From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Jan  1 06:54:22 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 06:54:22 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Vayigash - shiur
Message-ID: <20090101185252.ACE9B5E07A5@out3.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  VAYIGASH

	When Yaakov and family depart for Egypt, they appear to be planning
just a short visit, i.e. to see Yosef and to survive the famine.  Yet, for
some reason, they never return to Eretz Canaan (not at least for the next
several hundred years)!
    Was life in Egypt simply too good?
	Could it be that the 'Promised Land' was not important to them?
Could it be that Yaakov's family did not care about God's covenant with
Avraham & Yitzchak? [Based on Breishit 26:1-4, it appears that they did
care!]
	In the following shiur, we attempt to explain why Yaakov and his
family stay in Egypt, while laying the groundwork for our study of the
thematic transition from Sefer Breishit to Sefer Shmot.

INTRODUCTION
    In Parshat Va'yigash, God speaks to Yaakov Avinu prior to his departure
to see Yosef in Egypt.  As this is the very last time that God speaks to man
in Sefer Breishit, we should certainly expect for this "hitgalut"
[revelation] to be significant.
	However, to appreciate its importance, we must begin our study with
a quick review of the events that lead up to this "hitgalut".
 
EVERYONE HAS A PLAN
	As we would expect, as soon as Yaakov hears that Yosef is still
alive, he immediately decides to go visit him:
"And Yisrael said... my son Yosef is still alive; I must go and see him
before I die" (see 45:28).

	Does Yaakov plan to return immediately to Eretz Canaan after this
visit?  Was there any reason why he shouldn't?
	Even though it is not quite clear what Yaakov's original intentions
may have been, Yosef had already informed his brothers concerning the
framework of his original 'invitation':
"... Quickly go up to my father and tell him, thus says your son Yosef: God
has made me master over all of Egypt.  Come down to me, do not stay [in
Canaan], for you should dwell in the land of Goshen to be near me; you and
your children...
	And I will provide for you there, for ANOTHER FIVE YEARS OF FAMINE
still remain, lest you PERISH, you and your entire household..." (45:9-11).

	Clearly, Yosef intends for his family to stay for more than just a
'long weekend'.  However, he makes no mention that he intends that they make
Egypt their permanent home.  It seems more likely that his invitation is for
five years, as he states specifically "because FIVE years of famine still
remain, lest the family perish"! 
    What will be once the famine is over and economic conditions in Canaan
improve?  Most likely, Yaakov and his family plan to (& should) return to
their homeland.
	Even though Yaakov, Yosef, and the brothers may not have been quite
sure how long this visit would last, it doesn't seem that any of them
thought that it would be any more than a 'visit' - and certainly not a full
emigration.  God, however, had a very different plan in mind - a plan that
He reveals to Yaakov before his departure from Eretz Canaan. 

THE STOP AT BEER SHEVA
    To better appreciate God's plan, let's take a careful look at what
transpires when Yaakov and family stop at Beer Sheva, on their way down to
Egypt: 
"And Yisrael traveled with all that was his, and came to BEER SHEVA, and he
offered 'ZEVACHIM' (sacrifices, peace offerings) to the God of his father
YITZCHAK" (see 46:1).

	When studying this pasuk, several questions arise:
* Why does Yaakov stop specifically at BEER SHEVA?  In fact, we could ask,
why does he stop at all?
* Why does he offer these sacrifices specifically to the "God of his father
YITZCHAK"?  [Is He not the God of Avraham, as well? / See 32:10 where Yaakov
prayed to the God of both Avraham AND Yitzchak!] 
* Why does he find it necessary at this time to offer korbanot?
* Why does he offer specifically ZEVACHIM? 
* Why is Yaakov's new name - Yisrael - used in this pasuk?

	To answer these questions, we must first consider Yaakov's
predicament at this point in time.
	First of all, Yaakov is quite worried.  [To prove this, simply note
the opening words of God's response to Yaakov's offering: "Don't worry..."
(see 46:1-3).]
    The reason for his worry most probably relates to the fact that he is
now leaving Eretz Canaan.  Recall that his father Yitzchak, even in times of
famine, was not permitted to leave the land:
"And there was a famine in the Land... and God appeared to him (Yitzchak)
and said to him: Do not go down to Egypt, stay in the Land that I show
you..." (see 26:1-3).

	At that time, God even explained the reason why Yitzchak could not
leave - because he was the 'chosen' son of Avraham Avinu:
"... reside in this Land and I will be with you and bless you, for to you
and your offspring I have given these Lands, and I will fulfill the OATH
which I have sworn to Avraham..." (26:3-4).

	Although Avraham himself was permitted to leave the Land during a
famine, Yitzchak, his CHOSEN son, was instructed to stay in the Land.
Understandably, then, Yaakov has reason to assume that God may not approve
of this visit. 
    Even though Yaakov himself had once received permission to leave Eretz
Canaan (in Parshat Vayetze, see 28:10-20), his situation then was quite
different, as he faced immediate, life-threatening danger (see 27:41-43).
And even then, Yaakov still required divine reassurance that ALTHOUGH he was
leaving Eretz Canaan, God would continue to look after him and BRING HIM
BACK:
"And behold I will be with you and take care of you on your journey, and I
WILL BRING YOU BACK TO THIS LAND..." (28:15).  [Note that on that first
journey from Eretz Canaan, Yaakov also left specifically from BEER SHEVA
(see 28:10)!]

	Now (in Parshat Vayigash), Yaakov's situation is quite different.
Survival in Eretz Canaan, however difficult, is still possible, as food
could be imported from Egypt.  Furthermore, if it was so important for Yosef
to see his father, why couldn't Yosef come to visit Yaakov in Eretz Canaan?
Was it absolutely necessary for Yaakov to resettle his entire family in
Egypt at this time?  On the other hand, he and his entire family had
received an open invitation from his 'long lost son'.  How could he say no!
	Unquestionably, Yaakov has what to worry about.

APPLYING FOR AN EXIT VISA
	This analysis provides us with a simple explanation for why Yaakov
first stops in Beer Sheva  before departing to Egypt.  As he fears his
departure may be against God's will (or possibly even threaten his
'bechira'), Yaakov stops to pray to God, 'asking permission' to leave Eretz
Canaan.
	Now we must explain why Yaakov stops specifically at Beer Sheva.
The commentators offer several explanations:
 *	Rashbam (46:1) explains that Beer Sheva was the site of Yitzchak's
place of prayer.  [See 26:25, where Yitzchak builds a mizbeiach in Beer
Sheva.  Note also that God offers him reassurance at that site - see 26:24!]
 *	Ramban (46:1) adds to Rashbam's explanation that Yaakov chooses Beer
Sheva to parallel his first excursion outside Eretz Canaan (from Beer Sheva
to Charan /see 28:10).
 *	Radak considers Beer Sheva the 'official' southern border of Eretz
Canaan, thus the appropriate place for Yaakov to 'apply for an exit visa'. 
		[See also Seforno 46:1 (like Radak) and Chizkuni.]

	Although each commentator quotes different sources to explain why
specifically Beer Sheva is chosen, they all concur that Yaakov's primary
worry is indeed his departure from Eretz Canaan.

	This background also explains why Yaakov prays at this time
specifically 'to the God of YITZCHAK'.  Considering that Yitzchak had not
received permission (when he faced a very similar situation), Yaakov now
prays to 'the God of Yitzchak [i.e. who did not allow Yitzchak to leave].
[See Radak & Seforno.]
[Note that Ramban offers a different approach (based on what he calls
'sod'), that Yaakov recognizes that his departure to Egypt marks the
beginning of the long historical process of 'brit bein ha-btarim' and hence
their future enslavement by the Egyptians.  Realizing that this process may
entail terrible suffering (including God's 'midat ha-din'), Yaakov prays
specifically to 'pachad Yitzchak', the manifestation of God's providence
through 'midat ha-din', in hope that his children will suffer as little as
possible.]

THE FIRST 'ZEVACH'
	Similarly, this backdrop can also help us understand why Yaakov may
have offered specifically 'zevachim'.
	Significantly, this is the FIRST instance in Chumash where we find
the offering of a 'zevach' to God.  As Ramban (on 46:1) points out, until
this time the children of Noach (and Avraham as well) offered only 'olot'. 
[The technical difference between an 'olah' and 'zevach' is quite simple.
In Sefer Vayikra we learn that an 'olah' is totally consumed on the
mizbeiach (chapter 1).  In contrast, the meat of a 'zevach' - alternately
referred to as 'shlamim' (see Vayikra 3:1, 7:11) - can be eaten by the
owner, while only a small portion is offered on the mizbeiach.
Conceptually, its name -'shlamim' implies a certain 'shleimut' - fullness or
completeness, that this voluntary offering can express a feeling of
'completeness' in one's relationship with God.  Although it is unclear if at
this time Yaakov actually ate these 'zevachim', it is significant that the
Torah refers to them with the term 'zevach'.]

	There are three other seminal events in Chumash where specifically
'zevachim' are offered:
1) The KORBAN PESACH (at Yetziat Mitzrayim)
	2) Brit NA'ASEH VE-NISHMA (at Ma'amad Har Sinai)
	3) YOM ha-SHMINI (the dedication ceremony of the Mishkan).

	At first glance, these three examples appear to involve joyous and
festive occasions, quite the opposite of Yaakov's current situation
(worrying about leaving Eretz Canaan).  However, if we look a bit more
closely, all three examples share a 'common denominator', which can help us
appreciate Yaakov's offering of 'zevachim' at this time.  Note how each
event marks the COMPLETION of an important process:

	1)  The KORBAN PESACH, called a "ZEVACH pesach l-Hashem" (see Shmot
12:27), marks the COMPLETION of the process of Yetziat Mitzrayim.  [See
Shmot 11:1->12:14.  Note also that Chazal include Korban Pesach under the
general category of 'shlamim'.]

	2)  At Ma'amad Har Sinai, Bnei Yisrael offer special 'zevachim' as
part of the ceremony where they accept the mitzvot:
"Moshe wrote down God's commandments, and then, early in the morning, he set
up a mizbeiach... and they offered ZEVACHIM, SHLAMIM to God..." (Shmot
24:4-5).

 Here we find the COMPLETION and fulfillment of the ultimate purpose of
Yetziat Mitzrayim - Bnei Yisrael's readiness to accept God's commandments. 
	
	3) On YOM ha-SHMINI, upon the COMPLETION of the dedication ceremony
of the Mishkan, Bnei Yisrael offer a special korban 'shlamim':
"And behold on the 8th day, God commanded Moshe [to offer special korbanot]
... and an ox and a ram for a SHLAMIM - liZVOACH - to offer..." (see Vayikra
9:1-4)

	As the name 'shlamim' implies ['shaleim' = complete], a ZEVACH
SHLAMIM usually implies the completion of an important process.  But if we
return to Yaakov, what 'process' is being completed with his descent to
Egypt?  Why does Yaakov offer 'davka' [specifically] ZEVACHIM?!
 	One could suggest that Yaakov's offering of 'zevachim' relates to an
entirely different perspective.  However anxious (and fearful) Yaakov may
have been prior to his journey to Egypt, he was also very THANKFUL that
Yosef is alive (and that he even has the opportunity to visit him).  In this
regard, these 'zevachim' could be understood as a 'korban TODAH' - a
THANKSGIVING offering. [Note that the 'korban TODAH' is a subcategory of
'shlamim' (see Vayikra 7:11-12).]
	By offering 'zevachim' at this time, Yaakov may actually be thanking
God for re-uniting his family.  

	Furthermore, considering that the purpose of Yaakov's descent to
Egypt was not only to visit Yosef, but also to RE-UNITE his twelve sons,
this journey could also be considered the COMPLETION of the 'bechira'
process.  Without Yosef, the 'bechira' process was incomplete, as a very
important 'shevet' (tribe) was missing.  Now, by offering 'zevachim', Yaakov
thanks God for re-uniting the family and hence COMPLETING the 'bechira'
process.

	Finally, this interpretation can also explain why the Torah refers
to Yaakov as YISRAEL in this pasuk.
	As we explained in our shiur on Parshat Vayishlach, the name YISRAEL
reflects God's choice of Yaakov as the FINAL stage of the 'bechira' process.
In contrast to the previous generations where only one son was chosen, ALL
of Yaakov's children have been chosen to become God's special nation.  Now,
as Yaakov descends to Egypt to re-unite his twelve sons, it is only
appropriate that the Torah uses the name YISRAEL. 

THE END, AND THE BEGINNING...
	Even if we consider these 'zevachim' as a thanksgiving offering (for
the completion of the 'bechira' process), we must still explain why Yaakov
is fearful at this time.  Let's take another look at God's response to
Yaakov's korbanot:
"Then God spoke to YISRAEL... Fear not to go down to Egypt, for I will make
you there a GREAT NATION.  I Myself will go down with you and I Myself will
also BRING YOU BACK..."(46:2-4)

	God's response adds an entirely new dimension to his departure, a
dimension that most likely catches Yaakov totally by surprise:  Let's
explain:
	Yaakov, we explained earlier, may have been planning only a 'short
visit' to reunite the family.  Yosef was planning for the family to stay for
several years to survive the famine.  Now, God reveals a totally new plan.
Yaakov and family are departing on a journey of several HUNDRED years.  They
will not return until they have first become a great NATION in the land of
Egypt.  God Himself brings them down, and there the family is now commanded
to remain in Egypt until they emerge as a populous nation.  Then, when the
proper time comes, God Himself will bring them back.
	Hence, when Yaakov goes down to Egypt, not only will the prophetic
dreams of Yosef be fulfilled, but so too God's promise to Avraham Avinu at
Brit Bein Ha-btarim (see Breishit 15:13-18).  The long and difficult process
of Yetziat Mitzrayim has begun.

	In this manner, God informs Yaakov that although his descent to
Egypt involves leaving Eretz Canaan, it does not constitute a breach of the
Divine covenant with his family.  Rather, it forms a critical stage in His
master plan of transforming Yaakov's family of 'seventy souls' into God's
special Nation. 
[The fuller meaning of this final 'hitgalut' of Sefer Breishit will be
discussed in our introductory shiur to Sefer Shmot.]

FROM "TOLDOT" TO "SHMOT"
	To support understanding, we conclude our shiur by noting the
'parshia' that immediately follows this final 'hitgalut' to Yaakov. 
	After its brief description of the family journey down to Egypt (see
46:5-7), the Torah then devotes a special 'parshia' to the enumeration of
the seventy members of Yaakov's family:
"These are the names ["ve-eileh shmot"] of Bnei Yisrael who were coming to
Egypt..." (see 46:8)

	The header of this special 'parshia' - "ve-eileh SHMOT..." - may be
reflective of this conclusion of the 'bechira' process, for it will be from
these seventy 'nefesh' (souls) that the Jewish nation will emerge. 
	Recall that at each stage of the 'bechira' process thus far, Sefer
Breishit has always introduced each list of children with the phrase:
"ve-eileh toldot".  Now, for some reason, the Torah prefers to introduce
this list with "ve-eileh shmot".  This new phrase may mark the fact that the
'bechira' process is now complete.  As such, the Torah presents the chosen
family with the word "SHMOT" instead of "TOLADOT"."
	This observation can also explain why Sefer Shmot begins with this
very same phrase "ve-eileh shmot".  Note how the opening psukim of Sefer
Shmot (see 1:1-4) actually summarize this 'parshia' (i.e. 46:8-27).
Furthermore, the first primary topic of Sefer Shmot will be how God'
fulfills His promise of Brit Bein Ha-btarim.  We will be told of how these
seventy 'nefesh' multiply, become a multitude, are enslaved and then how
they are finally redeemed. 
	Even though there remain a few more 'loose ends' in Sefer Breishit
(i.e. 46:28->50:26 /e.g. the relationship between the brothers, Yosef and
Egypt, etc.), it is from this point in Sefer Breishit that Sefer Shmot will
begin.  From these seventy souls, God's special Nation will emerge. 

							shabbat shalom,
							menachem

===================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
A.	There are several instances in Sefer Breishit where korbanot are
offered, most notably the 'olot' offered by Noach (8:20) and Avraham (at the
Akeida /see 22:13).  We also find many examples of the building of a
mizbeiach and calling out in God's Name.  Yet, we never find 'zvachim'.
Note that in 31:54, 'zevach' refers to a joint feast between Yaakov and
Lavan, not a sacrifice to God.

B. HINEINI...
	The final 'hitgalut' to Yaakov in Sefer Breishit begins as follows:
	"Then God spoke to Yisrael in a vision by night saying:
	YAAKOV YAAKOV, and he answered "HINEINI" (here I am)... Fear not to
go down to Egypt..." (see 46:2-3).
The unique style of God's opening statement to Yaakov  creates a linguistic
parallel pointing us both (A) backward - to the Akeida, and (B) forward - to
the burning bush. 

(A) "HINEINI" - BACK TO THE AKEIDA
	God's response is reminiscent of His opening statement at the
Akeida:
	"... and God tested Avraham, and called out 'AVRAHAM,' and he
answered, 'HINEINI.'"  (see 22:1).
Besides symbolizing the ultimate devotion to God, the Akeida narrative also
concludes with a Divine oath naming Yitzchak as heir to the earlier
covenants and promises God had made with Avraham Avinu.  This may explain
why in God's reply to Yaakov's korbanot to the 'God of YITZCHAK,' He affirms
the deeper purpose for Yaakov's descent to Egypt - the fulfillment of that
earlier oath to Avraham Avinu.

(B) HINEINI - FORWARD TO THE BURNING BUSH
	Just as we find a linguistic parallel to God's call to Avraham at
the Akeida, we find a similar parallel to God's call to Moshe Rabeinu at the
burning bush:
	"... and God called him from the bush saying: 'MOSHE, MOSHE,' and he
answered 'hineini.'"  (Shmot 3:4).
	
	However, the significance of God's 'hitgalut' to Moshe at the
burning bush extends beyond this linguistic parallel.  It is God's FIRST
revelation to man since Yaakov's departure from Eretz Canaan!  In other
words, prophecy 'picks up right where it left off'!
	Note the comparison between these two revelations, clearly
suggesting a conceptual relationship between them: 

YAAKOV (leaving Canaan)
MOSHE (at the burning bush)
(Breishit 46:2-4)
(Shmot 3:4-8)


God called to Yisrael in a vision:
God called out to Moshe:
YAAKOV, YAAKOV,
MOSHE, MOSHE,
va-yomer hineini
va-yomer hineini
And he said:
And he said:
I am the God of your father...
I am the God of your father...
Do not fear going down to Egypt for I will make you there a great Nation..
I have seen the suffering of My People in Egypt and I have heard their
crying...
I will go DOWN with you to Egypt and I will surely GO UP with you..
I have come DOWN to rescue them from Egypt in order to BRING YOU UP from
that Land to the Land flowing with... [It is recommended that you compare
these psukim in the original Hebrew.]

	Just as the linguistic parallel is obvious, so is the thematic
parallel.  At God's 'hitgalut' to Moshe (at the burning bush), He instructs
Moshe to inform Bnei Yisrael that God has come to fulfill the covenant of
Brit Bein Ha-Btarim, to bring them out of bondage, establish them as a
sovereign Nation and bring them to the Promised Land.

C.  The emotional confrontation between Yehuda and Yosef at the beginning of
this week's Parsha is symbolic of future struggles between shevet Yehuda and
shevet Yosef.
1.  Note that in this week's parsha they fight over Binyamin.  How do the
'nachalot' of the shvatim represent this struggle?
2.  Relate this to the location of the Mikdash in the "nachala" of Binyamin,
as well as to Yehoshua 18:11.
3.  Relate this to the civil war waged against Binyamin, as described in
chapter 20 of Sefer Shoftim.

ADDITIONAL NOTES AND SOURCES
Yosef's plan:
	Rav Zalman Sorotzkin, in his commentary, "Oznayim La-Torah",
explains Yosef's selection of Goshen as his family's home in Egypt as
further evidence of his intention that they would come to Egypt only
temporarily.  He cited earlier sources to the effect that Goshen sat on the
border between Egypt and Eretz Canaan, such that his family would easily
return home after the famine.
	Additionally, Yosef may have ideally preferred to send food packages
to his family in Canaan rather than having them relocate in Egypt.  Rav
Chayim Dov Rabinowitz, in his "Da'at Sofrim", suggests that for political
reasons, Pharaoh adamantly insisted that Yosef's family join him in Egypt
rather than shipping food.  Quite reasonably, the king feared Yosef's
allegiance to another country; to retain his position as viceroy, Yosef had
to sever any ties with his former country and direct all his loyalty to his
kingdom.  Therefore, Pharaoh ordered Yosef to bring his family to Egypt,
rather than sending them food.  This explains the king's somewhat suspicious
enthusiasm and generosity upon hearing of the arrival of Yosef's brothers
(45:16-20).  

Yaakov's plan:
        Rav Sorotzkin claims, as we did in the shiur, that Yaakov's stopover
in Be'er Sheva reflects his ambivalence towards his move to Egypt.  Only he
takes this ambivalence one step further: in his heart-of-hearts, Yaakov
hoped that God would forbid his descent to Egypt just as he had ordered
Yitzchak not to continue to Egypt to escape the famine.  Though this
speculation appears to have little basis in the text, the fact that we find
such a suggestion by a prominent commentator underscores Yaakov's fear of
moving to Egypt.
        [See also Abarbanel, who claims that Yaakov planned simply to see
Yosef and return home immediately.]
	An even more extreme view is posited by the Netziv (in his "Ha-amek
Davar").  He suggests that Yaakov had no intention of going to Egypt at this
point.  This is how the Netziv understands Yaakov's comment, "It is great -
my son Yosef is alive; I will go and see him before I die" (45:28).  Yaakov
here declares that he is satisfied with the knowledge that Yosef is still
alive; he will therefore not go to Egypt immediately, but rather at some
point before his death.  The news regarding Yosef gives Yaakov a renewed
revitalization ("and the spirit of their father Yaakov lived" - 45:27),
which prompted him to move and settle in Be'er Sheva, the place where his
father, Yitzchak, had managed to survive harsh famine conditions with
prosperity.  He thus offers sacrifices to "the God of Yitzchak", asking for
assistance in braving the drought.  That night, however, Hashem appears to
Yaakov and informs him of the Divine plan, by which Yaakov must continue on
to Egypt.  The Da'at Sofrim suggests such a notion, as well, building on the
pasuk, "Va-yakam Yaakov mi-Be'er Sheva" - Yaakov 'picked himself up' from
Be'er Sheva.  Like the Netziv, the Da'at Sofrim claims that Yaakov had
originally planned to settle in Be'er Sheva, and only after Hashem told him
to continue on to Egypt did he 'pick himself up' and go.
	Startling as this theory may sound, a Midrash familiar to all of us
seems to state this explicitly.  We recite from the Haggadah, "He [Yaakov]
descended to Egypt - [he was] forced [to do so], by the Divine word"
("Va-yered Mitzrayim - annus al pi ha-dibbur").  Apparently, Yaakov did not
want to move to Egypt; he did so only to obey Hashem's commandment.  [The
conventional understanding, that Yaakov decided to move to Egypt on his own,
would presumably read this Midrash to mean that Yaakov would not have
decided to relocate in Egypt if Hashem hadn't placed him in a situation
warranting this move.  By bringing famine and arranging that Yosef could
provide food for Yaakov and his family in Egypt, Hashem indirectly 'forced'
Yaakov to move there.]
	On the opposite end of the spectrum, we find several mefarshim who
claim that Yaakov in fact knew that his move to Egypt marked the beginning
of the exile.  Most prominently, the Ramban claims that Yaakov here appeals
to the 'midat ha-din' (Hashem's attribute of justice), knowing that the
exile has now begun.  The Chizkuni concurs, explaining this as the source of
Yaakov's fear.

Yaakov's Fear
	The Abarbanel lists several reasons as to why Yaakov experienced
fear at this point, and his list encompasses most of the explanations
offered by other commentators (including that which we mentioned in the
shiur):
a) 	Ever since Avraham's brit mila and akeidat Yitzchak, Avraham's
descendants were guaranteed special "hashgacha elyona" (supreme Divine
protection) only in Eretz Canaan.  Yaakov thus feared the loss of this
'hashgacha' as he descended to Egypt.

b)	Yaakov also worried about maintaining his 'nevu'a' in Egypt.  Hashem
therefore guarantees him, "I will go down with you to Egypt. ".

c)	The relationship between his family and the Egyptians also concerned
Yaakov.  He feared that the Egyptians would kill his descendants in an
effort to keep their numbers low - which is precisely what happens in
Parshat Shemot.

d)	As Rashi, the Akeidat Yitzchak and others commentators, Yaakov very
much wanted to be buried in his family plot in Chevron.

e)	Surprisingly, the Abarbanel claims that Yaakov was also concerned
about Yosef; if Yosef would die in his lifetime, Yaakov's immense joy would
suddenly turn to anguish.

f)	Finally, Yaakov worried about his descendants' eventual return to
Eretz Canaan.  He feared that they may assimilate permanently within
Egyptian society and remain there forever.  The possibility that Yaakov
feared his descendants' assimilation appears in several other sources,
including the Akeidat Yitzchak and the Netziv's Ha-amek Davar.

	One source of fear not mentioned by the Abarbanel, but to which we
alluded in the shiur, is raised by the Alshich: that the special brachot
promised to the avot would perhaps be fulfilled only in Eretz Canaan.  This
is why Yaakov needed reassurance prior to his first departure from Canaan,
and this is why he is afraid in Parshat Vayigash.

The Stopover in Be'er Sheva:
	Bereishit Rabba 68 and Rabbenu Bachye state that when Yaakov Avinu
left Eretz Yisrael the first time, when fleeing from his brother Esav, he
went to Be'er Sheva to ask Hashem permission.  It stands to reason that they
would explain Yaakov's stopover in our parsha in the same vein, especially
in light of the association drawn by the Ramban between these two journeys.
Sure enough, the Midrash Hagadol writes this explicitly in our context, an
approach taken as well by Rabbeinu Yosef Bechor Shor and the Abarbanel.
	Returning to the Ramban's parallel between Yaakov's trip to Egypt
here and his escape from Canaan to Charan in Parshat Vayetze, both the
Meshech Chochma and the Netziv note an additional point of comparison.  In
both instances, Hashem appears to Yaakov specifically in a nighttime dream,
symbolizing His Providence even in the darkness of exile.

The 'zevachim':
	The various explanations given in the shiur as to the purpose of
Yaakov's 'zevachim' appear in Midrashim and the works of the mefarshim.  Two
sources identify this sacrifice as a korban todah - a thanksgiving offering.
The Torah Sheleimah quotes a Midrash that explains these 'zevachim' as a
thanksgiving offering expressing gratitude over the fact that Yosef is still
alive.  The Tur, in his "Peirush Ha-aroch" (as opposed to his brief "Ba'al
Haturim" printed in the Mikra'ot Gedolot) explains this sacrifice as a
thanksgiving offering over his having arrived safely in Be'er Sheva.  
	Our explanation, that this sacrifice marks the end of the 'bechira'
process, may be what Reish Lakish meant in Bereishit Rabbah 94 when he said,
"al berit ha-shvatim hikriv" - "He offered sacrifices for the covenant of
the tribes".  Having discovered that Hashem had, in fact, fulfilled the
promise that all of Yaakov's children will form His special nation, Yaakov
offers a thanksgiving offering.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayig1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 65347 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090101/60fd5f13/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Jan  5 04:21:36 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 04:21:36 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Vaychi - Questions for self study
Message-ID: <20090105091352.D65E3A1D7B2@out1.bezeqint.net>

This week's TSC shiurim are dedicated in honor of
the recent marriage of Avi-Gil and Tamar Chaitovsky 


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

                PARSHAT VAYECHI

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

'LUZ' OR 'BET EL'?
1.  In 48:3, before Yaakov blesses his grandchildren, he first
reminds Yosef of how God had once blessed him in the city of
Luz.  Note, however, that God had appeared to Yaakov at Luz
twice, i.e. in 28:10-22 and 35:9-15.
     Based on this pasuk and its context, which 'hitgalut' at
Luz is Yaakov referring to (and why)?
  Can you explain why Yaakov relates primarily to God's
special Name of 'Kel Sha-dai'?  [Relate to Ramban on 17:1!]

2.  As you should remember, Luz was the original name of this
site, but Yaakov had since named that place 'Bet El' (see
28:19 & 35:15).  Can you explain why Yaakov (of all people)
still calls this city Luz, instead of its 'new name' Bet El?
     In your answer, relate to why Yaakov called that site Bet
El, and his vow to build a Bet Elokim at that site (see 28:20-
22).
  Did Yaakov ever build a Bet Elokim, as he had promised?  Is
there a good reason why he didn't?  Does he hope that some day
in the future, that one of his offspring may fulfill his
original vow?
  If so, how would that explain his calling this site Luz at
this time?

BLESSING, PROPHECIES, OR PREDICTIONS?
1.  In your opinion, would you consider Yaakov's 'blessings'
to his children (see 49:1-28) as 'hopes' or 'predictions'?
  Support your answer based on their content.  For example, do
any of these 'blessings' relate to the future inheritance of
the Land of Israel?  Do any of them relate to leadership
qualities?  Are any of the 'blessings' actually 'curses'?
  Be sure to relate as well to 49:28!
     Then see Ibn Ezra on 49:1!
  [See also Rashbam and Chizkuni on 49:1.]

2.  Using a Tanach Koren [or similar], note how Yaakov's
blessings to sons are divided into 'parshiot'.  Note
especially how this entire unit begins and ends!  Can you
explain the logic of these divisions?
  Does each shevet have its own 'parshia', or are there
exceptions?  If so, can you identify which tribes, and explain
why?
  Similarly, can you explain the logic of the order of the
tribes in these blessings?  [See Chizkuni on 49:13.]
     Finally, compare these 'blessings' to Moshe Rabbeinu's
blessings to the tribes in Parshat Ve-zot Ha-bracha - in
regard to their content, order, and style.  What is similar
and what is different?
  In your explanation, relate to the purpose and setting for
each set of blessings.

PASSING ON A TRADITION
1.  Review 48:21, noting how Yaakov informs Yosef that God
will one-day bring them back to the Eretz Canaan.  Attempt to
explain why Yaakov mentions this point specifically now in the
context of what has transpired in chapter 48.  Relate to 48:3-
4!
     Recall how Sefer Breishit concludes by telling us how
Yosef relays this message to his brothers (see 50:24-26).  In
your opinion, why do you think that Sefer Breishit concludes
specifically with this message?
     Finally, based on Shmot 3:6-9, 3:13-17, 4:1 and 4:28-31,
prove that even several hundred years later, Bnei Yisrael
remain aware of this message (as well as the various earlier
promises that God had made to the Avot).  [In our shiur on
Parshat Shmot, we will return to this topic.]

BURIAL IN CANAAN
1.  Two times in Parshat Vayechi, Yaakov Avinu asks his
children that he be buried in Eretz Canaan, but each time to
different children:
     1) First he commands Yosef - see 47:29-31.
               [Note as well Breishit 46:2-4.]
     2) Later on, he commands his other sons - see 49:28-33.

  Review these two sources, noting their context, and then
attempt to explain why Yaakov finds it necessary to make this
request twice.  Pay careful attention to what Yaakov commands
Yosef to do, in contrast to what he commands his other
children. What is different, and what is the same?
  Relate this difference to 48:7.  [In other words, why is
Rachel's burial a 'touchy issue'?  See Ramban on 48:7.]
     Review 50:1-14.  Were both requests fulfilled?

2.  This story of Yaakov's burial contains two puzzling
details:
  a)  Yosef appears to fear that Pharaoh may not allow him
  to bury his father in Eretz Canaan.  [See 50:4-5.]
  b)  The official Egyptian funeral procession never enters
  Eretz Canaan.  Instead, the ceremony takes place in 'ever
  ha-yarden' (on the 'other side' [i.e. eastern side] of
  the Jordan River).  [See 50:7-12.]

     Before you attempt to explain why, relate to the
following questions as you formulate an answer.
     First, review 47:28-31.
     Then, explain why (in 50:4-5) Yosef speaks to 'beit
Pharaoh' and not to Pharaoh himself?  [or does he? - see
50:6.]  Does this leave the impression that he is not as
'powerful' as he was before?
     Now read 50:6-11.  Based on these details, does it appear
that Yosef's position remains as important as it had been
during the time of the famine?
     Why does Yaakov receive such honor from the Egyptians?

3.  When the Egyptian delegation goes to bury Yaakov, note how
the Egyptian escort stops at 'Goren Atad', while only Yaakov's
children ascend to Eretz Canaan to bury him (see 50:11-13).
Can you explain why?
     Note that 'Goren ha-Atad' (where the public mourning
takes place) is located on the other bank of the Jordan River,
not in Eretz Canaan (50:10)!  Can you explain why?
     Could it be that the Egyptians are intentionally avoiding
entering Eretz Canaan?  In other words, would it not have been
much shorter for everyone to travel directly to Hebron!
     Relate your answer to the attitude of the Egyptians
towards 'foreigners', based on Breishit 43:32 (& 39:14 & Shmot
8:22).
     What appears to be the opinion of the Egyptians towards
the people of Canaan?
     Relate as well to Vayikra 18:1-3& 18:27!
     Finally, relate this to why Yosef himself does not ask to
be buried in Eretz Canaan, rather he only asks that his bones
be taken when Bnei Yisrael will leave Egypt several hundred
years later (see 50:24-26).

=======

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for the shiur)

1.  In your opinion, what was Yosef's original intention when
he brought his two sons to his father's deathbed?
  [In other words, was he expecting to receive a blessing,
  or was this simply an understandable visit by a concerned
  son?]
  
  If he does expect a blessing, would it be for himself or for
his children?  Finally, what type of blessing should he
expect?
  [In your opinion, did Yosef hear what he expected?  If
  not, was he pleasantly 'surprised', or was he possibly
  'disappointed'?]

2.  Have there been any earlier precedents in Sefer Breishit
where a father has blessed his children before his death?  If
so, in what manner is this situation similar, and in what
manner is it different?
     Based on 48:1-20, what type of blessing does Yaakov
grant?  Is there a precedent for this type of blessing in
Sefer Breishit?
  Would you consider this a blessing to Yosef, or is it simply
a blessing to Efraim and Menashe.

3.  In relation to 48:5 (that Efraim & Menashe will be like
Reuven & Shimon) - would you consider this yet another
fatherly 'blessing', or might this relate to the concept of
'bechora' [right of the first-born]?  If so, explain how and
why, i.e. explain how it relates to 48:3-4.  Then, see Rashbam
on 48:5, as well as Ibn Ezra on 48:4-6, noting how they
understand this blessing!

4.  Attempt to categorize the different types of blessings
that we have found thus far in Sefer Breishit, including both
those bestowed by God as well as those bestowed by an
[elderly] father to his children.  [For example, note 9:24-27;
12:1-3, 13:14-16; 26:1-5; 27:26-40; and 35:9-13.]
  Relate your answer to the theme of 'bechira', which we have
been following thus far in our study of Sefer Breishit, as
well as the concept of 'bechora' and 'bracha'.

5.  Before Yaakov blesses Efraim and Menashe, in 48:3-4 he
reminds Yosef of an earlier prophecy that he received.
     How does this explain the background for his 'promise'
(or 'blessing') to Yosef regarding his sons in 48:5-6?
          [Relate this blessing to Devarim 21:17.]
How does all of this relate to Yaakov's statement in 48:7?
     [Or, maybe it doesn't?  If not, what does 48:7 relate
to?]

6.  What is the essence of Yaakov's actual blessing to Efraim
& Menashe themselves in 48:15-20?  How does this blessing
relate to his earlier blessing in 48:5-6?
     Would you consider this bracha or bechora?
     In relation to 48:16, is there any reason why someone
would have thought that Efraim & Menashe would not be
identified with Yaakov's name?  [Relate to when and where they
were born!]

7.  In your opinion, is 48:21-22 an additional blessing to
Yosef?
     If not, what is it?  [See Rashbam 48:21.]

8.  What is the nature of Yaakov's blessings to his children
in 49:1-28?  Are they all 'blessings'?  If not, what is common
to all of them?  [Note carefully Yaakov's opening statement in
49:1!
     See also 49:34 & Ibn Ezra on 49:1!

9.  Note 48:21, compare with 50:24-25.
     How does this relate to 46:1-4?
     Why is 50:24-25 an appropriate ending for Sefer Breishit?
          How will it relate to what will transpire in Sefer
Shmot?
               [Relate to Shmot 3:15-18.]

PART III - PARSHANUT

SHECHEM - A CITY or a PORTION?
1.  Review 48:22.  What is difficult about this pasuk?  Relate
it to 33:18, and the word 'shchem' in each of these psukim.
     What does the word shchem mean?  Is there more than one
possibility?  How does the remainder of this pasuk affect the
explanation of this word?  How does the context of the entire
chapter relate to the meaning of this word?
     What did Yaakov take with his sword & bow?
          When did this happen and why?

     After answering these questions (on your own), go through
the various commentators and try to organize their different
approaches into at least two categories.  As you study:
a.  See Rashi, noting how does he answer the above questions?
     Why does he bring two interpretations?
  What is difficult about each one?
  In your opinion, which interpretation does Rashi prefer?
b.  See Rashbam (& Rasa"g)!
  How do they answer these questions?
     How (and why) is this interpretation different?
  See also Radak!  How (and why) is his interpretation
  similar, and how is it different?
c.  Next, see Ibn Ezra.  How does he relate to these opinions
(as discussed above)?
     Which peirush [interpretation] does he prefer?
    Can you explain why?
     How is his answer 'better' (or different) than Rashbam's?
d.  Now see Seforno?  How is his peirush different?
          Relate his peirush to Rashi's!
     Would you consider his peirush 'pshat' - or more
Midrashic?
     Why do you think Seforno doesn't prefer the above
peirushim?
e.  Finally see Ramban!  In what manner is his peirush totally
different than the others?  To whom is his peirush most
similar?
     How (and why) does he connect his peirush to Yaakov's
original blessing of Efraim & Menashe?
     Is this typical of Ramban's comprehensive approach to
pshat?
     Note his comparison of this pasuk to Melachim II 13:16-
17!
          How does this 'solve' the most difficult aspect of
the peirush of Ibn Ezra and Rashbam?

'ACHARIT HA-YAMIM'
2.  Read 49:1.
     In your opinion, what does the phrase 'acharit ha-yamim'
imply?    [i.e. how many years into the future]
  a. See first Chizkuni's interpretation!  Why does he relate
this to 'brit bein ha-btarim'?  What is the basis of his
peirush?
  b. Next see Ramban.  How is his opinion different?
          What does Ramban base his opinion on?
  c. Now see Seforno.  Is his peirush the same as Ramban's or
different?  What pasuk does he base his peirush on?
  d. See also Rashbam in 49:1 who explains 'et asher yikra
etchem..' - about their strength [in battle] and their
inheritance [nachalatam].  Can you infer from this how Rashbam
understands acharit ha-yamim?  Which of the opinions discussed
above would this be more similar to - Chizkuni or Ramban?
  e. Finally see Rashi on 49:1.  Even though Rashi doesn't
explain acharit ha-yamim specifically, how does his commentary
relate to his understanding of this phrase?

'SEEING' OR 'RECOGNIZING'
3.  In 48:8, when Yaakov sees Yosef's two sons, he asks: "Who
are these children?"  [& in 48:9, Yosef informs him that these
are his two sons.]  How could it be that after living in Egypt
for some seventeen years, Yaakov did not know who Yosef's
children were?
     First, see Rashi on 48:8.  Note how he 'solves' this
problem by re-interpreting this pasuk.  In your opinion, is
this 'drash' or 'pshat'?
     Next, see Chizkuni, noting how he begins with 'lefi
pshuto'.  Why is Chizkuni's interpretation more 'pshat' than
Rashi's?
     See also Rashbam and Radak.  Are they basically the same
peirush as Chizkuni, or different?  Explain.

4.  In answer to Yaakov's questions 'mi eileh' (in 48:8),
Yosef answers (in 48:9) that these are his sons who God gave
him 'ba-zeh'.  In your opinion, what does is Yosef referring
to when he says ba-zeh?  How does it relate to the context of
what Yaakov has said in 48:1-8?
     See Rashi, noting how he explains that Yosef showed his
fathers some 'official documents'?  Can you explain what led
Rashi to prefer this Midrashic interpretation?
     Then see Rashbam, Ramban, Chizkuni and Seforno.  Note how
each commentator offers a slightly different interpretation,
yet all of them relate to what transpires in 48:1-8.

                              be-hatzlacha,
                              menachem


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vaychiq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 31215 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090105/5c2b2c90/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jan  7 03:40:02 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 03:40:02 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Vaychi - shiur
Message-ID: <20090107083513.C4590BC5464@out5.bezeqint.net>

Dedicated in honor of the recent marriage of Avi-Gil and Tamar Chaitovsky 

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

                PARSHAT VAYECHI

     Blessings - we find so many of them in Sefer Breishit,
particularly in Parshat Vayechi.  What are they all about?
     In our shiur, we will first distinguish between three
different types of blessings that we have encountered thus far
in Sefer Breishit ('bechira', 'bechora' and 'bracha').  Based
on these distinctions, we will then attempt to better
understand what transpires when Yaakov blesses Yosef in the
first chapter of Parshat Vayechi.

INTRODUCTION
     Recall (from our shiur on Parshat Toldot) that we
identified two categories of blessings to explain the nature
of Yitzchak's blessings to Yaakov and Esav.  Those were: (1)
'bechira' and (2) 'bracha'.
     We used the name 'bechira' to classify God's special
blessing to Avraham Avinu that his offspring ('zera') would
inherit the 'promised' land ('eretz').  God first bestowed
this blessing upon Avraham Avinu at the beginning of Parshat
Lech Lecha (see 12:1-3) and subsequently repeated it numerous
times not only to Avraham, but also to Yitzchak and Yaakov.
By tracing these blessings, we were able to show how the
'bechira' process emerged as a primary theme in Sefer
Breishit.
     In contrast, we used the more general term 'bracha' to
classify a blessing of personal destiny bestowed by a father
onto his son [or sons].  As examples, we cited Noach's
blessings to his three sons (see 9:26-27), and Yitzchak's
blessing of prosperity and leadership that were intended for
Esav, but 'stolen' by Yaakov [see chapter 27].

     Now, in Parshat Vayechi, as the 'bechira' process nears
its conclusion, we find how Yaakov bestows blessings of
prosperity and success upon his children.  Even though these
would seem to fall under our category of 'bracha', when we
take a closer look at these blessings, we will need to add an
additional category to better appreciate their meaning.

YAAKOV'S BLESSING TO YOSEF - BECHIRA or BECHORA?
     Before Yaakov blesses all of his children in chapter 49,
he first bestows a special blessing upon Yosef and his two
children, as described in chapter 48.
     To understand the purpose of this special blessing, we
must consider not only its content, but also its context.
     We begin our study by examining Yaakov's opening
statement to Yosef, when he arrives with his two sons (see
48:1-2).  We quote this pasuk in Hebrew in order to highlight
its textual parallels to earlier blessings to the Avot:
  [And Yaakov said to Yosef]: "KEL SHAKAI nir'ah eilai
  [appeared to me] be-Luz be-eretz Canaan va-yevarech oti, va-
  yomer eilai, [and blessed me saying:]
  'Hineni MAFRECHA ve-HIRBITICHA u-netaticha li-khal amim, ve-
  natati et ha-ARETZ ha-zot le-ZAR'ACHA acharecha achuzat
  olam'" (see 48:3-4).

     At first glance, this blessing appears to resemble the
blessings that we have defined thus far as 'bechira'.  To show
how, let's quote the almost identically blessing of 'bechira'
that Yitzchak had bestowed upon Yaakov prior to his departure
from Eretz Canaan (when running away from Esav):
    [Textual parallels are highlighted by CAPS.]
  [And Yitzchak said to Yaakov]: "ve-KEL SHAKAI yevarech otcha
  ve-YAFRECHA ve-YARBECHA ve-hayita li-khal amim - va-yiten
  lecha et birkat Avraham lecha u-leZAR'ACHA itach, le-
  rishtecha et ERETZ megurecha... " (see 28:3-4).

     Similarly, we find an additional parallel blessing when
God officially confirmed this 'bechira' (to Yaakov) upon his
return to Eretz Canaan (again at Bet El):
  [And God spoke to Yaakov saying] "ani KEL SHAKAI, PREH u-
  RVEH, goy u-khal amim yhiyeh mi-meka... ve-et ha-ARETZ asher
  natati le-Avraham u-leYitzchak lecha etnena, u-leZAR'ACHA
  acharecha eten et ha-ARETZ" (35:11-12).

     Considering these parallels, Yaakov's opening statement
to Yosef in Parshat Vayechi would appear to convey this same
message, i.e. that Yaakov is now bestowing the blessing of
'bechira' upon Yosef - and hence, possibly to the exclusion of
his brothers!  [If so, this would be quite problematic, for it
implies that the 'bechira' process will now continue only
through Yosef.]
     However, when we consider the context of these psukim
(i.e. 48:3-5), it becomes quite clear that Yaakov is not
blessing Yosef with the 'bechira'.  [Recall that only God can
confirm 'bechira', and not the Avot themselves.]  Rather,
Yaakov first informs Yosef about his own 'bechira' as
background for the new blessing that is about to bestow - a
blessing which we will now categorize as 'bechora':

'BECHORA'  - TO THE SON OF RACHEL
     To explain this point, let's take a careful look at what
Yaakov now states concerning the status of Yosef's two
children:
  "Now, your two sons, who were born to you in the land of
  Egypt... shall be mine; Efraim and Menashe are to me like
  Reuven and Shimon" (48:5).

     For some reason, Yaakov decides to grant Yosef a special
status.  Indeed, all twelve brothers are 'chosen'; nonetheless
Yosef receives a DOUBLE portion ("pi-shnayim").  Efraim and
Menashe are to be considered 'shvatim' (tribes) - a status
equal to that of Reuven and Shimon.  In 'Torah terms', we
conclude that Yaakov has awarded Yosef the 'bechora' - for "pi-
shnayim" [the double portion] is the special Biblical rights
of the firstborn son.  [See Devarim 21:17 re: 'mishpat ha-
bechora'.]
     This neatly explains why Yaakov prefaces this blessing of
'bechora' by first quoting God's blessing of 'bechira'.
Before bestowing the 'bechora', Yaakov must first explain to
Yosef that his special status of 'bechor' is being granted
within the framework of the 'bechira' process (see 48:4).  It
is because the 'bechira' process has reached its completion
(with God's choice of Yaakov and all of his children), that it
is now incumbent upon Yaakov to grant the 'bechora' to one of
his twelve children.
     Yaakov thus neither chooses nor rejects any of his
children.  He simply awards Yosef with the 'bechora', even
though Reuven was born first.  In essence, Yaakov has chosen
the first-born child of Rachel over the first-born child of
Leah.
  To prove that Yaakov's blessing is 'bechora' (and not
'bechira'), simply note Yaakov's next statement:
  "But children born to you after them shall be yours; their
  inheritance shall be included under the name of their
  brothers" (48:6).

     Should Yosef have any additional children, their portion
must be included within the portions of Menashe and Efraim.
Had Yosef been the only chosen son; then all of his children
should have received special status.  However, since he has
now become the family 'bechor', he receives a double portion,
but no more.  Any other children that he may have must be
included within this double portion.
     [See Rashbam 48:5 & Ibn Eza 48:4-6!]

A 'FLASHBACK' FROM PARSHAT VA'YISHLACH
     This interpretation also neatly explains the reason for
Yaakov's next statement concerning Rachel's death (which
otherwise would seem to be totally unrelated):
  "When I was returning from Padan, Rachel died suddenly
  during that journey, while we were still some distance from
  Efrata [and thus even farther away from Chevron!], and
  therefore I buried her on the road..." (48:7).

     This mention of Rachel's burial most probably relates
directly to Yaakov's choice of Yosef as the 'bechor'.  By
choosing Yosef over Reuven, Yaakov has essentially chosen
Rachel over Leah as his primary wife.  However, this may come
as a surprise to Yosef, for not only was Reuven born first,
but Yosef's own mother (Rachel) was buried along the roadside,
while Reuven's mother Leah was buried in Ma'arat Ha-Machpela -
in the same burial spot where Yaakov himself wishes to be
buried!  [See 47:29-30.]
     Therefore, Yaakov now explains to Yosef that Rachel's
burial on the roadside (rather than in Ma'arat Ha-Machpela)
was due to unforeseen circumstances, and thus should not be
interpreted as an indication of a lower status.  On the
contrary, despite Rachel's somewhat disrespectful burial,
Yaakov still considers her as having been his 'primary' wife.
  [Note then when Yaakov had earlier expressed his concern
  about sending Binyamin to Egypt, he had made a similar
  statement: "And your servant, my father, said to us: As you
  know, MY WIFE bore me two sons, but one is gone..." (Yehuda
  quoting his father in 44:27).]

     Therefore, even though Reuven is the firstborn of Leah,
Yosef is awarded the family 'bechora', since he is the
firstborn of Yaakov's primary wife, the "isha" whom he had
originally intended to marry.

A 'FLASHBACK' FROM PARSHAT TOLDOT
     At this point in the narrative (i.e. after 48:7), we find
an interesting transition.  Now that Yaakov has completed
bestowing the 'bechora' upon Yosef, the focus of his blessing
now shifts to his grandchildren, Efraim and Menashe - who
consequently have now attained the status of 'shvatim'
(tribes).  As such, they also deserve blessings of personal
destiny from Yaakov (i.e. 'bracha'), just as he will later
bless all of the tribes (in chapter 49).
     However, when we read how Yaakov grants these blessings
(in 48:8-20), we find several rather obvious 'flashbacks' to
the blessings of Yitzchak in Parshat Toldot (see chapter 27).
     For example, both narratives describe an aging father who
can barely see (48:10 vs. 27:1), and the 'switching' of
blessing between two sons to the consternation of their father
(48:17-19 vs. 27:6-9).  Furthermore, in both narratives, we
find the use of many similar verbs.
     One could suggest that the manner by which Yaakov grants
these blessing to Menashe and Efraim reflects his own
traumatic experience, when he was instructed by Rivka to
'steal' the blessing that Yitzchak had intended for Esav.
Even though Yaakov understands that Efraim may reach higher
levels than Menashe, he insists upon blessing both of them
together.  Yaakov does not want these slight differences
between Efraim and Menashe to cause strife between them in the
future (as was the case between Yaakov and Esav).  At this
initial stage, he places both children together, bestowing
upon them a joint blessing, while providing a small indication
(by switching his hands) regarding the potential prominence of
Efraim.  Despite their different destinies, Efraim and Menashe
will need to work together, as they will be part of the same
nation, and Yaakov would like this unity to begin already at
this initial stage.

'HA-MAL'ACH HA-GOEL'
     Now that we have discussed the general framework of
Yaakov's blessing to Efraim and Menashe, let's take a closer
look at the blessing itself (familiar to us from "kriyat shema
al ha-mita").  To appreciate this blessing, we must consider
the fact that Efraim and Menashe had grown up with no contact
with their uncles and cousins.  To facilitate their
integration with the rest of the family, Yaakov adds a special
blessing:
     "ha-mal'ach ha-goel oti mi-kol ra - yevarech et ha-
nearim"
    [God's angel who protected me (Yaakov) from all those who
    wanted to harm me, He should bless these children (to
    help them 'blend in')],
  "ve-yikare ba-hem shmi, ve-shem avotai  - Avraham ve-
  Yitzchak..."
    [And they should be known by my name, and by the names of
    Avraham and Yitzchak (for they are part of the chosen
    family.]
     "ve-yidgu la-rov be-kerev ha-aretz"
          [and they should multiply within the land...]
     (see 48:15-16).

     Yaakov very much wants Yosef's two sons to be identified
with the rest of his family name; he therefore blesses them so
that God should look over them with the same providence that
helped Yaakov survive his confrontations with Esav and Lavan.

A TIME WILL COME...
     Yaakov concludes his blessing to Yosef by reminding him
that a time will come when the 'chosen family' will return
home:
  "And Yisrael said to Yosef: I am about to die, but God will
  be with you and return you to the land of your fathers..."
  (48:21).

     Now that Yosef has been appointed as 'bechor', it becomes
his responsibility to inform the future generations of this
Divine promise.  Yaakov is not sure how long it will be until
God will lead them back to Eretz Canaan.  Nevertheless, his
children must transmit this tradition to THEIR children, so
that when the time comes, they will be prepared to meet their
destiny.
     It is precisely this message that Yosef repeats to his
brothers and family on his deathbed, at the conclusion of
Sefer Breishit:
  "And Yosef told his brothers, behold I am about to die, 've-
  Elokim pakod yifkod etchem' [God will surely remember you]
  and bring you from this land to the land which He promised
  by oath to give to Avraham, Yitzchak..." (50:24).
          [Compare with 48:21, 46:3-4 & Shmot 13:13-22.]

     Yaakov concludes this blessing with one last 'cryptic'
statement to Yosef (that obviously requires some explanation):
  "And I am granting you one - SHCHEM - over your brothers,
  that I [will] have taken from the Amorites with my sword and
  bow" (see 48:22).

     The commentators argue in regard the meaning of the word
SHCHEM in this pasuk.  Some understand that Yaakov is now
giving the city Shchem to Yosef as an inheritance, but most
explain that 'shchem' in this pasuk refers to an extra portion
of inheritance that will be given to Yosef AFTER the conquest
of the land.
     According to the latter interpretation, this final
blessing forms an appropriate conclusion.  After mentioning
that God will one day return his offspring to Eretz Canaan
(fulfilling 'brit bein ha-btarim' - 48:21), Yaakov explains
that when that time comes, Yosef will receive an extra portion
in the inheritance of the land, for the simple reason that he
is the 'bechor' - congruent with the opening section of this
blessing to Yosef.

THE BLESSINGS OF PERSONAL DESTINY
     As the family 'bechora' has been awarded to Yosef, Yaakov
now summons his entire family (see 49:1) in order to give a
personal blessing to each of his sons.  Although each son
receives what the Torah describes as a 'bracha' (see 49:28 /
"ish asher ke-virchato beirach otam"), not all these 'brachot'
appear to be what one would call a 'blessing'.
  For example, Reuven is told: "You are unstable as water, you
shall no longer excel..." (49:4).
     Shimon and Levi are rebuked: "Let not my person be
included in their council... For when angry they slay men, and
when pleased they maim oxen.  Cursed be their anger..." (49:6-
7).
     On the other hand, Yehuda and Yosef are emphatically
blessed with both prosperity and leadership.  Other brothers
also receive blessings, albeit less promising than those of
Yosef and Yehuda, but blessings nonetheless, as opposed to the
sharp criticism hurled upon Shimon and Levi.
     What is the meaning of these 'brachot'?  Do the
individual traits of the brothers predetermine the fate of
their offspring?  Do Yaakov's blessings reflect the principle
of determinism and negate the concept of 'bechira chofshit'
(free will)?

     One could suggest that Yaakov assumes the role of a
'father' (in his blessings to his children) more than the role
of a 'prophet'.  Let's explain:
  As a parent, and the last forefather of God's special
Nation, Yaakov must blend the goals of his family destiny with
the realities of his life experience.  His blessings,
therefore, reflect the potential he sees within each of his
children.
     The fulfillment of life-long goals requires a person to
recognize his potential by considering both his good qualities
and shortcomings.  As Yaakov recognizes his children's varying
strengths and weaknesses, he blesses them according to their
individual capabilities and talents.  Although these blessings
do not necessarily guarantee the final outcome, they form a
guide that can provide each son with a proper direction that
can help achieve his potential.
     Yaakov does not intend his harsh castigation of Reuven,
Shimon and Levi to result in ultimate condemnation.  Rather,
he hopes that they will recognize their weakness of character
and work towards its improvement.  [Note that Yaakov curses
Reuven's anger, but not Reuven himself.]
  Similarly, Yaakov's sharp rebuke of Levi turns later on into
a blessing, as the Tribe of Levi later assumed an important
leadership position (see Devarim 33:8-12!).
     In contrast, Yehuda and Yosef possess a potential for
leadership that should be recognized by their offspring.
However, this blessing does not guarantee that every
descendant of Yehuda or Yosef will become a great later.  Even
the kings of the House of David must be constantly conscious
of their conduct, in order that they be worthy of exercising
their leadership (see Yirmiyahu 22:1-5!).
  [This idea can help us understand most blessings (even
  'birkat kohanim'!).  A 'bracha' is not a simply mystic chant
  that determines a future set of events, rather it serves as
  a reminder to a person that he carries the potential to
  achieve a certain goal.]

     Undoubtedly, the 'brachot' of Yaakov contain additional
prophetic and metaphysical significance as well.  Nonetheless,
they do not negate the basic principle of 'bechira chofshit'
[freedom of choice].

UNITY OR HARMONY
     In conclusion, our discussion can help us understand the
underlying reason why God wanted Am Yisrael to consist of
twelve distinct tribes.  After all, if this nation's goal is
to represent the ONE God, it would have been more logical that
there be simply one tribe - thus forming one homogenous
society! Furthermore, why must there continue to be friction
between Yosef and Yehuda throughout the entire Tanach?
     To explain why, recall our explanation of God's purpose
in choosing a special nation (in wake of the events at Migdal
Bavel).  It was God's hope that this special Nation would lead
all Seventy Nations towards a theocentric existence.  For this
purpose Avraham Avinu was chosen, and for this purpose the
existence of 'shvatim' can serve as a model.   Let's explain
why:
     People, by their very nature, tend to group into
individual societies, each developing its own national
character, personality, goals and aspirations.  These
societies eventually develop into nations who may occasionally
fight over opposing goals, or cooperate in working towards the
realization of common goals.
     Through His agent, Am Yisrael, God hopes that all
nations, while remaining distinct, will recognizing God's
purpose in His creation of mankind - and hence cooperate with
each other towards the achievement of that goal.
     As we see in Yaakov's 'brachot' to his sons, each
'shevet' possesses its own unique character and singularity.
The composite of all these qualities can be harnessed towards
a common good.  As God's model Nation, the cooperation between
the 'Twelve Tribes of Israel' in the fulfillment of their
Divine and national goals can serve as an archetype for the
Seventy Nations to emulate.  Through harmonious cooperation
and the unifying force of a common goal (and with help of some
good leadership), the Nation of Avraham becomes a 'blessing'
to all nations (see 12:1-3).  Mankind thus realizes its
potential, and Am Yisrael fulfills its Divine destiny.

                              shabbat shalom,
                              menachem

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

A.  In his blessing to Efraim and Menashe, "ha-mal'ach ha-
goel...," Yaakov makes reference to a "mal'ach Elokim" who
consistently saved him from all 'ra' (evil).  Explain this
reference in light of 31:7,24,29! (note the use of the word
"ra").
  Why do you think that this blessing is appropriate
specifically for Efraim and Menashe (based on the above
shiur)?

B.  HA-TACHAT ELOKIM ANI?
     After Yaakov's death, the brothers beg Yosef to forgive
them for their animosity towards him.  Yosef assures them that
they need not worry, for whereas he is not God, he has neither
the responsibility nor the right to punish them.  [This is the
simple and standard explanation].  Yet, if we examine those
psukim carefully, we may uncover an added dimension to Yosef's
response, "ha-tachat Elokim ani"?  Let's explain:
     When the brothers ask Yosef's forgiveness, they explain
that their father instructed them to say as follows (50:17):
  "Forgive the offense and guilt of your brothers...  Please
  forgive the offense of the SERVANTS OF THE GOD of your
  father..."
Immediately thereafter, the brothers suggest their own
punishment, that they be SLAVES to Yosef.  Yosef refuses this
offer by explaining, "Do not fear, for am I IN THE PLACE OF
GOD?"  Yosef's answer responds directly to his brothers'
comments. First, they ask to be forgiven on account of their
being the SERVANTS of GOD.  Then, they offer themselves as
SERVANTS to YOSEF.  Yosef answers them accordingly: should
they become his servants, they will no longer be servants of
God.  Therefore, Yosef tells his brothers - "ha-tachat Elokim
ani?" - should he consider himself a replacement or
'substitute' for God?  The brothers must remain God's
servants, not Yosef's!

C.  "PAKOD YIFKOD" AND SEFER SHMOT
     An obvious question that arises when studying Parshat
Vayechi is, why didn't Yaakov's family return to Eretz Canaan
once the famine ended?  One could suggest that although they
could and should have returned, they opted instead for the
'good life' in Eretz Mitzrayim (see the story of Avraham and
Lot, 13:4-14).  One could even suggest that their enslavement
in Egypt was a punishment for this 'unzionistic' attitude.
     Nevertheless, it seems as though Bnei Yisrael felt it
their Divine destiny to stay in Egypt.  This conception most
likely evolved as a result of God's promise to Yaakov prior to
his departure to Egypt: "Do not fear going down to Egypt, for
you will become a great nation there.  I will go down with
you, and I will bring you back..." (46:3-4).
1.  Compare these psukim, as well as 48:21, 50:24 and the
psukim of Brit Bein Ha-btarim (15:13-19), with God's
revelation to Moshe Rabeinu at the 'sneh' in Shmot perek 3.
2.  Note God's Name in the various psukim in Sefer Breishit
noted above, and relate it to Shmot 3:13-22.
3.  At what point did it become unrealistic for Bnei Yisrael
to leave Egypt and return to Eretz Canaan?  Had they returned,
to what area would they have returned?  Who owned the land,
etc.?

D.  Between Reuven and Yosef
It is interesting to note that Yaakov himself later refers to
Reuven as his 'bechor' - see 49:3), even though he had earlier
granted the 'bechora' to Yosef (as we explained in our shiur
above).  To support our conclusion, there is a pasuk in Divrei
Ha-yamim Aleph (see 5:1-2), that explains that Reuven was
supposed to be the 'bechor' but because of his sin (when he
took his father's 'pilegesh') - he lost his special status.
Within the family of Leah, that status was given to Yehuda,
but in regard to the entire family of Yaakov, the status of
bechor was granted to Yosef.  If you have time, I recommend
that you see those psukim inside.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vaychi1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 48003 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090107/480bcf49/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue Jan 13 16:08:22 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:08:22 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] SHMOT - questions for self study
Message-ID: <20090113205840.6A917210716@out8.bezeqint.net>

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

     for SEFER SHMOT & PARSHAT SHMOT

         PART ONE - INTRO TO SEFER SHMOT

FIVE 'BOOKS'
1.  Recall that the Torah is called Chumash because it
includes five individual books (i.e. 'chamesh' is the number
five); as each individual book is referred to as a 'sefer'
[=book].
How does the fact that each sefer is an individual book affect
the manner by which it should be studied and understood?
  Surely,  each  of  the  five books relate  to  one  another,
however, explain why considering the Torah as a collection  of
five individual books is different than viewing it as one book
with five sections?
  
2.  In your opinion, would the fact that Chazal consider each
book of Chumash an individual sefer imply that each sefer
contains a unique theme?  If so, [based on your previous
knowledge of Chumash], what would say is the unique theme of
each sefer.  [For the purpose of our shiur, answer this
question at least in regard to Sefer Shmot.]

3.  In our shiurim, we will attempt to identify an overall
theme by following a very simple methodology.  First, we
construct a very general table of contents, listing all the
major topics of the book.  Then, we analyze that 'table of
contents', while attempting to turn it into an 'outline' by
thematically grouping together its various sections, and
contemplating the progression from topic to topic.
  
  Attempt to do this for Sefer Shmot.  First, give it a try
based on your previous knowledge of Sefer Shmot (i.e. from
what you remember, without reading it again).  In other words,
try to divide the Sefer into approx. ten to twenty distinct
sections, listing a general title for each.  Then, turn your
list into an outline, by identifying any sort of thematic
progression from one section to the next.
     Based on your outline, can you identify one overall theme
for the entire book?  If not, can you identify several 'sub-
titles'?

4.  With this in mind, take a few minutes to study the first
Ramban on Sefer Shmot, noting how he attempts to identify an
overall theme not only for Sefer Shmot, but for Sefer Breishit
as well.  Do you agree with his conclusions?  [Explain why yes
or not?]
     Based on this Ramban, is it clear that he assumes that
one should attempt to identify a theme for each sefer of
Chumash?
To verify your answer, see the first Ramban in Sefer Vayikra,
Bamidbar and Devarim!

FROM BREISHIT TO SHMOT
5.  Return to the first line of this Ramban, where he
identifies the overall theme of Sefer Breishit.  Note how he
explains the connection between the story of Creation and the
story of the Avot!  Explain how the need to find one overall
theme for each sefer may have affected Ramban's conclusion
that all of Sefer Breishit, including God's choice of Avraham
Avinu and his family, could be understood as a type of
'yetzira' (creation).
     Relate this to why Ramban (in his commentary) will often
favor the principle of 'ma'aseh avot siman le-banim'.
  [Be sure to note how Ramban understands ma'aseh avot siman
  le-banim - that certain incidents in the life of the Avot
  reflect the nature of future events that will take place
  later on in Jewish history.]

     How does Ramban's conclusion relate to our identification
(in our shiurim on Sefer Breishit) of 'bechira' [God's choice
of Avraham Avinu to become His special nation etc.] as the
main theme for Breishit?

6.  Continue your study of this Ramban, and make sure that you
understand his conclusion (re: the overall theme of Sefer
Shmot).
     How does he explain the progression of topics in Sefer
Shmot?  Relate to your outline of Sefer Shmot (from above).
Do you agree with his conclusions?  Explain why yes or why
not?
  According to Ramban's conclusions, is there a thematic
connection between the themes of Sefer Breishit and Sefer
Shmot?
     Would you expect there to be one?

7.  Where (and when) was the last instance that God spoke to
Yaakov Avinu in Sefer Breishit?  [If you give up, try Breishit
46:1-4.]
     What was Yaakov worried about, and what is God's message
to him in this 'hitgalut'?  Does this come as a surprise?
     [Does this explain why Bnei Yisrael didn't return to
Eretz Canaan once the famine was over?]
     Where is the first time when God speaks to man in Sefer
Shmot?         [If you give up, try chapter three.]
     What is God's message to Moshe in that hitgalut?!
     Find both the textual and thematic parallel between this
last hitgalut of Breishit, and the first hitgalut in Shmot.
     Based on this parallel, explain what you would expect to
be the connection between Shmot and Breishit.  In your answer,
relate to the phrase "al tira..." in 46:3, as well as in
Breishit 15:1, and in 26:23-24.  [Note the connection between
all of these sources and Am Yisrael's relationship with other
nations.]

8.  Based on the above question, would you say that Sefer
Shmot is a continuation of the story of Sefer Breishit, or
does it describe the fulfillment of God's covenant made with
the Avot in Sefer Breishit?  In your answer, relate to
Breishit 15:13-18 & 17:1-10.
     Based on your study of Sefer Breishit, what do you expect
should happen in Sefer Shmot?  [Relate to God's various
promises to the Avot, especially Breishit 12:1-8, 13:15-18,
15:1-20, 17:1-11, 35:9-13, 46:1-5, 48:21, & 50:24-25.]

9.  In your opinion, was Sefer Breishit written during the
time of the Avot, or was it first given by God to Am Yisrael
at Har Sinai?
  [In other words, did the people of Israel in Egypt have the
  book of Breishit, was did they only receive at Matan Torah?]
     How would they answer this question affect how understand
the primary themes of both Sefer Breishit and Sefer Shmot?

10.  Assuming that Sefer Breishit was first given at Har
Sinai, in your opinion, were the people of Israel in Egypt
aware of their ultimate destiny.  Were there any mitzvot that
they needed to keep?  If so, what were they.
     Were there any 'family traditions' regarding their future
destiny that should have been passed down from one generation
to the next?  If so, what were they, and would that affect how
we understand what transpires in Parshat Shmot?
     In your answer, be sure to relate to Breishit 12:1-3,
15:13-20, 17:1-11, 46:1-5, 48:21, & 50:24-25.
     How would this help you understand Moshe Rabbeinu's
questions in chapter 3 regarding his anticipation of what Bnei
Yisrael will ask when he will inform them that the God of
their forefathers had appeared to him, and promised their
redemption?
Relate to Shmot 3:6-7; 3:13-15; and 4:1-6.

TO SINAI or TO ISRAEL
1.  To the best of your recollection, what was God's purpose
in the events of the Exodus -
  to bring the people to the Land of Israel,or
  to bring them to Mount Sinai (to receive the Torah),
  or both?
  
     Explain the underlying logic behind each possibility, and
attempt to find psukim that would support each opinion.
     Relate your answer to what God tells Moshe at the burning
bush, noting especially 3:6-8; 3:10-12; 3:17-18 and 5:1-4.
     Relate as well to Shmot 29:46 and Bamidbar 15:41!

                       for PARSHAT SHMOT

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

INCREMENTAL IMMORALITY
1.  In the opening psukim of Parshat Shmot (see 1:7-10), the
Torah explains how the Egyptians were quite worried about the
'Jewish population explosion', and hence decided to kill all
newborn males.  In your opinion, if the Egyptians were so
worried, why didn't they just kill adult males as well to
limit the population?  Why was the edict only against newborn
babies?
     In your opinion, could one consider killing a newborn
baby less 'problematic' (morally) than killing a child or an
adult?
  For an interesting perspective on this question, see Ramban
on 1:10.  Note how he explains the incremental manner by which
the enslavement began (because of 'moral' considerations).
  [Note as well how later persecutions of the Jewish people
  have begun in a similar manner.]
  
MOSHE RABBEINU'S FIRST EIGHTY YEARS
2.  Chapter two describes the birth of Moshe, as well as his
early adulthood.  In your opinion, what is the purpose (and/or
thematic significance) of these various stories?
  In your opinion, was Moshe Rabbeinu chosen by God from the
time of his birth to become the leader of Am Yisrael, and to
take them out of Egypt, or, was he chosen by God at the time
when redemption was necessary, based on his character (and
life history), i.e. based on his 'credentials for the job'.
  Explain how each approach would affect how we understand the
stories in chapter two (concerning Moshe's birth and the key
events in his life).   [See also Ibn Ezra on 4:20!]
  
3.  In your opinion, do the stories in chapter two (describing
how Moshe killed an Egyptian and his interference with a
quarrel between two Jews) reflect a strong moral character?
Explain why yes, or why not.  [Relate your answer to the
question above.]
  Do they relate in any manner to what will transpire later on
his life?  If so, bring examples.

4.  Even though the Torah doesn't tell us how old Moshe was
when he ran away from Egypt, in your opinion (based on the
story), how old do you think he was?  [In other words, how
many years elapse from the time that Moshe runs away from
Egypt until he returns from Midyan?  Relate to 2:11-23, 4:19,
and 7:7.
     How would the answer to this question relate to why Moshe
Rabbeinu may have been reluctant to become the leader of Am
Yisrael?  [See Rashbam on Shmot 4:10.]

5.  In your opinion, did Aharon serve in any official position
before his brother Moshe was chosen by God to become the new
leader of Bnei Yisrael? [Relate to 4:10-15, see Rashi on
4:10.]
     Who (or what group) led Bnei Yisrael before Moshe was
appointed as their leader?  Was it one person, or a set of
elders from each tribe?  [Attempt to quote psukim that support
your answer (especially from the end of chapter 4 and in
chapter 5).]
     See also Rashi on 4:10
     In your opinion, did Moshe receive any official
appointment from any previous governing body before he became
Am Yisrael's accepted leader?  As before, support your answer
with psukim from chapter four.  In your answer, relate to 3:16-
18 & 4:27-31.  [Relate as well to Moshe's question/request in
4:1-3.]

THE BURNING BUSH & HAR SINAI
6.  Aside from serving as an 'attention getter', in your
opinion, is there any symbolism to the 'burning bush' (see 3:1-
5)?
     Relate to the key events that later take place at this
very same location, i.e. Har Chorev = Har Sinai.  See
especially Devarim 5:19-24 (and its context).  How does the
burning bush model what transpires at Matan Torah?  [See also
Shmot 19:11,16-18 & 20:15!]
     Does Matan Torah take place at this same spot?
    [In regard to Chorev and Sinai being the same site, see
    Shmot 17:6 and its context, as well as 3:1-2].

WHO WAS THE LEADER BEFORE MOSHE?
7.  Before Moshe Rabbeinu becomes their leader, do Bnei
Yisrael have an established leadership of any sort?  If so,
who were their leaders and how were they chosen?  Does this
leadership continue to function after Moshe becomes their
leader?
     [Relate to the 'zkeinim' mentioned in 3:16, 12:21 (in
contrast to 12:3!); 19:7-8 etc:.]
     Do Bnei Yisrael have any official sort of representation
before Pharaoh?  If so, who represented them, and who chose
those representatives?  In your answer, relate to the
'shotrim' & the 'meyaldot' as mentioned in Shmot 1:18, 3:18, &
5:15.
     [See also Ibn Ezra Shmot 4:27. and Rashi on 4:10!]

THE 'WIFE & KIDS'
8.  In your opinion, did Moshe Rabbeinu make the proper
decision by taking his wife and children along with him upon
his return to Midyan?  [See Shmot 14:18-26.]
     Should Moshe return to Egypt with his wife and children,
would this indicate to the people that their redemption is
near, or that it will probably still take a long time before
they will leave?
     If he would return without them, would that indicate that
their suffering will most probably continue for quite a while?
     As a husband and father, would it be better for Moshe to
have left this wife and children with his in-laws?
     As 'redeemer of God's nation', would it not have made
more sense for Moshe to hurry back to Egypt immediately, and
not take away precious time by first dealing with his own
family's needs?
     In your opinion, did Tzipora and the children actually
come with Moshe to Egypt, or did they change their plans and
return to Midyan?  If so, can you explain why?
  In your answer, relate to 4:25-26 and 18:1-6.
     After contemplating these questions, see how the
commentators dealt with these questions.  Note especially:
     Rashi on 18:2!
     Then, see Ibn Ezra on 4:20, for a rather complex
explanation.
     Finally, see Seforno on 4:19 & 4:20 for an amazing spin
on what took place.  According to this Seforno, note how Moshe
must have been with Tzipora and children while watching the
sheep near Chorev, and was returning to Midyan to bring them
home, before he would embark on his own journey to Egypt - by
himself!  What problems does this interpretation solve?
=========

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
     TOPIC: LET MY PEOPLE GO

1.  Most of us are very familiar with Moshe's recurring
request to Pharaoh of 'Let My People Go'.  To the best of your
recollection, when Moshe asks Pharaoh to 'let my people go' -
what precisely is he asking for:
     a. To free Bnei Yisrael from slavery?
     b. To allow Bnei Yisrael to leave to Eretz Canaan?
     c. Something else?
          [Is so, what is 'that something else'?
     Does Pharaoh ever 'give in' to Moshe's request?
If so, when does he give in and why does he change his mind?
  [Note: These questions may appear to be quite simple, but as
  you study Sefer Shmot, you'll most probably realize that the
  'classic answers' that everyone gives for these questions
  are 'all wrong'.]

2.  Review 1:8-10, which describes how and why the enslavement
began.   Based on these psukim, what precisely are the
Egyptians worried about, and how will Bnei Yisrael's
enslavement (and later killing their male children) help
'solve' this problem?
  Before the enslavement began, was there any reason for Bnei
Yisrael to remain in Eretz Goshen instead of returning to
Eretz Canaan?  [Relate to Breishit 46:1-4.]
     Before the enslavement began, was there any logical
reason for the Egyptians to think that Bnei Yisrael would
leave Egypt and return to Eretz Canaan?
     [Which land is better?  (Relate to Devarim 11:10-11.)]

3.  Return once again to 1:10.  How did you translate the
phrase -"ve-ala min ha-aretz"?
  Does this phrase imply that Egypt is worried that Bnei
Yisrael would 'leave their country' once the Egyptians are
defeated in war by their foreign enemies?  If Bnei Yisrael
were so eager to leave Egypt, then why didn't they just pick
up and leave before the enslavement began?  Furthermore, why
would Pharaoh be so worried about Bnei Yisrael leaving Egypt
before they were enslaved?
     Is there any other possible interpretation of this
phrase?
     Note how Rashi offers two opinions in regard to the above
question.  Note also Ibn Ezra and Ramban.  How did they
understand this phrase?  Finally, see Rashbam.  What is
difficult about Rashbam's explanation of this pasuk?
     Keep this question in mind as you study Shmot (thru
Parshat Beshalach), as this will be the key towards
understanding Pharaoh's behavior.

4.  Scan the first five chapters of Sefer Shmot, noting its
division into 'parshiot'.  Attempt to identify the primary
topic of each 'parshia', and then construct a summary outline,
listing the topic of each parshia.  Can you explain the
progression of topic?
     In your opinion, which parshia could be considered the
focal point of this unit, and which chapters lead up to it?
     How does your answer relate to the theme of Sefer Shmot
and its connection to the theme of Sefer Breishit?

5.  Review the final three psukim of chapter two (2:23-25).
[Note that they form a distinct parshia!]  In your opinion,
what specific 'brit' does God remember at this time (and why)?
     Based on these psukim, are Bnei Yisrael praying for God
to take them out of Egypt to the Promised Land, or do they
simply cry out, in hope that someone will help alleviate their
workload?
     [For an interesting insight, see Ramban on 3:13.]

6.  Review chapter 3 - i.e. the story of Moshe at the 'sneh'
[the burning bush].
     In your opinion, what was the primary purpose of this
'hitgalut' to Moshe Rabbeinu?  In other words, what is the
main point that God is telling him, and does everything else
either lead up to this, or follow from it?
  How does chapter 3 relate to Bnei Yisrael's crying out (at
the end of chapter two), and in what manner does it 'set the
stage' for what will take place later on in Sefer Shmot?

7.  Construct an outline that summarizes the primary topics in
chapter three, and the logic of its progression.
     Based on your outline, is Moshe simply receiving
'information' from God in regard to the forthcoming
redemption, or is he given a specific mission?
     If there is a mission, what is it, and when and how is it
supposed to be fulfilled?  Is there more than one mission?  If
so, what is the second?  [In your answer, be sure to relate to
3:10-12.  See also question #2 in the Parshanut section
below.]

8.  Based on God's commandment to Moshe in 3:10-22, what
message is Moshe supposed to deliver to Bnei Yisrael
(concerning their forthcoming redemption) and what message is
he supposed to deliver to Pharaoh?
     If these messages are different, can you explain why?

     Be sure to pay special attention to 3:7-8 & 3:6-22.
Compare these psukim to God's earlier promises to the Avot,
especially to brit bein ha-btarim (Br. 15:13-21) and brit mila
(17:7-8), as well as 46:1-3 and 50:24-25.
     Based on these parallels, could one conclude that God is
telling Moshe that He has come now to fulfill His brit?  If
so, which brit & why now?
     In your opinion, were Bnei Yisrael (in Egypt) aware of
God's covenants that He had made with the Avot?
     In your answer, relate to 3:13 and 4:1.

     As your read 3:13, explain why Moshe is so sure that Bnei
Yisrael will immediately ask: "what Name of God appeared to
him"?
     What should God's answer be to Moshe's question?
     What is his answer?  [See Ramban on 3:13.]
[See also Rashbam in question #3 of Parshanut section below!]

9.  Does Moshe ever tell Bnei Yisrael that he intends to lead
them to Har Sinai?  If not, where does Moshe tell Bnei Yisrael
that God is planning to take them?  [How long should that
journey take?]

10.  Does Moshe ever demand from Pharaoh that he allow Bnei
Yisrael freedom to migrate to Eretz Canaan?  If so, quote
those psukim?
     If not, can you find what he does demand from Pharaoh in
each encounter?
     To verify your answer, scan from chapter 3 thru chapter
14, paying careful attention to each conversation between
Moshe and Pharaoh regarding Moshe's demand - "shlach et ami ve-
ya'avduni...", as well as the 'negotiations' that take place
between Moshe and Pharaoh during the plagues:
     Be sure to review: 3:18, 5:1-4, 7:16 & 26, 8:16-24, 9:13,
10:3-11,24-29.  Explain how 5:1-4 'sets the stage' for all of
Moshe's demands that follow!
     Then, review the story of the Exodus itself (i.e. 12:29-
38, paying attention to why, when, and how Pharaoh finally
allows Bnei Yisrael to leave Egypt.  Be sure that you fully
understand 12:31-32, and how these psukim relate to the list
of psukim quoted above!  [See Ibn Ezra on 5:1-3!]
     [In other words, when Pharaoh finally allows Bnei Yisrael
to leave, is it in response to Moshe's original request (in
5:3) or is it a total expulsion from Egypt (i.e. forever)?]

     Finally, review 13:17-20 and 14:1-8, making sure that you
understand exactly why Pharaoh 'changes his mind', and decides
to chase after Bnei Yisrael.  Is it because Bnei Yisrael had
left Egypt into the desert, or is it because they don't leave
Egypt!  [Be sure that you understand what transpires in 14:5
in relation to God's 'master plan' - as described in 14:2-3.]
          [See also Ramban on 14:4-5.]

11.  With this background (i.e. your study of the sources in
the above question), review 3:10-12 once again, attempting to
understand how each pasuk relates to the next.
    [To help your understanding of what transpires in these
    three psukim, prepare a table that compares the first
    half of each these three psukim to the other, and the
    second half of each of these three psukim to each other.
    Be sure that you recognize how there is a statement,
    followed by a question, followed by an answer.]
     What is the obvious problem in this flow of topic in
these psukim? [Relate to the question and answer.]
  Considering the mission that God gives to Moshe in 3:10,
what type of questions would you expect Moshe to ask?  [How;
Why, Why me?, etc.]
  What question(s) does he ask?  [Note how God's answer in
3:12 should be able to help you explain the ambiguity in
Moshe's question in 3:11. ]
  
12.  Now, see Rashi on these three psukim.  Does Rashi relate
to any of the problems that you noticed?  How does he answer
them?
          In your opinion, is this 'pshat' or 'drash'.
  Next, see Ramban.  How does he solve the problem in these
psukim?  How (and why) does he relate the answer to all of
Moshe's questions to Ma'amad Har Sinai?
  Then, see Rashbam on 3:10-12.  Note how his peirush relates
to your table (that compares these three psukim).  Note how
confident Rashbam is that his interpretation is the only
correct one!  [See both his opening and closing comments.]
     In your opinion (based on the above questions), why is
Rashbam so adamant that his interpretation to Shmot 3:11-12 is
the only way to explain pshat?
     Do you agree with Rashbam that his peirush is the only
'real' pshat?

13.  Note how Rashbam deals with the 'moral' aspect' of his
conclusions, i.e. the fact that Moshe seems to by 'lying' to
Pharaoh concerning his true intention.   Can you explain why
he brings an example from Shmuel (see Shmuel Aleph 16:1-3).
[Relate to the fact that both stories include a 'zevach' as a
'decoy'.]
     Note also how Rashbam refers to this 'white-lie' as
'derech chochma'.  Relate his choice of words to Shmot 1:8-10!

14.  Even if Rashbam is correct (that Moshe did not tell
Pharaoh his real intention) - what is the obvious problem with
the conclusion of his commentary?  [In other words, what will
stop Pharaoh from finding out the truth?]
     In your answer, relate to what Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael
in 4:29-31, based on 3:16-17.  Would it not make sense that
Pharaoh would sooner or later find out the 'truth'?  Could
everyone 'keep this secret'?

15.  From the perspective of Pharaoh and the Egyptian people,
how realistic would it be for the entire Jewish to pick up and
emigrate en-masse to Canaan?  Without the assistance of
miracles, would it be possible to make that journey with women
and children?  Would it be feasible to defeat the nations in
Canaan - to inherit their land (see Bamidbar chapter 13!)?
     Based on these considerations, can you suggest a reason
why Moshe does not request permission from Pharaoh to
emigrate?
     Similarly, why is Pharaoh so reluctant to allow the Jews
to travel into the desert?  [In your answer, relate to 1:10!]
======

PART III - PARSHANUT

PSHAT vs. DRASH
1.  Note that the first parshia of Sefer Shmot (1:1-6) re-caps
the 'toladot' of Yaakov, even though they have already been
detailed in Sefer Breishit (see 46:8-27).  Can you explain
why?
     Now, see the first Rashi on Parshat Shmot.
     Is this the same question which is bothering Rashi?
          If so, what is Rashi's answer?
     Read Ramban on this same pasuk.  What is his answer to
this question?  Why does he disagree with Rashi?
     Now, re-read this Ramban, noting how he brings down both
the opinions of Ibn Ezra and Rashi.
     Note, that even though he disagrees with Rashi's
explanation of 'pshat', he states that the Midrash that Rashi
quotes to explain this pasuk is true ('emet').  How does this
Ramban help us understand the difference between drash &
pshat?

'HOUSES' FOR THE MIDWIVES
1. As you review Shmot 1:15-22, try to follow the flow of
topic from one pasuk to the next.
  Based on your study, would it make more sense that the
'midwives' (named Shifra & Pu'ah) were Egyptians in charge of
giving birth to the Israelites, or were they Jewish?
  In your opinion, are these two names Hebrew or Egyptian?
  See Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, and Seforno on 1:15, noting
how their commentaries relate to these questions.  Note as
well how many of them try to 'solve' the problem of their
names being Hebrew.
  
2.  Recall how the midwives Shifra & Puah feared God, and
hence didn't obey Pharaoh's decree.  Read 1:21 again (in the
context of 1:20-22), and determine if it makes more to explain
that God made them "batim", or that Pharaoh made them "batim".
Based on each possibility, what would the word "batim" mean,
and how would it make sense in the context of these psukim?
     After you see Rashi & Ramban on 1:21, be sure to see
Rashbam and Chizkuni (especially the second opinion he offers)
on 1:20-22!
     Are you surprised?

 A 'CODED' INTERPRETATION
1.  See the Rashbam on 3:13-15, especially his commentary on
'zeh zichri' (3:15), noting how he 'codes' his answer in 'at-
bash' [a backwards Hebrew alphabet].  Decode it, and decide
what his answer is, and how it relates to question #5 in Part
Two above!
  How does his 'coded' answer relate to his commentary in 3:13-
15 which explains why we don't always use God's Name when
referring to Him?  Do you understand why he 'coded' this
answer?

2.  Next, see Ramban on 3:13.  Can you explain how and why his
peirush relates to Shmot 6:2-6?  How is his peirush different,
& how is it similar to Rashbam's?
     Finally, see (but don't study) Ibn Ezra on 3:13.  It's
quite difficult, and I doubt that you'll understand it (as I
didn't), but from reading it you can see at least how
important this pasuk is to him.

FROM MIDYAN - BACK TO EGYPT
1.  See 4:18-23.  How do these psukim relate to what God had
told Moshe earlier at the sneh in 3:6-4:17?  [Relate to 2:23-
25.]
     In your opinion, when did God tell Moshe what is recorded
in 4:19? [Before he returned to Yitro (see 4:18), or
afterward?]
     First, see Ibn Ezra on 4:19, noting how he answers this
question.  What problem leads him to this conclusion?
  Would you consider this a 'classic example' of 'ein mukdam u-
me'uchar', or a 'special type'?
     Then, see Ramban.  Note how and why he argues with Ibn
Ezra's conclusion.  Note as well Rashbam, Chizkuni, and
Seforno.  Do they support Ibn Ezra's approach or Ramban's?

2.  During Moshe's journey from Midyan to Egypt, a very
'strange' story takes place along the way, where God meets
Moshe and wishes to kill him (or his child).  Review 4:18-26
and be sure you understand the difficulties in their
interpretation.
     As you review these psukim, note how often the concept of
'bechor' [first born] appears, and in what contexts.  Note as
well how this story ties together the mitzva of brit mila and
the warning of 'makkat bechorot'.  When do these two concepts
appear together once again?  [Relate to Shmot 12:43-50 and
Yehoshua 5:1-5!]

3.  Next, review 4:24-26 once again, this time in search of at
least a 'hint' concerning what Moshe did wrong that God would
want to kill him?  Furthermore, try to determine who the
'mal'ach' wants to kill - Moshe or his son?
     Then, see Rashi on 4:24, noting how he answers these
questions.
     Then, see Ibn Ezra, noting how his commentary is both
similar, but different than Rashi's?  How do both of them
explain why Moshe did the 'wrong thing', even though he was
trying his best to do what was right!
     Next, see Rashbam.  How (and why) is his explanation
totally different than Rashi's?  How is it different from Ibn
Ezra's?
  In your opinion, on which pasuk (or context) does Rashbam
base his interpretation?
     To better understand these different approaches, see also
Chizkuni on this pasuk (and Seforno).
     [Note also that there is no Ramban on these psukim!]
     Finally, see Rabbeinu Chananel.  Note how (and why) he
explains that Moshe was not event present during this entire
event!  How does this interpretation solve most all of the
problems raised above?  What is problematic with this peirush?

                         be-hatzlacha,
                         menachem


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shmotq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 59861 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090113/933ddafa/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Jan 15 08:13:36 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:13:36 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] SEFER SHMOT - Introduction
Message-ID: <20090115130759.0165FBC5B5B@out5.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************************

THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  www.tanach.org

In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag

Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag

*************************************************************************

 

SEFER SHMOT - Introduction

 

        Is Sefer Shmot simply a continuation of Sefer Breishit - or is there something that makes it unique?

        For example, are the Ten Commandments and the laws of Parshat Mishpatim included in this book, simply because they were given 'first' - or should we look for a thematic connection between those laws and the story of the Exodus?

        As our series of shiurim rests on the assumption that each "sefer" [book] of CHUMASH [= the five 'books'] carries a unique theme, we will begin our study of Sefer Shmot in an attempt to identify its primary theme. Afterward, we will consider that theme in our study of each individual chapter or unit. 

        In our study of Sefer Breishit, we employed this approach to uncover its primary theme of "bechira" ? i.e. how & why God chose Avraham Avinu to become the forefather of a nation that will bring the Name of God to mankind.  In those shiurim, we demonstrated how that theme helped us understand the deeper meaning of each story and the progression of its events.  Now, in our study of Sefer Shmot, we will employ a similar approach.

        Therefore, we begin our study with quick overview of Sefer Shmot, in an attempt to find not only its underlying theme, but also its thematic connection to - and distinction from - Sefer Breishit.

 

A TABLE OF CONTENTS

        To identify a common theme of any book, it is helpful to first make a list of its major topics and then to contemplate what connects these topics together. 

        Let's see what happens when we apply this approach to Sefer Shmot.

        If we limit ourselves to a discussion of the most general categories, I think that everyone would agree with the following table of contents for Sefer Shmot:

        1) "Yetziat Mitzraim" (the Exodus/ chaps. 1->17)

               [including the journey to Har Sinai]

        2) "Ma'amad Har Sinai" (the Theophany / chaps. 18->24)

               [including the mitzvot of Parshat Mishpatim]

        3) "The Mishkan" (the Tabernacle / chaps. 25->31)

               [God's commandment to build the Mishkan]

        4) "Chet ha'Egel" (the sin of the Golden Calf/ 32->34)

               [including the story of the  second luchot]

        5) "Building the Mishkan" (its construction/ 35->40)

               [concluding with the "shchina" dwelling thereupon]

 

        Therefore, to identify an overall theme for the entire book, we must search for a theme that connects all of these topics together. 

 

RAMBAN'S APPROACH - GALUT & GEULAH

        Ramban, in his short introduction to Sefer Shmot, attempts to do exactly this, i.e. to identify a common theme for the entire book.  [It is recommended that your first read this Ramban.]

         After defining Sefer Breishit as "sefer ha'yetzira" [the book of the creation of the world and of the people of Israel (and hence the patterns of its history)], Ramban proceeds to explain why Sefer Shmot begins with the story of Yetziat Mitzraim:

"... after completing Breishit, a special sefer is dedicated to describe the first "galut" [exile] as specifically decreed [in Sefer Breishit [see 15:13-16] and Bnei Yisrael's redemption from that GALUT..."  (see Ramban's intro to Shmot1:1)

 

        After explaining why Sefer Shmot begins with 'the redemption from exile' (as forecasted in Sefer Breishit), next Ramban must explain the progression in Sefer Shmot from Yetziat Mitzraim to Ma'amad Har Sinai, and then to the Mishkan:

"... and the GALUT is not over until they [Bnei Yisrael] return to the level of their forefathers... and even once they achieve their freedom from Egypt, they are not considered redeemed yet, for they still wander in the desert... But once they arrive at HAR SINAI to receive the Torah and build the MISHKAN, and God's shechina dwells upon them - then they return to the level of their forefathers... and are then considered totally REDEEMED..."

        

        Note how Ramban understands the concept of "geulah" [redemption] as the underlying theme of the entire Sefer.  This allows him to identify a common theme to the various topics of Yetziat Mitzraim, Matan Torah, and Mishkan.  Although one could argue with Ramban's conclusions, he clearly assumes - as we did in our introduction - that there is a need to study each "sefer" in search of its unifying theme.  In fact, Ramban opens his commentary to each "sefer" of Chumash in a very similar manner, i.e. with an attempt to identify its theme, and thus explain its flow of topic. 

        In our own study of Sefer Shmot, we will follow a direction similar to Ramban's, showing how all the various stories in Sefer Shmot carry a common theme (even though we may arrive at a slightly different conclusion).  However, we begin our own study by focusing a bit more on its thematic connection to Sefer Breishit.

 

FROM BREISHIT TO SHMOT

        We can readily understand why Sefer Shmot begins with the story of Yetziat Mitzraim, as that story appears to continue the narrative of Sefer Breishit.  However, if Sefer Shmot simply continues the story of Sefer Breishit, why is it necessary to begin a new book?

        To help clarify how these books differ, let's consider Sefer Breishit as God's 'master-plan', while Sefer Shmot can be understood as the first stage of its 'implementation'.

        In other words, the "bechira" process - that emerged as the primary theme of Sefer Breishit - can be viewed as God's master plan for the creation of a special nation that will one-day represent Him and sanctify His Name.  As such, the book began with the underlying reason for God's need of this nation (chapters 1->11), followed by His choice of the forefathers of that nation - and hence the stories of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov -focusing on the covenantal promises and which specific children would be chosen (chapters 12->50).  This 'planning stage' reaches its conclusion as all of Yaakov's children are not only chosen, but also united (after the events of "mechirat Yosef") - and the 'seeds' of this nation have planted in the land of Egypt.

 

        Sefer Shmot can be viewed as the first stage in God's implementation of this plan.  

        Recall God's opening promise to Avraham Avinu that he will become a "goy gadol" - a great nation (see 12:1-3).  That's the 'plan'- therefore, Sefer Shmot begins by explaining HOW Bnei Yisrael became that great nation (Shmot 1:1-6).  

        Recall as well that in His covenant with Avraham Avinu ("brit bein ha'btarim" /see 15:13-18), God forecasted a period of ?slavery and oppression in a foreign land?; hence the first chapter of Sefer Shmot continues with the story of how that enslavement began (see 1:7-20).  In the ensuing story of the Exodus (Shmot chapters 2 thru 15), God fulfills that next stage of that covenant by punishing their oppressor and redeeming His nation from Egypt.

        The next major topic of Sefer Shmot is "Ma'amad Har Sinai" - which flows directly from the story of Yetziat Mitzraim - for in order for God's master plan to be fulfilled, Bnei Yisrael must receive a set of laws that will make them that special nation.  To prepare them for that transformative moment, various events take place on their journey from Egypt to Mount Sinai (see Shmot chapters 14 thru 17). Upon their arrival at Sinai, the covenant is finalized and the first set of Laws are given, as described in Shmot chapters 18 thru 24.  [In our of detailed study, we will also explore the thematic connection between ?brit Sinai and "brit mila" ("l'hiyot lcha l'Elokim -see Breishit 17:7-11).

        From this point on, the logic behind the progression of topics in Sefer Shmot becomes more difficult to ascertain.  Considering that Bnei Yisrael arrive at Har Sinai to receive the entire Torah, we would expect Sefer Shmot to record ALL the mitzvot they received at that time.  Instead, Sefer Shmot records only SOME of those mitzvot (the "dibrot" & Parshat Mishpatim), and then focuses primarily on the mitzvot relating to the Mishkan, while other commandments given at Har Sinai are recorded elsewhere in Chumash ? i.e. in Vayikra, Bamidbar, and Devarim. 

In our study of Sefer Shmot, we will need to explain why only one unit of those mitzvot (i.e. the laws in Parshat Mishpatim) are recorded in Sefer Shmot ;and then consider why its focus shifts exclusively to the laws of the Mishkan.

        For example, in his commentary to Shmot 25:1, Ramban explains why specifically the Mishkan (chapters 25 thru 31) emerges as the next major topic  ? for Bnei Yisrael now require a symbol of their special relationship with God.  The Mishkan will remind Am Yisrael of their covenantal responsibilities; allow the nation to approach God, and demonstrate (to themselves and the other nations) how God dwells in their midst. 

        Our shiurim will also discuss Rashi?s approach, highlighting the intricate thematic connections between Mishkan, Maamad Har Sinai and the sin of the Golden calf ["chet ha'egel"].

        In light of the events of "chet ha'egel", a serious doubt arises concerning the very possibility of this special relationship. Sefer Shmot describes how that first covenant is broken, and how and why a new covenant is be forged that must include God?s attributes of Mercy (see Shmot chapters 32 thru 34).  In its aftermath, the Mishkan is finally built and God's presence dwells with His Nation (chapters 35 thru 40), a sign that the relationship has been fixed. 

When Sefer Shmot reaches its conclusion, everything is ready for what should be the next stage of God's master plan ? i.e. Bnei Yisrael should travel from Har Sinai to Canaan and inherit the Land.  Why that does not happen, will emerge as a primary topic in our study of Sefer Bamidbar.

 

        Based on this thematic setting, our opening shiur (on Parshat Shmot) will discuss the significance of God's "hitgalut" to Moshe Rabeinu at the burning bush, while the shiurim on Parshiot Va'eyra & Bo will focus on Moshe's mission to prepare Bnei Yisrael for their redemption.  Our shiur on Parshat B'shalach will discuss the need for the various events that take place during Bnei Yisrael's journey from Egypt to Har Sinai.  In Parshiot Yitro & Mishpatim we will discuss the dialectic nature of the events at Ma'amad Har Sinai, as well as the special nature of the mitzvot in Parshat Mishpatim and their covenantal significance.  Finally, our shiurim from Parshat Terumah through Parshat Pekudei will focus on the conceptual relationship between the Mishkan, Ma'amad Har Sinai and "chet ha'egel."

 

        As usual, it is highly recommended that you use the study questions to prepare for the shiurim (even though the shiurim are written so that you can follow even without advanced preparation).  Also, it is helpful to study using a Tanach Koren (or similar).  This will make it much easier for you to determine the flow of topic and theme from 'parshia' to 'parshia.'

 

                                      b'hatzlacha!

                                      menachem

=======




 

INTRO PART II /

      For Parshat Shmot

 

            USING OUTLINES

 

        We conclude our introductory shiur by bringing an example of how 'outlining' the flow of 'parshiot' can serve as an excellent study tool, especially helpful when searching for a central theme in any given unit. 

 

        In the following table we first list each 'parshia' in Parshat Shmot - and assign a short title to describe its primary topic.

        Afterward, we will attempt to transform this list into an outline, by considering its thematic progression.  

[It will help show how Parshat Shmot 'sets the stage' for the upcoming events in Sefer Shmot, as discussed in our introductory shiur.]

 

        'PARSHIA'             TOPIC

        1:1?7       Bnei Yisrael multiply, becoming a nation in Egypt.

                               (linking Sefer Breishit to Sefer Shmot)

 

        1:8?22     The enslavement and its hardships begin

 

        2:1?22     The birth and early life of Moshe Rabeinu

                                [up until his arrival in Midyan ]

 

        2:23?25   God hears the crying out of Bnei Yisrael

.

 **    3:1?4:17  God's "HITGALUT" TO MOSHE AT THE "SNEH"

                                [Moshe receives his MISSION & clarifications].

 

        4:18?26      Moshe leaves Midyan to fulfill his mission.

 

4:27?4:31   Moshe meets the elders, to inform the 

nation in regard to their forthcoming redemption

 

5:1?3           Moshe & Aharon go to Pharaoh, requesting 

                               permission to worship God in the desert

 

        5:4?6:1            The mission appears to backfire;

                               Pharaoh doubles their workload.

 

        [Chapters 6 thru 14 describe how his mission is completed!]

 

BUILDING UP TO THE BURNING BUSH

        We posit that the story of God's "hitgalut" [revelation] to Moshe at the burning bush should be considered the highlight of Parshat Shmot, for the mission that Moshe receives at the "sneh" - to take Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt - will emerge as the primary topic of the first half of Sefer Shmot, while the first two chapters serve as important background for that "hitgalut". 

        Let's explain how and why:

 

        Recall from our shiurim on Sefer Breishit how its primary theme [the "bechira" process] progressed with each "hitgalut", i.e. each time that God spoke to the Avot. For example, in God's first "hitgalut" to Avraham Avinu, He introduced the concept of a special nation. In each subsequent "hitgalut" to the Avot, the details of God's future relationship with that nation slowly unfolded.  

        In a similar manner, we will see how the primary theme of Sefer Shmot is first introduced in God's opening "hitgalut" to Moshe Rabeinu at the burning bush (see 3:1?>4:17).

        As this "hitgalut" is not described until chapter three, the first two chapters of Sefer Shmot serve as their 'backdrop':

*         The first parshia in Sefer Shmot (1:1-7) explains how Bnei Yisrael became a NATION in the land of Egypt, thus fulfilling God's promise to Yaakov in the final "hitgalut" of Sefer Breishit (see 46:3-4 & our shiur on Vayigash). 

*         The next parshia (1:8-22) describes how the enslavement began, as foreseen in "brit bein ha'btarim" (15:13-15).

*         The first 'parshia' in Chapter two (2:1-22) describes how God prepares His redemption with the story of birth of Moshe Rabeinu until he runs away to Midyan. 

*         In the final 'parshia' (2:23-25), we told of how the redemption finally begins, as God hears the cries of Bnei Yisrael's oppression.

 

        The stage is now set for God's opening "hitgalut" to Moshe Rabeinu in chapter three, where he will receive his mission to redeem Bnei Yisrael from Egypt and bring them to the Promised Land.

        To better appreciate how the progression of topics in that key 'parshia', we now demonstrate another tool - that is also helpful when studying Chumash.  We take an individual 'parshia', and divide it into paragraphs, and then make an outline to help follow its progression. 

 

        The following outline organizes this entire 'parshia', i.e. from  3:1 to 4:17 - highlighting its progression of topics:

 

I. INTRODUCTION

        A.    3:1?3       Moshe notices the 'burning bush'

        B.    3:4?6       God identifies Himself to Moshe

 

II. THE MISSION

        A.    3:7?8       God heard their cry, therefore He is coming:

To redeem them, and bring them to Israel:

                       

        B.    3:9-10     Moshe is charged to go to Pharaoh 

And take Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt-

 

III. QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS 

(re: how to accomplish this mission)

        A.    3:11?12   How can I to go to Pharaoh, & take them out 

        B.    3:13?22   What precisely do I tell Bnei Yisrael & Pharaoh

        C.    4: 1? 9     Why (and how) should they believe me

        D.    4:10?17   How can I, specifically, be Your spokesman 

 

        Let's explain:

        First, God identifies Himself to Moshe Rabeinu (I) and then explains to him the mission and its purpose (II). 

        At the center of this outline lies God's charge to Moshe that he take Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt (II-B).  

        Finally, Moshe responds to this assignment by asking several questions regarding how he is to accomplish his mission (III). 

 

GOD'S MESSAGE AT THE SNEH

        What was the purpose of the "hitgalut" at the burning bush? As we will discuss in our shiur on Parshat Shmot, it did much more than just supply Moshe Rabeinu with some information. Rather, God will give Moshe a very complex mission, while explaining its goals and purpose.

        In our shiurim on Parshat Shmot and Va'eyra, we explain what this mission is all about, noting that Moshe actually receives a DOUBLE mission.

        Afterward, we will see how the next set of parshiot (chapters 6->17) will describe how Moshe actually completes this mission.

        Till then, 

                                              shabbat shalom,

                                              menachem

 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shmotpre.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 42942 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090115/f985e71b/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Jan 15 15:06:58 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:06:58 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Shmot -shiur
Message-ID: <20090116030502.091D25E081A@out3.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************************

THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  www.tanach.org

In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag

Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag

*************************************************************************

 

 PARSHAT SHMOT / Let My People Go  [revised 5769]

 

        Was Moshe Rabeinu's plea of 'Let My People Go' just a HOAX?

        As preposterous as this might sound, Rashbam claims that this is the
only way to explain the Biblical story of the Exodus!  

        In this week's shiur, we uncover the basis for this daring
interpretation by Rashbam, while arriving ourselves at a very different
conclusion. 

        

INTRODUCTION

        From youth, we are so familiar with the story of the Exodus that we
rarely pay attention to the Torah's detail of that story.  However, when one
undertakes a careful reading of the first fourteen chapters of Sefer Shmot
(as Rashbam does), the story that unfolds is quite different from what is
commonly assumed.

        In the first section of our shiur, we will review the story of the
Exodus in the Bible to prove Rashbam's basic assertion - that Moshe never,
not even once, asks Pharaoh to grant Bnei Yisrael freedom from slavery; or
to emigrate to the land of Israel.  Instead, each time when Moshe goes to
Pharaoh and demands 'Let My People Go', he is only requesting permission to
allow Bnei Yisrael a three-day journey to worship their God in the desert.

Afterward we must explain why Moshe never tells Pharaoh the 'whole truth',
and why this was all part of God's master plan. 

        In the second section of the shiur, we will show how this analysis
serves as the foundation for Rashbam's conclusion that this 'master plan' is
merely a 'hoax'.

        In the third section, we will question this conclusion, and offer a
different approach that will help us better appreciate the theological
significance of the entire process of the Exodus.

        

                       PART ONE 

 

FREEDOM OF RELIGION or FREEDOM FROM SLAVERY

        It is quite understandable why the saying 'Let My People Go' is
commonly understood as a plea for freedom from slavery.  After all, this was
Moshe's recurring plea to Pharaoh just about every time they met.
Furthermore, the holiday of Passover, when we commemorate the events of the
Exodus, is commonly associated with freedom from slavery ['zman
cheruteinu'].  Therefore, it makes perfect sense why most people understand
Moshe's demand that Pharaoh 'let his people go' as a request for freedom.

        However, when we undertake a careful analysis of the story of the
Exodus in the Bible, it becomes quite clear that Moshe is making a totally
different request, relating more to 'freedom of religion' than to 'freedom
from slavery'. 

        The proof of this point is rather tedious but very straightforward.
All that we need to do is to follow the plot that unfolds in Sefer Shmot,
tracing each time that Moshe Rabeinu goes to Pharaoh to make demands on
behalf of Bnei Yisrael.

 

MOSHE'S REQUEST FROM PHARAOH

        To be thorough, we begin our analysis by first examining God's
original instruction to Moshe concerning his mission to Pharaoh, as
explained to Moshe at the burning bush:

"...Then you and the elders shall go to the King of Egypt and tell him: The
Lord, God of the Hebrews, manifested Himself to us [commanding] - we must
embark upon a journey of a three day distance into the desert to offer
sacrifices to our Lord" (see 3:18).

 

        As you review this pasuk and its context, note how this opening
demand to Pharaoh makes no mention of any request for freedom from slavery.
Instead, Moshe is instructed to demand that Pharaoh allow Bnei Yisrael the
right to worship their God in the desert (at a site a three day distance
from Egypt).

        And this is precisely what Moshe does when he first goes to Pharaoh.
Let's take a careful look at the Torah's description of that first
confrontation in chapter five:

"Afterward, Moshe and Aharon came and said to Pharaoh: Thus said the God of
Israel, let My People go and worship Me in the desert.  [Pharaoh refuses.]
They answered: the Lord, God of the Hebrews, has called upon us to embark
upon a journey of a three day distance into the desert in order that we may
sacrifice to our God, lest He strike us with 'dever' (pestilence) or
'cherev' (sword)." (5:1-3) 

 

        Note once again that all we find is Moshe's request to allow Bnei
Yisrael to worship God in the desert; no more - no less!

        However, we must also pay attention to the implication of the final
phrase of this pasuk - "lest he strike us with dever or cherev".  Moshe's
demand includes a harsh warning: should Pharaoh refuse this request, a
severe Divine punishment will ensue and many people - Egyptians & Hebrews -
will die.  Hence, Moshe also provides Pharaoh with a 'logical reason' why it
may be in the 'best interests' of the Egyptian people - to allow Bnei
Yisrael this 'short vacation' to worship their God in the desert.  [See Ibn
Ezra & Chizkuni on 5:3.]

        The outcome of this first encounter is disastrous for the people of
Israel, for Pharaoh not only refuses this request; he doubles their workload
as a punishment for making this request (see 5:4-10). 

        Nonetheless, God commands Moshe to return to Pharaoh once again, and
repeat the same demand.  However this time, and with each ensuing demand,
Moshe will mention a specific plague that God will bring upon Egypt if Bnei
Yisrael are not given the opportunity to worship their God in the desert.
First, God explains to Moshe why He wants to bring the Plagues: 

"And Pharaoh will not listen to you, so I will put My Hand against Egypt,
and I will take People out with great punishments - "ve-yad'u Mitzrayim ki
Ani Hashem"  - so that Egypt will know that I am God" (see 7:4-5).

[This wording is most likely in response to Pharaoh's refusal statement of:
"lo yada'ti et Hashem"  [I never heard of this God ] (see 5:2) ]

 

        Then, God instructs Moshe to go to Pharaoh with the following
warning:

"Go meet Pharaoh in the morning... and say to him: Hashem, the God of the
Ivrim has sent me to you demanding Let My People Go and worship Me in the
desert, and behold you have yet to listen.  Thus says the Lord, with this
(plague) you will know that I am God..." (see 7:14-17). 

 

        Note again, how Moshe does not ask for freedom; rather only
permission to worship God in the desert.

        Then, before each successive plague, Moshe employs this very same
warning each time: "shlach et ami - Let My people go - ve-ya'avduni
ba-midbar - so that they can worship Me" [i.e. in the desert, or else I'll
bring another plague...]

To verify this, see 7:16 (first plague); 7:26 (second plague); 8:16 (fourth
plague); 9:1 (fifth plague); 9:13 (seventh plague); and 10:3 (eighth
plague).    [Note that Plagues 3, 6, and 9 are not preceded by any warning.]


 

        As you review these psukim and their context, you will also notice
that this is all that Moshe requests.  Not even once does he ever even hint
to Pharaoh that Bnei Yisrael plan to leave for good!  

        As we know, it will take ten Plagues to finally convince Pharaoh
that it is in his best interest to allow Bnei Yisrael to worship their God;
but even then, i.e. after the Tenth Plague when Pharaoh finally allows Bnei
Yisrael to leave - he only grants them permission to go worship their God
(see 12:29-33) - after all, that's all they ever asked for!

        [If you don't believe that, simply read those psukim carefully!]

 

NEGOTIATIONS & MORE NEGOTIATIONS

        This interpretation can help us understand the progressive nature of
the negotiations that take place between Moshe and Pharaoh during the Ten
Plagues; i.e. how Pharaoh slowly acquiesces to Moshe's demand the he allow
the entire nation to worship God at a site a three day distance from Egypt
in the desert).

[As you follow these conversations, note again how they focus ONLY on the
issue of a three-day journey to worship God, but NEVER on 'emigration rights
to Palestine'.]

 

ROUND ONE:

        After 'makkat arov' (the fourth plague), Pharaoh partially gives in,
as he grants Bnei Yisrael permission to worship their God, but not in the
desert, rather only within the Land of Egypt (see 8:21-23).  But pay careful
attention to how Moshe rejects this proposal for technical reasons, claiming
that if Bnei Yisrael would offer sacrifices in the land, the local
population of Egypt would 'stone them'.  Therefore, Moshe insists that Bnei
Yisrael can only worship God in the desert.

        Pharaoh then agrees to allow a short journey into the desert, but
not a three-day distance: 

"And Pharaoh said, I will send you out so that you can worship your God in
the DESERT, but don't go too far away..." (see 8:24).

 

        However, when that plague ended, Pharaoh hardened his heart and
reneged on his promise (see 8:25-28).  Even though Pharaoh is clearly
worried about giving Bnei Yisrael permission to leave, he never accuses
Moshe that their real plan may be to run away!  Likewise, Moshe himself
never mentions the possibility that they may not return.  [Later in the
shiur we will discuss what Pharaoh may really be afraid of.]

 

ROUND TWO:

        Several Plagues later, after Moshe warns of the impending plague of
locusts, Pharaoh's own servants demand his concession to Moshe (see 10:7).
In response, Pharaoh enters into a new round of negotiations with Moshe that
eventually reach an impasse over the issue of WHO can leave. Moshe insists
that even the women and children come along, while Pharaoh is only willing
to allow the men to go worship (see 10:7-11). 

        Again, note the reason for Moshe's insistence on allowing the women
and children to join; not because they are leaving forever, but rather -
"for all family members need to worship God" (see 10:9). Never does he tell
Pharaoh that everyone must go because the entire nation plans to migrate to
Eretz Canaan.  Moshe's various 'excuses' all imply that he plans to return.

 

ROUND THREE:

        Finally, after the ninth plague ['choshech'], Pharaoh conducts one
final round of negotiations.  This time, he is willing to grant permission
even for the women & children to leave, but refuses to allow them to take
their sheep and cattle along (see 10:24-25).  Once again, Moshe counters
with a 'technical reason', claiming that all the animals must come along,
since they are not sure precisely which type of animals God will request for
a sacrifice (see 10:26!).

 

        In summary, at every stage of these negotiations, Moshe consistently
rejects any concession or compromise, insisting that EVERYONE must go.
Still, despite numerous opportunities, he NEVER even suggests that they plan
to leave forever.  Likewise, no matter how resolutely Pharaoh sticks to his
hard line, he NEVER accuses Moshe that their real plan may be never to
return.  

 

EVEN AFTER THE TENTH PLAGUE!

        In the Torah's account of the Exodus (in the aftermath of the Tenth
Plague / see 12:29-36) we find conclusive proof for this interpretation.
Note Pharaoh's immediate reaction when he hears reports of the death of the
Egyptian first born:

"... and he [Pharaoh] called to Moshe and Aharon at night and said: 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 12:31-33).

 

        The tenth plague awakens Pharaoh to the realization that Moshe's
original warning of 'dever' or 'cherev' (see 5:3) has actually come true.
Now, he finally gives in to the very last of Moshe's demands - allowing them
to take their sheep and cattle with them on their journey to the desert (see
12:33 / recall that is where the last set of negotiations broke down.) 

        Not only does Pharaoh permit Bnei Yisrael to embark on their
three-day journey to offer 'korbanot', he even requests that Moshe will pray
there on his behalf (to make a MISHEBERACH for him - see 12:32 "u-berachtem
gam oti")!

        Clearly, even after the Tenth Plague, Pharaoh only grants Bnei
Yisrael permission to worship God in the desert!  And for the very simple
reason - that's all that Moshe ever asked for!

 

        This also explains why the entire Egyptian nation urges Bnei Yisrael
to leave as quickly as possible (see 12:33-35).  They want to make sure that
Bnei Yisrael can sacrifice to their God as soon as possible - thereby
bringing this horrifying plague to an end (see 12:33).  This explains
beautifully 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 back
to Egypt - and then they will bring back what they 'borrowed'. 

        The Torah uses the Hebrew word "hashala" [to 'borrow'] to describe
what Bnei Yisrael took from the Egyptians, for that's exactly what they did!

 

THE LAST 'TRICK'

        A final proof for this interpretation is found in Parshat Beshalach
when Pharaoh is totally astonished when he finds out that Bnei Yisrael had
'run away':

"And it was told to the King of Egypt - ki BARACH ha-am - that the people
had RUN AWAY..." (see 14:5).

 

        Now, this pasuk makes sense only if Pharaoh had not granted them
total freedom, but only a permit to temporarily worship God in the desert.
Had he actually set them free, why would he be shocked to hear that the
people had 'run away'?

        However, according to our interpretation, Pharaoh is shocked for the
opposite reason - because Bnei Yisrael DID NOT travel into the desert.  This
may sound a bit complicated, so let's explain by taking a careful look at
these psukim.

        First of all, recall from 12:37 and 13:17-18 that Bnei Yisrael had
left Egypt traveling toward the desert.  Then, in the middle of that
journey, God suddenly commands Moshe to execute a 'turn-around' maneuver. 

"And God told Moshe, tell Bnei Yisrael to TURN AROUND and set up camp...
near the Red Sea.  [In order that] Pharaoh will say [about Bnei Yisrael]
they are unsettled in the land (of Egypt), and the desert has closed them
in" (see 14:1-4).

 

        In other words, God commands Bnei Yisrael to turn around in order to
convince Pharaoh that they are not going to the desert.  Had Bnei Yisrael
continued on their journey towards the desert, Pharaoh would have had no
reason to chase them.  After all, he wants them to go to the desert to
worship their God, as they requested.  It is specifically because they DON'T
go to worship God, but instead RETURN TO EGYPT and set up camp by the Red
Sea, that Pharaoh concludes:

"...what have we done [we've been tricked!], for we have set Bnei Yisrael
free from their slavery!" (see 14:5). 

 

        It is only now that Pharaoh realizes that Bnei Yisrael have left
slavery.  What leads him to this conclusion?  The answer is quite simple.

        Let's consider what Bnei Yisrael have done.  Clearly, they did not
travel to the desert (as they had requested).  However, they also do not
return to their homes in Goshen, i.e. to their slavery.  Nor do they travel
towards Eretz Canaan.  Instead, they stay in Egypt, and set up camp by the
sea.  So what are they up to? 

        Pharaoh reaches the obvious conclusion.  Bnei Yisrael have
implicitly declared their independence - but within the Land of Egypt!
Therefore, for the sake of his national security, Pharaoh must immediately
declare war on this rebellious nation (see 14:6-10).  If he doesn't attack
them first, they surely will soon attack him.  After all, they are numerous,
they have gold, silver, and cattle, and they are armed (see 13:18).

        In fact, this was Egypt's greatest fear from the very beginning.
Recall that the enslavement began because Bnei Yisrael had become so
numerous that Egypt feared that they would take over their own country (see
1:8-10, and Rasag, Rashi and Ibn Ezra on 1:10)!  

        Pharaoh's decision to attack ultimately leads to Bnei Yisrael's
momentous salvation at the Red Sea.  [That topic will be discussed in detail
in our shiur on Parshat Beshalach.]  It also explains why Bnei Yisrael can
keep the various wares that they had 'borrowed' from the Egyptians.  After
Egypt declared war on Bnei Yisrael, their 'bank accounts' are 'frozen'. 

 

        There can be no two ways about it.  This is the 'story of the
Exodus' in the Bible.  Despite the numerous movie versions and the popular
understanding that 'Let My People Go' is a request for 'freedom from
slavery', in Chumash it is simply a request for the 'freedom to worship God
in the desert'!

 

        Surely, this interpretation raises many questions.

        First of all, with the Ten Plagues 'up his sleeve' [or staff], Moshe
is in a position to demand just about anything he wants from Pharaoh.  Why
should he ask for a 'three day vacation' when he can ask for total freedom?

        Furthermore, what does he gain by not telling the 'whole truth'?

        In Part Two of our shiur, we will first discuss Rashbam's approach
to this question, showing how the above analysis forms its basis.
Afterward, we will suggest an explanation of our own. 

 

        LET MY PEOPLE GO - PART TWO 

 

        In our introductory shiur to Sefer Shmot, we explained that God did
not appear to Moshe (at the 'sneh') simply to provide him with some
information, rather God charges Moshe with a MISSION:

"And now go for I am sending you to Pharaoh - and TAKE My people the
children of Israel out of Egypt" (3:10).

 

        Note that at first, God instructs Moshe to take His nation out of
Egypt, without providing even a clue concerning HOW to get the job done! 

 

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE

        As we would expect, Moshe Rabeinu is startled by God's commandment.
Considering his having been a fugitive from Egypt for many years, why should
Pharaoh even allow him an audience?  Furthermore, Moshe has been away from
his people for most of his adult life.  [Recall that he ran away at a rather
young age and returns only at age eighty!]  How could they possibly accept
him as their official leader?

        Therefore, Moshe's immediate response to this command is quite
understandable:

"And Moshe said to God: WHO am I that I can go to Pharaoh, - VE-CHI OTZI -
and [HOW can I] take Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt?!" (See 3:11, read
carefully.)

 

        No matter how we translate the phrase 've-chi otzi' in this pasuk
(its precise definition is a bit problematic), it certainly seems that Moshe
is asking HOW he is supposed to take Bnei Yisrael out.  However, God's
answer to his question does not seem to address this issue at all:

"And He said: For I will be with you, and this is the sign that I have sent
you - WHEN you take the Nation out of Egypt, you shall worship Elokim on
this mountain" (see 3:12).

 

        How does this answer Moshe's question?  Moshe asks HOW he is
supposed to take them out, and God tells him what to do AFTER he takes them
out!  What Moshe asks - God never answers, and what God answers - Moshe
never asked!

        Now there are two basic approaches to solve this problem. Either we
can 'reinterpret' Moshe's question to fit God's answer [see Rashi &
Seforno], or we can 'reinterpret' God's answer to fit Moshe's question [see
Rashbam].    In our shiur we will deal primarily with the latter
interpretation. But before we begin, let's take a quick glance at Rashi's
approach.

 

RASHI - 'FOR WHAT PURPOSE'!

        Rashi (on 3:12) deals with this difficulty by reinterpreting Moshe's
question (in 3:11).  When Moshe asks 'VE-CHI OTZI', he asks not HOW to take
them out, but rather WHY am I (and/or Bnei Yisrael) WORTHY of being taken
out of Egypt?  To this God responds that AFTER they leave Egypt, Bnei
Yisrael are to worship God and receive His Torah on this mountain.  This
merit alone renders them worthy of Yetziat Mitzrayim.  In other words, God
here explains the PURPOSE of Yetziat Mitzrayim - that Bnei Yisrael will
receive the Torah at Har Sinai!

 

RASHBAM - 'HOW TO GET THE JOB DONE'!

        Unlike Rashi, Rashbam refuses to reinterpret the question.  Instead,
he reinterprets God's answer.  He accomplishes this by dividing God's answer
into two parts, corresponding to the two parts of God's original command &
the two parts of Moshe's original question.  The following table maps out
this parallelism in psukim 3:10-12: 

               THE FIRST HALF OF EACH SENTENCE

3:10/ COMMAND:  Go, I have sent you to Pharaoh! 

3:11/ QUESTION: Who am I, that I can go to Pharaoh?

3:12/ ANSWER: For I will be with you, and this [the sneh] is the sign that I
have SENT you...

 

               THE SECOND HALF OF EACH SENTENCE

3:10/ COMMAND:  Take Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt!

3:11/ QUESTION: [HOW] can I take them out of Egypt?

3:12/ ANSWER:  [In order to] take them out of Egypt, [tell Pharaoh that]
this nation must worship their God on this mountain.

 

        Rashbam's interpretation of 3:12 is very creative.  He claims that
Moshe asks (in 3:11) that even if he is allowed to speak to Pharaoh, HOW can
he possibly convince Pharaoh to let them free?  God answers Moshe by telling
him to 'TRICK' PHARAOH - "Tell Pharaoh that you must take Bnei Yisrael [for
a short time] out of Egypt, in order that they can worship their God on this
mountain."

        In other words, Rashbam claims that God instructs Moshe to 'deceive'
Pharaoh requesting permission to worship God in the desert.  Once they
leave, Moshe will lead Bnei Yisrael to the Promised Land, where they will
live forever, never again to return to Egypt!

        Rashbam clearly reads into this pasuk much more than is written.  In
fact, Rashbam himself admits to doing so!  However, he explains that he
bases this interpretation on a later pasuk in this 'hitgalut' - where God
issues more specific instructions to Moshe regarding his meeting with
Pharaoh:

"... Then you and the elders shall go to the King of Egypt and tell him:
'The God of the Hebrews had come and told us that we must go for a three-day
journey into the desert [to Har Chorev] to offer sacrifices to our Lord'"
(3:18).

 

        As we explained in Part One, Rashbam's approach is based on the
above analysis that Moshe never asks for freedom, rather for a journey of a
three day distance to worship God in the desert.  Considering that Moshe's
true intention (as he tells Bnei Yisrael) is to take them to the Promised
Land, the 'three day journey' request must be part of a 'master plan' to
'sneak' Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt.

        Furthermore, the final phrase of 5:3: "lest he strike us with DEVER
or CHEREV" - explains God's intention in 3:12.  The plan is rather simple.
Moshe warns Pharaoh that if he does not allow Bnei Yisrael to journey into
the desert and worship their God, a severe Divine punishment will ensue and
many people will die (including Egyptians). 

        As we explained above, a careful analysis of the entire Exodus
narrative supports Rashbam's interpretation - that God commands Moshe to
employ 'trickery' to get Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt. 

 

        Even though we have referred to this plan as 'trickery', Rashbam
does not call this 'lying' - he refers to it instead as 'derech chochma' - a
wise scheme.  He brings a parallel example from Sefer Shmuel.  When God
instructs Shmuel with the mission to anoint David as king, Shmuel expresses
his fear that Shaul may find out and then kill him.  To solve this problem,
God provides Shmuel with a 'cover up', telling him to claim that he is going
to Bet-Lechem to offer a sacrifice.  Once there, he will secretly anoint
David as king.  [See Shmuel I/16:1-3!] 

        When you read this Rashbam inside, note the 'confident' style with
which he begins his explanation:

"Anyone who would like to understand the primary 'pshat' of these psukim
should study my interpretation of this pasuk, for those who explained it
before me did not understand it at all!"  [See Rashbam 3:11-12.]

 

Later on, Rashbam is so sure that his interpretation is correct that he
concludes his commentary by stating:

"Anyone who explains these psukim in any other manner is totally mistaken!"
[See end of peirush to 3:11-12.]  

 

'NOT SO FAST ...' 

        Despite the charm and appeal of Rashbam's explanation, there appears
to be a major 'hole' in his theory.  Let's explain:

        Recall that, in addition to his mission to Pharaoh, Moshe's mission
also included that he tell Bnei Yisrael that God had now come to take them
out of Egypt to the Promised Land (see 3:16-17).  And this is exactly what
Moshe does in 4:29-31. 

        Is it possible to expect that over one million people know the
'real' plan, and Pharaoh won't find out?  Can it be expected that no one
will leak the story?  Doesn't Pharaoh have his own CIA [KGB, Shin Bet...
take your pick]?

        Furthermore, it appears that Moshe has nothing to gain by not
telling Pharaoh the whole truth?  Either way, God tells Moshe that Pharaoh
won't listen in any event (see 3:19), so why not tell Pharaoh the whole
truth in the first place?

        Finally, is God not powerful enough to bring plagues capable of
forcing Pharaoh to grant Bnei Yisrael total freedom?  Is it better to
deceive Pharaoh rather than tell him the truth?

 

NOWHERE ELSE TO GO!

        When we read the story of the Exodus, it is commonly assumed that
the only obstacle preventing Bnei Yisrael's return to Eretz Canaan was their
enslavement to Egypt.  However, if we consider their condition more
realistically, we realize that Bnei Yisrael had no alternative other than
remain in Egypt.  Let's explain why:

        Bnei Yisrael's population is over two million.  [The census included
600,000 men over the age of twenty.  Figure an equal amount of women, and
considering the high birth rate figure as many children under twenty as
adults over twenty, and you arrive at a figure of about two million!]

        To provide food and water for this size population is not an easy
task.  Egypt, thanks to the Nile River and Nile Delta, could provide their
needs.  However, survival of a nation of this size in desert conditions,
even for a few weeks, would be impossible. 

        Even if Pharaoh had granted them permission to emigrate, could a
nation of some two million people [ex-slaves] survive the lengthy, arduous
journey through the desert?  And even if they could make it to Canaan, could
they conquer the land with its walled cities and formidable, armed enemies?
As the 'meraglim' themselves concluded, such a plan would be suicidal - and
that's a conclusion reached by people who had witnessed the miracles of
Yetziat Mitzrayim!  [See Bamidbar chapters 13->14.] 

        Without anything less than a 'miracle' by which they could survive
the desert, Bnei Yisrael have no option other than to remain in Eretz
Mitzrayim.

        Furthermore, Bnei Yisrael had been living in Egypt for (at least)
the last two hundred years.  Certainly, in the eyes of the Egyptians (and
most likely in their own eyes), even though they may be 'third class
citizens', they remain a distinct ethnic group within Egyptian society and
culture. 

        In fact, it is for this very reason that their enslavement begins
when Bnei Yisrael become so numerous.  Egypt fears that they may soon take
over their own country!  Many dynasties in Egypt had been taken over by
enemies from within or by foreign powers.  They now fear that Bnei Yisrael
may soon become powerful enough to take over Egypt; or at least help others
to do so (see 1:8-10).

        Thus, despite the hardships of their enslavement, [without some sort
of miraculous, divine intervention] Bnei Yisrael had no realistic
alternative other than staying in Egypt.  When Bnei Yisrael cry out for
salvation in 2:23-25, they are an oppressed working class who desire a
lighter workload and better living conditions; they are NOT yearning for
Zion.

 

        With this in mind, let's imagine what would have happened had Moshe
presented Pharaoh with this plan of an en-masse emigration to Eretz Canaan.
Pharaoh most probably would have dismissed him as insane!  Moshe would have
lost all credibility in the eyes of Pharaoh as a responsible leader of the
Hebrew Nation. Instead, God instructs Moshe to make a fairly reasonable
request - to allow his afflicted brethren to worship their God (as they
indeed do at Har Sinai (see Shmot 23:3-7).  Moshe does not lie to Pharaoh,
nor does he deceive him.  He simply claims the legitimate right of religious
freedom for an oppressed people! 

        Furthermore, God can demand that Pharaoh grant religious freedom to
an oppressed people, and hence punish him for not obeying; but He can't
expect Pharaoh to act as 'an ardent supporter of Zionism' - allowing an
entire nation to embark on a journey that would most certainly be suicidal!

        This explains why Pharaoh never accuses Moshe (during the Plagues)
that he may really be planning to take Bnei Yisrael to Eretz Canaan, for
Pharaoh never considers that as a realistic option!

        So what is Pharaoh worried about?  Why is he so adamant not to allow
them to worship their God in the desert for a few days?         The answer
is quite simple, and it explains every problem that we have raised thus far.


        Pharaoh has ONE fear, and only one fear: From the time that the
enslavement began until the day of the Exodus, Pharaoh's only fear is that
Bnei Yisrael may take-over his country.  That is exactly why he enslaved
them in the first place (see 1:8-10), and this is exactly why he is
reluctant to allow the entire nation to leave with all their belongings. 

        Pharaoh fears that should he let them free to worship their God,
they will take advantage of the situation, and instead of returning to
slavery, they will return and rebel; or join with other nations and attack,
or simply declare their independence.  By not allowing them to travel too
far, and by leaving their women and children (or at least cattle) behind,
Pharaoh remains with a clear advantage.  But should the entire nation leave
to worship their God, nothing guarantees that Bnei Yisrael will return to
their servitude.  Instead, they could take advantage of the situation and
declare their independence upon their return, or possibly even attack Egypt.

        Then, when Bnei Yisrael finally did leave Egypt, what Pharaoh feared
most is exactly what happened.  Bnei Yisrael DON'T go to the desert.
Instead they march away 'armed' (see 13:18), with all of their cattle, and
with a significant amount of 'borrowed' Egyptian gold and silver, and with
arms - everything they need to declare independence!  As soon as Pharaoh
realizes that they are not going to the desert, he concludes that he has a
rebellion on hand, and he launches a pre-emptive strike before they attack
him (see 14:1-6).

        With this in mind, we can suggest an answer to our other questions
as well.

 

KEEPING A SECRET

        Even though Moshe had told Bnei Yisrael of God's promise to take
them to Eretz Canaan, had the Egyptians heard this 'rumor', they would have
scoffed at the very thought.  Could a multitude of slaves possibly organize
themselves into an independent nation?  Could they survive the journey
through the desert?  Could they conquer the kings of Canaan?  Are there any
neighboring lands as good as Egypt? 

        No one was keeping any secrets.  Even the majority of Bnei Yisrael
felt that this idea would lead to national suicide (see 14:12!).  Why should
the Egyptians believe this 'rumor' any more than Bnei Yisrael did?
Throughout Sefer Shmot and Sefer Bamidbar, we find the people time and time
again expressing their desire to return to Egypt.  As the "meraglim" (spies)
themselves later conclude, it is the only logical alternative (see Bamidbar
14:1-4). 

        Although God's promise of a land 'flowing with milk and honey' (see
3:8,17) was originally endorsed by the elders (see 4:29-31), only a short
while later, after their workload was doubled, these hopes fizzled out (see
5:1-21).

 

THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

        In addition to our explanation that God has no intention to fool
Pharaoh, one could even suggest that there is a certain thematic value in
the fact that Moshe's request from Pharaoh is specifically for 'religious
freedom' and not the right to emigrate. 

        The story of the Exodus, and hence God mission to Moshe at the
'sneh', focuses on two independent issues:

1) To redeem Bnei Yisrael from Egypt - to fulfill Brit  Avot; 

2) To 'teach' Pharaoh and his country the lesson of 'ANI HASHEM' - that God
of Israel exists.

 

        In His 'hitgalut' to Moshe at the 'sneh', God charges Moshe with the
responsibility of dealing with both issues.

        Let's begin with the latter by asking a more basic question: why
must Moshe confront Pharaoh in the first place?  If the entire purpose of
Yetziat Mitzrayim is simply to fulfill 'brit Avot' and take Bnei Yisrael to
Eretz Canaan, why involve Egypt in this process at all?  Surely God could
create circumstances whereby Bnei Yisrael would emigrate without official
Egyptian authorization.  For example, let God cause a sudden change in
Egyptian policy, or make just one miracle where all the Egyptians would fall
asleep for 48 hours, etc. 

        [See Ramban on 3:13 for an interesting perspective.]

 

        Nonetheless, at the 'sneh' we see how God insists that Bnei Yisrael
must receive Pharaoh's permission to leave.  Note how the psukim emphasize
this point:

        "Now go, I have sent you to PHARAOH..." (3:10)

and Moshe responds:

         "Who am I that I should go to PHARAOH?..." (3:11).

 

        Moshe's confrontation with Pharaoh constitutes a critical element of
God's plan.  God does not tell Moshe to 'trick' Pharaoh. Rather, Moshe must
confront Pharaoh over the fundamental issue of religious freedom - the basic
right of any people, especially an oppressed nation, to worship God.  The
fact that Pharaoh, the king of Egypt - the world superpower and center of
ancient civilization - rejects this request shows that he considers himself
above his fellow man.  He acts as though he himself is a god; God must
therefore teach him (and any future Pharaoh/monarch) the lesson of "ve-yad'u
Mitzrayim ki ANI Hashem" (see 7:5,9:16,11:9,14:4).

[One could suggest that the natural resources of Egypt, especially the
inestimable Nile River, granted power to the Egyptian people.  [See
Yechezkel 29:1-3.]  This power not only allowed their monarch to claim
divine power and authority, but also led Egypt to their self-proclaimed
privilege to oppress other nations - to act as though they were gods.  It is
not by chance that the first plague strikes specifically the Nile River.]

 

TWO PERSPECTIVES

        Therefore, from a universalistic perspective, the primary goal of
Yetziat Mitzraim is that Egypt - the center of ancient civilization -
realize that God is above all Man - "ve-yad'u Mitzraim ki Ani Hashem."
Moshe must deliver this message to the Egyptian people, in God's Name,
directly to Pharaoh (as explained in 3:10-12, 18-20).  The MAKKOT ensure
that the Egyptians will ultimately internalize this message.

        Hence, when Moshe is commanded to go to Pharaoh and demand Bnei
Yisrael's right to worship their God, it's not a 'trick', but rather a
basic, human demand.

        On the other hand, from Am Yisrael's perspective, the central
purpose of Yetziat Mitzraim relates to the fulfillment of God's covenant
with the Avot, that Bnei Yisrael return to Eretz Canaan in order to become
God's special nation.  As Bnei Yisrael must prepare themselves for this
redemption (as we will explain in next week's shiur), Moshe must convey this
message to them (see 3:7-9, 13-17).  Ultimately, this redemption will take
place in wake of the events that unfold once Pharaoh allows Bnei Yisrael to
leave after the Ten Plagues. 

 

FROM MAKKOT TO DIBROT

        In conclusion, it is interesting to note the inter-relationship
between these two aspects of the Exodus.

        As we explained in Sefer Breishit, an ultimate goal of the Nation of
Israel is to establish a model society that can bring all mankind to
recognize God.  At Yetziat Mitzrayim - when Israel becomes a nation - it is
significant that Egypt - the center of ancient civilization and the epitome
of a society that rejects God - must recognize God, specifically at the
moment when Am Yisrael becomes a nation.

        Initially (and unfortunately), this goal must first be achieved
through force, by Moshe's MATEH and God's TEN Plagues.  Ultimately, when
Israel becomes a nation in its own land, this very same goal can be achieved
in a more 'peaceful' manner - i.e. through education - should Bnei Yisrael
integrate the message of Moshe's DIBUR and the principles of God's TEN
Commandments.

                               shabbat shalom,

                               menachem




FOR FURTHER IYUN

A. Hashem's Response to Moshe's question - 3:12

        Before presenting the various approaches taken to this pasuk let us
first identify the various problems that immediately arise.  The pasuk
reads, "He said, I will be with you, and this shall be a sign that I have
sent you, when you free the nation from Egypt, you will serve God on this
mountain."  The mefarshim must grapple with the following questions:

Most urgently, as we discuss in the shiur, is the issue as to how Hashem
here responds to the concerns Moshe expresses in 3:11: "Who am I, that I can
go to Pharaoh and that I can take Bnei Yisrael from Egypt?"

To what does 'this' refer in the phrase, "this shall be a sign that I have
sent you"?  Does it refer to the immediately preceding clause - "I will be
with you," that somehow Hashem's "being with" Moshe serves as a sign?  Or
does it refer to the immediately following clause, the nation's serving
Hashem at this mountain after leaving Egypt?  How could Matan Torah serve as
a sign that "I have sent you"?  Significantly, an 'etnachta', signifying a
pause in the sentence, appears under the word, 'shlachticha" ('that I have
sent you'), perhaps suggesting that the 'sign' refers to what was mentioned
earlier, rather than that which follows the 'etnachta'.  Why does Moshe need
a sign that Hashem sent him; did he ever express any doubt that it was God
who spoke to him?  He doubted only his ability to speak to Pharaoh and
demand the release of the slaves.

A question that necessarily relates to the previous questions: what does
Matan Torah have to do with Yetziat Mitzrayim?  Why does Hashem mention it
here to Moshe?

It is important to bear all these questions in mind when surveying the
various interpretations.  This will help us appreciate what prompted each
mefaresh to explain as he did.

In the shiur we accept the Rashbam's interpretation of the pasuk, that
Hashem responds to Moshe's concerns by telling him that a) He will ensure
Moshe's permission to come before Pharaoh and b) he would free Bnei Yisrael
by 'fooling' Pharaoh into thinking that he requests merely permission for a
three-day trek into the wilderness to worship Hashem.

       Here is a brief survey of some other explanations offered:

A.    Rashi, first interpretation: The burning bush serves as a sign to
Moshe that he will succeed, since "I have sent you".  Just as the bush was
not consumed by the fire in compliance with Hashem's will, so will Moshe
succeed because he performs Hashem's mission, which can never fail.  The
second half of the pasuk refers to a second question that Moshe had asked:
in what merit Bnei Yisrael will be freed?  Hashem responds that He will
redeem them in the merit of their eventual assembly at that mountain for
Matan Torah.

B.    Rashi, second interpretation: The clause, "this is the sign that I
have sent you." bears no connection to the first part of the pasuk.  Hashem
'parenthetically' informs Moshe that his success in freeing Bnei Yisrael
will serve as a sign of the fulfillment of a different promise - Matan
Torah.

C.    Ibn Ezra (Peirush Ha-katzar) cites an approach that completely
separates the two halves of the pasuk, before and after the etnachta.  That
is, "when you leave Egypt you will serve God" is merely additional
information that does not address Moshe's concern.  Within this approach,
Ibn Ezra cites two versions.  According to the Geonim, Hashem's 'being with
Moshe' will serve as a sign, while the anonymous 'acheirim' view the miracle
of the burning bush as the sign (recall Rashi's first interpretation).
Either way, it seems, these phenomena serve as a sign "that I have sent
you."  As Ibn Ezra notes, however, Moshe never doubted Hashem's having sent
him (as noted earlier).  Additionally, we should add, this approach leaves
unresolved the question as to why Hashem makes mention of Matan Torah in
this context.

D.    Ibn Ezra himself (in his Peirush Ha-katzar) suggests a somewhat
revolutionary pshat, claiming (though somewhat cryptically) that the word
'ot', generally translated as 'sign', here means 'purpose'.  Hashem thus
informs Moshe that the purpose of His taking Bnei Yisrael from Egypt is for
them to stand at Har Sinai and receive the Torah.  Ibn Ezra does not explain
why Hashem suddenly mentions this now, rather than when He initially
instructed Moshe to go to Pharaoh.

E.     Ramban understands the reference to Matan Torah as Hashem's assurance
to Moshe that Bnei Yisrael will agree to go to Canaan.  Moshe was concerned
that the people would refuse to go in fear of the nations they would have to
fight upon entering the land.  Hashem thus tells Moshe that the nation will
first worship Him on that mountain, and there they will accept the mitzvot
and Moshe as their leader.  They will then follow him to Canaan.  (One
version of the Seforno's commentary on our pasuk has him adopting this
explanation - see footnotes on the Seforno in the Torat Chayim Chumash.)
Although Ramban does not make it clear how this serves as a 'sign', he
likely refers to Rambam's reading of this pasuk, as he explains in Hilchot
Yesodei Ha-Torah 8:6.  Ramban there writes that Matan Torah served to firmly
establish Bnei Yisrael's faith in Moshe as Hashem's prophet.  Thus, it
serves as a 'sign' to Bnei Yisrael "that I have sent you".

F.     Seforno explains the opening phrase, "I will be with you," as meaning
that Hashem will guarantee the fulfillment of every one of Moshe's
predictions.  This will serve as a sign to one and all - Bnei Yisrael and
the Egyptians - that Hashem has sent Moshe to free the slaves.  As for the
mention of Matan Torah, Seforno follows Rashi's approach, that Hashem here
informs Moshe that the merit of Matan Torah renders Bnei Yisrael worthy of
redemption.

G.    Abarbanel - first approach: Like one view mentioned earlier, this
approach identifies the burning bush as the sign.  It serves as a sign to
Moshe that Hashem will assist him in his meetings with Pharaoh.  In this
approach, Abarbanel suggests two possible explanations of the second half of
the pasuk: the Ramban's explanation, that Matan Torah will give Bnei Yisrael
the confidence and hence the willingness to go to Canaan, and Rashi's
interpretation, that Matan Torah renders them worthy of deliverance from
Egypt.  (Abarbanel expresses his preference for this first approach.)

H.    Abarbanel - second approach: The prophecy Moshe now received serves as
sign for him that God will accompany him to Pharaoh such that he will
succeed.  The mention of Matan Torah responds to another question of Moshe,
which he expressed when said, ". and that I will take Bnei Yisrael out from
Egypt."  Moshe here asks the question that, as we discuss in the shiur, many
among Bnei Yisrael probably asked: why must they leave Egypt at all?  Why
can't Hashem simply free them from bondage without taking them from Egypt?
To this Hashem responds that they must serve Him, and this worship cannot
take place in Egypt, given the widespread idol worship in the country; Moshe
must therefore take Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt to worship Hashem in the
wilderness.  

I.       Abarbanel - third approach: Moshe had questioned his ability to
undertake this mission on the basis of his lowly stature.  Hashem responded
that He will accompany Moshe, and his lowly stature will itself serve as a
sign to Hashem's having sent him; a simple, old man could not defy Pharaoh
and lead a multitude out of Egypt without Hashem's help.  For this very
reason, Bnei Yisrael will serve Hashem after leaving Egypt, rather than
worship Moshe himself, as they will clearly recognize the Almighty's hand in
this process.

==

        We should note that all these approaches give rise to the problem of
"ikar chaser min ha-sefer", that Hashem seems to have omitted the primary
component of His message to Moshe in this pasuk.  This is characteristic of
very difficult and ambiguous psukim.  Since the pasuk makes little sense as
written, the mefarshim have no choice but to read external information into
the text in order to make it comprehensible.

 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shmot1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 65101 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090115/d13e3791/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Jan 18 13:04:16 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:04:16 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Va'eyra -  Questions for self study
Message-ID: <20090118175422.8A8FCB085AD@out4.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-ERA

    PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

WHAT'S A 'PROPHET'?
1.  The standard translation for the Hebrew word 'navi' is the
English word 'prophet'.  According to the popular
understanding of this word, would you say that a 'prophet' [in
the Biblical sense] is someone with the ability to foresee the
future?
  If not, what is the meaning of the word navi [prophet]?
  
  In the Tanach, many different people are described as
nevi'im [including God's prophets, false prophets, prophets of
Ba'al, Ashera etc.].  Can you explain why the Torah uses the
same word - navi - to describe all of them?  [Relate to the
'shoresh' [root] of this word.]
     Now, read 7:1-2, noting its context based on 6:29-30.
Based on these psukim - how would you explain the meaning of
the word navi?  [Be sure that you can explain (in 7:1) what it
means that 'Aharon will be Moshe's navi?'.]
  How can the word navi in its context in this pasuk help you
understand its meaning in the rest of Tanach?  Relate your
answer to the meaning of the Hebrew word 'niv' (see Yeshayahu
57:19) & the shoresh 'nun.bet.aleph'.
     [See also Parshanut question #3 in below.]

2.  See 4:10-16, noting Moshe's reluctance to be God's
spokesman.  Then review 6:29-30, noting Moshe's complaint that
he cannot speak to Pharaoh, and God's response in 7:1-2
appointing Aharon to be his spokesman 'instead'.
     In your opinion, are these two versions of the same
conversation, or are these two totally different events?  To
support your answer, be sure to read both sections carefully
(in their context), and find the differences between them, and
why there is a need for both.
     Relate this as well to the difference between the stories
in 7:8-13 and 4:1-5 (& 4:27-30), and the need for both.

3.  In your opinion, when we do find that a navi speaks of the
future, is his goal to 'predict' history, or to 'shape' it?
>From your recollection of Tanach, can you bring any examples
of prophets who did either?
     In your opinion is a navi permitted to do something or
say something on his own initiative; or is he only supposed to
act when instructed by God.

WAS IT A SERPENT OR A CROCODILE?
1.  To the best of your recollection, when Moshe hit his
'mateh' [staff] on the ground - what did it turn in to?
[Also, in front of whom did he perform this 'trick'?]
  To 'refresh your memory', carefully review both the stories
in 7:8-13 and 4:1-5 (& 4:27-30), noting their context.  Make
sure to note the difference between the 'tanin' and the
'nachash'.  Can you explain the need for both instances, and
why each one is slightly different.  Attempt to explain the
need for each 'sign', and what it came to prove.
  Attempt to explain the difference between the words 'ot' and
'mofet', and explain how they relate to each respective story.

2.  Now, review Breishit 1:21 in its context, and Breishit
3:1in its context.   Can you explain how these two stories can
shed light on the above question?
  Relate to what Moshe must prove to Pharaoh, and what he must
prove to Bnei Yisrael.

THE MAKKOT [the Plagues] &  BRIT BEIN HA-BTARIM
1.  In your opinion, what was purpose of the 'Ten Plagues'?
Can you explain why ten were necessary (i.e. why one plague
would not have been enough]?
  Was their primary purpose to convince Pharaoh to allow Bnei
Yisrael to leave Egypt, or did their purpose relate to Am
Yisrael as well?  If so, how are these two purposes related?
     [In your answer, relate to 3:18-22, 5:1-4, 7:1-6, & 10:1-
2.]

2.  In our shiur on Parshat Shmot, we explained how the
process of Yetziat Mitzrayim can be understood as God's
fulfillment of his promise in brit bein ha-btarim.  First of
all, review Breishit chapter 15, especially 15:13-15 to verify
this point.  Then, identify which specific pasuk in that
covenant 'foresees' that God may send 'plagues' to punish Am
Yisrael's oppressor.
     Then, attempt to relate each pasuk in 15:7-8, 15:13-15 &
15:18 to a stage in the process of Yetziat Mitzrayim.  Then,
attempt to find psukim in Shmot 3:6-22, 6:2-9 and 11:1-6 that
support your answer.  Finally, note Shmot 12:40-41 (in their
context).  How do these psukim relate to the above question?

3.  Based on the above psukim from brit bein ha-btarim
(mentioned above), had Pharaoh not 'hardened his heart' and
allowed Bnei Yisrael to leave, would have all the ten plagues
been necessary?  [If so, would there have been a need for them
to be so severe?]
     In your opinion, did Pharaoh have 'bechira chofshit'
[freedom of choice], or was it 'pre-destined' that he would
enslave Am Yisrael?  If it was pre-destined, why is God so
angry with Pharaoh, and why must he be punished?
     Does brit bein ha-btarim predict the degree of severity
of either Bnei Yisrael's enslavement or Pharoah's punishment?
[Could one understand the severity of the plagues as a
function of Pharaoh's constant refusal?]
  As you review the Makkot, note when the Torah mentions that
Pharaoh hardened his heart, in contrast to when it mentions
that God hardened his heart!  Relate as well to Shmot 4:21-23
& 7:3-6.
  Finally, see Rambam Hilchot Teshuva chapter 6!

4.  Review 7:1-7 (especially 7:3-6).  Does this short
'parshia' describe one specific event or a set of events?  [Be
sure that you can explain 7:6, and how it relates to 5:2.]
     What 'set of events' is 'introduced' by these psukim, and
up until what point to we find their detail?
  Then, review 11:9-10, noting how these psukim relate to 7:3-
6.  Based on this parallel, in what manner could chapters 7
thru 11 be considered a 'unit'?  Suggest a 'title' for this
unit?
     Does this unit include the tenth plague?  Explain why yes
and why not.  [Relate to the question that follows:]

     In this entire unit, in what manner are Bnei Yisrael
involved?  Does God ever demand anything from Bnei Yisrael in
this unit?
  When is the first time that Hashem does speak to Bnei
Yisrael once the Plagues had begun?  [If you give up, try
Shmot 12:1-28.]  Can you explain why?
  In your answer, attempt to relate to the spiritual level of
Bnei Yisrael prior to the Exodus as described in Yechezkel
20:5-10.  Relate this to the purpose of korban Pesach, the
fate of someone who did not offer this korban Pesach in Egypt,
and the fact that 'redemption' should be considered a 'two way
street'!

5.  In the above unit (chapters 7-11), how many plagues are
described?  [Nine or Ten?]
     In relation to these nine plagues, is it possible to
group them into any type of 'sub-units'?  If so, what are
they?
     Before each plague, we usually find that Moshe delivers a
harsh warning.  Review each of these warnings, noting
especially (if there is one, and) 'where' Moshe is to meet
Pharaoh.  Attempt to identify a pattern of 3-3-3.  Does each
group of three share any common topic or phrase?
     Recall from the Haggada that R. Yehuda gave 'simanim' to
remember the plagues "detzach-adash-be-achav".  Relate the
above question to R. Yehuda's statement!

PART II -  QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION for weekly shiur:
  Topic  "ANI HASHEM"
1.  Recall that Bnei Yisrael originally 'believed' Moshe's
message concerning their forthcoming redemption (see 4:29-31).
Based on the concluding psukim of chapter five, how did
'public opinion' change once Pharaoh doubled their workload?
Who do you think the people blamed for this 'worse situation'?
     Note Moshe Rabeinu's response to the people's complaint
in 5:22-23.  In your opinion, is God's reply in 6:1 His
'complete' answer to Moshe's complaint, or is it merely an
'introduction' to what continues in 6:2-9?  [Explain!]
     When Moshe complains to God, is he asking for an
explanation to relay to the people; or is he 'complaining'
about his own plight?  How does your answer to this question
affect the way that you understand 6:2-9?  [As you review
these psukim, make sure that you follow what God tells Moshe,
and what God tells Moshe to tell Bnei Yisrael.]

2.  Review 6:2-9 once again.  Is God's message to Moshe and to
Bnei Yisrael in these psukim the same or different than His
message to them at the 'sneh'?
     [Relate to 3:7-9; & 3:16-22; compare with 6:3-8.]
     Explain what is similar, what is different, and why?

3.  Return once again to 6:2.  What is difficult about this
pasuk?  What statement is God making, and what does it mean?
     Before we continue, review the respective use of God's
Names ['shem Elokim' and 'shem Havaya'] in the two covenants
that God had made with Avraham Avinu concerning the future of
Am Yisrael in Sefer Breishit (i.e. shem Havaya in brit bein ha-
btarim (see 15:1-20) and shem Elokim ['Kel Shakai'] in brit
mila (see 17:3-10).  Relate this to your understanding of 6:2-
5?
  Similarly, relate this comparison to Moshe's request in
Shmot 3:13 (and God's answer in 13:14-16), as well as to his
request for an 'ot' [i.e. a sign that God had indeed appeared
to him] to convince the people, as described in Shmot 4:1-2.

4.  The word brit is mentioned twice in 6:4-5.  In your
opinion, what brit does each pasuk refer to?  Attempt to find
textual and thematic parallels to the two britot in Sefer
Breishit (as noted above in chapters 15 & 17).
     See Rashi on these two psukim, noting how he relates the
word brit in these psukim to their earlier mention in Sefer
Breishit!  Did your answer to the previous question follow
Rashi's commentary?  What other key phrases from these two
britot are found in 6:2-8?

5.  As you review 6:2-8, note how many times (and where) the
phrase 'Ani Hashem' is repeated?  Can you explain why?
     Why is it so important that Bnei Yisrael must be told
this point, i.e. that they recognize 'Ani Hashem'? [See Ibn
Ezra 6:2]

6.  Read 6:9 carefully, noting how it relates to 6:6-8.  In
your opinion, how should the phrase "ve-lo sham'u el Moshe" be
translated?  Did they not 'hear', or 'accept', or 'believe',
or 'pay attention', or 'listen', or 'obey'?
     Throughout Chumash, what does the phrase "ve-lo sham'u"
usually refer to?  [e.g. Vayikra 26:14, Devarim 11:13-15,
etc.]
     Why would (or wouldn't) that be the proper translation
for that phrase in this pasuk?

7.  Review 6:10-12, making sure that you understand the logic
of Moshe's 'kal va-chomer' when he asks God: 'Why should
Pharaoh 'obey' to me if Bnei Yisrael didn't 'obey' (or
'listen')?'  How would this affect the meaning of "ve-lo
sham'u" in 6:9?

8.  Now, read carefully Yechezkel 20:1-10, making sure that
you understand when and why this 'conversation' takes place.
Note how Yechezkel describes an event that took place before
Yetziat Mitzrayim.  In your opinion, when and why did God's
request from Bnei Yisrael to perform 'teshuva'?
     In your answer, relate to the textual parallels between
these psukim and Shmot 6:2-9!
     How can these psukim help you interpret the meaning of
"ve-lo sham'u el Moshe" in 6:9?
  Be sure to relate to the textual parallel in Yechezkel 20:7-
9!
  [You may be familiar with a Midrash [actually it is a
  Zohar] that describes how Bnei Yisrael (in Egypt) had
  reached the lowest 'spiritual' level / 'mem-tet sha'arei
  tum'a'.  Relate this to these psukim in Yechezkel.]

9.  Does 6:14-28 appear to be 'out of place'?  If so, where
(in your opinion) do these psukim belong?  What else is
difficult about these psukim?  After this 'interruption', does
the focus of Sefer Shmot change from Bnei Yisrael to the
Egyptians?  If so, can you explain why?  [Relate your answer
to the difference between 6:10-13 and 6:29-30.]

10.  What is difficult about the sentence structure of 6:28
(and its interpretation)?  Can you relate this pasuk to our
discussion in the previous questions?
      Can you suggest a reason why the section of 6:14-27 is
placed here instead of earlier in Sefer Shmot?  In what manner
does this unit serve as a 'buffer' between two different
aspects of the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim?

11.  According to 6:9, it appears that Bnei Yisrael do not
accept the message of 'Ani Hashem'.  Is there anywhere else in
Sefer Shmot where Bnei Yisrael are commanded with a similar
message?  If so, do they accept this message at that time?
     Be sure to relate to 15:25-26;:19:4-6 & 20:1-4.  Note as
well Vayikra 18:1-5 & 18:24-28!

PART III - PARSHANUT

LO NODA'TI
1.  What is difficult about God's statement in 6:3 concerning
how He made Himself known to the Avot?  Is it true that God
only 'spoke' to the Avot be-shem 'Kel Shakai' and not 'be-shem
Havaya'?  [See Br. 12:1-7 13:14, 15:1-20, etc.]
     In your opinion, what does the word 'noda'ti' mean?
[What is the Hebrew root of this word?  Note the various
translations of this word in the different English
translations, as well as the controversy among the
commentators.
 See Rashi,
     Why does Rashi distinguish between 'lo noda'ti' as
opposed to 'lo hoda'ti', and how does his interpretation take
into consideration what God continues to tell Moshe in 6:4-5?
     Next, see Rashbam, noting how his explanation is quite
short and simple.  Note as well, how he relates to the point
of 'lo hoda'ti', as Rashi had done.
  Then, see Ramban, noting how he first quotes and explains
Rashi, then quotes Ibn Ezra, and actually accepts his
interpretation - but explains why from a different angle.
  Try to understand why Ramban does not accept Rashi's
interpretation as sufficient, and why he understands that Ibn
Ezra arrived at the correct answer, but not for the right
reason.   It's a very lengthy Ramban, but very important
towards understanding the deeper meaning of God's special name
[shem Havaya] in the story of the Exodus and several very
fundamental concepts concerning the nature of God's
'hashgacha' / providence.

EL-AL
2.  What is the textual difficulty in translating 6:13?
     Why is the word 'el' so problematic?  To whom is God
sending Moshe - only to Pharaoh or also to Bnei Yisrael?
  See Rasag, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Seforno, & Chizkuni.
  To help you appreciate the wide range of solutions that they
suggest, try to identify which commentator:
     'changes' the word 'el' to 'al'?
     adds a 'missing' word to the pasuk?
     adds a 'missing' phrase to the pasuk?
     treats this as a new commandment, and
     understands this as a repeat of a previous commandment?
[Note Ramban on Bamidbar 20:8; re: v'dibartem el ha'selah"!]

WHO SAYS?
3.  To the best of your recollection, each time when Moshe &
Aharon went to Pharaoh, who did the talking - Moshe or Aharon?
According to either possibility, why did the other 'join
along'?   After you answer this question, review 6:10-13 &
then 6:29-7:3.
  In your opinion, does 6:29-30 simply recap 6:10-13, or do
these psukim describe something new that takes place?
     Now see Rashi on 6:29 and 6:30.  How does he answer this
question?  [Note how he explains 'Ani Hashem' in 6:29.]
     Then see Ibn Ezra and Rashbam, noting how their peirush
is similar to Rashi's.  If possible, note what specific point
each one adds to Rashi's peirush.
       Then see Ramban, noting how he quotes Rashi (and Ibn
Ezra), and totally disagrees.  It's a rather lengthy Ramban,
but worthwhile to follow, for his proof is rather rigorous.
Note how he explains the various stages in Moshe's
conversations with Hashem concerning his ability to speak to
Pharaoh.  Also pay attention to the fact that Ramban actually
'praises' Moshe's request not to become God's spokesman to
Pharaoh.
     Be sure that you understand how (and why) Ramban's
peirush is different than Rashi, and how they disagree
concerning what actually happened each time that Moshe and
Aharon went to talk to Pharaoh!

4.  The phrase: "Va-yedaber Hashem el Moshe leimor" is used
numerous times in Chumash.  How would you translate 'leimor'
in its context in this phrase?
     The first time this phrase occurs is in 6:10.
     See Ramban on this pasuk for a very interesting and
important interpretation!  [Note how (and why) he argues with
Ibn Ezra.]

                         be-hatzlacha,
                         menachem

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vaeyraq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 34000 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090118/22c0fa42/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Jan 22 12:50:28 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:50:28 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Va'era - shiur #1 [revised 5769]
Message-ID: <20090122174405.39813BC5687@out5.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************************

THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  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 at Brit Bein
ha'Btarim (Breishit 15:13-15), it certainly seems that way. 

Furthermore, the opening lines of Parshat Va'era also leave us with this
impression that the forthcoming redemption will be unconditional - after
all, could God have any higher expectations from a nation that had endured
so many years of oppression?

In the following shiur, we re-examine those psukim (i.e. Shmot 6:2-9) - to
show how and why Israel's redemption from Egypt emerges as a more
'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 bitter after Pharaoh
doubled their workload (in reaction to Moshe's opening request /see
5:18-21).  Understandably, the people accuse Moshe - their new leader - for
aggravating 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 hence:

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".

 

        Similarly, the message that God instructs Moshe to convey to Bnei
Yisrael begins (and ends!) with this same statement of 'ANI HASHEM' (see
6:6-8).  To clarify this, note our emphasis of this point as we quote these
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!)

 

        Clearly, God wants Bnei Yisrael to hear this 'message' of "Ani
Hashem".  But how does this 'statement' answer the people's complaint?
Would the repetition of this phrase, together with yet another promise of
redemption lighten their workload? 

[Recall, Bnei Yisrael never asked for redemption, they simply desired less
work! (see 2:23)]

        

As we see in the next pasuk, this message did not convince them, and
precisely for this reason - that it did not alleviate their heavy workload:

"And Moshe spoke these words to Bnei Yisrael, but they did not listen to
Moshe, due to their crushed spirit and their hard labor". (see 6:9).

        

        So what was the purpose of God's message of "Ani Hashem", if it
didn't work?

 

A STATEMENT, or A COMMAND?

        To answer this question, we contend that the phrase 'ANI HASHEM' (in
the context of these psukim) should not be understood as simply a
'statement' - promising imminent redemption, but rather as a 'command to
accept Hashem' - i.e. demanding improved behavior - to enable redemption!

 

Even though this interpretation may not appear to be the simple meaning of
this phrase, a careful reading 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 look 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'?

        To interpret the phrase "ve-lo SHAM'U", let's consider the possible
meanings of the verb "lishmoa", which can imply to either hear; comprehend;
listen, or obey - and contemplate how it would relate to the context of
these psukim:

 

* They did not HEAR what Moshe said.

That can't be its meaning in this pasuk, as they obviously heard what Moshe
said. [If not, he could have simply raised his voice, and repeated it
again.]  

 

* 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" usually implies. 

 

* They did not BELIEVE (or accept) what Moshe told them.

Even though this is the popular interpretation (of this pasuk), this
translation is problematic as well, for the Torah should have used the
phrase "ve-lo he'eminu", as this is the word Chumash usually employs to
describe belief - just 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 - that must be obeyed; 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).

        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) were 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
'committed partner' in this relationship.

        If this understanding is correct, then Bnei Yisrael's response of
"ve-lo sham'u el Moshe" could definitely be understood that 'they did not
OBEY' - for they rebelled against God (as Yechezkel explained) continuing
their evil ways by clinging to their Egyptian culture! 

 

A LOGICAL 'KAL VA-CHOMER'

        Additional support for this interpretation [that they did not
'obey'] 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: 

"hein Bnei Yisrael LO SHAM'U eilai - [If even B.Y. did not 'listen' to me] -
ve-eich YISHMA'ENI Pharaoh - why should Pharaoh 'obey' me?" (see 6:10-12).

 

        As you review this pasuk in Hebrew, 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).  Therefore, 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' implies:" 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 did not obey.

 

TO KNOW or TO INTERNALIZE 

Based to this conclusion, "ANI HASHEM" must now be understood as a command;
and not as a statement (as we originally assumed). In this context, "Ani
Hashem" encompasses much more than pure intellectual knowledge, rather it
constitutes a precept that must be INTERNALIZED - and hence requires the
rejection of any other god.  

As Parshat Va'eyra begins, Moshe Rabeinu has been charged with the
responsibility to become an 'educator', and not simply the bearer of good
tidings.  In this capacity, he must help prepare Bnei Yisrael for their
redemption - by changing their ignoble culture - leading them in the path of
God.  It will also remain as his primary job for the next forty years!

 

THE FIRST TWO 'DIBROT'

This interpretation can help us appreciate the deeper meaning of the first
two of the Ten Commandments that Bnei Yisrael receive when they arrive at
Har Sinai.

The first commandment: "ANOCHI HASHEM ELOKECHA asher HOTZEITICHA me-eretz
Mitzrayim..." (see 20:2-3, compare w/6:6!) is simply a more emphatic form of
"Ani Hashem"; and the next commandment: "lo yihiyeh lachem elohim acherim al
panai..." - not to follow any other gods - reiterates this warning that
accepting God requires the rejection of decedent cultures.  

This may also explain why some commentators consider Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh
as one commandment, for the first statement automatically implies the second
(like two sides of the same coin)! 

        Even though Bnei Yisrael did not internalize this 'commandment' of
ANI HASHEM before they left Egypt (as 6:9 implies), as God had hoped; their
redemption process would not be complete until they do - as will unfold in
the events that follow in the rest of Chumash.

 

A DIFFICULT MISSION

>From this perspective, Moshe's mission to Bnei Yisrael becomes more
difficult than his mission to Pharaoh.  His assignment involves not only
informing the people, but also EDUCATING them - to prepare them for their
redemption.  Just as Pharaoh must be convinced to recognize God, Bnei
Yisrael must be convinced that they must become worthy for their redemption
by God. 

        This interpretation can also explain the interesting wording of
God's response to Moshe's objection in 6:11-12: 

"Then 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 our TSC 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.

 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vaeyra1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 62289 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090122/6f9410b7/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Fri Jan 23 06:22:10 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:22:10 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Vaera- shiur / Part Two
Message-ID: <20090123111539.9D2D5BC557A@out5.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************************

THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  www.tanach.org

In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag

Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag

*************************************************************************

 

PARSHAT VA'ERA - 'Ani Hashem' Part Two 

 

We began our shiur on Parshat Va'era, noting how God's opening words to
Moshe Rabeinu (see 6:2-5) serve as an introduction to the message that he
must deliver to Bnei Yisrael (in 6:6-8). 

Part One focused on God's message to Bnei Yisrael, explaining how and why it
should be understood as a commandment (and not just information).  In Part
Two, we return to God's introductory comments to Moshe, to explain why they
form the 'prophetic background' for that commandment. 

 

INTRODUCTION - A 'DOUBLE MENTION'

Let's begin by taking a careful look at what God tells Moshe Rabeinu at the
beginning of the Parsha,  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)

 

        The word "brit" is mentioned twice in these psukim, but its not
clear what specific covenant this refers 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 & 26:12.]  Should Bnei Yisrael diligently keep God's mitzvot, He
will assure 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 reminder of this special relationship.] 

 

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).

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vaeyra2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 37909 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090123/7ef7a71e/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Jan 26 02:01:05 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 02:01:05 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] BO - Questions for self study
Message-ID: <20090126065514.75531283B3@out6.bezeqint.net>

 *************************************************************************

THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  mail.tanach.org

In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag

Questions for Self Study  - by Menachem Leibtag

*************************************************************************

 

      PARSHAT BO 

 

PART I ?  QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SEDER TABLE'

 

'BA'AVUR ZEH...'

1.  Surely you are familiar with the pasuk:

               "Ve-higadeta le-bincha ba-yom ha-hu leimor: ba'avur 

         zeh asa Hashem li be-tzeiti mi-Mitzrayim"  (Shmot 13:8).

        We quote it numerous times in the Haggada of Pesach!

               [It's also the primary source for the mitzva of maggid.]

        Did you ever try to translate it?  It's not easy!

        Read this pasuk carefully (in Hebrew), and attempt to translate it.  Why is it so difficult to translate?  For example:

        What does the word 'zeh' refer to?

        What does 'asa Hashem li' refer to?

Is there anything else problematic about this pasuk? 

[How come you never noticed these problems before?]

 

        Next, consider the context of this pasuk by reviewing from 13:3-8, and now try to answer any of the above questions.

        Based on your conclusions thus far, does this pasuk command us to explain to our children: a) Why we are commanded to eat matza, or b) Why God took us out of Egypt?

 

2.  Let's see how the commentators dealt with this question. 

        First see Rashi on 13:8. 

How does he explain 'zeh', and how does he translate this pasuk?  Why does he 'widen' the meaning of 'zeh'?

               What is problematic with this interpretation?

        Next, see Rashbam (see also Rasa"g). 

        What does Rashbam do with the words 'ba'avur zeh' before he translates them, i.e. how (and why) does he change the order of the words in the pasuk?  Why must Rashbam bring an example from a pasuk in Tehillim?

 

3.  Now, see Ibn Ezra (aroch). 

        Note how he first quotes an interpretation similar to Rashbam's and then refutes it.  Can you explain why?

        Does Ibn Ezra agree with Rashi? 

        In what manner is his interpretation slightly different?

        How does Ibn Ezra relate to the context of this pasuk?

        Be sure that you understand how and why Ibn Ezra supports his peirush from Shmot 3:12 and Bamidbar 15:41!

[For 'extra credit'; relate this 'machloket' to the dispute between Ibn Ezra and Rashbam re: their explanation of 'ta'avdun et Elokim ba-har ha-zeh' in 3:11-12.]

 

4.  Next, see Chizkuni!

        Read his interpretation carefully, noting how it relates to the questions of the four sons in the Haggada.  Is this peirush the same as Rashi's, or a bit different?  Explain!

        Note how he explains 'zeh' and 'ba'avur zeh'!

        Finally, see Ramban.

        Is his peirush the same as Rashbam's or different?

               If so, in what manner is it different?

               Why does he bring support from Shmot 13:15?

               What is special about how Ramban translates 'ba'avur'?

                       What problem does this solve?

        Why do you think that Ramban quotes Ibn Ezra, just to disagree with his interpretation?  Would you assume that Ramban considered that direction as well?

        In closing, did you ever realize how complicated this pasuk was?  In your opinion, what is the underlying 'theological' consideration that supports the interpretations of Rashi, Ramban, and Chizkuni?  [Relate to Breishit 15:13-15.]

 

THE FOUR SONS

1.  While studying Parshat Bo, try to find the 'four questions' [of the four sons in the Haggada].  Did you find all four, or are some missing?  If so, which question(s) are missing?

        After you identify these questions, note the Torah's answers to these questions in Parshat Bo.  Are they the same answers that we find in the Haggada?

        If not, can you explain why?

        [Hopefully, you found three out of the four questions (12:26-27; 13:8; and 13:14).  In case you didn't, read those psukim and answer this question once again.

 

2.  You probably didn't find the fourth question; that's because its source is Devarim 6:20?23.  Read those psukim, and (as above) compare the Torah's answer to this question to the Haggada's answer.  Can you explain why the answers are different?

 

3.  To better understand the context of the questions found in Chumash, review the psukim that precede each question, noting the context, and  the precise topic that each question relates to.

See: Shmot 12:21-28;  13:3-8;  13:10-16; and Devarim 6:1-25.

        In your opinion, in Chumash - do these four [or three] questions relate to the same topic, or to different topics?  If the latter, explain what those topics are. 

 

4.  Now, review the section in the Haggada concerning the four sons: "Kenegged arba banim dibra Torah...", noting that the Haggada is quoting the Midrash [Mechilta]

.       Try to explain the opening statement: "kenegged arba banim dibra Torah".  What assumption is the Midrash making?  Be precise!

        Note how the Midrash quotes the four 'questions' directly from Chumash, yet the answers are quite different.  According to that Midrash, what is the topic of each question?

        If the topic [in the Haggada] of each question is the same, why are there four different answers!

        In your opinion, is the intention of this Midrash to explain 'pshat' in Chumash?  If not, what do you think is the intention of this Midrash?  [i.e. What is it coming to teach us?]

        Can you explain why we quote this Midrash at the Seder?  How does its message relate to the primary mitzva of maggid?

 

THE MAKKOT

1.  As you review the Ten Plagues, attempt to find a pattern following from 'aretz' [land] to 'shamayim' [heaven].  Can you suggest any significance in this progression?  [Relate to Breishit chapter 1!  / 'asara ma'amarot' to 'eser makkot'?]

        In Breishit chapter one, each act of creations begin with a statement by God ["va'yomer Elokim"], followed by action by God that fulfils that statement.  Do the Plagues in Egypt follow a similar pattern?  If so, which ones?

 

2.  Review the makkot once again, and chart Pharaoh's reaction to each plague.  In other words, categorize his reaction as either:

        1) no reaction

        2) promising to let them leave [then changing his mind]

        3) admitting that he has sinned [chatati...]

               [Be sure to note 9:27, & 10:16?17.]

        Can you find a pattern?  

Relate your answer to the 3x3x3 pattern of the Makkot - of 'detzach adash be-achav'.[i.e. note how the introductions to Plagues 1,4,& 7; 2,5,& 8; 3,6,& 9 ? are similar]. 

        Attempt to distinguish between when Pharaoh hardens his own heart, and when God hardens his heart.  Also distinguish between the Hebrew word 'va-yechazek' and 'va-yechabed', when the Torah describes this 'hardening of Pharaoh's heart'.

        See Ramban on Shmot 7:3!

 

3.  Review Shmot 14:1-7, noting how God instructs Moshe to perform a 'maneuver' (see 14:1) that will 'trick' Pharaoh into chasing Bnei Yisrael.  Note as well that the Torah refers to this as well as how God will 'harden Pharaoh's heart" (see 14:3).  Relate this to the above question!

 

KORBANOT - PRO'S & CON'S

1.  In Parshat Bo, we find how Bnei Yisrael must prepare for their redemption by offering a korban (see 12:3-14).  In relation to this, read Yirmiyahu 7:21?22, then review from 7:1-22 to understand the context of these psukim.

        Based on Parshat Bo, does 7:22 make sense?

        In other words, how can Yirmiyahu claim that God never commanded Am Yisrael to bring korbanot on the day that they left Egypt, if the only mitzva they did perform on that day was to offer the korban Pesach!!]

        Now read Yirmiyahu 7:23?28, especially 7:23!

        Is this statement true?  Do we find anywhere in Parshat Bo that God commands Bnei Yisrael 'shim'u be-koli'?

 

2.  Where in Sefer Shmot do we find that statement similar to 7:23 [i.e, Listen to Me, Be My People - I'll be your God], which Yirmiyahu claims was made on 'the day they left Egypt'? 

        [Relate to Shmot 19:1?9, 24:3?9, Vayikra 26:3?13]

In your opinion, could this day relate to the day of Matan Torah?!

        Did God command Bnei Yisrael to offer korbanot on that day?         [Relate to Shmot 24:5?8!]

        Now, review Shmot 6:2?9, especially 6:7!

        Could these psukim fit into Yirmiyahu 7:22?24?

               [In other words, could 6:6?8 be considered the 'day that I took Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt'?]

        What phrases are similar, what phrase is 'missing'?

 

3.  Finally, review once again Yechezkel 20:1?11, especially 20:5?8.  How can these psukim help answer the above question concerning when 'shim'u be-koli' was first told to Bnei Yisrael at Yetziat Mitzrayim?

        Relate to the conclusion of last week's shiur on Parshat Va'era, in regard to the deeper meaning of Ani Hashem.

        Can those conclusions help explain Yirmiyahu's statement?  Relate this as well to the main points of Yirmiyahu chapter 7 (i.e. in regard to the reason for God's decision to destroy the bet ha-mikdash, and what could prevent it - noting especially 7:1-9.)

        Relate this to the opinions of other prophets in regard to offering korbanot? [e.g. Yeshayahu 1:10-17! Tehillim 51:10-21!]

 

4.  Note the phrase 'divrei ola va-zavach' in Yirm. 7:22.  Explain how and why this may refer more specifically to the voluntary offerings of the ?olah? & ?shlamim? -  which just so happen to be the primary topic of Vayikra chapters 1?3.

Based on Vayikra 1:1, when were these laws (of korban Olah & Shlamim) first given to Moshe!  [In other words, were these mitzvot given on Har Sinai during Matan Torah, or only after the Mishkan was built and the Shchina had returned?]

 

PART II ? QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for the shiurim)

 

For shiur on PARSHAT HA-CHODESH ? Shmot 12:1?20 

1.  As you review Shmot 12:1-20, attempt to create an outline for the primary topics that are discussed in these twenty psukim.  Be sure that you can identify at least two distinct groups (if not more), and suggest a title for each section. 

        In your outline, be sure to distinguish between commandments that were to be fulfilled before leaving Egypt, and commandments that apply only to later generations. 

 

2.   On what day did Moshe receive this commandment?  Support your answer from 12:1?3.

        When you studied 12:14, how did you understand the phrase 'zechor et ha-yom ha-zeh'; or in other words, what day does "ha-yom ha-zeh" refer to?

        Similarly, what day does the phrase 'ha-yom ha-zeh' in 12:17 refer to?  [Note that it is mentioned twice in this pasuk!]  Is this the same day that 12:14 refers to?  If not, what are these two dates?

 

3.  What is problematic with the phrase 'hotzeiti etchem' in 12:17?  Did you translate it as past tense or future?  Relate your answer to the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim as told in 12:34 & 12:39. 

        See Ibn Ezra (aroch) on 12:17.  Note how many different answers he provides for this question.  Be sure that you understand his final answer and its implication. 

 

4.  When did Moshe convey these commandments that are recorded in 12:4?20 to Bnei Yisrael?

        To answer this question, carefully scan from 12:21 thru 13:10, noting each time that Moshe talks to Bnei Yisrael, and what he talks about.  [Be sure to relate to 13:2-3!]  

In your answer, be sure to relate as well to the various sections of your outline (discussed in question #1 above).

        Based on 12:17, is there a logical reason why Moshe doesn't tell Bnei Yisrael about the mitzvot in 12:5-20 until 13:2-8, i.e. until after they had already left Egypt?

 

5.  Review 12:43?50, noting how these psukim form a distinct 'parshia'.  What is the primary topic of this unit?  In your opinion, when were these mitzvot first given to Moshe (before or after they left Egypt)?  [See Rashi on 12:43.]

How does the laws in this this unit relate to 12:14?

        If the mitzvot in 12:43-49 were indeed given earlier, can you explain why they are only recorded at this point in Chumash?  Attempt to relate your answer to the topic of the psukim that precede them (i.e. 12:40-43). 

 

6.  Review 12:14 once again.  Based on your understanding of this pasuk, what does the word ?chag? in 've-chagotem oto chag la-Hashem' refer to?  Does this pasuk relate to the psukim that precede it, or to the psukim that come afterward?

        See Rashi and Ibn Ezra (ha-aroch).

        In your opinion, does 12:14 relate to 12:24?27 or to 13:3?6?

 

7.  Read Vayikra 23:4?8 and Bamidbar 28:16?18 carefully.

        According to these psukim, are Pesach and chag ha-matzot the same holiday or different holidays?  Explain.

Define chag ha-pesach, and its purpose.

Define chag ha-matzot, and its purpose.  Relate this distinction to the difference between 12:15-20 and 12:3-14. 

 

8.  Read Bamidbar 9:1?14.  Explain how the laws of Pesach sheni are different from the laws of regular Pesach.  In your answer, relate this to the distinction between Pesach and chag ha-matzot, as evident from Vayikra 23:4-8 and Shmot 12:3-20.

 

9.  Review Yechezkel 20:1?12, noting especially 20:7?9.

        According to Yechezkel, what was the spiritual level of Bnei Yisrael prior to the Exodus?  Did they deserve to be redeemed?

Based on these psukim in Yechezkel, suggest a reason why it may have been necessary for Bnei Yisrael to offer the korban Pesach to save them from makkat bechorot?

        Would it be important to remember this in future generations?

        What does the Hebrew word 'pasach' mean (and imply)? Relate this to Shmot 12:12-13 and 12:23; then see Tirgum Unkelos, and Rashi! 

        Based on these psukim, what would have happened to those who did not offer this korban?  Why?

 

10.  Based on 12:26?27, what is the reason (and purpose) for offering a korban Pesach every year?  In your opinion, based on Yechezkel 20:5-9 (see above), is there any other aspect of the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim that this korban remind us of? 

[See also Seforno's introduction to Sefer Shmot [in some Chumashim it is found in the beginning of Sefer Breishit].  Note how Seforno relates Sefer Shmot to Yechezkel 20:5?9, and relate this to the above questions.]  

 

11.  In 12:8, the Torah commands that we are to eat matza with the korban Pesach?  Is there any obvious reason for this commandment? 

Based on 12:17, could it be for the same reason that the Torah commands that we eat matza for seven days?  In your answer, relate to the story as told in Shmot 12:34 & 12:39.

 

        If the reasons are different, be sure to explain why.  [Which reason relates to 'lechem oni', and which to 'being rushed'?

        In your opinion, why is chametz forbidden (see 12:15-20) - simply to encourage us to eat matza?  Why, in addition, does the Torah forbid that we own chametz, or even see it?  [i.e. 'issur bal yera'eh / bal yimatzeh']

 

12.  Compare the laws of 'issur avoda zara' (see Rambam Hilchot Avoda Zara Chapter 7, Hilchot 1-3 & 7-8) to 'issur chametz' (see Rambam Hilchot Chametz u-Matza Chapter One).

        In what ways are their prohibitions similar?

Based on the above questions (in regard to what chametz symbolizes), can you suggest a reason for this similarity?  In your answer, relate once again to Yechezkel 20:5-9; or basically, relate to what God had expected from Bnei Yisrael before the redemption.

Based on these parallels, can you suggest a thematic connection between the laws of chametz in regard to korban Pesach and chag ha-matzot.  [Relate as well to Devarim 16:1-4.]

 

13.  The laws of korbanot also include a prohibition against offering chametz on the mizbeiach (see Vayikra 2:11, 6:10).  Can you explain the reason for this prohibition?  In your opinion, what does chametz symbolize; and why would the laws of korbanot be similar to the laws of Pesach?

 

14.  Compare the laws of the korban Pesach to the special laws of ?korban todah?; in regard to the need to offer it with different types of bread (see Vayikra 7:11?18).  In what manner are these two types of offerings similar? 

        What is the logic behind the commandment to bring this 'thanksgiving offering' [korban Todah] together with bread?  In your answer, relate as well to the fact that its 'time frame' during which it must be eaten is quite limited.  

        How does this comparison enhance your understanding of the laws [and purpose] of korban Pesach?  [In other words, why would it be similar to an offering for ?thanksgiving??]

=========

 

PART III ? PARSHANUT

 

400 YEARS - WHO'S COUNTING?

1.  Review 12:40-42, noting how it relates to Breishit 15:13?15.

        What is the obvious parallel, and what is the problem with that parallel?

        If 12:40 is indeed speaking of the same 400 years, when did this 400-year count begin?  How do you explain the 'extra thirty years'?

        First, see Rashi on 12:40-41?

        How does he understand this connection?

        Note how he uses calculations based on Shmot 6:16-20 to prove that the 430 years cannot be only from the time that Yaakov's sons went down to Egypt.  Explain why this 'forces' us to relate this pasuk to the 400 years of 'brit bein ha-btarim'. 

 

2.  How does Rashi explain the 'extra' thirty years?

               Why does Breishit 12:4 make this problematic?

        How does Rashi solve this problem?  [See also Rashbam.]

 

3.  Next, see Ibn Ezra [ha-aroch & katzar]

        First, note how and why he quotes numerous examples of 'year counts' that are not clear regarding when they begin.  Then note how he returns to a calculation similar to Rashi's, but provides a different explanation for the 'thirty years'.  Be sure you understand how this differs from Rashi, and his need to explain that Avraham returned to Charan after he had already been in Eretz Canaan.

        How do Rashi and Ibn Ezra explain the time period from the time that Avraham left Ur Kasdim until Avraham left Charan and came to Eretz Canaan? 

 

4.  Finally, see Ramban.  How is his peirush similar, and how is it different from Ibn Ezra & Rashi.

        Why does Ramban question the assumption that the '400 years' begins with Yitzchak's birth? 

What is his conclusion concerning how long the actual enslavement lasted?  In other words, where does Ramban place the extra thirty years?

        In general, why do you think that all the commentators concur that these psukim (12:40?41) relate specifically to 'brit bein ha-btarim'.

 

THE LAST 'SHOWDOWN'

1.  Review 10:24-29 (i.e. the conversation between Moshe & Pharaoh after the Ninth Plague), paying careful attention to its concluding psukim - 10:28-29. 

In your opinion, what does Moshe do after he states that he won't see Pharaoh again (in 10:29)?  Does he leave the palace?  Would it make sense that he did?

Do they both keep their promises that they won't see each other again?  If not, who breaks their promise and when?

 

        Next, review 11:1-3.  In your opinion, when, where, and why does God tell this information to Moshe?   As God instructs Moshe to remind Bnei Yisrael to 'borrow' from the Egyptians (sse 11:2-3), what should Moshe do immediately after he hears this command?  Is that what he does?  [Relate to Shmot 3:18-22.]

        Then, carefully read 11:4-7 (but no farther!), noting how 11:4 informs us that Moshe is speaking, but it doesn't tell us to whom.  In your opinion, who is Moshe speaking to in 11:4, and why is he declaring this information?

        Then, carefully study 11:8, making sure that you understand how it is a continuation of 11:4-7! Use your understanding of this pasuk to answer all of the above questions.  [Did you ever notice this before?]

        Be sure that you understand how Moshe's statement in 11:8 relates directly to 10:28-29.

 

2.  Considering that Moshe is still speaking to Pharaoh in 11:4-8, it's quite clear that he didn't leave Pharaoh's palace in 10:29.  What difficulty does this raise, considering when 11:1-3 took place?  If God had told this information to Moshe at an earlier time, can you explain why the Torah records this information at this point in the narrative?  [In your answer, relate to 3:18-22 and 4:21-23.]

 

3.  Now, let's see how the commentators grappled with these questions. 

        First see Rashi on 11:4 (and Rashbam on 11:1).  How does Rashi understand the sequence of events?

        Then see Ibn Ezra aroch on 11:1 (and also katzar on 11:1 and 11:4).  Note how his commentary is very different than Rashi (and Rashbam's)!  Be sure that you understand how Ibn Ezra takes into consideration all the points mentioned in question #2!

 

4.  Next, see Ramban.  Note how Ramban basically agrees with Rashi (and hence must disagree with Ibn Ezra), but explains how and why this case of God speaking to Moshe in Pharaoh's palace is special!  See also Ramban's commentary on 10:29, noting how this relates to his explanation on 11:1.  

See also Chizkuni who quotes a Midrash that brings a different solution (but quite creative) to this problem of how God talked to Moshe in Pharaoh's house!

 

5.  Do Moshe and Pharaoh ever see each other again?  In case you forgot, see 12:29-33!  

        Did Moshe keep his promise from 10:29?

        Did Pharaoh keep his 'threat' from 10:28?

        See Ramban on 10:29!

 

                                              be-hatzlacha,

                                              menachem 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: boq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 40536 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090126/ddf311b9/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Jan 29 00:49:35 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:49:35 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Bo - shiur #1
Message-ID: <20090129053707.17F132105A1@out8.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************
     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.

-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090129/87dcaf32/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Jan 29 00:50:09 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:50:09 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Bo - shiur #2
Message-ID: <20090129054257.BBFFEBC58C3@out5.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************
     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.

-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090129/ce390765/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Feb  1 16:28:19 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 16:28:19 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Beshalach - questions for self study
Message-ID: <20090201212359.68B21210643@out2.bezeqint.net>

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

           PARSHAT BESHALACH -

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

RAINING 'BREAD'
1. Review 16:4, noting the verb that the Torah uses to
describe how the bread fell from heaven.  Attempt to relate
this to a similar usage of this verb in Breishit 2:5!
     Recall as well from Shmot 17:6, where the water came from
while they were in the desert.
     Then, review Devarim 11:10-17, noting how the Torah
describes the manner by which the Land of Israel will receive
its 'rain', and from where its produce will grow.
     Based on these sources, note the contrast between the
sources of rain and bread in the desert in relation to their
sources in the Land of Israel.  Attempt to explain how this
may be significant.

2.  Next, review Devarim 8:1-18, and relate that section to
your answer to the above question.  Finally, recall the
blessing that we make before eating bread [i.e. "ha'motzei
lechem min ha'aretz"].  Technically speaking, is the statement
that we make in that blessing true?  Thematically speaking,
why is that blessing so meaningful?  [See Ramban on 16:4
starting "l'maan anasenu"!]

THE FIRST 'SHABBOS'
1. In your opinion, did Bnei Yisrael in Egypt keep (or know
about)  Shabbat (and any of its laws)?  If so, how did they
find out?
     Now, carefully review what God first tells Moshe
concerning the 'manna' in 16:4-5.  Based on 16:5, does it seem
that Bnei Yisrael (or at least Moshe) already knows about the
concept of 'shabbat'?
  Next, carefully review from 16:6-21, noting whether or not
Moshe & Aharon ever told Bnei Yisrael concerning what they
were supposed to do on 'the sixth day' (as God commanded them
in 16:5).  [Can you explain why they didn't?]
  [Did you understand 16:5 as a 'command' for Moshe to relay
  to Bnei Yisrael, or simply as information that God wanted
  Moshe to know? ]

     Now, carefully review 16:22-27, i.e. the story of
happened on the sixth day.  In you opinion, did the people
take double because they were commanded to; or did they take
the normal amount, but it turned out to be double - and hence
they were all very surprised!  [Relate your answer to the
question above!]
     If indeed they were taken by surprise by the double
amount on the sixth day, and the fact that it didn't spoil -
what would be the 'pedagogic advantage' of this sequence of
events?

2.  For some insight on the above questions, first see Rashi
on 16:22 (noting how he claims that Moshe should have told
them, but he didn't!).  Then, see Rashbam on 16:23, where he
explains that Moshe didn't tell them on purpose, for
'pedagogic' reasons - i.e. to make their 'first shabbos' a big
surprise!
     See also Rashi & Seforno on 16:5.

3.  With the story in 16:4-27 in mind, read again the Fourth
Commandment ("zchor et Yom ha'shabbat..." / Shmot 20:8-11).
  In your opinion, how did these events affect (and enhance)
how Bnei Yisrael understood (and appreciated) God's special
commandment to keep Shabbat?
     [Relate these events as well to Rashi on 15:25.]

4.  Finally, review 16:33-36.  In your opinion, when did these
events take place?  If at a later time, why are they recorded
at this time? See Rashi & Rashbam on 16:33 (& Ibn Ezra on
16:32)
.
TO CANAAN or TO THE DESERT?
1.  As you read the opening pasuk of Parshat Beshalach
(13:17), attempt to explain the phrase 'ki karov hu'.
     Did you translate 'ki' as 'because', or as 'even though'?
How would this affect how you understand this pasuk?
     For a discussion on this topic, see first Ibn Ezra
(aroch) and Chizkuni.  Note the other examples that they
bring.  Then see Ramban.

2.  In your opinion, when Bnei Yisrael left Egypt, did the
people know for sure where they were going to?
     Did they realize that they were supposed to 'stop on the
way' at Har Chorev?  If so, for what purpose: to thank God; or
to receive the Torah; or both?
     If possible, support your answer with psukim.
     How would your answer to this question affect the way you
understand Bnei Yisrael's behavior in the desert?

3.  When Bnei Yisrael first left Egypt, for how long (in your
opinion) did they expect to be traveling for in the desert
(until reaching the Promised Land)?  [How long of a journey is
it from Egypt to Canaan? (Relate to Devarim 1:2.)]
  See Shmot 16:1-3.  Based on these psukim, what conclusion
can we reach re: the food supply that Bnei Yisrael took with
them for their journey?  Can you explain why?

ETHICS & THE EXODUS
4.  Review 14:1-4, noting how God instructs Bnei Yisrael to do
a maneuver.  Does this appear to be a trick?  In your opinion,
does there appear to be a 'moral' problem with this?
     See Ibn Ezra (aroch) on 14:1 and Ibn Ezra (katzar) or
14:8 for an interesting perspective!
  See also Ramban on Shmot10:10!

THE 'LAST STANZA'
5.  As you review 'shirat ha-yam' (15:1-19), note how just
about all of the psukim describe the events of how the sea
split and how Egyptians were killed and Bnei Yisrael were
saved.  However, towards the end of the 'shira' [song] we find
a slightly different topic.
     With this is mind, attempt to explain 15:17.  How does
this pasuk relate to the rest of the shira?
     In a similar manner, attempt to explain 15:18!
     Finally, see 15:19.  In your opinion, is this pasuk part
of the shira?  If not, what is it doing here?  For an
interesting discussion re: this question, see Ramban on 15:19.
[See also Chizkuni on 15:19 for a very novel approach.]
======

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for the weekly shiur)

1.  In your opinion, what was the purpose of God's miracles at
'kriyat Yam Suf':
     a) for Bnei Yisrael to recognize God;
     b) for the Egyptians to recognize God;
     c) for both (a) & (b) ;
     d) for a different (or additional) reason?
          [Support your answer with psukim.]
     According to your answer, can you explain why the 'Ten
Plagues' were not sufficient to accomplish this same purpose?

2.  After crossing the Red Sea, Bnei Yisrael finally began
their travel into the desert.  Based on their original request
(from Pharaoh) for a three day journey to worship their God,
where 'should' Bnei Yisrael now travel to, and what should
they do when they arrive there?
          [Relate to 3:12; 3:18; & 5:1-3.]
     Where do Bnei Yisrael arrive at after their first three
days of travel?  What happens there?  How (and why) is this
significant?
  [Compare what happens at Mara to the First Plague, relating
  to Shmot 4:9, 5:3 & 15:26!]

     When do Bnei Yisrael finally arrive at Har Chorev, and
what happens there? [i.e. did they actually bring korbanot?
  See 24:5-8, noting which korbanot were offered, and why.]

3.  List the various situations of peril arise in Parshat
Beshalach whereupon Bnei Yisrael complain to God (noting how
and why they complain); after which God provides a solution
(noting how the problem is solved).
     In your opinion, does God expect Bnei Yisrael not to
complain when these situations arise (e.g. when there is a
lack of water or food)?
  Similarly, in your opinion - did these situations arise by
'chance', or do they appear to be 'orchestrated' by God?
  If the latter, what was their purpose?

4.  Review once again the list of events that transpire in
Parshat Beshalach (as Bnei Yisrael travel towards Har Sinai).
Can you identify a pattern or common purpose?
     See if you can find the word 'nisayon' (or similar) in
any or all of these events.  If so, explain its meaning, and
how it relates to the purpose of these events.  [Relate to
Breishit 22:1!]

5.  The famous story of Moshe hitting the rock begins when
Bnei Yisrael are encamped in Refidim (17:1).
     To the best of your recollection (don't look at the
psukim yet), was the rock that Moshe hit also in Refidim?  If
not, where was it?  Does the entire nation gather when he hits
the rock?  If not, who is with him at that time?
     Now, read 17:5-7, and answer the above questions (once
again).  Can you explain why Moshe is instructed to hit a rock
in Chorev instead of a rock in Refidim?
     In your opinion, how did the water get from the rock to
the camp in Refidim?

6.  If you were in Refidim and thirsty, would you have waited
for the water to come to you?  What do you think most of the
people did, as soon as they heard about the water at Chorev?
[Relate to Shmot 19:1-2.  See also Ibn Ezra  on 17:9 & Devarim
9:21!]
  Based on your answer, what appears to be the 'original'
reason for Bnei Yisrael's arrival at Har Sinai?  [Relate your
answer to the famous 'analogy' of 'ein mayim ela Torah' [the
only true 'water' is Torah]?

AMALEK ATTACKS
7.  Based on your answer to the above question, attempt to
understand the setting for when Amalek attacks, as described
in 17:8.  Note the details of this attack as described in 17:8-
16 as the parallel account in Devarim 25:17-19.
  How would this help you understand the meaning of the phrase
"ve-lo yare Elokim" in Devarim 25:18?  [Relate to its similar
usage in Breishit 20:11 & 42:18 and Shmot 1:21.]
  How would this help you understand the deeper meaning of
God's eternal war against 'Amalek' (and those who continue in
their ways)?

PART III - PARSHANUT
===================
A MITZVA or A PROMISE
1.  In 14:9-12, Bnei Yisrael - with their 'backs to the sea'
and Egypt attacking - cry out to God for help.  Moshe responds
to Bnei Yisrael as follows (14:13):
  "Do not fear, stand strong and witness God's deliverance
  today - for in the way which you see Mitzrayim today - lo
  tosifu lir'otam ad olam - you will never see them again...

     As you read this pasuk (noting its context), attempt to
determine whether it is a promise or a commandment?  If it is
a promise, is it a promise for only this generation, or for
all generations (read the pasuk carefully)?
     How did you explain the word 'derech' in this pasuk?
     Then, see Rashi on 14:13 - how does he explain this
pasuk?

     Next, see Ramban (on 14:13), quoting Chazal.  Note that
he claims that this pasuk is indeed to be understood as a
commandment!
     Can you explain, according to Chazal, precisely what this
commandment entails?  Does it apply only to Egypt?
     Would you consider this interpretation as 'pshat'?
     Explain why yes and why not.
     Next, read Parshat Ha-melech in Sefer Devarim (17:14-20),
noting especially 17:16:
  "He (the king) must not gather too many horses (i.e. for
  chariots & calvary to strengthen his army), and he must not
  return the people to Mitzrayim in order to add horses, for
  God has already warned you - lo tosifu lashuv ba-derech ha-
  zeh od - you must not go back this way again.

     How does this statement relate textually and thematically
to the psukim above at kriyat Yam Suf (Shmot 14:13)?
     Attempt to explain how Chazal's interpretation of 14:13
as a commandment may be based on this pasuk in Devarim.
     Next, read Devarim 28:68 (noting its context, it's the
final pasuk of the tochacha in Ki Tavo).  How do you
understand the phrase "ba-derech asher amarti - lo tosif od
lir'otah..." -
     What is the meaning of 'ba-derech' in this phrase?
    [Will those who will be 'deported' to Egypt want someone
    to buy them? / read 26:68 carefully]
Does this pasuk support Chazal's peirush in Shmot 14:13?
     [See also Yeshayahu 31:1-3 & Yerushalmi Sukka V.1. (23a)]
  [See also Ibn Ezra on 14:13 for an interesting perspective
  on why Bnei Yisrael didn't 'fight back'.

WHAT BOOK ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT?
2.  In 17:14, God instructs Moshe to write down the story of
what Amalek did in a sefer.  In your opinion, what 'sefer' is
this, and what was the purpose in writing it down?
     Also, why must he 'put it' in Yehoshua's ears?  [See
Rashi!]
First, see Ibn Ezra (aroch & katzar) re: which book this is.
[See also Chizkuni.]
     Then see Ramban, noting how and why he disagrees.
     Finally, see Seforno for a very interesting explanation!

THE LAWS AT MARA
3.  Review 15:25 in the context of 15:23-26.
     Based on the simplest reading of this pasuk (and its
context), what laws does the phrase 'chok u-misphat' refer to?
     Similarly, what nisayon does the Torah refer to?
     In your opinion, does 15:25 summarize what took place in
15:23-24, or is it something additional that takes place?
  Similarly, does 15:26 explain 15:25, or does it describe
something additional that takes place?
     Is there any logical reason for laws to be taught at this
time?  If so, what type of laws would you expect to find?

  Now see Rashi.  How does he explain each word in 15:25?  Why
does he relate to laws that are found only later on in
Chumash?  [How does his peirush relate to what transpires in
the next chapter?]
     Next see Ramban.  Why are his reasons for not accepting
Rashi's interpretation?  How does he explain this phrase?
  Would you consider Ramban's peirush closer to pshat than
Rashi's?
     Finally see Rashbam.  How does he solve the problem of
what specific laws these refer to?
  How is his interpretation totally different than Rashi and
Ramban's?  [Can you explain what leads Rashbam to his
conclusion?]
     See also Ibn Ezra.  Is his peirush the same as Rashbam's?

                              be-hatzlacha,
                              menachem
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bshalq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 30531 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090201/bbdb672b/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Feb  5 03:59:10 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 03:59:10 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Beshalach - shiur #1
Message-ID: <20090205084628.60D0FB08466@out4.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************************

THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  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

[revised 5769]

 

        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 six 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
promise Avraham's offspring salvation from a future oppressor; rather God
was 'planting the seeds' of a people that were to become His model nation -
to make His 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 'model 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 did 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 for a discussion of 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 that Tochacha employs 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 their
'state of mind' as they are exiled to Egypt inside of those crowded 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!  In the slave-market,
their only hope for survival would be for an Egyptian to buy them (to become
his slave); otherwise they will starve to death.  [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 arrive at 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...").]

 

A 'MODEL CAMP' FOR A 'MODEL NATION'

        At their next camp-site, at Eilim (see15:27), God gives Am Yisrael a
short 'rest' - as there is plenty of water and food. But note how they 'just
so happen' to find twelve springs and seventy palm trees!  

        The 'twelve springs' obviously reflect the twelve Tribes.  [Recall
the twelve monuments erected at Har Sinai to represent Am Yisrael when they
accept the covenant in Shmot 24:4-7.]  We posit as well that the seventy
palm trees represent the 'seventy nations'.  Just as the spring provides
'water' - so the trees can bear their best fruit; so too when Bnei Yisrael
will become a nation properly keeping God's Laws, the other nations can
learn form this 'model' and thus reach their fullest potential.

 

After this educational 'time out', Bnei Yisrael arrive in Midbar Sin, where
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.]

        This initial encounter with Mount Sinai - where it becomes the
source for their physical existence, sets the stage for Matan Torah, when
Har Sinai will become the source for their spiritual existence.  Not only
has heaven replaced earth as the source of bread (the manna food), but now
Har Sinai has replaced the Nile as their 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 passive nature of Bnei Yisrael's participation in battle
against the Egyptian army - when God split the Red Sea, here Bnei Yisrael do
the fighting themselves.  But to assure that the people 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 become 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.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bshal1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 55445 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090205/b0ebcc3d/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Feb  5 04:29:55 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 04:29:55 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Beshalach - shiur #2
Message-ID: <20090205091713.29078B08659@out4.bezeqint.net>

 *************************************************************************

THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  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 the commandment to destroy Amalek should be understood as
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 ample 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.  [Rather 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 this 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 they appear as a nomadic tribe - roaming the desert, and
especially the highways crossing 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 very
existence centers around plundering the unprotected.  In relation to Israel,
and neighboring nations as well; at any time of weakness or vulnerability,
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)

 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bshal2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 40316 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090205/f19ddbdd/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Feb  8 13:41:23 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 13:41:23 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Yitro - questions for self study
Message-ID: <20090208182744.1D8BABA5A00@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 YITRO 

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

LOTS OF NAMES, or LOTS OF RELATIVES?
1. When one reads the beginning of Parshat Yitro, there seems to be no doubt
that Yitro is Moshe Rabeinu's father in law, as he is consistently referred
to as "cho'ten Moshe".
	However, when one reads the story of how Moshe first met his wife
(see Shmot 2:15-22, read carefully), it seems as though Moshe's father in
law's name was Reuel.  Before you see how the commentators solve this
problem, review the following other sources that discuss Yitro's family,
noting the phrases "kohen Midyan" as well as "choten Moshe", and see if you
can figure out the 'family tree' - assuming that each name refers to a
separate person:
	See Shmot 3:1, noting how Moshe is taking care of Yitro's sheep.  In
your opinion, approximately how many years have passed between Shmot 2:15
and 3:1?  How does your answer to this question affect how you understand
the identify of "kohen Midyan"?
	See also Shmot 4:18.  According to this pasuk, why is it almost
certain that "Yeter" is the same person as "Yitro"?  Note how both Rashi &
Ibn Ezra solve this problem, but each in a very different manner.

2.  After reviewing Shmot chapter 18, see also Bamidbar 10:29-32.  Does it
seem as though "Chovav" is the same person as Yitro?  In your opinion, does
"choten Moshe" in this pasuk describe Chovav or Reuel?  According to this
pasuk, does Chovav have the title of "kohen Midyan".   If Chovav is not
Yitro, can you explain why he doesn't have this title, and why he has been
with Bnei Yisrael for at least some time in the desert?
 	Then, see Sefer Shoftim 4:11.  Based on this pasuk, does it seem as
though Chovav accepted Moshe's offer in Bamidbar 10:31-32?  If Chovav was
the "kohen" of Midyan, would it make sense that he would have accepted this
offer?

3.  If one assumes that the phrase "choten" implies specifically a 'father
in law' - explain why Chovav and Yitro must be the same person.  Similarly,
explain why Reuel must either be Yitro himself, or Yitro's father (and hence
'father' in Shmot 2:18 - could imply grandfather as well).
	What is problematic about all of these explanations?
	If one assumes that the Hebrew word "choten" can refer to any
relative through marriage, including a 'brother-in-law'; how can this solve
all of the problems mentioned above regarding the specific identity of
Reuel, Yitro, and Chovav?
	See Breishit 19:12-14, Melachim Aleph 3:1, and especially Melachim
Bet 8:27.   Can these sources support an understanding that the word
"choten" can refer to any relationship through marriage?  See also the
phrase "chotno avi ha'haarah" in Shoftim 19:4.  In your opinion, does this
define "choten" as a father in law, or does it specify what type of "choten"
he was - i.e. 'father in law', in contrast to 'brother in law' (otherwise,
the phrase would be redundant).

4.  With this background, see (and enjoy) the commentary of Ibn Ezra on
Shmot 2: 18, 3:1, 4:18 and Bamidbar 10:29 !  
	See also Rashi on 4:18 and Bamidbar 10:29; and Ramban on Shmot 2:16,
noting how he solves all of the above problems by claiming that Reuel is the
grandfather, while "kohen Midyan" consistently refers to Yitro, and Chovav
is Yitro's new name after he becomes Jewish!

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 II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)

* 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? 
=============

   PART III - 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.

2.  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.]
	Relate this to the above questions on Shmot chapter 19. 

WHEN DID YITRO COME?
1.  A 'machloket' [controversy] exists concerning when Yitro actually came
to Har Sinai, BEFORE or AFTER Matan Torah.
	Before seeing the commentators inside, as you study chapter 18
attempt to identify which psukim support the view that this event happened
at a later time.

2.  Next, review the story about Yitro at the end of Bamidbar chapter 10, as
well as the story of how Moshe appointed judges when Bnei Yisrael prepared
to leave Har Sinai, as recorded in Devarim 1:6-13.  Do these appear to be
the same story as recorded in Shmot chapter 18, or different events?

3.  Then, see Ibn Ezra and Ramban (on 18:1), noting how they explain when
Yitro came.  How does each commentator relate to the psukim that you had
noted in your original analysis?
	Now, see Rashi on 18:13 - "vayehi mi-macharat".  How does this
interpretation form a compromise between these two opinions?  Would you
consider this the 'best' solution?
	If so - why yes; & if not - why not?
	How does Ibn Ezra explain why this story is written out of
chronological order?
	How does Rashi explain why part of this story is written out of
chronological order?
	What underlying assumptions form the basis for this three way
'machloket"?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yitroq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 45696 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090208/9c68c224/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Feb 11 05:21:22 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 05:21:22 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Yitro - Maamad Har Sinai
Message-ID: <20090211171816.6ED4B5E0D14@out3.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************
     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.

-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090211/fdaea41f/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Feb 12 05:47:26 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:47:26 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Yitro - additional shiur
Message-ID: <20090212103237.2B7C321057C@out8.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************************

THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  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

        & Part II  How many Yitro's are there?

 

        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 that one might expect;
Chumash records the mitzvot in a very special manner.  In our forthcoming
study of Sefer Shmot from Parshat Yitro until Parshat Pekudei, we will
demonstrate how the Torah's presentation of the sequence of the mitzvot and
their internal progression will be no less significant than the study of the
mitzvot themselves! 

        The following shiur will provide an introduction to this approach.

 

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, they must first receive the set of laws
[i.e. Matan Torah] that will facilitate their becoming God's model nation.

        It would only be logical to assume that Bnei Yisrael would receive
ALL of the mitzvot at Har Sinai, before they continue on their journey.
Therefore, we would expect the Torah to proceed in 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).  That 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 this methodology is to first 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 discussed 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 claims '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', Rashi will claim that the Torah has changed the chronological
order, in order to teach a lesson. 

        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', and hence its thematic
similarities to that event may be totally coincidental.

 

        It should be pointed out that there is a very simple reason why the
Torah is written in a 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,
God instructed to organize all of the laws that he received, and the various
stories that transpired - into the Five Books. 

[See Masechet Megilla 60a, and Rashi on the topic of "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 many months 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 spent his entire day teaching the
people, whereupon Yitro offered his famous advice 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 Part Two of our shiur, as we attempt to identify who Yitro was,
we will also be able to better appreciate what led Ibn Ezra to conclude that
Yitro must have arrived at a later time.

 

 

PARSHAT YITRO -  shiur #2 

 

YITRO - the 'father-in-law' or 'brother-in-law'

 

Many of us are so familiar with Rashi's commentary on the first pasuk of the
Parsha that Yitro had seven names (see 18:1) - that we don't even consider
any other possibility.  However, the classical commentators offer several
other very interesting interpretations.  

What difference does it make, you may ask?

If only to fulfill the mitzvah of "la'asok b'divrei Torah" - would surely be
reason enough.  In the following shiur, we attempt to explain the underlying
reasons for this controversy, and hopefully will also gain a deeper
understanding of why the Torah dedicates so many details to this topic.

 

INTRODUCTION

To our surprise, the first time that we meet Moshe Rabeinu's 'father-in-law'
in Chumash - his name is most definitely Reuel. To verify this, let's
quickly review the story of how Moshe meets Tzipora:

"...Moshe fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian;
and he sat down by a well... 

Now the priest of Midian - KOHEN MIDYAN - had seven daughters; and they came
and drew water... and the shepherds came and drove them away; but Moshe
stood up and helped them...

When they came to Reuel their father, he said: 'How is it that you have come
so soon to-day...

And he said unto his daughters: 'And where is he... and he [Reuel] gave
Moshe - Zipporah his daughter.

[See Shmot 2:15-22, note however that the Hebrew word "choten" does not
appear in this entire section!]

 

        Clearly, if we follow the simple meaning of the word "avihem" [their
father] in Hebrew, then Reuel is definitely Moshe's father in law!  However,
only a few psukim later, we find that Moshe is tending Yitro's sheep:

"Moshe was keeping the flock of Yitro - CHOTNO [his father-in-law?], KOHEN
MIDYAN - the priest of Midian ; and he led the flock to the farthest end of
the wilderness, and came to the mountain of God, unto Horeb."  (see 3:1)

 

        Everyone's immediate impression is that Yitro must be the same
person as Reuel, since he is called KOHEN MIDYAN - as was Reuel in 2:16, and
he is referred to now as "choten Moshe" - which almost everyone translates
as 'father-in-law' (see any English translation).  So why the 'name-change'
from Reuel to Yitro?

 

HOW MANY YEARS HAVE PASSED?

        Even though only several psukim separate between these two stories
in Shmot 2:16-22 and 3:1, it could be that many decades have passed in the
interim.  Let's explain why.

        When Moshe first fled from Egypt (see 2:11-15), the impression is
that he was rather young.  Hence, when he first meets Zipporah, it could be
that was only in his twenties (or thirties).  However, in chapter three -
when God appears to Moshe at the burning bush, he is definitely 80 years old
(see Shmot 7:7)

[Our assumption is that Moshe went back to Egypt immediately after God
appeared to him at the burning bush, and shortly after went to Pharaoh and
performed the miracles etc.]

 

        If indeed several decades have passed since Moshe first married
Zipporah, then it could be that her father Reuel - the previous KOHEN MIDYAN
- had passed away - and in the meantime, Reuel's son - Yitro - had become
the new KOHEN MIDYAN.  If so, then we would have to interpret "choten Moshe"
in 3:1- as Moshe's brother in law.   

 

CHOVAV - A PRIEST or TOUR GUIDE?

        To  support this interpretation, we simply need to examine the next
time in Chumash when Reuel is mentioned, later on in Parshat Bhaalotcha, as
Bnei Yisrael prepare to leave Har Sinai:

"And Moshe said unto Chovav, the son of Reuel the Midianite, CHOTEN MOSHE -
'We are journeying unto the place of which the LORD said: I will give it
you; come with us, and we will do you good..." (see Bamidbar 10:29-30)

 

        If we follow the simple meaning of the text, Chovav is definitely a
son of Reuel, and most probably NOT Yitro (why would his name change?).  In
other words, Reuel gave birth not only to seven daughters, but also to at
least two sons.  Hence - Zipporah had at least two brothers, Yitro and
Chovav.'

[Note that even though Shmot 2:16 states that Reuel had seven daughters,
this does not preclude the possibility that he also had sons.  The pasuk
mentions only the daughters, as they were tending to the sheep, and they
were the 'pool' from whom Moshe would receive his wife from Reuel, their
father.]

 

        Note as well how Sefer Bamidbar describes Chovav as "choten Moshe"
(see 10:29).  Even though one might suggest that "choten Moshe" in that
pasuk is describing Reuel, a parallel verse in Sefer Shoftim (see 4:11), its
quite explicit that "choten Moshe" refers to Chovav himself!  This
definitely supports our contention that "choten" can imply a brother in law;
and not only a father in law. 

        In fact, this is only other time In Chumash where the word "choten"
is used to describe a specific person, other than its repetitive use to
describe Yitro in Shmot chapter 18).

 

        Review the psukim in Bamidbar 10:29-30 once again, noting that
Chovav is not referred to as KOHEN MIDYAN, rather only as "choten Moshe".
If Chovav and Yitro are different brothers, this would make perfect sense,
for only one of the brothers could take over for Reuel - the previous "kohen
Midyan".  It seems that Yitro took over his father's coveted position as
KOHEN MIDYAN, while Chovav became a 'professional scout'. That's would
explain why Moshe begs him to join Bnei Yisrael in the desert to help them
with their travels (see again Bamidbar 10:29-33).

It also appears that Chovav accepted Moshe Rabeinu's offer to join their
journey and receive a portion in the land, as supported by Sefer Shoftim
4:11 (read carefully).   Yitro, however, as chief priest of Midyan - cannot
stay with Bnei Yisrael for any lengthy amount of time.  This explains why he
himself returns to Midyan (see Shmot 18:26) after his short visit to bring
back his 'sister' Zipporah (and the kids), as described in Parshat Yitro. 

 

PILEGESH B'GIVAH

        In Tanach, we do find one additional use of the word "choten", and
finally in regard to someone other than Moshe Rabeinu.  In the story of the
Levite who travels to Bet-lechem to bring back his "pilegesh" [concubine],
the father of this "pilegesh" is referred to three times as "chotno avi
ha'naara" (see Shoftim 19:4-9).

        How should we translate this phrase?

        At first glance, this seems to be a perfect proof that "choten"
implies a father in law.  In fact, this pasuk could almost serve as the
definition of this word - to mean specifically a father in law.  If so, then
in Chumash, it must also imply father in law - and hence Yitro and Chovav
must be the same person, as well as Reuel (unless we explain that Reuel was
the grandfather / see Rashi Shmot 18:1) - and hence the conclusion that we
are all familiar with, quoted by Rashi on 18:1.

 

        However, this phrase could prove exactly the opposite.  If the word
"choten" implies 'father-in-law' - and only 'father-in-law' - then why the
redundancy?  Would not the word "chotno" be enough, without the additional
phrase "avi ha'naara"!  

 

        On the other hand, if "chotno" implies any relationship through
marriage, be it 'brother in law', or 'father in law'; then the extra phrase
is informative, as it tells us that he was specifically her father, and not
her brother. 

 

THE VERB L"HITCHATEN

        To appreciate why the word "choten" could imply any relationship
through marriage, let's note a pasuk from Sefer Melachim:

"VA'YITCHATEN Shlomo et PHARAOH - King of Egypt, and he took the daughter of
Pharaoh..."  (see I Kings 3:1)

 

        Note, that Shlomo 'marries' Pharaoh ["va'yitchaten"], and then takes
his daughter as a wife.  In other words, the verb "l'hitchaten" can imply
entering into a family relationship.  [As we all know, you don't only marry
the wife - you marry her entire family!]

        If so, then "choten" could imply 'brother in law', just as it could
also imply 'father in law'.

 

        See Ibn Ezra on Bamdibar 10:29, where he states this explicitly.
Note also his commentary on Shmot 3:1, where he claims that Yitro is
Zipporah's brother (as we did).  [However, he concludes that Chovav and
Yitro are the same person.  In our shiur, we entertained the possibility
that they are different brothers.]

 

In summary, if the phrase "choten Moshe" could imply 'brother in law' (as
Ibn Ezra suggests), then one could conclude thqt Yitro, Chovav, and Reuel,
are all different people!

        If on the other hand, "choten" implies only a 'father in law', then
we are forced to conclude that Chovav and Yitro are the same person, while
Reuel is yet another name for Yitro; or alternatively, the grandfather of
Zipporah.  That conclusion which would force us to conclude that Hebrew word
"aviha" could imply grandfather as well as father. 

[Turns out that we must widen our definition of either the Hebrew word "av"
or "choten"!]

 

        If indeed they are the same persons, then the commentators must
explain the meaning of these various names for the same person?  See Ramban
on 2:16 for a beautiful explanation, as well as Rashi on 3:1.  On the other
hand, if they are different people, we must also search for meaning.  

Furthermore, we must also ponder why the Torah dedicates so many details to
Yitro (and his family).

Before discussing this question, let's discuss another controversy between
the commentators concerning when Yitro first came to meet Moshe at Har
Sinai.

 

HAR SINAI & YITRO

        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.   After all, what
'laws of God' was Moshe teaching if the Torah had not yet been given?
Furthermore, it seems (from chapter 19)  that as soon as Bnei Yisrael
arrived at Har Sinai - that Moshe went up to God immediately, and the events
of Maamad Har Sinai began (see 19:1-8); thus not leaving any time for the
story in chapter 18 to transpire.

        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').
Note however, that Ibn Ezra claims Chovav and Yitro are the same person.
Therefore, he explains that the narrative in Shmot chapter 18 takes place at
the same time as Bamidbar chapter 10. 

To explain why the Torah 'moves up' part of this story to Parshat Yitro, Ibn
Ezra suggests a thematic reason - 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]

 

        Ibn Ezra claims that the Torah wants to teach us that not all
'goyim' are bad.  Certainly, we encounter enemies such as Amalek, but we may
also encounter righteous non-jews, such as Yitro - from whom we can gain
important advice.

 

        What may be even more significant, is the fact that the Torah has
textually 'enveloped' Bnei Yisrael's encampment at Har Sinai with two
stories considering Yitro (and Chovav).

        Immediately upon our arrival at Sinai, and right before the story of
Matan Torah, the Torah records the story of Yitro's important advice to
Moshe concerning how establish an organized court system.  Then, in Sefer
Bamdibar, immediately before Bnei Yisrael leave Har Sinai, as they embark on
their journey to the land of Israel - we find Moshe Rabeinu's offer that
Chovav join the people on their journey, to provide assistance. 

        On the one hand, Matan Torah was a singular event, intended only for
the people of Israel - to enter a special covenant - and receive God's
special laws that will make them His nation.  However, the deeper purpose of
that covenant (and those laws) was for Bnei Yisrael to become God's 'model
nation' that would help bring the Name of God to all mankind - should we
keep His laws in the proper manner.

        For that reason, it may be quite significant that this key event in
our national history is surrounded by events that relate to our relationship
with the outside world.  While there are times when we find ourselves
isolated from the outside world, we must always remember that we were chosen
to have a positive impact upon it.  There may also be times that we can
improve ourselves by taking wise advice from other nations (Yitro before
Matan Torah), and there may also be times when they can even provide us with
guidance should we become a bit 'lost in a desert' (Chovav after Matan
Torah).  However, foremost, we must be dedicated to keeping the special laws
that God gave us at Matan Torah - so that our symbiotic relationship with
other nations can remain fruitful - for the betterment of all mankind.

                                      shabbat shalom,

                                      menachem

 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yitro1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 56011 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090212/275f8c86/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Feb 15 15:18:44 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:18:44 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Mishpatim - questions for self study
Message-ID: <20090215200311.0370D210790@out8.bezeqint.net>

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

PARSHAT MISHPATIM 

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

FROM SUFFERING TO SENSITIVITY
1. As you review the numerous mitzvot in Parshat Mishpatim, note how often
the topic of "eved" [servant / slave] appears in relation to either the law
itself or the reason to keep it. 
[If you need assistance, be sure to note 21:1-11; 21:20-21; 21:26-27; 21:32;
and especially 22:20 and 23:9!]

	Considering that this is the first set of detailed laws that Bnei
Yisrael receive after the Ten Commandments (and the Exodus), can you suggest
a logical reason why this topic would appear so often?  	In your
opinion, do these laws appear to 'encourage' Bnei Yisrael that they should
take slaves, or do these laws come to 'protect' the basic rights of
slaves/servants?  
	[See Chizkuni on 21:2!]

2.  Based on 22:20 and 23:9, what lesson does God expect Bnei Yisrael to
learn from their experience as slaves in Egypt?  How will [should] their
experience in Egypt affect the type of society that they now plan to create
in the Promised Land (and hence the laws that God gives them in Parshat
Mishpatim)? 
    Relate your answer to the concept of an "am kadosh" - a nation
designated to represent God - as discussed in Bnei Yisrael's covenant with
God, which they accepted at Har Sinai (see 19:5-6)?
	Note as well also the reason for why Bnei Yisrael must keep Shabbat
according to Devarim 5:13-15.  Similarly, note this similar refrain of
"v'zacharta ki eved ha'yita..." in Devarim 24:17-22 (and 16:12); explain how
these commandments (and this refrain) reflect a similar theme with the laws
of Mishpatim!
	In your opinion, how do the laws of Parshat Mishpatim relate to the
laws in Sefer Devarim?  Can you explain why?

3.  Finally, review Vayikra 19:33-37, while looking for a theme similar to
Shmot 22:20 & 23:9.  Can you explain why these laws are found in Parshat
Kedoshim as well as Parshat Mishpatim?
	Relate your answers to all the above questions to the process of
redemption that takes place in the first half of Sefer Shmot, and to God's
original 'forecast' to Avraham Avinu  that his offspring will suffer
'bondage in a foreign land' at "brit bein ha'btarim" (see Breishit
15:13-18).

WHAT HAPPENED TO CHUR?
1.  In 24:14, Moshe Rabeinu leaves instructions to the elders concerning who
they should turn to while he is gone should any problems arise.   Review
Shmot 17:10-12, noting how Chur seems to have been in a leadership position
(at the time of Yetziat Mitzraim). How does this explain why Moshe left both
Aharon and Chur in charge?
    To the best of your recollection, is Chur ever mentioned again, i.e.
after 24:14?  Does Chumash ever explain what happened to him?
    In what manner does his 'mysterious disappearance relate to the famous
Midrash that Chur was killed when he refused Bnei Yisrael's request to make
an 'egel'?
[In your opinion, is this pasuk the 'source' for this Midrash, or does it
simply provide support for a historical tradition that had been passed
down?]

'ORDER' IN THE COURTROOM
1.  More specifically, as your study the laws of damages in chapter 21 (i.e.
21:12-36), see if you can identify a pattern that explains the internal
order of this wide range of cases. 
    As you attempt to determine the underlying logic of its progression,
relate to who [or what] is doing the damage; the severity of the damage; and
the severity of the punishment.

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)

THE PROGRESSION OF MITZVOT IN MISHPATIM
1.  As you may have noticed, not all of the mitzvot in Chumash are given at
the same time.  Instead, there are different groups of mitzvot, some in
Sefer Shmot, some in Vayikra, etc.
	Note how the Ten Commandments are the first 'set' of mitzvot that we
find in Chumash.  Afterward, Parshat Mishpatim forms yet another set.  Later
on, we find other set of laws, e.g. how to build the Mishkan (chapters 25
thru 31), laws about "korbanot" in Sefer Vayikra, etc., and numerous other
sets of laws in Bamidbar & Devarim.
	The following battery of questions will help you understand what is
special about the set of laws in Parshat Mishpatim:
 	To begin, undertake a quick review the general topics of the various
laws in Parshat Mishpatim, attempt to identify a common theme, and suggest a
reason why specifically this set of laws was given immediately after the Ten
Commandments, and before all the other laws. 
	Now, we will take a 'closer look'.

A.  IDENTIFYING THE UNITS OF MA'AMAD HAR SINAI
1.  Recall how chapters 19->24 form a distinct unit - which we refer to as
Ma'amad Har Sinai.  Carefully review the events that take place within this
unit, i.e. from the time that Bnei Yisrael arrive at Har Sinai (see 19:1)
until Moshe Rabeinu ascends Har Sinai to receive the 'luchot' (at the end of
Parshat Mishpatim / see 24:12-18).  Note as well how 20:19 introduces a very
lengthy unit (the 'ko tomar' unit), which includes a series of mitzvot.
	Make a list of each of the major units and topics within this entire
Ma'amad Har Sinai section.  Then, analyze your list and attempt to organize
it into an outline.  [Carefully define the headers for each sub-section.]
	Make sure that you can follow the flow of events.
	Attempt to determine where the topics flow in a logical manner, and
where they may be some 'sticky' points.

2.  Parshat Mishpatim includes a lengthy list of mitzvot.  Based on your
outline, when were these mitzvot given to Moshe Rabeinu, and when did Moshe
teach them to Bnei Yisrael?
  	As you answer this question, answer the following questions as well:
a)  Where do the set of laws that begins with "ve-eileh ha-mishpatim" end?
b)  Are these "mishpatim" part of a larger set of laws?  If so identify this
'larger set' (i.e. where does it begin and end, etc.)

	Is there any time in Chumash when a set of mitzvot are presented
which are not first introduced by either "va-yomer Hashem el..." or
"va-yedaber Hashem el..." or a similar type of introduction?  If not,
explain why not.  If yes, bring an example.
    Does Parshat Misphatim have such an introduction?  If so, where do we
find a similar short narrative introducing how these laws were given to
Moshe?
	Based on your answer, where does the set of mitzvot which include
Ve-eileh ha-mishpatim" really begin?!
		Where does this unit end?
[In other words, how does the first pasuk of Parshat Mishpatim (21:1)
connect to the last set of psukim in Parshat Yitro (20:19-23)?]
	Does this unit contain only mitzvot?  If not, what else is included?
Can you explain why?
	Are the mitzvot in this unit only 'mishpatim'?  Is there a
difference between the word 'mishpat' and 'mitzva'?
	Based on this parsha, attempt to define a 'mishpat'.
	Who is responsible to execute these 'mishpatim'?
    [See Ramban on "asher tasim llfneihem" (21:1).

3.  Does the Torah ever tell us when Moshe told over the mitzvot in Parshat
Mishpatim to Bnei Yisrael?  If so, where is this story located?
	In your answer, relate to 24:3-4 in relation to the entire story in
24:1-11 (and in relation to God's commandment back in 20:19)
		[See also Rashbam on 24:1!]
	Based on your analysis of the content of 20:19 thru 23:33, what do
the phrases "divrei Hashem" and the "mishpatim" (mentioned in 24:3) refer
to?  Similarly, what does the phrase "divrei Hashem" in 24:4 refer to?

4.  Next, review the entire story in 24:1-11, noting how it describes a very
important national gathering and ceremony.
	In your opinion, in what manner does this gathering and ceremony
relate to the mitzvot of Parshat Mishpatim (and/or the Ten Commandments).
Why are the elders of Israel instructed to ascend the mountain to bow down
to God, and what is the significance of sprinkling the blood on everyone who
proclaimed "na'aseh v'nishma"?

B. BRIT NA'ASEH VE-NISHMA - BEFORE or AFTER?
5.  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?

6.  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.

7. 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).

8. 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!

9.  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'?

C. A SIGNIFICANT PROGRESSION
10.  Scan the mitzvot from 20:20 until 23:33 [noting how and why these
psukim constitute a complete unit] and attempt to organize them in an
outline.
	Can you detect any sort of a logical progression or any special
order - or do the mitzvot appear to be random?
	In your answer, relate to the types of mitzvot, such as:
  a) 'bein adam le-chavero' / 'bein adam la-Makom';
  b) Laws written in the 'causative' style (if... then...)
		 and/or 'absolute' style (do.../ don't...);
  c)  Laws that 'beit din' (a Jewish court) must enforce
  d)  Laws that 'beit din' does not or cannot enforce
  e)  Psukim which are not laws (explain what they are!).

11. As you probably noticed, most (but not all) of the mitzvot in Parshat
Mishpatim are 'bein adam le-chavero' [between man and his fellow man]. 
	Did you notice how 22:17-19 appear to 'not belong' within this unit?
Explain why they don't belong, and attempt to suggest a reason why they may
have been included nonetheless.

12.  Hopefully, you also noticed how 22:20 (and the laws that follow) are
written in a very different style than the laws in 21:1 thru 22:16.  Be sure
that you can identify and define the different style of presentation in
these two sets of laws.
	Attempt to relate the content of these laws that begin with 22:20 to
the manner in which they are presented.

13. As you review the laws from 22:20 thru 23:9, can you identify any laws
that seem to be addressed to the members of the court system? 
    Do the laws of this section need to be enforced by the court system
(like the laws in 21:1-22:19), or do they seem to be simply guidelines for
the individual?  Explain your answer.
	In general, which section of the laws found in Parshat Mishpatim
belong in "choshen mishpat", and which laws belong in "yore deya"?  [The
question assumes that you are familiar with the four sections of SHULCHAN
ARUCH.  If you are not, then please ask your 'local rabbi' for a quick
explanation.

14.  Do any laws in the this section seem to fall under the category of
'between man & God'? If so, can you identify which ones, and can you explain
why they are included in this section?

15. Note how the mitzvot in 23:10-19 appear to 'break' this pattern overall
pattern of 'bein adam la'chaveiro', as they are primarily 'bein adam
la-Makom'. 
	Can you suggest a logical reason for this progression?
	Can you identify a certain aspect of 'bein adam le-chavero' in the
mitzvot of 23:10-19 as well?  If so, explain what that is.
[Note the REASON given for shabbat & shmitta!  Compare this to other reasons
for these mitzvot found elsewhere in Chumash.]

16.  Attempt to connect the content of these different sections of laws to
both "brit Sinai", as detailed in Shmot 19:5-6, as well as to its purpose -
based on Breishit 18:18-19!

D. THE FINAL UNIT - A 'CONDITIONAL PROMISE'
17.  Read 23:20-33 carefully, especially 23:20-23!
	Is this still part of the unit which began in 20:19?
[In other words, is it still the "ko tomar" unit, that Moshe must realy to
Bnei Yisrael on behalf of God?]
Explain your answer.
	Do these psukim constitute a promise or a 'deal' of sorts?
	If so, who is this deal between, and what is its purpose?
	How do these psukim relate to the primary themes of Sefer Breishit
and Sefer Shmot, i.e. to the purpose of Yetziat Mitzraim?

18. Had it not been for the events of the sin of the Golden Calf, what
should have happened immediately after Moshe came down from Har Sinai, and
taught Bnei Yisrael the laws that God gave him?
	Relate this to the content of 23:20-33.
	Relate as well God's promise in 23:20-24, to Bnei Yisrael's request
from Aharon to make them an "elokim" - when they reach the conclusion that
Moshe is not going to return, as described in Shmot 32:1-4.

===========

PART III - PARSHANUT

SMICHUT PARSHIOT in Parshat Mishpatim
1.  In addition to the laws regarding damages, Parshat Mishpatim also
discusses many other categories of mitzvot.   As you review chapters 21 thru
23, attempt to find the logic behind the progression from one topic to the
next.  [Can you identify one unifying topic for all [or most] of these
mitzvot; or do they appear to be a random collection?]
	When you finish, compare your conclusions to those of Ibn Ezra
[which can be found in the Torat Chaim edition - Ibn Ezra ha'katzar - on the
first pasuk of the Parsha (21:1).]  Note how Ibn Ezra attempts to identify a
unifying theme for all of these mitzvot.  Relate that theme to the
underlying theme of Sefer Breishit in regard to why God chose the Jewish
nation.

2.  Other commentators find a similarity between the progression of these
laws and the Ten Commandments.  First, attempt to do this on your own
(beginning with where this unit technically began in 20:19 - until chapter
23).  Then see Ramban in his commentary to 21:1 and 21:2, where he deals
with this parallel in detail!
	[Note as well Rashi on 24:12!]

A REASON, or AN INCENTIVE?
1. Review 22:20, noting the apparent 'reason' for this law, that follow the
word "ki" - i.e. "ki gerim ha'yitem b'eretz mitzraim".
	Compare this phrase to the parallel law in 23:9.
    In your opinion, should this phrase be understood as the reason why one
cannot oppress a stranger?  If not, then what is the purpose of this phrase.
[In your answer, relate as well to what follows in 22:21-26.]
    Then see how Rashi on 23:20 ["ki gerim...".  Would you say that Rashi
understands this phrase as 'good advice' or as a reason for the prohibition?
    Next, see Ramban - noting how he first relates to both Rashi and Ibn
Ezra's commentary to this pasuk.  Be sure you understand why he rejects both
approaches.  Then, study Ramban's interpretation of this pasuk, noting how
it is based on 22:21-26!
     
EVED IVRI - Jewish or Ivrish?
1.  In your opinion, does the phrase "eved ivri" mentioned in 21:2 refer to
a Jewish slave, or does it include any descendant of Ever (grandson of Shem/
see Breishit 10:24-30)?  In your answer, relate to Breishit 14:13, 40:15 &
41:12 and Shmot 5:3.
	In either case, is the "eved" referred to in 21:20, 26, & 32 a
Jewish slave or a non-Jewish slave?  On what do you base your answer?
	For a fascinating discussion of this topic, see Ibn Ezra on 21:2
[pirush ha'aroch], noting how he beautifully defends Chazal's
interpretation.  Note as well how he explains his overall approach to
"parshanut" in the opening paragraph of that commentary!

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?]

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mishq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 40136 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090215/314b930d/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Feb 18 14:14:21 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:14:21 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Mishpatim - shiur #1
Message-ID: <20090218190622.D5B8F284F5@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 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).

-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090218/61f81a5a/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Feb 18 14:14:55 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:14:55 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Mishpatim - shiur #2
Message-ID: <20090219020724.81CBD5E0378@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 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 21:122:18 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 (21:122:19) 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 (22:2026) 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 (23:19) 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.


-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090218/6d145efa/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Feb 22 16:38:59 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:38:59 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Teruma - questions for self study
Message-ID: <20090222213308.A1B81210536@out2.bezeqint.net>

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

          PARSHAT TERUMA

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

TAKING CHUMASH 'LITERALLY'
1. In the opening lines of Parshat Terumah, we are told how
God requested for Bnei Yisrael to donate gold, silver, and
copper etc. for the Mishkan (see 25:1-3).
     Review Shmot 38:21-31 (i.e.the beginning of Parshat
Pekudei), noting how the Torah summarizes the total amount of
these precious metals that we collected (and what they made
with them).
     Finally, review as well Shmot 30:11-16 (the beginning of
Parshat Ki-tisa), noting how much silver each person was
'allowed' to give.
     Based on these sources, would you say that:
  * it was forbidden to donate silver, hence no one did;
  * it was permitted to donate silver, but no one did
  * people did donate silver, but the Torah simply
    did not inform us what that silver was used for;
  
  After pondering these questions, see Rashi & Ibn Ezra on
25:3, noting how they understood these psukim, and how they
entertained these various possibilities!
  
2.  If you liked that comparison, then you can try this one.
     Review 25:21-22, noting how the Torah describes how God
will speak to Moshe once the Mishkan will be assembled.
     Then, review Vayikra 1:1 and Bamidbar 7:89, noting
whether or not those descriptions concur with Shmot 25:22.
     After you have pondered these questions, see Rashi & Ibn
Ezra on Shmot 25:22, and enjoy!

'FACING' THE MISHKAN
1. As you study the various vessels of the Mishkan, and their
placement, see if you can identify a parallel with the human
body (or face).  If so, can you suggest any significance
behind this parallel?

2.  Review Shmot 25:15-22, noting how the ARON, which houses
the LUCHOT and a copy of the Sefer Torah, is covered by the
Kaporet with its KERUVIM.  Review Breishit 3:24, noting the
function of the KERUVIM in that pasuk?  Can you suggest a
thematic connection?  In your answer, relate to Mishlei 3:18!

FOR 'US' or FOR 'THEM'
1.  Review 25:8 and its parallel in 29:45-46.  Based on these
psukim, what is the primary purpose (or function) of the
Mishkan?  [See also Shmot 40:34-38.]
     Relate your answer to Shmot 19:5-6, 24:7, and our shiur
last week on Parshat Mishpatim.
  In addition to this purpose for the people of Israel, does
the Mishkan appear to have any sort of 'international' value?
Attempt to explain why it would, or why it would not.
  
2.  Next, read David ha'melech's charge to his son Shlomo
regarding the construction to the first Bet ha'Mikdash, as
described in Divrei ha'Yamim Aleph 22:5-10.  See as well
Melachim Aleph 8:41-43, noting how Shlomo ha'melech makes a
special request that God should answer the prayers of the
gentile who comes to the Temple.  Finally, note as well
Melachim Aleph 10:1, and what transpires in that chapter.
  Based on these sources, can you find any 'international'
value in the Mikdash?  In your answer, relate to Devarim 4:5-
8!
  In your opinion, would this relate only the Mikdash, or to
the Mishkan as well?  [Can you explain the difference between
the Mishkan and the Mikdash, and why a Mikdash was not built
until the time period of Shlomo?]

3.  How would you translate the word 'mishkan'?  What is its
Hebrew 'shoresh' [root]?
     Review 26:1.  Based on that pasuk, what is the precise
meaning of the word 'mishkan' in that pasuk, as well as in the
remainder of chapters 26 & 27?  Relate also to 25:8-9.
     Does the word mishkan also have a more general meaning?
If so, explain what that is, and how it relates to the more
specific meaning of its use in 26:1.  In your answer, relate
to the structural differences between the mishkan and the Bet
ha-Mikdash.

4.  In your opinion, what is the precise meaning of the word
'mikdash', and how does it relate to its shoresh "k.d.sh."?
     Is mikdash simply another word for mishkan (if so explain
the reason for each name), or does each name imply something
specific (if so, what is common to both and what is unique to
each name)?
     See 25:8 "Ve-asu li mikdash..." - and note how Rashi,
Rasa"g, Rashbam, Ramban, Chizkuni & Ibn Ezra all relate to the
above question in their commentaries on this pasuk!
     Attempt to explain how and why each commentator provides
a different interpretation.
     Finally, see Rambam Hilchot Beit Ha'Bechira I.1->3,
noting how he relates to this pasuk.

COMPLICATED INSTRUCTIONS
1.  Note a similar phrase that appears in 25:40, 26:30, and
27:8.  Can you explain why this phrase appears specifically at
these three points in God's commandment to Moshe to build the
Mishkan?
     Review 25:8-9.  How does 28:9 relate to the above psukim?
     Review 35:30-36:3 & 39:33 & 39:42-43.  How does this
relate to the above psukim?  Can you explain the meaning of
"ruach Elokim" in 35:30?  [See the commentators on that
pasuk.]

THE 'ARON' & ITS FUNCTION
1.  As your review Parshat Teruma, note the wording of the
opening commandment to build each of the vessels of the
mishkan - or in other words, see 25:10,17,23,31 etc.  Be sure
to note if the command is in singular or plural.
     How does the wording of the opening commandment to build
the 'aron' differ from the others?  Can you explain why?
     Be sure to check Ramban on 25:10 for a beautiful
explanation.
     In addition to this difference, in what manner does the
function of the aron differ from the function of all the other
vessels of the mishkan?  Would you say that the aron is a
'part' of the mishkan, or that the mishkan is built 'for' the
aron?
     Relate this distinction to the above question!

2.  In case you had not noticed, the function of the 'aron'
and the 'keruvim' is described in 25:21-22.  Review those
psukim, and attempt to relate this function to the purpose of
Moshe's ascent to Har Sinai for forty days, as explained in
24:12.
     Could this explain why the 'aron' is the first vessel of
the mishkan to be described in Parshat Teruma?  Can you
suggest any other reason?
     Review 29:42-46, noting how these psukim summarize the
commandment to build the mishkan, and compare them with 25:8
and 25:21-22!  Relate this to the above questions.
     How is the function of the 'aron' different than the
functions of all other vessels of the mishkan?

3.  In relation once again to 25:21-22, how does the function
of the aron relate to the function of the keruvim?  How does
this function relate to Bnei Yisrael's request (at Ma'amad Har
Sinai) that Moshe speak to them instead of God?  In your
answer, relate to Shmot 20:15-16 & Devarim 5:20-28).
     How does this relate to the location of Parshat Teruma
within Sefer Shmot and in relation to the events of Ma'amad
Har Sinai?

4.  In what context is the word 'keruvim' used in Sefer
Breishit?
  [In case you forgot, re-read the end of Breishit chapter 3!]
     Can you relate its meaning there to the function of the
keruvim in the mishkan.  Be sure to note where the 'keruvim'
are located in the mishkan (see 25:17-22, 26:1 & 26:31).
     Relate your answer to Mishlei chapter 3, especially 3:18
- but be sure to read that entire chapter!
=====

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)

1.  Review Shmot 24:12-18.  Based on these psukim, for what
purpose does Moshe ascend Har Sinai in 24:12?  Up until this
point, have Moshe and/or Bnei Yisrael received any other
mitzvot from God?  If so, which mitzvot, and when (and where)
were they given?  How do (or should) those mitzvot differ from
the mitzvot that Moshe is now about to receive on Har Sinai?
2.  Note from 24:18 that Moshe will now spend forty days on
Har Sinai.  In your opinion, how much of the Torah does he
receive during these forty days?  Can you explain why it will
take so long?
     If Moshe does not receive all the 613mitzvot at this
time, can you explain what he does receive at this time (and
what he doesn't)?
     When does he receive all of the other remaining mitzvot?
     See Ibn Ezra on 31:18 re: this topic [rather amazing]!
If you have sufficient time, note as well the various
commentaries on Shmot 34:32, especially Chizkuni, and explain
why that pasuk may relate to 24:12.

3.  Even though 24:12-18 is a narrative, the Torah does not
continue that narrative until Moshe descends from Har Sinai in
chapter 32.  In the interim, i.e. chapters 25-31, the Torah
records many parshiot of mitzvot.  Scan this unit, noting the
general categories of the mitzvot that are discussed.  Can you
identify one general category, or is this simply an assortment
of various mitzvot?
     If there is one general category, can you explain why
specifically this category is discussed at this time?
     In you opinion, do chapters 25 thru 31 contain all of the
mitzvot that Moshe received from God during those forty days?
 *   If not, why are only these specific parshiot recorded at
this point in Sefer Shmot, and not the others?
 *   If yes, why do think that these are the only mitzvot that
Moshe receives at this time?

4.  As you probably realized, chapters 25 thru 31 discuss the
various laws concerning the mishkan.  As you study these laws,
and the various vessels of the mishkan and its structure, can
you identify any thematic parallels between these laws and the
events that took place at Ma'amad Har Sinai (as described in
Shmot chapters 19,20 & 24?  Relate especially to 19:9-15,20-24
and 24:1-12.
     Can you suggest a reason for any of the parallels that
you find?
     Be sure to study the first Ramban on Parshat Teruma,
where he discusses the significance of these parallels.

5.  In a similar manner, attempt to identify any thematic
parallels that may exist between this section about the
mishkan and the events that take place during the events of
'chet ha-egel'.  Relate to:
  The person who was chosen to construct the mishkan (and his
  grandfather, see 31:2 & 24:12-14);
  The need for Aharon to bring a 'korban chatat' during the
  milu'im ceremony (see 29:14);
  The commandment to collect 'donations from the people' to
  build the mishkan (see 25:2-4); &
  The need to 'count the people' prior to its construction, as
  described in 30:16.

6.  Based on your answers to the above two questions, attempt
to explain the reason for the controversy between Rashi and
Ramban concerning when the parshiot of the mishkan were first
given to Moshe Rabeinu.
     Be sure to see Rashi on 29:1 and Chizkuni on 31:2.
     Then, see Rashi on 31:18, and be sure that you understand
the reason for this conclusion that these events took place
before God's commandment to build the mishkan in Parshat
Teruma.

7.  When Rashi (on 31:18) states 'ein mukdam u-me'uchar' [the
parshiot in Chumash are not necessarily written in
chronological order], does this imply that the Torah is
written in random order?
     If not, then what order is it written in, according to
Rashi?
     Why do you think Ramban disagrees with this principle?
     [See also Chizkuni on 34:32 for an extra insight on this
matter!]

8.  Review 33:7, noting its context within 33:1-11.  Note the
word 'ohel mo'ed', and be sure that you understand its meaning
within that context.
     Compare this with 25:8, noting its parallel with 29:42-
46, and use of the word 'ohel mo'ed' in those psukim
(29:42,44).
     How would this thematic and textual parallel provide
support for Rashi's opinion?  According to Ramban's opinion,
how could one explain the nature of this parallel?

9.  According to Rashi, who claims that the commandment to
build the mishkan was first given only after the events of
chet ha-egel, does this imply that had it not been for chet ha-
egel that there would never have been a need for a Mikdash?
     In your answer, relate to Shmot 15:17, 20:19-22, 23:14-
19, and Breishit 28:16-18!
     Do any (or all) of these psukim indicate that there may
have been a need for a Mikdash, even had Bnei Yisrael not
sinned during the events of chet ha-egel?
     If so, how could this be explained according to Rashi's
opinion that the mishkan came after chet ha-egel?
  [See and relate to Chizkuni on Shmot 20:20-21 and 31:18.
  See also Seforno on 20:20-21.]

PART III - PARSHANUT

THE MISHKAN of the MISHKAN
1. Review 26:1, and while reading the pasuk, try to determine
what the word "mishkan" is referring to.  [In other words, is
the "mishkan" made out of "yeriot", or - are the "yeriot" made
for the mishkan"?]
     Up until this point, what did you think that the word
"mishkan" referred to?
     See Rashi, how would he answer the above question?
     Then see Rashbam.  How would he answer the above
question?  Would you say that each one understands the pasuk
in a different manner, or does each one simply relate to a
different point?
     Then see Seforno, noting how he follows Rashbam.  What
does Seforno add to Rashbam's interpretation?
  Also, see Bamidbar 10:21, noting its context!  How does this
pasuk help your understanding of Shmot 26:1?
  Finally see [the lengthy] Ibn Ezra [ha'aroch] on 26:1; even
though you may find the first few lines a bit difficult, I
suggest that you try to read this entire Ibn Ezra carefully,
as he provides an excellent explanation not only for the
Mishkan, but also about the concept of a "neshama" [soul] and
the essence of life!

RAMBAN & THEME
2.  In addition to the first Ramban on Parshat Teruma, see
also his introduction to Sefer Shmot, as well as his
introductions to Sefer Vayikra, and Sefer Bamidbar, noting how
often the mishkan is mentioned.
     What conclusion can you make from these Ramban's, in
regard to his understanding of the thematic importance of the
mishkan?

LIGHTING [OR LIFTING] the CANDLES
3.  Re: the menora, read 25:37 - and translate the pasuk into
English, based on what you always thought this pasuk meant.
     Now, read the entire parshia from 25:31-40, and pay
careful attention to how you translate 25:37 in the context of
the entire 'parshia'.  What are the 'neirot' of the menora?
Are they an integral part of the rest of the menora as
described in 25:31-36?
     [If not, why not?]
     Based on your answer, what should "ve-he'ela et
neiroteha" imply?
          - to light [kindle] the menora?  Or:
          - to place the 'neirot' upon the menora?
     Relate your answer to the standard meaning of the Hebrew
word 'le-ha'a lot'.

     Next, see Rashi on 25:37.
     How does Rashi's explanation relate to the above
questions?
     Finally, see Bamidbar 8:1-4.  Based on your answer to the
above question, how would you translate these psukim,
especially the word 'be-ha'alotcha'?

FOR THE DESERT or FOREVER?
4.  How do we know that the mitzva to build the mishkan is for
all generations, and not just something special for the
generation in the desert (or is it?).  Is there any pasuk
indicating that the mishkan should also be set up once Bnei
Yisrael enter Eretz Canaan?
     See Rashi on 25:9.  See also Chizkuni & Ibn Ezra on that
pasuk.
     See Rambam - Hilchot Beit Ha-bechira, I:1-3.
     Then, review Devarim 12:5-12, Shmot 23:14-19 & 20:18-22,
and attempt to find a connection between those psukim and the
wording of Rambam's first halacha in Hilchot Beit Ha-bechira.


                                  be-hatzlacha
                                   menachem

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: trumaq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 38044 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090222/b2fdfe84/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Feb 25 16:44:49 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:44:49 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Teruma - shiur
Message-ID: <20090226044103.9086C5E0EA0@out3.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************
     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!
-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090225/787b8f02/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Mar  1 17:00:44 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 17:00:44 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Tezaveh - questions for self study
Message-ID: <20090302045220.0C0825E07E3@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 TETZAVEH

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

A CROWN FOR THE KOHEN GADOL
1.  The Torah refers to the special band that the kohen gadol
wears across his forehead as the "tzitz" (see 28:36).  Can you
explain why that specific name was chosen?  Can you think of
any other mitzvah in the Torah that contains a similar Hebrew
word?  If so, can you think of any thematic connection between
that mitzvah and the "tzitz"?

2. Next, look up the following psukim that contain a word
which may relate to the name of the "tzitz":
  1. Yechezkel 1:7  [note the word "notzetzim"]
  2. Yechezkel 8:3   [note the phrase tzitzit roshi"]
  3. Shir ha'shirim 2:9  [note "meytzitz min ha'charakim"]

     Based on each of these psukim, based on what aspect of
the "tzitz" would it be called this name?
     Then, see Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, and Chizkuni on 28:36,
noting how each commentator quotes one of the above psukim in
his explanation!

3. In what manner does the Kohen Gadol represent the Jewish
people?  How does this relate to the "tzitz"?
     What other garments of the kohen gadol contain something
special that relates his position as the representative of the
Jewish people before God.
     How does this relate to what took place at Ma'amad Har
Sinai?

"TAMID" & THE MISHKAN
1.  The opening pasuk of the parsha describes the mitzva to
light the menora, which is then referred to as a ner tamid
[an 'everlasting' light].  On what other "keilim" (vessels) in
the mishkan do we find an 'avoda' (a ritual) which relates to
the word tamid?
     As you review the sources relating to the other "keilim"
i.e. the 'shulchan', 'mizbach ha-ola', 'mizbach ha-ktoret',
and the 'aron'], see if you can find this word "tamid" - and
if so, be sure to note the context.
     [If/when you give up, see 25:10-30; 29:38-42;30:1-8]
     Which of these 'keilim' does not have an 'avodat tamid'?
          Can you explain why?

     As you review those sources, note the phrase "lifnei
Hashem" or "lifnei ha'eydut" in relation to each "avodat
tamid".  Can you explain the connection?
  In your answer, relate the concept of 'avodat tamid' to
Ramban's explanation of the purpose of the mishkan as a
perpetuation of Har Sinai (as he explains in his introduction
to Parshat Teruma.

PREISTLY RESPONSIBILITIES
2.  Parshat Tetzaveh discusses the appointment of the kohanim
to work in the mishkan, and hence the need for a special
uniform.
     For future generations, what other responsibilities do
the kohanim have in addition to working in the Temple?
  [In your opinion, is there enough work in the mikdash to
  keep all the kohanim in Am Yisrael busy all year long?]
  What are the kohanim expected to do with the rest of their
'spare time'?
  How about the levi'im?  [See Devarim 17:8-10, 33:10.]
     How are the kohanim and levi'im supposed to make a living
(i.e. who pays their salary and how is it collected etc.)?
          [See Bamidbar 18:8-24, especially 18:12-14,21.
     See also Devarim 18:1-8, in relation to 17:8-11.]
How do these implied responsibilities relate to their primary
responsibility to work in the Mikdash.
     Relate once again to the first Ramban on parshat Teruma.
     See also Divrei Ha'yamim II chapter 29 and Nechemya
chapter 8.

'LIGHTING' & 'ENLIGHTENING'
3.  This week's parsha begins with a mitzva concerning how the
kohanim are to light the menora (see 27:20-21).
     Does this mitzva appear to be in its 'logical' location,
or should it have been mentioned earlier with the mitzva to
make the menora (see 25:31-40/ compare 25:21-22).  Explain.
     The next set of mitzvot in the parsha describe the
'bigdei kehuna' (the special garments of the kohanim).  Why do
you think is the mitzva for Aharon & his sons to light the
menora juxtaposed to these mitzvot?
     See Bamidbar 8:1-4.  Is this the same mitzva or a
different one?  Does this mitzva to light the menora also
appear to be out of place?  What topic follows in Bamidbar 8:5-
22?
     In what manner do the other responsibilities of the
kohanim and levi'im (i.e. outside the Mikdash) relate to the
mitzva of lighting the menora?
     [Relate your answer to the above question!]

4.  Compare the menora to the keruvim / and the shulchan to
the aron.  In what manner is each vessel similar to the other?
     How does the function of the keruvim relate to the
function of the menora (or at least to what the menora
represents)?
     Attempt to correlate Moshe/aron to Aharon/menora as far
as the job of each leader in relation to the people!

KOHEN GADOL vs. KING
5.  In what manner is the kohen gadol similar to a king?
          [Relate also to his special garments.]
     In an ideal situation, is the kohen gadol supposed to be
the king?  If yes, explain why?
     If not, explain who should be the king, and what should
be the 'balance of powers' between the king and kohen gadol.
     Relate to Bamidbar 27:15-21, & Devarim 17:8-18:8!
          See also I Shmuel 2:35!

6.  If you have some 'spare time', see Rambam Sefer Avoda,
Hilchot Klei Ha-mikdash chapters 3, 4, & 5.  There he talks
about the leviim, kohanim and kohen gadol.  See IV.20 in
relation to the above question.  See also Rambam Sefer
Shoftim, Hilchot Melachim chapters 1-5, especially IV.10.  [If
you live in chutz la-aretz, don't read V.9-12, "ve-akamal".]

KAPARA - what for?
7.  In the seven day 'milu'im' ceremony (chapter 29), both the
kohanim and the mizbeiach need 'kapara'.
     First, verify this statement from the psukim towards the
end of the chapter.
     In your opinion, what is the purpose of the ceremony, and
why specifically do the kohanim and mizbeiach require kapara?
     What does kapara mean?  [Relate to our discussion of this
topic in our shiur on Yom Kippur (see TSC Web site) in regard
to its 'protective' nature.]
     Could this kapara also relate to 'chet ha-egel'.  Would
it explain why the kohanim must offer this korban?  Would it
explain why the mizbeiach requires kapara.  [Compare the
korbanot in chapter 29 to the korbanot that were offered on
Yom ha-Shmini as detailed in Vayikra 9:1-6!]
==============================

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
1.  Browse through parshiot Teruma and Tetzaveh  (25:1-30:10),
noting how this entire unit is included in the 'dibur' to
Moshe that began in 25:1!  [Note that we do not find another
new dibur until the beginning of parshat Ki Tisa (see 30:11).]
     Then, scan this entire unit, paying careful attention to
its division into numerous 'parshiot'.  As you browse through,
attempt to determine the main topic of each 'parshia'.
Attempt to define that topic with a word or two or at most a
very short phrase.
      Then, make a list of these topics (one line for each
parshia, and preferably only one word or short phrase for the
title of each parshia.   [You should finish with about twenty
some lines.]
Now take your list, and transform it into an outline.
     Then, attempt to determine the principle of the internal
structure of this unit.

2.  Once you have determined the general logic of the
progression of these parshiot, note any parshiot that don't
seem to be in their 'proper' place.  If you find any, can you
explain why they are 'out of place'?

3.  Review the second to last parshia of this unit - 29:38-46.
In your opinion, what is the primary topic of this parshia?
How does this topic relate to the entire unit?
     In your opinion, does its location (i.e. towards the end
of this unit) make sense?  [How does the daily korban Tamid
relate to the seven day milu'im ceremony described in 29:1-
37?]

4.  Carefully note the textual and thematic parallel between
29:42-46 and 25:8-9.  Can you explain their significance?
     In what manner could you consider 29:43-44 as a summary
of the entire unit?  [Relate to your outline.]
     In what way do 25:8 & 29:45 enclose this unit?  If so,
then what would be the thematic importance of 29:46?

5.  Based on your outline and your answer to the above
question, what is especially strange about the location of the
mizbach ha-ktoret (i.e. 30:1-10) at the very end of this unit?
     According to your outline, does this parshia belong
somewhere else?  If so, where?
     Can you explain why it is 'out of place'?  [See Chizkuni
and Seforno on 30:1, where they deal with this question.]

6.  Compare 29:42 to 30:6.  What is similar, both textually
and thematically?  Can you explain why?
     What, in your opinion, is the function of the mizbach ha-
ktoret?   Why does specifically this vessel require special
kapara once a year (i.e. on Yom Kippur / see 30:10)?

7.  In your opinion, what is the focal point of the mishkan,
the aron & keruvim and/or the mizbach ha-ola, or both?
     How does the mizbach ha-ktoret relate to each of these
'focal points'?

8.  Recall how Ramban (on 25:1) explained how the mishkan
serves as a perpetuation (and 'model') of Har Sinai.  Recall
also that the ktoret, when offered, creates an anan (a cloud /
see Vayikra 16:13, compare with 19:9, 24:15-16).
     Based on the Ramban's 'model', what (in your opinion)
would be the function of the mizbach ha-ktoret in the Mishkan?
     Would this help explain why 30:1-10 is 'out of place'?
     [Be sure to see Ramban's peirush to 30:1, noting how he
may be relating to this point.]

9.  Next, note the next set of parshiot that follow this unit,
i.e. 30:11-38.  In your opinion, should (at least some) of
these mitzvot been included in parshiot Teruma/Tetzaveh as
well?
     If so, which mitzvot, and where should they have been
recorded?
     Can you suggest a reason why they may have been 'left
out'?  Relate once again to your answer concerning why the
mizbach ktoret was 'left out'.

10.  Finally, make a list of these 'extra' topics in chapter
30, beginning with the mizbach ktoret.  Can you find a
parallel between this list and your outline of Teruma/Tetzaveh
(that you made to answer question #1.
     Can you find a parallel?  If so, can you suggest why it
may be significant?

PART III - PARSHANUT
1.  In the above questions, we noted how the mizbach ktoret
appears to be 'out of place'.  See the various commentators on
30:1, and note how they deal with this problem.
     First,  Rashi (on 30:1).  Does Rashi deal with this
problem or does his peirush deal with another question?  If
so, what is that question?
     See Rashbam.  What question is does Rashbam deal with?
     [To help you answer this question, relate to what the
word mizbeiach is derived from, i.e. shoresh z.v.ch.
          What is a 'zevach' normally brought from?
          See Breishit 31:54, and Vayikra 3:1 & 7:11!]

     Next, see Chizkuni.  How does Chizkuni answer the
'preparation questions' above concerning the placement of the
mizbach ha-ktoret at the end of the entire unit?
     In this case, is his approach thematic or textual?

     Next, see Seforno, noting how he answers these questions?
     Is his answer based on thematic or textual
considerations?

     Finally, see Ramban.  Note how Ramban deals with many of
the questions (raised in the preparation section).
     How does Ramban answer these questions?
     As above, is Rabman's approach (here) based primarily on
thematic or textual considerations?

2.  Read 29:45-46.
     How did you understand the phrase 'le-shochni betocham'?
     First see Rashi.  How does he explain and why?
     Next see Ibn Ezra.  Is Ibn Ezra's approach the same or
different than Rashi's?  Why does he refer back to 3:12?
          [See also Rashbam & Chizkuni!]
     Finally, see Ramban!
     Why does he disagree with Rashi?
          Would he disagree as well with Ibn Ezra & Rashbam?
     How is Ramban's explanation of this pasuk fundamentally
different than all the other parshanim?
     What is its philosophical significance?

3.  Note Rashi's explanation on 29:1 that the par that Aharon
must bring during the seven day milu'im ceremony is to atone
for his sin at chet ha-egel.
     Relate this to Rashi's approach concerning when the
mitzva of the mishkan was first given.  [See last week's
shiur.]
     Then, see Rashi on the opening psukim of parshat Shmini
[i.e. Vayikra 9:1-2].  Carefully note Rashi's explanation why
Aharon must bring specifically an egel for a chatat on this
day.
     Compare his peirush to Chizkuni's (on 9:2).
     Is this the same peirush or different?  Read carefully!
According to Rashi, is the egel that Aharon must bring to
atone for chet ha-egel or to 'make a public statement'?
Explain.

4. Review 29:42, noting the word (and meaning of)
"l'doroteichem".  Then see the Ibn Ezra on this pasuk, where
he claims that the korbanot were only offered at Har Sinai,
but stopped immediately afterwards (for the next forty years)
until Bnei Yisrael arrived in Israel.
     See if you can follow the logic and proofs [sources] for
this rather amazing Ibn Ezra, noting how he relates to several
very 'realistic' considerations!

                           be-hatzlacha,
                            menachem
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: tzaveq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 30590 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090301/8e02d9d3/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Mar  4 08:21:34 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 08:21:34 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Tezaveh - shiur
Message-ID: <20090304131039.368A3BC577E@out5.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************
     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.


-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090304/747532e9/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Mar  5 05:38:42 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 05:38:42 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Megilat Esther - questions for self study
Message-ID: <20090305102110.D6ACBB08636@out4.bezeqint.net>

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

    MEGILLAT ESTHER / PURIM - Questions for self study

PART I - Historical Setting
  The following questions consider both the time period and
prophetic setting of Megillat Esther.  This background will
help us better appreciate its prophetic message.
  
1. Our first step is to create a time line of the major events
that lead up to the time period of Megillat Esther. To do so,
review the following sources - from Yehoyakim (end of the
first Temple period) until the time period of Ezra (beginning
of 2nd Temple).
  Your time line should relate to:
     a. II Divrei Ha'yamim 35:19-36:23 & II Melachim  23:23-
25:11
    Note the years of Yehoyakim and Tzidkiyahu.
          Note when Galut Yehoyachin (=Yechonya) took place.
     b. Yirmiyahu 25:1-14, 29:1-14. Note especially 24:1 &
29:10.
    Note (from 25:10-13) how Yirmiyahu foresees seventy years
    of Babylonian rule.  Based on 25:1, when do these seventy
    years begin?
          Relate also to 27:4->28:3 & II D.H. 36:19-23!
     c.  Ezra 1:1-8, 3:1->4:7.
    What happened when the 70 years were over? Was the Second
  Bet Ha'Mikdash built during that year? If not, when was it
  built? Pay special attention to 4:4-6.
    [Note that aside from Megillat Esther itself, this is the
    only other mention of Achashverosh in the entire Tanach.]
     d. Zecharya 1:1-17, pay special attention to 1:12.
    What are the 70 years that Zecharya refers to? Are they
    the same '70 years' of Yirmiyahu?  In what year (i.e. with
    what event) did they begin, and it what year did they end?
    [How many years elapse between Yimiyahu's seventy years
    and Zecharya's?
           Relate to your answer to questions a,b,c (above)!
                    [Relate also to Zecharya 7:1-5.]
     e. Chagai/ review the entire Sefer, note 2:15,18.
          In what year was the Second Bet Ha'Mikdash built?
               [See also Ezra 6:13-18.]

2. Based on the above sources and Esther 1:1, in your opinion,
did the story of Megillat Esther take place AFTER or BEFORE
Yirmiyahu's 70 years were over? [In other words, does it take
place after or before the "hatz'harat Koresh" (=the Cyrus
Decree/ Ezra 1:1-4)?]
     a. From a prophetic perspective, especially in relation
to Yirmiyahu 29:10-14, what is the significance of
understanding when the events in Megillat Esther take place?
     b. Where were the jews 'supposed to be' during this time
period? Where were they instead?

3. Based on the above sources alone (and assuming that the
Achashverosh mentioned in Ezra chapter 4 is the Achashverosh
of Megillat Esther), can you pinpoint WHEN the story in
Megillat Esther takes place?  [i.e. BEFORE or AFTER
Daryavesh?]
     a. Based on Ezra 4:4-7, what TWO possibilities exist?
     b. Based on your answer to 1e (above), is it possible
that Achashverosh ruled BETWEEN Koresh and Daryavesh?
     Based on the historical information that can be inferred
from Daniel 10:1, and from the chronology of the events in
Megillat Esther, what must one assume in order to accept this
possibility?
       [Is this assumption logical? Explain why yes or not!]
     c. If we accept this assumption, does it explain why
Daryavesh allows the jews to build the Bet Ha'Mikdash in the
second year of his reign?
     d. If we accept this assumption, what historical event
took approximately 70 years prior to Achashveyrosh's six month
party described in the first chapter of Megillat Esther?
          Do Chazal (in the Midrash) raise this possibility?
     e. If you have a copy of SEDER OLAM, see how he explains
the chronology of events during this time period.
          In your opinion, is this "pshat"?
          [See also Mesechet Megilla 11b and Erchin 13a.]

4. Based on the second possibility (see 3a above), i.e. that
Achashveyrosh reigned AFTER Daryavesh, make a list of the
Persian Kings mentioned in Tanach (in chronological order).
     [Be sure to list the Persian king Artachshastah as well
(see Ezra 7:1-10, Nechemya 2:1-9).]
     a. From the Tanach alone (based on the above sources),
can one determine HOW many years each of these Persian kings
ruled? [Can one determine the minimum amount of years?]
     b. If indeed Achashveyrosh reigned AFTER Daryavesh, how
would that affect your answer to question #2 (above)?

5. The table below shows the standard list of the Persian
Kings found in most academic history books that cover this
time period. Can this list be correlated with the above
sources in Tanach? (Does it fit according to question #3 or
question #4?)

     YEAR (BCE)     KING
          538       Cyrus
          530       Cambyses
          521       Darius (the Great)
          486       Xerxes
          465       Artexerxes
     Based on this table, attempt to correlate the English (or
Greek) names of these kings with the names of the Persian
kings mentioned in the Tanach.

6. If you have time, scan Sefer Ezra and Nechemya (i.e. read
the opening psukim of each perek and then do a quick scan of
its content). Based on the events described, does the above
time line 'fit' with the events in Sefer Ezra?
     Why do you think that these seforim do not include an
exact, or at least a continuous, chronology of events?
     What is the purpose of these seforim? What do they
describe?  Do they share a common theme?

7. In Megillat Esther, the entire Jewish Nation is in peril.
Does the Megilla itself provide a prophetic reason for this
impending punishment?  If yes, what is that reason?
     If not, why do you think it is omitted?
          [See Mesechet Megilla 12a (about 20 lines down) -
"sha'alu talmidav et Rashbi mipnei mah nitchaivu..."]

8. Considering that Chazal include Megillat Esther as part of
the Tanach, would it be logical to assume that the book should
carry a prophetic message? If so, what is that message?
     In your opinion, was the book written for the purpose of
conveying a prophetic message; or was the book written for the
purpose of telling a story, and it just so happens that we can
learn a lesson from that story?
     Which of these two opinions (in your opinion) make the
most sense?
     In what manner is Megillat Esther different from most all
other books of the Tanach. [You should be able to list several
major differences.] Can you explain WHY it is different?
     Does your answer to question #7 relate to any of them?

9. Read Devarim 31:14-21, make special note of 31:17-18 and
their context. Chazal, in the Midrash, claim that 31:18 may be
the source of the name ESTHER. Can you explain why?
     Does your answer relate in any way to the above
questions?
          Relate as well to Devarim 4:5-8 & Breishit 18:18-19.
     Does "hester panim" relate to how God may save Am Yisrael
when in trouble, or how God may punish Am Yisrael when they
break His covenant?
     Does "shirat haazinu" deal with this question as well?
     If so, where, and what is its answer?

PART II - MEGILLAT ESTHER AND SEFER ZECHARYA

1. Does the Megilla describe the palace of Achashveyrosh in a
manner similar to the Bet Ha'Mikdash?
     If so, list those textual parallels.
     Based on the questions of PART I (the Historical
Setting), can you suggest a thematic reason for this parallel?
     Why do read "v'keilim m'keilim shonim" (1:7) to the tune
of Megillat Eicha?

2. Based on 4:10-11, in what manner is the inner chamber of
Achashveyrosh's palace similar to the Kodesh Ha'Kedoshim of
the Bet ha'Mikdash?

3. Based (once again) on the historical setting of the
Megilla, is there any similarity between God's expectations
from Am Yisrael (as a nation) during this time period and the
behavior Vashti (in 1:11-12)?
     Relate your answer to 1:16-18 as well?
     Can you also relate your answer to 3:8?

4. How many days elapse between the first edict sent out by
Haman to destroy the Jews (see 3:12-15) and the second edict
sent out by Esther & Mordechi which saved the Jews (see 8:9-
14).
     If you follow the plot of the Megilla, approximately on
what day was Haman hung? How many days later did Mordechi and
Esther ask Achashveyrosh to intervene to reverse the original
edict?
     On what approximate date do you think those letters
should have gone out? When did they go out instead?
     Do you think there is any thematic significance on the
date they went out instead, considering the number of days
which elapsed in the interim?
     Can you relate your answer to Yirmiyahu 25:1-10, 29:1-14?
     Does the concept of a day for a year (or visa versa) have
any other precedent in Tanach? If so, where? Does it
thematically relate to you answer? [Relate also the Yechezkel
chapter 4.]

5. In the Megilla, the city of Shushan is called SHUSHAN
HA'BIRA. [Note the only other earlier use of the word BIRA in
Tanach in Divrei Hayamim chapter 29. Read 29:1-25 and note its
context, then note the use of the word BIRA in 29:1 & 29:19.]
     What does the word BIRA mean in this perek?
     Based on that meaning, does it make sense that SHUSHAN is
referred to as a BIRA?
     If not, why do you think it is called a BIRA?
     Could it relate to the historical setting of the Megilla?

  Similarly, compare the amount of silver [kesef] that David
ha'melech prepares to build the first Bet ha' Mikdash (see
Divrei ha'yamim I 29:7 to the amount of money that Haman give
Achashverosh as his 'bribe' to issue the edict against the
Jews (see Esther 3:7-10).  Would you say that these identical
amounts are 'coincidental'?

6. In Tanach, prior to Megillat Esther, is there anyone ever
called Mordechi. Does the name stem from a Hebrew word?
     Note II Melachim 25:27, where E'viil Merodach, the king
of Bavel is mentioned. Is his name similar to Mordechi?
     Can you explain why?
     Note as well the name of the Babalonyian king mentioned
in Yeshayahu 39:1-2.
  [Btw, for general information, Marduk is the name of an
  important Babylonian god.]

7. Review the first 8 chapters of Sefer Zecharya, especially
chapter 1, and chapters 7->8.
     a. During what year are these nevuot given?
          How does this relate to the Megilla?
     b. What is the primary message of Zecharya?
          How does it relate to the rebuilding of the Mikdash?
     c. What does Zecharya expect for the people to do?
  d. In chapter 7, what question is being concerning the fast
  of Tisha b'Av ("tzom ha'chamishi")?
          Why is this question being asked at this time?
          What is Zecharya's answer? [Read thru 8:19!]
     e. Should any of this relate thematically to the Megilla?

8. Below is a list of several textual parallels between the
Megilla and Sefer Zecharya. See if you can uncover their
thematic connection (in relation to Yerushalayim).
          ZECHARYA       MEGILLAT ESTHER
          1:1-3               1:11-12
          1:8-12,16      2:7 [re:Hadasa/see Mes. Megilla 13a!]
                              6:8-10
          2:5-8               9:19
          7:4-9               9:22
          8:16-19             9:22, 9:29-31!

9. Read 9:29-32 carefully.
     What is the purpose of this 'second letter'?
     What does "divrei shalom v'emet" (9:30) mean or refer to?
          Why is not mentioned if the 'first letter'?
     Is "divrei ha'tzmot vzaakatam" referring to Taanit
Esther?
          If not, what other fast days could this be referring
to?
     What is pshat in this pasuk, how does it relate to the
reason for the 'second letter'?
     How and why would the mitzvah of "matanot l'evyonim" and
"mishloach manot ish l'ra'ayhu" relate to Zecharya?

10. Read Zechayra 8:20-23. How does it relate to 8:18-19?
     What is the meaning of "ish yehudi" in 8:23.
          Is this phrase mentioned anywhere else in Tanach?
               [You guessed it, only in the Megilla.]
     Based on this, how would interpret Esther 2:5.
          Compare Esther 2:5-6 to Yirmiyahu 29:1-14,
          and relate it to your answer.

11. What would be the thematic significance of these parallels
if Achashveyrosh of the Megilla is the Persian King AFTER
Daryavesh (see questions PART I).
     Would you say that Megillat Esther takes for granted that
its reader is familiar with Sefer Zecharya?
          [And how about Sefer Yirmiyahu?]

12. Let's say that you were asked to complete the following
sentence (after reading the Megilla):
     "Was it just by chance that:  ___________ ?"

     How many phrases can you come up with that could easily
complete the above sentence?
     Based on those questions, would you say that the Megilla
may be causing the ready to reach a certain conclusion - and
if so, what would that conclusion be?  Does the Megilla ever
state that conclusion explicitly?  If not, can you explain why
it doesn't?
     According to 9:25-28, what is the reason for calling this
holiday "purim"?  What does the word "pur" refer to - and how
does this word relate to things happening 'by chance'?
     Can you explain why this name was chosen as most fitting
to name this holiday?  [Relate this to the above questions.]

13. Based on the above questions, would you say that the
Megilla contains a 'hidden' message?
     If so, what is it, and why is not explicit?
          [What earlier nviim gave explicit rebuke?
          Did the people ever listen to those rebukes?]
     Can you relate this message to certain halachot regarding
Purim, e.g. the law of "mukafot chomah" from the days of
Yehoshua bin Nun, "ad d'lo yada", "masaychot", etc.?
     Where is the primary city in which we celebrate SHUSHAN
Purim? Can you explain why?

                              b'hatzlacha,
                              menachem
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: megq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 30970 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090305/d28d7392/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Fri Mar  6 06:06:46 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 06:06:46 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Zachor - Haftara
Message-ID: <20090306180244.94A515E04FF@out3.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************************

THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  www.tanach.org

In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag

Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag

*************************************************************************

 

       for PARSHAT ZACHOR  - SHAUL & AMALEK

                       [I Shmuel chapter 15]

 

        What was so terrible about Shaul's sin with Amalek?

Did Shaul lose his kingdom simply because he:

*     listened to the people's suggestion to offer some of the best sheep
from Amalek (as korbanot)?

*     kept Agag alive for an extra day or two, instead of killing him
immediately?

*     didn't admit his guilt immediately, but instead had the nerve to make
up excuses?

For either one (or even a mixture) of these above reasons, it doesn't seem
fair that Shaul must lose his kingdom, especially in comparison to David
whose sin appears to have been much more severe!

        In the following shiur, we take a closer look at the details of
Shmuel chapter 15 (the Haftara for Shabbat Zachor), while considering its
context within Sefer Shmuel - in an attempt to arrive at a more
comprehensive understanding of Shaul's sin.

 

BACKGROUND

        The Haftara for Shabbat Zachor describes the tragic story of how
Shaul failed God's commandment to destroy Amalek. 

Even though the details of Amalek's first attack against Am Yisrael are
recorded in Sefer Shmot (see Shmot 17:8-16), the official mitzva is defined
more explicitly in Sefer Devarim 25:17-19, better known as Parshat Zachor.
That commandment implies that it must be fulfilled once Bnei Yisrael are
firmly established in their land, and have achieved rest from their enemies.
[See "ve-haya be-haniach..." / 25:19.] 

Accordingly, the Rambam claims that it becomes the responsibility of the
King of Israel to destroy Amalek.  See Rambam, the first halacha of Hilchot
Melachim. 

Several hundred years pass from the time of Yehoshua until a monarchy was
finally established - with the coronation of Shaul (see I Shmuel chapter
12).  After his initial success against Israel's other enemies (see I Shmuel
14:47-48), God delivers an explicit command that Shaul must destroy Amalek
(i.e. this week's Haftara - see I Shmuel 15:1-3).

To understand how and why Shaul failed to properly fulfill this command, we
begin our shiur with a discussion of the dilemma created by the institution
of a Jewish monarchy. 

 

A FINE BALANCE

Every country needs a strong central government to guarantee its security
and economic prosperity - and in ancient times, a monarchy was the best
method to achieve this goal.  From this perspective, there is a positive
value in the establishment of a Jewish kingdom, as God wants His nation to
become a 'respected' nation among its neighbors (see I Shmuel 12:22).
However, there is also a 'down side', for should a king become too
successful, the people may tend to fear and adore their King more that God
Himself. Subsequently, the nation will become famous for its monarch, and
not for their God and His laws (see Devarim 4:5-8). 

Ideally, the king, as the nation's political leader, would facilitate Am
Yisrael's growth as God's 'model' Nation; but realistically - that monarch
would more often 'replace' God rather than 'represent' Him. [See Melachim
Aleph 10:1, for an example of how Shlomo ha'melech perfectly struck this
critical balance.] 

        For this reason, it became the task of the 'navi' [prophet] to
address this problem.  By advising the king in all matters of state, it was
the navi's responsibility to assure the proper development of an ideal
relationship between God, the King, and the people. 

        This was precisely the relationship between Shmuel and Shaul, (and
later between Natan & David, Yeshayahu & Chizkiyahu, etc.).  Shmuel, the
navi, was to make sure that Shaul's kingdom would develop in a manner that
would bring the nation closer to God.  Even though Shaul could take whatever
initiatives he found necessary to build the nation, periodically the navi
would make certain demands to assure that Bnei Yisrael would attribute their
success to God, and not only to the king.  [See for example I Shmuel
13:1-14, see also 10:6-9.] 

 

SHAUL HAS A 'GOOD' IDEA

        This background can explain the importance of God's special command
to Shaul to destroy Amalek, and not to take the booty - as it constituted a
critical test for this delicate relationship.

        Due to the special nature of the battle against Amalek (and its
biblical background), God commands Shaul 'lehachrim' [to eradicate]
everything belonging to Amalek (see 15:2-3).  The simplest understanding of
this command - lehachrim - would be 'totally destroy', as was the case in
the law of 'ir ha-nidachat' [an entire city that follows idol worship] -
where the Torah demands lehachrim - to gather all of its booty together and
burn it!  [See Devarim 13:16-18.]

        However, in the battle of Yericho, we find a slightly different
definition.  Even though God's command to Yehoshua to make the city 'cherem'
(see Yehoshua 6:16-18) forbids looting for personal use, Yehoshua is
instructed to dedicate the gold and silver for God's House (see 6:24)!

        If God's command for Shaul 'lehachrim et Amalek' follows the model
from Yehoshua's battle, then we can understand in a more positive light just
about everything that Shaul does.  In fact, one could understand that Shaul
himself is convinced that he has acted in an honorable manner.  Let's
explain why:

        In the aftermath of their victory over Amalek, Shaul (and the
people) decide to take some of the best sheep and cattle from the cherem in
order to offer korbanot to God (see 15:9 & 15:15).  This can be considered
no different than the cherem of Yericho, which was taken for God's sake.
But if we 'read between the lines', we will find a very 'useful' purpose of
all these korbanot.

 

"YAD SHAUL"

        Even though this detail is often overlooked when studying this
chapter, if you read carefully, you'll realize that Shaul has invited the
entire nation to the city of Gilgal for a public celebration of the victory
over Amalek.   To verify this, carefully read 15:12:

"Aand it was told Samuel, saying: 'Shaul (and his army) have come to the
Carmel (in contrast to the Negev where they had been fighting), and, behold,
he is setting him up a monument [or memorial], and has passed on and gone
down to Gilgal.'

                               

In this pasuk, note the phrase "hinei matziv lo yad".   A "yad" in this
context implies a monument or 'memorial' (like "yad v'shem" or "yad
Avshalom").   Later in the shiur, we will prove (from 15:30) that the entire
nation had indeed gathered at this memorial site.

Gilgal was chosen as the gathering site, probably due to its historic
connection to Yehoshua's conquest of Israel and central location.  Note as
well that it was also the site of where Shaul was officially anointed as
king (see 11:14).  

As the nation is gathering to thank God for this victory, it makes sense
that they should offer thanksgiving sacrifices.   But everyone also needs to
eat, so most probably these korbanot (from the booty of Amalek) were offered
as "shlamim" [i.e, 'zevachim', which can be eaten /see 15:15, 'lema'an
zvoach'].

We can also assume that the highlight of this celebration will be when Shaul
will slay Agag - the archenemy of Israel - in public.  This would explain
why Shaul and the people took animal from the booty and kept Agag alive (see
15:9). 

        Therefore, when Shaul first encounters Shmuel at Gilgal he proudly
announces: "I have fulfilled God's commandment" (15:13).  Even after Shmuel
inquires regarding the sheep and cattle (15:14), Shaul promptly responds:

"From the Amalekites they were taken... in order to offer korbanot to
Hashem, your God, and the rest was totally destroyed ['hecheramnu']"
(15:15).

 

        In fact, Shaul most probably considered this the most proper form of
celebration.  Had not Moshe Rabeinu himself built a mizbeiach (to offer
korbanot) and made a memorial in the aftermath of Bnei Yisrael's victory
over Amalek!  [See Shmot 17:15-16, note "ki yad kes Kah..."!] 

        Therefore, when Shmuel counters, charging Shaul that he had not been
meticulous in following God's command (see 15:16-19), Shaul insists once
again that: 

"I have listened to God's command, and I have followed the path upon which
God sent me, and the people took from the sheep and cattle solely to offer
korbanot to Hashem in Gilgal"   (see 15:20-21).

 

PLEADING GUILTY

        Shmuel is not convinced.  Once again he censures Shaul, claiming
that he had not listened to God (see 15:22-23).  In response to this
censure, Shaul finally 'admits' his sin:

"And Shaul said to Shmuel, I have sinned, for I have transgressed God's
command, for I feared the people and listened to them..." (see 15:24).

 

This admission of guilt by Shaul is usually understood as sincere, but
simply too late.  However, if Shaul is indeed sincere, why is he punished so
severely?  After all, he had good intentions, and now admits his guilt and
hopefully has learned his lesson.  Is his sin simply because he 'listened to
the people', simply because a king must be more firm with his subjects?  Is
this trait so critical in the definition of 'melech Yisrael'?  

Furthermore, if he has truly accepted his guilt, why doesn't Shaul transfer
his rule to someone more worthy, as Shmuel seems to suggest that he do (see
15:28--29). 

        Based on the above background, one could offer an alternate
interpretation which can explain not only why Shaul is punished, but also
why he doesn't 'give up' his kingdom, and why he continues to fight David
until the day (before) he dies.

        We posit that Shaul's admission of guilt in 15:24 was not sincere;
rather an attempt to appease Shmuel.  Let's explain why:

 

HONOR OR TESHUVA?

        As we explained, Shaul himself truly believes that he has done
nothing wrong at all.  He is sure that he has followed God's command
properly.  In his opinion, his planned celebration at Gilgal will make God's
Name even greater.  Even though Shmuel has challenged the 'kashrut' of this
gathering, Shaul is sure that his actions have been flawless, as he himself
explained twice to Shmuel (see 15:13 & 15:20).

        However, after his first two confrontations with Shmuel, Shaul
realizes that it's a 'lost cause' to convince Shmuel of his sincerity.
Instead, Shaul concludes that Shmuel, even though he had once been his
mentor ['rebbe'], has 'lost it'.  Possibly due to his 'old age' (see I
Shmuel 8:1,5 & 12:2), Shaul concludes that Shmuel has become too demanding.
[As happens so often (to this very day), the successful 'talmid' (student)
concludes that he now understands the world much better than his old 'rebbe'
does.]

Even though Shaul may still respect Shmuel, and remains thankful for his
many years of guidance, he now feels that he understands the situation much
better.  Especially now, as his own honor is at stake, it is not so easy for
Shaul to accept Shmuel's rebuke.  At this point of their dispute, Shaul now
adopts a new approach - to outwardly admit his guilt to appease Shmuel, even
though he really doesn't agree that he has done anything wrong. 

As everything was going well until Shmuel's sudden appearance, Shaul now
fears that Shmuel may publicly condemn this gathering and hence ruin this
celebration.  Therefore, Shaul first tries to explain to Shmuel that
everything is 'kosher'.  But after two attempts, he realizes that Shmuel is
not convinced; so he tries another avenue to ensure that the celebration
will continue - he admits his guilt!  Not that he truly thinks that he is
guilty, rather he'll say anything necessary, just to make sure that the
celebration continues.

To prove this, note how Shaul immediately begs for expiation, and begs that
Shmuel join him in the ceremony.  Carefully note Shaul's entire statement of
admission:

"And Shaul said to Shmuel - I have sinned... now atone my sin and return
with me [to the celebration, so that] I can bow down to Hashem" (see
15:24-25).

 

        However, Shmuel remains adamant.  He refuses to 'return' with Shaul
to the celebration, and instead, he turns to leave.  In a desperate attempt
to prevent Shmuel from leaving, Shaul reaches for Shmuel's cloak, begging
him to stay (see 15:26-27). 

Tragically, the cloak rips.  Realizing the symbolism of this action, Shmuel
informs Shaul that God has 'ripped away' his kingdom and will give it to
someone else more worthy (see 15:28-29).

 

        But Shaul refuses to give up!  Once again, instead of arguing with
Shmuel, he [insincerely] reiterates his guilt in a desperate attempt to
prevent Shmuel's departure.  Once again, carefully note Shaul's request, and
how he is worried about his honor:

"And Shaul said - I have sinned, but now please honor me, in the eyes of the
elders and all of the people [who have gathered for the ceremony at
Gilgal!], and return with me so that I can bow down to Hashem, your God"
(see 15:30).

 

SHMUEL CONCEDES!

        This pasuk not only provides us with conclusive proof that there is
a national celebration going on, but also that Shaul's very honor is at
stake.  To our total surprise, this time Shmuel agrees to return with Shaul.
Again, read carefully:

"Va-yshav Shmuel acharei Shaul..." - 

"and Shmuel returned after [with] Shaul, and Shaul bowed down to God" (see
15:31).

 

        Furthermore, Shmuel himself actually participates in the ceremony.
Even though he doesn't appear to join in the korbanot [he doesn't trust the
'hashgacha'], he does insist that he kill Agag instead of Shaul.  In this
manner, Shmuel attempt to attribute the glory of Agag's death to God and not
to Shaul.  Therefore, he prefers to perform the mitzva himself.  [See
15:32-33.]

        Most likely, this argument between Shmuel and Shaul took place 'back
stage', i.e. not in the public eye.  The people may notice that there is
some tension between their two leaders, but they do not overhear Shmuel's
prophecy that Shaul will lose his kingdom.  Shmuel goes home, and we are
told that they never see each other again.  Tragically, Shmuel mourns his
'talmid' who has gone astray.  Shaul, upset that his 'rebbe' no longer
understands him, continues to lead Am Yisrael in the manner that he feels is
correct. 

        Shaul continues to believe that his actions were correct and that
Shmuel had exaggerated in his condemnation.  Therefore, Shaul doesn't accept
Shmuel's prophecy that he shall lose his kingdom to someone more worthy.
Many years later, as David rises to power, this prophecy may 'haunt' him
(see chapters 24 & 26), but Shaul remains staunch in his belief that he is
the King of Israel, just as Shmuel (in his younger days) had promised (see
10:1,7 & 12:1-2).  It is only on the day before his death when Shaul finally
realizes his mistake (see chapter 28, 've-akmal'!).

[Note how this interpretation explains Shaul's behavior in the remainder of
Sefer Shmuel I - David is a 'mored be-malchut', and hence deserving of
death.]

 

        Now that we have explained the positive nature of Shaul's actions,
why is he punished so severely?

        To answer this difficult question, we must return to our discussion
of the inherent danger in the institution of a monarchy.

        Even though Shaul's intention for making this public ceremony may
have been noble, its result was exactly the opposite of what God had
intended.  Let's explain why.

God's commandment not to take any booty from Amalek would have left a
lasting impression upon the entire nation.  Usually, when victorious
soldiers return from battle, they are laden with the spoils of war.
However, imagine the impression when hundreds of thousands of soldiers
return home from victory - but empty handed!  Everyone at home would ask
what had happened, and the soldiers would all need to explain to their
families and friends at home how the war with Amalek is different, etc.
This would have left a lasting impression upon the nation, and helped them
recognize its religious significance.

Furthermore, as we explained in our shiur on Parshat Beshalach, the primary
sin of Amalek was 

 

Despite his good intentions, Shaul's decision to celebrate the victory with
a public ceremony would definitely impress upon the people that Shaul had
defeated Amalek - but it would not be so clear that this war was special,
and the level of God's involvement. 

        Because this proper balance between the King and God is so crucial,
the critical trait of the Jewish royal family must be their ability (and
understanding) to forfeit their own honor in favor of the honor of God.
Instead, Shaul becomes obsessed with his own glory, as reflected by his
statement 'kabdeinu na' - honor me.  Even if his intentions were pure, he
missed the point.  Shaul loses his kingdom less so because of a specific
sin, but more so because he lacked the necessary trait.

        Not listening to God's specific command (here and in chapter 13)
could be understand as the 'symptom' of why he lost his kingdom, and
necessarily the 'reason'. 

 

MALCHUT DAVID

Shaul may understand that the Kingdom of Israel in itself is equivalent to
the honor of God, but God does not agree.  Therefore, God must choose a
different royal family, the House of David, who will find the proper balance
between the Kingdom of Man and the Kingdom of Heaven.

        This distinction between David and Shaul is reflected in David's
rebuttal of his wife's criticism of his dancing in front of the aron, when
it was brought to Yerushalayim.  Recall the words of Michal bat Shaul's
rebuke:

"And Michal said: What honor is there today in the King of Israel... and
David answered: [I have danced] in front of God who has chosen me over your
father... and I have made myself humble, and it is with those mothers that I
have shown honor" (II Shmuel 6:20-22).

                                                                     

        For this reason, Michal will never have a child from David, who
surely would have been heir to the throne.  God could not allow this
negative trait of Shaul to 'infiltrate' the seed of David. 

        When David becomes king, he dedicates his life towards the
preparation of Jerusalem to be the city of God, and prepares the materials
to build a House of God - that will symbolize the more ideal relationship
between God, the King, and His people. 

        As David ha'melech consistently makes every effort to show his
nation that he is merely a vassal king before God - the King of kings; he
and his offspring are chosen to become the eternal royal family of the
Jewish nation.

                                                      shabbat shalom

                                                      menachem

 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: zachor.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 33841 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090306/eba025e7/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Fri Mar  6 10:15:51 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 10:15:51 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] For Purim - Megilat Esther
Message-ID: <20090306145659.799FF21052E@out8.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************
     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

-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090306/8a87ebb8/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Mar  8 17:05:43 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 17:05:43 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Kitisa - questions for self study
Message-ID: <20090308205846.CF80F2108C5@out2.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
*************************************************************

     PARSHAT KI-TISA - Questions for self-study

PART ONE - Questions for the 'Shabbos Table'

THE DEFINITION OF 'WORK' [ON 'SHABBOS']
1. Recall (from our study of Parshiot Terumah/Tezaveh) how
chapters 25 thru 31 constituted a distinct unit, containing a set
of mitzvot that 'interrupted' the narrative describing what
happened when Moshe ascended Har Sinai for the first forty days. 
     Recall as well how ALL of the mitzvot in this section
related to the building of the Mishkan, EXCEPT for the final
section, i.e. 31:12-30. Instead, that section dealt with the
prohibition of doing work on Shabbat. [If you don't remember
this, it is highly recommended that you first scan from chapter
24 until chapter 32 to review this structure.]
     With this in mind, read 31:12-30 and attempt to determine
how this short section about Shabbat relates to the lengthy
section of mitzvot about the Mishkan that preceded it.
     What halachik principle do Chazal learn from this
juxtaposition?  In your opinion, could this conclusion be
considered the simple "pshat" of these psukim? [Explain 3:12-13.]
     In your answer, relate to the meaning of the word "ach" in
31:13. [See also Rashi, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and Seforno
on this pasuk!]

2. Review 31:16-17 once again, noting how these psukim relate
shabbat to the concept of a "brit", and how they consider shabbat
as an "ot" [a sign] of this covenant between God and His people!
Note as well the parallel between 31:13 and 29:46! [Recall how
29:46 formed the conclusion of the summary of the "shchinah" unit
discussed in our shiur on Parshat Tezaveh.]
     What else in Chumash is considered an "ot brit".
          [If you give up, try Breishit 9:12-13 and 17:7-11.]
     Based on these sources, attempt to explain how and why
"shabbat" acts as an "ot" brit, and how it relates to God's
creation of the universe (and our relationship to that creation).
[How does this relate to "brit ha'keshet" and "brit milah"?]
     Relate this as well to the logic behind the prohibition of
doing work on the sabbath, and its definition (i.e. any type of
'creativity') as opposed to just 'physical labor'.

3. Review the opening psukim of Parshat Vayakhel (Shmot 35:1-5),
noting once again how the prohibition of doing work on shabbat
is mentioned as Moshe introduces the laws of the Mishkan that
follow in chapters 35 thru 40.  Compare this presentation of
shabbat to its parallel in 31:12-17.  Can you explain the reason
for both the similarities and differences?  [Relate to how
chapters 25-31 describe the 'commandment' to build the Mishkan,
while chapters 35-40 describe the 'instructions' concerning how
to build it.

WHY FORTY DAYS?
4. Review Shmot 24:12, noting the reason why Moshe's ascends Har
Sinai for the first forty days.  Based on this pasuk, can you
suggest any 'logical' reason why it was necessary for Moshe to
spend a full forty days on Har Sinai?  [What did Moshe Rabeinu
receive at that time, that would take such a long time to
receive?]
     After you answer this question, see a beautiful Ibn Ezra on
this topic in his commentary on 31:18.
     [If you had any doubts concerning Ibn Ezra's "frumkeit", I
     recommend that you study this Ibn Ezra carefully, noting
     also how it relates to his entire approach to the study of
     Chumash.] 

A SIGNIFICANT 'SELECTIVE' REPETITION
5. Towards the conclusion of Parshat Ki-tisa, after God declares
His 13 Midot of Rachamim (34:6-9), we find a 'promise' (see
34:10) followed by a battery of short commandments (see 34:11-
26).
     Are these commandments (and 'promise') new, or are do they
sound like a 'repeat' of mitzvot which were given earlier in
Parshat Mishpatim?  [Relate especially to Shmot 23:9-33.]
     If so, can you explain why specifically these mitzvot (and
promise) are being repeated?
     [Hint: Be sure you can also explain which type of mitzvot
     from Parshat Mishpatim are not repeated in this section.] 
     Relate your answer to the events of chet ha'egel.

KEY WORDS
6. When studying Chumash, we often find a certain key word that
is used several times throughout a certain section. [In Hebrew,
this is called a "mila maancha" - lit. a 'guiding' word.] 
     In Parshat Ki-tisa, we find a classic example in the Torah's
use of the verb "li'rot" - to see [reish.aleph.hey] - in the Chet
ha'egel narrative.
     As you review chapters 32->34, note how often we find this
verb (in different forms), and be sure that you understand its
meaning. 'See' for  yourself ['pun intended'] if this word points
to a central theme of the entire "chet ha'egel" narrative. 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 sometimes 'seeing is believing'? Explain.
     Keep this question in mind as prepare the study questions
for this week's shiur.

7. If you had fun with that one, you can also try an easier one:
the use of the word "ra'ah" [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.

========

PART TWO - Questions for preparation (for the weekly shiur)

THE STORY OF CHET HA'EGEL - ITS 'BACKDROP'
1. To appreciate the events that unfold at chet ha'egel, we must
begin our study with a review of 23:20 thru 24:18. 
     Recall from our study of Ma'amad Har Sinai (and its "ko
tomar unit" /20:15-33:33), that in addition to the Dibrot, and
the mitzvot of the "ko tomar" unit, Bnei Yisrael also received
a special promise (see 23:20-25) at the conclusion of that unit
concerning how God will help them inherit the Land (should they
keep His mitzvot).
     Carefully review these psukim, especially 23:20-25, noting
how God promises to send a "MALACH asher shmi b'kirbo" to assist
them. Be sure that you understand these psukim, and note the use
of the word "l'fanecha" in this context.
     In your opinion, WHO do you think this MALACH is (or was
supposed to be)?  In your answer, relate to 23:22, i.e. that the
MALACH is someone that Bnei Yisrael must 'listen to', and will
relay to Bnei Yisrael whatever mitzvot God may command.  
     Relate this as well to the meaning of "shmi b'kirbo" in
23:21.  [Note as well Shmot 19:9 in regard to how Moshe will act
as God's 'speaker'.]

2. Carefully review 24:12-18, in an attempt to determine
(according to pshat) if Bnei Yisrael had any idea concerning how
long Moshe was going to be gone for?  
          [What popular Midrash is based on 24:14?]
     What was the last thing that Moshe told them?
     After several weeks passed, what conclusion do you think
that just about everyone had made? In your opinion, (and based
on 24:12-17), was this a logical conclusion?
 
3. Based on Shmot 3:6-9 (and 3:13-17), when Bnei Yisrael left
Egypt, how long did they expect that it would take until they
would arrive in Eretz Canaan?
     Assuming they had concluded that Moshe was not going to
return, what 'should' have they had asked for?  Would it make
sense for them to remain in the desert or travel somewhere else?
If so, to where should they travel?

UNDERSTANDING CHAPTER 32, BASED ON CHAPTER 24
4. Review 24:12-18 once again and then jump directly to 31:18,
and continue reading 32:1-3.  Note how chapter 32 forms a direct
continuation of the narrative that began in chapter 24.
     With this in mind, review 32:1 once again in an attempt to
determine more precisely what Bnei Yisrael are asking for.
     In your answer, use 24:12-17 to explain why Bnei Yisrael
complain specifically to Aharon, and why they ask for "elohim
asher YALCHU l'FANEINU..."!

5. Note the parallels between chapter 24 and 32:1-7! How does
these parallels help us understand the events that take place at
chet ha'egel?
     For example:
          Compare the ceremony that take place in Shmot 24:3-11
     with the actions that Aharon takes at chet ha'egel (in
     32:1-6). What is parallel, what is different? 
          Compare the people's request in 32:1 ["asher YALCHU
     l'FANEINU"] to 23:20-23 (noting word "l'fanecha").     
     Based on this parallel, what are the people asking for?
     Considering their predicament, is their request logical? 


AHARON'S INTENTIONS
6. Based on the above questions, does it seem that Aharon's
intention in making the "egel" was to make a symbol of God, or
did he intend to make an idol to worship a different god. [Be
sure that you can explain each phrase in 32:4 and 32:5.]
     In relation to this question, see Rav Yehuda Ha'Levi in
     Sefer Ha'Kuzari I.77! See also Ramban on 32:1.]

WHAT WENT WRONG?
7. In the parallels between 24:3-7 with 32:5-6, did you find a
parallel for "va'yakumu l'tzachek"? Can you explain why?
     What does this phrase imply? [See the various opinions in
the commentators.] 
     To help understand what happened (and hence what this phrase
implies), read 32:17-19.  What is the cause for this 'loud noise'
that Yehoshua hears, and what are the "mcholot" that so angers
Moshe Rabeinu when he sees the "egel"?  
     [Relate as well to 32:25.]

8. As you review 32:6-8, note on what day God becomes angry and
tells Moshe to go down from Har Sinai. Was it on the same day
that Aharon made the "egel" or on the NEXT day?  Explain why this
point can help explain what Bnei Yisrael's sin was.

GOD'S ANGER AND CONCLUSION
9. Review 32:7-9, noting God's immediate response to chet
ha'egel.  Relate this to 23:21, i.e. "ki lo yisa l'fisheichem".
Note as well how 32:9 includes an additional statement. In that
pasuk, what does "ra'itti" [God 'saw'] imply? [Compare 32:1.]
     Similarly, what does "am kshe oref" imply, both literally
and in its context? Explain God's conclusion and its
implications.
     In your opinion, does God's conclusion that Bnei Yisrael are
an "am kshe oref" stem only from the events of chet ha'egel, or
may it have been based on earlier events as well?  [Relate to
Yechezkel 20:5-10 and the TSC shiur on Parshat Beshalach.]

BRIT AVOT AND BRIT SINAI
10. In his tefilla [prayer] in 32:11-13, what approach does Moshe
use to thwart the impending punishment? Why does he provide TWO
reasons, and what are they?
     Note how 32:13 relates to "brit Avot". How does that "brit"
relate to "brit Sinai"?  Relate to the "brit" in 19:5-6 as well
as 24:7.
     In your opinion, can "brit Sinai" be broken? If so, when and
why?  Can "brit Avot" be broken? If so, when and why?
     Use your answer to explain WHY Moshe may have broken the
LUCHOT - the symbol of "brit Sinai" (see 32:15-20), based on
23:21 and its implications.

WHO'S TO BLAME?
11. From the story in 32:1-25, it appears that the entire nation
had sinned; yet from 32:26-34, it appears that only about 3,000
people sinned (at least they were the only ones punished).  Can
you explain why? Relate to Moshe's request in 32:30-32 and the
events that took place in 32:1-6.
     What is God's answer (to Moshe's request for pardon) in
32:33-34? If God pardons them, why does His answer appear to be
negative, if He didn't pardon them, why does He instruct Moshe
to now lead them to the Promised Land?

A NEW MALACH
12. Read 33:1-3. Note how this relates to "brit Avot".  Explain
the nature of this MALACH who will now lead them?  Is the same
MALACH that was mentioned in 23:20-21? If not, how is this MALACH
different?
     Read 33:4-6. What is the significance of God telling Bnei
Yisrael to remove their 'jewelry' which they received at Har
Chorev (33:1-7)? [How do Chazal explain this 'jewelry'?]
     Explain Bnei Yisrael's response to this request, and the
     final outcome of this 'parsha' (see 33:7-11).
     To where must Moshe move his tent afterward, WHY?
What has happened to the SHCHINA? Does it ever return? If so,
when and why?

MOSHE RABEINU'S INTERVENTION
13. At this point in the story (i.e. after 33:11), what would
have happened had Moshe Rabeinu not intervened?
     Would Bnei Yisrael have entered Eretz Canaan? If so, at what
'spiritual level'? With which mitzvot?  Relate to 32:34; 33:1-4;
33:12-17, and to "brit Sinai" in general.

14. What is the gist of Moshe's complaint to God 33:12-23?  
     Note Moshe's emphatic statement of "re'ay ki amcha ha'goy
ha'zeh" in 33:13. Does Hashem agree?
     How does this relate to God's response in 33:17-23? How does
this response relate to the story of the second luchot as
explained in 34:1-10?  [Note how 34:5-6 relates to 33:19!]
     How does all of this relate to the second luchot and God's
13 midot of rachamim?
     Have the 'ground rules' of God's relationship with Bnei
Yisrael changed? Relate this to the need for the SECOND LUCHOT
and a new covenant (see 34:27).

GOD's 13 MIDOT OF RACHAMIM
15. To the best of your recollection, up until the events of
"chet ha'egel", had God shown any special type of attributes?
     If so, where these "midot" [attributes] of mercy or "din"
[exacting punishment]?  Support your answer, by bringing examples
from earlier events that are recorded in Chumash.

16. We are informed of God's '13 midot' of mercy in Parshat Ki-
tisa, in the story when Moshe receives the second "luchot".
     In your opinion, did God only 'acquire' these midot at this
time, or had these been His 'midot' since the time of Creation.

GOD'S MIDOT BEFORE CHET HA'EGEL
17. Carefully review the "Aseret ha'Dibrot" [the Ten Commandments
/Shmot 20:1-14], noting how the first three DIBROT include
certain attributes by which God will either reward or punish Am
Yisrael.  Find those MIDOT, write them down, and make note of
where you found them (for later reference). 
     In your opinion, are these attributes of mercy?
     If not, explain how else they could be categorized.

18. Next, review 23:20-24, noting 23:21. Does this passage relate
to any of God's midot?  If so, how does it relate to the midot
that you found in the Dibrot? 
     Similarly, can you find any of God's midot when He becomes
angered by chet ha'egel (see Shmot 32:6-10).
If so, name these midot as well, and add them to your list.

THE MIDOT OF THE SECOND LUCHOT (IN RELATION TO THE FIRST)
19. Based on your answers to the above questions, make a list of
God's midot mentioned in Chumash BEFORE the Moshe receives the
second luchot. [In other words, answer question #2 (above) again!
     Now, compare your list with the 13 MIDOT of mercy in 34:6-7.
     Do they correspond? If so, how and why?

20. Based on your answers to the above study questions, re-
examine the 13 MIDOT as described in 34:6-8. Carefully compare
them to the various "midot" which you found in your study of
Ma'amad Har Sinai (above).
     How to God's MIDOT prior to the events of "chet ha'egel"
compare to His MIDOT beforehand (i.e. at the time of Matan
Torah)? Can you find a parallel?

RETURNING TO THE FIRST MALACH
21. Review once again the events of "chet ha'egel", paying
careful attention to the phrase "am kshe oref" in 32:9, 33:5, and
34:9.  Attempt to relate these psukim to God's attributes that
have been discussed thus far.
     How do you explain the word "ki" in "ki am kshe oref hu..."
in 34:9, in contrast to what it means in 33:5.
          1) 'because'; 
     or   2) 'even though'?
Explain the thematic significance of this translation.

22. After God declares His 13 MIDOT of mercy in 34:6-8, are there
times when He may still enact His attributes of "din" [exacting
judgement]? Support your answer based on 34:11-14!
     If so, can you explain why?

PART THREE - PARSHANUT
1. Review Moshe's tefilla in 32:11-14. Considering 32:14, what
is problematic with the story that takes place in 32:15-33? Would
it make more sense to place these psukim after 32:32?
     See Ibn Ezra ha'aroch on 32:11 for a complete discussion.
Then see Ramban, and his approach.  Note how both commentators
based their explanation on the parallel account of these events
in Devarim chapter 9.

2. Read Shmot 34:27. In your opinion, what specifically does
"ha'devarim ha'eyla" refer to?  [Can you think of more than one
possibility? Be sure to relate to the previous "parshia"!]
     Now see Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and Seforno. Can you
explain why there are so many different opinions?

2. Now read 34:28, noting "va'yichtov al ha'luchot". When you
read this pasuk, how did you translate "va'yichtov", i.e. did God
inscribe the Commandments on these LUCHOT or did Moshe? [Or
didn't you think?!]
     Now see all the commentators! How do they all answer the
above question? [Are you surprised?] On which pasuk do they all
base their pirush on? Why?

3. Now read 34:32. In your opinion (and based on the context of
this pasuk) what mitzvot does "et kol asher diber Hashem ito
b'har Sinai" refer to? [Be sure to give this pasuk some careful
thought.] How does this pasuk relate to 35:1 and its context?
     As usual, see Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and Seforno. Can
you explain why there are so many different opinions?
     Finally, see Chizkuni's pirush on this pasuk! How does his
explanation help you appreciate Chazal's exegetic principle of
"ein mukdam u'muchar ba'Torah". In your opinion, why do you think
that Chizkuni presents this explanation specifically on this
pasuk?  [Why does he mention the date of 20 Iyar? / When you give
up, see Bamidbar 10:11.]

                                   b'hatzlacha,
                                   menachem
     
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kitisaq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 35516 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090308/69f1d445/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Mar 11 16:29:41 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:29:41 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] For Parashat Kitisa - shiur
Message-ID: <20090311202227.AC2DE2106BC@out2.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 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.

-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090311/737b7593/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Mar 12 15:34:50 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:34:50 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Para
Message-ID: <20090312191506.75D3BB085E4@out4.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************
        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 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 inherent '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!]

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chukat3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 39043 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090312/e51a240c/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Mar 15 10:39:53 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 10:39:53 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Vayakhel/Pekudei - questions for self study
Message-ID: <20090315141926.335F4210677@out8.bezeqint.net>

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

                 PARSHAT VAYAKHEL & PEKUDEI 

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

A 'TZEDUKI' MEETS THE 'IBN EZRA' !
1. In his commentary to 35:3, in regard to whether it is
permissible to leave a candle lit on Shabbat, Ibn Ezra
["katzar"] tells of his conversation with a certain Kaarite
["tzeduki"], who tries to determine the halacha based on the
psukim of Chumash - without relying on the tradition of
Chazal.
     If you have some time (and understand Hebrew), read this
Ibn Ezra, as he not only tells over a great story, but also
gives us insight into his great appreciation of Chazal,
despite his insistence to understand the literal meaning of
every pasuk.  Note especially Ibn Ezra's conclusion at the end
of his commentary to 35:3, in regard to the balance between
Biblical commentary and "psak halacha"!

BETWEEN SHABBAT & THE MISHKAN
1.  As you most probably are aware, the halachic definition of
melacha [work] that is forbidden on Shabbat [better known as
the 'lamed-tet melachot'] is derived from the various
categories of 'work' that were required to construct the
mishkan.
         [See Mishnayot Masechet Shabbat chapter 7.]
  The opening three psukim of parshat Vayakhel are one of the
primary sources for this definition.
     As you review these psukim (i.e. Shmot 35:1-4) in their
context, attempt to explain why.  Would you consider this
halachic interpretation as 'pshat' or 'drash'?

2.  Next, carefully compare the topic and structure of the
psukim in Shmot 35:1-4 to the content and structure of Vayikra
23:1-4.
     What textual pattern is similar?
     In your opinion, does the phrase 'eileh ha-devarim' in
35:1 relate to the laws of Shabbat that follow in 35:2-3, or
to the laws of the mishkan that follow in 35:4-20?  In your
answer, be sure to relate to the phrase "la'asot otam" at the
end of 35:1.
  If you have ample time, see the following commentators:
     See Ramban on 35:1.  Note how Ramban relates to 34:32.
          [See also Chizkuni.]
     See Seforno, noting how he relates to 34:32.
     See Ibn Ezra ('katzar') / and the gemara he quotes -
Shabbat 70a.  Why does Ibn Ezra argue with this
interpretation?

     Why do most all of the commentators explain 'eileh ha-
devarim' as relating to the mishkan and not shabbat?
     Is this pshat?  If so, why is 'shabbat' the first mitzva
that Moshe tells the people, before he tells over the laws of
the Mishkan?  [See Ramban on 35:1.]
     Relate this to your answer to question #1 above.

3. If indeed the phrase "eileh ha'devarim" in 35:1 refers to
the laws of the Mishkan that begin in 35:4 and onward, then
note how 35:10 introduces the list of items that Bnei Yisrael
must construct from the materials that they donate (in 35:5-
9).  Then, count how many different items that are in this
list that continues from 35:11 thru 35:20.  Does that number
come close to number of categories of work that are forbidden
on shabbat?
     Are you aware of what led Chazal to conclude that there
are specifically 39 categories of work that are forbidden on
shabbat, and not more or less!  [Relate to the list in 35:11-
20 as well as to the parallel list in 39:33-42.]

4.  Next, review the laws of shabbat as presented in 31:12-17,
noting how these psukim form the final 'parshia' after a
sequence of seven chapters of laws concerning the mishkan
(i.e. the mishkan unit of chapters 25->31).  Explain how this
juxtaposition supports Chazal's definition of "melacha" on
shabbat.  [Note especially the word "ach" in 32:13!]

5.  Note the word 'brit' and its context in 31:16; relating
this brit to the word 'ot' in 31:13.  Where else in Chumash do
we find the concept of an ot brit?  [If you give up, try
looking in Breishit chapters 9 and 17.]  Why does a brit need
an ot?  [Or 're-phrased' - Why does a bride need a wedding
ring?]
     In your opinion, why would the concept of shabbat being
an "ot brit" immediately follow the laws of the mishkan (whose
focal point is the 'luchot ha-brit')?  In your answer, relate
to the mishkan's name - i.e. the "ohel mo'ed", and what that
name implies.  [Note also Vayikra 23:1-3!].  Relate this to
Shmot 29:44-46 (and our shiur on parshat Tetzaveh).

6.  In Parshat Emor, when the Torah forbids work on the
"moadim" [Jewish holidays/ see Vayikra chapter 23], it
consistently uses the phrase: "kol melechet avoda lo taasu" -
in contrast to the phrase: "kol melacha" in regard to shabbat.
  From what you recall, in what manner is the halachik
definition of work for "yom-tov" different from its definition
for shabbat?
  Based on these two phrases, can you explain why?
  In your opinion, does the prohibition of "melacha" on "yom
tov" relate to the Mishkan as well, or is it forbidden for a
different reason?  If so, can you suggest a reason why?
     In your answer, relate to the difference between
'creativity' and 'physical labor'; & the reason why we don't
work on Yom Tov, based on the phrase "mikra kodesh" in Vayikra
chapter 23.
  [If you have ample time, see Ramban on Vayikra 23:7 for a
  comprehensive discussion of this topic.]

BETWEEN CHET HA-EGEL and the MISHKAN
1.  When Moshe gathers the people (in 35:1) in order to
command them concerning the laws of the mishkan, why do you
think that Torah chooses specifically the word 'vayakhel' to
describe this gathering?
     Relate to Shmot 32:1.

2.  Is the melacha of 'ha'avara' (35:3 /increasing a fire,
i.e. making a flame or furnace hotter) in any way connected to
chet ha-egel?  If so, how?  [Relate to 32:4,24.]
     Is this melacha connected in any manner to building the
mishkan or making any of its vessels?  [e.g. How did they make
the aron & the menora etc.?]

3.  What other parallels can you find in Vayakhel / Pekudei to
chet ha-egel?  Relate to the phrase "ohel moed" in 33:7 (in
contrast to its use in 25:8), and see Rashi on Shmot 29:1 in
regard to why Aharon must bring a  "chatat" offering during
the seven day 'miluim' ceremony, and why he offers
specifically a "par" [bull] .

4.  Even if we assume (like Ramban) that the commandment to
build the mishkan was given before chet ha-egel, when do Bnei
Yisrael first hear this mitzva?  When they do hear this
mitzva, would you expect that these laws be relayed in a
manner that relates in some way to the events of chet ha-egel?
     If so, cite some examples.


PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)

1.  Review parshat Vayakhel, noting the primary topic of each
of its 'parshiot'.  As usual, make a vertical listing of these
parshiot, using one word (or at most a phrase) to summarize
each parshia.  After you complete your list, attempt to
organize your list into an outline.
     Then, take your outline, and compare it to the similar
outline that you prepared for Parshat Teruma.  Based on your
comparison, attempt to identify the governing principle for
internal structure of each outline.
     What defines the order in Parshat Vayakhel?
     What defines the order in Parshat Teruma?
     In your opinion, which 'order' makes more sense?  Attempt
to explain the reason for the differences, based on the
setting (and/or purpose) of each Parsha.

2.  Is the description of how the vessels are made in Parshat
Vayakhel exactly the same as their description in God's
commandment to Moshe in Parshat Teruma?  If not, what aspect
is different?
     Is there any mention in parshat Vayakhel concerning the
function of the various vessels of the mishkan?
     If so, where?
     If not, in your opinion, why not?

3.  Is there any mention of the Shchina in Vayakhel / Pekudei?
     Is there any mention of the Shchina in Teruma / Tetzaveh?
     If so, where, and why?
Can you explain the reason for the differences.

     Are there any commandments in Teruma / Tetzaveh that are
not repeated in Vayakhel / Pekudei?  If so, which ones?
     Are those commandments that are 'missing' here repeated
somewhere else in Chumash?  If so, where?  [If you give up,
see Vayikra chapter 8, & compare with Shmot chapter 29.]
Can you explain why?
  In your answer, relate to the difference between 'building'
the mishkan, and 'using' it.
     Keep this question in mind when you study Sefer Vayikra.

4.  Recall how the aron forms the focal point of the mishkan,
and how the kaporet forms its 'protective cover' (see Shmot
25:10-22 & TSC shiur on Yom Kippur).
     In your opinion, what is the purpose of the keruvim on
the kaporet?  Similarly, what is the purpose of the keruvim
embroidered on the parochet?  (See Shmot 26:31.)
     Is there a mention of keruvim earlier in Chumash?  If so,
what was their function?  [If you give up, take a look at the
end of chapter three in Sefer Breishit.]
     What is the thematic significance of this parallel?

5.  Review Mishlei 3:1-18, noting especially 3:18 in its
context.  What does the 'etz chayim' refer to?  Can you relate
this to the etz ha-chayim in Gan Eden and the keruvim that
protect it?
     Relate your answer to the above question as well.

6.  Attempt to find any thematic similarities between the
story of Adam in Gan Eden, and the story of the first & second
luchot (in relation to chet ha-egel).
     See if you can relate this to any of the point discussed
above in regard to the purpose of the mishkan and what it
symbolizes.

PART III - PARSHANUT
  [Even though the following questions begin with Ki Tisa,
  you'll soon see their connection to Vayakhel.]

WHEN WERE THE MITZVOT GIVEN TO MOSHE?
1.  Based on what you remember thus far in Sefer Shmot, what
specific mitzvot did Moshe Rabeinu receive on Har Sinai?
     When did Bnei Yisrael receive these mitzvot?
          [Support your answer with a pasuk!]
     [In your answer, relate to mitzvot that Moshe received
during both the first forty days and the last forty days.]

2.  After you answer question #1, read Shmot 34:27-35, paying
special attention to pasuk 32.  [Did you relate to this pasuk
in your answer to question #1!  If not, re-answer question
#1.]
     In your opinion, which 'commandments' does this pasuk
refer to?      [You can suggest different possibilities.]
     Now, see the following commentators on 34:32,
      Rashbam / [Explain the 'unit' he is referring to.]
      Ramban / [In what way does he differ from Rashbam?]
      Ibn Ezra /[What 'tna'im' is he referring to?
                In what way does he differ from Ramban?]
      Seforno/ [Is this the same as Rashbam or different?
                 Explain what is different and why!]
      Chizkuni / Does Chizkuni answer this question?

3.  Carefully review this Chizkuni (on 34:32) once again,
noting how he explains how and when the Torah, as we have it
today, was written.  See also the Gemara that he quotes from
Gitin 60a concerning "torah megilla megilla nitna".
     According to this Chizkuni, how can one understand the
reason for Chazal's exegetic approach of 'ein mukdam u-
me'uchar ba-Torah'?

FOR MEN & WOMEN?
4. Review 35:21-29, noting how these psukim describe what the
people donated, in response to Moshe's request (in 35:4-5).
     As you study these psukim, note how they describe the
donations of both the women and the men (respectively).
     Then, make special note of the opening phrase in 35:22 -
"va'yavou ha'anashim al ha'nashim".  As you attempt to
translate this phrase, what problems do you encounter?  In
your opinion, what does this pasuk mean - based on both its
words and context?  [You can suggest several possibilities.]
     See Ibn Ezra (katzar), noting how he offers three
different interpretations.  [In the Ibn Ezra aroch, he only
brings one opinion.]
     Next see Ramban, noting how he explains how the women
brought their donation 'ahead' of the men.  Can you explain
what leads Ramban to this conclusion?
     Then, see Chizkuni, who seems to imply that the men took
away their wives' jewelry, for the sake of the Mishkan; but
then offers a simpler interpretation.  Can you explain what
leads Chizkuni to his first conclusion?
     Finally, see Seforno - who offers a very original
interpretation for why the men had to 'accompany' their wives
when they donated their jewelry. Note how he based this on
Baba Kamma 119a.  Can you explain what leads Seforno to his
conclusion?
  
ANCIENT JEWLERY
5.  In 35:22, we also find a list of different types of
jewelry - "chach, v'nezem, v'taabat, b'chumaz...."
     Note the various translations for each of these words in
Rashi, Ibn Ezra (aroch), and Chizkuni.  Attempt to explain the
reason for the various differences.

VANITY MIRRORS?
6.  Read 38:8, and attempt to translate this pasuk.  Which
words are difficult, and basically - why is important to know
where the copper of the kiyor came from?  {Where did the
copper for the mizbach ha-nechoshet come from?  See 38:29-31!
     See Rashi, noting how answers the above questions.
According to Rashi, explain the difference of opinion between
Moshe and Hashem concerning the use of this copper.
     Next, see Ibn Ezra (also on 38:8).  In what manner is his
peirush totally different than Rashi's?  According to each,
why did the women donate their copper mirrors specifically for
the kiyor?
     Then, see Ramban, noting what point bothers him in
Rashi's peirush.  How does Ramban answer this question, why
does he quote Unkelos, and why does he maintain that Unkelos
seems to follow in the lines of Ibn Ezra's peirush.
     Finally, see Seforno.  What textual difficulty does his
peirush deal with.  How does his peirush relate to Ibn Ezra's?

                              be-hatzlacha,
                              menachem

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

          for PARSHAT  PEKUDEI

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

FOR PEKUDEI & PARSHAT SHEKALIM
     As this year is a leap-year, it just so happens that we
read Parshat Shekalim together with Parshat Pekudei - which is
a 'perfect combination' for those of you who enjoy the study
of Chumash.  Before we begin this special battery of questions
- we should note the reason for Parshat Shekalim.
  When the Temple stood, every Jew was obligated to donate a
"machatzit ha'shekel" [a half of a shekel] during the month of
Adar.  These coins would go into a special fund,  that would
be used to buy the "korbanot tzibur" [the public offerings]
for the upcoming year (that begins in Nisan).  [See first
mishna in Mesechet Shekalim, and/or Rambam Zmanim/Shekalim
1:1.]

1. Even though we often take this law for granted, its source
its Biblical source is not so easy to identify.  To start you
study, carefully read Shmot 30:11-16 (i.e. Parshat Shekalim),
and based on these psukim alone, what appears to be the
purpose of this donation:  As you study, answer the following
questions
  - Who is obligated to donate this "machatzit ha'shekel"?
  - When (or how often) does this obligation take place?
  - What is supposed to be done with the money collected?
  
  In your opinion, do these psukim relate in any manner to
this 'yearly' obligation to donate a "machatzit ha-shekel"?
  If not, what is the source for the obligation to give the
yearly machatzit ha-shekel?
  Based on these psukim alone, should there be a limit to the
amount of silver that one could donate for building the
Mishkan?
  
2.  Next, compare this command to God's original instruction
to Moshe concerning raising money to build the Mishkan as
described in Shmot 25:1-9!  Be sure to compare this as well to
the actual implementation of 25:1-9, as described in the
beginning of Parshat Vayakhel, noting especially 35:4-5 and
35:21-24.
     Based on these psukim, does it appear that there was
supposed to be a voluntary donation of silver, similar to that
of gold and copper, or was the silver given in a special
manner?
  In 35:4-5, Moshe Rabeinu explains to the people the various
metals that he would like for them to donate.  Based on your
understanding of 35:5, should there be any limit on the amount
of silver (or gold or copper) that any single person could
donate?
  Respectively, what was the intended use for the gold, silver
and copper (i.e. what vessels were to be made from them)?

     In your opinion, how does Shmot 25:1-9 and 35:4-24 relate
to the commandment of Parshat Shekalim (i.e. Shmot 30:11-16)?
     Whether or not it does relate, can you explain why this
specific donation of silver (in 30:11-16) needs its own
special 'parshia'?

3.  Next, read (and study) the opening psukim of Parshat
Pekudei, paying special attention to the details of 38:25-28
in regard to the silver, within the overall context of the
general tally described in 38:21-31!
     How does this tally relate to what was described in 38:21-
24?
     How does the tally of the silver relate to the
commandment in Shmot 30:11-16?
  As you review Shmot 38:24-31, note how the Torah's
description of the tally of the silver is worded in a
different manner than its tally of the gold and copper.  [Note
the words "tnufa" & "pkudei".]  Can you explain why?
  Considering that one 'kikar' is the equivalent of 3,000
shekel; how does 38:27-30 correspond to the phrase "avodat
ohel moed" in 30:16?
  Based on what is described in Parshat Pekudei, when and how
did Moshe relay to Bnei Yisrael that commandment in 30:11-16
(which God had given to him at an earlier time on Har Sinai)?
     Finally, see Chizkuni's commentary to 38:30, noting how
he explains what happened to the additional metals that were
donated, but not included in this tally!

4.  Next, review the opening chapter of Sefer Bamidbar, noting
the details of census that was taken on the first day of the
second month.  Pay special attention to Bamidbar 1:1-3 and the
total of that tally 1:44-47.
     Compare those details to Shmot 38:25-28 and Shmot 30:11-
16! Is it possible that this was all the same census, or must
one conclude that two different censuses were taken?  [If so,
what problem arises?  // See Rashi on Shmot 30:15 and 30:16!
If you have ample time, see also Raman's rebuttal of Rashi's
view in middle of his lengthy commentary to Shmot 30:12!]

5.  For an interesting reference to the collection of the
"machatzit ha'shekel", read the story about the special
collection made to renovate the Mikdash during the reign of
Yoash, as described in Divrei Ha'yamim II 24:4-14, noting
especially the phrase "maasat Moshe" in 24:6 and 24:9.
     Note as well the special collection that Bnei Yisrael
took upon themselves during the time of Ezra, as described in
Nechemya 10:33; but to appreciate that pasuk, you'll need to
study its context as you review chapters ten and eleven in
Sefer Nechemya.
     As long as you have your Tanach open, see also the tragic
story of what happened when David ha'melech counted the
people, as described in Shmuel II chapter 24.  In your
opinion, how does that story relate to the commandment in
Shmot 30:11-16?  Was David ha'melech wrong by the very
counting of the people, or because he didn't use the
"machatzit ha'shekel" method?  [See the various opinions of
the commentators on that chapter!]

6. Review 30:11-16 once again, noting the Torah's use of the
word "kapara" in relation this commandment.  In you opinion,
would the need to donate this "machatzit ha'shekel" be related
in any manner to the sin of the Golden Calf?  In you answer,
relate to where this 'parshia' is recorded in Chumash.
     Then, see Rashi on 30:16 and Chizkuni on 30:12

7.  Review Bamidbar 28:1-3, noting how this commandment to
bring the daily "korban tamid" (and later the "musafim") is
directed to the people of Israel.  In your opinion, how can an
entire nation bring one offering (or set of offerings)?  Which
funds would be used to offer this korban?
     Relate this to Chazal's understanding of the law of
"machatzit ha'shekel" that is brought by the entire nation.
Relate you answer as well to Shmot 29:38-46, and to the
collective nature of Am Yisrael as they stand before God in
the "ohel moed".

8.  After studying the above sources, you are ready to study
the lengthy Ibn Ezra and Ramban on Shmot 30:11-16.  Enjoy!
     Based on the above sources, would it be logical to
conclude that the primary source for the "machatzit ha'shekel"
may be "halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai" in addition to (or supported
by) various 'hints' to this obligation in Shmot 30:11-16?
  [for Parshat Pekudei]
  
MAKING A POINT!
1.  Scan Parshat Pekudei (using a Tanach Koren / or similar),
noting the last phrase of almost every single 'parshia'
(especially in chapter 40).   Can you discern a pattern?  If
so, attempt to explain why this phrase is repeated so many
times.
     Next, review the opening psukim of Parshat Vayakhel (i.e.
35:1-4), looking for a similar phrase (or context).  What are
the very first words that Bnei Yisrael (who gather in 35:1)
hear from Moshe Rabeinu (see 35:1).  Can you explain the
connection the phrase that is repeated so often in Parshat
Pekudei?
     Attempt to relate your understanding of the Torah's
emphasis on this phrase (in regard to building the Mishkan) to
the events at "chet ha-egel".   Relate to the nature of
Aharon's sin, i.e. his 'good' intentions, despite the
disastrous results.

2. Note the opening six psukim of Vayikra chapter 9 (in regard
to the ceremony on "yom ha'shmini"), especially 9:5-6.  In
what context does Moshe explain to the people - "zeh ha'davar
asher tzivah Hashem..."?   Note also, the concluding words of
9:7, 10, & 21.
  Then, note what happens in 10:1-2.  Based on these
observations, what seems to be the primary reason for why
Nadav & Avihu are punished?  [Note as well the "taamei
ha'mikra" on the phrase "asher LO tzivah otam"!]
     See Rashi on 10:2 and Seforno on 10:1.

WHO'S COUNTING?
1.  Compare the amount of gold, silver, and copper that was
collected to build the mishkan, with the amounts that were
collected by David ha-melech to help Shlomo build the first
Bet ha-Mikdash, as described in Divrei Ha-yamim I 29:1-9!
     What can we infer from this in regard to the difference
in size between the Mishkan and the Mikdash.
  [See as well Divrei Ha-yamim II 1:15 & 4:18 & 5:1, noting
  how Shlomo used these precious metals. Note as well the
  parallel between Shmot 40:34-35 and Melachim I 8:10-11.]

2.  In Megillat Esther, we are told about the amount of money
that Haman gives to Achashverosh as a bribe to issue the
decree against the Jews.  See Esther 3:9; and compare that
amount of silver to the amount that the Jews collected to
build the Mikdash, as recorded in Divrei ha'yamim I 29:7.  Can
you suggest any possible thematic connection?  [See our TSC
shiur on Megillat Esther!]

THE MISSING "MILUIM"
1.  In case you didn't notice, just about all of the
commandments re: the Mishkan that were recorded in Parshiot
Teruma /Tetzaveh (i.e. chapters 25-30) are repeated in
Parshiot in Vayakhel / Pekudei.
  As you verify this statement, you should notice that one
major section is missing.  [If you didn't find it, then note
that the details of chapter 29 (the 7 day milu'im ceremony) is
not repeated.]
  Where do we find the story of its execution?
  Again, in case you give up, you'll find those 'missing
details' in Vayikra chapter 8!  [That should be obvious.]
  
2. To prove that Vayikra chapter 8 'belongs' in Parshat
Pekudei, note the command in Shmot 40:9-15, whose execution
doesn't take place in 40:17-33 (as do the commands of 40:1-8)
but are detailed instead in Vayikra chapter 8. Note as well
other textual similarities between Vayikra chapter 8 and Shmot
chapter 40 (e.g. the phrase "kaasher tzivah Hashem et Moshe",
etc.).
  Can you suggest a reason why the Torah may have preferred to
record this seven-day dedication ceremony in Sefer Vayikra
instead?  In your answer, relate to the primary difference
between the type of laws regarding the Mishkan that are found
in Shmot, and the type of laws that are found in Vayikra.
  Relate your answer to the difference between 'building' and
'using' the Mishkan.  Would you consider the seven day miluim
as part of the 'building' process, or part of the 'using'
process? [or a bit of both?]
  ========

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
1.  Note the date of the events that take place in Shmot
chapter 40.  Based on 40:1 and 40:17 (and Shmot 12:1-2), why
do you think that specifically this day was chosen?
  Next, carefully review Shmot 40:34-38.  In what manner to
these psukim form the conclusion not only of chapter 40, but
also of the entire unit that began in chapter 35?  How do
these 'finale' psukim relate as well to Shmot 25:8 and 29:44-
46?
  
2. What would you say is the primary topic 40:34-38?
  Despite their common topic, can you divide these psukim into
two distinct topics?  If so, explain what each topic is, where
they can be divided, and why.
  In what manner is this flow (or change) of topic not
logical?

3.  Next, compare 40:34-38 to Shmot 24:12-18, especially 15-
18.
     Did you find any textual parallels?  If so, can you
explain their thematic significance?
     What does this parallel suggest in regard to the
connection to the purpose of the Mishkan and how it serves as
a perpetuation of Ma'amad Har Sinai?  [See Ramban in his
introduction to the laws of the Mishkan at the beginning of
Parshat Terumah (Shmot 25:1).]

4.  Compare these two sources once again, noting not only what
is similar, but also what is different.   Based on this
parallel, does Sefer Shmot appear have a 'happy' or 'sad'
ending?
  [In other words, was it ideal that Moshe was not able to
  enter the Ohel Moed, even though he was able to enter the
  cloud at Har Sinai - or does appear that something went
  wrong?]
     Would there be any reason why he should have entered the
Ohel Moed?   [Relate to Shmot 25:21-22!]
     If the parallel between Shmot 24:16 and 40:35 would be
complete, what 'ideally' should have happened at this point
immediately after 40:35?

5. Next, read Vayikra 1:1,  comparing it with Shmot 24:16 &
25:22!]
How would this observation answer the above question?
     See Rashbam, Ramban, Chizkuni, Ibn Ezra to Vayikra 1:1;
noting how they all relate to this parallel.
     Based on this parallel, where (more precisely) in chapter
40 should Vayikra 1:1 have been recorded?

6.  Next, return to 40:36-38, noting how this set of psukim
begins a 'new' topic that relates more to how Bnei Yisrael
would travel through the desert.
  Compare these psukim with Bamidbar 9:15-18.  Based on 9:15,
how doe these psukim relate to Shmot chapter 40?
     What is the textual and thematic connection between the
concluding psukim of Sefer Shmot on Bamidbar 9:15-22?  [Rather
obvious?]      Can you explain why these details are repeated
in Sefer Bamidbar?

7.  Based on these two observations regarding Shmot 40:34-38,
what would you say is the relationship between the conclusion
of Sefer Shmot and Sifrei Vayikra and Bamidbar?
     How would this relate to the main topic of each of these
books?
     Relate your answer to the two primary reasons why God
took Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt, based on Shmot 3:8 & 3:12.
Note as well Shmot 29:46.

8.  With these questions in mind, read once again Ramban's
introduction to sefer Shmot, as well as his introductions to
Vayikra and Bamidbar.  How does he define the difference
between each of these three books?
     See also Seforno's introduction to Chumash (found in
Torat Chaim sefer Breishit) and his explanations of sefer
Vayikra and Bamidbar.

9.  In the last chapter of parshat Pekudei, the Torah
describes the events that take place when the mishkan is
assembled on the first of Nissan.  Note, however, that certain
other events also take place on this very same day, as
recorded in Vayikra 9:1-10:10, and in Bamidbar 7:1-89 and 9:15-
23.
     Can you explain why these events, even though they all
take place on the same day, are recorded in three different
books?
     Quickly review those events as recorded in each sefer and
attempt to explain how each specific event relates to the
theme of the sefer in which it is recorded.
     Can you explain why the Torah doesn't simply record all
these events together in one sefer?
     ========


PART III - PARSHANUT

ONE WHAT DAY WAS THE EIGHTH DAY?
1.  Recall from Shmot chapter 29 (and Vayikra chapter 8) that
a seven day dedication ceremony takes place before the mishkan
becomes fully 'functional' on the 'eighth' day.
     In your opinion, do the events which are described in
chapter 40, that take place on the first of Nissan, correspond
to the first day of the seven day milu'im ceremony or to the
'eighth' day?  Support your answer.
     Be sure to relate to Vayikra 9:1-6, and Bamidbar 9:15.
     Does your answer to this question affect how you
understand on what date Bamidbar chapter 7 begins?
     [In other words, on what days in the month of Nissan did
the nesi'im offer their korbanot?]

2.  After you answer this question, see Ibn Ezra on 40:2.
What are the two opinions that he offers, and why does he
prefer the opinion that the seven day milu'im ceremony began
on the first of Nissan?  Be sure that you can follow his
logic.
     Then, see Rambam, noting how he too relates to both
opinions, but prefers the opinion that the yom ha-shmini
ceremony took place on the first of Nissan, and the miluim
began seven days earlier.  Note as well how he relates to Ibn
Ezra's peirush.
     Why 'should' Ramban prefer Ibn Ezra's peirush? [Relate to
his approach to 'ein mukdam u-me'uchar'.]  Why then does he
prefer the other opinion?  Which source does Ramban consider
primary?
     According to Ramban, when were the mitzvot of Vayikra
chapter 1 - 7 given to Moshe Rabeinu, and from where?
     How does Ramban solve the 'problem' of ein mukdam u-
me'uchar between these events and the order of events in sefer
Vayikra?  [See Ramban on Vayikra 7:38 and 25:1.]

VANITY MIRRORS
3.  Note that according to 38:29-31 this copper that was
collected was only used for the mizbach ha-nechoshet, but
apparently not for the "kiyor".  Based on Shmot 30:18, does
this make sense?
     Then, see 38:8, noting the special mention of how the
"kiyor" was made.  Relate this pasuk to the above question.
     Then, see Rashi on 38:8, noting his explanation for why
specifically this copper was used for the "kiyor".  Then, see
Ibn Ezra on 38:8, noting how his explanation is quite
different.
  According to each commentator, which behavior was deserving
of praise?
  Finally, see Ramban on 38:8, noting how he quotes both
commentaries.  Note also how Ramban relates to the "ohel moed"
that is mentioned in 38:8.   What 'chronological' problem in
38:8 leads Ramban to search for a different meaning for the
phrase "ohel moed" in this pasuk?  Relate as well to Shmot
33:7!

THE MISHKAN, or JUST THE MISHKAN?
4.  Read 39:33.  In your opinion, what does the word Mishkan
refer to, i.e. just the ten "yeriot" - or to the entire
complex?  In your answer, relate to the Hebrew grammar of
39:33, and to the "pshat" of Shmot 26:1 in relation to 26:15.
  [Relate as well to the phrase "et ha'mishkan" in 35:11.]
     Then, see Ramban on 39:33, noting how he understands this
pasuk, and why he adds a "vav" to "et ha'ohel"!
     See also Seforno on 39:33.

                              be-hatzlacha,
                              menachem


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pkudq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 41829 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090315/1e7edbc8/attachment-0002.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayakq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 30436 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090315/1e7edbc8/attachment-0003.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Mar 18 03:55:01 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:55:01 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Vayakhel
Message-ID: <20090318074422.3260B2880D@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  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.

-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090318/5dd4082e/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Mar 18 03:55:35 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:55:35 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Pekudei
Message-ID: <20090318145104.63CDB5E0C94@out3.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************
     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.]

-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090318/1beecaa6/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Fri Mar 20 04:36:24 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:36:24 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat ha'Chodesh
Message-ID: <20090320152637.2CA675E06E0@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 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.

-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090320/831f4523/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Mar 23 04:20:35 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 04:20:35 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Vayikra - questions for self study
Message-ID: <20090323080012.0CEC1B084A9@out4.bezeqint.net>

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

              PARSHAT  VAYIKRA
                               
PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

PARSHIOT & MOSHE RABEINU
1.  As you most probably have noticed in your study of
Chumash, the Torah delimits certain portions from one another
by the use of 'parshiot' [several spaces that create a
division].  According to Chazal, these 'parshia' divisions
were given together with the Torah at Har Sinai.
  In regard to the purpose of these 'parshia' divisions, see
Rashi's commentary on the first pasuk of Sefer Vayikra [the
section that begins with 'va-yedaber'], noting how he
discusses their purpose.
     Relate this commentary to the underlying assumption that
we have employed in many of our shiurim, i.e. it is incumbent
upon the reader of Chumash to contemplate the thematic
significance in these divisions.

2.  In addition to this Rashi, study the Chizkuni on Shmot
34:32, where he explains how (and why) the Torah was composed
in given by Moshe to the people of Israel in the fortieth year
prior to his death.  Note how that explanation enhances the
Rashi discussed in the above question.

KORBAN CHATAT
2.  A 'chatat' offering, as described in detail in chapter 4,
is usually understood as a 'sin offering'.  To the best of
your recollection, for what type of sin is a person obligated
to bring such an offering?  In your answer, relate to both the
severity of the sin and the sinner's intention.
  Next, review chapter 4 in Sefer Vayikra, noting how the
opening pasuk in each of its five 'parshiot' provides the
answer to the above question.  Nonetheless, note how it
remains unclear in regard to the specific type of
transgressions these 'sin offerings' apply to.  In other
words, what laws does the phrase "m'kol mitzvot Hashem asher
lo ta'asenu" refer to?  [If you have time, note the various
opinions among the commentators.]
  In regard to 'intention', note the meaning (and context) of
the Hebrew word 'shogeg' as it is used in 4:2, 22, 27, etc.
In your opinion, does shogeg imply that the act was done:
accidentally; inadvertently; or unintentionally?
  According to any of these possibilities, why does the
'transgressor' require forgiveness?
     How do Chazal interpret "shogeg"?  [See Rashbam, and
Masechet Kritut 1:1.]
     See Ramban on 4:2, re: why atonement is necessary.

3.  Review 5:1-13, noting that this unit also begins with a
certain case, or to be more exact, a certain set of cases.
How do these 'cases' (as described in 5:1-4) differ from the
standard case of a korban chatat described in chapter 4?
     Would you consider these cases as shogeg as well?  If
not, how would you define them?  Is the word "shogeg" used in
their description?  If not, is any other word used to explain
the nature of those transgressions?
     In your opinion, should the cases described in 5:1-13 be
considered a korban chatat or a korban asham?  Explain your
answer based on these psukim!
     Recall from the "viduy" that we recite on Yom Kippur, one
of the final lines of the "al chet" include "al chataaim
sh'anu chayavim aleihem OLEH v'YORED" - for transgressions
that we are obligated to offer an "oleh v'yored" offering
(i.e. where the type of offering is a function one's financial
status).  How does that "al chet" relate to the topics
discussed in 5:1-13?

4.  As you review the first parshia of chapter 5, note that
the transgressor (in any of the cases described in 5:1-4) has
the option to offer a less expensive korban (i.e. birds
instead of an animal/ see 5:7-13).  In your opinion, does this
option imply that these transgressions are less severe (than
the transgressions described in chapter four), or could this
option be a result of the fact that these cases are simply
more common?
     Note that in the next parshia, we find that there is even
another option to bring a flour offering (should the
transgressor be very poor).  Relate this as well to your
answer to the above question.

KORBANOT OLAH & SHLAMIM
5.  In Chumash, do we ever find an instance when a korban olah
was offered (i.e. before Ma'amad Har Sinai / see 24:5)?  If
so, when, where, by whom, and why?
     [Note Breishit 8:20 and 12:6-8.]
     Was a korban shlamim ever brought before the events of
Ma'amad Har Sinai?  If so, when and why?
     If not, why do you think that Ma'amad Har Sinai was the
first time that we find a korban shlamim?
     In your answer, relate to 'who' shares in the meat of
this korban, and to the covenantal nature of the events that
took place at Har Sinai.
     As you review Vayikra chapter 23, note that the only
holiday where we find the offering of public 'korban shlamim'
is on Shavuot!  Based on the above questions, can you explain
why?

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
  Before we begin our questions, a short reminder of what we
refer to when we use the words: 'Parsha' and 'parshia'.
 * Parsha - with a capital 'P' - refers to Parshat Ha-Shavua.
          [or what is also known as the weekly 'Sedra'.]
 * parshia - with a small 'p' refers to the basic paragraph
type unit that we find in the Sefer Torah.  In Chumash, we
find two types of 'parshiot':
     A 'parshia stuma' - a wide space in the middle of a line;
     A 'parshia ptucha' - a wider space until the end of a
line.
  ['parshiot' - is the plural form for (more than one)
'parshia']

A.  CHARTING PARSHIOT
  We begin our study by introducing a tool that is very
helpful towards finding structural patterns and themes in
Chumash.
  Borrowing an analogy from the world of sports, we refer to
this methodology as the 'tournament' method, because the chart
that you finish will look somewhat like the results of an
elimination tournament match (i.e. when lots of teams who play
against one another, and you end up quarter-finals, and
semifinals and finally with one winner).
     In our case, the 'contestants' are each 'parshia' within
any given unit within the Sefer, and the 'winner' is simply
the primary topic that emerges as the theme of that unit.  [It
may sound a bit complicated, but it really very easy (once you
catch on).]
  It is a wonderful tool that helps the student understand the
progression of parshiot, and follow how Chumash develops its
most basic themes.
     Here's how it works, and remember, no shortcuts.

1.  Take a blank piece of paper (line or unlined), and along
the left margin, draw a set of short lines (like an inch or
two long), single spaced, one on top of another.  [In other
words, make a vertical list of short blank lines.]
     Your list should look something like this:
     _______
     _______
     _______
     _______    etc.

2.  The first unit that we will study is Parshat Vayikra, i.e.
chapters one through five of Sefer Vayikra.  Quickly glance
over this section, noting that it contains approx. twenty
individual parshiot (so your list will need to start with
about 20 blank lines).
     Now comes the hard (or 'thinking') part.

3.  Starting from chapter one, briefly review each parshia,
and attempt to summarize its primary topic in two words or
less.  In other words, keep the 'topic name' concise (even
though it may not be 100% precise).  However, make sure that
your definition is unique enough to differentiate it from the
topic of the next parshia.
     For example, a 'topic name' for the first parshia such as
korban would be too general, while titles like shchita or
kohanim would not be nearly precise enough.
  Remember, only one line for each parshia; and as short a
summary phrase as possible!
  It is recommended that you use a pencil, since you'll
probably find yourself 'changing your mind' quite often.  If
you have trouble defining a single topic, then just leave a
question mark, you can always return to that parshia at a
later time.]

4.  Once you have finished your list for the entire unit (i.e.
chapters one thru five), attempt to group together any group
of lines that share an obvious common topic.  [For example,
the three types of korban ola that you find in the three
parshiot of chapter one would easily group together under the
more general category of korban ola.]
     As you proceed down the list, attempt to identify the
most basic common topics, grouping these parshiot together
with a sideways 'v' type symbol.  Your list should look
something like this:
     _______ \
     _______  \_____
     _______  /
     _______ /
     _______ \______
     _______ /
     _______  ______   etc.]
     
  [Sometimes, certain parshiot may not group, and if a parshia
  stands alone, just leave it that way, simply moving that
  line out one more level to line up with the others.]

5.  By identifying these common topics, you have basically
created a 'shorter' second list.  The next step is simple, as
we simply repeat this process over and over again, until we
are left with only one line (the 'winner'), i.e. the primary
topic for this entire unit.
     By doing so, you have basically created an outline for
these five chapters.  (Your outline should contain at least
about four levels.)
  When you review your conclusions, be sure that you can give
a clear title for each level of the outline, and then a
general title for the entire outline, which (by default)
should be the primary topic of Parshat Vayikra.
  As you will notice, Parshat Vayikra is very organized, so
this method works very nicely for this unit.

B.  FINDING TEXTUAL PATTERNS IN THE OUTLINE
1.  Once you complete your outline, scan the entire unit once
again, and note each time that a new 'dibbur' begins [i.e.
when ever you find a  "va-yomer Hashem el Moshe..." or
similar].
     Make note of those positions on your outline.
     Does each dibbur correspond to a certain level of your
outline?
     Try to explain where it does correspond and where it
doesn't.

2.  Next, review the entire Parsha once again, this time
making note of where each chapter begins.   [Remember that the
division of the Bible into chapters in not a Jewish tradition,
while the parshiot are.]  How does the division into chapters
correlate with your outline, and the division into dibbur's?
Can you explain why?
     Can you explain the reason for the two instances where it
is slightly different?  [Relate to the difference between an
asham and a chatat.]

3.  Based on your outline, attempt to define the overriding
principle that guides the order of the parshiot in Parshat
Vayikra.
     Is that principle the same or different for each category
of korbanot?  Can your explain how and why?

4.  Finally, scan the entire Parsha one last time, this time
making note of the following two key phrases:
          1) "...isheh reiach nichoach la-Hashem"
          2) "...ve-chiper alav ha-kohen ... ve-nislach lo."
     
     a.  Relate your findings to your outline.
     b.  Which two general categories of korbanot do these two
phrases relate to?  Can you explain why?
     Did your outline recognize this division into two general
categories of korbanot that an individual can offer?
     Be sure that you understand how this division into two
basic sections explains the internal order of each subsection.

5.  Attempt to relate these two phrases ["ishe reiach nichoach
la-Hashem" and "ve-chiper alav ha-kohen ... ve-nislach lo"]
to the thematic connection between the mishkan, Ma'amad Har
Sinai and chet ha-egel.
          Relate to 24:5-11 and 32:20, 34:9.
          Relate also to 23:17 and 34:23.

C.  THEMATIC CONSIDERATIONS
6.  Based on your outline, should the 'korban mincha' be
considered a separate category or a sub-category of ola?
     Relate to both the structure of the parshiot, as well as
their content.  Relate also to parshiot ptuchot and stumot.

7.  As you most probably have noticed by now, the first three
chapters of Parshat Vayikra form a distinct unit (as they are
all included in one dibbur), and they describe the various
types of korbanot nedava [free-will offerings] that an
individual may offer.  Be sure that you have identified the
three basic categories of ola, mincha, & shlamim, and what is
unique about each.
     Explain why the korban mincha could be considered a
subcategory of the ola offering.
     With this in mind, recall the last time (recorded in
Chumash) when Bnei Yisrael offered olot & shlamim.  [If you
need help - try Shmot 24:5 & 32:6.]
     In your opinion, is there a thematic connection between
those two instances and this first dibbur given to Moshe from
the ohel moed?  [Relate (as usual) to Ramban on Shmot 25:1.]

8.  Based on your answers to the above questions, can you
suggest a reason why Sefer Vayikra begins specifically with
the laws of korban nedava?
     Relate to 1:1-2. and last week's shiur on Parshat
Pekudei.

9.  What is the three letter "shoresh" [root] of the Hebrew
word "korban"?  What is the simple meaning of that "shoresh"
in Hebrew?  How does this relate to the word "korban"- an
offering?
     Relate this to the purpose of korbanot and man's
relationship with God, as well as to your conclusions
concerning the outline.

10.  Recall from chapter three that we find three categories
of shlamim:
     'bakar' (cattle),
  'kvasim' (lambs), and
  'izim' (goats)
Recall as well from chapter one, the three categories of olot:
     bakar (cattle),
  tzon (sheep), and
  'of' (birds).
In your opinion, why do you think the option to offer 'birds'
exists only for the ola offering, but not for the shlamim?
     [Relate to who 'eats' each korban (and why).
                              [See Rashi 3:1.]
     Note that the Hebrew word tzon [sheep] refers to both
kvasim and izim (lambs and goats).  With this in mind, attempt
to explain why we find two parshiot (and hence categories) for
tzon in regard to the shlamim, but only one parshia for the
ola option for tzon.     [See Rashi on 3:7!]

11.  Read 5:1-13 carefully.  How did you define this section
on your outline?  Chazal refer to this korban as an 'oleh ve-
yored'.  Can you explain why?  [Do you remember this name from
the 'vidui' that we say on Yom Kippur?]
     In your opinion, would you consider this korban a chatat
or an asham?  In your answer, relate to both 5:5-6 and 5:9.
     Relate to the type of animal offered (for the rich
person) in comparison to the standard animal offered for
either a chatat or an asham.

12.  Review 5:14-26, noting the cases when a person brings an
asham.  In your opinion, how are these cases different than
the cases of the oleh ve-yored.
     Can you define a general difference between the cases for
when one must bring a chatat and the cases (or at least most
of the cases) when one must bring an asham?
  In your answer, relate to the intention of the transgressor,
against who the transgression was made, and the severity of
the sin.
=======

PART III - PARSHANUT

RAMBAN'S INTRODUCTION TO SEFER VAYIKRA
1.  Carefully study Ramban's introduction to Sefer Vayikra.
     How does Ramban explain the connection (and flow) from
Sefer Shmot to Sefer Vayikra?  [Relate this to his peirush to
Shmot 25:1, as well as to his introduction to Sefer Shmot.]
     How does this relate to Ramban's understanding of the
Shchina on Har Sinai and the events at chet ha-egel?
     How does Ramban explain the progression of topics within
Sefer Vayikra?  Does he suggest a general theme for the sefer?
     If so, what is it?
     How does Ramban explain why there are mitzvot in Sefer
Vayikra that are not directly related to the mishkan?
  [Note how Ramban focuses on the need for Am Yisrael to
  perform mitzvot in order to 'keep' the Shchina from
  'leaving', and how this explains the 'non-mishkan' related
  mitzvot in Sefer Vayikra.]

2.  In your opinion, does Ramban assume that the mitzvot of
Sefer Vayikra follow in the chronological order by which they
were first given to Moshe?  Relate this to Ramban's shitta of
'yesh mukdam u-me'uchar'?  [If you have time, see Ramban on
Vayikra 25:1, i.e the second of half of that lengthy Ramban
where he explains his own opinion of why Parshat Behar that
was given at Har Sinai was recorded in Sefer Vayikra!]

3.  Reread the last five psukim of Sefer Shmot, especially
40:34-35 in relation to Vayikra 1:1, based on their parallel
to Shmot 24:15-17.  [See last week's shiur on Pekudei as
well.]
     With this parallel in mind, see Rashi, Ramban, Rashbam,
Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni, and Seforno on 1:1.  [that should keep you
busy.]
     On what points do they all agree, and on what point do
they disagree?      [Note according to each where Moshe is
standing when Hashem speaks to him.  Is it:
          a)  in the kodesh kodashim itself;
          b)  in the kodesh, outside the parochet;
          c)  in the chatzer, outside the ohel mo'ed?
[In your answer, relate to Shmot 25:21-22 and Bamidbar 7:89!]
     Why does Seforno bring down the pasuk from Melachim 8:11?
Why does Rashi claim that this type of 'calling' actually took
place every time that God spoke to Moshe?
     Does Ramban disagree (according to pshat)?  If so, why?
     See end of Ramban to 1:1.  Why does he compare this pasuk
to Shmot 24:1, and relate this topic once again to Ma'amad Har
Sinai?  Why does Ramban refer to this as 'al derech ha-emet'?

ME'ILAH & ASHAM
4.  Note the case in 5:20-22 when one brings an asham.  Is
this for a transgression against God or against his fellow
man?
     With this in mind, what is the meaning of "u'ma'la ma'al
b-Hashem" in 5:21? What transgression was done against God?
     See Rashi on 5:21.  How does his peirush relate to this
question?

IF OR WHEN?
5. Review 2:14, noting its context in relation to the parshiot
that preceded it that discuss how one can offer various types
of a voluntary "korban mincha".
     Then, note the Hebrew word "im" at the beginning of 2:14.
Did you understand that word as 'if' or 'when'?  In your
answer, relate to the commandment to bring one's first fruits
as detailed in Devarim 26:1-3.
     Then, see Rashi (and Rashbam), noting how they interpret
this word, and why.
  In contrast, see Ibn Ezra - be sure that you understand why
he disagrees.  Note the careful attention that Ibn Ezra pays
to how this pasuk is worded!
  Finally, see Ramban, noting how he first quotes both
possibilities, and then how he offers his own third
interpretation - relating to 'when' Bnei Yisrael will enter
the land.  Relate this to Devarim 26:1.  Note how this
interpretation is rather ingenious!
  
                              be-hatzlacha,
                              menachem
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayikq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 37320 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090323/9aaae127/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Mar 25 08:58:57 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:58:57 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Sefer Vayikra - intro
Message-ID: <20090325124736.D48F528322@out6.bezeqint.net>

**********************************************************
***
     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.
-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090325/5f3224d7/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Mar 25 08:59:46 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:59:46 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Vayikra - shiur
Message-ID: <20090325195457.2A47D5E0A38@out3.bezeqint.net>

**********************************************************
***
     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!]
-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090325/5f760a04/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Mar 29 02:46:10 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 02:46:10 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Tzav - Questions for self study
Message-ID: <20090329063238.3A5B5BC54BD@out5.bezeqint.net>

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

               PARSHAT  TZAV

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

KASHRUT - between CHAYLEV V'DAM & KORBANOT
1. Towards the end of Parshat Tzav we find two important
laws
concerning Kashrut:
     1) the prohibition against eating "chaylev" (7:22-25)
     2) the prohibition against eating blood (7:26-27)

     Considering that all of the other laws found in
Parshat
Tzav deal exclusively with the laws of korbanot, attempt
to
explain why these laws of kashrut (which apply to eating
an
animal that is NOT a korban) are also included in Parshat
Tzav.
     In your answer, relate to the phrase " from an animal
which CAN BE a korban for Hashem..." in 7:25.  Relate as
well
to the introductory sentence (see 7:22-23), i.e. the fact
that
these laws are directed to the entire nation (and not just
for
the "kohanim" as were all the laws in Parshat Tzav up
until
this point (see 6:1-2).

2.  Recall from Parshat Vayikra that the Torah had already
prohibited "chaylev v'dam" (see Vayikra 3:17, noting its
context).  Even though this appears to be the very same
law
(albeit in a more concise form) that we find in Parshat
Tzav
(see 7:22-27), explain the necessity for this
'repetition'.
     In your answer, relate to the primary topic of each
Parsha, and how the laws of "chaylev" and "dam" relate to
those topics. [Note as well what specific category of
korban
they relate to.]

3. Next, review Vayikra 17:8-12, noting how once again we
find
a similar prohibition against eating blood!  In your
opinion,
is this the same law or a different one?
     If it is the same, why do you think it is being
repeated?
     If it is different, what is different about it?
     In your opinion, why is "chaylev" not mentioned here?
     Now read 17:13-14. What prohibition is being added?
          Can you explain why?
     How do these psukim relate to your answer to the
first
part of this question?  Relate to the overall topic of
chapter
17, as well as to its 'location' within Sefer Vayikra.

4. Finally, see Devarim 12:13-16. In what context is the
prohibition against eating blood being mentioned in these
psukim?
     Why do you think that it is necessary to repeat this
law
in that "parshia"?  [In other words, what is the overall
topic
of the unit from 12:4-19, and how does that topic relate
to
the prohibition against eating blood?]
     Now read Devarim 12:20-28. [i.e. the next topic in
Devarim]
     What is the topic of this parshia?
          How does this "parshia" relate to Devarim
12:4-19?
     How does it relate to Devarim 12:15-16?
     According to this parshia, are there TWO different
reasons for not eating blood, or only ONE? [Relate to
12:23 &
12:27 / is this the same reason or two different reasons?]
     How does this parshia relate to Vayikra 7:22-27 and
its
context?

5. Based on the above questions, how does the prohibition
against eating "dam v'chaylev" (which applies to this very
day) relate to the laws of korbanot?
     In your opinion, why would this be significant?
  Relate your answers to all of the above questions to
your
understanding of the laws of "kashrut" that we keep to
this
very day?

6. For further iyun, see:
     Ramban on Vayikra 17:11 & Devarim 12:23-25;
     Chizkuni on Vayikra 3:17 & Devarim 12:16;
     Sefer ha'Chinuch - Mitzvah #147 & #148;

===================================

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
  [Note: these questions are (and should be) very similar
to
  last week's questions on Vayikra. When you finish, you
will
  probably understand why.]

1. Review chapters six and seven in Parshat Tzav, noting
how
these two chapters form a distinct unit that contains
seven
short "parshiot".
     As you review the opening psukim of each 'parshia',
you
should notice (most of the time) the repetition of a
certain
phrase.
     Verify your answer based on 7:37-38.  Be sure that
you
understand why this 'summary pasuk' proves that chapters
six
and seven indeed form a distinct unit.
Once you identify this 'opening' phrase, attempt to
understand
the meaning of the word "torah" in this context.  Also, as
you
continue your study, attempt to explain why two of these
'parshiot' do not include this phrase.

2.  Next, identify the primary topic of each "parshia"' (a
short phrase is sufficient).  [The 'opening phrase' (or
lack
of it) will help you identify those topics.]
  Then, construct a list of these topics, one short line
per
each "parshia", and study the progression of these topics
(i.e. from one to the next).
  Turn your list into an outline, by grouping its common
topics together. Try to give an accurate title for the
entire
outline.

3. Now, scan these twp chapters once again, this time
noting
each time that a new "dibur" begins [i.e. "vayomer Hashem
el
Moshe..." or similar].
     Make note of those positions on your outline.
     For each "dibur", note to whom these commandments are
directed.  Relate this to the content of each unit.
     Be sure that you can explain why there are certain
instances where we find a "dibur" to Bnei Yisrael, while
other
times only to Aharon and his sons.  [In your answer,
relate
once again to the summary pausk in 7:37.]

4.  Based on your outline (and its title), attempt to
define
the overriding principle that guides the order of these
parshiot in Parshat Tzav.
     In what way is the order (and progression of topics)
in
Parshat Tzav different than the order in Parshat Vayikra?
     Can you explain why?
  Based on your answer, explain why each category of
korbanot
is repeated twice (i.e. once in each Parsha)?
     As you compare the laws of each korban (in each
respective Parsha), attempt to explain why certain details
that are the same, and why certain details are different.

5. In your opinion, would it have been more logical for
the
Torah to combine all of these laws concerning korbanot
into
one Parsha?
     Based on your outline, can you explain why each
Parsha is
presented separately?  Relate to the opening psukim of
both
Parshiot Vayikra & Tzav.

6. Based on your outline and study thus far, review once
again
each of the "diburs" in the unit of chapters 6->7 and
attempt
to explain the necessity of each one.  Can you explain why
(all of the sudden) there is a new "dibur" in 7:22?
Explain
as well why this "dibur" is given to Bnei Yisrael, and not
only to the kohanim, as was the case with each of earlier
ones.
     How do these laws enhance your understanding of the
laws
of Kashrut today?

7. Finally, note that 7:28 also begins with a new "dibur"
to
Bnei Yisrael. Based on the content of that "parshia", can
you
explain why?
     Based on these two sources (i.e. these two "dibur"s),
could you 'redefine' your title of Parshat Tzav (to make
it a
bit more precise)?   In your answer, relate to 7:34-36.

PART III - PARSHANUT

ZOT 'TORAT HA'MILUIM'
1. What is the glaring problem with pasuk 7:37? [If you
prepared the questions in Part II, you most probably
already
noticed this problem.]
     Note how this pasuk 'almost' summarizes the entire
unit
that began in 6:1-2 with "zot TORAT ha'Olah... "  etc.]
     In your opinion, what does the word "miluim" (in
7:37)
refer to?  Does it relate to any topic in chapters 6 thru
7?
  Does it relate to the primary topic of chapter 8?
  Does it relate in any way to the Korban Shlamim?
     Now, let's see how the commentators (on 7:37) related
to
these questions:

2. See Rashi: What does he mean by "yom chinuch kehunah"?
     Does this refer to 6:12-14?
     Why would this be referred to as "miluim"?
          Relate to Shmot 29:9, Vayikra 21:10!
     In your opinion, what 'forces' Rashi to prefer this
interpretation?

3. Next see Ibn Ezra:  [see Chizkuni as well]
     Why does Ibn Ezra refer to Shmot chapter 29?
     Can you find the word "miluim" (or something similar)
in
that chapter? What is its context?
     How does that chapter relate to Vayikra chapter 8?
     How is Ibn Ezra's pirush different than Rashi?
     In your opinion, what is the underlying reason for
the
"machloket" between them?
     Relate to the similarity between the special laws of
the
"ayil ha'miluim" (that was offered each day during the 7
day
miluim ceremony /see 8:22-29) and the laws of the korban
shlamim [i.e. in regard to the "chazeh v'shok"]?

     In you opinion, could the "ayil ha'miluim" be
considered
a 'prototype' of the korban shlamim? If so, how would this
help us understand the problem 7:37?!]

WHEN THESE LAWS WERE GIVEN
4. Now, read 7:38.
     According to this pasuk, WHEN and WHERE were these
mitzvot (i.e. the "torot" in chapters 6 thru 7) given to
Moshe
Rabeinu:
     If on Har Sinai, then was this during the first or
last
40 days?
     If from the Mishkan (at the foot of Har Sinai), in
your
opinion were these laws given before or after the laws in
Parshat Vayikra?  [Attempt to support your answer.]
     Would it make sense that the laws in Parshat Tzav
would
need to have been given before the Mishkan was dedicated?
Explain why.
     How would your answer to these questions be affected
by
the principle of "ein mukdam u'm'uchar ba'Torah"?
     Now, see Ramban on 7:38.
     Why does Ramban quote (here) the statement by Chazal
that
ALL of the mitzvot were given first from Har Sinai, and
then
repeated from the Ohel Moed?
     What problem would this solve?
     What doesn't Ramban himself accept this
interpretation?
          How does Ramban explain this pasuk?
          How do both of these pirushim relate to Vayikra
1:1?
          Relate to Ramban's pirush to 8:1!

5. Next, see Ibn Ezra  [& Chizkuni] on 7:38:
     What specific point concerning 7:38 does this Ibn
Ezra
deal with?  How does this relate to the above Ramban?
     Why does Ibn Ezra quote the pasuk from Amos?

6.  Read 8:1-8 (and if possible, review the entire
chapter).
     Note how this is the first 'narrative' in Sefer
Vayikra.
     Note also that it is the fulfillment of God's
commandment
to Moshe in Shmot chapter 29.
     [Review also Shmot chapter 40 (in case you forgot
it), as
well as Vayikra 1:1 and 7:37-38.]
     Now, try to determine the chronological order of
these
events.  - In other words, when did the 7 day miluim
ceremony
take place (on what day of what month)?
     On what day did the SHCHINA first dwell on the
Mishkan?
[Relate to Shmot 40:34-37.]
     On what day were the mitzvot of Parshat Tzav given?

     Now, see Rashi on 8:2. Why does Rashi state
immediately
at the beginning of this parshia his principle of "ein
mukdam
u'm'uchar"?
     How and why does Rashi arrive at his conclusion of
the
date of the 23rd of Adar. [Relate to Shmot 40:1-2.]

     Finally, see Ramban on 8:2!
     How and WHY does Ramban disagree with Rashi?
     Is Ramban able to keep Sefer Vayikra in chronological
order?  [In order to do so, what assumptions must he
make?]
     Towards the end of this Ramban, he agrees that a
certain
set of laws in Parshat Tzav is indeed 'out or order', but
explains why. Which 'parshia' is this, and why does Ramban
'move' specifically this one? [See also Ramban on Shmot
40:1.]
     Relate your answer to the first Ramban of Sefer
Shmot!
     Based on this Ramban, can you explain when (and why)
Ramban does employ the principle of "ein mukdam u'muchar"?
     [See also Shmot 16:30-36 for similar example.]
     [See also second part of the Ramban on Vayikra 25:1!]

                                   b'hatzlacha,
                                   menachem

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: tzavq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 28226 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090329/b539efb0/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue Mar 31 12:42:53 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:42:53 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Tzav - shiur
Message-ID: <20090331162103.DFCE5B085C4@out4.bezeqint.net>

**********************************************************
***
        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.


-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090331/b786ea4a/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Fri Apr  3 05:20:16 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 05:20:16 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] magidq
Message-ID: <20090403091149.592B32104B7@out2.bezeqint.net>

attached is a revised version of our questions for MAGID,
with many of the sources attached in pdf format.
The questions are also in pdf format, and material will
print out better if you choose the pdf version. 
  _____  


 
**********************************************************
***************

THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  www.tanach.org

In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag

Questions for self study - by Menachem Leibtag

**********************************************************
***************

 

For self study on Shabbat ha'Gadol

[revised 5769]

 LEIL HA-SEDER --Understanding  MAGGID

               [Questions for self-study and preparation]

        

Looking for something to study on Shabbat ha'Gadol, if so,
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 understood without knowing what
the words "ha-hu" and "zeh" refer to, as well as the
context of the phrase "assa Hashem li".

Therefore, to understand the meaning 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:

a)  how it relates to 12:3-13, 

b) IF it relates to 12:15-17, 

c) how it explains the command in 12:24-27

d) how it forms the background to 13:3 -8

Relate all of this to the story in 12:33-39 / especially
12:17].

 

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 Rashi on 13:5, and Ibn
Ezra on 13:5-6; see also Rasag.]

        Relate this argument to how one could interpret
the word "zeh" in 13:8!  [Note how we relate to this in
the Haggada in the section beginning with "yachol m'rosh
chodesh?"]

 

3.  If 13:3 is indeed one command, explain why would it be
necessary to fulfill 13:8 in order to fulfill 13:3.
[Relate this to the fact that this commandment must be
fulfilled by future generations as well.]

 

4.  Return now to 13:8.  Based on the context from 13:3-7
what do the words "ha'hu" and "zeh" and "ba'avur"  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?

 

5.     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!

 

6.  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!

        Base your answer to this question on your answers
to the questions above (and to the 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 the opinions of
Rav & Shmuel in our Haggadah; however both of their
original 'short statements' - are augmented with 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 that it's a direct
quote of Devarim 6:21.  [In your opinion, was Shmuel aware
of the context of this pasuk, when he suggested that we
begin with "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 sources, 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
them)?

 

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/ should 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?  How do we accomplish "v'dorshim"? Do we
expound upon these psukim to tell the story.  If so, where
does the story begin, and where does it end?

 

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?

[Consider as well if this paragraph should be considered
the first part of MAGID, or an explanation for 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
? when people were joining together for a Korban Pesach
OUTSIDE of the Land of Israel (but hoping to be there the
next year), and in slavery (but hoping next year to be
free)?

If the latter, what generation is this a quote from?

               [Relate to Shmot 12:3-14, especially to
12:14.]

 

2. In your opinion, does the "ha lachma anya" [this is the
bread of our affliction] statement imply that we are
eating MATZA to remember what our forefathers ate when
they were slaves in Egypt; OR ? that we are eating the
bread that reminds us of the affliction of our forefathers
in Egypt. [If the latter, why does this type of bread
remind us of our affliction?]

Based on the story in Chumash, which explanation makes
more sense?  Relate to:

a) Shmot 12:33-39  (in light of Shmot 12:17)

b) Shmot 12:6-9 (in its context from 12:3-13)

c) Shmot 13:3-8

d) Devarim 16:1-4

 

In your answer, relate as well to matza that Bnei Yisrael
were commanded to eat 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/bo1.pdf  .]

 

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,
and Devarim 6:20-22.

 

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 these 'four
questions'? [Are they proofs?]

        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'?

 

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 study these psukim, be 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 (and who would not 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].

        Why would this be a fitting topic to discuss at
the Seder?

 

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?

        "yachol m'rosh chodesh" ? implies that someone may
think that our obligation to 'tell the story of the
Exodus' would begin on the first day of Nisan.  Be sure
you understand this "haava amina" based on Shmot 12:14 in
relation to 12:1-2; and based on 13:3-4 in relation to
13:8.  [Relate as well to Devarim 16:1-3.]

 

A Quick Summary 

 As you probably noticed, this last 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' of this opening statement.  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.  Note how this statement of 'mi-tchila' contains two
primary points.  Which of these points is proven by the
psukim that are quoted, and which is not?

Now, read Yehoshua chapter 24 once again, this time noting
24:14-26 (and how the story that Yehoshua told the people
in 24:1-13 forms its introduction)!  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 the
story of yetziat Mitzrayim to the purpose of Avraham's
offspring being chosen to serve God.

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 stranger, widow and orphan, etc. - which are
consistently followed by the 'reminder' that we were once
slaves/strangers in Egypt! [See Devarim 24:17-18;
24:22-23; 15:12-15; 16:11-12; 10:17-20; 5:14-15; and Shmot
22:20 & especially Shmot 23:9.];

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! [See
attached source sheet]

 

VE-HEE SH'AMDA 

9.  What does the word "hee" in the paragraph of 've-HEE
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,
noting how Rambam understands that these psukim also
follow the format of "matchil b'gnut u'msayem b'shvach"!

 

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?

>From what you remember, do most people pay attention to
this part of Magid?  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.  In case you didn't notice, our quote of Devarim 26:8
leads us into the topic of the Ten Plagues.  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.  

 

3.  See Tehillim 78:49 (the source text for this
"drasha"), noting how 78:43-51 describes all the plagues
(except 3,6,& 9! ? the ones w/o warnings) ? yet 78:49
itself does not include the names of any of the Plagues
that we are familiar with.  [Based on this, explain this
drasha.] 

How does this explain the second "derasha" that arrives at
up to 250 plagues?

Why do you think our Haggada includes this focus on the
miracles that took place when crossing the Red Sea?

 

3. Note that the Rambam does not include these
'multiplication tables' in his version of MAGGID (found at
the conclusion of Hilchot chametz u'matza).  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.  How did you translate the word DAYENU?  Does this
imply 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 your opinion, would make more sense if "dayenu" implies
that it 'would have been enough', or that 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 conclude?  [Can you explain why, considering that
we did not quote Devarim 26:9 in our previous "drasha"!]

 

5.  How many different 'stages' are there in the "dayenu"
song?  Relate this to the number of "shir ha'maalot"
[Tehillim 120-134) and the number of steps that lead up to
the courtyard of the Bet ha'Mikdash ? where the Levites
would sing God's praise!

 

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!

 

4.  In the reason that we give for why we eat matza ? are
we explaining why ate matza with the Korban Pesach, or why
eating matza reminds us of HOW (or WHY) God took us out of
Egypt?

 

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 fact that Devarim
6:20-24 is part of speech that Moshe is giving to Bnei
Yisrael in the 40th year ? which included many people who
were never in Egypt. Relate as well to Devarim 5:2-3,
which serves as the intro to this speech!

 

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?  See also Ramban Chametz
u"Matza 7:6, note carefully how he words this mitzvah and
how he relates it to "v'zacharta"!

 

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!]

The reason why we recite Tehillim 114 should be rather
obvious.   But make sure that you understand why.

 

3.  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 for each of these four
questions in Shmot 12:26-27, 13:8, 13:14-15 & Devarim
6:20-21; paying special attention to 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?        

Why are most of the answers that the Haggada gives
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 four
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'?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: magidq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 91058 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090403/fc86e746/attachment-0004.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: magid1page.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 365960 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090403/fc86e746/attachment-0005.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: magid9outline.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 183072 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090403/fc86e746/attachment-0006.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: magidsources3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 235917 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090403/fc86e746/attachment-0007.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue Apr  7 05:34:49 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 05:34:49 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] A GUIDE FOR MAGID - part One [Its Biblical Roots]
Message-ID: <20090407092546.E5681210E9E@out2.bezeqint.net>

**********************************************************
***************

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 5769]

Expression of Gratitude 

or

 Recogniton of Destiny

 

What are we supposed to 'remember' at the Seder:

1) How God took us out of Egypt ? [miracles etc.]

Or

2) How we were once slaves in Egypt, but God saved us

 

Sounds like the same mitzvah?

        If you study Chumash carefully, you'll immediately
notice how they are two very different commandments; one
that applies specifically to the Seder night, while the
other applies all year long.  

        In the following shiur, as we discuss how we
fulfill the mitzvah of MAGID, we will show how this
distinction can help us appreciate the mtizvot of the
Seder. 

[The following shiur, on the Biblical source for Magid, is
the first in a series of three shiurim on the Haggada.
The second shiur will discuss how we [don't] tell the
story in MAGID, while the third will be an in depth
discussion of its various sections.

 

Part One: THE SOURCE FOR MAGGID in Parshat Bo

Ask most anyone, what's the source for our Biblical
obligation to recite MAGID; they'll answer: "ve-higadta
le-bincha...".

That answer, even though correct, is far from complete;
for it is impossible to understand that pasuk (Shmot13:8),
without studying its context in Parshat Bo.

We begin our shiur by doing just that, i.e. by quoting
that entire commandment ? as described in Shmot 13:3-8.

? ????????? ?????? ???-?????, ?????? ???-??????? ??????
?????? ???????? ???????????? ??????? ????????, ????
???????? ???, ??????? ?????? ??????? ??????; ?????
???????, ?????.  ? ???????, ?????? ????????, ?????????,
????????.   ? ??????? ???-????????? ?????? ???-?????
???????????? ?????????? ??????????? ??????????
????????????, ?????? ????????? ??????????? ????? ????,
????? ????? ?????, ????????; ??????????? ???-?????????
???????, ????????? ??????.  ? ???????? ??????, ???????
??????; ?????????, ????????????, ???, ???????.     ?
???????, ???????, ???, ???????? ?????????; ?????-???????
???? ?????, ?????-??????? ???? ??????--??????-?????????.
? ???????????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ??????:  ?????????
???, ?????? ?????? ???, ?????????, ????????????.

"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, AND no chametz shall not be
eaten.

Today you are leaving in the month of the spring.
[Therefore], when you come to the land of Israel... you
shall keep this practice in this month:  Eat matza for 7
days, and on the 7th day a holiday... Matzot must be eaten
during these seven days and no chametz or leaven can been
seen..." And you must TELL your son on THAT day, saying:
for the sake of this - God did for me when he took me out
of Egypt" 

 
(Shmot 13:3-8)

 

        As you review these psukim, notice that they
include what appears to be many commandments; e.g. to
remember the day you left Egypt; NOT to eat "chametz"; to
eat matza for seven days; not to see chametz, and to tell
'something' to your children on 'that' day, etc. [Pay
attention to this 'intentional' ambiguity.] 

To appreciate how these various commandments are not only
related to one another, but could even be understood as
one commandment; we must first consider WHEN they were
first given by Moshe to Bnei Yisrael.

 

MATZA FOR 'BREAKFAST'

Recall how Bnei Yisrael were in quite a rush when they
left Egypt.  Immediately after the Tenth Plague struck,
the Egyptians had rushed them out to go worship their God
in the desert.  They were in such a hurry to leave, that
they didn't even have time to bake their dough properly as
bread (see 12:33-34); so instead they baked their dough as
'matza' on the next day, when they set up camp in Succot
(see 12:37-39).  

It was only after experiencing this 'matza only - for
breakfast & dinner' predicament, that Bnei Yisrael receive
the above command from Moshe Rabeinu.  With this backdrop,
let's try to understand its opening line:

"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, AND no chametz shall not be
eaten"

 (Shmot 13:3)

 

        From this pasuk alone, this seems to be TWO
separate commands ? (1) to 'remember' the day of the
Exodus, and (2) not to eat "chametz".  However, from the
psukim that follow (that we will now quote), it becomes
quite clear that these comprise simply ONE commandment -
to be kept once a year: 

"Today you are leaving in the month of the spring.
[Therefore], when you come to the land of Israel... you
shall keep this 'avoda' [practice/ service/ ritual?] in
this month:

Eat matza for seven days, and on the 7th day a holiday...

Matzot [alone] must be eaten during these seven days and
no chametz or leaven can been seen..."  (see Shmot 13:4-7)

 

        As you review these psukim, note how they explain
the opening line (13:3) as one commandment  - i.e. the
manner by which Bnei Yisrael will 'remember' the day of
the Exodus ? will be by eating only matza, and by not
eating any chametz  ? for seven days.  This mitzvah will
be kept once a year in the spring; on the anniversary of
that event:

        It is only because this generation had just shared
this common experience of eating matza (and ONLY matza) on
their journey from Egypt to the desert - that eating matza
a year later in the spring would remind them of how they
left Egypt. 

However, this association would only come natural to this
generation - but, for future generations (who did not
experience these events), eating matza for seven days
would not remind them of anything (UNLESS they knew that
story).  Therefore ? the final pasuk of this commandment
ties everything together:

"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).

 

This is the very pasuk that everyone quotes as the source
for MAGID ? but now it becomes quite evident why.  The
primary mitzvah is to 'Remember the day that you left
Egypt ? by eating matza'; but this commandment is only
meaningful for future generations - if we explain the
historical connection to the next generation; by telling
the story of the Exodus to 'our children' (as they wonder
why there is only matza to eat for seven days). 

 

In light of this background, let's study this last pasuk
(13:8) once again, in an attempt to understand its various
ambiguities, as highlighted in our above transliteration.

 

YACHOL M'ROSH CHODESH

        Let's begin with the phrase "ha'yom ha'hu" [And
you shall tell your children on THAT DAY] - as it also
happens to be a discussion in the Haggada itself:

Based on its context (from 13:3-6) 'that day' could be
understood in several ways.   Because the previous psukim
(13:4-5) clearly emphasize this 'month of spring' [chodesh
ha'viv], 'that day' may refer to the first day of Nisan
[which is the "hava amina" of "yachol m'rosh chodesh"]. 

However, based on 13:6-7, it seems more likely that this
phrase refers to 'THAT day' that you left Egypt, or 'THAT
day' when you begin eating only matza (i.e. the 15th of
Nisan).

[Whether this refers to 'day time' or 'the evening' of the
15th will be discussed in our detailed study of MAGID.]

If 'that day' indeed refers to the day we are eating
matza, then the word 'zeh' must refer to the matza that we
must eat for seven days (again based on its context - from
13:6-7). 

[See also Ibn Ezra's commentary to 13:5-6.]

 

Rashi argues, that "zeh" refers not only to the matza, but
also the Korban Pesach, for he understands that the phrase
"ha'avoda ha'zot" in 13:5 refers to the "korban Pesach"
(see Rashi 13:5, based on 12:24-27).  If that
interpretation is correct, then "zeh" may refer as well to
the Korban Pesach ? which was eaten together with matza
and maror. 

 

RABAN GAMLIEL ?. - 

If we follow Rashi's interpretation, then this pasuk seems
to reflect precisely Raban Gamliel's opinion in the Mishna
- that we quote at the end of MAGID:

"Anyone who doesn't say [explain] these three things on
Pesach did not fulfill their obligation [of "v'higadta
l'bincha?"] ? pesach, matza, & maror."  [Mishnayot
Pesachim 10:5]

 

According to Raban Gamliel, this pasuk implies that we
must explain to our children the connection between these
mitzvot and the story of the Exodus; otherwise, eating
matza would not accomplish the goal of 'remembering the
Exodus'.

In light of this, let's see how this affects our
understanding of the second half of this pasuk.

 

BA'AVUR: BECAUSE ? OR -  FOR THE SAKE OF?

The phrase "baavur zeh", which introduces what we must
tell our children, is quite difficult to translate, for
there appears to be some key words missing from this
pasuk. Let's highlight these ambiguities in the following
quote:

"We must tell our children on that day saying: BA'AVUR
[because of/ for the sake of?] - this [matza?] God did for
me [these miracles?] - when I left Egypt."   (see Shmot
13:8)

 

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 - 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.]

So which explanation makes more sense?

        We posit that both are correct ? and that may be
the very purpose of the Torah's ambiguity in this pasuk ?
as it should be interpreted in both manners!  

To explain why, we shall show how:

Ramban's approach is "pshuto shel mikra" 

- the simple meaning of the text, 

while Rashi's approach is "pshuto shel Torah" 

? reflecting an underlying theme of the Bible!

 

        We shall also show how:

Ramban's approach focuses on 'expression of gratitdue' 

The need to thank God for taking us out of Egypt.

while Rashi's approach focuses on 'recognition of destiny'

Our need to understand the purpose of that redemption.

Let's explain.

        Based on the first part of our shiur, Ramban's
interpretation makes the most sense ? for he explains that
we must explain to our children that we are eating matza
to remember how God took us out of Egypt in a miraculous
manner.  As 13:3 is one command ? to remember how God took
us out of Egypt by eating matza- we must explain to our
children why eating matza reminds us of those events. 

        We refer to this as "pshuto shel mikra", for it
explains not only the flow of psukim in 13:3-8, but also
the reason why the Torah went out of its way in chapter
twelve to explain how Bnei Yisrael took their dough on
their shoulders when they were rushed out of Egypt, and
how they baked it as matzot in Succot.

        If so, then this mitzvah would fall under the
category of "hakarat ha'tov" ? expression of gratitude; as
we must be thankful to God for taking us out of Egypt and
granting us our freedom from slavery.   As we must be
eternally thankful to God for our freedom, we must
remember these events on a yearly basis, and eating matza
will help remind us of the miraculous nature of those
events. 

[Note how make specifically this point in the opening
section of Magid when we recite the "avadim ha'yinu"
paragraph.

 

However, according to Rashi and Ibn Ezra's understanding
of this pasuk (13:8), the primary mitzvah at the Seder
should be not be only to explain to our children what
happened, but also why it happened.

In other words, we are not simply telling the story as an
expression of our gratitude; but rather in 'recognition of
our destiny'. We must teach our children that there was a
purpose in our redemption; not only to be free from
slavery, but more so to enable us to serve God ? by
keeping His mitzvot all year long. 

So what causes Rashi and Ibn Ezra to explain these psukim
in a different manner?  

The answer that we will now suggest we refer to as "pshuto
shel Torah" ?for it reflects an underlying theme that
emerges when one studies (and ties together) the books of
Breishit, Shmot and Devarim.

 

"BARUCH SHOMER HAVTACHATO"

        Let's begin with the very paragraph in MAGID that
seems to reflect the theme of "hakarat ha-tov" ?
expression of gratitude, where we thank God for keeping
His promise to Avaham Avinu:

"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:

'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.

        However, if there was wise-guy [or 'chutzpedik'
son] at the table, he could ask a very good [but
'cynical'] question: 

Why should we thank God for keeping His promise to take us
out of Egypt, after all - it was He who also promised to
put us into slavery in the first place! 

 

To answer that question, one must consider to numerous
commandments found later on in Chumash ? that include a
'gentle reminder' about the fact that we (as a nation)
were once slaves (or strangers) in the Land of Egypt.  For
example:

*          Shmot 22:20 & 23:9  (note also the type of
mitzvot recorded between these two psukim)

*          Note especially "v'atem y'datem et nefesh
ha'ger" in Shmot 23:9.

*          Devarim 10:12-20 (noting same phrase as Shmot
22:20)

*          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 15:12-15, in regard to gifts for an
"eved ivri"

*          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

 

Based on these numerous references to 'remember our
slavery' ? it can't be that it was only 'by chance' that
we endured such hardship in Egypt; rather, it appears that
there was some educational purpose for this historical
process of slavery, followed by a miraculous redemption.  

[See concept of "kur ha'barzel" ?  a smelting furnace
(that strengthens the metal) - and its context in Devarim
4:20.]  

 

This assumption may be what leads to Rashi & Ibn Ezra's
understanding of our obligation to 'tell the story of the
Exodus' ? for it stems not only from our need to remember
what happened, but more so - from our need to remember why
it happened.  In essence, we are 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..

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.  

        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.)  .]

 

The answer lies in the numerous mitzvot (noted above)
given to Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai at Matan Torah ? 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 that list of
sources in your Chumash, paying careful attention to when
and how this phrase is presented, noting both its topic
and context:

 

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!]

As Am Yisrael is chosen to become God's model nation (see
Devarim 4:5-8), these laws 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.]

This 'national history' - the collective experience of
being taken advantage of by a tyrant nation - 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.

This also explains the logical connection between the once
a year mitzvah to eat matza ? to 're-live' that experience
? to feel as though it was your were there [see "bchol dor
v'dor" paragraph in Maggid], and the daily commandment to
remember the Exodus.  As Sefer Devarim explains:

"Observe the spring month and offer a Pesach to God.. You
shall not eat any chametz with it, [instead] eat only
matza for those seven days , the bread [that reminds us]
of our affliction ? for you were rushed out of Egypt ? IN
ORDER that your remember this day that you left Egypt ALL
THE DAYS OF YOUR LIVES?  [see Devarim 16:1-4] 

 

Sefer Devarim is quite explicit, that by eating matza for
seven days, once a year ? we will remember the events of
the Exodus every day during the remainder of the year.
However, that memory should affect our daily behavior ?as
emphasized numerous times in Sefer Devarim. 

[See also ben Zoma's drasha that we quote in Magid .]

 

THE DAILY MITZVA

Finally, the very pasuk that Chazal chose that we must
recite twice a day to 'remember' the Exodus on a daily
basis may allude as well to this very same point:

"I am the Lord your God who took you out of Egypt IN ORDER
to be your God...".    (see Bamidbar 15:41)

 

In other words, God took us out of an Egypt in order that
He become our God.  Our deeper understanding of the
purpose of those events 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 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."

 

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 once a year mitzvah to 'tell
the story', and the daily reminder to 'remember our
slavery' both stem from the same Biblical theme.  

As such, the seder becomes a time not only for:

'thanking' God for our freedom; but also a time for:

 'thinking' about why He took us out   

 

                                      chag sameiach,     

menachem

 

FOR FURTHER IYUN

 

A. 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).

 

B. AVADIM HAYINU & 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!

        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!

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: magid1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 80941 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090407/2c787837/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue Apr  7 08:38:29 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 08:38:29 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] FOR MAGID - Part Two / How we [don't] tell the story
Message-ID: <20090407121548.D2252B08A1F@out4.bezeqint.net>

**********************************************************
***************

THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  www.tanach.org

In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag

Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag

**********************************************************
***************

 

 HOW WE [DON'T] TELL THE STORY IN MAGID  

 
[revised 5769]

        

        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. 

[The following shiur may be quite important, for as we
will explain, one could easily sit through an entire
Seder, but not fulfill this important mitzvah! To help
follow this shiur, we have attached a pdf file - with all
of Maggid on one page!]

 

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 recite the Haggada.

 

'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.

        Albeit its thematic importance, this section is
not the story itself - even though it does formsa very
meaningful introduction.

        

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 / and our previous
shiur), 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' re: 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'.

[In the next shiur we will discuss this section in more
detail 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 (on Shmot 13:8) that we must explain to our
children 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..."

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!

 

A Quick Summary 

 As you probably noticed, this last section is simply one
of many that discuss 'secondary' topics before we actually
begin to tell the story of yetziat Mitzrayim?  Note the
topics that we have discussed thus far:

        A.  WHY we are obligated to tell the story-
["avadim hayinu"]

        B.  WHO is obligated to tell the story - ['even
know it alls']

        C.  HOW we are obligated to tell the story - [the
'Four sons']

        D.  WHEN we are obligated to tell the story -
["yachol.]

 

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 Yaakov and his children went down into Egypt"
(see 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! 

 

This statement of 'mi-tchila' will set 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.  Even though the story
itself has not yet begun, the next paragraph will explain
its connection to the story that we are about to tell.

 

"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.  

 

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.

Recall how the previous paragraph explained that God had
chosen our forefathers to establish a nation to serve Him.
This paragraph connects that theme to the story of the
Exodus, for the slavery forecasted in this covenant ["brit
bein ha'btarim"] - was to serve as a 'training experience'
that would facilitate the formation of that nation. [See
our discussion of this topic in the previous shiur.]

Hence, this paragraph explains why the story of the Exodus
must begin with "brit bein ha'btarim" - but we haven't
told the story yet!

 

"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 our nation is
in distress - God will ultimately come to redeem us -so
that we can serve Him. 

        This paragraph provides us with a deeper
understanding of why every generation must tell-over the
story of Yetziat Mitzrayim, but once again - it's not THE
story.  

 

At most Seder's - over an hour has passed, and most people
are paying more attention to their watches than to their
Haggada - 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
drasha concerning the Ten Plagues.  Even though this
section constitutes a rather elaborate Midrash on four
psukim from 'mikra bikkurim' (Devarim 26:5-8) - this is
how and where we tell the story!

        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 the format that our Haggada follows! 

We quote Devarim 26:5-8, word by word, or phrase by phrase
- quoting a 'drasha' for each; and that becomes the
'framework' for telling over the story of Yetziat
Mitzrayim. ['arami oved avi' is merely the first drasha.]

 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 a
critical point 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, or these drashot.]

 

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 the DAYENU
concludes 'the story of the Exodus' with entering the Land
of Israel and building the Bet ha'Mikdash.

Even though the Mishna instructs us to quote the entire
"Mikra Bikurim" section [i.e. Devarim 26:5-9] - for some
reason (probably because we are in "galus") our custom is
only to quote until 26:8 (how God took us out of Egypt);
but we do not include 26:9 (how He brought us to the Land
of Israel:

"va'yvi'einu el ha'Makom ha'zeh" - va'yiten lanu et
ha'aretz ha'zot"  - He brought us to this place [most
likely referring to the Bet ha'Mikdash - where the
proclamation is being made] and He gave us the land of
Israel" (see Devarim 26:9)

 

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.]

 

"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. 

 

        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'.  

 

        As we explained in Part One of our study of
Maggid, we must feel as though we ourselves went through
this experience.  By telling the story of 'what happened'
- we are reminded of the purpose for 'why it happened' -
in order that this 'virtual experience' will affect our
daily behavior; even when are not eating matza!

        In Part Three, we return to explore each section
of Maggid in greater detail - based on our conclusions in
Parts One & Two.

 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: magid2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 58356 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090407/d385d02f/attachment-0002.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: magid1page.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 365960 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090407/d385d02f/attachment-0003.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Apr  8 07:08:19 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 07:08:19 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] A GUIDE FOR MAGID - Part Three
Message-ID: <20090408105551.D970C284B7@out6.bezeqint.net>

**********************************************************
***************

THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  www.tanach.org

In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag

Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag

**********************************************************
***************

 

 A GUIDE FOR MAGGID - Part Three

 
[revised 5769]

 

        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, when 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'! 

So why do we recite "avadim hayinu"?

 

In the following shiur (Part Three of our series in on
MAGID), as we study MAGID section by section, we will show
how that paragraph, and many others like it, take on
special meaning when we consider the psukim in Chumash
that they are based on. 

 [Attached to the shiur is a pdf file with many of the
mekorot that we will be discussing. It is very important
to look up and study all the sources that we quote;
otherwise, it will be difficult to follow our
explanations]

 

Some of this study may appear a bit tedious, but if you
study those sources carefully, hopefully it will help make
your Seder a little more interesting.

 

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 previous shiur, we explained how we
actually quote both of these opinions in our Haggada, but
not as the starting point of the story.  Rather they serve
as important statements of purpose, while the story itself
doesn't begin until we recite "arami oved avi".

[See Rambam Hilchot chametz u'matza 7:4 - read his closing
remarks carefully, and you'll see that he makes exactly
this point - that "arami oved avi" follows the format of
matchilin b'gnut u'msayem b'shvach - and hence we follow
this format when we recite "arami oved avi"!

Based on this Rambam, one could also suggest that Rav &
Shmuel are only bringing proofs (or examples) from Tanach
of this format (see Yehoshua 24:1-12 and Devarim 6:20-25
to support this), but do not claim that these are the
words that we need to recite when we tell the story.  ]

 

        With this in mind, we return to a detailed study
MAGGID, to discuss certain points that were not covered in
the previous shiurim. 

 

'HA LACHMA ANYA' 

        As we explained earlier, the opening paragraph of
MAGGID - 'ha lachma anya...' does not begin the story of
Yetziat Mitzrayim; but rather it serves as a beautiful
segue between "YACHATZ" and MAGID.  Let's explain why, by
considering the psukim in Chumash that it alludes to:

        In YACHATZ, the leader of the Seder breaks the
matza and then, while showing this broken piece to
everyone who has gathered, he explains:

"ha LACHMA ANYA - This is the 'bread of affliction' that
our forefathers ate in Egypt."

 

Check the various translations of the phase "lachma anya"
and you will usually find one of two translations: 

1) bread of affliction [as in "inuii" - affliction]

(see Breishit 15:13, Shmot 3:7 & 3:17)   

Or    2) poor-man's bread [as in an "ani" - a poor person]

                       (see Shmot 22:24, Vayira 19:9-10)

        

The source for this phrase is obviously based on the laws
of Korban Pesach in Parshat Re'ay:

"Observe the spring month and offer a Pesach for God.

For seven days, eat 'upon it' matza - 'lechem oni'  - ki
b'chipazon yazata m'Mitzraim - [translation unclear] 

  (see Devarim 16:1-3)

 

Rashi explains that "lechem oni" is not describing what
the bread is, but rather what the bread represents:

"lechem oni" - the bread that reminds us of our affliction


[See Rashi and Ibn Ezra on 16:3 - note also how Seforno
and Chizkuni disagree, claiming that 'lechem oni' explains
what matza is - the bread of a poor. However, by comparing
Devarim 16:3 to Shmot 13:3-8, it's obvious that Rashi and
Ibn Ezra are correct.]

 

         But even before Bnei Yisrael left Egypt, there
was another commandment to eat matza - together with the
Korban Pesach!

        So what does this "lachma anya" refer to:

               The matza that we ate as slaves in Egypt;

               The matza that we ate with the first Korban
Pesach; or

               The matza that we ate when we left Egypt in
a rush -

        

        To answer this question, let's take a look at how
this paragraph continues: 

The next statement (right after 'ha lachma anya') - 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"

 

This statement 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 to
one another in Egypt.

 

These two possibilities depend on how one understands 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
refers to the Seder) -  then this section serves as an
invitation at this time.   However, this wouldn't make
much sense, for at this time at the Seder everyone is
already sitting down. 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, we
can easily pinpoint exactly who we are quoting - by
finding a time period when people invited one another to
join in korban Pesach; but also when we were not yet
living in Israel, and still in slavery!

There aren't too many possibilities, as this can only be a
quote of what our forefathers said to one another  in
preparation for the very first korban Pesach (i.e. the one
in Egypt, as described in Shmot 12:1-23), 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 is the same type of bread that our forefathers ate
when they gathered to eat the very first korban Pesach -
back in Egypt!  Then we quote what they said to one
another in preparation for that special evening - inviting
one another to that meal (see Shmot 12:3-8), and
expressing the hope that by next year they will be in free
(see 12:12-13), and living in the land of Israel (see
Shmot 3:6-8 and 3:16-17).

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 Passover family gathering,
we highlight the continuity of our tradition and our hope
for the fulfillment of its goals.  

 

MAH NISHTANA

Even though this section is often referred to as 'The Four
Questions', there is really only one question; i.e. - 'Why
is this night different'?  Because we have done so many
things to catch his attention, the child obviously
realizes something special is happening.  Therefore, after
asking 'the one question'; he brings four examples/proofs
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.

[This section is based not only on the Mishnayot in the
Tenth perek of Mesechet Pesachim,  but also on the source
pasuk for Magid - "ve-higgadeta le-BINCHA" - and you must
tell your children on that day... (see Shmot 13:8).
Therefore, we must catch our children's attention so that
they will listen to the story.] 

 

The Haggada's answer to this question begins with the
phrase 'AVADIM HAYINU'; yet this phrase as well is based
on a very important pasuk in Parshat V'etchanan.  To
appreciate this quote, we must first discuss its location
in Sefer Devarim. 

 

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 in Part One), 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!

 

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STORY

        As we explained earliler, this paragraph that
begins with AVADIIM HAYINU does NOT begin the story of
Yetziat Mitzrayim.  Instead, it makes two very important
statements, which provide the answer to 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!

 

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.]

 

        It is also interesting to note how this story
concludes when their students reminded them that it was so
late - that it was already time to read morning "kriyat
shema".  Based on our above study of Sefer Devarim, this
should not surprise us - for the section of Chumash that
"avadim hayinu" is quoted from (and refers to), begins
with the SHEMA (see Devarim 6:4 thru 6:23)!

 

Even though the Haggada does not quote all the
conversations between these wise men 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 (see their commentary to Shmot 13:8) that we
must explain to our children that God took us out of Egypt
in order that we keep His commandments (like eating
matza).

See also the last several psukim of Tehillim 105, noting
the word "baavur" in its concluding verse.  Notice as well
the mention of the Ten Plagues in that chapter, noting how
there mentioned as part of a review of how God kept His
promise of "brit bein ha'btarim" to the Avot, by taking us
out of Egypt.

 

THE FOUR SONS

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..."

        As this explanation of this section is so lengthy,
we have included a 'mini shiur' on this topic, which can
be found as an Appendix and the end of this shiur:

 

"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.

The logic behind this discourse, as usual, is based on
psukim in Sefer Shmot. : Because the Torah's first command
to remember this day is recorded in Shmot 12:14, as part
of a set of commandments 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"].

Furthermore, when Moshe relays these laws to Bnei Yisrael
in chapter 13, he also reminds them that they are leaving
Egypt in the 'month of the spring (see 13:4-5).

 

Nevertheless, he then informs that they must remember this
day that they left Egypt by not eating chametz & by eating
only matza for seven days (see 13:3-7). 

In that context, Moshe then commands them that they must
tell the story to their children on that day "ba'yom
ha'hu" (see 13:8) - which implies on the day they are
eating matza(and hence not on Rosh Chodesh.  However, this
pasuk does seem to imply the day time [ba'Yom ha'hu],
which may refer to the day 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 then rejects that possibility, understanding
based on the next phrase in 13:8 - "ba'avur zeh" - where
"zeh" in its context must be referring to the matza AND
the Korban Pesach (based on Rashi's understanding of
"avodat ha'zot" in 13:5)- hence the story must be told at
the same time that we eat matza with the korban Pesach,
i.e. on the evening of the 15th.]

        

"MI-TCHILA OVDEI AVODA ZARA..."

        After defining the various aspects of our
obligation, MAGGID introduces the story with the paragraph
that begins with "mi-tchila ovdei avoda zara..." (possibly
following Rav's opinion in Pesachim 116a).  

Even this section may give the impression that the story
starts here, 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.

        As you'd expect by now, to appreciate what's
really going on, we'll need to study that quote in its
context.  Let's begin by taking a closer look at this
statement - and its proof-text.

 

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
in Part One) 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.

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. 

 

RE-AFFIRMING BRIT SINAI in Sefer Yehoshua

 Review 24:1- 25, noting how it divides into two sections:
24:1-13 (a history lesson), and 24:14-25 (a covenant). 

Our proof text (24:2-4) is only the opening line of
Yehoshua's 'history lesson' that he delivers to the nation
gathered in Shchem, before challenging them with an
'option' whether or not to accept God's covenant:

"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 seems to a bad idea to serve the LORD, then
choose 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
[that God chose Avraham to SERVE Him] is derived 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.

In the next paragraph, we must explain why that covenant
that God had made with Avraham Avinu - remains meaningful
for all generations (including ours):

 

"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 is the
covenant.  Therefore, we must remind ourselves that not
only is God committed to His covenant, but we too must
keep our side, and should we need redemption once again,
it will come - but we must learn from our past mistakes on
how need to ready ourselves - to be deserving (see
Tehillim 78:1-8!).  After all, redemption requires
spiritual readiness. [In our shiur on Parshat Bo, we
explained how the commandment to 'get rid of our chametz'
may reflect this need to get rid of our bad behavior - to
prepare for redemption.]

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' - "v'heyshev lev avot al banim,
v'lev banim al avotam.." - to become worthy for
redemption.

 

"TZEY U-LMAD" / "ARAMI OVED AVI"

        As we explained in Part Two, this is the section
where we actually tell the story - see that shiur for the
detailed explanation.

 

Just a few points re: some of the drashot.

Most of them are direct quotes from the story of the
Exodus in Sefer Shmot - which makes perfect sense,
as"mikra bikurim" in Sefer Devarim is a very abridged
version of that story in Sefer Shmot.  Therefore, we will
focus our discussion on some of the interesting quotes
that are not from Sefer Shmot:

 

"va'yered Mitzraim" - "anus a pi ha'dibur"

        When Yaakov and family went down to Egypt - and
STAYED there, it was not because they wanted to, but
because God told them they had to!  [Not only to go down,
but also to stay there!]

This is based on Breishit 46:1-5 (read those psukim
carefully, see also Rashbam).  Note as well how God's
instructions to Yaakov (to go down and stay in Egypt)
emerge as the beginning of the process of "brit bein
ha'btarim" (see Rabman on those psukim!). Hence, the
phrase "ha'dibur" in this drasha - either relates to
Breishit 46:2-3, or to Breishit 15:1 [note "v'yhi DVAR
Hashem el Avram laymor."] in light of 15:13-18.

 

"bmtai ma'at" - kmo shneemar - b'shivim nefesh yardu."

"Small in number, as the pasuk says, with 70 souls you
went down to Egypt, and now you are as numerous as the
stars of the Heaven"

Even thought this appears to be just an innocent quote, if
you look at the context in Devarim, you'll notice how
fitting it is for the Seder, especially in light of our
discussion in Part One re: the purpose of telling the
story.

        Read carefully from Devarim 10:12 thru 11:4 -
noting the connection between these psukim and the purpose
of the story of the Exodus, paying special attention to
10:17-19.

        After reading that, you won't be surprised that
Chazal chose to quote from 10:22 for this specific drasha
(in light of 10:18-19).

        Notice as well the thematic connection to "brit
bein ha'btarim" - as it is in that context that we find
for the very first time the promise of offspring 'like the
stars in the sky' (see Breishit 15:5-7).

 

"v'rav" - kmo shneemar - rvava k'ezemach.

        This lengthy quote from Yechezkel 16:6-8 (not
worth translating for young children) is part of one of
the harshest rebukes that Am Yisrael ever received.  If
you'd like to feel a bit of depression (to balance out the
wine) - review this entire chapter in Yechezkel (16:1-63),
noting that the psukim we quote are about the only kind
ones in the entire chapter.  In a nutshell, that chapter
describes how Bnei Yisrael had been unfaithful in their
covenant with God from the time of Yetziat Mitzraim, until
the time of Yechezkel. The main message for the Seder is
from Yechezkel 16:60-63 - be sure to read at least that.  

        This quote (16:6-8) in our drasha at the Seder,
hints not only to that rebuke, but also to the possibility
(and path) of future redemption, as explained by Yechezkel
in 16:60-63.

 

"va'yareu OTANU ha'Mitzrim" - shneemar: hava nitchakma.

        Some Haggadot translate this pasuk as: The
Egyptians were bad (or did evil) to us.  However, if so,
the Hebrew should be "va'yarey'u LANU" and not "OTANU" .
[To prove this, see Bamidbar 20:15-16 in its context!]

        Instead, the proper translation should be - The
Egyptians MADE US THE BAD ONES - in other words, Egypt
claimed that the Jews were planning a takeover, thus
providing the Egyptians an excuse to enslave them - for
the sake of 'national security'.  

        As that explanation is also "pshuto shel mikra" in
Shmot 1:8-11 (read carefully), the quote in this drasha
from precisely those psukim in Shmot (1:10) is right on
the mark!

 

"b'yad chazaka- zo ha'dever./b'zroah netuya- zo ha'cherev"

        Even thought one can find many psukim that contain
"yad chazaka" and "zroah netuya" that refer to many
different Plagues or punishments - the Haggada prefers to
relate these two phrases to "dever" & "cherev" .  Most
likely the reason for this is Moshe Rabeinu's opening
threat to Pharaoh, that if he doesn't allow Bnei Yisrael
permission to go worship their God in the desert - he will
smite Egypt with "dever" & "cherev" (see Shmot 5:1-3, in
light of Shmot 3:18-19!)  As this introduced the story of
the Makkot, it becomes a very logical drasha.

 

"mora gadol - zeh gilui shchina.."

        To appreciate this one, you must read Devarim
4:32-39 in its entirety, noting how our drasha quotes only
4:34 - however, the "gilui shchina" concept is based on
4:33 & 4:36 that describe "maamad Har Sinai" - which was
the purpose of the miracles of Yetziat Mitzraim - as
alluded to in the other psukim.

 

        We could go on and on, but I hope you got the
point. If you want to appreciate Midrashim  (and not just
mumble them), you must first study the psukim that they
quote and pay attention to their context. 

        With that in mind, let's continue now with our
study of the rest of Magid

 

WHY MIKRA BIKKURIM?

        It may not be 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!


THE TEN PLAGUES

In the drasha of Arami Oved Avi, notice how we quote
Devarim 26:8 twice, each time trying to understand why the
pasuk describes how God took us out of Egypt in FIVE
different ways:

b'yad chazaka, b'zroah ntuya, etc.

 

The first drasha assumes that each of these five words
refers to something specific, and proves it by finding
that same word in the story of the Exodus.  The second
drasha, makes a very different assumption, that each of
these five words refers to two plagues (as some are two
words, while others are in plural - e.g. "otot u'moftim")
- hence the conclusion that this entire pasuk is alluding
to the Ten Plagues [5x2=10]. 

 

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 a textual comparison between Shmot 8:15 ["etzba" -
finger) and 14:31 ("yad"= hand). Based on the ratio
between - 'etzba' of the Makkot  to 'yad' at Kriyat Yam
Suf (i.e. hand/finger = 5/1) - we conclude that there were
50 plagues at Yam Suf.

 

FROM 50 to 250 based on Tehillim 78

        Then R. Eliezer and R. Akiva add multiples of 4x
and 5x for each plague - based on Tehillim 78:49. But
don't their drasha for granted, and that entire perek in
Tehllim relates to the deeper meaning of the Seder.

        Take a quick look at Tehillim 78, noting the topic
of its 'header' in 78:1-8, where every generation is
instructed to teach the next generation about the great
miracles that God performed; but also not to be like their
forefathers, who DID NOT appreciate God's wonders, and
hence did not properly 'prepare their hearts' for their
redemption.

        

The chapter continues by listing all the great things that
God did for His people (in Chumash), and how Bnei Yisrael
consistently rebelled - leading to the punishment of that
generation.  By studying our Biblical history, we are
supposed to learn a lesson; that we should 'prepare
ourselves' - to be ready for redemption whenever it comes;
as that very preparation can help bring redemption!  

[Note also "v'hu rachum" in 78:38 in the context of this
chapter, and you'll understand why we recite so often in
our daily prayers!]

 

The second section of this chapter (from 78:41 thru
78:53), discusses how Bnei Yisrael should have learned to
fear God (but did not) from what they witnessed during the
Plagues. In that context, 78:44-51 describes most of the
Plagues (except 3,6,& 9 - the ones w/o warnings!) - yet
78:49 itself does not include the names of any of the
Plagues that we are familiar with. 

It appears that this oddity is what leads to this drasha,
as we assume that 78:49 is describing one of the Plagues -
but with 4 (or 5) different descriptions. If so, then the
same could apply to all the plagues. Hence we can multiply
each plague by 4 or 5.

 

Finally, it may be that our Haggada includes this focus on
the miracles that took place when crossing the Red Sea, as
it was specifically after witnessing that miracle when
Bnei Yisrael responded with a beautiful song of Praise
("az yashir").  As we are about to praise Hashem in the
Hallel, it is fitting that we discuss the miracles of
Kriyat Yam Suf at out Seder - as a conclusion to the story
that we told.

[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). 

        "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!

[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?]

 

        To understand what we are 'really saying' in
"dayneu", we must consider its context, as well as it
content.

We recite "dayenu" - 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].

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 - 

 

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. 

 

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.

 

"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!] 

 

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 how the Torah concludes our declaration in 26:5-9 by
reminding us (in 26:10-11) how we must be sure that the
stranger and Levite share in our happiness (for they have
no Land of their own, and hence they are 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), and ties nicely into the theme of
thanking God for our redemption while remembering its
purpose .

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 FINAL THOUGHT

As you may have noticed, even though much of our above
discussion may seem 'technical', it has all alluded to a
much deeper theme, that the Seder is not only about
'gratitude' - i.e. thanking God for what happened; but
more so - about 'destiny' - i.e. our need to recognize why
it happened. That goal could never be accomplished without
our tradition of the importance of Jewish education, the
obligation of each generation to teach the next, not only
about what did happen, but to learn from that history
(even from its mistakes - see again Tehillim 78:1-8!).
This tradition can enable our children to shape their
future in the proper manner.

Therefore, we conclude our study with a mini-shiur on the
topic of the Four Sons, as it reflects this message.

 

APPENDIX

THE FOUR SONS  [K'NEGGED ARBA BANIM..]

 

        Are the 'Four Sons' really in the Bible?

When we quote that Midrash at the Seder, we certainly get
that impression, for the Haggada quotes a pasuk from
Chumash as the source for each son.  However, when you
take a closer look at that Midrash, you'll immediately
notice that when it does quote Chumash, it doesn't seem to
be very 'accurate'.

 

So, is the Midrash wrong?

Of course not!  However, to appreciate its message - the
reader must realize that this Midrash is not explaining
Chumash, rather it is using psukim from Chumash to develop
a beautiful message.  [Quite often, that's what Midrash is
all about!]

 

Therefore, to uncover the deeper meaning of the Midrash of
the Four Sons, we will first study "pshat" to find the
'real' reason for why there are 'four sons' in the
Chumash; that will enable us to appreciate what Chazal
intended to teach us by way of their beautiful "drash".

[It should be noted that the Midrash of the four sons that
we quote in the Hagadda is actually a Mechilta, and also
found in the Talmud Yerushalmi - See Haggadah Shlayma by
Rav Kasher for complete set of sources and versions.]

 

INTRODUCTION

Let's begin by quoting the opening line of this Midrash,
and translating it into English:

        "Keneged arba'ah banim dibberah Torah"

               [Corresponding to Four Sons - the Torah
spoke]

1) echad chacham - the wise son;

2) ve'echad rasha - the wicked son; 

3) echad tam - the simple son; 

4) ve'echad she'eino yodea lish'ol

                   - the son who doesn't know how to ask:


 

        The Midrash continues by quoting a question for
each son -from the four instances in the Torah when a
father answers his son [i.e. when a parent answers his
child].

As it is commonly presumed that these four quotes all
pertain to questions about Passover - the assumption is
that it would have been enough had the Torah only recorded
only one 'question and answer'.  But when we notice that
the Torah provides us with four different versions of
'questions and answers' - we assume that each version
'corresponds' to a different type of son.  Based on this
understanding, the Torah is simply providing us with
'prepared answers' for four different personalities of
children.

 

This also seems to be what the Midrash implies by its
opening statement "k'negged arba banim dibra Torah" - that
the four times that the Torah discusses a parent answering
a child - 'corresponds' to these four types of children.

        However, to our surprise, when we compare the
answers given by the Haggada to these four questions - to
the answers provided in Chumash, we find many
discrepancies! 

Therefore, this original assumption must be incorrect!
[Unless we conclude that the Haggada isn't quoting Chumash
properly - which obviously cannot be.]

 

In the following shiur, we will first study the various
psukim that this Midrash quotes, while paying careful
attention to their original context.  By doing so, we hope
to arrive at a deeper understanding of its message.

 

COMPARING ANSWERS

        As we explained, the four questions are direct
quotes from Chumash, however - the answers that the
Haggada provides are very different than those given by
Chumash.

To illustrate this, let's compare these answers - one
question at a time, noting the obvious differences:

 

** The WISE son's question:

"Mah ha'edot vehachukkim vehamishpatim asher tzivah Hashem
Elokeinu etchem" ?    [What are the laws... that God has
commanded us?]   (see Devarim 6:20)

 

Answer in Chumash:

"avadim ha'yinu l'pharoh b'mitzraim ...." [ Tell your son:
We were once slaves to Pharoah and God took us out etc...]

               (see Devarim 6:21-25 for the full answer)

 

Answer in Haggada:

" Ve'af attah emor lo khilchot hapesach, ein maftirim
achar hapesach afikoman."  [Teach him the laws of the
pesach... -most likely this refers to the tenth chapter of
Mesechet Pesachim - teach him until the last mishna re:
afikomen ]

 

 

** The WICKED son's question:

        "Mah ha'avodah hazot lachem?" 

        [What's this service to you?]

 

Answer in Chumash:

"v'amar'tem zevach pesach hu l'Hashem asher pa'sach  al
batei bnei Yisrael b'Mitzraim..."  [Tell your son that
this is the Pascal offering - for God had passed over our
houses when He smote the Egyptians..." (see Shmot 12:27) 

 

Answer in Haggada:

"v'af atta hakheh et shinnav ve'emor lo:'ba'avur zeh asah
Hashem li betzeiti m'Mitzraim' ... [Even you should break
his teeth - and tell him if people like him were living at
that time - he would not have been worthy of
redemption...]

 

 

 

** The SIMPLE son's question:

         " Mah zot?"   - What is this [about]?

 

Answer in Chumash:

"Bechozek yad hotzi'anu Hashem m'Mitzrayim m'beit avadim.
V'yhi ki hiyksha Pharoh l'shalcheinu -va'yaharog kol bchor
b'eretz Mitzraim, m'bchor adam ad bchor b'haymah" - [God
took us out of Egypt from the house of slavery, and when
He took us out, God killed their first born... and
therefore I am dedicating the first born of every womb to
God..." 

                                                (see Shmot
13:14-16) 

Answer in Haggada:

"Bechozek yad hotzi'anu Hashem m'Mitzraim mibeit avadim."
- God took us out of Egypt with an outstretched Hand -
[but nothing more! In other words, we only quote the first
phrase of the answer.] 

 

 

** The son WHO DOESN'T KNOW TO ASK' 

 question:  XXX

        As there is no question in Chumash, the Midrash
only quotes the Torah's answer of "vehiggadta livincha
bayom hahu lemor, 'ba'avur zeh asa Hashem li betzeiti
mimitzrayim.'"  (see Shmot 13:8).  Therefore, the Midrash
cannot provide a different answer, since the question (or
lack of one) is implicit from the answer. 

Instead, the Midrash notes this instance in Chumash where
we are commanded to explain something to our children,
even though it was not preceded by a question.  The
Midrash identifies this son as the one who doesn't know
how to ask.  

[As there is only an answer, we can not expect to find a
discrepancy between Chumash and the Haggada for this son.]

 

        This simple comparison between the first three of
the four sons, immediately confirms that the answers in
Chumash are very different than those in the Haggada.

 

        So why can't the Midrash quote Chumash correctly? 

 

DIFFERENT TOPICS or DIFFERENT SONS

        The reason why is rather simple.  If we examine
these four questions in Chumash, and study their context,
we will indeed find four questions, but each question
relates to a different TOPIC - not to a different son! 

 

        To prove this, let's return to each question,
noting its context in Chumash: [Be sure to have a Chumash
handy, to follow along.]

 

The WISE son's 'topic': the ENTIRE TORAH

        Take a quick glance at Devarim chapter six, noting
how it introduces a complete set of laws that Moshe
Rabeinu is about to teach.  See 6:1, note also 5:1, 5:28,
and especially 4:45 - as they are all psukim that
introduce this same set of laws.  Note as well that the
psukim that we say every day in Shema (4:4-8) are part of
this same introduction.

 

        As this set of laws that Moshe is teaching will
continue for some twenty chapters (from chapter 6 thru
26), the opening section deals with the underlying reason
for these laws.  In this context, Moshe Rabeinu
'anticipates' in 6:20:

"Should your child ask you: 'what [is the reason for]
these 'eidot chukim u'mishpatim' that God is commanding
us?"

               (see 6:20/ compare with 4:45!)

 

Then, the Torah tells us to answer our child as follows:

"We were once slaves in Egypt, but God took us out with a
strong arm... and God took us out - in order to bring us
to the land that He promised to our forefathers.  And He
commanded us to keep these laws to fear Him, and for our
own good... " (see Devarim 6:21-25)

 

 

        Obviously, this 'question & answer' has nothing to
do with the personality of any type of son.  [If any, it
sounds more like a 'wise guy' asking, more so than a 'wise
son'!]

In fact, this question sounds like a very logical one that
almost any child will (and should) ask, when confronted
with the obligation to keep a complete set of laws that
govern every walk of life.  Furthermore, this question is
not about the Seder, nor about Passover!  It's a question
about the very reason for why we are charged to keep the
entire Torah!

[Note how in the Haggada we use the first line of this
answer ("avadim hayinu...")  to answer the "mah nishtana".
Based on the context of these psukim, it is a very
meaningful starting point to begin our explanation for the
Exodus in Maggid.]

 

The WICKED son's 'topic': KORBAN PESACH

        Return now to Sefer Shmot chapter 12, and take a
quick glance noting how it begins with "Parshat
ha'Chodesh" (12:1-20), - that describes the laws of the
'korban Pesach' in Egypt; and continues with Moshe
Rabeinu's instructions to the people (see 12:21-28),
including the commandment to offer a similar 'korban
Pesach' on a yearly basis, once they arrive in the Land of
Israel (see 12:23-26).  In that context, we find yet
another very logical question, that any son could (and
should) ask: 

"When you come to the land... keep this service [of korban
Pesach] - and it shall come to pass when your children
will ask you: 'What is [the purpose] of this service to
you' - then you shall explain: ' This is a Passover
offering for God, [to remember how] He passed over the
houses of Israel, when He smote the Egyptians..."  (see
12:24-27)

 

        Once again, a very logical question, followed by a
very logical answer, concerning the topic of KORBAN
PESACH.

        Without 'reading in' to the words of this
question, there is no reason to assume that Chumash is
talking about a 'wicked son'.  In fact, it seems that
Chumash expects (and wants) our children to ask this
question!

 

The SIMPLE son's 'topic': KEDUSHAT BECHOR

        Let's continue our study by jumping to Shmot
chapter 13, noting the parshia that begins in 13:11 (thru
13:16), that records the laws relating to "kedushat
bechor" [the holiness of the first born] - that the first
born of both humans and animals should be dedicated to the
service of God (see 13:11-13).  

At the conclusion of those laws, the Torah anticipates
once again a question from an inquisitive child, this time
asking "mah zot"  -[what is this all about (see 13:14).
As this question concerns specifically the topic of the
'first-born' - the Torah proposes an answer that relates
exactly to that question:

"And tell him [your son] - God took us out of Egypt from
the house of slavery, and when He took us out, God killed
their first born...  therefore I am dedicating the male
first born of every womb to God..." (see 13:15-16) 

 

Once again, the topic is not about the Seder or Passover;
rather the topic is "kedushat bechor".  Indeed, this time
the question is much shorter than in the first two
instances; nonetheless - the reason for this additional
question is because of the additional topic - and not
necessary because he is a 'simple son'.  

 

The DOESN'T KNOW TO ASK son's 'topic': EATING MATZA

Let's return now to the beginning of Shmot chapter 13, and
quickly review from 13:3-8, noting how these psukim
discuss the commandment to remember the Exodus by eating
matza for seven days (and by not eating chametz).

[Note as well how 13:1-2 actually belongs with 13:11-15 -
a topic that was discussed in our shiur on Parshat Bo; but
beyond the scope of this shiur.]  

 

        After detailing the laws concerning eating matza
for seven days, while not owning or seeing any chametz
(see 13:6-7), the Torah concludes with a commandment that
we must explain why to our children even if they don't
ask:

"And you shall tell you son on that day, for the sake of
this [matza] God did for me [these miracles] when I went
out of Egypt" (see 13:8)

 

        The commandment to remember the Exodus is so
important that Chumash demands that we explain why to our
children, even if they don't ask.  In "pshat", this
doesn't imply that we are dealing with a child that
doesn't know how to ask; it is simply because this mtizva
is of cardinal importance! 

[This is supported by Rashi & Ibn Ezra's interpretation -
that this pasuk implies that we explain to our children
that God took us out of Egypt in order that would be able
to keep all of His mitzvot!.]

 

To summarize our study, the following table summarizes how
the four instances in Chumash where the father answers his
son relates to a unique topic, even each topic does relate
in one form or another to the Exodus.

 

QUESTION             CONTEXT                      TOPIC

 =========            ========                      =====

Shmot 12:26           12:21-28                Korban
PESACH. 

 

Shmot 13:8             13:3-10                  Chag
HaMATZOT.

 

Shmot 13:14           3:11-16                  Ke'dushat
BCHOR.

 

Devarim 6:20, 6:1-25                    ALL the MITZVOT 

 

        None of these questions are 'superfluous', as each
question deals with a specific topic.  Therefore,
according to 'pshat' there is no necessity to relate these
four questions to four different types of children, rather
- there are four questions in Chumash because there are
four topics in Chumash! 

        Could it be that the Midrash is unaware that each
question relates to a different topic? 

 

We posit exactly the opposite - that the Midrash is fully
aware of the "pshat" and expects that the reader is
intelligent enough to figure it out on his own.  However,
as is often the case, the Midrash is not coming to teach
us the "pshat" of Chumash, rather it is 'using' psukim in
Chumash to convey a thought; or in our case - an
educational message.

        In our specific case, the Midrash of the 'Four
Sons' is interested in giving over an insight relating to
education, a thought that carries special significance at
the Seder, following the guideline of the Mishna that:

"k'daat ha'ben, aviv m'lamdo" - According to the level of
the son - the father should teach (or tell over) the
story.

(see Mesechet Pesachim - 10th chapter)

 

        The Midrash wishes to expound upon this
educational principle.  In a very clever style, the
Midrash first 'borrows' the four questions mentioned in
Chumash when a father answers his son, quoting them
totally out of their original context, and turning them
into questions about the Seder.

As the original wording of each of these four questions in
Chumash is quite different, the Midrash utilizes this to
attach an identity to each question, conforming to four
different types of children.  

Then, to convey its educational message, the Midrash
composes a special answer for each son, which relates
specifically to his personality (and not to its original
topic in Chumash).  

For example, in the wise son's question, the phrase "mah
ha'eidot" is interpreted as 'what are the laws' [of the
Seder], while in Chumash it means 'what is the purpose of
these laws' [of the entire Torah].  Therefore, the answer
to this question in the Haggada is totally different than
the answer in Chumash.

Similarly, to turn the wicked son's question into a real
'wicked son' - the Haggada must first add some inflection
into his voice, making the word "lachem" ['for you'] more
emphatic - to emphasize his attitude problem.  Therefore,
the answer once again is not the same as the one in
Chumash, instead the Midrash 'borrows' its wording from
elsewhere in Chumash: "ba'avur zeh asa Hashem LI"  (see
Shmot 13:8) - once again adding inflection, this time
emphasizing the word "li" - for ME and not for YOU.

For the simple son's question "mah zot" [What is this?] -
the Midrash finds no need to make an alteration.  However,
since this question in the Midrash is about the Seder, it
truncates the answer provided by Chumash (about kedushat
bechor), quoting only the first phrase - in order to keep
it short, and relevant only to the Seder (see 13:14-15!).

In essence, the Midrash provides us with four examples of
how to 'read between the lines' of a question in order to
discern the character of the son who is asking.

 

FOR PARENTS & TEACHERS

        In real life, when the parent hears the question
of a child; or when the teacher hears the question of a
student; he must listen carefully not to the QUESTION, but
also to the PERSON behind the question.  To answer a
question properly, the parent must not only understand the
question, but must also be aware of the motivation behind
it.  Hence, his answer must not only be accurate, but also
appropriate, as it must relate to the child's character
while taking into account his spiritual needs. 

        The parent (and teacher) must listen carefully to
the voice behind the question, evaluate and answer
appropriately. When necessary he can even innovate, just
as the Midrash does!

 

        This message conveyed by the Midrash of 'the Four
Sons' in the Haggada is not only the responsibility of
every parent, but also the challenge of every teacher.
Understanding it correctly enables us to pass down our
tradition from father to son, our heritage from generation
to generation; certainly a Midrash worth quoting at our
Seder Table.  

 

                                              chag
samayach,

 
menachem

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: magid3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 113894 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090408/20fb1f0f/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Apr  8 07:25:10 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 07:25:10 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Source sheets for MAGID - Part III
Message-ID: <20090408111031.DA650BC56B8@out5.bezeqint.net>

Attached in PDF format
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TH105formated.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 114088 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090408/502d9bf7/attachment-0002.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: magid3sources.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 221795 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090408/502d9bf7/attachment-0003.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Apr 12 16:00:29 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:00:29 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Shmini - Questions for self study
Message-ID: <20090413025453.E3FF85E0D07@out3.bezeqint.net>

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

PARSHAT SHMINI  

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

CHET NADAV & AVIHU  (and a little 'methodology')
1.  The most 'popular' topic in this week's Parsha is the
sin of Nadav and Avihu.  If you are indeed discussing this
at the 'shabbos table', ask anyone who is listening (or at
least yourself): to the best of your recollection - what
did Nadav and Avihu do wrong?
[Most likely you will hear several different answers.  If
so, before you continue, try to explain why everyone has
heard so many different answers.]

2.  Now, ask yourself a different question.  In your
opinion, to what degree was their 'sin' intentional, i.e:
(a) Were they totally aware that they were about to do
something wrong, but intentionally did it anyhow? 
    [what we call 'meizid'.]
(b) Did they unintentionally do something wrong, but could
(and should) have been more careful?
[what we call 'shogeg'.]
(c) Did they have good intentions (i.e. they intended to
do something that they thought was good - sort of like
Aharon's original intentions at 'chet ha-egel'), but
unfortunately it was something that they did not realize
was forbidden?
   [what we call a 'tragedy'.]
   
    Return now to the various answers (i.e. what their sin
was) that you may have raised in question #1.  Categorize
those answers according to these three possibilities.

3.  Return now to these three possibilities:
	Considering Nadav & Avinu's punishment, which
possibility seems to be the most logical one?
	Can you suggest a reason why their punishment may
have been so severe, even if their sin was not
intentional?
	[Relate to both when and where their sin takes
place.]
  
4.  Review 8:1-5 and 9:1-6.  As you study and compare
these two sets of psukim, note how Nadav & Avihu's sin
takes place at a 'public gathering' - called to celebrate
the dedication of the Mishkan.  Considering this 'setting'
- that their sin takes place during a ceremony that was
attended by the entire nation, can you suggest a reason
for the severity of their punishment (even had their
intentions been good)?
	In your answer, relate to the phrase "asher lo
tzivah otam" (10:1) in contrast to the phrase "ka'asher
tziva Hashem et Moshe" that is repeated so often in the
Torah's description of the assembly of the Mishkan in
Parshat Pekudei. [For example, see that phrase in Shmot
40:16,19,21,23,25,27,29,32, while noting how the events in
Vayikra chapter 9 take place on the same day as the events
in Shmot chapter 40, i.e. the day of the dedication of the
Mishkan.  Note as well a similar phrase in Vayikra
8:5,9,13,17,21,29,36 and 9:6!

5.  Next, before we discuss the various opinions of the
commentators (and in order to appreciate the various
opinions), review 9:23 thru10:20, paying attention to how
the Torah tells the story Nadav & Avihu's sin and its
aftermath.  Based on these psukim alone, attempt to
determine on your own what it was that Nadav and Avihu's
did that angered God. 
	How do we know for sure that they sinned?
    In your answer, relate to 10:3, as well as to the
'inserted' 'parshia' from 10:8-11.
	Do the psukim tell us precisely what it was that
they did wrong?  Do they at least 'hint' to what was done
incorrectly?

6.  Next, see Vayikra 16:2 and Bamidbar 3:4 & 26:21.  Do
these psukim add any information that we were not aware of
in Parshat Shmini?  How can they shed light on any of your
answers to the above questions?
	Now, let's study the various interpretations
raised by the classic commentators:

7.  See Rashi on 10:2, noting how he quotes the two
opinions found in Eiruvin 63a [i.e. disrespect to their
elders, or entering the mishkan in a state of
drunkenness].  What is the 'textual basis' for each of
these two opinions?  
	In your opinion, are these two opinions based on
thematic considerations supported by a textual 'nuance',
or visa versa?  
    How would Rashi answer our question in relation to
their intentions (see question #2 above)?
See also Chizkuni on 10:1-3, noting how he also relates to
the two opinions of Chazal (quoted by Rashi), and how he
uses them to provide a very interesting explanation of
these psukim.

8.  Next, see Ibn Ezra, noting how he explains explicitly
that Nadav and Avihu had good intentions.  Nonetheless,
they were punished.  Does he explain why?  [Again, relate
to question #2 above.]  Relate this to Ibn Ezra's
explanation of Aharon's behavior at "chet ha-egel" and the
phrase "asher lo tziva Hashem" in 10:1.
	Can you explain why Ibn Ezra does not quote Rashi
(i.e. either opinion of Chazal)?

9.  Next, see Ramban on 10:1.  Note how his interpretation
is based primarily on his textual analysis of 10:1 itself
(and the obvious parallel to the laws of the mizbach
ktoret in Shmot 30:9).  Note as well how Ramban focuses on
the 'fire' aspect, in both 10:1 and 10:2, and less so in
regard to the 'ktoret' itself. 
	How would Ramban answer question #2 above (re:
their intentions)?  Can you explain why?
	In your opinion, why do you think that Ramban does
not quote Rashi (either to agree or disagree with the two
opinions in Chazal - or even Ibn Ezra) before he offers
his own interpretation?  [What can we infer from this in
regard to Ramban's methodology when he studied Chumash?]
	Now, see Ramban on 10:3, noting how he quotes
Chazal on a different issue, and Ibn Ezra; and explains
why he disagrees.  
[See footnotes on Ramban 10:1 in either Torat Chaim or
Chavell editions, noting how they explain that Ramban is
alluding to concepts in 'kabbala' in this interpretation.]

10.  See Seforno on 10:1, noting how he bases in
interpretation on the juxtaposition in Sefer Shmot between
the laws of the daily olah offering (see Shmot 29:38-42)
and the laws of the mizbach ha-ktoret (see Shmot 30:1-10).

    Note as well how Seforno claims that not only did
Nadav and Avihu have good intentions, they even based
their actions on their own understanding of this
juxtaposition of psukim!
	First of all, relate this to question #2 above!
	In what manner is Seforno's interpretation similar
to Ramban's, and in what manner is his interpretation
different?
[Recall our TSC shiur on Parshat Tetzaveh, in relation to
the location of the laws of mizbach ha-ktoret (in Shmot
30:1-9) after the completion of the 'Shchina' unit
(chapters 25 thru 29), and hence the ketoret serves as
protection from the "shechina".  Relate the conclusions of
that shiur to Seforno's interpretation!]

	Finally, note how Seforno concludes his
interpretation, claiming that this action is precisely
what Chazal refer to (i.e. R. Eliezer's opinion) that
'they taught a law without consulting Moshe' (quoted by
Rashi on 10:2).  
    However, the Gemara in Eiruvin appears to provide a
different explanation (re: to 'even though fire comes from
heaven, it is a mitzva to bring our own fire as well').
In your opinion, would Seforno agree with that
interpretation as well, or is he offering a different
explanation for R. Eliezer's opinion?
	
11.  In regard to these various opinions, can you explain
why the various commentators search for additional or
different reasons for Nadav and Avihu's sin, even though
there are already two answers provided by Chazal?  
[Note how some of the parshanim attempt to connect their
own explanation to that of Chazal's (e.g. Chizkuni and
Seforno) in an attempt to add insight to what Chazal said;
while others will offer a completely different
interpretation, as long as it based on a thorough analysis
of the psukim (Ibn Ezra and Ramban).  As you study these
commentators, keep this in mind; and see if this pattern
continues!]

12.  For 'afikomen', see Rashbam on 10:1.  Note how he
provides a very clear and concise explanation for what
Nadav and Avihu did wrong (even though they may have had
good intentions).  Note as well how and why he explains
that 10:1 should be understood as 'past perfect' (i.e.
10:1 took place before 9:24), as the fire in 9:24 and 10:2
is the same!
	Then, see Rashbam on 10:2-3 where he explains this
in greater detail, and note how he beautifully explains
10:3, even though this pasuk (at first glance) appears to
be rather cryptic.
 	Note how Rashbam bases his interpretation on the
laws of Vayikra 21:10-12 (assuming that Aharon was already
aware of those laws -as they were given at an earlier
time).  What major assumption does Rashbam make in regard
to these psukim (that is not written)?  What does he gain
by making this assumption?
	Would you agree that Rashbam's interpretation is
the simple 'pshat' of these difficult psukim?  Explain why
yes, or why not!

THE OHEL MO'ED / OLD & NEW
1.  Recall from Parshat Ki Tisa that in the aftermath of
chet ha-egel, Moshe moved his tent to 'outside the camp'
[read Shmot 33:7, noting its context in 33:1-12].  In that
pasuk, how does the Torah refer to Moshe's tent?  Can you
explain why the Torah chose this specific name - "ohel
moed" - to describe his tent?
	To the best of your recollection, does Moshe's
tent ever return to 'inside' the camp? If so, when?
[Relate to Shmot 25:8.]

2. How does this name 'ohel mo'ed' (n 33:7) relate to the
fact that later on the mishkan is also referred to as an
ohel mo'ed? 
	Note the translation of Unkelos for the word "ohel
mo'ed" in Shmot 33:7 and then in Shmot 40:1,34,35, etc. Is
it the same or different? Can you explain why?
	What is the 'shoresh' [root] of the Hebrew word
'mo'ed'?  Relate to the Hebrew word 'va'ad' or 'va'ada' (a
committee - in modern Hebrew).  Relate also to Shmot 25:22
and 29:42-43!

3.  If the word "moed" implies 'metting', 'who would be
meeting whom' in the "ohel moed"?  
    Why is the word "mo'ed" also used to describe a
'yom-tov', as in Vayikra 23:1-4 and Shmot 23:17?  In that
context, does it relate to a 'meeting' of any sort?  If
so, who is meeting whom?
	Based on this discussion, how would you explain
the word 'mo'adim' in the phrase "ve-hayu le-otot
u-lemo'adim..." in Breishit 1:14?  In that pasuk, does
"moed" imply 'meetings' or 'holidays'?

KASHRUT OR KEDUSHA?
4.  How would you title the entire section of laws
recorded in chapter 11 (at the end of Parshat Shmini? In
your answer, relate to the summary psukim in 11:43-47.  
    If these laws are more than just 'kashrut' [i.e. the
laws that define what animal are kosher], then explain
what the more general title should be, and why this
section does includes certain laws pertaining to what we
refer to as "kashrut".  [In your answer, relate to what
happens if someone eats an animal that is not 'kosher'.]
	Compare these psukim to the laws in Devarim
14:3-21.  Do the psukim in Devarim deal only with kashrut
or is there a more general topic there as well?  
    In what manner is the section in Devarim different
than the one in Vayikra?  [Relate to the difference
between the primary themes of Vayikra and Devarim.]
========

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
The Special Korbanot of Yom ha'Shmini
1.  Review 9:1-6, noting how these psukim introduce the
special ceremony that is to take place on yom ha-shmini -
the day of the mishkan's dedication.  Based on these
psukim, in your opinion, what will be the 'highlight' of
this ceremony?  [Relate to 9:5-6 & 9:22-24.]
    How does this 'highlight' relate to the special set of
korbanot that are to be offered on this day, as described
in 9:1-4?

2. In what manner does this special ceremony on Yom
ha'Shmini parallel the events that took place at Har
Sinai?  [In your answer, relate to Shmot 24:1-17,
especially to 24:5-6 and 24:15-16.]
    How (and why) is this parallel significant?  [Relate
your answer to the first Ramban on Parshat Teruma (Shmot
25:1)].
	In what manner do these korbanot, as detailed in
9:2-4, relate to the sin of the Golden Calf?  Relate to
both their category (i.e. olah, chatat etc.), and the
specific animal. 

3.  Review 9:1-4 once again, and make a chart of all of
the special korbanot that were to be offered on yom
ha-shmini.
	Organize your chart according to:
	a)  the korbanot of Aharon vs. korbanot of the
people,
 &	b)  korbanot olah, chatat, and shlamim.

	Then, using that chart as a base, compare these
korbanot to the korbanot that were offered:
	a)  during the 7 day milu'im ceremony (see Vayikra
8:1-36)
	b)  at 'brit na'aseh ve-nishma' at Har Sinai
(Shmot 24:4-6)
	c)  yearly on Yom Kippur based on Vayikra 16:1-5.
	d)  yearly on Shavuot with the 'shtei ha-lechem'
(23:17-19).
While doing so, relate to:
	who must bring each korban (Aharon or the people);
	what categories of korbanot are offered;
    What specific animal is offered for the korban. 
    [Note that an 'egel' is a baby 'par'; & a 'keves' is a
baby 'ayil'.]
			
    Attempt to explain the thematic significance of these
parallels (i.e. between the korbanot of yom ha-shmini; Yom
Kippur and Mamad Har Sinai) while relating to 9:4-6 &
9:23-24.
    Relate as well  to Shmot 24:9-11, 24:15-17, and
40:34-38.

5. In what manner does this day (i.e. yom ha-shmini)
coincide with the day of 'hakamat ha-mishkan', as
described in Shmot 40:1-2, and 40:38? 
	In your opinion, which of the korbanot offered on
yom ha-shimini relate directly to the events of Ma'amad
Har Sinai, and which korbanot relate to the events at chet
ha-egel.
	Which of these aspects do we find in the korbanot
offered on Yom Kippur, and which of these aspects do we
find in the special korbanot offered on Shavuot (in
Vayikra 23:17-21)?

    What event at Ma'amad Har Sinai is parallel to Vayikra
9:23? 
	What event (and/or warning) at Har Sinai is
parallel to Vayikra 10:1-2?  [Relate to Shmot 19:20-24.]

6. Based on that parallel, attempt to explain why are
Nadav & Avihu punished, even though they may have had good
intentions?   [See Chizkuni on Vayikra 10:3!]
	Based on our TSC shiur on Parshat Tetzaveh, why do
you think that Nadav & Avihu thought that it was necessary
to offer ktoret when they saw the "shchina" descending
unto the Mishkan?   [See Seforno on Vayikra 10:1.]
	In what manner is their sin similar to Aharon's
sin at chet ha-egel?  In your answer, relate to the last
phrase in Vayikra 10:1.

========

PART III - PARSHANUT

AHARON'S SPECIAL KORBAN
1.  As you may recall, Parshat Shmini opens by telling us
that Aharon must offer an "egel" [a calf] for a korban
chatat on yom ha-shmini, as it was the first day that he
officiated in the mishkan (see 9:1-2).  In your opinion,
why must Aharon offer specifically an 'egel' for his
chatat on this day?  
	Relate to the fact that during each of the seven
days of milu'im that preceded yom ha-shmini, Aharon
offered a par for a chatat.  [btw, an egel (calf) is a
baby par (bull).]

	Now see Rashi on 9:2.  How does he answer this
question? 
	You may have understood that Rashi explains that
Aharon brings an egel as he needs forgiveness ['kapara']
for his sin at chet ha-egel.  [It's only an assumption,
but 95% of the time that I have asked this question in
class, that is the answer that everyone gives.]

	Now, read this Rashi once again, this time
carefully.  Explain why Rashi begins his commentary with
the phrase: "lehodi'a..." [to make it publicly known...].
Attempt to arrive at a more precise understanding of how
Rashi relates this egel to chet ha-egel.  Can you explain
why?  In your answer, relate to Rashi's explanation for
why Aharon had to bring a par for his chatat during each
of the seven days of the milu'im.
	Then, see Rashi on Shmot 29:1-2, where he explains
why Aharon must offer a par on each day of the seven day
milu'im.  Note how this explanation is different than his
explanation for the egel on yom ha-shmini.  Can you
explain why?

	Next, see Chizkuni.  Is his peirush the same as
Rashi's or different?  [See also Ibn Ezra.]  How do they
both relate to the difference between the 'par la-chatat'
during the 7 day milu'im, and the 'egel la-chatat' on yom
ha-shmini?  How does Rashi relate to this?
	Then, see Ramban on this topic / in his commentary
to 9:2 towards the end - "ve-hinei ha-korbanot
ha-eilu...", and note how and why he argues with Rashi.
How does he explain why Aharon must bring a par during the
seven day milu'im?
	Can you explain the reason for these respective
opinions of Rashi & Ramban?  Be sure to relate to their
controversy concerning when chet ha-egel took place, i.e.
before the commandment to build the mishkan (Rashi) or
afterwards (Ramban).  [Finally, see Tanchuma on Vayikra
9:2.]

WHAT CAUSED THE SHCHINA TO APPEAR?
2.  As you review the opening psukim of the Parsha
(9:1-6), note how God informs Moshe that 'kvod Hashem'
would appear - once Aharon & Bnei Yisrael would offer a
certain set of korbanot.  [Note especially 9:4 & 9:6, in
their context.] 
	Then, quickly review 9:6-24, noting how these
commandments are fulfilled.  Based on the concluding
psukim of chapter 9, did "kvod Hashem" appear immediately
upon the completion of these sacrifices, or did something
else happen in between? 
    If there was a need for something additional, can you
explain why?  In your answer, relate to 9:23!
	Then, see Rashi, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra and Chizkuni on
9:23, and enjoy!

THE FIRST OR EIGHTH OF NISAN?
3.  On what day of the month (of Nissan) did yom ha-shmini
take place?  Consider the following sources:
	Shmot chapter 40, especially 40:2,17,34-35.
	Vayikra 1:1-2; 7:37->8:4; 8:33->9:5
	Bamidbar 7:1-11,88-89.
[Note, that since yom ha-shmini was preceded by the seven
day 'milu'im' ceremony, then it depends if the seven day
milu'im began with the erection of the mishkan by Moshe on
the first of Nissan as described in Shmot 40:1-2,17 or 7
days earlier on the 23rd of Adar. ]
	This is a very complicated sugya, and the source
for a major controversy among the commentators.  Be sure
to see:
	Rashi on Vayikra 9:1 and Vayikra 8:2
	Ibn Ezra (aroch) & Ramban on Shmot 40:1!
	Ramban on Vayikra 8:2 !
	

	
be-hatzlacha,
						menachem



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shminiq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 35961 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090412/6159c211/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Apr 13 13:01:31 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:01:31 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Shvii shel Pesach - Questions for self study
Message-ID: <20090413164818.4FAAA28378@out6.bezeqint.net>

**********************************************************
***
     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 -  Questions  for self study
  
1.  Even though the last day of 'Passover' is often
referred
to as "shvii shel Pesach", in Chumash - that name never
appears.   Before you prepare the following questions
(that
will point you to every instance when this holiday is
described in the Torah), attempt to answer the following:
  To the best of your recollection, why is [what we call]
Passover a SEVEN day holiday?  Does Chumash itself give a
reason why the holiday last seven days, and why on the
final
day all work is forbidden?
     If so, where, and what is that reason?
     If not, can you explain why no reason is given?
     Are there any other holidays mentioned in Chumash
that
last for seven days?  If so, does Chumash explain why
those
holidays last for specifically seven days?
  To the best of your recollection, where is the FIRST
mention
of the seven days of 'Passover' in Chumash?
     Was it before or after Bnei Yisrael leave Egypt?
     Was it before or after Bnei Yisrael crossed the Red
Sea?

2.  Next, quickly review Shmot 12:1-20, paying careful
attention to 12:14-20, noting how this section describes
the
instructions that God had given Moshe.
  Then, quickly review from 12:21-13:10, paying careful
attention to 13:3-8, and noting how that it is only after
they
leave Egypt that Bnei Yisrael hear this mitzvah to eat
matza
for seven days (and celebrate the seventh day as a
holiday).
     According to these sources, what seems to be the
primary
mitzvah (or mitzvot) that must be kept for these seven
days?
Be sure that you can explain Shmot 12:17 (noting its
tense)!
     In these sources, does Chumash provide a reason for
why
we must keep these mitzvot relating to matza & chametz?
Does
it include an explanation why these mitzvot must be kept
for
seven days?

3. Review Shmot 23:14-17, and in its context (beginning
from
Shmot 23:10 thru 23:19).
     Is this the same chag ha'matzot as mentioned in
chapter
12?
     [What does "ka'asher tziviticha" in 23:15 refer to?]
     If so, can you explain why this law is repeated here
in
Parshat Mishpatim? [Is there a new context?]
     In your answer, relate this to the topic of "knisah
la'aretz" - that begins in 23:20 and the original plan
that
Bnei Yisrael were about to enter the land immediately
after
they received God's mitzvot at Har Sinai.

4. Next, review Shmot 34:18-26, and its context within
chapter
34.  In what manner is this similar to 23:14-19, and in
what
manner are these laws different?
     Can you explain why (based on chet ha'egel)?
     [Relate to the addition of "kedushat bchor" in 34:19.
     Relate this as well to Shmot 13:1-14!]

5. Review Vayikra chapter 23 (Parshat Emor), especially
the
laws of chag ha'matzot in 23:4-8, and the laws of the Omer
in
23:9-15.
     Are these the same laws that were already mentioned
in
Sefer Shmot?  If so, can you explain why they are
repeated?
     Are there any 'new' laws in Vayikra chapter 23
concerning
Pesach and chag ha'matzot that were not mentioned in Sefer
Shmot.  If so, what are they?  Can you explain why they
are
recorded specifically at this point in Sefer Vayikra?  In
your
answer, relate to the topic of chapter 23, and its context
within Sefer Vayikra.

6. Next, review Bamidbar 28:15-25, i.e. laws of Pesach in
Parshat Pinchas.  [What we read for the last aliyah every
day
of Pesach.]
     As above, what laws are added, and what laws are
repeated
in this section?
     Relate this to the context of Bamidbar chapters
28->29!

7. Finally, see Devarim 16:1-8, regarding the laws of
Pesach.
     Once again, what laws are added, and what laws are
the
same as were found in Shmot, Vayikra, and Bamidbar?
     Relate your answer to primary topic of Devarim
chapter
16, i.e. "aliyah la'reglel la'Makom asher Yivchar Hashem".
     Note how this "parshia" puts an emphasis on the need
to
offer the korban Pesach ONLY in the "makom asher yivchar
Hashem"?  [Relate this as well to the primary topic of
Devarim
chapter 12.]
     Can you explain why it would be logical to think
otherwise, based on Shmot 12:1-14 and 13:3-8!  Relate to
how
the "korban Pesach" is different than all other "korbanot"
(in
relation to how and why it was first offered, and the
punishment warned for those who do not offer it!

8. Note Devarim 16:8. Can you recall any other pasuk (or
psukim) in Chumash that sound similar?  If so, can you
explain
the nature of this parallel?
  [If you give up, try Vayikra 23:1-3 and Shmot 35:1-4!]
  Attempt to explain how this parallel may relate to WHY
chag
  ha'matzot is celebrated for SEVEN days?

     Would this have anything to do with the agricultural
time
of the year of Pesach? [Note again Shmot 13:3-5 and
Devarim
16:1!]
     Why would this time of year also relate to the SEVEN
days
of Creation?  [Relate this to the fact that God 'created'
'nature' and how man himself usually relates to nature?!]

9. Review once again Devarim chapter 16, this time noting
how
often the number SEVEN is found in this presentation of
the
"shalosh regalim".
     Note also the dates of the "shalosh regalim" - are
they
lunar days or 'solar' dates (i.e. are the dates based on
the
agricultural seasons)?
     Note also the agricultural mitzvot related to the
chagim
in Vayikra chapter 23.  In what manner to they relate to
SEVEN?
     Can you explain why?
     Is there a holiday in Chumash that doesn't relate in
some
manner or other to the number SEVEN?

10.  Where else in Chumash (beginning with the SEVEN days
of
Creation in Sefer Breishit until Sefer Devarim), do we
find
that the number SEVEN significant?
     Do you think that this is simply coincidental, or is
it
significant?  If so, can you explain why?   [What
vessel(s) in
the Mishkan relate to the number SEVEN? Can you explain
why?]

11. Finally, review Shmot 23:10-19, noting especially the
transition from 23:13 to 23:14, and the relationship of
this
entire parshia to 23:20-24!
     What would be the connection between "shem elohim
acharim
lo tazkiru" in 23:13 and the mitzva of "shalosh regalim
tachog
li" in 23:14?
     How would this relate to the spiritual dangers of
"knisa
la'aretz" [entering the land] as described in Shmot
23:20-32?!

12. Based on all of the above, what would you say is the
PRIMARY purpose of the "shalosh regalim"?
     Can this mitzvah be fulfilled (at least partially)
today,
even without a Bet ha'Mikdash?  If so, explain how!!
  [See for example Mesechet Succah 27b (middle) re:
mitzvah
  l'kabel pnei rabo b'moed..."]

13.  In the Midrash, we find an alternate explanation for
seven days of chag ha'matzot based on the calculation that
the
miracle of "kriyat yam suf"  took place on the seventh day
after Yetziat Mitzraim. Does this reason contradict any of
your conclusions above, or does it complement them?
     In general, can one find both historical reason as
well
as an agricultural purpose in each of the "shalosh
regalim"?
If so, bring examples.

                         b'hatzlacha,
                         & chag samayach
                         menachem

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shviiq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 20002 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090413/80a68e70/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Apr 13 13:09:10 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:09:10 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] For Shvii shel Pesach - shiur #1 - re: Kriyat Yam Suf
Message-ID: <20090413235725.03BA05E0640@out7.bezeqint.net>

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

          re: 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




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shvii2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 29160 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090413/7074a110/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Apr 13 13:11:38 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:11:38 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] For Shvii shel Pesach - shiur #2
Message-ID: <20090413164734.62531B083B4@out4.bezeqint.net>

**********************************************************
***
     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.
-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090413/c6b2ed73/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue Apr 14 09:32:46 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:32:46 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Shmini - shiur
Message-ID: <20090414130658.860C6210407@out8.bezeqint.net>

**********************************************************
***
     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.




-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090414/04d808af/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Apr 20 05:56:23 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 05:56:23 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Tazria/Metzora - questions for self study
Message-ID: <20090420093045.6F164BA61A3@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 PARSHIOT TAZRIA & METZORA

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

TUM'A - CAUSE AND EFFECT
  [As Parshiot Tazria / Metzora deal with the laws of
'tum'a',
  a few general questions to 'think about' on this topic:
  
1.  A very popular translation of the word tum'a is
spiritual
uncleanliness.  Do you agree?  Base your answer on the
various
causes of tum'a described in Vayikra chapters 11, 12, &
13.
     Can you identify any 'physical' reason for tum'a?  If
so,
could this be the only reason?  [Relate to what is
required to
rid oneself from this tum'a.]
     In what manner do the various types of tum'a relate
to
death?  Can you explain why?

2.  Let's say someone is 'tamei' - how does this affect
what
he can or cannot do?  How many of your answers relate in
some
manner to the bet ha-mikdash (or mishkan)?
     Can you explain why?
     Relate to Vayikra 12:4.

3.  [During the time of the Temple], let's say someone was
planning a visit to the bet ha-mikdash - how would these
laws
of tum'a affect his visit?  How would they affect how
'careful' he needs to be already a week before his planned
visit?  How careful must he be on the day of his visit?
[Relate to the causes of 'one-day' tum'a (in chapter 11),
and
'seven-day' tum'a (see Vayikra chapters 12 thru 15).]
     Based on your answer, can you suggest how the laws of
tum'a (i.e. not becoming tamei) may actually enhance the
experience of visiting the bet ha-mikdash?
     [See Seforno on 12:8.]

4.  In regard to the connection between the laws of
"tzaraat"
(in clothing) and the Land of Israel, see Ramban on 14:37.

WHAT'S SPECIAL ABOUT THE NUMBER 'EIGHT'?
               [for shiur on Parshat Tazria]
1.  Both in the beginning of Parshat Shmini and in Parshat
Tazria we find that the number eight (i.e. the eighth day)
is
quite significant.  Can you find a thematic connection
between
these two mitzvot - i.e. between the special events on yom
ha-
shmini in the mishkan and brit mila on the eighth day
after a
child's birth?

2.  Where else in Sefer Vayikra do we find that the
'eighth
day' is significant?  Can you find a connection between
all of
the instances?
  [Be sure to note Vayikra chapter 14, especially
14:10-19,
  Vayikra 22:26-33, and Vayikra 23:33-39.]

3.  Review Breishit 17:1-10 [better known as brit mila].
Does
the Torah explain why brit mila should be performed
specifically on the 'eighth day' (and not earlier or
later)?
Can you suggest any logical (or medical) reason?
     In that narrative of brit mila, i.e. in Breishit
17:3-10
- make special note of the written Name that the Torah
uses to
describe God.  Compare this Name, to the written Name of
God
that the Torah has used up until this point in all of the
prior conversations between God and Avraham Avinu (i.e.
since
chapter 12).

4. Can you explain why specifically the Name Elokim is
used at
brit mila, even though same "Havaya" was consistently used
beforehand?
  Attempt to explain why brit mila is the first time that
we
find shem Elokim speaking to Avraham Avinu - by relating
the
Torah's use of shem Elokim in the story of Creation in
chapter
one!

5.  When earlier in Chumash has the Torah used 'shem
Elokim'
to describe God?  Be sure to relate to Breishit 1:1-2:3
and
9:1-17, and their respective topics!

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
1.  Using a Tanach Koren, make a brief outline of all of
the
parshiot of mitzvot in Sefer Vayikra, beginning with
chapter
10 (i.e. after the death of Nadav & Avihu) until the end
of
chapter 17.  Be sure to use only a one line summary for
each
parshia.
  [Look at the opening psukim of chapter 18 and explain
why we
  concluded our outline with chapter 17.]

2.  Note the 'tiny' narrative that is implicit in the
introductory pasuk to chapter 16 (i.e. 16:1).  Based on
this
short narrative, where in Sefer Vayikra should this
section of
laws (i.e. 'avodat Yom Kippur') have been recorded?  In
your
answer, relate to the events that transpire in chapter 10.
[Is there any obvious reason why the Torah does not record
these laws until chapter 16?]

3.  Is there a common topic for all of the mitzvot from
chapters 11 thru chapter 17?  [In other words, can you
find
one title for this section of your outline?]
     Can you divide the outline into several
sub-categories?
If so, what are they, and what is the logic of flow from
one
topic to the next?  Based on your outline, how 'accurate'
are
the chapter divisions?
     Re: the flow of topic, see Seforno on 11:2 (rather
amazing!) and Rashi & Ibn Ezra on 12:1.
     See also Ramban in his intro to Sefer Vayikra (before
1:1).

4.  In what manner do the mitzvot (in chapters 11-17)
relate
to:
     the korbanot of yom ha-shmini?
     the death of Nadav & Avihu?
     to the mishkan in general?
     to the overall theme of Sefer Vayikra?

5.  Review these chapters one more time, noting the
headers of
each 'dibbur'.
    [i.e. note 10:8,12; 11:1-2; 12:1-2; 13:1; 14:1,33;
15:1-
    2; 16:1-2; 17:1-2.]

  Can you explain to whom each dibbur is directed, and
why?
    [Note both the opening psukim in each dibbur, as well
as
    the 'closing' psukim of each.]
     In your opinion, when were these mitzvot first given
to
Moshe Rabeinu [and/or Aharon]? -
     On Har Sinai?  If so, during which set of forty days?
     From the ohel mo'ed?  If so, on what day?
    [Answer this question for each dibbur / parshia!]

6.  Review now your 'outline' of Sefer Vayikra from
chapter 1
thru chapter 17.  Can you identify a topic that would
include
all of the subtopics in these 17 chapters? [i.e. a common
theme]
     Attempt to explain the logic of the flow from one
topic
to the next?

7.  Based on your outline, in our opinion what is the
primary
topic of chapter 11 - the laws of kashrut, or the laws of
one-
day tum'a?  Explain your answer.
     Compare Vayikra chapter 11 to Devarim 14:3-21.  What
is
the same, and what is different?  Can you explain why?
Relate as well to Shmot 22:30, and to the concept of
tum'a.

8.  As you review your outline, note the differences
between
'one day' tu'ma and 'seven day' tu'ma.  Can you explain
the
difference between them, and how they relate to one
another?



PART III - PARSHANUT

For shiur on 'The CAUSE of TZARA'AT'
1.  To the best of your recollection, what causes
'tzara'at'
[leprosy]?  Does Sefer Vayikra provide a reason?  If not,
what
is the source of your answer?
     Does Sefer Vayikra give a reason for the cause of any
type of tum'a?  Can you explain why it does or why it
doesn't?
     Have you heard of a reason before?  If so, what it
the
source?

2.  For general background, review two key stories that
discuss someone contracting tzara'at - the story about
Miriam
in Bamidbar 12:1-16, and the story about Uziyahu, King of
Yehuda, in II Divrei Ha-yamim 26:11-22.)
     Based on these two stories, what appears to be the
cause
of tzara'at?

3.  Carefully study Devarim 24:8-9.  In your opinion,
which of
these two psukim makes the primary point, and which pasuk
is
'secondary' (or is the Torah making two unrelated
statements)?
     Based on these psukim, does the Torah 'hint' to a
specific cause of tzara'at?
     How do these psukim relate to Bamidbar 12:1-16?
     In what manner is 24:9 similar to other psukim in
Chumash
that begin with 'zachor'?
     How does the topic of these two psukim relate to
other
topics that are discussed in Parshat Ki Tetzeh?

4.  Now, let's see how the various commentators relate to
this
topic in Sefer Devarim.  To appreciate the various
opinions,
read Devarim 24:8-9 once again and carefully try to
understand
each phrase, and explain how each phrase relates to the
next.
Be sure that you can explain how 24:9 relates to 24:8, and
what the word 'hishamer' implies [i.e. does it imply
something
you must do or something you must not do?]

5.  We'll start with Rashi on 24:8-9.
     Note how Rashi begins by providing a precise
explanation
of what hishamer is referring to [basically that one
should be
careful not be 'his own doctor' when he sees a sign of
leprosy, i.e. hishamer is telling you not to cut off the
sign,
but instead to show it to the kohanim.
     Based on this, how does Rashi understand the second
half
of 24:8?
     Now see Rashi on 24:9.  According to Rashi, how do
these
psukim relate to one another?
     From where does Rashi learn that 'lashon ha-ra'
causes
leprosy?  [As we continue, note how other parshanim answer
this question.]

6.  See now Ramban.  Is his commentary to 24:8 the same as
Rashi's or different?  Explain your answer.
     How does Ramban explain why the laws of tzaarat found
in
Sefer Vayikra are not recorded in Sefer Devarim?
     Now see Ramban on 24:9.  Note how he quotes Rashi and
then offers an alternate opinion [i.e. that zachor implies
something active that one must do!].  How does he prove
his
opinion?
     In your opinion, is Ramban's approach more
methodological
than Rashi's?  How does each commentator explain the
connection from 24:8 to 24:9?

[Note how Ramban considers this pasuk a 'full fledged'
'mitzvat asei', thus arguing with all of the others who
counted the mitzvot before him.  See also Sefer Mitzvot of
the
Rambam, at the end of his list of mitzvot asei, where
Ramban
lists and explains the mitzvot that he feels that Rambam
left
out.  See Ramban's addition #7!  See also Sefer ha-Chinuch
mitzva #584; note that he seems to disagree with Ramban.]
  [Do you think that it is 'worthwhile' for one to be
  'choshesh' for the Ramban's shitta?]

7.  See Ibn Ezra on 24:9.  Note how he is short and to the
point.  Why do you think that Ibn Ezra finds it important
to
support a Midrash from Vayikra Rabba [16:1] from these
psukim
in Sefer Devarim?  How does this relate to Ibn Ezra's
general
approach to Midrashim (in contrast to pshat)?

8.  Now, for a totally different approach - see Rashbam!
     How does he explain hishamer and the connection
between
24:8 and 24:9!!  In your opinion, is Rashbam's explanation
closer to pshat?  What do you think leads Rashbam to his
peirush?

9.  Finally, see Chizkuni. Is his commentary the same as
Rashbam's?  If so, why do you think that he prefers
Rashbam's
commentary to Rashi & Ramban's?
     According to Rashbam & Chizkuni, is there any
connection
between tzara'at and lashon ha-ra?  If so, why don't they
mention it in their peirush to Devarim 24:8-9?

[The answers to this section are discussed in the TSC
shiur on
Parshat Ki Tetzeh / www.tanach.org/dvarim/kitey2.txt.]

                              be-hatzlacha,
                              menachem
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: tazmetzq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 26870 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090420/8e16f8e5/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Apr 22 12:33:24 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:33:24 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat tazria - shiur
Message-ID: <20090422232724.895EB5E13BD@out3.bezeqint.net>

**********************************************************
***
     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.

-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090422/d8c839fa/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Apr 22 12:34:08 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:34:08 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] For Tazria/Metzora - shiur
Message-ID: <20090422232809.10B165E13E2@out3.bezeqint.net>

**********************************************************
***
     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?
-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090422/2828091c/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Apr 22 12:41:29 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:41:29 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Tanach Yom Iyun at YU this Sunday
Message-ID: <20090422233532.891B75E1179@out3.bezeqint.net>

For subscribers in the greater NY area,
There will be a very interesting Tanach Yom Iyun (relating
to Yom Atzmaut)
at Yeshiva University this Sunday-
Attached is a file with the schedule & info
Hope to see you there!
      
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Schedule.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 38400 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090422/a42e151b/attachment-0001.doc 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Apr 27 07:00:36 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 07:00:36 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Acharei Mot/Kedoshim - Questoins for self study
Message-ID: <20090427175428.EEFB95E09D4@out3.bezeqint.net>

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

            PARSHAT ACHAREI MOT

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'


THE 'MURDER' OF ANIMALS
1.  Review 17:1-7, noting how these psukim forbid
slaughtering
any animal, unless it is brought as an offering to God in
the
Mishkan.  Note as well the reason(s) that the Torah
provides
for this prohibition!
     In your opinion, does this law apply only to
'offerings'
[korbanot], or to any animal?  In other words, according
to
the simple meaning of these psukim, would it be permitted
to
slaughter an animal (that was not intended to be a korban)
to
eat its meat?
     Compare this prohibition to a similar set of laws
about
offering animals outside the Mikdash in Devarim 12:20-28.
What is similar to Vayikra 17:1-7, and what is different?
Can
you explain why (i.e. how the laws in Devarim relate to
the
situation in the land of Israel, while the laws in Vayikra
may
apply to the desert)?
     Then, see Ramban on 17:2-3 - and enjoy!  It's a bit
lengthy, but very interesting.

2.  Next, note that the Torah compares this slaughter of
animals (outside the framework of a offering in the
Mishkan)
to 'murder' - see 11:4 - "dam ya'chasehv l'ish ha'hu - dam
shafach" - it is though this person has spilled blood!
Furthermore, this transgression falls under the severe
category of "karet" - being cut off from the Jewish nation
(see 11:4).
     In your opinion, what is so terrible about this sin?
     Compare the wording of this prohibition to God's
blessing
to the children of Noach after the Flood in Breishit
9:1-6,
noting what they are permitted to eat, compared to what
was
permitted to Adam ha'Rishon in Breishit 1:29-30!   In your
opinion, is there any meaning to the textual parallel
between
Vayikra 17:4 and Breishit 9:4-5?
     Then, see the short commentaries of Ramban and
Seforno on
17:4 - for a very interesting insight!

3.  In 17:5, the Torah explains that a reason for this
prohibition is to prevent Bnei Yisrael from making
offerings
to the "seirim" - which literally would be translated as
'goats'!  In your opinion, does this reason make any
sense?
     Then, see commentaries of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and
Ramban,
noting how they pretty much agree to a very different
translation here for the word "se'irim".  Note how they
provide a textual reason for this translation as well.
     Then, see Rashbam on 17:5, noting how his
interpretation
is slightly different.  In your opinion, would he agree
with
Rashi?
     Finally, compare this pasuk to the special offering
of
"seirim" on Yom Kippur, as describe in Vayikra 16:5-10 and
16:21-22.  Could this parallel provide us with a different
explanation for the mention of "seirim" in 17:5?  Could
this
also explain the juxtaposition between chapters 16 & 17 in
Sefer Vayikra?
                ==========

WHAT'S SPECIAL ABOUT THE LAND OF ISRAEL?
1. Review the closing psukim of chapter 18 (i.e.
18:24-30), in
light of the opening psukim of that chapter (i.e. 18:1-5).
  According to these psukim (especially 18:25-28), how
(and
why) does the land of Israel 'punish' Am Yisrael for not
keeping God's laws.
     Then, see the famous Ramban on 18:28 - where he
articulates his approach to what is special about the land
of
Israel.
     See also Ramban on Breishit 28:21, in regard to the
meaning of Yaakov's statement of "v'haya Hashem li
l'Elokim".
  [No matter what your 'political' opinions may be, it
will
  serve as something appropriate to study on Yom Atzmaut!]
          ============= 

AVODAT YOM KIPPUR
1. In the Torah, we find the concept of KEDUSHA in three
realms:
     "kedushat zman"  - in time
     "kedushat makom" -  in space (or geographic place)
     "kedushat adam" -  man (or living things)

     Based on your previous knowledge, bring an example of
each type of KEDUSHA. What would you consider the highest
level of KEDUSHA in each of these three realms?
     As you study chapter 16, can you find an example of
each
of these three types of KEDUSHA?
     If so, would you consider this significant? Explain
why.
     Relate your answer to the importance of the AVODAH of
the
KOHEN GADOL on Yom Kippur? [The questions in Part Two (for
this week's shiur) will relate to this topic in greater
detail.]

2. Note how chapter 16 discusses the special AVODA
performed
on Yom Kippur while chapter 17 discusses the prohibition
against offering sacrifices OUTSIDE the confines of the
MISHKAN.
     Are these two chapters thematically related? If so,
how?
     Bring at least two examples to support your answer.
          [Be sure to relate to the "se'irim" (see 17:7).]
     Why do you think that they are juxtaposed?
     Based on their respective headers (16:1 & 17:1),
would
you conclude that these two parshiot were given at the
same
time?
Explain why yes, or why not.
     Relate your answer to the overall structure of Sefer
Vayikra as discussed in our introductory shiur and the
nature
of the laws that relate to the Mishkan.
		===========

FORBIDDEN BLOOD
3. At the end of chapter 17 we find once again in Sefer
Vayikra the prohibition against eating blood. Why do you
think
that these laws (i.e. 17:10-16) are included in the same
'parshia' together with the laws of "shechutei chutz"
(i.e.
17:1-9)? [In other words, how are the laws of eating the
blood
of any animal relate to the prohibition against offering
an
animal outside the Mikdash?]
     Note as well that the prohibition to eat blood was
also
discussed earlier in Sefer Vayikra - note 3:17 & 7:26-27?
     How are the details of this prohibition here in
chapter
17 different than those details in 3:17 and 7:26-27?
     Relate to WHERE in Sefer Vayikra each 'parshia' is
located and its local context.
		============
		
TO'EY'VOT
4. In chapter 18 we find a lengthy list of prohibitions
that
are all later defined in 18:26 as "TO'EY'VOT". Based on
this
list, how would you define a TO'EY'VA?  In general, what
category of law would you consider this list?  [i.e. bein
adam
l'chaveiro, la'makom, / social justice, morality, ritual,
social?]
     Note the use of the word "to'eyva" in Breishit 43:32,
46:34 and Shmot 8:22.  Is its usage in those contexts
similar
to its usage in chapter 18?
     In your opinion, how are these laws different that
than
the laws found in the Ten Commandments or Parshat
Mishpatim
(which are not defined as TO'EY'VOT)?

     Finally, note the phrase "toeyvat Hashem" in Devarim
22:5, 23:19 & 25:16, and their contexts.  Can you explain
the
difference between what the Torah refers to as a "toeyva"
in
contrast to a "toeyvat Hashem" (and why)?
     In general, what makes a certain action a "to'eyvah"?
		===========
		
KIPPURIM & THE MIZBACH KETORET
5. In Shmot 30:10, the concept of "kippurim" is mentioned
(in
relation to the MIZBACH KTORET), even though the precise
date
for when this korban is to be offered is not mentioned.
[See
Shmot 30:10 and its context.]
     How does that parshia (Shmot 30:1-10) relate to our
Parsha (i.e. Vayikra chapter 16)?
     In your opinion, why do you think that no specific
date
is given for this YOM KIPPUR korban in Shmot 30:10?
  [In your answer, relate to the events of chet ha'egel,
and
  WHY the 10th of Tishrei was chosen for YOM KIPPUR, as
  detailed in Vayikra chapter 23!

     In your opinion, and based on this question, had it
not
been for "chet ha'egel", would there have been a 'YOM
KIPPUR'
in the holiday cycle? Explain!
  [Relate to the holidays that are mentioned in Chumash
before
  the story of chet ha'egel.]
		============
		
		
PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
1. Read chapter 18, paying careful attention to its
opening
and closing psukim. In what way is the overall topic of
this
chapter different than the topics discussed in chapters 16
&
17 (and for that matter in all of Sefer Vayikra thus far)?

2. How does the topic of chapter 18, especially its header
(see 18:1-5), relate to the topics found in chapter 19
[i.e.
Parshat Kedoshim], and to the primary topics found in the
remainder of Sefer Vayikra?  [Be sure to relate to the
"tochacha" in chapter 26 as well, especially to its
closing
pasuk!]

3. Review 18:1-5. How would you define this set of psukim?
     In what manner do they form a unit?
     Is the commandment in 18:1 something new, or have
Bnei
Yisrael heard this before; and if so, when?  [Be sure to
relate to Shmot 6:2-8  & 20:1-2.]
     In these psukim, what is the meaning of the phrase
"ani
Hashem elokeichem", and why is it repeated so many times?
     Has this phrase been mentioned earlier in Sefer
Vayikra?
     Is it mentioned again later in Sefer Vayikra?
               If so, where and how often?
     Relate these five psukim to 18:24-30; 19:19,37; &
20:22.

4. Make a very general outline of the major topics of
Sefer
Vayikra (from chapter 1 to 27), paying careful attention
to
where we find laws that relate to the Mishkan, and where
we
find laws that relate to 'daily life'.
     How does chapter 18 relate to your outline?
     From what perspective could you consider chapter 18 a
'transition' point in Sefer Vayikra?
     Would you say that there are TWO halves to Sefer
Vayikra?
     If so, what are they, and do they relate to 18:1-5?
     If not, how do chapters 18->20 relate to chapters
1->17?
[See also Parshanut section below.]

5.  Which topics in your outline relate in one form or
other
to the concept of "kedusha - i.e. something being
designated
or set aside to serve God"?  How does this relate to
19:1-2?

6. Note the phrase "chukim u'mishpatim" in 18:1-5 as well
as
in 18:24-30). Compare this with that same phrase in
Vayikra
26:46 (note also 26:27-33), and relate this to your answer
to
the above question.  [Note as well Devarim 5:1, 6:1, and
26:16!]
     Similarly, can you suggest a connection between the
word
"torot" in 26:46 and a certain part (or section) of Sefer
Vayikra?  In your answer relate to the phrase "zot
torat..."
that appears numerous times from chapter six through
chapter
15.

7. In general, which mitzvot in Sefer Vayikra relate to
the
Mikdash itself, and which mitzvot related to the daily
life of
an individual living in the land of Israel?
     How does (or should) the Mikdash affect daily life?
Or re-
phrased - how (and why) should the fact that God's
"shechina"
rests among Bnei Yisrael in the Mishkan affect what God
expects from our general behavior?

PART III - PARSHANUT
THE INTERNAL ORDER OF SEFER VAYIKRA
1. See the first Ramban in Sefer Vayikra (his intro. to
the
book), where he discusses the overall theme of the Vayikra
and
its flow of topic. Based on this Ramban, how would Ramban
explain the logic behind the change in topic that begins
in
chapter 18 (or basically, why are the laws of forbidden
marital relationships included in this book)?
     Note how Ramban relates to this introduction in his
commentary to 19:2!  See also Ramban on 16:1, where he
relates
once again to the entire structure of Sefer Vayikra, and
where
he explains his approach that Chumash is written in
'chronological order' (and when and why he accepts certain
exceptions to that rule).

WHEN THE LAWS OF AVODAT YOM KIPPUR WERE GIVEN
2. The first pasuk in Acharei Mot (16:1) tells us WHEN
this
commandment was given to Moshe, i.e. after the death of
Nadav
and Avihu.
     Why do you think it is necessary for the Torah to
include
this information?
     Does the Torah usually inform us concerning when each
mitzva was given?
     Can you think of any other examples of mitzvot which
are
introduced in a similar fashion?
  If indeed this mitzvah was given after the death of
Nadav
and Avihu, where in Sefer Vayikra should it have been
recorded?
     Relate this to Vayikra 10:1-11.
          How does this relate to the controversy of "ein
mukdam u'muchar ba'torah"?

Next, read Rashi 16:1.
     How does Rashi answer the above questions?
   Read Ibn Ezra 16:1.
     How does Ibn Ezra answer the above questions?

     On what do they argue, on what do they agree?
          Does either commentary relate to the
chronological
issue of when this parsha was first given?

Then, read Ramban on 16:1.
     How does Ramban answer the above questions?
     How does he relate to the chronological issue?
     Does he agree or disagree with Rashi?
      [Note that he quotes Rashi at the end of his
commentary.]

WHICH MIZBEIACH NEEDS KAPARA?
3. Review 16:18 in its context from 16:14-20.  Based on
your
understanding of this pasuk, WHICH Mizbeiach does 16:18
refer
to: the Mizbach ha'nchoshet [ha'olah] - outside the
Mishkan,
or the Mizbach ha'zahav [ha'ktoret] - located inside the
Mishkan?
     On what did you base your answer?
     Now, see Rashi on 16:18.  How does he answer this
question, and how does he deal with the problematic verb
that
seems to contradict his interpretation?
     Next, see Ibn Ezra.  How is answer different than
Rashi's?
          In your opinion, which pirush makes more sense?
          [Relate in your answer to 16:16.]
     Finally, see Ramban on 16:18 (the first part is
enough).
     How does he answer this question.  Be sure that you
understand his proof from the Mechilta (and from 16:20).
     Note also Shmot 30:10 (in relation to 30:1-10).  How
does
this pasuk affect one's interpretation of 16:18?

A PLACE TO CHANGE CLOTHING?
4. Review 16:23, in its context from 16:14-26, paying
attention to the flow of events.  What is problematic with
16:23, both in simple pshat of the pasuk, and in relation
to
WHEN Aharon was supposed to do this?
     See Rashi, noting how quotes Yoma 32a in his
interpretation.
     Then, see Ramban, noting not only how he quotes
Rashi,
but especially how he explains these psukim in accordance
with
that Gemara.  [Note how he explains that in pshat - this
pasuk
needs to be read in search of "drash"!]

                         b'hatzlacha,
                         menachem

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

             PARSHAT KEDOSHIM

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

'TALKING REVENGE' & 'HOLINESS'
1.  Review 19:18, noting how it discusses a very important
mitzva of "lo tikom" (which unfortunately is often
overlooked).  As you study the first half of 19:18 (not to
mention the second half), be sure to see Rashi's
commentary
(and Ramban's) re: the meaning of both phrases: 'lo tikom'
and
've-lo titor'.
     According to Rashi's interpretation of what these
phrases
imply, isn't it rather amazing that this type of behavior
-
which most of us would consider 'normal' (or even
'expected')
- is actually an 'issur de-oraita' [a Torah prohibition]!
  Can you explain why the Torah forbids this type of
behavior?
Also, how does it relate to being "kadosh" (holiness),
which
is the primary topic of this unit of mitzvot?
  In your opinion, why do you think that there are so many
people (and unfortunately sometimes even rabbis) who arre
not
familiar with this law?   [And why is it that many people
who
do know these laws have trouble observing them?]

2.  Based on the above question, attempt to explain how
19:18
thematically relates to 19:14-17.
     Then, note the sudden change of topic in 19:19, and
especially its 'header' [that introduces the laws in the
next
set of psukim).  Can you explain the thematic nature of
this
transition?
     Finally, review the finale of this chapter, i.e.
19:33-
36.  Use these psukim [and their finale (i.e. 19:36)] to
explain how this can explain the transition from 19:18-19.

SHABBAT & the MIKDASH
3.  Review 19:30, noting the connection between the
mikdash
and Shabbat.  Where else in Chumash do we find a similar
thematic connection between Shabbat & the mikdash /
mishkan?
          [If you give up, see Shmot 31:12-16 and 35:1-4.]
     Can you explain why this pasuk is located
specifically at
this point in Parshat Kedoshim?
     [Relate to "kedushat zman" vs. "kedushat makom".]
  If you have ample time, note as well the various
  commentaries on 19:30, noting how each one takes a
slightly
  different angle.

WHY THE REPEAT?
4.  Note how the commandment 'lo ta'aseh avel ba-mishpat'
is
stated twice in chapter 19 (see 19:15 & 19:35).  Read each
of
these psukim carefully, noting their context; and attempt
to
ascertain whether this is simply a repeat of the same law,
or
if each commandment relates to a different type of
situation.
     Then, see Rashi on 19:35, noting the way he explains
how
each commandment in unique.
  See the interpretation of Ibn Ezra as well.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN PARSHAT KEDOSHIM
                    [for shiur #1 this week]

1.  Many commentators have noted that one can find an
example
of each of the Ten Commandments (or a very similar mitzva)
in
the opening psukim of Parshat Vayikra.
     Before seeing the commentaries inside, carefully
review
chapter 19 and attempt to find these parallels on your
own.
     When you finish, record your answers so that later
on,
you can compare your conclusions to those of the various
commentators.

2.  Review your conclusions once again, this time
organizing
them as follows:
     a) Commandments that have an obvious parallel.
    [for example - 'honoring parents' / see 19:3]
  b) Commandments that have only a tangential parallel
  c) Commandments that appear to have no parallel
  
  Considering that there are so many Commandments that
have
parallels, can  you explain why the commentators are so
eager
to find parallels for all of the ten commandments?
  Can you explain why only some of the parallels are
obvious,
why others or only 'alluded' to?

3.  For the Commandments that you did find parallels for,
note
their order within Parshat Kedoshim.  How does that order
relate to their order in the original Ten Commandments?
     Note as well the phrases 'Ani Hashem' and 'Ani Hashem
Elokeichem' that repeat themselves so often in this
section,
and note especially where we find each phrase.  Does this
appear to be random, or organized?  If you find some type
of
'organization' - attempt to explain its logic.
  Relate these two phrases and where they appear to the
Ten
Commandments that the psukim that precede each phrase
corresponds to.

4.  Now, let's see how the commentators related to these
parallels.
  First see the Chizkuni on 19:2, and make a list of all
of
his conclusions.  Did your list match his?  Can you
explain
the differences (if there are any)?
  
  Next, see Ramban on 19:4 (towards the end), where he too
finds all of the Ten Commandments in this parsha.
     Finally, see also the Ibn Ezra on 19:2 ('ki
kadosh...')!
     Using your list, make note in regard to which
Commandments everyone agrees (on the parallel), and on
which
we find differences of opinion.
  Based on your own attempt to identify these parallels,
attempt to explain why.

5.  Even though these mitzvot are similar to the Ten
Commandments, they are not identical.  There are also many
examples of additional mitzvot.  Try to define the manner
in
which the mitzvot in Kedoshim are different than the
dibrot
(i.e. are they more strict or lenient etc.), even though
they
may also be 'parallel'.
     Is this difference significant?  Can you relate it to
the
title of the Parsha - 'Kedoshim tihiyu'?

6.  Review the first 18 psukim of chapter 19 once again,
this
time noting how often the phrase ANI HASHEM is repeated.
Is
there a pattern to this repetition?
     Note when it states ANI HASHEM and ANI HASHEM
ELOKEICHEM.
Does this also fit into a pattern?
     Does this pattern relate in any way to the division
of
the DIBROT into 'two halves'?
     How does this observation relate to the parallels
that
you found between the DIBROT and the mitzvot in chapter
19?
[See questions #1 & #2 above.]
     Which mitzva in Parshat Kedoshim seems to 'ruin' this
pattern?  Can you explain why?

7.  Review 19:5-10.  Based on the pattern set by "ani
Hashem
Elokeichem", can you explain why this set of psukim could
be
considered a 'sub-unit'?  Are these psukim connected in
any
manner to the Ten Commandments, or did you list them in
any of
your parallels?
     In you opinion, what is the connection between 19:5-8
and
19:9-10?  How do either of these mitzvot relate to the
other
mitzvot in chapter 19?

8.  Review Shmot 20:19-23, noting how these psukim are the
first mitzvot that Bnei Yisrael receive after the Ten
Commandments.  Can you find a parallel between these
mitzvot
and the DIBROT as well?  Then, continue reading into
chapter
21 [Parshat Mishpatim] and see if this pattern continues.
Relate these parallels to your answers to the above
questions.
    [See also the TSC shiur on Parshat Mishpatim.]
=========

PART TWO - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION
          for SHIUR #2

 - The Header: "KOL ADAT BNEI YISRAEL"
1.  In what manner is the header of Parshat Kedoshim
(19:1-2)
different than the standard header introducing a parsha of
mitzvot that is usually found in Chumash?
     Does Rashi comment on this?
     If so, what is his comment?  How does it explain the
reason for this difference?

2.  Where else in Chumash do we find a parsha of mitzvot
that
also includes the header of "KOL ADAT BNEI YISRAEL"?
     Does it relate in any way to Parshat Kedoshim?
          [If you give up, try Shmot 12:1-3, and 35:1]
     Do any of these sources help you better understand
the
Rashi referred to above/ 19:2 - "daber...melamed
she-ne'emar
be-hakhel..."?
     See also Vayikra 8:3-5!

3.  What does the word 'eida' mean?  What is the Hebrew
'shoresh' of this word?
     Can you relate this shoresh to the reason why this
parsha
was given to the entire eida?

4.  In what context do Bnei Yisrael serve as 'eidim'
[witnesses?] when they fulfill the commandments of
KEDOSHIM
TIHIYU?
     See Seforno on 19:2, and relate his commentary to
your
answer?

5.  See also Chizkuni on 19:2, and compare his peirush to
that
of Rashi on 19:2 [in regard to 'daber el kol adat Bnei
Yisrael'].  In what way is Chizkuni similar, and in what
way
is his statement different from Rashi's?  Attempt to
explain
why.
=======

for SHIUR #3
 THE REPETITION OF THE 'ARAYOT'
1.  Even though the 'arayot' [forbidden marital
relationships]
were already detailed in chapter 18, most all of them are
repeated again in chapter 20.  After verifying this point,
attempt to determine in what manner their presentation is
chapter 20 is different.  At this point, relate only to
the
laws of the arayot themselves in 20:10-21 AND to the laws
that
'surround' them in 20:1-9 and 20:22-27.
     Can you suggest a reason for this repetition of the
same
set of laws twice?  In your answer, relate as well to the
placement of chapter 19 in between them.

2.  Next, carefully review the psukim that surround these
arayot (in 20:10-21), i.e. to 20:1-9 and 20:22-27.
Attempt to
understand (and explain) the internal 'structure' of
chapter
20.
     Then, compare this structure to the internal
structure in
chapter 18, where we also find psukim that 'surround' the
arayot, i.e. to 18:1-5 and 18:24-30 that surround 18:6-23.
     In what manner is this structure similar to the
pattern
in chapter 20?  In what manner is it different?

3.  What specific laws does chapter 20 contain that were
not
found in chapter 18?  What 'general' statements are found
in
both chapters, and what is their importance?

4.  In regard to the structure of chapter 20, what is
especially difficult about its final pasuk (i.e. 20:27)?
In
your opinion, why is this pasuk 'out of place' and where
in
this chapter does it belong?

5.  If you are familiar with 'chiastic structures', see if
you
can find one within chapter 20.  Use this (and your answer
to
question #1) to explain the final pasuk of chapter 20.
     Be sure to compare the overall structure of chapter
20 to
that of chapter 18.  Attempt to explain the nature of this
parallel.
     How does the topic of chapter 19 [i.e. kedoshim
tihiyu]
relate to one of the levels of the chiastic structure
found in
chapter 20?

6.  For those of you familiar with the sugya in the Gemara
of
"ein onshin ela im kein mazhirin" [there is no punishment
(by
Bet Din) unless first this is a warning], relate this
principle to the above question!
=======

PART III - PARSHANUT

PARSHAT KEDOSHIM AS PART OF SEFER VAYIKRA
1.  See Ramban on 19:2.  How does Ramban explain why
Parshat
Kedoshim is recorded in Sefer Vayikra?
     Review Ramban's introduction to Sefer Vayikra (on
1:1).
Relate this to his peirush on 19:2.

2.  Next, see Ibn Ezra on 19:2.  How does he answer this
question?
     How and why are their answers different?

3.  Finally see Seforno on 19:2.  Study it very carefully!
     According to Seforno, why is Parshat Kedoshim in
Sefer
Vayikra?  How does Seforno use this to explain the
progression
of parshiot in Sefer Vayikra?
     In what manner is his approach TOTALLY different than
Ramban's (in regard to this question)?
     Note carefully how Seforno finds not only a thematic
connection between Parshat Kedoshim and the first half of
Sefer Vayikra, but also how he connects this progression
to
primary themes in both Sefer Shmot and Sefer Breishit!
     Explain how, and how this is consistent with
Seforno's
overall [thematic] approach to Parshanut.
     [Relate this as well to his intro. to Chumash!]

THE FLOW OF TOPICS IN CHAPTER 19
4.  See the first Ibn Ezra on Vayikra chapter 19, noting
how
he explains his entire approach to his interpretation of
sets
of mitzvot in the Torah (like chapter 19), and why he
tries to
find a reason for the progression of topic from one
mitzvah to
the next.
     Then, if you have time, review the entire commentary
of
Ibn Ezra on chapter 19, noting how he explains the flow of
topic from one pasuk to the next.  If you have even more
time,
before you see each Ibn Ezra, attempt to suggest a reason
first on your own.

                         be-hatzlacha,
                         menachem

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: achq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 30390 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090427/5d43e179/attachment-0002.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kdoshq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 33117 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090427/5d43e179/attachment-0003.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Apr 30 04:26:18 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 04:26:18 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] For ACHAREI MOT -shiur
Message-ID: <20090430075926.376EFB0845C@out4.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 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.

-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090430/f6fbc560/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Apr 30 04:35:16 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 04:35:16 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Kedoshim - The Dibrot in Kedoshim
Message-ID: <20090430152856.F009C5E08AD@out3.bezeqint.net>

**********************************************************
***
     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?
-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090430/6984a963/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Apr 30 04:42:00 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 04:42:00 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Kedoshim - Adat Yisrael
Message-ID: <20090430082712.5A8B3283AC@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 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?
-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090430/7a0c589f/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Apr 30 13:03:03 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:03:03 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Kedsohim - shiur #3 -
Message-ID: <20090430163616.A0213B088A8@out4.bezeqint.net>

**********************************************************
***
        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.


-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090430/31e0a6c9/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun May  3 17:53:11 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 17:53:11 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Emor - questions for self study
Message-ID: <20090503212549.54E20B0862F@out4.bezeqint.net>

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

               PARSHAT EMOR

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'


"CHILLUL" & "KEDUSHA" [chapters 21 & 22]

1. As you review the laws in chapters 21 & 22, note how
often
we find the word (and/or concepts of) "chillul" and
"kedusha".
[Note as well how we find these words in just about each
'parshia' division within these two chapters.]
     What is the meaning of each of these two words, and
how
are these concepts related?
  Use this to explain the thematic connection between the
topics found in these two chapters.

2. How do these two words - "chillul" and "kedusha" -
relate
to the overall theme of Sefer Vayikra (as discussed in our
shiur on Acharei Mot).  Relate especially to 18:1-5, i.e.
the
'introductory psukim' of the second half of Sefer Vayikra.
     Relate your answer as well to 22:31-33, noting how
they
summarize of this unit (and these concepts), and form a
beautiful conclusion.
     [Relate alsol to Tehillim 34:13-15!]

3.  In chapter 21, we find how the "kohanim" our bound by
a
special set of an additional laws [and restrictions] -
because
their responsibility is to serve God.  Can you find a
similar
concept in relation to the special laws in Parshat
Kedoshim
(Vayikra chapters 19 & 20) that Bnei Yisrael are obligated
to
keep?
     In your opinion, are the laws in Parshat Kedoshim
special
for the people of Israel, or would God expect all mankind
to
keep those laws.  Explain your answer.
     In your answer, relate to 20:26, noting how we find
yet
another beautiful summary pasuk!

4.   As you study the laws in chapters 21 & 22, attempt to
explain the logic of the progression from one topic to the
next. While doing so, relate to the following questions:
      How is the law of a KOHEN "tamey" similar to the law
of
KOHEN "ba'al mum" [someone with a physical blemish or
defect]?
How is it different?
  Attempt to explain why a kohen "baal mum" is permitted
to
eat "kodshim", while a "kohen tamey" cannot.
  Why can't either of them offer korbanot?
  
     In what manner are the laws relating to a kohen
"ba'al
mum" similar to the laws of an animal that is a "ba'al
mum"?
  How is the prohibition against offering an animal less
than
eight days old similar to the prohibition of a "ba'al
mum"?

5. Even though a KOHEN "baal mum" cannot offer korbanot
(see
21:16-21), he is permitted to eat them (see 21:22-23).
Attempt to explain the underlying logic of these two laws.
     Would you consider either (or both) of them 'fair'?
In
other words, is it 'fair' that a kohen cannot offer a
sacrifice just because he has some type of deformity?

6. Recall how chapters 6 & 7 in Parshat Tzav constituted a
special set of laws for the "kohanim" concerning HOW they
are
supposed to offer the various korbanot.
     In what manner are the laws in Parshat Tzav different
from the laws relating to "kohanim" in Parshat Emor (in
chapters 21-22)?  [Note the header in 6:1-2, compare with
21:1.]
     Relate your answer to our shiur on Parshat Acharei
Mot in
regard to the two 'halves' of Sefer Vayikra.  [In other
words,
how does Parshat Tzav relate to "kedushat Mishkan", while
Parshat Emor relates to "kedushat ha'am".]

PARALLEL PSUKIM

1. What is difficult about the last pasuk in chapter 21?
In
other words, what specifically did Moshe tell Aharon, the
Kohanim and Bnei Yisrael?  [Or what does it 'summarize'?]
     In your answer, relate 21:16-17, 21:1, & 20:1-2!
What is
special about these three 'headers', and how do they
explain
the last pasuk in chapter 21?
     Do you think that this summary pasuk could also be
considered a conclusion to chapters 18->19 as well?
     Support your answer!

2. Carefully study the 'style' of the opening psukim to
chapter 23 (i.e. 23:1-4), noting how they contain a
'double
introduction'.  Then, compare this 'style' to the opening
psukim to Parshat Va'yakhel (i.e. Shmot 35:1-4).
     Note how each contains a similar commandment in
regard to
Shabbat, which doesn't appear to be directly related to
the
header!
     In your opinion, how can this parallel 'style' help
understand the connection between the laws of shabbat in
relation to both the building the Mishkan and the
"moadim"?
     See Ramban on 23:2 for a detailed discussion of this
topic and this parallel.

3. As your review chapter 23 (i.e. the "moadim"), note how
the
phrase "chukat olam l'doroteichem..." can be found in the
laws
of almost every holiday.  First, verify this statement by
locating the precise phrase that is used for each holiday.
     Attempt to explain what this phrase means, and how it
relates to each holiday. Relate as well to Shmot 12:14.
     Is this phrase for each holiday identical? If not,
which
holiday(s) is different? [Relate to the word
"moshvoteichem"
in each!]
     Can you explain why this word is missing in
specifically
in regard to "succot"?  Relate your answer to the pasuk
that
follows: "ba'sukkot tayshvu shivat yamim..." (see
23:41-42),
and why Succot should be different in this regard.
==========

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)

1. In Parshat Emor (chapter 23) we find a complete list of
the
Jewish holidays. Where else in Chumash do we find a set of
laws that discusses either all (or at least most) of the
Holidays? [If [/or when] you give up, see Shmot 23:24-20,
34:18-26, & Bamidbar chapters 28-29 and Devarim chapter
16.]
     As your study those units, see if you can identify
different 'categories' of Holidays.  Explain how your
division
is based on how they are presented in Chumash.

2. In what manner is the presentation of the CHAGIM in
Parshat
Emor different than the others? In what manner is it
similar?
     Can you identify a unifying theme for the details
about
the holidays that are mentioned in this chapter?

3. Note the dates that the Torah uses for each holiday.
Are
they based on the solar calendar (i.e. the agricultural
seasons) or lunar calendar (month/day)? [or both?]  Can
you
explain why?
     What type of date does the Torah use for those same
holidays in the other parshiot of "chagim" (as mentioned
above
in question #1)?

4. As you study chapter 23, make a table listing each of
the
chagim. For each chag, note the mitzvot that are
mentioned.
     Which of these mitzvot are 'shared' by all (or most)
of
the other chagim as well, and which of these mitzvot are
unique for that specific chag?
     Attempt to explain the reason for each mitzvah?
     As you study this chapter, make note as well when
there
is a new "dibur" and attempt to explain why each one is
necessary.

5. Note that every holiday in Parshat Emor includes the
commandment "v'hikravtem ishe l'Hashem". Scan the parsha
to
verify that this is indeed true, and if there are any
'exceptions'.
     What "ishe" (offering) does the Torah refer to in
this
phrase:
     - a private korban from each individual, or
     - a korban TZIBUR (from the entire congregation)?
     Can you relate this commandment to the description of
the
chagim in Parshat Pinchas (see Bamidbar chapters 28->29)?
Relate in your answer to Vayikra 23:37! [See Ramban
23:1-2]

6.  In addition to this general commandment to offer an
"ishe", this unit also includes several examples of
commandments to offer a very specific korban.  As you
review
from 23:1-44; attempt to find such examples.  Are these
korbanot identical to the korbanot described in Parshat
Pinchas, or are they different?
     Can you explain their purpose and why they are
different?
     Do these specific korbanot that are detailed in
Parshat
Emor share any 'common denominator'? If so, explain what
it
is, and why?

7. Make a table listing all the holidays in this Parshat
Emor.
For each holiday, note its date (lunar and/or solar)
together
with the SPECIAL mitzvah for that chag. As you make your
table, make note of either any historical or agricultural
aspect relating to those chagim.  [Relate to both the
mitzvot
that are mentioned in Emor, as well as the mitzvot for
each
holiday which you may be familiar with from other
sources.]
     In your opinion, does the mitzvah to sit in a succah
(see
23:42-43) relate to the historical aspect of Succot (i.e.
yetziat mitzraim) or to its agricultural aspect (i.e.
temporary booths built by the farmers in the field
collecting
the harvest) - or both?
     Quote psukim to support your answer. [Relate also to
Succah 11b, "succah k'neged ananei kavod or succot
mamash".]

8.  While reviewing your table, see if you can identify
any
type of relationship between the mitzvot of each holiday
and
their lunar and solar dates.  [You can refer to the
parallel
units of the chagim in Sefer Shmot and Sefer Devarim
(chap.
16) to help answer this question.]

9. Which of the holidays are referred to as "moadim" and
which
are called "shabbatonim" (or "shabbat"), and which chagim
are
referred to as both? Be sure to note
23:11,15,16,24,32,39!).
     In your answer, relate to the 'double' description of
Succot in 23:33-43, noting the distinction between "moed"
and
"shabbaton" and their related mitzvot. Be sure that you
can
explain 23:37-39 and the use of the word "ach".  [Attempt
to
relate this as well to the 'double header' in 23:1-3!]
     In what manner does the final pasuk in chapter 23
complement the opening pasuk of this chapter?

10. Based on our shiurim thus far in Sefer Vayikra, why do
you
think that chapter 23 is included in this Sefer?
     Does it relate to korbanot, to KEDUSHA, etc.?]
     Be sure to relate to the SPECIFIC mitzvot of the
chagim
(as well as the general mitzvot) that are detailed in this
chapter.

PART III - PARSHANUT

STARTING ON 'SUNDAY' OR 'MOTZEI YOM TOV'?
1. A major debate exists concerning how to explain the
pasuk
that defines when we begin counting the OMER -"m'mochorat
ha'shabbat" (see 23:11). In your opinion, why does the
Torah
refer to the first day of chag ha'matzot as a "shabbat".
     Can you relate your answer to the questions in Part
II
above?
     Relate to how each of the chagim in some manner or
other
is referred to as a "shabbat" or "shabbaton".

  See Rashi, Ramban, Ibn Ezra & Chizkuni and Mesechet
Menachot
61a.
     Even though everyone agrees that shabbat is referring
to
the first day of yom-tov, each commentator offers a
different
reason why. Try to explain each "parshan" and the reason
for
the machloket.

TRANSMITTING GOD'S LAWS
2. Read 21:1 (the opening pasuk of the Parsha). What is
problematic about the 'wording' of this opening statement?
     See Ramban on this pasuk, noting how he first quotes
Rashi, then Ibn Ezra, and then offers his own opinion.
     Explain each of these three approaches. Why do you
think
that Ramban does not agree with either Rashi or Ibn Ezra?
     Finally, see Chizkuni on 21:1. In what manner is his
pirush different?  What does he learn from "smichut
parshiot"
between this pasuk and the last pasuk in Parshat Kedoshim?

WHERE DID HE COME FROM?
3. Read 24:10, how did you translate the opening phrase
["v'yatza ben isha yisraelit"] - i.e. what does "va'yatza"
mean?
     What are the different possibilities?
See Rashi - How does he understand this word?
     What questions bother him based on this
understanding?
    [Relate to all the questions raised by the Midrash.]
See
    Ibn Ezra & Ramban.
     How do they translate "va'yatze"?  Do they both offer
the
same pirush? [If not, how do they differ?]
  [Note also how Ibn Ezra later explains the reason for
the
  "smichut parshiot" here!]
Finally, see Chizkuni.  How does he explain "va'yatza"?
     In what manner is his pirush totally different than
all
of the others? Why does he refer to this as "pshat"?

                              b'hatzlacha,
                              menachem



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: emorq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 27665 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090503/0e8557d2/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed May  6 15:29:01 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 15:29:01 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Emor - shiur
Message-ID: <20090506190106.6A44BB08537@out4.bezeqint.net>

**********************************************************
***
     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!
-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090506/21cae82f/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed May  6 15:31:34 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 15:31:34 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Emor & Behar - additonal shiu
Message-ID: <20090506190143.AD534210792@out8.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 EMOR & 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.]

-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090506/66334624/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon May 11 03:47:03 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 03:47:03 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Behar/Bechukotei - questions for self study
Message-ID: <003401c9d20c$ad2c9370$0785ba50$@net>

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

                PARSHAT BEHAR

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

THIS LAND IS 'HIS' LAND
1.  To the best of your recollection, (according to
Chumash)
to whom does Eretz Yisrael 'belong' - i.e. to Am Yisrael
or to
God?  [Explain  this question (and its implications)
before
you answer it!]

2.  In Parshat Behar, we find a pasuk that may provide an
answer - review Vayikra 25:23, noting its context.  In
your
opinion, why (and how) does this statement form an
appropriate
conclusion for the laws of 'shmitta' & 'yovel' (in
25:1-22)?
     Is this statement of 'ki li kol ha-aretz'
thematically
congruent with God's numerous promises to Eretz Yisrael to
Avraham Avinu in Breishit 12:7, 15:18, 17:7-8; etc, and to
Bnei Yisrael in Shmot 6:8 & 19:5-6?  Relate as well to
Vayikra
25:38 & 25:55!
     In your answer, relate to the purpose of God's choice
of
Avraham Avinu and His promise of Eretz Yisrael to the
Avot.
[Note for example Breishit 12:1-3, 18:17-19, 26:1-5 and
Yaakov's 'neder' in 28:13-22.  [Note as well Yeshayahu
42:5-
6.]

3.  Review Yirmiyahu 27:1-6 (and preferably the entire
chapter), where the navi describes why God has allowed the
Babylonians the right to concur the Land.  Relate this
chapter
(especially 27:5-6) to the above questions.
     Relate this as well to the 'tochacha' in Vayikra
chapter
26, especially 26:3-6 in contrast to 26:27-33.

4.  Finally, carefully review the very first Rashi in
Chumash
("amar R. Yitzchak" on Breishit 1:1), noting how Rashi
relates
to the above question (and the purpose of Sefer Breishit).
Be
sure to pay carefully attention to how that Midrash
alludes to
Yirmiyahu 27:5, in both its choice words and theme!  Be
sure
that you can explain why.
     Note as well how that Rashi relates to Tehillim
111:10
and to the context of that psalm.

BIBLICAL ECONOMICS
1.  As you study the laws of shmitta and yovel in Vayikra
chapter 25, attempt to extrapolate what type of economic
system these laws create.
     In terms of modern day 'macro economic systems',
would
you consider these laws more similar to 'capitalism' or to
'communism'?
     What are the positive and negative aspects of this
system, where land can only be 'borrowed' for up to 49
years,
but can never be sold?
  How does the Torah relate to certain potential negative
aspects of this system, such as those explained in
25:14-17
and 25:20-23?

2.  In chapter 25, note how the laws of shmitta (25:1-24)
are
immediately followed by various related cases in 25:25-55.
First, note how each case is a 'parshia' (see
25:25,29,35,39,47).  Be sure you can identify the specific
situation of each case.
     Then attempt to identify the logic in the progression
from one case to the next.  [When you finish (or give up)
see
Rashi on 26:1!]

3.  Review these laws once again, noting the blend between
the
'technical' economic (and judicial) laws and moral
imperatives.  Attempt to relate this phenomenon to the
reason
for why the Torah may have preferred to place these laws
in
Sefer Vayikra.
     In what manner are these laws similar to certain laws
that are found in Parshat Kedoshim?
  Note as well how these laws relate to the 'header' of
the
second half of Sefer Vayikra in 18:1-5 (and 18:24-28), as
discussed in our shiur on Parshat Acharei Mot.
  
  Finally, note how 25:38 and 25:55 form respective
'finale
psukim' for the 'parshiot' of  25:25-37 and 25:39-54.
  Study these 'finale' psukim' and attempt to relate the
emphasis of each 'finale' to the content of the laws in
each
unit.

4.  Review Devarim chapter 15:, noting how that chapter
also
begins with laws concerning the shmitta year, followed by
a
set of several related laws that deal with how to help
others
in 'economic crisis'.
     How is the overall structure of that chapter similar
to
chapter 25 in Sefer Vayikra?
     In what manner are the laws re: shmitta in Devarim
different than the laws in Vayikra, and in what manner are
they similar?  Attempt to relate these differences to the
purpose [/theme] of each book?
     Compare as well the laws of shabbat, and their
purpose in
Vayikra 23:1-4 to the laws of shabbat in Devarim 5:10-16!
Can
you identify a certain similarity?  If so, attempt to
explain
why.

SHMITTA & SEVEN
1.  In addition to the shmitta cycle, where else in Sefer
Vayikra do we find cycles of seven?  Are any of these
cycles
of seven followed by something special?
     Relate to chapters 8-> 9, 12->15, and especially
chapter
23 (and the laws of Shavu'ot and Sukkot). In what manner
are
any of those laws similar to the laws of shmitta and
yovel?
     Do any of these laws relate to 'nature'?

2.  Where is the first time in Chumash where we find that
the
number 'seven' is significant?
     Can this help explain why specifically the mitzva of
shmitta relates to the number seven?  Relate to Breishit
1:1-
2:3, and the purpose of Torah's presentation of the story
of
God's Creation.
     In what manner are the laws of shmitta similar to the
commandment to keep Shabbat.
     [See also Ramban on 25:2 for a more 'kabbalistic'
approach.]
=====

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
1.  Can you identify any thematic connection between the
topic
of shmitta and yovel in Parshat Behar and any of the
topics
discussed in Parshat Emor or anywhere else in Sefer
Vayikra?
In other words, can you explain why the laws in Parshat
Behar
are recorded in Sefer Vayikra?

2.  Review 25:1, noting how it forms a 'header' for this
set
of laws.  and explains when and where these laws were
given.
Based on this 'header', would you expect for the laws in
Parshat Behar to be thematically related to the previous
section of laws in Parshat Emor, or to any other topic in
Sefer Vayikra?
     When (and from where) were the previous sections of
laws
in Sefer Vayikra given?  [Relate to Vayikra 1:1 and
7:37-38.]

3.  Quickly review chapter 26, simply to identify its
primary
topic, i.e. the "tochacha" [rebuke].  In what manner does
the
"tochacha" in chapter 26 relate to the laws in chapter 25?
In
what manner does it relate to the other laws in Sefer
Vayikra?
  Based on the 'header' in 25:1 [pay attention to the new
'dibbur' that begins, noting where it ends], be sure that
you
understand why chapters 25 & 26 form a unit.   Can you
identify any thematic connections between chapter 25 and
26.
  Be sure that you can explain the final pasuk of chapter
26.

4.  Based on 26:34-35, explain why the 'tochacha' in
chapter
26 follows the laws of shmitta in chapters 25.  Attempt to
relate this as well to the theme of the second half of
Sefer
Vayikra (i.e. relate to the unit that begins with chapter
18,
noting especially 18:24-30!
     Based on our shiur on the two halves of Sefer Vayikra
(see TSC shiur on Parshat Acharei Mot), can you explain
why
the tochacha forms an appropriate conclusion to the second
half of Sefer Vayikra?  [Be sure to relate to 18:25-28.]

5.  Returning now to Parshat Emor, do you think that the
laws
recorded in chapter 24 (i.e. 24:1-9) 'belong' in Sefer
Vayikra?
  Explain why they do or why they don't.  [Relate to Shmot
25:23-40 & 27:20-21.]
  Similarly, would you say that the story (and its
subsequent
laws) in 24:10-23 belong in Sefer Vayikra?
     If any of these topics do not 'belong' in Sefer
Vayikra,
where in Chumash would you say that each of these parshiot
(in
chapter 24) do 'belong'?

6.  Based on its header (see 25:1/ compare with 1:1), does
Parshat Behar 'belong' in Sefer Vayikra or in Sefer Shmot?
     Based on its content, in what sefer does it belong?
     Relate to Shmot 23:9-12.  [See also commentaries of
Chizkuni on Shmot 24:7 and Ibn Ezra on 25:1.]

7.  How does 26:1-2 thematically connect to either chapter
25,
which precedes it, or to chapter 26, which follows?
     In your opinion, why do you think that a new chapter
begins two psukim before the end of Parshat Behar?  [Note
the
parshiot divisions as well and how they relate to the
chapter
divisions!  In your opinion, which division makes more
sense?]
     Would you consider these laws in 26:1-2 new or
'repeats'?
     If they are repeats, where in Chumash were they first
mentioned?  [Relate to both Sefer Shmot and Sefer
Vayikra.]
     Why do you think that they are being repeated at this
point?

8. Based on your answers to the above questions, you
should
have found several topics towards the end of Sefer Vayikra
that appear to 'belong' in Sefer Shmot; make a list of
those
topics, noting next to each one where in Chumash they do
belong!
     As you study your list, see if you can identify a
pattern? If so, can you offer an explanation for this
pattern?

PART III - PARSHANUT
1.  The opening pasuk of Parshat Behar tells us that these
mitzvot were given on Har Sinai.
     Let's say this parsha began like most other parshiot
with
simply 'va-yedaber Hashem el Moshe leimor' without
mentioning
Har Sinai.  If so, then from where would we have thought
that
these mitzvot were given?     [on Har Sinai?, the ohel
mo'ed?,
somewhere else?]
     Up until this point, where have the other mitzvot
recorded in Sefer Vayikra been given from?
     [Relate to Vayikra 1:1; 7:37-38;  and 16:1.]

2.  Is this the first time in the Torah that we find
details
about the laws of shmitta?  If not, where else did we
learn
about it?
     Relate to Shmot 23:11-12, and its context.
     What is the nature of the other mitzvot recorded in
Shmot
chapter 23? (i.e. the unit Shmot 20:19->23:19)]
     Where and when were those mitzvot given?
     How does this relate to the first pasuk in Behar?

3.  Now, see the Midrash quoted by Rashi on the first
pasuk in
Parshat Behar ["ma inyan shmitta etzel Har Sinai"].
     What basic assumption does this Midrash make which
leads
to this question?  What is that assumption based on?
     How does Rashi explain the answer of the Midrash to
this
question?  How does Ramban explain that Midrash?
          [Can you explain why they argue.]
     Can you suggest a more simple answer to the question
raised by the Midrash?

4.  Now, see Ibn Ezra.  Why does he immediately say 'ein
mukdam u-me'uchar...'?  Is he not bothered by the question
raised by Rashi?
     How would he answer that question based on his
peirush?
     How does he explain why this parsha is 'out of
place'?
     See also Rashbam; would you consider this a similar
approach?

5.  Next, see Chizkuni.
     Is his basic approach the same as Ibn Ezra or
different?
     How does he explain why this parsha is 'out of
place'?
          How is this different from Ibn Ezra's
explanation?

6.  Now, see Seforno.
     Does he explain like Rashi or like Ibn Ezra?
     How does he explain why this Parsha is 'out of
place'?

7.  See Ramban once again, note how first he explains what
he
understands as 'pshat' of the Midrash quoted by Rashi
(arguing
with Rashi's own explanation of that Midrash)..
     Continue this Ramban until he begins 'lefi da'ati' -
['according to my opinion...'].  Note how here he begins
his
own explanation of this pasuk!
     Even though just about all of the other mefarshim
understand that this parsha is a classic case of 'ein
mukdam u-
me'uchar' - Ramban 'gallantly' defends his position that
Chumash progresses in chronological order.  Read this
Ramban
carefully, and note how he beautifully explains the
chronological order of the entire Sefer!  Note also how he
relates the laws of shmitta and especially the tochacha to
the
second Luchot!  [Relate this to our shiur on the 13
Midot.]
     Even though this Ramban is very lengthy, it is very
worthwhile - both to help you understand Sefer Vayikra and
to
appreciate Ramban's approach and methodology.  Note how he
provides a comprehensive explanation for the progression
of
most all of the parshiot is Sefer Vayikra.
     [As you read this Ramban, note how 'loyal' he remains
to
his opinion of 'yeish mukdam u-me'uchar ba-Torah'.]

                         be-hatzlacha,
                         menachem


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

             PARSHAT BECHUKOTAI

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

A 'GAN EDEN' ENVIRONMENT
1.  Vayikra 26:3-46 is commonly referred to as the
'tochacha'
[rebuke], for it warns Bnei Yisrael of the terrible
punishment, should they not follow God's laws.  However,
the
first eleven psukim describe the potential reward, should
Bnei
Yisrael keep those laws.
  As your review this 'positive side' of the tochacha
(i.e.
26:3-13), see if you can find any textual parallels to the
Torah's description of the relationship between man and
God in
Gan Eden, as described in Breishit chapter 2.
     If so, can you suggest any thematic similarities as
well?
    [Are you familiar with any Midrashim that find certain
    aspects of Gan Eden in the Land of Israel?]

2.  Review 26:12, noting the phrase 've-hithalachti
betochachem...' and its context in this entire section.
How
does this pasuk relate to Gan Eden?
     Relate your answer to Rashi's commentary on this
pasuk!
     See Ramban on this pasuk as well for a very
interesting
and important explanation concerning how the Torah relates
to
'olam ha-ba' [the world to come]!

3.  In what manner is the tochacha in Parshat Bechukotai
similar to the tochacha in Parshat Ki Tavo (i.e. Devarim
perek
28)?  In what manner is it different?
     Based on their content, why do you think that each
tochacha is included in its respective Sefer?  [In other
words, how does it relate to the theme of each sefer?]
     Relate to Vayikra 18:24-29.
     See also Ibn Ezra on 25:1!
     Compare as well Vayikra 26:3-5 to Devarim 11:13-17.

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
1.  The opening pasuk of the tochacha relates to the
'chukim'
and 'mishpatim' that Bnei Yisrael must keep (less they be
punished).  Note as well 26:14-15, and how the Torah
refers to
both of these words as mitzvot.
     In your opinion, which specific chukim and mishpatim
(and
hence mitzvot) are these psukim referring to?
  Relate to the following possibilities:
    1.  Only the laws of shmitta & yovel, i.e. Vayikra
chapter
25.
       2.  All of the laws found in Sefer Vayikra.
       3.  All of the laws of the Torah.
     Attempt to explain the logic behind each of these
possibilities.

2.  From a 'technical' perspective, why should chapters 25
and
26 in Sefer Vayikra be considered one unit?
  In your answer, relate to the new 'dibra' that begins in
25:1, noting how it doesn't end until the end of chapter
26.
[Note as well the next new dibra begins in 27:1.]
  Relate this to your answer to the above question.
  

3.  In what manner does the tochacha (i.e. chapter 26)
thematically relate to the laws of shmitta & yovel in
chapter
25?
     In your answer relate to 26:34-35, as well as 26:3-5.
     [Note as well the last 7 psukim of Sefer Divrei
Hayamim!]

3.  How does the tochacha thematically relate to Vayikra
chapter 18?  [Note especially 18:1-5, 18:24-30.]
     How does it relate to the theme of the 'second half'
of
Sefer Vayikra?  Attempt to relate your answer to 26:46!

4.  Considering that Sefer Vayikra is a 'book of laws',
can
you explain why the tochacha would have formed an
appropriate
conclusion for the entire Sefer?
     What does one usually find at the conclusion of a set
of
laws?
     [Relate in your answer to 26:46!]

5.  Is there a logical progression from chapter 26 to
chapter
27?
     If so, what is it?  If not, in your opinion, where in
Sefer Vayikra do the laws in chapter 27 belong?
     Note 27:14-25.  Based on these details, how does this
chapter relate to chapter 25?
     Based on that parallel, would it have made more sense
for
the Torah to record these laws within chapter 25 (or at
least
before the tochacha in chapter 26)?

6.  Note 27:34.  What mitzvot does this pasuk refer to?
How
does this pasuk relate to the final pasuk of chapter 26?
     How do both these psukim relate to the opening pasuk
of
chapter 25?

7.  In what manner is Vayikra chapter 27 similar to
Vayikra
chapters 1-3?  In what manner are these units different?

8.  Can you explain why Sefer Vayikra prefers to conclude
with
chapter 27 instead of chapter 26?  Relate to the primary
topic
of each chapter.
     See Ibn Ezra at the beginning of chapter 27.

PART III - PARSHANUT
1.  Review 26:46, noting how it forms a 'summary pasuk'.
In
your opinion, what does it summarize?  In other words,
what do
the words 'chukim, mishpatim, & torot' refer to?
     See the commentaries of Rashi, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, &
Sforno on this pasuk.
     Why do you think that each commentator offers a very
different answer?
     See also Chizkuni to Shmot 24:7 ['sefer ha-brit']!
What leads Chizkuni to his conclusion?
     Based on the previous shiurim on the 'two halves' of
Sefer Vayikra, can you suggest an alternative
interpretation?

2.  In 26:9, God promises that 'He will keep His
covenant'.
In your opinion, what covenant (brit) does this pasuk
refer
to?
     Compare this pasuk with Breishit 6:18, 9:1,7,11-12;
17:7-
8; and Shmot 6:2-5.  How do these sources enhance your
understanding of 26:9?
     See now Ramban on Breishit 6:18, especially towards
the
end [from 've-al derech ha-emet...'].

In relation to 've-hakimoti et briti itchem' in 26:9 -
     First, see Rashi's commentary on this pasuk.
     What causes Rashi to explain that this pasuk refers
to a
new covenant, as opposed to a fulfillment of the original
covenant?
     Next, see Ibn Ezra.  In your opinion, why does Ibn
Ezra
mention specifically 'kochvei ha-shamayim' and 'afar ha-
aretz'.
     Relate this to the beginning of the pasuk!
     Finally, see Seforno.  Note how he refers to the
psukim
of brit mila.  Can you explain why?
     In your opinion, what is the underlying reason for
this
three-way 'machloket'?

                         be-hatzlacha,
                         menachem


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bharq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 32808 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090511/541ec716/attachment-0002.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bchukq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 22903 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090511/541ec716/attachment-0003.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu May 14 02:30:58 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 02:30:58 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Parsaht Behar
Message-ID: <006d01c9d45d$8c943520$a5bc9f60$@net>

**********************************************************
***
     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



-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090514/ade24a25/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu May 14 02:46:36 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 02:46:36 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Parshat Bchukotei
Message-ID: <008101c9d45f$bcd81830$36884890$@net>

**********************************************************
***
     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)


-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090514/06743d70/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon May 18 08:32:49 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 08:32:49 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Bamidbar- questions for self study
Message-ID: <009301c9d7b4$c34b31e0$49e195a0$@net>

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

              SEFER BAMIDBAR - INTRODUCTION

[Note: The first section of questions deals with Sefer
  Bamidbar in general; the second section contains
questions for
  Parshat Bamidbar.]

PART ONE - FINDING A THEME
     Our shiurim thus far have been based on the
assumption
that each sefer of Chumash should be studied a 'prophetic
composition' - i.e. each book was written by God to
deliver a
certain message to the people of Israel (and not simply to
provide us with historical information).  Therefore, we
study
each book in search of its primary (and sometimes
secondary)
themes.
  [We based this assumption not only on 'common sense',
but
  also on the very fact that many commentators (such as
Ramban
  and Seforno) attempt to identify that theme in their
  introductory commentaries to each book.]

     The following battery of questions will reflect a
methodology that helps the student identify the underlying
theme for Sefer Bamidbar (and basically for any book in
Tanach).  It will also help you appreciate the opinions
raised
by the various commentators in regard to its overall
theme.
     We begin with some general questions to think about,
which highlight thematic considerations.   Afterward the
questions will become a bit more 'rigorous'.

PART ONE - Questions to 'think about'
1.  In your opinion, is Sefer Bamidbar a continuation of
Sefer
Vayikra?  If so, explain how and why.
     If not, explain why it is not.
     Could it be considered a continuation of Sefer Shmot?
          If so, explain why.

     According to your answer, why does Sefer Bamidbar
start
where (and when) it does?  [In other words, why does it
begin
with a census taken on the first day of the second month
in
the second year?]
     What was the last topic discussed in Sefer Shmot?
  Do we have any indication for when the mitzvot in Sefer
Vayikra were given?  [Note for example Shmot 40:17 (in
relation toVayikra 1:1), Vayikra 7:37-38, 16:1, 25:1.]

2.  From your previous knowledge of Sefer Bamidbar, can
you
suggest a common theme for the entire Sefer (or at least
for
most of it)?  In other words, what is the primary topic of
its
narrative and/or its mitzovt?
If you did identify any specific theme, how does it relate
to
the themes of Sefer Shmot and Sefer Vayikra?
     If you can't identify a common theme, explain which
details make it difficult to reach a conclusion?
     Can you identify at least any distinct 'units' or
general
topics?

3.  Recall how the books of Breishit and Shmot contained
primarily 'narrative', i.e. an ongoing story), while Sefer
Vayikra contained primarily mitzvot (commandments).
  In your opinion, does the style of Sefer Bamidbar seem
to be
more like Sefer Shmot (story and some mitzvot) or Sefer
Vayikra (mostly mitzvot)?

     Re: the stories in Sefer Bamidbar, do they appear to
be
simply a random collection, or do they share a common
theme?
Do they divide into any distinct groups?
     Likewise, re: the mitzvot in Sefer Bamidbar, when
were
they given and do they share any common theme?

4.  In your opinion, had Bnei Yisrael not sinned during
their
journey in the desert, would there have been a need for
Sefer
Bamidbar?
     If not, explain why not.
     If so, what would have been its primary topic?

PART TWO - Preparation questions for intro. shiur
  [Part Two will keep you quite busy, but it will help you
  arrive at more precise conclusions for the above
questions.
  ]

1.  Our goal (as usual) is to compose a 'Table of
Contents'
for Sefer Bamidbar, which will help us identify its
primary
topics and their progression.
     Before you begin, attempt to compose a Table of
Contents
(or outline) for Sefer Bamidbar based solely on your
previous
knowledge of the book.  Be as concise as possible, i.e. it
shouldn't be more than 15-20 lines long.  Based on your
outline, can you identify an overall theme?

2.  Next, we will construct this same outline, but this
time a
bit more carefully.  To do so, start with a blank sheet of
paper, on which we will dedicate one line for each chapter
(and when necessary - sometimes two or three lines for
chapters that contain more than one primary topic (e.g.
chapter 15).
  Quickly scan each chapter, and attempt to write a short
phrase that summarizes its primary topic.  Note as well
whether the primary topic is a story (narrative) or a
mitzva.
[For example, for chapter one, you could write - counting
the
tribes; for chapter six - the laws of Nazir; for chapter
16 -
the story of Korach's rebellion.]  Be as brief as
possible;
the idea is not to read the entire book, rather just to
review
it to get the general picture.
  [Ideally, it would best to dedicate one line for each
  'parshia', but as that would probably take too long, one
  line for chapter will usually suffice.  However, for
  chapters 5,6, 9,10,15, and 27 it is recommended that you
  dedicate one line for each parshia instead of one line
for
  the entire chapter.]
  
3.  When you have completed your list for all 36 chapters,
take your list and group together any chapters that share
a
common topic, and give a name for that common topic.  For
example: chapters 1 thru 4 could be 'counting & organizing
the
camp', while for chapters 22 thru 24 you could simply
write
the story of Bil'am.
     Those common topics now become the 'headers' of each
section of your outline.  If several of these 'common
topics'
can group together, then you've found a general topic -
which
can become a sub-title for a certain section of your
outline.
     If possible, continue this process in an attempt to
identify a title for your entire outline - if so, you've
found
the primary theme of the Sefer.

4.  As you review your outline, attempt to identify the
progression of topic.  Can you explain where (and why)
there
are certain sections where the topic does not seem to flow
logically?
     Notice in your outline how there are several
transitions
from 'stories' to 'mitzvot'.  In those transitions, does
the
flow of topic usually make sense?  If not, can you explain
why?

5.  To clarify the point raised by the last question,
review
your outline once again, this time paying careful
attention to
whether each topic is either a narrative (story) or a
mitzva
(a commandment).
  Then, if it is a mitzva, make note if it is a 'mitzva
le-
dorot' - i.e. a commandment that applies to future
generations, or a 'mitzva le-sha'a' - i.e. a one-time
commandment given only for that generation in the desert.
     Then, make a new list, this time writing down only
the
narratives and the mitzvot le-sha'a, while leaving out any
topic that is a mitzva le-dorot, i.e. which does not form
an
integral part of the ongoing narrative.
     Now, take this second list (i.e. the one without the
mitzvot le-dorot) and turn it into an outline (as before),
and
identify its primary topics.  Does its flow of topic make
more
sense than the flow of topic in your first outline?  If
so,
can you explain why?
     How would you title this new outline?
6.  Next, construct a separate list for all of the
parshiot of
"mitzvot le-dorot" - i.e. the ones which you 'filtered'
out of
your original list.
     In your opinion, are these mitzvot in any way
connected
to one another?  Are any of these mitzvot thematically
connected in any matter to the narrative in Sefer
Bamidbar?
If so, explain how.
     Can you find any similarities between these mitzvot
and
the mitzvot found in either Sefer Shmot or Sefer Vayikra?

7.  In your opinion, when do you think that these mitzvot
were
first given to Moshe Rabbeinu?  In other words, were they
given early, when Moshe was on (or at) Har Sinai; or were
they
given at different times during the journey through the
desert, i.e. at the same time that they are recorded in
Sefer
Bamidbar?
     Do any of these mitzvot seem to continue topics that
had
already been discussed earlier in Chumash?  Are any of
these
mitzvot 'repeats' from earlier in Chumash?
     Is there one category that seems to be common to most
of
these mitzvot?  If so, where else in Chumash have we found
mitzvot relating to that category?  Can you suggest a
reason
why these mitzvot are recorded in Sefer Bamidbar instead?

8.  Finally, see Ramban's introduction to Sefer Bamidbar
(before his commentary to Bamidbar 1:1).  At first glance,
some of Ramban's conclusions appear to be rather strange.
Based on your analysis of the Sefer, attempt to explain
how
(and why) Ramban reached those conclusions.       What
question does Ramban leave unanswered?
     See also Seforno's introduction to Sefer Bamidbar (if
not
found in the beginning of Sefer Bamidbar, then you will
find
it in his introduction to Chumash, before Sefer Breishit).

9.  Based on your answers to the above questions, can you
explain why we find so many 'drashot' that attempt to
explain
the juxtaposition between certain parshiot in Sefer
Bamidbar?
  [For example, why the laws of 'para aduma' (chapter 19)
were
  recorded before the story of the death of Miriam
(chapter
  20), or the questions that Korach asked re: the need for
  'tzizit' in a garment that was made out of pure
'techelet'
  (see end of chapter 15).



**********************************************************
***
            THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  www.tanach.org
              In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
        Questions for self study - by Menachem Leibtag
**********************************************************
***


                       PARSHAT BAMIDBAR
PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

WHO'S COUNTED or WHO COUNTS!
1.  Chazal refer to Sefer Bamidbar as 'Chumash ha-pkudim'.
Based on the use of this word in Parshat Bamidbar, what is
the
meaning of this name?  [See for example 1:3 & 1:19.]
   Are you aware of any other words in Hebrew that imply
'counting'?
     To the best of your recollection, are there any other
places in Sefer Bamidbar where we find the word 'pkudim'
or
the 'shoresh' 'p.k.d.' (in any context)?  If so, what does
the
word mean in each example?  [See for example 26:51-52.]
     Review 27:12-23, noting especially 27:16!  What does
the
word 'yifkod' imply in this context, and how does it
relate to
the meaning of this word in chapter one?
     Based on the meaning of "lifkod" in chapter 27, can
you
suggest a deeper meaning of this word for chapter one?
Can
this help explain why it may be the first chapter of the
book?
[Relate your answer to the theme of Sefer Bamidbar as
discussed in the Intro to Sefer Bamidbar questions
(above).
     Finally, see Ramban's commentary on 1:3 in regard to
the
phrase 'tifkedu otam'.

BIBLICAL NAMES
2.  In 1:4-15 we find twelve examples of Jewish names from
the
time period of Yetziat Mitzrayim.  [In other words, the
leaders who are chosen in chapter one were given their
names
several decades earlier, when Bnei Yisrael were still
enslaved
in Egypt.  Note as well that we find twelve more examples
of
names at the beginning of Parshat Shlach (see 13:1-16).]
     Review those names, noting how most of them are based
on
a combination of two Hebrew words, and attempt to
understand
the meaning of each.
     How many of these names include God's Name in one
form or
another?  Can you explain why?  [Do most of these names
sound
Hebrew, or do any of them seem to be Egyptian?]
     Which of God's Names do you find in these names?
     Which Name of God is not found in these names?
          Can you explain why?
  Relate to Shmot 6:2-4 and to Bamidbar 13:16!
     Review Bamidbar 13:16, noting how Moshe 'changes'
Hoshea
bin Nun's name to Yehoshua.  Based on these questions, can
you
explain the deeper meaning of this name change, and more
specifically - the use of 'yud.key' for God's Name?

CARRYING THE MENORA
3.  To the best of your recollection, what method was used
to
carry the 'keilim' [vessels] of the mishkan (when
traveling)?
[Relate to the 'badim' [poles] described in Parshat
Teruma.]
     Do you remember how the Levi'im were supposed to
carry
the 'menora'?  Did the menora have a place to insert
"badim"
[poles], as did the other vessels of the mishkan?
     Now, see Bamidbar 4:9-10!  Does this answer the
question?
          [How come, you never noticed this before?]

A DANGEROUS JOB
4.  Review 3:1-4, noting how the Torah goes out of its way
to
mention the death of Nadav and Avihu when counting the
kohanim.  How does this specific explanation of how and
why
they died (see 3:4) relate to the primary responsibility
of
the Levi'im, as described in the next set of psukim (i.e.
3:5-
10)?
Relate as well to 1:48-53 and to the special warning in
4:17-
20!
     Finally, relate this to the tragic story that takes
place
in II Shmuel chapter 6.

MAKING SENSE OF THE CENSUS
5.  Sefer Bamidbar opens on the first day of the second
month
with God's commandment to take a census.  What was the
purpose
of this census?  [Support your answer.]
     How does this relate to the date of the commandment?
          [Relate to 10:11-28! / See Rashbam & Seforno on
1:2]
     How does this relate to who is counted?
     How does this relate to the theme of Sefer Bamidbar?

     Towards the end of Sefer Bamidbar we find that
another
census is taken in the fortieth year (see 26:1-52).
     In what manner are these two censuses similar?  In
what
manner are they different?  [Compare them carefully!]
     What is the purpose of the second census?  [Relate to
26:52-56 (as well as 26:1)!]  Is it for the same reason as
the
first census?
     Use your answer to explain the differences between
them.

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
1.  What is the first general topic of Parshat Bamidbar
(which
is in essence the first topic of Sefer Bamidbar)?  How
does
this topic relate to the theme of Sefer Bamidbar (based on
your answers in the 'introduction section')?

2.  Considering that all the 'shvatim' are to be counted,
in
what order would you expect the Torah to list them?
     What was their order in Parshat Shmot (1:1-4)?
     How many times are the shvatim listed in Parshat
Bamidbar, and in what order?  [Note 1:20-42 & 2:3-30.]
     Can you explain why the order is different each time?

3.  Review chapter two once again, and note the four
tribes
who are chosen to lead each group of three.  What is
special
about the forefather of each of these four tribes?
     How does this help you answer question #2 above?
[If you have time, see Ramban on 2:3.]

4.  As you review chapter two, note how two additional
tribes
join each 'leadership' tribe to form a 'three tribe
brigade'.
Attempt to explain the logic for which tribes are added to
each leader.  For example, can you explain why
specifically
Gad 'jumps camp' from the group with his brother Asher to
the
camp of Reuven & Shimon?  [How are Gad and Reuven
related?]

5.  In your opinion, is there any significance in the
manner
by which the shvatim travel through the desert with the
mishkan at the center of their camp?
     Can you relate this to the purpose of this journey?
     In what manner is it similar to Ma'amad Har Sinai?
[See
first Ramban on Sefer Bamidbar.]

PART III - PARSHANUT
1.  According the pasuk -"ish al diglo be-otot le-beit
avotam..." (2:2), each tribe is to have a 'flag' showing
its
special 'ot'.  In your opinion, what type of 'otot' were
these?
     See Rashi on 2:2, noting that he offers two
explanations,
one based on the stones of 'choshen' (described in Shmot
28:15-
21), and one based on Yaakov Avinu's funeral procession
from
Egypt (see Breishit 50:12).  Attempt to explain the reason
for
these two commentaries, and how each understands the word
'ot'
in a different manner.
     Next, see Ibn Ezra, noting how he offers a different
explanation of what these 'otot' were; then see Ramban,
noting
how he first quotes Ibn Ezra and then adds on a few
important
lines to Ibn Ezra's peirush.  Explain this based on
Ramban's
intro to Sefer Bamdibar, and his understanding of
'kabbala'.
     Finally, see Chizkuni, noting how he too offers two
explanations.  The first - a totally different explanation
for
the 'otot' on the flags, based on the actual 'letters' of
the
names of the avot; while the second seems to be a
combination
of earlier commentators.
     Explain the underlying reason for these two
commentaries.

2.  At the beginning of chapter 3, the Torah first
describes
Aharon's family, from the day that God first spoke to
Moshe
Rabbeinu on Har Sinai.  Based on the flow of the parshiot
in
Parshat Bamidbar, can you explain the nature of this
statement, and why Har Sinai is mentioned (in contrast to
Midbar Sinai in 1:1)?
     Based on the parshiot that follow, what else is
difficult
about the wording of 3:1?  [Relate to the mention of
Aharon &
Moshe in this pasuk.]
     See Rashi, how does he relate to these questions?
Then
see Rashbam, noting how he answers these questions in a
totally different manner.
     Attempt to understand how this reflects two different
approaches to 'parshanut'.
     Next, see Ibn Ezra.  Note how he also deals with the
same
two questions, but offers a completely different
explanation
(than Rashbam or Rashi).  Try to understand what problems
in
the pasuk lead Ibn Ezra to his conclusions.
      Finally, see Ramban, noting how (and why) he first
quotes Rashi, and then adds an additional note.  [Would
you
say that Ramban disagrees with Rashi, or is he 'adding' to
his
peirush?]
     Then note how Ramban offers a different peirush 'al
derech ha-pshat...'.  Be sure that you understand how that
peirush is different than Rashi's and why Ramban refers to
this as pshat, even though he would not necessarily
disagree
with Rashi's statement.

3.  In Bamidbar 9:1-8 we find an event that took place on
the
14th day of the first month, while the opening pasuk of
Sefer
Bamidbar (1:1) records an event which took place two weeks
later on the first day of the second month!  Hence, Sefer
Bamidbar appears to be 'out of (chronological) order'.
     First, see Rashi, Ramban, Ibn Ezra, & Sforno (on
9:1),
noting how each commentator offers a different
explanation.
  As this pasuk seems to provide a very strong proof for
the
opinion of 'ein mukdam u-me'uchar...' [Chumash does not
necessarily follow in chronological order], how does
Ramban
(who hold 'yesh mukdam u-me'uchar') deal with this
problem?
     How does Rashi's 'shtita' of 'ein mukdam...' affect
his
interpretation?
     Why do you think that Ibn Ezra considers this
'parshia'
as a continuation of the dedication ceremony (i.e.
chapters 7-
8)?
     Note especially the final line in Seforno's peirush.
Based on this Seforno, how would you explain his approach
to
'ein mukdam u-me'uchar'?  Is his approach more similar to
Ramban's or to Rashi's?  See also Rashbam on 1:1.

4.  Note that the population of shevet Levi is
(proportionally) much less than any of the other shvatim.
Note also that they are counted from a much younger age!
Re: why they are counted from age 30 days, see Chizkuni
3:15.
Re: why their numbers are so small, see Ramban on 3:15.
     Note as well that the number of first born of Bnei
Yisrael (approx. 22,000 from age 30 days and above)
appears to
be much less than would be expected from a population of
600,000 males (age 20 & above).
  [Assuming that half of the male population would be
under
  the age of 20, there would be one first born for every
50
  people, and hence an average family size of 50!]

     See Ramban on 3:45, noting how he relates to and
solves
this problem!  Note also how explains why this 'transfer'
of
kedusha to the Levi'im doesn't take place until this time.

                              be-hatzlacha,
                              menachem


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bamidq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 40745 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090518/fd77a665/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed May 20 03:05:28 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 03:05:28 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Bamidbar
Message-ID: <010401c9d919$802bbe50$80833af0$@net>

**********************************************************
***
     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



-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090520/f69a7f56/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon May 25 17:02:56 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 17:02:56 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Naso - Questions for self study
Message-ID: <016501c9dd7c$44b97da0$ce2c78e0$@net>

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

PARSHAT  NASO

Part I - Questions for the 'Shabbat Table'
1. In Parshat Naso, we find the famous psukim of "birkat
kohanim" [the priestly blessing; see 6:22-27] 'sandwiched'
between the laws of Nazir (chapter 6) and the story of the
dedication of the Mishkan (chapter 7).
    Can you suggest a thematic reason for the
juxtaposition of these three parshiot?
[After trying on your own], see Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and
Chizkuni on 6:23! 
[See also Rashi and Rashbam for important halachot that
they learn from these psukim.]

2. Now that you've had a 'warm-up' with "smichut
parshiot," can you suggest a thematic connection between
the laws of "sotah" (5:11-31) and the laws of "nazir"
(6:1-21)?
    After trying on your own (again), see Rashi and Ibn
Ezra on 6:2.   [See also Chizkuni (like Ibn Ezra). What
important "musar" can we learn from this Ibn Ezra?!] 

3. Recall that Chumash had already recorded the story of
the dedication of the Mishkan in Shmot chapter 40 and in
Vayikra chapters 8-9. 
    Why do you think that yet another aspect of that event
are recorded here in Sefer Bamidbar?
    In your answer, relate to 7:3-9 in relation to the
general topic in chapters 1-4!  [Relate as well to the
theme of 'leadership' in Sefer Bamidbar.] 
    
4. In regard to "nedarim" [vows, in relation to the laws
of "nazir" in chapter 6] Chazal make a very interesting
statement: 
"He who makes a vow - it is as though he builds a bamah
[an altar on a high place]; when he fulfills that vow - it
is as though he offers a sacrifice on that bamah..." [See
Mesechet Yevamot 109a.] 

    In your opinion, is this a positive or negative
statement concerning one who makes a vow [or possibly
both]?
[Recall that a bamah is an altar built for God, but one is
permitted to set up a bamah only when a permanent Mikdash
does not exist. However, once the permanent Mikdash was
build by Shlomo HaMelech in Yerushalayim, bamot became
forbidden forever. See Rambam Hilchot Beit Ha'bechira 1:1
thru 1:4.]

    Why do you think that Chazal chose specifically this
comparison to a bamah rather than simply say that
"nedarim" are not advisable? 
    Is there a time when "nedarim" are advisable? 
    How does this compare to the times when a bamah is
permitted?! [Relate to Rambam Hilchot Day'ot chapter 1.] 

5. Sefer Bamidbar opens on the 1st of Iyar, as God
commands Moshe to take a census. 
    Note the order the tribes as they are organized by
camps in chapter 2.  [See last week's shiur for discussion
of the reason for this order.]
    Now, note the tribal order of the n'si'im, as they
offer their korbanot during the twelve day dedication
ceremony in chapter 7.
    Is the order the same or different? Can you explain
why?
    Note the date of when these korbanot were offered a
month before the census was taken! 
    What does this tell you about reason for the order by
which the n'si'im offered their korbanot? [See Ramban
7:12] 
 
Part II - Questions for Preparation (for weekly shiur)
1. Take a careful look at the last pasuk in Parshat Naso
(7:89), and its relation to the entire chapter that
precedes it.
    Would you say that this pasuk simply doesn't belong
here?! 
    Explain why yes, or why not. 

2. Based on Shmot 25:21-22 and Vayikra 1:1, is this pasuk
at all necessary?  If so, where should it have been
written?
    Why do you think that it is written here at the
conclusion of the korbanot of the n'si'im? 

3. Based on chapter 7, can you determine on what date this
pasuk 'takes place?'
    [Is it after the 12 n'si'im offer their korbanot?] 

4. Now, take a careful look at 7:1-11, especially 7:10!
    Based on 7:10-11, what did all of the n'si'im bring on
the first day of the dedication ceremony?  Why did they
only offer those korbanot over twelve days instead of all
together on the first day?
    How does this help explain the reason for the Torah's
summary of all of their korbanot in 7:84-88?  [Note the
date that is implicit from 7:84 and its connection to
7:10!]
    Now, answer question #3 again. 

5. Based on Shmot 33:7 (and its context), from where did
God speak to Moshe in the aftermath of Chet Ha'Egel?
    How does this relate to the purpose of the Mishkan and
especially to Shmot 25:7-8 ["v'shachanti b'tocham"]?
    After Chet Ha'Egel, when is the first time that God
speaks to Moshe from within the camp of Israel again? 
    In other words, on what day is the Mishkan dedicated?
    According to Bamidbar 7:89, after what event did God
begin to speak to Moshe from the Mishkan?
    Can you relate this to the above questions? 

6. What can you conclude from these sources concerning the
importance of unity among the tribes?
    Can you explain now why the last pasuk in Parshat Naso
belongs exactly where it is? 
    How (and why) can it be considered the climax of the
entire chapter? 
    [Now that you've prepared, go to the shiur titled "The
Nsiim"].

Part III - Parshanut
1. In regard to 7:89 (and the questions in Part II above),
see: 
 Rashi -
    What question in pshat does Rashi address?
    Does he relate to why this pasuk is placed here? 
 Ibn Ezra (and Chizkuni) -
    What question in pshat do they address.
    Can this help you answer the questions in Part II? 
 Seforno -
    What point does Seforno come to add?
    How does he relate this pasuk to chet ha'egel?
    Why does he compare this pasuk to Bayit Rishon and
Sheni? 

2. Finally, see Ramban on 7:12 and his argument with
Rashi.
    In your opinion, which approach seems to be closer to
"pshat"? How do the points raised by Ramban relate to the
questions in Part II above? 
    See also questions 1 and 2 in Part I above. 

=====
Questions for preparation for shiur relating to the
overall structure of Sefer Bamidbar 
					
1.  Before we begin, attempt to compose a Table of
Contents (or outline) for Sefer Bamidbar based solely on
your previous knowledge of the book.  Be as concise as
possible, i.e. it shouldn't be more than 15-20 lines long.
Based on your outline, can you identify an overall theme?

2.  Next, we will construct this same outline, but this
time a bit more carefully.  To do so, start with a blank
sheet of paper, on which we will dedicate one line for
each chapter  (and when necessary - sometimes two or three
lines).  
    Quickly scan each chapter, and attempt to write a
short phrase that summarizes its primary topic.  Note as
well if the primary topic is a story (narrative) or a
mitzva.  [For example, for chapter one, you could write -
counting the tribes; for chapter six - the laws of Nazir;
for chapter 16 - the story of Korach's rebellion.]  Be as
brief as possible; the idea is not to read the entire
book, rather just to review it to get the general picture.
[Ideally, it would best to dedicate one line for each
'parshia', but as that would probably take too long, one
line for chapter will usually suffice.  However, for
chapters 5,6, 9,10,15, and 27 it is recommended that you
dedicate one line for each parshia instead of one line for
the entire chapter.]

3.  When you have completed your list for all 36 chapters,
take your list and group together any chapters that share
a common topic, and give a name for that common topic.
For example: chapters 1 thru 4 could be 'counting &
organizing the camp', while for chapters 22 thru 24 you
could simply write the story of Bil'am.
	Those common topics now become the 'headers' of
each section of your outline.  If several of these 'common
topics' can group together, then you've found a general
topic - which can become a sub-title for a certain section
of your outline.
	If possible, continue this process in an attempt
to identify a title for your entire outline - if so,
you've found the primary theme of the Sefer. 

4.  As you review your outline, attempt to identify the
progression of topic.  Can you explain where (and why)
there are certain sections where the topic does not seem
to flow logically?
	Notice in your outline how there are several
transitions from 'stories' to 'mitzvot'.  In those
transitions, does the flow of topic usually make sense?
If not, can you explain why?

5.  To clarify the point raised by the last question,
review your outline once again, this time paying careful
attention to whether each topic is either a narrative
(story) or a mitzva (a commandment). 
    Then, if it is a mitzva, make note if it is a 'mitzva
le-dorot' - i.e. a commandment that applies to future
generations, or a 'mitzva le-sha'a' - i.e. a one-time
commandment given only for that generation in the desert.
	Then, make a new list, this time writing down only
the narratives and the mitzvot le-sha'a, while leaving out
any topic that is a mitzva le-dorot, i.e. which does not
form an integral part of the ongoing narrative.
	Now, take this second list (i.e. the one without
the mitzvot le-dorot) and turn it into an outline (as
before), and identify its primary topics.
	Does the flow of topic in this outline make more
sense that the flow of topic in your first outline?  If
so, can you explain why?
	How would you title this new outline?
	

6.  Next, construct a separate list for all of the
parshiot of mitzvot le-dorot - i.e. the ones which you
'filtered' out of your original list.
	In your opinion, are these mitzvot in any way
connected to one another?  Are any of these mitzvot
thematically connected in any matter to the narrative in
Sefer Bamidbar?  If so, explain how.
	Can you find any similarities between these
mitzvot and the mitzvot found in either Sefer Shmot or
Sefer Vayikra?

7.  In your opinion, when do you think that these mitzvot
were first given to Moshe Rabbeinu?  In other words, were
they given early, when Moshe was on (or at) Har Sinai; or
were they given at different times during the journey
through the desert, i.e. at the same time that they are
recorded in Sefer Bamidbar?
 	Do any of these mitzvot seem to continue topics
that had already been discussed earlier in Chumash?  Are
any of these mitzvot 'repeats' from earlier in Chumash?
	Is there one category that seems to be common to
most of these mitzvot?  If so, where else in Chumash have
we found mitzvot relating to that category?  Can you
suggest a reason why these mitzvot are recorded in Sefer
Bamidbar instead?

8.  Finally, see Ramban's introduction to Sefer Bamidbar
(before his commentary to Bamidbar 1:1).  At first glance,
some of Ramban's conclusions appear to be rather strange.
Based on your analysis of the Sefer, attempt to explain
how (and why) Ramban reached those conclusions.
What question does Ramban leave unanswered?
	See also Seforno's introduction to Sefer Bamidbar
(usually found in his introduction to Chumash, before
Sefer Breishit). 

9.  Based on your answers to the above questions, can you
explain why we find so many 'drashot' that attempt to
explain the juxtaposition between certain parshiot in
Sefer Bamidbar?
[For example, why the laws of 'para aduma' (chapter 19)
were recorded before the story of the death of Miriam
(chapter 20), or the questions that Korach asked re: the
need for 'tzizit' in a garment that was made out of pure
'techelet' (see end of chapter 15).

    b'hatzlacha,
   				menachem


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: nasoq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 29736 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090525/db01c1cf/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon May 25 17:02:56 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 17:02:56 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Shavuot - questions for self study
Message-ID: <018201c9dd7c$5b138960$113a9c20$@net>

**********************************************************
***
     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


-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090525/653b2505/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue May 26 15:06:30 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 15:06:30 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] For Shavuot - shiur
Message-ID: <022f01c9de35$17081b50$451851f0$@net>

**********************************************************
***
        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 19:316).
	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 4:916), 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 5:13).  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 23:1521).  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 24:48) 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 (24:68). [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.]


-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090526/37b2e777/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed May 27 17:30:08 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 17:30:08 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Shavuot - For Mishmar Leil Shavuot
Message-ID: <00a401c9df12$5174bc20$f45e3460$@net>

**********************************************************
***************
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

-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090527/f8f2a692/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu May 28 11:39:12 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 11:39:12 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] For NASO - Intro to SEFER BAMIDBAR
Message-ID: <010d01c9dfaa$79555680$6c000380$@net>

**********************************************************
***
        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.



-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090528/31a5c5a3/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun May 31 15:17:59 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 15:17:59 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Bhaalotcha - questions for self study
Message-ID: <029d01c9e224$8c6ea010$a54be030$@net>

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

          PARSHAT BEHA'ALOTCHA

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

LIGHTING THE MENORA
1.  Most probably, you have read the opening pasuk of
Parshat
Beha'alotcha many times, and it is often translated as
follows:
"...when you go up to light the menora..." (see 8:2).

     Do you agree with this translation?  Is this an exact
translation of the Hebrew?
     If not, what would be a more precise translation?  [
Be
sure that you understand the meaning of the word 'ner'.]
     Now, read Shmot 25:31-38, especially 25:36-37.  What
is
the precise definition of 'neirot' according to these
psukim?
     See Rashi on 25:37!
     Relate this to Bamidbar 8:4, and its description of
the
menora as 'miksha' [made from one piece of gold].  In your
opinion, are the neirot [of the menora] part of this
miksha,
or are they separate from it?  [In other words, are the
neirot
permanently connected to the menora, or are they
removable?
     If they were removable, can you explain why?
     From a technical standpoint, how did the kohen light
the
menora each day?  [i.e. how did he set up the wicks and
oil in
the candles?  What did the candle look like? etc.]
     See also Ibn Ezra & Chizkuni on Rashi 25:37.
     Based on these questions, how would you now interpret
8:2?

A CHANGE IN ATTITUDE?
2.  In chapter 11, as Bnei Yisrael begin their journey
from
Har Sinai, Moshe Rabbeinu is very angered by the people's
behavior.  Note Moshe's complaint to God in 11:10-15,
especially 11:11!
     How is this both parallel and different to Moshe's
petitions to God in Sefer Shmot, based on Shmot 5:22,
32:30-
32, and 33:16?
     Can you explain the reason for his 'change' in
attitude?
      Relate to Bamidbar 11:4-6, while noting Breishit3:6.
     In what manner is the nature of Bnei Yisrael's sin in
this incident worse than their sin at 'chet ha-egel', and
why
would this affect Moshe Rabbeinu's reaction?
     What is God's response to Moshe's complaint in
Bamidbar
11:10-15, and how does this response relate to his
complaint?
     See 11:16-17.  Relate this to the above parallel.
     Is Moshe Rabbeinu's reaction to this incident similar
to
his reaction to the other complaints that will later arise
in
Sefer Bamidbar?  Explain what is similar and what is
different.
     [Relate to Moshe's reaction to the incidents at 'chet
ha-
meraglim', Korach's rebellion, and 'mei meriva'.]
     How do the above questions relate to the more general
topic of 'leadership' in Sefer Bamidbar?

A LEVITE FOR EVERY 'BECHOR'
3.  In what manner is the special dedication ceremony for
the
levi'im (as described in Bamidbar 8:5-14) similar to the
dedication ceremony for the kohanim as detailed in Vayikra
8:1-
13 (and/or in Shmot chapter 29)?
     In what manner is this ceremony different?
     Can you explain the reason for the similarities and
differences?
     Review God's original commandment to set aside the
'bechor' [first born son] of each family as explained in
Shmot
13:1-2 (and 13:11-15).  What does the word 'kadesh' in
Shmot
13:1 imply, and what would be the practical result of this
commandment?
     Based on that original mitzva, relate that
commandment
and its intention to the ceremony that is described in
Bamidbar 8:5-14 as well as Bamidbar 3:11-13 (& 13:14-51).
     [Relate also to Shmot 32:26 & Devarim 10:8-9.]
     How does this help you understanding the meaning of
the
word kadesh in Shmot 13:1 and the original purpose of that
mitzva?

BETWEEN a NAZIR, a KOHEN and a LEVI
4.  In the dedication ceremony of the levi'im (see
8:5-14), we
find the need to:
     * sprinkle upon them special water
     * shave off all of their hair
     * wash their clothing and purification
     * to offer a chatat and ola  [w/ 'semicha']
     * waive them before God  [= 'tenufa']

     In what manner are any of these 'rituals' similar to
the
laws of nazir (as described in Bamidbar chapter 6)?  In
what
manner are they similar to the dedication ceremony of the
kohanim (as described in Vayikra chapter 8)?  Can you
explain
the significance of these parallels?
     [Note especially Bamidbar 6:8,14-20; Vayikra
8:1-6,22.]
     Relate your answer to the juxtaposition between these
laws (and all of the other laws) in Bamidbar chapters 6
thru
8.

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
1.  Clearly, the primary topic of the end of Parshat Naso
(i.e. Bamidbar chapter 7) was the 'korbanot ha-nesi'im'
[dedication offerings of the tribal leaders].
     What is the primary topic of the opening psukim in
Parshat Beha'alotcha (see 8:1-4)?
     Can you identify a thematic connection between these
two
topics?
     Note as well the primary topic of the next 'parshia',
i.e. 8:5-22.  In what manner does the ceremony described
in
those psukim relate to the previous topics in chapters 7 &
8?
     Could you consider chapters 7 thru 8 as a unit?  If
so,
how would you title that unit?  How does this unit relate
to
the earlier units in Sefer Bamidbar, and/or to the topics
that
will follow in chapter 9?

2.  Review once again Bamidbar 8:1-4.  In your opinion, do
these psukim belong here, or somewhere else in Chumash?
If
so, where?
     Relate to Shmot chapter 25, and the topic of that
chapter, as well as Shmot chapter 40.
[In your answer, be sure to relate to 7:1.  See also
Rashbam,
Ibn Ezra, and Chizkuni on 8:2 as well as Rashi & Ramban.]

3.  When (i.e. on what day) did the events described in
8:5-22
take place?  Based on your answer, how does this ceremony
relate to the events in chapter 7, and to the details in
8:1-
4?
     Is there any logic to the flow of these parshiot?
          [In your answer, relate to last week's TSC shiur
on
the 'nesi'im'.]

4.  In your opinion, do chapters 7-8 belong in Sefer
Bamidbar,
in Sefer Vayikra (chapter 9), or in Sefer Shmot (chapter
40)?
     Why do you think that they are included in Sefer
Bamidbar?
     How do they relate to chapters 9-10 that follow?
     Do they relate as well to chapters 1-4. If so, how?

5.  Can you identify a common topic for all of the
parshiot in
chapters 9 thru 10?  If so, how does it relate to the
overall
theme of Sefer Bamidbar (as discussed in our introductory
shiur to Sefer Bamidbar)?
     Similarly, can you identify a common topic for all of
the
parshiot in chapters 11 thru 14?  If so, how does that
topic
relate to the topic of chapters 9 thru 10?

6.  In your opinion, what 'should have been' the topic of
Sefer Bamidbar (from chapter 11 onward) had Bnei Yisrael
not
sinned at that time?  What becomes the primary topic
'instead'?

7.  What is special about 10:35-36?  What is the purpose
of
the upside down 'nun's' that surround these two psukim?
     Can you relate your answer to question #4 above?
     Can you explain why Chazal understand these two
psukim as
a Sefer by itself?  [See Shabbat 115b-116a.]
     Relate your answer to what 'should have happened' in
chapter 11 (i.e. had Bnei Yisrael not sinned), as
discussed in
the question above.
     See also Rashi, Ramban, Seforno & Chizkuni on
10:35-36.

8.  Relate your answers to the above questions to Moshe's
anger with the people after the sin of the 'mit'avim' and
his
subsequent request that God relieve him from his
leadership
responsibilities?  [See 11:3-14 and question #2 in Part I
above.]

PART III - PARSHANUT
1.  In your opinion, is the main topic of chapter 9 (i.e.
9:1-
14) 'pesach rishon' or 'pesach sheni'?  [Explain your
answer.]
     Relate to why this story is included in Sefer
Bamidbar.
Use your answer to explain the problem in the
chronological
order of these parshiot. [i.e. date of Bamidbar 1:1/
compared
to 9:1]
     Now, see Rashi on 9:1.
          What conclusion does Rashi reach?  Why?
          How does he explain why it is 'out of place'?
               [See also Chizkuni.]

     Next, see Ibn Ezra.  Note how he explains why this
parshia is recorded here. How is his peirush different
than
Rashi?
    [In your opinion, what peirush is closer to 'pshat'?]

     Next, see Ramban.  Usually, Ramban argues with the
opinion of 'ein mukdam u-me'uchar'.  Why does he accept it
for
this pasuk?  How does he explain why this parshia is
recorded
here?  How does his peirush differ from Rashi & Ibn Ezra?

     Finally, see Seforno.  Notice how comprehensive his
peirush is!  How does he explain why this story is here in
the
context of theme of Sefer Bamidbar?
     How does he relate this to the problem of ein mukdam
u-
me'uchar?  [Note the final few lines!]
     How does Seforno's commentary differ from Ramban's?
          Can you explain why?

2.  Read 10:29-34, the story of how Moshe offers Yitro to
'come along' with them.  Based on these psukim, is it
possible
to determine if Yitro indeed agreed to Moshe's offer?
     Now, compare this story with the story of Yitro's
arrival
at Har Sinai in Shmot chapter 18.  Note especially 18:27,
as
it describes how Yitro left.  In your opinion, does 18:27
(describing Yitro's departure back to Midyan) refer to the
same story as here in Bamidbar 10:29-34, or did he first
go
back, and then return at a later time back to Bnei
Yisrael's
camp at Har Sinai?
     In your opinion, in the story in Bamidbar, does Yitro
(=
Chovav) end up staying with Bnei Yisrael or does he go
back
home to Midyan?
     See Rashi, Ramban, and Seforno.  Note how each
commentary
deals with the above problem, and how each peirush
differs.

3.  When Bnei Yisrael travel through the desert, where is
the
aron supposed to be?  [i.e. at the front of the camp or in
the
middle?]
     Relate to 9:11-28 as well as 10:33-36.
     As you study 10:33, note how it describes the manner
by
which the aron leads the camp.
     Was this the original plan?
     *    Based on Bamidbar 9:11-28, note 9:21.
     *    Based on Bamidbar 10:35.
     *    Based on Shmot 23:20-23.
     *    Based on Yehoshua chapter 3.

     See Rashi on 10:33.  How does he solve this problem?
          Why does Rashi conclude that there were two
arks?!
               [Note also Chizkuni!!]

     Next, see Ibn Ezra.  Why does he claim that this
(first)
journey was different than the rest of the journeys that
would
follow?
     Then, see Ramban.  How is his peirush different than
Rashi and Ibn Ezra's?  Why does he begin with 'al derech
ha-
pshat'?
     Finally, see Seforno.
     In what manner is his commentary similar to Ibn
Ezra's
and how does it differ?

                              be-hatzlacha,
                              menachem



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bhalq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 27057 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090531/c639b328/attachment-0001.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bhalq.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 47616 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090531/c639b328/attachment-0001.doc 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Jun  4 03:24:21 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 03:24:21 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for NASO / BHAALOTCHA - shiur
Message-ID: <00c501c9e4e5$7c808150$758183f0$@net>

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

              PARSHAT NASO / BHAALOTCHA - 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: naso2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 29103 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090604/1bf761a4/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Jun  4 03:34:55 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 03:34:55 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] For Naso Bhaaltocha - shiur #2 - re: the Nssim & Aharon
Message-ID: <00d601c9e4e6$f5472020$dfd56060$@net>

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

    PARSHAT NASO / 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!



-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090604/3683b5c4/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Jun  4 03:37:23 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 03:37:23 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Naso/BHAALTOCHA - Three books in One
Message-ID: <00da01c9e4e7$4d771d40$e86557c0$@net>

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

             PARSHAT NASO / 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.

-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090604/8b02f396/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue Jun  9 15:51:28 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:51:28 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Shlach - questions for self study
Message-ID: <018201c9e93b$adbc2260$09346720$@net>

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

PARSHAT SHLACH

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

THREE OUT OF SEVEN
1.  Review Bamdibar 13:23, noting which fruits the spies
chose to bring back to show the people.  Note as well how
many of them are from the seven species! Attempt to
explain why they bought back fruit with them. In your
opinion, was this a good idea, or a bad idea?  [In your
answer, relate to 13:20,26-27.]
	Can you explain why only these three species were
chosen, but not the other four?  In your answer, relate to
13:20, and the various fruit seasons in the land of
Israel.

2.  Recall that in the desert, Bnei Yisrael ate from the
manna - which was described in both Shmot 16:15 & 31  &
Bamidbar 11:7-8 in a very special manner.  Review those
descriptions, and note if they match in any way to the
four remaining species that the spies did not bring back.
How does this enhance your understanding of the questions
above?

TZIZIT - L'CHATCHILA  or B'DIAVAD?
1. Review the mitzvah of tzizit as described in 15:37-41,
noting any paralles (textual or thematic) to the story of
the spies in chapter 13.  Based on these parallels (and
where in Chumash this law is recorded), would it make
sense that the laws of tzizit were given because of the
sin of spies?
	If so, in your opinion, would have there been a
mitzva to wear tzizit had that sin not taken place?

2.  Review Devarim 22:12 - how does this law relate to the
laws of tzizit in Bamdibar chapter 15?
	In your opinion, which of these two laws was given
first?  In your answer, relate to Devarim 5:1-2, 5:27-28,
and 6:1-7 (in relation to when the laws of the main speech
of Sefer Devarim were first given by God to Moshe).  
	Based on these sources, could you suggest an
additional reason why the laws of tzizit are 'repeated' in
Sefer Bamidbar?

3. Review the other laws in chapter 15, e.g. "nesachim",
"chala", and the offering for a sin commited
'unintentionally' [shogeg], etc. 
	Do any of these laws relate in any manner to the
story of the spies?  If not, why are they recorded at this
point in Sefer Bamidbar?  If so, what is there connection
- and again, in your opinion, would these mitzvot have
been given had it not been for the sin of the spies?
 
WHAT'S IN A NAME?
1.  The names of the 12 'spies' in Parshat Shlach (see
13:4-16) provide us with 24 examples of biblical names.
Similarly, in the opening chapter of Parshat Bamidbar (see
1:5-15) we find yet another 24 names. 
	Take a look at those names, paying careful
attention when a certain name includes a reference to God.
[For example: 'tzuri-el' = God is my rock.]  Each time
that you do find such a reference to God in a name, note
the different Names that are used  (e.g. Kel, Shakai,
Tzur, etc.).  [It would be helpful to make a list.]
	As you are probably familiar, the Bible uses a
wide range of names when it refers to God, many of which
you most probably found when you studied these names.  
    Nonetheless, did you notice that there was one primary
name for God which seems to be missing!  [If so, what name
was missing?]   Can you explain why?

2.  Next, carefully review Shmot 6:2-3, noting how these
psukim explain which of God's Names were 'known' to the
forefathers, while God's special Name [Yud.Key.Vav.Key]
was not 'known' -until the process of Yetziat Mitzrayim
had begun!
	Considering that all of the people whose names are
recorded (in Bamidbar 1:5-15 and 13:4-6) were born before
the process of Yetziat Mitzrayim began, can you explain
why God's special Name is not found in this list?
	How would this explain why Moshe changes
Yehoshua's name from Hoshea bin Nun to Y-E'hoshua?  What
letters are added to his name, and name of God does this
reflect?
    Relate your answer to these two letters [yud.heh] that
are found in the names of the Kings of Yehuda, e.g.
Yedidya (=Shlomo), Yehoshaphat, Yehoram, Chizkiyahu, etc.]
	Note as well Yehoshua's (and Kalev's) primary
message to the nation when they return from their mission
(see 14:8)?  How does this 'message' relate to the nature
of Yehoshua's new name?

3.  Note also the frequency of God's Name in the list of
the 'meraglim' (see 13:4-16) compared to its frequency in
the list of the nesi'im (see 1:5-15).  Do you think that
this may be significant as well?  [Note also the frequency
of the names of animals in those two lists.  Is this
necessarily derogatory?]

SOME VERY SPECIAL MITZVOT
1.  See Rashi on 15:41 where he quotes from R. Moshe
Ha-darshan in regard to certain mitzvot that are
'equivalent' to all the mitzvot ('shkula kenegged kol
ha-mitzvot').  Among them, he lists 'avoda zara', 'chillul
shabbat' and 'tzitzit'.
	According to Chazal, there is one other mitzva
that is considered 'shkula kenegged kol ha-mitzvot' - i.e.
the mitzva to dwell in the land of Israel.  How does this
statement reflect the entire group of mitzvot that are
found in Bamidbar chapter 15 and their thematic connection
to 'chet ha-meraglim' (i.e. Bnei Yisrael not wanting to
enter the Land of Israel)?
	[Hope this one wasn't too zionistic.]

2.  The mitzvot in 15:1-11 explain the flour, oil and wine
offering (better known as 'nesachim') which must be
brought together with each korban olah or shlamim.
    Considering that the laws of ola & shlamim are first
detailed in Vayikra chapters 1-3, why do you think that
these laws of nesachim are recorded here instead of there?
	[Relate to the header of this parshia and its
juxtaposition to the story of chet ha-meraglim.]

3.  Is there a simple and very logical reason why the
obligation to bring nesachim is only once Bnei Yisrael
enter the land (see 15:1)?  Relate to to where they are
now living (in the desert) and what their present source
of food is.

SELECTIVE ATTRIBUTES
1.  Compare God's 'midot ha-rachamim' in the aftermath of
chet ha-meraglim (see 14:17-23) to those in the aftermath
of chet ha-egel (see Shmot 34:5-9).  Can you explain why
certain attributes are not repeated?
	In your answer, relate to the nature of each
respective sin, and its pending punishment.

2.	If you have time, relate your analysis to Devarim
9:25-29.  Note the context of those psukim (in chapter 9),
and attempt to determine if Moshe Rabbeinu is quoting the
midot ha-rachamim from chet ha-egel or from chet
ha-meraglim (or both)?  
    Can you explain why?  Relate your answer to the
context of that chapter, noting especially 9:5-8 &
9:22-24!

3.  Review again Bamidbar 14:11-20, noting the reasons
that Moshe uses to convince Hashem why not to destroy the
nation.  In your opinion, is Moshe asking for total
forgiveness, and hence God should allow them to continue
on to Israel, or is he simply asking that God not kill
them immediately, but Moshe would agree that they
shouldn't enter the land.  In your answer, relate to
14:20!

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
1.  To the best of your recollection, what was the 'sin'
of the meraglim (the spies), and what was their
punishment?  What precisely did they do wrong?
	Similarly, what was the sin of the people at the
incident of chet ha-meraglim, and what was their
punishment?
	Based on your answer, attempt to explain why God
did not accept the 'repentance' declared by the
'ma'apilim' (see 14:39-42) when they announce their
willingness to fight and conquer the land?  [Keep this
question in mind as you continue.]

2.  In Parshat Shlach, are the meraglim ever referred to
as such?  If so, where?  If not, what Hebrew word is used
to describe them?  What does that word mean?
 
3.  To determine more precisely what their mission was
(and why they were sent), make a list all of the questions
that the meraglim were instructed to answer.  Try to
organize them into two different categories.  Based on
this list, how would you define their mission? 
	How does this relate to your answer to question
#1?

4.  Next, carefully compare their mission to the mission
of the spies that Yehoshua sends (as described in Yehoshua
chapter 2).  In what manner are these two missions
similar, and in what manner are they different?
	Use this comparison to support your answer to
question #2.
	Note who sends each group, and to whom they report
back (and why).  
    Attempt to explain as well why the names of the group
sent by Moshe are 'publicized', while the names of the
group sent by Yehoshua remain 'secret'!
    
5.  Review Bamidbar 34:16-29 (noting its context from
33:50 onward).  How can these psukim help you understand
at least one of the 'positive' reasons for why it may have
been necessary to send the meraglim?

6.  Based on their mission (as you defined it above), when
the meraglim report back to the nation - does their report
follow the guidelines of their mission?  [Or at least - up
until what point in the narrative does their report concur
with their mission?]
	If their report was accurate, in what manner did
they sin?
	If their report was inaccurate - explain where and
why they lied.

7.  See Ramban on 13:27-31 and 14:1, and relate his
commentary to the above questions

8.  Compare Moshe & Aharon's reaction to the report of the
spies (see 14:5) to that of Kalev and Yehoshua (see 13:30,
14:6-9).
	Compare this reaction of Moshe and Aharon to other
instances in Sefer Bamidbar when Bnei Yisrael complained,
e.g. Korach, mei meriva, etc.
	[Relate this to the topic of Moshe Rabbeinu's
leadership as discussed in last week's shiur as well.]

9.  Read the parallel account of chet ha-meraglim in
Devarim chapter 1 (see 1:19-45).  What word does the Torah
use to describe the meraglim in that account?
	According to those psukim, what was their mission?
	Relate this to your answer to question #2 above.
	In your opinion, is it possible to reconciliate
these two accounts (see the commentators in Sefer Devarim
who attempt to answer this question).  Relate the
differences between them to the purpose of each Sefer.
[i.e. relate to what Moshe Rabbeinu is emphasizing in
Sefer Devarim (based on chapters 2-3, especially
3:21-22!), compared to the primary theme of Sefer
Bamidbar.

10.  From Sefer Devarim, it seems as though sending the
meraglim was the people's idea, while in Sefer Bamidbar it
seems to have been a Divine commandment. 
	Based on the planned nature of God's relationship
with Bnei Yisrael when they will live in the land of
Israel (as opposed to the nature of that relationship when
they traveled thru the desert), what positive aspect can
be found in sending spies to check out the land before
entering the land?

PART III - PARSHANUT

DIBA - TRUE or FALSE?
1.  In 13:32 we are told how the meraglim spoke of dibat
ha-aretz.  In your opnion, does 'diba' imply something
true or something false?  Relate to the remainder of this
pasuk.
	[Relate also to Yosef & his brothers in Breishit
37:2!] 

	See Ibn Ezra on 13:32.  How does he answer this
question?
	Then see Ramban on this pasuk.  How is his answer
similar to Ramban, and in what manner is it different?

NEW MITZVOT?
2.  In chapter 15, we find several mitzvot that appear to
be totally unconnected to the ongoing narrative (see shiur
on Parshat Naso).  In your opinion, where in Chumash would
you say that these mitzvot belong?
	[When were these mitzvot given?  On Har Sinai?
>From the ohel mo'ed (see Vayikra 1:1 and the mitzvot which
follow)?  During one of the stops on their journey?]
	Can you find a thematic connection between these
mitzvot and the story of the meraglim?
	After you have tried, look up the following
commentaries and note how they have dealt with this
question.
	a)  Rashi, 15:2.
	b)  Ibn Ezra 15:2 (read carefully!)
		[Note how he does all of these mitzvot
together!]
	c)  Ramban 15:2, 15:32 & 15:38
		Ramban 15:32 - Relate this Ramban to his
opinion with regard to 'ein mukdam u-me'uchar ba-Torah'!]
	d)  Chizkuni 15:2, 15:32, 15:40-41
	e)  See also Rashi 15:39 on 've-lo taturu' - Why
do you think that he quotes the pasuk from 13:25!
    f)  Finally, see Seforno in his introduction to Sefer
Bamidbar (found in the Torat Chaim edition at the
beginning of Sefer Breishit).  How does he explain the
connection between these mitzvot and the ongoing
narrative?
[Note his explanation of Sefer Bamidbar in general.
Relate this to our shiur on Parshat Naso.]

	
be-hatzlacha,
						menachem



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shlachq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 28917 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090609/b494adfa/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Jun 11 07:23:54 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:23:54 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Shlach - shiur
Message-ID: <002c01c9ea87$1bb08e90$5311abb0$@net>

**********************************************************
***
     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?

-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090611/cbbb09c6/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Jun 15 03:23:13 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 03:23:13 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Korach - Questions for self study
Message-ID: <005001c9ed8a$258717d0$70954770$@net>

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

                PARSHAT KORACH

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

1.  Recall how Moshe Rabeinu asks God  to make a "b'riyah"
- a
'creation' - to prove to the people that he was only
following
God's direct orders (rather than making his own decisions
/
see Bamidbar 16:30).  In relation to this word "beriyah":
     a. Where is the first time (and last time) in Chumash
that the word "b'riyah" [shoresh bet.reish.aleph] is
mentioned?
     b. Who (exclusively) can perform an act of "beriyah"?
     c. Based on these answers, how (and why) does
specifically an act of "b'riyah" [as opposed to any other
type
of miracle] prove to the people that Moshe's & Aharon's
leadership was indeed a divine decision?
     d. Relate your answer to Pirkei Avot 5:9 concerning
the
ten things that were created on the 6th day "bein
ha'shmashot"
(note that the list includes "pi-ha'aretz" from the Korach
story).

2. In 16:22, Moshe asks a very difficult question: Should
one
man's sin cause punishment for an entire group [="eydah"]?
     a. According to your understanding of this pasuk,
does
'one man' refer solely to Korach, and "eydah" to the 250
men?
- or does 'one man' refer to the Korach & the 250 men, and
the
"eydah" to the entire group that had gathered around?
Support
your answer, based on the use of the word "eydah" in
earlier
and/or later psukim (i.e. between 16:18 thru 16:25).
     b. Does Hashem answer Moshe's question?
          If so, what is that answer?
          If not, then explain why not?
          In other words, relate your answer to the next
set
of events described in 16:23-28.
     c. How does your answer to part (a) affect your
answer to
part (b)? [Be sure to relate to 16:23-26.]
     d. If an entire group were to punished because of the
acts of an individual, would you expect that the group
might
be somehow responsible for the behavior of that
individual?
[Explain why.]

3. In this week's Haftara, we read about the coronation of
King Shaul by Shmuel (I Sam. Chapter 12). The most obvious
connection to this week's Parsha is 12:3 ("et shor mi
lakachti..."/ compare 16:15).  What other thematic
similarities exist between Shmuel and Moshe & Aharon?
     In what manner is Shmuel similar to Korach as well?
[Relate the type of reform that Shmuel performs during his
life, in contrast to the complaints raised by Korach.]
     In your answer, relate to actions of Eli's sons (see
Shmuel chapter 3) and Shmuel's function as the political
leader ("shofet") and his involvement in the establishment
of
the monarchy.
     Relate also to Shmuel's genealogy (who was his great
great grandfather?!), as can be deduced from Sefer Divrei
Ha'yamim I.6:3-13)
     See also Shmuel 3:19-20, 7:3-17.
          In what manner does Shmuel, who is a Levi, act
like
a Kohen? (Relate to Shmuel 3:1-3, 13:8-12.)
          How is this similar to Korach?

4. In earlier TSC shiurim (on Yom Kippur and Parshat
Tzaveh),
we discussed the special nature of the KTORET and its
function
as a protection from the consequences of "hitgalut
shchina".
Recall also the events that led to the death of Nadav &
Avihu.
Based on the conclusions of those shiurim, answer the
following questions:
     a. Why do you think Moshe suggests that the 250 men
offer
specifically KTORET in order to prove if they are chosen
(see
16:5-7)?  Do you think that this 'test' is Moshe's idea or
God's? [See Ramban on 16:5 (towards the end).]
     Relate your answer to the nation's ensuing accusation
that Moshe has caused the death of God's people (see
17:6-15)?
     b. Do you think that when Moshe first suggested this
test, that he was aware of the potential outcome that all
250
men would be consumed by fire?  In what other manner could
this test have convinced these 250 men to remove
themselves
from Korach's revolt?
     c. In your opinion, why is specifically the "ktoret"
used
to SAVE the people from their ensuing punishment, as
described
in 17:11-15?
========

PART II  QUESTIONS for PREPARATION for this week's shiur

1. To the best of your recollection (i.e. before studying
this
week's Parsha), what exactly was Korach's complaint?  Did
he
have only one complaint, or many?  [If so, what were
they?]
     To help you answer (or realize the difficulty in)
this
question, let's say Korach could have had whatever he
wanted -
precisely what is it that he wanted?
     Finally (once again to the best of your
recollection),
how was Korach punished - i.e. did he die, and if so, how?

2. Next, carefully study the story that transpires in
16:1-35,
while paying attention to the following questions.  [As
you
study these psukim, see if you need to revise any of your
answers to the above question!]
  Attempt to identify more precisely what Korach was
complaining about, what he wanted, and the logic behind
his
protest.  Be sure to note as well who else complains, and
what
their complaints are about.
  As you summarize the various complaints that are raised
against Moshe & Aharon, note if everyone raises them
jointly,
or can you identify different groups that complain about
different topics.
     Would you consider any of these complaints (at least
partially) justified?  If so, can you explain why they are
not
accepted?

3. In your opinion, what precisely was the purpose of the
"ketoret" test (as described in 17:5-7)?
     Was this test Moshe's idea, or did God tell him to
suggest it? [Attempt to base your answer on psukim.]
     What possible results could have the 'ketoret test'
returned?  Was it clear to everyone participating that if
you
'lost' you would be killed?  Can you explain why so many
people (i.e. 250) were willing to participate in this
test?
Was there only supposed to be 'one winner' in this
'contest',
or could have God accepted the offerings of more than one
participant?  If so, what would that indicate (or prove)?

4. As you study 16:7-11, note how Moshe adds an additional
rebuke to "bnei Levi".  Can you explain the logic of this
additional complaint, and why it is directed specifically
to
the Levites?   Relate you answer to the purpose of this
'ketoret test' and to Korach's opening complaint of "ki
kol
ha'eyda kolam kedoshim".  Could you say that Moshe claims
that
there is something 'hypocritical' about their new request
to
'serve as priests'?  If so, explain how and why.

5. Study 16:12-15 carefully, and be sure that you can
follow
the logic of everyone's statements.  Attempt to explain
the
connection between Korach and Datan & Aviram.  In your
opinion, do they share the same complaint as Korach had
mentioned earlier, or does their complaint focus on a
different issue?
     In your answer, relate to how and why Moshe summons
them,
and how and why they refuse that summons.  Was Moshe
inviting
them to participate in the "ketoret" test?  If so, why is
angered by their refusal to participate?  If not, why were
they summoned?  [Relate to the reason they send for not
coming!]
  Relate also to Moshe's special prayer to God in light of
their rejection of his summons.  What "mincha" is Moshe
referring to?

6. Review now the entire chapter (16:1-35) once again; but
this time around pay careful attention to WHERE (and when)
each conversation and/or event takes place.
     Does the narrative seem to be continuous, or do you
find
certain 'jumps' within it?  If so, explain where.
     In other words, are there certain details in the
story
that appear to be missing? If so, where?

7. In case you didn't notice, note how this chapter
discusses
events that take place in TWO different locations. Where
are
these two locations, and what is taking place at each one?
     As you review these psukim, try to figure out
precisely
WHERE Korach is, especially when the punishment comes.

8. Review 16:24, and explain what (and where) MISHKAN
Korach
Datan v'Aviram is!  Why do you think that it is referred
to as
a 'mishkan', and what was taking place there?

9.  At the end of this story, do we find one punishment or
two?  If there are two, which group (at which location)
receives which punishment? Relate your answer to the above
questions.
     Based on your answer, who (or to which group) is
Moshe
Rabeinu referring to in 16:20-22 when he asks, "should one
man
sin and the entire EYDAH be punished?"
     Relate both to the psukim that preceded this question
(16:16-19) and those that follow it (16:23-27).

10. If there are indeed two groups and two complaints and
two
punishments [hope you figured this out by now], which of
these
two groups does Korach lead?
     Based on your answer, try to better understand the
opening pasuk of the parsha "va'yikach Korach..." i.e WHAT
did
Korach TAKE?!

11. Based on your study thus far, which specific
punishment
did Korach receive? Can you prove that he was indeed
punished?
[Quote a pasuk to support your answer.]
     Relate your answer to Bamidbar 26:9-10!
     See also Ibn Ezra on 16:35!

12. Considering that God has just created a "beriyah" to
bury
Korach & his followers, why do you think that the people
accuse Moshe & Aharon for causing the death of "AM HASHEM"
(see 17:6)?  Wasn't this miracle enough to prove to the
people
that it was God's doing and not Moshe's? [How is the test
of
the "matot" (17:16-24) any more convincing?]
     In this new complaint of the people, who are the "am
Hashem" that Bnei Yisrael refer to, and which specific
death
to they claim that Moshe caused?  [Relate the two
different
punishments discussed in the above questions.]
     Use this distinction to help answer this question?


PART III - PARSHANUT

1. There are at least four different opinions in the
Rishonim
that explain WHAT Korach TOOK (see 16:1). First of all,
try to
explain WHY there are so many different opinions.
     Then, see Rashi & Ramban. On what specific point do
they
argue? [Be sure to see the entire Ramban (it's long!).]
     Next, see Ibn Ezra (second "dibur ha'matchil"),
Rashbam
and Chizkuni. In what manner is their approach to this
question totally different than the approach taken by
Rashi &
Ramban.
[What is the different basic assumption taken by each
parshan?]
     See now Seforno. Is his approach more similar to that
of
Ibn Ezra or to that of Rashi/Ramban? Explain why.
     See also Rasa"g (in Torat Chayim) [he explains that
"va'yikach" should be understood as "va'yigash" - i.e. and
he
came near.] In what manner is this pirush totally
different
than all of the other pirushim mentioned above?
     Finally, see also the opinion of Rebbi Yona Ibn
Janach
(the final opinion quoted by Ibn Ezra in his pirush). What
phrase does he 'add' to this pasuk? To which earlier
interpretation is his pirush most similar?

2. Ibn Ezra (in his opening pirush / 16:1) claims that the
entire story of Korach took place BEFORE chet ha'meraglim,
i.e. while Bnei Yisrael were still encamped at Har Sinai!!
     What problems in "pshat" lead Ibn Ezra to this
conclusion?
      See Ramban's rebuttal of this opinion (at the end of
his
pirush to 16:1). Note how Ramban explains his position in
regard to the topic of "ein mukdam u'muchar"!
     What problems in "pshat" does Ramban employ to
support
his opinion?
     On what points does he actually agree with Ibn Ezra?
     How does he resolve this within his own
interpretation?

3. In 16:15, Moshe pleads that God not accept 'their
MINCHA';
     Read this pasuk carefully, noting its context.
          Whose MINCHA is Moshe referring to [Datan
v'Aviram's
or Korach's]?
     WHAT "mincha" is he referring to?  [Is it a korban?
If
so, which one and who and where is it being offered?]
     Now, see Rashi. Note how he offers both "pshat" &
"drash".
    [Use this to explain how Rashi distinguishes between
    pshat & drash.]
     What is difficult with Rashi's explanation of pshat?
          Why do you think he brings down a drash as well?

     Now see Ramban. How and why does he argue with Rashi?
          Relate Ramban's rebuttal to the questions in
Part II
above (i.e. to this week's shiur).
          Note as well that Ramban also claims that his
pirush
is the basic "pshat". In your opinion, which pirush is
closest
to pshat - Rashi's or Ramban's? [or neither?]

     Next see Ibn Ezra.
          In what manner is Ibn Ezra's pirush totally
different than Rashi & Ramban? Would you consider this
pirush
"pshat"? Explain why yes or no.
               [Be sure to relate to how each parshan
explains
the second clause of this pasuk (16:15).]

     Finally, see Seforno.
          To which of the above pirushim is his pirush
most
similar? Would you consider Seforno's pirush as "pshat"?
In
what way does he differ from Ibn Ezra?


PART IV - Questions for shiur on the Haftara
                I Shmuel chapters 11->12

1. To the best of your recollection, is Shmuel in favor of
Bnei Yisrael appointing a king, or against?
     In your opinion, is there any positive value in Am
Yisrael having a king? If so, what is positive about it?
     What is the danger in having a king?

2.  Attempt to define the differences between "melech"
(king)
and a "shofet" (judge).
     [Relate to type of government, transfer of power
after
death, ability to levy taxes and conscript soldiers,
setting
national policies, etc.
     Bring examples from Sefer Shoftim and from Shmuel.]

3. In what manner can (or does) "malchut adam" - a
kingship of
man - conflict with the concept of "malchut shamayim" -
the
kingship of heaven (i.e. God)?
     [Relate to the words of Gideon in Shoftim 8:23]

4. See Devarim 17:14-20 in relation the mitzvah to appoint
a
king. [If you have time, see the various commentaries
there.
     Is it a mitzvah to appoint a king?
               [See TSC shiur on Parshat Re'ay.]
     See also Rambam Hilchot Melachim chapter 1 Halacha 1.

     If it is a mitzvah, why has it taken so long to
fulfill
the mitzvah? Why does Shmuel seem to be against it?
     See also Mesechet Sanhedrin 29:2 (from the Mishnah).
          [If a melech is something negative, then what
type
of government is ideal?]

[Now we can begin our study of the Haftara]
5. Skim chapters 7->13 in Sefer Shmuel (I), and note why
and
how chapters 8->12 form a separate unit?
     [i.e. note how chapter 7 completes the topic of
Shmuel as
the leader, and how chapter 13 begins the topic of Shaul's
kingdom.]

     What is the topic of this unit (chapters 8->12)? How
does
its opening chapter relate to its closing chapter?
     How do the chapters in between flow from one to the
next?

6. Why did Bnei Yisrael ask for a king specifically at
this
time?
     In your opinion, was there more than one group among
the
people?
     Why was Shmuel angry; and why did Hashem tell him to
agree?'

7.  Why are the people so worried about war at this time?
What is their alternative if they do not appoint a king?
Why do they ask Shmuel for a king, are they not capable of
appointing a king by themselves?

8. From the story in chapter 9, does Shaul seem to be a
'natural leader'? How is his leadership character enhanced
in
Chapter 10?
     What is the reaction of the people after he is
anointed
king at Mitzpeh?  Are there two groups?  Explain each.

9.  How is Shaul's leadership character enhanced in
Chapter
11?
     Why does Shmuel re-anoint Shaul after the battle of
Yavesh Gilad?
     Why is the reaction of the people more favorable this
time?

10. Note how chapter 12 answers most all the questions
raised
regarding the problems of appointing a king in Chapter 8?
To do so, note the following parallels:

          Chapter 12          Chapter 8
          ==========          ==========
Compare:  Psukim 3-5     to   Psukim 11-18
               6-12           19-20
               13-15               7-9

11. Note 12:3. In your opinion, is Shmuel 'showing off' or
is
he trying to set an example for Shaul? [Explain.]
     Why is there an increased fear of corruption with the
melucha (kingship)?  Relate this to the contrasting
parallel
between Shmuel and Korach. [Compare with Bamidbar 16:15.]

12. What is the main point Shmuel is making in 12:6-15?
How
does this relate to the theme of Sefer Shoftim? [Who wrote
Sefer Shoftim (and for what purpose)?

13. Shmuel causes it to rain during the wheat harvest
(late
spring) as a sign of God's anger to their request for a
king.
Is rain good or bad?  At what time of the year?
     How can this reflect the potential good (or bad) of
appointing a king?

14. In 12:19 the people finally regret asking for a king.
If
Shmuel is truly against Bnei Yisrael having a king, why
does
he insist they now keep their king instead?
     Does 12:22 help explain that reason? How?
          Why does Hashem want a melech?  Under what
condition
will the kingdom be successful?

                         b'hatzlacha,
                         menachem



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: korachq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 34672 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090615/af109d30/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jun 17 06:43:16 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:43:16 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Korach - shiur
Message-ID: <006a01c9ef38$6de85700$49b90500$@net>

**********************************************************
***
     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?]

-------------- 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-reg/attachments/20090617/ddf5c04d/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue Jun 23 09:07:35 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:07:35 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Chukat - questions for self study
Message-ID: <003101c9f403$94e73770$beb5a650$@net>

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

                 PARSHAT CHUKAT

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

WHERE DOES PARSHAT PARA ADUMA BELONG?
1.  Even though the laws of Para Aduma are recorded in
Parshat
Chukat, there is ample reason to assume that these laws of
'tum'at met' [i.e. laws pertaining to 'spiritual
uncleanliness' caused by touching a dead body] may have
been
given at an earlier time.
     To prove this point, review Bamidbar 9:1-8, noting
how
that event ('pesach sheni') took place before the 14 of
Nissan
and after the laws of tum'at met had been given!       Is
it
logical to assume that these laws were given before the
mishkan was first erected?  Explain why yes (or no).
[See
Ramban on 19:1.]
     Is it logical to assume that these laws were given
before
Matan Torah?  If so, explain why.

2.  See Rashi on Shmot 15:25.  According to this Rashi,
when
were these laws (re: para aduma) first given?  What, do
you
think, leads Rashi to this conclusion?
  What is problematic with this conclusion, based on
Bamidbar
19:4.  [See also Ramban.]

3.  Finally, see Rashi at the conclusion of Bamidbar
chapter
19 (i.e. after he completes his commentary on 19:22) -
where
he quotes Rebbe Moshe ha'darshan, providing an alternate
commentary for the entire chapter which emphasizes the
thematic connection between the laws of "para aduma" the
events at "chet ha'egel"
  After reading this commentary [which is simply a
masterpiece], explain how it would affect our
understanding of
when and why these laws were first given, and why they are
recorded at this specific point in Sefer Bamidbar!

4.  In our introductory shiur to Sefer Bamidbar, we
discussed
the unique style of Sefer Bamidbar (where its ongoing
narrative is periodically 'interrupted' by parshiot of
mitzvot).  Would you consider these laws of para aduma
(i.e.
chapter 19) typical of this style?
     If so, what is the narrative that precedes these laws
and
what is the narrative that follows them?
     Do any of these two narratives involve death?  Do any
of
these parshiot relate to the responsibilities of the
kohanim?
     Based on your answer to question #1, how could this
explain why the Torah chose to record this parsha here,
even
though these laws were actually given at a much earlier
time?
     [See Rashi on 20:1 ['va-tamot sham Miriam'...].  What
leads Rashi to this conclusion?]

5.  In what year do the events recorded in Bamidbar
chapters
16 thru 18 [i.e. the story of Korach's rebellion] take
place?
     Would it make more sense if they took place soon
after
the sin of the 'meraglim'?  [See Ibn Ezra & Ramban on
16:1.]
     Assuming that Korach's rebellion took place soon
after
the sin of the meraglim, and the Mei Meriva incident took
place in the fortieth year, approximately how many years
elapse in between these two events?
  What is recorded in Chumash between these two events?
Are
there any narratives?
     In your opinion, could parshat para aduma (and its
laws)
relate to this time-period?  If so, how?

6.  Re: other commentators on this topic:
  See Ibn Ezra on 19:1 (and Ramban on 19:1 / about 15
lines
down) where they discuss why this parshia is recorded
here.
     See also Chizkuni on 19:1. In what manner is his
peirush
similar and in what manner is it very different from Ibn
Ezra
and Ramban's?        Then, see Rashi on 20:1 [d.h.
'va-tamot
sham Miriam'].  How is Rashi's peirush different from all
of
the others?

BETWEEN SEFER BAMIDBAR & DEVARIM
1.  Review the story of how Bnei Yisrael doesn't enter the
territory of Edom (and why) in 20:14-21 and their journey
and
ensuing war with Sichon & Og in 21:10-35.  Then, review
the
parallel account of these events in Devarim 2:1 thru 3:22.
     Attempt to explain why each account emphasizes
different
aspects of these events, based on the primary theme of
[this
section of] Sefer Bamdibar in contrast to the purpose of
Moshe
Rabeinu's speech to the nation in Sefer Devarim [i.e. the
'pep
talk' to the nation before they embark on their battle to
conquer the land/  see TSC shiur on Parshat Devarim].

THE LAST STOP
1.  Review the final pasuk of Parshat Chukat (i.e. 22:1).
Notice how if forms the final pasuk of entire 'parshia',
yet
on the other hand, it's considered the first verse of
chapter
22!  In your opinion, which division makes more sense,
i.e.
the chapter division - considering 22:1 as the beginning
of
the Balak story; or Chazal's division, considering this
the
conclusion of Bnei Yisrael journey that began after
Aharon's
death in (see 21:4)?

2.  Note how Bnei Yisrael arrive at Arvot Moav in 22:1.
To
the best of your recollection, when is the next time the
Bnei
Yisrael travel, and where do they travel to, and where is
that
story recorded?
     Did you ever notice before, that this is the last
'camp
site' that Bnei Yisrael set up during their forty year
journey?   To appreciate the importance of this site, make
a
list of all of the events that take place in Arvot Moav,
from
the stories in Parshat Balak until the end of Sefer
Devarim.

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
     THREE SHIURIM!!

SHIUR #1 - Moshe's 'sin' at Mei Meriva
1.  How many different opinions can your recall, which
explain
what Moshe did wrong at the Mei Meriva incident?
     Which opinion do you consider the most logical?
     What ever it may have been what he did wrong; in your
opinion - was his 'sin' intentional, or' unintentional'?

2.  What was Moshe Rabbeinu's punishment for this sin?
[Keep
note of your answer for later reference.]
  Do you think that the punishment that Moshe received was
'fair'?  If not, explain why not.
  [Did you ever hear an explanation for why he was
punished so
  severely for such a small transgression?]
  
3.  To begin our study, let's go to the 'crime scene' -
i.e.
begin your study with a quick review of  20:7-11 - the
psukim
that describe this 'sin', noting how they first describe
God's
commandment to Moshe & Aharon, followed by how they
fulfilled
[or didn't fulfill] that commandment.
     Review God's commandment to Moshe in 20:8, noting how
it
includes a long list of instructions.   List each command
that
Moshe is instructed to perform. [Be sure that you can
identify
each of these five commands.  /If it's not Shabbat, it
would
be helpful if you write down each command, leaving a space
between each one, for later reference.]

4. Based on these five commands, is it perfectly clear
(from
these commands) precisely what Moshe is supposed to do?
  For example, what is supposed to say to the rock?
    Why is he commanded to take the staff?
    Is he supposed to take water out of the rock, or is
the
    water supposed to flow out by itself?
     Did you notice any apparent contradiction between the
third and fourth commands (in 20:8)?

5.  Next, carefully read 20:9-11, noting how Moshe
fulfills
(or doesn't fulfill) each of these five commands.  [If you
are
writing them down, then insert them into the list you
began
above.]
     Is it easy to pinpoint precisely what he did wrong?
     How do you know for sure that he did do something
wrong?
In your own opinion, did he do anything wrong?  If so,
which
command (or commands) did he not fulfill properly?
     In your opinion (if he did something wrong), was it
because he didn't understand what God's command was; or
did he
understand - yet disobeyed intentionally?
     [If you have time, see Ramban on 20:7 where he
summarizes
all of the various opinions.  Note how your answers to
these
questions should help you understand all of the various
points
raised by Ramban.  Which opinions does Ramban refute, and
which opinion does he prefer?

6.  Return now to 20:9.  To the best of your recollection,
which (or whose) 'mateh' did Moshe take?  Based on this
pasuk,
how do we know for sure that he indeed took the proper
mateh?
     Where does he take this mateh from and why?  Is this
what
God instructed him to do in 20:8?
     Now, review Bamidbar 17:16-26, noting especially
17:25!
How would this explain which mateh Moshe was instructed to
take in 20:8?  What other textual and thematic connections
can
you find between the events at Mei Meriva and the story of
Korach's rebellion?  Note 16:14, 16:19, & 17:27-28;
compare
with 20:4, 20:6, & 20:3!  [See Chizkuni on 20:8-9, noting
how
he deals with many of the questions raised above!]

7.  Next, review the story that sets the background for
Moshe's 'sin' by studying 20:1-6, carefully comparing
these
psukim with a similar event that took place in Shmot
17:1-8.
     Based on this parallel, what do you think should have
been Moshe & Aharon's initial reaction to Bnei Yisrael's
complaint for water (as described in 20:2-5)?
     How did Moshe & Aharon react to the people's
complaint at
Mei Meriva?  In your opinion, was their reaction proper?
What
was their reaction to the similar complaint raised by the
nation as recorded in Shmot 17:1-5?
  How are Moshe and Aharon's reaction to Bnei Yisrael
complaint in 20:2-5 similar to their overall reaction to
the
various other complaints raised by Bnei Yisrael in Sefer
Bamidbar?  Could this explain the reason for Moshe &
Aharon's
'punishment'?

8.  Review 20:12-13.  What was Moshe & Aharon's
punishment?
Be precise!  Does this punishment relate in any manner to
their 'leadership', or was it a personal punishment?
     Does this punishment relate in any manner to their
'sin'?
     In other words, are Moshe & Aharon punished as
individuals or as national leaders?  Explain your answer.

9.  In addition to the Ramban on 20:7-10 (where he
discusses
just about all of the opinions of the various Rishonim on
the
topic of Mei Meriva), see also Abrabanel at the end of
chapter
one of Sefer Devarim where he explains that Moshe does not
actually sin at Mei Meriva, rather is punished due to chet
ha-
meraglim [and Aharon because of chet ha-egel].
  Note in his peirush that he brings down about TEN
different
explanations of Moshe's sin at Mei Meriva and disproves
each
one! As you study this Abrabanel, relate it to the above
questions.
=====

SHIUR #2  - WHEN DID MEI MERIVA TAKE PLACE?
1.  To the best of your recollection, in what year do the
events of Mei Meriva (see Bamidbar 20:1-13 take place?
Similarly, when do the events in Bamidbar 20:14-29 take
place?
     [Base your answer on Bamidbar 33:37-39 in relation to
20:22-26.  See also Ibn Ezra on 20:1]
     Based on the psukim alone, is it possible to reach a
definite answer to this question?  [Explain why yes or why
not.]
     From a thematic perspective, is there any reason to
prefer an explanation that puts (or doesn't put) these
events
in the fortieth year?
     Can you explain why the Torah (in 20:1) only informs
us
in regard to the month, yet prefers not to tell us the
year!
How does the fact that this event takes place in the first
month affect our understanding of what transpires in the
ensuing story (i.e. in 20:2-6) in regard to the lack of
water,
and why they fear death?

2.  According to Bamidbar 20:1, the incident of Mei Meriva
takes place at Kadesh in Midbar Tzin.
     Where is Midbar Tzin located?
     [For those of you familiar with the map of Israel
today,
take a look on the map where the road to Eilat from Beer
Sheva
meets the road to Eilat from the Dead Sea (below the
'machtesh
ha-katan' - the small crater).  You should be able to find
there 'nachal tzin'.]
     In your opinion, is this the same location as Kadesh
Barnea in Midbar Paraan, the site from where the meraglim
were
sent?  (Be sure you understand where Midbar Paraan is
located
in relation to Midbar Tzin.)  Note Yehoshua 10:41 & 15:3,
and
Bamidbar 34:4 in their context.
     [To find that Kadesh [Barnea], look on the map on
Egyptian side of the Israeli-Egyptian border in the Negev,
left of the Rimon Crater area.]

3.  Do you think that Kadesh was the original name of this
site at Midbar Tzin (mentioned in 20:1), or was it named
Kadesh because of the incident of Mei Meriva?  Relate to
Bamidbar 20:13 and 33:36!
     Relate this to the nature of Moshe's punishment
(20:12-
13)!
     Are there any other cities in Israel (or nearby) that
are
called Kadesh, or have the word Kadesh as part of their
name?
[See Shoftim 4:6!  Note as well Breishit 14:7 & 16:14;
Yehoshua 12:22, 15:23, 19:37, 20:7 & 21:32.]
     Based on these sources, would it be logical to assume
that Kadesh Barnea and Kadesh Midbar Tzin could be (and
should
be) two different places?

4.  Carefully read Devarim 1:40 - 2:14, paying careful
attention to the chronology of the events.  Pay special
attention from 1:45 thru 2:3.  Be sure that you can
identify
(within these psukim) when the 38 year 'gap' transpires.
[Note again 2:14.]
     Attempt to correlate those psukim with the events
described in Bamidbar chapters 20 and 21, as well as in
Bamidbar chapter 33.  [Btw, this is a very difficult
question
- but necessary preparation to follow the shiur.]
     Relate your answer as well to Shoftim 11:15-17 (note
by
chance, it is quoted in this week's Haftara)!

5.  In Devarim 1:46, the Torah informs us that Bnei
Yisrael
encamped in Kadesh - 'yamim rabim' - for many days (most
likely this implies many years / see Rashi 1:46).
     In your opinion, which Kadesh is this pasuk referring
to:
Kadesh Barnea or Kadesh Midbar Tzin?  What do you base you
answer on?  Can you bring support for both opinions?

6.  After the sin of the meraglim, were Bnei Yisrael
supposed
to stay in Kadesh Barnea, or were they instructed to
leave?
If so, why?  [Relate to Devarim 1:40 and Bamidbar 14:25.
     See Ibn Ezra on Devarim 1:46 & Bamidbar 20:14.
          Do you agree with his interpretation?  Explain!

7.  If Kadesh mentioned in 1:46 is indeed Kadesh Midbar
Tzin,
and not Kadesh Barnea, what possibility arises in regard
to
when (i.e. in what year) Bnei Yisrael may have first
arrived
at that site?
     If so, what possibility would arise in regard to when
the
events at Mei Meriva may have taken place?

8.  See the Netziv [Emek Davar] in his lengthy commentary
to
Devarim 1:46.  Note how his commentary relates to many of
the
points raised by the above questions.  Be sure you
understand
what leads him to conclude [nevertheless] that Mei Meriva
took
place in the fortieth year!
=======

SHIUR #3 -  PARSHAT PARAH
1.  Review Bamdibar chapter 19, i.e. Parshat Parah.
     How did you translate the phrase 'chukat ha-torah',
and
in your opinion, what does this phrase mean?
     In general, what does the word "torah" usually refer
to
in Sefer Vayikra & Bamidbar?  [Relate to Vayikra chapters
6 &
7, and Bamidbar 5:29-30 & 6:21.]
  What does the word 'chok' usually refer to? [Relate to
Shmot
12:14, Vayikra 18:1-5 & 23:14,21,31 & 41.]

2.  Based on Bamidbar 5:30, clearly the word "torah" can
infer
a certain type of 'procedure'.  As you review Bamidbar
chapter
19, see if you can identify a 'procedure', i.e. a set of
instructions for how to make 'something'.  How many
'procedures' did you find , and what would you title each
one.
[In other words, what is the end result of each
procedure?]
     If you found more than one procedure, how does each
procedure relate to the next one?

3.  Review this parshia once again, this time looking for
special laws or 'consequences' when performing these
procedures.  Do these laws share anything in common?  If
so,
can you explain why?  Relate your answers to questions #2
& #3
to question #1.

4.  Based on chapter 19, attempt to summarize the various
laws
of "tum'at met" [spiritual uncleanliness contracted by
contact
with a dead body].  Clarify the various manners how one
can
contract tum'at met, and the procedure that one must
follow to
'get rid' of it.
     Relate your answer to the above questions.

5.  Based on your answers, how would you define a 'chuka'
(or
chok) and how would you define a 'torah' in this parshia?
[Relate to the definition of a torah in Parshat Tzav.
Relate
as well to the word chok in Shmot 12:14 and Shoftim
11:38-40!]
     How could this help explain what chukat ha-torah
means?
====

PART IV - PARSHANUT

EVERYONE or EVERYBODY?
1.  Read 20:1, note the use of the phrase 'kol ha-eida' =
the
entire 'eida'.  In your opinion, what does the word 'kol'
add
to this pasuk?
     In other words, how would the pasuk have a different
meaning if the word kol was not included?  Can you recall
any
other times in Chumash when this phase kol ha-eida has
been
used?  If not, try Shmot 16:1 & 17:1 and Bamidbar 14:1 &
17:6,
and 20:27-29.  Attempt to explain in each of these
instances
what the word kol adds to the pasuk?

2.  Now see Rashi on 20:1.  What detail does Rashi learn
for
the word kol?  Why?  [Note Ibn Ezra as well.  How does
this
relate?]
     Finally, see Ramban.  How and why does he disagree
with
Rashi?  How does he explain kol here and in all of the
other
instances noted above?  How does he relate to Rashi's
peirush
concerning when the last members of the first generation
died?
     In your opinion, which peirush is 'pshat', Rashi or
Ramban's?

A 'SARAF' OR A 'SERPENT'
3.  Review the story in 21:1-10.  Note that God tells
Moshe to
make a 'saraf' (see 21:8), but in 21:9 - Moshe makes a
'nachash nechoshet'.  Can you explain why?
     Based on the story, is there any logical reason that
this
'symbol' should be a nachash?  Is there any reason that it
should be made out of copper?
     First, see Rashi on 21:8-9.  Which of the problems
(discussed above) does Rashi deal with?
     Next, see Seforno on 21:8-9.  Which of the problems
(discussed above) does he deal with?
     Finally, see Ibn Ezra on 21:8.  Note that he makes a
very
bold, but important statement in regard to understanding
miracles of this nature.  In your opinion, does this Ibn
Ezra
contradict anything in the commentaries of Rashi or
Seforno?

WHO'S THE "BAM"?
1.  Review 20:13 (the final pasuk of the Mei Meriva
incident),
noting its final phrase "va'ykadesh BAM".  In your
opinion,
who (or what) does the word "bam" refer to?   What did you
base you answer on?
  [In other words, does "bam" refer back to "heyma mei
  meriva", or to "bnei Yisrael" that were mentioned
earlier in
  20:13, or to "Moshe & Aharon" mentioned in 20:12?]

2. See Rashi on 20:13.  [Read it carefully!]
     How did Rashi answer our above question, and how does
he
reach his conclusion?
     Then see Ibn Ezra , noting how he offers a different
interpretation [even though he and Rashi both bring a
proof
from the pasuk "b'krovei akadesh" from Vayikra 10:3, but
for
different reasons.]

3. Next, see Rashbam & Chizkuni, noting how the disagree
with
Ibn Ezra, yet seem to agree with Rashi - even though they
provide a different reason.
     Then see Seforno, noting how he offers a similar
interpretation, yet once again, based on a very different
reason!

4. Finally see Ramban, noting how he quotes Rashi, yet
disagrees.  Study this Ramban carefully, noting the logic
behind each stage of his commentary.   Note he bases his
interpretation on the context of the word "bam" in this
pasuk;
but also takes into account what transpired in Refidim in
Shmot chapter 17.

                  be-hatzlacha,
                   menachem


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chukatq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 36686 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090623/0d4484c4/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jun 24 07:49:01 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:49:01 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] For Korach / Chukat -  Mei Meriva & Mateh Aharon
Message-ID: <001e01c9f4c1$d160d760$74228620$@net>

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

             for   PARSHAT Korach & 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.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chukat1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 53115 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090624/884c95dd/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Jun 25 07:57:30 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:57:30 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Korach / Chukat - shiur #2
Message-ID: <00f201c9f58c$1fa20c30$5ee62490$@net>

**********************************************************
***
        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.]



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chukat2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 39959 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090625/5c161a77/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Jun 25 07:58:23 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:58:23 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Parshat Chukat - Para Aduma
Message-ID: <00f601c9f58c$411aed00$c350c700$@net>

**********************************************************
***
        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.]



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chukat3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 39043 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090625/9e7a0d26/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Jun 28 14:18:50 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:18:50 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Balak - questions for self study
Message-ID: <005501c9f81c$e4278de0$ac76a9a0$@net>

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

              PARSHAT BALAK
                               
PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

WHO WROTE THE BIBLE?
1. In Mesechet Baba Batra (14b), we find the famous
passage
where the Gemara identifies the author of each of the '24
books' of the Bible.  In regard to Chumash itself, we find
what there a very puzzling statement:
  "Moshe katav sifro... - Moshe wrote his book - i.e.
Chumash,
  the parsha of Bilam, and sefer Iyov (Job)."

     In summary, the Gemara states that Moshe wrote the
following three 'books':
     1) His own book:
    Clearly, this refers to Chumash (that's why we call it
the
    five books of Moses)
     2) "parshat Bilam":
    This most probably refers to chapters 22->24 in Sefer
    Bamidbar - i.e. the main section of Parshat Balak.
     3) The book of Iyov (Job)

     The Gemara's observation concerning "parshat Bilam"
is
rather baffling. Considering that these three chapters are
an
integral part of Chumash, shouldn't parshat Bilam simply
be
considered part of his own book?
  It is understandable why we must be told that Moshe
wrote
Sefer Iyov, but if Moshe wrote the entire Chumash, is not
superfluous for the Gemara to tell that he also wrote
Sefer
Bilam?
     Furthermore, if Moshe didn't write it, who did?
     First, try to answer these questions on your own.

2.  Next, review that Gemara in Baba Batra (14b), and
Rashi's
commentary:
  "Moshe wrote Parshat Bilam: this refers to his [Bilam's]
  prophecies and parables, even though they are not his
  [Moshe's] needs, his laws, nor the story of his life."

     Be sure that you can explain how Rashi understood the
Gemara's "haava amina" [a possible original understanding]
for
why Moshe may not have written that section of Chumash.
     According to that "haava amina" - if it wasn't Moshe,
who's authorship would have that section been accredited
to?

3. Finally, see Rabeinu Gershom's short commentary on
this:
     "u'parshat Bilam: Even though Bilam himself was a
prophet"

  What underlying question does Rabeinu Gershom answer?
     Based on the content of this entire "parsha" (i.e.
chapters 22-24), what other reasons would there be to
assume
that Bilam may have written this entire section (and not
Moshe)?
  [Relate to who is aware of all the details of the
  conversations between Balak and Bilam.]

BETWEEN BILAM & AVRAHAM AVINU
1. The Mishnah in Pirkei Avot compares Bilam to Avraham
Avinu,
citing the altruistic traits of Avraham in direct contrast
to
the selfish traits of Bilam. (See Chapter 5 Mishneh 22)
     What textual parallels can you find in this week's
Parsha
that support this parallel?
     Can you think of any thematic parallels as well?
     Relate as well to Devarim 23:4-7 & Breishit 24:1-10!
     [Be sure that you noted Breishit 12:1-3 & Bamidbar
22:6.]

2. You may remember as well a Midrash that compares
Bilam's
journey with his donkey to Balak with Avraham Avinu's
journey
to Har Ha'moriah (and the story of the Akeydah).
     Attempt to find both textual and thematic support for
this parallel.

VA'YACHEL - TO BEGIN - OR TO DEFILE
1. In regard to 25:1, how did you translate the word
"va'yachel"? Note Seforno on 25:1, pay attention to what
he
learns from the Torah's use of this word.
     Next see Ibn Ezra in this regard (i.e. his commentary
on
25:1, the last line). How would he translate "va'yachel"?
     Compare this with the same (or similar) usage in
Breishit
9:20 (in regard to Noach and his vineyard).
     Compare as well with Breishit 4:26 (see the dispute
among
the commentators); 6:1; and 11:6.
     In your opinion, does the Torah use this word
intentionally due to the dual nature of its meaning?

THREE KEY UNITS - [for those who enjoy serious study]
1. Between 23:1 and 24:14 we find the three instances
where
Bilam plans to curse Yisrael, but finally blesses them
instead.
     Review these psukim, and attempt to understand how
they
divide into three distinct units.
     [If you didn't figure it out, try 23:1, 23:23:13,
23:27]

2. Note the textual similarities and parallel structures
that
exist between each of these three units.
     What verb (or pair of verbs!) does the Torah use to
describe God speaking to Bilam in each?
     Is it the same verb (/verbs) in each three cases? If
not,
which case is different? Can you explain why.
  [Note the preceding pasuk to each, where Bilam
anticipates
  that God may speak to him.]

3. Compare this description of God speaking to Bilam [i.e.
"va'yiker"] to other instances in Chumash of "hitgalut"
[i.e
when God speaks to man, e.g. to the Avot or to Moshe
Rabeinu].
     In your opinion, is this linguistic difference
significant?
     If so, how and why?

3. In each of these three mini-units, note how often the
concept of "bracha" & "klala" (blessing or cursing)
appears.
     [How many different Hebrew words are used for
'cursing'?]
Is the pattern the same in each unit?
How does this relate to the beginning of the Parsha (see
22:6)?
     Relate this as well to Breishit 12:1-3.

4. Carefully note how each of these three units end?
           [i.e. see 23:12, 23:26, & 24:12-13]
     What is similar about each ending, and what is
different?
     Can you find a progression from one to the next?
     Relate your answer to God's answer to Bilam's
original
request to accept Balak's proposal in chapter 22!
     [Note especially 22:12, 18, & 20.]

5. Note what transpires from 24:14 until the end of the
chapter!  How is this section different (in content and
structure) to the three previous units (discussed in the
question above)?
  In what manner are Bilam's actions and words in this
section
different (from the previous section)?  [Is there anything
similar?]
     How does this setting (i.e. after Bilam tells him
leave
in 24:11) relate to the content of Bilam's 'prophecy' in
this
final section?
     In your opinion, are Bilam's comments in 24:14-24 his
own
opinion (or foresight), or is God telling him to say this?
[Carefully compare with 24:1-3; 23:15-18; and 23:3-7.]
     In your opinion, should these final words of Bilam be
considered a 'higher' level of "nevuah" than the first
three
times that he speaks; or is this just his own opinion (or
predictions)?
========

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)

1. We all recall that Bilam is a 'bad guy', but as you
study
Parshat Balak, see if you can pinpoint any specific sin
that
Bilam commits?
     If you do find such an instance, try to be his
'defense
lawyer', i.e. attempt to explain his behavior in a more
positive light.
     In Parshat Balak, is Bilam ever punished for any of
his
'wicked ways'? If so, when, where, and how?
     Based on your conclusions, why do you think that
Chazal
reached the conclusion that Bilam is so evil [a "rasha"
according to Pirkei Avot 5:22.]?  Do you agree?

2. What city was Bilam from?  Based on 22:5, 23:7 &
Devarim
23:5, in what geographic area did Bilam live?  What river
does
"ha'nhar" (in 22:5) refer to?  Similarly, what rivers does
the
phrase "Aram Naharaim" refer to in Devarim 23:5?
     If indeed the city of Petor is located somewhere near
the
Euphrates River, approximately how far away is this city
from
Moav (and Midyan)?
          [i.e. how many days travel (approx.)]
     How would this observation affect your understanding
of
the events that transpire in Parshat Balak?

3. Based on 23:8, why wasn't Bilam able to curse Am
Yisrael?
     In your opinion and based on 24:1-9, why does Bilam
decide to actually bless Am Yisrael instead of cursing
them?
     In your opinion, does Bilam compose this blessing on
his
own, or does God 'put these words in his mouth' as well?

4. Review 24:25 (in its context, noting how it relates to
24:11). Where does Bilam return to when this incident is
over?
     How far away is this location? Does the conclusion of
this story (see 24:23-25) leave you with the impression
that
Bilam plans to return one day to either Moav or Midyan?
Based
on 24:11, how (and why) does Balak say 'good-bye' to
Bilam?
See Chizkuni on 24:25 re: where Bilam returned to. Compare
this with Rasag's interpretation. [can be found in a Torat
Chayim Mikraot Gedolot edition.]
     Note also the Ibn Ezra on this pasuk. ['cute' - isn't
it?]

5. Review now the final section of Parshat Balak (i.e.
25:1-
9). Does the sin of Bnei Yisrael with "bnot Moav" (as
described in 25:1-9) appear to be related in any manner
with
the story of Bilam?   If so, explain how it is related.
Support your answer with psukim.  Is Bilam himself ever
mentioned in these psukim?

6. In the ensuing war with Midyan, which is described in
detail in the remainder of chapter 25 and in Parshat Matot
(see 31:1-20), we find that Bilam was killed (see 31:8).
In
what country is Bilam killed?
     Relate your answer to the above question.
     Does it make sense why Bnei Yisrael would kill Bilam?

7. In 31:14-16, in his conversation with the military
leaders,
Moshe refers to this entire incident with "bnot Midyan" as
"DVAR BILAM". In your opinion, what specific event does
"dvar
Bilam" refer to? [Relate to 26:1-6.]
     Can you explain why this event is called "dvar
BILAM"?
     What can you infer from this concerning Bilam's
whereabouts when the sin of "bnot Midyan" took place?
How
would this relate to the level of his involvement in these
events?
  From the above questions (especially the last two), what
can
we learn about Bilam's true character? What is Chazal's
conclusion on this issue?
=====

PARSHANUT
1. In regard to Bilam's involvement in the Bnot Midyan
incident, see Rashi on Bamidbar 25:1, noting his short
comment
regarding "atzat Bilam" [Bilam's advice].
     Then see the lengthy Ramban on this pasuk, first
noting
why he blames the 'leaders' and not the women of Midyan.
Be
sure you understand how this relates to Rashi's
commentary.
     Later in the Ramban, he continues ("b'derech
ha'pshat")
to prove how Bilam was indeed involved.  What is Ramban's
primary source for this explanation?  Why do you think he
adds
this point in addition to Rashi's commentary?
     How does it relate to the above preparation
questions?

2.  Next, see Seforno on 25:1.
     In what manner in his commentary different than Rashi
&
Ramban's?
     Why do think that Seforno finds it necessary to add
this
point that the idol worship only happened at a 'later
stage'?
In your opinion, is the primary goal of this
interpretation to
explain what took place or to learn a lesson for future
generations as well!

WHAT HAPPENED TO ZIKNEI MIDYAN?
1. Review 22:1-21, paying attention to who Balak sends to
Bilam.
     Who is sent, only the elders of Moav, or also the
elders
of Midyan? [Relate especially to 22:7 & 22:8!]
     What is difficult about these psukim?
See Rashi 22:7.
     How does Rashi (quoting Midrash Tanchuma 5) resolve
this
difficulty? Does Rashi take for granted that you noticed
this
question concerning 'what happened to the elders of
Midyan'?

2. Now, see Ibn Ezra 22:13. How does he resolve this
difficulty?
     Is his answer the same or different than Rashi? Why?
     In your opinion, which approach attempts to follow
"pshat"?

3. Now see Ramban 22:7, noting how he first quotes Rashi &
Ibn
Ezra, and first attempts to support Rashi's explanation.
     Why do you think that he opens his "pirush" in this
manner?  Does he bring a proof to Rashi from pshat or
drash?
     In what manner does Ramban support (or base) his
interpretation on Moshe Rabeinu's earlier relationship
with
the people of Midyan?  Can you explain why?
     Ramban later concludes: 'but the psukim do not
mention
this'. In your opinion, does he totally reject Rashi's
view?

4. Next, Ramban quotes Ibn Ezra, claiming that he argues
with
Rashi. On what point do Rashi & Ibn Ezra argue? On what
point
to they agree? [Relate this to Ramban's own opinion.]

5. At the conclusion of his commentary, Ramban offers his
own
opinion. According to Ramban, did the elders of Midyan
ever
travel to Balak in the first place? If not, why not?
     How does this solve the discrepancy in the psukim?
     What difficulty arises according to Ramban's pirush?
          How does Ramban solve this difficulty.
     Does Ramban also attempt to explain "pshat"? In your
opinion, is he convinced that his "pshat" is 'better' than
Rashi or Ibn Ezra's?  Relate Ramban's pshat to your answer
to
question #2 (in Part Two above re: where Bilam is
from...).
  Does this support Ramban's interpretation?

6. Finally, see Chizkuni on 22:8.  How does Chizkuni solve
the
problem of why the 'elders of Midyan' are not mentioned?
        [Note from his pirush to 22:13 that he follows Ibn
Ezra.]
     According to his pirush, in what country does Bilam
live?!
     What leads him to this conclusion? [See 31:1-8!]
     Is this 'clever' pirush by Chizkuni supported or
refuted
by your answer to question #2 in Part Two above?

                                   b'hatzlacha,
                                   menachem



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: balakq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 30639 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090628/2d2161ec/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Jul  2 06:32:13 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 06:32:13 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] parshat Balak - shiur
Message-ID: <017801c9fb00$5e1b9ed0$1a52dc70$@net>

**********************************************************
***
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://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 23:12,26
&
24:13).  In fact, his final blessing of Am Yisrael appears
to
have been of 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 hard to
pinpoint any specific sin that Bil'am commits.  In fact,
by
the time the Parsha is over, one is left with the
impression
that Bil'am may even be a rather righteous, 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 'get lost':
  "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 specify 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
the
'death penalty' together with the other 'leaders' of
Midyan.
     To understand the underlying reason, we must
undertake a
quick analysis of the story that follows when Moshe
Rabbeinu
meets the officers who had returned from this battle.
     Let's pay careful attention to the section where
Moshe
censures 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 the entire incident of 'chet bnot
Mo'av'!  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 is '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 the entire scheme of
chet bnot Midyan.

     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'?

     Before we can answer these questions, we must first
determine where Bil'am is from.  [& it's time for a short
lesion 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.
     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 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 avenue
to
bring upon 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 divine given qualities - and
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 Chaza,l 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 for a Divine
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.
     The very existence of Am Yisrael posed a 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 -
instead of by an individual.  From a certain perspective,
this
itself could be considered a 'professional threat' to
Bil'am
and to the society that he represents.

     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!

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: balak1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 37379 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090702/7f0d3655/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Jul  6 09:06:41 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 09:06:41 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Pinchas - Questions for self study
Message-ID: <007f01c9fe3a$9b2ee5b0$d18cb110$@net>

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

             PARSHAT PINCHAS
                               
PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

MILCHEMET MIDYAN
1.  In the sin of 'bnot Mo'av' (see 25:1-9), both the
daughters of Mo'av and Midyan participate.  Afterward, in
25:16-18, God commands Bnei Yisrael to attack only the
Midyanites (and not Mo'av).  In your opinion, can you
explain
why?

2.  Why was Mo'av interested in causing Bnei Yisrael to
sin?
          [Relate to 22:2-8.]
     Why was Midyan interested in causing Bnei Yisrael to
sin?
      [Note which of these two countries borders with
Israel.]
     Whose sin would you consider worse?
[In your answer, relate to Devarim 2:9-10 & 2:17-19.]
          [See also Rashi & Ramban on 25:18.]

3.  When Bnei Yisrael finally go to war with Midyan (see
31:1-
8), they send only 1,000 soldiers from each tribe (total
12,000) and the army is led by Pinchas (the kohen).
     How is this form of going to battle different from
other
battles that Bnei Yisrael have fought thus far (or that
they
will fight in the future)?  Who has led Bnei Yisrael in
battle
in their previous battles?

4.  Even though we don't have exact population figures of
Mo'av at that time, we can extrapolate a rough estimation
of
how many men there were from the number of female children
(most likely under the age of 13) who were taken captive =
32,000 (see 31:35).  [Note also that not all of Midyan was
destroyed.  This nation appears again many other times in
Tanach - see Shoftim chapter 6.]
     Based on that figure, how many adult males would you
estimate lived in Midyan, and hence, how large (would you
estimate) was their army?
     Based on the size of Bnei Yisrael's potential
fighting
force (i.e. 600,000 men age 20 and up), does it make sense
that they would send a force of only 12,000 men?  If not,
why
do you think that this is the 'strategy' that God commands
Moshe to follow?

5.  Based on the above questions, what do you think is
significant about 'milchemet Midyan'?
     Use your answer to explain the reason for the special
tax
that was levied in 31:25-54.]
     [Can you relate this as well to Moshe's special
relationship with Midyan.  Note Bamidbar 10:29-32.]

6.  Is there any relationship between Midyan and Amalek?
     Relate to Bil'am's final blessings in Bamidbar
24:20-25
     & Sefer Shoftim 4:11,17-20.  [See also Breishit
25:1-6.]

NUMBERS
7.  As long as we are dealing with numbers [in the 'Book
of
Numbers'], what is the population drop in Shevet Shimon
between the census in Bamidbar chapter 1 and chapter 26?
Is
there any other shevet in which we find such a drastic
drop?
     Can you relate this to 25:14 and 25:9?!
     Does Shimon receive a blessing from Moshe Rabeinu in
Parshat Ve-zot Ha-Bracha (Devarim chapter 33)?  If so,
what is
it?  If not, why not?  Is there any other 'shevet' that
had
such a significant drop in population?

=============

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)

SHIUR #1 - THE ORDER OF PARSHIOT IN SEFER BAMIDBAR
1.  Chapter 26 describes a 'mifkad' [census] of the twelve
tribes.  To the best of your recollection, what was the
purpose of this census.  In your answer, relate to:
  a)  your 'first impression' - when reading 26:1-4 as a
  continuation of 25:16-18.
  b)  its juxtaposition to the opening sentence - "And it
came
  to pass after the plague... (i.e. 26:1)
     c)  the final psukim of this census in 26:51-56!
     d) what transpires in chapter 27.

  Rashi on 26:1 quotes two different Midrashim that relate
to
the purpose of this census.  How do these two
interpretations
relate to your answer to the above question?  Which of the
above possibilities does he relate to?
     See also Chizkuni & Ibn Ezra in regard to this topic.

2.  Carefully compare the 'style' of this census (i.e. how
the
people are counted by families) to the census in the first
chapter of Sefer Bamidbar.  What is the primary difference
between them?
     As you review Bamidbar chapter one, note also what
takes
place in Bamidbar chapter 2.  Is there anything similar to
this in chapter 26?
Based on your comparison:
     What was the purpose of the census in Bamidbar 1-2?
     What is the purpose of the new census in Bamidbar 26?
     Does your answer explain the reason for the
differences?

3.  In 25:16-18, God commands Bnei Yisrael to attack
Midyan.
Where in Sefer Bamidbar do we find the actual details of
this
battle?
     Can you explain why the details of that battle are
not
recorded until chapter 31?
     [See Chizkuni on 25:17.  How does he 'solve' this
problem?
     See also Ramban on 25:17.  How is his peirush
different?]

4.  Carefully review the primary topics of each of the
individual parshiot that are recorded between chapters 25
and
31.  It would be helpful to list them, and attempt to
group
them together by common topics.
     Note how these parshiot appear to form an
'interruption'
of the narrative that otherwise would flow naturally from
26:1
to chapter 31.  Can you explain the reason for this
structure?

5.  In your opinion, where in Chumash does 27:12-23
belong?
Can you explain why this narrative is recorded at this
point
in Sefer Bamidbar?
     Compare 27:12-13 to 31:1-2.  What can we assume from
this
in regard to the chronological order of these events?

6.  What was your conclusion in regard to the primary
topic of
chapters 28-29?  In your opinion, does this unit belong in
Sefer Bamidbar?  If not, where does it belong (and why)?

7.  Continue your review (or 'scan') of Sefer Bamidbar
until
its conclusion in chapter 36.  As before, make a listing
of
all the primary topics of each parshia (or set of
parshiot);
this time listing from chapter 25 until the end.
     Study this list, and attempt to 're-organize' these
parshiot (i.e. from chapter 25 until chapter 36) in a more
'logical' order.
     Would you consider chapters 26-27 as one unit?  If
so,
why?
          In your opinion, where does this unit belong?
     Can you explain why the Torah places it after chapter
25?
Read Rashi on 26:1 once again?
     Explain the two answers that Rashi suggests based on
the
above analysis.  See also Chizkuni.

8.  Based on your answers to the above, what can we learn
from
the 'parshia break' that we find in the middle of 26:1?

9.  Review Devarim 4:3-4, noting its specific context
within
the opening topic of chapter 4.  [Btw, do these psukim
sound
familiar?  How did you understand them up until now?]
     Can you relate Devarim 4:3-4 to the events of
Bamidbar
chapter 25?  Can you explain why Moshe mentions
specifically
'ba'al pe'or' in this rebuke?
     After that event, do we find any other instance when
Bnei
Yisrael sin in the desert (or when they are punished)?
     Attempt to this relate to the overall theme of Sefer
Bamidbar (and the above questions)?

=====

SHIUR #2 - PARSHAT TMIDIM U-MUSSAFIM -
     [ITS INTERNAL STRUCTURE]

1.  Chapters 28-29 form a unit.  Explain why (both
textually
and thematically), and give a title to this unit based on
its
content.
     Would the heading: 'The Jewish Holidays' - be a
precise
title for this unit? Explain why yes, and why not.
     Does your title of this unit explain the reason for
the
repetition of the phrase 'milvad olat ha-tamid...' in each
holiday?  [If it doesn't, it should.]
     What does the word 'mussaf' mean?  Did you include it
in
your title?
     When we daven 'tfillat mussaf', do we ever quote the
psukim from Parshat Pinchas?  If so, when, where, and why?
     When we read the Torah on Yom Tov, do we ever read
from
Parshat Pinchas?  If so, for which aliya?
     Can you explain why?

2.  How does this unit relate to Vayikra chapter 23?
          Is it simply a repeat?  If not, what it the
difference?
     Be sure that you relate to the phrase 've-hikravtem
isheh
la-Hashem' that is repeated so often in chapter 23.
Relate as
well to Vayikra 23:37-38 - See Rashi on that pasuk!
     [See also TSC shiur on Parshat Emor re: the
"moadim".]

3.  Based on Bamidbar chapters 28-29, compose a table that
lists (and compares) the specific animals (and their
numbers)
that are offered on each holiday.  Can you identify any
type
of a 'pattern'?
     If so, based on that pattern, attempt to group the
holidays together based on their similar 'korbanot'.  Can
you
find a reason for the groupings that emerge?
     According to these groupings, should Shmini Atzeret
be
considered one of the 'shalosh regalim' or one of the
'Days of
Judgement'?

4.  In your opinion, should the special Mussaf offering of
Rosh Chodesh be offered on Rosh Hashana as well, or does
the
special Mussaf offering of Rosh Hashana 'override' it?
     Now, look at the parsha carefully, and see if you
arrived
at the same conclusion that Chumash does (i.e make sure
that
you study 29:6 in its context)!

========

PART III - PARSHANUT

1.  Review the opening four psukim of Parshat Pinchas
(i.e.
25:10-13).  In your opinion, does 25:13 'explain' 25:12,
or
does God grant Pinchas an 'additional' reward in 25:13?
     Can you explain the difference between the award of
'brit
shalom' in 25:12 to the award of 'brit kehunat olam' in
25:13?
     In your opinion, are these two britot identical or
are
they different?
     If they are different, what does brit shalom imply?

After you have thought about this, see:
 *   Rashi 25:12-13 - How does Rashi answer the above
question?
 *   Ramban 25:11-13.  This Ramban is very difficult, how
does
he explain the difference between the two britot?
 *   Ibn Ezra  25:12-13 - How does Ibn Ezra answer the
above...?
          [See also Chizkuni - is this the same as Ibn
Ezra?
               Why does he add the law about birkat
kohanim?
 *   Sforno 25:12 /  Clearly, he understands brit shalom
in a
very different manner.  Can you explain why?  What does he
base his interpretation on?
  Then, see once again the Ibn Ezra on 25:13.  How and why
does he argue with Sforno's approach?

2.  Note the word 'shalom' in birkat kohanim (Bamidbar
6:26).
     If I am not mistaken, these are the only two
instances in
Sefer Bamidbar where we find the word shalom.  [E-mail me
if
you find another].
     Could this parallel help us understand the connection
between brit shalom and brit kehunat olam?  Would this
imply
that brit shalom is the same as brit kehuna?

3.  In Sefer Breishit we discussed two approaches to the
concept of brit - a) a one sided covenant, basically a
Divine
promise;
          b) a two sided covenant, which binds both sides.
     [See Ramban Breishit 6:18 for complete discussion.]
In your opinion, what of these two types would you
consider
God's covenant with Pinchas?
     Based on his commentary on Breishit 6:18, attempt to
better understand Ramban's commentary on Bamidbar 25:13.
          [Using the Ramban's own words, 've-hamaskil
yavin'!]
     How does the zealous nature of the act of Pinchas
relate
to the biblical concept of kehuna?  [Relate to Shmot
19:4-6.]

4.  In relation to question #1 in 'shabbos table
questions' -
be sure to see Rashi & Ramban on 25:18 concerning why only
Midyan is attacked [and not Mo'av].
     Does Ramban argue with Rashi, or does his
interpretation
'add' to Rashi's explanation?  Explain!
     Now see Chizkuni on 25:18.  What does his peirush
add?
     Which problem in 'pshat' does Chizkuni's peirush
answer?

5.  In regard to the 'strange' progression of parshiot in
Parshat Pinchas (as discussed in Part II above) - Note how
the
following parshanim relate to these problems of 'smichut
parshiot'!
     Rashi on 27:12. See also Ibn Ezra.
          Relate to Rashi's two 'meshalim' in his peirush
to
26:1!
     See also Chizkuni on 27:12.  Can you explain his
peirush?
     Finally see Ramban on 27:12.  How is his peirush here
affected by his opinion of 'yeish mukdam u-me'uchar'?!

6.  In regard to why Parshat Tmidim u-Mussafim is recorded
here:
     See Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Ramban on 28:2.
          Explain how (and why) each commentary is
different.

                              be-hatzlacha,
                              menachem



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pinq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 29907 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090706/f36719b1/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jul  8 13:17:57 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 13:17:57 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Pinchas - shiur #1
Message-ID: <000001c9fff0$0bd98b10$238ca130$@net>

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

                 PARSHAT PINCHAS

     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?]



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pin1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 47474 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090708/99702e14/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jul  8 13:20:05 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 13:20:05 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Parshat Pinchas - shiur #2
Message-ID: <000e01c9fff0$63a06620$2ae13260$@net>

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

            The CHAGIM in PARSHAT PINCHAS

     As you 'should' have noticed, every time that we
doven
MUSAF (i.e. on shabbat, rosh chodesh, & yom-tovim), we
always
include a quote from Parshat Pinchas.
  Similarly, the Torah reading on every rosh chodesh and
yom-
tov is either entirely from Parshat Pinchas, or at least
the
'maftir' section!
     To understand why, the following shiur undertakes a
simple analysis of chapters 28->29 in Parshat Pinchas.

INTRODUCTION
     Even though we find several presentations of the
Jewish
Holidays throughout Chumash, their presentation in Parshat
Pinchas is quite unique.  In fact, our shiur will show how
the
primary topic of this unit may not even be the holidays!
  [It will help us understand why these holidays are
  'repeated' in Sefer Bamidbar, even though they were
already
  discussed in Parshat Emor /i.e. Vayikra 23.]

     We begin our study by identifying the precise unit
under
discussion and its structure.

 AN ORGANIZED UNIT
     Just about every time that Chumash presents a unit of
"mitzvot" - it begins with a very short introductory
narrative
- the most common form being "va'ydaber Hashem el Moshe
lay'mor", or something similar.
     This standard format allows us to easily identify
chapters 28 & 29 as a unit, as it begins with that opening
phrase (see 28:1), and the commandments continue until the
end
of chapter 29.
     Note as well 30:1 we find what constitutes the
concluding
verse of this unit, for it describes Moshe's fulfillment
of
God's command in 28:2, that Moshe should command these
laws to
Bnei Yisrael!
     In the opening verse God instructs Moshe (see
28:1-2):
    "Command Bnei Yisrael and tell them - keep the laws of
My
    [daily] offerings..."
     In the closing verse (see 30:1):
    "And Moshe spoke to Bnei Yisrael [telling them]
    everything [all the laws] that God had commanded him."
           [Note a very similar structure between Vayikra
           23:1 and 23:44.]
           
     This alone already indicates that all of the laws
included between these opening and closing verses forms a
unit.
  [Note how the chapter division of Chumash seems to have
made
  a major mistake here, for 30:1 should really have been
  29:40!  Note how the 'parshia' break of Chazal is much
more
  accurate (as usual) than the 'King James' chapter
division!
  This 'mistake' probably stems from a misunderstanding of
the
  opening pasuk of Parshat Masei, and how it connects to
the
  last verse of Parshat Pinchas.]

     As we browse through the content of chapters 28->29,
it
seems as though its primary topic is the holidays, for
they
begin in 28:16 and continue all the way until 29:39.  Note
as
well how these holidays are presented in the order of
their
lunar dates, i.e. beginning with Pesach and concluding
with
Succot .
    Nonetheless, when we consider that this unit begins in
28:1, we must assume that the first fifteen psukim share
the
same theme.   By taking a closer look, the connection
becomes
rather obvious, for the first topic is the daily "olah"
offering - a lamb - offered once in the morning and once
in
the evening (see 28:2-8).  These laws are followed by the
commandment to offer an 'additional' "olah" every Shabbat
(see
28:9-10), and more elaborate "olah" on every Rosh Chodesh
[first day of the lunar mon
  Now, to determine what thematically ties this unit
together,
we need only list the topic of each of its individual
"parshiot" in search of a logical progression:
     As we will see, the progression is very logical:

PSUKIM         TOPIC / The laws of:
======              =====
28:1-8         the DAILY korban TAMID
28:9-10        WEEKLY korban MUSAF for SHABBAT
28:11-15       MONTHLY korban MUSAF for ROSH CHODESH
28:16-25       a special korban MUSAF for CHAG HA'MATZOT
28:26-31       a special korban MUSAF for CHAG SHAVUOT
29:1-6         a special korban MUSAF for YOM TRU'AH
29:7-11        a special korban MUSAF for YOM KIPPUR
29:12-34       a special korban MUSAF for each day of
SUCCOT
     --->       * [note how each day is a separate
parshia!]
29:35-38       a special korban MUSAF for SHMINI ATZERET
29:39          the summary pasuk

     The progression within this unit is very
straightforward.
We begin with the DAILY "korban tamid", followed by the
WEEKLY
"musaf shabbat", followed by the MONTHLY "korban rosh
chodesh,
followed by the YEARLY schedule of korbanot offered on the
chagim, beginning with the first month, etc. It is for
this
reason that the FIRST pasuk of each of these 'holiday'
"parshiot" begins with the precise lunar date.

THE KEY PHRASE: "AL OLAT ha'TAMID..."
     As you review these parshiot, note how each parshia
relates in some manner to the daily "olat tamid". The
opening
parshia describes it, while each and every parshia that
follows concludes with the statement "al olat ha'tamid" or
"milvad olat ha'tamid".
  The Torah goes out of its way to emphasize that each of
these korbanot are to be offered IN ADDITION to the daily
OLAH
offering!  In fact, that is why we call the offering a
'MUSAF'! - The word "musaf" stems from the verb "l'hosif"
= to
add on. These special korbanot are offered in ADDITION to
the
daily korban TAMID, and hence their name - a korban MUSAF.
     Therefore, this unit begins with the KORBAN TAMID and
then continues with the detail of each korban MUSAF that
is
offered in addition to the daily "olat tamid".  Hence, a
more
precise definition for this unit would be KORBANOT TMIDIM
u'MUSAFIM.
     Indeed, each of the holidays are mentioned within
this
unit, but not because the holidays are its primary topic.
Quite the contrary; the holidays are mentioned, for on
each
holiday an 'additional' korban is to be offered.

BETWEEN EMOR & PINCHAS
     With this background, we can better understand the
difference between the presentation of the chagim in
Parshat
Emor (see Vayikra chapter 23) and their presentation here.
     In contrast to Parshat Pinchas whose primary topic is
korbanot, the primary topic in Parshat Emor is the
holidays.
In fact, that is precisely its title: "moadei Hashem..." -
God's appointed times (23:1,4)! That unit details the
nature
and specific laws for each holiday.  For example, the
prohibition to work, the need to gather ("mikraei
kodesh"),
and special mitzvot for each holiday, such as: offering
the
"omer", the "shtei ha'lechem", blowing shofar, fasting,
succah, lulav & etrog etc. [To verify, review Vayikra
23:1-
44.]
  [Btw, that parsha does include certain korbanot, such as
  those which come with the "omer" and "shtei ha'lechem".
But
  again, those korbanot are special for that day and
hence,
  relate to the special nature of each of those holidays.]

     Notice as well that each holiday in Parshat Emor
includes
the mitzvah of "v'hikravtem ishe la'Hashem" [you shall
bring
an offering to God/ see 23:8,25,27,36]. However, this
commandment appears quite ambiguous for it doesn't specify
which type of korban is to be offered.
     Parshat Pinchas solves this ambiguity, by telling us
precisely what that offering should be.  To prove how,
note a
key summary pasuk found in Parshat Emor:
  "These are God's appointed times set aside for gathering
IN
  ORDER to offer a - ISHE LA'HASHEM -, an OLAH, MINCHA,
  ZEVACH, & NESACHIM, - on EACH DAY - DVAR YOM B'YOMO."
(See
  Vayikra 23:37, compare with 23:4)

     What does "dvar yom b'yomo" refer to? Most likely to
the
precise details for these korbanot as recorded in Parshat
Pinchas! [Note Rashi on that pasuk (23:37), that is
exactly
what he says!]
  [Using computer jargon, we could say that Parshat Emor
is
  'indexed' to Parshat Pinchas - or, if each "v'hikravtem
  ishe" in Emor was in 'hyper-text', it would link to its
  respective URL address in Parshat Pinchas. [e.g. 23:8-
  >28:19, etc.]

     Also, if you look carefully at the names of the
chagim in
the opening pasuk of each parshia in Parshat Pinchas,
you'll
notice that each specific name reflects the primary aspect
of
the chag as it had already been described in Parshat Emor!
[That comparison is quite straightforward, but beyond the
scope of this shiur.]

     With this background, the presentation of the
holidays in
Parshat Pinchas is quite easy to understand.  Each holiday
is
introduced by its lunar date and name (based on its more
detailed description in Parshat Emor).  This introduction
is
followed by the complete details of the korban MUSAF for
that
holiday, including the type of each korban, and the number
of
animals that are to be offered.  Other than those details
(of
the korban MUSAF), Parshat Pinchas does not add in any new
laws for any of the "chagim".

THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF PARSHAT HA'MUSAFIM
     Let's return now to Parshat Pinchas to take a look at
the
actual korbanot and what they're all about.
     Even though the korban MUSAF of each holiday is
presented
in a separate parshia, the set of korbanot for each
holidays
are quite similar.  Note how each set contains:
  *  an OLAH offering of PARIM, AYLIM, & KVASIM;
  *  the appropriate flour & wine offerings,
               [better known as "MINCHATAM V'NISKAM";
  *  and a CHATAT offering of a SEIR IZIM (a goat).

     The following table compares the specific korbanot of
each chag. [If you have the time (and patience), I
recommend
that you try to work it our first on your own.]
     As you review this table, note how similar most of
the
MUSAFIM are. However, note as well where and how they
differ!

CHAG /  OLAT:     PAR     AYIL  KEVES     / SEIR CHATAT
ROSH CHODESH    -   2     1        7           1
CHAG HA'MATZOT      2     1        7           1
[same for 7 days]
SHAVUOT        -    2     1        7           1
ROSH HA'SHANA       1     1        7           1
YOM KIPPUR     -    1     1        7           1
  [same as R.H.]
SUCCOT (day 1) -    13    2       14           1
SUCCOT (day 2)      12    2       14           1
SUCCOT (day 3) -    11    2       14           1
SUCCOT (day 4) -    10    2       14           1
SUCCOT (day 5) -     9    2       14           1
SUCCOT (day 6) -     8    2       14           1
SUCCOT (day 7) -     7    2       14           1
SHMINI ATZERET -     1    1        7           1

     As you study this chart, note how one can easily
identify
certain groups of holidays. Let's organize them as
follows:

GROUP ONE: [the 2-1-7-1]
     Rosh Chodesh, Chag ha'Matzot, and Shavuot
     Note how all three are connected to YETZIAT
MITZRAYIM!
    [Rosh Chodesh - based on Shmot 12:1, and Shavuot can
be
    considered the conclusion of Pesach.]

GROUP TWO: [the 1-1-7-1]
     Rosh ha'Shana, Yom Kippur, and Shmini Atzeret
    Note, that all three are in Tishrei! Since the first
two
    are 'days of judgement', then we must conclude that
Shmini
    Atzeret must also be a 'day of judgement'!
               [e.g. "tfilat geshem" etc.]

GROUP THREE: [the {13->7}-2-14-1]
     The seven days of Succot
    This is the most interesting group, for (unlike "chag
    ha'matzot") even though each day of Succot is the same
    holiday, for some reason the number of PARIM decreases
    daily.

DOUBLE NATURE
     In addition to this obvious division into three
groups,
there remains another interesting phenomenon in the above
chart. For some reason, the OLAH offering on Succot seems
to
be DOUBLE. On every other holiday we offer one AYIL and
seven
KVASIM, but on each day of Succot we double that -
offering
TWO and FOURTEEN instead! Furthermore, in regard to the
PARIM,
there's an 'explosion'. Instead of either one or two, we
find
THIRTEEN! More puzzling is the fact that each day we bring
one
less.
     So what's going on with the korbanot on Succot?
     One could suggest that Succot should not be
considered a
separate category, but rather a COMBINATION of the other
two.
Let's explain why.
     On the one hand, Succot could be included in Group
One,
for that group contains the other two "shalosh regalim"
(i.e.
Chag ha'Matzot and Shavuot). On the other hand, Succot
could
also be included in Group Two, for that group contains all
of
the other holidays that fall out in the seventh month
(i.e.
"chagei Tishrei").
  [Thematically as well, Succot fits into both groups. On
the
  one hand it is a thanksgiving holiday (like the holidays
in
  Group One), where we thank God for our fruit harvest
/that's
  why we recite the Hallel. On the other hand, it is also
a
  time of awe (like the holidays in Group Two), for we
  anticipate the rainy season which will determine the
fate of
  the forthcoming year/& that's why we recite the
"Hoshanot"].

  This 'double nature' of Succot can explain why its
korbanot
are DOUBLE - two AYLIM instead of one; & fourteen KVASIM
instead of seven. But what about the PARIM?  According to
this
interpretation, we should only bring THREE on each day of
Succot. So why do we bring and 'extra' ten on the first
day,
an extra nine on the second, etc.
     It's rather cute, but if we add up all the 'extras',
i.e.
10+9+8+7+6+5+4 we find that we've added 49 [=7x7] PARIM.
In
relation to the "chagim", finding significance in the
number
seven (or its multiple) should not surprise us. There are
many
instances in Chumash when 'seven' relates to our
recognition
that it God who controls what we perceive as nature (see
shiurim on both Parshat Breishit and on Parshat Emor).
     Our recognition that God controls nature is most
critical
on Succot - for it sits at the junction (and 'overlap') of
the
agricultural year, i.e. at the end of the previous year
(the
autumn fruit harvest) and beginning of the new year (the
upcoming rainy season).
     Furthermore, should we add these 49 PARIM to the
original
21 PARIM [3x7days], we find that a total of SEVENTY parim
are
offered during SUCCOT. Chazal point out that these seventy
bulls are representative of the seventy nations of
mankind.
[See shiur on Parshat Noach and the 'Migdal Bavel 'vort'.]
  [If you want to find additional meaning to the number 7
or
  49 [=7x7] in relation to the 7 days of Succot in the 7th
  month, ask your local kabbalist. - "v'akmal".]

     In summary, we have shown how what appears to be a
rather
monotonous list of korbanot may actually be hiding some
very
fundamental aspects of the "chagim". Hopefully, next time
you
doven MUSAF, it will make your tefilah a bit more
meaningful.

                              shabbat shalom,
                              Menachem
================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
1. If you are not familiar with the structure of tfilat
Musaf,
after the standard opening three brachot, we recite a
"piyut"
which describes our sorrow (& our fault) over the fact
that
the Bet ha'Mikdash not longer stands (e.g. "mpnei
chataeinu",
or tikanta shabbat..." etc.). That "piyut" concludes with
our
wish that the Bet ha'Mikdash will be rebuilt so that we
can
once again offer the korbanot - then we quote the actual
korban from Parshat Pinchas and a brief description of its
NESACHIM.  This is followed by yet another piyut (e.g.
"yismchu b'malchutcha" or "melech rachaman...") and then
concludes with the bracha of "kedushat ha'yom" (e.g.
"mkadesh
ha'shabbat", or "yisrael v'hazmanim').

2. Note that in regard to lighting Chanuka candles, Bet
Shamai's shita that we begin with eight and conclude with
one
is based on a comparison to PAREI ha'CHAG - i.e. the PARIM
of
Succot.

3. The only korban that doesn't change for any holiday is
the
"seir izim l'CHATAT". This korban serves as atonement for
any
possible sin of Am Yisrael in the Mikdash. The "seir izim"
is
chosen as it is symbolic of the sin of the brothers of
Yosef
when they used a "seir" to 'cover up' their sin. See
Ramban!
As it purpose is atonement, only one offering is necessary
per
set, and hence it is not doubled in Succot as are the
other
korbanot.

4. See previous shiur on Rosh Ha'shana for a more complete
explanation of why Tishrei (at the beginning of the rainy
season), serves as a time when all mankind is judged.

5. Note machloket between Ramban (and everyone else)
concerning whether this korban MUSAF was offered in the
desert
or only once Bnei Yisrael entered the land. Relate it to
his
"shita" of "yeish mukdam u'muchar ba'Torah". [Ramban on
28:1 &
on Vayikra 3:2.]    Relate this to the above shiur.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pin2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 33228 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090708/5e764abd/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Jul 12 13:10:51 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:10:51 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] MATOT MASEI - questions for self study
Message-ID: <012901ca0313$b632e090$2298a1b0$@net>

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

PARSHAT MATOT / MASEI
 
PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

WHAT WAS "AL PI HASHEM"?
1. Review 33:1-2, noting how these psukim introduce the
listing of all of Bnei Yisrael's journeys 
through the desert.
	Then, read once again the first half of 33:2,
noting the phrase "al pi Hashem", 
	and what it modifies.  
In your opinion, does this mean that God instructed Moshe
to write this list, or that each of these journeys began
with God's instruction?  What would be the logic of each
interpretation?
           In your answer, relate to Bamidbar 9:15-23!
Now, see Ibn Ezra & Ramban on 33:2, noting how and why
each "parshan" offers a different explanation.


THE 'HOLY' WAR AGAINST MIDYAN
1. In your opinion, why do think that specifically Pinchas
was chosen to lead the battle against the Midyanites, and
not Yehoshua - who had earlier led the battle against
Amalek, or Moshe Rabeinu himself - who had earlier led the
battle against Sichon?
	Relate your answer to both WHO Bnei Yisrael are
fighting, and WHY Bnei Yisrael are fighting?
[Would you suspect that Moshe Rabeinu's family
relationship with Midyan may have affected God's
considerations?]

2.  Review 31:5-6.  Based on these psukim, is it clear
that Pinchas in sent to lead the nation in battle? If not,
why is he being sent? Relate your answer to the purpose of
this battle, and to Devarim 20:1-9.

3.  Based on 31:35, we have an approx. population figure
for the female children of Midyan (i.e. 32,000).
Accordingly, approximate how many adult males would there
be in Midyan, and hence - the approximate potential size
of Midyan's army?  
    Considering that Bnei Yisrael's army had a potential
of 600,000 soldiers (see 26:50-53), what logical reason is
there for God's specific commandment to send only 12,000
men into battle (i.e. one thousand for each tribe).
[Relate this observation to your answers tp the above
questions.]

4. See Ramban on 31:6, in regard to why only 12,000 men
were sent to fight that battle (and not the entire army).

    See also Ibn Ezra on 31:8, and relate his commentary
to our shiur on Parshat Balak.

5. Following the battle, how was the booty split between
the people and the soldiers?  Note the percentage of the
booty that was given to God from each group, i.e. both
from Bnei Yisrael and from the soldiers who fought.  Can
you explain why?
	[In your answer, relate to 31:28 & 31:47!]
	What is the logic of these percentages?

6. Note the phrase "chukat ha'torah" in 31:21-24. What
does this phrase mean and what does it relate to? In your
answer, relate to the meaning of these words as explained
in our shiur on Parshat Chukat [re: Parshat Para/ Bamidbar
chapter 19].
	In these four psukim, can you identify a specific
set of "chukim" (laws that are set and don't change), as
well as a "torah" - i.e. a procedural type law?
	Note as well the phrase "chukat mishpat" in last
week's Parsha (see Bamidbar 27:11, in reference to
27:6-11).  Note there as well what is considered a
"mishpat" (resolving a dispute through the court system)
and what is a "chok" (a set law that doesn't change)!

THE TWO & A HALF TRIBES
1. Based on the opening pasuk of the story of Bnei Gad &
Reuven (see 32:1), attempt to explain why this story
follows immediately after the story of the war against
Midyan (i.e. chapter 31).
	[In your answer, be sure to relate to 31:32.]
	In your opinion, is there a more 'appropriate'
location (either chronological or thematic) for this
chapter in Sefer Bamdibar?  If so, explain where; and why
you think the Torah preferred to record it here instead.
 
2. Review 34:16-29. Attempt to give a title to this
parshia, and explain how it relates to the parshiot which
precede it and follow it. 
	In what way is the parshia similar to the opening
parshia concerning the "meraglim" in the beginning of
Parshat Shlach (see 13:1-18)? In what manner is it
different?
	Which tribes are missing from the list in
34:16-29!?
		Can you explain why? 
			[The answer is very simple!]
	Next, review those psukim carefully once again,
noting which tribal leaders are NOT referred to as NASI.
	Can you explain why?  [The answer is very
difficult, and if do find one, please tell me!]

TWELVE TRIBES & SHEVET LEVI
1. Can you explain the logic of Am Yisrael having twelve
independent tribes?  Considering that we all serve the
same God, would it not have been better for Am Yisrael to
be simply one united nation, i.e. without the institution
of tribes at all?  [Would this not enhance the unity of Am
Yisrael?]
	If you do find value to this concept of 12 tribes,
attempt to relate it to the overall purpose of Am Yisrael
to become a model nation before all nations.
	Can your answer help explain why in Sefer Bamidbar
we find so many topics that relate to the TWELVE tribes
and their leaders? [including Parshat Matot itself!]

2. What is the purpose of separating the tribe of Levi? Is
their sole responsibility simply to work in the Mishkan/
Mikdash?
	If so, why are their cities scattered among all
twelve tribes (see 35:1-8).  If not, what else are they
supposed to do all day?
	In your answer, relate to Devarim 17:8-11, 33:8-11
& Bamidbar 3:5-13.
	How are the Leviim supposed to support themselves
if they only have cities, but no land to cultivate? 
    In your answer, relate to Bamidbar 18:21-32.  Read
that section carefully, noting especially 18:21, 18:24,&
18:31.

3. In relation to the above questions, see Rambam - Mishne
Torah, the very end of Hilchot Shmita & Yovel (13:12-13).
In your opinion, what was the Rambam's source for these
halachot?
======

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)

1. To the best of recollection, what are the precise
geographical borders of the Land of Israel?  Can you quote
a source for your answer?
	When God promised the land to Avraham Avinu, did
he tell him the borders at that time? 
	[Note Breishit 15:18-20 & 17:7-8.] 
    
2. In Parshat Masei (see 34:1-15), the Torah records the
precise borders of Eretz Canaan.  In your opinion, is the
phrase "eretz canaan" simply a synonym for "eretz yisrael"
[the Land of Israel]?  [If you answered no, explain what
the difference is, and what you based your answer on.]
    Review 34:1-15, taking special note of the eastern
border.  Does it include the eastern bank of the Jordan
River [i.e. Transjordan]?
	If not, can you explain why?

3. Recall from Parshat Matot (chapter 32) that Moshe had
agreed to grant Transjordan as the official inheritance of
Gad and Reuven (on the condition that they first help in
the conquest of Eretz Canaan).  If indeed this area is
outside the above mentioned borders of Eretz Canaan, why
did Moshe allow this decision?
	In other words, if Transjordan is part of the
holyland, then it should be within the official borders!
If not, how can it be considered an inheritance of one of
the tribes?

4. Based on the borders described in 34:1-15, is the Negev
part of the Land of Israel?  If so, which part of it?
[Would this include areas such as Eilat?]
	If the entire Negev is part of Eretz Canaan, why
do Bnei Yisrael pass through that area during their
journey through the desert?

5. Review 32:5-15, noting how Moshe compares Bnei Gad &
Reuven's request to the sin of the "meraglim".
Nonetheless, after their quick explanation, he agrees to
their demands. 
	In your opinion, what caused Moshe's change in
attitude? 
	In Bnei Gad & Reuven's response to Moshe, do they
relate in any manner to Moshe's initial accusation? If so,
how?
	Why is the offer of Gad & Reuven to serve as the
"chalutz" [front line troops] in the military campaign to
conquer the Land so important to Moshe?  In your answer,
relate to Bnei Yisrael's fear of attacking 'walled cities'
(see Devarim 1:26-28) and how their offer could help quell
that fear.

6. To the best of your recollection, is there any other
source in Chumash that relates to the actual borders of
the land of Israel?  If so, how do those borders compare
to the borders described in Parshat Masei?  [See Breishit
10:19.]

7. Scan thru Sefer Breishit noting the various instances
when God promises the 'Promised Land' to the Avot.  [To
save you some time, see Breishit 12:7, 13:14-17, 15:18,
17:7-8, 22:17-18, 26:2-5, 28:3-4, 28:13-14, 35:11-12,
46:1-4, 48:4 & 21. See as well Shmot 23:28-3.] 
    From these sources, can you pinpoint the precise
borders?
		[See also Breishit 10:15-19 in relation to
17:7-8.]

	Do any of these borders contradict one another?
	Be sure to relate to Breishit 15:18-20 [Brit Bein
Ha'btarim] in comparison to Breishit 17:7-8 [Brit Milah].

8.  When one says that the Promised Land is HOLY, what
does this imply? Does this statement relate to the realm
of "halacha"?
	If so, how? [Bring examples of any "halachot" that
this "kedusha" (holiness) relates to?
    Is this concept of "kedusha" found in any other realm
of Judiasm?  If so, can you explain how it is similar (or
different)?

9. Are you aware of any laws relating to the "kedusha" of
the Land of Israel that depend on who is sovereign in the
Land?	
	If so, what are they?

10.  Finally, see Rambam Hilchot Trumot 1:1-5. See also
1:26.
	As you study this Ramban, note how he provides a
'political' definition of the land of Israel (and not a
geographical one)!
	Based on the above questions, can you explain the
reason for this presentation?
	Note how the Rambam does relate to "eretz canaan",
as well as to the land the God had promised to Avraham
Avinu.  Attempt to explain how and why Rambam reaches his
conclusions concerning the 'expandable' borders of the
land.  Does it appear as though he gives a 'limit' to this
potential expansion?
	According to this Ramban, what would be the
halachic status today of the land under the sovereignty of
the State of Israel?

PART III - PARSHANUT

THE FIRST PASUK OF PARSHAT MATOT
1. Read the opening pasuk in Parshat Matot (30:2).  As you
study this pasuk, make note of whatever problems that you
would assume that the classic commentators would deal
with.  List them, but don't look at the commentators
(yet). 

2.  This opening pasuk (30:2) introduces a set of laws.
How is it different than most other 'introductory psukim'
that we find in Chumash? 

3.  Before we continue, note that the division of the
Bible according to chapters (a non-jewish tradition)
begins this chapter with the final pasuk of Parshat
Pinchas! [See 30:1]
	Note how the division according to "parshiot" (a
jewish tradition) clearly contradicts the chapter
division, as the new 'parshia' begins in 30:2, and not in
30:1!
	According to simple "pshat", which division is
correct?
	Can you think of any reason at all why this
chapter should begin in 30:1?  How does this pasuk (30:1)
relate to chapter 29?
	Use 28:2 (in relation to 30:1) to prove that
Chazal are correct! 
    In your opinion, could this 'mistake' in the division
of chapters relate to the problem raised in the above
question?

4.  This set of laws (of "nedarim" [vows]) is unique for
it was given specifically to the tribal leaders [you
should have noted this in question #1].
	In your opinion, were these laws given ONLY to the
tribal leaders (and not to the people)?
	If so, why shouldn't the people know these laws?
	If not, i.e. the laws were intended for everyone,
why are they first being given to the tribal leaders?
	
5. See Rashi on 30:2. How does he answer this question?
	There are two stages in Rashi's answer, explain
each stage.
	Note how Rashi refers to Shmot 34:31-32. 
    To appreciate this Rashi, review Shmot 34:27-35, and
attempt to determine which specific mitzvot Moshe conveyed
to Bnei Yisrael when he came down from Har Sinai with the
second luchot.  [See commentators there as well.]
	Why are those psukim the key source for Rashi's
interpretation?

6. Now, see Ramban on 30:2. How does he answer this
question? 
	In what manner is his approach totally different
than Rashi's?

7.  Many commentators raise a more basic problem, i.e.
what are the laws of nedarim (vows) doing here (at this
point in Sefer Bamidbar) at all?
	Before you study the commentators, attempt to
answer the following questions:
1) In what manner to the laws of nedarim relate to the
preceding set of laws regarding the T'midim u'Musafim
(i.e. chapters 28-29)?  Note the concluding psukim of that
that unit!

2) How do the laws of nedarim relate to the topics that
follow, i.e. the war against Midyan & and the two & a half
tribes? [Do any of those stories contain vows?]

    See Rashbam on 30:2. How does he answer this question?
	Does he relate to any other questions regarding
30:2?	
    If so, what is his answer?

8.  See Ibn Ezra on 30:2.
	How would the Ibn Ezra answer the above question?
	Note that Ibn Ezra's interpretation implies that
these laws of nedarim were FIRST given to Bnei Yisrael at
this time (i.e. during the 40th year in the desert, after
the war against Midyan).!
    What is problematic about this opinion, and explain
why others would most probably disagree?
	If Ibn Ezra is correct, why aren't these laws
recorded immediately after the story in chapter 32?
    How does he deal with this problem in his commentary?
		[See also Chizkuni on 30:2.]

9. See Seforno on 30:2. How does Seforno connect these
laws of nedarim to the mitzvot that were given on Har
Sinai?
	Would Seforno agree with Ibn Ezra in regard to
when these laws were first given?

10.  Next, carefully study 30:17.  Which of the above
opinions does this pausk support?
	Which commentary does it appear to contradict?

11.  The phrase "zeh ha'davar" is found several other
times in Chumash,  in relation to the:
    manna - see Shmot 16:16,32; 
    Mishkan - see Shmot 35:4.
	Miluim ceremony - see Vayikra 8:5 ;
	Yom Ha'Shmini - see Vayikra 9:6 ;
	"shchutei chutz" - see Vayikra 17:2.
			[See also Bamidbar 36:6]

    Which of these instances is preceded by God
instructing Moshe beforehand (and which cases are not)?
	Now, carefully read the opening ten lines of
Ramban's commentary to 30:2. Why do your think that he
compare our pasuk (30:2) specifically to Vayikra 17:2, and
not to the others?
How does he relate to all of the other cases mentioned
above? [As you read this Ramban, note how thorough and
concise his commentary is!]


HOW TO DIVIDE THE LAND?
1. God's command to Bnei Yisrael concerning how to
apportion the land appears to contain an internal
contradiction. On the one hand, it states:
"You shall APPORTION the land among yourselves... with
larger groups INCREASE the share, with smaller groups
REDUCE the share... (see Bamidbar 26:54-55)

	This implies that the basis for apportioning the
land was  the size of each tribe and/or family. 
    Yet, the next pasuk seems to imply exactly the
opposite:
"Each portion shall be assigned by LOT, whether for larger
or smaller groups"  (see 26:56)

	In Parshat Masei, this ambiguous command is
repeated, but in shorter form:
"You shall apportion the land by LOTS, clan by clan: with
LARGER groups increase the share, with SMALLER groups
reduce the share. Wherever the LOT FALLS for anyone - that
shall be his... (see 33:54)

	Based on these psukim, how do you think the land
is supposed to be apportioned?
	Can you resolve the apparent contradictions? 
	In your answer, attempt to differentiate between
the geographical area which each tribe is to receive, and
how that area will be apportioned internally by each tribe
according to family clans.
	During the time of Yehoshua, how was the land
actually divided according to tribes; based on the
population of each tribe, or based on pre-set parcels of
land?  In your answer, relate to Yehoshua chapter 18.
 
	After you arrive at your conclusion (or if you
give up), see Ramban on 26:54 (it's complicated, but
worthwhile if you prepared).  [See also Rashi & Sforno.]
[The Ramban is very long, but his basic point can be
understood from the first 10 or 15 lines. This topic is
also discussed at length in Baba Batra 117b.]

	
b'hatzlacha,
						menachem



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: matmasq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 41760 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090712/46ca248f/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue Jul 14 04:18:02 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 04:18:02 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Parshat Matot - shiur
Message-ID: <009201ca045b$a0328180$e0978480$@net>

**********************************************************
***
     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


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: matot2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 52109 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090714/d3ed9d99/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jul 15 13:39:17 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:39:17 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Parshat Masei
Message-ID: <009d01ca0573$30bb9c60$9232d520$@net>

**********************************************************
***
     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.]

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: masei1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 40408 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090715/022032e9/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Jul 20 00:54:05 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:54:05 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Devarim - questions for self study
Message-ID: <007b01ca08f6$1be1f290$53a5d7b0$@net>

**********************************************************
***
  THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  www.tanach.org
   In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag 
 Questions for self study - by Menachem Leibtag
**********************************************************
***

              for SEFER  DEVARIM

[The first battery of questions will deal with the book of
Devarim; questions on Parshat Devarim will follow.]

PART I - WHAT IS (or ISN'T) SEFER DEVARIM? 	
	
INTRODUCTION -
	It is commonly understood that Sefer Devarim is a
review or repeat of Chumash, the following set of
questions will help you determine if this assumption is
indeed correct, while preparing you for your study of the
book.
	If indeed Sefer Devarim is a review of Chumash,
then we would certainly expect that it would review both
the main stories as well as the primary mitzvot that are
found in the books of Breishit, Shmot, Vayikra, and
Bamidbar. 
	To ascertain if this is indeed true, let's review
the main topics of each book of Chumash, and see if they
are discussed anywhere in Sefer Devarim.
  
1.  In Sefer Breishit, we find the story of Creation, the
Flood and the story of the Avot, etc.  Are any of these
stories repeated in Sefer Devarim?  If so, which story and
where it is repeated? 
	Which stories are 'missing'? 

2.  In Sefer Shmot we find the stories of Moshe's birth,
the Ten Plagues, the Exodus, matan Torah, chet ha-egel,
and building the mishkan.  Can you find any of these
stories in Sefer Devarim?  If so, where?  
	Which stories in Shmot are definitely not in
Devarim? 
	What "mitzvot" are recorded in Sefer Shmot?  Are
any of them repeated in Sefer Devarim?

3.  Recall how the second half of Sefer Shmot discusses
the Mishkan in great detail (parshiot Teruma, Tetzaveh,
first half of Ki Tisa, Vayakhel & Pekudei).  Is any of
this detail repeated or summarized in Sefer Devarim?  If
so, where?
	Is the Mishkan itself ever mentioned in Sefer
Devarim?  Is the Bet ha'Mikdash and/or korbanot ever
referred to?
     If so, where? 

4. You may have noticed that stories of Matan Torah and
chet ha-egel are found in Sefer Devarim chapters 5 and 9
(respectively). In what context are these stories
presented in Sefer Devarim - as part of an ongoing review
of Bnei Yisrael's history?  If not, why are they recorded,
and why are some of the details different?

5.  Recall from Sefer Vayikra that it contains numerous
mitzvot, most of which deal with the mishkan and korbanot.
Are any of these mitzvot repeated in Sefer Devarim?  If
so, which mitzvot, in what context (and where)? 
	Are there any categories of mitzvot in Sefer
Vayikra that are not mentioned at all in Sefer Devarim?
If so, can you explain why?

6.  Recall from our study of Sefer Bamidbar how it
contains both 'narrative' and 'mitzvot'.  While the
narrative focused on the story of Bnei Yisrael's journey
from Har Sinai towards Eretz Canaan [including the
preparation for that journey], most of its mitzvot seemed
to have 'belonged' in Sefer Vayikra. 
	To the best of your recollection, which stories
from Sefer Bamidbar are repeated in Sefer Devarim?  Are
these stories presented in an orderly fashion?  If so,
where in Sefer Devarim and in what context?
	Can you identify which stories are missing (and
why)?  For example, do we find a review of the stories of
Korach, Bil'am, and the "mei meriva" incident?  If so, are
they presented as part of a complete review, or are they
mentioned just in passing? 

7.  The story of the meraglim is indeed 'repeated' in
chapter one of Sefer Devarim.  Can you explain why
specifically that story receives so much detail and is one
of the first stories of Chumash to be repeated in Sefer
Devarim (even though it didn't take place until the second
year in the desert)? 
	The story of the conquest of Sichon & Og is also
quite detailed in Parshat Devarim (see chapters 2-3), more
so than in its original account in Sefer Bamidbar (see
21:21-35).  Can you explain why?  In your answer, relate
to the final psukim of Parshat Devarim (i.e. 3:20-22)! 

8.  Recall that Sefer Bamidbar also contained many mitzvot
(e.g. - sota, nazir, birkat kohanim, challa, tzitzit, para
aduma, tmidim u-musafim etc.).  Are any of those mitzvot
repeated in Sefer Devarim?  If so, where?  If not, can you
explain why they aren't? 

9.  Do we find any mitzvot in Sefer Devarim that were
never mentioned earlier in Chumash?  If so, name a few
examples. 
	If Sefer Devarim is indeed a review of Chumash,
would it make sense that it would contain mitzvot that
were never mentioned earlier? 

10.  Based on your answers to all the above questions,
would you still say that Sefer Devarim is a review or
repeat of Chumash? 
	If not, then what is it? 
	[In case you can't answer that question, it is
recommended that you continue with Part II.]
====

PART II - A BOOK OF SPEECHES
1.  If you have ample time, take a few minutes to browse
through Sefer Devarim, noting how most of the book is
written in the first person (i.e. as though Moshe himself
is talking).  Can you explain the reason for this style? 
	Do we find this style in any other Sefer of
Chumash? 

2.  Be sure that you understand the difference between
'first person' and 'third person'.  Then, go the beginning
of Sefer Devarim and start reading the first few psukim,
and determine if they are in first person or in third
person (and explain why).  
     Note that even though the Sefer begins in third
person, after several psukim we find a switch to 'first
person' - and that style continues for several chapters. 
	In what pasuk does this switch to first person
occur?  Can you explain why? 
	Until where does this 'first person' style
continue? 
	[If you give up, scan until [towards the] end of
chapter 4.]

	In case you didn't notice, you just identified a
speech, the first of many speeches found in Sefer Devarim.
Quickly scan these four chapters (i.e. 1:5-4:40) and see
if you can identify the main topic (or topics) of this
first speech? 
	Attempt as well to understand its flow of topic.

3.  Next, carefully read the opening psukim of chapter 5,
trying once again to identify a speech and if so, where it
begins.
     [This speech should be a bit easier to identify.] 
     
	Scan this speech that begins in 5:1 and attempt to
find where it ends (i.e. where is that next time that we
find that Chumash returns to 'third person' form).  As you
scan through this speech, looking for when it ends, see if
can identify its primary topic(s). 
[You will probably give up after a while, since this
speech continues on and on, all the way until the end of
chapter 26!  If you have ample time, try to verify this by
yourself.  If you have even more time, see if you can
identify any other speeches in the remainder of Sefer
Devarim (i.e. between chapters 27 and 34).  If you find a
section that is not another speech, see if you can
identify what it is, and how it relates to the rest of the
book.] 

4.  Review 4:41-49, noting how it forms a short narrative
(i.e. it's written in third person), the bridges between
the first speech in chapters 1 thru 4, and the next speech
that begins in chapter 5. 
     In what manner does this narrative relate to either
of these two speeches.  Be sure that you can explain
4:44-45.
     [The pasuk 4:44 should sound very familiar!]
     For an interesting explanation of the connection
between 4:44-45 and Devarim 1:1-5 (and Devarim 5:1-2), see
Ramban on Devarim 1:1.  You'll only understand this Ramban
if you first study these psukim in relation to these two
speeches.] 

5.  Now that we have determined that chapters 5 thru 26
form a long speech - we'll refer to it as the 'main
speech', as it will form the primary section of the entire
book.  To understand the purpose of this speech, we'll
need to take a careful look at its opening few lines.
     Carefully study 5:1 - the opening pasuk of this
speech - noting how it serves as an introduction.
     Based on this introductory pasuk, what should be the
primary topic of this lengthy speech?
     Then read 5:2-3, and try to understand how these two
psukim relate to the short introduction in 5:1.  [In other
words, how does the 'covenant at Sinai' relate to the
mitzvot that will be taught by Moshe Rabbeinu in his
speech?]
     Then read 5:4-5, and try to understand how these two
psukim relate to the short introduction in 5:1.  
     In your opinion, does the statement made in 5:4
contradict the statement made in 5:5?  If so, can you
resolve this contradiction?

6.  Note how a 'review' of the Ten Commandments follows
immediately afterward in 5:6-18; and how this review is
followed by a story in 5:19-31.  Be sure that you
understand how and why that story follows the Ten
Commandments, and how it relates to mitzvoth that will
follow in the main speech.  [Make sure that you understand
how 5:28 (and 6:1) relate to 5:1.]
	As you review the story in 5:19 thru 6:3, be sure
to note how this story records how and when an entire set
of mitzvot were once given (at Har Sinai) and how this
story relates to the main speech.  Be sure as well that
you understand why Moshe begins this 'main speech' with
this story?

7.  Review once again 5:27-28, noting how these psukim
relate directly to 6:1.  Also, as your review 5:28 thru
6:4, be sure that you understand when Moshe is quoting
from what happened forty years ago, and what he is stating
now [or adding on] in his present speech to the people. 
	Note again how 5:28 describes a set of mitzvot
that God gave Moshe to teach Bnei Yisrael.  When were
these mitzvot first given to Moshe Rabbeinu, and when (in
your opinion) did he first teach them to Bnei Yisrael?
     In your answer, relate to Shmot 34:29-32, noting the
context of those psukim.
     
8.  Review 6:1 once again, in its context.  Which mitzvot
does the word "v'zot" (in 6:1) refer to?  How does your
answer relate to what will now follow in the main speech?
[If you have time, browse thru chapters 6 thru 26 to
verify your answer.]
	Can you explain why this 'main speech' of Sefer
Devarim is commonly referred to as 'ne'um ha-mitzvot'? 

9.  Carefully review once again Shmot 34:27-33!
     Note how they describe how Moshe taught Bnei Yisrael
-"all of the laws that God had instructed him on Har
Sinai". 
     In your opinion, what specific laws does 34:32 refer
to?  [Note that the commentators offer various opinions.] 
     Does it make sense that Moshe, after he came down
from Har Sinai with the second luchot, would have taught
Bnei Yisrael all of the laws that God had given him on Har
Sinai?  [Was there any reason why he shouldn't?]
	Are all of those laws - i.e. that Moshe received
on Har Sinai and taught Bnei Yisrael when he descended -
recorded in Sefer Shmot?  If so, where? 
[In your answer, relate to Shmot 35:1-5, i.e. why Sefer
Shmot does record the laws of the mishkan.]
	If these mitzvot are not recorded in Sefer Shmot,
then where in Chumash are they recorded? 
	In your answer, relate to Devarim chapter five
(and the above questions), and the speech that it
introduces. 

10.  Next, carefully study 6:1-8.  [Some of these psukim
should sound very familiar.]  Try your best to understand
how these psukim relate to chapter five (and the above
questions). 
	As you translate 6:6, explain what the word
'devarim' in the phrase 've-hayu ha-devarim ha-eileh'
refers to!  Relate to 5:1!
     How does this phrase - 've-hayu ha-devarim ha-eileh'
- relate to the story in chapter 5 and the mitzvot that
follow in chapters 6 thru 26?   [How does it relate to the
word "devarim" in 1:1?]

11. In 6:7, we all find the commandment of 've-shinantem
le-vanecha...'.  How did you translate the verb 'leshanen'
in this pasuk?  How is the meaning of leshanen different
than the verb 'lelamed' [to teach], as was used in 5:1,
5:28, and 6:1?  
	Based on the context of this pasuk, which mitzvot
require 'shinun' [repetition]?
	Based on this question, why do you think that
Chazal refer to this sefer as Mishneh Torah - because it
contains a repetition of laws, or because it contains laws
that require repetition? 
     Before you prepared these questions, how did you
understand the meaning of the name: "mishneh Torah"?
Based on these questions - how would you now translate the
phrase mishneh Torah? 
     Relate to the use of this phrase in Devarim 17:17-19!
	From what 'shoresh' does the word mishneh stem
from?  
	  [Relate this to the meaning of mishneh as in
'mishnayot'.] 
	
12.  Now, read Devarim 1:1.  In the opening phrase 'eileh
ha-devarim' - what does the word 'devarim' refer to?
[Note how almost every commentator offers a different
opinion.]
     Can you relate the word devarim in 1:1 to the same
word in 6:6?  Can you relate this to this same word in
Shmot 34:27? 
     Be sure to note the explanations of Ibn Ezra and
Ramban on the meaning of Devarim in 1:1, and be sure you
understand how their conclusions relate to the above
questions.

13.  If indeed the phrase "eileh ha-devarim" refers to the
same "devarim" as in 6:6, how would this help you
understand the first several psukim in Sefer Devarim? 
	In other words, had Moshe ever taught these laws
before, and if so when (and where)?  If so, why was it
necessary to have taught these laws so many times? 
	Have these laws ever been recorded in Chumash
before?  Can you explain why they may not have been?

14.  Based on the above questions, what in your opinion is
the primary topic of Sefer Devarim, and what is the
purpose of this Sefer?  [Keep this question in mind as you
study the book!]

15. Review 27:1-4, simply to verify that this begins a new
section of the book, and hence, proving that the main
speech concluded at the end of chapter 26.
	If so, then 26:16-19 forms Moshe Rabeinu's
concluding words of this lengthy speech of "mitzvot" and
rebuke.  
	With this in mind, carefully study 26:19, while
comparing its content to Shmot 19:3-6 (and its context)
and to your study of these questions thus far.  Be sure
that you understand as well how 26:16 relates to 5:1.
	Based on this 'finale' of the main speech, answer
question 14 (above) once again!

16, If you have time, review 27:1-11, noting how the topic
of this commandment also relates to the content of the
main speech.  Attempt to explain why this 'ceremony' on
Har Eival is necessary, considering that forty years have
elapsed since Matan Torah.
	Note as well the primary topics in the remainder
of Sefer Devarim, and attempt to construct a very general
outline for the entire book.  As you study Sefer Devarim,
your outline should become more detailed; but it should
also help you understand how all the parts of this book
are thematically connected.

[Note:  This topic, i.e. how the main speech of Sefer
Devarim relates to the topic of the first speech  -
continues (in greater detail) in our questions for Parshat
Devarim  below. ]

==================

for PARSHAT DEVARIM

PART ONE - THE OPENING PSUKIM PARSHAT DEVARIM
1.  After completing the questions on Sefer Devarim, begin
your study of Parshat Devarim by noting once again how it
records a speech given by Moshe Rabeinu to the Bnei
Yisrael in the fortieth year.  In other words, verify how
the opening psukim (1:1-5) form the introduction to this
first speech, which continues from 1:6 thru 4:40.

2. As you review 1:1-5, note how 'cryptic' the first two
psukim of the book (1:1-2) appear to be.  Before you study
the various commentaries on these two psukim, try your
best to understand them on your own.  If possible, attempt
to relate them to your conclusions from the questions
above on Sefer Devarim. 
     Now, let's discuss the commentators.
     
3.  See Ramban and Ibn Ezra on Devarim 1:1 in regard to
the meaning of the word "devarim".	
   Are these two interpretations the same or different?
	If they are different, in what manner are they
similar?
	If they are similar, in what manner are they
different?
	How do these two opinions relate to the questions
in Part Two above?

4.  See Emek Davar [the Netziv] on Devarim 1:1.   How does
his interpretation relate to the above questions?    In
what manner is his interpretation different than Ramban &
Ibn Ezra?

5. Rashi, Ramban, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Seforno, and Chizkuni
all present different approaches to explain the flow of
topic in these two opening psukim.  First, read and
attempt to understand each 'parshan' on your own).
Afterward (or when you give up), continue below:  

A.  In the classic commentators, we find two basic
approaches that explain what these psukim are talking
about. 
     The first approach, advanced by Rashi & Seforno [also
by Chazal in the Sifri], understands that the phrase
'eileh ha-devarim' refers to Moshe Rabeinu's rebuke
['tochacha'] of Am Yisrael for their behavior in the
desert.  The fact that we have never heard of many of
these places is simply because these names reflect what
happened at each site (and not the real name of that
site). 
	The beauty and simplicity of Rashi's
interpretation is that he explains not only the meaning of
each name, but he also explains why the psukim are so
ambiguous: 
	"lefichach satam et ha-devarim, ve-hizkiram
be-remez mipnei 
	kvodam shel yisrael..." 

	According to Rashi, the Torah intentionally made
this pasuk difficult to understand!  Even though this
pasuk rebukes Am Yisrael, it does it in sort of a hidden
way, so that only one who knows how to 'read between the
lines' understands the rebuke.  However, in a simple
reading of the text, it would go unnoticed - in order not
to publicly embarrass Am Yisrael. 
	See also Seforno, Tirgum Unkelos (who leaves his
normal style of literal translation for this pasuk), and
the first few lines of the Chizkuni. 

B.  The second approach, advanced by Ramban, Ibn Ezra, &
Rashbam, understands that the phrase "eileh ha-devarim"
refers to the mitzvot which are recorded later in the
Sefer; and hence has nothing to do with rebuke.  Then, the
obvious question is: what are all these places? 
	Rashbam understands that all of these places
simply describe one place, i.e. the place where these
mitzvot are now being said by Moshe to Bnei Yisrael in the
40th year.  The use of so many names is simply to pinpoint
the exact location.  He brings other examples in Chumash
(like in the beginning of Parshat Re'ay) where a location
is described in such a manner.  
[Thus according to Rashbam, Yam Suf must mean the Dead Sea
which is near Arvot Mo'av and not the Red Sea!]  

	In contrast to Rashbam, Ibn Ezra & Chizkuni
explain that each place describes a different site during
Bnei Yisrael's journey through the desert, and at each of
these various sites Moshe had already taught Bnei Yisrael
these mitzvot.  Now in the 40th year on the first day of
the eleventh month, he is going to teach these mitzvot one
last time at a national gathering at Arvot Mo'av - even
though he had already taught these laws to them in the
Midbar & Arava & "mul suf", etc. 
	Ramban agrees that "eileh ha-devarim" refers to
the mitzvot, but he doesn't explain why all of the
different places are listed and what happened at each.  At
the end of his peirush, he quotes the Sifri, similar to
Rashi (above) and Tirgum Unkelos  - explaining how the
names of these places reflect a certain rebuke.
     It seems that Ramban may be trying to combine both of
these approaches.  Surely, ha-devarim refers to the
mitzvot which follow, but the places which are mentioned
may be a subtle manner of tochacha.  Note also how Ramban
explains '11 days from Chorev...' as a type of tochacha. 
	In contrast, Ibn Ezra would disagree with Ramban's
explanation of '11 days from chorev...', as he suggests
that Moshe had taught these laws ["devarim"] to Bnei
Yisrael during their original eleven day journey from Har
Sinai to Kadesh Barnea, as they were marching to the land
of Israel - the site where these laws would need to be
fulfilled.  
	In your opinion, which of these interpretations
makes the most sense?
=============

PART TWO - THE FIRST SPEECH
1.  Recall our earlier discussion of how chapters 1 thru 4
form a speech (in contrast to Moshe Rabeinu's main speech
in Sefer Devarim that covers chapters 5 thru 26). 
     To help you understand what this speech is about, and
its purpose - scan its entire content, and attempt to
construct an outline.  In regard to chapter one, it would
be especially helpful if you would divide it into
paragraphs, giving a title to each one.
     See if you can follow the logic behind the flow of
topic in this speech. 
     
2.  As you review the primary topics of this speech, note
how chapter one begins with the story of how (and when)
Bnei Yisrael left Har Sinai to conquer the land and
continues with the story of the spies; followed by the
story of the conquest of Transjordan (in chapters 2 &3),
followed but what appears to be some words of guidance and
rebuke (in chapter four).
	Can you explain why Moshe chose to include
specifically these details of Jewish History, while
'skipping' many others?
     Based on its content, attempt to explain how and why
this speech can serve as a fitting introduction to the
mitzvot that Moshe plans to teach Bnei Yisrael in his main
speech.

3.  Clearly, 1:6-8, forms the opening 'paragraph' of
Moshe's speech.  Similarly, 1:12-17 clearly forms a
distinct paragraph. 
     Therefore, review 1:9-11 once again, and attempt to
determine if they form an independent topic, or do they
form the thematic introduction to 1:12-17 or conclusion of
1:6-8?
     Attempt to understand the flow of topic between these
three paragraphs!  [What event/time does "ba'et ha'hi"
refer to in 1:9?]
     Note as well the thematic and textual parallels
between to 1:6-11 and Breiishit chapter 15 [i.e. "brit
bein ha'btarim"].
[Note especially Breishit 15:4-8, 13-14, & 18; and the
repeated use of the word "yerusha", and how this covenant
with Avraham relates to theme of the rest of Chumash!]

     Attempt to explain the thematic connection between
that covenant, and Moshe's primary point in these opening
lines of his speech; while relating to what is about to
happen in a few months time.

4. As you review 1:12-18, note how some of these psukim
seem to 'ring a bell' from Parshat Yitro (i.e. Shmot
chapter 18).
	If so, be specific regarding which psukim relate
to Yitro.
     Is Yitro himself mentioned here in Sefer Devarim?  If
not, can you explain why isn't?
	Are there any other psukim here that remind you of
earlier passages in Chumash?  
	What does the phrase "ba'et ha'hi" refer to in
1:16?  Is the same time period or event that this phrase
refers to in 1:9?
[If / when you give up - see Bamidbar 11:1-20 (noting
especially 10-15)!]
     Use this parallel to Bamidbar 11:1-20 to answer the
above question!
     
5.  In your opinion, why does Moshe bring up the topic of
'judges' at this point in his speech?  Does this relate in
any manner to the mtizvot that he will teach in his main
speech?
 
6.  Carefully study 1:18!
	Who does "etchem" refer to in this pasuk, the
judges or the people?   Relate to 1:16 when you answer
this question!
	Once again, what time does "ba'et ha'hi" refer to
in 1:18? When the judges were appointed, or when you left
Har Sinai?
	What does the word "devarim" refer to?  Does it
relate to the word "devarim" in 1:1 (and in 6:6)!  Relate
your answer to the controversy among the commentators in
regard to the meaning of the word "devarim" in 1:1 (see
questions above).

7. Note how 1:19-21 forms yet another paragraph, which
leads into the story of the spies in 1:22-45.  How do
these three psukim bridge between the first topic of the
speech re: the judges etc. and the story of the spies?

8.  Can you explain why the story of the spies become the
primary topic of chapter one?  How does it relate to the
main speech that begins in chapter 5, and its primary
topic?

9.  In chapters 2 & 3, Moshe Rabeinu explains in minute
detail why Bnei Yisrael did not fight Edom, Ammon & Mo'av
and how they did fight Sichon & Og (i.e. in much greater
detail than was recorded in Sefer Bamidbar (see chapter
20).  Can you explain how and why it is so important for
Bnei Yisrael to hear these details at this time?  [Note as
well 1:4!]
     How does this topic flow from the story of the spies,
and how does it relate to the primary theme of this
introductory speech?   
     In your answer, relate as well to why Moshe also
explains in detail how and why the 'ma'apilim' lost their
battle (1:41-45).

10.  Review 3:21-22, noting how this section concludes
with a mention of Yehoshua, and God's promise to help Bnei
Yisrael conquer the land.   Once again, relate this to the
primary theme of this speech.  [See also Chizkuni on
2:25!]

11. 3. On the web site [www.tanach.org] - there is a link
to an informative '3D' map of Israel, highlighting its key
cities and mountain ranges.  You can view it, or download
it at 
www.tanach.org/pics/map3Disr.gif.
	Use that map (or any map of Israel), to help you
follow the details of Bnei Yisrael's journeys and battles,
as described in Devarim chapters 2 & 3.

12.  The story of the spies in Sefer Devarim (see 1:22-45)
is in many ways similar, yet also in many ways different
that the parallel story in Sefer Bamidbar (see chapters
13-14).  After summarizing the primary differences between
these two accounts, attempt to resolve the reason for
those differences based on the primary theme of this
speech in Sefer Devarim 
in contrast to the underlying theme of leadership that
develops in Sefer Bamidbar.
	Note, that once the reader understands that the
purpose of  Sefer Devarim is not to provide a summary of
the events of Chumash, but rather it has its own theme and
purpose; it becomes much easier to resolve the
discrepancies between the historical accounts in Sefer
Devarim and how those events were recorded in Sefer Shmot
and Bamidbar.

	
be-hatzlacha, 
						menachem








-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dvarq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 47835 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090720/111fb6b6/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jul 22 03:05:04 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 03:05:04 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Sefer Devarim - Introduction
Message-ID: <022801ca0a9a$f3a41aa0$daec4fe0$@net>

**********************************************************
***
        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. 14 
 Introductory speech
SPEECH #2
Chaps. 526
 Main speech
SPEECH #3
Chaps. 2728
 Tochacha & Covenant 
SPEECH #4
Chaps. 2930
 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 17:1819).

	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!  


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dvarint.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 75329 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090722/bd1c6b69/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Jul 27 01:29:16 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 01:29:16 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Veetchanan - questions for self study
Message-ID: <000001ca0e7b$2f511650$8df342f0$@net>

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

PARSHAT VA-ETCHANAN
 
PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

REWARD FOR 'SPECIFIC' MITZVOT
1. Review 5:16, noting how the commandment to honor one's
parents includes the promise of reward.  Note the words
that the Torah uses to describe that reward.
	Are you familiar with any other specific mitzvot
in the Torah that promise reward; if so, what are they,
and in what book are they recorded?
    In your opinion, is this reward (that the Torah
promises) for the individual or for the entire nation?

2.  Review the story in 5:20-30, noting how Moshe tells
the story of how God first gave him the mitzvot that he is
about to teach Bnei Yisrael in his speech.  Then,
carefully study 5:28-30, noting how Moshe promises reward
to the nation, should they keep these laws (that he is
about to teach).
	How does the wording of this reward (see 5:30)
similar to the reward that God promised in 5:16 (in
relation to honoring one's parents)?
	Review 6:1-3, noting how it reltates directly to
5:28-30; then note how the reward that Moshe promises in
6:2-3 in similar to 5:16 and 5:30! 
	Based on these textual parallels, could one reach
the conclusion that the reward promised in 5:16 may relate
to keeping ALL of the laws of "brit Sinai", and not just
"kibud horim"? If so, can you explain the logic of this
conclusion?

3.  Review 4:40 (the last line of Moshe Rabeinu's first
speech), noting how it relates to 4:1, and to same mitzvot
that Moshe discusses in 5:1 and 5:28 and 6:1.
	Relate this pasuk (4:40) to your answer to the
previous question!
	In your opinion, is the reward promised in 4:40
(and 5:30 and 6:2-3) for the individual or for the entire
nation.  [What does the word "adama" refer to in all of
these psukim?]

4.  Review Devarim 22:6-7, noting how we find a specific
mitzva that appears to promise reward.  Note how the
Torah's wording of this reward is similar to 5:16, 5:30,
and 6:2-3!
	Are there any other textual or thematic parallels
between 5:16 and 22:6-7?  Does it make any sense that
specifically this mitzvah includes reward, in contrast to
so many others (in Sefer Devarim) that do not?
	Finally, note 25:13-16, noting yet another example
of the promise of reward.  
	Could the reward promised in 25:16 and 22:7 be
considered reward for all the mitzvot that are included in
Moshe Rabeinu's speech, and not necessarily specfically
these mitzvot?  If so, can you explain why this [general]
reward would be mentioned specifically together with these
specific mitzvot?
[See also the last mishna & gemara of Mesechet Chulin
142!]

5. If indeed the reward mentioned for 'honoring parents'
in 5:16 relates to general reward for the entire nation
for keeping loyal to "brit Sinai" - why do you think that
it would be mentioned at the conclusion of the fifth
commandment, and not after the tenth commandment?
	What is the thematic connection between honoring
one's parents and dedication to God?  [What is common to
both relationships?] See Ramban on Shmot 20:12
("kabed...").

A LAW FOR EVERY SITUATION
1.  Even though there are many laws in the Torah, it is
impossible for any law-code to provide a precise guideline
for every situation.  
	With this in mind, review Devarim 6:16-19, noting
especially 6:17-18.  In your opinion, how does 6:17 relate
to 6:18?

	According to 6:18, how is someone supposed to know
what is considered "ha'tov v'hayashar" [what is good &
straight in the eyes of God]?
    Would you consider this pasuk a 'mitzvah' in itself, a
'guideline' in itself, or a 'guideline' for all mitzvot?
[Iin your answer, relate to why God punished the
generation of the Flood, even though no laws had been
given to man!]
    For a very interesting [and important] interpretation
of this pasuk, see Ramban on 6:18.

VE-ZOT HA-TORAH & 'HAGBAHA'
1. Review 4:44-45, noting how the pasuk  "ve-zot
ha-torah..." - the pasuk that we recite each time when the
Torah is lifted for 'hagbaha' - is found in this week's
Parsha.
	In your opinion, what does the word "torah" in
this pasuk refer to?
     - the entire 5 books of Chumash;
	- just Sefer Devarim;
	- just the first speech (that just finished /chap.
1-4);
	- just the mitzvot of the (upcoming) main speech?
					[i.e. chapters 5
thru 26]

	As you answer this question, be sure to study
4:44-47 in relation to 5:1 (and the main speech of Sefer
Devarim that follows - as discussed in last week's
questions/shiur).
	See Rashi on 4:44-45.  How would Rashi answer the
above questions?  See also Chizkuni on 4:45.
	Now see Seforno on 4:44-45.  How would Seforno
answer the above questions?  Explain the logic behind this
commentary. 

2.  When we recite this pasuk for "hagbaha", are we using
it in the same context or a wider one?  
    Can you explain why we quote this pasuk for "hagbaha"?
	Note, that we add a phrase to this pasuk.  What
phrase do we add, where is it from, and why do you think
that we add it?
	In your answer, relate to 5:1-5, and the story in
5:20-28, especially 5:5 & 24!  [In other words, what is
the original source of these laws?]
	See Bamidbar 4:37 & 4:45, noting their context.
Did you find the 'missing phrase' from "hagbaha"?  Attempt
to identify a thematic connection between the topic of
Bamidbar chapter 4 and the statement of "v'zot ha'torah"?
     
3.  Finally, study Sefer Nechemia 8:1-8, noting especially
8:5.
    How do these psukim relate to our custom of raising
the Sefer Torah so that everyone will see it?  
    Based on these psukim in Nechemia, would it make more
sense to perform "hagbaha" before we read the Sefer Torah
in public - or after it has been read?
	See also Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim siman 134
(#2).  Note the two minhagim, and attempt to explain their
source.

OR LA-GOYIM
1.  Review Devarim 4:5-8, in the context of 4:1-8.
    Note how the phrase "chukim u'mishpatim" in 4:5
relates to the identical phrase in 4:1!
    Then review 5:1, i.e. the opening sentence of the main
speech, noting how this very same phrase - "chukim
u'mishpatim" - introduces the laws of the main speech.
Also note this same phrase in 26:16, which just so happens
to be the summary pasuk of that speech.  Note this phrase
in 11:31-12:1 as well.  [See intro shiur to Devarim
www.tanach.org/dvarim/dvarint.txt ]
    Based on these obvious textual parallels, how does the
primary topic of 4:5-8 relate to the laws that Moshe is
about to teach to Bnei Yisrael in the main speech?
    In your answer, relate to 26:16-19, esepcially to
26:18-19 and its textual and thematic parallel to Shmot
19:5-6.

2. How do these psukim relate to the biblical theme of
God's choice of Am Yisrael's in order that they become an
'or la-goyim' [a light (or model) for other nations]?
[Recall that this theme has been discussed numerous times
in previous shiurim.]
	Relate your answer to Yeshayahu 42:5-6 (which just
so happens to be the first two psukim of the Haftara for
Parshat Breishit).  Review as well Shlomo Ha-melech's
prayer when he dedicates the bet ha-mikdash in Melachim
Alef 8:41-43, and the visit of the Queen of Sheba in
10:1-9!
	See also Tehillim 105:1-12, 72:1-16 and Divrei
Ha-yamim Alef 16:8-36, noting especially 16:24-26 and
16:35.

BETWEEN THE DIBROT IN SHMOT & DEVARIM
1.  As most everyone is familiar, the wording of the Ten
Commandments in Parshat Veetchanan (Devarim 5:6-18) is
slightly different than their wording in Parshat Yitro
(Shmot 20:1-14).  For example, in regard to the
commandment of shabbat [the fourth commandment]  - one
version begins with the word "zachor", while the begins
with the word "shamor". 
     [As we sing in the "lecha dodi"]
    
    Compare the mitzvah of shabbat in each source, and
make sure that you can identify all of the other
differences.  Relate to both the laws of shabbat, as well
as to the reason that the Torah gives for why we are
commanded to keep it - according to each version.
    Can you relate the different reasons in each version
to the meaning in Hebrew of the words "zachor" and
"shamor"?
    Be sure to note the reason for Shabbat according to
Shmot 23:9-12, and how it relates to reason for shabbat in
Devarim. 
Note how this relates to the phrase "v'zacharta ki eved
hayita..." in Devarim 5:15, in relation to its context in
Devarim 16:12 & 24:17-22.
    
2.  In your opinion, do these two 'versions' contradict -
or complement - one another?  Explain your answer.
    Can you relate the different reasons in each version
to the concept of "mitzvot bein adam la'Makom /
la'chaveiro"?
    Assuming that the recording of these two different
reasons for shabbat was intentional, can you suggest any
underlying thematic message that Torah may be alluding to
in this manner of presentation?

3.  Another difference between the Dibrot in Yitro vs.
Va-etchanan is the additional phrase 'ka-asher tzivcha
Hashem Elokecha' (see Devarim 5:12 & 16).
    Can you explain the addition of this phrase in Parshat
Veetchanan based on the fact that Moshe is quoting the
dibrot as part of his speech (as discussed in last week's
shiur)? 
	Why do you think that this phrase is found
specifically in the dibrot of Shabbat & 'kibbud av', and
not in the others.  [Relate to 5:4-5.]?
	Relate these two mitzvot as well to Rashi's
opinion in regard to which mitzvot that were given at Mara
(see Shmot 15:25).  Can this information provide a
different reason for the use of this phrase specifically
in regard to these two mitzvot?

4. Finally, note the slight differences in regard to the
wording of the Tenth Commandment ["lo tachmod"].  What
lesson do you think one can learn from these differences?
	For an interesting discussion, see Ibn Ezra,
Ramban, and especially Chizkuni (note his concluding
remarks in regard to the reason for the two versions) on
Devarim 5:17.

AVODA ZARA LE-SHEM SHAMAYIM
1.  Read 4:15-20, noting how these psukim include a very
detailed warning against idol worship.
    Then, review 4:9-14, noting how these psukim discuss
what happened (and what didn't happen) at Har Sinai.  Note
especially 4:14, noting how this pasuk relates to the main
speech of Sefer Devarim/ compare with 4:1, 4:45 & 5:1.
    Can you explain how the warnings in 4:15-20 relate to
the topic of 4:9-14?  In other words, what form of idol
worship [an image of 'another god' or an image of the real
God] is Moshe Rabeinu worried about, and how does this
fear relate to what Bnei Yisrael saw [or didn't see] at
Har Sinai?

2. Review 4:15-20 once again, this time noting the various
examples of forms of idols that are forbidden.  Examine
this list carefully, noting the use of the word 'tavnit',
and compare this list to the first chapter of Sefer
Breishit.  Can you identify a pattern?
	Can you explain why?
	Note the only other use of the word "tavnit" in
Chumash is found in Shmot 25:8-9 - in relation to the
mishkan!  Relate this to the purpose of the Mishkan, i.e.
what it represents (see especially Ramban on Shmot 25:1).
	In your opinion, does the warning against avoda
zara in chapter 4 relate to someone with 'good intentions'
or 'bad intentions'?  Explain your answer, relating to
4:12-16. 

3.  What is the symbol of God's presence in the mishkan
itself?  [Relate to Shmot 25:20-22.]  Could this relate in
any manner to 'keruvim' that are mentioned in Breishit
3:24?
	Relate this to your answer to the above question.
=====

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)

THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST SPEECH [shiur #1]
1.  In last week's introductory shiur, we discussed how
chapters 5 thru 26 form the main speech of Sefer Devarim.
With the conclusions of that shiur mind, study 4:44-46
carefully. 
	Note the word 'zot' in 4:44, as well as the word
'eileh' in 4:45.  In your opinion, do they refer to what
'was' [in the previous chapter] or to what 'will be' [in
the chapter to follow]?
	Or in other words, do these psukim relate to the
speech that just finished (chapters 1 thru 4), or the one
coming up, or both? 
	See how both Rashi & Chizkuni interpret these
words.
[Review 4:45 once again, noting how it  supports our
conclusion in last week's shiur that the mitzvot of the
main speech were first given at Har Sinai.]

2.  To appreciate the meaning of the word Torah in 4:44,
and how it relates to the main speech, review 27:1-8,
paying special attention to the word Torah in 27:3 and
27:8.  In your opinion, what does the word Torah refer to
in these two psukim?
    In your answer, relate once again to the fact that
chapters 5 thru 26 form the 'main speech' (of mitzvot) in
Sefer Devarim.
    How does your conclusion help you understand the
meaning of Torah in 4:44?

3.  Now, note the phrase 'chukim u-mishpatim' in 4:45 as
well.  Relate it to the same phrase found in 5:1, 5:28,
and 6:1.
	How does this relate to the same phrase in 4:1 &
4:5? 
	To verify your answer, see if chapter 4 includes
any chukim u-mishpatim that would qualify 4:1 to be their
'header'. 
    In your opinion, could 4:1 & 5 be understood as an
introduction to the chukim u-mishpatim that are found in
the main speech?  If so, why would this header be in
chapter four, and how does it relate to the content of
this chapter? 
	[Note as well 4:14 in its context!]

4.  Attempt to summarize the main points that Moshe makes
in his speech in chapter 4? 
	To do so, we suggest the following 'methodology'.
    First, attempt to divide the chapter into paragraphs.
Then, give each paragraph a short title, and list those
titles (vertically) on a sheet of paper.  Finally, study
your list, and attempt to turn that list into an outline,
by grouping together the paragraphs that share a common
topic.  Give a title to each section of your outline, and
if possible, one for the entire outline.
    After you have finished, answer the following
questions:

5.  Considering that chapters 1 thru 4 is one speech,
nonetheless, chapter 4 is quite different than chapters 1
thru 3.  Attempt to define how these two sections are
different. 
 	In your opinion, why does Moshe Rabbeinu include
chapter four as part of his first speech, and how does it
relate to his explanation of why forty years have passed
(in chapters 1) and his 'pep-talk' (in chapters 2-3)?

6.  Indeed, we do find certain mitzvot in chapter four.
In your opinion, what is special about them, and how do
they relate to the mitzvot that will be found in the main
speech? 
    Also, how does that fact that Moshe is about to die
(and hence no longer be their leader / see 4:21-24) relate
to the content of chapter 4?
 
THE FIRST TWO PARSHIOT OF KRIYAT SHEMA [shiur #2]
1.  Recall from last week's shiur how the story in chapter
five explained when the mitzvot (that begin in chapter
six) were first given.  In that context, review once again
5:28 and 6:1, noting how they describe the mitzvot of the
main speech.  As you study those psukim, note the
distinction between the words "ha-mitzva" and the "chukim
& mishpatim".   How does the word "ha-mitzva" differ from
the word "mitzvah"?   
	Note how (and where) we find similar phrases in
earlier introductory psukim - see 4:1, 4:5, and 4:44-45
and 5:1.]
	In your opinion, do all of these different words
describe the same thing, or does each word describe a
different type of commandment?  If so, what does each word
refer to?

2.  It is possible to divide the main speech into two
sections based on this distinction between ha-mitzva and
the chukim & mishpatim. 
    To identify the ha-mitzva section, carefully study
6:4-9 in relation to 11:22-25, noting the word "ha'
mitzvah".  Note as well 8:1 in this context. 
    Then, study 11:31- 12:1 in relation to 26:16-19,
noting how these parallel psukim can help you identify the
chukim & mishpatim section.  Note as well how this
parallel relates back to 5:1 and to 5:28 & 6:1.
    Next, briefly scan the mitzvot of the main speech
(i.e. chapters 6-26), noting the difference in the nature
of the mitzvot found in between chapters 6-11 in contrast
to the mitzvot found in between chapters 12-26.
[This question may take you a long time to answer, but it
is important, for it will be helpful towards understanding
the basic structure of the main speech.]

3.  Review 6:4-9 & 11:13-21, noting that these are the two
parshiot of daily kriyat shema.  Pay attention to their
respective locations within the main speech of Sefer
Devarim, especially in regard to the ha-mitzva section,
noted above.
	Based on the division of the main speech into two
sections (as discussed in the questions above), can you
suggest a reason why Chazal choose these two parshiot for
the daily kriyat shma?
	In your answer, relate to the word 've-shinantem'
in 6:6.  Relate as well to the Mishna in Sota VII:8 in
regard to what is read at Hakhel.


SOMETHING OLD, OR SOMETHING NEW?
4.  Recall once again that the mitzvot of the main speech
were first given to Moshe Rabbeinu during his first forty
days on Har Sinai, and he had taught them to the people
numerous times - and now, in the fortieth year - he is
teaching them on last time. 
    With this in mind, review all of the 'parshiot'
between chapters 6 thru 11, and try to determine which
sections appear to be 'quotes' from the mitzvot that were
first given forty years ago, and which sections of the
speech are 'added' by Moshe Rabbeinu now in the fortieth
year. In your answer, relate to the fact that some
parshiot contain mitzvot, while others contain rebuke.
	As you answer this question, pay attention to how
the events of the Exodus are described, paying special
attention to 6:16, 6:20-23, 7:17-19, & 11:10-12.
	In your opinion, would it make sense for Moshe to
talk to the people in this manner in the fortieth year?
	Note also the opening psukim of chapter 8!  Does
this appear to be an 'add-on' by Moshe Rabeinu, or part of
the original set of mitzvot?  Explain why.
	Finally, compare 7:6-9 with 9:4-7.  Attempt to
explain the reason for what appears to be a contradiction!

5.  Review once again 4:44-45, noting how these psukim
introduce the main speech that begins in chapter five.
Then note how there appears to be a contradiction in 4:45
in regard to when these mitzvot were given - forty years
ealier when Am Yisrael left Egypt, or now, in Arvot Moav!
	Explain this pasuk based on your answer to the
above question!

6.  Suggest a reason why it may be meaningful for Moshe to
present these laws to the people in the fortieth year,
worded in the same manner as they were given when the
first generation left Egypt.  In your answer, relate to
5:2-3!
	[See also "Parshanut" section below.]
            ====

'HAR AVARIM' & 'TRANSITION' - [for shiur #3]
1.  In the beginning of the Parsha, Moshe pleads with God
to allow him to enter Eretz Canaan (see 3:23-29).
	In your opinion, does Moshe also want to remain
the leader of Bnei Yisrael, or does he just want to enter
as regular citizen [what we would call today a 'rabbi
emeritus'], while allowing Yehoshua to lead the nation?
	In your answer relate to both 3:28 and 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
not, can you explain why He doesn't?  Can you suggest a
reason for why God does not allow Moshe to enter the land,
even though he is no longer their 'official' leader?

2.  Note the Torah's use of the 'shoresh' [root]
ayin.bet.reish. in 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 again 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?)]
PART III - PARSHANUT

WHAT DOES 'WHAT' MEAN?
1. Read 6:20 (and ONLY 6:20, i.e. don't read on).  Even
though this pasuk may sound familiar to you from the Seder
[the wise son's question] - read it again, by itself, and
attempt to translate it. 
	How did you translate the word "mah" in this
pasuk?
	Before you read 6:21, how would you answer this
question?

2.  Now, read from 6:21-25.  Based on this answer, what
does the word "mah" in 6:20 seem to imply?
	See Rasag, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and Seforno on 6:20,
noting how each commentator offers a slightly different
way to translate the word "mah".
	Try to identify what how the translation by each
commentator of the word "mah" - is affected by a certain
point in 6:21-25.

3.  Finally, how did you translate the word "tzedaka" in
6:25?  Does it mean 'charity', or 'just & upright'? Based
on its context in this pasuk, notice how difficult it is
to translate.  
	See Ibn Ezra, noting how offers three
interpretations! Relate them to the various classic
translations of the word "tzedaka".
	Review 4:5-8, noting again how it relates to 5:1
(and the laws of the main speech).  How (and why) does Ibn
Ezra's third interpretation relate to those psukim?
	See Ramban (at the conclusion of his commentary to
6:20-25).  Note how he explains why he considers "tzedaka"
as reward.  [See also Seforno - noting how it is similar.]
	Finally, see Chizkuni - noting his two
interpretations, and how they relate to 6:20!
	
A COVENANT FOR ALL GENERATIONS
1.  Review 5:1-3, noting what is so problematic about the
statement that Moshe makes in 5:3.  Then, note how almost
every commentator adds a word to 5:3. 
    [For example, see Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Rasag, Chizkuni.] 
    What is that word and why do you think that everyone
agrees that it must be added?  
	Then see Seforno on 5:3.  Does Seforno agree to
the addition of this word?  In what manner is Seforno's
interpretation different than all the others? 
	Most commentators assume that this 'missing' word
is implicit.  Nonetheless, would it not have made more
sense to say it explicitly?  Can you suggest any thematic
reason for Moshe Rabeinu to have left this word out,
considering that he is speaking to the next generation?
	Can you find any other examples in this section of
main speech where Moshe speaks to the new generation as
though they were the first generation?
	If so, can you explain why does this so often?

AZ YAVDIL MOSHE / When & Why?
  Recall from last week's shiur, that the end of chapter 4
(4:41-49) is written in 'third person', and serves as a
buffer between Moshe's introductory speech (chapters 1-4),
and Moshe's main speech - ne'um ha-mitzvot - which begins
with chapter 5.
	Before continuing, read these nine psukim, noting
that they are indeed written in third person, noting how
they divide into two distinct sections - 4:41-43 and
4:44-49.  Then, try to understand how each section relates
to either the previous speech, or to the speech that
follows.
      Then, pay attention to the first topic - i.e. the
setting aside of three cities of refuge in Transjordan
(4:41-43).
	In your opinion, why is this topic recorded here?
	Does it relate in any way to the first speech?
		If so, how?
	Does it relate in any way to the main speech
(which follows)?  If so, how?
	How does this parshia relate to Bamidbar 35:9-14?
		Does it belong there? If so, why is it
here?
	Relate also to Devarim 19:1-10, especially 19:8-9!
		How does 4:41-43 relate to 19:8-9?
		Are these three additional cities (i.e. a
total of 9)?!
					[see commentaries
on 19:8-9]
	Finally, how should one translate the first two
words of 4:41, in past tense, or future tense?  What is
the difficulty?
	After contemplating these above questions, study
the commentaries of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Ramban,
Chizkuni, & Sforno on 4:41, and then answer the following
questions:

A.  Which of the above problems does Rashi deal with?
	How does he solve it?  What additional 'mussar'
does Rashi's commentary teach us?

B.  Rashbam's peirush deals with three of the problems
listed above.  How does he explain them?
	[Note how concise & comprehensive his commentary
is!]

C.  What problem does Ibn Ezra try to solve?
	Why does Ramban disagree?
		Can you explain their argument based on
their respective understandings of this parshia as either
a completion of the first speech or an introduction to the
main speech?

D.  Later in the Ramban, he also quotes the same peirush
as Rashi.  Attempt to explain why. 
    Then, Ramban continues by explaining how this section
connects to the beginning of the main speech.  How does
his commentary relate to his opening explanation
concerning the nature of the main speech of Sefer Devarim
(in 1:1)?

E.  Chizkuni clearly connects this parshia to the first
speech.  Carefully study his commentary - does he suggest
that 4:41-43 should be read in first person instead of
third person? 
	If so, can you explain why?
    Does the continuation of the parsha support this, or
not? How does Chizkuni relate this parshia to Bamidbar
chapter 35?
	How does he explain the reason for its repetition?

F.  What problem in pshat does Seforno deal with?  How is
his peirush similar to Rashi's?  How (and why) is it
different?
	Would you say that Seforno disagrees with Ramban
as well in regard to when these cities actually became
official (i.e. functional) cities of refuge?

	
be-hatzlacha,
						menachem


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: veetq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 50448 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090727/e5755810/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue Jul 28 12:34:55 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:34:55 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Tisha b'Av
Message-ID: <006301ca0fa1$56b2a520$0417ef60$@net>

**********************************************************
***
        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 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 4fasts.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 42902 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090728/a17baed9/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue Jul 28 12:39:49 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:39:49 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Parshat veetchanan
Message-ID: <007701ca0fa2$06266aa0$12733fe0$@net>

**********************************************************
***
        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. 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: veet1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 50913 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090728/fee4ee95/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue Jul 28 12:40:53 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:40:53 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Veetchanan - shiur #2
Message-ID: <007b01ca0fa2$2c95e4e0$85c1aea0$@net>

**********************************************************
***
     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.







From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue Jul 28 12:41:48 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:41:48 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Veetchanan - shiur #3
Message-ID: <007c01ca0fa2$4d525380$e7f6fa80$@net>

**********************************************************
***
     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



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: veet3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 36001 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090728/7246aa18/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Jul 29 02:36:59 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:36:59 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Veetchanan - shiur #2 PDF file
Message-ID: <00f901ca1016$f9af2350$ed0d69f0$@net>

attached pdf file for shiur sent out yesterday
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: veet2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 25412 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090729/d0d2a499/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Aug  3 02:44:01 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 02:44:01 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Ekev- questions for self study
Message-ID: <006701ca1405$c98132c0$5c839840$@net>

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

PARSHAT  EKEV

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

DIVINE CHOICE [OR DESTINY]
1. Let say someone asked you: Why did God choose Am
Yisrael?
	How would you answer this question?
	To the best of your recollection, where (if
anywhere) does Chumash discuss this question?
	Next, review Devarim 7:1-11, noting especially
7:6-9.  Relate these psukim to your answer to the above
question.
	In what manner do these psukim relate to the theme
of Sefer Breishit?  Be sure that you can explain the
meaning of words "ha'shavuah" in 7:8, and "brit" 7:9.

2. Review once again 7:6, noting how this pasuk relates to
the opening psukim of Matan Torah in Shmot 19:3-6, i.e.
where God proposes a covenant to the people of Israel!
	Based on that proposal, and your answer to the
above question, attempt to explain the connection between
"brit avot" [God's covenant with the forefathers] and
"brit Sinai".  
    In your answer, relate to Breishit 12:1-3 AND its
thematic connection with Breishit 18:17-19.

3. Next, review Devarim 4:5-8.  In your opinion, do these
psukim contradict the theme in chapter 7, modify them, or
complement them?

4. Finally, compare 7:6-9 with Devarim 9:4-7.  In what
manner might these psukim cause you to modify your answer
to the above questions?  
	Based on the context of chapter 9 (i.e. the story
of chet ha'egel), can you explain why these psukim present
a more 'negative' perspective of God's relationship with
Am Yisrael? 
	How does it explain why Am Yisrael remains God's
'chosen nation', even though they may sin.

BETWEEN MISHPATIM & EKEV
5. Review Shmot 23:20-33, noting its content and how these
commandments (and promises) were first given to Bnei
Yisrael at Har Sinai, immediately after the Ten
Commandments (and before the events of "chet ha'egel").
Then, carefully review Devarim chapter seven, noting the
numerous parallels (both textual & thematic).
	Can you suggest a reason for these parallels?
Relate to WHEN these mitzvot that Moshe teaches Bnei
Yisrael were first given to him (see Devarim 5:20-28).
Relate as well to when Bnei Yisrael were originally
supposed to enter the land of Israel.
	Based on this parallel, attempt to explain the
logic behind the progression of topics in Devarim chapters
seven and eight. 


MIDOT HA'RACHAMIM (A FLASHBACK)
1. Carefully review 9:25-29.  In your opinion, is this
simply a review of Moshe's request that God invoke His
"midot ha'rachamim" after the incident of "chet ha'egel"
[the Golden Calf], or can you identity a theme from "chet
ha'meraglim" as well?  Support your answer by comparing
these psukim with Shmot chapter 34:1-9 AND with Bamidbar
14:11-25.
	Based on the context of chapter 9, can you explain
why these psukim may relate to both of these incidents?
In your answer, relate to how 9:6-7 introduces a topic
that is 'closed' by 9:24, and only afterward we find the
"midot ha'rachamim" in 9:25.

2. Did God invoke His "midot ha'rachamim" only after chet
ha'egel or after other incidents in the Bible as well?
Would it be safe to assume that there may additional times
when God may need to invoke His attributes of mercy once
Bnei Yisrael enter the land?  If so, can suggest when this
would be necessary?
[Relate this to the main theme of the prayer that we add
to "tachnnun" on Mondays & Thurs.  - i.e. the "v'hu
rachum..." addition.  As you review that  lengthy
"tefilla" , note how often it relates to this theme of
"midat ha'rachamim" - and the reason why God should grant
it.]

A NEW GENERATION / OLD LAWS
1.  As you read through chapter seven in Parshat Ekev,
note how it seems as though Moshe is speaking to the first
generation (that went out of Egypt), and not to the second
generation.  [Bring examples, note especially 7:15,18-19 &
11:10.]
	Then, review chapter eight, noting that Moshe is
clearly speaking here specifically to the second
generation (in the fortieth year).  [Note 8:1-2, and its
context.]
	Can you explain why?
	Relate your answer to the topics discussed in our
introductory shiur to Sefer Devarim; i.e. the structure of
main speech (chapters 5->26) and the story in chapter 5
that describes when and how these mitzvot were first given
to Moshe Rabeinu forty years earlier at Har Sinai. 
	Be sure that you can differentiate between the
mitzvot that Moshe is teaching during his speech and his
rebuke of the nation at this time.

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
    [re: the theme of "matar" in Chumash]
1. Review Devarim 10:12 thru 11:21, noting that this unit
contains three 'parshiot'.  Even though 11:10-12 forms a
distinct parshia, explain how (and why) it relates
thematically to the 'parshia' that precedes it (i.e. 10:12
->11:9). 
 [Note as well how 11:10-12 can also be considered a
continuation for the end of chapter 7!]

	As you study 11:10-12, note how it forms the
background for the parshia that follows (i.e. 10:13-19)!
Be sure that you can explain why.  [Note how this explains
what we say every day in the second parshia of Kriyat
Shema!]
	If indeed all of these parshiot are connected,
what would be the general topic that is common to all of
them?  [Relate to the opening pasuk of this unit!] 
    How can this help us understand the importance of the
climate in the Land of Israel (and its 'spiritual'
nature)?

2. How do these three parshiot relate to the overall theme
of the MITZVAH section of the main speech of Sefer
Devarim?
	How to they relate to the fact that the main
speech (and especially the "mitzvah" section /chapters
6->11) presents a set of laws that apply to Bnei Yisrael's
forthcoming conquest of the Land?
	How to these parshiot explain how living in the
land of Israel may create 'additional opportunities' for
"yirat Hashem" - the fear of God?

3. Return now to 11:10-12.  Based on these psukim, would
you say that the Land of Israel is 'better' or 'worse'
than the land of Egypt? 
	If you have time, see Rashi, Ramban, Rashbam, and
Ibn Ezra in regard to this question.
	Note how (and why) each "parshan" offers a
different explanation. In you opinion, is it necessary to
say that they argue with each other, or does each
commentator relate to a different perspective of this
topic?
	
4. Next, review Breishit 13:1-18, especially 13:8-13. Can
you explain why Lot preferred the area (and climate) of
the Jordan Valley to the hilly land (of Bet-el and Hebron)
where Avraham Avinu dwelled? Where country had Lot been
beforehand (i.e. at the end of chapter 12), and how might
that relate to his choice.
	Can you relate the natures of Lot's preference to
our above discussion of Devarim 11:10-12?

5. Review once again Breishit 13:5-13.  When Avraham
offered Lot to go either to the 'right' or to the 'left',
in your opinion was his intention east & west; or north &
south? 
	[See tirgum Unkelos!!]
	What direction is the Jordan Valley in relation to
where Avraham and Lot are standing (note from the
beginning of chapter 13 that they are in Bet-el)?
	Based on these considerations, does Lot choose one
of the 'options' that Avraham gave him, or does he choose
something else?
	If so, where would have Avraham gone had Lot
chosen the other option?

6. See Breishit 2:4-5, and Rashi on 2:5.  How does the
Midrash that Rashi quotes to explain this pasuk relate to
your answers to the above questions?  Relate also to Rashi
on Breishit 13:11 ["va'yisa Lot m'KEDEM"]. What leads
Rashi to this conclusion?
	Relate as well to the Torah's use of the word
"kedem" in Breishit 3:24 & 11:2.

7. Note the punishment that Sedom receives in Breishit
19:24. Why are they punished and how?
	Attempt to explain the Torah's use of the verb
"himtir..." in this regard.
	In your answer, relate (once again) to a thematic
connection based on Breishit 18:17-19.
	[Note Yechezkel 16:48-49 and its thematic
connection!]              

8. Return to 11:12, noting the phrases "reishit ha'shana"
and "acharit shana".  What time [or season] of the year to
these two phrases refer to?  [What type of 'calendar' does
this pasuk relate to? 
    How does this relate to the topic of "matar" in
11:10-11?   
	How would this relate to the name "rosh ha'shana"
that is given to the holiday that begins on the first day
of the 'seventh month'?

9.  Return again to 11:12.  How did you translate the
phrase "einei Hashem"?  Does God have 'eyes'?  If not, why
is this word being used to describe God's providence over
the rain in Israel?
	What is the Hebrew word for a 'spring'?  
	What is the Hebrew word for an 'eye'?  
	Are they word related?
	What the relationship between the 'human eye' and
a 'spring of water'?
	Relate this to a deeper understanding of 11:12.


PART III - PARSHANUT

WHERE DID AHARON DIE?
1. Review Devarim 10:6-7. How do these psukim relate to
the psukim beforehand (10:1-5) and afterward (10:8-11)?
	Compare this 'travel account' with Bamidbar
33:30-38.
Can you explain the apparent contradictions?
	Can you explain what these psukim are doing here?

	First see Rashi, how does he solve this problem?
	Then see Ramban. Does he argue with Rashi?
		If so, on what point?
	How is Ramban's commentary fundamentally
different?

	Next, see Rashbam. How does he solve the
juxtaposition problem? Does he 'solve' the same problems
that Rashi and Ramban deal with? If so, in the same way or
a different manner?
	Then, see Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni & Seforno. Answer the
same question (above for Rashbam) for each of these
parshanim.

ONE 'ARON' or TWO?
1. Read 10:1-5.  In your opinion, is the ARON that is
described in these psukim the same ARON of the Mishkan
(that held the Luchot/ i.e. the ARON described in Shmot
25:10-22)? 
[How does the answer to this question relate to the
contraversy concerning WHEN the mitzvah to the build the
Mishkan was first given, before or after chet ha'egel?]

2.  First see Rashi on 10:1.  How does he answer the above
question? What other questions does Rashi answer in his
commentary to this pasuk? Can you explain why?

3. Next see Ibn Ezra.  Is the first "pirush" that he
quotes identical to Rashi's?
	In what manner does Ibn Ezra argue with Rashi? Can
you explain why?  [In what manner does he agree?]
[Note how he introduces this disagreement ("their opinion
is WIDER than ours..."). Can you explain what Ibn Ezra is
referring to?]
	How does Ibn Ezra explain 10:3?  Why?
    Note how he concludes his commentary to 10:3.
	What does "v'hakabblah tnazeach" imply?
[Why is this statement important towards appreciating Ibn
Ezra's approach to "Parshanut"?]

4. What is problematic with the opinion that there were
two ARONOT [holy arks]?  What problems are solved if we
insist that two indeed existed?

5.  Next, see Ramban. Note how he clearly argues with
Rashi. Note how he first present his own interpretation,
then quotes Rashi, and then explains WHY he disagrees and
bases his approach on a different opinion in Mesechet
Shekalim. 
    What can we infer from this in regard to Ramban's
overall approach to "parshanut" and his attitude in regard
to interpretations suggested by Rashi?

6.  Finally, note how Ramban raises the possibility that
this may actually be the same ARON that Betzalel made.
Make sure that you follow his reasoning, and how it
relates to the centrality of the Mishkan in Ramban's
famous commentary to Shmot 25:1.

7.  For an amazing insight, see also Chizkuni to 10:2.
Note his explanation for why God commanded Moshe to take
an ARON with him specifically for the SECOND Luchot, based
on what happened to the FIRST Luchot!  [Ingenious?]

	
b'hatzlacha,
						menachem



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ekevq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 28389 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090803/d07f130c/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Aug  6 03:38:55 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 03:38:55 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Ekev - shiur
Message-ID: <007c01ca1668$f3e80740$dbb815c0$@net>

**********************************************************
***
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://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'?
	That seems to be what Moshe Rabeinu thinks, when
he tells Bnei Yisrael in Parshat Ekev:
"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 gifve 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 only makes sense that Parshat Ekev would
discuss 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 consistantly
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 on 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 Israel (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 to 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?



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ekev1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 49456 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090806/01352a85/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Aug  9 11:31:00 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 11:31:00 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Re'ay - Questions for self study
Message-ID: <01a101ca1906$66de8e00$349baa00$@net>

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

                PARSHAT RE'AY - questions
                

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

'BAD INFUENCES'
1. Review from 12:29 thru 13:19, noting how this section
contains four short "parshiot".  As you verify this point,
see if you can also identify the primary topic of each
'parshia'; and if any of them share a common theme.  [Note
as well if there are any phrases that repeat themselves.]
	Can you identify a common theme for all four
'parshiot'? 

2.  In what manner does each 'parshia' relate to the topic
of "avoda zara" - idol worship.   Can you explain how this
relates to the fact that Bnei Yisrael are about to enter
the land of Israel?
    Note the word "b'kirbecha" in 13:6 13:12 & 13:15.  Can
you explain why it used so often in these sections?
	Who are the different types of 'bad influences' in
each of these four parshiot? 

3. The second of the above parshiot concludes with the
phrase "u'biarta ha'rah m'kirbecha" (see 13:6).
	Where else is this expression found in this
section of the main speech of Sefer Devarim (i.e. within
chapters 12->26)?
[btw, if you give up try 17:7,12; 19:19; 21:21;
22:21,22,24; & 24:7]
	Can you explain why this phrase is repeated so
often? 
 
	Relate this phrase to the common theme of these
four 'parshiot'.  How does their connection relate to the
overall theme of the main speech of Sefer Devarim?  In
other words, how to these mitzvot help facilitate to the
establishment of an AM KADOSH in the Land of Israel?

4.  For some reason, the [non-jewish] chapter division of
Chumash places the first of these four 'parshiot' in
chapter 12!  Can you find any logic behind this, based on
the topic in 12:20-28?
	Can you explain why chapter 13 begins with 13:1
instead of with13:2?  In your opinion, in this case does
the 'parshia' division make more sense than the chapter
division?

THE CHAGIM IN RE'AY
1.  In chapter 16, we find the "shalosh regalim".  Review
from 16:1-17 and verify that indeed ONLY the "shalosh
regalim" are mentioned in this section, and not any other
holiday.
	In what manner is this unit similar to the
presentation of the holidays in Vayikra chapter 23 (Emor)
& Bamidbar chapters 28-29 (Pinchas); and in what manner is
it different?
	In relation to the "shalosh regalim", what details
are the same as in the previous parshiot, and what details
are new (or different)?

2. Next, compare Devarim chapter 16 with Shmot 23:14-19.
	In what manner are these units similar, and in
what manner are they different?
	Explain why Devarim 16:1-17 is more similar to
Shmot 23:14-17 than it is to the section on the holidays
in Emor or Pinchas.
	  Compare these two similar units, and determine
which important details have been added in Sefer Devarim?
Can you explain why these topics are added in Sefer
Devarim?
	How do these topics (that have been added) relate
to the theme of the main speech of Sefer Devarim?  Relate
especially to Devarim 12:5-16 (i.e. to the theme of
"ha'makom asher yivchar Hashem...")!
	Based on the above, explain the summary pasuk in
16:16!  [How come this pasuk sounds so familiar?]

3. Review 15:19-23, noting how this 'parshia' re: the laws
of first born animals precedes the laws of the "chagim" in
chapter 16.  Is there any logic behind the juxtaposition
of these laws? 
	In your opinion, do these laws of "bchor" belong
with previous laws in chapter 15, or with the chagim in
chapter 16?  How would these laws of "bchor" relate to the
laws of "aliyah la'regel"?  Why would it relate to the
laws of korban Pesach?
	See Seforno on 15:19 for a beautiful
interpretation! 


PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
	Our shiur on Parshat Veetchanan discussed how the
main speech of Sefer Devarim (chapters 5 thru 26) divides
into two distinct sections - "ha'Mitzva" - chapters 6 thru
11; and the "chukim u'mishpatim" - chapters 12 thru 26.
The following questions discuss the opening section of the
"chukim u'mishpatim" section - as it emerges as a primary
topic in Parshat Re'ay.

1.  The opening psukim of Parshat Re'ay (see 11:26-30)
discuss the blessing [or curse] should Bnei Yisrael obey
[or disobey] God's laws.  In your opinion, does this
section relate to the last topic of Parshat Ekev (see
11:22-25), or to the laws that follow (in Parshat Re'ay)
that begin in chapter 12?   
    Is there any logical reason for this 'blessing &
curse' to appear specifically at this point in Sefer
Devarim?
	Compare this commandment in 11:26-30 to the
special commandment to conduct a ceremony at Har Eival, as
described in 27:1-8; noting how 27:1-8 is the first
commandment to Bnei Yisrael immediately after Moshe
Rabeinu completes his main speech.   Relate this as well
to the identification of the "chukim u'mishpatim" section
of the main speech, and the overall structure of Sefer
Devarim.

2.  Note how 11:29-30 describes the location in the Land
of Israel where this blessing and curse will be bestowed.
Then, note the transition of topic in 11:31-32.  Can you
explain the logic of this transition?
	How does 12:1 relate to 11:31-32?  If you were
dividing up Sefer Devarim into chapters, would you have
begun a chapter division in 12:1?  If not, where do think
would you have been a better spot to begin the chapter
from?  
	In your opinion, does the division of 'parshiot'
(and Parshat ha'shavua) make more sense than this
particular division into chapters?  Is there any logic in
beginning a new unit with 12:1?

3.  With the above questions in mind, study 12:1 thru
12:28 and divide this section into paragraphs.  Give a
short title for each paragraph (thus creating an outline),
and then attempt to follow the flow of topic.  How would
you title your outline?  [In other words, what is the
primary theme of this section?]

4. Based on 12:1, it becomes quite clear that the CHUKIM &
MISHPATIM section of Sefer Devarim begins with 12:1.
Relate this back to our earlier study of Sefer Devarim,
noting especially 4:1, 4:44-45, 5:1, 5:28, 6:1, 6:20 etc.
Note as well how this section concludes with 26:16.
	As you study from chapter 12 thru chapter 26,
attempt to determine how this "chukim u'mishpatim" section
is different from the "ha'mitzva" section that preceded it
(in chapter 6 thru 11).  
    As you scan those chapters [don't read, that would
take you too long], be sure to follow how these chapters
constitute a very long but continuous speech. 
	Based on these observations, why should the
primary topic of chapter 12 be of thematic importance?

5.  Based on you outline from question three above, what
is the primary topic of chapter 12?
	How does the topic of 12:2-4 relate to this main
topic?
	Do we find this topic again later in this unit; if
so, where?
[In case you didn't figure it out, note the repetition of
the phrase "ha'makom asher yivchar Hashem".]

6. Based on its description in chapter 12, as well as its
mention in 14:22-27, 15:19-16:17, 17:8-12, and 26:1-8,
what is supposed to be the primary function of this "makom
asher yivchar Hashem"?
	Why do you think that it is the first primary
topic of the CHUKIM & MISHPATIM section of the main
speech?
	How will this "makom" help the people of Israel
achieve the covenantal goal of becoming God's "am kadosh"?
[See Shmot 19:4-6, Devarim 5:1-2, 7:5-8 (not parallel to
12:1-5) & 26:16-19.]

7.  Does the Torah inform us of the precise location of
this "makom"? If so, where is it supposed to be?
		If not, why not?  Relate to 12:5! 
	In your opinion, how does this "makom" relate to
the Mishkan?
	Why do your think that the Mishkan is not
mentioned in this Parsha (or for that matter, in Sefer
Devarim at all!)?
[In your answer, try to relate to our introductory shiur
regarding WHEN these mitzvot were first given to Moshe
Rabeinu (i.e. the story in 5:20-30), and the famous
machloket between Rashi and Ramban concerning when the
mitzvah to build the Mishkan was first given (i.e. before
or after chet ha'egel).]

8. Review Breishit 28:10-22, noting how often the word
"MAKOM" is used in these psukim.  What is special about
this "makom", and according to Yaakov's vow, what is this
"makom" destined to become?  Relate your answer to the
above questions. 

9. Review 26:1-10, i.e. the mitzvah of "mikra bikurim",
noting how this mitzvah as well must be observed in the
"makom asher yivchar Hashem; and its location in the main
speech.
	In your opinion, what is the purpose of this
mitzvah, and why must it be performed only in the "makom
asher yivchar Hashem"?
	How does it relate to the underlying theme of the
main speech, and why do think that it was chosen to
conclude "chukim u'mishpatim" section. 

10.  If you have ample time, review the remainder of
Parshat Re'ay (i.e. chapters 12 thru 16), and construct an
outline that shows its flow of topic.  Attempt to explain
its logic, and how these mitzvot relate to the primary
theme of the main speech.

PART III - PARSHANUT
==================
LO TAASUN KEYN...
1. Review once again Devarim 12:1-4.
	If you only read up to pasuk 4, how would you
interpret: "Do not do this to Your God" in 12:4?   [In
other words, what does the word "keyn" [this?] refer to?]

2. Now continue on by reading 12:5-6, noting how the word
"ki" in 12:5 should connect this pasuk to 12:4.   How does
this affect your interpretation of 12:4?  
	In other words, based on 12:5 - how would you
explain the word "keyn" in 12:4?
	Does your new interpretation contradict your
original one, or complement it?
	Now, we will see how the classic commentators
dealt with these questions.

3.  Read Rashi on 12:4, noting how he offers two
interpretations.   Explain why Rashi found it necessary to
offer both explanations (based on your answers to the
above questions).

4. Next, see Rashbam. Note that he only offers one
interpretation.  Does Rashbam's "pirush" correlate with
either of Rashi's?
	If so, which one?
	Would you consider Rashbam's approach in this case
as the 'simple pshat'?
	Is this usually Rashbam's approach in his
commentary?
	Note how both Ibn Ezra & Chizkuni (on 12:4) follow
a similar approach.

5.  Next, see Ramban, noting how (and why) he first quotes
Rashi.  In what regard does he disagree with Rashi, and
what does Ramban mean when he defines Rebbe Yishmael's
opinion as "smach shel aggada"?
	Note how Ramban concludes by explaining how both
interpretations can actually complement each other, in a
manner that 12:4 relates to both 12:2-3 and 12:5-6!  As
usual, relate this to our opening discussion.
=====

"A'SER TA'ASER"
1.  Translate the phrase "a'ser ta'aser".  [What is the
common "shoresh" of these two verbs?]  
	Is this a new command, or does it refer to
something that the Torah has already mentioned?
	Then, see Ramban on 14:22-23.  To appreciate this
Rabman, you need to know your Chumash, but if you have
time to study it carefully, note how comprehensive his
approach is, and he makes every effort to support Chazal's
halachik understanding of these psukim, and based on pshat
as well!

2.  These laws of "ma'aser" are recorded among many other
laws in Parshat Reay.  In your opinion, how do they relate
to the previous topic of 'forbidden animals' in 14:3-21,
and the laws of "shemitta" in chapter 15?  
	Then, see Ibn Ezra and Chizkuni on 14:22, noting
how they relate to this question. 

EATING AND FEARING...
3.  Read 14:22-23, noting the closing phrase "lmaan tilmad
l'YIRA et Hashem..." - i.e. we are commanded to eat MAASER
SHENI in Yerushalayim in order that we LEARN TO FEAR GOD.
Can you explain how 'eating out' in Yerushalayim would
teach someone how to fear God? 
	For an interesting insight, see Rashbam, Ramban,
Chizkuni and Ibn Ezra on this phrase in 14:23. 

"BANIM ATEM"
1. Review 14:1-3, and first - simply attempt to translate
these psukim and understand their flow of topic.  Can you
relate these psukim to:
	the last topic discussed in chapter 13? 
	the overall theme of the main speech of Sefer
Devarim?
	
	Would you consider 14:1-2 as a type of
introduction to a wider set of laws, or simply several
specific laws?

2.  Compare 14:1 to Vayikra 21:5.  Is this the same law,
or a different one?
	Did you understand that both "lo titgod'du" and
"lo tasimu korcha..." relate to something done after
someone passes away, or does "lo titgod'du" stand alone
(i.e. not connected to death)?
	Finally, what is the connection between the laws
in 14:1 and the reason given in 14:2.  [Relate to
26:16-19.]

3.  Now, see Rashi, noting how he answered the above
questions.   Then see Ibn Ezra, noting how he answered the
above questions as well, and how his interpretation is
different.
	Next, see Seforno, noting how even though his
"pirush" is similar to Ibn Ezra, it is nonetheless
different. Can you explain why?
	Finally see Ramban, noting how he also answers the
above questions, but how his interpretation is different
than Rashi and Ibn Ezra's!  Note how (and why) he quotes
Ibn Ezra, and especially his concluding comments re: to
the degree of sorrow that one is allowed to feel after the
loss of a loved one. 
	In all of the above interpretations, how does the
opening phrase of "banim atem" relate to the limitations
that the Torah puts on one who mourns the loss of a loved
one?

	
b'hatzlacha,
						menachem



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: reayq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 29519 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090809/b22c1203/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Aug 12 16:07:51 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:07:51 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Re'ay - shiur #1
Message-ID: <002601ca1b88$9213bdf0$b63b39d0$@net>

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

               PARSHAT RE'AY  -  shiur #1

	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
23:1417!
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.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: reay1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 48689 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090812/d1e0922a/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Aug 12 16:08:53 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:08:53 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Re'ay - shiur #2
Message-ID: <002a01ca1b88$b76e93e0$264bbba0$@net>

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

          PARSHAT  RE'AY  - shiur #2

     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



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: reay2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 19936 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090812/4f317e3c/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Aug 13 10:31:39 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:31:39 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Re'ay - shiur #3
Message-ID: <004f01ca1c22$c5677d00$50367700$@net>

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

               For Parshat Re'ay    //   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 national calamities, we usually tend to 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 contemplate the suffering in those
events, and take a 'hint' from God that maybe 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 friendship.
    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  


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: reay3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 74707 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090813/deacb452/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Aug 16 09:27:30 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 09:27:30 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Shoftim - questions for self study
Message-ID: <002c01ca1e75$4e6a0ba0$eb3e22e0$@net>

**********************************************************
***************
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  www.tanach.org
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Questions for self study - by Menachem Leibtag
**********************************************************
***************

PARSHAT SHOFTIM

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

"TOV V'YASHAR" - WHO DECIDES WHAT'S  RIGHT?
1.  Parshat Shoftim ends with the phrase: "ki taase
ha'YASHAR b'einei Hashem" - should you do what is
'straight' [correct?] in the eyes of God.   Carefully
study this pasuk (21:9), while relating to its context (in
21:1-9).  In your opinion, how does this phrase relate to
the first half of this pasuk?  [In other words - how would
your translate the word "ki" in 21:9?]

2.  Before looking at the various commentaries to 21:9,
take a quick look at three ealier instances when this
phrase is found in Sefer Devarim - 6:18, 12:25-28, and
13:19.   In each of these instances, does this phrase
refer to something specific or something very general?
	In your opinion, how is someone supposed to know
what is considered "yashar b'einei Hashem"?  Does it refer
only to something that the Torah had already mentioned, or
is there someway of knowing what is "yashar b'einei
Hashem" - without having to be told explcitly what
specific action it refers to.
	In your opinion, how was the generation of the
Flood supposed to know what was 'right & wrong'?  If they
had no way of knowing, how could God have punished them?  

3.  See Rashi on 21:9.  How would Rashi answer question
one above?   [See also Seforno, noting how he advances a
similar approach.]
   Next, see Ibn Ezra; read his commentary carefully,
noting how he presents three different ways to understand
this phrase in its context.  Be sure that you understand
the logic behind each interpretation. 
	In your opinion, why do you think that Ibn Ezra
prefers the third opinion (which begins with "v'hanachon
b'einei")?

4. Finally, see Rashi, and then the Ramban on Devarim
6:18.  Read every word of this Ramban very carefully, for
he explains a very important principle about how our Torah
study can help us improve our behviour, even in regard to
cases that are not discussed explicitly in the Torah!

"MATZEVOT" -  ARE THEY ALWAYS BAD?
1. Review 16:21-22, noting how these prohibitions relate
the psukim that precede them, as well as to the psukim
that follow them.  Can you find any logic behind this
progression of topic?
[For an interesting insight - see Ibn Ezra's commentary on
all the psukim from 16:18 through 17:1 - noting how he
attempts to tackle this question, especially his
introductory remarks in 16:18, as they explain the
underlying reason behind his approach to certain parts of
his commentary!]

2.  According to 16:22, it is forbidden to erect a
"matzeyva".
Can you explain the 'technical' difference between a
"mizbeyach" [altar?] and a "matzeyva" [monument?], and
based on your definition - can you explain more precisely
what is prohibited in 16:21 & 16:22?
	Review Devarim 12:3, noting how the Torah uses two
different verbs to describe what must be done to destroy
the "mizbachot" and matzeyvot" dedicated to other gods.
[See also 7:5, noting how to get rid of an "ashera" as
well!]
   Can you explain how these two verbs relate to the
definition of each?  In general, for what purpose would
someone build a "mizbeyach" and for what purpose a
"matzeyva"?

3. Review Breishit 28:18-22, noting how and why Yaakov
Avinu erects a "matzeyva".  Does he build a "mizbayach" as
well as Avraham Avinu had done several times?  [e.g.
Breishit 12:6-8]
	Relate this to your definition of each, as
discussed in the above question. 
	Note as well, that Moshe erects twelve "matzeyvot"
in preparation for the ceremony at Har Sinai (when Bnei
Yisrael will declare "naaseh v'nishma" / see Shmot
24:3-7!).  Can you explain the purpose of those matzeyvot?
Did Moshe Rabeinu build a mizbeyach as well at that time?
Can you explain he needs to build both?
	Again, relate this to your definition of each, as
discussed in the above question. 

4. Review Devarim 16:22 once again, noting the 'trailer'
phrase: "asher soney Hashem Elokecha" -
    i.e. 'Do not erect a matzeyva THAT GOD DESPISES' 
	In your opinion, does this phrase describe WHICH
matzeyva the Torah forbids, or WHY the Torah forbids all
matzeyvot?
	Relate your answer to the above question
concerning the matzeyvot built by Yaakov Avinu and Moshe
Rabeinu!

5.  For an interesting insight on these questions, see the
commentaries of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ramban & Seforno, noting
how each commentator understands this pasuk in a different
manner.  Attempt to explain each approach based on your
answers to the above questions!

 SHEVET LEVI
1.  Chapter 17 opens with guidelines for court cases that
must be presented to a highest magistrate.  As you review
17:1-10, note how these psukim 'take for granted' that the
"kohanim" & "leviim" as most likely to be those judges
(see 17:8-9).   Can you explain the logic behind this
assumption?  
	Then, review Sefer Bamidbar chapter 18, and relate
its context and detail to your answer.
	See also Devarim 21:5-6, noting their context in
21:1-9.  Based on these psukim, for what purpose was
shevet Levi chosen?  Relate as well to Vayikra 10:8-11.

2. In Devarim chapter 18, we find some additional laws
regarding shevet Levi (see 18:1-8).  Relate these laws to
your answer to the above question.  
	Recall as well that the tribe of Levi did not
receive its own "nachala" (inheritance), instead, they
received 48 cities scattered among the other tribes (see
Bamidbar 35:1-8).   Furthermore, Bnei Yisrael are
commanded to pay a 10% tax of their 'agricultural income'
(see Bamidbar 18:21 /i.e. "maaser rishon") to support the
tribe of Levi.  
   Based on the above sources, can you explain the
underlying reason for these laws?

3.  Note how the laws about the rights and obligations of
shevet Levi in Devarim 18:1-8 are presented immediately
after the laws that regulate the rights and obligations of
the King of Israel (i.e. their political leader).
Attempt to explain the logic behind this juxtaposition.
Explain as well why this topic in general is recorded
specifically in Sefer Devarim (and at this point of the
main speech).
	In your answer, relate to Moshe Rabeinu's blessing
to shevet Levi in Devarim 33:10.

4. Review I Divrei Ha'yamim chapters 23 thru 26, noting
how David ha'melech organized the kohanim and leviim into
groups that would work in the Mikdash!  Considering that
most kohanim and leviim worked only one week out of 24 in
the Bet Ha'Mikdash, and based on the above questions, what
would you assume that the Torah expects for the kohanim &
leviim to do with their 'spare time' (i.e. when they are
not officiating at the Bet ha'Mikdash)? 
	In regard to the responsibilities of Shevet Levi,
see also Devarim 33:10 and II Divrei Ha'yamim 35:3.

5.  Based on all of the above sources, how do these laws
that concern the tribe of Levi help Am Yisrael become a
"goy kadosh". Relate your answer to Devarim 26:16-19 and
Shmot 19:5-6, and the underlying theme of Sefer Devarim.

GATES OF JUDGEMENT
1. Parshat Shoftim opens with a command to appoint judges
'in all your GATES' ["sha'arecha"]. 
	In your opinion, does the Torah mean 'gates'
literally?
	If so, why do the gates of the city have to do
with judges?  If not, why does the Torah use the word
'gates'?
	Where else in Tanach do we find 'gates' in
connection to actions that require a legal court?
[In case you don't remember, see for example Breishit
23:10,18 & 34:24; Devarim 21:19; 22:24; 22:15; Rut 4:1-11;
and II Shmuel 15:2.]

2. Review Breishit 19:1 in regard to Lot sitting at the
gate of the city.  Note Rashi's commentary on this! Can
you explain how and why Rashi arrives at this conclusion?

3. See Shmot 32:26 and its context in relation to
punishment of those who sinned at "chet ha'egel" by the
tribe of Levi.  Can you explain why Moshe commands them to
'go from gate to gate' in order to execute those who were
responsible for the sins of the nation? 
	In your opinion, can this pasuk provide a basis to
assume that the three thousand who were killed were first
'tried' by a rabbinical court?
 
4. Based on the above sources, can the Hebrew word
"sha'ar" [gate] also carry more general meaning?  In your
answer, relate to the following additional sources:
Devarim 14:21,28,29 15:22; & 16:14.  
	Based on these examples, what meaning of the word
"sha'ar" fits most closely to its use in 16:18?
	Finally, note the navi's use of the word "sha'ar"
in Zecharya 8:16!  How does this pasuk and its context
relate to the opening pasuk of Parshat Shoftim?

5.  If you have ample time, glance through the first two
chapters of Parshat Shoftim (from 16:18 thru 18:8),
noticing how often the Torah uses the word "shaar",
especially when introducing certain mitzvot.  [If you have
less time, then you can 'cheat' by just noting 16:18,
17:2,5,8 and 18:6]  
   Note as well how this word "shaar" if found in the
context of "ha'makom asher yivchar Hashem"!
   In what manner should "ha'makom asher yivchar Hashem"
have an affect on what takes place at the gates of every
city?
	
6.  In ancient times, walled cities were usually quite
small, while most of the people lived outside those walls,
while the king and important official lived inside the
walls.  Therefore, the gates of the city often became to
the best spot for 'market place'.  [In regard to the daily
activities that usually took place near the city gate -
see for example Nechamya 8:1-5 and 13:9-22.]  
	In your opinion, who would the people in the
market area go to should a dispute arise? 
	Taking this into consideration, how would this
help explain why the Torah commands the establishment of
court by the city gates? 
	In your opinion, do you think it would be
'permitted', or possibly 'imperative', that courts be set
up in cities that don't have gates as well?  

7. If you have any books at home on archeology in Israel,
look at the pictures of the city gates from the first
Temple period uncovered in either Chatzor, Megido,
Lachish, Yerushalayim, etc. 
	Can you find an suitable area within the gate
where the "shoftim" could judge the people?
	Relate you answer to the above questions.

THREE, SIX, OR NINE [CITIES OF REFUGE]
1.  Review 19:1-10, noting the commandment to set aside
three cities of refuge, followed by a clause (see 19:8-9)
that should the borders of Israel become even greater,
then there would be a need to separate and additional
three cites.
	In you opinion, is this commandment in regard to
these 'extra' three cities (described in 19:8-9) the
reason why Moshe had 'already' set aside three cities of
refuge in Transjordan, as described in Devarim 4:41-43? 
   If so, why doesn't Moshe Rabeinu mention at this time
(i.e. in chapter 19) the fact that these cities had
already been separated, rather than stating: 'should God
widen your borders...'?
   If not, why doesn't Moshe Rabeinu mention anything (at
this time) in regard to the three cities in Transjordan;
and how does the separation of those cities relate to the
commandment to set aside a 'third' set of three cities
when even more land will be captured?

2.  Before you study the commentaries that deal with these
questions, see the other sources in Chumash that deal with
"arei miklat"  - Shmot 21:13-14,  Bamidbar 35:11-14 and
Devarim 4:41-43.  
   Afterward, study the commentaries of Rashi, Ibn Ezra,
Rashbam, Ramban, and Seforno on Devarim 4:41 and 19:1-2,
noting how they relate to the above sources and questions.

3. Recall our explanation (in our introductory shiur to
Sefer Devarim) that the mitzvot that Moshe teaches to Bnei
Yisrael in the main speech (i.e. chapters 6 thru 26) were
first given by God to Moshe at Har Sinai, during the first
forty days (see 5:21-28, and 6:1).  Now, forty years
later, Moshe Rabeinu is 'repeating' these laws, and
teaching them one last time.
	If indeed Moshe is quoting these laws (i.e. of
"arei miklat" as they were originally given at Har Sinai,
how could that consideration answer the problems raised in
our opening question!  How would this explain what Moshe
Rabeinu does in 4:41-43, before he begins this speech (in
chapter 5)?
	
4.  Based on our earlier shiur regarding the 'expandable
borders' of the land of Israel [on Parshat Masei], and the
distinction between "eretz canaan" and "ha'aretz" [from
the Nile to Euphrates] - attempt to explain the difference
between these two sets of 'three cities'.  Relate to the
opening phrases of each section: "asher Hashem notein
lachem et artzam" (see 19:1 & 19:2) in contrast to: "im
yarchiv Hashem et gvulcha kaasher nishba la'avotecha..."
(see 19:8)!
	Compare 19:8-9 with Devarim 11:22-25, noting the
borders and conditions for when these borders can be
achieved!

    =========

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
1. Using a Tanach Koren (or similar), scan from chapter 12
thru chapter 21 (i.e. Parshiot Re'ay & Shoftim), noting
its division into many 'parshiot'.  
   As you review these chapters, attempt to compose a
concise 'one line' title to summarize the main topic of
each individual 'parshia', and record them in a 'vertical'
list. 
	When you have finished, study your list, and
attempt to follow the thematic flow from one parshia to
the next.   Also, attempt to organize your list into
several general groups, i.e. turn your list into an
outline.
[If you need help (or if/when you give up) - read this:
  Note how there are a group of parshiot that deal with
"ha'Makom asher yivchar Hashem" [as discussed in our shiur
on Parshat Re'ay],  followed by parshiot that deal with:
 the shmita cycle, and then the chagim cycle; 
followed by parshiot that deal with various types of
leadership; 
and concluing with parshiot that deal with going to war. 
That just gave away most of the answers, but it is still
worthwhile to figure this out on your own!]

2. Considering that these mitzvot form a important part of
the CHUKIM & MISHPATIM section of the main speech in Sefer
Devarim, attempt to relate this thematic flow to the
purpose of these mitzvot (i.e. to the underlying purpose
of "brit Sinai" as detailed in Shmot 19:5-6).   Relate
this as well to the fact that Bnei Yisrael now prepare to
conquer the land and establish a nation.
   As usual, relate your answer to the key psukim which we
have discussed in the earlier shiurim on Sefer Devarim,
especially to 4:5-8, 5:1, 5:28, 6:1, and 26:16-19.

3. Notice how the first half of Parshat Shoftim contains
several 'parshiot' that discuss different examples of
national leadership.  After you identify each category,
attempt to define the responsibilities (and need) for each
type of leadership.  In your opinion, what should be the
ideal inter-relationship between these different realms of
leadership?  Should there some type of hierchy among them,
and if so, who should be 'in charge'?.
	Afterward, see Seforno on 19:2.  Did you find the
four examples of leadership that he noticed?  Note as well
how Seforno relates these four types of leaders to the
mitzvot that follow afterward in Parshat Shfotim! 

4. In your opinion, what should the ideal relationship
between the King and the "shoftim"; the King and the
"Leviim"; and the King and the "neviim"? 
   What are their respective responsibilities, and how is
each type of 'leadership group' supposed to be chosen? 

5. The parshia from 17:14-20 discusses the laws of a
'king'.  In your opinion, do these laws define what a king
CAN do, or CAN'T do, or both?  If so, what can or can't he
do?
	Can you think of anything else that the King is
supposed to do, in addition to what is listed in this
section?  If so, can you explain why those details are
omitted?
	In your opinion, why then does the Torah focus on
only one specific commandment concerning what the King
must do, i.e. 17:1820?  How does this specific mitzva
relate to all of the other mitzvot in Sefer Devarim?  
   What does the word 'torah' in 17:18-20 refer to?  In
your answer, relate to Devarim 4:44-45 and 27:3.  Relate
as well to Yehoshua 1:7-8 (in its context)!  [Based on
those psukim, could one conclude that Yehoshua was
considered a 'king'?]
   
6. Compare the laws concerning the king in 17:14-20 with
Shmuel I chapter 8, where Shmuel informs the people in
regard to the numerous rights of the King (note especially
8:9-17 / better known as "mishpat ha'melech").  
   In your opinion, does this list (that Shmuel warns the
people) include things:
    that the King may do, even though he is not allowed
to; 
   or,
   that the King truly have the right to do!
   
   If the King does have these rights, are they permitted
even for his own wealth, or only for the needs of the
nation? If the latter, who decides 'what are the needs of
the nation'?
   
7. In your opinion, is it necessary for Am Yisrael to have
a 'king', or only an 'option'?  From your understanding of
17:1420 and its context, does it seem obligatory that
Bnei Yisrael appoint a king, or does this mitzvah only
apply should Bnei Yisrael voluntarily choose to appoint a
king? 
   See discussion of this topic in Mesechet Sanhedrin 20b.
Continue with the "parshanut" section which follows
(below).

PART III - PARSHANUT

IS A KING A MUST?
1. Review 17:14-20.  Based on its context within the
entire CHUKIM & MISHPATIM section of the main speech of
Sefer Devarim (i.e. chapters 12-26), would you say that
appointing a king is obligatory ["chova"] or an option
["reshut"]?
	Relate to the word "v'amarta..." in 17:14, and the
opening word "ki" of this parshia.  
	In your opinion, does the word "ki" (in this
pasuk) imply 'when' or 'if'?  In other words, does it
relate to the beginning of the sentence or to the middle
of the sentence?  
	Compare the use of the word "ki" in this pasuk to
its use in Devarim 4:25, 6:20, 7:17, 15:7, 19:1, 26:1.
What does "ki" imply in those examples?

2.  From the grammatical perspective, what (in your
opinion) does the phrase "k'chol ha'goyim" ['like all the
nations'] in 17:14 modify the type of KING or the type of
KINGDOM?
	How would this affect your answer to the first
question?

3. See Rasag [in Torat Chayim edition], who comments on
17:15 - "mutar" - it is PERMITTED, but not obligatory. See
also Ibn Ezra.   	What do you think leads Rasag to
this conclusion?
[If you have the time, see the controversy on this issue
in Sanhedrin 20b.]

See Ramban on 17:14. 
	Note that first he quotes Chazal's opinion [that
to appoint a king is a "chova"], and then seems to offer
his own opinion [possibly that it is only a "reshut"(?) -
read carefully].
	Now, note Ramban's explanation of "v'amarta" in
his presentation of Chazal's opinion.  What problem in
"pshat" 'forces' this interpretation?  [Is this problem
based on the assumption that appointing a king is
obligatory ["chova"]?]
	What is problematic with the phrase "k'chol
ha'goyim"? How does Ramban solve this problem?

4.  What difficulty arises when translating the phrase
"asher yivchar Hashem Elokecha" - (who God will choose)?
	Explain the controversy between Ibn Ezra & Ramban
on this? How does the translation of "lo tuchal" (you are
not PERMITTED or you are not ABLE) affect their respective
interpretations of  the phrase "asher yivchar Hashem? 
	See Chizkuni, Ibn Ezra, and Ramban! 

5. Read the final section of the Ramban on 17:15 carefully
(beginning with "v'al derech ha'pshat amru...").  Note how
radical his interpretation of "asher yivchar Hashem" is!
Note also how it affects his understanding of "ha'makom
asher yivchar Hashem" in chapter 12!!
	In your opinion, does Ramban's understanding of
pshat affect this understanding of "nevuah" or
visa-versa?!
[Could you relate this approach of Ramban to our
understanding of God's "hashgacha" (providence) over
historical events in our own era, even though there is no
"navi" today?  (An interesting topic, but for a shiur on
"hashkafa", not parshanut.)]  

6. See Seforno on 17:14. Relate his pirush to Rasag & Ibn
Ezra.
	Is his explanation that appointing a king is a
"reshut" based primarily on the "pshat" of the psukim, or
based primarily on his understanding of the institution of
a Kingdom? 
	Why does Seforno mention the difference between
"melech" and "shofet"?  According to Seforno, is the
"shofet" a more ideal type of leadership?  Why does his
bring down Bamidbar 27:17?

7. See the Netziv in Ha'amek Davar on Devarim 17:1420.
	How does he solve the problem in pshat of "k'chol
ha'goyim"?  How does he solve the problem of "reshut" or
"chova"?

8. See Rambam Hilchot Melachim 1:1.  Note the Rambam holds
that appointing a king is "chova".  What do you think
leads the Rambam to this conclusion?
	Note how the final two chapters of Hilchot
Melachim discuss "melech ha'Moshiach". Relate this to
Rambam's interpretation of the mitzvah to appoint a king
as a "chova". 
	
b'hatzlacha,
						menachem


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shofq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 38760 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090816/0fabf06e/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Aug 19 09:04:25 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:04:25 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Parshat Shoftim
Message-ID: <003901ca20cd$950f68c0$bf2e3a40$@net>

**********************************************************
***
        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.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shof1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 42027 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090819/3fb0c61a/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Aug 19 15:20:53 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:20:53 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Shoftim - shiur #2
Message-ID: <00b001ca2102$2ba51210$82ef3630$@net>

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

       For Parshat Shoftim / 'What defines what's right?''
   
    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 



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shof2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 23301 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090819/1ddc5885/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Aug 23 09:11:07 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 09:11:07 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Kiteze - Questions for self study
Message-ID: <004101ca23f3$2f676210$8e362630$@net>

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

      PARSHAT KI-TEYZE

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

REWARD FOR MITZVOT & "kan tzipor"
1.  Review 22:6-7, noting how the Torah promises a 'double
reward' for fulfilling the mitzvah of "shiluach ha'ken" -
both "l'maan yitav lach" [so that you will fare well] and
"v'haarachta yamim" [and have a long life].
	Are you familiar with any other specific mitzvah
where the Torah promises this type of reward?
[In case you forgot, see Devarim 5:16 - noting the almost
identical wording!]

	In general, does the Torah usually promise any
type of reward for performing specific mitzvot?
	In contrast, does the Torah ever promise reward
for keeping ALL of God's mitzvot? If so, bring examples.
[In case you 'forgot', see Shmot 23:20-24, Vayikra
26:3-16, Devarim 7:12-16, 8:19-20, 11:22-25, 28:1-16 etc.]

     In you opinion, in the above examples when the Torah
does promise reward, are those promises given to the
individual or to the nation?

2.  Review 5:28 thru 6:3, noting how Moshe Rabeinu not
only introduces the mitzvot that he is about to teach, but
also makes some promises to the nation regarding their
reward should they keep these mitzvot.  As you review
these psukim, can you find any textual parallels to 22:7
and 5:16?
	Similarly, review 4:40, noting how this is the
final line of Moshe Rabeinu's first speech in Sefer
Devarim.  What type of reward does this pasuk promise for
keeping God's commandments?  
	Again, did you notice any textual parallel with
5:16?
	Review once again 4:40, 5:16, 5:30, 6:2-3, and
22:7, noting how they all mention rewards of "arichut
yamim" and "tov".  Can you explain why, and how all of
these psukim are connected?

3. Review 5:16 once again.  Considering that this mitzvah
is part of the Ten Commandments (and closes the first
five, and is also the last "mitzvat asey"), could it be
that the reward promised in 5:16 is not only for the
mitzvah of 'honoring parents', but may be for keeping the
entire covenant that comes with the Ten Commandments (see
Devarim 5:1-2).
	Based on 4:40, 5:30 and 6:2-3, would it seem that
Moshe Rabeinu understood the reward promised in 5:16 as
relating not only to the mitzvah of "kibud horim" - but to
the entire set of mitzvot that come with the covenant at
Har Sinai?
	If so, can suggest a reason for why the Torah
chose to 'tack' this statement concerning reward
specifically together with the Fifth Commandment?

4. Review the following sources in Sefer Devarim where
Moshe Rabeinu promises reward in general for keeping all
of God's mitzvot:: 6:17-18, 6:24,  7:10-11,10:13,
11:22-28!, 12:28, 13:18-19, and 25:15.  Note how often
this concept of 'reward to the entire nation for keeping
all of the mitzvot' is repeated!
	How would this concept relate to the mitzvot of
"brit Sinai" in Sefer Devarim (see 5:1-2) and their
purpose, as defined in Shmot 19:5-6 and Devarim 4:5-8!
 
5. In light of the above questions (and sources), could
one consider the phrase "l'maan yitav lach v'haarachta
yamim" in 22:7 - as not necessarily a promise of reward to
the individual who may fulfill the specific mitzvah of
"shiluach ha'ken", but rather as another 'refrain'
promising reward to the entire nation for keeping all of
the mitzvot - tacked on to this mitzvah.
	Note a similar example in Devarim 12:25 (in the
context of the mitzvah not to eat blood), which seems to
me more of general promise 'tacked on' to a specific
mitzvah (note 12:25 in relation to 12:28!)

6. How is the mitzvah of "shiluach ha'ken" (22:6-7)
thematically related to the mitzvah of "kibbud horim"
(5:16)?
[In case you didn't 'catch on', in your answer, relate to
the connection between children and parents!]
Relate this thematic connection to the fact that both
mitzvot promise the same type of reward.
	Relate this thematic connection to Devarim 14:1-2,
noting how 14:2 relates to Shmot 19:5-6 and brit Sinai!
	In your opinion, how does the mitzvah to honor
one's parents relate the understanding of one's
relationship with God?  [See Ramban on Shmot 20:12, where
he explains the deeper meaning of this mitzvah.]
	Finally, note how 22:6 is the first mitzvah of a
"parshia pe'tucha" that continues all the way until 25:16
(i.e. the next petucha is not until 25:17).  Note how the
mitzvot in 25:13-16 also promise a similar reward.  Based
on the above questions, would you understand the reward
promised in 25:15 as general or specific?  If general, can
you explain why it is attached to the mitzvah to keep fair
'weights and measures'? 

7. In regard to the promise of reward for the entire
nation, as opposed to reward for the individual - relate
this concept to the fact that "brit Sinai" was a covenant
between God and a nation (see 19:3-6), and to how the
mitzvot of Sefer Devarim relate to that covenant!

FOR MEN or FOR WOMEN
1.  Review the laws of "eshet y'fat toar" as detailed in
the beginning of the Parsha Ki-teyze (Devarim 21:10-14).
In your opinion, are the purpose of these laws to protect
the man (from marrying someone he shouldn't), or to
protect the feelings and emotions of the captive women. 
     As you review these psukim, notice how either
understanding would affect the interpretation of each
pasuk. 
[For example, does the phrase "v'asta et tziporneha" - and
she should 'do her nails'  (see 21:12) - imply that she
should cut them or let them grow? And why must she not
wear the clothing that she was taken captive in (see
21:13)?]
     
     In your opinion, how do these laws relate to the fact
that this captive female may become his permanent wife?

2. For examples of each approach, first see Rashi 21:11,
and then carefully study the entire Ibn Ezra on 21:12-13,
noting how his interpretation reflects both of the above
directions. See also Ramban & Chizkuni! 
      [See also Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim III /41.]

3. Review the last pasuk of this section, i.e. 21:14,
especially the final clause ["lo titamer bah..."]. Which
of the two directions of interpretation (above) does this
pasuk support?  What is the logic behind this law?  [Note
the translations and the commentators on this pasuk.]

4. If you have additional time, be sure to see Ramban on
21:12-13, it's quite lengthy, but very worthwhile to
study.  Note how Ramban discusses both directions
discussed above, and relates this as well the argument in
Sifri between R. Akiva and R. Eliezer in regard to the
meaning of "doing her nails" ["v'asta et tziporneha"].
	In your opinion, which of these two directions
reflects a more 'humanistic' approach?

5.  Finally, note the underlying topic of 21:1-9 (the laws
of "egla arufa") that precede the topic of "y'fat toar",
and the 21:15-17 (the laws relating the rights of the
child from the 'unloved wife').  Do these two topics share
anything in common with the laws of "y'fat toar"?  Relate
your answer to the above questions.

TZEKDAKA
1. How would you translate the word "TZEDAKA"?
[Was your answer 'charity'? If so, can you suggest any
other possible meaning?]
	What is the Hebrew "shoresh" [root] of this word,
and what does it mean?
	
2.  Now, read Devarim 25:13-16, noting 25:15 "even
shelayma v'TZEDEK...". How would you translate the word
"tzedek" in this sentence? Is it the same as above?
	Can you recall any other similar uses of the word
"tzedek"?
[For example, relate to Breishit 38:26, Yirmiyahu
22:1-3,15-16; and Shmuel Aleph 12:7.]
	
3. Next, read Breishit 18:18-19. How would you translate
"tzedaka" in this sentence?  [See commentators!]
	How would your translate the word "tzadik"?
	Relate to e.g. Breishit 6:9; 18:23-25, Devarim
32:4.
	How does this word "tzadik" relate to "tzedek" &
"tzedaka"?

4.  Based on the above, can you explain why we refer to
charity as "tzedaka"?! Attempt to relate your answer to
Devarim 8:11-18!

KOSHER 'AFFAIRS'?
1. Read 24:1-4 regarding the laws of a Jewish divorce. Can
you explain why the Torah prohibits the husband to
re-marry his first wife ONLY once she has been married (in
the interim) to someone else? [Had this been permitted,
can you identify a potential halachik 'loophole'?]
	Use this to explain why the Torah refers to this
in 24:4 as a potential "toeyvah lifnei Hashem..." !
	[Use this as well to explain the phrase "v'lo
tachtee et
	ha'aretz..." in 24:4.]

BETWEEN MISHPATIM & KI-TEYZE
1.  Quickly review Shmot chapters 21 thru 23, noting the
similarities (and differences) between that unit and the
laws in Parshat Ki-teyze.    Can you explain why they are
similar?
Compare, for example:
      Shmot 23:24-26 with Devarim 24:10-15 & 23:20-21
      Shmot 23:4-6   with Devarim 22:1-3.

	Would you say that Ki-teyze is a 'repetition' of
the laws in Parshat Mishpatim or an 'expansion' upon them?
Explain your answer.

2. Are there other mitzvot in Parshat Mishpatim that are
'expanded' upon in other Parshiot in Sefer Devarim, or for
that matter anywhere else in Chumash? If so, where?
      Compare, for example, Shmot 23:14 -17 with Devarim
chapter 16, and Shmot 23:10-11 with Devarim 15:1-7 &
Vayikra 25!  Can you find the parallels to Shmot 23:28-29?
Are there any parallels to Shmot 21:12-22:15?
	If so, where? 
	If not, can you explain why not?

3. Are there other mitzvot in Parshat Ki-teyze that had
been mentioned earlier in Chumash in a Parsha other than
Mishpatim?
	If so, where?
	[Note for example 25:15; compare Vayikra 19:36.]
	Based on our previous shiurim (on Parshat
Mishpatim & the intro to Sefer Devarim), can you explain
the reason for this?
	Relate this as well to Devarim 16:20.

PART IIa - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for shiur #1)
1. Recall that the CHUKIM & MISHPATIM section of Sefer
Devarim   (chapters 12-26) contains numerous mitzvot. Scan
through the entire section and attempt to find a
correlation between the progression of these mitzvot and
the Ten Commandments.
	Note how the MITZVAH section (chapters 6-11)
contains mitzvot that are similar to the first two DIBROT.
Can you explain why?
      Note also how the topic of HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR
HASHEM L'SHAKEN SHMO SHAM relates to God's Name and the
third commandment.  [Be sure that you can explain why,
i.e. the connection between desecrating His Name and
making His reputation known.]
	Similarly, note that there is a group of mitzvot
that relate to the seven-year shmita cycle and the
holidays that include their own cycles of seven.
	Recall also from last week the set of mitzvot that
discussed the leadership of Am Yisrael (and hence leaders
who should be 'honored').
	Finally, pay attention to which groups of mitzvot
focus primarily on mitzvot "bein adam la'Makom" and which
focus on "bein adam l'chaveiro" [between man & God;
between man and fellow man].
	Use these 'hints' to help you answer this
question.

2. There are two other Parshiot in Chumash where we find a
similar collection of a wide range of assorted mitzvot -
in Parshat Mishpatim (Shmot 21-23) & in Parshat Kedoshim
(Vayikra 19).
	Scan those Parshiot and see if you can identify
within them a progression of mitzvot similar to the
progression in the Ten Commandments.

3. Review Devarim 5:1-7, i.e. the intro to the main speech
in 5:1, the topic of "brit Sinai" in 5:2-3, and the
presentation of the Dibrot (in 5:6-18) followed by the
story of how the laws of Sefer Devarim were first given
(in 5:20-6:1).  
      Can you explain how this background may relate to
the parallel between the Ten Commandments and the laws in
the main speech in Sefer Devarim?

4. In your opinion, does the progression of mitzvot in
chapters 22 thru 25 follow a logical order, or do they
appear to be a random collection? Support your answer.
Note the commentary of Ibn Ezra on this section, and his
attempts to show the thematic connection from one section
to the next.
 
PART IIb - Questions on PARSHANUT for Shiur #2
1. Read 24:8-9. Recall that the detailed laws of "tzaraat"
are first presented in Sefer Vayikra.
	Are there any other similar mitzvot from Sefer
Vayikra that are either repeated or summarized in Parshat
Ki-teyze (or for that matter anywhere in Sefer Devarim)? 
	Now, note the nature of the mitzvot that
immediately follow the mention of "tzaraat" in 24:10-22
(i.e. mitzvot which are "bein adam la'makom" - between
fellow men).
	Based on this 'juxtaposition', what can be deduced
in regard to the cause of "tzaraat"? 

2.  Now see Rashi on 24:8 [He quotes the Gemara in Makkot
22b.] In your opinion, is this Midrash Halacha the simple
pshat of this pasuk? [In other words, is the warning of
24:8 general or
specific?]
	If one does hold that this Midrash is not the
simple pshat, would that make the Midrash Halacha
incorrect?
      Base your answer on the nature of Midrashei Halacha.

3.  Now see Rashi on 24:9. How does this relate to your
answer to question #1 above?  
     Next, see Ibn Ezra on 24:9!   Why is Ibn Ezra noting
that this pasuk proves a "drash"?   According to Rashi,
how closely are psukim 8 & 9 connected?

4. Next, see Rashbam on 24:8-9! [See also Chizkuni, noting
how they are very similar.]
	In what manner is his pirush to 24:8 different
than Rashi's?
In your opinion, is Rashbam's pirush closer to the simple
pshat? 
	[Is this usually the case in Rashbam?]
Now, note how 'elegantly' Rashbam explains 24:9 and its
connection to 24:8!	How (and why) is this different
from Rashi's explanation for the connection between these
two psukim? 

5. See Ramban on 24:8.
	How does Ramban explain the fact that a law from
Vayikra is being repeated in Devarim?
	How does he explain why the other laws about
"tzaraat" are not repeated here? [Relate to his
introduction to Sefer Devarim.]
	Why do you think that this specific law which
Chazal learn in the Midrash Halacha from this pasuk
relates to what a PERSON in Am Yisrael must be careful not
to do, and NOT a warning for KOHANIM to be careful in
their dealing with a "metzora"?
		[Relate to your answer in question #1
above.]
     See Ramban 24:9. On what point does Ramban disagree
with Rashi? Can you explain why?
	How does Ramban prove his point from similar uses
of "zchor" in other mitzvot in Chumash?
	In what manner is Ramban's approach here very
different than Rashi's? In what manner is it similar?
 
6.  Be sure to read Ramban on 24:9 until the very end!
	Why would you say that it is important for
everyone [students AND teachers] to study this Ramban?
[Why do you think that this Ramban is not as popular as it
should be?]

PART III - PARSHANUT 
AMON & MOAV - WHAT DID THEY DO?
1.  Review 23:4-7, noting the two reasons that the Torah
gives for the prohibition against marrying someone from
the nations of Amon & Moav.  [Note as well the general
context in 23:1-9.)
	In your opinion, do these two reasons apply to
both nations, or do some reasons only apply to one nation.
[Base your answer on what you remember.]
     Next, review Bamidbar 22:2-7 and Devarim 2:1-30.
Based on those details, answer the above question once
again!

2. First see Seforno on 23:5-7.  Can you explain why he
makes this distinction between Moav & Amon?  Then, see
Ramban on 23:5, noting how he deals with the above
questions (and sources).   It's a lengthy Ramban, as he
first quotes Ibn Ezra's commentary, but its worthwhile
studying in its entirety.

IBN EZRA vs. THE KARITES
1. The logic of the juxtaposition of the first three
parshiot (even though they are comprise three totally
different laws) in Parshat Ki-teyze is well known (see
Rashi 21:11). Note also the Ibn Ezra on 21:20 (the last
two lines).  This style, better known as "smichut
parshiot", continues throughout Parshat Ki-teyze. If you
have the time, I recommend that you scan the Ibn Ezra on
the entire Parsha, noting how many times he explains the
reason in many instances for "smichut parshiot", i.e. the
reason why one mitzvah follows from the next. Many of his
explanations are very interesting and very creative.
	See for example: 21:10, 22:6, 22:8, 22:9, 22:12 &
13 [Note here how he takes issue with the Karites (Ibn
Ezra calls them "mak'chishim" - those who deny, i.e. they
didn't accept or follow the Oral Tradition of Chazal). 
     Note how Ibn Ezra quite often quotes their opinion,
and then explains why he disagrees. Can you appreciate why
davka the Ibn Ezra finds it important to argue with them?
How does this relate to his own approach to "parshanut"?
See especially Ibn Ezra on 24:6 as well as on 22:12!]
     See also Ibn Ezra 23:16, 23:18, 23:22, 23:25 and 24:6

PROTECTING NATURE?
2. In 22:10, the Torah forbids us to plow a field with a
ox and donkey together. Can you think of any logic behind
this law?
	See Rashi, who extends this law to any two 'pairs'
of animals. Based on this pirush, what is the reason for
this prohibition? How does it relate to the laws in 22:9
and 22:11?
	Next, see Ibn Ezra on 22:10. How is his pirush
different? What is the reason for this prohibition
according to his pirush?
     Next, see Ramban. Is his pirush similar to Rashi or
Ibn Ezra? In your opinion, why does Ramban quote the
psukim from Vayikra 19:19?
     Finally, see Chizkuni on 22:10. Note how his pirush
expands upon Ibn Ezra's explanation. Can you explain why
Chizkuni offers two explanations, and what is the
difference between them?
	Note how Chizkuni concludes with Chazal's
interpretation. Can you explain why he does there after he
explains "pshat"?

CASE LAW
3. Note Ramban's statement in 21:11 - "diber ha'katuv
b'hoveh". This phrase is used quite often to explain why
the Torah often presents a certain law by stating only a
'typical' case, but the law itself is much more
comprehensive.  Note for example the law of "kilaim" in
22:10-11, and the above question. The classic example
would probably be Devarim 14:21.
	Can you explain how this style of 'law
presentation' can help us better understand the
relationship between Torah sh'ball peh and Torah sh'bktav
- the Written law and the Oral law?
				b'hatzlacha,
				menachem


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kiteyq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 36189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090823/14e4b999/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Aug 26 03:54:08 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 03:54:08 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Ki-teyze - shiur #1
Message-ID: <029201ca2622$64891750$2d9b45f0$@net>

**********************************************************
***
     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.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kitey1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 49503 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090826/377882d9/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Aug 26 03:55:40 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 03:55:40 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Kiteyze  & Elul - shiur #2
Message-ID: <029601ca2622$9c54d7f0$d4fe87d0$@net>

**********************************************************
***
     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.]

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kitey2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 39602 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090826/805d605f/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue Sep  1 00:16:01 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 00:16:01 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] KI-TAVO - questions for self study
Message-ID: <001701ca2aba$ed297040$c77c50c0$@net>

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

                 PARSHAT KI-TAVO

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

AM KADOSH / A COVENANT OR OATH?
1.  Carefully review 28:9 - "yekimcha Hashem le-am kadosh
ka'asher nishba lach..." - noting its meaning and context.
     In your opinion, what 'shvu'a' [oath] is Moshe
Rabbeinu
referring to in this pasuk?  Also, does the word 'ki' in
the
second half of the pasuk imply 'when', 'for' or 'because'?
  How does the first half of 28:9 relate to the second
half of
that pasuk?  How does this 'promise' relate to the main
speech
of Sefer Devarim (i.e. chapters 5 thru 26).
  To help you answer the above questions, review 5:1 and
26:16-
19 (i.e. the 'bookends' of the main speech), as well as
7:6-9
& 14:1-2.  Based on those psukim, what is the connection
between becoming an 'am kadosh' and the 'oath'?  How does
this
relate to 'brit avot' as well?
     Can you explain why the Torah would refer to a 'brit'
as
an 'oath'?  [Relate to Breishit 24:7 in contrast to
Breishit
15:18!]

2.  As you review 26:16-19 once again (i.e. the conclusion
of
the main speech that began in chapter 5), note how these
psukim relate back to Ma'amad Har Sinai.  Can you explain
why?
Note both textual and thematic parallels.
     In what manner do these psukim echo the covenant
described in Shmot 19:4-6?

3.   In 26:19, note the phrase 'Ii-tehilla le-shem u-
letif'eret'.  In your opinion, whose shem [name /
reputation]
does this refer to: Am Yisrael or God Himself?
     Relate this pasuk to the Torah's description of the
garments of the kohen gadol as described in Shmot 28:2!
Whose
'tif'eret' [glory] does 28:2 refer to?
     To 'help' you answer this question, read Yirmiyahu
13:1-
11, noting especially the phrase 'le-shem ve-litehilla'
ve-
tif'eret' and its context in 13:11!
     To strengthen this point, see also Yirmiyahu 33:7-9.
     In your opinion, could Yirmiyahu's prophecy in
chapter 13
be considered as a type of interpretation of Devarim
26:19?
     Can you explain why this would help explain why God
decided that it was necessary to destroy the Bet
ha'Mikdash?

4.  Review I Divrei Ha-aymim 22:5-7, which describes David
ha-
melech's charge to his son Shlomo - that he build the bet
ha'Mikdash.  Then, read also Divrei Ha-yamim 29:10-13 -
David's speech to Bnei Yisrael regarding the bet
ha'Mikdash
and its purpose!
  [In case you didn't recognize them, you say these last
four
  psukim every day in psukei de-zimra!  Hopefully, now
you'll
  understand them a little bit better.]

  Relate these psukim in Divrei Ha-yamim to the theme of
'ha-
makom asher yivchar Hashem' in the main speech of Sefer
Devarim, and its connection to the concluding psukim in
26:16-
19.
     [Note as well Yeshayahu 66:12-14.]

     As usual, relate your answer to the theme of the main
speech, the concept of 'shem Hashem', and the purpose of
the
'bechira' of Am Yisrael.
     Relate your answer to Yeshayahu 42:5-6, which just so
happen to be the opening two psukim of the Haftara for
Parshat
Breishit!

"KEL ELYON". And / or "AM ELYON"
1.  Review once again 26:19, this time noting the opening
phrase "u-letitcha elyon al kol ha-goyim" [lit. "to put
you
'above' the other nations"].  In your opinion, what is the
precise meaning of 'elyon' in this pasuk, and how does
this
promise relate to these concluding remarks in 26:16-19?
     Based on this pasuk, does it seem as though the
purpose
of these mitzvot are to make Am Yisrael 'better' than
everyone
else?  If so, why; and how would this relate to the
underlying
theme of the mitzvot of the main speech?

2.  Next, review Devarim 4:5-8.  How (and why) do (and
should)
these psukim relate to the above question?  [If you are
not
sure, relate to 4:1-2 and 5:1-3.]
  Then, study 28:1-14, noting the parallel between these
psukim (and their context) and 26:16-19.  [Try first on
your
own; afterward, be sure that you found the textual &
thematic
parallels to just about every word in 28:1 and 28:9-10.]
     Note as well the parallel between 28:10-14 and 4:1-8!
     Based on these parallels, what would be the deeper
meaning and purpose of becoming 'elyon'?

3.  Now, review Breishit 14:18-22 and its context, noting
how
Malki Tzedek (and later Avraham Avinu) refers to God as
'kel
elyon'.  Can you explain the deeper meaning of this name,
especially within the context of Sefer Breishit?
     Could one suggest any thematic connection between
this
Biblical name of God as the 'Kel elyon' and the Torah's
use of
'elyon' in Devarim 26:19?  Relate your answer to the
sources
quoted in the above questions!

SELECTIVE CURSES
1.  In 27:15-25, we find a list of 11 curses for those who
do
not obey any one of a list of specific mitzvot.  Review
those
specific cases, and attempt to find any 'common
denominator'
that makes these mitzvot unique (i.e. in contrast to other
mitzvot of the Torah).  [If you have ample time, note how
the
different commentators dealt with this question.]
     How do these warning relate to transgressions that
are
usually done in private, and why would that relate to the
need
for these curses.  [Relate as well to 29:28.]

2. Review 27:15-25 once again, and attempt to identify the
first time that each of these mitzvot had been mentioned
earlier in Chumash.  [For example, compare 27:19 with
Shmot
23:6-9 and Devarim 19:14. and 27:20-23 with Vayikra
18:6-22.]
     When your list is complete, see if you can identify
any
pattern, or if there certain Parshiot in Chumash from
where we
find most of these mitzvot?  If so, can you explain why?

3.  Finally, review Devarim 27:26, noting how this is the
twelfth curse, yet it doesn't deal with a specific
transgression, but rather with a very general one.   In
your
opinion, what does the phrase 'kol ha-Torah ha-zot' refer
to?
[In other words, what does the word Torah in this pasuk
refer
to?]
  Would (and should) the word Torah relate in any manner
to
the mitzvot of the main speech of Sefer Devarim?  [In your
answer, relate to 4:8, 4:44-45, 27:1-3 and 27:8!  How do
these
blessings (or curses) relate to those mitzvot?
     How would this observation relate to your answer to
the
above question regarding the original source of the
mitzvot
mentioned in the first eleven 'curses'?
     What common type of mitzvot do we find in both
Parshat
Mishpatim and Parshat Kedoshim that are similar to the
mitzvot
that we find in the 'chukim u-mishpatim' section of Sefer
Devarim?

A COMMANDMENT - OR A PROMISE?
1. Review 27:9-10.  Why are the people told that
specifically
on this day they have 'become a nation for their God'?
Were
they not already a nation when they came out of Egypt?
     In your answer - relate to the mitzvot of the main
speech!

2. In your opinion, is 27:10 a commandment or a promise;
and
how does it relate to 27:9?  [See Seforno!]

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION
  [for shiur on Mikra Bikkurim and the Haggada]
1.  Carefully review the first ten psukim of the Parsha
(i.e.
26:1-10).  In your opinion (and based on these psukim), is
the
purpose of the mitzva of bikkurim to thank God for our
first
fruits, or are we 'using' our first fruits to thank God
for
giving us the Land?  [Be sure that you understand this
question before you attempt to answer it.]
     In your answer, try to explain the underlying reason
for
each line of the declaration in 'mikra bikkurim', from
26:5-9.
     Can you explain the necessity to mention God's
covenant
with the Avot in 26:3 and how it relates to 26:5-7?

2.  Which specific covenant (and oath) does 26:3 refer to?
In your answer, relate to Breishit chapter 15; noting the
parallel between Breishit 15:13-18 and Devarim 26:5-9.
Note
as well the Torah's use of the word 'yerusha' in Breishit
chapter 15.  Relate this to the same word in Devarim 26:1!

3.  Note the word 'higgadeti' and the entire opening
phrase of
'higgadeti ha-yom l-Hashem Elokecha ki...' (see 26:3) -
i.e.
the opening pronouncement when one presents his bikkurim.
How
does the declaration relate to what is stated later in
26:5-7.
  Compare these psukim to Shmot 13:8 and its context,
noting
once again the word 'higgadeti'!
     Based on this comparison (and you answer to the above
questions), can you explain why we quote specifically
these
psukim in the maggid section of the haggada?
     Is there a thematic reason as well?

4.  Quickly review chapter 26 (especially the end of the
perek), and the first few psukim of chapter 27.  While
doing
so, note the change from first person (in chapter 26) to
third
person in 27:1!  [Recall our explanation that this change
indicates that the main speech, which began in chapter 5,
now
finishes here at the end of chapter 26.
  Then, carefully review 26:16-19.  Explain how and why
these
psukim 'conclude' the main speech.  How (and why) do these
psukim relate to Shmot 19:3-6, noting how Shmot chapter 19
introduces Ma'amad Har Sinai.
  Based on the setting of the main speech of Sefer Devarim
(see introductory shiur), what is the significance of this
parallel?  Relate this to the purpose of the mitzvot of
Sefer
Devarim.

5.  Recall the theme of ha-makom asher yivchar Hashem,
that
was developed in chapters 12-17.  Review 26:1-2, noting
how
this topic returns once again!
     In your opinion, would it not have been more logical
for
the Torah to have included this mitzva within that
section?
  Review as well Devarim 14:28-29 (regarding the topic of
'ma'aser ani' in the third year), and then note how this
relates to the laws of 'viddui ma'aser' that are detailed
now
in 26:12-15.
  Would it not have made more sense to include these laws
in
26:12-15 back in chapter 14?
     Do these two mitzvot (mikra bikkurim & viddui
ma'asrot
share anything in common?
     [Relate to 'declarations' of any type found in
Chumash.]
  Can you suggest any reason why the Torah may have
preferred
to 'save them' for the conclusion of the main speech?

THE CEREMONY AT HAR EIVAL
6.  Review chapter 27, noting how it describes a ceremony
that
is to take place at Har Eival (after Bnei Yisrael cross
into
Eretz Canaan).  Review especially 27:1-8, and based on
those
psukim, explain how (and why) this ceremony relates to the
main speech in Sefer Devarim (i.e. chapters 5-26)?

7.  Compare the national gathering and ceremony described
in
27:1-8 to the events at Ma'amad Har Sinai, as detailed in
Shmot 24:3-10.  Note the rather obvious textual and
thematic
parallels.
     What is similar, and what is different?
     Can you explain the reason for (and significance) of
this
parallel?  [As usual, relate to topic of the main speech.]

8.  Later on in Sefer Devarim (see 31:9-13), we find the
ceremony of hakhel that is to take place once every seven
years.  Compare the details of that ceremony to the
ceremony
at Har Eival.  What is similar and what is different?
     Can this help you understand the reason for hakhel?

9.  NOTE THE 'tochacha' which follows in chapter 28.  Can
you
explain how it relates to chapter 27, and to the main
speech
of Sefer Devarim?  [Relate to 28:1 and 28:15.]
     Return to the parallel (noted above) between the
ceremony
at Har Eival and the ceremony at Har Sinai in Shmot
24:3-10.
Did you find any parallel in Devarim to the 'sefer
ha-brit'
that was read in public (see Shmot 24:7)?
     If not, can you explain why?
     Review the tochacha once again, noting its final
pasuk
(at the end of chapter 28).  Does this explain the
'missing
link'?  How does this parallel help you understand the
reason
for the tochacha after the main speech in Sefer Devarim?

10.  In relation to a tochacha that follows a lengthy set
of
mitzvot, in what manner is this tochacha in Parshat Ki
Tavo
similar to the tochacha in Sefer Vayikra (chapter 26 /
Parshat
Bechukotai)?
     Note how each tochacha is similar and how they are
different.  Can you relate the differences to the
corresponding theme of each book?
     For example, why does the tochacha in Bechukotai warn
about the destruction of the mikdash, while the tochacha
in Ki
Tavo warns about exile from the Land?

PART III - PARSHANUT
1.  In 27:1, Moshe commands Bnei Yisrael to 'keep this
entire
mitzva that I am commanding your today'.
     In your opinion, according to pshat, what mitzva is
Moshe
Rabbeinu referring to: 1) the mitzvot of the main speech;
     or  2) the mitzva which follows (i.e. 27:2-4)?
     [In other words, is it going backwards or forwards?]
Now, see Ibn Ezra and Ramban!
     What is the reason for this dispute?

2.  Next, see 27:3.  Note that Bnei Yisrael are instructed
to
write down 'et kol divrei ha-Torah ha-zot...'.  In your
opinion, what specifically does the word Torah in this
pasuk
refer to?
 *   to the entire Torah (all five books)?
 *   just Sefer Devarim? [Relate to 1:5 and 4:44.]
 *   or, just the 'brachot u-klalot' in 27:11-26 / and /
or
chp.28?

Again, see Ibn Ezra & Ramban (his entire peirush to this
pasuk!)
Finally, see 27:8.  What is the meaning of the word
'torah' in
this pasuk?    See Rashbam's explanation of what was
written.

3.  In your opinion, what does 'be'er heitev' mean (see
27:8)?
     See Rashi & Ibn Ezra.
     In your opinion, which peirush is pshat, and which is
drash?
     Can you suggest a reason for this drash?
     Relate to 26:16-19 & Shmot 19:5-6 (& Breishit
chap.10).
    [try also Breishit 12:1-3!]

4.  Note that we find twelve curses in 27:15-26.  Can you
explain why there are specifically twelve?  Relate to the
number of tribes who witness these curses in 27:11-14.
     Then see Rashbam's peirush on 27:15.

5.  Note as well how the tribes are divided into two
groups of
six each in 27:11-3.  Can you find any logic in this
division?
If so, how does it relate to the blessing and curse?
     See Ibn Ezra and Chizkuni on 27:12.

                              be-hatzlacha,
                              menachem


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kitavoq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 30756 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090901/3561321f/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Sep  3 04:27:02 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 04:27:02 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Parshat Kitavo - shiur
Message-ID: <000001ca2c70$50747850$f15d68f0$@net>

**********************************************************
***
     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.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kitavo1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 50250 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090903/666a4520/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue Sep  8 09:43:56 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 09:43:56 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Nitzavim-Vayelech- questions for self study
Message-ID: <006201ca308a$69ae9670$3d0bc350$@net>

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

              PARSHAT NITZAVIM & VAYELECH

PARSHAT NITZAVIM
PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

>From BRIT SINAI to BRIT NITZAVIM
1.  Review the first pasuk of the Sedra (i.e. 29:9),
noting
the meaning of the word 'nitzavim'.  What is the 'shoresh'
[root] of this word, and why do you think that Moshe
Rabbeinu
chose this word to describe this 'setting'?
     In your opinion, does the noun 'matzeva' [a monument]
stem from the same root?  If so, explain why.
     Now, review the opening psukim of Parshat Vayetze
(Breishit 28:10-22), noting the Torah's use of both the
verb
'nitzav' and noun matzeva.  Based on their context, can
you
find a thematic connection between these two Parshiot?

2.  Next, review 29:9-14 once again, this time noting how
Moshe Rabbeinu's opening statement of 'atem nitzavim'
relates
directly to the covenant ['brit'] that he describes in
29:11.
In fact, note how all the details in 29:9-14 relate to
this
brit.
What is the purpose of this brit, and how does it relate
to
earlier covenants convened between God and Am Yisrael
(that
were mentioned earlier in Chumash; e.g. brit avot & brit
Sinai)?
     Now, review 28:69 in its context.  How do 29:9-14
relate
to the brit described in Parshat Ki Tavo?
     In your opinion, does 'brit Nitzavim' relate to the
main
speech of Sefer Devarim?  If so, how (and why)?  In your
answer, be sure to relate to the pasuk: "in order that you
be
His nation, and He will be your God - as He spoke to you,
and
as He swore to Avraham..." (29:12).  [Be sure to relate to
Devarim 26:16-19 and its context.]
     Make sure that you can explain every phrase of that
pasuk!  In other words, where in Chumash had God already
given
this message to Bnei Yisrael, and likewise, where (and
when)
did He explain this to the avot?
     Finally, in your answer, be sure to relate to the
phrase
'lihiyot lachem l-Elokim' / see Breishit 17:1-9, Shmot
6:2-8 &
19:3-6, Vayikra 26:12 and its context.
          [See also Yirmiyahu 11:1-5!]

3.  With this background, review Shmot 24:3-8, i.e. the
details of the covenantal ceremony that took place when
Bnei
Yisrael first declared 'na'aseh ve-nishma' (forty years
earlier at Ma'amad Har Sinai).
     Note as well the numerous parallels between that
ceremony
and the covenant described in Devarim 27:1-8, 28:69 &
29:9-11.
Can you explain why there is a need for 'another' covenant
specifically at this time in Jewish History, and how it
relates to the original covenant convened at Ma'amad Har
Sinai?
     Did you find a parallel to the twelve monuments
('matzevot') that are described in Shmot 24:4, and to the
'leadership group' described in Shmot 24:1 & 9?
  [In case you didn't notice this yet,] relate to Moshe's
  statement of 'atem nitzavim' in Devarim 29:9 and the
  continuation of the pasuk that includes 'kol ish
Yisrael'.
  Can you find significance in both what is similar and
what
  is different in this parallel?

4.  Finally, study the first ten lines of the Ramban on
29:9.
Even though he doesn't mention this parallel explicitly,
note
how his commentary relates to this parallel, alluded to in
the
above questions.  [If you have time, see also the second
section of the lengthy Ramban on Vayikra 25:1, beginning
with
'lefi da'ati...' where he explains] why 'brachot & klalot'
became a necessity in the second brit.]

MILAT HA-LEV
5.  Review 30:1-10 (i.e. 'parshat ha-teshuva') paying
special
attention to the phrase 've-mal Hashem et levavcha ve-et
levav
zar'echa' (30:6).  In your opinion, why does the Torah use
the
verb of 'mila' to explain how Hashem will help us do
teshuva?
     Can you relate this to covenant of 'brit mila' (see
Breishit 17:7-11) as well as to the physical action of
circumcision?

6.  Now, see Ramban on this pasuk (30:6).  Note how Ramban
uses this pasuk to explain how life in 'messianic times'
will
be different!  [This Ramban is quite long, but worth the
effort.  It is also worthwhile to see Ramban on Vayikra
26:12.]
     Afterward, see the commentary of Ibn Ezra & Seforno
to
30:6.  How (and why) are their commentaries different than
Ramban's?

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for shiur)
1.  Note how Parshat Nitzavim is actually part of an
additional speech given by Moshe Rabbeinu that began with
29:1
(i.e. at the end of Parshat Ki Tavo).  Be sure you study
the
speech itself, be sure to verify this, and attempt to
identify
as well precisely where this speech ends.
     Then, study the contents of this speech, and attempt
to
identify its purpose, as well as its thematic connection
to
the Tochacha in chapter 28?
     Based on your answer, suggest a reason why Chazal may
have preferred to begin the Sedra of Nitzavim with 29:9
instead of from where the speech actually began in 29:1.

2.  Recall how the 'tochacha' in Parshat Ki Tavo (i.e.
chapter
28) explains how Am Yisrael can expect reward for
following
Hashem, and punishment for disobeying Him.  In your
opinion,
could (theoretically) an individual have the right to
'back
out' of the covenant - saying - 'I don't want neither the
reward, nor the punishment'?
     In your answer, relate to Devarim 29:13-20,
especially to
29:18!
     Relate also to Yirmiyahu 7:21-28, especially 7:24.
          See also Yirmiyahu 11:1-10, especially 11:8.
     Use this to explain why chapter 29 follows chapter
28.

3.  Note that the psukim in 30:1-10 form a 'parshia'.
What is
basic message of this parshia, and how does it relate the
warnings of the tochacha that were described back in
chapter
28?
     How does this parshia (30:1-10) relate to the primary
themes of the main speech of Sefer Devarim?  Towards what
purpose does God promise that Am Yisrael will ultimately
return to their land (and God)?

4.  Similarly, note how 30:11-14 also forms a distinct
parshia.  Attempt to identify its main point, and (as
above)
how it relates to the main speech of Sefer Devarim.  Can
you
explain why this message is given at this point?

5.  Finally, note how 30:15-20 also forms a parshia.
Compare
the main points of this parshia to the Gan Eden narrative
in
Sefer Breishit (chapters 2->3).  What is the most obvious
parallel between these psukim and the story of Gan Eden?
     What does this parallel suggest concerning the
connection
between God's placement of Bnei Yisrael in the Land of
Israel
and story of Gan Eden?

6.  Relate this parallel to Mishlei 3:18, noting
especially
the overall context from 3:1-18.
     Relate this pasuk as well to Breishit 3:24 & Shmot
25:21-
22!
     Note how this parshia concludes Moshe Rabbeinu's
'concluding' speech that began in 29:1.
     Can you explain why this forms an appropriate
conclusion
not only for this speech, but also for this entire section
of
Sefer Devarim?


PART III - PARSHANUT
1.  In 29:9-10, we find a lengthy list of the types of
people
who will now enter into this covenant.  Take a careful
look at
this list and attempt to determine the logic of its order.
In
your opinion, does each category refer to a specific group
of
people, or are some of them more general categories
(followed
by sub-categories)?
     In your opinion, does the word 'ish' in 'kol ish
Yisrael'
refer to 'everyone'; only the males; only the male adults;
or
only to the important people?
     Explain what you base your answer upon.
     Finally, in your opinion, are the 'chotvei etzim'
[wood
choppers] and 'sho'avei mayim' [water carriers] Jewish?
On
what do you base your answer?  Can you explain why
specifically these two professions are mentioned?  [Do
these
names ring a bell?]
     With these questions in mind, see the following
commentators:
     First, see Rashi on 29:10
     How (and why) does Rashi reach this conclusion about
these converts?  Is it based primarily upon 'pshat' in
Nitzavim, or based on the parallel 'professions' found in
Sefer Yehoshua?

Next, see Chizkuni on 29:10 -
     How does he explain these two 'professions'?
     Would you say that he agrees with Rashi that they are
converts?

Then, see Seforno on 29:10-
     Note how he compares this to I Shmuel 15:3.
     In what manner is his peirush totally different than
Rashi's?
     How does the local context of these psukim support
Seforno?

Now, see Ibn Ezra on 29:9-10
     What is his conclusion concerning the order.
     How does this conclusion affect his understanding of
the
word 'rasheichem'?
     [Note that Rashi offers a similar peirush on 29:9.]

Finally, see Ramban on 29:9-10 (in the middle- starting
'rasheichem..').
     How does Ramban explain the order of this pasuk?
     How does this differ from Ibn Ezra, and how does this
affect his interpretation of each of these words?  [Note
Ramban's 'klal u-prat' approach.]
     Finally, how is Ramban's suggestion that the 'wood-
choppers' were from the 'erev rav' different from Rashi's
interpretation?  Can you explain the reason for this?
What
assumption (that isn't written) must each commentator make
to
explain his opinion?

2.  Review, 29:28, noting the phrase 'ha-nistarot l-Hashem
Elokeinu...'.  In your opinion, what 'nistarot' [hidden
things] is this pasuk referring to?
     Is it what Hashem does in hidden ways?
     Is it what we do in hidden ways?
     Are they things that God may hide from us, but known
to
Him?
     or possibly something else?

     Furthermore, how does this final pasuk relate to the
entire perek which precedes it?
     In your opinion, which explanation seems most
accurate?

     After considering these questions, see (as usual)
Rashi,
Ibn
Ezra, Ramban [note how and why he may argue with Ibn
Ezra],
Rashbam, Chizkuni, and Seforno [on 29:8].
     Do any of these commentators offer the same
interpretation?
     After you have understood each interpretation,
attempt to
explain why there are so many different opinions.
     Be sure to note Targum Unkelos, as noted by Ramban at
the
conclusion of his peirush on 29:28.

3.  See Rashi on 30:19, noting how he offers two different
reasons for why specifically the 'shamayim va-aretz' were
chosen as 'testimony'.
     Explain the difference between these two
interpretations.
[Can you relate this to 'yir'at Hashem' & 'ahavat
Hashem'?]
     How does Rashi's peirush relate to 'shirat Ha'azinu'
(see
32:1)?  How does 30:19, in its context relate to shirat
Ha'azinu?
     See also Chizkuni on 30:19.  Which of Rashi's two
peirushim is his peirush more similar to?
     Can you explain why he supports his peirush
specifically
from the Tochacha in Vayikra 26:3-4, and then from Devarim
11:17?

     Can you suggest an additional reason why the Torah,
towards its conclusion, relates to shamayim va-aretz
(based on
Breishit 1:1, 2:4)?

=============================================

     PARSHAT VAYELECH / Questions for self-study

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

TO WHOM DO WE PASS THE TORCH?
1.  In 31:9, Moshe Rabbeinu gives the Sefer Torah (after
it is
written), specifically to the Levites ['bnei Levi'] and to
the
elders.
     Can you explain the reason for this?
     Be sure to relate to 33:10, 17:9-11 & 18:3-5.
     Note also Nechemia 8:7-9!  [In regard to when this
event
took place, see 8:1!]
     See also Ibn Ezra on Devarim 31:9!
     Relate this to the underlying reason for why God
chose
'shevet Levi', and for why they did not receive their own
'nachala' in the land.

THE REASON FOR SHIRAT HA'AZINU
2.  Did you ever notice that Parshat Vayelech explains the
reason for the 'shira' in Parshat Ha'azinu?
     If not, carefully read 31:16-30.  Based on these
psukim,
be sure that you understand the purpose of shirat
Ha'azinu.
Then, review that shira and see how its details fulfill
that
purpose.
  [This counts as a question for next week as well, but it
is
  expecially appropriate for Shabbat Shuva.]
  
     To the best of your recollection, is it a mitzva to
learn
shirat Ha'azinu by heart (and understand it)?  Relate your
answer to 31:19.  See also Parshanut section below
(question
#2).

FROM CHUMASH TO NVIIM
3.  Review 31:1-8, and then compare these psukim with the
first ten psukim of Sefer Yehoshua.  How do these psukim
help
you better appreciate the manner in which Sefer Yehoshua
begins?
     How does the remainder of chapter 31, especially
31:16-
21, relate to other chapters in 'Nevi'im Rishonim'?

HAKHEL & BRIT SINAI
4.  Review the mitzva of hakhel and its various details as
described in 31:7-13.  Then compare these details to the
detailed description of the ceremony at Ma'amad Har Sinai
(when Bnei Yisrael declared 'na'aseh ve-nishma') as
described
in Shmot 24:1-11.
     Can you explain the reason for these parallels?
     Review the story in Yehoshua 8:30-35, as well as the
original commandment to perform this ceremony, as
described in
Devarim 27:1-8.  In your opinion, did Yehoshua follow that
commandment exactly as he should have?  How does the story
in
Yehoshua help us understand the commandment in Devarim?
     Why is Yehoshua commanded to teach Bnei Yisrael the
Torah
on Har Eival, and to conduct this ceremony at the same
time?
In what manner is that ceremony parallel to the ceremony
of
hakhel?
     What do these parallels suggest in regard to the
purpose
of
the mitzva of hakheL, and why is this important?


PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
1.  Review Parshat Vayelech, making note of all the
various
times when God commands Moshe to write something down.
Make a
list of each instance, and note what is to be written and
why.
     [Be sure to note 31:9-11,19,22,24-25,30 in their
context.]

2.  Be sure to see the various opinions of the
commentators on
all of the above psukim.  Note the wide range of opinions
concerning specifically what Sefer Torah Moshe Rabbeinu
wrote
down, and what 'torah' is to be read at hakhel etc.  Can
you
explain the reason for this wide range of opinions?

3.  If 31:9 refers to the entire Torah, then how could
this
pasuk be included in the Torah itself?  How does Ramban
answer
this question?  [Note Rashi as well.]

4.  In regard to what was read at hakhel, see Rashi 31:11
and
Masechet Sota 41a.

5.  Based on 31:19, can you explain why there is a
separate
mitzva to write down specifically the 'shira'?

PART III - PARSHANUT
1.  Read the first pasuk of Parshat Vayelech (31:1).
     How did you understand 'va-yelech Moshe...' - in
other
words: to where did Moshe go?  Where was he beforehand?
     How does knowing 'where Moshe went' relate to the
content
of what Moshe says in the psukim which follow?
     [In your answer, relate to 31:7 as well!]

a.   See Ramban.  How does he answer the above questions?
Why
does he relate this to what happened in Parshat Nitzavim?

b.   See Ibn Ezra.  Note how (based on this pasuk) he
changes
the chronological order of events from the order in which
they
are recorded.  Can you follow his reasoning?
     In what way is Ibn Ezra's approach different than
Ramban's?
     Can you explain why Ramban doesn't agree with Ibn
Ezra?

c.   Now, see Chizkuni!  How is his peirush similar to
Ramban,
and in what way is it very different?
     How does Chizkuni relate this pasuk to the events
which
take place from chapter 31-34?  [Would you consider this
approach 'realistic' or Midrashic'?]

d.   Finally, see Seforno.  In what manner is his peirush
totally different than all of the above?!
          [Do you think that 31:7 affected his peirush?]
     In your opinion, how strong are his proofs from Shmot
2:1
and Devarim 17:3?  Can 'vayelech' in those psukim be
explained
in a different manner?
     How does Seforno relate this pasuk to Parshat
Nitzavim?

2.  Review 31:19, noting that God's commandment is given
in
plural.  Can you explain why?  Afterward:
     See Ibn Ezra.  How does he explain the reason for the
plural?
     According to Ibn Ezra, is this also a mitzva for
future
generations to learn this shira by heart?
     Next, see Ramban.  How does he answer the above
questions?
     On what point does he disagree with Ibn Ezra?
     Finally, see Chizkuni.  What point does he add?
     Would you say that he agrees or disagrees with
Ramban?

                              be-hatzlacha,
                              menachem

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: nitzvylq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 36516 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090908/2752ce02/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Sep  9 02:50:05 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 02:50:05 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Parshat Nitzavim
Message-ID: <006101ca3119$c330d020$49927060$@net>

**********************************************************
***
     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 Ramban 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 Ramban 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.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: nitz.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 64911 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090909/12ad8790/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Sep  9 13:38:34 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 13:38:34 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Va'yelech
Message-ID: <004f01ca3174$5e294210$1a7bc630$@net>

**********************************************************
***
        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?



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayel1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 31398 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090909/313afc88/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Sep 10 16:03:37 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:03:37 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] For Selichot - 13 midot ha'rachamim
Message-ID: <001101ca3251$c9ed6ac0$5dc84040$@net>

A version of the following shiur in power point is
available at
   www.tanach.org/special/13mid.ppt


**********************************************************
**
     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' .

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 13mid.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 62833 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090910/41b9239c/attachment-0001.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 13mid.ppt
Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint
Size: 167424 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090910/41b9239c/attachment-0001.ppt 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Sep 14 14:26:43 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:26:43 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Haazinu - questions for self study
Message-ID: <007301ca3568$ea1c13e0$be543ba0$@net>

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

PARSHAT  HAAZINU

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE' 

BARUCH HU U-VARUCH SHMO 
1.  We are all familiar with the custom of answering
'baruch Hu, u-varuch shmo' whenever we hear a 'bracha' of
'baruch ata Hashem'. 
    Are you aware of the source for this custom? 
    In case you aren't, first - attempt to understand the
meaning of the statement baruch hu u-varuch shmo'. 
Then, read the opening three lines of 'shirat Ha'azinu"
(32:1-3), paying special attention to 32:3! 
    As you can translate 32:3, be sure that you understand
its context.  Relate this pasuk to the above question. 
    Then, see Rashi on 32:3.  According to Rashi, how
would he have answered the above questions?  See also the
commentaries of Rashbam & Seforno on 32:3. 
    Finally, see Mishna Brura - Hilchot Tefilla 124#5 note
22. 

'BRICKS or LADDERS' 
2.  Note the 'style' of shirat Ha'azinu as it appears in a
Sefer Torah, i.e. the 'ladder'-like manner in which its
psukim are written.  Then, compare that style to the style
of shirat ha-yam, i.e. Shmot chapter 15.  Similarly
compare these styles to the styles of: 
    shirat ha-melachim in Yehoshua chapter 12, 
    shirat Devora in Shoftim chapter 5, and 
    shirat David in Shmuel II chapter 22. 
    
    Notice how we find two types of 'style' in this
regard.  Can you relate the 'style' of each shira to its
content? 
    Can you explain how these 'songs' relate to key events
in Jewish history? 

SHIRAT HA'AZINU & NEVI'IM 
3.  Compare the opening two psukim of Sefer Yeshayahu with
the opening pasuk of shirat Ha'azinu. 
    In your opinion, is Yeshayahu using this parallel to
the opening lines of shirat Haazinu for simply 'poetic'
reasons, or does this carry thematic significance as well?

    In your answer, relate to both the primary theme of
shirat Ha'azinu and the primary message of Yeshayahu's
prophecy. 
    [See Chizkuni on 32:1!] 

4.  Compare 32:36 [and its context] with II Melachim
14:23-28, especially 14:26!
    Would you say that the navi's use of the phrase 'efes
atzur ve-efes azuv' is intentional?  Relate this to the
prosperity which Israel enjoys during the time period of
Yerov'am ben Yoash. 
    Note the mention of the prophet Yona ben Amitai in
Melachim II 14:25!  In your opinion, is this the same
prophet Yona of Trei Asar (that we read for Maftir on Yom
Kippur)? 
    If so, can you relate this prophecy to that Sefer? 

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur) 
1.  Review 31:14-30, noting how these psukim form the
introduction to "shirat Ha'azinu" - which follows in
chapter 32. 
    Noting especially 31:17-21 and 31:28, according to
these psukim, what should be the primary purpose of shirat
Ha'azinu?  
    How will 'knowing this song' help Am Yisrael cope with
(and resolve) future situations of distress? 

2.  Next, review the opening psukim of the shira (i.e.
32:1-9).  In your opinion, which psukim serve as an
'introduction', and what pasuk actually begins the shira
itself?
[In other words, after the introduction, what pasuk[im]
serves as its 'opening statement'?] 

    Relate this 'opening statement' to your answer to the
above question.  Could you consider 32:7 as another type
of 'opening statement'?  Can you explain its thematic
importance as well?  How does it relate to 32:4-6?

3.  Now, study the remainder of shirat Ha'azinu, and try
to divide it into clear units. 
    In addition to translating each pasuk, attempt to
follow its theme and flow by identifying the primary topic
of each unit.  Be sure to relate this theme to your answer
to the above questions (and to the topic of its
introduction in 31:17-21). 
    Be sure to see Ramban & Seforno on 31:17. 
[Do these commentaries support your conclusions?] 

4.  Finally, review the concluding psukim: 32:44-47.  How
does 32:44-45 relate to 31:14-30? 
    In your opinion, does 31:46-47 relate only to the
shira or to the entire book of Devarim (or possibly to the
entire Torah)?  Relate to the word 'ha-devarim' in 32:46
and to the simple pshat of 32:47 (compare w/5:28-6:3). 
    Based on these psukim, explain the thematic connection
between shirat Ha'azinu and the main speech of Sefer
Devarim. 

5.  Note Chizkuni on 42:44. 
    Then see Ibn Ezra on 42:44.  Relate this to Ibn Ezra
on 31:1. 

PART III - PARSHANUT 

B'ETZEM HA'YOM HA'ZEH
1.  Note the phrase 'be-etzem ha-yom ha-zeh' in 32:48. 
Compare with Breishit 7:13 and Shmot 12:51. 
Can you find a thematic connection between these three
psukim and their context? 
    See Rashi on 42:48. 

BACK TO BREISHIT
2.  In relation to the Torah's use of the phrase 'shamayim
va-aretz' in 32:1, relate 32:1 to 30:19, 31:28, and
11:10-17. 
Then, see Rashi & Rashbam on 32:1, noting how these psukim
can help you appreciate their commentary. 
Can you explain why they both quote 11:17. 
See also Rashi on 30:19! 
[See also Ibn Ezra & Chizkuni on 32:1.  In what manner are
their commentaries different than Rashi's?] 

    Now see Ramban on 32:1.  Relate to Ramban on 30:19! 
Note how his peirush differs with Rashi's. 
    Can you explain what Ramban considers 'derech
ha-pshat' and 'derech ha-emet' in this regard? 
    What is the difference between them in approach?  In
your opinion, do these two approaches contradict or
complement one another? 

IBN EZRA & OLAM HA'BAH
3, Review 32:39, noting God's statement regarding life and
death.  Which comes first in this pasuk [life or death]?
Can you explain why?
	Then see commentary of Ibn Ezra on "amit v'achya"
in the middle of his commentary on 32:39.  Note how he
quotes opinions that this pasuk, along with several
others, indicates that there must be a world to come.  
	Note how Ibn Ezra himself relates to that proof,
and how he offers his own explanation in regard to the
existence of a 'world to come', and how one achieves that
reward.
	How can this Ibn Ezra help you appreciate why the
Ibn Ezra himself was so dedicated to Torah study?
    
    
    be-hatzlacha, 
menachem 



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: haazq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 21687 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090914/62571bf5/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Sep 14 23:10:15 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:10:15 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] ROSH HA'SHANA - questions for self study
Message-ID: <009f01ca35b2$1298b910$37ca2b30$@net>

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

for ROSH HASHANA

ROSH HA'SHANA  - ACCORDING TO THE TORAH
1.  In Chumash, there are only a very few psukim that
describe the holiday that we refer to as Rosh Hashana:
    a) In Parshat Emor / Vayikra 23:23-25
 	b) In Parshat Pinchas / Bamidbar 29:1-6
After reviewing those psukim, and based on them alone,
answer the following questions:
    What is the biblical name of (what we call) Rosh
Hashana?
    On what day is this holiday to be celebrated?
    What are the special 'mitzvot' of this holiday? 
    Which of these mitzvot are common to all of the other
holidays in Emor and Pinchas, and which of these mitzvot
are unique for Rosh Hashana?
Based on these sources alone, is there any reason why this
holiday should be called 'rosh hashana' [the New Year}?

2.  Based on these psukim alone, does the Torah provide
any reason for celebrating this holiday?  Is there any
apparent or implied reason for this holiday, or for any of
its mitzvot? 
    Does Parshat Emor (or Parshat Pinchas) provide a
reason for the celebration of any of the other holidays?
If not, are there any apparent or implied reasons for
their celebration?  
    [If so, explain what they are.]
    In Parshat Emor, we told that this holiday should be a
'zichron tru'a', while Parshat Pinchas tells us that it
should be a 'yom tru'a'.  Can you explain what these terms
imply?  In your answer, relate to Bamidbar 10:1-10, noting
especially 10:9. 
    In your opinion, does "zichron tru'a" imply the same
concept as "yom tru'a"?    Is there any obvious reason why
this day should be a "yom tru'a"?    Assuming that these
psukim (in Pinchas & Emor) were the only sources - how
would you expect for this holiday to be celebrated?
    
3.  Next, review the next set of psukim in Emor & Pinchas
that describe Yom Kippur. i.e. 
    a) Vayikra 23:26-32 and  b) Bamidbar 29:7-11.
Based on these sources alone, does there appear to be any
obvious or implied connection between the holidays of Rosh
Hashana and Yom Kippur?
    In your answer, relate to the words 'ach' and 'zeh' in
Vayikra 23:27, and  Bamidbar 29:7.  [Note as well the
Torah's use of the word "zeh" in 23:34, and the word "ach"
in 23:39.  If there is a relationship, what would that
be?]
    Is there any explicit or assumed reason for why Yom
Kippur is celebrated specifically on the tenth of Tishrei?

4.  Next, review the Torah's presentation of both Sukkot
and Shmini Atzeret in Parshat Pinchas (Bamidbar 29:12-19),
paying attention to the different korban mussaf on each
holiday. 
    Then, compare those korbanot to the korban mussaf of
Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur (see 29:1-11).  Do any of
these holidays share the same or similar korban mussaf?
If so, can you explain why?
    If certain holidays share a similar korban mussaf,
would this suggest a thematic relationship between them?
If so, what would that relationship be?  Is the any
obvious reason for why there is a need for so many
holidays in the 'seventh month'?
    
5.  In any of the above sources, is 'Rosh Hashana' ever
referred to as the new year?  If not, what is it called,
and why?
    Review Shmot 12:1-3.  How do these psukim explain the
'calendar' used to define the holidays in Emor and
Pinchas?

6.  The 'shalosh regalim' are first presented as a unit in
Shmot 23:14-17.  Review those psukim, noting the names of
those holidays, and the reason for their celebration. 
    Note how (what we call) Sukkot is referred to as 'chag
ha-asif' [a fruit gathering festival] which is to be
celebrated 'be-tzet ha-shana' [when the year goes out] /
see 23:16.  
    Can you explain what 'year' is ending with the fruit
harvest?
    What can we infer from this pasuk in regard to when
the agricultural year begins? What is the logic behind
considering this the beginning (or end) of a year?

"MATAR", Eretz Canaan, & the AGRICULTURAL YEAR
7.  See Devarim 11:10-12.  Read these psukim carefully,
noting how it relates to importance of rain for the
agriculture in the Land of Israel (in contrast to the Nile
River supplying water for the fields in Egypt).  With that
in mind, explain what the Torah refers to by the phrase
'mi-reishit ha-shana' [from the beginning in the year] in
the last pasuk that describes how God 'oversees' the rain
in this Land (see 11:12). Based on those psukim, what year
does 'reishit ha-shana' refer to?  Relate this to the
topic that follows 11:13-17!
    Based on these psukim, explain the connection between
the 'rainy season', the 'beginning of the agricultural
year', and the first day of the seventh month.
    In your opinion, could the fact that the rainy season
in the Land of Israel begins in the autumn relate to any
other holidays that the Torah tells us to celebrate in the
seventh month?
    If so, explain why.
    In what manner does the 'rainy season' determine the
fate of the forthcoming agricultural year?  Why would (or
should) this carry religious significance?

8.  Review once again Bamidbar 10:1-11.  First of all,
explain why this short 'parshia' about the 'chatzotzrot'
is located at this point in Sefer Bamidbar?  [i.e. How
does it relates to the fact the Bnei Yisrael now prepare
to leave Har Sinai and begin their journey to conquer the
land of Israel?]
    According to this parshia, what is the difference
between a 'teki'a' and tru'a.  [Note the verb used for
each, and which action each 'note' relates to.]  In your
opinion, why is specifically a tru'a sounded when going to
war (see 10:9), and a teki'a sounded on the holidays (see
10:10)?  See the commentators on these psukim (10:8-10),
especially the Ibn Ezra & Ramban!

9.  Review the following sources, noting how they describe
some sort of a "yom truah":  
    Tzfania 1:12-16,  Amos 3:6,  and Yoel 2:1-3,11-14 &
2:15-17
Based on their context, what do thing that the phrase "yom
truah" meant to people during the time of the Tanach:
    Based on these psukim, can you suggest an explanation
for what the Torah means when it instructs us to make a
'zichron tru'a' (see Vayikra 23:24) or a yom tru'a (see
Bamidbar 29:1) on the first day of the seventh month?  Can
you explain why?
    
10.  Review Vayikra 25:1-11, noting how these laws discuss
the laws of 'shmitta' and 'yovel'.  Then pay special
attention to 25:9, noting the connection between shofar,
tru'a and the 'seventh month'!  In your opinion, why does
the seven year shemitta cycle increment specifically in
the seventh month (i.e. on Yom Kippur)?  Is there an
agricultural reason for this?
    Relate this pasuk to the above questions?
    Then, see the Mishna - Masechet Rosh Hashana 33b, and
the gemara a few lines from the bottom (tanu rabbanan...)
until the bottom of 34a.  Based on that gemara, explain
how Chazal learn the laws of shofar from the psukim quoted
above.

11.  Based on the above, can you suggest a thematic
connection between Rosh Hashana & Yom Kippur?
    Is the date of Yom Kippur significant?  What important
event in the history of Am Yisrael took place on that day?
    How would this relate to the forthcoming rainy season?
    Note as well the time of year for the mitzva of Hakhel
in Devarim 31:11-12.  What does 'mo'ed shnat ha-shmitta'
refer to, and why is it during 'chag ha-Sukkot'?
    Which 'calendar' (i.e. solar or lunar) does this
relate to?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: roshq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 21277 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090914/0c07ad10/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Sep 16 14:57:05 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:57:05 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for ROSH HA'SHANA - SHIUR
Message-ID: <000901ca36ff$a26fd980$e74f8c80$@net>

**********************************************************
***
     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.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rosh1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 47822 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090916/9b98add8/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Sep 23 05:13:04 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 05:13:04 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Parshat Haazinu
Message-ID: <000e01ca3c2e$0f576b70$2e064250$@net>

**********************************************************
***
        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 15:119   "Shirat ha'Yam" 	Yetziat Mitzraim
(the Exodus)
Devarim 32:143  "Shirat Ha'azinu"	Bnei Yisrael in
the desert
Yehoshua 12:124 "Shirat Yehoshua" Defeat of the 31 kings 
Shoftim 5:131  "Shirat Devorah" 	Complete conquest
of north
Shm.II 22:151  "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 13:15. See also
18:13,23:116).

	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 31:1621)
	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 31:2830)

	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



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: haaz1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 83258 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090923/0c652d40/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Sep 23 05:17:21 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 05:17:21 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Parshat Haazinu - shiur #2
Message-ID: <001601ca3c2e$a824b2e0$f86e18a0$@net>

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

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 15:119   "Shirat ha'Yam" 	Yetziat Mitzraim
(the Exodus)
Devarim 32:143  "Shirat Ha'azinu"	Bnei Yisrael in
the desert
Yehoshua 12:124 "Shirat Yehoshua" Defeat of the 31 kings 
Shoftim 5:131  "Shirat Devorah" 	Complete conquest
of north
Shm.II 22:151  "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 13:15. See also
18:13,23:116).

	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 31:1621)
	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 31:2830)

	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


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: haaz2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 38660 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090923/2a5f0408/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Fri Sep 25 02:56:37 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:56:37 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Yom Kippur
Message-ID: <007901ca3dad$54771f90$fd655eb0$@net>

**********************************************************
***
     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.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kip1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 39575 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090925/7134533c/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Sep 28 16:04:30 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:04:30 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] v'Zot ha'bracha - Questions for self study
Message-ID: <008b01ca4076$e400d9a0$ac028ce0$@net>

**********************************************************
***
     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

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

YAD HA'CHAZAKA
1.  As you are probably aware, even though the Rambam
titled
his famous halachic work Mishneh Torah, the more popular
name
of this work is Yad Ha-chazaka.  [In his introduction to
the
Mishneh Torah, Rambam explains the reason for this name.]
  This 'alternate' name [Yad Ha-chazaka] was not given by
the
Rambam himself, but rather it became popular a generation
or
two later.
  Based on the last two psukim of Chumash, can you suggest
a
probable reason for why this name was chosen?
  Can you suggest a reason why there was 'need' for an
alternate name, i.e. why the name yad ha-chazaka was
'preferred' over the name mishneh torah?
  [In your answer, relate to the fact that Mishneh Torah
is
  also an alternate name for Sefer Devarim (as well of
course
  to the 'gematria' of the word yad].

2.  In the final pasuk of Chumash (34:12) we find two
phrases:
     'yad ha-chazaka' & 'mora gadol'.
In your opinion, what do each of these two phrases refer
to?
     See Rashi & Ramban.  How do they answer this
question?
Note how both offer the same, but opposite interpretation!
     Can you explain why?
How do they each support their respective peirushim?
See also Seforno.  Is this identical to Ramban or
different?

3.  See the final Ramban on Chumash from 34:11(till the
end)
   & enjoy!

TORAH TZIVA LANU MOSHE
1.  The famous pasuk: "Torah tziva lanu Moshe, morasha
kehilat
Yaakov" (33:4) - the very first pasuk that we teach our
children - is found in the opening section of Parshat
Ve-zot
Ha-bracha.
     How would you translate the word morasha in the
context
of this pasuk?  [Did you say 'inheritance' or
'tradition'?]
     What is the 'shoresh' [root] of this word?

2.  What precisely does the word morasha imply, and how
does
this relate to our connection [or obligation] to Torah
study?
     Can you recall any other use of this word (or its
shoresh) in Chumash?  If so, where, and how does it relate
to
its use in this pasuk?  [If you have time, see the TSC
shiur
on Parshat Mas'ei.]

3.  Next, review Shmot 6:7-8; noting the meaning of the
word
morasha and its context.  Does it have the same meaning as
it
did in Devarim 33:4?
     Can you explain why yes, or why not?
     How does that pasuk (i.e. Shmot 6:8) relate to
Breishit
15:7-8,18-19.  [Note shoresh 'yerusha' & 'brit'.]
     Relate this to Shmot 6:2-5!
     Relate this to this same shoresh in Bamidbar
33:50-54.
Note also Sefer Shoftim 1:27-33.

4.  Based on the above sources, would say that morasha [/
yerusha] implies something active or passive?  Explain.
     How would this affect your understanding of Devarim
33:4?
     How would this affect the nature of our obligation to
study Torah, and the manner by which we acquire it.
  [How would this relate to Torah study methods like these
  questions (i.e. that require effort), or studying Gemara
'be-
  iyun' etc.?]

5.  See Avot 2:12 ('hatken atzmecha...'), relate this
mishna
to the above questions.!

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
1.  Review 33:1-27 (i.e. the 'blessings' of Parshat Ve-zot
Ha-
bracha), noting primarily the order by which Moshe
Rabbeinu
addresses the 'shvatim' (tribes).  [Make a list or their
order.]  Also, if you have time, try to understand the
primary
topic of each of these blessing (a translation will
probably
be helpful, as the words are quite difficult).
     Can you discern any logic to the order of the
shvatim, or
does the order appear to be rather random?
     Is there anything special about the location of the
blessings to the 'bnei ha-shfachot'?

2.  Do all of the tribes receive 'brachot' from Moshe?  If
not, which shvatim are missing?  Can you suggest a reason
why?
     Compare Moshe Rabbeinu's blessing to those of Yaakov
in
Breishit 49:1-28.  [Relate this to the above question.]
     What is the order of the shvatim in Yaakov's brachot?
Can you explain how and why it is different than the order
of
Moshe's brachot?

3.  Review Parshat Bamidbar (chapters 1 & 2), noting the
order
of the shvatim (there are three examples / see TSC shiur
on
Parshat Bamidbar).
  Is the order of any of those lists similar in any manner
to
the order of Moshe Rabbeinu's brachot in Ve-zot Ha-bracha?

4.  When Yaakov blessed his children (in Parshat Vayechi),
in
what order did he address them?
     Is the order in Ve-zot Ha-bracha similar in any way
to
any of these previous orders?
     If so, explain in what manner it is similar';
          explain as well in what manner it is different!

5.  In your opinion, (and based on their content) what is
the
purpose of these brachot that Moshe bestows?
     In what manner does this purpose affect their order?

6.  If you are familiar with the map of Israel and the
locations where each tribe received their inheritance (as
detailed in Sefer Yehoshua chapters 13-19); then attempt
to
relate both the topic of these brachot as well as the
order of
the shvatim to the 'nachalot' that each shevet will later
inherit when they conquer the land..
     Can you relate their order to any other aspect of the
nachalot or 'kibbush ha-aretz' (conquering the land).
     If so, can you explain the thematic connection of
this
order to the context of these brachot?

7.  See first two questions in the Parshanut section
below.

[For 'extra credit']
8.  Note the division of the individual 'parshiot' in
chapter
33.  Can you explain its logic?  [What appears to be
difficult?]
     Does each shevet receive its own 'parshia'?
     If not, which shvatim are exceptions?
          [Is there a logic behind these 'pairs' of
shvatim?]
     Compare this now to the division of 'parshiot' in the
blessing of Yaakov Avinu in Breishit chapter 49.  In what
manner is it similar, in what manner is it different?

PART III - PARSHANUT
1.  In case you didn't figure it out from the above
questions,
Shimon is not mentioned in Moshe Rabbeinu's brachot.  Note
how
the various commentators relate to this:
  First, see Ibn Ezra on 33:6.  Note how he connects this
to
the events of chet bnot Midyan in Bamidbar 25:1-18.
     [Relate his approach to our previous shiur on Parshat
Pinchas relating to 'mifkad ha-nachalot' and that sin!]
  Note how Ibn Ezra provides two approaches.  Explain how
they
reflect two different exegetical approaches.

  Next, see Rashi on 33:7 ['shma Hashem kol Yehuda...'].
     Is Rashi the same as Ibn Ezra's first approach or
different?
     Note how Rashi understands 'shma Hashem...' as
alluding
to Shimon.  To appreciate this Rashi, note Breishit 29:33!
  See also Chizkuni at the end of his peirush to 33:7.
     How is this peirush similar to Rashi & how is it
different?
     Relate his peirush to Rashi on Breishit 42:24!
  See also Seforno's commentary on 33:7.  In your opinion,
does this Seforno allude to an answer to the above
question
regarding the lack of a blessing to Shimon?

  Finally, see Ramban on 33:6.  It is very long, but very
important.  Note how he relates to the two approaches
raised
by Ibn Ezra.  What is the main point the Ramban adds in
his
peirush.
     Note (once again) how Ramban bases his approach on a
very
comprehensive analysis comparing all of the other
instances
when the 'twelve' tribes are mentioned.

2.  Return to the Ramban on 33:6.  Note how Ramban
explains
the reason for the order of the shvatim.
     Note all of the different considerations that Ramban
relates to as he explains the order.
     See Ibn Ezra's explanation (above) as well in regard
to
the order.
  In your opinion, how are these two approaches different,
and
how are they similar?
     Finally, see Rashi on 33:7, 33:12 & 33:18, noting how
he
explains the logic of the order of the shvatim.
     In what manner is Rashi's approach different than
Ramban's?  In your opinion, which explanation seems most
convincing?

BLESSINGS or 'PROMISES'?
3.  Review 33:1-5, noting how Moshe Rabbeinu's blessing
begins
with a general statement to all of the shvatim, which
later
follows with specific blessings to each shevet in 33:6.
     In your opinion, is this 'opener' (33:2-5) a
blessing; a
statement, a promise, a review?  Explain your answer.
     How does this 'opener' relate to the actual blessings
that are later given to each shevet?  [Is there a thematic
connection?]

     Now (on the flip side of these brachot), note how the
blessing to Asher concludes (i.e. study 33:24-29).  In
your
opinion, is this entire section a blessing only to Asher,
or
does it contain a section that relates (once again) to all
of
the shvatim?  If so, where does the blessing to Asher end,
and
this 'closing section' for all the tribes begin?
     As above, is this 'closing section': a blessing, a
statement, a promise, or a review?  How does it relate to
the
individual brachot to each shevet?
  Next, note the 'machloket' on this issue between Rashi
33:25
and Ibn Ezra on this topic.
     Note also the interpretations of Ramban & Seforno.
In
your opinion, do they agree with Rashi or Ibn Ezra?
  Can you explain the reason for these differing opinions?

WHO IS 'VAYEHI'?
4.  Read 33:5 -'vayehi bi-yeshurun melech'.  In your
opinion -
who is the 'melech' that this pasuk refers to?
     See Rashi and Seforno, in contrast to Ibn Ezra,
Ramban
and Rasag!
     As usual, can you explain the reason for this
machloket.
How does it relate to the topic of the brachot themselves?
.
WHO WROTE THE LAST 8 PSUKIM?
5.  What is problematic concerning chapter 34 (in relation
to
31:24-26), especially from 34:5-34:12.
     How does the Gemara in Bava Batra 14b (bottom) answer
this question.  [Quoted by Rashi on 34:5.]
     Note also Rashbam on 34:1.  How does this Rashbam
relate
to this question?
     Finally see the famous Ibn Ezra on 34:1, see also Ibn
Ezra on 34:6 (to the end).  What makes this Ibn Ezra so
controversial?
In what manner does this Ibn Ezra contradict the Gemara in
Bava Batra 14b.  How could you explain that Ibn Ezra
actually
bases his peirush on that 'sugya'?
     Note also Ibn Ezra on Devarim 1:2 where he alludes to
what he calls 'sod ha-shteim asar'.  Do you understand
what
this has to do with the number 12 (relate to chapter 34,
and
the amount of psukim in that chapter)?
     Why do you think that Ibn Ezra refers to this as a
'sod'?

                              be-hatzlacha,
                              ve-chazak, chazak,
ve-nitchazek
                              menachem



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vzotq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 27344 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090928/b6d9e282/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Sep 30 16:38:13 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:38:13 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Succot
Message-ID: <01ed01ca420d$ef18d2f0$cd4a78d0$@net>

**********************************************************
***
        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.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: succot.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 59867 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090930/c81f3b36/attachment-0002.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SuccotSources.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 193458 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090930/c81f3b36/attachment-0003.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Oct  7 17:57:49 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 17:57:49 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for V'zot ha'bracha  - shiur
Message-ID: <001601ca4799$36dd6d90$a49848b0$@net>

**********************************************************
***
        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. 



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vzot.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 53773 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091007/b348d162/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Oct  7 17:59:46 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 17:59:46 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Shmini Atzeret
Message-ID: <001e01ca4799$7ccc4290$7664c7b0$@net>

**********************************************************
***
     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.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: atzeret1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 37684 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091007/e065c18d/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Oct 12 15:54:55 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:54:55 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Breishit - questions for self study
Message-ID: <003201ca4b75$dfc46f50$9f4d4df0$@net>

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

           for PARSHAT BREISHIT

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

WHAT'S IN A NAME?
1.  As you study Parshat Breishit, you'll probably notice
several instances when NAMES are given, either by God or
by
man.  As your review the first two chapters, make note of
each
instance when a name is given; then see if you can discern
a
pattern.
     For example, see Breishit 1:5, 1:8, 1:10, AND 5:1-2,
noting the names that God Himself gives to His various
Creations.  Note especially on which days (and stages) of
creation these names are given (and on what days God does
not
give names).
     Is there a pattern?
     In what manner to those creations (to which God gave
names) relate to our daily life, and man's relationship
with
God?

2. Next, review chapter two, noting what (or who) God
gives
names to.  Then review 2:18-25, noting that man also gives
names to certain items of Creation.
  What is the meaning of these names that man gives, and
(in
your opinion) how does this relate to man's relationship
with
those creations.

3. In our daily lives, we use names when addressing
others.
Explain the underlying reason why people give significance
to
names, and why they are more meaningful than calling
someone
by simply an identification number (or just 'hey you').
     How (and why) does a 'name' often relate to the
nature of
a relationship between individuals? For example, can you
explain why we often find that people who share a more
intense
relationship (of either love or hate) often use 'special'
names?
     How could this phenomenon relate to the above
questions,
i.e. in regard to the names that both God and man give in
the
story of Creation?

4. Note the names given to Adam's children in 4:1-2.  Can
you
cite other examples in Chumash where we find not only a
name
being given to a child, but also a reason for that name?
Can
you explain why this is so common?

CALLING IN GOD'S NAME!
5. Now, carefully read last two psukim of chapter four
(4:25-
26). Who is naming these children, and what is the meaning
of
each name?
     Then, pay careful attention to the final phrase - "uz
huchal l'kro b'shem Hashem".  Attempt to explain what this
phrase means, especially what it means to 'call out in
God's
Name'.
     In this pasuk, did you understand that man is giving
(or
not giving) a name to God?  Based the above questions,
explain
why this may be significant. [The various commentaries on
this
pasuk are discussed in the Parshanut section below.]

6. With 4:26 in mind, note the name of Noach's 'most
important' son (see 5:32, i.e. the one who receives the
best
blessing in Breishit 9:25-27).  Attempt to explain the
significance of "Shem"'s name, and why Noach may have
chosen
this name for his son.
     Based on 4:26, what do you think was Noach's hope for
the
future of this son?  Did anyone 'special' ever emerge from
SHEM's descendants (note Breishit 11:10-26!)?

7. Finally, note in 12:5-8 how Avraham 'calls out in God's
Name' immediately upon his arrival in Eretz Canaan, i.e.
after
he builds a MIZBAYACH in Bet-el.  Note also 13:1-4!
     Can you explain why this may (or must) be
significant?
          [Be sure to see Ramban on 12:8!]

8. Based on these questions, what in your opinion is the
connection between God giving a name, and man giving a
name?
Can you identify an ultimate goal in this process?
     Relate to Tzefania 3:8-9!
    [The TSC shiurim on Parshiot Noach & Lech Lcha will
    relate to the topic alluded to in these questions.]

THE GENEOLOGIES OF CAIN vs. ENOSH
9.  Review 4:17-19, noting the names of the seven
generations
that follow Cain (i.e. from Chanoch thru Lemech/ father of
Tuval Kayin).  Then compare these names to the seven
generations from Enosh found in chapter 5 (i.e. from
Keynan
until Lemech / father of Noach)!
     Can find a parallel for each name?  Note how some
names
are almost identical, while others are slightly different!
In
your opinion, is there any significance behind these
parallels?
     See Rashi on 4:22 where he explains the significance
of
Tuval Cain's name!  Relate this to the above parallel.

10. Next, note how Enosh is mentioned at the conclusion of
chapter four, including the very intriguing mention that
in
his lifetime, man began [to profane?] calling in [to] the
Name
of God
(see 4:25-26, noting the wide range of interpretations of
this
pasuk).  Relate this pasuk (and its ambiguity) to the
above
parallel of names between the genealogies of Enosh & Cain,
as
well as to the questions above!

11.  Next, review 4:19-22, noting not only the sons of
Lemech
and their 'professions', but also the name of his daughter
'Naama'!
  Is there any explicit reason for the mention of Naama's
name?  Based on the 'professions' of her brothers, would
you
expect for there to be something special about her as
well?
  Note Rashi on 4:22, where he quotes Chazal's
interpretation
that Naama was the wife of Noach!   Based on the parallel
list
of names noted in the question above, what do you think
led
Chazal to that conclusion?
     In what manner does Naama's marriage to Noach reflect
the
continuity of 'professional society' after the Flood.
[Note
who were the 'uncles' of Shem, Cham & Yefet!]

12.  Finally, review 4:23-24, where it seems as though
Lemech
had 'accidentally' killed someone (or possibly two
people).
Can you suggest any logical reason for the Torah's mention
of
this conversation between Lemech and his wives?
  How does it relate to the early details in chapter four?
  Then, if you have ample time, see the commentaries of
Rashi,
Ibn Ezra, and Ramban on these two psukim; noting how each
commentator offers a totally different interpretation!
Note
however, how each commentary relates back to Cain (the
opening
topic of this chapter); and how both Ibn Ezra and Ramban
relate to the fact that seven generations have passed!
  Attempt to relate the opinions of these commentators to
the
topics discussed in the above questions, and to the
purpose
(or underlying theme) of Sefer Breishit as a book of
"nevuah".

YESHAYAHU'S 'COMMENTARY' ON SEFER BREISHIT!
13.  Review Yeshayahu 42:5-6; which just so happens to be
the
first two psukim of the Haftara for Parshat Breishit -
noting
the rather obvious parallel to Breishit 2:7.
     Attempt to explain how Yeshayahu may be relating to
an
overall theme in Sefer Breishit - in regard to purpose of
the
Creation of man, and to the purpose of God's choice of Am
Yisrael to become His nation.
  As you study this Haftara, note how it relates to the
recognition of God's Name by the nations of the world (as
do
many other chapters in Yeshayahu, see the famous psukim in
2:1-
6).
  Likewise, as you continue your study Sefer Breishit, and
attempt to better understand its theme - keep these
questions
in mind.

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
  [The TSC shiur on Parshat Breishit will discuss the
meaning
  of the 'double presentation' by Chumash of the story of
  Creation. The following questions will help guide your
  preparation.]

PEREK ALEPH [Chapter One of Sefer Breishit.]
1. Quickly scan from 1:1 to 2:3 noting how (and why) these
psukim form a distinct unit.  How would you title this
entire
unit?
     Clearly, this unit divides into seven individual
"parshiot", corresponding to each day of Creation.
Carefully
study its first six 'parshiot', noting how there are
certain
key phrases that are repeated on each day (e.g. "va'yomer
Elokim...", va'yar Elokim...", "va'yhi erev...", etc.).
  As you study this pattern, pay attention to the topics
that
follow each of these phrases; and attempt to identify a
basic
'form' that repeats itself in each day of Creation?
  Up until what point does this pattern continue? Can you
explain why?
  If you are able to discern a pattern, attempt to explain
its
significance.
  
2. Relating to this pattern (created by these repeated
phrases), determine what phrase introduces each day. Then,
by
relating to this phrase, determine what was the primary
Creation of each day.  [It will be helpful to keep a
list.]
     Based on this opening phrase, are there certain days
that
contain two 'acts of Creation'? If so what are these days,
and
how are they thematically related?
     Review your list of the primary creation(s) of each
day,
and then try to subdivide these six days of Creation into
two
sub-units: i.e. contrasting the first three days and the
second three days.  [In other words, compare day #1 to day
#4,
day #2 to day #5, and day #3 to day #6.)
     If you notice a pattern, attempt to explain its
meaning!

3. Review chapter one once again, this time noting each
time
the verb "bara" (to create) is used in its active form. To
the
best of your recollection, is this verb ever used again in
Chumash (after chapter one). If so, where?
  [If you give up, see Bamdibar 16:30. Note as well that
  whenever this verb is used in Chumash, it describes an
act
  of God, but never an act of man.]

     Based on the Torah's use of the word "yatzar" (in 2:7
and
2:19), in what manner is the verb "bara" different than
the
verb "yatzar"?  In your answer, relate to creation from
'nothing' vs. creation from 'something'.
  [Relate this as well to the definition work (according
to
  Halacha) that is forbidden on Shabbat!]

4.  As you should have noticed, the Hebrew verb "bara" is
used
in the opening pasuk of  Breishit (1:1), at the beginning
of
the fifth day, and when man is created on the sixth day.
     Can you discern a pattern that may be significant?
     Is there anything 'evolutionary' in this pattern?
     [See also Ramban on 1:26 (towards the middle).]

5.  According to what transpires on the seventh day, the
'process of creation' (that took seven days) is now
complete.
Explain what is now 'complete', compared to what existed
(or
didn't exist) beforehand.
  In your opinion, does this 'complete' universe now
remain
'static', or does there remains something 'dynamic' about
it?
  If so, what can 'change' and what cannot?
     For example, we find common characteristic that all
living things created on the third, fifth and sixth days,
are
able to re-produce (even though the individuals die).
[See
1:11-12,21-22, and 1:25-28.]
     How does this relate to a 'completed' universe?
  Relate what has been created during these seven days to
what
we refer now of days to as 'nature'.  [Would be correct to
conclude the creation of 'nature' completed during these
seven
days?]

6.  In your opinion, is [what we call] 'nature' a
phenomenon
that man can discern on his own?  Is there any way for a
person to figure out on his own that the creation of
nature
was the act of one God?
  How would this relate to what the Torah informs us in
Perek
Aleph of Sefer Breishit?
  Is it clear to man where nature comes from, or who
controls
it?  Would it be logical to arrive at other conclusions in
regard to the underlying reasons for the various phenomena
that we call nature?
  Relate your answer to what may be the 'prophetic
purpose' of
the first chapter of Sefer Breishit?

7. Note how the Torah use the name ELOKIM to refer to God
throughout this entire unit.  What is the meaning of the
word
"elo-him" in Hebrew? What does the Hebrew word "el" imply,
and
why is it used in the plural form to describe God?
     Can this word refer to anything (or anyone) else in
Chumash?
     See Ramban's explanation of this Name in 1:3!  Relate
this to the above questions. [See also Sefer Kuzari -
fourth
ma'amar!]

PEREK BET
      [The second & third chapters of Parshat Breishit]
1. Note that 2:4 begins a new "parshia" that continues
almost
all the way until the end of chapter 3. What can we infer
from
this in regard to the thematic connection between the
details
in chapters two three?

2.   Review the 'story of creatoin' as detailed in chapter
two, while carefully following the sequence of these
events
(and their purpose). In your opinion, do these details
complement or contradict the details of the story of
Creation
as detailed in chapter one?   According to either answer,
can
you explain why these details were not included in chapter
one?
     In its context, would you say that 2:4 forms an
introduction to what follows in chapter two, or a summary
of
what has transpired in chapter one? Why would (or should)
this
affect how you understand the connection between these two
units?

3. Review 2:5, noting its statement that nothing could
grow
without man to work the field.  Technically speaking, is
this
statement correct? See Rashi on this pasuk. How does Rashi
relate to this question?
     How is the description of the creation of man, as
described in 2:7-25 different from his creation as
described
in 1:26-29.
     In your answer, relate to the difference between a
commandment (see 2:16) and a blessing (see 1:28).

4. Many modern commentators have suggested that there are
TWO
INDEPENDENT stories of Creation:
  I. 1:1->2:3 / The story of Creation in seven days
[better
  known as PEREK ALEPH]
  II. 2:4-> 3:24 / The story of Gan Eden [better known as
  PEREK BET]

  Attempt to either support or refute this suggestion,
based
on a literary and textual analysis of those chapters. In
your
answer, relate to:
     a. God's Name in each account
     b. The progression and order of events
     c. How and when Chava was created
     d. The purpose (implied by the text) of man's
creation
     e. Man's relationship with his surroundings, and with
God
     f. The overall flow and structure of each story

5. If you did notice two accounts of the story of
creation, in
your opinion which of these two accounts more closely
reflects
man's physical existence and which account would you say
reflects his more 'spiritual' side?

PART III - PARSHANUT

1. "LIKRO B'SHEM HASHEM"
  Carefully review 4:25-26, and attempt to translate each
word
of 4:26.
     In your opinion, did the word "huchal" mean: to begin
(like "hatchala") or to defile (like "chilul")?
  How would these two possible translations affect your
understanding of this pasuk?
  See how the commentaries of Rashi, Rasag, Ibn Ezra, &
Seforno relate to this question.

2.  In regard to the actual 'message' of this pasuk, do
these
commentators agree or disagree?  See Rambam Hilchot Avoda
Zara
1:1. How does Rambam understand this pasuk?
     In your answer, relate to the fact that this pasuk
ends
the literary unit (which uses shem Havaya) which began in
2:4!

3. How does this pasuk relate to the story of:
          the Mabul (Note 6:1)?
          Migdal Bavel (Note 11:4)?
          Avraham Avinu? (Note 12:8, 13:4)?

 THE 'FIRST RASHI'
1. The famous first Rashi on Chumash quotes the Midrash of
Rabbi Yitzchak, which explains why the Torah begins with
Breishit.
     a) In your opinion, does this Midrash explain why
Chumash
begins with the STORY OF CREATION, or why it begins with
SEFER
BREISHIT?
     b) See Ramban's question on this Rashi.  Did you not
ask
yourself the same question?  Which approach appears to be
most
logical?
     c) Note that the first pasuk that the Midrash quotes
is
from Tehillim chapter 111.  Read this entire perek, making
special note of its final pasuk.  What is the perek
talking
about?  What does it have to do with "Breishit"?  In your
opinion, does the gist of this perek agree with the
Ramban's
question on Rashi?
     d)  Note the phrase in the Midrash "v'natna l'asher
yashar b'ainav...". According to this Rashi, who is giving
what land to whom? Now, look at the source of this phrase
in
Yirmiyahu 27:5 (See also its context in 27:1-8!)
According to
the pasuk in Yirmiyahu, who is giving what land to
whom?!!!
     According to Yirmiyahu, why is this about to take
place
(see Yirmiyahu 25:1-11 for a more complete explanation)?
What
does this have to do with why the Torah was given, and to
whom
it was given?
     e) In your opinion, do you think that the Midrash
assumes
that the reader is familiar with these two sources in
Tehillim
& Yirmiyahu? [Back then (in Rabbi Yitzchak's time), did
most
people know Tehillim and Nviim?]  If so, what point do you
think the Midrash intended on making?  Does this help
answer
Ramban's question on Rashi?

               b'hatzlacha,
               menachem

==========


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: breishq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 33851 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091012/6c8488cc/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Oct 15 06:39:41 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 06:39:41 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Sefer Breishit - Intro
Message-ID: <000901ca4d83$cde0b270$69a21750$@net>

**********************************************************
***
     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



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: breishintro.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 43585 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091015/2f09c6ca/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Oct 15 06:40:00 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 06:40:00 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Breishit - shiur
Message-ID: <000d01ca4d83$da4f8720$8eee9560$@net>

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

               PARSHAT  BREISHIT

    How many stories of Creation are there in Parshat
Breishit,
ONE or TWO? Although this question is often discussed more
by
Bible critics than yeshiva students, its resolution may
carry
a significant spiritual message.
     In this week's shiur, we discuss the structure of
Parshat
Breishit, in an attempt to better understand the meaning
of
the Torah's presentation of the story of Creation. Our
analysis will also 'set the stage' for our discussion of
the
overall theme of Sefer Breishit in the shiurim to follow.

INTRODUCTION
  From a literary perspective, it is quite easy to
differentiate between two distinct sections in the Torah's
account of the story of Creation:
   SECTION I - THE CREATION IN SEVEN DAYS /1:1->2:3
   SECTION II - MAN IN GAN EDEN / 2:4 ->3:24

  In our shiur, we will first explain what makes each
section
unique.  Afterward we will discuss how they complement one
another.

PEREK ALEPH
  SECTION I, better known as PEREK ALEPH, is easily
discerned
because of its rigid structure, i.e. every day of creation
follows a very standard pattern. Each day:
 *  Begins with the phrase: "VA'YOMER ELOKIM...",
heralding a
    new stage of creation (see 1:3,6,9,14,20,24);
 *  Continues with "VA'YAR ELOKIM. KI TOV" (see
    1:4,10,12,18,21,31);
 *  Concludes with "VAYHI EREV VAYHI BOKER, YOM..." (see
    1:5,8,13,19,23,31).

  In fact, one could construct a 'blank form' that would
fit
just about any day of Creation, that would look something
like
this:
     "va'yomer Elokim" - And God said... _________
          [followed by some act of Creaton.]
     "va'yhi chen" -  And so it was
    [often followed by some naming process: like
    "va'yikra.Elokim... , or some divine 'comment']
     "va'yar Elokim... ki tov" - And God saw it was good
     "va'yhi erev va;yhi boker, yom __#__"

     Even though certain days may vary from this basic
format,
certainly each day begins with the phrase "va'yomer
Elokim...".
  This observation allows us to identify the first two
psukim
of this unit (1:1-2) as its header, for Day One must begin
with the first "va'yomer Elokim" (in the third pasuk/ see
1:3
and Rashi on the meaning of the word "Breishit" in his
interpretation to 1:1).
     We reach a similar conclusion in regard to the
'Seventh
Day' (i.e. 2:1-3).  Since these psukim describe 'Day
Seven',
they must be part of this overall Story of Creation; yet
because they begin with "va'ychulu..." - and not with
"va'yomer Elokim" - they form the conclusion of this unit.
  To verify this, note the beautiful parallel between
these
two 'bookends' (i..e 1:1-2 and 2:1-3, noting the phrase
"shamayim v'aretz" and the verb "bara"!), and how Day
Seven
'concludes' that which was introduced in 1:1.

     This introduction and conclusion define for us the
primary topic of this entire unit - - "briyat ha'shamayim
v'ha'aretz" - God's Creation of the Heavens and the Earth.
This topic is presented through a daily progression of
God's
creations that span over six days.

     With this general framework defined, we can now begin
our
analysis of the progression of Creation from one day to
the
next.  We will pay attention to how each day either
follows,
or slightly varies from the standard format discussed
above.
[For example, the fact that day two does not include the
phrase "va'yar Elokim ki tov " should be significant.]

A DAILY "CHIDUSH"
     As we mentioned above, within this unit, the phrase
"va'yomer Elokim" begins each day, and is always followed
by
an act God's Creation - or at least some type of "chidush"
[i.e. something new, that didn't exist the day before].
  After the execution each act of Creation, we may find
'peripheral' comments such as God giving names or duties
to
what He just created.  However, we will show how the next
"chidush" of Creation doesn't take place without an
additional
"va'yomer Elokim"!
     We should also point out that in Days Three and Six
we
find our basic form repeated twice, i.e. the phrase
"va'yomer
Elokim" appears twice on each of these days, and each time
followed by a distinct act of Creation, followed by the
evaluation of - "va'yar Elokim ki tov".  This suggests
that
each of these days will contain two acts of Creation.
[The
deeper meaning of this will be discussed as we continue.]
     Therefore, .our analysis begins by identifying what
was
the precise "chidush" of each day.   Then, we will discuss
the
'peripheral comments' of each day, showing how they relate
to
that "chidush".

DAY ONE  (1:3- 5)
     God's first act of creation (i.e. what follows the
first
"va'yomer Elokim") was making "OR" - or what we call
'light'.
     This creation is followed by a 'naming process' where
God
calls the light - 'Day', and the darkness (the lack of
light)
is called 'Night'.

DAY TWO  (1:6-8)
     God makes the "rakiya" - whose function is to divide
between the 'water above' and the 'water below'.
     Then, God names these 'waters above' - "shamayim"
[Heavens].  Note that the 'waters below' are not named
until
Day Three.  Note as well that this is only time when God's
creation is not followed by the phrase "va'yar Elokim ki
tov".
Hence, it appears that something on this day is either
'not so
good' or at least incomplete.  [We'll return to this
observation later in the shiur.]

DAY THREE (1:9-12)
 * Stage One: (i.e. the first "va'yomer Elokim").
     Gods makes the "yabasha" [dry land].
       Then God names this 'dry land - ARETZ  [Earth?] and
the
  remaining "mayim" - YAMIM [Seas].
     Followed by God's positive evaluation: "va'yar Elokim
ki
tov"

 * Stage Two (i.e. the second "va'yomer Elokim" / 1:11-12)
     God creates what we call 'vegetation', i.e. all the
various species of vegetables and fruit trees.  Note how
these
psukim emphasize precisely what makes the 'plant kingdom'
unique - i.e. how these species contain seeds that will
produce the next generation - e.g. "esev mazria zera" and
"etz
pri oseh pri".
       Note that God no longer gives 'names' to what He
  created.  However, we still find the standard positive
  evaluation "va'yar Elokim ki tov".  [You were probably
aware
  that "ki tov" is mentioned twice in Day Three, but you
  probably weren't aware that it was because it contains
two
  "va'yomer Elokim's"!]
  
A QUANTUM LEAP
     Note the 'quantum leap' that takes place in stage Two
on
Day Three.  Up until Stage Two, everything that God had
created was 'inanimate' (non-living).  From this point on,
livings things are created.  [Keep this in mind, as we
will
uncover a similar 'quantum leap' when we discuss the
progression from Stage One to Two in Day Six!, i.e. when
we
jump from animal to man.]

     This may explain why Stage One of Day Three is the
last
time that we find God giving names.  It seems as though
God
gave names only to His 'non-living' creations.
  [In chapter two, we will see how it becomes man's job to
  give names to other livings things (see 2:19), and maybe
  even to God Himself! (see 4:26)!]

     Furthermore, note the 'separation process' that
emerges
as God created "shamayim v'aretz".  In the introduction,
we
find "mayim" - with "ruach Elokim" [God's spirit?]
hovering
over it  (see 1:2).  Then, in Day Two, God takes this
"mayim"
'solution' and separates it  ["va'yavdel"] between the
"mayim"
'above' and 'below' the "rakiya".  The 'water above'
becomes
"SHAMAYIM", but the 'water below' needs further
separation,
which only takes places on Day Three - when the remaining
'solution' separates between the "ARETZ" [Land] and the
"YAMIM" [Seas].
  Technically speaking, this is how God created "shamayim
v'aretz".  [The creation of the remaining "v'kol tzvaam" -
and
all their hosts (see 2:1) - takes place from this point
and
onward.]

DAY FOUR (1:14-19)
     God creates the "meorot", i.e. the sun, moon and
stars.
     This time however, note how God explains the function
of
His new creations (instead of giving names).  For example,
"va'hayu l'otot u'moadim " - and they shall be for signs
and
appointed times; and later - " l'ha'ir al ha'aretz" - to
give
light on the land (see 1:14-15).  And finally: "l'mshol
ba'yom
u'va'layala" - to rule over day and night (1:18).  [Note
as
well how this day relates back to Day One.]

DAY FIVE (1:20-23)
     On this day, we find yet another 'quantum leap', as
God
begins His creation of the 'animal kingdom' (i.e. in
contrast
to the 'vegetation' created on day three).  God creates
all
livings things that creep in the water or fly in the sky
(i.e.
fish and fowl).
     Even though this day follows the standard 'form'
(discussed above), we do find two very important
additions.

1.    The verb "bara" is used to describe how God creates
this
     animal kingdom: "va'yivrah Elokim et ha'taninim
ha'gedolim
     v'et kol nefesh ha'chaya..."  (1:21).  Note how this
is the
     first usage of this verb since the first pasuk of
"breishit
     bara..." (1:1)!  The Torah's use of the verb "bara"
     specifically at this point may reflect this 'quantum
leap' to
     the animal kingdom in this critical stage of the
Creation.

2.   A 'blessing' is given (for the first time) to these
fish
   and fowl after their creation: "va'yvarech otam Elokim
laymor
  - pru ur'vu..." - that they should be fruitful and
multiply
  and fill the seas and skies.  Note how this blessing
relates
  to the very essence of the difference between the 'plant
  kingdom' and the 'animal kingdom'.  Whereas self
produced
  seeds allow vegetation to reproduce itself, the animal
kingdom
  requires mating for reproduction to take place, and
hence the
  need for God's blessing of "pru u'vru" to keep each
species
  alive.

DAY SIX (1:24-31)
     Here again, like in Day Three, we find two stages of
Creation, each beginning with the phrase "va'yomer Elokim,
with yet another 'quantum leap' in between:

* Stage One (1:24-25)
     God creates the living things that roam on the land,
i.e.
the animals.  There is really nothing special about this
stage, other than the fact that God found it necessary to
create them 'independently' on the first stage of Day Six,
instead of including them with His creation of the rest of
the
of the animal kingdom (i.e. with the fish and the fowl) in
Day
Five.
     In fact, we find an interesting parallel between both
days that contain two stages (i.e. days Three and Six).
Just
as Stage One of Day Three (separating the Earth from the
'water below') completed a process that God had begun in
Day
Two, so too Stage One of Day Six (the animals) completed a
process that God began in Day Five!

 * Stage Two (1:26-31)
     God creates MAN - "btzelem Elokim"!
     Note how many special words and phrases (many of
which we
encountered before) accompany God's creation of man:
     First of all, we find once again the use of the verb
'bara' to describe this act of creation, suggesting that
the
progression from animal to man may be considered no less a
'quantum leap' than the progression from vegetation to
animal.

     Secondly, God appears to 'consult' with others (even
though it is not clear who they are) before creating man
("naaseh adam b'tzalmeinu").
     Here again, we find not only an act of creation, but
also
a 'statement the purpose' for this creation - i.e. to be
master over all of God's earlier creations:
  "v'yirdu b'dgat ha'yam u'b'of ha'shamayim" - Be fruitful
  and multiply and be master over the fish of the seas and
the
  fowl in the heavens and the animals and all the land,
and
  everything that creeps on the land. (see 1:26).

  Thus, it appears that man is not only God's last
Creation,
but also His most sophisticated creation, responsible to
rule
over all other creations 'below the heavens'.
     This explains we find yet another blessing (following
this act of creation / similar to the blessing on Day
Five).
This blessing to man includes not only fertility, but also
relates to his potential to exert dominion over all that
Elokim had created. ["pru u'rvu v'kivshuha, u'rdu b'dgat
ha'yam" / see 1:28, compare with 1:26)

     It should be noted that we find one final section,
that
also begins with the phrase "va'yomer Elokim" (see 1:29),
but
quite different than all the earlier ones, as this
statement
does not introduce an act of Creation, but rather the
administration of food.  In a nutshell, in these psukim
God
allows the animal kingdom to consume the plant kingdom.
The
green grass is given for the animals (to graze upon),
while
man receives the 'added privilege' of eating the fruit of
the
trees (see 1:29-30).

SOMETHING SPECIAL
     As you surely must have realized, all of these
'variances' from the 'standard format' in regard to God's
creation of man emphasize that there must be something
very
special about man's creation, and hence his purpose. But
this
should not surprise us, for that is precisely what we
should
expect from a book of prophecy, a divine message to man to
help him understand his relationship with God, and the
purpose
for his existence.
     All of these special points about man's creation
should
be important, but before we discuss their significance, we
must take into consideration one more observation
concerning
the progression of Creation during these six days.

A PARALLEL STRUCTURE
     Let's summarize our conclusions thus far concerning
what
was created on each day (and each statement of "va'yomer
Elokim."):

DAY       GOD CREATED...
====      =============
 I.    "OR" = LIGHT
II.   "RAKIYA" - separating:
          A. the MAYIM above [=SHAMAYIM], and
          B. the MAYIM below [=YAMIM].
IIIa.  "YABASHA", called the ARETZ (the Land) -
IIIb.     Vegetation (on that ARETZ)
          A. seed-bearing plants / "esev mazria zera"
          B. fruit-bearing trees / "etz pri oseh pri"
IV.   LIGHTS in the SHAMAYIM (sun, moon, stars etc.)
 V.   LIVING CREATURES:
          A. birds in the sky [=RAKIYA SHAMAYIM]
          B. fish in the sea [=MAYIM]
VIa.  LIVING CREATURES who live on the ARETZ (land)
          animals - all forms
VIb.  MAN - b'tzelem Elokim, blessed by God
              to dominate all other living creatures
         Then, God assigns the appropriate food for these 
         living creatures:
          1. Man - can eat vegetation and fruit (see 1:29)
          2. Animals - can eat only vegetation/grass -
(see 1:30)
          
VII. SHABBAT - God rested, as His Creation was complete.

     Now, let's turn our list into a table.
  If we line up the first three days against the last
three
days, we find a rather amazing parallel:
  
   DAYS 1-3             DAYS 4-6
   =========		=========
I.  LIGHT              IV.  LIGHTS in
                          the heavens
                          
II. RAKIYA - dividing:  V.Living things: 
   SHAMAYIM (above):       Birds in the SHAMAYIM
     MAYIM  (below)        Fish in MAYIM (sea)
     
III. ARETZ (land)      VI. Animals & Man
			     on the ARETZ
  Seed bearing plants  --->  to be eaten by the Animals
  Fruit bearing trees  --->  to be eaten by Man


     Note how this parallel reflects our discussion above
concerning the internal progression of these six days of
Creation; and our observation that from Day Four and
onward,
God not only creates, but He also states the purpose of
His
creations.
  It also shows how the last three days 'fill in' the
potential for what God created in the first three days.
Basically, from day four and onward, nature 'goes into
motion', as we find 'movement' both in the Heavens above
and
in the Earth below.
     In summary, when these six days are complete, what we
call 'nature' has gone into motion.

DIVINE EVOLUTION
     If we understand the phrase "tohu va'vahu" in the
introductory section (see 1:2) as total chaos, then from
this
primordial state - six days later, we find a beautifully
structured universe containing all of the various forms of
life that we are familiar with; including plants, animals,
and
man.
     Note that the Torah emphasizes that each form of life
is
created in a manner that guarantees its survival, i.e. its
ability to reproduce:
   a. plants: "esev mazria zera" - seed-bearing vegetation
            "etz pri oseh pri" - fruit-bearing trees
(1:11-12)
   b. fish and fowl: "pru u'rvu"- be fruitful & multiply
(1:22)
   c. Man: "pru u'rvu..." - be fruitful & multiply (1:28)

     One could summarize and simply state that the end
result
of this creation process is what we call NATURE - in other
words - the exact opposite of TOHU VA'VAHU.
  In this manner, PEREK ALEPH describes God's creation of
nature, i.e. the entire material universe and its
phenomena.
  Even though 'nature' itself remains dynamic, with living
things constantly changing and reproducing, its basic
framework remains constant - for after "va'ychulu" (2:1),
nothing 'new' will be created, and certainly, nothing more
advanced or sophisticated as man.
     This established, we must now ask ourselves the more
fundamental question, which is - what can we learn from
the
unique manner by which the Torah tells over the story of
Creation?   Is it recorded for the sake of our curiosity,
simply to let us know 'how it all happened'  - or does it
carry a prophetic message - for any human being
contemplating
the purpose of the world that surrounds him!

ONE GOD, OR MANY?
  Certainly, one primary message that emerges from this
presentation is that the creation of nature, with all its
complexities and wonders, was a willful act of GOD.
Hence, by
keeping Shabbat, resting on the seventh day, as God did,
we
assert our belief that God is the power the created nature
(and continues to oversee it).
  
     This analysis can also help us appreciate why the
Torah
uses the name -Elokim - to describe God throughout this
entire
chapter. As Ramban explains (toward the end of his
commentary
on 1:1), the Hebrew word "el" implies someone with power
(or
strength) and in control.  Therefore, "shem ELOKIM"
implies
the master of all of the many forces of nature.
  [This can explain why God's Name is in the plural form-
for
  He is all of the powers / see also Rav Yehuda ha'Levi,
in
  Sefer Kuzari, beginning of Book Four.]
  
     This understanding can also help us appreciate the
Torah's use of the verb "bara" in PEREK ALEPH. Note how
the
THREE active uses of the verb "bara" in PEREK ALEPH
reflect
each level of sophistication in Creation, i.e. "tzomeyach"
[plant kingdom], "chai" [animal kingdom] and "m'daber"
[man].
This also reflects the three 'quantum leaps' that we
discussed
in the evolutionary development of nature during these six
days.

 * STEP ONE - All matter and plants -
      "Breishit BARA Elokim et ha'SHAMAYIM v'et ha'ARETZ"
(1:1)
    This includes everything in the SHAMAYIM and on the
ARETZ,
    i.e. the creation of all "domem" (inanimate objects)
and
    "tzomeyach" (plants). Note that this takes place
during
    the first FOUR days of Creation.
    
 * STEP TWO - The animal kingdom
  "va'YIVRA Elokim - and God created the TANINIM and all
  living creatures... by their species"(1:21)
  This includes the birds, fish, animals, and beasts etc.
  which are created on the fifth and sixth days.

* STEP THREE - Man
      "va'YIVRA Elokim et ha'ADAM..." (1:27)
    The creation of man b'tzelem Elokim, in God's image.

     Now we must ponder what may be the Torah's message in
telling man that the creation of nature was a willful act
of
God?
     In his daily life, man constantly encounters a
relationship with nature, i.e. with his surroundings and
environment.  Man does not need the Torah to inform him
that
nature exists; it stares him in the face every day.  As
man
cannot avoid nature, he must constantly contemplate it,
and
struggle with it.
     Without the Torah's message, one could easily
conclude
that nature is the manifestation of many gods - a rain
god, a
sun god, a fertility god, war gods, etc. - as ancient man
believed.  Nature was attributed to a pantheon of gods,
often
warring with one another.
     In contrast, modern man usually arrives at quite the
opposite conclusion -- that nature just exists, and
doesn't
relate to any form of god at all.
     One could suggest that Chumash begins with story of
Creation, for man's relationship with God is based on his
recognition that nature is indeed the act of one God. He
created the universe for a purpose, and continues to
oversee
it.
     But how does this relate to man himself?

MAN - IN PEREK ALEPH
     In Perek Aleph, man emerges not only as the climax of
the
creation process, but also as its MASTER:
    "And God blessed man saying: Be fruitful and multiply,
    fill the earth and MASTER it, and RULE the fish of the
    sea, and the birds in the sky, and the living things
that
    creep on the earth..." (1:28).

     Note that this is God's BLESSING to man, and NOT a
commandment! One could consider this 'blessing' almost as
a
definition of man's very nature. Just as it is 'natural'
for
vegetation to grow ["esev mazria zera"], and for all
living
things to reproduce ["pru u'rvu"], it is also 'natural'
for
man to dominate his environment; it becomes his natural
instinct.
     The Torah's use of the verb "bara" at each major
stage of
creation, and then in its description of God's creation of
man
- may shed light on this topic. When contemplating nature
and
his relationship with the animal kingdom, man might easily
conclude that he is simply just another part of the animal
kingdom. He may be more advanced or developed than the
'average monkey', but biologically he is no different.
The
Torah's use of the verb "bara" to describe God's creation
of
man informs us that man is a completely new category of
creation. He is created "b'tzelem Elokim", in the image of
God, i.e. he possesses a spiritual potential, unlike any
other
form of nature.
    [See the Rambam in the very beginning of Moreh
N'vuchim
  (I.1), where he defines "tzelem Elokim" as the
  characteristic of man that differentiates him from
animal.]

     In other words, man's creation in a separate stage of
Day
Six, and the use of the verb "bara", and his special
blessing
etc. all come to impress upon man that he is indeed a
'quantum
leap' above all other creations.  He should not view
himself
as just the most sophisticated animal of the universe, but
rather as a Godly creation.
     Perek Aleph teaches man to recognize that his very
nature
to dominate all other living things is also an act of
God's
creation.
     However, man must also ask himself, "Towards what
purpose?" Did God simply create man, or does He continue
to
have a relationship with His creation?  Does the fate of
mankind remain in God's control; does there remain a
connection between man's deeds and God's "hashgacha"
(providence) over him?
     The answer to this question begins in PEREK BET - the
story of Gan Eden, and will continue through the rest of
Chumash!

PEREK BET (2:4-3:24)
     PEREK BET presents what appears to be conflicting
account
of the story of Creation.  As your review chapter two,
note
how:

 1) Nothing can grow before God creates man (see 2:5),
therefore:
 2) God creates man FIRST (2:6-7), then:
 3) God plants a garden for man, vegetation develops
(2:8-14);
 4) God gives man the job to work and guard this
garden(2:15);
 5) God commands man re: what he can/cannot eat (2:16-17);
 6) God creates animals for the sake of man (2:18-20)
 7) God creates a wife for man, from his own rib
(2:21-25).

     Clearly, the order of creation is very different. In
PEREK BET we find that man is created FIRST, and
everything
afterward (i.e. the plants and the animals) are created
FOR
him. In contrast to perek Aleph where man was God's final
Creation - the most sophisticated - and blessed to exert
his
dominion over the entire animal kingdom; in Perek Bet we
see
how man is simply a servant of God, tending to His Garden
(see
2:15-16), and searching for companionship (see 2:18-25).
In
perek Aleph, he emerged as 'ruler', almost like a god
himself
("b'tzelem Elokim"); in perek Bet he is a servant.
     In addition, there are several other obvious
differences
between these two sections:
 *  Throughout this section, God's Name is no longer
simply
    ELOKIM, rather the name HASHEM ELOKIM (better known as
    "shem Havaya").
 *  In contrast to the consistent use of verb "bara"
(creation
    from nothing) in Perek Aleph, Perek Bet uses the verb
    "ya'tzar" (creation from something'/ see 2:7,19).

     Although it is possible to reconcile these apparent
contradictions (as many commentators do), the question
remains
- Why does the Torah present these two accounts in a
manner
that (at least) appears to be conflicting?
     We obviously cannot accept the claim of the Bible
critics
that these two sections reflect two conflicting ancient
traditions.   Our belief is that the entire Torah was
given by
God at Har Sinai - and hence stems from one source.
Therefore, we must conclude that this special manner of
presentation is intentional and should carry a prophetic
message.  For this reason, our study of Sefer Breishit
will
focus more so on how the Torah's 'stories' of Creation
explain
the nature of man's relationship with God, and less so on
how
to resolve the 'technical' problems to determine what
events
actually took place and when.

     Two renowned Torah scholars of the 20th century have
discussed this issue of the two creations stories at
length.
The analytical aspect, the approach of "shtei bechinot"
(two
perspectives), has been exhausted by Rabbi Mordechei
Breuer in
his book Pirkei Breishit.  The philosophical implications
have
been discussed by Rav Soloveichik ZT"L in his article 'The
Lonely Man of Faith' (re: Adam I & Adam II).
     It is beyond the scope of this shiur to summarize
these
two approaches (it is recommended that you read them).
Instead, we will simply conduct a basic analysis of PEREK
ALEPH & PEREK BET and offer some thoughts with regard to
its
significance.  Hopefully it will provide a elementary
background for those who wish to pursue this topic in
greater
depth.
     With this in mind, we begin our analysis in an
attempt to
find the primary message of each of these two sections. We
begin with a review of our conclusions regarding Perek
Aleph.

PEREK ALEPH - THE CREATION OF NATURE
     Nature - the entire material universe and its
phenomena
["ha'shamayim v'haretz v'chol tzvaam"] - was the end
result of
the Seven Days of Creation.  Without the Torah's message,
man
may logically conclude that the universe that surrounds
him is
controlled by various different powers, each controlling
their
own realm (or what ancient man understood as a pantheon of
gods).
  Chumash begins by informing us that nature itself, with
all
its complexities and wonders, was a willful act of the
'one
God' - who continues to oversee His creations. [Hence the
name
-Elokim -(plural) all of the powers of nature.]
     However, if there is one phenomenon in nature that
appears to contradict this conclusion of unity, it is the
very
existence of "shamayim" [Heaven] and "aretz" [Earth].
Two
totally different realms, with almost not contact between
them, separated by the
"rakiaya"!  This observation may explain why there was
'nothing good' about Day Two, when God made the "rakiya",
for
it was this very first division that leaves us with the
impression that there must be 'many gods', and not one.
     This may also explain why the entire story of
Creation
begins with the statement that Elokim made [both]
"shamayim
v'aretz" (see 1:1), and concludes with a very similar
statement (see 2:1 & 2:4).
  [Note as well See Breishit 14:19-22 & 24:3.  Note as
well
  Devarim 31:28 & 32:1.  See also Ibn Ezra on Devarim
30:19
  (his second pirush on that pasuk)!]

     One could suggest that this may be one the primary
messages of the Torah's opening story of Creation - that
the
apparent 'duality' of "shamayim v'aretz" is indeed the act
of
one God.  Hence, the only aspect of Creation that could
not be
defined a 'good' was the creation of the "rakiya" which
divides them.  Later on, it will becomes man's challenge
to
find the connection between "shamayim v'aretz"!

PEREK BET - MAN IN GAN EDEN
  Perek Bet presents the story of creation from a totally
different perspective. Although it opens with a pasuk that
connects these two stories (2:4), it continues by
describing
man in an environment that is totally different than that
of
Perek Aleph.  Note how man is the focal point of the
entire
creation process in Perek Bet, as almost every act taken
by
God is for the sake of man:
     * No vegetation can grow before man is created (2:5)
     * God plants a special garden for man to live in
(2:8)
     * God 'employs' man to 'work in his garden' (2:15)
  * God creates the animals in an attempt to find him a
  companion (2:19/ compare with 2:7!)
     * God creates a wife for man (2:21-23)

  In contrast to Perek Aleph, where man's job is to be
dominant over God's creation, in Perek Bet man must be
obedient and work for God, taking care of the Garden:
    "And God took man and placed him in Gan Eden - L'OVDAH
    u'l'SHOMRAH - to work in it and guard it." (2:15)

     Most significantly, in PEREK BET man enters into a
relationship with God that contains REWARD and PUNISHMENT,
i.e. he is now responsible for his actions. For the first
time
in Chumash, we find that God COMMANDS man:
  "And Hashem Elokim commanded man saying: From all the
trees
  of the Garden YOU MAY EAT, but from the Tree of
Knowledge of
  Good and Bad YOU MAY NOT EAT, for on the day you eat
from it
  YOU WILL SURELY DIE... " (2:16-17)

     This special relationship between man and God in Gan
Eden, is paradigmatic of other relationships between man
and
God found later on in Chumash (e.g. in the Mishkan).
     God's Name in perek Bet - HASHEM ELOKIM (better known
as
"shem HAVAYA") - reflects this very concept. The shem
HAVAYA
comes from the shoresh (root) - "l'hiyot" (to be, i.e. to
be
present). This Name stresses that Gan Eden is an
environment
in which man can recognize God's presence, thus enabling
the
possibility of a relationship.
     Should man obey God, he can remain in the Garden,
enjoying a close relationship with God. However, should he
disobey, he is to die. In the next chapter, this 'death
sentence' is translated into man's banishment from Gan
Eden.
In biblical terms, becoming distanced from God is
tantamount
to death. [See Devarim 30:15-20.]
     In the Gan Eden environment, man is confronted with a
conflict between his "taava" (desire) and his obligation
to
obey God. The "nachash" [serpent], recognizing this
weakness,
challenges man to question the very existence of this
Divine
relationship (3:1-4). When man succumbs to his desires and
disobeys God, he is banished from the Garden.
     Whether or not man can return to this ideal
environment
will later emerge as an important biblical theme.

A DUAL EXISTENCE
     From PEREK ALEPH, we learn that God is indeed the
Creator
of nature, yet that recognition does not necessarily imply
that man can develop a personal relationship with Him. The
environment detailed in PEREK BET, although described in
physical terms, is of a more spiritual nature - for God
has
created everything specifically for man. However, in
return he
must obey God in order to enjoy this special relationship.
In
this environment, the fate of man is a direct function of
his
deeds.
     So which story of Creation is 'correct', PEREK ALEPH
or
PEREK BET? As you probably have guessed - both, for in
daily
life man finds himself involved in both a physical and
spiritual environment.
     Man definitely exists in a physical world in which he
must confront nature and find his purpose within its
framework
(PEREK ALEPH). There, he must struggle with nature in
order to
survive; yet he must realize that God Himself is the
master
over all of these Creations. However, at the same time,
man
also exists in a spiritual environment that allows him to
develop a relationship with his Creator (PEREK BET). In
it, he
can find spiritual life by following God's commandments
while
striving towards perfection. Should he not recognize the
existence of this potential, he defaults to 'spiritual
death'
- man's greatest punishment.

     Why does the Torah begin with this 'double' story of
Creation? We need only to quote the Ramban (in response to
this question, which is raised by the first Rashi of
Chumash):
  "There is a great need to begin the Torah with the story
of
  Creation, for it is the "shoresh ha'emunah", the very
root
  of our belief in God."

     Understanding man's potential to develop a
relationship
with God on the spiritual level, while recognizing the
purpose
of his placement in a physical world as well, should be
the
first topic of Sefer Breishit, for it will emerge as a
primary
theme of the entire Torah.

                         shabbat shalom,
                         menachem

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: breish1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 68326 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091015/691b1d92/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Oct 18 16:35:59 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 16:35:59 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Noach - questions for self study
Message-ID: <004701ca5032$9a4572f0$ced058d0$@net>

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

                PARSHAT  NOACH

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

SIGNIFICANT NAMES
1.  To the best of your memory, why was Noach named
'Noach'?
  After you answer this question, see 5:28-29!
  In your opinion, does this Biblical reason for Noach's
name
have anything to do with the Flood?  If so, explain why &
attempt to support your answer.  If not, explain why not.
  Next, review Adam ha-rishon's punishment, as described
in
3:17-19.  Can you relate this in any way to the reason for
Noach's name as described in 5:29?  [Relate as well to
4:11-12.]
   [If it's not Shabbos, a calculator will now come in
handy.]
  Was Adam ha-rishon still alive when Noach was born?  If
so,
how old was he?  [Base you answer on the genealogies
recorded
in Breishit chapter 5!]
  How old was Adam when Lemech (Noach's father) was born?
[Was Adam still alive?]
  Again, base your answer on 5:1-28.
  Based on the above questions, can you explain why Lemech
may
have named his son 'Noach' (as explained in 5:29)?

2.  In your opinion, why do you think that Noach named one
of
his children Shem?  In your answer, relate to 4:26 (&
12:8)!
  Relate this as well to Noach's blessing to Shem in 9:26!
Relate this as well to the famous Midrash of Chazal that
Shem
established the first Yeshiva, together with his great
grandson Ever!

3.  Based on the relative life spans of Shem's offspring
(as
described in 11:10-25), can you explain why specifically
Ever
is identified as the 'second Rosh Yeshiva'?
  Based on the genealogies in chapter 10, were Shem and/or
Ever alive during the life of Avraham?  Were either alive
during the lifetimes of Yitzchak and Yaakov?
  Then, note the special relationship between Shem & Ever,
as
implicit from 10:21, and from the focus specifically on
Ever's
offspring (even though he was Shem's great grandson) in
10:21
thru 10:31.  [Note as well how the average 'life-span'
changes
after the life of Ever.]
     Finally, note the names that Ever gives to his two
sons.
Do they suggest any 'prophetic' potential?
  For an interesting discussion of this topic, see Rashi
on
10:25; Seforno on 10:21 & 10:25, and Radak on 10:25.

4.  Can you suggest a reason for the Biblical names of
Noach's
two other children, Cham & Yefet?  [Note Ibn Ezra on
9:27.]
  Relate to the countries into which their children
dispersed,
as described in 10:1-15.
  As you review those names, attempt to identify the
various
continents to where this dispersion took place.
  Does this correspond to anything that you are familiar
with
from world history?
  
THE LAND OF 'CANAAN'
5.  Review chapter 10, noting its primary topic based on
10:1
and 10:32; and how it divides into three 'parshiot'.  As
you
study this chapter, attempt to identify the primary topic
of
each 'parshia'.  Did the three 'parshiot' relate to the
three
'sub-topics' that you expected to find?
  How do these parshiot correspond to Noach's three sons?
Does there appear to be anything 'non-symmetric'?  If so,
can
you explain why?
  Can you explain why an entire parshia is dedicated to
Canaan
and his children and the borders of their land?  Do we
find
this type of detail in relation to any other of Noach's
grandchildren?
  In your answer, relate to Breishit 17:7-8 and the
primary
theme of Sefer Breishit.  Relate as well to Shmot 6:2-4,
and
to when and why Sefer Breishit was given to Am Yisrael.
[See
also first Rashi on Chumash.]

THE FIRST ZIONIST
6.  Review 11:26-32.  Note how the Torah informs us that
Terach planned to 'make aliya' to Eretz Canaan, even
before
God commanded Avraham to do so in 12:1-3.  Is there any
reason
given for this decision?
     In your opinion, is it possible that the reason for
Terach's original journey to Canaan was because of God's
commandment to Avraham Avinu (as described in 12:1-3)?
  See the commentaries of Seforno, Ibn Ezra, and Radak (on
11:31); as they deal with this topic.
  Does Terach ever reach Eretz Canaan?  If not, can you
explain why he did not?  Later on (in Sefer Breishit), do
we
find that the other descendents of Terach, such as Betuel
&
Lavan, are still residing in Charan?  Can you explain why?
  
FAMILY TIES
7.  Review 11:27-29.  Based on these psukim, determine who
were Haran's three children.  Who took care of each of
them
after he died?  Be sure that you can explain how and why!
  Based on these psukim, can you explain why Chazal
identify
Yiska as Sara?  Relate as well to 12:13, 20:5, and 20:12.
See Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Radak (on 11:29)!

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
IIa - Shiur #1: The primary theme of Sefer Breishit
  [In our introductory shiur for Sefer Breishit, we
  concluded with a set of questions showing a methodology
  for studying the theme of Sefer Breishit.  Be sure to
  complete those questions before continuing.]
  
1.  If you have adequate time (and patience), make a
(vertical) list of the primary topic of each of the
'parshiot'
from the beginning of Sefer Breishit through chapter 13.
While doing so, summarize each parshia in one short
phrase.
[Remember, only one line for each parshia.]
  Then, review your list, and group the parshiot together
into
larger blocks that share a common topic.  For example, the
seven days of creation would group together, as would the
lists of "toladot" that we find in chapters five and ten.
  Let's consider these titles (that you have given for
these
'groups of parshiot') as sub-topics.  Then, continue this
process once again by making a list of all of your
'sub-topics
- to see if you can identify a more general topic that
would
group some of these sub topics together.  [You will notice
that you are actually building an outline for Sefer
Breishit.]
  [Alternately, if you don't have time for the above, then
  simply attempt to make an outline of the main topics in
  Sefer Breishit, up until chapter 13.  Attempt to
ascertain
  the logic of progression of these topics.
  
2.  In your study of chapter five, you should have noticed
a
certain 'template' that repeats itself in almost every
individual 'parshia'.  Try to create a blank 'template'
that
would reflect the 'form' of each of these 'parshiot'.
  In what way does the 'parshia' that begins with 5:28-29
slightly deviate from this pattern?  Can you explain why?
[See
Rashi & Chizkuni on 5:28 / see also Ibn Ezra.]
  How does the 'parshia' that begins with 5:32 deviate
from
the pattern found in all the parshiot of 'toladot' that
preceded it?
  In your opinion, do these psukim relate to the previous
unit
(i.e. the story of Gan Eden); or to the unit that follows
(i.e. the story of the Flood, or to both (or to neither)?
  Can you explain why chapter six begins where it does?
Do
you agree with this chapter division, or is the 'parshia'
division more 'accurate'?

3.  In your outline of sub-topics, you surely noticed that
lists of "toladot" appear several times in the first 12
chapters.
  [To verify this, note how 2:4, 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10,
11:27
  are all psukim that introduce parshiot that also begin
with
  a statement introducing "toladot".]
  
  In your opinion, do these lists 'conclude' the preceding
topics or do they 'introduce' the forthcoming topics?
[This
question may cause you to rethink (or redo) your outline.]
  Then, see 9:28-29, noting how these psukim relate to
5:1-31
and the 'template' discussed in the above question)!  How
does
this observation help you answer the above question in
regard
to the thematic connection between the "toladot" and the
stories that follow them?
  
4. Attempt to identify one general topic that summarizes
the
entire story that follows each set of toladot from chapter
two
thru twelve.  After constructing a list of these topics,
see
if these topics relate in any manner to how God intervenes
in
the history of mankind?  Does these topics relate as well
to
what God 'expects' from mankind?  If so, explain.
  In your answer, consider the progression of topic that
develops from one major unit to the next.  Note as well
how
the lists of "toladot" are usually followed by stories
that
relate divine retribution ['sechar ve-onesh'].
  Attempt to find thematic significance in this pattern.
  
5.  Note how the sub-topic that begins in chapter 12 -
which
follows the list of "toladot" in chapter 11 - focuses on
God's
choice of Avraham Avinu, and appears to quite different
than
all the previous sub-topics thus far in Sefer Breishit.
  How can this observation help provide us with a thematic
explanation for why Avraham Avinu is chosen by God (and
for
what purpose)?  Considering the primary topic of Sefer
Breishit from chapter twelve until its conclusion, can
this
help you suggest an overall theme for the entire Sefer?

6.  Note that at the end of each major section of your
outline, there is a story that relates in some manner or
other
to the word 'shem'.  For example, see 4:26, 9:26, 11:4,
and
12:8.
  Explain what the word "shem" refers to in each example.
  In 4:26 and 12:8, explain the meaning of the phrase
'likro
be-shem Hashem' in its context,   [See Ramban on 12:8,
Rashi &
Seforno on 4:26.]
  Based on 4:26 and this context, attempt to explain why
Noach
may have named one of his children Shem!  What was his
hope
for this child? [Relate to 9:26, and see Radak!]
  
7.  Note that the word 'HuChaL' [or a similar "shoresh"]
is
used several times in Parshiot Noach and Breishit:
  4:26 - "az huchal likro be-shem Hashem"
  6:1 - "vayehi ki hechel ha-adam larov al pnei
ha-adama..."
  9:20 - "va-yachel Noach ish ha-adama..."
  10:8 - "...Nimrod, hu hachel lihiyot gibbor ba-aretz..."
  11:6 - "... ve-zeh hachilam la'asot...."

  In each of these cases, the simple meaning of the word
is to
'begin', yet each of the related stories all relate to
some
sort of 'downfall' of mankind.  To verify this statement,
review those psukim and their context.
  Relate this to Chazal's interpretation of 'huchal' in
4:26.
See Rashi, Rasag, Ibn Ezra, and Sforno.
  See also Rambam Sefer Mada, Hilchot Avoda Zara 1:1.
=====

IIb for Shiur #2: Parshat Noach / The MABUL - pre & post
A Divine Duality
1.  In Breishit 6:5-8, God declares His intention to
destroy
all of mankind, and provides a reason for this decision
(note
also how these psukim form an independent 'parshia').
Then,
in 6:11-13 we find yet another declaration of God's intent
to
destroy the world, but phrased somewhat differently.
  Compare the reasons given for the planned destruction in
these two parallel 'parshiot'.  Are they the same or
different?  If they are the same, explain the reason for
the
repetition.  If they are different, explain the primary
differences between them.
  Is there any apparent thematic need for these two
parallel
passages?

2.  As you review these two 'parshiot' once again, note
the
different Names that the Torah uses to describe God in
each
respective 'parshia'.  What is the significance of this
'switch'?
  Relate your answer to our discussion of the two stories
of
Creation presented in the first two chapters of Sefer
Breishit?

3.  Next, compare God's commandment to Noach in 6:13-22,
to
His commandment in 7:1-5.  Again, what Name does the Torah
use
to describe God in the two passages?  Again, what is
similar
and what is different?  [Note the opening and closing
psukim
of each unit.]

4.  Finally, notice God's instructions to Noach after the
Mabul: i.e. compare 8:20-21 to 6:5-8, and compare 9:9-17
to
6:11-19.  Relate this to your answer to the above
questions.

A New Beginning
5.  After the Mabul, (in 9:1-7) God presents Noach with a
set
of instructions that will now guide mankind's behavior.
Review these psukim.  Would you consider them mitzvot?  If
so,
how many mitzvot do they include?  If not, how would you
define them?

6.  Then, compare these psukim to God's instructions to
Man
after his creation (on the sixth day) in 1:28-31.
   What is similar and what is different?  Would you
consider
this a 'contrasting parallel'?  If so, explain how.

7.  Based on the events of the mabul, can you explain the
reason for this 'new' relationship between man and God?
  Would you say that man is now on a 'higher' or 'lower'
level?
    [Relate to the phrase 'yerek eisev' and its context
    in both 9:3 and 1:29-30!]

8.  What other parallels can you find between the story of
Creation as detailed in the first chapter of Sefer
Breishit
and the Torah's description of the events that conclude
the
Mabul in 8:1-9:29?  Can you suggest a reason for this
parallel?
===========

PART III - PARSHANUT

THE FIRST COVENANT  've-hakimoti et briti'
1.  Carefully review 6:17-21 and attempt to explain the
flow
of topic in these psukim.  In your opinion what covenant
does
the word 'brit' in 6:18 refer to?  Up to this point in
Chumash, have we ever encountered any sort of a brit?
  Did you understand this brit as a one-sided promise by
God,
or a two-sided 'deal' between man & God?
  How does this affect your answer to the above question?
  Next, review 9:8-17 (and its context). Is the brit
described
in 9:8-17 (i.e. brit ha-keshet') the same brit that God
refers
to in 6:18?
  Explain why yes, or why no - based on both thematic and
textual considerations.

2.  Now, see Rashi on 6:18.
   How does Rashi understand this brit?  Note how his
commentary is based on 'simple pshat'!  Be sure that you
understand how (and why) his commentary is based on 6:21.
  How would Rashi answer question #1 above?

3.  Next, see Ibn Ezra on 6:18.
  According to Ibn Ezra, how do the parallel [but
different]
stories relating to the "meraglim" in Bamidbar and Devarim
help explain this pasuk (i.e. 6:18) based on what will be
explained later on in 9:8-17?
  How does he explain specifically what this brit is
referring
to?  Be sure that you can explain how his commentary is
based
on 6:17 and 6:19.
  Finally, note that immediately afterward Ibn Ezra makes
another statement ('ve-hakarov alai...'), claiming that
this
brit refers to brit ha-keshet.  Does this contradict his
first
explanation, or complement it?  Explain why Ibn Ezra adds
this
statement (based on 9:9-17.)
  Towards the end of his peirush, Ibn Ezra explains what
the
word "brit| stems from.  Relate this once again to
question #1
above.  According to this interpretation, what are the
'two
sides' of the brit with Noach?

3. Next, see Ramban on 6:18.  Note that he first he quotes
Ibn
Ezra, then he offers two interpretations of his own, one
'be-
derech ha-pshat' and the second 'al derech ha-emet'. [Be
sure
that you understand the differences between them, and how
they
relate to questions #1 & #2 above!
  Note that what Ramban refers to as "pshat" is based on
6:19.
Can you explain why he calls this pshat?  [Can you learn
from
this what Ramban means when he says a certain peirush is
pshat?]
  Similarly, note how what Ramban refers to as 'derech ha-
emet' is based on the Torah's use of the concept of brit
in
other parshiot, and its connection to the overall theme of
Sefer Breishit.  [Can this help you understand what Ramban
means when he speaks of derech ha-emet?]

Pru-u-revu - Be Fruitful and Multiply
4.  Review 9:1-7, noting how 9:1 relates to 9:7.  Can you
explain why "pru u-revu" is repeated twice?  [Relate also
to
1:22 & 1:28.]
  See Rashi on 9:7.  What does Rashi mean when he relates
to
the 'pshat' and the 'drash' of these two psukim?
  Next, see Ramban.  What does Ramban mean when he states
'pshuto ke-midrasho'.  Does this agree with Rashi, or
disagree?
  How (and why) does Ramban relate to 1:22 & 1:28 in his
commentary?  How does he explain the source for the
Midrash
that Rashi quotes, equating one who intentionally refrains
from having children to a murderer.  [Relate to 1:6]
  Finally, see Chizkuni; note that he offers three
interpretations.  Attempt to explain the reason for each.
[In
other words, what exegetic principle does each
interpretation
stem from?]  Relate to:
  a) the overall topic of Parshat Noach
  b) the previous pasuk
  c) the repetition from 9:1.  [See also Radak.]
  
DISPERSING & GATHERING
5.  Note that the final pasuk in chapter ten describes how
the
grandchildren of Noach dispersed.  Then, in 11:1-9, we
find
that the nations had gathered together (see 11:1), and
then
later, in the aftermath of the Tower of Babel incident,
God
caused them to disperse (see 11:7-9).
  In your opinion, what was the actual order of these
events?
In other words, does 11:1-9 come to explain how 10:32 came
about, or did the gathering of nations (as described in
11:1)
take place after they had originally dispersed (as
described
in 10:32)?
  See Ramban on 11:2!  Note how he relates to each
possibility.  Note as well how the Ramban explains the
deeper
meaning of this entire incident in 11:2.  Read this Ramban
carefully, and relate his commentary to this week's shiur!

THE BUILDERS' SIN
6. Review 11:1-4, noting how these psukim explain what the
builders of the Tower of Babel did, even though it is not
quite clear what they did wrong.
     Based on the psukim alone, is there any 'hint' to
what
they did that angered God?
     In the classic commentaries, we find a wide range of
opinions. First see Rashi (on 11:1) noting how he finds
fault
with their original intentions, as reflected in the
opening
pasuk.
     In contrast, see Rashbam (on 11:4) where he focuses
on
the reason they themselves give for building the city (in
11:4); and hence bases his interpretation on the parallel
wording of their punishment (see 11:8 /"pen nafotz" vs.
"va'yafetz Hashem otam"); and God's original commandment
to
man that he 'spread out' and fill the earth (see 1:28).
  [See similar interpretations in Ibn Ezra and Chizkuni on
  11:1 thru 11:4.  Note as well how they are slightly
  different.]

     Then, see Ramban on 11:1, noting how and why he first
disagrees with Rashbam and Ibn Ezra.  [Be sure you
understand
why he refers to them as "rodfei ha'pshat" - and then
explains
why their explanation can not be "pshat"!]  Afterward,
Ramban
presents his own presentation, basing it on the Torah's
use of
the word "shem" in 11:4.  Note as well how Ramban's
approach
follows the direction of the TSC shiur on this topic (see
this
week's shiur on Parshat Noach).
     Finally, see Seforno on 11:4, noting how he also
focuses
on the phrase "'v'naaseh lanu shem" to find their sin -
and
how he relates this his commentary on 4:26!

           be-hatzlacha,
           menachem



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: noachq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 36638 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091018/465b071c/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Oct 22 01:59:35 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:59:35 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Parshat Noach - shiur  #1
Message-ID: <000001ca52dc$d637e2f0$82a7a8d0$@net>

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

		PARSHAT  NOACH  - shiur #1

	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 1150) 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)
2535	Yitzchak 		Yaakov and Esav (their
rivalry) 
36    	Esav			 *	his 'rejection'
3750	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 11:17).

	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
5:132 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 7:2227 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 BetEl and calls
out be-shem Hashem (12:8).  After his sojourn in Egypt due
to the famine, Avraham returns to this mizbeiach at BetEl
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.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: noach1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 57429 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091022/02fe1d9d/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Oct 22 02:00:51 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 02:00:51 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Parshat Noach -additional shiurim
Message-ID: <000401ca52dd$0367e130$0a37a390$@net>

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

           for PARSHAT  NOACH - 3 additional shiurim


SHIUR #1

                 TOLADOT BNEI NOACH 
        'Setting the stage' for Sefer Breishit

	After reading the opening pasuk of chapter ten:
"ayle toldot bnei Noach..." [These are the generations of
the children of Noach] - one would expect to find a
balanced listing of the various children of Noach's three
sons (and possibly some of their notable grandchildren as
well). 
    We would also expect for this chapter to divide into
three paragraphs (or "parshiot") - each one dedicated for
the genealogies of each of Noach's three sons: Shem, Cham
and Yefet.
	However, as we study this chapter, we'll discover
that we don't find what we 'expected'.  Instead, we find a
very 'unbalanced' listing, and a very 'lopsided' division
into 'parshiot'. 
	In the following shiur, we attempt to explain why,
and how the names that are detailed in this chapter help
'set the stage' for what will transpire later on in Sefer
Breishit.  

INTRODUCTION
	Take a quick glance at chapter ten, noting how it
divides (as we expected) into three 'parshiot' [see
10:1-14, 10:15-20, and 10:21-32]; but then take a more
careful look at the first 'parshia', noting how it
includes the descendants of BOTH Yefet and Cham; while the
second 'parshia' discusses ONLY the children of Canaan
(even though he was only one of Cham's many children).
Note as well how the third (and final) 'parshia' is
dedicated solely to the offspring of Shem.
[It's also rather interesting how YEFET branches out to
what later becomes Europe (i.e. 'Yavan'=Greece etc.), CHAM
branches out to what later becomes Africa (Mitzraim =
Egypt; Kush = Ethiopia etc.) as well as the seven nations
of Eretz Canaan. Finally, SHEM branches off into
Mesopotamia (and Asia Minor).]

SPECIAL DETAILS
	Even though the description of Yefet's offspring
is straightforward, i.e. the Torah details his children
and some of his grandchildren; the genealogy of Cham
clearly puts an emphasis on Nimrod, most likely because he
enters Mesopotamia, even though the rest of his family
remains in Africa; or possibly because he will later
become one of the builders of the Tower of Babel (see
10:10-12/ note Rashi and Ramban!). 
	In the second 'parshia', we also find a unique
detail, as the Torah outlines the geographical area where
Canaan's children settled - most likely because God will
later promise this 'land of Canaan' to Avraham (see 17:8).
Therefore we find not only the names of all of Canaan's
children, but also their borders. 
[Similarly, the Torah had earlier described Cham as the
'father of Cannan' (in the story of when he is cursed by
his father/ see 9:22-25).]

	Most bizarre is the Torah's presentation of the
descendants of SHEM (see 10:21-30).  Instead of describing
Shem's own children and grandchildren, this final
"parshia" seems to focus instead on the children of EVER,
who was only one of Shem's numerous great grandchildren!
To verify this, first note the emphasis on this point in
the ver opening pasuk of this section:
"And SHEM also had children, he [SHEM] is the [fore]father
of ALL the children of EVER..." (see 10:21)

	Then the 'parshia' quickly lists SHEM's own
children, focusing on ARPACHSHAD - who gives birth to
SHALACH - who gives birth to EVER. (note 10:22-25).  We
find no detail of Shem's grandchildren, other than
Arpachshad. However, we do find minute detail concerning
EVER's own two sons: PELEG and YOKTAN.  Then we are told
of the reason for PELEG's name (clearly this relates to,
and sets the background, for the Migdal Bavel narrative
that follows in chapter 11). Then, the Torah enters minute
detail of all of the children of Yoktan ben Ever [thirteen
in total] AND where they lived (see 10:25-30). 
	Just like CANAAN and his children became the
Torah's 'key' descendants of Cham, EVER and his children
become the 'key' descendants of Shem. 
[Note (in chapter 11/ you might need a calculator), how
Ever outlives most of his great grandchildren. (He is the
last person to live over four hundred years; from the next
generation onwards, life-spans seems to drop in half to
under 200.) These observations are supported by Chazal's
identification of Ever as the 'co-headmaster' of the very
first YESHIVA (of 'SHEM & EVER')!]

'SETTING THE STAGE'
	Clearly, this entire unit (i.e. chapter ten) is
not merely listing the grandchildren of Noach.  Rather,
this presentation provides a 'background' for events that
will later unfold in the book. For example, God promises
Avraham "ha'IVRI" (see 14:13 - a descendant of Ever) -
that one day his offspring will be charged to inherit the
land of Canaan, in order to fulfill their divine destiny.
[Most likely, the name "Ivrim" also refers to a
descendants of Ever (see 39:17, 40:15, 43:32, and Shmot
5:1-5!).]  

	Finally, one could also suggest that chapter 10
also serves as an introduction to the story of Migdal
Bavel (see 11:1-10). To prove this, simply note
10:5,10,20,31,32. This also may explain why Chazal
identify Nimrod as one of the key builders of that Tower. 
[Regarding the 'correct' chronological order of the events
recorded in chapters 10 and 11, note Radak on 10:32, see
also Rashi & Ramban on 11:1 (& our self study questions).]
	
	In conclusion, don't let what may appear to be a
'boring' set of psukim in Chumash fool you. They usually
contain much more than first meets the eye. 




SHIUR #2

THE 'PESHAT' OF 'DERASH' on the word "HU'CHAL"

	In our weekly shiur on Parshat Noach (sent out
earlier this week), we discussed the importance of the
word "shem" and its usage in the last pasuk of chapter
four. To review that point, review once again the final
two psukim of chapter four, noting how they conclude the
first 'unit' (chapters 1-.4) of Sefer Breishit:
"And also Shet gave birth to a son, and called him Enosh -
AZ [then] HUCHAL [soon to be translated] to call out in
the Name of God". (see 4:26)

	At first glance, the translation of this pasuk
appears to be quite straightforward, i.e. the word HUCHAL
means BEGAN [like "l'hatchil" - to begin], and hence, the
Torah now informs us that in the time of Enosh man began
to 'call out in God's Name'. And indeed, Rashbam and Ibn
Ezra explain this pasuk in this manner.
[Note English translations of JPS and Jerusalem Bibles, in
contrast to that of the Stone Chumash.]

	Nonetheless, the classic commentators (as well as
several Midrashim) interpret this pasuk in the opposite
direction, understanding that the word "HUCHAL" implies
the defilement of God's Name (shoresh "chilul" -see Tirgum
Unkelos). For example:

*	Rashi - Man began IDOL WORSHIP by calling god's
name on certain objects and/or people.
	
*	Rav Saadyah Gaon - calling in God's Name became
DEFILED.
 
*	Ramban - Man NULLIFIED ["bitul"] God's Name.

 *	Rambam - Man began IDOL worship [Hilcht Avodah
Zara I:1]
[According to Mesechet Shabbat [see 118b], the generation
of Enosh typifies a society of idol worshipers!]

	At first glance, these interpretations seem rather
'streched'. After all, this pasuk is the first time in
Chumash that we finally find (what appears to be) a
POSITIVE statement concerning the progress of mankind.
Why then do Chazal read this pasuk in such a NEGATIVE
light?
	To answer this question, and to better appreciate
Chazal, we posit this 'negative' interpretation stems from
the Torah's use of two key 'biblical phrases':
	1) "az huchal" , and
	2) "l'kro b'shem Hashem"

	Had these two phrases not been found anywhere else
in Sefer Breishit, then most likely everyone would have
agreed to the 'simple' interpretation (as suggested by
Rashbam) that man BEGAN to call (or pray) to God. However,
we will see how the word "hu'chal", and the concept of
'calling out in God's Name', appears numerous times in
Sefer Breishit, and hence, those sources must be taken
into consideration when interpreting this pasuk (see again
4:26).

	Let's begin with the word "hu'chal", noting how it
is used in a NEGATIVE context each other time that it is
mentioned in Parshiot Breishit and Noach.

BEFORE THE FLOOD
	Immediately after the Torah introduces Noach (see
6:1-4), we find another interesting use of "hu'chal":
"va'yhi ki HE'CHEL ha'adam..." - And it came to pass as
man began to multiply... and gave birth to daughters..."
(6:1)
	
	This pasuk introduces the story of the MABUL with
God's anger with man for his behavior (hence limiting his
life span to 120 years). [Note Rashi who explains that the
120 years relates to the Flood itself!]
	Even though "he'chel" clearly implies a
'beginning' (see Ibn Ezra), there can be no doubt that
this pasuk introduces the beginning of a NEGATIVE process!
[See Ramban.]

AFTER THE FLOOD
	In a similar manner, immediately after the Flood,
note how the Torah introduces its description of the
incident of Noach and Canaan (i.e. when he becomes drunk/
see 9:20-27):
"VA'YACHEL Noach ish ha'adama" - Noach, the tiller of the
soil, BEGAN to plant a vineyard..." (see 9:20)

	Here again we find the BEGINNING of a 'downward'
process. Even though Rasag and Seforno explain "va'yachal"
as 'began', Rashi (quoting the Midrash) explains
"va'yachel" as "chulin" - that he defiled himself.

BEFORE MIGDAL BAVEL
	In the next chapter, when the Torah lists the
genealogy of Noach's grandchildren, we find yet another
use of the word "ha'chel" in the description of Nimrod:
"And Kush gave birth to Nimrod, HU HA'CHEL - he BEGAN - to
be a GIBOR [strong/brave man] on earth... His kingdom
began in Bavel..." (see 10:8-11!)

	Here, "ha'chel" clearly implies a 'beginning', yet
as we all know (and as the pasuk alludes to in its mention
of Bavel), Nimrod is most probably the mastermind behind
the Tower of Babel Project. [See Rashi 10:8, note also
shoresh "mered" [revolt] in his name "nimrod"/ note also
Ibn Ezra on this pasuk!]
	Once again, we find the beginning of a 'downhill'
process.

AT MIGDAL BAVEL
	Finally, when God 'comes down' to punish the
builders of MIGDAL BAVEL (see 11:1-9), we find yet another
use of "hu'chal":
"And God came down to see the city and the tower... and He
said, it is because they are united... v'zeh HA'CHILAM
la'asot - and this caused them to START this undertaking,
and now nothing will stop them... (see 11:5-6)

	Once again, we find that the Torah uses
specifically this word to indicate the beginning of a
process that is against God's will!

BACK TO ENOSH
	Based on these four examples where the Torah
employs the word "hu'chal" to describe the BEGINNING of a
DOWNHILL process, it should not surprise us to find that
Chazal offer a similar explanation in 4:26, that the
generation of ENOSH began to 'defile' God's Name, rather
than exalt it.

"LIKRO B'SHEM HASHEM"
	Let's examine now the second phrase of this pasuk
- "l'kro b'shem Hashem" - as it will provide us with
additional support for why Chazal understand this event as
such an important 'milestone' in the history of idol
worship. 
	Recall from Parshat Lech L'cha how this very same
phrase is used when Avraham Avinu arrives at (and returns
to) Bet-El:
"...and he built there an altar to God, and he called
there in God's Name [va'yikra b'shem Hashem] "  (see 12:8)
		[See Ramban on this pasuk, see also 13:3-4
and 21:33.]
		
    As the prophet Tzfania himself later explains, this
concept becomes the ultimate goal of the Jewish nation:
"For then I will unite all the nations together that they
speak the same language so that they all CALL OUT IN GOD'S
NAME - l'kro kulam b'shem Hashem - and to serve Him with
one accord" (see Tzfania 3:9/ see also I Kings 8:41-43).  
[See also the "v'al kein nekaveh" prayer that we add after
reciting "aleinu l'shabeach" - "v'chol bnei basar YIKRU
B'SHMECHA" - .]

	If our understanding is correct - that Avraham
Avinu is chosen to rectify mankind from the direction
taken by the builders of Migdal Bavel, then thematically
it makes sense to explain the pasuk concerning the
generation of Enosh (4:26) in a negative light, for
Avraham is chosen not only to fix the sin of "v'naaseh
lanu SHEM" (see 11:4), but also to teach mankind what they
had misunderstood since the time of Enosh, the sin of "az
hu'chal l'kro b'shem Hashem...".
	For a more complete explanation, simply read the
entire first chapter of the Rambam in Hilchot Avoada Zara
(in Sefer MADA). As you study that Rambam, note how that
entire chapter reflects his interpretation of Sefer
Breishit!

	Finally, if you have time, read Seforno's
introduction to Sefer Breishit. It is simply a
masterpiece.  As you study it, note how he relates to the
above pasuk from Tzfania 3:9 as well as 4:26 and the 11:4!
Note as well how attempts to provide a comprehensive
explanation of the primary theme of Sefer Breishit.

=========================

SHIUR #3 -
	 TOLADOT BNEI NOACH  [Chapter Ten]

	After we read the opening pasuk of chapter ten:
"ayle Toldot Bnei Noach...", we would expect to find a
simple listing of the Noach's grandchildren, and maybe
even some of his grandchildren. We also find that this
chapter divides into three distinct "parshiot" that we
would expect to divide evenly among Shem, Cham and Yefet.
	Nevertheless, when we study this chapter we
uncover some rather interesting details, that we may not
have otherwise expected. 
	First of all, note how the first "parshia"
includes the descendents of both Yefet and Cham, while the
next "parshia" discusses only Canaan.  Note as well how
YEFET branches out to what later becomes Europe (i.e.
Greece etc.), CHAM branches out to what later becomes
Africa (Mitzrayim, Kush = Egypt, Etheopia etc.) as well as
the seven nations of Eretz Canaan. Finally SHEM branches
off into Mesopotamia (and Asia Minor).

	Even though the description of Yefet's offspring
is straightforward, the genealogy of Cham clearly puts an
emphasis on Nimrod - most likely becomes he becomes the
builder of Migdal Bavel, and because he enters
Mesopotamia, even though the rest of his family remains in
Africa (see 10:10-12/ note Rashi and Ramban!). 
	We also find extra details concerning Canaan, for
Chumash will later explain how God gives the land of
Canaan to Avraham (note 15:18-20). Therefore we find not
only the name of Canaan's children, but also the borders
of their land. 
	Hence we conclude that the descendants of CHAM
focus on Canaan his children.  [Note how this relates as
well to 9:22-25 where the Torah describes Cham as the
'father of Cannan' throughout the story of Cham's sin
against his father.]
	Even more interesting is the Torah's presentation
of the descendants of SHEM (see 10:21-30).  Note how the
focus of this entire "parshia" describing bnei SHEM
actually focuses almost exclusively on EVER, his great
grandson!  First of all, note the opening pasuk:
"And SHEM also had children, he [SHEM] is the [fore]father
of ALL the children of EVER..." (see 10:21)

	Then the 'parshia' quickly lists SHEM's own
children, focusing on ARPACHSHAD - who gives birth to
SHALACH - who gives birth to EVER. (note 10:22-25).  We
find no detail of Shem's grandchildren, other than
Arpachshad. However, we do find minute detail concerning
Arpachshad's son EVER, his two sons: PELEG and YOKTAN.
Then we are told of the reason for PELEG's name (clearly
this relates to, and sets the background, for the Migdal
Bavel narrative that follows in chapter 11).
	Then, the Torah enters minute detail of all of the
children of Yoktan ben Ever [thirteen in total] AND where
they lived (see 10:25-30). 
	Just like Canaan and his children became the
Torah's 'key' descendants of Cham, Ever and his children
become the 'key' descendants of Shem.  [Hence, it should
not surprise us that we find that CHAZAL speak of the
YESHIVA of 'SHEM & EVER'.]

	Clearly, this entire unit (i.e. chapter ten) is
not merely listing the grandchildren of Noach.  Rather, in
its presentation of his grandchildren we are also setting
the stage for the story in Sefer Breishit that will follow
- whereby God promises Avraham Avinu - a descendant of
Ever - that one day he will be charged to inherit the land
of Canaan, in order to fulfill a divine destiny. 
	Furthermore, this most likely explains what the
Torah refers to in later references to an "Ivri", as in
"Avram ha'ivri" (see 14:13). This appears to be a general
name for the descendants of EVER.  [Note as well from the
ages of the people mentioned in the genealogies in chapter
11 how Ever outlives all of his great grandchildren.  He
is the last generation to live over four hundred years,
for in the next generation man's lifespan seems to drop in
half to under 200.]
	Finally, one could also suggest that chapter 10
also serves as an introduction to the story of Migdal
Bavel. To prove this, simply note 10:5,10,20,31,32. This
also may explain why Chazal identify Nimrod as one of the
key builders of that Tower. 
[Regarding the 'correct' chronological order of chapters
10 and 11, note Radak on 10:32, see also Rashi & Ramban on
11:1 (and our questions for self study.]
	
	In conclusion, don't let what may appear to be a
'boring' set of psukim in Chumash fool you. They usually
contain much more than first meets the eye. 
	
shabbat shalom,
	
Menachem





-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: noach2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 35578 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091022/42f92c36/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Oct 26 15:19:39 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:19:39 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] lech Lecha - questions for self study
Message-ID: <006701ca5671$44405380$ccc0fa80$@net>

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

                      PARSHAT LECH LECHA

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

'GOYIM' FOR JEWS, OR JEWS FOR 'GOYIM'
1.  As you probably recall, at the beginning of Parshat
Lech
Lecha, God speaks to Avraham Avinu for the first time,
promising him that he will become a great nation, and
instructing him to leave his homeland to travel to the
'promised land'.
     To the best of your recollection, does the Torah ever
explain why specifically Avraham was chosen to become this
nation?
     If so, where (and why)?
     If not, can you explain why not?
     Are you familiar with Midrashim that do explain why?
     Can you explain why the Midrash deals with this
topic?

2.  When the Torah describes God's choice of Avraham
Avinu,
does it also explain why he was chosen, i.e. towards what
purpose (or goal)?
  If so, how does his 'being chosen' relate to that
purpose?
  Review 12:1-3, noting what God tells Avraham.  Construct
a
list of these various statements, categorizing them either
as
commands, promises, or just 'information'.
  If your list includes 'promises', did you understand
them as
'reward'?  If so, why is Avraham being rewarded?
  If not, why is God making him those promises?  Do they
relate in any manner to 'why' Avraham has been chosen?
  
3.  Is there any thematic connection (that you can think
of)
between God's choice of Avraham Avinu at the beginning of
Parshat Lech Lecha, and any (or all) of the events that
took
place in Chumash beforehand (i.e. in chapters 1 thru 11)?
  In your opinion (based on your understanding of Parshat
Lech
Lecha), what came first:
  *  God's decision that He wants to create a special
nation,
  and then His choice of Avraham; or
  *  Avraham's great character, and hence God's decision
to
  reward him with a 'promised land' and his own nation.

     How would your answer to the above question affect
the
manner in which you understand the purpose of the Jewish
people?

4.  Review Breishit 18:17-19, while noting the rather
obvious
parallel between 18:18 and Breishit 12:1-3.  Be sure you
understand how and why these two sets of psukim relate to
one
another.
     In what manner does 18:19 explain God's purpose in
His
choice of Avraham to become a nation?  Based on that
pasuk,
would you say that Avraham (and hence Am Yisrael) was
chosen
in 'reward' for something, or towards a 'purpose'?
     Relate this as well to your answers to the above
questions.
  See Yeshayahu 42:5-6 (the opening lines of the Haftara
for
Parshat Breishit, and not by chance).  How do these psukim
relate to the above questions!
  How would this 'purpose' relate to the reason why Bnei
Yisrael remain God's chosen nation forever, even though
they
may sin?  How does it explain why God threatens to punish
them
so severely when they do sin?
  
WHO'S LAUGHING?
1.  We are all familiar with the fact that Sarah 'laughed'
(see 18:11-12) when she first heard the news that she
would
have a son (even though she was 90) - and hence the baby
was
named Yitzchak.
     Were you aware that Avraham also had 'laughed' when
he
first heard this news at an earlier time?  To confirm
this,
read 17:15-19.  Then compare those psukim to 18:9-15.  How
are
the reactions of Avraham and Sarah similar and how are
they
different?
  Re: Sarah's reaction and its contrast to that of
Avraham;
  see Chizkuni, Radak, and Seforno on 18:12.

'MI-KEDEM' & GAN EDEN
1.  In chapter 13 - when Lot leaves Avraham Avinu, the
Torah
describes the direction of his departure with the word
'mi-
kedem'  (see 13:11).  Considering that Lot was traveling
from
the mountain range towards the east, what is problematic
with
this pasuk?

2.  There are several other instances when the same word
is
used to describe other earlier events in Chumash.  For
example, note the meaning of mi-kedem (and 'kidmat') in
3:24,
4:16 & 11:2.
     What is the context of each of these psukim in
relation
to man's relationship with God?
     Relate this to the Midrash Aggadh that Rashi quotes
in
his commentary to 13:11 (re: 'va-yisa Lot mi-kedem')!

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION
       (for this week's shiurim)

LOT'S DEPARTURE
1.  As you study Parshat Lech Lecha, make a list of the
main
topic(s) of each 'parshia'.  As you review each story,
note
each time that God speaks to Avraham Avinu in regard to
his
future.  [Be sure to notice 12:1-7, 13:14-17; 15:1-20; and
17:1-22.]
     In each instance, try to determine the primary topic
(and
purpose) of each conversation.  Do you find a
'progression' of
any type from one conversation to the next, or does each
conversation deal with a different topic?
  How often to find what a appears to be a repeat of an
original promise?  Can you explain why?

2.  As you make your list, answer the following questions
concerning each "hitgalut" [revelation]:
     a. What event preceded this hitgalut?
  b. What specific Name the Torah uses to describe God.
     c. What does God promise Avraham Avinu?
  d. If a covenant is involved, what is its nature?  [What
are
  the two sides of each covenant, or is it one-sided?]

  As your review your list, note what theme is common to
each
"hitgalut", and in what manner each hitgalut is unique.
     Finally, review each of the narratives that precede
each
hitgalut, and then attempt to understand how those events
relate to the hitgalut that follows.

3.  Review12:10 thru 13:18, noting how these psukim
discuss
two very different stories, yet constitute only one
parshia.
Attempt to identify a common topic or theme that would
explain
why both of these topics are included in the same parshia.
[In other words - what is the thematic connection between
Avraham's journey to Egypt and Lot's departure to Sedom].

4.  What is unique about what Avraham does at the site
called
Bet-El in chapters 12 and 13?  In your answer, relate to
12:8
and 13:1-4 and the phrase 'vayikra be-shem Hashem' and the
'mizbeiach'.
     Relate this to our study of the word 'shem' in 4:26,
10:1, and 11:4 (see TSC shiur on Parshat Noach), and as
explained by Ramban on 12:8.
  Based on 13:1-4 and the continuation of this story in
13:5-
13, where (near what city) does the hitgalut in 13:14-18
take
place?  Why would this be significant?
     Compare 13:14-18 to 28:13-22, and note the
similarities!

5.  Why do you think that the Torah calls this place 'Bet
El'?
In your opinion, was that the real name of that city at
that
time?  If not, why would Chumash refer to it by that name?
  In your answer, relate to Breishit 28:16-22 (&
35:14-15),
and to when Sefer Breishit was first given to Bnei Yisrael
(i.e. at Har Sinai)!

6.  Is there any reason for Avraham to consider Lot as his
successor?  If so, explain why.  In your answer, relate to
11:27-31, 12:4-6, and also to 13:1.
     Why does Lot choose to 'leave' Avraham?
     Does he take Avraham's offer in 13:8-9 (see Targum
Unkelus of 'yemin u-smol'!), or does he make a different
choice?  If so, what is so bad about this choice?
          [See Rashi on 13:11.]

     Review Devarim 11:10-13, and note its thematic
connection
to Breishit 13:10.  Be sure that you can explain why
'kikar ha-
Yarden' [the Jordan River Valley] is compared to 'Eretz
Mitzrayim' and 'gan Hashem'.

BRIT BEIN HA-BTARIM & BRIT MILA
1.  Based on Avraham's question in 15:2-3, what does God
assume that he worried about (as implicit in 15:1)?
     How does this fear relate to the events that
transpired
in chapter 14?

2.  Note how often the word 'yerusha' (or a similar
"shoresh")
is found in the first eight psukim of chapter 15.
Explain
its meaning and context in these psukim.
     Then, note the use of this same shoresh 'y.r.sh.' in
Bamidbar 33:50-53 (and in Shmot 6:8) and their context.
How
does this word relate to conquest and sovereignty?
     How can this help explain the thematic connection
between
chapters 14 and 15?

3.  Based on 15:1-7, how do you understand Avraham's
question
(or request) in 15:8?  In your answer, relate to how God
answers this question.
     Where is God's answer to Avraham's question in 15:8?
     Does it begin in 15:9 or in 15:13?  Explain!
     In your opinion, is Avraham surprised by this answer?
          Can you explain why this answer concludes with a
'brit' in 15:18?  How does this "brit" relate to 15:9-11?

4.  Review the psukim that describe 'brit mila' in
17:1-10.
According to these psukim, what is the primary element and
purpose of this covenant?
     What is special about God's various names in 17:1-2?
Has God ever spoken unto Avraham b'shem Elokim until this
time?
Similarly, is this the first time that we find the Name
"kel-
shakkai"?
  Note Ramban's explanation of the Name 'Kel Shakkai' in
his
commentary to 17:1.

5. As you review 17:1-10, carefully attempt to follow the
flow
of topic.  In your opinion, does God's promise that
Avraham
will be a "av hamon goyim" - the father of many nations
etc.
(see 17:5-6) - relate only to his children from Sarah, or
also
to his offspring from Hagar & Ketura?
     Relate your answer to what God explains to Avraham in
17:19-21!  Relate this as well to 25:1-18 and chapter 36.
     To whom does the covenant in 17:7-10 refer to?

6.  Explain why 17:7-8 describe the essence of this
covenant.
How do these psukim relate to Breishit 9:11-12?  [Note the
rather obvious parallels.]  How does this parallel explain
the
connection between the "brit" - and the "ot brit" - the
sign
of the covenant - as described in 17:9-11?

7.  Note how God promises the land of Israel to Avraham,
both
in brit bein ha-btarim (15:18-20) and at brit mila (see
17:7-
8).
     What is the 'definition' [or borders] of the land
that
God promises Avraham Avinu in each brit?  Do they appear
to be
identical, or quite different?
     In your answer, relate as well to Breishit 10:15-20,
noting how those psukim describe the 'land of Canaan'.

6.  In summary, how has our understanding of God's
original
promise to Avraham Avinu in 12:1-3 been enhanced by the
details in chapters 13 thru 17?

PART III - PARSHANUT
Avraham's Mizbeiach
1.  Read 12:8, regarding the 'mizbeiach' that Avraham
built.
     a)  What difficulty exists in the text regarding the
location of Avraham's mizbeiach?
     b)  How is this mizbeiach different than the
mizbeiach
which he built in Shchem (see 12:6-7)
     c)  How does Rashi answer these two questions?

2.  Now see Ramban on 12:7 and 12:8.
     a)  Does he answer any of the above two questions?
     b)  What similarities and differences exist between
the
approaches of Rashi and Ramban?
     c)  Which of these two commentaries confines itself
to
the 'local' parshia, and which takes into account the
theme of
the entire Sefer?

3.  Rashi relates this pasuk to the future defeat that
Avraham's descendants would suffer at the city of Ai.
Recall
that this defeat was the direct result of Achan's sin at
Yericho (see Yehoshua, chapter 7).  When considering the
nature of this sin, can you find a thematic connection
between
the positions of Rashi and Ramban?

The Promise of Children
4.  Read 15:1-8.  Try to follow the flow of the psukim,
and
their relation to the events in chapter 14.
     Why do Rashi and Chizkuni (on 15:1) and Rashbam (on
22:1)
all insist that this parshia is directly related to the
war
between the kings in chapter 14?
     According to each of these commentators, how does
this
explain:
      Avraham's fear as implicit in God's statement "al
tira"
      God's protection ('Anochi magen lach'), and
      Avraham's reward - 'secharcha harbeh me'od'

     How do these commentaries relate what takes place
later
on in chapter 15?
     Based on the above, are 'Anochi magen lach' and
'secharcha harbeh me'od' referring to the same thing or
two
different things?  See also Seforno & Ibn Ezra.

5.  Explain two possible ways to understand
'va-yachsheveha lo
tzedaka' in 15:6.  [Who considered this 'tzedaka'?]
     See Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Seforno (and, if you want,
Rasag
and Radak.)  On what point do they all agree, on what
points
do they differ?
     How does this affect your understanding of the word
tzedaka?  Pay careful attention to Ibn Ezra on this.
     Next, see Ramban (and Chizkuni).  Explain why Ramban
disagrees with Rashi, and with almost all of the other
commentators.
     At the end, Ramban offers an alternative explanation
(beginning with 'o yomar ki Avraham he'emin....').  In
your
opinion, does Ramban return at this point to Rashi's
commentary?
     Return now to Ibn Ezra's commentary.
     Could Ibn Ezra's explanation of tzedaka fit into any
of
the interpretations raised by Ramban?
     In your opinion, which explanation (Ramban or the
others)
fits in best with the flow of the psukim?  (Be sure to
take
into account 15:7-8.)

6.  From a philosophical perspective, what fundamental
point
does Ramban raise here in regard to God's choice of Am
Yisrael?  Relate your answer to the questions re: the
underlying purpose of God's choice of Avraham Avinu, as
raised
in Part One (above).

                         be-hatzlacha,
                         menachem


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: lechq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 30564 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091026/488d71a0/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Oct 28 09:45:02 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:45:02 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] for Parshat Lech Lcha - shiur #1
Message-ID: <002701ca57d4$da301d30$8e905790$@net>

**********************************************************
***
     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://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091028/9f3699f5/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Oct 28 09:48:13 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:48:13 -0400
Subject: [Par-reg] Lech Lcha - shiur 32
Message-ID: <002f01ca57d5$4bccbd40$e36637c0$@net>

**********************************************************
***************
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  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://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091028/431c8c5f/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Nov  2 05:56:47 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 05:56:47 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Vayera - questions for self study
Message-ID: <004e01ca5bab$2e114760$8a33d620$@net>

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

PARSHAT VA'YERA 

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE' 

AVIMELECH & AVRAHAM 
1.  In Parshat Va'yera , we find two encounters between
Avimelech and Avraham Avinu (one in chapter 20, and the
other in 21:22-34).  As you review these two stories,
attempt to identify their primary topics, while noting how
they are similar, and how they differ. 
    Be sure to note the reason for Avraham's 'criticism'
of Avimelech in each story.  Attempt to relate these
rebukes to the underlying purpose for WHY Avraham Avinu
was chosen to become the forefather of God's special
nation? 

2. What is the meaning of the name "Avimelech" in Hebrew?
In your opinion, do you think that was his name from
birth, or could one suggest that the Torah calls his by
that name as it representative of Avraham's relationship
with other nations. Similarly, attempt to explain why the
Torah finds it necessary to record as well that Avimelech
was accompanied by his 'commander in chief' - Phichol - in
each of these encounters.
	Based on 21:22-23, what do you think causes
Avimelech to initiate a covenant with Avraham Avinu? Based
on 21:24-30, why does Avraham agree? 
    In your opinion, how could these encounters reflect
future relationships that may develop between Am Yisrael
and other nations? 
    
3. Review once again the final psukim of this unit (i.e.
21:30-33).  Note how this includes not only a covenant,
but also tells how Avraham plants an "eshel" in Beer Sheva
and 'calls out in God's Name'.  Can you explain the
connection between this 'calling out' and the covenant?
	Note the various translations of "eshel" as
suggested by the commentators.  Can you explain what leads
them to their conclusions?
	Relate your answer to the obvious parallel between
these psukim and Breishit 12:8 and 13:4. [Relate once
again to the Ramban on 12:8!]

YIRAT ELOKIM & the AKEYDA
	[The following questions are for discussion.]
1. In your opinion, can man determine on his own (i.e.
without Torah) what is right and what is wrong? [This
concept is often referred to as 'natural morality'.]
	For example, does man understand instinctively
that it is wrong to kill and steal, or must this be
taught? 
	In your answer, relate to why God punished "dor
ha'Mabul" (the generation of the Flood). Did they know
what they were doing was wrong? Were they aware that they
acted in an evil way?  If so, how did were they supposed
to know that their actions was wrong?
	Would you say that there are certain actions (of
social behavior) that 'everyone' would agree are wrong?

2. Review the last five of the Ten Commandments (see Shmot
chapter 20). Had these commandments not been given at Har
Sinai, would Am Yisrael have thought that they would have
been permitted?  If not, why are they included in the Ten
Commandments?  [Answer this question in relation to the
first five commandments as well!]
    See Rashbam on Breishit 26:5, noting his explanation
of "chukotei v'torortei".  Be sure that you understand
what he means by "mitzvot ha'nikarot" - and why there were
kept during the time of the Avot, and what happened
concerning them at Har Sinai. 

3. After the Flood, we find several 'guidelines' that God
commands Noach (see 9:1-7). How would you categorize these
mitzvot?  In other words, to they relate to man's
relationship with his fellow man or with God (or both)? 
	In your opinion, should Noach have been able to
understand these commandments on his own (i.e. even
without God's specific instructions)? 

4. Review the contrast between God's statements re:
mankind both before and after the Flood, i.e. compare 6:5
with 8:21!  Can you find any connection between these
statements and the "mitzvot" that God instructs Noach
after the Mabul in 9:1-7?  In your opinion, in addition to
these mitzvot, does God have any other expectations from
mankind?  
	Would you say that these mitzvot are God's primary
'expectation' from mankind, or do they serve simply as a
'vehicle' to help mankind achieve a different goal?
	[Relate to 11:1-9 and our shiur on Parshat Noach
re:Migdal Bavel!]
[With this background, our discussion moves now to Parshat
Va'yera:]

5. Note how Avraham explains to Avimelech why he 'lied'
regarding Sarah: "for there is no YIRAT ELOKIM [fear of
God] in this place, and they would kill me [in order] to
take my wife" (see 20:9-11).  
	In your opinion, what does Avraham refer to when
he mentions "YIRAT ELOKIM"? Does Avraham expect that
Avimelech believes in God.  Did God ever appear to
Avimelech or his people beforehand and tell them what is
right and what is wrong? 
	Furthermore, why is God's Name here Elokim and not
shem Havayah?

6. The phrase "YIRAT ELOKIM" appears several other times
in Chumash. Examine its meaning in the following sources,
noting what type of behavior it relates to, and whether it
relates to 'the fear of God' by jews or by non-jews.
	Breishit 42:18 - re: Yosef, pretending to be an
Egyptian.
	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. 
What type of general behavior do all of these sources
relate to?
	Based on these examples, what type of behavior
would you say that "yirat Elokim" refers to in Breishit
20:9-11?

7. With this in mind, review the story of the AKEYDA
(chapter 22), noting which Name of God the Torah uses
(i.e. "shem Elokim" or "shem Havaya") when it describes
God's various commandments to Avraham Avinu.
	Can you find a pattern? 
	Could one say that the AKEYDA presents Avraham
with a conflict between 'natural morality' and 'divine
command'? If so, explain why.
	In your opinion, what should Avraham do?
	In your opinion, is it possible that God would
command something that is not morally just? 
	How would this relate to the concept of "yirat
elokim" discussed above?

8. Carefully review Breishit 22:12 (note how this pasuk is
the climax of the story). How did you translate the word
"ki" in this pasuk, as 'that' or 'because' or 'even
though'? [As you are aware, the word "ki" can carry
several different meanings in the Bible.]
	What is the meaning of "yirat Elokim" in this
pasuk!  Again, how would this relate to the concept of
"yirat elokim" discussed above?

9. Note that at the end of the AKEYDA, God makes yet
another promise to Avraham Avinu concerning the future of
his offspring (see 22:1519). 
	To which earlier promise (or promises) or Avraham
Avinu is this promise most similar?
	Is this promise only a repeat, or is something new
added?  If so, what is that new addition, and how does it
relate to the Akeyda?  (Relate this to "brit bein
ha'btarim".) 
    [See Ramban and Radak on 22:16.] 

TOLDOT TERACH
1. Parshat Va'yera informs us not only of the birth of
Yitzchak, but also of the birth of several other of
TERACH's grandchildren and great grandchildren (see
19:3038, 22:2024.)
    Why do you think these stories are an integral part of
Sefer Breishit?  [Relate to 11:2632, the fact that we
find a header "ayleh toldot Terach", and that later on in
Sefer Breishit we never find "ayleh toldot Avraham".
Relate also to our shiur on Parshat Noach.]

2.  Which of Terach's descendants later 'weave' their way
back into the family of Avraham Avinu? [Be sure that you
can name descendants from both Haran's family as well as
Nachor's.   Is it usually a male or female who returns
back to the family?  Attempt to explain why this may be
significant.

3.  Review 22:2024, noting how many wives (and/or
concubines) that Nachor marries, and how many children he
has from each!  To which of the Avot are these
'statistics' similar to?  
	Does anyone else in Sefer Breishit have twelve
children?
	[Relate to 17:20 and 35:23-26.]
		
PART II  QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
1. Review chapters 18 and 19, noting that even though they
appear to be two separate stories, the Torah includes both
of them in the same "parshia".  [As we explained earlier,
"parshiot" are 'paragraph' type divisions & are part of
the Sefer Torah.]
	In your opinion, why does the Torah combine these
stories into one "parshia", even though they appear to
discuss different topics?  Can you identify a thematic
connection between them?
	In your answer, relate to 18:17-21, noting
especially to 18:19, noting how these psukim serve as a
transition between two stories.

2.  Study 18:17-19 carefully, and attempt to explain why
these psukim are recorded at this point.
	Note the obvious parallel between 18:18 and the
Torah's description of God's original choice of Avraham in
12:1-3.  Attempt to explain the thematic significance of
this parallel, and how 18:18-19 can help us understand why
God had originally chosen Avraham Avinu in chapter 12.
	How will doing "tzedaka u'mishpat", and teaching
that 'way of God' to his children, facilitate Avraham's
offspring becoming a 'great nation' and a 'blessing for
other nations'?

3. To better appreciate the meaning of the phrase "tzedaka
u'mishpat", as it appears in 18:19, see the following
sources, noting how it relates to a primary theme in the
entire Tanach:
	Shmuel Bet 8:15 [noting how this is a summary
pasuk];
	Tehillim 72:1-13
	Melachim Aleph 3:7-11; 10:1-9
	Yeshayahu 1:9-17,21-27, 5:1-7, 11:1-6;
	Yirmiyahu 9:22-23, 21:11->22:4, 22:13-17,
23:5-6,13-14;
	Yechezkel 16:48-50; 18:5-20
				 [That should keep you
busy.]

4. In 18:19, what does the word "y'daativ" mean, and how
does it relate to the word "l'maan" (which follows)? 
	Does this imply that God 'knows' what will happen,
or does it explain why God has come 'to know' Avraham,
i.e. why He had chosen him?   [See Ramban on this pasuk!]

5. Review 18:23-32, i.e. the conversation between God and
Avraham concerning the future of Sdom.  Does Avraham
request that God save only the righteous men in Sdom, or
the entire city?  If the latter, can you explain why, and
how this relates to the 'reason' for why Avraham was
chosen to become the forefather of God's special nation?

6. As you study the rest of this 'parshia', note how often
this "shoresh" - "yud.daled.ayin" - is used.  Pay careful
attention in 18:19-21 and in 19:5-8.  Based on these
examples, what does the word "yadah" imply?
	Note also the parallel to Yirmiyahu 22:13-17 re:
the word "yadah" and "tzedek u'mishpat".  Note also
Yirmiyahu 9:23.

7. Based on 18:19 and its context (i.e. the fact that it
explains why God must consult with Avraham before
destroying Sdom (see 18:17), would you expect that the sin
of Sedom to be is some manner related to a lack of
"tzedaka u'mishpat"?
	To the best of your recollection, what was the sin
of Sdom?
	Is this based on psukim or on Midrashim?
====
Now, let's take a closer look at the psukim that describe
what happened with Lot in Sdom.

8. Based only on 19:1-3, how would you judge Lot's
behavior?  Does he act in manner similar to Avraham (i.e.
inviting guests etc.)? Why does he go 'out of his way' to
make sure that the guests have a place to stay? Would this
make him deserving of redemption?  Relate this to
18:20-22!
    Similarly, relate 18:20-22 to the events that take
place in 19:4-10, and God's decision to destroy the city.
	
9. Note that in 19:4 an entire group gathers around the
house of Lot. 	
	Does a simple reading of this pasuk give the
impression that the ENTIRE city gathered there, or only
some of the people?  Does it appear that this group
includes people both young and old?  If so, does it appear
that only men were there, or that there were women and
children as well?  (See 19:11.) 
	In your opinion, why did this group of people
gather outside Lot's house? Do they all want to 'sodomize'
Lot's guests, or could you suggest a different reason for
this gathering? [See Ramban.]

10. Review Yechezkel 16:48-50, noting how he provides an
explicit definition of the sin of the people of Sdom.
Note also how Chazal describe the sin of Sdom in Mishnayot
Avot 5:10 (re: "midat Sdom" / if you have ample time, see
also Sanhedrin 109a).
    Based on Yeshayahu 1:9-27, and his comparison between
Sdom and Am Yisrael, what seems to be his understanding of
the sin of Sdom?
	What does this suggest in regard to our
understanding of the nature of the sin of the people in
Sdom as described in Parshat Va'yera?  [See once again
Ramban on 19:4!]

11. In 19:9, what prompts the men of Sdom to say to Lot:
"You have just come to live here, and now you 'judge' us
[v'iyishpot shafot]..."
	What 'judgment' are they referring to, and how
does this relate to Lot's previous statement and the
context of these events?  Compare this to the use of
shoresh "li'shpot" in Shmuel I 7:6 and 12:7. What type of
'judgment' do these psukim refer to?
	Would you say that Lot has acted as a judge, or
that his earlier statements were interpreted as
'judgmental'?  
	Compare Lot's offer of his daughters to Reuven's
suggestion re: his own sons in Breishit 42:37.  In what
manner could Lot's offering of his daughters to the
'crowd' be considered a 'rebuke', and not necessarily a
serious offer?

12. Based on the above questions, can you find
significance in the fact that Avraham is told about the
destruction of Sdom by the same messengers who tell him
about the birth of his son Yitzchak?
	In your answer, be sure to relate once again to
18:18-19!
    What can the Torah's recording of these events teach
us in regard the importance of doing "tzedek u'mishpat" as
a Jewish way of life?
	

PART III  PARSHANUT

The Wicked Men of Sdom
1. See Rashi's comment to 19:5 concerning the group of men
that gather around Lot's house.  According to Rashi, why
do they gather? If so does it make sense that so many
people had gathered, young and old, outside his house?
How does Rashi on 19:4 'solve' this problem - i.e. who are
"anshei Sdom"?

2.  Next, see Ramban on 19:5, and read his commentary
carefully. In what manner is his approach totally
different than Rashi's?  Based on Ramban's explanation,
can you explain WHY he argues with Rashi?  [Can you
explain how Ramban's interpretation solves the problem in
19:4 concerning WHO gathered around Lot's house?
	Which approach would you consider more
comprehensive?
	
3.  Upon their sudden arrival, Lot bakes MATZOT for his
guests (see 19:3).  According to pshat, why do you think
that Lot baked matzot instead of chametz?
	Rashi claims that it was "pesach"!  In your
opinion, is this pirush "pshat" or "drash"?
	What other thematic parallels exist between the
story of the destruction of Sdom (& Lot being saved) and
the story of Yetziat Mitzraim?  Based on those parallels,
can you find a deeper meaning to Rashi's commentary?

====
THE AKEYDA - a punishment?
4. The opening psukim of the Akeyda  "vayhi achar
ha'dvarim ha'eyleh..." (22:1) suggest a connection between
this story and previous events. 
	See Rashi 22:1. How do each of his two
interpretations explain this connection?  What is the
primary difference between them?
	Next, see Rashbam 22:1. How does he explain the
relationship between the Akeyda and the previous parshia?
Can you explain why he considers this event as a
punishment?  
	See also Radak. In what manner is his approach
different than Rashbam's, and in what manner is it
similar?

====
5. See Seforno on 22:18, where he explains the meaning of
"v'hitbarchu b'zaracha...".  
	Note not only his commentary, but also his choice
of words, noting how they relate back to Tzfania 3:9!
[Relate this to our earlier discussion of "kriyah b'shem
Hashem", and its connection ot the primary theme of God
choosing a nation in Sefer Breishit.]
	Can you explain why Seforno chose that wording?

JUST A DREAM?
6. Re: whether the events in 18:1-16 actually happened or
all took place in a prophetic dream, see Ibn Ezra, Ramban,
and Radak on 18:1 for a very interesting discussion.
	How would this help explain why Sarah laughed when
she first heard the news, even though Avraham had already
'laughed' when he heard the news back in 17:17!
	Note also Rashbam on 18:16 and 18:20 re: who spoke
to Avraham, i.e. God directly, or through of the
"malachim".

				  b'hatzlacha,
					menachem   



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayeraq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 34986 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091102/20775bf3/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Nov  4 15:36:39 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:36:39 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] for Parshat Va'yera - shiur #1
Message-ID: <008201ca5d8e$8d31a2a0$a794e7e0$@net>

**********************************************************
***
        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://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091104/4c313dc7/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Nov  4 15:48:02 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:48:02 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] for Parshat Vayera - shiur #2
Message-ID: <009001ca5d90$2296c360$67c44a20$@net>

**********************************************************
***
     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://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091104/9ea9f730/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Nov  9 06:51:36 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 06:51:36 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Chaya Sara - questions for self study
Message-ID: <003c01ca6132$feeb1a00$fcc14e00$@net>

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

          PARSHAT  CHAYEI SARA  - Questions for self study
                               
PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

YITZCHAK & YISHMAEL
1.  Have you ever heard of a place in Israel called 'Be'er
Lachai Ro'i'?  If so, in what area of Israel is it
located,
and to the best of your recollection, what Biblical events
took place there.
  If not, review Breishit 24:62 and 25:11 (in their
context),
noting how this seems to be an area where Yitzchak was
living.
Can you explain why he chose this site?
  Has this same site ever been mentioned earlier in
Chumash?
In case you don't recall, review the story in 16:5-16.
Based
on that story, in what manner may it be significant that
Yitzchak chose to live there?  In your answer, relate to
the
relationship between Yitzchak and Yishmael, as can be
implied
in 25:9.  Note as well 25:12-18.
  Finally, see Ramban, Seforno, and Radak on 24:62 in
relation
to this question.  Note how each opinion is quite
different.

2.  Towards the end of the Parsha, Avraham sends away all
of
his children (except Yitzchak) to "Kedma, el eretz kedem"
(25:6), while Yitzchak remains in Eretz Canaan.  Relate
this
Biblical 'direction' of 'kedem' to Breishit 3:24, 4:16,
11:2,
& 13:11 (note Rashi)!  Based on those sources, why do you
think that the Torah found it necessary to tell us this
'direction' in relation to where Avraham sends his other
children?

'LASUACH BA-SADEH'
3.  In 24:63, we are told that Yitzchak had gone 'lasuach
ba-
sadeh'.  In your opinion, what does this phrase mean?
     Can you remember an earlier usage of a similar word
in
Sefer Breishit?  If so, can you explain how this may be
related?

4. Next, study the classic commentators on this pasuk,
noting
the 'pshat' interpretations as presented by Ibn Ezra and
Rashbam; as well as (what appears to be) the 'drash'
approach
of Rashi (and Rabbeinu Chananel).  [Note also Seforno.]
  Can you explain how these interpretations relate to
Breishit
2:5?   Be sure that you find the connection between Rashi
on
24:63 and Rashi on 2:5.
     Finally, see Chizkuni on 25:63.  Can you explain why
he
relates this pasuk to Gan Eden?  Based on 2:5, can you
explain
why this 'drash' may be 'pshat'?

'EVED AVRAHAM' & RIVKA
5.  Note that throughout the entire Parsha, we are never
told
the name of the 'eved Avraham'!  Chazal explain that the
eved
was Eliezer, and that Avraham feared that Eliezer wanted
Yitzchak to marry his own daughter.  Can you support this
based on 15:1-4?

6.  Even though Avraham's servant comes from far away,
Rivka's
family readily agrees to send her back with him.  Review
the
story in 24:48-52, especially their stated reason for
agreeing
in 24:50!      Use this pasuk to explain why they agree,
and
why it was necessary for Eliezer to repeat the entire
story of
how he met Rivka (i.e. from 24:33-50) . [Note how 24:53
provides an additional reason.]

7.  Note the bracha that Rivka receives from her family:
"achoteinu, at hayi le-alfei revava, ve-yirash zar'ech et
sha'ar son'av" (24:60).  Compare this to God's earlier
promise
to Avraham at the Akeida: "ve-yirash zar'acha et sha'ar
oyvav"
(22:17).  What is the significance of this parallel?
     See Rashi & Rashbam.

PART II- QUESTIONS FOR SHIUR PREPARATION

For shiur on the topic - AVRAHAM & BNEI CHET
1.  Avraham introduces his wish to buy a burial plot from
Bnei
Chet with the phrase "ger ve-toshav anochi imachem" (see
23:4).
     How did you understand the words 'ger' and 'toshav'?
     Are these two different reasons, or do both words
together explain one reason?  [See the commentators,
noting
how most of them provide more or less the same
interpretations
[e.g. Rashbam, Ramban, Ibn Ezra.]
     Then, as you study Rashi's interpretation, note how
he
explains"pshat and then drash.  In your opinion, why does
Rashi find it necessary to quote this Midrash Agadda?  Can
you
suggest a deeper meaning?
     Next, review Vayikra chapter 25, noting its primary
topics as well as the phrase 'ger ve-toshav' in 25:23, 35,
&
47.  What is the meaning of this phrase in 25:23, and its
significance in the context of 25:23-24?
     Finally, note the Torah's use of the word 'achuza' in
25:24.  How does this relate back to Breishit 23:4 and the
phrase 'achuzat kever'.

2.  Let's return to Avraham's request to buy an achuzat
kever
from Bnei Chet in 23:4.  What does the word achuza mean?
     What 'shoresh' does it stem from?  What other words
share
the same shoresh?  (See for example Breishit 22:13, 25:26,
47:27, Shmot 4:4.)
     Compare this with other uses of achuza as in:
Breishit
47:11, Vayikra 14:34, Bamidbar 27:7, 32:5,22.
     Can you explain why we often find the verb 'natan'
[to
give / grant] associated with the word achuza, as in the
above
examples?
     Based on your answer to the above question, explain
the
meaning of achuza in Breishit 17:7-8 (in relation to God's
promise of Eretz Canaan in brit mila).  Compare this to
the
Torah's use of the word 'yerusha' when it describes how
the
land is being given to Avraham Avinu in brit bein
ha-btarim
(note Breishit 15:3-8,18.)

3.  To understand more precisely what the word yerusha
implies, see Bamidbar 33:50-53, and also Vayikra 20:24.
In
these examples, what type of 'ownership' does the word
yerusha
imply?  Based on these sources, what in your opinion is
the
difference between the acquisition of land based on achuza
or
yerusha?
     Attempt to relate this to the differences in the
nature
of the two covenants that God made with Avraham - i.e. in
relation to the land: brit mila (see 17:3-8); and in
relation
to how Yisrael will become a nation in brit bein ha-btarim
(see 15:1-20).

4.  Based on these sources, does 'Eretz Yisrael' belong to
Am
Yisrael or to God?  Relate this to the first Rashi in
Chumash
(read that Rashi carefully, noting its parallel in
Yirmiyahu
27:5-6).  Relate also to Shmot 19:4-6 ('ki li kol
ha-aretz')
and Vayikra 25:23-24.  How does this relate to the primary
theme of Sefer Breishit?

For Shiur on the topic - A WIFE FROM 'TOLDOT TERACH'
1.  Note that both Avraham and Yitzchak insist that their
[chosen] children take wives from the family of Nachor
(see
24:3-4,10 and 28:2).
     Note also who Avraham and Nachor married - see 11:29
and
20:12, and Rashi on those psukim.  (Relate this also to
Breishit 28:9.)  What do you think is the significance of
this
phenomenon?

2.  Based on the above, it would seem that there is
something
special about the children of Terach ('toldot Terach').
What
do you think is the nature of this special quality?
Relate
your answer to 11:27-32.  See also Seforno & Chizkuni on
11:31-32.
     Relate this to the fact that the Torah specifies
'eileh
toldot Terach' (11:27) at the conclusion of the series
which
began with 'eileh toldot Shem' (11:10), yet for some
reason
never introduces in a similar manner 'eileh toldot
Avraham',
even though we do later find 'eileh toldot Yitzchak'
(25:19),
and 'eileh toldot Yaakov' (37:2)!
     Why do you think that toldot Avraham are 'missing',
while
we seem to have toldot Terach instead?

3.  Where does the unit which began with toldot Terach
end?
(In other words, where is the next time that we find
'eileh
toldot...'?)
     What would you consider the primary topic of this
unit?
     Note that this unit contains not only the story of
Avraham, but also includes the story of Haran's and
Nachor's
children (see 19:30-38, 22:20-24 & 25:1-9.)  Can you
explain
why these stories are included?

4.  In your opinion, how does Sefer Breishit use the
progression of the series of eileh toldot... to help
develop
its theme?

PART III - PARSHANUT
1.  Read 24:1.  What ambiguity is present in the Torah's
use
of the word ba-kol'?
     a)  What does the word ba-kol mean?  Note how almost
every parshan offers a different explanation.  See Rashi,
Ibn
Ezra, Rashbam and Radak.  Try to explain the differences
between the explanations.
     b)  Explain, according to each parshan, how this
pasuk
relates to the parshia that follows afterward.
     c)  Now, see Ramban.  (The Ramban is quite long, but
see
at least the first section of his peirush.)  How is
Ramban's
peirush different than the others?  Why do you think
Ramban
enters into such detail here?
     d)  As you study these commentaries, attempt to
notice
what is typical of the style of each commentator?

2.  Before Avraham sends Eliezer on his mission, he makes
him
take an oath - see 24:3.  Read this pasuk carefully,
noting
what is difficult about the manner how Avraham describes
God
in this pasuk - "Elokei ha-shamayim ve-Elokei ha-aretz".
Compare this to Avraham's own statement in 24:7!
     First, note how Rashi understands 24:3, and what he
learns from it!   [See also the related Gemara in Mo'ed
Katan
18b.]
     Then see Ramban on 24:3.  In what manner is his
explanation of 'Elokei ha-aretz' totally different than
Rashi's?  Can you explain why?  (Note that Ramban himself
explains why!)
     Next, see Seforno on 24:3.  Explain how his
interpretation is totally different than Rashi or Ramban.
     Finally, see Radak on 24:3.  Is his peirush most
similar
to Seforno?
     Try to explain why.
     How does Radak resolve the parallel in 24:7?
          See also Rashi on 24:7.
     How did Ramban deal with this problem in his peirush
to
24:3?
     [Note as well the very interesting (& philosophical)
manner in which Chizkuni (on 24:7) relates to Rashi's
peirush.]

3.  At the middle of 24:7, we also find that Avraham says
that
God had 'spoken to him' and 'sworn to him' that he will
give
this land to his offspring.  In your opinion, what
specific
incidents is Avraham Avinu referring to?  In other words,
when
did God 'speak' [diber] to him, and when did God 'swear'
[nishba] to him about the land for his offspring [zera va-
aretz].
     After you do (or don't) find an answer, see how
Rashi,
Radak, and Seforno related to this question.  [Note also
how
Ramban argues with Rashi's explanation of 'diber li'.]
     Which of these two interpretations relates primarily
to
the previous use of the word 'shevu'a', and which
interpretation relates to the phrase that follows
'le-zar'acha
eten et ha-aretz ha-zot'?
     Use this distinction to explain the reason for this
'machloket'.

4.  At the end of the Parsha (25:1-4), we are told of
Avraham's children from a wife named Ketura.  Chazal say
that
Ketura was actually Hagar, and that Avraham remarried her
in
his old age.
     a) Do you think this idea is pshat?
     b) Now see Rashi, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni and
Radak.
Again, note how and why each parshan offers a different
opinion.  Note also the reasons given for each
interpretation.

5.  Read 24:6-9, noting how Avraham's instructions to
Eliezer
include a 'promise'(?) that Hashem will send a 'guardian
angel' to assure that Eliezer will be successful (read
24:7
carefully).
     In your opinion, is Avraham's statement that God will
send His angel to help a 'prayer' or a 'prophecy'?  In
your
answer, relate to the entire set of psukim from 24:1-10.
     After you have thought out the possibilities, see the
commentaries of Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Chizkuni and Radak on
this
phrase.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chayaq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 26959 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091109/cb513f26/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Nov 11 16:51:26 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:51:26 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Chaya Sara - second shiur
Message-ID: <000001ca6319$2dca10f0$895e32d0$@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://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091111/1e75e9f9/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Nov 11 16:51:26 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:51:26 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] for parshat Chaya Sara
Message-ID: <000a01ca6319$3fdb4f70$bf91ee50$@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://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091111/17daebbe/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Nov 11 16:55:35 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:55:35 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] for parshat Chaya Sara
Message-ID: <002401ca6319$c07dc2c0$41794840$@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://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091111/7258619f/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Nov 15 23:34:11 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:34:11 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] TOLDOT - questions for self study
Message-ID: <002c01ca6676$0cd01ce0$267056a0$@net>

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

             PARSHAT  TOLDOT

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

'WHITE LIES'
1. In your opinion, is it permissible to lie for a 'worthy
cause'?
     In Parshat Toldot , we find what appears to be a
classic
example, when Rivka instructs Yaakov to 'steal' his
father's
blessing (intended for Esav).
     To verify this, carefully review the story in
27:1-20,
and try to determine if Rivka expects that Yaakov will
need to
lie, or if she assumes that Yitzchak will 'not ask any
questions' when Yaakov brings him the food? [If the
latter,
why should she assume this?]
     Review 27:18-19.  In your opinion, is Yaakov caught
by
surprise when his father asks him "mi ata bni"?
     In 27:19, does Yaakov actually 'lie'?
     In regard to this question, see the following sources
(quoted by the commentators) that may indicate that at
certain
times 'white lies' are permissible: Breishit 20:13 and
22:5;
Shmuel Aleph 16:2 & 21:6; and Melachim Bet 8:10.  In your
opinion, do these examples support the situation in
Parshat
Toldot?  [In what manner are those situations similar to
our
story re: Yaakov and Esav?]
     See Rashi on 27:19, noting how he explains that
Yaakov
really never 'lied'. In your opinion, is this "pshat"?
     Then see Ibn Ezra, noting how he presents quite the
opposite approach.  Attempt to explain why they argue?
     It is also highly recommended to see Chizkuni and
Radak
on 27:19. Be sure that you understand how Radak's
explanation
is quite different than Chizkuni's, noting the different
examples that he quotes. [What is the possible 'danger' in
'misunderstanding' Radak's approach?]

2. Can you cite examples when later on in Yaakov's life he
is
'cheated' and lied to? If so, attempt to relate this to
the
events that take place in Parshat Toldot. Would you
consider
this coincidental?
     Would you consider this a 'punishment' of Yaakov?
     If so, does this imply that Yaakov acted incorrectly,
or
is it possible that he did the right thing, yet must still
bear the 'consequences'?
  [Note that there are no 'easy' answers to these
questions.]

The BIRTHRIGHT for a 'BOWL OF SOUP''
1. Review 25:29-34, i.e. the story of how Yaakov purchases
the
"bechora" (birthright) from Esav.
     Based on a cursory reading, does it appear that
Yaakov
has acted in a proper manner?  If not, be sure that you
can
pinpoint precisely what it is improper about his behavior.

2. In your opinion, what precisely is the "bechora"
[birthright of the first born son] that is being sold?  In
other words, does it relate to something monetary; to
something physical, or to something spiritual?

3. In your opinion, is Esav's health situation so
deteriorated
when he asks Yaakov for a bowl of soup - that he would
have
died had Yaakov refused to give him soup?  In other words,
is
he simply tired & hungry (but not in any danger of dying),
or
is starving to death?
  Based on either understanding, how can you explain
Esav's
statement of "hineh anochi holech lamut" (behold I am
going to
die)  in 25:32?
  Does it appear that Yaakov is unfairly taking advantage
of
this situation? In your answer, relate to the Torah's
summary
statement at the conclusion of this story: "va'yivez Esav
et
ha'bechora" (see 25:34).  How does 25:34 relate to 25:32?
  In this regard, see Rashbam on 25:32!

3.  Once Yaakov had acquired the "bechora" from Esav, what
privileges (and/or responsibilities) did it confer?
  Relate your answer to the possible reason why Yaakov may
have wanted this "bechora"?
     Can you explain why Esav was willing to sell the
"bechora" for a bowl of soup?  In your answer, relate to
25:32
and 25:34.
     In your opinion, was it out of desperation?
     How do these events help us understand what occurs
between Yaakov and Esav later on in their lives?  In your
answer, relate to Breishit 32:14-21.

TEMPLE 'PATTERNS'
1. In 26:25, we find that Yitzchak "built a MIZBAYACH and
called out in God's Name".  Recall, that on several
occasions,
Avraham did something very similar (see 12:6-8, 13:1-4,
and
21:33, noting their contexts).
     As you study chapter 26, note the events that lead up
to
Yitzchak's building of his "mizbayach" in contrast to
events
that took place before Avraham built his "mizbaychot.  In
what
manner are these events similar, and in what manner are
they
different?
     In your opinion, what is the 'highlight' of chapter
26,
and how does it relate to 26:23-25?  In other words,
attempt
to explain the relationship between the mizbayach that
Yitzchak builds and the 'peace accord' that he reaches
with
Avimelech, as well as the nature of the treaty that is
made
between them (see 26:13-28, compare with 21:22-34).

2.  In these stories in Sefer Breishit, we see how
building a
mizbayach seems to be followed by "calling out in God's
Name".
In what manner is this similar to what will take place in
the
future, i.e. when Bnei Yisrael will build the Mishkan
(and/or
the Bet ha'Mikdash)?
     Is there a connection between arriving at 'peace with
our
enemies' and building the Bet ha'Mikdash? In your answer,
relate to Devarim 12:8-12, and II Shmuel 7:1-15, as well
as to
the basic purpose of the Bet HaMikdash, as explained by
Shlomo
ha'Melech in Melachim Aleph 8:10-21  [See also Melachim
10:1-
11!]
.
3. Ramban, in his commentary to 26:20 explains how the
events
in chapter 26 foreshadow the building of the first,
second,
and third Temples.  In what manner do the questions
discussed
above support that Midrashic interpretation?
  Finally, relate the last line of that Ramban to our
discussion of the overall theme of Sefer Breishit (i.e.
based
on our understanding of the events at Migdal Bavel - as
discussed in our shiurim on Parshiot Noach & Lech L'cha).

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for shiur)
1.  Even though God first promised Avraham Avinu that his
"zera" [offspring] will inherit the "aretz" (see 12:7,
13:14-17, 15:18), later on in Parshat Lech Lcha, God
'qualified' those original promises, by informing him that
only Yitzchak will be considered his "zera" (see 17:19-21,
21:12).
  Note how this very point is confirmed at the beginning
of
Parshat Toldot, when God first speaks to Yitzchak - see
26:1-5.
  In your opinion, is there any reason for Yitzchak to
think
that only ONE of his two sons would be chosen, and not
both?
If so, explain that reason.
  If not, why do you think Yitzchak chose to bless only
Esav,
and not both Yaakov & Esav?

2.  Clearly, Yitzchak wants to bless Esav.  However - is
it
clear what this blessing was supposed to entail?  In other
words, was the purpose of Yitzchak's blessing to single
out
Esav as the chosen son, to the exclusion of Yaakov?  If
not,
what was the purpose of Yitzchak's blessing?
  To answer this question, carefully study the blessing
that
Yitzchak originally intended to give Esav (see 27:28-29),
i.e.
the blessing that Yaakov took by trickery. - Then, compare
this blessing to the early blessings of "bechira" that God
bestowed upon Avraham and Yitzchak (as noted in the
previous
question). [For example, does it mention "zera v'aretz"?]
     In your opinion, does this blessing it relate to the
concept of "bechira"?
     If yes, WHY does Yitzchak give Esav the "bechira"?
      [Has any forefather thus far chosen who the
"bechira"
goes to?]
     If not, what type of blessing is this?

3. Do any other fathers in Sefer Breishit bless (or curse)
their children?  If so, at what stage in their life to
they do
so, and for what purpose? In general, what are those
blessings
based upon?
   [Relate to the end of chapter 9, as well chapters
48->49.]
  In regard to the blessing of "bechira" -i.e. the concept
of
becoming God's special nation - in your opinion, who do
you
think that it makes sense that only God should be allowed
to
bestow this blessing - or does it make sense that the
forefathers themselves should have a say in the matter?
     Relate to God's purpose in the entire "bechira"
process.

4. Later on in the story, Esav convinces his father to
give
him a blessing as well (even though Yaakov 'stole' the
original blessing that was intended for him).  Carefully
study
that blessing (see 27:37-40) and compare it to the
original
blessing (see 27:28-29).
     In what manner are these two blessings similar, and
in
what manner are they different?  Attempt to explain why!
     Relate this parallel to your answer to the previous
question.

5.  In your opinion, why does Rivka intervene in her
husband's
plan to bless Esav?  Can you explain why she doesn't tell
Yitzchak directly that he is making a mistake?
     In your opinion, what type of blessing does Rivka
think
that Yitzchak plans to give Esav?
     Does Rivka know something that Yitzchak doesn't? In
your
answer, relate to 25:19-26, especially 25:23! [See also
Parshanut section below: questions #1 and #2. See also
Radak
on 27:4-5!
     How can that background explain her behavior?

6. When the entire incident is over, Ytizchak bestows upon
Yaakov an additional blessing (before he leaves home).
Review
28:1-6, noting the key points of this blessing and its
context.   How does this blessing differ from the first
blessing that Yitzchak gave Yaakov (i.e. the blessing he
thought he was giving to Esav)?
     In what manner does this 'additional' blessing relate
to
the theme of "bechira" discussed thus far in Sefer
Breishit?
What earlier blessing in Sefer Breishit is this similar
to?
     Does Yitzchak grant this blessing, or does he now
'pray'
that God will bestow this blessing on Yaakov?  [Read
carefully!]  Can you explain why?
     Later on in Sefer Breishit, does God ever confirm
this
blessing which Yitzchak gave to Yaakov?  If so, when and
where
does this 'confirmation' take place!
     [If you give up, start your search in Breishit
chapter 35.]

7. It seems that it was certainly God's intention for
Yaakov
to receive the blessing of "zera v'aretz".  However, for
some
reason, Yaakov only receives it in a very 'round-about'
manner.  Attempt to explain why.  In your answer, relate
to
the concept of "maase avot siman la'banim" [the events
that
took place in the life of the forefathers foreshadow
future
events in Jewish history].
=======

PART III - PARSHANUT

RIVKA'S SECRET
1. In 25:23, the Torah informs us: "va'yomer Hashem LAH" -
to
HER. It appears as though only Rivka heard this nevuah.
In
your opinion, did God speak directly to Rivka?  See Rashi,
Rashbam, Ibn Ezra & Chizkuni. How do they answer this
question? Can you explain why?

2. In your opinion, did Rivka ever tell Yitzchak about
this
nevuah?
  If yes, why did Yitzchak nevertheless prefer Esav?
  If no, can you explain why she didn't tell him?
     Relate your answer to Rivka's behavior in the story
of
the blessings in chapter 27:
  See Ramban 27:4!  How does Ramban answer this question?

'IF HE WAS A RICH MAN'
1. Based on the various stories concerning Yitzchak and
his
family, in your opinion, how wealthy of a man does he
appear
to be?
     Then, study the Ibn Ezra on 25:34, where he explains
that
one of the reasons why Esav was not interested in the
birthright was because his father was poor and did not
expect
to inherit much.  Read that Ibn Ezra carefully, follow his
proofs for why Yitzchak was so poor!
     Then see Ramban's rebuttal of this approach in his
pirush
to 25:34.
     As you will see, this is a rather amazing debate
between
two giants of parshanut.  Enjoy!
  [If you are familiar with the life history of both Ibn
Ezra
  and Ramban, you will probably understand the underlying
  reason for these two very different approaches.]

 [for shiur #2 this week - on parshanut]
WHAT MITZVOT DID THE AVOT KEEP?
1. In 26:5, God informs Yitzchak that Avraham had kept
everything that God commanded, including His "mishmarti,
mitzvotei, chukotei, v'torotei".
     Review 26:5, and attempt to identify what each of
these
words mean, and what they refer to.  Can you bring a
instance
when any of these words or phrases were used earlier in
Sefer
Breishit?
     As you answer this question, attempt to understand
the
meaning of each word, while considering the following
points:
  .    Should we expect to find these commandments that
Avraham
     kept within the stories about him in Sefer Breishit?
.    Should we expect that Avraham had kept certain
mitzvot,
even though there is no story in Chumash about him doing
so?
If so, what would those mitzvot be, and what would be the
source of such an assumption?
.    Should we define the meaning of each of the words in
26:5
- based on what they refer to later on in Chumash, or
based on
the simple meaning of the word in Hebrew?
  
2.  After you have reached your own conclusions, see how
each
of the following commentators dealt with this question.
[Note
as well how their respective commentaries reflect their
different approaches to "parshanut" (and the three
considerations noted above):

     First, see Rashi (on 26:5).
  Does Rashi assume that Avraham kept the entire Torah,
including rabbinic prohibitions? If so, what leads him to
this
conclusion?
  On what does he base the meaning of each word in 26:5?
  
     Next, see Ramban, first noting how and why he
disagrees
with Rashi's interpretation.  Then, note how he provides a
different explanation for Chazal's understanding that the
Avot
kept the entire Torah.  In your opinion, which approach
makes
more sense?
     Then, see the concluding section of this Ramban,
where he
offers his own interpretation "al derech ha'peshat" of
each
word in this pasuk!
  Note how Ramban focuses on the literal meaning of each
word,
and how he relates their context to his understanding of
the
events of Avarham Avinu's own life, as described in Sefer
Breishit!
     Why do you think that Ramban refers to this latter
interpretation as "pshat" in contrast to the Midrashic
opinion
that the Avot kept the entire Torah?

3.  Now, see Rashbam, noting how his approach is quite
different that either Rashi or Ramban.  Can you explain
the
logic of his approach and why he attempts to establish a
'one
to one' correspondence between each word in this pasuk and
some event in Avarham's life?
     Can you explain what problem Rashbam faced as he
attempts
to explain the phrase "chuotei v'toratei", based on his
approach up until this point?  Why does he introduce his
interpretation to this phrase as "omek pshuto"?

  Are the examples that he brings for "chukotei u'toratei"
based on events in Avraham Avinu's own life?  [Attempt to
find
examples!]
     Note how drastically Rashbam's approach differs from
Rashi's.  Considering the fact that he was Rashi's
grandson,
how may this explain his introductory phrase of "omek
pshuto"?
     Next, see Chizkuni on 26:5, noting how his
interpretation
is almost identical with that of Rashbam - up until a
certain
point.  Then note how his explanation of "chukotei
v'toratei"
differs!  Can you explain why he supports his
interpretation
with psukim from Sefer Tehillim about Avraham Avinu?  Is
his
approach more 'consistent' that Rashbam's? Explain!

4.  Next, see Ibn Ezra, noting how his interpretation is
very
different from any that we have seen thus far.  Can you
explain the logic behind his approach, and why he
introduces
his explanations with the word "v'yitacheyn" - [and it
could
be (but not necessarily)]?
  Note as well his interpretation for "chukotei"?  Is this
the
standard meaning of this word that you are familiar with?
Can
you explain why he understands the word "chok" in a very
different manner?  [Relate to the meaning of the word
"chok"
in Breishit 47:22 & 47:26, see as well his commentary to
Vayikra 19:19!]
     Finally, note how Ramban's own commentary on this
pasuk
"al derech ha'pshat" is very similar in approach to that
of
Ibn Ezra! Note however how (and why) they differ in regard
to
"mishmarti".

5.  Next, see Radak, noting how he relates his
interpretation
to the seven Noachide laws.  Can you explain how (and why)
his
approach is both similar but different than all of the
other
approaches you've seen thus far?
  Attempt to relate his commentary to this pasuk based on
the
philosophical thinking of his time period.

6.  Last, but not least, see Seforno on 26:5, noting once
again how his approach is both similar but different than
all
of the other approaches we've seen thus far.   What
element in
his commentary is totally different than all of the others
that we have studied thus far?
     How does his interpretation relate to his
understanding
of the overall theme of Sefer Breishit (as he discussed in
his
intro to Sefer Breishit) in regard to the purpose of why
God
chose Avraham Avinu?  Relate to the concept of "tikun
olam",
"or lagoyim",  and  'calling out in God's Name'!
     In the second section of his commentary to 26:5,
Seforno
also explains how God's statement to Yitzchak in 26:3-5
relates directly to the events that follow in the
continuation
of chapter 26.  Be sure that you understand how. As you
read
the remainder of chapter 26, see if you agree with his
conclusions!
     In that story, note how and why Seforno understands
that
God has expectations from Yitzchak, based on the
similarities
between this story, and earlier events that took place
during
the life of Avraham.

7.  In your opinion, which of the above six approaches is
closest to "pshat"?  What is the underlying reason for
this
wide range of opinions?

                    b'hatzlacha
                    menachem

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: toldotq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 49665 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091115/1f449b1d/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Nov 18 07:32:40 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:32:40 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Toldot - shiur #1
Message-ID: <005901ca684b$38c5e650$aa51b2f0$@net>

This week's TSC shiurim are dedicated in memory of:
  Chana Friedman (Chana bat Yaakov u'Devorah) A"H 
   on her 14th yahrzeit

**********************************************************
***
     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: 115542 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091118/c7fad1c4/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Nov 18 07:38:24 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:38:24 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Toldot - shiurim #2 & #3
Message-ID: <006101ca684c$060e15b0$122a4110$@net>

This week's TSC shiurim are dedicated in memory of:
  Chana Friedman (Chana bat Yaakov u'Devorah) A"H 
   on her 14th yahrzeit


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

                    PARSHAT TOLDOT - additional shiur

     - 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://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091118/cae49d45/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://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091118/cae49d45/attachment-0003.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Nov 22 12:58:27 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:58:27 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Va-yetze - Questions for self study
Message-ID: <004b01ca6b9d$64e383f0$2eaa8bd0$@net>

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

             PARSHAT VA'YETZE

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

LAVAN'S FAMILY
1. When Yaakov arrives in Charan, he meets Rachel as she
is
taking care of Lavan's sheep.  As you review this story
(i.e.
read 29:1-11) attempt to answer the following questions
(that
relate to Lavan's family:
     1. Why is Rachel taking care of the sheep by herself?
     2. Why isn't Leah or anyone else 'helping out'?
     3. Why are the other shepherds male?
     4. How old is Rachel?

  If (or when) you give up, see Ramban on 29:9, noting how
he
answers all of the above questions; and enjoy!

PRAYING OR COMPLAINING
2. Review 30:1-2, noting how Rachel demands that Yaakov
give
her a child.  Compare this incident with the beginning of
Parshat Toldot (see 25:21) where Yitzchak prays that Rivka
will have a child. Relate as well to 30:22-24 (when Rachel
finally does give birth).
     In your opinion, what was the nature of Rachel's
demand?
Does it imply that she wanted Yaakov to 'pray for her'?
     Why was Yaakov angered by this request?  In your
opinion,
was Yaakov's anger (see 30:2) justified?
  Similarly, was Rachel's request improper, or was it
simply
the manner by which she asked?
  If the latter, how should she have asked?
     Can you explain why God's Name in this narrative is
specifically "shem ELOKIM"?  [Relate to Breishit 17:1-9.]
     As above, after you answer these questions, see
Ramban on
30:1-2!

HA-"MAKOM" ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM
3. Note the emphasis and repetition of the word "ha'Makom"
in
the beginning of Parshat Va'yetze, i.e. 28:11,16,17,19.
[Note
this same word in 13:14 and 22:4 as well. Does this refer
to
the same place?
     Then, review Devarim chapter 12, noting the use of
the
word "ha'makom" in 12:5,11,14,18.  Is this the same
"makom" as
above?
     What is a common theme that links all of these
parshiot?
     Relate your answer to Chazal's opinion that the site
of
Yaakov's dream was the same site as the Akeyda on Har
Ha'Moriah, and eventually the site of the Bet HaMikdash in
Yerushalayim.
     To support Chazal's opinion, see II Divrei Ha'yamim
3:1-
2!  See also Rashi 28:17, noting how the Midrash of R.
Elazar
that he quotes relates directly to this parallel.

4. When Yaakov first arrives in Charan he meets a group of
shepherds by a well. Review 29:1-3, noting the minute
detail
in the Torah's description of these events. Recall as well
the
Torah's detail re: the wells that Yitzchak and Avraham had
dug
(see 26:13-23).
     Can you explain the need for this detail, i.e. how it
adds to our comprehension of the story that develops.
     Then, see Ramban on 29:2-3 for a beautiful
explanation,
relating to the exegetic principle of "maase avot siman
la'banim". See also Ramban on 26:20-22 for a more complete
explanation of this approach.

DREAMING DOLLARS
5. Recall the vision that Yaakov saw (before leaving Eretz
Yisrael) of angels going up and down a ladder (see 28:12).
Then, compare that vision to what Yaakov sees in his dream
after working with Lavan's sheep for twenty years, as
described in 31:10-13.
  Can you identify both a parallel and a contrast?  If so,
can
you find any significance in this contrast?  (If you need
help, ask any 'yeshiva bochur' who has gone into
business....).

MOTHERS KNOW BEST
6. Review 29:31-30:25, noting who names each of Yaakov's
children, and which of God's Names [Elokim or Havaya (or
none)] is mentioned in the explanation of each son's name.
Can you identify a clear pattern (or at least a partial
one)?
  If so, explain what that pattern is.
  Can you suggest a reason why?  In your answer, relate to
Yaakov's answer to Rachel's demand in 30:1-2, as well as
to
Breishit 17:1-7.

A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE
7. Review 31:36-42, noting how Yaakov bursts out at Lavan
after being accused of stealing his "trafim".  To the best
of
your recollection, has Yaakov ever spoken in this manner
before?  Attempt to explain what sparks this manner of
response at this time.
     Relate your answer to Yaakov's struggle with the
"malach"
in 32:24-32, and his subsequent name change to Yisrael, as
well as the situation he now finds himself in.
     Then, review 31:43-44, noting how Lavan doesn't
appear to
be impressed by Yaakov's harsh words.  Can you explain
why?
     Relate to Yaakov's statement in 32:11 ("ki b'makli
avarti
et ha'yarden...") comparing how 'poor' he was when he left
Eretz Canaan and how wealthy he is upon his return.  To
whom
does Lavan relate this 'net growth'?

GUARDIAN ANGELS
8. Note that the entire Parsha this week covers only one
'parshia', i.e. a "parshia ptucha" starts at the beginning
of
Va'yetze and continues until the very end of the Parsha.
Verify this point by using a Tanach Koren or similar.
     Attempt to suggest a reason why, while relating your
answer to the "malachim" who are found in both the
beginning
and at the end of the Sedra (28:10-12 /32:1-2).
     Relate as well to Rashi on 28:21 and 32:2.
     Then, see Ramban on 32:2.  Why does he disagree with
Rashi? Can you explain how Ramban's interpretation relates
to
"kabbalah"?

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION
                     (for weekly shiur)
1. Review 28:10-22, and while studying these psukim,
attempt
to divide them into several paragraphs.  As you identify
each
paragraph, try to give a short title that accurately
summarizes its main topic.
     As you review your titles and conclusions, be sure
that
you fully understand the logic behind the flow of topic
from
one paragraph to the next.   [It would also be helpful to
attempt to turn your titles into a short outline.]
     After you've completed this 'homework', try to answer
the
following questions:

2. As you should have noticed, Yaakov's dream (as
described in
28:12-15) contains both a vision and a 'message' from God.
Note as well that is the first time in Chumash that God
speaks
to Yaakov. Why do you think that God decides to appear to
him
specifically at this time in his life? [Relate to 28:1-5!]
     In your opinion, what is God's primary message in
this
"hitgalut" [revelation] to Yaakov? Attempt to explain the
significance of each of these four psukim.

3.  In what manner is God's promise to Yaakov (in
28:13-15)
similar to God's earlier promises to Yitzchak (see 26:1-5)
and
to Avraham Avinu (see 12:1-8, 13:14-17, 15:18, 17:7-8
etc.)?
In what manner is this "hitgalut" different?

4.  Next, review Yaakov's reaction to this "hitgalut" in
28:16-
22, noting how his reaction is quite different than the
reactions of Avraham & Yitzchak (after God had appeared to
them). Can you explain why?  [In your answer, relate to
Yaakov's current predicament.]

5.  As you review 28:16-17, note how Yaakov makes several
statements that all relate to certain things that he has
now
realized (because of this "hitgalut").
  Attempt to explain how each of these 'realizations'
relates
to God's revelation in 28:12-15.
     Among Yaakov's conclusions is his statement: "ein zeh
ki
im bet Elokim" [this is none other than God's house].  Did
you
understand this statement as a 'conclusion', a
'prediction, or
a 'statement of intent'?  [What is this "bet Elokim" that
Yaakov refers to?]
  Relate your answer to the psukim that follow!

6.  In 28:18-19, Yaakov takes several actions.  Can you
explain the reason for each of them?  In what manner to
they
relate to what he just stated in 28:16-17?  In what manner
to
they relate to 28:20-22?
  As you study 28:20-22, notice that Yaakov makes a
"neder"
(vow).  Be sure that you understand how Yaakov's actions
in
28:18-19 relate directly to his 'promise' in 28:22!
     In your opinion, which realization prompted Yaakov to
make this "neder"?

7.  Review 28:20-21, noting how this includes a set of
'conditions' that Yaakov makes.  Be sure that you
understand
how these 'conditions' relate to God's special promise in
28:15!
  In your opinion, do these 'conditions' reflect his doubt
that God may not fulfill His promise in 28:13-15?  If not,
can
you offer any other explanation for these conditions?
  How did you translate the opening word "im" (in 28:20)?
Can
this word have more than one meaning in Hebrew?  If so,
what
else may it imply, based in this context?

8. Review 28:20-22 once again, noting how Yaakov's "neder"
is
conditional, i.e. a condition followed by a promise
[IF.../THEN...].
     Attempt to determine where the 'IF clause' ends and
the
'THEN clause' begins.  [If you are studying to become a
lawyer, this will be good practice for you.]
     Based on your understanding of the 'THEN clause'
attempt
to determine what in essence Yaakov promises to do upon
his
return to this site?
     How does this promise relate to his 'realization' in
28:16-17!  Similarly, how does his 'IF clause' relate to
Gods'
promise in 28:15.   [Note how Rashi on 28:20 relates
precisely
to this parallel! If you have time, continue this question
in
the Parshanut section below.]

9. When Yaakov finally returns to Eretz Canaan (in Parshat
Va'yishlach), does he ever fulfill this neder?  If so,
when?
If not, can you explain why he doesn't?  In your answer,
relate to both 31:9-13 and 35:9-16!
     Do Yaakov's offspring ever fulfill this "neder"? [In
your
answer, relate to Devarim 12:1-14.]

10.  When does Yaakov FIRST decide that it is time to
'return
home'? Relate to 30:22-26. [See also 30:1-2 and 28:20-21.]
     In your opinion, what prompts this decision?
     Why doesn't Yaakov actually return home at that time?
Is
there a logical reason why he wants to first raise his own
sheep?  [Relate to 30:28-35.]
     Based on the 'deal' that he concludes with Lavan,
when
should Yaakov finally return home?  When does he actually
return home?  Relate to 30:22-31:4, and also to 31:10-13.
     What finally does prompt Yaakov to return?
     Relate to 31:1-3 in relation to 30:43!
     [Could you consider this "maase avot siman
la'banim!!]

PART III - PARSHANUT

YAAKOV's NEDER
1. Carefully review once again 28:13-22, especially the
part
dealing with Yaakov's "neder" [vow] in verses 18-22.
     Note that Yaakov's "neder" contains two parts:
          1) IF Hashem will....
          2) THEN I will...
     Read 28:20-22 carefully, and decide where the 'IF'
clause
ends, and where the 'THEN' clause begins!  Be sure that
you
can identify at least two possibilities.
     What philosophical problem is raised by Yaakov's
statement: "v'haya Hashem li l'Elokim" (in 28:21)?
     Is this phrase part of the 'condition' ("IF" clause)
or
part of the 'promise' ("THEN" clause)?
     What is problematic about each possibility?

2. Compare God's promise to Yaakov in 28:15 to the
'conditions' that Yaakov sets in 28:20-21.  Does this
comparison shed any light on the above question?
     Study Rashi on 28:20-21, noting he relates to this.
According to Rashi, is the phrase "v'haya Hashem li
l'Elokim"
a condition or a promise?
     Why does Rashi mention God's promise to Avraham Avinu
in
17:7-8 (i.e. in "brit milah" / note the phrase "l'hiyot
lachem
l'Elokim twice in those psukim)?
     Re: Rashi's interpretation that Yaakov prays that
there
shouldn't be a "psul b'zari" - what does this phrase mean
(i.e. what is it referring to)?  Did such a problem happen
with any of the other forefathers, i.e. was there ever a
case
when ALL of the children were not chosen?
     Relate this to Rashi's understanding of this pasuk,
noting once again how and why it should relate to brit
milah!

3.  Next, see Ramban, noting how he argues with Rashi,
claiming that this phrase is part of the 'promise' and not
the
'condition'.
     Can you explain why he argues with Rashi's
conclusion?
     According to Ramban, how does this 'promise' of
"v'haya
Hashem li l'Elokim" relate to the rest of Yaakov's vow in
28:22?

     Note as well that Ramban offers a second explanation,
which he considers as "sod".  Note, that according to this
interpretation, the phrase "v'haya Hashem li l'Elokim" is
neither a condition nor promise, rather 'a statement of
fact'
- a consequence of the first half of that pasuk ("v'shavti
b'shalom et beit Avi").
  [Those of you who live in chutz l'aretz may find this
Ramban
  rather disturbing!]

4. Next, see Rashbam ['that He will help me in everything
that
I may do'], Chizkuni ['He will be a judge and avenger
("dayan
v'nokeym")'] and Rasag ['He will be a "mashgiach" for
me'].
     In what manner do all three of these interpretations
share a similar approach?   What similarity is shared by
all
three of these explanations?  According to each of these
"pirushim", is the phrase a condition or a promise?
     How does Chizkuni understand the word "Elokim" in
this
pasuk?   Relate all of these interpretations to the fact
that
God's Name appears twice in this phrase!

5. See Ibn Ezra.
     Note as well how he relates to meaning of God's Name
in
this pasuk. Why does he put the emphasis on Hashem's Name,
and
how does this relate to the "hitgalut" itself in 28:12-14?

6. Finally, see Radak. He states specifically that we are
dealing with a PROMISE, as Ramban does. In what manner,
however, is his explanation different than Ramban's?

7. In your opinion, why do we find so many different
approaches in explaining this pasuk?

               b'hatzlacha,
               menachem


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayetzq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 29848 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091122/21f81434/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Nov 25 11:39:01 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:39:01 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] PARSHAT VA'YETZE - SHIUR
Message-ID: <007101ca6ded$cbbe3f00$633abd00$@net>

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

PARSHAT VAYETZE

	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://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091125/79cb4e72/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Nov 30 00:40:18 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:40:18 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Vayishlach - questions for self study
Message-ID: <002701ca717f$99a1bf20$cce53d60$@net>

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

                     PARSHAT  VA'YISHLACH

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

'TRICKERY' IN YAAKOV AVINU'S LIFE
1.  Review the various stories about Yaakov Avinu in
Parshiot
Toldot and Va'yetze, noting almost each one involves some
sort
of "trickery".  [Note when Yaakov uses trickery, and when
trickery is used against Yaakov.]
     a) Can you discern a pattern?
     b) In each of these stories, can the trickery be
justified?
     c) In your opinion, is Yaakov Avinu later 'punished'
for
this trickery? If so, when and how?
     d) In your opinion, [if he indeed is later punished
for
this trickery] does this necessarily imply that Yaakov was
'wrong' in his actions? Explain!

2. Next, review the beginning of Parshat Vayishlach (32:4-
32:25), noting how Yaakov prepares for his confrontation
with
Esav by telling his messengers not only to present a gift,
but
also to inform Esav that he [Yaakov] will be coming
'momentarily'.  [To verify this, carefully review
32:18-22!]
     Try to explain as well why Yaakov finds it necessary
to
leave 'gaps' between each flock that he sends.
     In your opinion, does Yaakov truly plan to confront
Esav,
or is his plan a 'stall' to allow him extra time to 'run-
away'.  Base your answer on the other actions that Yaakov
takes, as well as to the fears that he expresses in his
prayer
(to which God does not seem to provide an immediate
reply)!
     In your opinion, is Yaakov using trickery (once
again) in
an attempt to run away from his brother, or does he truly
plan
to confront him?
     Then, review 32:24 (i.e. when Yaakov crosses the
Yakok
stream).  In your opinion, is Yaakov crossing that stream
to
meet Esav or to run away from him?  Now, see Rashbam on
32:23!
[See other commentators as well (who disagree).]

3.  Based on your answer to the above question, attempt to
explain the deeper meaning of Yaakov's struggle with the
"malach" (see 32:24-30), i.e. why does God send someone to
wrestle with him.  In you answer, relate as well to the
blessing that Yaakov receives in the aftermath of that
struggle.
     Who does Yaakov meet immediately after this struggle
is
over, and what does he do (see 33:1-3)?  Relate this fact
to
your answer to the above questions!
     Based on the above questions, suggest a possible
meaning
for Yaakov's name change to Yisrael in the aftermath of
this
incident.

THE SHOWDOWN WITH ESAV
4. In your opinion, when Esav first left to meet Yaakov
(see
32:6), was his original intention to fight against Yaakov,
or
did he just want to greet him? In your answer, relate to
33:1-17, especially 33:4. Relate also to 27:41-45.
     Now see Rashi on 33:4 and then Ibn Ezra! [Note
Seforno
and Radak as well on 33:4.]  Can you explain the reason
for
these different approaches to this 'open question'?

5.  In your opinion, was it proper for Yaakov to bow down
seven times in front of Esav?  Was he simply trying to
appease
Esav, or was this an attempt to indicate something more
significant?
     Relate to 27:28-29, and see Ramban on 32:4 (and
Radak).
          [See also Rashbam on 32:29 and Chizkuni on
32:5.]
     Finally, see Maharam on 32:5 (in Torat Chaim
edition).
['Right wingers' will probably enjoy this commentary (at
least
more than Ramban's).]

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)

For Shiur #1 -  FROM YAAKOV TO YISRAEL
  [Note: It would be helpful to answer the above
'Questions
  for the shabbos table' as additional preparation for
this
  shiur.]
1.  Recall how Parshat Va'yetze concluded with Yaakov
meeting
the "maalachei Elokim" [angels of God] - see 32:1-3.  In
your
opinion, did this have any affect on his decision to send
messengers to meet Esav (see 32:4-5).
     In your answer, relate to the angels that Yaakov
first
saw in Bet El before leaving Eretz Canaan, and God's
promise
to him at that time (see 28:12-15).  Relate as well to why
Yaakov had to run away in the first place, and for how
long
his mother told him that he should stay away for (see
27:41-
45).
     In your opinion, does Yaakov expect to find that Esav
still wants to kill him, or does he think that Esav is no
longer so angry?

2.  Next, review 32:9-12 - i.e. Yaakov's prayer that God
save
him from Esav - noting how he recalls several earlier
promises
that God had made. How does this prayer relate to his
original
assumption regarding Esav and the report he received from
his
messengers that Esav is approaching with four hundred men?
     Try to find the 'sources' (in Chumash) for what
Yaakov
mentions in 32:9 and 32:12.  Can you explain why Yaakov
chose
to relate to specifically these promises in his prayer?
(Be
sure to relate to 22:15-18.)

3.  Does God answer Yaakov's prayer?  If so, when; and in
what
manner?
     It appears that God did not provide Yaakov with an
immediate answer to this prayer. In your opinion, did this
affect (in any manner) Yaakov's plan for confronting (or
running away) from Esav?  If so, explain how.

4. Based on everything that Yaakov does between 32:4 and
32:23, how does Yaakov plan to save his family?
     Note how the next event is his struggle in 32:24-30.
In
your opinion, was this confrontation simply 'incidental',
or
did God send this person?  If the latter, can you suggest
a
reason why?  Relate your reason to the above questions.

5.  At the end of this struggle, Yaakov asks for a
blessing,
and the angel changes his name from Yaakov to Yisrael (see
32:28).  Attempt to relate this name change to all the
previous events.  Explain as well why this should be
considered a 'blessing'!

6. In what manner is Yaakov's name change to Yisrael
different
than Avram's name change to AvraHam?  [Be sure to note at
least two distinctions.]
     Based on your answer, why do you think that Yaakov
continues to be called Yaakov, even after this name
change?
Relate you answer to the above questions.
     In your opinion, what does each name represent?
     See the commentaries of Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, and
Chizkuni
on 35:10, noting how they relate to this question.

7. Review 35:9-16, noting how we find once again that
Yaakov's
name is changed to Yisrael.  In your opinion, does the
story
in 25:9-16 CONTRADICT the story in 32:27-29? Or, is this
simply a REPETITION, or possibly a CONFIRMATION, or maybe
an
ADDITION?  Explain.
     Next, review 28:3-4, i.e. Yitzchak's blessing to
Yaakov
before he first left Eretz Canaan, noting the purpose of
that
blessing as well as God's Name [i.e. Elokim] that Yitzchak
invokes at that time.   In what manner is that blessing
similar to the blessing that Yaakov receives from God at
this
time?  Can you explain why?

8.  If you follow the commentaries of Ramban and Seforno
in
chapter 32, you'll notice how they find numerous parallels
between these events in Yaakov's life and the history of
Am
Yisrael.  Can you explain what leads them to this
conclusion?

For Shiur #2 - WHEN DOES YAAKOV RETURN TO BET EL?
1.  In your opinion, how much time elapses between the
events
recorded in 32:27-29, and those recorded in 35:9-15? [Or
at
least what events took place in the interim?]  How would
this
affect your understanding of the connection between these
two
events?

2.  Recall that Yaakov had made a "neder" before his
departure
to Padan Aram (see 28:18-22).
     Based on that promise, what would you expect Yaakov
to do
immediately upon his return to Eretz Canaan?
     Does he do fulfill that promise?  If so, when, and
why
then?  If not, can you explain why he doesn't?

3. Review 30:25, 31:1-3, 31:13, 31:18.  Based on those
psukim,
would you expect Yaakov to return immediately upon his
arrival
to his father and/or to Bet-El?
     Can you explain why he doesn't?

4. Make a list of all of the events that take place in
Parshat
Va'yishlach. As you do so, make special note of its
division
into 'parshiot'.  Attempt to determine the amount of time
that
elapses from one event to the next.  In your opinion, does
the
progression of these events make sense?

5.  Based on 31:41, 29:20-32, and 31:23, approximately how
old
are Yaakov's children when he first returns to Eretz
Canaan?
How old is Dina (maximum)?  How old are Levi & Shimon?
     When you read the story about Dina and Shchem in
chapter
34, how old do Dina, Shimon & Levi seem to be during this
incident?  Based on the above, attempt to reach a
conclusion
concerning how many years elapsed between Yaakov's arrival
at
Shchem and the incident with Dina?

6.  In your opinion, does it make sense that until that
time
he had never yet gone to visit his father, or to fulfill
his
"neder" at Bet-el?  If he did, then why does the text not
indicate so?  If he had not, can you explain why he
didn't?

7. Read 35:1-8 carefully, noting how it forms its own
"parshia" (and hence it is separate from 35:9-22).
     What is the thematic connection between 35:1-8 and
the
story of 'Dina & Shchem' in chapter 34? Could it be
considered
part of the same story?
     Note carefully why God instructs Yaakov to go to
Bet-el
in 35:1-3, i.e. for what purpose.  Is there a precedent
for
this purpose at this site of Bet El?  Does this relate in
any
manner to Yaakov's "neder" in 28:15-22?
     Review once again 35:1-8, noting the "mizbayach" that
Yaakov builds and its purpose.  Does this relate in any
manner
to his "neder"? If so, explain how; if not explain why it
doesn't - and why he does build this mizbayach.

8. Now read 35:9-22 carefully.  Does it make sense that
this
story takes place immediately afterward (i.e. after
35:1-8),
or could one entertain the possibility that it took place
much
earlier?
     In answer, relate to the textual parallels between
35:9
and 33:18 -"b'vo'oh m'Padan Aram...".   If so, what
problems
raised above (regarding the story of Dina in Shchem) would
be
solved?
     If this 'parshia' indeed did take place earlier, can
you
explain why the Torah records these events not according
to
their chronological sequence. In your answer, relate to
strange wording in 35:22 and its thematic connection to
35:23.

9. Note that 36:1 begins a new unit of "toladot" (Toldot
Esav).
     Where did the last unit of "toldot" begin? (See
25:19.)
Where does it end? (Relate to 35:23-29.)
     How is the conclusion of this unit of "toldot"
different
than the conclusions of the earlier units of "toldot" in
Sefer
Breishit (i.e. how many sons are 'chosen' and who is
'rejected')?
     Explain why this observation is significant to the
overall theme of Sefer Breishit (of "bechira")?
     Why may we have thought otherwise (i.e. that not ALL
of
Yaakov's children would be chosen)?

PART III - PARSHANUT

Shalem, Shalom, Shchem
1. Read 33:18 "va'yavo Yaakov SHALEM ir Shchem..."
     a) In your opinion is "SHALEM" the NAME of the city
at
which Ya'akov arrived, or is it an ADJECTIVE describing
HOW
Yaakov arrived?  (In your answer, be sure to relate to
both
Breishit 14:18 and 28:21!)
     b) If "SHALEM" is the name of a city, then what is
"SHCHEM" the name of?
     c) If "SHALEM" implies that he "arrived safely",
would
this be proper Hebrew? Based on the context of this pasuk,
in
your opinion which explanation makes the most sense?

2. Now, see how the various commentators approach this
enigmatic pasuk.
     a) First, see Rashi and Ibn Ezra.  In your opinion,
which
approach is "pshat", and which is "drash"?
     b) Next, see Ramban, who quotes Rashi and Ibn Ezra,
and
argues with both of them.  In what general manner is his
pirush similar to theirs?
     c) Why do you think Ramban argues with Rashi & Ibn
Ezra?
Is his approach closer to "pshat"?
     d) Now, see Seforno. How is his explanation different
from all the above? In your opinion, is this closer to
pshat?
     e) Next, see Rashbam. How is his pirush totally
different?  (Why is Rashbam so adamant that his pirush is
the
ONLY 'real' pshat? Do you agree?)
     f) Finally see Chizkuni. Does he agree totally with
Rashbam?  What other problem does Chizkuni deal with?
[Note
how he proves that this cannot be the same city of SHALEM
as
in 14:18!]

3. In your opinion, why did Esav originally move from
Eretz
Canaan to Har Seir? [See 32:3, 33:14-17]
     Now, see 36:5-9!! [Compare also with 13:5-15!]
     Now, see Rashi, Rashbam, Ramban, Seforno, Radak &
Chizkuni!
     How does each "parshan" solve this problem.
     According to each, WHEN did 36:6-8 take place?
          Be sure to see Ramban inside. [It is a classic
example of     his magnificent approach to parshanut.]

4. Review 35:22, noting how the pasuk (and the story) end
abruptly with: "va'yishma Yisrael". In your opinion, what
does
this phrase imply, i.e. what did Yaakov 'hear', or what
did he
do?
     No matter what your answer is, why do you think that
this
pasuk is so ambiguous?
     First see Rashbam (35:22) on this phrase. Note how he
relates this pasuk to what is later written in 49:4. Can
you
explain why?  Next, see Seforno. How is his pirush
different
than Rashbam? Note as well how it is similar, in regard to
the
fact that this phrase can only be understood in light of
another pasuk in Chumash.
     Finally see Radak. Note how radical his approach is!
Note
how he relates in his pirush to Yaakov's "neder" in 28:21!
Can
you explain why? In your opinion, is Radak's
interpretation
based on that pasuk, or does that pasuk simply provide
support?

MAASE AVOT SIMAN LA'BANIM
1. In his introduction to the Parasha (before 32:4) -
Ramban
explains how these events relate to Jewish history.  As
your
study Ramban on chapter 32, note how he follows this
approach.
     According to this Ramban, can (or should) we apply
these
events to our decisions in later generations concerning
how to
react to provocations against the Jewish people?
     If so, are the answers 'clear-cut'; or do these
stories
help us appreciate the events after they take place?
     As you study other commentators on chapter 32, note
how
they also find parallels between these events and other
events
in Jewish history.  In what manner are their conclusions
similar to Ramban's and in what manner are they different?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayishq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 29573 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091130/52126b03/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Dec  2 01:04:33 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:04:33 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Vayishlach - shiur
Message-ID: <00f201ca7315$5224a080$f66de180$@net>

DEDICATED IN COMMEMORATION OF THE YARZHEIT OF
REUVEN BEN MOSHE A'H
17 KISLEV 5757

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

      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://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091202/de27a6e3/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Dec  2 01:08:00 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:08:00 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Vayishlach - shiur #2
Message-ID: <00fa01ca7315$cdfb33e0$69f19ba0$@net>

DEDICATED IN COMMEMORATION OF THE YARZHEIT OF
REUVEN BEN MOSHE A'H
17 KISLEV 5757

**********************************************************
***
     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?



From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Dec  2 01:08:32 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:08:32 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Vayishlach - shiur #3
Message-ID: <00fb01ca7315$e00a2870$a01e7950$@net>

DEDICATED IN COMMEMORATION OF THE YARZHEIT OF
REUVEN BEN MOSHE A'H
17 KISLEV 5757

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

       PARSHAT  VA'YISHLACH - shiur #3
                               
         YAAKOV'S RETURN TO BET EL
    
     Upon his arrival in Eretz Canaan, why doesn't Yaakov
go
straight home to his parents in Hebron? After all, he has
been
away from his parents for over twenty years!
     Secondly, why doesn't Yaakov return immediately to
Bet-el
to fulfill his "neder" [vow]? Hadn't he promised God that
'should he return home safely' he would establish a 'Bet
Elokim' in Bet-el (see 28:21-22)?
     However, instead of doing what we would have
expected, it
appears from Parshat Vayishlach that Yaakov prefers to
settle
down in Shechem. Then, only AFTER the incident with Dena,
and
only after God reminds him that he must do so, he finally
returns to Bet-el. [See 33:18-35:1.
     So what's going on in Parshat Va'yishlach?
     In the following shiur we suggest a very simple (but
daring) answer to these questions, based on a rather
intricate
analysis.

INTRODUCTION
     To appreciate the analysis that follows, it is
important
to first pay attention to the division of 'parshiot in
Parshat
Vayishlach.  Using a Tanach Koren, or similar, note the
topics
of its first six 'parshiot' (i.e. up until the death of
Yitzchak at the end of chapter 35).
  The following table presents a short title for each
section.
As you study it, note the progression of topic from one
'parshia' to the next:

     PSUKIM    -    GENERAL TOPIC
     =======       ===============
(A)  32:3-33:17   Yaakov's confrontation with Esav upon
his
                    return to Eretz Canaan.
(B)  33:18-20     Yaakov's arrival in Shechem.
(C)  34:1-31      The incident with Dena in Shechem.
(D)  35:1-8       Yaakov's ascent to Bet-el to flee from
                      Shechem, and his building of a
mizbayach.
(E)  35:9-22      God's blessing to Yaakov at
Bet-el,followed
                       by Rachel's death and Binyamin's
birth.
(F)  35:23-29     A summary of Yaakov's children, followed
by
                       the death of Yitzchak.

     We begin our shiur by making some observations
concerning
Yaakov's behavior in the progression of these events.

KEEPING PROMISES
     When Yaakov first left Eretz Canaan on his way to
Padan
Aram, God promised to 'be with him' and see to his safe
return
(28:15). In response to this divine promise, Yaakov made a
"neder" (vow) that should God keep His promise, he will
return
to Bet-el and establish a Bet-Elokim (see 28:18-22).
Undoubtedly, Yaakov's safe return from Padan Aram requires
his
fulfillment of the neder. In fact, towards the end of last
week's Parsha, God Himself mentions this promise when He
commanded (and reminded) Yaakov that it was time to
'return
home':
  "I am the God of Bet-el, where you anointed a matzeyva,
to
  whom you vowed a NEDER. Now get up and LEAVE this land
and
  RETURN to the land of your fathers." (31:11-13)

     Therefore, upon his return, we should expect Yaakov
to go
immediately to Bet-el to fulfill his "neder."  However,
for
some reason, he first settles in Shechem.

HONOR THY FATHER...
     Even more troubling is why Yaakov doesn't immediately
go
home to Hebron, at least to say 'hello' to his parents
whom he
hasn't seen in over twenty years!  Recall how the Torah
had
earlier informed us that was his original intention:
  "Yaakov got up and took his children and wives on the
  camels. Then he led his sheep... and everything he
acquired
  in Padan Aram to GO TO YITZCHAK HIS FATHER in the land
of
  Canaan." (32:17-18)
  
     Nonetheless, when Yaakov arrives in Eretz Canaan, the
Torah tells us he settles down in Shechem.  In fact, we
only
learn of Yaakov's return to his father's house
incidentally,
in the final pasuk before Yitzchak's death (see 35:27-29)!
  For some reason, the Torah never informs us of the
details
(or the date) of this reunion.

JUST FOR A 'SHORT STOP'?
     At first glance, one could answer that Shechem was
nothing more than a short stop along the way to Bet-el. As
we
know, Yaakov's young children and immense cargo forced him
to
travel slowly (see 33:12-15). He may very well have needed
a
rest. Thus, Yaakov's 'brief stay' in Shechem could be
considered no different than his 'brief stay' in Succot
(see
33:17).
   [See further iyun regarding Yaakov's stay in Succot.]

  But this approach is difficult to accept for two
reasons:
     First of all, recall how Yaakov had traveled from
Padan
Aram to Har ha'Gilad in only seven days (see 31:21-23,
read
carefully). Now that journey is much longer than the trip
from
the Gilad to Bet-el. [Check it out on a map.] Therefore,
there
seems to be no reason why Yaakov cannot complete the
remainder
of this journey in two or three days - a week at most!
     Secondly, if Yaakov's plan is just to 'rest up' in
Shechem for a few days, why would he buy a parcel of land?
Furthermore, the overall impression from chapter 34 is
that
Yaakov's family has pretty much settled down in Shechem
(see
34:7, 34:10, 34:21 etc.).
     Therefore, it seems at thought Yaakov had settled
down in
Shechem for quite a while.  In fact, we can prove that
Yaakov
may have stayed even several years in Shechem - by simply
considering the ages of his children at that time.  Let's
explain:

BAR-MITZVAH BOYS OR GROWN UPS?
     Recall that Yaakov left Lavan after working for him
for
twenty years (see 31:41).  Therefore, when he began his
journey back to Eretz Canaan, his oldest child could not
have
been more than 13 years old (see 29:18-23), for he first
married Leah only after completing his seven years of
work.
That would make Shimon & Levi etc. 11 or 12 years old,
etc.
     Yet, from the Torah's description of the incident
with
Dena in Shechem (see 34:1-31) it appears that Shimon &
Levi
(and the rest of the brothers) must have been at least in
their late teens. After all, they go to war against an
entire
city!
     Furthermore, Dena - Leah's seventh child - could not
have
been older than six and most probably even younger!
[Remember
there was a break between Yehuda and Yisachar/ see 30:9.]
However, from the story in chapter 34, Dena appears to be
at
least twelve, if not older.  Even though Shechem does
refer to
her once as a "yaldah" (see 34:4), the Torah consistently
refers to her as a "na'arah" (see 34:3,12).
     If these assumptions are correct, then it appears
that
Yaakov remained in Shechem for at least several years
prior to
the story of Dena's abduction.
     Even if Yaakov stayed in Succot for 18 months, as the
Midrash claims (see Rashi 33:17), it still doesn't make
sense
that the incident with Dena have taken place when she is
in
'first grade' and Shimon & Levi had just celebrated their
'bar-
mitzvahs'?
     Thus, according to "pshat", the incident at Shechem
must
have taken place at least five years later! This
conclusion
strengthens our original question.  Why would Yaakov
remain in
Shechem for over FIVE years without first returning to
Bet-el,
and without going home to visit his elderly parents!

'A CALL TO ORDER'
     Whenever we arrive at this kind of dilemma the
temptation
is to 'tamper' with the chronological order of the
narrative.
In Chazal, this is better known as the principle of "ein
mukdam u'muchar ba'Torah" - the narrative in Chumash does
not
necessarily progress in chronological order. Clearly, the
principle of "ein mukdam u'muchar" does not mean that the
stories in Chumash are recorded in purely random sequence.
Nor
should it be understood as just a 'wildcard' solution for
difficulties in "peshat". Instead, the Torah often records
certain parshiot out of their chronological order for
thematic
considerations.
  [It should also be noted that the principle of "ein
mukdam
  u'muchar" usually only applies at the 'parshia' level.
In
  other words, that events WITHIN a given 'parshia' are
always
  recorded in chronological sequence. Only a 'parshia' in
its
  entirety may be presented before an earlier event or
vice-
  versa. [This style is sometimes referred to as "smichut
  parshiot."]

     Let's see now if this principle can help us solve the
problems raised in our shiur thus far.
     We'll start by taking a closer look at the various
stages
of Yaakov's journey, and how they relate to the division
into
'parshiot' of Parshat Va'yishlach.

IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF AVRAHAM AVINU
     We really should have begun our shiur with a more
basic
question: why does Yaakov stop in Shechem at all? Why
doesn't
he go directly from Succot to Bet-el or Hebron?
     The answer lies in the obvious parallel between
Yaakov's
return to Canaan and Avraham Avinu's initial journey from
Aram
to Eretz Canaan.  He, too, first stopped in Shechem and
built
a MIZBAYACH:
  "And Avram passed through the land, to the place of
  SHECHEM... and God appeared to Avram and said: I am
giving
  this land to your offspring; and he built there a
MIZBAYACH
  to the Lord who appeared to him." (12:6-7)
          [Compare also 12:5 with 31:17-18!!]

     Correspondingly, Yaakov also makes Shechem his first
stop, and he builds a MIZBAYACH specifically in that
region
(see 33:18-20). In contrast to Avraham, however, Yaakov
ALSO
invests in some real estate - he buys a field (see 33:19).
Soon we will suggest a logical reason for this purchase.
     If Yaakov is indeed following his grandfather's
footsteps
(as his arrival in Shechem suggests), then he too should
continue directly to Bet-el, just as Avraham Avinu did
(see
12:7-8). Of course, Yaakov had another reason to proceed
directly to Bet-el - to fulfill his "neder." Then, we
would
have expected him to continue from Bet-el on to Hebron to
see
his parents.
     So why does he stay in Shechem?
     One could suggest that exactly the opposite happened,
i.e. Yaakov DID NOT STAY IN SHECHEM for more than several
days! Instead, he stopped there only to build a MIZBAYACH,
thanking God for his safe arrival, just as Avraham had
done.
To support this, note how the Torah describes his arrival
in
33:18: "va'yavo Yaakov SHALEM". This most probably
reflects
the phrase in his original "neder" of: "v'shavti b'SHALOM
et
beit avi" (see 28:21).
  Furthermore, in 33:20 he calls this mizbayach: "Kel
Elokei
Yisrael", most likely relating to the phrases in his
"neder"
of: "im y'hiyeh ELOKIM imadi..." (28:20) and "v'haya
Hashem li
l'ELOKIM" (28:21).

A WISE INVESTMENT
     At that time, he also purchased a plot of land.  This
was
a wise investment, for Yaakov is traveling with a large
family, and realizes that sooner or later, he'll need to
settle down in Canaan, and build a house of his own.
Planning
an option for his future, he buys a parcel a land, a
'security' investment should he decide one day to return.
  At this point, we posit, Yaakov really does continue his
journey from Shechem to Bet El - and then on to Hebron -
after
only a very short stay. However, the Torah records the
details
of this 'first' ascent to Bet-el - at a later time (see
35:9),
while 'inserting' the details the Dena event in between
(i.e.
in chapter 34), even thought that event took place at a
later
time!  [Later in the shiur, we will suggest a reason why
this
story in 'inserted'.]
  [To appreciate this theory, it is recommended that you
  review those parshiot, especially noting the new
'parshia'
  that begins in 35:9.]

     Let's take a look at the special wording of the
'parshia'
that begins in 35:9 - which we claim took place BEFORE the
events in chapter 34:
  "And God [had already /"od"? / or 'again'] appeared unto
  Yaakov UPON HIS ARRIVAL from Padan Aram, and blessed him
...
  then Yaakov set up a MATZEYVA at this site... and called
the
  name of this site BET-EL. Then they traveled towards
Efrat"
  [i.e. on the way toward Hebron], and Rachel gave birth
with
  complications [& then died]..." (see 35:9-19)

     Our contention is that this entire 'parshia'
(35:9-22)
actually took place immediately upon Yaakov's arrival from
Padan Aram (as its opening pasuk suggests/ compare
33:18!),
several years BEFORE the incident with Dena in Shechem
(i.e.
34:1-35:8).
     A very strong proof to this claim may be drawn from
the
words of Yaakov himself (to Yosef) before his death:
  "... when I was RETURNING FROM PADAN, Rachel died on the
  road, while still a long distance from Efrat, and I
buried
  her on the way..." (see 48:7)

     Yaakov himself states that Rachel died during his
original journey from Padan to Eretz Canaan. He would not
have
spoken of her death as having occurred "when I was
returning
from Padan" if she died only AFTER Yaakov had spent
several
years in Shechem.
     Furthermore, why was Yaakov traveling from Bet-el
southward, towards Efrat? Most likely, he was on the way
home
to his father in Hebron! In other words, it may very well
have
been that Yaakov DID return immediately to visit his
father,
just as we expected him to.
  [For some reason, the Torah never records the details of
  this encounter. But this question begs itself no matter
how
  we explain the order of the 'parshiot.' Only in the
final
  summary psukim (i.e. 35:27-19) are we told that Yaakov
had
  returned to Yitzchak, and even there it appears to be
only
  for Yitzchak's burial.  It would only be logical to
assume
  that Yaakov must have gone to visit his father much
  earlier.]

THE NEW ORDER
     Before we continue, let's review the order of events
(and
hence the order of the 'parshiot') according to this
interpretation:
     After successfully confronting Esav, Yaakov continues
on
to Eretz Canaan, stopping first in Shechem to build a
MIZBAYACH and thank God, just as Avraham Avinu had done.
While
in Shechem, he buys a parcel of land for 'future use,'
planning possibly to later return to this area with his
family.  [Recall that Yaakov owns many sheep, and Shechem
is a
prime area for grazing cattle, just as Yaakov's children
later
return many years later to the Shechem area to graze their
cattle (see 37:13).]
     After buying a field in Shechem and building a
mizbayach,
Yaakov continues to Bet-el, where God appears to him, and
Yaakov re-states his intention to ultimately fulfill his
"neder" to make a 'bet Elokim' at that site (even though
he
isn't quite ready yet to begin its construction).
  There, God confirms the blessing of "bechira" and
changes
his name from Yaakov to Yisrael (see 35:9-12). [According
to
this interpretation, Yaakov had been blessed and had his
name
changed by the "malach" only several days earlier!/ see
32:26-
28]. Even though he cannot at this point build the actual
Bet-
Elokim that he promised, he re-affirms his promise by once
again anointing the MATZEYVA and calling that site Bet-el
(see
35:14-15).
     Next, Yaakov travels toward Hebron to see his
parents.
Along the way, Rachel dies and is buried on the roadside.
Yaakov then sets up tent in Migdal Eder (see 35:21).  Even
though we do not know its precise location, it would be
safe
to assume that Migdal Eder is located in an area not too
far
from Yitzchak's home in Hebron.  It is here where the
incident
with Reuven & Bilha takes place. Although we may
reasonably
assume that Yaakov sharply criticized Reuven, the Torah
for
some reason abruptly curtails this story, right in the
middle
of a sentence! [See 35:22! / see also 49:4!]
     Some time later, maybe a year or two (or even five)
later, Yaakov moves with his family to Shechem - after
all, he
did purchase a parcel of land there specifically for that
purpose. By now, the children are older - old enough for
the
incident with Dena (as detailed in chapter 34) to occur.
It
also stands to reason that at this point the people of
Shechem
see Yaakov as a permanent neighbor, rather than a
transient;
and therefore - they seek marital and economic ties with
Yaakov's family. Finally, this also explains why
specifically
Shimon & Levi take leadership roles at this time. Reuven
had
most likely been 'demoted' from his position of 'family
leader' after the incident with Bilha.
     After the brothers wipe out Shechem, Yaakov fears the
revenge of the neighboring population. God therefore
commands
him to MOVE from Shechem to Bet-el for PROTECTION (see
35:1-7,
read carefully).  Just as Bet-el had protected Yaakov when
he
was faced with the threat of his brother Esav, so will
Bet-el
protect Yaakov now from his latest crisis. [Note how
specifically this point - danger from Esav - is mentioned
over
and over again in this 'parshia' (i.e. 35:1-8, see
35:1,3,7!).
  Note also that these psukim imply a recent, immense
expansion of Yaakov's family and possessions (see 35:6 -
"v'chol ha'AM asher imo" & 35:2 - "v'et kol ashe imo").
This
may also explain why Yaakov must remind these 'newcomers'
to
rid themselves of their idols before ascending to Bet-el.
(see
35:3-4).
     So Yaakov now moves his permanent residence to
Bet-el,
which had already been established as the site for his
future
Bet Elokim, and accordingly builds a MIZBAYACH (see
35;1,3,7).
     Let's use a chart once again to show the 'new order'
of
the parshiot:
     PSUKIM    -    GENERAL TOPIC
     ------         ---------------
(A)  32:3-33:17   Yaakov's confrontation with Esav upon
his
                    return to Eretz Canaan.
(B)  33:18-20     Yaakov's arrival in Shechem [& buys a
field].
(E)  35:9-22      Yaakov arrives in Bet-el, receives his
blessing
		    and fulfills his "neder"; Rachel dies
along
                    the way to see Yitzchak near Hebron.
(C)  34:1-31      Yaakov returns to Shechem, Dena is
abducted,
                    and  Shimon & Levi wipe out the city.
(D)  35:1-8       Yaakov flees from Shechem to Bet-el,
where he
                    builds a mizbayach.
(F)  35:23-29     A summary of Yaakov's children, followed
by
                    the death of Yitzchak.

     Thus, by simply changing the location of a single
'parshia,' nearly all our questions are solved. However,
our
approach raises a much bigger question: WHY isn't this
'parshia' (35:9-22) recorded where it belongs?
     As stated above, the Torah will present events out of
chronological sequence only when there is a compelling
reason
to do so. Therefore, we must look for a thematic reason
for
this 'change' in order.
     As usual, we will return to the primary theme of
Sefer
Breishit - the process of "bechira" & "dechiya" - to
suggest
an answer to this question.

A THEMATIC REASON
     Recall from previous shiurim that the theme of Sefer
Breishit progresses with each set of Sifrei TOLADOT.
Throughout the progression, someone from among the
"toladot"
is 'chosen' while the others are 'rejected.' Recall also
that
in Parshat Va'yishlach we are still under the 'header' of
"toldot Yitzchak" (see 25:19). The story of "toldot
Yitzchak"
clearly reaches its conclusion with the 'parshia' of
35:23-29
[(F) in the above chart], which describes Yitzchak's
death.
[Note also that "toldot Esav" (36:1) follow immediately
afterward.]
     This 'parshia' 35:23-29 (F) MUST therefore appear at
the
conclusion of "toldot Yitzchak."
     But why was 'parshia' (E) transplanted from its
chronological location to here, immediately preceding
'parshia' (F)?

     One could suggest several 'thematic' reasons:
     One answer could be alluded to in the somewhat
innocuous
though very telling statement that introduces (F):
  "And the children of Yaakov were TWELVE... "
  (see 35:23-26, noting the 'parshia' in the middle of a
  pasuk)

     Unlike Avraham and Yitzchak, ALL of Yaakov's children
are
'chosen' - EVEN his children from the maidservants, EVEN
Reuven who had most likely been berated, etc. One could
suggest that the Torah takes this entire 'parshia' (E) -
which
ends with the incident with Reuven & Bilha (which most
likely
had taken place much earlier) - from its chronological
location and intentionally places it here - NEXT to the
concluding statement of 35:23 - to stress that ALL of
Yaakov's
children are chosen - EVEN Reuven! [See Ramban 35:22! See
also
Rashi, Chizkuni & Radak 35:22.]
     This interpretation may also explain why 35:22 ends
mid-
sentence. It would seem that the pasuk should end with
Yaakov's curse of Reuven, which becomes apparent in 49:4.
However, because the whole point is to show that Reuven
remains part of the 'chosen family,' the second half of
the
sentence is 'cut off.' Instead, the entire 'parshia' is
attached to the statement, "and the children of Yaakov
were
twelve - the children of Leah: the firstborn of Yaakov =
REUVEN, and Shimon, Levi..." (35:23-24).
     An alternate (and more simple) explanation could be
that
the Torah is simply keeping all of the stories relating to
Shechem together. Hence, once the Torah informs us that
Yaakov
purchased a parcel of land in Shechem (33:19), Chumash
continues with what later took place in Shechem as a
result of
this purchase (34:1-35:8). Then, after completing that
story,
Chumash returns to the story of Yaakov's first return to
Bet-
el (35:9-22), even though it in fact took place much
earlier.
     Finally, one could suggest a very significant
thematic
reason for this 're-arrangement' of the 'parshiot'.
Recall
our explanation that Yaakov's naming of 'Bet-El'
reflection
his conviction to one-day establish a 'Bet-Elokim' [a
house
for God] on this site.  The first time Yaakov stated this
intention (see 28:19), he could not build a Bet-Elokim at
that
time for he was a fugitive on his way to Padam Aram.  The
second time he arrives at Bet-El (see 35:9-15), he once
again
only states his intention.  It appears that it is still
pre-
mature to actually begin that project, as he has not yet
established a name for himself in Eretz Canaan.  After
all,
the success of his planned Bet-Elokim would depend on his
ability to 'reach out' to the neighboring people, just as
Avraham and Yitzchak had done when they built "mizbachot"
and
'called out in God's Name'.
     However, after the 'Dena incident' at Shechem, and
the
actions of Shimon and Levi, Yaakov's status among the
neighboring people has dropped to an 'all time low'.  As
Yaakov himself stated in the aftermath of those events:
"achartem oti..." - you have made me look ugly by
embarrassing
me in the eyes of inhabitants of the land..." (see 34:30).
Given this situation, tragically Bet-El becomes a place a
refuge for Yaakov, instead of becoming a Bet-Elokim.
Certainly, in the aftermath of those events, Yaakov will
be
unable to establish a functioning Bet-Elokim in the
foreseeable future.
     From this perspective, one could understand the
Torah's
detail of the 'Dena incident' as a thematic explanation
for
why Yaakov was unable to ultimately fulfill his "neder" to
build a Bet-Elokim.
     Despite Yaakov's resolve to establish a Bet Elokim,
unfortunately an opportunity for him to do so never
materialized in his own lifetime.  Instead, Yaakov would
have
to pass that goal on to his children, who would only have
the
opportunity to achieve it several hundred years later.

                            shabbat shalom,
                            menachem

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

A. Rashi on 33:17 quotes the Midrash that Yaakov spent 18
months in Succot! This is based on the fact that the pasuk
states that Yaakov built a HOUSE there, and set up tents
for
his sheep and cattle. Should this be true, then in any
event,
this pirush only strengthens the question of why Yaakov
did
not return earlier. It does, however, slightly raise the
age
of Yaakov's children by the time the Shechem episode
occurs,
rendering this story a bit more feasible.

B. It is unclear whether Yaakov ever builds the Bet-Elokim
as
he had promised in 28:21. See the meforshim on that pasuk
who
deal with this question, as well as the meforshim here on
35:14.
     Nonetheless, anointing the MATZEYVA and calling that
site
Bet-el (see 35:14-15) clearly reveal Yaakov's intention to
eventually build the Bet-Elokim, even though the final
goal
may not be realized until Bnei Yisrael conquer Eretz
Canaan in
the time of Yehoshua. See Devarim 12:8-12, "v'akmal".

C. In closing, it is important to note that there always
remains the possibility that the parshiot are in
chronological
order. If so, we would either have to explain that these
events indeed took place when Yaakov's children were
indeed
quite young, or that Yaakov intentionally did not return
to
Bet-el, either because he felt that the time was not yet
ripe,
or possibly because he was waiting for Hashem to command
him
to go there.

D. Note 34:30, and Yaakov's final statement in his rebuke
of
Shimon and Levi:
  "And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi: 'Ye have troubled
me, to
  make me odious unto the inhabitants of the land, even
unto
  the Canaanites and the Perizzites; and, I being few in
  number, they will gather themselves together against me
and
  smite me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house"

     Even though simple "pshat" would explain that the
phrase
'my house' in Yaakov's statement refers to his family, one
could suggest (based on the above shiur) that Yaakov is
referring to 'his house' that he plans to build for God -
for
now that Shimon & Levi have made him look so bad, Yaakov's
plans for building a House for God in Bet-el have now been
'destroyed'.

E. Comments from Rabbi David Silverberg, who has
researched this topic, and found a number of sources which
seem to explicitly indicate that Yaakov traveled to
Beit-El before the story of Dina and Shekhem.
The Gemara in Masekhet Megila (17a) asserts that Yaakov
reunited with his father in Chevron two years after his
departure from Lavan.  Along his return from Padan Aram,
the Gemara claims, he spent eighteen months in Sukkot (see
Bereishit 33:16), and another six months in Beit-El.
Rashi, commenting on this Gemara, explains, "He spent six
months in Beit-El when he left Shekhem."  Meaning, the six
month-period to which the Gemara refers occurred after the
story of Dina and Shekhem, and the Gemara held a tradition
that when Yaakov traveled to Beit-El after the story of
Dina (35:1), he lived there for six months.
Elsewhere, however, Rashi writes that Yaakov lived for a
period in Beit-El before the incident of Shekhem.  In his
commentary to Avot (5:21), Rashi cites the Midrashic
tradition that Levi was thirteen years of age when he and
his brother Shimon killed the male population of Shekhem.
To support this tradition, Rashi comments that "when you
take into account the two years Yaakov spent in Beit-El,"
it indeed emerges that Levi was thirteen years old at the
time of his attack on Shekhem.  Yaakov left Padan Aram
thirteen years after his marriage to Leah, and, according
to Seder Olam (chapter 2), Leah delivered each of her
children after just seventh months of pregnancy.  Levi,
Leah's third son, was thus born just about two years after
her marriage to Yaakov, and hence Levi was eleven years of
age when Yaakov left Padan Aram.  After the two years that
"Yaakov spent in Beit-El," Levi was thirteen years of age,
and it was at that point, Rashi claims, that Shimon and
Levi killed the people of Shekhem.
Rashi thus clearly held that Yaakov spent time in Beit-El
before settling near Shekhem, as Rabbi Leibtag contended.
The Midrash Lekach Tov, commenting on the story of Shekhem
(34:25), likewise calculates the age of Shimon and Levi at
the time of their assault on Shekhem, and claims that Levi
was eleven when the family left the home of Lavan.  The
story of Shekhem, the Midrash claims, occurred after the
period of "two years when he [Yaakov] was offering
sacrifices in Beit-El."  Like Rashi, the Midrash Lekach
Tov held that Yaakov first proceeded to Beit-El upon
returning from Canaan, before settling near Shekhem, and
he spent two years "offering sacrifices."  Apparently,
there was a Midrashic tradition that disputed the
chronology espoused by the Gemara in Megila, according to
which Yaakov spent eighteen months in Sukkot and then six
months in Beit-El after the incident in Shekhem.  This
tradition, which Rashi appears to have adopted in his
commentary to Avot, and was accepted by the author of the
Midrash Lekach Tov, held that the Torah's narrative does
not follow chronological sequence, and Yaakov's pilgrimage
to Beit-El occurred before he settled near Shekhem.
Immediately upon returning to Canaan, Yaakov proceeded to
Beit-El and spent two years offering sacrifices in
fulfillment of his vow.  Only thereafter did he settle
near the city of Shekhem.
	We should note, however, one important difference
between the position reflected in these sources and Rabbi
Leibtag's theory.  According to Rashi in Avot and the
Midrash Lekach Tov, Yaakov spent two years in Beit-El and
then settled near Shekhem before reuniting with his father
in Chevron.  Rabbi Leibtag suggested that Yaakov proceeded
to Beit-El to fulfill his vow, and then continued
southward to Chevron to see his parents.  He remained
there for several years, and then moved with his family to
Shekhem, at which point Shimon and Levi were in their late
teens.  These sources provide a basis for the contention
that Yaakov first visited Beit-El before settling near
Shekhem, but not for the theory that he reunited with his
parents before moving to Shekhem.
David Silverberg  [S.A.L.T. 5767]



From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Dec  2 12:54:20 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:54:20 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Vayishlach - shiur #1
Message-ID: <019e01ca7378$7a704bd0$6f50e370$@net>

[resending, as there was a problem in original mail,
  Also attached are the 3 pdf files for this week's
shiurim ]

DEDICATED IN COMMEMORATION OF THE YARZHEIT OF
REUVEN BEN MOSHE A'H
17 KISLEV 5757

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

      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: vayish3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 45680 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091202/bbdfa96a/attachment-0003.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayish1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 53408 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091202/bbdfa96a/attachment-0004.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayish2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 40425 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091202/bbdfa96a/attachment-0005.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Dec  6 04:00:01 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 04:00:01 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Vayeshev - questions for self study
Message-ID: <003401ca7652$7ec6e400$7c54ac00$@net>

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

            PARSHAT VAYESHEV - Questions for self study

PART I  QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

THE WANING OF PROPHECY
1.  Does God ever speak directly to any of Yaakov's
children (i.e. as He had spoken to Avraham Yitzchak and
Yaakov)?
	If so, where, when, and why?
	If not, in your opinion, why doesn't He?
[As above,] does God ever speak directly to Yosef?
	Does God ever speak to him [indirectly] through
dreams? 
		If so, explain how and when.
	Does God ever speak to any of Yaakov's children
through events?  If so, explain how and when.
	Can you explain why this may be significant?

THE RISE OF NEW 'PSHAT' / RASHI & HIS GRANDSON
2.  There is a famous Rashbam at the beginning of this
week's Parsha (see 37:2/ 'Eileh toldot...') in which he
discusses his conversation with Rashi (his grandfather)
concerning the need to focus more on the study of 'pshat'
when studying Chumash.
	I recommend that you take a few minutes to study
this Rashbam, where he mentions an important conversation
he had with his grandfather (Rashi) concerning how to
study Chumash.
[From a certain perspective, Rashbam's observations on
this pausk provide the basis for the approach that we
employ in our shiurim.]

YOSEF'S DREAMS & YITZCHAK'S BLESSINGS
3.  Compare Yosef's two dreams (see 37:510) to Yitzchak's
blessing of Yaakov (s/b Esav) in 27:2829.  In what manner
are they similar?  [In what manner are they different?]
	How does this similarity help explain the nature
of the brothers' hatred of Yosef?  Could this be a source
for a more 'idealistic' (or 'spiritual') reason that would
'justify' their hatred?
		[Compare with the story of Yitzchak &
Esav.]
	How does this similarity explain Yaakov's reaction
to Yosef's dreams?  [Keep this question in mind as you
study the story of Yosef and his brothers, for it can help
explain the reason for its complexity.]

4.  Do the brothers have reason to believe that Yaakov is
making a mistake by favoring Yosef?  Pretend that you are
'hired' as their lawyer.  Attempt to defend their decision
to 'remove' Yosef from God's 'chosen family'.  Base your
'defense' both on Yosef's behavior and on precedents from
earlier generations. [Relate to what Rivka did to ensure
that Yaakov received the blessing.]
[When you finish, pretend that you are the 'judge' and
explain why that 'defense' is wrong.]

THE BLOOD OF GOAT
5.  In the story of 'mechirat Yosef', why do the brothers
need to lie concerning the 'blood stained coat' to trick
their father to believe that Yosef had been devoured by an
animal?  Why don't they just keep quiet and pretend as
though they never saw him, and therefore have no idea what
happened to him?
	In your opinion, does Yaakov ever suspect that the
brothers may have killed Yosef (or sold him)?  In your
opinion, does Yaakov ever find out what 'really' happened?
If so, who do you think told him, or how did he find out?
Relate to Yaakov's blessings to his children in Parshat
Vaychi.]

6.  Whenever Bnei Yisrael as a nation offer a korban
musaf, the 'chatat' offering is always a 'se'ir izim' [a
goat]  (e.g. see Bamidbar chapters 2829).  In your
opinion, do you think that this specific 'chatat' offering
of a 'se'ir izim' relates to the actions of the brothers
when they sold Yosef?  In your answer, relate to 37:31!
[See also Ramban on Vayikra 9:2-3 (towards the end) where
he explains why Bnei Yisrael must offer a 'se'ir izim
le-chatat' on the eighth day dedication ceremony.  Note
how he relates this to mechirat Yosef and 'chet ha-egel'.]

"HISHTADLUT" OR LACK OF FAITH
7.  Review 40:12-15.  In your opinion, was Yosef correct
in asking the "sar ha-mashkim" [Pharaoh's butler] ' to
intervene on his behalf to free him from jail, or was
Yosef expected to rely only on God?  	If Yosef was
correct in this regard, what can we learn from this story?
    If Yosef was 'wrong', what do you base your opinion
on?


PART II  QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION
		 (for shiur on 'Who Sold Yosef'?)
1.  Before we begin our study, a few questions to think
about (as there are no definite answers to them in the
text).
    Considering Yosef's dreams, as well as his
relationship with his brothers, attempt to explain the
'spiritual reason' for the brothers' hatred of Yosef.
Relate your answer to the uncertain nature of the
'bechira' process in Sefer Breishit.  [Relate as well to
questions 3, 4, & 5 in Part One above.]
	In your opinion, did Yosef's brothers and father
agree that there was something prophetic about Yosef's
dreams; or did his family dismiss them as 'just a dream'.
Relate to 37:10-11.
	In your opinion, did Yosef tell his family about
his dreams in order to make his brothers jealous, or did
he think that it was his responsibility to make his dreams
known?  
	With this background, we can begin our textual
study.

2.  Forgetting any previous knowledge you may have of the
story of 'Yosef and his brothers', undertake a careful
reading of 37:12-36, paying attention to the flow of
events. .  As you study these psukim, be sure that you
follow the logic of everyone's plan, including:
 1) The brothers' original plan to kill Yosef
Be sure you understand how they planned to kill him, and
why they plan to throw his body (afterward) in 'one of
pits'.

 2) Reuven's plan to save Yosef (and what he tells the
brothers)
Suggest a reason for why specifically Reuven wants to save
Yosef (and bring him back to his father)?  Relate to his
position within the family, as well as to earlier events.
    Do the brothers know that Reuven plans to save him?
If not, do they assume that Yosef will die a 'natural
death' in the pit?  If so, why is this any better than
their original plan?
  
3) Yehuda's plan to sell Yosef. 
Be sure you understand how this new plan will achieve the
same goals as the brothers' original plan (#1 above), but
carries less guilt.  

3.  After studying these psukim, read them once again, and
try to answer the following questions (which do not have
an explicit answer in the psukim, but can be deduced by
logic):
a. When the brothers sit down to eat (in 37:25), do they
sit down nearby, i.e. in sight of the pit that Yosef is
in, or do they sit much farther away, out of sight (and
sound) of Yosef?   Considering that this pit is in the
"midbar" (see 37:22 & 37:24), would it make sense for them
to eat near the pit in the "midbar" where Yosef is
screaming, or back in the Dotan area where they are
grazing their sheep (see 37:17).

b. As they sit down to eat (in 37:25), is Reuven sitting
down to eat with his brothers, or did he go away?  
     If he did go away, where did he go to and why?  [Base
your answer on his original plan to save Yosef?] 
     Note how your answer to this question must relate to
your answer to question (a)  above!  
     As you attempt to reach your conclusion, be sure to
consider the word "va-yashov" in both 37:29 & 37:20,
noting how it can help explain where Reuven had been in
relation to his brothers, and in relation to the pit!  

4.  If you have a detailed map of Israel, attempt to
locate Hebron, Shechem, Dotan [i.e. Jennin], and the Gilad
mountains (as well as the highway that connects the Gilad
to Egypt via Emek Yizrael).  [If your map includes
topographic detail, it would be helpful to note the
elevation of these areas. You can find one online at
www.tanach.org/map3d.pdf .]  
    Based on what you see on the map, approximately how
far is the journey from Shechem to Hebron?
	Considering that the brothers are grazing their
sheep, does it appear as though they came home from Dotan
to Hebron every evening, or only once every month or so?

5. Based on Reuven's (secret) plan to later save Yosef
from the pit, would it have made sense for him to leave
the area near Yosef's pit for any length of time?
	Would it make sense for him to have left his
brothers alone with Yosef by the pit?  
	

5.  Return once again to your map, or even better, take a
look at the following two maps on line, that show this
area:
    www.tanach.org/yosefmap1.pdf
    www.tanach.org/yosefmap2.pdf
    
	Attempt to relate this 'topographic information'
to your understanding of the details of this story.
    For example, when the brothers sit down to eat and
'raise their eyes' and see a caravan of Yishmaelim (see
37:25), would it make sense that they are passing nearby,
or do they see them from a distance quite far away?
    Similarly, i a caravan carrying goods by camel was
traveling from the Gilad to Egypt, where would it most
likely have crossed Israel - through Emek Yizrael or over
the mountains in the Dotan area?
    Based on your answer, would it seem that the Yishaelim
are headed toward the brothers, or that the brothers would
need to travel a short distance to meet the Yishmaelim?
    
6. Carefully study 37:28, noting the different groups of
people that are mentioned.  Be sure that you understand
the difference between the Midyanim who are 'merchants'
and the Yishmaelim who are 'transporting' the goods to
Egypt. 
    By considering your answers to the above question,
review 37:28 (in its context) and try to determine who
precisely sold Yosef to the Yishmaelim, the brothers or
the Midyanim? 
	How many possible ways are there to explain this
pasuk? 
	[In your answer, relate to statements later made
by Yosef in both 40:15 and 45:4.]
	If you have time, answer at this time the first
five questions in the Parshanut section below.

7.  In your opinion, was Yosef aware of the brothers'
original plan to kill him?  Does he understand why they
originally threw him into the pit?
	Likewise, are the brothers aware of what really
happened to Yosef?  In other words, was Reuven (in 37:29)
the first brother to notice that Yosef was missing, or the
last brother to find out that he was sold?

8.  How would your answer to this question affect how we
understand both Yosef's behavior in Egypt in regard to why
he never contacted home, and why the brothers never went
to Egypt to look for him.

PART III  PARSHANUT
1.  Review your answers to the preparation questions
above, then, before reading the various commentators on
37:28, ask yourself the following questions:
	(A)  Are the Midyanim and Yishmaelim the same
people?
		  [Relate to 25:14]   
	(B)  Who pulled Yosef out of the pit?   
	(C)  Why is Reuven not there when all of this
transpires?

2.  See Rashi 37:28.  How does he solve (A)?
	See Rashi 37:29 (where he quotes the Midrash that
it was Reuven's turn to go home to learn with his father).
How far is it from Hebron to Dotan? [i.e how many days of
travel?]
	 Does it make any sense that Reuven would leave
for such a long time while Yosef was in the pit?  In your
opinion, does this Midrash explain pshat concerning what
'happened' or does it provide us with insight concerning
the brothers 'respect' for their father?  [If the latter
is true, what the message of this Midrash concerning the
nature of 'sin'at achim'?]
	Next, explain the second possibility raised by
Rashi.

3.  See Ibn Ezra & Radak on 37:28 and Ramban 37:25.
	 How do they answer (A)?
	 How (and why) do their respective commentaries
differ? 

4.  See Rashbam on 37:28; how does he answer (A), (B), &
(C)?
	 In what manner is his approach totally different
from all of the others?  [Why do you think Rashbam
concludes with a 'second opinion'?]

5.  Finally, see Chizkuni on 37:28.  How does he answer A,
B, & C?  In what manner is his peirush different from
Rashbam? 
[Why do you think that Chizkuni also includes a 'second
opinion'?  Is this 'second opinion' the same as Rashbam's
'second opinion'?]

========
BEN ZKUNIM
1.  In 37:3, we find how Yosef is described as his
father's 'ben zkunim' [lit. son of his old age].  How did
you understand this phrase?  How much younger is Yosef
than his other brothers?  How old is Yaakov at this time?
How old is Binyamin? 
	Based on these questions, does it make sense that
Yosef should be considered the ben zkunim?
	First see Rashi, noting his interpretation and
that he quotes Unkelos.  Can you explain the need of
Unkelos' interpretation?
See also Rashbam and Ibn Ezra.
	Then, see Ramban on 37:3, noting his questions on
the above interpretations, and how he explains this phrase
in a very different manner!
	Finally, see Radak and Chizkuni, noting what is
unique about each of their explanations.

WHEN DID YEHUDA GET MARRIED?
2.  In Chapter 38 - the story of Yehuda and his children -
interrupts the narrative that describes the story of Yosef
in Egypt that began in chapter 37 and continues in chapter
39. 
	Review the story in chapter 38, and consider the
minimum amount of years that have transpired.  Consider as
well how many years pass from the time that Yosef is sold
(see 37:2) and when he solves Pharaoh's dream (see 41:46),
and the fact that the entire family goes down to Egypt
less than a decade later.
	Based on the above, at what age do you think
Yehuda first married Shua's daughter (see 38:1-2)? [i.e.
before or after Yosef was sold?]

	Then, see Rashi on 38:1.  What is his opinion?
Does he relate to any of the above questions?  If so, how?
	See also Radak (until the end of his peirush to
38:1!).  In what manner is his peirush similar to Rashi,
and how is it different?
	Next, see Chizkuni on 38:1.  Note how he relates
to the above questions.  How does he solve them?  See also
Seforno!
	Finally, see Ibn Ezra on 38:1.  How does he solve
the above questions?  How and why is his peirush different
than Chizkuni?
	In your opinion, which peirush appears to be most
logical?

3. Re: who Yehuda married, i.e. did he marry a Canaanite?
See how Unkelos translates this word.  [Note that there
are two versions.] 
	What is the problem with translating 'kna'ani' as
a Canaanite?
	Then see Rashi on 38:2.  See also Rashbam.  What
does his explanation add to Rashi's 'translation'?  [See
also Radak.]
	[See also Rasa"g.  What does he mean by
'ki-pshuto'?]
	See Ibn Ezra.
	Finally, see Ramban.  It's quite long, but be sure
to see at least the final few lines of that Ramban (in
relation to David Ha-melech).  What is the Ramban's
primary point, and why does he go to such great lengths to
support his interpretation?
	How does this topic relate to a primary theme in
Sefer Breishit, in regard to Bnei Yisrael's future
inheritance of Eretz Canaan based on 9:18-27, 10:15-20,
and 17:7-8.

SAR HA'TABACHIM
1.  Review 37:36, noting how Yosef was sold to Potiphar,
the "sar ha'tabachim".   In modern Hebrew - the word
"tabach" refers to a 'chef' or a cook, and "sar" means a
government minister. 
    In your opinion, what type of ministry was he in
charge of?
    Note the tirgum Unkelos ["rav kotolaya"].  Why leads
the tirgum to this conclusion?
    See Rashi - noting how he disagrees with the Tirgum.
In your opinion, what leads Rashi to this conclusion.
    See Ibn Ezra, noting how he offers two
interpretations, yet prefers the Tirgum.  Can you explain
why?  Then, note how Ramban supports Ibn Ezra's opinion!

2.  Later on, in chapter 39, Yosef is sent to jail. Review
39:20-23.
How does this jail relate to Yosef's previous job as
servant to Potifar?  Who else is later sent to the same
jail? 
	Can you relate this to your answer to the above
question?

3. Review 41:45, noting how Yosef is given Osnat bat
Potiphera for a wife.  In your opinion, is Potiphar (of
chapter 37) the same person as Potiphera, father of Osnat?
	What did you base your conclusion on?
	Then, see Rashi! What does he base his conclusion
on?
	Afterward, see Rashbam.  Why does he disagree?
	Finally, see Ramban and Chizkuni, noting how they
provide some possible reasons for both Poiphar's change of
'profession', as well as why his daughter is given to
Yosef for a wife!  
	Enjoy!
    
	
be-hatzlacha,
						menachem 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayeshq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 37309 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091206/5f8e6d58/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Dec  9 05:46:01 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 05:46:01 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Vayeshev - shiur
Message-ID: <00ab01ca78bc$ce0ddc00$6a299400$@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://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091209/34b67c35/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Dec  9 05:48:18 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 05:48:18 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] for Chanuka - shiur
Message-ID: <00b301ca78bd$1efc8c60$5cf5a520$@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://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091209/0a4327df/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Dec 13 12:29:37 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:29:37 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Miketz - Questions for self study
Message-ID: <000301ca7c19$d87a49c0$896edd40$@net>

**********************************************************
***************
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  www.tanach.org
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Questions for self study - by Menachem Leibtag
**********************************************************
***************

         PARSHAT MIKETZ

PART I  QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

DREAM PARALLELS
1.  In what manner are Pharaoh's dreams similar to Yosef's
dreams (at the beginning of Parshat Vayeshev)?  [Note
primarily their 'double' nature, and how they relate to
agricultural prosperity.  Note as well how they relate to
Breishit 27:28-29.]
	In what manner were they similar to the dreams of
the "sar ha'mashkim" and "sar ha'ofim" [the butler and
baker]?
    In what manner did Yosef's own dreams enable him to
interpret Pharaoh's dream?
	Can you suggest a thematic parallel as well?

2.  Note that all of Parshat Miketz is included in one
'parshia' [i.e. there are no 'parshia' breaks until the
very end].  Note also that the same was true for Parshat
Vayetzeh.  Is there anything else similar about these two
Parshiot?
	Can you suggest a reason for this?
	 [Relate to the dreams, and their position in each
Parsha.]

SPEAKING OF 'GOD'
3.  Notice in the entire Parsha how often Yosef speaks of
'Elokim' in most all of his conversations.
	See for example in Yosef's conversation with
Pharaoh concerning his dreams in 41:16,25,28,32.  Note as
well Pharaoh's response in 41:3839!
		[Note also how Yosef names his children -
41:5152.]
	Finally, note how Yosef speaks to his brothers
[pretending not to be Yosef, but rather an Egyptian
official!] in 42:18 & 43:23,29.  Note as well Yehuda's
statement to Yosef in 44:16.
    In your opinion, and based on these psukim, what 'god'
or 'God' does this shem Elokim (that they all talk about)
refer to?
	Did the Egyptians believe in God?
	If so, is it the same God that Yaakov's family
believes in?
	If not, what then do they mean when they mention
(or understand when they hear) the name 'Elokim'?
	  [Relate as well to 20:11, Shmot 1:17 and Devarim
25:18!]

A 'HIDDEN' CONNECTION
4.  As you study Parshat Miketz, note the numerous
'textual' parallels with the narrative of Megillat Esther.

    Would it be logical to assume that the author of
Megillat Esther uses those parallel phrases intentionally?
If so, what do you think is being alluded to by these
parallels? 
	In what manner is God involved behind the events
of both stories?  

PART II  QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION 
   For shiur on topic: Yosef the 'dreamer' or the 'leader'

[First, a review of relevant topics from Parshat Vayeshev]

DREAMS & BLESSINGS
1.  In your opinion, do Yosef's dreams imply that he was
destined to become the only 'chosen son' (i.e. just as
Yaakov was chosen over Esav, and Yitzchak over Yishmael);
or that all of Yaakov's children were to be chosen, but
Yosef was destined to become the family 'leader'?  On what
do you base your answer?

2.  Review Yosef's dreams in 37:510, and compare them to
Yitzchak's blessing of Yaakov [intended for Esav] in
27:2829.
    In what manner are they similar?  Based on this
similarity, what conclusions could the brothers have
arrived at after hearing these dreams?  How may Yaakov's
treatment of Yosef have added to the brothers' fears?
[Relate to 37:18-20 & 37:23.]
	In your opinion, did Yosef (when he was still 17)
have his own interpretation of his dreams, or did he
simply 'share' them with his family (unaware of their
deeper meaning)? 
    What was Yaakov's reaction to those dreams?  In your
opinion, did he 'believe' in their message?  What reason
would there be to doubt that they were indeed "nevuah"?
    Based on your answers to these questions, do the
brothers have ample reason to believe that Yaakov is
making a mistake by favoring Yosef?  If so, do they have a
precedent for 'interfering' in this process of who will be
chosen? 
[In other words, is there a 'precedent' for 'intervention'
in the 'bechira" process - in regard to 'who' will be
chosen?
=======
[Now, for Parshat Miketz]

WRITING HOME
3.  Note that after Yosef is sold, he quickly rises to a
high position in the house of Potiphar; and later on, he
rises to the highest position in Egypt.  With this in
mind, can you explain why Yosef never makes any effort to
contact his father, or at least send a letter home (or a
messenger) to inform his father that he is well and alive?
	Does he have any reason why not to contact home?
	If so, is it 'personal' or 'prophetic'?  [Explain
your answer.]
	In your answer, relate as well to his father's
age, and his previous 'life experience' with his brothers.


4.  To the best of your recollection, when Yosef first
sees his brothers (some twenty years after he was sold,
i.e. when they come to Egypt to buy grain), why doesn't he
immediately tell them who he is?
	If his goal is simply to hide his identity from
them, then certainly he could have someone else deal with
their purchase.  Therefore, there must be a goal behind
his confrontation with them, while hiding his identity.
If your opinion, what is his goal?
	In your opinion, did he never plan to reveal
himself, but only wanted to 'tease' them - but broke down
in the process.
    Or, did he plan to reveal himself to his brothers only
if he would find out certain information about them, e.g.
- only if was certain that his father was indeed alive?
    Or did he always plan to reveal himself, but was just
waiting for the 'proper moment'?  If so, what was Yosef
waiting for; and what was he trying to accomplish in the
interim?
    
5.  Carefully review the events of Yosef's first meeting
with his brothers as they are recorded in 42:1-28.  As you
study those psukim, attempt to understand each step that
Yosef takes, and how the 'remembering of his dreams' (see
42:9) affects his actions.  
    Had it not been for his dreams, do you think that
Yosef would have (a) immediately identified himself to his
brothers; or (b) totally ignored them; or (c) acted in the
same (or similar) manner?
    [In other words, how much do his dreams affect his
actions?]

6.  Review 42:9, noting how the Torah informs us that
'Yosef remembered his dreams'.  In your opinion, does the
pasuk imply that Yosef had 'forgotten' his dreams until
this point in time and now remembers them, or that Yosef
had never forgotten his dreams during his years in Egypt,
and therefore now realizes that they have partially come
true!
    Now, see Rashi & Ramban on 42:9, where they deal with
this specific question!  How would they answer it?
	This Ramban is quite lengthy, but important to
read.  In your opinion, does Ramban explain Yosef's
behavior during the entire time since he was sold, or only
from the time when his brothers come to buy food?
	In your opinion, does Ramban's answer make sense?
	If not, can you provide any other explanation for
Yosef's behavior in this chapter?  

7.  In last week's shiur, we raised the possibility that
the brothers may never have sold Yosef, and presumed that
he was dead; while Yosef thought that he was either sold
by them, or because of them.  How would that possibility
affect your understanding of the events that transpire in
chapter 42?
	In your opinion, does Yosef know that Yaakov (and
most probably his brothers) think that he is dead?  If he
assumes that they think that he is alive, and was sold via
the Midyanim or Yishmaelim to Egypt, should he expect that
someone would have come to 'redeem' him for that purchase?
	During his interrogation of his brothers, do the
brothers ever admit that Yosef was sold, or do they just
say that he was 'missing'?   Relate this to your answer to
this question.

8.  Is there any way that Yosef could know what his father
thinks (or knows) concerning his fate?  Does Yosef have
any idea that his brothers first wanted to kill him? 
	Finally, if the Yishmaelim are indeed
'international traders' who often travel through Eretz
Canaan to (& fro) Egypt, would it have been possible for
the brothers to look for Yosef and trace his sale and
whereabouts?
	Taking the above questions into consideration,
attempt to suggest several explanations for why Yosef may
never have contacted home.

9.  When Yosef first sees his brothers, he immediately
accuses them of being spies (see 42:810).  Considering
that Yosef would certainly like to find out family
information from his brothers; while keeping his identity
hidden, explain how his 'spy accusation' solves this
problem.
	In you opinion, had Yosef heard from his brothers
that his father had died, would he have ever revealed
himself to them? 
    Does Yosef have reason to assume that Yaakov is dead?
Similarly, what does Yosef probably assume in regard to
the fate of Binyamin (considering that he is not with his
brothers)?  Relate this to your answer to the above
question.

10.  In your opinion, could it be that Yosef is simply
acting impulsively [possibly in anger], or is this
accusation part of a 'master plan'? 
	If Yosef does have a 'master plan', what is it,
and what is its goal and purpose?  [Is Yosef the type of
character who was constantly planning ahead?  If so, bring
examples (they are not hard to find!).] 
	According to Yosef's 'plan', (in your opinion)
does he definitely plan to sooner or later reveal himself
- and hence his various actions will help him determine
the 'proper' time to do so; or is Yosef not sure whether
or not he should reveal himself - and hence his actions
are designed to help him arrive at that decision?

11.  Whatever your conclusion was concerning Yosef's plan
(or lack of one), make sure that your answer explains each
action that Yosef takes from the time he first sees his
brothers until he finally reveals himself in Parshat
Vayigash.  While doing so, be sure that you can answer the
following questions.
	Why does Yosef give his brothers their money back?
	Why does he hide the cup in Binyamin's bag?
	Why doesn't he reveal himself once the brothers
confess that they have sinned (see 42:21 & 44:16)?  [What
else could he possibly be waiting for?]
	Why doesn't he accept Yehuda's offer that he (and
his brothers) become servants (see 44:16-17).

12.  When Yosef finally does 'break down' (see 45:1-3) and
reveals himself to his brothers, was it:
    a) 'premature' , i.e. he simply couldn't wait anymore
- or
    b) because his plan had 'worked' - if so what was his
plan -or
    c) because he just heard something he had never
realized?

13.  From the Torah's account of this story, does it
appear that one of Yosef's goals may be for his brothers
to repent for their sin?
	Attempt to find support for this assumption?  [See
Abrabanel on 41:54 question #4, and his answer in 42:7.]
Does this assumption explain all of Yosef's actions?
	If indeed Yosef is waiting for his brothers to
repent, why isn't their repentance, as described in 42:21
& 44:16, sufficient?

14.  Similarly, one could suggest that Yosef's plan is to
fulfill his dreams.  [See Ramban on 42:9.]  Does this
assumption explain Yosef's behavior throughout this entire
incident?
	Is it possible for all of his dreams to come true?
	Is it logical that Yosef's dreams must come true
specifically in a situation where the brothers and father
bow down to him while not knowing who Yosef really is?  If
so, explain why!
	If a person has a certain dream, does it become
his responsibility to make sure that it comes true?  If
so, is he permitted to transgress any laws (or moral
responsibilities) in order to ensure that his dream comes
true?

15.  If you have ample time, see as well the commentaries
of the Netziv (in Emek Davar) and Rav Hirsch on 42:9.

16.  In your opinion, is Yosef 'ethically correct' in his
treatment of his brothers - or should he have revealed
himself immediately as soon as his brothers first arrived,
to provide his aging father with 'good tidings'?
	What do think would have happened had he done so?
How would have that affected the nature of his future
relationship with his brothers?

17.  Does Yosef behavior in these events reflect certain
'positive' leadership traits as well?  If so, what are
they?
    What can we learn from this entire incident of Yosef
and his brothers, especially in regard to the future
leadership of Am Yisrael and the relationships among the
twelve tribes?

PART III  PARSHANUT

A.  RECOGNIZING YOSEF
1.  Review 42:58, while noting that psukim 42:7 and 42:8
both mention that Yosef 'recognized' ['va-yaker'] his
brothers.
	In your opinion is 42:8 simply a repetition of the
same point, or does the second va-yaker add something?
	If so, what does it add?
	If not, why is it repeated?

2.  With this in mind, see Ibn Ezra on 42:8, as well as
Seforno & Ramban (towards the end).  How do they solve
this problem?  [How does this Ramban relate to Rashi's
peirush of this pasuk?]

3.  Next, see Rasag [who claims: "va-yaker et echav
be-va'da'ut"]
	How is this peirush different than Ibn Ezra &
Ramban's?

4. See Radak's explanation of va-yaker.  How is his
explanation different than everyone else's?
	Does this explain why va-yaker is mentioned twice?

B.  TZ)FNAT PA'ANEACH
1.  Note the new name that Pharaoh gives Yosef in 41:45.
In your opinion, is this name Hebrew or Egyptian?
According to either possibility, what does this name mean?
[Is Pharaoh familiar with the language that was spoken by
Yosef in Canaan?]
    Now see Rashi [and Rasa"g].  How do they answer this
question, and what is the meaning of this name, i.e. how
does it relate to Yosef's interpretations of dreams?  Then
see Ibn Ezra, noting how and why he disagrees.  See also
Rashbam - how is his  commentary similar to Ibn Ezra, and
how is it different? 

2.  Next, see Radak, noting his question on Rashi's
interpretation.  
Afterward, see Ramban, noting how he relates to both Rashi
and Ibn Ezra, and how he tries to resolve this problem.
What does Ramban assume re: Pharaoh's knowledge of other
languages, and in regard to how names are translated in
Chumash? 
	
C.  WHO WAS OSNAT?
1.  Review 41:44-45, noting how Pharaoh gave Osnat the
daughter of Poti-phera to Yosef as a wife. 
	In your opinion, is this Poti-phera the same
person as Potiphar, Yosef's first master (see 39:1 and
ensuing story)?
	Explain why yes or why not.  Relate to both
Potiphar's name and title, as well as to his position.

2.  If this was indeed the same person, how would this
relate to the story of why Potiphar originally sent Yosef
to prison?

3.  Let's take a look at how the commentators related to
these questions:
	See Rashi.  Note how Rashi explains why he is the
same person, and the nature of the slight change in name.
What description of Potiphar in 39:1 does Rashi base his
commentary on?

4.  Next, see Rashbam, noting how he argues with Rashi.
What description of Potiphar in 39:1 does Rashbam base his
commentary on?

5.  Then see Ramban, noting how he supports Rashi's
opinion, but adds some additional explanations to resolve
the differences between 39:1 and 41:45.  [Note how Ramban
builds an entire story of may have transpired in the
meantime.] 

6.  Finally, see Chizkuni, noting how he explains like
Rashi, but adds some interesting reasons for why this was
a 'perfect shidduch'!  Note as well Chizkuni's additional
explanation that Osnat may have been Dina bat Yaakov's
daughter! 
    What 'problem' does this Midrash solve?

	
be-hatzlacha,
						menachem





-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: miketzq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 32937 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091213/a55b0527/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Dec 16 01:15:42 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:15:42 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] for Parshat Miketz - shiur
Message-ID: <011401ca7e17$32ea1670$98be4350$@net>

Dedicated in Commemoration of the Yarhtzeit of 
Chana Bas Menachem Mendel Yitzchak A"H
 4 Teves, 5756

**********************************************************
***
     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://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091216/bc10f6ae/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Sun Dec 20 08:04:50 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:04:50 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Vayigash - questions for self study
Message-ID: <025f01ca8175$03942e40$0abc8ac0$@net>

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

             PARSHAT VAYIGASH

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

TREATING STRANGERS
1.  In your opinion, how do the Egyptians relate to anyone
who
is not an Egyptian?  In your answer, relate to Breishit
43:32
and 46:31-34.  Note as well 39:17 and 41:12-14 (& explain
why
Yosef must shave!).
  Based on these psukim, how do the Egyptians relate to
'ivrim' and 'can'anim'?  [See also Shmot 8:22.]  Do you
think
that it was specifically those nations or any type of
foreigner?
  In your opinion, is there a logical reason for this
treatment of 'non-Egyptians'?  To the best of your
recollection, throughout history, does this phenomenon
occur
in other societies as well?  [If so, to what extent, and
for
what reasons?]
  Would you consider this phenomenon morally correct (or
proper)?  In your answer, relate to Shmot 22:20 & 23:9!
     Relate this as well to what may have been the
underlying
cause of Bnei Yisrael's enslavement in Egypt many decades
later (or at least the ability of Egyptians to enslave
them)?

2.  In your opinion, and based on your answer to the above
question, are the people of Egypt aware that Yosef was
once an
'ivri', or is this a 'well kept secret' (known only to
Pharaoh
and his closest advisors)?  In your answer, relate to
41:14 &
41:42-46!
     With this background, review 45:16 in its context.
According to this pasuk, why are Pharaoh and his servants
'happy to hear' that Yosef's brothers have arrived?
     Be sure to see how Ramban, Radak, and Seforno each
answer
this question.  Note how each commentator relates to this
question, and what is unique about each approach?

VISITING CANAAN
3.  In your opinion, why does Yosef prefer that Yaakov
come
down to Egypt instead of he himself traveling to Eretz
Canaan
to visit his father?  Can you relate this to your answer
to
the above questions?
     Why is Yosef worried that Pharaoh may not allow him
to
bury Yaakov in Eretz Canaan (see 50:4-6)?  Based on those
psukim, what 'excuse' does Yosef use to convince Pharaoh?
Relate this as well to 47:29-31.
  As you review 50:7-13, note as well where the Egyptians
travel to (when they go to bury Yaakov), and why they stop
for
the 'eulogy', and who (alone) goes to Eretz Canaan for the
actual burial!  Relate this point to the above questions.

DOWN TO '210'
4.  Review 45:9, noting Yosef's command "redah eilai" -
come
down to me (to Egypt).  What is the problem with the
grammar
of this pasuk, in regard to the word 'redah'?
     See Chizkuni on 45:9; note how he explains how this
relates to 'redu' said by Yaakov in 42:2, and how this
relates
to the years of exile according to the 400 years of Brit
bein
ha-btarim!  [See also Rashi on 42:2.]

ONE TOPIC OR THREE?
5.  Note that the Torah includes all of 44:18 thru 46:7 in
ONE
'parshia' while the classical division into chapters
considers
this 'parshia' as part of three different chapters, and
hence
three different topics.
     Attempt to explain the logic for each division.
          In your opinion, which division makes more
sense?
     What is the thematic significance of considering all
of
these psukim as one complete unit?
  [Similarly, compare 44:18 with 46:28, noting how and why
  each pasuk begins a new 'parshia'.]

SHIV'IM NEFESH
6.  In Parshat Pinchas, the Torah records the census that
was
to serve as the basis for the proportional "nachala"
[inheritance] of Eretz Canaan, and its division among the
twelve tribes.
     Compare the family names in that census (Bamidbar
26:2-
56) to the list of the 'shiv'im nefesh' (70 souls) who go
down
to Egypt (see 46:8-26).  Attempt to explain the reason for
the
similarities between these two lists (and for the
differences
as well).
     Can you point to a thematic connection as well?  In
other
words, how does Bnei Yisrael's inheritance of Eretz Canaan
relate to the events that took place earlier in Parshat
Vayigash specifically (and Sefer Breishit in general)?

WHAT'S A CHOK?
7.  To the best of your recollection, how would you define
the
Hebrew word 'chok'?
     Now, read 47:20-26, noting the use of the word
'chok'.
     Does your definition fit with its context in these
psukim?
     [Relate as well to the word 'chok' in Yirmiyahu
33:25.]
     Relate this to your understanding of the mitzvot that
are
considered by the Torah as 'chukim'?
     In your answer, relate to the use of the word 'chok'
in
regard to the offering of the Korban Pesach in future
generations, based on Shmot 12:14 and 12:24-26.
  [Based on your answer, would you say that certain
'chukim'
  could be logical, or by definition do all 'chukim' have
to
  be laws that don't make sense?]
     Note especially the commentaries of Ibn Ezra, Ramban,
and
Seforno on Breishit26:5 in regard to the meaning of the
word
'chukotai'!    Based on the above, how would you now a
define
law that the Torah refers to as a 'chok'?
  [For more detail, see the TSC shiur on Parshat Chukat in
  regard to the laws of Para Aduma.]
===========

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
1.  When Yosef invites his family to 'move' to Egypt (see
45:5-
11), is his intention that they now should settle in Egypt
permanently, or is it just to survive during the remaining
five years of famine (after which they would return
'home')?
     When the famine is over, do Bnei Yisrael return to
Eretz
Canaan, or do they remain in Egypt (in Eretz Goshen)?
     To the best of your recollection, does the Torah
explain
why they stayed?  Can you suggest a reason?
     [Were they permitted to leave at that time?]

2.  Based on 45:25-28, when Yaakov decides to go down to
Egypt
to visit Yosef, what was the stated purpose of this
journey,
and for how long does Yaakov originally plan to stay in
Egypt?
     [Relate as well 46:30-47:4!]
     Does Yaakov (and his family) have any reason for
staying
in Egypt any longer than during the years of the famine?
     Based on 45:5-11 and 46:31-47:4, what does Yosef's
original plan appear to be?
     For how long does he expect his family to stay in
Egypt?

3.  With this background, review 46:1-7.  Do these psukim
provide an answer to any of the above questions?  Explain.
     In what manner does God's answer to Yaakov relate to
both
Breishit 12:1-3 and 15:13-18?

4.  Review once again 46:1.  In your opinion, why does
Yaakov
stop specifically at Beer Sheva in order to offer
sacrifices?
Furthermore, why does he offer sacrifices at this time?
And
finally, why does he offer them specifically to the God of
his
father Yitzchak
     In your answer, relate Yaakov's present situation to
the
predicament that Yitzchak faced in 26:1-5 (noting 26:25 as
well), and Yaakov's own predicament in 28:10-18.
  [In regard to why he offers korbanot specifically to the
God
  of his father YITZCHAK (and not Avraham), see the
Parshanut
  section below - question #1.]

5.  What is God's response to these korbanot that Yaakov
offers?  See 46:2-4.  Does God's response imply that
Yaakov
was scared; if so, why?
     What is surprising about God's 'affirmative' answer,
allowing Yaakov to travel to Egypt?  In your opinion, do
you
think that it surprised Yaakov?
     According to God's plan, now revealed to Yaakov, for
how
long are Yaakov and his family supposed to stay in Egypt?
     Does God provide an explicit reason?  [Is there an
implicit reason, based on these psukim?]  Relate once
again to
Breishit 15:13-18 & 12:1-3.]
     How does God's plan, as now revealed to Yaakov,
relate to
Yosef's perception of these events (as he explained to his
brothers in 45:5-8)?  Relate as well to Breishit 48:21 and
50:24.

6. Compare the style of 46:5-7 with Breishit 11:31, 12:5,
and
31:17-18.  In what manner is this significant?
     Relate this to the theme of 'bechira' in Sefer
Breishit.]

7.  Note how 46:1-7 is followed by 46:8-27.  Compare these
psukim (note that they form their own 'parshia') with
Shmot
1:1-7.
     How (and why) are 46:8-27 and Shmot 1:1-7 similar,
and in
what manner are they different?
     Can you explain why Sefer Shmot opens with these
psukim?
Relate especially to Shmot 1:7.
  In regard to 46:8-27, have we found lists of names
before in
Sefer Breishit?  If so, have these 'lists' [or
genealogies]
been referred to as 'shmot' or as 'toladot'?
     Can you explain why the list is now called 'shmot'?
    [Relate once again to the 'bechira' process and its
    connection to the overall theme of Sefer Breishit.]

8.  Note that 46:1-5 is the last 'hitgalut' of Sefer
Breishit.
     First, verify this statement.
     Then, find the FIRST 'hitgalut' in Sefer Shmot.
          [If you give up, scan Shmot 3:1-10.]
     What is God's message in that 'hitgalut'?
     How does that first 'hitgalut' in Sefer Shmot relate
to
this last 'hitgalut' in Sefer Breishit?  [Relate to this
parallel at both a textual and thematic level.]
  Try to explain the thematic importance of this final
'hitgalut' of Sefer Breishit, and its connection to the
'parshia' that follows with "eileh shmot..." (in 46:8-26).

PART III - PARSHANUT
1.  Review again 46:1, make sure that you understand the
major
problems in the pshat of this pasuk (i.e. why does Yaakov
offer korbanot at this time, why specifically to the God
of
Yitzchak, and why specifically in Beer Sheva).
     See Rashi - how does Rashi answer these questions, or
doesn't he?  [In other words, is Rashi explaining the
pasuk,
or is he learning something from it?]
     Now, see Ramban.  What bothers Ramban in regard to
Rashi's interpretation.  [Explain what Ramban means by his
statement that Rashi's peirush 'is not sufficient' / "ve-
eineno maspik..."]
     Next, see Rashbam.  How is his approach different
from
Rashi's?   Does Rashbam attempt to explain simple 'pshat'?
     Does Rashbam base his peirush on 26:1-2 or on 26:25?
Can
you explain why?  What assumption does Rashbam make in
regard
to korbanot that Yitzchak offered in Beer Sheva?  Is there
support for this assumption in the psukim?
     Now, see Radak!  In what manner is his approach
similar
to that of Rashbam, and in what manner is his
interpretation
totally different? What psukim does Radak base his peirush
on?
     In your opinion, which peirush (between Radak &
Rashbam)
is more thematic, and which is more textual?
    [See also Seforno and Chizkuni.]
     Finally, return once again to Ramban.  Read his
answer
carefully.  [Just the first ten lines, you don't need to
read
the entire section concerning 'zevachim'.] How is his
approach
to the explanation of this pasuk different that Rashbam
and
Radak?
     How does Ramban's interpretation relate to the
overall
theme of Sefer Breishit?  Would you consider Ramban's
peirush
as 'pshat'?

2.  Why do you think that Yaakov offers specifically
'ZEVACHIM' at this time? Is there any other example of
someone
offering a "zevach" to God in Sefer Breishit?  When (later
on
in Chumash) are 'zevachim' offered?  [Relate to Shmot
24:3-9,
especially 24:4-5!
    [For the technical difference between an 'olah' and
    'zevach', you should review Sefer Vayikra chapters 1 &
    3.]
     Now [if you have lots of time and patience] you can
see
the lengthy Ramban on this topic (on 46:1 / "ve-amar
ha-katuv
zvachim...").  It is quite complicated, but it gives you a
tiny glimpse of Ramban's understanding of 'kabbala'.]

3.  Re: why Yaakov stopped specifically in Beer Sheva, see
also a very interesting discussion concerning this in
middle
of the lengthy Ramban on Breishit 28:17, where he quotes
Breishit Rabba 68:6.
  [In Torat Chaim edition, by footnote 22; in Chavell
edition
  by footnote 27.]
Note how that Midrash explains how Beer Sheva serves as
the
'exit' gate for those who wish to leave Eretz Canaan, and
how
it relates to Breishit 46:1-3 as well as 28:10-17.

4.  Review 45:1, noting the phrase "le-chol ha-nitzavim
alav"
- i.e. Yosef was not able to 'restrain himself' from - all
that stood around him.  In your opinion, what group is
this
pasuk referring to?  In other words, who are these people
gathered around who Yosef later (in this pasuk) expels
from
the room?
     Once you determine WHO they are, explain how this
phrase
relates to this pasuk and why he wants to expel them from
the
room before he reveals himself. First see Rashi on 45:1,
most
likely Rashi's approach is what you answered.  [See also
Rashbam and Radak who are quite similar.]
     Now (to your surprise) see Ramban.  Note how he
explains
who these 'nitzavim' were, and why they 'bothered' Yosef.
Can
you explain why he provides an alternate interpretation?
Note
how (and why) he disagrees with Ibn Ezra as well.
     Finally, see Seforno.  Note how he provides a totally
different (and very creative) interpretation!  Can you
explain
how his interpretation relates to Ramban's?

5.  Review 45:12.  As a proof that he is truly their
brother,
Yosef tells them "... ki pi ha-medaber aleichem - see, it
is
my mouth that is speaking to you".  In your opinion, what
does
this phrase mean, and how is it a proof?  Is Yosef proving
them who he is by the fact that he knows Hebrew?  Was this
the
'secret language' of Yaakov's family that the brothers
spoke,
that no one else knew?
     First see Rashi.  Note his approach (as usual, the
one
that we are most familiar with).  [Note as well Ibn Ezra.]
     Next, see Rashbam.  Does he agree or disagree with
Rashi?
In either case, what does Rashbam add to Rashi's
explanation?
How does this relate to the context of the psukim that
follow?
     Finally, see Ramban.  Note his very strong questions
explaining why the 'classic interpretation' is not
sufficient.
Then pay careful attention to how he explains this pasuk.
As
usual, note how comprehensive Ramban is in his peirush,
and
how he relates to the realities of each situation!

BIBLICAL ADDITION
6.  Review 46:8-27, and while doing so, see if the math
works
out to total up to seventy. If not, where specifically are
there problems in the totals, i.e. where doesn't the total
match the itemized list of names?
     First, see Rashi on 46:15 & 46:26.  Which problems
does
he deal with, and what answers does he provide?
     In your opinion, does Rashi's interpretation
(regarding
when Yocheved was born, etc.) make sense?  If not, what is
the
problem?
     Then, see Rashbam on 48:8 & 26.  How does he solve
the
math problem?
     Next, see Chizkuni, how does he solve the math
problem?
          How is his approach different from Rashbam's?
     Now, see Ibn Ezra on 46:27.
     Note how and why he disagrees with the various
Midrashim.
          How does he explain pshat?  [Like Rashbam or
Chizkuni?]
     Review this Ibn Ezra, noting his approach.
    [It is a classic example of his methodology and his
    approach to 'pshat' in contrast to 'drash', and the
    connection between them.]
  Finally, see Ramban on 46:15 (it's long, but worth your
while).
     Note how Ramban supports the Midrashic approach, as
presented by Rashi, and totally disagrees with Ibn Ezra,
and
seems to take issue with his entire approach to Midrashim.
Be
sure to read this Ramban carefully, for he explains his
approach - and why he feels it is important to look for
miracles 'between the lines' of the Bible!
                              be-hatzlacha,
                              menachem


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayigq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 32507 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091220/4f6bb1e5/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Dec 23 07:54:57 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 07:54:57 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] for Parshat Va'yigash - shiur
Message-ID: <000001ca83cf$22551270$66ff3750$@net>

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

PARSHAT  VAYIGASH

	When Yaakov and family depart for Egypt, they
appear to be planning just a short visit, i.e. to see
Yosef and to survive the famine.  Yet, for some reason,
they never return to Eretz Canaan (not at least for the
next several hundred years)!
    Was life in Egypt simply too good?
	Could it be that the 'Promised Land' was not
important to them? Could it be that Yaakov's family did
not care about God's covenant with Avraham & Yitzchak?
[Based on Breishit 26:1-4, it appears that they did care!]
	In the following shiur, we attempt to explain why
Yaakov and his family stay in Egypt, while laying the
groundwork for our study of the thematic transition from
Sefer Breishit to Sefer Shmot.

INTRODUCTION
    In Parshat Va'yigash, God speaks to Yaakov Avinu prior
to his departure to see Yosef in Egypt.  As this is the
very last time that God speaks to man in Sefer Breishit,
we should certainly expect for this "hitgalut"
[revelation] to be significant.
	However, to appreciate its importance, we must
begin our study with a quick review of the events that
lead up to this "hitgalut".
 
EVERYONE HAS A PLAN
	As we would expect, as soon as Yaakov hears that
Yosef is still alive, he immediately decides to go visit
him:
"And Yisrael said... my son Yosef is still alive; I must
go and see him before I die" (see 45:28).

	Does Yaakov plan to return immediately to Eretz
Canaan after this visit?  Was there any reason why he
shouldn't?
	Even though it is not quite clear what Yaakov's
original intentions may have been, Yosef had already
informed his brothers concerning the framework of his
original 'invitation':
"... Quickly go up to my father and tell him, thus says
your son Yosef: God has made me master over all of Egypt.
Come down to me, do not stay [in Canaan], for you should
dwell in the land of Goshen to be near me; you and your
children...
	And I will provide for you there, for ANOTHER FIVE
YEARS OF FAMINE still remain, lest you PERISH, you and
your entire household..." (45:9-11).

	Clearly, Yosef intends for his family to stay for
more than just a 'long weekend'.  However, he makes no
mention that he intends that they make Egypt their
permanent home.  It seems more likely that his invitation
is for five years, as he states specifically "because FIVE
years of famine still remain, lest the family perish"! 
    What will be once the famine is over and economic
conditions in Canaan improve?  Most likely, Yaakov and his
family plan to (& should) return to their homeland.
	Even though Yaakov, Yosef, and the brothers may
not have been quite sure how long this visit would last,
it doesn't seem that any of them thought that it would be
any more than a 'visit' - and certainly not a full
emigration.  God, however, had a very different plan in
mind - a plan that He reveals to Yaakov before his
departure from Eretz Canaan. 

THE STOP AT BEER SHEVA
    To better appreciate God's plan, let's take a careful
look at what transpires when Yaakov and family stop at
Beer Sheva, on their way down to Egypt: 
"And Yisrael traveled with all that was his, and came to
BEER SHEVA, and he offered 'ZEVACHIM' (sacrifices, peace
offerings) to the God of his father YITZCHAK" (see 46:1).

	When studying this pasuk, several questions arise:
* Why does Yaakov stop specifically at BEER SHEVA?  In
fact, we could ask, why does he stop at all?
* Why does he offer these sacrifices specifically to the
"God of his father YITZCHAK"?  [Is He not the God of
Avraham, as well? / See 32:10 where Yaakov prayed to the
God of both Avraham AND Yitzchak!] 
* Why does he find it necessary at this time to offer
korbanot?
* Why does he offer specifically ZEVACHIM? 
* Why is Yaakov's new name - Yisrael - used in this pasuk?

	To answer these questions, we must first consider
Yaakov's predicament at this point in time.
	First of all, Yaakov is quite worried.  [To prove
this, simply note the opening words of God's response to
Yaakov's offering: "Don't worry..." (see 46:1-3).]
    The reason for his worry most probably relates to the
fact that he is now leaving Eretz Canaan.  Recall that his
father Yitzchak, even in times of famine, was not
permitted to leave the land:
"And there was a famine in the Land... and God appeared to
him (Yitzchak) and said to him: Do not go down to Egypt,
stay in the Land that I show you..." (see 26:1-3).

	At that time, God even explained the reason why
Yitzchak could not leave - because he was the 'chosen' son
of Avraham Avinu:
"... reside in this Land and I will be with you and bless
you, for to you and your offspring I have given these
Lands, and I will fulfill the OATH which I have sworn to
Avraham..." (26:3-4).

	Although Avraham himself was permitted to leave
the Land during a famine, Yitzchak, his CHOSEN son, was
instructed to stay in the Land.  Understandably, then,
Yaakov has reason to assume that God may not approve of
this visit. 
    Even though Yaakov himself had once received
permission to leave Eretz Canaan (in Parshat Vayetze, see
28:10-20), his situation then was quite different, as he
faced immediate, life-threatening danger (see 27:41-43).
And even then, Yaakov still required divine reassurance
that ALTHOUGH he was leaving Eretz Canaan, God would
continue to look after him and BRING HIM BACK:
"And behold I will be with you and take care of you on
your journey, and I WILL BRING YOU BACK TO THIS LAND..."
(28:15).  [Note that on that first journey from Eretz
Canaan, Yaakov also left specifically from BEER SHEVA (see
28:10)!]

	Now (in Parshat Vayigash), Yaakov's situation is
quite different.  Survival in Eretz Canaan, however
difficult, is still possible, as food could be imported
from Egypt.  Furthermore, if it was so important for Yosef
to see his father, why couldn't Yosef come to visit Yaakov
in Eretz Canaan?  Was it absolutely necessary for Yaakov
to resettle his entire family in Egypt at this time?  On
the other hand, he and his entire family had received an
open invitation from his 'long lost son'.  How could he
say no!
	Unquestionably, Yaakov has what to worry about.

APPLYING FOR AN EXIT VISA
	This analysis provides us with a simple
explanation for why Yaakov first stops in Beer Sheva
before departing to Egypt.  As he fears his departure may
be against God's will (or possibly even threaten his
'bechira'), Yaakov stops to pray to God, 'asking
permission' to leave Eretz Canaan.
	Now we must explain why Yaakov stops specifically
at Beer Sheva.  The commentators offer several
explanations:
 *	Rashbam (46:1) explains that Beer Sheva was the
site of Yitzchak's place of prayer.  [See 26:25, where
Yitzchak builds a mizbeiach in Beer Sheva.  Note also that
God offers him reassurance at that site - see 26:24!]
 *	Ramban (46:1) adds to Rashbam's explanation that
Yaakov chooses Beer Sheva to parallel his first excursion
outside Eretz Canaan (from Beer Sheva to Charan /see
28:10).
 *	Radak considers Beer Sheva the 'official' southern
border of Eretz Canaan, thus the appropriate place for
Yaakov to 'apply for an exit visa'. 
		[See also Seforno 46:1 (like Radak) and
Chizkuni.]

	Although each commentator quotes different sources
to explain why specifically Beer Sheva is chosen, they all
concur that Yaakov's primary worry is indeed his departure
from Eretz Canaan.

	This background also explains why Yaakov prays at
this time specifically 'to the God of YITZCHAK'.
Considering that Yitzchak had not received permission
(when he faced a very similar situation), Yaakov now prays
to 'the God of Yitzchak [i.e. who did not allow Yitzchak
to leave].  [See Radak & Seforno.]
[Note that Ramban offers a different approach (based on
what he calls 'sod'), that Yaakov recognizes that his
departure to Egypt marks the beginning of the long
historical process of 'brit bein ha-btarim' and hence
their future enslavement by the Egyptians.  Realizing that
this process may entail terrible suffering (including
God's 'midat ha-din'), Yaakov prays specifically to
'pachad Yitzchak', the manifestation of God's providence
through 'midat ha-din', in hope that his children will
suffer as little as possible.]

THE FIRST 'ZEVACH'
	Similarly, this backdrop can also help us
understand why Yaakov may have offered specifically
'zevachim'.
	Significantly, this is the FIRST instance in
Chumash where we find the offering of a 'zevach' to God.
As Ramban (on 46:1) points out, until this time the
children of Noach (and Avraham as well) offered only
'olot'. 
[The technical difference between an 'olah' and 'zevach'
is quite simple.  In Sefer Vayikra we learn that an 'olah'
is totally consumed on the mizbeiach (chapter 1).  In
contrast, the meat of a 'zevach' - alternately referred to
as 'shlamim' (see Vayikra 3:1, 7:11) - can be eaten by the
owner, while only a small portion is offered on the
mizbeiach.  Conceptually, its name -'shlamim' implies a
certain 'shleimut' - fullness or completeness, that this
voluntary offering can express a feeling of 'completeness'
in one's relationship with God.  Although it is unclear if
at this time Yaakov actually ate these 'zevachim', it is
significant that the Torah refers to them with the term
'zevach'.]

	There are three other seminal events in Chumash
where specifically 'zevachim' are offered:
1) The KORBAN PESACH (at Yetziat Mitzrayim)
	2) Brit NA'ASEH VE-NISHMA (at Ma'amad Har Sinai)
	3) YOM ha-SHMINI (the dedication ceremony of the
Mishkan).

	At first glance, these three examples appear to
involve joyous and festive occasions, quite the opposite
of Yaakov's current situation (worrying about leaving
Eretz Canaan).  However, if we look a bit more closely,
all three examples share a 'common denominator', which can
help us appreciate Yaakov's offering of 'zevachim' at this
time.  Note how each event marks the COMPLETION of an
important process:

	1)  The KORBAN PESACH, called a "ZEVACH pesach
l-Hashem" (see Shmot 12:27), marks the COMPLETION of the
process of Yetziat Mitzrayim.  [See Shmot 11:1->12:14.
Note also that Chazal include Korban Pesach under the
general category of 'shlamim'.]

	2)  At Ma'amad Har Sinai, Bnei Yisrael offer
special 'zevachim' as part of the ceremony where they
accept the mitzvot:
"Moshe wrote down God's commandments, and then, early in
the morning, he set up a mizbeiach... and they offered
ZEVACHIM, SHLAMIM to God..." (Shmot 24:4-5).

 Here we find the COMPLETION and fulfillment of the
ultimate purpose of Yetziat Mitzrayim - Bnei Yisrael's
readiness to accept God's commandments. 
	
	3) On YOM ha-SHMINI, upon the COMPLETION of the
dedication ceremony of the Mishkan, Bnei Yisrael offer a
special korban 'shlamim':
"And behold on the 8th day, God commanded Moshe [to offer
special korbanot] ... and an ox and a ram for a SHLAMIM -
liZVOACH - to offer..." (see Vayikra 9:1-4)

	As the name 'shlamim' implies ['shaleim' =
complete], a ZEVACH SHLAMIM usually implies the completion
of an important process.  But if we return to Yaakov, what
'process' is being completed with his descent to Egypt?
Why does Yaakov offer 'davka' [specifically] ZEVACHIM?!
 	One could suggest that Yaakov's offering of
'zevachim' relates to an entirely different perspective.
However anxious (and fearful) Yaakov may have been prior
to his journey to Egypt, he was also very THANKFUL that
Yosef is alive (and that he even has the opportunity to
visit him).  In this regard, these 'zevachim' could be
understood as a 'korban TODAH' - a THANKSGIVING offering.
[Note that the 'korban TODAH' is a subcategory of
'shlamim' (see Vayikra 7:11-12).]
	By offering 'zevachim' at this time, Yaakov may
actually be thanking God for re-uniting his family.  

	Furthermore, considering that the purpose of
Yaakov's descent to Egypt was not only to visit Yosef, but
also to RE-UNITE his twelve sons, this journey could also
be considered the COMPLETION of the 'bechira' process.
Without Yosef, the 'bechira' process was incomplete, as a
very important 'shevet' (tribe) was missing.  Now, by
offering 'zevachim', Yaakov thanks God for re-uniting the
family and hence COMPLETING the 'bechira' process.

	Finally, this interpretation can also explain why
the Torah refers to Yaakov as YISRAEL in this pasuk.
	As we explained in our shiur on Parshat
Vayishlach, the name YISRAEL reflects God's choice of
Yaakov as the FINAL stage of the 'bechira' process.  In
contrast to the previous generations where only one son
was chosen, ALL of Yaakov's children have been chosen to
become God's special nation.  Now, as Yaakov descends to
Egypt to re-unite his twelve sons, it is only appropriate
that the Torah uses the name YISRAEL. 

THE END, AND THE BEGINNING...
	Even if we consider these 'zevachim' as a
thanksgiving offering (for the completion of the 'bechira'
process), we must still explain why Yaakov is fearful at
this time.  Let's take another look at God's response to
Yaakov's korbanot:
"Then God spoke to YISRAEL... Fear not to go down to
Egypt, for I will make you there a GREAT NATION.  I Myself
will go down with you and I Myself will also BRING YOU
BACK..."(46:2-4)

	God's response adds an entirely new dimension to
his departure, a dimension that most likely catches Yaakov
totally by surprise:  Let's explain:
	Yaakov, we explained earlier, may have been
planning only a 'short visit' to reunite the family.
Yosef was planning for the family to stay for several
years to survive the famine.  Now, God reveals a totally
new plan.  Yaakov and family are departing on a journey of
several HUNDRED years.  They will not return until they
have first become a great NATION in the land of Egypt.
God Himself brings them down, and there the family is now
commanded to remain in Egypt until they emerge as a
populous nation.  Then, when the proper time comes, God
Himself will bring them back.
	Hence, when Yaakov goes down to Egypt, not only
will the prophetic dreams of Yosef be fulfilled, but so
too God's promise to Avraham Avinu at Brit Bein Ha-btarim
(see Breishit 15:13-18).  The long and difficult process
of Yetziat Mitzrayim has begun.

	In this manner, God informs Yaakov that although
his descent to Egypt involves leaving Eretz Canaan, it
does not constitute a breach of the Divine covenant with
his family.  Rather, it forms a critical stage in His
master plan of transforming Yaakov's family of 'seventy
souls' into God's special Nation. 
[The fuller meaning of this final 'hitgalut' of Sefer
Breishit will be discussed in our introductory shiur to
Sefer Shmot.]

FROM "TOLDOT" TO "SHMOT"
	To support understanding, we conclude our shiur by
noting the 'parshia' that immediately follows this final
'hitgalut' to Yaakov. 
	After its brief description of the family journey
down to Egypt (see 46:5-7), the Torah then devotes a
special 'parshia' to the enumeration of the seventy
members of Yaakov's family:
"These are the names ["ve-eileh shmot"] of Bnei Yisrael
who were coming to Egypt..." (see 46:8)

	The header of this special 'parshia' - "ve-eileh
SHMOT..." - may be reflective of this conclusion of the
'bechira' process, for it will be from these seventy
'nefesh' (souls) that the Jewish nation will emerge. 
	Recall that at each stage of the 'bechira' process
thus far, Sefer Breishit has always introduced each list
of children with the phrase: "ve-eileh toldot".  Now, for
some reason, the Torah prefers to introduce this list with
"ve-eileh shmot".  This new phrase may mark the fact that
the 'bechira' process is now complete.  As such, the Torah
presents the chosen family with the word "SHMOT" instead
of "TOLADOT"."
	This observation can also explain why Sefer Shmot
begins with this very same phrase "ve-eileh shmot".  Note
how the opening psukim of Sefer Shmot (see 1:1-4) actually
summarize this 'parshia' (i.e. 46:8-27).  Furthermore, the
first primary topic of Sefer Shmot will be how God'
fulfills His promise of Brit Bein Ha-btarim.  We will be
told of how these seventy 'nefesh' multiply, become a
multitude, are enslaved and then how they are finally
redeemed. 
	Even though there remain a few more 'loose ends'
in Sefer Breishit (i.e. 46:28->50:26 /e.g. the
relationship between the brothers, Yosef and Egypt, etc.),
it is from this point in Sefer Breishit that Sefer Shmot
will begin.  From these seventy souls, God's special
Nation will emerge. 

	
shabbat shalom,
	
menachem

===================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
A.	There are several instances in Sefer Breishit
where korbanot are offered, most notably the 'olot'
offered by Noach (8:20) and Avraham (at the Akeida /see
22:13).  We also find many examples of the building of a
mizbeiach and calling out in God's Name.  Yet, we never
find 'zvachim'.  Note that in 31:54, 'zevach' refers to a
joint feast between Yaakov and Lavan, not a sacrifice to
God.

B. HINEINI...
	The final 'hitgalut' to Yaakov in Sefer Breishit
begins as follows:
	"Then God spoke to Yisrael in a vision by night
saying:
	YAAKOV YAAKOV, and he answered "HINEINI" (here I
am)... Fear not to go down to Egypt..." (see 46:2-3).
The unique style of God's opening statement to Yaakov
creates a linguistic parallel pointing us both (A)
backward - to the Akeida, and (B) forward - to the burning
bush. 

(A) "HINEINI" - BACK TO THE AKEIDA
	God's response is reminiscent of His opening
statement at the Akeida:
	"... and God tested Avraham, and called out
'AVRAHAM,' and he answered, 'HINEINI.'"  (see 22:1).
Besides symbolizing the ultimate devotion to God, the
Akeida narrative also concludes with a Divine oath naming
Yitzchak as heir to the earlier covenants and promises God
had made with Avraham Avinu.  This may explain why in
God's reply to Yaakov's korbanot to the 'God of YITZCHAK,'
He affirms the deeper purpose for Yaakov's descent to
Egypt - the fulfillment of that earlier oath to Avraham
Avinu.

(B) HINEINI - FORWARD TO THE BURNING BUSH
	Just as we find a linguistic parallel to God's
call to Avraham at the Akeida, we find a similar parallel
to God's call to Moshe Rabeinu at the burning bush:
	"... and God called him from the bush saying:
'MOSHE, MOSHE,' and he answered 'hineini.'"  (Shmot 3:4).
	
	However, the significance of God's 'hitgalut' to
Moshe at the burning bush extends beyond this linguistic
parallel.  It is God's FIRST revelation to man since
Yaakov's departure from Eretz Canaan!  In other words,
prophecy 'picks up right where it left off'!
	Note the comparison between these two revelations,
clearly suggesting a conceptual relationship between them:


YAAKOV (leaving Canaan)
MOSHE (at the burning bush)
(Breishit 46:2-4)
(Shmot 3:4-8)


God called to Yisrael in a vision:
God called out to Moshe:
YAAKOV, YAAKOV,
MOSHE, MOSHE,
va-yomer hineini
va-yomer hineini
And he said:
And he said:
I am the God of your father...
I am the God of your father...
Do not fear going down to Egypt for I will make you there
a great Nation..
I have seen the suffering of My People in Egypt and I have
heard their crying...
I will go DOWN with you to Egypt and I will surely GO UP
with you..
I have come DOWN to rescue them from Egypt in order to
BRING YOU UP from that Land to the Land flowing with...

[It is recommended that you compare these psukim in the
original Hebrew.]

	Just as the linguistic parallel is obvious, so is
the thematic parallel.  At God's 'hitgalut' to Moshe (at
the burning bush), He instructs Moshe to inform Bnei
Yisrael that God has come to fulfill the covenant of Brit
Bein Ha-Btarim, to bring them out of bondage, establish
them as a sovereign Nation and bring them to the Promised
Land.

C.  The emotional confrontation between Yehuda and Yosef
at the beginning of this week's Parsha is symbolic of
future struggles between shevet Yehuda and shevet Yosef.
1.  Note that in this week's parsha they fight over
Binyamin.  How do the 'nachalot' of the shvatim represent
this struggle?
2.  Relate this to the location of the Mikdash in the
"nachala" of Binyamin, as well as to Yehoshua 18:11.
3.  Relate this to the civil war waged against Binyamin,
as described in chapter 20 of Sefer Shoftim.

ADDITIONAL NOTES AND SOURCES
Yosef's plan:
	Rav Zalman Sorotzkin, in his commentary, "Oznayim
La-Torah", explains Yosef's selection of Goshen as his
family's home in Egypt as further evidence of his
intention that they would come to Egypt only temporarily.
He cited earlier sources to the effect that Goshen sat on
the border between Egypt and Eretz Canaan, such that his
family would easily return home after the famine.
	Additionally, Yosef may have ideally preferred to
send food packages to his family in Canaan rather than
having them relocate in Egypt.  Rav Chayim Dov Rabinowitz,
in his "Da'at Sofrim", suggests that for political
reasons, Pharaoh adamantly insisted that Yosef's family
join him in Egypt rather than shipping food.  Quite
reasonably, the king feared Yosef's allegiance to another
country; to retain his position as viceroy, Yosef had to
sever any ties with his former country and direct all his
loyalty to his kingdom.  Therefore, Pharaoh ordered Yosef
to bring his family to Egypt, rather than sending them
food.  This explains the king's somewhat suspicious
enthusiasm and generosity upon hearing of the arrival of
Yosef's brothers (45:16-20).  

Yaakov's plan:
        Rav Sorotzkin claims, as we did in the shiur, that
Yaakov's stopover in Be'er Sheva reflects his ambivalence
towards his move to Egypt.  Only he takes this ambivalence
one step further: in his heart-of-hearts, Yaakov hoped
that God would forbid his descent to Egypt just as he had
ordered Yitzchak not to continue to Egypt to escape the
famine.  Though this speculation appears to have little
basis in the text, the fact that we find such a suggestion
by a prominent commentator underscores Yaakov's fear of
moving to Egypt.
        [See also Abarbanel, who claims that Yaakov
planned simply to see Yosef and return home immediately.]
	An even more extreme view is posited by the Netziv
(in his "Ha-amek Davar").  He suggests that Yaakov had no
intention of going to Egypt at this point.  This is how
the Netziv understands Yaakov's comment, "It is great - my
son Yosef is alive; I will go and see him before I die"
(45:28).  Yaakov here declares that he is satisfied with
the knowledge that Yosef is still alive; he will therefore
not go to Egypt immediately, but rather at some point
before his death.  The news regarding Yosef gives Yaakov a
renewed revitalization ("and the spirit of their father
Yaakov lived" - 45:27), which prompted him to move and
settle in Be'er Sheva, the place where his father,
Yitzchak, had managed to survive harsh famine conditions
with prosperity.  He thus offers sacrifices to "the God of
Yitzchak", asking for assistance in braving the drought.
That night, however, Hashem appears to Yaakov and informs
him of the Divine plan, by which Yaakov must continue on
to Egypt.  The Da'at Sofrim suggests such a notion, as
well, building on the pasuk, "Va-yakam Yaakov mi-Be'er
Sheva" - Yaakov 'picked himself up' from Be'er Sheva.
Like the Netziv, the Da'at Sofrim claims that Yaakov had
originally planned to settle in Be'er Sheva, and only
after Hashem told him to continue on to Egypt did he 'pick
himself up' and go.
	Startling as this theory may sound, a Midrash
familiar to all of us seems to state this explicitly.  We
recite from the Haggadah, "He [Yaakov] descended to Egypt
- [he was] forced [to do so], by the Divine word"
("Va-yered Mitzrayim - annus al pi ha-dibbur").
Apparently, Yaakov did not want to move to Egypt; he did
so only to obey Hashem's commandment.  [The conventional
understanding, that Yaakov decided to move to Egypt on his
own, would presumably read this Midrash to mean that
Yaakov would not have decided to relocate in Egypt if
Hashem hadn't placed him in a situation warranting this
move.  By bringing famine and arranging that Yosef could
provide food for Yaakov and his family in Egypt, Hashem
indirectly 'forced' Yaakov to move there.]
	On the opposite end of the spectrum, we find
several mefarshim who claim that Yaakov in fact knew that
his move to Egypt marked the beginning of the exile.  Most
prominently, the Ramban claims that Yaakov here appeals to
the 'midat ha-din' (Hashem's attribute of justice),
knowing that the exile has now begun.  The Chizkuni
concurs, explaining this as the source of Yaakov's fear.

Yaakov's Fear
	The Abarbanel lists several reasons as to why
Yaakov experienced fear at this point, and his list
encompasses most of the explanations offered by other
commentators (including that which we mentioned in the
shiur):
a) 	Ever since Avraham's brit mila and akeidat
Yitzchak, Avraham's descendants were guaranteed special
"hashgacha elyona" (supreme Divine protection) only in
Eretz Canaan.  Yaakov thus feared the loss of this
'hashgacha' as he descended to Egypt.

b)	Yaakov also worried about maintaining his 'nevu'a'
in Egypt.  Hashem therefore guarantees him, "I will go
down with you to Egypt. ".

c)	The relationship between his family and the
Egyptians also concerned Yaakov.  He feared that the
Egyptians would kill his descendants in an effort to keep
their numbers low - which is precisely what happens in
Parshat Shemot.

d)	As Rashi, the Akeidat Yitzchak and others
commentators, Yaakov very much wanted to be buried in his
family plot in Chevron.

e)	Surprisingly, the Abarbanel claims that Yaakov was
also concerned about Yosef; if Yosef would die in his
lifetime, Yaakov's immense joy would suddenly turn to
anguish.

f)	Finally, Yaakov worried about his descendants'
eventual return to Eretz Canaan.  He feared that they may
assimilate permanently within Egyptian society and remain
there forever.  The possibility that Yaakov feared his
descendants' assimilation appears in several other
sources, including the Akeidat Yitzchak and the Netziv's
Ha-amek Davar.

	One source of fear not mentioned by the Abarbanel,
but to which we alluded in the shiur, is raised by the
Alshich: that the special brachot promised to the avot
would perhaps be fulfilled only in Eretz Canaan.  This is
why Yaakov needed reassurance prior to his first departure
from Canaan, and this is why he is afraid in Parshat
Vayigash.

The Stopover in Be'er Sheva:
	Bereishit Rabba 68 and Rabbenu Bachye state that
when Yaakov Avinu left Eretz Yisrael the first time, when
fleeing from his brother Esav, he went to Be'er Sheva to
ask Hashem permission.  It stands to reason that they
would explain Yaakov's stopover in our parsha in the same
vein, especially in light of the association drawn by the
Ramban between these two journeys.  Sure enough, the
Midrash Hagadol writes this explicitly in our context, an
approach taken as well by Rabbeinu Yosef Bechor Shor and
the Abarbanel.
	Returning to the Ramban's parallel between
Yaakov's trip to Egypt here and his escape from Canaan to
Charan in Parshat Vayetze, both the Meshech Chochma and
the Netziv note an additional point of comparison.  In
both instances, Hashem appears to Yaakov specifically in a
nighttime dream, symbolizing His Providence even in the
darkness of exile.

The 'zevachim':
	The various explanations given in the shiur as to
the purpose of Yaakov's 'zevachim' appear in Midrashim and
the works of the mefarshim.  Two sources identify this
sacrifice as a korban todah - a thanksgiving offering.
The Torah Sheleimah quotes a Midrash that explains these
'zevachim' as a thanksgiving offering expressing gratitude
over the fact that Yosef is still alive.  The Tur, in his
"Peirush Ha-aroch" (as opposed to his brief "Ba'al
Haturim" printed in the Mikra'ot Gedolot) explains this
sacrifice as a thanksgiving offering over his having
arrived safely in Be'er Sheva.  
	Our explanation, that this sacrifice marks the end
of the 'bechira' process, may be what Reish Lakish meant
in Bereishit Rabbah 94 when he said, "al berit ha-shvatim
hikriv" - "He offered sacrifices for the covenant of the
tribes".  Having discovered that Hashem had, in fact,
fulfilled the promise that all of Yaakov's children will
form His special nation, Yaakov offers a thanksgiving
offering.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayig1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 65347 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091223/125ef774/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Mon Dec 28 02:18:17 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:18:17 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Vaychi - questions for self study
Message-ID: <007501ca878d$edd6db60$c9849220$@net>

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

                PARSHAT VAYECHI

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

'LUZ' OR 'BET EL'?
1.  In 48:3, before Yaakov blesses his grandchildren, he
first
reminds Yosef of how God had once blessed him in the city
of
Luz.  Note, however, that God had appeared to Yaakov at
Luz
twice, i.e. in 28:10-22 and 35:9-15.
     Based on this pasuk and its context, which 'hitgalut'
at
Luz is Yaakov referring to (and why)?
  Can you explain why Yaakov relates primarily to God's
special Name of 'Kel Sha-dai'?  [Relate to Ramban on
17:1!]

2.  As you should remember, Luz was the original name of
this
site, but Yaakov had since named that place 'Bet El' (see
28:19 & 35:15).  Can you explain why Yaakov (of all
people)
still calls this city Luz, instead of its 'new name' Bet
El?
     In your answer, relate to why Yaakov called that site
Bet
El, and his vow to build a Bet Elokim at that site (see
28:20-
22).
  Did Yaakov ever build a Bet Elokim, as he had promised?
Is
there a good reason why he didn't?  Does he hope that some
day
in the future, that one of his offspring may fulfill his
original vow?
  If so, how would that explain his calling this site Luz
at
this time?

BLESSING, PROPHECIES, OR PREDICTIONS?
1.  In your opinion, would you consider Yaakov's
'blessings'
to his children (see 49:1-28) as 'hopes' or 'predictions'?
  Support your answer based on their content.  For
example, do
any of these 'blessings' relate to the future inheritance
of
the Land of Israel?  Do any of them relate to leadership
qualities?  Are any of the 'blessings' actually 'curses'?
  Be sure to relate as well to 49:28!
     Then see Ibn Ezra on 49:1!
  [See also Rashbam and Chizkuni on 49:1.]

2.  Using a Tanach Koren [or similar], note how Yaakov's
blessings to sons are divided into 'parshiot'.  Note
especially how this entire unit begins and ends!  Can you
explain the logic of these divisions?
  Does each shevet have its own 'parshia', or are there
exceptions?  If so, can you identify which tribes, and
explain
why?
  Similarly, can you explain the logic of the order of the
tribes in these blessings?  [See Chizkuni on 49:13.]
     Finally, compare these 'blessings' to Moshe
Rabbeinu's
blessings to the tribes in Parshat Ve-zot Ha-bracha - in
regard to their content, order, and style.  What is
similar
and what is different?
  In your explanation, relate to the purpose and setting
for
each set of blessings.

PASSING ON A TRADITION
1.  Review 48:21, noting how Yaakov informs Yosef that God
will one-day bring them back to the Eretz Canaan.  Attempt
to
explain why Yaakov mentions this point specifically now in
the
context of what has transpired in chapter 48.  Relate to
48:3-
4!
     Recall how Sefer Breishit concludes by telling us how
Yosef relays this message to his brothers (see 50:24-26).
In
your opinion, why do you think that Sefer Breishit
concludes
specifically with this message?
     Finally, based on Shmot 3:6-9, 3:13-17, 4:1 and
4:28-31,
prove that even several hundred years later, Bnei Yisrael
remain aware of this message (as well as the various
earlier
promises that God had made to the Avot).  [In our shiur on
Parshat Shmot, we will return to this topic.]

BURIAL IN CANAAN
1.  Two times in Parshat Vayechi, Yaakov Avinu asks his
children that he be buried in Eretz Canaan, but each time
to
different children:
     1) First he commands Yosef - see 47:29-31.
               [Note as well Breishit 46:2-4.]
     2) Later on, he commands his other sons - see
49:28-33.

  Review these two sources, noting their context, and then
attempt to explain why Yaakov finds it necessary to make
this
request twice.  Pay careful attention to what Yaakov
commands
Yosef to do, in contrast to what he commands his other
children. What is different, and what is the same?
  Relate this difference to 48:7.  [In other words, why is
Rachel's burial a 'touchy issue'?  See Ramban on 48:7.]
     Review 50:1-14.  Were both requests fulfilled?

2.  This story of Yaakov's burial contains two puzzling
details:
  a)  Yosef appears to fear that Pharaoh may not allow him
  to bury his father in Eretz Canaan.  [See 50:4-5.]
  b)  The official Egyptian funeral procession never
enters
  Eretz Canaan.  Instead, the ceremony takes place in
'ever
  ha-yarden' (on the 'other side' [i.e. eastern side] of
  the Jordan River).  [See 50:7-12.]

     Before you attempt to explain why, relate to the
following questions as you formulate an answer.
     First, review 47:28-31.
     Then, explain why (in 50:4-5) Yosef speaks to 'beit
Pharaoh' and not to Pharaoh himself?  [or does he? - see
50:6.]  Does this leave the impression that he is not as
'powerful' as he was before?
     Now read 50:6-11.  Based on these details, does it
appear
that Yosef's position remains as important as it had been
during the time of the famine?
     Why does Yaakov receive such honor from the
Egyptians?

3.  When the Egyptian delegation goes to bury Yaakov, note
how
the Egyptian escort stops at 'Goren Atad', while only
Yaakov's
children ascend to Eretz Canaan to bury him (see
50:11-13).
Can you explain why?
     Note that 'Goren ha-Atad' (where the public mourning
takes place) is located on the other bank of the Jordan
River,
not in Eretz Canaan (50:10)!  Can you explain why?
     Could it be that the Egyptians are intentionally
avoiding
entering Eretz Canaan?  In other words, would it not have
been
much shorter for everyone to travel directly to Hebron!
     Relate your answer to the attitude of the Egyptians
towards 'foreigners', based on Breishit 43:32 (& 39:14 &
Shmot
8:22).
     What appears to be the opinion of the Egyptians
towards
the people of Canaan?
     Relate as well to Vayikra 18:1-3& 18:27!
     Finally, relate this to why Yosef himself does not
ask to
be buried in Eretz Canaan, rather he only asks that his
bones
be taken when Bnei Yisrael will leave Egypt several
hundred
years later (see 50:24-26).

=======

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for the shiur)

1.  In your opinion, what was Yosef's original intention
when
he brought his two sons to his father's deathbed?
  [In other words, was he expecting to receive a blessing,
  or was this simply an understandable visit by a
concerned
  son?]
  
  If he does expect a blessing, would it be for himself or
for
his children?  Finally, what type of blessing should he
expect?
  [In your opinion, did Yosef hear what he expected?  If
  not, was he pleasantly 'surprised', or was he possibly
  'disappointed'?]

2.  Have there been any earlier precedents in Sefer
Breishit
where a father has blessed his children before his death?
If
so, in what manner is this situation similar, and in what
manner is it different?
     Based on 48:1-20, what type of blessing does Yaakov
grant?  Is there a precedent for this type of blessing in
Sefer Breishit?
  Would you consider this a blessing to Yosef, or is it
simply
a blessing to Efraim and Menashe.

3.  In relation to 48:5 (that Efraim & Menashe will be
like
Reuven & Shimon) - would you consider this yet another
fatherly 'blessing', or might this relate to the concept
of
'bechora' [right of the first-born]?  If so, explain how
and
why, i.e. explain how it relates to 48:3-4.  Then, see
Rashbam
on 48:5, as well as Ibn Ezra on 48:4-6, noting how they
understand this blessing!

4.  Attempt to categorize the different types of blessings
that we have found thus far in Sefer Breishit, including
both
those bestowed by God as well as those bestowed by an
[elderly] father to his children.  [For example, note
9:24-27;
12:1-3, 13:14-16; 26:1-5; 27:26-40; and 35:9-13.]
  Relate your answer to the theme of 'bechira', which we
have
been following thus far in our study of Sefer Breishit, as
well as the concept of 'bechora' and 'bracha'.

5.  Before Yaakov blesses Efraim and Menashe, in 48:3-4 he
reminds Yosef of an earlier prophecy that he received.
     How does this explain the background for his
'promise'
(or 'blessing') to Yosef regarding his sons in 48:5-6?
          [Relate this blessing to Devarim 21:17.]
How does all of this relate to Yaakov's statement in 48:7?
     [Or, maybe it doesn't?  If not, what does 48:7 relate
to?]

6.  What is the essence of Yaakov's actual blessing to
Efraim
& Menashe themselves in 48:15-20?  How does this blessing
relate to his earlier blessing in 48:5-6?
     Would you consider this bracha or bechora?
     In relation to 48:16, is there any reason why someone
would have thought that Efraim & Menashe would not be
identified with Yaakov's name?  [Relate to when and where
they
were born!]

7.  In your opinion, is 48:21-22 an additional blessing to
Yosef?
     If not, what is it?  [See Rashbam 48:21.]

8.  What is the nature of Yaakov's blessings to his
children
in 49:1-28?  Are they all 'blessings'?  If not, what is
common
to all of them?  [Note carefully Yaakov's opening
statement in
49:1!
     See also 49:34 & Ibn Ezra on 49:1!

9.  Note 48:21, compare with 50:24-25.
     How does this relate to 46:1-4?
     Why is 50:24-25 an appropriate ending for Sefer
Breishit?
          How will it relate to what will transpire in
Sefer
Shmot?
               [Relate to Shmot 3:15-18.]

PART III - PARSHANUT

SHECHEM - A CITY or a PORTION?
1.  Review 48:22.  What is difficult about this pasuk?
Relate
it to 33:18, and the word 'shchem' in each of these
psukim.
     What does the word shchem mean?  Is there more than
one
possibility?  How does the remainder of this pasuk affect
the
explanation of this word?  How does the context of the
entire
chapter relate to the meaning of this word?
     What did Yaakov take with his sword & bow?
          When did this happen and why?

     After answering these questions (on your own), go
through
the various commentators and try to organize their
different
approaches into at least two categories.  As you study:
a.  See Rashi, noting how does he answer the above
questions?
     Why does he bring two interpretations?
  What is difficult about each one?
  In your opinion, which interpretation does Rashi prefer?
b.  See Rashbam (& Rasa"g)!
  How do they answer these questions?
     How (and why) is this interpretation different?
  See also Radak!  How (and why) is his interpretation
  similar, and how is it different?
c.  Next, see Ibn Ezra.  How does he relate to these
opinions
(as discussed above)?
     Which peirush [interpretation] does he prefer?
    Can you explain why?
     How is his answer 'better' (or different) than
Rashbam's?
d.  Now see Seforno?  How is his peirush different?
          Relate his peirush to Rashi's!
     Would you consider his peirush 'pshat' - or more
Midrashic?
     Why do you think Seforno doesn't prefer the above
peirushim?
e.  Finally see Ramban!  In what manner is his peirush
totally
different than the others?  To whom is his peirush most
similar?
     How (and why) does he connect his peirush to Yaakov's
original blessing of Efraim & Menashe?
     Is this typical of Ramban's comprehensive approach to
pshat?
     Note his comparison of this pasuk to Melachim II
13:16-
17!
          How does this 'solve' the most difficult aspect
of
the peirush of Ibn Ezra and Rashbam?

'ACHARIT HA-YAMIM'
2.  Read 49:1.
     In your opinion, what does the phrase 'acharit
ha-yamim'
imply?    [i.e. how many years into the future]
  a. See first Chizkuni's interpretation!  Why does he
relate
this to 'brit bein ha-btarim'?  What is the basis of his
peirush?
  b. Next see Ramban.  How is his opinion different?
          What does Ramban base his opinion on?
  c. Now see Seforno.  Is his peirush the same as Ramban's
or
different?  What pasuk does he base his peirush on?
  d. See also Rashbam in 49:1 who explains 'et asher yikra
etchem..' - about their strength [in battle] and their
inheritance [nachalatam].  Can you infer from this how
Rashbam
understands acharit ha-yamim?  Which of the opinions
discussed
above would this be more similar to - Chizkuni or Ramban?
  e. Finally see Rashi on 49:1.  Even though Rashi doesn't
explain acharit ha-yamim specifically, how does his
commentary
relate to his understanding of this phrase?

'SEEING' OR 'RECOGNIZING'
3.  In 48:8, when Yaakov sees Yosef's two sons, he asks:
"Who
are these children?"  [& in 48:9, Yosef informs him that
these
are his two sons.]  How could it be that after living in
Egypt
for some seventeen years, Yaakov did not know who Yosef's
children were?
     First, see Rashi on 48:8.  Note how he 'solves' this
problem by re-interpreting this pasuk.  In your opinion,
is
this 'drash' or 'pshat'?
     Next, see Chizkuni, noting how he begins with 'lefi
pshuto'.  Why is Chizkuni's interpretation more 'pshat'
than
Rashi's?
     See also Rashbam and Radak.  Are they basically the
same
peirush as Chizkuni, or different?  Explain.

4.  In answer to Yaakov's questions 'mi eileh' (in 48:8),
Yosef answers (in 48:9) that these are his sons who God
gave
him 'ba-zeh'.  In your opinion, what does is Yosef
referring
to when he says ba-zeh?  How does it relate to the context
of
what Yaakov has said in 48:1-8?
     See Rashi, noting how he explains that Yosef showed
his
fathers some 'official documents'?  Can you explain what
led
Rashi to prefer this Midrashic interpretation?
     Then see Rashbam, Ramban, Chizkuni and Seforno.  Note
how
each commentator offers a slightly different
interpretation,
yet all of them relate to what transpires in 48:1-8.

                              be-hatzlacha,
                              menachem


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vaychiq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 31215 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091228/c8a8d3fc/attachment-0001.pdf 

From tsc at bezeqint.net  Wed Dec 30 01:46:31 2009
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:46:31 -0500
Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Vaychi - shiur
Message-ID: <013c01ca891b$d2def5b0$789ce110$@net>

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

                PARSHAT VAYECHI

     Blessings - we find so many of them in Sefer
Breishit,
particularly in Parshat Vayechi.  What are they all about?
     In our shiur, we will first distinguish between three
different types of blessings that we have encountered thus
far
in Sefer Breishit ('bechira', 'bechora' and 'bracha').
Based
on these distinctions, we will then attempt to better
understand what transpires when Yaakov blesses Yosef in
the
first chapter of Parshat Vayechi.

INTRODUCTION
     Recall (from our shiur on Parshat Toldot) that we
identified two categories of blessings to explain the
nature
of Yitzchak's blessings to Yaakov and Esav.  Those were:
(1)
'bechira' and (2) 'bracha'.
     We used the name 'bechira' to classify God's special
blessing to Avraham Avinu that his offspring ('zera')
would
inherit the 'promised' land ('eretz').  God first bestowed
this blessing upon Avraham Avinu at the beginning of
Parshat
Lech Lecha (see 12:1-3) and subsequently repeated it
numerous
times not only to Avraham, but also to Yitzchak and
Yaakov.
By tracing these blessings, we were able to show how the
'bechira' process emerged as a primary theme in Sefer
Breishit.
     In contrast, we used the more general term 'bracha'
to
classify a blessing of personal destiny bestowed by a
father
onto his son [or sons].  As examples, we cited Noach's
blessings to his three sons (see 9:26-27), and Yitzchak's
blessing of prosperity and leadership that were intended
for
Esav, but 'stolen' by Yaakov [see chapter 27].

     Now, in Parshat Vayechi, as the 'bechira' process
nears
its conclusion, we find how Yaakov bestows blessings of
prosperity and success upon his children.  Even though
these
would seem to fall under our category of 'bracha', when we
take a closer look at these blessings, we will need to add
an
additional category to better appreciate their meaning.

YAAKOV'S BLESSING TO YOSEF - BECHIRA or BECHORA?
     Before Yaakov blesses all of his children in chapter
49,
he first bestows a special blessing upon Yosef and his two
children, as described in chapter 48.
     To understand the purpose of this special blessing,
we
must consider not only its content, but also its context.
     We begin our study by examining Yaakov's opening
statement to Yosef, when he arrives with his two sons (see
48:1-2).  We quote this pasuk in Hebrew in order to
highlight
its textual parallels to earlier blessings to the Avot:
  [And Yaakov said to Yosef]: "KEL SHAKAI nir'ah eilai
  [appeared to me] be-Luz be-eretz Canaan va-yevarech oti,
va-
  yomer eilai, [and blessed me saying:]
  'Hineni MAFRECHA ve-HIRBITICHA u-netaticha li-khal amim,
ve-
  natati et ha-ARETZ ha-zot le-ZAR'ACHA acharecha achuzat
  olam'" (see 48:3-4).

     At first glance, this blessing appears to resemble
the
blessings that we have defined thus far as 'bechira'.  To
show
how, let's quote the almost identically blessing of
'bechira'
that Yitzchak had bestowed upon Yaakov prior to his
departure
from Eretz Canaan (when running away from Esav):
    [Textual parallels are highlighted by CAPS.]
  [And Yitzchak said to Yaakov]: "ve-KEL SHAKAI yevarech
otcha
  ve-YAFRECHA ve-YARBECHA ve-hayita li-khal amim -
va-yiten
  lecha et birkat Avraham lecha u-leZAR'ACHA itach, le-
  rishtecha et ERETZ megurecha... " (see 28:3-4).

     Similarly, we find an additional parallel blessing
when
God officially confirmed this 'bechira' (to Yaakov) upon
his
return to Eretz Canaan (again at Bet El):
  [And God spoke to Yaakov saying] "ani KEL SHAKAI, PREH
u-
  RVEH, goy u-khal amim yhiyeh mi-meka... ve-et ha-ARETZ
asher
  natati le-Avraham u-leYitzchak lecha etnena,
u-leZAR'ACHA
  acharecha eten et ha-ARETZ" (35:11-12).

     Considering these parallels, Yaakov's opening
statement
to Yosef in Parshat Vayechi would appear to convey this
same
message, i.e. that Yaakov is now bestowing the blessing of
'bechira' upon Yosef - and hence, possibly to the
exclusion of
his brothers!  [If so, this would be quite problematic,
for it
implies that the 'bechira' process will now continue only
through Yosef.]
     However, when we consider the context of these psukim
(i.e. 48:3-5), it becomes quite clear that Yaakov is not
blessing Yosef with the 'bechira'.  [Recall that only God
can
confirm 'bechira', and not the Avot themselves.]  Rather,
Yaakov first informs Yosef about his own 'bechira' as
background for the new blessing that is about to bestow -
a
blessing which we will now categorize as 'bechora':

'BECHORA'  - TO THE SON OF RACHEL
     To explain this point, let's take a careful look at
what
Yaakov now states concerning the status of Yosef's two
children:
  "Now, your two sons, who were born to you in the land of
  Egypt... shall be mine; Efraim and Menashe are to me
like
  Reuven and Shimon" (48:5).

     For some reason, Yaakov decides to grant Yosef a
special
status.  Indeed, all twelve brothers are 'chosen';
nonetheless
Yosef receives a DOUBLE portion ("pi-shnayim").  Efraim
and
Menashe are to be considered 'shvatim' (tribes) - a status
equal to that of Reuven and Shimon.  In 'Torah terms', we
conclude that Yaakov has awarded Yosef the 'bechora' - for
"pi-
shnayim" [the double portion] is the special Biblical
rights
of the firstborn son.  [See Devarim 21:17 re: 'mishpat ha-
bechora'.]
     This neatly explains why Yaakov prefaces this
blessing of
'bechora' by first quoting God's blessing of 'bechira'.
Before bestowing the 'bechora', Yaakov must first explain
to
Yosef that his special status of 'bechor' is being granted
within the framework of the 'bechira' process (see 48:4).
It
is because the 'bechira' process has reached its
completion
(with God's choice of Yaakov and all of his children),
that it
is now incumbent upon Yaakov to grant the 'bechora' to one
of
his twelve children.
     Yaakov thus neither chooses nor rejects any of his
children.  He simply awards Yosef with the 'bechora', even
though Reuven was born first.  In essence, Yaakov has
chosen
the first-born child of Rachel over the first-born child
of
Leah.
  To prove that Yaakov's blessing is 'bechora' (and not
'bechira'), simply note Yaakov's next statement:
  "But children born to you after them shall be yours;
their
  inheritance shall be included under the name of their
  brothers" (48:6).

     Should Yosef have any additional children, their
portion
must be included within the portions of Menashe and
Efraim.
Had Yosef been the only chosen son; then all of his
children
should have received special status.  However, since he
has
now become the family 'bechor', he receives a double
portion,
but no more.  Any other children that he may have must be
included within this double portion.
     [See Rashbam 48:5 & Ibn Eza 48:4-6!]

A 'FLASHBACK' FROM PARSHAT VA'YISHLACH
     This interpretation also neatly explains the reason
for
Yaakov's next statement concerning Rachel's death (which
otherwise would seem to be totally unrelated):
  "When I was returning from Padan, Rachel died suddenly
  during that journey, while we were still some distance
from
  Efrata [and thus even farther away from Chevron!], and
  therefore I buried her on the road..." (48:7).

     This mention of Rachel's burial most probably relates
directly to Yaakov's choice of Yosef as the 'bechor'.  By
choosing Yosef over Reuven, Yaakov has essentially chosen
Rachel over Leah as his primary wife.  However, this may
come
as a surprise to Yosef, for not only was Reuven born
first,
but Yosef's own mother (Rachel) was buried along the
roadside,
while Reuven's mother Leah was buried in Ma'arat
Ha-Machpela -
in the same burial spot where Yaakov himself wishes to be
buried!  [See 47:29-30.]
     Therefore, Yaakov now explains to Yosef that Rachel's
burial on the roadside (rather than in Ma'arat
Ha-Machpela)
was due to unforeseen circumstances, and thus should not
be
interpreted as an indication of a lower status.  On the
contrary, despite Rachel's somewhat disrespectful burial,
Yaakov still considers her as having been his 'primary'
wife.
  [Note then when Yaakov had earlier expressed his concern
  about sending Binyamin to Egypt, he had made a similar
  statement: "And your servant, my father, said to us: As
you
  know, MY WIFE bore me two sons, but one is gone..."
(Yehuda
  quoting his father in 44:27).]

     Therefore, even though Reuven is the firstborn of
Leah,
Yosef is awarded the family 'bechora', since he is the
firstborn of Yaakov's primary wife, the "isha" whom he had
originally intended to marry.

A 'FLASHBACK' FROM PARSHAT TOLDOT
     At this point in the narrative (i.e. after 48:7), we
find
an interesting transition.  Now that Yaakov has completed
bestowing the 'bechora' upon Yosef, the focus of his
blessing
now shifts to his grandchildren, Efraim and Menashe - who
consequently have now attained the status of 'shvatim'
(tribes).  As such, they also deserve blessings of
personal
destiny from Yaakov (i.e. 'bracha'), just as he will later
bless all of the tribes (in chapter 49).
     However, when we read how Yaakov grants these
blessings
(in 48:8-20), we find several rather obvious 'flashbacks'
to
the blessings of Yitzchak in Parshat Toldot (see chapter
27).
     For example, both narratives describe an aging father
who
can barely see (48:10 vs. 27:1), and the 'switching' of
blessing between two sons to the consternation of their
father
(48:17-19 vs. 27:6-9).  Furthermore, in both narratives,
we
find the use of many similar verbs.
     One could suggest that the manner by which Yaakov
grants
these blessing to Menashe and Efraim reflects his own
traumatic experience, when he was instructed by Rivka to
'steal' the blessing that Yitzchak had intended for Esav.
Even though Yaakov understands that Efraim may reach
higher
levels than Menashe, he insists upon blessing both of them
together.  Yaakov does not want these slight differences
between Efraim and Menashe to cause strife between them in
the
future (as was the case between Yaakov and Esav).  At this
initial stage, he places both children together, bestowing
upon them a joint blessing, while providing a small
indication
(by switching his hands) regarding the potential
prominence of
Efraim.  Despite their different destinies, Efraim and
Menashe
will need to work together, as they will be part of the
same
nation, and Yaakov would like this unity to begin already
at
this initial stage.

'HA-MAL'ACH HA-GOEL'
     Now that we have discussed the general framework of
Yaakov's blessing to Efraim and Menashe, let's take a
closer
look at the blessing itself (familiar to us from "kriyat
shema
al ha-mita").  To appreciate this blessing, we must
consider
the fact that Efraim and Menashe had grown up with no
contact
with their uncles and cousins.  To facilitate their
integration with the rest of the family, Yaakov adds a
special
blessing:
     "ha-mal'ach ha-goel oti mi-kol ra - yevarech et ha-
nearim"
    [God's angel who protected me (Yaakov) from all those
who
    wanted to harm me, He should bless these children (to
    help them 'blend in')],
  "ve-yikare ba-hem shmi, ve-shem avotai  - Avraham ve-
  Yitzchak..."
    [And they should be known by my name, and by the names
of
    Avraham and Yitzchak (for they are part of the chosen
    family.]
     "ve-yidgu la-rov be-kerev ha-aretz"
          [and they should multiply within the land...]
     (see 48:15-16).

     Yaakov very much wants Yosef's two sons to be
identified
with the rest of his family name; he therefore blesses
them so
that God should look over them with the same providence
that
helped Yaakov survive his confrontations with Esav and
Lavan.

A TIME WILL COME...
     Yaakov concludes his blessing to Yosef by reminding
him
that a time will come when the 'chosen family' will return
home:
  "And Yisrael said to Yosef: I am about to die, but God
will
  be with you and return you to the land of your
fathers..."
  (48:21).

     Now that Yosef has been appointed as 'bechor', it
becomes
his responsibility to inform the future generations of
this
Divine promise.  Yaakov is not sure how long it will be
until
God will lead them back to Eretz Canaan.  Nevertheless,
his
children must transmit this tradition to THEIR children,
so
that when the time comes, they will be prepared to meet
their
destiny.
     It is precisely this message that Yosef repeats to
his
brothers and family on his deathbed, at the conclusion of
Sefer Breishit:
  "And Yosef told his brothers, behold I am about to die,
've-
  Elokim pakod yifkod etchem' [God will surely remember
you]
  and bring you from this land to the land which He
promised
  by oath to give to Avraham, Yitzchak..." (50:24).
          [Compare with 48:21, 46:3-4 & Shmot 13:13-22.]

     Yaakov concludes this blessing with one last
'cryptic'
statement to Yosef (that obviously requires some
explanation):
  "And I am granting you one - SHCHEM - over your
brothers,
  that I [will] have taken from the Amorites with my sword
and
  bow" (see 48:22).

     The commentators argue in regard the meaning of the
word
SHCHEM in this pasuk.  Some understand that Yaakov is now
giving the city Shchem to Yosef as an inheritance, but
most
explain that 'shchem' in this pasuk refers to an extra
portion
of inheritance that will be given to Yosef AFTER the
conquest
of the land.
     According to the latter interpretation, this final
blessing forms an appropriate conclusion.  After
mentioning
that God will one day return his offspring to Eretz Canaan
(fulfilling 'brit bein ha-btarim' - 48:21), Yaakov
explains
that when that time comes, Yosef will receive an extra
portion
in the inheritance of the land, for the simple reason that
he
is the 'bechor' - congruent with the opening section of
this
blessing to Yosef.

THE BLESSINGS OF PERSONAL DESTINY
     As the family 'bechora' has been awarded to Yosef,
Yaakov
now summons his entire family (see 49:1) in order to give
a
personal blessing to each of his sons.  Although each son
receives what the Torah describes as a 'bracha' (see 49:28
/
"ish asher ke-virchato beirach otam"), not all these
'brachot'
appear to be what one would call a 'blessing'.
  For example, Reuven is told: "You are unstable as water,
you
shall no longer excel..." (49:4).
     Shimon and Levi are rebuked: "Let not my person be
included in their council... For when angry they slay men,
and
when pleased they maim oxen.  Cursed be their anger..."
(49:6-
7).
     On the other hand, Yehuda and Yosef are emphatically
blessed with both prosperity and leadership.  Other
brothers
also receive blessings, albeit less promising than those
of
Yosef and Yehuda, but blessings nonetheless, as opposed to
the
sharp criticism hurled upon Shimon and Levi.
     What is the meaning of these 'brachot'?  Do the
individual traits of the brothers predetermine the fate of
their offspring?  Do Yaakov's blessings reflect the
principle
of determinism and negate the concept of 'bechira
chofshit'
(free will)?

     One could suggest that Yaakov assumes the role of a
'father' (in his blessings to his children) more than the
role
of a 'prophet'.  Let's explain:
  As a parent, and the last forefather of God's special
Nation, Yaakov must blend the goals of his family destiny
with
the realities of his life experience.  His blessings,
therefore, reflect the potential he sees within each of
his
children.
     The fulfillment of life-long goals requires a person
to
recognize his potential by considering both his good
qualities
and shortcomings.  As Yaakov recognizes his children's
varying
strengths and weaknesses, he blesses them according to
their
individual capabilities and talents.  Although these
blessings
do not necessarily guarantee the final outcome, they form
a
guide that can provide each son with a proper direction
that
can help achieve his potential.
     Yaakov does not intend his harsh castigation of
Reuven,
Shimon and Levi to result in ultimate condemnation.
Rather,
he hopes that they will recognize their weakness of
character
and work towards its improvement.  [Note that Yaakov
curses
Reuven's anger, but not Reuven himself.]
  Similarly, Yaakov's sharp rebuke of Levi turns later on
into
a blessing, as the Tribe of Levi later assumed an
important
leadership position (see Devarim 33:8-12!).
     In contrast, Yehuda and Yosef possess a potential for
leadership that should be recognized by their offspring.
However, this blessing does not guarantee that every
descendant of Yehuda or Yosef will become a great later.
Even
the kings of the House of David must be constantly
conscious
of their conduct, in order that they be worthy of
exercising
their leadership (see Yirmiyahu 22:1-5!).
  [This idea can help us understand most blessings (even
  'birkat kohanim'!).  A 'bracha' is not a simply mystic
chant
  that determines a future set of events, rather it serves
as
  a reminder to a person that he carries the potential to
  achieve a certain goal.]

     Undoubtedly, the 'brachot' of Yaakov contain
additional
prophetic and metaphysical significance as well.
Nonetheless,
they do not negate the basic principle of 'bechira
chofshit'
[freedom of choice].

UNITY OR HARMONY
     In conclusion, our discussion can help us understand
the
underlying reason why God wanted Am Yisrael to consist of
twelve distinct tribes.  After all, if this nation's goal
is
to represent the ONE God, it would have been more logical
that
there be simply one tribe - thus forming one homogenous
society! Furthermore, why must there continue to be
friction
between Yosef and Yehuda throughout the entire Tanach?
     To explain why, recall our explanation of God's
purpose
in choosing a special nation (in wake of the events at
Migdal
Bavel).  It was God's hope that this special Nation would
lead
all Seventy Nations towards a theocentric existence.  For
this
purpose Avraham Avinu was chosen, and for this purpose the
existence of 'shvatim' can serve as a model.   Let's
explain
why:
     People, by their very nature, tend to group into
individual societies, each developing its own national
character, personality, goals and aspirations.  These
societies eventually develop into nations who may
occasionally
fight over opposing goals, or cooperate in working towards
the
realization of common goals.
     Through His agent, Am Yisrael, God hopes that all
nations, while remaining distinct, will recognizing God's
purpose in His creation of mankind - and hence cooperate
with
each other towards the achievement of that goal.
     As we see in Yaakov's 'brachot' to his sons, each
'shevet' possesses its own unique character and
singularity.
The composite of all these qualities can be harnessed
towards
a common good.  As God's model Nation, the cooperation
between
the 'Twelve Tribes of Israel' in the fulfillment of their
Divine and national goals can serve as an archetype for
the
Seventy Nations to emulate.  Through harmonious
cooperation
and the unifying force of a common goal (and with help of
some
good leadership), the Nation of Avraham becomes a
'blessing'
to all nations (see 12:1-3).  Mankind thus realizes its
potential, and Am Yisrael fulfills its Divine destiny.

                              shabbat shalom,
                              menachem

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

A.  In his blessing to Efraim and Menashe, "ha-mal'ach ha-
goel...," Yaakov makes reference to a "mal'ach Elokim" who
consistently saved him from all 'ra' (evil).  Explain this
reference in light of 31:7,24,29! (note the use of the
word
"ra").
  Why do you think that this blessing is appropriate
specifically for Efraim and Menashe (based on the above
shiur)?

B.  HA-TACHAT ELOKIM ANI?
     After Yaakov's death, the brothers beg Yosef to
forgive
them for their animosity towards him.  Yosef assures them
that
they need not worry, for whereas he is not God, he has
neither
the responsibility nor the right to punish them.  [This is
the
simple and standard explanation].  Yet, if we examine
those
psukim carefully, we may uncover an added dimension to
Yosef's
response, "ha-tachat Elokim ani"?  Let's explain:
     When the brothers ask Yosef's forgiveness, they
explain
that their father instructed them to say as follows
(50:17):
  "Forgive the offense and guilt of your brothers...
Please
  forgive the offense of the SERVANTS OF THE GOD of your
  father..."
Immediately thereafter, the brothers suggest their own
punishment, that they be SLAVES to Yosef.  Yosef refuses
this
offer by explaining, "Do not fear, for am I IN THE PLACE
OF
GOD?"  Yosef's answer responds directly to his brothers'
comments. First, they ask to be forgiven on account of
their
being the SERVANTS of GOD.  Then, they offer themselves as
SERVANTS to YOSEF.  Yosef answers them accordingly: should
they become his servants, they will no longer be servants
of
God.  Therefore, Yosef tells his brothers - "ha-tachat
Elokim
ani?" - should he consider himself a replacement or
'substitute' for God?  The brothers must remain God's
servants, not Yosef's!

C.  "PAKOD YIFKOD" AND SEFER SHMOT
     An obvious question that arises when studying Parshat
Vayechi is, why didn't Yaakov's family return to Eretz
Canaan
once the famine ended?  One could suggest that although
they
could and should have returned, they opted instead for the
'good life' in Eretz Mitzrayim (see the story of Avraham
and
Lot, 13:4-14).  One could even suggest that their
enslavement
in Egypt was a punishment for this 'unzionistic' attitude.
     Nevertheless, it seems as though Bnei Yisrael felt it
their Divine destiny to stay in Egypt.  This conception
most
likely evolved as a result of God's promise to Yaakov
prior to
his departure to Egypt: "Do not fear going down to Egypt,
for
you will become a great nation there.  I will go down with
you, and I will bring you back..." (46:3-4).
1.  Compare these psukim, as well as 48:21, 50:24 and the
psukim of Brit Bein Ha-btarim (15:13-19), with God's
revelation to Moshe Rabeinu at the 'sneh' in Shmot perek
3.
2.  Note God's Name in the various psukim in Sefer
Breishit
noted above, and relate it to Shmot 3:13-22.
3.  At what point did it become unrealistic for Bnei
Yisrael
to leave Egypt and return to Eretz Canaan?  Had they
returned,
to what area would they have returned?  Who owned the
land,
etc.?

D.  Between Reuven and Yosef
It is interesting to note that Yaakov himself later refers
to
Reuven as his 'bechor' - see 49:3), even though he had
earlier
granted the 'bechora' to Yosef (as we explained in our
shiur
above).  To support our conclusion, there is a pasuk in
Divrei
Ha-yamim Aleph (see 5:1-2), that explains that Reuven was
supposed to be the 'bechor' but because of his sin (when
he
took his father's 'pilegesh') - he lost his special
status.
Within the family of Leah, that status was given to
Yehuda,
but in regard to the entire family of Yaakov, the status
of
bechor was granted to Yosef.  If you have time, I
recommend
that you see those psukim inside.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vaychi1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 48003 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091230/b3ff0ab9/attachment-0001.pdf 

