3. 'ez' - from goats

    [Note the key phrase repeated many times in this
unit:
               "isheh reiach nichoach l-Hashem."]

II.  KORBAN CHOVA - MANDATORY OFFERINGS
     A. * CHATAT  (4:1-5:13)
     1.  for a general transgression
                    [laws organized according to
violator]
          a.  'par kohen mashiach' (High Priest) - a
bull
          b.  'par he'elem davar' (bet din) - a bull
          c.  'se'ir nassi' (a king) - a male goat
          d.  'nefesh' (layman)  a female goat or female
lamb
     2.  for specific transgressions ('oleh ve-yored')
          a.  a rich person - a female goat or lamb
          b.  a poor person - two birds
          c.  a very poor person - a plain flour
offering

  B. * ASHAM (5:14-5:26) - animal is always an 'ayil'
(ram)
          1. 'asham me'ilot' - taking from Temple
property
          2. 'asham talui' - unsure if he sinned
           [Note the new dibbur at this point /see
Further iyun.]
          3. * 'asham gezeilot' - stealing from another

     [Note the key phrase repeated numerous times in
this unit:
           "ve-chiper alav... ve-nislach lo."]
               ========================

     Let's explain why we have chosen these titles.

TWO GROUPS: NEDAVA & CHOVA
     First and foremost, note how our outline divides
Parshat
Vayikra into two distinct sections: 'korbanot nedava' =
voluntary offerings and 'korbanot chova' - mandatory
offerings.
     The first section is titled "nedava", for if an
individual wishes to voluntarily offer a korban to God,
he has
three categories to choose from:
  1) An OLA - a burnt offering [chapter one];
  2) A MINCHA - a flour offering [chapter two]; or
  3) A SHLAMIM - a peace offering [chapter three]
  
  Note how these three groups are all included in the
first
"dibbur" - and comprise the "nedava" [voluntary]
section.
  
     In contrast, there are instances when a person may
transgress, thus obligating him to offer a sin offering
- be
it a "chatat" or an "asham" (depending upon what he did
wrong).
     The two categories (chapters 4 and 5) comprise the
second
section, which we titled "chova" [obligatory].

     The Chumash itself stresses a distinction between
these
two sections not only the start of a new dibbur in 4:1,
but
also the repetition of two key phrases that appear in
just
about every closing verse in the parshiot of both
sections,
stressing the primary purpose of each respective
section:

     In the nedava section: "isheh reiach nichoach
l-Hashem"
          ["an offering of fire, a pleasing odor to the
Lord"
               See 1:9,13,17; 2:2; 3:5,11,16];

     In the chova section: "ve-chiper a'lav ha-kohen...
"
          [the kohen shall make expiation on his
behalf..." -
               See 4:26,31,35; 5:6,10,13,16,19,26]

     With this background in mind, we will now discuss
the
logic behind the internal structure of each section, to
show
how (and why) the nedava section is arranged by category
of
offering and the type of animal, while the chova section
is
arranged by type of transgression committed, and who
transgressed.

NEDAVA - take your pick
     If an individual wishes to offer a korban nedava,
he must
first choose the category that reflects his personal
preference.  First of all, should he prefer to offer the
entire animal to God, he can choose the ola category;
but
should he prefer (for either financial or ideological
reasons)
to offer flour instead, then he can choose the mincha
category.  Finally, should he prefer not only the animal
option, but would also like to later partake in eating
from
this korban - then he can choose the shlamim category.
     Once the individual has made this general choice of
either an ola, mincha, or shlamim - next, he can pick
the sub-
category of his choice.
     For example, should one choose to offer an ola -
which is
totally consumed on the mizbeiach - then he must choose
between cattle, sheep, or fowl.
  The Torah explains these three options (in the first
three
parshiot of chapter 1), including precise instructions
concerning how to offer each of these animals.
     Should the individual choose a mincha - a flour
offering
- instead, then he must select from one of the five
different
options for how to bake the flour, corresponding to the
five
short parshiot in chapter two.  In other words, he can
present
his offering as either flour (mixed with oil), or baked
in an
oven ("ma'afe tanur), or fried on a skillet ("al
machvat"), or
deep fried ("marcheshet").  Should the flour offering be
from
the wheat of the early harvest ("minchat bikkurim"), it
must
first be roasted and ground in a special manner (see Ibn
Ezra
2:14).
     Finally, should he choose the shlamim option- a
peace
offering - then he must select between: cattle
("bakar");
sheep ("kvasim"); or goats ("izim") - corresponding to
the
three individual parshiot in chapter three.

     It should be noted as well that the laws included
in this
korban nedava section also discuss certain procedural
instructions.  For example, before offering an ola or
shlamim,
the owner must perform the act of 'smicha' (see 1:4,
3:2,8,13).  By doing "smicha" - i.e. resting all his
weight on
the animal - the owner symbolically transfers his
identity to
the animal.  That is to say, he offers the animal
instead of
himself (see Ramban).
     One could suggest that the act of smicha reflects
an
understanding that the korban serves as a 'replacement'
for
the owner.  This idea may be reflective of the korban
ola that
Avraham Avinu offered at the akeida - when he offered a
ram in
place of his son - "ola tachat bno"  (see Breishit
22:13).

CHOVA - if you've done something wrong
     As we explained earlier, the second category of
Parshat
Vayikra discusses the "korban chova" (chapters 4 & 5) -
an
obligatory offering that must be brought by a person
should he
transgress against one of God's laws.  Therefore, this
section
is organized by event, for the type of sin committed
will
determine which offering is required.
     The first 'event' is an unintentional transgression
of
'any of God's mitzvot' (see 4:2 and the header of each
consecutive parshia in chapter 4).  Chazal explain that
this
refers to the unintentional violation ('shogeg') of any
prohibition of the Torah - that had the person
transgressed
intentionally ("meizid"), his punishment would have been
'karet' (cut off from the Jewish nation).
  [This offering is usually referred to as a 'chatat
kavu'a'
  (the fixed chatat).]
  
     Should this transgression occur ("b'shogeg"), then
the
actual animal that must be brought depends upon who the
sinner
is.  If the kohen gadol (high priest) sins, he must
brings a
bull ("par").  If it is the political leader ("nasi"),
he must
bring a male goat ("se'ir").  If it was simply a
commoner, he
must bring either a she-goat or lamb ("se'ira" or
"kisba").
  [There is also a special case of a mistaken halachic
ruling
  by the 'elders' [i.e. the 'sanhedrin' - the supreme
halachic
  court], which results in the entire nation
inadvertently
  sinning.  In this case, the members of the sanhedrin
must
  bring a special chatat offering - known as the "par
he'elem
  davar shel tzibur".  See 4:13-21.]

     In chapter five we find several instances of
specific
transgressions that require either a "chatat" or an
"asham".
     The first category begins with a list of three
specific
types of transgressions, including - the case when a
person
refuses to provide witness (see 5:1), or should one
accidentally enter the Temple (or Mishkan) while
spiritually
unclean ('tamei' / see 5:2), or should one not keep a
promise
(to do/ or not to do something) made with an oath
('shvu'at
bitui' / see 5:4).
     Should one transgress in regard to any one of these
three
cases (detailed in 5:1-4), the specific offering that he
must
bring depends on his income.  If he is:
     a) rich - he brings a female lamb or she-goat;
     b) 'middle class' - he can bring two birds instead;
     c) poor - he can bring a simple flour offering.

  Interestingly, this korban is categorized as a
"chatat" (see
5:6,10,13), even though the Torah uses the word "asham"
[guilt] in reference to these acts (see 5:5).  It makes
sense
to consider it a "chatat", because in the standard case
(i.e.
if the transgressor be rich) - the offering is exactly
the
same animal as the regular chatat - i.e. a female goat
or
sheep.
  Furthermore, note that these psukim (i.e. 5:1-13) are
included in the same "dibbur" that began in 4:1 that
discussed
the classic korban "chatat", while the new "dibbur" that
discusses the korban "asham" only begins in 5:14!

     The rabbis refer to this korban as an "oleh
ve-yored"
[lit. up and down] as this name relates to its graduated
scale
- which depends entirely upon the individual's financial
status.
     One could suggest that the Torah offers this
graduated
scale because these specific transgressions are very
common,
and hence it would become rather costly for the average
person
to offer an animal for each such transgression.
     The final cases (from 5:14 till the end of the
chapter)
include several other categories of transgressions -
that
require what the Torah refers to as a korban asham - a
guilt
offering.  In each of these cases, the transgressor must
offer
an ayil [a ram], including:
  ?    when one takes something belonging to hekdesh
('asham
     me'ilot'/ 5:14-16)
?    when one is unsure if he must bring a chatat
('asham
talui'), i.e. he is not sure if he sinned.
?    when one falsely denies having illegally held
possession
of someone else's property ('asham gezeilot' / 5:20-26),
like
not returning a 'lost item' to its owner.

THE GENERAL TITLE - KORBAN YACHID
     We titled the entire outline as korban yachid - the
offering of an individual - for this entire unit details
the
various types of korbanot that an individual (='yachid')
can
(or must) bring.  Our choice of this title reflects the
opening sentence of the Parsha: "adam ki yakriv..".- any
person should he bring an offering to God..." (see 1:2).
     The korban yachid stands in contrast to the
korbanot
tzibbur - the public offerings - which are offered by
the
entire congregation of Israel (purchased with the funds
collected from the machatzit ha-shekel).  The laws
relating to
korbanot tzibbur we first found in Parshat Tezaveh in
regard
to the daily "olat tamid" offering.  They continue with
the
special offering that the nation brings (collectively)
on the
holidays, as detailed primarily in Parshiot Emor
(Vayikra
chapter 23) and in Parshat Pinchas (Bamidbar chapters
28-29).

WHICH SHOULD COME FIRST?
     Now that we have explained the logic of the
internal
order of each section, we must explain why the laws of
korban
nedava precede those of korban chova.  Intuitively, one
would
have perhaps introduced the compulsory korban before the
optional one.
     One could suggest that Parshat Vayikra begins
specifically with the korban nedava since these korbanot
in
particular reflect the individual's aspiration to
improve his
relationship with God. Only afterward does the Torah
detail
the korban chova, which amends that relationship (when
tainted
by sin).  Additionally, perhaps, the korban nedava
reflects a
more ideal situation, while the obligatory sin-offering
seeks
to rectify a problematic situation.

     We may, however, suggest an even more fundamental
reason
based on the 'double theme' which we discussed in our
study of
the second half of Sefer Shmot.
     Recall from our previous shiurim that the mishkan
served
a dual purpose:
     A)  to perpetuate the experience of Har Sinai
                         (emphasized by Ramban); and
     B)  to atone for chet ha-egel (emphasized by
Rashi).

(A)  REENACTING HAR SINAI
     Recall how the covenantal ceremony that took place
at Har
Sinai (when Bnei Yisrael accepted the Torah) included
the
public offering of "olot" & "shlamim" (when the declared
"na'aseh ve-nishma"/ see Shmot 24:4-7).  In fact, in
that
ceremony we find the very first mention in Chumash of a
korban
shlamim, suggesting a conceptual relationship between
the
korban shlamim and Har Sinai.
  [Note also that Chumash later refers to the korban
shlamim
  as a 'zevach' (see 3:1 & 7:11).  The word zevach
itself is
  also used to describe a feast, generally in the
context of
  an agreement between two parties.  For example, Lavan
and
  Yaakov conduct a zevach after they enter into a
covenant
  ('brit') agreeing not to harm each other (see Br.
31:44-54).
  Today, as well, agreements between two parties are
often
  followed or accompanied by a lavish feast of sorts
(e.g.
  state dinners, weddings, business mergers, etc.).
  Therefore, one could suggest that by offering a zevach
  shlamim, an individual demonstrates shows his loyalty
as a
  joint partner in a covenantal relationship with God.]

     The korban ola also relates to Ma'amad Har Sinai,
based
not only on the above parallel, but also based on a key
phrase
- "isheh reiach nichoach l-Hashem" - that the Torah uses
consistently in its description of the korban ola.  [See
1:9,13,17.]
     This exact same phrase is also found in the Torah's
description of the "olat tamid", the daily
congregational
offering, as inherently connected to Bnei Yisrael's
offerings
at Har Sinai:
  "Olat tamid ha-asuya BE-HAR SINAI, le-reiach nichoach
isheh
  l-Hashem" (see Bamidbar 28:6).

     Similarly, in Parshat Tetzaveh, when the Torah
first
introduces the olat tamid and summarizes its discussion
of the
mishkan - we find the exact same phrase:
  "... le-reIach nichoach isheh l-Hashem... olat tamid
le-
  doroteichem petach ohel mo'ed..." (Shmot 29:41-42)

     Hence, by offering either an ola or a shlamim - the
efficacious reminders of Ma'amad Har Sinai - the
individual
reaffirms the covenant at Har Sinai of "na'aseh
v'nishma" -
the very basis of our relationship with God at Ma'amad
Har
Sinai.
  [One could also suggest that these two types of
korbanot
  reflect two different aspects of our relationship with
God.
  The ola reflects "yirah" (fear of God), while the
shlamim
  may represent "ahava" (love of God).]

     Recall also that the last time Bnei Yisrael had
offered
olot & shlamim (i.e. before chet ha-egel) was at Har
Sinai.
But due to the sin of the Golden Calf, God's shechina
had left
Bnei Yisrael, thus precluding the very possibility of
offering
korbanot.  Now that the mishkan is finally built and the
Shchina has returned (as described at the conclusion of
Sefer
Shmot), God's first message to Bnei Yisrael in Sefer
Vayikra
is that they can once again offer olot & shlamim, just
as they
did at Har Sinai - at not only as a nation, but also as
individuals.
     This observation alone can help us appreciate why
the
very first topic in Sefer Vayikra is that of the
voluntary
offerings - of the korban ola & shlamim, and hence it
makes
sense that they would precede the obligatory offering of
chatat & asham.

(B) KORBAN CHOVA - BACK TO CHET HA-EGEL
     In contrast to the 'refrain' of 'isheh reiach
nichoach'
concluding each korban nedava, we noted that each korban
chova
concludes with the phrase "ve-chiper alav ha-kohen...
ve-
nislach lo".  Once again, we find a parallel to the
events at
Har Sinai.
     Recall our explanation that Aharon acted as he did
at
"chet ha-egel" with the best of intentions; only the
results
were disastrous.  With the Shchina present, any
transgression,
even should it be unintentional, can invoke immediate
punishment (see Shmot 20:2-4 & 23:20-22).  Nevertheless,
God's
attributes of mercy, that He declares when He gives
Moshe
Rabeinu the second "luchot", now allow Bnei Yisrael
'second
chance' should they sin - i.e.  the opportunity to prove
to
God their sincerity and resolve to exercise greater
caution in
the future.
     We also find a textual parallel in Moshe Rabeinu's
statement before he ascended Har Sinai to seek
repentance for
chet ha-egel: Recall how Moshe Rabbenu told the people:
  "Atem chatatem chata'a gedola? ulai achapra be'ad
  chatatchem" (Shmot 32:30; read also 32:31-33).

     Later, when Moshe actually receives the thirteen
/midot
ha-rachamim' on Har Sinai along with the second luchot
(34:-
9), he requests atonement for chet ha-egel:
     "... ve-salachta le-avoneinu u-lechatoteinu..."
(34:9).

     This key phrase of the korban chova - "ve-chiper
alav...
ve-nislach lo" - may also relate to this precedent of
God's
capacity and willingness to forgive.  The korban chova
serves
as a vehicle by which one can ask forgiveness for sins
committed "b'shogeg" and beseech God to activate His
"midot ha-
rachamim" [attributes of mercy] to save them for any
punishment that they may deserve.

     Therefore, we may conclude that the korban nedava
highlights the mishkan's function as the perpetuation of
Ma'amad Har Sinai, while the korban chova underscores
the
mishkan's role as means of atonement for chet ha-egel.

WHO NEEDS THE 'KORBAN'?
     With this background, one could suggest that the
popular
translation of korban as a sacrifice may be slightly
misleading.  Sacrifice implies giving up something for
nothing
in return.  In truth, however, the 'shoresh' (root) of
the
word korban is k.r.v., 'karov' - to come close.  Not
only is
the animal brought 'closer' to the mizbeiach, but the
korban
ultimately serves to bring the individual closer to God.
The
animal itself comprises merely the vehicle through which
this
process is facilitated.
     Therefore, korbanot involve more than dry,
technical
rituals; they promote the primary purpose of the mishkan
- the
enhancement of man's relationship with God.
     In this sense, it becomes rather clear that it is
the
individual who needs to offer the "korban" - as an
expression
of his commitment and loyalty to his Creator.  Certainly
it is
not God who needs to consume them!
     For the sake of analogy, one could compare the
voluntary
offerings [the korban nedava] to a gift that a guest
brings to
his host..  For example, it is only natural that someone
who
goes to another family for a shabbat - cannot come
'empty
handed'.  Instead, the custom is to bring a small gift,
be it
flowers, or wine, or something sweet.  Certainly, his
hosts
don't need the gift, but the guest needs to bring
something.
But the reason why they are spending quality time
together is
for the sake of their relationship. The gift is only a
token
of appreciation - nonetheless a very important act.

 TEFILLA KENEGED KORBANOT
     In closing, we can extend our study to help us
better
appreciate our understanding of "tefilla" [prayer before
God].
     In the absence of the Bet ha'Mikdash [the Temple],
Chazal
consider 'tefilla' as a 'substitute' for korbanot.  Like
korbanot, tefilla also serves as a vehicle through which
man
can develop and strengthen his relationship with God.
It is
the individual who needs to pray, more so that God needs
to
hear those prayers
     As such, what we have learned about korbanot has
meaning
even today - as individual tefilla should embody both
aspects
of the korban yachid: nedava and chova.
  Tefilla should primarily reflect one's aspiration to
come
closer to God - an expression of the recognition of his
existence as a servant of God.   And secondly, if one
has
sinned, tefilla becomes an avenue through which he can
amend
the tainted relationship.

     Finally, tefilla, just like the korbanot of the
mishkan,
involves more than just the fulfillment of personal
obligation.  Our ability to approach God, and request
that He
evoke His "midot ha-rachamim" - even should we not be
worthy
of them - should be considered a unique privilege
granted to
God's special nation who accepted the Torah at Har
Sinai,
provides an avenue to perfect our relationship.  As
such,
tefilla should not be treated as a burden, but rather as
a
special privilege.

                              shabbat shalom,
                              menachem

=================
FOR FURTHER IYUN -
A.  In regard to the nature of the laws in Parshat
Vayikra;
even though they primarily focus on the details of what
the
owner must do with his korban, this section also details
certain procedures that can be performed only by the
kohen.
Even though we may have expected to find those details
in
Parshat Tzav (that discusses the korbanot from the
kohen's
perspective), one could explain that these details are
included here for the kohen's functions as 'shaliach'
(emissary) of the owner.  Ideally, the owner should
bring the
korban himself.  However, in light of the events at chet
ha-
egel, God decided to limit this work to the kohanim, who
were
chosen to work in the mikdash on behalf of the rest of
the
nation (see Devarim 10:8).

B.  Although korban mincha is not mentioned at Har
Sinai, it
may be considered a subset of the general ola category.
Namely, the mincha may be the korban ola for the poor
person
who cannot afford to bring an animal.  Note that the
'olat ha-
of' is connected to korban mincha by a parsha stuma.
The olat
ha-of, too, is a special provision for one who cannot
afford
a sheep.

C.  The two basic levels of kedushat korban explain why
the
ola precedes the shlamim in the discussion in our
parsha.  The
greater the portion offered on the altar, the higher the
level
of kedusha:
1)  Kodshei Kodashim - the highest level of kedusha:
     ola: cattle, sheep, and fowl.
          The entire korban ola is burnt on the
mizbeiach.
     mincha: the five various ways to present the fine
flour.
          The 'kmitza' (a handful) is burnt on the
mizbeiach;
          The 'noteret' (what is left over) is eaten by
the
kohen.
2)  Kodashim Kalim - a lower level of kedusha
     shlamim: cattle, sheep, and goats.
     The fat surrounding the inner organs go onto the
mizbeiach.
     The 'chazeh ve-shok' (breast and thigh) go to the
kohen,
while the meat that remains may be eaten by the owner.

D.  Leaving aside the difficulty in pinpointing the
precise
difference between sins requiring a chatat and those
requiring
an asham, it seems clear that a korban asham comes to
encourage a person to become more aware of his
surroundings
and actions.  For example, if one is unsure whether or
not he
sinned, his korban (asham talui) is more expensive than
the
korban chatat required should he have sinned for
certain.  The
Torah demands that one be constantly and acutely aware
of his
actions at all times, so as to avoid even accidental
wrongdoing.

E.  Note that the phrase 'reiach nichoach' does appear
once in
the second (korban chova) section (4:31), in the context
of a
chatat brought by a layman ('me-am ha-aretz').
  The reason may lie in the fact that the layman may
choose
which animal to bring for his chatat - either a female
goat
('se'irat izim') or a female lamb.  Therefore, if he
chooses
the more expensive option ? the goat - his offering
bears some
nedava quality, thus warranting the description 'reiach
nichoach'.
     Another difference between a lamb and a goat: is
that a
lamb has a fat tail, which prevents one from identifying
the
animal' gender from afar.  Therefore, one looking upon
this
korban from a distance might mistake it for an ola
(which is
always male, as opposed to the layman's chatat which
must be
female).  A goat, by contrast, has a thin tail, thus
allowing
one to easily determine the animal's gender and hence
its
status as a chatat.  Therefore, by bringing a goat
rather than
a lamb, the sinner in a sense broadcasts his sin and
repentance.  This perhaps renders the chatat a nedava of
sorts, in that the sinner sacrifices his honor in order
to
demonstrate the principle of repentance ("lelamed derech
tshuva la-rabim").
===

F.  ASHAM GEZEILOT  (a mini-shiur)
     The last korban dealt with in the parsha, korban
asham,
atones for three general categories of sins:
5:14-16 Accidental use of 'hekdesh' - known as asham
me'ilot;
5:17-19 When one is unsure if he sinned at all - known
as an
asham talui;
5:20-26 Several cases for which one brings an asham
vadai.
     Although all three categories require the
transgressor to
offer an asham, the final parsha (5:20-26) begins with a
new
dibbur!  This suggests a unique quality latent in this
final
group.  Indeed, the sins in this category all involve
intentional transgressions (be-meizid) against someone
else.
The previous cases of asham, by contrast, are
inadvertent sins
(be-shogeg) against God.
     It would be hypocritical for one who sins
intentionally
against God to bring a korban.  The korban chova is
intended
for a person who strives for closeness with God but has
inadvertently sinned.  The obligation to bring a korban
teaches him to be more careful.  Why should the Torah
allow
one who sins intentionally against God the opportunity
to
cover his guilt?  The mishkan is an environment where
man
develops spiritual perfection, not self-deception.
     Why, then, would the Torah provide for a korban
asham in
cases of intentional sin?
     This group, known as an 'asham gezeilot', deals
with a
thief who falsely avows his innocence under oath.  The
Torah
grants the thief-perjurer atonement through an asham,
but only
after he first repays his victim with an added one-fifth
penalty.
     Why should a korban be necessary at all?  The
victim was
repaid and even received a bonus.  Why should God be
involved?
     The standard explanation is that the thief sinned
against
God by lying under oath.  Although this is undoubtedly
the
primary reason for the necessity of a sacrifice, one
question
remains: why does he bring specifically an asham?  All
other
instances of perjury require a chatat oleh ve-yored (see
5:4)!
     A textual parallel between this parsha and a
previous one
may provide the answer. The parsha of "asham gezeilot"
opens
as follows:
  "nefesh ki techeta, ve-ma'ala ma'al b-Hashem
ve-kichesh be-
  amito..." (5:21).
  
     This pasuk defines the transgression against one's
neighbor as 'me'ila b-Hashem' [taking away something
that
belongs to God]!  This very same phrase describes the
first
case - 'asham me'ilot', unintentional embezzlement of
'hekdesh' (Temple property / see 5:14-16):
     "Nefesh ki timol ma'al b-Hashem - ve-chata
bishgaga..."

     This textual parallel points to an equation between
these
two types of asham: unintentional theft of hekdesh and
intentional theft of another person's property.  [Note
that
both require the return of the principal and an added
penalty
of 'chomesh'.]

     The Torah views stealing from a fellow man with the
same
severity as stealing from God!  From this parallel, the
Torah
teaches us that unethical behavior towards one's
neighbor
taints one's relationship with God, as well.
     [See also Tosefta Shavuot 3:5!]

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1325 -
Release Date: 3/11/2008 1:41 PM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayik1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 59736 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080313/19c57af2/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Fri Mar 14 08:24:51 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:24:51 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] for Shabbat Zachor - 5768
Message-ID: <001a01c885ce$673a99b0$06000100@x60>

********************************************************
*****************
    THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  www.tanach.org
      In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
   Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****************

       Likrat Shabbat ZACHOR - 5768
   "Wiping out AMALEK" - Vendetta or Virtue?

	Had it not been for our custom to read Parshat
Zachor every year, the nation of Amalek most probably
would have been long forgotten.  So what's the logic
behind the Torah's 'eternal' command to 'wipe out their
memory'?
	In the following shiur, we attempt to answer
this question, by comparing this commandment of "zachor"
[to remember Amalek] with the other commandments of
"zachor" in Sefer Devarim.

PARSHAT ZACHOR IN THE CONTEXT OF SEFER DEVARIM
	Parshat Zachor (Devarim 25:17-19) is only one of
the numerous mtizvot that Moshe Rabeinu teaches Bnei
Yisrael in the "chukim u'mishpatim" section (chapters
12-=26) of his 'farewell address' in Sefer Devarim.  In
our shiurim on Sefer Devarim, we explained how those
laws, which Moshe Rabeinu is now teaching to the new
generation - were first given to him by God during the
first forty days, as an integral part of "brit Sinai".
We also explained how those laws provided guidelines for
exemplary behavior - as adherence to these laws would
transform the nation into a "mamlechet kohanim v'goy
kadosh" (see Shmot 19:5-6 & Devarim 26:16-19), i.e. a
people designated to represent God - the very essence of
the covenant at Mount Sinai. 
[For example, that section includes laws to establish an
exemplary judicial system (16:18-17:13), a just economic
system (chapters 14-15), and special laws for how God's
nation goes to war (chapter 20). It also contains many
laws relating to social justice (see chapters 22-25).]

	It is in this context that we must approach our
study of the underlying meaning of "zachor" in Parshat
Zachor.

TWO OTHER "ZACHOR"'s
    One chapter before Parshat Zachor, we find numerous
mitzvot that remind us of our need to help the poor and
needy, such as the orphan, widow and stranger (see
Devarim 24:10-22).  As a 'motivator' to encourage the
people of Israel to keep these laws, Moshe Rabeinu
reminds the people twice - "And you should remember -
that you were also once a slave in Egypt" (see 24:18 &
24:22, in their context).
Clearly, this commandment to 'remember that you were
once a slave in Egypt' is not to be understand as an
independent commandment - to simply remember a
historical event. Rather it serves as a statement of
motivation, reminding God's special nation of their need
to be extra sensitive to the needs of the downtrodden -
especially as they themselves were once taken advantage
of by the Egyptians (compare with Shmot 23:9 and Devarim
10:16-19!)
Earlier in chapter 24, we find yet another commandment
to "remember what God had done to Miriam" (see 24:8-9).
According to Ramban's beautiful interpretation of this
pasuk, this is to be understood as a positive
commandment not to speak "lashon harah" [evil speech].
Once again we find a commandment to remember a
historical event, for the primary purpose of improving
once personal behavior.  In other words, when we
'remember' what God did to Miriam, that 'memory' will
cause us to be more careful in our daily conversations
about other people.

REMEMBER WHAT AMALEK DID
        In this context, one can offer a very similar
approach to the explanation of the opening two psukim of
Parshat Zachor.  We must remember what Amalek did to us,
i.e. how they attacked the back lines of our camp;
specifically those who were tired and unprotected  (see
our TSC shiur on this topic on Parshat Beshalach,
especially in regard to the phrase "v'lo yarey Elokim").
We must remind ourselves of this despicable type of
behavior, not simply to increase our hatred of that
nation, but rather to increase our disgust from that
type of behavior.  
This approach neatly explains why this mitzvah continues
to have meaning, even way after there are no more
'genetic traces' of Amalek left.  The emphasis is not on
our need to remember to kill Amalek, but rather to
remember their terrible behavior - to remind ourselves
how we should not act.  In this manner, it becomes yet
another of one of the many mitzvot of Sefer Devarim,
where the active memory of certain historical events
serve to shape the very character of Am Yisrael as God's
model nation.

A JOB FOR THE KING 
         The final pasuk of Parshat Zachor (see 25:19)
leaves us with an interesting question.  Why does the
commandment to wipe out Amalek apply only after we have
achieved rest from our enemies that surround us?
If Amalek is a nation who's entire existence is
dedicated to looting and brutally stealing from those
who are unprotected (such as innocent, but unprotected
travelers on the international highways - see our shiur
on Parshat Beshalach) - this type of phenomena cannot be
uprooted by a single individual.  Rather, it can only be
accomplished by a sovereign nation - with an army and
the necessary resources in engage in such combat.
Hence, the practical application of the law only becomes
feasible once the Jewish people establish themselves as
a sovereign nation with a King.  [See Rambam Hilchot
Melachim 1:1-2, based on I Shmuel 15:1-4.]  
However, even after our own country has achieved
relative quiet and stability within it's on own borders,
nonetheless, it remains our international responsibility
to protect the 'unprotected travelers' in our region -
from raiders such as Amalek.  This may explain why the
mitzvah to wipe out Amalek, is only incumbent on the
King; while the mitzvah to remember Amalek applies to
every individual.

BETWEEN AMALEK & ISRAEL
 	If the Biblical Amalek represents a nation
dedicated to taking advantage of the vulnerable and
unprotected, the nation of Israel - especially according
to the laws in Sefer Devarim - represents precisely the
opposite type of behavior.  While Amalek searches out
the weak and unprotected - in order to loot and steal;
the nation of God searches out for the weak and
unprotected - in order to provide them with assistance
and support.  The individual Jew fights Amalek on a
daily basis by the way he acts.  He must remember what
Amalek did [wrong], to remind himself how he should act
[right].
	Just as the memory of our slavery in Egypt and
the acts of Miriam, serve as guides for our daily
behavior, so too the memory of Amalek.

AMALEK & ISRAEL TODAY
       Unfortunately, new forms of Amalek seem to appear
in every generation.  This last week, our people
suffered terribly as eight innocent and unprotected
Yeshiva students were gunned down by a terrorist in
Jerusalem.
This year on Shabbat Zachor, it will be difficult not to
remember that horrific incident.  Nonetheless, we must
also remember how the Jewish nation fights back.  On the
national level, God has blessed us with a sovereign
nation with the military capability to fight this type
of terror.   And we must pray for the success of all
their endeavors.  
However, as individuals, we must also remember how we
must act according to the guidelines of Sefer Devarim.
Just as Mordechi & Esther instituted "mishloach manot
ish l'reyahu" & "matanot l'evyonim" - active acts of
kindness-  to remember the victory of the Jewish people
over the Amalek of their time period - so too we must
remember - to think of innovative ways to help the
downtrodden of our own generation, in order to become
worthy of God's help in our struggle with the Amalek of
our own time period.

   			shabbat shalom,
			menachem

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1327 -
Release Date: 3/12/2008 1:27 PM
 
    
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: zachor1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 22875 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080314/cbbd5827/attachment-0002.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bshal2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 40231 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080314/cbbd5827/attachment-0003.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue Mar 18 16:58:16 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:58:16 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Megillat Esther - shiur
Message-ID: <002201c8893a$ca1c7430$0500000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

          MEGILLAT ESTHER, ITS 'HIDDEN' MESSAGE

     Is the Megilla a satire?  It certainly contains
many
strange details that beg interpretation.  But if so, why
would
a satire be included in the Tanach.  In the following
shiur,
we attempt to 'unmask' Megillat Esther by considering
its
historical and prophetic setting.

INTRODUCTION
     We begin our study with one of the most well known
psukim
of the Megilla:
    "Ish yehudi haya be-Shushan ha-bira - u-shmo
Mordechai"
    (see Esther 2:5).
     Even though this pasuk is proudly read aloud by the
entire congregation, most people do not appreciate its
prophetic 'sting'.  However, an ear tuned to the
prophecies of
Zecharya and familiar with Tanach immediately catches
its
irony, as:
     ish yehudi - implies more than simply someone who
is Jewish;
     ha-bira - implies more than just 'the capital
city'; and
     Mordechai - is not a Jewish name!

 *   The phrase ish yehudi is mentioned only one other
time in
the entire Tanach - in Sefer Zecharya 8:23.  There it
describes a devout Jew in the city of Jerusalem -
leading a
group of non-Jewish followers in search of God.

 *   the word ha-bira in Divrei Ha-yamim (see 29:1 &
29:19) is
used by King David to describe specifically the bet
ha-mikdash
(the Temple).  Prior to the time period of Megillat
Esther,
the Hebrew word bira finds no other mention in Tanach.

 *   The name Mordechai is probably the most provocative
word
in the entire Megilla for it stems from the name of the
Babylonian deity -Marduk (see II Kings 25:27 & Yeshayahu
39:1!).  Prior to the Babylonian exile, no one would
have
dared give his son such a 'goyish' name.
    [This does not imply that Mordechai was assimilated,
rather
     his name may reflect the assimilation of his
generation.]

     And this may be only one of many psukim of the
Megilla
that are filled with irony and possibly satire.  Yet, if
this
conclusion is correct, we must explain why the Megilla
would
employ satire to deliver its prophetic message.
Furthermore,
we must also determine more precisely what that
prophetic
message is, and how it relates to our celebration of
Purim.
     To answer these questions, our shiur will take the
following steps:

I.   Base our above assumption that the Megilla should
contain
    a prophetic message, related to its historical
setting.

II.  Review both the historical and prophetic setting of
the
    time period of the Megilla.

III  Search for a thematic connection between this
setting and
    the story in the Megilla, and support it with both
textual and
    thematic parallels from other books in Tanach.

IV.  Explain why the Megilla employs this unique style.

V.   Explain how the celebration of Purim, as defined in
the
    Megilla, relates to this theme.

PART I - 'HESTER PANIM'
     As every book of the Tanach contains a prophetic
message,
Megillat Esther should be no different.  It is commonly
understood that the Megilla teaches us how to see the
'hidden
hand' of God behind the events that ultimately lead to
Bnei
Yisrael's salvation from Haman.  Some even suggest that
the
Megilla's use of the name Esther (from the Hebrew verb
'lehastir' - to hide) instead of her real name - Hadassa
(see
2:7) teaches us this very lesson.
     However, if the Megilla wants to show us how God
saved
His people, why isn't this message explicit?
Furthermore, why
isn't God's Name ever mentioned?  Most every other sefer
in
Tanach expresses this point explicitly.  Why is Megillat
Esther different?
     Furthermore, most all other seforim in Tanach
explain not
only how God saves Am Yisrael, but also why they are
being
punished.  This theme of divine retribution is explicit
in the
Torah in the tochachot (Vayikra 26:3-46, Devarim
11:13-17,
28:1-69, etc.) and reiterated over and over again by all
of
the prophets.  In fact Chazal's explanation of the name
Esther
reflects this very same concept:
     "Esther min ha-Torah minayin?"
        [What is the source in Torah for the story of
Esther?]
      "ve-Anochi haster aster panai ba-yom ha-hu"
        [I will surely hide my face from you on that
day.]
                    (Devarim 31:18 / See Chullin 139b).

     However, if we take a closer look at that pasuk in
Devarim, we find that its message is significantly
different.
Rather than explaining how God 'saves' Am Yisrael in a
'hidden
manner', it explains how God 'punishes' them:
  "And God told Moshe, after you die... this nation will
leave
  Me and break My covenant...And My anger will be
kindled
  against them on that day and I will forsake them,
["ve-
  histarti panai"] and I will hide My face from them...
and
  many evils and troubles shall befall them - & they
will say
  on that day, these evils are because God is not among
us.
    - Ve-anochi haster astir panai ba-yom ha-hu -
  and I will hide My face from them on that day because
of all
  the bad that they have done... [Therefore,]
    - Write down this song and teach it to Bnei Yisrael,
so
    that it will be My witness..." (see Devarim
31:16-18).

     In these psukim, God warns Bnei Yisrael that should
they
betray His covenant, great evil will befall them.  Even
though
it may appear to Bnei Yisrael that God has left them,
these
psukim teach them that God only appears to be 'hiding
His
face' ['hester panim"] from them.  Nonetheless, Bnei
Yisrael
are expected to realize that their punishment is from
God.
Therefore, Moshe is to teach Bnei Yisrael Shirat
Ha'azinu in
order that they recognize this. The shira will teach Am
Yisrael to contemplate their predicament and relate
their
punishment to their wayward behavior.  To verify this
point,
simply read Shirat Ha'azinu [note especially 31:19-20.]
     Above all, Shirat Ha'azinu explains how we are to
determine why we are being punished.  In that song, we
are
told:
   "Zechor yemot olam, binu shnot dor va-dor..."
(Devarim 32:7).
    [Remember the days of old; consider the years of
ages past.]

     The shira teaches us to contemplate our history,
especially how and why we were chosen (see 32:8-9), in
order
to realize why we are being punished.  It reminds us
that when
something does go wrong, it is our fault, not God's (see
32:4-6!).

     Even though God may hide His face, Shirat Ha'azinu
does
promise that God will ultimately redeem His people,
however,
not necessarily because they deserve redemption.
Rather, God
will have mercy on our pitiful predicament (see
32:26-27, also
32:37-38) and save us at the 'last minute'.
     Most all of the prophets deliver a very similar
message.
They explain to Bnei Yisrael what they have done wrong,
and
hence why they are being punished.  Prophecy teaches man
not
only to thank God for salvation, but also to recognize
his
faults and correct his mistakes.
     Therefore, the Megilla should be no different, and
especially because its name alludes to the pasuk in
Chumash
that commands us to search for a reason why we are
punished.
  [This supports the Gemara's question in Masechet
Megilla 12a
  (middle) "sha'alu talmidav et Rashb"i: mipnei ma
  nitchayvu..."]

     Even though the Megilla does not provide an
explicit
reason for this impending punishment, this background
and its
name suggest that we search for a 'hidden' (or implicit)
one.
To find that reason, we must consider prophetic and
historical
setting of that time period.


PART II - HISTORICAL AND PROPHETIC SETTING
     The opening psukim of the Megilla immediately point
us to
its time period (see 1:1-3).  Achashverosh is a Persian
king
who reigns from India to Ethiopia in the city of
Shushan.
Considering that Cyrus (=Koresh) was the first Persian
king,
the story in Megillat Esther takes place during the
Persian
time period and thus after the time period when the Jews
had
an opportunity to return to Jerusalem.
     Even though there is a controversy concerning
precisely
which Persian King Achashverosh was, he most certainly
reigned
after Koresh (the first Persian king), and thus, after
Yirmiyahu's seventy years were over.
  [Note: If you are not familiar with this time period,
it is
  highly recommended that you review Kings II
23:31-25:12,
  Ezra 1:1-10 and 3:1-4:7, and Yirmiyahu 29:1-15.  As
you read
  Ezra 1:1-9, note how the Jews who did not make 'aliya'
were
  encouraged to send 'money' instead!  Seems like not
much has
  changed in 2500 years!]

     For those of you unfamiliar with this time period,
here
is a quick overview:
     In the first year of his reign, Koresh issued his
famous
proclamation allowing and encouraging all of the Jews of
the
Persian Empire to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the
Temple.
The prophets clearly understood this historic decree as
the
fulfillment of Yirmiyahu's prophecy (see Ezra 1:1-9, II
Divrei
Ha-yamim 36:20-23).  As God had promised, the time of
redemption from the Babylonian Exile had come.

YIRMIYAHU'S SEVENTY YEARS
     To appreciate the prophetic importance of this
opportunity, we need only quote Yirmiyahu's final
message to
the Babylonian Exile in regard to what was 'supposed' to
happen when these seventy years were over:
  "Thus said the Lord, when the 70 years are complete, I
shall
  remember you and keep my promise to return you to this
  land.... [At that time.] you shall call out to Me -
you
  shall come and pray to Me - and I will hear you...and
you
  will ask for Me and find Me; if you will search for me
with
  all your heart.  Then I will be there for you, and I
shall
  turn away your captivity and gather you from all the
nations
  wherein you may be dispersed... and I will return you
to the
  land from which you were exiled ..."   (29:10-14).

     According to Yirmiyahu, the return of the Exile
would not
be automatic.  Rather, it was God's hope that their
return
would be catalyzed by sincere repentance and a yearning
to
return.   In other words, God intended for the
Babylonian
Exile [as the word 'exile' implies] to be temporary.
People
don't stay in 'exile' unless they are forced to be
there.
Exile implies that one cannot return to his own land.
[Otherwise the translation of 'galut' would be
'diaspora'
instead of 'exile' / hey, not a bad idea!]
     Note as well how Yirmiyahu's message is congruent
with a
primary theme of Chumash, i.e. God's desire for the
Jewish
people to become His 'model' nation - a vehicle through
which
all nations will come to recognize God (see Devarim
4:5-8 &
Shmot 19:4-6).  Recall as well that in that ideal
setting, the
bet ha-mikdash in Yerushalayim was to serve as a symbol
of
this national purpose.
  [See previous shiurim on Parshiot Re'eh, Noach, and
Vayetze.
  Recall that the mikdash is referred to as: "ha-makom
asher
  yivchar Hashem le-shaken shmo sham"/ see Devarim
12:5-14.]

     God's decision to destroy that Temple and exile his
people was for a rehabilitative purpose.  According to
Yirmiyahu, God's hope was for the Exile to 'learn its
lesson'
during these seventy years in Bavel.  Afterward, God
hoped
that the nation would be spiritually ready and anxious
to
return to their homeland, and to reconstruct their
symbolic
shrine - the Temple in Jerusalem.
     Precisely as Yirmiyahu had predicted (seventy years
after
Bavel had risen to power), the opportunity to return
arose
when the Babylonian empire fell to Koresh (= Cyrus the
Great),
the first king of the Persian Empire (see Yirmiyahu
25:11-12,
Ezra 1:1).

A MISSED OPPORTUNITY
     Unfortunately, the response of the Exile to this
historic
opportunity was less than enthusiastic.  A group of some
forty
thousand did return; however, the majority of Am Yisrael
remained in Bavel.  For an insight into the tragedy of
the
missed opportunity we need only quote the explanation
given by
Rav Yehuda Ha-Levi in Sefer Ha-Kuzari (II.24):
  "Had the entire nation enthusiastically answered the
divine
  call to return to the Land, the idyllic prophecies of
the
  return to Zion would have been fulfilled and the
Shchina
  would have returned.  In reality, however, only a
small
  portion returned.  The majority remained in Bavel,
willfully
  accepting the exile, as they did not wish to leave
their
  homes & businesses etc." (sounds familiar...)

     Even those who did return lacked enthusiasm.  The
apathy
of the returnees is echoed in the prophecies of Chagai
and
Zecharya, the prophets of this time period (see Chagai
1:1-3;
2:3 see also Zecharya 4:10; 6:15; 7:4-7; 8:6.
.    How does all of this relate to Megillat Esther?
     How could it not relate!

     Could the fact that Am Yisrael remained scattered
among
the 127 provinces of the Persian Empire, while they
could have
returned a generation or two earlier to Jerusalem, not
relate
to the prophetic message of the Megilla?
     Considering that Yirmiyahu's seventy years are
over, why
are so many Jews living in Shushan and all over the
Persian
empire during the time period of Achashverosh?
     Could not this fact alone supply sufficient reason
for
God to consider Am Yisrael negligent of their covenantal
responsibilities?
     With this in mind, we must now take a second look
at the
Megilla in search of at least a 'hint' of this theme.


PART III - THE THEME OF THE MEGILLA AND ITS SATIRE
     Based on this historic and prophetic setting, one
could
suspect that the impending destruction of Am Yisrael by
Haman
may be a Divine punishment for their apathy.  After all,
the
Jews living in the Persian empire appear to have:

  *  preferred Shushan over Yerushalayim;

  *  opted to subjugate themselves to Achashverosh
rather than
      respond to God's call to return to their land;
 
  *  Replaced the bet ha-mikdash with the palace of
      Achashverosh!
               ["ve-nahafoch hu"]

     Even though this prophetic message is not explicit
in the
Megilla, we will now show how it may be hidden in its
satire.
  [Note: Before we continue, it is important to clarify
a
  problematic issue.  We are about to relate many
elements in
  the story of the Megilla to a satiric commentary on
Persian
  Jewry.  This does not mean that these events did not
  actually occur.  The story of the Megilla is true and
based
  on historic facts.  However, its prophetic message is
  conveyed through the use of literary tools, such as
satire
  and irony.  Often, criticism is more poignant when
delivered
  implicitly rather than explicitly.  (Lehavdil, take
for
  example George Orwell's criticism of the Russian
revolution
  in 'Animal Farm'.)]

TEXTUAL AND THEMATIC SUPPORT
     For a start, we will bring two examples where there
appears to be an 'echo' of God's voice behind certain
statements in the Megilla.
     For example, the story of Vashti may reflect God's
utter
disappointment with Am Yisrael for not returning to
Israel to
fulfill their divine purpose, to become God's 'model'
nation:
  "[Vashti was called to] come to the king and show all
the
  nations her beauty... but she did not come as the King
  commanded, and he became very angry..." (see Esther
1:9-12).

     Is not Vashti's behavior similar to that of Am
Yisrael?
Is not the King's conclusion similar to God's?  Is not
the
fear that all the women in the Persian kingdom will now
disobey their husbands ironic?  If Am Yisrael (destined
to be
an 'or la-goyim') does not respond to its divine call,
what
could God expect from other nations?
  [Note that in earlier prophecy, Am Yisrael is often
compared
  to God's wife - see Hoshea 2:4,16-18.  See also
Zecharya 1:1-
  3, note 'shuvu eilai...' and 'va-yiktzof', compare
1:12.]

     Furthermore, who is the real king in the Megilla?
Chazal
raise the possibility that the word 'ha-melech' [the
King] in
the Megilla may be 'kodesh', as it often [in a hidden
manner]
may be referring to God and not to Achashverosh.
     Even Haman's petition to Achashverosh to destroy Am
Yisrael may echo a similar complaint that God may have
against
His own nation:
  "There is a certain nation scattered among the nations
whose
  laws are different than any other nation, but the laws
of
  the King they do not keep, and it is not worthwhile
for the
  King to leave them be.  Therefore, if it please the
king,
  let it be written that they be destroyed..." (see
3:8-9).

     In a certain way, Haman's accusation is similar to
God's
threat in Shirat Ha'azinu to destroy am Yisrael for not
keeping His laws (32:26).  After all, what purpose is
there
for God to keep His people if they refuse to obey Him
and
fulfill their divine goal?

TEN THOUSAND KIKAR KESEF
     Recall as well the continuation of the above pasuk,
re:
the handsome bribe that Haman had paid to Achashverosh
to
assure that this edict would be issued, noting the
amount of
money Haman 'donates' and its purpose:
  "...If it please the king, let it be written that they
be
  destroyed; and I will pay ten thousand KIKAR KESEF
[talents
  of silver] by way of the hands of the OSEI HA'MLACHA
[those
  who 'do the work'!] to bring it into the king's
treasuries.
  And the king took his ring from his hand, and gave it
unto
  Haman...  And the king said unto Haman: 'The silver is
given
  to you, the people also, to do with them as they see
fit..."
  (See Esther 3:8-11)

     Was it be 'just by chance', that during the
construction
of the first Temple, the leaders of the people of Israel
(during the time of King David) donated the exact same
amount
of silver to be used by the workers of its construction:
  "Then the princes of the fathers' houses, and the
princes of
  the tribes of Israel, and the captains of thousands
and of
  hundreds, with the rulers over the king's work,
offered
  willingly; and they gave for the service of the house
of
  God... and of silver ten thousand KIKARIM [talents]
...
  Then the people rejoiced, for that they offered
willingly,
  because with a whole heart they offered willingly to
the
  LORD; and David the king also rejoiced with great
joy!"
   (see Divrei Hayamim I 29:6-9)

     Recall as well that the book of Divrei Ha'yamim was
composed at approximately the same time as Megillat
Esther -
i.e. by the Anshei Knesset ha'gdola during the Persian
time
period of the Second Temple.  Hence, this parallel
should not
surprise us!
====

     Even though these first three examples may appear a
bit
'stretched', a more convincing textual proof is found in
the
parallel between Achashverosh's palace and the bet
mikdash.
This parallel is significant for it reflects the fact
the Bnei
Yisrael had neglected the bet ha-mikdash in
Yerushalayim,
preferring instead to be dependent on the palace of
Achashverosh.  We begin by comparing the overall
structure of
each:

KODESH KODASHIM - CHATZER PNIMIT
     The Megilla refers to the most inner chamber of the
king's palace as the 'chatzer ha-pnimit' (5:1), where
entry to
anyone is forbidden under threat of death - unless
called to
enter (as Esther feared in 4:11).  Here we find an
obvious
parallel to the kodesh ha-kodashim in the mikdash (Purim
-
kippurim!).

KODESH - CHATZER CHITZONA
     The 'waiting area' outside the inner chamber is
called
the 'chatzer ha-chitzona' (6:4).  Here 'ro'ei pnei
ha-melech'
(1:14) like Haman himself are allowed to enter freely.
This
is parallel to the kodesh where kohanim are permitted to
enter.
       [See description of the Temple in Yechezkel
40:18-19.]

AZARA - SHA'AR BET HA-MELECH
     In front of the palace is 'sha'ar bet ha-melech'
where
people like Mordechai are permitted to stand (2:18,21).
However, here one must dress properly ('aveilut' is not
permitted), therefore he cannot be there dressed in
sackcloth
(see 4:2!).  This area is parallel to the azara in the
mikdash.

YERUSHALAYIM - REHOV HA-IR SHUSHAN
     This is the area 'lifnei sha'ar ha-melech' (4:2) or
'rechov ha-ir' (4:6) where Mordechai can dress in
sackcloth.
This is parallel to the city of Yerushalayim surrounding
the
mikdash.

     This parallel is strengthened by the Megilla's use
of the
word bira to describe Shushan.  As we explained in our
introduction, in Divrei Ha-yamim, the only other time in
Tanach prior to Megillat Esther where this word is
mentioned,
bira describes specifically the bet ha-mikdash, and in
the
context of its purpose to serve as a national center and
symbol of God's Name.  [See DH I 29:1 & 19, you should
read
from 29:1-25 to see the context.  (You'll find there a
familiar passage from davening, which maybe you will now
understand a little better.)]
  [See also Masechet Middot I:9, where the Mishna refers
to
  the bet ha-mikdash as the bira.]

     Other parallels to mikdash are found in the use of
key
words such as 'yekar ve-tif'eret' (1:4); 'tekhelet,
butz,
ve-argaman' (1:6) in the Megilla's description of the
king's
party.
  [Based on these psukim, the gemara (Megilla 12a)
claims that
  Achashverosh donned the 'bigdei kohen gadol' at his
party!]

     Even the 6-month party followed by a seven-day
special
celebration may parallel the six months that it took to
build
the mishkan (from Yom Kippur till Rosh Chodesh Nissan)
followed by the seven-day 'milu'im' ceremony.  Likewise,
Chazal explain, 've-keilim mi-keilim shonim' (1:7) as
referring to the vessels of the bet ha-mikdash.
     Chazal even suggest that Haman's decree may have
been Am
Yisrael's punishment for drinking from these keilim or
alternately for their participation in and enjoyment of
the
royal party (see Megilla 12a).
  [Note that according to pshat, the keilim had returned
with
  Sheshbatzar during the time of Koresh (see Ezra
1:7-8).
  However, the Midrash emphasizes the thematic
connection
  between the party and Bnei Yisrael's lack of
enthusiasm to
  build the mikdash.]

     Hence we can conclude that the Megilla's satire
suggests
that during this time period Am Yisrael had replaced:

 *   God with Achashverosh;

 *   God's Temple with Achashverosh's palace; and

 *   Yerushalayim ha-bira with Shushan ha-bira!
['ve-nahafoch hu']


70 DAYS / 70 YEARS
     Another seemingly unimportant detail in the Megilla
concerning when the two decrees were sent might also
allude to
this prophetic backdrop.
     Recall that the original decree calling for the
destruction of the Jews was sent out on the 13th day of
Nisan
(3:12).  Several days later Haman was hanged and Esther
pleaded from the king to repeal this decree (8:3-6).
Achashverosh agreed; however, the actual letters were
not sent
out until the 23rd of Sivan - some two months later
(8:9)!
What took so long?
     By carefully comparing these two dates, we again
find an
amazing reminder of Yirmiyahu's prophecy of the seventy
years.
Between the 13th of Nisan until the 23rd of Sivan - 70
days
elapsed (17+30+23).  During these seventy days, all of
the
Jews throughout the Persian Empire were under the
tremendous
peril of impending destruction, thinking that their doom
was
inevitable.  Could this be an ironic reminder to the
Jewish
people that they had not heeded Yirmiyahu's prophecy of
what
he expected from Bnei Yisrael once the seventy years had
expired (see 29:10-14!)?

     A similar concept of suffering for a sin, a day for
a
year (and vice versa), is found twice in Tanach in
related
circumstances.  After the sin of the 'meraglim', the
forty
days are replaced by the punishment of forty years of
wandering.  Here, too, the nation opted not to fulfill
their
divine destiny, preferring a return to Egypt to the
conquest
of Eretz Yisrael.  Yechezkel, too, is required to suffer
'a
day for each year.'
  [For 390 days followed by an additional 40 days, he
must lie
  on his side and repent for the sins of Israel and
Yehuda
  that led to the destruction of Yerushalayim (Yechezkel
  4:1-14!)].

     A similar claim is made by the Midrash which
suggests
that Achashverosh threw his 180 day party in celebration
of
the fact that Yirmiyahu's seventy years were over and
the bet
ha-mikdash was not rebuilt.  In pshat, this explanation
is
unreasonable.  Why should the most powerful king of
civilization worry about the prophecies of Yirmiyahu,
while
the Jews themselves do not listen to him?
However, on the level of drash, this explanation is
enlightening.  Chazal, in the spirit of the Megilla -
've-nahafoch hu' - put into Achashverosh's mind what
should
have been in the mind of Am Yisrael, i.e. the
fulfillment of
Yirmiyahu's prophecy of seventy years and the desire to
return.

PESACH AND PURIM
     Based on our understanding thus far, it is also
understandable why Israel's salvation from Haman's
decree
comes only after Am Yisrael collectively accept a three
day
fast.  This fast takes place on the 15, 16, & 17th of
Nisan.
Interestingly enough, the events that led to the repeal
of
Haman's decree take place 'davka' during the holiday of
Pesach
- the holiday on which we celebrate our freedom from
subjugation to a foreign nation and the beginning of our
journey to the Promised Land.


PART IV -  WHY SATIRE?
     We have shown that the Megilla is laced with
allusions to
the fact that Am Yisrael does not answer its divine call
during the Persian time period.  But the question
remains, why
is this message only hinted at but not explicitly stated
by
Chazal?  Most probably for the same reason that it is
not
explicit in the Megilla.
  This is the power of satire.  In order to strengthen
the
message, a powerful point is not explicitly stated, but
only
alluded to.  The direct approach used by the other 48
nevi'im
of Tanach had not been very successful.
  [See Masechet Megilla 14a (top) - "gedola hasarat
ha-taba'at
  shel Haman yoter mi-48 nevi'im..."!]

     One could suggest that Anshei Knesset Ha-gdola, in
their
decision to write (see Bava Batra 15a] (and later
canonize)
Megillat Esther, had hoped that a satirical message
would be
more powerful than a direct one.  Hence, Midrashim of
Chazal
that comment on the Megilla may follow a similar
approach.
[Note how the prophet Natan's message to David ha-melech
in
regard to his sin with Bat-sheva was much more powerful
because he used the 'mashal' of kivsat ha-rash" (see II
Shmuel
12:1-7!).]

PART V - THE MINHAGIM  OF PURIM
     Up until this point we have explained how the
satire in
the Megilla may reflect a prophetic censure of Am
Yisrael in
Bavel for not returning to Yerushalayim when the
opportunity
arose during the time of Koresh.  However, if our
assumptions
are indeed correct, then we would expect the outcome of
the
Megilla, or at least the celebration of Purim for future
generations to reflect this theme.
     Instead, we don't find any 'mass aliya' movement
after
our salvation.  Nor does the celebration of Purim (with
'mishteh' and sending 'mishloach manot') appear to
reflect
this theme in any manner.
     However, with a 'little help' from the prophecies
of
Zecharya, we can suggest an answer for these questions
as
well.  To do so, we must first identify who the specific
Persian King Achashverosh was.

SOME MORE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
     The topic of the history of the Persian time period
is
very complicated and the subject of a major controversy
between most Midrashei Chazal and the historians (& a
minority
opinion in Chazal).  To explain this controversy is
beyond the
scope of this shiur, instead we will simply present the
two
conflicting opinions concerning when Achashverosh
reigned.

     According to Seder Olam (and hence the majority
opinion
in Chazal), Achashverosh was the Persian King
immediately
after Koresh, but before Daryavesh, and thus the story
of the
Megilla takes place after 'shivat tzion' (the return to
Zion
during the time of Koresh) but before the second bet ha-
mikdash is actually built.
     According to this opinion, the events of the
Megilla had
a tremendous affect on the situation in Yerushalayim.
Only
two years after the story of Megilla, King Darius, son
of
Esther gives the Jews permission to return and build the
Second Temple.  Construction began during the second
year of
Darius (= Daryavesh).
     The events of the Megilla also appear to have
catalyzed a
major aliya movement.  According to Chazal, Ezra's aliya
from
Bavel took place only a few years afterward, during the
seventh year of his reign of Daryavesh (who Chazal
identify
with Artachshasta / see Ezra 7:1-9).
     Thus, according to Seder Olam's opinion, the events
of
the Megilla indeed had a major effect on the rebuilding
of the
Temple and shivat tzion - the return to Zion.

     According to most historians (and a minority
opinion in
Chazal / see Tirgum ha-shiv'im & Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer
chapter 49), Achashverosh was the Persian king who
succeeded
Darius (486 - 465 BCE), and thus the story of the
Megilla
takes place some forty years after the second Temple was
built, and thus after Chagai & Zecharya's plea to return
and
fulfill the potential of Bayit Sheni.  [Its construction
began
in 521 BCE / in the second year of Darius the Great;
hence the
story in the Megilla takes place in 474 BCE.]
     According to this opinion, no major event takes
place
immediately after the events in the Megilla.  In fact,
over
two decades pass before a new wave of olim come with
Ezra and
Nechemya to help strengthen the city of Yerushalayim.
[The
historians identify Artachshasta with Artexerxes, not
the same
king as Darius.]
     If our assumption concerning the satire of the
Megilla is
correct, why don't we find a mass aliya movement
immediately
after the miracle of Purim.  [Jews of the twentieth
century
could ask themselves a similar question!]

     Furthermore, according to either opinion, shouldn't
the
manner by which we celebrate Purim relate to this theme
and
satire?
     Finally, why is it necessary to celebrate Purim for
all
generations?  Purim is not the only time in our history
when
Bnei Yisrael are saved from terrible enemies.  Chazal go
even
one step further.  They claim that Purim will be the
only
holiday kept at the time of the final redemption!  (See
Rambam
Hilchot Megilla, Esther 9:28 and commentaries).

THE MEGILLA AND SEFER ZECHARYA
     If we follow the opinion of the 'historians' in
regard to
the time period of Megillat Esther, then the prophecies
of
Zecharya concerning the potential of Bayit Sheni precede
the
story in the Megilla.  If so, then we posit that
numerous
textual parallels between the Megilla and Sefer Zecharya
are
intentional.  In other words, when 'anshei knesset
ha-gedola'
wrote Megillat Esther (most likely during the time
period of
Ezra / see Bava Batra 15a), they assumed that anyone
reading
the Megilla was familiar with Sefer Zecharya, and hence
would
understand the implicit meaning of these parallels.
     We will now show how the Megilla may suggest that
Am
Yisrael's predicament during the time period of
Achashverosh
was caused because of Zecharya's prophecies (a
generation
earlier) were not taken seriously!  To appreciate this
message, we must study Zecharya chapters 7->8.

     For a background, review the first six chapters of
Sefer
Zecharya, noting how they focus on one primary theme -
the
return of the Shchina to Yerushalayim.  However,
Zecharya
warns numerous times that the Shchina's return will be a
function of Am Yisrael's covenantal commitment (see
6:15).
Redemption is indeed possible; however, Zecharya insists
that
the 'spiritual' return of Am Yisrael was no less
important
than their physical return:
     "Shuvu eilai.. ve-ashuva aleichem" (1:3, see also
8:7-8).
    [It is highly suggested that you read at least the
first
    two chapters of Zecharya (note 'hadassim' and 'ish
rochev
    al sus' in chapter 1, and 'prazot teshev
Yerushalayim' in
    chapter 2) and then chapters 7-8 before continuing.]

SHOULD WE FAST ON TISHA BE-AV?
     According to Chagai 2:18, construction of the
Temple
began on this same year, i.e. during the second year of
Daryavesh.  Zecharya chapter seven opens two years later
when
an official delegation from Bavel arrives in Jerusalem
to ask
Zecharya a very fundamental question:
  "Ha-evkeh be-chodesh ha-chamishi?"  Should we continue
to
  fast in the 5th month (i.e. the fast of Tisha Be-av)?
(see
  7:3)

     The question appears to be quite legitimate.  After
all,
now that the Temple is rebuilt, there no longer appears
to be
a need to fast.   However, Zecharya's lengthy and
official
reply (7:4-8:23) to this question contains an eternal
message
that relates to the very nature of the ideal redemption
process.
     In Zecharya 7:4-7, God appears to be quite
disturbed by
the people's question regarding the need to fast.
Instead of
showing their interest in the greater picture of the
redemption process, the people seem only to be
interested in
whether or not they have to fast.  In the eyes of the
prophet,
their question reflected a general attitude problem in
regard
to the entire redemption process.
     God's answer implies that the fast of Tisha Be-av
is not
a divine commandment - rather it was a 'minhag'
instituted by
Chazal to remember not only the Temple's destruction,
but also
the reason why the churban took place (see 7:5-6).
Thus, God
explains, feasting or fasting is man's decision, while
God is
interested in something much more basic - that Bnei
Yisrael
keep the mitzvot which they had neglected during the
first
Temple period (see 7:5-14).
     Zecharya continues his answer with two chapters of
'musar' (rebuke) in which he emphasizes the most basic
mitzvot
that Bnei Yisrael must keep in order for the Shchina to
return:
  "EMET u-mishpat shalom shiftu be-sha'areichem,
ve-chesed
  ve-rachamim asu ish et achiv.  Almana, ve-yatom ve-ani
al
  ta'ashoku..." (7:8-10).
    - Truth, social justice, helping the poor and needy,
and
    thinking kindly of one's neighbor, etc.

     God is anxious for His Shchina to return, but in
order
for that to happen, Yerushalayim must first become a
city
characterized by truth (8:1-3).  God foresees the return
the
exiles from lands in the east and west.  With their
return,
God and His nation will become once again covenantal
partners,
through "emet & tzedaka" (see 8:7-8).
     Finally, after many words of encouragement and
repeated
'musar' (see 8:11-17), God finally answers the original
question concerning the fast days.  Should Am Yisrael
return
to Israel and keep "emet ve-shalom, the four fast days
commemorating the destruction of Yerushalayim will
become
holidays:
  "tzom ha-rvii, v'tzom ha'chamishi... [The four fast
days]
  will be instead for Yehuda days of celebration... [on
the
  condition that] they will love emet & shalom" (see
8:18-19 /
  note parallel to Megilla 9:30-31!)

     After two chapters of rebuke, Zecharya finally
answers
the people's original question.  Should Bnei Yisrael
indeed
show their devotion to God, i.e. if they practice 'emet
u-mishpat shalom', then the fast days, the days of
crying for
Jerusalem, will become holidays instead.
     Should Bnei Yisrael indeed love keeping emet &
shalom
(these two words simply summarize the primary points
raised by
Zecharya in this perek), then the redemption process
will be
complete.

ISH YEHUDI
     Zecharya concludes this prophecy with his vision of
numerous people from many great nations will one day
come to
Yerushalayim in search of God.  They will gather around
the
ish yehudi, asking for his guidance, for they will have
heard
that God is with His people (8:20-23).
     Had Am Yisrael heeded this prophetic call in the
time of
Koresh and Daryavesh, then they would not have been
scattered
among 127 provinces during the time of Achashverosh.
One
could suggest that instead of celebrating with the
Persians at
the party in Shushan, the Jews could (& should) have
been
celebrating with God at His bet ha-mikdash in
Yerushalayim.
     The ish yehudi would have been in the bira in
Yerushalayim, making God's Name known to other nations;
instead, the Megilla opens as an ish yehudi is found in
the
bira of Achashverosh in Shushan, ironically carrying the
name
of foreign god.
  [One could also suggest that Mordechai's institution
of the
  yearly celebration of Purim relates specifically to
this
  prophecy.  First of all, note how this day is
described as
  one that turns around from 'yagon' to 'simcha', from
  'mourning to holiday' (see Esther 9:22).  Purim may
  symbolize the manner in which the fast days for
Jerusalem
  will one day become holidays.]

     This parallel to Zecharya could explain the reason
for
the special mitzvot that Mordechai instituted for Purim
in his
first letter (see Esther 9:20-22).  They reflect
Zecharya's
repeated message of helping the needy (matanot
le-evyonim/
note Zecharya 7:10) and thinking nicely of one's
neighbors
(mishloach manot ish le-re'eihu / note 8:16-17!).  Once
a year
we must remind ourselves of the most basic mitzvot that
we
must keep in order that we become worthy of returning to
Yerushalayim and rebuilding the Bet ha'mikdash.

     Certain halachot instituted by Chazal may reflect
this
message.  Interestingly, Shushan Purim is replaced with
Yerushalayim Purim for the walled cities from the time
of
Yehoshua bin Nun replace the walled city of Shushan!
[See
Yehoshua 21:42 and its context, compare to Esther 9:2.]

SHALOM VE-EMET
     Although this explanation for certain minhagim of
Purim
may seem a bit 'stretched', textual proof is found in
the
closing psukim of the Megilla (9:29-32 / read it
carefully!).
     Recall how Mordechai and Esther found it necessary
to
send out a second 'igeret' (letter) - whose purpose was
not
only to give authority ('tokef') to the holiday that
they had
instituted, but also to explain the reason for these
'minhagim' [customs] of Purim, as detailed in their
original
letter.
      What was the content of this special second
letter?  To
our surprise, accordingly to the Megilla, its content is
summarized by one very short phrase:
  " And sent letters unto all the Jews, to the 127
provinces
  of the kingdom of Achashverosh, containing divrei
shalom
  ve-emet  - words of peace & truth"!
     [See Esther 9:30, read carefully.]

     These two key words - "shalom v'emet" - are not
simply
the opening words of this letter.  Rather, they describe
the
entire content of this second letter.  But this very
special
phrase also points us directly back to Zecharya's
prophecy
about the fast days becoming holidays (read Zecharya
8:18-19
again) - for they explain not only when, but also why
(i.e.
under what conditions) the fast days will become
holidays - if
and when Bnei Yisrael keep 'shalom' and 'emet'!
  But that short two word phrase in Zecharya is chosen
by the
navi for it beautifully summarizes the entire content of
his
prophecy concerning values that he expects the people to
focus
on, to assure that the redemption process of the Second
Temple
will continue in the proper direction - so that God's
"Shechina" could return.
  [For example, note how many time Zecharya had
mentioned "ish
  el re'eyhu" or "ish el achiv" in 7:9 & 8:16-17, as
well as
  caring for the poor and needy in 7:10.  Note as well
how the
  words "shalom" and "emet" are used numerous times by
  Zecharya in chapters 7 and 8!]
  
  Hence, we conclude, that the second "igeret" was sent
to
explain to the people, based on the earlier prophecies
of
Zecharya, the purpose of these special minhagim of
Purim.
Mordechai and Esther had established Purim as a yearly
reminder of the prophecies of Zecharya.  Even though
they
remained unfulfilled, those customs would help remind Am
Yisrael concerning what is required of them in order for
that
redemption process to reach its highest goals.
  
     The continuation of this second "igeret"
strengthens this
interpretation.  Note how the Megilla also explains
under what
authority (tokef) Mordechai and Esther institute these
halachot:
  "Ka'asher kiymu al nafsham divrei ha-tzomot
ve-za'akatam"
  (9:31)  [Compare these psukim carefully to Zecharya
  8:18-19.]

     Recall, God had told Zecharya that fast days and
feast
days are up to man to decide.  Now, according to the
second
igeret, just like ('ka'asher') the prophets instituted
the
four fast days in order that we remember Yerushalayim,
Mordechai now institutes a 'feast day' to remember
Yerushalayim.  In other words, our yearly special
celebration
on the 14th and 15th of Adar can remind us of how we
will (in
the future, when worthy) celebrate those four fast days
- once
Yerushalayim will be re-built and the nation will be
acting in
the proper manner.
  [Note that this pasuk cannot be referring to our
Ta'anit
  Esther, for if it refers to the three day fast, that
fast
  was a one time event and was not "al nafsham ve-al
zar'am".
  Likewise, it cannot be the fast of the 13th of Adar,
as that
  custom only began during the time period of the
Ge'onim.
  Therefore, it must refer to the four fast days on
  Jerusalem.]

DID THEY 'GET THE MESSAGE'?
     So why didn't everyone return immediately afterward
to
Israel?
     Most probably, after the events of the Megilla, a
mass
return to Yerushalayim was not realistic.
  In fact, the rather anti-climatic' final lines of the
Megilla (see 10:1) seem to indicate that 'all said and
done',
nothing really changed (people are paying taxes to
Achashverosh).  Nonetheless, Mordechai wanted to
institute a
holiday that would remind Am Yisrael that should such an
opportunity arise (once again), that they will know how
to
relate to it properly.  Sefer Zecharya and its theme of
"shalom ve-emet" serve as the spiritual guide.
  [This interpretation may help explain why the
celebration of
  Purim will remain even after our final redemption.]

      Purim, therefore, has deep meaning for all
generations.
Its message may have been 'hiding' behind the costumes,
the
drinking ("ad de-lo yada"), the 'purim Torah', and
'shalach
mannos'.  It may have been lost within our ignorance of
Tanach.  Its message, however, remains eternal, just as
our
aspirations for Yerushalayim and the establishment
therein of
a just society - remain eternal.

                                   purim sameiach,
                                   menachem


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1333 -
Release Date: 3/18/2008 8:10 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: purim.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 77720 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080318/cddbc85e/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Mar 19 10:26:59 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:26:59 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Tzav / shiur
Message-ID: <002f01c889cd$4af48920$9d00000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

PARSHAT TZAV  
	THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TZAV AND VAYIKRA

	Is Parshat Tzav simply a repeat of Parshat
Vayikra?
    In the following shiur, as we undertake a 'tedious'
study that will explain how and why they are very
different - we will also arrive at several conclusions
that will help us appreciate why we eat 'kosher' meat.

INTRODUCTION
	In both Parshiot Vayikra and Tzav we find an
organized set of laws concerning each of the five basic
categories of korbanot: OLAH, MINCHA, CHATAT, ASHAM and
SHLAMIM.  However, in each Parsha, the order and detail
of their presentation are quite different.
	A priori, it would have been more logical for
the Torah to combine all these laws into one unit.  To
understand why they are presented separately, the
following shiur analyzes Parshat Tzav in an attempt to
understand its internal structure, and then compares it
to Parshat Vayikra.  
 
A KEY PHRASE
	The 'key' towards understanding Parshat Tzav is
the phrase "v'zot torat ha'...".  To verify the
centrality of this phrase, briefly review the seven
"parshiot" that comprise chapters 6 & 7, noting how just
about each "parshia" begins with this same phrase: "zot
torat..." - as it introduces each new category.  
    For example, in 6:2 we find "zot torat ha'olah", in
6:7 - "zot torat ha'mincha", in 6:18 - "zot torat
ha'chatat", etc.  [See also 7:1 (asham), and 7:11
(shlamim).]
	Then, study the last two psukim of this unit
(i.e. 7:37-38), noting once again how this phrase forms
a very fitting summary for each of these introductory
phrases: 
	"zot ha'torah - la'OLAH la'MINCHA,
v'la'CHATAT..." (7:37).

	Furthermore, recall that we didn't find this
phrase (or anything similar) in Parshat Vayikra.  Hence,
to understand what Parshat Tzav is all about, we must
first understand the meaning of the word "torah" in this
context. 
	Today, the word "torah" is commonly used to
describe the entire Torah [i.e. Chumash], and hence the
most general category encompassing all of the mitzvot.
However, in Sefer Vayikra the word "torah" carries a
more specific meaning, as "torah" is only one of the
various categories of laws, distinct from "chukim" and
"mishpatim".  [See for example 18:1-5.] 
    Another example of the use of the word "torah" in a
more specific context is in regard to God's comment to
Yitzchak concerning Avraham Avinu:
"ekev asher shama Avraham b'koli - v'yishmor mishmarti
mitzvoti chukotei, v'TORAHtei" - (see Breishit 26:5 ) 

    Here, the word "torah" clearly implies a specific
category (and not a general one); and so claim Ibn Ezra,
Rashbam, Ramban, and Seforno (even though each gives a
different explanation of what that category is).
	To understand the specific meaning of the word
"torah", let's consider its "shoresh" [root] - the verb
"l'horot" - to instruct.  Hence, we should expect the
word "torah" in Sefer Vayikra to refer to an
instructional (or procedural) law, i.e. a series of
actions necessary for the completion of a given process.

[The same is true in Sefer Bamidbar, as we shall see in
our discussion of Parshat Parah.]

HOW OR WHAT
	Based on this context, the pasuk in Parshat Tzav
"zot torat ha'mincha..." (see 6:7-10) should be
translated as, "This is the PROCEDURE for offering the
"korban mincha", as this pasuk introduces the details
regarding HOW the priest must offer the korban mincha.
More specifically, this would include:
	a) taking it to the mizbayach;
	b) offering a handful ("kometz") from its flour
and oil;
	c) eating the leftovers as "matza" in the
courtyard, etc.

	In this manner, Parshat Tzav details the
procedures for HOW to offer all the other types of
korbanot. Herein lies the basic difference between
Parshat Tzav and Parshat Vayikra.  Whereas Parshat Tzav
deals primarily with the procedures for HOW to offer the
various korbanot, Parshat Vayikra focuses on WHAT korban
(or which korban) is to be offered.  Let's explain.

	Parshat Vayikra discusses which offerings the
individual can bring should he wish to offer a korban
["n'dava"], as well as which offering he must bring
should he transgress ["chova"].  In contrast, Parshat
Tzav explains how the "kohanim" offer these korbanot,
i.e. the procedures for the "kohanim" to follow once the
owner presents them with the "korban".
	This distinction explains why the opening pasuk
of each Parsha directs itself to a different audience. 
*  Parshat Vayikra begins with:
"...Speak to BNEI YISRAEL and tell them, if an
INDIVIDUAL among you WISHES TO OFFER a korban... "
(1:1-2)

*  Parshat Tzav begins with:
"Command AHARON & HIS SONS saying, this is the procedure
for bringing the OLAH..." (6:1-2)

	Parshat Tzav is addressed specifically to the
KOHANIM for it explains HOW they must offer the
korbanot, while Parshat Vayikra directs itself towards
Bnei Yisrael, since everyone must know WHICH specific
korban he CAN or MUST bring in any given situation.
	In other words, Parshat VAYIKRA serves as a
'halachik catalogue' - guiding the individual as to
WHICH korban to bring, while Parshat TZAV serves as an
'instruction manual' - teaching the kohen HOW to offer
each type of korban.
	Chumash presents each 'manual' independently
because each serves a different purpose. This can
explain why the Torah divides these details into two
separate sections.
[This distinction also explains why certain details are
found in both Parshiot, i.e. those laws that must be
known to BOTH the kohanim and to the individual.
    Furthermore, certain procedures that only the kohen
can perform are also included in Vayikra because the
kohen serves in this capacity as the emissary of the
individual offering the korban.  Ideally the owner
should offer the korban, but since only kohanim are
permitted to come near the MIZBAYACH, the kohen must
perform the "avodah" on his behalf. Additionally, the
owner must also be aware of what he is permitted to do
and which rituals are restricted to the kohanim. For
example, the owner is permitted to do "shchita," but may
not perform other "avodot."]

THE 'NEW ORDER'
	This background also explains the difference in
the ORDER of the presentation of the korbanot in each
Parsha.
	As we explained in last week's shiur, Parshat
Vayikra discusses the categories of "korban yachid,"
beginning with the voluntary N'DAVA korbanot - OLAH &
SHLAMIM - and then continuing with the obligatory CHOVA
korbanot - CHATAT & ASHAM.

	In contrast, Parshat Tzav makes no distinction
between N'DAVA and CHOVA. Once the korban comes to the
Mikdash, the kohen doesn't need to know why it was
offered.  Instead, he only needs to know its category.
Hence, the order in Tzav follows the level of "kedusha"
of the various korbanot: OLAH - MINCHA - CHATAT - ASHAM
- SHLAMIM. 
[The SHLAMIM is now last instead of second, since it has
the lowest level of "kedusha" ("kodshim kalim").]

THE ORDER IN PARSHAT TZAV
	One could also explain that the internal order
of Tzav follows according to how much of the korban is
consumed on the MIZBAYACH (in Chazal, known as "achilat
mizbayach"):
	The OLAH is first as it is totally consumed on
the mizbayach. The MINCHA follows, as it is either
totally consumed, in the case of a MINCHA brought by a
kohen (see 6:16); or at least the "kometz" is consumed,
while the leftover flour ["noteret"] can be eaten only
by the KOHANIM.
	Next we find the CHATAT and ASHAM, as their
"chaylev" [fat] and "dam" [blood] is offered on the
mizbayach; while the meat can be eaten only by the
KOHANIM.
[All of the above korbanot are known as "kodshei
kodashim", as the meat either is consumed on the
mizbeyach or eaten by the kohanim, but must remain
within the courtyard of the Mishkan.  The Gemara
explains that this meat eaten by the kohanim is
considered a 'gift' to the kohanim from God (and not
from the owner) -"m'shulchan gavohah k'zachu leh".]

	The SHLAMIM comes last as some of its meat can
be eaten by the owners (after the "chaylev" and "dam"
are offered on the mizbeyach).  As this meat can be
eaten anywhere in the camp (and not only within the
courtyard of the Mishkan), this category is known as
"kodshim kalim."

AN OUTLINE of PARSHAT TZAV 
	The following table summarizes the overall
structure of Parshat Tzav based on the principles
discussed above. As you study it, note that not every
'parshia' begins with a "zot torat ha'--".  Instead, we
find several 'digressions' into 'parshiot' of related
topics (noted by a '**").  We will discuss these
digressions at the conclusion of the outline.

TORAT ha'OLAH - 6:1-6
	1) bringing the daily "olat tamid";
	2) "trumat ha'deshen" - daily removal of ashes
from mizbeyach;
	3) preparing the wood and fire on the mizbayach;
	4) mitzvat "aish tamid" - to ensure a continuous
fire.

TORAT ha'MINCHA - 6:7-11
	1) the "kometz" (handful) of flour placed on the
mizbayach;
	2) the "noteret" (leftover portion), eaten by
the kohen; 
** RELATED LAWS: (6:12-16)
	3) the "minchat chinuch" - the special inaugural
meal
	offering brought by a kohen the first time he
performs AVODA.
	4) the "minchat chavitin" - offered daily by the
Kohen Gadol.

TORAT ha'CHATAT - 6:17-23
	1) the procedure how to offer the korban;
	2) the portion eaten by the kohen;
	3) where it can be eaten (in the "azara");
  Related laws:
4) special laws concerning a case where the blood of a
chatat touches a garment or vessel.

TORAT ha'ASHAM - 7:1-7
	1) the procedure how to offer the korban;
	2) the portion eaten by the kohen;
	3) where it can be eaten;
[As "asham" forms the conclusion of the Kodshei Kodshim
section, several laws concerning the reward of the kohen
are added, such as the kohen's rights to the animal
hides of the OLAH and the issue of who receives the
"noteret" of the various types of korban mincha (see
7:8-10).]

TORAT ha'SHLAMIM - 7:11-34
	1) the laws regarding the Korban Todah
(thanksgiving);
	2) the laws regarding a Korban Shlamim
(freewill);
**RELATED LAWS:	
	3) laws concerning meat that becomes "tamey"
(defiled);
	4) the general prohibition of eating "chaylev"
and "dam" (blood)
5) the kohen's rights to the "chazeh" (breast) and
"shok" (thigh), a 'gift' to the kohen from the owner of
the korban.

SUMMARY - 7:35-38  (this concludes the unit)
	35-36: "This is the 'reward' of the kohanim from
the korbanot.
				["mashchat" = reward,
but see m'forshim!]
37:    ZOT HA'TORAH:  l'OLAH, l'MINCHA, l'CHATAT
v'l'ASHAM... ul'ZEVACH HA'SHLAMIM".

THE DIGRESSIONS
	Even though most of outline follows according to
the structure set by the phrase "zot torat..." (and
hence its laws are directed specifically to the kohanim)
we do find several digressions.
	The first such digression is the 'parshia' of
6:12-16, and follows the laws of how to bring a "korban
mincha".  It describes both the:
* "minchat chinuch" - the inauguration flour-offering
that the kohen brings on the day he begins his service;
and the .
* "minchat chavitim" - an identical korban offered daily
by the Kohen Gadol.

	This digression is quite logical, as this law
relates to both the korban mincha and to the kohanim.

	Within the laws of the korban SHLAMIM we find
two additional digressions. The first (7:22-27)
discusses the prohibition to eat "chaylev v'dam" from
any animal, even if was not offered as a korban SHLAMIM.
The second (7:28-31) explains that the owner of the
korban SHLAMIM must give the "chazeh' and "shok" to the
kohen. Note how both of these digressions are directed
to the entire congregation (and not just to the kohanim/
see 7:22&28) for everyone is required to know these
related laws.

PRIESTLY REWARD
	With these digressions in mind, and after
reviewing the outline we may additionally conclude that
one of the primary considerations of Parshat Tzav is the
compensation that the kohen receives for offering the
korban. In contrast to Parshat Vayikra, which does not
at all raise this issue, Parshat Tzav tells us that the
kohen receives the hides of the Olah offering, the
leftovers of the Mincha offering, most of the meat of
the "chatat" and "asham" and the "chazeh" & "shok" of
the "shlamim".
	The summary pasuk in 7:35-36 reinforces the
significance of this point in the eyes of Parshat Tzav,
as does the introduction in 6:1-2, which directs these
laws specifically to Aharon and his sons.

KORBANOT THEN / KASHRUT TODAY
	As we mentioned above, in the middle of the
SHLAMIM section in Parshat Tzav we find a special
"dibur" to Bnei Yisrael prohibiting them from eating the
"chaylev" & "dam" (fat and blood) of any animal, even if
that animal is not being offered as a "korban"!  
    This law, and its presentation at this location,
suggests that the 'kashrut laws' of "chaylev v'dam" can
be viewed as an EXTENSION of the laws of korbanot.  In
other words, Chumash purposely includes the laws of
"chaylev" and "dam" in Parshat Tzav to teach us that
they are forbidden specifically because these parts of
the animal, had it been a korban, belong on the
mizbeyach!
	Ideally, as Sefer Devarim establishes (see
12:20-22), one should eat meat only within the framework
of a korban shlamim. Eating "chulin" (meat which is not
a korban) is allowed only when bringing a korban shlamim
is unfeasible. [In Sefer Devarim this meat is referred
to as "basar ta'ava" ('meat of 'desire').]
	Nevertheless, even in the realistic, non-ideal
condition, when one does eat "chulin," he still may not
eat the "chaylev v'dam."  Therefore, whenever a Jew does
eat meat, he must remind himself that this animal could
(or should) have been a "korban shlamim". 

	One could suggest that man's desire for meat may
reflect an animalistic tendency latent in human
behavior.  By offering a korban shlamim, man can channel
this desire in a more positive direction - towards the
enhancement of his relationship with God. 
[Recall from our shiur on Vayikra that the korban
shlamim is the ideal "korban N'DAVA" in that it reenacts
the covenantal ceremony between God and Bnei Yisrael at
Har Sinai.]

	Even today (without a Mikdash), by refraining
from eating "chaylev" and "dam", we can elevate our
physical world with "kedusha" and retain a certain level
of "kedusha" - even while eating meat.

	
shabbat shalom
	
menachem

===================
FOR FURTHER IYUN 

A. WHAT'S A MISHPAT?
 What do you think is the difference between a "chok"
and a "mishpat"? Consider the linguistic relationship
between the words "mishpat" and "shofet" (= shoresh
sh.p.t.), and recall Parshat Mishpatim (Shmot chapter
21) and its 'key' word (pun intended).

B. SOME MORE 'TORAH'
Note the similar use of the word "torah" - "procedure" -
in Tazria-Metzora - see Vayikra 12:7, 13:59, 14:2,32,54.
See also Bamidbar 5:29-30, 6:21.
Note also Breishit 26:5 - see m'forshim!
Note how the word "torah" takes on a more general
meaning in Sefer Devarim - see 1:5 & 4:44! Can you
explain why?

See Shmot 24:12, And note the words TORAH & MITZVAH.
	If "mitzvah" refers to TZIVUI HA'MISHKAN, i.e.
Shmot 25->31, then to what does TORAH refer? Based on
7:37-38, could this be referring (at least partially) to
Parshat Tzav?
	Could it include other parshiot of mitzvot found
in Sefer Vayikra and Sefer Bamidbar? If so, can you
explain why?
		Relate to your answers to C & D above.
	
C. THE PROBLEMATIC FINALE
	See 7:37, which accurately summarizes the entire
Parsha, except for one 'small' detail:
	"zot ha'torah la'OLAH la'MINCHA, v'la'CHATAT
v'la'ASHAM *v'la'MILUIM* u'l'ZEVACH HA'SHLAMIM..."
What is "v'la'miluim" doing in this pasuk?
1. Scan the Parsha to make sure you understand the
question.
2. Note the two directions taken by the commentators in
dealing with this problem. [See Rashi & Ibn Ezra.]
3. Relate these answers to 6:12-16 and the next perek
(8:1-36).
4. Now relate this issue to Shmot perek 29.
	Note that from 7:38 it appears that the mitzvot
of Parshat Tzav were given on HAR SINAI, and NOT from
the Ohel Moed as were the mitzvot in Parshat Vayikra
[see Ramban].
	How does this help answer the question
concerning the word "miluim"?
5. Why are the laws concerning the 'miluim' recorded in
Shmot (perek 29) while all the other "torot" appear in
Vayikra?
6. How does all this relate to Shmot 24:12 and Parshiot
Terumah -Tezaveh? To what does the word "torah" refer in
that pasuk?	
	[Iy"h, next week's shiur will deal with this
topic.]

D. THE SEVEN DAYS OF MILUIM
At the end of Parshat Tzav (8:1-36), we find the
narrative describing the seven-day "miluim" dedication
ceremony. Prove from the style of this parsha that it
belongs in Pkudei. (Look for the repetition of the key
phrase.) Where in Parshat Pkudei does this parsha
belong? Why do you think it is placed here?
	 
	How does this parsha relate to Parshat Shmini?
	Why do you think this narrative is included in
Sefer Vayikra rather than Sefer Shmot?

	Note as well that the fulfillment of all the
commandments concerning how to build the Mishkan in
Parshiot Terumah Tezaveh were repeated in Vayakhel
Pekudei, EXCEPT the commandment concerning the seven day
milium ceremony.

E. DAM HA'NEFESH
	In the related parsha of "basar ta'ava" in Sefer
Devarim (12:20-28), we find what appears to be a
different reason for the prohibition against eating
blood:
"Be sure not to eat the BLOOD, for the blood is the
'nefesh' (life/ soul), and you must not consume the
'nefesh' with the 'basar' (meat)."   (12:23)

	In truth, however, this reason involves the very
same principle we discussed. The sprinkling of the
korban's blood on the mizbayach represents the 'nefesh'
of the person offering the korban -  "ki ha'dam hu
ha'nefesh" (12:23). This is the reason why the blood was
chosen to be sprinkled on the mizbayach, and this is the
reason why we are not permitted to eat the blood.
	How does offering a korban or refraining from
eating certain animal parts bring anyone closer to God? 
	Man's relationship with God stems from his
understanding that he was created for a purpose. Towards
that purpose, God created man "b'tzelem Elokim" (Br.
1:27), i.e. with a creative mind (see first chapter of
Moreh Nvuchim of the Rambam!). It is this trait of
"tzelem Elokim" that differentiates man from animal.
Upon seeing the blood of an animal, man should ask
himself, how am I different from that animal? The
animal's shape may be a bit different, but the blood is
the same blood as the human being's, just as the inner
organs and limbs are the same as his.
	One could suggest that the experience of
offering a korban stimulates this process of
introspection; it may help man recognize that despite
these similarities, he is different, insofar as he was
created "b'tzelem Elokim" - for a purpose. The search
for that purpose sets man on the proper path.  As we say
in Tehilim:
	"Adam bi'kar" - a man [lives] with wealth and
honor - "v'lo yavin"  - but does not contemplate his way
in life - "nimshal k'bhay'mot nidmu" - he is like the
animals that perish.  (Tehilim 49:21)

F. ANOTHER "DIBUR" OUT OF PLACE?
	Imbedded within the parsha's discussion of
shlamim we find yet another "dibur" to Bnei Yisrael
(7:28-34). Again, why do we find a "dibur" to Bnei
Yisrael in the Parsha intended for kohanim? Shouldn't
these laws appear in Parshat Vayikra?
	This "dibur" details the laws requiring the
owner of the shlamim to give the "chazeh v'shok" to the
kohen. These laws are in Parshat Tzav because they deal
with the portion of the animal reserved for the kohanim.
On the other hand, it must be emphasized that this
portion is a gift to the kohen from the owner of the
korban. As such, it requires a special "dibur" to Bnei
Yisrael. 

G. KORBAN TODAH & KORBAN PESACH
	One could suggest that the korban Pesach is
simply a 'special type' of korban Todah. The following
questions (in lieu of a shiur) will help you understand
their connection. (Read Vayikra 7:11-15 & Shmot
12:3-12.)
1. What is the time frame in which these korbanot can be
eaten?
2. What type of bread must be eaten with each korban?
	Do any other korbanot come with bread or matza?
3. Would you say these laws 'force' someone to invite
people to join him in eating his Korban Todah?
   Must one invite others to join him when eating the
Korban Pesach?
4. What is supposed to happen during this "Todah"
seudah?
	Relate to Tehilim 107, especially pasuk 22!
	How is this similar to "leil ha'seder"?
5. How does the recitation of "Hallel" apply to both
korbanot?
	Relate to Tehilim 100("mizmor l'Todah").
6. According to this comparison, why do we eat matza
with the Korban Pesach? 
	Does it have anything to do with the matza that
Bnei Yisrael baked after leaving Egypt (see Shmot
12:39)?
	Iy"h, we'll have a shiur on this topic before
Pesach.



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1335 -
Release Date: 3/19/2008 9:54 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: tzav1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 47908 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080319/df659294/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Mar 19 17:01:32 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:01:32 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] For subscribers in Greater NY area - Shushan Purim
	Tanach Special
Message-ID: <00aa01c88a04$69227fb0$9d00000a@x60>

shalom to those of you living in the Greater NY/Teaneck
area

First of all, wanted to make sure that you were aware of
the Parshanut ha'Mikra Yom Iyun
to be held at Yeshiva University this Sunday, Shushan
Purim [March 23rd] from 12:45 - 5:30pm
  the full schedule is attached in pdf format  [I'll be
teaching at the 2:30 & 4:30pm time slots]

Secondly, in case you are up a bit earlier on Shushan
Purim,
	I'll also be giving two shiurim earlier that
morning,

>From 8:40 - 9:40 am  [after 8am minyan]
        at  Rinat Yisrael Cong. in Teaneck 
            389 W Englewood Ave.
Topic:  Achashverosh of Sefer Ezra vs. Achashverosh of
Megilat Esther
	            Can you understand one without the
other!

AND
>From  10am - 12pm 
	  at  CONGREGATION AHAVATH TORAH
            240 Broad Avenue
            Englewood, NJ 07631

  Topic : From 'Purim' to 'Pesach' - via Sefer Yehoshua
        The Biblical 'roots'  of what we say at the
Seder


wishing everyone a tzom kal, & purim samayach
kol tuv,
menachem

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1335 -
Release Date: 3/19/2008 9:54 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yomiyun.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 409485 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080319/0852f47b/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Mar 26 08:44:29 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:44:29 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Shmini - shiur
Message-ID: <011d01c88f3f$228b1130$1300000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

             PARSHAT  SHMINI

    For some reason, the dedication of the Mishkan
required
two consecutive ceremonies:
  1) The seven day "miluim" service - which was the
final
  topic of Pashat Tzav (see Vayikra 8:1-36);
  &
  2) The special korbanot offered on "yom ha'shmini" -
the
  'eighth day' - i.e. at the conclusion of those seven
days  -
  the first topic in Parshat Shmini (see 9:1-24).

    As the details of these two ceremonies are very
different,
it would only make sense to assume that each one served
a
different purpose.
    In the following shiur, we attempt to uncover the
purpose
of each of these two ceremonies, while showing how their
presentation in Sefer Vayikra can also help us arrive at
a
deeper understanding of how we celebrate the holidays of
Yom
Kippur and Shavuot.

INTRODUCTION
    The Torah's description of these two ceremonies in
Sefer
Vayikra is certainly an anomaly, as this is the only
section
of narrative in the entire book - everything else in
Sefer
Vayikra is simply laws!
    Therefore, in our shiur, we must explain not only
what
this narrative is about, but we must also explain why it
is
'inserted' at this point in Sefer Vayikra.  To do so, we
begin
our shiur with a quick review of the first half of the
Sefer
Vayikra, to identify the precise point where this story
is
told.

WHAT 'BELONGS' IN SEFER VAYIKRA
    Vayikra began with the laws of korbanot that the
individual can (chapters 1->3) or must bring (chapters
4->5);
and continued with the laws for how the kohanim should
offer
these korbanot (chapters 6->7).
    At this point (towards the end of Parshat Tzav /see
8:1),
this continuous presentation of mitzvot is 'interrupted'
by a
set of stories in chapters 8 thru 10:
?    Chapter 8 describes the seven day "miluim"
inauguration
  ceremony of the kohanim and the mizbayach,
?    Chapter 9 describes the Mishkan's inaugural
ceremony on
  "Yom ha'Shmini" [the 'EIGHTH day'] when God's glory
'returns',
?    Chapter 10 describes the story of the tragic death
of
  Nadav and Avihu on that day.

    Then, in chapter 11, Sefer Vayikra returns once
again to
its presentation of various laws pertaining primarily to
the
Mishkan. [This presentation of LAWS continues till the
end of
the Sefer!]
    [Parshat Shmini concludes with the laws of "tumat
ochlin"
    (see 11:1-47); then Tazria/Metzora continues with
other
    laws relating to "tumah".]

    This peculiarity becomes more acute when we consider
that
this entire narrative (i.e. in Vayikra chapters 8->10)
may
actually 'belong' in Sefer Shmot.  Recall how Sefer
Shmot
concluded with the story of Mishkan's assembly and its
dedication.  [In case you forgot, review chapter 40,
especially 40:12-14!]
    Furthermore, the story of the seven-day "miluim"
most
definitely 'belongs' in Sefer Shmot.  Recall that its
original
commandment was first recorded in Parshat Tezaveh (see
Shmot
chapter 29, compare with Vayikra chapter 8).
Considering that
Parshiot Vayakhel/Pkudei record the fulfillment of every
other
commandment recorded in Parshiot Trumah/Tzaveh, there is
no
apparent reason why the seven-day "miluim" ceremony
should be
the only exception!

    In summary, we have shown that stories (in general)
don't
belong in Sefer Vayikra, while this specific one DOES
belong
in Sefer Shmot. Hence, our shiur must explain why the
Torah
prefers placing this story in Vayikra in what appears to
be an
'interruption' to its presentation of the mitzvot.
    To do so, we must first explain the difference
between the
details of the Mishkan found in Sefer Shmot in contrast
to
those found in Vayikra.  Then will discuss what is
special
about each of the two dedication ceremonies to explain
why
they are recorded specifically in Sefer Vayikra (and not
in
Shmot).

BETWEEN SHMOT AND VAYIKRA
    There is a very simple distinction that explains why
we
find the laws concerning the Mishkan in two different
books.
Sefer Shmot describes the details of its construction,
while
Sefer Vayikra explains how to use it.  For example,
recall how
Shmot chapters 25-31 (Parshiot Terumah/Tezaveh)
constituted a
distinct unit describing the commandment to BUILD the
Mishkan,
while chapters 35-40 (Parshiot Vayakhel/Pekudei)
detailed how
it was actually built.  In contrast, the first seven
chapters
of Sefer Vayikra explain the various korbanot the
individual
can (or must) bring and how the Kohanim are to offer
them.
    However, for some reason the details of the
seven-day
miluim ceremony are recorded in both Shmot and Vayikra!
Parshat Tezaveh details its commandment, while Parshat
Tzav
tells the story of how it took place.  To understand
why, we
must consider the purpose of this ceremony, and relate
it to
the above distinction.

THE SEVEN DAY "MILUIM" CEREMONY
    Let's review the primary elements of this ceremony:
   1)   First, Moshe must anoint the Mishkan, its
vessels, the
      kohanim, and the "bigdei kehuna", using the
"shemen
      ha'mishcha" oil (see 8:5-13).
   2)   Then, on each day three korbanot are offered:
?    A CHATAT - one "par" (bull)- the blood is sprinkled
on
  the upper section of the MIZBAYACH
?    An OLAH - one "ayil" (ram)- the blood is sprinkled
on the
  bottom of the MIZBAYACH
?    The MILUIM offering (like a SHLAMIM) - one "ayil"
(ram) -
  the blood is sprinkled on the KOHANIM.
                         (see Shmot 29:1-37 & Vayikra
8:14-24)

    This anointing ceremony can easily be understood as
the
final stage of the Mishkan's construction.  So too the
korbanot, for the sprinkling of their blood also appears
to be
a type of anointing.  From this perspective, this
ceremony
should be included in Sefer Shmot, at the conclusion of
the
set of laws to build the Mishkan. [And that is exactly
where
we find it (see Shmot chapter 29 and the TSC shiur on
Parshat
Tezaveh).]
    On the other hand, the ceremony is also the FIRST
time
that korbanot are actually offered.  Hence, it also
serves as
the first FUNCTION of the Mishkan, for this is the first
time
that it is being 'used'.  Hence, the details of the
ceremony
are also recorded in Sefer Vayikra, together with the
other
laws how to use the Mishkan.
    [The deeper meaning of this is discussed in Part
Two.]

    With this in mind, let's discuss the purpose of the
additional ceremony that takes place on the 'eighth
day'.

YOM HA'SHMINI
    On "Yom Ha'shmini", the day following the completion
of
the seven day 'miluim', the Mishkan becomes fully
functional.
Furthermore, on this day, Aharon and his sons will
officiate
for the first time. Thus, a special inaugural ceremony
is
necessary (see 9:1-24), which will be quite different
than the
seven day 'miluim'.
    On this day, we find a commandment to offer a
special set
of korbanot whose purpose is stated explicitly:
    "This is what Hashem has commanded you to do IN
ORDER THAT
    the PRESENCE of God ('kvod Hashem') may APPEAR to
you"
    (9:6)    [see also 9:5]

    Recall that due to the sins of "chet ha'egel" God
had
taken away His "shchinah" from the camp of Bnei Yisrael,
the
very same "shchinah" that Bnei Yisrael had witnessed at
Ma'amad Har Sinai:
  "Moshe took the tent and pitched it OUTSIDE the camp,
FAR
  AWAY from the camp and called it the OHEL MOED. Anyone
who
  sought God would have to go the Ohel Moed located
OUTSIDE
  the camp." (See Shmot 33:7 and its context)

    When Moshe ascended Har Sinai to receive the second
luchot, God promised him that His "shchinah" would
indeed
return to the camp (see 34:8-10), however it was first
necessary for Bnei Yisrael to build the Mishkan to
facilitate
its return. [Note Shmot 25:8 -"v'asu li mikdash
v'shachanti
B'TOCHAM" - in contrast to 33:7.]
    Once the construction of the Mishkan was complete,
the
special korbanot of Yom ha'Shmini mark its climax - for
they
will facilitate the RETURN of the SHCHINA:
    "For today God's glory (kvod Hashem) will appear to
you"
(9:5) [See also 9:23-24, compare with Shmot 24:16-18.]

    Therefore, the special korbanot offered during this
ceremony serve a double purpose, reflecting this
background:
    (1) They must atone for the sins of "chet ha'egel".
    (2) They must recreate the experience of Ma'amad Har
Sinai.

    This is precisely what we find:
(1) Due to CHET HA'EGEL:
    Aharon must bring a chatat and olah:
     "He said to Aharon: Take an 'EGEL' for a CHATAT..."
(9:2)
    Bnei Yisrael must also bring a chatat and olah:
     "Speak to Bnei Yisrael saying: Take a 'seir' for a
chatat
    and a an 'EGEL' and a 'keves' for an olah..." (9:3)

(2) To 'recreate' MA'AMAD HAR SINAI:
    Bnei Yisrael must also offer a Korban Shlamim
together
    with their olot, just as they had offered when God
    appeared onto them during Ma'amad Har Sinai (see
Shmot
    24:4-11, read carefully!).
              "[to Bnei Yisrael, cont'd.,...] and a
'shor' and
         'ayil' for a SHLAMIM to offer before God, and a
         mincha, FOR TODAY GOD WILL APPEAR TO YOU."
(9:4)
                         [This parallel emphasizes, once
              again, the purpose of the Mishkan as a
              perpetuation of Har Sinai.]

YOM HA'SHMINI / YOM KIPPUR AND SHAVUOT
    Although the special korbanot of Yom ha'Shmini were
a 'one-
time event', we find a very similar set of korbanot that
are
offered every year on Yom Kippur which reflect this very
same
purpose.

YOM KIPPUR
    Recall from Vayikra chapter 16 that on Yom Kippur a
special Chatat and Olah are offered by the Kohen Gadol
and
another set are offered by Bnei Yisrael. Recall as well
that
these korbanot are offered on the very same day that
Bnei
Yisrael received atonement for chet ha'egel!
    The following table highlights this parallel:

           YOM HA'SHMINI   YOM KIPPUR (in Acharei Mot)
           ============	   ===========
AHARON
    Chatat:     EGEL       PAR   (= an adult egel)
    Olah:       AYIL       AYIL

BNEI YISRAEL
    Chatat:     SE'IR      SE'IR
    Olah:       KEVES      AYIL   (an adult keves)
                EGEL            - - (+ korbanot in
Pinchas
                                    i.e. par ayil &
k'vasim)

    [The basic structure of korbanot is the same. The
minute
    differences can be explained due to the special
nature of
    Yom Ha'Shmini. See Further Iyun Section.]

    Hence, Yom Kippur can be understood as an annual
rededication of the Mishkan, especially from the
perspective
of its purpose as a site where Bnei Yisrael can receive
atonement for their sins.

SHAVUOT
    Even though the primary parallel to Yom ha'Shmini is
clearly Yom Kippur, there was an additional korban
SHLAMIM
offered on Yom ha'Shmini that doesn't find a parallel on
Yom
Kippur.  [This only stands to reason, as a korban
Shlamim is
eaten, and on Yom Kippur we are not allowed to eat.]
However,
we do find a parallel to this korban on Shavuot, which
just so
happens to be the only holiday when Bnei Yisrael offer a
'collective' Korban Shlamim:
    "And with the 'shtei ha'lechem' you shall offer an
olah...
    a chatat... and two lambs for a ZEVACH SHLAMIM" (Vyk
    23:19)

    Recall as well that the first time Bnei Yisrael
offered a
shlamim was at Ma'amad Har Sinai (see Shmot 24:5). As
the
Mishkan was to perpetuate that experience, we find a
korban
Shlamim offered at the inaugural ceremony of the Mishkan
on
Yom ha'Shmini. To remember that event, we offer a
special
korban Shlamim (shel tzibur) every year on Shavuot,
commemorating Ma'amad Har Sinai. It is not by chance
that this
korban, like the korbanot of Yom ha'Shmini, is offered
at the
completion of seven cycles of seven days.

NADAV AND AVIHU
    At the conclusion of this ceremony, Nadav and Avihu
are
punished by death for offering "aish zara" which God had
NOT
COMMANDED (see 10:1-2). Again we find a parallel to Har
Sinai
and chet ha'egel. At Har Sinai, Bnei Yisrael AND the
Kohanim
were forewarned:
    "And God told Moshe: Go down and WARN the people
that they
    must not break through [the barrier surrounding] Har
    Sinai, lest they gaze at Hashem and perish. The
KOHANIM
    also, who COME NEAR HASHEM, must sanctify themselves
    ("yitkadashu" - compare "b'krovei akadesh"/10:3),
lest God
    punish them." (Shmot 19:21)
                         [See also Chizkuni on Vayikra
10:3-
4.]

    As this inaugural ceremony parallels the events of
Har
Sinai, the warning concerning approaching Har Sinai also
applies to the Mishkan. Extra caution was necessary.
    Similarly, just as Aharon, despite his good
intentions,
had sinned at Chet ha'Egel, in suggesting an action
which GOD
HAD NOT COMMANDED, so too his children Nadav and Avihu.
Despite their good intention when offering this "aish
zarah",
God DID NOT COMMAND them to do so! [Recall the
repetition of
"ka'asher tzivah Hashem et Moshe in Parshiot
Vayakhel/Pekudei.]
    Because of these events, i.e. the improper entry of
Nadav
and Avihu into the Mishkan, Sefer Vayikra continues at
this
point with a discussion of the laws of "tumah v'tahara",
which
regulate who is permitted and who is forbidden to enter
the
Mishkan (chaps 11-16).

WHY IN SEFER VAYIKRA?
    Now that we have explained the purpose of these two
dedication ceremonies, we must explain why this lone
lengthy
narrative of Sefer Vayikra is recorded in this sefer
instead
of in Sefer Shmot.
    One could suggest that this narrative, even though
it may
technically 'belong' in Sefer Shmot, is recorded
specifically
in Sefer Vayikra because of the special connection
between
this narrative and the laws of korbanot in Sefer
Vayikra:
    The special "ayil" offered during the 'seven day
miluim'
ceremony, we explained, serves as the 'prototype' for
the
korban SHLAMIM for it included the separation of the
"chazeh
v'shok" for the kohen offering the korban. Therefore,
this
narrative is recorded immediately after the laws of the
korban
SHLAMIM in Parshat Tzav (see 7:35-37 & last week's
shiur).
    Similarly, the special korbanot offered on Yom
ha'Shmini
can be understood as the 'prototype' for the yearly
korbanot
offered yearly on Yom Kippur as detailed later in
chapter 16,
and the special korban Shlamim offered on Shavuot as
explained
later in chapter 23. Finally, the narrative describing
Nadav &
Avihu's forbidden entry in the Kodesh serves as the
introduction to an entire set of laws concerning who CAN
and
who CANNOT enter the Mikdash, beginning in chapter 11
and
continuing thru chapter 16.
    Accordingly, we can continue to understand Sefer
Vayikra
as a 'book of laws' - "torat kohanim".  However, it
includes
this narrative describing the dedication of the Mikdash
for
that story serves as the basis for various types of
korbanot
that are offered in the Mishkan.
    In the shiurim to follow, we will continue to
discuss this
theme.

                              shabbat shalom,
                              menachem

PART TWO  - "KEDUSHA" in the 'SEVEN DAY' MILUIM CEREMONY
    Review once again the details in chapter 8, noting
how
there is something special about the MIZBAYACH and the
KOHANIM.  Even though the sprinkling of the "shemen
hamishcha"
was sufficient to sanctify the Mishkan and its vessels,
the
MIZBAYACH and the KOHANIM required an additional
procedure.
Furthermore, unlike the other vessels, the mizbayach was
anointed SEVEN times (see Vayikra 8:11).
    To understand why this additional procedure was
necessary,
we must note the use of the word "l'kadesh" in this
'parshia'.
Note the Torah's use of the word "l'kadesh" in Vayikra
8:10-
12, 8:15, 8:30,34-35 as well as Shmot 29:1,34-37!
Clearly,
the purpose of these seven days was to sanctify -
"l'kadesh" -
the Mishkan.
    The Hebrew word "l'kadesh" means 'to set aside' or
'to
designate'.  For example, in Breishit 2:3, God sets
aside the
seventh day ["va'ykadesh oto"] to make it special, and
in
Shmot 13:1, God commands  "kadesh li kol bchor" - set
aside
for Me every first born.  Similarly, God is "kadosh", as
He is
set aside, divine, above all.
    Hence, the purpose of these procedures of the
"miluim"
ceremony was to 'designate' (and hence sanctify) the
Mishkan
and its vessels for a Divine purpose.  However, the
MIZBAYACH
and the KOHANIM required a little 'extra'
sanctification.
    To explain why, we must return to our conclusion
from our
shiur on Parshat Tezaveh that the Mishkan [= OHEL MOED,
a tent
of meeting] served as the place where Bnei Yisrael could
'meet' God. However, this 'meeting' was distanced, as
each
'partner' had his special realm:
?    The KODESH KEDOSHIM - where the ARON is placed
represents
   God's presence in the Mishkan; and
?    The MIZBAYACH - where the Bnei Yisrael's korbanot
are
   offered, represents Am Yisrael, and their attempt to
serve
   Him.

    However, in light of the events of "chet ha'egel"
[see TSC
shiur on Parshat Ki-tisa] it became apparent how Bnei
Yisrael
were barely worthy of this encounter.  It was only God's
attributes of Mercy that allowed His "shechina" to dwell
in
the Mishkan.  One could suggest that to emphasize this
very
point, an extra procedure is required specifically for
the
KOHANIM and for the MIZBAYACH, for they represent Bnei
Yisrael
in this encounter.
    [Note that immediately after Matan Torah, the
mizbayach is
    referred to as a "mizbach ADAMah" (see Shmot 20:21).
This
    may relate to man's name - "adam" and his creation
in Gan
    Eden "afar min ha'adamah".  This is reflected in the
    Midrash that claims that this "afar" was taken from
Har
    HaMoriah, the site of the mizbayach of the Akeydah,
and
    later to become the site of the Temple.]

WHY SEVEN?
    Why must this "hakdasha" be repeated for seven days?
    Whenever we find the number 'seven' in Chumash, it
invariably relates to perek aleph in Breishit, i.e. the
story
of God's creation of nature, in seven days.
    God's very first act of "kedusha" was to 'set aside'
the
SEVENTH day, to mark His completion of the Creation
process
(see Br. 2:1-4). By 'resting' on this day, man is
constantly
reminded of the divine purpose of His creation. Thus,
the
"kedusha" of shabbat reflects this divine purpose of
creation.
    Similarly, any procedure that includes the number
seven
(be it seven items, seven times, seven days, seven
weeks,
seven years etc.) emphasizes man's requirement to
recognize
the purpose of his creation. By repeating this procedure
of
"kedushat ha'mizbayach v'hakohanim"' for seven days, the
purpose of the mizbayach to become a vehicle through
which man
can come closer to God is emphasized.
    [Once again, we find a connection between the
function of
    the Mishkan and the purpose of the creation. This
was
    discussed in the shiur on Parshat Vayakhel. It is
    supported by numerous Midrashim which view the
    construction of the Mishkan as the completion of
Creation.
    Compare carefully Shmot 39:32 to Br.2:1; and Shmot
39:43
    to Br.1:31 & 2:3!]

    With this background, we can suggest that the seven
day
miluim ceremony serves a double purpose, thus explaining
why
its details is found twice.
    In Sefer Shmot, the "miluim" service infuses the
Mishkan
and its vessels with the necessary "kedusha", and hence
becomes an integral stage of the Mishkan's CONSTRUCTION.
Therefore, its commandment is included in Trumah/Tzaveh
together with all the other commandments to build the
Mishkan.
    In Sefer Vayikra it initiates the use of the
Mizbayach,
the primary FUNCTION of the Mishkan. The korbanot
offered
during the miluim represent the basic categories of
sacrifices
that will be brought by man on the Mizbayach:
    the Chatat - "the korban chova";
    the Olah - the "korban n'dava";
    the Ayl ha'miluim - the prototype of the "korban
shlamim";
               (see Further Iyun Section).

    Therefore, this narrative that describes the
offering of
the korbanot during this ceremony is included in Sefer
Vayikra, and juxtaposed to the laws of Korbanot
(Parshiot
Vayikra/Tzav).
    [Note now 7:37 and the inclusion of "torat
ha'miluim" in
    the summary pasuk of Parshat Tzav!]


===================
FOR FURTHER IYUN

A. During the seven day miluim, the "shemen ha'mishcha"
oil
was used to dedicate the Mishkan and its vessels. Relate
this
to the story of Yaakov's neder in Bet-tel as described
in
Breishit 28:18-22 and 35:9-14!).

B. In contrast to the korbanot of 'seven day miluim',
the
commandment to offer the special korbanot of "Yom
ha'Shmini"
are never mentioned beforehand, not even in
Trumah/Tzaveh!
1. Relate this to their function as atonement for Chet
ha'Egel.
2. Relate this to the machloket Rashi/Ramban concerning
when
Trumah/Tzaveh was given (before or after Chet haEgel)?
3. How does Aharon's korban on the seven day miluim
relate to
his korban on Yom Shmini?
    See Rashi on 9:1-2, noting that he states that
Aharon's
"egel" on Yom ha'Shmini was to INFORM us that God had
forgiven
Aharon for chet ha'egel, in contrast to Ramban who
explains
the the "egel" itself was because Aharon still needed
kapara
for chet ha'egel. Explain this Rashi based on Rashi on
Shmot
29:1-2 and his machloket with Ramban concerning WHEN the
commandment to build the Mishkan was given.

C. The korbanot of the seven day miluim ceremony can be
seen
as the symbol of all korbanot which will be offered on
the
mizbayach.
    The category of chatat could include the subcategory
of
asham ("k'chatat k'asham"...).
    The category of olah could include all korbanot
n'dava
which are kodsehi kodshim, including mincha. The
category of
ayil ha'miluim includes all korbanot n'dava which are
kodshim
kalim.

1. Note the similarities between the ayl ha'miluim and
the
standard korban shlamim, especially in regard to the
chazeh
and shok. 8:25,29. See also 8:31. Relate this to
7:28-37,
especially to the fact that in 7:37 miluim precedes
zevach
ha'shlamim!
2. Note that in Parshat Tzaveh, the laws of korban Tamid
follow the commandment of the miluim (see Shmot
29:38-41).
    Use this to explain the significance of the korban
Tamid,
and its function as the continuation of Har Sinai.
Relate to
Bamidbar 28:6!
    Relate this to the other "avodot tamid" in the
Mishkan.
3. Note also that during the seven day miluim ceremony,
the
"dam chatat" is sprinkled on the four corners on TOP of
the
mizbayach, while the "dam olah" is sprinkled on the
BOTTOM.
Explain the meaning of these two sections of the
mizbayach.


D. The pattern of seven days followed by the 'eighth
day' is
also found in "brit milah", succot and shmini atzeret,
shavuot
after seven weeks, yovel after seven shmitot, korbanot
machshirin of metzora and zav. [Find other examples.]
Based on
the above shiur, explain why.

E. To better understand the punishment of Nadav and
Avihu,
review Shmot 19:20-25, 24:1 & 8-9, and compare to
Vayikra 10:1-
3.

F. The parallel korbanot brought on Yom ha'Shmini and at
Ma'amad Har Sinai are far from identical. Although both
events
include "korbanot olot & shlamim", there are several
differences on 'Yom ha'Shmini'. The following table
compares
the korbanot of both events and notes the differences
with a
'*' followed by a letter:

           HAR SINAI          YOM HA'SHMINI
AM YISRAEL:
                           *A* Chatat - 'seir' (goat)
    Olah - par (bull)       *B* Olah -'egel' & keves
    Shlamim - par (bull)      Shlamim -'shor' & 'ayil'

AHARON:                    *C* Chatat - 'egel'
     (no korban)                   Olah -  'ayil'

*A) On 'Yom ha'Shmini' the Nation adds a korban
'chatat'.
*B) On 'Yom ha'Shmini' an 'egel' is offered instead of a
'par'.)
*C) On 'Yom ha'Shmini' Aharon is required to bring an
extra
korban.

    These differences can be understood in light of
"chet
ha'egel". We will now explain each letter.
A) As the Nation had sinned, they must now offer a
'chatat'.
B) This minor change from 'par' to an 'egel' reflects
their
sin.
C) As Aharon had sinned, he must bring a 'chatat &
olah'.

    The significance of this "egel l'chatat" is accented
by
comparing this korban to the 'chatat & olah' of the
'miluim':
'7 day miluim' -  "PAR  l'chatat v'ayil l'olah"
'Yom ha'Shmini' -  "EGEL l'chatat v'ayil l'olah"
    There is only one minor change - the 'egel' (a calf
- baby
bull) replaces the 'par' (adult bull). Whenever the
kohen
gadol is required to bring a chatat, it is always a
'par' (see
4:3). On this special day his standard korban is changed
to an
'egel', reflecting his atonement for Chet ha'egel.
    The nation was also commanded to bring a 'chatat'.
If
indeed this 'chatat' was in atonement for chet ha'egel,
it too
should have been an 'egel'. Why was this korban a
'seir'?
    The reason is actually quite simple. Whenever the
NATION
brings a 'chatat' it can only be a 'seir' - a goat. (See
parshat ha'musafim bamidbar chps.28->29/ each korban
musaf is
always a "seir izim l'chatat"). Therefore, the Nation
must
bring a chatat because of Chet ha'egel, however the
animal
must be a 'seir'.
    The case of Aharon is different. The standard korban
chatat of the Kohen Gadol is a 'par' (vayikra 4:3).
Therefore,
the change from a 'par' to an 'egel' is permitted, as an
'egel' is simply a baby 'par'.
    A very similar change from 'par' to 'egel' does take
place
in the Nation's korban 'olah'. At Har Sinai the nation
brought
a 'par' as an 'olah'. Now, on 'Yom ha'Shmini' they bring
an
'egel' instead of the standard 'par'. Recall that an
olah can
also be offered in atonement for a sin when one is not
obligated to bring a chatat.
     The second animal of the Nation's korban 'olah' is
a
lamb. It is the standard 'olah' of every "korban tzibur"
offered in the Mishkan.
    The korban 'shlamim' is a 'shor & ayil'. At Har
Sinai, the
shlamim were also 'parim'. ('par' and 'shor' are two
names for
the same animal - a bull). Due to the nature of the
korban
shlamim (a peace offering), it would not be proper to
offer a
'reminder' of chet ha'egel. This korban relates only to
the
'hitgalut' aspect of this ceremony.
     The second animal of the korban shlamim is an
'ayil'
(ram). One could suggest that this korban is a reminder
of
'akeidat yitchak', a cornerstone in the development of
our
covenantal relationship with Hashem.





No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0 - Release
Date: 3/24/2008 12:00 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shmini1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 64090 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080326/59e7d143/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Fri Mar 28 04:04:32 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 04:04:32 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] for Parshat Parah
Message-ID: <001f01c890aa$5b12fbf0$1300000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

                    "ZOT CHUKAT HA'TORAH"
					[For Parshat
Chukat & Parshat Parah]

        	WHAT'S A CHOK, AND WHAT'S A TORAH?

	How should one translate the phrase "ZOT CHUKAT
HA'TORAH" (see 19:2) in the opening psukim of Parshat
Para?
[Note how just about every English translation slightly
varies in their attempt to interpret this verse, e.g.
"the Torah's decree" (Stone & Living Torah), "a ritual
law" (JPS), etc.]

	Many students of Chumash innocently assume that
the word "torah" refers to the entire Torah, while the
word "chok" implies a specific law that has no obvious
reason; and hence - this opening pasuk informs the
reader that the laws of Parah Adumah (that will follow)
will be the quintessential example in the entire Bible
of a law that doesn't make any sense.  
	In the following shiur, we will consider an
alternate understanding of the words "chok" and "torah"
in this pasuk, based on their meaning elsewhere in
Chumash.  While doing so, we will attempt to arrive at a
clearer understanding of this special set of laws, and
the purpose of this enigmatic opening phrase.

INTRODUCTION
	Today, in common conversation, the word 'Torah'
is used to describe either the entire Bible, or even the
entire corpus of Jewish law.  In fact, even the study of
the Oral Law, such as the Mishna and Talmud is referred
to 'Torah study'.  
    However, when we examine the use of the word "torah"
in Chumash, we find that it has a very different
meaning.  Instead of referring to the entire book, the
word "torah" in the books of Vayikra and Bamidbar
usually refers to a specific type of law, usually one of
a procedural nature. 
    For example, in our study of Parshat Tzav, we saw
how each paragraph (in the section describing how to
offer the various korbanot / chapters 6 thru 7) began
with the phrase 
    "zot torat ha' -----" - 
      ['this is the procedure for the ------ offering:
..."
    
    Hence, the phrase "zot TORAT ha'mincha..." (see
6:7-10) is translated: "this is the PROCEDURE for how to
offer the korban mincha" - followed by the details
concerning how the kohanim are to offer it.  Similarly,
"zot TORAT ha'chatat" introduces the laws of how to
offer the "korban chatat" (see 6:18 and 7:1, etc.).
    
    An even better example is found in Sefer Bamidbar,
at the conclusion of the laws concerning the procedure
that the priest must conduct to test whether the "sota"
[a wife accused by her husband for 'cheating'] was
innocent or guilty.  Note the use of the word "torah" in
the pasuk that summarizes this lengthy process:
"zot TORAT ha'knaot - this is the torah [the procedure]
for this case of 'jealousy', when a wife... or when the
spirit of jealousy comes upon a man, and he be jealous
over his wife.. and the priest shall execute upon her
all this TORAH"  - i.e. this procedure!  (see Bamidbar
5:29-30 in its context)

	With this background, we can begin our attempt
to understand the word "torah" in Parshat Para - to show
that here as well, it refers to a specific procedure
(and not to the entire Chumash)!

THE LAWS OF TUMAT MEYT
	To appreciate what procedures are discussed in
Bamidbar chapter 19, we must first provide a short
overview of the basic laws of "tumat meyt" [spiritual
uncleanliness, caused by contact with a dead body].
    According to Jewish law, if a person touches (or is
in the same room with) a dead body, he becomes "tamey"
[spiritually unclean] for period of at least seven days,
during which time he is not permitted to enter the
Temple courtyard.  To 'cleanse' himself of this "tumah",
a special 'procedure' is required.  The kohen [priest]
must sprinkle upon him from a special solution
consisting of spring water mixed with specially prepared
ashes of a "para Adumah" - a 'red heifer'. 
    The first sprinkling can only be performed after
three days, and then needs to be repeated four days
later, i.e. on day seven.  At sunset of that seventh
day, he becomes "tahor" [spiritually clean] and hence
permitted once again to enter the Temple.

TWO PROCEDURES IN THE PROCESS
	Obviously, before the kohen can perform this
'sprinkling procedure' - someone has to first make the
'ashes'.  Hence, the first procedure [="torah"] that
Chumash will describe will be how to make these ashes.
As only a small amount (of ashes) is needed to make this
special solution, the ashes collected from the burning
of each "para aduma" could suffice for decades.
	After the explanation of this first procedure,
Chumash will explain the details for the second "torah"
- i.e. the procedure whereby the kohen sprinkles this
solution of the "tmey meyt".
	Therefore, as we study chapter 19, we should
expect to uncover the details of two procedures:

PROCEDURE #1 - Making the 'ashes' of the parah adumah.
		[as detailed in 19:2-9!)

PROCEDURE #2 - Sprinkling these ashes (mixed with
water).
    [as detailed in 19:17-19!]

	As we study these psukim, we will show how these
two procedures also contain several consequential laws,
which we identify as "chukim"!  Therefore, before we
begin our detailed study, we must first explain the
Biblical meaning of the word "chok".

WHAT'S A CHOK?
	Contrary to popular opinion, a "chok" is not the
name for a Biblical law that doesn't make sense (or has
no reason).  Indeed, we will find "chukim" that have no
obvious reason, and that may even be 'characteristic' of
a "chok" - but it is not the definition of a "chok"!
Instead, a "chok" is a statute - i.e. a set law or
ordinance that doesn't change.
	To clarify this point, let's take an example
from a law that you are all familiar with: the Korban
Pesach.  Everyone knows why we offer the Korban Pesach -
to commemorate how God saved Am Yisrael from the Tenth
Plague.  Certainly, this mitzvah makes a lot of sense,
but to your surprise - Chumash refers to this law as a
CHOK and gives a reason! Let's take a look:
"... and you should keep this commandment (of Korban
Pesach) as a CHOK for you and your children for ever.
When you come into the Land that God shall give you...
keep this ritual. And when your children will ask: What
is this ritual for you? Tell them it is the Pesach
offering, for God passed over the houses of Bnei Yisrael
when He smote the Egyptians..." (see Shmot 12:24-27!)

	In fact, Chumash refers to all of the Jewish
Holidays as CHUKIM (see Parshat Emor - Vayikra
23:14,21,31 & 41) - because they are set in the yearly
calendar, and repeat themselves every year!
    Chumash also uses the word "chok" to describe
statutes that are not mitzvot. For example, when Sefer
Breishit describes how Yosef purchased of the land from
the Egyptians, we are informed that he cannot acquire
the land belonging to the priests - because:
"... it is the CHOK of the priests by Pharaoh, that they
eat their portion [lechem CHUKAM] that Pharaoh had given
them..."	(see Breishit 47:20-22 and its context)

    Two psukim later, we find another example, where
Chumash describes the 20% set land tax imposed on
Egyptian produce as a "chok" (see Breishit 47:26)

	For a similar reason, when Bnei Yisrael are
required to produce a certain daily output of bricks,
Sefer Shmot describes this set quota as a CHOK:
"...and the taskmasters of Bnei Yisrael scolded them
saying - Why did you not complete CHOK'CHEM [your quota]
to make bricks as before..." (see Shmot 5:14 and its
context)

	Note also how Yirmiyahu refers to the laws of
astronomy, i.e. the constant and unchanging cycles of
the sun and moon around the earth, as "CHUKOT shamayim
v'aretz" (see Yirmiyahu 33:25 and even better, see
Yirmiyahu 31:35-36!).

	For this reason, the holidays in Parshat Emor
are referred to as CHUKIM for they celebrated on a
REGULAR basis, once a year based on the solar
(agricultural) calendar.  Hence, a "chok" implies
something constant that doesn't change - a statute.

THE CHOK OF TUMAT MEYT
	Let's see now how the word "chok" would apply to
the laws of "tumat meyt".
    The law that a person who touches a dead body
becomes "tamey" for seven days should definitely be
considered a "chok"  - for it is a law that never
changes - it remains constant.
[In modern Hebrew we find a similar use, where the 'laws
of nature' are called CHUKEI ha'TEVA. Take for example
Newton's laws of motion - they are set and don't
change.]

	Based on this definition, a CHOK can be logical,
but it doesn't have to be! Certain CHUKIM may be beyond
our comprehension, however many other CHUKIM can
actually make a lot of sense. Therefore we find some
"chukim" that are quite logical, while others are not -
however, the fact that a certain law is not logical,
does not define it as a CHOK! 
	In contrast, a MISHPAT, as its name implies, is
a JUDGEMENT - based on reason. The very concept of a
MISHPAT relates to a decision or judgment that must be
made between two claims that come before the court.
Hence, the Torah refers to the entire set of civil laws
relating to damages etc. in Shmot chapters 21->23 as
MISHPATIM (see Shmot 21:1 & 24:3).
	With this  background, let's read through
Parshat Parah and attempt to identify more precisely
where we find a TORAH and where we find a CHOK, and how
they relate to one another.  As we read, we will notice
how the chapter neatly divides into two sections,
according to the two procedures that we mentioned above.

[As a teacher's note - to explain this concept of TORAH
as a procedure, take the word 'recipe' as an example. A
recipe demands a certain procedure to attain a certain
goal, i.e. a sponge cake recipe requires that we take 4
eggs, flour, water, sugar; mix them into a batter, and
bake it etc. The result - a cake - and hence the recipe
card is titled: Sponge cake. In a similar manner, the
Parshat Parah informs us of the proper 'recipe' [i.e.
the TORAH] to make the ashes for "efer parah"!]

PROCEDURE #1 & its CHUKIM
	We assumed above that the first "torah" (or
procedure) would describe how to prepare the "efer
ha'parah" [the ashes of the heifer], that will later be
used for sprinkling).  As you review 19:2-6, note how
these psukim describe precisely this procedure:
19:2-3 -
	Take a red heifer (one without a blemish) and
give it to Elazar (the deputy high priest) who must
slaughter it outside the camp.
19:4 -
Sprinkle the blood of the heifer seven times opposite
the entrance to the Ohel Moed.
 19:5-6 -
Burn the carcass of the heifer together with branches
from both a hyssop and cedar tree, etc., until in turns
into ashes.

	Now that the 'ashes' have been prepared, the
Torah informs us of two special CHUKIM that accompany
this process:
 19:7 -	
The kohen who PERFORMS this procedure becomes "tamey"
[that's a CHOK], therefore he must wash his clothes and
remains "tamey" until the evening ["tumat yom"].
19:8 -	
The kohen who BURNS the animal becomes "tamey" [that's
also a CHOK], and must wash his clothes etc.

Then Chumash continues with the final stages of this
procedure:
 19:9 -
A clean person must COLLECT the ashes and stores them
outside the camp. This is actually the final stage of
the procedure [i.e. part of the TORAH].
 19:10 -
This person who collects the ashes also become "tamey"
[just like the other two]. That's yet another CHOK!

	Hence, we find that this specific procedure of
making the "efer" is accompanied by several special
CHUKIM. Note how these CHUKIM, even though they are not
an integral part of the procedure, they are a direct
consequence - and therefore should be defined as related
"chukim" [statutes], but not an integral part of the
procedure.
[If we use again our "mashal" from the cake recipe, the
person mixing the batter must later wash his hands, but
that does not affect how the cake comes out!]

	To prove these definitions, let's take a more
careful look at this last pasuk, as it explains the
purpose of this procedure. i.e. for these ashes must be
used for the CHOK of "tumat meyt":. 
"The person who collects the ashes must wash his
clothes, and [these ashes] are to be [used] for Bnei
Yisrael for a CHUKAT OLAM - an everlasting statute:
[i.e. introducing the CHOK of:]
 -  One who touches a dead body becomes "tamey" for
seven days.  If he is sprinkled upon on the third &
seventh day, he becomes "tahor"; if not he remains
"tamey"... and should he enter the Mikdash, he is to be
cut off from Israel." 
    (see 19:10-13)
    
	These psukim end the first section of Parshat
Parah, as the ashes are prepared, and we are also
informed of what they will be needed for.
    Now that the "efer" is prepared, we are ready to
discuss the second TORAH [procedure] found in this
chapter, i.e. the precise details of this 'sprinkling
process' - known in Hebrew as "torat ha'haza'ah".

PROCEDURE #2 and its CHUKIM
	Let's take a look now at 19:14. Note how this
pasuk (at first glance) seems to contradict our
definition of a TORAH:
"And this is the TORAH - a person who dies in a tent,
everything in the tent becomes tamey [unclean] for seven
days. And any open vessel... it too becomes tamey..." 
    (19:14-15)

	Based on our above definitions of CHOK & TORAH,
this law [of how one contracts "tumat meyt"] should be
considered a "chok" for it describes a set law that
never changes!  Why then does 19:14 introduce this law
as a TORAH?
	The answer to this question is quite simple.
    If one reads the next set of psukim carefully, it
becomes clear that the phrase "ZOT HA'TORAH" in 19:14 is
INTRODUCING the procedure that is defined later on
19:17-19.   In other words, we need to add the word
'for' in 19:14 [i.e. a "lamed" after "zot ha'torah
L'adam asher yamut b'ohel..." [which is implicit based
on the context - see also Rashbam on 19:2!].
    
    In this manner, 19:14-16 should be translated as
follows:
	
    "This is the TORAH  - FOR:
a) the case when a person dies in a tent, then
everything in the tent becomes "tamey" (19:14), [and
for...]
		b)	any open vessel in that tent
(19:15), or
c) any person who touched a dead body in the field or
bone or grave (who also becomes "tamey" (19:16)

	THEN: for any of these "tamey" persons or
objects, we must take from the "efer" [the ashes of the
heifer] and put it into a vessel with water (see 19:17)
in order to perform PROCEDURE #2 [i.e. "torat
ha'za'ah"], as explained in the next set of psukim:
"A person who is TAHOR [clean] shall take a hyssop
branch, dip it in the water [mixed with the ashes], and
then sprinkle it on (either) the tent and vessels, or on
the person who touched the bones... or who touched a
grave..." (see 19:18).
    
	This procedure, as described in 19:18, was first
introduced by the phrase "zot ha'TORAH" in 19:14.  The
next pasuk (19:19) informs us that this procedure must
be repeated on both the third and seventh days (see
19:19).

THE CHUKIM OF PROCEDURE #2
	This second procedure, just like the first
procedure, is also accompanied by certain consequential
"chukim":
    a) he who sprinkles the solution becomes "tamey" 
(see 19:21, see also Rashi who quotes Chazal's
understanding that it refers to only someone who carries
this solution, but not actually the one who sprinkles
it);
    b) anyone who touches this solution also becomes
"tamey"
     (see 19:22).
[i.e. "tamey for one day, he must wash his clothes and
then he becomes "tahor" at sunset.]

	Note how both Procedures #1 and #2 carry with
them very similar consequential CHUKIM, i.e. anyone who
is involved in this process of either making the "efer",
or sprinkling it upon someone else, becomes "tamey".

CHUKAT ha'TORAH
	Based on these definitions, we can suggest an
explanation for the opening phrase "CHUKAT ha'TORAH"
that introduces these laws (see 19:1). As we have shown,
this chapter contains many special CHUKIM that relate to
the TORAH (procedures) of "tahara" from "tumat meyt",
i.e. 
    (1) making the ashes; and
    (2) sprinkling the "mei chatat" - water w/ashes
solution.
     
	Each of these two procedures carry special
"chukim" that accompany these procedures: The special
chukim all have one common denominator. Anyone involved
in these procedures for cleansing one who is "tamey" -
he himself becomes "tamey". This strange CHOK that by
making someone else TAHOR you become TAMEY is an inherit
'statute' [CHOK] of this 'procedure' [TORAH]. Hence,
this may be the technical meaning of this introductory
phrase "chukat ha'torah", i.e.
	- the CHOK {that those involved becomes "tamey"]
in 
	 the TORAH [procedure] required to cleanse
"tumat meyt".

	Clearly, this CHOK appears to negate all logic -
for why should the person involved in the process of
making someone else TAHOR become TAMEY? For this reason,
this specific CHOK becomes a classic example of a law
that doesn't make sense (see Rashi 19:2).  HOWEVER, this
does not mean that the definition of a CHOK is a law
that doesn't make sense!  As we explained above, a CHOK
is a set law.  CHUKIM don't have to make sense, but
certainly it is OK if they do.
	
THE RAMBAM
	A similar explanation of CHUKIM is found in the
Rambam in his concluding section of Sefer Avodah in
Hilchot Meilla. Note how Rambam differentiates between
CHUKIM and MISHPATIM:
"... the MISHPATIM are laws whose reason is evident
["taamam geluyah"] and the benefit for keeping them is
apparent in this world, e.g. the prohibition to steal or
to murder, or honoring one's parents; while the CHUKIM
are laws whose reason is not evident ["taamam eino
geluyah"]... and the laws of Korbanot fall under
category of CHUKIM..." [see Hilchot Meilla 8:8]

	Note the examples that Rambam uses for Mishpatim
- stealing, murder, and honoring one's parents. Even
though these are mitzvot in the Torah, they are based on
a very obvious rational. Even without the Torah, most
societies establish similar laws for they are based on
common sense. In contrast, CHUKIM are divine decrees and
as such do not necessarily need to be based on any
obvious reason. Nevertheless, note how Rambam demands
that we make every effort to understand God's reason for
the CHUKIM as well:
"It is fitting that one should contemplate the laws of
the Torah to understand their reasoning to the best of
his ability. But should he find a law that he does not
understand (or does not make sense to him)... he should
not conclude that they are any less important, rather he
must keep them and treat them with the utmost respect...

    (see Rambam Hilchot Meillah - the beginning of 8:8) 

	Even though CHUKIM (by their very nature) don't
have to make sense ["ein taamam glu'yah"], nevertheless
Rambam implores that we make every effort to try to
understand them, Should one be unable to find a reason
for a certain CHOK, he must relate this lack of
understanding to his own inability to grasp God's
infinite wisdom rather than conclude that the CHOK has
no purpose.  [Note for example how Ramban mentions if
this final halacha that "korbanot" are a classic example
of CHUKIM, yet in his MOREH NEVUCHIM he makes effort to
explain the reason and logic for each and every type of
korban! In fact, Rambam claims that if we were aware of
all the various types of Avodah Zarah that existed in
the time of Yetziat Mitzraim, we would be able to
understand the reason for ALL of the CHUKIM of korbanot!
[See Moreh III, the closing two paragraphs of chapter
49.] In fact, one could consider Rambam's attempt in
Moreh Nevuchim to provide a reason for the various laws
korbanot an example of what he suggested in Hilchot
Meillah 8:8 - i.e. that we attempt with the best of our
ability to understand the reasons for CHUKIM as well.]
	This dialectic, where on the one hand we must
'blindly' accept each and every one of God's CHUKIM,
even though we may not understand them, yet at the same
time we are encouraged to make every intellectual effort
to attempt to comprehend their reason - is a beautiful
example of the challenge of our faith in God. In
Judaism, our faith in God can only be enhanced by our
constant quest for reason and truth.

	
shabbat shalom,
	
menachem
==============
FOR FURTHER IYUN
1. In Sefer Devarim, it appears that the word TORAH is
used in a very general context, referring to entire set
of mitzvot including many chukim and mishpatim. See 1:5,
4:44 - "v'zot ha'Torah asher sam Moshe...", 27:3 etc. 
	However, if you remember our study of the main
speech of Sefer Devarim, the use of the word Torah may
remain in its original context as a procedure. To
determine what the goal of that overall procedure is,
note carefully 5:1-2, 5:28, 6:1, and most important -the
closing psukim of that speech in 26:16-19, and relate to
Shmot 19:5-6! 
    In other words, the entire set of laws recorded in
the main speech in Sefer Devarim (chapters 5-26) are
consistently referred to as a "torah" - for they
comprise the 'procedure' for how to make Am Yisrael an
"am kadosh" - just as God originally proposed (and Bnei
Yisrael accepted) at Maamad Har Sinai!]

2. Can you find the logic of this chok that one who
makes someone else tahor becomes tamey?  Is there a law
of 'the conservation of tumah'?!   [Ask anyone in the
"kiruv" business!]


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1346 -
Release Date: 3/27/2008 10:03 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chukat3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 38902 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080328/f86d008a/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Apr  2 07:40:45 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 07:40:45 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Tazria - shiur
Message-ID: <005901c894b6$638776c0$9d00000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

            PARSHAT TAZRIA - From 7 to 8
               [& for Shmini Atzeret]

     What is so special about the number 'eight' in
Chumash?
Is it only coincidental that:
 *   In Sefer Breishit - specifically the 'eighth day'
is
chosen for Brit Milah;
 *   In Parshat Shmini - specifically the 'eighth day'
is
chosen for the dedication of the Mishkan;
 *   In Parshat Metzora - the 'eighth day' is chosen for
the
day on which the cleansed Metzora, Zav, and Zavah bring
their
special korbanot;
 *   In Parshat Emor - the final holiday is "SHMINI
atzeret" -
the 'eighth day' of Succot!
     In the following shiur, we attempt to explain why
the
number eight is so special, based on the Biblical
significance
of the number seven.

INTRODUCTION
     In previous shiurim we have discussed the special
relationship between the Number SEVEN and 'nature',
especially
in regard to the "shalosh regalim" [the three pilgrimage
holidays].  For example, in our shiur our Parshat Emor
we
noted that is not by chance that the Torah commands us
to:
  * Celebrate specifically SEVEN days of Chag Ha'matzot
in
  the spring; and then -
  * To count SEVEN weeks until the grain harvest holiday
of
  Shavuot; and finally -
  * To celebrate our fruit harvest during the SEVEN days
of
  Succot.

     The fact that each of these holidays include either
seven
days or seven weeks suggests a connection between the
number
seven and agriculture. By emphasizing SEVEN in relation
to
these agricultural holidays, the Torah highlights our
need to
recognize that the powers of nature are indeed God's
creation,
and we must thank Him accordingly.
  Similarly, our shiur on Parshat Breishit discussed how
the
Torah presents of the story of Creation as taking place
in
SEVEN days ? to emphasize how the very creation of
'nature'
itself was a willful act of the One God - and not the
result
of conflicts among a pantheon of many gods, each
exerting its
power over a certain part of nature.
     In the following shiur, we return to Sefer Breishit
in
search of the biblical significance of the number
'eight', to
show how and why it should relate to those 'seven' days
of
Creation.

EIGHT & BRIT MILAH
     In some of the examples quoted above from Sefer
Vayikra,
'eight' appears to be significant simply because it
follows a
sequence of 'seven' days. For example:
 *   "Yom Ha'shmini" follows the SEVEN days of the
"miluim";
 *   The korbanot on the eighth day of the Metzora and
Zav
follow their minimum SEVEN day "tahara" period;
 *   "Shmini Atzeret" follows the SEVEN days of Succot.

     However, when God first commanded Avraham Avinu
that
"brit milah" must be performed on the 'eighth day' after
a
child's birth (see Breishit 17:12) - there is no
apparent
reason why God chose specifically the 'eighth day'.
Certainly, it had nothing to do with a prior period of
'seven
days' (as did the other examples of a special 'eighth
day'
mentioned above).
  [Even though we are told in Parshat Tazria that the
mother
  is "tamey" (spiritually unclean) for the first seven
days
  after her son's birth (see Vayikra 12:2-5), there does
not
  appear to be any logical connection between these
seven
  days and the commandment to perform "milah' on the
eighth
  day that was first given way back in Sefer Breishit.
In
  fact, it seems quite the opposite - that because brit
milah
  needs to be performed on the eighth day, her 'tumah'
period
  is 'truncated' from 14 days to seven days.  ]
  
     In the following shiur, we re-examine this covenant
between God and Avraham Avinu [17:1-11/ better known as
"brit
milah"] in the 'wider' context of Sefer Breishit - to
uncover
a thematic connection between the 'eighth day' and the
'seven
days' of Creation.  [Hopefully, it will help us
understand not
only why "milah" is on the 'eighth day', but also why
the
holiday of "Shmini Atzeret" is so important.]

  As you most probably recall, the Torah uses several
names
to describe God (e.g. Elokim, Havaya, kel-shaddai,
etc.).
However, when the narrative of  "brit milah" begins in
chapter
17, something very peculiar takes place, as God
introduces
Himself to Avraham Avinu for the first time as
"kel-shaddai" -
after which the Torah consistently refers to God as
"Elokim"
(until the end of that chapter).
  To appreciate the thematic importance of this
observation,
we must first undertake a quick review of all the
previous
instances in Sefer Breishit when God spoke to man,
paying
special attention to when the Torah uses "shem Elokim".

IN WHAT 'NAME' DOES GOD SPEAK TO MAN?
     In our shiur on Parshat Breishit, we explained how
Chumash presents two parallel stories of God's creation
of the
universe:
  1) "b'shem ELOKIM" (1:1 -2:4) - [or  'perek aleph']
     which focused on God's creation of NATURE, i.e. a
     structured universe, in SEVEN days.

  2) "b'shem HAVAYA" (2:5-4:26) - [or 'perek bet']
     which focused on God's special relationship with
Man,
     i.e. the creation of Gan Eden, and man's banishment
from
     that environment after he sinned.

     Without going into the complex details and deeper
meaning
of this 'double presentation', we will simply posit that
God's
relationship with man develops along the lines of each
of
these two perspectives, as each of these divine Name
will
reflect a different perspective of the developing
relationship
between man and God.
     For example, in perek aleph, God - b'shem Elokim -
blesses man that he be fruitful & multiply, master the
earth
and rule over all other living creatures (see 1:26-28).
In
contrast to this perspective of man as ruler over God's
Creations, in perek bet - b'shem Havaya -man is created
in
order to become God's servant, whose job is to tend and
watch
over His Garden (see 2:15-17).
     This 'double perspective' is found once again in
the
Torah's account of the Flood, as God's decision to
destroy the
generation of the Flood (due to their sinful behavior)
is
presented according to both of these perspectives:
     1) b'shem Elokim - see 6:9-6:22.
     2) b'shem Havaya - see 6:5-8 & 7:1-5.

     Likewise, in the aftermath of the MABUL, God
redefines
His relationship with man, again from both perspectives:
     1) b'shem Elokim - see 9:1-17
     2) b'shem Havaya - see 8:18-21

     After the flood, the Torah describes ["b'shem
Elokim"]
how the children of Noach multiply and disperse into
seventy
nations (10:1-32), but immediately afterwards details
God's
punishment of the builders of the Tower of Babel while
referring to God using "shem Havaya" (see 11:1-10).

     At this point in Chumash (i.e. at the beginning of
Parshat Lech Lecha) this pattern (of 'double
presentation')
seems to end - for the Torah uses exclusively "shem
Havaya" as
it describes all the conversations between God and
Avraham
Avinu, from chapter 12 thru chapter 16.  The Torah's
exclusive
use of "shem Havaya" to describe these encounters is
thematically consistent with our assertion that God's
Name of
"Havaya" relates to the special relationship between man
and
God - where man is expected to act as a servant of God.
     For example, God's choice of Avraham Avinu to
become the
forefather of His special nation is described b'shem
Havaya
(see 12:1-9); so too His re-iteration of that promise
after
Lot's departure (see 13:14-17).
  Similarly, when God formalizes that promise into a
covenant
in "brit bein ha'btarim" (see 15:1-20) - again we find
the
Torah's employs "shem Havaya" in its description of God.
  
  For some reason, this exclusive (and logical) use of
"shem
Havaya" in the Torah's description of God's relationship
with
Avraham Avinu changes in chapter seventeen - when the
Torah
first uses "shem Elokim" to describe how God speaks to
Avraham
Avinu at "brit milah"!
     To understand the reason for this sudden change,
let's
take a closer look at how that chapter begins, noticing
how
God first introduces Himself as "kel sha-dai" before
speaking
to him b'shem ELOKIM:
  "When Avram was ninety-nine years, God [HAVAYA]
appeared to
  Avram and said to him: "ANI KEL SHA-DAI", walk before
Me
  and be blameless. And I will establish My COVENANT
between
  Me and you... Avram fell on his face, and God [ELOKIM]
  spoke to him saying... This is my COVENANT with
you..."
  (17:1-4)

  As you study these psukim, and the ones that follow,
note
how God (b'shem Elokim):
     a) changes Avram's name to Avraham;
     b) blesses him that he will multiply ("pru u'rvu");
     c) promises that he will become a great nation;
     d) promises him and his future generations Eretz
Canaan;
     e) promises to be his God ("le'hiyot l'cha
l'ELOKIM");
     f) commands him to circumcise his male children,
etc.

     In addition to these details in these psukim, pay
attention as well to their style - as they share some
very
interesting similarities to the only two earlier
instances
where Chumash uses " shem Elokim" to describe God
speaking to
man:
     (I) After the creation of man on the sixth day
(1:27-30);
     (II) After the Flood (see 9:1-17).

     To verify this, review those two sets of psukim,
noting
the parallels to the narrative of "brit milah":
  I)   On the sixth day, after man is created b'tzelem
  ELOKIM, God (b'shem ELOKIM) blesses him that he
should:
          a) be fruitful and multiply ("pru u'rvu");
          b) be master and ruler of the living kingdom;
          c) eat from the plants and fruit of the trees.

 II)   Some ten generations later, after the Flood, God
  (b'shem ELOKIM) blesses Noach and his children in a
very
  similar fashion (9:1-7), including:
          a) to be fruitful and multiply ("pru u'rvu");
          b) to be master of the living kingdom;
          c) permission to eat living creatures (not
only
plants);

     However, the most striking parallel to "brit milah"
is
found in the special covenant that God ["b'shem Elokim"]
makes
with Noach immediately after these blessings as
described in
9:8-12:
  "vhakimoti et briti itchem...   [9:11/ compare 17:7-8]
  "va'yomer Elokim, zot ot ha'brit..." [19:12/ compare
17:9-
10]

  This covenant, better known as "brit ha'keshet" (the
rainbow covenant), reflects the establishment of a
special
relationship between God and mankind, as God promises
that He
will never again bring about the total destruction of
His
Creation. [See 9:11-15 / see also Ramban on 6:18,
especially
his final explanation of the word "brit", based on the
word
"briya"!]
     It is rather amazing that the next time that God
speaks
to man b'shem Elokim is only some ten generations later
- at
Brit Milah, when He challenges Avraham Avinu to accept
yet
another covenant. Note the striking textual similarities
between these two covenants, i.e. "brit Milah" and "brit
ha'keshet":
     a) to be fruitful and multiply 9:1 / 17:2,6;
     c) "v'hakimoti et briti..."  9:11 / 17:7;
     d) "ha'aterz" // "eretz canaan"   9:13,16,17 / 17:8
     e) "ot brit": "ha'milah // ha'keshet"  9:13,17/
17:12;
       [to verify this, open your Tanach & compare them
yourself]

     However, in addition to these similarities, in
"brit
Milah" we find an additional, yet very important promise
-
"l'hiyot lachem l'Elokim" [to be a God for you"] -
reflecting
a much CLOSER relationship with God. In fact, this key
phrase
is repeated twice, for it emphasizes and defines the
purpose
of Brit Milah (read 17:7-8 carefully!).

ONE STEP 'ABOVE' NATURE
     With this background, we can suggest a reason for
why God
[b'shem Elokim] commands Avraham to perform "brit milah"
specifically on the eighth day.
     Note the progression that has emerged as we
followed
God's relationship with man, from the perspective of
'shem
Elokim':
STAGE 1)  The Creation of NATURE in SEVEN days
(1:1-2:4);
STAGE 2)  The covenant with Noach after the Flood
(9:1-17);
STAGE 3)  The "Brit Milah" covenant with Avraham Avinu
to be
performed on the EIGHTH day (17:1-14).

     One could suggest that circumcision on the EIGHTH
day
relates to this elevation of man's spiritual level, ONE
step
above the level of his original creation in SEVEN days.
     Let's explain this statement, based on the three
stages
of this progression b'shem Elokim:

(1)  During the first seven days, God brought the
universe to
a stage of development where it appears to 'take care of
itself'. Be it vegetation, animal, or man, all species
of life
secure their existence by their ability to reproduce;
they
become fruitful and multiply (e.g. "zo'ray'ah zerah",
"zachar
u'nekeyvah", "pru u'rvu", etc.). Man's mastery of this
creation, his desire to conquer and his ability to
harness it,
are all part of this phenomenon that we call NATURE. The
first
chapter of Breishit teaches us that [what we refer to
as]
nature, did not just happen by chance, rather it was a
willful
act of God.  [By resting on Shabbat, once every seven
days, we
remind ourselves of this point.]

(2)  After the "mabul", God (b'shem Elokim) 'starts
over' by
re-establishing His relationship with mankind in a
covenant
with Noach, known as "brit ha'keshet". This covenant
reflects
a relationship very similar to that in God's original
creation
in seven days, with some 'minor' changes: Man remains
master
of His universe (9:2), with a 'small change' in his diet
(9:3-
5), and a commandment that it is forbidden to murder a
fellow
human (9:6-7). However, the basic laws of nature remain
the
same (see 9:8).

(3)  Up until Brit Milah, man's relationship with God
b'shem
Elokim remained distant. Although Man was the pinnacle
of
God's creation with certain minimal expectations of
moral
behavior, he was basically just part of nature. Man was
given
power; he acted like God (b'tzelem Elokim), but was not
CLOSE
to Him. At Brit Milah, Avraham is raised to a higher
level. He
and his offspring are chosen to represent God as His
special
nation, and towards that purpose, they are awarded a
special
relationship with God, as they are now destined to
represent
Him, i.e. -"li'hiyot lachem l'Elokim".
  Then, as an "ot" [a sign] to symbolize this
relationship,
they are commanded to circumcise their children on the
'eighth
day'.  Hence, "milah" specifically on the EIGHTH day may
reflect this additional level in the creation process,
which
first took place in SEVEN days. [What the Maharal refers
to as
"m'al ha'teva - above nature!]
  
     In other words, the eighth day can be understood as
representative of one final stage of the creation
process.
Just as the seven days of Creation - b'shem Elokim] -
included
a progression from "domem" (the inanimate objects / i.e.
"shmayim v'aretz"); to "tzomayach" (vegetation); to
"chai"
(the animal kingdom); to "adam" (man) - the 'eighth day'
reflects how man has been elevated to a higher level in
his
relationship with God.
  To elevate Creation to a higher awareness of God's
existence, a special covenant is made with the offspring
of
Avraham, and we remind ourselves of this covenant
specifically
by performing "brit Milah" on the eighth day after a
child's
birth.
  [This interpretation could reflect a statement made by
  Reish Lakish, explaining the meaning of God's name
"kel sha-
  dai" which is first introduced at Brit Milah (see
17:1-2):
     What's the meaning of "ani kel-sha'dai"? God said:
I am
  the One who said to the world "dai" - enough, or
stop]."
                (see Yalkut Shimoni siman 81, Chagiga
12a)
     [See also commentary of the "Torah Tmima" on this
pasuk.]

     This explanation may help us understand the
complexity in
the opening lines of the Brit Milah narrative: God,
b'shem
Havaya - the Name of God which Avraham is familiar with
up
until this point - informs Avraham that He is "kel
sha-dai",
the God who had 'stopped' His process of creation after
seven
days (17:1-2). Now, b'shem Elokim, the Name of God that
orchestrated the creation in seven days, intervenes yet
one
more time. He establishes a covenant with Avraham, to
command
him with the mitzvah of "brit milah", to raise him ONE
level
higher, i.e. closer to God.
     Thus, God's commandment that we perform Brit Milah
on the
eighth day is not incidental. Rather, it reflects the
very
nature of our special relationship with God.  In fact,
one
could suggest that God's relationship with His nation
now
becomes part of 'the nature of the universe'.  Just as
the sun
will always rise and set, so too, Am Yisrael will always
be
His nation to represent him (see Yirmiyahu 33:19-26); as
reflected by the Torah's use of "shem Elokim".:
     With this background, let's return to the various
examples of this '7 - 8' relationship in Sefer Vayikra,
as
"brit milah" on the eighth day was only one example.

SEVEN DAYS "MILUIM" / "YOM HA'SHMINI":
     As explained in our shiur on Parshat Shmini, the
seven
days necessary to dedicate the Mishkan reflect the
parallel
between Bnei Yisrael's construction of the Mishkan to
serve
God, to God's creation of nature in seven days, to serve
Him.
[See Tehillim 104 - "borchi nafshi..."!]
  Then, on the 'eighth day' ["yom ha'shmini"], God
commands
Bnei Yisrael to offer a special set of korbanot - in
anticipation of His "shchinah" that will descend upon
the
Mishkan - reflecting the return of God's presence.  In
this
manner, the Mishkan now becomes the focal point for the
development of the special relationship between God and
Bnei
Yisrael, just as "brit milah" on the eighth day was a
sign of
that special covenant.

SEVEN DAYS "TAHARA" / EIGHTH DAY "KORBANOT" (Metzora,
Zav,
Zava):
     Different types of "tumah" are caused by some
abnormal
behavior of the body. Seven days of "tahara" are
required to
return the "tamei" person back to the 'camp' - to his
normal
existence, his natural habitat. Then on the eighth day,
he
must bring a special korban to allow his entry into the
Mishkan.
  [Note the parallel between this process, and its
korbanot,
  to that of the kohanim during the seven-day miluim and
Yom
  ha'Shmini.]

SEVEN DAYS OF SUCCOT / SHMINI ATZERET:
     As agriculture and nature go hand in hand, all of
the
agricultural holidays follow cycles of seven (see
Vayikra
chapter 23). In the spring (chag ha'aviv), as the grain
harvest begins, we bring "korban ha'omer"  and celebrate
chag
ha'matzot for SEVEN days. Then we count SEVEN WEEKS
until the
completion of the wheat harvest, bring "korban shtei
ha'lechem", and celebrate chag ha'SHAVUOT. On succot,
"chag
ha'asif", at the end of the agricultural year ("b'tzeit
ha'shana /see Shmot 23:16), we thank God for our fruit
harvest
by celebrating for seven days and bringing the "arba
minim" to
the Mikdash.
  At the very end of this cycle of agricultural
holidays, we
add SHMINI ATZERET, a special gathering with no special
agricultural mitzvah. It is simply a time to stop and
reflect
on the holiday season and year that has passed. On this
'eighth day', we focus on the special relationship
between God
and Bnei Yisrael.
     This special relationship between God and Bnei
Yisrael
that began with Brit Milah, reaches its fullest
expression
with Matan Torah with Brit Sinai.
     Based on this interpretation, it is understandable
why
Chazal chose this holiday to celebrate as SIMCHAT TORAH,
and
to conclude on this day the yearly 'cycle' of reading
the
Torah.

                              shabbat shalom,
                              menachem

======================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
A. In what way could Shavuot be considered the "eighth",
after
seven cycles of seven. Compare this to the din of the
Yovel
year in parshat B'har. Why do you think that Chazal
refer to
Shavuot as "chag ha'atzeret". In what way is it similar
to
"Shmini Atzeret".

B. Based on the above shiur, why do you think that prior
to
Brit Milah, God changes both Avraham's and Sarah's names
by
adding a "hey"?  Relate your answer to Hashem's name and
His
introduction in 17:1-4.

C. Based on the parallels between creation and brit
milah, why
do you think God chose to make the "ot" of this covenant
on
the part of the body which performs "pru u'rvu".
     Explain why we thank God in birchat ha'mazon for
the
"aretz", then "britcha asher chatamta bi'bsareinu", and
then
toratcha sh'limad'tanu"

D. Note in Sefer Yirmiyahu that even the Creation itself
is
considered a covenant: see 33:25-26, and relate these
psukim
to the above shiur.

E. Relate the above shiur to the minhag of "sheva
brachot" at
a wedding, and the seven days of mourning after death.

F. See Rambam Hilchot M'lachim chapter nine [the laws
concerning the SEVEN mitzvot of Bnei Noach]. Relate this
Rambam to the above shiur.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.3/1354 -
Release Date: 4/1/2008 5:38 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: tazria.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 37681 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080402/82692f07/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Apr  3 18:51:54 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 18:51:54 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] for Parshat ha'Chodesh
Message-ID: <000301c895dd$50339d10$0700000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

                     PARSHAT BO
                               
            TWO REASONS FOR MATZA - OR ONE?

     Ask anyone - why do we eat Matza on Pesach?
Invariably
you will hear one of the two following answers:
  
  *? To remind us of the 'poor man's bread' that we ate
when
       we were slaves in Egypt ['lechem oni'];
          [As we say in the Haggada - "ha lachma
anya..."]
          
  *  Because we left Egypt in haste and our dough didn't
have
      time to rise ['chipazon'].
        [As we say in the Haggada - "Matza - al shum ma?

           al shum she-lo hispik betzeikam
le-hachmitz..."]

     So, which reason is correct?
     In the following shiur, we uncover the biblical
roots of
these two reasons in Parshat Bo - in an attempt to
better
understand and appreciate why we eat matza on Pesach.

INTRODUCTION
     In Parshat Bo, we find two Biblical commands that
relate
to eating matza:
     In relation to korban Pesach, we are instructed to
eat matza
& maror together with the meat of this offering. [See
Shmot
12:8.]
     In relation to "chag hamatzot", we are instructed
to eat
matza (and not eat chametz) for seven days.  [See Shmot
12:15-
20 and 13:3-8.]

     In Part One of our shiur, we study these two
sources to
show how (and why) each of these two mitzvot stems from
a
totally different reason.
     In Part Two, we study the intricate manner of the
Torah's
presentation of these two mitzvot - and together with
some
historical considerations, we will explore an underlying
theme
that may tie these two separate reasons together.

          PART ONE -
REMEMBERING SLAVERY or REMEMBERING FREEDOM
     In the middle of Parshat Bo (right before the story
of
the Tenth Plague), God instructs Moshe concerning
several
mitzvot that Bnei Yisrael must keep - more specifically,
the
laws of the korban Pesach (see 12:3-14) and a
commandment to
eat matza for seven days (see 12:15-20).
  [This section (12:1-20) is better know as "Parshat ha-

  Chodesh", as it is read on the shabbos prior to Rosh
Chodesh
  Nisan.]
  
     As both of these mitzvot relate in some manner to
eating
matza, we begin our shiur by reviewing their definitions
in
regard to how they are to be kept in future generations:

* The KORBAN PESACH - An Offering of Thanksgiving
Definition:
     Each year we are commanded to offer a special
korban on
  the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan, and eat the korban
on that 
  evening, together with matza & maror; while thanking
God for
  our deliverance from 'makkat bechorot'.
               (See 12:24-27, based on 12:8-14)
Reason:
  Because God 'passed over' the houses of Bnei Yisrael
on that
  evening when He smote the Egyptians (see 12:26-27).
As we
  eat the korban, we are supposed to explain this reason
to
  our children.

* CHAG HA-MATZOT- A Holiday to commemorate the Exodus
Definition:
     To eat matza (& NOT to eat chametz, own it, or even
see
      it) for seven days, from the 15th to the 21st of
Nisan.
       (See Shmot 13:3-8, based on 12:15-20.)
Reason:
  To remember the events (and their miraculous nature)
by
  which God took Am Yisrael out of Egypt.  (See Shmot
12:17
  and 13:8.)

     Even though these holidays 'overlap' on the night
of the
fifteenth of Nisan and both holidays include eating
matza;
each holiday serves a different purpose.  By offering
the
korban Pesach we thank God for saving us from the Tenth
Plague.  In contrast, on Chag Ha-matzot we remember
leaving
Egypt into the desert, and hence our freedom from
slavery.
     [Note that each holiday has ample reason to stand
alone.]

MATZA - A PRIMARY or SECONDARY MITZVA
     With this background, let's examine the purpose for
eating matza in each mitzvah.  Clearly, on "chag
ha-matzot"
[the name for the holiday when we eat matza for seven
days] -
eating matza for seven days is presented as the primary
mitzvah:
  "Seven days you shall eat MATZA, even on the first day
you
  shall rid yourselves from any unleaven in your
houses..."
  (Shmot 12:15, see also 13:2-8).

     As we shall soon explain, by eating matza (and not
eating
'chametz') during those seven days, we remind ourselves
of how
God helped us when we left Egypt.

     In contrast, eating matza with the korban Pesach is
presented in a secondary manner, while the primary
mitzvah is
to eat the meat of the korban:
  "And you shall eat the meat on this night, roasted on
fire
  with MATZOT, together with bitter herbs..." (Shmot
12:8).
     [Review from 12:3-13, noting how most of these
psukim
     deal with how the korban is to be eaten, while
matza is
     presented in a very secondary manner.]

     Unfortunately, the Torah is not very specific in
regard
to WHY the Korban Pesach should be eaten with matza. It
simply
states in 12:8 to eat the meat roasted, together with
matza &
maror, without explaining why.
     On the other hand, in regard to eating matza for
the
seven days of chag ha-matzot, the Torah is much more
explicit:
  "And you shall keep the (laws regarding) MATZOT, for
on this
  very day I have taken your hosts out of the land of
  Egypt..." (see Shmot 12:17, see also 13:3!).

     This pasuk suggests that eating matza for seven
days will
cause us to remember that God took us out of Egypt.  But
why
should eating matza cause us to remember those events?
     To understand why, we must return to the story of
the
Exodus in Chumash, and follow the narrative very
carefully to
show why 'eating matza' would remind Bnei Yisrael of the
Exodus.

THE COMMON 'EXPERIENCE'
     Contrary to the popular understanding, Bnei Yisrael
had
plenty of time to prepare for the Exodus.  After all,
already
two weeks before the Tenth Plague, Bnei Yisrael had
already
received early warning (see Shmot 12:1-13).
Furthermore,
Moshe had already advised them to be ready to 'borrow'
from
their Egyptian neighbors the necessary gold & silver and
clothing for their journey (see 11:1-3!).  However, even
though they had plenty of time to prepare, they were
also in
no special hurry to leave on the evening of the 15th of
Nisan.
In fact, Bnei Yisrael were under a specific directive to
remain in their homes that entire evening:
  "And Moshe told the leaders of Israel: Everyone should
take
  a lamb... and none of you shall leave the entrance of
your
  houses UNTIL THE MORNING" (see Shmot 12:21-22).

  Hence, Bnei Yisrael most likely assumed that they
would not
be leaving Egypt until sometime the next morning.
Considering
that they were planning to embark on a long journey into
the
desert (see 11:1-3, read carefully), the people most
probably
prepared large amounts of dough on the previous day,
with the
intention of baking it early on the morning of the 15th
of
Nisan (before their departure).  [The fresher the bread,
the
better!]
     However, due to the sudden nature of the events
that
transpired that evening, these original plans changed.
Recall
how the Egyptians (after realizing the calamity of the
Tenth
Plague), rushed the Hebrews out of their homes.  Pharaoh
demanded that Moshe lead his nation out to worship their
God
(see 12:29-32), in hope that the sooner they would
worship
their God, the sooner the Plague would stop, see 12:33
/and
5:3!).  The Egyptians were so eager for them to leave
that
they willingly lent their belongings.
  It was because of this 'rush' that Bnei Yisrael didn't
have
time to bake their 'fresh bread' as planned.  Instead,
they
quickly packed their bags and took their dough ('and
ran'):
  "[So] Bnei Yisrael carried their DOUGH before it had
time to
  rise ['terem yechmatz'], as they wrapped with their
garments
  and carried it over their shoulders.
                         [See Shmot 12:34.]

     Two psukim later, the Torah tells exactly what Bnei
Yisrael did with this dough.  After setting up camp in
Succot,
on their way towards the desert (see 12:37-38), we are
told:
  "And Bnei Yisrael baked their DOUGH that they took out
of
  Egypt as MATZOT, for it had not risen ['ki lo
CHAMETZ'], for
  they were EXPELLED from Egypt, and they could not wait
[in
  the their home to bake the dough properly], nor had
they
  prepared any other provisions [and hence the only
bread they
  had to eat was from this dough]" (see 12:39).
    [This seems to be the simplest translation of this
pasuk
    (see JPS).  Note, however, that Ramban explains this
pasuk
    in a different manner.  The reason for this is
discussed
    in the further iyun section.]

     In this manner, everyone who left Egypt shared a
common
experience.  As they set up camp on their way to the
desert
(the first time as a free nation) everyone shared the
common
predicament of: no bread; 'lots of dough'; and only
makeshift
methods for baking it.  Therefore everyone improvised by
baking their dough as thin matzot on makeshift
'hot-plates'.
     This background explains the first instruction that
Moshe
Rabeinu commanded Bnei Yisrael on that momentous day:
  "And Moshe said to the people: REMEMBER THIS DAY that
you
  have LEFT EGYPT from slavery, for God has taken you
out with
  an outstretched hand - you shall not eat CHAMETZ.  You
are
  leaving in the month of the spring [therefore] when
you come
  in the Promised Land... on this month EAT MATZA FOR
SEVEN
  DAYS... you shall not see or own CHAMETZ in all your
  borders.  And you shall tell you children on that day,
it
  was for the sake of this [MATZA] that God took us out
of
  Egypt..." (see Shmot 13:3-8, read carefully!).

     In other words, the next year, by eating matza (and
not
owning any chametz) this generation would remember this
special experience together with the miraculous events
of the
Exodus.  To preserve this tradition (and its message),
the
Torah commands all future generations as well to eat
matza for
seven days, while telling over these events to their
children
(see again Shmot 13:8).
     In a shorter form, this is more or less the reason
that
we cite in the Haggada when we explain why we eat matza:
  "MATZA... AL SHUM MA?  This matza that we eat, for
what
  reason (do we eat it)? - For the dough of our
forefathers
  did not have time to become leaven when God the King
of all
  kings revealed Himself and redeemed us, as it is
stated
  (followed by the quote of Shmot 12:39)."

     This certainly provides us with a logical reason
for the
commandment to eat matza for the seven days of "chag ha-
matzot", but it certainly doesn't explain why Bnei
Yisrael
were first commanded to eat matza with the Korban Pesach
BEFORE they left Egypt (see again 12:1-8).  It simply
wouldn't
make sense for God to command Bnei Yisrael to eat matza
in
Egypt with the korban - to remember how they left Egypt!
  Therefore, there must be an independent reason for
eating
matza with the korban Pesach, unrelated to the events
that
transpired when Bnei Yisrael left Egypt
  To find that reason, we must return to Parshat
ha'Chodesh,
and consider the thematic connection between the mitzva
to eat
matza and all of the other mitzvot that accompany the
Korban
Pesach.

PESACH MITZRAYIM - A FAMILY AFFAIR
     Certainly, the primary purpose of offering the
Korban
Pesach in Egypt was to sprinkle its blood on the
doorposts to
save Bnei Yisrael from the Tenth Plague (see 12:12-13).
However, this commandment also included several other
special
laws that focus primarily on how this offering was to be
eaten
by its owners.
     This in itself is noteworthy, for one would expect
that a
korban (an offering) set aside for God would be
forbidden for
human consumption, as is the case in an OLAH offering.]
Yet,
in regard to the Korban Pesach, eating this korban seems
to be
no less important than the sprinkling of its blood (see
12:3-
11).  Let's take a closer look at these special laws.
  First of all, note how it was necessary to carefully
plan
this 'dinner' in advance:
  "Speak unto all the congregation of Israel -On the
tenth day
  of this month everyone must take a lamb, according to
their
  fathers' houses, a lamb for a household; and if the
  household be too little for a lamb, then shall he and
his
  neighbor next to him shall take one according to the
number
  of the souls; according to every man's eating you
shall
  count them for the lamb... (see Shmot 12:3-4)

  Clearly, this was supposed to be a 'family meal' (see
12:3),
and planned well in advance.  Now, let's consider the
cuisine.
  " And they shall eat its meat on that night:
       *  roasted over the fire
       *  with MATZA
       *  with MAROR (bitter herbs)
       *  Do not eat it raw (uncooked)
       *  [nor can you eat it] cooked in water
       *  eat it only roasted,
           its head, legs, and entrails, (together)
       *  No 'leftovers', anything left over must be
burnt.
     And this is how you should it eat it:
       *  your loins girded
       *  your shoes on your feet
       *  your staff in your hand
       *  and you shall eat it in haste [CHIPAZON]
     it is a PESACH [offering] for God."  (Shmot
12:7-11)

  As you review these psukim, note once again how eating
matza
is only one of many other instructions that go along
with how
this korban is to be eaten.  Let's begin our discussion
with
some of the 'other' laws; afterward we'll return to the
matza.

NO LEFTOVERS
     The law that no meat can be left over relates once
again
to the special atmosphere of this evening.  When someone
knows
that any leftovers 'go to the garbage', it is more
likely that
he will eat to his heart's content and enjoy the meal
(ask any
"Yeshiva bachur").  If it was permitted to save the
meat, then
people would refrain from eating to their heart's
content,
preferring to save some of the meat for another meal
(ask any
poor man).
     Coming to the meal fully dressed, and eating with
eagerness and readiness, certainly would make this
evening
more memorable.  [Remember as well that in ancient time
a
staff ("makelchem be-yedchem") is not necessarily a
walking
stick for the aged, but rather a sign of importance.]
     It also goes without saying that lamb is most tasty
when
barbecued, as opposed to being boiled in water (ask
anybody).

   With this background, let's consider the wider
picture:
      A family meal - planned well in advance,
      by invitation only,
      fresh lamb - well done, roasted on an open spit
           (roasting is much most tasty than cooking)
      with fresh pita ('eish tanur' style), i.e. matza
      with a spicy salad (bitter herbs), i.e. maror
      no leftovers allowed
      everyone coming well dressed (best attire)
      eating it with readiness, zest, excitement
('chipazon')

     Any of us who have attended a formal dinner should
not be
surprised by these laws, for this seems to be their
primary
intention - to create a full fledged 'shabbos table'
atmosphere.
     Consider the circumstances.  A nation of slaves,
now
about to become free, and ready to embark on a momentous
journey to Har Sinai and then to the Promised Land.
Certainly, we want this to be an 'evening to remember',
and
hence 'only the fanciest restaurant' will do!
    [Recall as well that it would not be often that
slaves
    could afford to eat 'fleishigs' for dinner.]
    
     Our main point is that the PRIMARY reason for all
of
these special laws was to assure that every family would
participate in a formal meal, in order to make this a
memorable evening.  Therefore, only the best meat,
cooked in
the best manner, with bread and salad; with the eager
participants in their best attire.

  With this in mind, let's return to consider the reason
for
eating matza at this meal.
  Considering our discussion thus far, it would have
made more
sense to enjoy the korban with a fresh 'chametz' bun,
rather
than simple 'matza'!
     To appreciate why, let's return to our analogy of
'going
out to eat' to celebrate an important occasion.  Now the
question becomes: What restaurant would be most
appropriate?
     Will it be Chinese?  Italian?  French?
     In the case of korban Pesach, the best way to
describe
the menu would be - 'anti-Egyptian'!
     Let's explain.
     Not only does God want Bnei Yisrael to enjoy a
family
meal on this important evening, He also wants this meal
to
carry a theme.  The menu should not only be 'formal',
but it
should also carry a 'spiritual message'.  [For those
Americans
on the list, just ask your neighbors why turkey is
traditionally served for Thanksgiving dinner.]
  Let's consider the menu.
  
LAMB FOR DINNER
     As we explained, eating meat is in itself special.
But
why specifically lamb?  Let's explain why eating lamb
would be
considered 'anti-Egyptian
     Recall when Yaakov and his sons first went down to
Egypt,
Yosef was embarrassed by their profession, that they
were
shepherds, for anyone who raised sheep was a 'to'eva'
[an
'abomination'] to Egyptians.  (See Breishit 43:32.)
     Furthermore, when the Plagues began, Pharaoh first
agreed
that Bnei Yisrael could offer their korbanot in Egypt,
but not
in the desert.  To this offer Moshe replied, should Am
Yisrael
offer 'to'evat Mitzrayim' [an abomination to the
Egyptians] in
Egypt, would they not be stoned?  (See Shmot 8:22.)
     From that interchange, it becomes quite clear that
offering a 'lamb' would be antithetical to Egyptian
culture.
Rashi's commentary on this pasuk seems to imply that a
'lamb'
was considered a type of a god to the Egyptians, and
hence
offering a 'lamb' in Egypt would be a desecration in
their
eyes.  [Sort of like burning someone's national flag.
See
Ramban 12:3!]
  [Note Ibn Ezra (on Shmot 8:22) quotes a Kaarite who
  explained that a 'lamb' was the symbol of the god who
  controls their land.  He himself argues that it was
not just
  a lamb, but any type of animal, for he claims that the
  Egyptians were vegetarians.]
    [One could also suggest an 'astrological'
explanation
    that relates to the fact that the Nile (Egypt's
source of
    water) reaches its highest level in the spring
during the
    zodiac of 'taleh' [a lamb, see Nile mosaic in
Tzipori!]
    See also a similar explanation in Sefer Ha-toda'a by
    Eliyahu Ki-tov, re: Nisan (page 14).]

     Therefore, burning a lamb, complete with its head,
and
legs and entrails, etc. on an open spit (see Shmot
12:9), and
then eating it, would serve as a sign to Bnei Yisrael
that
they are now free from Egyptian culture, and its gods.

MATZA & MAROR
     As we explained, the primary reason for eating
matza
would be no different than having rolls at a cook-out.
But
eating specifically matza could be considered once again
symbolic.  The simplest reason would be simply to remind
Bnei
Yisrael that on this evening God is taking them out of
slavery.  As 'matza' is the typical bread of a poor-man,
or a
slave, it would be most fitting to eat the meat together
with
this style of bread.
    [This would reflect our statement of "ha lachma
anya"
    that we say at the beginning of the Haggada.]
     This doesn't mean that a poor-man's bread tastes
bad.  It
is merely a simple style of bread that can actually
taste
good!

     However, one could also suggest that 'chametz'
itself may
have been a symbol of Egyptian culture.  It is
well-known
among historians that the art of making leaven was first
developed in Egypt, and it was the Egyptians who
perfected the
process of 'bread-making'.
  [See 'On Food and Cooking -'The Science and Lore of
the
  Kitchen' - by Harold McGee / Page 275 - based on
  archeological evidence, raised bread began in Egypt
around
  4000 BCE.  On page 280 - then beer froth was
eventually used
  as first yeast.  And page 615 - bread-making became
refined
  with invention of ovens around 3000 BCE in Egypt.]

     Similarly, eating bitter herbs with the korban
certainly
makes the meat 'tastier' - but why specifically bitter
herbs
rather than sweet ones?  Like matza, one could suggest
that
the reason would be to remind us on this evening of the
bitterness of the slavery that we are now leaving.  In
fact,
this is exactly what we explain in the Haggada in the
section
"MAROR - AL SHUM MA".
  [One could also explain that the reason for eating the
  korban 'well dressed' and in hurriedness (even though
Bnei
  Yisrael would not be leaving until the next morning)
was to
  emphasize the need be 'ready & eager' for their
redemption.]
  
     In this manner, all of the mitzvot relating to
Pesach
Mitzrayim can relate to both the need to make this a
memorable
evening, with a formal family dinner etc.; but at the
same
time, every action also carried a symbolic function as
well.
This evening was to leave a lasting impression on its
participants, in order that they would pass on this
memory to
their children and grandchildren.  It had to be special!

     In summary, we have shown how there may be two
totally
independent reasons for eating matza on the night of the
fifteenth of Nisan:
  ?    One matza - 'lechem oni', poor man's bread - is
to be
     eaten with the korban Pesach, in order to make this
korban
     tasty, but at the same time to remind us to thank
God for
     being saved from Makkat Bechorot & slavery.
?    The second matza - "bread that was made in haste",
'chipazon' - is an integral part of the mitzva of chag
ha-
matzot (eating matza for seven days) which we eat in
order
that we remember the events of how God took us out of
Egypt.

     In Part Two we will search for a deeper connection
between these two reasons for eating matza.

==========
PART II / FROM PESACH MITZRAIM TO PESACH DOROT

INTRODUCTION
  In Part One, we offered two reasons for eating matza
with
the Korban Pesach:  Either to remind us of the hardships
of
slavery (similar to the reason for why we eat 'maror');
or to
remind us of the need to reject Egyptian culture as a
pre-
requisite for redemption (similar to the reason for why
we
sacrifice a lamb).
     If the following shiur, we will pursue this second
line
of reasoning, and apply its logic to help explain some
of the
peculiar laws of "chag ha'matzot" [i.e. the commandment
to eat
matza (and not eat chametz) for seven days].

     Let's begin with the very pasuk in Chumash that
appears
to explain the reason for "chag ha'matzot":
  "And Moshe said to the people: REMEMBER THIS DAY that
you
  have left Egypt...- you shall not eat CHAMETZ....
   [therefore] when you come in the Promised Land... EAT
MATZA
  FOR SEVEN DAYS... you shall not see or own CHAMETZ in
all
  your borders...  " (see Shmot 13:2-8).

     This commandment implies that by eating matza (and
not
eating chametz) for seven days, we will remember the
events of
the Exodus.  In Part One of our shiur, we explained how
(and
why) eating matza would remind us of that experience.
  However, based on that explanation, it would have made
more
sense for Moshe to say: "Remember this day... by eating
matza".  Instead, he commands them to remember this day
by not
eating chametz!

     Furthermore, from the laws that follow, it seems
like the
Torah puts a greater emphasis on the prohibition of
"chametz",
more so than it does on the obligation to eat "matza".
If we
assume, as most people do, that the Torah forbids eating
'chametz' as a means to ensure the we eat 'matza'
instead, it
certainly wouldn't make sense for the prohibition
against
'chametz' to be more important than the commandment to
eat
matza!
  It also seems rather strange that the Torah would
forbid not
only eating chametz, but also owning or seeing it - if
the
only purpose of these prohibitions was to ensure that we
eat
matza.
  Finally, there doesn't appear to be any obvious reason
for
the need to observe this holiday for seven days.
  [Recall that all these laws were originally given way
before
  the story of the splitting of the Red Sea took place.]
  
  Therefore, it would be difficult to conclude that all
of
these strict prohibitions against 'chametz' stem merely
from
the need to provide an incentive to eat matza - which
are
eating solely  to remember an 'incidental' event that
took
place when Bnei Yisrael were 'rushed out' of Egypt.

     Instead, we will suggest that 'chametz' should be
un
understood as a symbol of Egyptian culture.  If so,
then many
of these severe prohibitions begin to make a lot more
sense.
To explain how, we must return to Sefer Yechezkel
chapter 20;
and our discussion in last week's shiur on Parshat
Va'era.

BACK TO YECHEZKEL
  Let's quote once again from Yechezkel's rebuke of the
elders
of Yehuda, as he reminds them of the behavior of their
forefathers - PRIOR to Yetziat Mitzraim:
  "On the day that I chose Israel... that same day I
swore to
  take them out of Egypt into a land flowing with milk
and
  honey... And I said to them [at that time]: Each man
must
  RID himself of his detestable ways, and not DEFILE
('tum'a')
  himself with the fetishes of Egypt - [for] ANI HASHEM
  ELOKEICHEM . But, they REBELLED against Me, and they
did not
  OBEY me, no one rid himself from his detestable
ways...and I
  resolved to pour out My fury upon them..." (Yechezkel
20:5-
  8).

  In other words, God had called upon Bnei Yisrael to
rid
themselves of their 'avoda zara', i.e. their Egyptian
culture,
BEFORE the redemption process began.
     Unfortunately, Bnei Yisrael did not 'listen', and
hence
deserved to be destroyed! Nevertheless, God saved Bnei
Yisrael, Yechezkel explains, for the sake of His Name:
"va-
a'as lema'an shmi, levilti hachel le-einei ha-goyim"
(see
20:9).

  This background helped us understand the need for
"korban
Pesach" in Egypt.  This offering gave Bnei Yisrael one
last
chance to show their loyalty to God prior to 'makkat
bechorot'.
  [The word 'pesach' - the name of this korban, reflects
this
  purpose, as God must 'PASS OVER' the houses of Bnei
Yisrael
  (who otherwise deserve to be punished (see 12:27).]
  
     To show their rejection of Egyptian culture, Bnei
Yisrael
were instructed to offer a lamb and eat it with matza
(instead
of chametz), due their symbolic nature.
  [For a similar explanation that shows the connection
between
  chametz and Avoda Zara, see Rav Kasher in Torah
Sheleima vol
  #19, miluim #20.]

     This can explain why 'chametz' becomes such a
central
theme when these events are commemorated in future
generations.  For example, not only must the korban
Pesach of
future generations must be eaten with matza, but one is
also
prohibited from owning 'chametz' before he can offer
that
korban:
  "Lo tishchat al CHAMETZ dam zivchi" - "You shall not
offer
  the Korban Pesach with chametz still in your
possession"
  (see Shmot 23:18 and its context from 23:13-20).

  If indeed chametz is symbolic of Egyptian culture,
then it
makes sense that one can not offer this korban, without
first
showing his rejection of that culture. When we offer the
korban Pesach, we must remember not only WHAT HAPPENED,
but
also WHY God saved us, i.e. for what purpose!
     To help concretize these sentiments of teshuva, a
symbol
is required.  Hence, the korban Pesach - the 'korban
Hashem'
(see Bamidbar 9:7 and context) - is not just an
expression of
thanksgiving but also a DECLARATION of loyalty; - a
willingness to obey; - a readiness to fulfill our Divine
destiny.

     Furthermore, in Parshat Re'eh, when Moshe Rabeinu
explains the laws of the Pesach to the generation that
is
about to enter the Land, he reminds them:
  "Keep the month of the spring, and offer a korban
Pesach...
  You shall not eat any CHAMETZ with it, instead for the
seven
  days [afterward] you shall eat MATZA - 'lechem oni',
because
  you left Egypt in a hurried manner - IN ORDER that you
  remember the day that you left Egypt for every day of
your
  life" (see Devarim 16:1-3).

     This source also suggests that the matza that we
eat for
seven days relates directly to the korban Pesach, and
hence it
makes sense that they would share a common reason.

BACK TO PARSHAT HA'CHODESH
     This interpretation can also help us understand why
God's
original commandment to Moshe to tell Bnei Yisrael about
"chag
ha-matzot" (in 12:15-20) was recorded 'pre-maturely'
(i.e.
before they ever left Egypt) - immediately after the
laws of
korban Pesach (see 12:11-15).
     After instructing the nation to offer korban Pesach
in every
future generation (see 12:14), the Torah records the
laws
prohibiting 'chametz' for the next seven days.  Even
though
eating matza for those seven days reminds us of how we
left
Egypt, the prohibition of 'chametz' reminds us of how
must
reject 'avoda zara' in order to be deserving of future
redemption.  This can also explain yet another difficult
pasuk
in Parshat ha'Chodesh:
  "Seven days you should eat matza, but EVEN ON THE
FIRST DAY
  you must REMOVE ALL CHAMETZ from your houses, for
whoever
  eats chametz on these SEVEN days, that person shall be
cut
  off from the nation of Israel" (see Shmot 12:15).

     Chazal understand that 'yom ha-rishon' refers to
the 14th of
Nisan (not the 15th), i.e. at the time when the Korban
Pesach
is offered. This makes sense, for one must rid himself
from
the symbol of Egyptian culture before offering the
korban
Pesach.  [Note as well Shmot 23:18 - "lo tishchat al
chametz
dam zivchi"!]
     The reason for Chag Ha-Matzot now becomes clear.
Our
declaration of thanksgiving when offering the korban
Pesach is
meaningless if not accompanied with the proper spiritual
preparation.  Just as Bnei Yisrael were commanded to rid
themselves of their 'avoda zara' in anticipation of
their
redemption, future generations must do exactly the same
when
they commemorate those events.  By getting rid of our
chametz
in preparation for Korban Pesach, we remind ourselves of
the
need to first cleanse ourselves from any corrupt culture
that
we may have adopted.

     From this perspective, the matza that we eat for
seven
days, and the matza that is eaten with the korban Pesach
both
serve as powerful reminders that Bnei Yisrael must
become
active and faithful partners in any redemption process.

                              shabbat shalom,
                              menachem

FOR FURTHER IYUN
=================f
ELIYAHU AT THE SEDER
     Based on the above shiur, we can explain why we
invite
Eliyahu ha-navi to the seder (after we finish our last
'kezayit' of matza) to remind us of the need to perform
teshuva in preparation for future redemption (see
Mal'achi
3:23-24).  It also explains why we read these psukim
(that
form the final message of the Neviim in Tanach) for the
Haftara of Shabbat Ha-gadol, in preparation for Pesach.

BE-ETZEM HA-YOM HA-ZEH
     An important phrase that the Torah uses in its
presentation of the laws of chag ha-matzot provides
further
support for this approach.  Recall the original pasuk in
which
the Torah provides the reason for chag ha-matzot:
  "And you shall keep [the laws] of the matzot, for ON
THIS
  VERY DAY  [BE-ETZEM HA-YOM HA-ZEH] God has taken your
hosts
  out of the land of Egypt..." (see Shmot 12:17).

     It is not often that the Torah employs this phrase
"be-
etzem ha-yom ha-zeh", and when it does, it always marks
a very
important event.
     In relation to Yetziat Mitzrayim we find this very
same
phrase mentioned two more times at the conclusion of
chapter
12, as the Torah recaps the events of Yetziat Mitzraim -
in
the context of God's fulfillment of His promise to
Avraham
Avinu at Brit bein Ha-btarim:
  "And the time of Bnei Yisrael's stay in Egypt was 400
years
  and 30 years, and it came to pass after 430 years - ON
THIS
  VERY DAY [be-etzem ha-yom ha-zeh] all of God's hosts
were
  taken out of Egypt..."  (see 12:40-41, see also
12:51!)

     It is not by chance that we find specifically this
phrase
"be-etzem ha-yom ha-zeh" in relation to God's
fulfillment of
brit bein ha-btarim.  In Sefer Breishit, we find this
same
phrase in two instances, and each relating to the
fulfillment
of a 'brit' between God and man.  The first instance was
God's
'brit' with Noach:
  "And I shall keep My covenant with you, and you will
enter
  the ark, you and your sons and wife..." (see Breishit
6:18).

     Then, when Noach actually enters the ark, the Torah
uses
this phrase when informing us how God kept His covenant:
  "Be-etzem ha-yom ha-zeh - on that very day, Noach and
his
  sons and wife... entered the ark..." (see 7:13).

     Similarly, when God enters into a covenant with
Avraham
Avinu concerning his future, better known as BRIT MILA;
God
promises:
  "And I shall keep My covenant between Me and you and
your
  offspring an everlasting COVENANT to be Your God...
this is
  [the sign] of My covenant that you shall keep,
circumcise
  every male child..." (see Breishit 17:7-10 and its
context).

     Then, when Avraham performs this mitzva, the Torah
once
again uses this phrase when informing us how Avraham
kept His
part of the covenant:
  "be-etzem ha-yom ha-zeh - on this very day - Avraham
was
  circumcised and his son Yishmael..." (see 17:26, &
17:23).

     Considering that these are the only times that we
find
this phrase in Sefer Breishit, and both relate to the
fulfillment of a major covenant between God and man;
when we
find that the Torah uses this phrase in Sefer Shmot, we
should
expect that it too relates to the fulfillment of a
covenant.
Clearly, this phrase in both Shmot 12:17 and 12:41 must
relate
to God's fulfillment of Brit bein ha-btarim.  Hence, one
can
suggest that its use in 12:17 in relation to the mitzva
to eat
matza for seven days relates to Bnei Yisrael's need
remain
faithful to its side of the covenant with God.  Based on
the
psukim quoted above from Yechezkel, the thematic
connection is
rather obvious.  If Am Yisrael is truly thankful for
their
redemption from slavery, they must show their dedication
by
totally removing themselves from the 'avoda zara' of
Egypt.

  Note as well that the phrase of be-etzem ha-yom ha-zeh
also
appears in Sefer Vayikra, once in relation to Shavuot
(see
23:21) and twice in relation to Yom Kippur (see
23:28-30).
[Note that it does not appear in relation to any of the
other
holidays in Emor!]
     On could suggest that here again this relates to
'britot'; Shavuot relating to 'brit sinai' - the first
luchot,
and Yom Kippur relating to 'brit sinai' - the second
luchot.
See TSC shiur on Parshat Ki Tisa on the 13 midot of
rachamim.
     One last mention of this phrase is found at the end
of
Parshat Ha'azinu in relation to 'brit Arvot Moav'.
     Finally, we find this phrase in Yehoshua 5:11,
mentioned
as Bnei Yisrael performed both BRIT MILA & KORBAN PESACH
when
they crossed the Jordan River and began conquest of
Eretz
Canaan!  Again the fulfillment of yet another stage of
both
brit mila and brit bein ha-btarim.

RAMBAN's APPROACH
  See Ramban on Shmot 12:39, how he explains that Bnei
Yisrael's original intention was to bake matza, the
rushing
only caused them to bake the dough matza on the road
instead
of in their homes in Egypt.  Even though this does not
appear
to be the simple pshat of the pasuk, it stems from the
Ramban's approach of yesh mukdam u-me'uchar, and hence
God's
commandment to Moshe in 12:15-20 was indeed given before
Bnei
Yisrael left Egypt, and hence applied to the first
generation
as they left Egypt as well!

BA'ZMAN HA'ZEH
  It should be noted that since we don't offer a Korban
Pesach
now of days, we obviously cannot fulfill the mitzva of
eating
matza with it.  Therefore, the matza that we make the
'bracha'
of 'achilat matza' on at the Seder night is for the
second
reason, based on the pasuk "ba-erev tochlu matzot" (see
Shmot
12:17-18, and its context).  On the other hand, to
remember
this matza, we eat an extra piece of matza together with
maror
- "zecher le-mikdash ke-Hillel" - to remember how this
mitzva
was fulfilled during the time when the Temple stood.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 -
Release Date: 4/1/2008 5:37 PM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bo1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 66389 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080403/d8aa5c2f/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Apr  9 05:19:52 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 05:19:52 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] for Parshat Metzora - shiur
Message-ID: <002a01c89a22$de6e5f40$0200000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

                   PARSHAT TAZRIA / METZORA

     Anyone who understands the opening pasuk of Parshat
Acharei Mot immediately realizes that this entire Parsha
belongs in Parshat Shmini!  Why then do Parshiot
Tazria/Metzora 'interrupt' this logical sequence?
     Should this opening statement sound a bit
complicated,
don't worry; we'll begin this week's shiur by first
explaining
this question. Then, our analysis of the Parsha in
search for
an answer, will also help us arrive at a more
comprehensive
understanding of the structure and theme of Sefer
Vayikra.

INTRODUCTION
     Recall that the first half of Parshat Shmini
included the
story of tragic death of Aharon's two sons - Nadav &
Avihu
(see 10:1-9). Recall as well that Parshat ACHAREI MOT
(several
chapters later) opens with God's commandment to Moshe &
Aharon
in the aftermath of that event:
   "And God spoke to Moshe and Aharon AFTER THE DEATH of
the
   two sons of Aharon..." (16:1)

     Hence, it would have been more logical for the
Torah to
include this commandment in Parshat Shmini - immediately
after
the story of their death.  [In other words, Vayikra
chapter 16
should follow immediately after chapter 10!]
     However, we find instead that chapters 11 thru 15,
detailing numerous laws concerning various types of
"tumah"
[spiritual uncleanliness], form an 'interruption' to
this
logical flow.

     To explain why, Part One of our shiur will explore
the
thematic relationship between these laws of "tumah" and
the
story of Nadav & Avinu's death. In Part Two, we will
build an
outline that will summarize these laws of "tumah" that
will
help us appreciate their detail.

PART ONE - WHAT DID NADAV & AVIHU DO WRONG?
      As you are probably aware, there are numerous
opinions
concerning what Nadav & Avihu did wrong.  The reason for
this
difference of opinions is simple; the Torah only tells
us WHAT
they did, but does not explain WHY they were punished.
Therefore, each commentator looks for a clue either
within
that pasuk (see 10:1) or in the 'neighboring' psukim in
search
of that reason.
   [For example, the word "aish zarah" in 10:1 implies
that
   Nadav & Avihu may have sinned by offering the wrong
type of
   fire. Alternately, the 'parshia' that follows
discusses
   laws that forbid the kohanim to become intoxicated
(see
   10:8-11), thus implying that they may have been
drunk. (See
   Rashi, Ramban, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni, etc.) In
fact,
   each commentary on this pasuk is so convincing that
it is
   truly hard to choose between them.]
   
     However, in contrast to that discussion concerning
what
specifically Nadav & Avihu did wrong (and why), our
shiur will
focus instead on the more general connection between
this
incident and the overall structure (and theme) of Sefer
Vayikra.

FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS
     Even though the Torah does not tell us specifically
WHY
Nadav & Avihu were punished, the pasuk that describes
their
sin does provide us with a very general explanation:
   "va'yikrvu aish zara - ASHER LO TZIVAH otam" - and
they
   offered a 'foreign fire' that GOD HAD NOT COMMANDED
THEM
   (see 10:1)

     However, finding this phrase "asher lo tzivah otam"
should not surprise us.  In relation to the construction
of
the Mishkan, we found this phrase repeated numerous
times in
our study of Parshiot Vayakhel & Pekudei.
   [To refresh your memory, just note how "ka'asher
tzivah
  Hashem et Moshe" [As God has commanded Moshe]
concludes just
  about every "parshia" in Parshat Pekudei. See not only
  35:29; 36:1; & 36:5 but also
39:1,5,7,21,26,29,31,32,42,43 &
  40:16,19,21,23,25,27,29,32!]

     Furthermore, this phrase first appeared at the very
introduction of the Mishkan unit that began in Parshat
Vayakhel:
   "And Moshe said to the entire congregation of Israel
   [EYDAH] ZEH HA'DAVAR - ASHER TZIVAH HASHEM - This is
what
   GOD HAS COMMANDED saying..."
                   (see 35:1,4, see also 35:1)

     Finally, thus far in Sefer Vayikra we have found
this
same phrase when the Torah describes the story of the
Mishkan's dedication. First of all, in the the seven day
"miluim" ceremony:
   "And Moshe said to the entire EYDAH [gathered at the
Ohel
   Moed/8:3] - ZEH HA'DAVAR - This is what GOD HAS
COMMANDED
   to do..."  (Vayikra 8:4-5, see also 8:9,13,17,21,36.)
     And in Moshe Rabeinu's opening explanation of the
special
korbanot that were to be offered on Yom ha'Shmini:
   "And Moshe said: ZEH HA'DAVAR - THIS is what GOD HAS
   COMMANDED that you do [in order] that His KAVOD
[Glory] can
   appear upon you [once again]..." (9:6, see also
9:1-5)

     Carefully note how Moshe declares this statement in
front
of the entire "eydah" [congregation] that has gathered
to
watch this ceremony. [See 9:5! Note also in 9:3-4 that
Moshe
explains to the people that these korbanot will 'bring
back'
the "shchinah".]
     In fact, when you review chapter 9, note how the
Torah
concludes each stage of this special ceremony with this
same
phrase. [See 9:5,6,7,10,21.]

     Therefore, when the Torah uses a very similar
phrase to
describe the sin of Nadav & Avihu on that day -
"va'yikrvu
aish zara - ASHER LO TZIVAH otam" (see 10:1), we should
expect
to find a thematic connection between that sin and this
phrase.
     To find that connection, we must consider the
reason why
the Torah uses this phrase so often in its details of
the
Mishkan's construction.

EMPHASIZING A CRITICAL POINT
     Recall that Nadav & Avihu's sin took place on the
'eighth
day'.  Earlier on that day (as the ceremony was about to
begin) Moshe had gathered the entire nation to explain
the
PRECISE details of how the korbanot would be offered on
that
day.
  [Note again, the key phrase: "zeh ha'davar asher
tzivah
  Hashem..."/ see 9:4-6.]  In fact, Moshe made two very
  similar remarks before the entire nation before the
  Mishkan's original construction (Shmot 35:1,4), and
before
  the seven day MILUIM ceremony (see Vayikra 8:1).

     Why must Moshe, prior to offering these special
korbanot,
first explain the details of these procedures to the
entire
congregation who have gathered to watch?

     The Torah appears to be sending a very strong
message in
regard to the Mishkan. God demands that man must act
precisely
in accordance to His command - without changing even a
minute
detail.

NADAV & AVIHU's PUNISHMENT
     With this background, we can better understand why
Nadav
& Avihu are punished.  On the day of its public
dedication -
on Yom ha'Shmini - they decide (on their own) to offer
KTORET.
Note the Torah's description of their sin:
   "And Nadav & Avi each took their firepan, put in it
fire
   and added KTORET, and they brought an alien fire in
front
   of God which He HAD NOT COMMANDED THEM ['asher lo
tzivah']"

     Their fire is considered "aish zarah" [alien]
simply
because God 'did not command them' to offer it. [Note
the
special emphasis upon the word "lo" according to the
"taamei
mikra" (cantillation). See also commentary of Chizkuni
on
10:1.
     Nadav & Avihu may have had the purest intentions,
but
they made one critical mistake - they did not act
according to
the precise protocol that God had prescribed for that
day.
Considering that the entire EYDAH gathered at the Ohel
Moed
recognize that Nadav & Avihu have strayed from protocol,
they
must be punished; for the lesson of that day was exactly
this
point - that in the Mishkan man must meticulously follow
every
detail of God's command.
   [Note, this interpretation does not negate any of the
other
   opinions which suggest that Nadav & Avihu had done
   something else wrong [such as drinking or disrespect
of
   Moshe, etc.]. It simply allows us to understand the
   severity their punishment EVEN if they had done
nothing
   'wrong' at all (other than doing something that God
had not
   commanded). See also commentary of Rashbam on 10:1 in
this
   regard.]

     From a thematic perspective, their punishment under
these
circumstances is quite understandable. Recall the
theological
dilemma created by a MISHKAN - a physical representation
(or
symbol) of a transcendental God. Once a physical object
is
used to represent God, the danger exists that man may
treat
that object [and then possibly another object] as a god
itself. On the other hand, without a physical
representation
of any sort, it becomes difficult for man to develop any
sort
of relationship with God. Therefore, God allows a
Mishkan - a
symbol of His Presence - but at the same time, He must
emphasize that He can only be worshiped according to the
precise manner "as God had commanded Moshe".
   [See also Devarim 4:9-24 for the Torah's discussion
of a
   similar fear that man may choose his own object to
   represent God [a "tavnit..." / compare Shmot 25:8-9
   "v'akmal".]

THE PROBLEM OF 'GOOD INTENTIONS'
     This specific problem of 'following God's command'
in
relation to the Mishkan takes on extra meaning on Yom
ha'Shmini.
     Recall our explanation of Aharon's sincere
intentions at
the incident of "chet ha'egel", i.e. he wanted to
provide Bnei
Yisrael with a physical symbol of God, which they could
worship. [See previous shiur on Ki-tisa.] Despite
Aharon's
good intentions, his actions led to a disaster. The sin
of
"chet ha'egel" caused KAVOD HASHEM [God's Glory
(="shchina"]),
which had appeared to Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai, to be
taken
away (see Shmot 33:1-7).
     Due to Moshe's intervention, God finally allowed
His
SHCHINA to return to the MISHKAN that Bnei Yisrael had
built.
But when Nadav & Avihu make a mistake (similar to
Aharon's sin
at chet ha'egel) on the very day of the Mishkan's
dedication,
they must be punished immediately.
   [Not only can this explain why they are so severely
   punished, it may also help us understand their
father's
   reaction of: "va'YIDOM Aharon" [and Aharon stood
silent]
   (see 10:3).]

     Finally, this interpretation can help us understand
Moshe's statement to Aharon: "This is what God had
spoken -
B'KROVEI E'KADESH..." (see 10:3). Recall the parallel
that we
have discussed many times between Har Sinai and the
Mishkan.
At Har Sinai, Bnei Yisrael AND the Kohanim were
forewarned:
   "And God told Moshe: Go down and WARN the people that
they
   must not break through [the barrier surrounding] Har
Sinai,
   lest they gaze at Hashem and perish. The KOHANIM
also, who
   COME NEAR HASHEM, must sanctify themselves
("yitkadashu" -
   compare "b'krovei akadesh"/10:3), lest God punish
them."
   (Shmot 19:21)

     As this inaugural ceremony parallels the events of
Har
Sinai, God's original warning concerning approaching Har
Sinai, even for the KOHANIM, now applies to the Mishkan
as
well. Therefore, extra caution is necessary, no matter
how
good one's intentions may be.  [See similar explanation
by
Chizkuni on 10:3!]

BACK TO SEFER VAYIKRA
     Now we can return to our original question. In
Sefer
Vayikra, the story of the sin of Nadav & Avihu (chapter
10)
introduces an entire set of laws that discuss improper
entry
into the Mishkan (chapters 11->15). Then, immediately
after
this tragic event, the Sefer discusses the various laws
of
"tumah v'tahara", which regulate who is permitted and
who is
forbidden to enter the Mishkan. Only after the
completion of
this section discussing who can enter the Mishkan, does
Sefer
Vayikra return (in chapter 16) to God's command to
Aharon
concerning how he himself can properly enter the holiest
sanctum of the Mikdash (on Yom Kippur).
     In Part Two, we discuss the content of this special
unit
of mitzvot from chapter 11->15.


                    PART II

 WHO CAN ENTER THE MISHKAN / TUMAH & TAHARA

INTRODUCTION
     We often find ourselves lost in the maze of
complicated
laws concerning "tumah" and "tahara" which the Torah
details
in Parshiot TAZRIA & METZORA. Even though it is not easy
to
understand the reasoning for these laws, the internal
structure of these Parshiot is quite easy to follow.
     In Part II, we outline the flow of parshiot from
Parshat
Shmini through Metzora and attempt to explain why they
are
located specifically in this section of Sefer Vayikra.

THE UNIT
     As the following table shows, each of these five
chapters
deals with a topic related in one form or manner to
"tumah"
(spiritual uncleanliness).

     CHAPTER   "TUMAH" CAUSED BY:
       11      eating or touching dead animals
       12      the birth of a child
       13      a "tzaraat" on a person's skin or garment
       14      a "tzaraat" in a house
       15      various emissions from the human body

     Not only do these parshiot discuss how one
contracts
these various types of TUMAH, they also explain how one
can
cleanse himself from these TUMOT, i.e. how he becomes
TAHOR.
For the simplest type of TUMAH, one need only wash his
clothing and wait until sundown (see 11:27-28,32,40).
For more
severe types of TUMAH, to become TAHOR one must first
wait
seven days and then bring a set of special korbanot.

     This entire unit follows a very logical
progression. It
begins with the least severe type of TUMAH, known as
"tumah
erev" - one day TUMAH (lit. until the evening), and then
continues with the more severe type of TUMAH, known as
"tumah
shiva", seven day TUMAH. Within each category, the Torah
first
explains how one contracts each type of TUMAH, then it
explains the how he becomes TAHOR from it.
     The following OUTLINE summarizes this structure.
Note how
each section of the outline concludes with a pasuk that
begins
with "zot torat...":

          VAYIKRA - CHAPTERS 11 -> 15
          ===========================

I. ONE DAY TUMAH - 11:1-47 / "v'tamey ad ha'erev"
      [known as "tumat erev" (or "tumah kala")]
     Person is TAMEY until nightfall/ see
     11:24,25,27,31,32,39] because he ate, touched, or
carried
     the dead carcass of:
    A. (11:1-28) forbidden animals and fowl
    B. (29-38) one of the eight "shrutzim" (swarming
creatures)
    C. (39-40) permitted animals that died without
"shchita"
    D. (41-43) other creeping or swarming creatures.

  TAHARA for the above - washing one's clothes/
11:28,32,40]

  FINALE psukim (11:44-47)

...ZOT TORAT HA'BHAYMA etc.


II. SEVEN DAY TUMAH - 12:1-15:33  ("tumah chamurah")
     A. TUMAT YOLEDET - a mother who gave birth (12:1-8)
          1. for a boy  :  7+33=40
          2. for a girl : 14+66=80

          TAHARA - korban chatat & olah
    
    ...ZOT TORAT HA'YOLEDET etc.

     B. TZARAAT HA'ADAM
          TUMAH / based on inspection by the kohen
               1. on one's body / 13:1-46
               2. on one's "beged" (garment) /13:47-59
          TAHARA / 14:1-32
               1. special sprinkling, then count 7 days
               2. special korban on eighth day
               
       ...ZOT TORAT ASHER BO NEGA TZARAAT etc.

     C. TZARAAT HA'BAYIT / 14:33-53
          TUMAH / based on inspection by kohen
          1. the stones of the house itself (14:33-45)
          2. secondary "tumah" (14:46-47) for one who:
               a. enters the house
               b. sleeps in the house
               c. eats in the house
  
         TAHARA - a special sprinkling on the house
(14:48-53)
  
  summary psukim for all types of TZARAAT (14:54-57)
  
 ...ZOT HA'TORAH L'CHOL NEGA HA'TZRAAT

... ZOT TORAT HA'TZARAAT.


     D. EMISSIONS FROM THE BODY (chapter 15)
          1. MALE - TUMAT ZAV - an abnormal emission of
"zera"
             a. he himself (15:1-4) - 7 days
             b. secondary "tumah" / 1 day (15:5-12)
              for one who either touches what the ZAV is
sitting on,
              or sits on an item that the ZAV sits, and
other misc.
              cases.

        TAHARA (15:13-15)
             waiting 7 days, then washing with "mayim
chayim"
             on 8th day a special korban

        2. MALE - TUMAT KERI - a normal emission
(15:16-18)
               one day "tumah" (until evening)
               requires washing clothing.

        3. FEMALE - TUMAT NIDA - a normal flow
(15:19-24)
               a. she herself - seven days
               b. secondary "tumah" - one day
                    for person or items that she touches

        4. FEMALE - TUMAT ZAVA - an abnormal flow
(15:25-30)
               a. she herself and what she sits on - 7
days
               b. secondary "tumah" for someone who
touches
                 her or something which she is sitting
on.
      
      TAHARA -
               waiting seven days...
               on 8th day a special korban
      
      A FINALE and summary psukim (15:31-33)

...ZOT TORAT HA'ZAV etc.

================================

ABOUT THE OUTLINE

     I recommend that you review this outline as you
study the
Parsha. Note that even though the details are very
complicated, the overall structure is actually quite
simple.

     Note also how the Torah summarizes each section
with a
phrase beginning with ZOT TORAT... - this is the
procedure (or
ritual) for... [See the previous shiur on Parshat
Tzav/Parah
in which we discussed the meaning of the word TORAH in
Sefer
Vayikra.]  The repetition of key phrases such as these
is
often helpful towards identifying the internal structure
of
parshiot in Chumash.

     Our division of the outline into TWO sections,
ONE-DAY
tumah and SEVEN-DAY tumah may at first appear to be a
bit
misleading for we also find many cases of one day tumah
in the
second section. However, the cases of one-day TUMAH in
the
second section are quite different for they are CAUSED
by a
person who had first become TAMEY for seven days.
Therefore,
we have defined them as 'secondary' TUMAH in that
section.
   [TUMAT KERI (15:16-18) may be another exception since
it is
   an independent one-day TUMAH, however it could be
   considered a sub-category within the overall
framework of
   TUMAT ZAV.]
    [See also further iyun section for a discussion why
the
     one-day TUMAH section includes KASHRUT laws.]

WHY THE INTERRUPTION?
     Now that we have established that chapters 11->15
form a
distinct unit, which discusses the laws of TUMAH &
TAHARA; we
can return to our original question - Why does this unit
interrupt the natural flow from Parshat Shmini (chapter
10) to
Parshat Acharei Mot (chapter 16)?
     The concluding psukim of this unit can provide us
with a
possible explanation.

     As we have noted in our outline, this entire unit
contains an important FINALE pasuk:
   "V'HIZARTEM ET BNEI YISRAEL M'TUMATAM... And you
shall put
   Bnei Yisrael on guard [JPS - see further iyun
regarding
   translation of "vhizartem"] against their TUMAH, LEST
THEY
   DIE through their TUMAH by defiling My MISHKAN which
is
   among them."  (see 15:31)

     This pasuk connects the laws of TUMAH & TAHARA to
the
laws of the Mishkan. Bnei Yisrael must be careful that
should
they become TAMEY, they must not ENTER the Mishkan.  In
fact,
the primary consequence for one who has become TAMEY is
the
prohibition that he cannot enter the MIKDASH complex.
There is
no prohibition against becoming TAMEY, rather only a
prohibition against entering the Mishkan should he be
TAMEY.

     Hence, the entire TAHARA process as well is only
necessary for one who wishes to enter the Mishkan. If
there is
no Mishkan, one can remain TAMEY his entire life with no
other
consequence (see further iyun section).

     With this background, we can suggest a common theme
for
the first 16 chapters of Sefer Vayikra - the ability of
Bnei
Yisrael to enter the Mishkan, to come closer to God.

     Let's explain:
     The first section of Sefer Vayikra, chapters 1->7,
explains HOW and WHEN the individual can bring a korban
and
HOW they are offered by the kohen. The next section,
chapters
8->10, records the special Mishkan dedication ceremony,
which
prepared Bnei Yisrael and the Kohanim for using and
working in
the Mishkan. As this ceremony concluded with the death
of
Nadav & Avihu for improper entry into the Mishkan (when
offering the "ktoret zara"), Sefer Vayikra continues
with an
entire set of commandments concerning TUMAH & TAHARA,
chapters
11->15, which regulate who can and cannot ENTER THE
MISHKAN.
This unit ends with laws of Yom Kippur, which describe
the
procedure of how the "kohen gadol" (high priest) can
enter the
most sacred domain of the Mishkan - the Kodesh K'doshim.
     Even though these laws of TUMAH & TAHARA may have
been
given to Moshe at an earlier or later time, once again,
we
find that Sefer Vayikra prefers thematic continuity over
chronological order (see shiur on Parshat Tzav). First,
the
Sefer discusses who cannot enter the Mishkan. Then it
explains
who can enter its most sacred domain.

ZEHIRUT - BEING CAREFUL
     Up until this point, we have discussed the
technical
aspects of the structure of this unit in Parshiot
Shmini,
Tazria & Metzora.  Is there any significance to these
laws of
TUMAH & TAHARA today as well?
     The simplest explanation is based on our parallel
between
the Mishkan and Har Sinai. Just as Bnei Yisrael's
encounter
with God at Har Sinai required special preparation, so
too
man's encounter with God in the Mishkan. It would not be
proper for man just to 'hop on in' whenever he feels
like
entering the Mishkan. Instead, each time an individual
plans
to offer a korban or enter the Mishkan for any other
reason,
he must prepare himself by making sure not to come in
contact
with anything which would make him TAMEY.  Should for
any
reason he become TAMEY, he must wash his clothes and
wait
until the next day. Should he himself contract a major
type of
TUMAH such as TZARAAT or ZAV, then he must wait at least
seven
days and undergo a special ritual which will make him
TAHOR.
     All of these complicated laws cause the man who
wishes to
visit the Mishkan to be very careful and constantly
aware of
everything he touches, or carries, etc. during the
entire week
prior to his visit, thus enhancing his spiritual
readiness for
entering the Mishkan.
     Today, even without a Mishkan, man must still make
every
effort to find God's Presence, even though it is hidden.
Therefore, man's state of constant awareness and caution
concerning everything that he says and does remains a
primary
means by which man can come closer to God, even though
no Bet
Ha'Mikdash exists.
     An important though to keep in mind as we prepare
ourselves during the seven weeks of Sefirat ha'Omer in
preparation for our commemoration of Ma'amad Har Sinai
on
Shavuot.

                                   shabbat shalom
                                   menachem

========================
FOR FURTHER IYUN

A. In relation to the translation of the word
"v'hizartem et
Bnei Yisrael..." (15:31), see Ibn Ezra. He explains that
the
word does not stem from "azhara"=warning, but rather
from the
word "nazir", to separate oneself ["zarut"]. Then "nun"
simply
falls which is noted by the dagesh in the "zayin". See
Ibn
Ezra inside!

B. Since this section of chapters 11->15 discuss various
laws
of TUMAH & TAHARA, one would expect it to include the
laws of
TUMAT MEYT (caused by touching a dead person). Instead,
the
Torah records these laws in Parshat Chukat,  Bamidbar
chapter
19. It appears as though that parsha was 'spliced' from
this
unit and 'transferred' to Sefer Bamidbar. This parsha is
one
of many parshiot in Sefer Bamidbar which would appear to
'belong' in Sefer Vayikra instead. Iy"h, we will explain
the
reason for this in our shiurim on Sefer Bamidbar -
"v'akmal".

C. At first glance, the section in our unit which
discusses
'one-day' TUMAH (chapter 11) appears to be discussing
"kashrut" (dietary laws) more than TUMAH, for it details
which
animals are permitted or forbidden to be eaten. However,
the
dietary laws which are mentioned here because one
becomes
TAMEY should he eat the meat of an animal which is
TAMEY.
     To prove this, simply compare this parsha to the
dietary
laws in Parshat Re'ay (see Dvarim 14:1-21). There we
find only
dietary laws and not laws of TUMAH & TAHARA. Therefore,
laws
such as "basar v'chalav" are mentioned in that parsha,
while
the laws of TUMAH are not!

D. These laws which discuss who can and cannot enter the
Mikdash are sometimes referred to as HILCHOT BIYAT
MIKDASH
(see Rambam Sefer Avodah). Obviously, these laws apply
only
when a Mikdash exists, as there is no other consequence
of
'becoming tamey' other than limited entry to areas
containing
shchinah.
     Nonetheless, there are several circumstances when
it is
still necessary to know these laws. For example,
entering HAR
HA'BAYIT even when there is not Mikdash requires that
one not
be TAMEY. These laws also relate to eating TRUMOT &
MAASROT.

E. See 11:44-45
    "...v'hitkadishtem, v'yehiytem KDOSHIM, ki KADOSH
ani"
     v'lo t'TAMU et nafshoteichem...."
    "ki ani Hashem ha'maale etchem m'eretz mitzrayim,
     l'hiyot l'chem l'Elokim, v'heyitem KDOSHIM ..."
     "... l'havdil bein ha'tamey u'bein ha'tahor..."

     This finale of the section explaining 'one-day'
TUMAH
connects the theme of Sefer Shmot, that Hashem took us
out
Egypt in order that we become His nation, to the laws of
"tumah & tahara". To become God's nation, we must be
like Him.
Just as He is "kadosh" (set aside, different), we must
also be
"kadosh".
     Man's spirituality begins with his recognition that
he is
different than animal. Although man and animal are
similar in
many ways, man must realize that he was set aside by God
for a
higher purpose. God blessed man with special qualities
in
order that he fulfill that purpose. [See Rambam in Moreh
Nvuchim I.1 regarding the definition of tzelem elokim.
It is
not by coincidence that the Rambam begins Moreh Nvuchim
with
this concept.]
     These laws of "tumat ochlim" teach Am Yisrael that
they
must differentiate between man and animal, and between
different types of animals. By doing so, man will learn
to
differentiate between divine and mundane, between "tamey
&
tahor", and finally between good and bad, right and
wrong etc.

D. In previous shiurim, we explained how the cycles of
seven
found in Chumash relate to our need to recognize the
hand of
God behind nature. Why do you think that we also find
cycles
of seven in the laws of TZARAAT, ZAV, and ZAVA that
appear to
be the exact opposite, that is abnormalities in nature?

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.9/1365 -
Release Date: 4/8/2008 7:30 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: tazmetz.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 56499 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080409/a7ba5d1f/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Apr 10 15:35:51 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:35:51 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] for Parshat Metzora - additional shiur
Message-ID: <004d01c89b42$15e6c050$0300000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

           for PARSHIOT METZORA & KI-TETZE

     Although most of the laws in Parshat Ki-Tetzeh deal
with
'mitzvot bein adam le-chavero' [man and his fellow man],
one
exception calls our attention:
  "Be very careful with regard to [the laws concerning]
a
  'nega tzara'at' (a type of skin infection) - do
exactly
  as the levitical priests instruct you" (24:8).

  This sort of warning - to observe the laws of
'tzara'at'
[leprosy] - is certainly an anomaly in Sefer Devarim.
  First of all, the laws of leprosy were first presented
in
Sefer Vayikra (see chapters 13 &14) together with
numerous
other laws of 'tum'a' & 'tahara' [spiritual
uncleanliness].
However, Sefer Devarim does not remind us concerning any
of
those laws (nor any other laws from the first 18
chapters of
Sefer Vayikra), other than this lone mention to keep the
laws
of tzara'at.
  Secondly, most all of the other laws in Parshat Ki
Tetzeh
deal with 'bein adam la-Makom' [matters between man and
God],
while this warning seems to be quite different.
  Finally, this pasuk doesn't appear to teach us
anything new.

     Therefore, when studying this pasuk, we must
consider
these three issues: i.e.  1) Why do we find here a
mitzva bein
adam la-Makom?  2) What specific law is being added that
has
not already appeared in Sefer Vayikra?   3) Why does
Sefer
Devarim introduce, uncharacteristically, a law from the
first
half of Sefer Vayikra?

LEPROSY & MIRIAM [Rashi]
     The simplest answer to the above questions is based
on
its connection to the next pasuk:
  "Remember what God did to Miriam, on your journey when
  you left the land of Egypt" (24:9).

     This pasuk clearly refers to the incident recorded
in
Parshat Beha'alotcha, when Miriam contracts tzara'at
following
her complaints regarding Moshe's marriage to an 'isha
kushit'
(see Bamidbar 12:1-16).
  This juxtaposition of the commandment to remember how
Miriam
was punished with tzara'at for speaking 'lashon ha-ra'
[evil
talk] against her brother, leads many commentators to
the
obvious conclusion that the Torah's 'reminder'
concerning
tzara'at is in essence a reminder not to slander.  In
other
words, by reminding us not to speak lashon ha-ra
immediately
after the warning concerning the laws of tzara'at, the
Torah
seems to enlist the laws of tzara'at as a (polite)
reminder
not to speak lashon ha-ra!

     For example, Rashi's opening commentary to this
pasuk
seems to make exactly this point:
       ["Remember what God did to Miriam" (24:9):]
  "If one wants to be careful not to contract tzara'at
at
  all - then don't speak lashon ha-ra [in the first
place].
  Remember what happened to Miriam when she spoke
against
  her brother..." (see Rashi 24:9).

     Not only does this interpretation reveal the
underlying
significance of these laws, it also answers the
questions
raised earlier.  The laws of tzara'at are mentioned in
Parshat
Ki Tetzeh specifically because they in fact do relate to
bein
adam le-chavero!  It also explains why the pasuk here
includes
only a very general warning concerning tzara'at, to get
to the
point of lashon ha-ra.  However, there is no need to
repeat
the technical details of tzara'at, as they have already
been
discussed in Sefer Vayikra.

DRASH = PSHAT [Ibn Ezra]
     It is worthwhile to note in this context Ibn Ezra's
comments on this pasuk.  Not only does he apparently
agree
with Rashi's interpretation, he even adds a comment that
the
pshat of these psukim in Devarim, supports a midrashic
interpretation in Sefer Vayikra:
  "From here (this pasuk) we find support for the
midrash
  (of Vayikra Rabba 16:1): don't read 'MeTZo'RA' -
rather
  'MoTZi shem RA'" (a cute abbreviation).

     In other words, Ibn Ezra (a big 'fan' of pshat)
finds
support for the midrash in Sefer Vayikra concerning the
laws
of metzora based on the pshat of the psukim in Sefer
Devarim!

NOT SO FAST
     Despite the simplicity and beauty of this
interpretation,
several serious questions emerge.
     First of all, why doesn't the Torah just tell us
'don't
speak lashon ha-ra?  What is gained by merely inferring
this
conclusion from the story of Miriam and the laws of
tzara'at?
     Furthermore, does it make sense for the Torah to
recall a
'bad story' concerning Miriam in order to teach us not
to tell
'bad stories' about other people?!
     Finally, why does the Torah emphasize (in 24:8)
that we
must follow the procedures specifically in accordance
with the
kohanim's instructions?  If the message is simply not to
speak
lashon ha-ra, the first half of the pasuk would have
sufficed
as ample warning.
     Due to these difficulties, Rashbam & Chizkuni will
explain these two psukim in a radically different
manner.  On
the other hand, Rashi and Ramban will remain 'loyal' to
the
lashon ha-ra approach; however, their commentaries will
reflect how they grappled with these difficulties as
well.
  [It is highly recommend that you first study (or at
least
  read) those commentaries on your own before
continuing.]

DON'T BE YOUR OWN DOCTOR!  [Rashi]
     Let's begin with the 'simple' question: If 24:8
simply
serves as a general warning to follow the proper
procedures
regarding tzara'at (as we concluded above), then it
would have
sufficed to say, "Be careful to keep the laws of
tzara'at."
What are we to learn from the second clause: "follow
exactly
what the levitical priests instruct you" (see 24:8)?
     Based on this redundancy, the Gemara in Makkot
(22a)
concludes that this pasuk includes more than just a
general
warning; rather it teaches us an additional law.  Rashi
cites
the Gemara's explanation that this pasuk forbids an
individual
to surgically remove a tzara'at infection from his skin
(by
himself) before showing it to the kohen.
     Basically, according to this interpretation, this
pasuk
teaches us that one 'cannot be his own doctor' with
regard to
tzara'at.  Instead, he must show his infection to the
kohen
(priest) and obediently follow the kohen's 'diagnosis'.
     Here we find a classic example of midrash halacha.
Chazal derive an additional halacha (which does not
appear
explicitly in the text) from an 'extra' phrase in a
pasuk,
based on the content and context of the otherwise
superfluous
expression.
  [It is important to note that this midrash halacha
does
  not contradict our earlier conclusion concerning the
  connection between tzara'at and lashon ha-ra; it
simply
  adds an additional law.  Note that Rashi brings down
both
  interpretations!  See also Further Iyun section.]

     Let's continue now with the more obvious question:
i.e.
what does the Torah gain by recalling the incident with
Miriam?  Would it not have been more effective to simply
admonish in straightforward fashion: 'Don't speak lashon
ha-
ra'?
     Most probably for this reason, Rashbam and
Chizkuni's
suggest a very different approach.

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!  [Rashbam]
      In contrast to the approach of Rashi & Ibn Ezra
(and our
original explanation), that the primary purpose of these
psukim is to prohibit lashon ha-ra, Rashbam points us in
a
totally different direction.  Let's take a look:
  "Be careful to keep the laws of tzara'at: [This comes
to
  teach us that] even with regard to [an important
person]
  like King Uziyahu - do not honor him (should he become
a
  metzora / see Divrei Hayamim II 26:11-22).  Instead,
send
  him outside the camp [as Miriam was sent]? for
remember
  what happened to Miriam: Even though she was a
prophetess
  and Moshe's sister, they did not honor her; instead,
they
  sent her outside the camp..."
    [See Rashbam 24:8-9 / In that story in Divrei
Hayamim,
    King Uziyahu was struck with tzara'at after he
haughtily
    entered the kodesh kodashim to offer ketoret.]

     According to Rashbam, the primary focus of these
psukim
relates indeed to the laws of leprosy and 'protektzia' -
and
hence has nothing to do with lashon ha-ra.
  Note how this interpretation resolves almost all our
questions (raised above).  Although the technical
details of
tzara'at have already been recorded in Sefer Vayikra,
Sefer
Devarim (in its discussion of various laws concerning
daily
life in the community of Israel) commands us not to make
any
exceptions for special people - i.e. no 'protektzia'!
     Hence, the Torah mentions the case of Miriam to
emphasize
precisely this point of 'no exceptions' (with regard to
tzara'at).  We cannot, therefore, according to Rashbam,
infer
from these psukim a conclusive connection between the
cause
for tzara'at and lashon ha-ra.
     Note as well that the story of Miriam in Parshat
Beha'alotcha provides only 'circumstantial evidence' for
such
a connection.  Recall that the Torah never states
explicitly
that lashon ha-ra was the cause of Miraim's leprosy!  In
fact,
most other occurrences of tzara'at in Tanach involve the
problem of 'ga'ava' [arrogance] - e.g. the cases of
Uziyahu
(see Divrei Hayamim II 26:16-20) and Na'aman and Gechazi
(see
Melachim II chapter 5).  See also Shmot 4:6-8,
'Ve-akmal'.]

     Rashbam is not alone in his approach.  Chizkuni (on
24:8-
9) explains these psukim in a similar fashion:
  "Keep the laws of tzara'at: Do not grant special honor
to
  important people by exempting them from banishment
from
  the camp.  Remember what God did to Miriam - even
though
  she was sister to the king and high priest, she was
  nevertheless banished outside the camp for the entire
  seven-day period."
  
  Rashbam and Chizkuni agree that the primary purpose of
these
psukim is to teach us that everyone is equal under the
law,
and hence, not to make exceptions for VIP's.  Note, that
this
approach as well provides us with a good reason for
including
this law in Parshat Ki Tetzeh, as it falls into the
category
of bein adam le-chavero, and it reflects God's
expectation
that Am Yisrael live by higher moral standard.

     How about Ramban?  We've intentionally saved him
for
last, because his approach (as usual) is the most
comprehensive, addressing textual and thematic parallels
to
other parshiot in Chumash.  We will show how his
approach (in
this case) is both 'educational' like Rashi's and
faithful to
pshat no less than Rashbam's.
  [Incidentally, this is why Ramban's commentary is
usually
  much longer and complex than Rashi's.  On the other
hand,
  specifically because of his brevity, Rashi has earned
  more widespread popularity.]

REMEMBER THE OTHER 'ZACHOR'S'!  [Ramban]
     Note, that just about all of the interpretations of
24:8-
9 thus far how considered the warning to follow the laws
of
leprosy in 24:8 ['hi-shamer...'] as the primary point-
and the
'reminder' to remember what happened to Miriam in 24:9
['zachor...'] as secondary.  Ramban will do exactly the
opposite, showing how the Torah's primary commandment is
zachor in 24:9, and hishamer in 24:8 simply serves as a
lead
up to the primary point in 24:9!
     Ramban begins by quoting Rashi's explanation that
guarding one's tongue against lashon hara prevents the
onset
of tzara'at; and (for a change), this time Ramban
actually
quotes Rashi because he agrees (and not as a set up to
disagree).  However, Ramban takes Rashi's approach one
step
further, demonstrating that what Rashi considers 'drash'
may
be not only 'pshat', but should even be counted as one
of the
613 mitzvot!
  "In my opinion this [commandment of zachor in pasuk
24:9]
  should be considered a positive commandment - [i.e. it
  should be counted as] an actual mitzvat aseh" [see
Ramban
  24:9].

     To our amazement, Ramban considers zachor - what
appeared
to be simply a 'reminder' - as a positive commandment to
daily
remember (or possibly even recite) the incident
involving how
Miriam contracted tzara'at after speaking about her
brother.
  How does Ramban reach such a daring conclusion that
this
should be counted as one of the 613 mitzvot!?
  
     One could suggest that Ramban's approach stems from
his
'sensitive ear' to the Torah's use of key phrases.  When
Ramban hears the opening phrase: "Zachor et asher asa
Hashem..." he is immediately reminded of three other
instances
where the Torah introduces a mitzva with a similar
expression:
* 1) Shabbat - "Zachor et yom ha-shabbat" (Shmot 20:7)
* 2) Yetziat Mitzrayim - "Zachor et ha-yom..." (Shmot
13:3)
* 3) amalek - "Zachor et asher asa lecha Amalek..."
         (see Devarim  25:17)

     Ramban cites these three examples as proof that a
pasuk
beginning with the word zachor... constitutes a positive
commandment (a 'mitzvat aseh'); and hence, our case
should be
no different.
     But what is this mitzva?  Why would the Torah have
us
remember a 'not so nice' story about Miriam?
     Like an artist, Ramban beautifully 'puts all the
pieces
together,' explaining this seemingly enigmatic pasuk in
light
of our earlier questions.  Like Rashi and Ibn Ezra, he
points
to lashon ha-ra as the central topic of these psukim.
This is
why the incident of Miriam is introduced and why the
issue of
tzara'at is mentioned altogether in Parshat Ki-Tetzeh,
in the
context of mitzvot bein adam le-chavero.
  However, Ramban's interpretation also explains the
advantage
of employing Miriam to present this mitzva (rather than
stating it explicitly):
  "... Hence, this is a warning (of the Torah) not to
speak
  lashon ha-ra, commanding us to remember the terrible
  punishment that Miriam received [even though she was]
a
  righteous prophetess, and she spoke only about her
  brother (not someone outside the family) and only
  privately with her brother (Aharon), not in public, so
  that Moshe himself would not be embarrassed... But
  despite these good intentions, she was punished.  How
  much more so must we be careful never to speak lashon
ha-
  ra... (see Ramban 24:9).

     According to Ramban, the Torah doesn't mention
Miriam to
tell us how bad her sin was.  On the contrary, the
incident of
Miriam (who, as everyone knows, was righteous and had
only
good intentions) emphasizes how careful we must all be
in all
matters which may involve even the slightest degree of
lashon
ha-ra.  This pasuk reminds us that punishment was
administered
even in the case of Miriam's mild lashon ha-ra.
     Based on the parallel to other instances of the
word
zachor, the Ramban concludes that mere recollection does
not
suffice.  We are obligated to verbally recount this
unfortunate incident every day [just as Kiddush on
Shabbat
fulfills the obligation of 'zachor et yom ha-shabbat
lekadsho...']!  Ramban understands these psukim as not
merely
some good advice, but as a commandment to retell this
incident
on a daily basis, in order that we remember not to make
a
similar mistake, even should we have 'good intentions'.
  [See also Sifra on Vayikra 26:14 [Torat Kohanim
  Bechukotai Alef 2-3].  This probably explains the
  'minhag' [custom] of reciting this pasuk each day
after
  shacharit - see the six 'zechirot' at the conclusion
of
  shacharit in your siddur!]

     Ramban's closing remarks are most significant, as
they
reflect another important aspect of his exegetical
approach:
  "For how could it be that lashon ha-ra - which is
  equivalent in its severity to murder - would not be
  considered a [full fledged] mitzva in the Torah! ...
    Rather, this pasuk serves as a serious warning to
  refrain [from lashon ha-ra], be it in public or in
  private, intentional or unintentional...and it should
be
  considered one of the 613 mitzvot..." (see Ramban
24:9).

     Ramban here employs 'conceptual logic' - the very
essence
of his pshat approach - to support his comprehensive
interpretation of these psukim.  Because logically there
must
be a mitzva in the Torah against speaking lashon ha-ra,
Ramban
prefers to interpret this pasuk as one of the 613
mitzvot.
  In this manner, Ramban utilizes a wider perspective of
pshat
to reach a conclusion not only similar to the Midrash,
but
also more poignant.
  [If you would like to see an 'enhanced version' of
  Ramban's explanation of this mitzva, read his
commentary
  to Rambam's Sefer Ha-mitzvot.  At the conclusion of
the
  'mitzvot aseh' section, Ramban adds several mitzvot
which
  (in his opinion) Rambam had overlooked.  In 'hasaga'
#7,
  Ramban adds this mitzva, that we must constantly
remind
  ourselves of the incident of Miriam in order to
remember
  not to speak lashon ha-ra.]

An 'AM' KADOSH with a 'PEH' KADOSH
     Note as well that according to Ramban's
interpretation,
the mitzva which emerges from these two psukim in
Parshat Ki
Tetzeh is not only yet another mitzva bein adam
le-chavero, it
also forms one of the most basic 'building block'
towards
achieving the ultimate goal of Sefer Devarim to create
and
establish an am kadosh.
  Recall how the mitzvot of the main speech form the
guidelines for the establishment of God's model nation
in the
land of Israel.  Imagine an entire nation, where each
individual reminded himself daily of these stringent
guidelines concerning lashon ha-ra!
     Anyone who would like to be 'machmir' [adhere to a
more
stringent opinion] - especially on the 'de-'oraita'
level, is
invited to take upon himself this 'chumra' [stringency]
explicated by Ramban.
                              shabbat shalom,
                              menachem

==========================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
A.  Try to arrange the various opinions of the Rishonim
mentioned above into the following categories.  Who
considers:
     1) 24:8 is the primary pasuk - 24:9 supports it.
     2) 24:9 is the primary pasuk - 24:8 introduces it.
     3) 24:8-9 should be read together, like one long
pasuk.

B.  Carefully review Rashbam and Chizkuni's comments on
our
psukim.  According to them, to whom is the prohibition
in 24:8
directed?  According to Rashi / Ramban?
     A corresponding debate exists regarding Vayikra
13:2: "Ve-
huva el Aharon ha-kohen?" ("He shall be brought before
Aharon?").  See Sefer Hachinuch 169 as opposed to the
Rosh's
commentary on Masechet Zavim 3:2.

C.  We noted Chazal's Midrash Halacha that interprets
the
first of our two psukim as forbidding the surgical
detachment
of a tzara'at infection.  As we pointed out, Rashi
adopts this
peirush of that pasuk, despite the fact that he
understands
the reference to tzara'at here as primarily related to
lashon
ha-ra.
       The question, of course, arises, why would the
Torah
mention specifically this particular detail of the laws
of
tzara'at if the main focus here is on lashon ha-ra?  Why
is
this prohibition singled out from all of hilchot
tzara'at for
mention here in the context of the prohibition of lashon
ha-
ra?
     Try to answer this question by reviewing the
general
process imposed upon the metzora.  See Rashi, Vayikra
13:47 &
14:4.  In light of this, explain the prohibition of
removing a
tzara'at infection and how this may reflect the severity
of
lashon ha-ra.  Bear in mind as well that the Ramban here
(24:8) extends this prohibition beyond severing the
infection,
to mere refusal to show it to the kohen (thus avoiding
the
entire process).
     In honor of Elul, relate this concept to the
process of
'teshuva' in general.

D.  Those Rishonim who do not derive the prohibition of
removing a tzara'at infection from 24:8 (as the Gemara
in
Makkot does) would presumably derive the prohibition
from
Vayikra 13:33 - see Torat Kohanim there.  Based on the
context
of that pasuk, what advantage is there to learning the
prohibition from our pasuk instead?  What might be the
difference between these two prohibitions?  See Sefer
Hachinuch 170, as opposed to Ramban in his 'hasagot' to
Rambam's Sefer Hamitzvot lo ta'aseh 307-8. [There is
also some
question as to the precise text of that passage in Torat
Kohanim - see Sefer Hachinuch's citation of Torat
Kohanim in
mitzva 170 and Torah Shleima, Vayikra 13:109.]

E.  Recall that according to Rashbam and Chizkuni, 24:9
teaches us not to make exceptions for public figures
with
regard to the laws of tzara'at.  Review their comments
and
note that the 'hava amina' (original possibility) of
exempting
leaders from these laws evolved from the honor and
respect due
to them.  We may, however, add another element to this
hava
amina: national interests.  A nation would
understandably be
very reluctant to quarantine an important public
official for
an indefinite period of time.  Explain how, along the
lines of
the Rashbam & Chizkuni but with our variation, we may
explain
a seemingly superfluous phrase in the pasuk: "? on your
journey when you left the land of Egypt." (For a subtle
hint,
see Targum Yonatan's explanation of this phrase.)
Consider
especially the final clause of Bemidbar 12:15.  (If you
want
to cheat, look up Rav Zalman Sorotzkin's 'Oznayim
La-Torah' on
our pasuk.)

F.  For an interesting twist, see Targum Yonatan Ben
Uziel on
24:9.  According to his understanding, what sin does
this
pasuk address?  Is this wrongdoing related to lashon
ha-ra?
Based on this Targum Yonatan, explain more fully Rashi's
comments on Shemot 4:6.

G.  Note that the mitzva of 'kil'ayim' (see 22:9-12) is
another mitzva bein adam la-Makom, and hence seems out
of
place in Parshat Ki Tetzeh.  Based on the various laws
concerning forbidden marriages which continue in
22:13-23:9,
can you suggest a thematic connection between these
mitzvot?
     In this context, note Ramban's association between
the
prohibition of plowing with an ox and donkey (pasuk 10)
and
that of interbreeding (Vayikra 19:19).  See also Rambam,
Moreh
Nevuchim 3:49, who explicitly bases the prohibition here
with
the halacha forbidding interbreeding.  [Regarding
sha'atnez,
however, he offers a much different explanation - Moreh
Nevuchim 3:37.]

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.10/1367 -
Release Date: 4/9/2008 7:10 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kitey2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 39602 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080410/5f91022b/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Fri Apr 11 09:52:46 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:52:46 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Likrat Shabbat, Parshat Metzora
Message-ID: <008101c89bdb$5378ade0$0800000a@x60>

  **************************************************
   THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  www.tanach.org
    In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
   Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
 **************************************************

      Likrat Shabbat  - for PARSHAT METZORA 

Even though the Torah may allude to the fact that
"tzaraat" [leprosy] is caused by some type of 'improper'
conduct - in Sefer Vayikra - no specific reason is ever
given!  Instead, the Torah dedicates two full chapters
in Sefer Vayikra to explain how the "metzora", once
identified, must be 'banished' from the camp, and how
his return is only permitted after a week of confinement
- and only after undergoing a rigorous ritual.

Would it not have made more sense for Sefer Vayikra to
dedicate at least a few psukim to explain what
transgressions cause this 'spiritual disease'?  Does the
Torah simply suffice with a few allusions to a cause, as
found in the story of Miriam in Sefer Bamidbar
(see12:14-16) & as alluded to once again in Devarim
24:8-9.  Can't the Torah be more straightforward and
inform us explicitly that "tzaarat" is caused by certain
transgressions!

When considering the predicament faced by one who
contacts this 'leprosy', one could infer a very powerful
lesson - applicable today, i.e. even during a time
period when these Biblical laws no longer apply.

When a person contracts a strange skin disease,
especially on a part of his body that can seen by
others, it is only natural that he would refrain showing
himself in public,  Indeed, the Torah commands that the
metzora must 'sit alone outside the camp' (see Vayikra
13:46), and that he must inform others that he is
"tamey" (see 13:45) - but even if the Torah had not
commanded this confinement, the "metzora" most probably
would have confined himself - on his own volition;
maybe not outside the camp, but more likely inside his
own home. 

But what would the metzora do next?  From a
psychological perspective, this predicament is very
troubling.  What would stop this "metzora" from locking
himself in his room to brood - to remain alone in his
misery for weeks, or months, or years?  

This "metzora" needs not only a support group, but also
a framework whereby he can slowly return to the
'mainstream' of life 'within the camp of Israel' -- but
not right away.  Instead he first needs to recognize
that he has a problem; and then he requires seven days
of confinement to ponder his actions, to ASK HIMSELF -
what caused this disease (see Rashi  on13:46).  

Afterward, society must offer him a step by step
framework whereby the metzora can 'cleanse himself' - to
get off to new start, and slowly return to normal daily
life of kedusha within the camp of Israel (the goal of
Sefer Vayikra).
     
This may be the reason why Sefer Vayikra doesn't tell us
the precise cause of "tzaraat" - for the precise reason
for why he contracted this leprosy is between himself
and God - it is not supposed to be public knowledge.  

In other words, it is not the job of the community of
point fingers - to accuse the metzora - to tell him
precisely what he did wrong!

Instead, it becomes the responsibility of the community
(led by the kohanim) to 'mainstream the "metzora" back
into society, to give him the necessary support and
encouragement so that he can realize that his
predicament is only temporary.   

 The various rituals that the kohen must perform provide
the necessary framework that can facilitate this return.
Without these procedures, the "metzora" may have
remained destitute for the rest of his life.
     
Based on very insightful Ibn Ezra, I'd like to support
this approach by comparing these laws of the "metzora"
to the laws of "sitting shiva" [Jewish bereavement
laws].

In his commentary on Vayikra 13:45, Ibn Ezra notes the
textual similarity between the laws of how the metzora
must dress and care for his hair during these seven days
- to the laws of "aveilut" [mourning].  [See 13:45 and
compare with Yechezkel 24:15-17.]  

Hence, Ibn Ezra concludes that the purpose of these
seven days is for the metzora to contemplate his own
behavior, so that he can realize the purpose and meaning
of this 'spiritual punishment'. 

However, just like in the laws of mourning, these seven
days are followed by a "yom ha'shvii" and then by a "yom
ha'shmini" (see 14:9-10). Even though halacha confines
the mourner to his home for seven days, he is also
commanded to leave his home as soon as those seven days
are over, to return to society - to overcome the grief
and return to a productive life of "kedusha".  

Just as the laws of "shiva" provide a framework for the
mourner to first deal with his bereavement, and then
enable his return to society, so too the laws of
"tzaraat".   [See Ibn Ezra on 13:45.]

This may explain why Sefer Vayikra - "torat kohanim" -
never tells us what the metzora did wrong to deserve
this punishment. As far as society is concerned, that is
a private matter between God and the person who has
contracted that disease.  Rather, it is the job of
society, led by the Kohanim, to help that person - to
recognize his difficult predicament and provide him with
not only a framework, but also the necessary
encouragement to return to a productive way of life,

On the one hand, the metzora himself must utilize this
seven day 'time-out' for introspection, to contemplate
his behavior and think of ways to improve himself.  He
could even ask the kohen for some guidance, during his
frequent visits, and during the performance of the
various symbolic rituals. 

It may even be for this purpose that the Torah provides
us with several allusions for the cause of "tzaraat".
Those allusions can serve as a guide for the person who
contracted this disease - to help him ascertain why this
happened.

However, society must also remember its own obligation
not to neglect the "metzora", just as the society of Am
Yisrael must not neglect anyone who becomes destitute or
feels isolated. 

In this manner, the laws of "tzaarat" are quite
applicable even today. And if we follow their
guidelines, hopefully we will become worthy of God's
Presence in our midst - the pre-requisite (see Ramban
13:47) for the Biblical laws of "tzaarat" to truly
apply.

	Something to think about as we 'cleanse'
ourselves, and our houses, and our clothing, from
chametz this week.

				shabbat shalom,
				menachem
1


1



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.12 - Release
Date: 4/10/2008 12:00 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: metzora1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 19791 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080411/da1c9017/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Apr 14 04:41:00 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:41:00 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] MAGID  - questions for self study
Message-ID: <00cd01c89e0b$44521cc0$0200000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

    For self study on Shabbat ha'Gadol - [or the week
before Pesach]

 LEIL HA-SEDER --Understanding  MAGGID
		[Questions for self-study and
preparation]
	
    Looking for something to study on Shabbat ha'Gadol,
or to do a little more than just 'prepare a little vort'
for the Seder? 
    The following questions should keep you 'plenty
busy'!

INTRODUCTION
	Sometimes, we find ourselves so involved in
studying the various commentaries on the Haggada, that
we never get around to studying MAGID itself!
	The following battery of questions will attempt
to do just that, i.e. to help you understand how we tell
the story of the Exodus in the section of the Haggada
called MAGID 
[To prepare these questions, it would be helpful if you
have handy a Haggada, a Chumash, and Mishnayot Pesachim.
As you will notice, we will be analyzing the text of
MAGGID using a methodology similar to the approach that
we have employed in our study of Chumash.]

	In the first section, we will explore the psukim
in Chumash that command us to tell the story of the
Exodus, while the second section will focus on the
"mishnayot" in Mesechet Pesachim that provide 'the
framework' for the Seder.  Based on those questions, our
third battery of questions will analyze the actual text
of MAGID, and its internal structure, as found in our
Haggada.
     --- b'hatzlacha!
 

PART I - THE SOURCE FOR 'MAGGID' IN CHUMASH
1.  Ask almost anyone, and they'll tell you that our
obligation to tell the story of the Exodus at the Seder
is based on the pasuk: "ve-higadta le-bincha..." (see
Shmot 13:8).  However, ask them to carefully translate
the meaning of every word in that pasuk, and as you'll
see for yourself, it's not so easy to understand.
    For a start, take a quick read of that pasuk (Shmot
13:8), noting how it cannot be understand without
knowing what the words "ha-hu" and "zeh" refer to, as
well as the context of the phrase "assa Hashem li".
    Therefore, to appreciate the context of 12:8, you
must carefully study from 13:3 thru 13:8, as they
include the entire command to 'remember the Exodus'.  
[To appreciate the fuller context of 13:3-8, you should
review all of the parshiot from 12:1 thru 13:8, paying
special attention to 12:14 (noting how it relates to
13:3, as well as to 12:3-13) - 12:17, 12:24-27, and the
story in 12:33-39.]

2.  In regard to 13:3, does this pasuk imply two
separate mitzvot - i.e. to 'remember' the day of the
Exodus, and not to eat "chametz"; or did you understand
this as one commandent, i.e.  to 'remember' the day of
the Exodus - by not eating "chametz"?
	In your opinion, which interpretation makes more
sense.
	Similarly, in 13:5 - what does the phrase
"ha'avodah ha'zot" refer to?  Does this introduce the
pasuk that follows (and hence it refers to eating matza)
or does it refer back to 12:24-27 (and hence refers to
offering the korban pesach).  [See how the various
commentators argue in this regard.]

3.  Return now to 13:8.  Based on the context from
13:3-7 what do the words "ha'hu" and "zeh" refer to?
    Did you translate the word "ba'avur" - as 'because',
or 'for the sake of', (or something else)?  How does
that translation affect your understanding of 13:8?
    According to your understanding of 13:8, does this
pasuk instruct us to explain to our children: 
    (1) why we are eating matza, or 
    (2) why God took us out of Egypt?
    
    Then, study the classical commentators on this
pasuk, noting how we find an amazing argument between
Rashi (& Ibn Ezra sides with him!) against  Rashbam &
Ramban.  In your opinion, which commentary makes more
sense?  Is it possible that both opinions could be
correct?

4. 	Based on your study, would you say the source
and underlying reason for our obligation to tell the
story of the Exodus is based only on 13:8, or also on
13:3?  [Note also Rambam Hilchot Chametz u'Matza 7:1.]
    Finally, note as well Shmot 10:1-2, noting how that
pasuk as well may relate to the reason for how and why
we must tell the story of the Exodus at the Seder!

5.  As you review the psukim cited above regarding the
Biblical command to 'tell the story of the Exodus', is
it clear precisely how we are to tell the story?
    Assuming that you've read the Bible, in your
opinion, at what point in Jewish History should that
story begin?
[e.g. - would you begin with the enslavement, or would
you begin back with Yaakov going down to Egypt, or with
Yosef & his brothers, or with Avraham Avinu, or with
Terach, or with Noach, or maybe even the story of
Creation?] 

    Similarly, and at what point should the story end?
[e.g. - with the Exodus? the splitting of the sea?;
Matan Torah?; Conquering Israel?, building the Temple?]

	Finally, in your opinion, would you say that the
primary focus of our 'story' should be to explain WHAT
happened, or should the story also discussed WHY it
happened?  If so, explain why!
	Relate your answer to this question, to your
answers to the questions above (and to underlying theme
of Sefer Breishit).

	Keep your answers in mind, as we will discuss
them in our study of MAGID.

PART TWO - MASECHET PESACHIM
1.  Review the mishnayot in the tenth perek of Masechet
Pesachim, noting how they provide the guideline for how
we are supposed to tell the story.  Focus on the
"mishnayot" from the 'four questions' until the blessing
on the second cup.
    Note how these mishnayot provide only a 'framework'
for how to tell the story - and explain that framework
(and format).  In your opinion, why does this framework
leave so much latitude for the person telling the story
to decide for himself how to tell the story?

MATCHILIN B'GNUT...
2.  The mishna provides us with a format for how to
begin and end the story - i.e. we begin our story with a
'derogatory' statement, and conclude with 'praise'. 
    See Mesechet Pesachim 116a, where we find two
opinions for how to fulfill 'matchilin bi-gnut':
    Shmuel suggests that we begin with "avadim hayinu" -
    we were once slaves...
Rav suggests - "m'tchila ovdei kochavim hayu Avoteinu"
    - that our forefathers were once idol worshipers...

	In your opinion, does this an argument concern
WHEN the story beings (i.e. Rav begins the story with
our enslavement/ and hence Sefer Shmot, while Shmuel
begins with Terach/ and hence Sefer Breishit) - OR -
does their argument simply reflect what is considered a
more 'derogatory' statement (i.e. that our forefathers
were once slaves, or that they once didn't believe in
God)?
    
    To the best of your recollection, in the Haggada
(when we tell the story of the Exodus), what opinion do
we follow?  

3.  As you probably remember, we find both Rav & Shmuel
in our Haggadah; however both of their original short
statements - are completed by longer statements.  Refer
to your Haggada, and attempt to understand why we
'lengthen' these statements.
	In relation to Shmuel's opinion - be sure to
compare with Devarim 6:20-24, noting our direct quote of
Devarim 6:21.  [In your opinion, was this Shmuel's
original intention when he suggested "avadim ha'yinu"?]
    In relation to Rav's opinion, be sure to see not
only Yehoshua 24:1-4; but also Yechezkel 20:1-10!  Based
on both souces, do you think that Rav's original opinion
refers to the fact that Avraham Avinu's father (Terach)
was an idol worshiper; or that Bnei Yisrael in Egypt
(immediately prior to their redemption) were still
involved in idol worship (and nevertheless, God redeemed
us)?
    
MSAYMIM b'SHVACH
4.  According to the Mishna, we are supposed to conclude
the story with 'praise'.  In your opinion, where and
when do we do this in our Haggadah?
	In your answer, relate to how we discuss the
Plagues, the song of Dayenu, and the first two psalms of
Hallel.

LFI DAATO SHEL HA'BEN AVIV m'LAMDO
5.  The next statement of the Mishna provides yet
another 'format' for how to 'tell the story' - i.e. the
parent must tell the story based on the 'educational
level' of the child.  
	In your opinion, when and how in MAGGID do we
apply this principle?  [Do we apply this principle in
'practice' as well?]

	In Part Five (of these questions) you will find
an additional battery of questions that will help you
appreciate how the section of the Four Sons in the
Haggada relates to this Mishna.

V'DORSHIM m'ARAMI OVED AVI...
6.  Review Devarim 26:1-10 - based on those psukim, be
sure that you understand the meaning of this portion of
the Mishna, which basically provides us with a format of
how we are supposed to tell the story. 
	In our Haggada, do we follow this format?  If
so, where and when (and how do we accomplish
"v'dorshim")?

7.  According to the Mishna, it would seem that we
should quote from Devarim 26:5-9; while in reality - our
Haggada only quotes thru 26:8, but does not include
26:9.  Can you explain why?
	Do you think that our custom follows the
original intention of the Mishna, or that our custom
changed due to certain historical events?

8.  Note how this commandment (in Devarim 26:1-10) to
'bring our first fruits' includes the annual recitation
of a special declaration (be every individual in Am
Yisrael) - better known as "mikra bikurim".  In your
opinion, what is the purpose of this annual declaration
(see 26:3-10), and why can't we fulfill this obligation
when there is no Bet ha'Mikdash?  
	Based on your answer, could you suggest any
special significance for why the Mishna prefers that we
quote from the psukim of "mikra bikurim" to fulfill our
annual obligation of "sipur Yetziat Mitzraim"?

9.  Compare Devarim 26:5-9 (in its context) with
Breishit 15:7-18 (in its context).  In your opinion,
what is the relationship between these two sources?
	In general, how does Breishit chapter 15 relate
to "brit Avot"; and how does Devarim chapter 26 relate
to "brit Sinai" (see Devarim 26:16-19!).

THE RAMBAM in Hilchot chametz u'matza
10.  See Rambam, Sefer Zemanin, Hilchot Chametz u-Matza,
chapter 7.  Read the first six halachot, noting how
Rambam understood the psukim in Chumash and the
Mishnayot.  Note how he understood Shmot 13:1-8, and
whether he follows Rav's opinion or Shmuel's.

11. Note as well how the Rambam records his own 'nusach'
(text) for MAGGID at the conclusion of Hilchot Chametz
u-Matza (immediately after chapter 8).
    If you have time, compare Rambam's nusach to that in
your own Haggada, noting the sections that Rambam did
not include.  Can you suggest a reason why?
======

PART THREE - ANALYZING MAGGID - step by step...
    [THE 'BIGGER PICTURE']
    
1.  Now it's time to see how we tell the story in the
Haggada.  Our first task is to construct an outline.
[Basically, we are going to carefully create a table of
contents for MAGGID.]
    To do so, open to the MAGGID section of your
Haggada, and (if it's not Shabbat or Yom Tov) take a
blank sheet of paper and pencil.  Give a short title for
each paragraph or section in Maggid (i.e. beginning with
'Ha lachma anya' until Hallel).  Record each title on
the left margin of your paper, i.e. create a vertical
list.
    [If it is Shabbat, then keep this list in 'memory'.]
	This may appear to be rather tedious, but as you
continue, you'll see how helpful this will be.  
    To help your study, you can download a one page
Haggada at the following link -
www.tanach.org/haggada.pdf  .

2.  Next, turn your list into an outline by grouping
together the paragraphs that carry a common topic.  For
example, the five paragraphs that describe the 'four
sons' could be grouped together, so too Raban Gamliel's
statement concerning PESACH, MATZA, & MAROR.  
	Re-work your outline several times, attempting
to organize it into main topics and subtopics.  When you
are finished, make sure that you can follow the flow
from one topic to the next.  In essence, you should have
created an 'outline' of MAGID.

3.  Study your outline once again, and attempt to
ascertain how (and where) the story of the Exodus is
actually told.  
    Should you come across any section of MAGGID that
does not 'tell the story' of the Exodus, attempt to
explain why it is nonetheless included in this section
of the Seder.

4.  Based on your outline, where in MAGGID do we
actually tell the story of the Exodus ['sippur yetziat
Mitzrayim'] in its entirety?
    Relate your conclusions to the 'framework' for
MAGGID, as discussed in the mishnayot of Masechet
Pesachim (and in our questions in Part Two, above).

    To better understand what we say in MAGGID, we will
now review each section (or paragraph), to determine how
it relates (or doesn't relate) to how we tell the story
of the Exodus.
    By doing so, we will better understand how we
fulfill (or don't fulfill) the mitzva of "sippur yetziat
Mitzrayim" at our Seder.

HA LACHMA ANYA
1.  Read the "ha lachma anya" paragraph. - In your
opinion, does this section serve as the beginning of the
story?  If not, what is its purpose and why do we recite
it?
[Are you sure that this paragraph should be considered
the first part of MAGID, or could it be considered the
last part of YACHATZ (when we break the middle matza).
Explain!]

	In the first line of this paragraph ['This is
the bread of affliction...'], the leader of the Seder is
clearly speaking to the people who are gathered at the
table.  However, the second sentence - "kol dichfin..."
- appears to be an invitation to anyone in need to join
in the offering of a korban pesach, while including some
words of hope for a better future next year.  
    In your opinion, is the leader of the Seder now
extending an invitation to outsiders (if so, it's a bit
late), or is he quoting words that were spoken in a
previous generation?
    If so, what generation is he quoting, and why?
		[Relate to Shmot 12:3-14, especially
12:14.]

2. From this opening statement, it appears as though the
reason for eating MATZA  is to remember what our
forefathers ate when they were slaves in Egypt.  Is that
the same reason that the Torah gives?  If so, where in
the Torah do we find that reason?  Are there any other
reasons (in Chumash) for why we eat matza?  [See Shmot
12:14-20; 12:34-39, 13:3-8 and Devarim 16:1-4.]
	For what reason were Bnei Yisrael commanded to
eat matza with the original 'korban Pesach' in Egypt
(see Shmot 12:8 in its context).  Was it because they
were in a rush? 
[For a more detailed study, see the TSC shiur on Parshat
Bo concerning the two reasons for eating matza -
www.tanach.org/shmot/bo.txt  .]

MA NISHTANA - The Four Questions
1.  Clearly, the 'ma nishtana' is not the story, but can
you explain why these questions are recited at the
beginning of Maggid?  Relate your answer to Shmot 13:8.

2.  In your opinion, would you consider the "mah
nishtana" as four questions or one?  If the latter, what
is the 'one question' and how does it relate to the
'four questions'?
	Use your answer to explain why we never
(directly) answer these four questions at the Seder. 
	How and when do we answer the 'one question'?
	To appreciate that 'one question', and how we
answer it in the Haggada - see Devarim 6:20-22!

AVADIM HAYINU
1.  At first glance, this paragraph certainly sounds
like the beginning of a story.  But carefully read the
entire paragraph (that begins with 'avadim hayinu') and
ask yourself what is/are its primary point(s)?
    Are you sure that the story begins here?  If not,
can you explain the purpose of this paragraph?
	Does the text of "avadim hayinu" come from a
pasuk?
	If so, where is that pasuk and what is its
context? 
    [When you give up, see Devarim 6:20-25.] 
    
2. As you read those psukim, make sure that you
understand the meaning of the 'question' in 6:20, and
how 6:21-25 (that begins with avadim hayinu) answers
this question. 
    How does this answer (in 6:21-24) explain why we are
obligated to keep ALL of the mitzvot of the Torah?

3. Based on Devarim 6:20-22, can you explain why the
Haggada may have chosen specifically this pasuk to
explain WHY we are obligated to tell this story every
year.
[Note as well how 6:20-21 can explain why the MA
NISHTANA comes before AVADIM HAYINU.]

4.  There is a popular song sung at the Seder, "avadim
hayinu, ata bnei chorin".  Are the words for this song
in the Haggada?  If not, can you find a source for this
song?   
	In your opinion, does this song correctly
reflect the main theme of MAGGID?  
    [Keep this question in mind as your continue your
study.]

5.  Does the paragraph of "avadim hayinu" also explain
WHO is obligated to tell this story?  If so, can you
explain why?  
    [Relate to a possible 'misunderstanding' of who
would be obligated, based on the opening phrase of Shmot
13:8.] 
    
MA'ASEH R. ELIEZER bi-BNEI BRAK
6.  In your opinion, does this section tell the story of
yetziat Mitzrayim?  If not, what is its purpose?
    As you read this paragraph, be sure that you
understand how this section directly relates to the
primary point of "v'afilu kulanu chachamim..." in the
"avadim hayinu" section that preceded it - in relation
to WHO is obligated to tell the story (and to what
extent).
    
7.  The next paragraph records a conversation among
those Rabbis who gathered in Bnei Brak - concerning the
daily commandment to 'remember' the story of the Exodus.
Clearly, this in not the story of the Exodus; however,
attempt to explain how this discussion of the daily
mtizva of "'zechira" [to remember] relates to our yearly
obligation of "sipur" [to tell the story] .

THE FOUR SONS
1.  Clearly, this section doesn't tell the story.
However, can you explain its purpose in Maggid?
    In your answer, relate once again to Shmot 13:8 as
well as to the Mishna's statement of 'lfi da'ato shel
ha-ben, aviv melamdo' - based on the level of the child,
the father should teach his son. 

2. You may have also noticed that the answers to the
four sons provided in the Haggada are quite different
from those recorded in Chumash.  First, verify this.
Can you explain why?
    The reason for this will be discussed in a separate
battery of questions, found at the end of these
questions. [See Part Five.]

YACHOL me-ROSH CHODESH 
1.  This section is short, and easy to understand; but
try to explain why it is recited at this point in
MAGGID.  Does it tell the story? 
	Does it discuss WHEN our obligation to tell this
story begins?

2.  As you probably noticed, this section is simply one
of many that discuss 'secondary' topics before we
actually begin to tell the story of yetziat Mitzrayim?
Note which sections that we have discussed thus far
answer the following questions:
	A.  WHY are we obligated to tell the story?
	B.  WHO is obligated to tell the story?
	C.  HOW we are obligated to tell the story?
	D.  WHEN we are obligated to tell the story?
Can you identify a pattern?
	Did you notice that the 'story' of the Exodus
itself has yet to be told?  Can you explain why?

MI-TCHILA
1.  This paragraph certainly sounds like a story.  If
so, can you explain why the Haggada prefers to begin the
story of Exodus from the time period of Terach?  Is it
simply to fulfill the opinion in the mishna that we
begin the story with a derogatory statement?

2.  Read this section once again, and decide whether it
is indeed telling a story, or possibly making a
'statement'.
    If the latter, be sure that you can differentiate
between the statement and its proof!  [With what word
does the proof-text begin?  If so, what is the primary
point made by this paragraph!
    Would you consider this one statement, or two?
    
3. Review Yehoshua 24:1-4, noting how these psukim form
the 'proof-text'.  Note as well how the following
psukim, i.e. Yehoshua 24:5-7, actually tell the story of
yetziat Mitzrayim.  Can you explain why the Haggada does
not quote them, but instead only the first four psukim
of that chapter?

4  Return to the statement of 'mi-tchila', noting that
it contains two primary points.  Which of these points
is proven by the psukim that are quoted, and which is
not!
    Then, read Yehoshua chapter 24 once again, this time
noting 24:14-26!  Note how many times the phrase
"la'avod et Hashem" is repeated, as well as the main
topic of Yehoshua's challenge to the people - if they
are willing to 'serve God'! [Rather amazing!]
    How do these psukim 'prove' the second half of the
opening statement?  Would it be logical to assume that
when this section of the Haggada was first written, it
was assumed that the reader would be aware of the
continuation of Yehoshua chapter 24?

5..  If the primary point of the paragraph that begins
with mi-tchila is to make a 'statement', explain the
importance of this statement, and how the reason for why
God chose our forefathers relates to our obligation to
tell the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim.   
    Relate this statement as well to the popular song of
'avadim hayinu, ata bnei chorin'!  [Be sure you that
understand the difference. - i.e. how this is the very
opposite point!]
    
BARUCH SHOMER HAVTACHATO
1.  After reading this paragraph, decide if this is part
of the story, or yet another 'statement'.  If the
latter, can you explain how it relates to the statement
of the previous paragraph?  Explain as well how it
relates to the story of yetziat Mitzrayim.
    Be sure that you understand why this section quotes
from the first covenant between God and Avraham Avinu
[better known as 'brit bein ha-btarim' (i.e. Breishit
15:13-18)].
    To refresh your memory, it is recommended that you
read that entire chapter in Sefer Breishit, noting how
this covenant forecasts the framework for the events
that later unfold in the Exodus story.  [Note especially
Breishit 15:13-18.]
    
2.  Note that in MAGGID we are thanking God for keeping
His promise to Avraham Avinu to redeem Am Yisrael from
slavery.  Note, however, that in that same covenant -
God had also promised Avraham Avinu to put his offspring
into slavery!  
    Can you explain why God found it necessary for this
process of becoming God's Nation to include 'affliction
& slavery in another land' followed by a miraculous
redemption - and only afterward conquest of the land and
the establishment of a sovereign nation!
    In your answer, relate to the numerous commandments
in the Torah in regard to how we must be kind and
considerate to the stanger, widow and orphan, etc. -
which are consistently followed by the 'reminder' that
we were once slaves/strangers in Egypt!
    How does this relate to the concept that God chose
the Jewish people to serve Him as His 'model nation'? 
    In what manner can this 'framework' of affliction be
considered a 'training process' in order to become God's
nation?  In your answer relate to the concept of "kur
ha'barzel", as discussed in Devarim 4:20. 

3. If indeed "brit bein ha'btarim" forecasts our slavery
and the ensuing redemption from Egypt - explain why the
story of the Exodus must begin with a mention of that
covenant.
    
    Based on the above questions, would it make sense to
conclude that we must tell the story every year not only
to remember what happened, but also WHY that story took
place?

4.  In your opinion, why are we obligated to thank God
for yetziat Mitzrayim - even though this event took
place over 3500 years ago?  How do these last two
paragraphs in MAGGID relate to this question?
	How many other times during MAGGID do we mention
our need to feel as though we ourselves experienced the
Exodus.  Based on the above questions, can you explain
why?

5.  Based on this covenant, it appears that God wanted
Am Yisrael to be enslaved in Egypt in order to later
redeem them from that bondage.  If so, does it make
sense that we should thank God for saving us from a
calamity that he purposely put us in?
	In your opinion, is there anything that we say
in Maggid that relates to this question?

6.  Return once again to the statement: 'mi-tchila ovdei
avoda zara hayu avoteinu..' noting the precise meaning
of the statement: 've-achshav kirvanu ha-Makom
le-AVODATO'! 
    Explain the thematic importance of this statement,
and how it relates to 'brit avot'.  [Relate once again
to Yehoshua 24:1-23.]

7.  Was there a divine purpose for Bnei Yisrael's
enslavement in Egypt?  If so, how does this relate to
our thanking God for yetziat Mitzrayim and the mitzva of
MAGGID?
	Would you say that we are thanking God for the
event of yetziat Mitzrayim, the process, or the purpose
of that process?  Explain how each possibility relates
to the questions above.

8.  Review Shmot 13:8 once again, paying careful
attention to the translation of the phrase 'ba'avur zeh
asa Hashem li be-tzeiti mi-Mitzrayim'. 
	See the machloket between Ibn Ezra (& Rashi) and
Ramban on the meaning of 'ba'avur ZEH'....  Relate Rashi
and Ibn Ezra's interpretation to the above questions!

VE-HI SHE-AMDA 
9.  What does the word 'HI' in the paragraph of 've-HI
she-amda...' refer to?  How does this paragraph relate
to brit bein ha-btarim and to the two previous
paragraphs? 
	Again, would you consider this paragraph part of
the story of yetziat Mitzrayim, or yet another
'statement'?
	If the latter, explain its thematic importance.

10.  Does this paragraph explain WHY God saves in every
generation (when we may be in trouble)?  Is the answer
implicit, based on the previous two paragraphs?
	Why do you think that we raise the cup of wine
when we recite this section?

TZEH U-LEMAD or ARAMI OVED AVI
1.  Review the section that begins with "tzeh u'lmad..."
noting how it forms a complex "drasha" on the psukim of
"arami oved avi" from Devarim 26:5-8.  
	To appreciate why the Haggada quotes this
Midrash, study Devarim 26:1-11, i.e. the mitzva of
"mikra bikurim"..  Carefully study those psukim, and
attempt to understand the reason for this mitzva.

2. In your opinion, would you say that the purpose of
"mikra bikurim" is to thank God for our first fruits, or
to thank God for the Land (that He gave us as He
promised to our forefathers in "brit Avot")? 
    If the latter (which better be your answer), explain
why the first fruits serve as an appropriate 'token of
our appreciation'.
  [For 'extra credit', relate this to the sin of Cain in
Breishit 4:1-5.]

3.  Note how the proclamation in 26:5-8 - through which
we thank God for the land - begins with the story of
yetziat Mitzrayim (i.e. from 'arami oved avi...'), and
follows the pattern set by brit bein ha-btarim.  Be sure
you understand this by comparing Devarim 26:5-8 with
Breishit 15:13-18.
	Based on this parallel, explain why 'mikra
bikkurim' could be understood as a yearly proclamation
through which we thank God for His fulfillment of brit
bein ha-btarim.
[Note the use of the word 'yerusha' in both!  Note also
God's promise of the Land in Breishit 15:18]

4.  If so, explain why Chazal may have included 'arami
oved avi' in the Haggada, and use it as the vehicle by
which we tell the story.   Relate this to Mishnayot
Pesachim 10:4 - "ve-doresh me-arami oved avi..." (or
Pesachim 116a).  
	Relate also to the verb 'higadeti' (in Devarim
26:3) and the command 've-higadeta' in the source for
Maggid in Shmot 13:8 !
	Note also Rambam in Hilchot Chametz u-Matza 7:4!

5.  As you review the 'drasha' of 'arami oved avi' in
the Haggada, be sure that you understand how the Haggada
quotes each word [or phrase] from Devarim 26:5-8, and
elaborates on each quote (usually with psukim from
elsewhere in Tanach).
    Be sure that you can follow how the Haggada uses
this as the mechanism by which we actually tell the
story! 
	Would you agree that the obligation to 'tell the
story' [sippur yetziat Mitzrayim] is fulfilled by the
recitation of this "drasha"? 
	If so, would it make sense that this section
should be explained in a manner that everyone
understands?
[Do most people pay attention to this part of the
Haggada?  Should they?] 

6.  Where does this "drasha" of "arami oved avi" end?
Expalin how it leads into our discussion of the Ten
Plagues!

THE TEN PLAGUES
1.  Note as well how the Haggada introduces the topic of
the Ten Plagues, i.e. how it flows from the drasha of
'arami oved avi'.
    Can you explain why this is the last pasuk that the
Haggada quotes from arami oved avi (i.e. we only read
thru 26:8, but don't read 26:9 - attempt to explain
why).

2. In your opinion, are the 'multiplication tables'
[i.e. the plagues x5; x4, x5, etc.] an integral part of
this story or simply an 'add-on'?
    Be sure that you understand how they are based on a
mathematical factor of five derived from the comparison
between Shmot 8:15 & 14:31.  See also Tehillim 78:49,
and how that entire Psalm relate to the Plagues in
Egypt.  How does this explain the second "derasha" that
arrives at up to 250 plagues?
    
3. Note that the Rambam does not include these
'multiplication tables' in his version of MAGGID.  Can
you explain why?

DAYENU
1.  Review the section titled DAYENU.  Would you
consider this part of the story, or a form of 'shevach'
[praise] after the story is complete?  

2. If we have completed telling the story of yetziat
Mitzrayim, what is the song of DAYENU coming to add? 
	How does it relate to the recitation of Hallel
at the conclusion of MAGGID?  [Relate to the phrase "al
achat kama v'kama...".]

3.  What does the word DAYENU imply?  Do we really mean
that it would have been enough for Am Yisrael, had we
only been taken out of Egypt and not received the Torah
or the Land of Israel?!
[In other words, does dayenu imply that it 'would have
been enough', or what it 'would have been enough to
thank God' for?] In your answer, relate to the meaning
of 'al achat kama ve-kama...' (i.e. the kal va-chomer')
in the next paragraph.

4. In what manner could the Dayenu section be considered
not only 'praise', but also a 'continuation' of the
story of the Exodus.
If the latter, with what event does the story of the
Exodus end?

RABBAN GAMLIEL
1.  Review Rabban Gamliel's statement, noting how we are
quoting the mishna in Pesachim.  Which obligation is not
fulfilled unless we mention 'pesach matza u-maror':
	the obligation of sippur yetziat Mitzrayim?
	the obligation of korban pesach?
	the obligation of achilat matza?
	the obligation of "v'higadta l'bincha"?

	Explain your answer.

2. Would you consider this part of the story, or another
'add on'?
	If the latter, what is its purpose?

3.  In your opinion, how did Rabbban Gamilel understand
the meaning of "ha'avoda h'azot" in Shmot 13:5, and now
did that affect how he understood "baavur ZEH" in 13:8!

BE-CHOL DOR VA-DOR
1.  How does the statement of 'be-chol dor va-dor'
relate to our question of why we thank God for saving us
from a situation that He put us into?  How does it
relate to brit bein ha-btarim?

2. Finally, note how (and why) we prove this statement
with a quote from 've-otanu hotzi mi-sham' which is
taken from Devarim 6:22.  To appreciate why, review
Devarim 6:20-24 once again, and attempt to explain the
thematic connection between this paragraph and the
'avadim hayinu' paragraph that we recited at the
beginning of Maggid.
	Relate this as well to the 'strange' statement
made by Moshe Rabeinu to the new generation in Devarim
5:2-3!

3.  Note that in our "nusach" of the Haggada we prove
this point with two psukim:
	V"higadta l'vincha [See Shmot 13:8.], and
	V'otanu hotzi m'sham  [Devarim 6:22]
Can you explain why both psukim are necessary?
     [Relate to the words "li" and "otanu".

4.  Why is the statement of 'be-chol dor va-dor' so
critical towards understanding the theme of Maggid?  Why
do you think that if forms the conclusion of Maggid,
prior to our recitation of the Hallel?

HALLEL
1.  Be sure that you understand how the paragraph of
'lefichach' ties between the story and Hallel that we
are about to recite. 
	In your opinion, why do we recite only the first
two paragraphs of Hallel now, and save the remaining
paragraphs of Hallel for after the meal?

2. Note the opening psukim of Hallel - Tehillim 113,
especially - "ha'lelu AVDEI Hashem, ha'lelu et SHEM
Hashem..."
	Relate this opening pasuk to the theme of MAGID
and the purpose of Yetziat Mitzraim.  [Relate to the
'statement' of "m'tchila ovdei avada zara hayu avoteinu,
discussed above!]

3. The reason why we recite Tehillim 114 should be
rather obvious.   But make sure that you understand why.

4.  Review the final blessing of 'ga'al Yisrael', noting
how it relates to the overall theme of Maggid.
===

PART FOUR - THE THEME OF MAGGID

1.  Based on your outline and your answers to the above
questions, what would you say is the primary purpose of
the mitzva of MAGGID? 
	Would you say that we tell the story in order to
remember HOW God saved us from Egypt, or WHY He saved
us?
	Did God provide us with freedom from slavery
simply for the sake of 'freedom' itself, or in order
that we become free to 'serve God' instead?  

2.  How does the story in MAGID relate to the connection
between God's choice of Avraham Avinu to become the
forefather a His special nation, and the historical
process through which we became that nation? 
	How does this answer the basic question
concerning why we are obligated to thank God in every
generation for a set of events that took place over
three thousand years ago?

3.  What would you say is the difference between the
daily mitzva of 'zechirat yetziat Mitzrayim'
(REMEMBERING the Exodus - fulfilled when we read the
third parsha of kriyat shma) and the special mitzva on
the Seder night of 'sippur yetziat Mitzrayim' (TELLING
THE STORY of the Exodus)?
	How could the yearly mitzva of 'sippur' be
understood as the basis for our daily mitzva of
'zechira'?

4.  What is the importance of passing on a tradition
from one generation to the next?  How does the mitzva of
MAGGID help accomplish this goal?  How does this explain
the involvement of children in the Seder, and special
mitzvot such as MATZA and MAROR etc.?

5.  Could Korban Pesach and the mitzvot of the Seder
night be considered a yearly commemoration not only of
yetziat Mitzrayim, but also a yearly reminder of God's
promise and our covenantal commitment to brit avot and
its purpose?  Explain your answer!
	Relate this to Devarim 26:1-3, the purpose of
bringing our first fruits to Hashem.
==========

PART FIVE -	THE FOUR SONS & SHMOT PEREK 12->13
1.  Read the section in the Hagada concerning the four
sons: 'kenegged arba banim dibra Torah'.  Note how the
Haggada is quoting the Midrash [Mechilta].  [Note also
how 'baruch ha-Makom...' serves as a 'birkat ha-Torah'
in preparation for the study of this drasha!]

2.  Try to explain the opening statement: 'kenegged
arba...'
	What assumption is the Midrash making in regard
to why there are four sons (and not three or five)?  Be
precise!

3.  Next, look up the source in Chumash for each of
these four questions.  Should you need help, see Shmot
12:26-27, 13:8, 13:14-15 & Devarim 6:20-21; but as your
review these sources, note the context of these psukim.
	Do the answers to these questions in the Haggada
match the answers given in the Torah? 
	Did you ever notice this before?  [If not, why?]
	Do you have a simple explanation why most of the
answers that the Haggada gives are different than the
answers found in Chumash?

4.  Now, scan the four sources once again, this time
paying careful attention to the general topic that
Chumash is discussing that leads up to each question.
	Did you find four questions concerning the same
topic or do you find four different topics?  If so,
explain what those topics are. 
	Note how the answers that Chumash provides for
each question relate directly to each respective topic;
while the answers that the Haggada provides relate to
questions concerning the Seder!
	Can you explain why?  Can you explain why this
is a drasha and not pshat of these psukim? 

5.  What do you think the Midrash is coming to teach us?
	Why do you think this message is so important
for the Seder night that Chazal decided to include this
Midrash in the Haggada?
	How does this relate to the statement in the
Mishna in the tenth perek of Pesachim  -'lefi da'at
ha-ben, aviv melamdo - based on the level of the child,
the parent should teach him'?

	
be-hatzlacha
						menachem


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13 - Release
Date: 4/12/2008 12:00 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: magidq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 65529 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080414/0b5c57fc/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue Apr 15 16:06:06 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:06:06 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat ACHAREI MOT - shiur
Message-ID: <02b701c89f34$23f7d760$0200000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

               for PARSHAT ACHAREI MOT

     In the middle of Parshat Acharei Mot, an abrupt
change
takes place in Sefer Vayikra.
  Even though its first 17 chapters dealt exclusively
with
laws that relate to the Mishkan, in chapter 18 we find a
complete section about forbidden marital relationships
[better
known as the "arayot"] that appear to be totally
unrelated to
the Mishkan.
     Then, in Parshat Kedoshim, we find yet another set
of
laws (mostly ethical) that have almost no connection at
all to
the Mishkan.
     So what keeps Sefer Vayikra together?
  Should we conclude that it is primarily laws relating
to the
Mishkan plus a few 'add-ons'?  Or, is there some
thematic
significance in this transition that could lead us to a
deeper
understanding of what the book is all about.
  In this week's shiur, we attempt to answer this
question by
taking a closer look at the nature of this transition.

INTRODUCTION
     We begin our shiur with a quick overview of Sefer
Vayikra
to help clarify our opening statement.
     The following table summarizes Sefer Vayikra
according to
its primary topics. As you review this table, note how
chapter
18 marks the beginning of this transition (from Mishkan
related to non-Mishkan related topics):

          PART I - THE MISHKAN AS THE PRIMARY TOPIC
          
CHAPTER        TOPIC
1-5       MISHKAN/ korbanot of the individual [ndava and
chova]
6-7       MISHKAN/ how the kohanim will offer the
korbanot
8-10 MISHKAN/ its dedication ceremony [narrative]
11-15     MISHKAN/ "tumah & tahara" [who can enter...]
16        MISHKAN/ "avoda" of the kohen gadol on Yom
Kippur
17        MISHKAN/ no korbanot permitted outside the
Mishkan
          
          PART II - MISC. TOPICS
          
CHAPTER        TOPIC
18        GENERAL/  prohibited marriage relationships
etc.
19-20     GENERAL/ "kdoshim t'hiyu" [a variety of laws]
21-22     KOHANIM/ special laws regarding the kohanim
23        HOLIDAYS/ focus on the agricultural aspect
24        MISC./ re: Menorah, Shulchan & capital
punishment
25        SHMITA/ the seven year shmita & Yovel cycle
26        TOCHACHA/ reward & punishment for keeping the
laws
27        VOWS/ "erchin", valuation of pledges

     As the above table shows, the first seventeen
chapters of
Sefer Vayikra form a distinct unit, for that entire
section
discusses various laws concerning the Mishkan. In
contrast to
that unit, the remaining ten chapters (18->27) discuss a
wide
ranges of topics, some Mishkan related; others not. At
first
glance, it is difficult to find a common theme to this
second
section. Nonetheless, it is clearly distinct from the
first
section of the sefer.
     To uncover the thematic significance of this
division,
let's take a closer look at the beginning of chapter 18,
i.e.
at the very location where this transition begins.

A NEW HEADER
     For a start, let's read the opening five psukim of
chapter 18, noting how they form a separate 'parshia':
   "And God told Moshe, speak to Bnei Yisrael and tell
them:
   ANI HASHEM ELOKEICHEM - [I am the Lord Your God!]
   DO NOT act as the Egyptians did, and do not act as
the
   Canaanites... do not follow their laws. [Instead]
KEEP MY
   LAWS... for ANI HASHEM ELOKEICHEM.  Keep My laws and
My
   commandments which man must do and live by keeping
them for
   ANI HASHEM."    (see 18:1-5)

     Review these psukim once again, noting how they
discuss a
very general topic, i.e. how Bnei Yisrael should conduct
their
lives.  They must first reject Egyptian and Canaanite
culture
and follow God's laws instead. Clearly, these psukim
form an
introduction to the entire set of mitzvot that will
follow.
  [Not only do they 'set the stage' for the laws
concerning
  prohibited marital relationships ["arayot"] that
follow in
  18:6-23, they also introduce ALL of the mitzvot that
follow
  until the TOCHACHA at the end of the Sefer.  To verify
this
  point, compare phrase "chukim & mishpatim" in 26:46
with
  18:3-5; compare also them of chapter 26 with
18:24-29!]
  
 We will now show how 18:1-5 serves not only as an
introduction to chapter 18, but also forms the
introduction to
the entire 'second half' of the Sefer Vayikra.
    We begin our discussion by paying special attention
to a
key phrase that is repeated several times in this
introduction, and that will appear numerous times again
in the
second half of the Sefer.

ANI HASHEM
     Review 18:1-5 once again, noting the Torah's
repeated use
of the phrase ANI HASHEM [or alternately ANI HASHEM
ELOKEICHEM]. Not only is this phrase mentioned THREE
times in
these opening psukim, it is also repeated over FIFTY
times
from this point in Sefer Vayikra until the end of the
sefer.
Furthermore, this phrase is included in most every pasuk
that
introduces or summarizes a key topic!
  [See, for example, 18:30; 19:2,3,4,10,12,14,16,18,30
-32,36-
  37; 20:24-26; 22:2,3,16,31-33; 23:22,43; 24:22;
  25:17,38,55; 26:1-2,13,44-45 & their context (that
will
  keep you busy).]

     In contrast, this phrase is found only once in the
first
half of the Sefer.  [See 11:44-45/ note that even here
it is
used in relation to the laws of kosher animals, which
themselves are only tangentially related to the
Mishkan.]
     This emphasis upon the phrase of ANI HASHEM may
provide
us with a clue toward understanding the overall theme of
the
second half of the sefer.

LIMITATION OR EMANATION
     At first glance, it seems rather absurd that when
Sefer
Vayikra describes the laws concerning the "korbanot"
[sacrifices] that were offered in the Mishkan - the site
where
God's SHCHINA is present - the phrase ANI HASHEM [lit. I
am
God] is barely mentioned; yet when it discusses various
laws
which must be kept OUTSIDE the Mishkan, the phrase is
emphasized over and over again!  Considering that the
phrase
"ANI HASHEM" serves as a reminder that we stand before
God, we
would certainly expect to find it mentioned more often
in
relation to the Mishkan!
     One could suggest that the Torah wishes to
emphasize
precisely the opposite!  The Torah may fear that this
intense
level of "kedusha" caused by God's Presence in the
Mishkan may
lead to the misconception that God's Presence is LIMITED
to
the Mishkan!  Therefore, as it describes the laws of
daily
life that Am Yisrael must keep when they are outside the
Mishkan, the repetition of the phrase "ani Hashem"
becomes
quite meaningful.
  [We are all too familiar with the consequences of this
  'mistaken conclusion', i.e. where one's spiritual
behavior
  is meticulous while visiting God's residence (be it
the
  Mishkan, or a synagogue), in contrast to the more
secular
  nature of his behavior once he leaves its environs.]
  
  The very structure of Sefer Vayikra (i.e. its two
halves, as
noted above) may come to counter this misconception -
for it
emphasizes that the Mishkan does not LIMIT the
"shechina" to
its confines, rather, it serves as conduit to allow
God's
presence to EMANATE.  Ideally, man's experience in the
Mishkan
should leave a profound effect on his way of life
outside the
Mishkan.  As we will soon explain, this concept relates
to the
very essence of KEDUSHA.
  
     From a thematic perspective, one could apply this
explanation to the two halves of Sefer Vayikra.  Even
though
the primary topic of Sefer Vayikra may be the laws
relating to
the Mishkan, the second half of the sefer intentionally
includes numerous mitzvot that serve as an example of
how we
TRANSLATE the intense level of SHCHINA found in the
Mishkan
into the daily walks of life.
     In the Mishkan itself, the concept of "ani Hashem"
is so
clear, that there is no need for a constant reminder.
However, outside its confines, man must be constantly
reminded
that God's Presence remains everywhere.
  [This concept of the Mishkan serving as a funnel to
bring
  the 'shechina' from heaven to a fountain-like source
on
  earth from which it can emanate to all mankind is
reflected
  in the prophecies of Zecharya (see 14:8-9) and
Yeshayahu
  (see 2:1-5).]

A THEMATIC PROGRESSION
     To better appreciate the meaning of these two
sections,
it is helpful to first review our earlier observations
regarding Sefer Vayikra (as we discussed in our
introductory
shiur).
     In contrast to the other books of Chumash that are
'narrative based' (i.e. they begin and end with a
story),
Sefer Vayikra is 'commandment based' (i.e. it contains a
collection of various mitzvot which God commanded Moshe
and
Aharon to teach Bnei Yisrael). Therefore, the
progression of
parshiot in the sefer is thematic as opposed
chronological.
     We also explained that the sefer, referred to by
Chazal
as TORAT KOHANIM, begins as an 'instruction manual' for
the
Mishkan. Even though we expected that Sefer Vayikra
would deal
exclusively with Mishkan related commandments, as was
the case
in the first seventeen chapters, the second half
introduces a
wide range of mitzvot which must be kept outside the
Mikdash
for they reflect how God's Presence in the Mishkan
should
affect our behavior in all aspects of life.
     This can explain the internal progression of
parshiot as
well. For example, in chapter 18 we are told how one
should
not act, while in chapter 19 we are instructed how one
SHOULD
ACT, i.e. Parshat K'DOSHIM T'HIYU - acting in a
sanctified
manner in all walks of life.

KEDUSHA
     This concept, i.e. SETTING ASIDE one special site
(e.g.
the Mishkan) where God's Presence is more intense - IN
ORDER
to bring sanctity to all surrounding areas, can be
understand
as the most basic concept of KEDUSHA.
     For example, we can explain the "kedusha" of
SHABBAT in a
very similar manner, i.e. we set aside one day of the
week,
sanctifying it with an increased level of God's
"shechina"- in
order to elevate the spiritual level of each day of the
week -
for our experience on shabbat will affect our behavior
on each
weekday (as we anticipate shabbat).  [See Ramban on
Shmot 12:1
in his explanation of KIDUSH ha'CHODESH!]
     One can explain the KEDUSHA on AM YISRAEL in a
similar
manner, i.e. God SET ASIDE a special nation (see Sefer
Breishit), sanctifying it with special mitzvot (see
Sefer
Shmot) - IN ORDER to deliver God's message of sanctity
to all
mankind (see Devarim 4:5-8).
  Note as well how these three examples, Mishkan,
Shabbat, and
Am Yisrael - reflect the three basic categories of
KEDUSHA  in
the realms of space, time, and matter:
  kedushat MAKOM (place) - the Mishkan
  kedushat ZMAN (time) - Shabbat, &
  kedushat ADAM (man) - Am Yisrael.

A THEME FOR SEFER VAYIKRA
     With this background, we can suggest a common theme
for
all the mitzvot in the second half of the sefer, as well
as
their relationship to the first half of the sefer.  Note
how
these final ten chapters of Vayikra can be divided
according
to these three basic realms of "kedusha" (sanctity or
holiness):

     1) KEDUSHAT ADAM - man / chapters 18->22
          e.g. kedushat Am Yisrael and/or kohanim

     2) KEDUSHAT ZMAN - time / chapter 23
          e.g. shabbat and "moadim" (holidays)

     3) KEDUSHAT MAKOM - place or land / chapters 24-26
          e.g. the laws of SHMITA in the land of Israel

     However, "kedusha" can also be considered the
primary
theme of the first half of Sefer Vayikra as well, for
the
Mishkan itself is also referred to as a MIKDASH.  The
word
"mikdash" evolves from the same shoresh - k.d.sh. [as in
"kedusha"], implying the setting aside of something for
a
special purpose (see Breishit 2:3, 38:21 and Shmot
13:1!) for
a divine purpose.  The Mikdash is a special sanctuary
set
aside for the worship of God.
     Likewise, in "kedushat adam", Am Yisrael is set
aside to
serve God; so too the kohanim etc. In "kedushat zman",
"shabbat" and the "moadim" are set aside from the other
days
of the week for a divine purpose. In "kedushat makom",
the
land of Israel is set aside from all others as God's
special
land.

     Based on this analysis, we can suggest an overall
theme
for Sefer Vayikra.  Recall that at Har Sinai, before
receiving
the Torah, Bnei Yisrael entered a covenant to accept
God's
laws in order to become a "mamlechet kohanim v'GOY
KADOSH"
(see Shmot 19:4-6).  Sefer Vayikra explains HOW Bnei
Yisrael
become this "goy kadosh" [holy nation], not only by
worshiping
God in the MISHKAN, but also by keeping the daily
mitzvot of
kedushat ADAM, ZMAN, & MAKOM - the constant reminders of
God's
Presence - as emphasized by the phrase: ANI HASHEM
ELOKEICHEM
- in their daily lives.

TORAT KOHANIM
     This observation can help us appreciate the name
that
Chazal use to describe Sefer Vayikra - TORAT KOHANIM
[Laws for
Priests].  Based on our original analysis this name
would
appear to be a bit inaccurate, for Sefer Vayikra
includes many
laws that have nothing to do with Kohanim and/or the
Mishkan.
However, based on this deeper theme in second half of
Sefer
Vayikra, the word 'KOHANIM' in the name TORAT KOHANIM
may
refer not only to the KOHANIM who work in the Mishkan,
but
also to the entire nation of Israel who serve as a
MAMALECHET
KOHANIM v'GOY KADOSH - a nation of priests in service of
God -
working towards bringing God's Name to all mankind.

     This recognition of ANI HASHEM, experienced at an
intense
level when one visits the Mishkan, must be internalized
to
affect one's conduct, even outside the Mishkan, and in
all
walks of life.
  In our shiur on Parshat Kedoshim, we will explain how
this
  distinction can enhance our understanding of chapter
19 and
  its connection to the Ten Commandments.  Till then,

                              shabbat shalom,
                              menachem

FOR FURTHER IYUN
=================

TUMAH OF THE LAND
A. Read 18:24-30, the concluding psukim of chapter 18.
Do
these psukim simply summarize the chapter or serve as a
continuation of the introductory nature of 18:1-5?
     Where else do we find a concept of being banished
from a
land in punishment for sinful behavior? (See Vayikra
18:28/
See also Ramban!! - be careful, it's very "tzioni")
     Relate this to the situation in Gan Eden and
Vayikra 26:3-13.
     Based on your answer, why do you think that the
Midrash
equates Eretz Yisrael with Gan Eden?    Relate also to
Vayikra
18:5, Devarim 30:15-20 and Mishlei 3:18.]
     In the above mentioned psukim we also find a
concept of
"tumah" (18:24-28). In what manner is this concept of
TUMAH
different that the laws of TUMAH found thus far in Sefer
Vayikra?
     In what manner is it similar?

B. AVODAT KOHEN GADOL ON YOM KIPPUR
     It is interesting to note that on Yom Kippur
shacharit we
read Vayikra chapter 16, while at mincha we read Vayikra
chapter 18. Now the reason why we read chapter 16 is
simple,
for it details the special AVODAH of the Kohen Gadol on
Yom
Kippur in the Bet ha'Mikdash. However, why do read
specifically chapter 18 for mincha? After the
prohibition of
"arayot" (the primary topic) contains no obvious
connection to
Yom Kippur?
     Some explain that this custom is simply for
convenience;
i.e. as we may be too tired to roll the 'sefer' to
another
location, we simply read a chapter nearby to what we
read in
the morning. However, based on the above shiur, we can
offer a
more significant explanation.
     As we explained above, chapter 16 constitutes the
climax
of the first half of Sefer Vayikra for on Yom Kippur, as
the
"kohen gadol" enters the "kodesh ha'kdoshim" on the
"shabbat
shabbaton",  Am Yisrael ascends to the highest level in
all
three realms of "kedusha":
     1) "kedushat adam" - kohen gadol
     2) "kedushat makom" - kodesh k'doshim
     3) "kedushat zman" - shabbat shabbaton
     However, it is just as important to remind
ourselves that
these concentrated levels of "kedusha" must be
incorporated
into daily life.  As Yom Kippur draws to its close, or
possibly its true climax, we must remind ourselves of
this
hashkafic message of the second half of Sefer Vayikra.
This
may be the reason why Chazal saw it appropriate that we
read
this pivotal chapter (18:1-30) at Mincha time, for Yom
Kippur
marks not only the culmination of the year which has
passed,
but also sets us in the proper direction for the new
year
which is about to begin.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13 - Release
Date: 4/12/2008 12:00 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ach1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 32954 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080415/a42bc049/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Apr 16 10:56:01 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:56:01 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Guide for Magid -  revised 5768
Message-ID: <03b501c89fd1$fc92f5d0$0200000a@x60>

Attached is the shiur in an easier to read pdf format
also a review outline
and an additonal source relating to topics discussed in
the shiur.

Also, another excellent re-source for material on Pesach
and other holidays, and daily tefila is:
www.tefilah.org
under holiday section, look for Pesach topics


**************************************************
 THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  www.tanach.org
    In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
 Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
**************************************************


 UNDERSTANDING MAGGID - A biblical Perspective  
				[revised 5768]
 Expression of Gratitude 
         or
 Recogniton of Destiny

	Should Passover be understood as our 'holiday of
freedom' - a special time set aside to thank God for
taking us out of slavery?
     Certainly, the popular song of "avadim hayinu...
ata benei chorin" ['We were once slaves, but now we are
free'] - seems to state exactly that point.
	However, if you read your Haggada carefully,
you'll notice that those words never appear (in that
combination).  And if you study the Haggada, you'll
notice that it states quite the opposite, i.e. that we
remain 'servants', but we simply have a new 'boss'! 
     In the following 'Guide for Maggid', we attempt to
arrive at a better understanding of how and why we tell
the story of the Exodus - and how that story explains
why Passover is such an important holiday.  Hopefully,
it will ask help make your Seder evening a little more
interesting (and life - a bit more meaningful).
      
THE SOURCE FOR MAGGID in Parshat Bo
Even though we are all familiar with the pasuk
"ve-higadta le-bincha..." (Shmot13:8) - the Biblical
source for our obligation to recite MAGID -  when one
reads that pasuk in Chumash, it's not very easy to
translate. 
     [Try it yourself, and you'll immediately notice the
difficulty.]
      
     So let's begin our study by taking a careful look
at this 'source pasuk' within its context - as it will
be very insightful towards understanding what MAGID is
all about.
     Towards the end of Parshat Bo, Bnei Yisrael have
already left Egypt and set up camp in Succot.  For food,
they have just baked "matzot" from the dough that they
had taken with them (in their rush to leave Egypt - see
Shmot 12:37-39).  After the Torah concludes this
narrative, Moshe commands Bnei Yisrael to remember these
events in the following manner:
"And Moshe told the people - Remember this day that you
left Egypt, from the House of Slavery, for God has taken
you out with a strong hand... 
    [Then, when you come to the land of Israel...]
Eat matza for seven days... and don't see any
chametz..."
					(see Shmot
13:3-7)

     With this context in mind, note how Moshe concludes
these instructions with the following commandment: 
"ve-HIGGADETA le-bincha ba-yom ha-hu leimor" -
     And you must TELL your son on that day, saying:
BA'AVUR ZEH - 
     for the sake of this -
ASA Hashem li  BE-TZEITI mi-MITZRAYIM - 
     God did for me [?] when he took me out of Egypt" 
     (see Shmot 13:8).

	Even though we all know this last pasuk by
heart, it is not so easy to translate. In our above
transliteration, we have highlighted the difficult words
- which we will now discuss:
  	Let's begin with the meaning of the word 'zeh'
[this].  Based on its context (see 13:6-7), 'zeh' most
probably refers to the matzot that we eat, for the
previous psukim describe the mitzva to eat matza for
seven days.  Hence, this pasuk implies that we must tell
our children: 'for the sake of this matza - God did for
me [these miracles ?] - when I left Egypt'. 
     Indeed, this commandment instructs us to 'remember'
this day by telling something to our children; however,
it is not very clear what the Torah wants us to explain.
     There are two possible directions of
interpretation.  Either we must explain to our children:
* Why God took us out of Egypt - i.e. to eat matza! - 
Or,
* Why we eat matza - because God took us out of Egypt!

	Even though we are most familiar with the latter
reason, the first interpretation seems to be the simple
meaning of the pasuk.  As you'd expect, the classical
commentators argue in this regard.  
     Ramban (on 13:8) explains (as most of us understand
this pasuk), that we eat matza to remember HOW God took
us out of Egypt.  However Rashi (and Ibn Ezra) disagree!

	In his commentary, Ibn Ezra explains (as 'simple
pshat' implies) - that we are commanded to explain to
our children that God took us out of Egypt IN ORDER that
we can eat matza; implying that God intentionally placed
Bnei Yisrael in slavery in order to redeem them  - so
that we would keep His mitzvot! 
     Rashi provides a very similar explanation, but
widens its scope by stating that God took us out of
Egypt in order that we would keep ALL of His mitzvot,
such as pesach matza & maror.
[Chizkuni offers a similar explanation, with a slightly
different twist - i.e. in the ZCHUT (in merit) for our
readiness to perform the mitzvot of pesach matza & maror
for all generations - God redeemed us from Egypt.]

	According to Rashi and Ibn Ezra's understanding
of this pasuk, the primary mitzvah at the Seder should
be not only to explain to our children what happened,
but also why it happened. 
	In our study of Maggid, we will show how this
specific point emerges as a primary theme - but first
must consider where that story - that we are commanded
to tell over - should begin.  

WHERE SHOULD WE BEGIN?
	Let's contemplate for a moment where would be
the best (or most logical) point to start the story of
Yetziat Mitzrayim from.  One could entertain several
possibilities. 
	The simplest and most obvious approach would be
to begin with Bnei Yisrael's enslavement in Egypt.  In
fact, this is precisely where Sefer Shmot begins! 
	On the other hand, one could start a bit earlier
with the story of Yosef and his brothers, for that would
explain how Bnei Yisrael first came to settle down in
Egypt.  However, if we continue with that logic, we
could go back another generation to the story of Yaakov,
or even back to story of Avraham Avinu.  [Or maybe even
back to the story of Creation!]
	This dilemma appears to be the underlying reason
behind the Talmudic dispute between Rav and Shmuel.
Let's explain:

THE MISHNA in Mesechet PESACHIM
	The Mishna in the tenth chapter of Mesechet
Pesachim sets some guidelines concerning how to fulfill
this obligation 'to tell the story', including one that
deals with its format: 
     "matchilim bi-gnut u-mesaymim be-shevach" - 
- We begin our story with a derogatory comment, and
conclude it with praise.

     In the Gemara's subsequent discussion (see Pesachim
116a), we find two opinions concerning what this opening
comment should be:
* Rav - "Mi-tchila ovdei avoda zara..." - At first. our
ancestors were idol worshipers..."
* Shmuel - "Avadim hayinu..." - We were once slaves to
Pharaoh in Egypt..."

	At the simplest level, it seems that Rav &
Shmuel argue concerning what is considered a more
derogatory statement- i.e. the fact that we were once
slaves, or the fact that we once idol worshipers.
However, this dispute may also relate to a more
fundamental question - concerning where the story of
Yetziat Mitzrayim actually begins - from our slavery in
Egypt (Shmuel), or from the time of our forefathers
(Rav). 
	In our study of Maggid, we will show how we
actually quote both of these opinions, but not as the
starting point of the story, but rather as important
statements of purpose.
	So where does the story begin?
	We will now begin our detailed study MAGGID not
only to answer that question, but also in an attempt to
better understand HOW we fulfill this mitzva of "sippur
Yetziat Mitzrayim" when we read the Haggada.
     
     
HOW WE [DON'T] TELL THE STORY IN MAGGID
	Even though the primary obligation of the Seder
evening is to 'tell the story' of Yetziat Mitzrayim,
when we read Maggid at the Seder, it is not very clear
where that story actually begins (or ends).  To
determine when, where, and how we actually fulfill this
mitzva, we will examine Maggid - one paragraph at a
time.  
	As we study each paragraph, we will ask
ourselves: is this part of the story? 
	If it is, then we can determine how we tell the
story.
	If it's not, then we must explain why this
paragraph is included in Maggid nonetheless. 

'HA LACHMA ANYA' 
	The opening paragraph of MAGGID - 'ha lachma
anya..' is definitely not the story of Yetziat
Mitzrayim, but rather a quick explanation to the guests
about the MATZA on the table.  Let?s explain why: 
	In the opening sentence, the leader of the Seder
explains how this ?special bread? on the table is what
our forefathers ate in Egypt; then he quotes what our
forefathers said to one another in Egypt as they
prepared to partake in the first Korban Pesach.
	?kol dichfin?? - reflects how they invited one
another to join a common group to eat the korban Pesach
(see Shmot 12:3-6);
     ?hashta hacha?? reflects their expression of hope
that by next year they would no longer be slaves in
Egypt, but rather a free people living in the land of
Israel.
	As we will explain later on, this quote of what
our forefathers said to one another in preparation for
the very first ?seder? in Jewish History is thematically
very important, for at the end of Maggid, we will
express our need to feel as though ?we were there?
(?bchor dor v?dor??)!
     Nonetheless, this section is not the story itself ?
however, it forms a very meaningful introduction.
[See Further Iyun Section for a discussion of the
meaning of ?lechem oni?.  Re: how the matza eaten with
the 'korban Pesach' had nothing to do with being in a
rush, but rather reflected a 'poor man's bread' ["lechem
oni"], see TSC shiur on Parshat Bo regarding ?two
reasons for matza?.]
	
MAH NISHTANA
	Similarly, the 'ma nishtana' is not part of the
story.  Rather, we want the children to ask questions to
ensure that they will take interest in the story that we
are about to tell.  
	As our obligation to tell this story is based on
the pasuk ?ve-higgadeta le-BINCHA? - and you must tell
your children... (see Shmot 13:8), it makes sense that
we try to capture their attention before we tell the
story.  However, as you have surely noticed, this
section contains only questions, but no answers. 
	It should also be noted that these ?four
questions? are really one question; i.e. ? the one
question is: ?Why is this night different??  Afterward,
the child brings four examples/questions to support his
claim that tonight is indeed different.
	It is for this reason that we never answer these
?four questions?; Rather, Maggid continues with the
answer to the ?one question? ? of why this night is
special.

'AVADIM HAYINU' 
	At first glance, the next paragraph: 'avadim
hayinu...' seems to begin the story.  [In fact, it
appears that we have followed Shmuel's opinion (in
Pesachim 116a) that we should begin the story with
'avadim hayinu'.]
	However, if you take a minute to carefully read
this entire paragraph, you'll immediately notice that
this paragraph does NOT begin the story of Yetziat
Mitzrayim.  Instead, the 'avadim hayinu' section makes
two very important statements, which provide the answer
the ?one question? of WHY this night is so special.
Hence we explain:
* WHY we are obligated to tell this story ? for had it
not been for this story of how God saved us from Egypt,
we would still be slaves till this day;
And, then we explain:
* WHO is obligated to tell this story - i.e. 've-afilu
kulanu chachamim..' - and even if we [who gather] are
all very wise and learned and know the entire Torah, it
remains incumbent upon us to tell that story; and the
more we elaborate upon it, the better!

	From this paragraph, it appears that before we
actually tell the story, the Haggada prefers to first
discuss some fundamentals relating to the nature of our
obligation! 
	The first statement deals with a fundamental
question regarding why this story is meaningful to all
future generations, even though we will be discussing an
event that took place thousands of years earlier.
	The second statement comes to counter a possible
misunderstanding, based on the source-text of
"ve-higgadeta le-bincha..."  - that this mitzva applies
only to teaching children [i.e. those who never heard
this story].  Therefore, before we tell the story, the
Haggada must remind us that everyone is obligated to
discuss the story - even 'know it alls'.
[See Further Iyun section for a more detailed discussion
of how to understand this section in light of Devarim
6:20-25.]

MA'ASEH BE-R. ELIEZER...
	To prove this second point of the 'avadim
hayinu' paragraph (that even ' know it alls' are
obligated to tell the story), the next paragraph in
MAGGID quotes a story of five great Torah scholars (in
fact Tannaim) who gathered for the Seder in Bnei Brak.
Even though they certainly knew the story; nonetheless
they spent the entire evening (until dawn the next
morning) discussing it. 
[This reflects a classic format for a Rabbinic
statement. First the Rabbis state the obligation [in our
case, that everyone is obligated to tell the story -
even 'know it alls'] - afterward they support that
ruling by quoting a story [in our case, the story of the
five scholars who spent the entire evening discussing
the story of the Exodus, even though they surely knew
it.]

     Even though the Haggada does not quote their entire
conversation of that evening, the next paragraph does
quote one specific discussion.  Let's explain why:

AMAR RABBI ELIEZER BEN AZARYA...  
     The specific discussion that we quote concerns the
Biblical source for our daily obligation to 'mention'
the story of the Exodus (see Devarim 16:3).  In Hebrew,
this obligation is commonly referred to as "zechira" [to
passively remember], in contrast to our 'once a year'
obligation at the Seder of "sippur" - to actively tell
the story of the Exodus.
     Most likely, the Haggada chose to quote this
specific discussion as it relates to the obvious
connection between these two mitzvot ("zechira" &
"sippur").  
     One could suggest that the story we tell at the
Seder ("sippur") serves as the reference point for our
daily mention ("zechira") of the Exodus - when we recite
the third 'parshia' of keriyat shema (see Bamidbar
15:41), every morning and evening.  To mention this
story on a daily basis only becomes meaningful if we
first 'tell the story' in full (at least once a year).  
     We should note as well that the very pasuk: "I am
the Lord your God who took you out of the Land of Egypt
to be for you a God" (Bamidbar 15:41) supports the
opinion of Rashi & Ibn Ezra (quoted above) that God took
us out of Egypt in order that we keep His commandments.
     Notice however, that we are still discussing the
nature of our obligation - but the story itself has not
yet begun! 

THE FOUR SONS
	The next section of MAGGID - beginning with
'baruch ha-Makom', discusses the Four Sons.  Here again,
we do not find the actual story of Yetziat Mitzrayim,
rather another aspect of 'defining our obligation', as
this section discusses HOW we should tell the story. 
     This section reflects the statement in the Mishna:
'"l'fi da'ato shel ha-ben, aviv melamdo" - based on the
level of the child, the parent should teach [the story].
[See Pesachim 116a.]
     Based on this dictum, the Haggada quotes a
Mechilta, which offers four examples of how to tell the
story to different types of children - each example
based on a pasuk in Chumash (where the father answers
his son).  
	The opening statement of this section: 'baruch
ha-Makom...' serves as a 'mini' "birkat ha-Torah" [a
blessing recited before Torah study], as we are about to
engage in the study of a Mechilta - the Midrash on Sefer
Shmot.  The quote itself begins with "keneged arba banim
dibra Torah..."
[For a deeper understanding of this Mechilta, see the
TSC shiur on 'The Four Sons' -
tanach.org/special/4sons.doc]

     This section certainly teaches us HOW to be a
'dynamic' teacher as we tell this story, and adapt it to
the level of our audience.  However, note once again
that the story has yet to begun!

"YACHOL ME-ROSH CHODESH" 
	In the next section, beginning with: 'yachol
me-rosh chodesh...' we discuss yet another aspect of our
'obligation to tell the story' - this time concerning
WHEN we are obligated.  Here, the Haggada quotes an
analytical discourse which arrives at the conclusion
that the story must be told on evening of the Seder.
	Once again, we find another definition relating
to our obligation to tell the story, but we haven't told
the story yet!
[In case you'd like to follow the logic behind this
discourse: Because the Torah's first command to remember
this day is recorded in Shmot 12:14, as part of a set of
commands given to Moshe on Rosh Chodesh Nisan (see
12:1-2), one might think that the phrase "v'haya ha'yom
ha'zeh l'zikaron" (in 12:14) refers to Rosh Chodesh
[that's the "hava amina"].
     However, when Moshe relays these laws to Bnei
Yisrael in chapter 13, he informs that they must
remember this day that they left Egypt, not eat chametz
& eat matza for seven days (see 13:3-7), and then they
must tell the story to their children on that day
"ba'yom ha'hu" (see 13:8) - which may refer to the day
time, i.e. when they first offer the Korban on the 14th
in the afternoon [based on Shmot 12:6 and hence "yachol
m'b'od yom..."]. 
     The drasha rejects that possible understanding
based on the next phrase in 13:8 - "ba'avur zeh" - where
"zeh" in its context must be referring to the matza -
hence the story must be told at the same time that we
eat matza and the korban Pesach, i.e. on the evening of
the 15th.]

	Once again, we find another definition relating
to our obligation to tell the story, but we haven't told
the story yet!

[At most Seders, probably at least an hour has gone by,
but we haven't even begun to tell the story!]
	
"MI-TCHILA OVDEI AVODA ZARA..."
	After defining the various aspects of our
obligation, it appears that MAGGID finally begins
telling the story with the paragraph that begins with
"mi-tchila ovdei avoda zara..." (apparently following
Rav's opinion in Pesachim 116a).  
     If so, it would seem that we actually begin the
story with the story of our forefathers [the Avot] and
how Avraham grew up within a family of idol worshipers. 
     However, if you read this paragraph carefully,
you'll notice it isn't a story at all.  Instead, the
Haggada is making a very important statement, and then
proves that statement with a text-proof from Yehoshua
chapter 24.
	To appreciate what's going on, let's take a
closer look at this statement and its proof.
     
The Statement:
"Mi-tchila ovdei avoda zara.hayu.avoteinu, ve-achshav
kirvanu ha-Makom le-avodato"
At first, our forefathers were servants to strange gods
- but now, God has brought us closer to Him - [in order]
to serve Him!

The Proof:
"And Yehoshua said to the people: 'Thus says the LORD,
the God of Israel: Your fathers dwelt in the past -
beyond the River, even Terach - the father of Avraham,
and the father of Nachor - and they served other gods. 
     And I took your father Avraham from beyond the
River, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan,
and multiplied his seed, and gave him Yitzchak. 
     And I gave unto Yitchak Yaakov and Esav; and I gave
Esav mount Seir, to possess it; and Yaakov and his
children went down into Egypt"  (Yehoshua 24:2-4).
     
	This statement should not surprise us, for once
again we find the Haggada emphasizing the point
(discussed above) that God chose the people of Israel
for a purpose - i.e. to serve Him! 
     However, if you study the quoted text-proof, you'll
notice that it only proves the first half of our
statement, i.e. that we were once idol worshipers, but
it doesn't proves the second half - that God brought us
close in order to serve Him.
     
RE-AFFIRMING BRIT SINAI in Sefer Yehoshua
     The solution to this problem is very simple.  To
show how this quote from Yehoshua proves the second
point as well, we simply need to read the continuation
of Yehoshua chapter 24.  In that chapter, after teaching
a short 'history lesson' (see 24:2-13), Yehoshua
challenges the people saying:
"Now  - fear the LORD, and serve Him in sincerity and in
truth; and put away the gods which your fathers served
beyond the River, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.
     And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD,
choose you this day whom you will serve; whether the
gods which your fathers served that were beyond the
River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you
dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the
LORD"  (Yehoshua 24:14-15).
     
	The entire reason why Yehoshua gathered the
people in Shchem and reviewed their history was in order
to challenge them with this goal - i.e. their
willingness to truly serve God.  After all, as Yehoshua
explains, it was for this very reason that God chose
Avraham Avinu.  Thus the proof on the second half of the
opening statement comes from the continuation of that
chapter!
	Note as well how the chapter continues,
emphasizing over and over again this same theme:
"And the people answered: 'Far be it from us that we
should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods; for the
LORD our God, He it is that brought us and our fathers
up out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage,
and that did those great signs in our sight...
therefore we also will serve the LORD; for He is our
God.' 
     And Yehoshua said unto the people: 'You cannot
serve the LORD; for He is a holy God; He is a jealous
God; He will not forgive your transgression nor your
sins....
     And the people said: 'Nay; but we will serve the
LORD.'
     And Joshua said unto the people: 'You are witnesses
that you have chosen God to serve Him. - And they said:
'We are witnesses.'-- 
     And the people said unto Yehoshua: 'The LORD our
God will we serve, and unto His voice will we hearken.'
     So Yehoshua made a covenant with the people that
day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in
Shechem."
					[See Yehoshua
24:16-25!]

	Hence, the proof for the entire statement of
'mi-tchila...' is found in the continuation of Yehoshua
chapter 24.  Most probably, when this section was first
composed, the Haggada assumed that its readers were well
versed in Tanach, and knew the continuation of that
chapter. 
[Note as well how psukim that we do quote from Yehoshua
(see 24:2-4) form a beautiful summary of Sefer Breishit,
as they focus on the key stages of the 'bechira'
process. 
     Should you be looking for something novel to do at
your Seder, you could have the participants read from
this section.  Note as well that Yehoshua 24:5-7 is an
excellent (albeit short) review of the story of Yetziat
Mitzrayim.  ] 

	This background can help us appreciate how this
statement of 'mi-tchila' sets the stage for the story
that we are about to tell - for it explains why God
originally chose Avraham - i.e. to become the forefather
of a nation that will serve Him.  The next paragraph of
MAGGID will explain its connection to the story that we
are about to begin.


"BARUCH SHOMER HAVTACHATO"
	In the next paragraph we find yet another
'statement' (and not a story) followed by a proof-text,
that relates once again to God's original choice of our
forefathers.  We will now show how this section explains
why the story must begin with Avraham.

Statement:
"Baruch shomer havtachato... - Blessed is He who keeps
His promise [of redemption] to Am Yisrael, for God had
calculated the end [time for redemption] as He had
promised Avraham Avinu at brit bein ha-btarim.  As God
stated:

Proof:
'Know very well that your offspring will be strangers in
a foreign land which will oppress and enslave them for
four hundred years.  But that nation who will oppress
them I will judge, and afterward they will go out with
great wealth" 
	
[See Breishit 15:13-18].

     In this statement, we thank God for keeping His
promise to Avraham Avinu, at ?brit bein ha-btarim?, to
ultimately redeem Bnei Yisrael from their affliction,
after some four hundred years.
     At first glance, this statement sounds like yet
another expression of gratitude.  However, when
considering its position in Maggid, one could suggest a
very different reason for its mention specifically at
this point.
     Recall how the previous paragraph explained that
God had chosen our forefathers to establish a nation to
serve Him.  In order to become that nation, God entered
into a covenant with Avraham Avinu ? i.e. "brit bein
ha?btarim" - which forecasted the need for Avraham?s
offspring to first undergo suffrage in ?a land not
theirs? in order to become that nation.  
     In other words, this historical process of slavery,
followed by a miraculous redemption, was to serve as a
?training experience? that would facilitate the
formation of that nation. [See concept of "kur
ha'barzel" and its context in Devarim 4:20.]  
     Hence, this paragraph explains why the story of the
Exodus must begin with ?brit bein ha?btarim? - for our
slavery in Egypt was not accidental, rather it was part
of God's master plan.  In a certain sense, God put us
into Egypt - in order to take us out!  
[This does not imply that every event that happened to
Am Yisrael was already predetermined since the time of
Avarham Avinu.  Rather, this overall framework of
becoming a nation in someone else's land - followed by
oppression and servitude - then followed by redemption -
was forecasted.  How exactly it would play out, who
would be the oppressor, and how intense that oppression
would be- was yet to be determined.  See Rambam Hilchot
Teshuva chapters 5 & 6; see also Seforno's introduction
to Sefer Shmot as his commentary on the first chapter.]

	As we thank God for fulfilling His promise to
Avraham, we are in essence thanking God for His covenant
and its very purpose, not just for taking us out of
Egypt.  
     Therefore in this section of Maggid, before we tell
the story of WHAT happened - we must first explain WHY
it happened.
     This point is proven in the next paragraph:

"VE-HEE SHE-AMDA"
	As we lift our cups and recite the "v'hee
sh'amda" - we declare yet another important statement,
connecting that covenant and the events of the past with
today:
     "ve-HEE she-amda la-avoteinu ve-LANU " 
- And it is THIS [Promise that was part of the COVENANT,
i.e. brit bein ha-btarim] which stood for our fathers,
AND for us as well.  For not only once [in our history]
did our enemies try to destroy us; but in EVERY
generation we are endangered, but God comes to save us
[for the sake of His covenant]."
     
     The word "hee" in this statement obviously refers
to the promise ['havtacha'] of brit bein ha-btarim
(mentioned in the previous paragraph).  This statement
is so important that our custom is to raise the cup of
wine before reciting this proclamation!
	Here we explain that "brit bein ha-btarim" was
not merely a 'one-time coupon' promising one major
redemption, but rather it defined an eternal
relationship between God and His people.  The events of
Yetziat Mitzrayim are only the initial stage of this
everlasting relationship.  Therefore, anytime in our
history, whenever we are in distress - God will
ultimately come to redeem us.  However, the reason why
God redeems us is in order that we can return to serve
Him (that's why He chose us). 
	This provides us with a deeper understanding of
why every generation must tell-over the story of Yetziat
Mitzrayim.  At the Seder, we are not simply thanking God
for the 'event' but rather for the entire 'process'.
Yetziat Mitzrayim was not simply a 'one-time' act of
redemption.  Rather, it was a critical stage in an
on-going historical process in which God desires that Am
Yisrael become His special nation.
	As this purpose is eternal, so too the need to
remind ourselves on a yearly basis of the key events
through which that process began.  
	This understanding explains why redemption
requires spiritual readiness, for in every generation
Bnei Yisrael must show their willingness to be faithful
to that covenant.
[In our TSC shiur on Parshat Bo, we explained how this
concept explains the symbolism of why we must rid
ourselves of chametz, prior to and during the time when
we thank God for Yetziat Mitzrayim.
     This may also explain why we invite Eliyahu
ha-navi, when we begin the final section of the Haggada,
where we express our hope for our future redemption.
According to the final psukim of Sefer Mal'achi (the
Haftara for Shabbat ha-Gadol!), Eliyahu will come to
help the nation perform proper 'teshuva' - to become
worthy for redemption.]

     At most Seder's - surely, over an hour has passed;
yet we still haven't told the story!]

"TZEY U-LMAD" / "ARAMI OVED AVI"
	With this thematic background complete, the
Haggada is finally ready to tell the story (for those
who are still awake).  However, as you may have noticed,
we do not tell the story in a straightforward manner. 
	Take a careful look at the next section of
MAGGID, noting how the Haggada takes four psukim from
Devarim 26:5-8, and quotes them one word (or phrase) at
a time.  Each quote is followed by a proof of that
phrase, usually from either the story of the Exodus in
Sefer Shmot or from a pasuk in Sefer Tehillim. 
[To verify this, be sure to first review Devarim 26:1-9
before you continue.]

	This section begins with "tzey u-lmad: ma bikesh
Lavan...." which is simply a drasha of the opening
phrase 'arami oved avi', and then continues all the way
until the 'makkot' -the Ten Plagues.  In a nutshell,
this section constitutes a rather elaborate Midrash on
four psukim from 'mikra bikkurim' (Devarim 26:5-8).
	The reason why MAGGID chooses this format to
tell the story is based once again on a statement in the
Mishna in the tenth chapter of Masechet Pesachim:
"ve-dorshin me-arami oved avi ad sof ha-parasha" - and
then we elaborate on the psukim from 'arami oved avi'
until the end of that unit - and that is exactly what
the Haggada does!
	In other words, the Haggada uses Devarim 26:5-8
- beginning with 'arami oved avi' - as the 'framework'
for telling over the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim.  Even
though 'technically' it would suffice to simply quote
these psukim, we elaborate upon them instead, in an
effort to make the story more interesting and
meaningful.  [In fact, we are quoting a Sifrei - the
Midrash on Sefer Devarim, which most probably was
composed for this very purpose.]

	From a 'practical' halachic perspective, this is
critical to understand - for in this section we finally
fulfill our obligation to TELL THE STORY - and hence
this section should be treated as the most important
part of MAGGID! 
[Unfortunately, this section is usually one of the most
neglected parts of the Haggada, since we are usually
'out of steam' by the time we reach it.  Also, if one is
not aware of the elaborate nature of these quotes, it is
quite difficult to understand what's going on.
Therefore, it's important that we not only pay attention
to this section, but we should also be sure at this
point to explain the details of the story to those who
don't understand these psukim.]

WHY MIKRA BIKKURIM?
	It is not by chance that Chazal chose to
incorporate a Midrash of "mikra bikkurim" - even though
it is rather cryptic - as the method through which we
fulfill our obligation of sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim.
Let's explain why.
	Recall from our shiur on Parshat Ki Tavo, that
"mikra bikkurim" (see Devarim 26:1-10) serves as a
yearly proclamation whereby every individual thanks God
for His fulfillment of the final stage of brit bein
ha-btarim. 
[This is supported by numerous textual and thematic
parallels between the psukim of mikra bikkurim (Devarim
26:1-9), and brit bein ha-btarim (see Breishit 15:7-18).
Note as well the use of the word 'yerusha' in 26:1 and
in 15:1-8!]

	This proclamation constitutes much more than
simply thanking God for our 'first fruits'.  Rather, it
thanks God for the Land (see Devarim 26:3) that He had
promised our forefathers (in brit bein ha-btarim / see
Breishit 15:18).  The 'first fruits' are presented as a
'token of our appreciation' for the fact that God has
fulfilled His side of the covenant - as each individual
must now declare that he will be faithful to his side of
the covenant.  
	As mikra bikkurim constitutes a biblical
'nusach' ['formula'] through which one thanks God for
His fulfillment of brit bein ha-btarim, one could
suggest that it was for this reason that the Mishna
chose these same psukim as its framework for telling the
story of Yetziat Mitzrayim. 
[It very well may be that this custom to tell the story
at the Sefer with "mikra bikurim" began after the
destruction of the Temple (note that the Tosefta of
Mesechet Pesachim does not include this custom, while
the Mishna (compiled later) does include it!   Without
the Temple, the individual could no longer recite "mikra
bikkurim".  However, we can at least remind ourselves of
this yearly need to proclaim our allegiance to God's
covenant - by quoting from "mikra bikurim" at the Seder!

     This may explain why the Haggada only quotes the
first four psukim of mikra bikkurim (where it talks
about Yetziat Mizraim) but not the pasuk that describes
how He bought us into the Promised Land.
     Finally, note also the word 'higgadeti' in Devarim
26:3 and compare it with the word 've-higgadeta' in
Shmot 13:8!  
     See also Rambam Hilchot Chametz u-Matza chapter 7,
especially halacha 4.]

THE MULTIPLICATION TABLES
	When you study the "drashot" of these four
psukim, note how the drasha of the final pasuk leads us
directly into the Ten Plagues.  At this point, the
Haggada quotes an additional drasha - by R. Yossi
ha-Glili - that there must have been 5 times as many
plagues at the Red Sea than were in Egypt [based on the
ratio - 'etzba' of the Makkot  to 'yad' at Kriyat Yam
Suf, i.e. hand/finger = 5/1].
	Then R. Eliezer and R. Akiva add multiples of 4x
and 5x for each plague - based on Tehillim 88:49.
[Note in the Rambam's nusach of MAGGID, he skips this
entire section.  This suggests that this Midrash is an
additional 'elaboration', but not a necessary part of
the story that we must tell.  In other words, if you
need to skip something, this section is a 'good
candidate'.]

DAYENU
	Now that the story is finished, it's time for
'praise' -following the format of the Mishna "matchilin
bi-gnut u-mesaymim be-shevach' - and we will now explain
how DAYENU serves as a special form of HALLEL (praise). 
	You are probably familiar with all the questions
regarding what we say in Dayenu, for example, how could
a Jew say, let alone sing, that -'it would have been
enough'- even had God not given us the Torah?
     And how could a 'zionist' say, let alone sing, that
-'it would have been enough'- even if God had not given
us the Land of Israel?
	However, the answer to all those questions is
rather simple, once one understands that each time we
say the word "dayenu" - it really implies that 'it would
have been enough - to say Hallel'.  
	In other words, we say as follows:
- Had God only taken us out of Egypt and not punished
the Egyptians, it would have been reason enough to say
Hallel
-  Had He split the sea, but not given us the 'manna',
that alone would have been reason enough to say
Hallel...
     ...  And so on. 
 	With this background, the next paragraph of that
poem makes perfect sense:
"`al achat kama vekhama..."
 - How much more so is it proper to thank God for He has
performed ALL these acts of kindness ..
He took us out of Egypt, and punished them, and split
the sea, and gave us the manna etc.

     In essence, this beautiful poem poetically
summarizes each significant stage of redemption, from
the time of the Exodus until Am Yisrael's conquest of
the Land - stating how each single act of God's kindness
in that process would be reason enough to say Hallel,
now even more so we must say Hallel, for God did all of
these things for us. 
     From this perspective, "dayenu" serves a double
purpose.  First and foremost, it concludes the story
with "shevach" [praise]. and qualifies the Hallel that
we are about to sing.  However, it could also be
understood as a continuation of the story of the Exodus.
Let's explain why and how:
     Recall that the last "drasha" [elaboration] on the
psukim of "arami oved avi" led into a lengthy discussion
of the Ten Plagues.  To fulfill our obligation at the
Seder' to tell the story', we could (and do) finish
right here.  But the poem of "dayenu" actually continues
that story, picking up from the Ten Plagues ["asa bahem
shfatim" refers to the Plagues], and continuing through
all the significant events in the desert until our
arrival in the Land of Israel and building the Temple.  
     This takes on additional significance, as it
concludes in the same manner as the final pasuk of
"arami oved avi" - which for some reason we do not
include in our Seder (even though according to the
Mishna it appears that we really should)!  Recall that
according to Devarim 26:9, the proclamation should
conclude with: "va'yvi'einu el ha'Makom ha'zeh"
      According to Chazal - he brought us to the Bet
ha'Mikdash!
     "va'yiten lanu et ha'aretz ha'zot"  he gave us the
land of Israel
     
     Even though we don't elaborate upon this pasuk in
our version of Maggid, "dayenu" enables us to include
it!
     In this manner, the song of "dayneu" serves as both
"shevach" [praise] and "sippur" [story] - at the same
time!
	It is also interesting to note that we find 15
levels of praise in the Dayenu, that most probably
correspond to the 15 steps leading to the Bet
ha-Mikdash, better known as the 'shir ha-ma'a lot', i.e.
the 15 psalms in Tehillim (120-134) / composed for each
step. 
	Finally, note how Dayenu discusses fifteen
'stages' in the redemption process.  This beautifully
reflects the theme that we have discussed thus far -
that we are thanking God for the entire process of
redemption, and not just for a specific event!
[For a full shiur on the topic of Dayenu, see:
www.tanach.org/special/dayenu.txt ]

"RABBAN GAMLIEL"
	Even though we have completed our story, before
continuing with the Hallel, the Haggada wants to make
sure that we also fulfill Rabban Gamliel's opinion (in
Masechet Pesachim chapter 10) that we have not fulfilled
our obligation of "v'higadta l'bincha" unless we have
explained the connection between that story and the
commandment to eat PESACH, MATZA & MAROR. 
[It appears that Ramban Gamliel understands the word
"zeh" (in Shmot 13:8) refers to the 'korban Pesach' -
probably based on his understanding that the phrase
"ha'avoda ha'zot" in 13:5 also relates to 'korban
Pesach'.  Hence, Raban Gamliel requires that we explain
to our children (and whoever is gathered) why we are
eating not only matza, but also pesach and maror.]
 
	Rabban Gamliel's statement could also imply that
our obligation of eating matza and maror is not complete
unless we explain how they connect to the story that we
just told.  This would explain why it is added at the
conclusion of the "sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim" section, as
we are about to fulfill our obligation to eat matza, and
maror. 
[In our times, this section may also be considered a
'fill in' for the KORBAN PESACH itself.  During the time
of the Bet ha-Mikdash, MAGGID was said while eating the
korban pesach.  Nowadays, since the korban cannot be
offered, we mention pesach, matza, and maror instead of
eating the korban.  Thus, this section forms an
excellent introduction to the Hallel, which in ancient
times was recited as the Korban Pesach was offered, and
later when it was eaten.]

	This section forms the conclusion of "sippur
Yetziat Mitzrayim", and sets the stage for our reciting
of Hallel - to praise God for our salvation. [See Rambam
Hilchot chametz u'matza 7:5, where his concluding remark
implies that "haggada" ends here.]

"BE-CHOL DOR VA-DOR"
     Considering the integral connection between the
events of the Exodus and "brit avot" (discussed above)
the statement of:`"be-chol dor va-dor chayav adam lir'ot
et atzmo ke-ilu hu yatza mi-Mitzrayim..." takes on
additional significance.
	Before we say HALLEL, we conclude our story by
stating that in every generation - each individual must
feel as though HE himself was redeemed from Egypt.  As
the purpose of this entire historical process of
redemption was to prepare Am Yisrael for their national
destiny - it becomes imperative that every member of Am
Yisrael feels as though they experienced that same
'training mission'.  
	One could suggest that this closing statement
complements the opening statement of MAGGID (in the
avadim hayinu paragraph) that had God had not taken us
out of Egypt we would still enslaved until this very
day.  Now that we have told the story of Yetziat
Mitzrayim, we are supposed to feel as though we
ourselves were redeemed.
	As stated in Devarim 6:20-25, the events of
Yetziat Mitzrayim obligate Am Yisrael to keep not only
the mitzvot of Pesach but ALL of the mitzvot of the
Torah!  [See Sefer Kuzari section 1.]
[Note how the phrase "ve-otanu hotzi mi-sham" that we
recite in this section of MAGGID is quoted from Devarim
6:23!  Note as well how Chazal most probably arrived at
this conclusion based on Moshe Rabeinu's statement in
Devarim 5:2-3 (at the very beginning of his main speech)
that God's covenant at Har Sinai was made with the new
generation, even though they themselves were not born
yet!] 

LEFICHACH / HALLEL
	As an introduction to the first two chapters of
HALLEL, we recite 'lefichach...'.  Note how this section
contrasts 'suffering' with 'redemption' (note the
numerous examples).  This too may reflect our theme that
we thank God for the process, and not just for the
event.
	The two chapters of Hallel that we recite at
this time are also quite meaningful.  The reason for
'be-tzeit Yisrael mi-Mitzrayim' is rather obvious.  But
note the opening words of the first chapter:
	"hallelu AVDEI Hashem, hallelu et SHEM
Hashem..."

	In other words, as we are now God's servants
['avdei Hashem'] - and no longer slaves to Pharaoh, it
is incumbent upon us to praise our new master.

THE 'SECOND CUP'
	We conclude Maggid with the blessing of "ge'ula"
[redemption] on the 2nd cup of wine.
	As we recite this blessing, note how most
fittingly we express our hope that we will become worthy
of God's redemption speedily in our own time

A CONCLUDING THOUGHT
	Even though much of our above discussion may
seem 'technical', our analysis alludes to a deeper
concept, that the Seder is not only about 'gratitude' -
i.e. thanking God for what happened; but more so - it's
about 'destiny' - i.e. recognizing why it happened!
. 	Let's explain.
     Many of us are familiar with a concept called
'hakarat ha-tov' - recognition of gratitude.  Simply
translated, this means that people should express their
gratitude for help (or assistance) provided by others.
In relation the Seder, by telling the story of Yetziat
Mitzrayim [the Exodus] and reciting afterward the Hallel
[praise], we express our gratitude to God for our
redemption from slavery in Egypt.
	However, if "hakarat ha-tov" is the sole purpose
of Maggid, then a very serious question arises when we
pay attention to the details of the story that we have
just told.  Recall (from the paragraph "baruch shomer
havtachato...") how we thank God in the Haggada for the
fulfillment of His covenant with Avraham - that he would
ultimately save Am Yisrael from their bondage.  Yet in
that very same covenant, God promised not only our
redemption, but also our enslavement! [See Breishit
15:13-15.]
	If there was a real teenager [or 'chutzpedik']
son at the table, he could ask a very good [but
'cynical'] question: 
Why should we thank God for taking us out of Egypt,
after all - it was He who put us there in the first
place! 

	To answer this question, I'd like to introduce
the concept of 'hakarat ha-ye'ud' [shoresh
yod.ayin.daled] - the recognition of destiny [and/or
purpose]; in contrast to "hakarat ha-tov".
	As we explained above, our obligation to 'tell
the story of the Exodus' stems not only from our need to
remember what happened, but more so - from our need to
remember why it happened.  In other words, we are
actually thanking God for both putting us into slavery
and for taking us out; or in essence - we thank God for
our very relationship with Him, and its purpose - as we
must recognize the goal of that process and the purpose
of that relationship.
	In our shiur, we have both discussed the
biblical background that supported this approach, and
shown how this understanding helped us appreciate both
the content of structure of Maggid.
	This point of "hakarat ha-ye'ud" is exactly that
we emphasized in our introduction.  As our 'ye'ud' - our
destiny - is to become a nation that will serve Him, God
found it necessary to send us down to Egypt in order
that He could redeem us.  
     This could be the deeper meaning of Rashi's
interpretation of the pasuk "ve-higgadeta le-bincha ...
ba'avur zeh" - that we must explain to our children that
God took us of Egypt in order that we keep His mitzvot.
[See Rashi & Ibn Ezra 13:8.]  Rashi understands that the
primary purpose of "magid" is not simply to explain why
we are eating matza, but rather to explain to our
children why God took us out of Egypt - or in essence,
why He has chosen us to become His nation and hence keep
His mitzvot.
	To complement this thought, we will show how
this same theme may relate as well to the very purpose
of God's first covenant with Avraham Avinu - "brit bein
ha'btarim".

ETHICS & the EXODUS -
     Recall that when God first chose Avraham Avinu in
Parshat Lech Lecha (see Breishit 12:1-7), He informed
him that he would become a great nation and that his
offspring would inherit the land,   However, only a
short time later (in chapter 15), God qualifies that
promise by informing Avraham Avinu (at brit bein
ha'btraim) that there would be a need for his offspring
to become enslaved by another nation BEFORE becoming
(and possibly in order to become) God's special nation
(see Breishit 15:1-18).
     Even though some commentators understand this
'bondage' as a punishment for something that Avraham may
have done wrong (see Maharal - Gevurot Hashem);
nonetheless, the simple pshat of Breishit chapter 15 is
that this covenant was part of God's original plan.
This begs for an explanation concerning why this
framework of 'slavery' was a necessary part of this
process.
[We should note that according to Seforno (based on
Yechezkel 20:1-10), even though God forecasted our
slavery, it didn't have to be so severe.  Its severity,
he explains, was in punishment for Bnei Yisrael's poor
behavior in Egypt.  (See Seforno's intro to Sefer Shmot
and his commentary on Shmot 1:13.)  .]
One could suggest that the answer lies in what we find
in the mitzvot given to Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai,
immediately after they leave Egypt. 
     Recall the numerous commandments that include the
special 'reminder' of "v'zacharta ki eved ha'yita
b'eretz Mitzraim" - to Remember that you were once a
SLAVE [or STRANGER] in Egypt.  Just about every time we
find this phrase, it is not a 'stand alone' mitzvah, but
rather as an additional comment following a law
concerning the proper treatment of the 'less-fortunate'
- i.e. it serves as an extra incentive to keep some of
the most very basic ethical laws of the Torah.
	To prove this, simply review the following list
of sources in your Chumash, paying careful attention to
when and how this phrase is presented, noting both its
topic and context:
* Shmot 22:20 & 23:9  (note the type of mitzvot found in
numerous laws recorded between these two psukim). Note
especially "v'atem y'datem et nefesh ha'ger" in 23:9,
that phrase highlights our above assertion.
* Vayikra 19:33-36 (concluding "Kdoshim tihiyu"!)
* Vayikra 20:26! and 25:55!  (note the context of
Vayikra 25:35-55, noting especially 25:38.)
* Devarim 5:12-15 (shabbos is to allow our servants a
chance to rest as well - v'zachrta ki eved hayita...")
* Devarim 16:11-12, in regard to "simchat yom tov"
* Devarim 24:17-18, noting context from 23:16 thru 24:18
* Devarim 24:19-22, continuing same point as above
* Note as well concluding psukim in Devarim 25:13-16

REMEMBER WHAT THEY DID TO YOU
     In light of these sources (a 'must read' for those
not familiar with these psukim), it becomes clear that
part of God's master plan (in the need for our
enslavement to Egypt before becoming a nation) was to
'sensitize' us, both as individuals and as a nation, to
care for the needs of the oppressed and downtrodden.  
     God is angered when any nation takes advantage of
its vulnerable population (see story of Sedom in
Breishit chapters 18-19, noting especially 18:17-21!).
In our shiurim on Sefer Breishit, we suggested that this
may have been one of the underlying reasons for God's
choice of a special nation, a nation that will 'make a
Name for God', by setting an example in the eyes of
there nations, of ideal manner of how a nation should
treat its lower classes, and be sensitive to the needs
of its strangers and downtrodden. [Note also Yeshayahu
42:5-6!]
     Hence, after Bnei Yisrael leave Egypt, they must
receive a special set of laws are Har Sinai that will
facilitate their becoming that nation.  As they are
chosen to become God's model nation (see Devarim 4:5-8),
these laws must set reflect a higher standard, to serve
as a shining example for other nations to learn from.
Note as well how the opening laws of Parshat Mishpatim
(which immediately followed the Ten Commandments), begin
with special laws for how to treat our own slaves,
whether they be Jewish (see Shmot 21:1-11) on non Jewish
(see 21:20 & 21:26-27).  [Not to mention the laws that
follow in 22:20 thru 23:9.]
     With this background, one could suggest that the
suffering of Bnei Yisrael in Egypt, i.e. their being
taken advantage of by a tyrant etc., would help teach
Bnei Yisrael what 'not to do' when they form their own
nation, after leaving Egypt.
     As anyone who is familiar with the prophecies of
Yeshayahu and Yirmiyahu (and just about all of the
Neviim Acharonim) knows, it was this lack of this
sensitivity to the poor and needy that becomes the
primary reason behind God's decision to exile Israel
from their land, and destroy the Bet Ha'Mikdash. 

A YEARLY 'RE-SENSITIZER'
     Let's return to the very pasuk from which we learn
our obligation to tell the story at MAGID -"v'higadta
l'bincha... ba'avur zeh asa Hashem li b'tzeiti
m'Mitzraim".  If we follow the interpretation of Rashi &
Ibn Ezra, then this pasuk is commanding us that we
explain to our children that God took us out of Egypt in
order that we can fulfill His commandments.  Or in
essence, God orchestrated all the events forecasted in
"brit bein ha'btarim" to help us become that nation.
Certainly, this approach fits nicely with our
explanation thus far.
     Finally, the very pasuk that Chazal chose that we
must recite twice a day to 'remember' the Exodus on a
daily basis (see Bamidbar 15:41) may allude as well to
this very same point: "I am the God who took you out of
Egypt IN ORDER to be your God...".  In other words, God
took us out of an Egypt in order that He become our God.
Our deeper understanding of the purpose of the events
(of the Exodus) can serve as a guide and a reminder to
assure that we act in the manner that we assure that we
will indeed become God's model nation.
     In summary, when we thank God for taking us out of
Egypt, we must also remember that one of the reasons for
why He put us there - was to sensitize us towards the
needs of the oppressed.  Should we not internalize that
message, the numerous "tochachot" of the Bible warn that
God may find it necessary to 'teach us the hard way'
once again (see Devarim 28:58-68 and Yirmiyahu 34:8-22).
	In this manner, the message of the Seder is not
only particular -in relation to the obligations of the
Jewish people; but also universal -in relation to their
purpose - the betterment of all mankind.  Or in the
words of Chazal - "ein l'cha ben choriin ele mi sh'osek
b'Torah" - 'Who is considered free - one who can
dedicate his life to keeping God's laws
	Freedom - to dedicate one's life to the service
of God, both as an individual and a member of God's
special nation - to internalize and eternalize God's
message to mankind - that's what the Seder is all about!
					chag sameiach,
menachem

FOR FURTHER IYUN


     
A.  V'ACHSHAV KIRVANU HA'MAKOM L'AVADATO
	 This key statement of the MAGID section (as
discussed in our shiur on MAGID), that God chose the
Jewish people in order that they could serve Him (by
acting as His model nation) - is proven not only from
our quote of Yehoshua 24:1-3, but more so from the
remainder of that chapter - a 'must read' for anyone not
familiar with that chapter!  
     For those of you familiar with Sefer Yehoshua,
here's an observation that you may appreciate.  One
could suggest that the gathering, as described in
Yehoshua 24:1-27, may have taken place at an earlier
time, even though it is recorded in the final chapter of
the book.   Based on the content of this speech (and
challenge) by Yehoshua for the entire nation to serve
God - it would have made more sense for this gathering
to have taken place soon after the original wave of
conquest, and not at the end of his life. 
     In my opinion, the most logical time for this
gathering to have taken place would have been at the
same time when Bnei Yisrael first gathered at Har Eival
to re-convene their covenant with God, in fulfillment
the God's command in Devarim 27:1-8!  This covenantal
gathering, similar to the original covenantal gathering
at Har Sinai (compare w/Shmot 24:3-11) is described in
detail in Yehoshua 8:30-35.   Note that the city of
Shechem - where the events in chapter 24 take place, is
located at the foot of Har Eival (where the events in
chapter 8:30-35 take place!
     Even though the events in chapter 24 should have
been recorded after the events in 8:30-35, Sefer
Yehoshua preferred to 'save' that speech for its
concluding section, because of its thematic and
everlasting significance. 
	If so, then Yehoshua chapter 23 would have been
the last gathering of the people with Yehoshua prior to
his death (as seems to be simple pshat of the opening
psukim of that chapter), while the events described in
chapter 24 were 'saved' for the conclusion of the book
(even though they took place much earlier).  [Note how
the story of Yehoshua's death in 24:28-33 is not an
integral part of the story in 24:1-27]
     Hence, it may not be by chance that the Haggada
quotes from this chapter to present its key point - that
God chose us, and gave us the special Land, for the
purpose that we would be able serve Him. Its thematic
importance results in its special placement at the
conclusion of Sefer Yehoshua, and similarly, at a key
position in MAGID.

B. MAGID & SEFER DEVARIM
	For those of you familiar with our Intro shiur
to Sefer Devarim (i.e. in regard to the structure of the
main speech), it will be easier to appreciate why the
Haggada begins its answer to the "ma nishtana" with
"avadim hayinu...".   [Or basically, Shmuel's opinion
for "matchilim b'gnut" in the tenth perek of Mesechet
Psachim"/ see 116a.]
	Recall how that speech began in chapter 5, where
Moshe Rabeinu introduces the laws [the "chukim
upmishpatim"] by explaining how they part of the
covenant that God had made with Am Yisrael at Har SinaI;
while the laws themselves began with the famous psukim
of Shema Yisrael that begin in 6:4.  
     In that context, the question in 6:20 concerns the
inevitable question of children relating to the very
purpose for keeping all of these laws, while the phrase
"avadim hayinu" (see 6:21) is only the first line of a
four line answer to our children, that explains why God
chose us, and why we are obligated to keep all of His
laws (see 6:20-25).
	Hence, it is not by chance that the Haggada uses
specifically this pasuk to explain why we are obligated
to 'tell the story of the Exodus' every year, as that
very pasuk begins the Torah's explanation for why we are
obligated to keep all of God's laws. 
	Note as well how the pasuk of "v'otanu hotzi
m'sham lmaan. [for the purpose of]..." (see 6:22-23) is
quoted at the end of MAGID in the "bchol dor v'dor"
section - and not by chance!
     Recall as well how the final mitzvot of this
lengthy speech are found in chapter 26, namely "mikra
bikkurim" and "viddui maasrot". 
     In light of our study of Sefer Devarim and the
sources in Sefer Shmot for Maggid (relating to how the
experience in Egypt served to sensitize the nation - to
act properly once they become sovereign in their own
land), one can suggest an additional reason for why
Chazal chose Mikra Bikurim - from Devarim chapter 26 -
as the official 'formula' by which we tell the story.
Note not only how the declaration in 26:5-9 constitutes
a thanksgiving to God for His fulfillment of brit bein
ha'btarim, but notice also the closing line in 26:11,
where once again we are called upon to be sure that the
stranger and Levite share in our happiness (for they
have no Land of their own, and hence not able to bring
their own first fruits).
     It should also not surprise us that the next law,
"vidduy maasrot" at the end of every three years,
emphasizes this very same theme.  Simply read its
opening statement in 26:12-13, focusing on the need of
the farmer to give the necessary tithes to the poor and
needy, the orphans, widows, and strangers.  Only
afterwards does he have the ethical 'right' to pray to
God that He should continue to bless the land and its
produce - see 26:15!  This law forms a beautiful
conclusion for many of the earlier laws in the main
speech of Sefer Devarim, again a set of laws originally
given to Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai (see Devarim 5:28).
     
     One could even suggest that reciting these psukim
as well may be what the statement in the Mishna in
Pesachim refers to when instructing us to read from
Arami oved Avi (from Devarim 26:5) until we finish the
ENTIRE Parsha.  If we read the entire Parshia, the
should certainly should include 26:11, and may even
allude to 26:12-15 (|"vidduy maaser"), (and in my humble
opinion even to the concluding psukim of the entire
speech in 26:16-19!). ["v'akmal"]


AVADIM HAYINU & SEFER DEVARIM
	To appreciate why MAGGID quotes specifically
this pasuk of 'avadim hayinu' to begin its discussion of
our obligation to tell the story of the Exodus, we must
study its source (and context) in Sefer Devarim.
	Recall from our study of Sefer Devarim how Moshe
Rabeinu delivers a lengthy speech (chapters 5 thru 26),
in which he reviews the numerous laws that Bnei Yisrael
must observe once they enter the land (see Devarim 5:1,
5:28, 6:1 etc.).  As part of his introductory remarks
concerning those mitzvot - Moshe states as follows:
"Should [or when] your child will ask - What [obligates
us] to keep these laws and statutes and commandments
that God our Lord has commanded?  - 
And you shall tell him - AVADIM HAYINU le-Pharaoh
be-Mitzrayim... - We were once slaves to Pharaoh in
Egypt, but God brought us out with a mighty hand..."
     (See Devarim 6:20-21, and its context.)
     
	In other words, Sefer Devarim used the phrase
'avadim hayinu' to introduce its explanation for why
Bnei Yisrael are obligated to keep ALL of the mitzvot.  
	But when we continue to read that explanation in
Sefer Devarim, we find the reason WHY God took them out:
"ve-otanu hotzi mi-sham, lema'an havi otanu el
ha-aretz..."
     And God took us out in order to bring us to the
Land that He swore unto our fathers [='brit avot].
     And the LORD commanded us to do all these laws, to
fear the LORD our God, for our good... 
     And it shall be the just thing to do, if we observe
to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as
He hath commanded us."  [See Devarim 6:22-25.]

	Here again, we find that the Torah states
explicitly that God took us out of Egypt for a purpose -
i.e. in order to inherit the Land and to serve God by
keeping His laws.
	This statement supports Rashi & Ibn Ezra's
interpretation of the pasuk 'ba'avur zeh...' (as we
discussed earlier in this shiur), that we are to explain
to our children that God took us out of (and put us
into) Egypt, in order that we keep His mitzvot.
	Therefore, it is very meaningful that the
Haggada chose specifically this pasuk of 'avadim hayinu'
to introduce its discussion of WHY we are obligated to
tell the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim on this special
evening.
	In fact, one could suggest that this may have
been the underlying reasoning behind Shmuel's opinion
(in Pesachim 116a).  By stating that we begin the story
with the pasuk of 'avadim hayinu', Shmuel is simply
stating that before we tell the story, we must explain
the reason for this obligation - just as we do in
MAGGID!

C. BCHOL DOR V'DOR & SEFER DEVARIM
	Note as well how the pasuk of "v'otanu hotzi
m'sham lmaan. [for the purpose of]..." (see 6:22-23) is
quoted at the end of MAGID in the "bchol dor v'dor"
section - and not by chance!
     Recall as well how the final mitzvot of the main
speech of Sefer Devarim are found in chapter 26, namely
"mikra bikkurim" and "viddui maasrot".  In light of our
study of Sefer Devarim and the sources in Sefer Shmot
for Maggid (relating to how the experience in Egypt
served to sensitize the nation - to act properly once
they become sovereign in their own land), one can
suggest an additional reason for why Chazal chose Mikra
Bikurim - from Devarim chapter 26 - as the official
'formula' by which we tell the story.  Note not only how
the declaration in 26:5-9 constitutes a thanksgiving to
God for His fulfillment of brit bein ha'btarim, but
notice also the closing line in 26:11, where once again
we are called upon to be sure that the stranger and
Levite share in our happiness (for they have no Land of
their own, and hence not able to bring their own first
fruits).
     It should also not surprise us that the next law,
"vidduy maasrot" at the end of every three years,
emphasizes this very same theme.  Simply read its
opening statement in 26:12-13, focusing on the need of
the farmer to give the necessary tithes to the poor and
needy, the orphans, widows, and strangers.  Only
afterwards does he have the ethical 'right' to pray to
God that He should continue to bless the land and its
produce - see 26:15!
     This law forms a beautiful conclusion for many of
the earlier laws in the main speech of Sefer Devarim,
again a set of laws originally given to Bnei Yisrael at
Har Sinai (see Devarim 5:28).
     
D.  "HA LACHMA ANYA"
	This opening paragraph of MAGID is difficult to
understand not only due to the Aramaic, but also due to
its context and content.  Let's begin by explaining the
problems.
     After breaking the middle matza for YACHATZ - we
begin MAGGID with the following statement:
"ha lachman anya..." - 'This [matza that we are now
looking at] resembles the poor man's s bread that our
forefathers ate in the land of Egypt.'

     First of all, it would make more sense to
understand this statement as the completion of YACHATZ
(since it refers to the matza that we just broke), and
not necessarily the beginning of MAGGID (for it doesn't
tell the story).  However, even if this section is not
an integral part of Maggid, it will form a significant
transition between 'yachatz & maggid'- as we shall soon
explain.
     Secondly, this opening statement leaves us with the
impression that we are eating matza at the Seder to
remember how Bnei Yisrael ate matza during their
slavery.  However, Sefer Shmot leaves us with the
impression that we eat matza in order to remember the
hurried nature in which Bnei Yisrael left Egypt (see
Shmot 12:33-40 and subsequently 13:3 & 13:8).  In other
words, should we be explaining at this time that matza
on our table is to remind us of our slavery, or to
remind us of our redemption?
     The simplest answer would be to explain that 'this
is the matza that our forefathers ate in Egypt - when
they brought the very first korban Pesach'!  In other
words, we are not stating that this poor man's bread was
the 'staple' of the daily diet of our forefathers in
Egypt - rather, it is the special bread that God
commanded us to eat with the original Korban Pesach (see
Shmot 12:8).  
     Furthermore, the reason for calling this bread
"lechem oni" [lit. either bread of affliction or bread
of poverty] is obviously based on Devarim 16:3 ["shivat
yamim tochal alav matzot lechem oni - ki
b'chipazon...."].  However, when studying the context of
those psukim (see Devarim 16:1-4), the phrase "lechem
oni" can be understood as a description of what matza
is, and not necessarily as the reason for the
commandment to eat it.  [The question is whether 'lechem
oni' defines for us WHAT matza is, or explains WHY we
eat matza.]
     This returns us to our discussion of the two
reasons for matza (see TSC shiur on Parshat Bo) - where
we explained that the reason for eating matza with the
original Korban Pesach in Egypt had nothing to do with
the fact that we later rushed out on the next day.
Rather, there had to be some intrinsic reason for eating
matza (and not chametz) with that korban; either to
remind us of our slavery, or to symbolize our need to
reject Egyptian culture to be worthy of redemption.
     If we continue with our understanding that this is
the'matza' that our forefathers ate together with the
first Korban Pesach, then the next statement of "kol
dichfin" - which otherwise is very difficult to
understand -  begins to make sense.  Let's explain why.
     The next statement (right after explaining that
this matza used to be eaten by our forefathers) - at
first sounds like an invitation:
"Anyone who is hungry, let him come and eat, anyone who
is in need, let him come and join in the Pesach, this
year 'here', next year in the Land of Israel; this year
- slaves, next year - free men"
It can be understood in one of two ways, either:
* an open invitation for others to join us. - or
* a quote of what our forefathers once said.
These two possibilities are a result of how one
understand  s the word "v'yifsach" in the phrase "kol
ditzrich yete v'yifsach" [anyone who needs, let him come
and join our Pesach].  
     If we take the word "va'yifsach" literally, then
this must be an invitation to join in the korban Pesach
- and hence, it must be a quote from an earlier time
period.
     If "va'yifsach" is not translated literally, and
hence it refers to the Seder, then this section was
composed to be recited as an invitation (to the Seder).
But this wouldn't make much sense at this time, since
everyone is already sitting down, and considering that
we've already made Kiddush and eaten "karpas" - isn't it
a bit late to be inviting people! 
     Let's return therefore to the possibility that
"va'yifsach" refers to the actual 'korban Pesach' (which
seems to be the simple meaning of this word).  If so,
then we can easily pinpoint exactly who we are quoting -
as it must be from a time when the korban Pesach was
offered, but also when we were not yet living in Israel,
and still in slavery!.  There answer is simple - this
must be a quote of what our forefathers said to one
another (translated into Aramaic) in preparation for the
very first korban Pesach (i.e. the one in Egypt, as
described in Shmot 12:1-23).
     It can only refer to that very first korban Pesach,
for that was the only time in Jewish history when the
korban Pesach was offered when we were both (1) in
slavery (hoping next year to be free) - and (2) living
outside the Land of Israel (hoping be next year in the
Land of Israel)!   If this interpretation is correct,
then the flow of topic makes perfect sense.  We break
the matza, and explain that this was the same type of
bread that our forefathers ate with the first korban
Pesach in Egypt, and then we quote what they said to one
another in preparation for that special evening -
fulfilling what God instructed them in Parshat
ha'Chodesh (see Shmot 12:3-8!).
     This quote of our forefathers, from the very first
Seder in Jewish History, is quite meaningful - for we
begin MAGGID by emphasizing the connection between our
own Seder and the very first Seder that Am Yisrael kept
thousands of years ago (and its purpose).  By quoting
from the special atmosphere of that very first korban
Pesach family gathering, we highlight the continuity of
our tradition and our hope for the fulfillment of its
goals.  
     [Note how this would conform to Shmot  12:14, in
its context!]
     
     
     
1


1



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13 - Release
Date: 4/12/2008 12:00 AM
 
      
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: magid.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 106968 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080416/ccad1557/attachment-0003.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: magidSources.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 203351 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080416/ccad1557/attachment-0004.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: magidoutline.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 34370 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080416/ccad1557/attachment-0005.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Fri Apr 18 07:15:56 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:15:56 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Shiur on Arami Oved Avi - PDF only
Message-ID: <01f401c8a145$92d224c0$0200000a@x60>

	With Shabbat falling out on erev Pesach, we have
some extra time this year to prepare for the Seder.
Below you will find a shiur that discusses the various
drashot that we recite in the Arami Oved Avi - the key
section of Magid - where we fulfill our obligation of
"sipur Yetziat Mitzraim". 
 In our 'Guide to Magid' shiur sent earlier this week,
we already discussed why we quote specifically from
Mirka Bikurim in Sefer Devarim.  In the following shiur,
we follow this drasha, one drash at a time, in attempt
to understand why Chazal chose those specific psukim,
based on their context in Tanach. We also relate back
to our overall themes of how the Seder relates to "brit
bein ha'btarim" 
and 'Recognition of Destiny' vs. 'Expression of
gratitude'.

the shiur is only available in pdf format, as it
contains
a lot of Hebrew, which will not print up properly if
sent as text or a word file.
chag samayach,
menachem 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13 - Release
Date: 4/12/2008 12:00 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: AarmiDrasha.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 234486 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080418/5286e39c/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Fri Apr 18 10:09:16 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:09:16 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Another Haggada Link
Message-ID: <024f01c8a15d$c98b9e20$0200000a@x60>

FW: The  Absolute Haggadah 
below is an interesting link with a very cute but
extremely enlightening
Haggada - it's very long - but you can read it on line
or print out parts
 
 HYPERLINK
"http://yucs.org/~waxman/Absolut%20Haggadah%202008.pdf"
\nhttp://yucs.org/~waxman/Absolut%20Haggadah%202008.pdf
 

 
 


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13 - Release
Date: 4/12/2008 12:00 AM
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080418/1fb22e9b/attachment.htm 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Apr 23 04:05:46 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 04:05:46 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] For Shvii shel Pesach - shiur #1
Message-ID: <007001c8a518$dacd60b0$0400000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

       for SHVII SHEL PESACH
                       [revised 5765]

     We are all familiar with the historical reason for
celebrating the 'seventh day of Passover' - for
(according to
the Midrash) the miracle of the splitting of the Red Sea
took
place seven days after Bnei Yisrael left Egypt.
     Yet, to our surprise, that reason never appears in
the
Chumash.  In fact, the Torah simply commands that we eat
matza
for seven days, and then to make a special celebration
on that
last day, without explaining why.  [See Shmot 13:3-7.]
     In regard to other Jewish holidays, SEVEN also
seems to
be a 'magic' number.  Not only is Pesach is 'seven'
days; we
also count 'seven' weeks to Shavuot; then in the
'seventh'
month - we celebrate several holidays including the
'seven-
day' holiday of Succot!
     So why do so many holidays revolve around the
number
seven?  It is simply because there are seven days in a
week?
     In the following shiur we attempt to answer this
question, as we search for a thematic connection between
the
'historical' reasons for the holidays and the
agricultural
seasons when they are celebrated.


INTRODUCTION
     In general, we are usually more familiar with the
historical reasons for the holidays more than their
agricultural perspective.  For example, on Pesach we
commemorate the Exodus from Egypt, on Shavuot - the
giving of
the Torah, and on Succot - God's special providence
during our
forty-year sojourn in the desert.
     In regard to the historical reason for celebrating
the
'seventh day of Passover', the Midrash informs us that
the
miracle of "kriyat Yam Suf" [the splitting of the Red
Sea]
took place seven days after Bnei Yisrael left Egypt.
[See
Mechilta quoted by Rashi on Shmot 14:5..]
  [Hence, our custom to read "shirat ha'yam" (Shmot
chapters
  14 & 15) for the Torah reading on "shvii shel Pesach".
    See also Ibn Ezra on 12:15-16, where he takes for
granted
  that the reason for the seven days of chag ha'matzot
is
  because "kriyat yam suf" took place seven days after
Bnei
  Yisrael left Egypt, even though it's not clear how he
  reaches that conclusion.]

     Nonetheless, the Torah itself never connects the
events
of "kriyat Yam Suf" with the seventh day of Passover.
In
fact, the Torah first discusses these seven days in
Shmot
chapter 12 (see 12:15-20 and 13:3-8) way before the
miracle of
the splitting of the Red Sea , as detailed in chapter
14, ever
took place!
  [This does not mean that "kriyat yam suf" did not
happen on
  "shvii shel pesach"; we are simply suggesting that
there may
  be a different, or at least an additional reason for
the
  seven day length of the holiday.  (For a discussion of
when
  and how the events of "kriyat yam suf" took place, see
TSC
  shiurim on Parshat Shmot and Beshalach.)]

  Therefore, if we follow the 'simple meaning' of the
text,
there should be an independent reason for the
celebration of
these SEVEN days, unconnected to the historical events
of the
miracle at the Red Sea
     In our shiur, we will search for that reason by
examining
several additional instances (later on in Chumash) where
the
Torah presents the laws of Passover within the wider
framework
of the three pilgrimage holidays [="shalosh regalim"].

THE BIBLICAL NAME FOR 'SHVII SHEL PESACH'
  In our introduction, we have referred to this holiday
by its
popular name - "shvii shel Pesach" [lit. the seventh day
of
Passover].  However, to be 'Biblically correct', the
proper
name for this holiday should be the seventh day of "chag
ha'matzot".  Let's explain why:
  Technically speaking, Passover (in the Bible) is only
a 'one-
day' holiday - beginning on the 14th of Nisan in the
afternoon, and ending on the 15th in evening - when the
korban
Pesach is offered (see Shmot 12:3-14).  In addition to
this
holiday, the Torah also commands that we eat matza (and
don't
eat "chametz") for the next seven days (see 12:15-20,
see also
Vayikra 23:5-7 and Bamidbar 28:16-18!).  Therefore, we
refer
to this holiday as "chag ha'matzot", and hence the
celebration
of the final day should be called "shvii shel chag
ha'matzot".
  [Note that in tefilah, the name of the holiday is chag
  ha'matzot - and not chag ha'Pesach.]

THE SHALOSH REGALIM IN PARSHAT MISHPATIM
     Even though the seven days of "chag ha'matzot" are
first
mentioned independently in Parshat Bo, and apparently as
part
of an historical holiday; in Parshat Mishpatim they are
presented once again - but this time as the first of a
set of
three agricultural holidays:
  "Three times a year you shall hold a festival for Me.
    Keep:
  *    CHAG HA'MATZOT - SEVEN days you shall eat matza
as I
  have commanded you [i.e. in Parshat Bo 12:15-10 &
13:2-8] at
  its set time in the [first] month of the spring
["chodesh
  ha'aviv"] - for in [that month] you left Egypt...
  
  *    CHAG HA'KATZIR [the Harvest holiday] - the first
grain
  of your labor from what you sow in the field, and
  
  *     CHAG HA'ASIF [the Fruit Harvest holiday] when
you
  gather in the fruits of your toil from the field.
  
  *    THREE TIMES a year, all your males shall appear
before
  the Lord - Hashem..."
           (see Shmot 23:14-17)

  Review these psukim once again, noting how they
present the
"shalosh regalim" as a unit, and how the names of each
holiday
focus primarily on its agricultural aspect.
Furthermore,
these holidays are described solely by their 'seasonal'
date,
without even mentioning the precise lunar date.
  It's rather obvious how each of these three holidays
corresponds to a critical time in the agricultural year
in the
land of Israel:
  (1) a spring holiday [chag ha'matzot, b'aviv] - when
the
fruit trees blossom, and the grain begins to ripen.
  (2) the grain harvest holiday [chag ha'katzir - early
summer] - when most of the barely and wheat harvest is
complete
  (3) the fruit-gathering holiday [chag ha'asif - late
summer]
- after most of the grapes, figs, and dates have been
gathered.
  
  These seasons are especially important in the Land of
Israel, where it rains only in the winter, and hence its
produce is harvested only once a year (during the
summer).
  For example, all of the grain that will be consumed
during
the course of the year is harvested during a short time,
between the late spring and early summer.  If that grain
harvest fails, a famine will likely result, for the
grain will
not grow again until the next spring.
  Similarly, the trees bear their fruit only once a
year,
towards the end of the summer.  If that short fruit
harvest
season fails, the next crop will not grow until the next
year.
  
  Based on these observations, it appears that these
"shalosh
regalim" are simply 'agricultural' holidays, not very
different than holidays found in the culture of other
nations,
especially in agrarian societies.
  So why are they 'special times' for God's 'special
nation'?
  
THE 'DANGER' OF WORKING THE LAND
     In ancient societies, it was very common to relate
the
success or failure of crops (or agriculture in general)
to a
pantheon of gods who controlled the various powers of
nature.
For example, historians inform us that the ancient
Canaanites
believed in a god who controlled the rain - known as
Baal; and
another who controlled fertility, known as Ashera.
  Recall as well that God had taken Bnei Yisrael out of
Egypt
in order that they would conquer the Land of Canaan, and
establish therein a special nation that would represent
Him.
Towards that purpose, God brought Bnei Yisrael to Har
Sinai,
where they entered a covenant and received a complete
set of
laws that would guide their behavior in the Land of
Israel -
which include the laws in Parshat Mishpatim!  Therefore,
we
should not be surprised to find laws in the Torah that
relate
to the danger of following other gods, especially in
relation
to the agriculture of the land.
  Even though God had proven His existence to His people
via
the miracles of the Exodus, and by providing for their
physical needs in the desert with the manna (& water);
there
remained a serious fear that this belief would wane once
the
nation conquered the land, and their livelihood became
dependent instead on cultivation of the land.  This
included
the reasonable fear that Bnei Yisrael would follow the
local
customs of the other peoples living in Eretz Canaan, and
begin
to worship other gods.

THE SHALOSH REGALIM & AGRICULTURE
     With this in mind, let's consider the transition
pasuk
(23:13) in Parshat Mishpatim that introduces the laws of
the
"shalosh regalim".  Recall how Parshat Mishpatim
presented a
complete unit of both civil and ethical laws, that began
back
in chapter 21 (see Shmot 21:1 thru 23:12/ see also TSC
shiur
on Parshat MIshpatim).  At the conclusion of that unit,
we
find a short 'summary phrase', followed by a very
interesting
additional command:
  "... and ALL [these mitzvot] which I have told you be
sure
  to keep, and the NAMES of other gods do not mention;
their
  names should not be heard on your lips. - "shalsoh
regalim"
  - you shall celebrate [instead] for Me!... (see
23:13-14)

  Note how immediately after this summary phrase (in
23:13)
God warns Bnei Yisrael: 'DO NOT even mention the NAMES
of
these other gods (and certainly don't worship them),
instead -
celebrate before God three times a year - during these
three
critical times of the agricultural year!
     Clearly, these 'NAMES of other gods' refer to the
'agricultural gods' such as the Canaanite gods of Baal
and
Ashera.  This would explain why the laws of the "shalosh
regalim" that follow focus on how God expects His nation
to
celebrate these agricultural holidays.  Let's examine
those
psukim once again to identify the primary mitzvah
associated
with these holidays:
  "Three times a year you shall hold a festival for Me.
Keep
    (1) CHAG HA'MATZOT - SEVEN days you shall eat
MATZA... in
    the [first] month of the SPRING ["chodesh ha'aviv"]
- for
    in [that month] you left Egypt...
    (2) CHAG HA'KATZIR [the Harvest holiday] - the first
    [grain] of your labor from what you sow in the
field, and
    (3) CHAG HA'ASIF [the Fruit Harvest holiday] when
you
    gather in the fruits of your toil from the field.
  THREE TIMES a year, all your males shall appear before
the
  Lord - Hashem..."    (Shmot 23:14-17)
       [Later in Devarim 16:1-17, in a parallel passage,
the
       Torah explains that this "aliyah la'regel" must
take
       place "ba'Makom asher yivchar Hashem" - or better
known
       as the bet ha'Mikdash in Jerusalem.]

     Clearly, the primary mitzvah that links all of
these
holidays together is the obligation to 'visit' [lit. 'to
be
seen'] by God - what we refer to as "aliyah la'regel".
  At each of these three critical times of the
agricultural
year, the Torah obligates us to 'visit God'.
     Apparently, God wants Bnei His nation to gather at
His
Temple during these critical times of the agricultural
year -
not only to thank God for their harvest, but also as a
preventive measure to make sure that Bnei Yisrael would
not
worship other gods at these key times of agricultural
year.

     A similar fear is spelled more explicitly in Sefer
Devarim, also in relation to Bnei Yisrael's imminent
entry
into the land:
  "And it shall be, when God shall bring you into the
land
  which He swore unto thy fathers...., and give you
great and
  goodly cities, which you did not build... and cisterns
hewn
  out, which thou the didst not hew, vineyards and
olive-
  trees, which you did not plant, and you shall eat and
be
  satisfied--
  then beware lest thou forget HASHEM, who brought you
out of
  the land of Egypt....
  Do not go after other gods, of the gods of the peoples
that
  are round about you.... lest the anger of God be
kindled
  against you..."   (see Devarim 6:10-15, see also
8:1-15!)

     Based on this interpretation, there is ample reason
to
celebrate these three pilgrimage holidays, even had no
significant events taken place in Jewish history during
those
times of the year.  Nonetheless, the Torah goes out of
his way
to emphasize how Bnei Yisrael must remember their Exodus
-
specifically in the spring:  Recall Moshe Rabeinu's
first
speech to Bnei Yisrael, immediately after they left
Egypt and
camped in the desert:
  "And Moshe said to the people: 'Remember this day that
you
  are leaving Egypt... today you are leaving in the
month of
  the SPRING.  [Hence,] when you come to Israel... keep
this
  custom in this month. Seven days eat matza..."
    [See Shmot 13:3-6, note also Devarim 16:1-2.]
  
  Therefore, it would only be logical to conclude that
it was
not simply incidental that God took Bnei Yisrael out of
Egypt
in the spring.  Rather, it appears that God
intentionally
wanted our annual celebration of the Exodus to coincide
with
the beginning of the spring.  In fact, God seems to have
orchestrated those events, to make sure that our holiday
of
redemption would fall out in the spring!
     With this mind, let's return now to the 'seven'
days of
"chag ha'matzot", and attempt to explain why this
'historical/agricultural holiday' should last seven
days.

WHY SEVEN?
     Considering that the agricultural holidays relate
to
'nature' and its yearly cycle of fruit production, the
Torah
demands that we relate these powers of nature to the one
God
who created them.  But how do we express this belief?
  Recall from our shiur on Parshat Breishit how we
explained
that this very point was the primary message of the
first
chapter of Sefer Breishit.  The Torah's use of the name
'Elokim' to describe God, even though it is written in
the
plural form [lit. all of the powers], emphasized how all
the
'powers of nature' that appear to work independently -
are
truly the work of one God.  Stage by stage, the
organized
world of nature was created by Elokim, one day at a time
- for
six days.  By keeping Shabbat, once every seven days, we
remember this point; and by refraining from work (or any
'creativity'), we show our belief that it was God
Himself who
created nature and continues to oversee it.
  From this perspective, any time in the Bible where we
find
'seven days', it would be safe to assume that it relates
in
some manner to that same concept that there is only one
God,
and He is the true power behind all the phenomena that
we
refer to as nature.
  This can explain why "chag ha'matzot" is celebrated
for
seven days, in the beginning of the spring.  By
celebrating
for 'seven days' at the beginning of the spring when
nature
blossoms in full force, and then counting 'seven weeks'
until
the grain harvest is complete; and then celebrating yet
another 'seven days' and the conclusion of the fall
fruit
harvest - we relate all these phenomena of nature to God
Himself.
  [Note how almost every ancient [and even modern]
culture
  relates its prosperity to powers of various gods. In
  Judaism, we declare that there is only one God, and
our
  prosperity is a function of His will. (See Devarim
11:10-
  21!)]

THE SHALOSH REGALIM IN EMOR
     To support this explanation, let's take a look at
how the
holidays are presented in Parshat Emor.
     In our study of Parshat Emor (Vayikra chapter 23),
we
noticed how each of the "shalosh regalim" included a
special
law that relates to agricultural, and the specific
season of
each holiday.
     On chag ha'matzot - the OMER offering / see
23:9-14;
      from the first barely harvest, the first grain to
ripen.

     On Shavuot - the SHTEI HA'LECHEM  / see 23:15-21;
          an offering brought from the first wheat
harvest.

     On Succot - the ARBA MINIM [four species] / see
23:39-41;
          the lulav, etrog, hadas and aravot are waived

     Note also how in each of these mitzvot the holiday
itself
is referred to as a 'shabbat' or 'shabbaton'! [See
23:11,15,&
39!] One could suggest that the Torah's use of the word
'shabbat' to describe these holidays also relates back
to
"shabbat Breishit" and the creation of nature in seven
days.
  [See the TSC shiur on Rosh ha'Shana which discussed
the
  agricultural aspect of Rosh ha'Shana & Yom Kippur as
well,
  i.e. the beginning of the autumn rain season.]

     As we would expect, each special mitzvah relates to
the
specific time of the agricultural year in which it
falls.

THE SHALOSH REGALIM IN SEFER DEVARIM
     Finally, the Torah's presentation of the "shalosh
regalim" in Parshat Re'ay (see Devarim 16:1-16), also
emphasizes agriculture as a primary theme of these
holidays,
as well as the number seven:
  Its opening phrase reminds us to "keep the month of
the
SPRING - and celebrate Passover".  Then, we are
commanded to
eat matza for the SEVEN days that follow the Passover
offering
(see 16:3). Then, note how Sefer Devarim then presents
the
mitzvah to celebrate the seventh day of "chag ha'matzot"
in a
manner very similar to the mitzvah of Shabbat:
  "Six days you shall eat matzot, and on the SEVENTH DAY
there
  shall be an ATZERET [a gathering] for the Lord your
God, you
  shall not do any work."
    (see Devarim 16:8, compare w/Shmot 20:8-10)

     Similarly, Shavuot as well is presented as follows:
"Count SEVEN weeks from the beginning of your grain
harvest..."  While Succot begins with: "Keep the holiday
of
Succot for SEVEN days, when you gather your harvest..."
     Once again, we find thanking God for our produce,
and the
number seven, as the primary theme of the "shalosh
regalim".

BACK TO HISTORY
     Based on our above explanation, it appears that the
agricultural seasons alone provide reason enough to
celebrate
before God on the "shalosh regalim".. So why must each
holiday
include a historical aspect as well?
     The reason why may be quite fundamental.  As we
explained
above, God intentionally planned for Am Yisrael to leave
Egypt
in the spring - but we did not explain why.
     One could suggest that by celebrating our
redemption and
freedom in the spring, Bnei Yisrael will better
appreciate
what our freedom is all about.  As spring fills the air
with
hope and high expectations [what we call 'spring fever']
and
signals the beginning of a new season; we must assess
the
appreciation of our freedom as well.  By remembering how
(and
why) God granted us our freedom - we become inspired,
for it
enables tremendous opportunities (& raises our hopes)
for
national and spiritual growth.  It's a 'new start' -
with all
its excitement and potential, if nurtured properly!
     The celebration of our redemption from Egypt in the
spring may reflect this very purpose.  Yetziat Mitzraim
can be
understood as the initial stage in a long and complex
historical process leading towards the next two key
stages of
our national destiny:
     * Matan Torah - the giving of the laws at Har Sinai
-
        which we celebrate on SHAVUOT; and
     * Entering the Promised land - where the nation
will be
        established - which we celebrate on SUCCOT.

     Furthermore, by adding historical significance to
key
agricultural times of the year, the Torah helps us
recognize
that the same God who oversees our national history
[i.e. who
performed the miracles of Exodus etc.] is also the same
God
who oversees nature (and will provide the produce of the
land).
  [In our previous shiurim on Shavuot and Succot, we
discussed
  the connection between those holidays and their
agricultural
  time of the year as well.  It should be noted the
Torah
  itself only provides historical reasons for chag
ha'matzot
  and succot.  However the historical reasons for
Shavuot
  [Matan Torah] and Yom Kippur [the second luchot] are
rather
  obvious. (The question is actually quite the opposite,
i.e.
  why doesn't Chumash mention explicitly the rather
obvious
  historical connection?)  Therefore, it only makes
sense that
  Chazal would assume that the seventh day of chag
ha'matzot
  should have historic significance as well, and "kriyat
yam
  Suf" becomes the most obvious candidate.]

BACK TO KRIYAT YAM SUF
     One could even suggest a thematic connection
between the
historical event of the splitting of the Red Sea and the
seventh day of chag ha'matzot.  From an agricultural
perspective, the spring marks a new beginning, and
clearly
marks a new start.  In a similar manner we can view the
events
of "Kriyat Yam Suf".
  Recall how Bnei Yisrael, expressed their fear of the
Egyptians as they felt that they had been trapped at the
Red
Sea:
  "As Pharaoh drew near, Bnei Yisrael lifted their eyes
and
  saw the Egyptians advancing. Greatly frightened, Bnei
  Yisrael cried out... saying: 'Were there not enough
graves
  in Egypt that you brought us to die in the desert?
   ... Is this not what we told you back in Egypt -
LEAVE US
  ALONE and let us serve Egypt... Moshe calmed the
people
  saying: 'Have no fear... for in the MANNER which you
view
  Egypt today, you will no longer see them in this way
ever
  again..."
           [See 14:10-14 (and previous shiur on
Be'shalach).]

  Up until that point in their history, Bnei Yisrael
still
viewed themselves as subservient to Egypt.  That was the
only
existence that they ever experienced.  The miracle of
"kriyat
Yam Suf", just like the spring, marked a new beginning
for the
nation of Israel, as they now march into the desert,
totally
cut off from their Egyptian masters.

FREEDOM FOR SERVITUDE
    What would Bnei Yisrael do with their freedom?
    Would they wisely reap its 'fruits' - to properly
serve God?

   During the seven weeks of intense experiences in the
desert,
from the Exodus until they arrive at Har Sinai, God
consistently 'tests' the His people, preparing them for
the
challenge of Matan Torah.

   Just as it will take another seven weeks from the
early
spring barley harvest ("omer") until we can reap the
fruits of
our wheat harvest ("shtei ha'lechem") in the early
summer - it
will take us seven weeks of preparation, to internalize
the
spiritual message of Passover - until we are ready once
again
to re-accept the covenant at Har Sinai on Shavuot.  That
in
itself would be reason enough to set aside a special
holiday
[an "Atzeret"/ see Devarim 16:8] on "shvii shel Pesach"
- to
contemplate the purpose of our freedom - and a sense of
direction for the year that has just begun.
    Something to think about when counting Sefirat
ha'omer!

                              chag samayach,
                              menachem

FOR FURTHER IYUN
=================

BACK TO BRIT BEIN HA'BTARIM
A. In our shiurim on chag ha'matzot and Magid, we
discussed
the thematic connection between the process of Yetziat
Mitzraim, and God's original covenant with Avraham Avinu
-
brit bein ha'btarim - which already forecasted that
process of
enslavement and redemption.  With that background, one
could
view the manner by which Bnei Yisrael crossed thru the
Red Sea
as thematically parallel to that covenant.
     The most basic parallel is simply passing in
between two
parts (see also Yirmiyahu 34:18!) as a symbol of
entering into
a covenant. Note also the word "gezarim" (split into two
parts) as it is used in Breishit 15:17 and Tehillim
136:13 (in
a description of "kriyat yam suf".
     Note also "tanur ashan v'lapid aish" (in 15:17)
which
reminds us of the "amud anan & amud ha'aish" that
protect Bnei
Yisrael at the Red Sea and lead them through the desert
(see
Shmot 14:24).
     Finally see Breishit 15:6 - "v'he'emin b'Hashem",
parallel to Shmot 14:31 - v"hae'eminu b'Hashem uv'Moshe
avdo".

OTHER REASONS FOR SEVEN DAYS
B. See Chizkuni on Shmot 12:15 (in the middle of his
pirush)
where he explains that chag ha'matzot is specifically
seven
days to correspond to the seven days that each plague
lasted.
     Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim Part III chapter 43, in
his
explanation of the various holidays, explains that if we
only
at matza (or sat in the Succah) for one or two days, the
change would not be noticed.  Only be eating matza (and
not
eating chametz) for a full seven days does it become
clear to
everyone that we are changing our routine to eat ONLY
matza -
and by doing so we recall the events of Yetziat
Mitzraim.

A PARALLEL "ZACHOR V'SHAMOR"
C.   When we hear "zachor v'shamor", we immediately
relate
these two commands with SHABBAT, for they are the two
opening
statements which introduce the mitzvah of shabbat in the
Ten
Commandments in Yitro (see Shmot 20:8) and Ve'etchanan
(see
Devarim 5:12).
     However, we find a similar pattern by chag
ha'matzot:
When Bnei Yisrael first receive the mitzvah in Shmot we
find:
     "ZCHOR et ha'yom ha'zeh asher yatzata
m'Mitzraim..."
(13:3)
compare with the mitzvah in Devarim:
     "SHMOR et chodesh ha'aviv, v'asita PESACH... shivat
yamim
tochal alav MATZOT..." (see 16:1-3)

Relate this to the above shiur.
     Note also the 'conflicting' reasons for shabbat in
the
Ten Commandment in Yitro & Ve'etchanan.
  "... Six days you shall work, but on the SEVENTH day
you
  shall rest, in order that your ox and donkey may rest
and
  that your bondsman and the stranger may rest as well.

"CHUKAT OLAM..."
D. Notice in Parshat Emor (Vayikra 23) how each of the
agricultural mitzvot ends with the pasuk:
     "chukat olam l'doroteichem b'chol MOSHVOTEICHEM"
[Note this after the mitzvah of omer, shtei ha'lechem,
yom
kippur, and succot!]
     Note however how succot is different, for it is
missing
"moshvoteichem". But look at the pasuk that follows! Can
you
now explain why!?

A YOM TOV FOR CHAG HA'MATZOT
E. One could understand the holiday on the seventh day
as the
primary holiday of chag ha'matzot (see Devarim 16:8) and
the
holiday on the first day of yom tov as the holiday of
'korban
Pesach'.  This could explain the need for two yom-tovim
on
chag ha'matzot.  Relate this possibility to the above
shiur.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.3/1391 -
Release Date: 4/22/2008 8:15 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shvii1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 45120 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080423/bcc5c10f/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Apr 23 04:06:42 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 04:06:42 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] For Shvii shel Pesach - shiur #2
Message-ID: <007801c8a518$fa40ad80$0400000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

PARSHAT BESHALACH -
for shvii shel Pesach

	We are all so familiar with the story of the
"kriyat Yam Suf" [the splitting of the Red Sea], that we
rarely pay careful attention to how the Torah tells that
story.
    As the Torah reading for 'shvii shel Pesach'
includes that story, in the following shiur we
re-examine its details in attempt to better understand
God's master strategy, and possibly fulfill the
commandment of "in order that you shall tell your future
generations how I made a mockery of the Egyptians..."
(see Shmot 10:2). 
    
INTRODUCTION
	According to the 'classic' story of the Exodus,
after the Tenth Plague, Pharaoh sets Bnei Yisrael free;
but only several days later, he 'changes his mind',
gathers his army and chases after them, only to drown in
the sea during that pursuit.
	The story in the Bible, however, is much more
interesting, especially for those who enjoy studying
'military strategy'.
    Let's begin our study with what 'really happened'
after the Tenth Plague - to show how Pharaoh never
granted Bnei Yisrael freedom (nor did Bnei Yisrael ask
for freedom).

THREE DAYS IN THE DESERT
	Recall from our study of the story of the
'burning bush' in Parshat Shmot - how God never
instructed Moshe to demand freedom for the Jewish
People.  Rather, Moshe was only supposed to request that
Pharaoh allow the Jewish people to undertake a 'three
day journey' into the desert, where they would worship
their God.  [See Shmot 3:18-20 & 5:1-5.]
	Moshe was also instructed to warn Pharaoh that,
should he refuse this request, Egypt would be smitten
with terrible plagues.
[See Shmot 5:3, as well as the warning to Pharaoh before
Plagues 1,2,4,5,7, & 8  in 7:14-16, 26-27;  8:16-17;
9:1-3, 13-18; and 10:1-4.]

	Therefore, after the Tenth Plague - Pharaoh is
finally 'convinced' that Bnei Yisrael must worship their
God in order to stop the Plagues:
"And it came to pass at midnight, and God smote the
first born of Egypt...  then Pharaoh got up and called
to Moshe and Aharon that night saying:
Get up and get out... and GO WORSHIP your God -
"ke-daberchem" - as you (originally / in 5:3) requested!
Even your sheep and cattle take with you, as you
requested (in 10:26), and BLESS ME AS WELL..."  (see
12:29-33).

	Clearly, Pharaoh only grants Bnei Yisrael a
three-day journey to offer ?korbanot? - after all, that
is all that Moshe ever asked for!  

 	This background explains why the entire Egyptian
nation rushes Bnei Yisrael to leave Egypt as quickly as
possible (see 12:33-34) - so they can sacrifice to their
God as soon as possible to stop the Plagues.
    This also explains why the Egyptians 'LEND'
[?va-yish?alu?] Bnei Yisrael their finest wares, to
encourage them to leave as quickly as possible (see
12:35-36).  As Bnei Yisrael are only taking a 'holiday
leave? to worship their God, the Egyptians have every
reason to assume they will return - and bring back what
they had 'borrowed?.  
[This topic was discussed in greater detail in our TSC
shiur on Parshat Shmot - see
www.tanach.org/shmot/shmot1.pdf]

PHARAOH'S GREATEST WORRY
	If all that Bnei Yisrael wanted was 'freedom to
worship their God', why was Pharaoh so reluctant to 'let
them go'?
	Pharaoh's greatest fear was that Jewish People
would take over his country (either on their own, or
with the help of Egypt's enemies).  It was for this
reason that the enslavement began in the first place
(see Shmot 1:8-10)!
	Even had he heard 'rumors' that his Hebrew
slaves were plotting to emigrate to Canaan, he would not
have believed them.  
[Such an endeavor would have been almost suicidal,
considering the desert they would need to cross, and the
nations of Canaan that they would need to defeat (see
Shmot 14:12 & 10:10, and Bamidbar 13:31-33).]

    Instead, Pharaoh assumed that any request to go to
the desert to worship God (or to emigrate to Canaan) was
simply a 'ploy' to hide the first step of a planned
insurgency.  Therefore, he was quite adamant about not
allowing this 'three day journey'.  And even when he
finally granted partial permission (after some of the
plagues) - he made every effort to keep some safeguard
against an insurgency (like leaving the women & children
behind / see Shmot 10:7-11).  [Clearly, Pharaoh was also
worried about losing his work force, even for a short
amount of time - but his greatest fear was an
insurgency.]
    
    With this background in mind, let's follow the
events that transpire after the Exodus, as Bnei Yisrael
begin their supposed 'three days journey' into the
desert'.

DAY ONE : From Raamses to Succot
    The first day of this journey is clearly recorded in
Sefer Shmot: "And the children of Israel traveled from
Raamses to Succot, approx. 600,000 men..." (see 12:36).
There, they baked their dough as 'matza', and received
numerous commandments concerning how future generations
must remember these events.  [See 12:36 thru 13:16.]

DAY TWO:  From Succot to Eitam
    Parshat Beshalach opens by describing the direction
of their travel (i.e. not towards Canaan [northeast],
but rather towards Yam Suf [apparently southeast] -
towards the desert as they requested).  See 13:17-18.
    Note however, how the Torah also informs us that
Bnei Yisrael were also armed during this journey:
    "...v'chamushim yatzu Bnei Yisrael m'eretz mitzraim"
    						[see
13:18]
Then, we are informed concerning what happened on day
two:
"And they traveled from Succot and encamped in Eitam -
located at the edge of the desert."  (see 13:20)
 
    So far, it seems as this journey is following Bnei
Yisrael's request to travel a three day distance into
the desert.  Days one and two of this journey, they are
still in Egypt - but marching towards the desert.  After
two days, they have reached the border between Egypt and
the desert, and the assumption is that on day three -
they would continue this journey into the desert, and
find the proper place to worship God.

DAY THREE - A SURPRISE MANEUVER!
    The opening psukim of chapter 14 contain details
that are key to understanding how the story unfolds;
let's read them carefully - as God suddenly commands
Moshe to 'turn around' and travel back towards Egypt!:
"And God spoke to Moshe saying - Speak to Bnei Yisrael -
instructing them to TURN AROUND and set up camp in front
of Pi-ha'Chirot, between Migdol and the [Red]
Sea...setting up camp next to the sea..."  (see 14:1)
    
	This command apparently comes as a total
surprise to Bnei Yisrael (and even to Moshe) - for
instead of continuing into the desert, as everyone
expected, God now instructs the nation to return towards
Egypt!
    Fortunately, God does explain the purpose of this
maneuver (apparently only to Moshe) in the next pasuk.
As you read 14:2, note how God is still speaking to
Moshe (and not Pharaoh to his servants!).  In other
words, 14:2-3 should be read as a continuation of the
command that began in 14:1:
"[so that] Pharaoh will say about Bnei Yisrael -
"nevuchim heym b'aretz" - they are 'unsettled' in the
land, "sagar aleihem ha'midbar" - the desert has them
'closed in'.  And [thus (or then!)] I will harden
Pharaoh's heart and he will chase after them..."  (see
14:2-3)
[We have translated "navoch" as unsettled, not as 'lost'
- for "navoch", as in "moreh nevuchim" does not imply
someone who is lost, but rather someone who is
'confused' / perplexed or unsettled with his thoughts.]

	It is important to pay attention to every detail
in this pasuk, for it explains the reason for this
sudden 'change of plan'.
	God explains (to Moshe) why he wants Bnei
Yisrael to turn around and re-locate their camp by the
sea - in order to entice Pharaoh to 'change his heart' a
chase after Bnei Yisrael (or basically to declare war).
	Let's explain now how this maneuver will cause
Pharaoh to launch an immediate (but careless) military
attack.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO THE DESERT!
	The first (and primary) affect of this 'turn
around' maneuver, is to cause Pharaoh to conclude that
Bnei Yisrael are NOT continuing into the desert.  In
other words, had Bnei Yisrael continued on day three
from Eitam to the desert, there would have no reason for
him to launch an attack.  Instead - it is because they
don't go to the desert, but rather stay in Egypt - that
he decides to attack them.
	The reason why is simple.  The only reason why
Pharaoh allowed them to embark on this 'three day
journey', was so that they could worship their God in
the desert.  By returning on 'day three' towards Egypt -
Pharaoh will conclude that Bnei Yisrael have no true
intention of going to the desert.  Instead, it will
convince him that his original fear was true - that his
Hebrew slaves are planning to turn around and take over
Egypt - or at least to declare their own independence in
southern Egypt!
[What happens is rather interesting, for it turns out
that Pharaoh chases after Bnei Yisrael because they
don't leave Egypt!]

WHAT CAN PHARAOH DO?
	Faced with this predicament, and convinced that
he has been duped - what can Pharaoh do?  They longer he
would wait, the more time Bnei Yisrael would have to
organize their army and set up a perimeter defense
around their new [temporary] settlement area.  The
sooner Pharaoh could mount an attack, the better his
chances of quelling this 'rebellion'.  
    This explains what God tells Moshe in 14:2.  Not
only will Pharaoh and his servants be convinced (by Bnei
Yisrael turning around) that they have no intention of
going to the desert - but God himself also gives Pharaoh
two good reasons why to launch an immediate attack:
    1) "nevuchim heym b'aretz" -
They are [still] 'unsettled' in the land (of Egypt) -
implying that soon they will be more organized - but in
the meantime, they are not yet prepared for battle.
	
    2) "sagar aleihem ha'midbar" -
		The desert has them 'closed in' - 
Hence, from a military point of view, the Hebrews are in
weak military position; they have nowhere to run away
to, and their backs are to the sea.

	These two additional considerations cause
Pharaoh not only to attack, but more important to attack
immediately (and possibly carelessly) - falling right
into God's trap, for God wanted to entice Pharaoh (the
'super-power') to enter a war - against a 'supposed
enemy' - who had no real intention of ever attacking.
[This is an example of how God 'hardens Pharaoh's heart,
by giving him a 'tiny window' - a reason for him to make
his own unwise decision.] 

    To support this interpretation, let's pay careful
attention to what Pharaoh does say when he first hears
about this maneuver:
"And it was told to Pharaoh that the people ran away,
and the heart of Pharaoh and his servants changed and
they said - What have we done, for we have sent Israel
away from serving us" (see 14:5).

	According to the 'classic' story of the Exodus,
it is almost impossible to explain this verse, for how
could it be that Pharaoh was told that the people 'ran
away' - he himself sent they away!
    However, according to our explanation, this verse
makes perfect sense, for Pharaoh was not told that the
people 'ran away' from Egypt.  Rather, he was told that
they were going to the desert not to worship God, as
they promised, but to set up their own camp within Egypt
- and hence they 'ran away from slavery' - and that's
exactly what they say about Bnei Yisrael in the second
half of the pasuk.
	This also explains the next pasuk:
"And he ordered his chariot, and took his men with him,
then took six hundred of his best chariots, and ALL the
chariots of Egypt, and officers over all of them..."

	Notice how this pasuk describes a quick
mobilization of the entire Egyptian army, to launch an
immediate attack against Bnei Yisrael.  Pharaoh falls
right into God's trap.
	Within a short time, Pharaoh will fall for God's
next 'trap', by carelessly following Bnei Yisrael into
the Sea - but making his own military blunder.

	As we explained in our shiur on Parshat Shmot -
Egypt declares war against Israel.  Egypt loses the
battle.  The 'possessions' of the Egyptian that Bnei
Yisrael had borrowed from Egypt have now become
'nationalized' - and God has fulfilled yet another stage
of His promise at "brit bein ha'btarim":
    Bnei Yisrael receive their "rechush gadol."
Egypt  - the nation that enslaved another - is punished.
     (see Breishit 15:13-14).

	Bnei Yisrael, impressed by the greatness of
their God (and new master), will now continue on their
journey into the desert - to receive the Torah on Har
Sinai.  Those laws will become their guide for
establishing God's model nation in the land of Canaan.
    It is God's hope that by remembering this
experience, Bnei Yisrael will eternally act with a
higher ethical standard than their Egyptian oppressors.

					chag samayach,
					Menachem





No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.3/1391 -
Release Date: 4/22/2008 8:15 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shvii2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 29062 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080423/59f39011/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Apr 30 16:33:48 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:33:48 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] KEDOSHIM - shiur #1
Message-ID: <000801c8ab01$7ec8b960$0400000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

              PARSHAT KEDOSHIM  -shiur #1

     PARSHAT KEDOSHIM & THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

     It's not very difficult to find the Ten
Commandments
'hiding' in Parshat Kedoshim, at least most of them.
[See
Ramban, Ibn Ezra, and Chizkuni on 19:2.]
     In the following shiur, we study the nature of this
parallel (and its 'missing links') in an attempt to
uncover
its deeper meaning.

INTRODUCTION
     In the first four psukim of Parshat Kedoshim, the
parallels to some of the 'dibrot' [the Ten Commandments]
are
rather obvious [e.g. honoring one's parents, keeping
Shabbat,
idol worship etc.].  However, as the Parsha continues,
the
parallels become less obvious, and as we will see, some
of the
parallels to the dibrot become rather 'stretched' and
others
appear to be missing!
  Nonetheless, it would be logical to assume that there
must
be a deeper reason for these parallels, and the manner
of
their presentation.
  We begin our shiur by taking note of an interesting
internal
pattern within Parshat Kedoshim, that may help us 'crack
the
code'.

THE ANI HASHEM DELIMITERS
     As you review the first 18 psukim of Parshat
Kedoshim,
note how the 'refrain' ANI HASHEM is repeated EIGHT
TIMES (at
the end of just about every other pasuk).  Note as well
how
this refrain appears in two different forms:
  ANI HASHEM ELOKEICHEM - the first four (see 19:1-10);
  ANI HASHEM - the next four times (see 19:11-18).
     
     This pattern suggests that these mitzvot divide
into TWO
groups.  The distinction between them is also rather
obvious:
  ?    The ANI HASHEM ELOKEICHEM group contains
primarily
     mitzvot 'bein adam la-Makom' (between man & God)
and hence is
     parallel to the first five DIBROT;
?    The ANI HASHEM group contains primarily mitzvot
which are
'bein adam le-chaveiro' (between man and his fellow
man), and
hence is parallel to the last five DIBROT.

     To verify this, note how the ANI HASHEM ELOKEICHEM
group
contains obvious parallels to four of the five first
DIBROT:
?     I.   ANOCHI (see 19:2);
?     II.  LO YIHIYEH (see 19:4);
?     III. LO TISA - [no apparent parallel]
?     IV.  SHABBAT (see 19:3); &
?     V.   KIBBUD AV (see 19:3).

     Note, however, that we have two problems.  First of
all,
we did not find any obvious parallel for the third
Commandment.  But we also did not find any parallel for
the
laws discussed in 19:5-10 [i.e. the laws of 'pigul' and
'pe'a'
etc.].  Before we return to this question, let's take a
look
at the second group:
     In the ANI HASHEM group (see 19:12,14,16,18) we
find a
variety of mitzvot bein adam le-chaveiro, the most
obvious
parallels to the last five DIBROT being:
?    VI.   LO TIRTZACH - 'lo ta'amod al dam re'echa'
(19:15)
?    VII.  LO TIN'AF - the laws of 'shifcha
charufa'(19:20-22)
?    VIII. LO TIGNOV - 'lo tignovu...' (see 19:11)
?    IX.   LO TA'ANEH be-re'acha ED SHAKER - 'lo
tishav'u bi-
                      shmi la-SHAKER..." (see 19:12).
?    X.  LO TACHMOD - 'lo ta'ashok et re'acha ...'
(19:18).

     Even though some of these parallels are a bit
stronger
than others, all of the mitzvot in this section can
definitely
be categorized according to one of the last five DIBROT.
     Let's return now to our question, i.e. we are
missing a
parallel for the third DIBBUR - LO TISA ET SHEM HASHEM
ELOKEICHA LA-SHAV - in the ANI HASHEM ELOKEICHEM group.
     Bothered by this question, Chizkuni (based on
Vayikra
Rabba 24:5) suggests that LO TISA is parallel to 'lo
tishav'u
bi-shmi la-shaker' (see 19:12).  However, that parallel
would
'violate' the pattern that we discerned above, for the
parallel should be found within the ANI HASHEM
ELOKEICHEM
group, i.e. in the first ten psukim.
     Furthermore, based on the context of 19:12 - Lo
tishav'u
bi-shmi la-SHAKER - and noting the use of the word
'shaker' -
its parallel to 'lo taaneh be-re'acha ed SHAKER'
(Commandment
#9) appears to be much more convincing.  [This also
keeps it
in the ANI HASHEM group.]

THE MISSING 'LINK'
     Let's return to the pattern set by the phrase "ANI
HASHEM
ELOKEICHEM".  Using the 'process of elimination', the
parallel
to the third Commandment [LO TISA] must be located
somewhere
within the mitzvot discussed between 19:5 and 19:10.
However,
these psukim simply discuss primarily the laws of
'pigul', a
law that contains no obvious parallel to 'not stating
God's
Name in vain'.
     On the other hand, the pattern that we have seen
thus far
'begs' us to look for a connection; so let's give it a
try.
To do so, we must first explain the law of pigul.
     The korban SHLAMIM is a voluntary offering that can
be
eaten by the owner; however, its meat must be consumed
on that
same day or the next (see Vayikra 7:16-18).  Parshat
Kedoshim
presents this law once again (see 19:5-8), adding the
information that the punishment for eating the meat
outside of
this time frame is 'karet' - being 'cut-off' from the
people
of Israel (see 19:8!) - one of the most stringent of
Biblical
punishments.

     Interestingly, Chazal [our Sages] interpret this
prohibition in an even more stringent manner.  They
claim that
the primary prohibition is not necessarily eating the
korban
on the third day, but rather simply THINKING about
eating the
KORBAN outside of its time frame!  In other words, if at
the
time of offering this sacrifice, one merely thinks about
eating its meat outside of its time frame - the offering
is
rendered PIGUL - and he who does so will be punished
with
KARET!  [Even if the meat is never eaten at the wrong
time.]
     This strange law raises two questions.  First of
all, why
would someone think of doing so in the first place?
Secondly,
let's say he does, why is the punishment for simply
'thinking
about it' so severe?  And finally, what is so terrible
if one
eats from this korban for an extra day?  Is it really
better
that he should let the meat 'go to waste'?

'THINKING' IS WORSE THAN EATING!
     To understand the logic behind the law of PIGUL, we
must
consider that is quite impossible for a single person to
consume the meat of an entire animal in a day or two.
Therefore, practically speaking, the Torah's prohibition
against eating the meat of a shlamim outside its time
frame
forces the individual to SHARE the meat of this korban
with
others!
  [Recall as well that the korban must also be consumed
  within the walls of Yerushalayim.  Therefore, the
option of
  bringing the korban 'home' to share with his family is
also
  precluded.]

     Let's say that are assumption is correct that the
owner
of the KORBAN has no choice other than to share his
korban
SHLAMIM with other visitors in Yerushalayim.
Consequently, we
now have a logical reason for one to think of when he
will eat
this KORBAN at the time of its offering.  The very
THOUGHT of
eating a korban outside its time frame implies that the
owner
does not want to SHARE his korban with others.  In other
words, this person offering the korban is being selfish,
for
he wants to save the meat for himself.
     Clearly, being selfish is a bad trait.  But is it
so evil
that it deserves the punishment of KARET - to be totally
cut
off from the people of Israel?

A NECESSARY BALANCE
     This law of PIGUL may contain an extremely
important
'mussar' (moral message) concerning the necessary
balance
between our relationship with God and our fellow man.
     Recall that the Korban SHLAMIM is a voluntary
offering
where one wishes to express his closeness to God, to
re-affirm
his commitment to the covenant of HAR SINAI (see TSC
shiur on
Parshat Vayikra).  If at the height of one's spiritual
experience, as he stands in front of God offering his
KORBAN
SHLAMIM, a selfish thought can still enter his mind -
i.e. he
does not want to share his korban with others - God
becomes
'disgusted' with this person, and the korban becomes
PIGUL.  A
person who has yet to inculcate the basic trait of
sharing,
has no right to stand in front of the MIZBEIACH and
offer a
voluntary korban to God!
     To support this understanding, note how the next
pasuk in
Parshat Kedoshim contains a law that stems from a
similar
reason.  The obligation of the farmer to leave over a
part of
his field for the poor ['pe'a', 'shichecha', and 'leket'
/ see
19:9-10] teaches the owner not to be so selfish as to
keep all
of its produce for himself.  Here we find yet another
mitzva
that requires the sharing of prosperity, and thus
supports our
interpretation of the underlying reason for the law of
pigul.

PIGUL & LO TISA
     If 'sharing' is indeed the underlying reason for
PIGUL
and PE'A, then the parallel between Parshat Kedoshim and
the
Ten Commandments, as discussed above, would suggest that
these
laws should be in some manner related to the third
Commandment
of LO TISA - not to proclaim God's Name in vain.  To
uncover
that connection, we must return to our study of the
meaning of
God's Name in Sefer Breishit, and its connection to the
laws
of the MIZBEIACH and hence to korbanot in general.

SHEM HASHEM & THE MIZBEIACH
     Recall from Parshat Lech Lecha how Avraham Avinu,
immediately upon his arrival in Eretz Canaan, built a
MIZBEIACH and 'calls out in God's Name' in BET EL [lit.
the
HOUSE of God] (see Breishit 12:8 & 13:4).  As we
explained in
our shiur on this topic, Avraham's MIZBEIACH served as a
vehicle enabling him to 'call out in God's Name', or as
Ramban
on 12:8 explained, teaching mankind concerning their
need to
recognize God and His Creation.
     Later at Har Sinai we find a similar connection
between
the mizbeiach and 'shem Hashem' [God's Name].
Immediately
upon the completion of the Ten Commandments, God
commands Bnei
Yisrael:
   "An earthen MIZBEIACH you shall make for Me... where
ever I
   CALL OUT MY NAME I will come and bless you" (Shmot
20:21).

  [Note that the psukim in Shmot 20:19-23 can also be
  understood as parallel to the first three DIBROT,
while the
  remaining DIBROT are parallel to the mitzvot which
continue
  in Parshat Mishpatim (very similar to what happens in
  Parshat Kedoshim).  According to that parallel, the
law of
  MIZBEIACH  is clearly the parallel to LO TISA!  (Read
20:22-
  23 carefully to verify this.)]

     As the above examples show, the concept of 'shem
Hashem'
relates directly to the MIZBEIACH.  In fact, the bet ha-
mikdash itself is consistently referred to in Sefer
Devarim as
'ha-Makom asher yivchar Hashem leshaken SHMO sham' - the
place
that God will choose to allow His Name to dwell (see for
example Devarim 12:5-12, 16:1-17, and 26:1-2).

  As the very purpose of the bet ha-mikdash and the
mizbeiach
is to properly publicize the Name of God, any law
relating to
the proper offering of a sacrifice could be considered
as
parallel to LO TISA, especially the laws of pigul.
  If so, then our parallel between the DIBROT and
opening
psukim Parshat Kedoshim is complete, as pigul becomes
the
parallel for Lo Tisa in the 'Ani Hashem Elokeichem'
section!
     This parallel also follows the differentiation
between
the mitzvot bein adam la-Makom (first five) and the
mitzvot
bein adam le-chaveiro (last five).  It should not
surprise us
now to find that the Torah's presentation of the of law
of
PIGUL includes the phrase -'et kodesh HASHEM chillel' -
for he
has desecrated that what is holy to God (see 19:8).
     As the primary concept of the Third Commandment is
not to
desecrate God's Name, then its parallel could include
any law
that may cause God's Name (or reputation) to become
tainted.
An individual who comes to the bet ha-mikdash to express
his
special closeness to God - by offering a korban shlamim,
yet
at the same time thinks selfishly about himself, causes
God's
Name to be desecrated.

SHNEI LUCHOT HA-BRIT
     One could suggest that this may be the underlying
message
of the two sections of the Ten Commandments, [i.e the
two
LUCHOT of BRIT SINAI].  The mitzvot bein adam la-Makom'
of the
first five DIBROT come 'part and parcel' with the
mitzvot bein
adam le-chaveiro of the last five DIBROT.
  In fact, the law of pigul forms a meaningful
transition
between these two sections, for it is a law relating to
both
man & God, and his fellow man.  This necessary blend
between
one's worship of God and his respect and care for his
fellow
man, so typical of the other laws of Parshat Kedoshim,
should
be the most prominent character of the Jewish nation.
     When Am Yisrael act in this manner, they become a
true AM
KADOSH, a holy nation that truly testifies that God is
KADOSH
and His Name is KADOSH.  By doing so, they facilitate
bringing
'shem Hashem' God's Name (and hence His reputation) to
mankind.

                              shabbat shalom,
                              menachem

FOR FURTHER IYUN
A.  Can you suggest a reason why ANI HASHEM ELOKEICHEM
relates
to the mitzvot bein adam la-Makom while ANI HASHEM
relates to
the mitzvot bein adam le-chaveiro (at least in the first
18
psukim)?  [Hint: Which mitzvot are more universal, and
which
are more special for Am Yisrael?]

B.  In Parshat Kedoshim, we find a pattern where there
appears
to be no or very little connection from one mitzva to
the
next.  Do you think that this is intentional?
     If so, based on the above shiur, what is its
significance?
     See Ibn Ezra in 19:3-18.  Do you agree with all of
his
associations concerning the flow of the parsha?

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1407 -
Release Date: 4/30/2008 11:35 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kdosh1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 37295 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080430/4ab7b12c/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Apr 30 16:35:55 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:35:55 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] KEDOSHIM - shiur #2
Message-ID: <001501c8ab01$ca2812c0$0400000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

          PARSHAT KEDOSHIM  -shiur #2

          THE HEADER / KOL ADAT YISRAEL
          
     Does the name 'EDAH' imply something 'good' or
something
'bad'?  Even though EDAH carries a negative connotation
in the
story of the spies in Parshat Shlach, in the opening
pasuk of
Parshat Kedoshim it seems to imply something very
positive.
     In the following shiur we suggest a thematic
connection
between the word EDAH and the first half of Parshat
Kedoshim
(i.e. chapter 19).

INTRODUCTION
     In contrast to most parshiot in Chumash which begin
with
the standard header:
     "And God spoke to Moshe saying, speak to BNEI
YISRAEL..."
Parshat Kedoshim adds a short but important phrase:
  "And God spoke to Moshe saying, speak to KOL ADAT Bnei
  Yisrael... - to the entire congregation of Israel"
(19:1-2).

     This special header indicates that there must be
some
specific reason why this parshia was given to KOL ADAT
YISRAEL
-i.e. to the entire EDAH - congregation of Israel.
[Note that
ADAT is simply the 'smichut' form of EDAH.]
     Rashi, quoting the Midrash in Torat Kohanim,
explains
that specifically this parshia was given to the 'entire
congregation' because it includes most of the basic
principles
of the Torah ['rov gufei Torah tluyin bah'].  [See also
Chizkuni (19:2) who quotes a similar Midrash Tanchuma.]

     Even though Rashi explains why it was necessary for
Moshe
to relay these mitzvot in a special gathering, he does
not
explain why specifically the word EDAH is used!  In
other
words, the Torah could have simply said: speak to KOL
Bnei
Yisrael (ALL of Bnei Yisrael / see Devarim 1:1), or
could have
used the Hebrew word KAHAL instead of EDAH, which would
have
been a more precise way to describe a gathering.
     Therefore, the Torah's choice of the word EDAH
suggests a
connection between the mitzvot of Parshat Kedoshim and
the
word EDAH.  To find that connection, we must consider
its
etymology.
     The Hebrew word EDAH stems from one of two possible
roots:
 1) ayin.daled - which implies to AFFIRM or TESTIFY
      [e.g. the word EID= a witness; EDAH= a female
witness]
 2) yod.ayin.daled - which implies to APPOINT or to
DESIGNATE

     The first root would imply that Am Yisrael, when
called
an EDAH, serve as sort of a WITNESS, while the second
root
would imply that they have been APPOINTED for a certain
purpose.  How would either or both explanations tie into
Parshat Kedoshim?
     From the opening commandment of Parshat Kedoshim,
one
could suggest an interesting interpretation:
  "KEDOSHIM TIHIYU - You shall be holy, for I, the Lord
your
  God, am holy..." (19:2).

  By acting as a holy nation, Am Yisrael 'testifies' (to
itself and to other nations) that God exists, for He is
holy.
[See Sforno 19:2.]
     Why is this testimony necessary?

     Testimony is usually needed order to prove a fact.
Considering that God is transcendent, it is difficult
for man
to perceive His existence.  Therefore, God commands ADAT
BNEI
YISRAEL to keep special mitzvot which help create a
society
which 'testifies' to God's existence.  One could
actually
combine both meanings and suggest that it is for this
reason
that God DESIGNATED Bnei Yisrael to become a nation.

KEDUSHA - FOR A PURPOSE
     Even though this interpretation may not be 'simple
pshat', it blends nicely with Sefer Vayikra's theme of
KEDUSHA
in the three realms of MAKOM, ZMAN, & ADAM, which we
developed
in our shiur on Acharei Mot.

 a)  KEDUSHAT HA-MISHKAN ['kedushat makom'], we
explained,
implies that God separates a special place and infuse it
with
an intense level of holiness IN ORDER that it affect and
thus
elevate the level of the area which surrounds it.

 b)  In a similar manner, God separated SHABBAT
['kedushat
zman'], infusing it with a intense level of holiness, IN
ORDER
to elevate the spiritual level of the entire week.

 c)  So too - KEDUSHAT AM YISRAEL  ['kedushat adam'].
God
separates a special nation, infusing it with an intense
level
of holiness, IN ORDER to elevate the spiritual level of
all
nations.  God 'designates' Am Yisrael to follow the
mitzvot of
KEDOSHIM TIHIYU to fulfill this purpose, and in this
manner we
'testify' before all nations that God exists.

     This concept, which may only be alluded to here in
Parshat Kedoshim, is stated more directly in Sefer
Devarim as
Bnei Yisrael prepare to enter the Promised Land:
  "See, I have taught you CHUKIM & MISHPATIM [compare
Vayikra
  18:3-5!] for you to keep in the land which you are
about to
  conquer.  Observe them faithfully, for that will be
PROOF of
  you wisdom IN THE EYES OF THE NATIONS who upon hearing
all
  these laws will say:
  Surely, that great nation is a wise people, for what
great
  nation is there that is so CLOSE TO GOD... or what
great
  nation has such perfect CHUKIM & MISHPATIM as the
TORAH that
  I set before you on this day..."  (Devarim 4:5-8).

TWO OTHER PARSHIOT
     In addition to Parshat Kedoshim, there are two
earlier
parshiot of mitzvot which are directed specifically to
ADAT
BNEI YISRAEL.

  1)   Parshat Ha-Chodesh - Shmot 12:1-20 (see 12:3)
which
     discusses MAKKAT BECHOROT & KORBAN PESACH.

  2)  Parshat Vayakhel - the commandment to build the
MISHKAN.

     One could explain the Torah's use of the phrase
ADAT BNEI
YISRAEL in these two parshiot in a similar manner.
(1)  Parshat Ha-Chodesh (as we all know) is God's very
FIRST
commandment to Bnei Yisrael (see Rashi Breishit 1:1).
The
laws of Korban Pesach that are detailed in that parshia
serve
a double purpose.  For Am Yisrael to:

  a) recognize God's hand in their salvation from MAKKAT
  BECHOROT [which caused the Egyptians to finally
recognize
  God.  [See Shmot 11:1-10.]

  b) AFFIRM their covenantal commitment to BRIT BEIN
H-'BTARIM
  (i.e. Brit Avot).  [See shiur on Parshat Va'era].

(2)  Parshat Vayakhel describes the commandment to build
the
MISHKAN which itself serves as a symbol and testimony of
God's
presence.  [Recall that at the focal point of the
Mishkan lie
the LUCHOT ha-EIDUT / see Shmot 25:16,21-22.]
     One could even suggest that these three parshiot
which
are given to ADAT Bnei Yisrael reflect once again the
three
realms of KEDUSHA:
               Parshat ha-Chodesh - kedushat ZMAN
               Parshat Vayakhel - kedushat MAKOM
               Parshat Kedoshim - kedushat ADAM

==========

FOR FURTHER IYUN
1.  Note in the first Rashi on "daber el kol ADAT Bnei
Yisrael" that Rashi states: "melamed she-ne'emar
be-HAKHEL".
How does the parallel to Shmot 35:1 help us better
understand
this Rashi?
2.  In Sefer Bamidbar (see 14:26-27 and its context),
Bnei
Yisrael sin at chet ha-meraglim. Those sinners are
referred to
as an EDAH RA'A - a wicked (or bad)  EDAH?
     Can our explanation of 'witness' still apply in
this
case?
3.  Note that Korach's splinter group is also called an
EDAH,
and in Korach's original complaint we find the same word
- "ki KOL ha-
EDAH kulam KDOSHIM u-vetocham HASHEM..." (see Bamidbar
16:3).
Can you relate this complaint of Korach to this week's
shiur
and the Torah's use of the word EDAH?

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1407 -
Release Date: 4/30/2008 11:35 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kdosh2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 23689 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080430/563c9cd8/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu May  1 04:39:26 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 04:39:26 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] KEDOSHIM - shiur #3
Message-ID: <008601c8ab66$e34409c0$0400000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

PARSHAT  KEDOSHIM -  shiur #3

		The Repetition of the "ARAYOT"
	
[revised 5767]

	If you ever paid attention to the final psukim
in Parshat Kedoshim, you must have been terribly
bothered by the last pasuk of the Parsha.  As anyone
will immediately notice, it simply doesn't belong there!
	Furthermore, did you ever notice that Vayikra
chapter 20 (the last chapter of Parshat Kedoshim) is
almost a repeat of chapter 18 (the last chapter of
Parshat Acharei Mot)?
	In the following shiur we attempt to tackle
these questions by uncovering the special internal
format of chapter 20 (better know as a chiastic
structure). 
[Our conclusion will also help us better appreciate why
Parshat Kedoshim is located in the middle of Sefer
Vayikra.]

INTRODUCTION
	Take a minute to review the final few psukim of
Parshat Kedoshim (at least 20:23-27).  While doing so,
note how the second to last pasuk of Parshat Kedoshim
could have formed a beautiful conclusion for the entire
sedra:
"And you shall be holy [kedoshim] to Me, for I the Lord
am holy, and I have set you apart from other nations to
be Mine" (20:26).

	However, instead of ending on that profound
note, the Torah 'adds on' an extra pasuk that appears to
be just 'dangling on' to this otherwise perfect ending:
"And any man or woman who has an OV or a YID'ONI shall
be put to death, they shall be pelted with stones..."
(20:27).
		[Once again, review the 20:20-27 to
verify this.]

	Furthermore, over half of the specific laws and
general statements found in chapter 20 were already
mentioned in chapter 18!  
	We begin our shiur by undertaking a study of the
nature of this repetition.  Our conclusions will assist
us in our study of the internal structure of chapter 20.

A REPEAT OF THE 'ARAYOT'
	Take a few minutes to compare chapter 20 with
chapter 18 (especially 18:6-23 with 20:10-21; 18:1-5
with 20:8; and 18:24-30 with 20:22-25).
	You'll find that almost every mitzva that was
mentioned in chapter 18 (especially the 'arayot' - the
forbidden marital relationships) is repeated in chapter
20; and most of the general commandments 20:22-24 are
repeats of 18:26-28!
	However, if you take a closer look, you'll
notice how the manner of presentation of these mitzvot
in each chapter is quite different.  The basic
differences are as follows:
	In chapter 20 we find a SPECIFIC punishment for
each transgression.  In contrast, chapter 18 simply
states that these ARAYOT are forbidden [note the
repetition of phrase 'lo tegaleh ervatan'], without
informing us what specific punishment the Jewish court
[bet din] should exact upon them.  The punishment is
only mentioned in passing at the conclusion of chapter
18, where we are told that God will 'cut off from His
nation' anyone who transgresses (what we call 'karet' /
see 18:29).

	For this reason, the order [of the arayot] in
each perek is different.  In chapter 18, they follow
(more or less) the order of family closeness, daughter,
etc.), while the order in chapter 20 follows the
severity of the punishment.
	Furthermore, in chapter 20 we find the concept
of KEDUSHA, while in chapter 18 we find only the concept
of TUM'A.
	Finally, chapter 20 includes some additional
laws such as OV & YID'ONI.  [Note 20:6 & 20:27.]

	We'll return to this analysis shortly; however,
before we continue we must first take into consideration
the internal structure of chapter 20, which happens to
be rather intriguing.

A CHIASTIC STRUCTURE
	Within chapter 20 [note that chapter 20
constitutes an independent 'parshia'], we find a
chiastic structure [ABCDCBA] that beautifully explains
why the last pasuk only appears to be 'out of place'.
To illustrate this special structure, the following
chart shows how the opening set of psukim are 'balanced'
by a concluding set of psukim that deal with parallel
topics.
    While studying the chart (and the psukim!), note how
the laws concerning the arayot in 20:9-21 are
'enveloped' by several sets of matching mitzvot: 

			VAYIKRA CHAPTER 20
			==================
A - Punishment for MOLECH and OV & YID'ONI (20:1-6)
|	B - "ve-HITKADISHTEM vi-heyitem kedoshim..."
(20:7)
|	|	C - Keep My CHUKIM...[intro to arayot]
(20:8)
|	|	|	D - The specific cases of the
arayot (20:9-21)
|	|	C - Keep all My CHUKIM... [or else..."
(20:22-23)
|	B - ".. vi-heyitem li KEDOSHIM, ki KADOSH
ani..." (20:24-26)
A - Punishment for transgression of OV & YID'ONI (20:27)

	Let's see now what we can learn from this
structure. 
    First we will explain why (and how) each set of
psukim is linked (i.e. A to A, B to B, etc.  
    Afterward, we will explain how this structure
relates to chapter 18 and the theme of Sefer Vayikra.

A->A / THE 'MISSING' DETAIL
	First of all, by setting up the psukim in this
manner, we immediately see how the last pasuk of chapter
20 (i.e. 20:27) forms the 'bookend' for 20:1-6!  In
fact, 20:26 is more than just a 'matching bookend'; it
actually contains an important law that is missing in
20:1-6.  Let's explain:
	In 20:1-6 we find:
	a) the punishment by BET DIN for MOLECH
		i.e. death by stoning (see 20:2)
	b) the punishment by God for MOLECH 
		"ve-samti PANAI ba-ish ha-hu..." (see
20:4-5).

Then, we find:
	c) the punishment by God for OV & YID'ONI 
		"ve-natati PANAI ba-nefesh ha-hi..."
(see 20:6)
But, we are missing:	
	-> the punishment by BET DIN for OV & YID'ONI!

	In other words, even though 20:1-6 explains BOTH
the punishment by BET-DIN & by God for MOLECH, for OV &
YID'ONI we find only the punishment by God, while the
punishment by Bet Din is missing.  Therefore, 20:26 -
which informs us that the punishment by BET DIN for OV &
YID'ONI is death by stoning - complements the laws in
20:1-6.
[In the further iyun section, we will explain why
specifically this law was taken from the 'header' and
placed in the 'footer' of this unit; but in the meantime
it is important that we recognize that these psukim form
the 'bookends' of the entire parshia.

B->B / BACK TO PARSHAT SHMINI
	The obvious textual parallel is the almost
identical pasuk of "ve-hitkadishtem vi-heyitem
kedoshim..." (see 20:7 & 20:26).  In addition, the
concluding psukim of Parshat Shmini (see 11:44-47)
provide us with an even stronger connection between 20:7
to 20:24.  [To keep the shiur more concise, you'll need
to find that parallel on your own.] 

C->C / A FAMILIAR 'ENVELOPE' FOR [D]
	Here we find a matching set of psukim that
should not surprise us, for they repeat the same pattern
that was already found in chapter 18.  Let's explain:
	Recall from last week's shiur how chapter 18
began with a 'header' (see 18:1-5) forming a very
general introduction, and concluded with a similar
'footer' (see 18:26-30).  This general header and footer
'enveloped' the more specific list of arayot (see
18:6-25)!  As you may have noticed, the list of arayot
in chapter 20 (i.e. 20:9-21) is 'surrounded' by a very
similar 'header' and 'footer' of 'u-shmarten et
chukotai...' (see 20:8 and 20:22).  Note as well how
both 'footers' in chapter 18 and in chapter 20 include a
warning that the land will kick out those who transgress
these laws.
	Using the above chart, we would simply say that
the partial format of [C-D-C] in chapter 20 parallels
the entire format of chapter 18.

FROM TECHNICAL TO THEMATIC
	Up until this point, our discussion has been
very technical, simply showing how the Torah presents
the laws of chapter 20 in chiastic form; and in a manner
parallel to chapter 18.  Now we must attempt to uncover
the thematic significance of this presentation.  To do
so we must consider the progression of the parshiot in
Sefer Vayikra and their connection to the themes in
Chumash that we have discussed in our study of Sefer
Shmot.

WHAT'S DIFFERENT?
	As we have already noted, most of the laws in
chapters 20 were already mentioned in chapter 18.
Therefore, to understand why the Torah repeats these
laws, we must consider the two primary details which
chapter 20 adds (as we noted in our above introduction):
1) Punishment (usually the death penalty / 'mot
yumat...') for each transgression.
    2) The concept of KEDUSHA.

	Even though chapter 18 teaches us that all of
the arayot are forbidden, it does not detail the precise
penalty for each transgression.  It simply informs us
that these acts 'defile' the land [= TUM'A / see
18:24-25], and that God will 'cut off' those who
transgress [= KARET / see 18:29]. 
	Now in chapter 20, the Torah informs us that the
people are responsible to punish those who transgress
(see 20:2,9,10 etc.).  In other words, chapter 20
empowers bet din (the Jewish Court) to enforce these
laws.  In fact, enacting the death penalty (by stoning)
is both the first and last topic of the perek, while
each pasuk from 20:9-21 (detailing each of the arayot)
concludes with a form of punishment by bet din.
	Note also how the Torah introduces these
punishments for the "arayot" (before they are detailed)
with the statement: 've-hitkadishtem...' -and you should
make yourselves HOLY (see 20:7) - and closes them in a
similar manner (see 20:26 / B->B above).  However, in
chapter 18, we find no mention at all of KEDUSHA; only
TUM'A!

	This contrasting parallel suggests that the
Torah considers the act of setting up a judicial system
to enforce God's special laws as a form of KEDUSHA! 
	Why is specifically this considered kedusha?
Furthermore, why doesn't the Torah simply combine the
laws in chapters 18 & 20 together?  What do we gain by
first learning that these acts are forbidden, and then
only later find out that bet din is empowered to punish
he who transgresses?

	To answer these questions, we must consider the
progression of parshiot from chapter 18 to 20.

A THEMATIC PROGRESSION
	Recall (from the shiur on Acharei Mot) how Sefer
Vayikra divides into two distinct sections:
	1) Chapters 1-17 - laws relating to the mikdash.
	2) Chapter 18-26 - laws concerning the nation &
kedusha.

	Recall as well how chapter 18 (with its
introductory psukim emphasizing ANI HASHEM) forms the
introduction to the second half of Sefer Vayikra.  Let's
take note of the progression of parshiot in the first
part of this section:
Chapter 18:
*	Reject Egyptian & Canaanite culture i.e. how not
to act
 *	Follow My laws instead, i.e. how you should act
 *	Specific examples of how not to act ? 
i.e.  the prohibition of the "arayot"
    [which are primarily 'mitzvot bein adam la-Makom'].
 *	How GOD will punish those who transgress (and
that nation).

Chapter 19:
	KEDOSHIM TIHEYU - Be holy!
     i.e. examples of how Am Yisrael should act!
		[Primarily 'mitzvot bein adam
le-chaveiro'. ]
As we explained in last week's shiur - taking the
principles of the Ten Commandments, and raising them to
a higher level in a manner which affects every aspect of
daily living.
	No mention of punishment by bet din.
[Instead, the repetition of ANI HASHEM (in both
chapters) for He will punish those who transgress and
reward he who follows.  See Rashi 18:2!]

Chapter 20:
	Punishment by BET-DIN for those who transgress
the mitzvot (recorded in chapter 18). / as explained
above.
		
	Let's consider what we may infer from this
progression.
	First, God tells Am Yisrael how they should NOT
act, then how they SHOULD act, and that they must follow
these rules - simply because He says so - summarized by
the statement:  ANI HASHEM!
    In other words, we must follow these laws - not in
fear of their punishment (by society), but only out of
the love (or fear) of God.
	Only afterward, in chapter 20, God commands Am
Yisrael to enforce these laws, in order to ensure that
they become a 'mamlechet kohanim ve-goy KADOSH'!  Hence,
the nation itself must set up a judicial system to
enforce them.

BACK TO A-A
	As our thematic analysis has shown, chapter
twenty focuses on the responsibility of Bet Din to
enforce the laws (originally detailed in chapter 18) by
punishing those who transgress.  Just as the middle
section of this chiastic structure highlights this
responsibility, the opening and closing sections in the
chiasmus of chapter 20 emphasize this very same point.  
    Recall how chapter 20 begins specifically with the
responsibility of Bet Din to punish a person who
worships Molech, and concludes with Bet Din's
responsibility to punish a person who practices the cult
of OV & YIDONI.  	Even though it who have appeared
to more logical for both of these laws to appear in the
middle section, - to highlight the theme of punishment
by Bet Din in chapter 20, Chumash places one law as the
'opener' and the other as the closing pasuk.

THE SAME THREE STAGES IN SEFER SHMOT
	In a certain manner, the progression from
chapter 18 through chapter 19 till chapter 20 is quite
similar to the sequence of events in Sefer Shmot.  Let's
explain:

	Recall that as the process of Yetziat Mitzrayim
began, God's first commandment to Bnei Yisrael (when
they were still in Egypt) was that they recognize ANI
HASHEM (see Shmot 6:4-8), and hence to rid themselves of
Egyptian culture.  In our shiur on Parshat Va'era we
proved this from Yechezkel 20:5-11.  [Note the parallels
between that perek in Yechezkel and Vayikra chapter 18,
i.e. the phrase ANI HASHEM and the commandment to rid
themselves from Egyptian culture.  (Compare 18:1-5 to
Yech. 20:5-10.)]

	Recall as well that at MARA (after Bnei Yisrael
left Egypt and crossed the Red Sea) God repeats this
commandment, to prepare them for Matan Torah at Har
Sinai.  [See Shmot 16:26-27.]
	Hence, those events would parallel Vayikra
chapter 18.
	Then Bnei Yisrael arrive at Har Sinai and
receive the Ten Commandments.  As we discussed in our
first shiur on Parshat Kedoshim, the mitzvot in chapter
19 are presented in a manner quite similar to the Ten
Commandments in Parshat Yitro.  Hence Matan Torah would
be parallel to Vayikra chapter 19. 

	Finally, the Ten Commandments are followed by
Parshat MISHPATIM, which introduces an entire set of the
civil laws, together with the specific punishment that
BET-DIN must execute for each transgression.  Here we
find a parallel to Vayikra chapter 20, for there too we
find the specific punishments that BET-DIN must execute
for the transgressions that were first mentioned in
chapter 18. 

	The following chart summarizes this parallel
between Shmot and Vayikra.
	
SHMOT		VAYIKRA	
REJECT Egyptian culture:		Va'era / 6:4-8
chapter 18
FOLLOW GOD'S LAWS:		Yitro / 20:1-14	chapter
19
PUNISHMENT BY BET DIN:	Mishpatim 		chapter
20

A HIGHER LEVEL
	The above chart can help better appreciate how
Sefer Vayikra takes the principles of Sefer Shmot and
raises them to a higher level.  It can also help us
understand the repetition of the arayot in Vayikra
chapter 20.  
	Just as Vayikra chapter 19 takes the Ten
Commandments of Sefer Shmot and raises them to a higher
level, so too Vayikra chapter 20 can be understood as an
'upgrade' for the laws in Parshat Mishpatim.  Recall
from our study of Parshat Mishpatim how chapter 21
details the punishments that bet din is instructed to
enforce for the most basic cases of CIVIL laws.  Albeit
the importance of this judicial system, it can be found
in almost every society.  In Sefer Vayikra, where the
Torah emphasizes how we are to become a special nation -
an AM KADOSH, bet din is now entrusted with the power to
enforce not only the classic civil laws, but also the
special laws that Bnei Yisrael must keep.  In this
manner, bet din duty is to enact punishment in order to
assure that Bnei Yisrael indeed become an "am kadosh".
 
TO WARN OR TO PUNISH
	Nevertheless, we must still explain why it is
necessary for Sefer Vayikra to first explain what is not
permitted WITHOUT mentioned punishment by bet din, and
then later repeat those laws together with their
specific punishments.  Furthermore, we must explain why
these two parshiot that deal with the same topic (i.e.
chapters 18 and 20) are interrupted by the laws of
'kedoshim tihiyu' in chapter 19.
	This progression and parallel could be
understood as striking the fine balance between realism
and idealism.  Ideally, we would prefer that the
individual follow God's laws simply because God has
commanded, and NOT out of fear that bet din may punish
him.  Therefore, the Torah first presents these laws
while reminding us that ANI HASHEM, without mentioning
at all that bet din is required to enforce them.  Only
afterward, God commands our society to set up a court
system that will enforce these laws, in order to make
sure that Am Yisrael indeed does become a GOY KADOSH.
	However, the enforcement of these laws by bet
din must be preceded by a set of laws that focus on the
kedusha of Am Yisrael, and hence how Bnei Yisrael SHOULD
act.  Once Bnei Yisrael can indeed establish a society
of an AM KADOSH (by fulfilling the mitzvot of chapter
19), then it becomes important that bet din becomes
involved in enacting punishment for those who transgress
the laws of kedusha as well.  Nonetheless, the emphasis
of bet din must be first on foremost of the positive
aspects of 'kedoshim tiyihu', while their responsibility
to punish transgressors should become secondary to that.

	This concept of KEDUSHA that God expects that we
act on a higher level IN ORDER that we become worthy to
be His people is reflected in the concluding pasuk of
chapter 20:
"And you shall be HOLY for Me, for I am Lord am Holy,
for I HAVE SEPARATED YOU FROM THE OTHER NATIONS TO BE
MINE!"
	
(see 20:26).

THE NAME FOR BET DIN
	Even though our entire shiur has assumed that
the punishments detailed in chapter 20 must be carried
out by Bet-Din (the Jewish court), Chumash never uses
those words to describe the court.  Instead, the opening
psukim require that the "am ha'aretz" ? the People of
the Land ? shall stone him (see Vayikra 20:2).  
    Rashi (on that pasuk) immediately comments that "mot
yu'mat" [he shall be put to death / 20:2] refers to a
court decision made by Bet Din ? yet the question
remains, why the phrase "am ha'aretz" is used.  
    Rashi offers several explanations.  The first
(quoting Torat Kohanim) is rather technical, explaining
that if Bet Din cannot execute its decision, then the
people should come to their assistance.  In his second
explanation, Rashi offers a more thematic approach (also
based on Torat Kohanim), suggesting that the "aretz" ?
the Land ? refers to the special nature of the Land of
Israel ? which deserves to be inherited on the condition
that the people of Israel act properly, and can be
thrown out should they defile the land (see Vayikra
18:24-29 & 20:22-24).
    As this type of behavior could cause the 'People of
the Land' to lose their land, therefore the 'People of
the Land' are responsible to punish those who
transgress, for those people are not only hurting
themselves, they are harming the entire nation.

REPRESENTING GOD OR THE PEOPLE?
    It is interesting to note that in Parshat Mishpatim,
which also discusses punishments ? Chumash consistently
refers to Bet-Din  as "elohim" (see Shmot 21:6,
22:7-8,27 and the commentators); while in Parshat
Kedoshim, Bet Din is referred to as "am ha'aretz".
    One could suggest a very simple reason.  In regard
to transgressions in the realm of civil law ["bein adam
'chaveiro], the judges of Bet Din must feel that they
carry the responsibility of God on their shoulder; while
in the realm of 'religious law' ["bein adam la'Makom"],
Bet Din must carry the responsibility of the entire
nation ? who are striving to create a society of an "am
kadosh". 
    In that sense, Bet Din carry a 'double-identity'.
On the one hand, they represent their society, but on
the other hand they must also feel as though they are
working on behalf of God Himself. 
    As we strive to grow as an "am kadosh", we must also
strive to be worthy of Judges of this stature.
    
	
shabbat shalom,
	
menachem

==========================
FOR FURTHER IYUN

A.  OV & YID'ONI
	In our shiur, we did not explain why
specifically the law of OV & YID'ONI is singled out, and
used to conclude the parshia.
	First of all, note Rashi on this pasuk, who
quotes the midrash halacha that learns out from this
special structure that just like OV & YID'ONI who is
'chayav KARET' (see 20:6) and with warning (see 19:31)
he is 'chayav sekila' [stoning / see 20:27], so too for
any other transgression... - see Rashi!
	From a thematic angle, based on Sefer Devarim,
OV & YID'ONI takes on additional significance.  See
Devarim 18:9-15 where the Torah forbids us to approach
any type of 'future teller' or 'soothsayer' including
the OV & YID'ONI.  Note how similar those psukim are to
Vayikra chapter 18!!  There, the Torah explains how we
must follow the guidance of a NAVI, and not look for
guidance from those who use 'other methods'.
	Every nation has its spiritual leaders.  To
become an AM KADOSH, we must be sure not to follow after
these people who offer 'shortcuts' to spirituality by
'bringing up the dead' or 'reading palms' etc.  As God's
nation, we must recognize that our fate is solely in the
hands of God, and thus a direct function of our deeds.
Belief that certain events are pre-determined or
believing that by bringing up the dead we can get an
'inside word' on what will happen, etc. negates the very
basics of Judaism and our belief in 'hashgachat Hashem'
as a function of our deeds. [see daily kriyat shma etc.
/ 've-akamal'] 

B.  VE-HITKADISHTEM...
	In the above shiur, we saw how the concept of
KEDUSHA was introduced hand in hand with the mitzva that
bet din enact punishment against those who do not follow
God's special laws. 
	Here, we find an amazing parallel (once again)
to the events at Har Sinai.  Recall that first time in
the Torah that we find an act of KEDUSHA by man [i.e.
've-kidashtem...'] is at Har Sinai, when God commands
Moshe to prepare Bnei Yisrael for Matan Torah: "Go to
the people - ve-KIDASHTAM" (Shmot 19:10), and again in
19:14: "va-yered Moshe, va-yeKADESH et ha-am..."
	What did Moshe do that the Torah considers it
'leKADESH'?
Review 19:10-14, noting that Moshe warns them: "do not
go near your wives" (19:15) [similar to the laws of
arayot), and sets up policemen to guard the mountain
instructing them to KILL anyone who touches the mountain
[by stoning / see 19:12-13]!  This is quite similar to
the laws in chapter 20 which introduce KEDUSHA with
appointing bet din to enforce God's laws which relate to
the fact that the SHCHINA is now present in the camp.



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1407 -
Release Date: 4/30/2008 11:35 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kdosh3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 42459 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080501/27da08a1/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon May  5 12:26:09 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 12:26:09 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] For Yom Atzmaut - Tehilllim 107
Message-ID: <019901c8aecc$d439d360$0200000a@x60>

Dedicated by Yocheved & Nathan Lindenbaum & family
   In memory of our zaydie, 
     - Eliyahu ben Chaim Shlomo v?Mindel Grunberger -
   Murdered by the Nazis during the ?Death March? from 
   Aushwitz, on 3 Iyar, 1945

********************************************************
*****************
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  www.tanach.org
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****************

 for YOM HA-ATZMA'UT - TEHILLIM PEREK 107  

	At 11am on Yom ha-Zikaron - Israel's Memorial
Day, the county stands still to the shrill of a siren,
and sixty endless seconds of national silence.  But less
than ten hours later, Israel begins its joyous
celebration of Yom ha-Atzma'ut [Independence Day].  Even
though this proximity doesn't appear to do justice to
either day, it is precisely this proximity that gives
extra meaning to both days.  Our awareness that the
dedication of those who fell enabled our independence
gives us the strength to cope with the sorrow of Yom
ha-Zikaron, while our awareness of that terrible price
reminds us of our responsibility to channel that
independence in the proper direction.
	Our custom to recite Tehillim 107 before Maariv
on Yom Atzmaut reflects this acute contrast between
sorrow and joy during a time of redemption. In the
following shiur, we undertake a careful study of
Tehillim 107 in the hope that it will shed light on how
and why we should thank God both at this time of year
and during this era of Jewish History. 

INTRODUCTION
	To help appreciate certain chapters in Tehillim,
there are three key questions to consider - that can
help the student decode its message.
     1) What's the 'header' 
2) What's the 'structure'
3) What's the point

     If you have ample time, I recommend that you first
study Tehiilim 107, and try this yourself.  While doing
so, also pay attention to some key phrases that repeat
themselves - as they can help you identify its special
structure.
     If you prefer to jump right to the conclusions,
then you can use the formatted version of this chapter
(attached in pdf format) that highlights both its header
and overall structure.

     A quick analysis of Tehillim 107 can show how it
can easily be divided into four distinct sections:
	1) 1-3: the opening statement - A call to praise
God
	2) 4-32: the main section - four examples of
redemption
	3) 33-41: an additional section - God's
providence
	4) 42-43: conclusion - man's recognition of
God's Providence

	In our shiur, we will first explain this
division; afterwards we will discuss its significance.

THE HEADER - A CALL FOR PRAISE  (107:1-3)
	Let's begin by reviewing the first three psukim
(17:1-3), noting how they actually form one complete
sentence:
	[1] "Praise Hashem, for He is good, His kindness
is eternal;
[2] Let this [praise] be recited by those whom God has
redeemed from all adversity, 
[3] and by those whom He gathered from the lands, from
east, west, north, and from the sea."

	This opening statement can be understood as a
'command' - sung by the Levi'im in the Bet ha-Mikdash -
calling out to those who have gathered at the Bet
Mikdash, proclaiming the requirement to praise God for
His salvation.  
     The statement 'sets the stage' for the psukim that
follow, for beginning in verse four, we find four
examples of individuals redeemed by God from danger -
and hence, based on this 'header' - are required to
praise Him. 

THE MAIN SECTION (107:4-32) 
	As you study the next set of psukim (107:4-32),
you will immediately notice how several psukim appear to
be rather repetitious.  However, notice how this
intentional repetition of the phrases: "va'yizaaku..." &
"yodu..." - creates a very clear pattern that delimits
four distinct 'sub-sedtions'. 
	To identify each sub-section, simply note the
repetition of each of these two key phrases.  
     Let's begin with the recurring phrase of praise:
"yodu la-Hashem chasdo, ve-nifle'otav li-bnei Adam"
[They praise the Lord for His kindness...] which is not
only repeated four times (see 107:8, 15, 21, & 31), but
also thematically corresponds to the opening command of
the 'header' - i.e. the obligation to praise God for His
salvation. 

	Note however, how each of these four 'calls for
praise' is preceded by another recurring phrase:
"va'yizaaku el Hashem b'tzar la'hem"  [and they cried
out to God in their duress] (see 107:6,13,19 & 28) -
preceded by a description of a specific case of
distress.  As you review the perek, note how four
situations are introduced:
	1) A person lost in a desert without food &
water (see 4-5).
	2) A prisoner, suffering in jail (see
107:10-12).
	3) A person who became deathly ill (see
107:17-18).
	4) Sailors lost at sea in a terrible storm (see
107:23-27).

	Each case of distress is followed by a similar
cry to God for assistance: "ve-yitz'aku el Hashem
be-tza'ar lahem..." (see  again 107:6, 13, 19, and 28) -
followed by a description of how God had brought
salvation to each person in duress: 
	 1) He who was lost in a desert finds
civilization (107:7).
	2) The prisoner was released (see 107:14).
	3) The deathly ill recovered (see 107:20).
	4) The storm stopped, the ship arrives at port
(107:29-30).

	Afterward, each story of salvation is followed
by a praise of God, recognizing His hand it that
redemption.  
     Note again how each of these praises begins with
the identical phrase of "yodu la-Hashem...", but is then
followed by an additional pasuk, describing a special
aspect of that praise (see 107:9, 16, 22, & 32).

BENCHING 'GOMEL'
	Review these four cases once again (as
summarized below) and they'll probably sound familiar,
as these are the four cases when, according to halacha,
a person is required to "bench gomel":
	I.  One who crossed a desert (4-5).
	II.  One who was released from prison (10-12).
	III.  One who fell deathly ill and recovered
(17-18).
	IV.  One who returned from travel at sea
(23-27).

[See Mesechet Brachot 54b, and Shulchan Aruch/ Orach
Chaim 219.  It should also be noted that during the time
of the Temple, these four cases required that a person
bring a 'korban toda' - a sacrifice of thanksgiving (see
107:22).  Today, we "bench gomel" instead of bringing a
korban, usually after an 'aliya' to the Torah.]


THE PATTERN
	To summarize our study thus far, let's review
this four-stage pattern that repeats itself four times
in this section:
	1) "tzara"  - a situation of distress;

	2) "tza'aka" - crying out to God for assistance;
[the phrase: "ve-yitz'aku el Hashem be-tza'ar lahem,
mi-metzukatam yoshiyem"]

	3) "yeshu'a" - salvation;

	4) "hodaya" - thanks, i.e. praise to God.
[the phrase: "yodu la-Hashem chasdo, ve-nifle'otav
li-vnei adam" followed by a more specific pasuk of
hodaya]

	In this manner, the main section (107:4-32)
provides four examples for the opening statement
(107:1-3) of this psalm.  The repetition of these key
phrases serves as the key to identifying this internal
structure of the psalm, as well as it theme. 
	From this section alone, we can learn a very
important lesson.  When a person is in distress (1), he
is expected to pray to God for assistance (2).  He
should also relate to the possibility that his distress
is in punishment of his wayward behavior (see psukim 11,
17, & 20).  Upon his deliverance (3), he is expected to
thank Hashem and tell the story of his salvation in
public (4).
[See 107:22 - "... and they shall bring thanksgiving
offerings, and tell His deeds in joy".]

	Let's see now how the perek continues, and how
its theme becomes more complex.
 
THE ADDITIONAL SECTION (107:33-41)
	Even though we would expect this pattern to
continue until the end of the perek, it doesn't.
Instead, 107:33-41 forms an independent section that no
longer follows this 'cycle' (nor does it describe
situations of individual distress and redemption). 
     Review this 'additional' section, noting how it
describes God's overall "hashgacha" [providence] over
land and nature.  For example, as a consequence of the
deeds of the nation, God can take a fruitful land and
cause it to become a desert (see 107:33-34).  He can
also do exactly the opposite, taking a swamp- land and
make it prosper (see 107:35). 
     The psalm also describes how society can prosper
and then fail, the failure -in punishment of their deeds
(see 107:36-39).  Similarly, God will uplift the
afflicted by this society and return them to the
prosperity that they deserve (107:40-41).
	Now we must explain what this additional section
adds to the message of the main section.

HASHGACHA IN BOTH REALMS
	Even though both sections of this psalm discuss
man's recognition of God's "hashgacha", each deals with
a different realm.  The main section deals with the
cases that relate to individuals, while the additional
section relates to communal life and God's providence
over the land and His nation. 
	God expects man to see God not only in relation
to the events of his own life, but also to find His hand
in historical events and the rise and fall of societies.
As man himself exists in both realms, he must understand
that his relationship with God manifests itself in both.
	In the manner, the opening section (107:1-3)
serves as an introduction to both sections, as it points
to a historical aspect of our national existence as
well.
	"Hodu la-Hashem ki tov, ki le'olam chasdo.
Yomru ge'ulei
	 Hashem asher ga'alam mi-yad tzar, u-me'artzot
kibbetzum
	 mi-mizrach u-ma'arav, mi-tzafon, u-miyam."

	Jews in distress who were saved and gathered
together from all four corners of the earth are required
to praise Hashem (i.e. to say Hallel) for their
deliverance.  Note that even the four examples of
individual redemption reflect typical cases of the
return of exiles to their land (traveling deserts and
seas, battling illness, etc.)
[Btw, note the amazing parallels between these four
cases and the stories of the thousands of refugees who
fled to Israel before and after the Holocaust!]

THE CLOSING STATEMENT (107:42-43)
	The final two psukim of this perek emphasize
what becomes incumbent upon us to recognize:
"Let the upright see this and rejoice, as the mouth of
the wrongdoers is stopped.
	Let the wise man take note of these things;
	and he will recognize God's kindness"
(107:42-43).

	In this closing pasuk: "mi chacham ve-yishmor
eileh, ve-yitbonu chasdei Hashem", we find the primary
lesson of the entire perek.  One who is wise - he will
understand this concept of hashgacha - Divine
Providence, and that will enable him to find and then
appreciate the Hand of God in the history of Mankind.

YOM HA-ATZMA'UT
	From the opening psukim alone, it becomes clear
why this perek was chosen to be recited on Yom
ha-Atzma'ut.  During the first half of the twentieth
century, especially during the Holocaust, Am Yisrael was
in terrible distress.  The State of Israel became the
refuge for tens of thousands of Jews who had nowhere
else to turn.  Thousands of Jews, unwanted in their own
countries, came to the land of Israel from all
directions, by land and by sea.  There were numerous
cases of individual and group salvation, and as these
people returned to the land of their ancestors, the land
itself 'came back to life'. 
	A land that lay desolate for thousands of years
became fruitful and prosperous once again.  One who is
'wise' can perceive that God may be giving a message to
His people (through these events) - the time has come to
return to their land.  

TEHILLIM 107 and SEFER SHOFTIM
	As you may have noticed already, the 'cycle'
that we discerned in the main section is very similar to
the 'cycle' of Am Yisrael's history as described in
Sefer Shoftim.  In fact, the overall structure of
Tehillim 107 is very similar to the overall structure of
Sefer Shoftim.
	In our study of Sefer Shoftim, we identified the
following sections:

 CHAPTERS		TOPIC
  1-2		Introduction to the 'cycle'
  3-16		The 'cycle' itself (examples)
  17-22		An additional section (making an
educational point)

	However, the cycle in Sefer Shoftim was slightly
(but significantly) different.  There we found the
repetition of the following four stages:

	1) tzaara - Bnei Yisrael leave God, and hence
are punished

	2) tzaaka - They cry out to God for salvation

	3) yeshu'a - God sends redemption via the SHOFET

4) sheket - National stability and quiet are restored;
     but then the cycle starts over again.

	Note how the cycle in Tehillim 107 (described
above) is almost identical, except for the final stage:
	A) tzaara  - a situation of distress (caused by
sin)

	B) tzaaka - crying out to God for assistance
	   "v'yitzaku el Hashem b'tzr la'hem,
m'mtzukatam yoshi'aym"

	C) yeshuah - salvation

	D) hodaya - thanksgiving, i.e. praise to God
		"yodu l'hashem chasdo, v'niflo'tav
l'vnei adam"

	In contrast to Sefer Shoftim where the final
stage was "sheket", Tehillim 107 calls for a more
'active' recognition by Am Yisrael of God's hand in our
redemption.  This 'passive' reaction in Sefer Shoftim
caused the cycle to continue to repeat itself.  Had Bnei
Yisrael been more 'active' and praised God properly for
their redemption during the time of the Shoftim, that
time period may have been more successful. 
[Note that in Sefer Shoftim there was one example of
"hodaya", i.e. "shirat devorah" (and hence its
emphasis). Note as well how the shofet who followed
Devorah was Gideon, who had the potential to become king
- because of the accomplishments of his leadership.
Unfortunately, after his victory he built an "efod
zahav" instead of leading Bnei Yisrael in praise of God.
Recall how Sefer Shoftim takes a sharp turn downhill
after that incident.]

	This contrasting parallel between Tehillim 107
and Sefer Shoftim highlights the lesson that David
ha'melech, the primary composer of Sefer Tehillim,
learned from Sefer Shoftim. 
     Recall that Sefer Shoftim was written by Shmuel
ha'navi, the same prophet who anointed David to become
king.  In the next time period after Sefer Shoftim, i.e.
the time period of David, Bnei Yisrael are in distress
once again from the Phlishtim and from many other
surrounding nations.  First Shaul, and later David
become national leaders who achieve military victory
over these enemies and bring salvation to Am Yisrael. 
	It is here were David is different than all who
led Am Yisrael before him.  Note how David understands
the above message and sings God's praise (in song) after
each of his victories (see Shmuel II chapter 22, also
the Haftara for shvii shel pesach), better known as
"shirat David".  

	In fact, psalm 107 (and most all of Sefer
Tehillim) was written during the time period of David.
Many other psalms were written by David when he was in
distress ["tzaara"].  To confirm this, simply review the
headers of chapters 31 thru 35 and 51 thru 65!
     Likewise, David wrote numerous psalms praising God
for His redemption; simply review chapters 105 thru 118
and 145 thru 150 to confirm!
	It would seem from Sefer Tehillim that David
ha'melech internalized the message of Sefer Shoftim (and
his 'rebbe' Shmuel).  Most likely, it is for this reason
that David's offspring were chosen to be the dynasty
(see Shmuel II chapter 7, read carefully!) that would
lead Bnei Yisrael to redemption in messianic times. 

BA'YAMIM HA'HEYM, B'ZMAN HA'ZEH
	It is also not by chance that the Bet ha'Mikdash
was finally built by David's son Shlomo. It is also not
by chance that the time period of David is the first
time in Jewish history when Am Yisrael reaches a
position of international stature, and reaches positive
political relationships with neighboring countries.
	Should we be able to internalize this same
message in our own generation, we would then be worthy
of achieving a similar result.  
	For those who do recite Hallel on Yom
ha-Atzma'ut, be it chapter 107 and/or Hallel "shaleym"
(113 thru 118) [with or without a "bracha"], the message
of Tehillim 107 can help guide us in the proper
direction.

					b'virchat geulah
krovah,
					Menache
3



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.8/1413 -
Release Date: 5/3/2008 11:22 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: atzmaut11.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 54047 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080505/c72c79b8/attachment-0002.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TH107.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 81069 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080505/c72c79b8/attachment-0003.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon May  5 16:43:04 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 16:43:04 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] for Yom Atzmaut - additonal shiur -
Message-ID: <023101c8aef0$9dfda910$0200000a@x60>

Dedicated by Yocheved & Nathan Lindenbaum & family
   In memory of our zaydie, 
     - Eliyahu ben Chaim Shlomo v?Mindel Grunberger -
   Murdered by the Nazis during the ?Death March? from 
   Aushwitz, on 3 Iyar, 1945

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

                 "DA'YENU"  -

         shiur for Pesach & for Yom Atzmaut

     How could an observant Jew say, let alone sing,
that -'it
would have been enough'- even had God not given us the
Torah?
    And how could a Zionist say, let alone sing, that
-'it would
have been enough'- even if God had not given us the Land
of
Israel?
    Nevertheless, every year at the Seder, we all sing
the
popular song of "dayenu", which seems to convey
precisely that
message!
    In the following shiur, we attempt to answer this
question.

INTRODUCTION
     "Dayenu" is a very simple, yet beautiful poem -
containing fifteen stanzas describing acts of God's
kindness -
each stanza stating that it would have been 'enough' had
God
only helped us in one way.
     For example, we begin by saying it would have been
enough
had He only taken us out of Egypt, and not punished the
Egyptians.  The poem continues stage by stage through
the
process of redemption from Egypt (until we arrive in the
Land
of Israel and build the Temple), saying how each stage
would
have been 'enough', even had God not helped us with the
next
stage.
     However, some of those statements appear very
strange,
for they include that it 'would have been enough had we
not
received the Torah', which simply doesn't make sense!
     To understand what we are 'really saying' in
"dayneu", we
must consider its context, as well as it content.

A PREP FOR HALLEL
     In the Haggadah, "dayenu" does not 'stand alone'.
Rather, we recite (or sing) "dayenu" towards the
conclusion of
Maggid; after we tell the story of the Exodus, but
before we
sing the Hallel.
     Following the guidelines of the Mishna (in the
tenth
chapter of Mesechet Pesachim), in Maggid - we tell the
story
of the Exodus by quoting (and then elaborating upon) the
psukim of "arami oved avi" (see Devarim 26:5-8).  But
that
very same Mishna also instructs us to begin the story
with a
derogatory comment, and conclude it with praise
["matchilin
b'gnut - u'msaaymim v'shevach"/ see Pesachim 10:4).
     Taking this Mishna into consideration, we find that
"dayenu" is recited in Maggid - precisely when we finish
telling the story of the Exodus (with the discussion of
the
Plagues) - and right at the spot where we are supposed
to
begin our "shevach" [praise].

   Therefore, "dayenu" should be understood as a poem
that was
written as a form of praise, to conform with the
guidelines
set by the Mishna.  This consideration will allow us to
explain its full meaning - in a very simple manner:
   Within this context, the refrain of "dayenu" has an
implicit
suffix.  In other words, - "dayenu" should not be
translated
simply as 'it would have been enough'; rather, "dayenu"
means
'it would have been enough - to PRAISE God, i.e. to say
Hallel
- even if God had only taken us out of Egypt, or only if
He
had split the Sea, etc.

    In this manner, the poem poetically summarizes each
significant stage of redemption, from the time of the
Exodus
until Am Yisrael's conquest of the Land - stating that
each
single act of God's kindness in that process obligates
us to
praise Him: e.g.
   - Had He only taken us out of Egypt and not punished
the
  Egyptians, it would have been reason enough to say
Hallel
  -  Had He split the sea,but not given us the 'manna',
that
  alone would have been reason enough to say Hallel...
    ...  And so on.
     With this background, the next paragraph of that
poem
makes perfect sense:
  "`al achat kama vekhama," - How much more so is it
proper to
  thank God for performing ALL these acts of kindness,
as He
  took us out of Egypt, and punished them, and split the
sea,
  and gave us the manna etc.

  "Dayenu" relates a total of fifteen acts of divine
kindness,
each act alone worthy of praise - even more so we must
praise
God, for He had performed all of them!
  From this perspective, "dayenu" serves a double
purpose.
First and foremost, it concludes the story with
"shevach"
[praise]. and qualifies the Hallel that we are about to
sing.
However, it could also be understood as a continuation
of the
story of the Exodus.  Let's explain why and how:

SIPPUR & SHEVACH
  Recall that the last "drasha" [elaboration] on the
psukim of
"arami oved avi" led into a lengthy discussion of the
Ten
Plagues.  To fulfill our obligation at the Seder' to
tell the
story', we could (and do) finish right here.  But the
poem of
"dayenu" actually continues that story, picking up from
the
Ten Plagues ["asa bahem shfatim" refers to the Plagues],
and
continuing through all the significant events in the
desert
until our arrival in the Land of Israel.  This is also
congruent with the last pasuk of "arami oved avi", that
includes arriving in Israel (see Devarim 26:9! -
"va'yvi'einu
el ha'Makom ha'zeh, va'yiten lanu et ha'aretz ha'zot"),
which
we don't elaborate upon in our version of Maggid, even
though
according to the Mishna it appears that we really
should!
     In this manner, "dayneu" is both "shevach" [praise]
and
"sippur" [story] - at the same time!

The 'HASHKAFA' of DAYENU
     According to our explanation thus far, "dayenu"
sets the
stage for Hallel, as we will now praise God [by singing
Hallel] not only in gratitude for taking us out of
Egypt, but
also in appreciation for each significant stage of the
redemptive process.  We thank God not only for the
Exodus, but
also for the 'manna', for shabbat, for coming close to
Har
Sinai, for the Torah, for the Land of Israel..., and
finally
for the building of the Bet HaMikdash.
      From a certain perspective, this poem may allude
to a
very profound 'hashkafa' [outlook on life], and a
message that
is very applicable to our own generation.
    Today, there are those who focus at the Seder only
on the
first stanza of "dayenu," viewing 'freedom from slavery'
as
the final goal, and hence the ultimate goal of
redemption.
For them, this first stanza of "dayenu" is 'enough' -
and to
them, that is the entire meaning of Passover - a holiday
of
Freedom.
    Others focus only upon the last stanza, that without
the
entire land of Israel in our possession, and without the
re-
building of the bet-ha'Mikdash, the entire redemptive
process
is meaningless.  In their eyes, Hallel should only be
sung
when the entire redemption process is complete, and Am
Yisrael
reaches its final goal.

    The beautiful poem of "dayenu" seems to disagree
with both
approaches.  Instead, each significant stage in the
process of
redemption deserves our recognition and for requires
that we
praise God for it, even though it is 'not enough'!
     It is this hashkafic message, i.e., the
understanding and
appreciation of each step of the redemptive process,
which
"dayenu" can teach us.  "Ge'ulat Yisra'el" - the
redemption of
Israel - even in our time, is a process which is
comprised of
many stages.  Every significant step in this process, be
it
simply sovereignty, or partial borders, or victory in
battle;
or freedom to study Torah, even without complete
redemption,
requires our gratitude and praise to Hashem.

    For each stage in that process, it is incumbent upon
Am
Yisrael to recognize that stage and thank Hashem
accordingly,
while at the same time recognizing that many more stages
remain yet unfulfilled - and reminding ourselves of how
we
need act -to be deserving of that next stage.

     "Dayenu" challenges us to find the proper balance.

                              chag samayach,
                              menachem


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.8/1413 -
Release Date: 5/3/2008 11:22 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dayenu.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 20637 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080505/48919003/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed May  7 11:41:07 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 11:41:07 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] EMOR - the  Moadim
Message-ID: <001b01c8b058$c4693920$0400000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

         PARSHAT  EMOR  - "moadei Hashem
         
    What is a "moed"?
    Most of us would answer - a Jewish holiday [i.e. a
"yom-tov"].
      [Most English Bibles translate "moed" - a fixed
time.]

     However, earlier in Chumash, the Hebrew word "chag"
was
used to describe the Holidays (e.g. see Shmot 12:14,
13:6,
23:16).  So why does Parshat Emor prefer to use the
Hebrew
word "moed" instead? [See 23:2,4,37,44.]
     Furthermore, it is just by chance that the same
Hebrew
word "moed" is also used to describe the Mishkan, i.e.
the
"Ohel MOED"?  [See Vayikra 1:1, Shmot 30:34 etc.]
     In this week's shiur, we attempt to answer these
questions by taking a closer look at Vayikra chapter 23.

INTRODUCTION
     Even though Parshat Emor discusses all of the
Jewish
holidays, these same holidays are also discussed in the
other
books of Chumash as well:
     * in Sefer Shmot: Parshat Mishpatim (23:14-17)
                             & Ki-tisa (34:23);
     * in Sefer Bamidbar: Parshat Pinchas (chapters
28-29);
     * in Sefer Devarim: Parshat Re'ay (chapter 16).

     However, within these four 'parshiot' we find two
distinct sets of holidays:

     A) The "SHALOSH REGALIM"
          [the three pilgrimage holidays]
          i.e.- chag ha'Matzot, Shavuot, & Succot;

     B) The "YOMIM NORAIM"
          [the days of awe /  the 'high holidays']
          i.e.- Rosh ha'Shana, Yom Kippur & Shmini
Atzeret.

     Sefer Shmot and Sefer Devarim discuss ONLY the
"shalosh
regalim", while Sefer Vayikra and Sefer Bamidbar discuss
both
the "shalosh regalim" AND the "yomim noraim".

     At first glance this 'multiple presentation' of the
chagim in FOUR different books of the Chumash appears to
be
superfluous. After all, would it not have been more
logical
for the Torah to present ALL of these laws together in
ONE
Parsha (and in ONE Sefer)?
     However, since the Torah does present the holidays
in
four different "seforim", we can safely assume that
there must
be something special about each presentation, and that
each
relates to the primary theme of its respective "sefer".
     Even though our shiur will focus on the chagim in
Emor,
we must begin our study with the chagim in Parshat
Mishpatim,
for that 'parshia' contains the first mention of the
SHALOSH
REGALIM in Chumash.
  [As the shiur is very textual (more than usual), it is
  recommended that you follow it with a Tanach at hand.]

TWO CALENDARS
     As background for our shiur, we'll need to first
review
some basics regarding the 'Biblical calendar'.
  Even though we commonly refer to the Jewish calendar
as
'lunar', in Chumash, we find the use of both a 'solar'
[i.e.
the agricultural seasons] and a 'lunar' calendar [i.e.
the 29
day cycle of the moon].
  The solar calendar in Chumash corresponds to the
seasons of
the agricultural year (in Hebrew: "tkufot ha'shana").
For
example:
  spring ="aviv" (see Shmot 13:3 & 23:14), and
  autumn ="b'tzeit ha'shana" (Shmot 23:16 & Devarim
11:12).
  
  We also find many instances where Chumash relates to a
calendar that is based on the monthly cycle of the moon.
For
example:
  "ha'chodesh ha'zeh lachem rosh chodashim" (Shmot 12:2)
  & the special korban on 'rosh chodesh' (see Bamidbar
28:11)
  
  These two calendars are 'correlated' by the periodic
addition of an 'extra' month to assure that the FIRST
month of
the lunar year will always correspond with the spring
equinox
(see Shmot 12:1-2).
     With this distinction in mind, let's take a careful
look
at the calendar which Chumash employs when it describes
the
holidays.

THE SHALOSH REGALIM IN PARSHAT MISHPATIM
     Let's take a quick look at Shmot 23:14-17, as this
is the
first presentation of the "shalosh regalim" in Chumash:
  "Three times a year celebrate to Me:
    (1) Keep CHAG HA'MATZOT, eat matza... at the "moed"
       [appointed time] in the SPRING [when you went out
of
       Egypt]...
    (2) and a CHAG KATZIR [a grain HARVEST holiday] for
the
        first- fruits of what you have sown in your
field,
    (3) and a CHAG HA'ASIF [a fruit gathering holiday]
at the
        conclusion of the [agricultural] year...
  "Three times a years, each male should come to be seen
by
   God..."   (see Shmot 23:14-17)

     Note how these three holidays are described ONLY by
the
agricultural time of year in which they are celebrated
.without any mention of the specific lunar date!:
     chag ha'Matzot: "b'aviv" - in the SPRING;
     chag ha'Katzir: the wheat harvest - in the early
SUMMER;
     chag ha'Asif: the fruit harvest - in the AUTUMN.

     Note as well (in 23:17) that the primary mitzvah
associated with each of these three holidays is "aliyah
la'regel" - to be seen by God [i.e. by visiting Him at
the
Mishkan/Mikdash].
  [Note that this presentation is repeated in a very
similar
  fashion in Parshat Ki-tisa (see Shmot 34:18-26) when
Moshe
  Rabeinu receives the second Luchot.  However, that
  repetition was necessary due to the events of "chet
ha'egel"
  (see TSC shiur on Ki-tisa), and hence -beyond the
scope of
  this shiur.]

THE SHALOSH REGALIM IN PARSHAT RE'AY
     In Sefer Devarim (see 16:1-17) we find a very
similar
presentation, although a bit more detailed.  As you
review
that chapter, note that once again:
     * Only the SHALOSH REGALIM are presented
     * Only their agricultural dates are cited, and
     * The primary mitzvah is "aliya la'regel"

     However, this unit adds two important details that
were
not mentioned in Parshat Mishpatim:
  1) WHERE the mitzvah of "aliyah l'regel" is to take
place,
  i.e. "ba'makom asher Yivchar Hashem..." - at the site
that
  God will choose to have His Name dwell there.
                    [See 16:2,6,11,15,16.]

  2) that we must REJOICE on these holidays - not only
with
  our own family, but also with the less fortunate, such
as
  the stranger, the orphan, the widow etc. (see
16:11,14).

     The Torah demands that when we celebrate and thank
God
for the bounty of our harvest, we must invite the less
fortunate to join us.

AGRICULTURAL HOLIDAYS
     It is not coincidental the Torah chose to use the
solar
calendar in its presentation of the SHALOSH REGALIM.
Clearly,
the Torah's primary intention is that we must thank God
during
these three critical times of the agricultural year:
     (1) when nature 'comes back to life' in the spring
(PESACH)
     (2) at the conclusion of the wheat harvest
(SHAVUOT)
     (3) at the conclusion of the fruit harvest (SUCCOT)

     Hence, the Torah describes these three holidays by
their
agricultural dates, with even mentioning a lunar date.

     However, when the Torah presents the holidays in
EMOR
(Vayikra 23) and PINCHAS (Bamidbar 28->29), we will find
a
very different manner of presentation, as the 'lunar
date' of
each holiday is included as well.  We will now review
those
two units, noting how each "chag" is introduced with its
precise lunar month and day.

THE CHAGIM IN PINCHAS
     Briefly scan Bamidbar chapters 28 & 29 (in Parshat
Pinchas), noting how it comprises a complete unit -
focusing
on one primary topic, i.e. the details of the KORBAN
MUSAF
that is offered (in the Bet ha'Mikdash) on each holiday.
Note
how it first details the daily "korban tamid" (see
28:1-8),
followed by the weekly and monthly Musaf offering (see
28:9-
15) that is offered on Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh.
Afterward,
beginning with 28:16, ALL of the holidays are mentioned,
one
at time - introduced with their lunar date, followed by
the
details of its specific Musaf offering.  Technically
speaking,
this entire section could also be titled - "korbanot
ha'Tmidim
v'ha'Musafim" - since that is its primary focus, and it
is in
that context that the holidays are presented.
     As this unit serves as the yearly 'schedule' for
offering
the korban Tamid and Musaf in the Temple, it makes sense
that
each holiday is introduced solely by its lunar date.
  [Note that the "maftir" reading on each holiday is
taken
  from this unit, and we quote its relevant section
every time
  when we doven tefilat Musaf!]

A QUICK SUMMARY
     Before we begin our study of the holidays in
Parshat
Emor, let's summarize what we have discussed thus far:
     In the books of Shmot and Devarim, only the
"shalosh
regalim" were presented, and only according to their
solar
dates - focusing on our obligation to 'visit God' during
these
critical times of the agricultural year.
     In Sefer Bamidbar, all the holidays were presented
according to their lunar dates, as that unit focused on
the
specific korban Musaf offered on each special day.

     In earlier shiurim, we have also discussed the
thematic
connection between each of these units, and the book in
which
they were presented:
* In Parshat Mishpatim - as part of laws pertaining to
'social
  justice', and hence their thematic connection to the
psukim
  that precede them in Shmot 23:6-12.
    [See TSC shiur on Parshat Mishpatim.]
* In Parshat Re'ay - in the context of the primary topic
of
  chapters 12 thru 17, i.e. "ha'makom asher yivchar
Hashem".
          [See TSC shiur on Parshat Re'ay.]
 *   In Parshat Pinchas - as part of the laws of Tmidim
u'Musafim.
               [See TSC shiur on Parshat Pinchas.]

     In contrast to these units, we will now show how
the
presentation of the holidays in Parshat Emor is unique,
and
how it relates to the overall theme of Sefer Vayikra.

THE CHAGIM IN PARSHAT EMOR
     Review Vayikra 23:1-44, noting how this unit also
presents all of the holidays (i.e. the shalosh regalim &
the
"yamim noraim"), yet unlike Parshat Pinchas, this time
they
are presented by BOTH their lunar and solar dates!
Furthermore, in addition to certain mitzvot which are
common
to all of the holidays, we also find a unique mitzvah
for each
holiday.  For example:
     Chag Ha'Matzot - the special OMER offering (from
barely);
     Shavuot - the SHTEI HA'LECHEM offering (from
wheat);
     Rosh Ha'Shana - YOM TERUAH - blowing the shofar;
     Yom Kippur - fasting;
     Succot - sitting in the SUCCAH.
          and the ARBA MINIM (lulav and etrog etc.).

     To appreciate why these specific details are found
in
Sefer Vayikra, let's take a closer looks at how these
laws are
presented, as well as the dates that are used.

'DOUBLE DATING'
     As we noted above, it is rather obvious how Parshat
Emor
presents the holidays by their LUNAR dates (month/day).
However, as the following table will now demonstrate,
when
Parshat Emor introduces the special mitzvah for each
holiday,
especially in regard to the SHALOSH REGALIM, the
agricultural
season (i.e. the SOLAR date) is mentioned as well!  For
example, note:
CHAG HA'MATZOT - mitzvat ha'OMER
  "When you enter the Land... and HARVEST the grain, you
must
  bring the OMER - the FIRST HARVEST to the Kohen
(23:10);

SHAVUOT - mitzvat SHTEI HA'LECHEM
  "... count SEVEN WEEKS [from when the first grain
becomes
  ripe], then... you shall bring a NEW flour
offering..."
  (23:16);

SUCCOT - the ARBA MINIM
  "On the 15th day of the 7th month WHEN YOU GATHER THE
  PRODUCE OF THE LAND... and you shall take on the first
day a
  'hadar' fruit..." (see 23:39).

     In fact, look carefully and you'll notice that
Parshat
Emor presents the agricultural related commandment for
each of
the "shalosh regalim" in an independent manner!
     For example, the agricultural mitzvah to bring the
korban
"ha'omer" and the "shtei ha'lechem" is presented in a
separate
'dibur' (see 23:9-22) that makes no mention at all of
the
lunar date!  Similarly, the mitzvah of the "arba minim"
in
23:39-41 is presented independently, and AFTER the
mitzvah
CHAG HA'SUCCOT is first presented in 23:33-38. [To
verify
this, compare these two sections carefully!]
     So why does the structure of Emor have to be so
complicated?  Would it not have made more sense for the
Torah
to employ one standard set of dates, and explain all the
mitzvot for each holiday together?
     To answer this question, we must first take a
closer look
at the internal structure of Vayikra chapter 23.

THE COMMON MITZVOT
     Even though Parshat Emor presents the special
mitzvot of
each holiday, it also presents some common mitzvot for
all the
holidays - immediately after each is introduced by its
lunar
date.
     Review chapter 23 and note the pattern, noting how
each
holiday is referred to as a "moed", and that we are
commanded
to make it a "mikra kodesh" [to call out to set it aside
for a
national gathering] - when work is prohibited - "kol
mlechet
avodah lo taasu"; and that we must offer an korban -
"v'hikravtem ishe l'Hashem".

     To verify this, note the following psukim:
CHAG HAMATZOT / 23:6-8
ROSH HA'SHANA / 23:25
YOM KIPPUR / 23:27-28
SUCCOT & SHMINI ATZERET / 23:33-36
  [Note that in regard to SHAVUOT (see 23:21) a lunar
date and
  the phrase "v'hikravtem" is missing!  For a discussion
why,
  see the TSC shiur on Shavuot.]

     Therefore, in relation to the LUNAR date, Parshat
Emor
requires that on each holiday the nation must gather
together
[="mikra kodesh"], refrain from physical labor [="kol
mlechet
avoda lo ta'asu"], and offer a special korban Musaf
[=v'hikravtem ishe la'Hashem"], as detailed in Parshat
Pinchas.

     However, within this same unit, we also find that
the
"shalosh regalim" are presented INDEPENDENTLY with a
solar
date -within the context of its agricultural mitzvah.
     If we take a closer look at those psukim, we'll
also
notice that in each instance the concept of a SHABBAT or
SHABBATON is mentioned in conjunction with the special
agricultural mitzvah of each holiday [i.e. OMER, SHTEI
HA'LECHEM & ARBA MINIM].

     Furthermore, we also find the use of the word
SHABBATON
in the presentation of ROSH HA'SHANA and YOM KIPPUR as
well!
[See 23:24,32.]
     Finally, note the detail of the mitzvot relating to
SHABBATON always conclude with the phrase: "chukat olam
l'doroteichem [b'chol moshvoteichem]", see
23:14,21,31,41!

     The following chart summarizes this second pattern
in
which the word SHABBAT or SHABBATON is mentioned in
relation
to each holiday:

Chag Ha'MATZOT - "mi'mochorat ha'SHABBAT" (23:11)
SHAVUOT - "ad mimochorat ha'SHABBAT ha'shviit..."
(23:16)
ROSH Ha'SHANA - "SHABBATON, zichron truah..." (23:24)
YOM KIPPUR -  SHABBAT SHABBATON hi lachem..." (23:32)
SUCCOT &  - ba'yom ha'rishon SHABBATON... (23:39)
SHMINI ATZERET - u'bayom ha'Shmini SHABBATON" (23:39)

     Note also that within this parsha, the
SHABBAT/agricultural aspect is first introduced by a
separate
"dibur":
  "And God spoke to Moshe saying... When you ENTER THE
LAND
  that I am giving you REAP ITS HARVEST, you shall bring
the
  OMER - the first sheaf of your harvest to God. This
OMER
  shall be waived in front of God... on the day after
SHABBAT
  the Kohen shall waive it...."  (23:9-14)

  The most striking example of this 'double pattern' is
found
in the psukim that describe Succot. Note how the Torah
first
introduces this holiday as a MIKRA KODESH by its lunar
date:
  "On the 15th day of the 7th month Chag Succot seven
days: on
  the first day there shall be a MIKRA KODESH... and on
the
  eighth day a MIKRA KODESH..." (23:35-36)
    [As this is the last MOED, the next pasuk summarizes
all
    of the chagim: "ayleh Moadei Hashem..." (23:37-38)].

     Then, in a very abrupt fashion, AFTER summarizing
the
moadim, the Torah returns to Succot again, but now calls
it a
SHABBATON:
  " 'ACH' - on the 15th day of the seventh month, when
you
  GATHER THE HARVEST OF YOUR FIELD, you shall celebrate
for
  seven days, on the first day - a SHABBATON, and on the
  eighth day - a SHABBATON." (23:39)

     Hence, it appears from Parshat Emor that each
holiday is
treated as both a "moed" (in relation to "mikra kodesh",
"isur
melacha", & "v'hikravtem") AND as a "shabbaton" (in
relation
to its special mitzvah).

A DOUBLE 'HEADER'
     Let's take a look now at the introductory psukim of
this
entire unit (i.e. 23:1-3), for they appear to allude as
well
to the double nature of this presentation.
     First of all, note how the opening psukim of
chapter 23
appear to contradict each other:
  * "And God told Moshe, tell Bnei Yisrael... THESE are
the
     MOADEI HASHEM (fixed times), which YOU shall call
MIKRAEI
     KODESH (a sacred gathering) - these are the
MOADIM". (23:1-2)

  *  "SIX days work may be done, but the SEVENTH day
shall be
      a SHABBAT SHABBATON 'mikra kodesh'... (23:3)

     THESE are the 'MOADEI HASHEM'...:
          On the 14th day of the first month - Pesach
          On the 15th day of the first month - chag
ha'Matzot...
                              (see 23:4-6)

     Based on this header, it remains unclear if SHABBAT
should be considered one of the MOADIM?
     If yes, then why does 23:4 repeat the header "ayleh
moadei Hashem"?
     If not, why is SHABBAT mentioned at all in the
first
three psukim?
     Furthermore, there appears to be two types of
'mikraei
kodesh' in Parshat Emor.

  (1)  MOADIM - those that Bnei Yisrael declare: "asher
tik'ru
  otam [that YOU shall call] - mikraei kodesh" (23:2)
  
  (2)  SHABBAT - that God has set aside to be a 'mikra
kodesh'
  (read 23:3 carefully!).

     This distinction, and the repetition of the header
"ayleh
moadei Hashem" in 23:4, indicate the first three psukim
could
be considered a 'double' header: i.e MO'ADIM and
SHABBATONIM.
     As the unit progresses, this 'double header'
reflects the
double presentation of chagim in this entire unit, as
discussed above.  In regard to the shalosh regalim, the
SHABBATON aspect is presented separately. In regard to
Rosh
Ha'shana and Yom Kippur, the SHABBATON aspect is
included in
the 'lunar' MIKRA KODESH presentation.
  [In regard to the agricultural nature of Rosh ha'shana
and
  Yom Kippur, see TSC shiur on Rosh ha'shana.]

     What is the meaning of the double nature of this
presentation?  Why does Parshat Emor relate to both the
lunar
and solar calendars?  One could suggest the following
explanation.

THE AGRICULTURAL ASPECT
     As mentioned above, Parshat Emor details a special
agricultural related mitzvah for each of the shalosh
regalim:
Chag ha'Matzot:
     The Korban Ha'Omer- from the first BARLEY harvest.
Shavuot:
     The Korban Shtei Ha'lechem, from the first WHEAT
harvest.
Succot:
     Taking the 'Arba Minim', the four species -
               [i.e. the lulav, etrog, hadas and arava]

     These mitzvot relate directly to the agricultural
seasons
in Eretz Yisrael in which these holidays fall.  In the
spring,
barley is the first grain crop to become ripe.  During
the
next seven weeks, the wheat crop ripens and is
harvested.  As
this is the only time of the year when wheat grows in
Eretz
Yisrael, these seven weeks are indeed a critical time,
for the
grain which will be consumed during the entire year is
harvested during this very short time period.
     Similarly, the ARBA MINIM, which are brought to the
Mikdash on Succot, also relate to the agricultural
importance
of the fruit harvest ("pri eytz hadar v'kapot tmarim")
at this
time of the year, and the need for water in the
forthcoming
rainy season ("arvei nachal").
     Therefore, specifically when the Torah relates to
these
agricultural mitzvot, these holidays are referred to as
SHABBATONIM - for the concept of "shabbat" relates to
the DAYS
of the week, and thus, to the cycle of nature caused by
the
sun, i.e. the agricultural seasons of the year. They
also
relate to the natural cycle of the sun.
  [Recall that the 365 day cycle of the earth revolving
around
  the sun causes the seasons.]

     As these holidays are celebrated during the most
critical
times of the agricultural year, the Torah commands us to
gather at this time of the year in the Bet HaMikdash and
offer
special korbanot from our harvest.  Instead of relating
these
phenomena of nature to a pantheon of gods, as the
Canaanite
people did, Am Yisrael must recognize that it is God's
hand
behind nature and therefore, we must thank Him for our
harvest.
  [This challenge - to find God while working and living
  within the framework of nature - is reflected in the
  blessing we make over bread: "ha'motzi lechem min
ha'aretz".
  Even though we perform 99% of work in the process of
making
  bread (e.g. sowing, reaping, winnowing, grinding,
kneading,
  baking etc.), we thank God as though He had given us
bread
  directly from the ground!]

THE HISTORICAL HOLIDAYS
     Even though these agricultural mitzvot alone
provides
sufficient reason to celebrate these holidays, the Torah
finds
HISTORICAL significance in these seasonal holidays as
well.
     The spring commemorates our redemption from Egypt.
The
grain harvest coincides with the time of Matan Torah.
During
the fruit harvest we recall our supernatural existence
in the
desert under the "annanei kavod" (clouds of God's glory)
in
the desert.
     Just as the Torah employs to the SOLAR date of the
chagim
in relation to the agricultural mitzvot, the Torah also
employs the LUNAR date of these chagim in relation to
their
historical significance.  For example, when describing
Chag
Ha'Matzot, which commemorates the historical event of
Yetziat
Mitzraim, the lunar date of the 15th day of the first
month is
used (see 23:6). Similarly, when the Torah refers to
Succot as
a Mikra Kodesh, it employs solely the lunar date and
emphasizes the mitzvah of sitting in the succah, in
commemoration of our dwelling in succot during our
journey
through the desert (see 23:34-35,43).
     One could suggest that specifically the lunar
calendar is
used in relation to the historical aspect, for we count
the
MONTHS in commemoration of our Exodus from Egypt, the
most
momentous event in our national history:
  "ha'chodesh ha'zeh lachem ROSH CHODASHIM..."  This
month (in
  which you are leaving Egypt) will be for you the FIRST
  month... (see Shmot 12:1-3).

REDEMPTION IN THE SPRING
     From the repeated emphasis in Chumash that we
celebrate
our redemption from Egypt in the early spring ("chodesh
ha'aviv" /see Shmot 13:2-4 and Devarim 16:1-2), it would
appear that it was not incidental that the Exodus took
place
at that time.  Rather, God desired that our national
birth
take place at the same time of year when the growth
cycle of
nature recommences.
  [For a similar reason, it would appear that God
desired that
  Bnei Yisrael enter the Promised Land in the first
month of
  the spring (see Yehoshua 4:19 & 5:10).]

     One could suggest that the celebration of our
national
redemption specifically in the spring emphasizes its
proper
meaning.  Despite its importance, our freedom attained
at
Yetziat Mitzraim should be understood as only the
INITIAL
stage of our national spiritual 'growth', just as the
spring
marks only the initial stage in the growth process of
nature!
Just as the blossoming of nature in the spring leads to
the
grain harvest in the early summer and fruit harvest in
the
late summer, so too our national freedom must lead to
the
achievement of higher goals in our national history.
     Thus, counting seven weeks from chag ha'matzot
until chag
ha'shavuot (sfirat ha'omer) emphasizes that Shavuot
(commemorating the Giving of the Torah) should be
considered
the culmination of the process that began at Yetziat
Mitzrayim, just as the grain harvest is the culmination
of its
growth process that began in the spring.
  [One would expect that this historical aspect of
Shavuot,
  i.e. Matan Torah, should also be mentioned in Parshat
Emor.
  For some reason, it is not. We will deal with this
issue
  iy"h in our shiur on Shavuot.]

     By combining the two calendars, the Torah teaches
us that
during the critical times of the agricultural year we
must not
only thank God for His providence over nature but we
must also
thank Him for His providence over our history.  In a
polytheistic society, these various attributes were
divided
among many gods. In an atheistic society, man fails to
see God
in either. The double nature of the chagim emphasizes
this
tenet that God is not only the Force behind nature, but
He
also guides the history of nations.
     Man must recognize God's providence in all realms
of his
daily life; by recognizing His hand in both the
unfolding of
our national history and through perceiving His
greatness as
He is the power behind all the phenomena of nature.

KEDUSHAT ZMAN
     In conclusion, we can now return to our original
question, i.e. why does specifically Sefer Vayikra
describe
these holidays as MOADIM?

     The Hebrew word "moed" stems from the root
"vav.ayin.daled" - to meet.
  [That's why a committee in Hebrew is a "vaad", and a
  conference is a "ve'iydah". See also Shmot 29:42-43
and Amos
  3:3. Finally, note Breishit 1:14!]

     The Mishkan is called an OHEL MOED - a tent of
meeting -
for in that tent Bnei Yisrael [symbolically] 'meet' God.
In a
similar manner, the Jewish holidays are called MOADIM,
for
their primary purpose is that we set aside special times
during the year to MEET God.  Clearly, in Parshat Emor,
the
Torah emphasizes the "bein adam la'makom" [between God
and
man] aspect of the holidays. Not only do we perform the
mitzva
of "aliya la'regel", we also perform a wide range of
special
mitzvot that occupy our entire day during those
holidays.
     [See Sefer Kuzari ma'amar r'vii in relation to the
chagim!]

     As we explained in last week's shiur, this is the
essence
of KEDUSHA - the theme of Sefer Vayikra. We set aside
special
times, and infuse them with special KEDUSHA to come
closer to
Hashem.  However, our experience during these holidays
provides us with the spiritual strength to remain close
to God
during the remainder of the year.

                         shabbat shalom
                         menachem

================
FOR FURTHER IYUN

A. WHY IN VAYIKRA?
     Why is this parsha that describes the special
mitzvot of
all the chagim located specifically in Sefer Vayikra?
     Based on last week's shiur, we can suggest an
answer. We
explained that the second half of Vayikra 'translates'
the
concentrated level of the shchina dwelling in the
Mishkan to
norms of behavior in our daily life in the "aretz" (into
the
realms of kedushat ha'aretz and kedushat zman, and
kedushat
Makom).
     The special agricultural mitzvot of the chagim are
a
manifestation of how the Kedusha of the Mishkan affects
our
daily life.  By bringing these special korbanot from our
harvest, the toils of our daily labor, to the Beit
HaMikdash
we remind ourselves of God's Hand in nature and in the
routine
of our daily life.

B. Does the mitzvah of Succah relate to historical
aspect
(yetziat mitzraim) or to the agricultural aspect
(temporary
booths built by the farmers in the field collecting the
harvest) - or both?
1. Use the two psukim which describe succot
(23:34,42-43) to
base you answer. [Relate also to Succah 11b, succah
k'neged
ananei kavod or succot mamash.]
2. Note also the use of "chukat olam b'chal
moshvoteichem" -
see 23:14,21,31 in relation to Shabbaton. Note also
23:3!
Now note 23:41, based on the above pattern, what word is
missing?
Now look at pasuk 23:42 - "ba'succot TAY'SHVU..."!
Can you explain now why 'that word' is missing in 23:41?
3. Why is the word "ezrach" used in 23:42? Relate to
Shmot
12:49! [How does "moshvoteichem" relate to the word
"shabbat"?]

C. Chagei Tishrei and agriculture:
     We noted earlier that Parshat Emor also included
chagei
Tishrei, and each is referred to as a shabbaton, as well
as a
mikra kodesh.
     As explained in our shiur on Rosh HaShana, these
three
holidays, Rosh HaShana, Yom Kippur, and Shmini Atzeret,
relate
to forthcoming year.
  A new agricultural year is about to begin, and we must
recognize that its fate is not a function of chance or
the
whims of a pantheon of gods, rather a result of our
acceptance
of God's kingdom and the observance of His mitzvot.
  [Note from Parshat Pinchas, that these three chagim
share a
  common and unique korban musaf! (1-1-7/1)

  Note also that Succot stands at the agricultural
crossroads
of last year's harvest and next year's rainy season.
Thus, we
recite "Hallel" in thanksgiving for the previous year,
but we
all say "Hoshanot" in anticipation of the forthcoming
year.]

D. The sun, we explained, relates to the agricultural
aspects
of chagim, while the moon to its historical aspect.
1. Relate this to the waxing and waning feature of the
moon
and God's hashagacha over our history.
2. Relate this to the concept of "hester panim"
3. Relate this to the fact that succot and pesach fall
out on
the 15th day of the lunar month (full moon), while rosh
hashana -yom din- falls on the first of the month
(b'keseh
lyom chageinu)
4. Relate this to the concept and korbanot of Rosh
Chodesh.
5. Why do you suppose that the sun serves a symbol of
'nature'?

E. Note the emphasis on the number 'seven' throughout
this
parsha. How and why does the number seven relate to the
solar
calendar, and the agricultural holidays. Relate your
answer to
the first perek of Sefer Breishit and shabbat!

F. Why do you think that the mitzvot of aliyah la'regel
are
presented specifically in Sefer Shmot?
     Relate to the general theme in the second half of
the
Shmot, relating to the function of the Mishkan as a
perpetuation of Har Sinai.  In what manner can "aliyah
l'regel", a national gathering at the Mishkan on the
holidays,
serve as a re-enactment of certain aspects of Ma'amad
Har
Sinai?

G. Compare carefully 23:1-4 to Shmot 35:1-4 and notice
the
amazing parallel!. How does this enhance your
understanding of
this parsha, shabbat, and of the Mishkan?]
     See Ramban on 23:1-2!

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.9 - Release
Date: 5/5/2008 12:00 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: emor1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 53496 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080507/69c32b8a/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed May 14 17:12:26 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 17:12:26 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Behar - shiur #1
Message-ID: <00ca01c8b607$369a7e60$9d00000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

      PARSHAT BEHAR -  SIGNIFICANT SUMMARIES

     In Parshat Behar we find three 'summary psukim'
that may
appear to be superfluous. In the following 'mini-shiur'
we
attempt to explain their importance.

AN OVERVIEW OF PARSHAT BEHAR
     Let's begin with short outline of Parshat Behar, in
order
to identify where these three summary psukim are
located, and
their significance.

I. The LAWS SHMITA & YOVEL
     A. The "shmita" cycle  (25:1-7)
     B. The "yovel" cycle & guidelines (25:8-22)
   * SUMMARY PASUK - reason for shmita & yovel
(25:23-24)

II. LAWS RELATING TO THE YOVEL CYCLE
     A. Helping your neighbor who had to sell his field
          1. one who sold his field to a jew (25:25-28)
          2. one who sold his house (25:29-34)
          3. one who sold his field to a non-jew
(25:35-38)
       *SUMMARY PASUK - the reason (25:39)
     B. Helping our neighbor who had to sell himself
          1. as an "eved" [servant] to a jew (25:39-46)
          2. as an "eved" [servant] to a non-jew
(25:47-54)
       *SUMMARY PASUK - the reason (25:55)

     This outline clarifies the progression of topics in
the
entire Parsha, showing how the laws of shmita & yovel
are
followed by several applications of these laws.  Even
though
the economic system created by the laws of "yove" is
designed
to protect the poor (from the rich), the Torah also
commands
that society must provide additional financial
assistance for
a neighbor in distress.
     Pay attention as well to summary psukim that
delimit each
unit.  In our shiur, we will discuss their significance.

THIS LAND IS 'HIS' LAND
     Let's begin with the first summary pausk, which
concludes
the laws of yovel and explains their underlying reason:
  "And the land shall not be sold [to anyone] forever,
for
  the Land is Mine, for you are like GEYRIM v'TOSHAVIM
  [strangers and residents] with Me. Throughout - ERETZ
  ACHUZATCHEM - the land or your inheritance, you shall
give
  the land redemption"  (25:23-24)

     Even though God has 'given' the land to Bnei
Yisrael for
their inheritance, this statement highlights how the
true
ownership remains His.  In other words, God remains
sovereign,
while He allows Bnei Yisrael the right to work the land
as
though it was theirs.  To emphasize this 'arrangement',
once
every fifty years the land must return to God.  [Sort of
like
a 'fifty year lease'.]
     To appreciate the wording of this pasuk, let's
compare it
to a similar statement made by Avraham Avinu when he
approached Bnei Chet to buy a burial plot.  Note the
textual
parallels:
  "And he spoke ot Bnei Chet saying, I am a GEYR
v'TOSHAV
  among you, please allow me to buy an ACHUZAT KEVER
[burial
  plot] from you" (Breishit 23:3-4)

     Even though Avraham was a resident in the land, he
was
not the sovereign power; rather Bnei Chet were.  As the
land
was not yet his, Avraham must purchase from them an
ACHUZAH
(note again parallel with "eretz achuzatchem" in 25:24),
a
'hold' in the land, even though Bnei Chet control it.
  
  Therefore, when Bnei Yisrael receive the Torah at Har
Sinai, as they prepare to conquer "eretz canaan", these
laws
of "yovel" will help them appreciate the dialectic
nature of
their forthcoming sovereignty over the land.  In
relation to
the surrounding nations, once Bnei Yisrael achieve
conquest -
they will become the sovereign power. However, in
relation to
God, they must constantly remember that the land still
belongs
to God.  He has granted to them only towards the purpose
that
they become His nation. The laws of "yovel", which
affect the
very nature of property transactions during the entire
fifty
year shemita and yovel cycle, will serve as a constant
reminder that God has given them this land for a reason
(and
purpose).
  
     This background can also help us understand what
may be
the underlying reason for the laws of "Terumah" - the
small
tithe that must be taken from the produce of land, and
given
to the "kohen".
  Just as the resident of any land must pay a property
tax to
the country's sovereign power, so too Bnei Yisrael must
pay a
'tax' - i.e. TERUMAH - to God, in recognition of His
sovereignty over the land. Ultimately God gives this
TERUMAH
to the kohanim (His servants), but note how the Torah
emphasizes how there are two stages in this process.
First,
the "terumah" is given to God:
  "And when you eat from the bread of the land, you
shall
  lift up a TERUMAH for GOD..."(see Bamidbar 15:17-21)

  Then (and only afterward) God awards this "teruma" to
the
"kohanim":
  "And God told Aharon, behold I am giving you My
TERUMAH
  that I am keeping that Bnei Yisrael have set aside..."
  (see Bamidbar 18:8)
  
  [This also explains why terumah must be eaten
"b'tahara",
  for the kohen is eating food given to him by God.  In
  contrast, "maser rishon" the ten percent tithe given
by the
  Yisrael to the Levite has not "kedusha" - for it
serves as
  a direct payment for the services that shevet Levi
renders
  to the nation.]

RELATED LAWS
     After explaining the reason for yovel, the Torah
continues with several related laws. As we noted in our
outline, these laws divide into two distinct sections,
each
containing examples of when one is forced to sell
either:
  1) His field, or
     2) Himself.

     Each set of examples focuses on the need to lend
assistance for those in financial distress, and is
concluded
with a special summary pasuk.
  Let's see how each pasuk is special.

ERETZ CANAAN IS NOT FOR SALE
     After the laws relating to how we must help someone
who
was forced to sell his own field, the Torah reminds us:
  "I am the Lord your God who took you out of the land
of
  Egypt to give you the LAND OF CANAAN, L'HIYOT LACHEM
  L'ELOKIM - to be your God" (see 25:38)

     To appreciate this pasuk, we must return to our
study of
"brit Milah" (see Breishit 17:7-8), and the key phrase
of that
covenant:  L'HIYOT LACHEM L'ELOKIM (see 17:7 & 17:8).
Furthermore, it was specifically in that covenant that
God
promised ERETZ CANAAN to Avraham Avinu, and in that very
same
pasuk, the Torah refers to the land as an ACHUZA (see
17:8).
     Based on these parallels (compare them once again
to
Vayikra 25:38 & the word "achuza" in 25:25), we can
conclude
that this summary pasuk relates to "brit milah". Let's
explain
why.
  Recall how "brit milah" focused on the special close
relationship between God and His nation, and how Eretz
Canaan
was to become the land where that relationship would
achieve
its highest potential. [The mitzvah of "brit milah"
serves as
an "ot" [a sign] to remind us of this covenant.]
     As Eretz Canaan serves as a vehicle through which
Bnei
Yisrael can better develop this relationship, it is
important
that each person receives his 'fare share' of this land.
Certainly, we would not want the ownership of the land
to fall
into the hands of a wealthy elite. The laws of "yovel"
in
chapter 25 help assure that every individual keeps his
share
of the land.
     It also becomes everyone's responsibility to make
sure
that anyone who becomes less fortunate remains able to
keep
his portion in Eretz Canaan.
  This explains the cases where one was forced to sell
his
land, and its summary pasuk.  Now we must proceed to the
next
section, which discusses cases where one was forced to
sell
himself.

WE ARE SERVANTS OF GOD, NOT MAN
     Bamidbar 25:39-54 describes cases when someone
becomes so
poor that he must sell himself (not just his land) to
his
creditor; and how we are obligated to help him buy back
his
freedom. These psukim conclude with the following pasuk:
  "For Bnei Yisrael are servants to Me, they are My
servants
  whom I have taken them out of the land of Egypt, I am
the
  Lord your God." (25:55)

     Now, it becomes obvious why this summary pasuk
focuses on
servitude, rather than land. Servitude to a fellow man
would
take away from man's ability to be a servant of God.
Therefore, the summary pasuk of this section relates
directly
back to the events of Yetziat Mitzraim.  [From a this
perspective, this summary pasuk can be understood as a
'flashback' to "brit bein ha'btarim", for in that
covenant,
God had already foreseen the events of Yetziat Mitzraim
(see
Breishit 15:13-18).]

     Even though man is free and enjoys the right to own
land
and determine his own destiny; he must remember that his
freedom is a gift from God, and hence it should be
utilized to
serve Him.  But even those who have achieved freedom
share the
responsibility to assist those in financial crisis, in
order
they too can remain 'free' to serve God.

               shabbat shalom
               menachem



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1432 -
Release Date: 5/14/2008 7:49 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bhar2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 23821 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080514/558033ad/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed May 14 17:13:00 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 17:13:00 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] parshat Behar - shiur #2
Message-ID: <00d201c8b607$4c3ab000$9d00000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

               PARSHAT BEHAR

     Shouldn't Parshat Behar be in Sefer Shmot?  After
all,
its opening pasuk informs us that these mitzvot were
given to
Moshe Rabeinu on Har Sinai!  Why then does Chumash
'save' it
for Sefer Vayikra instead?
     To complicate matters, Parshat Behar is only one
example
of many 'parshiot' towards the end of Sefer Vayikra that
appear to belong in Sefer Shmot.  Take for example the
law to
light the menora (recorded at end of Parshat Emor (see
24:1-
3).  As you most probably noticed, that parshia is
almost a
direct quote from Parshat Tetzaveh!  [Compare 24:1-3
with
Shmot 27:20-21.]
     To answer these (and many other) questions, this
week's
shiur investigates the intriguing possibility of a
chiastic
structure that may explain what otherwise seems to be a
random
progression of parshiot in Sefer Vayikra.

INTRODUCTION
     Recall our explanation that Sefer Vayikra contains
primarily mitzvot, and neatly divides into two distinct
sections:
     1) Chapters 1->17: laws relating to the mishkan
itself,
     2) Chapters 18->27: laws relating to living a life
of
'kedusha' even outside the mishkan.

     Even though this definition neatly explained the
progression of mitzvot in Parshiot Acharei Mot and
Kedoshim,
many of the laws in Parshat Emor seem to contradict this
definition.
     As the following summary shows, most of the mitzvot
in
Parshat Emor relate to the mishkan itself, and hence
(according to our above definition) should have been
recorded
in the first half of Vayikra.
     Using a Tanach Koren [or similar], scan from the
beginning of Parshat Emor to verify the following
summary:
  *  Chapter 21 - Laws pertaining to kohanim;
  *  Chapter 22 - Animals not fit for korbanot;
  *  Chapter 23 - Special korbanot offered on the
mo'adim.
  *  Chapter 24 - Oil for lighting the menora; and
          baking the 'lechem ha-panim' for the shulchan.

     Based on our above definition of the two halves of
Sefer
Vayikra, just about all of these topics would fit better
in
the 'first half'.

STORY TIME?
     To complicate matters, at the very end of Parshat
Emor we
find a different type of difficulty.  Review 24:10-23,
noting
how we find a narrative - i.e. the story of an
individual who
cursed God's name in public and was subsequently
punished.
Not only is this story totally unrelated to either half
of
Sefer Vayikra, it is the only narrative in the entire
Sefer!
[Aside from the story of the dedication of the mishkan
found
in chapters 8->10 (that relates to the mishkan itself).]
     As you review these psukim (and their context),
note how
this story seems to 'come out of nowhere'!  Nor is there
any
apparent reason why Sefer Vayikra records this story
specifically at this point.  [See Rashi's question on
24:10
'Me-heichan yatza?' - Where did the 'mekallel' come
from!]

MORE PROBLEMS!
     Parshat Behar (chapter 25) is no less problematic!
Even
though its laws of 'shmitta' and 'yovel' fit nicely into
our
definition of the second half of Sefer Vayikra (see Ibn
Ezra
25:1), the opening and closing psukim of this unit
present us
with two different problems.
     The first pasuk of Parshat Behar (25:1) informs us
that
these mitzvot were given on Har Sinai, and hence
suggests that
this entire Parsha may really belong in Sefer Shmot!
     More disturbing (and often not noticed) is the very
conclusion of Parshat Behar.  There we find three
'powerful'
psukim that seem to come out of nowhere!  Let's take a
look:
  
 *  "For Bnei Yisrael are servants to Me, they My
servants
     whom I freed from the land of Egypt, I am the Lord
your
     God." (25:55).

 *  "Do not make for yourselves any other gods.."
(26:1).
  
 *  "Keep My Sabbath and guard My Temple, I am your God"
(26:2).

     Indeed, the first pasuk (25:55) forms a nice
summary
pasuk for the laws of that unit (i.e. 25:47-54);,
however the
last two laws are totally unrelated!  Furthermore, all
three
of these psukim seem to 'echo' the first four of the Ten
Commandments.
     Why do they conclude Parshat Behar, and why are the
first
four 'dibrot' repeated specifically here in Sefer
Vayikra?
  [Note the discrepancy between the chapter division
(i.e.
  where chapter 26 begins) and the division of parshiot
(note
  that Parshat Bechukotai begins with 26:3) - which
reflects
  this problem.]

     The above questions appear to shake the very
foundation
of our understanding of the two halves of Sefer Vayikra.
Should we conclude that Sefer Vayikra is simply a
'random'
collection of mitzvot?
  [The solution that we are about to suggest is based on
a
  rather amazing shiur that I heard many years ago from
Rav
  Yoel Bin Nun, where he uncovers a chiastic structure
that
  ties together Sefer Shmot and Vayikra.]

     To answer the above questions, we must first
're-examine'
each of the parshiot (mentioned above) to determine
where each
of these 'out of place' parshiot really does belong.
  As we do so, a very interesting pattern will emerge -
that
form the basis of a chiastic structure.  [If you've
never
heard of chiastic structure before don't worry, it will
be
explained as the shiur progresses.]

WHERE DO THEY BELONG?
     Let's begin with the first topics in chapter 24,
for it
is quite easy to identify where these two mitzvot do
'belong'.

THE NER TAMID (24:1-4)
     As we noted above, these four psukim (describing
the
mitzva to light the menora with olive oil) are almost an
exact
repetition of the first two psukim of Parshat Tetzaveh!
[See
and compare with Shmot 27:20-21.]  Hence, this parshia
'belongs' in Parshat Tetzaveh.

THE LECHEM HA-PANIM (24:5-9)
     This parshia describes how Bnei Yisrael were to
prepare
the lechem ha-panim [show bread] - that were to be
placed on a
weekly basis on the shulchan  [the Table located inside
the
mishkan].
  Even though this is the first time that we find the
details
of this mitzva in Chumash, the general mitzva to put
lechem ha-
panim on the shulchan was already mentioned in Parshat
Teruma
(see Shmot 25:30).  Hence, we conclude that this
'parshia'
could have been recorded in Parshat Teruma, together
with all
the other mitzvot concerning how to build the shulchan.

THE MEKALLEL - The 'blasphemer' (24:10-23)
     Even though this parshia begins with a story (see
24:10-
12), this short narrative leads directly into a small
set of
civil laws ('bein adam le-chaveiro') relating to capital
punishment (see 24:13-22).  Furthermore, as your review
24:17-
22, note how they are almost identical with Shmot
21:12,23-25
(i.e. Parshat Mishpatim).
     For example, note how Shmot 21:24 is identical to
Vayikra
24:20.  -"ayin tachat ayin, shein tachat shein ..." ["an
eye
for an eye, a tooth for a tooth..."]
  Hence, we conclude that the mekallel parshia 'belongs'
in
Parshat Mishpatim.

THE LAWS of SHMITTA & YOVEL (25:1-25:54)
     As we explained above, the opening pasuk of this
parshia
states that these mitzvot concerning shmitta & yovel
were
given to Moshe Rabbeinu at Har Sinai.  However, in Sefer
Shmot, we find many other laws that were given to Moshe
Rabbeinu on Har Sinai, and they were all recorded in
Parshat
Mishpatim.  In fact, in that very same Parsha, the basic
laws
of shmitta" were already mentioned:
  "Six years you shall sow your Land and gather your
produce
  and the seventh year..." (see Shmot 23:10-11).

      Therefore, we conclude that this entire unit of
the laws
of shmitta & yovel belongs in Parshat Mishpatim,
together with
all of the other mitzvot that were given to Moshe on Har
Sinai.

The 'MINI-DIBROT' (25:55-26:2)
     As we explained above, these three psukim at the
very end
of Parshat Behar 'echo' the first four Commandments.  If
so,
then we can conclude that these psukim 'belong' in
Parshat
Yitro (see Shmot 20:1-9).

A BACKWARD 'BACK TO SHMOT'
     In case you have yet to notice, not only do all of
these
parshiot (from chapters 21 thru 25) thematically belong
in
Sefer Shmot, they progress in backward order, from
Tetzaveh,
to Teruma, to Mishpatim, to Yitro!
  Even though this order may seem to be simply
coincidental,
the next chapter in Vayikra (i.e. the TOCHACHA in
chapter 26)
provides us with enough 'circumstantial evidence' to
suggest
that this pattern may be intentional!
     Let's take a look:

THE TOCHACHA (26:3-46)
     The 'tochacha' explains the reward (or punishment)
that
Bnei Yisrael receive should they obey (or disobey) God's
laws.
This tochacha constitutes an integral part of the
covenant
(brit) between God and Bnei Yisrael that was agreed upon
at
Har Sinai (see Devarim 28:69!).
  [Note that the final pasuk (26:46) is not only
parallel to
  Devarim 28:69, but also includes the phrase 'beino
u-bein
  Bnei Yisrael', which also implies a covenant (based on
  Shmot 31:15-17)!]

     Even though this covenant is detailed in Parshat
Bechukotai, recall how its basic principles were first
recorded in Parshat Yitro in the Torah's account of the
events
that took place at ma'amad Har Sinai:
  "And now, if you shall listen to Me and keep My
covenant
  faithfully, then..." (Shmot 19:5-6, see also Shmot
24:4-7)
          [Compare carefully with Vayikra 26:3,12,23!]

     Therefore, even though this parshia is thematically
consistent with the theme of the second half of Sefer
Vayikra
(compare chapter 26 with 18:25-29), nonetheless, it was
given
to Bnei Yisrael on Har Sinai.  Hence, it could easily
have
been included in Parshat Yitro, most probably in chapter
19
(prior to the Ten Commandments).
  [Note also that the 'dibbur' that began in 25:1
includes
  chapter 26 and is summarized by the final pasuk of the
  tochacha (26:46).  See also Chizkuni on Shmot 24:7 &
Ibn
  Ezra on Vayikra 25:1. where they explain that this
tochacha
  was actually read at Har Sinai at Ma'amad Har Sinai!]

WORKING 'BACKWARDS'
     Let's summarize all of these 'parshiot' that we
have
discussed (from the end of Sefer Vayikra) that seem to
'belong' in Sefer Shmot.  [Working backwards,] we assign
a
letter to each 'parshia' for future reference.

(A) - THE TOCHACHA (26:3-46)
(B) The 'MINI-DIBROT' (25:55-26:2)
(C) The laws of SHMITTA & YOVEL (25:1-25:54)
(D) Parshat "ha-MEKALLEL" (24:10-23) - The 'Blasphemer'.
(E) THE MENORA AND SHULCHAN (24:1-9)

     And there's more!  Let's continue working backwards
from
chapter 24 to chapter 23, showing how this pattern
continues!
We'll continue using the letters of the alphabet for
'headers'
as well:

(F) PARSHAT HA-MO'ADIM (23:1-44) - The holidays in Emor
     As we explained in last week's shiur, the Torah
presents
the mo'adim together with the laws of Shabbat.  Even
though
these laws relate thematically to the theme of kedusha
in the
second half of Vayikra, they also relate to the laws of
Shabbat that conclude the parshiot concerning the
mishkan.
[See Shmot 31:12-17 & 35:2-3.]
     Note the obvious textual similarities:
 *   "sheshet yamim ta'aseh melacha, u-vayom
ha-shvi'i..."
[Vayikra 23:3- Compare with Shmot 35:2!].
 *   "ach et shabtotai tishmoru...
     ki ani Hashem mekadishchem"
               [See Shmot 31:13/ compare with 23:3,39.]

     Therefore, 'parshat ha-mo'adim' (chapter 23) in
Sefer
Vayikra could have been recorded in Parshat Ki-Tisa as
well,
together with the laws of Shabbat.

(G) ANIMALS THAT CANNOT BE KORBANOT (22:17-33)
     In this parshia we find the prohibition of offering
an
animal with a blemish, or an animal less than eight days
old.
     Surely, this mitzva could have been recorded just
as well
in Parshat Vayikra (i.e. in the first half of the
Sefer), for
it discusses the various types of animals which one can
offer
for a korban (see 1:2).

(H) KEDUSHAT KOHANIM (21:1-22:16)
     Parshat Emor opens with laws that explain when a
kohen
CAN and CANNOT become "tamey" (ritually impure by coming
into
contact with a dead person).
  Even though these laws thematically relate to the
second
half of Vayikra (for they govern the daily life of the
kohanim
OUTSIDE the mishkan), nonetheless the mitzvot that
follow
(21:16-22:16) should have been recorded in Parshat TZAV,
for
they concern who can and cannot eat the meat of the
korbanot.

     In summary, even though each of the above parshiot
may be
thematically related in one form or other to the theme
of the
second half of Vayikra, nonetheless each parshia could
also
have been recorded either in the second half of Sefer
Shmot
(or early in Sefer Vayikra) as well!
     Using the letters noted above, the following table
summarizes these special parshiot, noting where each
'misplaced parsha' really belongs:.

  PARSHA OUT OF PLACE         WHERE IT BELONGS...
 ====================         =================
(A) THE TOCHACHA          YITRO (pre dibrot)
(B) THE MINI-DIBROT       YITRO (the dibrot')
(C) SHMITTA AND YOVEL     YITRO/MISHPATIM (post dibrot)
(D) MEKALLEL & mishpatim  MISHPATIM
(E) MENORA AND SHULCHAN   TRUMA /TETZAVEH
(F) MO'ADIM IN EMOR       KI TISA/ VAYAKHEL (shabbat)
(G) ANIMALS FIT TO OFFER  VAYIKRA
(H) KEDUSHAT KOHANIM      TZAV

     Study this table carefully, noting the correlation
between where these parshiot 'belong' and the order of
the
Parshiot in Sefer Shmot [and the beginning of Vayikra].


THE CHIASTIC STRUCTURE OF SHMOT & VAYIKRA
     This literary style is known as a chiastic
structure (A-B-
C-B-A), a literary tool which emphasizes unity of theme
and
accentuates a central point (C).
     To uncover the significance of a chiastic
structure, it
is usually critical to identify its central point.  To
do so
in our case, we must first summarize the basic units of
mitzvot (in Sefer Shmot) which Bnei Yisrael receive from
the
time of their arrival at Har Sinai:

(A)  BRIT - prior to Matan Torah (perek 19 & parallel in
perek
24)
(B)  DIBROT - the Ten Commandments (20:1-14)
(C)  MITZVOT - immediately after the dibrot (20:19-23)
(D)  MISHPATIM - the civil laws in Parshat Mishpatim
(21->23)
(E)  TZIVUI HA-MISHKAN -  Parshiot Truma/Tetzaveh
(25->31)
(F)  SHABBAT  (31:12-18 followed by 35:1-3)
      [In the further iyun section, we discuss why we
skip 
       chet ha-egel (32->34) in this structure.]
(G)  LAWS OF THE KORBAN YACHID (Vayikra 1->5)
(H)  LAWS FOR THE KOHANIM - serving in the mishkan
(6->7)
(I)  THE SHCHINA ON THE MISHKAN:
     The dedication ceremony of the mishkan (8->10);
      laws governing proper entry (11->15);
      the yearly 're-dedication' ceremony on Yom Kippur
(16->17)
       AND ITS AFFECT ON THE NATION
      Kedushat ha-AM ve-haARETZ
          climaxing with "KDOSHIM TIHIYU"

     Using the chart below [I hope your word processor
is able
to format it, if not try to format it by yourself], note
how
each of these units corresponds in REVERSE ORDER with
the
problematic concluding parshiot of Sefer Vayikra (that
were
discussed above)!
   The following chart illustrates this structure:

A) Brit - before Matan Torah
     B) Dibrot
|         C) Mitzvot - after Matan Torah
|    |         D) Mishpatim - civil laws
|    |    |         E) Tzivui Hamishkan
|    |    |    |         F) Shabbat
|    |    |    |    |         G) Korbanot of the
individual
|    |    |    |    |    |         H) Kohanim - how to
offer
|    |    |    |    |    |    |           / * Shchina on
mishkan
|    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    I)      Its
dedication etc.
|    |    |    |    |    |    |    |      \ * Shchina in
the Camp
|    |    |    |    |    |    |            proper
behavior, etc.
|    |    |    |    |    |    |    H) Kohanim - who
can't offer
|    |    |    |    |         G) Korbanot - what can't
be a korban
|    |    |    |         F) Mo'adim
|    |    |         E) Menora & Shulchan
|    |         D) Mishpatim in aftermath of the Mekallel
incident
|         C) Mitzvot at Har Sinai, shmitta & yovel
(Behar)
     B) Dibrot (first 4)
A) Brit - Tochachat Bechukotai

     Note how the above chart identifies a chiastic
structure
(symbolized by ABCDEFGH-I-HGFEDCBA) that connects
together all
of the mitzvot given to Bnei Yisrael in Midbar Sinai
from the
time of their arrival at Har Sinai.
     It should come at no surprise that at the thematic
center
of this structure - (letter 'I') - lies the dual theme
of
Sefer Vayikra - i.e., its two sections:
     (1) the SHCHINA dwelling on the mishkan, and
     (2) its subsequent effect on the nation.

     As we explained in our previous shiurim, this model
reflects the impact of the intense level of the kedusha
in the
mishkan on the spiritual character of the entire Nation
in all
realms of daily life.
     Furthermore, this 'central point' ties back to the
basic
theme of ma'amad Har Sinai in Sefer Shmot, which just so
happens to be the opening 'bookend' of the chiastic
structure
(A).  Recall how Bnei Yisrael first entered into a
covenant
before they received the Torah at Har Sinai.  Note once
again
the wording of God's original proposal:
  "And if you listen to Me and keep my covenant... then
you
  shall be for Me, a - mamlechet kohanim ve-goy kadosh -
a
  kingdom of priests and a holy nation"  (see Shmot
19:5-6) .

     The achievement is this goal - to become God's
special
nation -as detailed in 'bookends' of this structure
(letters
A), is manifest with the dwelling of God's Shchina in
the
mishkan (I) -at the center of this structure;  and is
achieved
by the fulfillment of God's mitzvot of kedusha - as
detailed
throughout this entire unit of Sefer Shmot& Vayikra.
     In essence, the covenant of Har Sinai, the climax
of
Sefer Shmot, is fulfilled when Bnei Yisrael follow the
mitzvot
of Sefer Vayikra!  By keeping the mitzvot of both halves
of
Sefer Vayikra, we become a mamlechet kohanim ve-goy
kadosh
(Shmot 19:6) - the ultimate goal and purpose of brit Har
Sinai.

BRIT SINAI & KEDOSHIM TIHIYU
     The thematic significance of this chiastic
structure is
strengthened by its closing 'book-end'.  Just as brit
Sinai -
the covenant at Har Sinai - is the opening parsha, the
details
of that covenant - the tochacha of Bechukotai -
constitutes
its closing parsha.
  In that covenant, we find yet another aspect of this
'two-
sided' deal.  The tochacha explains how the Promised
Land will
serve as God's agent to reward Bnei Yisrael, should they
be
faithful to His covenant, while the Land will punish
(and
ultimately kick them out) should they go astray.

     Finally, note (from this chiastic structure) how
the
mitzvot of Sefer Vayikra [GHI]- that were given from the
ohel
mo'ed (see 1:1) are surrounded by mitzvot that were
given "be-
Har Sinai" [ABCDEF].  Considering that the entire
purpose of
the mishkan was to serve as a vehicle to perpetuate the
fundamentals of Ma'amad Har Sinai, this unique structure
beautifully reflects the eternal goal of the Jewish
nation.

                               shabbat shalom
                              menachem

FOR FURTHER IYUN
================

A.  As you may have noticed, during the entire shiur we
have
purposely 'neglected' the location of parshat 'erchin'
(perek
27) at the end of Sefer Vayikra.  This topic will be
dealt
with iy"H in next week's shiur.  [See also Ibn Ezra
27:1.]

B.  Most all of the commentators deal with the question:
Why
does Parshat Behar open by mentioning that this parsha
was
given on Har Sinai?  See the commentary of Rashi and
Ramban.
[25:1 / "ma inyan shmitta etzel Har Sinai?"]
     1. Explain the machloket between Rashi and Ramban.
2. How is their approach to this question different than
the
approach taken in the above shiur.
     How is their approach to this question different
than the
approach taken in the above shiur?  More specifically:
Which
fundamental question are they asking?  How is it
different
from the fundamental question raised in the above shiur?
Do
these different approaches contradict each other, or do
they
complement one another?

C.  A careful examination of the chiastic structure
developed
in the above shiur shows that the parshiot that we have
conveniently 'left out' of our chart in both Seforim
coincide
with the narratives (i.e. chet ha-egel, Vayakhel,
Pekudei,
Shmini, the mekallel etc.).  Thus, we can conclude that
the
structure focuses on the mitzvot and the covenant, but
not on
the ongoing story of Chumash.  This makes sense, since
it is
logical to create a chiastic structure within a set of
mitzvot, not in an ongoing narrative.
     This provides an explanation why we skipped over
chet ha-
egel and its related mitzvot in our chart.  [Recall that
they
were 'repeats' from Mishpatim because of chet ha-egel.]


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1432 -
Release Date: 5/14/2008 7:49 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bhar1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 42294 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080514/301ce830/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed May 21 16:36:31 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 16:36:31 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Bechukotei - shiur
Message-ID: <012801c8bb82$5e844b10$9d00000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

              PARSHAT  BECHUKOTAI

        THE CONCLUSION OF SEFER VAYIKRA

    Considering that Sefer Vayikra is primarily a book
of
laws, it would certainly be appropriate to conclude
those laws
by explaining their reward - and that is exactly what we
find
in Parshat Bechukotai!  Review Vayikra chapter 26 -
better
known as the 'tochacha' - noting how it describes the
reward
(/or punishment) for keeping (/or defying) God's laws.
     Hence, chapter 26 forms a fitting conclusion for
the
entire book.  So why does Sefer Vayikra add one
additional
chapter (see chapter 27 /the laws of 'erchin')
immediately
afterward?
     In this week's shiur we attempt to explain why.

INTRODUCTION
     Let's begin by clarifying our opening question.
Recall
how Parshat Bechukotai (the last Parshat ha'shavua in
Sefer
Vayikra) contains two distinct sections:
     (1) the tochacha (chapter 26) -
    Bnei Yisrael's reward [and/or punishment] should
they obey
    [/or disobey] God's commandments;

     (2) The laws of 'erchin' (chapter 27) -
    A set of specific laws pertaining to the monetary
    evaluation of people or property dedicated to God.

     Considering that Sefer Vayikra is a book that
contains a
collection of mitzvot, a 'tochacha' would form an
appropriate
conclusion - for it outlines how God rewards (or
punishes) Am
Yisrael as a function of how they keep those mitzvot.
     The first section of our shiur will explain how
(and why)
the tochacha should indeed be considered the conclusion
of
Sefer Vayikra.  Afterward, we'll attempt to explain why
the
Torah may have 'added on' chapter 27 to form a
significant
'epilogue'.

PART ONE - A PERFECT FINALE
     Recall our explanation of how Sefer Vayikra divides
into
two distinct sections:

     A) Kedushat mishkan - chapters 1 -> 17.
    focusing on laws pertaining to the mishkan, such as
    korbanot, tum'a & tahara, etc.

     B) Kedushat ha-am ve-haaretz - chapters 18 -> 25.
    focusing on a wide range of laws of 'kedusha'
outside the
    mishkan, to make Am Yisrael an 'am kadosh'.

     As you review both the 'positive' and 'negative'
sides of
the tochacha, note how the reward and punishment relates
to
both these sections, i.e. the mishkan and the Land:
 *   On the positive side, should Bnei Yisrael obey the
mitzvot, then:
     B) "and I will put My mishkan in your midst..."
(26:11)
     A) "and the land shall give its produce..." (26:4).

 *   On the negative side, should Bnei Yisrael disobey
these
laws, then:
     A) "I will make your mikdash desolate..." (26:31)
     B) "the land will not give its produce..."
(26:20,34-35).

     This only strengthens our claim that the tochacha
should
have been the last chapter of Sefer Vayikra!  However,
the
best 'proof' is found in its 'final' pasuk.

THE FINAL PASUK -
     Let's take a look at the final pasuk of the
tochacha, to
show how it relates to both halves of Sefer Vayikra:
  "These are the chukim & mishpatim, and the torot which
God
  had given between Him and Bnei Yisrael on Har Sinai to
  Moshe" (26:46).

     Clearly, this pasuk forms a summary of more than
just the
tochacha itself.  Let's explain why.
     Note how this final pasuk mentions two categories
of
mitzvot that we are already familiar with:
     1) chukim & mishpatim, and
     2) torot.

     This implies that whatever unit this pasuk does
summarize
- it includes both 'chukim & mishpatim' and 'torot'
(that were
given to Moshe on Har Sinai).  Hence, this pasuk must
summarize more than the tochacha, for the tochacha
itself does
not contain "chukim & mishpatim", nor "torot".
     Aware of this problem, many commentators attempt to
identify the wider unit that is summarized in this
pasuk.
 For example:

*    Rashbam suggests that it summarizes both Parshiot
Behar &
Bechukotai, i.e. chapters 25 & 26.  This is quite
logical, for
the laws of shmitta and yovel could be considered the
"chukim
& mishpatim".  This also makes sense since both these
chapters
are included in the same 'dibbur' which began in 25:1.
     However, Rashbam does not explain which laws in
this unit
fit under the category of torot.
     Furthermore, recall our explanation in Parshat Tzav
that
a 'torah' implies a procedural type of law, e.g. 'torat
ha-
chatat' - how the kohen executes the chatat offering,
etc.
Within chapters 25 & 26, it is difficult to pinpoint any
such
'procedural' law.

 *   Ibn Ezra claims that this pasuk summarizes not only
Parshat Behar (i.e. Vayikra chapters 25 & 26), but also
Parshat Mishpatim, i.e. Sefer Shmot chapters 21 - 23!
     Ibn Ezra's interpretation is based on his
understanding
that the tochacha in Parshat Bechukotai is none other
than the
'sefer ha-brit' mentioned in Shmot 24:7 [i.e. in the
Torah's
description of the ceremony at Ma'amad Har Sinai when
Bnei
Yisrael proclaimed 'na'aseh ve-nishma'].  (See Ibn Ezra
on
Vayikra 25:1 and Shmot 24:7.)
     However, it seems rather strange to find a summary
pasuk
for Parshat Mishpatim at the end of Sefer Vayikra!

 *   Ramban agrees with Ibn Ezra that this pasuk forms a
summary of the mitzvot in Parshat Mishpatim as well.
However,
he reaches this conclusion from a different angle.
Ramban
claims that this parshia of the tochacha was actually
given to
Moshe Rabbeinu during his second set of forty days on
Har
Sinai, and serves as a 'replacement' covenant - to
replace the
conditions of the original na'aseh ve-nishma covenant
(as
described in Shmot 24:7).  As such, this summary pasuk
summarizes the mitzvot in Parshat Mishpatim as well.
[See
Ramban on 25:1, towards the end of his lengthy peirush
to that
pasuk.  This complicated (but important) Ramban is based
on
his approach to the chronological order of Chumash, but
it is
beyond the scope of this shiur.]
     In any case, our above question regarding Ibn
Ezra's
approach would apply to Ramban's as well.

 *   Rashi offers the 'widest' understanding of this
summary
pasuk.  He claims that this finale pasuk summarizes not
only
the entire 'written law' of the entire Chumash, but also
the
entire 'oral law' as well!
     It is interesting to note that from among all of
the
commentators, only Rashi deals with the problem of
determining
the precise meaning of "torot".  Rashi solves the
problem by
quoting the Midrash that it refers to 'Torah she-bikhtav
u-
ba'al peh'.  However, this interpretation is quite
difficult
for (according to simple pshat) the word 'eileh' [these]
at
the beginning of 26:46 summarizes what has been written
thus
far, and not what has not been written yet.

*    Seforno follows a direction similar to Rashi, but
appears
to be a bit more 'realistic'.  He claims that this pasuk
summarizes all of the mitzvot that were mentioned in
Chumash
thus far, i.e. before Parshat Bechukotai.  However,
Seforno is
not very precise concerning exactly which mitzvot are
summarized by this pasuk.
     In our shiur, we will follow Seforno's 'lead' and
show
how this final pasuk may actually form a summary pasuk
for all
of the mitzvot found in Sefer Vayikra!  Our approach
will be
based on identifying more specifically what the phrases
chukim
& mishpatim and torot (in 26:46) may be referring to.

A FITTING FINALE
     Recall once again how Sefer Vayikra divides into
two
sections (see above), and how the second half of the
Sefer
begins in chapter 18 with a set of five psukim that form
an
introduction.  [See 18:1-5 and our shiur on Parshat
Acharei
Mot.]
     As you review those psukim, note how these psukim
actually introduce an entire set of chukim u-mishpatim.
For
example:
  "Observe My mishpatim and keep My chukim to follow
them, I
  am the Lord your God.  Keep My chukim & mishpatim..."
(18:4-
  5. See also 18:26-30!).

     Therefore, the phrase chukim ve-mishpatim in our
'finale
pasuk' (26:46) could be understood as the summary of the
second half of Sefer Vayikra (chapters 18->25), as it
refers
to the numerous chukim u-mishpatim that are recorded in
that
section.
     Furthermore, note how often we have found this
phrase in
the second half of Vayikra: see 19:19 & 37, 20:8 & 22,
and
25:18!

     In a similar manner, the word torot could be
considered a
summary of the laws found in the first half of the
Sefer.
Recall how the word torah was used numerous times to
describe
the various procedures regarding korbanot.  The most
obvious
example would be Parshat Tzav where the phrase 'zot
torat...'
introduced each category of korbanot (see 6:2, 6:7,
6:18, 7:1,
7:11) and also formed its summary (see 7:37!).
     However, this phrase was also found numerous times
in
Parshat Tazria/Metzora as well (see 12:7; 13:59;
14:2,32,45;
and 15:32).
     Furthermore, even though this phrase is not
mentioned by
the other mitzvot in this section, most of its laws are
of a
procedural nature and could easily fall under this
category of
torot.  Certainly, the seven day 'milu'im' & 'yom
ha-shmini'
ceremonies (chapters 8 & 9) are procedures and hence
could be
understood as torot, as is the yearly 'avoda' of the
kohen
gadol on Yom Kippur (see chapter 16).
     Hence, the word torot in 26:46 can be understood as
a
summary of the procedural laws found in the first half
of
Sefer Vayikra.
     Thus, the final pasuk of the tochacha (26:46)
becomes an
almost 'perfect ending' for the entire sefer:
  "These are the chukim & mishpatim [summarizes the
second
  half - chapters 18 thru 25] and the torot [summarizes
the
  first half - chapters 6 thru 17] which God had given
between
  Him and Bnei Yisrael on Har Sinai to Moshe" (26:46).

     The phrase chukim & mishpatim summarizes Part Two
of
Sefer Vayikra, while the word torot summarizes Part One!

THE TOCHACHA & SEFER SHMOT
     Even though we have shown how this finale pasuk
(26:46)
forms a beautiful conclusion for Sefer Vayikra, it
contains an
additional phrase that explains why it could be
considered a
conclusion for the laws in Sefer Shmot as well.  [If so,
this
would help us appreciate Ibn Ezra & Ramban's peirush as
well,
and the chiastic structure discussed in our shiur on
Parshat
Behar.]

     Let's take a closer look at this finale pasuk,
noting the
second half of the pasuk:
  "These are the chukim u-mishpatim, and the torot which
God
  had given - beino u-vein Bnei Yisrael - between
Himself and
  Bnei Yisrael, on Har Sinai through Moshe" (26:46).
  
     This special phrase: 'beino u-vein Bnei Yisrael'
may
highlight the covenantal nature of the mitzvot of Sefer
Vayikra.  To explain why, we need only quote a pasuk
that we
are all familiar with from 'shabbos davening' [our
sabbath
prayers].  Note how the Torah uses an almost identical
phrase
as it describes how Shabbat should be considered a
'brit'.:
  "Ve-shameru Bnei Yisrael et ha-shabbat... - to keep it
as a
  day of rest for all generations - brit olam - an
everlasting
  covenant - beini u-vein Bnei Yisrael - an eternal
sign..."
  (see Shmot 31:16-17).

     In fact, this very concept of brit is emphasized
several
times by the tochacha itself:
     "... ve-hakimoti et briti itchem" (26:9)
     "... lehafrechem et briti" (26:15)
     "ve-zacharti et briti Yaakov ve-af et briti
Yitzchak..."
(26:42)
     "ve-zacharti lahem brit rishonim asher hotzeiti..."
(26:45).

     If this interpretation is correct, then we have
found an
additional thematic connection between the laws of
kedusha in
Sefer Vayikra and the purpose of Matan Torah as
described at
brit Har Sinai.  As we have explained, the mitzvot of
Sefer
Vayikra function as a vehicle thru which the goal of
brit
Sinai - "ve-atem tiheyu li mamlechet kohanim ve-goy
kadosh" -
can be achieved.  (See Shmot 19:4-6.)
  [Once again, note how this thematic connection can
also
  explain the chiastic structure that connected the laws
in
  Sefer Shmot & Sefer Vayikra, as explained in our shiur
on
  Parshat Behar.]

     Hence, the phrase 'beino u-vein Bnei Yisrael' in
this
summary pasuk may emphasize how the mitzvot of Sefer
Vayikra
strengthen the covenant between God and Bnei Yisrael, as
forged at Har Sinai, where Am Yisrael took upon
themselves to
become God's special nation.

THE TOCHACHA & SEFER BREISHIT
     Thus far, we have shown how the tochacha forms a
fitting
conclusion for Sefer Vayikra, and thematically relates
back to
covenant at Har Sinai as described in Sefer Shmot.  One
could
suggest that it may contain a certain element that
thematically returns us to Sefer Breishit as well.
     Recall our explanation of how Gan Eden represented
an
ideal environment in which man was capable of developing
a
close relationship with God.  In that environment, man's
reward for obeying God was a prosperous life in Gan
Eden;
while his punishment for disobeying God's commandment
was
death - i.e. his banishment from Gan Eden.

     The two sides of the tochacha describe a similar
environment for Am Yisrael living in Eretz Yisrael.
Should
they keep God's laws, Am Yisrael can enjoy a prosperous
and
secure existence in their land.
     For example, 'im be-chukotai teilechu...', i.e.
should
you follow God's laws,  then 've-achaltem le-sova be-
artzechem'  -you will enjoy prosperity in your land (see
25:3-
6).   - This would be in contrast to man's punishment
when he
was expelled from Gan Eden with the curse of 'be-ze'at
apcha
tochal lechem' (see Breishit 3:17-19).
     Recall as well how God was 'mithalech' in Gan Eden
(see
Br.3:8).  Similarly, He will now 'mithalech' in Eretz
Yisrael
together with His Nation: 'v'e-ithalachti betochachem,
ve-
hayiti lachem l-Elokim, ve-atem tihiyu li le-am' (see
Vayikra
25:12).
     On the other hand, should Bnei Yisrael not follow
God's
laws ('ve-im lo tishme'u..'), they will be faced with a
troubled existence, culminating with their expulsion
from the
land (26:33), parallel to man's banishment from Gan
Eden.
(This parallel between Gan Eden and Eretz Yisrael was
already
introduced at the beginning of the second half of Sefer
Vayikra- see 18:24-30).
  [In this manner, the Midrashim that identify Gan Eden
as
  Eretz Yisrael relate to more than its geographical
location;
  rather they underscore a major biblical theme.]

PARSHAT 'ERCHIN' - WHY HERE?
     We return now to our original question.  If the
final
pasuk of the tochacha forms such an appropriate ending
for
Sefer Vayikra, why does the Torah place 'parshat erchin'
immediately afterward (instead of beforehand in Sefer
Vayikra)?  After all, the laws of erchin, especially
those
relating to yovel (see 27:16-25), would have fit nicely
within
Parshat Behar, together with the other laws relating to
yovel.
[See Ramban on 27:1]
     Furthermore, the laws relating to the dedication of
objects to the Temple treasury could have been included
much
earlier in Sefer Vayikra, possibly in Parshat Vayikra
together
with other laws concerning voluntary offerings.
     The simplest explanation is that the Torah did not
want
to conclude the Sefer on a 'sour note', i.e. with the
tochacha, preferring instead to conclude with something
more
positive.
  [Sort of like a adding on a 'happy ending' by
selecting a
  'parshia' that could have been recorded earlier, and
saving
  it for the conclusion.]

     The Ibn Ezra offers an explanation based on 'sod',
relating to the deeper meaning of 'bechor' and 'ma'aser'
(see
last Ibn Ezra in Vayikra).
     Seforno differentiates between these mitzvot (in
chapter
27) that are voluntary, and the mandatory mitzvot
summarized
in 26:46.  Because those mitzvot constituted the essence
of
the brit, they were summarized separately.  Once those
mitzvot
were completed in chapter 26, chapter 27 records the
mitzvot
of Har Sinai that were not part of that covenant.  (See
Seforno 26:46.)
     One could suggest an alternative approach, by
considering
once again the overall structure of Sefer Vayikra.

     Recall from our study of Parshat Vayikra that the
first
five chapters (i.e. the laws of 'korban yachid') were
given to
Moshe Rabbeinu from the ohel mo'ed (see 1:1), while the
next
two chapters (the torot of the korbanot in chapter 6-7)
we
given from Har Sinai (see 7:37-38).  Furthermore, since
the
laws of Parshat Vayikra were given from the ohel mo'ed,
they
must have been given only after the shechina had
returned to
the mishkan on the yom ha-shmini, and hence after the
story of
the seven day 'milu'im" & "yom ha-shmini' - as recorded
in
Vayikra chapters 8-10.
     Therefore, it appears as though the laws in Parshat
Vayikra were placed intentionally at the beginning of
Sefer
Vayikra, even though they chronologically belong in the
middle
of the Sefer.
     Thus, we conclude that even though both the opening
and
concluding units of Sefer Vayikra belong within the
sefer, the
Torah records them as a 'header' and 'footer' instead.
     The following chart reviews this structure:
CHAPTERS            TOPIC
=========                =====
         * HEADER
 1->5          the laws of korban yachid (mitzvot)

           I. TOROT of: [first section]
 6->7               - how to bring korbanot
 8->10              - how the milu'im were offered
11->15              - yoledet, metzora, zav, zava
16->17              - how to enter kodesh kodashim

           II. CHUKIM U-MISHPATIM [second section]
18->20              - kedushat ha-am
21->22              - kedushat kohanim
23->25              - kedushat zman u-makom
 26            TOCHACHA ( & summary pasuk/ 26:46)

         * FOOTER
 27            the laws of erchin (mitzvot)

     Now we must explain why specifically these two
parshiot
were chosen to serve as the 'book-ends' of Sefer
Vayikra?

SPECIAL 'BOOKENDS'
     Parshat Vayikra and the parshia of erchin share a
common
theme.  They both deal with an individual dedicating an
object
to 'hekdesh'.  Both also begin with cases where a person
offers a voluntary gift (nedava): Parshat Vayikra begins
with
ola & shlamim while parshat erchin begins with the
voluntary
offering of the value of a person, animal, or field.
    [Vayikra deals with korbanot actually offered on the
    mizbeiach (kodshei mizbeiach) while erchin deals
with the
    value of objects which cannot be offered, their
value is
    given instead to the 'general fund' of the Temple -
    'kodshei bedek ha-bayit'.]
     One could suggest that the Torah intentionally
chose
parshiot dealing with the offerings of an individual,
primarily the voluntary offerings, to form the
'book-ends' of
Sefer Vayikra for the following reason.
     As we have seen, Sefer Vayikra focuses on the
kedusha of
the mishkan and of the nation.  These lofty goals of the
Shchina dwelling upon an entire nation can easily lead
the
individual to underestimate his own importance.
Furthermore,
the rigid detail of the mitzvot of Vayikra may lead one
to
believe that there is little room for self-initiated
expression in his own relationship with God, as our
covenantal
obligations could be viewed as dry and technical.
     To counter these possible misconceptions, the Torah
may
have placed these two parshiot at the opening and
concluding
sections of Sefer Vayikra - to stress these two
important
tenets of 'avodat Hashem'.  Despite the centrality of
the
community, the individual cannot lose sight of the value
and
importance of his role as an integral part of the
communal
whole.  Secondly, the rigidity of Halacha should not
stifle
personal expression.  Rather, it should form the solid
base
from which the individual can develop an aspiring,
dynamic,
and personal relationship with God.

                              shabbat shalom
                              menachem

===================
FOR FURTHER IYUN

fA.  It should be noted that Abarbanel does raise this
possibility that the final pasuk of the tochacha
summarizes
only chapter 26, and not larger unit.  Note how this
forces
him to explain the phrases chukim u-mishpatim & torot in
a
very different manner.

B.  WHEN WERE THE MITZVOT OF SEFER VAYIKRA GIVEN?
     In our shiur, we explained that the torot mentioned
in
Parshat Tzav were given on Har Sinai.  How about the
torot  in
Tazria Metzora, or basically, how about the rest of the
mitzvot of Sefer Vayikra - were they given from the ohel
mo'ed
or earlier when Moshe was on Har Sinai?  The psukim do
not
tell us.
     Based on the above shiur, we can suggest that most
all of
the mitzvot in Vayikra were actually given on Har Sinai,
but
are recorded in Sefer Vayikra for simply thematic
reasons
(i.e. 'torat kohanim').  Surely, Parshat Tzav states
explicitly that its torot were given to Moshe on Har
Sinai
(7:37-8).
     Therefore one can also assume that all of the torot
mentioned in the Sefer were given on Har Sinai.  In
fact, this
can explain Shmot 24:12 which states that Moshe went up
to Har
Sinai to receive the torah & mitzva - one could suggest
that
the mitzva refers to the laws of the mishkan which Moshe
is
about to receive that are recorded in the remainder of
Sefer
Shmot (see Shmot 25:1-4!). If so, then torah may refer
to the
torot (that relate to the mishkan).  However, most of
these
torot are recorded in Sefer Vayikra and not in Sefer
Shmot.
    [ha-torah may also refer to the mitzvot of Sefer
Devarim,
    but that is a topic for a different shiur.  [note
Devarim
    1:5 and the word torah throughout that Sefer.]

     In a similar manner one could understand that the
chukim
u-mishpatim recorded in Sefer Vayikra may also have been
given
to Moshe on Har Sinai.  To support this, see Devarim
5:28 and
its context, as well as Shmot 24:1-4.
     Therefore the mention of Har Sinai in this final
pasuk
does not limit its interpretation to referring only to
Behar/Bechukotai, rather strengthens its interpretation
as a
summary of the entire Sefer.  It is also likely that
certain
other mitzvot that were given in reaction to events that
occurred after 'hakamat ha-mishkan', i.e. after Nadav
and
Avihu died etc.) may have been given from the ohel
mo'ed, but
there is no reason why we cannot understand that all the
other
mitzvot recorded in the sefer were first given to Moshe
during
his 40 days on Har Sinai.  Except of course those
mitzvot that
were given directly to Aharon, which indicate that they
were
given from the ohel mo'ed, and the mitzvot that were
given in
response to a question that Moshe did not have the
answer for.

C.  A CHIASTIC STRUCTURE WITHIN SEFER VAYIKRA
  In the above shiur, we have noted a connection between
the
opening and closing parshiot of Sefer Vayikra.  This
suggests
a possibility of a chiastic structure within Sefer
Vayikra
itself.
   See if you can find this structure, noting how
chapters 18 and
20 'surround' chapter 19, the connection between chapter
21
and chapter 16 in relation to the kohen gadol, chapters
22 and
11-15 in relation to tum'a & tahara, chapters 9-10 to
chapter
23 in relation to cycles of 7 & 8, chapter 24 and
chapter 8 in
relation to the keilim of the mishkan, and chapters 6-7
and
chapters 25-26 in relations to mitzvot given at Har
Sinai (see
finale psukim of both sections), 've-akmal'!

D. THE VALUE OF THE INDIVIDUAL
  As we explained above, the "tochacha" in Parsha
Bechukotei
(chapter 26) would have been a most fitting conclusion
for
Sefer Vayikra. Nonetheless, Sefer Vayikra adds one
additional
chapter, detailing the laws of "erchin" - i.e. the
'monetary'
assessment of various individuals - should their value
be
dedicated to God.
     Even though these laws seem to be rather technical,
from
a certain perspective they do reflect the value of every
individual.  But what does that have to do with the
conclusion
of Sefer Vayikra?   As Ramban points out (see middle of
his
commentary to 26:11), the "tochacha" describes 'reward
and
punishment' at the national level.  In other words, it
promises prosperity in relation to the land's
agriculture,
political stability, security, and military success (see
26:1-
11). On the 'down side' - it describes primarily
national
calamities show Bnei Yisrael not keep God's laws.
On the
other hand, God does not promise every individual (in
this
world) reward for his good deeds, or punishment for his
sins.
     There may be some thematic logic behind this
distinction.
As Bnei Yisrael were chosen to be 'nation' that will
represent
God among the nations of the world, we are judged as a
nation;
and rewarded as a nation.  If we are successful in
making a
'Name for God' by keeping His mitzvot properly, God will
not
only 'dwell in midst' (see 26:11-12), He will also
provide us
with material reward - that enables the nation to
continue
'the good job'.  On the other hand, should we embarrass
God by
our poor behavior as His special nation, God promises to
consistently punish us, to various levels, until we
finally
'learn our lesson' (see 26:14-- or even without
repentance,
should our situation becomes too pitiful (see Devarim
32:36).
    [To support this point, note the phrase "l'einei
    ha'goyim" - in the eyes of the nations -in the
finale
    pasuk (see 26:45 in its context), emphasizing the
    connection between God's covenant with the people of
    Israel and their influence on the rest of mankind.]

     This thematic conclusion, however accurate, can
lead to a
very dangerous conclusion.  If God's primary interest
with His
people is at the national level, then maybe the fate of
each
individual may not so be important [ask the early
leaders of
communism (like Stalin), if you know your history].
     One could suggest, that it may be specifically for
this
reason that Sefer Vayikra chose specifically the laws of
"erchin" - reflecting the value of each individual - as
its
conclusion, to 'balance' this possible misunderstanding
of the
"tochacha".  Surely, the primary focus of the Bible is
on the
existence of Am Yisrael as a nation, but to truly act as
God's
special nation - the importance of every individual must
not
be under-emphasized.

E. THE CONCLUSION OF VAYIKRA & SHAVUOT
     As many commentators point out, the "tochacha"
relates
directly to the covenant between God and Bnei Yisrael at
Har
Sinai.  [Note the tell-tale phrase: "beini u'bein Bnei
Yisrael
b'Har Sinai" in its concluding pasuk (see 26:46), as
well as
the parallel pasuk at the conclusion of the "tochacha"
in
Devarim (see Devarim 28:69 - "milvad ha'brit asher karat
item
b'chorev").  See also Chizkuni on Shmot 24:7!]
     Even though all the mitzvot of the Torah are
important,
it seems that certain mitzvot, i.e. mitzvot of Parshat
Behar
in Vayikra chapter 25, were singled out to be part of
the
'official covenant.
    [Note that all the psukim from 25:1 thru 26:46 form
a
    single unit, as they are introduced by the same
dibur.]

     One could offer a very 'zionistic' explanation for
this,
as the laws in chapter 25 deal the "kedusha" of the Land
of
Israel in regard to keeping the laws of "shemitta" &
"yovel"
(see 25:1-13).  In other words, one of God's primary
considerations of how God will (or will not) punish us,
depends on how meticulously we keep the laws of the
"shemitta"
year.  [Note as well 26:34.]
     On the other hand, chapter 25 contains much more
that the
'technical' laws of "shemitta".  If you read that
chapter
carefully, you'll note how its primary topic is the
consequences of the laws of "shemitta" - reflecting the
Torah's desire that Bnei Yisrael fulfill every aspect of
the
laws of social justice.
     For example, as soon as we mention the laws of
Yovel, the
Torah immediately reminds us not to use those laws as
'technical loophole' to make a tricky 'real-estate deal'
(see
25:14-17!
     Then, the Torah explains why these laws are so
important,
as God reminds us that our purpose as a nation is to be
humble
servants of God, rather than a group of wealthy
landlords
exploiting poor serfs (see 25:23-24).

     The clincher of this direction are in the following
thirty some psukim (see 25:25-55), which describe our
communal
obligation to help our neighbors in financial distress,
by
lending them resources so they won't need to either sell
their
land or even themselves!
     Thus, even though the first thirteen psukim seem to
describe the technical laws of "shemitta" & "yovel", the
remaining forty some psukim focus primarily on assuring
social
justice for the poor and needy.  In fact, by quoting the
Torah's brief reference to the laws of "shemitta" in
Parshat
Mishpatim, we find that the very purpose of these
'technical
laws' is to ensure social justice:
  "Six years thou shall sow thy land, and gather its
produce,
  but the seventh year thou shall let it rest and lie
fallow,
  that the poor of thy people may eat..." (Shmot
2310-11)
    [Note as well how social justice was a primary theme
in
    most of the laws of Parshat Mishpatim as well.]

     To provide additional support, I'd like to suggest
that
the Torah's reminder to keep God's "chukim u'mishpatim"
in
25:18 may not be referring to the laws of "shemitta" but
rather to the laws of Vayikra chapters 18 & 19, for the
simple
reason that the opening psukim of chapter 18 introduce
exactly
what God's "chukim u'mishpatim" are all about (see
related TSC
shiur on Parshat Acharei Mot).  For those who don't
remember,
the intro in Vayikra 18:1-5 leads us to the conclusion
that
God's "chukim u'mishpatim" are none other than the laws
of
Parshat "Kedoshim Tihiyu" (i.e. Vayikra chapter 19)!
     If these observations are correct, then the thrust
of
God's covenant with His people at Har Sinai, and
especially
His promise of reward (or punishment) should we keep (or
not
keep) His mitzvot, relates primarily to the ability of
Bnei
Yisrael to create a society characterized by acts of
social
justice ("tzedek u'mishpat" - see Breishit 18:17-19!),
thus
setting an example for other nations to learn from (see
Devarim 4:5-8).

  Should we emphasize this direction, as we meticulously
keep
all of God's mitzvot, may we be worthy of God's promise
of:
  "And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie
down,
  and none shall make you afraid; and I will cause evil
beasts
  to cease out of the land, neither shall the sword go
through
  your land. And ye shall chase your enemies, and they
shall
  fall before you by the sword... and your enemies shall
fall
  before you by the sword. And I will have respect unto
you,
  and make you fruitful, and multiply you; and will
establish
  My covenant with you!" (see Vayikra 26:6-9)


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1456 -
Release Date: 5/20/2008 6:45 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bchuk1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 49673 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080521/3cd5d528/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Fri May 30 00:55:51 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 00:55:51 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Bamidbar
Message-ID: <001d01c8c211$6f4da050$0300000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

		PARSHAT BAMIDBAR

     The twelve tribes are listed numerous times in
Chumash,
yet for some reason, each time that they are listed in
Parshat
Bamidbar - their order seems to change!
     In this week's shiur, we attempt to explain why.

PART I - THE ORDER OF THE SHVATIM
     In Parshat Bamidbar, the "shvatim" [tribes] are
listed in
three different instances - when the Torah discusses:
     (A)  The LEADERS (see 1:5-15);
     (B)  The actual CENSUS of the shvatim (1:20-43);
     (C)  Their ARRANGEMENT surrounding the Mishkan
      (see 2:1-31).

     Based on these three sources, the following table
compares the order of the shvatim in each respective
list.
  [A star -*- next the name of a tribe will note a
significant
  change from one list to the next:]

#     (A)          (B)          (C)
1)   Reuven      Reuven      * Yehuda
2)   Shimon      Shimon      * Yisachar
3)   Yehuda     * Gad        * Zevulun
4)   Yisachar    Yehuda       Reuven
5)   Zevulun     Yisachar     Shimon
6)   Ephraim     Zevulun      Gad
7)   Menashe     Ephraim      Ephraim
8)   Binyamin    Menashe      Menashe
9)   Dan         Binyamin     Binyamin
10)  Asher       Dan          Dan
11)  Gad         Asher        Asher
12)  Naftali     Naftali      Naftali

     Review each of these lists, noting how (and where)
the
order changes from one list to the next.  Before we
suggest a
reason for these changes, let's begin by explaining what
each
list is about.

THE COMPARISON
     The first list - column (A) - appears to be the
most
logical. Note how the leaders of each tribe are
presented:
     First - the children of Leah (eldest first),
Then - the children of Rachel,
Then - the children of the 'shfachot' (the maidservants)
 (Bilha & Zilpa).

     The second list (when the census is taken) - column
(B) -
is almost identical, but with one very peculiar change:
GAD
has 'moved up' from position #11 to position #3!
  For no obvious reason, it appears as though Gad has
been
'adopted' by the children of Leah.

     In the third list (when the shvatim are organized
surrounding the Mishkan) - column (C) - we find once
again
that Gad is placed with "bnei Leah".  However, this time
we
find yet another very peculiar change:  The tribes of
Yehuda,
Yisachar, and Zevulun - the YOUNGEST children of Leah -
have
'jumped' to the top of list (i.e. ahead of their older
brothers Reuven and Shimon)!  Even though there is not
obvious
reason for this change, we should expect it to be
significant,
for this final list reflects the actual formation in
which
Bnei Yisrael travel through the desert on their journey
to
Eretz Canaan (see Bamidbar 10:13-28).
     
     With this in mind, we will now attempt to explain
the
logic of this 're-organization' by considering the
purpose of
the Mishkan, and its strategic location within the camp
of
Bnei Yisrael.

DIVINE DIVISION
     Recall God's original commandment to Bnei Yisrael
concerning the purpose of the Mishkan:
  "v'assu li MIKDASH v'shachanti b'TOCHAM"
    "They shall make for a sanctuary that I may dwell
    AMONG THEM..."  (see Shmot 25:8)

  Note how this pasuk could be understood as a
commandment as
well - i.e. to erect the Mishkan in the CENTER of the
camp.
  Therefore, to enable this placement, the twelve tribes
are
divided into FOUR DIVISIONS.  In this manner, the
Mishkan will
be surrounded equally in all four directions (East,
South,
West, and North) by groups of three tribes each.  In
other
words, to create four 'divisions' from twelve tribes,
the
shvatim must be divided into four groups of THREE tribes
each.
  However, each group of three also requires a leader -
therefore four leadership tribes must be chosen, one for
each
division.
  Now we must explain which tribes are chosen to lead
these
four groups (and why)?

     As family leadership is the responsibility of the
"bchor"
- the first born son - we find that the four leadership
"shvatim" are simply the four sons of Yaakov who possess
a
certain aspect of being the 'first born' - namely:
Reuven,
Yehuda, Ephraim and Dan.   Let's explain why.

REUVEN
  Reuven was the first son born to Leah, therefore, his
tribe
obviously becomes one of the leaders.

YEHUDA
  Recall from Sefer Breishit, that because of Reuven's
sin
(taking the maidservant of his father/ see Br. 35:22),
Yaakov
decided to award the family leadership to a different
son.  As
Shimon & Levi had also angered their father (at the
incident
at Shechem/ see Br. 34:30), Yehuda was chosen as the
family
leader for the children of Leah.
  [See also Yaakov's blessing to his children in 49:3-12
&
  Divrei Hayamim I 5:1-2!]

EFRAIM
  Even though Leah was Yaakov's first wife to bear
children,
he still considered Rachel as his 'primary' wife.
Therefore,
Rachel's first child - Yosef - is also considered a
"bechor".
In fact, at his deathbed blessing to Yosef, Yaakov
awards him
with a 'double portion' (see Breishit 48:5), the portion
set
aside for the first born son.  However, because of this
'double portion', both of Yosef's sons - Efraim and
Menashe -
are considered as tribes.  Even though we may have
expected
the "bechora" to be granted to Menashe, as he was the
eldest
son of Yosef, Yaakov awarded the "bechora" of the
children of
Rachel to Efraim instead, as explained in Breishit
48:17-19.

DAN
  The children of the "shfachot" [maidservants] also
became
an integral part of Yaakov's family, and therefore, the
firstborn of these children is also awarded the status
of
"bechora".  Dan becomes the obvious choice, as he is the
first
born of Bilha, the "shifcha" of Rachel, the first
maidservant
to give Yaakov a child.
[Note that the four leadership positions are divided
equally between Yaakov's two wives: Rachel -2 and Leah
-2.]

WHO BELONGS WITH EACH LEADER
     Once these four leadership tribes have been
designated,
each must be joined by two additional tribes in order to
form
the necessary four groups of three.
  Considering that the leaders are chosen based on the
first
born children of Yaakov's wives, it is only logical that
each
leader should be joined by his closest brothers.
     Therefore:
 *   Reuven should be joined by Shimon and Levi, his two
younger brothers.  However, Levi has a 'new job' and
must
encamp in closer proximity to the Mishkan (see Bamidbar
chapter 3).  Thus, Reuven is joined only by Shimon and
remains
one tribe 'short'.

 *   To make Yehuda's group complete, he is joined by
his two
younger brothers: Yisachar and Zevulun.

 *   Efraim, the "bechor" of the 'house of Rachel', is
joined
by his brother Menashe, and his uncle Binyamin,
(Rachel's
youngest son). Thus, the group of "bnei Rachel" - is
also
complete.

 *   Dan should be the leader for all of children of the
shfachot, i.e. his brother Naftali, and the two children
of
Zilpa: Gad and Asher.  However, had this been the case,
his
group would have too many for it totals four!
Therefore,
Dan's group has one 'extra' tirbe.
     Considering that Reuven is 'short' one tribe and
Dan has
one too many, it is only logical that one of Dan's
'extras'
moves to Reuven's group.  For this reason, Gad 'moves'
from
his 'home camp' to join the camp of Reuven.
  But why was specifically Gad chosen?
     Naftali remains with Dan, for he is Dan's full
brother.
Therefore, we are left to choose between Gad and Asher,
the
two children of Zilpa.  One could suggest that Gad is
chosen
for he is the eldest son of Zilpa, and hence given the
'privilege' to join the camp of Reuven, while his
younger
brother Asher remains with the camp of Dan.

HOW THEY TRAVELLED
     Now that we have explained how and why the tribes
are
organized into four groups, we must explain the
direction in
which they travel (as detailed in Bamidbar
2:3,10,18,25):

     EAST - Yehuda, Yisachar, and Zevulun  [Bnei Leah]
     SOUTH - Reuven, Shimon, and Gad  [Bnei Leah +Gad]
     WEST - Ephraim, Menashe, and Binyamin [Bnei Rachel]
     NORTH - Dan, Naftali, and Asher  [Bnei ha'Shfachot]

     As Bnei Yisrael must now travel from Har Sinai
(through
the desert) toward Eretz Canaan, the basic direction of
travel
is eastward.  Therefore the camp in the East travels
first.
  It would appear that Yehuda is chosen for this
direction
because of his leadership qualities. Recall that he was
originally chosen by Yaakov for his leadership (he took
responsibility for Binyamin), and later they are known
for
their strong army (see Yehoshua chapters 14->15).
     The group of Reuven follows (to the south), as they
are
the other tribes from Leah.   Efraim follows (to the
west), as
he leads the children of Rachel.  As we would expect,
the
children of the "shfachot" (led by Dan) travel last.

     With this background, we can now return to our
original
question and explain the logic behind the three
conflicting
orders of the shvatim:

LIST (A) - The Leaders
  The presentation of tribal leaders (A) follows the
most
logical order: by mother/ by birth, i.e. the children of
Leah
- followed by the children of Rachel - followed by the
children of the shfachot.
  [For some reason, the children of the shfachot are not
  listed by the order of their birth. It seems that
  Naftali must always be last, and Asher precedes Gad
for
  he will remain within the camp of "bnei ha'shfachot.?]

LIST (B) - The Census
  The census (B) follows basically the same order as
(A),
however it already reflects the 'transfer' of shevet Gad
into
the camp of Reuven, placing him in the position of Levi
(#3).
Most likely, this is because this census will be the
basis for
the organization of the tribes into groups of three.
     
LIST (C) - Surrounding the Mishkan
  The organization of the shvatim around the Mishkan (C)
reflects not only Gad's new position within the camp of
Reuven, but also Yehuda's leadership role in travel
formation,
for he is destined to be the leader of all the shvatim.
[See
Breishit 49:10 - "lo yasur shevet m'yudah..."]
Therefore, this
list begins with Yehuda, followed by the tribes of his
camp,
then Reuven and his camp, etc. etc.

     Up until this point, our discussion has been rather
technical. In Part II, we discuss this significance of
this
special manner by which the tribes encamped around the
Mishkan.


PART II - WHEN AND WHY
     The opening pasuk of Parshat Bamidbar informs us
that
this organization of the shvatim and the census took
place on
the first day of Iyar (in the second year, see 1:1).
However,
in the details of the Mishkan's dedication ceremony, as
recorded Parshat Naso, we find an apparent
contradiction.
Let's explain.
     Recall how Parshat Naso describes the dedication of
the
Mishkan with special korbanot offered by the "nsiim"
[the
tribal leaders], that took place during the first twelve
days
of Nisan (see 7:12-83).  However, when you review the
list of
"nsiim", you'll notice that their order is exactly the
same as
the order of list (C)!
  In other words, the order by the which the "nsiim"
offered
their korbanot (on the first of Nisan), was exactly the
same
as the order by which the tribes encamped around the
Mishkan,
as established on the first of Iyar.
  This proves that the special order of the tribes (C)
already
existed on the first of Nisan, a month before the census
was
taken on the first of Iyar!  This suggests that this
order was
already significant, even before Bnei Yisrael prepared
for
travel to Eretz Canaan!
  To explain why, we must recognize that this special
organization of the shvatim served a double purpose -
both
military and spiritual:
  *  MILITARY - To prepare the camp for travel in
military
order, in anticipation of their conquest of Eretz
Canaan.
  *  SPIRITUAL - To emphasize to the entire nation that
the
Mishkan is located at the CENTER of the camp, in order
that
they recognize the God's SHCHINA dwells among them.

Let's explain why:
(1)  The census in Parshat Bamidbar is of military
nature, for
it counted all the males above the age of twenty - "kol
yotze
tzava b'Yisrael" - because they will be fighting the
battle to
conquer Eretz Canaan (see 1:3).
  Furthermore, the subsequent organization of the twelve
tribes into four divisions, was also of a military
nature.
Finally, the census is taken on the first of Iyar, for
only 20
days later Bnei Yisrael will actually leave Har Sinai
(see
10:11) and begin their journey to conquer Eretz Canaan.

(2)  One month earlier, when the Mishkan was dedicated,
we
find that this same order of the shvatim already
existed.
This implies that even before the census, the camp of
Bnei
Yisrael had already been organized in a manner so that
the
Mishkan would be located at its center. To do so, it was
necessary to divide the twelve tribes into four groups
of
three, with each group flanking the Mishkan in a
different
direction.
  This would imply that even when Bnei Yisrael were
still
encamped at Har Sinai, it was already important that
they be
reminded (by placing the Mishkan at the center) that
God's
presence was in their midst, and act accordingly.

THE SHCHINA RETURNS
     To appreciate the additional importance of the
location
of the Mishkan at the center of the camp, we should also
consider the events which took place after "chet
ha'Egel" -
the sin of the Golden Calf.
     Recall that in response to "chet ha'Egel", God had
instructed Bnei Yisrael to remove their 'crowns' that
they had
received at Har Sinai (see Shmot 33:5-6), a sign that He
is
removing His shchina from their midst.  For the very
same
reason, God then instructed Moshe to move his tent (the
site
where God speaks to Moshe) OUTSIDE the camp:
  "And Moshe took the Tent, and pitched it OUTSIDE the
  camp, at a FAR DISTANCE from the camp, and called it
  'OHEL MOED', then whoever sought God would have to go
  to the 'Ohel Moed'  located OUTSIDE the camp." (Shmot
  33:7)

     The very location of this "ohel moed" [tent of
meeting]
OUTSIDE the camp served as a constant reminder to Bnei
Yisrael
that God had removed His shchina from their midst. In
order
for His shchina to return, it was necessary for Bnei
Yisrael
to build the Mishkan:
  "And they shall build for Me a Mishkan, and I will
  DWELL IN THEIR MIDST [v'shachanti b'TOCHAM]"   (see
  Shmot 25:8)

     Therefore, the re-organization of the camp of Bnei
Yisrael in such a manner that the Mishkan is located at
its
center serves as a sign to the people that God has
indeed
returned His shchina to the camp.
     Because of its significance, a 'remnant' of this
camping
arrangement of the tribes 'around the Mishkan' continued
even
after the forty years in the desert, when Bnei Yisrael
finally
conquer and settle the land.
     To explain how and why, we must consider the
blessing of
Moshe Rabeinu in Parshat v'Zot ha'Bracha to the tribe of
Binyamin:
  "And to Binyamin he said: "ydid Hashem -yishkon
l'vetach
  alav..." [the dear tribe of God - upon whose territory
His
  Presence will dwell... ] (see Devarim 33:12).

  For this reason, Chazal consider the tribe of Binyamin
as
"nachlat shchina" [the territory of God], for it is
destined
to house the Bet ha'Mikdash.
  If so, then the following parallel emerges.
  Recall from Sefer Yehoshua, that when the tribes
receive
their "nachalot" (as described in chapters 13->19), we
find a
very similar configuration!

  IN THE DESERT            IN ERETZ YISRAEL
  
          Dan                 Efraim
           |                    |
Efraim -Mishkan- Yehuda| Dan -Binyamin- Reuven
           |                    |
         Reuven               Yehuda

     Note how in both configurations the site of the
SHCHINA -
be it the Mishkan in the desert, or the Mikdash in
"nachalat
Binyamin" - is surrounded by the same four 'leadership'
tribes!  [The directions have simply rotated 90 degrees
(and
inverted).]

     One could suggest that the Torah dedicates such
minute
detail to this manner of travel, to emphasize how the
Mishkan
serves this double purpose:
  1) It acts as a symbol of God's presence within the
camp of
Israel (see Shmot 25:8 and above), and...
  2) It functions as a constant reminder to Bnei
Yisrael, as
they travel, of their Divine purpose.

     As Bnei Yisrael prepare their departure from Har
Sinai
towards the conquest of the Land of Israel, they will
face new
challenges.  For example:
    Can they translate what they have learned at Har
Sinai into
the norms of the daily life of a nation?
    Will they be capable of fulfilling the mundane tasks
of
fighting battles, establishing a nation, and cultivating
the
land etc., while at the same time remaining on the
spiritual
level of Har Sinai?
     This week, as we celebrate Yom Yerushalayim, this
challenge takes on special significance.  Can we, the
nation
of Israel, continue our battle for Yerushalayim and the
mundane chore of maintaining a secure and prosperous
state,
without compromising on the spiritual ideals of Har
Sinai?
    Can we maintain Yerushalayim not only as a unified
capital
city, but also as a city characterized by "tzedek
u'mishpat"
(justice and righteousness)?

    Although the Bet-Mikdash, the symbol of this
challenge, was
destroyed some two thousand years ago - both Parshat
Bamidbar
and Yom Yerushalayim can serve as a yearly reminder of
this
eternal challenge.

                         shabbat shalom,
                         menachem



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.3/1472 -
Release Date: 5/29/2008 7:27 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bamid1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 35985 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080530/b955998f/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Fri May 30 00:59:10 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 00:59:10 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] SEFER Bamidbar - intro
Message-ID: <000001c8c211$e8a06f00$0300000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

PARSHAT  NASO - Intro to Sefer Bamidbar

	Parshat Naso contains what appears to be a very
strange progression of topics.  After all, what logical
connection exists between:
  *	the duties of the Leviim in chapter 4
  *	laws concerning "korban asham" in chapter 5
  *	the laws concerning a "sotah" in chapter 5
  *	the laws of a "nazir" in chapter 6
  *	"birkat kohanim" in chapter 6
& *	the dedication ceremony of the Mishkan in
chapter 7?

	Certainly, if we use our imagination, we could
suggest some tangential connections; but the fact
remains - at first glance, all of these various
'parshiot' appear to very unrelated.
 
	So why does the Torah record them together?
	To your surprise, this week's shiur will NOT
explain why they are indeed connected.  Instead, we will
do exactly the opposite -we will suggest a reason for
why these parshiot do NOT follow in logical progression!
	To explain why, we will study the overall
structure of Sefer Bamidbar - in search of its unifying
theme.  While doing so, we will uncover a rather
fascinating pattern - that will explain why it becomes
so difficult to find a unifying theme for Sefer
Bamidbar.

INTRODUCTION
	In our Parsha series thus far, our approach to
the study of Chumash has been based on the assumption
that each "sefer" carries a unique theme.  To uncover
those themes, we have studied the progression of
'parshiot' of each Sefer.
[For a quick review, we could 'oversimplify' and
summarize as follows: Breishit focused on BECHIRA, Shmot
on GEULAH, and Vayikra on KEDUSHA.]  

	Following this methodology, we would expect that
a unifying theme for Sefer Bamidbar could be found as
well.  However, as we will see, finding such a theme for
Sefer Bamidbar will be much more difficult, for the
progression of many of its 'parshiot' appears to be
rather arbitrary.

	To demonstrate this difficulty, we have already
cited (in our opening paragraph) an example from Parshat
Naso.  Let's take another example from Parshat Shlach,
where the story of the 'spies' (see chapters 13->14) is
followed by several totally unrelated mitzvot (see
chapter 15):
	* the laws of "nesachim" for korbanot
	* the laws of separating "challah" from dough
	* laws concerning korbanot "chatat" of the
nation
	* the story of one who publicly defiled the
sabbath
	* the mitzvah of tzizit
[A similar phenomenon occurs in chapters 28 & 29 in
Parshat Pinchas as well re: the laws of the ?musafim?.]

	To complicate manners, we also find that some of
the laws that are recorded in Sefer Bamidbar had already
been mentioned in Sefer Vayikra! [e.g. 5:5-7 compare
w/Vayikra 5:20-25]

	So what's going on in Sefer Bamidbar?
	To answer this question, we must undertake a
comprehensive analysis of the book.

DIVIDE & CONQUER
	To begin our analysis, we must differentiate
between the two basic types of 'parshiot' that we
encounter when we study Chumash in general, and in Sefer
Bamidbar in particular:

	1)  NARRATIVE - i.e. the ongoing STORY of
Chumash

2) COMMANDMENTS - i.e. the MITZVOT that God commands
Bnei Yisrael to keep for all generations.

    In our series thus far, we have shown how each
"sefer" of Chumash has been (primarily) either one type,
or the other. 
For example:
 *	Sefer Breishit was primarily NARRATIVE - i.e.
the STORY of the Creation and God's covenant with the
Avot.

 *	Sefer Shmot was also primarily NARRATIVE (the
story of the Exodus, etc.), even though it included
numerous mitzvot that were presented as an integral part
of that narrative.  [For example, the Ten Commandments
are recorded as an integral part of the story of Ma'amad
Har Sinai.]

 *	Sefer Vayikra was primarily MITZVOT - presented
in thematic order (even though it did include two very
short narratives).

	How about Sefer Bamidbar? 
    As we will see, it definitely contains BOTH
narrative and mitzvot.  However, the relationship
between its narrative and those mitzvot is rather
confusing.
	To complicate matters, Sefer Bamidbar also
contains two types of mitzvot:
?mitzvot l?sha?ah? ? commandments that applied only to
the generation of the desert (but not to future
generations)

"mitzvot l'dorot"  - commandments that apply to future
generations as wekk

    To clarify this distinction, here are a few
examples:

	- MITZVOT L'SHA'AH: 
	* Organizing the camp around the Mishkan
(chapters 1->4)
	* sanctifying the Leviim (chapter 8)
	* Taking the census in chapter in chapter 26.

 	- MITZVOT L'DOROT:
	* the laws of "sotah" (chapter 5)
	* the laws of "nazir" (chapter 6)
	* the laws of "korbanot tmidim u'musafim"
(chaps. 28->29).]

	As the "mitzvot l'sha'a" are essentially an
integral part of the ongoing narrative, in our analysis
we will simply treat them as part of the ongoing
narrative of the Sefer.
	In contrast, most of the "mitzvot l'dorot" in
Sefer Bamidbar don?t appear to have anything to do with
the ongoing naarative!  In fact, it seems more like they
?interfere?.

    To explain how, the following outline charts the
progression of topics Sefer Bamidbar, highlighting this
contrast by recording the MITZVOT L'DOROT in CAPS. 
	As you study this outline, note the logical flow
of topic within its narrative, in contrast to the
'random' progression of its mitzvot.

CHAPTER 			TOPIC
========			=====
1->4  	Organizing the camp

5		KORBAN ASHAM 
		LAWS OF 'SOTAH'
6		LAWS OF 'NAZIR'
		BIRKAT KOHANIM

7		Dedication of Mishkan
8		The appointment of the Leviim
9		Offering Korban Pesach in the desert /
		Travelling following the "anan"
10		Gathering camp by trumpet / "chatzotrot"
		Leaving Har Sinai (on 20th of Iyar)
11		Complaints during the journey
		("mitoninim", "mitavim", etc.)
12		Complaints against Moshe 
				(sin of Miriam)
13		Sin of the 'spies' ("chet ha'meraglim")
14		The punishment: 40 years' wandering

15		LAWS OF THE 'NESACHIM' (wine & flour
offering)
    LAWS RE: 'CHALA'
15		LAWS RE: KORBAN OF THE 'EYDA'
		LAWS RE: DESECRATING SHABBAT
		LAWS OF TZIZIT

16-17		Korach's rebellion

18		LAWS RE: KOHEN'S COMPENSATION
19 		LAWS RE: TUMAH CAUSED BY A DEAD BODY

20-21		Events of the 40th year:
				death of Miriam;
				the "mei mriva"
incident; (Moshe's sin)
				death of Aharon;
				conquest of Transjordan,
etc.
21-24 	Story of Bilam & Balak
25		Sin of Baal P'or and the act of Pinchas
26		The census for inheriting the Land
27		Transfer of leadership from
Moshe->Yehoshua

28-29		LAWS OF THE KORBAN TAMID & MUSAF
30		LAWS RE: 'NEDARIM' [VOWS]

31		War against Midyan
32		Inheritance of Reuven & Gad, & half of
Menashe
33		Summary of the journey through the
desert
34		Guidelines for upcoming conquest of the
Land
35		Cities of the Levites, and cities of
Refuge
36		Inheritance issues re: to daughters of
Tzlofchad

	Before you continue, review this table once
again, but this time ignoring all of the topics in CAPS
- while noting how the narratives (that remain) comprise
a congruent story; i.e. of Bnei Yisrael's journey from
Har Sinai (through the desert) until they reach Arvot
Moav (some forty years later). 

    Hence, if we simply 'filter out' the "mitzvot
l'dorot' from Sefer Bamidbar, that story (of what
transpired as they traveled for forty years through the
desert) emerges as its primary topic.

ALMOST LIKE SEFER SHMOT
	As such, the style of Sefer Bamidbar appears to
be most similar to Sefer Shmot.  Just as Sefer Shmot
describes Bnei Yisrael's journey from Egypt to Har Sinai
- plus various MITZVOT; so too Sefer Bamidbar describes
Bnei Yisrael's journey from Har Sinai towards Eretz
Canaan - plus various MITZVOT.
	However, there still exists a major difference
in style between these two books, in regard to the
relationship between the MITZVOT and the STORY in each
book.  Whereas the "mitzvot l'dorot" in Sefer Shmot form
an integral part of its narrative, most of the "mitzvot
l'dorot" in Sefer Bamidbar appear to be totally
unrelated (or at best tangentially related) to its
ongoing narrative. 
	In other words, the mitzvot in Sefer Shmot 'fit'
- while the mitzvot in Sefer Bamidbar don't!  
    Furthermore, when you take a careful look at the
various mitzvot l?dorot in Sefer Bamidbar (see outline
above), you?ll notice how most of them would have fit
very nicely in Sefer Vayikra!  

INTENTIONAL 'INTERRUPTIONS'
	To appreciate these observations, review the
above outline once again, this time noting how the
ongoing story in Sefer Bamidbar is periodically
INTERRUPTED by certain MITZVOT, while the topic of those
mitzvot is usually totally unrelated to that ongoing
narrative.  
    To illustrate how this style is unique to Sefer
Bamidbar, let's compare it to the respective structures
of Sefer Shmot and Sefer Vayikra.
	Sefer Shmot records the story of Bnei Yisrael's
redemption from Egypt (chapters 1->13), their subsequent
journey to Har Sinai (chapters 14->17), and the events
that took place at Har Sinai (chapters 18->40 / Matan
Torah, chet ha'egel, and building the Mishkan).  As an
integral part of that story, Sefer Shmot also records
certain mitzvot that were given at that time.  For
example, as Bnei Yisrael leave Egypt, they are commanded
to keep the mitzvot of Pesach and Chag Ha'matzot (that
commemorate that event).  At Ma'amad Har Sinai, the
Torah records the Ten Commandments and the laws of
Parshat Mishpatim, for they are part of that covenant
(see 24:3-7).  In reaction to "chet ha'egel" (or to
perpetuate Ma'amad Har Sinai), Bnei Yisrael are given
the laws of the Mishkan. 
    Hence we conclude that the MITZVOT in Sefer Shmot
form an integral part of its ongoing narrative!

	Sefer Vayikra is quite the opposite for it
contains primarily "mitzvot l'dorot" organized by topic.
In fact, the lone narrative that we do find in Sefer
Vayikra - the dedication of the Mishkan (8:1-10:10) -
relates specifically to the topic of the mitzvah under
discussion (i.e. the various korbanot).

	In contrast to those two books, Sefer Bamidbar
contains an ongoing narrative, which is periodically
'interrupted' by "mitzvot l'dorot" that appear to have
very little thematic connection. 

RAMBAN'S INTRODUCTION
	This analysis can help us understand the strange
statement made by Ramban in his introduction to Sefer
Bamidbar:
"... and this book deals entirely with "MITZVOT SHA'AH"
that applied only during Bnei Yisrael's stay in the
desert...";

    Then, only three lines later, Ramban makes a very
bold, yet puzzling, statement:
"This book does NOT CONTAIN any MITZVOT L'DOROT
(commandments for all generations) EXCEPT for a FEW
MITZVOT DEALING WITH KORBANOT that the Torah began
discussing in SEFER VAYIKRA, but did not finish their
explanation there, and they are finished here instead."
[see Ramban 1:1]

	Note how Ramban differentiates between two types
of mitzvot that are found in Sefer Bamidbar, one type -
"mitzvot l'sha'ah" that DO belong in the sefer, while
the other type -"mitzvot l'dorot" that DON'T belong!

	This distinction between 'parshiot' that DO
belong and DON'T belong - implies that Sefer Bamidbar
indeed carries one primary theme, i.e. the story of Bnei
Yisrael's forty year journey from Har Sinai to Arvot
Moav.  The stories and the "mitzvot sha'ah" that relate
to that topic - 'belong' in the sefer, while those
mitzvot that are unrelated (to that topic) do not!
[Note that even though the Ramban did not preface his
introduction to Sefer Bamidbar with 'questions for
preparation and self study', he clearly expected that
the reader was aware of this overall structure!]

[Note as well that Ramban never explicitly defines the
primary topic of Sefer Bamidbar, however he does mention
that: This book contains:... the miracles that were
performed for Bnei Yisrael and how He began to deliver
their enemies before them... and He commanded them how
the Land should be divided among the tribes...]

	To clarify the thematic connection between the
various narratives in Sefer Bamidbar, it is helpful to
divide the book into three distinct sections:
    Chapters 1->10 
    How Bnei Yisrael prepare for their journey to
Canaan;
    Chapters 11->25 
    Why they don't make it to Canaan (i.e. their sins);
&
    Chapters 26->35 
    How the new generation prepares to enter the Land.
 
	Basically, the book should have been the story
of how Bnei Yisrael traveled from Har Sinai to Israel.
Instead, it becomes a book that explains how and why
they didn't make it. 
    How about the MITZVOT L'DOROT of Sefer Bamidbar? 
    Are they simply random, or do they share a common
theme?  At first glance, most of these mitzvot appear to
be totally unrelated to Bnei Yisrael's journey through
the desert.

WHERE DO THEY ALL BELONG?
	Before we suggest an answer to this question,
let's review this list of mitzvot in Sefer Bamidbar, and
attempt to determine where they DO BELONG.
	Take for example:
  *	Parshat "sotah" (5:11-31) and Parshat "nazir"
(6:1-21):
    Both of these 'parshiot' contain a set of laws that
Chumash refers to as "torot" (ritual 'procedures' /see
5:29 & 6:21), and focus on what korbanot need to be
offered.  Hence, it would seems that these parshiot
belong with the other "torot" found in the first half of
Sefer Vayikra.

  *	Parshat "parah adumah" (chapter 19):
    These laws clearly 'belong' in Parshiot
Tazria/Metzora, together with all of the other laws of
how one becomes "tamey" and the necessary procedures to
become "tahor".

  *	The laws of "korbanot tmidim u'musafim" (chap.
28->29):
    These laws also clearly belong in Sefer Vayikra,
together with the laws of the holidays in Parshat Emor
(see Vayikra 23 / note that on each holiday mentioned in
Emor we must bring an "ishe rayach nichoach l'hashem",
while Bamidbar chapters 28 & 29 details the specific
"ishe" (korban) which must be brought for each holiday.
(see Vayikra 23:37)

	Thus, it appears as though Chumash has
deliberately taken numerous parshiot of mitzvot, which
could have been recorded in Sefer Vayikra, and randomly
'inserted' them throughout the narrative of Sefer
Bamidbar!  But - why would the Torah take a mitzvah
which 'belongs' in one sefer and move it to another?

	One could maintain that these 'unrelated
parshiot' are recorded in Sefer Bamidbar simply for the
'technical' reason that they just happened to have been
given to Moshe Rabeinu at this time (i.e. during this
journey from Har Sinai through the desert). For example,
the mitzvah of "shiluach tmayim" (5:1-4) - sending
unclean persons outside the camp - most likely was
commanded only after the camp was organized (see chaps.
1->4).

    However, that approach would explain only a few of
these parshiot, for most of the "mitzvot l'dorot" that
are recorded in Sefer Bamidbar seem to have been given
at an earlier time (most likely on Har Sinai or after
"hakamat ha'Mishkan"). For example, the laws of "tumat
meyt" (in chapter 19) must have been given before the
Mishkan was erected, otherwise it would have been
impossible for the Kohanim to perform the "avodah".
Furthermore, certain mitzvot recorded in Bamidbar had
already been mentioned earlier in Chumash (e.g. see
5:5-8 / compare with Vayikra 5:20-26). 
	Hence it would seem that this 'commercial break'
type pattern in Sefer Bamidbar is deliberate! And thus,
our question must be re-worded to: why does the Torah
employ this unique structure in Sefer Bamidbar?

THE 'PSHAT' OF 'DRASH'!
	If this special structure of Bamidbar is
deliberate, then the obvious temptation is to find a
connection, even if only tangential, between these
'unrelated mitzvot' and the juxtaposed narrative in
Sefer Bamidbar.
	In other words, it appears that the Torah
deliberately juxtaposes certain sets of laws to the
ongoing narrative, EVEN THOUGH they are unrelated - in
order that we search for a thematic connection between
them! Thus, through this special structure the Torah in
essence is telling us to make up "drash" to explain the
reason for this juxtaposition. [We could refer to this
as the "pshat" of "drash".]
	In this manner, the unique style of Sefer
Bamidbar challenges us to find a THEMATIC connection
between these "mitzvot l'dorot" and the ongoing story.
And that is exactly what Chazal do in their various
Midrashim.
[This also explains why so often the commentaries ask
the famous question: "lama nis'm'cha..." (why are
certain parshiot juxtaposed...?)]

	Therefore, when we study Sefer Bamidbar, we
should not be surprised to find certain parshiot of
mitzvot that don't seem to belong.  Nonetheless, we are
'obligated' to attempt to uncover a more subtle message
that the Torah may be transmitting through the
intentional juxtaposition of these mitzvot to its
narrative.
	With this background, we will now suggest some
possible reasons for the inclusion of these specific
parshiot of mitzvot in Parshat Naso, even though they
could have been recorded in Sefer Vayikra as well. 

SHCHINA IN THE CAMP
	The first topic of Sefer Bamidbar is the
organization of the camp ("sidur ha'machanot")
surrounding the Mishkan (chapters one thru four).  As we
explained last week, this re-organization of the camp
stresses the importance of the interdependent
relationship between the camp ["machine"] and the
Mishkan, i.e. between the nation and the kohanim &
leviim. 
	This may explain the reason why Sefer Bamidbar
chose to include the parshiot which follow:
A) "shiluach tmayim" (5:1-4)
	As the camp was organized with the "shchinah"
dwelling at its center, the first mitzvah is to remove
anyone who is "tamey" from the camp.

B) "gezel ha'ger". (5:5-10)
	Here we find laws that reflect the special
relationship between the nation and the kohanim.
	This mitzvah begins with the standard law of the
"korban asham" as explained in Parshat Vayikra
(5:20-26). The halacha requires that prior to bringing
the Korban, the transgressor must first repay the person
("keren v'chomesh"). This 'parshia' also relates to the
case when the payment is given to the kohen, when the
person who is owed the money has passed away and left no
inheritors (see Rashi 5:8).  The 'parshia' continues
with a general statement regarding the legal ownership
of tithes which the nation must give to the kohanim (see
5:9-10).

C) Parshat Sotah (5:11-31)
	Here again we find a special relationship
between the Mishkan and the nation, as the Kohen is
instrumental in solving problems in a marital
relationship.  Even though this is a "korban mincha",
its nature is quite different from those korbanot
mentioned in Sefer Vayikra (see Ramban 5:9) - for it is
only offered as part of this special circumstance, where
the kohen attempts to solve a marital problem within the
camp.

D) Parshat Nazir (6:1-21)
	Here we find a case where a member of the nation
takes upon himself laws similar to those of a Kohen (see
6:6-8), as well as the 'kedusha' of a Kohen.  Note also
the similarity between the Korban which the "nazir" must
bring (6:13-21) and the special Korbanot brought by the
Kohanim during the 7 day "miluim" ceremony (see Vayikra
8:1-30).

E) Birkat Kohanim (6:22-27)
	The blessing which the kohanim bestow on the
nation is yet another example of the connection between
the kohanim and the camp. The kohanim serve as vehicle
through which God can bless His people.

TRAVELLING WITH THE "SHCHINA"
	So why are specifically parshiot from Sefer
Vayikra woven into Sefer Bamidbar?  One could suggest an
answer that relates to the underlying theme of each
book. 
    Recall our explanation of how the laws of Sefer
Vayikra reflect the fact that God's "shechina" now
dwells in the Mishkan.  Hence, we found numerous laws
that relate to the special level of kedusha in the
Mishkan itself in the first half of Vayikra (e.g.
korbanot, tumah & tahara, etc.)  as well as laws that
relate to the consequential "kedusha" on the entire camp
in the second half of the book (e.g. the laws of
"kedoshim t'hiyu" [adam], holidays [zman], shmitta
[makom], etc.).
    Sefer Bamidbar, on the other hand, discusses how
Bnei Yisrael travel through the desert on their way to
the Promised Land.  Considering that Bnei Yisrael will
now travel with the Mishkan at the center of their camp
(as discussed in the opening four chapters), it becomes
thematically significant that the Torah periodically
interrupts the details of that journey with mitzvot from
Sefer Vayikra, especially those that deal with the
special connection between the Kohanim and the nation.
    
	As Bnei Yisrael leave Har Sinai, they must now
deal with mundane tasks such as preparation for the
conquest and settlement of the Land.  While doing so,
they must constantly remind themselves of their
spiritual goals, symbolized by the Mishkan at the center
of the camp - and applied in the various laws that
relate to the "kedusha" of Am Yisrael - because they are
God's nation.

					shabbat shalom,
					menachem

FOR FURTHER IYUN:
=================

A. CHANUKAT HA'MIZBAYACH (7:1-8:26)
	This parsha, discussing the dedication ceremony
of the Mishkan, appears to be out of place. The story of
the dedication of the Mishkan was already detailed in
Parshat Pkudei (Shmot 40) and Parshat Shmini (Vayikra
9). Furthermore, this dedication ceremony took place on
the first of Nisan, while the narrative of Sefer
Bamidbar began a month LATER, on the first day of Iyar
(1:1)! Why then is it included in Bamidbar, and why
specifically here?
  	The primary topic of this perek is the 'korban'
which the tribal leaders brought on the day of the
dedication of the Mishkan. Their offering included a
joint presentation of six wagons and twelve oxen as well
as an offering for the mizbayach presented by each
"nasi" individually.
 	Those wagons are given to the Leviim to help
them while transporting the Mishkan. Therefore, this
detail of the dedication ceremony is recorded in
Bamidbar for it relates to the organization of the camp
("sidur ha'machaneh") and the duties of the Leviim in
preparation for the journey from Har Sinai.  Even though
the wagons were presented a month earlier, Sefer
Bamidbar begins with the census of the army in
anticipation of the journey from Har Sinai. 
    Once the detail of how the camp will travel is
completed, Sefer Bamidbar recalls the story of how
"nsiim" presented the Leviim with the wagons. The
remaining details of that joint presentation of the
nsiim are detailed in the parsha that follows (see
7:12-89 ).

B.  Considering that chapters 7->8 discuss the
dedication of the Mishkan that took place on the first
of Nisan (see 7:1) including the appointment of the
Leviim to work in the Mishkan in place of the first born
(see 8:5-15), one could also conclude that the counting
of the Leviim described in chapters 3->4 took place
earlier - i.e. before the Mishkan's dedication and
definitely BEFORE the MIFKAD of the twelve tribes as
described in chapters 1->2 [note Ramban on 8:5 that
would seem to imply this, even though this seems to
contradict Ramban on 1:45].
	If so, then chapters 3-4 as well as 7-8 took
place on (or close to) the first of Nisan. Hence, one
could conclude that these parshiot of mitzvot detailed
in chapters 5->6 were given to Moshe Rabeinu from the
Ohel Moed on the first of Nisan as well.



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.3/1472 -
Release Date: 5/29/2008 7:27 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: naso1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 44526 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080530/1e788ba3/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jun  4 06:48:31 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 06:48:31 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] for Parshat Naso - shiur
Message-ID: <005f01c8c630$89577840$9d00000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

              PARSHAT NASO - the Nsiim

    We were all taught from a young age that the Torah
doesn't 'waste' any words.  Nevertheless, the repetition
of
the 'korbanot' of the Nsiim [the Princes (of each
tribe)] in
Parshat Naso certainly leaves the reader with the
impression
that [at times] the Torah can be very 'wordy'.
    In the following shiur, as we study chapter 7, we
will
attempt to explain the thematic significance of that
repetition - to show how the Torah's 'wordiness' is not
'wasteful' at all.
  
INTRODUCTION
  Rarely does anyone pay careful attention to the second
half
of Parshat Naso; and for a very simple reason.  In those
last
eighty some psukim (see 7:12-83), the Torah repeats
twelve
times the exact same details of the exact same korban
brought
by each "nasi"!  Then, 'to top it off', in the final
five
psukim (see 7:84-88) the Torah tallies them for us as
well.
  For that reason, you probably never paid attention to
the
last pasuk of the Parsha - but if you did, it most
certainly
should have bothered you!
     Let's explain why:

AN ALMOST PERFECT FINALE
     At the conclusion of the Torah's tally of all of
the
offerings brought during those twelve days we find what
appears to be a 'perfect' summary pasuk:
  "zot chanukat ha'mizbeiach... " - 'this was the
dedication
  offering for the Altar on the day that it was
consecrated.'
    (see 7:88)

     Clearly, 7:88 could (and should) have been the
final
pasuk of this entire unit.  To verify this, simply note
how
7:88 provides perfect 'closure' for 7:84, as well as for
7:1
(which began the entire unit)!
  [It is highly recommended that you take a look in your
  Chumash to see this for yourself!]
  
     But to our surprise, after this summary is
complete, the
Torah 'adds on' an additional pasuk that appears to be
totally
unrelated. Let's take a look:
  "...And when Moshe would come into the OHEL MOED to
speak to
  Him, he would hear God's voice speak to him from above
the
  KAPORET above the ARON between the two keruvim, and
then He
  would speak to him."
    (See 7:89, i.e. the end of Parshat Naso)

     The information in this pasuk may be important, but
it
has absolutely nothing to do with the 'korbanot' that
were
just offered.  After all, what connection could there be
between 'how God spoke to Moshe from the Ohel Moed' and
'the
twelve days of korbanot' that were just offered by the
Nsiim?

NOTHING NEW
     To complicate matters, not only does this pasuk
appear to
be 'out of place', it also appears to be totally
superfluous -
for it doesn't contain any information that we didn't
already
know beforehand.  Let's explain why.
     Concerning how God spoke to Moshe from above the
KAPORET
etc. (see 7:89) - note how this very same detail was
already
recorded in Parshat Terumah - in God's commandment to
Moshe
concerning how to build the Mishkan:
  "and in the ARON put the EYDUT... And I will meet you
there
  and speak to you from above the KAPORET between the
two
  KERUVIM that are on the ARON HA'EYDUT..." (see Shmot
25:21-
  22)

     Later on, in the very first pasuk of Sefer Vayikra,
we
were already informed that God had indeed spoken to
Moshe
Rabeinu from the Ohel Moed (see Vayikra 1:1).
     Therefore, all the information provided by 7:89 is
already known, and hence this pasuk seems to be both
'out of
place' and superfluous.

     To uncover the importance of this 'add on' pasuk,
we must
return to our study of what transpired on this special
day in
the Bible - the day when the Mishkan was first dedicated
- as
the events on that day are described not only here in
Sefer
Bamidbar, but also in Shmot and Vayikra!

YOM HA'SHMINI
     Recall that in addition to Parshat Naso, there are
two
other units in Chumash that describe the story of the
Mishkan's dedication:
 *   Toward the conclusion of Parshat Pekudei, the Torah
described how the Mishkan was assembled, followed by how
the
shechina dwelled upon it (see Shmot chapter 40);
 *   In Parshat Shmini, the Torah detailed the special
korbanot offered by Aharon and the people on that day,
that
enabled God's glory to appear (see Vayikra 9, especially
9:1-
6).

     Even though each of story describes a different
aspect of
what happened on that day, they both focus on how God's
"shechina" returned to Am Yisrael on that day (see Shmot
40:34-
38 and Vayikra 9:5-6,24).
     We will now show how the final pasuk of Parshat
Naso may
also relate to that same event, and for an important
thematic
reason!

BACK TO CHET HA'EGEL
     Recall that in the aftermath of chet ha'egel [the
sin of
the Golden Calf /see Shmot 32], God concluded that Bnei
Yisrael would not be able survive if His divine Presence
- the
shechina" - remained in their midst.  Therefore, God
informed
Moshe that He would be taking away His "shechina" from
the
camp of Bnei Yisrael (see Shmot 33:1-4).  As a
consequence of
this punishment, God instructed Moshe to re-locate his
own
tent from inside the camp to OUTSIDE the camp:
  "And Moshe took the tent, and set it up OUTSIDE the
camp,
  FAR AWAY from the camp, and called it the OHEL MOED,
then
  anyone who would seek God would need to go to the tent
  OUTSIDE the camp (see Shmot 33:7).

     From this perspective, the very placement of
Moshe's tent
OUTSIDE the camp, and the fact that God would now only
speak
to him at this location served as a constant reminder of
Bnei
Yisrael's 'down-graded' status.
  [Note as well that Moshe's tent outside the camp is
now
  named the OHEL MOED - the tent of meeting (between God
and
  Moshe) - a name that will later be used to describe
the
  Mishkan itself!]
  
     With this background, we can better appreciate the
thematic importance of the wording of God's opening
commandment for Bnei Yisrael to build the Mishkan (in
Sefer
Shmot):
  "And you shall build for Me a MIKDASH, so that I can
dwell
  in THEIR MIDST..." (see Shmot 25:8)

     Building the Mishkan would enable the shechina to
return
to the camp of Bnei Yisrael.
    [In regard to whether this commandment was given
before
    [Ramban] or after [Rashi] chet ha'egel - see TSC
shiur on
    Parshat Terumah.  This thematic connection between
the
    Mishkan and the story of chet ha'egel certainly
supports
    Rashi's (and Chazal's) approach.]

     Recall as well that even though God had answered
Moshe
Rabeinu's plea to forgive their sin (see Shmot 33:12-19)
by
invoking His thirteen attributes of Mercy (see 34:1-7) -
the
"shechina" did not immediately return.  Rather, in order
to re-
establish their special covenantal relationship with
God, Bnei
Yisrael are instructed to first build the Mishkan (see
35:1-6).

  Therefore, during that entire interim time period,
i.e. the
six months between Moshe's descent from Har Sinai on Yom
Kippur and the Mishkan's dedication on Rosh Chodesh
Nisan, any
conversation between God and Moshe took place in the
OHEL MOED
located OUTSIDE the camp.
     [See Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and Chizkuni on 33:7!]

  Until the Mishkan would be assembled, the existence of
Moshe's special OHEL MOED outside the camp served as
constant
reminder to Bnei Yisrael that were still not worthy for
God to
dwell in their midst.
     Thus, the location of the Mishkan at the center of
the
camp, and God speaking to Moshe from its innermost
sanctuary
(see Shmot 25:21-22) would certainly serve as a sign to
Bnei
Yisrael that God had forgiven their sin, and that they
have
returned to their pre-"chet ha'egel" status.

THE BIG DAY!
     With this background, it becomes clear why the
highlight
of the day of the Mishkan's dedication would be the
return of
God's "shechina" to the camp, a sign not only of their
divine
pardon, but also an indication that they could now
continue
their journey to Eretz Canaan.
     Therefore, the FIRST time that God will speak to
Moshe
from the Mishkan (in contrast to his OHEL MOED outside
the
camp) will certainly be a major event in the eyes of the
nation - for it will indicate that their construction of
the
Mishkan has achieved its primary goal!
     From this perspective, the final pasuk of Parshat
Naso
becomes the most important pasuk of the entire Parsha!
It is
no longer a misplaced 'add on'; rather it should be
understand
as the highlight of the entire chapter - for it
describes how
God spoke to Moshe from the KAPORET in the OHEL MOED
(see
7:89) - the key event that everyone was waiting for!

     Note how this interpretation completes our parallel
to
the other two descriptions of the dedication ceremony of
the
Mishkan in Shmot and Vayikra:

 *   In Sefer Shmot, the Torah described the return of
the
     shechina (i.e the KAVOD and ANAN /see 40:34) at the
conclusion
     of MOSHE RABEINU's assembly of the Mishkan.
        There, the Torah focuses on the leadership of
Moshe
     Rabeinu, and how God answered his prayer (see
34:8--9!)
                       ["b'zchut" Moshe]

 *   In Sefer Vayikra, the Torah describes how the
"shechina"
     word return by the offering of special korbanot 
     (see 9:5-6 & 9:24).
       There, the Torah focuses on the function of
Aharon, and
     the kohanim, who serve as the liaison between God
and
     His people.
                       ["b'zchut" Aharon]

 *   Now, In Sefer Bamidbar, the Torah describes how the
      shechina returned due to the leadership of the
Nsiim.
                       ["b'zchut" ha'Nsiim]

     But why were these korbanot offered by the Nsiim so
instrumental towards the return of God's shechina?
     To answer this question, we must return to our
analysis
of Sefer Bamidbar.

A SHOW OF UNITY
     Recall how the first ten chapters of Sefer Bamidbar
describe Bnei Yisrael's preparation for their journey
from Har
Sinai to Eretz Canaan.  During this journey it was the
job of
the Leviim to transport the Mishkan, while the twelve
tribes
both encamped and traveled with the Mishkan at their
'center'
(see Bamidbar 10:11-24).
     On the day of the Mishkan's dedication, the leaders
of
the twelve tribes - i.e. the Nsiim - took a joint
initiative
to donate six transport wagons - that would help the
Leviim
carry the Mishkan during their journey (see 7:1-9).
Together
with the presentation of these six wagons, each and
every
"nasi" also offered a special korban - in honor of the
dedication of the Mishkan (see 7:10).
     Instead of each leader trying to outdo the other
[ever
hear of such a thing?], to our surprise - each NASI
offered
the exact same korban, and they all presented their
korbanot
to Moshe Rabeinu together on that very first day.
  For some reason, God instructed Moshe not to accept
them all
on the same day; rather Moshe was commanded to set aside
a
special day for each NASI (see 7:11!).  Furthermore, the
Torah
dedicates the next eighty psukim to detail the precise
korban
offered by each leader on each consecutive day!
  One could suggest that this show of 'unity' was so
important, that the Torah found it worthwhile to detail
each
and every korban, even though they were all identical!

BACK TO DAY ONE!
     It would have been significant enough had the Torah
only
repeated each korban; but to 'top it off', the Torah
continues
in 7:84-88 by providing us with a tally of all the
offerings
brought over those twelve days (like we don't know how
to
multiply!).
  But note carefully how that summary unit begins:
  "This was the dedication of the MIZBAYACH, on THE DAY
that
  it was anointed, by the NSIIM of Israel...  (7:84)

  The Torah has returned to 'Day One' of the dedication
ceremony, reminding us that all of these korbanot were
first
presented jointly by all the Nsiim - on the very first
day
(i.e. when the Mishkan was first dedicated):
     This could provide us with a reason for this
summary.
The Torah does not need to teach us multiplication;
rather it
is emphasizing once again how all of these korbanot were
presented to Moshe Rabeinu by ALL of the NSIIM on the
very
first day - in a show of national unity!
  As these psukim describe what transpired on the first
day of
the Mishkan's dedication - the Torah concludes (in 7:89)
by
telling us how this joint offering enabled the most
significant event on that day to take place.  From now
on, God
would speak to Moshe from the Ohel Moed within the camp
of
Bnei Yisrael!  It may have been this show of unity that
inspired God to allow His "shechina" to return to dwell
in
their midst.
  The nation, via its leaders, had shown their
worthiness to
return to their status as God's special nation - chosen
to
represent Him before the eyes of all mankind.
     United in purpose, Bnei Yisrael were now ready to
leave
Har Sinai with God in their midst, to take the challenge
of
establishing God's model nation in the Promised Land.
  [See also Rashi on Shmot 19:2 "va'yichan" everyone as
one
  person with one heart...", describing how Bnei Yisrael
first
  encamped at Har Sinai.]

     It may be that it was because of this collective
effort,
where everyone acted together towards a common goal,
while
keeping their own identity; that God found it important
to
give each Nasi his own special day.  By acting with
unity,
each Nasi was now able to shine as an individual.  It
may have
been that understanding of the important balance between
the
nation and the individual - that made room for God to
'join
along' with His nation, as they prepared for their next
stage
of Redemption!

     That show of unity was only short lived in Sefer
Bamidbar, as the nation returned to divisiveness as soon
as
they left Har Sinai (see chapters 11 thru 25 in Sefer
Bamidbar).  Nonetheless, that short moment of unity can
remain
as inspiration for future generations, especially to
their
leaders, and especially at times of historic potential.

                                   shabbat shalom,
                                   menachem

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.6/1480 -
Release Date: 6/3/2008 7:00 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: naso2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 29103 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080604/9a7fa8f6/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Jun  8 01:31:29 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 01:31:29 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] For Shavuot
Message-ID: <000001c8c928$eb964db0$6501a8c0@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

SHAVUOT & MATAN TORAH   

	When the Torah wishes to inform us of the
'historical' reason for a holiday, it certainly knows
how to do so. Take for example the two other pilgrimage
holidays - "chag ha'matzot" & "succot": Even though
these holidays are also presented from their
'agricultural' perspective (see Shmot 23:14-17), the
Torah  informs us of their historical perspectives as
well (see Shmot 12:17, 13:3 etc. and Vayikra 23:42-43). 
	Therefore, it is simply baffling that the Torah
presents Shavuot ONLY from its agricultural aspect,
without mentioning even a word about its connection to
events of MATAN TORAH! 
	In this week's shiur, we attempt to understand
why.
 
SHAVUOT IN THE BIBLE
	Before we begin our shiur, let's verify our
statement that Shavuot is presented solely from its
agricultural perspective by quickly reviewing the five
'parshiot' in which it is mentioned:
	I. Shmot 23:15 = "v'et chag ha'KATZIR bikurei
ma'asecha"
		[the HARVEST holiday - the first fruits
of your work]
	II. Shmot 34:22 = "v'chag shavuot... bikurei
KTZIR CHITIM"
		[Feast of Weeks, the first fruits of the
wheat harvest]
	III. Vayikra 23:15-21: "u'sfartem lachem..."
"And you shall count from the time you offer the OMER
offering (from your first harvest/ see 23:10) seven
weeks... and you shall offer a new MINCHA to God..."
	IV. Bamidbar 28:26 = "u'v'yom ha'BIKURIM..."
"And on the day of the first fruit offering, when you
bring a new MINCHA to God on Shavuot..."
	V. Devarim 16:9-12 = "...m'ha'chel chermesh
b'kamah..."
"Count SEVEN weeks, starting when the sickle is first
put to the standing grain, then you shall celebrate the
holiday of SHAVUOT to God..."

	As you review these five sources, note how in
each instance Shavuot is presented solely as a harvest
holiday, when we must thank God for our grain crops;
while its connection MATAN TORAH is never mentioned -
not even once!
	However, when we study the above sources, it
also becomes quite clear that there is ample reason to
celebrate SHAVUOT, even without the events of MATAN
TORAH. Considering that grain is man's staple, it is
only logical that we are commanded to celebrate its
harvest together with God, in order to thank Him for His
providence during this most critical time of the year. 
[Recall also that the custom of the nations of Canaan
was to relate the growth of grain to various local gods
such as Baal & Ashera and Dagon etc. This made it even
more important to celebrate Shavuot, to assure that Bnei
Yisrael would thank the proper God and not fall into the
traps of AVODA ZARA. For more detail, see Hoshea chapter
2 (which just so happens to be the Haftara for Parshat
Bamidbar). See especially Hoshea 2:7,10,14-18 & 23!]

    Based on these sources, should we conclude that it
is only coincidental that Shavuot falls out on the date
of Matan Torah? Would that explain why Chumash makes no
connection at all between that event and this holiday? 	
	To answer this question, we must first take
issue with our original assumption that the Biblical
date of Matan Torah indeed coincides with the holiday of
Shavuot. 

THE DATE OF MATAN TORAH
	When the Torah wishes to inform us of the
precise date of a certain event, it certainly knows how
to do so. Once again, take for example the events of
Exodus.  Review Shmot 12:6,12-14,17-18 and 13:3-8,
noting how the Torah informs us of the precise date (and
even the time of day) when the Tenth Plague struck and
when Bnei Yisrael left Egypt!  Later on, the Torah even
records the precise date when Bnei Yisrael arrived at
Midbar Sin (on the 15th of Iyar, see Shmot 16:1).
	However, in regard to Matan Torah, the Torah is
quite vague. Indeed we are told that Bnei Yisrael arrive
at Har Sinai in the third month (Sivan), but we are not
told on what DAY of the month they arrived:
"In the third month of Bnei Yisrael's departure from the
Egypt, ON THIS DAY, they came to Midbar Sinai." (19:1)

	Not only is the phrase "on this day" ambiguous,
it is quite difficult to determine how many days
actually transpire between their arrival at Har Sinai
and Matan Torah (see Shmot 19:3
16).
	Even if we assume that Bnei Yisrael arrived on
the first day of the month (see Rashi 19:1-"b'yom
hazeh"), the lack of a clear chronology in the
subsequent events still makes it impossible to pinpoint
that date.  Even though it is recorded how Moshe goes up
and down the mountain several times, and that three days
are required to prepare for that special occasion; we
never told how many days elapse in the interim. 
	In the Mechilta (and in Mesechet Shabbat 86b),
Chazal calculate that the Torah was given on either the
sixth or seventh of Sivan (see also Rashi on 19:2->19),
yet the fact remains that the Torah clearly prefers to
obscure the precise date of this event.

CALCULATING 'BACKWARDS'
	However, there is an additional manner by which
it is possible to calculate the approximate date of
Ma'amad Har Sinai.  If we assume that tenth of Tishrei
was chosen as 'Yom Kippur' specifically because it marks
the date when Moshe descended from Har Sinai with the
second "luchot" [See further iyun section for a
discussion of how we can prove this.], then we can
calculate 'backwards', using the three sets of 'forty
days' that are described in the story of chet ha'egel in
Devarim chapter 9.  
    Working 'backwards' from the tenth of TIshrei; we
can arrive at the following approximate dates of these
three sets of forty days:
	The last forty days - from 1 Elul until 10
Tishrei.
		[when Moshe receives the second Luchot.]
	The middle forty days - 19 Tamuz until 29 Av 
    [when Moshe's prayer for their forgivenss.]
	The first forty days - from either 6 or 7 Sivan
until 17 Tamuz.
		[when Moshe receives the first Luchot.]

    These calculations leads us to the conclusion that
the Torah was given on either the 6th or 7th of Sivan
(depending if the month of Sivan that year was 29 or
thirty days).  
    However, even if all of the above assumptions are
correct, the fact still remains that the Torah never
explicitly mentions the date of Matan Torah, even though
it has ample opportunities to do so! 
	Thus, we really have a double question. Not only
is it strange that Torah makes no connection between
Shavuot and Matan Torah, it doesn't even tell us WHEN
Matan Torah took place!
	Again, the question remains - why?

	To answer this question, we must consider a
fundamental difference between the very nature of these
two monumental events in our history: Yetziat Mitzraim
and Matan Torah.
 
MATAN TORAH: AN UNCOMMEMORATED EVENT
	In the Torah, we find numerous mitzvot through
which we commemorate Yetziat Mitzraim, both on the:
ANNIVERSARY of the Exodus:  e.g. eating matzah, telling
of the story of Yetziat Mitzraim, korban Pesach etc.;
and  ALL YEAR ROUND: e.g. "mitzvat bikkurim" (bringing
the first fruits to Yerushalayim), tfillin, shabbat, and
the daily recital of "kriyat shma", etc., all of which
the Torah relates to the Exodus (i.e. "zecher l'yitziat
mitzrayim").
 	In contrast, in Chumash we do not find even one
specific mitzvah whose explicit purpose is to
commemorate the events of Matan Torah. [Sefer Devarim
does require that we not forget the events that
transpired at Har Sinai (see 4:9
16), but does not
command us to perform any specific positive mitzvah in
order that we do not forget that event! Certainly, those
psukim do not require that we commemorate that event on
any specific day. See Further Iyun section for
additional sources on this topic.]
	Why does the Torah call upon us to commemorate
these two events in such dramatically different ways?
	One could suggest that by this manner of
presentation, the Torah is sending a complex message.
Even though the Torah provides us ample information to
calculate the approximate date of Ma'amad Har Sinai, its
deliberate obfuscation of that date may suggest that we
should not treat Matan Torah as a historically bound
event.  Instead, from a certain perspective, each and
every day one should feel as though the Torah has just
been given. 
	This concept is reflected by the famous Midrash,
quoted by Rashi on 19:1:
"... it should have been written: 'ON THAT DAY'. Why
does the pasuk say: 'ON THIS DAY'? This comes to teach
us that  the words of the Torah should be considered new
to you - as  though they were given TODAY!" (see Rashi
Shmot 19:1)

	In other words, we should not view Matan Torah
as a one time event. Rather, every generation must feel
as though they have just entered into a covenant with
God (see Devarim 5:1
3).  Every generation must feel
that God's words were spoken to them no less than to
earlier generations.  To celebrate the anniversary of
Matan Torah as a single moment in our history could
diminish from that meta-historical dimension.
	Similarly, in our study of the Mishkan, we
showed how the primary function of the Mishkan was to
perpetuate the experience at Ma'amad Har Sinai. [See
Ramban on Shmot 25:1, and the TSC shiurim on Parshiot
Terumah & Tezaveh.]  From that source as well, it
appears that the Torah would rather we treat Matan Torah
as an event that needs to be perpetuated, more than
commemorated.
	In contrast to Matan Torah, the Exodus is not an
event that must be re-lived. Rather it is an event that
the Torah emphasizes over and over again that we must
REMEMBER. Even if we must ACT as though we went out of
Egypt on the seder night (See in the Hagada - "b'chol
dor v'dor chayav adam lirot atzmo k'ilu..."), it is in
order that we put ourselves in the proper frame of mind
to praise God and thank Him for our redemption.
	Yetziat Mitzrayim was, and should remain, a one
time event in our history - our national birth. As such,
it needs to be commemorated. Matan Torah is totally
different! It is an event that must be constantly
RE-LIVED, not just remembered, for it is the essence of
our daily existence.
	So is it wrong to commemorate Matan Torah on
Shavuot? Did Chazal make a 'mistake' (chas v'shalom) by
connecting a 'purely agricultural' holiday with the
historical event of Matan Torah?  
	Of course not! Is it possible that the most
important event in our national history not be
commemorated on its yearly anniversary?!
	In this regard, Chazal strike a beautiful
balance between Torah "sh'bichtav" (the Written Law) and
Torah "sh'baal peh" (the Oral Law). Chumash emphasizes
one perspective, the inherent danger of commemorating
this event, while tradition balances this message by
emphasizing the other perspective, the historical
significance of remembering that day, by re-living that
event.
	Therefore, Chazal instituted that just like on
"leil ha'seder (Passover eve), when we spend the entire
evening 're-telling' the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim, on
"leil Shavuot", we spend the entire evening engrossed in
the study of Torah, 're-living' the experience of
Ma'amad Har Sinai!

SOME BIBLICAL 'HINTS'
	Even though the connection between Matan Torah
and Shavuot is not explicit in Chumash, we do find
several interesting 'hints' to their connection in
Parshat Emor.

THE SHTEI HA'LECHEM
	Recall how Parshat Emor is the primary source
for the specific details of the special laws of Shavuot
(see Vayikra 23:15
21).  That parshia discusses the
special offering of the "shtei ha'lechem" ? two loaves
of bread, baked as ?chametz? from the new wheat harvest
-, offered at the conclusion of the 50 days of counting
["sefirat ha'omer"].  
    As the primary reason for this holiday is to thank
God for our wheat harvest, it certainly makes sense for
the Torah to command that we offer special korban from
wheat.  However, together with this ?shtei ha'lechem?,
the Torah also instructs the "tzibur" (the community of
Israel) to bring some additional sacrifices, including
an olah, chatat, & shlamim.  
[The Olah is 7 sheep, 2 rams, and 1 bull, together with
the standard goat for the chatat offering. For the
shlamim the tzibur offers 2 sheep, whose meat is waved
('tnufa') together with the "shtei ha'lechem". / See
23:18-20.]
    
    Even though similar offerings are brought on every
other holiday (see Bamidbar chapters 28 thru 29),
Shavuot is unique for it is only time of the year when
the ?tzibur? offers a korban shlamim!  
    
	Let?s summarize these two unique laws regarding
the "shtei ha'lechem" - the special korban of Shavuot.
1) It is the only korban 'mincha' offered by the tzibur
which is baked 'chametz' (all other flour offerings must
be baked  'matzah').
2) It is the only time during the entire year when the
?tzibur? offers a korban SHLAMIM. 

	We will now explain how these two laws may
relate to the fact that the agricultural holiday of
Shavuot coincides with the time of year when Bnei
Yisrael first received the Torah.

1) CHAMETZ U'MATZAH
	As we explained in earlier shiurim, matzah
symbolizes the initial stage of a process, whereas the
fully risen 'chametz' symbolizes its completion. Thus,
the mitzvah to bake the shtei ha'lechem as 'chametz' may
indicate that Matan Torah should be understood as the
culmination of the redemption process which began with
Yetziat Mitzrayim. Just as the "shtei ha'lechem' marks
the culmination of the wheat harvest, the staple of our
physical existence - the historical process which began
with the Exodus culminates with Matan Torah, the essence
of our spiritual existence.
	In this manner, the agricultural time of year of
Shavuot alludes to an educational message that can help
us appreciate the historical event that we commemorate. 
[In our shiur on Parshat Emor, we provided similar
explanations for significance of the agricultural time
of year of Pesach & Succot.]

2) KORBAN SHLAMIM 
	As we noted above, Shavuot is the ONLY holiday
when the "tzibur" must offer a korban SHLAMIM, i.e. the
two kvasim which are offered with the SHTEI ha'LECHEM.
	To appreciate why this is significant, we must
uncover its Biblical precedent. 
	The FIRST instance where we find a korban
SHLAMIM is at the end of Parshat Mishpatim (Shmot
24:4
8) when the Torah describes the special covenantal
ceremony that takes place at Ma'amad Har Sinai. At this
ceremony, Bnei Yisrael proclaim "na'aseh v'nishma" while
entering into a covenant to become God's special nation
by accepting the laws of Matan Torah.
	That ceremony included the offering of special
korbanot: OLOT and SHLAMIM (see Shmot 24:5). The blood
from these korbanot, sprinkled both on the mizbayach and
on the people, symbolized Bnei Yisrael's entry into the
covenant (24:6
8). [The meat of the shlamim was eaten at
the conclusion of the ceremony (24:11).]
	Thus we find that the very first korban SHLAMIM
is offered as a symbol of Bnei Yisrael's acceptance of
MATAN TORAH. Recall our explanation (see shiur on
Parshat Vayikra) of how a SHLAMIM reflects a joint feast
shared by covenantal partners. Therefore, the korban
SHLAMIM, which is presented together with the SHTEI
ha'LECHEM on Shavuot, may serve a symbolic reminder of
MATAN TORAH.

	In fact, we find two additional instances in
Chumash when Bnei Yisrael offer a special collective
SHLAMIM offering - and once again, both relate to
Ma'amad Har Sinai:
	1) During the YOM ha'SHMINI ceremony (see
Vayikra 9:1-5)
	2) On Har Eival, when the generation that enters
the land re-enacts Ma'amad Har Sinai and studies its
laws!
						[see
Devarim 27:1-8]

1) In many ways, "Yom ha'Shmini"- the day of the
dedication ceremony of the Mishkan - can be considered
as an extension of Ma'amad Har Sinai. Considering that
God's SHCHINA, which had left Bnei Yisrael in the
aftermath of chet ha'egel, now returns to the Mishkan,
and God begins once again to teach Bnei Yisrael mitzvot
- now from the Ohel Moed instead of from Har Sinai - we
can view this event as parallel to the day of MATAN
TORAH. 
	Furthermore, this day marks the first time that
God appears to Bnei Yisrael (see 9:4-5) since He
appeared to them on the day when they first  proclaimed
"na'aseh v'nishma" (see 24:9-11). 
	Once again, the korban SHLAMIM offered during
this ceremony may reflect the re-establishment of the
covenant of Har Sinai, which was broken due to chet
ha'egel.

2) The purpose of the ceremony which God commands Bnei
Yisrael to perform on Har Eival (to teach Bnei Yisrael
the Torah and offer korbanot OLOT & SHLAMIM) is clearly
to re-create the experience of MATAN TORAH for the new
generation (for most of them were not present at the
original event). Here once again, we find a thematic
connection between the korban SHLAMIM and MATAN TORAH.

	Therefore, it is only logical to assume that
special korban SHLAMIM that the Torah obligates us to
offer with the SHTEI ha'LECHEM on Shavuot alludes to the
deeper thematic connection between SHAVUOT and MATAN
TORAH. 

	If so, these Biblical ?hints? remind us that
Shavuot remains as "ZMAN MATAN TORATEINU", even
according to Chumash.

				chag sameyach,
				menachem

==============
FOR FURTHER IYUN
1. Based on the above shiur, can you find a deeper
meaning to the popular phrase "im ein kemach - ein
Torah" [If there is no flour then there is no TORAH.]

2. In regard to Devarim 4:9-10. Note how these psukim
could be understood as an introduction to the
prohibition to make any image to represent God, as
explained in 4:11-22. Therefore, this may not be
considered as an independent mitzvah to remember Matan
Torah. Only Ramban counts it as a mitzvah - See his
pirush on 4:9 and the Hasagot HaRamban to Sefer
HaMitzvot of the Rambam- Lo Ta'aseh #2. Note, that even
if it is counted as a mitzvah, it does not require any
specific action by which we are to commemorate that
event. We are simply commanded never to forget it.

3. Our assumption that the specific date of the tenth of
Tishrei was chosen for 'Yom Kippur' because it marks the
date when Moshe descended from Har Sinai with the second
"luchot" is based on several thematic parallels.
	First and foremost, the very concept of
"kappara" was first introduced when Moshe first
petitioned God to forgive Bnei Yisrael for their
behavior at chet ha'egel - see Shmot 32:30  - "...u'lie
ACHAPRA b'ad chatatchem".  Furthermore, during Moshe's
forty days and nights on Har Sinai, he did not eat or
drink (see Devarim 9:9). This may relate to our need to
fast on Yom Kippur.
	Finally, the specific date of the TENTH of the
month would have no logical reason, other than if it
commemorated a certain event that happened on that day.
[A holiday on the fifteenth of the month (Pesach &
Succot) would be because of full moon, or Rosh ha'shana,
because it is a new moon. However a holiday on the tenth
would require a reason for that specific day.]


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.0.0 - Release
Date: 6/4/2008 12:00 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shav1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 35194 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080608/57ffa1cc/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Jun  8 01:31:29 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 01:31:29 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] for Shavuot - questions for self study
Message-ID: <000801c8c928$f21d9940$6501a8c0@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

        Questions for self study for tikun leil SHAVUOT
          re: topic of Shavuot & Matan Torah

INTRODUCTION
  Even though we all know that the holiday of Shavuot
commemorates the events of Matan Torah, for some reason,
in
the Torah's presentation of Shavuot we find no mention
of that
event! The following questions deal with this topic; and
can
provide a framework for study on "leil Shavuot".]
  However, before we begin the battery of questions, we
will
provide a little 'agricultural' background concerning
'nature'
and the yearly agricultural cycle in the land of Israel.
  The wheat crop, which is planted in the winter,
usually
begins to ripen (and hence it becomes ready for
harvesting) in
late April or early May. The harvest season itself
usually
lasts about five to six weeks, i.e. until mid-June.
Hence,
late May (or early June) is the time of year in Eretz
Yisrael
when the grain harvest nears completion.
  
THE BIBLICAL SOURCES
1. Carefully review the following sources, as they
include
every mention of Shavuot in the Torah:
  As you study each of these sources, make note of the:
  * NAME that the Torah calls this holiday;
  * DATE (or time of year) of Shavuot;
  * REASON for celebrating Shavuot;
  * MITZVAH that we are commanded to observe.
    When you do find a mitzvah, note if this mitzvah is
    unique to Shavuot, and if so, explain why.
    
  A. Shmot 23:14-17 / 34:22-24;
  B. Vayikra 23:15-21;
  C. Bamidbar 28:26;
  D. Devarim 16:9-12.
  
2.  Can you explain why the Torah never specifies the
exact
(lunar) date on which we must celebrate Shavuot, as it
does
for all the other holidays in Parshat Emor and Pinchas?
  [In your answer, relate to "kidush ha'chodesh" by
bet-din.]
  
3. In any of these above sources, does the Torah mention
any
connection between Shavuot and Matan Torah?
  If so, where?
  If not, can you explain why there is no mention?

4. In your opinion, does the agricultural reason that
the
Torah does provide for celebrating Shavuot provide
sufficient
reason for celebrating this holiday every year?  If so,
what
in your opinion the agricultural reason for why God
commands
Bnei Yisrael to celebrate Shavuot?
  Attempt to explain why this harvest would require a
holiday
of thanksgiving to God? Relate to the importance of the
wheat
harvest in regard to the food that will be eaten for the
entire year; and how many chances a year there are to
reap a
wheat harvest.
  [Note Shmot 23:13, and how it relates to 23:14-17!]

WHEN DID MATAN TORAH TAKE PLACE?
1. Carefully review Shmot chapter 19 (without Rashi!),
and
attempt to determine if Chumash ever mentions the
precise day
on which Matan Torah took place.
  If not, does the Torah provide us with enough
information to
allow us to make a rough estimate? [Be sure to relate to
Shmot
19:1-2.]
  What can be inferred from Shmot 24:15-16 in regard to
the
amount of time which elapses at Ma'amad Har Sinai?
  [Note Rashi (and the other commentators) concerning
when in
  Sivan those 'seven' days transpired.]

2.  Review the dates of the various holidays as they are
described in Vayikra chapter 23, noting that each lunar
date
seems to have a very logical reason, with the exception
of Yom
Kippur - which falls out on the tenth of Tishrei.  [Note
that
the first day of the month is a 'logical date' to mark a
celebration, as is the 15th - when there is a full moon,
and
ample lighting in the evening.]
  In your opinion, is there any logical reason for why
the
Torah chose the 10th of Tishrei for Yom Kippur?  In your
answer, relate to the three sets of forty days at Har
Sinai,
as discussed in Devarim 9:9,18,25 & 10:10; as well as to
the
forty days described in Shmot 24:14-16.
  Note as well a thematic connection between those
events and
Yom Kippur based on Shmot 32:30-32!
  Using those three sets of forty days, and working
'backwards' - attempt to determine a more precise 'lunar
date'
for when Matan Torah took place!

BIBLICAL DATING & COMMEMORATION
3. Does the Torah tell us the precise date of when Bnei
Yisrael left Egypt? Is that date commemorated? [Note
Shmot
13:2-8.]
How many specific mitzvot can you recall from the Torah
that
commemorate Yetziat Mitzraim?
  In contrast, how many specific mitzvot can you recall
that
commemorate Matan Torah?
  In this regard, how and why would you say that the
Torah
relates to the event of Matan Torah in a different
manner that
to Yetziat Mitzrayim?
  Can you suggest a reason why these events are so
different?
    [See Rashi Shmot 19:1! Relate this to the Midrash
of"ben
    Zomah" in the Haggadah of Pesach concerning our
daily
    obligation to 'remember' the events of Yetziat
Mitzraim.]
    
4. Review Devarim 4:9-15, noting how these psukim
describe the
events that transpired at Ma'amad Har Sinai.  According
to
these psukim (in their context), does there appear to be
a
mitzvah to 'remember' the events of Matan Torah? If so,
on
what day are we to remember those events; or does it
appear
that our obligation is to remember those events on every
day?
  [See Ramban on 4:9 and his opinion that this pasuk
should be
  considered a MITZVAH. See also Ramban in his "hasagot"
to
  the sefer ha'mitzvot of the Rambam - Lo'Taaseh -
hasaga
  #2!.]

5. In the Torah's presentation of the other two "shalosh
regalim" (i.e. chag ha'matzot and chag ha'succot), we do
find
the mention of a certain historical aspect (see Shmot
13:3-7,
Vayikra 23:43) in addition to their agricultural
perspective.
In what manner is Shavuot different? [Is its historical
aspect
ever mentioned?]
Can you suggest a reason why (or why not)?

6. Carefully review Vayikra 23:10-19. Note the
connection
between the korban haOMER and the korban SHTEI
ha'LECHEM.
Study the details of the special korban that must be
offered
together with the "shtei ha'lechem" (see 23:17-19),
noting
especially the centrality of the "korban shlamim" that
must be
'waved' ["tenufah"] with the SHTEI ha'LECHEM.
  Is there any other holiday (or any other time during
the
year) when the "tzibur" offers a korban SHLAMIM?
  [Don't spend too much time looking, the answer is NO!]
  Why should this point be significant?

7. Note as well in those psukim (see 23:17) that the
SHTEI
ha'LECHEM are to be baked "chametz", as opposed to every
other
type of flour offering in the Mikdash, which must be
"matzah".
[See Vayikra 1:11!]
  Would you say that this is significant? If so, how?
  Does this suggest a thematic connection to chag
ha'matzot"?
  In general, how do the special agricultural mitzvot of
the
"shalosh regalim" relate to the nature of the historical
events which they commemorate?

8. In case you forgot, the very first time in Chumash
where we
find that Bnei Yisrael collectively offer a korban
SHLAMIM is
at Har Sinai. Review Shmot 24:4-8, noting how those
offerings
were part of the very same ceremony when Bnei Yisrael
declared
"na'aseh v'nishmah"!
  Can you relate this event to the special korban
SHLAMIM that
is offered on Shavuot with the SHTEI ha'LECHEM?

9. Review Vayikra 9:1-5, noting how Bnei Yisrael were
instructed to offer a korban SHLAMIM - at the dedication
ceremony of the Mishkan on "yom ha'Shmini" - most
probably to
mark the return of the SHCHINA to the camp of Bnei
Yisrael.
  Can you relate this special korban to the korbanot
described
in Shmot 24:4-6 at "brit na'asseh v'nishma"?
  How does the dedication of the Mishkan relate to Matan
Torah? (See previous shiurim on Parshiot Terumah &
Tezaveh.)

10. Note as well that the other special korbanot brought
on
"Yom Ha'Shmini" (the seir l'chatat of the Am and "par
chatat"
of Aharon etc.) find a parallel in the "korban tzibur"
offered
on Yom Kippur (see Vayikra 16:1-5, compare with 9:1-5).
Relate
this to the connection between Matan Torah and Yom
Kippur (the
day Moshe descended Har Sinai with the second luchot!).
  Use this parallel to explain how the two aspects of
the "yom
ha'shmini" ("korban chatat" - as atonement for chet
ha'egel,
and "korban shlamim" for re-creating Ma'amad Har Sinai),
relate to our annual celebration of both Yom Kippur and
Shavuot!

11. Relate the primary points raised by the above
questions to
explain our custom to commemorate Matan Torah on
Shavuot!

         b'hatzlacha,
         menachem

PART TWO -=

********************************************************
******
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  www.tanach.org
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Questions for self-study  -  by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

 		Shavuot - Ma'amad Har Sinai 

PART I -  THE TEN 'COMMANDMENTS'
1.  For some reason, what we call in Hebrew 'aseret
ha-dibrot', we refer to in English as 'the ten
commandments'.  Is this translation correct?  Explain
why (yes or no)?
	How many 'dibrot' are there in the 'Ten
Commandments'?
	Accordingly, how would you translate 'dibrot'-
as:
		statements? 
		commandments?  
		parshiot?
	Explain each possibility. 
		Are there ten according to each?
	What is the difference between 'mitzvot' &
'dibrot'?

2.  What are the first TWO 'dibrot'?  [In other words,
what precisely is the first one, and what is the second
one?]  Relate your answer to the question above. 
	How does your answer relate to the division of
the 'dibrot' into 'parshiot'?
	Are the first two 'dibrot' included in the first
'parshia'?  From a grammar perspective, what else is
special about the first two 'dibrot' (i.e. the first
'parshia')?
	Now, see Ibn Ezra on 20:2.  See also Rambam
Sefer ha-Mitzvot Asei #1, and Hasagot ha-Ramban Lo
Ta'aseh #5.  How do these opinions relate to the above
questions?

3.  Note in your Chumash that there are two versions for
how to read the 'dibrot' - 'ta'am elyon' and 'ta'am
tachton'. 
	Note how each method divides the psukim in a
very different manner!  See if you can determine the
underlying logic of each division and how it relates to
the above questions.

4.  How do we know that there were TEN 'dibrot'?
	Does it say anywhere in Chumash that there were
TEN?
	[In case you give up, see Shmot 34:28 & Devarim
4:11-13.]
Relate this as well to your answer to the above
questions.]

5.  You probably also remember that God gave the
'dibrot' to Moshe Rabeinu written on TWO 'luchot'
[tablets].  Can you recall how we know that there were
indeed TWO 'luchot'? 
	[When you give up, try Shmot 31:18 and 32:15;
compare with Shmot 24:12 and 25:21!]
	In your opinion, what does this mean? 
		[i.e. two copies, or half written on
each?]
	If 'half & half', how would they be divided, and
would this relate to their content?
	[If 'two copies'; why would one set not have
been sufficient?]
See the concluding paragraph of Ramban's commentary on
the 'dibrot' (on 20:12-13) where he discusses this
topic.

6.  In your opinion, are the mitzvot of the DIBROT
'qualitatively' different than the remaining mitzvot of
the Torah?
	If yes, what is special about them?
	If not, why were these specific mitzvot given at
Ma'amad Har Sinai, in contrast to all the other mitzvot
that were given at a different setting?
[See an amazing Rashbam on 20:15-16 /"daber ata
imanu..."]
	See also Ramban on 20:6 - from "et Hashem
Elokecha" in regard to the difference between the first
two dibrot and the final eight.

7.  In your opinion, do any of the 'Ten Commandments'
apply to gentiles as well?  If so, which laws apply only
to Am Yisrael, and which laws apply to all mankind?  Can
you explain why?
	Relate your answer to Shmot 19:5-6!
	See also Rashbam on Breishit 26:5 - "chukotei
v'toratei".

8.  Review 20:14-19.  In your opinion, had Bnei Yisrael
not become fearful during Ma'amad Har Sinai, when they
requested that Moshe receive them instead (see 20:15-18
and/or Devarim 5:20-28), would Bnei Yisrael have
received more than ten (or two) commandments directly
from God at Ma'amad Har Sinai?  If so, how many more
mitzvot?  [All 613,or only a certain group?]

9.  How does the first mitzva that Bnei Yisrael receive
after the dibrot - "lo ta'asun iti elohei kesef..." (see
20:19-20) relate to their request to hear the remaining
mitzvot via Moshe and not directly from God? 	How is
this mitzva different than the commandment not to
worship 'avoda zara' in the second dibur?
	Can you explain how this relates to the next
mitzva: "mizbeiach adama ta'aseh li" (20:21-22) as well?


PART TWO  -  * MA'AMAD HAR SINAI *
 	Ma'amad Har Sinai was one of the most important
events (if not the most important) in our history.
Therefore, our shiurim will deal with this topic in
detail.  The following questions will treat Shmot
chapter 19 as the beginning of a new 'unit' that will
continue until the end of Parshat Mishpatim.  This unit
of Ma'amad Har Sinai includes chapter 19 - the story
that leads up to the 'dibrot'; chapter 20 - the dibrot
followed by a short story; chapters 21 thru23 - a unit
of misc. laws; & chapters 24 - the concluding story.
     The following questions will help you appreciate
the content of these chapters (19->24) and understand
why there is such a major controversy among the
commentators concerning when these events took place. 

FINDING 'PARAGRAPHS' & 'UNITS'
     As you will soon realize on your own, it is very
difficult to follow the progression of topic in chapter
19.  To help you study that chapter (and the rest of
this unit), we suggest that you use the following
methodology:
     As you study each chapter in this unit, attempt to
divide each chapter into paragraphs.  In other words, as
you read a group of psukim, attempt to identify when a
certain 'sub-topic' is complete, and then group together
all of those psukim that deal with that sub-topic.  [In
general, there should usually be between three and eight
psukim in each paragraph, but there can be exceptions.]
     Try to give a short title for each paragraph.
Then, try to understand the logic of the flow of topic
from one paragraph to the next.  After analyzing several
chapters in this manner, attempt to turn you paragraph
topics into an outline.  [Technically speaking, you
could follow this methodology to compose an outline for
the entire book - which would help you identify is
primary topics, units, and theme - but for now, we'll
focus on chapters 19 thru 24.]
     
     Let's start with chapter 19, and following this
methodology.  
After identifying its paragraphs, construct an outline
that divides this chapter into its most basic topics.
Try to give a precise title for each section, and
explain the logic behind its flow of topic.  Most
probably, you'll notice several psukim that are very
difficult to understand.  When you encounter such a
pasuk, be sure to see if (and how) Rashi, Ibn Ezra
Rashbam & Ramban (etc.) deal with those questions that
bothered you.
	When you finish your outline (or if you give up)
see if your outline matches our outline below (note the
titles that we have given to each section).  See if you
agree with those titles, and then answer the questions
that follow:

A.  19:1-8 /	The 'PROPOSAL'
1.  Note how 19:1-2 'sets the stage', while the actual
topic of this paragraph begins to unfold in 19:3.  As
you read these psukim, note how Moshe's job is to act as
God's 'messenger' to offer a certain 'proposal' to Am
Yisrael.  Try to explain what this 'proposal' [or
'deal'] is all about, and its purpose.  
     Be sure that you understand the 'two sides' of this
proposal as detailed in 19:5-6.  Are there 'conditions',
'rewards' and/or 'consequences'?  If so, explain what
they are and why.
	Be sure you understand why the 'divrei Hashem'
detailed in 19:4-6 should be considered a 'proposition'
and not as a 'commandment' (or information)!

2.  Note the word 'brit' in 19:5.  In your opinion, does
it refer to something 'old' or something 'new'?
According to each possibility, what 'brit' is being
referred to?  How does this 'brit' relate to the
proposal?  [See Ramban on this pasuk, noting the
different possibilities that he raises!]

3.  Explain the phrases 'mamlechet kohanim' & 'goy
kadosh' (in 19:6)?  In your opinion, do they describe
two different concepts or the same concept?  If
possible, relate your answer to the theme of 'bechira'
in Sefer Breishit, and its purpose.  Relate to Breishit
12:1-3 and 18:18-19.

4. Based on the simple 'pshat' of 19:3-6, what would
have happened had Bnei Yisrael answered 'no' to this
proposal?  [You are probably familiar with a Midrash
that entertains this possibility. Explain how this
"pshat" explains this drash.]  
	Once Bnei Yisrael do answer 'yes' to this
proposal (see 19:7-8), what should happen next?  In
other words, how will Bnei Yisrael find out the more
specific details of this 'brit'?  Relate your answer to
what does happen in chapters 19 & 20.

B.  19:9-15 / PREPARATION for Matan Torah
1.  Carefully read 19:9, try to translate this pasuk
(and to understand what the words mean).  How does the
first half of this pasuk relate to the 'proposition'
discussed in 19:4-6, and agreed upon in 19:7-8.  Once
Bnei Yisrael accepted this proposal, what would you
expect to happen next?
	Does this pasuk include any type of a 'plan' for
how Matan Torah will take place?  If so, explain what
this plan is, and the relationship between Moshe and the
rest of the nation.
	How did you understand the phrase ' so that they
will believe in you [Moshe] forever'?  Is there a
mitzvah to believe in Moshe? If not, what does this
pasuk imply?

2.  Review now the final phrase of 19:9: "and Moshe told
the people's answer to God".  How does this final phrase
relate to the first half of the pasuk?  What is the
obvious problem with this part of the pasuk?  Or in
other words, what 'answer' of the people is this pasuk
talking about? 
     See Rashi on 19:9 - "et divrei ha-am...".  How does
Rashi answer this obvious question?  [Note that Rashi is
quoting the Mechilta.]  How do the other commentators
answer this question?
	Review 19:10-11.  How do these psukim relate to
19:9?  Does 19:11 provide support to Rashi's explanation
of 'divrei ha-am' in 19:9?  [Could you say that it is
the 'source' for this interpretation?]
	Does 19:11 include a 'plan' as well for Ma'amad
Har Sinai?  Is it the same or different as the plan in
19:9?  Relate the apparent contradiction between 19:9 &
19:11 to explain Rashi's interpretation of what the
"divrei Hashem" were in 19:9.

3.  Note the three-day preparation described in 19:11.
In your opinion, why was this necessary?
	Attempt to relate this to Rashi's peirush to
19:9.
	List the different types of preparation that are
described in 19:10-15.  What is the purpose of each? 

4.  When you study 19:13, pay careful attention to the
phrase "bi-meshoch ha-yovel heima ya'alu ba-har...".  In
your opinion, is this long blow of the shofar supposed
to be a sign that Matan Torah is OVER, or that it is
about to BEGIN?  [Relate to 19:19! / see also Devarim
5:4-5 and Yehoshua 6:4-6.]

C.  19:16-19 / the 'HITGALUT' [REVELATION]
1.  Based on 19:10-15, where should the people have been
on the third day in the morning - at Har Sinai, or in
the camp?
	Relate this to what transpires in 19:16-17!
	Why does Moshe have to 'take them out' from the
camp and bring them to Har Sinai?  Would they not have
come on their own?

2.  Based on 19:18-19, according to which 'plan'
(discussed above re: 19:9-11) does Matan Torah take
place? [ i.e. do the people 'hear' or 'see' God
directly, or does Moshe act as God's intermediary? 
	Where is Moshe supposed to be during Matan
Torah, on the mountain, or with the people?  [Why is it
difficult to answer this question?]

3.  Review 19:19 and the phrase: "Moshe yedaber,
ve-haElokim ya'anenu be-kol", in its context.
	Who is Moshe speaking to - to the people, or to
God?
	According to either possibility, what was Moshe
'saying'? 
     [See Parshanut section for complete discussion.]
	[Note how Rashi (on 19:19) answers this
question.  Did you ever realize before that this pasuk
may be describing what transpires during the dibrot?]
	Where are Bnei Yisrael standing at this time?

4.  Review Devarim 5:1-6, especially 5:4-5 (in regard to
the two plans). Relate those psukim to the questions
above!  

D.  19:20-25 / LIMITATION
1.  First of all, be sure that you can explain why these
psukim form a distinct unit?  What happens in these
psukim, and when does this all take place? 
     How do these psukim relate to the psukim that
precede them?  [According to those commentators who
explain that 19:19 describes the dibrot, when did psukim
19:20-25 take place?] 

2. Note the use of 'rosh ha-har' (the top of the
mountain) in these psukim, as opposed to the use of only
"Har Sinai" up until this point.  What is the
significance of this?  Has something changed?  [Be sure
to explain 19:24.]

3.  Why does God (at this time) repeat his warning 'not
to approach the mountain'?  Does Moshe himself
understand why? 
	Relate this warning to the two different 'plans'
for how the 'dibrot' would be transmitted (19:9 & 11/ as
discussed above) 

4.  Who are the 'kohanim' described in 19:21-24?  How
are they 'different' than the rest of the nation, and
where are they standing?  Then review Shmot 24:1-11,
noting especially 24:1 & 24:9-11. [Can 19:22 be
understood without 24:1?]

5.  Review 19:25, noting the final phrase 'va-yomer
aleihem'.  What specifically does Moshe 'say to them'
when he came down from the mountain: the 'dibrot' or the
'mitzvat hagbala' in 19:21-22?  See the commentators!
[What did you think that this phrase meant the first
time you read this pasuk!]
	
E.  20:1-14 / The DIBROT
1.  Note the difference in 'person' between the first
two dibrot and the last eight.  What famous Midrash
regarding how the dibrot were given relates to this
'change in person'?
	Can there be any other explanation?
	[See Ramban on 20:6, in the middle of his
peirush.]

2.  Relate this change in 'person' to the two 'plans'
discussed in the questions above.  Which 'plan' for the
manner of transmission of the 'dibrot' is reflected
(respectively) by the 'first person' and 'third person'
tense in these two sections of the dibrot?
	Relate this once again to Devarim 5:4-5, noting
how (and why) these psukim precede the dibrot in Sefer
Devarim.  Note as well how that story continues in
5:20-30!

F.  20:15-18 / TREPIDATION
1.  Read these psukim carefully, and attempt to relate
their content to our discussion above of the two
possible 'plans' for Matan Torah; i.e. Plan A (19:9) and
Plan B (19:11).
	Even though this story is recorded after the
dibrot, in your opinion is it possible to explain that
this story took place at an earlier time?  If so, when:
i.e. before or during the dibrot?
	To answer this question, carefully compare the
details of this story (19:20-25) to the details in
19:16-19.  Similarly, attempt to relate this story to
the 'change in person' found between the first two
dibrot and the last eight.  [See Ramban & Chizkuni on
20:15.]

2.  In 20:15 we are told how Bnei Yisrael are so fearful
that they 'stand at a distance'.  Then, in 20:16 Moshe
urges them 'not to fear'.  Finally, at the end of the
story, we are told how Bnei Yisrael 'stand at a
distance' while Moshe enters the cloud (20:17-18).  In
your opinion, did Bnei Yisrael listen to Moshe's
encouragement or not?  [In other words, was Moshe
encouraging them to stand even closer, or was he
insisting that they not move farther away?]
	See how the various commentators dealt with this
question.

3.  Next, read [what appears to be] the parallel account
of this story in Devarim 5:20-30.  In your opinion, is
this account an expanded version the same story as
described in Shmot 20:15-18, or is it a different story.
	If these stories are the same, how did you
reconcile the apparent discrepancies? 
	If Shmot 20:15-18 describes a different event,
then which event took place first (and when)? 
	If indeed the events in Shmot 20:15-18 took
place earlier (i.e. either 'before' or 'during' Matan
Torah), attempt to explain why the Torah may have
recorded it here instead? 
	See Ramban on 20:15 (in some Chumashim it's
20:14), where he first quotes Ibn Ezra's interpretation,
and then rejects it. [Ibn Ezra claims that these events
took place AFTER Matan Torah, while Ramban claims that
they took place BEFORE Matan Torah (& Chizkuni quotes
Chazal's opinion that they happened DURING Matan
Torah!).  Relate this controversy to your answers to the
above question. 

4.  Read Shmot 20:19 ["ko tomar..."], and then quickly
scan the psukim that follow.  In your opinion, is this a
continuation from 20:18?  If yes, how do these mitzvot
relate to 20:15-18.  If not, when was this commandment
(in 20:19) given to Moshe? 
	[Note Rashi on 31:18 - 'ledaber ito', and Ramban
on 24:1.]

G.  The MITZVOT & THE MISHPATIM (20:19>21:1 & onward)
1.  Note how all of the mitzvot that follow God's
command to Moshe of "ko tomar..." (that he must tell to
Bnei Yisrael / see 20:19) form a distinct unit of
mitzvot.  Quickly scan this unit of mitzvot, noting how
they continue all the way until the end of chapter 23.

     This unit will be discussed in greater detail in
our questions on Parshat Mishpatim; however, for the
purpose of our shiur on Parshat Yitro, answer the
following:
	Based on 20:19, when, where, and to whom are
these mitzvot being given?
	Why didn't the people hear these mitzvot
directly from God, (like the dibrot)?  When did they
hear them from Moshe? 
     Relate your answer to 24:3 (in its context). 
[In your opinion, why are specifically these mitzvot
given at this time?  In other words, how are these
mitzvot distinct from the remaining mitzvot that will be
given later on in the Torah?  In your answer, relate to
24:3-7! ]

H.  THE BRIT AT HAR SINAI (24:1-11)
1.  Review 24:1-11, and try to determine when these
events took place.  [Be sure that you understand how
24:1-2 is distinct.]
     Even though these psukim are in Parshat Mishpatim,
many commentators claim that this event took place
before Matan Torah.  [See Rashi 24:1.] 
	Compare these psukim to chapter 19 and see if
you can find any similarities.  Do any of these psukim
help explain any of the difficulties that you
encountered when you studied chapter 19?
[Note that anyone who claims that Bnei Yisrael
proclaimed 'na'aseh ve-nishma' before Matan Torah must
understand that this covenant took place at the same
time as chapter 19.  Note machloket Rashi / Ramban on
24:1!

2.  According to Rashi's opinion, where in chapter 19 do
the events in chapter 24:1-10 take place?  How does this
affect how Rashi explains 'divrei Hashem' & the
'mishpatim' in 24:3-4?
	How does this explain who the 'kohanim' are in
19:21-24, and how does it explain the need for the
warning in 19:20-25? 

3.  If you have time, see Rambam's explanation of
Ma'amad Har Sinai in Moreh Nevuchim: Section II/ chapter
33!  [See also the end of chapter 32 where he introduces
chapter 33.]
=============

PART THREE   When did Bnei Yisrael Say Na'asse v'Nishma?
1.  Review once again 24:1-11.  How does this parshia
relate to the unit that was discussed above (i.e.
20:19->23:33)?
[Re: the questions that follow, first try to answer them
on your own.  Afterward see the commentators, especially
Ramban, Ibn Ezra, Rashi, Rashbam, Sforno & Chizkuni.

24:1 - What is difficult about this pasuk?
	Who is speaking to Moshe?
	Where is Moshe speaking when this is told to
him?
	Does Moshe fulfill this commandment immediately?
		Where does Chumash tell us when it was
fulfilled?
	What is the purpose of this commandment?

24:2 - Does 24:2 contradict 24:1? 
	In your opinion, is 24:2 an additional
instruction to Moshe (i.e. in addition to the
instruction in 24:1) or it is a narrative that explains
what Moshe did after God's command in 24:1.
 		How do 24:1-2 relate to 24:9 and 24:12?
		Could these psukim relate to 20:18 as
well?

24:3 - How does this pasuk relate to 20:19?
	What does "Va-yavo Moshe" mean?  Where was he
coming from?  What are 'divrei Hashem' and the
'mishpatim'?
		See Ramban and Rashi!

24:4-6 -	What specifically do you think are the
"divrei Hashem" that Moshe writes down in 24:4?  How
does this relate to the 'sefer ha-brit' described in
24:7?  
     How do these psukim relate to 20:21!

24:7 - Should Bnei Yisrael's reply of 'na'aseh
ve-nishma' relate to the content of what is written in
this 'sefer ha-brit'?  If so, how does it?  [If 'sefer
ha-brit' includes 23:20-22, how would that help you
answer this question!]

24:8 - What is the significance of this ceremony?  How
does it relate to the proclamation in 24:7?

24:9-10	How does this relate to 24:1?  In your opinion,
what is the purpose of this joint 'ascent' up the
mountain?

24:11 -	Was it proper or improper for this group to 'see
God'? - See the two different approaches suggested by
the commentators.

24:12 -	What is the purpose of this 'aliya' of Moshe to
Har Sinai?  According to pshat, what is the 'torah' &
and what is the 'mitzva'?
	What has Hashem 'written' for Moshe, only the
'luchot', or also the torah & mitzva?

24:16 - When did these six days transpire?
In other words, does Moshe ascend Har Siani to receive
the 'luchot' on the first of these six days, or does he
ascend on the seventh day and enter the 'anan'
immediately? 
[See mefarshim!  How does this relate to our calculation
of the date of Matan Torah?]

2.  Read 24:1-11 once again, and see if you can find any
reason that might lead you to the conclusion that this
entire story took place at an earlier time (i.e. before
Matan Torah).  If so, explain those reasons.	Are
there any details in this story that appear to be
similar to the events that transpire in chapter 19?
	For example, who are the 'kohanim' mentioned in
19:22, and how do they relate to the leadership group
mentioned in 24:1 and 24:9-11?  	In what manner
is 24:3 similar to 19:3-8?  Similarly, in what manner is
24:7 similar to 19:3-8?
     How does God's commandment to Moshe in 19:20-25
seem to relate to what transpires in 24:9-11, and the
group mentioned in 24:1-2?

3.  See Rashbam on 24:1.  How does he relate to the
above questions?  See also Ibn Ezra, Seforno, & Chizkuni
on this pasuk, who follow a similar direction.

4. Then see Rashi on 24:1.  Can you explain what leads
Rashi to this rather amazing conclusion (that these
events took place before Matan Torah)?
	[For a more detailed discussion, see Parshanut
section.]
	Then see Ramban on 24:1, noting how and why he
disagrees (and explains why it makes more sense to keep
these events in chronological order).

5. According to this Rashi, why can't the 'divrei
Hashem' and 'ha-mishpatim' (in 24:3-4) refer to the laws
in Parshat Mishpatim?  Based on chapter 19, what most
likely are these two phrases referring to?  [See Rashi
on 24:3-4.]
	In your opinion, are the 'divrei Hashem' which
are 'written down' (in 24:4) the same 'divrei Hashem'
which Moshe conveyed to them in 24:3?
	In either case, why are they being written down?
	In your answer, relate to 24:7!

6.  What seems to be the purpose of the covenantal
ceremony that is described in 24:4-8, according to both
Rashi & Ramban?
	In what manner is 24:9-11 connected to this
'brit'?
	In what manner is 24:12-13 connected to this
'brit'?

PART FOUR  - PARSHANUT

TWO GROUPS OR JUST 'STYLE'
1.  Review 19:3, noting how God instructs Moshe to relay
his 'proposal' to both 'beit Yaakov' and 'bnei Yisrael'?
	What is the obvious difficulty in this pasuk?
	Are these two different groups, or two names for
the same group?  According to each possibility, explain
who each group is and why the respective verb ['tomar' &
'tageid'] is used.
	Then, see how Rashi understands these two
groups, and the use of the respective verbs.  [You
probably have heard of a famous name for a girl's school
based on this Rashi!]
	Next, see Ibn Ezra [first the 'aroch'].  Note
how he answers the above questions, and how his answer
is quite different than Rashi's.  Note also how explains
the respective use of the verbs.
	Then see Ibn Ezra 'ha-katzar', noting how he
first quotes Rashi, and one other opinion, and then
'smashes' them!
	Note the psukim in Tehillim that he quotes to
prove his point!  Notice also how this commentary
reflects Ibn Ezra's approach to 'pshat'.
	Finally, see Chizkuni.  Note how his peirush is
quite different, and how he relates the two verbs to
19:4-6, i.e. one relating to a command, and the other to
telling over a story.  [Note how he uses the meaning of
the verb to explain the noun!]

WHO'S SPEAKING TO WHOM?
1.  Review 19:19 once again, and the phrase: "Moshe
yedaber, ve-haElokim ya'anenu be-kol", in its context.
Who is Moshe speaking to: to the people or to God, and
what is Moshe 'saying'? 	First, see how Rashbam
and Ibn Ezra answer this question.
	Then, see Chizkuni.  In what manner is Chizkuni
similar, and how is it different, than Rashbam?  [Note
how 'creative' Chizkuni's peirush is!]
	Then, see Rashi's interpretation.  How and why
is his approach different than Rashbam, Chizkuni, and
Ibn Ezra?  Based on Part II above, what leads Rashi to
his conclusion that this pasuk describes the last eight
dibrot  (given by God via Moshe to Bnei Yisrael)?
	Finally, see Ramban, noting how he first quotes
Rashi, and then disagrees.  Again, based on the
questions in Part II above, what leads Ramban to his
conclusion.  Explain how his peirush to 19:19 may be
based on his understanding of 19:20-25.

WHAT TORAH DID MOSHE RECEIVE?
1.  Read 24:12.  In your opinion, what specifically do
the words 'torah' and 'mitzva' in this pasuk refer to?
	Note the phrase "asher katavti" [which I wrote].
What does this phrase relate to - the 'luchot ha-even',
or also the 'torah' & 'mitzva'?
	Now, read Ramban very carefully.
	How does he answer the above questions?
		[i.e. how does he explain this pasuk?]
	How does Ramban understand Rashi?
	Why does Ramban disagree with Ibn Ezra.
		[See Ibn Ezra inside, what is his main
point?]
	Why does Ramban conclude with "al da'at
Raboteinu" concerning when the Torah was first given!?

2.	Now, see Seforno.  How does he answer the above
questions? 	How is his approach different than
Ramban's?
	Finally see Ibn Ezra, "yeish omrim...",
concerning 'Torah she-bichtav' and 'Torah she-ba'al
peh'.
	What is the significance of this Midrash?
	Would you consider this 'pshat' or 'drash'?

3.  Recall how in 20:19, God commands Moshe to tell Bnei
Yisrael a set of mitzvot.  How does this commandment
appear to relate to the story that is recorded in
20:15-18?
	According to most commentators (Rashi, Ramban
etc., or just about everyone except Ibn Ezra) - the
story in 20:15-18 took place at an earlier time.  Relate
those opinions as you answer this question. 
	Relate also to the parallel (or similar) story
that is recorded Devarim 5:20-28.  [Take into
consideration the machloket Ramban - Ibn Ezra concerning
when 20:15-18 took place!]

	
be-hatzlacha,
						menachem
1


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shavq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 23075 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080608/5c2308b4/attachment-0002.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shav2q.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 48350 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080608/5c2308b4/attachment-0003.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Jun  8 02:35:55 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 02:35:55 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] For Tikun leil Shavuot - Q. re: Maamad har Sinai
Message-ID: <003f01c8c931$e9768be0$6501a8c0@x60>

********************************************************
******
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  www.tanach.org
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Questions for self-study  -  by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

 		Shavuot ? Ma?amad Har Sinai 

PART I -  THE TEN 'COMMANDMENTS'
1.  For some reason, what we call in Hebrew 'aseret
ha-dibrot', we refer to in English as 'the ten
commandments'.  Is this translation correct?  Explain
why (yes or no)?
	How many 'dibrot' are there in the 'Ten
Commandments'?
	Accordingly, how would you translate 'dibrot'-
as:
		statements? 
		commandments?  
		parshiot?
	Explain each possibility. 
		Are there ten according to each?
	What is the difference between 'mitzvot' &
'dibrot'?

2.  What are the first TWO 'dibrot'?  [In other words,
what precisely is the first one, and what is the second
one?]  Relate your answer to the question above. 
	How does your answer relate to the division of
the 'dibrot' into 'parshiot'?
	Are the first two 'dibrot' included in the first
'parshia'?  From a grammar perspective, what else is
special about the first two 'dibrot' (i.e. the first
'parshia')?
	Now, see Ibn Ezra on 20:2.  See also Rambam
Sefer ha-Mitzvot Asei #1, and Hasagot ha-Ramban Lo
Ta'aseh #5.  How do these opinions relate to the above
questions?

3.  Note in your Chumash that there are two versions for
how to read the 'dibrot' - 'ta'am elyon' and 'ta'am
tachton'. 
	Note how each method divides the psukim in a
very different manner!  See if you can determine the
underlying logic of each division and how it relates to
the above questions.

4.  How do we know that there were TEN 'dibrot'?
	Does it say anywhere in Chumash that there were
TEN?
	[In case you give up, see Shmot 34:28 & Devarim
4:11-13.]
Relate this as well to your answer to the above
questions.]

5.  You probably also remember that God gave the
'dibrot' to Moshe Rabeinu written on TWO 'luchot'
[tablets].  Can you recall how we know that there were
indeed TWO 'luchot'? 
	[When you give up, try Shmot 31:18 and 32:15;
compare with Shmot 24:12 and 25:21!]
	In your opinion, what does this mean? 
		[i.e. two copies, or half written on
each?]
	If 'half & half', how would they be divided, and
would this relate to their content?
	[If 'two copies'; why would one set not have
been sufficient?]
See the concluding paragraph of Ramban's commentary on
the 'dibrot' (on 20:12-13) where he discusses this
topic.

6.  In your opinion, are the mitzvot of the DIBROT
'qualitatively' different than the remaining mitzvot of
the Torah?
	If yes, what is special about them?
	If not, why were these specific mitzvot given at
Ma'amad Har Sinai, in contrast to all the other mitzvot
that were given at a different setting?
[See an amazing Rashbam on 20:15-16 /"daber ata
imanu..."]
	See also Ramban on 20:6 - from "et Hashem
Elokecha" in regard to the difference between the first
two dibrot and the final eight.

7.  In your opinion, do any of the 'Ten Commandments'
apply to gentiles as well?  If so, which laws apply only
to Am Yisrael, and which laws apply to all mankind?  Can
you explain why?
	Relate your answer to Shmot 19:5-6!
	See also Rashbam on Breishit 26:5 - "chukotei
v'toratei".

8.  Review 20:14-19.  In your opinion, had Bnei Yisrael
not become fearful during Ma'amad Har Sinai, when they
requested that Moshe receive them instead (see 20:15-18
and/or Devarim 5:20-28), would Bnei Yisrael have
received more than ten (or two) commandments directly
from God at Ma'amad Har Sinai?  If so, how many more
mitzvot?  [All 613,or only a certain group?]

9.  How does the first mitzva that Bnei Yisrael receive
after the dibrot - "lo ta'asun iti elohei kesef..." (see
20:19-20) relate to their request to hear the remaining
mitzvot via Moshe and not directly from God? 	How is
this mitzva different than the commandment not to
worship 'avoda zara' in the second dibur?
	Can you explain how this relates to the next
mitzva: "mizbeiach adama ta'aseh li" (20:21-22) as well?


PART TWO  -  * MA'AMAD HAR SINAI *
 	Ma'amad Har Sinai was one of the most important
events (if not the most important) in our history.
Therefore, our shiurim will deal with this topic in
detail.  The following questions will treat Shmot
chapter 19 as the beginning of a new 'unit' that will
continue until the end of Parshat Mishpatim.  This unit
of Ma'amad Har Sinai includes chapter 19 - the story
that leads up to the 'dibrot'; chapter 20 - the dibrot
followed by a short story; chapters 21 thru23 - a unit
of misc. laws; & chapters 24 - the concluding story.
     The following questions will help you appreciate
the content of these chapters (19->24) and understand
why there is such a major controversy among the
commentators concerning when these events took place. 

FINDING 'PARAGRAPHS' & 'UNITS'
     As you will soon realize on your own, it is very
difficult to follow the progression of topic in chapter
19.  To help you study that chapter (and the rest of
this unit), we suggest that you use the following
methodology:
     As you study each chapter in this unit, attempt to
divide each chapter into paragraphs.  In other words, as
you read a group of psukim, attempt to identify when a
certain 'sub-topic' is complete, and then group together
all of those psukim that deal with that sub-topic.  [In
general, there should usually be between three and eight
psukim in each paragraph, but there can be exceptions.]
     Try to give a short title for each paragraph.
Then, try to understand the logic of the flow of topic
from one paragraph to the next.  After analyzing several
chapters in this manner, attempt to turn you paragraph
topics into an outline.  [Technically speaking, you
could follow this methodology to compose an outline for
the entire book - which would help you identify is
primary topics, units, and theme - but for now, we'll
focus on chapters 19 thru 24.]
     
     Let's start with chapter 19, and following this
methodology.  
After identifying its paragraphs, construct an outline
that divides this chapter into its most basic topics.
Try to give a precise title for each section, and
explain the logic behind its flow of topic.  Most
probably, you'll notice several psukim that are very
difficult to understand.  When you encounter such a
pasuk, be sure to see if (and how) Rashi, Ibn Ezra
Rashbam & Ramban (etc.) deal with those questions that
bothered you.
	When you finish your outline (or if you give up)
see if your outline matches our outline below (note the
titles that we have given to each section).  See if you
agree with those titles, and then answer the questions
that follow:

A.  19:1-8 /	The 'PROPOSAL'
1.  Note how 19:1-2 'sets the stage', while the actual
topic of this paragraph begins to unfold in 19:3.  As
you read these psukim, note how Moshe's job is to act as
God's 'messenger' to offer a certain 'proposal' to Am
Yisrael.  Try to explain what this 'proposal' [or
'deal'] is all about, and its purpose.  
     Be sure that you understand the 'two sides' of this
proposal as detailed in 19:5-6.  Are there 'conditions',
'rewards' and/or 'consequences'?  If so, explain what
they are and why.
	Be sure you understand why the 'divrei Hashem'
detailed in 19:4-6 should be considered a 'proposition'
and not as a 'commandment' (or information)!

2.  Note the word 'brit' in 19:5.  In your opinion, does
it refer to something 'old' or something 'new'?
According to each possibility, what 'brit' is being
referred to?  How does this 'brit' relate to the
proposal?  [See Ramban on this pasuk, noting the
different possibilities that he raises!]

3.  Explain the phrases 'mamlechet kohanim' & 'goy
kadosh' (in 19:6)?  In your opinion, do they describe
two different concepts or the same concept?  If
possible, relate your answer to the theme of 'bechira'
in Sefer Breishit, and its purpose.  Relate to Breishit
12:1-3 and 18:18-19.

4. Based on the simple 'pshat' of 19:3-6, what would
have happened had Bnei Yisrael answered 'no' to this
proposal?  [You are probably familiar with a Midrash
that entertains this possibility. Explain how this
"pshat" explains this drash.]  
	Once Bnei Yisrael do answer 'yes' to this
proposal (see 19:7-8), what should happen next?  In
other words, how will Bnei Yisrael find out the more
specific details of this 'brit'?  Relate your answer to
what does happen in chapters 19 & 20.

B.  19:9-15 / PREPARATION for Matan Torah
1.  Carefully read 19:9, try to translate this pasuk
(and to understand what the words mean).  How does the
first half of this pasuk relate to the 'proposition'
discussed in 19:4-6, and agreed upon in 19:7-8.  Once
Bnei Yisrael accepted this proposal, what would you
expect to happen next?
	Does this pasuk include any type of a 'plan' for
how Matan Torah will take place?  If so, explain what
this plan is, and the relationship between Moshe and the
rest of the nation.
	How did you understand the phrase ' so that they
will believe in you [Moshe] forever'?  Is there a
mitzvah to believe in Moshe? If not, what does this
pasuk imply?

2.  Review now the final phrase of 19:9: "and Moshe told
the people's answer to God".  How does this final phrase
relate to the first half of the pasuk?  What is the
obvious problem with this part of the pasuk?  Or in
other words, what 'answer' of the people is this pasuk
talking about? 
     See Rashi on 19:9 - "et divrei ha-am...".  How does
Rashi answer this obvious question?  [Note that Rashi is
quoting the Mechilta.]  How do the other commentators
answer this question?
	Review 19:10-11.  How do these psukim relate to
19:9?  Does 19:11 provide support to Rashi's explanation
of 'divrei ha-am' in 19:9?  [Could you say that it is
the 'source' for this interpretation?]
	Does 19:11 include a 'plan' as well for Ma'amad
Har Sinai?  Is it the same or different as the plan in
19:9?  Relate the apparent contradiction between 19:9 &
19:11 to explain Rashi's interpretation of what the
"divrei Hashem" were in 19:9.

3.  Note the three-day preparation described in 19:11.
In your opinion, why was this necessary?
	Attempt to relate this to Rashi's peirush to
19:9.
	List the different types of preparation that are
described in 19:10-15.  What is the purpose of each? 

4.  When you study 19:13, pay careful attention to the
phrase "bi-meshoch ha-yovel heima ya'alu ba-har...".  In
your opinion, is this long blow of the shofar supposed
to be a sign that Matan Torah is OVER, or that it is
about to BEGIN?  [Relate to 19:19! / see also Devarim
5:4-5 and Yehoshua 6:4-6.]

C.  19:16-19 / the 'HITGALUT' [REVELATION]
1.  Based on 19:10-15, where should the people have been
on the third day in the morning - at Har Sinai, or in
the camp?
	Relate this to what transpires in 19:16-17!
	Why does Moshe have to 'take them out' from the
camp and bring them to Har Sinai?  Would they not have
come on their own?

2.  Based on 19:18-19, according to which 'plan'
(discussed above re: 19:9-11) does Matan Torah take
place? [ i.e. do the people 'hear' or 'see' God
directly, or does Moshe act as God's intermediary? 
	Where is Moshe supposed to be during Matan
Torah, on the mountain, or with the people?  [Why is it
difficult to answer this question?]

3.  Review 19:19 and the phrase: "Moshe yedaber,
ve-haElokim ya'anenu be-kol", in its context.
	Who is Moshe speaking to - to the people, or to
God?
	According to either possibility, what was Moshe
'saying'? 
     [See Parshanut section for complete discussion.]
	[Note how Rashi (on 19:19) answers this
question.  Did you ever realize before that this pasuk
may be describing what transpires during the dibrot?]
	Where are Bnei Yisrael standing at this time?

4.  Review Devarim 5:1-6, especially 5:4-5 (in regard to
the two plans). Relate those psukim to the questions
above!  

D.  19:20-25 / LIMITATION
1.  First of all, be sure that you can explain why these
psukim form a distinct unit?  What happens in these
psukim, and when does this all take place? 
     How do these psukim relate to the psukim that
precede them?  [According to those commentators who
explain that 19:19 describes the dibrot, when did psukim
19:20-25 take place?] 

2. Note the use of 'rosh ha-har' (the top of the
mountain) in these psukim, as opposed to the use of only
"Har Sinai" up until this point.  What is the
significance of this?  Has something changed?  [Be sure
to explain 19:24.]

3.  Why does God (at this time) repeat his warning 'not
to approach the mountain'?  Does Moshe himself
understand why? 
	Relate this warning to the two different 'plans'
for how the 'dibrot' would be transmitted (19:9 & 11/ as
discussed above) 

4.  Who are the 'kohanim' described in 19:21-24?  How
are they 'different' than the rest of the nation, and
where are they standing?  Then review Shmot 24:1-11,
noting especially 24:1 & 24:9-11. [Can 19:22 be
understood without 24:1?]

5.  Review 19:25, noting the final phrase 'va-yomer
aleihem'.  What specifically does Moshe 'say to them'
when he came down from the mountain: the 'dibrot' or the
'mitzvat hagbala' in 19:21-22?  See the commentators!
[What did you think that this phrase meant the first
time you read this pasuk!]
	
E.  20:1-14 / The DIBROT
1.  Note the difference in 'person' between the first
two dibrot and the last eight.  What famous Midrash
regarding how the dibrot were given relates to this
'change in person'?
	Can there be any other explanation?
	[See Ramban on 20:6, in the middle of his
peirush.]

2.  Relate this change in 'person' to the two 'plans'
discussed in the questions above.  Which 'plan' for the
manner of transmission of the 'dibrot' is reflected
(respectively) by the 'first person' and 'third person'
tense in these two sections of the dibrot?
	Relate this once again to Devarim 5:4-5, noting
how (and why) these psukim precede the dibrot in Sefer
Devarim.  Note as well how that story continues in
5:20-30!

F.  20:15-18 / TREPIDATION
1.  Read these psukim carefully, and attempt to relate
their content to our discussion above of the two
possible 'plans' for Matan Torah; i.e. Plan A (19:9) and
Plan B (19:11).
	Even though this story is recorded after the
dibrot, in your opinion is it possible to explain that
this story took place at an earlier time?  If so, when:
i.e. before or during the dibrot?
	To answer this question, carefully compare the
details of this story (19:20-25) to the details in
19:16-19.  Similarly, attempt to relate this story to
the 'change in person' found between the first two
dibrot and the last eight.  [See Ramban & Chizkuni on
20:15.]

2.  In 20:15 we are told how Bnei Yisrael are so fearful
that they 'stand at a distance'.  Then, in 20:16 Moshe
urges them 'not to fear'.  Finally, at the end of the
story, we are told how Bnei Yisrael 'stand at a
distance' while Moshe enters the cloud (20:17-18).  In
your opinion, did Bnei Yisrael listen to Moshe's
encouragement or not?  [In other words, was Moshe
encouraging them to stand even closer, or was he
insisting that they not move farther away?]
	See how the various commentators dealt with this
question.

3.  Next, read [what appears to be] the parallel account
of this story in Devarim 5:20-30.  In your opinion, is
this account an expanded version the same story as
described in Shmot 20:15-18, or is it a different story.
	If these stories are the same, how did you
reconcile the apparent discrepancies? 
	If Shmot 20:15-18 describes a different event,
then which event took place first (and when)? 
	If indeed the events in Shmot 20:15-18 took
place earlier (i.e. either 'before' or 'during' Matan
Torah), attempt to explain why the Torah may have
recorded it here instead? 
	See Ramban on 20:15 (in some Chumashim it's
20:14), where he first quotes Ibn Ezra's interpretation,
and then rejects it. [Ibn Ezra claims that these events
took place AFTER Matan Torah, while Ramban claims that
they took place BEFORE Matan Torah (& Chizkuni quotes
Chazal's opinion that they happened DURING Matan
Torah!).  Relate this controversy to your answers to the
above question. 

4.  Read Shmot 20:19 ["ko tomar..."], and then quickly
scan the psukim that follow.  In your opinion, is this a
continuation from 20:18?  If yes, how do these mitzvot
relate to 20:15-18.  If not, when was this commandment
(in 20:19) given to Moshe? 
	[Note Rashi on 31:18 - 'ledaber ito', and Ramban
on 24:1.]

G.  The MITZVOT & THE MISHPATIM (20:19
>21:1 & onward)
1.  Note how all of the mitzvot that follow God's
command to Moshe of "ko tomar..." (that he must tell to
Bnei Yisrael / see 20:19) form a distinct unit of
mitzvot.  Quickly scan this unit of mitzvot, noting how
they continue all the way until the end of chapter 23.

     This unit will be discussed in greater detail in
our questions on Parshat Mishpatim; however, for the
purpose of our shiur on Parshat Yitro, answer the
following:
	Based on 20:19, when, where, and to whom are
these mitzvot being given?
	Why didn't the people hear these mitzvot
directly from God, (like the dibrot)?  When did they
hear them from Moshe? 
     Relate your answer to 24:3 (in its context). 
[In your opinion, why are specifically these mitzvot
given at this time?  In other words, how are these
mitzvot distinct from the remaining mitzvot that will be
given later on in the Torah?  In your answer, relate to
24:3-7! ]

H.  THE BRIT AT HAR SINAI (24:1-11)
1.  Review 24:1-11, and try to determine when these
events took place.  [Be sure that you understand how
24:1-2 is distinct.]
     Even though these psukim are in Parshat Mishpatim,
many commentators claim that this event took place
before Matan Torah.  [See Rashi 24:1.] 
	Compare these psukim to chapter 19 and see if
you can find any similarities.  Do any of these psukim
help explain any of the difficulties that you
encountered when you studied chapter 19?
[Note that anyone who claims that Bnei Yisrael
proclaimed 'na'aseh ve-nishma' before Matan Torah must
understand that this covenant took place at the same
time as chapter 19.  Note machloket Rashi / Ramban on
24:1!

2.  According to Rashi's opinion, where in chapter 19 do
the events in chapter 24:1-10 take place?  How does this
affect how Rashi explains 'divrei Hashem' & the
'mishpatim' in 24:3-4?
	How does this explain who the 'kohanim' are in
19:21-24, and how does it explain the need for the
warning in 19:20-25? 

3.  If you have time, see Rambam's explanation of
Ma'amad Har Sinai in Moreh Nevuchim: Section II/ chapter
33!  [See also the end of chapter 32 where he introduces
chapter 33.]
=============

PART THREE   When did Bnei Yisrael Say Na'asse v'Nishma?
1.  Review once again 24:1-11.  How does this parshia
relate to the unit that was discussed above (i.e.
20:19->23:33)?
[Re: the questions that follow, first try to answer them
on your own.  Afterward see the commentators, especially
Ramban, Ibn Ezra, Rashi, Rashbam, Sforno & Chizkuni.

24:1 - What is difficult about this pasuk?
	Who is speaking to Moshe?
	Where is Moshe speaking when this is told to
him?
	Does Moshe fulfill this commandment immediately?
		Where does Chumash tell us when it was
fulfilled?
	What is the purpose of this commandment?

24:2 - Does 24:2 contradict 24:1? 
	In your opinion, is 24:2 an additional
instruction to Moshe (i.e. in addition to the
instruction in 24:1) or it is a narrative that explains
what Moshe did after God's command in 24:1.
 		How do 24:1-2 relate to 24:9 and 24:12?
		Could these psukim relate to 20:18 as
well?

24:3 - How does this pasuk relate to 20:19?
	What does "Va-yavo Moshe" mean?  Where was he
coming from?  What are 'divrei Hashem' and the
'mishpatim'?
		See Ramban and Rashi!

24:4-6 -	What specifically do you think are the
"divrei Hashem" that Moshe writes down in 24:4?  How
does this relate to the 'sefer ha-brit' described in
24:7?  
     How do these psukim relate to 20:21!

24:7 - Should Bnei Yisrael's reply of 'na'aseh
ve-nishma' relate to the content of what is written in
this 'sefer ha-brit'?  If so, how does it?  [If 'sefer
ha-brit' includes 23:20-22, how would that help you
answer this question!]

24:8 - What is the significance of this ceremony?  How
does it relate to the proclamation in 24:7?

24:9-10	How does this relate to 24:1?  In your opinion,
what is the purpose of this joint 'ascent' up the
mountain?

24:11 -	Was it proper or improper for this group to 'see
God'? - See the two different approaches suggested by
the commentators.

24:12 -	What is the purpose of this 'aliya' of Moshe to
Har Sinai?  According to pshat, what is the 'torah' &
and what is the 'mitzva'?
	What has Hashem 'written' for Moshe, only the
'luchot', or also the torah & mitzva?

24:16 - When did these six days transpire?
In other words, does Moshe ascend Har Siani to receive
the 'luchot' on the first of these six days, or does he
ascend on the seventh day and enter the 'anan'
immediately? 
[See mefarshim!  How does this relate to our calculation
of the date of Matan Torah?]

2.  Read 24:1-11 once again, and see if you can find any
reason that might lead you to the conclusion that this
entire story took place at an earlier time (i.e. before
Matan Torah).  If so, explain those reasons.	Are
there any details in this story that appear to be
similar to the events that transpire in chapter 19?
	For example, who are the 'kohanim' mentioned in
19:22, and how do they relate to the leadership group
mentioned in 24:1 and 24:9-11?  	In what manner
is 24:3 similar to 19:3-8?  Similarly, in what manner is
24:7 similar to 19:3-8?
     How does God's commandment to Moshe in 19:20-25
seem to relate to what transpires in 24:9-11, and the
group mentioned in 24:1-2?

3.  See Rashbam on 24:1.  How does he relate to the
above questions?  See also Ibn Ezra, Seforno, & Chizkuni
on this pasuk, who follow a similar direction.

4. Then see Rashi on 24:1.  Can you explain what leads
Rashi to this rather amazing conclusion (that these
events took place before Matan Torah)?
	[For a more detailed discussion, see Parshanut
section.]
	Then see Ramban on 24:1, noting how and why he
disagrees (and explains why it makes more sense to keep
these events in chronological order).

5. According to this Rashi, why can't the 'divrei
Hashem' and 'ha-mishpatim' (in 24:3-4) refer to the laws
in Parshat Mishpatim?  Based on chapter 19, what most
likely are these two phrases referring to?  [See Rashi
on 24:3-4.]
	In your opinion, are the 'divrei Hashem' which
are 'written down' (in 24:4) the same 'divrei Hashem'
which Moshe conveyed to them in 24:3?
	In either case, why are they being written down?
	In your answer, relate to 24:7!

6.  What seems to be the purpose of the covenantal
ceremony that is described in 24:4-8, according to both
Rashi & Ramban?
	In what manner is 24:9-11 connected to this
'brit'?
	In what manner is 24:12-13 connected to this
'brit'?

PART FOUR  - PARSHANUT

TWO GROUPS OR JUST 'STYLE'
1.  Review 19:3, noting how God instructs Moshe to relay
his 'proposal' to both 'beit Yaakov' and 'bnei Yisrael'?
	What is the obvious difficulty in this pasuk?
	Are these two different groups, or two names for
the same group?  According to each possibility, explain
who each group is and why the respective verb ['tomar' &
'tageid'] is used.
	Then, see how Rashi understands these two
groups, and the use of the respective verbs.  [You
probably have heard of a famous name for a girl's school
based on this Rashi!]
	Next, see Ibn Ezra [first the 'aroch'].  Note
how he answers the above questions, and how his answer
is quite different than Rashi's.  Note also how explains
the respective use of the verbs.
	Then see Ibn Ezra 'ha-katzar', noting how he
first quotes Rashi, and one other opinion, and then
'smashes' them!
	Note the psukim in Tehillim that he quotes to
prove his point!  Notice also how this commentary
reflects Ibn Ezra's approach to 'pshat'.
	Finally, see Chizkuni.  Note how his peirush is
quite different, and how he relates the two verbs to
19:4-6, i.e. one relating to a command, and the other to
telling over a story.  [Note how he uses the meaning of
the verb to explain the noun!]

WHO'S SPEAKING TO WHOM?
1.  Review 19:19 once again, and the phrase: "Moshe
yedaber, ve-haElokim ya'anenu be-kol", in its context.
Who is Moshe speaking to: to the people or to God, and
what is Moshe 'saying'? 	First, see how Rashbam
and Ibn Ezra answer this question.
	Then, see Chizkuni.  In what manner is Chizkuni
similar, and how is it different, than Rashbam?  [Note
how 'creative' Chizkuni's peirush is!]
	Then, see Rashi's interpretation.  How and why
is his approach different than Rashbam, Chizkuni, and
Ibn Ezra?  Based on Part II above, what leads Rashi to
his conclusion that this pasuk describes the last eight
dibrot  (given by God via Moshe to Bnei Yisrael)?
	Finally, see Ramban, noting how he first quotes
Rashi, and then disagrees.  Again, based on the
questions in Part II above, what leads Ramban to his
conclusion.  Explain how his peirush to 19:19 may be
based on his understanding of 19:20-25.

WHAT TORAH DID MOSHE RECEIVE?
1.  Read 24:12.  In your opinion, what specifically do
the words 'torah' and 'mitzva' in this pasuk refer to?
	Note the phrase "asher katavti" [which I wrote].
What does this phrase relate to - the 'luchot ha-even',
or also the 'torah' & 'mitzva'?
	Now, read Ramban very carefully.
	How does he answer the above questions?
		[i.e. how does he explain this pasuk?]
	How does Ramban understand Rashi?
	Why does Ramban disagree with Ibn Ezra.
		[See Ibn Ezra inside, what is his main
point?]
	Why does Ramban conclude with "al da'at
Raboteinu" concerning when the Torah was first given!?

2.	Now, see Seforno.  How does he answer the above
questions? 	How is his approach different than
Ramban's?
	Finally see Ibn Ezra, "yeish omrim...",
concerning 'Torah she-bichtav' and 'Torah she-ba'al
peh'.
	What is the significance of this Midrash?
	Would you consider this 'pshat' or 'drash'?

3.  Recall how in 20:19, God commands Moshe to tell Bnei
Yisrael a set of mitzvot.  How does this commandment
appear to relate to the story that is recorded in
20:15-18?
	According to most commentators (Rashi, Ramban
etc., or just about everyone except Ibn Ezra) - the
story in 20:15-18 took place at an earlier time.  Relate
those opinions as you answer this question. 
	Relate also to the parallel (or similar) story
that is recorded Devarim 5:20-28.  [Take into
consideration the machloket Ramban - Ibn Ezra concerning
when 20:15-18 took place!]

	
be-hatzlacha,
						menachem
1



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.0.0 - Release
Date: 6/4/2008 12:00 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shav2q.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 48350 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080608/8c61d294/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Jun  8 02:37:40 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 02:37:40 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] For Shavuot - shiur re: Matan Torah
Message-ID: <004801c8c932$2908f5e0$6501a8c0@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

    For SHAVUOT &  PARSHAT YITRO - Ma'amad Har Sinai

     A wedding ceremony?  Well, not exactly; but many
sources
in Chazal compare the events at Ma'amad Har Sinai to a
marriage between God (the groom) and Am Yisrael (the
bride).
    [See for example the last Mishnah in Mesechet
Taanit!]
     In this week's shiur, as we study the numerous
ambiguities in Shmot chapter 19, we attempt to explain
the
deeper meaning of this analogy, as well as the
underlying
reason for those ambiguities.

INTRODUCTION
     Thus far, Sefer Shmot has discussed the story of
Yetziat
Mitzraim, and hence - how God had fulfilled His covenant
with
the Avot.  However, that covenant included not only a
promise
of redemption, but also the promise that Bnei Yisrael
would
become God's special nation in Eretz Canaan.  As Bnei
Yisrael
now travel to establish that nation in that 'Promised
Land',
God brings them to Har Sinai in order to teach them the
specific laws [mitzvot] that will help make them His
special
nation.
     Therefore, the primary purpose of Bnei Yisrael's
arrival
at Har Sinai was to receive God's LAWS.  Nevertheless,
the
Torah describes in no less detail the 'experience' of
how
those laws were given.  In the following shiur, we
undertake a
careful reading of Shmot chapter 19 (i.e. the events
that
precede the Ten Commandments), highlighting its
complexities,
in an attempt to better appreciate Chazal's
understanding of
Ma'amad Har Sinai.
 [Before you continue, it is highly recommended that you
 quickly review chapters 19 and 20 to refresh your
memory,
 noting its flow of topic. (While doing so, try to
notice how
 many psukim are difficult to translate.)  For a more
 comprehensive preparation, see the Questions for
self-study
 (sent earlier this week).]

THE 'PROPOSAL'
     Shmot chapter 19 opens as Bnei Yisrael arrive at
Har
Sinai - presumably, to receive the Torah.  However,
before the
Torah is given, God first summons Moshe to the mountain,
instructing him to relay a certain message to the
people.  As
you review these psukim (19:3-6), note how they form a
'proposal':
  "Thus shall you say to Beit Yaakov and tell Bnei
Yisrael:
    You have seen what I have done to Egypt... so NOW:
  IF - you will OBEY Me faithfully and keep My
COVENANT...and
  be my treasured nation, for all the Land is Mine.
  THEN: You shall be for Me a 'mamlechet Kohanim  v'goy
  kadosh' [a kingdom of priests and a holy nation]..."
(19:4-
  6)

  The 'if / then' clause proves that these instructions
constitute a proposal (and not just a decree) - to which
Bnei
Yisrael must answer either 'yes' or 'no'.  And that's
exactly
what we find:
 "And the people answered together and said, 'Everything
that
 God has spoken we shall keep,' and Moshe brought the
 people's answer back to God." (see 19:7-8)

  Clearly, Moshe Rabeinu acts as the 'middle-man' - who
must
relay the people's answer to this 'proposal' back to
God.
  [In regard to what would have happened had Bnei
Yisrael
  answered 'no', see the Further Iyun section.]
  
     Let's take a minute to discuss the meaning of the
two
sides of this 'proposition'.
  The first part of the 'IF' clause - "if you will OBEY
Me" -
makes sense, as God must first clarify if Bnei Yisrael
are
indeed now ready to follow His laws; in contrast to
their
previous 'refusals' (see Yechezkel 20:5-9, Shmot 6:9 &
15:26).
However, the precise meaning of the second clause - "and
if
you will keep My COVENANT" is uncertain, for it is not
clear
if this 'covenant' refers to something old - i.e. 'brit
Avot';
or something new - i.e. 'brit Sinai.
  
SOMETHING 'OLD' or SOMETHING 'NEW'
  It would be difficult to explain that the word
'covenant' in
this pasuk refers to 'brit Avot', for brit Avot doesn't
seem
to include any specific action that Bnei Yisrael must
keep.
More likely, it refers to 'brit Sinai' - whose details
will
soon be revealed, should Bnei Yisrael accept this
proposal.
  However, this ambiguity may be intentional, for this
forthcoming "brit Sinai" could be understood as an
'upgrade'
of "brit Avot".  In other words, 'brit Avot' discusses
the
very basic framework of a relationship (see Breishit
17:7-8),
while 'brit Sinai' will contain the detailed laws which
will
make that original covenant more meaningful.
  If so, then the proposition could be understood as
follows:
Should Bnei Yisrael agree to obey whatever God may
command,
and to remain faithful to this covenant, and act as His
treasured nation (see 19:5) - THEN, the result will be
that
Bnei Yisrael will serve as God's 'model' nation,
representing
Him before all other nations [a "mamlechet kohanim v'goy
kadosh"/ see 19:6].
     As a prerequisite for Matan Torah, Bnei Yisrael
must both
confirm their readiness to obey God's commandments while
recognizing that these mitzvot will facilitate their
achievement of the very purpose of God's covenant with
them.
     Whereas a covenant requires the willful consent of
both
sides, this section concludes with Bnei Yisrael's
collective
acceptance of these terms (see again 19:7-8).

MAKING PLANS (and changing them)
     Now that Bnei Yisrael had accepted God's proposal,
the
next step should be for them to receive the specific
MITZVOT
(i.e. the laws that they just agreed to observe).
However,
before those laws can be given, there are some technical
details that must be ironed out, concerning HOW Bnei
Yisrael
will receive these laws. Note how the next pasuk
describes
God's 'plans' for how He intends to convey these mitzvot
 "And God said to Moshe, 'I will come to you in the
thickness
 of a CLOUD, in order that the people HEAR when I SPEAK
WITH
 YOU, and in order that they believe in you [i.e. that
you
 are My spokesman] forever..." (19:9)

     It appears from this pasuk that God plans to use
Moshe
Rabeinu as an intermediary to convey His laws to Bnei
Yisrael,
consistent with Moshe's role as His liaison heretofore.
Nonetheless, God insists that the people will 'overhear'
His
communication with Moshe, so that they believe that
these laws
truly originate from God, and not from Moshe.
     At this point, in the middle of pasuk 9, we
encounter our
first major difficulty in following the flow of events.
Note
that God has just informed Moshe of HOW He plans to
convey His
laws. Hence, we would expect Moshe to convey this
message to
Bnei Yisrael (just as he did in 19:7).  However, when we
continue our reading of 19:9, something very strange
takes
place:
  "...Then Moshe reported the PEOPLE'S words to God."
(19:9)

     What's going on? The second half of this pasuk
seems to
omit an entire clause - for it never tells us what the
people
responded. Instead, it just says that Moshe relayed the
people's response back to God, without telling us WHAT
the
people said!

BE PREPARED!
     This question is so glaring (and obvious) that
Rashi,
taking for granted that the reader realized this
problem,
provides an answer based on the Midrash that fills in
the
'missing details'.
 "Et divrei ha'am" [the words of the people]... The
people
 responded: 'We want to hear from YOU [God] directly,
for one
 cannot compare hearing from a "shaliach" (a messenger)
to
 hearing from the King himself, [or they said,]: We want
to
 SEE our King!"  (see Rashi on 19:9)
       
     Note how Rashi adds an entire line to this
narrative.
According to his interpretation, Bnei Yisrael don't
accept
God's original plan that they would hear the MITZVOT via
Moshe. Instead, they demand to hear them directly - from
God
Himself!
     What allows Rashi to offer such a bold
interpretation?
     Rashi's interpretation is based on an apparent
contradiction between God's original plan in 19:9 and
what
appears to be His new plan, as described in the next two
psukim:
 "And God told Moshe, 'Go to the people and get them
ready...
 for on the third day God will reveal Himself IN VIEW OF
ALL
 THE PEOPLE on Har Sinai." (see 19:10-11)

     Note how God commands Bnei Yisrael to ready
themselves,
for in three days time they will actually SEE God.  This
declaration that He plans to reveal himself before the
'eyes
of the entire nation' suggests that God now plans to
convey
His mitzvot DIRECTLY to the people.  These instructions
appear
to describe a NEW PLAN for Matan Torah (in contrast to
His
original plan that Moshe will act as an intermediary -
as
described in 19:9).
     For the sake of clarity, from now on, we refer to
the
God's original plan (Dibrot via Moshe) as PLAN 'A'
(based on
19:9), and to the new plan (Dibrot Direct) as PLAN 'B
(based
on 19:11)'.
     Rashi claims that God's suggestion of Plan 'B'
stems from
the people's unwillingness to accept Plan 'A' - for Bnei
Yisrael want to hear the Commandments DIRECTLY.
     This 'change of plan' can explain why the people
now
require THREE days of preparation. In order to prepare
for
this DIRECT encounter, Bnei Yisrael must first attain a
higher
level of spiritual readiness, as reflected in the
three-day
preparation period. Note how the details of this
'preparation'
continue until 19:15.
     In 19:12-13, Moshe is commanded to cordon off the
entire
area surrounding the mountain. In 19:14-15, Moshe relays
these
commands to the people. Hence, from now on, we refer to
this
section (i.e. 19:9-15) as 'PREPARATION'.

     Are Bnei Yisrael capable of reaching this level?
Are they
truly ready to receive the DIBROT directly from God?
     If so, why did God not suggest this direct
encounter in
the first place?  If not, why does God now agree to
their
request?
  [As you may have guessed, we have encountered a
'dialectic'.]

     To answer these questions, we must analyze the
psukim
that follow to determine which of these two divine plans
actually unfolds.

RUNAWAY BRIDE
     According to the new plan, on 'day three' God
should
reveal Himself on Mount Sinai and speak the DIBROT
directly to
the entire nation.  Let's continue now in chapter 19 and
see
what happens:
 "And it came to pass on the third day in the morning,
and
 there were loud sounds and lightening, and a THICK
CLOUD on
 the mountain, and the SHOFAR sounded very strong, and
the
 people in the CAMP all became frightened." (19:16)

     If you read this pasuk carefully, you will most
probably
be startled by the fact that Bnei Yisrael never came to
Har
Sinai that morning!  Instead, they were so frightened of
God's
"hitgalut" [revelation] that they remained in the CAMP.
  [Our minhag to stay up (and learn Torah) the entire
night of
  Shavuot is based on the Midrash that Bnei Yisrael
'slept in'
  on that morning. Note how that Midrash is based on
this
  pasuk.]

     This background explains the next pasuk, where
Moshe goes
back to the camp, and brings everyone back to the foot
of the
mountain (see 19:17).  Now it's time to 'try it again'.
Let's
see what happens:
 "And Har Sinai was full of smoke, for God had DESCENDED
upon
 it in FIRE, and its smoke was like a furnace, and the
entire
 mountain shook violently..."  (see 19:18)

     This pasuk certainly describes God's "hitgalut",
and it
appears to follow according to PLAN 'B'.  Note how God's
descends onto the mountain (note the word "va'yered" in
both
19:11 and 19:18).  Nevertheless, one could also
understand the
intense smoke as reflective of the protective 'cloud'
described in 19:9 (Plan 'A').
     The stage has now been set for Matan Torah. The
people
are standing at the foot of Har Sinai and God has
revealed
Himself - He has descended upon Har Sinai. Therefore,
the next
pasuk should describe God's proclamation of the Ten
Commandments.
     Let's examine that pasuk (19:19) carefully:
  "The sound of the shofar grew louder and louder; as
Moshe
  would speak, God would answer him with a KOL." (19:19)

     This pasuk is quite ambiguous, for it does not give
us
even a clue as to WHAT Moshe was saying or what God was
answering. It is not even clear as to WHOM Moshe is
speaking,
to God or to the people!
     If Moshe is speaking to the people, then this pasuk
would
be describing how he conveyed the DIBROT.  If so, then
Moshe
speaking and God responding with a "kol" - implies that
the
DIBROT were given according to PLAN 'A', as Moshe serves
as
the intermediary.  [Compare with 19:9!]
     However, if "Moshe y'daber" (in 19:19) refers to
Moshe
speaking to God, then it not at all clear what their
conversation is about; nor can we make any deduction in
regard
to how the Dibrot were given!  [Note the range of
opinion
among the commentators on this pasuk!]

PLAN 'B' - MYSTERIOUSLY MISSING!
     Rashi's commentary on this pasuk is simply amazing.
Again quoting the Midrash, Rashi claims that Moshe is
speaking
to the people, telling them the Dibrot!   However,
what's
amazing is Rashi's explanation that the clause "Moshe
y'daber..." describes the transmission of the LAST EIGHT
Commandments, but not the first TWO.  This is because
Rashi
understands that the first two DIBROT were given
DIRECTLY from
God - in accordance with PLAN 'B' - while the last eight
were
given via Moshe - in accordance with PLAN 'A'.  As this
pasuk
(19:19) describes PLAN 'A' it could only be referring to
the
transmission of the last eight DIBROT!
   [See also Rambam in Moreh N'vuchim II, chapter 33.]
   
     Note that according to Rashi, chapter 19
intentionally
OMITS two key events relating to Plan B:
     1) Bnei Yisrael's original request for Plan B (in
19:9),
&
     2) The story of the two DIBROT given at the level
of Plan
'B'.

     For some thematic reason that remains unclear,
chapter 19
prefers to omit these two important details, leaving us
with
the impression that Plan 'B' may have never taken place!

     Ramban rejects Rashi's interpretation of 19:19 (as
do
many other commentators), arguing that 19:19 does NOT
describe
how the Dibrot were given.  Instead, Ramban explains
that
"Moshe y'daber..." describes the conversation between
God and
Moshe that immediately follows in 19:20-25.
 [As usual, Ramban prefers to keep the sequence of
events
 according to the order of the psukim, while Rashi is
willing
 to 'change' the order for thematic considerations.]

LIMITATION/  A FINAL WARNING
     To better appreciate this "machloket" between Rashi
and
Ramban, we must examine the last set of psukim in
chapter 19
(i.e. 19:20-25).
 "God descended upon Mount Sinai to the TOP of the
Mountain
 and summoned Moshe to the TOP of the Mountain, and
Moshe
 ascended... Then God told Moshe: Go down and WARN the
people
 lest they break through toward God to SEE, and many of
them
 will perish. And even the KOHANIM who are permitted to
come
 closer must prepare themselves..." (19:20-22)
    [Btw, note that 20:25 refers to Moshe's conveying
this
    warning to the people, NOT to his conveying the
"DIBROT,"
    as is commonly misunderstood.  See Rashi!]
    
     According to Ramban, this additional 'warning' is
given
BEFORE Matan Torah, and serves as the final preparation
before
the DIBROT are given.  However, according to Rashi's
interpretation, it remains unclear when, where, and why
this
conversation (in 19:20-25) takes place.
 [Even though Rashi explains 19:19 as depicting the
 presentation of the DIBROT, he maintains that 19:20-25
takes
 place beforehand - for it relates to the ceremony
described
 in 24:3-11, which Rashi himself claims to have occurred
 BEFORE the DIBROT.  This "sugya" lies beyond the scope
of
 our shiur.]
 
     In any case, this final 'warning' clearly reflects
the
mode of transmission of the Dibrot that we have referred
to as
PLAN 'A' - God will appear only to Moshe (at the top of
the
mountain), while everyone else must keep their distance
down
below. Only Moshe will be privy to witness the descent
of the
"shechina" onto the TOP of the mountain, while Bnei
Yisrael
are prohibited from ascending to see, "lest they die."
     As this section describes how God is now limiting
His
revelation to the top of the Mountain, we refer from now
on to
this section (19:20-25) as 'LIMITATION'.
     Note how chapter 19 now divides into four distinct
sections:
       I.  PROPOSITION (19:1-8)
      II.  PREPARATION (19:9-15)
     III.  REVELATION (19:16-19)
     IV.  LIMITATION (19:20-25) ]

     So what happened? Has God reverted to Plan 'A'
(that
Moshe is to act as an intermediary)? If so, why? On the
other
hand, if Plan 'B' remains in operation, why does God
restrict
His revelation to the TOP of the mountain? Could this be
considered some sort of 'compromise'?
     There appears to have been a change in plans, but
why?
     Even though chapter 19 does not seem to provide any
explanation for what motivated this change, a story
found
later in chapter 20 seems to provide us with all the
'missing
details'.

TREPIDATION [ or  'FEAR' STORY ONE']
     Towards the end of chapter 20, immediately after
the
Torah records the DIBROT, we find yet another story
concerning
what transpired at Har Sinai:
 "And the people all saw the KOLOT, the torches, the
sound of
 the SHOFAR and the mountain smoking; the people saw and
 MOVED BACK and stood at a distance. And they told
Moshe:
 'Why don't YOU SPEAK to us, and we will listen to you,
but
 God should NOT SPEAK to us, lest we die.'
         "Moshe responded saying: 'DO NOT BE FEARFUL,
for God
    is coming to 'test' you and instill fear within you
so
    that you will not sin.'
 "But the people STOOD AT A DISTANCE, and Moshe [alone]
 entered the CLOUD where God was." (see 20:15-18)

     This short narrative provides us with a perfect
explanation for WHY God chooses to revert from PLAN 'B'
back
to PLAN 'A'.  Here, the reason is stated explicitly: the
people changed their mind because they were frightened
and
overwhelmed by this intense experience of "hitgalut."
     But why is this story recorded in chapter 20?
Should it
not have been recorded in chapter 19?

     Indeed, Ramban does place this story in the middle
of
chapter 19.  Despite his general reluctance towards
rearranging the chronology in Chumash, Ramban (on
20:14-15)
explains that this entire parshia (20:15-18) took place
earlier, BEFORE Matan Torah. Based on a textual and
thematic
similarities between 20:15-18 and 19:16-19 (and a
problematic
parallel in Devarim 5:20-28), Ramban concludes that the
events
described in 20:15-18 took place before Matan Torah, and
should be read together with 19:16-18!
     Thus, according to Ramban, the people's request to
hear
from Moshe (and not from God) that took place within
19:16-18,
explains the need for the 'limitation' section that
follows
immediately afterward in 20:19-25. [See Ramban on
20:15.]

     Rashi and Chizkuni offer a different
interpretation. They
agree with Ramban that 20:15-18 - the Fear Story - is
'out of
place,' but they disagree concerning WHERE to put it.
While
Ramban places this story BEFORE Matan Torah, Rashi
(based on
his pirush to 19:19) & Chizkuni (on 20:15) claim that it
took
place DURING Matan Torah, BETWEEN the first two and last
eight
commandments.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS - FIRST OR THIRD PERSON
     In fact, this creative solution solves yet another
problem. It explains WHY the text of the Ten
Commandments
shifts from first to third person after the second
commandment. Whereas the first two commandments (20:2-5)
are
written in FIRST person, indicating that God conveyed
them
DIRECTLY to the people [reflective of Plan 'B'], the
last
eight commandments (20:6-14) are written in third
person,
suggesting a less direct form of communication
[reflective of
Plan 'A'].  This reflects Chazal's explanation that:
"Anochi
v'Lo Yihiyeh Lachem, m'pi ha'gvurah shma'um" - the first
two
commandments were heard directly from God (Makkot 24a);
see
also Chizkuni 20:2 and 20:15.]

     Rashi and Chizkuni's explanation has a clear
advantage
over Ramban's, as it justifies the 'transplantation' of
the
Fear story (20:15-18) from its proper chronological
location
to after the Dibrot.  Since this story took place DURING
the
Ten Commandments, the Torah could not record it
beforehand. On
the other hand, it could not have been recorded where it
belongs (i.e. in between the second and third DIBROT),
for the
Torah does not want to 'break up' the DIBROT (whereas
they
form a single unit).  Therefore, the Torah records this
'fear
story' as a type of 'appendix' to the Ten Commandments,
explaining afterward what happened while they were
given.
     To summarize, in chapter 19, it was unclear whether
or
not Bnei Yisrael would hear the DIBROT according to PLAN
'A'
(as God originally had planned) or at the higher level
of PLAN
'B' (as Bnei Yisrael requested).  Later, in chapter 20,
the
Torah describes how Bnei Yisrael were frightened and
requested
to revert back to PLAN 'A'.   Ramban claims that this
'fear
story' took place BEFORE Matan Torah, and hence the
people
heard ALL Ten Commandments through Moshe (Plan 'A').
Rashi
maintains that this story took place DURING the DIBROT;
hence
the first TWO DIBROT were transmitted according to PLAN
'B',
while the remainder were heard according to PLAN 'A'.
 [Ibn Ezra (see 20:15) takes an opposite approach,
 maintaining that the fear story is recorded right where
it
 belongs; it took place only AFTER Matan Torah.
Therefore,
 the people heard all Ten Commandments directly from
God, as
 mandated by Plan 'B'.]

A PROOF FROM SEFER DEVARIM
     Based on our discussion, we can resolve two
adjacent yet
seemingly contradictory psukim in the description of
Matan
Torah in Sefer Devarim:
 "Face to face God spoke to you on the mountain out of
the
 fire [PLAN 'B']. I stood BETWEEN God and you at that
time to
 convey God's words to you [PLAN 'A'], for you were
afraid of
 the fire and did not go up the mountain..." (see
Devarim 5:4-
 5)

 Once again, the Torah incorporates BOTH PLANS in its
description of Matan Torah. Evidently, both plans were
in fact
carried out, as we explained.
 Although we have suggested several solutions to
problems
raised by chapters 19-20, a much more basic question
arises:
why can't the Torah be more precise? Why does the Torah
appear
to intentionally obscure the details of such an
important
event in our history?

AHAVA and YIRAH
     One could suggest that this ambiguity is
intentional, as
it reflects the dialectic nature of man's encounter with
God.
     Man, in search of God, constantly faces a certain
tension. On the one hand, he must constantly strive to
come as
close to God as possible ("ahava" - the love of God). On
the
other hand, he must constantly retain an awareness of
God's
greatness and recognize his own shortcomings and
unworthiness
("yirah" the fear of God). Awed by God's infinity and
humbled
by his own imperfection, man must keep his distance (see
Devarim 5:25-26!).
     God's original plan for Matan Torah was
'realistic.'
Recognizing man's inability to directly confront the
"shechina," God intends to use Moshe as an intermediary
(Plan
'A').  Bnei Yisrael, eager to become active covenantal
partners, express their desire to come as close as
possible to
God. They want to encounter the "Shechina" directly,
without
any mediating agent (Plan 'B').
     Could God say NO to this sincere expression of
"ahavat
Hashem"? Of course not! Yet, on the other hand,
answering YES
could place the people in tremendous danger, as they
must rise
to the highest levels of spirituality to deserve such a
direct, unmediated manifestation of God.
     While Plan 'B' may reflect a more 'ideal'
encounter, Plan
'A' reflects a more realistic one. One could suggest
that by
presenting the details with such ambiguity, the Torah
emphasizes the need to find the proper balance between
this
realism as well as idealism when serving God.

GOD KNOWS BEST
     Although God knows full well that Bnei Yisrael
cannot
possibly sustain a direct encounter, He nonetheless
concedes
to their request to hear the Commandments directly. Why?
     One could compare this Divine encounter to a
parent-child
relationship. As a child grows up, there are times when
he
wishes to do things on his own. Despite his clear
incapability
to perform the given task, his desire to accomplish is
the key
to his growth. A wise parent will allow his child to
try, even
though he knows that the child may fail - for it is
better
that one recognize his shortcomings on his own, rather
than be
told by others that he cannot accomplish.
     On the other hand, although a child's desire to
grow
should not be inhibited by an overprotective parent, a
responsible parent must also know when to tell his child
STOP.
     Similarly, God is well aware of Bnei Yisrael's
unworthiness to encounter the Divine at the highest
level.
Nevertheless, He encourages them to aspire to their
highest
potential.  As Bnei Yisrael struggle to maintain the
proper
balance between "ahava" and "yirah," God must guide and
they
must strive.
     Our study of Parshat Yitro has shown us that what
actually happened at Ma'amad Har Sinai remains unclear.
However, what 'could have happened' remains man's
eternal
challenge.

                         shabbat shalom,
                         menachem

=================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
A. What would have happened had Bnei Yisrael said NO to
God's
proposition? The Midrash posits that had Bnei Yisrael
rejected
the offer, the world would have returned to "tohu
va'vahu"
(void) - the phrase used in Breishit 1:2 to describe the
state
prior to Creation! [See Shabbat 88a & Rashi 19:17.] From
this
Midrash, it appears that Bnei Yisrael had no choice but
to
accept. Why is the covenant binding, if Am Yisrael had
no
choice?
     Any covenant, by its very nature, requires the
willful
acceptance of both parties. Therefore, according to
"pshat,"
Bnei Yisrael have "bechira chofshit" to either accept or
reject God's proposition. Their willful acceptance makes
the
covenant at Har Sinai binding for all generations. Thus,
had
Bnei Yisrael said NO (chas v'shalom), Matan Torah would
not
have taken place! However, such a possibility is
unthinkable,
for without Matan Torah there would have been no purpose
for
Creation. Therefore, because the psukim indicate that
Bnei
Yisrael had free choice, the Midrash must emphasize that
from
the perspective of the purpose behind God's Creation,
the
people had no choice other than accept the Torah.

B. Most m'forshim explain that "b'mshoch ha'yovel
hay'mah
ya'alu b'Har" (19:13) refers to the long shofar blast
that
signaled the COMPLETION of the "hitgalut" - an 'all
clear'
signal.
     One could suggest exactly the opposite
interpretation,
that the long shofar blast indicated the BEGINNING of
Matan
Torah.
  Explain why this interpretation fits nicely into the
pshat
of 19:11-15, that limiting access to the Mountain is
part of
the preparation for Matan Torah. [What does an 'all
clear'
signal have to do with preparation?]   Explain as well
why
this would imply that during Matan Torah, Bnei Yisrael
should
have actually ascended Har Sinai!
     Relate this to concept of PLAN 'B' and Bnei
Yisrael's
request to SEE the "Shchina." Relate to Devarim 5:5 in
support
of this interpretation. Why would "kol ha'shofar holaych
v'chazak m'od" (19:19)  be precisely what God meant by
"b'mshoch ha'yovel."
     Relate to "tachtit ha'har" in 19:17!  Use this to
explain
why the psukim immediately following 19:19 describe
God's
decision to LIMIT his "hitgalut" to the TOP of the
mountain.

C. Compare the details of 19:20-24 to the Mishkan: i.e.
Rosh
ha'har = kodesh kdoshim; Har = Mishkan; Tachtit Ha'har =
azara, etc. Where can Moshe and Aharon enter? What about
the
Kohanim and the Am?  Explain how this may reflect a bit
of a
'compromise' between plans A & B.

D. You are probably familiar with Kabbalat Shabbat.
Based on
the above shiur, explain why our weekly preparation for
Shabbat could be compared to Bnei Yisrael's original
preparation for Matan Torah.
  Relate this to the verses of "l'cho dodi" and its
'wedding
like' imagery!

ADDITIONAL NOTES AND SOURCES
A.  WHAT WERE "DIVREI HA'AM" in 19:9:
     In the shiur we mentioned Rashi's interpretation
(based
on the Mechilta), that though the Torah does not state
this
explicitly, Bnei Yisrael insisted on hearing Hashem's
word
directly, rather than through a mediator.  Moshe then
reports
this request to Hashem.  This is also the implication of
the
Midrash in Shir Hashirim Rabba 1:2.  We will briefly
review
some of the other interpretations offered to resolve the
difficulty in this pasuk:
1.   The Abarbanel takes the same general approach as
Rashi,
that Moshe here tells Hashem of the nation's desire to
hear
His word directly.  However, he claims that this request
actually appears in the psukim (whereas according to
Rashi the
Torah never records the people making this request).The
Abarbanel claims that their acceptance of the
"proposition" -
"everything that Hashem said - we will do" - included
their
wish to hear Hashem directly.  (He appears to interpret
the
clause, "im shamo'a tishm'u b'koli? ," which we
generally
explain to mean, "if you obey Me faithfully," as, "if
you will
hear My voice."  Thus, when they accepted this
proposition,
they expressed the desire to hear Hashem's voice as
well.
  This approach appears more explicitly in the Netziv's
He'amek Davar (19:8.)  Hashem here tells Moshe that as
not
everyone is worthy of prophecy, He will speak to Moshe
"b'av
he'anan," which the Abarbanel explains as a physical
voice, as
opposed to the usual medium of prophecy, which involves
none
of the physical senses.  (This understanding of "av
he'anan"
appears as well in the Or Hachayim and Malbim.)  The
nation
will thus hear Hashem's voice without experiencing
actual
prophecy.  Moshe then informs Hashem that the people
want to
hear Hashem speaking to them, rather than to Moshe.
This
general approach of the Abarbanel appears to be the
intent of
the Midrash Lekach Tov on our pasuk.

2.  The Ibn Ezra, like Rashi, understands the "divrei
ha'am"
in this pasuk as referring to something not explicitly
mentioned in the psukim.  Whereas according to Rashi
that
something was the nation's desire to hear Hashem
directly, the
Ibn Ezra points to the skepticism on the part of
segments of
Bnei Yisrael.  He claims that "vayaged Moshe et divrei
ha'am"
means that Moshe had previously made this comment to
Hashem,
prior to the beginning of this pasuk.  It thus turns out
that
Hashem speaks to Moshe here in response to his report of
the
"divrei ha'am."  Moshe had reported that some among Bnei
Yisrael do not believe that a human being can survive a
revelation of Hashem; they therefore doubted the fact
that
Moshe had been appointed God's messenger.  Hashem
therefore
tells Moshe that Ma'amad Har Sinai will result in "v'gam
b'cha
ya'aminu l'olam" - Bnei Yisrael's complete trust and
faith in
Moshe's prophecy.

3.  Other Rishonim suggest that when Moshe "returns the
nation's words to Hashem" (see 19:8) -he does not
actually
tell Hashem what the nation said; he merely returned to
God
with the intention of telling Him.  It is only in 19:9
that
Moshe actually told this to God (see Ibn Ezra in Shmot
19:23
citing Rav Sa'adya Gaon's claim that just as in his day
people
could not initiate conversation with a monarch, but must
rather wait for the king to begin speaking with them, so
did
Moshe abstain from addressing God until after God spoke
with
him.)
  This explanation is also suggested by Rav Sa'adya Gaon
(as
explained by Rabbenu Avraham Ben ha'Rambam, and Rabbi
Yaakov
of Vienna in "Imrei Noam"), the Ba'alei HaTosfot (as
quoted in
both Hadar Zekeinim and Da'at Zekeinim), Rabbenu Yosef
Bechor
Shor, and the Ramban.  The Rashbam, too, appears to take
this
position.
  [Two Midrashic interpretations of this pasuk appear in
  Masechet Shabbat 87a and in the Mechilta on our
pasuk.]
This discussion surrounding 19:9 directly impacts
another
issue, one of the central points of our shiur: does
Hashem
introduce a "new plan" in psukim 10-11, after Moshe
"reports
the people's words" to Him?  According to Rashi, as
discussed
at length in the shiur, He clearly did.  The same is
true
according to the Abarbanel's approach.  However,
according to
the second and third explanations quoted here, it would
seem
that Hashem is not describing here an alternate
procedure.
Indeed, the Ramban (on this pasuk) explains Hashem's
original
"plan" as having Bnei Yisrael watch as Hashem appears to
Moshe.  Thus, pasuk 11, in which Hashem says that He
will
descend "in the view of the nation," does not mark a
change of
plans.  Similarly, in the introduction to his commentary
to
Shir Hashirim, as well as in his peirush to Shmot 3:12,
the
Ramban writes that Hashem's promise to Moshe at the
burning
bush, that Bnei Yisrael will "serve God on this
mountain,"
involved their "beholding His glory face-to-face."  This
was
God's intention all along.

B.  PLAN A & PLAN B
  In the shiur we worked with Rashi's view - i.e. God
originally had planned to speak only to Moshe, as Bnei
Yisrael
listened in.  In response to the nation's request,
however,
God switches to "plan B," by which He will address the
nation
directly.
  An interesting variation on this theme is suggested by
the
Malbim.  According to his explanation, plan B, which the
people requested, involved their hearing directly from
Hashem
the entire Torah, not only the Ten Commandments.  (The
Ramban
- 20:14 - writes that Bnei Yisrael feared that this was
God's
plan, though in actuality He had never intended to
transmit
the entire Torah to them directly.)  Hashem initially
agrees,
but their sense of terror upon hearing the thunder and
lightening signaling God's descent onto the mountain
(19:16),
and their consequent hesitation to go to the mountain
("vayotzei Moshe" - 19:17), reflected their unworthiness
for
this lengthy exposure to divine revelation.  Hashem
therefore
presented them directly either the Ten Commandments or
the
first two.  Only Moshe received the rest of the mitzvot
directly from Hashem.
     We should note that in contradistinction to our
understanding of Rashi, the Maharal of Prague (in his
Gur
Aryeh to 19:9) explains Rashi to mean that Moshe simply
confirms Hashem's plan.  God tells him that He plans on
revealing Himself to Moshe as the nation hears, and
Moshe
replies, "Indeed, this is what the people want."
Apparently,
the Maharal understands "hinei Anochi ba eilecha b'av
he'anan?
" to refer to the same level of "giluy Shechina" that
actually
occurs, such that there was never any change of plans.
(According to the Maharal's approach, it turns out that
there
is no difference between the approaches of Rashi and the
Ramban.)

C. "Moshe Yedaber Veha'Elokim Ya'anenu B'kol" (19:19)
  As we saw, Rashi, following the Mechilta, understands
this
pasuk as referring to the procedure of the transmission
of the
Asseret Hadibrot.  We also noted that the Ramban
disagrees,
claiming that it describes the manner in which the laws
in the
following psukim - concerning the "limitation" - were
presented.  This is the general approach of the
Abarbanel and
Rabbenu Yosef Bechor Shor, as well.  The Ibn Ezra claims
that
the pasuk does not reveal what it is that Moshe says
here, but
it definitely does not refer to the Asseret Hadibrot.
The
point of the pasuk is to stress that despite the
overpowering
sound of the shofar, it did not interfere with Moshe's
conversation with Hashem.  The Or Hachayim writes that
Moshe
here spoke words of praise to Hashem, and He would then
respond. According to all these views, this pasuk does
not
refer to Asseret Hadibrot, as Rashi claims.
  A particularly interesting interpretation is suggested
by
the Malbim, Netziv and "Hadrash Veha'iyun" (though with
some
variation).  They claim that the sound of the shofar
proclaimed, "Moshe yedaber veha'Elokim ya'anenu b'kol."
In
other words, they place a colon after the word "me'od"
in this
pasuk.  The shofar blast thus informed the people that
Moshe
will serve as the intermediary in between Hashem and
Bnei
Yisrael in transmitting the Torah.

D. What Did Bnei Yisrael Hear?
     The issue of whether or not Bnei Yisrael heard
Hashem
speak at Ma'amad Har Sinai involves both parshanut and
machshava.  In terms of parshanut, as we discussed in
the
shiur, we must accommodate several psukim: in our
parasha -
19:9, which, as discussed, implies that Hashem (at least
originally) planned to speak to Moshe as the nation
listened;
19:19 - "Moshe yedaber veha'Elokim ya'anenu be'kol,"
which, if
it refers to the Asseret Hadibrot (a point debated by
Rashi
and the Ramban, as discussed in the shiur), points to
the
involvement of both Hashem and Moshe in the transmission
of
the Commandments to Bnei Yisrael; 20:15-18, where Bnei
Yisrael
retreat from fear; and the transition from second to
third
person after the second Commandment.  We must also
resolve the
contradiction noted in the shiur between Devarim 4:4 and
4:5.
Devarim 5:19-28 strongly implies that Hashem said all
the
dibrot to the people and then they asked Moshe to serve
as an
intermediary.
     The philosophical issue involves the question as to
whether an entire nation can experience prophecy, or is
this
reserved only for the spiritual elite who have
adequately
prepared themselves.
     We briefly present here the basic positions that
have
been taken regarding this issue:
  Ibn Ezra (20:1) and Abarbanel (here and in Devarim
5:4)
maintain that Bnei Yisrael heard all Ten Commandments.
This
is also the majority view cited in Pesikta Rabbati 22,
and the
implication of the Yalkut Shimoni - Shir Hashirim 981.
Although in Parshat Vaetchanan Moshe describes himself
as
having stood in between Hashem and the people serving as
an
intermediary, the Ibn Ezra there explains that this
refers to
the situation after the Dibrot, when Moshe conveyed the
rest
of the Torah to Bnei Yisrael.
  It emerges from Rashi's comments to 19:19 and 20:1
that
Hashem first uttered, as it were, all Ten Commandments
in a
single moment and then began repeating them one by one.
After
the second Dibra, however, Bnei Yisrael became too
frightened
and asked Moshe to serve as their intermediary.  This is
the
position of the Chzikuni, and is found in an earlier
source,
as well - Midrash Asseret Hadibrot l'Rabbi Moshe
Hadarshan, as
cited by Rav Menachem Kasher (Torah Shleima, vol. 16,
miluim #
4).  In his commentary to Masechet Brachot 12a, however,
Rashi
seems to imply that Bnei Yisrael in fact heard all Ten
Commandments from Hashem.
  The Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 2:33) maintains that all
Bnei
Yisrael heard and understood the first two commandments
(without any need for Hashem to repeat them).  They then
asked
Moshe to hear the other commandments on their behalf; he
therefore heard the last eight Dibrot and conveyed them
to
Bnei Yisrael.  Though the Rambam claims that this is the
view
of Chazal, many later writers could not find any sources
in
Chazal corroborating this view.  Rav Kasher, however,
notes
that this is the implication of the Mechilta as quoted
by the
Da'at Zekeinim mi'Ba'alei ha'Tosfot (20:1; the Mechilta
is
cited differently in other sources).  The Rambam claims
that
since one can arrive at the first two Dibrot (the
existence
and singularity of God) through intellectual engagement,
even
without divine revelation, Bnei Yisrael understood these
Dibrot as clearly as Moshe did.  This philosophical
point
sparked considerable controversy and drew strong
criticism
from later rishonim and acharonim.  See Sefer Ha'ikarim
17,
the Abarbanel here and in Vaetchanan, Shut ha'Rashba
4:234,
and Shnei Luchot Habrit - Masechet Shavuot.
  The Ramban (on 20:6), explaining the Mechilta, claims
that
Bnei Yisrael heard all Ten Commandments but understood
only
the first two.  Moshe then explained to them the final
eight.
The Sefer Ha'ikarim (ibid.) concurs with this view.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.0.0 - Release
Date: 6/4/2008 12:00 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yitro2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 67611 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080608/3d2c9bea/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jun 11 19:18:50 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:18:50 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Bhaalotcha - shiur #2
Message-ID: <000901c8cc19$8b99f2b0$0202a8c0@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

    PARSHAT BHA'ALOTCHA   (shiur #2)

      "CHALSHA DA'ATO SHEL AHARON"

     Why was Aharon depressed?
     The first Rashi in this week's Parsha deals with
this
question as he explains the juxtaposition between the
first
topic in Parshat Bha'alotcha - for Aharon to light the
Menorah
(8:1-5), and the last topic in Parshat Naso - the twelve
day
dedication ceremony of the Mizbayach (7:1-88):
  "Why is the parsha of the Menorah juxtaposed to
?chanukat
  ha'nssiim? (the special offering brought by the
princes of
  each tribe)? - When Aharon saw the daily dedication
offering
  by the 'nssiim', he became DEPRESSED, because neither
he,
  nor his shevet, took part in this ceremony. - God
assured
  Aharon saying: Do not worry, YOUR PORTION IS GREATER
than
  theirs, for you are to light and attend to the MENORAH
every
  morning and evening."

IS AHARON REALLY 'LEFT OUT'?
     Ramban immediately questions the basic assumption
of this
Midrash (as quoted by Rashi):
  "Could it be that Aharon is depressed because he felt
'left
  out'? After all, each "nasi" enjoyed only ONE day of
special
  attention, while Aharon was at the center of attention
  during each of those TWELVE DAYS! Did he not offer all
of
  the korbanot on each of those days, as well as the
ktoret
  and korban tamid?
       Furthermore, during the miluim ceremony (see
Vayikra
  8:1-36) that preceded that dedication, he and his
children
  enjoyed seven days of 'exclusive attention'. For what
  possible reason could Aharon have felt 'left out'?
  
     In this commentary, Ramban is unable to find a
satisfying
explanation of this Midrash according to "pshat".
Instead, he
suggests that the intention of the Midrash is not to
explain
the psukim, but rather to show a biblical source for the
Hasmonean revolt:
  "Even though Aharon did not participate in the
dedication of
  the mizbayach of the Mishkan, in the merit of his
  descendants - the Hasmoneans - the mizbayach of the
Second
  Temple will be dedicated. Furthermore, in
commemoration of
  that event, a Menorah will be lit in every home, even
after
  the destruction of the Temple "
                              (see Ramban 8:1).
     One could suggest an alternative explanation of the
Midrash, without the need of limiting its significance
to the
events of the Hasmonean revolt.COALITION POLITICS The
opening
statement of the Midrash - "chalsha da'ato shel Aharon"
(Aharon became depressed) - requires explanation. [Note
that
Ramban had raised this question, but did not answer it
directly.]
     Considering that Aharon is indeed at the center of
attention and very busy during each day of the
dedication
ceremony, why should he have become depressed?
     To understand Aharon's reaction (according to the
Midrash) we must consider the political realities of his
predicament. Bnei Yisrael are about to leave Har Sinai
and
begin their journey to conquer and inherit the Land of
Israel.
Although Aharon is indeed a very key figure during Bnei
Yisrael's short stay in the desert, he is apprehensive
about
what will most probably take place once Bnei Yisrael
leave Har
Sinai. The focus of national attention will shift to the
excitement of military initiatives and political
enterprise.
Har Sinai, and maybe even the Mishkan, will soon be
'long
forgotten'.
     Once the conquest of Eretz Canaan would begin, it
will be
the twelve "nssiim" (the tribal leaders) who will hold
the
highest positions of national leadership. They will
establish
economic policy; they will make treaties with foreign
dignitaries; they will make the speeches at national
gatherings; they will lead the nation in war. [In modern
phraseology, they will become the Ministers of Defence
and the
Treasury; Secretaries of State and Foreign Affairs.]
     Thus, it is quite understandable why Aharon becomes
depressed. When he sees the attention that the twelve
"nssiim"
receive, he realizes the insignificance of his position
within
the emerging national leadership. What ministry post
will he
receive? In his own eyes, he may have begun to view his
job as
merely the "shamash" (a beadle/ attendant) taking care
of the
Mishkan. Indeed, a very technical job at best.
     Will he have any influence lasting influence on the
nation? At best, he may possibly be appointed "sar
ha'datot" -
the Minister of Religion. Within a short time, Aharon
fears,
he will be distanced from national leadership.

AN IMPORTANT CABINET POST
     Thus far, we have suggested a reason for Aharon's
depression (according to the Midrash). What is the
significance of God's consolation -that he will light
the
Menorah?
     Although the Midrash is well aware of Aharon's
numerous
responsibilities in the Mishkan, it chooses specifically
the
Menorah to symbolize an additional aspect of his
national
duties, i.e. teaching God's laws to the people. This
double
purpose is mentioned in the blessing to Shevet Levi in
Parshat
v'Zot ha'bracha:
  "They shall TEACH Your laws to Yaakov, and your
instructions
  to Yisrael, they shall offer Your incense... and offer
the
  'olah' ("kalil") on Your mizbayach..." (Devarim 33:10)

     Once Bnei Yisrael will enter the land, teaching the
laws
of the Torah will become the PRIMARY duty of the Kohanim
and
Leviim. Since their work is divided into 24 week shifts,
the
average kohen or levi would find himself working in the
Mishkan only two weeks a year. Therefore, most of their
time
would be spent teaching and judging the people (see
Devarim
17:8-10).  It was for this reason that their cities are
scattered throughout the twelve tribes of Israel (see
Bamidbar
35:1-8 and Yehoshua 21:1-40).
     Thus, the Menorah may symbolize specifically this
duty of
the Kohanim - "chinuch", teaching.  If the purpose of
the
Menorah is to spread light, then the purpose of the
kohanim is
to spread Torah to the entire nation. This understanding
can
explain why Aharon is consoled when told that it is his
job to
light the Menorah.
     If we continue with our parallel to the realm of
national
politics, one could explain that Aharon and his "shevet"
are
consoled - for they are given a responsibility similar
to the
control the Ministry of Education and Justice (in
addition to
the Ministry of Religion) - a cabinet position no less
important than any other!
                                   shabbat shalom,
                                   menachem

==================================

FOR FURTHER IYUN - PART II:
1. According to pshat, one could suggest a simple reason
for
the juxtaposition of these two parshiot?
     Notice that the final psukim of perek 7, which
summarize
the korbanot brought by the nssiim, are actually
referring to
the first day of the dedication ceremony when all the
nssiim
brought their korbanot together, at the same time (read
7:10-
11 carefully!). Furthermore, 7:89 - the dibur to Moshe -
also
takes place on the first day.
     Therefore, Bha'alotcha opens in the 'afternoon' of
the
first day of the dedication of the Mishkan. The only
avodah
left, which did not begin in the morning, is the
lighting of
the Menorah, for it is lit "m'erev ad boker" - from
evening to
morning! This may explain why this mitzvah is included
at this
time.

2. Compare this juxtaposition between the dibur to Moshe
(7:89), and his relationship to Aharon (8:1-5) and the
Nsiim
(7:1-88) to the psukim which describe Moshe descent from
Har
Sinai- according to Shmot 34:29-32!Relate this to the
connection between Har Sinai and the function of the
Mishkan!



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.2.0/1497 -
Release Date: 6/11/2008 8:32 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bhal2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 20249 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080611/63c4fac0/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jun 11 19:18:50 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:18:50 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Bhaalotcha - shiur #1
Message-ID: <000d01c8cc19$8cf3b650$0202a8c0@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

             PARSHAT BEHA'ALOTCHA

  Three books in one?  So claim Chazal in regard to
Sefer
Bamidbar!  And what's more, one of those three books
contains
only two psukim!
  [This statement is based on the 'sugya' in Shabbat
116a (top
  of the daf) concerning the two psukim of 'va-yehi
bi-nso'a
  ha-aron...' (that we recite when we take out the Sefer
Torah
  / see Bamidbar 10:35-36).]

     To better appreciate the deeper meaning of this
statement, this week's shiur discusses an important
thematic
transition that takes place in Parshat Beha'alotcha.

INTRODUCTION
     As anyone familiar with Chumash knows, the text of
Chumash in the actual Sefer Torah does not contain any
symbols
of punctuation.  Nonetheless, in Parshat Beha'alotcha we
find
a very peculiar exception, as the two psukim of 'va-yehi
bi-
nso'a ha-aron ...' are delimited by two upside down 
'nun's' - acting like parenthesis, and thus causing
these
psukim to 'stand out'.
     For this 'technical' reason alone, we can certainly
assume that these two psukim must be special.
In an attempt to understand the reason for this
phenomenon,
the following shiur discusses the thematic importance of
these
two psukim by considering their location at a very
pivotal
position in Sefer Bamidbar.

HIGH HOPES
     To appreciate the internal structure of Sefer
Bamidbar,
we must first consider what its theme ?should have?
been.  To
do so, let?s quickly review the primary themes of the
previous
three books, as we have discussed in our series of
shiurim.
     Sefer Breishit focused on God?s choice of Avraham
(and
his offspring) to become His special nation ['bechira'].
Sefer Shmot described God?s redemption of His nation
from
Egypt, their subsequent journey to Har Sinai to receive
the
Torah, and construction of the mishkan ? the symbol of
God?s
presence in their midst.  Finally, in Sefer Vayikra,
Bnei
Yisrael received additional laws relating to both the
mishkan
and 'kedusha' [holiness] in their land and their daily
lives.
  At this point, Bnei Yisrael were now ready to continue
their
journey from Har Sinai to inherit the 'Promised Land'.
Hence,
Sefer Bamidbar ?should have? been the story of that
journey
and their inheritance of the land.  Tragically, in Sefer
Bamidbar those goals are never attained; however - by
considering those high expectations ? we can better
appreciate
its content and structure.
     For example, Sefer Bamidbar began by describing how
Bnei
Yisrael prepared for their journey to Eretz Canaan by
organizing the army while establishing the mishkan at
the
center of their camp.
     Note how this theme (of Bnei Yisrael's preparation
for
this journey) continues throughout the narrative in the
first
ten chapters of Sefer Bamidbar:
 *   The army is organized and counted (chapters 1-2)
 *   The mishkan is placed at the focal point of the
camp (2-5)
 *   The national leaders participate in its dedication
(7)
 *   The levi'im are appointed to become the spiritual
leaders
     (chapters 3->4 & 8)
*    The entire nation offers pesach rishon & sheni
(chapter 9)
 *   Final instructions are given re: how and when to
travel(10)

     Had nothing 'gone wrong', it would have been
precisely at
this point (after chapter 10 in Sefer Bamidbar) that
Bnei
Yisrael should have begun their magnificent journey to
the
Promised Land.  Instead, the next sixteen chapters (i.e.
chapters 11-26) discuss exactly the opposite, i.e. how
(and
why) Bnei Yisrael did not inherit the Land.  In those
chapters, the Torah describes numerous incidents when
Bnei
Yisrael rebelled against God, culminating with God's
decision
not to allow that generation to enter the land.
  [The final ten chapters of Sefer Bamidbar (27-36)
discuss
  how the second generation prepares to enter the Land.]

THREE BOOKS
     This analysis can help us appreicate the location
of the
two psukim of 'va-yehi bi-nso'a ha-aron', as they lie at
this
junction that  divides Sefer Bamidbar into two distinct
sections:

A)  Chaps. 1-10 - Bnei Yisrael's preparation for this
journey
B)  Chaps. 11-26 - The actual journey (i.e. what went
wrong)

     The last two psukim of chapter 10 ['va-yehi
bi-nso'a ha-
aron...'] form the divider between these two sections!

  With this background, we can appreciate why Chazal
consider
Sefer Bamidbar as three books.
     As the first ten chapters - preparation for travel
- form
a complete unit, they can be considered a 'book'.
Similarly,
chapters 11-36, describing the failure of the first
generation, also form a complete unit, and hence can
also be
considered a 'book'.  However, even though the two
psukim of
'va-yehi bi-nso'a ha-aron...' form a divider, we must
still
explain why Chazal consider them as a book as well.

WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN
  One could suggest that these two psukim serve as more
than
just a buffer.  Albeit their brevity, they do describe
the
ideal fashion in which Bnei Yisrael should have traveled
on
their journey to inherit the Land.  [For example,
compare with
Shmot 23:20-27, which describes God's original plan for
how
Bnei Yisrael would conquer the land.]
     To emphasize what 'could have been' in contrast to
what
actually took place, the Torah intentionally delimits
these
two psukim with upside down nun's.
     If so, then the 'three books' of Sefer Bamidbar
would be:

BOOK ONE - Bnei Yisrael's preparation for their journey
(1-10)
     This 'book' is followed by two 'versions' of that
journey:

BOOK TWO - the ideal  (two psukim) - what 'could have
been'

BOOK THREE - the actual journey that 'failed'
              (i.e. chapters 11-36)

  To accent the tragedy of book three, the Torah first
presents a 'glimpse' of what 'could have been' in book
two -
the glorious manner in which Bnei Yisrael could have
travelled, had they not sinned.

WHAT WENT WRONG?
     So what went wrong?  What caused Bnei Yisrael to
sin at
the incidents of the 'mit'onenim', the 'mit'avim' and
the
'meraglim' etc.?
     Chazal find a 'hint' in the pasuk (which
immediately
precedes 'va-yehi bi-nso'a ha-aron') that describes Bnei
Yisrael's departure from Har Sinai":
     "And they travelled from God's mountain..."(see
10:33-34).

  The Midrash comments:
    "Like a child leaving school - running away, in the
same
    manner Bnei Yisrael ran away from Har Sinai a three
day
    distance, for they studied [too much] Torah at Har
    Sinai..."
          [Quoted in first Tosafot on Masechet Shabbat
116a].

     This Midrash compares Bnei Yisrael's stay at Har
Sinai to
a 'school year' [quite appropriate for this time of
year].
Even though they studied God's laws at Har Sinai, it
seems as
though the spirit of those laws were not internalized.
The
people were indeed looking forward to leaving Har Sinai,
but
they were not looking forward to keeping God's laws in
Eretz
Canaan.
  Technically speaking, they may have been 'prepared'
for this
journey, but they most definitely were not spiritually
'ready'.  [See further iyun section.]
     In this manner, the Midrash is highlighting the
underlying reason that led to these sins.  Once Bnei
Yisrael
left with the 'wrong attitude', it was inevitable that
they
would sin.
     But who is to blame?  Certainly, first and foremost
the
people themselves; but if we follow the ?school? analogy
of
this Midrash, we should also consider the possibility
that the
'faculty' may share some of the responsibility as well.
     As we study Sefer Bamidbar, we will see how certain
incidents may even allude to this possibility.  However,
the
first 'early warning' of teacher 'burn-out' is found
already
in Parshat Beha'alotcha.

HAS MOSHE 'HAD ENOUGH'?
     Beginning with chapter 11, and in almost every
incident
when Bnei Yisrael sin in Sefer Bamidbar, we find a
growing
strain in the relationship between Moshe Rabbeinu and
the
people.  Not only do the people constantly complain to
Moshe
about their plight in chapter 11, even his own brother
and
sister criticize him in chapter 12!
     In chapters 13-14, the meraglim [spies] incite a
national
rebellion calling for new leadership to take them back
to
Egypt (see 14:1-5), while in chapter 16 (Parshat Korach)
we
find yet another rebellion against the leadership of
both
Moshe and Aharon.
     So, what went wrong?

     The first sign of this leadership crisis already
surfaces
in the case of mit'avim (see 11:4-14), immediately after
Bnei
Yisrael left Har Sinai.  Let's note Moshe's petition to
God in
reaction to Bnei Yisrael's complaint about the stale
taste of
the manna:
"... And Moshe pleaded to God: Why have You dealt so
harshly
with Your servant, and why have I not enjoyed Your favor
that
You have laid the burden of this people upon me?  I
cannot
carry all this people by myself for it is too much for
me.  If
you would deal thus with me, kill me rather..."
(11:11-15).

     In contrast to the Moshe Rabbeinu that we were
familiar
with from Sefer Shmot - who consistently defends Bnei
Yisrael
before God when they sin, now in Sefer Bamidbar Moshe's
attitude appears to be quite the opposite -he would
rather die
than continue to be their leader!
     Note as well the obvious textual parallels that
highlight
this contrast.  Compare:
 *   "lama hareyota le-avdecha..." (Bamidbar 11:11) -
with
     "lama hareyota la-am ha-zeh..." (Shmot 5:22)
    ["Why have you dealt so harshly with Your people -
for
    what purpose have you sent me, for since I have gone
to
    Pharaoh in Your Name, things have only become
worse..."]

 *   "lama lo matzati chein be-einecha..." (Bamidbar
11:11) -
with
     "ve-ata im matzati chein be-einecha..."(see Shmot
33:13,16)
    ["And now, if I have found favor in Your eyes, let
me
    know Your ways so I can find favor in Your eyes -
and see
    that they are Your people... and how will I know
that I
    and Your people have indeed found favor - when You
allow
    Your Presence to travel with us..."]
and
 *   "If this is my plight [to lead them]- I'd rather
die..."
 					(11:15)
   "If You forgive their sin [fine]... but if not erase
me from
      Your book that you have written..." (see Shmot
32:30-32)
    [In the above comparisons, note as well the Torah's
use
    of key phrases such as 'charon af Hashem', 'ra'a',
    'matzati cheyn be-einecha' etc.]
  Is it not ironic that after the incident of 'chet
ha-egel'
Moshe is willing to die in order to save his nation (see
Shmot
32:32), while now he would rather die than lead his
nation!
In Sefer Shmot, Moshe was always 'sticking out his neck'
to
defend Bnei Yisrael, while now he appears to have 'given
up'.
  [Note Rashi on Bamidbar 11:28 where he quotes the
Sifri that
   explains how Eldad's & Meidad's prophecy at this
incident
   was that 'Moshe will die and Yehoshua will lead Bnei
Yisrael
   into the Land instead'.  This Midrash suggests as
well that
   the failure of Moshe's leadership already begins with
this
   incident of the mit'avim and is not solely due to his
sin at
  'mei meriva' in chapter 20. / See further iyun
section.]

     This parallel, suggesting a possible flaw in Moshe
Rabbeinu himself, must bother every student of Chumash.
Could
it be that Moshe Rabbeinu reacted in an improper manner?
Is
it possible that the greatest prophet of all times, who
received the Torah and taught it to Bnei Yisrael, just
'gives
up'?
     Is Moshe Rabbeinu - who took Bnei Yisrael out of
Egypt
and faithfully led them to Har Sinai - now unable to
lead them
on the last leg of their grand journey from Har Sinai to
Eretz
Canaan?
     To answer yes would be blasphemous, yet answering
no
would appear to be rather naive.

TOO HOLY TO LEAD
     One could suggest that the contrast between Moshe's
reaction to chet ha-egel and his reaction to the
mit'avim
stems from the motive behind each sin.
     Despite the severity of chet ha-egel, Bnei
Yisrael's sin
was the result of a misguided desire to fill the
spiritual
vacuum created by Moshe's absence.  [See shiur on
Parshat Ki
Tisa.]  In contrast, the sin of the mit'avim seems to
have
been totally physical - an uncontrollable lust for food
['hit'avu ta'ava'].
     Chet ha-egel presented an educational challenge
that
Moshe Rabbeinu is willing to accept, i.e. to take this
misguided desire and channel it in the proper direction.
[Note commentators who understand the building of the
mishkan
as a 'tikkun' for the misguided intentions that led to
chet ha-
egel.]
     However, after the lustful sin of the mit'avim,
Moshe
Rabbeinu simply 'gives up'.  He is unable to fathom how
this
nation, after spending an entire year at Har Sinai, have
become so preoccupied with such mundane desires.  Moshe
simply
does not have the educational tools to deal with such a
low
level of behavior.  [In other words - Moshe was hired to
be a
teacher, not a baby-sitter!]

     God's immediate reaction to Moshe's petition may
reflect
this aspect of Moshe's leadership.  God finds it
necessary to
take some of the ruach (spirit) from Moshe and transfer
it to
the seventy elders (see 11:16-17).  God realizes that
Moshe
must now share some of his leadership responsibilities
with
elders who can possibly deal more realistically with
this type
of crisis.
     One could suggest an additional insight.  In Sefer
Bamidbar, Moshe Rabbeinu could be considered 'over
qualified'
or 'too holy' to lead the people.
  After spending some six months on Har Sinai, Moshe
Rabbeinu
is on a spiritual level far higher than that of his
nation.
It is not that Moshe Rabbeinu is incapable of leading,
rather
the nation is on too low a level to benefit from his
leadership.  Quite simply, ?over-qualified? for the job.
[Iy"h, we'll return to this topic in our shiur on
Parshat
Chukat.]
     Ultimately, Yehoshua will be chosen to lead Bnei
Yisrael
into the Promised Land.  As the dedicated student of
Moshe
Rabbeinu, and the experienced leader of his own tribe
(and of
the entire army in the battle against Amalek), Yehoshua
possesses the necessary leadership qualities.  He is
also
sufficiently 'down to earth', and therefore will be able
to
lead Bnei Yisrael into the 'land'.
     The lesson that we can learn from this Parsha is
certainly not 'how to criticize' Moshe Rabbeinu.
Rather, it
should remind us when teaching - to keep in mind the
emotional
needs of our students; and when studying - to keep in
mind the
potential of how much we can gain from our teachers.
 
 			shabbat shalom
			menachem
===================
FOR FURTHER IYUN

1.  See Shmot 34:30-35 in relation to the 'masveh' - the
veil
- which Moshe wore after his descent from Har Sinai.
   How does this relate to the above shiur?

2.  Considering the parallel between Har Sinai and Gan
Eden,
why do you think that the sin of the mit'avim ('ta'ava')
is
significant?   [Relate to Breishit 3:6-8!]

3.  In relation to the Midrash quoted in the shiur on:
'Va-
yis'u me-har Hashem ....' (10:33) : 'ke-tinok
ha-boreiach mi-
bet ha-sefer'
[like a child running away from school]
     Most children stay in school because they must.
Usually,
school attendance is not an outcome of total
identification
with the importance of education, rather a result of
parental
coercion.  A child's joy on the last day of school
usually
does not stem from recognition of his academic
achievements,
but more likely from his expectations for having fun
during
vacation.  This, according to Chazal, was the level of
Bnei
Yisrael after their year at Har Sinai.  They did not
fully
appreciate the privilege of receiving the Torah.
Instead of
looking forward to transferring the ideals of the Har
Sinai
into daily life in Eretz Yisrael, they were more
interested in
just getting on with normal life, while 'running away'
from
their spiritual obligations.

4.  Note how later on in Sefer Bamidbar, Moshe's initial
reaction to most every complaint is 'va-yipol al panav'
- and
"he fell on his face"./ See meraglim, korach and mei
meriva.
     Thus, Moshe's reaction to the mit'avim is not an
isolated
event.  It opens an entire chain of incidents in which
Moshe
Rabbeinu's leadership appears to falter, concluding with
the
events of mei meriva (20:7-13) where God decides that
Moshe
cannot lead Bnei Yisrael into the Promised Land.
    As we explained, the famous Midrash concerning the
'nevu'a
of Eldad and Meidad (the two elders who were not
included with
the other seventy / read 11:26-29) reflects this
connection
between Moshe's reaction to the sin of the mit'avim and
his
ultimate fate of not entering Eretz Yisrael.  Even
though the
Torah does not specify precisely what Eldad & Meidad had
said,
the Midrash fills it in for us:
  "Moshe meit ve-Yehoshua machnisam la-aretz" - Moshe is
going
  to die and Yehoshua will lead them into the Land
(Rashi
  11:26).

    Although this interpretation is not the obvious
'pshat' of
these psukim (as we can discern from Moshe Rabbeinu's
reaction
to Yehoshua's complaint / see 11:26-29), the Midrash may
be
alluding to the overall pshat of this parsha in Sefer
Bamidbar.  In the very same 'parsha' where Moshe is
unable to
deal with the mundane complaints of the people, the
Midrash
already sees his ultimate inability to lead Am Yisrael
into
Eretz Yisrael.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.2.0/1497 -
Release Date: 6/11/2008 8:32 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bhal1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 34210 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080611/a0f22430/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Jun 19 14:46:41 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:46:41 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Shlach - shiur
Message-ID: <038601c8d23c$d0b431c0$742a75c0@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

                 PARSHAT  SHLACH
                        
     What was so terrible about the sin of the
"meraglim"?
After all, they were instructed to report the facts, and
that's exactly what they did!      Furthermore, even if
we
consider their report as deliberately slanted, why was
the
entire nation punished so harshly for being misled by a
small
group?
     Finally, even if the people's initial reaction was
improper, immediately afterward they repent by declaring
their
willingness to take the challenge of conquering the
Land!
Shouldn't this repentance have been accepted?
     Why then is "dor ha'midbar" [the generation of the
desert] punished so severely? Why must Am Yisrael wander
for
forty years until they perish! This week's shiur
examines this
tragic event in an attempt to understand why.

INTRODUCTION
     Before we begin our study, an important point of
nomenclature.  Although this event is commonly referred
to as
"chet ha'meraglim" - the sin of the SPIES, in Parshat
Shlach
they are NEVER referred to as such!  Nevertheless, for
the
sake of convenience, our shiur will continue to refer to
them
as the "meraglim", even though their mission (as we will
show)
involved much more than just 'spying out the land'.
     To understand the 'sin of the spies', we must first
ascertain what their mission was. Therefore, our shiur
begins
with an attempt to identify its precise purpose by
noting how
the Torah describes this mission.

TOURISTS OR SPIES
     In describing the mission of the meraglim, the
Torah uses
the verb "la'tur" (see 13:2,17 & 25). This verb can be
translated as 'to tour' or 'to scout'. However, to
arrive at a
more precise understanding of what they were supposed to
do,
we must take a closer look at the psukim that describe
their
mission:
     "And Moshe insturucted them saying:
      And you shall see the LAND, WHAT IT IS -
   Are the people who live in STRONG or WEAK, FEW or
MANY?
      Is the Land GOOD or BAD?
      Are the towns OPEN or FORTIFIED?
      Is the SOIL RICH or POOR? Are there TREES?
      [if so,] bring back samples of the fruit..
(13:17-20)

     Clearly, these instructions entail more than a spy
mission. Note as well that we find TWO categories of
questions
that the meraglim must answer:

 1) Concerning the NATURE OF THE LAND -
    i.e. to find out whether the Land is good or bad,
the soil
    rich or poor, the trees fruitful, etc.
    
 2) Concerning the FEASIBILITY OF CONQUEST -
    i.e. to find out if the enemy is strong or weak, if
the
    cities are fortified or open, etc.

     These two categories show how this mission entails
much
more than the collection of military information.  In
fact,
these questions seem to be describing a 'fact finding
mission', much more than a 'spy mission'.  Let's explain
why:
     A 'spy mission' is initiated when a military
commander
needs to acquire information (to prepare a battle plan).
When
doing so, usually a small group of men are sent
secretly, and
hence report back only to the military commanders (and
certainly not to the entire nation).
     Clearly, the mission of the meraglim in Parshat
Shelach
is quite different. These twelve men (a representative
from
each tribe) are sent publicly, by the political
leadership to
gather information for the entire nation.  This
information
will help Bnei Yisrael plan not only the conquest of the
land,
but also how to establish Eretz Canaan as their
homeland.
  [To support this point, simply compare Bamidbar
13:1-17 with
  34:16-29, noting the textual similarities!]

REALISTIC NEEDS
  To better appreciate the necessity of this mission,
let's
consider the realities that face Bnei Yisrael at this
time.
     Recall that the nation numbers over two million
individuals.  [This approximation is based on the
extrapolation of the census figure of 600,000 men above
age 20
(see Bamidbar chapter 26).]  This nation, living in camp
formation for the last year and a half, has been able to
survive the difficult desert conditions only with God's
providence, i.e. His miraculous daily supply of food and
water. However, these special conditions were only
temporary.

    Even though God had promised to bring them to a land
'flowing with milk and honey', their existence in this
'promised land' will no longer be supported by God's
daily
miracles.  Instead, they will have to till the soil and
work
the land for their food. [See Devarim 8:1-10, re: the
purpose
of the manna!]
     Similarly, when Bnei Yisrael will enter the land,
they
will have to fight their battles through natural means.
Surely, God will assist them; but they will now have to
undertake their own initiatives.  [See Devarim
11:22-25.]
  Therefore, at this time, Bnei Yisrael must not only
prepare
themselves to conquer that land, but they must also make
the
necessary preparations for all aspects of the
establishment of
their new national homeland.
     Taking this into consideration, it only makes sense
that
it would be necessary to send a 'national fact finding'
mission to help plan not only how to conquer the land,
but
also how to establish its borders and partition, as well
as
its economy and agriculture etc.  Hence, the meraglim
are
instructed to scout the land to determine not only the
feasibility of its conquest, but also how to prepare the
land
for its two million new inhabitants!

     To support this explanation, note how the Torah
describes
a similar 'appointment of officers' (forty years later,
when
the next generation prepares to enter the land):
  "And God spoke to Moshe: These are the names of the
men
  through whom the land shall be apportioned - Elazar
the
  Kohen and Yehoshua bin Nun. And one NASI, one NASI
from each
  tribe... and these are their names..." (see Bamidbar
34:16-
  29, note obvious parallels with 13:1-16)

UNDERSTANDING THE MISSION
     Based on this introduction, we can better
understand the
opening pasuk of the Parsha:
  "And God spoke to Moshe... send one man from EVERY
TRIBE,
  each one a chieftain among them... all the men being
LEADERS
  of Bnei Yisrael." (13:1-3)

    Due to the nature of this mission, it is necessary
to
send a senior representative from each "shevet" (tribe).
Similarly, this explains why the meraglim report back
not only
to Moshe, but to the entire public. [See 13:26.]
     Had they been military spies, they would report
ONLY to
Moshe (or to the military commander), but definitely NOT
to
the entire nation! Furthermore, had they been military
spies,
there would be no reason to publicize their names, and
certainly no reason to send tribal leaders.  Quite the
opposite! It is because they comprise a FACT FINDING
MISSION -
specifically a group of national leaders are sent, who
later
report back to the entire nation (see 13:26).

A PROOF FROM SEFER YEHOSHUA
     To clarify this distinction between 'spies' and a
'commission of inquiry' it is helpful to compare these
meraglim to the meraglim sent by Yehoshua [see this
week's
Haftarah]:
  "And Yehoshua bin Nun SECRETLY sent two SPIES from
Shittim
  saying: Go scout out the land and the area of
Yericho..."
  (Yehoshua 2:1)
  "... and the two men returned... and they told
YEHOSHUA
  concerning what happened to them."       (2:24)
  
     Note that in Sefer Yehoshua the spies are actually
referred to as MERAGLIM. These meraglim are sent
SECRETLY (we
are not told their names) to SPY out the city and report
back
ONLY to Yehoshua. Clearly, their mission was purely
military.
     To highlight this contrast, the following table
summarizes the differences between these two missions:

     sent by Moshe       sent by Yehoshua
     ===========         ==============
     12 men                2 men
     Tribal leaders        unnamed
     publicly              secretly
     "la'tur" (to tour)    "l'ragel" (to spy)
     the type of land,     only military information
     [its fruit, its cities etc..]

     Yehoshua's meraglim serve as military spies to help
him
plan HOW to conquer Yericho. Moshe's meraglim serve as
an
inquiry commission, sent to provide the people with
information to help them plan the establishment of an
entire
nation with all its institutions.

ONE REPORT / TWO OPINIONS
     Now that we have clarified the nature of the
mission of
Moshe's meraglim, we are ready to evaluate their report
in
order to determine what they did wrong.
     Note that when the meraglim return, their report
correlates perfectly with the double nature of their
mission:
  "and they returned to Moshe & Aharon and the ENTIRE
  NATION... and showed them the fruits of the land
saying...
  it is indeed a LAND FLOWING WITH MILK & HONEY.  Alas,
for
  the people who live in that land are MIGHTY, and the
cities
  are FORTIFIED... the Amalekites guard the south, the
  Chittites and Emorites control the mountain range, and
the
  Canaanites command the planes... " (13:26-29)

     Based on their findings, in regard to (1) the
nature of
the land, - the meraglim conclude that the land is
SUPERB:
  "and they showed them the fruits of the land saying...
it is
  indeed a land flowing with milk and honey..."
(13:26-27);

     However, in regard to (2) the feasibility of its
conquest, the meraglim conclude that conquering the
people of
Canaan appears to be almost impossible:
  "Alas, for the people who live in that land are
MIGHTY, and
  the cities are FORTIFIED... the Amalekites guard the
south,
  the Chittites and Emorites control the mountain range,
and
  the Canaanites command the planes... " (13:28-29).

     These conclusions reflected the commission's
MAJORITY
opinion. However, Kalev and Yehoshua presented an
opposite
conclusion.  Based on the same findings, they conclude
that
conquest of the Land is possible: "it is indeed FEASIBLE
to
conquer the Land..." (13:30)
     Up until this point, it appears as though this
commission
is quite objective; they report the facts as perceived.
All
twelve members concur that the land is good, yet the
enemy
formidable. However, two opinions exist in regard to the
feasibility of its conquest: The majority opinion
concludes
that it is futile to even attempt to conquer the land
(see
13:31), while the dissenting opinion, presented by
Kalev,
argues that conquest is achievable (see 13:30).
     The majority opinion appears to be logical and
quite
realistic. Why then is God so angered?
     It is usually understood that the meraglim's sin
stems
from their lack of belief in God.  After all, had they
believed in Hashem, they would have arrived at the same
conclusion as Kalev and Yehoshua.  However, this
understanding
may be overly simplistic.  Is it possible that ten out
of the
twelve tribal leaders, after witnessing the miracles of
the
Exodus and their journey through the desert, do not
believe in
God and His ability to assist His nation in battle?

NO FAITH IN WHOM?
     There can be no doubt that the tribal leaders and
the
entire nation as well, believe in God and the
possibility of
Divine assistance. Unfortunately, they are also well
aware of
the possibility of Divine punishment.  Let's explain
why:
     Throughout their journey, not only had God
intervened
numerous times to help them; He had also intervened
numerous
times to PUNISH them. However, the meraglim are also
aware
that to be worthy of Divine assistance Bnei Yisrael must
remain obedient at all times. This precise warning had
already
been raised at the conclusion of Parshat Mishpatim:
  "Behold I am sending a 'malach' to lead into the
Land... Be
  careful and listen to his voice, do not rebel against
him,
  FOR HE WILL NOT PARDON YOUR SINS, for My Name is with
him.
  For IF you will listen... and do everything that I
command
  you, THEN I will help you DEFEAT and conquer your
  enemies..." (Shmot 23:20-25)

     This warning clearly states that God's assistance
is
totally dependent on Bnei Yisrael's behavior. Should
they not
listen, they will fall before their enemies.
  [Note how the story of Achan in Yehoshua 7:1-26 proves
this
  assumption. There we find that the mere sin of one
  individual led to the defeat of the entire nation in
  battle.]

     One could suggest that the conclusion of the
meraglim is
based on their assessment that Bnei Yisrael are not
capable of
retaining the spiritual level necessary to be worthy of
miracles while conquering the Land.  Realizing that the
conquest would only be feasible with Divine assistance,
they
concur that conquest is impossible.  In other words, the
meraglim are not doubting God's ability to assist them
in
battle, RATHER they are doubting their own ability to be
WORTHY of that assistance.
     So what's so terrible? Is it not the job of
leadership to
realistically evaluate all of the relevant factors?

DIBAH - THE CHET OF THE MERAGLIM
     It is precisely in this type of situation where
leadership is critical!  Ideal leadership should have
challenged the nation to raise their spiritual level -
to
become worthy of Divine assistance - to rise to that
challenge! The meraglim take a very different approach.
Instead of rallying the nation to fulfill its destiny,
the
meraglim hide their spiritual cowardice behind a wall of
hyperbole!
  To support this point, note their reaction to Kalev's
'dissenting opinion' (in 13:30), for it sheds light on
their
true character:
  "But the people who went up with him said: We cannot
attack
  that people for it is stronger that we. And they
spread
  DIBAT HA'ARETZ among Bnei Yisrael saying: The land
which we
  visited is one that DEVOURS ITS INHABITANTS, ALL the
people
  who we saw there are GIANT... we looked like
GRASSHOPPERS to
  ourselves, and that is HOW THEY SAW US."  (13:31-33)

     These are not the objective statements of a 'fact
finding
mission'! Rather, they comprise a presentation of
hysterical
exaggerations made in a desperate attempt to shape
public
opinion. A land does not 'devour' its inhabitants, nor
is it
likely that the Canaanites perceived them as
'grasshoppers'!
It is precisely this rebuttal that the Torah refers to
as
"dibah" - SLANDER.  Let's explain why.
     Instead of confessing their true fear and lack of
confidence in the nation's ability, they over-exaggerate
the
seriousness of the situation. Rather than encourage the
people
to prepare themselves for the task, they prefer to
utilize
populist politics and create fear in the camp.
     Finally, note how the word "dibah" is central when
the
Torah summarizes their punishment:
  "And those men - MOTZIEY DIBAT HA'ARETZ RA'AH - died
in a
  plague before God." (see 14:37)

     In contrast, Kalev and Yehoshua exhibit proper
leadership, as exemplified in their rebuttal of this
argument.
Note once again how the entire argument hinges on Am
Yisrael's
special relationship with God:
  "im chafetz banu Hashem" - If God truly wants us [to
be His
  nation], surely He will bring us into the land... only
YOU
  MUST NOT REBEL against God, and you should not FEAR
the
  people of the land for they are our prey... for GOD
WILL BE
  WITH US - [hence] do not fear them."  (14:8-9)

     Unfortunately, the argument of the meraglim was
more
convincing, and the people concluded that attacking
Eretz
Canaan at this time would be suicidal (see 14:1-4).
Considering that staying in the desert was no better of
a long-
term option, the nation concludes that their only
'realistic'
option is to return to Egypt (see 14:3-5). The attempt
of
Yehoshua and Kalev to convince the people otherwise was
futile
(see 14:6-9). Bnei Yisrael prefer returning to Egypt
instead
of taking the challenge of becoming God's special nation
in
Eretz Canaan.
     Based on our explanation thus far, only the
meraglim
should have been punished, for it was they who led the
people
astray. Why does God punish the entire nation as well?
     To answer this question, we must return once again
to an
overall theme in Chumash that we have discussed in our
shiurim
on Sefer Shmot (see TSC shiurim on Va'era and Beshalach)
and
in last week's shiur on Parshat Bhaalotcha.

THE LAST STRAW
     One could suggest that the people's preference of
adopting the conclusion of the meraglim reflected their
own
spiritual weakness as well. Undoubtedly, the slanted
report
presented by the meraglim had influenced their decision.
However, since the time of the Exodus and throughout
their
desert journey, the people had consistently shown a lack
of
idealism.  (Review once again Yechezkel 20:1-11 and our
shiur
on Parshat Va'era.)
     Had the Land of Israel been offered to them on a
silver
platter, Bnei Yisrael most likely would have been
delighted to
accept it.  However, once they realize that conquering
the
Promised Land requires commitment and dedication, the
nation
declines.  This entire incident only strengthened God's
earlier conclusion that Bnei Yisrael were not yet
capable of
fulfilling their destiny.
  To support this point, note how the Torah describes
God's
decision to punish the nation in both 14:11-12 and
14:21-24:
  "And God spoke to Moshe - 'ad ana y'naatzuni ha'am
  ha'zeh...' - How long will this people continue to
defy Me,
  and how long will they have no faith in Me, despite
all the
  signs (miracles) that I performed in their midst..."
(14:11-
  13)

And several psukim later:
  "For all those men who saw My Glory and My signs in
Egypt
  and in the desert, and they have tested my TEN TIMES,
yet
  they did not listen to My voice. If they will see the
land
  that I promised to their forefathers...  [However] My
  servant Kalev will see the land, for he had a
different
  spirit..." (see 14:21-24, read carefully)

     Clearly, Bnei Yisrael's punishment is not based
solely on
this specific sin of the meraglim, but rather on their
overall
behavior since the time they left Egypt.
     This also explains the obvious parallel between
Moshe's
prayer in the aftermath of this event and his prayer in
the
aftermath of "chet ha'egel". Then as well, God wished to
destroy the entire nation, opting to make a nation out
of
Moshe instead; but Moshe petitioned God to invoke His
"midot
ha'rachamim" (attributes of mercy).  This time as well,
Moshe
beseeches God in a similar manner; however the sin of
the
"meraglim" was more severe, and hence it is impossible
to
reverse the "gzar din" (verdict). Instead, it could only
be
delayed over forty years so not to create a "chillul
Hashem".
     Due to "chet ha'meraglim", God is convinced that
"dor
ha'midbar" would never be capable of meeting the
challenges of
conquering and establishing a 'holy nation' in the
Promised
Land. They are to perish slowly in the desert, while a
new
generation will grow up and become properly educated.
     Based on this interpretation, we can explain why
God was
not willing to accept the repentance of the "ma'apilim"
(see
14:39-45). Even though their declaration of: "we are
prepared
to go up and conquer the place that God has spoken of,
FOR WE
WERE WRONG" (see 14:40) may reflect a change of heart,
it was
too late. Had this been Bnei Yisrael's only sin, then
most
likely their repentance would have sufficed. However,
"dor
ha'midbar" had suffered from an attitude problem since
the
time of the Exodus (see Tehilim 95:8-11, Shmot 6:9-12,
and
Yechezkel 20:5-9).
  Even after they received the Torah and built the
Mishkan,
their continuous complaining was inexcusable. "Chet
ha'meraglim" was not an isolated sin; rather it became
the
'straw that broke the camel's back'.
     Bnei Yisrael may have been more than happy to
accept the
privileges of becoming an "am segula", yet they were not
prepared to accept its responsibilities. God decided
that it
was necessary to educate a new generation instead.
     It is not often in Jewish History when the
opportunity
arises for Am Yisrael to inherit (or return) to its
homeland.
The implication of such an opportunity is far greater
than
simply the fulfillment of "mitzvat yishuv ha'aretz" (the
commandment to settle the Land), for it relates to the
entire
character and destiny of the Jewish people. When such
opportunities arise, spiritual weakness should not be
allowed
to hide behind subjective pessimism. Rather, Jewish
leadership
must gather strength and assess the realities
objectively
while rising to the challenges idealistically.

                              shabbat shalom,
                              menachem
==============
FOR FURTHER IYUN
1. Note the parallel account of this event in Sefer
Dvarim
(1:22-24). There, they are called "meraglim" and only
the
military aspect of their mission is detailed. Relate
this to
the purpose of Moshe's speech in the 40th year and the
fact
that Bnei Yisrael are about to cross the Yarden and
begin
conquest of the Land. See also Ramban (Bamidbar 13:1),
note
how he attempts to combine both accounts.

2. All said and done, the obvious question remains, why
does
God command Bnei Yisrael to undertake a mission which
may
fail?
  One could suggest that even though God has promised
the land
to Bnei Yisrael, He prefers that its conquest follows a
natural sequence of events. Even though Yisrael enjoyed
a
supernatural existence in the desert, as they prepare
for
entering the land, they must begin to behave in a
natural
manner, as this will be the mode of life once they
conquer the
land. Now there is value in the fact that Bnei Yisrael
participate actively in the process of "kibush
ha'aretz", and
begin to live like any normal nation by making decisions
on
their own.
     This could be compared to a 'first step' towards
national
maturity. Just like a child's needs are first taken care
of by
his parents, and slowly he must begin to take on his own
responsibilities, so too Bnei Yisrael at this stage.
Unfortunately, it seems that this 'weaning' process
began a
bit too soon. Bnei Yisrael were as yet not ready.

3. Recall from last week's shiur that in the overall
structure
of Sefer Bamidbar, parshiot of mitzvot which would
appear to
belong in Sefer Vayikra often 'interrupt' the ongoing
narrative 'challenging' us to find a connection. Review
the
mitzvot in 15:1-41 and try to find a thematic connection
to
the story of the meraglim.
  1) The mitzvah of "minchat n'sachim" to be brought
with
  korbanot Olah or Shlamim;
     2) The mitzvah of taking challah;
  Note that both these mitzvot begin with the phrase "ki
  tavou el ha'aretz" (when you come in the Land);
  3) Avodah Zara of the tzibur and the necessary korban
chatat
  (should entire nation sin);
     4) Chilul Shabbat and its punishment;
     5) Mitzvat Tzizit

a. Attempt to relate these parshiot to chet ha'meraglim?
     (Compare both thematically and linguistically.)
b. Where in Sefer Vayikra does each mitzvah belong?
c. Recall the various mitzvot which chazal equate with
keeping
the entire Torah:
     1) Eretz Yisrael
     2) Avodah Zarah
     3) Shabbat
     4) Tzizit

Could you conclude that Chazal based these Midrashim on
the
special structure of Sefer Bamidbar?

4. Note 15:22-23.  Why is this pasuk referring to the
transgression of all the mitzvot of Torah, while the
chazal
explain that it refers specifically to avoda zarah.
     (Relate your answer to the previous question.)
   How is chet ha'meraglim thematically similar?

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.0 - Release
Date: 6/17/2008 12:00 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shlach1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 40808 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080619/0dbfb787/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jun 25 13:47:58 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:47:58 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Korach - shiur
Message-ID: <011e01c8d6eb$a4774e40$0400000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

                PARSHAT  KORACH

     What did Korach ?TAKE?? For some reason, the Torah
prefers not to tell us.
     Likewise, Korach definitely had many complaints,
yet
Chumash never clarifies what he proposed instead.
     In fact, as we study Parshat Korach, we will notice
how
many other important details appear to be 'missing'! In
this
week's shiur we attempt to explain why.

INTRODUCTION
     Parshat Korach opens with a pasuk that seems to be
grammatically incorrect:
  "Va'yikach Korach..." - And Korach, the son of Yizhar,
the
  son of Khat, the son of Levi, TOOK; and Datan and
Aviram
  [the sons of Eliav] and Oan [the son of Pelet] the
sons of
  Reuven."  (16:1)

     This opening sentence simply states that Korach
TOOK,
without explaining WHAT he took! In fact, this pasuk is
so
ambiguous that almost every commentator offers a
different
interpretation. For example:
     Rashi - Korach took himself to a 'different side';
     Ramban - he took an "eytzah" (counsel) into his
heart;
     Ibn Ezra & Chizkuni - he took 'other people';
     Seforno - he took the 250 'national leaders'.
    [Note as well how just about every translation of
this
    pasuk attempts to 'improvise' in some manner or
other.]
     
     However, no matter which interpretation is most
accurate,
a more basic question remains, i.e.: Why does the Torah
begin
this parsha in such an ambiguous manner?  After all, one
would
assume that the Torah's message would have been clearer
had
this pasuk been written 'properly'!

     In the following shiur, we will show how this
?opening
ambiguity? may be intentional, as it will draw our
attention
to the unique style that the Torah uses to describe this
incident ? a style that the Torah uses deliberately - to
convey its underlying message!
     Let?s begin our study of Bamidbar chapter 16 by
paying
careful attention to the various 'complaints' that
Korach
raises.

FIGHTING FOR A COMMON CAUSE
     From a cursory reading of Parshat Korach it seems
that
Korach, Datan & Aviram, and the 250 men all unite behind
a
common cause. Their joint criticism of the leadership of
Moshe
and Aharon, voiced in their opening protest,
demonstrates this
united opposition:
  "...and they gathered against MOSHE AND AHARON saying:
You
  have taken too much - for the ENTIRE COMMUNITY IS HOLY
and
  God is in their midst, why then do you RAISE
YOURSELVES
  ABOVE God's congregation?"  (16:3)

     However, it remains unclear from this opening
complaint
precisely what they want instead:
 *   Are they calling for 'new democratic elections'?
 *   Do they want Moshe & Aharon to 'step down'?
 *   Do they themselves want to 'step up'?
 *   Are they simply demanding 'spiritual equality'?
 *   Are they just 'chronic' complainers, without any
goal?

     In response to this opening complaint, Moshe offers
a
'test' that sounds (at first) like some type of
'showdown'
(see 16:4-7).  By examining the details of this
suggested
'test', we should be able to arrive at a more precise
conclusion concerning what they are truly complaining
about:
Let's carefully study the psukim that describe Moshe
Rabeinu's
suggestion:
  "Come morning, and God will make known who is His and
who is
  holy... and he whom He has chosen...
   This you shall do, take fire-pans, Korach and his
entire
   group, ... and put on them KTORET before God [i.e. at
the
   Mishkan]... and he [who's offering] God shall choose
will
   be established as "kadosh"...   (see 16:5-7)

     As you review these psukim, note how it remains
rather
unclear concerning the precise purpose of this 'ktoret
test'!
     First, let?s discuss what this test cannot be!
     It can?t be a test to determine who is God?s true
choice
to be the LEADER of Bnei Yisrael, for if so ? then only
ONE
offering could be accepted ? and Moshe (as well as
Aharon)
should participate!
     Furthermore, if this is simply a 'showdown' between
Moshe
and Korach, why should the 250 men participate?
     More likely, the purpose of this 'test' is to
determine
who is entitled to OFFER KORBANOT.  This would explain
why
Aharon (to the exclusion of Moshe) participates together
with
the 250 men, as one possible outcome of this test would
be for
God to accept the offerings of all (or at least some) of
these
participants.
  In other words, the purpose of the ?ktoret? test is to
determine the validity of Korach?s claim that everyone
in Am
Yisrael is ?kadosh? (see 16:3), and hence everyone
should be
allowed to offer korbanot.  Moshe is suggesting that
Korach &
his 250 followers should 'give it a try'. If God accepts
these
offerings, then Korach would be proven correct - if not,
then
Moshe will be proven correct.
  
SPIRITUAL EQUALITY
     To support this interpretation, we simply need to
take a
look at Moshe's second response to Korach (see 16:8-11),
i.e.
in his additional censure to the Levites who have joined
Korach:
  "Hear me, sons of Levi - is it not enough that God has
  designated you to come close [i.e. to assemble and
carry the
  Mishkan]... and now you and your fellow Levites  DO
YOU SEEK
  THE KEHUNA [priesthood] as well.... - why then do you
  complain AGAINST AHARON."    (see 16:8-11)

     This censure of "bnei Levi" - especially the phrase
of
'do you seek the priesthood as well - proves that Korach
and
his 250 men are challenging the decision to limit the
offering
of "korbanot" to Aharon and his sons. These dissidents
demand
that anyone who so desires should be allowed to offer
"korbanot", for ALL members of Israel are 'spiritually
equal'
["ki kol ha'eydah kulam kedoshim?" (see 16:3)].
     This also explains why this extra censure is
directed
specifically to "bnei Levi".  Moshe's criticism focuses
on the
hypocrisy of these Levites - for if they were so worried
about
'spiritual equality' why didn't they complain earlier
when
they themselves were chosen over any other tribe to
carry the
Mishkan!
     Apparently, these dissidents believe that the
limitation
of offering korbanot to Aharon's family stems from
Moshe's
nepotism, rather than from a divine command. [See
Chizkuni
16:15.]  Hence, this 'ktoret test', as Moshe suggests,
will
determine who indeed is capable of offering korbanot -
i.e. it
may be only Aharon, or possibly all (or at least some)
of the
250 men as well. [See also 16:16-17.]

ENTER - GROUP TWO
     Up until this point, we are left with the
impression that
everyone mentioned in the opening two psukim  - i.e.
Korach,
Datan, Aviram, and the 250 men - join together in this
protest. Hence, we should expect all of them to
participate in
this 'showdown'.
     However, as the narrative continues, a very
different
picture emerges. Note from 16:12 that Datan & Aviram,
for some
reason, are singled out:
  "And Moshe sent for DATAN & AVIRAM, but they answered:
WE
  WILL NOT COME UP..."  (see 16:12-14)

     Why must Moshe SEND for Datan and Aviram? After
all, were
they not together with Korach & Company when they first
gathered against Moshe (see 16:2-3)?  Furthermore, for
what
purpose does Moshe call them?  Does he want them to
participate in the 'ktotet test'?  At first glance, it
remains
quite unclear concerning what this summons is all about.
     However, their response to Moshe - "we will not
COME UP"
- already suggests that Datan & Aviram may comprise an
independent group.  Note how they remain in their own
camp
[recall that they are from shevet Reuven] and refuse to
even
come near the Ohel Moed (where the 'ktoret test' is
being
conducted).
     Furthermore, from their censure of Moshe that
accompanied
their response to his summons (see below), it becomes
quite
clear that Datan & Aviram have a more 'political' agenda
(and
aren't terribly interested in 'spiritual equality').
  "Is it not enough that you took us out of a land
flowing
  with milk and honey [referring to Egypt!] to die in
the
  desert and NOW - YOU CONTINUE TO ACT AS LORD OVER US!
You
  have not even brought us to a land flowing with milk &
honey
  (as Moshe had promised)... [therefore] we will not
come up!"
  (16:13-14)

     In this brazen defiance of Moshe's summons, Datan &
Aviram totally reject Moshe's political LEADERSHIP. In
their
eyes, Moshe has failed as the nation's leader. After
all, when
Bnei Yisrael first accepted Moshe as their leader in
Egypt, he
had promised to bring them to a land flowing with milk
and
honey (see Shmot 3:16-17, 4:30-31). Now that Moshe has
informed Bnei Yisrael that entering the Promised Land is
no
longer on the horizon, Datan & Aviram (and most likely
many
others) reject the legitimacy of his leadership and
authority.
     Clearly, this complaint differs drastically from
Korach's
initial objection to the KEHUNA! Korach and the 250 men
challenge Aharon's exclusive status, but never question
Moshe's leadership. After all, they all agree to the
'test'
that Moshe himself initiates. Datan and Aviram, however,
challenge specifically Moshe's leadership.

MOSHE'S PRAYER
     Conclusive proof of this distinction can be found
in
Moshe's immediate reaction to Datan & Aviram's
complaint.  Pay
careful attention to how Moshe turns to God in prayer:
   "And Moshe became angry and said to God - 'al teyfen
el
   MINCHATAM' - Pay no attention to their 'oblation' - I
did
   not take from them a single donkey, nor have I
wronged
   anyone of them." (see 16:15)

     At first glance, it appears that Moshe now begs God
not
to accept the "ktoret" offerings.  However, this cannot
be for
two reasons:

  1)  Datan & Aviram chose not to participate in the
"ktoret"
  test, so why would Moshe request that God not accept
an
  offering that they aren't even bringing?
                      [See Ramban!]

  2)  The Hebrew word "minchatam" refers either to a
'meal
  offering' (see Vayikra chapter 2) or a gift of some
sort
  (see Breishit 32:13,18).  Certainly, it is not another
name
  for "ktoret" (incense).

    [Note how the commentators dealt with this problem.
Even
    though the first opinion of Rashi claims that
"minchatam"
    indeed refers to the KTORET offering, Ramban
(rightly so)
    disagrees - suggesting that it refers to any type of
    prayer (or offering) that they may offer.  See also
Ibn
    Ezra & Seforno who explain this pasuk in a similar
    manner.]

     Furthermore, the reason that Moshe advances - "for
I have
not taken anything from them" - clearly relates to
Moshe's
counter-claim that his leadership has been without
corruption.
Therefore, this entire prayer relates to Datan &
Aviram's
complaint against his leadership. Moshe simply turns to
God to
affirm the legitimacy of his own [divinely appointed]
leadership that has now been challenged. Moshe reminds
God
that he has been a faithful leader who never abused his
power.

TWO GROUPS  - TWO GRIPES
     Let's summarize what has emerged thus far.  We have
identified TWO independent grievances, raised by TWO
independent groups, situated in TWO different locations:

   GROUP ONE - the 250 men ["adat Korach"]- protest
Aharon's
   exclusive rights to the KEHUNA. They stand ready for
their
   'test' at the OHEL MOED;
           [Note that the Torah consistently refers to
this
      group as "adat Korach" (see 16:5,6,11).]

   GROUP TWO - Datan & Aviram (& followers) - complain
against
   the POLITICAL leadership of MOSHE. They gather in the
   territory of shevet Reuven.
           [This location is later referred to as
"Mishkan
      Korach Datan v'Aviram" (see 16:24-27).]

     Of course, it remains to be seen where Korach
himself
stands on these two issues, but there can be no doubt
that
there are two groups with two very different agendas.

RE-ENTER GROUP ONE
     Up until this point (i.e. 16:1-15), the narrative,
although a bit complex, has flowed in a logical order:
it
first presents both groups, followed the presentation of
the
individual complaints of each faction. But now, for some
reason, the narrative begins to 'see-saw,' seemingly
randomly,
between Moshe's confrontations with each of these two
groups.
     Note how in 16:16 the narrative abruptly switches
from
Moshe's response to Datan & Aviram (group II) back to
his
original confrontation with "adat Korach" (group I):
  "And Moshe said to Korach, tomorrow, you and all your
  company [the 250 men] be before God [at the Mishkan],
you
  and they and Aharon..."   (16:16-17 / compare with
16:5-7)

     Then the narrative continues to describe this
confrontation: The next morning, all 250 men assemble at
the
Ohel Moed ready with their "machtot" (fire-pans) and
"ktoret"
(16:18), while Korach rallies a mass crowd to watch
(16:19).
But then, just as we expect to find out the outcome of
this
'showdown', again we find an abrupt change in the
narrative.

RE-ENTER GROUP TWO
     Precisely at this critical point in the narrative,
we
find a new 'parshia' (note 16:20-22), which describes
God's
[first] direct intervention (in relation to this
incident),
and Moshe & Aharon's reaction.
  "And God spoke to Moshe & Aharon:  'Separate
yourselves from
  among this congregation, that I may consume them in a
  moment.' And they fell upon their faces, and said: 'O
God,
  the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall - "ish
echad" -
  one man sin, and You will  be wroth with - "kol
ha'EYDAH" -
  the entire congregation?'  (16:20-22)

  Review these psukim once again, noting how it is not
so
clear concerning who "ish echad" and "ha'EYDAH" refer
to:
     Does "ish echad" refer to Korach, and hence the
"eydah"
refers to the 250 men?  Or, does "ish echad" refer to
the
entire group of complainers - i.e. Korach, and his 250
men.
If so, then "eydah" must refer to the entire nation of
Israel,
or at least the large group of followers who Korach had
gathered to watch (see 16:18-19).
     Furthermore - what about Datan & Aviram?  Should
they
also be considered as part of the "ish echad" in Moshe's
prayer?
     Finally, if "eydah" refers to the entire
congregation -
does this imply simply the 'gawkers', i.e. those who
gathered
around to watch (see 16:19), or does it really imply the
entire congregation, including women & children etc.?

     How we understand these words directly affects how
we
understand Moshe's prayer in 16:22.  In other words, is
Moshe
asking God to save the 250 men from Korach (if so, then
God
doesn't answer this request), or is he asking God to
save the
entire nation from Korach and his 250 men (if so, then
God
answers this request)?
  To answer this question, let's see how God answers
this
prayer, noting how it seems to totally confuse our
understanding of what is happening:
   "And God told Moshe, speak to the EYDAH and warn them
-
   WITHDRAW yourselves from the area of MISHKAN KORACH
DATAN
   V'AVIRAM."  (16:23-24)

     To our surprise, God's answer introduces a location
that
we have never heard of before: i.e. MISHKAN KORACH DATAN
v'AVIRAM.  This cannot be the Mishkan itself, rather the
word
"mishkan" in this context refers to their dwelling site,
i.e.
where Datan and Aviram reside.
     Since Datan & Aviram did not come to the "ktoret"
test,
we must conclude that their "mishkan" must be located in
the
area of the Tribe of Reuven.  Most probably, this site
served
as 'party headquarters' for this group of people who
have
openly rebelled against Moshe's political leadership.
     With this in mind, let's attempt to identify whom
"eydah"
refers to in God's reply to Moshe's prayer (in 16:24).
To
save the "eydah" from this "ish echad", Moshe must
instruct
the "eydah" to evacuate the area surrounding Mishkan
Korach
Datan & Aviram.  Hence, the "eydah" must refer to a
group of
people who have gathered around Mishkan Korach Datan
v'Aviram
in the Tribe of Reuven.  However, this conclusion is
rather
baffling, for only five psukim earlier, the word "eydah"
was
used to describe a group of people who had gathered
around the
OHEL MOED  to watch the "ktoret" showdown (see 16:19)!
     Once again, we find how the narrative has 'jumped'
from
Group One [the 250 men offering ktoret] to Group Two
[Datan &
Aviram].

     To prove that there are indeed two groups involved,
simply note what takes place in the next pasuk, as Moshe
fulfills God's command.
     Recall that Moshe must issue a warning to the EYDAH
that
has gathered around the campsite of Datan & Aviram. As
this
"eydah" refers to Group Two, Moshe must now LEAVE the
area of
the OHEL MOED (where Group One has assembled) and GO to
the
area where Group Two is located - i.e Mishkan Korach,
Datan &
Aviram:
  "And Moshe GOT UP and WENT TO Datan & Aviram... and he
said
  to the people: MOVE AWAY from the tents of these
wicked
  people... lest you be wiped out for all their sins..."
  (16:25-26)

     Note that Moshe must LEAVE his present location (at
the
Ohel Moed) and GO TO "Mishkan Korach Datan v'Aviram"
(conclusive proof that two separate groups exist). This
location, to which the Torah refers as "Mishkan Korach
Datan
v'Aviram", serves as 'party headquarters' for this
rebellious
group. Most likely, an alternative leadership group has
already formed at this new center.
   [Note the Torah's use of the word "mishkan" [dwelling
   place] to describe their headquarters. Most likely,
this
   term was specifically chosen to indicate that these
NEW
   headquarters stand in defiance of the Moshe Rabeinu's
   leadership, whose headquarters are the "mishkan" at
the
   Ohel Moed!]

     Because Group Two challenges Moshe's leadership
(and not
Aharon's priesthood), it must be Moshe himself (and NOT
Aharon) who confronts this group. Note that Aharon does
not
accompany Moshe (in 16:25). Instead, he remains at the
Ohel
Moed, prepared for the showdown with the 250 men (Group
One),
i.e. the group that questions his KEHUNA.

TWO GROUPS - TWO PUNISHMENTS
     At this point, God must prove to the political
dissidents
that Moshe's leadership was by divine appointment.
Therefore,
God Himself must 'create' a "beriya" - a new form of
creation
- to punish this group.  Those who distance themselves
from
this group are saved (see 16:27-34).  However, note that
the
ground miraculously devours only the members of Group
Two -
i.e. Datan & Aviram and their staunchest followers.
     But what happened in the meantime to "adat Korach"
(Group
One), i.e. the 250 men.  Note that the last time they
were
mentioned was back in 16:17-19, as they prepared to the
"ktoret" showdown; but we were never told what happened
to
them!  For some reason, the Torah leaves us in suspense
about
their fate; until the very last pasuk of this narrative
(and
in a very incidental manner):
   "And a fire came forth from God and consumed the 250
men
   who were offering the ktoret." (16:35)

     This final pasuk proves not only that there were
TWO
groups in TWO separate locations, but that there were
also TWO
distinct forms of punishments:
  GROUP ONE ?
        the 250 men at the Ohel Moed - CONSUMED by fire.
     GROUP TWO ?
          Datan & Aviram & Co. - SWALLOWED by the
ground.

     So where is Korach in all of this?  Was he consumed
by
fire in the Mishkan together with Group One; or
swallowed up
by the ground - together with Group Two?
     He couldn't be two places at the same time, could
he?

KORACH - THE POLITICIAN
     To appreciate the nature of Korach's involvement,
we must
understand his connection to each of these two groups.
Before
we begin, let's use a table to summarize our analysis
thus
far:
 
           GROUP ONE   /         GROUP TWO
	   =========             ==========
Members:    250 men            Datan & Aviram +
followers
Claim :     priesthood         new political leadership
Against:    Aharon             Moshe
Reason:     spiritual equality  failure of leadership
Location:   Ohel Moed          in shevet Reuven
Punishment: consumed by fire   swallowed up by the
ground

     At first glance, it appears that each group has
some
basis for a legitimate complaint.
     By challenging the restriction of the KEHUNA to the
family of Aharon, Group One asserts their right, as well
as
the right of others, to offer korbanot.
     By challenging the political leadership of Moshe,
Group
Two voices their concern for the welfare and future of
Am
Yisrael. In their opinion, remaining in the desert is
equivalent to national suicide (see 16:13).

     Although Group One has little in common with Group
Two,
the Torah presents this story as if only one group
exists,
under Korach's leadership. The narrative accomplishes
this by
'jumping back and forth' from one group to the other.
The
following chart (of perek 16) illustrates this 'textual
zig-
zag':

  PASUK GROUP       TOPIC
    1- 4  both    Introduction
    5-11   ONE    Complaint of those who want 'kehuna'
   12-15   TWO    Summons of Datan & Aviram & their
refusal
   16-19   ONE    The test of the "ktoret"
   20-22   both?  Moshe's tfila that God punish only the
guilty
   23-34   TWO    earth swallows Datan & Aviram &
followers
   25      ONE    fire consumes the 250 men

     Why does the Torah employ this unusual style? How
does it
help us better understand Korach's involvement with each
group?

KORACH - WHERE ARE YOU?
     First, we must ascertain to which group Korach
belongs.
Clearly, he leads Group One, which demands the "kehuna"
(see
16:6-8,16-19). Yet, at the same time, he is so involved
with
Group Two that his name appears first on the banner in
front
of their party headquarters - "Mishkan KORACH Datan
v'Aviram"!
     Furthermore, although Korach himself is never
mentioned
in the punishment of Group Two (scan 16:23-34 carefully
to
verify this), many of his followers, described by
Chumash as
"ha'adam asher l'Korach", are swallowed up by the ground
(see
16:32) together with Datan & Aviram.
     In fact, it remains unclear precisely how Korach
himself
dies. Was he swallowed by the ground or consumed by the
fire?
     The 'last time he was spotted' was in 16:19
together with
the 250 men (Group One) at the Ohel Moed. But from 16:25
it
seems that only the 250 men were consumed, but NOT
Korach
himself! On the other hand, 16:32 informs us that Datan
&
Aviram and ALL of Korach's men were swallowed up - but
Korach
himself seems to be 'missing'! Did he escape at the last
minute from both?
     Apparently not, for later in Sefer Bamidbar (see
26:9-10)
we are told quite explicitly that Korach was indeed
swallowed.
But to complicate matters even further, Devarim 11:6
implies
that only Datan & Aviram were swallowed up.
   [Based on the complexity of these psukim, the Gemara
in
   Sanhedrin 110a suggests that he received both
punishments!
   First he was burnt by the fire at the Ohel Moed, and
then
   his bodied rolled to the area of Datan v'Aviram and
   swallowed up by the ground. ] (See also Ibn Ezra on
16:35.)

     So why does the Torah describe these events in such
an
evasive manner?  What can this manner of presentation
teach us
about the nature of Korach's involvement?  Finally, why
does
Chumash attempt to give us the impression that Korach
may be
in two places at the same time?
     One could suggest that this 'zig-zag' style
reflects the
nature of the coalition that exists between these two
dissident groups, for they share only one common
denominator-
KORACH.
     But what was Korach's motivation in all of this?
     To answer this question, let's return to the
opening
pasuk of this Parsha (see introduction).  By not telling
us
what Korach 'took', the Torah wants the reader to ask
this
very question - what did Korach take?
   [If you didn't ask yourself this question when you
begin
   reading, you most probably would have noticed the
existence
   of these two groups as you continue.]

COALITION POLITICS
     Korach 'took' two ostensibly 'legitimate' protest
groups
and joined them together to form his own political power
base.
[See Ramban 16:1.] Whereas each group alone may have not
dared
to openly challenge Moshe and Aharon, Korach encourages
them
to take action. Datan and Aviram, 'inspired' by Korach,
establish their own 'headquarters' - "Mishkan Korach,
Datan, &
Aviram" - in defiance of Moshe's leadership. Likewise,
the 250
men, including members of shevet Levi, are roused to
openly
challenge the restriction of the KEHUNA to Aharon.
     Rather than encouraging open dialogue, Korach
incites
these two factions to take forceful action. Korach
probably
saw himself as the most suitable candidate to become the
next
national leader. To that end, he involves himself with
each
dissenting group. [Anyone familiar with political
science
(i.e. current events and/or world history) can easily
relate
to this phenomenon.]
     Korach is simply what we would call a 'polished
politician'.  His true intention is to usurp political
power.
Towards that goal, he takes advantage of private
interest
groups.

A LESSON FOR ALL GENERATIONS
     The Mishna in Pirkei Avot (5:17) considers the
rebellion
of Korach as the paradigm of a dispute that was "sh'lo
l'shem
sha'mayim" (an argument not for the sake of Heaven).
     Why is specifically Korach chosen for this
paradigm?
After all, the arguments presented by Korach ("for the
entire
nation is holy", etc.) seem to imply exactly the
opposite -
that it was actually an argument "l'shem shamayim" (for
the
sake of Heaven).
     Pirkei Avot may be teaching us the very same
message that
the Torah may allude to through its complex presentation
of
these events. Precisely because Korach and his followers
claim
to be fighting "l'shem shamayim," Chazal must inform us
of
Korach's true intentions. Korach may claim to be
fighting a
battle "l'shem shamayim," but his claim is far from the
truth.
His primary interest is to promote himself, to build a
power
base from which he himself can emerge as the new leader.
     This doesn't mean that any form of dissent is evil.
In
fact, Korach's own great great grandson - Shmuel ha'Navi
(see
Divrei Ha'yamim I.6:3-13) - also acted 'against the
establishment' as he initiated both religious reform
[against
the corruption of the "kehuna" by the sons of Eli] as
well as
political reform [in the appointment of David as King
instead
of Shaul]; however, his intentions and motivations were
pure
and sincere.

      Parshat Korach thus teaches us that whenever a
dispute
arises over community leadership or religious reform,
before
reaching conclusions we must carefully examine not only
the
claims, but also the true motivations behind the
individuals
who promote them. On a personal level, as well, every
individual must constantly examine the true motivations
behind
all his spiritual endeavors.

                        shabbat shalom,
                        menachem

===============
FOR FURTHER IYUN

A. In 16:1-2, everyone is introduced: Korach, Datan,
Aviram,
and the 250 men. Read 16:2 carefully! Who are the
leaders and
famous people - just Korach, Datan, and Aviram, or also
the
250 men?  How does this question affect your
understanding of
the magnitude of the revolt against Moshe and Aharon?

B. Note the appellation with which Moshe opens his
tfila: "kel
elokei ha'RUCHOT l'chol BASAR" (16:22). Based on the
context
of this tfila, relate this appellation to the story of
the
"mitavim" and their punishment, as described in Bamidbar
11:1-
35. How does the "basar" sent by the "ruach" in chapter
11
enable God to punish ONLY those who are truly guilty In
the
sin of the "mitavim"? [Note 11:33-34.]
     Note that the only other use of this appellation is
in
Bamidbar 27:16, when Moshe asks God to appoint a leader
to
replace him. Relate that parsha and its context to
Bamidbar
11:14-17!

C. Although Korach challenges the 'kehuna' and the
political
leadership for the wrong reasons, many generations later
his
great-grandson, Shmuel Ha'Navi, repeats this very same
reform
for the correct reasons. He challenges the corrupt
'kehuna' of
Eli's sons,  Chofni & Pinchus, and then later reforms
the
political leadership of the country by becoming a shofet
and
later establishing the nation's first monarchy.
1. Note the similarities between Parshat Korach and this
week's Haftara, especially Shmuel 12:3. See also
3:19-20, 7:3-
17.
2. What similarities exist between Shmuel and Moshe &
Aharon?
3. In what manner does Shmuel, who is a Levi, act like a
Kohen?
          (Relate to Shmuel 3:1-3, 13:8-12)

D. In earlier shiurim (Yom Kippur and Parshat Tzaveh),
we
discussed the special nature of the ktoret and its
purpose as
a protection from the consequences of "hitgalut
shchinah".
Recall also the events which led to the death of Nadav &
Avihu.
1. Why do you think Moshe suggests that the 250 men
offer
ktoret as proof that they are chosen? Is this his idea
or
God's? (16:5-7)
                    See Ramban (as usual).
2. Do you think Moshe is aware of the potential outcome-
the
consumption of all 250 men by fire, or was he merely
trying to
convince them to withdraw from Korach's revolt?
     Relate your answer to your answer to question #1.
3. Why do you think the nation immediately accuses Moshe
of
causing their death (see 17:6-15)? Why is 'davka' the
ktoret
used to save the people from their punishment?
4. Why do you think 'davka' this type of punishment is
necessary?

E. Recall that in Shmot 2:14, when Moshe admonishes two
quarreling Jews in Egypt, they answer: "mi samcha sar
v'shofet
...". Chazal identify these two men as Datan & Aviram.
Use the
above shiur to support this Midrash.

F. Towards the end of the Parsha, the "mateh shel
Aharon" is
chosen over the 'matot' of all other tribal leaders.
     1. Where is that 'mateh' to be kept afterwards?
          For what purpose? (see 17:24-25)
     2. Is this 'mateh' ever used later on for that
purpose?
     3. Before reading this question, which 'mateh' did
you
think Moshe used to hit the rock at "mei m'riva"?
     Now look carefully at 20:8-11.
     4. How does this explain Moshe's statement of
          "shimu na ha'morim"?  [cute?]

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.1 - Release
Date: 6/19/2008 12:00 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: korach1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 53416 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080625/7872cb5f/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jul  2 17:03:37 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:03:37 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Korach - Mei Meriva
Message-ID: <00da01c8dc87$19062d30$0300000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

                PARSHAT  KORACH

     What did Korach ?TAKE?? For some reason, the Torah
prefers not to tell us.
     Likewise, Korach definitely had many complaints,
yet
Chumash never clarifies what he proposed instead.
     In fact, as we study Parshat Korach, we will notice
how
many other important details appear to be 'missing'! In
this
week's shiur we attempt to explain why.

INTRODUCTION
     Parshat Korach opens with a pasuk that seems to be
grammatically incorrect:
  "Va'yikach Korach..." - And Korach, the son of Yizhar,
the
  son of Khat, the son of Levi, TOOK; and Datan and
Aviram
  [the sons of Eliav] and Oan [the son of Pelet] the
sons of
  Reuven."  (16:1)

     This opening sentence simply states that Korach
TOOK,
without explaining WHAT he took! In fact, this pasuk is
so
ambiguous that almost every commentator offers a
different
interpretation. For example:
     Rashi - Korach took himself to a 'different side';
     Ramban - he took an "eytzah" (counsel) into his
heart;
     Ibn Ezra & Chizkuni - he took 'other people';
     Seforno - he took the 250 'national leaders'.
    [Note as well how just about every translation of
this
    pasuk attempts to 'improvise' in some manner or
other.]
     
     However, no matter which interpretation is most
accurate,
a more basic question remains, i.e.: Why does the Torah
begin
this parsha in such an ambiguous manner?  After all, one
would
assume that the Torah's message would have been clearer
had
this pasuk been written 'properly'!

     In the following shiur, we will show how this
?opening
ambiguity? may be intentional, as it will draw our
attention
to the unique style that the Torah uses to describe this
incident ? a style that the Torah uses deliberately - to
convey its underlying message!
     Let?s begin our study of Bamidbar chapter 16 by
paying
careful attention to the various 'complaints' that
Korach
raises.

FIGHTING FOR A COMMON CAUSE
     From a cursory reading of Parshat Korach it seems
that
Korach, Datan & Aviram, and the 250 men all unite behind
a
common cause. Their joint criticism of the leadership of
Moshe
and Aharon, voiced in their opening protest,
demonstrates this
united opposition:
  "...and they gathered against MOSHE AND AHARON saying:
You
  have taken too much - for the ENTIRE COMMUNITY IS HOLY
and
  God is in their midst, why then do you RAISE
YOURSELVES
  ABOVE God's congregation?"  (16:3)

     However, it remains unclear from this opening
complaint
precisely what they want instead:
 *   Are they calling for 'new democratic elections'?
 *   Do they want Moshe & Aharon to 'step down'?
 *   Do they themselves want to 'step up'?
 *   Are they simply demanding 'spiritual equality'?
 *   Are they just 'chronic' complainers, without any
goal?

     In response to this opening complaint, Moshe offers
a
'test' that sounds (at first) like some type of
'showdown'
(see 16:4-7).  By examining the details of this
suggested
'test', we should be able to arrive at a more precise
conclusion concerning what they are truly complaining
about:
Let's carefully study the psukim that describe Moshe
Rabeinu's
suggestion:
  "Come morning, and God will make known who is His and
who is
  holy... and he whom He has chosen...
   This you shall do, take fire-pans, Korach and his
entire
   group, ... and put on them KTORET before God [i.e. at
the
   Mishkan]... and he [who's offering] God shall choose
will
   be established as "kadosh"...   (see 16:5-7)

     As you review these psukim, note how it remains
rather
unclear concerning the precise purpose of this 'ktoret
test'!
     First, let?s discuss what this test cannot be!
     It can?t be a test to determine who is God?s true
choice
to be the LEADER of Bnei Yisrael, for if so ? then only
ONE
offering could be accepted ? and Moshe (as well as
Aharon)
should participate!
     Furthermore, if this is simply a 'showdown' between
Moshe
and Korach, why should the 250 men participate?
     More likely, the purpose of this 'test' is to
determine
who is entitled to OFFER KORBANOT.  This would explain
why
Aharon (to the exclusion of Moshe) participates together
with
the 250 men, as one possible outcome of this test would
be for
God to accept the offerings of all (or at least some) of
these
participants.
  In other words, the purpose of the ?ktoret? test is to
determine the validity of Korach?s claim that everyone
in Am
Yisrael is ?kadosh? (see 16:3), and hence everyone
should be
allowed to offer korbanot.  Moshe is suggesting that
Korach &
his 250 followers should 'give it a try'. If God accepts
these
offerings, then Korach would be proven correct - if not,
then
Moshe will be proven correct.
  
SPIRITUAL EQUALITY
     To support this interpretation, we simply need to
take a
look at Moshe's second response to Korach (see 16:8-11),
i.e.
in his additional censure to the Levites who have joined
Korach:
  "Hear me, sons of Levi - is it not enough that God has
  designated you to come close [i.e. to assemble and
carry the
  Mishkan]... and now you and your fellow Levites  DO
YOU SEEK
  THE KEHUNA [priesthood] as well.... - why then do you
  complain AGAINST AHARON."    (see 16:8-11)

     This censure of "bnei Levi" - especially the phrase
of
'do you seek the priesthood as well - proves that Korach
and
his 250 men are challenging the decision to limit the
offering
of "korbanot" to Aharon and his sons. These dissidents
demand
that anyone who so desires should be allowed to offer
"korbanot", for ALL members of Israel are 'spiritually
equal'
["ki kol ha'eydah kulam kedoshim?" (see 16:3)].
     This also explains why this extra censure is
directed
specifically to "bnei Levi".  Moshe's criticism focuses
on the
hypocrisy of these Levites - for if they were so worried
about
'spiritual equality' why didn't they complain earlier
when
they themselves were chosen over any other tribe to
carry the
Mishkan!
     Apparently, these dissidents believe that the
limitation
of offering korbanot to Aharon's family stems from
Moshe's
nepotism, rather than from a divine command. [See
Chizkuni
16:15.]  Hence, this 'ktoret test', as Moshe suggests,
will
determine who indeed is capable of offering korbanot -
i.e. it
may be only Aharon, or possibly all (or at least some)
of the
250 men as well. [See also 16:16-17.]

ENTER - GROUP TWO
     Up until this point, we are left with the
impression that
everyone mentioned in the opening two psukim  - i.e.
Korach,
Datan, Aviram, and the 250 men - join together in this
protest. Hence, we should expect all of them to
participate in
this 'showdown'.
     However, as the narrative continues, a very
different
picture emerges. Note from 16:12 that Datan & Aviram,
for some
reason, are singled out:
  "And Moshe sent for DATAN & AVIRAM, but they answered:
WE
  WILL NOT COME UP..."  (see 16:12-14)

     Why must Moshe SEND for Datan and Aviram? After
all, were
they not together with Korach & Company when they first
gathered against Moshe (see 16:2-3)?  Furthermore, for
what
purpose does Moshe call them?  Does he want them to
participate in the 'ktotet test'?  At first glance, it
remains
quite unclear concerning what this summons is all about.
     However, their response to Moshe - "we will not
COME UP"
- already suggests that Datan & Aviram may comprise an
independent group.  Note how they remain in their own
camp
[recall that they are from shevet Reuven] and refuse to
even
come near the Ohel Moed (where the 'ktoret test' is
being
conducted).
     Furthermore, from their censure of Moshe that
accompanied
their response to his summons (see below), it becomes
quite
clear that Datan & Aviram have a more 'political' agenda
(and
aren't terribly interested in 'spiritual equality').
  "Is it not enough that you took us out of a land
flowing
  with milk and honey [referring to Egypt!] to die in
the
  desert and NOW - YOU CONTINUE TO ACT AS LORD OVER US!
You
  have not even brought us to a land flowing with milk &
honey
  (as Moshe had promised)... [therefore] we will not
come up!"
  (16:13-14)

     In this brazen defiance of Moshe's summons, Datan &
Aviram totally reject Moshe's political LEADERSHIP. In
their
eyes, Moshe has failed as the nation's leader. After
all, when
Bnei Yisrael first accepted Moshe as their leader in
Egypt, he
had promised to bring them to a land flowing with milk
and
honey (see Shmot 3:16-17, 4:30-31). Now that Moshe has
informed Bnei Yisrael that entering the Promised Land is
no
longer on the horizon, Datan & Aviram (and most likely
many
others) reject the legitimacy of his leadership and
authority.
     Clearly, this complaint differs drastically from
Korach's
initial objection to the KEHUNA! Korach and the 250 men
challenge Aharon's exclusive status, but never question
Moshe's leadership. After all, they all agree to the
'test'
that Moshe himself initiates. Datan and Aviram, however,
challenge specifically Moshe's leadership.

MOSHE'S PRAYER
     Conclusive proof of this distinction can be found
in
Moshe's immediate reaction to Datan & Aviram's
complaint.  Pay
careful attention to how Moshe turns to God in prayer:
   "And Moshe became angry and said to God - 'al teyfen
el
   MINCHATAM' - Pay no attention to their 'oblation' - I
did
   not take from them a single donkey, nor have I
wronged
   anyone of them." (see 16:15)

     At first glance, it appears that Moshe now begs God
not
to accept the "ktoret" offerings.  However, this cannot
be for
two reasons:

  1)  Datan & Aviram chose not to participate in the
"ktoret"
  test, so why would Moshe request that God not accept
an
  offering that they aren't even bringing?
                      [See Ramban!]

  2)  The Hebrew word "minchatam" refers either to a
'meal
  offering' (see Vayikra chapter 2) or a gift of some
sort
  (see Breishit 32:13,18).  Certainly, it is not another
name
  for "ktoret" (incense).

    [Note how the commentators dealt with this problem.
Even
    though the first opinion of Rashi claims that
"minchatam"
    indeed refers to the KTORET offering, Ramban
(rightly so)
    disagrees - suggesting that it refers to any type of
    prayer (or offering) that they may offer.  See also
Ibn
    Ezra & Seforno who explain this pasuk in a similar
    manner.]

     Furthermore, the reason that Moshe advances - "for
I have
not taken anything from them" - clearly relates to
Moshe's
counter-claim that his leadership has been without
corruption.
Therefore, this entire prayer relates to Datan &
Aviram's
complaint against his leadership. Moshe simply turns to
God to
affirm the legitimacy of his own [divinely appointed]
leadership that has now been challenged. Moshe reminds
God
that he has been a faithful leader who never abused his
power.

TWO GROUPS  - TWO GRIPES
     Let's summarize what has emerged thus far.  We have
identified TWO independent grievances, raised by TWO
independent groups, situated in TWO different locations:

   GROUP ONE - the 250 men ["adat Korach"]- protest
Aharon's
   exclusive rights to the KEHUNA. They stand ready for
their
   'test' at the OHEL MOED;
           [Note that the Torah consistently refers to
this
      group as "adat Korach" (see 16:5,6,11).]

   GROUP TWO - Datan & Aviram (& followers) - complain
against
   the POLITICAL leadership of MOSHE. They gather in the
   territory of shevet Reuven.
           [This location is later referred to as
"Mishkan
      Korach Datan v'Aviram" (see 16:24-27).]

     Of course, it remains to be seen where Korach
himself
stands on these two issues, but there can be no doubt
that
there are two groups with two very different agendas.

RE-ENTER GROUP ONE
     Up until this point (i.e. 16:1-15), the narrative,
although a bit complex, has flowed in a logical order:
it
first presents both groups, followed the presentation of
the
individual complaints of each faction. But now, for some
reason, the narrative begins to 'see-saw,' seemingly
randomly,
between Moshe's confrontations with each of these two
groups.
     Note how in 16:16 the narrative abruptly switches
from
Moshe's response to Datan & Aviram (group II) back to
his
original confrontation with "adat Korach" (group I):
  "And Moshe said to Korach, tomorrow, you and all your
  company [the 250 men] be before God [at the Mishkan],
you
  and they and Aharon..."   (16:16-17 / compare with
16:5-7)

     Then the narrative continues to describe this
confrontation: The next morning, all 250 men assemble at
the
Ohel Moed ready with their "machtot" (fire-pans) and
"ktoret"
(16:18), while Korach rallies a mass crowd to watch
(16:19).
But then, just as we expect to find out the outcome of
this
'showdown', again we find an abrupt change in the
narrative.

RE-ENTER GROUP TWO
     Precisely at this critical point in the narrative,
we
find a new 'parshia' (note 16:20-22), which describes
God's
[first] direct intervention (in relation to this
incident),
and Moshe & Aharon's reaction.
  "And God spoke to Moshe & Aharon:  'Separate
yourselves from
  among this congregation, that I may consume them in a
  moment.' And they fell upon their faces, and said: 'O
God,
  the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall - "ish
echad" -
  one man sin, and You will  be wroth with - "kol
ha'EYDAH" -
  the entire congregation?'  (16:20-22)

  Review these psukim once again, noting how it is not
so
clear concerning who "ish echad" and "ha'EYDAH" refer
to:
     Does "ish echad" refer to Korach, and hence the
"eydah"
refers to the 250 men?  Or, does "ish echad" refer to
the
entire group of complainers - i.e. Korach, and his 250
men.
If so, then "eydah" must refer to the entire nation of
Israel,
or at least the large group of followers who Korach had
gathered to watch (see 16:18-19).
     Furthermore - what about Datan & Aviram?  Should
they
also be considered as part of the "ish echad" in Moshe's
prayer?
     Finally, if "eydah" refers to the entire
congregation -
does this imply simply the 'gawkers', i.e. those who
gathered
around to watch (see 16:19), or does it really imply the
entire congregation, including women & children etc.?

     How we understand these words directly affects how
we
understand Moshe's prayer in 16:22.  In other words, is
Moshe
asking God to save the 250 men from Korach (if so, then
God
doesn't answer this request), or is he asking God to
save the
entire nation from Korach and his 250 men (if so, then
God
answers this request)?
  To answer this question, let's see how God answers
this
prayer, noting how it seems to totally confuse our
understanding of what is happening:
   "And God told Moshe, speak to the EYDAH and warn them
-
   WITHDRAW yourselves from the area of MISHKAN KORACH
DATAN
   V'AVIRAM."  (16:23-24)

     To our surprise, God's answer introduces a location
that
we have never heard of before: i.e. MISHKAN KORACH DATAN
v'AVIRAM.  This cannot be the Mishkan itself, rather the
word
"mishkan" in this context refers to their dwelling site,
i.e.
where Datan and Aviram reside.
     Since Datan & Aviram did not come to the "ktoret"
test,
we must conclude that their "mishkan" must be located in
the
area of the Tribe of Reuven.  Most probably, this site
served
as 'party headquarters' for this group of people who
have
openly rebelled against Moshe's political leadership.
     With this in mind, let's attempt to identify whom
"eydah"
refers to in God's reply to Moshe's prayer (in 16:24).
To
save the "eydah" from this "ish echad", Moshe must
instruct
the "eydah" to evacuate the area surrounding Mishkan
Korach
Datan & Aviram.  Hence, the "eydah" must refer to a
group of
people who have gathered around Mishkan Korach Datan
v'Aviram
in the Tribe of Reuven.  However, this conclusion is
rather
baffling, for only five psukim earlier, the word "eydah"
was
used to describe a group of people who had gathered
around the
OHEL MOED  to watch the "ktoret" showdown (see 16:19)!
     Once again, we find how the narrative has 'jumped'
from
Group One [the 250 men offering ktoret] to Group Two
[Datan &
Aviram].

     To prove that there are indeed two groups involved,
simply note what takes place in the next pasuk, as Moshe
fulfills God's command.
     Recall that Moshe must issue a warning to the EYDAH
that
has gathered around the campsite of Datan & Aviram. As
this
"eydah" refers to Group Two, Moshe must now LEAVE the
area of
the OHEL MOED (where Group One has assembled) and GO to
the
area where Group Two is located - i.e Mishkan Korach,
Datan &
Aviram:
  "And Moshe GOT UP and WENT TO Datan & Aviram... and he
said
  to the people: MOVE AWAY from the tents of these
wicked
  people... lest you be wiped out for all their sins..."
  (16:25-26)

     Note that Moshe must LEAVE his present location (at
the
Ohel Moed) and GO TO "Mishkan Korach Datan v'Aviram"
(conclusive proof that two separate groups exist). This
location, to which the Torah refers as "Mishkan Korach
Datan
v'Aviram", serves as 'party headquarters' for this
rebellious
group. Most likely, an alternative leadership group has
already formed at this new center.
   [Note the Torah's use of the word "mishkan" [dwelling
   place] to describe their headquarters. Most likely,
this
   term was specifically chosen to indicate that these
NEW
   headquarters stand in defiance of the Moshe Rabeinu's
   leadership, whose headquarters are the "mishkan" at
the
   Ohel Moed!]

     Because Group Two challenges Moshe's leadership
(and not
Aharon's priesthood), it must be Moshe himself (and NOT
Aharon) who confronts this group. Note that Aharon does
not
accompany Moshe (in 16:25). Instead, he remains at the
Ohel
Moed, prepared for the showdown with the 250 men (Group
One),
i.e. the group that questions his KEHUNA.

TWO GROUPS - TWO PUNISHMENTS
     At this point, God must prove to the political
dissidents
that Moshe's leadership was by divine appointment.
Therefore,
God Himself must 'create' a "beriya" - a new form of
creation
- to punish this group.  Those who distance themselves
from
this group are saved (see 16:27-34).  However, note that
the
ground miraculously devours only the members of Group
Two -
i.e. Datan & Aviram and their staunchest followers.
     But what happened in the meantime to "adat Korach"
(Group
One), i.e. the 250 men.  Note that the last time they
were
mentioned was back in 16:17-19, as they prepared to the
"ktoret" showdown; but we were never told what happened
to
them!  For some reason, the Torah leaves us in suspense
about
their fate; until the very last pasuk of this narrative
(and
in a very incidental manner):
   "And a fire came forth from God and consumed the 250
men
   who were offering the ktoret." (16:35)

     This final pasuk proves not only that there were
TWO
groups in TWO separate locations, but that there were
also TWO
distinct forms of punishments:
  GROUP ONE ?
        the 250 men at the Ohel Moed - CONSUMED by fire.
     GROUP TWO ?
          Datan & Aviram & Co. - SWALLOWED by the
ground.

     So where is Korach in all of this?  Was he consumed
by
fire in the Mishkan together with Group One; or
swallowed up
by the ground - together with Group Two?
     He couldn't be two places at the same time, could
he?

KORACH - THE POLITICIAN
     To appreciate the nature of Korach's involvement,
we must
understand his connection to each of these two groups.
Before
we begin, let's use a table to summarize our analysis
thus
far:
 
           GROUP ONE   /         GROUP TWO
	   =========             ==========
Members:    250 men            Datan & Aviram +
followers
Claim :     priesthood         new political leadership
Against:    Aharon             Moshe
Reason:     spiritual equality  failure of leadership
Location:   Ohel Moed          in shevet Reuven
Punishment: consumed by fire   swallowed up by the
ground

     At first glance, it appears that each group has
some
basis for a legitimate complaint.
     By challenging the restriction of the KEHUNA to the
family of Aharon, Group One asserts their right, as well
as
the right of others, to offer korbanot.
     By challenging the political leadership of Moshe,
Group
Two voices their concern for the welfare and future of
Am
Yisrael. In their opinion, remaining in the desert is
equivalent to national suicide (see 16:13).

     Although Group One has little in common with Group
Two,
the Torah presents this story as if only one group
exists,
under Korach's leadership. The narrative accomplishes
this by
'jumping back and forth' from one group to the other.
The
following chart (of perek 16) illustrates this 'textual
zig-
zag':

  PASUK GROUP       TOPIC
    1- 4  both    Introduction
    5-11   ONE    Complaint of those who want 'kehuna'
   12-15   TWO    Summons of Datan & Aviram & their
refusal
   16-19   ONE    The test of the "ktoret"
   20-22   both?  Moshe's tfila that God punish only the
guilty
   23-34   TWO    earth swallows Datan & Aviram &
followers
   25      ONE    fire consumes the 250 men

     Why does the Torah employ this unusual style? How
does it
help us better understand Korach's involvement with each
group?

KORACH - WHERE ARE YOU?
     First, we must ascertain to which group Korach
belongs.
Clearly, he leads Group One, which demands the "kehuna"
(see
16:6-8,16-19). Yet, at the same time, he is so involved
with
Group Two that his name appears first on the banner in
front
of their party headquarters - "Mishkan KORACH Datan
v'Aviram"!
     Furthermore, although Korach himself is never
mentioned
in the punishment of Group Two (scan 16:23-34 carefully
to
verify this), many of his followers, described by
Chumash as
"ha'adam asher l'Korach", are swallowed up by the ground
(see
16:32) together with Datan & Aviram.
     In fact, it remains unclear precisely how Korach
himself
dies. Was he swallowed by the ground or consumed by the
fire?
     The 'last time he was spotted' was in 16:19
together with
the 250 men (Group One) at the Ohel Moed. But from 16:25
it
seems that only the 250 men were consumed, but NOT
Korach
himself! On the other hand, 16:32 informs us that Datan
&
Aviram and ALL of Korach's men were swallowed up - but
Korach
himself seems to be 'missing'! Did he escape at the last
minute from both?
     Apparently not, for later in Sefer Bamidbar (see
26:9-10)
we are told quite explicitly that Korach was indeed
swallowed.
But to complicate matters even further, Devarim 11:6
implies
that only Datan & Aviram were swallowed up.
   [Based on the complexity of these psukim, the Gemara
in
   Sanhedrin 110a suggests that he received both
punishments!
   First he was burnt by the fire at the Ohel Moed, and
then
   his bodied rolled to the area of Datan v'Aviram and
   swallowed up by the ground. ] (See also Ibn Ezra on
16:35.)

     So why does the Torah describe these events in such
an
evasive manner?  What can this manner of presentation
teach us
about the nature of Korach's involvement?  Finally, why
does
Chumash attempt to give us the impression that Korach
may be
in two places at the same time?
     One could suggest that this 'zig-zag' style
reflects the
nature of the coalition that exists between these two
dissident groups, for they share only one common
denominator-
KORACH.
     But what was Korach's motivation in all of this?
     To answer this question, let's return to the
opening
pasuk of this Parsha (see introduction).  By not telling
us
what Korach 'took', the Torah wants the reader to ask
this
very question - what did Korach take?
   [If you didn't ask yourself this question when you
begin
   reading, you most probably would have noticed the
existence
   of these two groups as you continue.]

COALITION POLITICS
     Korach 'took' two ostensibly 'legitimate' protest
groups
and joined them together to form his own political power
base.
[See Ramban 16:1.] Whereas each group alone may have not
dared
to openly challenge Moshe and Aharon, Korach encourages
them
to take action. Datan and Aviram, 'inspired' by Korach,
establish their own 'headquarters' - "Mishkan Korach,
Datan, &
Aviram" - in defiance of Moshe's leadership. Likewise,
the 250
men, including members of shevet Levi, are roused to
openly
challenge the restriction of the KEHUNA to Aharon.
     Rather than encouraging open dialogue, Korach
incites
these two factions to take forceful action. Korach
probably
saw himself as the most suitable candidate to become the
next
national leader. To that end, he involves himself with
each
dissenting group. [Anyone familiar with political
science
(i.e. current events and/or world history) can easily
relate
to this phenomenon.]
     Korach is simply what we would call a 'polished
politician'.  His true intention is to usurp political
power.
Towards that goal, he takes advantage of private
interest
groups.

A LESSON FOR ALL GENERATIONS
     The Mishna in Pirkei Avot (5:17) considers the
rebellion
of Korach as the paradigm of a dispute that was "sh'lo
l'shem
sha'mayim" (an argument not for the sake of Heaven).
     Why is specifically Korach chosen for this
paradigm?
After all, the arguments presented by Korach ("for the
entire
nation is holy", etc.) seem to imply exactly the
opposite -
that it was actually an argument "l'shem shamayim" (for
the
sake of Heaven).
     Pirkei Avot may be teaching us the very same
message that
the Torah may allude to through its complex presentation
of
these events. Precisely because Korach and his followers
claim
to be fighting "l'shem shamayim," Chazal must inform us
of
Korach's true intentions. Korach may claim to be
fighting a
battle "l'shem shamayim," but his claim is far from the
truth.
His primary interest is to promote himself, to build a
power
base from which he himself can emerge as the new leader.
     This doesn't mean that any form of dissent is evil.
In
fact, Korach's own great great grandson - Shmuel ha'Navi
(see
Divrei Ha'yamim I.6:3-13) - also acted 'against the
establishment' as he initiated both religious reform
[against
the corruption of the "kehuna" by the sons of Eli] as
well as
political reform [in the appointment of David as King
instead
of Shaul]; however, his intentions and motivations were
pure
and sincere.

      Parshat Korach thus teaches us that whenever a
dispute
arises over community leadership or religious reform,
before
reaching conclusions we must carefully examine not only
the
claims, but also the true motivations behind the
individuals
who promote them. On a personal level, as well, every
individual must constantly examine the true motivations
behind
all his spiritual endeavors.

                        shabbat shalom,
                        menachem

===============
FOR FURTHER IYUN

A. In 16:1-2, everyone is introduced: Korach, Datan,
Aviram,
and the 250 men. Read 16:2 carefully! Who are the
leaders and
famous people - just Korach, Datan, and Aviram, or also
the
250 men?  How does this question affect your
understanding of
the magnitude of the revolt against Moshe and Aharon?

B. Note the appellation with which Moshe opens his
tfila: "kel
elokei ha'RUCHOT l'chol BASAR" (16:22). Based on the
context
of this tfila, relate this appellation to the story of
the
"mitavim" and their punishment, as described in Bamidbar
11:1-
35. How does the "basar" sent by the "ruach" in chapter
11
enable God to punish ONLY those who are truly guilty In
the
sin of the "mitavim"? [Note 11:33-34.]
     Note that the only other use of this appellation is
in
Bamidbar 27:16, when Moshe asks God to appoint a leader
to
replace him. Relate that parsha and its context to
Bamidbar
11:14-17!

C. Although Korach challenges the 'kehuna' and the
political
leadership for the wrong reasons, many generations later
his
great-grandson, Shmuel Ha'Navi, repeats this very same
reform
for the correct reasons. He challenges the corrupt
'kehuna' of
Eli's sons,  Chofni & Pinchus, and then later reforms
the
political leadership of the country by becoming a shofet
and
later establishing the nation's first monarchy.
1. Note the similarities between Parshat Korach and this
week's Haftara, especially Shmuel 12:3. See also
3:19-20, 7:3-
17.
2. What similarities exist between Shmuel and Moshe &
Aharon?
3. In what manner does Shmuel, who is a Levi, act like a
Kohen?
          (Relate to Shmuel 3:1-3, 13:8-12)

D. In earlier shiurim (Yom Kippur and Parshat Tzaveh),
we
discussed the special nature of the ktoret and its
purpose as
a protection from the consequences of "hitgalut
shchinah".
Recall also the events which led to the death of Nadav &
Avihu.
1. Why do you think Moshe suggests that the 250 men
offer
ktoret as proof that they are chosen? Is this his idea
or
God's? (16:5-7)
                    See Ramban (as usual).
2. Do you think Moshe is aware of the potential outcome-
the
consumption of all 250 men by fire, or was he merely
trying to
convince them to withdraw from Korach's revolt?
     Relate your answer to your answer to question #1.
3. Why do you think the nation immediately accuses Moshe
of
causing their death (see 17:6-15)? Why is 'davka' the
ktoret
used to save the people from their punishment?
4. Why do you think 'davka' this type of punishment is
necessary?

E. Recall that in Shmot 2:14, when Moshe admonishes two
quarreling Jews in Egypt, they answer: "mi samcha sar
v'shofet
...". Chazal identify these two men as Datan & Aviram.
Use the
above shiur to support this Midrash.

F. Towards the end of the Parsha, the "mateh shel
Aharon" is
chosen over the 'matot' of all other tribal leaders.
     1. Where is that 'mateh' to be kept afterwards?
          For what purpose? (see 17:24-25)
     2. Is this 'mateh' ever used later on for that
purpose?
     3. Before reading this question, which 'mateh' did
you
think Moshe used to hit the rock at "mei m'riva"?
     Now look carefully at 20:8-11.
     4. How does this explain Moshe's statement of
          "shimu na ha'morim"?  [cute?]

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.4/1530 -
Release Date: 7/2/2008 8:05 AM
 
    
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: korach1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 53416 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080702/3dc6dd4a/attachment-0002.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: meimeriva.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 77446 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080702/3dc6dd4a/attachment-0003.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jul  2 17:05:44 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:05:44 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] for Parshat Chukat  - re: Chronology & Kadesh
Message-ID: <00de01c8dc87$64b8d6b0$0300000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

for PARSHAT CHUKAT[& Parshat Devarim]

	BETWEEN KADESH & KADESH BARNEA
	(or When did the Mei Meriva incident take
place?)

	Most all commentators assume that the Mei Meriva
incident (as described in Bamidbar 20:1-14) took place
in the fortieth year.  Hence, it is also assumed that
Bnei Yisrael spent most of the 38 years wandering from
place to place in the desert.  
    Nonetheless, the Torah never provides us with a
precise date for the Mei Meriva incident.  In fact, we
are only informed of the month, but not the year (see
Bamidbar 20:1).  Furthermore, from a careful reading of
how Moshe Rabeinu describes those events in Parshat
Devarim, one could arrive at a very different conclusion
concerning what transpired during those forty years! 
    In the following shiur, we will explore this
possibility, by undertaking a careful comparison between
several psukim in Parshat Devarim and their parallel
sources in Sefer Bamdibar.
[To follow the shiur, you'll definitely need a Tanach in
hand; in fact using two Tanachim (and a "mikraot
gdolot") would come in very handy.]

INTRODUCTION
  	There's a very simple reason why everyone takes
for granted that the Mei Meriva incident takes place in
the 40th year.  Later on, in that very same chapter in
Sefer Bamidbar, we are told of Aharon's death (see
20:22-29), an event which definitely took place on the
fifth month of the fortieth year (according to Bamidbar
33:38).
    Therefore, it is only logical to assume that all the
events in chapter 20 took place in the fortieth year.
Hence, upon reading its opening pasuk: 
"And Bnei Yisrael [the entire congregation] arrived at
MIDBAR TZIN on the first month, and the people settled
down in Kadesh, there Miriam died and was buried."
(20:1)
    
    - most all commentators conclude that Miriam died if
the first month of that very same year (i.e. four months
before Aharon).  For example, let's note Rashbam's
commentary:
"And Miriam died there: On the first month at the end of
the FORTY years - for Aharon died on the fifth month of
the fortieth year, as it states [explicitly] in Parshat
Masei."

    Note however that Rashbam's assumption is based on
"parshanut" (exegesis) and not on a "masoret"
(tradition).
    
    
     / see Rashi 20:1). 
	However, one could suggest that it would be safe
to assume that conclusion is based on 

 is quite simple - Mei Meriva takes place immediately
after the death of Miriam (see Bamidbar 20:1), and
Miriam died in the first month of the FORTIETH year -
didn't she?
	Let's double check this assumption by taking a
closer look at that pasuk in Parshat Chukat:

	Note, that we are only told that this took place
on the first month, but there is no mention of the year
at all! So why does everyone assume that it is year
FORTY?
	Most of the classical commentators deal with
this question. Let's start with Rashbam's explanation
(on 20:1):
	Rashbam's logic is quite straightforward. Since
later in this same chapter we	
[In other words, Rashbam doesn't say that we have a
tradition that tells that Miriam died in the 40th year;
rather, one can deduce this date from the psukim.
Therefore, if by using the same tools of "parshanut"
[i.e. by carefully studying all of the psukim involved]
one arrives at a different conclusion, it is permitted
to suggest (and discuss and debate) other possibilities
as well - better known as "la'asok b'divrei Torah"./
"v'akmal"]

    In the commentary of Ibn Ezra (to Bamidbar 20:1), we
find a very similar conclusion:
"In the first month: In the FORTIETH YEAR. And (thus)
there is neither a story nor a prophecy in the Torah
other than in the FIRST year and in the FORTIETH year."

	Ibn Ezra is making a very bold statement, as he
claims that from the moment that God decreed the
punishment of forty years (after chet ha'meraglim)
Chumash goes into a 'coma' for 38 years, no stories, no
mitzvoth.  Hence, Ibn Ezra must explain that all of the
mitzvot and narratives recorded in Chumash between
chapters 15 and 20 (i.e. between the story of the spies
and the death of Miriam) took place at an earlier time,
i.e. before Bnei Yisrael left Har Sinai.  [See Ibn Ezra
on Bamidbar 16:1.]
	However, Ibn Ezra does not explain here how he
arrives at this conclusion. [We'll return to a possible
source later in the shiur, but most probably he would
explain as Rashbam does.]

	Also RAMBAN agrees that Bnei Yisrael first
arrive at Midbar Tzin in the fortieth year; but note how
he concludes his commentary to 20:1
"But this KADESH is located in MIDBAR TZIN, and [Bnei
Yisrael] arrived there in the FORTIETH year, and there
Miriam died, and the psukim are EXPLICIT!"
[Note that the "girsa" in Torat Chaim's Ramban is
"u'mikraot mfurashim HEYM" while Chavel's edition has:
"u'mikraot mfurashim SHAM"!]

	Now Ramban tells us that the psukim are
explicit, but he doesn't say which psukim he is
referring to!
[Note again how neither Chavel's Ramban nor Torat
Chaim's provide a footnote to explain what psukim Ramban
is referring to (even though you would expect them to).]

	Most likely, Ramban is referring to psukim in
Moshe's first speech in Sefer Devarim. In fact, in
CHIZKUNI's parallel explanation (on 20:1/ he concurs
that they arrive at Midbar Tzin in the fortieth year),
he attempts to reconciliate these psukim with parallel
psukim both in Parshat Masei and in Sefer Devarim.
[I suggest that you see that Chizkuni inside, but AFTER
you are familiar with those sources.]

	To figure out what Ramban is referring to we
must first take a step back and try to follow the flow
of events, and then take inventory of all of the related
sources in Chumash that describe this leg of Bnei
Yisrael's journey. 

WHERE HAVE THEY BEEN TILL NOW?
	Where were Bnei Yisrael before they arrive at
KADESH Midbar Tzin (in 20:1)? To figure this it out,
we'll need to 'work backwards'. 
	The two chapters that precede the "mei meriva"
incident contain only mitzvot (whic previous story in
Sefer Bamidbar was the incident with Korach. But nowhere
in that narrative are we told WHERE that story took
place. [That is what allows Ramban & Ibn Ezra to argue
about it.] Therefore we must work our way backwards
again to the story of the "meraglim" in Parshat Shlach
which took place in KADESH BARNEA. 
	In other words, the last PLACE (in Chumash)
before Miriam's death that Bnei Yisrael were 'spotted'
was in KADESH BARNEA. But the Torah never tells us WHEN
they left Kadesh Barnea, and what they did (and how
longed they traveled) until they arrived at Midbar Tzin!
	However, if we return to the story of the
"meraglim", we can bring a very strong proof that they
must have left Kadesh Barnea soon after. Recall that
immediately after the chet ha'meraglim God commands them
to leave Kadesh Barnea and head SOUTH:
	 "... the Amalekites and Canaanites are sitting
in the valley, TOMORROW turn around and travel into the
desert towards the Red Sea." (14:25)

	Despite this warning the "ma'aplilm" decide to
attack anyhow (and are defeated/ see 14:39-45), but that
defeat would not be a reason for Bnei Yisrael to stay in
Kadesh Barnea.  That incident would only be an
additional reason for them to travel into the desert -
to the south- AWAY from Eretz Canaan.  If they would
stay near Kadesh Barnea, there would be fear of an
attack by Canaanites who most likely are already on
guard because of the 'rumors' about Bnei Yisrael's plan
to conquer 'their' land.
	Now Parshat Shlach stops right here without
telling us if, when, or how they actually left Kadesh
Barnea; but according to "pshat", based on 14:25 (quoted
above), it would be safe to assume that they left
immediately, just as God commanded them to!

	As Sefer Bamdibar continues, the next time an
encampment is recorded is in Parshat Chukat, as Bnei
Yisrael arrive at Kadesh Midbar Tzin (see 20:1). What
happened in the meantime. How many year elapsed? Did
they travel to (or toward) the Red Sea as God commanded
them?
	At least partial answers to these questions are
found in Parshat Masei and in Sefer Devarim.

THE 18 STOP JOURNEY IN PARSHAT MASEI
	Parshat Masei provides with a detailed list of
Bnei Yisrael's journey through the desert (see 33:1-49).
Even though that account mentions many locations that
are not mentioned elsewhere in Chumash (and skips many
locations that are mentioned - such as Kadesh Barnea
itself!) - it will still be helpful for our discussion.
	Let's pick up Parshat Masei as it records Bnei
Yisrael's journey from Har Sinai (see 33:16). From Sinai
they travel to Kivrot ha'taava, and then to Chatzerot,
and then to Ritma. Now Kivrot ha'taava and Chatzerot
have already been mentioned in Parshat Bha'alotcha (see
11:34-35), but Ritma is not. However, Parshat
Bha'alotcha tells us that they camped next in Midbar
Paraan (see 12:16), and from there Moshe sent the
meraglim (see 13:3) from an area known as KADESH BARNEA
in Midbar Paraan.
	[Parshat Shlach never mentions Kadesh Barnea
itself, but everywhere else in Chumash when chet
ha'mergalim is mentioned, it states explicitly KADESH
BARNEA - see Bamidbar 32:8 and Devarim 1:3,19; 2:14; and
9:23! Most likely "Kadesha" mentioned in 13:26 refers to
(and is a short form of) Kadesh Barnea.]
	
	Therefore, Chazal identify Ritma with Kadesh
Barnea, and its 'new name' reflects the events which
took place there (see Rashi 33:18). Then Parshat Masei
mentions an additional 18 stops from Ritma until Bnei
Yisrael arrive in Midbar Tzin (see 33:18-36), which were
not mentioned anywhere else earlier in Sefer Bamidbar.
	[Now you can read the first part of the Chizkuni
on 20:1 and better understand what he's talking about.]

	Now among the 18 locations we find Yotvata and
Etzion Gaver, sites which almost for sure are somewhere
in the SOUTHERN Negev, not far from the Red Sea (i.e.
near Eilat). Most likely, this journey SOUTHWARD was a
fulfillment of God's command to leave Kadesh Barnea
towards the Red Sea (see again 14:25).

	Then, Parshat Masei tells us that Bnei Yisrael
travel from Etzion Gaver and arrive at Kadesh Midbar
Tzin (see 33:36-38/ compare with 20:1), but does not
tell us on what year they arrived. 
	[However, it is quite clear that they LEAVE
Kadesh Midbar Tzin in the fortieth year, for from Kadesh
they travel to Hor Ha'Har to bury Aharon - and that
event for sure took place in year 40 as the pasuk itself
testifies (33:38).]

	So was Kadesh Midbar Tzin the LAST stop after a
long 38 year journey wandering through the desert, OR
was Kadesh Midbar Tzin the LONG stopover where Bnei
Yisrael may have spent MOST of the years while waiting
for the first generation to die?
	Enter Parshat Devarim!

	Recall that in Moshe Rabeinu's first speech in
Sefer Devarim (chapters 1->4), he explains why forty
years had elapsed since Bnei Yisrael SHOULD have
entered. Therefore, the first part of that speech
includes the story of chet ha'meraglim, for that was the
primary reason for the forty year delay.

WILL THE REAL 'KADESH' PLEASE STAND UP
	That story states specifically that the meraglim
were sent from KADESH BARNEA (see 1:19), and also
includes God's commandment that Bnei Yisrael must
immediately leave and travel back into the desert toward
the Red Sea (see 1:40). But after the story of the
"ma'apilim" (see 1:41-45) there is one small, but very
important pasuk: 
	"va'teshvu ba'KADESH yamim rabim, kayamim asher
ya'shavtem."
	[And you settled (or sat) in KADESH many days -
as the days that you settled (or sat) there."  (1:46)
[Note the difficulty in translating this pasuk! See for
example JPS and its footnote.]

	So what KADESH is this pasuk referring to? There
are two 'candidates':
	1) KADESH BARNEA - where the meraglim were sent
from
	2) KADESH MIDBAR TZIN - where the Mei Meriva
story took place

	But based on our analysis above, it CANNOT be
Kadesh Barnea! After all, God commanded them to LEAVE
Kadesh Barnea - "machar" -the NEXT DAY. Why then would
they stay there for a long time?
	[It cannot be because the ma'apilim lost their
battle, since that defeat is only more reason to retreat
to a safer location farther away. Most likely the
Canaanites have heard rumors of Bnei Yisrael's impending
attack and now that they are camped so close [Kadesh
Barnea borders on eretz canaan (see Bamidbar 34:4)] -
God commands that they move to the south for their own
safety. Otherwise they will be attacked and God is no
longer 'with them' to protect them in battle.]

	So why do almost all of the commentators explain
that KADESH here means KADESH BARNEA? [see Ibn Ezra &
Chizkuni]
	After all, in this very same chapter Kadesh
Barnea has already been mentioned twice (see 1:3 & 1:19
and 2:14) and each by its full name KADESH BARNEA! Why
then would Moshe refer to it now simply as KADESH -
especially when there is another location called KADESH
(i.e. Kadesh Midbar Tzin) which is always referred to
simply as KADESH?!
	
THE EVENTS FROM MERAGLIM TO ARVOT MOAV
	Most probably, the reason why everyone explains
KADESH here as KADESH BARNEA is because of the immediate
context of this pasuk.
	[Before continuing, you must review 1:40->2:14
on your own, and attempt to follow the flow. Compare
them with the parallel account in Bamidbar 20:14->21:4,
and especially 20:16 & 21:4! Pay careful attention to
Dvarim 2:14 as well.]

	Let's follow the flow:
	  *	the story of chet ha'meraglim (1:19-40)
	  *	God's command to LEAVE Kadesh Barnea ->
Yam Suf (1:40)
	  *	The "ma'apilim" are defeated, Bnei
Yisrael cry (1:41-45)
	 **	-- AND YOU SETTLED IN KADESH FOR MANY
DAYS (1:46)
	  *	"Then we turned and travelled into the
DESERT towards YAM SUF, as GOD HAD COMMANDED US, and we
circled Har Seir for many days". (22:1 / this pasuk is
KEY)
	  
	The last pasuk which we quoted is the KEY to
understanding what happened, [and its most likely what
Ramban was referring to when he said "ha'mikraot
m'furashim"]. 
	As Chizkuni (on 2:1) explains - the travel
described in this pasuk is precisely the same 18 stops
described in Parshat Masei from Ritma to Kadesh Midbar
Tzin. Most likely, he reaches this conclusion for the
following reason:
	Since God commanded Bnei Yisrael to travel
towards Yam Suf in 1:40, it only makes sense that this
pasuk describes HOW Bnei Yisrael fulfilled this command.
In fact the pasuk states explicitly "as God had
commanded us" (2:1) - i.e. his command in 1:40.
Furthermore, that journey took "many days" - therefore
it coincides perfectly with the 18 stop journey from
Ritma to Kadesh as described in Parshat Masei. If so,
then KADESH which is mentioned in the previous pasuk
(1:46) CANNOT be Kadesh Midbar Tzin, since Bnei Yisrael
had not arrived there yet, since they only arrive there
after the journey described in 2:1. Therefore, KADESH in
1:46 must be KADESH BARNEA, and it would seem that Bnei
Yisrael remained for a long time in Kadesh Barnea, most
probably feeling quite devastated by the events of the
meraglim and ma'apilim.
	But what about God's command of "machar, pnu
u'su lachem" (1:40)? Should they not have left right
away?
	On the other hand, 2:1 must be talking about the
18 stop journey, for that is the only journey when Bnei
Yisrael travel for 'many days' in the direction of Yam
Suf. [Isn't it?]
	Therefore all of the commentators prefer this
explanation of 2:1, and prefer to overlook the problem
with "machar" (in 1:40) -and hence KADESH in 1:46 must
be KADESH BARNEA and therefore, they only arrive in
Kadesh Midbar Tzin in the fortieth year.
	[I'm almost sure that this is how all of the
rishonim understood these psukim, if anyone has heard a
different explanation - please write me.]

NOT SO FAST!
	However, there is one small 'hole' in this
interpretation. The assumption that 2:1 refers to the 18
stop journey was based on two very strong points:
	1) they travelled south to Yam Suf/ at that was
only once.
	2) just as God had commanded / in 1:40

	But one can argue with both of these points.
[It's a bit complicated, so follow carefully with your
Tanach in hand.]
	Note how the next set of psukim in Sefer Devarim
(see 2:2-8) relate BACK to the journey described in 2:1.
Let's explain how:
	"Then God said to me saying: You have been
circling this mountain for too long - turn to the NORTH.
And command the people saying: You are passing now along
the border of your brother Esav... then we passed thru
the land of 'bnei Esav' along the way of the ARAVA from
Eilot & Etzion Gaver and then we passed Moav... until we
reached Nachal Zared."
	
(see 2:2-14)

	Now this journey CANNOT be the 18 stop journey
from Ritma to Kadesh, since this journey ends in
Transjordan, in the land of Moav. In fact, this is the
final journey of the end of the fortieth year when Bnei
Yisrael pass thru Seir, Moav, and Amon and fight with
Sichon & Og and camp in Arvot Moav. In other words, this
is no the journey of 33:16-36 in Parshat Masei, rather
it is the last leg of the journey described in Parshat
Masei, i.e. 33:40-49, AFTER they leave Kadesh Midbar
Tzin.
	And if the journey described in 2:2-13 is from
Kadesh Midbar Tzin to Arvot Moav, then (based in its
context) so must be the journey described in 2:1!
	And if 2:1 describes this last leg of the
journey, the KADESH mentioned in 1:46 must be Kadesh
Midbar Tzin - just as its name implies!
	But how about our two anchors? How can this last
leg of the journey be considered a travel TOWARDS YAM
SUF, and how could it be referred to "as God had
commanded us" (see 2:1)?
	The answer is simple. Go back to Parshat Chukat
and the parallel account of Bnei Yisrael's departure
from KADESH Midbar Tzin:
	"And Moshe sent messengers from KADESH to the
King of Edom saying:... we are now in Kadesh - a city on
your border - let us pass thru your land..."  (see
Bamidbar 20:14-21)

	But Edom [=bnei Esav] did not allow Bnei Yisrael
to pass. But God COMMANDED them not to attack Edom, but
instead to CIRCLE the land Edom by travelling south
TOWARDS YAM SUF, and then crossing the ARAVA towards the
east, and then turning north towards Moav!
	And this is exactly what Parshat Chukat tells us
in the next chapter:
	"And we left Hor ha'Har (next to Kadesh), and
travelled TOWARDS YAM SUF, to CIRCLE the land of
EDOM..." (21:4)
		[From there they travelled north (see
21:10-20) thru Moav etc. ending up in Arvot Moav.
Compare this journey with the second leg in Parshat
Masei (33:38-48/ you'll see that its the same journey! 

	So lo and behold we find a SECOND journey,
commanded by God, where Bnei Yisrael travel TOWARDS YAM
SUF and CIRCLE HAR SEIR. It is this journey, described
in Parshat Chukat and detailed in Parshat Masei
(33:38-48) that Devarim 2:1 could very easily be
referring to! And hence, this SECOND journey as well
fulfills both criterions mentioned above ("derech Yam
Suf" and "as God commanded")- and KADESH in 1:46 can
still be KADESH Midbar Tzin -and all of the psukim work
out perfectly!

	The final proof that Bnei Yisrael must have left
Kadesh Barnea immediately and not waited there for too
long is from Devarim 2:14:
	"And the days that we travelled from KADESH
BARNEA until we reached NACHAL ZARED (border with Moav)
were 38 YEARS..."
	
	This pasuk states explicitly that Bnei Yisrael
LEFT Kadesh Barnea in YEAR 2, and therefore, they could
not have stayed there for "yamim rabim" [which implies
many years / see Breishit 24:55].

IN CONCLUSION / & SOME REMARKS
	So "l'mai nafka minah" - what difference does it
make when Bnei Yisrael first arrived in KADESH.

	If we understand that they arrive in Kadesh
Midbar Tzin only in year 40, the Mei Meriva takes place
in year 40 and begins the events of that final year, and
Miriam dies at an age well over 130!
	If we understand that they possibly could have
arrived in Kadesh Midbar Tzin only several years after
chet ha'meraglim, i.e. after the 18 stop journey towards
Yam Suf back, then back north to Kadesh (which could
have taken several years and served as a precaution
against any further Canaanite attacks); then Moshe's sin
at Mei Meriva could have taken place only a short time
after chet ha'meraglim and the story of Korach. If so,
this would fit in thematically very nicely with our
shiurim on Bhaalotcha, Shlach, and Korach, which all
indicate a slow but definite gap between Moshe and
people and hence the collapse of his leadership. [It
would also have Miriam's death at an age under 120.] 

	There are several other implications, but he
main purpose of the shiur is simply to study Chumash,
trying to figure out all of the possibilities. Once
again, it could be I missed something, since I'd expect
to find the possibility in one of the commentaries. [I
haven't looked that much yet, so if anyone finds
something, please write. Also if anyone finds a mistake
in the shiur or another source that I overlooked, please
write.]
	In the meantime, it's a two hours before sunset
in Israel and want to send it out before shabbat (at
least for those of you in the western hemisphere).  As
you must have noticed, the shiur is  a very rough draft,
hopefully, after hearing your comments, by next year
we'll have an edited and updated version. Till then,
			
	
shabbat shalom,
	
menachem

==========================
FOR FURTHER IYUN

A. Note also from Bamidbar 34:4 that Kadesh Barnea is
located on the SOUTHERN border of Eretz Canaan, and
that's exactly why the meraglim are sent from there.
(Today, this area is identified just over the Egyptian
border with Israel in the Negev, about 20 kilometers
east of Sdeh Boker and south of Nitzana.]



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.4/1530 -
Release Date: 7/2/2008 8:05 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chukat2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 39959 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080702/e8a9fa68/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Jul  3 00:28:14 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 00:28:14 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] For PARSHAT CHUKAT - Mei Meriva _ RESENDING
Message-ID: <010e01c8dcc5$35e04f60$0300000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

                  PARSHAT CHUKAT - Mei Meriva

Ask most anyone:
 *   What was Moshe Rabeinu's 'sin' at Mei Meriva?
       They will answer: He hit the rock instead of
talking to it.

 *   What was his punishment?
       They will answer: He was not allowed to enter
Eretz Yisrael.

 *   Does this punishment seem fair?
       They'll say: No, but God must be extra strict
with tzadikim.

     Even though there is nothing 'wrong' about any of
the
above answers, they certainly 'oversimplify' a very
complex
topic.
     In this week's shiur, as we carefully analyze the
story
of Mei Meriva, we will see how and why there are many
other
ways to understand both Moshe's 'sin' and his
'punishment'.
In Part One, we undertake a careful textual analysis to
explain why there are so many different opinions. In
Part Two,
we re-examine this entire topic from a 'wider angle' to
show
how Moshe may not have sinned after all.

INTRODUCTION
     Rashi's explanation - that Moshe is punished for
hitting
the rock instead of talking to it - is definitely the
most
popular explanation of Moshe's sin.  However, just about
every
other commentator disagrees and offers a different
reason
instead. For example:
  *  IBN EZRA -
       claims that he hit the rock TWICE, instead of
once;

  *  RAMBAM -
       argues that Moshe 'lost his temper' and spoke
harshly;

  *  RAMBAN -  (quoting Rabeinu Chananel)
  explains that Moshe was not careful in his speech, for
he
  said: "can WE get water from this rock?" instead of
saying:
  "can GOD get water from this rock?".

     In fact, Abrabanel (commenting on Devarim 1:37)
summarizes some TEN different opinions; and proves why
each
one is incorrect.
     There is a very simple reason why we find such a
variety
of opinion.  Even though the Torah tells us WHY Moshe
and
Aharon were punished, we are never told WHAT they did
wrong.
To appreciate this distinction, let's carefully note how
the
Torah informs us of their punishment:
     "...because you did not 'believe' in Me ["lo
he'emantem
bi"] to sanctify Me in the eyes of Bnei Yisrael,
therefore you
will not lead Bnei Yisrael into the land...." (see
20:12)
    [Note that this is a very difficult pasuk to
translate.
    (Note as well that just about every English
translation
    translates this pasuk in a different manner.]
    
     Clearly, this pasuk implies that Moshe & Aharon did
something wrong, but it doesn't tell us precisely WHAT
that
was.  Nevertheless, because this pasuk forms the
conclusion of
the Mei Meriva story, we can safely assume that
somewhere
within that incident there must be a flaw in their
behavior.
Therefore, all the commentators scrutinize the psukim
that
describe that event, in search for some action that
would
warrant this punishment.
     To appreciate their various conclusions, let's
begin by
doing exactly what they did, i.e. let's carefully study
those
psukim that immediately precede the punishment -
Bamidbar 20:7-
11.
  This is very important methodological point.  Our
assumption
is that the variety of conclusions stems from the
analysis of
these psukim by each commentator [="parshanut"], and not
from
a variance in passed down traditions [="mesora"] from
generation to generation since the time of Chumash.
This
assumption not only explains why there are so many
different
opinions, it also explains why each new generation
continues
to study Chumash in search of additional possible
explanations.
  
THE FIVE COMMANDMENTS!
     As you review 20:7-11, note how 20:7-8 describes
God's
command to Moshe and Aharon; while 20:9-11 describes its
fulfillment.
     Therefore, it should be quite simple to figure out
what
they did wrong.  We simply need to compare what God had
commanded - to what Moshe actually did!  Let's begin
with
God's instructions to Moshe, noting how they contains
several
explicit commands:
  "And God spoke to Moshe saying: TAKE the staff, and
GATHER
  the congregation together, you and Aharon your
brother, and
  SPEAK to the rock before their eyes that it should
give
  water, and TAKE OUT for them water from the rock, and
GIVE
  DRINK to the people and their animals." (20:7-8)

     Review these psukim one more time, paying attention
to
the FIVE commands that Moshe (and Aharon) must execute:
     (1) TAKE the staff;
     (2) GATHER the congregation;
     (3) SPEAK to the rock... and it will give water;
     (4) TAKE OUT for them water from the rock;
     (5) GIVE DRINK to the people.

     Note how each of these five commands contains an
active
verb, and hence requires that Moshe take a specific
action.
[In other words, Moshe must (1) TAKE the staff, (2)
GATHER the
people, and (3) SPEAK to the rock, etc.]
     However, there appears to be a contradiction
between the
third and the fourth command (concerning how the water
would
be taken out of the rock).
     According to command #3, Moshe should speak to the
rock,
whereupon it should immediately start giving its water.
But
the next command (#4) is for Moshe to 'take water out of
the
rock' (without explaining HOW he should do it).  But if
by
SPEAKING to the rock (3) the rock will already be giving
its
water, how can Moshe fulfill command (4) to TAKE OUT
water
from the rock? The rock is already giving its water - so
what
would command (4) entail?
     As we continue our analysis, keep this question in
mind.

FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS
     The next step of our analysis will help us
understand the
underlying reason for the various opinions.  We begin
our
analysis (of 20:9-11) to see how Moshe fulfilled (or
didn't
fulfill) each of these five commands.
     We will compare each command to its execution in
search
of any slight variance that could be considered a lack
of
"emunah" that would  warrant such a severe punishment
(as
described in 20:12).

COMMAND #1 - "TAKE the staff"; (20:8)
MOSHE'S EXECUTION:
  "And Moshe TOOK the staff from before the Lord, as God
had
  commanded him..." (20:9)

     Nothing seems to be wrong here, after all the pasuk
itself testifies: "as God commanded him". Certainly,
this
could not be a sin.   [Later in the shiur we will return
to
this pasuk.]
====

COMMAND #2 - GATHER the "eydah" (congregation)... (20:8)
MOSHE'S EXECUTION:
  "And Moshe and Aharon GATHERED the "kahal"
(congregation)
  people together in front of the rock..." (20:10)

     Here again, nothing appears to have been done
wrong.
[There is slight discrepancy between "kehal" and
"eydah", but
these two words in Chumash are usually synonymous.  [It
should
be noted that Malbim disagrees.]
=====

COMMAND #3 - SPEAK to the rock that it should give
water...
MOSHE'S EXECUTION:
  "...And he [Moshe] said to THEM (i.e. to the people):
Listen
  here you rebellious people, is it possible that WE can
take
  water from this rock?" (20:10)

     Here we finally find our first major problem.
Even
though God had instructed Moshe to speak TO the rock- so
that
it would give water; instead Moshe speaks to the PEOPLE
-
ABOUT the rock (that it would give water)!  Therefore,
most of
the commentators [Rashi, Rambam, Ramban, Rashbam] will
find
fault with some aspect of Moshe's behavior in this pasuk
(which will be discussed below).
====

COMMAND #4 - TAKE OUT for them water from the rock...
(20:8)
MOSHE'S EXECUTION:
  "... and Moshe lifted his hand and HIT the rock with
his
  staff TWO times, then much water came out..." (20:11)

     Even though RASHI claims that this is Moshe's
primary
transgression [for he hit the rock INSTEAD of 'talking'
to
it], based on this careful comparison it becomes clear
why
other commentators disagree.  After all, God commanded
him to
'take out water', but didn't tell him HOW to accomplish
this.
It seems as though Moshe understood that he was supposed
to
use his staff to do so (as he had done forty years
earlier).
  Furthermore, God had commanded him to 'take his staff'
(i.e.
command #1) -if he wasn't supposed to hit the rock, why
was he
commanded to take his staff?  Ibn Ezra advances this
argument,
and concludes instead that Moshe erred by hitting the
rock
TWICE instead of once.
======

COMMAND #5 - Give drink to the people and their animals.
(20:8)
MOSHE'S EXECUTION:
     "...and the people and their animals drank. (20:11)

Clearly, Moshe does nothing wrong in this final stage.
After
all, we surely don't expect Moshe to 'pour drinks' for
everyone; rather he fulfills this command by allowing
the
people to gather the water for their needs.
=====

     This analysis shows that the primary problem in
Moshe's
behavior lies somewhere between his execution of
commands 3 &
4.  Let's return to our discussion of command #3.
Recall how
God had instructed Moshe:
  "SPEAK to the rock and [or that] it should [or will]
give
  water..."
               [Note the two possible translations.]

     Considering that we never find that Moshe actually
talked
to the rock (and based on the above parallel
comparison), we
must conclude that the following phrase is Moshe's
execution
of this command:
  "...And he [Moshe] said to THEM (i.e. to the people):
Listen
  here you rebellious people, is it possible that we can
take
  water from this rock?" (20:10)

     At first glance, it even appears as though there
may have
been a small 'misunderstanding'.  As we explained above,
even
though God had instructed Moshe to speak TO the rock,
instead
Moshe speaks to the people ABOUT the rock.  At this
point,
there are three different approaches that one can
follow:

a) Moshe indeed misunderstood what God wanted.
  Hence his transgression would fall under the category
of
  "shogeg" - an unintentional sin / see Rashbam.

b) Moshe understood God's command; but acted
differently.
  In other words, he acted defiantly [="mayzid" - an
  intentional transgression]. This leads Rashi to his
  conclusion that Moshe hit the rock instead of speaking
to
  it.

c) Moshe acted properly (in this regard), and understood
God's
command.
     In other words, speaking to the people about the
rock was
  precisely what God commanded. As Ramban explains, in
the
  phrase "v'dbartem EL ha'sela" - the word "el" should
be
  understood as "odot" (about).  God commands Moshe to
speak to
  the people ABOUT the rock THAT it should give water;
and that
  is exactly what Moshe does!

     Even though this third possibility (that this was
indeed
God's intention) may seem a bit 'stretched', it
definitely can
be supported from the next commandment: "And you shall
TAKE
OUT water for them from the rock" (see 20:8).  As we
pointed
out earlier, this fourth command implies that Moshe must
now
do something to 'take out' water from the rock.
     Therefore, it is possible that hitting the rock was
exactly what God expected Moshe to do. After all, this
is
exactly how God had instructed him to take water from
the
'rock at Chorev' many years earlier (see Shmot 17:6).
Furthermore, once Moshe understands that 'speak TO the
rock'
means 'speak ABOUT the rock' then obviously "take out
water"
must imply to take a certain action to extract the water
-
i.e. to hit the rock! Certainly, it would be no less of
a
miracle now than it was forty years earlier!

     Because of these considerations, all of the
commentators
(except Rashi) must search elsewhere for a flaw in
Moshe's
behavior.  For example, Rambam and Ramban take issue
with how
Moshe's words his rebuke:
  "...And he [Moshe] said to them: Listen here you
rebellious
  people, is it possible that WE can take water from
this
  rock?" (20:10)

     Rambam takes issue with the TONE of this rebuke,
while
Ramban takes issue with its CONTENT.
     RAMBAM claims that the tone of Moshe's statement -
"listen you rebels..." - reflects an unnecessary anger
which
caused a "chillul Hashem" (a desecration of God's Name).
[See
Rambam in "shmoneh perakim", or simply see its quote by
Ramban
in his pirush to 20:7.]
     RAMBAN claims that Moshe caused a "chilul Hashem"
by
saying 'we' in their rhetorical question - "is it
possible
that WE can take out water from this rock".  This
'careless'
statement may have caused the people to conclude that it
was
Moshe and Aharon (and not God) who cause the water to
come out
from the rock.
          [See Ramban 20:7 in name of Rabeinu Chananel.]

     Nonetheless, it remains possible to understand that
Moshe's rebuke in this pausk was entirely in order.
This
leads Ibn Ezra to find fault in the next stage:
     "... and Moshe lifted his hand and HIT the rock
with his
staff TWO times, then much water came out..." (20:11)

     After refuting all of the other opinions, Ibn Ezra
finds
Moshe's flaw in the fact that he hit the rock TWICE
instead of
only once. [It seems that according to Ibn Ezra, this
reason
'wins by default'.  Note that Ramban (towards the end of
his
commentary) also supports this opinion - to a certain
extent.]

     Thus, by careful comparing Moshe's execution of
each of
God's commands, we are able to find the underlying
reason for
the opinions of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Rambam, Rashbam,
Ramban, etc.
     Nonetheless, no matter how we explain WHAT Moshe's
sin
was, a more fundamental question remains - i.e. WHY was
his
punishment so severe?


PART TWO -- DID MOSHE DO ANYTHING 'WRONG' ?

     From the above analysis, a very interesting
possibility
arises. If we combine all of the reasons advanced by
each
commentator to reject the other interpretations - we
could
conclude that Moshe did nothing wrong at all!
  [See the commentaries of Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and
Abrabanel on
  this sugya. Each of them present very convincing
arguments
  why all of the other opinions are wrong.]

     In fact, Abrabanel himself raises this possibility,
then
he advances his own opinion (based on Devarim 1:37) that
Moshe
& Aharon are really being punished for earlier sins -
Moshe
for "chet ha'mergalim" and Aharon for "chet ha'egel".
Mei
Meriva, he explains, serves as a kind of 'cover-up' to
differentiate between Moshe & Aharon's punishment, and
the
punishment of the nation.

     Nonetheless, his interpretation remains difficult
because
the text states explicitly that Moshe is punished
because of
the events that took place at MEI MERIVA! [See not only
here
in 20:12-13, but also in 20:24, 27:14 and Devarim
32:51.]
Therefore, we should be quite reluctant to look for the
PRIMARY reason elsewhere.
     But, where else can we look to find Moshe's sin?
On the
one hand, it must be related to the events of Mei
Meriva, but
when we examined those psukim, it was very hard to
pinpoint a
'sin'; and certainly not a sin severe enough to deserve
such a
harsh punishment.
     To answer this question, we must first take a
closer look
at precisely WHAT their punishment was.

CRIME & PUNISHMENT
     It is commonly understood that Moshe and Aharon's
punishment is that they are forbidden from ENTERING the
land
of Israel. However, this popular assumption is not
precise.
Let's take a look once again how the Chumash explains
their
punishment:
     "And God told Moshe... because you did not trust Me
enough to sanctify Me... therefore you shall NOT LEAD
THIS
NATION into the LAND which I promised them... " (20:12)

     Note, that God doesn't say that they cannot enter
the
Land; rather they cannot LEAD the people into the Land.
In
other words, Moshe and Aharon are not being punished as
INDIVIDUALS, rather as NATIONAL LEADERS.  As such, their
'sin'
must relate in some manner to a flaw in their leadership
traits.
     In fact, the very pasuk that explains their
punishment
already hints to a flaw in leadership:
  "...BECAUSE you did not trust in Me enough TO SANCTIFY
ME in
  the eyes of Bnei Yisrael... (20:12)

     God's statement implies that He had expected Moshe
and
Aharon to take the rebellion at Mei Meriva and somehow
create
from it a "kiddush Hashem" - a sanctification of God's
Name.
Therefore, to find that 'sin', we must examine the Mei
Meriva
once again, in search of leadership crisis.  But this
time, we
must begin by studying those events from their onset.

LET'S START FROM THE VERY BEGINNING
     Recall that the Mei Meriva incident began when Bnei
Yisrael encountered a terrible water shortage
immediately upon
their arrival at Midbar Tzin.  Let's begin our study by
taking
a closer look at how the Torah described that crisis:
     "And Bnei Yisrael arrived at Midbar Tzin... but
there was
not enough water for the people, and they gathered
against
Moshe and Aharon. They argued with Moshe saying:  It
would had
been better had we died with our brethren "lifnei
Hashem"
[before God]...  So - why did you bring us to this
desert to
die?...and why did you take us out of Egypt to bring us
to
this terrible place... - there are no fruits here and
there is
no water to drink."   (see 20:1-5)
     Not only did Bnei Yisrael ask for water, they
expressed
their total disgust with the entire process of Yetziat
Mitzraim.  Even though they direct these harsh
complaints to
Moshe and Aharon, they can be understood no less as a
complaint against God; questioning not only His ability
to
save them, but also the very purpose of their special
relationship.
     How should Moshe and Aharon respond to these
blasphemous
complaints?  Should they not argue by defending God?
Should
they not encourage the people to remain faithful?
     Instead, Chumash describes what appears to be a
rather
'pathetic' reaction:
  "And Moshe and Aharon came to the Ohel Moed [in fear]
from
  the congregation, and they fell on their faces..."
(20:6)

     One could suggest that already at this stage a
leadership
crisis has unfolded.  To clarify this point, let's
compare
this event to the parallel incident that took place when
Bnei
Yisrael complained for water at Refidim many years
earlier
(see Shmot 17:1-7). Note Moshe's immediate response (at
that
time) to an almost identical complaint:
  "mah trivun iy'madi, mah t'nasun et Hashem"  -Why are
you
  arguing with me, why are you TESTING God? (see 17:2)

     At Refidim, Moshe immediately challenged the people
-
reprimanding them how their complaint reflected a lack
of
faith in God. Afterward, when the people continued to
complain, Moshe cries out to God, begging for a solution
(see
17:4).
     In contrast, at "Mei Meriva" Moshe's reaction is
quite
different. Instead of confronting these almost identical
complaints, Moshe & Aharon immediately 'run away' to the
Ohel
Moed and 'fall on their faces' (20:6). [Even if this
means
that they prayed - is this a time for prayer? Compare
with
Shmot 14:15 and its context!]
     Was 'running away' the proper reaction? Should they
not
have assured the people that God will indeed take care
of
their needs. Should they not have challenged the
people's
irreverent statement that "it would have been better had
they
remained in Egypt"?
     One could suggest that already at this early stage
in the
narrative - Moshe & Aharon have already 'failed' as
national
leaders, for they do not SANCTIFY God's name when the
opportunity arose. In fact, this may be precisely what
God is
referring to when He states: "because you did not trust
Me
enough to sanctify Me in the eyes of Bnei Yisrael..."
(20:12).
     Even though God immediately gives Moshe & Aharon
specific
instructions on how to deal with the situation, it is
already
too late. As soon is the incident is over, even though
Moshe &
Aharon may have properly fulfilled all of God's
instructions
when hitting the rock, God informs them that their days
as the
nation's leaders are numbered. Before Bnei Yisrael will
begin
their conquest of Eretz Canaan, it will be necessary to
appoint new leadership.
  [Note that later in Sefer Devarim when Moshe begs that
he be
  allowed see the land (3:23-26), he does not ask to
LEAD,
  only to ENTER and see for himself.]

     However, if this interpretation is correct, why do
we
need the story of 'hitting the rock' (20:7-11) in
between? Let
the Torah first inform us of Moshe's punishment, and
then let
God provide water for the people.
     To answer this question, and to understand this
entire
incident in its wider perspective, we must turn back a
few
pages to a related event in Parshat Korach.

WHOSE STAFF IS IT?
     To our surprise, the key to understanding this
complicated sugya lies in its connection to Parshat
Korach! To
appreciate that connection, let's pay careful attention
to how
the narrative continues (after Moshe & Aharon run away
to the
Ohel Moed):
  "And God spoke to Moshe saying: "kach et ha'mateh" -
take
  THE STAFF and gather the people..." (see 20:8)

     It is commonly assumed that Moshe is instructed to
takes
his own staff, i.e. the very same staff with which he
brought
the plagues; split the sea; and brought forth water from
the
rock at Chorev; etc.
     However, it cannot be Moshe's own staff, for the
pasuk
states explicitly:
  "And Moshe took the staff - M'LIFNEI HASHEM - from
before
  God, as God had commanded him..." (20:9)

     In Chumash, "lifnei Hashem" usually refers to in
front of
the ARON, i.e. the ark of the covenant located in the
holiest
domain of the Mishkan (see Shmot 29:11,42;30:8; etc.).
Surely,
Moshe would not keep his staff "lifnei Hashem"! [The
"kodesh
kedoshim" is not his personal closet!]
  [Note that God commands Moshe -"kach et HA'mateh" -
THE
  staff, not -"matecha" - YOUR staff. Compare with Shmot
  14:16, 17:5.]

     If it is not his own staff that Moshe must take,
then
what staff is it? Is there someone else who keeps his
staff in
the "kodesh ha'kedoshim"?!
     The answer, as Rashbam and Chizkuni so beautifully
explain (see their commentaries to 20:8), is quite
simple - it
is AHARON's special staff!

     Recall from Parshat Korach that God had commanded
Moshe
to conduct a test between the staffs of each of the
tribal
leaders (see 17:16-24) -  to establish that the tribe of
Levi
is indeed chosen. Carefully note God's command to Moshe
after
Aharon's staff wins that test:
  "... return the STAFF OF AHARON - "lifnei ha'eydut" -
[in
  front of the 'tablets of testimony', i.e. the ARON ]
for
  safe keeping, in order that it be a SIGN FOR ANY
REBELLIOUS
  GROUP ["ot l'bnei meri"]- so that they will stop
complaining
  and not die..." (17:25-26)

     In other words, God tells Moshe - NEXT TIME that
Bnei
Yisrael complain or rebel, take out Aharon's staff from
the
Ohel Moed and REMIND them of what happened to Korach's
rebellion.
     And sure enough - the next complaint in Chumash is
the
incident at Mei Meriva!
     This not only explains Rashbam's pirush, but it
also
neatly explains why the Torah (in 20:9) must inform us
that
Moshe takes specifically the staff "m'lifnei Hashem" -
from
before God.  Moshe doesn't take his own staff - he takes
the
staff of AHARON that was kept "lifnei Hashem" - for it
was set
aside for specifically for this purpose.
     In other words, in 20:8 God instructs Moshe to do
exactly
what Moshe should have done on his own!
     This also beautifully explains why Moshe prefaces
his
rebuke with: "shimu na ha'MORIM" [listen o' you
rebellious
ones /see 20:10]. Considering that God had instructed
Moshe to
take the "mateh Aharon" which was set aside for an "ot
l'bnei
MERI", it is only appropriate that he would rebuke the
people
by saying: "shimu na ha'MORIM"!  [See Chizkuni on 20:10,
note
also that "meri" & "morim" are derived from the same
shoresh.]

     In a similar manner, the Torah's use of the word
GAVANU
in both these parshiot provides additional (textual)
support
for this interpretation. Recall how the complaints at
Mei
Meriva first began:
  "And the people quarrelled with Moshe saying: 'loo
GAVANU
  B'GVA acheinu...' - if only we had perished with our
  brothers" (20:3)

     This complaint echoes the cry of Bnei Yisrael in
the
aftermath of Korach's rebellion (immediately after
Aharon's
staff is set aside/ see 17:25-27):
  "And Bnei Yisrael said to Moshe: 'heyn GAVANU avadnu'
- lo,
  we perish, we are lost... anyone who comes close to
the
  Mishkan will die, alas we are doomed to perish..."
(17:27-
  28)   [Compare also 20:4-5 with 16:13-14.]

MAKING NO MISTAKES
     Once we explain that Moshe was commanded to take
MATEH
AHARON - almost every following action that he takes
makes
perfect sense. Let's explain why:
     As we explained earlier, because MATEH AHARON is an
"ot
l'bnei meri", it is only logical that Moshe understands
"speak
to the rock" as "speak ABOUT the rock" and therefore
begins
his rebuke with "SHIMU NA HA'MORIM".
     Then, Moshe's next statement: "Can we take water
from
this rock?" can be explained as precisely what God
commanded
him to do: i.e. to speak about (or at) the rock -
"v'natan
meimav" - THAT IT SHOULD give water. In other words, God
instructs Moshe is to challenge the people's belief, to
ask
them - is it possible for a rock to give water? - And
that's
exactly what he does!
     This also explains why Moshe hit the rock. Once he
understands that "speak TO the rock" means "speak ABOUT
the
rock", then God's next instruction: "v'hotzeita" [you
shall
TAKE OUT water] must imply that Moshe himself must cause
the
water to come out. How? Exactly as he did forty years
earlier
by the rock in Chorev, using his OWN mateh (not Aharon's
/
read 20:11 carefully -"matey'hu").
  [This implies that there were actually TWO staffs at
Mei
  Meriva: (1) The staff of Aharon - was taken by Moshe
and
  most probably given to Aharon to hold up in front of
the
  people during this entire event. And (2)- the staff of
Moshe
  - which he himself used to hit the rock to bring forth
  water.]

     The only detail that remains to be explained is why
Moshe
hit the rock twice (see Ibn Ezra').  However, as Ramban
asks,
could it be that hitting the rock twice instead of once
makes
the miracle any less impressive? Furthermore, God did
not tell
Moshe to hit the rock ONCE or TWICE! He just commanded
him to
'take out water'. Certainly, Moshe should have the
leeway to
hit the rock as many times as he feels necessary.
  [Even at Chorev, it never mentions how many times
Moshe hit
  the rock. And even if this action was incorrect, could
this
  slight 'transgression' warrant such a severe
punishment?]

     This explanation of "mateh AHARON" only strengthens
our
claim that Moshe indeed followed God's instructions
properly -
but he and Aharon are punished for not sanctifying God's
Name
earlier - when Bnei Yisrael FIRST complained at Mei
Meriva.

     With this background, it becomes easier to
understand why
their punishment relates to this leadership crisis.
Failure
in leadership is not necessarily because the leader does
something 'wrong', nor is it a sin. Leadership, as its
name
implies, must LEAD the people - i.e. it must do
something
right, it must take an initiative.
     As individuals, Moshe & Aharon never 'sinned' at
Mei
Meriva, but as leaders they failed.  Therefore, God
reaches
the conclusion that they will not be able to succeed
should
they be the leaders who will take Bnei Yisrael into the
Promised Land.

BELIEVING or SUPPORTING
     Based on this interpretation, we can suggest an
alternate
understanding of the word "EMUNAH" (used in the pasuk
which
explains the reason for their punishment):
  "ya'an lo he'EMANTEM BI" - because you did not have
FAITH IN
  ME in the EYES of Bnei Yisrael" (see 20:12).

     The word "emunah" in this pasuk may not refer to
belief
in God in the theological sense. Surely, Moshe and
Aharon
'believe' in God. However, they were not 'supportive'
enough
of God in the eyes of the people. The Hebrew word
"emunah"
stems from the shoresh aleph.mem.nun which means to
support or
sustain.
[For example, in Shmot 17:12 - "v'haya yadav emunah..."
in the
war against Amalek, when Aharon & Chur support Moshe's
arm, or
in Megilat Esther (2:7) -"va'yehi OMEYN et Hadassah..."
- i.e.
Mordechei supported (or adopted) Esther, or "omnot
ha'bayit"
the pillars supporting the Beit Ha'Mikdash (II Melachim
18:16), or the word "amen", which confirms or supports a
bracha or statement made by others, etc.]  .

     In hindsight, the reason for Moshe's 'punishment'
may
even be quite logical. Considering the many difficulties
that
will face Bnei Yisrael once they begin conquest of the
Land,
it is only inevitable that many more rebellious
situations
such as these will arise. Leadership, which can deal
with such
complaints, is essential.

THE FINAL STRAW
     Had this been the only incident where Moshe &
Aharon's
leadership faltered, their punishment may not have been
so
harsh. However, this problem of leadership had already
surfaced numerous times in Sefer Bamidbar. In fact it
could
almost be considered its secondary theme. Recall, that
from
the time Bnei Yisrael leave Har Sinai, almost every
event
which Chumash records reflects this pattern of faltering
leadership:
 *   At "kivrot ha'taaveh" Moshe himself claims that he
can
longer lead the people (11:11-15).
 *   Later, even Miriam, Moshe's own sister, complains
about
his leadership (12:1-3).
 *   When the "meraglim" return, Moshe and Aharon fall
on
their faces (14:5); Kalev and Yehoshua take leadership
positions.
 *   In the rebellion of Korach (chapter 16), again
Moshe and
Aharon's leadership is challenged, again they fall on
their
faces (16:4,22).
  [This approach also explains why later in Sefer
Devarim,
  Moshe claims that it was because of "chet ha'meraglim"
that
  he could not enter the land (see Devarim 1:37).]

     As we have explained, surely as individuals, Moshe
and
Aharon are "tzadikim"; they do nothing 'wrong'. However,
as
happens over and over again in Sefer Bamidbar, their
leadership fails. At Mei Meriva, possibly a personal
example
of patience, stamina, confidence, and calm rebuke may
have
able to create the necessary "kiddush Hashem"; but this
did
not happen.
     Can we be critical of Moshe and Aharon for their
behavior?  Should we consider their actions as sinful?
Not
necessarily! This leadership crisis does not have to be
considered a question of 'good or bad' behavior. Rather,
it
could be considered a tragedy - a problem of
compatibility.
     As we explained in our shiur on Parshat Shlach,
already
when Bnei Yisrael first left Har Sinai, there we signs
of a
lack of compatibility between Moshe Rabeinu and Bnei
Yisrael.
After all, Moshe had spent months on Har Sinai with the
SHCHINA, and was no longer capable of dealing with
complaints
concerning mundane manners. [Note also Shmot 34:35.  See
also
commentary of the Sfat Emet on the Mei Meriva incident.]

     To meet the challenges of taking Am Yisrael into
the
Promised Land, new leadership was essential. Not
necessarily
because Moshe and Aharon did anything 'wrong', rather
because
Am Yisrael were not worthy of their leadership.

                              shabbat shalom,
                              menachem

=======================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
A. One could even go one step further and suggest that
Moshe,
even before God's command, should have taken MATEH
AHARON and
shown it to the people and rebuked them. If so, then
God's
first command to Moshe - "kach et ha'mateh" may simply
be a
reminder to Moshe of what he SHOULD HAVE DONE on his own
(as
he was instructed in Parshat Korach)! This could explain
"ka'asher tzivahu" in 20:9. It may imply: as God
commanded him
- not just now, but earlier - in PARSHAT KORACH!]

B. Later in the Parsha, a similar situation where the
people
need water, arises at "B'ey'rah" (21:16-18). There Moshe
gathers the people together, God provides water, and the
people respond with a song of praise! This shows that
given
the proper circumstances, such a situation can result in
a
"kiddush Hashem". Moshe may have learned his lesson,
however,
by then it is already too late for God to change His
decision.]

C. REASONS OR INDICATORS
     Our interpretation in the shiur (part two) does not
necessarily have to conflict with the various opinions
raised
by the "rishonim" which we discussed in Part One. One
could
suggest that each of those reasons can be understood as
INDICATORS of this faltering leadership, not just
REASONS for
Moshe's punishment. For example, Moshe and Aharon's use
of a
harsh tone; their quick anger; their lack of patience
hitting
the rock twice instead of once; their running away to
the Ohel
Moed, etc. All of these opinions point to the same
general
problem of leadership.

D. According to our explanation above, the most
difficult
pasuk to explain is 20:24, in relation to Aharon's death
at
Hor haHar:
     "... al asher m'ritem et pi, lmei m'riva"
"meri" implies more than not doing something right, it
seems
as though something of a rebellious nature was done.
1. Explain why this pasuk led many commentators to
explain the
sin as hitting the rock instead of speaking to it.
2. How else can one explain this pasuk?
3. Explain the "lamed" in "l'mei mriva".
4. Read Devarim 32:51. What does "m'altem" mean?
          ( What is "me'ilah", in general)?
     Relate this pasuk to Bamidbar 20:24 and 20:12-13,
and
     use it to explain your answer to 1 & 2 above.

E. See the Netziv's pirush in Emek Davar to Bamidbar
20:8-11.
Note how he insists that the mateh is Moshe's mateh, and
hence
he must explain that "ka'asher tzivayhu" - is that God
had
sometime earlier commanded Moshe to take his "mateh" and
put
it next to the Aron.  He also solves the problem of the
contradiction between command 3 and 4 by explaining that
God
gave Moshe TWO options for bringing water: 1) speak to
the
people that they should pray for water, and it that
didn't
work, as a back up - he could alternately hit the rock,
and
that would also bring forth water.  Even though our
shiur has
followed a very different approach, it is interesting to
note
the originality of the Netziv's approach, and how he
deals
with many of the questions that we raised in the above
shiur.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.4/1530 -
Release Date: 7/2/2008 8:05 AM
 
    
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chukat1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 53115 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080703/fbf774bf/attachment-0002.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: meimeriva.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 77446 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080703/fbf774bf/attachment-0003.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Jul  3 13:53:00 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:53:00 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] for Parshat Chukat - re: Para Aduma & chok
Message-ID: <00c901c8dd35$a2257c70$0400000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

"ZOT CHUKAT HA'TORAH"
					[For Parshat
Chukat & Parshat Parah]
	WHAT'S A CHOK, AND WHAT'S A TORAH?

	How should one translate the phrase "ZOT CHUKAT
HA'TORAH" (see 19:2) in the opening psukim of Parshat
Para?
[Note how just about every English translation slightly
varies in their attempt to interpret this verse, e.g.
"the Torah's decree" (Stone & Living Torah), "a ritual
law" (JPS), etc.]

	Many students of Chumash innocently assume that
the word "torah" refers to the entire Torah, while the
word "chok" implies a specific law that has no obvious
reason; and hence - this opening pasuk informs the
reader that the laws of Parah Adumah (that will follow)
will be the quintessential example in the entire Bible
of a law that doesn't make any sense.  
	In the following shiur, we will consider an
alternate understanding of the words "chok" and "torah"
in this pasuk, based on their meaning elsewhere in
Chumash.  While doing so, we will attempt to arrive at a
clearer understanding of this special set of laws, and
the purpose of this enigmatic opening phrase.

INTRODUCTION
	Today, in common conversation, the word 'Torah'
is used to describe either the entire Bible, or even the
entire corpus of Jewish law.  In fact, even the study of
the Oral Law, such as the Mishna and Talmud is referred
to 'Torah study'.  
    However, when we examine the use of the word "torah"
in Chumash, we find that it has a very different
meaning.  Instead of referring to the entire book, the
word "torah" in the books of Vayikra and Bamidbar
usually refers to a specific type of law, usually one of
a procedural nature. 
    For example, in our study of Parshat Tzav, we saw
how each paragraph (in the section describing how to
offer the various korbanot / chapters 6 thru 7) began
with the phrase 
    "zot torat ha' -----" - 
      ['this is the procedure for the ------ offering:
..."
    
    Hence, the phrase "zot TORAT ha'mincha..." (see
6:7-10) is translated: "this is the PROCEDURE for how to
offer the korban mincha" - followed by the details
concerning how the kohanim are to offer it.  Similarly,
"zot TORAT ha'chatat" introduces the laws of how to
offer the "korban chatat" (see 6:18 and 7:1, etc.).
    
    An even better example is found in Sefer Bamidbar,
at the conclusion of the laws concerning the procedure
that the priest must conduct to test whether the "sota"
[a wife accused by her husband for 'cheating'] was
innocent or guilty.  Note the use of the word "torah" in
the pasuk that summarizes this lengthy process:
"zot TORAT ha'knaot - this is the torah [the procedure]
for this case of 'jealousy', when a wife... or when the
spirit of jealousy comes upon a man, and he be jealous
over his wife.. and the priest shall execute upon her
all this TORAH"  - i.e. this procedure!  (see Bamidbar
5:29-30 in its context)

	With this background, we can begin our attempt
to understand the word "torah" in Parshat Para - to show
that here as well, it refers to a specific procedure
(and not to the entire Chumash)!

THE LAWS OF TUMAT MEYT
	To appreciate what procedures are discussed in
Bamidbar chapter 19, we must first provide a short
overview of the basic laws of "tumat meyt" [spiritual
uncleanliness, caused by contact with a dead body].
    According to Jewish law, if a person touches (or is
in the same room with) a dead body, he becomes "tamey"
[spiritually unclean] for period of at least seven days,
during which time he is not permitted to enter the
Temple courtyard.  To 'cleanse' himself of this "tumah",
a special 'procedure' is required.  The kohen [priest]
must sprinkle upon him from a special solution
consisting of spring water mixed with specially prepared
ashes of a "para Adumah" - a 'red heifer'. 
    The first sprinkling can only be performed after
three days, and then needs to be repeated four days
later, i.e. on day seven.  At sunset of that seventh
day, he becomes "tahor" [spiritually clean] and hence
permitted once again to enter the Temple.

TWO PROCEDURES IN THE PROCESS
	Obviously, before the kohen can perform this
'sprinkling procedure' - someone has to first make the
'ashes'.  Hence, the first procedure [="torah"] that
Chumash will describe will be how to make these ashes.
As only a small amount (of ashes) is needed to make this
special solution, the ashes collected from the burning
of each "para aduma" could suffice for decades.
	After the explanation of this first procedure,
Chumash will explain the details for the second "torah"
- i.e. the procedure whereby the kohen sprinkles this
solution of the "tmey meyt".
	Therefore, as we study chapter 19, we should
expect to uncover the details of two procedures:

PROCEDURE #1 - Making the 'ashes' of the parah adumah.
		[as detailed in 19:2-9!)

PROCEDURE #2 - Sprinkling these ashes (mixed with
water).
    [as detailed in 19:17-19!]

	As we study these psukim, we will show how these
two procedures also contain several consequential laws,
which we identify as "chukim"!  Therefore, before we
begin our detailed study, we must first explain the
Biblical meaning of the word "chok".

WHAT'S A CHOK?
	Contrary to popular opinion, a "chok" is not the
name for a Biblical law that doesn't make sense (or has
no reason).  Indeed, we will find "chukim" that have no
obvious reason, and that may even be 'characteristic' of
a "chok" - but it is not the definition of a "chok"!
Instead, a "chok" is a statute - i.e. a set law or
ordinance that doesn't change.
	To clarify this point, let's take an example
from a law that you are all familiar with: the Korban
Pesach.  Everyone knows why we offer the Korban Pesach -
to commemorate how God saved Am Yisrael from the Tenth
Plague.  Certainly, this mitzvah makes a lot of sense,
but to your surprise - Chumash refers to this law as a
CHOK and gives a reason! Let's take a look:
"... and you should keep this commandment (of Korban
Pesach) as a CHOK for you and your children for ever.
When you come into the Land that God shall give you...
keep this ritual. And when your children will ask: What
is this ritual for you? Tell them it is the Pesach
offering, for God passed over the houses of Bnei Yisrael
when He smote the Egyptians..." (see Shmot 12:24-27!)

	In fact, Chumash refers to all of the Jewish
Holidays as CHUKIM (see Parshat Emor - Vayikra
23:14,21,31 & 41) - because they are set in the yearly
calendar, and repeat themselves every year!
    Chumash also uses the word "chok" to describe
statutes that are not mitzvot. For example, when Sefer
Breishit describes how Yosef purchased of the land from
the Egyptians, we are informed that he cannot acquire
the land belonging to the priests - because:
"... it is the CHOK of the priests by Pharaoh, that they
eat their portion [lechem CHUKAM] that Pharaoh had given
them..."	(see Breishit 47:20-22 and its context)

    Two psukim later, we find another example, where
Chumash describes the 20% set land tax imposed on
Egyptian produce as a "chok" (see Breishit 47:26)

	For a similar reason, when Bnei Yisrael are
required to produce a certain daily output of bricks,
Sefer Shmot describes this set quota as a CHOK:
"...and the taskmasters of Bnei Yisrael scolded them
saying - Why did you not complete CHOK'CHEM [your quota]
to make bricks as before..." (see Shmot 5:14 and its
context)

	Note also how Yirmiyahu refers to the laws of
astronomy, i.e. the constant and unchanging cycles of
the sun and moon around the earth, as "CHUKOT shamayim
v'aretz" (see Yirmiyahu 33:25 and even better, see
Yirmiyahu 31:35-36!).

	For this reason, the holidays in Parshat Emor
are referred to as CHUKIM for they celebrated on a
REGULAR basis, once a year based on the solar
(agricultural) calendar.  Hence, a "chok" implies
something constant that doesn't change - a statute.

THE CHOK OF TUMAT MEYT
	Let's see now how the word "chok" would apply to
the laws of "tumat meyt".
    The law that a person who touches a dead body
becomes "tamey" for seven days should definitely be
considered a "chok"  - for it is a law that never
changes - it remains constant.
[In modern Hebrew we find a similar use, where the 'laws
of nature' are called CHUKEI ha'TEVA. Take for example
Newton's laws of motion - they are set and don't
change.]

	Based on this definition, a CHOK can be logical,
but it doesn't have to be! Certain CHUKIM may be beyond
our comprehension, however many other CHUKIM can
actually make a lot of sense. Therefore we find some
"chukim" that are quite logical, while others are not -
however, the fact that a certain law is not logical,
does not define it as a CHOK! 
	In contrast, a MISHPAT, as its name implies, is
a JUDGEMENT - based on reason. The very concept of a
MISHPAT relates to a decision or judgment that must be
made between two claims that come before the court.
Hence, the Torah refers to the entire set of civil laws
relating to damages etc. in Shmot chapters 21->23 as
MISHPATIM (see Shmot 21:1 & 24:3).
	With this  background, let's read through
Parshat Parah and attempt to identify more precisely
where we find a TORAH and where we find a CHOK, and how
they relate to one another.  As we read, we will notice
how the chapter neatly divides into two sections,
according to the two procedures that we mentioned above.

[As a teacher's note - to explain this concept of TORAH
as a procedure, take the word 'recipe' as an example. A
recipe demands a certain procedure to attain a certain
goal, i.e. a sponge cake recipe requires that we take 4
eggs, flour, water, sugar; mix them into a batter, and
bake it etc. The result - a cake - and hence the recipe
card is titled: Sponge cake. In a similar manner, the
Parshat Parah informs us of the proper 'recipe' [i.e.
the TORAH] to make the ashes for "efer parah"!]

PROCEDURE #1 & its CHUKIM
	We assumed above that the first "torah" (or
procedure) would describe how to prepare the "efer
ha'parah" [the ashes of the heifer], that will later be
used for sprinkling).  As you review 19:2-6, note how
these psukim describe precisely this procedure:
19:2-3 -
	Take a red heifer (one without a blemish) and
give it to Elazar (the deputy high priest) who must
slaughter it outside the camp.
19:4 -
Sprinkle the blood of the heifer seven times opposite
the entrance to the Ohel Moed.
 19:5-6 -
Burn the carcass of the heifer together with branches
from both a hyssop and cedar tree, etc., until in turns
into ashes.

	Now that the 'ashes' have been prepared, the
Torah informs us of two special CHUKIM that accompany
this process:
 19:7 -	
The kohen who PERFORMS this procedure becomes "tamey"
[that's a CHOK], therefore he must wash his clothes and
remains "tamey" until the evening ["tumat yom"].
19:8 -	
The kohen who BURNS the animal becomes "tamey" [that's
also a CHOK], and must wash his clothes etc.

Then Chumash continues with the final stages of this
procedure:
 19:9 -
A clean person must COLLECT the ashes and stores them
outside the camp. This is actually the final stage of
the procedure [i.e. part of the TORAH].
 19:10 -
This person who collects the ashes also become "tamey"
[just like the other two]. That's yet another CHOK!

	Hence, we find that this specific procedure of
making the "efer" is accompanied by several special
CHUKIM. Note how these CHUKIM, even though they are not
an integral part of the procedure, they are a direct
consequence - and therefore should be defined as related
"chukim" [statutes], but not an integral part of the
procedure.
[If we use again our "mashal" from the cake recipe, the
person mixing the batter must later wash his hands, but
that does not affect how the cake comes out!]

	To prove these definitions, let's take a more
careful look at this last pasuk, as it explains the
purpose of this procedure. i.e. for these ashes must be
used for the CHOK of "tumat meyt":. 
"The person who collects the ashes must wash his
clothes, and [these ashes] are to be [used] for Bnei
Yisrael for a CHUKAT OLAM - an everlasting statute:
[i.e. introducing the CHOK of:]
 -  One who touches a dead body becomes "tamey" for
seven days.  If he is sprinkled upon on the third &
seventh day, he becomes "tahor"; if not he remains
"tamey"... and should he enter the Mikdash, he is to be
cut off from Israel." 
    (see 19:10-13)
    
	These psukim end the first section of Parshat
Parah, as the ashes are prepared, and we are also
informed of what they will be needed for.
    Now that the "efer" is prepared, we are ready to
discuss the second TORAH [procedure] found in this
chapter, i.e. the precise details of this 'sprinkling
process' - known in Hebrew as "torat ha'haza'ah".

PROCEDURE #2 and its CHUKIM
	Let's take a look now at 19:14. Note how this
pasuk (at first glance) seems to contradict our
definition of a TORAH:
"And this is the TORAH - a person who dies in a tent,
everything in the tent becomes tamey [unclean] for seven
days. And any open vessel... it too becomes tamey..." 
    (19:14-15)

	Based on our above definitions of CHOK & TORAH,
this law [of how one contracts "tumat meyt"] should be
considered a "chok" for it describes a set law that
never changes!  Why then does 19:14 introduce this law
as a TORAH?
	The answer to this question is quite simple.
    If one reads the next set of psukim carefully, it
becomes clear that the phrase "ZOT HA'TORAH" in 19:14 is
INTRODUCING the procedure that is defined later on
19:17-19.   In other words, we need to add the word
'for' in 19:14 [i.e. a "lamed" after "zot ha'torah
L'adam asher yamut b'ohel..." [which is implicit based
on the context - see also Rashbam on 19:2!].
    
    In this manner, 19:14-16 should be translated as
follows:
	
    "This is the TORAH  - FOR:
a) the case when a person dies in a tent, then
everything in the tent becomes "tamey" (19:14), [and
for...]
		b)	any open vessel in that tent
(19:15), or
c) any person who touched a dead body in the field or
bone or grave (who also becomes "tamey" (19:16)

	THEN: for any of these "tamey" persons or
objects, we must take from the "efer" [the ashes of the
heifer] and put it into a vessel with water (see 19:17)
in order to perform PROCEDURE #2 [i.e. "torat
ha'za'ah"], as explained in the next set of psukim:
"A person who is TAHOR [clean] shall take a hyssop
branch, dip it in the water [mixed with the ashes], and
then sprinkle it on (either) the tent and vessels, or on
the person who touched the bones... or who touched a
grave..." (see 19:18).
    
	This procedure, as described in 19:18, was first
introduced by the phrase "zot ha'TORAH" in 19:14.  The
next pasuk (19:19) informs us that this procedure must
be repeated on both the third and seventh days (see
19:19).

THE CHUKIM OF PROCEDURE #2
	This second procedure, just like the first
procedure, is also accompanied by certain consequential
"chukim":
    a) he who sprinkles the solution becomes "tamey" 
(see 19:21, see also Rashi who quotes Chazal's
understanding that it refers to only someone who carries
this solution, but not actually the one who sprinkles
it);
    b) anyone who touches this solution also becomes
"tamey"
     (see 19:22).
[i.e. "tamey for one day, he must wash his clothes and
then he becomes "tahor" at sunset.]

	Note how both Procedures #1 and #2 carry with
them very similar consequential CHUKIM, i.e. anyone who
is involved in this process of either making the "efer",
or sprinkling it upon someone else, becomes "tamey".

CHUKAT ha'TORAH
	Based on these definitions, we can suggest an
explanation for the opening phrase "CHUKAT ha'TORAH"
that introduces these laws (see 19:1). As we have shown,
this chapter contains many special CHUKIM that relate to
the TORAH (procedures) of "tahara" from "tumat meyt",
i.e. 
    (1) making the ashes; and
    (2) sprinkling the "mei chatat" - water w/ashes
solution.
     
	Each of these two procedures carry special
"chukim" that accompany these procedures: The special
chukim all have one common denominator. Anyone involved
in these procedures for cleansing one who is "tamey" -
he himself becomes "tamey". This strange CHOK that by
making someone else TAHOR you become TAMEY is an inherit
'statute' [CHOK] of this 'procedure' [TORAH]. Hence,
this may be the technical meaning of this introductory
phrase "chukat ha'torah", i.e.
	- the CHOK {that those involved becomes "tamey"]
in 
	 the TORAH [procedure] required to cleanse
"tumat meyt".

	Clearly, this CHOK appears to negate all logic -
for why should the person involved in the process of
making someone else TAHOR become TAMEY? For this reason,
this specific CHOK becomes a classic example of a law
that doesn't make sense (see Rashi 19:2).  HOWEVER, this
does not mean that the definition of a CHOK is a law
that doesn't make sense!  As we explained above, a CHOK
is a set law.  CHUKIM don't have to make sense, but
certainly it is OK if they do.
	
THE RAMBAM
	A similar explanation of CHUKIM is found in the
Rambam in his concluding section of Sefer Avodah in
Hilchot Meilla. Note how Rambam differentiates between
CHUKIM and MISHPATIM:
"... the MISHPATIM are laws whose reason is evident
["taamam geluyah"] and the benefit for keeping them is
apparent in this world, e.g. the prohibition to steal or
to murder, or honoring one's parents; while the CHUKIM
are laws whose reason is not evident ["taamam eino
geluyah"]... and the laws of Korbanot fall under
category of CHUKIM..." [see Hilchot Meilla 8:8]

	Note the examples that Rambam uses for Mishpatim
- stealing, murder, and honoring one's parents. Even
though these are mitzvot in the Torah, they are based on
a very obvious rational. Even without the Torah, most
societies establish similar laws for they are based on
common sense. In contrast, CHUKIM are divine decrees and
as such do not necessarily need to be based on any
obvious reason. Nevertheless, note how Rambam demands
that we make every effort to understand God's reason for
the CHUKIM as well:
"It is fitting that one should contemplate the laws of
the Torah to understand their reasoning to the best of
his ability. But should he find a law that he does not
understand (or does not make sense to him)... he should
not conclude that they are any less important, rather he
must keep them and treat them with the utmost respect...

    (see Rambam Hilchot Meillah - the beginning of 8:8) 

	Even though CHUKIM (by their very nature) don't
have to make sense ["ein taamam glu'yah"], nevertheless
Rambam implores that we make every effort to try to
understand them, Should one be unable to find a reason
for a certain CHOK, he must relate this lack of
understanding to his own inability to grasp God's
infinite wisdom rather than conclude that the CHOK has
no purpose.  [Note for example how Ramban mentions if
this final halacha that "korbanot" are a classic example
of CHUKIM, yet in his MOREH NEVUCHIM he makes effort to
explain the reason and logic for each and every type of
korban! In fact, Rambam claims that if we were aware of
all the various types of Avodah Zarah that existed in
the time of Yetziat Mitzraim, we would be able to
understand the reason for ALL of the CHUKIM of korbanot!
[See Moreh III, the closing two paragraphs of chapter
49.] In fact, one could consider Rambam's attempt in
Moreh Nevuchim to provide a reason for the various laws
korbanot an example of what he suggested in Hilchot
Meillah 8:8 - i.e. that we attempt with the best of our
ability to understand the reasons for CHUKIM as well.]
	This dialectic, where on the one hand we must
'blindly' accept each and every one of God's CHUKIM,
even though we may not understand them, yet at the same
time we are encouraged to make every intellectual effort
to attempt to comprehend their reason - is a beautiful
example of the challenge of our faith in God. In
Judaism, our faith in God can only be enhanced by our
constant quest for reason and truth.

	
shabbat shalom,
	
menachem
==============
FOR FURTHER IYUN
1. In Sefer Devarim, it appears that the word TORAH is
used in a very general context, referring to entire set
of mitzvot including many chukim and mishpatim. See 1:5,
4:44 - "v'zot ha'Torah asher sam Moshe...", 27:3 etc. 
	However, if you remember our study of the main
speech of Sefer Devarim, the use of the word Torah may
remain in its original context as a procedure. To
determine what the goal of that overall procedure is,
note carefully 5:1-2, 5:28, 6:1, and most important -the
closing psukim of that speech in 26:16-19, and relate to
Shmot 19:5-6! 
    In other words, the entire set of laws recorded in
the main speech in Sefer Devarim (chapters 5-26) are
consistently referred to as a "torah" - for they
comprise the 'procedure' for how to make Am Yisrael an
"am kadosh" - just as God originally proposed (and Bnei
Yisrael accepted) at Maamad Har Sinai!]

2. Can you find the logic of this chok that one who
makes someone else tahor becomes tamey?  Is there a law
of 'the conservation of tumah'?!   [Ask anyone in the
"kiruv" business!]


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.4/1530 -
Release Date: 7/2/2008 8:05 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chukat3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 38902 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080703/f9d2483f/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jul  9 07:41:00 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 07:41:00 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Balak - shiur #1
Message-ID: <00f801c8e1b8$a91050f0$0300000a@x60>

Dedicated in loving memory of Morris Novetsky, Z"L, 

on the occasion of his third yahrzeit  8 Tammuz, 

by his children: Jay and Paula Novetsky, 

Terry and Gail Novetsky, Danny and Nina Butler.

 

********************************************************
*****************

THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  www.tanach.org

In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag

Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag

********************************************************
*****************

 

PARSHAT BALAK  

 

        Is Bil'am really such a 'bad guy'?  This may
surprise you, but if you read this week's Parsha
carefully, you'll have trouble pinpointing any specific
transgression that he commits.

        Indeed, God's anger with his decision to travel
with Balak's messengers (see 22:12,22) suggests that his
true intentions may have been to curse Am Yisrael.
However, this fact may prove exactly the opposite - that
Bil'am is a man of high stature!  After all, over and
over again, Bil'am overcomes his personal desire to
curse Yisrael and blesses them instead - "exactly as God
commands him" (see 22:18,38  23:12,26 & 24:13 - note how
most of these are the last lines of each "aliya").  In
fact, his final blessing - where he is quite fond of Am
Yisrael - appears to have been delivered on his own
initiative (see 24:1-6).

        Why, then, do Chazal cite Bil'am as the
archetype 'rasha' (a wicked person / see Pirkei Avot
5:22)?  Simply for once having 'bad intentions'?

        In this week's shiur we attempt to answer this
question.

 

INTRODUCTION

        As we mentioned above, in Parshat Balak it is
quite difficult to pinpoint any specific sin that Bil'am
commits.  Instead, by the time the Parsha is over, one
is left with the impression that Bil'am may even be a
rather righteous and God-fearing individual.  Let's cite
some examples:

        Before he departs upon his journey, Bil'am makes
sure to make it absolutely clear to Balak's messengers
that he will not stray one iota from whatever God will
tell him (see 22:18). 

        Later on, upon his arrival at 'sdeh Mo'av',
Bil'am actually blesses Am Yisrael instead of cursing
them, precisely as God commands him (see 23:1-24:9).  In
fact, Bil'am's blessings are so 'pro-Israel' that by the
conclusion of the story, Balak becomes so angry that he
basically tells Bil'am to 'take a hike':

"Balak's anger was kindled with Bil'am and, striking his
hands together, Balak tells Bil'am: I asked you to curse
my enemy and instead you have blessed them three times!
Now, run away to your own place..." (24:10-11).

 

        Then, as though he had not disappointed Balak
enough, Bil'am's 'farewell address' to Balak includes a
harsh predication of how Yisrael will one day defeat
Mo'av and Edom in battle (see 24:15-19).

        Finally, it's all over when "Bil'am gets up and
goes to his homeland, and Balak also went on his way"
(24:25).  Clearly, as Parshat Balak reaches its
conclusion, we are left with the impression that Bil'am
& Balak split on 'no-speaking' terms.  Bil'am, the
'loyal prophet of God', returned home - leaving Balak
'empty handed'. 

        Surely, had this been the only story in Chumash
about Bil'am, it would be quite difficult to judge him
as a "rasha".  In the following shiur, we will show how
the primary source for Chazal's negative view of Bil'am
may be rooted in a different story, one that is recorded
later on in Parshat Matot - where the Torah tells us
about Bil'am's 'untimely death'.

        We begin our shiur by showing how the story in
Parshat Matot forms the continuation of the story in
Parshat Balak.

 

BIL'AM & THE WAR WITH MIDYAN

        Recall that immediately after the story of
Bil'am in chapters 22-24, we find the story of Bnei
Yisrael's sin with 'bnot Mo'av' (the daughters of Mo'av
and Midyan) in chapter 25.  Although the Torah does not
tell us who instigated this sin, the juxtaposition of
these two stories already suggests a thematic connection
(see Rashi & Ramban 25:1).

        Due to their sin, Bnei Yisrael are punished by a
terrible plague, but finally they are saved by the
zealous act of Pinchas (see 25:1-9).  At the conclusion
of that entire incident, God commands Bnei Yisrael to
avenge the Midyanim (i.e. to launch a reprisal attack /
see 25:16-18). 

        The details of that ensuing battle are recorded
several chapters later - in Parshat Matot (see 31:1-12).


[Even though logic would dictate for Chumash to record
this battle immediately after its command, i.e. in
chapter 26; for some reason, Chumash interrupts this
narrative with several other 'parshiot' instead.  The
reason for this 'interruption' will be discussed in next
week's shiur on Parshat Pinchas.]

 

        In its brief detail of the battle against Midyan
(in Parshat Matot), the Torah informs us, almost
incidentally, that Bil'am is killed together with the
five kings of Midyan (see 31:8).

        Why was Bil'am executed?  Was he an officer in
Midyan's army, or was he simply 'caught in the
cross-fire'?

        The Torah doesn't tell us explicitly why he was
killed, but it certainly wants us to know that he indeed
deserved this 'death penalty' together with the other
leaders of Midyan - for it was they who instigated the
'sin of Baal Peor'.

        To find the connection between Bilam and that
sin, we simply need to pay attention to a tiny detail
that surfaces later in that story - when Moshe Rabbeinu
meets the officers who had returned from that battle. 

 

DVAR BILAM

        Let's pay careful attention to the section where
Moshe reprimands the military officers for taking female
captives, noting how and why he mentions Bil'am in this
censure:

"And Moshe became angry at the military officers...
saying: Why did you leave the female captives alive?
Were they not the very ones who seduced Bnei Yisrael -*
bi-dvar Bil'am *- at the bidding of Bil'am - to go
against God in the matter of Pe'or, causing a
plague...!"  (See 31:14-16).

 

        What is Moshe referring to when he mentions
'dvar Bil'am'?  From the context of these psukim, it
seems quite clear that dvar Bil'am refers to Bil'am's
advice to use the daughters of Mo'av and Midyan to lure
Bnei Yisrael towards the idol worship of 'Ba'al Pe'or'.
[This explanation is also advanced by the Gemara in
Sanhedrin 106a.]

        If this assumption is correct, then the
connection between these two parshiot becomes clear.  It
was Bil'am himself who instigated this entire incident -
as it was his idea to lure Bnei Yisrael into sinning.
Bil'am was so involved in this plot that this entire
incident is associated with his name!

        Furthermore, from the very casual mention of
"dvar Bil'am" in Moshe's censure to the officers, it
appears that Bil'am's involvement in this scheme was
'common knowledge'.  In other words, Moshe takes for
granted that the military officers are aware of what
dvar Bil'am refers to.  Hence, everyone seems to know
that Bil'am was the instigator behind this devious plot.


 

        Therefore, when Bil'am is executed, it is not
because he had once intended to curse Bnei Yisrael.
Bil'am is found guilty for it was he who orchestrated
this entire scheme.

 

        So what led to Bil'am's sudden change of heart?
Why, after blessing Am Yisrael, does he turn around and
orchestrate their demise?  Was 'dvar Bil'am' simply some
last minute advice to Balak before leaving? 

        It doesn't seem so.  Recall from Parshat Balak
that when Bil'am was sent away, he and Balak were not
exactly on speaking terms.  Furthermore, what was Bil'am
doing in Midyan at all?  Had he not gone 'home' - i.e.
back to Petor?

 

        To answer these questions, we must first
determine where Bil'am is from.  To do so, it's time for
a short lesson in 'Biblical geography'.

 

BIL'AM'S 'HOME-TOWN'

        To better understand Bil'am's true character, we
must first establish that he lived in Mesopotamia, a
very far distance away from Mo'av and Midyan!  How do we
know this?  In the opening psukim of the Parsha we are
told that:

"Balak sent messengers to Bil'am ben Be'or, to city of
Petor, which is by the River... to call him." (22:5). 

 

        In Chumash, the phrase: the River ('ha-nahar')
usually refers to the Euphrates (i.e. 'nehar prat'), the
main river flowing through Mesopotamia. 

 [See Devarim 1:7 - "...ad ha'nehar ha'gadol - nehar
perat"]

 

        This assumption is confirmed in Sefer Devarim,
in a short reference to Mo'av and the story of Bil'am:

"... and because they hired Bil'am ben Be'or from Ptor,
Aram Naharayim" [Aram - (located between) the two great
rivers (the Euphrates and Tigris)] (see Devarim 23:5).

 

        Furthermore, Bil'am's opening blessing states
specifically that he came from Aram, from the East
(modern day Syria/Iraq):

"from Aram, Balak has brought me... from mountains in
the East [harerei kedem]"  (23:7).

 

        Now we must show how that fact that Bil'am
resided in Mesopotamia affects how we understand a few
'missing links' in the story.

 

THE RETURN OF BIL'AM

        Recall from the conclusion of Parshat Balak that
Bil'am had returned home (see 24:25), i.e. to
Mesopotamia, after blessing Bnei Yisrael (instead of
cursing them).  Nevertheless, only a short time later we
find that Bil'am is 'back in the neighborhood' (as we
discussed above) - when Bnei Yisrael sin with bnot
Midyan.  [See 31:8.]  Thus, we must conclude that after
Bil'am had returned home, he came back to Mo'av - i.e.
for a second time! 

        So what motivated Bil'am's lengthy trek back to
Mo'av?  Why was he so interested in giving Mo'av and
Midyan advice that he knew would cause Bnei Yisrael to
sin? 

        The answer is startling, but simple: 

        Bil'am the 'prophet' went home - but Bil'am the
'consultant' returns!  Let's explain:

 

        The very fact that Bil'am later returns to Mo'av
proves that his true intention all along was to curse
Bnei Yisrael.  Yet as a 'prophet, [professionally
speaking,], he could not do so for 'how could he curse
he whom God Himself does not curse' (see 23:8).

        However, even though he may be faithful to God
as a professional 'prophet', he is far less faithful as
a person.

        It seems as though Bil'am's desire to cause Bnei
Yisrael harm was so great that he searches for a
different venue to bring about their demise.  Instead of
using his 'prophetic abilities', this time Bil'am uses
his 'prophetic knowledge' to create a situation where
God Himself will curse Am Yisrael.

        As reflected in his blessing of Bnei Yisrael,
Bil'am 'the prophet' recognizes the special relationship
between God and His Nation.  He fully understands why
God does not allow him to curse them, for it is His will
that Bnei Yisrael fulfill their Divine purpose to become
God's special nation.

        On the other hand, Bil'am finds a loophole.
Being a prophet, he also realizes that should Bnei
Yisrael themselves fail in their obedience to God, He
Himself would punish them.  In other words - this
special nation could not be cursed without reason.
However, should they sin, God would have ample reason to
punish them.  Bil'am's conclusion is shrewd: to cause
Bnei Yisrael to be cursed - by causing them to sin. 

        Bil'am finally found a method to 'curse' Bnei
Yisrael.  He advises Mo'av and Midyan to cause Bnei
Yisrael to sin.

 

        This may be the underlying reason why Chazal
consider Bil'am the archetype "rasha" - for he utilizes
his prophetic understanding, the special trait which God
gave him, to further his own desires rather than to
follow God's will. In a general sense, taking special
God-given qualities, but using them in an improper
manner, can be considered the 'way of life' of the
wicked.

 

BETWEEN AVRAHAM AND BIL'AM

        In the Mishna in Pirkei Avot (5:22), not only is
Bil'am called the rasha, he is also contrasted with
Avraham Avinu:

"Whoever has the following three traits is among the
'talmidim' (disciples) of Avraham Avinu; and whoever has
three other traits is among the 'talmidim' of Bil'am
ha-rasha:

               BIL'AM                  AVRAHAM

               evil eye                  good eye

               arrogant spirit humble spirit

               greedy soul            meek soul
...

 

        Both Avraham and Bil'am are men of renowned
spiritual stature.  However, Bil'am exploits this
quality for his own personal pride and gain, while
Avraham Avinu utilizes this quality towards the
perfection of mankind.  A rasha, according to Chazal is
one who harnesses his God-given traits and abilities
towards an unworthy purpose.  A disciple of Avraham
Avinu is one who harnesses these qualities towards a
worthy purpose.

 

        In Chumash, we find several textual parallels
between Bil'am and Avraham Avinu that support this
comparison.  We will note two examples:

(A) BRACHA & KLALA

        Avraham:

 "and I will bless those whom you bless, and those who
curse you shall be cursed, and through you all nations
on earth shall be blessed" (Br.12:3).

        Bil'am: 

"for it is known, that he whom you bless shall be
blessed, and he whom you curse shall be cursed" (22:5).

 

(B) ARAM NAHARAYIM 

        The homeland of both Avraham and Bil'am is in
Aram Naharayim, the center of ancient civilization:

        Avraham: see Breishit 24:4 & 24:10, and
Br.11:27-31.

        Bil'am: see Bamidbar 23:7 & Devarim 23:5.

 

        These parallels point to this thematic contrast
between Bil'am and Avraham Avinu.  As Bnei Yisrael, the
chosen offspring of Avraham Avinu, are about to enter
the Land that God had promised him - to become a
'blessing for all nations' (Br. 12:3), they meet a final
challenge.  Just as God's prophecy concerning Avraham is
about to become a reality, Bil'am - the prophet with the
ability to bless and curse - together with Mo'av (the
descendants of Lot) and Midyan (the descendants of
Yishmael) make a last minute attempt to thwart the
fruition of this destiny.

        

PROFESSIONAL BIAS

        Once could suggest that this confrontation may
be reflective of a more fundamental conflict.  Unlike
the people of Mo'av, whose fear was motivated by a
practical threat upon their national security (22:3-4),
Bil'am's fear of Am Yisrael may have been more
ideological. 

        From a thematic perspective, the very existence
of Am Yisrael posed a 'professional threat' to Bil'am
himself!  Bil'am, as echoed in his three blessings,
perceived the Divine purpose of Am Yisrael: a Nation
destined to bring the message of God to mankind.  This
novel concept of a Nation of God threatened to upset the
spiritual 'status quo' of ancient civilization.  Up
until this time, if there was a Divine message for
mankind - it would be delivered by inspired
'individuals' - e.g. men such as Bil'am himself. 

        However, once Bnei Yisrael would become a nation
in their land, this same purpose could be fulfilled by a
nation - and not only by an individual. 

 

        On a certain level, this confrontation between
Bil'am and Am Yisrael continues till this very day.  Is
it possible for a nation, a political entity, to deliver
a Divine message to all mankind?  While Bil'am and his
'disciples' continue to endeavor to undermine this goal,
it remains Am Yisrael responsibility to constantly
strive to achieve it.

 

                                              shabbat
shalom

                                              menachem

 

=============================

FOR FURTHER IYUN

 

A.  Note the commentary of the Abarbanel where he
explains that Bil'am is a descendant of Lavan.

1.  Does this support the basic points made in the
shiur.

2.  What parallels exist between Bil'am and Lavan?

3.  Did Lavan ever receive 'nevu'a'?  Did Hashem ever
speak to him?  If so, what was the content?  Is it
parallel to Bil'am?

4.  Could the struggle between Lavan and Yaakov also be
considered of a spiritual nature?

 

B.  Bil'am was almost successful.  Bnei Yisrael's sin
with bnot Mo'av and Midyan led to some 24 thousand
casualties.  The plague was stopped due to the zealous
act of Pinchas (25:6-9).  His act returned Bnei Yisrael
to their covenantal partner.  In reward, Pinchas
receives the covenant of the 'kehuna' (25:10-13).

1.  In what way does his reward reflect his deed?

2.  What are the responsibilities of the 'kohanim' in
addition to working in the mikdash?

3. How does this relate to the ultimate fulfillment of
our national destiny? 

 

C.  An additional textual parallel exists between
Avraham and Bil'am:  Travelling in the morning with two
servants etc.:

Avraham - Va-yashkem Avraham ba-boker, va-yachavosh et
chamoro

        Va-yikach et shnei na'arav ito .. (Br. 22:3)

Bil'am - "Va-yakom Bil'am ba-boker, va-yachavosh et
atono...

               u-shnei na'arav imo" (Bamid. 22:22-23)

 

Could this parallel be the source of the Midrash Chazal
describing the 'satan' who challenges Avraham Avinu on
his journey with Yitzchak to the Akeida?  If so, explain
why.

 

D. As you read the opening chapter of Parshat Balak,
note the the numerous textual parallels between this
story, and the opening story of the Exodus as described
in the first chapter of Sefer Shmot.  Can you suggest a
thematic parallel that this textual parallel may be
alluding to?

 

E.  Who wrote 'Sefer Bil'am'?

        Parshat Balak seems to be an integral part of
Chumash; however, the Gemara in Bava Batra 14b makes a
very strange statement: "Moshe katav sifro (chumash -his
book), parshat Bil'am, and sefer Iyov (Job)."

        It is  understandable that  we need to  know
that  Moshe wrote Sefer Iyov,  but why would there  be
any 'hava amina'  that he didn't write Parshat Bil'am ? 

        Rashi (in Bava Batra) explains that every other
parsha in Chumash is connected in some way to Moshe -
either 'tzorcho', 'torato' (mitzvot), or 'seder ma'asav'
(narrative).

Rashi explains that everywhere else in Chumash Moshe is
in some way directly involved.  In parshat Bil'am, no
one including Moshe should have known about the entire
incident between Bil'am and Balak.

        The obvious question then arises, who wrote the
story of Bil'am that appears in Chumash? 

If not Moshe, what other navi was there who could have?

        This question is answered by Rabbeinu Gershom
(al atar) that the possibility exists that this parsha
was written by Bil'am himself!  Since he was a navi, his
brachot and conversations are quoted directly!  

        In order that we do not come to that conclusion,
the Gemara must tell us that Moshe wrote down this
entire Parsha directly from Hashem, and did not receive
them via Bil'am.

How does this relate to the machloket regarding: 'Torah
-megila nitna', or 'sefer chatum nitna'?

 

F.  One could also ask how Bnei Yisrael aware of
Bil'am's involvement in the sin of bnot Mo'av.  Why was
dvar Bil'am common knowledge among Bnei Yisrael?  Who
told them that it was Bil'am's idea?

        The answer could be quite simple.  Most
probably, the daughters of Midyan (who sinned with Bnei
Yisrael) had informed their 'patrons' as to who had sent
them.  [The 'word' got around.]

 

G. "Ma Tovu Ohalecha Yaakov"

>From the time that Bnei Yisrael leave Har Sinai, Sefer
Bamidbar has few positive events to record.  The nation
appears to be going from one sin to the next
(mit'onenim, mit'avim, meraglim, korach, mei meriva
etc.).  With all the complaining, internal strife etc.,
it is difficult to find anything positive.

It 'davka' takes an outsider, like Bil'am, looking from
a distance at Am Yisrael, to perceive the greatness of
this nation despite all of its problems.  When Bil'am
recognizes that an entire nation is following Hashem
through the desert, he proclaims:

         "Ma tovu ohalecha yaakov..."

This is an important insight for today also.  Sometimes
we become over-disillusioned with ourselves, as we see
so much disagreement, lack of unity, lack of commitment
etc.  We become so involved with the details that we
sometimes are unable to take a step out and look at the
whole picture, to see our achievements.  With all the
problems in Israel today, there continue to be great
achievements in all walks of Jewish life.  It is
important to periodically take a step back and assess
the good as well as the bad.  It gives us the motivation
to continue to achieve. "Ma tovu ohalecha Yaakov" - a
nice attitude to start off the day!


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.4/1536 -
Release Date: 7/5/2008 10:15 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080709/8c8cc8ed/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: balak1a.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 55481 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080709/8c8cc8ed/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Jul 10 18:51:17 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:51:17 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] HAFTARA - Parshat Balak
Message-ID: <013801c8e2df$76b22570$0300000a@x60>

Dedicated in loving memory of Morris Novetsky, Z"L, 

on the occasion of his third yahrzeit  8 Tammuz, 

by his children: Jay and Paula Novetsky, 

Terry and Gail Novetsky, Danny and Nina Butler.

 

 

********************************************************
*****************

THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  www.tanach.org

In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag

Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag

********************************************************
*****************

 

HAFTARA - PARSHAT BALAK 

 

"With what shall I come before the Lord, bow before the
Most High God?   Shall I come before Him with burnt
offerings, with yearling calves?  Will the Lord be
pleased with thousands of rams, with myriad streams of
oil?" [Micha 6:6-7]

 

        Based on this battery of rhetorical questions
[found towards the conclusion of this week's Haftara],
it certainly seems as though God finds little value in
the offering of 'sacrifices', at least according to the
prophet Micha!

        So why does the Bible dedicate so many laws
regarding "korbanot" [sacrifices]?  And why are we going
to spend the next 'three weeks' lamenting the
destruction of the Bet Ha'Mikdash?

        In the following shiur, as we study this week's
Haftara, we will attempt to answer these questions.

 

INTRODUCTION

        To better appreciate any Haftara, it is always
important to take into consideration its historical
setting, as well as its context within the entire book.
Therefore, we begin our study with a quick overview of
the navi Micha and his time period.

 

THE 'BIG FOUR'

        Micha is one of the 'Four Prophets' - Hoshea,
Amos, Yeshayahu, and Micha - who prophesied during the
same time period.  Based on the opening verses in each
of these four books, their careers spanned the reigns of
Kings Uziyahu, Yotam, Achaz, & Chizkiyahu - of Yehuda,
and Yerovam ben Yoash - the Ten Tribes ( = approx. 8th
century BCE). 

        It is not coincidental that we find so many
prophets during this time period. To understand why, we
will use what we refer to as 'the sine-wave model' to
highlight how the Prophets identified a correlation
between Am Yisrael's behavior and the 'ups & downs' of
the first Temple period.

 

BAYIT RISHON / its UP's & DOWN's 

        In our 'sine-wave model', the highest point on
the graph corresponds to when the overall state of the
country is best; i.e. when we find economic growth,
prosperity, unity, security, and peace with neighbors
etc.  In contrast, the lowest point on the graph
reflects a pitiable state of affairs, i.e. when there is
famine, poverty, internal strife, and a state of war
with neighboring countries etc. 

        If you are familiar with the history of the
first Temple period, you'll understand why the chart of
the four hundred years of Bayit Rishon would look
something like a sine-wave, as we will now explain:

        The establishment of the monarchy in the time of
King David is indeed the first 'high point' on our
graph. The country was united, its borders secure and
its economy strong. Even the religious level of the
people was at a high, as reflected in the construction
of the first Bet Ha'Mikdash by Shlomo ha'melech. 

        Unfortunately, only one generation later, the
monarchy split between YEHUDA (Rechavam) and YISRAEL
(Yerovam), causing the country to basically 'fall
apart'. Egypt attacked Yehuda and plundered the Mikdash.
The ten tribes were plagued with internal strife. Not
only did security and prosperity suffer, so too the
religious level of the people. Hence, this time period
is marked by a 'low point' on the graph.

        About one hundred years later, during the time
period of Yehoshafat (King of Yehuda) and Achav (King of
Yisrael), the country unified itself once again (the
second 'high point') and began to thrive. However this
prosperity was short-lived. Despite the efforts of
Eliyahu & Elisha, the Ten Tribes did not return to
worship God properly. God's anger was reflected by the
revolt of Yehu, the fall of Achav's dynasty, and once
again civil war between Yehuda & Yisrael (the second
'low point').

        It was only several generations later, during
the reign of YEROVAM ben Yoash, King of Israel, and
UZIYAHU, King of Yehuda, that harmony, prosperity and
security finally returned (see II Melachim 14:23-28 & II
Divrei Ha'yamim 3:1-15) - and yet another 'high point'
was reached.  Idol worship, in the likes of Asheyra &
Baal - were no longer sanctioned in Yisrael, while
Yehuda showed respect for their Temple in Jerusalem
(even though the BAMOT remained).

 

THE BIG OPPORTUNITY

        During this prosperous time of the united
kingdom of UZIYAHU and YEROVAM, the prophets had high
hopes for Am Yisrael to return to God. Finally, after
several hundred years, the potential existed for a
return to the glorious days of Shlomo ha'melech (King
Solomon). It is during this time period that these Four
Prophets began their prophesy. This time, God did not
want this 'golden opportunity' to slip by. 

        This potential is reflected in one the opening
prophesies of Yeshayahu - delivered during the reign of
Uziyahu (see 1:1-3):

        "The words of Yeshayahu concerning Yehuda and
YERUSHALAIM:  it shall be in the 'end of days' - [or the
days that may soon come] -  the Temple Mount shall stand
firm above all mountains and tower above all hills; and
all the nations shall flock to it saying: Come let us go
up to the Temple Mount to the house of the God of
Yaakov, that He may teach us His ways, and that we may
walk in His paths... nation shall not lift sword against
nation... (see Yeshayahu 2:1-4)

             [See also inscription outside the United
Nations]

 

        Yeshayahu, in the time period of Uziyahu,
foresees the unfolding of a messianic era, when Am
Yisrael can realize its Biblical destiny to become a
source of guidance for all mankind. It is BECAUSE Yehuda
and Yisrael have achieved the status of a 'superpower',
and BECAUSE the Temple & Jerusalem have become its
national and religious center, that Yeshayahu
anticipates this potential fulfillment.

        It was God's hope that Am Yisrael would utilize
their newfound prosperity towards achieving this
messianic goal - the ultimate 'high point' on the sine
wave. After all, it was for that purpose that He had
blessed Israel with wealth and security. The prophets of
this time first try to help Am Yisrael reach this goal.
Upon their failure, they explain God's anger with His
nation, for they failed to listen - and didn't grab this
opportunity.

 

ENTER MICHA 

        Micha, a contemporary of Yeshayahu, delivers a
very similar prophecy in chapter 4 [compare Yeshayahu
2:1-5 to Micha 4:1-5], reflecting this same hope.
However, by then (the time period of Yotam & Achaz),
both Micha & Yeshayahu had realized that the people were
far from worthy for the prosperity that God had bestowed
upon them. They both foresee yet another 'low' before
this messianic 'high' would finally materialize. They
also both explain HOW and WHY this would come about:

        Yeshayahu explains that Ashur will come and
punish both Yisrael & Yehuda (see 7:18 & 10:4-11);
Shomron will be totally destroyed, while in Yehuda only
Yerushalayim will be spared, and at the last moment and
only in merit of a king who will act righteously (see
10:20->11:9). [See also Hoshea chapter 1.]

        Micha's opening prophecy foresees a similar
fate, however he describes Am Yisrael's fall to their
enemies as though God Himself is leaving His Temple to
punish His nation for their sins (see Micha 1:1-11).

 

        However, most important is the reason that both
these prophets give for Bnei Yisrael's forthcoming
punishment.  Both Yeshayahu and Micha focus their rebuke
on social injustice, corruption, dishonesty, etc. It
would not be fair to cite only one example - for there
are so many, simply read from Micha chapters 2->3 &
Yeshayahu chapters 2->5. Note their call for "tzedek
u'mishpat" - justice & righteousness. [Even though
"avodah zarah" is mentioned, it does not appear to be
their primary sin.]

 

THE DANGER OF RITUAL

        We will quote however one short section from
Micha, as it reflects not only this moral corruption,
but more so the people's haughtiness.  Their false
security, as they feel that 'nothing is wrong'; all is
fine; God is on 'our side':

        "Hear this, you rulers of Yaakov... who detest
justice and crooked look straight, who build Zion with
crime, Jerusalem with iniquity! Her rulers judge for
gifts, Her priests [i.e. rabbis] give rulings for a fee,
and her prophets divine for pay, YET they RELY UPON GOD
saying: HASHEM IS WITH - nothing bad will happen! -
Therefore: because of you - Zion will be plowed as a
field and Yerushalayim will become a heaps of ruins, and
the Temple Mount a shrine of woods." (3:9-12)

 

        This prophecy of Micha implies that even though
the people are corrupt, THEY think that they are fine -
because everyone feels 'frum' - they are sure that God
is with them. After all, all of them frequent the Bet
Ha'Mikdash - they all offer their necessary sacrifices,
and even volunteer some 'extras'. 

        Nonetheless, they had become affluent and
haughty. It is this hypocrisy that so angers God that He
decides that the Mikdash must be destroyed.

 

        This topic emerges as the primary thrust of the
first three chapters of Micha.  After this harsh rebuke
and warning of imminent punishment, chapter four
provides us with some hope as Micha reminds Bnei Yisrael
that one day ["b'acharit ha'yammim"] a true redemption
will take place - the remnant will return, but only when
Bnei Yisrael will become truly deserving (see 4:1-7).

        Afterward, Micha speaks about how Israel will
one day counter and defeats its enemies (4:8->5:5) -
even Ashur!

 

        At this point our Haftara begins (see 5:6).
Micha speaks of this 'remnant' who will no longer be
dependant on any other nation, rather on God alone (see
5:6-7).

        [Note the textual parallel to "shirat ha'azinu"
(Devarim 32:1-2/ "tal", "rvivim" etc.). There are
numerous parallels to Shirat ha'azinu in both Yeshayahu
& Micha, most probably because God's impending
punishment and later redemption of Am Yisrael during
this time period reflects the principles which 'shirat
ha'azinu" discusses. Note especially the aspect of
affluence and indulgence after God had granted
prosperity (see Devarim 32:13-15), and how God will
punish (32:16-22!).

        Note also how God will finally redeem His nation
(see 32:36).

             [Compare 32:19-21 with Micha 3:1-4!]

 

        Micha continues in 5:9-14 to describe how (at
this ideal time) after their victory, Am Yisrael will no
longer need their weapons and fortified cities, nor any
type of 'future-tellers'

        In chapter 6, Micha returns to his own
generation, explaining to them WHY God is so angry.
Again he reminds them that all that God asks from them
is to follow the ways of "tzedek u'mishpat". However, it
is interesting to note how the prophet refers to this as
a "riv" - a 'quarrel between God and His people' [see
6:1-8].

        When two sides quarrel, usually BOTH sides think
that they are right. Again, Micha's description reflects
the people's misunderstanding that things aren't so bad,
and if they do sin, why offering a korban can 'fix' any
transgression. 

        This can explain Micha's rhetorical question:

             "With what can I approach God - to pay Him
homage -

              Shall I approach Him with burnt offerings?

              With calves a year old?

 Would not God be pleased with thousands of rams, with
myriads of streams of oil? Shall I give my first-born
for my TRANSGRESSION, the fruit of my body for my sins?"
(see 6:6-7)

 

        This question reflects the people's
understanding that no matter how they act, no matter
what they may do wrong, to appease God they need only
bring a 'korban'. 

        According to the navi - this attitude reflects a
total misunderstanding of korbanot [& in fact most any
type of ritual]. If God has allowed us to offer
korbanot, it is not simply to counter- balance any bad
deed or behavior. Rather, the primary purpose of
korbanot (and the Bet Ha'Mikdash) was to serve as a
vehicle through which Am Yisrael can perfect their
relationship with God. But when the essentials of
Judaism are missing, if there is no "tzedek u'mishpat" -
then korbanot become a farce and even counterproductive.
If man allows himself to become slack in his behavior
towards his fellow man, thinking that he can balance his
flaw simply by offering God some extra korbanot - then
he has totally misunderstood what korbanot are all
about.

        Therefore, Micha concludes this section [and
this week's Haftara] with his famous statement
concerning what God truly wants from man:

        "He has told you what is good and what God
requires of man:

             Only to do JUSTICE [mishpat],

             and to love KINDNESS [chessed],

             and to walk modestly with your God"  (6:8)

 

SO WHY BILAM?

        So why (in the middle of all this) does Micha
mention Bilam. Why does he remind Am Yisrael to:

        "...Remember what Balak plotted against you, and
how Bilam responded to him..." (see 6:5)

 

        In our study of Parshat Balak, we noted Bilam's
'protocol' of building a mizbayach [an altar] and
offering korbanot to God - before each attempt to curse
Bnei Yisrael.  It certainly seems as though Balak
assumes that a few choice korbanot can appease God in
such a manner that He would actually allow Bilam to
curse Bnei Yisrael.

        Here again, we find a similar misunderstanding
of korbanot. Bilam sees God as working in a 'mechanical'
manner - like a 'vending machine' . You can achieve any
result you wish with God, as long as you 'pump in'
enough korbanot [sort of like how money works with man].
Bilam understands that God is PRIMARILY interested in
korbanot, and hence - for enough korbanot - God would be
willing to 'bend a few rules'.

 

        During the time period of Micha, Am Yisrael
suffered from a similar misunderstanding, thinking that
by offering korbanot they could 'counterbalance' their
haughty behavior.

        Micha's conclusion is not to abolish the concept
of korbanot altogether (note 4:1-5). Rather, he wants to
make sure that their purpose is properly understood.
After all, what good are korbanot if they hinder the
perfection of that relationship - rather than enhancing
it?

 

TAKING A CLIENT 'OUT TO LUNCH'

        In Parshat Balak, there is a very interesting
(but often overlooked) pasuk that serves as the
introduction to Bilam's three blessings.  Recall the
basic 'format' of each blessing routine:

        A. Balak takes Bilam to a 'high place'

                    [see Bamidbar 22:41, 23:13, and
23:27]

        B. Bilam instructs Balak to build 7 altars &
offer sacrifices

                    [see 23:1, 23:14, and 23:29]

        C. Bilam delivers a blessing instead of a curse

        D. Balak is angered, and Bilam responds 'I told
you so...'

                    [Note how the 'aliyah' division
reflects this format]

        

        However, right before this entire unit begins,
we find a different type of a "zevach", for as soon as
Bilam arrived in the land of Moav, Balak takes him 'out
to (a fleishig) lunch' :

"Balaam went with Balak, and they arrived at Kiryat
Huzoth - va'yizbach Balak baker v'tzon - then Balak
slaughtered/offered cattle and sheep and sent them to
Balaam and to the dignitaries with him..."

                                [see Bamidbar 22:39-40]

                

        Note that even though the Torah uses the word
"zevach", it is not referring to a sacrifice to God,
rather this is simply the story of how Balak sends a
'proper meal' to the important guests who have just
arrived.  But why should the Torah bother to tell us
this detail?

        We know how hard Balak was trying to convince
Bilam to come, but also how he worried that Balak may
not want to curse Am Yisrael.  Balak makes a very
logical assumption; that the way to a man's heart is
through his stomach.  For the same reason that a
businessman invites a potential client 'out to lunch'
(in the hope that a nice meal will help 'close the
deal') - so too Balak hopes that by honoring Bilam with
a fancy meal - there would be a better chance that he
would agree to curse Am Yisrael.

        And sure enough, the same logic that Balak uses
to entice Bilam, Bilam himself uses to 'entice' God - he
also takes God 'out to lunch', before each one of his
attempts to cause God to allow him to curse Am Yisrael.
[Recall how each unit began with building 7 altars, and
then offering a "par v'ayil" on each mizbayach / see
chart above.]

 

'GODS' ACT LIKE MAN - or MAN ACTS LIKE GOD !

        This assumption, that one can 'buy' God, just
like he can 'buy' his fellow man - stems from a very
basic misunderstanding of God [or 'gods'] in the ancient
world - that gods, even though they carry great powers -
act like humans. Therefore, I can affect their behavior
by bribe and false flattery etc.

        Micha is worried that even the God of Israel may
be misunderstood by His own people  to act in a human
fashion; Just feed Him & flatter Him, and He'll be on
'my side'.   Instead, Micha insists exactly the opposite
- that God created man - so that he would act like God -
to emulate Him.  As Moshe Rabeinu explains in Sefer
Devarim:

"...For the Lord, your God, is God of gods and the Lord
of the lords, the great mighty and awesome God ["ha'Kel
ha'gadol ha'gibor v'hanora...", Who will show no favor,
nor will He take a bribe.  He executes the judgment of
the orphan and widow, and He loves the stranger, to give
him bread and clothing.

                [THEREFORE - you must emulate Him:]

You shall love the stranger, for you were strangers in
the land of Egypt.  You shall fear the Lord, your God,
worship Him, and cleave to Him and swear by His Name.
He is your praise and He is your God..." 

(see context in Devarim 10:12-21, note how the first
bracha of shmoneh esray is based on these psukim!)

 

        To find favor in God's eyes, we must 'walk in
His ways' (see Devarim 10:12-13 & Breishit 18:19).  And
if we are instructed to offer Him sacrifices, it is not
because God behaves like man, rather it is a symbolic
act (like Tefilla) to remind ourselves that we must act
like God. 

[See also Yirmiyahu 7:21-25 (& 7:1-12) & 9:22-23, Hoshea
2:21-22, Yeshayahu 1:11-17,  1:21-27 - etc.]  

 

THE FAST DAYS

        The same is true in relation to our mourning for
Jerusalem today. Do we pray for the Bet HaMikdash to be
rebuilt so that we gain yet another avenue for 'instant
spirituality'? Are we looking for the 'easy life'? - Or
are we looking for an avenue to perfect a relationship
built on solid pillars of "tzedek u'mishpat"? If we can
answer that question properly, then hopefully God will
answer our prayers properly.

 

                             shabbat shalom,

                             menachem

 

 


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.7/1544 -
Release Date: 7/10/2008 7:37 AM
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080710/cff11bbc/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: balakhaf1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 52817 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080710/cff11bbc/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jul 16 08:35:31 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:35:31 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] for Parshiot Pinchas / Matot & Masei
Message-ID: <00e101c8e740$6f640c10$0500000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

                for  PARSHAT PINCHAS  [& Matot/Masei ]

     Should Chumash end with Parshat Pinchas?
     Obviously not, yet in the middle of this week's
Parsha we
find the story of Moshe Rabbeinu's 'death' and the
transfer of
his leadership to Yehoshua (see 27:12-23).
     Furthermore, a careful study of Parshat Pinchas
reveals
that almost all of its topics seem to belong elsewhere
in
Chumash.
     In this week's shiur, we attempt to understand why.

INTRODUCTION
     Up until Parshat Pinchas, the narrative of Sefer
Bamidbar
has followed in a very logical (chronological) order.
However, towards the beginning of Parsha Pinchas, we
uncover a
serious problem in relation to the story of the war
against
Midyan.
     Even though God's command to avenge the Midyanim is
recorded towards the beginning of Parshat Pinchas, the
details
of that battle are not recorded until several chapters
later
in the middle of Parshat Matot.  In the 'interim',
Parshat
Pinchas discusses several events that are not only
unrelated,
but also appear to have taken place at a later time!
     After explaining this problem in a bit more detail,
our
shiur will attempt to explain the reason for what
otherwise
seems to be a very strange progression of parshiot.
    [Before we begin our shiur, a note of convention:
          Parsha - with a capital 'P - refers to Parshat
HaShavua,
    parsha  (or parshia) - with a small 'p' - refers to
    'parshiot' ['ptuchot' or 'stumot'] - the paragraph-
    like divisions in Chumash, denoted by a wide blank
    space on the line .]

DEFINING THE PROBLEM
     Review 25:1-15, noting how Parshat Pinchas begins
by
completing the story of Bnei Yisrael's sin with the
daughters
of Midyan (from the end of Parshat Balak).  First,
Pinchas is
rewarded for his zealous act (that saved Bnei Yisrael
from a
harsher punishment/ 25:10-15); and immediately afterward
God
commands Moshe to avenge the Midyanites:
  "And God spoke to Moshe, saying: Attack the Midyanites
  and defeat them, for they attacked you by trickery..."
  (25:16-18).

     Logic would dictate that Chumash should continue at
this
point with the story of that battle.  But that's not
what
happens!  Instead, the details of that battle are
recorded
only some five chapters later -in the middle of Parshat
Matot:
  "And God spoke to Moshe, saying: Avenge the Israelite
  people on the Midyanites...[then] Moshe spoke to Bnei
  Yisrael: Choose men for battle, and let them attack
  Midyan to avenge God's anger with Midyan..." (see
  Bamidbar 31:1-2 / compare with 25:16-18).

     In the interim (i.e. chapters 26-30), we find
several
unrelated topics, as summarized in the following table:
 Chapter  Topic
26:1-65        A census of the entire nation
27:1-11        The story of 'bnot Tzlofchad'
27:12-14       Moshe Rabbeinu's 'final day'
27:12-23       The transfer of leadership from Moshe to
Yehoshua
28:1-30:1 Laws of korbanot - tmidim and musafim
30:2-17        The laws of nedarim (vows)

     This problem usually goes unnoticed for a very
simple
reason.  When the census begins in chapter 26, it
appears to
be directly connected to this commandment to avenge the
Midyanim:
  "And God spoke to Moshe, saying: Attack the
  Midyanites..."    (see 25:16-18)
  "And it came to pass after the plague, God told
Moshe...
  take a census of Bnei Yisrael from the age twenty and
up
  - by their ancestral houses, all who are able to bear
  arms"    (see 26:1-2).

     This juxtaposition leaves us with the impression
that
this census is necessary as part of the preparation for
the
ensuing battle against Midyan.  However, by the time the
details of that census are completed (some 60 verses
later) it
becomes quite clear that this "mifkad" has nothing to do
with
that battle.  Rather, its purpose is stated explicitly:
  "... This is the total number of Bnei Yisrael:
601,730.
  And God spoke to Moshe saying:  To these [counted
people]
  shall the land be apportioned - according to the
listed
  names, the larger the group the larger the share..."
(see
  26:51-54).

     In other words, this census will form the basis for
the
partition of the Land after its conquest.  This
observation
explains why this specific census is conducted "l'beit
avotam"
[lit. by their ancestral houses / see 26:2] - hence it
includes the specific the names of the official family
units,
as the land will be apportioned according to the size of
these
family units (see 26:52).
  [Note how this detail of "le-beit avotam" is the
primary
  difference between the census here, and the census in
  Bamidbar chapters 1-2.  There, we don't find these
  individual family unit names!]

     Further proof that this census is totally unrelated
to
the war against Midyan comes from the details of that
battle
in Parshat Matot.  Review 31:4-6, noting how God
instructs
Moshe to conscript only one thousand soldiers from each
tribe.
If only 12,000 soldiers are needed to fight Midyan, then
there
is certainly no need for Moshe to conduct a
comprehensive
census of over 600,000 soldiers!
     Conclusive proof that the census in chapter 26 is
taken
for the sole purpose of apportioning the land (and has
nothing
to do with the ensuing battle against Midyan) is found
in
chapter 27, where we find the story of how the daughters
of
Tzlofchad complained that they would not receive a
'nachala'
[a portion of the land].  Certainly, this has nothing to
do
with the war against Midyan, but everything to do with
inheriting the Land!
  [The final topic of chapter 27, i.e. the appointment
of
  Yehoshua to succeed Moshe, also relates to the topic
of
  inheriting the land, as it will become Yehoshua's
  responsibility to conquer and then oversee the
inheritance
  of the land according the tribal families.]
  ]
     Finally, chapters 28 thru 30 describe numerous laws
regarding korbanot and nedarim [vows].  These laws as
well
certainly have no direct connection to the war against
Midyan.
     Only in chapter 31, Sefer Bamidbar finally returns
to the
details of the battle against Midyan that began back in
chapter 25.

     The following chart summarizes our discussion thus
far
and illustrates how the natural flow from chapter 25-31
is
interrupted by topics A-F:

CHAPTER              EVENT / TOPIC
=========      ===============
 * 25 ==> GOD'S COMMANDMENT TO ATTACK MIDYAN
A) 26          The Census of the people who will inherit
the
Land
B) 27:1-11     The story of bnot Tzlofchad
C) 27:12-14    Moshe Rabbeinu's final day
D) 27:12-23    The transfer of leadership from Moshe to
Yehoshua
E) 28->29 The laws of korbanot - tmidim and musafim
F) 30          The laws of nedarim (vows)
 * 31 ==> THE BATTLE AGAINST THE MIDYANIM

     Clearly, none of these topics relate directly to
'milchemet Midyan'.  Nonetheless, the Torah records them
here
in Parshat Pinchas.
     To understand why, we must first determine where
each of
these parshiot (i.e. A-F) does belong.

A)  THE CENSUS - MIFKAD HA-NACHALOT
     As we explained above, the census (in chapter 26)
was
taken to enable the leaders to properly apportion the
land
Therefore, it's rather easy to identify where this
section
'belongs', for the last three chapters of Sefer Bamidbar
discuss the topic of inheriting the land (see 33:50 till
the
end of the book).  In fact, we can pretty much pinpoint
where
this unit belongs by noting a rather obvious textual
(and
thematic) parallel.  Simply review once again the
concluding
psukim of the census:
  "Among these shall the land be apportioned as shares,
  according to the listed names, with larger groups
  INCREASE the share, with smaller groups REDUCE the
share.
  Each is to be assigned its share according to its
  enrollment..." (see 26:52-54).

     The note how we find almost the identical
commandment in
Parshat Mas'ei, when God charges Bnei Yisrael with the
mission
of conquering the land:
  "When you cross the Jordan into the Land of Canaan...
you
  shall take possession of the land and settle it..."
  "You shall apportion the land among yourselves... with
  larger groups INCREASE the share, with smaller groups
  REDUCE the share... You shall have your portions
  according to your ancestral tribes..."  (see 33:50-55)
          [Note CAPS in both quotes to highlight
parallel]

     Review these psukim once again, noting how this
commandment in Parshat Mas'ei is almost identical to the
commandment recorded at the conclusion of the census in
Parshat Pinchas (see above 26:52-54)!
     Furthermore, Parshat Mas'ei continues with numerous
other
commandments concerning inheriting the land.  [For
example,
the borders of Eretz Canaan that are to be conquered
(see 34:1-
15), the tribal leaders who will apportion the land (see
34:16-
29), the cities of the levi'im and the cities of refuge
(see
chapter 35), etc.]
     Hence, we conclude that the census in Parshat
Pinchas
actually 'belongs 'in Parshat Mas'ei!

B)  BNOT TZLOFCHAD
     Note how this incident (see 27:1-11) is recorded
immediately after the census [read 27:1 carefully], and
most
probably that is exactly when it took place.  After all,
the
daughters of Tzlofchad's complaint stems from their
worry that
their father's inheritance (as promised in the census)
will be
lost, for they have no brothers.
     Clearly, this story can be considered a direct
continuation of the "mifkad ha-nachalot" (i.e. chapter
26),
for it too deals with laws concerning inheriting the
Land.
Therefore, it too should have been recorded in Parshat
Mas'ei.
[In fact, the story of bnot Tzlofchad actually continues
in
Parshat Mas'ei - see chapter 36!]

C)  MOSHE RABBEINU'S FINAL DAY
     In the next parsha (27:12-14), God commands Moshe
to take
a final glance of the Promised Land prior to his death:
  "And God told Moshe: Ascend Mount Eivarim and view the
  land which I am giving to Bnei Yisrael, then you will
be
  gathered unto your people, just as Aharon was..." [
i.e.
  the time has come for Moshe to die (see 27:12-13).

  Obviously, this commandment should have been recorded
at the
very end of Sefer Bamidbar, or even at the end of Sefer
Devarim - prior to Moshe's death; surely not in the
middle of
Parshat Pinchas!  [To verify this, simply compare it to
Devarim 34:1-6.]
     Furthermore, even if this story 'belongs' in Sefer
Bamidbar, it most definitely should have been recorded
after
"milchemet Midyan", for that story begins -stating
explicitly:
  "And God spoke to Moshe: Avenge the Midyanites...
  afterward you shall be gathered to your nation"
(31:1).]

D)  APPOINTING YEHOSHUA AS THE NEW LEADER
     The next parshia (27:15-23) is simply Moshe's
reaction to
this commandment (that he must die).  Therefore, Moshe
requests that God appoint a leader in his place.
Clearly,
both of these parshiot [(C) and (D)] form a unit, but it
would
have made more sense to records this unit somewhere
towards
the end of Chumash; but definitely not in the middle of
Parshat Pinchas!
     In fact, considering that this story includes the
appointment of Yehoshua as the new leader, this unit
could
have formed a very appropriate conclusion for the entire
Sefer.

E)  KORBANOT TMIDIM U-MUSAFIM
     The next two chapters (28->29) constitute a
schedule of
the various korbanot musaf that are offered on special
occasions in 'addition' [= musaf] to the daily tamid
sacrifice.
     Obviously, this entire unit doesn't belong here,
for it
has nothing to do with the ongoing narrative.  Rather,
it
should have been recorded in Sefer Vayikra, most
probably in
Parshat Emor, together with the other laws of korbanot
and
holidays (see Vayikra chapter 23, noting how the phrase:
've-
hikravtem isheh la-Hashem..' relates to the complete
details
found in Bamidbar chapters 28-29]

F)  PARSHAT NEDARIM
     In chapter 30 we find a commandment regarding the
laws of
"nedarim" [vows]; yet another parshia of mitzvot (as
opposed
to narrative).  These laws could be understood as a
direct
continuation of the previous section - because the final
pasuk
of the "tmidim u'musafim" section states that these
korbanot
were brought 'in addition to their nedarim...' (see
29:39!).

  Based on this analysis, it becomes clear that the
Torah has
intentionally 'interrupted' the story of the war against
Midyan with several unrelated parshiot!  The obvious
question
is: why?

DIVIDE & CONQUER
     To answer this question, we must first group these
six
topics (i.e. A-F above) into two basic categories.
I.  PREPARATION FOR ENTERING ERETZ CANAAN (26-27)
     A.  The census for dividing the land - mifkad
ha-nachalot
     B.  The complaint of bnot Tzlofchad re: their
inheritance
     C.  Moshe's death
     D.  The transfer of his leadership to Yehoshua.

II.  MITZVOT THAT BELONG IN SEFER VAYIKRA (28-30)
     E.  The laws of tmidim u-musafim
     F.  The laws of nedarim

     These two categories can help us pinpoint where
each of
these two units belong.
     The first unit (I.) contains parshiot that detail
Bnei
Yisrael's preparation for entering the land.  As we
explained
above, these parshiot belong in Parshat Mas'ei.  To
illustrate
this point, the following table shows the progression of
parshiot from the story of milchemet Midyan until the
end of
Sefer Bamidbar:
CHAPTER         TOPIC
31:1-54        The war against Midyan
32:1-42        The inheritance of Reuven & Gad in
Transjordan
33:1-49        Summary of B.Y.'s journey through the
desert
33:50-56   *   The commandment to conquer & inherit the
Land
34:1-15      * The precise borders of Eretz Canaan.
34:16-29   *   The tribal leaders who are to apportion
the
Land
35:1-18     *  The cities of the Levites for their
inheritance.
35:9-34      * The cities of refuge to be set up in the
land.
36:1-13      * Laws of inheritance relating to
inter-tribal
marriages

     This table illustrates how the final topic of Sefer
Bamidbar is preparation for entering Eretz Canaan (i.e.
33:50-
36:13).  Considering that chapters 26-27 in Parshat
Pinchas
discuss this very same topic, we conclude that they
actually
'belong' at the end of Sefer Bamidbar.

     The second unit, containing the laws of tmidim
u-musafim
and nedarim, clearly belongs in Sefer Vayikra.  However,
this
phenomenon should not surprise us, for there are many
other
instances in Sefer Bamidbar where we find 'insertions'
of a
set of laws that seem to belong in Sefer Vayikra.
  [See our Introductory shiur to Bamidbar, where this
topic
  was discussed in detail.  Later in our shiur, we will
  suggest a reason why specifically these mitzvot were
  'transferred' from Vayikra to Bamidbar.]

CUT AND PASTE?
     Based on this distinction, we can now redefine our
question: Why does the Torah 'cut' these parshiot (i.e.
chapters 26 & 17) from Parshat Mas'ei (where they seem
to
belong), and 'paste' them instead in Parshat Pinchas -
after
the story of Bnei Yisrael's sin with bnot Midyan, but
before
they avenge the Midyanim?
     Before we offer a thematic explanation, we should
note a
small technicality that can support our conclusions thus
far.
     Using a Tanach Koren (or similar), take a careful
look at
the opening pasuk of chapter 26, noting how there is a
parshia
break smack in the middle of this pasuk!
  "Va-yehi acharei ha-mageifa" - when the plague was
over -
  SPACE , [i.e. a parshia break in the middle of the
pasuk]
  ...and God told Moshe...Take a census of Bnei
Yisrael..."
  (see 26:1-2)

     This strange 'parshia break' in the middle of the
pasuk
may reflect this 'interruption' of the narrative, which
takes
place precisely at this point, in the middle of this
pasuk!

  Now that we have established that the census in
chapter 26
'belongs' at the end of the book, we must now search for
a
reason why the Torah intentionally inserted this unit
specifically at this point in Sefer Bamidbar, i.e. after
the
plague that followed Bnei Yisrael's sin with 'the women
of
Moav & Midyan'.

     We will suggest a reason for this juxtaposition by
considering the overall theme and structure of Sefer
Bamidbar.

THE LAST PLAGUE
     Recall how the narrative of Sefer Bamidbar began as
Bnei
Yisrael prepare for their journey from Har Sinai towards
the
Promised Land.  Ideally (i.e. had Bnei Yisrael not
sinned),
Sefer Bamidbar would have continued with the story of
the
conquest and settlement of the Land.
     Even though everything seems to be going fine in
the
first ten chapters - i.e. up until the psukim of "va'yhi
bnsoa
ha'aron" (see 10:35-36) - as soon as Bnei Yisrael begin
their
journey (in chapter 11), everything seems to go wrong.
Instead of describing what should have been, Sefer
Bamidbar
becomes the story of how and why Bnei Yisrael do NOT
make it
to the land of Israel.
  Note how just about every story in Sefer Bamidbar from
chapter 11 thru chapter 25 describes a rebellious act of
Bnei
Yisrael, followed by a terrible punishment.
  [For example, the "mitonnim", the "mitavim", the
"meraglim",
  Korach and his followers, "mei meriva", the "nachash
  nechoshet" incident, and "chet bnot midyan".]

  The sin of the "meraglim" (in chapter 13) was so
severe that
God swore that the first generation must perish in the
desert.
Then, even in the fortieth year, we find additional
incidents
where Bnei Yisrael sin (and are punished).  For example,
note
the story of the 'nachash nechoshet' (see 21:4-10) and
'chet
bnot Midyan' (see 25:1-6).
     Even though chapters 11 thru 25 of Sefer Bamidbar
are
replete with stories of rebellion, punishment, and
death; from
chapter 26 and onward, the primary topic of Sefer
Bamidbar
changes once again.  Instead of stories of rebellion,
now we
find stories of conquest and preparation for entering
the
land.  The following table summarize this division of
the
narrative of Sefer Bamidbar into three distinct
sections:
I.    1->10    Preparation at Har Sinai to travel to
Israel
II,  11->25    What went wrong, i.e. why first
generation
failed
III. 26->36    Preparation for entering the land [new
generation]

     From this perspective, the act of Pinchas, which
stopped
the plague in the aftermath of the sin with "bnot Mo'av"
constitutes an important milestone in Sefer Bamdbar- for
this
incident was the last punishment in the desert.  Hence,
those
who survived that plague are now destined to become the
first
inheritors of Eretz Canaan!
     With this background, we can suggest that the
Torah's
'insertion' of the census specifically at this point in
the
Sefer emphasizes precisely this point - that the tragic
events
in the desert have finally come to an end.  Those who
survived
this plague are now worthy of inheriting the Land.
     This interpretation is supported by the final
statement
of that census, recorded after the levi'im are counted:
  "These are the persons counted by Moshe...Among these
  there was not one of those counted by Moshe & Aharon
in
  Midbar Sinai (chapters 1-2) ... For God had said of
them:
  They shall die in the wilderness, not one of them
  survived, except Kalev ben Yefuneh and Yehoshua bin
Nun"
  (26:63-65).

     Further support is found in Sefer Devarim, in Moshe
Rabbeinu's opening address to the nation.  In Moshe?s
introductory speech (before he begins his main speech
that
reviews the various laws that Bnei Yisrael must keep
once they
enter the land / see 5:1, 5:28, 6:1 etc.), note his
emphasis
on this very same point:
  "Your very own eyes have seen what God has done to
Ba'al
  Pe'or, for anyone who had followed Ba'al Pe'or [i.e.
chet
  bnot Mo'av] - God has destroyed him from your midst
[via
  the 'mageifa'].  But you - who have remained loyal to
  your God - are standing here alive to today!" (see
  Devarim 4:3-4).
    [Did you realize that this is the context of the
pasuk
    "v'atem ha'dvakim b'Hashem Elokeichem" (that we
often
    quote in our daily tefilla)?]
    
FROM CENSUS TO LEADERSHIP
     In a similar manner, we can explain why this census
is
followed by God's commandment to Moshe to ascend Har
HaEivarim
to die, and the story of how his leadership is
transferred to
Yehoshua.  Considering that this census will become the
basis
for the 'inheritance' of the Land of Israel, we mention
immediately afterward this transfer of leadership, for
it will
become Yehoshua's duty to lead the new generation to
conquer
and inherit the Land.  [See further iyun section for a
discussion of how Rashi relates to this point.]

TMIDIM U-MUSAFIM - WHY HERE?
     Now that we have explained why the Torah moves the
unit
of chapters 26-27 from Parshat Mas'ei to Parshat
Pinchas, we
must  also explain why the Torah moves chapters 28-30
(the
second category) from Sefer Vayikra to Parshat Pinchas.
     As we explained in our introductory shiur, Sefer
Bamidbar
contains numerous mitzvot that 'could have been'
recorded in
Sefer Vayikra.  Here we find yet another example.
     However, as was the case in the other instances, we
must
look for a thematic connection between those laws and
the
ongoing narrative.  In other words, we must ask - what
is the
connection between the laws of tmidim u-musafim and Bnei
Yisrael's preparation for entering Eretz Canaan?
     Once again, we return to the theme of Sefer
Bamidbar to
suggest an answer.
     Recall that the first ten chapters of Sefer
Bamidbar
describe Bnei Yisrael's preparation for their journey
from Har
Sinai to the Promised Land.  Those chapters emphasize
the
intrinsic connection between the camp of Bnei Yisrael
and the
mishkan.  Bnei Yisrael must travel with the mishkan, and
thus
the 'Shchina' (the Divine presence), at the center of
the camp
(see shiur on Parshat Bamidbar).
     Now, forty years later, as the Torah describes Bnei
Yisrael's preparation for entering the Promised Land,
Chumash
may be emphasizing this very same point once again - by
recording the laws of tmidim u-musafim in Parshat
Pinchas.
     One can suggest two thematic reasons:
1)The korban Tamid, the daily collective offering on the
  mizbeiach, together with the additional musaf offering
on
  the holidays, is purchased with the 'machatzit ha-
  shekel', collected from each member of Am Yisrael when
  taking the yearly census!
2) The tamid offering is a symbolic daily reminder of
  Ma'amad Har Sinai.  Recall (from our shiur on Parshat
  Tetzaveh) our definition of the Shchina unit in Shmot
  chapters 25-29 (the commandment to build the mishkan).
  That unit began with the purpose of the mishkan:
    "And they shall make for Me a mikdash, ve-shachanti
    betocham - that I should dwell in their midst"
(25:8).

     That unit concluded with the commandment to offer
the
daily korban tamid, whose purpose was to perpetuate the
Shchina which dwelled on Har Sinai:
  "Olat tamid for all generations, at the entrance of
the
  ohel mo'ed...  for there I will meet with Bnei
Yisrael...
  v-shachanti - and I will dwell among Bnei Yisrael, I
will
  be their God..."
                (see Shmot 29:42-45 compare Bamidbar
28:1-6).

     A similar phrase is found in the presentation of
the
korban tamid in Parshat Pinchas:
     "Olat tamid, which was instituted at Har Sinai..."
(28:6).

     Thus, the korban tamid may symbolize the special
connection between God and Bnei Yisrael that must
crystallize
as Bnei Yisrael prepare to conquer and inherit their
Land.
     From this perspective, this korban tamid may
reflect both
the collective nature of Am Yisrael's relationship with
God
['korban tzibbur'], together with the value of the
contribution of each individual [machatzit ha-shekel].
`    As Yehoshua prepares to lead Bnei Yisrael into a
new era,
these principles of the 'avodat tamid' - collective
purpose,
individual responsibility, and daily routine - must
serve as a
guiding light for the entire nation.

                    shabbat shalom,
         menachem

=======================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
A.  The interpretation presented in the above shiur can
explain why Rashi (26:1) quotes two Midrashim to explain
why
this parsha of the census is located here.
     1)  The first Midrash he quotes, relating to the
connection between the plague and the census, explains
that
Bnei Yisrael are so dear to God that He counts them
after
every tragedy, just as the shepherd counts his sheep
after
they have been attacked.
          However, this approach is difficult, for it
does not
take into account the Torah's explicit explanation that
this
census is to determine who will inherit the land (see
26:53).
Furthermore, in the other instances when Bnei Yisrael
are
smitten by plagues, the Torah never records God's
command
Moshe to take a census.  Why should this plague be any
different?
     2)  Therefore, Rashi quotes a second Midrash
comparing
Moshe to a shepherd: Moshe, like a shepherd, when he
took Bnei
Yisrael out of Egypt he counted them, now that he is
about to
die, he must return the sheep to their owner.
Therefore, he
must count them once again.
          While the first Midrash focuses on the
connection
between the plague and the census, the second Midrash
focuses
on the connection between the census and the transfer of
leadership from Moshe to Yehoshua.]

B.  Note the Ramban's explanation why the parsha of
Moshe's
'death' is written at this time (in Parshat Pinchas).
     What issue led Ramban to this conclusion?

C.  The story of Bnei Gad & Reuven (chapter 32) could be
considered part of the nachala section.
1.  Explain why.
2.  Explain why it isn't, and why it actually continues
to the
story of milchemet Midyan.
Pay attention to the opening words of perek 32.
     How does this relate to milchemet Midyan?
3.  How does this story relate to other events in the
desert,
such as chet ha-meraglim for example.  (See the Netziv
on this
issue.)

D.  Use our explanation of the importance of the korban
tamid
to explain why each korban musaf in Parshat Pinchas
concludes
with the phrase 'milvad olat ha-tamid ?'.

E.  Compare the names of the family groups in the census
in
Parshat Pinchas [le-beit avotam...] to the names of the
original seventy members of Yaakov's family who went
down to
Egypt (see Breishit 46:8-27).  Can you find the
significance
of this parallel?
     [To whom was this land first promised?]



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.5.0/1555 -
Release Date: 7/16/2008 6:43 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pin1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 47474 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080716/45c3a6db/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jul 23 16:24:55 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:24:55 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] for Parshat Matot - shiur
Message-ID: <01c701c8ed02$2bca60e0$0200000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

                  PARSHAT MATOT  [Parshanut]

    The opening pasuk of Parshat Matot is simply a 'gold
mine'
for those who enjoy the study of "parshanut" [the Hebrew
word
for biblical commentary].
     In this week's shiur, we grab this opportunity to
take a
'summer tour' of the various exegetic approaches of the
classical commentators, as they all grapple with the
difficulties that arise when studying Bamidbar 30:2.
  
INTRODUCTION
     There are two classic approaches to the study of
"parshanim". The simplest is simply to read the pasuk,
and
then immediately afterward, to read the commentary; thus
enhancing one's understanding and appreciation of what
the
Torah is telling us.
     Another approach is to read each pasuk carefully
while
considering its context, but before reading any
commentary -
to attempt on your own to consider any problems that
arise,
and then to contemplate possible answers.  Then, after
you
have thought through all the various possibilities, to
read
the various commentaries, noting if they raised the same
(or
similar) questions and/or answers.
     Even though the latter approach is quite tedious,
it
usually leads to a much better appreciation and
understanding
of the various commentaries.
     In the following shiur, we will employ this method,
as we
study the opening pasuk of Parshat Matot.

LOTS OF QUESTIONS
     Let's begin by taking a look at the first pasuk,
and then
making a list of questions that arise:
  "And MOSHE spoke to the Heads of the Tribes of Bnei
Yisrael
  saying: THIS is the 'DAVAR' [translation unclear] that
God
  has commanded: If a man makes a vow or takes an
  obligation...."  (see 32:2-3)
  
     The first obvious question that catches almost
everyone's
attention relates to the fact that these laws about
"nedarim"
[vows] are directed specifically to the "rashei
ha'matot"
[tribal leaders].  In contrast to most all other laws in
the
Bible, that are directed to the entire nation - for some
reason, these laws are different.
  Before we attempt to answer this question, let's note
some
other related questions that come to our attention:
  ?    When did God inform Moshe about these laws?
[Note that
     this set of laws doesn't begin with the classic
'opening
     pasuk' of "va'ydaber Hashem el Moshe lay'mor...
daber el Bnei
     Yisrael..." - And God spoke to Moshe saying...]
?    Were the rest of nation supposed to find out about
these
laws, or were they intended only for the 'leaders'?
?     Why are these laws recorded specifically at this
point
in Sefer Bamidbar?
?    What does Moshe introduce these laws with the
introductory phrase "ZEH HA'DAVAR"? (see 30:2)

  With these additional questions in mind, let's return
to our
opening question.
  
EXCLUSIVITY
     Obviously, the first issue that must be dealt with
concerns why Moshe presents these laws directly to the
tribal
leaders.
     Recall that we have found several earlier examples
in
Chumash where a set of laws are given to a 'select'
group.
For example, the laws of how to offer a sacrifice in
Parshat
Tzav (see Vayikra 6:1-2) are directed exclusively to the
"kohanim" [the preists].  However, there the reason is
obvious, for only the kohanim need to know those laws.
     How about these laws concerning "nedarim" in
Parshat
Matot?
There are two possible directions to we can entertain.
Either:
  1. They are indeed intended to be heard ONLY by the
tribal
       leaders - if so, we must attempt to understand
why the laws of
       "nedarim" are special in this regard.
  2. The entire nation is supposed to hear these laws -
if so,
        we must explain why the tribal leaders receive
them first.

  Let's see how we find these two approaches in the
classic
commentators.  As is traditionally accepted, let's begin
with
Rashi's commentary on 30:2:
  "He [Moshe] gave honor to the princes to teach them
first,
  then afterward he taught [these laws] to Bnei
Yisrael..."
  
  Note how Rashi, in his opening line, assumes that the
reader
was already bothered by this question; and he
immediately
provides an answer.  He follows the second approach,
i.e. the
entire nation heard these laws as well - but explains
that the
princes were taught first, as an honor to the tribal
leadership.
     This explanation immediately raises another
question: How
about when all of the other mitzvot were taught - was
this a
common practice - i.e. to teach the "rashei ha'matot"
first?
     Rashi claims that this was indeed the common
practice -
and proves his claim from a pasuk in Sefer Shmot, that
describes what transpired when Moshe came down from Har
Sinai
with the second Luchot:
  "...And how do we know that all of the other mitzvot
were
  taught in this manner? As the pasuk states [when Moshe
  descended from Har Sinai with the second luchot]: Then
  Aharon and all of the PRINCES of the congregation
approached
  him [i.e. Moshe], and Moshe spoke to them [re: the
laws].
  Then AFTERWARD, ALL of BNEI YISRAEL came forward and
Moshe
  COMMANDED them concerning ALL of the laws that God had
  instructed him on Har Sinai (see Shmot 34:29-32)."
  
  [Note that we've included the entire quote of 34:32
(even
  though Rashi only quoted half of it). That's because
Rashi
  takes for granted that you know the continuation
(which is
  key to understand his pirush), while we've taken for
granted
  that you are not familiar with the pasuk. As a rule of
thumb
  - whenever Rashi (or any rishon) quotes another pasuk
- look
  up that pasuk in its entirety and pay careful
attention to
  its context. Note as well, that from the context of
Shmot
  29:32, Rashi's conclusion is not conclusive, as we
will
  discuss in Ramban's approach.]
  
     Even though Rashi has established that ALL of the
mitzvot
were given in this manner (first to the princes and then
to
the people), our opening question still remains, but now
in a
different form.  If indeed this was that manner that all
the
laws were transmitted - why does the Torah emphasize
this
point specifically in regard to the laws of "nedarim"?
  Rashi deals with this question as well, explaining
that the
Torah does this intentionally in order that we infer a
specific halacha:
  "...And why is this mentioned here? To TEACH us that a
vow
  can be annulled by a SINGLE judge - if he is an
EXPERT,
  otherwise a group of three "hedyotot" ['non-experts]
is
  required to annul a vow."
  
     In other words, by informing us that Moshe first
gave
these laws to the "rashei ha'matot", we can infer that
there
is something special about their status in regard to
these
laws of "nedarim' that follow. This allowed Chazal [the
Sages]
to conclude the special law that an expert judge
["yachid
mumche"] can annul such vow on his own.
     To strengthen his interpretation, Rashi then raises
the
possibility of the first approach (i.e. that these laws
were
given exclusively to the tribal leaders) - in order to
refute
it:
  "... OR - [possibly] Moshe made have told these laws
ONLY to
  the tribal leaders [and hence not to all of Bnei
Yisrael] -
  -- it states here ZEH HA'DAVAR (32:2) and it states in
  regard to SHCHUTEI CHUTZ [offering a sacrifice outside
the
  Mishkan] the phrase ZEH HA'DAVAR (see Vayikra 17:2) -
just
  like those laws were directed not only to the priests,
but
  ALSO to the entire nation [as it states "speak to
Aharon,
  his sons, and ALL BNEI YISRAEL" (17:2); so too these
laws
  [of NEDARIM were given not only to the princes but
also to
  ALL of Bnei Yisrael.]"
  
  Rashi completes his commentary by adding two
additional
points concerning why the Torah records how Moshe
introduced
these laws with the phrase "zeh ha'dvar..."
  "We learn from here that Moshe was prophet of a higher
level
  than other prophets could say only: "KOH amar Hashem"
-
  [thus God said] - but only Moshe could state precisely
"ZEH
  HA'DAVAR..." - THIS was the word of God..."
  
     Finally, Rashi concludes this commentary with
another
Halacha that Chazal infer from this pasuk concerning HOW
(i.e.
in what manner) the judge must pronounce the annulment
of a
vow.

PSHAT vs. DRASH
     As usual, Rashi's commentary anchors itself on
several
MIDRASHIM (see Sifri 153, and Nedarim 88a).  In other
words,
he explains the pasuk based on what he found in the
Midrash.
  In contrast, other commentators such as Ibn Ezra,
Rashbam,
and Ramban will usually anchor their interpretation in
what
they feel is the simple understanding ["pshat"] of the
pasuk -
even if that understanding may contradict a Midrash.
Nonetheless, they will usually consider the opinion
raised by
the Midrash with the utmost respect - but they do not
automatically accept it.
    Let's see how this will help us understand the
interpretations advanced by Rashbam and Ramban, as they
relate
to the topic discussed in Rashi's pirush. Afterward, we
will
discuss Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni and Seforno.

RASHBAM
     Rashbam, clearly bothered by all of the questions
that we
raised above, approaches all of them from a very
different
angle.  His first consideration is the juxtaposition of
these
laws to the laws of Tmidim u'Musafim that were found at
the
end of Parshat Pinchas.
  In essence, Rashbam considers this section of laws
concerning "nedarim" as a direct continuation of the
laws that
concluded Parshat Pinchas; and hence, we no longer have
a
strangely worded introductory pasuk, since it isn't
introductory!  Carefully follow how he presents his key
points:
  "I was asked a question in the city of Loshdon, Aniyob
  (somewhere in France): 'According to pshat - where
else do
  find such a parshiya that begins in this manner,
[where
  Moshe commands mitzvot] but does not begin with
VA'YDABER
  HASHEM EL MOSHE... [informing us first that God told
these
  laws to Moshe]?'  -
     and this was my [Rashbam's] answer:
  Above [at the end of Parshat Pinchas/ 29:39] it
states:
    "These [korbanot] you shall bring on your holidays
in
    ADDITION to your VOWS [nedarim & nedavot...]"
  [This pausk teaches us that] you must offer all of
your
  voluntary korbanot [that you had taken upon yourself
by a
  vow] during one of the three pilgrimage holidays - in
order
  that you do not transgress the commandment of 'keeping
a
  promise on time ["baal t'acher"/ see Mesechet Rosh
Ha'shana
  4a.]
  
  Therefore, Rashbam maintains that God told Moshe these
laws
of "nedarim" at the same time that he told him the laws
of the
korbanot of the holidays in Bamidbar chapters 28->29.
Since
those laws began with "va'ydaber Hashem...", there is no
need
to repeat that phrase once again.  Instead, the Torah
tells us
that after Moshe told the people the laws of the
korbanot (see
30:1):
  "he [Moshe] went to the tribal leaders - WHO are their
  JUDGES - to tell them to teach these laws concerning
NEDARIM
  to ALL of Bnei Yisrael. When he did this, Moshe told
them:
  God has just commanded me to tell you that everyone
must
  offer the NEDARIM and NEDAVOT during the holidays (see
  29:39), therefore should anyone make a vow [neder]...
they
  should not BE LATE in fulfilling it..."

     First of all, note how beautifully Rashbam explains
the
phrase "LO YACHEL DEVARO". Usually, "yachel" is
translated -
he should not PROFANE (or break his pledge/ JPS). Based
on his
interpretation, Rashbam translates "yachel" as DELAY,
and
brings excellent examples from Breishit 8:10 and Shoftim
3:25.
  [Note also how he boldly states that according to
pshat, any
  other translation of "yachel" here is a MISTAKE!]

     In summary, Rashbam claims that chapter 30 is
simply
direct continuation of chapter 29, for one is obligated
to
fulfill his vows (chapter 30) on the holidays (chapter
29). By
recognizing this point, note how Rashbam manages to
answer ALL
of the questions raised in our introduction, and adds a
brilliant translation for the word "yachel" within this
context.
     If you don't read him carefully (while paying
attention
to the opening questions), you won't appreciate how
clever his
pirush is!
  [Note as well how the division of chapters makes a
'futile'
  attempt to solve Rashbam's opening question, by
starting
  chapter 30 with the last pasuk in Parshat Pinchas.
[Did you
  notice this?!] Note how CHAZAL's division according to
  parshiyot must be correct, i.e. beginning the new
topic in
  30:2 - BECAUSE 30:1 forms the completion of of 28:1-2,
and
  hence SHOULD be the LAST pasuk in chapter 29 instead
of the
  first pasuk in chapter 30.]

RAMBAN
     Ramban begins his commentary dealing with the same
question that bothered Rashbam, but offers a very
different
answer! [Note also how Ramban takes for granted that the
reader has already been bothered by these questions.]
  "The pasuk does not tell us first that God told these
laws
  to Moshe... like it says by SHCHUTEI CHUTZ and most
all
  other parshiyot, INSTEAD we are told this at the END
of this
  parshiya! [There we find a summary:] "These are the
laws
  that GOD COMMANDED MOSHE... (see 30:17)"

     Note how clever this Ramban is! He answers the
question
by paying careful attention to the conclusion of this
unit.
[Again, this is a classic example of the comprehensive
nature
of Ramban's approach.]
  Ramban brings a parallel example from SHCHUTEI CHUTZ
(see
Vayikra 17:1-2), clearly in reaction to Rashi's pirush
(which
he will soon argue with), even though he doesn't quote
Rashi
directly!
  [Ramban expects that the reader of his commentary is
already
  familiar with Rashi, as he himself was!]
  
     But even without this concluding pasuk (i.e. 30:17)
Ramban proves that we need not be bothered by the fact
that
Moshe's instruction to the "rashei ha'matot" is not
prefaced
by "va'ydaber Hashem el Moshe...". Ramban brings two
other
examples where commandments by Moshe that begin with ZEH
HA'DAVAR are not prefaced with a "va'ydaber Hashem el
Moshe...":
  [Furthermore], in Parshat Shmini it states ZEH
HA'DAVAR (see
  Vayikra 9:6 and its context) without a preface that
God had
  commanded this, and in relation to keeping the manna
[next
  to the aron] it states ZEH HA'DAVAR... (see Shmot
16:32)"

     Once again, we see the comprehensive nature of
Ramban's
methodology, always considering parallel occurrences of
similar phrases or patterns.
     After explaining WHO these tribal leaders are
(possibly
those leaders mentioned later in Bamidbar 34:17-29),
Ramban
offers an interpretation which is exactly the opposite
of
Rashi's, claiming that indeed these laws were given
intentionally ONLY to the tribal leaders:
  "And the reason for Moshe saying these laws to the
"rashei
  ha'matot" - BECAUSE there is no need to teach all of
Bnei
  Yisrael that a father (or husband) can annul the vow
of his
  daughter (or wife). Maybe these laws need to kept
'hidden'
  so that people will not take their words lightly
(should
  they know that their promises can be annulled).
However, the
  judges and leaders of Israel MUST know these laws..."
  
  Note how Ramban prefers the 'simple pshat' of the
pasuk over
Chazal's interpretation (i.e. the Sifri quoted by Rashi)
- and
provides a very good reason that supports his
preference.

     On the other hand, Ramban does accept the halacha
that
Chazal infer from these psukim, relating this to the
special
style that the Torah uses to record this commandment:
  "And this does HINT to the MIDRASH CHAZAL that tribal
  leaders have special privileges in relation to nedarim
that
  a "yachid mumche" (expert) can annul a vow on his
own..."

     Ramban concludes his commentary by noting, as
Rashbam
did, the thematic connection to the laws of Tmidim
u'Musafim
(based on 29:39), nevertheless reaching a different
conclusion.

IBN EZRA
     Ibn Ezra also deals with the thematic connection
between
these laws of "nedarim" and the 'neighboring' topics in
Sefer
Bamidbar.  However, instead of looking 'backward' to the
halachik sections of Parshat Pinchas, he looks forward
to what
transpires in the stories that are recorded in Parshat
Matot,
i.e. the war against Midyan and the story of Bnei Gad
and
Reuven (chapters 31 & 32).
  "In my opinion, this parshiya was given AFTER the war
  against MIDYAN (chapter 31), and that is why THAT
story is
  recorded immediately afterward! [Ibn Ezra then brings
an
  example of this style from Bamidbar chapter 12.]

     This interpretation is also very creative, for it
claims
that these laws were actually given in reaction to an
event
that took place at that time!  As you study this Ibn
Ezra,
note how he also deals with most all of the above
questions,
yet offers very different answers. Let's take a look:
  "Then, (after that battle) the pasuk tells us that
Bnei Gad
  and Reuven came to Moshe and Elazar and the PRINCES
and
  requested [to keep Transjordan / see 32:1-5]. At the
  conclusion of their discussion, [when the deal is
finalized]
  it states:
    "Then Moshe gave instructions [concerning Bnei Gad]
to
    Elazar and Yehoshua and the RASHEI AVOT HA'MATOT
l'BNEI
    YISRAEL" (see 32:28),
  after Moshe had just forewarned Bnei Gad u'Reuven that
  "whatever you PROMISE - you must keep" (see 32:24)..."

     Ibn Ezra prefers both this thematic (making and
keeping
promises) and textual ("rashei ha'matot") parallel to
chapter
30, in order to explain the location of this parshiya at
this
point in Sefer Bamdibar; over Rashbam's and Ramban's
parallel
to Parshat Pinchas.
  Note also how Ibn Ezra agrees with Rashi that the
"rashei
ha'matot" were supposed to relay these laws to Bnei
Yisrael;
however he provides a different proof, based on the
LAMED in
L'BNEI YISRAEL in 30:2!

CHIZKUNI
     Chizkuni opens with yet another creative answer to
our
original question.  He states:
  "k'dei l'hachirach et ha'am" - in order to enforce
this upon
  the people"   (translation unclear)
  
  Like Rashi, he agrees that these laws were indeed
intended
to be taught to EVERYONE (arguing with Ramban). However,
provides a different reason for why the "rashei
ha'matot" are
singled out.  Unlike Rashi who claims that it is an
issue of
'honor', he claims that they are taught first, for it is
their
responsibility to enforce these laws.  Chizkuni
understands
that the Torah wants the leaders to make sure that
unnecessary
vows are annulled (by those who can), OR that the
leaders
should make sure that the people keep their promises.
     Afterward, Chizkuni continues by quoting from both
Ibn
Ezra and Rashi.

SEFORNO
     Finally, Seforno adds a very creative explanation
for the
phrase ZEH HA'DAVAR. He claims as follows:
  In the original commandment at Har Sinai - "Do not to
make
an oath in God's Name (and not fulfill it) lest God's
Name be
desecrated" (see Vayikra 19:12) - one may conclude that
this
would refer to anyone making a vow.
  Here in Parshat Matot, claims Seforno, the Torah makes
an
exception. That law applies only to males - for they are
'their own bosses' ["b'rshut atzmo"].  However, a wife
or a
daughter, because she is under the jurisdiction of her
father
(or husband), should she not fulfill a vow, it would not
be
such a terrible desecration of God's Name, for the
person
hearing this vow being made immediately realizes that
she may
not able to fulfill it.  As the potential "chillul
Hashem" is
less, the Torah provides a special avenue through which
she
can annul her vow.
  This original interpretation (even though is may sound
a bit
chauvinist) takes into consideration the details of
these laws
in relation to a similar law recorded earlier, and
explains
both the phrase ZEH HA'DAVAR as well as the nature of
the
specific details of these laws.

NEXT TIME
     Hopefully, our shiur has highlighted how
"parshanut" can
be better understood by spending a little time first
considering possibilities, instead of just reading right
away
what each one has to say.  In other words, if you study
Chumash the same way the commentators themselves did
(thinking
first), you'll have a better chance of appreciating the
treasure that they have left us.

                         shabbat shalom,
                         menachem


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.5.5 - Release
Date: 7/23/2008 12:00 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: matot2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 52109 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080723/c9143f0d/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Jul 31 03:31:30 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:31:30 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Masei - shiur
Message-ID: <010701c8f2df$76158610$0300000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

                        PARSHAT MAS'EI
               The Borders of the Land of Israel

     What are the precise borders of the Land of Israel?
     From the story of Bnei Gad & Reuven in Parshat
Matot
(chapter 32), it seems as though the borders of Israel
are
rather 'expandable', while in Parshat Mas'ei (chapter
33) they
appear to be quite fixed.  In the following shiur, we
examine
the biblical roots of this complicated topic.

INTRODUCTION
     Two clich?s, both based on psukim in Tanach, are
commonly
used to describe the expanse of the borders of the Land
of
Israel:
     (A) 'from the Nile to the Euphrate'
     (B) 'from Dan to Beer Sheva'

     The discrepancy between these two borders is
immense!
According to (A), Eretz Yisrael encompasses almost the
entire
Middle East, while according to (B), Israel is a tiny
country
not much bigger than the state of Rhode Island.
     So which clich? is more 'correct'?

THE BORDERS IN PARSHAT MAS'EI
     We begin our study with chapter 34 in Parshat
Mas'ei, for
it contains what appears to be a very precise
description of
the borders of the Land of Israel:
  "And God spoke to Moshe saying: Command Bnei Yisrael
and
  tell them, when you enter Eretz Canaan, this is the
land
  which shall become your inheritance - Eretz Canaan
  according to its borders.  Your southern border, from
  Midbar Tzin... " (see 34:1-13).

     Over the centuries, many attempts have been made to
identify each location mentioned in this chapter.  In
regard
to the eastern and western borders, i.e. the
Mediterranean Sea
(34:6) and the Jordan River (34:11-12), there really
isn't
much to argue about.  In regard to the southern border,
most
commentators agree that it follows a line from the
southern
tip of the Dead Sea until El-Arish, i.e. slight south of
the
Beer Sheva-Gaza line in the northern part of the Negev.
  However, in regard to the northern border, we find a
variety
of opinions:
     The 'minimalist' opinions identify the northern
border in
the area of today's Southern Lebanon, i.e. along the
Litani
River - until it meets the Metulla area (what used to be
called the 'good fence').   On the other hand, the
'maximalist' opinions identify the northern border
somewhere
up in Turkey and Northern Syria.

THE EASTERN FRONTIER
  To complicate matters, the 'eastern border' of the
Land of
Israel presents us with another problem.  Even though
Parshat
Mas'ei states explicitly that the Jordan river forms the
eastern border of Eretz Canaan, the 'deal' that Moshe
Rabbeinu
makes with 'bnei Gad u-bnei Reuven' (see 31:1-54)
clearly
indicates that that it is possible to expand this
eastern
border to include what is known today as Transjordan.
     As you review that story, note how Moshe Rabbeinu
grants
the area of Transjordan to the tribes of Gad, Reuven,
and
Menashe as their official inheritance - even though it's
only
on the condition that they fulfill their vow to help
everyone
else conquer the western bank!  [The fact that this area
indeed becomes their 'official inheritance' can also be
proven
from Yehoshua chapters 13->14, and 22.]
               ====

  So why are the borders of Eretz Yisrael so ambiguous?
Are
they vast or small?  Are they fixed or expandable?  Are
certain parts of the 'Holy Land' holier than others?
     To answer this question, and to understand why this
topic
is so complicated, we must return to Sefer Breishit and
carefully examine the psukim that describe the land that
God
promised to the Avot.

THE LAND PROMISED TO AVRAHAM AVINU
     Recall from Parshat Lech Lecha, that when God first
chose
Avraham Avinu to become His special nation, at that same
time
He also promised him a special land.  [See Breishit
12:1-7.
See also Breishit 13:14-17, 15:18, 17:7-8.]
  [If you'd like to see additional sources regarding the
  promise of the Land to our forefathers, see Breishit
  22:17-18, 26:2-5, 28:3-4, 28:13-14, 35:11-12, 46:1-4,
  48:4 & 21.]
  
     In God's first three promises to Avraham, note how
He
describes the land in very general terms, without any
precise
borders.  For example:
 1)  In Ur Kasdim:
  "Go forth from your native land & from your father's
  house to the land which I will show you" (see 12:1).
 2)  At Shchem:
     "I will assign this land to your offspring" (see
12:7).
 3)  At Bet-El:
  "Raise your eyes and look out from where you are...
for I
  give all the land which you see" (see 13:15).

     However, later on in Parshat Lech Lecha, when
Avraham
Avinu enters into two covenants ['britot'] with God
concerning
the future homeland of his progeny, we finally find a
more
detailed definition of the land.  However, as we will
now
show, each covenant appears to describe a different set
of
borders!

1)  At BRIT BEIN HA-BTARIM: / 'HA-ARETZ'
     Let's begin by quoting the pasuk in 'brit bein
ha-btarim'
where God promised the Land to Avraham, noting how it
details
the borders:
  "On that day God made a covenant with Avraham, saying:
to
  your offspring I assign this land, from the river of
  Egypt [the Nile] to the river, the river Euphrates,
the
  Kenites, Knizites ...(the ten nations)"    (Breishit
  15:18-20).
  
     The land defined by these borders is immense!  It
extends
in the northeast from the Euphrates River that flows
from
northern Syria to the Persian Gulf, and in the southwest
from
the sources of the Nile River in Ethiopia down to the
port
city of Alexandria!  [Undoubtedly, this covenant is the
source
for the popular phrase 'from the Nile to the
Euphrates'.]

2)  At BRIT MILA: / 'ERETZ CANAAN'
     Two chapters later in Sefer Breishit, we find how
God
enters yet another covenant with Avraham, and once again
He
mentions the land as part of that covenant, yet its
description is quite different:
  "And I shall establish My covenant between Me and you,
  and your descendants... and I assign the land in which
  you sojourn to you and your offspring to come, all the
  land of Canaan,..., and I shall be for you a God" (see
  17:7-8).

     Note how according to this covenant, the 'promised
land'
is much smaller.  Although this is the first time in
Chumash
where we find the expression Eretz Canaan, the borders
of
Canaan, son of Cham, have already been described in
Parshat
Noach:
  "And the border of the Canaani was from Sidon (the
Litani
  valley in Lebanon) down the coastal plain to Grar and
  Gaza, [and likewise from Sidon (down the Syrian
African
  Rift)] to Sdom, Amora... [area of the Dead Sea]"
                           (see Breishit 10:19).
  [Note that this is the only border which is detailed
in
  the genealogies of Breishit chapter 10, most probably
  because it is needed as background information to
later
  understand Parshat Lech Lecha!]

     This biblical definition of Eretz Canaan correlates
(more
or less) with the general locale in which the
forefathers
sojourned - 'eretz megurecha' (see 17:8).  In the
various
stories in Sefer Breishit, we find how the Avot lived
[and
traveled] in the area bounded by Beer Sheva and Gerar to
the
south (see 21:22-33, 28:10, 46:1), and the area of
Shchem and
Dotan (37:12-17) to the north.  Further north, recall as
well
how Avraham chased his enemy as far north as Dan, in his
battle against the Four Kings (see Breishit 14:14)!
  [Undoubtedly, this border reflects the popular phrase:
  'from Dan to Beer Sheva'.  This phrase is used several
  times later in Tanach to define the people living in
the
  Land of Israel.  For example: "And all of Israel, from
  Dan to Beer Sheva, knew that Shmuel was a
trustworthy..."
  (See Shmuel Aleph 3:20, see also Shoftim 20:1 and
  Melachim Aleph 5:4-5).

TWO BORDERS / TWO TYPES OF KEDUSHA
     In summary, the source for the conflicting borders
of
Eretz Yisrael appears to lie in these two different
definitions of the Land, one in brit bein ha-btarim and
the
other in brit mila.  Therefore, we assume that these
different
borders reflect the different purpose of each covenant.
  To appreciate their difference, we must return to our
study
of Sefr Breishit, and the purpose of those two
covenants.
  
  In our study of Sefer Breishit, we discussed its theme
of
'bechira' - i.e. how God entered a relationship with
Avraham
Avinu in order that his offspring would become a 'model
nation' in a special land, whose purpose would be to
bring the
'Name of God' to all mankind.  Towards that goal, God
fortified that special relationship with two covenants -
'brit
bein ha-btarim' and 'brit mila', each one reflecting a
different aspect of the future relationship between God
and
His nation.
     The very first time that God spoke to Avraham, He
had
already 'promised' the concept of a nation and a land
(see
12:1-8, 13:14-17).  However, the details of how that
nation
would form and ultimately inherit the land only unfold
several
chapters later.

BRIT BEIN HA-BTARIM
     After Avraham's military defeat of the Four Kings
(and
hence his first conquest of the Land / see chapter 14),
chapter 15 describes how God initiates a 'covenant' -
better
known as brit bein ha-btarim - that reinforces His
original
promise from chapter 12.  However, even though that
covenant
reassures Avraham that his offspring will indeed conquer
('yerusha') the Land one day; God also informs Avraham
at that
time that it won't happen immediately!  Instead, some
four
hundred years will pass, during which his offspring must
endure slavery in a foreign land; and only afterward
will they
gain their independence and conquer the 'promised land'.
[See
Breishit 15:1-19, especially 13-18.]
     As you review the psukim that describe brit bein
ha-
btarim, note how the land is consistently referred to as
'ha-
aretz' (and not Eretz Canaan!), and its borders will
extend
from the 'Nile to the Euphrates' - the land of [then
occupied
by] the ten nations (see 15:18-20).
     Hence we conclude that this covenant reflects the
historical / national aspect of Am Yisrael's
relationship with
God, for it emphasizes that Avraham's children will
become a
sovereign nation at the conclusion of a long historical
process (better known as Yetziat Mitzrayim).
  Finally, note as well that throughout this covenant,
the
word yerusha is consistently used to describe the future
conquest of the land, and Hashem's Name is 'shem
Havaya'.

BRIT MILA (Breishit chapter 17)
     Several years later, immediately prior to the birth
of
his only son from Sarah, God enters yet another covenant
with
Avraham - better know as brit mila.  In preparation for
this
covenant, God first changes Avram's name to Avraham and
then
promises that He will enjoy a special relationship with
his
offspring - 'lihyot lachem le-Elokim' - to be 'a close
God for
them'.  [See Breishit 17:3-9.]
     This covenant seems to reflect a more 'personal'
relationship between God and His people, not only at the
national level, but more so at the personal - family
level; a
special intimacy with the Divine.  In this covenant,
note how
the Promised Land is referred to as Eretz Canaan", and
the
future inheritance of the land is referred to as
'achuza' (in
contrast to the use of the word 'yerusha' in brit bein
ha-
btarim).

     Hence, we can conclude that there are two aspects
in
regard to the 'kedusha' (sanctity) of Eretz Yisrael:

(A)  The NATIONAL aspect
     The 'kedushat ha-aretz' of brit bein ha-btarim
relates to
the conquest of the land (yerushat ha-aretz) and the
establishment of a national entity - a sovereign state.
This
kedusha is only realized once Bnei Yisrael attain
sovereignty,
as was the case in the time of Yehoshua.  For example,
the
obligation to give tithe from the land (i.e. 'trumot u-
ma'asrot') only begins once the land is conquered.
               [See Rambam, Hilchot Trumot, first
chapter!]

(B)  The PERSONAL aspect -
     The kedushat Eretz Canaan of brit mila already
existed in
the time of the Avot and remains eternal.  This kedusha
reflects God's special Providence over this land (see
Vayikra
chapter 18), no matter who is living in the land.  This
intrinsic kedusha is forever present no matter who is
sovereign over the Land, be it Persians, Romans,
Crusaders,
Turks, British etc.  [Let's hope that there will not be
a need
to add any others to this list in our own generation.]

     The following table summarizes our analysis thus
far:

        THE VAST BORDERS        THE LIMITED BORDERS
       ================        ===================
PHRASE:   Nile to the Euphrates   from Dan to Beer Sheva
COVENANT:   Brit bein Ha-btarim    Brit mila
NAME:       ha-aretz               Eretz Canaan
ASPECT:     National               Personal
ACQUIRED BY: yerusha=sovereignty   achuza

YERUSHA & ACHUZA
     To clarify this distinction, let's take a closer
look at
two key words that describe our acquisition of Eretz
Yisrael
in each covenant:
     (A)  In brit bein ha-btarim - yerusha
(Br.15:3,4,7,8);
     (B)  In brit mila - achuza (Br.17:8).

     In Chumash, the word 'ye-ru-sha' implies conquest,
which
leads to sovereignty, i.e. military control over an area
of
land.  [Not to be confused with its popular usage,
'ye-ru-
sheh', usually referring to an inheritance that one
receives
from a parent.]
     This sovereign power can then apportion that land,
or
sell it, to its inhabitants.  Once acquired in this
manner,
the purchaser of this land can then sell or give his
portion
to anyone he may choose.  Usually, if the owner dies,
the land
is automatically inherited by his next of kin.  In
Chumash,
this type of ownership is known as achuza (and/or
nachala).

     For example, when Sarah dies Avraham must acquire
an
'achuzat kever' - a family burial plot (see Breishit
23:4).
He must first purchase the plot from the Hittites, for
at that
time they are the sovereign power.  Accordingly:
  (A)  Brit bein ha-btarim, the national aspect, uses
the
  word yerusha for it foresees Am Yisrael's conquest of
the
  Land.
  (B)  Brit mila uses the word achuza for it emphasizes
  one's personal connection to the land.

AT THE CROSSROADS OF THE MIDDLE EAST
     Based on our understanding of these two covenants,
their
conflicting borders can be reconciled.
     Avraham Avinu was chosen to be a nation that would
become
a blessing for all nations (see Br. 12:3).  In that
promise,
the special land set aside for that nation is called
ha-aretz.
In brit bein ha-btarim, ha-aretz is defined as the land
between the Nile and Euphrates.  These two rivers don't
necessarily need to be understood as borders; rather as
'limits' of expansion!  Let's explain why.
     Never in the history of mankind have these rivers
marked
the border between two countries.  Instead, these rivers
were
the underlying cause for the formation of thohe two
centers of
ancient civilization - i.e. Mesopotamia ('nehar Prat')
and
Egypt ('nehar Mitzrayim').  [See 15:18-21.]
     Therefore, as brit bein ha-btarim reflects the
national
aspect of our relationship with God, its borders - or
the
'limits of its expansion' - reflect our nation's destiny
to
become a blessing to all mankind.  We are to become a
nation
'declaring God's Name' at the crossroads of the two
great
centers of civilization.  The location of this land
between
these two rivers enables that goal, and hence reflects
this
aspect of our nation purpose.

THE 'KERNEL'
     The more precise geographic borders of this special
land
are defined in brit mila as Eretz Canaan - 'the land in
which
our forefathers sojourned'.  Because this land is
destined to
become the homeland for God's special nation, it
possesses
intrinsic kedusha.  It is this sanctity which makes the
land
sensitive to the moral behavior of any of its
inhabitants (see
Vayikra 18:1-2,24-28).
     Hence, the most basic borders of Eretz Yisrael are
those
of 'Eretz Canaan', i.e. 'from Dan to Beer Sheva', as
promised
in brit mila.  These borders constitute a natural
geographic
area; Eretz Canaan is bordered by the Mediterranean Sea
on the
West, the Negev desert on the South, the Syrio-African
Rift
(Jordan River) to the East, and the Lebanon Mountain
Range to
the North [the Litani River valley].
     Once this 'kernel' area is conquered, in potential
its
borders can be (but do not have to be) extended.  The
limits
of this expansion - from nehar Mitzrayim to nehar Prat
(as set
in brit bein ha-btarim) could be understood as 'limits'
rather
than 'borders'; as each river represents a center of
ancient
civilization.
     After conquering Eretz Canaan, Am Yisrael can, if
necessary, expand its borders by continuous settlement
outward, up until (but not including) the two ancient
centers
of civilization, Egypt and Mesopotamia.

EXPANDING KEDUSHA
     This interpretation explains why Transjordan does
not
acquire kedushat ha-aretz until Eretz Canaan is
conquered.
Bnei Gad & Reuven must first help conquer the 'kernel'
area of
Eretz Canaan.  Afterwards, this kedusha can be
'extended' to
Transjordan.  [Note the use of the phrase 'lifnei
Hashem' in
Bamidbar chapter 32, especially in 32:29-30.]
     When Bnei Gad & Reuven follow the terms of their
agreement with Moshe, not only do they help Bnei Yisrael
conquer Eretz Canaan, they also facilitate Transjordan
becoming an integral part of Eretz Yisrael ('ha-aretz').

THE RAMBAM's DEFINITION OF ERETZ YISRAEL
     In his Yad HaChazaka, the Rambam must provide a
'halachic" definition of Eretz Yisrael, for many mitzvot
apply
only in that Land.  He does so in the first chapter of
Hilchot
Trumot & Ma'asrot [in Sefer Zraim]
     As trumot & ma'asrot are laws that apply only in
Eretz
Yisrael, the Rambam must provide a precise definition of
its
borders.  Although one would expect a geographical
definition,
to our surprise we find instead a 'political' one!
  "Eretz Yisrael - whenever which is mentioned anywhere
(in Yad
  Hachazaka) - includes those lands that are conquered
by a
  King of Israel or by a 'navi' with the backing of the
  majority of Am Yisrael ..." (see I:1-2).

     Note how Rambam defines the borders of Eretz
Yisrael as
the area under Israeli 'conquest' [= yerusha].  Whatever
area
within the Land is under Am Yisrael's sovereignty is
considered 'halachically' as Eretz Yisrael.
     Based on the above shiur, we can understand the
reason
for this strange definition.
     Certainly, Jewish sovereignty doesn't make any
geographic
area 'holy'.  As Rambam himself explains in the third
halacha,
it is only if this conquest takes place within an area
of 'the
land that was promised to Avraham Avinu - i.e. the
borders of
Eretz Canaan as promised to Avraham at brit mila, and
defined
in Parshat Mas'ei.  However, this area reaches it
fullest
level of kedusha only once Am Yisrael conquers it.
     Then, once this 'kernel' area is conquered, Am
Yisrael
can expand its borders up until Bavel [= nehar Prat] and
Mitzrayim [= nehar Mitzrayim].  However, as Rambam
explains in
the third halacha, this expansion can take place only
after
the 'kernel' area of Eretz Canaan is first conquered.
     Finally, in the fifth halacha, Rambam uses this to
explain why the kedusha of the Land [= 'kibbush rishon']
was
annulled when the first bet ha-mikdash was destroyed.
Because
the kedusha of the land (in relation to trumot
u-ma'asrot) is
a function of its conquest (yerusha or 'mi-shum
kibbush'),
therefore as soon as Bnei Yisrael lost their
sovereignty, the
kedusha of the land was lost as well ['batla
kedushatah'].
Similarly, during the second Temple period, because the
land
was not conquered, rather it remained under the
sovereignty of
other nations (e.g. Persia, Greece and Rome), the
kedusha
never returned.  Instead, Ezra instituted a rabbinic
kedusha
to obligate the produce of the land with trumot
u-ma'asrot,
because the original kedusha did not return.
     I recommend that you review this Rambam inside (see
also
the final halacha of perek aleph), and note how these
laws
relate directly to the primary points of our shiur.

'LAND FOR PROGRESS'
     We have shown that our relationship to the Land of
Israel, just as our relationship with God, exists at
both the
national and individual level. God chose this special
land in
order that we fulfill our destiny.
     While kedushat Eretz Yisrael at the individual
level may
be considered a Divine gift, its kedusha at the national
level
is most definitely a Divine challenge.  To achieve its
fullest
borders and to be worthy of them, we must rise to that
challenge.

                         shabbat shalom,
                         menachem

======================
FOR FURTHER IYUN

A.  MITZVAT KIBBUSH ERETZ CANAAN
     Our interpretation enhances our understanding of
the
Torah's presentation of the mitzva to conquer Eretz
Yisrael in
Parshat Mas'ei (Bamidbar 33:50-56).  First, Bnei Yisrael
are
commanded to conquer the land = yerusha:
     (A)  "ve-horashtem et kol yoshvei ha-aretz
mipneichem...
     ve-horashtem et ha-aretz vi-yshavtem bah, ki lachem
natati et ha-aretz lareshet otah."
Only once the land is conquered, can it then be
apportioned to
each family, according to the tribal households:
     (B)  "ve-hitnachaltem et ha-aretz be-goral le-
mishpechoteichem... le-matot avoteichem titnachalu..."

     The conquest is referred to as 'ye-ru-sha'', while
the
distribution of the land afterward is referred to as
'nachala':
     Yerusha is achieved by the joint effort of military
effort by all twelve tribes [Yehoshua chapters 1-12].
Afterwards, nachala is achieved when each tribe settles
and
establishes communities in its portion [Yehoshua
chapters 13-
19].
     Note that the word nachala could be considered
synonymous
with achuza; achuza is usually used when purchasing a
piece of
land, as when Avraham buys a burial plot and field from
Efron
(see Br. 23:9,16-20), while nachala is usually used in
reference to a family inheritance.]

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.5.7 - Release
Date: 7/29/2008 12:00 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: masei1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 40408 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080731/bf8f3173/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Aug  6 10:47:32 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 10:47:32 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Sefer Devarim - Intro
Message-ID: <009201c8f7d3$5efda360$0800000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

SEFER DEVARIM ? Introduction

	What is Sefer Devarim? 
	Most everyone would answer - a review or repeat
of Chumash, just as its 'nickname' - 'Mishneh Torah' -
seems to imply.  
	Is this really so?
	As we now demonstrate, it won't take more than a
minute to show how that popular answer is simply
incorrect!  
    Let's quickly review the first four books (of
Chumash), noting which of their primary topics are
either included or missing from Sefer Devarim:
* Sefer Breishit:  Sefer Devarim makes almost no mention
of any of its stories - be it the story of Creation, the
Flood, the Avot, or the brothers, etc.
 
* Sefer Shmot:  We find only scant details of the
Exodus, and not a word about the mishkan; even though we
do find the story of Ma'amad Har Sinai & chet ha-egel.

* Sefer Vayikra:  Here again,  Sefer Devarim makes
almost no mention of any of its mitzvot or stories,
aside from a few laws that 'ring a bell' from Parshat
Kedoshim, and some kashrut laws; but hardly a summary. 

* Sefer Bamidbar:  Indeed Sefer Devarim does tell over
the stories of the 'spies' and the defeat of Sichon & Og
(with some major 'minor changes').  However, there is
barely a mention of the remaining stories found in
Bamidbar (and there are many), nor do we find a review
of any of its mitzvot (e.g. nazir, sota, challa, etc.). 

	Furthermore, Sefer Devarim contains numerous
mitzvot that had never been mentioned earlier in
Chumash!  Certainly, if the book was a summary, then we
should not expect for it to contain totally new
material.
[To clarify this point, simply imagine that you are a
teacher who assigns the class to summarize the first
four books of Chumash.  How would you grade a student
who handed in Sefer Devarim as his assignment? ]

	Even though it took us only a few minutes to
prove that Sefer Devarim is not a review of Chumash - it
will take us much longer to explain what Sefer Devarim
is, and why Chazal refer to it as "Mishneh Torah".

INTRODUCTION 
    Like many good books, Sefer Devarim can only be
fully understood after you have read it.  So for those
of you who are not patient enough to read the entire
book first (and analyze it), the following shiur will
'spill the beans'.  
    As usual, our shiur will focus on identifying its
structure and theme.  It is recommended that you study
this shiur carefully, as its conclusions will provide
the basis for our entire series on Sefer Devarim (in the
weeks to follow).
    
A BOOK OF SPEECHES
	The key to understanding Sefer Devarim lies in
the recognition that it contains a very important
(albeit long) speech delivered by Moshe Rabeinu, prior
to his death; as well as several 'shorter' speeches; one
which introduces that 'main speech', and others that
form its conclusion. 
    	Therefore, the first step of our shiur will be
to identify those speeches.  To do so, we must first
note how the style of Sefer Devarim is unique, as it is
written almost entirely in the first person - in
contrast to the first four books of Chumash, which are
written in 'third person'.
[Recall (from when you studied grammar) that speeches
are recorded (or quoted) in first person, while
narrative (stories) are usually written in third
person.]  

    Therefore, to determine where each speech begins
(and ends), we simply need to scan the book, noting
where the narrative changes from third person (i.e. the
regular ?narrator mode? of Chumash) to first person
(i.e. the direct quote of Moshe Rabeinu, as he speaks). 
    If you have ample time (and patience/ and of course
a Tanach Koren handy), you should first try to do this
on your own.  On the other hand, if you are short on
time - you can 'cheat' by reading at least 1:1-7,
4:40-5:2, 26:16-27:2, 28:69-29:2, & 30:19-32:1, noting
the transition from third person to first person, and
hence where and how each speech begins.

INDENTIFYING SPEECH #1
	For example, let's take a quick look at the
opening psukim of Sefer Devarim (1:1-7).  Note how the
first five psukim are written in third person:
"These are the devarim (words / speeches) which Moshe
spoke to all of Israel... In the fortieth year on the
first day of the eleventh month... in Arvot Mo'av, Moshe
began to explain this Torah saying..." (see 1:1-5);

This introduces the speech that begins (in the next
pasuk) with the first sentence of Moshe Rabbeinu's
speech:
	"God, our Lord, spoke to us at Chorev saying..."
(see 1:6).
[Note how this pasuk, and those that follow are written
in first person.]

	Then, scan the psukim that follow, noting how
this speech continues from 1:6 all the way until 4:40
(i.e. the next four chapters).  This entire section is
written in first person, and hence constitutes Moshe's
opening speech. 

INDENTIFYING SPEECH #2  [the 'main speech']
	In a similar manner, note how the first pasuk of
chapter five introduces Moshe's next speech.  Here
again, the opening pasuk begins in third person, but
immediately changes to first person, as soon as the
speech begins:
"And Moshe called together all of Israel and said to
them [third person] - Listen to the laws and rules that
I tell you today...  - [first person]"  (see 5:1).

	Where does this second speech end?  If you have
half an hour, you could scan the next twenty some
chapters and look for its conclusion by yourself;
otherwise, you can 'take our word' that it continues all
the way until the end of chapter 26! 
	This observation (even though it is rarely
noticed) will be the key towards understanding Sefer
Devarim - for this twenty chapter long 'main speech'
will emerge as the primary focus of the book!
	After this 'main speech', in chapters 27-30 we
find two more short speeches that directly relate to the
main speech.  Finally, from chapter 31 thru 34, Sefer
Devarim 'returns' to the regular narrative style of
Chumash, as it concludes with the story of Moshe
Rabbeinu's final day.
    
	The following table summarizes the division of
Sefer Devarim into its four speeches: 

SPEECH #1
Chaps. 1
4 
 Introductory speech
SPEECH #2
Chaps. 5
26
 Main speech
SPEECH #3
Chaps. 27
28
 Tochacha & Covenant 
SPEECH #4
Chaps. 29
30
 Teshuva  
THE MAIN SPEECH
	As this table indicates, Speech #2 is by far the
longest, so we'll begin our study by trying to figure
out its primary topic.  [Afterward, we will show how
Speech #1 actually introduces this main speech.] 
	To help us identify the primary topic of the
main speech [without the need to read it in its
entirety], let's assume that Moshe Rabeinu will employ
the 'golden rule' for an organized speech, i.e. he will:
    (1) 'Say what you're gonna say' - 
    (2) 'Say it' -   & then
    (3) 'Say what you said.'  
[We'll soon see how Moshe Rabeinu beautifully follows
this golden rule in this speech.]

	Let's take a careful look at how Moshe's begins
this main speech, noting how he explains to the people
what to expect:
"Listen Israel to the chukim & mishpatim which I am
teaching you today, learn them and keep them..." (5:1).

	This 'opener' immediately tells the listener
that this speech will contain chukim & mishpatim [laws
and rules] that must be studied and observed; and indeed
that is precisely what we will find (when we will study
the content of this speech). 
    However, these laws - that we now expect to hear
(based on 5:1) - don't begin in the next pasuk.
Instead, Moshe Rabeinu uses the first section of his
speech (chapter five) to explain how and when these laws
(that will begin in chapter six) were first given.  
    In other words, instead of beginning his speech
immediately with this set of laws, he will preface these
laws by first explaining why everyone is obligated to
keep them (5:2-5), followed by the story of how he first
received them at Har Sinai forty years earlier
(5:20-30).
    To appreciate this introductory chapter, and to
understand why it contains a 'repeat' of the Ten
Commandments, let's carefully review its flow of topic.

INTRO TO THE MAIN SPEECH - OBLIGATION & COVENANT 
    As his first point, Moshe emphasizes how these laws
(that he is about to teach) were given as an integral
part of the covenant between God and Bnei Yisrael at Har
Sinai:
"Hashem made a covenant with us at Chorev.  Not [only]
with our forefathers did God made this covenant, but
[also] with us - we, the living - here today..."
(5:2-3).

	Even though (and because) most of the members of
this new generation were not present at Ma'amad Har
Sinai, Moshe must first remind Bnei Yisrael that their
obligation to keep these laws stems from that covenant
at Har Sinai (forty years earlier)!  
     Recall as well how God had spoken the Ten
Commandments directly to Bnei Yisrael as part of that
covenant.  
[Hence - the two tablets upon which they were inscribed
are known as 'luchot ha-brit' - i.e. tablets of the
Covenant.]  

     It is for this reason that Moshe Rabeinu first
reviews the Ten Commandments (in 5:6-19), before he
begins his teaching of the detailed 'chukim 'mishpatim'
- for they form the key guidelines of this "brit"'
between God and His nation.  Note however that the Ten
Commandments are presented as part of the story of 'how
the laws were given' - the detailed laws, referred to in
5:1, don't begin until chapter six (and continue thru
chapter 26).

WHY MOSHE IS TEACHING THE LAWS
    Now comes the key story in this introductory
section, for Moshe (in 5:20-30) tells the story of how
Bnei Yisrael immediately became fearful after hearing
the 'Dibrot' and asked Moshe that he become their
intermediary to receive the remaining laws.  As we shall
see, this story explains when and how the laws (that
Moshe is about to start teaching) were first given. 
    To clarify this, let's careful study these psukim,
for they will help us understand the overall structure
of the main speech:
"When you heard the voice out of the darkness, while the
mountain was ablaze with fire, you came up to me... and
said... Let us not die, for this fearsome fire will
consume us... you go closer and hear all that God says,
and then you tell us everything that God commands, and
we will willingly do it..." (5:20-26).
[Keep in mind that from this pasuk we can infer that had
Bnei Yisrael not become fearful, they would have heard
additional mitzvot directly from God, immediately after
these first Ten Commandments.]

	Note how God grants this request (that Moshe
should act as their intermediary) by informing Moshe of
His 'new plan:
"Go, say to them: 'Return to your tents.'  But you
remain here with Me, and I will give you the mitzvah,
chukim & mishpatim... for them to observe in the land
that I am giving them to possess..." (5:27-28).

	Read this pasuk once again, for it is key
towards understanding how the 'main speech' first came
about.  The mitzvot that Moshe will now teach (in this
speech) are simply the same laws that God had first
given to him on Har Sinai, after Bnei Yisrael asked him
to become their intermediary.
    In fact, Moshe himself states this explicitly in the
next set of psukim that clearly introduce this set of
laws:
"And this ('ve-zot') is the mitzvah, chukim & mishpatim
that God has commanded me to teach you to be observed in
the land you are about to enter..."  (see 6:1-3).
 
	Recall from 5:28 that God told Moshe that he
should remain on Har Sinai to receive the mitzvah,
chukim & mishpatim.  This pasuk (6:1), explains how
Moshe's lecture is simply a delineation of those
mitzvot.

THE ELEVENTH COMMANDMENT
     Based on this introduction (i.e. 6:1-3), we
conclude that these laws (that begin with 6:4)  are
simply those mitzvot that God had given to Bnei Yisrael
- via Moshe Rabbeinu - as a continuation of the Ten
Commandments at Ma?amad Har Sinai.  If so, then the
first mitzvah of this special unit of laws is none other
than the first parshia of 'kriyat shema':
"Shema Yisrael, Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad,
ve-ahavta... ve-hayu ha-devarim ha-eileh..." (see
6:4-7).
[This can help us appreciate why this parsha is such an
important part of our daily prayers - to be discussed in
our shiur on Va'etchanan.]
	This first parshia of kriyat shema begins a
lengthy list of mitzvot (and several sections of rebuke)
that continues all the way until Parshat Ki Tavo (i.e.
chapter 26).  
[That is why this speech is better known as 'ne'um
ha-mitzvot' ? the speech of commandments.  Just try
counting how many mitzvot are indeed found in these 21
chapters - you'll find plenty!] 

    Note as well that after the first two cardinal
mitzvot - belief in God and the commandment to love Him
with all your heart - we find a statement that serves as
yet another introduction to the mtizvot that will now
follow:
"ve-hayu ha-devarim ha-eileh..."  - And these words
[clearly, this refers to the laws that will now follow
in the speech]  that I am teaching you today must be
kept in your heart - (see 6:6-7)

    We will soon return to discuss this pasuk in greater
detail; however, we must first clarify an important
point.  Even though the core of this speech consists of
the mitzvot that Moshe initially received at Har Sinai,
it is only natural that Moshe Rabbeinu will add some
comments of his own, relating to events that have
transpired in the interim.  [See, for example, chapters
8->9.]  Nonetheless, the mitzvot themselves were first
given forty years earlier. 
    Furthermore, as the psukim quoted above explain,
these mitzvot share a common theme - for they all apply
to Bnei Yisrael's forthcoming entry into the Land of
Israel (see 5:28 & 6:1).  [In next week's shiur we will
discuss how these mitzvot  divide into two distinct
sections, the mitzva section (chapters 6 thru 11) and
the chukim u-mishpatim section (chapters 12 -26).]

WHEN THIS SPEECH WAS FIRST GIVEN
	So when did Bnei Yisrael first hear these
mitzvot?  
    If they were given at Har Sinai, then certainly
Moshe should have taught them to the people at that
time.  
    The answer to this question is found in Parshat Ki
Tisa.  There, in the story of how Moshe descended from
Har Sinai with the second luchot, the Torah informs us:
"And it came to pass, when Moshe came down from Mount
Sinai with the two tables of the testimony in his
hand...   and afterward all the children of Israel came
near, and he [Moshe] commanded them all of the laws that
God had spoken with him on Mount Sinai. 
     (See Shmot 34:29-32) 
    
    Clearly, Moshe had already taught these laws to Bnei
Yisrael when he came down from Har Sinai.  Yet, Sefer
Shmot only tells the story of when Moshe first taught
them, but doesn't record all of the actual laws that he
both received and taught at that time.  Instead, the
Torah prefers to record some of those laws in Sefer
Devarim, others in Sefer Bamidbar, and others in Sefer
Vayikra. 
    In other words, Moshe Rabbeinu reviews an entire set
of laws in Sefer Devarim; laws that he had already
taught to the first generation when they were encamped
at Har Sinai. Hence, the laws in Sefer Devarim are
indeed a review of a set of laws that Bnei Yisrael had
already received.  However, they are not a review of the
laws that Chumash had already recorded. 
[This point clarifies why so many people misunderstand
what is meant when Sefer Devarim is referred to as a
'review of laws'.  It is indeed a review of laws that
Moshe Rabeinu had already taught Bnei Yisrael, but it is
not a review of the first four books of Chumash.]
    
    One could also suggest a very logical reason for why
the Torah preferred to record these laws in Sefer
Devarim, rather than in Sefer Shmot.  As we shall see,
these mitzvot will focus on how Bnei Yisrael are to
establish their nation in the Land of Israel (see 5:28
and 6:1/ 'la'asot ba-aretz' - to keep in the land).
Hence, the Torah prefers to record them as they were
taught by Moshe to the second generation - who would
indeed enter the land; and not as they were given to the
first generation - who sinned, and hence never entered
the land.

	This background will now help us understand why
Chazal refer to this Sefer as "Mishneh Torah", and why
this name is so commonly misunderstood.  While doing so,
we will also explain the 'simple meaning' of the famous
psukim of kriyat shema that we recite every day.

MISHNEH TORAH
	Let's return to the opening psukim of kriyat
shema (6:4-8), which form the opening set of
commandments that Moshe first received on Har Sinai (to
relay to Bnei Yisrael) - soon after the Ten Commandments
were given to the entire nation.  
	Moshe begins this set of laws with an opening
statement that reflects a tenet of faith: 
    "shema Yisrael Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad" (6:4) 
    
    This is followed by the most basic mitzva regarding
attitude, which in essence is a way of life for every
jew:
    "ve-ahavta ..." - to love God with all your heart...
(see 6:5), 

    Then, Moshe introduces the laws that he now plans to
teach in a very interesting manner:
"ve-hayu ha-devarim ha-eileh...
  - And these words [i.e. laws that will now follow] 
that I am teaching you today must be kept in your heart
- ve-shinantam  - and you must repeat them (over and
over) to our children and speak about them constantly,
when at home, when you travel, when you lie down and
when you get up..." (see 6:5-8).

	Note the Hebrew word 've-shinantam' - which
means more than simply to teach, but rather to 'repeat'
[from the 'shoresh' (root) -' leshanen' [sh.n.n.].
Moshe instructs the nation that these forthcoming laws
(i.e. the laws of the main speech of Sefer Devarim),
need not only to be taught, but they also require
constant repetition!
    Thus, the word 'mishneh' - in the phrase "mishneh
Torah" also stems from this same root - "l'shanen" - to
repeat.  Hence, the name "Mishneh Torah" implies a set
of laws that require constant repetition! 
    This explains the confusion in regard to the meaning
of this alternate name for Sefer Devarim.  Mishneh Torah
does not imply that Sefer Devarim is a repeat (or
review) of what has been written in Chumash thus far;
rather, it refers to a special set of laws that requires
constant repetition - i.e. when we sit in our homes etc.
/ see 6:6-7,
	In other words, the mitzvot of the main speech
of Sefer Devarim are special, insofar as they must be
constantly repeated and taught ('ve-shinantam'), as its
name - Mishneh Torah - implies.  In fact, we fulfill
this mitzva each day by reciting the first two parshiyot
of kriyat shma. 
	Further proof of this interpretation is found in
the sole pasuk in Sefer Devarim that contains the phrase
mishneh Torah, in regard to the King in Parshat Shoftim:
"And when the King is seated on his royal throne, he
must write this mishneh ha-torah in a book... and it
must be with him and he must read from it every day of
his life, in order that he learns to fear God..." (see
17:18
19).

	Clearly, in this context, the term "Mishneh
Torah" does not refer to a repeat of earlier laws, but
rather to a set of laws that need to be repeated.
[Similarly, the word 'mishna' (as in Torah she-ba'al
peh) has the same meaning.  The mishnayot require
'shinun'; they must be repeated over and over again -
hence they are called Mishna.]

BACK TO PARSHAT DEVARIM
	This interpretation can help us understand the
opening psukim of Sefer Devarim - which otherwise appear
to be rather cryptic.  Before we continue, it is
suggested that you read Devarim 1:1-2, noting the
difficulty of its translation.
"These are the devarim that Moshe spoke to Bnei Yisrael
in Transjordan, in the desert, in the Arava, opposite
Suf, between Paran and Tofel, and Di Zahav" (1:1).

	First of all, what does the word devarim refer
to:
		the entire book? - the first speech? -
all the speeches?
	It's not clear.  Secondly, what is the meaning
of this long list of places?
	The location of 'ever ha-yarden' [Transjordan]
makes sense, for Bnei Yisrael are now encamped there
(see 1:5); but the remaining list of places - ba-midbar,
ba-arava, mul suf, bein paran u-tofel etc. - seems to be
totally disjoint from the first half of this pasuk.
	Are these many places, or just one place?  What
happened at all of these places?  Again, it is not
clear.  
	The next pasuk is even more enigmatic!
"Eleven days from Chorev, via Mount Se'ir, until Kadesh
Barnea" (1:2).
	This pasuk doesn't even form a complete
sentence.  What does it describe?  What does it have to
do with the previous pasuk? 
	Nonetheless, the next pasuk appears to be quite
'normal', and could easily have been the opening verse
of the book:
"And it came to pass in the fortieth year on the first
day of the eleventh month, Moshe spoke to Bnei Yisrael
in accordance with the instructions that God had given
him for them [after he had defeated Sichon?]" (1:3-4).

	This third pasuk seems to form an introduction
to Moshe's speech.  But this only strengthens our
questions on the first two psukim.  Why doesn't the
Sefer just begin with the third pasuk?
	Indeed, one who never studied Sefer Devarim
should find himself terribly confused when reading these
psukim.  However, based on our shiur, it is possible to
suggest a very simple explanation (that will find
support in Ibn Ezra and Ramban as well).

A SUPER INTRO
	Recall how the main speech (i.e. ne'um
ha-mitzvot / chapters 5-26) forms the focal point of
Sefer Devarim, including a lengthy set of mitzvot that
Bnei Yisrael must keep as they enter the Land of Israel.
As we explained, Moshe had first taught these mitzvot to
Bnei Yisrael when he came down from Har Sinai with the
second luchot (see Shmot 34:32).  However, since these
laws require constant repetition [mishneh torah], it
would only make sense that Moshe would have taught them
numerous times. 
	Recall as well that the Torah uses this very
same word 'ha-devarim' to introduce the mitzvot of the
main speech / see 6:6 -'ve-hayu ha-devarim ha-eileh
asher anochi metzaveh?" 
	Therefore, one can assume that the phrase 'eileh
ha-devarim' (in 1:1) refers to the same mitzvot that
've-hayu ha-devarim' refers to in 6:6) i.e. to the
mitzvot of the main speech! 
	If so, then the first pasuk of the Sefer
introduces this main speech!  Hence, the first two
psukim of Sefer Devarim can be understood as follows:
"These are the devarim [i.e. the mitzvot of the main
speech] that Moshe delivered in Arvot Mo'av, [just as he
had already delivered a similar speech in] the midbar,
and arava, opposite suf, between Paran and Tofel, and at
Di-zahav.  [Furthermore, these mitzvot were also taught
by Moshe to Bnei Yisrael during] their eleven day
journey from Har Chorev to Kadesh Barnea."  [Then] in
the fortieth year... Moshe taught these laws (one last
time] after the defeat of Sichon..."  (see Devarim
1:1-4)  
		[See commentary of Ibn Ezra on 1:1-2.]

	This explanation fits in beautifully with both
Ibn Ezra's & Ramban's interpretation of the word
"devarim" in the first pasuk of Sefer Devarim, as both
commentators explain that the word "devarim" refers
specifically to the mitzvot that Moshe will teach later
on in the main speech.
[Ramban explains that these devarim begin with the Ten
commandments (i.e. from chapter 5), while Ibn Ezra
explains that they begin with the chukim & mishpatim in
Parshat Re'eh (see 12:1).  The underlying reason for
this controversy will be explained in our shiur on
Parshat Va-etchanan.  The reason why Rashi explains that
devarim refers to the 'rebuke' will be discussed in our
shiur on Parshat Ekev.]

	When we consider this setting, the Torah's
emphasis in the second pasuk on the eleven day journey
from Har Sinai to Kadesh Barnea becomes quite
significant.  Recall, that this eleven day journey was
supposed to have been Bnei Yisrael's final preparation
before conquering the land (had they not sinned)!  As
such, Moshe found it necessary to teach and review these
important laws several times during that journey.
[Again, see Ibn Ezra inside.]
	Now, in the fortieth year on the first day of
the eleventh month, Bnei Yisrael find themselves in a
very similar situation - making their final preparations
for the conquest of the land.  Therefore, Moshe gathers
the people in Arvot Mo'av to teach and review these
mitzvot one last time.
	In this manner, the first four psukim of Sefer
Devarim actually form the introduction to the main
speech (chapters 5-26).  
	However, before Moshe begins that main speech,
he first makes an introductory speech that is introduced
by 1:5 and continues until 4:40.  That speech will be
discussed iy"h in our next shiur (on Parshat Devarim).
	Untill then, 
    shabbat shalom
    menachem

======================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
A.  FROM HAR SINAI TO SEFER DEVARIM 
	In our shiur, we showed how the main body of
Sefer Devarim contains the mitzvot that Moshe Rabbeinu
originally received on Har Sinai.  However, Moshe
received many other mitzvot on Har Sinai.  Therefore, it
appears that even though Moshe received all of the
mitzvot on Har Sinai, each book of Chumash focuses on a
different category.  Therefore, the important question
becomes - what characterizes the mitzvot found in other
books of Chumash?  Or, more directly, on what basis were
the mitzvot distributed among the five books?
	To answer this question, we simply need to
review our conclusions from previous shiurim.
    First of all, let's review the main themes of each
Sefer that we have found thus far:
* BREISHIT - God's creation of the universe and His
choice of Avraham Avinu and his offspring to become His
special nation.
* SHMOT - The Exodus of Am Yisrael from Egypt; their
journey to Har Sinai; Matan Torah; chet ha-egel, and
building the mishkan.
* VAYIKRA - Torat kohanim, the laws relating to offering
korbanot in the mishkan, and various other laws that
help make Am Yisrael a holy nation.
* BAMIDBAR - Bnei Yisrael's journey from Har Sinai (with
the mishkan at its center) towards the Promised Land;
and why they didn't enter the Land.

    With this in mind, let's see how the laws in Sefer
Devarim may relate to what we have found thus far.
	Recall that God's original intention was to take
Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt, bring them to Har Sinai (to
receive the Torah), and then immediately bring them to
Eretz Canaan, where these mitzvot are to be observed.
	At Har Sinai, Bnei Yisrael entered into a
covenant and heard the Ten Commandments.  As we
explained, they should have received many more mitzvot
after hearing the first Ten Commandments.  However, they
were overwhelmed by the awesome experience of Ma?amad
Har Sinai and thus requested that Moshe act as their
intermediary.
	It is difficult to ascertain the exact
chronological order of the events following their
request.  However, by combining the parallel accounts of
this event in Sefer Shmot (see 20:15-21:1, & 24:1-18)
and Sefer Devarim (see chapter 5), we arrive at the
following chronology:
 *	On the day of Ma'amad Har Sinai, God gives Moshe
a special set of laws, better known as Parshat Mishpatim
(i.e. 20:19-23:33), which Moshe later conveys to Bnei
Yisrael (see 24:3-4).  Moshe writes these mitzvot on a
special scroll ['sefer ha-brit' (see 24:4-7)], and on
the next morning he organizes a special gathering where
Bnei Yisrael publicly declare their acceptance of these
laws (and whatever may follow).  This covenant is better
known as 'brit na'aseh ve-nishma'.  [See 24:5-11.  We
have followed Ramban's peirush; Rashi takes a totally
different approach.  See Ramban 24:1 for a more detailed
presentation of their machloket.]
 *	After this ceremony, God summons Moshe to Har
Sinai to receive the luchot & additional laws ['ha-Torah
v-hamitzva'; see 24:12-13], and so Moshe remains on Har
Sinai for 40 days and nights to learn these mitzvot.  It
is not clear precisely to what 'ha-Torah ve-hamitzva'
refers, but we may logically assume that it is during
these 40 days when Moshe receives the mitzvot he later
records in Sefer Devarim.  [Note the use of these key
words in the introductory psukim of Sefer Devarim: Torah
in Devarim 1:5, 4:44; ha-mitzva in 5:28 & 6:1.]
[Moshe most likely received many other mitzvot as well
during these forty days, possibly even the laws of the
mishkan.  (see famous machloket between Rashi & Ramban -
and our shiur on Parshat Teruma.)]

 * 	As a result of chet ha-egel, the original plan
to immediately conquer the land of Israel requires some
modification.  Consequently, we never find out precisely
which mitzvot were given to Moshe during the first forty
days and which were transmitted during the last forty
days.  Either way, Bnei Yisrael themselves do not hear
any of these mitzvot until Moshe descends with the
second luchot on Yom Kippur (see Shmot 34:29-33).  At
this point, Moshe teaches Bnei Yisrael all the mitzvot
he had received, though they are not recorded at that
point in Sefer Shmot (see again Shmot 34:29-33).
 *	During the next six months, Bnei Yisrael build
the mishkan and review the laws they had just received
from Moshe.  Once the mishkan is built in Nissan and the
korban Pesach is offered (in Nissan & Iyar), Bnei
Yisrael are ready to begin their ?11 day journey from
Har Sinai to Kadesh Barnea', the excursion that was to
have begun their conquest of the land.  Instead, the
people fail with the incident of the meraglim, and the
rest is history.
	This background can help us appreciate how the
mitzvot are divided up among the various sefarim of
Chumash, even though most all of them were first given
to Moshe at Har Sinai, or at the Mishkan in Midbar
Sinai.
	Let's discuss them, one book at a time:
SHMOT
	Sefer Shmot records the Ten Commandments and
Parshat Mishpatim since they comprise an integral part
of Ma'amad Har Sinai, i.e. the covenantal ceremony in
which Bnei Yisrael accept the Torah.  Although Sefer
Shmot continues with the story of Moshe's ascent to Har
Sinai, it does not record the specific mitzvot that he
received during those forty days!  Instead, the
remainder of Sefer Shmot focuses entirely on those
mitzvot relating to the atonement for chet ha-egel
(34:10-29) and the construction of the mishkan (chapters
25-31, & 35-40 / plus the laws of Shabbat which relate
to building the mishkan).
	The exclusive focus on these laws at the end of
Sefer Shmot is well understood.  The theme of the second
half of Sefer Shmot revolves around the issue of whether
or not God's Shchina can remain within the camp of Bnei
Yisrael.  Whereas the mishkan provides a solution to
this dilemma, its taking center-stage in the latter part
of Sefer Shmot is to be expected.  [See Ramban?s
introduction to Sefer Shmot, ve-akmal.]
	What about the rest of the mitzvot transmitted
to Moshe on Har Sinai?
	As we will see, some surface in Sefer Vayikra,
others in Sefer Bamidbar, and the main group appears in
Sefer Devarim!
VAYIKRA
	Even though Sefer Vayikra opens with the laws
given from the ohel mo'ed (see 1:1), many of its mitzvot
had already been presented on Har Sinai.  This is
explicit in Parshat Tzav (see 7:37-38); Parshat Behar
(see 25:1); and Parshat Bechukotai (see 26:46 & 27:34).
Certain parshiyot of mitzvot such as Acharei Mot
obviously must also have been given from the ohel mo'ed,
but there is good reason to suggest that many of its
other mitzvot, such as Parshat Kedoshim, were first
given on Har Sinai.
	So why are certain mitzvot of Har Sinai included
in Sefer Vayikra?  The answer is quite simple.  Sefer
Vayikra is a collection of mitzvot dealing with the
mishkan, korbanot and the kedusha of Am Yisrael.  Sefer
Vayikra, better known as torat kohanim, simply contains
all those parshiyot that contain mitzvot associated with
its theme.  Some were given to Moshe on Har Sinai, while
others were transmitted from the ohel mo'ed.  [See
previous shiurim on Sefer Vayikra for more detail on
this topic.]
BAMIDBAR
	Sefer Bamidbar, we explained, is primarily the
narrative describing Bnei Yisrael's journey from Har
Sinai towards Eretz Canaan.  As we explained in our
shiurim on Sefer Bamidbar, that narrative is
'interrupted' by various parshiyot of mitzvot, which
seem to have belonged in Sefer Vayikra.  [For example:
nazir, sota, challa, nsachim, tzitzit, tum'at meit,
korbanot tmidim u-musafim, etc.]  These mitzvot were
probably first given to Moshe on Har Sinai (or some
possibly from the ohel mo'ed, as well).  Nonetheless,
they are included in Sefer Bamidbar because of their
thematic connection to its narrative.
DEVARIM
	Now we can better understand Sefer Devarim.  The
books of Shmot, Vayikra, and Bamidbar contained only a
limited sampling of the mitzvot that God had given to
Moshe on Har Sinai, each Sefer recording only those
mitzvot related to its theme.  Sefer Devarim, as it
turns out, is really our primary source of the mitzvot
taught to Moshe on Har Sinai.  As we explained above,
this is exactly what chapter 5 indicates.  [Recall that
chapter 5 is the introductory chapter of Moshe's main
speech, the presentation of the mitzva, chukim &
mishpatim.]
	Expectedly, these mitzvot of Har Sinai recorded
in Sefer Devarim are presented in an organized fashion
and share a common theme.  To identify that common
theme, let's take a look once again at the introduction
to this collection of mitzvot:
"And this ('ve-zot') is the mitzva, chukim & mishpatim
that God has commanded me to teach you to be observed in
the land which you are about to enter..." (6:1-3 / see
also 5:28). 

	The mitzvot of Moshe's main speech are simply a
guide for Bnei Yisrael?s conduct as they conquer and
settle the land.  [As we study the Sefer, this theme
will become quite evident.]  Therefore, practically
speaking, this speech contains the most important
mitzvot that Bnei Yisrael must follow as they enter the
Land and establish their society.  As these laws are so
important, they must be studied 'over and over' again [=
mishneh Torah].
	Hence, it is only logical that Moshe decides to
teach these mitzvot at a national gathering (as he is
about to die and Bnei Yisrael are about to enter the
Land).  This also explains why these mitzvot will be
taught once again on Har Eival, after Bnei Yisrael cross
the Jordan (see Devarim chapter 27), and then again
thereafter, once every seven years at the hakhel
ceremony (see 31:9-13; notice the word Torah once
again!).

B. BETWEEN THE NARRATIVES IN DEVARIM & BAMIDBAR
	This understanding of the purpose and theme of
each sefer helps explain the many discrepancies between
the details of various events as recorded in Shmot and
Bamidbar, and their parallel accounts in Sefer Devarim.
(A classic example is chet ha-meraglim.)  Neither book
records all the details of any particular event;
instead, each sefer records the events from the unique
perspective of its own theme and purpose.
	In the shiurim to follow, this understanding of
the nature of Sefer Devarim will guide our study of each
individual Parsha.  Our shiur on Parshat Devarim (to
follow) will be a direct continuation of this shiur.
Till then, 
	
C.  TORAH SHE-BA'AL PEH
	In the above shiur, we showed how the various
mitzvot that Moshe received on Har Sinai are distributed
among the various sefarim of Chumash, based on the theme
of each Sefer.  What about the mitzvot which Moshe
received on Har Sinai that, for one reason or other,
'never made it' into Chumash?  One could suggest that
this is what we call 'halacha le-Mosheh mi-Sinai' in
Torah she-ba'al peh (the Oral Law).  This suggestion
offers a very simple explanation of how the laws that
Moshe received on Har Sinai are divided up between the
Oral Law and the Written Law.  Based on our shiur, that
Moshe must have received many other laws on Har Sinai
which were not included in any sefer in Chumash is
almost pshat!
	Obviously, the division between what became the
Oral Law and the Written Law was divinely mandated and
not accidental.  Our above explanation simply makes it
easier to understand how this division first developed.
It also helps us understand why Torah she-ba'al peh is
no less obligatory than Torah she-bichtav.
[See also Ibn Ezra to Shmot 24:12, re:"ha-Torah
ve-hamitzva...," which may refer to the Written and Oral
Laws.]

    Furthermore, the prominent view in Chazal that all
the mitzvot were first given on Har Sinai, repeated from
the ohel mo'ed, and then given one last time at Arvot
Mo'av.  Our discussion shows how this statement actually
reflects the 'simple pshat' in Chumash, once one pays
attention to the story that Moshe tells as he begins his
main speech in Sefer Devarim!  


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1595 -
Release Date: 8/6/2008 8:23 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dvarint.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 75329 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080806/fb9089d3/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Aug  6 13:15:28 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:15:28 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] For Tisha b'Av
Message-ID: <00e601c8f7e8$0a433870$0800000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

                 THE FOUR FAST DAYS in Sefer Zecharya

	Why do we fast on Tisha B'av?  The primary
answer, of course, is to remember the destruction of the
Bet Ha'Mikdash and Yerushalayim. 
    Yet, according to the Navi Zecharya, not only Tisha
B'av, but all four of the fast days (in which we
remember Yerushalayim) will one day take on an added
dimension.
	In the following shiur, we study that prophecy
of Zecharya (chapters 7-8), as it  will help us
appreciate an important aspect of Tisha b?Av which is
especially relevant today, no less than it was over two
thousand years ago.

INTRODUCTION: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
	The Jewish custom to fast on the 'four fast
days' [17 Tamuz, Tisha b'Av, Tzom Gedalyah, and Asara
b'Tevet]  - to remember the destruction of the Temple,
is so ancient that it s original source if found in the
Bible, in the prophecy of Zecharya.
    Zecharya and his contemporary Chagai, were the two
prophets who returned to Israel with the Babylonian
Exile, and inspired the building of the Second Temple.
Their time period, better known as "shivat tzion" - the
return to Zion, begins with the famous decree of Cyrus
(the first king of the Persian Empire) - allowing the
Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple, after
seventy years of exile (see Ezra 1:1-9). 
	Unfortunately, that first effort to rebuild the
Temple in Jerusalem (immediately upon their arrival) was
thwarted by the complaints of the local population (see
Ezra 3:1-4:5).  It was only some twenty years after
their original return, when permission to build was
finally granted by Darius (the Great), in the second
year of his reign.
	In that very same year, both Chagai and Zecharya
deliver their opening prophecies, encouraging the people
that despite their rather pitiful predicament there was
hope that this new Bet Ha'Mikdash [Temple] would one day
be greater than the first one. [See Chagai chapters 1-2,
Zecharya chapters 1-3.]
	During this time period of shivat tzion, many
thousands of Jews had indeed returned to Zion (see Ezra
chapter 2), however many thousands more remained in
Bavel [later to be known as the ?Jews of the Diaspora?].

THE BIG QUESTION
	We begin our study with chapter seven of Sefer
Zecharya, a prophecy delivered in the fourth year of
Darius (i.e. two years after construction of the Mikdash
began). 
    The chapter begins as a delegation of Jews from
Bavel comes to Jerusalem to inquire in regard to a very
important 'halachik question' concerning fasting:
"Ha?evkeh b?chodesh ha?chamishi - Shall we continue to
weep in the fifth month (i.e. Tisha b'Av), do we abstain
ourselves as we have been doing all these years?"
						[See
Zecharya 7:1-3.]

	Their query is quite understandable.  As
apparent from their question, the custom in Bavel had
been to fast every year in the fifth month, since time
of destruction of the First Temple. Now, in the fourth
year of Darius, as the construction of the new Temple is
almost complete (it was finally completed in sixth year
of Darius/ see Ezra 6:15), they are wondering whether it
remains necessary to fast!  
	The delegation, sent from Bavel, approaches
Zecharya to find the answer.

A BETTER QUESTION, & A BETTER ANSWER
	For such a simple and logical question, we
should expect a straightforward 'yes or no' answer.
Instead, God fields this question with a complex
prophetic answer, spanning two chapters of Sefer
Zecharya.  Let's follow God's response, noting how He
answers the people's question with His own question:
"[And God said to me:] Say to the people...When you
fasted and lamented on the fifth and seventh months
[i.e. Tisha b'Av and Tzum Gedalya] during the last
seventy years, have I been fasting?!  And when you eat
and drink (not on a fast day), is it not you who decides
to eat or drink?!"  (7:4-6)

	Note how God?s rhetorical question implies that
Am Yisrael should not be asking God [or His prophets]
concerning the laws of the fast days.  After all, the
fast days are not God's commands, rather they are
customs instituted by the people themselves in order to
remember Yerushalayim.  Just as the people decide when
and what they eat, they too should decide if and when
they should fast. 
	However, in case the people are truly interested
in God's opinion in regard to the rebuilding of the
Second Temple, Zechayra takes this opportunity to relay
God's primary message -that deals with issues that are
much more fundamental than fasting:
"Pay attention to the very same things which the earlier
prophets [had warned your forefathers] when Jerusalem
and its surrounding areas were populated and tranquil
[i.e. during the good years of first Temple period]...
	Execute true justice, deal loyally and
compassionately with one another. Do not defraud a
widow, orphan, stranger, or poor man, and do not plot
evil against one another."(7:7-10)

	God's answer is very powerful, for in it, He
reads ?between the lines? of their original question. If
the people are fasting on Tisha B'av, it is not only to
remember what happened to Yerushalayim, but more
important, it is to remember why the Temple was
destroyed. 
    God takes this opportunity to remind Bnei Yisrael
that the first Temple was destroyed because of their
wayward behavior, for they did not follow the guidance
of their prophets. To make sure the new Temple will be
successful, the people must make sure not to repeat
those same sins that caused the first one to be
destroyed.
    In a nutshell, God is not interested in people
fasting; rather that they follow His laws properly,
especially those of social justice, and not repeat the
sins of their forefathers.
[See Yeshayahu 58:1-10 (not by chance the Haftara for
Yom Kippur shacharit) where Yeshayahu delivers a very
similar prophetic message in regard to the purpose of
fast days!]	

	Implicit from prophecy of Zecharya is the reason
why the first Bet ha'Mikdash was destroyed: God's anger
was kindled primarily due to both a lack of social
justice and a lack of fraternity within Am Yisrael (and
not necessarily due to religious impiety).
[See for example Yirmiyahu 7:8-11, 7:21-23, 8:4-9,
9:1-8,22-23 (that's in the Haftara for Tisha B'av!) A
similar theme repeats itself throughout the Later
Prophets.  
    The ?classic answer? that the first Bet Ha?Mikdash
was destroyed due to the sins of idol worship, murder,
and ?arayot? etc. is based on the Gemara in Yoma 9b and
the puskim in Melachim II chapter 21 in regard to God?s
original decision ["gzar din"] to destroy the First
Temple due to the sins during the time period of
Menashe. However, the people repented from those sins,
especially during the time of Yoshiyahu. [See II Divrei
Ha'yamim chapters 33-36.]
    Nonetheless, God remained intent to bring upon the
Temple's destruction - because the people did not
perform total repentance, especially in relation to
issues of social justice - as Yirmiyahu explains so many
times (see 7:1-10, 22:1-5).  Note also the story of
Gedalya ben Achikam in Yirmiyahu chapters 40-43, in
regard to "sinat achim" at that time.] 

WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE QUESTION
	Zecharya?s prophecy implies that the primary
reason for fasting on Tisha B'av should be to remember
why Jerusalem was destroyed. In the prophet's eyes, it
would be meaningless to fast simply to remember what
happened. Instead, God is interested that we remember
why those tragic events took place. 
	Should a group come to ask for prophetic
guidance, Zecharya would rather hear questions in the
like of: 'What should we do assure that God's redemption
will be complete? What does God expect from us?'  
	Zecharya would rather the people become
'participants' in the process of redemption, rather than
'spectators'.
	With this backdrop, we can better appreciate how
Zecharya continues this prophecy.  First, he reminds the
people that even though God had punished their
forefathers with Jerusalem's destruction for not
listening (see 7:11-14), now they must recognize that a
new opportunity has arisen:
"Thus says the Lord: I am very zealous for Zion... I
have returned to Yerushalayim, for it will be called Ir
Ha?emet - the city of emet - truth, and the mountain of
God ? Har Ha?kodesh - the mountain of holiness...  (see
8:1-3)

	Just as God had gone out of His way to punish
Jerusalem, now He is going out of His way to help
rebuild Jerusalem, but on the condition that it become a
city of truth. God can only provide the people with the
opportunity, but it is up to people to make Jerusalem a
city of truth!  [Note how this pasuk implies that God?s
return to Jerusalem is dependant upon Am Yisrael?s
ability to make Jerusalem a city of justice ? a very
important ?proviso?.]

A HINT FOR THE DIASPORA
	Note, that up until this point, God has not
answered the delegation itself. Instead, He has taken
the opportunity to address the entire nation (see 7:5)
regarding the ultimate goal of this redemption, i.e.
that Jerusalem become a city characterized by social
justice (see 8:1-3), and the hope that it will soon
return to political and economic maturity as well (see
8:4-6).
	This is followed by what appears to be a message
as well for the Jews in the Diaspora:
"Thus says the Lord: I will rescue My people from lands
of the east and from the lands of west, and I will bring
them home to dwell in Jerusalem. They shall be My
people, and I will be their God, [on the condition of]
in truth and righteousness - b'emet u'b'tzdaka"   (see
8:7-8)

	It could be that Zecharya is 'hinting' here to
the Diaspora that instead of worrying about whether or
not to fast on Tisha B'av, they should be considering
their own return to Tzion, to help their brethren create
a Jerusalem of emet u'tzdaka, [but this interpretation
may be a bit too 'zionistic'].
	This hope for the ingathering of all the Exile
in Zecharya's prophecy continues with the hope for a
better economy and future prosperity (see 8:9-13).
	Finally, after repeating His claim that He is
eager to help the redemption of His people (8:14-15),
God summarizes His advice concerning how this redemption
will be achieved:
"These are the things that you must do: Speak truth to
one another, emet u?mishpat shalom shiftu b?shareichem -
render true and perfect justice in your gates. And do
not contrive evil against one another, and do not love
perjury, for all these things I hate - declares the
Lord"   (8:16-17)

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION
	Now, after charging the people with His true
hopes and expectations from this generation of shivat
tzion, God finally answers the original question in
regard to the future of Tisha B'av and the other fast
days for Jerusalem:
"Thus says the Lord: The fast of the fourth month (17th
Tamuz), the fast of the fifth month (Tisha B'av), the
fast of the seventh month (Tzum Gedalya), and the fast
of the tenth month (10th of Tevet), shall become for the
House of Judah days of joy and gladness ? happy
festivals - [on the condition that] you must love and
follow ? emet v'shalom - truth and peace. "  (8:18-19)
		[compare emet v'shalom with 7:9, 8:3 &
8:16]

	God declares that should Am Yisrael fulfill
their destiny and establish a nation characterized by
justice & truth, there will no longer be any reason to
fast. Instead, these fast days will become holidays.
[See Further Iyun section for an explanation why they
actually become holidays.].

THE MESSIANIC DREAM
	Zecharya finishes his prophecy with an even
higher aspiration concerning the future of the Second
Temple:
"Thus says the Lord: A time will still come when the
inhabitants of many lands and great nations will come
and gather in Yerushalayim to seek and find God's
favor..."
	
(see 8:20-23) 

	Zecharya's concluding words echo the hope of
Yeshayahu's famous prophecy concerning the ultimate goal
for the nation of Israel.  [See Isaiah 2:1-4 (& Micha
4:1-5), see also the parallel 'partial quote' at
entrance to the United Nations Bldg.]
	The reason for this conclusion is quite simple.
Should Am Yisrael truly set up this ideal society of
emet v'shalom, tzedek u'mishpat, then the Bet Ha'Mikdash
can fulfill its ultimate purpose to become a beacon by
which all nations can find the proper path to God. [See
also Devarim 4:5-8 and I Melachim 8:41-43 & 10:1-9!]

ZECHARYA TODAY
	Although Zecharya's prophecy to the founding
fathers of "bayit sheni" (the Second Temple) was in
response to a question raised some 2500 years ago, it is
no less (and maybe even more) meaningful today, as we
are in the midst of a redemption process whose direction
is not clear.  
    If there is prophetic message for Tisha B'av today,
which can be agreed upon by every Jew, "chiloni" or
"dati"; 'left wing', or 'right wing', Orthodox,
Conservative, or Reform; in Israel or in the Diaspora -
it is that of Zecharya chapters 7-8.  
    Furthermore, it is a prophecy that recognizes the
realities of a 'less than perfect' redemption process,
yet shows the first step in the path to achieve its
highest goals.  
    Hopefully, this prophecy of Zecharya can help unite
Am Yisrael today, and set us in the proper direction to
make us worthy enough so that next year we can celebrate
Tisha b'Av as a 'holiday'.

						"tzom
kal",
						menachem

[Note: this topic continues with questions for the
Haftara (below).]
==========================
FOR FURTHER IYUN

A. Regarding why the fast days will one day become
holidays, Rav Yaakov Meidan, (in a shiur on 10 b'Tevet
many years ago), suggested that each fast day actually
contains a potential holiday:
* 17th of Tamuz 
	Had Bnei Yisrael not sinned at "chet ha'egel",
then on the 17th of Tamuz, Bnei Yisrael would have
received the luchot and the rest of the Torah! In
potential, this could have been a holiday similar to
Simchat Torah.
*  9th Av
	Had Bnei Yisrael not sinned at "chet
ha'meraglim", then on the day after the meraglim
returned - the 9th of Av - Bnei Yisrael would have begun
their conquest of Eretz Canaan. In potential, this could
have been a holiday similar to Yom Atzmaut! 
 *  Tzum Gedalya
	From the account in Yirmiyahu chapter 41, it
seems that Gedalya was assassinated on Rosh Ha'shana. We
fast on 3 Tishrei because we can't fast on Yom Tov. Rosh
Ha'shana already is a holiday, when we 'celebrate' God's
Creation of the world.
*  10 Tevet
This one is bit more complicated, and requires an entire
shiur to explain why. Iy"h, next year before 10 Tevet.

B. In our shiur on Megillat Esther, we mentioned how
several passages in Megillat Esther may have based on
the prophecies of Zecharya. With the above shiur as a
background, it should be easier to appreciate those
points in that shiur, especially in regard to the
minhagim that Mordechi instituted to celebrate Purim. 
.
========================


   For TISHA B?AV / HAFTARA ? Questions for self study

	The following questions focus on the Haftara
that we read on Tisha B'av morning from Sefer Yirmiyahu
8:13-9:23.

'KNOWING' GOD
1.  You are probably familiar with the concluding psukim
of the Haftara for Tisha b'Av from Yirmiyahu 9:22-23: 
"Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom 
Let not the strong man glory in his strength
Let not the rich man glory in his wealth -
But - only in this should one glory: Haskel v'ya'doah
oti - he should use his wisdom to know me!
For I the Lord act with chessed, mishpat, and tzedaka
[kindness, justice, and charity (or equity)], for it is
these traits that I desire - says the Lord. 
    (see 9:22-23)
    
    Based on these psukim alone, what is the connection
between knowing God and these three traits? Is God
'boasting' about His own traits? What is the difference
between haskel and ya'doah?
    
2. Where is the first time that we find the Hebrew root
[shoresh] of "yud.daled.ayin" in Chumash. [If (or when)
you give up, try Breishit 2:10, 3:5-6 (note "haskel" as
well) and especially 4:1.] 
How does each use of this verb relate to a relationship,
and the intensity of that relationship? 
How would this background help explain why Yirmiyahu
suggests that there is a mitzvah to know God (see 9:23)?

3. Review Breishit 18:17-24. Recall how this story
relates to the birth of Yitzchak and the destruction of
Sdom and Amora. 
Pay special attention to 18:19. What does the phrase "ki
yi'daativ l'maan..." imply? How does this relate to the
mention of tzedaka and mishpat later on in this pasuk? 
    [How does it relate to the word "ayda'ah" in 18:21?]

    Does this pasuk discuss a 'relationship' between God
and Avraham Avinu (and his offspring)? If so, what is
the nature of that relationship? 
    In your opinion, how does this pasuk relate to
Yirmiyahu 9:22-23? Does this pasuk in Yirmiyahu relate
in any way to the prophecy of the destruction of a city?
Does the pasuk in Breishit have anything to do with the
destruction of a city? 
[Note Yirmiyahu 9:10/ 8:4-12, as well as 8:13-23.] 

4. Review Yeshayahu chapter 1 (last week's Haftara). 
Note the use of the word "yadah" in 1:2-3. 
Does this chapter speak of destruction? 
Does this chapter compare Am Yisrael to Sdom and Amora?
[Note 1:9-10.] 
Does this chapter speak of tzedek & mishpat? [Note
1:16-27!] 

5.  In what manner is Sdom 'antithetical' to
Yerushalayim? Relate to the story of Avraham and Lot in
Breishit chapter 13! Note as well Avraham's attitude
towards the King of Sdom in chapter 14! 
See Yechezkel 16:46-50. According to these psukim, what
was the primary sin of Sdom? How does this relate to the
above questions? 

6.  Return now to the Haftara of Tisha B'av, and read
9:1-8. How does this relate to the above questions? How
does this relate to Yirmiyahu's concluding statement in
9:22-23? 
Note especially 9:5 and the use of the word "daat"! 
Relate this to questions #1 and #2 above! 
Relate as well to Yirmiyahu 8:4-12.

7.  To see how this theme continues in Yirmiyahu, see
also 21:11, 22:1-5, 22:13-17 - especially 22:15-16 and
its definition of what it means to 'know God'! 
See also 23:5-6, noting again the verb "haskel". 
See also 23:14-15, noting again Sdom & Amora. 

8. Finally, note a very similar theme in the famous
"mashal ha'kerem" of Yeshayahu in 5:1-10, note the
citing of the lack of "tzedek & mishpat" as the reason
for destruction. 
Based on our study of Sefer Breishit in regard to the
reason why God chose Avraham Avinu to become His special
nation, and based on Devarim 4:5-8 (in Parshat
ha'shavua), why do you think that it is specifically
this sin that leads to God's decision to destroy the
Mikdash and send Am Yisrael into Exile? 

9.  In regard to 'knowing' God, see also Micha 6:8 (and
2:1-2). 
Then see Hoshea 6:1-6. Note "daat Hashem" and "chessed".

[You can also try Amos 4:1-11, noting 4:1 and 4:11.] 
[Note also how God's anger with "korbanot" is prominent
in all of the above prophecies, and how they all relate
to "churban".] 

10. With this background, review our shiur on Zecharya
chapter 7 thru 8, noting how it reflects a similar theme
(but on the 'redemption' side). 

				b'hatzlacha,
				menachem 


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1595 -
Release Date: 8/6/2008 8:23 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 4fasts.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 42902 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080806/08c5ae73/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Aug  7 16:28:44 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 16:28:44 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Devarim - shiur
Message-ID: <02a201c8f8cc$31b39a50$0800000a@x60>

*************************************************************************

THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  www.tanach.org

In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag

Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag

*************************************************************************

 

PARSHAT  DEVARIM

                                                      [shiur revised 5768]

 

Why are there so many details in Parshat Devarim that appear to contradict what was written earlier in Chumash?

[For example, whose idea it was to send the "meraglim" (Devarim 1:22 vs. Bamidbar 13:1); or whose idea it was to appoint the judges (Devarim 1:12-18 vs. Shmot 18:13-26).]

 

In contrast to the 'heretical' solutions offered by the Bible Critics - in the following shiur we suggest a very simple and logical reason for these discrepancies - based on our understanding of the overall theme and structure of Sefer Devarim, as discussed in our introductory shiur.  

[If you didn't read that shiur, it is available on the web-site at HYPERLINK "http://www.tanach.org/dvarim/dvarint.pdf"www.tanach.org/dvarim/dvarint.pdf .]

 

INTRODUCTION

In our introductory shiur, we explained how the focal point of Sefer Devarim is Moshe Rabeinu's lengthy speech (from chapters 5 thru 26), where he reviews a complete set of laws that Bnei Yisrael must keep in the Land of Israel (see 5:1 & 6:1).  Even though he first received (and taught) these laws forty years earlier at Har Sinai, he now teaches them one last time in Arvot Moav (before his death) - as the new generation now prepares to conquer the Land.  

[Due to its content, this 'main speech' is commonly referred to as "ne'um ha'mitzvot" - the speech of commandments].

 

Prior to that 'main speech', Moshe Rabeinu delivers an introductory speech in chapters 1 thru 4, which contains a review of many events that transpired in the desert, such as the story of the spies (1:22-40), the appointment of the Judges (1:12-18), and the conquest of Transjordan (chapters 2 & 3).  Therefore, this 'first speech' is commonly referred to as the 'historical speech', as it contains lots of history.  However, it is specifically this assumption which leads to so many problems, for many of the details of that history in this 'first speech' appear to contradict earlier accounts of those same events  .

In the following shiur, we will show Moshe Rabeinu's primary goal in this first speech is NOT to review history; rather it is to inspire the nation to rise to the challenges of this renewed historic opportunity to conquer the Land.  Hence this speech will contain a very selective review of earlier events, to remind the people how and why the first generation failed - in the hope that this new generation will not repeat those mistakes.   This context will allow us to explain the reason for these apparent discrepancies 

 

A SUMMARY OF THE FIRST SPEECH

        Before we begin our shiur, let's use the following outline to review the main sections of this first speech, and its primary topics.

 

A) INTRO 

1:1?5 Opening narrative explaining background of the main speech.  (what, when, where, etc.).

 

B) FROM HAR SINAI TO ARVOT MOAV

        The reason for the 40-year delay.

 

1:6?11 The original trip from Har Sinai to Eretz Yisrael,

        What should have happened back then (instead of only now).

 

1:12?18 Moshe's leadership shared with the elders etc.

      (these appointees will judge the people, based upon these laws)

 

1:19?40  "Chet ha'Meraglim" ? the REASON why that generation

        did not enter the Land, and why forty years have passed.

 

2:1?23 The journey from Kadesh, around Har Seir until Nachal

        Zared. The death of "Dor HaMidbar" (2:14?16)

               Explaining why Edom, Moav & Amon were not trespassed.

[Edom, Moav, and Amon were not attacked due to a divine command and NOT because Bnei Yisrael were not able to fight them!]

 

2:24?30  Challenging Sichon to battle, God's involvement /2:30)

 

2:31?3:22 The war against Sichon, and Og King of Bashan,

                Conquest of most of Transjordan,

Inheritance of Reuven and Gad, and Menashe, and their promise to assist in the conquest of Canaan.

[Note God's assurance to assist the people, based on these events in 3:20?22.]

 

3:23?29 Moshe's final request to see the Land.

 

C) INTRODUCTION TO THE MITZVOT OF THE MAIN SPEECH

4:1?24 General principles regarding mitzvot in forthcoming speech,

                i.e. not to add or take away, their purpose? to be a example for other nations, not to worship God through any type of intermediary after Moshe dies.

 

4:25?40 a 'mini? tochacha', 

                your punishment should you not follow these forthcoming mitzvot, and the eternal option to do 'teshuva'.

 

============

 

Let's begin our study of Parshat Devarim itself, by identifying how and where the first speech begins, to show why the first speech should indeed relate to the theme of the main speech. 

 

THE OPENING LINE

        In our introductory shiur, we explained how the first four psukim of Parshat Devarim (1:1-4) introduce the 'main speech' - even though that speech itself doesn't begin until chapter five. Then, the fifth pasuk introduces the first speech in a very interesting manner:

"In Transjordan in Moav, - "ho'eel Moshe" - Moshe BEGAN explaining "ha'torah ha'zot" - this TORAH, saying:?"

 (See 1:5, and Rashi!  Note that 1:6 begins 'first person'.)

 

        Consistently in Sefer Devarim, the phrase "ha'torah ha'zot" (or its alternate form "zot ha'torah") is used in reference to the main speech (see 4:8, 4:44, 17:18, 27:3, 27:8 and 31:12.).  Therefore, this pausk informs the reader that the speech that will now follow (beginning in 1:6) - serves as Moshe's introduction to the main speech (that won't begin until chapter 5).   

        

Let's read now the opening lines of this speech to see why this makes so much sense:

"Hashem spoke unto us in Chorev [=Har Sinai] saying: 'You have dwelt long enough in this mountain; "turn you, and take your journey, and go to the hill-country of the Amorites and unto all the places... the land of the Canaanites,as far as the great river, the river Euphrates. "

        See, I am giving you the land: go in and possess this land, which Hashem swore unto your forefathers..."  (see 1:6-8)

 

        Recall how the 'main speech' contains a set of laws, first given at Har Sinai,  that Bnei Yisrael were to keep as they conquer and establish a nation in the Land.  Had Bnei Yisrael not sinned, these laws would have been applicable immediately afterward.  Therefore, Moshe Rabeinu begins his introductory speech by explaining how these laws could (and should) have been fulfilled forty years ago (later in this speech, he will explain what went wrong).

 

DEJA - VU 

        As the first generation has passed away, and the new generation now prepares to enter the land, Moshe's primary fear is that history may repeat itself.  Surely, he must teach these laws one last time; but beforehand, he must make every effort to ensure that the new generation will not become fearful of that conquest.

        This clearly explains why the speech begins with a re-cap of how forty years earlier, the nation had studied all the necessary laws at Har Sinai and stood ready to begin their conquest of the land (see 1:6-8). This also neatly explains why the story of the spies emerges as the primary topic of chapter one (see 1:19-45) - for that sin was the principal reason for this forty year delay.   [If Sefer Devarim was a simply a review of Chumash, then there are many other stories that Moshe should have mentioned beforehand!]

        However, this does not explain the short digression in 1:9-18, where Moshe retells how and why he appointed the judges, which at first glance, appears to be rather unrelated and hence superfluous.  

        To explain why that story is included, we must consider the connection between the appointment of Judges, and the laws of the 'main speech'.

 

WHAT DO JUDGES HAVE TO DO WITH ALL THIS?

        Review 1:6-22, noting how it would have made much more sense for Moshe to go from 1:8 directly to 1:19 (please verify this on your own).  Nonetheless, this more logical flow is 'interrupted' by what appears to be an unrelated statement:

"And I spoke unto you 'at that time', saying: 'I am not able to lead by myself..." (1:9)

 

        Even though this statement appears to be alluding to a complaint, the next two psukim certainly counter that first impression:

"Hashem has multiplied you, and, behold, you are this day a multitdue as the stars of heaven. Hashem, the God of your fathers, should make you a thousand times so many and bless you, as He promised you! (1:10-11)

                       [btw, note the parallels to Breishit 15:5-7!]

        

        It appears that Moshe wants to explain to the people why he himself could not judge everyone, for their numbers had multiplied (and rightly so - as it was a fulfillment of a divine blessing) to such an extent that surely no one person could handle all their complaints.  Indeed, 1:12 ["eicha asa l'vadi..."] alludes to Moshe's unhappiness with the nature of their complaints, however the rest of the psukim focus on the establishment (and the people's acceptance) of an organized judicial system.

        But what is the thematic connection between the appointment of these judges and the laws of the main speech?  

 

JUDGES AND/OR TEACHERS

        The answer to this question lies in the final pasuk of this short 'digression':

"And I commanded you [the people] 'at that time' - et kol ha'DEVARIM - all the things which you should do." (see 1:18)

 

        Pay attention to the phrase "va'atzave etchem" - which must be referring to the people, and not to the judges. 

[You can prove this by simply comparing "v'atzave et shofteichem" in 1:16,  to "v'atzave etchem" in 1:18!]

 

        This short pasuk, even though it is often 'overlooked', connects everything together.  Moshe explains in these introductory remarks to the new generation, that at that same time, i.e. after appointing the judges as Bnei Yisrael first prepared to leave Har Sinai (see 1:9 - "b'et ha'hi", compare with 1:18), he had commanded the people in regard to all the - DEVARIM - which they must do. 

        But what does the word 'DEVARIM' refer to?

 

        Based on our introductory shiur, the answer should be obvious! These are the same 'devarim' that the opening pasuk of Sefer Devarim refers to ("eyleh ha'devarim..." /see 1:1), and that "v'hayu ha'devarim ha'eyleh" refers to in 6:6 - which are simply the laws of the main speech of Sefer Devarim!  [See Ibn Ezra & Chizkuni on 1:18.]

        This makes perfect sense, for that special set of laws (that require constant repetition /"mishne Torah") relates to what Bnei Yisrael will need to keep when they enter the land.  Therefore, when Bnei Yisrael first left Har Sinai forty years earlier, Moshe had taught the people these laws - with the help of these judges; and now forty years later, he reminds the people of those events, as he is about to teach them those laws one last time. 

        As it is the responsibility of the appointed judges to assist with the teaching of these laws (see Devarim 27:1-8) and their implementation (see Devarim 16:18-20!), Moshe includes those events at the beginning of his introductory speech.  

        Unfortunately, the first generation (and their judges) failed.  It is now Moshe's hope [and goal], that this generation and its judges will fare much better.

        As Moshe's introductory speech focuses on Bnei Yisrael's need to be prepared for their conquest of the land, and their need to study the relevant laws, it actually makes sense that he mentions the appointment of judges first - for they will be the key towards the success of this endeavor.  

        Finally, this interpretation of the word "devarim" in 1:18, explains why Moshe now continues his speech by returning to the story of their journey from Chorev to Kadesh Barnea  in 1:19.  Based on our understanding that 1:2 describes how the laws of the main speech were taught and studied during the eleven day journey from Chorev to Kadesh Barnea (see Ibn Ezra), then the detail in 1:18-19 refers to this very same point!

 

WHERE'S YITRO?

        This interpretation can also explain why Yitro himself is not mentioned in this speech.  Even though Devarim 1:15-17 may sound very similar to Shmot 18:14-22, the purpose of Moshe's speech is not to give a complete historical review of every event that transpired in the desert.  Instead, it focuses on this special set of laws that Moshe is about to teach.  

        Therefore, there is no need to mention (at this time) whose original idea it may have been to set up this hierarchal judicial system.  Instead, it is important to know that the judicial system that has been set up is there to serve the people, and it will facilitate their ability to establish themselves as God's nation in the land.  [See again 27:1-8, noting again the parallel to Bamidbar chapter 11.]

 

        Furthermore, the phrase "b'et ha'hi" [at that time] in 1:9, based on its context in relation to 1:6-8,  must be referring to what took place at the time when Bnei Yisrael first left Har Sinai - as recorded in chapter 11 in Sefer Bamidbar - and not to the events in Parshat Yitro, which took place a year earlier. 

        To support this, note that we find almost that identical wording in a statement (in Parshat Bhaalotcha) that Moshe had made precisely 'at that time':

"lo uchal anochi l'vadi la'set et kol ha'am..." - I myself am not able to lead this nation...  (see Bamidbar 11:14, compare 1:9)

 

        In response to Moshe's 'complaint' at that time (as they left Har Sinai), God commanded Moshe to share his leadership with the 'seventy elders' (see Bamidbar 11:16-29).  That response is reflected in Moshe next statement in his speech in Sefer Devarim, explaining how his burden of leadership was alleviated by the appointment of judges, in a hierarchal system of leadership:

"How can I alone bear your cumbrance, and burden, and disputes? [Therefore,] Get you, from each one of your tribes, wise men, and understanding, and full of knowledge, and I will make them heads over you...  So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men, and full of knowledge, and made them heads over you, captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds, and captains of fifties, and captains of tens, and officers, tribe by tribe.  And I charged your judges at that time, saying: 'Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him... and the case that is too hard, you shall bring unto me, and I will hear it'. (See 1:12-17.)

[Note that even though this may sound like a similar account Parshat Yitro (see Shmot 18:13-26), based on the context, the primary parallel is to Bamidbar chapter 11.  See also Ibn Ezra (and Rashi) in Shmot 18:13, who explain that this story of the appointment of judges actually took place after the Torah was given, and hence, that chapter is out of place.  Note as well how Shmot 18:27 may be parallel to Bamidbar 10:29-33!]

 

WHO SENT THE SPIES?

        Moshe continues his speech with the story of the "meraglim" [the spies].  As we explained, his purpose is to explain to the new generation why the first generation failed, in hope that they will fare better.  Therefore, Moshe retells those events from that perspective, blaming the people (more so than their leaders) for the failure of that generation - for he wants to make sure that the people do not become fearful again (as their parents did).

        Note how critical this point is; for if one understands Sefer Devarim as a review of Chumash, then he is confronted with unachievable task of resolving the obvious contradictions between these two accounts.  However, once it is understood that Moshe is telling over those events as part of a 'pep-talk', it makes perfect sense that he emphasizes only the details that are relevant to the theme of his speech. 

        In contrast, when these same events are recorded in Sefer Bamidbar, we find a different perspective, for that book focuses on the theme of leadership.  Therefore, Parshat Shelach highlights the fault of the nation's leaders in those events. 

        Therefore, neither account was written simply as an historical record of what happened; rather each book records the events in relation to its theme.  To ascertain what really happened, one would need to 'splice together' the details that are recorded in each book (as Rashi does in his commentary); but recording those events in their entirety was neither the goal of Sefer Bamidbar nor Sefer Devarim! 

[You could compare this to two TV cameras filming a football game - one in the end-zone, and one on the sideline).  Even though each camera is filming the same game, each one only shows the game for its own angle.]

 

THE MAAPILIM

        This background also explains why Moshe includes the story of the "maapilim" (see 1:40-45) as the conclusion of the "mergalim" incident.  As we explained, Moshe Rabeinu is quite fearful (and rightly so) that the nation may 'chicken out' once again.  In fact, realistically speaking, the people have some very good reasons to worry. Let's review them.

        First of all, the last time they tried to conquer the land of Israel (see Bamidbar 14:40-45), they suffered a whopping defeat.  Now Moshe may have explained that this was because God was not in their midst. However, surely the skeptics among them may have retorted that the very idea of conquering the land of Canaan was futile from the start (see Bamidbar13:31-33). 

        Furthermore, at the beginning of the fortieth year, the entire Israelite nation was challenged by the army of Edom, demanding that they not dare trespass their land (see Bamidbar 20:14-21).  Instead of fighting, Moshe led them along a lengthy 'by-pass road'.  Surely, many of the 'right-wingers' among the people viewed this as a sign of weakness.  If they couldn't stand up to the threats of Edom, how could they stand up to the threats of all the nations of Canaan!

        Finally, it may look a little suspicious that Moshe's encouraging words that the time has now come to conquer the land just so happens to coincide with his announcement of retirement!  

        Any (or all) of the above reasons may have raised doubts among the people.  This background  can help us appreciate which Moshe Rabeinu chooses to include in this opening speech - for his primary concern is to allay these fears by explaining the divine reason for those actions:

1) The 'maapllim' lost because God was not in their midst (see 1:42)

2) We didn't trespass Edom, for 'family' reasons (see 2:4-8)

3) We didn't trespass Moav for similar reasons (see 2:9-12)

4) We waited forty years because of "chet ha'mergalim (see 2:13-17)

5) We didn?t' attack Amon for divine reasons as well (see 2:18-23)

 

        After explaining the real reasons for what only appeared to be a military weakness, the next section of Moshe's speech will detail how Bnei Yisrael achieved remarkable success in their military campaign against Sichon & Og (see 2:24 thru 3:20).  

 

THE PEP-TALK

        Review the story of this war in 2:24 - 3:20 noting how we find many more details than were recorded in the parallel account in Bamdibar 21:21-35.  The reason why is simple, for that battle is Moshe's best proof (for this new generation) that God is indeed capable of helping them, and hence - 'no need to fear'.  

        Even the settlement of the two and half tribes in Transjordan (see 3:12-20) is presented in a positive light, for it provides addition support to Moshe's claim that it is indeed possible to successfully conquer the mighty nations of Canaan.  Moshe presents those events to show that battle against Canaan has already begun, and thus far has been quite successful!  Crossing the Jordan, and entering the land won't be something 'new', but rather a continuation of the task that has already been partially fulfilled.

        Simply note, how Moshe concludes this section of this speech with these words of encouragement:

"And I commanded  Yehoshua at that time, saying: 'Your own eyes have seen all that Hashem has done unto these two kings; so shall the LORD do unto all the kingdoms where you go. You shall not fear them; for the LORD your God, He it is that fights for you."  (see 3:21-22)

 

        In case you didn't notice, we just reached the conclusion of Parshat Devarim. 

        In Parshat Ve'etchanan, Moshe will continue this speech, by explaining why he himself will not be coming with them (once again, for divine reasons/ see 3:23-27).  

        Iy"h we will continue this study of Moshe's opening speech in next week's shiur. 

                               Till then, 

                                      shabbat shalom

                                      menachem

 

 


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1597 - Release Date: 8/7/2008 5:54 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080807/600731d3/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dvar1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 46623 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080807/600731d3/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Fri Aug 15 05:28:42 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 05:28:42 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Veetchanan - shiur #1
Message-ID: <005801c8feb9$4fed8470$0502a8c0@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

for PARSHAT VA-ETCHANAN & EKEV

	The first two parshiot of 'kriyat shema'
surround us each and every day of our lives.  In the
following shiur, as we begin our study of the main
speech of Sefer Devarim, we'll explain why these two
'parshiot' are so important,  
[This shiur will also serve as a continuation to our
introductory shiur on Sefer Devarim, as it discusses in
greater detail the overall structure of the main
speech.]
	
INTRODUCTION 
	Our introductory shiur on Sefer Devarim
discussed how the first 26 chapters of Sefer Devarim
divide into two speeches:
1.  The introductory speech (chapters 1-4);
- explaining why forty years have passed, followed by a
short 'pep-talk' to prepare the nation for their
conquest of the land, and the laws that they'll need to
keep.
2.  The main speech (chapters 5-26);
- in which Moshe reviews the actual set of laws
(originally given at Har Sinai) that Bnei Yisrael must
keep as they establish their nation after they conquer
the Land, adding some 'rebuke' as he reviews them. 

	The following shiur will focus more directly on
the internal structure of this main speech, showing how
and why its commandments neatly divide into two distinct
sections:

SETTING THE FRAMEWORK
    Recall how Moshe Rabbeinu began his main speech with
the story of how and when these mitzvot (which he is
about to teach) were first given (see 5:1-28).  In that
story, we find an important detail that will help us
understand why this speech divides into two sections.
    As you review that story, pay careful attention to
God's response to the people's request that Moshe should
teach them laws, instead of hearing them directly from
God:
"Go say to them: 'Return to your tents', but you [Moshe]
remain here with Me and I will transmit to you:
- the mitzva & the chukim u-mishpatim -
which you shall teach them..."  (see 5:27-28).

	Note the key phrases "ha-mitzva" & "chukim
u'mishpatim" in this pasuk.  As we continue our study of
Sefer Devarim we will show how often these two phrases
are repeated, and how they will introduce the two key
sections of main speech:
    A) - ha-mitzva   [chapters 6 to 11]
    B) - chukim & mishpatim  [chapters 12-26]
    
    To see how this develops, we must carefully follow
the continuation of Moshe's speech (from this point).
    Now that Moshe has told the story of how he received
these laws, he is now ready to teach them, but first -
he interjects a few words of encouragement concerning
their importance:
" You shall keep [these laws] to do them as God has
commanded you....in all the way which God has commanded
you, in order that you may live and be well, and prolong
your days in the land which you shall possess"
(5:29-30).

    At this point, Moshe is finally ready to 'tell over'
those laws which he received on Har Sinai, as he
explained in 5:28.  Note Moshe's next remark:
    "ve-zot ha-mitzva, ha-chukim ve-hamishpatim..."
"And this is the mitzva and the chukim u-mishpatim that
God had commanded me to teach you to observe on the land
which you are about to inherit"  (6:1).

	Compare this pausk with 5:28, noting how Moshe
refers once again to this very same phrase- 'ha-mitzva,
chukim & mishpatim'.  Clearly, 6:1 serves as the
introduction [note the word 'zot'] to the mitzvot that
he will now teach. 
    Even though the mitzvot should begin in the next
pasuk, Moshe once again grabs this opportunity to
explain their importance:
"[Keep these laws] so that you will fear the Lord your
God, to keep all His statutes and commandments, which I
command you... so that your days may be prolonged.  Hear
therefore, O Israel, and observe them - so that you will
prosper... as God has promised you - in the land flowing
with milk and honey"  (see 6:2-3).

THE OPENING STATEMENT
    With these introductory comments finally complete,
Moshe is now ready to begin the mitzvot themselves -
which begin with the famous pasuk of:
    "shema Yisrael, Hashem Elokeinu, Hashem echad"
(6:4).

	Now we can appreciate why this pasuk is so
important, for it serves as the opening statement that
begins that entire set of laws that continues through
chapter 26.  
	Even though we all know this pasuk by heart,
it's not so simple to translate - for it is not clear
whether it is making two points, i.e.  
	(1) Hashem is OUR God  [and nobody else's]
	(2) Hashem is ONE  - i.e. He is the ONLY God

Or, if it is making only one point, that:
	(1) Hashem WHO is our God - He is the ONLY God	

	The difference between these two translations is
immense.  The first implies that 'our God' is the best;
sort of like - we have the true God, and every other
religion is wrong.  The second implies that the God who
we have a special covenant with - He is the only God -
hence it becomes incumbent upon us to represent him
properly.
    In the context of Sefer Devarim, the second
understanding makes much more sense - for this opening
statement of the law section is thematically linked to
Moshe Rabeinu's introductory statement - at the
beginning of this speech:
"Hashem Elokeinu karet imanu brit b'Chorev"
  [Hashem, our God make a covenant with us at Mount
Horev /=Mount Sinai]   (see 5:2)

	Therefore, it makes sense that "Hashem Elokeinu"
(in 6:4) relates to that same theme.  If so, then Moshe
is prefacing the laws that will follow with an important
statement explaining why it is so important for the
nation to keep these laws.  The God with whom Am Yisrael
has joined in covenant [to represent Him as a nation] -
He is the only God - and hence, these laws must be kept
meticulously.  
    Recall as well that Moshe had made a similar
statement - relating to this same theme - earlier in his
first speech (in chapter four), when he explained their
underlying purpose:
"See [comprehend] that I am teaching you [in the speech
that will follow] chukim u-mishpatim that God had
commanded me to teach you to observe on the land which
you are about to inherit [compare with 6:1]
    Observe them & keep them; for this is your wisdom
and your understanding in the eyes of other nations, so
that when they hear all these laws, shall say: 'Surely
this great nation is a wise and understanding people.'
For what great nation is there, that had God so close to
them, as Hashem our God when ever we call upon Him...
(see 4:5-8) 

THE FIRST LAW 
	This most basic principle of faith and purpose -
of "Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad" - is followed by one
of the most important mitzvot - for it is a law that
relates to one's overall attitude toward serving God and
keeping His laws:
"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all your
heart, and all your soul... And these words [i.e. the
laws of the main speech] which I command thee this day,
shall be upon thy heart.  And you shall teach them
repeatedly to your children, and speak about them..."
(see 6:5-7).
 		[Review 6:4-6, noting how they
introduced by 6:1-3.]
	
    From this point on, we find a complete set of laws,
interspersed with many words of rebuke, which continue
all the way until the end of chapter 26.  
[This overall structure was discussed in last week's
shiur, but it is recommended that you take a few minutes
to scan through chapters 6 thru 26 to verify this
point.]

THE TWO SECTIONS
    These laws cover a ride range of topics; however, we
will now show how they divide into two distinct
sections.  To explain why, let's return to the key
phrase, which was repeated in 5:28 and 6:1, that sets
the stage for this division.
    "ve-zot ha-mitzva, ha-chukim ve-hamishpatim..."
"And this is the mitzva and the chukim u-mishpatim that
God had commanded me to teach you..."  (6:1).
    
    We posit that this entire speech divides into two
sections, corresponding to these two headers: 
	A) the Ha-mitzva section - chapters 6-11
		[Parshiot Va-etchanan thru Ekev]
	B) the Chukim & Mishpatim section - chapters
12-26
		[Parshiot Re'eh, Shoftim, Ki Tetzeh, &
Ki Tavo]

    To explain how this division works, let's start with
the unit that is easy to identify.

'HEADERS' & 'FOOTERS'
    Towards the beginning of Parshat Re'eh, we find a
short introduction to a specific set of laws that is
clearly referred to as 'chukim u-mishpatim'.  To verify
this, review these psukim:
"For you are about to pass over the Jordan to go in to
inherit the land which God is giving you... [There] you
shall observe to keep all these chukim & mishpatim that
I set before you this day"  (see 11:31-32).
"These are the chukim & mishpatim that you are to keep
in the land which God gave to your forefathers..." (see
12:1).

    As you review chapter 12, note how this opening
pasuk (12:1) introduces a lengthy list of laws that Bnei
Yisrael must keep upon entering the land - which
continues on all the way until the end of chapter 26! 
    To 'balance' this 'header', towards the end of the
speech we find another special pasuk that forms a very
appropriate summary (what we refer to as a 'footer') for
this entire unit:
"On this day, God is commanding you to keep these chukim
& mishpatim, keep them with all your heart... " (see
26:16).
[Again, if you have time, scan chapters 12 thru 26,
noting how there are no 'new headers' in the interim.
Note also how many parshiot begin with the word 'ki'
[when/if] and  'lo' [do not...], typical for a set of
laws (just as we found in the set of laws in Parshat
Mishpatim)!]

	It was rather easy to identify this matching
'header' and 'footer' for the "chukim u-mishpatim"
section.  Now, we must work 'backwards' to identify the
less obvious 'header' & 'footer' for the 'ha-mitzva'
section.

	Let's start by taking a closer look at the pasuk
that opens the mitzvot of the main speech (as we
explained above, i.e. 6:4): 
"Hear o Israel, the Lord is our God... and you shall
love God with all your heart and all your soul... and
these instructions which I 'metzaveh' [command] you
today, teach them to your children..." (see 6:4-6).

	This paragraph certainly sounds like an
introduction to a set of mitzvot.  But to understand
what makes this unit special, we consider its opening
commandment - to love God ['ahavat Hashem' / see 6:5].  
    Recall that the Torah refers to this unit as
"ha-mitzva" - which implies the mitzva - or possibly the
most important mitzva!  [In Hebrew grammar, this type of
'heh' is known as 'heh ha-yedi'a' - which stresses the
word that follows.] 
    We posit that the Torah refers to the commandment of
'ahavat Hashem' as - ha-mitzva  - for it is the [most
important] mitzvah. 
Note as well how the phrase that follows the mitzva of
ahavat Hashem is: "ve-hayu ha-devarim ha-eileh asher
anochi metzaveh etchem..."]  

    Thus, we conclude that the 'header' for the
ha-mitzva section is 'shema Yisrael... ve-ahavta...';
now we must locate its 'footer'. 
	As we would expect to find the 'footer' before
the next section begins, let's take a look towards the
end of chapter 11.
    At the conclusion of Parshat Ekev we find a very
'worthy candidate' for a closing pasuk for this section:

"If, then, you faithfully keep ? ha-mitzva ha-zot - that
I command you, to love God... to follow His laws and to
attach yourselves to Him.  Then I will help you conquer
the Land..."  (see 11:22-25, noting its context!).

	Here, not only do we find our key word ?
ha-mitzva, but the same context as well in regard to
ahavat Hashem - loving God.  Furthermore, this section
serves as an appropriate summary, for here the Torah
promises should Bnei Yisrael keep the proper attitude of
ahavat Hashem, then God will surely assist them with the
conquest of the Land.
[As you review 11:26-30, notice how these psukim form a
small 'buffer' between these two sections, as the chukim
u-mishpatim clearly begin with 11:31-32 which lead right
into 12:1. / Note as well how the chapter division seems
to have missed this rather obvious point.]  

	Up until now, we have found textual support for
dividing the mitzvot of the main speech into two
distinct sections.  Now, we must find the primary theme
of each section by examining their contents.
 
SECTION #1 - HA-MITZVA: 'Ahavat Hashem'
	The theme of the ha-mitzva section is quite easy
to identify, for its opening pasuk - as the famous pasuk
of 'Shma Yisrael' says it all:
"Shma Yisrael... and you shall love the Lord your God
with all your heart and soul... and these laws which I
"metzaveh" - command you this day..." (see 6:4-6).

	Note how this general theme of 'to love God in
every walk of life' continues in each subsequent parshia
which follows. 
	For example:
 *	Upon conquering the land, you may inherit an
entire city with houses already built and vineyards
already planted, etc.  Don't let this affluence cause
you to forget God... (6:10-15).
 *	When your children (who did not go through the
desert experience) will ask you why we have to keep all
these mitzvot, remind them and teach them about all the
events of Yetziat Mitzrayim... (6:20-25).
 *	When you conquer your enemy, don't intermarry!
etc. (7:1-5).
 *	If you become fearful of your enemy, don't
worry, remember what God did to Mitzrayim, He can help
you as well. (7:17-25).
 *	Don't act in a rebellious manner as your
forefathers did in the desert (see chapters 8-10).
 *	As Eretz Canaan does not have a constant water
source (like the Nile in Egypt), you will be dependent
on the rainfall in this new land.  Therefore, recognize
that it is God who gives you rain (and not any other god
/ see 11:10-15).

	In fact, when we examine this unit more
carefully, we find that these mitzvot simply apply this
theme of "ahavat Hashem" [the love of God] to the
various situations which will arise as Bnei Yisrael will
enter the land.  To verify this, see 6:10,18;
7:1,13,16,22; 8:1,7; 9:1,4-6; 11:10-12,13-17, & 22-25!

	Furthermore, note how the concluding parshia of
this section promises Bnei Yisrael with a reward, should
they indeed follow God with the proper attitude:
"If, then, you faithfully keep ? ha-mitzva ha-zot - that
I command you, to love God.... to follow His laws...
then God will help you conquer these nations... every
foot step that you take will become your land [to its
widest borders].  No man shall stand up against you..."
(see 11:22-25).

	This promise forms an appropriate conclusion to
this ha-mitzva section, as God promises Bnei Yisrael His
assistance in their conquest of the land, should they
indeed keep the proper attitude towards Him.
	And for a finale, the final psukim of chapter 11
(see 11:26-30) conclude this section by promising a
blessing or a curse on the land, depending if Bnei
Yisrael will continue to keep this "ha'mitzvah", once
they settle the land.
[Note how the topic of this buffer section in 11:26-30
continues in chapter 27 (after the main speech is over);
iy"h, we'll deal with this structure in the shiur on
Parshat Ki Tavo.]

KRIYAT SHEMA
	With this background, we can better appreciate
Chazal's choice of the first two parshiot of kriyat
shma.
	Recall that the opening parshia of the Ha-mitzva
section was none other than the first parshia of kriyat
shema (6:4-9).  Recall also that this section ended with
the 'concluding psukim' in 11:22-25. 
    With this in mind, note now how the 'parshia' which
precedes these finale psukim is none other than the
second parsha of kriyat shma - 've-haya im shamo'a...'.
[To verify this, review 
11:10-22.]
	In other words, the first two parshiot of kriyat
shma form the bookends of the ha-mitzva section, for it
begins with 'Shma Yisrael... ve-ahavta' (6:4-8) and ends
with 've-haya im shamo'a..' (11:13-21).
	This could explain why Chazal chose that we read
both these parshiot to fulfill our daily obligation of
Torah study [which is based on 6:6 - 've-hayu ha-devarim
ha-eileh asher anochi metzaveh...'].

    Based on this pasuk alone, one could conclude that
we are required to read the entire ha-mitzva section on
a daily basis.  However, since this section is too
lengthy, it is sufficient if we recite only its opening
and closing parshiot.  However, by reading these two
parshiot, it is as though we have read (and hopefully
internalized) all of the mitzvot included in this entire
section.
[The Mishna at the end of the seventh perek of Masechet
Sota arrives at a similar conclusion in regard to
reading Sefer Devarim at the Hakhel ceremony (see Sota
41a).  There, instead of reading the entire speech, the
custom was to read the first parsha of Shema (6:4-8) and
then skip to the last parsha of Shema (11:13-21).]

SECTION # 2 - THE CHUKIM & MISHPATIM UNIT
    Review once again the concluding psukim of chapter
11, noting the smooth transition from the mitzva section
- to the chukim u-mishpatim section, noting the key
phrases and theme:
"... Now that you are crossing the Jordan to inherit the
Land... keep these chukim & mishpatim that I am teaching
you today" (11:31-32).

    With this transition, we flow right into the opening
pasuk of section # 2, which details these laws (see
12:1):
"These are the chukim & mishpatim that you are to keep
in the land which God gave to your forefathers..." 

	The many chapters which follow this opening
pasuk contain numerous laws that Bnei Yisrael must keep
upon entering the land.  However, in contrast to the
laws relating to proper attitude in the ha-mitzva
section, the laws in Section #2 are more specific in
nature.  For example, here we find laws concerning when
and where to build the permanent bet ha-mikdash (chapter
12), dietary laws (chapter 14), laws of 'aliya la-regel'
on the Holidays (chapter 16), laws about appointing
judges and political leaders (chapter 17), and a full
assortment of civil laws (see chapters 19-25).   This
list continues until the end of chapter 26.  [Recall,
that chapter 27 begins a new speech.]
	As we should expect, this unit also contains a
very appropriate conclusion:
"God commands you today to keep these chukim &
mishpatim, keep them with all your heart and soul.  You
have affirmed this day that the Lord is your God, that
you will walk in His ways...
The Lord has affirmed this day that you are, as He
promised, His am segula... and you shall be, as He
promised [at Har Sinai] a holy nation to the Lord your
God"  (see 26:16-19).
[The shiurim to follow will discuss the nature of this
unit in greater detail.]
	In summary, we have identified the two very
distinct sections of the main speech of Sefer Devarim
and explained the nature of their distinction:
    (A)  The Ha-mitzva section (chapters 6 thru 11)
contains several mitzvot and various rebukes that
encourage Bnei Yisrael to keep the proper attitude
toward God as they conquer the land.
    (B)  The Chukim & Mishpatim section (chapters 12
thru 26) contains an assortment of more specific laws
that Bnei Yisrael must follow once they inherit the
land.
	Now, we can suggest a reason for this manner of
presentation.

THE PROPER BALANCE 
	So which section is more important?  The
ha-mitzva section - which deals with proper attitude
[sort of like a musar sefer], or the chukim & mishpatim
section - which details the specific mitzvot that one
must keep [sort of like a Shulchan Aruch]?
[Any 'yeshiva bachur' faces this dilemma every time he
sets up his daily schedule.  How much time to dedicate
to musar and how much time to halacha.]

	The summary pasuk of Section #2 (quoted above)
alludes to the proper balance between them: 
"This day, God commands you to keep these chukim &
mishpatim, and you should keep them with all your heart
and all your soul..." (26:16).

	This 'finale' closes not only the chukim &
mishpatim section, but also beautifully relates it back
to the ha-mitzva section.  These chukim u-mishpatim must
be kept with all your heart and soul - 'be-chol levavcha
u-vechol nafshecha'.
[Note once again the textual parallel between this
closing pasuk and the opening pasuk of the first
section:
"ve-ahavta et Hashem Elokecha - be-chol levavcha
u-vechol nafshecha" - and you shall love God with all
your heart and all your soul..." (see 6:5, compare with
26:16)].

	This obvious parallel stresses how the specific
laws of the chukim u-mishpatim section must be kept with
the proper attitude of "ahavat Hashem", as explained in
the first section!
	Only with the solid base of "ahavat Hashem" is
it possible to fulfill the more specific laws in the
proper manner.  And only with a comprehensive set of
specific laws is it possible to maintain "ahavat Hashem"
as a daily way of life.
					shabbat shalom,
					menachem

==========================
FOR FURTHER IYUN

A.  BACK TO HAR SINAI
	To better appreciate this entire unit and its
concluding remarks, we must recall that the mitzvot of
this main speech should actually be considered an
integral part of Ma'amad Har Sinai.  [Recall from last
week's shiur that God's original intention  was to give
these mitzvot directly to Bnei Yisrael immediately after
the Ten Commandments!] 
	With this in mind, carefully read the final
psukim of the speech, noting their thematic (and
textual) parallel to the Torah's description of Ma'amad
Har Sinai in Sefer Shmot (especially Shmot 19:3-6).
	Note how these psukim reflect the covenant made
between God and Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai:
"... You have taken upon yourselves today that He will
be your God and that you will follow His ways and
laws...
-  God has affirmed on this day that you will be His
special people- 'am segula'... as He spoke to you [at
Har Sinai (see Shmot 19:5-6)].  And to set you above all
nations to be His glory and Name (reputation)... that
you shall be an "am kadosh" as He spoke to you [at Har
Sinai]" (26:16-19).
	
	Considering that these mitzvot are an integral
component of Ma'amad Har Sinai, it is only fitting that
Moshe concludes this speech by summarizing the most
basic elements and purpose of that covenant.

B.  SOME 'ADDITIONS'
	Go through the Ha-mitzva section of Sefer
Devarim (i.e. chapters 6-11) and try to determine which
parshiot were 'added' now by Moshe in the fortieth year
and which parshiot seem to be a word for word repeat of
what God had first commanded him on Har Sinai forty
years earlier.
1.  Note that many mitzvot sound as though Moshe
Rabbeinu is speaking to Bnei Yisrael as they left Egypt,
and as though they themselves went out of Egypt and
witnessed the plagues etc.
	Does the above distinction explain this?
See 6:16, why is 'masa' the only or best example of a
rebellion against God?  When did this rebellion take
place?  Wasn't here a more recent rebellion? (e.g. Mei
meriva...)
Compare 7:7-11 to 9:4-7, use the above observation to
explain the apparent discrepancy between these psukim.
Why is chapter 8 clearly an 'add on'?  Does this 'add
on' fit in thematically to the main topic of the
Ha-mitzva section?

C.  TWO TYPES OF 'YIR'A' - A mini-shiur
	As we discussed in last week's shiur, chapter 5
details the events which took place at Ma'amad Har Sinai
when Bnei Yisrael were overcome with fear.  In Sefer
Shmot (see 20:14-18), we find what appears to be a
parallel account of the same event.
Let's compare them.
	We begin with the account in Sefer Devarim, when
Bnei Yisrael request that Moshe Rabbeinu act as an
intermediary immediately after the completion of the Ten
Commandments:
"Let us not die, then, for this fearsome fire will
consume us; if we hear the voice of God any longer, we
shall die!  For what mortal ever heard the voice of the
living God speak out of the fire, as we did, and lived?
You go closer and hear all that Hashem says; then you
tell us everything that Hashem tells you, and we will
listen and do it" (5:22-24).

God concedes to this request [note the positive aspect
attributed to this fear]:
"I have heard the plea that this people made to you;
they did well to speak thus.  May they always be of such
mind, to revere Me and follow all my Commandments..."

	Sefer Shmot records a very similar incident that
took place immediately following the Ten Commandments,
which according to some commentators (see Ibn Ezra)
describes the same event:
"All the people saw the thunder and lightning..., and
when the  people saw it, they fell back and stood at a
distance and asked Moshe: You speak to us and we will
listen, but let not God speak to us, less we die.  Moshe
answered them: Be not afraid, for God has come only in
order to test you, and in order that the fear of Him may
be with you forever..."  (Shmot 20:15-17).

    Although Rashi and Ramban explain that this event
(in Shmot) took place either before or during the Ten
Commandments, for the purpose of this mini-shiur, we
will follow Ibn Ezra's shitta which understands that
both accounts describe the same event.
	There is one major discrepancy between these two
accounts: In Sefer Shmot, Moshe is not pleased with this
fear, while in Sefer Devarim, God praises it!
	It seems as though Moshe prefers that Bnei
Yisrael confront God directly during Ma'amad Har Sinai,
while God Himself endorses a more distanced
relationship.  Could this discrepancy reflect a dispute
between Moshe and God regarding the value of fearing
God?
	An understanding of the two forms of 'yir'at
Hashem' - the fear of God - can help us appreciate this
controversy.

TYPE I:  Positive (or Constructive) Fear
	When one recognizes God's infinite greatness,
even though he may be enthralled with the possibility of
encountering the Almighty, out of humility he feels that
it be improper to confront Him directly.  This fear is
commendable, for it reflects an ideal balance between
possible closeness and necessary distance.

TYPE II:  Negative Fear
	On the other hand, a person not interested in
any relationship with God would view a divine encounter
such as Har Sinai as a nuisance, for it is meaningless
to him.  Fearful of its inherent danger, he prefers
distance and limited  responsibility.  This type of fear
of God, like a 'child running away from school', can
ruin a relationship.

THE MACHLOKET
	It seems that Moshe Rabbeinu, based on his
experience with Bnei Yisrael since the time of the
Exodus, is concerned that the people's fear stems from
the latter reason.  Therefore, he is unhappy with Bnei
Yisrael's request that he act as their intermediary.  He
encourages them to stay at Har Sinai.
	God, on the other hand, aware of the nature of
man's haughtiness, stresses the positive aspect of this
fear.  He agrees with Bnei Yisrael's request, sends them
to their tents, and gives the mitzvot to them thru Moshe
instead. 
	Nonetheless, when the mitzvot of the main speech
actually begin, we find a beautiful resolution of this
conflict.
	Because God is indeed aware of Moshe's worry
that there is a danger of the distance caused by yir'at
Hashem, God chooses to begin the mitzvot, which He gives
via Moshe to Bnei Yisrael with the commandment of ahavat
Hashem - the love of God!
"Shema Yisrael... and you must love the Lord your God
with all your heart and with all your soul and with all
your might" (6:4-5).
To counter this potential danger of 'too much yir'a',
God begins with the mitzva of ahavat Hashem!  The love
of God and the proper appreciation of His laws assure
that one's fear will strengthen his relationship, rather
than weaken it. 


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1604 -
Release Date: 8/11/2008 5:50 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: veet1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 50913 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080815/96ae4f9d/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Fri Aug 15 05:30:09 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 05:30:09 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Veetchanan - shiur #2
Message-ID: <005c01c8feb9$8666ad60$0502a8c0@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

               PARSHAT  VA-ETCHANAN - shiur #2
                               
     On his final day, why is Moshe Rabbeinu eager to
see
Lebanon?
     And when he ascends the mountain for a final view,
why
does God show him a view of Saudia Arabia?
     And why do Chazal interpret all of this as
Jerusalem?

     In this 'mini shiur', we'll attempt to answer these
questions as we uncover the very first 'virtual'
Jerusalem!

INTRODUCTION
     In the opening psukim of this week's Parsha, Moshe
Rabbeinu begs God to allow him to cross into the Holy
Land
(see 3:23-26).  However, note how the manner in which he
states his request is rather peculiar:
  "Let me pass over and see this good land that is on
the
  other side of the Jordan, this good mountain and the
  Lebanon" (3:25).

     We can understand why Moshe wants to see the 'good
land',
for that seems to imply the Land of Israel - as it was
described in 'spy-report' by Yehoshua and Kalev:
  "The land that we have passed to scout it, the land is
  very very good" (see Bamidbar 14:7).
          [Note also 'asher avarnu'; compare 'evra na'
in
3:25!]

     But why does Moshe express interest to see Lebanon
as
well?  True, Lebanon is located on the northern border
of
Eretz Canaan, but Moshe doesn't ask to see any of the
other
borders.  Furthermore, why is Moshe only interested in
seeing
mountain ranges?  What about the Negev, the Shefeila,
and the
coastal plain?
  In fact, when he is shown the land (as recorded later
on in
Devarim 34:1-4), God shows him the Negev, the mountain
ranges,
and even the Mediterranean.  Yet, in those psukim,
Lebanon is
not even mentioned!
  In the following shiur, we attempt to explain deeper
motivation behind Moshe Rabbeinu's request.

A GREAT VIEW
     As we all know, God does not grant Moshe's request.
Instead, he instructs Moshe to climb to the top of a
mountain
to get a glimpse of the land that he is not permitted to
enter.  However, here we find yet another difficulty.
Note
the directions that God tells Moshe to look:
  "Climb to the top of the mountain, and lift up your
eyes
  to the west, north, south and east - and see with your
  eyes, for you will not cross the Jordan" (3:27).

     Recall that Moshe now stands on Mount Nevo in the
Moabite
Mountains, directly east of Eretz Canaan.  Hence, it
makes
sense that he should look towards the west, and even to
the
north and south, for that could be understood as
northwest and
southwest; but why would he look to east?  After all, to
the
east, the only area in sight would be wide plains and
desert
areas of modern day Jordan, Iraq and Saudia Arabia.
  So why does God tell Moshe to look to the East?
  The answer can't be that God wanted to show him the
fullest
borders of the Land of Israel, for Moshe had already
seen them
in his battle against Sichon, and furthermore, Moshe's
request
dealt specifically with the other side of the Jordan.

     To answer these questions, we must note an
interesting
parallel between these psukim and similar psukim in
Sefer
Breishit.

THE SAME TOUR GUIDE
     In our study of Sefer Breishit, we discussed the
centrality of Bet El in Avraham Avinu's first journey to
the
Land of Israel.
  His arrival in Canaan from Aram climaxed with his
building
of a mizbeiach in Bet El, where he called out in God's
Name
(see Breishit 12:1-8).  Similarly, upon Avraham's return
to
Canaan from Egypt, he ascended once again to his
mizbeiach in
Bet El - to call out in the Name of God.
  At that same time, Lot had decided to leave him,
choosing
instead the Jordan valley.  After Lot's departure, God
appeared to Avraham once again in Bet El, and reiterated
His
promise that this Land will one day become the homeland
of his
offspring.
  However, note the special preface that God adds to
this
promise, and its similarity to our pasuk in Sefer
Devarim:
  "And God said to Avram after Lot had left him: Lift up
  your eyes and SEE from the place where you are - to
the
  north and south, east and west, for this land that you
  see I will give to you and your offspring" (see
Breishit
  13:14-16).

     Note how God tells Avraham to lift up his eyes and
look
in all four directions from Bet El, just as He later
tells
Moshe Rabbeinu to look in all four directions from Har
Nevo.
     Of course, this parallel could simply be
incidental, for
this is usually the directions that one looks when he is
on a
high place.  However, we find one additional instance
where
these four directions are mentioned, and once again in
relation to Bet El.

THE FIRST BET ELOKIM
     Recall when Yaakov Avinu was running away from Esav
on
his way to Aram, he stopped overnight at Bet El.  There,
God
appeared to him in a dream, confirming that Yaakov would
be
the inheritor of His covenant with Avraham.  In that
blessing,
note how we find once again all four directions:
  "...And your offspring will [numerous] be like the
dust
  of the earth, and you spread out to the west and east,
  north and south, and through you will be a blessing to
  all the nations on the earth" (see Breishit 28:10-15).

     Here once again we find all four directions, and in
fact
these three sources are the only times in Chumash where
these
'four directions' are found.  However, this source
concerning
Yaakov is most significant, for when he awakes from his
dream
Yaakov makes a special promise concerning this site.
  "And Yaakov awoke in the morning and took the rock
that
  was by his head and erected it as a monument and
anointed
  it with oil.  Then he named this spot Bet El... and he
  vowed that when he returns... this monument will
become a
  Bet- Elokim [House for God]..." (see 28:18-21).

     These psukim establish a connection between this
special
site of Bet El and a House for God - a Bet Elokim.  [In
case
you didn't notice, that's why it is called Bet El.]
     This site was destined to house the bet ha-mikdash
- that
would become the symbol of the very purpose of God's
choice of
the Jewish nation.  A site where man will be able to
focus on
perfecting his connection [through prayer] to God.

VIRTUAL JERUSALEM
     With this background, we can suggest an alternate
reason
for both Moshe's request and for God's response.
     Surely, Moshe wants to see the land, but not simply
as a
tourist; rather Moshe wants to see the achievement of
the
ultimate goal for Am Yisrael, as reflected in Yaakov's
dream
at Bet El and Avraham's vision from Bet El.  When Moshe
requests to see 'ha-har ha-tov' - the good mountain
(3:25),
one could suggest that he wants to 'see' the Temple
Mount
[note 'tov' in Breishit 1:4,10,12 etc.], and when he
requests
to see Ha-Levanon - he may be hinting not only to that
northern mountain range, but to the bet-ha-mikdash that
will
one day be constructed from the wood of the cedars of
Lebanon
(see I Melachim 5:16-32!).
     In a similar manner, we can now understand God's
response
to Moshe.  He instructs Moshe to climb to the highest
mountain
and to look out in all four directions, just as Avraham
Avinu
had done at the dawn of Jewish History.  Moshe wishes to
see
the dream of God's promise to Avraham Avinu fulfilled,
and God
allows Moshe an experience that would reflect its
fulfillment.
     Moshe looks in all four directions for God has
'virtually' placed him in Jerusalem.  With that vision,
he can
proceed to charge Yehoshua, for he will lead Bnei
Yisrael into
the land (see Devarim 3:28), and it will be his
responsibility
to make Moshe's dream come true.

     Not only is this week's Haftara ('Nachamu') most
fitting
for the shabbat after Tisha Be-av, so too are its
opening
psukim of the Torah reading form Parshat Va-etchanan.

               shabbat shalom,
               menachem

==========================

FOR FURTHER IYUN

A.  See Rashi on Devarim 3:25.  Note how our shiur
attempts to
explain the pshat of the drash that Rashi quotes!
     See also Chizkuni on 3:25.  How is his peirush
different?
How does he explain the connection between Levanon and
the bet
ha-mikdash (based on Yoma 39b!).

B.  In your opinion, does Moshe also want to remain the
leader
of Bnei Yisrael, or does he just want to enter as [sort
of a]
'rabbi emeritus', while allowing Yehoshua to lead the
nation?
     Which possibility does 3:28 support?
     Relate your answer to Bamidbar 20:12 [& our
conclusion in
regard to this topic in our shiur on Parshat Chukat.]
Does God explain to Moshe why His answer is no?
     If so, what is that answer?  [Does it relate to
1:36?]
     If not, can you explain why He doesn't?

C.  Note the use of the 'shoresh' ayin.bet.reish. in
both
3:25, 3:26 and 3:28.  Does this shoresh have the same
meaning
in each of these psukim, or different meanings?
Explain.
     Now read Bamidbar 27:12-14 (see also 27:15-23).
     In your opinion, is this the same story or a
different
one?
       [How do these two accounts complement each other?
               See Rashi & Chizkuni on 27:12.]
Now, note the name of the mountain that Moshe is
instructed to
ascend - 'Har Ha-avarim'.  Note again the shoresh
ayin.bet.reish!!
     What is the 'real name' of this mountain - see
Devarim
32:49!  Based on the above questions, why do you think
that
the Torah refers to it as Har Ha-avarim instead of Har
Nevo?
     Is there a geographical reason as well for this
name?
          See Ramban 27:12.
     [Note also the use of ayin.bet.reish. in Bamidbar
27:6-
11!
          Note also the use of verb 'latet' - to give -
both
in 27:7 and 27:12! (cute?)]

Relate your answer to this question to the above shiur.





No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1604 -
Release Date: 8/11/2008 5:50 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: veet2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 25412 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080815/7a80df24/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Fri Aug 15 05:30:38 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 05:30:38 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Veetchanan - shiur #3
Message-ID: <006001c8feb9$94e464e0$0502a8c0@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

             for PARSHAT VA-ETCHANAN - shiur #3
    
           Understanding the speech in chapter four

     Pretend that you were there!  It's a great frame of
mind
to put yourself in when reading Parshat Ve'etchanan, as
it
will definitely help you 'put all of its pieces
together'.
     In the following shiur, that's exactly what we'll
do;
i.e. by considering when, why, and where Moshe is giving
his
speech - and pretending as though we were there - we
will
follow its flow of topic in an attempt to better
appreciate
its content.

INTRODUCTION
     Last week's shiur discussed how the first 26
chapters of
Sefer Devarim divide into two speeches:
  The introductory speech (chapters 1-4);
  The speech of mitzvot (chapters 5-26);
  
  In that 'main speech' (5-26), Moshe Rabeinu teaches
the
special set of laws (originally given at Har Sinai) that
Bnei Yisrael must keep as they establish their nation in
the
Promised Land; while the 'introductory speech' served as
both an explanation why forty years had passed since
those
laws were first given, as well as a 'pep-talk' to
encourage
the nation not to allow this new opportunity to fail.
  In that shiur, we followed the first three chapters of
the introductory speech - and now we continue that
discussion, to explain the wide range of topics that
Moshe
Rabeinu discusses in chapter 4.

LAWS ABOUT LAWS
  Let's begin, by noting how the opening line of chapter
four relates directly to the main speech:
  "And now, O Israel, listen to the 'chukim u'mishpatim'
  which I teach you, to do them; that you shall live,
and
  go in and possess the land which the LORD, the God of
  your fathers has given you."  (4:1)
    [Recall how the main speech begins with almost the
    identical phrase - Listen all Israel to the 'chukim
    u'mishpatim' that I'm telling you today..." (see
5:1).
    Should you like further proof, compare 4:1 with
5:28-
    6:3, see also our intro shiur to Sefer Devarim!]
    
  In other words, the opening line in chapter four does
not
introduce the laws that will follow in chapter four,
rather
it refers to the lengthy set of laws that will follow in
chapters 5 thru 26.  Instead, chapter four itself will
include a set of guidelines, warnings, and insights that
Moshe will now instruct Bnei Yisrael - to encourage them
to
keep those laws that he intends to teach them in his
main
speech.
  Sounds a little complicated?  It's really not.  Just
follow the flow of topics in chapter four, and pretend
that
you were standing there in Arvot Moav, listening to
Moshe
Rabeinu at this critical time in Jewish history; as he
is
about to teach as long set of laws before his death, and
the
nation is about to enter the land (where they must keep
these laws).
  For our first example, let's take a look at the next
pasuk in chapter four:
  "You shall not add unto the word which I command you,
nor
  shall you diminish from it, to keep the commandments
of
  the LORD your God which I [am about to] command you."
  (4:2)

     Even though this is the famous law of "bal tosif"
[not
to add to (or take away from) any of God's mitzvot] - it
is
not just one law among a list of many others.  Rather it
is
a general principle that will relate to all the laws
that
will follow in the main speech.  In essence, Moshe is
telling the people, I'm about to teach you a lengthy set
of
laws; but before we begin - a reminder that no
individual
has the right to add or take away from them. This
general
warning is followed by yet another:
  "Your eyes have seen what Hashem did in Baal-peor; for
  all the men that followed the Baal  Peor, Hashem has
  destroyed from your midst  - But you who did cleave
unto
  God are alive - every one of you this day. (4:3-4)

  In a rather indirect manner, Moshe reminds the nation
that it doesn't pay to disobey God, for only a short
time
ago, those who did were smitten, while those who
followed
God survived - and hence are still alive to hear this
speech!
  [This also explains why Moshe had just mentioned
(right
  before he began this section of the speech) that Bnei
  Yisrael were encamped in Arvot Moav "in the valley
  opposite Beit Peor" (see 3:29).]
  
  With this in mind, we continue our analysis of chapter
four, noting how the next section as well relates to the
mitzvot that will follow in the main speech.

OR LA'GOYIM - THE REASON FOR THESE MITZVOT
     From a thematic perspective, the next set of psukim
are
some of the most important in Chumash, for the they
explain
how all mankind will benefit should Bnei Yisrael keep
these
mitzvot (in their land) in the proper manner:
  Behold, I am teaching you 'chukim u'mishpatim' - that
God
  has commanded me - to keep them in the land that you
know
  prepare to possess.   Observe them and keep them; for
this
  is your wisdom and your understanding in the eyes of
the
  nations, that, when they hear all these laws, they
will
  conclude: 'Surely this great nation is a wise and
  understanding people. - For what great nation is
there, that
  has God so close unto them, as Hashem is to us
whenever we
  call upon Him?  And what great nation is this, that
has
  'chukim u'mishpatim'  that are so righteous as all
this law,
  which I set before you this day!" (4:5-8)

     This section provides us with conclusive proof that
chapter four serves as an introduction to the main
speech.
Before actually teaching these laws [i.e. the 'chukim
u'mishpatim' of the main speech], Moshe Rabeinu first
explains
why it is so important for Bnei Yisrael to keep them.
They
are not only for your own good (see "l'maan tichyu" at
end of
4:1), but they are also for the good of all mankind.
This
explanation also ties in beautifully with our
explanation (in
our shiurim on Sefer Breishit) for why God had
originally
chosen Avraham Avinu - to bring a blessing for all
mankind
(see Breishit 12:1-3 and 18:18-19).  By diligently
keeping the
laws of Sefer Devarim, Bnei Yisrael will become a 'model
nation', showing a behavior that other nations can learn
from.
[See also Yeshayahu 2:1-5 and 42:5-6.]

REMEMBERING MOUNT SINAI
     At this point in the speech (i.e. beginning with
4:9),
there appears to be a sudden change of topic:
  "Only be careful... lest you forget the things that
your
  eyes saw... the day that you stood before Hashem at
Chorev,
  when God instructed me: 'Assemble the people, and I
will
  make them hear My words that they may learn to fear Me
all
  the days that they live upon the earth, and that they
may
  teach their children.'  Then you came near and stood
under
  the mountain; the mountain burned with fire... (see
4:9-11)

     For some reason, Moshe now reminds Bnei Yisrael of
what
happened at Har Sinai, warning them not to forget what
they
saw.  But why should this special warning be included in
these
introductory remarks that preface the main speech?
     To answer this question, we must consider how the
main
speech begins.  Recall (from chapter five) how Moshe
begins
that speech by explaining that the 'chukim u'mishpatim'
(that
he is about to teach) were part of covenant with God
(see 5:1-
3), and even though God had spoken its first 'ten
commandments' directly to Bnei Yisrael (see 5:4), the
remainder of these laws were given via Moshe, as the
people
became fearful (see 5:5 & 5:20-28!).
     With this in mind, let's read on in Moshe's speech
in
chapter four, as he explains exactly why he has
mentioned what
happened at Har Sinai, and we'll find a very similar
detail:
  "And God spoke unto you out of the midst of the fire;
you
  heard the voice of words, but you saw no form; only a
voice.
  And He declared unto you His covenant, which He
commanded
  you to perform, the ten statements; and He wrote them
upon
  two tables of stone.  And then God commanded me at
that time
  to teach you the chukim u'mishpatim, so that you would
keep
  them in the land that you go over to possess"  (see
4:12-14)

     In other words, these details of what transpired at
Har
Sinai, which Moshe talks about in chapter four, relate
directly to the main speech. Now, a different question
arises.
If he discusses all these details in chapter five, why
does he
include them as well in chapter four?
     One could suggest an answer based on the psukim
that
follow, by considering the unique situation that Moshe
Rabeinu
now finds himself.
  To do so, we must first study the next set of psukim,
noting
the sudden transition of topic to idol worship:
  "Take heed - for you saw no manner of form on the day
that
  the God spoke unto you in Chorev out of the midst of
the
  fire --  lest you deal corruptly, and make a graven
image,
  even the form of any figure, the likeness of male or
female,
  the likeness of any beast... (see 5:15-17)

     This sudden transition seems rather strange.  First
of
all, what does idol worship have to do with what Bnei
Yisrael
saw (or didn't see) at Har Sinai?  Secondly, if this
speech in
chapter four is of introductory nature, why include a
specific
mitzvah such as idol worship - a law that will appear
numerous
times in the main speech itself (see 6:14, 7:4-5, 8:19,
12:1-
3; 29-30 etc.).
     To complicate matters, take a look for a minute at
the
strange list of examples of 'forms' that Moshe warns
them not
make:
  the likeness of male or female,
  the likeness of any beast that is on the earth,
  the likeness of any winged fowl that fly in the
heaven,
  the likeness of any thing that creeps on the ground,
  the likeness of any fish that is in the water under
the
  earth;  ... lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and be
drawn
  to worship: the sun
  the moon
  the stars,
  even all the host of heaven...  (see 4:15-20)
  
  First of all, why is Moshe 'giving them ideas' for
what they
are not supposed to do?  Secondly, it's quite obvious
that
this 'list' is taken directly from the story of Creation
in
chapter one of Sefer Breishit [note the opposite order,
from
day 6, 5, & 4]!
  Furthermore, what does any of this have to do with
what Bnei
Yisrael didn't see at Har Sinai?
     In the midst of all this, we find yet another
sudden
change of topic, where Moshe mentions once again the
fact that
he's not going with them into the Promised Land:
  "But God was angered with me for your sakes, and swore
that
  I should not go over the Jordan, and that I should not
go in
  unto that good land, which Hashem has given you; for I
must
  die in this land, I must not go over the Jordan; but
you are
  to go over, and possess that good land."  (4:21-22)

     Then, immediately after interjecting this comment,
Moshe
returns once again to the topic of idol worship,
including one
final warning:
  "Take heed, lest you forget the covenant of God, which
He
  made with you, and make a graven image, even the
likeness of
  any thing which Hashem has forbidden you.  For Hashem
is a
  devouring fire, a zealous God."  (see 4:23-24)

     At first glance, the flow of topic in this entire
section
- from 4:9 thru 4:24 - seems to be very disjoint, and
totally
unrelated to the main speech that it is supposed to be
introducing.
     To understand what's going on, we must consider
once
again the current predicament that Bnei Yisrael now
face.

IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE
     Recall that this will be that last time that Moshe
will
teach these laws to Bnei Yisrael.  As he explains in
this
speech over and over again, he won't be crossing the
Jordan
River with them into the land - but this very fact
creates a
new danger.
     It is specifically because he has been the
intermediary
to teach God's laws [since the Ten Commandments were
given],
that Moshe is so worried of what will be once he passes
on.
Undoubtedly, upon his death, the people would want to do
something special to remember him, to commemorate his
memory
and legacy.
  [Is that not what every nation does for its past
leaders?]
  
  In fact, that is exactly what happened forty years
earlier,
when Moshe had left for some forty days and the people
were
almost sure that he was gone forever (see Shmot 32:1).
Despite the positive aspect of a request to create some
'replacement' for Moshe, the negative result was the sin
of
the 'golden calf'!
  [Ssee Shmot 32:1-7 / note parallel "lech red ki
SHICHET
  amcha" with "pen TASHCHITOON v'asitem pesel...").  See
also
  our shiur on Parshat Ki-tisa, as well as the
interpretations
  of Ramban and Sefer ha'Kuzari re: Aaron's positive
  intentions, even though it led to that sin.]

     Once he ascends Har Nevo to die, the people will
soon
realize that this time, he's not coming back.  What will
Bnei
Yisrael do upon Moshe's death?  Is it not logical to
assume
that someone would take an initiative to commemorate his
memory?

AVODA ZARA L'SHEM SHAMAYIM
     Moshe Rabeinu has good reason to worry that the
people
may want to make some image to remember their great
leader,
but he also knows that the people are well aware that
Second
Commandment forbids that they make any 'graven image'.
Therefore, he is worried that the people make look for a
'loophole' by assuming that even though a graven image
of
another god is forbidden, nonetheless, an image taken
from the
story of Creation would not fall under that category,
and
hence may be permitted.
  Possibly, they could choose from a wide range of
images from
stories in Chumash that would serve as an eternal
reminder
that Moshe had given them Torah that contains those
stories.
  [After all, in the Mishkan, the "keruvim" are used as
a
  symbol of God's presence.  Are not the "keruvim" as
well a
  symbol from the story of Creation in the Torah, as the
  protected the path to Gan Eden! (see Breishit 3:24)
  
  With this 'fear' in mind, let's return to our study of
chapter four, to explain the flow of topic between each
section.
  As Moshe will be emphasizing in his main speech that
he will
be teaching God's laws, even though they were originally
given
by God at Har Sinai (see 5:1-28) - his primary goal in
the
section from 4:9-24 is to make sure that the people
won't make
an image of any sort to 'commemorate' him as God's
messenger.
  Therefore, he begins with a quick review of what
happened at
Har Sinai (4:9-14), warning 'not to forget' that they
saw no
image of God, only his voice [and hence - they should
make no
image to commemorate that event].  Nonetheless, after
those
events, Moshe was commanded to continue to teach them
God's
laws (4:14) - but unlike God Himself, Moshe they saw
(and
heard).  Hence in 4:15-20, Moshe warns the nation not to
make
any image to remember Matan Torah  - even using imagery
from
the Creation story in the Bible!
  This explains why Moshe then reminds the people once
again
that he won't be going with them (4:21-22) - followed by
one
final warning not to make any graven image [even with
good
intentions] - for even that is considered a
transgression of
the second Commandment (see 4:23-24).
  
AN ETERNAL COVENANT
     In the final section of his speech (4:25-40), Moshe
warns
that should Bnei Yisrael follow other gods, He will
exile them
for their land:
  "When you shall have children, and children's
children, and
  be living for along time in the land, and shall deal
  corruptly, and make a graven image, even the form of
any
  thing....
  I call heaven and earth to witness against you this
day,
  that you shall soon utterly perish from off the
land....
  And God will scatter you among the peoples...
  And there you shall serve gods, the work of men's
hands..."
            (see 4:25-28)

     Why should Moshe mention this possibility of Exile
even
before they even enter the Land?  Certainly, this
doesn't seem
to be information that will encourage the people to
conquer
the land!
     If we consider once again the forthcoming topic of
the
main speech, we can suggest an answer.
     Recall that the laws of the main speech are part of
a
covenant between God and His people (see 5:1-3). Even
though
Moshe makes it quite clear that Bnei Yisrael cannot
break
their side of the covenant; one may conclude that should
Bnei
Yisrael sin to such a degree that God would exile them -
that
Exile could be 'misunderstood' by the people that God
has left
them for ever.
     Hence, Moshe Rabeinu must explain in 4:29-31 that
no
matter how severe their punishment may be, Bnei Yisrael
will
remain forever God's nation, and ultimately He will
return
them to the Promised Land (after they have done proper
repentance):
  "Then you will seek Hashem and find Him, if you search
after
  Him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.  In your
  distress, when all these things will come, in the end
of
  days, you will return to Hashem and hearken unto His
  voice... (see 4:29-31)

     As God's purpose in choosing a special nation is
eternal,
His covenant with them remains eternal as well.

LEARN FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE
     Finally, in 4:32-39, Moshe summarizes all the great
wonders that the nation has witnessed since the Exodus,
to
encourage them to solidify their belief in God - and
properly
face the challenges that await them:
  "For ask now of the days past... since the day that
God
  created man upon the earth, and from the one end of
heaven
  unto the other, whether there hath been any such thing
as
  this great thing is, or hath been heard like it?
    * Did ever a people hear the voice of God speaking
out of
    the midst of the fire, as you have heard, and live?
    * Has God ever taken a nation from the midst of
another
    nation, by trials, by signs, and by wonders, and by
war,
    and by a mighty hand, and by an outstretched arm...
    * This was shown to you that you should know that
Hashem,
    He is God; there is none else beside Him.
    * Out of heaven He made you hear His voice...
    * And because He loved your fathers... he brought
you out
    of Egypt with His presence, with great power... to
give
    you their land for an inheritance, as it is this
day;
  Therefore, know this day, and lay it to your heart,
that
  Hashem, He is God in heaven above and upon the earth
  beneath; there is none else."  (see 4:32-39)
  
     As this speech introduces the lengthy speech of
laws that
will follow in chapter five, Moshe Rabeinu concludes
this
preface with fitting reminder:
  "And you shall keep [God's] laws and commandments
which I
  command you this day, that it will be good for you and
your
  children, and so that you may prolong your days upon
the
  land, which Hashem has given you, for ever." (see
4:40)

THE INTERLUDE
     After completing this introductory speech, as an
'interlude' before the main speech begins, Moshe takes
this
opportunity to designate the three cities of refuge in
Transjordan (see 4:41-43 and Rashi's commentary).  Then
the
Torah introduces the main speech with the famous pasuk
of
"v'zot ha'Torah asher sam Moshe lifnei Bnei Yisrael..."
(4:44), which leads us directly into the main speech in
chapter five.
     The deeper meaning of that phrase "v'zot ha'Torah",
used
numerous times at key points in Sefer Devarim, will be
discussed iy"h in future shiur, till then;

                         shabbat shalom,
                         menachem



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1604 -
Release Date: 8/11/2008 5:50 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: veet3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 36001 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080815/f748e370/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue Aug 19 23:27:16 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (tsc at bezeqint.net)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:27:16 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Ekev - shiur
Message-ID: <380-22008832032716768@M2W010.mail2web.com>

*************************************************************************
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  www.tanach.org
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************************

PARSHAT EKEV

	Could it be that the 'People of Israel' don't deserve the 'Land of Israel'?
	In Parshat Ekev, this seems to be what Moshe Rabeinu is saying when he
tells Bnei Yisrael:
"You should know that it is not because of your own righteousness that God
is giving you this good land to inherit; for you are a stiff-necked people.
(see Devarim 9:6)

So why does God give them the land, nonetheless?
As Parshat Ekev discusses both how 'good' the land is (in chapter 8), and
how 'bad' the people are (in chapter 9), this week's shiur will examine one
of the reasons for why the Land of Israel was chosen for the People of
Israel.

INTRODUCTION
	It should not surprise us that Parshat Ekev discusses the importance of
the Land of Israel, for it begins in the middle of Moshe Rabeinu's final
speech to Bnei Yisrael, as they prepare to enter that Land ? to establish
God's special nation.  
For example, the Sedra begins as Moshe promises Bnei Yisrael that should
they keep God's laws (that he is about to teach them), then God will
reciprocate by blessing the land, its produce, and the overall state of the
nation (see 7:12-26). 
However, Moshe Rabeinu is also quite aware how life in the land of Israel
will be very different than life in the desert.  Therefore, he continues
his speech by ensuring them that just as God had cared for their physical
needs ?in a miraculous manner - during the forty years in the desert (see
8:1-6), He will continue to provide their needs in the land of Israel, but
now through natural means ? but only on the condition that they follow His
laws! [See 8:7-20.] 

	To emphasize the conditional nature of these promises, Moshe Rabeinu then
continues (in chapters 9 thru 11) to remind Bnei Yisrael of how God had
consistently punished them for their terrible deeds during the last forty
years in the desert.  However, in between the lines of this harsh rebuke,
we find several references to the importance of the land of Israel. 
In the following shiur, we will study those references in relation to the
theme of covenant in Sefer Devarim ? to show how the Land plays a key role
in the unfolding relationship between God and His people.

BETWEEN EGYPT & ISRAEL
	Towards the beginning of Parshat Ekev, the land of Israel receives what
appears to be a very positive assessment:
"For the Lord your God is bringing you into a good land... a land of wheat
and barley (...the 7 species) ...a land which lacks nothing..." (8:7-9).
		
	Yet, later in the Parsha, the Torah describes the land of Egypt as much
better:
"For the land which you are about to conquer is not like the land of Egypt,
from which you have come, where when you planted your field you watered it
with your foot... 
The Land which you are about to conquer, a land of hills and valleys,
receives its water from the rains (matar) of the heavens" (11:10-11).

	To understand the purpose of this comparison, let's take a closer look at
this pasuk (as well as other instances where the Torah compares the Lands
of Israel to the Land of Egypt).

THE FIRST 'FAUCET'
	We begin our study with the Torah's odd rather description of how one
would water his field in the land of Egypt:
"For [your] land is not like the land of Egypt... where you planted your
field and watered it with your foot" (11:10).
 
	For some reason, Egypt is described as a land that 'you water with your
feet'?  To appreciate this strange depiction, and how it forms the basis of
Egypt's comparison to the land of Israel, we must consider how rivers
affected the development of civilizations.  
	In ancient times, civilizations developed along major rivers, as they
provided not only a means of transportation, but also the necessary water
for agriculture and consumption.
If was for this reason that Egypt (developing along the Nile) and
Mesopotamia (developing along the Tigris and Euphrates) became two of the
greatest centers of ancient civilization.  
To enhance their agriculture, the Egyptians developed a sophisticated
irrigation system by digging ditches from the Nile to their fields.  Using
this system, an Egyptian could water his field by simply kicking away the
dirt [blocking the irrigation ditch] 'with his foot', thus starting the
water flow.  
Similarly, by using his foot once again to kick the dirt to close the ditch
- he could 'turn off' the water supply.  
This background explains why the Torah describes Egypt as a land 'watered
by your feet' (see 11:10).  

NO RAIN, NO FOOD
In contrast to Egypt, the Torah describes the land of Israel as follows:
"The land that you are going now to inherit is a land of hills & valleys,
which drinks from the rains of Heaven" (11:11).

	Unlike Egypt, Israel lacks a mighty river such as the Nile to provide it
with a consistent supply of water.  Instead, the agriculture in the Land of
Israel is totally dependent on rainfall.  Therefore, when it does rain, the
fields are watered 'automatically'; however, when it does not rain, nothing
will grow for the crops will dry out.
[It should be noted that even though Israel does have the Jordan River - it
really doesn't help because it is located some 300 meters below sea level
(in the Jordan Valley), and thus not very helpful for watering the fields. 
In modern times, Israel has basically 'solved' this problem by pumping up
the water from the Kineret into a national water carrier. ]

	Hence, even though the land of Israel may have a slight advantage over
Egypt when it does rain [see Rashi 11:10], from an agricultural perspective
the land of Egypt has a clear advantage [see Ramban 11:10].  Furthermore,
any responsible family provider would obviously prefer the 'secure' option
- to establish his home in Egypt, instead of opting for the 'risky' Israeli
alternative.
	So why is the Torah going out of its way to tell us that Egypt is better
than Israel, especially in the same Parsha where the Torah first tells us
how Israel is a 'great' land, missing nothing!  (See 8:9!) 
Furthermore, why would Moshe Rabbeinu mention this point to Bnei Yisrael
specifically at this time, as they prepare to enter the land?  Is he trying
to discourage them?
	To answer these questions, we must re-examine these psukim in their wider
context. 

THREE PARSHIOT RELATING TO THE FEAR OF GOD
	Using a Tanach Koren (or similar Chumash), take a look at the psukim that
we have just quoted (i.e. 11:10-12), noting how these three psukim form
their own 'parshia'.  Note however how this short 'parshia' begins with the
word 'ki' - 'for' or 'because' - which obviously connects it thematically
to the previous parshia:10:12->11:9.  Therefore, we must first consider the
theme of this preceding 'parshia' and then see how it relates to our topic. 
Let's begin by taking a quick look at the opening psukim of that 'parshia',
noting how it introduces its theme very explicitly:
"And now, O Israel, what is it that God demands of you? It is to fear
('yir'a') the Lord your God, to walk in his ways and to love Him... Keep,
therefore, this entire 'mitzva'... that you should conquer the Land..."
(see 10:12-14).

	As you continue to read this parshia (thru 11:9), you'll also notice how
this topic or the 'fear of God' continues, as it is emphasized over and
over again. 
	Hence, the theme of our short 'parshia' (11:10-12), where the Torah
compares the land of Israel to Egypt, must somehow be related to the theme
of "yir'at Hashem" [fearing God].  But what does the water source of a
country have to do with the fear of God?
	To answer this question, we must read the Torah's conclusion of this
comparison (in the final pasuk of our 'parshia'):
"It is a land which the Lord your God looks after ('doresh otah'), on which
Hashem always keeps His eye, from the beginning of the year to the end of
the year" (11:12).

	This pasuk informs us that God Himself takes direct control over the rain
that falls in the Land of Israel!  In contrast to Egypt where the water
supply from the Nile is basically constant, the water supply in Israel is
sporadic.  Even though one may conclude that the erratic nature of the
rainfall is totally by chance, Chumash tells us that God controls it - and
hence it becomes a vehicle of God's will.  
The realization of this correlation will certainly affect a person's fear
of God - for his survival is dependent on rain, and the rain itself is
dependent on God's will.  This explains the thematic relationship between
these two 'parshiot'.

WHO STOPPED THE RAIN?
	In this manner, the Land of Israel is not 'better' than Egypt; rather it
is different - for its agriculture is more clearly dependent on the
abundance of rain.  A good rainy season will bring plenty, while a lack of
rain will yield drought and famine. Hence, living in a land with this type
of 'touchy' rainy season, dependent on God's will, should reinforce one's
fear of God. 
	The next 'parshia' [i.e. ve-haya im shamo'a...' (11:13-21), the second
parshia of daily 'kriyat shema'] not only supports this theme, it forms its
logical conclusion:
"If you obey the commandments... I will grant the rain (matar) for your
land in season... then you shall eat and be satisfied...
Be careful, lest you be lured after other gods... for Hashem will be angry
... and He will shut up the skies and there will be no rain (matar)..."
(see 11:13-16).

	Thus, according to Sefer Devarim, the "matar" that falls in the land of
Israel acts not only as a 'barometer' of Am Yisrael's faithfulness to God,
but also serves as a vehicle of divine retribution.  God will use this
matar to 'communicate' with His nation.  Rainfall, at the proper time,
becomes a sign that is pleased with our 'national behavior', while drought
(i.e. holding back the matar) becomes a sign of divine anger - and a reason
for self-examination and repentance. 
 
	So which land is better?
The answer simply depends on what one is looking for in life.  An
individual striving for a closer relationship with God would obviously
prefer the Land of Israel; while an individual wary of such direct
dependence upon God would obviously opt for the more secure life in Egypt
['chutz la-aretz'?].
	To support this interpretation, we will now show how the connection
between "matar" and Divine Providence had already emerged as a Biblical
theme back in Sefer Breishit.

BACK TO AVRAHAM AVINU
	At the onset of our national history, we find a very similar comparison
between the lands of Egypt and Israel.
	Recall, that when God first chose Avraham Avinu, commanding him to uproot
his family from Mesopotamia and travel to the land of Canaan (see 12:1-3),
his nephew Lot was consistently mentioned as Avraham's 'travel partner'
(see 12:4-6 & 13:1-2).  As Avraham was childless and Lot had lost his
father, it would only be logical for Avraham to assume that Lot would
become his successor. 
Nevertheless, after their return from Egypt, a quarrel broke out between
them, which ultimately led to Lot's 'rejection' from Avraham's 'chosen
family'. 
One could suggest that the Torah's description of these events relates
directly to this same Biblical theme of "matar".  To show how, let's begin
with the Torah's description of that quarrel:
"And Avraham said to Lot, let there not be a quarrel between us... if you
go to the right [=south], I'll go to the left [=north] (& vice versa)..."
(see Breishit 13:8-9).
[Note that Avraham suggested that Lot choose either North or South
(13:8-9), not East or West as is often assumed!  See Targum Unkelos which
translate right & left as 'south' or 'north' (see also Seforno). 
Throughout Chumash 'yemin' always refers to the south, kedem - east, etc.]

	In other words, Avraham Avinu, standing in Bet El (see 13:3), is offering
Lot a choice between the mountain ranges of 'Yehuda' (to the south) or the
hills of the 'Shomron' (to the north).  To our surprise, Lot chooses
neither option!  Instead, Lot prefers to divorce himself from Avraham Avinu
altogether, choosing the Jordan Valley instead.  Note, however, the
connection between Lot's decision to 'go east' and his most recent
experience in Egypt:
"Then Lot lifted up his eyes and saw the whole plain of Jordan, for it was
all well watered (by the Jordan River)... just like the Garden of the Lord,
like the land of Egypt..." (13:10-12).

	After his brief visit to Egypt (as described at the end of chapter 12), it
seems as though Lot could no longer endure the hard life in the 'hills and
valleys' of the Land of Israel.  Instead, Lot opts for a more secure
lifestyle along the banks of the Jordan River, similar to the secure
lifestyle in Egypt by the banks of the Nile River.  
[Note especially how the Torah (in the above pasuk) connects between this
river valley and the 'Garden of the Lord', i.e. Gan Eden (for it was set
along four rivers, see Breishit 2:9-14).]

 	Lot departs towards Sdom for the 'good life', while Avraham Avinu remains
in Bet El, at the heart of the Land of Canaan (see 13:14-16, see also
previous TSC shiur on Matot / Mas'ei). 
	Rashi, commenting on Breishit 13:11, quotes a Midrash which arrives at a
very similar thematic conclusion:
"Va-yisa Lot mi-kedem... [Lot traveled from kedem] - He traveled away from
He who began the Creation ('kadmono shel olam'), saying, I can no longer
endure being with Avraham nor with his God" ("iy efshi, lo be-Avraham,
ve-lo be-Elokav").

	As Rashi alludes to, this quarrel between Avraham and Lot stemmed from a
conflict between two opposite lifestyles:
*  A life striving for a dependence (and hence a relationship) with God
(=Avraham Avinu);
	*  A life where man prefers to be independent of God (=Lot).

	The path chosen by Avraham Avinu leads to 'Bet El' - the house of God,
while the path chosen by Lot leads to 'Sdom'- the city of corruption (see
13:12-13). 

BACK TO THE CREATION
	This Biblical theme of "matar" is so fundamental, that it actually begins
at the time of Creation!  Recall how the Gan Eden narrative (i.e. Breishit
2:4-3:24) opens with a very peculiar statement in regard to matar:
"These are the generations of Heavens and Earth from their Creation...  And
no shrub of the field had yet grown in the land and no grains had yet
sprouted, because Hashem had not yet sent rain [matar] on the land, nor was
there man to work the field..." (Breishit 2:4-5).

	It is rather amazing how this entire account of Creation begins with a
statement that nothing could grow without "matar" or man!  
Furthermore, this very statement is rather odd, for it appears to
contradict what was stated earlier (in the first account of Creation [=
'perek aleph'] which implies that water was just about everywhere
(see1:2,6,9 etc.). 
Finally, this very statement that man is needed for vegetation to grow
seems to contradict what we see in nature.  As we all know shrubs and trees
seem to grow very nicely even without man's help.  Yet, according to this
opening pasuk of the second account of Creation - nothing could grow
without this combination of "matar" and man. 
Nonetheless, Chumash emphasizes in this opening statement that both man and
matar are key factors in the forthcoming story of creation.  To appreciate
why, we must first very briefly review our conclusions in regard to the
comparison between the two accounts in Sefer Breishit.  

The first account [perek aleph] focused on God's creation of all 'nature'
in seven days.  God's Name - 'Elokim' - reflected its key point that all
powers of nature - that appear to stem from the powers of various gods -
are truly the Creation of the one God.  To remind ourselves of this key
point, we are commanded to refrain from all creativity once every seven
days. ['olam ha-teva']
In contrast, the second account ['perek bet'] - focused on the special
relationship between man and his Creator, as reflected in its special
environment - Gan Eden - created by God, where man would serve Him ["l'ovdo
u'l'shomro"].  In that environment, man is responsible to follow God's
laws, and His Name ['shem Havaya'] reflects His presence and involvement
['olam ha-hitgalut'].
[See TSC shiur on Parshat Breishit.]

	Therefore, this opening pasuk - emphasizing the relationship between matar
and man - must relate in some manner to the special relationship between
man and God.  
The Midrash (quoted by Rashi), bothered by this peculiarity, offers a very
profound interpretation, explaining this connection:
"ki lo himtir...' And why had it not yet rained? ... because "adam ayin
a'avod et ha-adama", for man had not yet been created to work the field,
and thus no one had yet recognized the significance of rain.  And when man
was created and recognized their importance, he prayed for rain.  Then the
rain fell and the trees and the grass grew..." (see Rashi 2:5).

This interpretation reflects the very same theme that emerged in our
discussion of matar in Parshat Ekev.  According to this Rashi, God created
man towards the purpose that he recognize God and His Creations.  From this
perspective, matar emerges as a vehicle that can facilitate that
recognition. 

FROM HEAVEN TO EARTH
The reason for this may stem from the very meaning of the word matar.  Note
that matar does not mean only 'rain'.  Rather, the 'shoresh' - 'lehamtir' -
relates to anything that falls from heaven to earth.  Rain is the classic
example; but even 'bread' or 'fire', when they fall from heaven, are
described by the Bible as matar. 
[In regard to bread, see Breishit 19:24 re: the story of Sedom, "Ve-Hashem
himtir al Sedom gofrit va-eish min ha-shamayim".  In relation to fire
coming from heaven, see Shmot 16:4 re: the manna: "hineni mamtir lachem
lechem min ha-shamayim" ).]

	When man contemplates Creation, there may appear to be an unbridgeable gap
between 'heaven' and 'earth'.  Man must overcome that gap, raising his
goals from the 'earthly' to the 'heavenly'.  In this context, matar - a
physical proof that something in heaven can come down to earth - may
symbolize man's potential (and purpose) to bridge that gap in the opposite
direction, i.e. from 'earthly' to 'heavenly'. 
Hence, Biblical matar emerges as more than just a type of water, but more
so as a symbol of a potential connection between the heavens and earth, and
hence between God and man.
	In the special spiritual environment created by the climate of the Land of
Israel, as described in Parshat Ekev, matar serves as a vehicle by which Am
Yisrael can perfect their relationship with God.  Even though others lands
may carry a better potential for prosperity, the Land of Israel becomes an
'ideal' environment for the growth of the People of Israel - a nation
chosen to serve their Creator.

A SPECIAL LAND FOR A SPECIAL NATION
	With this in mind, we can return to our original question. 
	The fact that Moshe rebukes the nation, telling them that they don't
'deserve' the land - does not mean that they should not inherit the land. 
Am Yisrael was not chosen to be God's nation - because they were a great
people; but rather in order to become a great people!  [See Devarim 4:5-8.]
	Similarly, the land of Israel was not chosen because it had the best
climate; rather it was chosen for its special climate could serve as a
vehicle that would enhance Am Yisrael's fear of God - and thus enable them
to serve Him in a better manner. 
	Considering the goal of the Jewish people, this 'special land' is
precisely what they need to help them achieve their destiny.

						shabbat shalom,
						menachem

===================
FOR FURTHER IYUN:

A.  Relate the famous Midrash Chazal of 'ein mayim ela Torah' [- the true
water is really the Torah] to the above shiur.

B.  Note how the word matar appears in relation to the Flood in Breishit
7:4-5.  Based on the above shiur and our shiur on 'perek aleph & bet' (on
Parshat Breishit), attempt to explain why.

C.  In the psukim by Lot, the Nile and Jordan rivers are compared to the
rivers of Gan Eden.
1.  Does this indicate that there may be a positive aspect to the supply of
water by a River?
2.  Why should a river be appropriate for Gan Eden, while rain is more
appropriate for Eretz Yisrael?
3.  Relate this to Zecharaya 14:7-9 & Yechezkel 47:1-12!

D.  Throughout the time period of the Shoftim, and even during the time
period of the First Monarchy, many Israelites worshipped the 'Ba'al' - the
Canaanite rain god.
1.  Relate the nature of this transgression to the above shiur.
2.  Relate this to the mishnayot of Masechet Ta'anit, which requires
national fast days should rain not fall in sufficient quantities early in
the rainy season.
3.  Relate to Kings I 17:1 & 18:21 and context of perek 18!

E.  In last week's shiur we noted that the 'mitzva' section of the main
speech includes 'mitzvot' given originally during Ma'amad Har Sinai, as
well as 'tochachot' added in the 40th year by Moshe Rabbeinu. 
1.  Show textually why from 8:1 till 10:11 must be an 'addition' of the
40th year, while 6:4-7:26 is most likely 'original'!  Prove your answer. 
Use Shmot 23:20-33 in your proof!
2.  10:12-11:21.  Would you say that these parshiot are also 'additions' or
originals, or possibly a combination.  Support your answer, and relate it
to the above shiur!

F.  The story of chet ha-egel is repeated in chap 9.
1.  In what context is this story now being brought down.
  Relate to 9:4-6, and especially to 'ki am ksheh oref ata' (9:6).
  Relate also to 9:7
2.  What other examples of this behavior are cited in this perek?
3.  Based on this observation, explain why the story about chet ha-egel is
broken up in the middle by psukim 9:22-23, and later by 10:6-9.
4.  What is the primary theme of this short 'tochacha'? 

G.  Read 9:25-29 carefully.  Is this simply a review of Moshe's request
that God invoke His 'midot ha-rachamim" after the incident of chet ha-egel,
or do you find a theme from 'chet ha-meraglim' as well?  Support your
answer by comparing Shmot chapter 34:1-9 and Bamidbar 14:11-25.
	Based on the context of chapter 9, can you explain why?



--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com - Microsoft? Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ekev1.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 49455 bytes
Desc: ekev1.pdf
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080819/b06d18f8/attachment-0001.obj 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Aug 27 17:54:01 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:54:01 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Re'ay - shiur #1
Message-ID: <000601c9088f$6d416e80$0500000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

PARSHAT RE'AY

	To our surprise, the city of Jerusalem (by that
name) is never mentioned in Chumash.  However, the
underlying concept of that eternal city does emerge as a
major theme in Parshat Re?ay. 
	In the following shiur, we uncover the
'foundations of the city of Jerusalem' in our study of
the Torah's repeated use of the phrase: "ha'makom asher
yivchar Hashem" [lit. the site that God will choose],
and its thematic significance within the laws of Sefer
Devarim.

INTRODUCTION
	When we speak of Jerusalem, we usually relate to
either one of its two aspects:
	a) its geographic location
	b) its function as the national center of the
Jewish Nation.

	Even though Chumash never informs us in regard
to its precise location, its function as a 'national
center' for the Jewish Nation unfolds as a primary theme
in Sefer Devarim. 
	To understand how and why, we must begin our
shiur by returning to our analysis of the CHUKIM &
MISHPATIM section of the main speech of Sefer Devarim.

	Recall from our introductory shiur how Sefer
Devarim includes a lengthy speech delivered by Moshe
Rabeinu to Bnei Yisrael (chaps. 5-26) where he reviews
the laws that Bnei Yisrael must keep when they enter the
land.  That speech divides neatly into two distinct
sections:
	I - "ha'MITZVA" (6:4 - 11:31) 
	II- "ha'CHUKIM v'ha'MISHPATIM (12:1 - 26:19)

	The MITZVAH section, we explained, focused on
the proper attitude towards God - such as the mitzvah of
"ahavat Hashem" (see 6:5,10:12,11:22), while the CHUKIM
& MISHPATIM section focused on the actual mitzvot that
Bnei Yisrael must keep when setting up their nation in
the Land - laws that will help transform them into a
"goy kadosh" [a holy nation].  (See Shmot 19:5-6 &
Devarim 5:1-2 & 26:16-19.) 
	These 'practical laws' begin in Parshat Re'ay
(see 12:1) and continue all the way until the laws of
"bikurim" in Parshat Ki-tavo (see 26:1-15).  As this
section is the Torah's largest corpus of laws, not only
is its content important, but even more so, its manner
of presentation, and especially its first topic. 
    We begin our shiur by showing how (and why) the
concept of "ha''makom asher yivchar Hashem" emerges as
it opening topic.  

HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM 
	Let's read the opening psukim of the CHUKIM &
MISHPATIM section, noting the progression of topic:

[introductory pasuk]
"THESE are the 'chukim & mishpatim' which you must
observe in the LAND WHICH HASHEM IS GIVING YOU... :

[first law - to rid the land of idol worship]
	 *	You must totally destroy all the sites
where the nations worshiped their idols... on the high
hills and mountains... you must ERADICATE THEIR NAMES
from this place. 

[second law - where to worship your God]	
	 *	DO NOT WORSHIP YOUR GOD IN THIS MANNER
(in multiple places of worship/ read carefully!).
	 *	Rather, at the SITE WHICH GOD WILL
CHOOSE - HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM - amongst all
your tribes, - LASUM ET SHMO SHAM; -
	     	"l'shichno ti'DRSHU u'ba'ta shama" 

[misc. laws re: this 'place' to worship God]
 	* THERE you must bring all of your offerings and
tithes etc. Eat and rejoice there in front of your
Lord... 
	 *	... After you cross the Jordan and enter
the Land and find rest from your enemies and enjoy
security, then - HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM L'SHAKEYN
SHMO SHAM - bring THERE everything I command...
	 *	Be careful not to offer your sacrifices
anywhere that you want, rather at HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR
HASHEM, only THERE may you bring your offerings... 
	
(see 12:1-14) 

    As you review these psukim, note how the opening
commandment [to destroy all places of idol worship]
serves as a 'pre-requisite' for the primary commandment
that follows -i.e. to establish a central 'SITE IN WHICH
GOD'S NAME WILL DWELL'.
	Note as well how the Hebrew word "shem"
[name/reputation] also ties both of these topics
together.  First Am Yisrael must eradicate the 'names of
the other gods' from the land; afterward they must
establish instead a place for 'His Name' to dwell.  
    In relation to the framework of the main speech,
this opening commandment is quite appropriate, for Bnei
Yisrael are about to enter and conquer the Promised Land
in order to establish God's special nation.  This first
obligation - to transform Eretz Canaan from a place of
idol worship into a land in which God's Name (i.e. His
reputation) becomes known - is accomplished by first
ridding the land from 'the names of OTHER gods'
(12:2-3), and then by establishing a national religious
center ? which Sefer Devarim refers to as "ha'MAKOM
asher yichar Hashem l'shakein SHMO sham". 
	
A RECURRING THEME
	As you continue your study of Parshat Re'ay,
note how often the phrase - HAMAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM
is repeated.  Not only several times in the opening
"parshia" (i.e. chapter 12),  but also some twenty times
throughout the entire CHUKIM & MISHPATIM section of the
main speech (chapters 12-26)!  As illustrated in the
following table, not only is it the FIRST topic of this
section, it also develops as a recurring theme.
	The table below summarizes each mention of the
phrase "ha'makom asher yivchar Hashem" together with its
related topic:

PEREK/:pasuk 			TOPIC
===========			=====
12:5,11,14,18,21,26  	The place to bring all
"korbanot"
14:23,24,25			The place to eat "maaser
sheni" [tithes]
15:20				The place to eat the
'first-born' animal
16:2,6,7,11,15,16  	The site for "aliya l'regel" on
the holidays
17:8,10				The seat of the Supreme
Court
18:6					The service of
the Leviim
26:2					The place to
bring one's "bikurim" [first fruits]

A NATIONAL CENTER
	A quick glance at this table immediately shows
that the purpose of this site is not only to offer
'korbanot'; rather it emerges as a National Religious
Center.  These various mitzvot (as summarized in the
above table) facilitate the establishment of this
center.  Note as well how often every person must visit
this site!
	First and foremost, every individual is
obligated to make a pilgrimage to the site on the three
agricultural holidays ("aliyah l'regel" / see chapter
16), and whenever he offers a "korban" (be it "n'dava"
[voluntary] or "chovah" [obligatory]).
	The farmer must bring there not only his first
fruits ("bikurim"), but also 10% of his harvest to eat
and share at this site ("maaser sheni").  Likewise, the
shepherd must bring not only the first born animals
("bchor"), but also 10% of his entire flock ("maaser
b'heyma")!  Furthermore, the Supreme Court for all
judicial and halachik judgment is to be located at this
site.
	Should the people of Israel follow these
numerous laws concerning HAMAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM -
this site would greatly facilitate the development of Am
Yisrael as God's special nation.  The establishment of
this center, and the obligation of every individual to
frequent this site, ensures the unity of the people and
of the religion.  
[Without such a center, within several generations it
would be more likely that we would find twelve different
religions rather than twelve tribes.]
 
	This site would also become a center justice,
judgment, Torah education, and culture - enhancing the
spirituality not only of the nation, but also of each
individual who would come to viist.

MAASER SHENI
	To support this point, let's take a closer look
at the mitzvah of "maaser sheni", as described in
chapter 14:
"You shall set aside every year a tenth of the yield of
your field. And you should eat this tithe in the
presence of your Lord "baMakom asher yivchar Hashem
l'shakeyn shmo sham"... IN ORDER THAT YOU LEARN TO FEAR
GOD forever..." (14:22)

	In other words, each farmer must separate a ten
percent tithe of his produce, and then take that produce
[or its value] and eat it in Jerusalem - and the purpose
of this mitzvah is - 'in order that you learn to fear
God'! 
	But why should simply 'eating food' at this site
cause one to fear God?  To understand why, we must
conjecture as to how this site was to develop.
	Even though it is not explicitly stated, it is
implicit that the Bet Ha'Mikdash [Temple] was to become
the focal point of this national center - for the simple
reason that Devarim commands us to bring all of our
"korbanot" there. [These are obviously the same korbanot
as described in Sefer Vayikra.]
	However, "maaser sheni" itself is produce, and
not an animal offering (i.e. it doesn't require a
mizbayach).  Nevertheless; the Torah demands that we eat
this "maser" at this site.  This implies that there must
be an additional area surrounding the Mikdash where this
"maser" can be eaten.  According to the Halacha, this
additional area is defined by the walls of the CITY that
surrounds the Bet HaMikdash - and carries the same
halachic status as the area within the camp of Israel in
the desert, where "kodshim kalim" could be eatern/ i.e.
the meat of the "korban shlamim". 
	But when one eats this "maser" within the walls
of this city, other people will be there as well.  Let's
review who else should be in this special city on a
daily basis.   First of all, the Torah designates 'civil
servants' who are to officiate and administer the Bet
Ha'Mikdash - i.e. the "kohanim" and "leviim" - whose
entire lives are dedicated to the service of God. There
will also be the judges and scholars of the supreme
court system, populating this 'holy city' surrounding
the Temple, infusing it with an atmosphere of "kedusha"
(sanctity). 
	Therefore, the experience of eating "maaser
sheni" in this 'holy' city, mingling there with the
kohanim, leviim, and Torah scholars, while sharing one's
food together with family and the needy (see 14:25-27),
would create an environment that enhances one's "yirat
shamayim" - the fear of God.

	Note how Chizkuni's interpretation of the pasuk
re: "maser sheni" reflects this same idea:
"...when you will go up [to this site] to eat your maser
sheni, you will see the priests officiating and the
levites singing... and the Sanhedrin sitting in judgment
and teaching laws..., and thus learn [from them] how to
fear your God."  (14:23, see also Seforno)

A PROOF FROM HAKHEL
	This obligation to frequent HAMAKOM ASHER
YIVCHAR HASHEM culminates every seven years with the
"Hakhel" ceremony, where the entire nation - including
the women and children - gather to hear the Torah at
this very same site. Here, once again, we find "yirat
Hashem" - the fear of God - as the primary purpose:
"... every seventh year... when all Israel gathers
before Hashem "ba'Makom asher yivchar", you shall read
this Torah (Sefer Dvarim) in the presence of all Israel.
Gather ("hakhel") the people, men, women and children
and the strangers, that they may hear and so learn TO
FEAR THE LORD and to observe... Their children too ...
shall hear and learn TO FEAR GOD as long as they live on
the Land..." (see Devarim 31:10-13)

	Not only to we find once again the site "hamakom
asher yivchar Hashem", we also find the purpose of this
gathering to instill the fear of God in those who
gather.  As you review the above psukim, note as well
the similarities to Ma'amad Har Sinai.  This beautifully
supports Ramban's interpretation that the underlying
purpose of the Mikdash was to perpetuate the Sinai
experience (see Ramban on Shmot 25:1 /and TSC shiur on
Parshat Terumah).

	To conclude our discussion of the 'function' of
this site ["hamakom asher yivchar..."], we return to
Torah's special use of the word "makom" in a very
similar context in Sefer Breishit.

THE SITE / THE TEMPLE / AND JERUSALEM
	Review the story of Yaakov's dream at the
beginning of Parshat Va'yetze (i.e. Breishit 28:10-22),
noting not only the word ha'makom" (five times) but also
its theme.  At the conclusion of this episode, Yaakov
vows that upon his return to this site ["ha'makom"], he
will establish a Bet Elokim - a House for God.  Here, we
already find a thematic connection between the word
"ha'makom" and the Mikdash.
	Similarly, in the story of the "akeyda" (see
Breishit chapter 22)` the Torah uses the word "makom" to
describe that site.  [See 22:2,3,4,9,14.]  Recall as
well how Avraham Avinu names this "makom" - "Hashem
yireh" (see 22:14), a site that Chazal later identify as
the very same mountain where the Bet Ha'Mikdash was
built in Yerushalayim.  In fact, in Divrei ha'yamim we
are informed that Shlomo ha'melech built the Bet
ha'Mikdah on Har ha'Moriah, the site of the "akeyda"
(see II D.H. 3:1-3).

	Even though it is not clear where Yaakov's dream
took place, the Torah's use of the word "makom" in both
stories, and their common theme certainly support
Chazal's conclusion that both events happened at the
same site (see Rashi 28:11), which later became the Bet
ha'Mikdash in Yerushalayim. 

HOLY GROUND OR HOLY PURPOSE 
	Our analysis thus far demonstrates how the Torah
puts more emphasis on the 'function', than the location,
of this site.  In fact, the Torah appears to be rather
evasive in regard to where this site is actually to be
located (see below).
	However, this very point may be very fundamental
towards our understanding of Jerusalem.  The site is
special because of its function - to serve as a national
center, to promote the reputation of God's Name ["shem
Hashem"] among all mankind.  
	This emphasis is important, for man is very
vulnerable towards focusing on the holiness of a site
rather than the holiness of its purpose.  [Sort of like
dovening TO the "kotel" instead dovening AT the "kotel",
or saying tehillim TO "kivrei tzadikim" instead of AT
"kivrei tzadikim".]
	For this reason, most all of the later prophets
rebuke the people of Israel for misunderstanding the
Temple in this manner.  Take for example Yirmiyahu
chapter 7 (in case you are not familiar, read 7:1-28,
see also the first chapter of Yeshayahu).  This rebuke
does not imply that there is no value to holy sites.
Precisely the opposite, the physical location is
important for it provides a vehicle to promote its
purpose.  Yet, one must always be careful not to allow
the holiness of the site to override the holiness of its
purpose.
[For a nice perspective on the balance between these two
ideas, see Tehillim 51.  Note how first David ha'melech
first explains how "korbanot" or futile, for God seeks
man's proper behavior; nonetheless, that chapter
concludes with David's prayer that Jerusalem be built,
and that God should accept our offerings. As this is a
rather 'touchy topic', I'd rather you base your
conclusions of David ha'Melech's explanation, rather
than my own.]

JERUSALEM / SEEK AND FIND
	As we have shown, Sefer Devarim never specifies
the precise geographic location of where this site is to
be, i.e. where the permanent Bet HaMikdash is to be
constructed.  Instead, the site is consistently referred
to as "the one which God will choose" ("HaMakom asher
yivchar Hashem"). 
	However, in Parshat Reay we do find a very
obscure hint regarding how we are to find this site:
"l'shichno ti'drshu, u'bata shama" - (see 12:5)
	God will only show us the site if WE look for
it. This 'hide and seek' type relationship is reflective
of every Divine encounter.  To find God, man must SEARCH
for Him.  According to these psukim in Parshat Re?ay,
this principle applies to the nation in same manner as
it applies to the individual.  [As we say in the daily
Ashrei: "karov Hashem l'chol kor'av" - God is close to
those who call out to Him.]
	When Am Yisrael as a nation, begins a serious
search for God, then God will show them the proper
location to build the Mikdash.
	The generation of Yehoshua, despite their
military conquests, did not succeed in establishing the
permanent Mikdash (after conquering the Land).  Instead,
they erected the temporary Mishkan in Shilo.  There it
remained, quite neglected, during the entire time period
of the Judges.  After the city of Shilo was destroyed by
the Phlishtim (during the time of Eli / see Shmuel
chapters 4-6), both the Mishkan and the "aron" wandered
from site to site.  It was only during the time period
of David ha?melech that Bnei Yisrael actively aspired to
build the Mikdash.
	For example, when David became king over all of
Israel (see II Shmuel 5:1-9), his first act was to
conquer the city of Jerusalem.  His next project was to
gather the nation in order to bring the "aron" (the holy
ark) to his new capital city (see II Shmuel chapter 6).
Note how Divrei ha'yamim describes how David explained
his plan (and the reason) to the nation:
"David said to the entire congregation of Israel: If you
approve, and this is from God (the events of David's
rise to power), let us go forward and invite all our
brethren in the land of Israel, together with the
KOHANIM and LEVIIM and gather together, IN ORDER TO
BRING BACK to us God's HOLY ARK - 'ki lo DRASH'NU'HU
b'ymei Shaul' - for during the time of Shaul WE DID NOT
SEEK IT"  (I Divrei Hayamim 13:2-3)
	[Note the use of the shoresh "d.r.sh." here and
in Devarim 12:5]

	David Ha'melech notes how the "aron" had been
neglected during the generation of Shaul at the national
level.  In contrast to Shaul,  David ha'melech
considered bringing the "aron" to Yerushalayim as his
highest national priority. 
	After the "aron" finally arrived in Jerusalem,
the next step in David's master plan was to build a
permanent house for the "aron", i.e. the Bet Ha'Mikdash
in Yerushalayim:
"When the King was settled in his palace and God has
granted him safety from his enemies [he'niach lo m'kol
oyvav m'saviv], the King said to Natan the prophet:
Here I am dwelling in a HOUSE of cedar wood, while the
'aron' is dwelling only in a TENT!"   (see II Shmuel
7:1-2)
		[Note again the textual parallel to
Devarim 12:10-11]

	Even though God informed David that Am Yisrael
would have to wait another generation before the Temple
could be built (in the next generation by his son
Shlomo, see II Shmuel chapter 7), its precise site was
already designated in David's own lifetime (see I Divrei
Ha'yamim 22:1).  In fact, David ha'melech himself
prepared all the necessary building materials (see the
remainder of that chapter).
	If you read the above sources carefully, you'll
see that the underlying reason for God's decision to
delay its construction for one more generation stemmed
from the need to wait until its 'function' - to make a
Name for God - could be properly fulfilled.

JERUSALEM TODAY
	As we have seen in our study, according to the
guidelines of Sefer Devarim - 'Jerusalem' is destined to
become more than just the city that houses the Temple.
Ideally, Jerusalem should become the National Cultural
and Religious Center of the Jewish people, whose purpose
will be to 'make a Name' for God.  This aspiration is
found in the prophecies of most all of the later
prophets.  For example:
"For Jerusalem will be called the city of Truth ("ir
ha'emet"), and the mountain of the Lord of Hosts -"har
ha'Kodesh" 			(see Zecharya 8:3).

"For out of Zion will come forth Torah and the word of
the Lord from Jerusalem" (see Isaiah 2:3).

	Today, be it for halachic, technical, or
political reasons, we are not yet able to rebuild the
Bet HaMikdash.  Until the proper time comes, this
aspiration remains our national dream and an everlasting
prayer.  Nonetheless, to rebuild the city of Jerusalem
as our National Center - a city of Truth, Justice, and
Sanctity - is not only permitted, it is our duty.  In
our own generation, God has opened for us a window of
opportunity.  The achievement of this goal remains our
national responsibility.

						shabbat
shalom,
						menachem
================================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
A. THE CHAGIM IN RE'AY
    Even though the chagim have already been presented
in Parshiot Mishpatim, Emor, and Pinchas, they are
repeated again in Devarim chap 16. Read this chapter
carefully.
1. What laws are added which we did not already learn
from the earlier sources?
2. What would you say is the primary topic of this
perek? (which key phrase repeats itself many times?)
3. Attempt to explain this perek as an expansion of
Shmot 23:14
17!
4. How does all this relate to the above shiur?
5. Why aren't Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur mentioned in
this parshia?

B. "LO TA'ASUN KEYN L'HASHEM ELOKEICHEM" (12:4)
	In the above shiur, we explained that this pasuk
implies that we are commanded not to worship God in
multiple places of worship. This is "pshat" of the pasuk
based on 12:2 and 12:5, For just as they worshiped their
gods on the high places and under mighty trees etc.
(12:2)  you should not, rather - only in the place which
God chooses ("ha'makom...). That is, at ONE place and
not at many places.
	Note the two explanations given by Rashi. The
first follows this reading according to "pshat". The
second is a Midrash Halacha.
Do these two pirushim contradict each other, or can they
both be correct? Use your answer to explain the nature
of Midrashei Halacha.

C. MIKRA BIKURIM - THE FINALE
	Note the final mitzvot of the chukim & mishpatim
are Mikra Bikurim and vidduy maaser (perek 26), again
focusing on HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM - (note 27:1
also).
1. Does this parsha belong in Parshat Ki-tavo, or do you
think that
it would be more fitting to Parshat Reay? Relate to the
parsha of maaser sheni (14:22-29)!  Why do think it was
chosen to conclude the main speech?  Relate your answer
to the purpose of this speech, and the content of "mikra
bikurim" and to Breishit perek 15.

D.	Even though Sefer Breishit does not mention
Jerusalem by name, it does mention the city of 'Shalem'
(see 14:18) in relation to Malki Tzedek (note the
significance of his name) and Mount Moriah (see
22:2,14), the site of the Akeyda', as Hashem YIREH.
Together YIREH -SHALEM, may allude to the final name of
this city - YERU-SHALAYIM.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.9/1635 -
Release Date: 8/26/2008 7:29 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: reay1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 48689 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080827/d3a41eaf/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Aug 28 12:15:04 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:15:04 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Re'ay  2 additional shiurim
Message-ID: <005701c90929$3b2e29c0$0500000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

Who's to Blame, or What's to Gain

    There's a short sentence in Parshat Re'ay, that
appears to be 'misplaced' ? for it commands us to
'remember our slavery in Egypt' specifically on the
holiday of Shavuot!  [See Devarim 16:12]
	Would it not have made more sense to include
this commandment together with the laws of Passover?
	In the following shiur, we'll explain how this
'misplaced pasuk' is precisely where it belongs, by
considering its connection to a mega-theme of the Bible
(and Sefer Devarim).
    Hopefully, it will also shed some light on what we
can relate to more 'current' events.  

INTRODUCTION
	As you were probably aware, the Torah 'repeats'
the holidays towards the end of Parshat Re'ay (see
16:1-17).  In that section, we find three distinct
'parshiot'; corresponding to Pesach (16:1-8), Shavuot
(16:9-12), and Succot (16:13-17).
[In Chutz la'aretz, this section is the Torah reading
for 8th day of Passover, 2nd Day of Shavuot, and Shmini
Atzeret!] 

	Even though these laws seem to be pretty much a
repeat (or summary) of the laws of the holidays recorded
earlier in Chumash (see Shmot 23:14-17, Vayikra 23, and
Bamidbar 28-29), this unit adds (and emphasizes) an
additional element - the need to celebrate these three
'pilgrimage holidays' at "ha'makom asher yivchar Hashem"
[the site that God will choose]. 
[See 16:2,6,7,11,15 & 17!  - In our previous shiur, we
explained how this was congruent with theme of "ha'makom
asher yivchar Hashem" that began back at the beginning
of Parshat Re'ay.]

	However, there is another "chidush" [something
new] in this section, i.e. the commandment of "simcha"
(see 16:11 & 16:14-15) ? i.e. to rejoice before God.
Yet for some reason, this commandment is mentioned
specifically in regard to Shavuot and Succot (and not in
regard to Pesach).  
	To explain why, we must take a closer look at
how the Torah words this commandment 'to rejoice'.  In
doing so, we will arrive at a deeper understanding why
the Torah tell us immediately afterward 'to remember'. 

SIMCHAT YOM TOV ? FOR WHOM?
	Let's begin our study with the laws of Shavuot
in Parshat Re'ay.  Note how the opening psukim describe
what appears to be a very simple agricultural holiday,
thanking God for the seasonal grain harvest.
"Count seven weeks; from the time the sickle is first
put to the standing corn, you shall begin to count seven
weeks. 
And you shall keep the 'feast of weeks' unto Hashem your
Lord ? by the measure of the freewill-offering of thy
hand, which you shall give as Hashem has blessed you."
(16:9-10)
 						
    This commandment to keep "Shavuot" is followed by
the special mitzvah to rejoice on that holiday.  As you
read these psukim, pay careful attention to WHO is
commanded to be happy:
And you shall REJOICE before HASHEM... you & your son &
your daughter & your man-servant, & your maid-servant, &
the Levite that is within your gates, & the stranger, &
the orphan & the widow, that are in your midst - in the
place which Hashem shall choose to cause His name to
dwell there.  And your shall remember that you were once
a slave in Egypt..." (see 16:11-12)

	Two obvious questions arise :
1) Why doesn't the Torah just tell us that EVERYONE must
be happy?  [Why such a lengthy list of people?]  
2) What is the purpose of the 'additional' commandment
to remember that we were once slaves in Egypt?  Wasn't
that the purpose of the holiday of Passover, celebrated
only six week earlier!

	Furthermore, when the Torah continues with the
laws of Succot, we find a similar commandment to REJOICE
on that holiday as well, followed by an almost identical
lengthy list of people who need to be happy (see 16:14)!
Yet for some reason, this 'mitzvah to rejoice' is only
recorded by Shavuot and Succot, but not by Pesach. 

	The answers to these questions (as you probably
guessed) are inter-related, and relate to the purpose of
these two harvest holidays ? Shavuot, when we thank God
for our grain harvest; and Succot ? when we thank God
for our fruit harvest.

LAND OWNERS & HAPPINESS
	Take a look once again at the list of the people
who the Torah commands to rejoice, noting how just about
all of them do not own land.  The Levite by the Torah's
decree (see 18:1), the stranger due to his social
predicament, the orphan and widow due to a family
tragedy.
	Note how this list looks more like a roster of
those who are NOT happy at this time of the year ? as
everyone around them are gathering their wealth (while
own nothing). 
    In other words, the land owner will be very happy
during this time of year - even if the Torah didn't
command him to be happy; while the other people in the
Torah's list will not be happy (more likely jealous),
commandment or not! 
    And this is exactly what the Torah is talking about!

    Unlike our original assumption, the Torah does not
command everyone in this list to be happy; rather it
commands the land owner to share his natural happiness
with the 'have-nots'.  
    Surely he must rejoice by thanking God for his
harvest, but he accomplishes this by sharing his produce
with the downtrodden, helping them rejoice at this
special time of the year.
    This interpretation also explains why this mitzvah
of "simcha" is recorded in regard to Shavuot and Succot
? which are both seasonal harvest holidays, and not on
Pesach ? when the harvest is just beginning, and its
outcome remains in doubt
[This does not imply that there is not a mitzvah of
"simcha" on Pesach, rather its application by providing
for the needy does not apply in realm of agriculture
(harvest produce), as it does on Shavuot & Succot .] 

REMEMBER YOU WERE ONCE A 'HAVE-NOT'!
	This interpretation also neatly explains why the
Torah reminds us to remember that we were once slaves in
Egypt, specifically after this commandment to rejoice
with the downtrodden on Shavuot.  Recall once again the
juxtaposition of these two commandments:
"... REJOICE before HASHEM... you & your son & your
daughter & your man-servant, & your maid-servant, & the
Levite that is within your gates, & the stranger, &  the
orphan & the widow, that are in your midst....
 ** Remember that you were once a slave in Egypt!" 

    This 'reminder' to - remember you were once a slave
? should not be understood as an additional commandment,
but rather as a 'statement of motivation'.  In other
words, to make sure that we fulfill the Torah's
commandment that we share our happiness with the needy,
the Torah reminds us that once the entire nation of
Israel was in the position of the 'downtrodden' under
Egyptian bondage.  That difficult experience should be
remembered to sensitize our feelings toward the poor,
and hence motivate our commitment to follow God's
command to share our rejoicing on Shavuot and Succot
with the 'have-nots'.
    In fact, that may have been the very reason why God
put is through that difficult period of "shiabud
mitzraim" ? enslavement in Egypt- in order to sensitize
our national character, to ensure our constant awareness
to care for social justice.
    
THE SAME PHRASE THROUGHOUT SEFER DEVARIM
	To support our interpretation that to 'remember
you were once a slave in Egypt' should be understood as
a 'statement of motivation' (and not a separate
mitzvah).  Let's examine how this identical phrase is
used numerous times in Sefer Devarim, and always in this
same context, i.e. as a motivator to follow commandments
relating to social justice.

EVED IVRI 
	Previously in Parshat Re'ay, in regard to the
laws of how to free an "eved ivri" [a Hebrew servant],
we find this exact same phrase:
"If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be
sold to you, he shall serve you six years; and in the
seventh year thou shall let him go free. And when our
let him go free ? don't let him go empty; You shall
furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy
threshing-floor, and out of thy winepress; of that which
Hashem has blessed you...
** Remember that you were once a bondman in the land of
Egypt, and Hashem redeemed you..."  (see 15:12-15)

    Clearly, in this context, this phrase serves as a
'motivator' to keep the previous commandment (and not as
a commandment in itself).  [Note how most all of chapter
15 relates to social justice.]

IN PARSHAT KI-TEZE
	Later on in Sefer Devarim, we find numerous
mitzvot relating to social justice, and especially in
chapter 24.  We bring two examples where this phrase is
used once again as a 'motivator':
"Do not oppress a hired servant that is poor and needy,
whether he be your brother or a stranger in your land...
In the same day thou shalt give him his hire....
Do not pervert the justice due to the stranger, or to
the orphan; nor take the widow's raiment to pledge. 
Remember that you were once a bondman in Egypt..."
     (see 24:14-18)

	Only a few psukim later, when the Torah
discusses the laws of "leket" & "shikcha", we find this
phrase once again:
"When you reap thy harvest in thy field, and hast forgot
a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go back to fetch
it; it shall be for the stranger, for the orphan, and
for the widow ....
When you beat your olive-tree, do not go over the boughs
again; it shall be for the stranger, for the orphan and
widow.
When you gather the grapes of thy vineyard, do not glean
it, it shall be for the stranger, for the orphan and
widow.
Remember that you were once a bondman in Egypt..."
     (see 24:19-22)

IN THE TEN COMMANDMENTS!
    Based on these examples, we can bring one final (and
thematically significant) proof from Sefer Devarim ? and
this time from the Ten Commandments!
    Recall how the Fourth Commandment - to keep Shabbat
- is worded differently in Sefer Devarim.  Not only is
the opening word "shamor" instead of "zachor", but the
very reason for keeping Shabbat is different.  According
the Commandment in Shmot, the reason for resting on
Shabbat is to remember that God created the Heavens &
Earth in seven days; while the reason to rest in the
Sefer Devarim version is to allow your workers a day of
rest!
    As you read this Commandment, note how we find our
'phrase', and how once again it is employed as a
'motivator' ? to ensure that we keep this commandment:
"Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy...
You shall not do any work, you, nor thy son, nor thy
daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant...
nor the stranger that is within thy gates; in order that
your man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well
as you!
Remember that you were once a bondman in Egypt and the
LORD thy God brought you out..." (see 5:11-14)

    We are commanded to rest on Shabbat, in order that
our workers can rest ? followed by the 'motivator':
Remember you were once a slave in Egypt ? and there,
your bosses never gave you a day of rest!
    
    Based on these numerous examples, the meaning of the
phrase 'Remember you were once a slave in Egypt' is very
clear in Sefer Devarim.  It consistently serves as a
'motivator' to encourage us to keep a rather wide range
of laws, but all relating to social justice ? and our
need to be sensitive to the needs of others. 

A MEGA-THEME 
	Let's return for a minute the concluding lines
of the mitzvah to keep Shabbat in Sefer Devarim.  Even
though it is commonly understood that the reason for
Shabbat in Devarim is to remember the Exodus ("zecher
l'yetziat Mitzraim"), a careful reading of its final
lines leads us to slightly different conclusion:
"Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy ...  You shall
not do any manner of work... in order that your servant
and maid-servant may rest as well as you.  Remember that
you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and God brought
you out with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm;
THEREFORE God commanded you to keep the sabbath day "
(5:11-14)

	Note how the purpose of Shabbat, according to
this commandment, is NOT to remember the Exodus, but
rather to allow your workers a day rest!  This
commandment, as we explained above, is followed by the
'motivator' ? Remember you were once a slave in Egypt.
In other words - when you were slaves in Egypt, you
masters never gave you a day of rest.  Now that you have
become God's special nation, be sure give your servants
the kindness that you wished your masters had given you.
    However, immediately after this 'motivator'
statement, we find an additional comment, which explains
HOW God brought us out of Egypt (see again the quote
above).  It appears that the Torah wants us to remember
(on Shabbat) not only that we were once slaves in Egypt,
but also HOW God took us out of Egypt.
    In the context of giving our workers a day of rest,
it makes sense that we must remember our 'slavery in
Egypt', but why must we also remember that God took us
out?  Is this simply an expression of gratitude, or does
this comment serve as a 'motivator' as well?  If so,
what is its meaning?
    To answer this question, we must return to our
discussion of the purpose of "brit bein ha'btarim" (see
related shiurim on Parshat Lech Lecha, Sefer Shmot, and
the Haggada), and the reason why God forecasted Am
Yisrael's 'bondage in a foreign land' at the same time
when he chose Avraham Avinu to become the forefather of
His special nation.  
    In those shiurim, we explained how God chose Avraham
to  establish 'model nation' (characterized by "tzedek
u'mishpat" /Breishit 18:18-19), that would bring the
'Name of God' to mankind.  Towards this purpose, God
promised Avraham not only offspring and a special land ?
but He also forecasted the need for his offspring to
endure decades of slavery followed by redemption ? in
order to become that nation.  We posited that one of the
reasons for that 'slavery experience' would be to
'sensitize' the nation ? to encourage them to establish
a nation with a much higher moral and ethical standard
(than Egypt).
    
    If so, one could suggest that the Torah mentions the
Exodus in relation to Shabbat in order that we remember
WHY God took us out Egypt (and not simply that He took
us out).
    In this sense, our mention of the Exodus on Shabbat
serves not only as an expression of gratitude, but more
so as a 'recognition of destiny and purpose'. 
[This would be the deeper meaning of "zecher le'yetziat
mitzraim" that we mention in Kidush on Friday night.
See also Rashi on Shmot 13:8 ("ba'avur zeh"), where he
explain to our children how God took us out of Egypt in
order that we eat matza (& keep all of His mitzvot); in
contrast to eating matza - because God took us out of
Egypt.]


    This mega-theme is congruent with Sefer Devarim, for
in the main speech, Moshe Rabeinu is teaching Bnei
Yisrael the mtizvot that they must keep once they enter
the Land of Israel.  As the overall purpose of these
mitzvot is to establish Am Yisrael as a nation
representing God, it only makes sense that we find this
theme of 'remembering you were a slave in Egypt'
repeated so often.  [See Devarim 4:5-8 and 26:16-19.]
    
A SIGNIFICANT CONTRADICTION
	This apparent contradiction in regard to the
reason for Shabbat between Shmot (to remember Creation)
and Devarim (to be kind to your workers) carries a very
powerful message.
	By intentionally 'contradicting itself', the
Torah expects the reader to notice this contradiction
and contemplate why!  In other words, why would the
Torah first provide a reason for Shabbat in the realm of
one personal relationship with God ("bein adam
la'makom"), and in a later version of the Ten
Commandments provide a totally different reason in the
realm of man's relationship with his fellow man ("bein
adam le'chaveiro").
	This contradiction may be precisely the message!
The simple recognition by man that God created the
heavens and earth is not enough.  For that knowledge to
become meaningful, man must translate his intellectual
understanding into the realm of his daily actions, or in
our case, to the realm of social inter-action.  In this
manner, he not only shows God his belief in Creation,
but also his recognition of its purpose.
[It should be noted that these two 'complementing'
reasons for Shabbat appear in Sefer Shmot itself (and
are not only a contradiction between Devarim and Shmot).
See Shmot 23:9-12, noting the context on Shabbat within
the laws of Parshat Mishpatim.]

BACK TO SHAVUOT
	With this background, we can return to the laws
of Shavuot in Parshat Re'ay.  Recall how the first
commandment is to rejoice before God at the time of your
grain harvest (see Devarim 16:9-11) ? which was followed
immediately afterward by the commandment to rejoice
together with those who don't own their own land.  
	Here were find a theme very similar to what we
found in regard to Shabbat.  The Torah wants the farmer
to recognize that his harvest comes from God, but to
formalize that intellectual understanding, the Torah
commands the farmer to take action.  He must rejoice in
front of God by sharing his harvest with those who are
needy - with those who would otherwise be rather
depressed during this time of the agricultural year.
	We find a beautiful expression of this
understanding in Rashi's commentary to these psukim:
"The Levite, stranger, orphan, and widow: - My four
against your four: your son, daughter, servant, and
maidservant.  If you make My four happy, I [God] will
make your four happy."  (See Rashi on 16:11.)

BACK TO SEFER SHMOT
	This concept, that our slavery in Egypt should
serve as a 'sensitizing experience' for all future
generations of Am Yisrael, finds a similar expression in
Sefer Shmot ? both at the beginning and end of a full
set of ethical laws within Parshat Mishpatim (see 22:19
thru 23:9).  That section of ethical laws begins with:
"And a stranger shalt thou not wrong, neither shalt thou
oppress him; for you were strangers in the land of
Egypt. 
Do not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. Should
afflict them in any wise--for if they cry at all unto
Me, I will surely hear their cry...."

And concludes with:
"Keep thee far from a false matter ....Do not take a
bribe...
Do not oppress the stranger - for you know the soul
[nefesh] of a stranger, seeing you were strangers in the
land of Egypt."  (see 23:7-9)

	This theme which he have discussed in Sefer
Devarim had already emerged when the Torah presented its
first set of laws that followed the Ten Commandments (in
Parshat Mishpatim). 
 
BACK TO THE FUTURE
	We will never know for sure exactly why God
found it necessary to put us through such a difficult
bondage in Egypt.  Was it in punishment for the sins of
our forefathers, or was it in preparation for the
challenges of our future?
    We may conjecture and ponder, but we trust that God
is just in all His ways (see Devarim 32:4-6).
    However, based on our shiur, we do have a pretty
good idea of how God wanted us to learn from those
negative experiences; and how our national suffering can
become the impetus for the improvement of our own
behavior.
    Similarly, we will never know for sure exactly why
God has brought upon us such calamity throughout the
thousands of years of our history, even in our own time.
We may conjecture and ponder, but we will never know for
sure.
    But we can be pretty sure that God would expect that
we become sensitized by our experiences.  
    After the difficult events of the last month, we
could dedicate our energies in search of who's to blame,
or to gloat in 'I told you so', or to conjecture
regarding God's deeper motives.
    However, we can also take 'hint' from God that he
would like us to improve ourselves.  To increase our
sensitivity for those who are homeless, for those in
need of food, and for those in need of friends.
    Over the last few weeks, we have seen the brightest
side of our nation, in acts of "chessed" [kindness] and
"gevurah" [bravery]; as well its darker sides in the
neglect and corruption of its institutions, and the
despair of those in need.
    If we follow the lesson from Parshat Re'ay, we have
much to gain ? if we can translate the understanding of
our experiences into actions of increased "chessed",
"mishpat", and "tzedaka" in the months and years to
come. 
    If not, we will only have ourselves to blame.
    
    					shabbat shalom,
    					menachem  


================

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

          PARSHAT  RE?AY  - Part Two

     Bad influences?  Surely we should stay away from
them,
but how do we identify them?  In Parshat Reay, we find
an
example of how the Torah deals with this problem, as
Bnei
Yisrael prepare to enter the land.

INTRODUCTION
     Our previous shiur on Parshat Re'ay, discussed how
"ha'makom asher yivchar Hashem" - emerged as its primary
topic. Even though this holds true for chapters 12 and
15,
chapters 13 and 14 appear to form a digression from this
topic.
     To illustrate how the topic of 'bad influences' is
sandwiched with the topic of "ha'makom asher yivchar",
the
following table summarizes the main topics of the
Parsha:

* HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM
12:1-19 - Establishing the Bet ha'Mikdash as the
national
center
12:20-28 - Permission for eating meat outside of that
center

* BAD INFLUENCES
12:29-31 - Don't seek after the gods of the nations of
Canaan
13:2-6   - Don't follow the instructions of a false
prophet
13:7-12  - Don't follow a family member who may lead you
astray
13:13-19 - Ir ha'nidachat - when an entire city goes
astray
14:1-21  - Misc. dietary laws (what one cannot eat)

* HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM
14:22-27 - Eating "maaser sheni" (there) in years
1,2,4,& 5
14:28-29 - Giving this "maaser" to the poor in years 3 &
6
15:1-18  - The laws of "shmittah" for the 7th year
15:19-23 - Bringing the 'first born' to "ha'makom
asher..."
16:1-17  - Celebrating the "shalosh regalim, ba'makom
asher..."

====

     As you most probably have guessed by now, in our
shiur we
will search for a theme that ties all of these topics
together.

FOUR 'BAD EXAMPLES'
     To begin our shiur, we must first explain why we
categorized all of the topics in chapter 13 as 'bad
influences'.
     Note how each topic relates to a certain warning
that
'somebody else' will not lead you astray towards
following
other gods.
     First we find a warning against following the gods
of
your 'non-jewish' neighbors (12:29-31).  Then we are
warned
not to follow a charismatic leader (be he a 'prophet' or
'dreamer'), even if he performs a miracle, should he
suggest
that we worship a different god (13:2-6).  Afterward, we
are
warned against following a family member or close friend
who
may secretly suggest that we worship a different god.
Finally, as a society, we are warned not to allow an
entire
town to go astray; and if so, that entire town must be
destroyed.
     Note how we find examples of influences from:
a) society at large, i.e. our global community
b) our leaders, either religious or lay
c) our family and close friends
d) our city, i.e. our local community

     These laws are followed by a lengthy list of
dietary laws
in 14:3-21.  Note however that the reason for keeping
these
laws is given both at the beginning and end of this
unit, in
14:2 and 14:21 - for you are an "am kadosh l'Hashem
elokecha"
- a designated [holy] nation for your God - hence you
must
separate yourselves from them.
     Even though the Torah does not explain HOW these
laws
accomplish this goal, we know quite well from our daily
life
how the laws of "kashrut" severely limit our cultural
contact
with people of other religions.  Therefore, we find yet
another example of how the laws of the Torah protect us
from
the influences of those who may lead us towards
following
other gods.

     With this in mind, we must now consider the
connection
between this unit of 'bad influences' and the primary
topic of
"ha'makom asher yivchar Hashem".

INFLUENCES - GOOD & BAD
     When we consider the purpose of "ha'makom asher
yivchar
Hashem", i.e. the establishment of the city of
Yerushalayim
and the Bet ha'Mikdash as the nation's vibrant cultural
and
religious center, we find yet another example of what
will
influence the society of Am Yisrael, this time from the
positive aspect.
     In other words, Parshat Re'ay discusses all types
of
influences that will shape the nature of society (as
Bnei
Yisrael prepare to enter the land). First and foremost,
by the
establishment of "ha'makom asher yivchar Hashem" and the
requirement that every jew frequent that site and eat
his
"maaser sheni" in Yerushalayim, we assure the proper
development of Am Yisrael as an "am kadosh l'Hashem".
     By warning against bad influences, the Torah
attempts to
make sure that the fabric of that society won't crumble.

     In Parshat Shoftim, we will find additional
examples of
what will provide a 'good influence' upon the nation.
The
Torah will discuss the judicial system, the priesthood,
and
the various other institutions of political leadership
in
their ideal form.

                         Till then,
                              shabbat shalom
                              menachem



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.11/1639 -
Release Date: 8/28/2008 7:39 AM
 
    
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: reay3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 38270 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080828/70634e94/attachment-0002.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: reay2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 19936 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080828/70634e94/attachment-0003.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Sep  3 01:55:33 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 01:55:33 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Shoftim - shiur #1
Message-ID: <007601c90d89$ae19b210$0200000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

PARSHAT SHOFTIM

	What is the ideal form of leadership for Am
Yisrael: 
		a NAVI [a prophet];
		a SHOFET [a judge];
		a KOHEN [a priest];
		a MELECH [a king]?

	As Parshat Shoftim mentions each of these four
?models?, this week's shiur will discuss this important
question, and how it relates to the nature of the
mitzvot of Sefer Devarim.

INTRODUCTION
	It is not by chance that Parshat Shoftim
discusses different forms of national leadership.
Recall how the main speech of Sefer Devarim (chapters
5-26) contains the mitzvot that Bnei Yisrael must
observe upon their entry into the Land.  Considering
that Parshat Shoftim is part of that speech, it only
makes sense that this speech would contain a set of laws
relating to the establishment of national leadership.
With this in mind, we begin our shiur with an analysis
of the progression of topics from Parshat Re?ay to
Parshat Shoftim.

FROM A NATIONAL CENTER TO NATIONAL LEADERSHIP
	Recall from our previous shiurim how Parshat
Re'ay began the important ?chukim u?mishpatim? section
of the main speech (i.e. chapters 12-26).  This section
contains an assortment of laws that Bnei Yisrael must
observe when they enter the Land.  In last week's shiur
we discussed how this section opened with the topic of
"ha?makom asher yivchar Hashem" - the site of the Bet
Ha'Mikdash ? which was to become the National and
Religious Center for God's special nation.  Afterward,
the Torah discussed topics relating the establishment of
other laws that would facilitate the creation of an ?am
kadosh? [a holy nation], such as special dietary laws,
and a unique economic system protecting the ?poor from
the rich?.
	Parshat Shoftim continues this general theme, as
it opens by commanding the establishment of a
comprehensive judicial system (see 16:18-17:13). That
topic, concluding with the establishment of a ?supreme
court, is followed by laws relating to the appointment
of a king (see 17:14-20); laws relating to shevet Levi
(see 18:1-8) and some guidelines relating to proper and
improper ?guidance counselors? (see18:9-22).
	As all of these mitzvot pertain to the political
and religious leadership of the people, we can assume
that the Moshe Rabeinu presents these laws at this point
in the his speech, as these institutions will facilitate
the realization of God's goal for Am Yisrael to become
His ?model? nation (see Breishit 12:1-3).  In this
manner, the nation's character will be crystallized not
only by the special mitzvot that each individual must
follow, but also by its national institutions and form
of government. 

"OR LA'GOYIM"
	This conclusion is supported not only by our
analysis of the progression of these mitzvot, but also
by Moshe Rabeinu's own remarks at the conclusion his
first speech (i.e. chapters 1->4).  In that speech,
recall how Moshe had explained WHY Bnei Yisrael should
keep all these mitzvot - which he is about to teach them
(in the main speech):
"See I am teaching you CHUKIM & MISHPATIM...for you to
abide in the LAND that you are about to conquer. Observe
them faithfully:
 *	For that will be PROOF of your wisdom in the
EYES OF THE NATIONS, who will say upon hearing all these
laws: Surely, THIS GREAT NATION is a wise people.
*	For what great nation is there that has GOD SO
CLOSE to them...
*	and what great nation has laws as perfect as
THIS TORAH which I set before you today!"
	
(see Devarim 4:5-8).
	These psukim inform us that the CHUKIM &
MISHPATIM section of Sefer Devarim will contain mitzvot
that Bnei Yisrael must keep IN ORDER to achieve this
divine goal - to become an "or la'goyim" - a shining
light for all nations. This requires the establishment
of national institutions to mold its unique character.
These institutions are to facilitate not only the
spiritual growth of each individual citizen, but also
the creation of a 'model nation' that will bring God's
Name to all mankind.

FROM RE'AY TO SHOFTIM 
	As we mentioned in our introduction, the first
commandment of the CHUKIM & MISHPATIM section was the
establishment of a National Center - BA'MAKOM ASHER
YIVCHAR HASHEM.  It is here where Bnei Yisrael will
gather on joyous occasions while offering their
"korbanot" (see chapter 12), eat their "ma'aser sheni"
(see chapter 14), and gather on the "shalosh regalim"
(the three pilgrimage holidays/ see chapter 16).
	However, the establishment of this center is
only one of the many mitzvot that will facilitate the
formation of God's model nation. Recall that Parshat
Re'ay contains several other mitzvot that help create
this "am kadosh" (holy nation):
 *	the special dietary laws (see 14:2-21);
 *	the laws of the seven year "shmitah" cycle
(15:1-18), a national economic policy which helps
guarantee social justice;
 *	warnings against 'bad influences' which could
thwart the development of God's special nation
(12:29-13:19). 

	This theme continues in Parshat Shoftim, which
describes several institutions of national LEADERSHIP:
	1) the SHOFET - a judicial system
	2) the LEVI - religious leadership & civil
servants
	3) the NAVI - religious guidance & national
direction
	4) the MELECH - political leadership
 	
	Therefore, our shiur will discuss the Torah's
presentation of each of these topics:

THE SHOFET
    Parshat Shoftim opens with the commandment to
establish a nationwide judicial system: 
"You shall appoint 'shoftim v'shotrim' [judges and
officers] at ALL YOUR GATES (i.e. in every city) that
God is giving you, and they shall govern the people with
due justice.  Don't pervert judgment... don't take
bribes...  [instead]
JUSTICE, JUSTICE, you must pursue, IN ORDER that you
thrive and inherit the LAND... (16:18-20).
	
	As we know from story of Moshe & Yitro (see
Shmot 18:13-26), the establishment of a judicial system
is not unique to Judaism, nor an invention of the Bible.
Since ancient times, every society has developed some
system for law and order.  However, the Torah commands
the Jewish people to ensure that their judicial system
is just and upright.  As God's model nation, it is not
sufficient to simply appoint judges; we must make sure
that our judges and officers of the law keep to the
highest standard of moral behavior.  We also have to
ensure that judges will be found in every market place
in every city.  [In ancient times, the gate of the city
was the central market place, and hence the ideal place
for a court to sit - to take immediate care of any
complaint that would arise.]
	Several psukim later (an explanation of the
interim psukim 16:21-17:6 is beyond the scope of the
shiur), Parshat Shoftim continues this theme with the
commandment to establish a SUPREME COURT at that
NATIONAL CENTER:
"If there is a case too baffling for you to
decide...matters of dispute in your courts - YOU SHALL
GO UP to HAMAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM, before the
KOHANIM, LEVIIM, or SHOFET, and present your case..."
(17:8-11).

	This institution serves as the HIGHEST authority
for both civil disputes and halachic questions. Both
TORAH and JUSTICE must emanate specifically from the
site of the Temple, the National Center (see also
Yeshayahu 2:1-5). 
    The Torah's emphasis on the need to establish
centers of Justice is congruent with the primary purpose
for God's choice of a special nation, as God had already
explained in Sefer Breishit:
"For Avraham is to become a great NATION, and the
nations of the world shall be blessed by him; for I have
designated him IN ORDER that he command his children and
his posterity to follow the WAY OF THE LORD by keeping
TZDAKA & MISHPAT..."
					 (see Breishit
18:17-19 and its context!).

SHEVET LEVI
	Not only does the Torah require the appointment
of judges, it also commissions an entire tribe - SHEVET
LEVI - to become 'civil servants' for this very purpose.
The Leviim are not only to officiate in the Temple, but
they must also serve as judges. Additionally, they are
responsible for the teaching of Torah and the
instruction of the halacha (Jewish Law).
	This educational responsibility (even though it
is only implicit in Parshat Shoftim /see 17:9), is
stated explicitly by Moshe Rabeinu in his final blessing
to Shevet Levi:
"They shall TEACH Your LAWS to Yaakov and Your TORAH to
Yisrael" (Devarim 33:9).
			[See also Vayikra 10:8-11.]

	In fact, Parshat Shoftim identifies this tribal
obligation as the reason why Shevet Levi does not
receive a portion in the land:
"The KOHANIM & LEVIIM - the entire tribe of Levi - shall
have no territorial portion within Israel. [Instead]
they shall receive their portion from God's offerings...
for God is their portion... You shall also give them the
first portion of your grain, wine and oil, and the first
shearing of your sheep. For God has chosen him [Levi]
and his descendants from out of all your tribes TO SERVE
IN THE NAME OF THE LORD for all time"   (see 18:1->5).

	Not only does the Torah define their duty as
civil servants, but also the details of their
'compensation' for this service (see 18:6-8).  

THE NAVI 
	After its short discussion of shevet Levi, the
Torah continues with a discussion concerning who [and
who not] Bnei Yisrael should turn to for guidance:
"When you ENTER THE LAND which God is giving you, DO NOT
learn to imitate the abhorrent practices of those
nations. Let no one become...a soothsayer, a sorcerer,
one who casts spells, or one who consults ghosts and
spirits, or inquires of the dead. For anyone who does
such things is abhorrent to the Lord...
[INSTEAD] God will raise up for you a NAVI - a Prophet,
like myself (Moshe Rabeinu). To HIM you shall listen...I
will put My words in his mouth, and he will speak to
them all that I command him..." (8:9-22).

 	These psukim prohibit the consultation of any of
a wide variety of popular 'soothsayers,' as was the
practice of the nations of Canaan. Bnei Yisrael should
rather seek guidance from the NAVI, who is to serve as a
national 'advisor' through whom God will communicate His
message. 

SO WHO'S IN CHARGE?
	Thus far, we have encountered a court system,
judges, the tribe of Levi (the Torah instructors), and
the NAVI (who offers spiritual guidance).   What about
political leadership?  In our discussion of leadership
thus far, we have not found anyone who would deal with
such issues. For example:
 *	Whose responsibility is it to actually oversee
the CONSTRUCTION of the Bet HaMikdash, BAMAKOM ASHER
YIVCHAR?
 *	Whose duty is it to organize a standing army and
lead the nation in battle?
 *	Who will determine foreign and domestic policy?
 *	Who will conduct and supervise the collection of
taxes, the building of roads, the minting of coins,
etc.?  
 *	Basically, who will run the country?

	Neither from Parshat Shoftim or anywhere else in
Chumash does it appear that these tasks are the
responsibility of the kohanim, leviim, or the shoftim.
Are they the responsibility of the NAVI - the Prophet?
	The NAVI may, and probably should, serve as an
ADVISOR to the political leadership, representing 'God's
opinion' on important issues. Nevertheless, Parshat
Shoftim clearly does not present the navi [prophet] as
the ideal political leader.
	Neither does the "shofet," presented at the
beginning of the Parsha, emerge from the psukim as a
'political leader.' Although he must ensure the
execution of justice (16:20), he is not portrayed as a
political leader.
[Note: The use of the name "shofet" in Sefer Shoftim to
define the ad-hoc political leadership of that time is a
fascinating topic unto itself, but requires independent
treatment, beyond the scope of our shiur.]

THE "MELECH"
	The answer to this question lies in one last
category of national leadership discussed in Parshat
Shoftim - the "melech" (king):
"When you have entered the land... and you will say: 'I
want to have a KING, as do all the nations surrounding
me,' appoint a KING over yourself, ONE CHOSEN BY GOD...
	 *	He must NOT keep too many horses...;
	 *	He must NOT have too many wives...;
	 *	He must NOT amass too much silver and
gold.
	When he is seated on his royal throne
	* He must WRITE down this "mishne torah" (the
laws of Sefer Devarim) from in front of the Kohanim and
Leviim;
	* He must KEEP IT with him and READ IT every day
of his life IN ORDER that he learn to FEAR GOD....
	* Thus, he will not act haughtily...or deviate
from the Torah...IN ORDER that he and his children may
continue to reign over Am Yisrael...(see Devarim
17:14-20).

	From the above psukim alone, it is unclear
whether the Torah OBLIGATES or merely ALLOWS for the
appointment of a king. [See Sanhedrin 20b and all the
classic commentaries.]  
	However, it appears from the context of these
psukim, especially in their relation to the other types
of national leadership presented in Parshat Shoftim,
that specifically the king is expected to provide
political leadership. After all, who else will 'run the
show'?
	Even though Moshe Rabeinu himself acted as BOTH
the "navi" and king (i.e the political leader), it seems
that this 'double duty' is the exception rather than the
norm. [Later in Jewish History, certain situations may
arise [e.g. Shmuel] when the national leader may also
serve as NAVI, but this happens as an exception more
than as a rule.]

THE MAKING OF A NATION
	Given God's desire that Bnei Yisrael become His
'model nation,' it is quite understandable why some form
of central government is necessary. After all, in order
to become a prosperous nation, at least some form of
political leadership is needed to coordinate and
administer its development. 
	One could suggest that when the Torah speaks of
a king, it may be referring to any type of political
leadership with central authority, regardless of the
political system by which he is elected (be it a
democracy, a monarchy, theocracy, etc.). The Torah may
speak specifically of a 'kingdom,' for at the time of
Matan Torah, that form of government was the most
common. However, these laws regarding 'the king' could
apply equally to the political leader in any system of
government. 

"K'CHOL HA'GOYIM"
	This interpretation may help us understand the
phrase "melech k'chol ha'goyim" - a king like the other
nations (see 17:14 and pirush of the Netziv in Emek
Davar). The Torah is not encouraging Bnei Yisrael to
request a king who ACTS like the kings of neighboring
countries. Rather, they will request a FORM OF
GOVERNMENT similar to that of the neighboring countries.
 	This observation may very well relate to the
very concept of the singularity the Jewish Nation.
Although we must remain different from other nations, we
must still be a nation, in the full sense of the term.
Hence, Am Yisrael does not need to be different from
other nations with regard to the FORM of its political
leadership, rather in the MANNER by which its political
leaderships acts!
	Once a specific leader is chosen, the Torah must
guarantee that he does not grow too proud of his stature
(see 17:16-17,20). Instead, he should utilize his
invested powers to lead Am Yisrael towards becoming an
"am kadosh."  To this end, he must review the mitzvot of
Sefer Devarim - MISHNEH TORAH, the guide for this
process - on a daily basis (see 17:19! / see also
Yehoshua 1:7-8).  
	In this manner, the laws regarding the king in
Sefer Devarim (17:14-19) set 'guidelines' for the
behavior of the political leadership of Am Yisrael - in
order that they can fulfill their destiny as God's
special nation. Whereas this constitutes a primary theme
of the main speech of Sefer Devarim, it is only
appropriate that Parshat Shoftim deals specifically with
this aspect of political leadership.

A CHALLENGE
	Undoubtedly, an inherent danger exists once
political power is invested in a strong central
government. But without a stable, authoritative body, a
country cannot prosper and develop to its maximum
potential.
	It is the Torah's challenge to Am Yisrael to
become a nation that resembles all other nations with
regard to the establishment of a sovereign political
entity. However, at the same time, it is the Torah's
challenge to Am Yisrael that they be DIFFERENT from all
other nations in the manner by which that leadership
behaves and governs; for we are to become God's 'model
nation.' 
	This form of national government will not
diminish the Kingdom of Heaven, but will rather promote
the universal recognition of God's Kingdom and further
the glorification and sanctification of His Name. 

	
shabbat shalom,
	
menachem

=======================		
FOR FURTHER IYUN
1. Based on Parshat Ha'Melech, would you define this
ideal monarchy as constitutional or divine?
    In your answer, relate to Melachim bet 11:17.

2. Was Moshe Rabeinu a melech, a navi, or both?
	 What was Yehoshua?  See Rambam Hilchot M'lachim
perek aleph.   What was Shmuel? (Was he an exception or
the ideal?)
 	Is a dynasty (a ruler the son of the previous
ruler etc.) necessary to be considered a king? How does
this question relate to the above shiur?

3. Read Rambam Hilchot Trumot I:1-3.
	Which type of melech is the Rambam referring to?
	See also the Rambam in Hilchot Melachim perek I.

	See also the first Rambam in Hilchot Chanuka,
where he discusses the historical background to this
holiday. Note his remark, "v'he'emidu MELECH min
ha'KOHANIM... and MALCHUT returned to Israel for more
than two hundred years..."  What type of MALCHUT is
Rambam referring to?
How would this relate to the above shiur? 

4. Later in the Parsha, we are told that the "kohen"
addresses the army prior to battle (20:1-4). Here, his
primary function is to boost the soldiers' morale,
promising God's assistance in the campaign against our
enemies.
	Does it appear from the Torah that it is also
the Kohen's task to lead the army in battle? 

5. Based on this week's shiur, explain the difference
between Kings Shaul, David, and Shlomo, and the
"shoftim."
	a. Who forms the first standing army?
	b. Who first decides to construct the Bet
HaMikdash?
	c. Who is the first to levy taxes?
	D. Who establishes a strong central government?

6. Try to classify all the "chukim u'mishpatim" from
Parshat Re'ay through Parshat Ki-Teyze into different
groups, each of which focuses on a specific topic. See
if you can relate these topics to the order of the Ten
Commandments.



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.14/1647 -
Release Date: 9/2/2008 6:02 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shof1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 42027 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080903/bab5d1ab/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Sep  4 07:14:37 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 07:14:37 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Shoftim - shiur #2 [re: Eglah Arufa]
Message-ID: <006701c90e7f$6e2454c0$0400000a@x60>

[attached is also a source sheet with parshanim]

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

'What defines what's right?''
For Parshat Shoftim

    What's considered 'doing what is right in the eyes
of God' ["ha'yashar beinei Hashem"]?  
    Sefer Devarim mentions this phrase several times,
and assumes that we'll understand what it means; yet the
classic commentators can't seem to agree on its precise
interpretation.
    To illustrate this problem, our shiur begins with
the final pasuk in Parshat Shoftim - to show how if
forms a rather meaningful conclusion for its opening
line!

INTRODUCTION
	The last nine psukim on Parshat Shoftim (21:1-9)
discuss the laws of "eglah arufa" ? when the leaders of
a community must perform a special ceremony in the case
of an unsolved homicide.
	Even though the first eight psukim describe the
various stages of this 'ritual' ? the final pasuk is not
its last stage, rather ? it appears to be some type of
summary, or possibly even an additional commandment.
	To verify this, review 21:1-9 ? noting how the
final pasuk is different, and how it relates to the
previous eight psukim. [Make not as well of how you
translated the word "ki" in 21:9!]

SUMMARY ? OR NOT?  
	Let's begin with the JPS translation of 21:9,
noting how it understands this pasuk as a summary for
the previous eight (by adding the word 'thus'):
"Thus you will remove from your midst guilt for the
blood of the innocent, for you will be doing what is
right in the sight of the Lord." (21:9 / JPS) 
[Note similar translation in Rav Aryeh Kaplan's Living
Torah, and in the Jerusalem Bible ['so' instead of
'thus' - but all view this pasuk as a summary.]

	In other words, after explaining all the various
stages of this ritual ? the Torah concludes by informing
us that it will work!  However, this explanation forces
us to accept two conclusions:
1) That this "dam naki" [innocent blood] refers to the
blood of the "chalal" [the slain person/ see 21:1] ?
which requires some sort of atonement, ideally with the
blood of his murderer, but otherwise with the blood of
the "eglah arufa".  Without either, it seems that there
would be terrible consequences.
    
2) The phrase "ha'yashar beinei Hashem" refers to these
specific procedures of "eglah arufa" (as described in
21:2-8).  Hence, when you have done them, the "dam naki"
will be atoned.  

	The second conclusion is rather difficult to
accept, for why would this ritual of "eglah arufa" fall
under the category of doing 'what is correct in the eyes
of God'?  Usually, this phrase of "ha'yashar b'einei
Hashem" refers to something in the realm of moral
behavior, but rarely ever to ritual.  [See Shmot 15:26,
Devarim 6:18, 12:28 and 13:19.]
    But even the first conclusion is rather difficult to
accept, for the pasuk seems to imply some sort of new
command ? "v'ata t'vaeyr"  [You must get rid of...] ? in
contrast to summary.   Furthermore, the last phrase of
21:8 ?"v'nikaper la'hem ha'dam" [and (thus) they will be
atoned for the blood/ see Rashi] ? in itself seems to be
a summary, and hence, there doesn't seem to be a need
for an additional summary in 21:9.
    
THE CASE ISN'T CLOSED!
	Most probably for either one or both of these
reasons, Rashi offers a very different interpretation,
understanding the pasuk as an additional command (and
not a summary):
"[This pasuk] tells us that should they afterward find
the murderer ? that he must still be put to death; and
THAT is [what the Torah refers to] as 'yashar b'einei
Hashem'." (see Rashi on 21:9)  
	
	Rashi's commentary solves both problems, for it
understands this pasuk as an additional command ? i.e.
to continue to look for the murderer ? EVEN THOUGH the
"eglah arufa" ceremony was performed; while this
'continued search for the murderer' is referred to (and
rightly so) as 'what is correct is the eyes of God'.
	To summarize Rashi's approach, this additional
pasuk is basically coming to teach us that just because
we have performed the ritual ? the case is not closed!
Instead, we must continue to pursue justice ? for that
is what is 'correct in the eyes of God'.
[See English translation of 21:9 in Stone Chumash, which
reflects (as usual) Rashi's commentary, and how it
differs from the other English translations.]

PARTICULAR or GENERAL
	One small problem remains with Rashi's approach,
in relation to our understanding of the phrase
"ha'yashar b'einei Hashem".  If we consider the other
times in the Torah where we find this phrase, we find
that it usually refers to a very general category of
behavior ? more like a 'way of life' - in contrast to
something specific.  For example, after Bnei Yisrael
cross the Red Sea and arrive at Mara, God challenges the
nation to follow him as follows:
"If you obey God, and do what is upright in His eyes
[v'ha'yashar beinav taaseh], and listen to all of His
mitzvot and keep all of His decrees..." (see Shmot
15:26)

	Earlier in Sefer Devarim as well, we find how
this phrase is used in a very general manner:
"Keep God's commandments, His 'eidot' & 'chukim' as He
commanded you ? and do what is upright and good in God's
eyes..."  (See Devarim 6:17-18)
			[See also Devarim 12:28 and
13:19.]

	Therefore, if we follow the more general usage
of this phrase elsewhere in Chumash, especially in Sefer
Devarim, it would make more sense if "ha'yashar beinei
Hashem" related to a wider range of mitzvot, relating to
general moral behavior.

PREVENTIVE MEASURES!
	Most likely, it is this question that caused Ibn
Ezra to offer an alternate, and rather create
interpretation.  After mentioning the two approaches
that we discussed above (i.e. either a summary or a
command to pursue the murderer), Ibn Ezra continues:
"But what seems correct in my eyes ['v'hanachon b'einei'
? note his clever choice of words!],  this relates to
what I mentioned in my commentary (i.e. in 21:7) that no
murder at all would have taken place in the land if
[beforehand Bnei Yisrael had] acted in 'a manner that is
upright in the eyes of God'. ?     following the
principle of:
'schar aveira aveira u'schar mitzvah mitzvah' ?  
the penalty for a transgression is another
transgression, and the reward of a mitzvah is another
mitzvah."
  (see Ibn Ezra 21:9 / & 21:7)  

	Note how according to this interpretation, the
phrase "ha'yashar beinei Hashem" describes good behavior
in general, and not any particular commandment, just as
it does earlier in Sefer Devarim (6:18, 12:28 and
13:19).   

    Hence, there is no longer a need to explain this
pasuk either as a summary or as an additional
commandment; rather Ibn Ezra understands this pasuk as
the Torah providing us with some 'good advice' ? to
prevent this type of situation (that would require an
"eglah arufa") from occurring in the first place.


A GOOD TEACHER
	If we follow Ibn Ezra's approach, this finale
pasuk to the laws of "eglah arufa" follows a pattern
that emerges throughout Moshe Rabeinu's speech in Sefer
Devarim.  Quite often, when Moshe Rabeinu is teaching
specific laws, he'll take a quick break to provide a
reminder, or some good advice ? that relates to good
behavior in general, in relation to that specific
mitzvah.
[If you'd like some examples, see  12:19, 12:28, 13:19,
14:2, 15:11, 16:12,16:20,19:10, not to mention all of
chapter 8 thru 10 ? note also 24:9, according to Rashi!
I'm sure you can find many more.]

HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT'S 'RIGHT IN GOD'S EYES'
	Before we conclude our short shiur, it is highly
recommended that you read the Ramban on Devarim 6:18,
where he solves the problem of how we are supposed to
figure out what is considered "yashar b'einei Hashem".
[Note how (and why) he brings so many examples from
Parshat Kedoshim!]  
    It is also recommended that you see the Ramban on
Devarim 21:5-8, where he quotes the Rambam's explanation
how the laws of "eglah arufa" are not quite ritual, but
rather a set of very wise steps to increase the chances
that the true murder will be found! 
    
	In conclusion,  note how the opening psukim of
the Parsha command Bnei Yisrael not only to appoint
judges, but also insists that their primary goal is to
pursue justice and set a personal example of moral
behavior (see 16:18-20!).  With this in consideration,
the final pasuk of Parshat Shoftim (according to Ibn
Ezra's interpretation) serves not only as an appropriate
finale for the laws of "eglah arufa", but also for all
of Parshat Shoftim!

	
shabbat shalom,
	
menachem 





No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.15/1649 -
Release Date: 9/3/2008 7:15 AM
 
    
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shof2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 23301 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080904/76782360/attachment-0002.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Dvarim21Parshanim.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 51759 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080904/76782360/attachment-0003.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Sep 10 04:12:24 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:12:24 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Ki-teyze - shiur #1
Message-ID: <000601c9131c$f4b849a0$0400000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

        PARSHAT KI-TETZEH - shiur #1

     Mitzvot, and more mitzvot; and all kinds of mitzvot
-
that would certainly sums up Parshat Ki-Tetzeh.  Yet,
it's not
clear why we find such a wide assortment and random
progression of laws specifically at this point in Sefer
Devarim?
     In this week's shiur, we attempt to explain why -
by
exploring an intriguing parallel to the Ten
Commandments,
while considering (once again) the overall theme of the
'main
speech' of Sefer Devarim.

INTRODUCTION
     As Parshat Ki-Tetzeh is located towards the end of
the
main speech of Sefer Devarim, we begin our study with a
quick
review of the overall structure of that speech in order
to
appreciate its location:

  *  MOSHE'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS  (5:1-6:3)
  Explaining when these mitzvot were originally given
(i.e.
  at Ma'amad Har Sinai) and why Bnei Yisrael heard them
  from Moshe (and not directly from God).
  
  *  THE 'MITZVA' SECTION  (chapters 6 - 11)
  Mitzvot relating primarily to 'ahavat Hashem':- the
  proper attitude towards God and the underlying
obligation
  to observe His mitzvot and not to follow other gods.
  
  *  THE 'CHUKIM & MISHPATIM' SECTION (chapters 12-26)
  A wide assortment of commandments pertaining to the
  establishment of an 'am kadosh' [a holy nation], its
  institutions, and various laws pertaining to daily
life
  in the Land of Israel.

     Therefore, Parshat Ki-Tetzeh (chapters 21 thru 25)
forms
an integral part of the chukim & mishpatim section, and
continues the laws found in Re'eh (chapters 12 thru 16)
and
Shoftim (chapters 17 thru 20).
  Nonetheless, the laws in Ki-Tetzeh appear to be quite
different.  Recall how the mitzvot in Re'eh focused on
the
establishment of national institutions such as the
national
center - 'ha-makom asher yivchar  Hashem', and 'shmitta'
economic system, and the national pilgrimage holidays,
etc.
Similarly, Parshat Shoftim discussed the institutions of
national leadership such as the judges, the supreme
court, the
king, the 'navi' , etc, cities of refuge and laws
governing
the army and war.
     In contrast, the focus of Parshat Ki-Tetzeh seems
to
shift from mitzvot related to the nation as a whole to
mitzvot
directed towards the individual.  As you scan through
the
Sedra, note how virtually all of its mitzvot, despite
their
variety, all relate in one manner or other to the
behavior of
the individual within the framework of the society, and
most
all of them fall within the category of 'bein adam le-
chavero'.

A LOGICAL PROGRESSION
     One could suggest a very logical reason for this
order of
presentation.  Considering that the purpose of these
mitzvot
in the main speech is Bnei Yisrael's creation of an am
kadosh
in the land which they prepare to conquer (see 6:1,
14:1-2 &
26:16-19), the speech must first and foremost address
the
establishment of the national institutions.  Once this
national framework is achieved (e.g. a judicial system,
an
organized system of educators and national leaders, a
national
center, etc.), a more suitable environment will exist to
facilitate and encourage the fulfillment of the numerous
mitzvot bein adam le-chavero that relate to the daily
life of
each individual.  Without an organized court system and
a
functioning political entity, it would be quite
difficult to
establish a society characterized by 'tzedek u-mishpat'.

     Although this reasoning line adequately explains
the
overall structure of this unit (i.e. the progression
from
Parshat Shoftim to Parshat Ki-Tetzeh), it does not
account for
the internal sequence within this Parsha.  To explain
this
arrangement, our shiur will follow the approach of Rav
David
Tzvi Hoffman, who demonstrates that the mitzvot of the
main
speech in Sefer Devarim follow the order of the aseret
ha-
dibrot [the Ten Commandments].

THE PARALLEL TO THE DIBROT
     To properly identify and appreciate this parallel,
we
must first draw a distinction between the first two
commandments and the remaining eight.
     Recall that the first two dibrot deal primarily
with the
concept of 'emuna', fundamental belief in God, and the
consequent prohibition against worshipping other
so-called
deities.  As such, these two dibrot form the very
foundation
of our relationship with God.  The remaining eight
commandments involve concrete, practical mitzvot,
through
which this fundamental principle is implemented and
manifest
in daily life.
  [Recall as well that the first two dibrot are recorded
in
  first person, while the remaining eight are in third
  person.  See Ramban's explanation for this in his
  commentary on Shmot 20:4 (i.e. the reason for the
switch
  from first to third person in the third dibbur).]

     Corresponding to this division within the dibrot,
the
mitzvot of the main speech of Sefer Devarim also divide
into
two very distinct categories:
1)The mitzva section, dealing primarily with the issue
of
  emuna, and hence parallel to the first two dibrot
2)   The chukim & mishpatim section, the practical
mitzvot
     and hence, parallel to the remaining eight dibrot

     Taking this parallel one step further, one may
suggest
that the dibrot also provide the general framework for
all the
mitzvot in the  main speech of Sefer Devarim, and hence
its
mitzvot progress in topical order, similar and
corresponding
to the sequence of the Ten Commandments.  In this sense,
each
group of mitzvot in Sefer Devarim could be understand as
an
'expansion' upon the underlying principle of each
dibbur.
  [To borrow an analogy from Hilchot Shabbat, the dibrot
  serve as 'avot' (primary categories), while the
mitzvot
  in the main speech may be considered 'toladot'
(secondary
  categories).]

     The rationale for this parallel is clear.  The
mitzvot of
the main speech are the laws to be observed upon
entering the
Land (see 6:1).  Thus, these laws apply the abstract
principles established in the dibrot to the realities of
life
in the Land of Israel - conquering, occupying, settling
and
establishing a nation.
     Let's use a table to show how our analysis works:

CHAPTERS  DIBUR     TOPIC IN THE MAIN SPEECH
--------  -----          ------------------------
     [THE 'MITZVA' SECTION]
6 -11     I    'Ahavat Hashem', emuna
          II   Not worshipping 'avoda zara'
                    (parallel to the first two dibrot)

     [THE 'CHUKIM U-MISHPATIM' SECTION]
12-14     III  Establishing God's Name in the mikdash
             ["ha-makom asher yivchar Hashem leshaken
shmo sham"]          
               (parallel to not saying God's Name in
vain)

15-16     IV   The seven year Shmitta cycle and the
holidays
                    (parallel to Shabbat)

17-18     V    The national leaders (shoftim, kohanim &
levi'im,
               melech, and navi)
                    (parallel to honoring parents)

19-21     VI   Laws of war, murder, and capital
punishment
                    (parallel to 'lo tirtzach')

21-25     VII-X  Misc. laws 'bein adam le-chavero'
                    (parallel to the final dibrot)

  [Before analyzing this structure in detail, a word of
  clarification is in order.  The fact that the dibrot
  create the framework for the entire speech does not
mean
  that there can be no digression whatsoever from this
  general arrangement.  The dibrot merely establish a
  general pattern; this does not constrain the internal
  structure of the individual parshiot.  We may (and
  should) find isolated exceptions to this structure,
but
  they in no way undermine or violate the general
pattern.]

     Let's take a few minutes to explain the parallels
cited
in the table above.

THE 'MITZVA' SECTION AND THE FIRST TWO DIBROT
     As we explained in detail in our shiur on Parshat
Va-
etchanan, the mitzva section of the main speech contains
primarily mitzvot relating to ahavat Hashem as well as
numerous warnings against avoda zara (worshipping other
gods).
These mitzvot of the mitzva section simply apply the
principles of the first two dibrot to the realities of
conquering and settling the Land.
     For example, to ensure God's assistance and
continued
'Hashgacha' (providence) throughout the conquest, Bnei
Yisrael
must maintain the proper religious outlook and exhibit
general
belief in, and devotion to, God ('Anochi...').  They
must also
be careful not to fall into the trap of
'over-confidence' or
fall prey to the influences of the decadent Canaanite
culture
('Lo Yihiyeh...').
  [Scan chapters 6-11 to verify this point.  Pay
particular
  attention to 11:22-23.]

THE 'CHUKIM & MISHPATIM' SECTION
     Likewise, the mitzvot in the 'chukim u-mishpatim'
section
apply the underlying principles of the remaining dibrot
to the
realities of forming a nation in the Promised Land.
     We will now explain how each general topic in this
section relates to its corresponding dibbur:

LO TISA (chapters 12-14)
     As we explained in our shiur on Parshat Re'eh, the
primary topic of these chapters is 'ha-makom asher
yivchar
Hashem leshaken *shmo* sham'.  In order to make God's
Name
great (both to ourselves and to other nations), Bnei
Yisrael
must build a bet mikdash, frequent that site, and gather
there
on the national holidays.
     This commandment relates to the third dibbur - not
to
utter God's Name in vain.  Just as it is forbidden to
defile
His Name through irreverent and inappropriate misuse, so
is it
imperative that we proclaim His Name in the proper
manner.
The primary vehicle designated by the Torah to
accomplish this
goal is the bet mikdash - 'ba-makom asher yivchar...
leshaken
shmo sham' (see Melachim I 8:15-21,41-43!).
     At this site the levi'im sing and praise God (see
10:8,
21:5), proclaiming and sanctifying His Name.  Ideally,
Am
Yisrael's service of God at the bet mikdash would lead
all
mankind towards the recognition of His Name (see Isaiah
2:1-4,
Melachim I 8:41-42).
  [To confirm this point, simply read the second
paragraph
  of the 'Aleinu leshabeiach' prayer, the section of 'al
  ken nekaveh...' (in case you never paid attention to
the
  words before).]
  
  [The 'digressions' from this theme in Parshat Re'eh,
i.e.
  the warnings against those who encourage idolatry
  (chapter 13) and the dietary laws (14:3-21), may also
  relate to this general theme.  The worship of other
gods
  by definition detracts from God's Name and honor, and
the
  dietary laws involve the general obligation to be an
am
  kadosh (14:2,21).  In our shiur on Parshat Kedoshim,
we
  connected this topic to the mishkan, as well.]

SHABBAT  [Devarim chapters 15-16]
     In the second half of Parshat Re'eh, we find two
types of
toladot or derivations of Shabbat.  First, there appears
the
law of shmitta, which follows a seven year cycle,
similar to
the seven-day cycle of Shabbat.  These laws require that
we
rest from working the land on the seventh year.  In
fact, we
can even consider the laws of 'ma'aser sheni' & 'ma'aser
ani'
- which are functions of this seven year shmitta cycle -
as
the beginning of this section and a suitable
'transition' from
the topic of 'ha-makom asher yivchar Hashem' (note
14:22-23).
     The second 'tolada' is the 'shalosh regalim' - the
three
pilgrimage holidays described in chapter 16.  Their most
basic
and obvious resemblance to Shabbat is the prohibition of
work
(note Vayikra 23:1-3).  Furthermore, the number seven
emerges
as the prominent number in the context of these
holidays.  For
example, on chag ha-matzot we celebrate seven days
(16:3, note
also 16:8! - cute?) and then we count seven weeks until
Shavuot (16:9).  On Sukkot, we once again celebrate for
seven
days (16:13).
  [In fact, these holidays are actually referred to as
  shabbatot in Parshat Emor!  The laws of 'bechor' which
  precede this section (15:19-23), clearly connect to
the
  discussion that immediately follows, the laws of
Pesach
  (see Shmot 13:1-2,11).]

"KABED ET AVICHA..." - HONORING PARENTS (16:18 -18:22)
     The concept of respecting authority at the family
level
can easily be expanded to the national level as well,
thus
requiring us to honor our national leaders.  Therefore,
the
next general topic - the national institutions of
leadership:
the shofet, kohen, levi, navi, and melech - can be
understood
as a tolada of 'kibbud horim'.  This section includes
the laws
regarding proper and effective leadership - judges,
officers,
priests, the king, and nevi'im - as well as laws
pertaining to
leaders who must be eliminated: those who lead others to
idol
worship (17:2-7), false prophets (18:20-22), and
dissenters
who disobey and snub the authority figures (see 17:12).

LO TIRTZACH  [chapters 19-21]
     The toladot of 'lo tirtzach' are the most obviously
identifiable, as  almost all the laws in these three
chapters
expand upon (or apply) this dibbur.  For example:
  *  Cities of Refuge - 'arei miklat' (19:1-10);
  *  How to conduct war (20:1-20);
  *  'Egla arufa' (21:1-9) - an entire city takes
responsibility for a homicide perpetrated in its
vicinity;
  * Yefat to'ar (21:10-15) - laws relating to prisoners
of
war;
  * Ben sorer u-moreh (21:18-21)- the obligation to kill
a
rebellious son;
  * Hanging the body of a criminal executed by bet-din
(21:22-23);
  *  The mitzva of 'me'akeh le-gagecha' - putting a
fence on
one's roof to prevent accidental death (22:8-9), etc.
  [Many laws presented in this section digress from the
  specific context of murder and related issues.
However,
  even those digressions relate in one form or other to
  mitzvot bein adam le-chavero.]

LO TIN'AF  [22:10-23:19]
     This section includes various laws relating to
forbidden
sexual relationships.  For example:
  *  'Motzi shem ra' (22:13-21);
  *  The classic 'affair' (22:22);
  *     The various instances of 'na'ara ha-me'orasa'
(22:23-
29);
  *  Forbidden marriages (23:1-9) and harlotry
(23:18-19).
    [Once again, this section contains several other
    laws, in addition to these derivations of 'lo
    tin'af'.  Many of these digressions are tangentially
    related to the central theme.  The prohibition of
    'kil'ayim' (working two animals together) and
    'sha'atnez' (weaving two types of thread) [22:10-11]
    may be perceived as relating to illegal marital
    relationships.  Likewise, the mitzva of tzizit
    (22:12) could be understood as a prevention of 'lo
    tin'af', as suggested by Bamidbar 15:39.]

LO TIGNOV  (23:20-26)
  *  The prohibition against taking interest (23:20-21);
  *  Stealing from 'hekdesh' by neglecting one's vow
(23:22);
  *  Stealing produce from one's neighbor's field
(23:25-26).

     Various other toladot of 'lo tignov' sneak in at
different places throughout Parshat Ki-Tetzeh, mostly as
'digressions' within other sections (see below).

LO TA'ANEH BE-RE'ACHA ED SHAKER (19:15-21)
     The situation of 'eidim zomemim' could be
considered a
tolada of 'lo ta'aneh...'.  It is included in the lo
tirtzach
section as a 'digression' from the laws of capital
punishment
(19:11-13).  Admittedly, this case does not fit
'perfectly'
into the overall structure, but is included within the
framework of bein adam le-chavero (see below).

LO TACHMOD (chapter 24)
     'Lo tachmod' is so general that almost any law can
be
considered its tolada.  Most likely, the laws of divorce
(24:1-
4) and the prohibition of the divorcee to remarry his
remarried wife prevent a 'legal affair' (read 24:4
carefully),
and could be considered a tolada of coveting.
     Also, throughout the mitzvot in Parshat Ki-Tetzeh
we find
many references to 're'echa' (as in 've-chol asher
le-re'echa'
5:17, such as the laws of eating while walking through
one's
neighbor's vineyard or field (see 23:25-26).  These laws
could
also be considered toladot of lo tachmod.  [Note the
word
're'echa' in that commandment.]

VI-X - AN IMPORTANT NOTE
     As we noted several times in our analysis, we
encounter
many exceptions to this general pattern within Parshat
Ki-
Tetzeh (what we have called 'digressions').  Not all the
mitzvot line up perfectly as toladot of each dibbur in
exact
sequence.  Additionally, the various toladot of the last
five
dibrot seem intermingled within these chapters.
Nonetheless,
almost all the mitzvot in this Parsha are toladot of at
least
one of the last five dibrot.
     One could suggest that these final five dibrot
actually
comprise a single, general category - 'mitzvot bein adam
le-
chavero'.  They all involve conduct and relationships
amongst
people.
  [Significantly, within the 'aseret ha-dibrot' these
final
  five commandments are merged into one pasuk (according
to
  the 'ta'am tachton').]

THE FINALE
     The final mitzvot of the chukim u-mishpatim section
include the mitzva to destroy Amalek (25:17-19) and
'mikra
bikkurim' (26:1-15).
     One could view the law of destroying Amalek as a
tolada
of 'lo tirtzach' and the finale of this unit of the last
five
dibrot.  [Why this mitzva was chosen to close this unit
will
be discussed iy"H in a shiur for Parshat Zachor.]
     Similarly, the laws of 'mikra bikkurim' in chapter
26
complete the topic of 'ha-makom asher yivchar Hashem'
and
hence close the entire chukim & mishpatim section which
now
forms a chiastic structure.  [We will deal with this
parsha
iy"H in next week's shiur.]

SIGNIFICANCE
     This parallel may emphasize the point that all of
the
laws of the Torah originate from Har Sinai.  The dibrot,
given
directly by God, serve as avot - the very basic
principles of
the covenant between God and Bnei Yisrael.  The mitzvot
of the
main speech serve as toladot, applying these principles
to
govern our national and individual conduct.  This model
of
'avot and toladot' teaches us that we must apply the
principles of Matan Torah to every aspect of daily life.
     Furthermore, this model teaches us that when we
apply the
principles of the dibrot, we raise them to a higher
level.
For example, not only is one forbidden to steal, one is
also
required to return a lost item to its owner.  In this
manner,
the laws of 'hashavat aveda' and the obligation to help
even
one's neighbor's animal in distress, both toladot of lo
tignov, expand the fundamental precept established by
this
dibbur to maintain a heightened sensitivity to the
property of
others, beyond the actual prohibition of stealing.
     Expanding the principles of Har Sinai to every
aspect of
our daily life, as exemplified by Sefer Devarim, forms
the
basis and foundation of our development into an am
kadosh.

                              shabbat shalom,
                              menachem

=============================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
A.  As explained in earlier shiurim, Parshat Mishpatim,
which
was transmitted after Matan Torah at Har Sinai, also
features
a collection of mitzvot, quite similar to the main
speech in
Sefer Devarim.
1.  Skim through that set of mitzvot (20:19-23:33) and
try to
find within its structure, as well, a parallel to the
dibrot.
2.  Can you detect the chiastic structure towards the
end?

B.  Aside from Parshat Mishpatim and Sefer Devarim, the
only
other collection of laws focusing on issues bein adam
le-
chavero' appears in Parshat Kedoshim.  As your review
Vayikra
chapter 19, see if you can find a parallel to the
dibrot.

C.  Use the above shiur to explain why Moshe deemed it
necessary to repeat the dibrot in chapter 5, as part of
his
introduction to the main speech.

D.  Relate the nature of shabbat in the dibrot as
recorded in
Parshat Va-etchanan (as opposed to the dibrot in Yitro)
to the
nature of the laws of shmitta as recorded in Sefer
Devarim
(chapter 15) and in Parshat Behar.  Pay particular
attention
to the aspect of social equality and justice, etc.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.19/1661 -
Release Date: 9/9/2008 4:58 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kitey1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 49503 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080910/a600057b/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Sep 10 04:14:30 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:14:30 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Ki-teyze - shiur #2
Message-ID: <000a01c9131d$402a8ec0$0400000a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

           for PARSHAT KI-TETZEH  [& CHODESH ELUL!]

     There are two psukim in this week's Sedra that can
be
understood in many different ways, yet no matter how we
interpret them, their underlying message is especially
important for the month of Elul (and the rest of the
year as
well).  In the following shiur, we take a break from our
thematic study of Sefer Devarim, to delve into the world
of
'parshanut' [Biblical commentary].

INTRODUCTION
     Although most of the laws in Parshat Ki-Tetzeh deal
with
'mitzvot bein adam le-chavero' [man and his fellow man],
one
exception calls our attention:
  "Be very careful with regard to [the laws concerning]
a
  'nega tzara'at' (a type of skin infection) - do
exactly
  as the levitical priests instruct you" (24:8).

  This sort of warning - to observe the laws of
'tzara'at'
[leprosy] - is certainly an anomaly in Sefer Devarim.
  First of all, the laws of leprosy were first presented
in
Sefer Vayikra (see chapters 13 &14) together with
numerous
other laws of 'tum'a' & 'tahara' [spiritual
uncleanliness].
However, Sefer Devarim does not remind us concerning any
of
those laws (nor any other laws from the first 18
chapters of
Sefer Vayikra), other than this lone mention to keep the
laws
of tzara'at.
  Secondly, most all of the other laws in Parshat Ki
Tetzeh
deal with 'bein adam la-Makom' [matters between man and
God],
while this warning seems to be quite different.
  Finally, this pasuk doesn't appear to teach us
anything new.

     Therefore, when studying this pasuk, we must
consider
these three issues: i.e.  1) Why do we find here a
mitzva bein
adam la-Makom?  2) What specific law is being added that
has
not already appeared in Sefer Vayikra?   3) Why does
Sefer
Devarim introduce, uncharacteristically, a law from the
first
half of Sefer Vayikra?

LEPROSY & MIRIAM [Rashi]
     The simplest answer to the above questions is based
on
its connection to the next pasuk:
  "Remember what God did to Miriam, on your journey when
  you left the land of Egypt" (24:9).

     This pasuk clearly refers to the incident recorded
in
Parshat Beha'alotcha, when Miriam contracts tzara'at
following
her complaints regarding Moshe's marriage to an 'isha
kushit'
(see Bamidbar 12:1-16).
  This juxtaposition of the commandment to remember how
Miriam
was punished with tzara'at for speaking 'lashon ha-ra'
[evil
talk] against her brother, leads many commentators to
the
obvious conclusion that the Torah's 'reminder'
concerning
tzara'at is in essence a reminder not to slander.  In
other
words, by reminding us not to speak lashon ha-ra
immediately
after the warning concerning the laws of tzara'at, the
Torah
seems to enlist the laws of tzara'at as a (polite)
reminder
not to speak lashon ha-ra!

     For example, Rashi's opening commentary to this
pasuk
seems to make exactly this point:
       ["Remember what God did to Miriam" (24:9):]
  "If one wants to be careful not to contract tzara'at
at
  all - then don't speak lashon ha-ra [in the first
place].
  Remember what happened to Miriam when she spoke
against
  her brother..." (see Rashi 24:9).

     Not only does this interpretation reveal the
underlying
significance of these laws, it also answers the
questions
raised earlier.  The laws of tzara'at are mentioned in
Parshat
Ki Tetzeh specifically because they in fact do relate to
bein
adam le-chavero!  It also explains why the pasuk here
includes
only a very general warning concerning tzara'at, to get
to the
point of lashon ha-ra.  However, there is no need to
repeat
the technical details of tzara'at, as they have already
been
discussed in Sefer Vayikra.

DRASH = PSHAT [Ibn Ezra]
     It is worthwhile to note in this context Ibn Ezra's
comments on this pasuk.  Not only does he apparently
agree
with Rashi's interpretation, he even adds a comment that
the
pshat of these psukim in Devarim, supports a midrashic
interpretation in Sefer Vayikra:
  "From here (this pasuk) we find support for the
midrash
  (of Vayikra Rabba 16:1): don't read 'MeTZo'RA' -
rather
  'MoTZi shem RA'" (a cute abbreviation).

     In other words, Ibn Ezra (a big 'fan' of pshat)
finds
support for the midrash in Sefer Vayikra concerning the
laws
of metzora based on the pshat of the psukim in Sefer
Devarim!

NOT SO FAST
     Despite the simplicity and beauty of this
interpretation,
several serious questions emerge.
     First of all, why doesn't the Torah just tell us
'don't
speak lashon ha-ra?  What is gained by merely inferring
this
conclusion from the story of Miriam and the laws of
tzara'at?
     Furthermore, does it make sense for the Torah to
recall a
'bad story' concerning Miriam in order to teach us not
to tell
'bad stories' about other people?!
     Finally, why does the Torah emphasize (in 24:8)
that we
must follow the procedures specifically in accordance
with the
kohanim's instructions?  If the message is simply not to
speak
lashon ha-ra, the first half of the pasuk would have
sufficed
as ample warning.
     Due to these difficulties, Rashbam & Chizkuni will
explain these two psukim in a radically different
manner.  On
the other hand, Rashi and Ramban will remain 'loyal' to
the
lashon ha-ra approach; however, their commentaries will
reflect how they grappled with these difficulties as
well.
  [It is highly recommend that you first study (or at
least
  read) those commentaries on your own before
continuing.]

DON'T BE YOUR OWN DOCTOR!  [Rashi]
     Let's begin with the 'simple' question: If 24:8
simply
serves as a general warning to follow the proper
procedures
regarding tzara'at (as we concluded above), then it
would have
sufficed to say, "Be careful to keep the laws of
tzara'at."
What are we to learn from the second clause: "follow
exactly
what the levitical priests instruct you" (see 24:8)?
     Based on this redundancy, the Gemara in Makkot
(22a)
concludes that this pasuk includes more than just a
general
warning; rather it teaches us an additional law.  Rashi
cites
the Gemara's explanation that this pasuk forbids an
individual
to surgically remove a tzara'at infection from his skin
(by
himself) before showing it to the kohen.
     Basically, according to this interpretation, this
pasuk
teaches us that one 'cannot be his own doctor' with
regard to
tzara'at.  Instead, he must show his infection to the
kohen
(priest) and obediently follow the kohen's 'diagnosis'.
     Here we find a classic example of midrash halacha.
Chazal derive an additional halacha (which does not
appear
explicitly in the text) from an 'extra' phrase in a
pasuk,
based on the content and context of the otherwise
superfluous
expression.
  [It is important to note that this midrash halacha
does
  not contradict our earlier conclusion concerning the
  connection between tzara'at and lashon ha-ra; it
simply
  adds an additional law.  Note that Rashi brings down
both
  interpretations!  See also Further Iyun section.]

     Let's continue now with the more obvious question:
i.e.
what does the Torah gain by recalling the incident with
Miriam?  Would it not have been more effective to simply
admonish in straightforward fashion: 'Don't speak lashon
ha-
ra'?
     Most probably for this reason, Rashbam and
Chizkuni's
suggest a very different approach.

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!  [Rashbam]
      In contrast to the approach of Rashi & Ibn Ezra
(and our
original explanation), that the primary purpose of these
psukim is to prohibit lashon ha-ra, Rashbam points us in
a
totally different direction.  Let's take a look:
  "Be careful to keep the laws of tzara'at: [This comes
to
  teach us that] even with regard to [an important
person]
  like King Uziyahu - do not honor him (should he become
a
  metzora / see Divrei Hayamim II 26:11-22).  Instead,
send
  him outside the camp [as Miriam was sent]? for
remember
  what happened to Miriam: Even though she was a
prophetess
  and Moshe's sister, they did not honor her; instead,
they
  sent her outside the camp..."
    [See Rashbam 24:8-9 / In that story in Divrei
Hayamim,
    King Uziyahu was struck with tzara'at after he
haughtily
    entered the kodesh kodashim to offer ketoret.]

     According to Rashbam, the primary focus of these
psukim
relates indeed to the laws of leprosy and 'protektzia' -
and
hence has nothing to do with lashon ha-ra.
  Note how this interpretation resolves almost all our
questions (raised above).  Although the technical
details of
tzara'at have already been recorded in Sefer Vayikra,
Sefer
Devarim (in its discussion of various laws concerning
daily
life in the community of Israel) commands us not to make
any
exceptions for special people - i.e. no 'protektzia'!
     Hence, the Torah mentions the case of Miriam to
emphasize
precisely this point of 'no exceptions' (with regard to
tzara'at).  We cannot, therefore, according to Rashbam,
infer
from these psukim a conclusive connection between the
cause
for tzara'at and lashon ha-ra.
     Note as well that the story of Miriam in Parshat
Beha'alotcha provides only 'circumstantial evidence' for
such
a connection.  Recall that the Torah never states
explicitly
that lashon ha-ra was the cause of Miraim's leprosy!  In
fact,
most other occurrences of tzara'at in Tanach involve the
problem of 'ga'ava' [arrogance] - e.g. the cases of
Uziyahu
(see Divrei Hayamim II 26:16-20) and Na'aman and Gechazi
(see
Melachim II chapter 5).  See also Shmot 4:6-8,
'Ve-akmal'.]

     Rashbam is not alone in his approach.  Chizkuni (on
24:8-
9) explains these psukim in a similar fashion:
  "Keep the laws of tzara'at: Do not grant special honor
to
  important people by exempting them from banishment
from
  the camp.  Remember what God did to Miriam - even
though
  she was sister to the king and high priest, she was
  nevertheless banished outside the camp for the entire
  seven-day period."
  
  Rashbam and Chizkuni agree that the primary purpose of
these
psukim is to teach us that everyone is equal under the
law,
and hence, not to make exceptions for VIP's.  Note, that
this
approach as well provides us with a good reason for
including
this law in Parshat Ki Tetzeh, as it falls into the
category
of bein adam le-chavero, and it reflects God's
expectation
that Am Yisrael live by higher moral standard.

     How about Ramban?  We've intentionally saved him
for
last, because his approach (as usual) is the most
comprehensive, addressing textual and thematic parallels
to
other parshiot in Chumash.  We will show how his
approach (in
this case) is both 'educational' like Rashi's and
faithful to
pshat no less than Rashbam's.
  [Incidentally, this is why Ramban's commentary is
usually
  much longer and complex than Rashi's.  On the other
hand,
  specifically because of his brevity, Rashi has earned
  more widespread popularity.]

REMEMBER THE OTHER 'ZACHOR'S'!  [Ramban]
     Note, that just about all of the interpretations of
24:8-
9 thus far how considered the warning to follow the laws
of
leprosy in 24:8 ['hi-shamer...'] as the primary point-
and the
'reminder' to remember what happened to Miriam in 24:9
['zachor...'] as secondary.  Ramban will do exactly the
opposite, showing how the Torah's primary commandment is
zachor in 24:9, and hishamer in 24:8 simply serves as a
lead
up to the primary point in 24:9!
     Ramban begins by quoting Rashi's explanation that
guarding one's tongue against lashon hara prevents the
onset
of tzara'at; and (for a change), this time Ramban
actually
quotes Rashi because he agrees (and not as a set up to
disagree).  However, Ramban takes Rashi's approach one
step
further, demonstrating that what Rashi considers 'drash'
may
be not only 'pshat', but should even be counted as one
of the
613 mitzvot!
  "In my opinion this [commandment of zachor in pasuk
24:9]
  should be considered a positive commandment - [i.e. it
  should be counted as] an actual mitzvat aseh" [see
Ramban
  24:9].

     To our amazement, Ramban considers zachor - what
appeared
to be simply a 'reminder' - as a positive commandment to
daily
remember (or possibly even recite) the incident
involving how
Miriam contracted tzara'at after speaking about her
brother.
  How does Ramban reach such a daring conclusion that
this
should be counted as one of the 613 mitzvot!?
  
     One could suggest that Ramban's approach stems from
his
'sensitive ear' to the Torah's use of key phrases.  When
Ramban hears the opening phrase: "Zachor et asher asa
Hashem..." he is immediately reminded of three other
instances
where the Torah introduces a mitzva with a similar
expression:
* 1) Shabbat - "Zachor et yom ha-shabbat" (Shmot 20:7)
* 2) Yetziat Mitzrayim - "Zachor et ha-yom..." (Shmot
13:3)
* 3) amalek - "Zachor et asher asa lecha Amalek..."
         (see Devarim  25:17)

     Ramban cites these three examples as proof that a
pasuk
beginning with the word zachor... constitutes a positive
commandment (a 'mitzvat aseh'); and hence, our case
should be
no different.
     But what is this mitzva?  Why would the Torah have
us
remember a 'not so nice' story about Miriam?
     Like an artist, Ramban beautifully 'puts all the
pieces
together,' explaining this seemingly enigmatic pasuk in
light
of our earlier questions.  Like Rashi and Ibn Ezra, he
points
to lashon ha-ra as the central topic of these psukim.
This is
why the incident of Miriam is introduced and why the
issue of
tzara'at is mentioned altogether in Parshat Ki-Tetzeh,
in the
context of mitzvot bein adam le-chavero.
  However, Ramban's interpretation also explains the
advantage
of employing Miriam to present this mitzva (rather than
stating it explicitly):
  "... Hence, this is a warning (of the Torah) not to
speak
  lashon ha-ra, commanding us to remember the terrible
  punishment that Miriam received [even though she was]
a
  righteous prophetess, and she spoke only about her
  brother (not someone outside the family) and only
  privately with her brother (Aharon), not in public, so
  that Moshe himself would not be embarrassed... But
  despite these good intentions, she was punished.  How
  much more so must we be careful never to speak lashon
ha-
  ra... (see Ramban 24:9).

     According to Ramban, the Torah doesn't mention
Miriam to
tell us how bad her sin was.  On the contrary, the
incident of
Miriam (who, as everyone knows, was righteous and had
only
good intentions) emphasizes how careful we must all be
in all
matters which may involve even the slightest degree of
lashon
ha-ra.  This pasuk reminds us that punishment was
administered
even in the case of Miriam's mild lashon ha-ra.
     Based on the parallel to other instances of the
word
zachor, the Ramban concludes that mere recollection does
not
suffice.  We are obligated to verbally recount this
unfortunate incident every day [just as Kiddush on
Shabbat
fulfills the obligation of 'zachor et yom ha-shabbat
lekadsho...']!  Ramban understands these psukim as not
merely
some good advice, but as a commandment to retell this
incident
on a daily basis, in order that we remember not to make
a
similar mistake, even should we have 'good intentions'.
  [See also Sifra on Vayikra 26:14 [Torat Kohanim
  Bechukotai Alef 2-3].  This probably explains the
  'minhag' [custom] of reciting this pasuk each day
after
  shacharit - see the six 'zechirot' at the conclusion
of
  shacharit in your siddur!]

     Ramban's closing remarks are most significant, as
they
reflect another important aspect of his exegetical
approach:
  "For how could it be that lashon ha-ra - which is
  equivalent in its severity to murder - would not be
  considered a [full fledged] mitzva in the Torah! ...
    Rather, this pasuk serves as a serious warning to
  refrain [from lashon ha-ra], be it in public or in
  private, intentional or unintentional...and it should
be
  considered one of the 613 mitzvot..." (see Ramban
24:9).

     Ramban here employs 'conceptual logic' - the very
essence
of his pshat approach - to support his comprehensive
interpretation of these psukim.  Because logically there
must
be a mitzva in the Torah against speaking lashon ha-ra,
Ramban
prefers to interpret this pasuk as one of the 613
mitzvot.
  In this manner, Ramban utilizes a wider perspective of
pshat
to reach a conclusion not only similar to the Midrash,
but
also more poignant.
  [If you would like to see an 'enhanced version' of
  Ramban's explanation of this mitzva, read his
commentary
  to Rambam's Sefer Ha-mitzvot.  At the conclusion of
the
  'mitzvot aseh' section, Ramban adds several mitzvot
which
  (in his opinion) Rambam had overlooked.  In 'hasaga'
#7,
  Ramban adds this mitzva, that we must constantly
remind
  ourselves of the incident of Miriam in order to
remember
  not to speak lashon ha-ra.]

An 'AM' KADOSH with a 'PEH' KADOSH
     Note as well that according to Ramban's
interpretation,
the mitzva which emerges from these two psukim in
Parshat Ki
Tetzeh is not only yet another mitzva bein adam
le-chavero, it
also forms one of the most basic 'building block'
towards
achieving the ultimate goal of Sefer Devarim to create
and
establish an am kadosh.
  Recall how the mitzvot of the main speech form the
guidelines for the establishment of God's model nation
in the
land of Israel.  Imagine an entire nation, where each
individual reminded himself daily of these stringent
guidelines concerning lashon ha-ra!
     Anyone who would like to be 'machmir' [adhere to a
more
stringent opinion] - especially on the 'de-'oraita'
level, is
invited to take upon himself this 'chumra' [stringency]
explicated by Ramban.
                              shabbat shalom,
                              menachem

==========================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
A.  Try to arrange the various opinions of the Rishonim
mentioned above into the following categories.  Who
considers:
     1) 24:8 is the primary pasuk - 24:9 supports it.
     2) 24:9 is the primary pasuk - 24:8 introduces it.
     3) 24:8-9 should be read together, like one long
pasuk.

B.  Carefully review Rashbam and Chizkuni's comments on
our
psukim.  According to them, to whom is the prohibition
in 24:8
directed?  According to Rashi / Ramban?
     A corresponding debate exists regarding Vayikra
13:2: "Ve-
huva el Aharon ha-kohen?" ("He shall be brought before
Aharon?").  See Sefer Hachinuch 169 as opposed to the
Rosh's
commentary on Masechet Zavim 3:2.

C.  We noted Chazal's Midrash Halacha that interprets
the
first of our two psukim as forbidding the surgical
detachment
of a tzara'at infection.  As we pointed out, Rashi
adopts this
peirush of that pasuk, despite the fact that he
understands
the reference to tzara'at here as primarily related to
lashon
ha-ra.
       The question, of course, arises, why would the
Torah
mention specifically this particular detail of the laws
of
tzara'at if the main focus here is on lashon ha-ra?  Why
is
this prohibition singled out from all of hilchot
tzara'at for
mention here in the context of the prohibition of lashon
ha-
ra?
     Try to answer this question by reviewing the
general
process imposed upon the metzora.  See Rashi, Vayikra
13:47 &
14:4.  In light of this, explain the prohibition of
removing a
tzara'at infection and how this may reflect the severity
of
lashon ha-ra.  Bear in mind as well that the Ramban here
(24:8) extends this prohibition beyond severing the
infection,
to mere refusal to show it to the kohen (thus avoiding
the
entire process).
     In honor of Elul, relate this concept to the
process of
'teshuva' in general.

D.  Those Rishonim who do not derive the prohibition of
removing a tzara'at infection from 24:8 (as the Gemara
in
Makkot does) would presumably derive the prohibition
from
Vayikra 13:33 - see Torat Kohanim there.  Based on the
context
of that pasuk, what advantage is there to learning the
prohibition from our pasuk instead?  What might be the
difference between these two prohibitions?  See Sefer
Hachinuch 170, as opposed to Ramban in his 'hasagot' to
Rambam's Sefer Hamitzvot lo ta'aseh 307-8. [There is
also some
question as to the precise text of that passage in Torat
Kohanim - see Sefer Hachinuch's citation of Torat
Kohanim in
mitzva 170 and Torah Shleima, Vayikra 13:109.]

E.  Recall that according to Rashbam and Chizkuni, 24:9
teaches us not to make exceptions for public figures
with
regard to the laws of tzara'at.  Review their comments
and
note that the 'hava amina' (original possibility) of
exempting
leaders from these laws evolved from the honor and
respect due
to them.  We may, however, add another element to this
hava
amina: national interests.  A nation would
understandably be
very reluctant to quarantine an important public
official for
an indefinite period of time.  Explain how, along the
lines of
the Rashbam & Chizkuni but with our variation, we may
explain
a seemingly superfluous phrase in the pasuk: "? on your
journey when you left the land of Egypt." (For a subtle
hint,
see Targum Yonatan's explanation of this phrase.)
Consider
especially the final clause of Bemidbar 12:15.  (If you
want
to cheat, look up Rav Zalman Sorotzkin's 'Oznayim
La-Torah' on
our pasuk.)

F.  For an interesting twist, see Targum Yonatan Ben
Uziel on
24:9.  According to his understanding, what sin does
this
pasuk address?  Is this wrongdoing related to lashon
ha-ra?
Based on this Targum Yonatan, explain more fully Rashi's
comments on Shemot 4:6.

G.  Note that the mitzva of 'kil'ayim' (see 22:9-12) is
another mitzva bein adam la-Makom, and hence seems out
of
place in Parshat Ki Tetzeh.  Based on the various laws
concerning forbidden marriages which continue in
22:13-23:9,
can you suggest a thematic connection between these
mitzvot?
     In this context, note Ramban's association between
the
prohibition of plowing with an ox and donkey (pasuk 10)
and
that of interbreeding (Vayikra 19:19).  See also Rambam,
Moreh
Nevuchim 3:49, who explicitly bases the prohibition here
with
the halacha forbidding interbreeding.  [Regarding
sha'atnez,
however, he offers a much different explanation - Moreh
Nevuchim 3:37.]

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.19/1661 -
Release Date: 9/9/2008 4:58 AM
 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kitey2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 39602 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080910/7dd0b7a7/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Sep 17 17:09:06 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:09:06 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Ki-Tavo - shiur
Message-ID: <006401c91909$a026b0a0$1201060a@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

                PARSHAT KI TAVO

     Saying 'thank-you':  Ask any mother - it's not
enough to
'think' it - a child has to say it.  For some reason, a
verbal
declaration, be it of gratitude or regret, is of
paramount
importance not only for the listener, but - even more so
- for
the person who utters it.
     In Parshat Ki Tavo, we find two such examples of
obligatory declarations, precisely where the main speech
of
Sefer Devarim reaches its conclusion.  In this week's
shiur,
as we study the concluding section of the 'main speech,'
we
attempt to explain why.

INTRODUCTION
     As usual, we must begin our shiur with a quick
review of
the three basic components of the main speech in Sefer
Devarim:
   * Introduction - the events at Ma'amad Har Sinai
(chap.5)
   * The mitzva section - (chapters 6-11)
   * The chukim u-mishpatim section - (chapters 12-26)

     Our last several shiurim have focused on the
mitzvot in
the chukim u-mishpatim section, which began in Parshat
Re'eh
with the commandment to establish the National Center at
ha-
makom asher yivchar Hashem, then continued in Parshat
Shoftim
with mitzvot relating to national leadership and waging
war,
and concluded with a wide variety of civil laws
('mitzvot bein
adam le-chavero") in Parshat Ki Tetzeh.
     Now, in Parshat Ki Tavo, we find:
     
  A)  Two final mitzvot, which conclude the chukim &
         mishpatim section;

  B)  Moshe Rabbeinu's concluding remarks (26:16-19);

  C)  A special ceremony to take place on Har Eival
(chapter 27);
  
  D)  The 'Tochacha' - a lengthy rebuke (in chapter 28).

     Off this backdrop, we will discuss these topics in
three
"mini-shiurim" into which our shiur will be divided.


PART I - THE TWO LAST MITZVOT OF THE MAIN SPEECH
     Review the opening section of Parshat Ki Tavo
(26:1-15),
noting how it contains two mitzvot:

1) MIKRA BIKKURIM (26:1-11)
    A special declaration made upon the presentation of
one's
    first fruits.
    
2) VIDDUI MA'ASER (26:12-15)
    A special declaration recited once every three
years, when
    'ma'aser sheni' [the second tithe] is given to the
poor
    (rather than eating that tithe at the 'makom asher
yivchar
    Hashem').

  Then, review the next short 'parshia'  (26:26-19),
noting
once again how it forms the concluding remarks of the
'main
speech'.
  [To verify this point, simply review the opening
psukim of
  chapter 27, noting how they are written in third
person
  narrative, and hence form the beginning of a new
section.]

     Based on this short analysis, it becomes quite
clear that
these two mitzvot were specially chosen to conclude the
chukim
& mishpatim section of the main speech of Sefer Devarim.
In
our shiur, we will attempt to explain why.

WHERE THEY 'REALLY' BELONG!
     Before we discuss what is special about these two
mitzvot, we must first take into consideration that both
of
them should have been recorded earlier in the speech,
back in
Parshat Re'eh.  Let's explain why.
     Recall how Parshat Re'eh discussed numerous mitzvot
relating to "ha-makom asher yivchar Hashem" (note how
that
phrase appears over fifteen times in that Parsha and in
the
beginning of Parshat Shoftim, see 12:5,11,14,18,21,26;
14:23;
15:20; 16:2,6,7,11,15,16; and 17:8).  Afterward, that
phrase
doesn't appear again until the mitzva of bikkurim at the
end
of the speech (see 26:1-2)!
  Furthermore, back in Parshat Re'eh, we already found
laws
relating to bringing other produce to "ha-makom asher
yivchar
Hashem" (see 14:22-23).  Hence, it certainly would have
made
more sense to record the laws of bikkurim back in
Parshat
Re'eh.
  [In fact, if we compare this to the pattern
established in
  Parshat Mishpatim (see Shmot 23:14-19, especially
23:19),
  then the mitzva of mikra bikkurim should have been
recorded
  in Devarim chapter 16 (in Parshat Re'eh), together
with (or
  immediately after) the laws of shalosh regalim
(compare
  Devarim 16:9-12 with Shmot 23:14-19).]

     Similarly, the laws of "viddui ma'aser" also should
have
been recorded in Parshat Re'eh, for the simple reason
that
it's where we find all the other laws pertaining to the
three
year cylce of "ma'aser sheni" (see14:22-29).
     Yet for some reason, Sefer Devarim prefers to
'uproot'
these mitzvot from where they seem to 'belong' in
Parshat
Re'eh, and records them instead in Parshat Ki-tavo to
form the
finale of the entire speech.

MATCHING BOOKENDS
     One could suggest that the relocation of these
mitzvot
yields a chiastic structure for the entire chukim
u-mishpatim
section of the main speech.  In other words, the mitzvot
of ha-
makom asher yivchar Hashem serve as 'bookends' for the
entire
chukim u-mishpatim section (chapters 12-26), as it both
begins
and ends with mitzvot relating to this theme.
  [In a previous shiur, we offered a similar explanation
for
  the structure of the earlier mitzva section of Moshe's
main
  speech.  We suggested that the parshiyot of shma and
ve-haya
  im shamo'a serve as 'bookends' for this section (i.e.
  chapters 6-11), thus emphasizing the section's overall
  theme, 'ahavat Hashem' (see shiur on Parshat
Va-etchanan).]

     Nonetheless, a more basic question remains: i.e.
Why were
specifically these two mitzvot - mikra bikkurim and
viddui
ma'aser - selected (over all the others) to form this
closing
'bookend'?
     To answer this question, we must show how both of
these
mitzvot relate to thanking God for the Land of Israel -
the
very land that has emerged as a primary theme at key
points in
the main speech.
  To support this, let's begin by simply noting how both
"mikra bikkurim" and "viddui maser" contain declarations
of
gratitude for the 'fertile land' granted by God to the
nation
of Israel:

 1. MIKRA BIKKURIM
    "You shall then recite: ...and God brought us to
this
    place and gave us this land, a land flowing with
milk and
    honey. Therefore, I now bring my first fruits of the
soil
    which You have given me" (26:9-10).

 2. VIDDUI MA'ASER
    "When you set aside your ma'aser...you shall declare
    before Hashem: I have [fulfilled all my
obligations]...
    Look down from heaven and bless Your people Israel
and the
    soil You have given us, a land flowing with milk and
    honey, as You swore to our fathers" (26:12-15).

     Note as well how both declarations thank God not
only for
the Land but also recall His covenant with the Avot [the
forefathers], which included God's original promise of
the
Land to their offspring.
  Even though this connection between the land and God's
covenant is stated explicitly only in regard to "viddui
ma'aser" (see quote above / 26:15), it is also alluded
to in
mikra bikkurim, albeit more subtly, as that proclamation
reflects thanksgiving for God's fulfillment of his
covenant at
'brit bein ha-btarim' - when the land was promised to
Avraham's offspring (see Breishit 15:18 / also compare
Breishit 15:13-16 w/ Devarim 26:5-8!.
    [See Further Iyun section for a more complete
explanation.]

  However, the most explicit connection between the laws
of
this speech (from chapter 5 thru 26) and the land of
Israel is
found in Moshe Rabeinu's introduction to these laws.
Recall
the beginning of his speech, as he re-told the story of
how
and when these laws were first given to him by God. In
that
intro Moshe stated explicitly:
    "And these are the mitzva, chukim u-mishpatim that
God has
    commanded me to impart to you, to be observed in the
land
    that you are about to enter and conquer..." (6:1).
     [See also 5:28 and our introductory shiur to Sefer
Devarim.]

  In other words, the primary purpose of the main speech
was
to teach Bnei Yisrael the various laws which they must
keep
and follow as they conquer the land and establish their
nation.

     Based on these observations, on could suggest that
Sefer
Devarim intentionally 'saved' these two 'declarations'
for the
conclusion of the main speech - because both of these
mitzvot
relate to the need for Am Yisrael to recognize why God
has
given them the land of Israel.  Hence, it becomes most
appropriate that the final mitzvot of this speech
include
expressions of gratitude to God for the land He has
given us.
     In this sense, one could understand the mitzva of
mikra
bikkurim in a slightly different light.  Instead of
viewing
this mitzva as a yearly thanksgiving to God for our
fruits, it
should be viewed instead as a yearly thanksgiving to God
for
the Land of Israel.  In other words, the purpose of
"mikra
bikkurim" is first and foremost to thank God for the
Land and
our covenant with Him; while bringing a sampling of our
first
fruits should be viewed as a 'token of our
appreciation'!  [To
verify this, carefully read 26:3-8 once again.]
  [This may also explain why we quote mikra bikkurim in
the
  Haggada on Pesach as part of the mitzva of retelling
the
  story of Yetziat Mitzrayim and thanking God for His
  fulfillment of brit bein ha-btarim.  Whereas the
primary
  purpose of this mitzva is to thank God for fulfilling
His
  covenant, this declaration is appropriate as well for
  maggid, in which we thank God for His fulfillment of
brit
  bein ha-btarim.  (See Shmot 13:8 and compare with
Devarim
  26:3, noting the use of 've-higgadeti' in both
contexts!)]

     Recalling God's covenant with the Avot serves
another
purpose, as well.  The farmer not only thanks God for
fulfilling His promise to our forefathers, but also
reminds
himself of the reason why God gave us the land - to
become a
great nation to represent Him before the eyes of the
nations
of the world.  [See Breishit 12:1-3 and our shiur on
Parshat
Lech Lecha.]
     As such, these declarations are significant in that
they
emphasize the reason for keeping all the mitzvot of the
main
speech in Sefer Devarim - that Bnei Yisrael become an
'am
kadosh' (a holy nation), a model for all nations to
follow.
[See Devarim 4:5-8.]


PART II / THE FINALE - MOSHE'S CONCLUDING REMARKS

     This same theme continues in Moshe Rabbeinu's
concluding
remarks of the main speech (which follow these two
mitzvot):
    "On this day, God commands you to observe these
chukim u-
    mishpatim... God has affirmed this day that you are
His
    'am segula' (treasured nation) and He will set you
high
    above all the nations, that you shall be, as He
promised,
    a 'goy kadosh' (a holy nation)..." (see 26:16-19)

     Moshe concludes the main speech by reiterating the
primary purpose behind keeping these mitzvot: that Am
Yisrael
becomes an am kadosh, a holy nation, worthy of
representing
God.

BACK TO HAR SINAI
     Moshe's concluding remarks also feature a striking
parallel to God's original charge to Bnei Yisrael at Har
Sinai.  Recall that when Bnei Yisrael first arrive at
Har
Sinai, God summons Moshe to the mountain and proposes a
special covenant with Bnei Yisrael:
  "And now, if you will listen to my voice and keep my
  covenant, then you shall become for Me a 'segula'
amongst
  all the nations...and you shall be for Me a kingdom of
  priests and a goy kadosh..." (Shmot 19:5-6).

     This proposal, which actually forms the prelude to
the
Ten Commandments, explains the central function of Matan
Torah
- that Am Yisrael will become a "goy kadosh" - a nation
set
aside [designated] to represent God.
     Now, at the conclusion of the main speech - in
which
Moshe Rabbeinu repeats those mitzvot which were
originally
given at Har Sinai (immediately after the dibrot - see
our
introductory shiur to Sefer Devarim) - this very same
theme
must be re-iterated:
  "And God has affirmed this day that you are, as He
promised
  you [at Har Sinai!], His am segula who shall observe
all of
  His commandments, and that He will set you, in fame
and
  renown and glory, high above all the nations that He
has
  made; and that you shall be, as He promised [at Har
  Sinai!], a goy kadosh..."  (26:18-19).

     Moshe's concluding remarks thus appropriately close
his
presentation of the mitzvot that will facilitate Bnei
Yisrael's development into a am segula and an am kadosh,
just
as He had originally promised at Har Sinai!

THE PROPER BALANCE
     Moshe's concluding remarks also beautifully tie
together
the two sections of the main speech.  Recall that the
mitzva
section, whose primary topic is ahavat Hashem, opened
with the
commandment to love God - 'be-chol levavcha u-vechol
nafshecha' - with all your heart and soul.  Now, at the
conclusion of the chukim u-mishpatim section, Moshe
explains
how these two sections relate to one other:
  "The Lord your God commands you this day to keep these
  chukim u-mishpatim; observe them faithfully - 'be-chol
  levavcha u-vechol nafshecha' - with all your heart and
with
  all your soul..."  (26:16).

     In other words, the numerous specific mitzvot
recorded in
the chukim u-mishpatim section must be observed with the
proper attitude, as explained in the mitzva section.
Thus,
Moshe's speech has come full circle.  The general values
of
faith and love of God outlined in the mitzva section
must
combine with the practical, day-to-day details and
guidelines
of the chukim u-mishpatim section, to form a mode of
behavior
capable of producing God's special nation in His special
land.

PART III - THE COVENANT AT ARVOT MO'AV AND HAR EIVAL
     The thematic and textual parallel to Ma'amad Har
Sinai at
the conclusion of the main speech continues in the next
parshia as well:
  "Moshe and the elders charged the people, saying:
Observe
  everything that I command you today... for when you
cross
  the Jordan, you must erect large stones and coat them
with
  plaster [in order that] you shall write on them all
the
  words of this Torah [the mitzvot of Sefer Devarim]...
erect
  these stones on Har Eival... And you shall build there
a
  mizbeiach... (note parallel to Shmot 20:22), and you
shall
  offer upon it olot and shlamim..." (Devarim 27:1-8).

     You might recall that an almost identical ceremony
was
conducted some forty years earlier, at Ma'amad Har
Sinai,
immediately after Moshe taught Bnei Yisrael the laws he
was
taught after the Ten Commandments:
    "And Moshe came [down from Har Sinai] and told the
people
    all of God's commandments and the mishpatim... Moshe
then
    wrote down all of God's commandments.  Then, he woke
up
    early in the morning and built a mizbeiach at the
foot of
    the mountain and erected twelve large stones... and
they
    offered olot and shlamim..." (Shmot 24:3-8).

     Furthermore, the requirement that a tochacha be
read as
part of the ceremony on Har Eival (see Devarim
27:11-28:69)
parallels the tochacha delivered at Har Sinai (Vayikra
26:3-
46, see also 25:1).
     Thus, this ceremony on Har Eival, which consists of
the
writing and teaching of the mitzvot of Sefer Devarim,
the
construction of a mizbeiach and offering of olot and
shlamim,
parallels the covenantal ceremony at Ma'amad Har Sinai,
when
Bnei Yisrael proclaimed 'na'aseh ve-nishma' (see Shmot
24:3-11).
     The reason behind this parallel is simple.   As
this
generation (which stands on the brink of entry into the
Land
to fulfill these mitzvot) was not present at the
original
ceremony, a new ceremony is required for the new
generation to
reaffirm their commitment to the covenant.
     This ceremony will take place on Har Eival, where
Bnei
Yisrael will gather to 'relive' the experience of Har
Sinai by
studying the mitzvot of Sefer Devarim, which will guide
them
towards the establishment of their new nation.

TODAY
     It is not often in our history that a generation is
granted the opportunity to fulfill a destiny originally
intended for an earlier generation.  Aware of the
immense
potential latent in such an opportunity, Moshe
encourages the
new generation in the desert to rise to the challenge of
establishing an am kadosh in the Promised Land, as God
had
originally planned for their parents.
     Although this challenge by Moshe Rabbeinu to Am
Yisrael
is some three thousand years old, it takes on additional
significance today, as our own generation has been
granted the
opportunity to fulfill this very same destiny, a
privilege
that had remained but a dream for so many years.
                              shabbat shalom,
                              menachem

===========================

FOR FURTHER IYUN
A.  Carefully compare the declaration in mikra bikkurim
with
God's covenant with Avraham Avinu at brit bein ha-btarim
(Breishit 15), the original covenant with Avraham, which
includes God's promise of the Land to his offspring.
     Pay particular attention to Breishit 15:7-21 and
relate
these psukim to Devarim 1:7-11, Moshe's opening remarks
in his
introductory speech.  Note the use of the word 'yerusha'
and/or shoresh y.r.sh. in both contexts, and
specifically 've-
rishta' in 26:1!
     Also, note the historical process described in
Breishit
15:13-16 and how it relates to 26:5-8.  Relate this as
well to
Shemot 6:2-8.
     Finally, see the dispute among the mefarshim as to
whom
the introduction to mikra bikkurim - 'Arami oved avi'
refers.
See Rashi and the Haggada, as opposed to Ibn Ezra,
Chizkuni
and Seforno - these are the two most common
interpretations.
Then look at Rashbam's peirush (which appears as well in
the
commentary of Rabbenu Yosef Bechor Shor).  Explain why
Rashbam's explanation fits best into our reading of
mikra
bikkurim.  If 'arami' does refer to Lavan, could we
still
associate 'arami oved avi' with brit bein ha-btarim?
Compare
Breishit 15:13 and 31:40-42.  See also 'Da'at Mikra' on
Breishit 15:13 and the Netziv's peirush ('He'amek
Davar') on
Dvarim 26:5.

B.  Regarding the importance of a verbal declaration,
see
Rashbam on 26:13 and Sefer Hachinuch on both mikra
bikkurim
and viddui ma'aser.

C.  In terms of the connection between viddui ma'aser
and the
bet hamikdash: Several Rishonim maintain that viddui
ma'aser
must take place in the bet hamikdash - see Sefer
Hachinuch,
Tosfot Sota 33a 'birkat' and Ra'avad Hilchot Ma'aser
Sheni
11:4.  How would the other Rishonim (Rambam and others)
explain the clause 'lifnei Hashem Elokecha' in 26:13?

D.  Many people have questioned why the declaration
after
distributing ma'aser is called viddui ma'aser - the
"confession" of ma'aser.  The expression viddui usually
has to
do with confession of wrongdoing.  Here, the individual
does
just the opposite - he declares, "I have done everything
You
have commanded me."  Why, then, do Chazal refer to this
declaration as viddui?  See Rashi and Metzudat David in
Divrei
Hayamim II 30:22 who translate the word 'mitvadim' as
'expressing gratitude'.  (See the two versions of the
Targum
there, as well.)  Relate this to viddui ma'aser and the
above
shiur.

D.  How many stones are taken from the Yarden in Sefer
Yehoshua (4:1-10)?  What is done with these stones?
     How does this relate to Shmot 24:3-10?
     What other parallels exist between Sefer Yehoshua
and the
generation of Yetziat Mitzrayim?
     As you answer this question, pay particular
attention to
chapters 3 & 5 in Sefer Yehoshua!
     See Yehoshua 8:30-35.  Is this the fulfillment of
the
mitzva in Devarim 27:1-11?  Why is this mitzva performed
only
after the battle against Ha-Ai?  [Or is it?  Three
opinions
exist as to when this ceremony actually took place.  See
Sota
36a (quoting the Tosefta) that Bnei Yisrael performed
this
ceremony immediately upon crossing the Yarden, as
opposed to
Rabbi Yishmael's view in Yerushalmi Sota 7:3, that this
occurred only after the 14 years of 'kibbush ve-chiluk'
(conquest and settlement).  In 'pshat,' of course, this
ceremony occurred after the war with Ha-Ai, and this is
the
shitta of Abarbanel and the Malbim.]

E.  If the blessings and curses of Har Grizim and Har
Eival
serve as a reenactment of Ma'amad Har Sinai, then we
would
perhaps expect the blessings / curses to correspond to
the Ten
Commandments.  While some of them are more obvious than
others, it might just work.  Let's give it a try:
  1)  "Cursed be anyone who makes a sculptured or molten
  image? "  A clear parallel to the first two dibrot
  ('Anochi' and 'lo yihyeh lecha').
  2)  "Cursed be he who insults his father or mother" -
  honoring parents.
  3)  "Cursed be he who moves is fellow countryman's
  landmark" - stealing (see Rashi here).
  4)  "Cursed be he who misdirects a blind person on his
way"
  - a bit more tricky.  Rashi explains this as referring
to
  intentionally misleading someone with bad advice,
which
  seems to relate to Rashi's interpretation of 'lifnei
iver'
  - see Vayikra 19:14.  There, Rashi explains the case
as
  involving one who persuades another to sell property
in
  order to acquire it himself.  If so, then this curse
may
  correspond to 'lo tachmod', excessive desire for the
  property of others.
  5)  "Cursed be he who subverts the rights of the
stranger,
  the orphan and the widow."  Take a careful look at the
  Torah's presentation of the mitzva of Shabbat in Shmot
  23:12, and consider the role played by Yetziat
Mitzrayim as
  a basis for this mitzva (Dvarim 5:15) and Seforno
there in
  Shmot and in Dvarim 5:12.  See if this curse could
thus
  correspond to at least one element of the fourth
  commandment - Shabbat.
  6)  "Cursed be he who lies with his father's wife" who
lies
  with any animal" who lies with his sister" who lies
with
  his mother-in-law" - 'lo tin'af'.
  7)  "Cursed be he who strikes down his fellow
countryman in
  secret" - 'lo tirtzach'.
  8)  "Cursed be he who accepts a bribe" - "lo ta'aneh
be-
  re'acha" (dishonesty in the courtroom).
  9)  "Cursed be he who will not uphold the terms of
this
  Torah"  See Rashi's comment that this curse
constitutes
  an oath to keep the Torah, perhaps corresponding to
'lo
  tisa'.
  
F.  The ceremony at Har Grizim & Har Eival may have
served
another purpose, beyond the reenactment of Ma'amad Har
Sinai.
Note the geographic location of these mountains as
described
in Parshat Re'eh (Dvarim 11:30) and compare closely with
Breishit 12:6.  Now see Rashi there in Breishit, as well
as
the next pasuk (12:7 - note especially the mizbeiach!!).
Explain why this parallel takes on particular
significance
according to the view of the Gemara in Sota cited above
(in
B).  [See also Da'at Mikra on Yehoshua, introduction to
8:30-
35.]  Is this necessarily a different explanation from
the one
presented in the shiur?

G.  A note regarding methodology: Throughout our series
on
Parshat Ha'shavua, we have seen numerous examples of how
a
specific parsha can be better understood by studying not
only
its content but also its location within the framework
of an
entire Sefer.  Use the above shiur on Parshat Ki Tavo to
support this approach.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1674 -
Release Date: 9/16/2008 8:15 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kitavo1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 50250 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080917/7c45f5c6/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Sep 24 03:11:06 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:11:06 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Nitzavim - shiur
Message-ID: <CB01489F741B49C6BD42438009C2A4A2@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

                PARSHAT NITZAVIM

     Can man return to Gan Eden?
     Even though Parshat Breishit may have left us with
the
impression that the Garden's gates (guarded by the
"keruvim"
and a fiery sword /see Breishit 3:24) remain
inaccessible to
man forever, Parshat Nitzavim may allude to the
possibility of
'return'.
     To explain how (and why), this week's shiur
discusses the
significance of the speech delivered by Moshe Rabeinu in
Parshat Nitzavim, and how it fits beautifully into the
rubric
of Sefer Devarim.

INTRODUCTION
     In case you hadn't noticed, Parshat Nitzavim
contains yet
another speech given by Moshe Rabeinu, the last of his
four
speeches in Sefer Devarim.  In fact, this final speech
actually began at the end of Parshat Ki-tavo (see
29:1-8,
noting how 29:1 forms the introduction to this speech).
     In the following shiur, we first discuss how this
final
speech relates to the "tochacha" (in Parshat Ki-tavo);
afterwards we fill focus on what's so special about its
'finale'.

FOUR SPEECHES
     The following table will help clarify the location
of
Moshe's Rabeinu's speech in Parshat Nitzavim in relation
to
the rest of Sefer Devarim, as it summarizes his four
speeches:

 CHAPTERS      TOPIC
1)  1->4     Introductory speech (why 40 years have
passed)
2)  5->26    The main speech - the "mitzvot" to keep in
the land
3) 27->28    Brit Har Eival and the Tochacha
4) 29->30    The final speech = Parshat Nitzavim

     Even though our shiur will focus on the 'final
speech'
(#4), to appreciate its content, we must first review
the
primary topic of speech #3.
      Recall how chapter 27 described a ceremony that
Bnei
Yisrael are instructed to conduct on Har Eival, upon
entering
the land.  That ceremony was to include both the
teaching of
the laws (i.e. those of the main speech) and some
festivities.
The Torah's description of that ceremony continued in
chapter
28 with the "tochacha", i.e. the 'blessing and the
curses', as
they were to be read in public at the conclusion of that
ceremony.
  Hence, the order of Sefer Devarim up until this point
makes
perfect sense.  Speech #2 details the laws that Moshe
taught,
while speech #3 explains how these laws were to be
taught once
again when Bnei Yisrael enter the land, at a special
ceremony
that concluded with a public warning of both the reward
and
punishment should Bnei Yisrael obey/or disobey these
laws.
     However, when one reads the fourth speech, it
appears to
be superfluous, for in it we find once again Moshe's
rebuke of
Bnei Yisrael - in a manner which doesn't differ much
from the
numerous rebukes in his earlier speeches. [For example,
compare 29:11-14 with 5:2-3; 29:4-5 with 8:4; and 30:1-3
with
4:26-29.]
     However, if we take a closer look at its content,
we can
explain its function and the reason for its location.

THE STARTING & FINISH LINES
     Our first step is to delineate more precisely where
this
speech begins and ends. Note how it begins at the end of
Parshat Ki-tavo in 29:1 and concludes at the end of
Parshat
Nitzavim (as indicated by the sudden shift to
third-person
narrative right at the beginning of Parshat Vayelech
(31:1).
   Using a Tanach Koren, note as well how it contains
five
distinct 'parshiot': 29:1-8; 29:28; 30:1-10; 30:14 &
30:15-20.
     Let's take a look at each one of these parshiot,
and
explain what is problematic about each.  Afterward, we
will
explain the logic of their internal progression, and how
each
of these parshiot relates to the previous speech, and
overall
theme of covenant in Sefer Devarim.

PARSHIA #1 (29:1-8)
     Moshe's opening statements in this 'parshia' raise
numerous questions. To understand these difficulties,
let's
take a look:
   "Moshe called together Bnei Yisrael and said to them:
You
   have seen with your own eyes what I did to Pharaoh in
the
   land of Egypt... YET, until this day, God has not
given you
   a 'heart to know,' 'eyes to see,' or 'ears to
listen.' I
   led you for forty years in the
wilderness...[Therefore]
   observe faithfully the words of this covenant [DIVREI
   HA'BRIT HA'ZOT] in order that you succeed in all that
you
   now undertake."  (see 29:1-8)

     First of all, why is he talking to this generation
as
though they themselves left Egypt? Granted, some of the
elder
members of the nation may have been under the age of
twenty at
the time of the Exodus (and hence not included in the
punishment). However, the vast majority of the current
generation did not witness those events. But even more
puzzling is 29:3. How can Moshe possibly say, "Until
this day,
God has not given you a 'heart to know,' 'eyes to see,'
or
'ears to listen'"? To what could Moshe Rabeinu possibly
be
referring?
     Finally, why does Moshe conclude these comments by
once
again reminding Bnei Yisrael of the "brit" (see 29:8)?
Was
that not the topic of his previous speech? [See 5:2-3!]

PARSHIA #2 - see 29:9-28
     In this section, Moshe reiterates the purpose of
this
gathering - i.e. to establish the covenant through which
Bnei
Yisrael are to become God's nation.  He then emphasizes
the
eternal nature of this covenant, i.e. its mandatory
application to all future generations as well (see
29:9-14).
  But once again we must ask, is this not the same point
that
Moshe Rabeinu had already stated in the opening remarks
of his
main speech? (See 5:2-3, read carefully.)
     Furthermore, why does Moshe suddenly raise the
possibility that an individual, family, or possibly an
entire
tribe may consider 'breaking out' of this covenant (see
29:17-
25)?

PARSHIA #3 - see 30:1-10
     Moshe now 'comforts' Bnei Yisrael, telling them
that even
in the event of exile, there will always remain the
possibility for "teshuva" and the nation's return to the
Promised Land. Why would Moshe, while addressing the
people
prior to their entry into the land, prematurely inform
them of
their return to the land from exile?  They haven't
reached the
land yet, and already they are being promised the
ultimate
gathering of the Diaspora? Furthermore, why aren't
Moshe's
earlier comments on this topic (see 4:25-31 & Vayikra
26:41-
45) sufficient?

PARSHIA #4 - see 30:11-14
     Here we find Moshe Rabeinu's famous insistence that
keeping the Torah is 'not as hard' as it seems. Again,
although this constitutes a most critical message, the
question remains: why now and why here in Sefer Devarim?

PARSHIA #5 - see 30:15-20
     As we will explain in Part Two, these soul-stirring
psukim depict life in Eretz Yisrael as comparable to the
ideal, spiritual environment of Gan Eden. But once
again, why
is this topic mentioned specifically in this speech, and
at
its conclusion?

POTENTIAL 'CONCLUSIONS'
     To resolve these questions, we must consider the
centrality of the concept of 'covenant' ["brit"], which
has
emerged thus far as a primary theme in every speech thus
far
in Sefer Devarim.
     Recall that Moshe Rabeinu began his main speech by
underscoring the relevance and application of the
covenant of
Sinai to the present generation:
   "The Lord your God made with you a COVENANT at SINAI.
It
   was not [only] with your fathers that God made this
   covenant, but with US, those of us who are HERE,
ALIVE
   TODAY..." (see Devarim 5:1-3)
    [Notice that the opening phrase of that speech (5:1)
is
    identical to that of ours (29:1), thus suggesting a
    thematic connection between the two.]
    
     In both his main speech and finale, Moshe Rabeinu
addresses the new generation as though THEY themselves
left
Egypt and stood at Har Sinai. He emphasizes their
inclusion in
the covenant of Har Sinai. Yet, in his third speech
Moshe had
instructed Bnei Yisrael to enter into a similar covenant
at
this time (see 28:69 - the final pasuk of that speech!).
Why
is another covenant necessary if 'everyone' was
considered to
have participated in the covenant at Har Sinai?
     In fact, this 'extra' covenant at Arvot Moav, as
detailed
in chapter 27 in Parshat Ki-tavo, could easily lead Bnei
Yisrael to several incorrect conclusions:

 1)  The necessity of a new covenant for this generation
implies that the covenant at Har Sinai does not bind all
future generations. Why else would they require a 'new'
covenant at Arvot Moav?
     Evidently, one could conclude, the laws of the
Torah are
binding only upon a generation (or individual) who
formally
accepts this covenant, but not upon subsequent
generations
(unless formally accepted)!

 2)  An individual (or possibly even a larger group) may
decide that he doesn't want either side of the covenant
-
neither its reward NOR its punishment! Some people may
gladly
forego any potential reward for keeping the mitzvot of
the
"brit", so long as in turn they would not be bound by
its
strict demands or threatened by the harsh punishment for
its
neglect.
     In other words, Bnei Yisrael may conclude that each
person or family in any generation has the 'option' to
either
be part of the "brit" or to 'back out' ("chas
veshalom"!).


 3)  Just as any given individual may reserve the right
to
'back out' of the covenant, God as well may be enabled
to
exercise His right to 'retract' His covenant should He
see
fit. In other words, Bnei Yisrael could potentially
infer from
the closing section of the Tochacha in Ki-tavo that
exile
signifies the very annulment of this covenant.  In other
words, if exile is understood as God 'nullifying' His
side of
the covenant, then Bnei Yisrael (once in exile) could
reach
the logical conclusion that their 'special relationship'
with
God is over (chas veshalom!).
    [See Yechezkel 20:32 and its context, where Bnei
Yisrael
    in the Babylonian Exile raise this very
possibility!]

PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER
     With this background, let's now take another look
at the
various components of Moshe's final speech in an attempt
to
explain why they from this 'finale'.
     In PARSHIA #1, Moshe Rabeinu first explains WHY
this
'new' covenant (as described in the third speech) is
necessary. True, a covenant had already been made with
the
previous generation. However, because of their sins and
subsequent demise in the desert, it is only now that the
original intention of BRIT SINAI becomes applicable.
     To emphasize upon this new generation that THEY
must
fulfill the destiny originally planned for their
parents, God
recreates the 'atmosphere' of Har Sinai, allowing the
new
generation to 'relive' the experience. Although most of
them
were NOT at Har Sinai, it is important that this entire
generation feel as though they actually stood at the
foot of
the mountain. They will soon enter the land and face the
challenge of establishing God's special nation, and they
must
therefore bring with them the Sinai experience and
covenant.
     As Seforno on 29:3 explains, it is only NOW that
Bnei
Yisrael are finally ready to, for the first time,
fulfill
God's covenant. Moshe thus explains to this generation
that
'this is THE day' for which He has been waiting.  Now,
God has
a nation that can truly KNOW, SEE, and LISTEN (see 29:3,
Seforno and Rashi).
     Thus, there is nothing 'new' about this covenant.
In
fact, it serves an opposite function: i.e. to reaffirm
the
relevance and application of the original covenant at
Har
Sinai.
     With this in mind, we can now explain the need for
the
second parshia.
     Once this 'renewed' "brit" becomes necessary, Moshe
Rabeinu must disaffirm the possible conclusion that
every
generation and every individual has the option of
accepting or
refusing the terms of the covenant (as we explained
above).
Therefore, in PARSHIA #2 Moshe reminds Bnei Yisrael of
the
purpose of that covenant (to become God's nation, see
29:9-14)
and then threatens severe punishment for any person or
group
considering the option of 'backing out' (see 29:17-25).
     Afterward, in PARSHA #3, Moshe Rabeinu reassures
Bnei
Yisrael that just as this covenant is binding upon Bnei
Yisrael for ALL generations, so is it eternally binding
upon
God Himself.  Therefore, even in the advent of exile,
God will
(sooner or later) ensure Bnei Yisrael's return to their
land
to keep His mitzvot and become His nation. [Note that
other
religions (which evolved from Judaism) reject
specifically
this point!]
     Moshe then proceeds to repudiate another likely
conclusion of one who hears the terms of this covenant
(and
its almost innumerable obligations), the claim that it's
simply 'impossible' to be an 'observant Jew.' Moshe
Rabeinu
explains in PARSHIA #4 that in truth, it's not as hard
as it
may seem. For if one has the proper attitude of "ahavat
Hashem" (the opening theme of the main speech), then the
'way
of life' which the Torah demands lies well within his
reach.
     Finally, in PARSHIA #5, Moshe concludes his speech
with
the axiom of "bechira chofshit" (freedom of choice), the
God-
given ability to choose the 'path of life' [or 'death'],
which
will now be discussed in Part Two.

     ===========

PART TWO  - Between Gan Eden and Eretz Yisrael
     Before we begin Part Two, review 30:15-20, and
notice
that this 'parshia' forms the concluding section of this
speech. As you read, note how Moshe Rabeinu summarizes
in this
conclusion some of the primary themes of the main speech
(which we have discussed in previous shiurim):
   "See, I set before you today CHAYIM (life) and TOV
   (prosperity), MAVET (death) and RA (adversity).
        For I command you today to LOVE God and walk in
His
   ways [referring to the MITZVAH section/ 6->11] and to
keep
   His CHUKIM u'MISHPATIM [referring to the 2nd part of
the
   main speech/ 12->26)] that you may thrive and
increase and
   that God will bless you in the Land that you are
about to
   conquer...
        Should you turn your heart (not listen)... I
declare
   today that you shall certainly perish and not endure
on the
   Land... that you are to conquer."    (see 30:15-18)

     Clearly, Moshe refers once again to the two
sections of
the main speech.  However, these verses may relate as
well to
a fundamental theme in Sefer Breishit, as suggested by
several
key phrases in this section. Let's explain.
     Recall the usage of the terms 'CHAYIM and TOV' and
'MAVET
and RA' in 30:15, cited earlier. Let's identify the
precise
definition of these expressions in the final two psukim:
   "I call Heavens and Earth to testify that I am
presenting
   you the CHOICE of CHAYIM or MAVET - the "bracha" or
   "klalla" - and you should choose CHAYIM in order that
you
   live... on this Land that I promised to your
ancestors..."
   (30:19-20)

     In this beautiful finale, the Torah equates the
concept
of BRACHA & KLALA, as detailed by the "tochacha" (see
28:1-
7,15-20!), with CHAYIM & MAVET:
     BRACHA = CHAYIM (life); KLALLA = MAVET (death).
Recall however, that the concepts of CHAYIM & MAVET as
well as
TOV & RA were first introduced in the story of Gan Eden:
   "And God brought forth from the ground every tree...
and
   the ETZ HA'CHAYIM
        [the Tree of Life] in the middle of the garden,
and
   the:
   ETZ Ha'DAAT TOV V'RA
        [the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil...]
   and from the ETZ HA'DAAT TOV v'RA do not eat, for on
the
   day you eat from it - MOT TA'MUT - you will surely
die!"
                     (see Breishit 2:8-9, 2:15-17)
     This textual parallel is strengthened by yet
another
resemblance to the story of Creation. Note that the
Heavens
and Earth - SHAMAYIM v'ARETZ - are called upon as
witnesses to
this covenant (see 30:19, as well as 31:28 & 32:1).
     This special call upon "shamayim" and "aretz" to
witness
the "brit" may relate not only to the introduction of
the
story of Creation (Br. 1:1), but also to the opening
pasuk of
the Gan Eden narrative in Breishit - see 2:4!

A GAN EDEN CLOSE TO HOME
     This textual parallel suggests a conceptual
relationship
between life according to the Torah's ideals in the Land
of
Israel and existence in Gan Eden. In fact, the spiritual
environment of Gan Eden strongly resembles the spiritual
environment that Sefer Devarim wishes to create in the
Land of
Israel.
     Recall how the Gan Eden narrative described a
special
environment between man and God, with an emphasis on
"schar
v'onesh" [reward and retribution].  God promises Man a
prosperous physical existence [CHAYIM] should he OBEY,
while
threatening death [MAVET] should Man DISOBEY (see Br.
2:15-
17).  In a very similar manner, the "tochacha" describes
a
parallel reality in the land of Israel:
     Should Bnei Yisrael keep the mitzvot, God will
reward
them with prosperity (see 29:1-14); if they sin, God
will
punish them severely (see 29:15-26).
    [Note as well Devarim 11:13-20 (from daily kriyat
shma).]
    
     Furthermore, EXILE emerges in both settings as the
most
severe punishment. Adam is banished from the Garden as a
consequence of his sin (see Br. 3:22-24). Similarly, the
"tochacha" threatens that should Am Yisrael continue to
sin
they will driven from the land by their enemies (see
28:64-68)
and remain in Exile until they perform proper Teshuva
(repentance / see Devarim 30:1-10).
   [Interestingly, God's original death sentence for
eating
   from the Tree was translated into Adam's EXILE from
the
   Garden (3:23) when he actually partook of the Tree's
fruit.
   Considering that Gan Eden reflects an ideal spiritual
   environment, exile may be accurately equated with
death.
   Whereas the biblical purpose of LIFE is to develop a
   connection with God, biblical DEATH refers to life
without
   any such connection, an exile into an environment
   characterized by God's absence.]

     This parallel takes on additional meaning when we
consider the location of these two sources: at the
BEGINNING
of Chumash and towards the very END of Chumash.
     One could suggest that in this manner Chumash
underscores
the basic nature of man's relationship with God. First,
we are
told of God's creation of Man and his placement in Gan
Eden -
the ideal spiritual environment. As punishment for his
sin,
God expels man from Gan Eden, appointing the "keruvim"
to
guard against any attempt to return (see Br. 3:24).
     Nonetheless, the presence of the "keruvim" who
guard the
'way to the Tree of Life' does not necessarily indicate
the
permanent closure of this path. To the contrary, it
becomes
man's duty to STRIVE to return. The "keruvim" do not
restrict
entry; rather they protect the Garden from the intrusion
of
those undeserving of return. But once man proves himself
worthy, the DERECH ETZ HA'CHAYIM - the PATH to the Tree
of
Life - no matter how formidable it may at first appear,
suddenly opens and invites man inside.
     Correspondingly, Sefer Devarim describes Eretz
Yisrael as
both a physical and spiritual environment where Am
Yisrael can
rebuild this spiritual connection with God.
     For example, Parshat Ekev illustrates how the
climate of
Eretz Yisrael contributes to this environment:
   "...always, God's EYES are upon it [the Land], from
the
   beginning of the year until the end of the year."
                       (see Devarim 11:10-12)

FROM GAN EDEN TO 'JERUSALEM'
     But perhaps the most meaningful parallel between
Gan Eden
and Eretz Yisrael arises in the CHUKIM & MISHPATIM
section.
Recall that Parshiyot Re'ay, Shoftim, and Ki-tavo
present
numerous mitzvot relating to HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR
HASHEM,
the Bet Ha'Mikdash, which will be built on the site
chosen by
God. As explained in our shiur on Parshat Re'ay, Sefer
Devarim
demands that every Jew frequent that site regularly, be
it for
"aliyah le'regel" on the holidays, to offer korbanot or
bikurim, to eat "ma'aser sheni," to appear in court,
etc.
     Situated at the focal point of that site [i.e. the
Bet
Ha'Mikdash] is the KODESH KEDOSHIM, the permanent
location of
the ARON, covered by the KAPORET and protected by
KERUVIM,
both on the KAPORET and on the PAROCHET! [See Shmot
25:16-22 &
26:31-34.]
     Given that the concept of KERUVIM arises nowhere
else in
Chumash outside of these two contexts - the Mishkan/Bet
Hamikdash and Gan Eden - a thematic connection between
the two
is implied.  Just as the KERUVIM of Gan Eden protect the
path
to the ETZ HA'CHAYIM, so do the KERUVIM of the Mikdash
guard
the path to true CHAYIM: i.e. they protect the ARON
which
contains the LUCHOT HA'EIDUT - the symbol of the TORAH
and our
covenant with God at Har Sinai.
     By placing the LUCHOT - a powerful symbol of MATAN
TORAH
- at the focal point of our lives in Eretz Yisrael,
Sefer
Devarim urges us to strive to return to the environment
of Gan
Eden by observing the laws of the TORAH.
     This interpretation is supported by the famous
pasuk in
Mishlei, recited each time we return the SEFER TORAH to
the
ARON HA'KODESH:
   "ETZ CHAYIM HI - She is a Tree of Life - for those
who hold
   on to her, and whoever holds her is fortunate."
(Mishlei
   3:18)
    [Even though this pasuk seemingly refers to wisdom
in
    general (see 3:13), in the overall context of the
perek
    "wisdom" refers specifically to Torah (see 3:1-8!).]

     Thus, Chumash 'ends' with a theme which quite
parallel to
the theme of its opening narrative.  God's original
intention
may have been for man to enjoy a close relationship with
Him
in Gan Eden.  Even though that goal seems to have
'failed' in
Sefer Bereishit, Sefer Devarim concludes with the
possibility
that the Nation of Israel can indeed return to such an
existence, in the Land of Israel.  [For a similar
explanation,
see Seforno's introduction to Sefer Breishit!]
     To better appreciate our discussion, I highly
recommend
that you study the Rashi on 30:19. His explanation of
what
man should learn from his contemplation of "shamayim
v'aretz"
(what we call 'nature') that surrounds us will
definitely
enhance your appreciation of Parshat Nitzavim.
Furthermore,
it is a most fitting Rashi to study in preparation for
Rosh
Ha'Shana - the day marking God's creation of "shamayim
v'aretz."

                              shabbat shalom,
                              menachem

=================
FOR FURTHER IYUN - on Part One:

A. The Midrash Tanchuma in Parshat Nitzavim relates that
during the time of Yechezkel, a delegation of "elder
statesmen" came to Yechezkel and challenged the
obligation to
abide by the Torah. They asked the prophet, "If a kohen
purchases a servant, does the servant partake from the
kohen's
teruma?" When Yechezkel answered in the affirmative,
they
inquired as to what would happen if the kohen then sold
the
servant to a Yisrael. The prophet replied that, of
course,
once the servant is no longer under the authority of the
kohen, he has no further rights as far as teruma is
concerned.
"We, too," they said, "have already left His authority
and we
will no be like all the gentiles."
     Yechezkel responds (20:32-33), "That which came to
your
mind shall not be at all; in that you say, 'We will be
as the
nations, as the families of the countries, to serve wood
and
stone.' As I live, says Hashem, surely with a mighty
hand and
an outstretched arm and with fury poured out I will be
king
over you!"
     Explain the relevance of these psukim and their
general
context to Parshat Nitzavim and the above shiur.

B. One critical question we did not address concerns the
'legal' mechanism by which the covenant of Har Sinai
becomes
binding upon all generations. It would seem that one
cannot be
born into a binding agreement - he must first express
his
consent to the terms thereof!      This question was
posed by
the "scholars of Aragon," as recorded by the Abarbanel.
See
his comments in our parasha, and contrast with the
Maharal,
"Netzach Yisrael" 11. According to the Abarbanel, this
eternal
obligation evolves directly from Bnei Yisrael's
privilege of
settling the Land. Needless to say, this beautifully
explains
the context of Parshat Nitzavim: the reenactment of brit
Sinai
on the eve of Bnei Yisrael's entry into Eretz Yisrael.

C. See Rashi's comments on "v'hu yihye lecha lelokim"
(29:12),
and note its relevance to the bilateral quality of the
brit as
discussed in the above shiur. Rashi continues by citing
a
Midrash regarding Bnei Yisrael's sense of desperation
upon
hearing the curses of the tochecha. Moshe reassures them
by
observing, "Atem nitzavim" - you have survived, despite
many
incidents of wrongdoing. Explain how this, too, relates
to
this above shiur. Additionally, how does this Midrash
help
explain the seemingly irrelevant historical review
presented
at the end of Parshat Ki-Tavo (29:1-8)?
  Explain how the final clause of 29:5 reinforces the
equation
between this generation and their parents. [See Shmot
6:7.]

D. Different mefarshim have come up with different
approaches
to explain 29:3: "YET, until this day, God has not given
you a
'heart to know,' 'eyes to see,' or 'ears to listen.'" In
the
shiur, we mentioned the explanations of Rashi and
Seforno.
Other mefarshim explain this pasuk as a continuation of
Moshe's "musar." For example, Abarbanel places a
question mark
at the end of the pasuk. Before you see his commentary
inside
(which I suggest you do), how does his punctuation
change the
meaning of the pasuk? Others understand "ad hayom hazeh"
as
meaning, "even until?" What does the pasuk meaning
according
to this reading?
     Other mefarshim, however, try to explain that Bnei
Yisrael arrived at a unique awareness of Hashem's power
on
"this day," the conclusion of their sojourn in the
wilderness.
Rav David Tzvi Hoffman explains that the forty years of
wandering and the recent battle against Sichon and Og
magnified this awareness far more effectively than the
wonders
and miracles of Egypt.

E. Moshe describes the potential attempt by an
individual or
group to breach the covenant as follows: "Perhaps there
is
among you some man or woman? When such a person hears
the
words of these sanctions, he may fancy himself immune
[JPS
translation; note the difficulty in interpreting these
words]
thinking, 'I shall be safe, because I follow my own
willful
heart'?"
     Many mefarshim address the problematic word "ki"
(translated here as "because") in this pasuk. Ibn Ezra
[and
JPS] translate "ki" as "even though," while the Ramban,
in his
first suggestion, interprets the word as similar to
"ka'asher." How may we maintain the standard
interpretation of
"ki" as "because," based on the second erroneous
conclusion
Moshe feared, as we discussed in the shiur? See Ramban's
second interpretation.

F. As we saw, the psukim in 30:11-14 remind the people
that
Torah observance is not as hard as it may seem. Nowhere
do we
find such an explicit reassurance to the generation of
Yetzi'at Mitzrayim and Matan Torah. Why would this
younger
generation in particular require these words of
encouragement?

G. Note the difference between the simple reading of
30:12 and
that of the Gemara in Eruvin, as cited here by Rashi.
Show how
the Midrashic reading of the pasuk addresses the first
two
incorrect conclusions that, as we discussed, Moshe
feared, and
contrast this approach with our understanding in the
shiur.
     [Point of methodology: Explain the difficulty
understanding the transition from 30:11 to 30:12
according to
the Midrashic interpretation. On the other hand, what
other
difficulties does this Gemara resolve? Does the Gemara
necessarily negate the simple understanding? How do your
answers to these questions reflect the general
relationship
between "pshat" and "drash"?]
=============
FOR FURTHER IYUN - on Part Two
A. We mentioned above that the psukim at the end of
Parshat
Nitzavim (30:15-20) that allude to Gan Eden could be
considered the denouement of Moshe's speeches in Sefer
Devarim. Pay careful attention to the literary style
from
chapter 31 onward. In which person is the narrative
written
(1st or 3rd)?   What about the previous sections of the
sefer?
Is the style of this concluding section more similar to
Sefer
Devarim or to Bamidbar? Might this unit be considered a
continuation of Sefer Bamidbar?    Explain your answer.

B.   A famous dispute among the commentators surrounds
the
psukim just prior to these that we have discussed. To
what
does "mitzvah hazot" (30:11) refer? See 30:11-14, Rashi
(on
pasuk 14), Ibn Ezra (also pasuk 14), Ramban (pasuk 11)
and
Seforno (pasuk 11). If we view these pesukim as
continuing the
previous discussion of teshuva, then perhaps the pesukim
discussed in the above shiur (30:15-20) also relate to
this
theme: the choice between "life" and "death" in the
aftermath
of sin. Explain how this enhances our association
between
these psukim and the return to Gan Eden. Bear in mind
the
Midrash that Hashem banished Adam from Gan Eden only
after
having first offered him the chance to do teshuva
(Bereishit
Rabba 21, Bemidbar Rabba 13).
     Furthermore, compare 15-20 with the opening psukim
of
Parshat Re'ay. Note the difference in terminology:
"bracha"
and "k'lala" as opposed to "chayim" and "mavet." [Notice
that
Moshe makes a point of associating "bracha/k'lala" with
"chayim/mavet" in 30:19.] Try to explain this difference
in
light of our suggestion that our psukim refer to the
situation
after sin, rather than before sinning. [See Meshech
Chochma.]
What 'choice' is presented in Re'ay, and which does
Moshe
present here, in the aftermath of sin? Why is the wrong
'choice' in our context called "death" (perhaps more
accurately, the "curse" translates into "death") while
in
Re'ay it's merely a "curse"?

C.   The Sifrei in the beginning of Parshat Re'ay
(54:27)
associates the psukim there (as we cited in B.) with
Hashem's
comment to Kayin: "Surely, if you do right you will be
forgiven [see Targum, as opposed to Ibn Ezra]; but if
you
don't do right, sin couches at the door" (Bereishit
4:7). Why
would God have to impress this notion upon Kayin
particularly
in the aftermath of Adam's banishment from Gan Eden? Why
must
Moshe repeat this same message to Bnei Yisrael before
they
enter the land?

D.   In 29:12-14, we find once again the concept of Bnei
Yisrael's destiny to become a special nation. Relate
this to
our entire series of shiurim on Devarim. [Note as well
the
reference to God's promise to the patriarchs, and recall
our
shiur last week regarding 'mikra bikkurim' and 'viduy
ma'aser.']

E. Read the Rambam's comments concerning the laws of
Hakhel in
Hilchot Chagiga perek 3. Note particularly his remarks
in
halacha 6 concerning "geirim." (If you have a chance,
read
also the seventh perek of mishnayot Sota.)  How do these
halachot relate to the above shiur?  Why do you think we
skip
from shma to v'haya im shmoa in kriyat shma?  What is
the
final word read by the king at Hakhel? How might this be
significant in light of this shiur?
In halacha 6, why does the Rambam emphasize that davka
the
"geir" must feel as though he is standing at Har Sinai
during
the hakhel ceremony?

F.   Regarding the association of Torah with "life" (end
of
the shiur), see Targum Yonatan on 30:20.

G.   We noted the function of Torah as the "Tree of
Life," the
means by which we "return to Gan Eden." See Midrash
HaGadol in
Bereishit: "That tree from which whoever would eat would
live
- God hid it and gave us His Torah, the tree of life?"
See
also Tanchuma Yashan, Bereishit 25 that identifies the
"lahat
hacherev" (the "fiery sword"), which guarded the
entrance to
Gan Eden together with the keruvim, as Torah (based on
Tehillim 149:7, which we say in Psukei D'Zimra).
  The parallel between Gan Eden and both the Mikdash and
Torah
study becomes especially apparent in the Midrashim that
interpret Adam's responsibility in Gan Eden of "l'ovda"
in
reference to korbanot and Torah study. See Pirkei
D'Rabbi
Eliezer 12, Bereishit Rabba 16, and especially Sifrei
Ekev 41.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.7.1/1686 -
Release Date: 9/23/2008 7:38 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: nitz.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 64911 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080924/b9e7d825/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Fri Sep 26 10:10:10 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:10:10 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] for Rosh ha'SHANA
Message-ID: <93138AB40FA0448C9992465BC9122AC4@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

               for ROSH HASHANA  - shiur

     To our surprise, the holiday that we call Rosh
Hashana is
never referred to as such in Chumash!  In fact, Chumash
tells
us very little about this holiday that we are told to
celebrate on the 'first day of the seventh month' (see
Vayikra
23:23).
     So how do we know that this day is indeed a 'day of
judgment'?
     And why should this day mark the beginning of a
'new
year'?
     In the following shiur, we attempt to answer these
fundamental questions from within Chumash itself.

INTRODUCTION
     The laws of Rosh Hashana are discussed only twice
in
Chumash, once in Parshat Emor (Vayikra 23:23-25), and
once in
Parshat Pinchas (Bamidbar 29:1-6).  Therefore, we must
begin
our shiur by taking a quick look at these two sources,
noting
how scant the Torah's detail of this holiday appears to
be:

1) In Parshat Emor -
  "On the seventh month, on the first day of that month,
  you shall have a shabbaton [a day of rest], zichron
  tru'a, mikra kodesh [a day set aside for gathering],
do
  not work, and you shall bring an offering to God"
  (Vayikra 23:23-5).

2) In Parshat Pinchas -
  "On the seventh month, on the first day of that month,
  observe a 'mikra kodesh', do no work, it shall be for
you
  a yom tru'a..." (Bamidbar 29:1-6).

     Note that Chumash never refers to this holiday as
Rosh
Hashana!  Instead, we are told to make a holiday on the
first
day of the seventh month [that's closer to 'mid-year'
than
'new-year'].
     Furthermore, the Torah never tells us why this day
is
chosen.  Instead, we are instructed to sound a tru'a
[yom
tru'a], or to remember a tru'a [zichron tru'a], but it
is not
clear at all precisely what these phrases - yom tru'a
and
zichron tru'a - imply.
  [Note that the Torah provides reasons for all of the
  other holidays, either explicitly: chag ha-matzot is
to
  remember Yetziat Mitzrayim, shavuot for the grain
harvest
  ('chag ha-katzir') and Sukkot for the fruit harvest
  ('chag ha-asif'); or implicitly - Yom Kippur for it
marks
  the day on which Moshe Rabbeinu came down from Har
Sinai
  with the second Luchot & God's midot ha-rachamim"
(based
  on the three groups of 40 days in the account of those
  events in Sefer Devarim chapter 9).]

     Finally, nowhere in these psukim in Parshat Emor or
in
Parshat Pinchas do we find even a hint that this day
should be
considered a 'day of judgment'.
     So what's going on?  How does this enigmatic
biblical
holiday become the Rosh Hashana that we are all so
familiar
with?
     To answer this question, we must explore other
sources in
the Bible where these very same topics are mentioned,
namely:
  A)  the cycle of the agricultural year in Chumash, and
  B)  the biblical meaning of the phrases:
     "yom tru'a" & "zicharon"

TISHREI - NOT THE 'JEWISH' NEW YEAR
     To understand what is special about the seventh
month, we
must return to the two parshiot of the chagim in
Chumash, i.e.
Parshat Emor (Vayikra chapter 23) and Parshat Pinchas
(Bamidbar chapters 28->29).
     First, quickly review the internal progression of
each of
these two units, noting how they both list the entire
set of
holidays - in an order that begins in the spring.  Most
likely, this 'spring start' is based on God's earlier
command
in Parshat Ha'Chodesh to count the months from the first
month
of spring - corresponding to our redemption from Egypt.
[See
Shmot 12:1-2; 13:2-3  & 23:15.]
     Hence, there seems to be every reason in Chumash to
consider Nissan as the Jewish New Year, and not Tishrei!
What
then is special about the seventh month, and why do we
refer
to it as Rosh Hashana?
  [Even though it is commonly assumed that the first of
  Tishrei marks the anniversary of the creation of the
  world, this specific point is a controversy in the
Talmud
  between R. Eliezer (created in Tishrei) and R.
Yehoshua
  (created in Nissan).  [See Mesechet Rosh Hashana 11a]
    According to R. Yehoshua who claims that the world
was
  created in Nissan and not in Tishrei, could it be that
  there is nothing special about this day?  Furthermore,
  even according to R. Eliezer, why should the
anniversary
  of the Creation provoke a yearly 'Day of Judgment'?
In
  any case, Chumash never states explicitly that the
  Creation began in Tishrei.]

     To answer this question, we must take into
consideration
the basic cycle of the agricultural year in the Land of
Israel.

THE END OF THE AGRICULTURAL YEAR
     In addition to the biblical year that begins in
Nissan
(see Shmot 12:1-2), we find another 'calendar' in
Chumash,
which relates to the agricultural cycle of the year.
Take for
example the Torah's first mention of the holiday of
Sukkot,
noting how it explicitly states that Sukkot falls out at
the
end of the year:
  "Three times a year celebrate for Me... and the
  'gathering holiday' [chag ha-asif], when the year goes
  out [be-tzeit ha-shana], when you gather your produce
  from the Land..."    (see Shmot 23:14-17).

     From this pasuk we can infer that Chumash takes for
granted that we are aware of a 'year' that 'goes out'
when we
gather our fruits.  If this 'agricultural' year 'goes
out'
when the produce is harvested, then it must begin when
the
fields are first sown (in the autumn).
     When Sukkot is described in greater detail (in
Parshat
Emor), we find the precise 'lunar' date for this
'gathering'
holiday:
  "On the 15th day of the seventh month, when you gather
  the produce of your Land, you shall observe a holiday
for
  seven days..." (see Vayikra 23:39).

     From these two sources it becomes clear that
Chumash
assumes that there is an 'agricultural year' that ends
in
Tishrei.
     This assumption is confirmed when we examine yet
another
agricultural mitzva that requires a defined yearly cycle
- the
laws of shmitta [the sabbatical year].
     In Parshat Behar the Torah describes a cycle of six
years
when we work the land, and the seventh year of rest (see
25:1-7).
Clearly, this implies that there must be a certain date
when the year of this shmitta cycle begins. And sure
enough,
the Torah informs us of this date when it describes
immediately afterward the laws of the yovel [Jubilee]
year,
celebrated after each seven shmitta cycles:
  "And you shall count seven weeks of years, seven times
  seven years, and then you shall sound a shofar tru'a
on
  the seventh month, on the tenth of the month..." (see
  Vayikra 25:8-9)

     Here we are told explicitly that the years of the
shmitta
cycle begin in the seventh month.
  [One could assume that the year actually begins on the
first
  of Tishrei, but on the yovel year we wait until Yom
Kippur
  to make the 'official declaration'.  This may be for a
  thematic reason as well, for on yovel land returns to
its
  original owners & we annul all debts, etc. [like
starting
  over with a clean slate].  Therefore, we pronounce
yovel on
  Yom Kippur, at the same time when we ask God to annul
our
  sins.]

     Finally, the mitzva of hakhel (see Devarim
31:10-12)
provides conclusive proof that the year of the shmitta
cycle
begins in Tishrei.  We are commanded to conduct the
hakhel
ceremony 'be-mo'ed shnat ha-shmitta be-chag ha-Sukkot' -
at
the appointed [or gathering] time of shmitta (i.e. the
time of
year when cycle increments) on Sukkot.  This clearly
implies
that the shmitta cycle increments in Tishrei.

THE BEGINNING OF THE AGRICULTURAL YEAR
     In addition to the above sources that assume the
existence of an 'agricultural year' that ends in
Tishrei,
another source in Chumash informs us more precisely when
this
agricultural year begins.  In fact, this source is the
only
time in Chumash where we find an explicit mention of the
word
'rosh' in relation to the beginning of a year!
     In Parshat Ekev, the Torah explains how farming in
the
'land of Israel' differs from farming in the 'land of
Egypt'
(see Devarim 11:10-12).  Unlike Egypt, which enjoys a
constant
supply of water from the Nile River, the Land of Israel
is
dependent on 'matar' (rain) for its water supply.
Hence, the
farmer in the land of Israel must depend one the
rainfall for
his prosperity.  But that rainfall itself, Chumash
explains,
is a direct function of God's 'hashgacha' [providence].
In
this context (i.e. in relation to the rainfall in the
land of
Israel), we learn that:
  "It is a Land which your Lord looks after, God's
'eyes'
  constantly look after it - mi-reishit shana - from the
  beginning of the year - until the end of the year"
  (11:12).
    [Recall that in the land of Israel it only rains
    between Sukkot and Pesach, hence the cycle begins in
    Tishrei.]

     Here, God assures Am Yisrael that He will look
after the
'agricultural' needs of our Land by making sure that it
will
receive the necessary rainfall.  To prove this
interpretation
we simply need to read the following parshia (which just
so
happens to be the second parsha of daily 'kriyat shma'):
  "[Hence,] should you keep the mitzvot... then I will
give
  the rain to your land at the proper time... [but] be
  careful, should you transgress... then I hold back the
  heavens, and there will be no rain... (see Devarim
11:13-
  16!).

     In this context, the phrase 'reishit shana' in
11:12
implies the beginning of the rainy season.  Hence, the
biblical agricultural year begins with the rainy season
in the
fall - reishit ha-shana - i.e. the new (agricultural)
year.

A CRITICAL TIME
     But specifically in the land of Israel this time of
year
is quite significant, for in Israel it only rains during
the
autumn and winter months.  Therefore, farmers must plow
and
sow their fields during those months in order to catch
the
winter rain.  In fact, the rainfall during the months of
Cheshvan & Kislev is most critical, for the newly sown
fields
require large amounts of water.  If it doesn't rain in
the
late autumn / early winter, there will be nothing to
harvest
in the spring or summer.
  [Note that in Masechet Ta'anit (see chapters 1 and 2)
we
  learn that if the rain is not sufficient by
mid-Kislev, a
  series of 'fast-days' are proclaimed when special
prayers
  for rain are added, including a set of tefillot almost
  identical to those of Rosh Hashana (see II.2-3).  This
  may explain why Seder Moed places Masechet Rosh
Hashana
  before Masechet Ta'anit, rather than placing it before
  Yoma (where it would seem to belong)!]

     From this perspective, the fate of the produce of
the
forthcoming agricultural year is primarily dependent on
the
rainfall during the early winter months.  Should the
rainfall
be insufficient, not only will there not be enough water
to
drink, the crops will not grow!  [See Masechet Rosh
Hashana
16a!]  A shortage of rain can lead not only to drought,
but
also to famine, and disease throughout the months of the
spring and summer.  Furthermore, a food shortage is
likely to
lead to an outbreak of war between nations fighting over
the
meager available resources.
     Consequently, it may appear to man as though nature
itself, i.e. via the early rainy season, determines 'who
will
live' and 'who will die', who by thirst and who by
famine, who
by war and who by disease...'. [from the 'netaneh tokef'
tefilla on Rosh Hashana]

NATURE OR GOD?
     Even though it may appear to man that nature, or
more
specifically - the rain - will determine the fate of the
forthcoming agricultural year, Chumash obviously cannot
accept
this conclusion.  As we discussed (or will discuss) in
our
shiur on Parshat Breishit, a primary theme in Chumash is
that
the creation of nature was a willful act of God, and He
continues to oversee it.  Although it may appear to man
as
though nature works independently, it is incumbent upon
him to
recognize that it is God, and not nature, who determines
his
fate.
     Therefore, in anticipation of the rainy season
(which
begins in the autumn) and its effect on the fate of the
entire
year, the Torah commands Bnei Yisrael to set aside a
'mikra
kodesh' - a special gathering - in the seventh month in
order
that we gather to declare God's kingdom over all
Creation.  In
doing so, we remind ourselves that it is He who
determines our
fate, based on our deeds, as explained in Parshat Ekev
(see
Devarim 11:10-19).
     Now that we have established why the seventh month
should
be considered the beginning of a new year, i.e. the new
agricultural year, we must now explain why the Torah
chooses
specifically the first day of this month to mark this
occasion.

THE OVERLAP
     Based on the Torah's definition of Sukkot as
'be-tzeit ha-
shana' (the end of the year / see Shmot 23:16), it would
seem
more logical to consider Shmini Atzeret - which falls
out
immediately after Sukkot - as the first day of the New
Year.
After all, it is not by chance that Chazal instituted
'tefillat geshem' - the special prayer for rain - on
this day.
Why does the Torah command us to gather specifically on
the
first day of this seventh month, before the previous
year is
over?
     One could suggest very simply that an overlap
exists, as
the new agricultural year begins (on the first day of
the
seventh month) before the previous year ends.  However,
if we
examine all of the holidays of the seventh month, a more
complex picture emerges.

A SPECIAL MONTH
     Note that in Parshat Emor and Parshat Pinchas, we
find
four different holidays that are to be observed in the
seventh
month:
     On the first day - a Yom tru'a
     On the 10th day - Yom Ha-kippurim
     On the 15th day - 'Chag Sukkot for seven days
     On the 22nd day - an 'Atzeret'
    [Note how all these holidays are connected by the
    Torah's conspicuous use of the word 'ach' in 23:27 &
    23:39.]

     Why are there so many holidays in the seventh
month?  For
Sukkot, the Torah provides an explicit reason: it marks
the
end of the summer fruit harvest [chag ha-asif].
However, no
explicit reason is given for the celebration of any of
the
others holidays on these specific dates.  Nonetheless,
based
on our above explanation concerning the biblical
importance of
the forthcoming rainy season, one could suggest that all
of
the Tishrei holidays relate in one manner or other to
the
yearly agricultural cycle that begins in the seventh
month.

     More conclusive proof of an intrinsic connection
between
these three holidays of the seventh month - Yom Tru'a,
Yom
Kippurim, and Shmini Atzeret - can be deduced from their
identical and unique korban mussaf, as detailed in
Parshat
Pinchas.  Unlike any other holiday, on each of these
holidays
we offer an additional ola of 'one bull, one ram, and
seven
sheep' for the mussaf offering.
  [See Bamidbar chapter 29, note that no other korban
has
  this same korban mussaf.  See TSC shiur on Pinchas.
See
  also further iyun section in regard to the double
nature
  of the mussaf of Sukkot, which may actually include
this
  offering as well.]

  But why are three holidays necessary to inaugurate the
New
Year?
     One could suggest that each holiday relates to a
different aspect of the anticipation of the forthcoming
agricultural year. In this week's shiur, we discuss the
meaning of yom tru'a, which we are commanded to observe
on the
first day of this month.  In the shiurim to follow, we
will
discuss Yom Kippur and Shmini Atzeret.

YOM TRU'A
     As we explained in our introduction, according to
Chumash
the only unique mitzva of this holiday is that we are
commanded to make a yom tru'a according to Parshat
Pinchas
(Bamidbar 29:2), or a zichron tru'a according to Parshat
Emor
(Vayikra 23:24).
     Each of these two phrases requires explanation.
Why
would 'sounding a tru'a' have any connection to the
beginning
of the rainy season?  Likewise, what does "zichron
tru'a"
imply?

YOM TRU'A IN THE BIBLE
     To understand these phrases, we must consider how a
shofar was used in biblical times.
     Today, a shofar is considered a religious artifact.
If
you are shopping for a shofar, you would inquire at your
local
"seforim" store or possibly a Judaica shop [or search
the
internet].
  However, in Biblical times, its use was quite
different.
Back then, if you were shopping for a shofar, you would
have
most probably gone to your local 'arms dealer' - for the
shofar was used primarily in war, as a shofar was used
by
military commanders and officers to communicate with
their
troops.
  [See for example the story of Gideon and his 300 men,
each
  one sounding a shofar to make the enemy think that
there are
  300 commanders, and hence thousands of soldiers / see
  Shoftim 7:16-20.]

     Similarly, civil defense personnel used the shofar
to
warn civilians of enemy attack and to mobilize the army.
[See
Amos 3:6 &  Tzefania 1:16.]
     Now, there are two basic types of 'notes' that the
shofar
blower uses:
     1) a teki'a - a long steady note (like DC current);
     2) a tru'a - a oscillating short note (like AC
current).

     Usually, a teki'a long steady sound was used to
signal an
'all clear' situation, while the oscillating tru'a
signal
warned of imminent danger (like a siren sound today).
This
distinction between a teki'a & tru'a is easily deduced
from
the mitzva of the 'chatzotzrot' (trumpets) explained in
Parshat Beha'alotcha (see 10:1-10 / highly suggested
that you
read these psukim inside).  According to that parsha,
the
teki'a was the signal for gathering the camp for happy
occasions (see 10:3-4,7,10), while the tru'a was used as
a
signal to prepare for travel in military formation and
war
(see 10:5-6,9).
  [Note, both a 'shvarim' and 'tru'a' are examples of
tru'a
  (AC).  The difference between them is simply an issue
of
  frequency / 3 per second, or 9 per second.]

     Hence, in biblical times, if someone heard a shofar
sounding a tru'a, his instinctive reaction would have
been
fear, preparation for war, and/or impending danger.
[Sort of
like hearing sirens today.]
  Elsewhere in Tanach, we find many examples.  The
prophet
Tzfania, for example, uses the phrase 'yom shofar
u-tru'a' to
describe a day of terrible war and destruction.
Tzfania's
opening prophecy speaks of the forthcoming 'yom Hashem',
a day
in which God will punish all those who had left Him.
Note how
the following psukim relate shofar & tru'a to God's
providence
['hashgacha']:
  "At that time ('yom Hashem') I will search
Yerushalayim
  with candles and I will punish ('u-pakadeti') the
men...
  who say to themselves 'God does not reward nor does He
  punish..."
     The great day of the Lord is approaching...
     it is bitter, there a warrior shrieks.
     That day shall be a day of wrath,
     a day of trouble and distress ('tzara u-metzuka'),
     a day of calamity and desolation....,
     "yom shofar u-tru'a ..."
     a day of blowing a shofar and tru'a..."
                              (see Tzfania 1:12-16).

     Here, 'yom shofar u-tru'a' clearly implies a day of
imminent danger and war - a day in when God enacts
judgment on
those who have sinned.  [See also Yoel 2:1-3,11-14 &
2:15-17!]
     The strongest proof that the sound of a shofar
would
cause intuitive fear is from Amos:
  "Should a shofar be sounded in the city, would the
people
  not become fearful?!"  (see Amos 3:6).

  With this background, we can return to Parshat
Pinchas.  The
Torah instructs us to make a yom tru'a on the first day
of the
seventh month (29:1-2).  Obviously, the Torah does not
expect
us to go to war on this day; however, we are commanded
on this
day to create an atmosphere that simulates the tension
and
fear of war.  By creating this atmosphere in
anticipation of
the new agricultural year that is about to begin, we
show God
our belief that its fate - and hence our fate, is in His
hands
(and not nature's).
  Therefore, to create this atmosphere of a 'day of
judgment',
to help us feel that our lives are truly 'on the line' -
in
God's Hands, the Torah commands us to sound a tru'a with
the
shofar.

ZICHRON TRU'A
     Now we must explain the phrase zichron tru'a, which
is
used to describe this holiday in Parshat Emor.  The key
to
understanding this phrase lies in the same psukim
mentioned
above concerning the chatzrotrot.  There, we find the
link
between tru'a, war, and zika'ron:
  "Ve-ki tavo'u milchama be-artzechem... va-harei'otem
be-
  chatzotzrot, ve-nizkartem lifnei Hashem Elokeichem..."
-
  When war takes place in your land... you should sound
a
  tru'a with your trumpets that you will be remembered
by
  (and/or that you will remember...) Hashem, and He will
  save you from your enemies"  (see Bamidbar 10:8-9).

     Here we find a special mitzva to sound a tru'a
prior to,
and in anticipation of, impending battle.  To show our
belief
that the outcome of that battle is in God's Hands, and
not in
hands of our enemy, we are commanded to sound a tru'a.
Obviously, it was not the tru'a itself that saves Bnei
Yisrael, rather our recognition that the ultimate fate
of the
battle is in God's Hands.
     We can apply this same analogy from war to
agriculture.
Just as the Torah commands us to sound a tru'a in
anticipation
of war - to remember that its outcome is in God's Hand;
so too
we are commanded to sound a tru'a on the first of
Tishrei in
anticipation of the forthcoming agricultural year - to
remind
ourselves that its outcome is in God's Hand as well.
     Therefore, Rosh Hashana is not only a yom tru'a - a
day
of awe on which our lives are judged, but Chumash
defines it
as a day of zichron tru'a - a day on which we must sound
the
tru'a so that we will remember our God, in order that He
will
remember us.  On this day, we must proclaim His kingdom
over
all mankind in recognition of His mastery over nature
and our
destiny.

     In summary, we have shown how the most basic
aspects of
Rosh Hashana, which at first appeared to be totally
missing
from Chumash, can be uncovered by undertaking a
comprehensive
study of the biblical importance of the seventh month.
Obviously, our observance of Rosh Hashana is only
complete
when we include all of its laws that have been passed
down
through Torah she-ba'al peh (the Oral Law).  However, we
can
enhance our appreciation of this holiday by studying its
sources in Torah she-bichtav (the Written Law) as well.

     In today's modern society, it is difficult to
appreciate
the importance of an agricultural year.  Rarely do we
need to
worry about our water supply and other most basic needs.
Nevertheless, especially in the Land of Israel, we are
faced
with other serious national dangers such as war and
terror.
Even though we must take every precaution necessary
against
these dangers, the basic principle of the above shiur
still
applies, that we must recognize that the ultimate fate
of the
forthcoming year is in God's Hands, and that He will
judge us
based on our deeds.

     Even though all the nations are judged on this
awesome
day, Am Yisrael's custom is to sound the tru'a
specifically
with the shofar of an ayil (a ram), a symbol of 'akeidat
Yitzchak' - a reminder to the Almighty of our devotion
and
readiness to serve Him.
  With this shofar, together with our tefillot, our
heritage,
and our resolve to conduct our lives as an 'am kadosh'
should,
we pray that God should not judge us like any other
nation,
rather as His special Nation.

               shana tova,
               ve-ketiva ve-chatima tova,
               menachem

===========================
FOR FURTHER IYUN

A. In Chodesh Tishrei, the 'seventh' month, we find many
chagim that relate to nature, especially the 'seven'
days of
Sukkot marking the culmination of the harvest season of
the
previous year. We also find three days of 'Judgement',
Rosh
HaShana, Yom Kippur, and Shmini Atzeret.
1.  Compare the korban mussaf of each of these three
chagim.
   (one par, one ayil, seven kvasim and one se'ir
le-chatat).
2.  In what way are these chagim connected?
3.  According to Chazal, when are we judged for water?
     How does this relate to the above shiur?
4.  Relate this to the tefilla of the kohen gadol on Yom
Kippur!
     (it's in your machzor at the end of seder avoda)

B.  Why does Hashem need Am Yisrael to proclaim him
king?  The
one thing Hashem, ki-vyachol, can not do, is make
Himself
king.  A kingdom is meaningless if there are no
subjects.  A
king becomes king when and because he is accepted by his
subjects.  Similarly, only when God is accepted and
recognized
by man does He become Melech.
1.  Relate this to our davening on Rosh Hashana.
2  Explain changing 'E-l HaKadosh' to 'Melech Hakadosh'
according to this concept.

C.  The Jewish New Year, the New Year special and unique
to Am
Yisrael is actually Nissan - Ha-chodesh ha-zeh lachem
rosh
chodashim rishon hu lachem le-chodshei ha-shana (Shmot
perek
12/v1-2).  Yetziat Mitzrayim which took place in Nissan
marks
the birth of the Jewish Nation.
1.  What aspects of Pesach and Chag HaMatzot emphasize
that we
are a special nation, different from other nations.
2.  What aspect of the chagim in Tishrei relate to all
mankind.
(Note 70 parim on Sukkot etc. - see also Zecharya chap
14)

D.  In the shiur of the '13 midot' you may recall our
explanation that Hashem's hashgacha over Am Yisrael
after brit
Sinai was broken due to chet ha-egel and defaulted to
'u-veyom
pokdi u-pukadti' (Shmot 32:34).  As opposed to immediate
punishment, God will punish them from time to time,
allowing
for good deeds to balance out the bad deeds.  In the
manner,
Bnei Yisrael would be judged no different from other
nations.
Note the Ibn Ezra on that pasuk - there he explains -
'from
Rosh Hashana to Rosh Hashana'!
1.  Relate this peirush by the Ibn Ezra to the above
shiur!

E.  Note that from the story of the flood in Parshat
Noach, we
could also deduce the year begins in Tishrei, i.e.
according
to the agricultural year.  The heavy rains of the flood
began
to fall on the 17th day of the second month, which would
correspond to Cheshvan.  (See Breishit 7:11.)  However,
this
specific point is a controversy among the commentators.



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.7.3 - Release
Date: 9/25/2008 12:00 AM
 
    
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: roshq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 21277 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080926/cff0a352/attachment-0002.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rosh1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 47822 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080926/cff0a352/attachment-0003.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Sep 29 04:44:53 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:44:53 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Va'yelech  - shiur
Message-ID: <FD69C7EF0F41466D91BE55DF4E62BF54@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

                        PARSHAT  VA'YELECH

	Were we all at Ma'amad Har Sinai? 
	According to "pshat," only the generation that
left Egypt was granted this privilege. According to the
popular Midrash, however, the "neshama" [soul] of every
Jew, of every generation, witnessed that momentous
event. 
	In this week's shiur, as we study Parshat
Va'yelech, we will show how the mitzvah of HAKHEL helps
'bridge this gap' between "pshat" & "drash."

INTRODUCTION
	Our study of Sefer Devarim thus far has focused
on the centrality of Moshe Rabeinu's main speech
(chapters 5->26), which details the mitzvot that Bnei
Yisrael must keep in the Land.  In our shiur on Parshat
Nitzavim, we discussed how Moshe Rabeinu's final speech
(i.e. chapters 29->30) forms a most appropriate
conclusion for that main speech.
	At this point in Sefer Devarim, i.e. as Moshe
has completed his address, we would expect to find some
concluding remarks and thus bring Sefer Devarim to a
close. Sure enough, this is exactly what happens in the
opening section of Parshat Va'yelech. Moshe Rabeinu
first bids farewell by explaining why he can no longer
lead (see 31:2), then introduces his successor -
Yehoshua (see 31:3-8), and finally presents the written
version of the Torah (whose mitzvot he has just
completed teaching) to the Leviim and elders. 
	This indeed would have been an appropriate
conclusion.
	However, the next section (see 31:10-13) - the
mitzvah of HAKHEL - i.e. the commandment to read the
Torah in public once every seven years on the holiday of
Succot - seems glaringly out of place. Did we not
already finish listing all the mitzvot? Did Moshe not
just write down the 'final' version of the Torah and
present it to the Leviim? Would it not have made more
sense to include the mitzvah of HAKHEL somewhere in
Parshat Re'ay, together with all the other mitzvot
relating to "haMAKOM ashe yivchar Hashem"?
[Note 31:11!/ see shiur on Parshat Re'ay. (Pay
particular attention to 16:12-16.)]

	To understand why the mitzvah of HAKHEL is
recorded specifically at this time, we must return to
Parshat Ki-tavo (and to Sefer Shmot) to uncover the
underlying relationship between mitzvat HAKHEL and the
events at Ma'amad Har Sinai.

FROM BRIT SINAI TO BRIT HAR EIVAL
	Recall from Parshat Ki-tavo that immediately
upon the completion of his main speech, Moshe instructs
Bnei Yisrael to gather on Har Eival on the 'day they
cross the Yarden' (see chapters 27->28).  Here they were
to:

a) write down the mitzvot of Sefer Devarim, to be read
and taught to Bnei Yisrael (see 27:1-4,8);

   b) erect a "mizbayach" & offer OLOT & SHLAMIM /see
27:5-7

c) conduct a covenantal ceremony including the public
reading of the "tochacha" (see 27:11-28:69).

   It is important to note the fundamental difference
between the "tochacha" and the main speech of Sefer
Devarim. The main speech describes the MITZVOT which
Bnei Yisrael must keep upon entering the Land, while the
"tochacha" describes Bnei Yisrael's REWARD should they
OBEY these mitzvot and their PUNISHMENT should they
DISOBEY. [This can help us understand why the "tochacha"
FOLLOWS the main speech]

	To understand the reason for this additional
"brit" on Har Eival, let's consider the parallel between
this ceremony and that which took place at Har Sinai
forty years earlier (see Shmot 24:3-11). There (as
well), we find that Moshe:

	a) writes down the laws and reads them to the
nation;

	b) erects a "mizbayach" and offers OLOT &
SHLAMIM;

	c) conducts a covenantal ceremony.
[Note that a "tochacha" was presented at Har Sinai, as
well, as recorded in Parshat Bchukotei - see Vayikra
26:3-46.  See also Chizkuni's explanation of "sefer
ha'brit" in Shmot 24:7!]
 
	Considering that the vast majority of the people
of this new generation (i.e. those who are about to
enter the Land) were not present at the original
ceremony, this new generation must 'relive' the HAR
SINAI experience.  Since it will now become their duty -
to fulfill the destiny originally planned for their
parents' generation ? they too must undergo a similar
experience.
	[Note: In Sefer Yehoshua we find many other
parallels between "dor yotzei mitzrayim" and "dor knisa
la'aretz," most probably for the very same reason. See
end of chapter 8.]

FROM HAR EIVAL TO HAKHEL
	For a similar reason, we can explain the reason
for recording the mitzvah of HAKHEL in Parshat
Va'yelech.  Needless to say, the covenant of Sinai is
binding for all generations (see 29:12-14).
Nevertheless, just as it was necessary to 'recreate'
that experience forty years later for the new generation
on Har Eival, the mitzvah of HAKHEL will recreate that
experience for all future generations. Once every seven
years, Am Yisrael must 'relive' MA'AMAD HAR SINAI as the
men, women, and children gather at the Beit Ha'Mikdash
on Chag ha'Succot for a public celebration to hear the
Torah. The Torah will be read in public (see 31:9-13)
just as it was at Har Sinai (see Shmot 24:4-7), and just
as it was at Har Eival (see 27:3,8).
	This interpretation is supported by the Torah's
explicit reason for the mitzvah of HAKHEL:
	"HAKHEL ET HA'AM - Gather together the nation,
the men, the women, and the children... in order that
they HEAR and in order that they will LEARN and fear
their God, and they will faithfully keep all the words
of this TORAH. And their children WHO DO NOT KNOW [i.e.
those who were not at the last ceremony] will listen and
learn to fear God, for all of the days that they are
alive on the land which you are now crossing to
inherit." (31:12-13)

OLOT & SHLAMIM - ALIYAH LA'REGEL
	However, for our parallel to be complete, we
would expect to find a mitzvah to offer korbanot of OLOT
& SHLAMIM - just as was the case at Har Sinai and Har
Eival. Why don't we find them in the Torah's commandment
of HAKHEL?
	One could suggest that this relates to the
timing of HAKHEL - on SUCCOT. Recall that on SUCCOT
every individual is obligated to offer OLOT and SHLAMIM
to fulfill the mitzvah of "aliyah l'regel" (see 16:16-17
and Mesechet Shkalim).
	Therefore, by performing this mitzvah on Succot
at the Beit Ha'Mikdash, the element of korbanot of OLOT
& SHLAMIM is present, and our parallel to Ma'amad Har
Sinai is complete. [Recall as well our shiur Parshat
Terumah that expalined why the Mishkan/Mikdash itself is
simply a model (and perpetuation) of Ma'amad Har Sinai!]
	
WHY HERE?
	With this background, we can explain why Moshe
orders the mitzvah of HAKHEL specifically now as he
presents the Leviim and the elders the 'official copy'
of the Torah. The mitzvah of HAKHEL is not 'just another
mitzvah' in Sefer Devarim - it relates to the entire
sefer!  The purpose of this mitzvah is to periodically
remind Bnei Yisrael of their obligation to keep ALL the
mitzvot of Sefer Devarim, which Moshe had just finished
teaching. Therefore, it is given when the Sefer itself
is given over the Leviim for 'safe-keeping'.
	[Iy"h, in next week's shiur we will explain why
this mitzvah is followed by the SHIRA.]

A PARALLEL PURPOSE
	The need to periodically teach these mitzvot at
a NATIONAL gathering emphasizes yet another significant
aspect of Matan Torah. The ultimate purpose of the
mitzvot of Sefer Devarim is not only to enable each
individual to develop his own, personal relationship
with God, but also to create an "am kadosh" (a holy
nation) in the Land of Israel - a nation that can
properly represent God to the other nations. 
	This perspective is supported by yet another
textual parallel between the mitzvah of HAKHEL and the
description of "Ma'amad Har Sinai," as depicted earlier
in Sefer Devarim (4:5-14). Precisely in the same
'parshia' where Sefer Devarim explains the ultimate,
national purpose for keeping these mitzvot, we find a
parallel description of Ma'amad Har Sinai:
	"See, I have taught you 'chukim & mishpatim'...
for you to keep in the Land which you are about to enter
and conquer. Keep them and do them, for they are the
proof of your wisdom and discernment IN THE EYE OF THE
NATIONS, who, upon hearing these laws, will say... For
what a great nation that has God so close to it...  and
what great nation has laws and rules as perfect as this
Torah..."  	(4:5-8)

	That parsha then continues with a commandment
not to forget Ma'amad Har Sinai:
	"But take utmost care ... NOT TO FORGET the
things you saw with your own eyes and so that they do
not fade from your memory as long as you live, and MAKE
THEM KNOWN TO YOUR CHILDREN AND CHILDREN'S CHILDREN -
The DAY YOU STOOD BEFORE GOD AT HAR CHOREV ("ma'amad har
sinai") when Hashem told me GATHER THE PEOPLE TOGETHER
that I may let them hear my words... (4:9-11)
		
	Now we will study this parallel - using
transliterated Hebrew - by carefully reading the psukim
concerning Har Sinai & Hakhel [note the repetition of
several key words]:

AT HAR SINAI (4:10-12):
	"yom asher amad'ta lifnei Hashem Elokecha
b'Chorev b'emor Hashem alei HAK'HEL LI ET HA'AM
v'ASH'MI'EIM et dvarei asher YIL'M'DUN L'YIRAH oti KOL
HA'YAMIM, asher heym CHAYIM AL HA'ADAMA v'et B'NEIHEM
y'LAMEIDUN."
	
AT HAK'HEL (31:12-13):
	"HAK'HEL ET HA'AM, ha'anashim v'ha'nashim
v'hataf ... l'maan YISHM'U ul'maan YIL'M'DU v'YA'RU et
Hashem.... u'B'NEIHEM asher lo ya'du, YISH'M'U v'LAM'DU
l'YIRAH et Hashem KOL HA'YAMIM asher atem CHAYIM AL
HA'ADAMA."
[It is easier just to compare them by yourself in the
actual Hebrew.]

	Similarly, the Torah in Devarim 18:16 refers to
the day of Matan Torah as Yom ha'KAHAL. [Note also
"k'halchem" in 5:19.]
	Both these textual and thematic parallels point
to a clear connection between the mitzvah of HAKHEL and
Ma'amad Har Sinai. 

JEWISH CONTINUITY
	This background in "pshat" can possibly help us
better understand the Midrash that every Jewish
"neshama" was present at Ma'amad Har Sinai. One could
explain that as members of the Jewish nation and our
shared eternal destiny, each and every one of us was
indeed present at Har Sinai. Nonetheless, to impress
upon each new generation the importance of Ma'amad Har
Sinai, there remains a need to recreate that experience
(ideally through the mitzvah of HAKHEL).
	Today, in the absence of the Beit Ha'Mikdash, we
cannot fulfill the mitzvah of HAKHEL. Nevertheless, we
can still utilize our 'Tishrei gatherings' [in 'shul' -
the "mikdash m'at"] on Rosh Ha'shana, Yom Kippur, and
Succot to help achieve (at least partially) the
important goals of HAKHEL - at both the individual and
national levels.
						shabbat
shalom,
						menachem

===================
FOR FURTHER IYUN

A. Note the opening and closing psukim of Sefer KOHELET.
Based on those psukim, can you find a conceptual
relationship between Sefer KOHELET and the mitzvah
HAKHEL? [Keep in mind Devarim 31:12-13!] 
	Does this help explain our minhag to read sefer
Kohelet on the shabbat of Succot?
	Can you find a relate Sefer Kohelet to the time
of year of Succot?

B. Review the HAKHEL psukim again and pay attention to
the emphasis on "yirat Shamayim." Compare this emphasis
with the purpose of Ma'amad Har Sinai as described by
Moshe himself in Shmot 20:17. Notice the two distinct
functions Moshe mentions. How does the element of "nasot
etchem" come into play at HAKHEL? Compare Rashbam's
interpretation with the Rambam's comments towards the
end of Hilchot Chagiga 3:6 ("l'chazek dat ha'emet").
Additionally, see Dvarim 14:23. Could "ma'aser sheni"
serve as a "miniature" form of HAKHEL? [See Ramban 14:22
and Rashbam 14:23.] 

C. The m'forshim offer different bases for the
relationship between HAKHEL and shmitta. Of particular
interest to us is that of Rav Dovid Tzvi Hoffman, who
compares the cessation of agricultural work during
shmitta to the wilderness, which he views as the perfect
setting for the preparations for Matan Torah. Note the
machloket among the m'forshim on Chumash as to whether
Hakhel takes place at the beginning or end of the shmita
year, and the various reasons given therefor. 
	How does this relate to the parallel to Har
Sinai?
	Relate to the fact that if one was not permitted
to work his field for an entire year (during shemitah),
it was likely that he could dedicate that year to Torah
study.

D. The Torah requires that specifically the melech read
the Torah in public at Hakhel. Suggest various reasons
based on the content of Sefer Devarim that would explain
this halacha.

E. According to 'pshat,' it would appear that the Sefer
Torah that Hashem commands to be placed next to the Aron
is only Sefer Devarim. Note the machloket rishonim on
this topic (see 31:9 & 31:24-26).
		[Be sure to see at least Ramban.]
1. Try to explain the reason for this machloket.
2. Why is this Torah placed next to the Aron? What does
the Aron contain?
3. As usual, relate this to the shiurim thus far on
Sefer Dvarim.

F. Based on the above shiur, why do you think the Rambam
records the halachot of Hakhel in Hilchot Chagiga rather
than Hilchot Shmita & Yovel?



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.7.4 - Release
Date: 9/27/2008 12:00 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayel1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 31398 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080929/def1ab97/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Sep 29 07:20:45 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:20:45 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] For Rosh Ha'shana - shiur on Malchiot
Message-ID: <366A5DDE6A59425C94B476FF6C5D4F7C@x60>

The attached shiur is dedicated in memory of my dear
friend Dr. Sam Schatten
from Atlanta, Georgia who passed away on Shabbat, after
a two
year valiant struggle with cancer.
	As his entire life was a sanctification of God's
Name,  may his memory
be a merit for all of Am Yisrael - as we stand before
God in judgment this Rosh ha'Shana.
 
b'virchat ketiva v'chatima tova
menachem

======
Note - shiur is attached only in pdf format
as it contains Hebrew text

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.7.4 - Release
Date: 9/27/2008 12:00 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rosh2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 48734 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20080929/560ea50b/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Oct  6 09:25:15 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 09:25:15 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] for Yom Kippur - shiur #1
Message-ID: <C05BD399347D441F9EEE5E947E74B046@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

        YOM KIPPUR - The Biblical Meaning of Kippurim

     Is the 'Day of ATONEMENT' a precise translation for
YOM
KIPPUR?  In English, the word 'atonement' implies amends
for a
certain wrongdoing. In this sense, the 'Day of
Atonement'
implies expiation for transgressions that may have been
committed over the course of the previous year. However,
in
Chumash we find numerous instances in which the word
"kippurim" is used in a very different context.
     In the following shiur, we examine the Torah's use
of the
word "kapara" in various contexts, in order to arrive at
a
deeper understanding of its meaning in relation to Yom
Kippur.

THE SHORESH K.P.R.  ---  A PROTECTIVE COATING!
     We begin our shiur by examining the Torah's very
first
use of the shoresh k.p.r. [chaf peyh reish] - as found
in
Parshat Noach:
  "And God said to Noach: Make an ARK out of gopher
wood... -
  V'CHAFARTA alav - and you shall COAT IT from within in
and
  from without with - KOFER - pitch (a PROTECTIVE
COATING)."
  (see Breishit 6:14)

     To protect ark from the mighty waters of the flood,
Noach
is commanded to coat the gopher wood with a protective
covering. To describe this 'coating procedure', the
Torah uses
the verb "v'chafarta" and the noun "kofer" !  Note how
both
words stem from the same "shoresh" [root] of "k.p.r.".
  Hence, the very first usage of "k.p.r." already
indicates
that this shoresh relates to some sort of a 'protective
covering'.

* A PROTECTION GIFT
     Later on in Sefer Breishit (in Parshat
Va'yishlach), when
Yaakov Avinu sends a gift to appease his brother Esav,
the
Torah uses this same shoresh ["k.p.r."] to describe yet
another form of protection.  Review Breishit 32:20-21,
noting
how Yaakov explains the reason for sending this gift:
  "Maybe, - A'CHA'PRA pa'nav - I can APPEASE him - with
this
  gift that I am sending..." (Br. 32:21)

     In this narrative, Yaakov is not asking Esav for
forgiveness; rather he hopes that this gift will deter
Esav
from attacking him. One could suggest that this gift is
intended to PROTECT Yaakov from Esav's anger.

* A COVERING OF THE GROUND
     In Sefer Shmot, the Torah employs the shoresh
"k.p.r." to
describe the manner in which the 'manna' covered the
ground:
  "And behold it was on the face of the wilderness thin
and
  flaky - k'KFOR - like 'frost' on the land."  (Shmot
16:14)

  Even though the precise Biblical meaning of "kfor" is
not
quite clear, it undoubtedly relates to some type of
covering,
such as the frost which covers the ground.  [See also
Tehilim
147:16 - "kfor k'efer y'fazer" (from daily davening).]

* PROTECTION MONEY
     In Parshat Mishpatim (see Shmot 21:30), the word
"kofer"
is used to describe a payment which can be made in lieu
of
punishment. This payment can be understood as PROTECTION
from
the actual punishment that is due.
  Similarly, in Bamidbar 35:31 we find the prohibition
of
accepting "kofer nefesh" - payment in lieu of capital
punishment.  In essence, this 'ransom money' [if
accepted]
would have served as 'protection' from the death
penalty.

SHORESH K.P.R. AND THE MISHKAN
     Later on in Sefer Shmot (in Parshiot
Trumah/Tzaveh), in
relation to the vessels of the Mishkan and its
dedication
ceremony; we find several additional words that stem
from this
same shoresh - "k.p.r." .
  We begin our study with the word "kaporet", for this
vessel
is not only located in the "kodesh kedoshim" [holy of
holies],
but it also later becomes the focal point of the Yom
Kippur
"avoda" ritual. [See Vayikra 16:13-16!]

* THE KA'PORET
     Recall that the "aron" (the holy ark) was an open,
gold-
plated wooden box that contained the LUCHOT (see Shmot
25:10-
11 & 25:21). To cover this "aron" [and as we will
suggest - to
'protect' it], Moshe is commanded to make a KAPORET (see
25:17-
22).  But this KAPORET (again note shoresh k.p.r.) was
not
merely a lid - rather it was an elaborate golden cover
with
two "keruvim" [cherubs] standing upon it.
  If the purpose of this "kaporet" was simply to cover
the
"aron" - then it should have been called a "michseh" -
as the
Torah uses that word to describe the cover of Noah's ark
in
Breishit 8:13 and the cover for the Mishkan in Shmot
26:14.
The very fact that the Torah refers to this cover as a
KAPORET
(shoresh k.p.r.) already suggests that there may be
something
'protective' about it.
  However, the placement specifically of "keruvim" on
the
kaporet - provides us with an excellent proof as to the
'protective' nature of this covering.  To understand
why,
recall that first (and only other) time that we find
"keruvim"
in Chumash was in regard to the "keruvim" whose purpose
was to
PROTECT the path to Gan Eden (see Breishit 3:24).   Just
as
those "keruvim" protect the path to the "etz ha'chayim",
the
"keruvim" on the kaporet serve to protect the "luchot".
  [See Mishlei 3:18! Recall as well our shiur on Parshat
  Nitzavim where we used this parallel to explain how
the
  Mishkan, and possibly the entire land of Israel become
a
  'Gan Eden' type environment, where God's Presence
becomes
  more intense.]

  Hence we conclude that its very name - the "kaporet" -
relates to the fact that it serves as a protective cover
for
the "aron"!
   [Note also that the PA'ROCHET (a related shoresh
p.r.k) -
  the curtain which protects the "kodesh ha'kadoshim"-
is also
  embroidered with "kruvim" (see Shmot 26:31).
Symbolically,
  the also stand guard, protecting the "kodesh
kedoshim".]

KIPPURIM & THE SEVEN DAY MILUIM CEREMONY
     The first use of the actual word "kippurim" itself
is
found in the commandment to perform a seven day
dedication
ceremony for the Mishkan (better known as the MILUIM).
  On each of those seven days, God instructs Moshe to
offer a
special korban "chatat", whose blood was sprinkled on
the
"mizbeyach" (see Shmot 29:1,12) - yet the purpose for
this
offering remains unclear.  Note however, the concluding
verses
of that commandment, paying attention to how the Torah
summarizes this daily offering, while referring to this
entire
procedure as "kippurim" :
  "And each day [of the MILUIM] you shall bring a PAR
CHATAT
  for the KIPPURIM... (Shmot 29:36)

     In that same description, we find that the
"kohanim" also
required KAPARA during this seven day ceremony - for the
Torah
uses the word "kapara" to describe the process of
sprinkling
the blood of the "ayil" offering on their earlobes,
thumbs,
and toes (see Shmot 29:1,19-21).  Note how the Torah
refers to
this procedure is referred to as KAPARA:
  "This [meat of the korban] shall be eaten only by [the
  kohanim] - asher KUPAR bahen - who had KAPARA from
them
  [from the blood of this animal]... " (see Shmot 29:33)
    [See also parallel account in Vayikra 8:1-36, noting
  8:34]

     Thus we find that the primary purpose of the seven
day
MILUIM ceremony was to perform KAPARA on the MIZBAYACH
and on
the KOHANIM.

     But what was the purpose of this "kapara"? Was it
necessary for the atonement of any specific sin?
     Some commentators suggest that the kohanim require
"kapara" as atonement for "chet ha'egel" (the sin of the
Golden Calf/ see Rashi 29:1).  However, that
interpretation
would force us to accept the opinion that the
commandment to
build the Mishkan (in Teruma/Tezave) was given after the
events of "chet ha'egel" (and hence not in chronological
order).  Yet that very topic is a major controversy
among
commentators.
  Furthermore, even if we do accept that opinion, surely
the
"mizbeyach" did nothing wrong. Why then would it require
a
KIPPURIM procedure?
  
     Based on our understanding of the shoresh k.p.r.
above,
one could suggest an alternate reason for this "kapara"
procedure - possibly, both the "mizbeyach" and the
kohanim
require some sort of special 'protection'!
     But what would they need protection from?

PROTECTION FROM THE SHCHINA
     Recall from our shiurim on Sefer Shmot that the
primary
purpose of the Mishkan was to create a site where the
SHCHINA
[God's Divine Presence] could dwell:
  "And they shall make for Me a sanctuary - v'SHACHANTI
  b'tocham"- that I may dwell among them." (Shmot 25:8)
               [See also Shmot 29:45-46]

     Furthermore, the MISHKAN was supposed to create an
environment similar to MA'AMAD HAR SINAI (see Ramban on
Shmot
25:2) - and hence perpetuate that event.
  However, as was the case at Har Sinai, the presence of
the
SHCHINA carried its consequences.  As we saw in our
study of
the 'Ten Commandments' - the very presence of God's
SHCHINA
creates an environment where we find immediate and
severe
punishment for any transgression.
  [For example, on the very next day, Nadav and Avihu
made one
  small mistake and they received immediate punishment!
See
  also earlier shiur in regard to the 13 midot
ha'rachamim.]

  One could suggest that it is specifically because the
Mishkan will be the site of God's SHCHINA, both the
"kohanim"
and the "mizbayach" will require PROTECTION - and hence
"kapara!   The "kohanim" - for they will need to
officiate in
the Mishkan; and the "mizbayach" - for it is designated
to
become the site where God's "korbanot" will be consumed
(see
Vayikra 9:24).
     Thus, this entire KIPPURIM ceremony could be
understood
as symbolic, for it reflects the nature of the Divine
encounter which takes place in the Mishkan. Performing
this
procedure teaches Bnei Yisrael that encountering the
SHCHINA
requires not only preparation and readiness, but also
protection from its consequences.
     To support this interpretation, lets examine yet
another
vessel in the Mishkan that requires yearly "kapara" -
the
"mizbach ha'ketoret"!

THE MIZBACH KETORET
     The word KIPPURIM is mentioned once again at the
end of
Parshat Tzaveh, when the MIZBACH KETORET [the incense
alter]
is first introduced (see Shmot 30:1-10). Here, to our
surprise, we find the first reference in Chumash to the
day of
YOM KIPPUR itself!:
  "v'CHI'PER Aharon al kar'no'tav  - Aharon must KAPARA
  [sprinkle blood] on its corners ONCE A YEAR from the
blood
  of the CHATAT HA'KIPURIM. Once a year y'CHA'PER a'lav
- he
  must do KAPARA on it..."  (Shmot 30:10)

     Even though the Torah (here) only tells us that
this
special procedure must be performed once a year, later
on, in
Parshat Acharei Mot (see Vayikra 16:1-34) we find the
complete
details of this CHATAT HA'KIPPURIM, including the
precise date
when this procedure must be performed - i.e. the tenth
day of
the SEVENTH month.  [See also Bamidbar 29:11.]
     In our study of Parshiot Trumah/Tzaveh, we noted
two
aspects are unique to this MIZBACH KETORET:
  1) It is the only vessel which requires this special
CHATAT
  KIPPURIM.
    [Note: In Acharei Mot we see that also the PAROCHET
and
    KAPORET need to be sprinkled with the blood of the
CHATAT
    HA'KIPPURIM, however it is not mentioned in Sefer
Shmot.]

  2) It is LEFT OUT of the primary presentation of the
Mishkan
  and its vessels.
    [Scan Shmot chapters 25->29/ note that 25:8 and
29:44
    form 'bookends' which include almost all the vessels
of
    the Mishkan, except for the mizbach ktoret which is
left
    out until the very end (30:1-10/ note that this ends
the
    "dibur" which began in 25:1). See previous shiur on
    Parshat Tzaveh.]

     Once again, the meaning of the shoresh k.p.r. as
protection can help us understand why. The ANAN KTORET
(cloud
of smoke created when burning the ktoret) in the Ohel
Moed
acts as a BUFFER between the SHCHINA in the Kodesh
Kdoshim and
the MIZBAYACH in the AZARA (courtyard), thus protecting
Bnei
Yisrael. [Note parallel to the ANAN on Har Sinai. Note
"vayered Hashem b'ANAN..." (see Shmot 34:5)]
     Because the MIZBACH KETORET protects Bnei Yisrael
each
day when the ktoret is offered, it requires a yearly
CHATAT
HA'KIPPURIM!

YOM HA'SHMINI - THE 8th Day DEDICATION CEREMONY
     An additional link between Yom Kippur and our
interpretation of "kapara" can be found by examining the
korbanot of the YOM HA'SHMINI ceremony (the eighth day/
read
Vayikra 9:1-24), the first day in which the MISHKAN
began to
function.
     Once again, special korbanot are offered for the
purpose
of "kapara". From the psukim describing these korbanot,
one
could suggest that this KAPARA is necessary to protect
Bnei
Yisrael from the SHCHINA which is to appear on this day:
  "This is the procedure which you must do, and God's
glory
  (KVOD HASHEM) will appear unto you... Go near the
mizbayach
  and offer you chatat and olah - v'CHA'PER - on your
behalf
  and on the behalf of the people..."( 9:6-7)

     It should come as no surprise that the korbanot
offered
at that inauguration ceremony are almost identical to
the
korbanot offered yearly on YOM KIPPUR. In each ceremony,
there
is a special chatat & olah offered both by AHARON and by
the
PEOPLE. The following table summarizes this parallel
between
Vayikra 9:1-3 and 16:1-5:

         YOM HA'SHMINI        YOM KIPPUR      NOTE
          ============	      ==========      ====

AHARON
  Chatat       Egel*          Par   [An EGEL is a baby
PAR]
  Olah         Ayil           Ayil

AM YISRAEL
  Chatat       Seir           Seir
  Olah    Egel + Keves        Ayil   [A Keves is baby
Ayil]

     In each case Aharon offers a PAR CHATAT and AYIL
OLAH (an
EGEL is simply a baby PAR/ this change most probably
relates
to chet ha'egel). Likewise, Am Yisrael offers a SEIR
CHATAT
and AYIL OLAH (a keves is a baby ayil). Despite these
minor
differences, they are basically the same type of korban.
     [See article by Rav Yoel Bin Nun in Megadim Vol.
#8]

YOM KIPPUR - A YEARLY "YOM HA'SHMINI"
     The above parallel indicates that Yom Kippur can be
considered as a 'yearly repetition of the korbanot of
the
Mishkan's inauguration ceremony on YOM HA'SHMINI.
     This parallel underscores the very nature of YOM
KIPPUR.
It suggests that the primary purpose of the "avodat
Kohen
Gadol" is to PREPARE the Mikdash for the FORTHCOMING
year,
just as the korbanot of YOM HA'SHMINI prepared the
Mishkan for
its original use.
  Likewise, the "kapara" can be understood in a similar
fashion. Once a year, it is necessary to perform a
procedure
that will PROTECT Am Yisrael from the consequences of
HITGALUT
SHCHINA. This KAPARA process, which enables Bnei
Yisrael's
encounter with the SHCHINA in the MISHKAN, must be
'renewed'
once a year.
     In fact, Parshat Acharei Mot may allude to this
very
concept in the pasuk which completes the commandment to
sprinkle the blood on the KAPORET:
  "v'CHI'PER - And he [the kohen] shall do KAPARA
[sprinkling
  the blood] on the KODESH, from the uncleanliness of
Bnei
  Yisrael... and thus he must do to the Ohel Moed -
ha'SHOCHEN
  iy'tam - He who dwells among them, EVEN WHILE THEY ARE
  'TAMEY' [spiritually unclean]..." (Vayikra 16:16)

     EVEN THOUGH Am Yisrael may become TAMEY (due to
their
sins), the SHCHINAH can remain in their midst!  However,
Bnei
Yisrael still require KAPARA - to PROTECT them from the
SHCHINA and its consequences.
  [Note: See Vayikra 18:24-27 in regard to the
relationship
  between TUMAH & sin.]

ATONEMENT or PROTECTION
     In Sefer Shmot we find an additional use of the
shoresh
k.p.r. when Moshe ascends Har Sinai to ask God to
forgive Bnei
Yisrael for their sin at chet ha'egel:
  "And Moshe told the people, you have committed a
terrible
  sin, and now I will go up to God, possibly - A'CHAPRA
[I can
  achieve KAPARA] - for your sins." (Shmot 32:30)

     When reading this pasuk, we usually understand
A'CHAPRA
as asking for forgiveness. However, one could understand
that
Moshe is asking God to PROTECT Bnei Yisrael from the
punishment which they deserve. Undoubtedly, this
protection
from punishment leads to ultimate forgiveness. This
explains
why later in Chumash, the word "chapara" may actually
imply
forgiveness.
     The classic example is found in Parshat Vayikra in
relation to the korban CHATAT & ASHAM (4:1-5:26). Note
that
each type of korban concludes with the phrase:
     "v'CHI'PER alav ha'Kohen, v'NIS'LACH lo..."
          (see Vayikra 4:20,26,31,35; 5:10,13,18,26)

     Based on our understanding of k.p.r. one could
suggest
that the sprinkling of the blood (the technical
"kapara") by
the kohen PROTECTS the owner of the korban from his due
punishment for his transgression (the conceptual
"kapara").
Then - v'NISLACH lo - God forgives him for that sin.
Thus, the
KAPARA 'process' enables the SLICHA 'effect'.

WHY ON THE 10th of TISHREI
     Although we have explained the necessity of
offering a
yearly CHATAT KIPPURIM in the Mishkan, we have not
explained
why it must be performed on the tenth of Tishrei. In
fact,
based on the parallel to YOM HA'SHMINI, the first of
Nisan
would seem to be a more logical date!
     Most probably this date was chosen for a historical
reason. On the tenth of Tishrei, Bnei Yisrael received
the
SECOND LUCHOT and were thus forgiven for chet ha'egel.
Due to
God's attributes of Mercy - the 13 MIDOT HA'RACHAMIM,
God
agreed to allow His SHCHINA to remain with Am Yisrael,
EVEN
THOUGH they may not be worthy. [See Shmot 34:9, and
shiur on
the 13 MIDOT.]
     On the anniversary of this event, the day on which
Bnei
Yisrael received the Torah at the level which they can
maintain, we re-enact Ma'amad Har Sinai for it is a day
of
HITGALUT SHCHINA. Just like Moshe Rabeinu, we can
neither eat
nor drink (Dvarim 9:9), nor wear shoes (see Shmot 3:5).
In
this manner, we also prepare ourselves for this awesome
day
(See Yoma 2a).
     However, specifically BECAUSE this is a day of
HITGALUT,
Bnei Yisrael require PROTECTION from the SHCHINA.
Therefore,
the CHATAT HA'KIPPURIM must be offered, for we are privy
to a
relationship which we may not deserve. It is this
HITGALUT
which enables the forgiveness of our sins on this day,
just as
it enabled the forgiveness of chet ha'egel several
thousand
year ago.

YOM KIPPUR
     True atonement is accomplished only by teshuva.
However,
YOM KIPPUR allows for the special relationship between
God and
Am Yisrael to continue. By understanding the protective
nature
of the AVODAT YOM KIPPUR by the Kohen Gadol, we can
better
appreciate God's CHESED (kindness) in allowing us this
special
relationship, even though we may not deserve it. That
understanding should encourage us not only to take
advantage
of the opportunity for atonement on this special day,
but also
to grasp any opportunity for spiritual growth during the
course of the year to come.
     "Yhi ratzon" that God should enact His MIDOT
HA'RACHAMIM
on this Yom Kippur, and enable us to meet the many
challenges
that face our Nation this coming year.

                    gemar chatima tova,
                    menachem


FOR FURTHER IYUN
=================

A. Note that the parsha describing YOM KIPPUR in Chumash
is
presented in relation to the death of Nadav an Avihu
which
took place during that inauguration ceremony on YOM
HA'SHMINI/
See 10:1-4, and relate to 16:1.
1. Based on the above shiur, why do you think Nadav and
Avihu
thought it necessary to offer specifically ktoret, and
specifically when they saw HITGALUT?
2. Were they wrong? If not, why were they punished?
3. Is there any other case in Chumash where ktoret is
offered
to protect Bnei Yisrael from punishment?

B. Note that on Yom HaShmini, also a Korban Shlamim was
offered (see Vayikra 9:3-4)
1. Why is this korban not offered on Yom Kippur?
2. Can you relate this question to why the tzibur brings
a
korban shlamim davka, and only, on Shavuot (see shtei
ha'lechem in Parshat Emor /see also previous shiur on
Shavuot!)

C.   Based on our shiur on Rosh Hashana, one could
suggest an
additional reason why this procedure in necessary in the
SEVENTH month. After we request that God show His
Providence
over us on Rosh Hashana. If we ask for His special
HASHGACHA
on the land and the rainfall, we must be ready for its
consequences.
1. Relate this to last week's shiur on Rosh Hashana and
the
nature of all CHAGEI TISHREI.

D. Sefer Shmot never states the specific day in which
the
SECOND LUCHOT were given. Read Devarim 9:8-10:11 to
understand
how Chazal reach the conclusion that it took place on 10
Tishrei.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1710 -
Release Date: 10/6/2008 9:23 AM
 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kip1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 39575 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081006/f909a778/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Oct  6 09:29:13 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 09:29:13 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] for Yom Kippur & Selichot - 13 midot ha'rachaim
Message-ID: <389C50E27E774C82952E1507F2B4EDED@x60>

A version of the following shiur in power point is
available at
   www.tanach.org/special/13mid.ppt

a audio version of this shiur is also available at
www.tanach.org/audio/13midSk.mp3


********************************************************
****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
****

               GOD'S THIRTEEN MIDDOT HA-RACHAMIM

           for SELICHOT, ROSH HA'SHANA & YOM KIPPUR

     Our recitation of the thirteen 'middot ha-rachamim'
[God's thirteen attributes of mercy] is certainly the
focal
point of the 'selichot' prayers and the highlight of
'ne'ila'
on Yom Kippur.  But how are we to understand this
recitation?
Is it a 'hokus pokus' type magic formula through which
one can
achieve automatic atonement?
     In the following shiur, we attempt to prove quite
the
opposite.  By undertaking a comprehensive analysis of
when and
why God first declared these middot (in the aftermath of
'chet
ha-egel'), we will show how their recitation relates to
the
very essence of 'tefilla' [prayer] and our special
relationship with God.
     Our conclusions will also help us appreciate the
transition from Rosh Ha'shana to Yom Kippur; as the
focus of
our prayers shifts from 'din' [judgement] to 'rachamim'
[mercy].

INTRODUCTION - FROM CREATION TO COVENANT
     When we speak of 'attributes' [middot] in relation
to
people, we usually find that they are not absolute.  For
example, the same person can be a loving, kind, and
merciful
father, while at work he can be a strict, demanding, and
uncompromising boss over his employees.  The reason why
is
quite simple - attributes are often a function of a
relationship.  So too, we posit in relationship to God.
Should we find that God exhibits different attributes -
it may
stem from the very nature of His relationship with man.
     In our daily lives, we are all familiar with the
complexity of relationships, no less so is the nature of
our
relationship with God.  In fact, from a certain
perspective,
we could consider Chumash as the story of the
development of
the special relationship that forges between God and the
people of Israel.
     Therefore, we begin our shiur by tracing that
relationship from its very inception, while paying
careful
attention to how the concept of covenant evolves from
Sefer
Breishit to Sefer Shmot.

BRITOT IN SEFER BREISHIT
     Recall from our study of Sefer Breishit how Gan
Eden
reflected an ideal (intense) relationship between man
and God.
However, due to man's sin, that relationship became
tainted
and Adam and Eve were banished from that garden.
     Despite this banishment, God continued His
relationship
with mankind, but at a more distant level.  Therefore,
when
Adam's offspring developed into a totally corrupt
society, God
found it necessary to destroy that society with a Flood
[i.e.
the mabul], saving only Noach and his family.
     After the mabul, God's relationship with mankind
entered
a new stage, reflected by God's covenant with Noach
('brit ha-
keshet' / see 9:8-16).  Note that for the first time, we
find
a brit between God and mankind, a concept that will be
found
later as well in God's relationship with Am Yisrael.
     God's hopes for the generation of Noach's offspring
were
shattered by the events at Migdal Bavel (see 11:1-9).
In the
aftermath of these various 'failures' of mankind, Sefer
Breishit shifted it focus to the story of how God chose
Avraham Avinu to become the forefather of His special
nation,
whose goal would be to steer mankind back in the proper
direction (see 12:1-8, 15:1-20, 17:7-8, 18:17-19 etc.).
     As those events unfold, we find once again, how
this
evolving relationship is defined by various britot
[covenants]
between God and Avraham; the classic examples being: -
brit
bein ha-btarim (see 15:18) and brit mila (see 17:7-8) -
or
what is commonly referred to as 'brit avot'.
  [For a more complete explanation, see Seforno in his
  introduction to Sefer Breishit, see also TSC shiurim
on
  Parshiot Noach & Lech Lecha.  See also the
introductory
  section of the piyut 'Amitz koach', which describes
the
  avodat kohen gadol (that 'nusach ashkenaz' uses for
  Mussaf on Yom Kippur).  It is not by chance that its
  author begins that piyut with the story of Creation
from
  a similar perspective.]

FROM BRIT AVOT TO BRIT SINAI
     Sefer Shmot begins as God redeems Bnei Yisrael from
their
bondage in Egypt, as He promised Avraham Avinu in brit
bein ha-
btarim.  But according to that covenant, Bnei Yisrael
were
also destined to inherit the Land of Israel (after their
redemption), thus fulfilling brit avot.
     However, to enhance the very purpose of brit avot,
God
convenes an additional covenant with Bnei Yisrael at Har
Sinai, before they enter the land.  According to this
covenant
[often referred to as 'brit Sinai'), not only will Bnei
Yisrael become a 'great' nation (see Breishit 12:1-3),
they
are to become a holy nation - a 'goy kadosh' (see Shmot
19:6).
     To appreciate this 'upgrade', let's take a closer
look at
God's proposal to Bnei Yisrael, upon their arrival at
Har
Sinai:
  "[God summons Moshe and proposes:] 'You have seen what
I
  did to Egypt... and now I have brought you to Me.
  * Now then, if you will obey Me faithfully and keep My
  brit, and you will be My segula...
  * Then you shall become for Me a kingdom of priests
and a
  goy kadosh [holy nation], speak these words to Bnei
  Yisrael"  (see Shmot 19:4-6).
  
     Note how this proposal describes a 'two sided'
deal;
hence a covenant - a brit.  By accepting and keeping
God's
special commandments, Am Yisrael becomes a goy kadosh -
a holy
nation - and hence a 'kingdom of priests', thus
representing
God as His special nation.
  [Just as within Am Yisrael the kohen serves as the
  representative of God for the twelve tribes - on a
  universal level, the nation of Israel serves as God's
  representative, by acting as a model nation for other
  nations to follow.  (See Ramban on Devarim 32:26!)]

     Upon their acceptance of this proposal (see
19:7-8), the
next step will be to receive the laws [mitzvot] that
will make
them a goy kadosh.  Hence, Bnei Yisrael are instructed
to
prepare themselves for this special occasion (see
19:9-25),
better known as Ma'amad Har Sinai, where they will
receive the
first set of laws, better known as the 'Ten
Commandments' (see
20:1-15).

THE FIRST COVENANT - BRIT MA'AMAD HAR SINAI
     This backdrop can help us appreciate why the Torah
refers
to the Ten Commandments (and the mitzvot which follow)
as a
covenant (between God and Bnei Yisrael).  For example,
recall
the opening statement of Moshe Rabbeinu's main speech of
Sefer
Devarim (that begins with the Ten Commandments):
  "The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Chorev.
Not
  [only] with our forefathers did God make this
covenant,
  but rather with us..."  (see Devarim 5:2-6)
  
     This also explains the need for the covenantal
ceremony
that takes place at Ma'amad Har Sinai, as described in
the
closing section of Parshat Mishpatim (see 24:3-11),
where Bnei
Yisrael declare their acceptance of these laws.  Note as
well
how the Torah's refers to these laws as 'sefer ha-brit':
  "And Moshe took the sefer ha-brit and read it to the
  people, whereupon they declared: All that God has
  commanded we will do and listen [na'aseh ve-nishma].
  Then Moshe took the blood and sprinkled it on the
people,
  saying: Behold this is the blood of the covenant ['dam
ha-
  brit'] between you and God concerning these laws..."
  (Shmot 24:7-8, note context from 24:3-7).
Therefore, as a testimony of this covenant, Moshe
ascends Har
Sinai to receive the 'luchot' (see 24:12-13); later
referred
to as 'luchot ha-eidut' (see Shmot 31:18) and 'luchot
ha-brit'
(see Devarim 9:9-11).
  With this background, we can begin our shiur.

'COMMANDMENTS' or 'STATEMENTS'
     Thus far, we have shown how brit Sinai is more than
just
a 'list of laws'.  Rather, it reflects a special
relationship
between God and His people.  Furthermore, a covenant by
its
very nature is a two-sided deal.  Therefore, it includes
not
only laws and conditions, but also the consequences
should one
side break these laws.  [Ask your lawyer, it's in every
legal
contract!]
     And this is precisely what we find in the Ten
Commandments.  To your surprise, in addition to the
laws, the
Ten Commandments also describe how God will reward (or
punish)
those who obey (or disobey) His commandments.
  [Note that the popular translation of the 'aseret ha-
  dibrot' as the Ten commandments can be misleading.
  Dibrot means 'statements' - and these statements
includes
  both laws and their consequences!]

GOD's MIDDOT IN THE FIRST LUCHOT
     With this in mind, let's take a closer look at the
opening section of the Ten Commandments, to see how God
threatens to react, should one break this covenant.  In
our
selective quote, we will take note (in CAPS) of any
phrase
that indicates a specific divine attribute [MIDDA]:
     "I am the Lord your God...
     You shall have no other gods besides Me...
  Do not bow down to them or worship them, for I the
Lord
  am a:
   KEL KANA - a ZEALOUS God

   POKED AVON AVOT AL BANIM ?
    REMEMBERING THE SIN of parents upon their
children...
    [LE-SON'AI] - for those who reject Me, but

   OSEH CHESED - SHOWING KINDNESS...
    for those who love me and follow my laws -
    [LE-OHAVAI u-leshomrei mitzvotai]"
                     (See 20:2-6).

     Note how the second Commandment includes three
attributes
concerning our relationship with God:
     1) KEL KANA - a zealous God
     2) POKED AVON AVOT AL BANIM - LE-SON'AI
          HARSH punishment for those who reject God
     3) O'SEH CHESED LA-ALAFIM - LE-OHAVAI
          Kindness & reward for those follow God.

     Similarly, in the third Commandment, we find yet
another
MIDDA [divine attribute]:
  "Do not say in vain the NAME of God - ki LO YENAKEH
  HASHEM - for God will NOT FORGIVE he who says his Name
in
  vain." (20:7)

    Let's add this fourth attribute to the above list:
       4) LO YENAKEH HASHEM - He will not forgive

     How should we consider these four attributes?  At
first
glance, most of them seem to be quite harsh!
     Even the MIDDA of - OSEH CHESED - Divine kindness,
does
not necessarily imply MERCY.  Carefully note in 20:6
that God
promises this kindness only for those who follow Him,
and
hence not for any others.
  Most definitely, all four of these attributes are
quite the
opposite of mercy; they are: middot ha-din - attributes
of
exacting retribution.

     Although these middot do have their 'down side',
for they
threaten immediate punishment for those who transgress
('le-
son'a"), they also have their 'up side', for they assure
immediate reward for those who obey (le-ohavai).
  In other words, these middot describe a very intense
relationship, quite similar [and not by chance] to God's
relationship with man in Gan Eden (see Breishit
2:16-17).

MORE MIDDOT HA-DIN
     Yet another example of this intense relationship,
and yet
another attribute, is found at the conclusion of the
unit of
laws in Parshat Mishpatim.  Recall that immediately
after the
Ten Commandments, Moshe was summoned to Har Sinai to
receive a
special set commandment to relay to Bnei Yisrael (see
Shmot
20:15-19).  At the conclusion of those laws, God makes
the
following promise:
  "Behold, I am sending an angel before you to guard you
on
  the way and help bring you into the Promised Land.
    Be careful of him and obey him, Do not defy him -
  ki lo yisa le-fish'eichem
    for he shall not pardon your sins -,
        since My Name is with him...
       [On the other hand...]
  "...should you obey Him and do all that I say - I will
  help you defeat your enemies..".  (see Shmot
23:20-24).

     Once again, we find that God will exact punishment
should
Bnei Yisrael not follow His mitzvot and reward (i.e.
assistance in conquering the Land) should they obey Him.
  This midda of 'lo yisa le-fish'eichem' is first
presented as
that of the mal'ach [angel?] of God.  However; based on
the
context of these psukim, it seems rather clear that
God's
intention is for this mal'ach to be Moshe Rabbeinu - for
He
will speak to the people on behalf of God and lead them
to the
Land, and God's Name is with him.  Hence we can consider
it an
attribute of God, by which Moshe - as God's emissary -
must
relate to the people.

     A final example of this harsh nature of brit Sinai
is
found in the Torah's account of the aftermath of Bnei
Yisrael's sin with the golden calf [chet ha-egel].
Because
the people had agreed to these harsh terms of brit
Sinai, we
find how God intends to punish them precisely according
to
these attributes of middat ha-din:
  "And God told Moshe, go down from the mountain for
your
  people has sinned... they made a golden image... and
now
  allow Me, and I will kindle my anger against them that
I
  may destroy them -ve-yichar api bahem..." (see Shmot
32:7-
  10; see also Shmot 22:23!).
    [Note also that the story of chet ha-egel is a
direct
    continuation of the narrative which ended in Parshat
    Mishpatim when Moshe went up to receive the luchot.
    Note how 24:12-16 flows directly to 32:1 in Parshat
    Ki Tisa!]

     Here we find yet another divine attribute - CHARON
AF
HASHEM - God's instant anger.

     Before we continue, let's summarize these six
attributes
that we have found thus far.  Later, this list will be
very
helpful when we compare these middot to God's middot in
the
second luchot.

     1) KEL KANA
     2) POKED AVON... LE-SON'AI
     3) OSEH CHESED... LE-OHAVAI
     4) LO YENAKEH
     5) LO YISAH LE-FISH'EICHEM...
     6) CHARON AF

CHET HA-EGEL / THE COVENANT IS BROKEN
     According to these terms of the covenant at matan
Torah,
now symbolized by the first luchot (and as we just read
in
32:7-10), Bnei Yisrael should have been punished
immediately
and harshly for the sin of chet ha-egel (32:8).
However,
Moshe Rabbeinu intervenes.  In his famous prayer (see
32:11-
14), he reminds God of the potential 'chillul Hashem' as
well
as brit avot - which God promised Avraham Avinu would
never be
broken.
     God accepted Moshe's prayer (which forestalled
their
immediate punishment), but according to the terms of the
'contract' of brit Sinai - those who sinned at chet
ha-egel
still required some sort of punishment.
  How could they be saved?  At first it seemed as though
there
was only one answer: brit Sinai had to be annulled!
  
THE LUCHOT ARE BROKEN
  This need to annul brit Sinai - in order to save Bnei
Yisrael from punishment - may explain Moshe's decision
to
break the luchot, as they constituted the symbol of that
covenant.  In other words, when Moshe Rabbeinu descended
from
the mountain and saw the people dancing around the
Golden
Calf, he realized that to save Bnei Yisrael from
immediate
punishment he would need to break the luchot, and hence
the
terms of that covenant (see 32:15-20)!
  [See also Masechet Shabbat 87a ?"'asher shibarta?'
(34:1)-
  yishar koach asher shibarta?, where the Midrash
praises
  Moshe for breaking the luchot.]
  
     To prove that brit Sinai has been broken, we must
follow
the story that ensues.
     After the 3000 'troublemakers' are punished (see
32:24-
29), Moshe begs that God forgive Bnei Yisrael for their
sin
  "Then Moshe told the people: You have committed a
terrible
  sin, and now I will approach God - possibly He will
forgive
  you for your sin..." (see 32:30-32).

  However, God seems to have rejected Moshe's eloquent
request
for forgiveness (see 32:33).  Instead, God informs Moshe
that
the nation will be punished, but not immediately -
rather only
after Moshe will lead them to the Promised Land:
  "And now - go lead the people [to the Land of
Israel]...
  u-beyom pokdi u-pakadti...  - and on the day that I
  choose to punish - I will punish them for their sins"
  (see 32:34!).
  
  God's 'negative' response to Moshe's request leaves us
with
the impression that indeed He will fulfill brit avot -
thus
assuring that the nation will enter the Land of Israel;
however, sooner or later they will be punished for their
sins.
     In the next set of psukim, God explains more
explicitly
how brit avot will be fulfilled, but also hints to the
inevitable conclusion that brit Sinai has been broken:
  "And God said to Moshe - Set out from here, you and
the
  people that you have brought out of Egypt to the Land
  that I swore to Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov (brit
  avot)...
    but I will not go in your midst for you are a stiff-
  necked people, lest I destroy you on the journey"
              (see 33:1-3).

     In contrast to God's original promise that He will
send a
mal'ach with His name in their midst ['shmi be-kirbo' /
see
23:20-23], now God states emphatically that He will no
longer
be with them - 'ki lo a'aleh be-kirbecha' (see 33:3).
Due to
the events of chet ha-egel, Bnei Yisrael had proven
themselves
unworthy of the special intense relationship of brit
Sinai.
Hence, by bringing them to the Promised Land, God will
fulfill
His promise in brit avot for Am Yisrael to become a 'goy
gadol' (see Breishit 12:3) - however, His aspiration
(from
brit Sinai) for Am Yisrael to become a goy kadosh - has
been
shattered!
     Proof that brit Sinai has been broken is found in
God's
next commandment that Bnei Yisrael must remove 'their
jewelry'
that they received on Har Sinai, undoubtedly the symbol
of the
high level they reached at matan Torah (see 33:5-6).
Similarly, God's instruction that Moshe must now move
his own
tent away from the camp - so that God can remain in
contact
with him, also reflects the fact that God has taken away
His
Shchina from their midst.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
     If you carefully follow this narrative in Chumash,
a very
strange predicament has arisen (that often goes
unnoticed).
Even though Bnei Yisrael will not be destroyed (thanks
to brit
avot), God instructs Moshe to continue on to Eretz
Canaan
without brit Sinai.
     As unthinkable as this may sound, God's decision is
very
logical.  Considering His conclusion that Bnei Yisrael
are an
'am ksheh oref' - a stiff necked people (see 32:9, 33:5
and
TSC shiur on Parshat Ki Tisa), and hence will not change
their
ways, there appears to be no other solution.  After all,
should He keep His Shchina in their midst, Bnei Yisrael
would
not be able to survive (see Shmot 33:5!).
     Fortunately for Am Yisrael, Moshe Rabbeinu is not
willing
to accept God's decision.  As we will see, his argument
will
set the stage for God's declaration of His middot
ha-rachamim.

A GOOD LAWYER
     At this point, Moshe Rabbeinu intervenes.  Let's
take a
careful look at his petition; noting how he demands that
God
keep His Presence [Shchina] with them, threatening a
'sit down
strike' should God refuse:
  "And Moshe beseeched God: 'Look, you have instructed
me
  to lead this people... but recognize that this nation
is
  Your people!
  God answered: I will lead [only] you.  But Moshe
  insisted: 'Im ein panecha holchim al ta'aleinu mi-zeh'
-
  Unless Your presence will go with us do not make us
leave
  this place.  For how should it be known that Your
people
  have gained Your favor unless You go with us..."
(33:12-
  16).
    [These psukim are quite difficult to translate, I
    recommend that you read the entire section inside.]
     Moshe's refusal leaves God ['kivyachol'] in a most
difficult predicament.  On the one hand, He cannot allow
His
Shchina to return - for according to the terms of brit
Sinai -
an am ksheh oref (Am Yisrael's level) could not survive
His
anger, and would eventually be killed.
     On the other hand, He cannot leave them in the
desert (as
Moshe now threatens), for brit avot must be fulfilled!
     But, He cannot take them to the land, for Moshe is
not
willing to lead them unless He returns His Shchina.
     Something has to budge!  But what will it be?
     It is precisely here, in the resolution of this
dilemma,
where God's 13 middot ha-rachamim enter into the
picture.

A NEW COVENANT
     Let's take a closer look now at God's response to
Moshe's
request.  Note that here is the first time in Chumash
where
God introduces the concept of divine mercy:
  "And God said to Moshe, 'I will also do this thing
that
  you request... [to return His Shchina / Moshe then
asked
  that God show His Glory -] then God answered: ' I will
  pass all my goodness before you, and I will proclaim
My
  Name before you, and I will pardon he whom I will
pardon
  and I will have mercy on he to whom I give mercy (ve-
  chanoti et asher achon, ve-richamti et asher
arachem)..."
  (see 33:17-22).

     The possibility of 'divine pardon' will now allow
God's
Shchina to return.  God now agrees to allow Bnei Yisrael
a
'second chance' even should they sin.  With this
promise, the
stage is set for the forging of a new covenant though
which
brit Sinai can be re-established, but according to these
new
terms.
     Hence, God instructs Moshe to ascend Har Sinai one
more
time, in a manner quite parallel to his first ascent to
Har
Sinai [but with significant minor differences], to
receive the
second luchot (see 34:1-5 and its parallel in Shmot
19:20-24).
     As we should expect, the laws should and do remain
the
same.  However, their terms must now be amended with
God's
attributes of mercy.  Hence, when Moshe now ascends Har
Sinai,
it is not necessary for God to repeat the laws of the
Ten
Commandment, for they remain the same.  Instead, this
time
when God descends upon Har Sinai, the new luchot will be
presented together with His proclamation of an important
amendment to brit Sinai - i.e. His attributes of mercy.
     Just as God had promised Moshe (see 33:19!), a new
covenant, reflecting this enhanced relationship, is now
forged:
  "And God came down in a cloud...& passed before him
and
  proclaimed: ' Hashem, Hashem Kel rachum ve-chanun,
erech
  apayim ve-rav chesed ve-emet, notzer chesed
la-alafim..."
  (see 34:5-8).

THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE ATTRIBUTES
     With this background, we can now better appreciate
the
Torah's choice of words that describe these middot ha-
rachamim.
     Recall the six phrases that reflected middat ha-din
that
we found in our study of brit Sinai (in the beginning of
our
shiur).  Now, as we compare them, we will notice that
each new
attribute relates directly to one of these original
attributes
of din from the first covenant.
     The following table (study it carefully), followed
by a
more detailed explanation, explains this rather amazing
parallel:

   FIRST LUCHOT               SECOND LUCHOT
   ============               ===============
1) Kel KANA                  Kel RACHUM VE-CHANUN
2) POKED AVON..le-SONEI      POKED AVON AVOT AL BANIM..
3) OSEH chesed la-alafim     RAV chesed ve-emet
         ... le-OHAVAI       NOTZER chesed l'alafim...
4) LO YENAKEH                VE-NAKEH, lo yenakeh
5) LO YISA le-fish'eichem    NOSEI AVON VA-FESHA...
6) CHARON AF                 ERECH APAYIM

     Note how each attribute from the original covenant
switches from middat ha-din to middat ha-rachamim.  [To
appreciate this parallel, it is important to follow
these
psukim in the original Hebrew.]    Let's take now a
closer
look:

A.  HASHEM KEL RACHUM VE-CHANUN
     --> (1) HASHEM KEL KANA
          rachum ve-chanun based on 33:19 (see above)
          a merciful God in contrast to a zealous God

B.  ERECH APAYIM  -->  (6) CHARON AF
          slow to anger in contrast to instant anger

C.  RAV CHESED VE-EMET  -->  (3) OSEH CHESED...
LE-OHAVAI
     abounding kindness for all, potentially even for
the wicked
        [This may allow the possibility of 'rasha ve-tov
lo']
  in contrast to exacting kindness, and hence, limited
  exclusively to those who obey Him.
    [Note that the midda of 'emet' is now required, for
this
    abounding kindness for all must be complemented by
the
    attribute of truth to assure ultimate justice.]

D.  NOTZER CHESED LA-ALAFIM
      -->  (3) OSEH CHESED LA-ALAFIM... LE-OHAVAI
     He stores His kindness, so that even if it is not
rewarded immediately, it is stored to be given at a
later
time.
     [This may allow the possibility of 'tzaddik ve-ra
lo']
  in contrast to immediate kindness and reward for those
  who follow Him.

E.  NOSEI AVON VA-FESHA... --> (5) LO YISA
LE-FISH'EICHEM
          forgiving sin in contrast to not forgiving
sin.

F.  VE-NAKEH, LO YENAKEH   --> (4) LO YENAKEH
        sometimes He will forgive, sometimes He may not.
          [See Rashi, forgives those who perform
teshuva.]
        in contrast to never forgiving.

G. POKED AVON AVOT AL BANIM...
      --> (2) POKED AVON le-son'ai
  He withholds punishment for up to four generations
                    [in anticipation of teshuva / see
Rashi]
in contrast to extending punishment for up to four
generations.
  [Even though these two phrases are almost identical,
  their context forces us to interpret each pasuk
  differently.  In the first luchot, all four
generations
  are punished, in the second luchot, God may hold back
  punishment for four generations, allowing a chance for
  teshuva.  See Rashi.]

     These striking parallels demonstrate that each of
the new
middot lies in direct contrast to God's middot in His
original
covenant at Har Sinai.
     Now we can return to Chumash to see how Moshe's
immediate
reaction to this proclamation reflects his original
request
that God keep His Shchina with the people
  "And Moshe hastened to bow down and said: 'If I have
  indeed gained favor in Your eyes - let Hashem go in
our
  midst - 'ki' = even though they are an am ksheh oref
-a
  stiff necked people, and you shall pardon our sin..."
  (34:8-9).

     Note how Moshe's request that God return His
Shchina to
the people even though they are an am ksheh oref is in
direct
contrast to God's original threat that "He will not go
up with
them because they are a stiff necked people, less He
smite
them on their journey..." (see 33:3 / compare with
34:9)!

     Once these new terms are established, allowing
God's
Shchina to remain even though Bnei Yisrael may sin,
Moshe begs
that God indeed return to be with His nation (as he
requested
in 33:12-16).
     These Divine attributes of mercy now allow the
Shchina to
dwell within Yisrael even though they may not be worthy.
     From a certain perspective, this entire sequence is
quite
understandable.  For on the one hand, to be worthy of
God's
presence, man must behave perfectly.  However, man is
still
human.  Although he may strive to perfection, he may
often
error or at times even sin.  How, then, can man ever
come
close to God?  Hence, to allow mortal man the potential
to
continue a relationship with God, a new set of rules is
necessary - one that includes middot ha-rachamim.
     The original terms of brit Sinai, although ideal,
are not
practical.  Therefore, God's middot ha-rachamim are
necessary
to allow brit Sinai to become achievable.
     In this manner, middot ha-rachamim can be
understood as
God's kindness that allows man to approach Him and
develop a
closer relationship without the necessity of immediate
punishment for any transgression.

SELICHOT
     This explanation adds extra meaning to our
comprehension
and appreciation of our recitation of the Selichot.
Reciting
the 13 middot comprises more than just a mystical
formula.  It
is a constant reminder of the conditions of the covenant
of
the second luchot.
  God's attributes of mercy, as we have shown, do not
guarantee automatic forgiveness, rather, they enable the
possibility of forgiveness.  As the pasuk stated, God
will
forgive only he whom He chooses ('et asher achon...
ve-et
asher arachem' / 33:19).  To be worthy of that mercy,
the
individual must prove his sincerity to God, while
accepting
upon himself not to repeat his bad ways.
     Thus, our recitation of the 13 middot serves as a
double
reminder:
  1) Not to 'give up' in our strive towards holiness,
for
      indeed  middot ha-rachamim allow us to come close.
Yet,
      at the same time:
  2) To recognize that Divine mercy is not automatic.

     This recognition should inspire one who understands
the
terms of this covenant to act in manner by which God
will find
him worthy of Divine mercy.  After we have been judged
on Rosh
Hashana, we ask on Yom Kippur, on the very same day on
which
Bnei Yisrael first received the second luchot - that God
act
according to His attributes of Mercy.  We pray that our
recitation of the 13 middot during Ne'ila should not
only wipe
out sins of the year which has passed, but also set is
in the
proper path of teshuva for the new year which is now
beginning.

                              gmar chatima tova
                              menachem

====================
FOR FURTHER IYUN - shiur on the 13 midot

A.  Immediately after God announces His willingness to
use His
attributes of Mercy in 33:19, we find a very interesting
divine statement that follows:
  "But, He said, you can not see my face ... Station
  yourself on  the Rock as My Presence passes by ... you
  will see my back, but My face must not be seen.  [lo
  tuchal lir'ot panai - ki lo yir'ani ha-adam ve-chai
-...
  ve-Ra'ita et achorai - u-panai lo yira'u.]"  (see
33:20-
  23).

  As the new covenant allows for mercy, the perception
of God
now becomes less clear.  While the first covenant
boasted a
clear relationship of 'panim el panim' (face to face/
see
33:11), this new covenant, even to Moshe, is represented
by a
'face to back' relationship:
  This new level has a clear advantage - middat
ha-rachamim -
however there is still a price to pay - the unclarity of
Hashem's
Hashgacha.  No longer is punishment immediate; however,
reward
may also suffer from delay.  Hashem's Hashgacha becomes
more
complex and now allows apparent situations of tzaddik
ve-ra lo-
rasha ve-tov lo.

1.  See Chazal's explanation of 'hodi'eni na et
drachecha'
(33:12)
     How does this relate to this explanation?

2.  As communication is clearer when talking face to
face with
someone as opposed to talking to someone with his back
turned,
attempt to explain the symbolism of the above psukim.

3.  Why must Moshe Rabbeinu also go down a level in his
nevu'a?

B.  The second luchot are carved by man, and not by God.
Attempt to relate this requirement based on the nature
of the
13 middot.
     Relate this to the mitzva for Bnei Yisrael to build
the
mishkan which follows in Parshat Vayakhel.
  Compare this to the mitzva to begin building a sukka
immediately after Yom Kippur, and in general, why the
holiday
of Sukkot follows Yom Kippur.

C.  After God declares His 13 middot of rachamim
(34:6-9), He
makes a promise (34:10), and then adds some commandments
(34:11-26).
     Are these commandments new, or are they a 'repeat'
of
mitzvot which were given earlier in Parshat Mishpatim?
           [Relate especially to Shmot 23:9-33.]
If so, can you explain why they are being repeated?
  [Hint: Which type of mitzvot from Parshat Mishpatim
are
  not repeated?]
  Relate your answer to the events of chet ha-egel.

D.  In the story of chet ha-egel, we find a classic
example of
a 'mila mancha', i.e. use of the verb 'lir'ot' - to see
[r.a.h.].
     Review chapters 32-34 in this week's Parsha while
paying
attention to this word.  'See' for  yourself if it
points to a
theme.  As you read, pay careful attention to: 32:1,
32:5,
32:9, 32:19, 32:25, 33:10, 33:12-13!, 33:20-23, 34:10,
34:23-
24!, 34:30, and 34:35.  What does it mean when God
'sees'...,
when man 'sees'..., and when man 'sees' (or is seen by)
God?
  Relate also to the use of this verb (r.a.h.) at
Ma'amad Har
Sinai, especially 20:15, 20:19.  See also 19:21, 24:10,
&
Devarim 5:21!
  Could you say that 'seeing is believing'?

     If you had fun with that one, you can also try an
easier
one: the use of the word 'ra'a' [evil / reish.ayin.hey.]
in
32:12-14.
Relate to 32:17, 32:22, 32:25?, 33:4.  Relate to Shmot
10:10;
see Rashi, Ramban, Chizkuni, Rashbam.

E.  Chazal explain that God's original intention was to
create
the world with His attribute of 'din' [judgment], but
after
realizing that it could not survive, He included (in His
creation) the attribute of 'rachamim' [mercy] as well.
  [See Rashi Breishit 1:1 - 'bara Elokim...']

     Relate this to the above shiur.  Would you say that
this
Midrash reflects Sefer Shmot as well as Sefer Breishit.

F.  Note 'kol tuvi' in 33:19.  Relate this to 'va-yar
Elokim
ki tov' mentioned after each stage of creation in
Breishit
chapter 1.
     Can you relate this to the above question and above
shiur?
     See also Rambam Moreh Nevuchim I:54 / second
paragraph.
          [page 84 in Kapach edition Mossad Harav Kook]

G.  Even though it appears as though Bnei Yisrael had
the
choice to either accept or reject this proposal, Chazal
explain in the famous Midrash 'kafa aleihem har
ke-gigit' that
had Bnei Yisrael said no, all creation would have
returned to
'tohu va-vohu'!
     Can you relate this to the above shiur as well?

H.  Note 34:10 'hinei anochi koret brit...' &  34:29-30.
Relate this to why we refer to middot ha-rachamim in
selichot
as 'brit shlosh esrei' .

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1710 -
Release Date: 10/6/2008 9:23 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 13mid.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 62833 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081006/8488464b/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue Oct  7 07:53:24 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 07:53:24 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] for Parshat Haazinu
Message-ID: <FA1CB0F10F02419DB60B5B2903B419FB@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

PARSHAT  HA'AZINU - Part One
The song and its message

	Who's to blame when something goes wrong?
	In regard to tragedy that befalls the people of
Israel, Parshat Ha'azinu offers a very bold, yet
fundamental answer. 
 	In the following shiur, we will study the
introduction to 'shirat Ha'azinu' (found at the end of
Parshat Vayelech) to show how it can help us understand
what that song is 'all about'.  

INTRODUCTION
	Even though the words of shirat Ha'azinu are
quite difficult to translate, its overall theme and
purpose is quite easy to decipher.  To do so, our shiur
will first discuss the interesting introduction to this
'song' - which explains not only its purpose, but also
the important questions that it is supposed to answer.
Then, we will show how the 'shira' follows this theme,
and answers those questions.

THE INTRO IN PARSHAT VAYELECH
	At the conclusion of Parshat Vayelech we find a
new 'parshia' that begins in 31:14.  [Before continuing,
it is recommended that you first quickly review that
entire section, i.e. 31:14-30.]
	This section begins with a rather depressing
prediction, as God summons Moshe and Yehoshua to the
'ohel mo'ed', to inform them that Yehoshua (and whoever
may take leadership afterward) can 'expect the worst':
"And God said to Moshe, you will soon die, but this
nation may thereupon go astray after strange gods of the
land... and they will leave Me and [hence] break My
covenant...  Then [therefore] on that day I will kindle
My anger against them, and I will [appear to] abandon
them, and hide My face from them, and many terrible
things and tragedies will befall them, and they will say
on that day, surely - it is because God is not in our
midst that these evils have befallen us" (see 31:14-17).

	Even though God does not want this to happen, He
appears to be quite sure that this scenario is
inevitable.  [God's experience with Bnei Yisrael over
the last forty years in the desert may have led to this
conclusion.]
	However, the purpose of God's statement is not
simply to depress Moshe and Yehoshua.  Rather, it is to
provide Am Yisrael with the necessary 'tool' that will
help them cope (and properly respond) should such a
situation arise.  To prove this, simply read the next
two psukim, noting how this introduction to the shira
continues:
"And I will hide My face from them, for they have done
evil and turned to other gods.
	Therefore - write down this shira [song] and
teach it to Bnei Yisrael... in order that this poem be
My witness against the people of Israel - for when I
bring them to the land flowing with milk & honey, as I
swore to their forefathers, and they will eat and become
satiated and grow fat - and will then turn to other gods
and worship them, hence breaking My convenant."
	Then, when these terrible things befall them,
this song shall confront them as a witness, for it shall
never be forgotten from their offspring - for I know
their yetzer [evil inclinations], even before I bring
them into the land..."  (see 31:19-21).

	Based on this introduction, we now know what to
expect from shirat Ha'azinu.  However, to fully
appreciate its purpose, we must return to a key pasuk in
this introduction (31:17), whose meaning (at first
glance) appears to be unclear. 

WHO'S TO BLAME?
	Recall how God not only 'predicted' how Bnei
Yisrael will stray after other gods, He also foresaw how
they would react:
"And I will kindle My anger against them on that day
[i.e. at that time] and leave them, for I will hide My
face from them, and terrible things will befall them -
and they will say on that day [at that time] - it is
because God is not in our midst that these evils have
befallen us"  (31:17).

	At first glance, the meaning of (Bnei Yisrael's
response) : "it is because God is not in our midst" - is
not clear.  Are Bnei Yisrael blaming God for these
terrible events, or are they blaming themselves!  In
other words, does their statement reflect a sense of:
* remorse ['teshuva'], understanding that they are at
blame for they have left God.   
or, 
* anger with God - blaming Him for abandoning His
people. 
[See Seforno.]

	However, the answer to this question lies in the
next pasuk:
"But I will hide My face from them, for they have done
evil and turned to other gods" (31:18).

 	God's insistence that He will continue to hide
His face from them implies that Bnei Yisrael statement
in 31:17 reflected their anger with God (and not their
remorse from their deeds).
    Thus, we appear to have reached an impasse, as God
blames His nation for unfaithfulness; while Am Yisrael
blames God for not caring.  
[See also Ramban on 31:17, where he indeed understands
Bnei Yisrael's statement as minimal teshuva; however
(most probably due to 31:18), Ramban understands this
teshuva as superficial, and hence God continues to hide
His face, waiting for Am Yisrael to perform more intense
teshuva before they can be deserving of redemption.]

	Therefore, to prepare Bnei Yisrael for this
inevitable 'showdown' of 'who's to blame', Moshe charges
the nation before his death, teaching them shirat
Ha'azinu - so that the 'answer' is ready for any future
generation (see 31:22-30).
	With this background, we can begin our study of
the shira, with the goal of showing how it relates
directly to the points raised in this introduction.

32:1-3 / THE PREFACE  
	Review the first three psukim (32:1-3), noting
how they form a preface.  In fact, 32:3 explains who
Bnei Yisrael should answer with a 'praise to the Lord'
whenever Moshe will mention God's Name (and hence our
custom to this day of saying 'baruch Hu u-varuch shmo' -
when ever we hear God's Name mentioned in a blessing.]
[In regard to the 'shamayim' and 'aretz' being called
upon to witness, see Part Two of this shiur.]
	This observation is important, for if 32:1-3
forms an introduction, then we can conclude that 32:4
forms the opening (and cardinal) statement of the shira.

32:4-6 / THE OPENING STATEMENT [Who's to blame!]
	To confirm this point, review 32:4-6, noting how
these psukim deal directly with the key question of
'who's to blame'!  [i.e. God or the people]:
The Rock [i.e. God] - His deeds are perfect, 
all His way are just.  
A steadfast God ['emuna' - see TSC shiur on 'mei
meriva'!]
  and no injustice.
He is just and upright.

	If so, then who should Bnei Yisrael blame when
something goes wrong?  Once again, the shira provides
the answer:
	[Do you attribute] injustice to Him? ['shichet
lo']
	no - ['lo' - with an 'aleph']
	It is his children's fault ['banav mumam']
	- A generation so crooked and perverse.
	Shall you blame this on God?
	 - so foolish a nation- and unwise
	For He is your father who created you 
	He made you and established you.
[And therefore, why would He want to cause you harm,
unless there was a purpose.

	Based on our introduction, it is clear why this
must be the opening statement - for this is exactly the
question that Bnei Yisrael will ask when they are
confronted with tragedy.  Since they are God's nation,
they expect their God to protect them and save them from
trouble.
	However, this question stems from a terrible
misunderstanding of the special relationship between God
and His people.  God did not promise to be a like 'fairy
godmother', taking care of every tiny need of a spoiled
child.  Rather, God entered a covenant with Bnei Yisrael
for a purpose - to represent Him before the nations of
the world.  [See TSC shiurim on Sefer Breishit., Noach,
Lech Lecha, Vayera etc.] 
	This covenant contains not only privileges (i.e.
promises of protection), but also responsibilities.
Because the goal of this covenant is so important, God
threatens to punish Bnei Yisrael should they be
unfaithful to this covenant, just as he promises to be
helpful should they be faithful.  [This theme is
repeated numerous times in Chumash, especially in the
'tochachot', and throughout Sefer Devarim.]
	Therefore, the purpose of divine punishment is
to remind Bnei Yisrael of their covenantal
responsibility should they go astray.  [Note the Torah's
use of the word 'brit' in 31:16 & 20!]  Hence, the shira
opens by telling us not to blame God when the nation is
plagued by tragedy.  Instead, blame yourselves, for God
has no reason to punish you - unless you have gone
astray.

32:7-12 / REMEMBER WHY & HOW YOU WERE CHOSEN
	The last point made in this section (i.e. 31:6)
forms the introduction to the next section of the shira.
Recall God's last remark: "Shall you blame this on God -
so foolish a nation- and unwise?  For He is your father
who created you, He made you and established you."
	Now, God explains how and why we should remember
this point, by providing a quick review of Jewish
History, from the time of Creation.
	Remember the days of old, consider the ages
past.
	Ask your father, and he will tell you, so too
your elders.
	When Elyon [God] gave each nation its land, 
		As He divided up the nations [i.e.
Migdal Bavel naarative]
	He fixed the borders of these nations, 
		According to the numbers of Bnei Yisrael
-
	For God's portion is His people -
	[The children of] Yaakov - is His allotment
(32:7-9).

	In other words, when God first established
mankind, dividing them up into nations, He already had
in mind this purpose of Bnei Yisrael to represent Him
amongst these nations.  [See TSC shiur on Parshat Noach
- re: Migdal Bavel.]

	The next three psukim (32:10-12) describe how
God took Bnei Yisrael through the desert, taking care of
their needs, and preparing them for their existence in
the land of Israel:
	He found them in the desert land...
	...  & watched over them as the pupil of His
eye.
	Like an eagle watches over his nestlings...
	God alone guided them (thru the desert)
	 No other god assisted Him.

32:13-15 / From PROSPERITY to AFFLUENCE
	At this point, the shira now shifts from past to
future, projecting what may happen when Bnei Yisrael
will enter the land; i.e. warning how prosperity may
lead to affluence, and then to idol worship, and then to
divine punishment.  In other words, all of the points
described in the introduction (see 31:16-20), are now
described in poetic detail.
	He set them up atop the highlands
	To feast on the yield of the earth
	He fed them honey from the crag
	And oil from the flint of the rock...
	The best lamb, and rams, and goats
	With the very finest wheat, and foaming grape
drink.
	So Yeshurun [Israel] grew fat and kicked
		Fat, gross, and coarse.
	He forsook the God who made him (compare 32:16) 
	And spurned the Rock (see 32:4) of his
salvation.

32:16-18 / From AFFLUENCE to IDOL WORSHIP
	They incensed Him with alien things,
	Vexed Him with abominations.
	They sacrificed to demons, no-gods.
	Gods they had never known, new ones....
	You neglected the Rock that gave birth to you
	Forgot the God who brought you forth.
		(again, compare with 32:4-6!)

32:19-25 / GOD'S WRATH IS KINDLED
	As Bnei Yisrael have broken the covenant, God
has no choice but to punish them, for what is the point
of their existence if they are not fulfilling their
covenantal purpose!  Therefore, the next section
describes this punishment.  Once again, we find how the
topic of 31:17 (& 31:21) is described in poetic detail.
	The Lord saw and was vexed
	He spurned His sons and daughters, saying:
	I will hide My face from them ['hester panim'
(see 31:17-18)]
	   Then see how they will fare in the end!
	For they are a treacherous breed,
	  Children with no loyalty.
	They incensed Me with no-gods...
	I will incense them with a no-folk
		Vex them with a nation of fools.
	For a fire has flared in My wrath....
		[read the rest on your own]
	The sword shall deal death without
	As shall the terror within
	To young man and maiden alike,
	The young babies as well as the aged.

32:26-38 / SAVED BY THE BELL
	In the next section, God continues to explain
how and why His anger is kindled, however He also
explains why sooner or later, He must come to the aid of
His nation (even though they may not be deserving).
	I might have reduced them to nothing
	Made their memory cease among men -
	But, for the fear of the taunts of the foe
		Their enemies who may misjudge and say -
	"Our own hand has prevailed; 
	  none of this was caused by the Lord

	A comment is now added, noting how foolish the
nation was for not recognizing the Hand of God in these
events.
	Were they wise, they would think upon this
(compare 32:7)
	Gain insight into their future:
	How could one have chased a thousand,
 	  And two put ten thousand to flight.
	Unless their Rock had sold them....
		[32:32-25 continues the rebuke]
	Then, God explains how and why He will save His
nation, so that this disgrace in the eyes of other
nations should not become too great.
	When God will judge His people
	And have mercy upon His servants
	For He will see that they are helpless...
	Lest [the other nations] say - Where is their
God?
		The rock in whom they sought refuge...
			[See Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Ramban,
vs. Rashi]

32:39-43 / A CALL FOR REFLECTION
	Even though God has promised ultimate
redemption, He still calls upon Am Yisrael to recognize
that He was the cause for both their punishment and
salvation:
	See, then, that I - I am He
	There is no god beside Me
	I bring death, and I cause life
		 I wound and I heel
	No one can deliver from My Hand...

	Finally, the shira concludes with a call to
other nations to recognize the hand of God in the wake
of these events:
	O nations, acclaim His people -
	For He will avenge the blood of His servants
	Bring vengeance on His enemies
	And His land shall protect [or cleanse] His
People.
		[translation of last phrase is
difficult, see commentators.]

	This final point is important as well, for it
reflects back on the very purpose of God's covenant with
Am Yisrael, to represent God among the nations.  In the
'bottom line', God hopes that even when Am Yisrael
(unfortunately) needs to be punished; the manner of that
severe punishment may still lead to the recognition of
God by other nations, hence serving the same underlying
purpose

A HARSH CONCLUSION
	As difficult as the message of shirat Ha'azinu
may be, its theme is congruent not only with its
introduction at the end of Parshat Vayelech, it also
follows the very same underlying theme of Chumash that
began with God's choice of His nation back in Sefer
Breishit, and the demanding terms of God's covenant with
Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai [see shiur on the 13 middot].
	Even though Am Yisrael may reach the mistaken
conclusion that God is 'hiding His face from them', the
primary point of the shira is that God is always there,
even though it may appear otherwise.  [See 32:29!]  It
also not by chance that God is consistently referred to
(in the shira) as the 'tzur' - a large rock, or bolder,
that does not move.  It is always there and can even
provide protection, even though it often remains
unnoticed, or may be taken for granted.
[In my opinion, the Torah's use of the word tzur may
also relate to the events at 'nikrat ha-tzur' at Har
Sinai - where God first explained to Moshe His
attributes of mercy / see Shemot 33:19-22, and its
context from 33:12-19, as well as our shiur on the 13
midot - 've-akmal' - i.e. a topic for a future shiur.]
 
	Obviously, the goal of Chumash is that we should
never need to experience the sequence of events
described in this song.  However, the shira remains as
an eternal reminder for Am Yisrael to remember their
covenantal purpose, as well as a call for proper teshuva
in times of national misfortune.
	As Yom Kippur approaches after a year of such
terrible sorrow and tragic events, we pray to Hashem
that He speedily fulfill His promise of ultimate
redemption, as well call upon ourselves to fulfill our
destiny to become His special nation. 
	[In Part Two will discuss other aspects of the
shira.]

				shabbat shalom,
				menachem


	========================================

PART TWO

for PARSHAT  HA'AZINU - 3 mini- shiurim

	 Shiur #1 - MOSHE RABEINU'S LAST DAY

	Parshat Vayelech opens with Moshe's farewell to
Bnei Yisrael, in which he informs them that he will soon
die and reassures them that Yehoshua will take over and
fulfill what God had promised (see 31:1-6). The opening
pasuk of the parsha baffled the commentators: 
"Va'yelech Moshe - and Moshe WENT, and spoke these
things to Bnei Yisrael..." (31:1)

    Where did Moshe go? Where was he coming from? 
    Most commentators suggest that for his final
farewell, Moshe left his own tent and 'went' from tribe
to tribe to comfort each shevet individually. [See
Ramban, Chizkuni, & Ibn Ezra.]
	Ibn Ezra adds a very interesting insight to this
interpretation. He understands that while Moshe visited
each shevet to bid farewell, he gave each tribe their
individual blessing, i.e. the blessing recorded later in
Parshat V'zot Ha'bracha (33:1-29).  [See Ibn Ezra on
31:1 inside!]
	If Ibn Ezra is correct, then SHIRAT HA'AZINU
becomes the final message of Chumash! This
interpretation is supported by the final psukim of
Parshat Ha'azinu, where God commands Moshe to ascend Har
Nevo to die (see 32:48-52), which, chronologically, must
be the last narrative of Chumash.
[See also Ramban on 31:24-26. Even though Ramban
disagrees with Ibn Ezra with regard to the actual
sequence of events, V'ZOT HABRACHA is still not Moshe's
final message to Bnei Yisrael.  It is merely his final
blessing. The closing 'charge to Am Yisrael' of Chumash
is definitely Shirat Ha'azinu, even though Moshe may
have administered his blessings to the tribes later on
that day.]
	
	This observation can provide us with a better
appreciation of the final events of Sefer Devarim.
After Moshe Rabeinu completed his speeches [i.e. the
main speech of mitzvot/ chapters 5->26, and the
"tochacha"/ chapters.27->30], Chumash concludes with two
mitzvot that guarantee the continuity of Am Yisrael. 
	1) HAKHEL (31:7-13)
	2) SHIRAT HA'AZINU (31:14->32:47)
[Note that both these sections include the writing of
the Torah, see 31:9 & 31:24-26!]

	Let's explain:
	After introducing Yehoshua as his successor
(31:1-8), Moshe gives the written Torah to the KOHANIM
and the elders (31:9), charging them with the
responsibility of continuing what Moshe had begun - i.e.
teaching this Torah to the entire nation.  As we
explained in last week's shiur, the mitzvah of HAKHEL is
added in order to 'relive' the SINAI experience every
seven years. 
	Note the conclusion of this unit: 
"And the children, who do not yet know, will listen and
learn to fear God all the days that you LIVE on THE LAND
THAT YOU ARE NOW CROSSING THE JORDAN TO INHERIT."
(31:13)

A similar conclusion closes SHIRAT HA'AZINU:
"For this is not an empty thing, for it is your life,
and by keeping this, you will LIVE many years on THE
LAND THAT YOU ARE NOW CROSSING THE JORDAN TO INHERIT."
(See 32:47 and its context.)

	Certainly, the teaching of the Torah guarantees
the continuity of Am Yisrael; but wherein lies the
importance of SHIRAT HA'AZINU?
	As we explained in Sefer Breishit, God has set a
goal for the Jewish people: to become a nation that
abides by His Torah and represents Him by serving as His
chosen nation. This stature of a special nation entails
not only privileges, but, even more so, responsibility.
Therefore, to assure that Bnei Yisrael will keep His
laws, it becomes necessary to punish them should they
disobey and not fulfill that destiny. [That's what the
"tochacha" is all about.]
	The fact that God's covenant with Bnei Yisrael
necessarily includes divine punishment creates an
intriguing predicament. Specifically because of our
status as His special nation, our plight becomes worse
than other nations (see Amos 3:1-2!). When
misunderstood, this can lead to a very dangerous
conclusion. Instead of understanding punishment as a
divine call for "teshuva," Am Yisrael may perceive it as
proof that they are no longer chosen, and hence no
longer bound by God's covenant. When things go bad, they
will blame God rather than themselves. For example:
"The ROCK (the Lord)- His deeds are perfect, His ways
are just, a faithful God, never false, He is true and
upright, [but] SHICHET LO, LOA BANAV MUMAM... - Do you
attribute the bad to Him? No! It is His children who are
at fault, a crooked and perverse generation. Do you
blame God for this, o dull and witless people? Is not He
the Father who created you? He made you and fashioned
you!"  (loose translation of 32:4-6).

	As SHIRAT HA'AZINU continues, God predicts the
inevitable outcome of Bnei Yisrael's settlement in the
land. They will become affluent and forget Him (see
32:15). He, in turn, will punish them or hide His face
from them, but they will fail to recognize the reason
behind their punishment (see 32:16-26). That is why we
need the SHIRA. SHIRAT HAAZINU reminds us not only of
God, but also of WHY we are chosen, that our stature and
accompanying responsibilities remain applicable even
when our situation is far from ideal. "ZCHOR Y'MOT
OLAM..." - Remember, learn from your history... (see
32:7-13). God tells us how to relate to Him in trying
times. If we remember WHY we were chosen, for WHAT
PURPOSE, then we will understand why we have been
punished. Hopefully, those thoughts will steer Am
Yisrael back onto the proper path. 
	Finally, even should we not repent, ultimately
God will redeem us (see 32:27-29), but once again, only
so that we recognize our purpose. If not, then the awful
process of punishment will start all over again.
	This is how SHIRAT HA'AZINU guarantees the
continuity of Am Yisrael. It is an eternal cry not only
for TESHUVA, but also for the recognition of our
purpose, and hence, it reminds us of the reason for both
our reward and our punishment. 

       ==========


		Shiur #2: THE FIVE SONGS IN TANACH

	"Shirat Ha'azinu" is one of five 'songs' found
in the Tanach. We begin this section by demonstrating
that each song marks the end of an important time
period. As we will see, this analysis can greatly
enhance our appreciation of "Shirat Ha'azinu."

THE FIVE 'SONGS'
	For the purpose of this shiur, a 'song' is
defined as a parsha in Tanach written on the Torah
scroll in a special pattern.
	Two songs, Ha'azinu and Yehoshua, exhibit the
pattern of: 
		--   --
		--   --
		--   --     (pattern A)

Three others: ha'Yam, Devorah, & David, exhibit the
pattern of:
		-- 		--
				--
		--		--
				--
		-- 		--   (pattern B)

	The following table summarizes these five songs
and the respective time period that each one concludes:

  SOURCE		SONG 		TIME PERIOD
  ======			====
===========
Shmot 15:1
19   "Shirat ha'Yam" 	Yetziat Mitzraim
(the Exodus)
Devarim 32:1
43  "Shirat Ha'azinu"	Bnei Yisrael in
the desert
Yehoshua 12:1
24 "Shirat Yehoshua" Defeat of the 31
kings 
Shoftim 5:1
31  "Shirat Devorah" 	Complete
conquest of north
Shm.II 22:1
51  "Shirat David"
Establishing the Monarchy

	Although all five songs mark the conclusion of
certain time periods, it appears that the songs
following pattern A, i.e. Shirat Ha'azinu and Yehoshua,
mark the end of historical periods which fell short of
their original expectations. On the other hand, the
songs following pattern B - Shirat ha'Yam, Devorah, &
David - relate to more ideal situations.
	One could suggest that the structure of these
two patterns reflects this distinction: 'pattern B'
reflects a 'stable' existence, while 'pattern A'
symbolizes a more 'shaky' reality. 

YEHOSHUA IN CONTRAST TO DEVORAH
	Even though Yehoshua conquered the entire land,
his conquest was far from complete. The simplest proof
is the psukim immediately following this "shira":
"And Yehoshua had become old, and God said to him, you
have grown old, but there is MUCH MORE LAND which needs
to be conquered"
		(See Yehoshua 13:1
5. See also
18:1
3,23:1
16).

	Even though the tribes of Yehuda and Yosef were
successful in their conquest, the remaining tribes who
were to settle in Eretz Canaan (see Yehoshua 18:1-6) had
not captured their respective areas.
	The primary area not conquered at that time
centered around EMEK YIZRAEL (the Jezreel Valley), which
sat on the major trade route from Egypt to Mesopotamia.
It was not until the time of Devorah that the area was
finally conquered, through the joint effort of the
surrounding tribes. In the war of Barak and Devorah in
Emek Yizrael, Israel's enemies in the north were
defeated, thus geographically uniting the twelve tribes.

	This explains the importance of SHIRAT DEVORAH
and why it is written according to pattern B.
	Later, during the time of the Judges, Israel
lost control of this area. Only during the period of
David did this area come back under Jewish control.
David expanded his sphere of occupation to the north,
east, and south, thus creating a political environment
characterized by a stable monarchy and secure borders.
His song - SHIRAT DAVID - also follows pattern B, as it
thanks God for His assistance in achieving the most
complete conquest of Eretz Canaan.

SHIRAT HA'YAM AND SHIRAT HA'AZINU
	We now turn our focus to the distinction between
the two 'songs' found in Chumash - Shirat Ha'Yam and
Shirat Ha'azinu.
	Shirat Ha'Yam marks not only the completion of
the Exodus, but also our total independence from Egypt.
Recall that Bnei Yisrael were granted permission to
leave Egypt just for a few days in order to worship
their God in the desert (see Shmot 12:31-2). Therefore,
when Pharaoh drove them from his land after "makat
b'chorot," he expected them to return after just a few
days. Thus, only after "kriyat Yam Suf" did Bnei Yisrael
achieve TOTAL freedom.
	Hence, Shirat Ha'Yam marks the conclusion of the
first stage of the redemption process, as promised in
Brit Bein Ha'btarim (see Breishit 15:13-20).
	The generation of the desert, after receiving
the Torah, should have conquered the Land within the
first year. Had this come true, i.e. had Bnei Yisrael
not sinned, then the next "shira" should have been the
idyllic one - that of the conquest of the Promised Land
with Moshe as their leader. Instead, that generation and
the next consistently angered Hashem. Forty years later,
as Bnei Yisrael finally prepare to enter the Land, their
situation remained far from the ideal. Therefore, the
ideal "shira" that should have been sung is now
'replaced' with a more 'realistic' one - "Shirat
Ha'azinu," tailored to God's pessimistic forecast of
what will happen after Bnei Yisrael enter the Land.
	We can now better understand the psukim towards
the end of Parshat Va'yelech which introduce this
"Shira":
"...God told Moshe, you will soon die, and this Nation
will go astray after the foreign gods in their midst, in
the land that they are about to enter. They will forsake
Me and break My covenant that I made with them.
	Then My anger will flare up at them, and I will
abandon them ('hester panim')... then they shall say:
'Surely, it is because God is not in our midst that
these evils have befallen us'...
	Therefore, write down this 'shira' and teach it
to the people... in order that this 'shira' may be My
witness against the Nation, when I bring them into the
Land.... For I know the very nature of this people (the
way they will act) even before I bring them into the
Land..."     
					(Devarim
31:16
21)
	Moshe later repeats this pessimistic prognosis
to the people, prior to teaching them this song:
"[Moshe charged the Leviim, saying... ] Gather for me
all the leaders, and I will speak to them these words...
For I know that after I die you will act wickedly and
leave the path which I have commanded you. Misfortune
will thus befall you in later generations, because your
evil actions will anger God. Moshe then recited this
"shira" to the entire congregation..."   (See Devarim
31:28
30)

	Thus, the period of the 'forty years in the
desert' ends on a very tragic note. It appears
inevitable that Bnei Yisrael will fail to meet the
challenge of establishing God's model nation in the
Land. Despite this bleak forecast, "Shirat Ha'azinu"
remains as an eternal reminder for Bnei Yisrael that the
time will ultimately come, should they perform proper
teshuva, when a new song will be sung ["v'nomar l'fanav
SHIRA CHADASHA..."], a song of praise and recognition of
God as the source of our victory, a song similar to
"shirat David."

	================
					


Shiur #3 - The witnesses - 'SHAMAYIM VA'ARETZ'

	In its preface, "shirat Ha'azinu" calls upon
shamayim va-aretz ['heaven & earth'] to bear witness.
On the one hand, the very mention of this 'Biblical duo'
beautifully ties together the end of Sefer Devarim with
the very beginning of Sefer Breishit.  
    In the following shiur, we discuss how the mention
of "shamayim v'aretz" may also relate to a very
interesting relationship between this song and a very
basic theme of Chumash.
 
INTRODUCTION
	Already in the introduction to shirat Ha'azinu
(back in Parshat Vayelech), we find the mention
'shamayim va-aretz', as Moshe calls upon them to serve
witness: 
"Gather to Me all the elders of your tribes that I may
speak these words to them, and that I may call shamayim
va-aretz to testify..."  (see 31:28-29 / note also
30:19).

	Therefore, it should come as no surprise that we
find their mention at the very beginning of the song:
"Ha'azinu ha-shamayim va-adabera, ve-tishma ha-aretz
imrei fi."  - Listen heaven, and I will speak, and the
aretz should hear the words of my mouth (see 32:1).

	But why are specifically 'heaven and earth'
summoned as witnesses?  Although the answer may seem
obvious at first, as we will see, there may be far more
here than first meets the eye.

RASHI'S APPROACH
	Rashi quotes the two classic answers, based on
two Midrashim (Sifrei 306 and Tanchuma 1):
1)  An eternal witness:
Heaven and earth exist forever and can thus serve as
eternal witnesses.  Whereas Moshe himself is mortal, he
must summon the everlasting forces of nature as his
witnesses. (See also Ibn Ezra.)
2)  An agent of enforcement:
As explained in Devarim 11:13-17, 'heaven and earth'
will reward Bnei Yisrael with adequate rainfall and
plenty should they follow God's covenant, and punish
them with drought should they disobey. (See also
Rashbam.)

	In truth, these two answers are not mutually
exclusive.  They provide a 'double reason' for God's
choice of "shamayim va-aretz": not only do they provide
eternal testimony, but they also help enforce the
covenant.
	Nevertheless, according to other commentators,
these reasons alone do not suffice.  We will now note
how both Ramban and Ibn Ezra provide additional comments
on this pasuk that point us back to Sefer Breishit.

BACK TO BREISHIT
	Ramban begins his commentary by agreeing with
the first reason brought down by Rashi [i.e. everlasting
witnesses], and even offers additional proof from a
similar incident - where Yehoshua designates a stone as
an eternal witness to a covenant (see Yehoshua
24:25-28).  However, afterward he adds a very
interesting comment: 
"... these are the original shamayim and aretz that are
first mentioned in Breishit.  Since they are entering
into a covenant with Israel, they are told to listen..."
(Ramban 32:1)
[Note how Ramban refers to this approach as 'al derech
ha-emet' [lit. 'by way of the truth'], as opposed to his
assessment of his first peirush, as 'al derech ha-pshat'
[lit. 'by way of the simple meaning of the text'].  We
find this expression al derech ha-emet- quite often
throughout the Ramban's commentary, usually when he
hints to a much deeper reason for why the Torah chooses
a specific phrase, one which relates to a more general
theme in Chumash. (See Ramban's introduction to
Chumash.)]

	Here we find that Ramban 'hints' to a thematic
connection between shirat Ha'azinu and Bereishit, even
though he does not explain the reason or significance
behind this relationship. 
	Though somewhat obscure, a connection between
Ha'azinu and the beginning of Chumash appears in the
comments of Ibn Ezra, as well.  First, he quotes Rav
Sa'adia Gaon's suggestion that shamayim refers to the
'angels in heaven' and aretz to 'men on earth.'  He then
continues:
"... or the testimony [refers to] the rain that will
come from heaven, and earth that will give [the earth's]
produce.  But what seems most correct to me is that they
both exist forever [reason (1) above], and I have
earlier alluded to the fact that the neshama (of man) is
in the middle - between above and below..." (see Ibn
Ezra 32:1).

	What exactly Ibn Ezra has in mind is far from
clear.  However, it appears to be an allusion to his
lengthy commentary on Breishit 1:26, where he explains
the meaning of God's creation of man 'be-tzelem Elokim'.
	Following this 'lead' alluded to by both Ibn
Ezra and Ramban, we will explore a possible thematic
connection (on a 'pshat level') between the shamayim
va-aretz in the first pasuk of shirat Ha'azinu and the
shamayim va-aretz in the first pasuk of Chumash.

A 'PROSECUTOR' OR A 'REMINDER'?
	As we explained earlier, both explanations
quoted by Rashi personify shamayim and aretz, treating
them as actual witnesses who will enforce the covenant.
This understanding implies that the purpose of this
summons to shamayim va-aretz is to frighten Bnei
Yisrael, so that they realize that 'someone' is always
there watching should they break the covenant.  
	However, one could suggest a different function
of shamayim va-aretz, based on an earlier instance in
Sefer Devarim, where Moshe Rabbeinu summoned shamayim
va-aretz to witness his final charge to Bnei Yisrael at
the conclusion of his 'finale' speech:
"I call upon the shamayim and the aretz as witnesses
today, for I am presenting the choice between life and
death - the blessing or the curse - and you should
choose life..." (see 30:19 & its context).

	Commenting on this pasuk, Rashi offers a
beautiful explanation.  After first identifying their
function as 'eternal witnesses,' Rashi then cites a
different explanation, based on the Midrash:
"Hashem tells Bnei Yisrael: look at the shamayim that I
created to serve you - do they ever change from their
regular pattern?  Look at the aretz that I created to
serve you..."

	According to this second interpretation, the
shamayim and aretz are not personified; they take no
active role.  Instead, the pasuk calls upon Am Yisrael,
to act!  They must look at and contemplate the shamayim
va-aretz, who now serve as a constant reminders to man,
and thereby help him find purpose in God's creation.
	In other words, God's selection of shamayim and
aretz to witness the covenant is not in order to 'scare'
us, but rather to 'teach' us that just as there is a
purpose for God's creation of heaven and earth, so too
there is a purpose for His covenant with Am Yisrael.
[See also Ramban on Breishit 6:18, in his peirush of the
word "brit", where he adds al derech ha-emet that brit
is connected to 'briya'.  In other words, God's covenant
with Noach directly relates to the very purpose of His
Creation.]

	This Midrash raises the fundamental question
concerning the conclusions that man should reach when he
contemplates the very existence of 'heaven and earth'?
What does man see in nature - pure coincidence? Or
possibly the work of many gods (with a delicate balance
between their conflicting powers)?  Are these 'forces'
beyond human comprehension, or does man perceive an
organized universe created by One God - for a definite
purpose?
	It is precisely this question that the first two
chapters of Sefer Breishit attempt to answer.  They
teach us that what we perceive as nature - i.e. shamayim
va-aretz and all their hosts (see 1:1, 2:1 & 2:4) - is a
willful act of God.  Man, the pinnacle of God's
creation, was charged to both serve God (see 2:15) and
to rule over nature (see 1:28).
	At the same time, however, it is precisely
shamayim va-aretz that may cause man to arrive at the
exact opposite conclusion.  He may indeed perceive
Creation as an act of God, but the vast abyss separating
shamayim and aretz seems too wide to bridge.  Indeed,
God is in heaven - but man remains on earth, with no
means by which to connect to the heavens.  God may
exist, but there may be no 'hashgacha' [divine
providence].  Even though man may perceive and recognize
divine Creation, he can still question how that Creator
relates to his own daily life. 
	The Torah provides the answer, presenting the
'prophetic history' of God's relationship with man,
himself a 'mixture' of shamayim and aretz (see 2:4-10,
note 'neshama' / this may be what Ibn Ezra is referring
to in his commentary to Devarim 32:1).  Each brit found
in Chumash exemplifies this relationship.

	In fact, we find a similar use of the words
'shamayim va-aretz' in relation to events that took
place when the Torah was given - at Matan Torah - the
most intense 'brit' between God and Am Yisrael:
"From the shamayim He made his voice heard... and on the
aretz He showed you His great fire, and you heard his
words from that fire..." (see Devarim 4:36.  The
beginning of that parshia - 4:26 - is the first time we
find shamayim and aretz as witnesses!  Find the other
parallels between chapters 4 and 30-31.)

HASHGACHA
	We may now, therefore, suggest an additional
reason for God's invocation of shamayim and aretz to
witness the covenant.  Let's return to the psukim in
Parshat Vayelech that outline the reason for shirat
Ha'azinu:
"... and they will leave Me, and I will hide My face
from them, and terrible things will befall them, and
they will say on that day - it is because God is not in
our midst that these terrible things have happened.  But
I will continue to hide My face... Therefore, write down
this shira... and teach it to Bnei Yisrael in order that
it be a witness for Bnei Yisrael..." (see 31:16-19).

	God here threatens 'hester panim' - hiding His
face, the most severe punishment Bnei Yisrael can
experience.  This dreadful reality raises a critical
theological question: how can Bnei Yisrael find God if
He seems to pay no attention to them?  God's answer to
this question is the shira.  God expects Am Yisrael to
find Him by contemplating their history and the reason
for their existence.  Even when God appears to conceal
Himself, He continues to guide our fate - like a parent
who 'punishes' a child by ignoring him.  The parent does
so not because he doesn't care, but rather to educate
the child so that he'll come to realize on his own the
importance of parents. 
	The same 'self-taught' lesson that shirat
Ha'azinu demands of us (see 32:7) may be the lesson of
the opening pasuk in particular.  Shamayim and aretz are
summoned as witnesses to help us recognize God's
hashgacha, even when it appears to be hiding from us.
[Iy"h, in our shiur on Parshat Breishit we will discuss
the meaning of raki'a - created on the second day, that
appears to divide between shamayim va-aretz (note the
absence of 'ki-tov' on that day).  Similarly, in our
study of Sukkot, we will discuss how the s'chach, which
divides between our sukka on the aretz and the shamayim
above, yet needs to remain partially open - so that we
can still 'see the stars'!]

	As you study shirat Ha'azinu, note how this
theme of historical perspective emerges as a primary
topic.  Furthermore, note how it demands that we
contemplate not only nature, but even more so -
historical events - as it provides an eternal guide for
the pattern of God's dynamic relationship with His
people.	

                  shabbat shalom,
					menachem



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1710 -
Release Date: 10/6/2008 9:23 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: haaz1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 83258 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081007/27b76925/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Fri Oct 10 10:08:48 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:08:48 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] for SUCCOT - shiur
Message-ID: <78662BF0378349E9BE8FA6996FAEAA05@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

                     SUKKOT: To KNOW, or to REMEMBER

	Wouldn't make more sense to celebrate Sukkot
during the month of Nisan instead of Tishrei?
    After all, this is the holiday that commemorates our
dwelling in 'booths' in the desert after we left Egypt,
and it was in the month of Nisan that we first set up
camp in the desert!  In fact, Sukkot was even the name
of Bnei Yisrael's very first camp-site, during that
first week of the Exodus, as Sefer Shmot records:
" And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to
Sukkot, about six hundred thousand men on foot, beside
children..." (see Shmot 12:37-39  / note as well that it
was in the camp site of Succot when they first baked
matza!]

    Furthermore, the sole pasuk in Chumash that explains
the historical reason for this holiday emphasizes how we
must thank God for His special protection and care in
the desert immediately after the Exodus:
"You shall sit in sukkot for seven days... in order that
future generations may know that I made Bnei Yisrael
dwell in sukkot when I brought them out of Egypt..."
(see Vayikra 23:42-43).

    Pay attention, however, to the special wording of
this pasuk - for it doesn't command us to 'remember'
(what happened in the desert), rather - we are commanded
to 'know' ['lema'an yeid'u doroteichem' / as opposed to
'lema'an tizkeru']!  
    
    In the following shiur, we will show how this
distinction can help us better understand the historical
reason for the holiday of Sukkot, and appreciate why the
Torah instructs us celebrate this holiday specifically
during the autumn harvest season [i.e.  to coincide with
the agricultural holiday of "chag ha-asif"].

INTRODUCTION
	As you probably recall, we find both an
historical reason, as well as an agricultural reason for
each of the three 'pilgrimage holidays' [the 'shalosh
regalim'].
* In the beginning of the spring ['chag ha-aviv'] we
celebrate our Exodus from Egypt  = 'chag ha-matzot'
* During the grain harvest ['chag ha-katzir'] we
celebrate the giving of the Torah = 'chag shavu'ot'
* During the fruit harvest [chag ha-asif] we celebrate
our dwelling in 'booths' in the desert = chag ha-sukkot.


    Now the reason why we are commanded to 'remember the
Exodus' in the spring is simple - it's because that
event took place in the spring (see Devarim 16:1).
Similarly, we received the Torah in the month of Sivan,
hence we are to commemorate that event seven weeks later
- on "Shavuot".  
    However, there doesn't appear to be any obvious
reason for celebrating 'our dwelling in booths in the
desert' specifically in Tishrei.  After all, this
holiday does not commemorate a single event, but rather
an entire time period of our national history - that
spanned over forty years.  So what makes Tishrei
special?
    In fact, it might have made more sense to
commemorate 'our dwelling in sukkot' in Nissan -
together with our commemoration of the Exodus.
Certainly, both events are related (and as we explained
earlier that Sukkot was first mentioned in Chumash when
we left Egypt /see Shmot 12:37  & 13:20!).

	Nevertheless, the Torah insists that we
commemorate our 'desert experience' six months later, in
the month of Tishrei (a month that certainly doesn't
lack holidays), and specifically at the time of our
grain harvest.
	To explain why, we begin with a general
distinction which relates to the historical reason for
celebrating all of the holidays.

REMEMBERING 'WHAT', OR REMEMBERING 'WHY'
	We posit that when Torah instructs us to
remember a certain key historical event, God is not
interested that we simply remember what happened, rather
it is more important that we remember why that event
took place. 
[Recall that in our shiur on chag ha-matzot / Parshat
Bo, we applied this principle to our understanding of
chag ha-matzot and korban pesach; likewise in our
shiurim on the underlying reason for the four fast days
in Sefer Zecharya.]

	Applying this principle to Sukkot, we posit that
we don't sit in the sukka simply to 'remember' [and
express thanksgiving] that God provided for our needs
during our journey through the desert; rather the Torah
commands that we sit in the sukka in order to remember
why that entire desert experience was necessary! 
	Therefore, our shiur will first consider why the
entire desert experience was necessary.  Then, we will
show why the summer harvest becomes an ideal time to
commemorate that time period of our history.  Finally we
will explain why we are commanded to know these events
(not just remember them); and why seven days are
necessary to accomplish this goal!
 
LIFE IN THE DESERT - A TRANSITION STAGE
    Let's begin by taking a closer look at the Torah's
commandment to celebrate Sukkot, noting how the Torah
focuses on commemorating the 'desert experience' (and
not the Exodus itself):
"You shall sit in sukkot for seven days... - in order
that your future generations may know that I made Bnei
Yisrael dwell in sukkot when I brought them out of
Egypt..."
		 (see Vayikra 23:43).

	In our shiur on Parshat Beshalach, we explained
how Bnei Yisrael's various experiences in the desert
[after they left Egypt] could be understood as a
'training' period - initiated by God to help transform
this nation of slaves into a nation capable of
establishing His model nation in the Promised Land.
	Even though this process began with a 'big bang'
- i.e. the Ten Plagues, the Exodus, the splitting of Red
Sea, etc.- those great miracles were necessary to
convince Bnei Yisrael of their total dependence upon God
(see shiur on Beshalach).  However, that high level of
miracles could be considered more of an 'attention
getter' than an ideal.  Sooner or later, Bnei Yisrael
would need to learn to recognize God in their daily
lives without the help of miracles.  But this required a
long 'educational' process that would spiritually
prepare them for challenges of daily existence once they
would inherit the Land of Israel.

	In fact, Moshe Rabbeinu himself provides us with
a beautiful explanation of the preparatory nature of the
entire 'desert experience'!  We need only quote from
that speech, delivered to Bnei Yisrael as they prepare
to finally enter the land, to understand the purpose of
their experiences in the desert:
"All these mitzvot which I command you... keep in order
that you live... and inherit the Land...
remember the way that God has led you during your
wanderings of forty years in the desert - in order to
test you with hardships to know what is in your hearts;
whether you would keep His commandments, or not...
* "He gave you the manna to eat... in order to teach you
that man does not live on bread alone, rather man lives
on the words of God...
	've-yada'ta" et levavecha...'
[In order that] you should know, that just as a father
puts his son through hardship (to train him), so too has
God put you through hardship"  (See Devarim 8:1-6).

	Note how Moshe explains how the 'manna' served
as a 'training' food for Bnei Yisrael, to teach them in
the desert that their food comes from God, so that when
they enter the land of Israel - and make their own food
- they will remember that God is the underlying source
of their sustenance.  

    To support these introductory remarks, Moshe
continues by explaining why this 'testing period' was
necessary:
"...for God is bringing you into a good land... a land
of wheat and barely, vines, figs and pomegranates, of
olive trees and honey...a land where you will lack
nothing...
* Be careful, lest you forget God and fail to keep His
commandments.  Should you eat and become satiated, and
build fine houses and live in them... and everything you
own has prospered...
* Beware lest you grow haughty and forget your God who
took you out of Egypt...
* Lest you say: My own power and my own might have won
this wealth for me.
* Remember that it is the Lord your God who gives you
the power to get wealth..."  (see Devarim 8:7-19).

	It was specifically because daily life in the
land of Israel would be without 'obvious miracles' -
that this training in the desert was so necessary!  As
Moshe explains, God is fearful that once Bnei Yisrael
cultivate the land and provide for themselves, they may
become haughty thinking that 'they did it all
themselves' - and hence reminds them how they must
always remember 'their lesson' from the desert. 
	According to Moshe Rabbeinu's speech, this
transition period in the desert was necessary to prepare
Bnei Yisrael for the spiritual dangers facing their
agrarian society, which they are about to establish in
the Land of Israel.  To recognize the hand of God in a
miracle was easy - but to recognize His hand within the
nature will be much more difficult.

	This background provides us with a very logical
reason for the Torah's commandment to celebrate Sukkot
on a yearly basis.  
	As this danger of 'becoming haughty and
forgetting God' is so real, it will apply to future
generations as well, especially those who never
experienced the desert!  Hence, the Torah instructs Bnei
Yisrael that all future generations must not only
remember this 'desert experience', but they must
virtually 're-live' [to know it] - by living in a sukka
for seven days!  

THE MOST FITTING TIME OF THE YEAR
	This background also explains the 'advantage' of
celebrating Sukkot at the conclusion of the harvest
season.
	If we are sitting in the 'sukka' to remember why
that desert experience was necessary - and if that
experience was necessary due to the fear of haughtiness
that may stem from economic prosperity - then the
'harvest season' [when economic prosperity is at its
highest] is the best time to remember those events, for
that is when the fear of haughtiness is greatest!

    This fear was not only expressed by Moshe Rabeinu in
his speech (as quoted above in 8:3-12), but see also
shirat Ha'azinu  (see especially 31:16,20 and
32:13-15!).  Our own life experience certainly supports
the reality of this fear.
	Just as dwelling in the desert prepared Bnei
Yisrael for their entry into Eretz Yisrael, so too, our
sitting in the sukka prepares us for the spiritual
challenges that inevitably surface as we gather our
produce & reflect on our 'profits' and wealth. 
[See Rashbam on Vayikra 23:43, in contrast to the
interpretation of Ramban to that pasuk.  Our shiur will
follow the direction of Rashbam, noting how he also
quotes from Devarim chapter 8!]

	Therefore, the Torah commands that we celebrate
Sukkot at the climax of the agricultural year - as we
gather the fruits and 'count our wealth'.  It is
specifically during this time of year that the spiritual
dangers of affluence are greatest.  At the height of the
harvest season, we must not only 'remember' the lesson
of that desert experience, we must actually re-live it,
or as the Chumash commands us - we must know it.

KNOWING SOMETHING - In the Biblical Sense
	The Torah's use of the phrase 'lema'an yeid'u
doroteichem' takes on additional meaning when we
consider the deeper meaning of the word 'lada'at' - to
know.  As we all remember, the Torah uses this word to
describe the intimate relationship between husband &
wife: 've-Adam yada et Chava ishto' (see Breishit 4:1).
[It is not by chance that this word is also used to
describe the Tree of Knowledge -'etz ha-da'at' in the
story of Gan Eden.]  
	Later on in Sefer Breishit, when God takes a
'close look' at the people of Sedom - to punish them for
their terrible sins - this type of intense relationship
as well is described with the verb lada'at - see
Breishit 18:21,  [Note also Breishit 15:8 & 13.] 

    Similarly, in preparation for the Exodus, God wants
to make sure that Bnei Yisrael will internalize the
message of 'Ani Hashem'  - that He is their God, and the
only God: [See TSC shiur on Parshat Va'era / Ani
Hashem.]
    To emphasize this commandment, note again how the
Torah employs the verb lada'at to describe this intense
relationship:
"Therefore, tell Bnei Yisrael that I am God, and I will
take them out of..., and save them... and redeem them
with an outstretched hand... and take them as My nation
and I will be their God ---
"vi-yda'tem ki Ani Hashem Elokeichem"- 
In order that you will know that I am the God who has
taken you out of Egypt"  (see Shmot 6:6-7).

	In other words, to 'know something' (or someone)
in the Bible entails much more the intellectual
knowledge.  To know - reflects an intense and very close
relationship - to internalize that idea.
	This can help us appreciate to meaning of
'lema'an yeid'u doroteichem' in Vayikra 23:43.  We are
commanded to sit in the sukka not just to remember what
happened, but to know it - i.e. to totally identify with
the purpose of that 'desert experience' and its eternal
message. 
	Note as well how Moshe Rabbeinu used this very
same word when he explained the purpose of the original
desert experience: "And you shall know in your
hearts..." [that this was a 'training' experience]  (see
Devarim 8:5).

    This also explains the difference between the
mitzvot of Pesach and Sukkot.  The mitzvot that we
observe on Pesach (and chag ha-matzot) are in order to
'remember' [lizkor'] what happened (and why), yet we are
not commanded to re-live that experience - for it was a
'one-time' event in Jewish history.  In contrast, on
Sukkot, we must re-live that 'desert experience' for its
underlying purpose is no different today than it was
back then - to inculcate the eternal message that man
should not become haughty at the height of his
prosperity. 

WHY SEVEN DAYS?
	This background can also help us understand why
the Torah requires that we sit in the sukka specifically
for seven days.  Note that all the agricultural holidays
revolve around the number seven.
		* 7 days of chag ha-matzot in the
spring;
		* 7 weeks until chag ha-shavu'ot;
		* 7 days of chag ha-sukkot

	As we explained in our shiur on Parshat Breishit
[perek aleph], the Torah's description of the story of
Creation in seven days emphasizes that the creation of
what we call nature was not by chance, nor a 'balance of
powers' among a pantheon of gods, bur rather - the
willful act of one God, for a purpose.  Therefore, each
time that seven is found in Chumash (e.g. Shabbat etc.),
it is to remind us that God is the creator of, and
master over, all nature.  
    Thus, it is only 'natural' that we find the number
seven prominent in the agricultural holidays, as we
thank God for His providence over nature, and recognize
that He is the true source of our prosperity.
	

FROM SUCCOT TO SHMINI ATZERET
	The above interpretation can also help us
understand the importance of Shmini Atzeret.  As the
shalosh regalim come to their conclusion, we add one
extra day of celebration, void of any specific mitzva,
other than rejoicing with God.  Even though it is the
'eighth day' of Sukkot, we do not need to sit in the
sukka, nor do we need to take the lulav - for the
preparatory stage is now over! 
    On the other hand, we cannot just jump from the
desert right back into the Land of Israel.  Instead, a
time of transition is necessary to wean us from the
'desert environment' back to daily life.  [This also
emerges as a primary theme in Sefer Yehoshua.] 
    This may explain why we don't sit in the sukka on
this 'final' day of Sukkot, for it represents how we
must return to our homes.  We keep the essence of our
'desert-like experience' - our closeness to God - and
make it the basis of our daily natural existence.
	From this perspective, one could suggest that we
do not simply leave the sukka on Shmini Atzeret, rather
we bring the sukka into our homes.  We then rejoice with
the Torah [dancing seven hakafot - just like Yericho!),
for its mitzvot - that we received in the desert -
enable us to continue the spirit of our 'Sukkot
honeymoon' with God throughout the entire year
.
    				chag sameiach,
					menachem

    
=========================
FOR FURTHER IYUN & some mini-shiurim

A.  FROM THE SUKKA TO THE HOUSE
    Based on the last point in the above shiur, we can
explain our custom on Hoshana Rabba (7th day of Sukkot)
afternoon to bring our 'keilim' (vessels) from the sukka
back into the house - in preparation for Shmini Atzeret.
This may highlight the primary purpose of this Yom Tov,
i.e. to move the spiritual message of the sukka into our
homes for the remainder of the year.]
[In a similar manner, the 7 days of Sukkot followed by
Shmini Atzeret could be compared to the 7 day milu'im
ceremony of the mishkan which was required before the
special yom ha-shmini dedication ceremony (see Vayikra
8:1-10:1.).  Note the from the eighth day onward, the
mishkan became functional, but seven day are necessary
as preparation.  [Note also first mishna in Yoma - 7
days before Yom Kippur, the kohen must prepare himself
etc.]]

B.  PRI ETZ HADAR
	The conclusions of our shiur may shed light on
Chazal's explanation of 'pri etz hadar' (see Vayikra
23:40).  Rashi quotes two Midrashim for etz hadar:
  1)	A tree that the 'taste of its fruit' is the same
as the 'taste of the tree'.
  2)	A fruit that 'dwells on the tree' from year to
year.
		 (see Rashi 23:40 & Masechet Sukka 35a)

	The first Midrash is quite difficult for it
relates to what Chazal refer to as 'chet ha-aretz' -
i.e. the 'original sin' of the land during the process
of Creation (see Breishit 1:11 / & Rashi on 'etz pri').
Even though God commanded that the land bring forth an
'etz pri oseh pri' - a fruit tree giving fruit - the
land brought forth instead an 'etz oseh pri' - a tree
giving fruit.  Even though there doesn't seem to be much
of a difference between these two expressions, Chazal
relate this minute change to the manner by which nature
appears to 'hide' God, or act itself as a god.
	This is a bit difficult to explain, [and the
following is an over simplification of a very complex
topic] but in a 'nutshell', when the tree gives fruit
every year, it appears that the tree itself creates the
fruit.  When man contemplates this phenomena in nature,
that trees 'on their own' can create fruit, he may
conclude that trees have their own power - or that there
may be some nature god who 'programs' these trees (how
else does it know what fruit to make).  In other words,
man begins to see various powers within nature, and
relates them to many gods (e.g. fertility gods, rain
gods, grain gods, sun gods etc.).  This leads man to
'worship' these gods to ensure that nature produces the
proper produce and provide a successful harvest.
	In contrast to this dangerous misconception, God
wants man to realize that there is only one God behind
nature, even though the way that nature works often
leads man to a very different conclusion.  [See Rav
Yehuda HaLevi's explanation of perek aleph in Breishit
and 'shem Elokim' in  HaKuzari ma'amar revi'i.]
	In contrast to all of the other trees that give
fruit according to the standard one year agricultural
cycle, the etrog tree is very different.  Instead of its
fruit growing in the spring and harvested in the fall
like all other trees, the fruit of the etrog can stay on
the tree year after year, or as Chazal explain 'ha-dar'
- a fruit that lives on the tree from year to year
['ha-dar ba-ilan mi-shana le-shana'].  This special
phenomena sort of 'breaks the rules' of nature -
indicating that there must be a higher power above
nature!  By taking specifically an etrog on Sukkot, we
take a powerful symbol from nature itself to remind
ourselves that God is above nature, and He alone
controls it.

C  KOHELET & the Harvest Season
    Relate the minhag to read Sefer Kohelet on Sukkot to
above shiur and Devarim 31:7-13 (mitzvat Hakhel).
Carefully compare the end of Sefer Kohelet to Devarim
31:12-13!  Note also how Kohelet describes the spiritual
problems relating to affluence.

D.  VE-ACHALTA VE-SAVA'TA - & then what?
	Recall how our shiur was based on Devarim
chapter 8.  In that chapter, review once again 8:10, the
famous pasuk that we are learning birkat ha-mazon from,
paying careful attention to its context.
	Then, review Devarim 31:14-21, noting especially
31:20, and the phrase 've-achal ve-sava...'.  Note how
these psukim thematically relate to Devarim 32:7-15 in
shirat Ha'azinu!
	Can you explain the deeper meaning of the
contrast between 've-achal ve-sava ve-dashen' and
've-achalta ve-sava'ta u-beirachta'!?

		SOME ADDITIONAL MINI-SHIURIM
I.  FROM YOM KIPPUR TO SUKKOT
	We are all familiar with the custom to begin
work on our sukka immediately after Yom Kippur.
Although this custom is often understood as simply a
great way to 'get off to a good start', ['mi-chayil el
chayil'], it may also allude to something more
significant
	First of all, recall that the original Yom
Kippur in Chumash was the day that Moshe came down with
the second luchot and middot ha-rachamim.  Recall as
well that with the help of these middot, God had agreed
to Moshe's plea that He return His Shchina to Bnei
Yisrael, even though He had taken it away in the
aftermath of chet ha-egel / see Shmot 33;1-8).
Nonetheless, the Shchina itself, even though God
promised that it would return, does not return
immediately, rather - only some six months later - after
Bnei Yisrael build the mishkan (see Shmot 25:8 & Vayikra
9:1-5!).
	In fact, immediately after receiving the second
luchot, the first thing that Moshe does is gather the
people together and charge them with the building of the
mishkan (note Parshat Vayakhel).  Even though the
Shchina is returning, Bnei Yisrael must become active in
this process; they must do something to 'receive' the
Shchina.  Just like Moshe had to now carve his own
second luchot ['psol lecha...' / see Shmot 34:1 (in
contrast to the first luchot which God Himself had
carved)], in a similar manner Bnei Yisrael must now
become more active and build the mishkan. 
	The mitzva to build the sukka immediately after
Yom Kippur may reflect this same idea.  Just as Bnei
Yisrael began to work on the mishkan after (and as a
result of) Yom Kippur, we also begin building our sukkot
in which can 'meet the Shchina' in a manner similar to
the purpose of the mishkan.
	
	We can also relate this to PART II of our shiur
on Yom Kippur in regard to the deeper meaning of
kappara.
	Recall from our shiur on Yom Kippur that one
aspect of kappara was to 'protect' man, allowing him to
encounter the Shchina.  If indeed our kappara on Yom
Kippur was successful, then we should now be ready to
encounter the Shchina.  Considering that our sitting
under the 'sechach' of the sukka symbolizes our sitting
under the 'clouds of God's glory' in the desert ["sukkot
kenegged ananei ha-kavod' / Sukka 11b], then Yom Kippur
could actually be considered a preparation for Sukkot!
To enable us to 'dwell' together with the Shchina in our
sukka, we must first complete the process of kappara on
Yom Kippur.
	This thematic connection can help us understand
many other halachot and customs of Sukkot.
	For example, the gemara in Sukka 5b learns the
minimum height of the sukka - 10 'tephachim' - from the
height of the kaporet!  [Recall last week's shiur which
discussed the significance of the kaporet in relation to
the Shchina / see also complete sugya in Masechet Sukka
beginning at the bottom of 4b.]  In fact, the same
shoresh as 'sechach' is found in the pasuk which
describes the keruvim on the kaporet: 've-hayu
ha-keruvim... sochechim be-kanfeihem al ha-kaporet...'
(see Shmot 25:20).
	This pasuk clearly shows how the sechach of our
sukka reflects our dwelling under the Shchina.

II.  THE DOUBLE MUSSAF ON SUKKOT
	In Parshat Pinchas (Bamidbar chps. 28-29) we
find a complete list of all the korbanot mussaf which we
offered in addition to the daily tamid offering in the
bet ha-mikdash.
	If you make a table of the korbanot for each
holiday, you will notice an interesting pattern:
	On each of the Tishrei holidays (except Sukkot),
i.e. Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, and Shmini Atzeret, we
offer an identical korban mussaf - 1 'par', 1 'ayil',
and 7 'kevasim'.
	On each of the shalosh regalim (except Sukkot),
i.e. chag ha-matzot and Shavu'ot, we offer an identical
korban mussaf - 2 parim, 1 ayil, and 7 kevasim.
	The mussaf of Sukkot is quite different, each
day the amount of parim changes (from 13 down to 7), and
each day we offer 2 eilim and 14 kevasim!  [See Bamidbar
29:12-34.]
	The additional parim are the most striking
difference, and Chazal explain that these are added for
the 70 nations for whom Sukkot is also celebrated
(13+12+11+10+9+8+7=70).  [See also Zecharya chapter 14,
haftara on first day Sukkot.]
	However, the extra ayil & kevasim also require
explanation.
	Note, that they are double the number that are
offered on all of the other holidays.  In other words,
instead of 1 ayil we bring 2 eilim; instead of 7 kevasim
we bring 14 kevasim.  This indicates that there must be
something 'double' about Sukkot.
	The answer may be quite simple.  Sukkot is both
one of the shalosh regalim (see Shmot 23:14-17 & Devarim
16:1-17), and a Tishrei holiday as well.  Therefore, it
requires a double mussaf. In other words, it should have
daily:
		 3 parim [2+1];
		 2 eilim [1+1];
		14 kevasim [7+7].

	However, we add an additional 49 parim
[10+9+8+7+6+5+4] to reach a total of 70
[49+(3x7)=49+21=70], as explained above.
		[Again we find 49 [7x7] related to the
shalosh regalim.]

	This may reflect the double nature of Sukkot.
On the one hand it is one of the shalosh regalim in
which we thank Hashem for our harvest of the
agricultural year which has just finished.  At the same
time, we stand in anticipation of the agricultural year
which is about to begin, awaiting its important rainy
season (see shiur on Rosh Ha'shana), just as we do on
all of the other Tishrei holidays.
	This 'double nature' is reflected by the two
times in daily davening on Sukkot when we hold the lulav
& etrog, during:
1) Hallel - to thank God for the harvest of the past
year;
2) Hoshanot - to pray to God in anticipation of the new
Year.

	Similarly, this 'double nature' may also reflect
the two reasons that Chazal [see Sukka 11b] give us for
sitting in the sukka.
	1) sukkot mamash - real booths, to protect us
from the sun.
    This may reflect the aspect of the harvest holiday,
where we need to build temporary booths in the field as
we gather our fruits in the fields. 
	2) sukkot kenegged ananei ha-kavod -
representing God's  Shchina which protected Bnei Yisrael
in the desert.

III.  NOT BY CHANCE
	Regarding for celebrating each of the shalosh
regalim.
	In our shiur, we discussed the connection
between the historical and agricultural reason for
Succot.  Now we will discuss that connection in regard
to the other two shalosh regalim. 

    The fact that the Torah provides two reasons for
celebrating sukkot should not surprise us.  After all,
the other two shalosh regalim - i.e. chag ha-matzot &
Shavu'ot - also carry both historical and agricultural
perspectives:
	Chag ha-matzot not only commemorates the events
of the Exodus from Egypt, but also must be celebrated at
the onset of the spring.  [See Shmot 13:3-4, 23:14-15, &
Devarim 16:1-2.]  Consequently, on that holiday the
Torah commands us to bring the 'omer' offering from the
first barley harvest (see Vayikra 23:10-11). 
	Similarly, even though chag Shavu'ot
commemorates the historical event of matan Torah, the
Torah presents it primarily as an agricultural holiday
(= chag ha-katzir), marking the conclusion of the wheat
harvest.  [See Shmot 23:16 & Vayikra 23:15-17.]  
	This phenomena - that each of the shalosh
regalim contains both historical and agricultural
significance - begs explanation, and suggests that we
search for a thematic connection between each
perspective - for each holiday.
	
THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
    Recall from our study of Sefer Shmot that God
orchestrated the events of the Exodus in such a manner
that we would celebrate this event specifically at the
onset of the spring.  [See Shmot 13:2-3, 23:14-15, &
Devarim 16:1-2.]  
	Thematically, this may suggest that our freedom
from bondage reflects only the first stage of the
redemption process, just as the spring is only the first
stage in the yearly cycle of the harvest season.
	However, if this assumption is correct, then we
should extend this reasoning to the other two holidays
as well.  One could suggest that Shavu'ot and Sukkot,
respectively, each focuses on a certain aspect of the
culmination of the redemption process that began with
the Exodus.  Let's explain how.
	Recall how the Torah presented a double purpose
for the Exodus from Egypt:
	1) to receive the Torah at Har Sinai
	"... ta'avdun et Elokim ba-har ha-zeh" (see
Shmot 3:12)
	2) to inherit the Land of Israel
    "?a?aleh etchem?el eretz zavat chalav u-dvash"
     (see 3:17).
	[See TSC shiur on Parshat Shmot.]

	This double purpose may be reflected in the
respective historical aspects of the two 'harvest'
holidays that follow the 'spring' holiday.  Clearly,
Shavu'ot - the 'grain harvest' holiday - commemorates
the events of matan Torah.  Hence, we must conclude that
Sukkot - the fruit harvest holiday - must commemorate in
some manner our entry into the Land of Israel.
	We discussed this aspect in detail in the above
shiur.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1716 -
Release Date: 10/9/2008 9:44 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: succot.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 59867 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081010/492a84c9/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Fri Oct 17 02:34:19 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:34:19 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Vzot Habracha -shiur
Message-ID: <FA960C3D032D4152A553633925354DC1@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

PARSHAT VE-ZOT HA-BRACHA

    Ve-zot ha-bracha is a classic example of a Parsha
that almost everyone knows by heart (at least the first
three aliyot), but almost no one understands. [That's
because it is read numerous times in shul, but its words
are very difficult to translate.] 
    In this week's shiur, we try to 'break ice' by
undertaking a basic analysis of the Parsha's structure
and theme. 

INTRODUCTION
    We begin our study with a short discussion of the
two obvious problems that one encounters when studying
the order of the tribes in these blessings. 
    First of all, one tribe (Shimon) appears to be
missing, i.e. his tribe is not even mentioned within
Moshe's blessings. Secondly, the order of these
blessings (tribe by tribe) proceeds in what appears to
be a rather random sequence. 
    To better appreciate these two problems, the
following table lists the tribes according to their
order in Ve-zot ha-bracha. To accentuate the apparent
lack of sequence in this list, next to each 'shevet'
[tribe] we note their respective matriarch and relative
position according to birth. 

THE ORDER OF THE TRIBES
# 	SHEVET	MATRIARCH & position of birth
1 	Reuven 		Leah 	 	1 
2 	Yehuda 		Leah 	 	4 
3 	Levi 			Leah 	 	3 
4 	Binyamin 		Rachel 	12 
5 	Yosef 		Rachel 	11 [ Efraim & Menashe] 
6 	Zevulun 		Leah 	 	6 
7 	Yissachar 		Leah 		 5 
8 	Gad 			Zilpa 	 9 
9 	Dan 			Bilha 	 7 
10 	Naftali 		Bilha 	 8 
11 	Asher 		Zilpa 	10 
   * Note that the tribe of SHIMON is missing! 

    Carefully study this list. On the one hand, the
order of the "shvatim" is certainly not random, as the
children of the maidservants (Bilha & Zilpa) are grouped
at the end, while the children of Rachel and
'sandwiched' together between Leah's elder and younger
children. 
    One the other hand, there doesn't seem to be an
apparent reason for Rachel's children to be 'inserted'
in this manner. And of course, as you noticed, Shimon is
'missing'! 
    Furthermore, although it's pretty clear why Reuven
is first, as he is the oldest, why does Moshe skip from
Reuven to Yehuda? Likewise, why does Binyamin precede
his older brother Yosef, and why do the children of
Rachel 'interrupt' Moshe's blessings to the children of
Leah? 
    Finally, why does Zevulun precede Yissachar, why
does Gad precede Dan, and why do the children of Bilha
'interrupt' the children of Zilpa? 
    Even in Parshat Bamidbar, where we find the tribes
listed in various orders as they prepare to organize the
camp around the Mishkan (see TSC shiur), we find no list
that is even slightly resembles this order of the
blessings in Ve-zot ha-bracha. 
    In summary, although the list is not altogether
random, it certainly doesn't follow any apparent logic.
In our shiur, we attempt to identify its rationale. To
that end, we must first consider the nature and purpose
of these blessings. 

FROM YAAKOV TO MOSHE
    Ve-zot ha-bracha is not the first time in Chumash
where we find that each tribe receives a blessing.
Recall that back in Parshat Va'ychi, Yaakov Avinu
blesses each tribe before his death. Unlike Moshe,
however, Yaakov addresses his children in almost exact
age order: Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Yehuda, Zevulun &
Yissachar [note slight deviation], Dan (first born of
Bilha), Gad (first born of Zilpa), Asher, and Naftali. 
[The only problem, of course, is that Zevulun precedes
his older brother Yissachar (for an explanation, see
Seforno Br. 49:13, based on Midrash Tanchuma Vayechi
11.). Although Gad & Asher precede Naftali, they may
very well have been born first, depending on how one
understands Breishit 30:5-10.] 

    The reason why Yaakov blesses his children in 'age
order' is quite simple. As we explained in our shiur on
Parshat Va'ychi, Yaakov (prior to his death) blesses
each son according to his individual potential, as
exhibited and manifest throughout each respective son's
life. As those blessings related to the personal destiny
of each son, it makes sense that they would follow (more
or less) in the order or oldest to youngest. 
    Moshe, by contrast, is not the 'dying father' of
twelve sons. He is rather the 'departing leader' of
twelve tribes to whom he has given the Torah and who are
about to conquer and occupy the Land of Israel. As we
would expect, his blessings accurately reflect the
setting and circumstances in which they are
administered. 
    In the first part of our shiur, we will show how
each of Moshe's blessings relates in one form or another
to either the tribe's forthcoming military conquest of
the land; or to their leadership potential; or to the
quality of the specific 'nachala' (territory) that they
are destined to inherit. 
    Afterward, we will show how these observations will
enable us to answer our original questions concerning
the strange order of the tribes in these blessings. 

THE 'GIST' OF THE BLESSINGS
    Let's quickly review the gist of each blessing, one
tribe at a time, noting how each blessing relates to
either the defining characteristic that tribe's
inheritance [nachala], or to the tribe's role in the
imminent conquest of the land. 

REUVEN 
    At first glance, Moshe Rabbeinu's opening remarks to
the tribe of Reuven appears to be simply a blessing of
'life'. 
"Let Reuven live and not die, and let his numbers be
counted"  (see Devarim 33:6). 

    Nonetheless, both Rashi and Seforno explain how
these remarks actually relate to the forthcoming
conquest of the land. 
    Rashi explains how this blessing addresses Moshe's
concern that Reuven would not receive a nachala at all -
as he may have lost that right when Yaakov cursed him
(on account of his sin with Bilha / see Breishit
49:3-4), just as he forfeited his claim to the 'bechora'
(birthright). [See also Targum Onkelos.] 
    Furthermore, the fact that Reuven had already 'set
up camp' outside the biblical borders of Eretz Canaan
(in Transjordan) provided yet another reason to doubt
whether Reuven would truly become an 'official' tribe of
Israel. Hence, Rashi explains that the purpose of
Moshe's blessing was to counter these fears, thus
reassuring Reuven that he will remain 'alive,' i.e. a
full fledged member of the tribes of Israel. 
    In contrast, Chizkuni offers a 'military'
explanation for this blessing. Considering that the
tribe of Reuven had recently promised to 'take the front
line' in the forthcoming battles to conquer Eretz Canaan
[i.e. to be the 'chalutz' - see Bamidbar 32:20-32],
Moshe bestows upon them a blessing of 'life' to help
them survive this most dangerous task, praying in their
behalf that their 'number' ['mispar'] - population -
should remain the same after battle as it was
beforehand. [For a similar approach, see commentary of
Rabbenu Yosef Bechor Shor.] 
    For the purpose of our shiur, note how both
commentators make every effort to relate this blessing
(and all the others) to the forthcoming events, as the
twelve tribes now prepare to conquer the land. 

YEHUDA
"Hear Hashem the [battle] cry of Yehuda and help him
lead his people. Make his hands strong for him, and help
him against his enemies" (33:7). 
    [See Rashi and Ibn Ezra] 
    Clearly, the bracha to Yehuda relates to his
military leadership, as Moshe foresees that the soldiers
of Yehuda will be particularly enthusiastic and diligent
in the conquest of their portion in the Land (see
Yehoshua chapter 14 and Sefer Shoftim chapter 1). 

LEVI
    After a short reference to Aharon, the tribal leader
of the tribe of Levi (and "kohen gadol" /high priest) ,
Moshe addresses Levi as follows: 
"They shall teach Your laws to Yaakov and Your
instructions to Israel; they shall offer ktoret... and
whole-offerings [olot] on the mizbeiach. God should
bless his chayil and favor his undertakings. Help him
smite the loins of those who rise against him, and don't
allow his enemies to succeed" (33:8-11). 

    This blessing to Levi focuses on this tribe's
responsibility to provide spiritual leadership, i.e. to
teach God's laws and officiate in His Temple.
Interestingly, however, even this function is presented
in 'military' jargon [e.g. the word 'cheilo' in 33:11]. 
[Note also 33:9, an apparent reference to Bnei Levi's
preparedness to prosecute and execute those who sinned
at chet ha-egel (see Rashi 33:9 and Shmot 32:26-29).
Indeed, their conduct at that point was of a 'military'
nature.] 

    Whereas all other tribes earned their "nachala", a
specific, designated portion of land, shevet Levi was
scattered among the various tribes in order to serve as
teachers throughout the country (note Devarim 18:1-2,
"Hashem hu nachlatam"!). Understandably, then, their
blessing relates to their leadership role, rather than
their allocated portion in the land. 

BINYAMIN
"Beloved to God, He shall allow His Shchina to dwell
securely within him. He constantly protects [=surrounds]
him, as He rests between his shoulders" (33:12). 

    This blessing (recently brought to fame by a popular
Avraham Fried song 'U-le'Binyamin amar...') focuses on
the special quality of Binyamin's nachala, its
designation to house the bet ha-mikdash (God's Temple)
in Yerushalayim. 

YOSEF [Efraim & Menashe]
"God's blessing is given to his land, with the bounty of
dew from heaven... with the bounty of the earth in its
fullness... 
    His 'horns' are like those of a wild ox, with them
he gores other nations... these are the 'tens of
thousands' of Efraim and these are the 'thousands' of
Menashe" (see 33:13-17). 

    The precise translation of this blessing is somewhat
elusive, but it clearly speaks of the bountiful nature
of the nachala apportioned to Yosef. It appears that
Yosef will bear the responsibility of forming the
backbone of Israel's agrarian economy (as was Yosef's
job in Egypt - see Or Hachayim here).
    The final verse alludes to Yosef's military
competence that will grant him victory over enemy
nations. Specifically, Rashi understands the final pasuk
as a reference to the leadership of Yehoshua - a
descendant of Efraim - who led Am Yisrael in their
conquest of Eretz Canaan. 

ZEVULUN & YISSACHAR
"Rejoice Zevulun as you go out [to war; compare with
Bamidbar 27:17] and Yissachar in your tents. [Their
prosperity will catalyze] a call to other nations to
ascend God's mountain [see Ibn Ezra & Seforno] where
they will offer proper sacrifices, for they draw from
the riches of the sea and from the hidden hoards of the
sand" (33:18). 

    The opening sentence may refer to Zevulun's military
prowess [see Ibn Ezra's interpretation, in contrast to
Rashi's, and see Shoftim 5:18], but the conclusion of
the pasuk clearly relates to the importance of his
nachala. Their territory was situated along the sea [the
coast from Caesarea to the Acco/Haifa bay area], thus
forming Israel's gateway to foreign trade and,
consequently, economic relations with other nations.
Moshe anticipates that these business alliances will
lead to the recognition on the part of those nations of
the God of Israel - the primary long-term goal of Am
Yisrael (see Devarim 4:5-8 & previous shiurim on
Parshiot Noach & Lech Lecha). 
    The nachala of Yissachar, too, facilitates
international trade (and influence), as it lies in Emek
Yizrael, at the heart of the via maris - the ancient
trade route connecting Egypt with Mesopotamia. [See
Seforno 33:19, who alludes to Yissachar's role in
international trade.] 
    Furthermore, Rashbam (Breishit 49:14) understands
the 'tents' of Yissachar as a reference to this tribe's
involvement in agriculture, while Rabbenu Yosef Bechor
Shor (here) associates Yissachar's tents with the cattle
industry (compare with Breishit 4:20). All this, too,
relates directly to Yissachar's portion: the fertile
soil of Emek Yizreel renders it an ideal location for
both agriculture and livestock breeding. 

GAD
"Blessed be He who enlarges [the nachala of] Gad. He is
poised like a lion to tear off arm and scalp [i.e.
military strength]. He chose for himself the best
[nachala]..." (33:20-21).   [The rest of the pasuk is
very difficult, but most likely refers to his nachala as
the chosen spot for Moshe's burial site - see Rashi.] 

    Once again, Moshe's bracha focuses on the unique
nature of the given tribe's nachala, Gads initiative to
widen his inheritance in Transjordan, as well as their
military capabilities. 

DAN
"Dan is like a lion's whelp that leaps from the Bashan"
(see 33:22). 

    Dan's blessing obviously relates to their military
might and the location of their nachala - at the western
slopes of the Golan Heights [Bashan is the biblical name
for the Golan - see Devarim 3:8-10], today the area of
Tel Dan and Kiryat Shmona in the Chula valley of the
Upper Galil. Anyone who has been on a tiul to the Golan,
and visited the old Syrian bunkers that overlooked the
Chula valley and the area of Tel Dan and Kiryat Shemona,
can easily understand how the phrase 'yezanek min
ha-Bashan' describes the nachala of Dan. 
[Even though Devarim 4:43 indicates that the Golan
region itself was included in Menashe's nachala, not
Dan's, the Targum here explains, our pasuk means that
Dan lived near the Bashan, and the land in his region
was watered by the streams flowing down from the Bashan.
Note as well that Ibn Ezra (and others) explain Moshe's
bracha as having nothing to do with Dan's actual
portion, rather the tribe's military strength. He
interprets 'yezanek min ha-Bashan' as modifying the lion
to whom Dan is compared, rather than the tribe of Dan
itself.] 

    Additionally, Rashi explains the lion metaphor as a
reference to Dan's location on the border, standing
guard against enemy intrusion. [Almost prophetic!] 

NAFTALI
"Naftali should be satiated [for his nachala] is full of
God's blessing, to the west and south (of his brother
Dan) he shall/must conquer his land" (33:23). [See Ibn
Ezra's comments regarding the word 'yarasha'.] 
    [See also Ramban - note why he quotes the Midrash.] 

    Again, Moshe's bracha relates to the agricultural
potential of this nachala and the conquest of that
portion. [Parenthetically, Naftali's nachala is situated
in the fertile and beautiful region of the Upper Galil,
to the west and south of Tel Dan (including Zefat & Har
Meron).] 

ASHER
"May Asher be the most blessed of sons, may he be the
favorite of his brothers and may he dip his foot in oil.
Iron and copper are your door-bolts, and your security
should last for all your days" (33:24). 

    These psukim require further elucidation, but what
is clear is that they relate to two unique
characteristics of Asher's nachala: its abundance of
olive trees (and hence olive oil) and its location on
Israel's northern border. [See Ramban's interpretation,
that Asher's portion guards the country's northern
border (and thus serves as an 'iron lock' securing the
country). See also Seforno, who explains that the
presence of iron & copper locks on their homes reflects
the wealth of their land.] 

SUMMARY
    As we review all these brachot, it becomes clear
that they all focus on the nature of each nachala and
the conquest of the land. In fact, almost all the
commentators, especially Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni, and Seforno
(in addition to Rashi and Ramban), relate to this aspect
of the nachalot throughout their interpretation of these
psukim. 
    These observations can help us understand the
underlying intention of the blessings that Moshe
Rabbeinu bestows at this time. Aware of the military
capabilities of each tribe and the anticipated
geographic division of the land (note 34:1-4), Moshe
blesses each tribe - encouraging them to achieve their
fullest potential in the forthcoming conquest of Eretz
Canaan.
[In essence, that is what 'blessings' are all about -
i.e. the fulfillment of personal potential!] 

    Based on this understanding, we can return to our
original question and make some sense out of the
seemingly random order of their presentation. 

'INHERIT' ORDER
    As these blessings relate to the "nachalot" - the
upcoming inheritance of each tribe, we posit that the
order of the blessings follow according to the order of
the geographical location of those nachalot. 
[To appreciate how this theory explains their order, it
is recommended that you follow this section of the shiur
while referring to a map of the nachalot of the tribes
in the Land of Israel.]
 
    Recall from the opening lines of the Parasha - how
Reuven is the first tribe to receive Moshe's blessing.
Reuven is first, not just because he is the oldest, but
rather because Reuven was the first tribe to conquer his
portion, as recorded in Bamidbar chapter 32 (& Devarim
3:16-19). 
    If this theory was correct, we would now expect Gad
to receive the next blessing (who joined Reuven in their
conquest of Transjordan).  Instead, we find that the
next blessing goes to Yehuda (see 33:6-8).  However, one
can suggest a very simple explanation - as there appears
to be an 'overriding' rule that governs the order of
these blessing - that Moshe first blesses the tribes
from Yaakov's wives (i.e. the children of Leah & Rachel)
- and only afterward blesses the tribes from the
maidservants (Bilha & Zilpa). 
    This principle beautifully explains the order when
Moshe finally blesses these four tribes (from the
maidservants) towards the end of the Parasha.  Note how
he begins by blessing Gad (see 33:20), because they
conquered their nachala first (in Transjordan) - even
though Dan is the older brother (and the head of the
camp in the desert /see  Bamidbar chapter 2!). 
    
    These observations can also help clarify the content
of Reuven's blessing. Moshe must emphasize that even
though Reuven's nachala lies outside the borders of
Eretz Canaan, they retain their status as an 'official'
shevet (as we explained earlier). 

YEHUDA FIRST
    Once we skip Gad, Reuven is followed by Yehuda - the
first of the tribes to successfully conquer their
portion of land, as detailed both in Sefer Yehoshua
(chapters 14->15) and in Sefer Shoftim (1:1-15). This
also explains why Yehuda's blessing focuses on their
military power. 
    Next, Moshe Rabbeinu works his way 'up north', from
Yehuda (in the south) through Binyamin to Efraim and
Menashe. This principle (of geographical order) explains
why Binyamin precedes Yosef, for his nachala is located
north of Yehuda, but south of Efraim. We'll soon
continue with the tribes located to the north of Efraim,
but first, we must explain what happened to Shimon &
Levi. 

A 'SOLUTION' FOR SHIMON
    Our approach thus far can also provide us with a
clue as to why Shimon does not receive a blessing in
Ve-zot Ha-bracha. Considering that Shimon's nachala is
later included (almost 'swallowed up') within the
borders of Yehuda (see Yehoshua 19:1 & 19:9!), one could
conclude that Shimon basically never received their own
nachala (a fulfillment of Yaakov's 'blessing' to Shimon
in Breishit 48:5-7). Furthermore, in the aftermath of
'chet bnot Mo'av' their numbers were severely reduced
(see Bamidbar 26:14, compare 1:23!), hence we can
conclude that their army may not have played a major
role in the conquest of the land as well. 
[Note Rashi on 33:7 (towards the end), where he quotes a
Midrash Tehillim that the bracha to Shimon is actually
'included' within the bracha to Yehuda: 'shma Hashem'
contains the first letters of Shimon's name,
'shin.mem.ayin'. In fact, the same wording is used when
Shimon is first named by his mother: 'ki shama Hashem ki
snu'a anochi' (see Breishit 29:33!).] 

    As Shimon's conquest and inheritance during the time
period of Yehoshua will be almost negligible, his tribe
is totally skipped. 

WHY LEVI & BINYAMIN COME FIRST
    Now, we must explain why Levi follows immediately
after Yehuda, before all the other shvatim. 
    To do so, we must first explain why according to our
theory (that the blessings relate specifically to the
nachalot) -Levi should not have received any blessing,
for they were not destined to receive any portion in the
land - as Moshe himself has stated earlier: 
"The kohanim-levi'im - the entire tribe of Levi - shall
not receive a nachala with the rest of Israel ... God is
his nachala, as He spoke to him" (see Devarim 18:1-2). 

    However, a closer analysis of this pasuk can provide
us with a very meaningful reason for not only the nature
of Moshe's blessing to Levi, but also its position! Note
how the tribe of Levi did, indeed receive a nachala -
not a tract of land, but rather 'nachalat Hashem' - i.e.
as a tribe, they are destined to serve the people as
God's representatives. 
    Towards that purpose, God separated the entire
shevet of Levi to serve in the bet ha-mikdash and to
teach Torah to Bnei Yisrael; and hence, this
responsibility is considered their nachala. 
    Even though this special nachala does not carry a
distinct geographical border, nonetheless the bet
ha-mikdash ['makom asher yivchar Hashem' / see Devarim
chapter 12] was to become the central location for the
fulfillment of these responsibilities. Considering that
the permanent bet ha-mikdash was destined to be built in
Jerusalem [= Har ha-Moria, see Divrei Hayamim II 3:1],
Moshe Rabbeinu treats the tribe of Levi as though its
nachala will be that city. 
    As we all know, the city of Jerusalem is located
precisely between the borders of the tribes of Yehuda
(to the south) and Binyamin (to the north / see Yehoshua
15:8 & 18:16) - therefore his blessing follows that of
Yehuda (and precedes the blessing to Binyamin) - and
deals with their tribal responsibilities to teach Torah
to Israel, and officiate in the Temple: 
"...They shall teach Your laws to Yaakov and Your Torah
to Israel - they shall put incense and whole
burnt-offering upon Your altar. God should bless his
substance, and accept the work of his hands..." (see
33:8-11). 

    Even though the cities wherein the Levites will live
are scattered among the tribes, Jerusalem will remain
their center. Furthermore, in Sefer Yehoshua we learn
how Yehuda becomes the first tribe to supply cities for
the levi'im (see Yehoshua 21:1-4). [This may be an
additional reason why Levi follows Yehuda in Ve-zot
Ha-bracha.] And it only makes sense that their primary
cities would be located nearby Jerusalem - within the
tribes of Yehuda and Binyamin. 

BINYAMIN
    As the order proceeds from south to north, Binyamin
receives the next blessing, i.e. following Levi. This
'juxtaposition' to Levi also explains why Moshe's
blessing to Binyamin focuses first and foremost on this
tribe's role as the territory wherein God will allow His
Shchina to dwell (see 33:12-13!) Recall how Jerusalem is
located on its southern border, while the mishkan was
located in other cities within Binyamin, such as Gilgal,
Nov, and Givon. Accordingly, Binyamin's bracha deals
exclusively with God's promise that His Shchina will
dwell within this tribe's borders ['shoulders']. 

YOSEF & THE SHOMRON 
    As we proceed northward from the territory of
Binyamin, we enter the region settled by the children of
Yosef, first Efraim and then Menashe (located farther to
the north). Once again, our theory also explains why
Moshe's blessing to Yosef focuses primarily on the
land's vast agricultural potential and the tribe's
military strength. 

YISSACHAR & ZEVULUN
    To explain why Yissachar and Zevulun follow Menashe,
we must consider once again the geography of the land. 
    Thus far, we have seen how the blessings proceed
from north to south, however, as the borders of Efraim &
Menashe extend from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan
River, we have not yet found an example of whether an
eastern territory should precede a western one (or visa
versa). We do encounter this problem in regard to
Yissachar and Zevulun, as both occupy the area north of
Yosef's border, Zevulun to the west (along the coast)
and Yissachar to the east (in Emek Yizrael until the
Jordan River). 
    As we explained earlier, this territory serves as
the gateway to foreign trade, convoys and shipping, as
reflected in Moshe's blessings to Yissachar and Zevulun.

    Although no 'geographical' reason seems to warrant
Zevulun's precedence over his older brother, Yissachar,
Moshe Rabbeinu follows the pattern set by Yaakov Avinu,
who also blessed Zevulun before Yissachar (see Breishit
49:13-14). It should also be noted that Zevulun precedes
Yissachar in Sefer Yehoshua chapter 19, as well, in the
context of the apportionment of the land among the
tribes. 
[Rashi also provides an answer relating to the famous
Yissachar/Zevulun 'work/study Torah' arrangement.] 

BNEI HA-SHFACHOT
    As we explained above, Moshe blesses the children of
Yaakov's maidservants only after he completes the
blessings to Leah and Rachel's children. However,
consistent with his pattern heretofore, he presents his
blessings in the order of their nachalot, rather than
the order of their births. 
    Moshe begins this group of shvatim with Gad, who,
together with Reuven, took their nachala first, in
Transjordan, before the other tribes established their
settlements. Dan & Naftali follow, as their nachalot are
situated to the north of Yissachar & Zevulun. Finally he
comes to Asher, whose nachala extends along the entire
northern border of Israel (today southern Lebanon). 
    These geographic considerations explain the
progression of Moshe's blessing, in what would otherwise
have been considered a very strange internal order. 
    Furthermore, this analysis also provides us with a
better appreciation of the content of these final four
blessings, as they focus on the beauty of the land, each
tribe's need for expansion, and how they protect
Israel's northern and eastern borders. Moshe's blessings
thus encourage these tribes, who reside far away from
the center of the country, to rise to the challenges
that their nachalot present. [Sefer Yehoshua and Sefer
Shoftim provide us with numerous examples of how
difficult this challenge truly was.] 

The OPENER & the FINALE
    Now that we have explained the individual brachot
and their sequence, we conclude our shiur by taking a
quick look at Moshe Rabbeinu's opening and concluding
comments, to see how they relate to our discussion thus
far. 
    Moshe introduces his brachot with a four-pasuk
'opener' (see 33:2-5) and a corresponding four-pasuk
'closer' (see 33:26-29). The introductory psukim - the
precise translation of which requires further discussion
beyond the scope of this shiur - clearly point to
Ma'amad Har Sinai and Moshe's role as the transmitter of
the laws commanded at Har Sinai. 
    Moshe's closing remarks focus on God as the
Protector of Israel, Who provides close supervision (see
33:26), assistance in battle (see 33:26,27,29), and
agricultural and economic prosperity (see 33:26 & 28). 
    Not only do these opening and closing remarks form
the appropriate framework for the individual blessings,
they also directly relate to the primary theme of Sefer
Devarim (and, for that matter, Chumash as a whole). God
has chosen the Jewish nation to represent Him as His
model nation to guide mankind in the proper direction.
To that end, He gave them the Torah (see 33:2-5), which
contains the specific laws whose observance in the
Promised Land leads to the realization of that goal.
Now, before his death, Moshe blesses Bnei Yisrael that
they fulfill that potential, that God assist them in
their achievement of these goals, in the nachala they
are about to conquer and occupy. 
Certainly, a most appropriate way for Moshe Rabbeinu to
finish the Torah, and thus conclude his life's mission! 

    chazak chazak ve-nitchazek 
    shabbat shalom ve-chag sameiach, 
    menachem 
    
========================== 
FOR FURTHER IYUN
A. Be sure to see Ramban & Ibn Ezra on 33:7. Many of the
points raised in the above shiur are discussed in their
peirushim to this pasuk. The Ramban is rather lengthy,
but well worth reading! 

B. In the context of the bracha to Reuven - that he
should 'live', we mentioned several explanations: either
that he should not lose his portion on account of his
sin with Bilha, or he should retain his status as part
of the twelve tribes in spite of settling in
Transjordan, or that his men should survive the dangers
of the front line where they stood during the conquest
of Eretz Yisrael. Abarbanel adds an additional element
to this final approach, that the women and children of
Reuven remained behind across the Jordan as the men went
to fight in Eretz Yisrael proper (see Bamidbar 32).
Moshe thus prays on behalf of the defenseless wives and
youngsters who were exposed to the possibility of attack
by hostile neighbors. 
With respect to the possibility that Moshe was concerned
about the Jordan River isolating Reuven from the rest of
the nation, see Seforno on this pasuk, who advances a
variation of this general approach. 

C. Moshe beseeches, "Hear, Hashem, the cry of Yehuda?"
There are two ways to explain this 'cry'. In the shiur
we followed the approach of Rashi and Ramban, that this
'cry' refers to wartime prayers. Moshe expresses his
hope that Hashem will listen to Yehuda's pleas during
warfare. Chazal, however, in Masechet Makkot 11b,
explain that Moshe here prays for Yehuda's release from
the excommunication to which he was subjected as a
result of his promise to Yaakov (Breishit 43:9). Based
on these two approaches and our discussion of Reuven's
bracha, explain the phrase 'Ve-zot li-Yehuda" and the
relationship between Moshe's brachot to Reuven and
Yehuda. [See Da'at Zkenim.] 

D. Targum Yonatan on Devarim 18:2 ('Hashem Hu
nachalato') writes that the twenty-four gifts given to
the kohanim constitute the nachala of the tribe of Levi.
Compare this comment with our understanding of Levi's
nachala, and assess this notion in light of Moshe's
bracha to Levi and this shiur. 

E. Rashi offers one interpretation of the final clause
of Levi's bracha (33:11) that it foresees the battle
waged by the Chashmonaim (who were kohanim, descendants
of Levi) against the Greeks (see also Targum Yonatan).
Based on your knowledge of the history of Chanukka and
in light of our discussion in this shiur, explain how
this struggle may be viewed as part of Levi's conquest
of 'his portion' in Eretz Yisrael. How does this
Midrashic approach relate to the pshat of the pasuk as
explained in this shiur? 

F. A particularly novel interpretation of Binyamin's
bracha is offered by Rabbenu Yosef Bechor Shor. He
explains the bracha as referring not to Hashem's
dwelling in Binyamin's portion, but rather to the
constant influx of kohanim and levi'im into the borders
of Nachalat Binyamin to serve in the mikdash. (Meaning,
'yishkon' and 'chofef' modify the tribe of Levi, not
God.) Thus, the brachot to Levi and Binyamin essentially
constitute a single bracha. Explain how this may add to
the ideas discussed in this shiur regarding the
juxtaposition between these two brachot. 

G. The Midrash towards the beginning of Shmot Rabba
writes that the name 'Zevulun' refers to the fact "that
Hashem had His Shchina dwell among them [Bnei Yisrael]?
'Zevulun' means the bet ha-mikdash, as it says, 'I
[Shlomo] have built a 'bet zvul' for You?'". 
    Explain this association between Zevulun and the
mikdash based on Moshe's bracha to this tribe in Ve-zot
Ha-bracha. 

H. Contrast Targum Onkelos' translation of the
expression 'gur aryeh' in Yaakov's bracha to Yehuda
(Breishit 49:9) with his explanation of the exact same
term in Moshe's bracha to Dan (Devarim 33:22). Explain
how this difference may reflect the distinction between
Yaakov's brachot and Moshe's, as discussed in this
shiur. [See also question K in Further Iyun.] 

I. BACK TO SHIMON 
We suggested our own reason for Shimon's conspicuous
absence from this parsha, but the commentators provide
several additional reasons. Rashi cites their sin with
bnot Mo'av, the responsibility for which seems to lie
with shevet Shimon. Ibn Ezra suggests that Moshe may be
following the lead of Yaakov, who cursed Shimon & Levi
instead of blessing them. Levi, however, earned Moshe's
blessing on account of Aharon, a man of stature with no
equal in the tribe of Shimon. [In terms of Reuven, who
was also cursed by Yaakov, the Ibn Ezra explains that in
reality Yaakov did bless Reuven, and he thus earned
Moshe's bracha, as well.] 
    Rabbenu Yosef Bechor Shor also maintains that Moshe
followed Yaakov's lead in withholding a bracha from
Shimon, but offers a different explanation for Reuven's
right to a bracha. Since Moshe himself ordered the tribe
of Reuven to join Gad in the front lines in the conquest
of Eretz Yisrael, he had to bless Reuven with military
success, just as he blessed Gad.] 
    Ramban posits an interesting theory - the 'twelve
rule' - that whenever the tribes are mentioned, there
can be only twelve of them. Usually, Levi is omitted and
Yosef is replaced by Efraim & Menashe. But now that all
three - Levi, Efraim and Menashe - must be included, one
shevet must be dropped. Shimon, whose nachala, as we
have seen, is situated within Yehuda's portion, and who
was cursed by Yaakov, serves as the best candidate to
forfeit his blessing. 

J. One question we have not addressed is why Menashe is
not mentioned before Yehuda. After all, Menashe - like
Reuven - settled before the other tribes, in
Transjordan. This issue relates to the general and more
complicated topic concerning nachalat Menashe, why it
was divided into two, and how their portion relates (or
doesn't relate) to Reuven and Gad's - all beyond the
scope of this week's shiur. 

K. We noted in the shiur the fundamental distinction
between Moshe's brachot in our parsha and Yaakov's
blessings to his sons in Parshat Vayechi. The Midrash,
however, actually draws a parallel of sorts between
these two sets of blessings: 
"And this is that which their father [Yaakov] spoke unto
them: [Yaakov told his sons,] another man of similar
stature is destined to bless you, and from where I have
left off he shall begin? " (Breishit Rabba 100:12). 
    Where in the history of Am Yisrael did Yaakov 'leave
off'? Where did Moshe begin? How may this Midrash be
understood in light of this shiur? 

L. We did not address in the shiur the reason why Moshe
felt compelled to divide the tribes into the two groups,
the sons of the maidservants and those of Rachel and
Leah. A precedent for this differentiation with regard
to Bnei Yisrael's settlement in the land exists back in
Parshat Vayechi. Yaakov Avinu bestows upon Yosef the
legal status of the bechora, which grants him a double
portion in Eretz Yisrael (Breishit 48:5). Divrei Hayamim
I 5:1 tells us that the rights of the bechora were taken
away from Reuven as a result of his sin with Bilha and
transferred to Yosef. 
    Needless to say, several children - including two
firstborns, from both Bilha and Zilpa - were born in
between Reuven and Yosef. However, the firstborns of the
maidservants did not qualify for the rights of the
double nachala. Apparently, although all twelve tribes
earned equal membership in Bnei Yisrael, some
hierarchical system remained at least with regard to the
settlement of the Land. Perhaps for this reason Moshe
arranged his blessings for the successful occupation and
settlement of Eretz Yisrael according to this division. 



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.8.1/1728 -
Release Date: 10/16/2008 7:38 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vzot.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 53773 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081017/1b596925/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Oct 19 14:16:18 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:16:18 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] for Shmini Atzeret
Message-ID: <F9EB31D5670941D5884B554DEED39E89@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

          for SHMINI ATZERET   From 7 to 8

     What is so special about the number 'eight' in
Chumash?
Is it only coincidental that:
 *   In Sefer Breishit - specifically the 'eighth day'
is
chosen for Brit Milah;
 *   In Parshat Shmini - specifically the 'eighth day'
is
chosen for the dedication of the Mishkan;
 *   In Parshat Metzora - the 'eighth day' is chosen for
the
day on which the cleansed Metzora, Zav, and Zavah bring
their
special korbanot;
 *   In Parshat Emor - the final holiday is "SHMINI
atzeret" -
the 'eighth day' of Succot!
     In the following shiur, we attempt to explain why
the
number eight is so special, based on the Biblical
significance
of the number seven.

INTRODUCTION
     In previous shiurim we have discussed the special
relationship between the Number SEVEN and 'nature',
especially
in regard to the "shalosh regalim" [the three pilgrimage
holidays].  For example, in our shiur our Parshat Emor
we
noted that is not by chance that the Torah commands us
to:
  * Celebrate specifically SEVEN days of Chag Ha'matzot
in
  the spring; and then -
  * To count SEVEN weeks until the grain harvest holiday
of
  Shavuot; and finally -
  * To celebrate our fruit harvest during the SEVEN days
of
  Succot.

     The fact that each of these holidays include either
seven
days or seven weeks suggests a connection between the
number
seven and agriculture. By emphasizing SEVEN in relation
to
these agricultural holidays, the Torah highlights our
need to
recognize that the powers of nature are indeed God's
creation,
and we must thank Him accordingly.
  Similarly, our shiur on Parshat Breishit discussed how
the
Torah presents of the story of Creation as taking place
in
SEVEN days ? to emphasize how the very creation of
'nature'
itself was a willful act of the One God - and not the
result
of conflicts among a pantheon of many gods, each
exerting its
power over a certain part of nature.
     In the following shiur, we return to Sefer Breishit
in
search of the biblical significance of the number
'eight', to
show how and why it should relate to those 'seven' days
of
Creation.

EIGHT & BRIT MILAH
     In some of the examples quoted above from Sefer
Vayikra,
'eight' appears to be significant simply because it
follows a
sequence of 'seven' days. For example:
 *   "Yom Ha'shmini" follows the SEVEN days of the
"miluim";
 *   The korbanot on the eighth day of the Metzora and
Zav
follow their minimum SEVEN day "tahara" period;
 *   "Shmini Atzeret" follows the SEVEN days of Succot.

     However, when God first commanded Avraham Avinu
that
"brit milah" must be performed on the 'eighth day' after
a
child's birth (see Breishit 17:12) - there is no
apparent
reason why God chose specifically the 'eighth day'.
Certainly, it had nothing to do with a prior period of
'seven
days' (as did the other examples of a special 'eighth
day'
mentioned above).
  [Even though we are told in Parshat Tazria that the
mother
  is "tamey" (spiritually unclean) for the first seven
days
  after her son's birth (see Vayikra 12:2-5), there does
not
  appear to be any logical connection between these
seven
  days and the commandment to perform "milah' on the
eighth
  day that was first given way back in Sefer Breishit.
In
  fact, it seems quite the opposite - that because brit
milah
  needs to be performed on the eighth day, her 'tumah'
period
  is 'truncated' from 14 days to seven days.  ]
  
     In the following shiur, we re-examine this covenant
between God and Avraham Avinu [17:1-11/ better known as
"brit
milah"] in the 'wider' context of Sefer Breishit - to
uncover
a thematic connection between the 'eighth day' and the
'seven
days' of Creation.  [Hopefully, it will help us
understand not
only why "milah" is on the 'eighth day', but also why
the
holiday of "Shmini Atzeret" is so important.]

  As you most probably recall, the Torah uses several
names
to describe God (e.g. Elokim, Havaya, kel-shaddai,
etc.).
However, when the narrative of  "brit milah" begins in
chapter
17, something very peculiar takes place, as God
introduces
Himself to Avraham Avinu for the first time as
"kel-shaddai" -
after which the Torah consistently refers to God as
"Elokim"
(until the end of that chapter).
  To appreciate the thematic importance of this
observation,
we must first undertake a quick review of all the
previous
instances in Sefer Breishit when God spoke to man,
paying
special attention to when the Torah uses "shem Elokim".

IN WHAT 'NAME' DOES GOD SPEAK TO MAN?
     In our shiur on Parshat Breishit, we explained how
Chumash presents two parallel stories of God's creation
of the
universe:
  1) "b'shem ELOKIM" (1:1 -2:4) - [or  'perek aleph']
     which focused on God's creation of NATURE, i.e. a
     structured universe, in SEVEN days.

  2) "b'shem HAVAYA" (2:5-4:26) - [or 'perek bet']
     which focused on God's special relationship with
Man,
     i.e. the creation of Gan Eden, and man's banishment
from
     that environment after he sinned.

     Without going into the complex details and deeper
meaning
of this 'double presentation', we will simply posit that
God's
relationship with man develops along the lines of each
of
these two perspectives, as each of these divine Name
will
reflect a different perspective of the developing
relationship
between man and God.
     For example, in perek aleph, God - b'shem Elokim -
blesses man that he be fruitful & multiply, master the
earth
and rule over all other living creatures (see 1:26-28).
In
contrast to this perspective of man as ruler over God's
Creations, in perek bet - b'shem Havaya -man is created
in
order to become God's servant, whose job is to tend and
watch
over His Garden (see 2:15-17).
     This 'double perspective' is found once again in
the
Torah's account of the Flood, as God's decision to
destroy the
generation of the Flood (due to their sinful behavior)
is
presented according to both of these perspectives:
     1) b'shem Elokim - see 6:9-6:22.
     2) b'shem Havaya - see 6:5-8 & 7:1-5.

     Likewise, in the aftermath of the MABUL, God
redefines
His relationship with man, again from both perspectives:
     1) b'shem Elokim - see 9:1-17
     2) b'shem Havaya - see 8:18-21

     After the flood, the Torah describes ["b'shem
Elokim"]
how the children of Noach multiply and disperse into
seventy
nations (10:1-32), but immediately afterwards details
God's
punishment of the builders of the Tower of Babel while
referring to God using "shem Havaya" (see 11:1-10).

     At this point in Chumash (i.e. at the beginning of
Parshat Lech Lecha) this pattern (of 'double
presentation')
seems to end - for the Torah uses exclusively "shem
Havaya" as
it describes all the conversations between God and
Avraham
Avinu, from chapter 12 thru chapter 16.  The Torah's
exclusive
use of "shem Havaya" to describe these encounters is
thematically consistent with our assertion that God's
Name of
"Havaya" relates to the special relationship between man
and
God - where man is expected to act as a servant of God.
     For example, God's choice of Avraham Avinu to
become the
forefather of His special nation is described b'shem
Havaya
(see 12:1-9); so too His re-iteration of that promise
after
Lot's departure (see 13:14-17).
  Similarly, when God formalizes that promise into a
covenant
in "brit bein ha'btarim" (see 15:1-20) - again we find
the
Torah's employs "shem Havaya" in its description of God.
  
  For some reason, this exclusive (and logical) use of
"shem
Havaya" in the Torah's description of God's relationship
with
Avraham Avinu changes in chapter seventeen - when the
Torah
first uses "shem Elokim" to describe how God speaks to
Avraham
Avinu at "brit milah"!
     To understand the reason for this sudden change,
let's
take a closer look at how that chapter begins, noticing
how
God first introduces Himself as "kel sha-dai" before
speaking
to him b'shem ELOKIM:
  "When Avram was ninety-nine years, God [HAVAYA]
appeared to
  Avram and said to him: "ANI KEL SHA-DAI", walk before
Me
  and be blameless. And I will establish My COVENANT
between
  Me and you... Avram fell on his face, and God [ELOKIM]
  spoke to him saying... This is my COVENANT with
you..."
  (17:1-4)

  As you study these psukim, and the ones that follow,
note
how God (b'shem Elokim):
     a) changes Avram's name to Avraham;
     b) blesses him that he will multiply ("pru u'rvu");
     c) promises that he will become a great nation;
     d) promises him and his future generations Eretz
Canaan;
     e) promises to be his God ("le'hiyot l'cha
l'ELOKIM");
     f) commands him to circumcise his male children,
etc.

     In addition to these details in these psukim, pay
attention as well to their style - as they share some
very
interesting similarities to the only two earlier
instances
where Chumash uses " shem Elokim" to describe God
speaking to
man:
     (I) After the creation of man on the sixth day
(1:27-30);
     (II) After the Flood (see 9:1-17).

     To verify this, review those two sets of psukim,
noting
the parallels to the narrative of "brit milah":
  I)   On the sixth day, after man is created b'tzelem
  ELOKIM, God (b'shem ELOKIM) blesses him that he
should:
          a) be fruitful and multiply ("pru u'rvu");
          b) be master and ruler of the living kingdom;
          c) eat from the plants and fruit of the trees.

 II)   Some ten generations later, after the Flood, God
  (b'shem ELOKIM) blesses Noach and his children in a
very
  similar fashion (9:1-7), including:
          a) to be fruitful and multiply ("pru u'rvu");
          b) to be master of the living kingdom;
          c) permission to eat living creatures (not
only
plants);

     However, the most striking parallel to "brit milah"
is
found in the special covenant that God ["b'shem Elokim"]
makes
with Noach immediately after these blessings as
described in
9:8-12:
  "vhakimoti et briti itchem...   [9:11/ compare 17:7-8]
  "va'yomer Elokim, zot ot ha'brit..." [19:12/ compare
17:9-
10]

  This covenant, better known as "brit ha'keshet" (the
rainbow covenant), reflects the establishment of a
special
relationship between God and mankind, as God promises
that He
will never again bring about the total destruction of
His
Creation. [See 9:11-15 / see also Ramban on 6:18,
especially
his final explanation of the word "brit", based on the
word
"briya"!]
     It is rather amazing that the next time that God
speaks
to man b'shem Elokim is only some ten generations later
- at
Brit Milah, when He challenges Avraham Avinu to accept
yet
another covenant. Note the striking textual similarities
between these two covenants, i.e. "brit Milah" and "brit
ha'keshet":
     a) to be fruitful and multiply 9:1 / 17:2,6;
     c) "v'hakimoti et briti..."  9:11 / 17:7;
     d) "ha'aterz" // "eretz canaan"   9:13,16,17 / 17:8
     e) "ot brit": "ha'milah // ha'keshet"  9:13,17/
17:12;
       [to verify this, open your Tanach & compare them
yourself]

     However, in addition to these similarities, in
"brit
Milah" we find an additional, yet very important promise
-
"l'hiyot lachem l'Elokim" [to be a God for you"] -
reflecting
a much CLOSER relationship with God. In fact, this key
phrase
is repeated twice, for it emphasizes and defines the
purpose
of Brit Milah (read 17:7-8 carefully!).

ONE STEP 'ABOVE' NATURE
     With this background, we can suggest a reason for
why God
[b'shem Elokim] commands Avraham to perform "brit milah"
specifically on the eighth day.
     Note the progression that has emerged as we
followed
God's relationship with man, from the perspective of
'shem
Elokim':
STAGE 1)  The Creation of NATURE in SEVEN days
(1:1-2:4);
STAGE 2)  The covenant with Noach after the Flood
(9:1-17);
STAGE 3)  The "Brit Milah" covenant with Avraham Avinu
to be
performed on the EIGHTH day (17:1-14).

     One could suggest that circumcision on the EIGHTH
day
relates to this elevation of man's spiritual level, ONE
step
above the level of his original creation in SEVEN days.
     Let's explain this statement, based on the three
stages
of this progression b'shem Elokim:

(1)  During the first seven days, God brought the
universe to
a stage of development where it appears to 'take care of
itself'. Be it vegetation, animal, or man, all species
of life
secure their existence by their ability to reproduce;
they
become fruitful and multiply (e.g. "zo'ray'ah zerah",
"zachar
u'nekeyvah", "pru u'rvu", etc.). Man's mastery of this
creation, his desire to conquer and his ability to
harness it,
are all part of this phenomenon that we call NATURE. The
first
chapter of Breishit teaches us that [what we refer to
as]
nature, did not just happen by chance, rather it was a
willful
act of God.  [By resting on Shabbat, once every seven
days, we
remind ourselves of this point.]

(2)  After the "mabul", God (b'shem Elokim) 'starts
over' by
re-establishing His relationship with mankind in a
covenant
with Noach, known as "brit ha'keshet". This covenant
reflects
a relationship very similar to that in God's original
creation
in seven days, with some 'minor' changes: Man remains
master
of His universe (9:2), with a 'small change' in his diet
(9:3-
5), and a commandment that it is forbidden to murder a
fellow
human (9:6-7). However, the basic laws of nature remain
the
same (see 9:8).

(3)  Up until Brit Milah, man's relationship with God
b'shem
Elokim remained distant. Although Man was the pinnacle
of
God's creation with certain minimal expectations of
moral
behavior, he was basically just part of nature. Man was
given
power; he acted like God (b'tzelem Elokim), but was not
CLOSE
to Him. At Brit Milah, Avraham is raised to a higher
level. He
and his offspring are chosen to represent God as His
special
nation, and towards that purpose, they are awarded a
special
relationship with God, as they are now destined to
represent
Him, i.e. -"li'hiyot lachem l'Elokim".
  Then, as an "ot" [a sign] to symbolize this
relationship,
they are commanded to circumcise their children on the
'eighth
day'.  Hence, "milah" specifically on the EIGHTH day may
reflect this additional level in the creation process,
which
first took place in SEVEN days. [What the Maharal refers
to as
"m'al ha'teva - above nature!]
  
     In other words, the eighth day can be understood as
representative of one final stage of the creation
process.
Just as the seven days of Creation - b'shem Elokim] -
included
a progression from "domem" (the inanimate objects / i.e.
"shmayim v'aretz"); to "tzomayach" (vegetation); to
"chai"
(the animal kingdom); to "adam" (man) - the 'eighth day'
reflects how man has been elevated to a higher level in
his
relationship with God.
  To elevate Creation to a higher awareness of God's
existence, a special covenant is made with the offspring
of
Avraham, and we remind ourselves of this covenant
specifically
by performing "brit Milah" on the eighth day after a
child's
birth.
  [This interpretation could reflect a statement made by
  Reish Lakish, explaining the meaning of God's name
"kel sha-
  dai" which is first introduced at Brit Milah (see
17:1-2):
     What's the meaning of "ani kel-sha'dai"? God said:
I am
  the One who said to the world "dai" - enough, or
stop]."
                (see Yalkut Shimoni siman 81, Chagiga
12a)
     [See also commentary of the "Torah Tmima" on this
pasuk.]

     This explanation may help us understand the
complexity in
the opening lines of the Brit Milah narrative: God,
b'shem
Havaya - the Name of God which Avraham is familiar with
up
until this point - informs Avraham that He is "kel
sha-dai",
the God who had 'stopped' His process of creation after
seven
days (17:1-2). Now, b'shem Elokim, the Name of God that
orchestrated the creation in seven days, intervenes yet
one
more time. He establishes a covenant with Avraham, to
command
him with the mitzvah of "brit milah", to raise him ONE
level
higher, i.e. closer to God.
     Thus, God's commandment that we perform Brit Milah
on the
eighth day is not incidental. Rather, it reflects the
very
nature of our special relationship with God.  In fact,
one
could suggest that God's relationship with His nation
now
becomes part of 'the nature of the universe'.  Just as
the sun
will always rise and set, so too, Am Yisrael will always
be
His nation to represent him (see Yirmiyahu 33:19-26); as
reflected by the Torah's use of "shem Elokim".:
     With this background, let's return to the various
examples of this '7 - 8' relationship in Sefer Vayikra,
as
"brit milah" on the eighth day was only one example.

SEVEN DAYS "MILUIM" / "YOM HA'SHMINI":
     As explained in our shiur on Parshat Shmini, the
seven
days necessary to dedicate the Mishkan reflect the
parallel
between Bnei Yisrael's construction of the Mishkan to
serve
God, to God's creation of nature in seven days, to serve
Him.
[See Tehillim 104 - "borchi nafshi..."!]
  Then, on the 'eighth day' ["yom ha'shmini"], God
commands
Bnei Yisrael to offer a special set of korbanot - in
anticipation of His "shchinah" that will descend upon
the
Mishkan - reflecting the return of God's presence.  In
this
manner, the Mishkan now becomes the focal point for the
development of the special relationship between God and
Bnei
Yisrael, just as "brit milah" on the eighth day was a
sign of
that special covenant.

SEVEN DAYS "TAHARA" / EIGHTH DAY "KORBANOT" (Metzora,
Zav,
Zava):
     Different types of "tumah" are caused by some
abnormal
behavior of the body. Seven days of "tahara" are
required to
return the "tamei" person back to the 'camp' - to his
normal
existence, his natural habitat. Then on the eighth day,
he
must bring a special korban to allow his entry into the
Mishkan.
  [Note the parallel between this process, and its
korbanot,
  to that of the kohanim during the seven-day miluim and
Yom
  ha'Shmini.]

SEVEN DAYS OF SUCCOT / SHMINI ATZERET:
     As agriculture and nature go hand in hand, all of
the
agricultural holidays follow cycles of seven (see
Vayikra
chapter 23). In the spring (chag ha'aviv), as the grain
harvest begins, we bring "korban ha'omer"  and celebrate
chag
ha'matzot for SEVEN days. Then we count SEVEN WEEKS
until the
completion of the wheat harvest, bring "korban shtei
ha'lechem", and celebrate chag ha'SHAVUOT. On succot,
"chag
ha'asif", at the end of the agricultural year ("b'tzeit
ha'shana /see Shmot 23:16), we thank God for our fruit
harvest
by celebrating for seven days and bringing the "arba
minim" to
the Mikdash.
  At the very end of this cycle of agricultural
holidays, we
add SHMINI ATZERET, a special gathering with no special
agricultural mitzvah. It is simply a time to stop and
reflect
on the holiday season and year that has passed. On this
'eighth day', we focus on the special relationship
between God
and Bnei Yisrael.
     This special relationship between God and Bnei
Yisrael
that began with Brit Milah, reaches its fullest
expression
with Matan Torah with Brit Sinai.
     Based on this interpretation, it is understandable
why
Chazal chose this holiday to celebrate as SIMCHAT TORAH,
and
to conclude on this day the yearly 'cycle' of reading
the
Torah.

                              shabbat shalom,
                              menachem

======================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
A. In what way could Shavuot be considered the "eighth",
after
seven cycles of seven. Compare this to the din of the
Yovel
year in parshat B'har. Why do you think that Chazal
refer to
Shavuot as "chag ha'atzeret". In what way is it similar
to
"Shmini Atzeret".

B. Based on the above shiur, why do you think that prior
to
Brit Milah, God changes both Avraham's and Sarah's names
by
adding a "hey"?  Relate your answer to Hashem's name and
His
introduction in 17:1-4.

C. Based on the parallels between creation and brit
milah, why
do you think God chose to make the "ot" of this covenant
on
the part of the body which performs "pru u'rvu".
     Explain why we thank God in birchat ha'mazon for
the
"aretz", then "britcha asher chatamta bi'bsareinu", and
then
toratcha sh'limad'tanu"

D. Note in Sefer Yirmiyahu that even the Creation itself
is
considered a covenant: see 33:25-26, and relate these
psukim
to the above shiur.

E. Relate the above shiur to the minhag of "sheva
brachot" at
a wedding, and the seven days of mourning after death.

F. See Rambam Hilchot M'lachim chapter nine [the laws
concerning the SEVEN mitzvot of Bnei Noach]. Relate this
Rambam to the above shiur.


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.1/1731 -
Release Date: 10/17/2008 7:01 PM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: atzeret1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 37684 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081019/d8936bf8/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Oct 23 04:40:55 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 04:40:55 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Sefer Breishit - Intro
Message-ID: <BE663D1D48DD4FF9BE918BF5AE96300F@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

              SEFER BREISHIT - Intro

     There's a big difference between simply reading the
Bible, and studying it.  To help encourage and
facilitate the
study of Chumash, each week the Tanach Study Center
provides a
battery of questions on the weekly Torah reading in
addition
to [and in preparation for] several shiurim [lectures]
that
discuss its theme and content.
     Our introductory set of questions will begin with a
short
explanation of why it makes sense that Chumash should be
'studied' (and not just read), followed by a discussion
of the
methodology that we employ which forms the backbone of
these
study questions and shiurim.

NOT JUST A 'STORY BOOK'
     Before opening a book of any sort, the reader will
usually have certain expectations based on the type of
book
that he has chosen.  For example, the reader of a
history book
expects to find historical information; while the reader
of a
science book expects to find scientific facts; and
certainly
someone who picks up a novel expects to find drama, etc.
     But what should we expect when we open a Chumash?
Is it
a 'history book' - the story of Jewish people?  Is it a
book
of 'halacha' - laws that govern our life?  Is it book of
philosophy that discusses the relationship between man
and
God?
     As Chumash is a book of 'nevu'a' [prophecy], it
would
only be logical for the reader to assume that each book
will
carry a prophetic message.  Therefore, to get a better
idea of
what to expect when we read Chumash- we must first
discuss
what the word "nevu'a" means.

WHAT IS NEVU'A
     The popular translation of nevu'a - prophecy - is
often
misleading, for it is usually understood as the ability
to see
(or predict) the future.  However, in Tanach,
'predicting the
future' is rarely the primary mission of the prophet.
     In Hebrew the word 'niv' [nun. yud. bet] means a
saying
(or technically speaking - the movement of lips).  For
example, in Yeshayahu chapter 57, God is described as
'borei
niv sefatayim' - He who created [or performs acts of
Creation]
with the movement of His lips.     [See Yeshayahu 57:19
and
its context, see also Mal'achi 1:12.]
     Therefore, technically speaking, the word nevu'a
relates
to speech, and hence it makes more sense to understand a
navi
as a 'spokesman' for God.  In this sense, when a navi
speaks
to the people, he is delivering God's message.
Certainly,
there may be times when his message may include a
prediction
of certain events, however his primary job is to deliver
God's
message to man.
  Similarly, a 'navi Ba'al' - is a spokesman for the
Ba'al
god (see Melachim Aleph 18:22); while a 'navi sheker' is
one
who claims to be speaking in the name of God, but
instead is
making it up himself (see Yirmiyahu 27:14-15!) .
  In other words, the Bible uses the word "navi" in
reference to anyone speaking on behalf of any god.

AHARON - the 'NAVI' of MOSHE
     To clarify (and prove) this point, let's bring an
example
from a very interesting usage of the word "navi", found
at the
beginning of chapter seven in Sefer Shmot.
  Recall from the story of the 'burning bush' (see
chapters 3
thru 6)) how God had commanded Moshe to deliver His
message to
Pharaoh.  After failing his first mission (in chapter
five),
God commands him to confront Pharaoh once again:
  "And God said to Moshe, I am God - go speak to Pharaoh
  King of Egypt everything that I speak to you." (Shmot
  6:29)
  
  In other words, God has charged Moshe with the job of
begin His 'spokesperson'.  Then note how Moshe explains
why
he thinks that he is not fit for this job:
  "But Moshe appealed saying: 'hen ani aral sefatayim' -
  Behold I am of uncircumcised lips [i.e. impeded
speech],
  and how shall Pharaoh listen [or understand me]?"
                 (see Shmot 6:29-30).
  
  To solve Moshe's problem, God provides Moshe with a
solution, where Aharon will becomes Moshe 'spokesman'!
Note
how the Torah uses the word navi in this description:
  "And God responded to Moshe, see - I have appointed
you
  as Elokim to Pharaoh, but Aharon your brother will be
  your navi"  [i.e. Aharon will become Moshe's navi!]
  You will say [to Aharon] everything that I command
you, and
  Aharon your brother will speak unto Pharoah?" (see
7:1-2).

     Because of Moshe's [legitimate] complaint, God
offers a
very logical solution.  Moshe will remain God's
spokesman, but
now due to his 'speech problems', Moshe himself needs a
spokesman!  Towards that purpose, God appoints Aharon to
become Moshe's navi, i.e. he will speak to Pharaoh on
behalf
of Moshe.
     In the usual case of nevu'a - God has a message
that must
be delivered to the people, and hence need a navi as His
spokesperson to deliver that message.  Now, Moshe
himself
needs a 'spokesman' to deliver his words to Pharaoh,
hence he
will be like 'Elokim' and Aharon will be his navi.

     In summary, the word nevu'a implies a message from
God to
man, and the navi becomes the person who delivers that
message.  Hence, a sefer of nevu'a must be a book that
delivers a message from God to man, delivered by His
spokesperson - the navi.
     Therefore, when we study a book of nevu'a, we
should
expect it to contain a message from God to man.
  However, when we read Chumash, that message is often
not
very explicit.  Instead, we often find that Chumash
delivers
its message in a more implicit manner, through a set of
stories - and not necessarily through an explicit set of
commands.
  The problem then becomes: how do we decipher that
message
from those stories, and how can we be sure that our
interpretation is correct!
     Through the centuries, it has been the goal of the
Rabbis
and the great commentators to attempt to the best of
their
ability to decipher God's message.  Even though there
have
been many approaches, and wide variances of opinions,
most all
commentators began their study and base their commentary
on a
critical reading of the text (while taking into
consideration
the commentaries of the previous generations, sometimes
agreeing and sometimes arguing).
     Our contention is that to best appreciate the works
of
those commentators, and to be able to the best of our
ability
to understand God's message, we too must first undertake
a
critical reading of Chumash.  By sharing the same
experience
of carefully reading every story, and attempting to
understand
the flow of topic and the underlying theme that unfolds,
we
increase our chances of properly comprehending the
commentaries of previous generations, and hopefully can
reach
a better understanding of God's message to us via His
"nviim"
[prophets].

  For example, as we study Sefer Breishit, we must
assume that
purpose of the Torah's presentation of the story of
Creation
and all of its subsequent stories, must relate (in one
form or
other) to a message that God wishes to convey to man.
     The goal of our questions for self study will be to
raise
certain points that may facilitate that study, and
enhance the
appreciation of the interpretations suggested by the
classical
commentators.
     We conclude our introduction with an explanation of
a
methodology of study that relates to 'parshiot'.

THE IMPORTANCE OF 'PARSHIOT"
  One of the most significant - but often overlooked -
ways
that Chumash conveys messages is through its division
into
parshiot.
  First of all, don't let the word parshia (small 'p')
confuse
you with the name Parshat Ha-shavu'a (capital 'P')!
  In our shiurim, we use the word "parshia" in reference
to
the 'paragraph' like divisions of the text that are
found in
the Sefer Torah.  In contrast, the word Parsha [with a
capital
'P'] is used in reference to the weekly shabbat Torah
portion,
e.g., Noach, Lech Lecha, Vayera, etc., through which we
complete the entire Torah once a year.
  From a thematic perspective, the parshia divisions are
very
important, for they were given by God to Moshe Rabbeinu
together with the Torah!  Therefore, if God found it
necessary
to provide us with parshia breaks to aid us in our study
of
His Torah, it only makes sense that we should pay
careful
attention to them when we study.  In fact, in his
opening
commentary to the book of Vayikra, Rashi himself
provides us
with a very similar insight:
  These short breaks were given [together with the Torah
by
  God] to allow Moshe Rabbeinu the opportunity to
  contemplate from one parshia to the next, [in order]
to
  understand the flow from one topic to the next, [and
if
  this was necessary for Moshe Rabbeinu] then even more
so
  - we who study Chumash must pay attention to these
  breaks!
    (see Rashi's commentary to Vayikra,1:1).

  In contrast, the 'Parshat Ha-shavu'a" division of
Chumash -
i.e. the weekly sedra (technically speaking, Sedra is
the
proper name for what we call Parsha) - reflects a
tradition
that began during the Babylonian exile, over a thousand
years
after the Torah was first given.
  With this in mind, it's important to clarify an
important
point.  Should one speak of the 'theme' of a certain
Parsha,
(e.g., the theme of Parshat Noach), this statement can
be
misleading, for God never composed Parshat Noach (or
Parshat
Lech Lecha etc.) by itself.  Instead God gave an entire
Sefer
(book) to Moshe Rabbeinu.  Hence, when someone speaks of
the
theme of a certain Sedra, he is simply explaining why
Chazal
chose to group together a certain set of psukim together
(over
others) to compose that weekly Torah reading.
  On the other hand, when we speak of the theme of a
Sefer
(e.g., the theme of Sefer Breishit, Shmot, etc.), we
attempt
to uncover God's underlying message in that Sefer.  In
other
words, that fact that God chose to include all of the
stories
in Sefer Breishit into one complete book implies that it
should carry one basic underlying theme.  In fact, many
commentators (e.g. Ramban and Seforno in their
introductions
to each Sefer) attempt to uncover that theme.
  This assumption is important for it provides the basis
for
the methodology that we employ in our weekly shiurim.
Our
analysis of parshiot will be helpful in our attempt to
uncover
the primary theme (or themes) of each Sefer; and in turn
we
will use those themes to help appreciate the detail of
its
various stories (and/or mitzvot).

Ptuchot & Stumot
  As you are probably familiar, there are two types of
parshia
divisions
1. 'ptuchot' = open.
  Indicated by a gap of blank spaces until the end of a
  line; the next parshia begins at the start of the next
  line.  See board

2. 'stumot' = closed
  Indicated by a gap of at least nine spaces; the next
  parshia can begin on that very same line.  See board 2

  As a rule of thumb, a parshia ptucha usually indicates
a
major change of topic, while a parshia stuma indicates a
more
subtle one.  As we will see, however, there are many
exceptions.
  These parshia breaks are so important that a Sefer
Torah
without them is 'pasul' (not valid).  In this regard, I
recommend that you read chapter eight in Rambam's
Hilchot
Sefer Torah where he not only explains the importance of
these
parshia breaks, but even lists each and every one of
them to
make sure that sofrim [scribes] will write their Sifrei
Torah
properly!

  So what are the chapter divisions that we are so
familiar
with?
  To the surprise of many students, even though just
about
every Chumash in print today uses a chapter/verse
system, this
division of Chumash into chapters is not a Jewish
tradition.
It is, however, a very useful convention, as this system
has
been used by just about every publisher of the Bible
(regardless of religion or language) since the invention
of
the printing press (15th century).
Therefore, as we study Chumash, its division into
chapters is
a very useful convention, and a helpful reference that
reflects how other people may have understood (or
misunderstood!) its topics, but it certainly does not
carry
any prophetic significance.
  In contrast, the division of Chumash into Seforim
[books]
and parshiot is of paramount prophetic significance.
Hence,
their consideration will often be a primary focus in our
shiurim. `

Tanach Koren
  To easily identify these important parshia breaks when
studying Chumash, it is very useful to use either a
'Tanach
Koren', or (what is known as) 'Rav Breuer's Tanach'.
  The Tanach Koren (named for its beautiful Hebrew font
designed for that publication) was first published in
the
sixties, and is probably the most widely used Tanach in
Israel
today, both in schools and shuls.  More recently Mossad
ha-Rav
Kook also published a complete Tanach based on the
famous
manuscript of the Keter Aram Tzova, and edited after
exhaustive research by Rav Mordechai Breuer, one of
Israel's
most renowned Bible scholars.  Both publications provide
the
reader with a very accurate and clear printing.  [Which
Tanach
is 'better' has become a 'hot topic' in the Yeshiva
world, and
therefore, I refrain from taking a stand.]
  It is difficult to explain why, but rest assured that
once
you become accustomed to studying with this style of
Tanach,
you will quickly find how useful a tool it becomes for
analytical study of Chumash, especially in regard to
appreciating parshiot.
  In some Chumashim, and quite often in Mikra'ot Gedolot
versions, the parshia divisions are noted by letters
instead
of spaces.  Usually the Hebrew letter 'peyh' notes where
a
parsha ptucha should be (see board 3), and the Hebrew
letter
'samech' notes where a parsha stuma should be (see board
4).

Long parshiot and short ones!
  Even though we have noted that parshiot act more or
less
like paragraph breaks, we find numerous exceptions -
that are
thematically very significant.  We will demonstrate this
by
undertaking a quick analysis of the parshiot found in
the
first five chapters of Sefer Breishit.
  Using a Tanach Koren, take a quick glance at the story
of
Creation in chapter one.  Note how each day of Creation
forms
a single 'parshia'.  This reflects a very logical
'paragraph
like' division.
  Next, take a look at what happens in chapter two!  A
new
parshia begins with the story of Gan Eden in 2:4 and
continues
for some forty psukim - all the way until 3:15, and
there we
find parsha stuma!
  Then, we find another parsha stuma, but this one (to
our
surprise) is only one pasuk long!  The next parshia is
also
stuma and continues for five psukim until 3:21.
  At first glance, this division seems to be rather
absurd!
Why should some forty psukim continue without any
parshia
break, even though there are plenty of spots in between
that
would easily qualify for a paragraph break?  Then,
immediately
afterward we find a mere pasuk that becomes its own
parshia
(i.e. 3:16).
  Clearly, these examples prove that a parshia break is
not
always the equivalent of a paragraph break.  Instead,
sometimes the Torah will intentionally group numerous
psukim
together without any parshia break to emphasize a
certain
point, and sometimes, the Torah will intentionally
provide a
parshia break at a spot that does not necessarily
require one.
However, when the Torah does this, we should assume that
it
carries some thematic significance.
  Let's return now to this example and attempt to
understand
why.  Note that the lengthy parshia (2:4-3:15) contains
not
only the story of God's creation of man in Gan Eden
(i.e. 2:4-
25, and hence the chapter break at 2:25), but also the
story
of the 'nachash' and man's sin (3:1-15).
  The lack of a parshia break between these two stories
already alludes to the intrinsic connection between
them, i.e.
between the story of man's sin in Gan Eden (chapter 3),
and
the very creation of Gan Eden (in chapter 2).
  Immediately afterward we find a one line parshia that
describes Eve's punishment, and then another very short
parshia that describes Adam's punishment, and then yet
another
parshia that describes mankind's punishment (i.e. the
banishment from Gan Eden in (3:22-24)!
  Clearly, the fact that the Torah delimits each form of
punishment with its own parshia break alludes to the
thematic
importance of aschar va-onesh' [Divine retribution] in
Chumash
- the concept that God holds man responsible for his
deeds.
As we should expect, this will emerge as a primary
Biblical
theme, and these short parshia breaks help emphasize its
importance.

  Let's return now to Parshat Breishit.  Note that
chapter
four - the story of Cain and Abel - forms its own
parshia.
Then in chapter five, we find a separate parshia for
each one
of the ten generations from Adam to Noach.  Note,
however,
that all of these parshiot from man's exile from Gan
Eden (see
3:22) until the story of Flood (see 6:5) are parshiot
stumot
(see board 11)!  As we shall see, this too will be
thematically significant.
  We will return to these topics in our shiur on Parshat
Breishit, but to help you prepare for that shiur (and
for all
the remaining shiurim on Sefer Breishit), we conclude
with
some pointers for self-study that will apply what we
have
discussed thus far, and as usual, some more questions
for
preparation.
  ======
  
  
QUESTIONS FOR SELF STUDY - Intro:
==================================
Finding the Theme of Sefer Breishit: A self-study guide

  With this background in mind, I'd like to introduce
you to a
methodology that I have found very useful when teaching.
For
the most basic level of preparation for class, I ask the
students to scan through an entire Sefer (or at least
one
section at a time), noting its division into parshiot.
Then,
we take a sheet of blank paper, and along the left
margin, we
prepare a long list of short blank lines.
  Then, after reading (or scanning) each parshia, we
attempt
to summarize its primary topic in four words or less!
For
some parshiot this is very easy, for others it is quite
difficult (but try your best).  As we proceed, you'll
understand why it is so important to be concise.
  Then, we record that brief (one phrase) summary on the
blanks lines on the sheet that we prepared; one line for
each
parshia.
  Ideally, we should do this list for the entire Sefer,
but
usually this is not very practical, so we choose instead
one
unit within the Sefer at a time.  For example, in Sefer
Breishit, we begin with the first twelve chapters.
  After our listing of the parshiot is complete, we
contemplate the list, looking to group together only the
most
obvious units.  For example, when studying Parshat
Breishit,
the seven parshiot of the seven days of creation form a
distinct sub-unit.  Similarly, the nine parshiot of
toladot in
chapter five also form a distinct unit.
To indicate these grouping on our list, we mark these
units
with 'greater than' signs.  At the end of that sign, we
write
a short phrase that describes that group.
  The following example will illustrate this, as it
shows the
results of this method for the first three chapters of
Sefer
Breishit .

day one      \
day two       \
day three      \
day four         --- 7 days of Creation
day five       /
day six       /
day seven    /

Man in Gan Eden    \
Eve's punishment    \__ Gan Eden
Adam's punishment   /
Expulsion          /

  Usually, you will quickly see how several parshiot
immediately group together, while many others stand
alone.
Again, be careful to group parshiot together only
according to
the most obvious groupings. If it's not obvious, then
don't
group it.
  For example, the parshia of the Cain & Abel story
(chapter
four) would stand alone, since it's not part of the Gan
Eden
narrative, nor is it part of the toladot in chapter
five.
  Upon completing this process for the entire list, we
reach
the second level, for a new list has now formed towards
the
right, reflecting the summaries of the most obvious
sub-units
from level one.
  Now we treat the new level in the same way that we
treated
the first level.  We analyze our new list, again looking
to
group together the most obvious units.  When we finish
level
two, we proceed to level three, etc.; and slowly, our
list
begins to look like a tournament.  However, as we
proceed from
level to level, we need to apply a bit more creative
thinking
when grouping into sub-units, for the connection from
one unit
to the next will not always be so obvious.
     In essence, we begin by constructing a table of
contents
for the book, and slowly (by taking theme into
consideration)
we attempt to turn this table of contents into a
structured
[and titled] outline.

  In case you didn't catch on yet, our assumption is
that if
we continue this process, sooner or later there will be
a
'winner' (on the right margin) - i.e. a short phrase
that
identifies a common theme for all of the sub-units of
the
entire Sefer - and that 'winner' is none other than the
primary theme of the Sefer.
  This methodology is far from an 'exact science', and
it gets
complicated at times (and doesn't always work so
smoothly);
but it certainly helps the student follow the thematic
flow of
a Sefer.
  As we will see in future shiurim, it becomes an
excellent
tool to help appreciate not only what the various
commentaries
say, but also to understand why they argue.
  As preparation for our shiurim over the next three
weeks,
try to complete this style of analysis for all of Sefer
Breishit, or at least for the first twelve chapters.
Don't
expect for everything to be easy, and don't expect to
find
simple answers all of the time, but try your best.  As
you
study, be sure to relate to the questions for self study
that
will follow in the next email.

               b'hatzlacha,
               menachem



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1739 -
Release Date: 10/22/2008 7:23 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: breishintro.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 43585 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081023/7ef6b6d9/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Oct 29 17:37:43 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:37:43 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] For Subscribers in the Greater NY area
Message-ID: <5DEC1A9A21294D9DB6C91D06DBDAD2C3@x60>

On Sunday, November 2nd, Yeshiva University presents a
day of Tanach learning. The program, which is open to
men and women at no charge,  is entitled:
"Controversial Figures in Tanach."  It will be held at
Furst Hall, 500 West 185th Street.   Registration is at
9:15 A.M., with mincha  and conclusion at 2:00 P.M.
Presenters include Rabbi Hayyim Angel, Dr. Shawn Zelig
Aster, Rabbi Shalom Carmy, Dr. Mordechai Cohen, Dr.
Shalom Holtz, Rabbi Menachem Leibtag, Dr. Michelle
Levine, Rabbi Mitchell Orlian, Dr. David Pelcovitz, Mrs.
Nechama Price, Mrs. Smadar Rosensweig, Rabbi Allen
Schwartz, Dr. Shira Weiss and Rabbi Jeremy Wieder.  
For more information, contact YUYomIyun at yu.edu.

attached is a pdf file, with full schedule
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.4 - Release
Date: 10/27/2008 12:00 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: flyer for yom iyun.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 314733 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081029/97ba3a26/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Oct 29 17:39:12 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:39:12 -0400
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Noach - shiur
Message-ID: <472E8A1BC22941EAA67E9F0FE0AA832E@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

PARSHAT  NOACH

	The Mabul (the Flood) and Migdal Bavel (the
Tower of Babel) are undoubtedly the two primary stories
in this week's Parsha.  However, each of these two
stories is preceded by a list of genealogies that appear
to be rather irrelevant. 
	Furthermore, at the conclusion of Parshat Noach
(see 11:10-25) we find yet another set of genealogies
(that introduces the story of Avraham Avinu). 
	In this week's shiur, we explain how these
'sifrei toladot' (lists of genealogies) create a
'framework' for Sefer Breishit and can help us better
understand how these stories (i.e the Flood and Migdal
Bavel) contribute to its overall theme. 

INTRODUCTION
	In our introductory shiur on Sefer Breishit, we
discussed the methodology that we employ to uncover the
primary theme of each sefer.  We begin our shiur with a
quick review of those basic steps:
1)	To identify the primary topic of each 'parshia'
2) 	To group the titles of these 'parshiot' into
units that share a more common topic.  [Each of these
units could be considered as 'chapters' of the book .]
3)	To group these 'chapter' divisions into larger
units that share a common topic or theme [similar to
'sections' of a book].
4)	To suggest an overall theme of the book, by
analyzing the progression of theme from one section to
the next.

	In our shiur, we will show how the various sets
of "toladot" in Sefer Breishit can help us apply this
methodology, and can point us in a direction that may
help us uncover its underlying theme.

FROM A LIST TO AN OUTLINE
	In the following table, we list all of the
'parshiot' in the first seventeen chapters of Sefer
Breishit, joining together only the most obvious groups
of parshiot by noting their specific and then more
general topics.
	Study this list carefully, noting how the
specific topics can easily group into more general
topics:

PSUKIM
SPECFIC TOPIC
GENERAL TOPIC



1:1-2:3
7 days of Creation
Creation of nature
2:4-3:15
The Gan Eden story
Gan Eden 
3:16
Chava's punishment
Gan Eden
3:17-21
Man's punishment
Gan Eden
3:22-24
Expulsion from Gan Eden
Gan Eden
4:1-26
Cain's sin and punishment
Outside Gan Eden
5:1-31
[Toladot:]  Adam->Noach
Dor Ha-mabul
5:32-6:4 
Man's downfall
 [pre-Mabul]
6:5-8
reason for Mabul / Hashem
 [pre- Mabul]
6:9-12
reason for Mabul / Elokim
 [pre-Mabul]
6:13-8:14
Punishment - the Flood
The Mabul
8:15-9:7 
Leaving the Ark
 [post-Mabul]
9:8-17
'Brit ha-keshet'
 [post-Mabul]
9:18-29
Cham cursed/Shem blessed
 [post-Mabul]
10:1-32
[Toladot:] sons of Noach
The 70 Nations
11:1-9
Builders of the Tower
Migdal Bavel
11:10-32
[Toladot:] Shem->Terach
Avraham Avinu
12:1-9
Avraham's aliya
Avraham Avinu
12:10-13:18
Lot leaves Avraham
Avraham Avinu
14:1-24
War of 4 & 5 kings
Avraham Avinu
15:1-21
Covenant/brit bein ha?btarim
Avraham Avinu
Chapter 16  
Yishmael's birth
Avraham Avinu
Chapter 17
Brit mila - another covenant
Avraham Avinu
 	etc.
[To verify this, I recommend that you review this table
(and its conclusions) using a Tanach Koren.]

	As you review this chart, note how the first set
of major topics all relate in one form or other to God's
'Hashgacha' [providence], i.e. His intervention in the
history of mankind as He punishes man (or mankind) for
wayward behavior.
	In fact, just about all of the stories in
Chumash (prior to God's choice of Avraham Avinu) relate
in some manner to the general topic of 'sin &
punishment' ['sachar ve-onesh'].  For example, after
Creation we find the following stories:
    * Adam & Eve sin & hence are expelled from Gan Eden
    * Cain is punished for the murder of Hevel
    * Dor ha-mabul is punished for its corruption
    * 'Dor ha-plaga' is 'punished' for building the
Tower
    
    Afterward, the focus of Sefer Breishit shifts from
stories of 'sin & punishment' to God's choice of Avraham
Avinu - and the story of which members of his offspring
are chosen. 

ENTER - 'TOLADOT'
	However, within this progression of topics, we
find a very interesting phenomenon.  Return to the table
(above) and note how each of these general topics are
first introduced by a set of toladot [genealogies].  For
example:
*	The toladot from Adam to Noach (chapter 5)
introduce the story of the Mabul (chapters 6->9).
*	The toladot or Noach's children (chapter 10)
introduces the story of Migdal Bavel (11:1-9 / the Tower
of Babel).
*	The toladot from Shem to Terach (chapter 11)
introduce the story of Avraham Avinu (chapters 12-...)

	In fact, as surprising as it may sound, even the
story of Gan Eden (chapters 2-3) is first introduced by
toladot! 
	"These are the "toladot" of the heavens &
earth..."
     [See 2:4! / note the various English translations.]

	Furthermore, later on in Sefer Breishit, we
continue to find toladot.  Note how we later find:
toladot of Yishmael (see 25:12); toladot of Yitzchak
(see 25:19); toladot of Esav (see 36:1); & toladot of
Yaakov (see 37:2).
     The following table summarizes this pattern, and
illustrates how [some sort of] "toladot" introduces each
of the main topics in Sefer Breishit.  As you review
this table note how the first several topics all relate
to 'chet ve-onesh', i.e. God's punishment of man (or
mankind) for his sins, while the remaining topics relate
to the story of our forefathers - the Avot!

CHAPTERS 
TOPIC
========
======
2
Toldot shamayim va-aretz
2->4
-> Man in (and out of) Gan Eden


5
Toldot Adam to Noach
6->9
-> ha-mabul - The story of the Flood


10
Toldot Bnei Noach -  Shem, Cham & Yefet
11:1-9
-> Migdal Bavel - The Tower of Babel


11
Toldot Shem  until Terach
12->25
-> God's choice of Avraham Avinu 


25 -35
Toldot Yitzchak - story of Yaakov & Esav
36
Toldot Esav - story Esav's children
37- 50
Toldot Yaakov - story of Yosef & his brothers 	Although
this pattern is rarely noticed, these sifrei toladot
actually create a framework for the entire book of
Breishit! 
	In this manner, the toladot introduce each and
every story in Sefer Breishit.  To explain why, we must
first take a minute to explain what the word toladot
means:
	
WHAT IS A TOLADA?
	The word toladot stems from the Hebrew word
'vlad', a child or offspring.  Therefore, 'eileh toldot'
should be translated 'these are the children of...'.
	For example: 'eileh toldot Adam' (5:1) means -
'these are the children of Adam' - and thus introduces
the story of Adam's children, i.e. Shet, Enosh, Keinan,
etc.  Similarly, 'eileh toldot Noach' introduces the
story of Noach's children - Shem, Cham, and Yefet.  [See
Rashbam on Breishit 37:2 for a more complete
explanation.]
	Some of these toldot in Sefer Breishit are very
short; as they simply state that the person lived,
married, had children and died (e.g. the generations
from Adam to Noach).  Other toldot are very detailed,
e.g. those of Noach, Terach, Yitzchak, and Yaakov.
Nonetheless, every story in Sefer Breishit could be
understood as a detail in the progression of these
"toladot".

	This explanation raises a question concerning
the first instance where we find toldot - i.e. toldot
shamayim va-aretz (see 2:4).  How do the heavens and
earth have 'children'?!
[Note how various English translations attempt to solve
this problem when they translate this pasuk!]

	The answer to this question may be quite
meaningful.  Recall that the first chapter of Breishit
explains how God created shamayim va-aretz (heavens and
earth) from 'nothing' (ex nihilo).  Then, immediately
afterward in the next chapter, we encounter the first
use of toldot:
	"Eileh toldot ha-shamayim ve-ha'aretz
be-hibar'am..." 
	
(2:4).
	So what does Chumash refer to as the toladot of
shamayim va-aretz, i.e what are the children of heaven
and earth? 
    If we follow the progressive pattern of Sefer
Breishit (as illustrated by the above table) then
'toldot shamayim va-aretz' must refer to man himself
[i.e. Adam ha-rishon], for it is the story of his
creation that immediately follows this introductory
pasuk!
    
    In other words, Adam ha'Rishon is considered the
'offspring' of shamayim va-aretz.  This interpretation
could help explain the significance of the pasuk that
describes how God created man in perek bet (the first
topic of this unit):
"And Hashem Elokim formed man from the dust of the earth
and blew into his nostrils nishmat chayim - the breath
of life" (see 2:7).  This second ingredient may reflect
the aspect of man which comes from (or at least returns
to) heaven.

	In contrast to the story of Creation in perek
aleph, which features a clear division between shamayim
[note the purpose of the 'rakiya' in 1:6], the special
manner of God's creation of man in perek bet may reflect
his unique ability to connect between heaven and earth. 
[See Rashi on 2:5, where he explains that God created
man so that he could pray for rain - in order for
vegetation to grow.  See also last week's shiur on
Parshat Breishit.]

	Similarly, the next set of toladot - from Adam
to Noach (see chapter 5) lead immediately into the story
of the Flood.  Note how 9:28-29 - the psukim that
conclude the Noach story, are clearly part of the same
literary unit that began with the toladot in chapter 5
(i.e. they follow the same 'template').
    This pattern of "toladot" that introduce stories
continues all the way until the very end of Sefer
Breishit.  Therefore, we conclude that these sifrei
toladot do more than 'keep the sefer together'; they
also help develop the theme of Sefer Breishit. 
	We will now show how these toladot create not
only a framework for Sefer Breishit; they can also help
us identify its two distinct sections that create its
primary theme.  Let's explain: 

THE TWO SECTIONS OF SEFER BREISHIT
	Despite this successive nature of the toladot in
Sefer Breishit, they clearly divide into two distinct
sections.
	1) God's creation of mankind (chapters 1-11)
		w/ stories relating to 'sachar ve-onesh'
	2) The story of the avot (chapters 12->50)
      God's choice of Avraham's offspring to become His
nation.

 	Even though the majority of Sefer Breishit
focuses on the family of Avraham Avinu (Section Two), in
the first eleven chapters (Section One), the Torah's
focus is on mankind as a whole. 
    For example. even when Section One includes special
details about Noach, it is not because he is designated
to become a special nation - rather, it is because
through Noach that mankind will be preserved.  After the
flood, the Torah tells us how Noach's offspring evolve
into nations, and their dispersing (see chapter 10).
Even though we find that Noach blesses Shem and Yefet
(see 9:25-27), the concept of a special nation with a
special covenant does not begin until the story of
Avraham Avinu.

	In contrast, Section Two (chapters 11
50)
focuses on the story of Am Yisrael - God's special
nation.  In this section, Sefer Breishit is no longer
universalistic, rather it becomes particularistic. 
    Therefore, this section begins with toldot Shem till
Terach (see 11:10-24) that introduce the story of
Avraham Avinu, whom God chooses in chapter 12 to become
the forefather of His special nation.  The remainder of
Sefer Breishit explains which of Avraham's offspring are
chosen [= 'bechira'], e.g Yitzchak and Yaakov], and
which are rejected [= 'dechiya'], e.g Yishmael and
Esav].
 	This explains why Sefer Breishit concludes
precisely when this complicated bechira process reaches
its completion - i.e. when all twelve sons of Yaakov
have been chosen, and none of his offspring will ever
again be rejected. 
[This may also explain the significance of Yaakov's name
change to Yisrael [see TSC shiur on Parshat Vayishlach.]
	
	Our final table summarizes how the toladot help
define these two sections of Sefer Breishit:

 I.  UNIVERSALISTIC (chapters 1
>11) - Creation of
mankind

PEREK		TOLDOT    		the STORY OF...
=====		======			===========
1-4 		'shamayim va-aretz'	   Man in (and
out of) Gan Eden 
5-9		from Adam to Noach 	   'dor
ha-mabul' - the Flood
10-11	bnei Noach to 70 nations  'dor ha-plaga' -
Migdal Bavel

 II.  PARTICULARISTIC (11
>50) - God's choice of Am
Yisrael

PEREK		TOLDOT    	the STORY OF...
=====		======		===========
11    	Shem to Terach	leads up to Avraham Avinu 
11-25	Terach 			God's choice of Avraham
& Yitzchak
25    	Yishmael 		*his 'rejection'
(dechiya)
25
35	Yitzchak 		Yaakov and Esav (their
rivalry) 
36    	Esav			 *	his 'rejection'
37
50	Yaakov 			the 12 tribes/ Yosef and
his brothers
						70
'nefesh' go down to Egypt

	However, if our original assumption that each
sefer in Chumash carries a unique prophetic theme is
correct, then there should be a thematic reason for the
progression of events from Section One to Section Two.
Therefore, to identify the overall theme of Sefer
Breishit, one must take into consideration how these two
sections relate to one another.  
    To help uncover that theme, we must take a closer
look at the structure created by these toladot.

SHEM & SHEM HASHEM
	Note once again from the above table how each
general topic in the first section of Sefer Breishit was
first introduced by a set of toladot.  In a similar
manner, each of these units concludes with an event
which in some way relates to the concept of 'shem
Hashem' - God's Name, i.e. His reputation.  Let's
explain how.
	Our first unit, the story of Adam ha-rishon,
concludes at the end of chapter four with a very
intriguing pasuk:
"And also Shet gave birth to a son and called him Enosh,
then he 'began' to call out in the Name of God ['az
huchal likro be-shem Hashem'] (see 4:26).
[Most commentators explain that 'huchal' implies that
man began to 'defile' God's Name (shoresh 'chillul'),
i.e. they didn't call in His Name properly - see also
Rambam Hilchot Avoda Zara I:1]

	No matter how we explain the word "huchal" in
this pasuk, all the commentators agree that God's
intention was for man to 'call out in His Name'.  Note,
however, how this pasuk concludes the section that began
in 2:4 with the story of Gan Eden.  Even though man was
banished from Gan Eden and Cain was punished for murder,
God still has expectations from mankind - man is
expected to search for God, to 'call out in His Name'.
	Despite this high expectation, the next unit of
toladot, which leads into the story of the Mabul, shows
that man's behavior fell far short of God's hopes.  God
became so enraged that He decides to destroy His
creation and start over again with Noach.  This unit
which begins in 5:1 concludes in chapter 9 with a
special set of mitzvot for Bnei Noach (9:1-7), a
covenant ('brit ha-keshet' (9:8-17), and ends with the
story of Noach becoming drunk (9:18-29).  However, even
in this final story (of this unit) we find once again a
reference to "shem Hashem":
	After cursing Canaan for his actions, Noach then
blesses his son Shem:
	"Blessed be God, the Lord of Shem..." (see
9:26-27).

	Now it is not by chance that Noach named his son
- Shem.  Most likely, Noach's decision to name his son
Shem was rooted in his hope that his son would fulfill
God's expectation that man would learn to call out
"be-shem Hashem", as explained in 4:26!
[It is not by chance that Chazal consider Shem the
founder of the first Yeshiva, the house of learning
where Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov studied, i.e.
'Yeshivat Shem ve-Ever'.]

	Noach blesses Shem in the hope that he and his
descendants will indeed fulfill this goal.  However,
once again, we find that the next generation fails.  In
chapter 10, again we find a unit that begins with
toladot - this time the development of the seventy
nations from the children of Shem, Cham, and Yefet - and
again, just like the two units that preceded it, this
unit also concludes with a story where the word "shem"
emerges as thematically significant, i.e. the story of
Migdal Bavel.   As we will now explain, in this story,
once again mankind is not looking for God; rather they
are interested solely in making a 'name ['shem'] for
themselves! 

MIGDAL BAVEL
	When reading the first four psukim of the story
of Migdal Bavel, it is hard to pinpoint one specific
sin: [Note, however, the significant usage of the first
person plural.]
"Everyone on earth had the same language and the same
words.  And as they traveled from the east, they came
upon a valley in the land of Shin'ar and settled there.
They said to one another: Come, let us make bricks and
burn them hard... And they said, Come let us build us a
city and a tower with its top in the sky, and we will
make a name for ourselves - v'naaseh lanu shem - lest we
shall be scattered all over the world. Then God came
down to see...."  (see 11:1
7).

	From a cursory reading, it is not clear exactly
what was so terrible about the deeds of this generation.
After all, is not achieving 'achdut' [unity] a positive
goal?  Likewise, the use of human ingenuity to initiate
an industrial revolution, developing man-made building
materials, i.e bricks from clay etc., seems to be a
positive advancement of society.  Furthermore, there
appears to be nothing wrong with simply building a city
and a tower.  Why was God so angered that He decided to
stop this construction and disperse mankind?
	Chazal focus their criticism of this generation
on their antagonistic attitude towards God (see Rashi
11:1).  One key phrase in the Torah's explanation of the
purpose for the tower reflects the egocentric nature of
this generation:
"ve-na'aseh lanu shem" [we shall make a name for
ourselves] (11:4)  [see Sanhedrin 109a].

	Instead of devoting themselves to the name of
God, this generation devotes all of their efforts for
the sake of an unholy end.  Their society and culture
focused solely on man's dominion and strength, while
totally neglecting any divine purpose for their
existence. [See Ramban on 11:4!]
	Although this generation's moral behavior was
probably much better than that of the generation of the
Flood, God remained disappointed, for they established
an anthropocentric society (i.e. man in the center)
instead of a Theo-centric one (i.e. God in the center).
Their primary aim was to make a 'name for themselves',
but not for God. 
     As God's hope that this new generation would 'koreh
be-shem Hashem' - to call out in His Name - never
materialized -  He instigates their dispersion.  God
must take action to assure that this misdirected unity
will not achieve its stated goal (see 11:5-7).
Therefore, God causes the 'mixing of languages' - so
that each nation will follow its own direction, unable
to unify - until they will find a common goal worthy of
that unity.

AVRAHAM IS CHOSEN FOR A PURPOSE
	Our analysis thus far can help us identify the
thematic significance of the story of Migdal Bavel
within the progression of events in Sefer Breishit - for
the very next story is God's choice of Avraham Avinu to
become His special nation! 
    In a manner similar to the earlier stories in
Chumash, the story of God choosing Avraham Avinu is
first introduced, and not by chance, by tracing his
genealogy back ten generations - so that it will begin
with Shem - the son of Noach!  The thematic connection
to "shem" becomes obvious.
	From this perspective, the story of Migdal Bavel
should not be viewed as just another event that took
place - so that we know how and when the development of
language began.  Rather, this story 'sets the stage' for
God's choice of Avraham Avinu, for it will become the
destiny of Avraham, the primary descendent of toldot
Shem, to bring God's Name back into the history of
civilization; to 'fix' the error of civilization at
Migdal Bavel!
	Therefore, it should come as no surprise to us
that upon his arrival in Eretz Canaan, the Torah informs
us of how Avraham Avinu ascends to Bet-El and builds a
mizbeiach where he 'calls out in God's Name':
"And Avraham came to the Land, to Shechem... and God
spoke to him saying: 'To your offspring I have given
this Land'... and Avraham traveled from there towards
the mountain range to the east of Bet-el... and he built
there an altar - and CALLED OUT IN THE NAME OF GOD"  
    [See 12:8 (and Ramban), compare 4:26).
    
 	Similarly, it should not surprise us that when
the prophet Isaiah describes the 'messianic age' (see
Isaiah 2:1-5)  - he speaks of unity of mankind:
- when all nations will gather together once again, but
this time to climb the mountain of God (not a valley)
- arriving at the city of Jerusalem - to its special
tower - i.e. the Bet ha-Mikdash - 'the place that God
has chosen for His Name to dwell there' [see Devarim
12:5-12] 
    - thus rectifying the events that took place at
Migdal Bavel.
    
    And when the prophet Tzefania describes ultimate
redemption, we find once again an allusion to Migdal
Bavel:
'ki az ehpoch el amim safa brura, likro chulam be-shem
Hashem le-ovdo shchem echad'. (see 3:9)

	In our shiur on Parshat Lech Lecha we will
continue this discussion, as we will discuss in greater
detail the purpose for God's choice of Avraham Avinu.
Till then, 
	
shabbat shalom
	
menachem

=============================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
A.  In light of our discussion, we can better appreciate
a puzzling statement made by Ben Azai: 
	"Zeh sefer toldot ha-adam...
	It is taught - R. Akiva says, 've-ahavta
le-rei'acha kamocha' - love your neighbor as yourself -
klal gadol ba-Torah - This is a great principle of the
Torah.
	Ben Azai says, 'zeh sefer toldot ha-adam' (5:1)
- klal gadol mi-zeh - is an even greater principle.
				(Yerushalmi Nedarim
9:4).
	How could one suggest that the very technical
list of the genealogies from Adam to Noach found in
Breishit 5:1
32 constitutes even a principle, let alone
one more important than the famous dictum that one
should love his neighbor as himself!?  	One could
suggest that Ben Azai's statement is not referring
specifically to the genealogies, but rather to the
overall structure of Sefer Breishit as formed by the
toladot, and thus its theme.  Although it is very
important to 'love thy neighbor', the theme of Sefer
Breishit - that Am Yisrael must lead all mankind to a
theocentric existence - is an even greater tenet of our
faith.

B.  What other parallels (or contrasting parallels) can
you find between Yeshayahu 2:1-6 and the story of Migdal
Bavel?  [Be sure to relate to 'bik'a' and 'har' as
well!]

C.  See Tzfania 3:8-9 and its context, especially 'ki az
ehpoch el amim safa brura, likro chulam be-shem Hashem
le-ovdo shchem echad'.  How does this relate to our
explanation of Migdal Bavel!?
	Now, see Seforno in his introduction to Sefer
Breishit.  Note how he explains the progression of
events from the Mabul until God's choice of Avraham
Avinu!  Does it become clear how the Seforno understood
this pasuk in Tzfania!!
	[Be sure to find where he 'quotes' it.]

D.  Am Yisrael is later commanded in Sefer Dvarim to
establish the mikdash 'ba-makom asher yivchar Hashem
leshachein shmo sham'!  (Dvarim 12:5,11).  Relate this
to the above.
	See also Shmuel II 7:22
27 and Melachim I
8:42-44).

E.  The suggested thematic connection between Migdal
Bavel and the bechira of Avraham Avinu is supported by
the Midrash that states that Avraham was 48 years old
when he recognized God for the first time.  Avraham
Avinu reached age 48 on the same year that Peleg died
(see Rashi on 10:25), which according to Chazal
corresponds to the precise year of Migdal Bavel - 1996
to briyat ha-olam.  Recall that Avraham was born in year
1948!  

F.  In case you 'can't wait' until next week, some
preparation for next week's shiur on Avraham Avinu &
shem Hashem.
	Note that when Avraham Avinu first arrives in
Eretz Yisrael, he builds a mizbeiach at Bet
El and calls
out be-shem Hashem (12:8).  After his sojourn in Egypt
due to the famine, Avraham returns to this mizbeiach at
Bet
El and once again calls out be-shem Hashem! (13:4 /
see also 21:33).
	After reading this entire section (12:1-13:4)
carefully, try to explain why Bet-El is the focal point
of Avraham's aliya.



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.4 - Release
Date: 10/27/2008 12:00 AM
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: noach1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 57429 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081029/40688f9a/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Nov  5 20:05:29 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 20:05:29 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Lech Lcha - shiur
Message-ID: <4CF037EDBE83447780CEEF2C00A4C504@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

              PARSHAT LECH L'CHA

     Almost 'out of the blue', at the beginning of
Parshat
Lech L'cha, God appears unto Avraham, commanding him to
travel
to the 'promised land', while blessing him that he will
become
a great nation. However, contrary to what we would
expect, the
Torah never tells us WHY he was chosen; nor does it tell
us
why HE was chosen!
     In contrast to Parshat Noach, where the Torah
informs us
at the outset WHY Noach was chosen [i.e."for he was a
righteous man..."(see 6:9)]; in Parshat Lech L'cha, for
some
reason, the Torah never informs us concerning why God
chose
Avraham Avinu.
     Did Avraham Avinu simply win a 'Divine lottery'?
     In this week's shiur, we discuss the Torah's
presentation
of God's choice of Avraham Avinu, in an attempt to
understand
the literary method that the Torah employs to why
Avraham was
chosen, and its thematic significance.

INTRODUCTION
     Our series of shiurim on Chumash is based on the
[logical] assumption that each book of the Bible carries
a
unique theme; and to identify that theme, one must study
the
progression of its primary topics.
  In our shiur on Parshat Noach, we discussed the
progression
of topics in the first eleven chapters of Sefer
Breishit,
showing how each successive story discussed a story
relating
to 'sin & punishment' (i.e. God's reaction to the
disappointing behavior of each successive generation).
The
story of Creation was followed by the stories of man's
sin in
Gan Eden, followed by Cain killing Hevel, the corruption
of
the generation of the Flood, and finally the building of
the
Tower.
  That pattern, that we discussed in last week's shiur,
will
provide the thematic background for our discussion this
week
of God's choice of Avraham Avinu - that begins in
Parshat Lech
Lcha -as the focus of Chumash changes from
'universalistic' to
'particularistic'.
     As the MIGDAL BAVEL incident (see 11:1-9) was the
last
story recorded in Sefer Breishit prior to God's choice
of
Avraham Avinu, our shiur begins with a careful study of
that
narrative in search of a thematic connection (and/or a
textual
parallel) between these two stories.

THE SIN OF "DOR HA'PLAGAH"
     In our introduction, we assumed that the building
of the
Tower constituted a sin.  However, at first glance, that
assumption is not so clear, for it is difficult to find
a
specific sin the Torah's description of their actions.
In
contrast to the Torah's introduction of the generation
of the
Flood, which explicitly brands the population as wicked
and
corrupt (6:5,10-13), the opening psukim of the Migdal
Bavel
narrative leave hardly a clue to any specific sin:
  "Everyone on earth had the same language and the same
  words.  And as they traveled from the east, they came
upon
  a valley in the land of Shinar and settled there. They
said
  to one another: Come, LET US make bricks and burn them
  hard.  Brick became their stone, and bitumen their
mortar.
  And they said, Come LET US build US a city and a tower
with
  its top in the sky, AND WE WILL MAKE A NAME FOR
OURSELVES,
  lest WE shall be scattered all over the world."
(11:1-4)

     Not only don't we find a transgression, one may
even be
tempted to pay tribute to such an accomplished group of
people:
  *  Is not achieving unity a positive goal? (11:1)
  *    Does not the use of human ingenuity to develop
  man-made building materials, such as bricks to replace
  stone, indicate the positive advancement of society?
(11:3)
                [The very first  'industrial
revolution'!]
* What could possibly be wrong with building a city or
tower?
  Is urbanization a crime? (11:4)
* Is there anything wrong about traveling towards the
east or
  setting up a city within a valley? (see 11:2)

     Nevertheless, they are punished. God mixes up their
languages, causing them to call off the project
(11:5-7). What
did they do wrong?
     Chazal focus their criticism of this generation on
their
antagonistic attitude towards God (see Rashi 11:1).  The
final
and critical phrase in the Torah's explanation of the
tower
(11:4) points to an additional source of guilt:
  "v'naase LANU SHEM - WE shall make a NAME for
OURSELVES"
  [See also Sanhedrin 109a]

     The use of the first person plural - not only in
this
pasuk, but also in the ALL of the first four psukim
(11:1-4) -
reflects the egocentric nature and attitude of this
generation.  [Note also the repeated use of the Hebrew
word
"hava" (let US).]
     Rather than devoting their endeavors to the
glorification
of the NAME OF GOD, this generation excludes God from
their
goals and aspirations, emphasizing instead man's
dominion and
prowess.
     Although this generation is undoubtedly more
refined and
cultured than the corrupt, depraved generation of the
flood,
they unite for the unholy purpose of venerating the name
of
man, rather than that of the Almighty. God had higher
expectations for mankind, hoping they would harness
their God-
given talents and potential towards loftier pursuits.
They
instituted an anthropocentric society rather than a
theocentric one, and devoted their energies towards
MAKING A
NAME for THEMSELVES.
     God could not allow this project to continue. But
in
contrast to the corrupt generation of the Flood, the
builders
of the Tower did not deserve destruction, rather 're-
direction'.  God will now choose Avraham Avinu to serve
as a
leader to REDIRECT mankind -  to channel those very same
qualities of unity and creativity towards a more
altruistic
end.

     It is from this setting - that God singles out
Avraham
Avinu and promises to produce from him a special nation:
  "And I will make you a GREAT NATION.... and through
you ALL
  the families of the earth will be blessed." (12:1-3)

     Avraham Avinu is CHOSEN FOR A PURPOSE: to direct
mankind
back in the proper direction.  Towards this goal, He is
also
promised a special land, but NOT AS A REWARD, but rather
as a
means to fulfill that purpose. God seeks a special
nation to
represent Him, to educate all other nations and spark
their
spiritual development. Avraham is at this point but a
single
individual, but he is destined to become the forefather
of
this nation. [Its development involves a complex
process,
which will take some four hundred years (see 15:13-20).]
     To become this nation, Avraham's offspring must
multiply
(ZERA) and then establish their nation in a special land
(ARETZ). These two prerequisites not only appear in
God's
opening statement to Avraham upon his arrival in Eretz
Canaan
(12:7), but they are repeated each time God speaks to
the AVOT
of their future (see 13:14-15, 15:18, 17:8, 26:3, 28:13,
35:12, etc.).

BET-EL & SHEM HASHEM
     Although this goal can be fully attained only once
this
special nation is established, it is significant that
Avraham
himself exerts himself towards this end.
     If we trace Avraham's first sojourn through Eretz
Canaan
as described in the Torah, we find that the town of
Bet-El
earns a unique place within Avraham's itinerary.
     After he arrives in Canaan and builds a MIZBAYACH
in
Shchem, Avraham continues to Bet-El, the climax of his
"aliyah":
  "From there he moved up the mountain range to
BET-EL... and
  he built a MIZBAYACH there and called out b'SHEM
HaSHEM -
  in God's NAME! (12:8).

     Then, in the next chapter, Avraham returns to Eretz
Canaan after his stay in Egypt and comes specifically to
this
very same MIZBAYACH in Bet-El. He once again calls out
b'SHEM
HaSHEM (13:1-4)!
     Wherein lies the significance of Avraham's
MIZBAYACH in
Bet-El and his calling out in God's Name?
     Avraham's calling out in God's NAME in Bet-El
signifies a
contrasting parallel to the Migdal Bavel fiasco. There,
mankind's focus on their own prominence is reflected in
their
statement of: "v'naaseh LANU SHEM." Now Avraham must
correct
that cardinal mistake; he calls out in GOD'S NAME -
"va'yikra
b'SHEM HASHEM"! It is for this very purpose that Avraham
was
commissioned.
     Ramban expresses this understanding in his comments
to
this pasuk (12:8):
  "... and Avraham would call out there in front of the
  Mizbayach and make known God's existence to all
mankind..."

A 'STRATEGIC' LOCATION
     This thematic background may help us understand why
God
chose specifically the land of Israel to become the
'homeland'
of this nation.  Recall (from your study of world
history)
that in the time of Avraham Avinu there existed two
great
centers of ancient civilization - Egypt and Mesopotamia.
One
could suggest that the land of Israel, located in
between
these two centers of civilization (and along the main
highway
that connects them), provides a 'strategic' location for
the
accomplishment of their national goal.
     This idea may be reflected in events that transpire
in
chapter 12. Note how Avraham is first commanded to leave
his
own homeland in Mesopotamia and travel to Eretz Canaan
(see
12:1).  At the highlight of that "aliyah", he builds his
"mizbayach" in Bet-el and 'calls out in God's Name'
(12:7-8).
Then, the next story in Chumash informs us how he
traveled to
Egypt and encounters an incident of corruption (see
12:10-20).
Upon his return from that center of civilization, once
again
Avraham goes to Bet-el and builds a mizbayach and calls
out in
His Name (see 13:1-4). Finally, note as well how Avraham
calls
out, once again, in God's Name - after he establishes a
covenant of mutual trust with Avimelech (see 21:33).
[See also
Ramban on 12:8 in its entirity (and the TSC shiur on
Parshat
Va'yetze).]

A BIBLICAL THEME
     This concept, that Am Yisrael is chosen to bring
God's
Name to mankind, emerges as a central theme not only in
Sefer
Breishit, but throughout Tanach, as well.
     In Sefer Devarim, Bnei Yisrael are commanded to
establish
a national religious center "ba'makom asher yivchar
Hashem
l'shakeyn SHMO sham" - in the place which God will
choose for
His NAME to dwell therein (Devarim 12:5,11).  As we
explained
in our shiurim on Sefer Devarim, this phrase, repeated
numerous times in the sefer, describes the BET
HA'MIKDASH -
which is to become the institution through which God's
prominence will be recognized by all mankind.
     Some four hundred years later, when the MIKDASH is
finally built, this same theme is reflected in Shlomo's
prayer
at its dedication ceremony:
  "If a foreigner comes from a distant land for the SAKE
OF
  YOUR NAME, for they shall hear about YOUR GREAT
NAME...
  when he comes to pray at this House... grant him what
he
  asks. Thus ALL THE PEOPLES OF THE EARTH will KNOW YOUR
NAME
  and revere You, as do Bnei Yisrael, and they will
recognize
  that YOUR NAME is attached to this House which I have
  built."   (Melachim I 8:43 /see also Shmuel II
7:22-27)
     In fact, Malkat Sheva [the Queen of Sheeba],
reaches this
very conclusion upon her visit to the Bet Ha'Mikdash, as
described in Melachim 10:1-9!

IN MESSIANIC TIMES
     The famous messianic prophecy of Yeshayahu (chapter
2)
not only reflects this same theme, but also creates an
intriguing parallel to the Migdal Bavel narrative:
  "In the days to come, the MOUNTAIN of BET HA'SHEM (the
  Temple Mount) will stand high above the mountains...
and
  ALL THE NATIONS shall gaze on it with joy. Then MANY
  PEOPLES shall go and say: Come let us go up to the
House of
  God, that He may instruct us in His ways and we may
walk in
  His paths - for TORAH shall come forth from Tzion, and
the
  word of God from Yerushalayim... " (2:1-4)

     Note the contrasting parallel between this 'hope'
and the
events at Migdal Bavel.  In both events all mankind
unites for
a joint purpose. However, in Yeshayahu they gather to a
MOUNTAIN top (man looking up) rather than in a VALLEY
(man
looking down); and to the CITY of Yerushalayim and its
TOWER -
the Bet HaMikdash, rather than their own city and tower.
Mankind has now united to hear the word of God, as
transmitted
and taught by His people.
     In diametric opposition to Migdal Bavel, the
Mikdash
becomes the symbol of the goals of a theocentric society
- the
ultimate goal of mankind.
     The following table reviews this contrasting
parallel:

MIGDAL BAVEL        BET HA'MIKDASH
------------                  --------------
Unity for man       Unity for God
Valley              Mountain
a city              the city of Jerusalem
a tower             the Temple
Man's prominence    God's prominence ("shem Hashem")

     Another parallel to the Migdal Bavel narrative
appears in
the prophecies of Zefania, in his depiction of the
messianic
era:
  "For then I will make the peoples pure of speech -
SAFA
  BRURA - so that they will all call out b'SHEM HASHEM,
and
  worship Him with one accord." (3:9)

     Once again, the prophet depicts the unification of
mankind for the purpose of calling out in God's Name. An
additional parallel to the Migdal Bavel incident is
suggested
by the use of the word "safa" (=language).

REWARD OR PURPOSE
     In light of our discussion, we can now reexamine
our
original question. We have shown that Avraham Avinu was
chosen
to fulfill a SPECIFIC MISSION - to become the forefather
of a
nation that will lead all others to a theocentric
existence
and refocus mankind's energies in the proper direction.
     Thus, Avraham Avinu's distinction came not as a
REWARD
for any specific deed, but rather for a SPECIFIC
PURPOSE.
Undoubtedly, as reflected in numerous Midrashim, Avraham
must
have been a man of extraordinary character and stature
who
possessed the necessary potential to fulfill this goal.
However, the Torah prefers to omit any explicit
reference to
these qualities, focusing not on his past
accomplishments but
rather on the mission that lies ahead, thus stressing
the
primacy of Avraham's designated task.
      This same principle applies in all generations.
God's
choice of Am Yisrael is not a REWARD, but the means by
which
they can and must fulfill the mission with which He has
entrusted them. As this mission is eternal, so too is
God's
choice of the Jewish Nation.

     This Biblical theme stresses our need to focus not
on the
exclusive PRIVILEGES of being God's special Nation, but
rather
on its unique RESPONSIBILITIES.

                              shabbat shalom,
                              menachem


========
FOR FURTHER IYUN    Lech L'cha - shiur #1

A.  One could suggest that the events at Migdal Bavel
represent the natural course of the history of nations.
People
with a common goal join together for a common purpose
and
build a society. Sooner or later, splinter groups with
other
ideals and goals form, often challenging the authority
of the
first group. Over the course of time, these smaller
groups may
eventually break off and start their own nation.
     When people cannot agree upon a common goal, they
are
often unable to communicate with each other, even if
they do
speak the same language. [Israel's "knesset" is classic
example.]
     One could suggest that when God decides to stop
this
building project, he does so by sundering the people's
unity,
by causing them to fight over their goals. Their
inability to
communicate with each other, to understand each other's
language, stems from the breakdown of the unity of
mission
that had brought them together in the first place.
     Based on this suggestion, offer an alternate
interpretation of the term "safa" (language) in the
Migdal
Bavel narrative.
     See Ibn Ezra (11:1 - "dvarim achadim") and - if you
have
time - the Abarbanel on this sugya. Relate their
comments to
the above discussion.

B. Note that in the entire Migdal Bavel narrative,
Hashem's
name is exclusively shem "havaya". Relate this to last
week's
shiur.
C. This connection between Migdal Bavel and the
"bechira" of
Avraham Avinu is supported by the Midrash's comment (on
Breishit 26:5) that Avraham was 48 years old when he
recognized God for the first time.  By calculating the
geneologies in chapters 5 and 11, it can be established
that
Avraham Avinu reached age 48 on the same year that Peleg
died,
which, according to Chazal, corresponds to the precise
year of
Migdal Bavel!


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: lech1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 33456 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081105/4bc7aa5e/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Nov  5 20:10:27 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 20:10:27 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat lech lcha - part two
Message-ID: <29B6C07DFC034C5F88CFB4024F0D2EDF@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

	PARSHAT  LECH L'CHA  -Part Two

	How many times must God repeat the SAME promise
to Avraham Avinu? In Parshat Lech L'cha alone, God tells
Avraham FOUR times that his offspring ("zera") will
become a nation in a special land ("aretz")! Would not
have one divine promise been sufficient? 
	In the following shiur, we attempt to explain
the reason for each of these promises and their relation
to the events that transpire in the interim. 

INTRODUCTION 
	To clarify our opening question, the following
table charts the progression of events in Parshat Lech
L'cha by providing a short title for each of its seven
'parshiot', while noting in brackets where that
'parshia' includes a "hitgalut" [revelation] to Avraham
in regard to the future of his offspring.

PARSHIA		TOPIC
12:1-9		Avraham's "aliyah" to Eretz Canaan
[*12:1-3,7]
12:10-13:18	Lot leaving Avraham [*13:14-17]
14:1-24		Avraham's victory in the war between the
kings
15:1-20		Brit Bein ha'Btarim [*15:13-19]
16:1-16		The birth of Yishmael
17:1-14		Brit Milah [*17:7-8]
17:15-27		The promise of the birth of
Yitzchak  [*17:19]

	As you review this chart, read those psukim
(quoted in the brackets) - noting how often God promises
Avraham Avinu that his "zera" (offspring) will inherit
the "aretz" (land).  In our shiur, we attempt to explain
how and why each "hitgalut" is unique, and how it
relates to the events that transpire in Parshat Lech
L'cha.

THE FIRST HITGALUT - BECOMING GOD'S NATION
	The opening "hitgalut" is the simplest to
understand, for in this initial encounter, God must
first explain to Avraham the primary purpose for why he
has been chosen:
"I will make you a GREAT NATION... and through you all
the Nations of the world will be blessed..." (see
12:1-3)

	As we explained in earlier shiurim, God
initiates this special relationship with Avraham Avinu
to become the 'forefather' of a 'model nation' that will
direct mankind toward a more Theo-centric existence. 
	This backdrop explains God's next "hitgalut" to
Avraham (in that very same 'parshia') upon his arrival
in that land:
"To your ZERA [offspring] I shall give this ARETZ
[land]" (see 12:7)
           
	To develop from an 'individual' into a 'nation',
it will be necessary for:
 Avraham's family will need to multiply - 
		hence the blessing of "ZERA"; 
A territory is necessary to establish this nation - 
		hence the promise of "ARETZ".  

	Pay careful attention to these two key words:
"zera" &  "aretz", for they will be repeated quite often
in Sefer Breishit, especially when God speaks to the
forefathers in regard to the future of their offspring.
           
	Theoretically speaking, these two promises could
have sufficed.  After all, once Avraham had arrived in
the land, he simply needs to give birth to many
children, settle the land, and establish this special
nation.  And if Chumash was a 'fairy tale', that may
have been a most likely scenario. However, in Chumash,
this "bechira" [choosing] process - to become God's
special nation - will unfold instead in a rather complex
manner.  To appreciate that process, we must now
consider the thematic significance of each additional
"hitgalut" to Avraham Avinu.

THE FIRST 'SPLIT'
	The next 'parshia' (12:9-13:18) describes
Avraham's journey to Egypt and upon his return - his
quarrel with Lot.  Let's examine the next "hitgalut"
which takes place immediately after Lot left Avraham:
"And God spoke to Avram after Lot had left him: Lift up
your eyes from this place and see... for this entire
ARETZ that you see I am giving to you and your ZERA
forever..." (see 13:14-18)

	This promise, although a bit more 'poetic' than
the first, appears to be more or less a repeat of God's
original promise of "zera v'aretz". To understand its
purpose, we must consider what transpired in those
events.
	Review 12:10 thru 13:18, noting how this unit
discusses two totally different stories, even though
they are both included in the same 'parshia':
1) Avraham's journey to Egypt and his subsequent return
(12:10-13:4)
	2) The quarrel between Lot and Avraham (13:5-18)

	Indeed, there is loose connection between these
two stories, as it was their wealth (which they
accumulated during their journey to Egypt /see 12:16-20)
that sparked their quarrel (see 13:5-9).  Nevertheless,
it would have been more logical for each of these
stories to form their own 'parshia', as reflected in the
chapter division.  
	However, the fact that the Torah records both of
these stories in the same 'parshia' - suggests that a
deeper thematic connection may exist between these two
stories.  
	Let's explore that possibility.

LIKE NEPHEW LIKE SON
	Note once again the opening phrase (in 13:14)
which introduces God's second promise: 
	"And God spoke to Avram after Lot had left
him..." 

	This short introduction certainly points to a
direct connection between Lot's departure and the need
for this additional promise.
	One could suggest that God's promise comes to
'cheer up' Avraham Avinu after this tragic separation
from his nephew Lot, whom he treated as his own son.
Let's explain why.
	Recall that at this time, Avraham has no
children of his own, while his nephew Lot has no father.
For this reason, it seems as though Avraham had
practically 'adopted' Lot, treating him like his own
son.  In fact, from the moment we meet Avraham in
Parshat Noach, Lot faithfully follows Avraham
everywhere. [See 11:27-31, 12:4-5, and 13:1-2,5!  
[Recall as well that Haran (Avraham's brother) left
three children: Lot, Milka, and Yiskah / see 11:27-29.
Nachor (Avraham's other brother) took care of Milka - by
marrying her, while Avraham took care of Lot, by
treating him like a son.  This also explains why Chazal
identify Sarah as Yiskah (see 20:12 & Rashi on 11:29).]

	As he had no children of his own, Avraham may
have understood that God's promise of "zera" would be
fulfilled through Lot! [See Radak 13:14!]  Furthermore,
even if God would one-day bless him with his own son,
Avraham could still have hoped to include Lot as an
integral member of his 'chosen' family. 
	Therefore, Lot's decision to leave (see 13:9-13)
could be considered as a personal tragedy for Avraham,
and hence the necessity for God to reassure him that His
promise of "zera" will still be fulfilled.
	With this in mind, let's consider a deeper
connection between these two stories in this 'parshia',
relating to a more fundamental theme of Sefer Breishit.

LEAVING AVRAHAM OR LEAVING GOD?
	In Sefer Breishit, Lot is the first example of a
family member who is 'rejected from Avraham's 'chosen'
family. Many similar stories (such as the rejection of
Yishmael & Esav) will follow.
	As this "dechiya" [rejection] process will
become a pattern within the "behcira" [choosing[
process, we should expect that the Torah's description
of these events (in the first section of this 'parshia')
will at least allude to WHY Lot is rejected from the
'chosen family'.
	Even though both Avraham and Lot travel together
to and from Egypt, the impact of that visit on each is
profoundly different. Avraham, as reflected in the
incident with Pharaoh and Sarah, saw corruption in
Egypt. He returns to Eretz Canaan inspired with the
resolve to preach against such corrupt behavior - to
teach morality. Therefore, Avraham returns immediately
to Bet-el, where he once again calls out in God's Name.
[See Ramban 12:8 and Rambam Hilchot Avodah Zara I:2-3!]

 	In contrast, Lot was impressed by the 'good
life' in Egypt; not only by its wealth, but also by its
climate - and especially its mighty river. Let's explain
how we reach this conclusion.
	In an attempt to stop the quarrel between their
herdsmen, Avraham had suggested a 'split' with Lot, i.e.
one of them would travel to the right, the other to the
left (see 13:7-9). Even though the words 'right' and
'left' are often understood as 'east' and 'west', Tirgum
Unkelos explains that Avraham offered Lot to go either
NORTH (left / see Breishit 14:15) or SOUTH (right,
"ymin" as in Yemen/ see Devarim 3:27). Considering that
they were standing in Bet-el (see 12:4),  Avraham
offered Lot to choose between the hills of YEHUDA (to
the south / i.e. to the right) or SHOMRON (to the north,
i.e. to the left), i.e. not a complete separation - only
a far enough distance to avoid quarrels.
	Lot did not accept Avraham's offer. Instead, Lot
opted to leave the mountain range of Eretz Canaan
altogether, preferring the Jordan Valley
"And Lot lifted his eyes and saw the entire JORDAN
valley, for it had plenty of water... like the LAND OF
EGYPT..." (see 13:10).

	Lot's logic was quite reasonable. The Jordan
Valley had a river, and hence a constant supply of water
- in contrast to the mountain range whose water supply
was dependent on the rainfall  
	However, Lot's choice carried spiritual
ramifications as well. As Parshat Ekev explains:
"For the land which you are coming to inherit [i.e.
Eretz Canaan] is NOT like Eretz Mitzraim [which has the
Nile River as a constant water supply]..., instead it is
a land of hills and valleys - which needs RAIN for
water. [Therefore] it is a land which God looks
after..." (Devarim 11:10-12)

	Symbolically, Lot's choice reflects his
preference for a different life-style. Avraham accepts
the challenge of Eretz Canaan - a life dependent on
MATAR (rain) and hence - dependent on God (see Devarim
11:13-16!). Lot prefers the 'easy-life' in Sdom.  This
understanding is reflected in the Midrash:
"va'yisa Lot m'KEDEM" - Midrash Agada - "hi'si'ah atzmo
m'KADMONO shel olam - Lot lifted himself AWAY from God,
saying, I can no longer remain with Avraham - nor with
his God." (quoted by Rashi on 13:11)
[Sdom is really to the east, therefore the pasuk should
say "l'kedem" and not "m'kedem". The Midrash picks up on
this to show its deeper meaning. See also the use of
"m'kedem" to show a direction away from God, as in 3:24
(leaving Gan Eden), 4:16 and 11:2.] 

	Lot's total divorce from Avraham is indeed
tragic for he has lost not only a 'son' but also a
disciple. Therefore, God must now not only console
Avraham, but also reassure him that despite Lot's
departure (13:14/ "acharei hi'pared Lot") His promise of
"zera v'aretz" remains. 
	Indeed, Avraham will yet have a child - a son
who will follow in his footsteps as well. 

BRIT BEIN HA'BTARIM - THE FIRST COVENANT
	The next time God speaks to Avraham is in
chapter 15 - better known as "brit bein ha'btarim".
There again, God promises "zera v'aretz" (see 15:18),
however in this promise, for the first time, we find the
framework of a "brit" - a covenant. To appreciate the
significance of this covenant and its 'dialogue', we
must take note of the events that precede it in chapter
14. 
	The battle of the four kings against the five
kings in chapter 14 constitutes Avraham's first military
victory in Land. Yet, it is this military victory that
leads us directly into the topic of "brit bein
ha'btraim". Note how chapter 15 opens as a direct
continuation of that victory:
"achar ha'dvarim ha'eyleh - After THESE events, God
spoke to Avram in a vision saying: Do not fearful... I
will shield you, your reward is very great..." (see
15:1-2)

	Now there are numerous opinions among the
commentators explaining why Avraham was fearful (which
are not mutually exclusive). However, there is one point
that Avraham raises over and over again in his ensuing
conversation that definitely relates to his military
conquest, as well as his lack of a son:
"...Since you have given me no offspring - v'hinei ben
beiti YORASH oti - behold my house servant [i.e.
Eliezer] he will be my heir..." (see 15:3)

	Avraham becomes upset as he realizes that
without a son, everything that he has just acquired in
this battle will be taken over by his servant Eliezer.  
	Considering that to become a nation, his
offspring would sooner or later have to secure military
conquest of the land (what we call 'sovereignty').
Avraham's military victory at this time could have
achieved this goal.  But realizing that he has no
children of his own at this time, Avraham gave
everything away (see 14:16-24).  Hence, this military
victory only heightened Avraham's awareness that God's
promises remained unfulfilled.  For a very good reason,
Avraham is now worried that maybe he is no longer worthy
of God's original promise. (see Rashi 15:1)
	To support this interpretation, let's note the
Torah's use of the verb "yorash" [which is usually
understood simply as to 'inherit'] in the above pasuk,
and in the psukim that follow:
"And God answered: That one [Eliezer] will not YO'RASH
you, rather your very own son (yet to be born) - he will
YO'RASH you... & then He said to him: I am the Lord who
brought you out of Ur Kasdim to give you this land
l'RISHTAH... Then Avraham asked - b'mah ay'dah ki
i'RASHENAH..." (15:4-8)

	There is no doubt that "yerusha" is a key word
in this conversation, but what does it mean?
	Throughout Chumash, "YERUSHA" usually implies
some sort of conquest (usually military, as in securing
sovereignty over land). For example, in Parshat Masei
God commandment for Bnei Yisrael to conquer the land is
worded as follows:
"v'HORSHTEM et ha'ARETZ... - You shall conquer the land
and live in it, for I have given you the land - L'RESHET
otah.. (see Bamidbar 33:50-53, see also Breishit 22:17!

[Note as well the word "morasha" in this context in
Shmot 6:5-8.  Note also the special context of "morasha"
in Devarim 33:4 - implying that Torah also requires a
certain type of 'conquest' / see Maharam.]

	This background can help us understand the
ensuing conversation between God and Avraham.
	First of all, God calms Avraham, promising him
once again that the time will come and indeed he will
have "zera" - as numerous as the stars in the heavens -
that they will one day YORESH (conquer) the land (see
15:4-5).  And indeed, Avraham is assured by this promise
(see 15:6 "v'he'emin b'Hashem").

	Then, God initiates yet another conversation
with the powerful statement of:
"I am the God who took you out of Ur Kaskim, to give you
this land L'RISHTA - to inherit by conquest!"  (see
15:7)
		[Note similarity to Shmot 20:2 (first
line of the Dibrot).]

	In reaction, Avraham asks a rather puzzling
question:
"b'mah aydah ki i'RASHENAH"! (see 15:8), which includes
once again the word "yerusha"!
	What is the meaning of this question?
	It would not make sense that Avraham is asking
for divine proof of God's promise of "zera"? First of
all, the previous pasuk just stated that Avraham
believed in God's promise (see 15:6). Furthermore, God
does not answer this question with a proof! So what is
Avraham's question?  
	To answer this, we must 'cheat' a little by
looking at God's answer.
	Recall once again Avraham's question is: "b'mah
aydah ki i'RASHENAH" in response to God's promise that
He has taken him out of Ur Kasdim in order that he
YORASH the land (see 15:7-8). 
	God's response to this question begins by
instructing Avraham to perform a certain ceremony (see
15:9-12), however the actual answer to Avraham's
question doesn't begin until 15:13.   To understand why,
carefully how God's statement of "y'DOAH TAYDAH..." in
15:13 - forms a direct response to Avraham's question of
"b'MAH AYDAH..." in 15:8!  
[The ceremony in 15:9-12 forms the preparation for the
covenant that will be defined in 15:18.]

NOT IN YOUR LIFTETIME!
	God's answer to Avraham's question continues
from 15:13 thru 15:16.  Note how it describes WHEN and
HOW the YERUSHA of the Land will ultimately take place:
"Surely you should KNOW that your offspring will be
strangers in a foreign land, where they will be
afflicted and enslaved; four hundred years.  But that
nation that will enslave will [ultimately] be punished -
afterward they [your offspring] will leave [that land]
with great wealth.  But you [Avraham] will die in
peace... [i.e. before this difficult process begins];
only the fourth generation will return here [to inherit/
conquer this land] - for the sin of Emorites will not be
complete until that time."  	(see 15:13-16)

	To Avraham's total surprise, God's promise of
"yerusha" (see 15:7) - sovereignty over the land, and
the establishment of a nation - won't take place in his
own lifetime, or in his son's lifetime!  Instead, before
his offspring will attain YERUSHA of the land, they must
first undergo some 'basic training' in someone else's
land - a process that will include slavery and
affliction in 'a foreign land'.  Only after some four
hundred years will they attain this YERUSHA.  [This
'news' comes as such a 'shock' to Avraham Avinu that
Avraham must be first 'sedated' - see 15:12 & 15:17!]

	In answer to Avraham's question of "b'mah eydah"
- God informs Avraham that in essence, he is only on a
'pilot trip' to Israel.  It may be symbolic that he
himself just conquered the land, and that he himself had
already made God's Name known by calling out in His Name
- for these events foreshadow what his offspring will do
(as a nation) in the future ("maase Avot, siman
l'banim").  However, the ultimate fulfillment of God's
original promise that Avraham will establish great
sovereign nation will only be fulfilled after many
generations of important preparation. 
           
	Hence, Avraham's question of "b'mah aydah ki
i'RASHENAH" is a request to know WHEN (and possibly HOW)
this YERUSHA will ultimately take place. [Recall that
the Hebrew word "ki" can also mean 'when'.]

A PROOF FROM VA'EYRA
	To prove that this is God's answer to Avraham's
question, we simply need to read the famous psukim in
Parshat Va'eyra (see Shmot 6:2-8), when God informs
Moshe that the time has come to fulfill this covenant:
"And I have heard the cries of bondage of Bnei
Yisrael... and I have remembered my COVENANT [i.e. "brit
bein ha'btarim"], therefore, tell Bnei Yisrael I am God,
and I will take you out of your suffering in Egypt...
[the 'four cups' psukim] and I will bring you to the
land THAT I lifted up My hand to give to Avraham,
Yitzchak and Yaakov, and I will then give it to you as a
MORASHA [= "yerusha"]!"  (see Shmot 6:5-8)

	Only after the Exodus, will God give the land to
Bnei Yisrael as a MORASHA, as He promised to Avraham
Avinu at brit bein ha'btarim.
	The implications of this promise are so far
reaching that they require an official covenant between
God and Avraham, as described in final psukim of this
'parshia', i.e. in 15:18-20.

	This explains not only the thematic connection
between chapters 14 and 15, but also the necessity of
this additional promise of "zera v'aretz" in the form of
a covenant.  Brit bein ha'btraim includes not only the
promise of becoming a nation, but also explains the long
historical process of how Avraham's offspring will one
day become that nation.

LAND - FOR A PURPOSE
	This order of events that unfolds in Brit bein
ha'btarim, explaining HOW Bnei Yisrael will become a
nation, is quite significant for it highlights the
special nature of our relationship with the land.   
	The histories of all other nations of the world
begin in a very different manner. Usually a nation
begins when a group of people living in a common land
sharing common resources and needs join together for the
sake of common interest and form a nation.  In other
words, FIRST we have people living on a common land, and
then those people become a nation. In contrast, Am
Yisrael becomes a nation in a very different manner.  We
don't begin with a common land, rather we begin with a
common goal (or destiny), i.e. to become God's model
nation.  In fact, the Torah emphasizes that we will
become a nation in "land that is not ours" [see 15:13).
Technically speaking, our initial bonding is caused by a
common plight and suffering in a FOREIGN land. Only
AFTER we become a nation, and only after we receive the
Torah at Har Sinai (the laws that teach us how we are to
achieve our goal), only then do we conquer the Land that
God has designated for us.
	In other words, we are not a nation because we
have a common land, rather we are a nation because we
share a common goal and destiny. The land serves as a
vehicle to help our nation achieve that goal. [See first
Rashi on Chumash, and read it carefully, noting how he
explains a very similar theme.]
	
THE BIRTH OF YISHMAEL
	The next 'parshia' in Parshat Lech L'cha
describes the events that lead to the birth of Yishmael
(see 16:1-16). God promises that he too will become a
mighty nation, but a rather wild one (see 16:12). For
some divine reason, God's intention is that Avraham's
only chosen will be born to Sarah, but only after her
lifelong struggle with barrenness.
	However, before Avram and Sarai can give birth
to this special child, God must change their names to
AvraHam and SarAH and enter into yet another covenant -
better known as "brit milah".

BRIT MILAH
	The next 'parshia', describing the covenant of
BRIT MILAH (see 17:1-11), contains the fourth and final
promise of "zera v'aretz" in Parshat Lech L'cha. As this
brit includes the very FIRST MITZVA that Avraham must
keep and pass on to his children, its details are very
important. In fact they are so important that their
thematic significance has already been discussed in
three earlier shiurim.
1) The significance of "brit milah" on the 'eighth day'
was discussed at length in our shiur for Shmini Atzeret
(sent out a few weeks ago/ see TSC archive for Parshat
Tazria).

2) The thematic connection between "brit milah" and
"brit bein ha'btarim" was discussed in our shiur for
Chag ha'MATZOT and on Parshat Bo and on MAGID.

3) The meaning the borders of the Land of Israel as
detailed in "brit milah" (and "brit bein ha'btarim") was
discussed in our shiur on Parshat Masei (see archive).

	Therefore, we will not discuss "brit milah" in
detail in this week's shiur. Instead, we simply note how
this "brit" serves as the introduction to the birth of
Yitzchak, and the prerequisite for his conception. 

	The final 'parshia' in Parshat Lech L'cha (see
17:15-27) details how Avraham fulfills this commandment.
Yet, at the same time, God informs him that the
"bechira" process will continue ONLY thru Yitzchak, who
will soon be born (see 17:15-21); and NOT with Yishmael,
even though he also fulfilled the mitzva of "brit milah"
(see 17:20-24).
[Be sure to note the textual parallel between 17:7-8,19
and God's covenant with Noach in 6:18 and 9:8-17;
"v'akmal".]

	We have shown how God's original choice of
Avraham Avinu was not in REWARD for his merits, but
rather IN ORDER that he fulfill God's mission - to
become His nation. As this mission is eternal, so too is
God's choice of the Jewish Nation. As we concluded in
our first shiur on Parshat Lech L'cha, we find once
again a Biblical theme that stresses our need to focus
more so on our RESPONSIBILITY to act as God's special
nation, and less so on those PRIVILEGES that it
includes.

	
shabbat shalom,
	
menachem
=============

FOR FURTHER IYUN  
A. Note Yeshayahu 42:5-6 and its context. Relate this
pasuk to our shiurim thus far on Sefer Breishit. [Note
that this is the opening pasuk of the Haftara for
Parshat Breishit (& not by chance!).]
	Compare with Devarim 4:5-8.  Explain what
Yeshayahu refers to when he mentions "brit am" and "or
goyim".


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: lech2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 42331 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081105/cd628248/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Nov 13 02:56:57 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:56:57 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Vayera - shiur #2
Message-ID: <FE2B11D2082242AD81DA5B38A31F489A@x60>

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

             PARSHAT  VA'YERA  - additional shiurim

     In Part Two of this week's shiur, we present a six
short
'mini-shiurim' that discuss the Akeyda and misc. topics
in the
Parasha.

PART I -  THE AKEYDA  -- A CONFLICT BETWEEN IDEALS
     In the story of the Akeyda (Breishit chapter 22),
we find
a conflict between two ideals. From the perspective of
'natural morality', there is probably nothing more
detestable
to man's natural instinct that killing his own son, even
more
so his only son.  On the other hand, from the
perspective of
man's relationship with God, there is nothing more
compelling
than the diligent fulfillment of a divine command.
     In an ideal world, these two ideals should never
conflict, for how could God command man to perform an
act that
is immoral?  However, in the real world, individuals
often
face situations where they are torn between his
'conscience'
and his 'religion'. How should one act in such
situations?
     One could suggest a resolution of this dilemma
based on
the special manner by which the Torah tells the story of
the
Akeyda (chapter 22). On the one hand, God ["b'shem
Elokim"]
commands Avraham to offer his only son Yitzchak.
Avraham, a
devout servant of God, diligently follows God's command,
even
though this must have been one of the most difficult
moments
of his life. In this manner, God tests Avraham's faith
(see
22:1). However, it is impossible that God could truly
make
such a demand. Therefore, at the last minute, He sends a
"malach" [b'shem Havaya/ see 22:11] to stop him.
     Was Avraham correct in his behavior? Should he have
not
questioned God's command, just as he had questioned
God's
decision to destroy Sedom?
     There is no easy answer to this question. In fact,
hundreds of articles and commentaries have been written
that
deal with this question, and even though they are all
based on
the same narrative, many of them reach very different
conclusion - and for a very simple reason! The story of
the
Akeyda does not provide us with enough details to arrive
at a
concrete conclusion.
     One could suggest that this Biblical ambiguity may
be
deliberate, for the Torah's intention may be that we do
not
resolve this conflict, rather we must ponder it.  In
fact, it
is rather amazing how one very short but dramatic
narrative
(about ten psukim) has sparked hundreds of philosophical
debates over centuries. [This is the beauty of the
Bible.]
     In other words, it is important that we are
internally
torn by this conflict, and make every effort to resolve
it,
while recognizing that ultimately a divine command could
not
be immoral.
     This conflict becomes more acute when we face a
situation
when is not so clear precisely what God's command is,
and when
it is not so clear what is considered moral or immoral.
When
those situations arise, not only must we ponder, we must
also
pray that God send a "malach" to help guide us in the
proper
direction.
    =======

PART TWO - YIRAT ELOKIM & 'NATURAL MORALITY'
     Undoubtedly, the climax of the Akeyda takes place
in
22:12, when God's angel tells Avraham not to harm his
child.
However, this pasuk includes a very interesting phrase -
"ki
ya'rey Elokim ata...", which may relate directly to our
above
discussion.  To explain how, let's first take a careful
look
at that pasuk:
  "And he [God's angel] said: Do not harm the boy -
don't do
  anything to him, for now I know - KI ya'rey Elokim ata
-
  'that' you fear Elokim, and you have not withheld your
only
  son from Me"
    [See 22:12 / Note in the various English
translations and
    commentaries the unclarity whether this "malach" is
    talking on behalf of himself or if it's a direct
comment
    from God.]

     According to the 'simplest' understanding of this
pasuk,
the word "ki" should be translated 'that'.  In other
words,
Avraham's readiness to sacrifice his own son [the final
clause
of this pasuk] proved to God that Avraham was indeed a
"ya'rey
Elokim" [the middle clause]. The use of God's Name -
Elokim -
also appears to make sense, for it was "shem Elokim" in
22:1
that first commanded Avraham to offer his son.
     However, there is a small problem with this
interpretation. First of all, this suggests that before
the
Akeyda, God had doubted if Avraham was a "ya'rey
Elokim"; yet
there doesn't seem to be any reason for this doubt.
[Unless
one explains that this test was due to God's anger to
the
covenant that Avraham had just made with Avimelech, see
this
amazing ('right wing') Rashbam on 22:1!]
     Furthermore, this phrase "yirat Elokim" is found
several
other times in Chumash, but with a very different
meaning. The
best example is found in Parshat Va'yera itself, in the
story
when Avimelech takes Avraham's wife Sarah (see 20:1-18).
Recall the reason that Avraham tells Avimelech,
explaining why
he had to lie about Sarah's true identity, and note the
phrase
"yirat Elokim":
  "And Avraham said: for I had assumed that there was no
YIRAT
  ELOKIM in this place, and they would kill me in order
to
  take my wife" (see 20:11)

     Obviously, Avraham did not expect that Avimelech
and his
people were 'Jewish', i.e. God had never spoken to them,
nor
had He  given them any commandments.  Clearly, when
Avraham
mentions YIRAT ELOKIM, he must be referring to the basic
'moral behavior' expected of any just society.  As can
be
proven from the story of the Flood, this 'natural
morality'
(i.e. not to kill or steal etc. /see the last five of
the Ten
Commandments!) does not require a divine command.
Rather it
is God's expectation from mankind.
  [Why nonetheless God decided to include them in the
Ten
  Commandments is a very interesting topic, but not for
now.
  However, I do suggest that you note the conclusion of
  Rashbam's interpretation to Breishit 26:5 in this
regard.]

     Another example is found in the story of Yosef and
his
brothers; when Yosef, pretending to be an Egyptian,
explains
to his brothers why he will not leave them all in jail.
After
first jailing them, he changes his mind after three
days,
allowing them to go home to bring back their brother so
that
they can prove their innocence.  Note how Yosef
introduces
this 'change of mind' by saying: "et ha'Elokim ani
ya'rey"
(see 42:18 and its context!).
     But Yosef says this to his brothers pretending to
be an
Egyptian! Surely he wouldn't 'blow his cover' by hinting
to
the fact that he is Jewish. Clearly, here as well, the
phrase
"yirat Elokim" relates to a concept of 'natural
morality'.
Yosef, acting as an important Egyptian official, wants
to
impress upon his brothers that he is acting in a just
manner.
     The following other examples also include this
phrase,
and each one also relates to some standard of 'moral'
behavior:
      Shmot 1:21 - re: the midwives killing the male
babies
      Shmot 18:21 - re: Yitro's advice re: the appt. of
judges
      Devarim 25:18 - re: the sin of the Amalek. ]
          [Please review these before continuing.]

     Based on these examples, it seems that the phrase
"yirat
Elokim" in Chumash refers exclusively to some type of
'moral'
behavior. If so, then we would expect it to carry a
similar
meaning in the pasuk that we are discussing (i.e.
Breishit
22:12, the key pasuk of the Akeyda).
     However, it would be difficult to explain our pasuk
at
the Akeyda in this manner, for Avraham did what appears
to be
exactly the opposite, i.e. he followed a divine command
that
contradicts 'natural morality' (see discussion in Part
One,
above).
     Why would the fact that Avraham is willing to
sacrifice
his son make him a "ya'rey Elokim" - in the Biblical
sense of
this phrase?

     The simplest answer would be to say that this
instance is
an exception, because the Akeyda began with a direct
command,
given by Elokim, that Avraham take his son (see 22:1).
     However, one could suggest a rather daring
interpretation
that would be consistent with the meaning of "yirat
Elokim"
elsewhere in Sefer Breishit. To do so, we must
reconsider our
translation of the Hebrew word "ki" in 22:12, i.e. in
"ata
yadati, KI yarey Elokim ata, v'lo cha'sachta et bincha
et
yechidecha
 mi'meni".
     Instead of translating "ki" as 'that', one could
use an
alternate meaning of "ki" = 'even though'!  [As in Shmot
34:9
- "ki am keshe oref hu", and Shmot 13:17 "ki karov hu" -
see
Ibn Ezra on that pasuk for other examples.]
  If so, then this pasuk would be emphasizing precisely
the
point that we discussed in Part One, i.e. - EVEN THOUGH
Avraham was a "ya'rey Elokim", he overcame his 'moral
conscience' in order to follow a divine command. Thus,
we
could translate the pasuk as follows:
  "And he [God's angel] said: Do not harm the boy -
don't do
  anything to him, for now I know - KI ya'rey Elokim ata
-
  EVEN THOUGH you are a YAREY ELOKIM,  you did not
withhold
  your only son from Me."

     Specifically because Avraham was a man of such a
high
moral nature, this test was most difficult for him.
Nevertheless, his commitment to follow a divine command
prevailed!
     In reward, God now promises Avraham with an 'oath'
(see
22:16) that he shall never break His covenant with them
(even
should Bnei Yisrael sin), as explained by Ramban and
Radak on
22:16, and as we will now discuss in Part Three.

PART THREE  - THE OATH
     At the conclusion of the Akeyda, God affirms His
promise
to Avraham Avinu one more time concerning the future of
his
offspring (see 22:15-19).  Note however, that the when
God
first explains why He is making this oath in 22:16, He
explains specifically because "lo chasachta et bincha" -
that
Avraham did not hold back his son - and NOT because he
was a
"yarey Elokim".  This provides additional support to our
discussion in Part Two (above).
     In this oath (see 22:16-19), we find the repetition
of
themes from Brit Bein ha'btarim such as "kochvei
ha'shayamyim"
and "yerusha", as well as a repetition of God's original
blessing to Avraham from the beginning of Lech L'cha.
     It is interesting to note that this blessing
relates (as
does "brit bein ha'btarim") to our relationship with God
as a
Nation, and our future conquest of the land of Israel
("v'yirash zaracha et shaar oyvav" - your offspring will
conquer the gates of its enemies/ see 22:17).  It is
specifically in this context that Bnei Yisrael will
later face
this moral conflict as discussed in Part I.
     However, the most special aspect of this blessing
is the
"shvuah" - the oath that God makes that He will indeed
fulfill
this promise. See Ramban & Radak on 22:16, noting their
explanation how this oath takes God's commitment to His
covenant one step higher. Now, no matter how unfaithful
Bnei
Yisrael may be in the future, even though God will have
the
right to punish them, He will never break His covenant
with
them and they will always remain His special nation.
     With this in mind, it is interesting to note that
the
story in Chumash that precedes the Akeyda also relates
to a
covenant and an oath (see 21:22-34).  Recall how
Avimelech
approaches Avraham to enter into a covenant, while
Avraham
insists that Avimelech must remain honest in relation to
the
wells that his servants had stolen.
     At the conclusion of that agreement, as Avraham now
gains
the respect of the local sovereign power, we find once
again
how Avraham 'call out in God's Name'.  Foreshadowing the
time
period of David and Shlomo, Avraham is now in a position
where
he can successfully represent God before the other
nations of
the world.
     That setting provides a signficant backdrop for
Avraham
Avinu's ultimate test at the Akeyda.
====
MISC TOPICS -
     [Relating once again to Sdom vs. Avraham Avinu]
PART FOUR - YEDA & YI'UD
     In the shiur we sent out yesterday, we discussed
the
importance of 18:18-19, showing how God's goal for the
nation
of Avraham would come true through the establishment of
a
society characterized by "tzedaka u'mishpat".
     Recall how that pasuk began with "ki y'DAATIV",
which
implies to KNOW, but the key word carried a deeper
meaning
throughout the entire narrative of Lot being saved from
Sdom.
[Note also the use of the word "rah" (and "tov") as well
as
"l'daat" in 19:7-9. This may (and should) point to a
thematic
connection between the events in Sdom and the story of
Adam in
Gan Eden where we find the "etz ha'DAAT TOV v'RAH. Note
also
how God is described by "shem Ha'vayah" in both
stories.]
     In relation to the translation of the pasuk itself
- "Ki
YeDA'ATIV lema'an asher yetzaveh et banav... ve-shamru
derekh
Hashem la'assot TZEDAKA u-MISHPAT....." (18:19), in our
shiur
we translated "yeda'ativ" as "I have singled him out."
The
term literally translates as, "I have 'known him.' This
meaning, however, seems out of place in this context. If
it
simply means that God 'knows' that Bnei Yisrael will do
"tzedek u-mishpat," how does Hashem 'know' this?  What
guarantee is there that Avraham's children will keep
this
mitzvah more than anyone else?  Is there no bechira
chofshit -
freedom of choice to do good or bad?
  (Further troubling is the usage of the construction
  "yeda'ativ," rather than the expected, "yeda'ati" -
see
  mefarshim al atar.)
In answer to this question, Rav Yoel bin Nun explained
in a
shiur several years ago that the word "yeda'ativ" should
be
understood not as 'yeda' - to know - but rather as
"ye'ud"
(switching the last two letters as in keves-kesev;
salma-simla). Ye'ud (a similar shoresh) means
designation,
being singled out for a specific purpose, a raison
d'etre, a
destiny.  Thus, "yeda'ativ" here should be read not as,
"God
knows..." but rather, "God set them aside for the
purpose...
(that they keep tzedaka and mishpat)."  The point is not
that
God KNOWS that bnei Avraham will do tzedaka & mishpat,
but
that God chose Avraham in ORDER that his children will
do
tzedaka & mishpat!

====
PART FIVE - TOLDOT TERACH
     Parshat Va'yera informs us not only of the birth of
Yitzchak, but also of several other grandchildren and
great-
grandchildren of Terach, such as the twelve children of
Nachor, and the two children/grandchildren of Lot.
[See
19:30-38, 22:20-24.]
      These stories form an integral part of Sefer
Breishit
for technically speaking, Parshat Va'yera is still under
the
title of TOLDOT TERACH (see 11:27 with TOLDOT SHEM (see
11:10
and our shiur on Parshat Noach).
  [It is interesting to note when considering 11:26-32
that we
  find a 'header' - "ayleh toldot Terach," but we never
find
  the expression: "ayleh toldot Avraham" throughout
Sefer
  Breishit, even though we do find "ayleh toldot
Yitzchak
  (25:19), and "ayleh toldot Yaakov" (37:2). This may
relate
  to Avram's name change, so there can't be TOLDOT AVRAM
when
  he is first introduced, since AVRAM as AVRAM never has
  children from Sarah! This may also explain the need
for the
  additional phrase "Avraham holid et Yizchak" in
25:19!]

     Furthermore, many (female) descendants of Terach
later
'weave' their way back into the family of Avraham Avinu,
such
as Rivka, Nachor's granddaughter, and her brother
Lavan's
daughters Rachel & Leah. [See also part five below in
regard
to Ruth from Moab.]
  [Recall that Terach was the first 'zionist', i.e. it
was his
  idea to attempt aliyah to eretz Canaan (even though he
never
  made it). It may have been in that zchut!]
[Note also the number (and type) of wives and children
born to
Nachor (in 22:20-24)! Which of the Avot does this bring
to
mind? [8 + 4 !]
     Who else in Sefer Breishit has twelve children  [8
+ 4] ?
=====

PART SIX /  'MITZAR' - A sad but fitting ending
     As Lot escapes from Sdom, a somewhat peculiar
conversation ensues between him and the angel concerning
the
city of TZOAR. What is it all about?
     For those of you who don't remember, here's a quick
recap:
     After taking Lot out of Sdom, the "malachim"
instruct Lot
to run away 'up to the mountain' ["he'hara hi'malet"
/see
19:17]. Lot defers, claiming that 'up in the mountain'
poses
potential danger. He requests that instead the angels
spare
one city, which will serve as a "MITZAR," a small place
of
refuge. The Torah then informs us that this is why the
city is
named TZOAR (see 19:17-22).
     Why do we need to hear about all this?
     To appreciate this story, we must return to the
first
reference to Sedom in Chumash. When Avraham and Lot
decide
that the time had come to part ways, Lot decides to move
to
the KIKAR HA'YARDEN (the region of Sdom), rather than
the
mountain range of Canaan, where Avraham resided.
     Recall from our shiur on Parshat Lech L'cha that
Lot's
choice reflected his preference of the 'good-life' in
KIKAR
HA'YARDEN (where the abundant water supply alleviated
the need
to rely upon God's provision of water) over Avraham's
lifestyle in the MOUNTAINS (where one depends upon
rainfall
for his water supply).
     Let's take a closer look at the key pasuk of that
narrative. [I recommend you read this pasuk in the
original
Hebrew to note its key phrases. Pay particular attention
to
the word "kol"]:
  "And Lot lifted his eyes, and he saw KOL KIKAR
HA'YARDEN -
  the ENTIRE Jordan River Valley - that it was FULL of
  water... like God's Garden, like the land of Egypt, UP
UNTIL
  TZOAR." (13:10)

     The final phrase of this pasuk - BO'ACHA TZOAR -
appears
superfluous. Why must we know the exact spot where the
KIKAR
ends?
     When we consider the origin of the city's name -
TZOAR -
from the story of Lot's flight from Sdom, this short
phrase
takes on a whole new meaning. The Torah appears to be
taking a
cynical 'jibe' at Lot. He wanted EVERYTHING - "et KOL
Kikar
Ha'Yarden" [see also 13:11: "And Lot chose for himself
KOL
KIKAR HA'YARDEN..."], and thus chose to settle in Sdom.
But
when it's all over, Lot finds himself begging the
"malachim"
for a small hideaway - a MITZAR (the city to be named
TZOAR).
Lot wants EVERYTHING - KOL Kikar ha'Yarden - and ends up
with
'next to nothing' - BO'ACHA TZOAR!    [Thanks to Danny
Berlin
- ish Karmei Tzur - for this insight.]
     With this background we can better understand Lot's
conversation with the "malachim" when he flees from
Sdom. Note
their original instruction to Lot:
  "And it came to pass when they had brought them out
[of
  Sdom], they told him: Escape for your life, do not
look
  behind you, do not stay behind B'KOL HA'KIKAR. Rather,
run
  away to the MOUNTAIN, lest you be consumed." (19:17)

     Once again, the Torah establishes a direct CONTRAST
between KIKAR HA'YARDEN and the MOUNTAIN. Lot is
commanded to
return to the MOUNTAIN - to the area of Avraham, from
where he
never have left in the first place. Lot, however,
refuses to
return. He knows that if he returns to the mountain, he
will
not be able to 'survive' living in the shadow of Avraham
Avinu. He will no longer be the righteous among the
wicked,
but rather the wicked among the righteous. He therefore
begs
them for a refuge:
  "And Lot begged them - please no. Behold if I have
found
  favor in your eyes...I cannot run away to the
MOUNTAIN, lest
  some evil will take me and I die. [Rather,] there is a
city
  nearby [at the edge of Kikar ha'Yarden] and it is
MITZAR - a
  little one. Let me escape there and my SOUL will
  live...[They concede to Lot's request,] and that city
was
  therefore named TZOAR. Then the sun rose over the land
and
  Lot arrived in TZOAR..."  (see 19:18-24)

     Finally, after Sdom and the other cities of the
KIKAR are
destroyed, Lot changes his mind. He decides to leave
TZOAR and
settle with his daughters in the MOUNTAINS (see
19:25-30).
However, instead of reuniting with Avraham, they HIDE
AWAY in
a CAVE. The rest is history - i.e. the history of AMON &
MOAV,
whose descendants have not even the common decency to
offer
bread & water to Am Yisrael (their kinsman) as they pass
Moav
on their way from Egypt to Eretz Canaan (see Devarim
23:4-5).
It's no coincidence that they never learn the lesson of
"hachnasat orchim" - welcoming guests. Sdom was
destroyed, but
unfortunately, its 'legacy' continued.
     One spark of good does, however, come forth from
Moav.
Ruth the Moabite joins the tribe of Judah - through an
act of
"chessed" (see Megillat Rut) - and she becomes the
great-
grandmother of David ben Yishai, the king of Israel.
Predictably, Sefer Shmuel summarizes his reign as
follows:
  "And David reigned over all of Israel, and David
performed
  MISHPAT and TZEDAKA for his entire nation."
               (see Shmuel 8:15)
    [Recall that David had earlier hidden out in a CAVE
in
    the area of the Dead Sea (Ein Gedi), where he
performed
    an act of "chessed" by not injuring Shaul - see I
Shmuel
    24:1-15; note especially 24:12-15! See also
Yirmiyahu
    22:1-5!]

     Malchut David constitutes the "tikun" for the
descendants
of Lot: his kingdom was characterized by the performance
of
TZEDAKA & MISHPAT - the antithesis of Sdom.

                    shabbat shalom
                    menachem

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayera2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 35756 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081113/f4eba12e/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Nov 13 02:56:57 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:56:57 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Vayera - shiur
Message-ID: <8265FD088BA44F8AAAAB506FB8D65C23@x60>

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

                              PARSHAT VAYERA

	It is very comfortable to think of Sedom as a
city of thugs and perverts.  After all, is that not the
reason why God decided to destroy it?  And certainly,
most of our own societies are nowhere as bad - we should
hope.
    Yet, a more careful study of the Torah's
presentation of these events (as we will soon
demonstrate), could lead to the opposite conclusion -
that Sedom was a city with a culture not very different
from our own.
	In the following shiur we'll examine this
possibility, as we study how the Torah tells the famous
story of Avraham and the 'three angels'.

INTRODUCTION
	Our series on Sefer Bereishit has been following
the theme of 'bechira', i.e. God's choice of Avraham
Avinu to become the forefather of His special nation.
In last week's shiur, we discussed why God chose Avraham
Avinu - i.e. to create a nation that will bring the Name
of God and His message to all mankind.  
	But how will this nation ultimately be able to
achieve that goal?  In this week's shiur, we'll attempt
to show how the Torah answers this question in its
presentation of the story of God's consultation with
Avraham Avinu before He destroys Sedom.
	We begin our shiur by paying attention to the
lack of any 'parshia' divisions in this entire
narrative.

AN EXTRA LONG 'PARSHIYA'
	Even though a 'parshia' break in Chumash is most
similar to a 'paragraph break', there are times when a
single 'parshia' is extraordinary long.  When this does
happen, we would expect it to be thematically
significant, especially when that 'parshia' contains
more than one story.
    And that is exactly what we find at the beginning of
Parshat Vayera, where the 'parshia' that begins in 18:1
continues all the way until the end of chapter 19, yet
contains two unrelated topics:
 1)  The news that Sarah will give birth to Yitzchak;
 2)  The story of God's destruction of Sedom (& Lot's
rescue). 

    By including both of these events in the same
'parshia', the Torah is already alerting the reader to
search for a thematic connection between these two
events.
	One could suggest that these events are recorded
together for the simple reason that the same "mal'achim"
[angels or messengers] are involved in both stories.
However, this itself raises the same question from a
different angle, i.e. why are the same "mal'achim" who
are sent to destroy Sedom - first instructed to inform
Avraham about the forthcoming birth of Yitzchak?
[If we adopt Rashi's position (see 18:2) that each angel
was assigned only one mission, then we would re-phrase
our question: Why must all three travel together, or why
doesn't each angel travel directly to fulfill his own
mission?]

THE DEEPER 'CONNECTION'
    The answer to this question can be found (right
where we would expect) - at the transition point between
these two stories. 
    As you review these psukim, note how the first
topic, i.e. the tiding that Sarah will have a child
(18:1-16), clearly concludes in 18:16 - while the story
of God's destruction of Sedom doesn't begin until 18:20.
Hence, by default, 18:17-19 form the transition between
these two stories.
    Let's take a careful look at this 'segue', noting
how it forms a 'parenthetical comment' to the reader -
before Chumash continues with the story of Sedom :
"And God said: Shall I hide from Avraham what I am about
to do?  For Avraham is to become a great nation ["goy
gadol"], and through him, all other nations will be
blessed ["ve-nivrechu bo..."]  
    For I have 'come to know him' in order that he will
instruct his children and his household after him to
keep the way of God by doing what is just and right... -
in order that I shall bring upon Avraham all that I have
spoken about him." 
    (See Breishit 18:1719)

    Review these psukim once again (in their context),
noting how it explains why God must first consult
Avraham before destroying Sedom; and hence, it forms an
appropriate transition between these two stories.
    However, these psukim appear to allude to a much
deeper thematic connection - especially when we consider
their obvious textual parallel to the first three psukim
of Parshat Lech Lecha:
"... ve-e'escha le-goy gadol - and I will make you a
great nation - and bless you and you will be a blessing
[to others] -"ve-nivrechu becha kol mishpechot ha-adama
/  - and through you all the nations will be blessed"
(see 12:1-3).

	Review these psukim once again, while comparing
them to 18:18.  Clearly, the wording of 18:18 highlights
how God had originally chosen Avraham Avinu to become
the forefather of a great nation - but now 18:19
provides us with the underlying reason for why he was
chosen:
"...in order that he will instruct his children and his
household after him to keep the way of God by doing
"tzedek u'mishpat" - what is just and right..." (see
18:19)

    First, Chumash explains to the reader (in verse 18)
that Avraham Avinu had been chosen to become a nation
that would be a blessing for all nations - and then (in
verse 19) God explains how this will happen - for
Avraham will teach his children (and those children
their children, etc.) to do tzedaka u-mishpat! 
 	In other words, Avraham is expected to initiate
a family tradition - that will create a society
characterized by acts of tzedaka & mishpat [social
justice].  In this manner, they will truly serve as
God's model nation.  [See also Devarim 4:5-8 for a very
similar explanation.  See also Yeshayahu 42:5-6.]
	As Avraham is commanded to pass on (and teach)
this destiny to his son - Yitzchak, it makes sense that
the Torah would inform the reader of this destiny,
immediately after the story of God's promise to Avraham
concerning the birth of Yitzchak.
    With this background, we can suggest a reason for
why the Torah records both stories in the same
'parshia'.

PREVENTING FUTURE CITIES LIKE SDOM
	According to 18:18-19, God had chosen Avraham to
become the forefather a 'model nation' that would be
know for its heritage of "tzedaka u'mishpat".  Should
that nation fulfill that destiny, then it would be able
to save societies such as Sedom, for they will serve as
a 'model nation' from whom corrupt nations could learn
from. 
	If this interpretation is correct, then it also
explains why the Torah records Avraham's petition that
God spare the doomed city.  Avraham does not ask that
God save only the righteous men in Sedom; instead, he
begs that God should save the entire city - for the sake
of those tzaddikim!  [See 18:26.] - Why? 
	Because - hopefully - those righteous few may
one day, by setting an example, influence the people in
Sedom towards proper behavior, just as the nation of
Avraham is destined to lead all mankind in the direction
of God.
	This also explains when Avraham's petition ends.
After God agrees to save the city for the sake of 50
righteous men, Avraham continues to 'bargain' for the
sake of 45, 40, 30, etc. - until he reaches ten (see
18:23-32).  He stops at ten, for there is little chance
that such a small number would ever be able to exert a
serious influence upon an entire community.
[This may relate to the concept of a 'minyan' - a
minimum amount of people capable of making God's Name
known.  Note as well the influence the ten 'spies' have
on the entire nation in the incident of the 'meraglim',
and how Chazal learn the number ten for a minyan from
that incident!]

    It is God's hope that, in the future, Avraham's
nation would prevent the emergence of 'future Sedoms' -
by creating a model society established on acts of
"tzedaka u-mishpat".  As Yitzchak is the son through
whom this tradition will be transmitted, it is
meaningful that the same angels assigned to destroy
Sedom must first 'plant the seeds' for the prevention of
future Sedom's - by informing Avraham concerning the
birth of Yitzchak.
	The Torah goes out of its way to record how
Avraham makes this gallant effort to save Sedom, for it
reflects the very purpose for why he had been chosen.
Despite his futility of his efforts at this time, it
will be this tradition that he must pass on to his son
Yitzchak, and later to all future generations of the
Jewish people. 

AVRAHAM VS. SEDOM
	Even though at this point in the narrative, we
are not yet aware of the precise sin of Sedom, this
'prelude' certainly suggests that it must relate in some
manner to a lack of "tzedek u-mishpat".
	Now, we will attempt to determine more precisely
what their sin was, and how it represents the antithesis
of everything for which Avraham stands.
	Chapter 18 is not the first time in Sefer
Breishit when Sedom is mentioned.  As we explained in
our shiur on Parshat Lech Lecha, Lot's decision to leave
Avraham and move to Sedom (13:118) reflects his
preference not to be dependent on God and to dissociate
himself from his uncle.  It is in that context that we
are told: "The men of Sedom were very wicked to God"
(see 13:13).
	Furthermore, after rescuing Lot from the 'four
kings' (see chapter 14), Avraham refuses to keep any
property belonging to Sedom which was recovered in that
victory.  Although he rightfully deserves his 'fair
share' of the spoils from the battle which he himself
fought and won, Avraham Avinu, expressing his opposition
to anything associated with Sedom, prefers to completely
divorce himself from any resources originating from that
city:
"Avram said to the King of Sedom: I swear to the Lord,
God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth: I will not
take so much as a thread or a shoe strap of what is
yours, so you can not say: It is I who made Avram rich"
(14:2223).

    Based on this backdrop, it would be safe to assume
that the sin of Sedom must relate in some manner to a
lack of " tzedek u-mishpat".  Therefore, we must read
that ensuing story (in chapter 19) in search of that
theme.

A GOOD HOST
	Review the first three psukim of chapter 19,
noting how the Torah goes out of its way to describe how
insistent Lot is to provide these two 'unknown
travelers' with a place to stay:
"And the two mal'achim came to Sedom towards evening,
and Lot was sitting by the gate of the city, as he saw
them he approached them...  And he said - 
'Please come stay at your servant's house, for lodging
and washing up, then you can continue on your way in the
morning'; 
but they declined.  But Lot very much insisted, so they
came to his house; he gave them to drink and baked for
them matzot [wafers] to eat."   (see 19:1-3).
 
	Clearly, the Torah is emphasizing Lot's very own
"hachnasat orchim" [hospitality] as the opening theme of
this narrative. 
	Furthermore, it seems that this is precisely how
the 'angels' planned to 'test-out' the city to see if it
deserved to be destroyed.  Recall how God originally
told Avraham:
"The crying out from Sedom is too great... I shall go
down and see whether they deserve destruction or not..."
(18:21)

	God sends these two 'angels' not only to destroy
Sedom, but first to determine if indeed the city
deserves to be destroyed (and if there are any
"tzadikim" who deserved to be saved).  By pretending to
'sleep on the street' (see 19:1-2), they are testing if
there is any hospitality in Sedom - a test which Lot
passes (see 19:3), and the rest of the city failed
terribly (see 19:4-6).
	In fact, one could suggest that this same theme
of hospitality and the lack of "tzedek u'mishpat"
continues in the Torah's description of the city's
reaction to Lot's harboring of his two guests.  To
explain how, let's carefully follow the narrative:
"..They [his two guests] had not lain down yet when the
townspeople, the men of Sedom, gathered outside his
house - from young to old - all the people until the
edge [of the city].  And they protested [outside his
house] and shouted: 'Where are those men who came to
visit you this evening?  Take them out of your house so
we can know them [ve-nei'da'em]" (see 19:4-5).

	 Most of us are familiar with Rashi's
interpretation, that this gathering consisted of merely
a small group of the lowest social and ethical stratum
of Sedom, who wanted to 'know them' in the Biblical
sense (i.e. sodomy, based on 19:8 and 4:1).  
    However, read this pasuk in its original Hebrew very
carefully, noting how the Torah only states that the
demonstrators wanted to 'know them', which is open to a
wide range of interpretation.  

NO GUESTS ALLOWED
	Ramban (and Rasag) advance a totally different
interpretation, explaining that the entire town did
indeed join in this protest (as the simple reading of
this pasuk implies), for they had all gathered outside
Lot's house, demanding to 'know' who these guests were.
	Why are they protesting, and what they
demanding?
     As Ramban explains so beautifully (see his
commentary on 19:5), the people of  Sedom are protesting
against Lot's hospitality to these strangers - as they
would call for a mass protest anytime there was a fear
that someone in their town was 'harboring' guests!
	According to Ramban, there appears to have been
a strict law in Sedom of: No guests allowed!  As the
people of Sedom didn't want to ruin their exclusive
[suburban] neighborhood, they did everything possible to
keep away 'transients'.  It was their terrible fear that
should Lot accommodate guests this evening, tomorrow
night more guests may come, and by the end of the month,
the city streets could be flooded with transients and
beggars.  Should the word get out that there is 'free
lodging' in Sedom, their perfect 'country club' would be
ruined.  
[One could even find a warped ideology in this 'policy'.
For example, one could reason in a similar manner that
no one should help the needy, for if everyone agreed not
to take care of them, then they would ultimately learn
to take care of themselves.]

	Hence, should any citizen of Sedom bring home a
guest ['chas ve-shalom'], the city's 'steering
committee' would immediately call for a public protest.
[See also Sanhedrin 109a.]
	There may have been "mishpat" in Sedom - a
standardized system of laws and ordinances - but it was
terribly warped.  Not to mention the fact that "tzedaka"
had no place whatsoever in this bastion of immorality. 
[Chazal remark in Pirkei Avot that the social norm of
'sheli sheli, shelcha shelcha' - what is mine is mine,
what is yours is yours - is a 'custom of Sedom'.  The
attribution of this social philosophy to Sedom reflects
this same understanding (see Pirkei Avot 5:10 - 'arba
midot ba-adam...').]

TZEDEK U-MISHPAT VS. SEDOM
	This interpretation explains why, throughout
Nevi'im Acharonim, Sedom is consistently associated with
the absence of "tzedek u-mishpat".  In fact, the three
most famous of the Nevi'im Acharonim - Yeshayahu,
Yirmiyahu, and Yechezkel - all of whom foresee and
forewarn the destruction of the first bet ha-mikdash,
compare the corrupt society in Israel to that of Sedom,
and see therein the reason for their own forthcoming
destruction.
	As we will show, in every instance where Sedom
is mentioned by the prophets, it is always in reference
to a society lacking social justice, and never in
reference to illicit sexual behavior - such as 'sodomy'.
	The simplest proof of this point is found in
Sefer Yechezkel, as he states explicitly that this was
indeed the sin of Sedom (i.e. the very same point
discussed above concerning "hachnasat orchim"):
"...Your younger sister was Sedom... Did you not walk in
her ways and practice her abominations?  Why, you are
more corrupt than they in all your ways... This was the
sin of your sister Sedom - she had plenty of bread and
untroubled tranquillity, yet she did not support the
poor and the needy.  In her haughtiness, they sinned
before Me, so I removed them, as you saw..." (see
Yechezkel 16:46-50). 

	In Yeshayahu, the direct connection between the
lack of "tzedek u-mishpat" and Sedom is even more
explicit.  As we all recall from the Haftara of Shabbat
Chazon, Yeshayahu compares Am Yisrael's behavior to that
of Sedom & Amora:
"Listen to the word of God - you [who are like] officers
of Sedom, pay attention to the teachings of our God -
you [who are like] the people of Amora.  Why should I
accept your many offerings... Instead, learn to do good,
devote yourself to justice, aid the wronged, uphold the
rights of the orphan, defend the cause of the widow...
How has the faithful city, once filled with mishpat
tzedek, now become a city of murderers..." (Isaiah
1:10-21, see also 1:3-9!)

    Recall also how Yeshayahu concludes this nevu'a:
"Tzion be-mishpat tipadeh, ve-shaveha bi-tzedaka - Zion
will be redeemed by our doing "mishpat"; her repentance
- through our performance of tzedaka.
	In chapter five - Yeshayahu's famous 'mashal
ha-kerem' [the parable of the vineyard] - the prophet
reiterates God's initial hope and plan that Am Yisrael
would perform tzedaka u-mishpat, and the punishment they
deserve for doing exactly the opposite:
	"vayikav lemishpat  vehiney mispach"
	[God had hoped to find justice, and found
instead injustice],
	 "li-tzedaka  ve-hiney tze'aka."  (Yeshayahu
5:7)
		[to find "tzedaka," and instead found
iniquity]
			[note amazing parallel with
Breishit 18:19-21!]
	(See Isaiah 5:1-10, as well as 11:1-6.)

	Perhaps the strongest expression of this theme
is found in Yirmiyahu.  In his powerful charge to the
House of David [whose lineage stems not only from Yehuda
but also (& not by chance) from Ruth the Moabite, a
descendant of Lot!], Yirmiyahu articulates God's precise
expectation of the Jewish king:
"Hear the word of God, King of Judah, you who sit on the
throne of David... Do mishpat u-tzedaka... do not wrong
a stranger, an orphan, and the widow.." (Yirmiyahu
22:15).
				[See also 21:11-12.]
	Later, when Yirmiyahu contrasts the corrupt king
Yehoyakim with his righteous father Yoshiyahu, he
admonishes:
"... Your father (Yoshiyahu)... performed tzedaka
u-mishpat, and that made him content.  He upheld the
rights of the poor and needy - is this not what it means
to know Me [la-da'at oti], God has said!  But you
(Yehoyakim) - on your mind is only your ill-gotten
gains..." (see 22:13-17)

	Note that Yirmiyahu considers doing tzedaka &
mishpat as the means by which we come to 'know God'
['la-da'at et Hashem' - (compare with Breishit 18:19,
see also Yirmiyahu 9:23)]!
	Finally, when Yirmiyahu speaks of the ideal king
who will bring the redemption, he emphasizes this very
same theme:
"A time is coming - Hashem declares - when I will raise
up a true branch of David's line.  He shall reign as
king and prosper, and he will perform mishpat and
tzedaka in the land.  In his days, Yehuda shall be
delivered and Israel shall dwell secure..." (23:5-6).
[See also Zecharya 7:9; 8:8, 1617, II Shmuel 8:15!]

	This reason for the choice of the Kingdom of
David corresponds with the underlying purpose behind
God's choosing of Avraham Avinu.  As we have explained
numerous times, God's designation of Avraham came not in
reward for his exemplary behavior, but rather for a
specific purpose: to establish a model nation -
characterized by tzedek umishpat - that will bring all
mankind closer to God.  For this very same reason, God
chooses a royal family to rule this nation - the House
of David.  They too are chosen in order to teach the
nation the ways of "tzedaka u-mishpat". 
	But even when there is a lack of proper
leadership, this charge to follow the 'way of God' to do
"tzedka u'mishpat" remains an eternal challenge for
every individual.  To prove this point, and to summarize
this theme, we need only quote one last pasuk from
Yirmiyahu (not by chance, the concluding pasuk of the
Haftara for Tisha Be-av): 
    "Thus says the Lord:
	Let not the chacham [wise man] glory in his
wisdom;
	Let not the gibor [strong man] glory in his
strength;
	Let not the ashir [rich man] glory in his
riches.
	- But only in this should one glory:
Let him be wise to know Me [haskel v-yado'a oti] -For I
the Lord act in the land with chesed [kindness],
mishpat, and tzedaka - for it is this that I desire,
says the Lord." 
    (see Yirmiyahu 9:22-23, see also Y. 22:13-20).  
[See also the Rambam's concluding remarks to the last
chapter of Moreh Nevuchim!]  
	Once again we find that knowing God means
emulating His ways, acting in accordance with the values
of tzedek u-mishpat.  Should the entire nation act in
this manner, our goal can be accomplished.
	Thus, what appears at first to be simply a
parenthetical statement by God (concerning Avraham)
before destroying Sedom (in Breishit 18:19) unfolds as a
primary theme throughout Tanach!

LA-DA'AT - THE KEY WORD
	It is not by chance that Yirmiyahu (in the above
examples) uses the Hebrew word 'la-da'at' in the context
of following a lifestyle of tzedek u-mishpat.  As we
have already seen, the shoresh 'daled.ayin.heh' has been
a key word throughout the narrative concerning Sedom.
First and foremost in a positive context: "ki yeda'tiv
lema'an asher... la'asot tzedaka u-mishpat..." (18:19),
but also in a negative context: 've-im lo eida'a' (see
18:21!).    However, this same word also surfaces in a
rather ambiguous manner later on in the story.  As noted
briefly earlier, Rashi and Ramban dispute the meaning of
've-neida otam' (see 19:5 - when the protesters demand
that Lot surrender his guests).  From this pasuk alone,
it is not at all clear what this phrase implies.
	Rashi explains that the men of Sedom wanted to
'know them' in the Biblical sense (i.e. to 'sleep' with
them 'mishkav zachar' - see 4:1 & Chizkuni on 19:5 - and
hence the English word for this act: 'sodomy').  Ramban
contends that they wanted to 'know' their identity in
order to 'kick them out of town,' in accordance with
their city ordinance that prohibited visitors. 
	Clearly, Ramban takes into consideration the
psukim from Yechezkel (which he cites explicitly, and
most probably also took into account Yeshayahu chapter
1) that clearly identify Sedom's [primary] sin as their
unwillingness to help the poor and needy.  In light of
the direct contrast drawn between Avraham's devotion to
tzedek u-mishpat and the character of Sedom (as in
18:17-19), we can readily understand why Ramban
preferred to interpret 've-neida otam' in relation to
'kicking out' these unwanted guests. 
	Rashi (and many other commentators) argue that
ve-neida otam implies mishkav zachar (sodomy).  This
opinion is based primarily on Lot's reaction to the
protestors' request of offering his two daughters
instead of his guests, and his comment, 'asher lo yad'u
ish' (see 19:8 / note again the use of the same
'shoresh').  
	Had it not been for the psukim in Yechezkel
16:48-50, and the special 'prelude' to these events in
Breishit 18:19, then Rashi's explanation would seem to
be the most logical.  However, the wider context of
these events certainly supports Ramban's approach. 
    To bring additional support for Ramban's approach,
let's examine the story a little more carefully, as we
will try to show the entire story may center around
"tzedek u'mishpat", and it could be that Lot really
never intended to give over his daughters to that crowd.

WHO HAD GATHERED OUTSIDE THE HOUSE?
	The most obvious problem with Rashi's
explanation (that the protestors are interested in
sodomy) stems from their sheer number.  According to
19:4, it appears that the group that gathers outside
Lot's house includes the entire city, most likely
hundreds if not thousands of individuals, young and old
- the entire city!  If they are simply interested in
sodomy, pardon the expression, how could two guests
'suffice'?
[Rashi, in light of this problem, offers a somewhat
novel explanation for 19:4, that only the 'thugs of
Sedom' ('anshei Sedom' implying a specific group and not
the entire city) banged on Lot's door.  The Torah
mentions the rest of the population - 'from young to
old' - only in regard to the fact that they did not
protest the gang's depraved behavior.  Rasag (on 19:4)
disagrees, proving from 19:11 that both young and old
had gathered outside Lot's house.]

	Ramban combines both explanations, i.e. he
criticizes Lot's own character for foolishly offering
his two daughters in exchange so that he could continue
to provide proper hospitality for his guests.  However,
this explanation of 19:8 is also quite difficult, for
how (and why) should this offer appease this mass crowd
who claim (according to Ramban) to be interested only in
expelling unwanted guests!
	One could suggest an explanation for Lot's
remarks that solves all of the above questions, thus
leaving Lot's character untainted, while keeping the
focus of these events entirely on the lack of tzedek
u-mishpat in Sedom.

GIVING MUSSAR
	Any attempt to understand Lot's bizarre offer of
his daughters must take into consideration not only the
context, but also the crowd's reaction.  Let's take a
closer look at how the crowd responds to Lot's
'proposal':
"And they said to him: 
    Go away [gesh hal'ah - i.e. move a far distance]
    You have just (recently) come to dwell (in our city)
-
and now you judge us!
Now we will deal with you worse than with them..."
	(see 19:9, read carefully).
	What was there in Lot's offer that prompted this
severe response and censure?  If Lot was seriously
offering his daughters, why couldn't they just say: No,
we prefer the men!  Instead, they threaten to be more
evil with Lot than with his guests.  Does this mean that
they want to 'sleep' with Lot as well?
It seems more likely that they are now threatening to
throw Lot out of town!
	One could suggest that when Lot pleads: "My
brothers, don't do such evil [to my guests], here are my
two daughters..." (see 19:6); he is not seriously
offering his daughters at all.  Rather, he makes mention
of them as part of a vehement condemnation of the
people.  In a sarcastic manner, Lot is telling the crowd
that he'd sooner give over his daughters than his guests
- even though he has no intention whatsoever of actually
doing that.  
[Note how Reuven's statement to Yaakov that he would
kill his own two sons... etc. (see Breishit 42:37) could
be understood in a similar manner; i.e. not that he
would do that, but he makes this bizarre offer to
emphasize his seriousness to his father.]

    Furthermore, as we mentioned above, if indeed the
entire town has gathered, how could two women 'appease'
such a large crowd!  Instead, it would make more sense
to explain that Lot is making this harsh statement as a
form of rebuke, emphasizing how important it is that
they allow him to keep guests.  It is at though he was
saying: "I'd sooner give you my daughters than my two
guests."
[Note as well that Lot does not bring his daughters with
him when he makes this so-called 'offer.'  In fact, he
actually closes the door behind him (see 19:6) - and
only afterward leaves to negotiate with the rioters.
Had Lot been truly serious about his offer, he should
have taken them outside with him!  Also, the conclusion
of the story suggests that Lot's daughters were actually
married (see 19:14/ unless we assume that Lot had more
than two daughters).

	This explains why the crowd becomes so angered
by Lot's remarks.  They are taken aback by his harsh
rebuke of their 'no guest' policy.
	Based on this interpretation [that Lot is
'giving them mussar' and not 'making a deal'], we can
better understand the mob's response to Lot's offer
(19:6-8).  They neither accept nor reject Lot's
proposal.  Instead, they express their anger with Lot's
rebuke: 
"One has just come to live by us - va-yishpot shafot -
and now he is judging us; now we will deal more harshly
with you than [we planned to deal] with them!" (see
19:8-9).

	What do people mean by "you are judging us"?
Apparently, there is something in Lot's response that
suggests a type of character judgment - but is it only
his request that they 'not be so evil' (see 19:7)? 
	One could suggest that they consider Lot's
sarcastic offer of his daughters instead of his guests
as a moral judgment of their 'no-guest' policy; a
reprehension of their unethical social system.  If so,
then this is exactly to what 'va-yishpot shafot' refers
to.  They are angered for Lot has 'judged' their
character.  
     As no one likes being told what to do, especially
by 'newcomers' - they react in very threatening manner.
    In other words, the crowd is saying: 'HEY, you're
just a newcomer here in our town, and you already think
you can tell us how we should act!  Now - we're going to
kick you & your guests out of town!
[This interpretation of 'shafot' in relation to rebuke
(or being 'judgmental') is found elsewhere Tanach: For
example, see Shmuel I  7:6, where Shmuel (at Mitzpa)
rebukes the entire nation for their behavior.  We find a
similar use of the verb 'lishpot' in I Shmuel 12:7, when
Shmuel rebukes the nation for not appreciating God's
salvation when asking for a king to lead them instead!
See also Yirmiyahu 1:16, and its context.]	
	If our interpretation is correct, then it may be
that Sedom's sin related solely to the lack of social
justice (as Yechezkel 16:48-49 implies), and had nothing
to do with 'sodomy' at all!  And for this reason alone,
God found it necessary to destroy that city.
	Agreed, that there are many other ways to
explain these events, but the very possibility that the
entire story of Sedom deals exclusively with the lack of
social justice certainly must be considered not only
when we contemplate our own values and lifestyle, but
even more so when deciding our community priorities.

				shabbat shalom,
				menachem
=====

FOR FURTHER IYUN
1. See Rambam in Sefer Zra'im, Hilchot Matnot Aniyim,
chapter 10, the first halacha.  Note how he explains
that the mitzva of tzedaka requires the highest
priority, and he supports his statement from Breishit
18:18-19, as we discussed in our shiur.

2. In Parshat Ki Tetzeh (see Devarim 23:4-5), the Torah
forbids the marriage of a Jew with a 'mo'avi ve-amoni'
[Moabite or Ammonite], the descendents of Lot.  But note
the reason, "for they did not greet you with bread and
water when you were traveling through the desert...".
	Once again we see the theme of hachnasat orchim
in relation to Sedom and Lot.  	Note as well how Ruth
the Moabite does return one strain of Lot back into Am
Yisrael, which will later lead to David ha-Melech.
However, in that story, Ruth's entry is replete with
incidents relating to acts of tzedaka.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayera1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 52863 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081113/20537828/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue Nov 18 06:07:21 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 03:07:21 -0800
Subject: [Par-lite] Tanach Tiyulim next week
Message-ID: <20081118075741.B99F9BA54FA@out1.bezeqint.net>

For those of you who may be in Jerusalem area next week:
Two opportunities for Tanach Tiyulim

1) With Menachem Liebtag
Thursday, November 27th , 9:00am - 3:30pm
  Between the "Shfeyla" and the "Har"
How Israel's Geography and Topography Affect Biblical History
	with focus on the key events in the books of  Yehoshua, Shoftim and
Shmuel.

2) With Shani Taragin
Tuesday: November 25, 2008  9am - 2pm
 - In the Footsteps of the Avot


======

For more information, and or to register
Contact:
ezrarosenfeld at bezeqint.net
Or call
Ezra at   052-422-8601


From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Nov 19 07:59:34 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 04:59:34 -0800
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Chayei Sarah - shiur #1
Message-ID: <20081119095953.23EDBBA5791@out1.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

            for PARSHAT CHAYEI SARA
          A WIFE FROM 'TOLDOT TERACH'

	'Yichus' [family lineage] has always been an important consideration
when selecting one's spouse.  Nevertheless, Avraham's insistence that his
'chosen' son marry specifically a descendant of his brother Nachor requires
explanation.
	In this week's shiur, we return to our discussion of the 'toldot' in
Sefer Breishit in order to answer this question.

INTRODUCTION
	As you surely must have noticed, the phrase "eileh toldot..."
appears numerous times in Sefer Breishit.  In our shiur on Parshat Noach, we
explained how these toldot [genealogies] form the 'backbone' of Sefer
Breishit. 
	In that shiur, we also explained how Sefer Breishit divided into two
distinct sections.  The first eleven chapters included three units that
began with "toldot", each unit containing a primary story relating to God's
dissatisfaction with mankind's behavior:
    
    Adam's sin in Gan Eden (and Cain's sin) / chapters 2-4,
    
    The corruption of dor ha-mabul / the Flood  -chps. 5-9
    
    The story of Migdal Bavel & their dispersion / chps 10-11.
    
    After the story of Migdal Bavel, Sefer Breishit introduces its second
(and primary) section with "toldot Shem" (see 11:10).  From this point and
onward, the focus of the Sefer shifts to God's choice of Avraham Avinu to
become the forefather of His model nation, followed by numerous stories that
explain who is chosen (and who is rejected), as why they are chosen.
    
    Similar to the first section of Sefer Breishit, each unit in this second
section is also introduced by the phrase "eileh toldot...", be it 'toldot
Yishmael' or 'toldot Yitzchak' etc. - until "eileh toldot Yaakov" (see 37:2)
which introduces the concluding with the story, describing how all of
Yaakov's offspring are chosen to become God's special nation - and hence the
"bechira" process is complete.

A PARALLEL PROGRESSION
	Even though this 'linear' progression of "toldot" throughout the
Sefer appears to be rather technical; when we consider the two sections of
Sefer Breishit (discussed above), a rather amazing 'parallel' progression
emerges, as well - which may allude to the underlying theme of the entire
book!

    To show how, we must chart the "toladot" in the first section of the
book, and compare them to the "toladot" of the second section of the book.
While doing so, we will also see how the phrase "eileh toldot Terach"
becomes rather significant, and how this may explain why it was necessary
for Yitzchak and Yaakov to take a wife from Terach's offspring. 

CHARTING THE TOLDOT
	The following chart records the specific names that are included in
the phrase "eileh toldot...".  As you study this chart, note the parallel
nature of their progression.  


SEFER BREISHIT - UNITS OF 'EILEH TOLDOT...'
  
	CHAPTERS 1-11		      CHAPTERS 11-50

  	* ADAM (see 5:1)			* SHEM (see 11:10)
   ten generations to:			  ten generations to:
	* NOACH (6:9)			* TERACH (11:27)
    3 sons:			 		3 sons:
   	Shem, Cham, & Yefet		AVRAHAM, Haran, & Nachor
		|			     |   *YISHMAEL (25:12 -rejected)
	* BNEI NOACH (10:1)	 	* YITZCHAK (26:1)
 	    	|			     |   *  ESAV (36:1) - rejected
	  	|			   *YAAKOV (37:1-2) 
	  	|			     | 		 |	
	70  nations (10:1-32)		'70 nefesh become God's Nation


    Note also how the "bechira" process includes a "dechiya" [rejection]
stage together with each stage of "bechira".  Finally, note how each section
concludes with seventy!  [Additional parallels will be noted as we
continue.]

'TEN GENERATIONS' - TWICE!
	As the chart shows, each 'section' of Sefer Breishit begins with a
detailed listing of 'ten generations' 
    Section One: - 5:1-32  / from Adam to Noach) 
    Section Two - 11:10-26 / from Shem to Terach
[Technically speaking one may be 9 generations, but it's the overall pattern
that is very similar.  Note also how the mishna in Pirkei Avot 5:2-3 relates
to this structure.]

    This opening 'structural' parallel supports the thematic parallel
between these two sections, which we discussed in our shiur on Parshat
Breishit.  In that shiur, we explained how the second section of Sefer
Breishit begins with 'toldot Shem', and hence the story of Avraham's
"bechira".  As God chose his offspring in order of lead mankind in the
direction of God - it becomes significant that this section began with
'Shem', whose name reflects man's purpose - i.e. to call out 'be-'shem
Hashem'.
	Strikingly, this structural parallel extends beyond the similarity
of these two 'ten-generation' units.  Note from the above chart how both the
middle and concluding sections of each list are also parallel.  Most obvious
is how we find the number 70 at the conclusion of each unit.  But more
intriguing is the parallel that emerges in the middle! 
Note how:
 *Toldot Adam concludes with Noach, 
    after which we find toldot Noach, 
    & the story of his 3 sons Shem, Cham, & Yefet.
    (See 5:28-32; 6:9)
    
 * Toldot Shem concludes with Terach, 
    after which we find toldot Terach,
    & the story of his 3 sons Avram, Nachor, & Haran.
    (See 11:24-26; 11:27)

	Furthermore, the three sons of Noach, like the three sons of Terach
receive either a special blessing or curse: 

  *	Avraham, like Shem, is blessed with the privilege of representing
God.

  *	Haran's son Lot, like Cham's son Canaan, is involved in a sin
relating to incest. 

  *	Nachor's offspring Rivka, Rachel & Leah return to 'dwell within the
tent' of the children of Avraham, just as Yefet is destined to dwell within
the 'tent of Shem'.  [See 9:24-27 / 'yaft Elokim le-Yefet ve-yishkon
be-ohalei Shem'.]

	Even though the meaning of these parallels requires further
elaboration, for our purposes here - the parallel itself calls our attention
to the significance of 'toldot Terach'.

TOLDOT TERACH vs. TOLDOT AVRAHAM
	In fact, the phrase 'toldot Terach' appears right where we may have
expected to find a unit beginning with 'toldot Avraham'!  To our surprise,
even though we later find units that begin with 'toldot Yitzchak' and
'toldot Yaakov' [and even 'toldot Yishmael' & 'toldot Esav'], we never find
a unit that begins with 'toldot Avraham'!
	Instead, at the precise spot where we would expect to find a unit
beginning with 'toldot Avraham', we find a unit that begins with 'toldot
Terach'.  This alone already hints to the fact that there must be something
special about Terach.
	This observation also explains why Sefer Breishit dedicates so much
detail to the story of Lot.  Since the phrase'"toldot Terach' forms the
header for parshiot Lech Lecha, Vayera and Chayei Sara, this unit must
include not only the story of Avraham, but the story of the children of
Nachor and Haran (Lot), as well.  

    Thus, in addition to the life story of Avraham himself, these 'parshiot'
also discuss:
* Lot's decision to leave Avraham Avinu, preferring the 'good life' in Sdom
(13:1-18(
* Avraham's rescue of Lot from the four kings (14:1-24)
* God's sparing of Lot from destruction of Sdom (19:1-24)
* The birth of Lot's two sons - Ammon & Moav (19:30-38)
* The 12 children of Nachor (22:20-24)  [8 sons from his wife and 4 from his
pilegesh.  (Sounds familiar?)]
* Avraham's marrying off his son to Nachor's granddaughter

	Hence, Parshat Chayei Sarah forms a most appropriate conclusion for
this unit that began with 'toldot Terach'.  Avraham makes a point of
selecting a daughter-in-law specifically from the family of his brother,
Nachor, thus bringing the history of 'toldot Terach' full circle.  As we
will show in our shiur, all of Terach's offspring may have potential for
bechira.  Therefore, if Yitzchak is to be married, his wife should be chosen
from the family in which this potential lies.
[This may also explain why Nachor and Avraham themselves married 'within the
family' - the daughters of Haran (see 11:29 and Rashi's identification of
Yiska as Sara).]

WHY TERACH?
	What was so special about Terach that he 'deserves' his own toldot?
It is really hard to know since the Torah tells us so little about him. 
	On the one hand, Sefer Yehoshua introduces Nachor as almost a
paradigm for the life of an idolater (see Yehoshua 24:2).  Yet, as the end
of Parshat Noach teaches us, Terach was the first person to recognize the
spiritual importance of Eretz Canaan.  He set out to 'make aliya' even
before God had commanded Avraham to do so (see 11:31 & Seforno's
explanation).
		
	Even though this may sound a bit too 'zionistic', considering that
this is the only detail we find in the Torah concerning Terach - one could
suggest that Terach's merit lay simply in his having been the first person
to move his family towards Eretz Canaan.
[In the 'spirit' of 'ma'aseh avot siman la-banim' - Terach could actually be
considered the first 'Zionist' (in a modern day sense).  Like any good
Zionist, Terach plans to 'make aliya' and even encourages his family to do
so, but he himself never makes it there.]

	We may suggest, however, a more thematically significant approach.
Terach and his offspring may represent a certain aspect of the bechira
process - wherein there lies a potential to be chosen - but only if worthy.
Terach's initiative in this regard may have granted the possibility of
becoming part of 'chosen family' to any of his offspring who prove
themselves deserving of this distinction. 
	Avraham Avinu not only follows his father's lead and continues to
Eretz Canaan, but also becomes a faithful follower of God's will.  He then
becomes the progenitor of God's special nation.  Nachor, however, stays
behind.  Lot (Haran's son) had the opportunity to remain with Avraham, but
detaches himself by choosing the 'good life' in Kikar Ha-yarden (see shiur
on Parshat Lech Lecha).  However, Nachor's granddaughter, Rivka, and
great-granddaughters, Rachel & Leah, prove themselves worthy of joining the
distinctive nation, and work their way back into the family of Avraham.  
    In fact, this may explain the reason for the Torah's minute detail of
Rivka's hospitality - in the story of how she was chosen to become the wife
for Yitzchak.  

	Even though the bechira process at times may appear random and
indiscriminate, the framework of 'toldot Terach' may reflect the importance
of personal commitment in earning that bechira.  These observations can
serve as a 'reminder' that our nation was not chosen simply for the purpose
that we are to receive divine privilege, but rather towards the purpose that
we understand and internalize the eternal responsibility of our destiny.
					shabbat shalom
					menachem

=========
FOR FURTHER IYUN 

1.  See Ramban on 15:18 where he beautifully reviews each of God's promises
to Avraham Avinu in Parshat Lech Lecha, and the nature of their progression,
and most important - how each additional promise reflected some type of
reward to Avraham for his idealistic behavior.  Relate the underlying
concept behind this Ramban to the main points of the above shiur.  See also
Seforno on 26:5 in relation to God's promise to Yitzchak, and the need of
the Avot to 'prove' that they were worthy of their bechira.

2.  'Ten' generations - in our shiur, we noted that there were ten
generations from Adam to Noach, and ten as well from Shem to Terach.  To be
more precise, there are really ten from Noach to Avraham (as Pirkei Avot
mentions) and only eight from Shem to Terach, but we used the 'phrase' ten
generations to reflect the common pattern of continuous list of a succession
of toldot from one generation to the next beginning with one statement of
'eileh toldot' and ending with a final statement of 'eileh toldot'.  The
parallel remains the same; for the sake of uniformity, we simply refer to
this pattern as 'ten' generations.

3.  TOLDOT AVRAHAM
	We saw earlier that every chosen individual in Sefer Breishit
receives his own 'eileh toldot' except Avraham!  If indeed the header toldot
reflects this bechira process, then certainly Avraham himself deserves one.
Yet, for some reason, the Torah includes the story of Avraham's bechira
within the category of toldot Terach.  This enigma may suggest something
unique about either Avraham's own bechira or his ability to have children
(or both).  In other words, Avraham's lack of toldot [remember: literally,
offspring] may relate to his infertility.  He and Sarah have a child only
after a long and exasperating process.  
    Avraham and Sarah's names must be changed and a miracle must be
performed simply for the child to be born.  Even then, the process has yet
to be completed - the child must return to Hashem at the Akeida.  Thus, the
lack of any mention of 'toldot Avraham' could reflect the difficult travails
Avraham must endure in order to father and raise his child.  [This may also
explain why 'Avraham holid et Yitzchak' is added to 'eileh toldot
Yitzchak'.]
	Nonetheless, the question still remains stronger than the answer.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chaya1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 40644 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081119/7bdece1e/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Nov 19 08:03:32 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 05:03:32 -0800
Subject: [Par-lite] For Parshat Chayei Sarah - additional shiurim
Message-ID: <20081119130226.1A90A5E067F@out7.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

  PARSHAT CHAYEI SARAH - 3 mini shiurim

SHIUR #1  - "HASHEM ELOKEI HA-SHAMAYIM"
     How should one describe God?
     In Parshat Chayei Sarah, we find that Avraham Avinu
appears to contradict himself in this regard.  First he
describes Hashem as ?the God of the Heavens and the God of the
Earth? (see 24:3), and then only four psukim later he
describes Him as just ?the God of the Heavens? (see 24:7).
     This apparent contradiction caught the attention of many
commentators, and hence provides us with an excellent
opportunity to take a quick peek into their world of
?parshanut?.

     To better appreciate the various answers that they
provide to the above question, we must first review the
context of these two psukim.
     In chapter 24, Avraham Avinu is sending his servant to
his 'home-town' of Charan in search of a wife for his son
Yitzchak.
  [Most likely, 'his servant' refers to Eliezer, even though
  his name is never mentioned (even once) in this entire
  parshia!  In our shiur, we rely on this assumption.]

     To guarantee that Eliezer will faithfully fulfill that
mission, Avraham makes his servant take an oath in the Name
of:
  ?Hashem, the God of the Heavens, and the God of the Earth
  (see 24:1-4).
  
  However, two psukim later, when Avraham must allay Eliezer's
worry that the wife he finds for Yitzchak may prefer to stay
in Charan (see 24:5-6) - he promises his servant that:
  ?Hashem the God of the Heavens, who had taken him [Avraham]
  from his homeland...? will send an 'angel' to assist him
  (see 24:7).

     The classical commentators are troubled by two problems.
First of all, Avraham's description of God as ?Hashem, the God
of the Heavens AND the God of the Earth? (24:3) seems to imply
that there may be multiple gods, i.e. one of the heavens AND
one of the earth!  Why couldn't Avraham simply have stated
?Hashem, the God of 'heaven and earth?, just like the first
pasuk of Breishit implies.
     Secondly, they are bothered by the question mentioned in
our introduction, i.e.: Why does Avraham ?shorten? his second
description of God to simply ?the God of the Heavens?, without
mentioning 'the earth' at all?
     In our shiur, we will discuss how the commentators deal
with these two questions.

HEAVENS 'and' EARTH
     In relation to the first question, most all of the
commentators share one basic approach, i.e. Avraham's peculiar
statement of ?the God of the Heavens AND the God of the Earth?
- relates directly to his current predicament.
     As we will see, each commentator will consider one of the
following points:
[A]  Avraham's is talking to his servant;
  [who may have a over-simplistic understanding of God]
[B]  He is administering an oath at this time;
[C]  He is searching for a wife for his son; and
[D] He is sending his servant to his home-town of Charan.

A.  RADAK - 'Helping his servant understand'
     Radak offers a 'philosophical' explanation of Avraham's
statement to Eliezer.  He claims that Avraham may be worried
that his servant - even though he surely believes in the
existence of 'the God of the heavens' - may not believe that
God?s Providence extends over mundane matters down on earth as
well.  Therefore, Avraham emphasizes this point in his opening
statement, that he is not only the God overseeing what happens
in the Heavens, but He also oversees what happens on earth.
     However, when Avraham later explains to Eliezer how God
had earlier spoken to him (see 24:7), it is sufficient for
Avraham to mention only ?Elokei Ha-shamayim? - the God of the
Heavens.

B.  SFORNO - 'Scare tactics'
     Seforno explains that Avraham must impress upon his
servant the severity of this oath.  To assure that his servant
will keep this oath, he reminds him that God controls not only
the matters of the ?earth? - and hence his fate in 'this
world' - but also the matters of ?heaven?, which implies his
fate in the 'world to come' (i.e. after death).  By this
statement, Avraham warns his servant that should he break this
oath, he could expect not only a punishment in this world, but
also in the world to come!

C.  IBN EZRA - ?Finding one's beshert?
     Ibn Ezra relates to the fact the Avraham is sending his
servant on a mission to find a wife.  Even though finding a
spouse may appear to Eliezer as a mundane event taking place
on 'earth?, Avraham must convince Eliezer that this marriage
has been decided upon in the 'heavens'.  This commentary may
actually be based on the Gemara in Moed Katan 18b ("Amar
Shmuel..." - in the middle of the daf), that on each day a
?bat-kol? proclaims that the daughter of 'ploni' will be
married to the 'ploni'.

D.  RAMBAN - "Eretz Yisrael"
     Finally, Ramban offers a very 'zionistic' explanation.
Unlike the other commentators who understand ?aretz? as
referring to the 'earth', i.e. to events taking place on earth
or in this world, Ramban understands ?aretz? as referring to
the 'land of Israel'.  Because his servant is now leaving
Eretz Yisrael (but must bring Yitzchak's future wife back to
this land), Avraham adds the phrase ?Elokei ha-aretz? to the
standard phrase of ?Elokei ha-shamayim? in his description of
God at this time.

ELOKEI HA-SHAMAYIM
     Rashi does not deal directly with our first question.
However, he does answer our second question (i.e. why Avraham
only mentions ?Elokei ha-shamayim? in 24:7); and while doing
so, he provides a solution for the first question as well.
     Rashi, based on a Midrash of R. Pinchas in Breishit Rabba
59:8, differentiates between Man?s perception of God BEFORE
Avraham was chosen (as reflected in 24:7), and Man?s
perception of God now (in 24:3).
  When God had first commanded Avraham to leave his homeland
(see 24:7), no one on earth recognized God; therefore His
Kingdom was only in Heaven.  However, once Avraham came to the
Land and began to proclaim His Name to the public (see
Breishit 12:8 and Ramban on that pasuk), His Kingdom is now
known 'on earth' as well.  Therefore, when Avraham now sends
Eliezer on his mission, God can be referred to as both ?Elokei
ha-shamayim? AND ?Elokei ha-aretz?.
     Note that Rashi's explanation is definitely not the
'simple pshat' of these psukim.  Clearly, the interpretations
offered by the other commentators provide a more 'local'
explanation for the specific use of this phrase.  Nonetheless,
this Midrash definitely reflects one of the primary themes of
Sefer Breishit (as discussed at length in our shiur on Parshat
Lech Lecha), and hence may reflect the ?pshat? of the Sefer,
rather than the ?pshat? of the pasuk.
  [Here we find a beautiful example of the art of Midrash,
  taking the opportunity of an apparent problem in the ?pshat?
  of a pasuk to deliver an important message concerning the
  entire Sefer.]

     In conclusion, it is important to note a common
denominator to all the interpretations presented above.  We
find that - when referring to God - it is not necessary to
always refer to Him by the same Name.  Instead, we refer to
God in the context of our relationship with Him.
  For example, in the Ten Commandments, we speak of God as
Hashem, Kel KANA (see Shmot 20:2-4), and when Moshe receives
the Second Luchot he speaks of God as "Hashem, Kel RACHUM ve-
CHANUN" (see Shmot 34:6-8).  In other words, the appellation
that we use for God relates to the specific situation we are
in.
     The best example is from daily tefilla, when we begin by
describing God as "Hashem, Elokeinu ve-Elokei avoteinu"; then
in each of the 19 ?brachot? that follow, we bless God based on
one of various attributes in on our relationship with Him.
Next time you ?daven?, take note!

================================================

SHIUR #2 - AVRAHAM AVINU & 'REAL' ESTATE

     The beginning of this week's Parsha is well known for its
detailed description of the bargaining between Avraham and
Efron.  Some claim that Efron's intention all along was to
attain the highest price (see 23:16), explaining that his
generous opening offer (to give Avraham the land gratis - see
23:5-6) was nothing more than a ploy.  But if this assumption
were correct, why would Sefer Breishit find it necessary to
discuss this event in such minute detail?
     If, on the other hand, we assume that the stories of
Sefer Breishit help develop its theme of ?bechira?, then
perhaps we should view this narrative from the perspective of
that theme.  Let's give it a try.

TWO PERCEPTIONS
     To better appreciate what's going on, let's examine both
sides of the bargaining table - Bnei Chet and Avraham:

1) Bnei Chet's perception:
     Efron and his people [Bnei Chet] reign sovereign in
Chevron and the surrounding region.  As their families had
been living in those hills for generations, they have every
reason to think that they would continue to do so for future
generations as well.  In their eyes, Avraham is simply a
'wandering Jew', posing no threat whatsoever to their
sovereignty.
  Recall as well that Avraham had lived in Mesopotamia until
age 75, and, ever since his migration to Cannan he spent much
of his time traveling - to and from cities - such as Shechem,
Bet-El, Chevron, and Beer Sheva.  Having never established
permanent residence, Avraham represents no challenge to the
sovereign government of the Chittim.
     Furthermore, Avraham constantly 'called out in the Name
of God' wherever he went.  His teaching had earned him such a
widespread reputation that Bnei Chet refer to him as "nasi
Elokim ata betocheinu" - you are a prince a God in our midst
(see 23:6).  As his career sent him constantly 'on the road',
Bnei Chet had no reason to believe that Avraham's offspring
would one day return to attempt to gain sovereignty over their
land.
     Therefore, there is no need to doubt the sincerity of
their original offer to grant Avraham [at no charge] any
burial plot he desires (see 23:5-7).  Even in our own time,
many societies express their appreciation for individuals who
preach morality and dedicate their entire life to God by
offering various benefits [what we call a 'clergy discount'].
     Their generous offer simply reflects their sympathetic
understanding of Avraham's difficult situation - a wandering
'man of God' who needs a place to bury his wife.  For Bnei
Chet, this entire incident was of little significance -
Avraham posed no threat to their future or permanent control
of the land.

2) Avraham Avinu's perception:
     In contrast, Avraham Avinu perceived his situation in an
entirely different light.  His wife's death and the need for a
burial site awakened his realization that aside from a Divine
Promise, he had no real 'hold' in the land.  For him, the
purchase of a family burial plot constituted the first step
towards a permanent attachment to the land.  He wants to
ensure that his children and grandchildren will return to this
site and feel a true connection to the land.
     Therefore, Avraham insists on paying the full price, as
he has no interest at this time for 'handouts' or presents.
He wants it known that this burial plot and its surrounding
field belong to his family.  Therefore, not only does Avraham
insist on paying full price, he also demands that it be
purchased in the presence of all the community leaders ("le-
chol baei sha?ar iro" / read 23:16-20 carefully).  In Avraham
Avinu's eyes, this is a momentous occasion - he has now
purchased his first ?achuza? [inheritance] in ?Eretz Canaan?
(note 23:19-20!).
======

FOR FURTHER IYUN:
     In the above shiur, we discussed how the purchase of
?ma?arat ha-machpela? may relate to Avraham Avinu's special
connection to the land, as promised to him by God.  To further
appreciate this connection, review 23:16-20 and compare them
to 17:7-8.  Note especially ?achuza? and ?Eretz Canaan?, and
relate this to our shiur on ?brit mila?.  Note as well 25:9-
10, 49:29-30 & 50:13!

==================================================

SHIUR #3    "ZERA VA-ARETZ"
          - A PROMISE, COVENANT, AND OATH

     Just prior to sending his servant in search of a wife for
his son, Avraham briefly reviews the various stages of his
?bechira?:
  "Hashem Elokei ha-shamayim asher lekachani mI-BEIT AVI u-
  ME?ERETZ MOLADETI ve-asher DIBER li, ve-asher NISHBA li
  leimor - le-ZAR?ACHA ETeiN et ha-ARETZ ha-zot..." (24:7)

     In the following mini-shiur we attempt to explain the
meaning of each phrase in this pasuk.
     Recall from Parshat Lech Lecha that Hashem had made three
promises (see 12:1-3, 12:7, 13:15) and two covenants (see
15:18, 17:8) concerning the future of Avraham's offspring in
the Promised Land.  In each of these promises, the key words
repeated over and over again were "era? [offspring] and
?aretz?  [the Promised Land/ e.g. "le-zar?acha etein et ha-
aretz ha-zot"].
     In Avraham's opening statement to his servant, we find an
obvious parallel to the beginning of Parshat Lech Lecha, as:
     "Asher lekachani mi-BEIT AVI u?Me'ERETZ MOLADETI"
clearly echoes God's opening command of:
  "Lech Lecha me-artzecha, u-mMOLADETECHA u-miBEIT AVICHA."

     However, the continuation of this statement: "e-'asher
DIBER li, ve-asher NISHBA li leimor ..." raises a question
concerning the precise OATH (?nishba?) to which Avraham
refers.
     This question sparked a controversy among the
commentators.  Rashi explains that this oath was made at Brit
Bein Ha-betarim, while Radak contends that it refers to the
Akeida.
     The reason for this controversy is quite simple. The term
?shvu'a? - oath - appears only once throughout all of God's
promises to Avraham - specifically in God's ?hitgalut? to
Avraham after the Akeida:
     "bi nishbati ne?um Hashem, ki ..." (see 22:16)

     Thus, Radak cites the Akeida as the source for "nishba
li."  Rashi, however, rejects this contention, presumably
because nowhere at the Akeida does God say anything similar to
"le-zar?acha etein et ha-aretz ha-zot."  Rashi therefore cites
as the source of God's oath Brit Bein Ha-betarim, which
includes this very promise:
  "ba-yom ha-hu karat Hashem [note Shem Havaya, as above in
  24:7] et Avram brit leimor: le-zar?acha natati et ha-aretz
  ha-zot..." (15:18).

     Even though the actual word ?shvu?a? is never mentioned
at Brit Bein Ha-Betarim, God's establishment of a covenant
with Avraham may itself constitute a guarantee equivalent to a
promise accompanied by an oath.
     In truth, a closer look at the psukim relating to the
Akeida may reveal that BOTH Rashi and Radak are correct:  God
had stated:
  "By myself I SWEAR ["bi nishba?ti"], the Lord declares:
  Because you have done this and have not withheld your son...
  I will bestow My blessing upon you ["barech avarechecha"]
  and make your descendants as numerous as the stars of the
  heaven ["ke-kochvei ha-shamayim"] ... and your descendants
  will CONQUER the gates of their enemies ["ve-YIRASH zar?acha
  et sha'ar oyvav"]...(15:17).

     Considering this context - i.e. the aftermath of the
Akeida - we can well understand why this oath focuses
primarily on Avraham's descendants ?"zera?), who will evolve
from Yitzchak.  Hence, the promise regarding the Land emerges
as less dominant a theme in God's vow in contrast to the
promise of ?zera?.
  Nonetheless, this oath does contain several expressions
taken directly from God's earlier promises to Avraham
concerning the ?aretz?, especially Brit Bein Ha-betarim. The
following table highlights the literary parallel between God's
promise at the Akeida and previous promises to Avraham:


AKEIDA (22:17)    PREVIOUS PROMISES
==============	  ================
ki barech         va- avarechecha
avarechecha       ve-heye bracha
                  (First Promise - 12:2)
                 
ve-harbeh arbeh   habet na ha-
et zar?acha ke-   shamayma  u-re'eh et
kochevei ha-      ha-kochavim...
shamayim          ko yhiyeh zar?echa
                   (Brit Bein Ha- Betarim - 15:5)

Ve-yirash         lo yirashcha zeh
zar?acha et       ki im asher yetzeh mi-
sha?ar oyvav      mey'echa,hu yirashecha
                   (Brit Bein Ha'Btarim - 15:4)
                 
Ve-hitbarchu be-  Ve-nivrchu becha
zar?acha kol      kol mishpechot
goyei ha-aretz    ha-adama
(15:18)            (First Promise - 12:3)

     This parallel demonstrates that God's oath after the
Akeida reaffirms His previous promises and covenants.
  Furthermore, Avraham's statement of "ve-asher nishba li
leimor le-zar'acha etein et ha-aretz ha-zot," can be
understood as his own understanding of God's promise BOTH in
Brit Bein Ha-Betarim (shitat Rashi) AND the Akeida (shitat ha-
Radak), as one essentially complements the other.
     This interpretation also explains the redundancy in
Avraham's statement: "asher DIBER li ve-'asher NISHBA li":
  *  "asher DIBER li" -
     most probably refers to Brit Bein Ha-Betarim, which
begins with "haya DVAR Hashem el Avram..."
                              (15:1, see also 15:4);
  *  while "asher NISHBA li"
     refers the oath of the Akeida (22:16).

THE OATH
     Why is an oath necessary in ADDITION to God's original
promise and covenant?  Furthermore, why does God make this
oath only after the Akeida?
     The answer to these questions relates to the nature of
the original promise and covenant, as explained in the last
three shiurim.
     Recall that in reaction to the events of Migdal Bavel
(mankind's development into an anthropocentric society), God
chose Avraham Avinu IN ORDER THAT his offspring become a
special nation that would lead all nations toward a
theocentric existence [our shiur on Noach].  Three promises
and two covenants guaranteed Avraham Avinu a special Land
(?aretz?) to allow his offspring (?zera?) to fulfill its
destiny [our shiur on Lech Lecha].  This goal is to be
achieved by this special nation's embodiment of the values of
?tzedek u-mishpat? [our shiur on Parshat Vayera].
     One could suggest that in recognition of Avraham Avinu's
display of complete faith in, and dedication to, God, as
reflected specifically in the story of the Akeida, God
elevates the status of His original promise from a ?brit?
[covenant] to a ?shvu?a? [oath].
     But what's the real difference between a covenant and an
oath?
     A covenantal arrangement is almost by definition
bilateral; for it allows for one side to break his agreement
should the other party break his.  At the Akeida, God takes
His obligation one step further for an oath reflects a
unilateral commitment, binding regardless of what the other
side does.
  God now swears that even should Am Yisrael break their side
of the covenant, He will never break His original promise.
Although His nation may sin and consequently be punished, they
will forever remain His people.
     Herein may lie the primary significance of the Akeida, as
it relates to the developing theme of Sefer Breishit.  As the
story of Avraham Avinu nears its conclusion, God brings His
relationship with Bnei Yisrael to the level where He will
never abandon us.
     The Akeida, the greatest example of ?mesirut nefesh?,
symbolizes an indispensable prerequisite for Am Yisrael's
development into God's special nation - their willingness to
dedicate their entire life to the service of God. The site of
the Akeida, Har Ha-Moriya, later becomes the site of the Bet
Ha-mikdash (see II Chronicles 3:1), the most prominent symbol
of that relationship.

                         shabbat shalom,
                         menachem

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chaya2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 46222 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081119/61ce7824/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Nov 26 13:34:21 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:34:21 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Toldot - shiur #1
Message-ID: <20081126183320.25895BA5A91@out1.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

              PARSHAT TOLDOT - ' the chosen son'

     Are Yitzchak are Rivka playing 'favorites'?  Indeed, a
cursory reading of Parshat Toldot certainly leaves that
impression.
     Furthermore, why does Yitzchak choose to bless only one
of his children?  Would it have been so terrible had he
planned to bless both Esav and Yaakov?
     In the following shiur, we search for the deeper meaning
of these events.  To enable our discussion, we must first
consider the distinction between two concepts that we
encounter in Sefer Breishit - 'bechira' [choosing] and
'beracha' [blessing].

INTRODUCTION
     Our shiurim thus far on Sefer Breishit have focused on
its theme of "bechira" - i.e. God's designation of Avraham and
his offspring to become His special nation.  We made special
note of the numerous times that God had promised Avraham that
his offspring ('zera') would become a great nation in a
special land ('aretz').  Even though each promise added a
unique dimension to Avraham's destiny, they all shared an
element of the same phrase:
     "le-ZAR'ACHA natati et ha-ARETZ ha-zot...
     -  to your OFFSPRING, I have given this LAND."
                         [See 12:7, 13:15, 15:18, 17:8]

     However, despite these numerous blessings suggesting that
this nation will emerge from all of Avraham's offspring, God
later informs Avraham that specifically Sarah's son - Yitzchak
- to the exclusion of all other offspring - has been chosen to
fulfill this destiny:
  "For it is [only] through Yitzchak that there shall be
  called for you ZARA [your offspring]." (see 21:12)

     Parshat Toldot opens as God Himself confirms this
blessing of 'bechira' to Yitzchak, when He forbids him to
leave the land during a famine:
  "Reside in this land and I will bless you... for I will
  assign all this LAND to YOU and to YOUR OFFSPRING." (26:2-5)

     What will happen when Yitzchak has children?  Will only
ONE of his children be chosen, as was the case with Avraham,
or will ALL his offspring be chosen?
     Considering that the reason for God's 'bechira'
(selection) of Avraham was for his offspring to become a
NATION (see 12:1-2), obviously this 'filtering' process of
choosing only ONE son over the others could not continue
forever.  Should only one 'favorite son' be chosen in each
generation, obviously - a nation could never develop.  Sooner
or later, this 'filtering process' must end, and an entire
family must be chosen.
     Thanks to our 20/20 hindsight, we know that this process
ends after THREE generations (Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov).
However, the Avot themselves may have been unaware of when
this 'bechira' process was to end.
     Let's consider this possibility in regard to Yitzchak.

ALL IN THE FAMILY
     A priori, Yitzchak has no reason to assume that only ONE
son would be chosen and the other rejected. Unlike Yitzchak
and Yishmael, who had DIFFERENT mothers, both Yaakov and Esav
are born from the same mother.  What more, they are twins!
     Therefore, it is only logical for Yitzchak to assume that
BOTH Yaakov and Esav will join the 'chosen family'.
      Furthermore, even if there is some divine reason to
choose only one son, it should be GOD's choice and NOT
Yitzchak's! After all, God alone had been involved in this
BECHIRA process heretofore.  He had chosen Avraham and He
alone had chosen Yitzchak over Yishmael.  Without a specific
divine command, why would Yitzchak even consider making such a
bold decision?

     Thus, it would only be logical to assume that Yitzchak
believed that all of his children were chosen, and hence both
Yaakov and Esav would be chosen - and their offspring would
become the nation of Israel.
  So why does Yitzchak intend to bless only ONE of them?

'BRACHA' OR 'BECHIRA'?
     To answer this question, we must differentiate between
TWO basic types of blessings found in Sefer Breishit.  For the
sake of clarity, we will refer to one as BECHIRA and the other
as BRACHA.  Let's explain what each word refers to:

BECHIRA*
     We use the term BECHIRA (selection) to describe God's
blessing of 'ZERA va-ARETZ' to the Avot, the privilege of
fathering God's special nation.  BECHIRA implies that only one
son is chosen while the others are rejected.  As we explained,
this process began with God's designation of Avraham Avinu and
continued with His choice of Yitzchak over Yishmael.  It is
not clear, however, when this bechira process will end.

'BRACHA'
     We will use the term BRACHA to describe a father's
blessing of personal destiny to his sons.  For example, when
Noach bestows a BRACHA on each of his three sons (see 9:24-
27), he does not choose one son over the others to become a
special nation - rather, he blesses (or curses) each son based
on their individual potential.
     The best example of BRACHA (in contrast to BECHIRA) is
Yaakov Avinu's blessings to his twelve sons prior to his
death, in Parshat Vayechi (see 49:1-28).  Clearly, Yaakov does
not choose one or several of his children to become God's
special nation.  Rather, he bestows a blessing of personal
destiny upon each son, according to his understanding of each
son's individual character and potential (see 49:28).
     Thus, according to these definitions - BRACHA is bestowed
by a father, while BECHIRA is established by God.

     The following diagram illustrates the primary points of
our discussion thus far:

n=3          BECHIRA [by God]
             =======
      \      AVRAHAM    /
        \      |      / Yishmael rejected
          \ YITZHAK /
            \  |  /    Eisav - rejected
             YAAKOV
            /   12  \
          /  TRIBES   \ [blessings by father]
        /               \
             BRACHA [by the father]
             =======

     The above diagram reflects the final outcome of the
bechira' process - that there were THREE stages, God original
choice of Avraham Avinu (#1); his subsequent choice Yitzchak
(#2) - to the exclusion of Yishmael; and his choice of Yaakov
(#3) over Eisav.  Once Yaakov has been chosen, we reach a
'critical point' - where ALL of his children are chosen, and
hence the 'bechira' process is complete.  At this point, the
father bestows 'blessings' on his children, which reflect the
interrelationships among the different tribes - but all
'within the chosen family'.

  Using an analogy from 'algebra', one could say that in this
diagram n=3, where the variable 'n' refers to the number of
stages in the "bechira" process.  In our shiur, we will claim
that Yitzchak assumes that n=-2, i.e. that there were supposed
to be only two stages in this process - Avraham & Yitzchak;
and hence both of his children would be chosen, and plans to
bless both.
  
  The following diagram reflects what may have been Yitzchak's
understanding [n=2]:
  
n=2        BECHIRA [by God]
           =======
       \            /
         \ AVRAHAM/
           \  |  / Yishmael rejected
           YITZCHAK
          /   2   \
        /  TRIBES   \ [blessings by father]
       /              \
           BRACHA [by the father]
           =======

YITZCHAK'S BRACHA TO ESAV
     With this distinction in mind, we return to our opening
question regarding the kind of blessing that Yitzchak intends
to bestow upon Esav.  Is it a blessing of BRACHA or BECHIRA?
     Considering that Yitzchak has no apparent reason to
choose only one son, we should expect that his intended
blessing to Esav was one of BRACHA (and not BECHIRA).

     To determine if this assumption is indeed correct, let's
examine the content of the actual blessing that Yitzchak
bestowed - intended for Esav but deceptively seized by Yaakov:
     "May God give you of the dew of heaven
     and the FAT of the land,
     and an abundance of GRAIN and WINE.
     Other nations shall SERVE you and bow down to you;
     be MASTER over your brother,
     and let your mother's sons bow down to you ..."
                                   (27:28-29)

     Note how this blessing focuses on prosperity and
leadership, and hence would fall under our category of BRACHA.
It cannot be BECHIRA, as it does NOT contain the phrase of
'ZERA va-ARETZ'.  In fact, this blessing strongly resembles
the blessings of prosperity and leadership which Yaakov
himself later bestows upon Yehuda (see 49:8) and Yosef (see
49:25-26).

     But if indeed if this is a blessing of BRACHA, why does
Yitzchak (intend to) bestow this blessing only on Esav?  Would
it not have made sense had he blessed both sons?

THE RIGHT MAN FOR THE JOB
     As we posited above, Yitzchak expects that both his
children will be chosen.  Realizing that this nation (that
will ultimately evolve from his two sons) will require
leadership, Yitzchak must first appoint one of his sons to
take family leadership; afterward he can bless the other. But
which son should he choose for this responsibility?
     One could suggest that Yitzchak concluded that Esav - the
"ish sadeh" [a 'man of the world' (see 25:27)] - was the more
suitable candidate for this job.  Let's explain why:
  Yaakov & Esav are over sixty years old - Esav is married
with children, has a job, and can thus care for himself (and
for others).  Yaakov, on the other hand, is still single and
'living at home'.  It is readily understandable, then, why
Yitzchak chooses Esav to become the family provider and
leader.

     We can even presume that Yitzchak had a blessing in store
for Yaakov as well - most probably one that involves spiritual
leadership.  Yaakov - the "ish tam yoshev ohalim," a man of
the book (see 25:27) - can provide the family with spiritual
guidance.
  [This 'theoretical blessing' to Yaakov resembles the
  ultimate responsibility of shevet Levi (see Devarim 33:10).]
  However, without FIRST establishing a nation (with the help
  of Esav), there would be no one around for Yaakov to guide.
  ]
  
     The fact that Yitzchak had called upon Esav to receive
his blessing FIRST, does not rule out the possibility that he
may have intended to bless Yaakov afterward.  Note that in
Parshat Vayechi, Yaakov FIRST blesses Yosef - bestowing upon
him family leadership- before proceeding to bless all twelve
children.

     So what went wrong?  Why does Rivka intervene?  Why must
Yaakov 'steal' Esav's BRACHA?  Or, to put it more bluntly, is
Rivka simply standing up for her 'favorite son' or did she
perceive the situation differently?
     To answer this question, we must return to the beginning
of the Parsha.

RIVKA KNOWS BEST
     Apparently, Rivka knows something that Yitzchak doesn't.
Recall that Rivka suffered from an unusually difficult
pregnancy and seeks God for an explanation (see 25:22).
     Note how God's answer to HER (and not to Yitzchak!)
already alludes to the fact that the BECHIRA process has not
yet ended:
  "And God answered HER saying: There are TWO NATIONS in your
  womb, and TWO SEPARATE PEOPLES shall issue from your body.
  One people shall be mightier than the other, and the older
  shall serve the YOUNGER."  (25:23)

     Rivka here learns that her twins are destined to become
TWO NATIONS, and as such, only ONE - the younger one (see
25:23, "ve-rav ya'avod tza'ir") - can be chosen. Thus, Rivka
knows that YAAKOV is destined to receive the BECHIRA, and not
Esav.  Or using our analogy, she knows that n=3, or at least
3.
  Yitzchak, however, is unaware of this prophecy.  [Note
25:23: "va-yomer Hashem LAH" - to HER, and not to him!]

     It is unclear why Rivka never informs Yitzchak of this
prophecy.  She may assume that Yitzchak also knows, and only
later realizes that he doesn't (see Ramban 27:4).
Alternatively, the very fact that she was privy to this
special prophecy may have led her the logical conclusion that
God wanted specifically ONLY HER to know, and NOT Yitzchak.
  However, whatever the reason may be, each parent has a
different perception of their children's destiny as they grow
up.  Yitzchak ASSUMES that both Yaakov and Esav are chosen,
while Rivka KNOWS that it will only be Yaakov, but cannot
share he secret. The day will come, she may assume, when she
will ultimately understand why God has given her this
information

RIVKA'S DILEMMA
     After overhearing Yitzchak's intention to bless Esav
(27:5), Rivka now faces a serious dilemma:
*    Does Yitzchak plan to bless Esav with the BECHIRA (or
that God should grant him the BECHIRA)?  If so, she must act
quickly, as the future of "Am Yisrael" rests on her shoulders.
 *   Does Yitzchak think that BOTH children are chosen?  Is he
giving a BRACHA of leadership to Esav?  The result of this
blessing could be no less disastrous!
 *   Can Rivka just tell Yitzchak that he is making a mistake?
Is it too late?  Will he listen?  Would he be willing now,
after so many years, to change his perception?
     Rivka has limited time to act, yet feels responsible to
the prophecy she had received and hence obligated to rectify
the situation.  In her eyes, this may have been the very
reason why God had originally granted her this information.
Unfortunately, however, Rivka must resort to trickery to
ensure that Yaakov receives the blessing.
     Now that we have explained Rivka's course of action, we
must explain Yitzchak's, as the plot thickens.

YITZCHAK'S BLESSINGS
     After Yitzchak grants Yaakov (whom he thought was Esav) a
BRACHA of prosperity and leadership, the real Esav arrives and
begs his father for another blessing (see 27:34,36).
Yitzchak's initial response is that the special blessing
intended for Esav (prosperity and power) had already been
given to Yaakov (27:35,37).  Hence, Esav cannot receive any
other BRACHA, since the BRACHA of spirituality, originally
intended for Yaakov, would be unsuitable for Esav.  However,
after Esav pleads with his father, Yitzchak grants Esav a
different BRACHA of prosperity.
  "And Isaac his father answered and said: Behold, of the fat
  places of the earth shall be thy dwelling, and of the dew of
  heaven from above;  And by your sword you shall live and
  serve your brother; but should you [or him /see Rashi] fall,
  then you shall shake his yoke from off thy neck."  (27:39-
  40)

  In light of our above interpretation, this second blessing
is quite understandable.  Let's explain why.
     Review this blessing "[tal ha-shamayim u-shmanei ha-
aretz" (27:38-39)], noting how it speaks of prosperity in a
manner very similar to the first blessing.  This makes sense,
because 'prosperity' can be shared by both brothers.
However, the second half of the original blessing - that of
political leadership ("hevei gvir le-achicha - see 27:29) -
can only be given to one son.  Yitzchak therefore blesses Esav
that - should Yaakov's leadership falter - he shall take his
place (see 27:40 & Rashi).
     At this point of the story, it appears that Yitzchak
still understands that both sons will be chosen.  When does he
find out the 'truth' that the 'bechira' process is not over
yet?

CLEARING THE AIR
     Even though the Torah never reveals the details, it would
be safe to assume that Rivka must have finally explained her
actions to Yitzchak after this incident.  Upon hearing the
details of God's earlier prophecy to Rivka, Yitzchak finally
realizes that only ONE son, Yaakov, is to be chosen.  [Using
our analogy, he now realizes that n=3.]  To his dismay, he
must now accept the fact that the BECHIRA process must
continue into yet another generation.
     This explains the final blessing that Yitzchak grants
Yaakov, before he embarks on his journey to Padan Aram (in
search of a wife).  Review this blessing, noting how it
obviously relates directly to the blessing of BECHIRA:
  "May God grant the BLESSING OF AVRAHAM [i.e. BECHIRA] to you
  and your OFFSPRING, that you may inherit the LAND which
  Elokim has given to Avraham..." (28:4).

     Note once again the key phrase - "zera va-aretz" - of the
BECHIRA blessing!  In contrast to the BRACHA of prosperity and
power discussed earlier, this blessing involves the familiar
concept of God's special NATION inheriting a special LAND.
Clearly, Yitzchak now understands that the 'bechira' process
is not over yet.

     Note as well that Yitzchak does not actually grant this
blessing to Yaakov, rather he blesses him that God should
grant him the 'bechira' - "ve-Kel Sha-kai yevarech otcha..."
(28:4).  As we explained earlier in our shiur, the 'bechira'
process is God's decision.  Yitzchak is now 'rooting' for
Yaakov that God should grant him the BECHIRA, but that
decision must ultimately be confirmed by God - and that's
exactly what takes place a few psukim later, at the beginning
of Parshat Vayetze!  (see 28:12-14)

MA'ASEH AVOT, SIMAN LA-BANIM
     Despite our 'technical' explanation for Yitzchak and
Rivka's behavior in this Parsha, a more fundamental question
remains: Why must the BECHIRA process be so complex?  In other
words, why is it that at the very inception of our national
history, trickery must be employed for us to arrive to our
divine destiny?
     Or re-phrased in terms of our shiur - why does God want
Yitzchak to think that n=2, while telling Rivka that n=3.  It
appears that God wanted these events to unfold in this manner!
     Although this is a very difficult question to answer, one
could suggest that this entire episode may carry an important
message concerning how the spiritual goals of our nation
relate to the necessities of entering the physical world of
prosperity and political leadership.

     Indeed, to become a nation, there are times when the
'aggressive' qualities of an Esav type individual are needed.
However, there is a popular notion that these physical
responsibilities should be delegated to the 'ish sadeh', the
son who is expert in the physical realm, but ONLY in that
realm [the 'chiloni' son].  Similarly, the spiritual realm
should be delegated to the Yaakov type individual, the
delicate 'ish tam' who knows only how to study in the tents of
Torah [the 'dati' son].
  Yitzchak's original intention to bless Esav may reflect this
notion, as Esav will be the provider, 'serve in the army', and
enter the political realm; while Yaakov will dedicate his life
immersed in the tents of Torah.  Separating these
responsibilities between two sons may reflect the notion that
spirituality cannot be found in the physical world of
establishing a nation.
     To negate this notion, despite its simplicity and logic,
the Torah presents it as Yitzchak's original plan.  However,
the other option (possibly Rivka's original plan), that Yaakov
- the 'ish tam' - alone can manage both realms remains equally
unacceptable.
     At the time of these 'brachot', Yaakov himself is not yet
ready to take on the responsibilities of the 'ish sadeh', but
sooner or later it will become incumbent upon him to do so.
To establish God's special nation, there are times when it is
necessary for the 'ish tam' to take on the responsibilities of
the 'ish sadeh'.
  To solve this 'dialectic', it was necessary for Yaakov to
first don the 'hands of Esav', i.e. to pretend to act like
Esav, but not actually become an Esav.  It remains significant
that the primal character of Am Yisrael is that of Yaakov, the
'ish tam'.
  
  If this interpretation is correct, then we can better
appreciate why Yaakov must endure so much hardship during his
twenty some years in Charan.  Before God can bestow on him the
'bechira' - to become the final stage of this complex process,
Yaakov must learn to become an "ish sadeh", while remaining an
"ish tam".  Not only will he need to learn how to deal with
the trickery of Lavan, upon his return to Eretz Yisrael,
Yaakov must finally confront the 'angel of Esav', and later
Esav himself, to prove that he is indeed worthy of that
leadership task. That battle may leave him 'limping',
nonetheless triumphant; as he has learned the proper balance
between these two character traits.
  
     Even though many situations in our history will arise
when we must don the 'hands of Esav' - i.e. when we must act
as an 'ish sadeh' - our dominant trait must always remain that
of an 'ish tam'.  For when God provides Am Yisrael with
prosperity and political leadership, it is towards the purpose
that they serve mankind with personal example and spiritual
guidance.
     Throughout our history, even though we must periodically
'don the hands of Esav', our voice must always remain 'the
voice of Yaakov' [see 27:22]!

                              shabbat shalom
                              menachem

===========
FOR FURTHER IYUN

A.  See Ramban (on 27:4), noting how he would bascially
disagree with the entire approach presented in the above
shiur.  From the very beginning, he understands that
Yitzchak's intention is to bless Esav with the BECHIRA.
1.  How does Ramban understand why Rivka doesn't tell Yitzchak
about her nevua?  How, if at all, does this affect his
understanding of the entire parsha?
2.  With which basic assumption of the above shiur does Ramban
disagree?
3.  Does Ramban (see 27:28) find any hint to "zera va-aretz"
in Yitzchak's first bracha to Yaakov/Esav?
4.  How does Rashi understand this sugya?
5.  Try to relate this issue to the klal of MA'ASEH AVOT,
SIMAN LA-BANIM.  [Iy"H, this will be the topic of a future
shiur.]
6.  See also Radak on 27:4, noting how he explains that
Yitzchak knew all along that Yaakov would receive the
'bechira'.  Nonetheless, he still wanted to grant Esav a
'bracha'.

B.  Towards the beginning of the Parsha, Esav sells his
birthright to Yaakov and makes a striking statement:
   "Hinei anochi holeich lamut, ve-lama zeh li bchora?"
  Esav seems very practical.  He sees no reason to have the
'bchora', as he lives only for the present with no dreams or
goals for the future.

1.  Relate this to the above shiur and the reason why Esav is
rejected.

2.  Could it be that this attitude, a lack of appreciation of
his destiny and purpose, leads to his ultimate rejection?

3.  Can this explain why Yaakov is interested in buying the
birthright?

4.  Does Yitzchak know about this incident?  If so (or even if
not), how may this affect the blessing that he later intended
to give his children?

C.  The blessing of BECHIRA to Yaakov in 28:3-5 contains
several key phrases found in earlier blessings to Avraham
Avinu.  Try to find these parallels.
1.  Are most of them from the parsha Brit Mila? (see Breishit
17:1-10).
     If so, can you explain why?  [What additional message did
Avraham receive after Brit Mila?]
2. When did Hashem actually confirm this blessing?  (See 35:9-13!)



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: toldot1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 107565 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081126/e4408978/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Nov 26 15:34:21 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:34:21 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Toldot - What Mtizvot did the Avot Keep
Message-ID: <20081126203315.8BE4AB08526@out4.bezeqint.net>

This week's TSC shiurim are dedicated 
in memory of Chana Friedman :
(Chana bat Yaakov u'Devorah) A"H 
on her 13th yahrzeit"

Two shiurim follow, and both are attached in pdf format

*************************************************************
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

      for PARSHAT TOLDOT -  WHAT MITZVOT DID THE AVOT KEEP?

	What mitzvot did the Avot keep? 
	There are those who claim that the Avot kept the entire Torah - even
the Oral Law and later Rabbinic prohibitions!  Yet many students, when
hearing this opinion, find it difficult to accept.
    In the following shiur, we analyze the pasuk that forms the source for
this opinion in an attempt to better understand the debate among the
commentators in regard to its interpretation.  Our study will also provide
us with a rare insight into how the great commentators understood the lives
of our forefathers.

INTRODUCTION
	Early on in Parshat Toldot, the Torah tells us of a famine in Eretz
Canaan that caused Yitzchak to consider moving temporarily to Egypt.
However, God intervened - instructing Yitzchak to stay in Eretz Canaan,
while re-affirming His promise to Avraham that Yitzchak would be the 'chosen
son' (see 26:1-5).
    We begin our shiur by taking special note of God's concluding remarks to
Yitzchak at that time, as they form the basis of our discussion:
	"ekev asher shama Avraham b'koli va'yishmor..." 
    [because Avraham listened to Me and kept:]]
"MISHMARTI, MITZVOTEI, CHUKOTEI, v'TORATEI."
     (see 26:5)

	When reading this pasuk, the obvious question arises: What is the
precise meaning of each of these words that describes the variety of ways
that Avraham obeyed God?
		a) SHAMA B'KOLI 
		b) VA'YISHMOR MISHMARTI
		c) MITZVOTEI
		d) CHUKOTEI
		e) TOROTEI
	As we should expect, each of the classical commentators contemplates
this question, but to our surprise, each commentator presents a very
different answer.
	However, before we begin our study of those commentaries, let's
first consider what we should expect to find.

THREE APPROACHES
	To identify the meaning of these five words (in the above pasuk),
one can take one of three basic approaches to define the meaning of each
word:

1)  Look for that same word in the story of Avraham's life -
In other words, we must conduct a 'word search' for each of these phrases in
the Torah's account of the life of Avraham (from Parshat Lech L'cha thru
Chaya Sarah).  If we find the same word, then that must be what this pasuk
refers to. [If we don't we'll need to 'improvise'.]
		[as will do Rashbam &  Chizkuni]

2) Look for the same word later on in Chumash -
In other words, we must search the entire Torah to find the various
categories of laws that each word refers to, and assume that what it refers
to later on in Chumash is what it refers to as well in the life of Avraham
Avinu in Sefer Breishit.
		[Rashi, Ramban (l'fi Chazal)]

3) Look for the concept behind that word or phrase.
In other words, based on the meaning of each word in the Hebrew language
(and in Chumash), we identify the concept of what each word relates to.
Then we search the Torah's story of the life of Avraham Avinu to find and
event relating to that concept.
		[Ibn Ezra, Ramban (l'fi ha'pshat), Radak, Seforno] 

WOULDN'T IT BE NICE...
	Ideally, if we found an example of each one of these phrases in the
Torah's description of Avraham's life from Parshat Lech L'cha through Chaya
Sarah, then the first approach would work best.  
	However, a comprehensive search finds specific examples for only
some of these words, causing most of the "parshanim" [commentators] to
employ a different approach.
    We'll discuss their various interpretations and approaches according to
the order we suggested in our introduction.

RASHBAM 
	Rashbam follows our first approach, as he obviously begins by
searching for each specific word within the Torah's presentation of the
story Avraham Avinu. 
	For the first three words, Rashbam is quite 'successful', as he
quotes a precise example for each word:
	a) SHAMA B'KOLI - at the Akeyda, as the Torah states:
		"...ekev asher shamata b'koli" (see 22:18)

	b) MISHMARETI - to perform the mitzvah of brit milah. 
    quoting from Parshat Lech L'cha:
   	"v'ata et briti TISHMOR... himol kol zachar" (see 17:9)

	c) MITZVOTEI - brit Milah on the  EIGHTH day
		as it states at the circumcision ceremony for Yitzchak:
"And Avraham circumcised Yitzchak his son when he was eight days old -
ka'asher TZIVAH oto ha'Elokim" (see 21:4)

	However, for the last two words - CHUKOTEI & TORATEI he is less
successful, for there is no 'exact match'. Therefore, Rashbam defaults to a
more general definition for "chukotei v''torotei", understanding that they
refer to all of the 'ethical' mitzvot that Avraham most certainly had kept.
Even though God did not command these mitzvot explicitly, it is quite
implicit from Chumash that God expected Avraham (and all mankind) to act in
an ethical manner (see Breishit 18:18-19!).
	Note how Rashbam defines this as "ikar pshuto shel mikra":
"CHUKOTEI V'TORATEI: According to IKAR PSHUTO [simple pshat], all of the
'obvious mitzvot' [i.e. ethical laws] like stealing, adultery, coveting,
justice, and welcoming guests; these we kept BEFORE Matan Torah, but were
renewed and expounded in the covenant [of Matan Torah]." (see Rashbam 26:5)

    Even though Rashbam understands "chukotei v''torotei" as general
categories, he does bring several examples of these ethical mitzvot that are
found in specific events in Avraham's life that are described in Sefer
Breishit:
    stealing - "asher GAZLU avdei Avimelech (see 21:25!!); 
	adultery & coveting / Pharaoh & Avimelech taking Sarah;
	justice  - w/ Melech Sdom & Shalem, after war of 5 kings;
	welcoming guests - the 3 angels & story of Lot & Sdom!

CHIZKUNI - even 'better' than Rashbam
	As we noted above, in his attempt to find a specific example for
each word, Rashbam is only '3' for '5'.  However, Chizkuni doesn't give up
so quickly, and attempts to identify '5' for '5'!
	After quoting the same first three examples as Rashbam, Chizkuni
also finds specific examples for the words CHOK & TORAH as well, but to do
so, he must employ some 'textual' assistance from Sefer Tehilim.  What
Chizkuni does is simply ingenious, as he turns to Sefer Tehillim, to find
references to the life of Avraham Avinu where we find a word similar to
"chok" and "torah".
	CHUKOTEI - refers once again to BRIT MILAH, but this time for all
future generations as well, as it says in Tehilim:
"zachar l'olam brito... asher karat et Avraham... v'yamideha l'Yaakov
l'CHOK, l'Yisrael BRIT OLAM..." 
    (see Tehillim 105:8-10 /or "hodu" in Psukei d'zimrah!)

	Hence, the word "chukotei" in Breishit 26:5 relates to God's
commandment to Avraham a Brit Milah: "v'hayta briti b'vsarchem l'BRIT OLAM"
(see 17:13)
	Similarly:
	TORATEI - refers to Avraham Avinu's original 'aliya' to Israel for
it states in Tehillim:
    "askilcha v'ORECHA b'derech zu TAYLECH" 
    (see Tehilim 32:8)
	Here we find the word "hora'ah" - which implies an instruction - in
the same pasuk that describes 'walking in the path of God' (similar to God's
command to Avraham: of  "lech l'cha..." (see 12:1-3)

	This attempt by Chizkuni to identify a specific example for each
word is beautiful, however he himself admits that it may be  'stretching'
pshat a bit too much. Therefore, he concludes his pirush by suggesting that
a more simple "pshat" for "mitzvotei chukotei v'toratei" would be to include
the seven laws given to the children of Noach, which Avraham himself also
kept.
[How these seven mitzvot break down according to these three categories of
"mitzvot", "chukim", and "torot" will be discussed by Radak & Ramban.]

RASHI - a similar, but opposite approach
	Rashi employs a different approach (the second approach mentioned in
our introduction), claiming that whatever these words refer to later on in
Chumash, are precisely what Avraham kept in his own life time.  [See Rashi
inside.] 
    Note how Rashi categorizes these different words based on their
definition later on in Chumash, and cites an example for each word from the
entire spectrum of Halacha, from the Written Law, to the Oral Law, and even
to later Rabbinic ordinations.  
	a) SHAMA B'KOL - when I tested him (at the Akeyda/ 22:18)
	b) MISHMARTI - Rabbinic laws that protect the Torah laws
	c) MITZVOTEI - the 'logical' and ethical laws of the Torah
	d) CHUKOTEI - the Torah laws that have no apparent reason
	e) TOROTEI - the Oral law, and "halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai

    Hence, according to Rashi, Avraham Avinu kept the entire Torah (even
though it had not been given yet), or in essence, Avraham kept the same
mitzvot that Rashi kept!
	
RAMBAN (according to Chazal)
	As usual, Ramban begins his commentary by taking issue with Rashi's
interpretation - that the Avot kept all of the mitzvot. 
    Ramban begins by questioning this very assumption. After all, if the
Avot kept the entire Torah, how did Yaakov marry two sisters, and erect a
MATZEYVA, etc.?
	Ramban attempts to 'patch' Rashi's interpretation, by explaining
Chazal's statement that the Avot kept the entire Torah from a different
angle.  Ramban claims that this Midrash refers to the fact that the Avot
kept SHABBAT, based on another Midrashic statement that the mitzvah of
Shabbat is equal in value to keeping all the mitzvot of the Torah.
	Hence, Avraham kept the mitzvah of shabbat as well as the seven
mitzvot of Bnei Noach and brit milah.  From this 'pool' of mitzvot that
Avraham kept, Ramban explains how each word in 26:5 may relate to a specific
category within the 7 Noachide laws:
	MISHMARTI - extensions of "arayot" /forbidden marriages
	MITZVOTEI - not to steal or kill
	CHUKOTEI - "eiver min ha'chay" - a limb from a live animal
	TOROTEI - "dinim" establishing civil laws & no idol worship

[Afterward, Ramban returns to his original questions on Rashi's Midrashic
interpretation [adding a bit of 'zionism'],  explaining the Avot's
obligation to follow the ('future') laws of the Torah applied ONLY in Eretz
Yisrael.]

RAMBAN - al derech ha'pshat
	Ramban concludes his commentary by suggesting a totally different
interpretation that he introduces as "al derech ha'pshat" - [following the
way of the simple meaning of the text].
    In this approach (which will follow the third approach that we discussed
in our introduction), Ramban simply follows the simple meaning of each word
in Hebrew, and applies those concepts to events in the life of Avraham
Avinu.

	MISHMARTI
	Most interesting is Rabman's understanding of "mishmarti".  This
word stems from the Hebrew word "li'shmor" - to guard.  [A "shomer" is a
watchman or body-guard.]  Hence, Ramban explains that "vayishmor mishmarti"
relates to how Avraham 'guarded' or 'protected' God, and that was by both
preaching and teaching monotheism, and by publicly arguing against those who
preached belief in other gods.  
	But where in Chumash does it say that Avraham did so?
	Ramban explains that this is precisely the meaning of the phrase
"va'yikra b'shem Hashem" in relation to Avraham Avinu (see Breishit 12:8,
13:4 and 21:33].
[Note how Ramban's explanation of "va'yishmor mishmarti" reflects in many
ways Ramban's own life experiences, as he too 'stood God's guard' by
publicly arguing against those he attacked Judaism!]

	MITZVOTEI - according to Ramban, implies a direct commandment, and
hence refers to when God commanded Avraham to move to Canaan ("lech l'cha"
/see 12:1-3); to offer his son (at the Akeyda/ see 22:1-2) , and to 'listen
to his wife' - i.e. to send away Hagar (see 21:12).

	CHUKOTEI -  Ramban explains, refers to how Avraham 'followed the
ways of God'  -  being merciful & just, and doing acts of "tzedek u'mishpat"
(social justice).  This interpretation, obviously based on Breishit 18:19,
is rather amazing, for most everyone thinks that a "chok" in the Bible
defines a law that 'doesn't make sense' (see Rashi on 26:5) - and here
Ramban applies it to the laws that make the most sense!
	At the conclusion of our shiur, we'll return to explain why.

	TOROTEI - Here, Ramban follows the popular understanding of the word
"torah" as referring to God's eternal laws, and hence during the time period
of Avraham, it must refer to the actual 'mitzvos' that he kept, such as brit
milah & the seven Noachide laws.

	Note how Ramban's approach is most comprehensive, attempting to
tackle pshat, while taking serious consideration of the Midrash, and looking
for overall thematic significance - and consistent with his thematic
understanding of Sefer Breishit.

IBN EZRA - short and sweet
	Ibn Ezra, as we would expect, also follows the third approach,
looking for the simple meaning of each word, and applying it to Avraham's
own life. 
    Ibn Ezra begins by understanding MISHMERETI as a general category that
includes all of the three sub-categories that follow - MITZVOTEI CHUKOTEI
v'TORATEI.  
    [That solves one definition.]
    Then he suggests examples for what those three words may refer to (based
on the meaning of each word in Hebrew):

	MITZVOTEI = "lech l'cha..." i.e. Avraham's ALIYA
	CHUKOTEI =  following God's way of life' 
    ('engraved' in his heart)
	TOROTEI = by fulfilling the mitzvah of brit milah.

    Note how these last three definitions are essentially identical to
Ramban's interpretation "al derech ha'pshat". [The truth is, Ibn Ezra lived
before Ramban, and we should have brought his opinion first.]  
	Note as well how Ibn Ezra makes no attempt to find a 'textual'
parallel for each word in this pasuk.  Instead, he follows the concept
behind the word! 

RADAK - 'widening the pool'
	Radak's approach is quite similar to Ibn Ezra's, for he also
understands each of these words as general categories. However, Ibn Ezra
seems to limit his examples to those mitzvot that Avraham himself was
commanded, while Radak 'widens the pool' by including ALL of the mitzvot of
Bnei Noach (assuming that Avraham was commanded to keep them). Then, within
this pool of mitzvot, Radak differentiates between "mitzvot", and "chukim"
etc. based on the definition of these categories later on in Chumash (e.g.
"mitzvotei" refers to the "mitzvot sichliyot" [the laws that man can arrive
at using his own intellect - like stealing and killing etc.].

SEFORNO
	We conclude with Seforno, as his approach adds an extra dimension to
our understanding of the thematic significance of this pasuk.
    First of all, Seforno, like Ramban & Radak, follows the third approach -
and explains how these phrases relate to concepts (or general categories)
that include the "seven mitzvot of Bnei Noach".  Secondly, Seforno adds an
'extra touch' to Ramban's understanding of "mishmarti", agreeing that it
implies to 'watching God's guard', but providing us with a different example
of how Avraham accomplished this:
"He kept God's 'special guard' which was to do kindness, as the verse in
Tehillim states: ' All the ways of God are kindness and truth (25:10); and
to teach the proper way for those who had gone astray - and this he did when
he 'called out in God's Name', and kept as well mitzvotei, chukotei,
b'torotei - that God commanded Bnei Noach - and [Avraham] also beautifully
taught them and kept them - as a shining example for others to follow
[k'mofet l'rabim]"
    (see Seforno on 26:5)

	Note how Seforno. like Ramban, also relates "mishmarti" to how
Avraham 'called out in God's Name' - yet suggests a significantly different
interpretation.  Ramban understood how this was accomplished by what he said
['verbally'] - i.e. by publicly defending God.  In contrast, Seforno
explains that this was accomplished by what Avraham's did, i.e. by his
actions and the example he set for others. 
	Note how Seforno attempts to thematically connect the very reason
for why God chose Avraham Avinu ("or la'goyim" / see Yeshayhau 42:5-6) - to
Avraham's own way of life.  
[Note how Seforno takes into consideration the primary theme of Sefer
Breishit, as he attempts to understand each pasukl!]

	Finally, Seforno adds an additional dimension, for he continues his
commentary by explaining how this statement relates to the events that
follow in chapter 26. 
    Note how our pasuk (i.e. 26:5) does not conclude a 'parshia'; rather, it
introduces a set of stories in which Yitzchak 'runs into trouble' with the
Plishtim and Avimelech (see 26:6-33). 
    Therefore,  Seforno concludes that this pasuk serves as a bit of "musar"
[rebuke/ or at least encouragement] to Yitzchak, as God explains to Yitzchak
that so far he was chosen because he was Avraham's son.  Nonetheless, God
now reminds Yitzchak that Avraham was a man of action, and 'earned' his
special status through his deeds - 'hinting' that Yitzchak should also begin
to be a bit more pro-active. If Avraham spent his time by preaching and
teaching God's laws - calling out in God's Name, and setting a personal
example by pursuing "tzedek u'mishpat", God now expects no less from
Yitzchak. 
	In this manner, Seforno explains why Yitzchak suffered so much
strife with Avimelech and his servants in the story that follows (i.e. the
arguments at "esek" & "sitnah"). However, later in this same 'parshia', we
find that Yitzchak himself finally "calls out in God's Name" (see 26:25-29).
>From that time on, Yitzchak becomes successful, and develops a positive
relationship with his neighbors.  Ultimately, God is finally with Yitzchak,
but only after he fulfills his responsibilities.

CHUKIM THAT MAKE SENSE!
	To conclude our study, it is important to note how Ibn Ezra, Ramban,
and Rashbam all explained the word "chukotei" - as referring to God's 'way
of life' - implying being a just an upright person, and acting with kindness
to others.
	The reason why is rather simple.  The word "chok" in Hebrew implies
something set that doesn't change - like statutes (or technically speaking
something 'engraved'). In this sense, the laws of nature are referred to as
"chukim" - for they don't change (see Yirmiyahu 33:25).  
	Therefore, when God mentions "chukotei" - they refer to His [God's]
'way of life' - as His ways are to be kind and to uphold justice.  In this
manner, Avraham emulated God by acting in His ways - and thus setting an
example for others to follow.
	The fact that so many commentators emphasize this point as a key
element in Avraham's own life, reflects their understanding that being kind,
just, and upright must be a core value in Judiasm. 
	Even though there may be a controversy concerning which specific
mitzvot the Avot kept (be it 613 or 7, or 8 or 9 etc.) - everyone agrees
that their greatness lied in their 'way of life' - their moral behavior,
social justice, and their dedication towards 'making a Name for God', thus
setting a model for others to learn from.  
    Certainly - a model that we ourselves must follow.
    . 
						shabbat shalom
						menachem




*************************************************************
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

          PARSHAT  TOLDOT - shiur #2

       "MA'ASE AVOT-  'SIMAN' LA'BANIM"

     In Parshat Toldot, we find a very lengthy story about the
wells that Yitzchak dug (see chapter 26).  As this is one of
the few stories where we find details about his life, we
should expect that story to be thematically important.  To
find its significance, we begin our shiur with a short
explanation of the difference between a "bor" (pit or cistern)
and "be'er" (well), which will help us understand the story of
Yitzchak and the Plishtim.

INTRODUCTION
     In ancient times, there were two basic methods of water
storage - the "bor" and the "be'er":
I. THE "BOR"
  The simplest manner to store rain water was to dig a pit or
'cistern' into the bedrock.  In Hebrew, this cistern is known
as a "bor".  To increase its efficiency, the "bor" must be
covered with "sid" [plaster] to stop the water from seeping
out.

II. THE "BE"ER:
     A "be'er" (a well) is quite different, for instead of
collecting rainwater (from the heavens), it taps the
underground water table  [better known as an aquifer].  The
aquifer receives its water from accumulative rainfall, which
seeps through the ground until it reaches a non-porous rock
level.  To reach the aquifer, one must dig a hole into the
ground. Once opened, the well will supply water as long as
water remains in the aquifer.
     So what does any of this have to do with Torah?

AN ANCIENT 'WATER FIGHT'
     This background explains the quarrel between Yitzchak and
the Plishtim over the "be'erot" (see 26:17-26). Since time
immemorial there have always been disputes concerning the
rights to the underground water table, similar to the one that
takes place in this week's Parsha.
  During his life time, Avraham dug many wells, thus staking
his claim to their water supply. After his death, the Plishtim
plugged those wells, but then dug different wells to gain
access to the very same aquifer (see 26:18), thus staking
their claim to that water supply.
  Years later, Yitzchak wants to re-open the same wells that
his father had dug, thus claiming his water back. Upon doing
so, the Plishtim protest, claiming that the water belongs to
them (see 26:20-21). [See also Ramban on 26:17-18!]
     Instead of fighting, Yitzchak tries again and again to re-
open his father's wells, until he finally opens a well that no
one else claims - and hence naming it "Rechovot" (see 26:22).
     So why does the Torah discuss such mundane issues?

PEACE & THE MIKDASH
     Ramban on 26:20-22 asks this very same question! He
claims that if we follow only the "pshat" of these stories,
they appear to carry very little significance. Instead, Ramban
claims that this story foreshadows future events ["maase Avot
siman la'banim"] that will take place in Jewish History -
relating to the first, second, and third Temples.
     In that commentary, Ramban suggests that the first two
wells (that concluded with strife) reflect the First and
Second Temples as they were ultimately destroyed, while the
third well (that concluded in peace) reflects our aspirations
for the Third Temple (that will never be destroyed).
     To support Rabman's interpretation that these wells are
'Temple related, we examine the events that take place in
chapter 26 in light of our thematic study thus far of Sefer
Breishit.
  Review 26:23-24, noting how immediately after these three
'well incidents', Yitzchak ascends to Be'er Sheva.  There, God
appears unto him, confirming his "bechira" (the blessing of
Avraham), but reminds him once again that it is for the 'sake
of Avraham'. In response to this "hitgalut" [revelation],
Yitzchak builds a MIZBAYACH and CALLS OUT in God's Name.
  The fact that Yitzchak 'calls out in God's Name' at this
time should not surprise us, as once again he is following in
his father's footsteps.  Recall how Avraham had done precisely
the same thing three times - twice at Bet-el (see 12:8 & 13:4)
and once at  Be'er Sheva (see 21:33). But why does he 'call
out in God's Name specifically at this time? [And why didn't
he do so earlier?]
  As Ramban himself explained in Parshat Lech L'cha (see
12:8), by 'calling out in God's Name', Avraham preached the
existence of God to the neighboring people - thus 'making a
Name for God'.  This in itself also foreshadowed Jewish
History, for the very purpose of God's choice of Avraham Avinu
- was to bring His Name to all mankind.
     So what took Yitzchak so long to act in a manner similar
to Avraham?  Seforno suggests that Yitzchak was actually
punished for not doing so earlier!  In his commentary to
Breishit 26:5, he explains that Yitzchak's troubles with the
Plishtim were caused because he was not actively 'calling out
in God's Name'.  It was only after he did so in Beer Sheva
that he became successful.  In fact, immediately after
Yitzchak builds his mizbayach, another well is dug without a
quarrel (see 26:25 and Seforno), and afterward Avimelech
himself offers to enter a covenant with Yitzchak, thus ending
all future quarrels.
     There remains however a small problem with Seforno's
interpretation, for Yitzchak had already achieved peace after
digging the third well - at Rechovot - which took place BEFORE
he calls out in God's Name in Beer Sheva.  According to
Seforno, it is not clear why he achieved this success
'prematurely'.

WHAT COMES FIRST?
     One could suggest a slightly different reason for why
Yitzchak did not 'call out in God's Name' until after digging
his third well.  Recall that even before these incidents with
the wells the Plishtim and Yitzchak did not get along so well.
[See 26:6-14, especially 26:14.]  It seems that they had
always been quite jealous of Yitzchak and his wealth.
     The backdrop, together with the serious disputes of the
first two wells can provide us with a different reason for why
Yitzchak had not 'called out in God's Name'.  The reason why
is simple - for there was no one would listen!  If your
neighbors don't like you, they won't be interested in your
opinions.
  It is only after peace is achieved - i.e. after digging the
third well, that Yitzchak feels the time is finally ripe to
ascend to Be'er Sheva to build a mizbayach and follow his
father's legacy of 'calling out in God's Name'.
  In other words, Yitzchak's troubles were not caused by the
fact that he didn't call out in God's Name, rather - it was
because he encountered so many troubles - he was unable to do
so!
  
  If our understanding is correct, then we can infer from
these events that before Am Yisrael can fulfill its ultimate
goal of building a Mikdash open for all mankind, it must first
attain a certain level of stability and normalized relations
with its neighbors. This 'prerequisite' can be inferred as
well from the Torah's commandment concerning when to build the
Bet Ha'mikdash as described in Sefer Devarim:
  "... and you shall cross the Jordan and settle the land...
  and He will grant you safety from your enemies and you will
  live in security, THEN you shall bring everything I command
  you to HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM - the place that God
  will choose to establish His NAME [i.e. the Bet ha'Mikdash]"
  (See Devarim 12:8-11)

     This prerequisite is actually quite logical, for if a
primary purpose of the Mikdash is to provide a vehicle by
which all nations can find God (see I Melachim 8:41-43!), then
it should only be built once we achieve the status of a nation
that other nations look up to. [See also Devarim 4:5-8!]
  [Of course, Bnei Yisrael need to have a MISHKAN - for their
  own connection with God - immediately after Matan Torah.
  However, the transition from a Mishkan to a Mikdash only
  takes place once Am Yisrael is ready to fulfill that role.]

     In the history of Bayit Rishon [the first Temple], this
is exactly the sequence of events. From the time of Yehoshua
until King David, there is only a Mishkan, for during this
time period, Am Yisrael never achieved peace with their
enemies, nor did they establish a prosperous state that other
nations could look up to. Only in the time of David did Am
Yisrael reach this level of prosperity, peace, and security -
and this is exactly when David ha'melech asks to build the
Mikdash (see II Shmuel 7:1-3 and note the phrase "acharei
asher haniyach Hashem m'kol oyveyhem m'saviv".).
  Despite that request, God agrees with David that there has
indeed been a tremendous improvement,  but nevertheless Am
Yisrael must wait one more generation until an even higher
level of peace and stability is reached before the Mikdash can
be built - i.e. only after Shlomo becomes king and both
internal and external peace is achieved. [Read carefully II
Shmuel 7:1-15.]
  [The popular reason given for why David could not build the
  Temple - because he had 'blood on his hands'- is not found
  in Sefer Shmuel, rather in Divrei Ha'yamim in David's
  conversation with Shlomo - but this is a topic for a future
  shiur. See I Divrei Ha'yamim 17:1-20, & 22:2-15!]

     In this sense, this sequence of events between Yitzchak
and the neighboring Plishtim may not only 'foreshadow' what
will happen in the future, but more significantly, it can
serve as guide to help us understand how we should prioritize
our goals and aspirations.

                              shabbat shalom,
                              menachem


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: toldot2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 38177 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081126/1f4d6abd/attachment-0002.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: toldot3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 23767 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081126/1f4d6abd/attachment-0003.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Nov 26 15:37:33 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:37:33 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Toldot -  Bracha or Bechira
Message-ID: <20081127033624.DA1885E05C9@out7.bezeqint.net>

This week's TSC shiurim are dedicated 
in memory of Chana Friedman :
(Chana bat Yaakov u'Devorah) A"H 
on her 13th yahrzeit"

PDF version of shiur attached

*************************************************************
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

       PARSHAT TOLDOT - ' the chosen son' / BRACHA or BECHIRA

     Are Yitzchak are Rivka playing 'favorites'?  Indeed, a
cursory reading of Parshat Toldot certainly leaves that
impression.
     Furthermore, why does Yitzchak choose to bless only one
of his children?  Would it have been so terrible had he
planned to bless both Esav and Yaakov?
     In the following shiur, we search for the deeper meaning
of these events.  To enable our discussion, we must first
consider the distinction between two concepts that we
encounter in Sefer Breishit - 'bechira' [choosing] and
'beracha' [blessing].

INTRODUCTION
     Our shiurim thus far on Sefer Breishit have focused on
its theme of "bechira" - i.e. God's designation of Avraham and
his offspring to become His special nation.  We made special
note of the numerous times that God had promised Avraham that
his offspring ('zera') would become a great nation in a
special land ('aretz').  Even though each promise added a
unique dimension to Avraham's destiny, they all shared an
element of the same phrase:
     "le-ZAR'ACHA natati et ha-ARETZ ha-zot...
     -  to your OFFSPRING, I have given this LAND."
                         [See 12:7, 13:15, 15:18, 17:8]

     However, despite these numerous blessings suggesting that
this nation will emerge from all of Avraham's offspring, God
later informs Avraham that specifically Sarah's son - Yitzchak
- to the exclusion of all other offspring - has been chosen to
fulfill this destiny:
  "For it is [only] through Yitzchak that there shall be
  called for you ZARA [your offspring]." (see 21:12)

     Parshat Toldot opens as God Himself confirms this
blessing of 'bechira' to Yitzchak, when He forbids him to
leave the land during a famine:
  "Reside in this land and I will bless you... for I will
  assign all this LAND to YOU and to YOUR OFFSPRING." (26:2-5)

     What will happen when Yitzchak has children?  Will only
ONE of his children be chosen, as was the case with Avraham,
or will ALL his offspring be chosen?
     Considering that the reason for God's 'bechira'
(selection) of Avraham was for his offspring to become a
NATION (see 12:1-2), obviously this 'filtering' process of
choosing only ONE son over the others could not continue
forever.  Should only one 'favorite son' be chosen in each
generation, obviously - a nation could never develop.  Sooner
or later, this 'filtering process' must end, and an entire
family must be chosen.
     Thanks to our 20/20 hindsight, we know that this process
ends after THREE generations (Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov).
However, the Avot themselves may have been unaware of when
this 'bechira' process was to end.
     Let's consider this possibility in regard to Yitzchak.

ALL IN THE FAMILY
     A priori, Yitzchak has no reason to assume that only ONE
son would be chosen and the other rejected. Unlike Yitzchak
and Yishmael, who had DIFFERENT mothers, both Yaakov and Esav
are born from the same mother.  What more, they are twins!
     Therefore, it is only logical for Yitzchak to assume that
BOTH Yaakov and Esav will join the 'chosen family'.
      Furthermore, even if there is some divine reason to
choose only one son, it should be GOD's choice and NOT
Yitzchak's! After all, God alone had been involved in this
BECHIRA process heretofore.  He had chosen Avraham and He
alone had chosen Yitzchak over Yishmael.  Without a specific
divine command, why would Yitzchak even consider making such a
bold decision?

     Thus, it would only be logical to assume that Yitzchak
believed that all of his children were chosen, and hence both
Yaakov and Esav would be chosen - and their offspring would
become the nation of Israel.
  So why does Yitzchak intend to bless only ONE of them?

'BRACHA' OR 'BECHIRA'?
     To answer this question, we must differentiate between
TWO basic types of blessings found in Sefer Breishit.  For the
sake of clarity, we will refer to one as BECHIRA and the other
as BRACHA.  Let's explain what each word refers to:

BECHIRA*
     We use the term BECHIRA (selection) to describe God's
blessing of 'ZERA va-ARETZ' to the Avot, the privilege of
fathering God's special nation.  BECHIRA implies that only one
son is chosen while the others are rejected.  As we explained,
this process began with God's designation of Avraham Avinu and
continued with His choice of Yitzchak over Yishmael.  It is
not clear, however, when this bechira process will end.

'BRACHA'
     We will use the term BRACHA to describe a father's
blessing of personal destiny to his sons.  For example, when
Noach bestows a BRACHA on each of his three sons (see 9:24-
27), he does not choose one son over the others to become a
special nation - rather, he blesses (or curses) each son based
on their individual potential.
     The best example of BRACHA (in contrast to BECHIRA) is
Yaakov Avinu's blessings to his twelve sons prior to his
death, in Parshat Vayechi (see 49:1-28).  Clearly, Yaakov does
not choose one or several of his children to become God's
special nation.  Rather, he bestows a blessing of personal
destiny upon each son, according to his understanding of each
son's individual character and potential (see 49:28).
     Thus, according to these definitions - BRACHA is bestowed
by a father, while BECHIRA is established by God.

     The following diagram illustrates the primary points of
our discussion thus far:

n=3          BECHIRA [by God]
             =======
      \      AVRAHAM    /
        \      |      / Yishmael rejected
          \ YITZHAK /
            \  |  /    Eisav - rejected
             YAAKOV
            /   12  \
          /  TRIBES   \ [blessings by father]
        /               \
             BRACHA [by the father]
             =======

     The above diagram reflects the final outcome of the
bechira' process - that there were THREE stages, God original
choice of Avraham Avinu (#1); his subsequent choice Yitzchak
(#2) - to the exclusion of Yishmael; and his choice of Yaakov
(#3) over Eisav.  Once Yaakov has been chosen, we reach a
'critical point' - where ALL of his children are chosen, and
hence the 'bechira' process is complete.  At this point, the
father bestows 'blessings' on his children, which reflect the
interrelationships among the different tribes - but all
'within the chosen family'.

  Using an analogy from 'algebra', one could say that in this
diagram n=3, where the variable 'n' refers to the number of
stages in the "bechira" process.  In our shiur, we will claim
that Yitzchak assumes that n=-2, i.e. that there were supposed
to be only two stages in this process - Avraham & Yitzchak;
and hence both of his children would be chosen, and plans to
bless both.
  
  The following diagram reflects what may have been Yitzchak's
understanding [n=2]:
  
n=2        BECHIRA [by God]
           =======
       \            /
         \ AVRAHAM/
           \  |  / Yishmael rejected
           YITZCHAK
          /   2   \
        /  TRIBES   \ [blessings by father]
       /              \
           BRACHA [by the father]
           =======

YITZCHAK'S BRACHA TO ESAV
     With this distinction in mind, we return to our opening
question regarding the kind of blessing that Yitzchak intends
to bestow upon Esav.  Is it a blessing of BRACHA or BECHIRA?
     Considering that Yitzchak has no apparent reason to
choose only one son, we should expect that his intended
blessing to Esav was one of BRACHA (and not BECHIRA).

     To determine if this assumption is indeed correct, let's
examine the content of the actual blessing that Yitzchak
bestowed - intended for Esav but deceptively seized by Yaakov:
     "May God give you of the dew of heaven
     and the FAT of the land,
     and an abundance of GRAIN and WINE.
     Other nations shall SERVE you and bow down to you;
     be MASTER over your brother,
     and let your mother's sons bow down to you ..."
                                   (27:28-29)

     Note how this blessing focuses on prosperity and
leadership, and hence would fall under our category of BRACHA.
It cannot be BECHIRA, as it does NOT contain the phrase of
'ZERA va-ARETZ'.  In fact, this blessing strongly resembles
the blessings of prosperity and leadership which Yaakov
himself later bestows upon Yehuda (see 49:8) and Yosef (see
49:25-26).

     But if indeed if this is a blessing of BRACHA, why does
Yitzchak (intend to) bestow this blessing only on Esav?  Would
it not have made sense had he blessed both sons?

THE RIGHT MAN FOR THE JOB
     As we posited above, Yitzchak expects that both his
children will be chosen.  Realizing that this nation (that
will ultimately evolve from his two sons) will require
leadership, Yitzchak must first appoint one of his sons to
take family leadership; afterward he can bless the other. But
which son should he choose for this responsibility?
     One could suggest that Yitzchak concluded that Esav - the
"ish sadeh" [a 'man of the world' (see 25:27)] - was the more
suitable candidate for this job.  Let's explain why:
  Yaakov & Esav are over sixty years old - Esav is married
with children, has a job, and can thus care for himself (and
for others).  Yaakov, on the other hand, is still single and
'living at home'.  It is readily understandable, then, why
Yitzchak chooses Esav to become the family provider and
leader.

     We can even presume that Yitzchak had a blessing in store
for Yaakov as well - most probably one that involves spiritual
leadership.  Yaakov - the "ish tam yoshev ohalim," a man of
the book (see 25:27) - can provide the family with spiritual
guidance.
  [This 'theoretical blessing' to Yaakov resembles the
  ultimate responsibility of shevet Levi (see Devarim 33:10).]
  However, without FIRST establishing a nation (with the help
  of Esav), there would be no one around for Yaakov to guide.
  ]
  
     The fact that Yitzchak had called upon Esav to receive
his blessing FIRST, does not rule out the possibility that he
may have intended to bless Yaakov afterward.  Note that in
Parshat Vayechi, Yaakov FIRST blesses Yosef - bestowing upon
him family leadership- before proceeding to bless all twelve
children.

     So what went wrong?  Why does Rivka intervene?  Why must
Yaakov 'steal' Esav's BRACHA?  Or, to put it more bluntly, is
Rivka simply standing up for her 'favorite son' or did she
perceive the situation differently?
     To answer this question, we must return to the beginning
of the Parsha.

RIVKA KNOWS BEST
     Apparently, Rivka knows something that Yitzchak doesn't.
Recall that Rivka suffered from an unusually difficult
pregnancy and seeks God for an explanation (see 25:22).
     Note how God's answer to HER (and not to Yitzchak!)
already alludes to the fact that the BECHIRA process has not
yet ended:
  "And God answered HER saying: There are TWO NATIONS in your
  womb, and TWO SEPARATE PEOPLES shall issue from your body.
  One people shall be mightier than the other, and the older
  shall serve the YOUNGER."  (25:23)

     Rivka here learns that her twins are destined to become
TWO NATIONS, and as such, only ONE - the younger one (see
25:23, "ve-rav ya'avod tza'ir") - can be chosen. Thus, Rivka
knows that YAAKOV is destined to receive the BECHIRA, and not
Esav.  Or using our analogy, she knows that n=3, or at least
3.
  Yitzchak, however, is unaware of this prophecy.  [Note
25:23: "va-yomer Hashem LAH" - to HER, and not to him!]

     It is unclear why Rivka never informs Yitzchak of this
prophecy.  She may assume that Yitzchak also knows, and only
later realizes that he doesn't (see Ramban 27:4).
Alternatively, the very fact that she was privy to this
special prophecy may have led her the logical conclusion that
God wanted specifically ONLY HER to know, and NOT Yitzchak.
  However, whatever the reason may be, each parent has a
different perception of their children's destiny as they grow
up.  Yitzchak ASSUMES that both Yaakov and Esav are chosen,
while Rivka KNOWS that it will only be Yaakov, but cannot
share he secret. The day will come, she may assume, when she
will ultimately understand why God has given her this
information

RIVKA'S DILEMMA
     After overhearing Yitzchak's intention to bless Esav
(27:5), Rivka now faces a serious dilemma:
*    Does Yitzchak plan to bless Esav with the BECHIRA (or
that God should grant him the BECHIRA)?  If so, she must act
quickly, as the future of "Am Yisrael" rests on her shoulders.
 *   Does Yitzchak think that BOTH children are chosen?  Is he
giving a BRACHA of leadership to Esav?  The result of this
blessing could be no less disastrous!
 *   Can Rivka just tell Yitzchak that he is making a mistake?
Is it too late?  Will he listen?  Would he be willing now,
after so many years, to change his perception?
     Rivka has limited time to act, yet feels responsible to
the prophecy she had received and hence obligated to rectify
the situation.  In her eyes, this may have been the very
reason why God had originally granted her this information.
Unfortunately, however, Rivka must resort to trickery to
ensure that Yaakov receives the blessing.
     Now that we have explained Rivka's course of action, we
must explain Yitzchak's, as the plot thickens.

YITZCHAK'S BLESSINGS
     After Yitzchak grants Yaakov (whom he thought was Esav) a
BRACHA of prosperity and leadership, the real Esav arrives and
begs his father for another blessing (see 27:34,36).
Yitzchak's initial response is that the special blessing
intended for Esav (prosperity and power) had already been
given to Yaakov (27:35,37).  Hence, Esav cannot receive any
other BRACHA, since the BRACHA of spirituality, originally
intended for Yaakov, would be unsuitable for Esav.  However,
after Esav pleads with his father, Yitzchak grants Esav a
different BRACHA of prosperity.
  "And Isaac his father answered and said: Behold, of the fat
  places of the earth shall be thy dwelling, and of the dew of
  heaven from above;  And by your sword you shall live and
  serve your brother; but should you [or him /see Rashi] fall,
  then you shall shake his yoke from off thy neck."  (27:39-
  40)

  In light of our above interpretation, this second blessing
is quite understandable.  Let's explain why.
     Review this blessing "[tal ha-shamayim u-shmanei ha-
aretz" (27:38-39)], noting how it speaks of prosperity in a
manner very similar to the first blessing.  This makes sense,
because 'prosperity' can be shared by both brothers.
However, the second half of the original blessing - that of
political leadership ("hevei gvir le-achicha - see 27:29) -
can only be given to one son.  Yitzchak therefore blesses Esav
that - should Yaakov's leadership falter - he shall take his
place (see 27:40 & Rashi).
     At this point of the story, it appears that Yitzchak
still understands that both sons will be chosen.  When does he
find out the 'truth' that the 'bechira' process is not over
yet?

CLEARING THE AIR
     Even though the Torah never reveals the details, it would
be safe to assume that Rivka must have finally explained her
actions to Yitzchak after this incident.  Upon hearing the
details of God's earlier prophecy to Rivka, Yitzchak finally
realizes that only ONE son, Yaakov, is to be chosen.  [Using
our analogy, he now realizes that n=3.]  To his dismay, he
must now accept the fact that the BECHIRA process must
continue into yet another generation.
     This explains the final blessing that Yitzchak grants
Yaakov, before he embarks on his journey to Padan Aram (in
search of a wife).  Review this blessing, noting how it
obviously relates directly to the blessing of BECHIRA:
  "May God grant the BLESSING OF AVRAHAM [i.e. BECHIRA] to you
  and your OFFSPRING, that you may inherit the LAND which
  Elokim has given to Avraham..." (28:4).

     Note once again the key phrase - "zera va-aretz" - of the
BECHIRA blessing!  In contrast to the BRACHA of prosperity and
power discussed earlier, this blessing involves the familiar
concept of God's special NATION inheriting a special LAND.
Clearly, Yitzchak now understands that the 'bechira' process
is not over yet.

     Note as well that Yitzchak does not actually grant this
blessing to Yaakov, rather he blesses him that God should
grant him the 'bechira' - "ve-Kel Sha-kai yevarech otcha..."
(28:4).  As we explained earlier in our shiur, the 'bechira'
process is God's decision.  Yitzchak is now 'rooting' for
Yaakov that God should grant him the BECHIRA, but that
decision must ultimately be confirmed by God - and that's
exactly what takes place a few psukim later, at the beginning
of Parshat Vayetze!  (see 28:12-14)

MA'ASEH AVOT, SIMAN LA-BANIM
     Despite our 'technical' explanation for Yitzchak and
Rivka's behavior in this Parsha, a more fundamental question
remains: Why must the BECHIRA process be so complex?  In other
words, why is it that at the very inception of our national
history, trickery must be employed for us to arrive to our
divine destiny?
     Or re-phrased in terms of our shiur - why does God want
Yitzchak to think that n=2, while telling Rivka that n=3.  It
appears that God wanted these events to unfold in this manner!
     Although this is a very difficult question to answer, one
could suggest that this entire episode may carry an important
message concerning how the spiritual goals of our nation
relate to the necessities of entering the physical world of
prosperity and political leadership.

     Indeed, to become a nation, there are times when the
'aggressive' qualities of an Esav type individual are needed.
However, there is a popular notion that these physical
responsibilities should be delegated to the 'ish sadeh', the
son who is expert in the physical realm, but ONLY in that
realm [the 'chiloni' son].  Similarly, the spiritual realm
should be delegated to the Yaakov type individual, the
delicate 'ish tam' who knows only how to study in the tents of
Torah [the 'dati' son].
  Yitzchak's original intention to bless Esav may reflect this
notion, as Esav will be the provider, 'serve in the army', and
enter the political realm; while Yaakov will dedicate his life
immersed in the tents of Torah.  Separating these
responsibilities between two sons may reflect the notion that
spirituality cannot be found in the physical world of
establishing a nation.
     To negate this notion, despite its simplicity and logic,
the Torah presents it as Yitzchak's original plan.  However,
the other option (possibly Rivka's original plan), that Yaakov
- the 'ish tam' - alone can manage both realms remains equally
unacceptable.
     At the time of these 'brachot', Yaakov himself is not yet
ready to take on the responsibilities of the 'ish sadeh', but
sooner or later it will become incumbent upon him to do so.
To establish God's special nation, there are times when it is
necessary for the 'ish tam' to take on the responsibilities of
the 'ish sadeh'.
  To solve this 'dialectic', it was necessary for Yaakov to
first don the 'hands of Esav', i.e. to pretend to act like
Esav, but not actually become an Esav.  It remains significant
that the primal character of Am Yisrael is that of Yaakov, the
'ish tam'.
  
  If this interpretation is correct, then we can better
appreciate why Yaakov must endure so much hardship during his
twenty some years in Charan.  Before God can bestow on him the
'bechira' - to become the final stage of this complex process,
Yaakov must learn to become an "ish sadeh", while remaining an
"ish tam".  Not only will he need to learn how to deal with
the trickery of Lavan, upon his return to Eretz Yisrael,
Yaakov must finally confront the 'angel of Esav', and later
Esav himself, to prove that he is indeed worthy of that
leadership task. That battle may leave him 'limping',
nonetheless triumphant; as he has learned the proper balance
between these two character traits.
  
     Even though many situations in our history will arise
when we must don the 'hands of Esav' - i.e. when we must act
as an 'ish sadeh' - our dominant trait must always remain that
of an 'ish tam'.  For when God provides Am Yisrael with
prosperity and political leadership, it is towards the purpose
that they serve mankind with personal example and spiritual
guidance.
     Throughout our history, even though we must periodically
'don the hands of Esav', our voice must always remain 'the
voice of Yaakov' [see 27:22]!

                              shabbat shalom
                              menachem

===========
FOR FURTHER IYUN

A.  See Ramban (on 27:4), noting how he would bascially
disagree with the entire approach presented in the above
shiur.  From the very beginning, he understands that
Yitzchak's intention is to bless Esav with the BECHIRA.
1.  How does Ramban understand why Rivka doesn't tell Yitzchak
about her nevua?  How, if at all, does this affect his
understanding of the entire parsha?
2.  With which basic assumption of the above shiur does Ramban
disagree?
3.  Does Ramban (see 27:28) find any hint to "zera va-aretz"
in Yitzchak's first bracha to Yaakov/Esav?
4.  How does Rashi understand this sugya?
5.  Try to relate this issue to the klal of MA'ASEH AVOT,
SIMAN LA-BANIM.  [Iy"H, this will be the topic of a future
shiur.]
6.  See also Radak on 27:4, noting how he explains that
Yitzchak knew all along that Yaakov would receive the
'bechira'.  Nonetheless, he still wanted to grant Esav a
'bracha'.

B.  Towards the beginning of the Parsha, Esav sells his
birthright to Yaakov and makes a striking statement:
   "Hinei anochi holeich lamut, ve-lama zeh li bchora?"
  Esav seems very practical.  He sees no reason to have the
'bchora', as he lives only for the present with no dreams or
goals for the future.

1.  Relate this to the above shiur and the reason why Esav is
rejected.

2.  Could it be that this attitude, a lack of appreciation of
his destiny and purpose, leads to his ultimate rejection?

3.  Can this explain why Yaakov is interested in buying the
birthright?

4.  Does Yitzchak know about this incident?  If so (or even if
not), how may this affect the blessing that he later intended
to give his children?

C.  The blessing of BECHIRA to Yaakov in 28:3-5 contains
several key phrases found in earlier blessings to Avraham
Avinu.  Try to find these parallels.
1.  Are most of them from the parsha Brit Mila? (see Breishit
17:1-10).
     If so, can you explain why?  [What additional message did
Avraham receive after Brit Mila?]
2. When did Hashem actually confirm this blessing?  (See 35:9-13!)



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: toldot1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 115542 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081126/fdb9034b/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Dec  3 08:25:01 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 08:25:01 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Vayetze - shiur
Message-ID: <20081203132412.B283A288E4@out6.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

          PARSHAT VAYETZE  - Yaakov's Neder

	Is it acceptable for one to doubt a divine promise?
    Certainly, if God makes a promise, we'd expect Him to keep it!
    Why then does Yaakov Avinu vow to worship God only IF (and when) God
fulfills His promise to return him to the Promised Land?  [See 28:20-22.]
	Furthermore, why should Yaakov make a "neder" (vow) at all?  After
all, neither Avraham nor Yitzchak ever made any sort of conditional vow
after receiving their divine promises!
	Why is Yaakov's behavior different? 
	In this week's shiur, as we study God's "hitgalut" (revelation) to
Yaakov at Bet-El, we attempt to explain why.  

INTRODUCTION
 	Our shiurim thus far in Sefer Breishit have discussed the 'bechira'
process, i.e. how (and why) God chooses the Avot to become the forefathers
of His special nation.  We have shown how an additional element of this
process unfolds with each time that God appeared (and spoke) to Avraham &
Yitzchak. 
	Now, at the beginning of Parshat Vayetze, God's appears for the
first time to Yaakov Avinu (see 28:10-17), promising him what sounds like
the very same thing that He promised Avraham and Yitzchak.  Nonetheless,
Yaakov's reaction to this 'hitgalut' differs drastically from that of his
predecessors. 
	To understand why, we must first consider Yaakov's predicament
before God appears to him at Bet-El.

SOMETHING TO LOSE SLEEP OVER
	Recall from last week's shiur that the Avot themselves were not
quite sure exactly WHEN or HOW this 'bechira' process would finally end.  In
Parshat Toldot it did become clear that the process would continue for at
least one more generation: i.e. either Yaakov OR Esav would be chosen, but
not both.  Therefore, after the incident of the 'stolen blessings', Yitzchak
blesses Yaakov that God should grant him with "birkat Avraham" (see 28:3-4),
expressing is hope that Yaakov (to the exclusion of Esav) should become that
'chosen son'.
	However, albeit his father's blessing, Yaakov may have had ample
reason to doubt if he was indeed to become the chosen son.  Let's explain
why:
	First of all, only the day before, his father had planned to give
the primary blessing to his older brother Esav.  Secondly, Yaakov's parents
had just sent him AWAY from Eretz Canaan - to flee from Esav and look for a
wife (see 27:43-28:2).  Now if Yaakov is truly the chosen son, then it
should be forbidden for him to leave Eretz Canaan, just as it was forbidden
for his father Yitzchak to leave.
[Recall that during the famine, God did not allow Yitzchak to go down to
Egypt (see 26:1-3).  Likewise, when Yitzchak was getting married, Eliezer
traveled to Padan Aram to bring Rivka back - Yitzchak himself was not
allowed to go.]

	Furthermore, when Yishmael, as well as Avraham's children from
Ketura, were rejected from the 'bechira' process, they were sent away to the
EAST (see 25:6).   Now, Yaakov himself is being sent away to the EAST (see
29:1); while Esav, his rival brother, remains in Eretz Canaan!
	Finally, even though his father had blessed him 'that God should
chose him', nevertheless, Yaakov realizes that it is up to God alone to make
that final decision, and not his father.

	For all or any of these reasons, it is easy to understand why Yaakov
may have needed some 'divine reassurance' before embarking on his journey to
Padan Aram!
    With these points in mind, we begin our study.

YAAKOV HAS A DREAM
	As you review 28:10-15, note how Yaakov's dream begins with a vision
[of God's angels ascending and descending a ladder /28:12] - followed by a
direct message from God (28:13-15).  Let's study that message - one pasuk at
a time - to show how it relates to Yaakov's current predicament:
"I am the Lord, the God of Avraham and Yitzchak, the land upon which you are
lying; I am giving to you and your offspring" (28:13)

	Note how God begins his message by first 'introducing Himself' to
Yaakov as the 'God of Avraham and Yitzchak', and not as the 'Creator of
Heaven & Earth'.  This makes sense, for we can assume that Yaakov was very
aware of God's existence as well as His promise of "bechira" to his father
and grandfather.  [Note especially 17:7-12 and 18:19!]
	As God had never spoken to Yaakov before, the very first thing God
must do is 'identify' Himself in a manner that is meaningful to Yaakov -
i.e. as the God of his fathers.

'BECHIRA' CONFIRMATION 
    Then, God immediately informs Yaakov that he is indeed the 'chosen' son,
using the almost identical wording that He had told Avraham: 
"... the land ['aretz'] upon which you are lying I have given to you and
your offspring ['zera'].  And your offspring will be like the dust of the
earth, and you shall spread out [in all four directions]. and through you
all the nations of the earth shall be blessed" (see 28:13-14).

	Note the use of the key words - 'zera' (offspring) and 'aretz' (the
Land).  These are certainly typical of God's earlier blessings of 'bechira'
to Avraham and Yitzchak (see 12:7, 13:15, 15:18, 17:8 & 26:3), and thus
confirm Yaakov's 'bechira'.  Note as well the key phrase emphasizing the
purpose of God's nation - 'to be a blessing for other nations! 
[The significance of the phrase 'afar ha-aretz' [dust of the earth] will be
discussed in Part Two of this week's shiur.]

DIVINE RE-ASSURANCE
	While the first two psukim of this 'hitgalut' sound very familiar,
the third and final pasuk introduces an entirely new element:
	"And behold, I will be with you, and I will protect you wherever you
go and bring you back to this Land..."
								(28:15).

	This 'extra' promise clearly relates to our earlier discussion of
Yaakov's predicament.  God must allay his fears by assuring him that EVEN
THOUGH he must now leave Eretz Canaan, He will remain with him, take care of
his needs, and ultimately bring him back - BECAUSE he indeed is the 'chosen'
son.

YAAKOV'S REACTION [or REALIZATION]
	Upon awakening from this dream, Yaakov not only recognizes the
uniqueness of this site, but also makes an interesting statement:
"And Yaakov awoke and stated: 'Indeed God is in this place, but I did not
know'.  Then in awe he stated: 'This [site] is none other than a BET ELOKIM
[a house of God], and this is the gate of heaven" (28:16-17).

	Yaakov's conclusion re: the uniqueness of this site is obviously
based on the fact that God had just appeared to him.  Furthermore, his
conclusion that "v'zeh sha'ar ha-shamayim" - this is the gateway to heaven -
is clearly based on his vision of angels ascending and descending the
ladder. However, there doesn't appear to be any obvious reason for Yaakov to
conclude that this place is a 'bet Elokim' - a house of (or for) God!  After
all, there was nothing in his vision to suggest that he saw a 'house' of any
sort.
	The simplest answer would be to connect the two halves of Yaakov's
statement.  Namely, the very fact that this site is a 'gateway to heaven'
renders it an appropriate place for a 'House of God'.  However, Yaakov
refers to the site first as 'Bet Elokim' and only afterward "sha'ar
ha-shamayim".  Furthermore, a careful reading of the pasuk shows that these
two qualities stand on their own: "This is none other than Bet Elokim, AND
this is sha'ar ha-shamayim."  The fact that Yaakov divides his comment into
two distinct sections suggests that he has reached two unrelated
conclusions. 
	Did Yaakov see some sort of 'bet Elokim' in his dream? Or possibly,
is he making a 'prediction' that one day a 'bet Elokim' will be built here?
At this point in the narrative, it remains difficult to reach any definite
conclusion.  However, a careful study of what Yaakov does next will clarify
the deeper meaning of his statement. 
	To show how, let's take a careful look at what Yaakov does that next
morning:
"And Yaakov rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put
at his head, and set it up for a pillar ['matzeyva'], and poured oil upon
the top of it.
Then he called the name of that place Bet-el [even though the original name
of this city was Luz]."  (28:18-19)

	Why does Yaakov erect a "matzeyva", pour oil on it, and name this
site Bet-el?  In these actions, Yaakov is acting in a manner very different
than his forefathers.  Recall that after God had spoken to Avraham and
Yitzchak, they both reacted by building a "mizbeyach" (an altar / see 12:7 &
26:24-25) - but neither Avraham nor Yitzchak ever put up a 'pillar'!  Nor
did Avraham or Yitzchak ever name cities in Israel!
	As before, at this point in the narrative, it remains difficult to
reach any definite conclusion concerning why Yaakov is doing so many
different things.  However, a careful study of what Yaakov does next will
clarify the purpose of all of his actions.
 
YAAKOV'S NEDER
	After taking these actions (in 28:18-19), Yaakov makes a vow.  Note
the wording of his promise and how he concludes his vow:
"And Yaakov then made a vow saying:
IF God remains with me and protects me... And I return safely to my father's
house...
 => Then this stone, which I have set up as a matzeyva, will be a bet Elokim
- a House for God - and from all that You give me I will set aside
one-tenth"   (see 28:20-22).

    By following the 'if' & 'then' clauses of his vow, it becomes rather
clear why Yaakov had set up this pillar (in 28:18) - it was simply in
preparation for his vow that he plans to make (see 28:22), as that pillar
will serve as the cornerstone of a House for God that Yaakov now promises to
establish upon his return.  To symbolically designate this site, his
preparation (in 28:18-19) included anointing the pillar with oil; and as a
statement of his intention - Yaakov names the site Bet-El - which basically
means that this site will be a 'House for God'. 
    In other words, all of Yaakov's actions in 28:18-19 reflect his resolve
to build a house for God, and hence serve as the preparation for his vow in
28:20-22.
    
    Now we must return to our original question, i.e. what was it in
Yaakov's dream that prompted him to make this 'neder' [vow] to build a house
for God?
    To answer this question, we must return to re-examine Yaakov's immediate
reaction to his dream.

A PREDICTION - or A RESOLUTION!
	Recall the difficulty that we encountered when trying to understand
Yaakov's statement (after awakening from his dream) that 'this site is none
other than the House of God' (in 28:17) - for there was nothing in his
vision suggesting that he saw God's house, nor any obvious reason from him
to predict its future existence at that site.
    But now that we have seen Yaakov's ensuing 'neder' - his earlier
statement of "ein ze ki im bet Elokim' (28:17) becomes most significant -
for now we see that Yaakov was not making a prediction - rather he was
stating his resolve! 
    In other words, Yaakov's reaction to his dream was not merely a
statement of what he saw and felt, but rather a declaration of his future
intention - to build a House for God - and specifically at this site. 
    This now explains everything that Yaakov does after awakening from his
vision.
1) He states his resolve to build a 'bet Elokim' at this site (based on what
he saw /see 28:16-17), then:
2) He sets a 'marker' to remember this precise location (upon his return
/see 28:18); then 
3) He anoints that pillar with oil (see 28:18), symbolically designating its
future purpose (compare Bamidbar 7:1 - noting how the Mishkan was also
anointed with oil!); then:
4) He names the site 'Bet El', once again, reflecting his intention to
return one day and build a House for God (28:19); and finally
5) Makes his vow to build this 'Bet Elokim' upon his successful return from
Charan (see 28:20-22)

    Even though we can now explain what Yaakov does, we still need an
explanation for why he makes this resolution.  In other words, we must try
to figure out what was it that Yaakov saw (or heard) in that vision that
prompted his sudden resolve to build a House for God.  Secondly, we must
also explain why Yaakov makes his resolution so 'conditional'.
	To answer these questions, we must return once again to consider
Yaakov's current predicament, in contrast to the lives of Avraham and
Yitzchak. 

WHY YAAKOV IS DIFFERENT
	In the lives of Avraham and Yitzchak, being 'chosen' was much more
than a 'one-way' relationship.  After being told by God he was chosen,
Avraham responded by building a "mizbeyach" and 'calling out in God's name'
(see 12:6-8, 13:4).  
	Similarly, after God spoke to Yitzchak at Beer Sheva - re-iterating
the blessing, he too built a "mizbeyach" and called out in God's Name.
	This 'calling out in God's Name' - as Ramban explains - was how the
Avot tried to 'make a name for God' by preaching his existence and by
setting an example of the highest moral behavior (see Ramban on 12:8 and
26:5, see also Seforno on 26:5).  This also foreshadowed the ultimate
mission of God's special nation - acting as a model nation to make God's
Name known to all mankind. 
	Certainly, we would expect Yaakov to act in a similar manner.
	In fact, in this opening 'hitgalut' to Yaakov, in addition to the
promise of 'zera v'aretz', God emphasizes the same key phrase:
"...v'nivrachu b'cha - kol mishpachot ha'adama"  - that through you (and
your offspring) there will be a blessing to all nations - the same phrase
that He had emphasized when He first spoke to both Avraham and Yitzchak!
[To confirm this, see 12:2-3 and 26:3-4, and compare with 28:13-14!] 
	Furthermore, when God explains His purpose for choosing Avraham and
his offspring (see 18:18-19), we find once again that the emphasis is
precisely on this phrase:
"For Avraham will surely become a great nation ['goy gadol' -compare 12:2) -
and through him all nations will be blessed. For I have come to know him in
order [for the purpose] that he will command his children... and they will
keep the way of God - to do 'tzedek u'mishpat' [justice and righteousness] -
in order to [fulfill the purpose] of what God had spoken about Avraham [that
he would become a great nation]" (see 18:18-19) 
		[See this phrase also in 22:18, after the Akeyda!]

	God reiterates this point to each of the Avot, for the goal of
"ve-nivrechu becha kol mishpachot ha-adama" reflects the ultimate purpose of
this bechira process.  
    In this sense, God's opening 'hitgalut' to Yaakov emphasizes not only
his being the 'chosen son' [='bechira'], but also its purpose.
	Therefore, when Yaakov receives this blessing from God, he is
immediately inspired to act in same manner as Yitzchak and Avraham.
However, his present predicament does not allow him - for he is now running
away (penniless) from his brother who wants to kill him!  He cannot build a
"mizbeyach" (he doesn't have anything to offer on it!); nor can he call out
in God's Name (no one is around to listen!).  

    Nevertheless, because he understands the deeper meaning of his 'bechira'
- he immediately states his absolute resolve that when he returns to Eretz
Canaan, and achieves a status where he too can 'make a Name for God' - he
too will attempt to accomplish this goal. In fact, he is so inspired that he
plans to elevate 'calling out in God's Name' to a higher level - by
establishing not only an altar, but rather a 'House' for God!
[To see how a 'House for God' will make God's Name great, see Melachim Aleph
8:14-20, 8:40-42 & 10:1.  See also Divrei Ha'yamim Aleph 22:5-7!]

WHY CONDITIONAL?
	Now that we have explained both what Yaakov does, and why he does
it; we are left with one last question - If Yaakov is so inspired to build
this House for God, why does he makes this promise 'conditional'!  Let's
first explain this question.
	Recall how Yaakov prefaces his promise to establish this 'matzeyva'
as a 'Bet Elokim' with the condition: "If God will be with me, and take care
of me, etc.".  Why can't Yaakov simply state that he's going to do it - no
matter what!
	To answer this question, let's examine the 'conditions' of Yaakov's
'neder' - to determine their underlying reason.
	"And Yaakov then made a vow saying:
	1) IF God remains with me, 
	2) and He protects me on this journey, on which I embark,
	3) and gives me bread to eat and clothes to wear.
	4) And I return safely to my father's house,
	5) and [or then?] Hashem will be my God.
6) [THEN] this stone, which I have set up as a monument, 
    will be a Bet Elokim, and I pledge 10%... (see 28:20-22).

    Even though it is unclear where precisely the IF clause ends and the
THEN clause begins (see Part Two below), the first four clauses are clearly
all conditions, for they are almost identical to God's re-assurance to
Yaakov that He will take care of his needs (during his stay in Charan) :
"And behold, I will be with you (1), and I will protect you wherever you go
(2) and bring you back to this Land (4)..." 
[See 28:15, see also Rashi on 28:20, where he 'matches' them up more
precisely.  See also Ramban on 28:21.]

	As you review these psukim once again (i.e. by comparing 28:20-22
with 28:15-17), note how the IF clauses in Yaakov's vow are based on God's
REVELATION (in 28:15), while the THEN clause is based on what Yaakov state
in his REALIZATION (in 28:16-17).    
[Note that based on our analysis, the psukim (28:12-22) can be divided as
follows: God's REVELATION (in 28:12-15), followed by Yaakov's REALIZATION
(in 28:16-17), which prompt Yaakov's RESOLUTION (in 28:18-22).]

IF, OR WHEN
	As indeed these 'conditions' are simply a repeat of God's
re-assurances, one could suggest that Yaakov may not be doubting God at all,
nor setting any conditions!  Rather, before stating his resolution, he is
simply explaining why he has to wait - for before he can build this 'Bet
Elokim', and to enable the fulfillment of his vow, God will need to first
keep His promise to help him return. 
	Recall, that the word "im" in Hebrew can also mean 'when' (and not
exclusively 'if' / see Rashi on Shmot 22:24).  
    Hence, if we understand Yaakov's opening statement of "im" as when, then
Yaakov may simply be stating that: WHEN God fulfills His promises (in
28:15), then he will be in the position to build this Bet Elokim (and thus
help 'make a Name for God)'. 
	If so, then Yaakov is certainly not a 'doubter' - rather he's
inspired 'dreamer'!
	In fact, we can learn a very important lesson for the future from
Yaakov's actions.  Just as Yaakov had great aspirations, but could not
fulfill them due to his difficult predicament; so too the people of Israel
may face historical situations when they find themselves unable to fulfill
their lofty goals.
    Nevertheless, they must remain committed to those goals, and find
meaningful ways to remember them during times of peril; and hence become
worthy of redemption.  

DOES YAAKOV FULFILL HIS VOW?
	If you remember what transpires in Parshat Vayishlach, you may be
wondering now why Yaakov doesn't build that Bet Elokim upon his return to
Eretz Canaan.  Well, that's not only a question for Parshat Vayishlach,
that's what a good part of Parshat Va'yishlach is going to be all about!  To
be discussed in next week's shiur! 
     Till then,

					shabbat shalom,
					menachem

Below - you'll find below some short discussions on additional topics
relating to the above shiur

PART TWO  - RELATED TOPICS
===============

A. THE TWO PARTS OF YAAKOV'S NEDER
    A CONDITION OR A PROMISE?

	Review 28:20-22 and take note of how the 'neder' divides into two
parts:
	1) a CONDITION - IF... ; followed by:
	2) a PROMISE (i.e. the vow) - THEN...

	It is unclear, however, where the IF clause ends and the THEN clause
begins.  Let's take a look:
	"And Yaakov then made a vow saying:
	1) IF God remains with me, 
	2) and He protects me on this journey, on which I embark,
	3) and gives me bread to eat and clothes to wear.
	4) And I return safely to my father's house,
	5) and [or then?] Hashem will be my God.
	6) And [or then?] this stone, which I have set up as a
monument, will be a BET ELOKIM
	7) and from all that You give me I will set aside one-tenth"
							(28:20-22).

	The first four clauses are clearly part of the CONDITION, as they
reflect precisely what God had just promised Yaakov in his dream several
psukim earlier.  [Compare with 28:15; see also Rashi.]
	Similarly, the last two clauses clearly describe what Yaakov vows to
do once the conditions are met.  They describe Yaakov's promise to establish
a Bet Elokim at this site upon his return from Charan and offer a tithe of
his possessions. 
	However, the middle clause (5) - "and Hashem will be my God" - can
go either way.  Although it can refer to either a condition or promise, each
option poses considerable difficulty.  On the one hand, it doesn't appear to
be a condition for two basic reasons:
	a) It does not reflect God's promise in 28:15 as do the other
clauses.
	b) If this is indeed a condition, then it does not add anything to
what Yaakov had already stated in his first clause - "If God will be with
me".

	On the other hand, it does not appear to be a vow, either.  How
could Yaakov possibly accept Hashem as his God only IF God fulfills His
promises!  Is Yaakov Avinu so 'spoiled' that he would accept God only if He
is good to him?

	The classical commentators tackle this question in their
commentaries.
	Rashi and Rashbam explain that it is indeed a CONDITION.  Rashi
brilliantly solves the first problem raised above [(a)] by explaining this
phrase as a reference to God's earlier promise to Avraham at brit mila -
"lihiyot lecha le-Elokim" (see 17:7-8).
	Rashbam solves the second problem [(b)] by explaining this clause
simply as a summary (or generalization) of the first three clauses.
	On the other hand, Ramban, Radak, and Seforno all explain this
clause as the VOW.  They all solve the problem raised above (that Yaakov
appears to accept God only on condition) by explaining that Yaakov vows to
INTENSIFY his relationship with God should (or actually WHEN) God fulfills
His promise.  Surely, Hashem will always remain Yaakov's God no matter what
may happen.  But Yaakov promises that if (or when) he returns 'home' he will
dedicate his entire life to God's service. 
	[I recommend that you see these "parshanim" inside.
		
	Btw, Ramban adds an additional peirush, which he categorizes as
'sod', that explains the clause as neither a condition nor a vow; it is a
STATEMENT OF FACT.  Yaakov simply states that only when he returns home to
Eretz Canaan will it (de facto) become possible 'for Hashem to become his
God', since one cannot develop the fullest relationship with God outside of
the Land of Israel.  (I've toned down Ramban's statement in translation -
see it inside (28:21) for a bit of a shocker.)]
====

B.  BET-EL / A SPIRITUAL INTERSECTION
	In this week's Parsha we find the first biblical reference to the
concept of 'Bet Elokim', a House of God.  Though mentioned only once
throughout Sefer Breishit, this concept constitutes one of the most
fundamental religious principles in Chumash, as it presupposes the
possibility of man's visiting the house as a means to improve his
relationship with God.
	Yaakov's description of this site as both 'sha'ar ha-shamayim' and
'Bet Elokim' can help us understand the nature and purpose of the Bet
ha-Mikdash and how it represents the potential heights of our relationship
with God.
	The 'sha'ar ha-shamayim' aspect of the Mikdash, symbolized by the
angels ascending and descending from Heaven, suggests the possibility of a
'vertical' relationship, a conceptual connecting point between Heaven and
Earth.  Despite God's transcendence, a connection, and thus a relationship,
can be attained.
	In contrast, the 'Bet Elokim' aspect, a HOUSE on earth where Man can
encounter God, implies the potential for a 'lateral' relationship.  In this
sense, the Mikdash serves as both a center for congregation as well as the
means of dissemination.  From this site, God's word and the recognition of
His authority can be spread to all mankind. 
[See Yeshayahu 2:1-5!  This centrality may be reflected by the unique phrase
at Bet El - "yama ve-keydma, tzafona, ve-negba," which might symbolize this
dissemination of God's word to all four corners of the earth.]

	From God's perspective, so-to-speak, the 'shechina' descends to
earth by way of 'sha'ar ha-shamayim' and radiates via 'Bet Elokim' (in the
form of His Torah) to all of mankind.  From man's perspective, we gather at
the 'Bet Elokim' to serve God, and through the 'sha'ar ha-shamayim' we can
climb the 'ladder' of holiness.
=========

C.  BET-EL & BET ELOKIM
    In God's first 'hitgalut' to Yaakov, we find some additional phrases
that can help us appreciate why Yaakov decides that this site should become
a Bet Elokim.  Let's take another look at the second pasuk of this hitgalut:
"And your offspring shall be like the AFAR HA-ARETZ, you shall spread out to
the WEST, EAST, NORTH, and SOUTH ('yama ve-kedma, tzafona, ve-negba), and
through you all the nations of the earth shall be blessed" (28:14).

	The first two phrases - "afar ha-aretz" and "east west north &
south" - had been mentioned only ONCE before, i.e. when God affirmed
Avraham's BECHIRA at BET-EL (after Lot's relocation in Sedom).  Note the
similarities: 
"And God said to Avram, after Lot had parted from him, Raise your eyes and
look out... to the NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, & WEST, for I give you all the LAND
which you see... I will make your offspring like the AFAR HA-ARETZ..."
(13:14-16).

 	Based on our earlier comparison between this 'hitgalut' to Yaakov
(28:14) and God's earlier 'hitgalut' to Avraham at BET EL (13:14-16), we may
offer a deeper interpretation of these terms.
    As explained above, the two common phrases, 'afar ha-aretz' and 'yama
ve-kedma...', suggest to Yaakov that he currently stands on the same site
where Avraham Avinu built a MIZBEYACH and 'called out in God's Name'.  This
as well adds additional reason for Yaakov's resolve to make this site a BET
ELOKIM.  
[See also Devarim 12:5-12, and note the expression used numerous times in
Sefer Devarim to describe the Mikdash - "ha-MAKOM asher yivchar HASHEM
leshakein SHMO sham". Compare to the use of the word "ha'makom" in
28:10-22!]

    However, God's hitgalut to Avraham in chapter 13, also took place in
Bet-el (see 13:4, noting its context).  
    Notice, how the Torah describes this site as Bet-el, even though Yaakov
only named that city over a hundred years later.  The reason why is simple,
because the Torah realizes that Yaakov's dream took place near the same spot
where Avraham built his mizbayach!  And in any case, the thematic
connection, based on the above shiur, is rather obvious.

===================
FOR FURTHER IYUN

A. Note the emphasis and repetition of the word 'ha-Makom' in this Parsha -
28:11,16,17,19.  Note the use of the term also in Parshat Lech Lecha, 13:14,
at the Akeida - 22:4, and in Sefer Dvarim 12:5,11,14,18.
1. Try to explain the significance of this word specifically in the context
of these parshiot.
2. Use this to explain Chazal's identification of this spot as the site of
the Akeida on Har Ha-Moriah, and eventually the site of the Bet HaMikdash in
Yerushalayim.
3. Read Ramban on 28:17 (including Rashi whom he quotes). Relate this Ramban
and his machloket with Rashi to the above shiur.

B. Read Rashi on Breishit 2:7, and note the two explanations he cites from
the Midrash on that pasuk - "vayitzer Hashem Elokim et ha-adam afar min
ha-adama":
	a) 'afar' from Har Ha-Moriah
	b) 'afar' from the four corners of the earth.

    How do these two opinions relate to our analysis in this week's shiur?

C. See if you can connect the last section of this shiur to two other
well-known Midrashim:
1. Opposite "Yerushalayim shel mata" exists a "Yerushalayim shel ma'ala"
(Taanit 5a).  [Relate this to the concept of "sha'ar ha-shamayim."] 
2. Yerushalayim is known in the Midrash Tanchuma as "taburo (navel) shel
olam" - the umbilicus of the world.  [Relate this to the concept of Bet
Elokim and the 'four directions'.]

D. Several related questions to think about which relate to next week's
Parsha, as well:
1. Does Yaakov actually fulfill his 'neder' when he returns?
2. Is this "neder" fulfilled by Am Yisrael? If so, when?
3. Relate Yaakov's "galut" and his "neder" to the principle of "maase avot
siman l'banim" and Jewish history

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayetze1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 60333 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081203/17c63e7b/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Dec 10 07:50:07 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:50:07 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Vayishlach - shiur #1
Message-ID: <20081210194755.C53D05E06CE@out7.bezeqint.net>

This coming motzei shabbat (at 11:45pm NY time, 6:45am Israel time), 
I'll be giving a live shiur on the internet, relating to Chanuka & Sefer
Breishit;
via the e-TiM network, organized by 'Torah in Motion' [
www.torahinmotion.org] of Toronto -
If you'd like to register, the link is
http://www.torahinmotion.org/virtproglib/e-tim/index.htm

=======

*************************************************************
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

DEDICATED IN COMMEMORATION OF THE YARZHEIT OF 
REUVEN BEN MOSHE A"H - 17 KISLEV 5757


      for PARSHAT  VAYISHLACH - shiur #1

          FROM YAAKOV TO YISRAEL -
          
     Was Eisav really planning to wipe out Yaakov's family
with his four hundred men?  Or was his intention all along
simply to welcome his brother back 'home'?
  When reading Parshat Vayishlach, it is difficult to reach a
clear conclusion.
  Similarly, when Yaakov crossed the Yabok River (with his
wives and children), was he planning a secret escape from this
confrontation?  Or, was Yaakov's intention all along to
confront his brother - face to face?
     And finally, was God's purpose in sending a 'mal'ach' to
struggle with Yaakov - simply to bless him at this critical
time, or was it an attempt to thwart Yaakov's planned
'escape'?
     When one reads Parshat Vayishlach, it is difficult to
find precise answers to these (and many other) questions.
     In Part One of this week's shiur, we'll suggest some
answers to these questions, while offering a reason why the
Torah's account of these events is intentionally so vague.
Based on that analysis, Part Two will discuss the deeper
meaning of Yaakov's name change to Yisrael.

INTRODUCTION
     Before we begin our shiur, a short remark re: its
methodology:
     In our study of Sefer Breishit thus far, our goal has
usually been to find the underlying meaning (or message) or
each story, based on its details.  However, when the story
itself is difficult to understand, then it becomes even more
difficult to uncover its message.
  However, when we encounter ambiguity in a certain narrative
- one can also entertain the possibility that its vagueness
may be intentional, and hence its message may lie in that
ambiguity.
  With this in mind, we begin our shiur by considering the
events that lead up to Yaakov's encounter with Eisav - in an
attempt to better understand both the details and ambiguities
of that encounter.

WAS THE 'COAST CLEAR' YET?
     Recall, from the end of Parshat Toldot, how Yaakov ran
away from Eretz Canaan in fear that Eisav would kill him.  To
verify this, let's quote the departing message that he heard
from his mother:
  "Your brother Eisav is consoling himself by planning to kill
  you.  Now, my son - listen to me, get up and run away to
  Charan - to Lavan my brother.  ...Until your brother's anger
  quells, and he will forget what you did to him - [then] I
  will send someone to call you to return..."  (see 27:42-44).
  
     Neither Rivka nor Yaakov know how long this will take,
but clearly - Yaakov plans to stay by Lavan until 'the coast
is clear'.
     On his way to Charan, God appears to Yaakov at Bet-El,
assuring him with Divine protection during his journey:
  "Behold I will be with you, and guard you anywhere you go,
  and I will bring you back to this land..." (see 28:15).
  
     Note however, that despite this promise of protection,
God never told Yaakov when he was supposed to return.
  Years pass, but Rivka never sent for Yaakov.
  Finally, after some twenty years God tells Yaakov that it's
time to return home - demanding:
  "Return to the land of your fathers and birth - and [then] I
  will be with you" (31:3).

  Does this imply that Eisav is no longer a threat?
  If so, why didn't Rivka send for him?  [Possibly she didn't
know, even though God did.]
  Could it be that God wanted Yaakov to return, knowing that
Eisav was still a threat?  Could it be that God wanted these
two brothers to confront one another?  If so, did God want
them to fight, or to make peace?
     Clearly, God wants Yaakov to return home - yet He does
not inform him concerning how he should deal with Eisav!
     When Yaakov approaches the land of Israel, he sees (once
again) a vision of angels ['mal'achei Elokim'] who come to
greet him (see 32:2-3).  As this vision parallels Yaakov's
original vision of mal'achim (when God first promised
protection - see 28:10-15), is God now telling Yaakov that the
'coast is clear' - and hence he need not worry about Eisav?
     And how about Eisav himself?  Certainly, Yaakov is still
worried about him; but does Eisav still want to kill him- or
has he put his past behind him?
     As you may have guessed by now, it is very difficult to
reach any definite conclusion about any of these questions,
but Chumash certainly keeps us pondering.

YAAKOV SENDS AN ENVOY
     Parshat Vayishlach begins as Yaakov sends messengers
ahead, apparently to assess to what extent Eisav is still a
danger.  Note, how this decision comes immediately after his
vision of God's angels at Machanayim, suggesting that this
vision gave Yaakov the confidence to initiate an encounter -
i.e. to make sure that it was truly now safe to return home
(see 32:4-5).
     However, to Yaakov's surprise, his messengers come back
with a report that he most probably did not expect: Eisav,
with four hundred men, was on his way to meet Yaakov!  There
can be no doubt concerning how Yaakov understood this report.
Eisav is out for his head!
  This explains Yaakov's sudden fear (see 32:7 -12 'va-yira
Yaakov me'od...'), as well as his next course of action.
  Expecting that Eisav was on his way to kill his entire
family, he quickly divides his camp in two (to save at least
half of them), then turns to God in prayer (see 32:7-12).
  Yaakov's prayer (see 32:9-12) reflects this predicament.  On
the one hand, God told him to return and promised to protect
him.  Yet on the other hand, God never told him to initiate an
encounter with Eisav.  Did Yaakov think he had made a mistake?
Maybe he was supposed to return to Canaan and avoid Eisav
entirely?
  Had he 'sinned' by sending messengers?  Did God want him to
stay clear of Eisav (and his bad influence)?
  Note how Yaakov's prayer reflects our discussion.  First,
his opening appellation:
  "And Yaakov said: The God of my father Avraham & the God of
  my father Yitzchak - the God who told me - Return to your
  homeland and I will be with you [i.e. protect you]" (see
  32:10).
  
  Note how Yaakov first reminds God that it was His idea for
him to return, and that God had promised to protect him
  Nonetheless, if Eisav remains a danger, it must not be God's
fault, rather his own.  Therefore, Yaakov concludes that maybe
he has done something wrong, or possibly has 'used up' all of
his 'protection' points, and God had already provided him with
so much ('katonti...' / read 32:11!).  Then, Yaakov states his
precise fear:
  "Save me from Eisav my brother, lest he come to kill me,
  mothers and children alike - but You promised me that you
  would be with me and that my offspring would be numerous
  like the sand of sea..." (see 32:12-13).

     In the final line of his prayer, Yaakov may be 'hinting'
that even if he deserves to die, God should at least save his
children, as He had promised to his forefathers.
     To our surprise, even though Yaakov prayed, God doesn't
appear to provide Yaakov with an immediate answer!

WHAT SHOULD YAAKOV DO?
     Yaakov now faces a predicament.  After all, what does God
want him to do?
  Should he confront Eisav?  If so, should he try to appease
him, or should he stand up and fight for what is right?  [And
it may not be clear to him who is right - for it was Yaakov
who stole the blessings!]
  Should he run away directly to Eretz Canaan?  Maybe that is
what God originally wanted him to do?  Maybe only there will
he be worthy of divine protection!  Alternatively, maybe he
should hide his wife and children, and then face Eisav
himself?
     Let's take a look now, and see what he does.
     After he prays, that evening Yaakov prepares an elaborate
'peace offering' for his brother (see 32:13-20).  Hence, it
appears that Yaakov has chosen the path of 'appeasement',
hoping that his brother will be so impressed that he may
change his mind (see 32:20).
  Nevertheless, there is an interesting detail in these
instructions that must not be overlooked.  Note how Yaakov
instructs his men to leave a gap between each flock of
animals.  In other words, he wants this 'offering' to be
presented very slowly and staged.  Then he commands each group
to make the same statement:
  "When Eisav will meet you [i.e. each group] and ask who are
  you and where are you going and who are these for?  Answer
  him, they are a present from your servant Yaakov - and he is
  right behind us" [i.e. on his way to meet you as well]
        (see 32:17-18).
     Then, Yaakov repeats this very same command to each
group, emphasizing each time that each group should state -
"Behold, Yaakov is right behind us..."  (see 32:19-20).
     What are the purpose of these 'gaps' and the repeated
message of "Yaakov is right behind us"?
     Either Yaakov is telling the truth - i.e. the purpose of
these gaps is to gradually 'soften up' Eisav.  Or possibly,
Yaakov is trying something 'tricky' [again], and these gaps
(and the entire offering) are part of a decoy, to stall
Eisav's imminent attack, thus providing Yaakov with ample time
to run away!  [or at least to hide his wives and children].
     As we will see, the story that ensues can be read either
way.

WHAT DIRECTION IS HE CROSSING?
     That very same evening, after he designates his offering
and the men that will bring it to Eisav, Yaakov takes his two
wives, two maidservants, and his eleven children; and crosses
the Yabok River (see 32:21-23).  [Re: Dina (child #12)- see
Rashi on 32:23!]
     But it's not clear why he is crossing this river, and
what his intentions are!  Is this simply part of his journey
to meet Eisav (as most commentators understand), or possibly
(as Rashbam suggests), Yaakov is running away!
  If Rashbam's interpretation is correct (see Rashbam on 32:23-
25) - then we have a wonderful explanation for the 'gaps'; the
message that 'Yaakov is right behind us'; and the need for the
Torah's detail of Yaakov crossing the Yabok!  They all are
part of Yaakov's plan to 'run away' from Eisav, to save his
life.  [Otherwise, all these details appear to be rather
superfluous.]
  [Alternately, if Yaakov is telling Eisav the truth, then we
  would have to explain that the 'gaps' are to increase the
  chance of 'appeasement', Yaakov plans to be right behind
  this offering, and the Torah tells us about the Yabok
  crossing as the background for Yaakov's struggle with the
  mal'ach.]

THE STRUGGLE
     That evening, as Yaakov crosses the Yabok with his
family, God sends a mal'ach who struggles with Yaakov until
the morning (see 32:24-25).  It would only be logical to
assume that there is a divine reason for this struggle.
     If we follow Rashbam's approach (that Yaakov is running
away), then God's message seems to be quite clear.  By keeping
Yaakov engaged in battle all night long, God is not allowing
Yaakov to run, thereby telling him that he shouldn't (or
doesn't need to) run away.  [See Rashbam 32:25.]  In fact,
Rashbam claims that Yaakov's injury is a punishment for his
running away!  [See Rashbam on 32:29.]
     With this background, we could explain some additional
details of this encounter.  First of all, this could explain
why the angel asks to leave at dawn.  If his job was to keep
Yaakov from running away at night so that he would meet Eisav;
then as soon as dawn arrives his job is over (note that Eisav
arrives immediately after sunrise - see 32:31-33:1!).
  This also explains Yaakov's request for a blessing (which
could also be understood as Yaakov looking for the meaning of
this encounter).  The angel blesses Yaakov by 'changing his
name' from Yaakov to Yisrael.  Considering that the name
Yaakov implies some sort of 'trickery' [see Yirmiyahu 9:3 'ki
kol ach akov yaakov'], while the name Yisrael implies the
ability to 'stand up and fight' (see 32:28); then this
'blessing' is simply God's answer to Yaakov - don't run away,
rather encounter your brother!
  Finally, it explains what happens immediately after the
angel leaves.  Note how the next pasuk informs us that the sun
rises, and - sure enough - Yaakov looks up and sees that Eisav
and his four hundred men have already arrived [see 33:1].
What should happen now?  It's too late to run!
  As we would expect, still fearing his brother, he tries to
save at least some of his family by splitting them into groups
(see 33:1).  Then, he runs to the front to encounter Eisav
directly, bowing down seven times in a last effort to
'appease' his brother [see 33:2-3).

  Most likely to Yaakov's total surprise, Eisav greets him
with hugs and kisses - in what appears to be a very friendly
(and brotherly) manner [see 33:4].
  Was it Yaakov's efforts to achieve appeasement that caused
Eisav to change his mind, or was Eisav planning all along for
this friendly encounter?  I suppose we'll never know, as the
Bible is intentionally ambiguous in this regard.  [Maybe those
little dots over 'va-yishakehu' (see 33:4) are hinting to
something.  See Rashi & Radak who quote two opposite opinions
in Breishit Rabba (which should not surprise us the least!).]
In fact, Ibn Ezra (33:4) claims that the simple 'pshat' is
that Eisav had never planned to harm Yaakov, as proven by the
fact that he cried during this encounter.
  Eisav even invites his brother to join him on his return
trip to Se'ir.  Yaakov prefers to travel slowly at his own
pace, 'promising' to arrive in Se'ir at a later time (see
33:12-14).

THE PAST & THE FUTURE
     What should we learn from this story?  One could follow
Rashbam's approach, and arrive at a very 'right wing'
conclusion.  But if one studies Ramban's interpretation to
these events, one would arrive at a very 'left wing'
conclusion (i.e. there are times when Am Yisrael must first
attempt to appease their enemies in any manner possible).
     One could suggest that the Bible's ambiguity is
intentional, as there are times in Jewish History when a
'right wing' approach is correct, and there are times when a
'left wing' approach is preferable.  Similarly, there are
times when we must take action, even when we are in doubt in
regard to the true intentions of our enemies.  While at other
times, it may be better to remain passive.
     Just as life is not a 'fairy tale', neither is Chumash.
Nevertheless, we should learn that in every encounter that we
face, we must both act (i.e. turn to ourselves) and pray (i.e.
turn to God).  We must make every effort to understand our
predicament in order to arrive at the approach that would best
follow the path that God has set.  However, when that path is
not clear, we must pray that God will not only assist us, but
that He should send some sort of an 'angel' to assure that we
follow the proper direction.
     Yaakov leaves this encounter not only limping, but also
'contemplating' and 'wondering'.  But he continues on his
journey, on his way to Bet-El, ready to face any future
encounter with prayer, wisdom, action, faith, and resolve.
     So too, in the history of the Jewish people - there are
times that we must stand up and fight, and there are times
that we attempt appeasement.  There are also times when we
struggle, and remain limping.  Yet we continue to pray, to
study, to contemplate, and persevere with an unyielding
resolve to achieve our goals.

                         shabbat shalom, 
                         menachem
                         
===========
FOR FURTHER IYUN - for Shiur #1

A.  Chazal tell us that the mal'ach was the 'sar shel Eisav' -
Eisav's guardian angel.   Relate this Midrash to the above
shiur.
      If this ish was actually a mal'ach, why do you think the
Torah insists on referring to him as an ish?  What is the
significance of Yaakov being wounded in this encounter?  Why
must we remember this encounter whenever we eat meat (mitzvat
gid-ha-nasheh)?  [See Rashbam 32:29.]
  Explain the argument between Yaakov and his sons regarding
their militant reaction to the act of Chamor ben Shchem in
relation to the main point of the above shiur.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayish1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 53408 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081210/78ff488a/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Dec 10 12:00:56 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:00:56 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Vayishlach - Part II
Message-ID: <20081210165736.602FABA57B3@out1.bezeqint.net>

[Resending Part II to due format/ computer error]

*************************************************************
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

          for PARSHAT  VAYISHLACH -

        FROM YAAKOV TO YISRAEL - part two

     There must be something important about names in Parshat
Vayishlach, for we find that Yaakov's name is changed to
Yisrael; and it happens twice!
     In the following shiur, we attempt to understand why, by
considering its connection to the theme of 'bechira' in Sefer
Breishit.

INTRODUCTION
     Yaakov's name change to Yisrael is very different than
Avram's name change to Avraham.  In regard to AvraHAm - a
single letter ["heh"] is added to his existing name (see 17:1-
5); in contrast - Yisrael  constitutes an entirely new name.
Furthermore, Yisrael serves as an alternate name for Yaakov,
while the name Avraham serves as a replacement.
     What is even more peculiar about Yaakov's name change -
is that it happens twice:
  Once, in the aftermath of his struggle at Pni'el, prior to
  his confrontation with Eisav (see 32:24-30);
     And later, at God's revelation to him at Bet El (see
35:9-13).

  With this in mind, we begin our study with a comparison of
those two stories; afterward, we will discuss why Yaakov's
name change is both similar and different than Avraham's.

YAAKOV'S RETURN TO BET EL
  Let's begin our discussion with the second time when
Yaakov's name is changed to Yisrael; for it contains some
rather obvious textual parallels to the key psukim that
describe how Avraham Avinu was first chosen.  Those parallels
will help us understand how his name change relates to a key
stage in the bechira process.  Our  conclusions will then help
us appreciate the meaning of the first time Yaakov's name in
changed, i.e. the site of Pni'el.

     Yaakov's return to Bet El, as described in 35:9-15, could
be considered as the prophetic 'highlight' of his return to
Eretz Canaan.  Recall that this it was at this very site where
God first appeared to him, promising him that he was indeed
the 'chosen' son (see 28:12-14).  Furthermore, it was at Bet-
El where God had promised to look after his needs during his
journey to (and stay in) Charan.
  [Recall as well from our shiur on Parshat Lech Lecha that
  Bet El was also the focal point of Avraham's 'aliya', where
  he built a mizbeiach and 'called out in God's Name'.]

     Let's take a look at the Torah's description of this
'hitgalut', noting how God not only confirms Yaakov's bechira
but also changes his name to Yisrael:
  "And God appeared again to Yaakov on his arrival from Padan
  Aram, and blessed him: You, whose name is Yaakov, shall be
  called Yaakov no more, but Yisrael shall be your name.
    Thus He named him Yisrael, and God said to him: I am Kel
  Shakai, be fertile and increase... The land that I have
  given to Avraham and Yitzchak I give to you and to your
  offspring to come...   (35:9-16).

     God's confirmation of 'zera' [offspring] and 'aretz' (the
Land) echoes His numerous earlier blessings of'bechira to
Avraham and Yitzchak.  [See 12:1-7, 13:14-16, 15:18, 17:7-8,
26:1-5, 28:13.]  In fact, these seem to be the key two words
in just about every higtalut when God discuss any aspect of
the 'bechira' process with the avot.
  However, this particular blessing carries additional
significance, for it is the last time that we find it in Sefer
Breishit, thus suggesting that the bechira process has finally
come to an end!
     Therefore, the fact that this blessing also includes
Yaakov's name change to Yisrael suggests a thematic connection
between this name change and the conclusion of the bechira
process!
     If indeed the 'filtering' stage of the bechira process is
finally over, then this name change reflects the fact that now
all of Yaakov's children (and grandchildren etc.) are chosen.
  [In contrast to the children of Avraham and Yitzchak, where
  only one child was chosen.]
  
  In other words, from this point onward, all the children of
Yaakov will become the nation of Israel- and hence the name
change to Yisrael.
     With this in mind, let's discuss the incident at Peniel,
when his name is first changed to Yisrael - to appreciate the
thematic significance of specifically this name - i.e.
Yisrael.

THE EVENTS BEFORE THE STRUGGLE
     Even though the Torah only tells us that a 'man' ['ish']
struggles with Yaakov at Peniel (see 32:25), the continuation
of this story [when this 'man' blesses Yaakov etc / see 32:26-
30)] certainly supports the Midrashic interpretation that he
was the 'angelic minister of Eisav' - intentionally sent by
God to confront Yaakov.
  [Note that the Hebrew word ish is often used to describe an
  important and/or powerful man, and not only the male gender
  / see Shmot 2:12 & Bamidbar 13:3.]

  But why would God send this ish at this critical time?
  To appreciate why, we must consider the events in the life
of Yaakov that lead up to this final 'showdown' with Eisav.
     1.  Yaakov, using 'trickery', buys the 'bechora' from
Eisav.
     2. Yitzchak plans to bless Eisav with prosperity and
power;.
          using 'trickery', Yaakov 'steals' that blessing..
     3. Yaakov must 'run away' to Padan Aram (in fear of
Eisav).
     4. Yaakov spends twenty years with Lavan;
    often suffering from Lavan's 'trickiness'.
     5. Yaakov 'runs away' from Padan Aram (in fear of Lavan).
     6. Yaakov prepares for his confrontation with Eisav.
          [Note how he plans a total subjugation to his
brother.]
     7. God sends an ish to confront Yaakov.

     While reviewing this progression, note how Yaakov's life
was replete with a need to either employ trickery or 'run
away' in order to either survive, or to attain what he felt
was necessary (to become the 'chosen son').  Indeed, Yaakov
had become an expert at survival; but appears to have lacked
experience in 'frontal combat' - a trait that Eisav was best
at.
     As we explained in our shiur on Parshat Toldot, it may
have been for this very reason that Yitzchak had originally
intended to bless Eisav, for he understood that in order to
establish a nation, the traits of an 'ish sadeh' are
essential, i.e. the qualities necessary to provide leadership
in worldly matters.  In contrast to his brother, Yaakov, the
'ish tam', certainly lacked this character.
     However, now that it had been divinely determined that
Yaakov was to be the only chosen son, one could suggest that
God found it necessary for Yaakov himself to develop those
traits as well.
     This may explain why upon his return to Eretz Canaan, God
intentionally initiates a direct confrontation between Yaakov
and Eisav.  [Recall from the fact that Rivka never sent for
him, it may be that Eisav is indeed still planning to take
revenge.]

  However, when we analyze Yaakov's apparent strategy - as he
prepares to meet Eisav (see 32:13-21), we find once again that
he was not quite ready for this direct confrontation.
     One could even suggest (as Rashbam does), that Yaakov's
original plan was to run away from Eisav, taking his own
family in one direction, while sending several 'staged'
messengers to Eisav as a decoy to 'slow his advance'!  If so,
then God's purpose in sending this ish to struggle with
Yaakov, was to stop him from running away - stalling his
retreat until Eisav arrives.
  And when Yaakov does see Eisav at dawn (after his struggle
with the 'ish'), again he plans 'capitulation' - bowing down
profusely before his brother - showing him that in reality, he
never received the blessing that he had tried to steal.
  [By bowing down to Eisav, Yaakov wishes to show his brother
  that the 'stolen blessing' of power and dominion over his
  brother ("hevei gvir le-achecha, yishtachavu lecha bnei
  imecha...27:29) was indeed awarded to Eisav.  Ironically,
  Yaakov resorts to trickery once again; this time to show his
  brother that his original trickery used to 'steal' the
  brachot was meaningless.]

REALISM OR LAZINESS
     Note how Yaakov's struggle with the ish takes place at a
very critical point in his life; i.e. after his preparation to
bow down to (or run away from) Eisav, but before the actual
confrontation.  Let's explain why this may be significant.
     A controversy exists among the commentators as to whether
Yaakov was correct in this total subjugation to his brother.
Some hold that Yaakov should have openly confronted his
brother while putting his total faith in God (see Rashbam on
32:29), while others maintain that due to the circumstances,
his timid strategy was appropriate (see Seforno on 33:4).
[Note how this 'hashkafic' controversy continues until this
very day!]
     Regardless of the 'political correctness' of his actions,
the situation remains that Yaakov is unable to openly confront
Eisav.  Nevertheless, God finds it necessary that Yaakov prove
himself capable of fighting, should such a situation arise in
the future.  Yaakov must now demonstrate that his subjugation
to Eisav stems from political realism rather than spiritual
laziness.  He must prove that, when necessary, he will be
capable of fighting.
  [Sooner or later in Jewish history, confrontations with the
  likes of Eisav will be encountered when establishing a
  nation.]

     Possibly for this reason, God must first 'test' Yaakov's
potential to engage in battle with his enemy before he meets
Eisav.  Yaakov finds this struggle difficult, for he is
untrained; the contest continues all night until the 'break of
dawn'.  [Possibly, night represents 'galut'; 'dawn'
redemption.  See Ramban 'al atar'.]  Although wounded and
limping, Yaakov emerges victorious from this confrontation,
thus earning his new name:
  "Your name shall no longer be Yaakov, but Yisrael, for you
  have fought with beings divine ('Elokim') and human
  ('anashim') and triumphed" (32:29).

  Thus, the name Yisrael may reflect the character of one
triumphant in battle.  Yaakov's new name is significant for it
reflects his capability to engage head on in battle.  In order
to become a nation, this trait - represented by the name
'Yisrael' - is crucial.
  Yet his name also remains Yaakov, for there may be times as
well when 'passiveness' will be the proper avenue.

WHY TWICE?
     For some reaons, receiving this 'new name' from this
mal'ach did not appear to be sufficient; for God Himself found
it necessary to later confirm that name - Yisrael, together
with his bechira, at Bet El (the very site where he was first
promised the bechira).  Thus, it appears as though the
blessings that Yaakov received throughout that entire episode
of his trickery must now be bestowed upon him properly (and
formally).
  First, God names Yaakov - 'Yisrael', symbolizing the traits
of worldly leadership (see 35:9- 10).  Afterwards, God
confirms the blessing that Yitzchak had given him (see 25:11-
12 / compare with 28:1-4).

     Note the obvious parallel between these two blessings:
     
 FROM YITZCHAK (before departing) /   FROM GOD (upon arriving)
              (28:3-4)                           (35:11-12)
	=================			===============
	
May "kel Shakai" bless you,        I am 'kel Shakai':
make you fertile and multiply,     Be fertile and multiply,
to become an assembly of peoples   An assembly of nations
May He grant you the -             shall descend from you...
     blessing of Avraham           The Land  I gave Avraham...
to you and your offspring         .to you and to your offspring
that you may possess the Land      to come, I assign the Land.

     This comparison clearly shows that God's blessing to
Yaakov at Bet El constitutes a confirmation of Yitzchak's
blessing to him after the incident of the stolen brachot.
Hence, we may conclude that the name of Yisrael marks the
conclusion of the bechira process, as includes the necessary
character that Am Yisrael will require to later become God's
special nation.

THE FUTURE
     Although Yaakov's worldly traits may lie dormant for
several generations, it must be inherent to his character
before his bechira receives final Divine confirmation.
[Later, Yaakov will bless his two most able sons, Yehuda and
Yosef, with the leadership in this realm (see 49:8-26).]
     Throughout the rest of Chumash, the name Yaakov
interchanges with Yisrael.  This suggests that each name
reflects a different aspect of his character.  There are times
when 'Am Yisrael' must act as Yaakov, the ish tam, and there
are times when the more active and nationalistic
characteristics of Yisrael must be employed.  Ultimately, as
the prophet Ovadia proclaims, the day will come when:
  "Liberators shall march up on Har Zion to wreak judgement on
  Har Eisav; and the kingdom shall be that of God" (1:21).

     Based on this understanding of the significance of the
special name of Yisrael, one could suggest a reason for the
necessity of the 'bechira' process to continue one generation
past Yitzchak.  [Or re-phrased, why was it necessary for Eisav
to be rejected, given the importance of his worldly traits?]
     Our original assumption, that both the traits of an ish
sadeh and an ish tam are necessary in order to establish a
nation, remains correct.  Nevertheless, it is important that
they are not perceived as equally important.  As we explained
in our shiur on Parshat Toldot, the fundamental character of
Am Yisrael must be that of an ish tam (Yaakov).  Only once
that characteristic becomes rooted, the traits of an ish sadeh
can be added.  Had Eisav been included in Am Yisrael, our
perception of the relative importance of an ish sadeh may have
become distorted.  A disproportionate emphasis on
'nationalism' and strength - despite their importance - would
have tainted mankind's perception of God's special nation.

     In the formative stage of our national development, our
outward appearance as 'Yisrael' must stem from our inner
character as 'Yaakov'.  We must first speak with the 'voice of
Yaakov' (see Rashi 27:22), only then may we don the 'hands of
Eisav'.

                                   shabbat shalom
                                   menachem

======================
FOR FURTHER IYUN

A.  There is a Midrash telling us 'Yaakov avinu lo met' -
Yaakov never died.  Relate this Midrash to the fact that the
bechira process concludes with Yaakov, and that all of his
offspring have been chosen.  Relate this also to 49:33 in
comparison to 35:29 and 25:8.

B.  TOLDOT EISAV
     Yitzchak was chosen.  Therefore, we need to follow the
toldot of Eisav, just as we needed to follow the toldot of
Yishmael & Lot.
  Based on this assumption, explain perek 36.
  Based on the above shiur, why do you think there is an
emphasis on the kings who ruled in Edom before a king ruled
over Bnei Yisrael (see 36:31)!

C.  BRIT MILA & GOD'S BLESSING TO YAAKOV
     A quick analysis of God's final blessing to Yaakov at Bet
El (35:9-15) immediately shows that it is reflective of brit
mila (Breishit perek 17).  The name of Kel Shakai; 'pru u-
revu'; 'kehal goyim & melachim'; 'shem Elokim'; and the
concept of 'lihiyot lecha le-Elokim' can all be found at brit
mila.  Note that the bracha of brit mila which began in perek
17 with Kel Shakai telling Avraham 'hithalech lefanai - ve-
heyeh tamim' is being given now to Yaakov - the ish tam.
Try to explain the significance of this.

     Carefully compare Yitzchak's bracha to Yaakov before he
departs to Padan Aram (28:3-4) to God's blessing of Yaakov at
Bet El (35:9-13)!  Note that they are almost identical.
     Relate this to the last two shiurim.
      Note that God's name 'be-shem Havaya' does not appear
unto Yaakov from the time that he arrives in Eretz Canaan!
Note also God's promise to Yaakov at Bet El, before he left to
Padan Aram, (28:13-15) which was given be-shem Havaya.  Are
any aspects of that bracha repeated in Bet El when Yaakov
returned?  If so, which?
      Note the single use by Yaakov of shem Havaya in his
prayer prior to his confrontation with Eisav (32:9-12).  What
promise does he remind God of at that time?  Where is the
source of that promise.
     Relate to the relationship (be-shem Havaya) between brit
bein ha-btarim, the bracha at the akeida, and this tefilla.
Note - 'kochvei ha-shamayim' and 'asher lo yisafer me-rov'.
     How does this relate to the nationalistic aspect of these
revelations, i.e. the concept of 'yerushat ha-aretz'.
     Could one consider from a nationalistic perspective that
even though Yaakov returned from Galut Aram, his stay in Eretz
Canaan was only a short stopover on his way down to Galut
Mitzrayim?
Relate this to 'arami oved avi, va-yered mitzrayim...'
(Devarim 36:3-10).  Compare the language there to brit bein ha-
btarim!
Why do Chazal interpret this pasuk as referring to Yaakov?
Could the fact that Yaakov understood that the time for the
fulfillment of brit bein ha-btarim had not yet come, explain
his timid behavior when he confronts Eisav?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayish2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 40425 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081210/d760bc88/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Dec 17 07:33:02 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:33:02 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Va'yeshev - shiur
Message-ID: <20081217123103.248FC284D4@out6.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

PARSHAT VA'YESHEV  -  Who Sold Yosef? 

    Could it be that the brothers DID NOT sell Yosef! 
    As shocking as this statement may sound to anyone familiar with the
story of Yosef & his brothers; a careful reading of that narrative in
Chumash may actually support this possibility!
    In the following shiur, we explore this fascinating possibility (and its
consequences) while taking into account some important geographic
considerations.

INTRODUCTION
	After throwing your brother into a pit to die, would you be able to
'sit down to eat'?  The brothers did, so the Torah tell us (see 37:24-25)!
But when they sat down to eat, the Torah DOES NOT inform us if they sat NEAR
the pit, listening to Yosef's screaming and pleading; OR if they sat FAR
AWAY from the pit - to enjoy some 'peace and quiet'?
	So what difference does it make?

	Believe it or not, this tiny detail affects our understanding of
almost every aspect of the story that ensues.  Our shiur will entertain each
possibility - showing how this 'missing detail' may be what leads several
commentators to conclude that the brothers may never have sold Yosef after
all!
	To appreciate why this 'minor detail' is so critical, we must first
review the Torah's description of these events, making sure that we
understand what everyone is planning, so that we can reach a logical
conclusion regarding what everyone should be doing.
    Before we begin, we must also point out that the distance between
Hebron, where Yaakov is living, and Dotan, where the brothers are grazing
their sheep, is about 100 kilometers.  Therefore, the brothers are probably
gone for at least several weeks.  Certainly, they don't come home to Hebron
to sleep at night, rather, they have set up a temporary 'campsite' in the
Dotan area.

PLAN A - THE BROTHERS  /  FIRST DEGREE MURDER
	Review 37:18-20, noting that as soon as Yosef arrives at Dotan, the
brothers conspire to kill him.  However, their plan concerning HOW to kill
him is revised several times.  
    To show how, let's begin with the brothers' original plan to kill Yosef,
as soon as they saw him [which we will refer to PLAN A]:
"They (the brothers) saw him from afar, and before he came close... they
conspired to kill him.  And they said to one another, behold the 'dreamer'
is coming.  Now, let's kill him and (afterward) throw his body into one of
the pits..." (37:18-20).

 	Note how the brothers originally plan to commit first degree murder,
by killing Yosef immediately and then 'bury him' in any nearby pit.  Most
likely, they plan to throw the 'body' in the pit in order to 'hide the
evidence'.  This way, when they next come home, they can simply pretend that
they never saw Yosef - for if they brought home the dead body, their father
would likely have accused them of Yosef's murder. 
	Although Reuven opposes Yosef's murder, he assumes that the brothers
would not accept his opinion.  Therefore, instead of arguing with his
brothers, he devises a shrewd plan that will first postpone Yosef's
execution, and later enable him to secretly rescue Yosef, and send him back
home to his father.
	[See further iyun for an explanation of why specifically Reuven
wants to save Yosef.]

PLAN B - REUVEN'S PLAN  /  SECOND DEGREE MURDER
	As you read Reuven's plan, be sure to differentiate between what
Reuven SAYS (to his brothers) and what Reuven THINKS (to himself):
"... And Reuven said... 'Do not shed blood, cast him into a pit [in order
that he die] OUT IN THE 'MIDBAR' (wilderness), but do not touch him
yourselves --'
[End of quote! Then, the narrator continues by informing the reader of
Reuven's true intentions...]
	"in order to save him [Yosef] from them and return him to his
father." (37:22). 

	Reuven's 'official' plan (that the brothers accept) is to let Yosef
die in a less violent manner, i.e. to throw him alive into a deep pit to
die, instead of murdering him in cold blood.  However, Reuven's secretly
plans to later return to that pit and free him.
	Note how Reuven even suggests the specific 'pit' into which to throw
Yosef - "ha-bor HA-ZEH asher ba-midbar"!  Most probably, so that he can
later sneak away to that pit and save him.
[Compare this to the brothers' original plan to throw him into "one of the
pits" (37:20) - possibly a pit closer by.]

	Unaware of Reuven's true intentions, the brothers agree. 
	Yosef arrives, and - in accordance with PLAN B - the brothers
immediately strip Yosef of his special cloak and throw him alive into the
pit (see 37:23-24).  Afterward, the Torah informs us, they sit down to eat
(see 37:25).  

WHERE ARE THEY EATING?
 	Until this point, the plot is clear.  However, in the story that
follows, there are two important details missing which totally affect our
understanding of what happened next.
	Detail #1 -  WHERE did they sit down to eat?
Did they sit down to eat nearby the pit, or did they just leave Yosef in
pit, and travel far away (possibly, back to their camp in Dotan) and eat
their meal elsewhere?

	Detail #2 - WHERE is REUVEN during this meal?
Is he eating with his brothers, or did he go off to somewhere else on his
own? [And if so, for what reason?]

    Even though there are no explicit  answers in the Torah to these two
questions, we will attempt to answer them by employing some 'deductive
reasoning'.

(1) Where are the brothers eating?
    Recall that the brothers are grazing their sheep in the Dotan area [see
37:17/ today the area of Jenin, between Shechem and Afula], which is on the
northern slopes of central mountain range of Israel.  The "midbar"
[wilderness], that Reuven is talking about, is probably located a few
kilometers to the east of Dotan, as this "midbar" stretches along the
eastern slope of the entire central mountain range. [See map
www.tanach.org/map3d.pdf .]
    
    Considering that the brothers throw Yosef into a pit 'out in the
MIDBAR', it would definitely make sense for them to return afterward to
their campsite in the Dotan area to eat (see 37:16-17).   Besides, it would
not be very appetizing to eat lunch while listening to your little brother
screaming for his life from a pit nearby - see 42:21 for proof that he was
indeed screaming when they threw him in. 
    And even should one conclude that it would have been just as logical for
them to have sat down to eat near the pit;  by considering the whereabouts
of Reuven (detail #2) - we will be able to provide additional support to our
supposition that the brothers must have sat down to eat farther away.  

2) Where is Reuven?
    Considering that Reuven's real plan is to later save Yosef from the pit,
it would only be logical from him to either stay near the pit, or at least
remain with his brothers (wherever they may be). Certainly it would not make
sense, according to his real plan, for him to go far away, and to leave his
brothers by the pit!
    However, from the continuation of the story we know for sure that Reuven
did not stay near the pit, because he RETURNS to the pit only AFTER Yosef is
sold!  Therefore, if Reuven left the pit area, then certainly the brothers
also must have left that area.  Hence, it would only be logical to conclude
that the brothers are indeed eating away from the pit, and Reuven must be
eating with them!  
    After all, not joining them for lunch could raise their suspicion.
Furthermore, the Torah never tells us that he left his brothers.

	In summary, by considering the logic of Reuven's plan, we conclude
that Reuven most likely stayed with his brothers, as they all sit down to
eat AWAY from the pit. 
[Obviously, this interpretation does not follow popular explanation that
Reuven had left his brothers, as it was his turn to take care of his father
(see first opinion in Rashi).  In the Further Iyun section we discuss how
and why our shiur disagrees with that approach, and prefers the approach of
Rashbam and Chizkuni.]

PLAN C - YEHUDA'S PLAN / A 'QUICK BUCK'
	Now that we have supposed that Reuven and the brothers are sitting
down to eat at a distance far away from the pit, we can continue our study
of the narrative, to see if this conclusion fits with its continuation:
"And the brothers sat down to eat, and they lifted up their eyes and saw a
caravan of Yishmaelim coming from the Gilad carrying [spices]... to Egypt.  
    Then Yehuda said to his brothers, 'What do we gain by killing our
brother ... let us SELL him [instead] to the Yishmaelim; after all, he is
our brother, our own flesh, and his brothers agreed" (37:25-27).
[From Yehuda's suggestion, it becomes clear that the brothers truly planned
to allow Yosef to die in the pit. and were unaware of Reuven's intention to
save him.]

	If indeed Reuven is still sitting with his brothers, then this new
plan (to sell Yosef) puts him in quite a predicament; for if the brothers
would sell Yosef, his own plan to rescue him would be ruined.   Hence, the
most logical step for Reuven to take would be to either sneak away to the
'pit' - to get there before his brothers sell him, or possibly to
'volunteer' to fetch Yosef from the pit, in order to free him - and then
explain to his brothers that Yosef had 'ran away'. 
	Reuven does return to the pit in 37:29, but before the Torah informs
us of what happens when Reuven returns, we are told first of something else
that took place in the meantime:
"And a group of Midyanite TRADERS passed by, and THEY pulled, and they
lifted Yosef out of the pit, and THEY sold Yosef to the Yishmaelim for
twenty pieces of silver, and brought Yosef to Egypt."  (see 37:28)
[Carefully read this pasuk again, noting the difference between the Midyanim
and Yishmaelim.]

	The startling fact about this pasuk is that the brothers are never
mentioned!  If our assumption above was correct, it turns out that when the
brothers (sitting far away from the pit) were discussing the possibility of
selling Yosef to the Yishmaelim - it just so happened that the Midyanim got
there first!
	
	To appreciate the logic of this interpretation, we must provide a
little geographic background, which is essential towards understanding what
transpires in these psukim.

THE ANCIENT TRADE ROUTE
	Recall that Yosef met his brothers while they were grazing their
sheep in the hilly area of Dotan (see 37:17), north of Shechem.  Recall as
well that during their meal, the brothers 'lifted up their eyes' and noticed
a caravan of YISHMAELIM traveling down from the GILAD (today, the northern
mountain range in Jordan), on its way down to Egypt (see 37:25).
	Now, when we read this story in Chumash, most everyone assumes that
this convoy will soon pass nearby the spot where the brothers are eating.
However, when we consider the geography involved, it is more probable to
arrive at a very different conclusion! 
	This CARAVAN of Yishmaelim (camels et al.) most likely should be
traveling along the ancient trade route (better known as the Via Maris),
which crosses through Emek Yizrael (the Jezreel Valley) on its way toward
the Mediterranean coast.  Therefore, this convoy, now sighted by the
brothers as it descends from the Gilad Mountains in Transjordan, must first
pass through the Bet She'an valley, continuing on towards Afula and Megiddo
in Emek Yizrael, on its way towards the coast.  Certainly, it would NOT pass
the hilly area of Dotan, for it would make no sense for the caravan to climb
the Gilboa mountain range to cross through the Dotan area to reach the
coast.  Let's explain why.

	Dotan, today the area of Jenin (about 20 kilometers north of
Shechem) lies about 10 kilometers SOUTH of this main highway (the Via Maris)
as it crosses Emek Yizrael.  In altitude, Dotan sits about 300-400 meters
above Emek Yizrael.  Hence, from the hills of the Dotan/Gilboa area (where
the brothers are eating lunch), one can enjoy of both the Gilad and parts of
the Jezreel Valley, and could certainly identify a large caravan traveling
in the Jezreel Valley below.  
	This explains why the brothers are able to see a Yishmaelite caravan
(convoy) as it was descending from the Gilad towards Bet She'an on its way
to  Emek Yizrael.  However, even though they could see it, it was still far
enough away to allow the brothers ample time to meet it, when it would pass
by some ten kilometers to the north.  
    Therefore, in order to sell Yosef to that caravan, the brothers would
have to first fetch Yosef from the pit, and then carry him on a short trip
till they meet the caravan in Emek Yizrael.  They have ample time to 'finish
their meal', go fetch Yosef from the pit in the 'midbar' (a kilometer or so
away), and then meet the convoy to sell Yosef.
 
SOMEBODY GOT THERE FIRST
	With this background, we now return to the story in Chumash, while
carefully noting the grammar of the next pasuk:
"And a group of Midyanite TRADERS passed by, and THEY pulled, and they
lifted Yosef out of the pit, and THEY sold Yosef to the Yishmaelim for
twenty pieces of silver, and brought Yosef to Egypt."  (37:28)

	Based on the wording of this pasuk, it's quite clear that the
Midyanim and the Yishmaelim are two DIFFERENT groups of people!  To support
this, note how the Torah describes the Midyanim as local 'traders'
("socharim"), while the Yishmaelim are described as international 'movers'
("orchat Yishmaelim - a transport caravan).  Hence, a simple reading of this
pasuk implies that a group of Midyanite traders happened to pass by the pit
(they most probably heard Yosef screaming), and pulled him out.  As these
Midyanim are 'traders', they were probably on their way to sell their wares
(now including Yosef) to the Yishmaelite caravan. 
	If this explanation is correct, then the MIDYANIM themselves pulled
Yosef out of the pit and sold him.  [After all, the brothers are never
mentioned in this pasuk.] 
[This interpretation also explains why the Torah needs to tell us about both
MIDYANIM and YISHMAELIM, for understanding that these are two DIFFERENT
groups is a critical factor in the story, and not just an incidental
detail.]

DID REUVEN GET THERE 'FIRST' OR 'LAST'?
	So where were the brothers during all of this?  Most probably, still
eating!  Recall our explanation above: the brothers had thrown Yosef into a
pit out in the 'midbar' and returned to their grazing area to eat.  They are
far enough away that they do not see or hear what transpired between Yosef
and the Midyanim!
	And WHERE was Reuven?  Again, as we explained above, he must have
been eating WITH his brothers.  However, as soon as he heard Yehuda's new
plan (and the brothers' agreement) to sell Yosef, he would have to get back
to the pit (before his brothers) to save Yosef - and that's exactly what he
does!  [But it's too late.]  Note how this explanation fits perfectly into
the next pasuk: 
"And Reuven RETURNED ("va-yashov Revuen el ha'bor") to the pit, and behold,
Yosef was no longer in the pit!;
		Then, he tore his clothes."    (see 37:29)

	Reuven is not the LAST brother to find out that Yosef was sold (as
commonly assumed).  Rather, he is the FIRST brother to recognize that Yosef
is missing!
	What can Reuven do?  Shocked, he immediately returns to his brothers
[probably by now eating dessert] with the terrible news:
"And he RETURNED ['va-yashov'] to his brothers and said, 'The boy is gone!
And for myself, what am I going to do?" (37:30). 

	Note the word 'va-yashov' [and Reuven RETURNED] in both 37:29 and
37:30.  This verb proves that the brothers could not have been eating near
the pit, for if so, Reuven would not need to 'RETURN' to them.  However,
based on our explanation above, 'va-yashov' in both psukim makes perfect
sense.  Since Reuven and his brothers are eating away from the pit, Reuven
must first RETURN to the pit, then he must RETURN back to his brothers to
tell them the news - hence TWICE the verb 'va-yashov'!
[This also explains why the brothers don't answer Reuven by informing him
that they sold him.  Instead, the brothers seem to be no less in shock than
Reuven himself.]
	
WHAT DO THE BROTHERS THINK?
	At this point in the story the brothers must be totally baffled, for
they have no idea what happened to Yosef.   If he escaped from the pit, then
he probably would have ran back home and in a short time, the brothers would
hear about it.  But he doesn't return home, and hence they most probably
assume that he was eaten by an animal.  Note that in all of their
conversations with Yosef in Egypt, the consistently claim "ha'echad eineno"
[one (brother) is missing]; yet they never say that he was sold.
[See 42:13 and 42:32.  See also 43:7, noting how the brothers we definitely
asked these questions during interrogation - hence it would have been
difficult for them to lie about what happened to their other brother, nor
would they have any reason to lie about his fate, or time to corroborate the
same story beforehand.]

    Once the brothers realize that Yosef is gone, they also don't want their
father to think that he may lost, nor would they want their father to accuse
them of killing him - so they plot once again.  They cleverly decide to
trick their father into thinking that Yosef had been killed by a wild animal
on his way to visit them, by dipping Yosef's coat in blood and sending it
ahead to their father (see 37:31-32).  Their plan works, as when Yaakov sees
the coat he laments:
"My son's  coat -"CHAYA RA'A ACHALATU; tarof, taraf Yosef" -  - he was
surely devoured by a wild beast  (37:33). 

	By doing so, they cause their father to take personal blame for
Yosef's death; after all, it was Yaakov's idea to send Yosef on the
'dangerous journey' from Hebron to Shchem.
	Ironically, the end result of this final plan echoes the brothers'
original plan (see 37:20 "ve-amarnu - chaya ra'a achalatu" & compare with
37:33).  Yaakov reaches the conclusion that the brothers wanted, but they
themselves have no idea what happened!
	Even more ironic is how the brothers final plan 'to sell Yosef' came
true, even though they never sold him; and how (they thought that) their
original plan - for Yosef to die - came true, even though they never killed
him. 
	In retrospect, one could even suggest that the brothers may have
never been able to 'gather the courage' to either kill or sell Yosef.
Despite their various plans and intense hatred of Yosef, just as they had
quickly retracted from their first two plans to kill Yosef (see 37:22 & 26),
they most probably would have retracted from their plan to sell him as well.

    Nevertheless: they talked; they planned; they plotted - and in God's
eyes - are considered guilty, even though they never actually killed or sold
Yosef.

WHAT DOES YOSEF THINK?
	So far, our explanation has followed interpretation suggested by
Rashbam and Chizkuni.  [I recommend that you read their commentaries and
note how they reach the same conclusion regarding who sold Yosef, even
though they don't explain the events in the manner that we did.]
	Even though this interpretation seems to explain the psukim in
Parshat Va'yeshev quite well, there is a pasuk in Parshat Vayigash that
seems to 'ruin' this entire approach.  When Yosef finally reveals himself to
his brothers, he states explicitly:
"I am Yosef your brother, whom you SOLD to Egypt"(45:4)

	Based on this statement, it's quite clear that Yosef himself thinks
that his brothers SOLD him!  But if our above interpretation is correct,
Yosef should have thought that the Midyanim had sold him, and not his
brothers!  In fact, this pasuk is most probably the primary basis for the
more popular interpretation (advanced by Rashi and Radak - see Further Iyun
section) that the brothers indeed did sell Yosef. 
	The Chizkuni, bothered by this pasuk, explains that Yosef knows that
the Midyanites sold him, but since the brothers threw him in the pit, it was
the brothers "who CAUSED me to be sold to Egypt".  
	Alternately, one could explain, based on the above shiur that Yosef
truly did think that his brothers had sold him, even though the brothers
themselves had no idea concerning what really happened.
	To explain why, let's consider these events from Yosef's
perspective.
	Yosef was not aware of any of the brothers' conversations.  All that
he knew was that, as soon as he arrived, his brothers took off his coat and
threw him into the pit.  A short time later, some Midyanim passed by, took
him out of the pit, and sold him to the Yishmaelim who, later, sold him to
the Egyptians.  Yosef, trying to piece together what had happened, probably
assumed that his brothers had set it all up beforehand.  In other words, he
thought that the brothers told the Midyanim that they had thrown Yosef in a
certain pit, and that they should take him from there to sell to the
Yishmaelim. 
	If so, then Yosef was totally unaware that it was only 'by chance'
that the Midyanim were passing by, nor did he think that the brothers
originally wanted him to die in the pit.  Rather, he thought all along that
his brothers had sold him, even though they had no idea what had happened. 
    In next week's shiur, we will see how this understanding can help us
understand Yosef's behavior during his many years in Egypt. It will also
explain why the brothers assume that Yosef is either missing (see 42:13) or
dead (see 42:22 -"hineh gam damo nidrash"), even though Yosef thinks that
his brothers sold him (see 45:4).
[Furthermore, this interpretation also explains why Yosef tells his
cellmates (in prison) that he was 'stolen' from the Land of Ivrim (see
40:15).]

WHAT DOES GOD THINK
	Even though the brothers had three different plans for 'getting rid'
of Yosef, God had a different plan.
	The Hand of Providence led the brothers to believe that THEIR
'dream' [to rid themselves of Yosef] had come true.  In reality, it was
their plotting that eventually led to the fulfillment of Yosef's dreams to
come true.
	Finally, as will be seen in the story that follows, this was all
part of God's long-term plan for the people of Israel to become a nation in
the Land of Egypt, as the forecasts of "brit bein ha'btarim" slowly begin to
unfold, in a manner that Avraham Avinu would have never dreamt.

						shabbat shalom,
						menachem

FOR FURTHER IYUN 
================
A.  THE HAFTARA - [WHAT AMOS THOUGHT]
    According to the Haftara for Parshat Vayeshev, from Amos chapters 1 & 2,
it would seem that the navi thinks that the brothers sold Yosef, as it
states:
"Thus saith the LORD: For three transgressions of Israel, yea, for four, I
will not reverse it: - 'al michram b'kesef tzadik...' - because they sell
the righteous [one?] for money, and the needy for a pair of shoes..." (see
Amos 2:5-6)

	However, a closer study of Sefer Amos shows that the navi is not
talking about Yosef and his brothers, rather - he is complaining about the
people of Israel at that time.  In other words, Israel is not being punished
for the sins of their forefathers, rather they are being punished for their
own sins.  To prove this, simply note this very same theme in Amos chapter
8:
"Hear this, you that would swallow the needy, and destroy the poor of the
land, Saying: 'When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell grain? and
the sabbath, that we may set forth corn? making the ephah [a dry measure]
small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances of deceit; 
 - 'lknot b'kessef dalim, v'evyon b'aavur naalaim" (compare with 2:6) - so
that we may buy the poor for money, and the needy for a pair of shoes... "
(see Amos 8:4-6) 

	The navi may intentionally employ a phrase that may 'echo' how the
brothers treated Yosef, maybe to emphasize how Am Yisrael was supposed to
learn from the stories of Chumash how 'not' to act - but surely, his primary
complaint is about the behavior of his own generation.


B. RASHI'S SHITTA
	To explain Rashi's 'shitta' (opinion) that the brothers sold Yosef,
we must return to the two questions raised earlier in the shiur: i.e. where
are the brothers eating, and where Reuven is - and change our conclusions.
	According to this opinion, the brothers sat down to eat nearby the
pit, and for some reason (see below) Reuven left them.  
	Then, there are two ways to explain what happened next.  Either when
the Midyanim came by, the brothers employed their services as 'middlemen' to
sell Yosef to the Yishmaelim (see Rashbam's second explanation), OR
possibly, the term Yishmaelim is synonymous with the term Midyanim (see
Radak).

	To explain why Reuven had left his brothers, Rashi offers two
reasons- either he went 'home' to take care of his father, or he had taken a
short walk to do some 'soul-searching' (see Rashi & Radak).

	Re: Rashi's quote of the Midrash that it was Reuven's turn to go
home to take care of his father, it would be difficult to consider this
pshat, for it's over 100 kilometers from Hebron to Dotan, and hence it would
be totally against Reuven's own plan to save Yosef, from him to leave his
brothers at a time like this!
    One could suggest that this Midrash is not coming to explain pshat about
what 'happened', but rather gives us insight regarding how 'frum' the
brothers were, and the fact that they cared about the mitzvah of  'kibud
av', but their hatred of Yosef was much greater than their love for their
father.
	If so, what point is this Midrash making regarding the nature of
'sin'at achim'.
	Rashi's second opinion, that Reuven was 'fasting', may relate to
Reuven's own plan - as discussed below:

C. WHAT'S IN IT FOR REUVEN!
    For some reason, Reuven is interested in saving Yosef.  Why does Reuven
suddenly become so dedicated to his father?
	One could suggest that Yaakov was quite angry with Reuven since the
incident with Bilha (see 35:22), after which he was most likely cursed by
his father (see 49:4), and hence lost his 'bechora'.  Reuven may have hoped
that by saving Yosef from the brothers, he would 'prove himself' once again
worthy to his father.  This would explain his reaction when he tells his
brothers that Yosef is missing - "va-ani ana ani ba".  This was his big
chance to redeem himself.  Now, it only looks worse for him.  After all,
should Yaakov find out what happened, bottom line, it was Reuven's idea to
throw him in the pit!  For Reuven, this could have been 'strike three'!
[Just a thought.] 

D. WHY THE BROTHERS HATED YOSEF
    One could suggest that the brothers' hatred of Yosef may have been more
than just 'petty sibling jealousy'.  Considering that they all realized that
they were a chosen family, with great goals for their future, and also
realizing that in previous generations, certain children were chosen, and
others 'rejected' - they may have felt that it was their spiritual
'responsibility' to 'expel' Yosef from this 'chosen family', considering his
behavior.
    Examine Yosef's dreams.  Compare them to Yitzchak's original bracha to
Eisav /Yaakov, and the standard blessing of bechira.
    How would this confirm the brothers' fear? Do the brothers have reason
to believe that Yaakov is making a mistake by favoring Yosef?  Do they have
a precedent for 'intervening'?
    


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayesh1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 58636 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081217/bdb87f79/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Dec 21 17:57:45 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:57:45 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] For Chanuka - shiur
Message-ID: <20081222055443.4EBF25E0753@out7.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

             CHANUKA - ITS BIBLICAL ROOTS

	Is it simply by chance that Chanuka occurs on the 25th of Kislev?
Most students would answer with a definitive 'YES'.  After all, doesn't the
word 'Chanuka' evolve from the popular acronym, CHANU be-CHAF HEH - they
rested [from battle] on the 25th (of Kislev)?  Presumably, then, had the
battle ended (and/or had the miracle of the Menora taken place) on a
different date, we would observe Chanuka on that day, rather than the
twenty-fifth Kislev.
	Correct?
	Not really.  A closer examination of various traditional sources
relating to Chanuka indicates quite the opposite:
 *	The book of Maccabees informs us that the decision to rededicate the
Temple on the 25th of Kislev was intentional.

 * 	Megillat Taanit describes a holiday on the 23rd of Chesvan,
commemorating a Hasmonean military victory on the Temple mount that took
place over a month before the 'official dedication ceremony' on the 25th of
Kiselv.
.
 * 	In the book of CHAGAI, the 25th of Kislev (or the 24th) was the date
when construction of the Second Temple had first begun - some two hundred
years before Chanuka!

 *	Finally, according to the Midrash, it appears that the time of year
of Chanuka had carried religious significance since the time of Adam
ha-Rishon.  [See Avoda Zara 8b.]

	So why do we celebrate CHANUKA on 'CHANUKA' (i.e. on the 25th of
Kislev)? 
	In the following shiur, we attempt to explain why. 

INTRODUCTION
	Anyone, who has studied the book of Chagai, immediately notices its
connection to the date of Chanuka.  Take for example the following pasuk:
"Take note from this day forward, from the 24th day of the ninth month
(=Kislev), from the day that the foundation was laid for the Lord's House 
take note..."  (see Chagai 2:18).

	Here we find that the construction of the second Temple began on the
24th day (or 25th / see Further Iyun section) of Kislev!  And in the
prophecies delivered by Chagai on that special date, we find God's
assurances for economic prosperity and predictions of great military
victories - should Am Yisrael remain diligent and complete its construction!

	Could it be that this date and these themes are simply
'coincidental'?
	Furthermore, in the book of Maccabees (I.1.54-59) we are told how
that very same Temple (the one built during the time of Chagai) was later
defiled by the Greeks on that same day [25 Kislev]; and then re-dedicated by
the Hasmoneans - also on that very same day!  [See I.4.52.]
	Again, this could be just an amazing coincidence, or  - this may
suggest that the 'roots of Chanuka' had already sprouted way before the
Hasmonean revolt first began. 
	To show how and why, we begin our shiur with a quick overview of the
time period of Chagai and Zechariah, and their respective prophecies.
[For a more complete background of this time period, it is recommended that
you first review Sefer Ezra chapters 1,3, & 4; all of Sefer Chagai, and
Sefer Zechariah chapters 1-4.]
[Unfortunately, the study of NEVI'IM ACHARONIM (the later prophets), and
especially TREI ASAR, has taken a back seat in Jewish education.  For those
of you who never found the hour or so that it takes to read the books of
Chagai, Zecharya, and Ezra; Chanuka 'vacation' would be an opportune time.
The following shiur should provide you with the historical background that
will help you appreciate their content.]

SHIVAT TZION
	The Second Temple period begins when the Jews living throughout the
Persian Empire receive permission [from King Cyrus] to return to Jerusalem
and rebuild the Temple, just as Yirmiyahu had foreseen seventy years
earlier.  [See Ezra 1:18.]  
	During this time period, better know as 'shivat Tzion' [the return
to Zion], only a small portion of the Exile returned.  Led by Zerubavel (a
descendant of the House of David), these returnees were inspired by their
spiritual leaders: the prophets Chagai and Zecharya. 
	The opening prophecies of both Chagai and Zecharya are delivered in
the second year of the reign of the Persian King Darius (see 1:1 in each
Sefer), some twenty years after these returnees had first arrived in
Jerusalem.  To appreciate the prophetic importance of that year (and these
prophecies), let's consider its historical setting.

HIGH HOPES FOR BAYIT SHENI
	The destruction of the First Temple and the subsequent exile to
Bavel left the people of Israel in an unprecedented condition.  Since the
time of Yehoshua (i.e. for the past 900 years), the nation of Israel had
been living in its own land, while the Mishkan (Tabernacle), and later the
Bet Hamikdash (Temple), served as their spiritual and national center.  In
addition, Israel had always been sovereign in their land.  Even in times of
relative weakness, Israel had never been subjugated to foreign rule.
However, after the Temple's destruction, Israel was left without its land,
without its Temple and without its sovereignty.
	Near the close of the First Temple period, the prophet Yirmiyahu not
only forewarned the people concerning this impending exile and destruction -
he also proclaimed that God had granted sovereignty to Babylonia for the
next 70 years (see Yirmiyahu 25:1-12).  As Israel had abused their own
sovereignty, God punished them by subjecting them to the 'yoke' of "melech
Bavel" (see Yirmiyahu 27:12).  
	However, Yirmiyahu also foresaw the redemption of Israel at the
conclusion of those seventy years; promising Israel's return to its land
(and sovereignty), in a fashion even grander than their original redemption
from Egypt:
"Assuredly, a time is coming, declares the Lord, when it shall no longer be
said, 'As the Lord lives, who brought the Israelites out of the land of
Egypt,' but rather, 'As the Lord lives, who brought out and led the
offspring of the House of Israel from the northland and from all the lands
to which I have banished them...' " (see Yirmiyahu 23:78).

	Nevertheless, this promise of redemption was not unconditional.  As
Yirmiyahu warned, it would only be realized if it included in change in the
people's attitude, i.e. Israel's seeking of God:
"When seventy years of Bavel are over, I will take note of you, I will
fulfill for you My promise to bring you back to this place... WHEN YOU CALL
OUT to Me and come and pray to Me, I will give heed to you.  You will search
for Me, and then you will find Me..."  (see 29:1014).

	As one would expect, God hoped that the returning exile would
establish a better and more just society, thus correcting the ills of the
First Temple period.

SHIVAT TZION - NOT WHAT WE HAD HOPED FOR
	At the end of these seventy years, Bavel's great empire indeed fell
to the Persians (as Yirmiyahu had predicted - see Ezra 1:1).  In fact,
Koresh [Cyrus the Great], the first king of this newly founded Persian
empire, issued an edict allowing the Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild
their Temple (see Ezra 1:16).
	Generous a declaration as it was, it granted the Jews only religious
autonomy, but not political sovereignty.  For example, Zerubavel - the
political leader of the returning Jews - is consistently referred to as
"pechat Yehuda"  the GOVERNOR of Judah (see Chagai 1:1, 2:2).  His
contemporary - Yehoshua ben Yehotzadak - was designated to serve as the
Kohen Gadol (high priest) - once the Temple would be built.

	Unfortunately, only a small percentage of the exile returned; and
this small population managed only to build the Mizbeiach [altar] (see Ezra
3:26).  Attempts to begin construction of the new Temple were thwarted by
the local nonJewish population (see Ezra 4:15).  In short, the general
situation was quite pitiful, as stated quite explicitly in Ezra 3:12,
Zecharya 4:8-10, and Chagai 2:1-6.
	Clearly, Yirmiyahu's prophecies of a grand redemption remained only
partially fulfilled.  Now, it became the challenge of the prophets of shivat
Tzion - Chagai and Zecharya - to revive this redemption process.
	Some 18 years later, as Daryavesh [Darius the Great] assumes the
throne of the Persian Empire, a new window of opportunity opens for the
people of Israel, and hopes are re-kindled that construction of the Second
Temple could begin once again.  

CHAGAI - IT'S TIME TO BUILD
	It is in this setting, on Rosh Chodesh Elul during the second year
of Darius, that Sefer Chagai opens: 
"In the second year of King Darius... the word of the Lord came through the
prophet Chagai to Zerubavel ben She'altiel, the governor of Judah, and to
Yehoshua ben Yehozadak, the high priest.  Thus said the Lord of Hosts: These
people say, 'The time has not yet come for the rebuilding the House of the
Lord.'  And the word of the Lord continued: Is it the time for you to dwell
in your paneled houses, while this House is lying in ruins?"  (Chagai
1:1-4).

	As the redemption process had yet to materialize, Chagai complains
that the people lack the necessary enthusiasm to pursue the construction of
the Mikdash.  There may have even been some logic behind this pessimistic
attitude.  After all, the first Bet Hamikdash had been built only after a
monarchy had been firmly established and Israel had achieved economic
prosperity (see Shmuel II 7:1213, Melachim I 5:5, 5:1619, and Devarim
12:9-11).  
	Due to the lack of sovereignty and prosperity during these early
years of 'shivat Tzion', a general feeling of apathy prevailed (see Chagai
1:2, 2:3, and Zecharya 4:10).  Their pathetic situation may have even been
understood as a sign to them that God did not want them to build a Mikdash!
	Chagai's opening prophecy challenges this apathy by calling for a
national process of soul-searching and a united effort to rebuild the
Mikdash.  To encourage the people, Chagai promises the people that this
campaign will yield economic prosperity and political sovereignty (see
1:89, 2:7, 2:1519).

	Chagai thus presents a straightforward challenge: First build the
Mikdash, thereby directing the nation's devotion to God, and then Am Yisrael
will be worthy of attaining their sovereignty and economic prosperity.
	Chapter one describes how the people accept Chagai's challenge, and
begin gathering the building materials (see 1:12-14).  In chapter two, on
the last day of Succot, Chagai provides the nation with additional words of
encouragement, and delivers yet another prophecy, this time promising that
this Second Temple has the potential to become ever greater than the First
(see 2:1-9).  His concluding prophecy is delivered on the 24th of Kislev, on
the day before construction was to begin - and most likely in anticipation
of that groundbreaking ceremony. 
    In the two prophecies that he delivers on this momentous day, Chagai
emphasizes the same central points that he had made earlier.  Not only will
economic prosperity return (see 2:15-20, quoted above), but political
sovereignty as well:
"And the word came to Chagai a second time on the 24th day of the month.
Speak to Zerubavel the governor of Judah: I am going to shake heaven and
earth, and I will overturn the thrones of kingdoms and destroy the might of
the kingdoms of the nations.  I will overturn chariots and their drivers,
horses and their riders shall fall..."  (2:2123).

	Despite these predictions of grandeur, reality fell far short of
these expectations.  Indeed, the people completed construction of the Temple
in the sixth year of Daryavesh (see Ezra 6:13-15); however, during that
generation, Chagai's visions were never fulfilled in entirety.  [Soon, we
will attempt to will explain why.]  
	Nonetheless, these closing words of Chagai likely echoed in the ears
of the Hasmoneans some two hundred years later, as they triumphed over the
great Greek armies, thus restoring Israel sovereignty.   Certainly, the
Hasmoneans had ample reason to conclude that Chagai's prophecy had finally
been fulfilled through their endeavors.  [See Rashi on Chagai 2:5-7!]

	Now, to understand what went wrong during the time period of Chagai
(and how this relates to Chanuka), we must undertake a quick study of Sefer
Zecharya.

ZECHARYA - IT'S TIME TO REPENT
	Sefer Zecharya also opens in the second year of Darius' rule.
However, in contrast to Chagai, who emphasized the nationalistic aspects of
the redemption process, Zecharya delivers a more 'spiritual' message.  His
opening prophecy implores the people to perform proper repentance; only then
will God return to his people:
"SHUVU EILAI... - Return to me, says the Lord... and I will return to you"
(1:3).

	The next six chapters continue with Zecharya's various prophetic
visions describing the return of God's Divine Presence to Jerusalem.  [It is
recommended that you scan these chapters to verify this point.]
	Chagai and Zecharya strike a critical balance between two
conflicting ideals in the redemption process.  Surely, both economic
prosperity and political sovereignty would be necessary for the people of
Israel to achieve their goal of becoming once again a nation representing
God.  However, as these essentials only serve as vehicles to achieve that
goal, they would be useless if the people did not perform "Teshuva"
[repentance] in all aspects of their national existence. 
    For this reason, Zecharya balances the message of Chagai by emphasizing
the need for repentance, an indispensable prerequisite for the return of
God's SHECHINA.
[In modern day terms, one could say that Chagai would have worn a 'kippa
seruga', while Zecharya donned a 'kippa shechora'.  Nonetheless, they worked
together as a team.]

	This balance is underscored in one of Zecharya's most famous
prophecies, [and not coincidentally,] the Haftara reading for Shabbat
Chanuka (2:14>4:7). Note how this Haftara begins:
"Shout for joy, fair Zion!  For lo, I come; and I will dwell in your midst 
declares the Lord... The Lord will take Judah to Himself as his portion...
and he will choose Jerusalem once more."  (see Zecharya 2:1416)

	Even though Zecharya first tells the people to rejoice in
anticipation of the SHECHINA's return, immediately afterward he calls upon
Yehoshua, the High Priest, to 'clean his act' - to become worthy of this
redemption:
"And he showed me Yehoshua the high priest standing before the angel of God,
and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him...Yehoshua was clothed
with filthy garments, and stood before the angel.  And he answered and spoke
unto those that stood before him, saying: 'Take the filthy garments from off
him.' And unto him he said: 'Behold, I cause your iniquity to pass, and I
will clothe you with robes... 'Thus saith the LORD: If you will walk in My
ways, and if you will keep My charge, and also judge My house and keep My
courts...." (see 3:1-7)

    After this charge to Yehoshua in chapter three, Zecharya continues with
a similar rebuke to Zerubavel in chapter four, introduced by the famous
vision of the MENORA surrounded by two olive branches, followed by:
"This is the word of the Lord to Zerubavel:  Not by might ('chayil'), nor by
power ('koach'), but with My spirit ('ruchi'), says the Lord" (4:6).

	This emphasis of 'ruach' over 'chayil & koach' emerges as God's
primary message to Zerubavel, for he is the political leader to whom
sovereignty is destined to return.  Specifically, he must be reminded of the
need to strike this proper balance.  Despite the need of the political
leader to attain "chayil" & "koach", they are meaningless for the nation of
Israel if they are not accompanied by "ruach" [spirituality].
	Zecharya's prophecies were optimistic and upbeat, but their
fulfillment was conditional.  In his concluding prophecy of the second year
of Daryavesh, Zecharya explicitly articulates this stipulation:
"Men from far away shall come and take part in the building of the Temple of
the Lord, and you shall know that I have been sent to you by the Lord, IF
ONLY YOU WILL OBEY the Lord your God!" (6:15).

THE 'DARK AGES' OF BAYIT SHENI
	Unfortunately, the prophecies of Chagai and Zecharya  of
prosperity, sovereignty and the "SHECHINA's return  never materialized
during that time period, nor during the following generations.  Sefer Ezra
remains silent concerning what happened after the completion of the Temple's
construction in the sixth year of Daryavesh, but the situation appears to
have been deplorable.  By the time that Ezra and Nechemya arrive from Bavel
in the next generation, they find a city in ruins and widespread
intermarriage; and even 'chillul shabbat'.  Not to mention the fact that Am
Yisrael remained under Persian sovereignty; proven by the fact that both
Ezra and Nechemya received whatever authority they had from the Persian
king.
	Israel remained under Persian and then Greek rule for several
hundred years.  Apparently, throughout this period they had failed to meet
the conditions set by Zecharya and earlier by Yirmiyahu, calling for Israel
to repent in order to earn their full redemption.
[Rav Yehuda HaLevi, in Sefer HaKuzari II.24, addresses the issue of these
unfulfilled prophecies in a similar fashion.  He mentions inadequate teshuva
as well as the exiles' disinterest in returning to Israel.  See also Yoma
9b, where Reish Lakish and Rav Yochanan explain why the Shechina never
returned during Bayit Sheni.]

	Though still unrealized, these vital prophecies had most likely
earned their place in the collective Jewish awareness, as they reflected the
optimistic goals of the Second Temple.  One might conjecture that the people
annually commemorated the anniversary of the original construction date, the
25th of Kislev.  They may have viewed this day as an appropriate time to
recall the hopeful prophecies of Chagai, pronounced on the preceding day,
the 24th of Kislev.

THE RISE OF HELLENISM
	Later during the Second Temple period, as the Jews lived under Greek
rule, Hellenistic culture gradually established its dominance.  The rise of
Hellenism climaxed with the famous decrees of Antiochus IV in 167 BCE, the
details of which are recorded in Sefer HaMakkabim I (see chapters 1->4).
There we are told that after these edicts, the Hellenists erected an idol on
the mizbeyach on the 15th of Kislev of that year.  They waited, however,
until the 25th of Kislev before offering sacrifices thereupon.  On that same
day, they began killing women who circumcised their children.
	It stands to reason that the Hellenists selected the 25th of Kislev
intentionally, 'lehach'is' [to spite], well aware of its religious and
nationalistic significance.

THE REVOLT & THE RETURN TO THE MIKDASH
	The Hasmonean revolt began that same year, and three years later
Judah secured control of Jerusalem and purified and rededicated the Mikdash.
It is commonly assumed that the battle to liberate the Temple Mount from the
Greeks ended on the 25th of Kislev, and on that same day they began the
daily sacrifices (including the lighting of the menora).  According to this
account, sheer coincidence determined the celebration of Chanuka on this
historic date. 
	A different picture, however, emerges from other traditional Jewish
sources.  Megillat Ta'anit records the 23rd of Cheshvan of that year, as
well as the 3rd of Kislev, as days of celebration and rejoicing, marking
dates of key victories in the Hasmoneans' struggle for control of the Temple
mount.
  	The account in Sefer HaMakkabim (see 4:36-60) also suggests that
the Temple's dedication ceremony was intentionally set for the 25th of
Kislev, to coincide with the very same day on which it was defiled, three
years prior (see 4:52-56).  It also seems from Sefer HaMakkabim that the
construction of the new accessories of the Mikdash and the mizbeiach took at
least several weeks, as a new altar, menorah, and table were constructed,
and the entire building was renovated (see 4:40-51).
	Considering that the Temple Mount came under Hasmonean control
already in Cheshvan, and in light of the account in Sefer HaMakkabim, one
may reasonably conclude that the decision to dedicate the Mikdash
specifically on the 25th of Kislev was intentional.  This day not only
marked the date of its original construction, but also symbolized the
prophetic ideals and aspirations of Bayit Sheni.  Most likely, they selected
this date for the precise same reason that the Hellenists had picked this
date three years earlier: because of its prophetic and historic significance
(since the time of Chagai).
	As mentioned earlier, the Hasmoneans most probably saw themselves as
fulfilling Chagai's prophecies.  In fact, Rashi seems to concur.  In his
commentary to Chagai 2:6, Rashi writes that the prophecy, "I will shake the
heavens and earth" refers to "the miracles that occurred for the
Hasmoneans."
	The selection of the 25th of Kislev as the date for the dedication
of the restored mizbeiach and Temple accessories demonstrated the
Hasmoneans' view of their impressive military victory as the fulfillment of
Chagai's prophecy.

A SIGN or A REASON
	Did the SHECHINA return as well (as foreseen by Zecharya)?  The
Hasmoneans may have perceived the miracle of the "pach ha-shemen" [cruse of
oil] as a divine signal to this effect.  Recall that the central vision of
Zecharya revolves around the Menora (see 4:1-7).  In that prophecy, not only
does Zecharya envision the return of the SHECHINA, but also the return of
sovereignty.  Though not the reason for establishing Chanuka, the discovery
of the cruse of oil with the seal of the Kohen Gadol, and the ensuing
miracle that occurred when lighting the Menora, most likely provided Chazal
[the Sages] with a divine 'sign' of the prophetic significance of the
Hasmonean victory, and hence worthy of commemoration.
	Our explanation so far has shown that the primary reasons for the
establishment of Chanuka as an annual holiday were the military victories
and the dedication of the Bet Hamikdash.  Why do Chazal in later
generations emphasize primarily the miracle of the oil?  [See Masechet
Shabbat 21b, see also Maharsha on 21b regarding the question "Mai
Chanuka?".]
	As mentioned earlier, Zecharya's primary prophecy is his vision of
the Menora surrounded by two olive branches.  This prophecy first and
foremost transmitted the critical message of the predominance of
spirituality ('ruach') over physical strength ('chayil' and 'koach').  Only
through this emphasis on spirit could the people avoid the pitfalls of the
monarchy of the First Temple.  The miracle of the oil may have been seen as
symbolic of this prophecy.
	For good reason, then, the Sages placed such a heavy emphasis on the
miracle of the oil.  The Hasmoneans and those living through the revolt
viewed the military victories, the return of Jewish sovereignty, and the
rededication of the Mikdash  the fulfillment of Chagai's prophecies - as
the source for celebration.  The Sages feared however the dangers of the
Hasmoneans' newfound political power.  Observing the gradual religious
decline of the Hasmonean Dynasty, the Sages felt it necessary to stress
specifically this message of Zecharya: "Lo bechayil velo bekoach ki im
beruchi."

BA-YAMIM HA-HEM - BA-ZMAN HA-ZEH!
	Even after the destruction of the Temple, we continue to celebrate
Chanuka, confident that another opportunity for the realization of these
prophecies will arise.
	The message of Chanuka for our own generation, just as it was two
thousand years ago, carries a similar message.  To some extent, the
prophecies of Chagai have been fulfilled.  Sovereignty and economic
prosperity have returned to Israel in its own land.  Will the prophecies of
Zecharya also be fulfilled?  Just as before, it will depend on our ability
to find the proper balance between 'ruach', 'chayil' and 'koach'.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chanuka1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 61216 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081221/0286b900/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Dec 24 05:14:09 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 05:14:09 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Parshat Miketz - shiur
Message-ID: <20081224100831.0D9B8B084F0@out4.bezeqint.net>

Dedicated in Commemoration of the Yarhzheit of:
Chana Bas Menachem Mendel Yitzchak  A"H
4 Teves

*************************************************************
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

                 PARSHAT MIKETZ - shiur
  
  Does Yosef have a plan?
     He was certainly planning [a way out of jail] when he
interpreted the dream of the "sar ha'Mashkim" (see 40:13-15).
     He was definitely planning [his own 'political
appointment'] when he interpreted Pharaoh's dreams (see 41:33-
36!).
     Clearly, Yosef was not only a dreamer; he was also a
'master planner'.   But what was his plan when he: accused his
brothers of being spies, returned their money, and hid his cup
in Binyamin's bag, etc.?  Was he simply 'teasing' his brothers
- in revenge; or did he have a more altruistic motive?
     As the Torah never reveals that motive, answering this
question requires a lot of detective work.
  In the following shiur, we attempt to piece this puzzle
together by weaving together some of the theories presented by
earlier commentators (& then by adding a little touch of our
own).

INTRODUCTION
     Before we begin our study, a point of methodology in
regard to what allows us to search for an underlying motive
behind Yosef's behavior.
     As Chumash is a book of "nevuah" [prophecy], and not
simply an historical chronicle, we assume that its stories
carry a prophetic message.  Certainly, commentators can argue
in regard to the precise message that should be derived from
each story, and how to arrive [and who can arrive] at any
conclusion.  Nonetheless, all concur that Chumash should be
studied in search for its prophetic lesson(s).
     This does not imply that we must assume that every action
taken by our forefathers was altruistic.  However, it does
imply that if the Torah records a certain set of events, that
they were written for the purpose that we study its detail in
search of a significant message for future generations.
     With this in mind, we begin our study of the famous story
of Yosef and his brothers.

WHY YOSEF DOESN'T WRITE HOME
     Considering Yosef's very close relationship with his
father [recall how the Torah described him as Yaakov's "ben
zkunim" - see 37:3], one would have expected that he make
every possible attempt to contact his father. Yet, even after
his appointment as head servant of the House of Potiphar, and
later as the Commissioner of Egypt, (second only to Pharaoh
/see 41:44), Yosef makes no effort to inform his father that
he is alive and well.
  Does Yosef no longer care for his father who loved him so
dearly and now grieves for his lost son?  Has he wiped his
past from his memory?
     To answer this question, Ramban (see his commentary to
42:9) suggests that Yosef's actions were motivated by his
aspiration to ensure the fulfillment of his dreams.  According
to Ramban, Yosef understood that his slavery, and his entire
predicament in Egypt, was part of a Divine plan to ensure that
his childhood dreams would come true.  He also understood (for
some reason) that for this to happen, he could not contact his
family. And when necessary, he would even 'plan ahead' to help
his dreams along.
     Ramban's interpretation beautifully explains Yosef's
first plan [i.e. accusing his brothers as spies] - as its goal
was to force the brothers to bring Binyamin, so that ALL the
brothers would bow down to him.  This would enable the
fulfillment of his first dream - of the sheaves bowing down to
him in the field.  His second plan [i.e. hiding his cup in
Binyamin's bag] was to force them to bring his father as well
- to fulfill his second dream - i.e. the sun and moon and
stars bowing down - while protecting Binyamin in the interim
(from potential injury by his brothers).  In this manner,
Ramban explains why Yosef did not write home:
  "For had it not been for this (need to fulfill his dreams),
  Yosef would have committed a terrible sin to cause his
  father such grief and make him spend so many years in
  sorrow..."
       [See Ramban on 42:9, read carefully.]
       
     According to Ramban, Yosef's need to fulfill his dreams
'allowed' him to treat his father and brothers in such a cruel
manner.

FULFILLING 'DREAMS' OR KEEPING 'HALACHA'?
  In case you found something 'bothersome' about Ramban's
approach, don't feel bad.  Later commentators take issue with
his conclusion that it would be permissible to cause other
people terrible grief, just to make sure a 'dream comes true'.
  [See Nechama Leibowitz on Sefer Breishit who quotes various
  sources in this regard and deals with this issue in depth.]
  
     This question leads Abravanel to suggest a very different
approach.  He agrees (like Ramban) that Yosef had a 'master
plan', however, he disagrees as to its goal.
  Abravanel contends that Yosef's goal was to bring his
brothers towards repentance for their terrible deeds.
Although he planned to ultimately 'reveal' himself; before
doing so, he wanted to make sure that they had first performed
proper "teshuva".
     Abravanel's approach neatly explains just about all of
Yosef's actions - which certainly caused his brothers to
repent (see 42:21 & 44:16).  However, it is not so clear why
the goal of 'helping' his brothers to perform "teshuva" would
allow Yosef to cause his father continued grief.  [We'll
return to this question later in our shiur.]
     Furthermore, Abravanel's interpretation only explains
Yosef's behavior after his brothers arrived to buy food; but
it does not explain why Yosef did not contact his father for
some twenty years beforehand!

DREAMS REMEMBERED, OR FORGOTTEN?
     One could suggest an approach exactly the opposite of
Ramban's - i.e. that Yosef had 'forgotten' his dreams (i.e.
since the time that he was sold).  It is only after he sees
his brothers some twenty years later - as they  bow down to
him (when they came to buy food) - that he suddenly
'remembers' his childhood dreams.
  To verify this, simply review 42:9 in its context, noting
how it seems to imply that it was at this point when Yosef
remembered his dreams, and not earlier!  [Note Rashi on 42:9
as well!]
     In other words, we posit that Yosef's behavior before his
brothers arrived stems from the fact that he had 'given up' on
his childhood dreams, while his behavior (and 'master plan')
after they arrive stems from his renewed understanding of
their significance.   Let's begin by explaining why Yosef
didn't contact home during those twenty years, by considering
his predicament in Egypt:
  In regard to his brothers, why would Yosef want to contact
(or ever see) them again?  After all, they had thrown him into
a pit and then sold him into slavery (or at least he thought
they were behind the sale/ see last week's shiur)!
  Furthermore, considering how Egyptian society 'looked down'
at the "Ivrim" (see 43:32), contacting his brothers could have
endangered his reputable position in Egyptian society.
  Nonetheless, even though Yosef had ample reason for not
contacting his brothers, it remains difficult to understand
why he didn't contact his father (and let's not forget his
full brother Binyamin).   Could it be that his despise for the
rest of his family was greater than his love for his father
and brother?
  One could suggest that by the time that Yosef had reached a
position of power, he was quite sure that his father had
already died   Recall that Yaakov was about 110 years old when
Yosef was sold, so it would only be logical for him to assume
that his father had died (or soon would / note 43:7 & 45:3!).
  Hence, the slight chance that his father was still alive was
simply not worth the price of returning to deal with his
brothers.  [

YOSEF 'HAD' A DREAM
  A more sophisticated approach to explain why Yosef didn't
write home, is presented by Rav Yoel Bin Nun [in an article in
Megadim Vol. I /a publication of the Herzog Teachers
Institute].
  In that article, Rav Yoel posits that Yosef had no idea that
his father believed he was dead.  Quite the opposite - Yosef
assumed that his father would find out that he was sold (i.e.
one of the brothers would 'snitch'), and hence he had expected
that his father would demand that the brothers trace his
whereabouts and come to his rescue!  After all, the Yishmaelim
[distant "mishpacha"] were international traders who traveled
quite often between Eretz Canaan and Egypt.  Surely, Yosef
hoped, his family would come to his rescue.
  Recall as well that Yosef was unaware of how the brothers
tricked their father to believe he was dead (with the blood-
stained coat).  Therefore, Yosef assumes that everyone knows
that he is alive, and that he was sold as a slave in Egypt.
During his first year or so of slavery, he is 'sure' that in a
short time, someone in his family will come to his rescue.
  However, many months pass and no one shows. Yosef's hopes
are replaced with feelings of rejection. After several months
(or years), he may have reached the conclusion that his family
doesn't want him to return; but there had to have been a
reason.

REJECTED FROM THE BECHIRA PROCESS
  Rav Yoel posits that Yosef had reached the conclusion that
there must have been some divine decree that he was 'rejected'
from the family, i.e. from the entire "bechira" process - in
manner similar to the rejection of his Uncle Esav or great
Uncle Yishmael. It may have appeared to him that only the
children of Leah were chosen, while the children of Rachel
were rejected, as reflected in Rachel's premature death, and
the fact that she was buried on the 'roadside' (while Leah was
later to be buried in the Tomb of the Patriarchs).
  His childhood dreams are now forgotten, and reluctantly, he
accepted his new fate.
     Yosef, convinced that his family has abandoned him,
accepts this fate and decides to lead his own life.  Just as
Eisav established himself in Edom, Yosef will make a name for
himself in Egypt.  He can even bring the name of God into
society in his own way, despite not being part of the Chosen
Nation.
     The following chart reflects what may have been Yosef's
perception of the outcome of the "bechira" process (based on
this original 'misunderstanding'):

               CHOSEN          REJECTED
               =======         ========
       \    AVRAHAM    /
        \      |      /
         \  YITZCHAK /    Yishmael & bnei Ktura
          \    |    /
           \ YAAKOV/          Eisav
            \  |  /
           BNEI LEAH           bnei Rachel
            /  |  \
           /   6   \
          /  TRIBES \
         /           \
        /             \

     In summary, we posit that Yosef never contacted his
family during those twenty years, as he mistakenly assumed
that they did not want to contact him, as there had been a
divine decision that he was 'rejected' from the 'chosen
family', This tragic misunderstanding can explain why Yosef,
even after rising to power, never contacted his father as
well.
     Now we must consider the second stage, i.e. an
explanation for Yosef's behavior after his brothers arrive to
buy food.

YOSEF HAS A PLAN
     After spending years under this assumption that he has
been 'rejected' - everything changes when Yosef sees his
brothers among the many who came down to Egypt to buy grain.
As they bow down before him, Yosef suddenly 'remembers' his
long forgotten dreams (see 42:9), for they now appear to have
come true!   Should Yosef dismiss this as pure coincidence, or
should this partial fulfillment of his childhood dreams lead
him to reconsider his earlier conclusions?
     It is understandable why Yosef doesn't immediately reveal
himself.  He needs some time. But, if he simply wanted to hide
his identity from them, he could have just ignored them.
[Surely, Yosef did not need to entertain every foreigner who
came to purchase food.]
  But why does Yosef accuse his brothers of being spies? Why
does he return their money? Later, when they come back, why
does he plant his special cup in Binyamin's bag?
     Certainly, we would not expect that Yosef was just
'teasing' his brothers - to 'get back' at them.  Rather, it
would make more sense to assume that Yosef has a plan - and
his actions suggest that he has strategy; but it is not so
clear what that master plan is.
     In his article, Rav Bin Nun explains Yosef's 'plan' as an
attempt to determine what had happened to Binyamin. The fact
that Binyamin was not with the brothers the first time they
came to Egypt supports his suspicion that Bnei Rachel had been
rejected. Therefore, his primary goal is to find out if
Binyamin is still alive.
  If Binyamin is indeed alive, then Yosef could question him
concerning what 'really' happened in the family, and afterward
possibly re-unite with his family.  On the other hand, if
Binyamin never shows (and hence probably not alive), Yosef
would remain incognito - preferring never to reunite with his
brothers.
  [This can explain why Yosef accuses his brothers of being
  spies.  The 'spy accusation' allows Yosef to question them
  concerning their family roots etc., without raising their
  suspicion that he may be their brother.]

     Although Rav Yoel's explanation flows nicely from the
above presentation, it does not explain every detail of
Yosef's behavior once Binyamin does arrive.  After all, once
Binyamin comes, why doesn't Yosef simply take him aside and
question him.  If Yosef only needs to determine what really
happened in the "bechira" process, what point is there in
planting his cup in Binyamin's bag?
     Surely, one cannot remain oblivious to Yosef's obvious
attempt to create a situation that prompts the brothers to
repent (as Abravanel explains so beautifully).
  On the other hand, one must also explain why Yosef returns
their money, and why he seats them in order of their birth,
etc.  These acts seem to be more of a 'tease' than an impetus
for them to do "teshuva" (repentance). What is Yosef's
intention in all of this?
     Furthermore, if his goal, as Abravanel explains, is only
to cause his brothers to repent, then his 'second' plan seems
unnecessary - after all, they had already shown remorse for
their sin at the first encounter. Recall their initial
remorse, that Yosef himself overheard, when they stated:
  "Alas we are GUILTY, for we heard his crying out [when he
  was thrown in the pit], but we did not listen ... therefore
  this fate has befallen us..."  (See 42:21-23)

     And if that was not enough, then Yehuda's plea and
admission of guilt (see 44:16) certainly would have sufficed
     Finally, even if Abravanel's contention is correct, who
gives Yosef the right to 'test' his brothers to see if they
have repented? Is Yosef allowed to play God? Is he permitted
to tease, trick, and confuse others - in order to awaken their
soul?  And even if so, does this justify causing his father
further aggravation?

PLAYING 'GOD' OR PLAYING 'LEADER'
     One could suggest the following explanation for Yosef's
behavior (once the brothers arrived) - which is quite similar
to Abravanel's approach, but from a very different angle.
Let's explain:
     Even though Yosef may have forgotten his dreams for some
twenty years, when his brothers arrive in Egypt and bow down
to him - everything changes!  Totally shocked by what
happened, it suddenly dawns upon him that his childhood dreams
may actually be coming true after all.  Maybe he wasn't
rejected?  Maybe, his conclusions regarding his family were
all wrong?
  On the other hand, Binyamin is not with them.  But, if
Binyamin is still alive and part of the family (as his
brothers now claim), then maybe the children of Rachel are
indeed included in the "bechira" process!
  But now that Yosef had become an 'expert' at dream
interpretation, he not only 'remember his dreams', but he now
begins to understand their purpose!  These dreams were not
merely 'predictions' of future events - but rather could serve
as guide - to inspire appropriate behavior!
  Because of his dreams, Yosef now understands that his
'brothers bowing down' indicates not only that he is included
in the "bechira" process - but more important - that he is
destined to assume family leadership.
  [See the TSC shiur on Parshat Toldot, where we explained
  that once the 'bechira' process reached its critical stage,
  i.e. that all the children of one of the Avot would be
  chosen - at this point, one of the brothers needs to chosen
  to assume the responsibility of family leadership.]
  
  It is here where our approach will differ from the other
approaches that we have discussed thus far.
  We posit that when Yosef sees his brothers bowing down, he
not only remembers his dreams, he immediately understands
their deeper meaning - that they foresee his destiny to become
the family leader, and that all twelve brothers will be
included in the chosen family.
  It is Yosef's realization of this destiny that guides his
ensuing behavior - and triggers his 'master plan'.
  Before we explain how, let's begin by first explaining what
Yosef cannot do!
  Imagine what would have happened had Yosef revealed his
identity immediately, as soon as he recognized his brothers!
They would have 'melted' on the spot.  How could they have
faced him, talk to him?  The shame of their relationship would
have created an eternal barrier. They would never be able to
speak to him, let alone work together as a family.
  
     As family 'leader' - Yosef now recognizes his
responsibility to keep the 'chosen' family united and cohesive
e.  Yosef's plan is simple -he must plan a strategy that would
reunite the family - to bond them in a manner that could
continue to achieve together.
     Yosef does not need to play GOD, to ensure that his
brothers repent - that would be their own responsibility.
Yosef, however, does have a new responsibility to play LEADER.
  Hence, Yosef conceives a plan that will rehabilitate the
family unity - he needs to enable his brothers with a way by
which they can 'redeem themselves'!  But, to accomplish this,
he must put them through a difficult test:
  After procuring the minimal information that he needs by his
'spies' accusation (see 42:7-10 AND 43:7!), he decides to
create a situation where the brothers must choose if they are
willing to forfeit their own freedom - in order to save
Binyamin.  Should they 'pass this test', it will be much
easier for them to work with Yosef in the future.
  Indeed, this plan may cause his father a few extra weeks of
suffering.  But Yosef must restrain his emotions, for he hopes
that it will unfold quickly.
  [Yosef probably expected that the brothers would bring
  Binyamin down immediately.  He did not expect that Yaakov
  would be so reluctant to send Binyamin away.]
  
  Therefore, Yosef's keeps Shimon in jail, to ensure that his
brothers will bring Binyamin.  Once Binyamin will come, Yosef
plans the big 'set up' - where he will plant his cup in
Binyamin's bag, thus giving a chance for his brothers to
'prove themselves' (as they so well do).
  While doing so, Yosef does many other things to make the
brothers wonder and think - to shake them up a bit [what we
call "cheshbon ha'nefesh".]  He also returns their money, and
shows kindness to them, for he truly does care about their own
welfare! But by planting his cup in Binyamin's bag, Yosef
provides his brothers with a special opportunity so they can
prove to themselves that they have done "teshuva"!  Only after
they demonstrate their willingness to give up their own lives
for Binyamin, will they be able to face themselves, and Yosef
- and unite as a cohesive family - to take on the challenges
that lay in the future.
  
  Once Yehuda, on behalf of his brothers, admits their guilt
and makes his noble offer to become his servant (instead of
Binyamin/ see 44:16 & 44:33-34), that might have been enough -
but Yosef may have wanted to 'push' his brothers even a bit
farther.  But when he hears Yehuda's petition concerning the
fate of his father (at the beginning of Parshat Vayigash),
Yosef can not hold back any more' - he 'breaks down' and
reveals himself.
     To support our thesis, note how Yosef (after revealing
his identify and his instinctive opening question regarding
the health of his father) immediately emphasizes his assurance
that he is not angry with his brothers, and implores them to
recognize the Hand of God behind these events.
  By doing so, Yosef also alludes to his brothers that they
too should look to the future, instead of dwelling on the past
(see 45:1-8).

MAASE AVOT SIMAN LA'BANIM
     By the end of this entire episode, God had created a
situation that would guarantee the physical survival of Am
Yisrael during the famine, while setting the stage for their
future redemption.  Yosef, in the meantime, had created a
situation that would keep Am Yisrael united during this
formative stage in land of Egypt
     Throughout the generations, God oversees our history,
while creating opportunities for our redemption.  However, as
we enjoy His providence, it remains OUR OWN responsibility to
make sure that we remain united as our destiny unfolds.
Although quite difficult, it remains an eternal challenge for
Jewish leadership.

                         shabbat shalom,
                         menachem

================
FOR FURTHER IYUN

 "SINAT ACHIM" & IDEALISM - a 'mini- shiur'
     Can there be any excuse for the brothers conspiring to
kill Yosef?  How are we to understand the behavior of our
ancestors?  Is their goal simply to teach us of our 'shameful'
heritage, or do they carry a message for future generations?
     In the following mini-shiur, we attempts to tackle this
difficult question by projecting the "bechira process" - the
theme that we have been following in Sefer Breishit - onto the
story of Yosef and his brothers.

INTRODUCTION
     At first glance, the brothers' hatred of Yosef appears to
stem from a petty sibling rivalry.  However, when we consider
the Torah's story of Yosef's dreams (see 37:2-12), it is
possible to arrive at a deeper understanding of their actions.
Therefore, we begin our shiur with a quick review of these two
dreams:
(1)    "And behold we were gathering sheaves in the field, and
  my sheaf stood up and remained upright. Your sheaves then
  gathered around and bowed down to my sheaf" (37:7);
(2)    "... and behold - the sun, the moon, and eleven stars
  were bowing down to me." (37:9)

     One doesn't have to be a prophet to interpret these two
dreams. Clearly, they point to Yosef's developing sense of
superiority over the entire family.  However, these dreams
also echo an earlier sibling rivalry in Chumash - that between
Yaakov and Eisav!  Note the similarity between these dreams
and Yitzchak's blessing to Yaakov (i.e. the blessing that he
intended to give it to Eisav):
     "May God bless you with... an abundance of grain...
  Be MASTER OVER your brothers, and let your mother's sons BOW
  DOWN to you."   (27:28)

     Recall our explanation that this blessing reflected
Yitzchak's original understanding that both of his sons were
chosen, and hence it became the father's responsibility to
appoint a family 'leader'.  However, as that story progressed,
it became clear to Yitzchak that only Yaakov was chosen.
Then, as we advance to the next generation, it appears that
ALL of Yaakov's children will be chosen (and not only one).
Therefore, it will become necessary for Yaakov to appoint a
'family leader' from among his twelve sons - but it is not yet
clear who this 'leader' will be.
     With this in mind, it would appear that Yosef's dreams
reflect his aspiration to attain this leadership position.
[One could also suggest that they may reflect Yosef's
understanding that he would be the ONLY 'chosen son,' just as
Yaakov himself emerged as Yitzchak's only chosen son!
     This perception is supported not only by Yosef's dreams,
but also by several other factors, such as:
 *   Yaakov's love and special treatment of Yosef (see 37:3);
 *   his "ktonet pasim" (special cloak), a sign of royalty;
 *   Yosef is the first son of Rachel, Yaakov's 'primary'
wife;
 *   Yaakov's silence regarding Yosef's dreams (see 37:11);

ALL IN THE NAME OF GOD
  In the brothers' eyes, it becomes rather clear that Yaakov
plans to name Yosef (or possibly Yosef and Binyamin, the son's
of Rachel) as his exclusive heir(s).  Yosef's dreams simply
added 'fuel to the flame!'
     This background allows us to suggest an ideological basis
for the brothers' decision to kill Yosef, as follows:
     Had Yosef acted in a more righteous manner, his brothers
may have conceded to his destiny as either the 'leader' or the
'chosen' son. However, their perception of Yosef's character
troubled them. In their eyes (as the Parshat Vayeshev
testifies), Yosef was a slanderer: "And Yosef brought bad
reports ('diba ra'ah') of his brothers to his father." (see
37:2)
     The brothers, aware of the challenges facing God's
special Nation, recognized the need for exemplary leadership.
Could Yosef possibly assume this role?  To the brothers, the
mere thought of 'Yosef the Slanderer' becoming the leader was
horrific. From their perspective, it was simply unthinkable
that Yosef could assume the leadership of a nation destined by
God to be characterized by "tzedek u'mishpat" (see 18:19). For
the sake of "klal Yisrael," they conclude: Yosef must be
weeded out!
     Hence, the brothers faced a predicament similar to that
of Rivka in the previous generation. Just as Rivka had
realized that Yitzchak was mistaken in his favoring of Eisav,
so too the brothers conclude that Yaakov is mistaken by
favoring Yosef.
  However, just as Rivka resorted to 'trickery' to ensure that
the proper son would be blessed, so too the brothers decide to
use 'trickery' to ensure that Yosef would not be appointed
their leader. Considering that the entire fate of "Am Yisrael"
was at stake, the brothers allow themselves to 'bend the
rules' a bit, so as to secure the nation's future.
     An ideal opportunity (for the brothers) arises when Yosef
arrives at Dotan to visit them. In order to dispose of this
menace, they plot first to kill him. Later they opt to sell
him - off to a distant land. In either case, their stated goal
is to make sure that Yosef is removed from the Divine family
(see 37:20 - "v'nireh mah yihiyu chalomotav"). Out of respect
and concern for their father, lest he fret and worry about his
'missing' son for the rest of his life, they will dip Yosef's
coat in blood so that Yaakov will think that he was truly
dead. Hopefully, their father will finally realize that Yosef
was "nidcheh" (rejected), and now Am Yisrael can continue to
develop in the proper fashion.
     Thus, based on the theme of Sefer Breishit, the brothers'
plot to dispose of Yosef, though inexcusable, is
understandable. It is not simply out of petty jealousy that
they want to kill Yosef, but rather out of a 'sincere' concern
for the future of Am Yisrael.

MAASE AVOT SIMAN LA'BANIM
     If our above assumptions are correct, then the story of
Yosef and his brothers leaves us with a poignant message.
When making important decisions that may affect the future of
our communities we must make sure that lofty spiritual goals
do not blind us from the most basic principles of moral
behavior..
  [Based on this discussion, one could suggest that the
  "piyut" that we recite on Yom Kippur about the Ten Martyrs
  (who were killed by the Romans during the time of the
  destruction of the Second Temple and the Bar Kochba revolt)
  reflects a similar message.  In that piyut, Chazal connect
  those tragedies to the brothers' selling of Yosef.  Even
  though that event had taken place over a thousand years
  earlier, Chazal consider the behavior of Am Yisrael during
  that time period similar to that of Yosef and his brothers.
    To understand why, recall that Chazal cite "sinat chinam"
  [petty hatred of one another] as the primary sin of that
  generation (even though Torah study was at an all time high
  - see Mesechet Gittin 55b with regard to the story of Kamtza
  and Bar Kamtza. See also Yoma 9b).  Hence, that piyut is
  making a similar statement, but in a more 'poetic' manner.
  The generation of "churban bayit sheni" had repeated the sin
  of "sinat achim" in a manner similar to Yosef's brothers.
  Hence they deserved to be punished, as the later generation
  continues in the same pattern of sin.]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: miketz1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 45956 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081224/4931c8de/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Fri Dec 26 05:45:15 2008
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 05:45:15 -0500
Subject: [Par-lite] Torah reading for Chanuka - shiur
Message-ID: <20081226174150.E6E345E0455@out7.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

              PARSHAT NASO - the Nsiim

    We were all taught from a young age that the Torah
doesn't 'waste' any words.  Nevertheless, the repetition of
the 'korbanot' of the Nsiim [the Princes (of each tribe)] in
Parshat Naso certainly leaves the reader with the impression
that [at times] the Torah can be very 'wordy'.
    In the following shiur, as we study chapter 7, we will
attempt to explain the thematic significance of that
repetition - to show how the Torah's 'wordiness' is not
'wasteful' at all.
  
INTRODUCTION
  Rarely does anyone pay careful attention to the second half
of Parshat Naso; and for a very simple reason.  In those last
eighty some psukim (see 7:12-83), the Torah repeats twelve
times the exact same details of the exact same korban brought
by each "nasi"!  Then, 'to top it off', in the final five
psukim (see 7:84-88) the Torah tallies them for us as well.
  For that reason, you probably never paid attention to the
last pasuk of the Parsha - but if you did, it most certainly
should have bothered you!
     Let's explain why:

AN ALMOST PERFECT FINALE
     At the conclusion of the Torah's tally of all of the
offerings brought during those twelve days we find what
appears to be a 'perfect' summary pasuk:
  "zot chanukat ha'mizbeiach... " - 'this was the dedication
  offering for the Altar on the day that it was consecrated.'
    (see 7:88)

     Clearly, 7:88 could (and should) have been the final
pasuk of this entire unit.  To verify this, simply note how
7:88 provides perfect 'closure' for 7:84, as well as for 7:1
(which began the entire unit)!
  [It is highly recommended that you take a look in your
  Chumash to see this for yourself!]
  
     But to our surprise, after this summary is complete, the
Torah 'adds on' an additional pasuk that appears to be totally
unrelated. Let's take a look:
  "...And when Moshe would come into the OHEL MOED to speak to
  Him, he would hear God's voice speak to him from above the
  KAPORET above the ARON between the two keruvim, and then He
  would speak to him."
    (See 7:89, i.e. the end of Parshat Naso)

     The information in this pasuk may be important, but it
has absolutely nothing to do with the 'korbanot' that were
just offered.  After all, what connection could there be
between 'how God spoke to Moshe from the Ohel Moed' and 'the
twelve days of korbanot' that were just offered by the Nsiim?

NOTHING NEW
     To complicate matters, not only does this pasuk appear to
be 'out of place', it also appears to be totally superfluous -
for it doesn't contain any information that we didn't already
know beforehand.  Let's explain why.
     Concerning how God spoke to Moshe from above the KAPORET
etc. (see 7:89) - note how this very same detail was already
recorded in Parshat Terumah - in God's commandment to Moshe
concerning how to build the Mishkan:
  "and in the ARON put the EYDUT... And I will meet you there
  and speak to you from above the KAPORET between the two
  KERUVIM that are on the ARON HA'EYDUT..." (see Shmot 25:21-
  22)

     Later on, in the very first pasuk of Sefer Vayikra, we
were already informed that God had indeed spoken to Moshe
Rabeinu from the Ohel Moed (see Vayikra 1:1).
     Therefore, all the information provided by 7:89 is
already known, and hence this pasuk seems to be both 'out of
place' and superfluous.

     To uncover the importance of this 'add on' pasuk, we must
return to our study of what transpired on this special day in
the Bible - the day when the Mishkan was first dedicated - as
the events on that day are described not only here in Sefer
Bamidbar, but also in Shmot and Vayikra!

YOM HA'SHMINI
     Recall that in addition to Parshat Naso, there are two
other units in Chumash that describe the story of the
Mishkan's dedication:
 *   Toward the conclusion of Parshat Pekudei, the Torah
described how the Mishkan was assembled, followed by how the
shechina dwelled upon it (see Shmot chapter 40);
 *   In Parshat Shmini, the Torah detailed the special
korbanot offered by Aharon and the people on that day, that
enabled God's glory to appear (see Vayikra 9, especially 9:1-
6).

     Even though each of story describes a different aspect of
what happened on that day, they both focus on how God's
"shechina" returned to Am Yisrael on that day (see Shmot 40:34-
38 and Vayikra 9:5-6,24).
     We will now show how the final pasuk of Parshat Naso may
also relate to that same event, and for an important thematic
reason!

BACK TO CHET HA'EGEL
     Recall that in the aftermath of chet ha'egel [the sin of
the Golden Calf /see Shmot 32], God concluded that Bnei
Yisrael would not be able survive if His divine Presence - the
shechina" - remained in their midst.  Therefore, God informed
Moshe that He would be taking away His "shechina" from the
camp of Bnei Yisrael (see Shmot 33:1-4).  As a consequence of
this punishment, God instructed Moshe to re-locate his own
tent from inside the camp to OUTSIDE the camp:
  "And Moshe took the tent, and set it up OUTSIDE the camp,
  FAR AWAY from the camp, and called it the OHEL MOED, then
  anyone who would seek God would need to go to the tent
  OUTSIDE the camp (see Shmot 33:7).

     From this perspective, the very placement of Moshe's tent
OUTSIDE the camp, and the fact that God would now only speak
to him at this location served as a constant reminder of Bnei
Yisrael's 'down-graded' status.
  [Note as well that Moshe's tent outside the camp is now
  named the OHEL MOED - the tent of meeting (between God and
  Moshe) - a name that will later be used to describe the
  Mishkan itself!]
  
     With this background, we can better appreciate the
thematic importance of the wording of God's opening
commandment for Bnei Yisrael to build the Mishkan (in Sefer
Shmot):
  "And you shall build for Me a MIKDASH, so that I can dwell
  in THEIR MIDST..." (see Shmot 25:8)

     Building the Mishkan would enable the shechina to return
to the camp of Bnei Yisrael.
    [In regard to whether this commandment was given before
    [Ramban] or after [Rashi] chet ha'egel - see TSC shiur on
    Parshat Terumah.  This thematic connection between the
    Mishkan and the story of chet ha'egel certainly supports
    Rashi's (and Chazal's) approach.]

     Recall as well that even though God had answered Moshe
Rabeinu's plea to forgive their sin (see Shmot 33:12-19) by
invoking His thirteen attributes of Mercy (see 34:1-7) -  the
"shechina" did not immediately return.  Rather, in order to re-
establish their special covenantal relationship with God, Bnei
Yisrael are instructed to first build the Mishkan (see 35:1-6).

  Therefore, during that entire interim time period, i.e. the
six months between Moshe's descent from Har Sinai on Yom
Kippur and the Mishkan's dedication on Rosh Chodesh Nisan, any
conversation between God and Moshe took place in the OHEL MOED
located OUTSIDE the camp.
     [See Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and Chizkuni on 33:7!]

  Until the Mishkan would be assembled, the existence of
Moshe's special OHEL MOED outside the camp served as constant
reminder to Bnei Yisrael that were still not worthy for God to
dwell in their midst.
     Thus, the location of the Mishkan at the center of the
camp, and God speaking to Moshe from its innermost sanctuary
(see Shmot 25:21-22) would certainly serve as a sign to Bnei
Yisrael that God had forgiven their sin, and that they have
returned to their pre-"chet ha'egel" status.

THE BIG DAY!
     With this background, it becomes clear why the highlight
of the day of the Mishkan's dedication would be the return of
God's "shechina" to the camp, a sign not only of their divine
pardon, but also an indication that they could now continue
their journey to Eretz Canaan.
     Therefore, the FIRST time that God will speak to Moshe
from the Mishkan (in contrast to his OHEL MOED outside the
camp) will certainly be a major event in the eyes of the
nation - for it will indicate that their construction of the
Mishkan has achieved its primary goal!
     From this perspective, the final pasuk of Parshat Naso
becomes the most important pasuk of the entire Parsha!  It is
no longer a misplaced 'add on'; rather it should be understand
as the highlight of the entire chapter - for it describes how
God spoke to Moshe from the KAPORET in the OHEL MOED (see
7:89) - the key event that everyone was waiting for!

     Note how this interpretation completes our parallel to
the other two descriptions of the dedication ceremony of the
Mishkan in Shmot and Vayikra:

 *   In Sefer Shmot, the Torah described the return of the
     shechina (i.e the KAVOD and ANAN /see 40:34) at the conclusion
     of MOSHE RABEINU's assembly of the Mishkan.
        There, the Torah focuses on the leadership of Moshe
     Rabeinu, and how God answered his prayer (see 34:8--9!)
                       ["b'zchut" Moshe]

 *   In Sefer Vayikra, the Torah describes how the "shechina"
     word return by the offering of special korbanot 
     (see 9:5-6 & 9:24).
       There, the Torah focuses on the function of Aharon, and
     the kohanim, who serve as the liaison between God and
     His people.
                       ["b'zchut" Aharon]

 *   Now, In Sefer Bamidbar, the Torah describes how the
      shechina returned due to the leadership of the Nsiim.
                       ["b'zchut" ha'Nsiim]

     But why were these korbanot offered by the Nsiim so
instrumental towards the return of God's shechina?
     To answer this question, we must return to our analysis
of Sefer Bamidbar.

A SHOW OF UNITY
     Recall how the first ten chapters of Sefer Bamidbar
describe Bnei Yisrael's preparation for their journey from Har
Sinai to Eretz Canaan.  During this journey it was the job of
the Leviim to transport the Mishkan, while the twelve tribes
both encamped and traveled with the Mishkan at their 'center'
(see Bamidbar 10:11-24).
     On the day of the Mishkan's dedication, the leaders of
the twelve tribes - i.e. the Nsiim - took a joint initiative
to donate six transport wagons - that would help the Leviim
carry the Mishkan during their journey (see 7:1-9).  Together
with the presentation of these six wagons, each and every
"nasi" also offered a special korban - in honor of the
dedication of the Mishkan (see 7:10).
     Instead of each leader trying to outdo the other [ever
hear of such a thing?], to our surprise - each NASI offered
the exact same korban, and they all presented their korbanot
to Moshe Rabeinu together on that very first day.
  For some reason, God instructed Moshe not to accept them all
on the same day; rather Moshe was commanded to set aside a
special day for each NASI (see 7:11!).  Furthermore, the Torah
dedicates the next eighty psukim to detail the precise korban
offered by each leader on each consecutive day!
  One could suggest that this show of 'unity' was so
important, that the Torah found it worthwhile to detail each
and every korban, even though they were all identical!

BACK TO DAY ONE!
     It would have been significant enough had the Torah only
repeated each korban; but to 'top it off', the Torah continues
in 7:84-88 by providing us with a tally of all the offerings
brought over those twelve days (like we don't know how to
multiply!).
  But note carefully how that summary unit begins:
  "This was the dedication of the MIZBAYACH, on THE DAY that
  it was anointed, by the NSIIM of Israel...  (7:84)

  The Torah has returned to 'Day One' of the dedication
ceremony, reminding us that all of these korbanot were first
presented jointly by all the Nsiim - on the very first day
(i.e. when the Mishkan was first dedicated):
     This could provide us with a reason for this summary.
The Torah does not need to teach us multiplication; rather it
is emphasizing once again how all of these korbanot were
presented to Moshe Rabeinu by ALL of the NSIIM on the very
first day - in a show of national unity!
  As these psukim describe what transpired on the first day of
the Mishkan's dedication - the Torah concludes (in 7:89) by
telling us how this joint offering enabled the most
significant event on that day to take place.  From now on, God
would speak to Moshe from the Ohel Moed within the camp of
Bnei Yisrael!  It may have been this show of unity that
inspired God to allow His "shechina" to return to dwell in
their midst.
  The nation, via its leaders, had shown their worthiness to
return to their status as God's special nation - chosen to
represent Him before the eyes of all mankind.
     United in purpose, Bnei Yisrael were now ready to leave
Har Sinai with God in their midst, to take the challenge of
establishing God's model nation in the Promised Land.
  [See also Rashi on Shmot 19:2 "va'yichan" everyone as one
  person with one heart...", describing how Bnei Yisrael first
  encamped at Har Sinai.]

     It may be that it was because of this collective effort,
where everyone acted together towards a common goal, while
keeping their own identity; that God found it important to
give each Nasi his own special day.  By acting with unity,
each Nasi was now able to shine as an individual.  It may have
been that understanding of the important balance between the
nation and the individual - that made room for God to 'join
along' with His nation, as they prepared for their next stage
of Redemption!

     That show of unity was only short lived in Sefer
Bamidbar, as the nation returned to divisiveness as soon as
they left Har Sinai (see chapters 11 thru 25 in Sefer
Bamidbar).  Nonetheless, that short moment of unity can remain
as inspiration for future generations, especially to their
leaders, and especially at times of historic potential.

                                   shabbat shalom,
                                   menachem
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: naso3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 29176 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20081226/2c479617/attachment-0001.pdf 

