From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Jan 4 08:20:49 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 08:20:49 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] Vayigash - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayigq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 32507 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayigq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 45568 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 11:11:40 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 11:11:40 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Vayigash - shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayig1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 65347 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayig1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 66483 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 02:46:29 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 02:46:29 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Vaychi - shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vaychi1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 48003 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vaychi1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 53760 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 08:06:50 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 08:06:50 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] (no subject) Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shmotq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 59861 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shmotq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 53611 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 07:25:12 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 07:25:12 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Sefer Shmot - intro Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://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", showing 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. Let's begin by undertaking a 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 jump 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 overall theme. 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 all 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. Hence, it begins as Yaakov's offspring develop into a nation in Egypt; become enslaved, upon which God fulfills His covenant to redeem them from their 'bondage in a foreign land' (="brit bein ha'btarim"/ Breishit 15:13-18) - better known as the story of Yetziat Mitzraim. However, God's plan was not simply for Israel to become a free nation - it was to become God's special Nation. Hence, after their freedom from slavery, they must also receive a special set of laws, better known as the story of Matan Torah. Afterward, Bnei Yisrael will also require a symbol for their special relationship with God - i.e. the Mishkan - to remind themselves (and to show others) how God dwells in their midst (see 25:1). The events of "chet ha'egel" raise a question concerning the very possibility of this special relationship. In its aftermath, the Mishkan is finally built and God's presence dwells with His Nation. Everything is now set for what should be the implementation of the next stage of God's master plan - i.e. Bnei Yisrael inheritance of the land of Israel. [Why that does not happen, will emerge as a primary topic in Sefer Bamidbar.] SOME EXAMPLES For the sake of clarity, let's cite a few more specific examples that highlight this thematic connection between Breishit and Shmot. 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 Beni Yisrael became that great nation. Recall as well that in His covenant with Avraham Avinu ("brit bein ha'btarim" /see 15:13-18), God informed Avraham that his children would endure a period of slavery and oppression in a foreign land prior to their emergence as a great nation (see 15:13). Furthermore, that covenant also promised how the nation who will oppress them shall be punished. In this sense, the first section of Sefer Shmot (Yetziat Mitzraim/ chapters 1-15) can be understood as God's fulfillment of that covenant. The next major topic - "Ma'amad Har Sinai" - flows directly from the story of Yetziat Mitzraim - for in order for God's plan to be fulfilled, Bnei Yisrael must receive the special laws that they must keep to become that nation - and hence Matan Torah (see Rashi & Ramban on Shmot 3:12,). When we study Ma'amad Har Sinai, we will also show how God's covenant with Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai fulfills the principles of the covenant as described in "brit mila" ("l'hiyot lcha l'Elokim -see Breishit 17:7-9). From this point on, however, 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. The rest of the mitzvot (given at Har Sinai) are recorded elsewhere in Chumash - in Vayikra, Bamidbar, or Devarim. Therefore, in our study of Sefer Shmot, we will need to explain why this Sefer records only certain mitzvot (i.e. primarily the laws in Parshat Mishpatim) and why its focus then shifts solely to the Mishkan. Our shiurim will also discuss how (and why) the Mishkan can be viewed as an extension of Ma'amad Har Sinai, and we will conclude by showing the intricate thematic connections between "chet ha'egel," the Mishkan and Ma'amad Har Sinai. More specifically, 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's settlement in Egypt. (linking Sefer Breishit to Sefer Shmot) 1:8-22 The enslavement and hardships begin 2:1-22 The birth and life of Moshe [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. [Chapters 6 thru 14 describe how the 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). Even though this "hitgalut" is not described until chapter three, nevertheless, the first two chapters of Sefer Shmot can be understood 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. 3:7-9 The PURPOSE of Moshe's mission: to fulfill His promise to the Avot B. 3:10 The MISSION itself - III. QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS (re: how to accomplish this mission) A. 3:11-12 Who am I to go to Pharaoh 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shmotpre.doc Type: application/msword Size: 56227 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shmotpre.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 42942 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 15:54:11 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:54:11 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Shmot - shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* PARSHAT SHMOT Let My People Go 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 story in Sefer Shmot! 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 only makes sense that people would 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 God of the Hebrews had come and told us - 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 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.] And they answered: the 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 warns Pharaoh that should he not allow Bnei Yisrael this journey to worship their God in the desert, a severe Divine punishment will ensue and many people - Egyptians & Hebrews - mayl die from ?dever? or ?cherev?. Hence, Moshe's demand implies that 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 is so angered by it that he doubles their workload (see 5:4- 10). Nonetheless, God commands Moshe once again to go to Pharaoh and demand once again that he grant them permission to worship Him in the desert. This time, however, God will provide Moshe with some 'leverage' by performing miracles whose purpose will be to convince Pharaoh to take his warning seriously. This background can help us appreciate God's explanation of the purpose of the Ten Plagues, when He speaks to Moshe in chapter seven. As a response to Pharaoh's refusal statement of: "lo yada?ti et Hashem" [I never heard of this God ] (see 5:2), God explains to Moshe that the purpose of the plagues will be to convince Pharaoh that the God of the Hebrews indeed exists and He will bring plagues if His people do not worship him: "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). It will take ten Plagues to finally convince Pharaoh that it is in his best interest to allow Bnei Yisrael to worship their God; nevertheless, when Pharaoh finally allows Bnei Yisrael to leave (after the Tenth Plague), it was only in order to worship their God. To our surprise, Pharaoh never granted Bnei Yisrael freedom from slavery, or permission to emigrate! Nor did Bnei Yisrael ever ask for it. To prove this interpretation, we need only note how Moshe prefaces each and every warning to Pharaoh before a plague begins. For example, before the first plague, God instructs Moshe: ?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). Then, in each successive plague we find an almost identical opening warning: "shlach et ami - Let My people go ? ve-ya'avduni ba-midbar - so that they can worship Me in the desert", [or else ...] 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 don't have any pre-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! NEGOTIATIONS & MORE NEGOTIATIONS This interpretation can also help us understand the various negotiations that take place between Moshe and Pharaoh during the Ten Plagues. If you follow their conversations, you'll find that they focus ONLY on this issue of a three-day journey to worship God, and NEVER on 'emigration rights to Palestine?. Let's cite several examples that show the progression of these negotiations. Note how Pharaoh slowly acquiesces to Moshe's demand (to allow Bnei Yisrael to worship God in the desert). ROUND ONE: After ?makkat arov? (the fourth plague), Pharaoh finally budges. He grants Bnei Yisrael permission to worship their God, but not in the desert, rather within the Land of Egypt (see 8:21-23). But once again, pay careful attention to how Moshe rejects this proposal for technical reasons. Moshe claims 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, once that plague ended, Pharaoh hardened his heart once again 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 he may be planning to run away! Likewise, Moshe himself never mentions the possibility that they may not return. [Later in the shiur we will discuss what Pharaoh is afraid of.] ROUND TWO: 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 allows only the men to leave (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 not their sheep and cattle (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 for good. Likewise, no matter how resolutely Pharaoh sticks to his hard line, he NEVER states a suspicion that Bnei Yisrael may be leaving forever. 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. (Recall that is where the last set of negotiations broke down.) Not only does Pharaoh allow Bnei Yisrael a 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 afterward back to Egypt - and bring back what they 'borrowed?. The Torah uses the word 'borrowed' 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 they are wandering in the land (of Egypt), for 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 slave labor!" (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 - in 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, and 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 Him and receive the 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 both 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 renders Rashbam's explanation that God commands Moshe to employ 'trickery' as the simple ?pshat?. 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 public 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? NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE 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', 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! 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 their own country or help others 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. 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! Hence, there would no point for Moshe to demand that Pharaoh allow Bnei Yisrael to emigrate. Instead, he demands that Pharaoh allow Bnei Yisrael the right to worship their God in the desert. This is not a lie, for this is exactly where Bnei Yisrael first plan to go (to Har Sinai), and there they will offer korbanot (see Shmot 24:4-11). 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 this 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. 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 when they return to Egypt, or possibly even attack Egypt. And 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 own possessions, and with a significant amount of 'borrowed' Egyptian gold and silver - 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shmot1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 65101 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shmot1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 87552 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon Jan 23 08:44:06 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 08:44:06 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Va'eyra - questions for self study Message-ID: This week's TSC shiurim are dedicated in memory of : Albert W. and Evelyn G. Bloom, who creatively fulfilled the mitzva of "????? ????" Shanen Bloom Werber, Dov Bloom, Elana Bloom, Michael Bloom ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vaeyraq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 34000 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vaeyraq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 46080 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 07:47:37 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 07:47:37 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Va'eyra - shiur - Part One Message-ID: This week's TSC shiurim are dedicated in memory of : Albert W. and Evelyn G. Bloom, who creatively fulfilled the mitzva of "????? ????" Shanen Bloom Werber, Dov Bloom, Elana Bloom, Michael Bloom ************************************************ 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 One 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vaeyra1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 62289 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vaeyra1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 87040 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 07:49:06 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 07:49:06 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Va'eyra - Part Two Message-ID: his week's TSC shiurim are dedicated in memory of : Albert W. and Evelyn G. Bloom, who creatively fulfilled the mitzva of "????? ????" Shanen Bloom Werber, Dov Bloom, Elana Bloom, Michael Bloom ************************************************ 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 suffering ["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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vaeyra2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 37878 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vaeyra2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 51712 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 04:26:47 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 04:26:47 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] Bo - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi 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? Explain what is most problematic about this pasuk? Next, consider the context of this pasuk by reviewing from 13:3-8. Can this help you answer any of the above questions? [How come you never noticed these problems before?] Based on your conclusions thus far, does this pasuk explain why we are commanded to eat matza, or 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', attempt to relate this 'machloket' to the machloket between Ibn Ezra and Rashbam re: the explanation of 'ta'avdun et Elokim ba-har ha-zeh' in 3:12.] 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? 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. Did you find three questions concerning the same topic, or questions about three different topics? If so, 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? Is the topic of each question the same? If so, 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'.] 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. Compare this to the primary topic of Vayikra chapters 1 3. Based on Vayikra 1:1, when were these laws of korban Olah & shalim (as recorded in chapter 1-3) 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 five 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 pasuk 17 refer to? Note that it is mentioned twice in this pasuk! 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 12:43-45 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 (12:40-43). 6. Read 12:14 carefully. Based on your understanding of this pasuk, what does '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 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)? What 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? [On Shavuot we find an anomaly to this law, as a special korban, the 'shtei ha-lechem', is offered 'chametz' (see Vayikra 23:15 21)! Explain this korban on the basis of the connection between chag ha-matzot and chag ha-shavuot.] 14. Compare the laws of the korban Pesach to the special laws of korban toda 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? ========= 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? 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: boq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 40536 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: boq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 68096 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 08:40:08 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 08:40:08 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] for Parshat Bo Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bo1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 66389 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bo1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 80384 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 08:40:56 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 08:40:56 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Bo - part two Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bo2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 35787 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bo2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 49152 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon Feb 6 14:37:02 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 14:37:02 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] Bshalach - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bshalq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 30531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bshalq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 48128 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Feb 9 12:41:18 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:41:18 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Beshalach Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* PARSHAT BESHALACH - A Desert Seminar ALL ON THE WAY TO HAR SINAI Bnei Yisrael's journey from Egypt to Har Sinai was certainly not easy. Instead of the anticipated cheerful 'three day journey', Bnei Yisrael endured several weeks of life-threatening situations - including lack of food & water, and military attacks by both Egypt and Amalek. Did something go wrong, or were all of these events part of God's original 'plan'? Furthermore, if these 'tests of faith' were indeed part of a divine 'plan' - did God really expect for Bnei Yisrael not to complain? To answer these questions, this week's shiur analyzes the progressive nature of the events that occur from the time that Bnei Yisrael leave Egypt until they reach Har Sinai, while considering their relationship to the overall theme of Sefer Shmot. INTRODUCTION - THREE DAYS OR SEVEN WEEKS? Prior to the actual Exodus, God had made several specific promises that He would take Bnei Yisrael from Egypt to the Promised Land (see Shmot 3:16-17 and 6:5-8, as well as Breishit 15:13-18); yet we never found even a hint that God wanted Bnei Yisrael to dwell for any length of time in the desert (other than to cross it). True, Moshe had told Pharaoh that Bnei Yisrael requested a three day journey to worship God in the desert; however, Moshe was never instructed to convey that message to his own people. Hence, it only makes sense that Bnei Yisrael would expect to travel directly from Egypt to Eretz Canaan. Furthermore, the opening pasuk of Parshat Beshalach implies that traveling directly to Eretz Canaan remained the primary goal of the Exodus, while the 're-routing' of that journey (to the southeast) was simply a 'maneuver' taken due to 'military considerations' (see 13:17, and 14:1-3). However, in Parshat Beshalach, a very different set of events unfold. Instead of leading Bnei Yisrael directly to Israel (or to stop at Har Sinai on the way to Israel), God reroutes their journey towards the Red Sea. Then, after crossing the Red Sea, Bnei Yisrael do embark on a 'three-day journey' into the desert, but only to arrive at Mara, rather than Har Sinai. Then, over the course of their five-week excursion from Mara to Har Sinai, they run out of food at Midbar Sin, run out of water at Refidim and then face Amalek's unprovoked attack. Only after some seven weeks do they finally arrive at Har Sinai. In the following shiur we will attempt to find the purpose of this sequence of events - by considering the underlying reason for Bnei Yisrael's redemption from Egypt. A SECOND CHANCE In our study thus far of Sefer Shmot, we have shown how the Exodus served as a fulfillment of God's covenant with Avraham Avinu (at "brit bein ha'btarim"). However, the purpose of that covenant was not merely to provide Avraham's offspring with salvation from a future oppressor; rather, God entered that covenant towards the purpose that Avraham's offspring would become His model nation, acting in an exemplary manner -to make God's Name known to all nations. From this perspective, the redemption that God promised in "brit bein ha'btarim" was only the first stage in a long historical process. After their redemption from Egypt, Bnei Yisrael would first need to receive the special set of laws and guidelines (better known as 'Matan Torah') - that would facilitate their becoming that nation. After receiving and studying those laws, the nation would be 'spiritually' ready to inherit the Promised Land. For this very reason, God found it necessary to first call upon Bnei Yisrael to perform 'teshuva' [repentance] even before the Exodus began. [See Yechezkel 20:4-10, and our shiur on Parshat Va'era.] Presumably, had Bnei Yisrael indeed obeyed that original call, the redemption process could have proceeded as originally planned, i.e. the nation would have traveled directly to Har Sinai (in three days) - to thank God and receive the Torah. (See Seforno's introduction to Sefer Shmot; see also Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Ramban and Seforno on 2:23-25.) Unfortunately, the nation did not repent in the manner that God had expected. As we explained in last week's shiur, the offering of the 'korban Pesach' may have rendered them worthy 'just enough' to survive the Tenth Plague; nevertheless, at the time of the Exodus Bnei Yisrael were far from being 'spiritually ready' for Matan Torah. Therefore, we posit that God found it necessary to first challenge His people with a series of 'tests' (as described in Parshat Beshalach) - to help prepare them for Matan Torah! THE NEW PLAN The following table lists the key events that take place during Bnei Yisrael's journey from Egypt to Har Sinai: LOCATION EVENT 1) Yam Suf (14:11) Am Yisrael is attacked by Mitzraim; 2) Mara (15:24) the water is bitter; 3) Midbar Sin (15:2) there is no food to eat; 4) Refidim I (17:3) there is no water to drink; 5) Refidim II (17:8) Am Yisrael is attacked by Amalek. [Note the chiastic structure: war-water-food-water-war.] Despite the distinctive nature of each of these events, we will show how and why God intentionally initiates these incidents in order to catalyze Bnei Yisrael's spiritual growth, to 'train' them to become His Nation! To appreciate the specific purpose of each individual event, we must first consider WHY Bnei Yisrael had not performed proper 'teshuva' in Egypt. BREAKING SLAVE MENTALITY It is extremely difficult for a slave, even after having gained his freedom, to act or think like a free man. As we explained in Parshat Va'era, Bnei Yisrael do not listen to God's original call because of their 'crushed spirits and hard labor': "v'e-lo sham'u el Moshe, mi-kotzer ruach u-meavoda kasha" (see 6:9). The strain of their prolonged bondage and the fatigue of their daily routine had drained them of all spirituality. Specifically because of this bondage - Bnei Yisrael had grown instinctively dependent upon their Egyptian masters. Therefore, to facilitate their transformation - from Pharaoh's slaves to God's servants - they must change their instinctive physical dependence on Egypt to a cognitive spiritual dependence on God. [See an amazing Ibn Ezra on Shmot 14:10 which discusses this topic.] We all know how difficult it is for an individual to change his character, all the more so for an entire nation. Therefore, the rebuilding of Am Yisrael's character becomes a very complex process. This background can help us understand the need for the variety of events that transpire from the time that Bnei Yisrael leave Egypt. To explain how, we will show how that a change of character occurs in one of two patterns - via: 1) A traumatic experience - which may facilitate a sudden change. 2) A change of daily routine - which affects instinctive behavior. As we will see, God employs both approaches. 1) KRIYAT YAM SUF - SPLITTING OLD TIES Kriyat Yam Suf [the splitting of the Red Sea] may be understood as the traumatic experience that helps Bnei Yisrael break away from their instinctive dependence upon Egypt. Recall that, at Kriyat Yam Suf, God inflicted His final punishment upon Pharaoh and his army (14:4). Were God's sole intention merely to punish the Egyptians, He could have done so during the Ten Plagues. The fact that Bnei Yisrael must witness this Egyptian defeat suggests that these events occur for the sake of Bnei Yisrael as well. This purpose becomes clearer in light of Bnei Yisrael's reaction to the imminent threat of the approaching Egyptian army: "And they complained to Moshe saying... What have you done to us by taking us out of Egypt? Is this not the very thing we told you in Egypt: Let us be and we will serve the Egyptians, for it is better for us to serve the Egyptians than die in the desert?!" (14:11-12) [See Ibn Ezra on 14:13 where he explains why Bnei Yisrael did not even consider confronting the Egyptians in battle.] God responds to Bnei Yisrael's complaint by commanding them to break away from this instinctive dependence: "Do not fear, stand upright and watch God's salvation... for the manner in which you see Mitzraim today - you will never see them again" ["lo tosifu lir'otam od ad olam"] (14:13). Although God's reassurance appears to be a promise, for some reason Chazal interpret this statement as a commandment! According to Ramban (14:13), Chazal interpret this pasuk as follows: "In the manner by which you look at Mitzraim today - do not look at them this way ever again" (14:13). God here does not promise His nation that they will never face an Egyptian army again. Rather, He commands them to 'never again' look to Egypt for their salvation. Although this interpretation of "lo tosifu lir'otam" does not appear to be the simple 'pshat' of this pasuk, it does find support in a parallel reference in the 'tochacha' in Parshat Ki Tavo (see Devarim 28:1-69). At the conclusion of that lengthy rebuke, God warns Bnei Yisrael that - should they disobey Him - they will be exiled and sold into slavery (see Devarim 28:62-67 / note "ki lo shama'ta be-kol Hashem..."). Their condition will deteriorate to such an extent, the Torah warns, that they will actually hope that someone will 'purchase them as slaves'. To emphasize this point, note how the end of the Tochacha uses a phrase very similar to the phrase used to describe God's command before "kriyat Yam Suf": "And God will return you to Egypt in ships, in the manner that I told you: 'lo tosif od lir'otah" [do not look at them this way again], and you will offer yourselves to your enemies for sale as slaves and maidservants, but no one will purchase you" (28:68). [The word 'ba-derech' - 'in the manner' - should not be understood as a description of the ship-route to Egypt, but rather as a description of the crisis Am Yisrael will face as they are exiled to Egypt in those ships.] Ironically, the last stage of the 'tochacha' has Am Yisrael returning to the same state they were in before they left Egypt, where they yearn for total dependence on their human masters! Their only hope for survival is for an Egyptian to buy them to become his slave. [See also Devarim 17:16 & Yeshayahu 31:1-3 to support this interpretation of "lo tosifu li'rotam...".] Thus, after the miracle of "kriyat Yam Suf", it appears as though God's plan had succeeded. Upon seeing the drowning of the Egyptians, Bnei Yisrael reach the 'proper' conclusion: "...and Yisrael recognized His great Hand.. and the people feared God and believed in God and Moshe His servant" (Shmot 14:30-31). Then, They instinctively respond with a song of praise to God: "Az yashir Moshe u-vnei Yisrael..." (see 15:1). 2) MARA - A DESERT SEMINAR After crossing the Red Sea, Bnei Yisrael set out on their 'three-day journey' into the desert. However, instead of arriving at Har Sinai, they arrive at Mara, where the only water they could find is bitter and hence undrinkable (see 15:22-23). As we'd expect, the people complain to Moshe, their leader; who in turns complains to God. As their complaints appear to be justified, God provides Moshe with a solution to 'sweeten' the water (see 15:24-25). Certainly God realized that the people could not survive without water, nonetheless He led them to a location without water - in order that the people would complain. In this manner, God teaches the nation not to take their water supply for granted; rather - it now becomes clear to them that their physical survival is dependent upon God - who now tends to their water supply. [Recall that in Egypt, the Nile River supplied drinking water for the entire country, and hence it became like a God to Egypt - and Pharaoh considered himself as the god-like master over the Nile / see Yechezkel 29:1-3.] Now, after these two traumatic events have shown the nation who their real 'master' is, Chumash informs us how God gives the people another chance to show their readiness to accept His laws: "And He said - im shamoa tishma le-kol Hashem Elokecha - Should you listen to the voice of God, and do what is proper in His eyes, and listen to His commandments, then the affliction that I put on the Egyptians I will not put on you, for I am God your Healer" (15:26 / see shiur on Parshat Va'era.). Note how Bnei Yisrael's acceptance of this offer can 'cure' their original 'attitude problem' reflected by "ve-lo sham'u el Moshe..." (see 6:9, and our shiur on Parshat Va'era). Furthermore, by linking the sweetness of the water to their readiness to obey His laws, God teaches Bnei Yisrael an important lesson of spiritual dependence. This connection between 'water' and 'following God' will emerge numerous times in Chumash, and forms the basis of the famous Midrash Chazal of 'ein mayim ela Torah' - that the term 'water' in Tanach symbolically refers to Torah. [The 'message' of the 'eitz' which God instructs Moshe to cast into the water (see 15:23-25) may also relate back to Gan Eden, itself a motif of an environment that demands obedience to God. See also Mishlei 3:18 and its context ("etz chayim hi la-machazikim bah...").] At their next camp-site, at Eilim (see15:27), God gives them a short 'rest' - as there is plenty of water and food. However, as soon as Bnei Yisrael arrive in Midbar Sin, God creates yet another crisis. 3) MIDBAR SIN - BASIC TRAINING After arriving in Midbar Sin, the food supply runs out, triggering yet another round of complaints (16:2-3). Even though Bnei Yisrael have the right to ask for food, the way in which they ask is inexcusable: "If only we had died by the Hand of God in Egypt, when we had plenty of meat and bread to eat! Now you have brought us out into this desert to die of famine" (16:3). The very tone of their complaint (and its content), indicate that Bnei Yisrael had retained their instinctive dependence upon Mitzraim. Their instinctive reaction to this terrible hunger includes reminiscing about the 'good old days' in Egypt. The trauma they had experienced heretofore was not sufficient to totally change their character. To rectify this, God will force them into a daily routine that hopefully will slowly change their instinctive behavior. The manna served this very purpose, as it provided a daily routine that transformed what was once their physical dependence on Mitzraim into a physical dependence on God. As explained in Sefer Devarim: "And He tormented you and starved you, then gave you 'manna' to eat... in order to teach you that man does not live on bread alone, rather, man lives by whatever God commands" (Devarim 8:3). By allowing only enough food for one day at a time, Bnei Yisrael learn to become dependent solely on God. To emphasize this point, their food falls directly from heaven. Note how the Torah uses a key word - 'nisayon' (a test) in its description of the purpose of the manna: "Behold I will rain down bread for you from the heavens, and the people shall go out and gather each day that day's portion - lema'an anasenu (= 'nisayon') - in order that I may test them, to see whether or not they will follow my instructions..." (16:4). The word "nisayon" here should not be understood simply as a 'test' that will help God assess Bnei Yisrael's obedience. The purpose of this "nisayon" was to raise the nation to a higher level in their relationship with God. In a similar manner, we find that the Torah uses this same root in the story of the Akeida where God 'tests' Avraham ["ve-Hashem nisa et Avraham..." /see Breishit 22:1] - not to find out if he is worthy, but rather to make him worthy. The manna served a similar purpose. God is not testing Bnei Yisrael to find out IF they will obey Him, rather He is training them in order that they learn HOW to obey Him. 4) REFIDIM - PREPARING FOR HAR SINAI The next stop on their journey (and the last stop before arriving at Har Sinai) is Refidim - where they can't find any water to drink (17:1-3). But why does God lead them to such a location? Certainly He realizes that Bnei Yisrael cannot survive without water. Once again, God wants Bnei Yisrael to complain! However, this time God's plan is more complex, as His scheme at Refidim will prepare Bnei Yisrael both physically and spiritually for Har Sinai. As you review the details of that story (see 17:1-6), note how God solves their water shortage. As you probably remember, God instructs Moshe to hit the rock - and it would supply water. But we would expect that rock (and hence the water source) to be in Refidim - where the people are suffering from thirst. Instead, God instructs Moshe to gather some elders (see 17:5-6) and travel from Refidim to the rock at "Chorev " - the same site where God first appeared to him at the burning bush (see 3:1) - the same site that later becomes Har Sinai! [See Shmot 3:12 & Devarim 5:2.] But would it not have made more sense for God to supply this dearly needed water at Refidim, where the people are encamped! One could suggest that God is providing water purposely only at Har Sinai, for He wants the nation to first encounter Har Sinai as a source for their physical salvation - that will quench their terrible thirst. By providing water at Har Sinai, the nation will now eagerly travel from Refidim directly to Har Sinai. Note the wording 17:5, where God instructs Moshe to take his staff with which 'he hit the Nile' - to hit the rock at Chorev. Even though Moshe's staff also turned into a "nachash", and had also split the sea, etc. - yet God specifically refers to it here as the one with which he 'hit the Nile' - for Har Sinai will now become the new source of water for Bnei Yisrael, replacing their old source of water - the mighty Nile River of Egypt. Let's consider the reality of this situation. After Moshe hits the rock, the water would gush forth from Chorev and flow into the desert. But to drink that water, Bnei Yisrael will need to travel from Refidim to Har Sinai, to their new source of water. [For proof that hitting the rock created a gushing river flowing down the mountain - see Devarim 9:21.] After this initial encounter with Sinai as their source for physical existence, Har Sinai will later become the site of Matan Torah - the source for their spiritual existence. Not only has heaven replaced earth as the source of bread (the manna food), but also Har Sinai has replaced the Nile as the constant source of water. In this manner, Bnei Yisrael's total dependence on Mitzraim has now been replaced by their total dependence on God. 5) THE WAR WITH AMALEK - LOOKING UP TO HAR SINAI As Bnei Yisrael begin their journey from Refidim to Har Sinai (to their new source of water), Amalek attacks. War breaks out, and God orders that Yehoshua lead Bnei Yisrael in battle. In contrast to the level of Bnei Yisrael's participation in battle at the splitting of the Red Sea, here Bnei Yisrael do the fighting themselves. But in order for the people to recognize that God Himself brings them victory - despite their own military efforts - God instructs Moshe to climb the hill and raise his staff heavenward. Upon which hill does Moshe stand? Based on the juxtaposition between this narrative and the incident at 'masa u-meriva', Ibn Ezra explains that Moshe stands with his hands raised high - on Har Sinai! Just as Har Sinai has become their source of water, it now becomes their source of military salvation, as well. For Yisrael to become victorious, Moshe must raise his hands (see 17:11) to show and teach the people to look to Hashem, to Har Sinai, for their salvation. [See Midrash in Rashi (17:11) & Rosh Hashana 29:1.] FROM PESACH TO SHAVUOT We have shown that during the seven weeks from the Exodus to Har Sinai, Bnei Yisrael encounter several traumatic experiences and changes in their daily routine that helped prepare them for Matan Torah. During this 'training period' they have also become more active in the process of their redemption - they are now ready to take on the next stage of the redemption process: to receive the Torah in order to become God's special Nation in His land. Not only was this seven week time period significant for Bnei Yisrael at the time of Exodus, this same time period of the year remains no less significant for future generations as well. It is not by chance that Chazal identify a similar purpose in the seven weeks of the Sefirat ha-Omer, where we count the seven weeks from the celebration of our freedom from Egypt [on Pesach] in preparation for our commemoration of Matan Torah on Shavuot. Each year, after we thank God for our freedom from slavery, we prepare ourselves for seven weeks - to be worthy of, and to be thankful for - our receiving of the Torah. shabbat shalom, menachem ================= FOR FURTHER IYUN Many traditional sources indicate that Bnei Yisrael required an educational process of one sort or another upon their departure from Egypt in order to recover from the effects of the lengthy period of bondage. The type of process required comes in two forms: PHYSICAL & SPIRITUAL PHYSICAL Military training and the development of confidence. Several mefarshim emphasize that, as they leave Egypt, Bnei Yisrael are in no position to conduct a war - the implication of the opening pasuk of Parshat Beshalach ("pen yinachem ha-am bir'otam milchama? "). The Ibn Ezra stresses this point at least twice in his commentary (peirush ha-katzar - 13:17; peirush ha-aroch - 14:13). The Ibn Ezra (in the second source mentioned) goes so far as to say that Hashem had to see to it that this generation would die in the wilderness rather than enter the land, because the period of bondage had crushed their spirits to the point where they would never be able to fight for the land. (This comment obviously has ramifications with regards to the sin of the spies and other related topics.) The Malbim (commenting on the parsha's opening pasuk) likewise writes that Benei Yisrael needed time to develop the courage necessary to wage war. Hashem therefore decided not to lead them along the shortest route to Canaan. The Abarbanel comments that the second pasuk of the parsha mentions Bnei Yisrael's being equipped with arms to emphasize that their resources were useless as they had no heart for battle. The Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 3:24, 32) writes that the grueling experience of the wilderness travel was necessary to physically prepare Bnei Yisrael for the conquest. SPIRITUAL Spiritual rehabilitation - the approach we take in the shiur. Within this approach, however, we find two versions: Bnei Yisrael's spiritual growth is necessary as preparation for Matan Torah, or for their entry into Eretz Canaan. In the shiur we adopt the former view, which appears explicitly in Rabbenu Bechaye's comments to the opening pasuk of the parsha. He writes that all the travails that Bnei Yisrael experienced constituted a 'nisayon' - "in order that their inner intellect would grow in the levels of trust [in Hashem], which forms the root of faith, in order that they are worthy to receive the Torah." This approach may have a much earlier source, as well. The Midrash Tanchuma (Yitro 10) writes that Hashem did not give Bnei Yisrael the Torah immediately upon their departure from Egypt because they had 'blemishes'. A recovery period was therefore necessary before they could receive the Torah. The Abarbanel (Yitro 19) interprets these 'blemishes' as the spiritual influence of Egypt. As we claim in the shiur, he explains that the miracles at sea and in the wilderness cured these spiritual ills by reinforcing Bnei Yisrael's trust in Hashem. In a similar vein, the Alshich (14:10) writes that the Yam Suf experience was necessary in order to prevent any arrogance on Bnei Yisrael's part. The threat posed at the sea humbled them in preparation for Matan Torah. Later, in his comments to 19:1, the Alshich compares the process that Bnei Yisrael undergo during this period to the period of purification required after the onset of certain forms of tum'a. Yetziat Mitzraim constituted the cessation of tum'a; the following seven weeks correspond to the 'shiv'a nekiyim' - the seven 'clean days' - that spiritually prepared them for Matan Torah. On a more kabbalistic level, the Ramchal (Choker U-mekubal 18) writes that after Bnei Yisrael had sunken to the forty-nine 'levels of impurity' in Egypt, over the next 49 days Hashem shone upon them the forty-nine 'levels of sanctity' to render them worthy of Matan Torah. All this relates to the point made in the shiur, that the events that occurred in between yetziat Mitzraim and Matan Torah served to spiritually prepare Bnei Yisrael for Matan Torah. By contrast, Rav Meir Simcha Hakohen of Dvinsk (Meshech Chochma) and the Netziv (in He-amek Davar) maintain that Hashem led the people into the wilderness in order to spiritually prepare them for their entry into the land. Rav Meir Simcha focuses specifically on the need for Bnei Yisrael to rid themselves of Egyptian paganism; the Netziv speaks more generally about the need for Bnei Yisrael to establish their individual character, which necessitated a journey through the wilderness, far away from other societies and cultures. We should perhaps note in this context a passage in Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer 42, which states that, as Bnei Yisrael saw the Egyptians closing in on them at sea, they repented and discarded their Egyptian idols. Apparently, they had not adequately repented from their avoda zara while in Egypt. There are also indications of the fact that Bnei Yisrael had not yet broken their sense of dependence on Egypt, for one reason or another. The Mechilta (on the first pasuk of the parsha) writes that Pharaoh had sent escorts to accompany Bnei Yisrael as they departed from Egypt. Rav Baruch Epstein (Torah Temima) and Rav Dov Rabinowitz (Da'at Sofrim) use this Midrash to explain how Bnei Yisrael could have considered returning to Egypt (as Hashem was concerned about - "ve-shavu Mitzrayma"). As the Egyptians had begun treating Bnei Yisrael with dignity, they felt that all the plagues and miracles had brought about a change of heart on the part of the Egyptians. Thus, Bnei Yisrael had yet to turn their backs entirely on Egypt. Furthermore, the Da'at Sofrim notes that the parsha's opening pasuk describes yetziat Mitzraim as "be-shalach Par'o et ha-am" - Pharaoh letting the people go, rather than Hashem taking them out. (This was noted already by the Abarbanel, who explains differently; see also Oznayim La-Torah and Nechama Leibowitz's Studies on this parsha, 1.) Da'at Sofrim explains that Bnei Yisrael still felt dependent on Pharaoh's decision to set them free, rather than guided by Hashem's providence. An extreme expression of Bnei Yisrael's continued sense of dependence on Egypt appears in the Akeidat Yitzchak, in his comments to 14:11. He claims that Bnei Yisrael had thought that Hashem intended for them to live permanently in Ramses (as they had when Yaakov and his family first resettled in Egypt). It was Moshe, they felt, who forced them to leave Ramses and continue into the wilderness. This clearly reflects that they had not yet seen themselves as an independent nation. They were content to live as free people under Egyptian rule; they had not resigned themselves to the fact that they would establish their own society in Canaan. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bshal1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 55445 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bshal1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 55445 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Feb 9 12:42:12 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:42:12 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Beshalach - Amalek Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* PARSHAT BESHALACH "AMALEK - - V'LO YA'RAY ELOKIM" Many nations have attacked and oppressed Am Yisrael throughout its history. Yet, for some reason, Amalek is singled out as Israel's 'arch enemy.' What was so terrible about Amalek's attack that requires a battle 'for all generations'? To answer this question, we examine some very interesting details in the Torah's description of this event (that are often overlooked) in attempt to determine if Amalek is something 'genetic' or 'generic'. INTRODUCTION The details of Amalek's attack on Israel in Parshat Besalach are quite scant. However, by considering when this battle takes place, as well as the parallel source in Sefer Devarim, a more complete picture emerges - that can help us understand why Amalek remains Israel's 'eternal' enemy. We begin our study with a discussion of 'who is where' when Amalek first attacks. WHO'S IN REFIDIM? Note how the Torah begins the story of Amalek, immediately after the story of "massa u'meriva": "And Amalek came, and attacked Israel at REFIDIM..." (see Shmot 17:8, after 17:1-7) From this pasuk alone, it would seem as though ALL of Bnei Yisrael are encamped in Refidim when Amalek attacked. However, when we consider what took place during the previous event (i.e. the story of "massa u'meriva"), a very different picture emerges. Let's review those events: "And Bnei Yisrael traveled from MIDBAR SIN... and encamped in REFIDIM, and there was no water for the people to drink... and they quarreled with Moshe..." (17:1-3) To solve this water shortage, God instructs Moshe to take his staff hit the rock etc. However, recall where that rock is located: "God said to Moshe, PASS BEFORE the people, TAKE with you SOME OF THE ELDERS, and take the staff... I will be standing before you at the ROCK at CHOREV; strike the rock [there] and water will issue from it..." (17:5-6) The rock that Moshe hits is NOT in Refidim - rather, it is located at Har Sinai! Therefore, to drink this water, the entire nation will now need to travel from Refidim to Har Sinai (as we discussed in our first shiur on Parshat Beshalach). Imagine the resulting situation: The entire nation, who had suffered several days of life-threatening thirst in a hot desert, must now first quench its immediate thirst, and then move its camp to the new water source at Har Sinai. Those who still had strength probably went first to the water source to bring supplies back to those who were too weak to travel. One could also assume that this journey was not very organized, with the stronger men advancing ahead to set up the new campsite, while those who were 'weak and tired' lingered behind. AMALEK ATTACKS It is precisely at this point when Amalek attacks: "Amalek came, and attacked Israel at REFIDIM..." (see 17:8). But who is in Refidim? - Only a remnant of the camp - the weak and the tired - most probably, primarily the women and children. Agreed, our interpretation thus far has been based on conjecture and 'reading between the lines.' However, in the parallel account of this story in Sefer Devarim, we find precisely these missing details: "Remember what Amalek did to you BA'DERECH (on your journey) when you left Egypt - for he surprised you BA'DERECH [i.e. while you were traveling] and cut down ALL THE STRAGGLERS IN YOUR REAR, while you were FAMISHED & WEARY..." (see Devarim 25:17-18) Amalek capitalizes on Bnei Yisrael's disadvantage. [They break the laws of the 'Geneva Convention.'] Even in war there are accepted norms of conduct; men fight men, armies engage armies. Amalek's attack is outright unethical, even by wartime standards. [See Rashi & Ibn Ezra on "ayeif v'yagaya" on Devarim 25:18.] YIRAT ELOKIM Further support of this interpretation may be drawn from the conclusion of the pasuk cited earlier from Sefer Devarim: "...v'LO YA'RAY ELOKIM - and he (Amalek) did not fear God." (Devarim 25:18, see Rashi & Ibn Ezra in contrast to Chizkuni) This phrase - YA'RAY ELOKIM - in the context of unethical (or immoral) behavior is found numerous times in Chumash. For example, Avraham offers Avimelech the following explanation for lying about his wife: "And Avraham explained (to Avimelech), for I said (to myself) there is no YIRAT ELOKIM in this place, and therefore they will kill me (to take my wife)?" (Breishit 20:11) In this context, a lack of "yirat Elokim" describes one who would kill a visitor in order to take his wife. [Quite unethical according to even the lowest moral standards.] Similarly, Yosef - pretending to be an Egyptian official - tells the brothers that he will release them from jail, allowing them a chance to prove that they are not spies. He prefaces his decision to his brothers with the phrase: "... ET HA'ELOKIM ANI YA'RAY..." (see Breishit 42:15-18). From this conversation, we see once again how the phrase "yirat Elokim" in the Bible seems to be 'internationally' understood as a description of ethical behavior. We find yet another example at the beginning of Sefer Shmot, as the Torah describes how the midwives 'feared Elokim' by not obeying Pharaoh's command to kill the male babies: "v'ti'rena ha'myaldot et ha'Elokim..." (see Shmot 1:21). [Note as well Yitro's comment in Shmot 18:21, suggesting to appoint judges who are "yirei Elokim", among a list of other 'ethical' characteristics. / See also our TSC shiur on the Akeyda. (www.tanach.org/breishit/vayera.doc), which discusses this phrase in greater detail.] All of these examples support our interpretation of the phrase "v'lo yarey Elokim" by Amalek - as reflective of their unethical behavior - waging war on the weak and unprotected. Based on this analysis, we conclude that Torah may have singled out Amalek as Israel's 'arch enemy' not merely because they were the first nation to attack Israel, but rather due to the unethical nature of that attack. In this sense, one could suggest that "zecher Amalek" - the remembrance of Amalek - could be understood as a 'generic' term describing any aggressive nation that would act in a similar unethical manner, and not necessarily a 'genetic' term, describing any family descendent of those people who attacked Israel at Refidim. Let's attempt to support this conclusion, and its underlying logic. AMALEK IN THE BIBLE The commandment to remember what Amalek did (see both Shmot 17:16 and Devarim 25:17) seems to apply to every generation, even after the original ('genetic') Amalek is wiped out. The eternal nature of this law - to 'remember Amalek' - suggests that Amalek may also represent any similar ('generic') type of enemy that may emerge in future generations. To support this understanding, note how Amalek emerges in mass numbers during the time of David (see Shmuel Aleph 27:7-9 and 30:1-3!), only a short time after they were 'totally wiped out' by Shaul (ibid. chapter 15). Note as well how Amalek attacked the 'women and children' of David's camp in Tziklag, taking them captive - at the same time when David and his men had left on a mission. [It is recommended that you read that entire account (see 30:1-19).] Here, we find not only the name Amalek, but a very similar manner of ('unethical') warfare. In fact, if one follows Amalek's whereabouts in Chumash - we find them all over: * In the western Sinai desert - when Bnei Yisrael leave Egypt (Parshat Beshalach). * in the northen Negev (near Kadesh Barnea) when the spies return (in Parshat Shlach / see 14:25). * east of the Dead Sea (in Jordan), when Bilam 'blesses' them in Parshat Balak (see 24:20). Then, in Sefer Shoftim, we find them joining in battle against Israel, no matter who the primary enemy was: * joining the Moabites in battle in the time Ehud (see Shoftim 3:13) * attacking in the area of Efraim in the time of Devora) (see Shoftim 5:14, precise context unclear) * attacking Emek Yizrael, joining Midyan, in the time of Gidon (see Shoftim 6:3 & 6:33) [Not to mention the battles of Shaul and David against Amalek, as mentioned above.] Yet in all of these battles, we never find Amalek living in any specific land, rather a nomadic tribe - roaming the desert, looking for easy prey. Furthermore, we never find a mention of their god. Even when Sefer Shoftim mentions the gods of the other nations that Bnei Yisrael worshiped, we find the gods of Aram, Tzidon, Edom, Moav, Amon, and Phlishtim (see Shoftim 10:6), we never find even a mention of the god of Amalek. Amalek emerges as a nation with no god, and no land. Their primary goal appears to be the denial of Israel's right to exist. At any time of Israel's weakness, they swoop in and attack. Another proof that Amalek must be destroyed because of their deeds, and not only because of their 'genes' is found in Sefer Shmuel when God commands Shaul to destroy them. Note how Shmuel describes Amalek (at that time) as a nation who had sinned against God (see Shmuel Aleph 15:18). Furthermore, from the commandment not to take any booty from that battle (see again 15:18 and context of that entire chapter), we find a parallel to Avraham's attitude to the city of Sedom. Recall from Breishit 14:22-23, how Avraham shunned the very thought of taking anything that once belonged to Sedom - the city of iniquity. Therefore, it is not incidental that it becomes the mitzvah of the King of Israel to defeat Amalek (see I Shmuel 15:1-2 and Rambam Hilchot Melachim 1:1). Recall how the king of Israel should be known for his ability to establish a nation characterized by acts of "tzedaka & mishpat" - see Shmuel Bet 8:15, Melachim Aleph 10:9, and Yirmiyahu 22:1-5,13- 16 & 23:5-8. From that perspective, it also becomes his responsibility (when capable of doing so) to pursue nations such as Amalek, who wage war in unethical ways - taking advantage of the weak and helpless. [Note as well at the end of Parshat Ki-teyze, immediately before the mitzvah to 'remember Amalek', we find a set of laws that emphasize the enforcement of "tzedek u'mishpat" - see Devarim 25:13-16).] In summary, there definitely appears to be something 'genetic' about Amalek, at least in Am Yisrael's first encounter with that nation. However, the unethical nature of that attack, and the Torah's immediate command to remember that event for all generations, suggests a 'generic' understanding as well, for by remembering what Amalek had done wrong - Am Yisrael is encouraged to remember their own national goal - to do what is 'right and just'. shabbat shalom, menachem FOR FURTHER IYUN ================= PRO'S & CON'S There are certain pro's & con's that come with this 'generic' understanding of Amalek. The obvious advantage, is that it would solve the 'ethical' problem of how and why would God command us to kill any descendant of that nation, even if those later generations did nothing wrong. After all, Chumash itself teaches us that: " parents should die for the sins of their children, nor children for the sins of their parents, each man is responsible for his own sin" (Devarim 24:16). The obvious disadvantage is that the simple pshat of the psukim suggests that this commandment applies specifically to the people Amalek, the descendants of Esav's grandson (see Breishit 36:12). Furthermore, this nation appears again several times in Tanach, which supports the 'genetic' interpretation. For example, in Bilam's blessings, he sees Amalek, in a manner very similar to how he sees Israel, and the Kenites etc. (see Bamidbar 24:20-22). Later on, the books of Shoftim and Shmuel, the nation of Amalek appears numerous times, and appears to a nation like any other in the Bible. Therefore, in our shiur, we have tried to find the 'middle ground'. THE COUNTER ATTACK This interpretation also explains an enigmatic detail in the Torah's description of the counterattack, as presented in Parshat Beshalach. When Moshe hears of Amalek's attack, he instructs Yehoshua to launch a counteroffensive - machar - on the next day: "Go fight Amalek... MACHAR - TOMORROW - I (Moshe) will be standing at the top of the hill with the MATEH ELOKIM..." (17:9/ See Ibn Ezra - "givah" = Har Sinai!) Should not Yehoshua engage Amalek immediately? Why wait for another day of hostilities to pass before mobilizing the nation's defense? According to our explanation, the leaders (Moshe & the elders) and most of the men are already at Har Sinai. It will therefore take a full day for Yehoshua to organize the troops and march them back towards Refidim. THE WATER AT SINAI The Moshav Zekeinim (Ba'alei Tosfot on the Torah) cites the question as to how the water-producing rock in Chorev (Sinai) gave water to Bnei Yisrael in Refidim. However, the Ramban (17:5) claims, as we mentioned in the shiur, that the gushing water formed several rivers and streams that flowed to Refidim. As for the significance of the water flowing specifically from Har Sinai - this point is developed at length by the Abarbanel, in his commentary to this parsha. He writes that as water symbolizes Torah, Hashem had intended all along to provide the nation's water needs from Sinai, the site of the giving of the Torah. Refidim was to have been a brief, preparatory stopover before the nation's arrival at Sinai. The Abarbanel adds that for this reason Hashem ordered Moshe to bring the elders along with him to Sinai. The presentation of water was to correspond to the presentation of the Torah, which also required the presence of the zekeinim (Shmot 24:9). The Abarbanel also notes that the Beit Hamikdash, which, like Har Sinai, is the place where Torah is given ("ki mi'Tzion tetze Torah" - Yeshayahu 2:3; Michah 4:2), is also destined to serve as a source of water - Yoel 4:18; Zecharya 14:8. SPOILING HAR SINAI Up until this point we have discussed the particularly unethical nature of Amalek's attack. Yet, the eternal mitzvah to 'erase the memory of Amalek' for all generations may also suggest a spiritual theme. Recall from Part I that the entire journey from Egypt to Har Sinai served as a 'training mission' of sorts to spiritually prepare Bnei Yisrael for Matan Torah. At Refidim, the 'stage has been set' for Matan Torah - but Amalek's attack 'spoils' this encounter. [See Shir Ha'shirim 1:4.] In effect, Amalek attempts to prevent Am Yisrael from achieving their Divine destiny. The nature of this struggle remains throughout our history. Even once Am Yisrael conquers its internal enemy and is finally prepared to follow God, external, human forces of evil, unwilling to allow God's message to be heard, will always make one last attack. Am Yisrael must remain prepared to fight this battle against Amalek for all generations: "ki yad al kes Kah, MILCHAMA l'HASHEM b'AMALEK, m'dor dor." (17:16) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bshal2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 40316 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bshal2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 46592 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon Feb 13 20:12:34 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 20:12:34 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] Yitro - Questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: yitroq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 45696 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: yitroq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 62464 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Feb 15 06:23:23 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 06:23:23 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Yitro - Intro to second half of Sefer Shmot Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* PARSHAT YITRO - Intro to 2nd half of Sefer Shmot In Parshat Yitro, Chumash enters a new phase as its primary focus now shifts from its ongoing narrative to the mitzvot that Bnei Yisrael receive at Har Sinai. Nonetheless, the manner in which the Torah presents the mitzvot is far more exciting than we would expect. Instead of a formal [organized] 'shulchan aruch' style of presentation, Chumash records the mitzvot in a very special manner. In each of our shiurim from Parshat Yitro until Parshat Pekudei, our study of the sequence and progression of the mitzvot will be no less significant than the study of the mitzvot themselves! INTRODUCTION - STRUCTURE AND THEME IN CHUMASH When we study Chumash, we encounter two types of parshiot: (1) Narrative, i.e. the ongoing story; (2) Mitzvot, i.e. the commandments. Until Parshat Yitro, i.e. before Bnei Yisrael arrive at Har Sinai, Chumash consisted primarily of narrative (e.g. the story of Creation, the Avot, Yetziat Mitzrayim etc.). In contrast, beginning with Parshat Yitro, we find many sections consisting primarily of 'mitzvot' (e.g. the Ten Commandments, the 'mishpatim' (chapters 21->23), laws of the mishkan (chapters 25->31), etc.). The reason for this is quite simple. Sefer Breishit explained why and how God chose Avraham Avinu to become the forefather of His special nation. Sefer Shmot began by describing how God fulfilled His covenant with the Avot, and redeemed His nation from slavery in Egypt. Now, before this nation enters the Promised Land where they are to live as God's nation, they must first receive the set of laws [i.e. Matan Torah] that will facilitate their becoming God's special nation. Assuming that Bnei Yisrael are to receive ALL of the mitzvot at Har Sinai before they continue on their journey, we would expect to find the following 'logical' order: I. NARRATIVE The story of the Exodus from Egypt until Bnei Yisrael's arrival at Har Sinai. II. MITZVOT ALL of the mitzvot that Bnei Yisrael receive at Sinai. III. NARRATIVE The story of Bnei Yisrael's journey from Har Sinai to the Promised Land. However, instead of this clear and structured order, we find a much more complicated presentation. First, 'ten commandments' are given at a special gathering (i.e. Ma'amad Har Sinai). After a short narrative, we find an additional set of mitzvot - that comprise most of Parshat Mishpatim. At the end of Parshat Mishpatim, we find yet another short narrative (chapter 24), followed by seven chapters of mitzvot that detail how to build the Mishkan (Teruma / Tetzaveh). This lengthy set of mitzvot is followed by yet another narrative, which describes 'chet ha-egel' (32:1-34:10), which is then followed by yet another set of mitzvot (see 34:11-26), etc. In a similar manner, we find this pattern of a 'blend' of mitzvot and narrative in the rest of Chumash as well. So why does the Torah present its mitzvot in this complex manner? Would it not have made more sense to present all of the mitzvot together in one organized unit (like 'shulchan aruch')? In the answer to this question lies the basis for our approach to studying Chumash - for the intricate manner in which the Torah presents the mitzvot 'begs' us to pay attention not only to the mitzvot themselves, but also to the manner of their presentation. Therefore, as we study, we search for thematic significance in the order and sequence in which the Torah presents the mitzvot. For example, the first step in our study will be to identify the specific topic of each 'parshia' and/or 'paragraph'. Then we analyze the progression of topic from one parshia to the next in search of a thematic reason for this progression. [Following this methodology will also help us better appreciate the underlying reason for the various controversies among the classic commentators.] CHRONOLOGY IN CHUMASH This introduction leads us directly into one of the most intriguing exegetic aspects of Torah study - the chronological progression of 'parshiot' [better known as the sugya of 'ein mukdam u-me'uchar..']. In other words, as we study Chumash, should we assume that it progresses according to the chronological order by which the events took place, or, should we assume that thematic considerations may allow the Torah to place certain parshiot next to each other, even though each 'parshia' may have been given at different times. In this respect, we must first differentiate once again between 'narrative' and 'mitzvot'. It would only be logical to assume that the ongoing narrative of Chumash follows in chronological order, (i.e. the order in which the events took place/ e.g. the story of Yitzchak will obviously follow the story of his father Avraham). Nonetheless, we periodically may find that a certain narrative may conclude with details that took place many years later. For example, the story of the manna in Parshat Beshalach concludes with God's commandment that Moshe place a sample of the manna next to the Aron in the Mishkan. This commandment could only have been given after the Mishkan was completed, an event that does not occur until many months later. Nevertheless, because that narrative deals with the manna, it includes a related event, even though it took place at a later time. The story of Yehuda and Tamar in Sefer Breishit is another example. See chapter 38, note from 38:11-12 that since Tamar waited for Shela to grow up, the second part of that story must have taken place at least thirteen years later, and hence after Yosef becomes viceroy in Egypt! Recall that he was sold at age 17 and solved Pharaoh's dream at age 30. How about the 'mitzvot' in Chumash? In what order are they presented? Do they follow the chronological order by which they were first given? Because the mitzvot are embedded within the narrative of Chumash, and not presented in one unbroken unit (as explained above), the answer is not so simple. On this specific issue, a major controversy exists among the various commentators; popularly known as: "ein mukdam u-me'uchar ba-Torah" (there is no chronological order in the Torah). Rashi, together with many other commentators (and numerous Midrashim), consistently holds that 'ein mukdam u- me'uchar', i.e. Chumash does not necessarily follow a chronological order, while Ramban, amongst others, consistently argues that 'yesh mukdam u-me'uchar', i.e. Chumash does follow a chronological order. However, Rashi's opinion, 'ein mukdam u-me'uchar', should not be understood as some 'wildcard' answer that allows one to totally disregard the order in which Chumash is written. Rashi simply claims that a primary consideration for the order of the Torah's presentation of the mitzvot is thematic, more so than chronological. Therefore, whenever 'thematically convenient', we find that Rashi will 'change' the chronological order of mitzvot, and sometimes even events. For example, Rashi claims that the mitzva to build the Mishkan, as recorded in Parshat Teruma (chapters 25->31) was first given only after the sin of the Golden Calf, even though that narrative is only recorded afterward (in Parshat Ki Tisa /chapter 32). Rashi prefers this explanation due to the thematic similarities between the Mishkan and the story of 'chet ha-egel'. In contrast, Ramban argues time and time again that unless there is 'clear cut' proof that a certain parshia is out of order, one must always assume that the mitzvot in Chumash are recorded in the same order as they were originally given. For example, Ramban maintains that the commandment to build the Mishkan was given before 'chet ha-egel' despite its thematic similarities to that event! It should be pointed out that there is a very simple reason why the Torah is written in thematic order, which is not necessarily chronological. Recall that the Torah (in the form that we received it) was given to us by Moshe Rabeinu before his death in the fortieth year in the desert. [See Devarim 31:24-25.] When Moshe Rabeinu first received the laws, he wrote them down in 'megilot' [scrolls]. However, before his death, he organized all of the laws that he received, and the various stories that transpired into the Five Books. [See Masechet Megilla 60a, and Rashi on "Megilla megilla nitna...". See also Chizkuni on Shmot 34:32! It's not clear from these commentators whether God told Moshe concerning the order by which to put these 'megillot' together, or if Moshe Rabeinu made those decisions himself. However, it would only be logical to assume that God instructed Moshe Rabeinu in this regard as well.] Considering that Chumash, in its final form, was 'composed' in the fortieth year - we can readily understand why its mitzvot and narratives would be recorded in a manner that is thematically significant. Therefore, almost all of the commentators are in constant search of the deeper meaning of the juxtaposition of 'parshiot' and the order of their presentation. WHEN DID YITRO COME (AND GO)? Even though this controversy of 'mukdam u-me'uchar' relates primarily to 'parshiot' dealing with mitzvot, there are even instances when this controversy relates to the narrative itself. A classic example is found with regard to when Yitro first came to join Bnei Yisrael in the desert. Recall how Parshat Yitro opens with Yitro's arrival at the campsite of Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai (see 18:5). The location of this 'parshia' in Sefer Shmot clearly suggests that Yitro arrives before Matan Torah, yet certain details found later in the 'parshia', (e.g. Moshe's daily routine of judging the people and teaching them God's laws/ see 18:15- 17), suggests that this event may have taken place after Matan Torah. Based on this and several other strong proofs, Ibn Ezra claims that this entire parshia took place after Matan Torah ('ein mukdam u-me'uchar'). Ramban argues that since none of those proofs are conclusive, the entire 'parshia' should be understood as taking place BEFORE Matan Torah (i.e. when it is written - 'yesh mukdam u-me'uchar..'.). Rashi (see 18:13) suggests an interesting 'compromise' by 'splitting' the parshia in half! His opinion would agree with Ramban that Yitro first arrives before Matan Torah (18:1-12); however, the details found later (in 18:13-27), e.g. how Moshe taught the people etc. took place at a much later time. This interpretation forces Rashi to explain that the word 'mi- macharat' in 18:13 does not mean the 'next day', but rather the day after Yom Kippur (when Moshe came down from Har Sinai with the second Luchot), even though it was several months later. But even Ibn Ezra, who maintains that the entire 'parshia' takes place after Matan Torah, must explain why the Torah records this 'parshia' here instead. Therefore, Ibn Ezra suggests a thematic explanation - based on the juxtaposition of this 'parshia' and the story of Amalek: "...And now I will explain to you why this parshia is written here [out of place]: Because the preceding parshia discussed the terrible deeds of Amalek against Israel, now in contrast the Torah tells us of the good deeds that Yitro did for Am Yisrael..." [see Ibn Ezra 18:1] The dispute concerning 'When Yitro came' illustrates some of the various methodological approaches we can take when confronted with apparent discrepancies. In general, whenever we find a 'parshia' which appears to be 'out of order', we can either: 1) Attempt to keep the chronological order, then deal with each problematic detail individually. 2) Keep the chronological order up until the first detail that is problematic. At that point, explain why the narrative records details that happen later. 3) Change the chronological order, and then explain the thematic reason why the Torah places the 'parshia' in this specific location. MA'AMAD HAR SINAI Let's bring another example in Parshat Yitro, from the most important event of our history: 'Ma'amad Har Sinai' - God's revelation to Am Yisrael at Mount Sinai. [Matan Torah - the giving of the Ten Commandments at Har Sinai, together with the events which immediately precede and follow it (chapters 19->24), are commonly referred to as 'Ma'amad Har Sinai'.] As we explained in our introduction, this 'ma'amad' can be divided between its basic sections of narrative and mitzva: 19:1-25 [Narrative] - Preparation for the Ten Commandments 20:1-14 [Mitzvot] - The Ten Commandments 20:15-18 [Narrative] - Bnei Yisrael's fear of God's revelation 21:19-23:33 [Mitzvot] - Additional mitzvot ('ha-mishpatim') 24:1-11 [Narrative] - The ceremonial covenant (better known as 'brit na'aseh ve-nishma') Note that Bnei Yisrael's declaration of 'na'aseh ve- nishma' takes place during the ceremonial covenant recorded at the end of Parshat Mishpatim (see 24:7). In Parshat Yitro, when Bnei Yisrael accept God's proposition to keep His Torah, the people reply only with 'na'aseh' (see 19:8). If we would follow the simple order of these parshiot (see above table), we would have to conclude that the 'na'aseh ve-nishma' ceremony took place after Matan Torah. Nevertheless, Rashi [and most likely your first Chumash teacher] changes the order of the 'parshiot' and claims that this ceremony actually took place before Matan Torah. Why? Rashi ('ein mukdam u-me'uchar') anchors his interpretation in the numerous similarities between chapter 19 and chapter 24. Therefore, he combines these two narratives together. [However, one must still explain the reason why they are presented separately.] Ramban ('yesh mukdam u-me'uchar') prefers to accept the chronological order of the 'parshiot' as they are presented in Chumash, and explains that this ceremony takes place after Matan Torah. This dispute causes Rashi and Ramban to explain the details of chapter 24 quite differently. For example, during that ceremony, recall how Moshe reads the 'sefer ha-brit' in public (see 24:7). According to Rashi, 'sefer ha-brit' cannot refer to any of the mitzvot recorded in Yitro or Mishpatim, as they had not been given yet - therefore Rashi explains that it refers to all of Chumash from Breishit until Matan Torah! According to Ramban, 'sefer ha-brit' refers to the Ten Commandments. This topic will be discussed in greater detail in next week's shiur on Parshat Mishpatim. In this week's regular Parsha shiur (sent out yesterday), we discuss in greater detail the events that transpire in chapter 19. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: yitro1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 56011 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: yitro1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 73216 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 03:25:45 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 03:25:45 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Yitro - Maamad Har Sinai Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: yitro2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 67611 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: yitro2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 78336 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 03:38:01 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 03:38:01 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Yitro - additional shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* 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: "...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 verify if this interpretation is possible, it would logical to check other times In Chumash where the word "choten" is used. Indeed we find this word used numerous times in regard to Yitro (in Shmot chapter 18), but to our surprise, it is used only one other time in Chumash - in describing Chovav ben Reuel in Sefer Bamdibar. Let's take a look: "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) [note that the phrase "choten Moshe" must refer to Chovav and not Reuel, based on Sefer Shoftim 4:11!] If we follow the simple meaning of the text, that Chovav is NOT Yitro - then we find additional proof that "choten" implies 'brother in law'. In other words, Zipporah had at least two brothers, Yitro and Chovav - and they were all children of Reuel. When Reuel died, Yitro took over as KOHEN MIDYAN, while Chovav seems to have become a 'professional scout' - who joined Bnei Yisrael in the desert to help them with their travels (see again Bamidbar 10:29-33). Furthermore, note how Chovav is not referred to as KOHEN MIDYAN, rather only as "choten Moshe". 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). On the one hand, Yitro himself returned to Midyan after his short visit, as described in Parshat Yitro (to bring back his 'sister' Zipporah), as verified by Shmot 18:26. After all, he was the KOHEN of MIDYAN - and hence he needed to return to fulfill his duties in his own country. [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.] 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. [Why that chapter in Sefer Shoftim emphasizes this point of "chotno" is beyond the scope of this shiur, but can be explained when considering the numerous ironies in that entire event.] 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.] If you've followed the shiur, it would seem that if "choten Moshe" could imply 'brother in law', then it could be that Yitro, Chovav, and Reuel, are all different people! [I haven't researched this topic as much as I would have liked, so if you are familiar with any other sources, that would either support or contradict these conclusions, please let me know.] On the other hand, if "choten" in Hebrew 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, 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 so, we must ask ourselves - what is 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. HAR SINAI & YITRO In either case, 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. 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'). Ramban argues that since none of those proofs are conclusive, this entire 'parshia' (i.e. Shmot chapter 18) should be understood as taking place BEFORE Matan Torah (i.e. when it is written - 'yesh mukdam u-me'uchar..'.). Rashi (see 18:13) offers an interesting 'compromise' by 'splitting' the parshia in half! His opinion would agree with Ramban that Yitro first arrives before Matan Torah (18:1-12); however, the details found later (in 18:13-27), e.g. how Moshe taught the people God's laws 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] 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. YITRO'S FAMILY - Before & After To conclude our shiur, we follow the 'lead' of Ibn Ezra, by noting how we find Yitro's family mentioned at key points in Jewish history. First, Moshe grows up in Pharaoh's house; yet afterward, spends a significant amount of time in Midyan, living with Reuel and Yitro, the family of KOHEN MIDYAN. It's not clear precisely what God Yitro believed in, nonetheless - he definitely comes to recognize the God of Israel after these events, and it would only be logical to assume that Moshe acquired some of his leadership traits during his stay in Midyan. Just as we later find a contrast between Amalek Yitro, we find an earlier contrast between growing up in Pharaoh's home vs. Yitro's home. However, more significant is the fact that the Torah 'surrounds' 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 =========== PARSHAT YITRO - FOR FURTHER IYUN STRUCTURE AND THEME IN CHUMASH When we study Chumash, we encounter two basic styles: (1) Narrative, i.e. the ongoing story; (2) Mitzvot, i.e. the commandments. Until Parshat Yitro, i.e. before Bnei Yisrael arrive at Har Sinai, Chumash consisted primarily of narrative (e.g. the story of Creation, the Avot, Yetziat Mitzrayim etc.). In contrast, beginning with Parshat Yitro, we find many sections consisting primarily of 'mitzvot' (e.g. the Ten Commandments, the 'mishpatim' (chapters 21->23), laws of the mishkan (chapters 25->31), etc.). The reason for this is quite simple. Sefer Breishit explained why and how God chose Avraham Avinu to become the forefather of His special nation. Sefer Shmot began by describing how God fulfilled His covenant with the Avot, and redeemed His nation from slavery in Egypt. Now, before this nation enters the Promised Land where they are to live as God's nation, they must first receive the set of laws [i.e. Matan Torah] that will facilitate their becoming God's special nation. Assuming that Bnei Yisrael are to receive ALL of the mitzvot at Har Sinai before they continue on their journey, we would expect to find the following 'logical' order: I. NARRATIVE The story of the Exodus from Egypt until Bnei Yisrael's arrival at Har Sinai. II. MITZVOT ALL of the mitzvot that Bnei Yisrael receive at Sinai. III. NARRATIVE The story of Bnei Yisrael's journey from Har Sinai to the Promised Land. However, instead of this clear and structured order, we find a much more complicated presentation. First, 'ten commandments' are given at a special gathering (i.e. Ma'amad Har Sinai). After a short narrative, we find an additional set of mitzvot - that comprise most of Parshat Mishpatim. At the end of Parshat Mishpatim, we find yet another short narrative (chapter 24), followed by seven chapters of mitzvot that detail how to build the Mishkan (Teruma / Tetzaveh). This lengthy set of mitzvot is followed by yet another narrative, which describes 'chet ha-egel' (32:1-34:10), which is then followed by yet another set of mitzvot (see 34:11-26), etc. In a similar manner, we find this pattern of a 'blend' of mitzvot and narrative in the rest of Chumash as well. So why does the Torah present its mitzvot in this complex manner? Would it not have made more sense to present all of the mitzvot together in one organized unit (like 'shulchan aruch')? In the answer to this question lies the basis for our approach to studying Chumash - for the intricate manner in which the Torah presents the mitzvot 'begs' us to pay attention not only to the mitzvot themselves, but also to the manner of their presentation. Therefore, as we study, we search for thematic significance in the order and sequence in which the Torah presents the mitzvot. For example, we usually will begin our study with an attempt to identify the specific topic of each 'parshia' and/or 'paragraph'. Then we analyze the progression of topic from one parshia to the next in search of a thematic reason for this progression. [Following this methodology will also help us better appreciate the underlying reason for the various controversies among the classic commentators.] CHRONOLOGY IN CHUMASH This introduction leads us directly into one of the most intriguing exegetic aspects of Torah study - the chronological progression of 'parshiot' [better known as the sugya of 'ein mukdam u-me'uchar..']. In other words, as we study Chumash, should we assume that it progresses according to the chronological order by which the events took place, or, should we assume that thematic considerations may allow the Torah to place certain parshiot next to each other, even though each 'parshia' may have been given at different times. In this respect, we must first differentiate once again between 'narrative' and 'mitzvot'. It would only be logical to assume that the ongoing narrative of Chumash follows in chronological order, (i.e. the order in which the events took place/ e.g. the story of Yitzchak will obviously follow the story of his father Avraham). Nonetheless, we periodically may find that a certain narrative may conclude with details that took place many years later. For example, the story of the manna in Parshat Beshalach concludes with God's commandment that Moshe place a sample of the manna next to the Aron in the Mishkan. This commandment could only have been given after the Mishkan was completed, an event that does not occur until many months later. Nevertheless, because that narrative deals with the manna, it includes a related event, even though it took place at a later time. The story of Yehuda and Tamar in Sefer Breishit is another example. See chapter 38, note from 38:11-12 that since Tamar waited for Shela to grow up, the second part of that story must have taken place at least thirteen years later, and hence after Yosef becomes viceroy in Egypt! Recall that he was sold at age 17 and solved Pharaoh's dream at age 30. How about the 'mitzvot' in Chumash? In what order are they presented? Do they follow the chronological order by which they were first given? Because the mitzvot are embedded within the narrative of Chumash, and not presented in one unbroken unit (as explained above), the answer is not so simple. On this specific issue, a major controversy exists among the various commentators; popularly known as: "ein mukdam u-me'uchar ba-Torah" (there is no chronological order in the Torah). Rashi, together with many other commentators (and numerous Midrashim), consistently holds that 'ein mukdam u-me'uchar', i.e. Chumash does not necessarily follow a chronological order, while Ramban, amongst others, consistently argues that 'yesh mukdam u-me'uchar', i.e. Chumash does follow a chronological order. However, Rashi's opinion, 'ein mukdam u-me'uchar', should not be understood as some 'wildcard' answer that allows one to totally disregard the order in which Chumash is written. Rashi simply claims that a primary consideration for the order of the Torah's presentation of the mitzvot is thematic, more so than chronological. Therefore, whenever 'thematically convenient', we find that Rashi will 'change' the chronological order of mitzvot, and sometimes even events. For example, Rashi claims that the mitzva to build the Mishkan, as recorded in Parshat Teruma (chapters 25->31) was first given only after the sin of the Golden Calf, even though that narrative is only recorded afterward (in Parshat Ki Tisa /chapter 32). Rashi prefers this explanation due to the thematic similarities between the Mishkan and the story of 'chet ha-egel'. In contrast, Ramban argues time and time again that unless there is 'clear cut' proof that a certain parshia is out of order, one must always assume that the mitzvot in Chumash are recorded in the same order as they were originally given. For example, Ramban maintains that the commandment to build the Mishkan was given before 'chet ha-egel' despite its thematic similarities to that event! It should be pointed out that there is a very simple reason why the Torah is written in thematic order, which is not necessarily chronological. Recall that the Torah (in the form that we received it) was given to us by Moshe Rabeinu before his death in the fortieth year in the desert. [See Devarim 31:24-25.] When Moshe Rabeinu first received the laws, he wrote them down in 'megilot' [scrolls]. However, before his death, he organized all of the laws that he received, and the various stories that transpired into the Five Books. [See Masechet Megilla 60a, and Rashi on "Megilla megilla nitna...". See also Chizkuni on Shmot 34:32! It's not clear from these commentators whether God told Moshe concerning the order by which to put these 'megillot' together, or if Moshe Rabeinu made those decisions himself. However, it would only be logical to assume that God instructed Moshe Rabeinu in this regard as well.] Considering that Chumash, in its final form, was 'composed' in the fortieth year - we can readily understand why its mitzvot and narratives would be recorded in a manner that is thematically significant. Therefore, almost all of the commentators are in constant search of the deeper meaning of the juxtaposition of 'parshiot' and the order of their presentation. WHEN DID YITRO COME The dispute concerning 'When Yitro came', which we discussed in the shiur above, 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'.] 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 03:38:00 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 03:38:00 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Yitro - additional shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* 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: "...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 verify if this interpretation is possible, it would logical to check other times In Chumash where the word "choten" is used. Indeed we find this word used numerous times in regard to Yitro (in Shmot chapter 18), but to our surprise, it is used only one other time in Chumash - in describing Chovav ben Reuel in Sefer Bamdibar. Let's take a look: "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) [note that the phrase "choten Moshe" must refer to Chovav and not Reuel, based on Sefer Shoftim 4:11!] If we follow the simple meaning of the text, that Chovav is NOT Yitro - then we find additional proof that "choten" implies 'brother in law'. In other words, Zipporah had at least two brothers, Yitro and Chovav - and they were all children of Reuel. When Reuel died, Yitro took over as KOHEN MIDYAN, while Chovav seems to have become a 'professional scout' - who joined Bnei Yisrael in the desert to help them with their travels (see again Bamidbar 10:29-33). Furthermore, note how Chovav is not referred to as KOHEN MIDYAN, rather only as "choten Moshe". 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). On the one hand, Yitro himself returned to Midyan after his short visit, as described in Parshat Yitro (to bring back his 'sister' Zipporah), as verified by Shmot 18:26. After all, he was the KOHEN of MIDYAN - and hence he needed to return to fulfill his duties in his own country. [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.] 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. [Why that chapter in Sefer Shoftim emphasizes this point of "chotno" is beyond the scope of this shiur, but can be explained when considering the numerous ironies in that entire event.] 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.] If you've followed the shiur, it would seem that if "choten Moshe" could imply 'brother in law', then it could be that Yitro, Chovav, and Reuel, are all different people! [I haven't researched this topic as much as I would have liked, so if you are familiar with any other sources, that would either support or contradict these conclusions, please let me know.] On the other hand, if "choten" in Hebrew 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, 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 so, we must ask ourselves - what is 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. HAR SINAI & YITRO In either case, 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. 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'). Ramban argues that since none of those proofs are conclusive, this entire 'parshia' (i.e. Shmot chapter 18) should be understood as taking place BEFORE Matan Torah (i.e. when it is written - 'yesh mukdam u-me'uchar..'.). Rashi (see 18:13) offers an interesting 'compromise' by 'splitting' the parshia in half! His opinion would agree with Ramban that Yitro first arrives before Matan Torah (18:1-12); however, the details found later (in 18:13-27), e.g. how Moshe taught the people God's laws 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] 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. YITRO'S FAMILY - Before & After To conclude our shiur, we follow the 'lead' of Ibn Ezra, by noting how we find Yitro's family mentioned at key points in Jewish history. First, Moshe grows up in Pharaoh's house; yet afterward, spends a significant amount of time in Midyan, living with Reuel and Yitro, the family of KOHEN MIDYAN. It's not clear precisely what God Yitro believed in, nonetheless - he definitely comes to recognize the God of Israel after these events, and it would only be logical to assume that Moshe acquired some of his leadership traits during his stay in Midyan. Just as we later find a contrast between Amalek Yitro, we find an earlier contrast between growing up in Pharaoh's home vs. Yitro's home. However, more significant is the fact that the Torah 'surrounds' 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 =========== PARSHAT YITRO - FOR FURTHER IYUN STRUCTURE AND THEME IN CHUMASH When we study Chumash, we encounter two basic styles: (1) Narrative, i.e. the ongoing story; (2) Mitzvot, i.e. the commandments. Until Parshat Yitro, i.e. before Bnei Yisrael arrive at Har Sinai, Chumash consisted primarily of narrative (e.g. the story of Creation, the Avot, Yetziat Mitzrayim etc.). In contrast, beginning with Parshat Yitro, we find many sections consisting primarily of 'mitzvot' (e.g. the Ten Commandments, the 'mishpatim' (chapters 21->23), laws of the mishkan (chapters 25->31), etc.). The reason for this is quite simple. Sefer Breishit explained why and how God chose Avraham Avinu to become the forefather of His special nation. Sefer Shmot began by describing how God fulfilled His covenant with the Avot, and redeemed His nation from slavery in Egypt. Now, before this nation enters the Promised Land where they are to live as God's nation, they must first receive the set of laws [i.e. Matan Torah] that will facilitate their becoming God's special nation. Assuming that Bnei Yisrael are to receive ALL of the mitzvot at Har Sinai before they continue on their journey, we would expect to find the following 'logical' order: I. NARRATIVE The story of the Exodus from Egypt until Bnei Yisrael's arrival at Har Sinai. II. MITZVOT ALL of the mitzvot that Bnei Yisrael receive at Sinai. III. NARRATIVE The story of Bnei Yisrael's journey from Har Sinai to the Promised Land. However, instead of this clear and structured order, we find a much more complicated presentation. First, 'ten commandments' are given at a special gathering (i.e. Ma'amad Har Sinai). After a short narrative, we find an additional set of mitzvot - that comprise most of Parshat Mishpatim. At the end of Parshat Mishpatim, we find yet another short narrative (chapter 24), followed by seven chapters of mitzvot that detail how to build the Mishkan (Teruma / Tetzaveh). This lengthy set of mitzvot is followed by yet another narrative, which describes 'chet ha-egel' (32:1-34:10), which is then followed by yet another set of mitzvot (see 34:11-26), etc. In a similar manner, we find this pattern of a 'blend' of mitzvot and narrative in the rest of Chumash as well. So why does the Torah present its mitzvot in this complex manner? Would it not have made more sense to present all of the mitzvot together in one organized unit (like 'shulchan aruch')? In the answer to this question lies the basis for our approach to studying Chumash - for the intricate manner in which the Torah presents the mitzvot 'begs' us to pay attention not only to the mitzvot themselves, but also to the manner of their presentation. Therefore, as we study, we search for thematic significance in the order and sequence in which the Torah presents the mitzvot. For example, we usually will begin our study with an attempt to identify the specific topic of each 'parshia' and/or 'paragraph'. Then we analyze the progression of topic from one parshia to the next in search of a thematic reason for this progression. [Following this methodology will also help us better appreciate the underlying reason for the various controversies among the classic commentators.] CHRONOLOGY IN CHUMASH This introduction leads us directly into one of the most intriguing exegetic aspects of Torah study - the chronological progression of 'parshiot' [better known as the sugya of 'ein mukdam u-me'uchar..']. In other words, as we study Chumash, should we assume that it progresses according to the chronological order by which the events took place, or, should we assume that thematic considerations may allow the Torah to place certain parshiot next to each other, even though each 'parshia' may have been given at different times. In this respect, we must first differentiate once again between 'narrative' and 'mitzvot'. It would only be logical to assume that the ongoing narrative of Chumash follows in chronological order, (i.e. the order in which the events took place/ e.g. the story of Yitzchak will obviously follow the story of his father Avraham). Nonetheless, we periodically may find that a certain narrative may conclude with details that took place many years later. For example, the story of the manna in Parshat Beshalach concludes with God's commandment that Moshe place a sample of the manna next to the Aron in the Mishkan. This commandment could only have been given after the Mishkan was completed, an event that does not occur until many months later. Nevertheless, because that narrative deals with the manna, it includes a related event, even though it took place at a later time. The story of Yehuda and Tamar in Sefer Breishit is another example. See chapter 38, note from 38:11-12 that since Tamar waited for Shela to grow up, the second part of that story must have taken place at least thirteen years later, and hence after Yosef becomes viceroy in Egypt! Recall that he was sold at age 17 and solved Pharaoh's dream at age 30. How about the 'mitzvot' in Chumash? In what order are they presented? Do they follow the chronological order by which they were first given? Because the mitzvot are embedded within the narrative of Chumash, and not presented in one unbroken unit (as explained above), the answer is not so simple. On this specific issue, a major controversy exists among the various commentators; popularly known as: "ein mukdam u-me'uchar ba-Torah" (there is no chronological order in the Torah). Rashi, together with many other commentators (and numerous Midrashim), consistently holds that 'ein mukdam u-me'uchar', i.e. Chumash does not necessarily follow a chronological order, while Ramban, amongst others, consistently argues that 'yesh mukdam u-me'uchar', i.e. Chumash does follow a chronological order. However, Rashi's opinion, 'ein mukdam u-me'uchar', should not be understood as some 'wildcard' answer that allows one to totally disregard the order in which Chumash is written. Rashi simply claims that a primary consideration for the order of the Torah's presentation of the mitzvot is thematic, more so than chronological. Therefore, whenever 'thematically convenient', we find that Rashi will 'change' the chronological order of mitzvot, and sometimes even events. For example, Rashi claims that the mitzva to build the Mishkan, as recorded in Parshat Teruma (chapters 25->31) was first given only after the sin of the Golden Calf, even though that narrative is only recorded afterward (in Parshat Ki Tisa /chapter 32). Rashi prefers this explanation due to the thematic similarities between the Mishkan and the story of 'chet ha-egel'. In contrast, Ramban argues time and time again that unless there is 'clear cut' proof that a certain parshia is out of order, one must always assume that the mitzvot in Chumash are recorded in the same order as they were originally given. For example, Ramban maintains that the commandment to build the Mishkan was given before 'chet ha-egel' despite its thematic similarities to that event! It should be pointed out that there is a very simple reason why the Torah is written in thematic order, which is not necessarily chronological. Recall that the Torah (in the form that we received it) was given to us by Moshe Rabeinu before his death in the fortieth year in the desert. [See Devarim 31:24-25.] When Moshe Rabeinu first received the laws, he wrote them down in 'megilot' [scrolls]. However, before his death, he organized all of the laws that he received, and the various stories that transpired into the Five Books. [See Masechet Megilla 60a, and Rashi on "Megilla megilla nitna...". See also Chizkuni on Shmot 34:32! It's not clear from these commentators whether God told Moshe concerning the order by which to put these 'megillot' together, or if Moshe Rabeinu made those decisions himself. However, it would only be logical to assume that God instructed Moshe Rabeinu in this regard as well.] Considering that Chumash, in its final form, was 'composed' in the fortieth year - we can readily understand why its mitzvot and narratives would be recorded in a manner that is thematically significant. Therefore, almost all of the commentators are in constant search of the deeper meaning of the juxtaposition of 'parshiot' and the order of their presentation. WHEN DID YITRO COME The dispute concerning 'When Yitro came', which we discussed in the shiur above, 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'.] 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: yitro3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 34353 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: yitro3.doc Type: application/msword Size: 65536 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 07:38:38 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:38:38 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] Mishpatim - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mishq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 40136 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mishq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 58880 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 14:04:10 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:04:10 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Mishpatim Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mish1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 44185 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mish1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 50176 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 08:09:37 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:09:37 +0200 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Mishpatim - additional shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* PARSHAT MISHPATIM - shiur #2 A SPECIAL UNIT / AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRESSION What's better - Chumash or Shulchan Aruch? The question really isn't fair, but anyone who has studied both books realizes how different they are. As Parshat Mishpatim contains a set of laws that sounds a bit like Shulchan Aruch [the Jewish Code of Law], this week's shiur will analyze their progression, to show how the Torah delivers its message through the manner of their presentation. INTRODUCTION In last week's shiur, we began our discussion of how the laws in Chumash are presented in groups (or 'units'). For example, in Parshat Yitro, we saw how the first 'ten' Commandments were given as part of Ma'amad Har Sinai. Afterward, we identified the next 'unit' of mitzvot - which we referred to as the 'ko tomar' unit, beginning in 20:19, and continuing until the end of chapter 23 (which comprises most of Parshat Mishpatim). Later on in Chumash we will find many additional 'units' of mitzvot, embedded within its various narratives. Because Chumash presents its mitzvot in 'units', we would certainly expect that the first 'unit', i.e. the one that follows the Ten Commandments, to be special. In our shiur, we undertake an analysis of the internal structure of this "ko tomar" unit, in an attempt to understand why specifically these mitzvot are recorded at this point, and in this manner. SUB-DIVIDING THE UNIT At first glance, these three chapters appear to contain simply a random set of laws, from all types of categories - as it jumps back and forth from "bein adam la'makom" [laws between man & God] to "bein adam l'chaveiro" [laws between man and his fellow man (or society)]. On the other hand, there does seem to be some very logical internal structure within certain groups of these laws, such as the civil laws in chapter 21. To help make sense out of the overall structure of this unit, we begin by noting how the laws that both open and close this unit fall under the category of "bein adam la'makom". Let's explain. Recall how this "ko tomar" unit began (at the end of Parshat Yitro) with four psukim that discuss various laws concerning idol worship and building a mizbeiach [altar] (see 20:20-23). Clearly, this short 'parshia' deals with laws between man & God, and more specifically - how to worship (or not worship) Him. Similarly, at the end of this unit, we find another set of laws that are "bein adam la'makom" - explaining how we are expected to worship God on the three pilgrimage agricultural holidays (the "shalosh regalim" / see 23:13-19). [We consider these psukim the last set of laws, for immediately afterward (i.e. from 23:20 till the end of chapter 23) we find several conditional promises that God makes concerning how He will help Bnei Yisrael conquer the land, but the law section of this unit definitely ends with 23:19. ] In this manner, we find that this lengthy set of laws in Parshat Mishpatim is enveloped by a matching set of laws (20:20-23 & 23:13-19) that discuss how to properly worship God. Inside this 'sandwich' we will find numerous laws (i.e. from 21:1 thru 23:12), however almost all of them will fall under the category of "bein adam la'chaveiro" - between man and his fellow man (or society). The following table summarizes this very basic sub-division of this "ko tomar" unit, which will set the framework for our next discussion: PSUKIM TOPIC 20:19-20:23 How to worship God via the 'mizbeiach' 21:01-23:12 A misc. assortment of civil laws 23:13-23:19 Worshiping God on the 3 pilgrimage holidays 23:20-23:33 --- God's promises re: entering the land With this in mind, lets examine the internal structure of the "bein adam la'chaveiro" laws, that begin with the Mishpatim in 23:1 thru 23:12. As we will now show, this 'middle section' of civil laws will divide very neatly into two basic categories. 1) Case laws - that go before the "bet-din" [a Jewish court] 2) Absolute laws - that guide the behavior of the individual THE MISHPATIM - CASE LAWS Parshat Mishpatim begins with the laws of a Hebrew slave (see 21:2-11) and are followed by numerous 'case-type' civil laws dealing primarily with damages ["nezikin'"] that continue thru the middle of chapter 22. Their presentation develops in an organized, structured manner, progressing as follows: 21:12-27 - a person killing or injuring another [assault] 21:28-32 - a person's property killing or injuring another person 21:33-36 - a person's property damaging property of others 21:37-22:3 - a person stealing from another 22:4-5 - property damage to others caused by grazing or fire 22:6-14 - responsibility of "shomrim" watching property of others 22:15-16 - financial responsibility for a 'seducer' Note how these various cases range from capital offense to accidental property damage. THE 'KEY' WORD As you most probably noticed, the 'key word' in this section is 'ki' [pun intended], which implies if or when. Note how most of the parshiot from 21:1 22:18 begin with the word 'ki' [or 'im' / if/ when] and even when it is not written, it is implicit. In other words, each of these 'mishpatim' begins with a certain case [if...] and is followed by the ruling [then...]. For example: If a man hits his servant then... (see 21:20); If an ox gores a man... then the ox must be stoned (21:28). Basically, this section contains numerous examples of 'case-law,' upon which the Jewish court (bet din) arrives at its rulings. This is the basic meaning of a "mishpat" - a case where two people come to court - one person claiming damages from another - and the shofet (judge) must render a decision. In fact, these cases can only be judged by a court, and not by a private individual. [As you review these cases, note how most of them fall under the category of "choshen mishpat" in the shulchan aruch.] As our above table shows, this section of 'case-laws' (beginning with the word "ki") continues all the way until 22:16; after which we find an interesting transition. Note, that beginning with 22:17, we find three laws, written in a more imperative form, that do not begin with a specific 'case': "A sorceress shall not be left alive. Anyone lying with an animal shall be killed, and one who sacrifices to [other] gods shall be excommunicated..." (see 22:17-19). These laws don't begin with the word 'ki' for a very simple reason - there is no plaintiff coming to court to press charges! In all the cases until this point, the process of 'mishpat' is usually initiated because the plaintiff comes before the court. In these three cases, it is the court's responsibility to initiate the process (see Rashi & Rashbam & Ramban on 22:17!), i.e. to find the sorceress, or the person 'lying with the animal', etc. Therefore, even though these laws are presented in the 'imperative' format, they remain the responsibility of "bet-din". These three cases are also quite different from the case-laws above, for they also fall under the category of "bein adam la'makom" [between God & man]. Most significant is the third instruction - "zoveyach la'elokim yo'cho'ram - bilti l'Hashem l'vado" - one who sacrifices to [other] gods shall be excommunicated..." - where once again we find a law concerning 'how to (or not to) worship God' - just as we find in the opening and closing sections that envelope these civil laws. In this sense, these three laws will serve as a 'buffer' that leads us to the next category, where the laws will continue in the 'imperative' format, however, they will leave the realm of "bet-din" and enter the realm of ethical behavior. Let's explain: THE ETHICAL LAWS Note the abrupt change of format that takes place in the next law: "You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you yourselves were strangers in the land of Egypt" (22:20). Not only is this law written in the imperative format, it contains no punishment by "bet-din". Instead, it includes an incentive for why every Jew should keep this law - for we ourselves were also once strangers in the land of Egypt! Note as well how this imperative format continues all the way until 23:10. In contrast to what we have found thus far, we now find a collection of imperative-style laws [i.e. do... or don't...], which appear to be beyond the realm of enforcement by bet-din. This section focuses on laws of individual behavior that serve as guidelines that will shape the type of society which God hopes to create within His special nation. Towards the conclusion of this 'ethical' unit, we find a pasuk that seems to simply repeat the same verse that opened this unit: "You shall not oppress a stranger, whereas you know the feelings of a stranger, for you yourselves were once strangers in the land of Egypt" (see 23:9). [and compare it to the opening statement of this unit: "You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt" (see 22:20). As your review the numerous laws that are 'enveloped' by these two 'matching' psukim, note how they are all written in the imperative form, and share a common theme of living by a higher ethical standard. To prove this assertion, let's study the progression of topic from 22:20 thru 23:9: * "You shall not mistreat any widow or orphan. If you do mistreat them, I will heed their outcry...." * "When you lend money... if you take his garment as a pledge, you must return it by sunset... for if you don't, when he calls out to me, surely, I will hear his cry..." (see 22:20-26). In contrast to the previous section (see 20:12 thru 22:16), where the court enforced the punishment - this section begins with a set of laws where God Himself threatens to enact punishment! As the court system cannot 'force' every member of society to treat the poor and needy with kindness, God Himself promises to 'intervene' should the 'less privileged' be mistreated. Furthermore, it is specifically the stranger, the orphan, and widow who would least likely know how to take their case to court. As it is so easy to take advantage of these lower social classes, God Himself will punish those who take advantage. BEING A 'GOOD CITIZEN' The next four psukim (22:27-30) form a 'parshia', and at first glance appear to fall under the category of 'bein adam la'makom". However, in their context, it is also possible to understand them as laws dealing with the behavior of the individual within society, or stated more simply - being a good citizen. Let's explain how. "Do not curse Elokim [either God or a judge / see 22:7]:, nor curse a leader of your people" (see 22:27). This instruction 'not to curse your leaders' can be understood as a nice way of saying - respect your leadership. It would be difficult to develop a just society, should the people consistently curse and show no respect for their judges and political leaders. The next law - "Do not delay to bring of the fullness of thy harvest, and the outflow of thy presses" (see 22:28) - could also fall under this category, as it refers to the obligation of every individual to tithe his produce. As this tithe is used to cover the salaries of civil servants (for example see Bamidbar 18:21 re: the salary of the Levi'im), this law could be paraphrased as a demand that everyone must 'pay their taxes' - and on time; yet another example of 'good citizenship'. Similarly, the next law: "Your shall give Me your first-born sons. Likewise, [the first born] of your oxen & sheep..." (see 22:28-29) - was first given when Bnei Yisrael left Egypt (see Shmot 13:1-2,11-14). Obviously, this commandment does not imply that we actually sacrifice our first born children; but rather it relates to the obligation of each family to dedicate their first-born son to the service of God. The purpose of this law was to assure that there would be an 'educator' (or 'civil servant') in each family - to teach the laws of the Torah. Even though this 'family responsibility' was later transferred to the entire tribe of Levi (after chet ha-egel / see Devarim 10:8-9); at the time when the laws of Parshat Mishpatim were given - this was supposed to be the job of the first-born son. Similarly, the value of the 'first born' animals would also be dedicated to the Temple treasury (or to feed the workers). If this understanding is correct, then this command serves as a reminder to each family to fulfill its responsibility to provide its share of 'civil servants' to officiate in the Mishkan and to serve as judges and educators (see Devarim 33:10). [Re: viewing the first-born animals as a tax to compensate those civil servants - see Bamidbar 18:15-20!] ACTING LIKE A 'MENSCH' In the final pasuk of this 'parshia' we find a very general commandment to be not only a good citizen, but also to act like a 'mensch': "And you shall be holy men unto Me; [an example] should you find the flesh that is torn of beasts in the field - do not eat it -feed it instead to the dogs" (22:30). Even though the opening statement - to be holy men- is quite vague; the fuller meaning of this commandment is detailed in Parshat Kedoshim (see Vayikra chapter19). A quick glance of that chapter immediately points once again to the need to act in an ethical manner in all walks of life. [Note the numerous parallels between Vayikra chapter 19 and Shmot 22:20-33:10!] The commandment 'not to eat the flesh of a torn animal' can be understood as an application of how to 'be holy', implying to act like a 'mensch', and not like gluten who would devour (like a dog) the meat of animal found dead in field. In summary, we claim that this short section focuses on the need to be a 'good citizen', consonant with the general theme of ethical behavior - and incumbent upon a member of a society who claims to be representing God. A HIGHER ETHIC In chapter 23, this unit 'progresses' one step further, with several mitzvot that emphasize an even higher level of moral and ethical behavior. The first three psukim discuss laws to ensure that the judicial system will not be misused - For example, not to plot false witness; to follow majority rule; and not to 'play favorites' in judgment (see 23:1-3). [These laws could also be viewed as guidelines for the 'judges' who decide the laws in the first section, i.e. the civil 'case-laws' in 21:12-22:16.] Next, we find two interesting laws that reflect the highest level of ethical behavior, which worded in a special manner. * Returning a lost animal, even that of your enemy, to its owner ('hashavat aveida') (see 23:4); * Helping your neighbor's animal (again, even your enemy) with its load ('azov ta'azov imo') (see 23:5); The Torah does not simply command us to return a lost item, it describes an extreme case, where one must go out of his way to be 'extra nice' to a person whom he despises. What may be considered 'exemplary behavior' in a regular society - becomes required behavior for a nation who represents God. Finally, this special section concludes with the famous dictum "mi-dvar sheker tirchak" - keeping one's distance from any form of dishonesty (see 23:7), followed by a warning not to take bribes - 've-shochad lo tikach' - (see 23:8). As mentioned earlier, this section, describing the mitzvot of a higher ethical standard, closes with the verse "ve-ger lo tilchatz..." (see 23:9) - almost identical to its opening statement (see 22:20). Despite the difficulty of their slavery in Egypt, Bnei Yisrael are expected to learn from that experience and create a society that shows extra sensitivity to the needs of the less fortunate. Specifically the Jewish nation - because we were once slaves - are commanded to learn from that experience, in order to become even more sensitive to the needs of others! SHABBAT & THE HOLIDAYS As we explained earlier, this 'ethical' section is followed by yet another set of mitzvot (see 23:10-19), which appears to focus on 'mitzvot bein adam la-Makom'. It includes the following mitzvot: 'Shmitta' - leaving the fields fallow every seven years; 'Shabbat' - resting one day out of every seven days; 'Shalosh regalim' - the three agricultural holidays: 'chag ha-matzot' - seven days eating matza 'chag ha-katzir' - wheat harvest (seven weeks later) 'chag ha-asif' - produce harvest (seven days). (23:10-19) Nonetheless, it should be noted how the laws of shmitta and shabbat are actually presented from the perspective of 'bein adam le-chavero'. The 'shmitta' cycle provides extra food for the poor and needy (see 23:11), while 'shabbat' provides a day of rest for the 'bondsman and stranger' (see 23:12). In this sense, these two laws form a beautiful transition from "bein adam la'chaveiro" section to the concluding "bein adam la'makom" section that 'closes' this entire unit. At this point, we find a short summary pasuk that introduces the last section describing the pilgrimage 'holidays' (see 23:13-19). These 'shalosh regalim' are described as three times during the year when the entire nation gathers together 'in front of God' (i.e. at the Bet Ha-Mikdash) to thank Him for their harvest. [One could suggest that this mitzvah of 'aliya la-regel' also influences the social development of the nation, for it provides the poor and needy with an opportunity to celebrate together with the more fortunate (see Devarim 16:11,14-16.) ] A 'DOUBLE' SANDWICH - TZEDAKA & MISHPAT Let's return now to note the beautiful structure of this entire unit by studying the following table, where a * denotes laws "bein adam la'makom" and a # denotes laws "bein adam la'chaveiro". To clarify this layered nature of this internal structure, in the following table we compare it to a 'sandwich' with two layers of 'meat', enveloped by 'bread', * TOP - Laws re: idol worship and the 'mizbeiach' (20:19-20:23) [i.e. how to worship God] LAYER 1 - # The civil laws - 'case' laws for "bet-din" (21:1-22:16) - i.e. laws that relate to MISHPAT - judgement * BUFFER - short set of laws "bein adam la'makom" (22:17-19) LAYER 2 - # The ethical laws -individual behavior (22:20-23:12) - i.e. laws that relate to TZEDAKA - righteousness * BOTTOM - Laws of the three pilgrimage holidays (23:13-19) [again, how to properly worship God] In other words, the few mitzvot that relate to how we are supposed to worship God (*) 'envelope' the numerous mitzvot that explain how God expects that we act (#). However, those mitzvot that govern our behavior also divide into two distinct groups. The first group (or layer) focuses on laws of justice that must be enforced by the court system - i.e. MISHPAT; while the second group focuses on ethical behavior - i.e. TZEDKA or righteous behavior. BACK TO AVRAHAM AVINU! If your remember our shiurim on Sefer Breishit, this double layered structure - highlighting elements of both TZEDAKA & MISHPAT - should not surprise us. After all, God had chosen Avraham Avinu for this very purpose: "For Avraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and a blessing for all the nations of the earth. For I have known him IN ORDER that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of God to do TZEDAKA & MISHPAT [righteousness and justice]..." (see Breishit 18:18-19, compare Breishit 12:1-3) Now that Avraham Avinu's offspring have finally become a nation, and now prepare to enter the land - they enter a covenant at Har Sinai. Therefore, the very first set of detailed laws received at Sinai focus on how the nation of Israel is expected to keep and apply the values of "tzedaka & mishpat" - in order that this nation can accomplish its divine destiny. AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRESSION Before we conclude, we should note yet another sequence that takes place within these various subsections of laws. As you review these various sections, note how they follow a very meaningful educational progression: I. THE FEAR OF MAN The first section (21:1 22:19) contains civil laws regarding compensatory obligations, common to any civilized society (not unique to Am Yisrael). These case-type laws are enforced by bet-din. The fear of punishment by the courts ensures the compliance of the citizenry. II. THE FEAR OF GOD The next section (22:20 26) contains imperatives related to ethical behavior, emphasizing specifically consideration for the less fortunate members of society. Given the difficulty of enforcing this standard by the bet-din, God Himself assumes the responsibility of punishing violators in this regard. III. LOVE FOR ONE'S FELLOW MAN The final section of imperative civil laws (23:1 9) contains mitzvot relating to an even higher moral and ethical standard. In this section, the Torah does not mention any punishment. These mitzvot are preceded by the pasuk "ve-anshei kodesh tihiyun li" (22:30) and reflect the behavior of a "mamlechet kohanim ve-goy kadosh" (see 19:5-6). When the civil behavior of God's special nation is motivated not only by the fear of punishment, but also by a high ethical standard and a sense of subservience to God, the nation truly becomes a 'goy kadosh' - the purpose of Matan Torah (see 19:5-6!). IV. THE LOVE OF GOD After creating an ethical society, the nation is worthy of a special relationship with God, as reflected in the laws of shabbat, shmitta, and 'aliya la-regel' - 'being seen by God' on the three pilgrimage holidays (see 23:10-17). This progression highlights the fact that a high standard of ethical behavior (II & III) alone does not suffice. A society must first anchor itself by assuring justice by establishing a court system that will enforce these most basic civil laws (I). Once this standard has been established, society can then strive to achieve a higher ethical level (II & III). Then, man is worthy to encounter and 'visit' God (IV). ONE LAST PROMISE Even though the 'mishpatim' and mitzvot end in 23:19, this lengthy section (that began back with 'ko tomar...' in 20:19) contains one last section - 23:20->33 - which appears as more of a promise than a set of laws. God tells Moshe to tell Bnei Yisrael that: "Behold, I am sending a mal'ach before you, to guide you and bring you to ... (the Promised Land). ... for if you obey him [God's 'mal'ach'] and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and a foe to your foes. For My mal'ach will lead you and bring you to [the land of] the Amorites, Hittites, etc." (23:20-23). [See also 23:27-31!] This conclusion points to the purpose of the entire unit. By accepting these laws, Bnei Yisrael will shape their character as God's special nation. Hence, if they obey these rules, then God will assist them in the conquest of the Land. Considering that Bnei Yisrael are on their way to conquer and inherit the Land, this section (23:20-33) forms an appropriate conclusion for this entire unit. Should they follow these laws, He will help them conquer that land, where these laws will help facilitate their becoming God's special nation. BACK TO BRIT SINAI This interpretation can provide us with a beautiful explanation for why Bnei Yisrael receive specifically this set of mitzvot immediately after the Ten Commandments. Recall God's original proposal to Bnei Yisrael before Ma'amad Har Sinai - "should they obey Me and keep My covenant... then they will become a - mamlechet kohanim ve-goy kadosh" (see Shmot 19:5-6). After the people accept this proposal (see 19:8), they receive the Ten Commandments, followed by the laws of the "ko tomar" unit. This can explain why Bnei Yisrael receive specifically these laws (of the "ko tomar unit") at this time. As these laws will govern the ethical behavior of every individual in Am Yisrael and build the moral fabric of its society, they become the 'recipe' that will transform this nation into a "mamlechet kohanim ve-goy kadosh". Furthermore, they emphasize how laws that focus on our special relationship with God, especially in relation to how we worship him - such as the laws of the holidays, are only meaningful when rooted in a society that acts in an exemplary fashion. Because these guidelines for individual behavior are 'enveloped' by details of how to properly worship God, we can essentially conclude that this entire unit discusses how the nation of Israel is expected to worship God - for the manner by which we treat our fellow man stands at the center of our relationship with God. shabbat shalom, menachem ================= FOR FURTHER IYUN A. NISHMA VE-NA'ASEH! Based on this interpretation, we can suggest a very simple explanation for why Bnei Yisrael declare 'na'aseh ve-nishma' at the ceremony at Har Sinai (as see 24:7). [According to Ramban's approach that we keep 24:1-11 in its chronological order.] If indeed sefer ha-brit includes the unit from 20:19-23:33, then God's promise to help Bnei Yisrael conquer the land should they listen to Him (23:20-23:23) forms the most basic statement of this covenant: "Ki im shamo'a tishma be-kolo, ve-a'sita kol asher adaber - For if you listen to what He [the mal'ach] says, and do whatever I will speak... then I will help you defeat your enemies..." (see 23:21-22). One could suggest that it is in response to this phrase that Bnei Yisrael declare: na'aseh - in response to: ve-asita kol asher adaber; ve-nishma - in response to: im shamo'a tishma be-kolo. [Carefully read the middle section of Ramban's peirush to 24:3 where he alludes to this interpretation. [Note that even according to Rashi's interpretation that sefer ha-brit in 24:7 includes the laws at Mara, the final words of God's charge at Mara (see 15:26) could provide the background for a similar explanation. One could suggest that Bnei Yisrael respond by saying na'aseh to ve-hayashar be-einav ta'aseh and nishma to "im shamo'a tishma..."! Of course, this could also relate to God's proposal in 19:5-6. ] B. Regarding to the order of NA'ASEH ve-NISHMA: According to our explanation above, Bnei Yisrael should have said this in the opposite order, i.e. nishma ve-na'aseh. Relate this to Chazal's question in the Midrash - "lama hikdimu na'aseh le-nishma", which applauds Bnei Yisrael for first accepting the laws which they haven't yet heard. [Relate to "et asher adaber"!] C. SOUND BYTES Many of the mitzvot in Parshat Mishpatim from 22:26-23:19 could be viewed as 'sound-bytes' for entire 'parshiot' that expound on these mitzvot in Sefer Vayikra and Sefer Devarim. 1. Attempt to find examples, e.g. 23:10 to Vayikra 25:1-8; 23:14 to Devarim 16:1-17. 2. Use this to explain the nature of Parshat Mishpatim. 3. How does this enhance our understanding of the ceremony in perek 24? Relate to 'sefer ha-brit'. 4. Based on the above shiur, explain why Chazal interpret the law of "va-avodo le-olam" (21:6) - when an 'eved ivri' agrees to work 'forever' - as referring to the end of the seven cycles of shmitta, i.e. the 'yovel' year - see Rashi 21:6 and Vayikra 25:8-11. D. AVOT & TOLADOT We mentioned in the shiur that the mitzvot in Mishpatim can be understood as 'toladot' of the Ten Commandments. See Ibn Ezra's observation of this point. See also Abravanel. 1. Attempt to find examples of dibrot V->X within the civil laws. 2. Explain why the laws concerning the mizbeiach should be considered toladot of "lo tisa et shem Hashem Elokecha la-shav." 3. How does 'shem Hashem' relate to the concept of mizbeiach? Relate to Breishit 12:8, 13:4, etc. 4. How does 23:20-22 relate to this same idea of 'shem Hashem'? - see shiur below THE 'TOLADOT' OF THE 'DIBROT' [a mini shiur] In the following mini-shiur, we discuss once again the progression of mitzvot in the "ko tomar" unit, but this time from a different perspective. Just as we have shown how these mitzvot follow an 'educational progression,' we will now show how (and why) they follow ('more or less') according to the order of the Ten Commandments. Let's begin by showing how the opening section of mitzvot in this unit (i.e. 20:19-23 / the 'bein adam la-Makom' mitzvot) can be viewed as 'toladot' (sub-categories) of the first three Commandments: *1. 20:19 "You have seen how I have spoken to you from heaven" - thus emphasizing belief in God's hitgalut at Har Sinai. This could be considered parallel to the first 'dibur' - "Anochi Hashem Elokecha asher hotzeiticha..." *2. 20:20 "Don't make [with] Me gods of gold and silver..." - This prohibition of idol worship is obviously parallel to the second 'dibur': "lo yihiyeh lecha..." *3. 20:21-23 "An earthen mizbeiach you shall make for Me...." - Even though this parallel is not as obvious, this commandment concerning how to build a mizbeiach may be compared to the third 'dibur': "lo tisa et shem..." - not to mention God's Name in vain. The parallel can be based on our study of Sefer Breishit where we saw how the mizbeiach forms an avenue by which Avraham declared God's Name to make it known to others. [See Breishit 12:8 and 13:4 and Ramban on 12:8.] As Parshat Mishpatim continues this "ko tomar" unit, we can continue to find additional parallels to the remaining dibrot. Just as we found 'toladot' of the first three 'dibrot', so do we find 'toladot' of the fourth commandment - i.e. 'shabbat'. In fact, both the opening and closing sections of the mitzvot relate to shabbat. The opening mitzva, the law of a Hebrew servant (21:1-6), is based on the concept of six years of 'work' followed by 'rest' (=freedom) in the seventh year. The closing mitzvot of 'shmitta', shabbat, and 'aliya la-regel' (23:10-19), are similarly based on a seven-day or seven-year cycle. In between these two 'toladot' of shabbat, we find primarily 'mitzvot bein adam le-chavero' (21:1->23:9), which can be considered 'toladot' of the fifth through tenth Commandments. The final section, describing God's promise to help Bnei Yisrael conquer the land should they keep these mitzvot, continues this pattern in descending order: 23:20-23 The mal'ach with "shmi be-kirbo" -> III. "lo tisa" 23:24 - Not to worship their idols -> II. - "avoda zara" 23:25 - Worshipping God and its reward... -> I. Anochi This structure, by which the 'mitzvot bein adam la-Makom' that govern our relationship with God (I->IV) serve as 'bookends' enclosing the mishpatim [the civil laws and ethical standards regarding one's relationship to fellow men (V-X)], underscores an important tenet of Judaism. Unlike pagan religions, man's relationship with other people constitutes an integral part of his unique relationship with God. YITRO / MISHPATIM - A CHIASTIC STRUCTURE The following table illustrates how this progression of the mitzvot according to the dibrot helps form a chiastic structure, which encompasses the entire unit from Shmot chapters 19->24. Note the chiastic A-B-C-D-C-B-A structure that emerges: A. Brit & the dibrot at Har Sinai (19:1-20:18) | B. Mitzvot I, II, III (20:19-23) ['bein adam la-Makom'] | | C. Eved Ivri (IV) [21:1-> 'bein adam le-chavero'] | | | D. Misc. civil laws (V-X) / causative & imperative | | C. Shmitta, shabbat, regalim (IV) | B. Mitzvot - III, II, I (23:20-33) ["bein adam la'makom"] A. The 'Brit' of 'na'aseh ve-nishma' at Har Sinai and Moshe's ascent to receive the 'luchot' containing the 'dibrot'. A chiastic structure (common in Chumash) usually points to a common theme and purpose of its contents. In our case, that theme is clearly 'Ma'amad Har Sinai'. This unit of 'Ma'amad Har Sinai' (Shmot 19->24) continues the theme of the first unit of Sefer Shmot (1->18), the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim. We conclude our shiur by relating this structure to the overall theme of Sefer Shmot, as discussed by Ramban in his introduction to the sefer. As we explained, Yetziat Mitzrayim (our redemption from Egypt) constituted the first stage in God's fulfillment of brit avot. Now, at Ma'amad Har Sinai, Bnei Yisrael enter a second stage, as they collectively accept God's covenant and receive the Torah (brit Sinai). These laws, especially those of Parshat Mishpatim, will help form their character as God's special nation - in order that they can fulfill the final stage of 'brit Avot' - the inheritance of the Promised Land and the establishment of that nation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mish2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 57734 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mish2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 82944 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MishpMivne.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 61220 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Tue Feb 28 13:45:48 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:45:48 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Teruma - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: trumaq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 38044 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: trumaq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 48128 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Mar 1 12:00:50 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:00:50 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Teruma Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: truma1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 56098 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: truma1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 82944 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Tue Mar 7 14:19:32 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 14:19:32 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] Tezaveh - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tzaveq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 30590 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tzaveq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 49664 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Mar 9 04:10:50 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 04:10:50 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Tezaveh Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tzaveh1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 55182 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tzaveh1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 73728 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 04:56:16 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 04:56:16 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For shabbat Zachor Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* for Shabbat Zachor "AMALEK - - V'LO YA'RAY ELOKIM" Many nations have attacked and oppressed Am Yisrael throughout its history. Yet, for some reason, Amalek is singled out as Israel's 'arch enemy.' What was so terrible about Amalek's attack that requires a battle 'for all generations'? To answer this question, we examine some very interesting details in the Torah's description of this event (that are often overlooked) in attempt to determine if Amalek is something 'genetic' or 'generic'. INTRODUCTION The details of Amalek's attack on Israel in Parshat Besalach are quite scant. However, by considering when this battle takes place, as well as the parallel source in Sefer Devarim, a more complete picture emerges - that can help us understand why Amalek remains Israel's 'eternal' enemy. We begin our study with a discussion of 'who is where' when Amalek first attacks. WHO'S IN REFIDIM? Note how the Torah begins the story of Amalek, immediately after the story of "massa u'meriva": "And Amalek came, and attacked Israel at REFIDIM..." (see Shmot 17:8, after 17:1-7) From this pasuk alone, it would seem as though ALL of Bnei Yisrael are encamped in Refidim when Amalek attacked. However, when we consider what took place during the previous event (i.e. the story of "massa u'meriva"), a very different picture emerges. Let's review those events: "And Bnei Yisrael traveled from MIDBAR SIN... and encamped in REFIDIM, and there was no water for the people to drink... and they quarreled with Moshe..." (17:1-3) To solve this water shortage, God instructs Moshe to take his staff hit the rock etc. However, recall where that rock is located: "God said to Moshe, PASS BEFORE the people, TAKE with you SOME OF THE ELDERS, and take the staff... I will be standing before you at the ROCK at CHOREV; strike the rock [there] and water will issue from it..." (17:5-6) The rock that Moshe hits is NOT in Refidim - rather, it is located at Har Sinai! Therefore, to drink this water, the entire nation will now need to travel from Refidim to Har Sinai (as we discussed in our first shiur on Parshat Beshalach). Imagine the resulting situation: The entire nation, who had suffered several days of life-threatening thirst in a hot desert, must now first quench its immediate thirst, and then move its camp to the new water source at Har Sinai. Those who still had strength probably went first to the water source to bring supplies back to those who were too weak to travel. One could also assume that this journey was not very organized, with the stronger men advancing ahead to set up the new campsite, while those who were 'weak and tired' lingered behind. AMALEK ATTACKS It is precisely at this point when Amalek attacks: "Amalek came, and attacked Israel at REFIDIM..." (see 17:8). But who is in Refidim? - Only a remnant of the camp - the weak and the tired - most probably, primarily the women and children. Agreed, our interpretation thus far has been based on conjecture and 'reading between the lines.' However, in the parallel account of this story in Sefer Devarim, we find precisely these missing details: "Remember what Amalek did to you BA'DERECH (on your journey) when you left Egypt - for he surprised you BA'DERECH [i.e. while you were traveling] and cut down ALL THE STRAGGLERS IN YOUR REAR, while you were FAMISHED & WEARY..." (see Devarim 25:17-18) Amalek capitalizes on Bnei Yisrael's disadvantage. [They break the laws of the 'Geneva Convention.'] Even in war there are accepted norms of conduct; men fight men, armies engage armies. Amalek's attack is outright unethical, even by wartime standards. [See Rashi & Ibn Ezra on "ayeif v'yagaya" on Devarim 25:18.] YIRAT ELOKIM Further support of this interpretation may be drawn from the conclusion of the pasuk cited earlier from Sefer Devarim: "...v'LO YA'RAY ELOKIM - and he (Amalek) did not fear God." (Devarim 25:18, see Rashi & Ibn Ezra in contrast to Chizkuni) This phrase - YA'RAY ELOKIM - in the context of unethical (or immoral) behavior is found numerous times in Chumash. For example, Avraham offers Avimelech the following explanation for lying about his wife: "And Avraham explained (to Avimelech), for I said (to myself) there is no YIRAT ELOKIM in this place, and therefore they will kill me (to take my wife)?" (Breishit 20:11) In this context, a lack of "yirat Elokim" describes one who would kill a visitor in order to take his wife. [Quite unethical according to even the lowest moral standards.] Similarly, Yosef - pretending to be an Egyptian official - tells the brothers that he will release them from jail, allowing them a chance to prove that they are not spies. He prefaces his decision to his brothers with the phrase: "... ET HA'ELOKIM ANI YA'RAY..." (see Breishit 42:15-18). From this conversation, we see once again how the phrase "yirat Elokim" in the Bible seems to be 'internationally' understood as a description of ethical behavior. We find yet another example at the beginning of Sefer Shmot, as the Torah describes how the midwives 'feared Elokim' by not obeying Pharaoh's command to kill the male babies: "v'ti'rena ha'myaldot et ha'Elokim..." (see Shmot 1:21). [Note as well Yitro's comment in Shmot 18:21, suggesting to appoint judges who are "yirei Elokim", among a list of other 'ethical' characteristics. / See also our TSC shiur on the Akeyda. (www.tanach.org/breishit/vayera.doc), which discusses this phrase in greater detail.] All of these examples support our interpretation of the phrase "v'lo yarey Elokim" by Amalek - as reflective of their unethical behavior - waging war on the weak and unprotected. Based on this analysis, we conclude that Torah may have singled out Amalek as Israel's 'arch enemy' not merely because they were the first nation to attack Israel, but rather due to the unethical nature of that attack. In this sense, one could suggest that "zecher Amalek" - the remembrance of Amalek - could be understood as a 'generic' term describing any aggressive nation that would act in a similar unethical manner, and not necessarily a 'genetic' term, describing any family descendent of those people who attacked Israel at Refidim. Let's attempt to support this conclusion, and its underlying logic. AMALEK IN THE BIBLE The commandment to remember what Amalek did (see both Shmot 17:16 and Devarim 25:17) seems to apply to every generation, even after the original ('genetic') Amalek is wiped out. The eternal nature of this law - to 'remember Amalek' - suggests that Amalek may also represent any similar ('generic') type of enemy that may emerge in future generations. To support this understanding, note how Amalek emerges in mass numbers during the time of David (see Shmuel Aleph 27:7-9 and 30:1-3!), only a short time after they were 'totally wiped out' by Shaul (ibid. chapter 15). Note as well how Amalek attacked the 'women and children' of David's camp in Tziklag, taking them captive - at the same time when David and his men had left on a mission. [It is recommended that you read that entire account (see 30:1-19).] Here, we find not only the name Amalek, but a very similar manner of ('unethical') warfare. In fact, if one follows Amalek's whereabouts in Chumash - we find them all over: * In the western Sinai desert - when Bnei Yisrael leave Egypt (Parshat Beshalach). * in the northen Negev (near Kadesh Barnea) when the spies return (in Parshat Shlach / see 14:25). * east of the Dead Sea (in Jordan), when Bilam 'blesses' them in Parshat Balak (see 24:20). Then, in Sefer Shoftim, we find them joining in battle against Israel, no matter who the primary enemy was: * joining the Moabites in battle in the time Ehud (see Shoftim 3:13) * attacking in the area of Efraim in the time of Devora) (see Shoftim 5:14, precise context unclear) * attacking Emek Yizrael, joining Midyan, in the time of Gidon (see Shoftim 6:3 & 6:33) [Not to mention the battles of Shaul and David against Amalek, as mentioned above.] Yet in all of these battles, we never find Amalek living in any specific land, rather a nomadic tribe - roaming the desert, looking for easy prey. Furthermore, we never find a mention of their god. Even when Sefer Shoftim mentions the gods of the other nations that Bnei Yisrael worshiped, we find the gods of Aram, Tzidon, Edom, Moav, Amon, and Phlishtim (see Shoftim 10:6), we never find even a mention of the god of Amalek. Amalek emerges as a nation with no god, and no land. Their primary goal appears to be the denial of Israel's right to exist. At any time of Israel's weakness, they swoop in and attack. Another proof that Amalek must be destroyed because of their deeds, and not only because of their 'genes' is found in Sefer Shmuel when God commands Shaul to destroy them. Note how Shmuel describes Amalek (at that time) as a nation who had sinned against God (see Shmuel Aleph 15:18). Furthermore, from the commandment not to take any booty from that battle (see again 15:18 and context of that entire chapter), we find a parallel to Avraham's attitude to the city of Sedom. Recall from Breishit 14:22-23, how Avraham shunned the very thought of taking anything that once belonged to Sedom - the city of iniquity. Therefore, it is not incidental that it becomes the mitzvah of the King of Israel to defeat Amalek (see I Shmuel 15:1-2 and Rambam Hilchot Melachim 1:1). Recall how the king of Israel should be known for his ability to establish a nation characterized by acts of "tzedaka & mishpat" - see Shmuel Bet 8:15, Melachim Aleph 10:9, and Yirmiyahu 22:1-5,13- 16 & 23:5-8. From that perspective, it also becomes his responsibility (when capable of doing so) to pursue nations such as Amalek, who wage war in unethical ways - taking advantage of the weak and helpless. [Note as well at the end of Parshat Ki-teyze, immediately before the mitzvah to 'remember Amalek', we find a set of laws that emphasize the enforcement of "tzedek u'mishpat" - see Devarim 25:13-16).] In summary, there definitely appears to be something 'genetic' about Amalek, at least in Am Yisrael's first encounter with that nation. However, the unethical nature of that attack, and the Torah's immediate command to remember that event for all generations, suggests a 'generic' understanding as well, for by remembering what Amalek had done wrong - Am Yisrael is encouraged to remember their own national goal - to do what is 'right and just'. shabbat shalom, menachem FOR FURTHER IYUN ================= PRO'S & CON'S There are certain pro's & con's that come with this 'generic' understanding of Amalek. The obvious advantage, is that it would solve the 'ethical' problem of how and why would God command us to kill any descendant of that nation, even if those later generations did nothing wrong. After all, Chumash itself teaches us that: " parents should die for the sins of their children, nor children for the sins of their parents, each man is responsible for his own sin" (Devarim 24:16). The obvious disadvantage is that the simple pshat of the psukim suggests that this commandment applies specifically to the people Amalek, the descendants of Esav's grandson (see Breishit 36:12). Furthermore, this nation appears again several times in Tanach, which supports the 'genetic' interpretation. For example, in Bilam's blessings, he sees Amalek, in a manner very similar to how he sees Israel, and the Kenites etc. (see Bamidbar 24:20-22). Later on, the books of Shoftim and Shmuel, the nation of Amalek appears numerous times, and appears to a nation like any other in the Bible. Therefore, in our shiur, we have tried to find the 'middle ground'. THE COUNTER ATTACK This interpretation also explains an enigmatic detail in the Torah's description of the counterattack, as presented in Parshat Beshalach. When Moshe hears of Amalek's attack, he instructs Yehoshua to launch a counteroffensive - machar - on the next day: "Go fight Amalek... MACHAR - TOMORROW - I (Moshe) will be standing at the top of the hill with the MATEH ELOKIM..." (17:9/ See Ibn Ezra - "givah" = Har Sinai!) Should not Yehoshua engage Amalek immediately? Why wait for another day of hostilities to pass before mobilizing the nation's defense? According to our explanation, the leaders (Moshe & the elders) and most of the men are already at Har Sinai. It will therefore take a full day for Yehoshua to organize the troops and march them back towards Refidim. THE WATER AT SINAI The Moshav Zekeinim (Ba'alei Tosfot on the Torah) cites the question as to how the water-producing rock in Chorev (Sinai) gave water to Bnei Yisrael in Refidim. However, the Ramban (17:5) claims, as we mentioned in the shiur, that the gushing water formed several rivers and streams that flowed to Refidim. As for the significance of the water flowing specifically from Har Sinai - this point is developed at length by the Abarbanel, in his commentary to this parsha. He writes that as water symbolizes Torah, Hashem had intended all along to provide the nation's water needs from Sinai, the site of the giving of the Torah. Refidim was to have been a brief, preparatory stopover before the nation's arrival at Sinai. The Abarbanel adds that for this reason Hashem ordered Moshe to bring the elders along with him to Sinai. The presentation of water was to correspond to the presentation of the Torah, which also required the presence of the zekeinim (Shmot 24:9). The Abarbanel also notes that the Beit Hamikdash, which, like Har Sinai, is the place where Torah is given ("ki mi'Tzion tetze Torah" - Yeshayahu 2:3; Michah 4:2), is also destined to serve as a source of water - Yoel 4:18; Zecharya 14:8. SPOILING HAR SINAI Up until this point we have discussed the particularly unethical nature of Amalek's attack. Yet, the eternal mitzvah to 'erase the memory of Amalek' for all generations may also suggest a spiritual theme. Recall from Part I that the entire journey from Egypt to Har Sinai served as a 'training mission' of sorts to spiritually prepare Bnei Yisrael for Matan Torah. At Refidim, the 'stage has been set' for Matan Torah - but Amalek's attack 'spoils' this encounter. [See Shir Ha'shirim 1:4.] In effect, Amalek attempts to prevent Am Yisrael from achieving their Divine destiny. The nature of this struggle remains throughout our history. Even once Am Yisrael conquers its internal enemy and is finally prepared to follow God, external, human forces of evil, unwilling to allow God's message to be heard, will always make one last attack. Am Yisrael must remain prepared to fight this battle against Amalek for all generations: "ki yad al kes Kah, MILCHAMA l'HASHEM b'AMALEK, m'dor dor." (17:16) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bshal2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 40316 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bshal2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 46592 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 05:26:58 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 05:26:58 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Purim Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* PARSHAT BESHALACH "AMALEK - - V'LO YA'RAY ELOKIM" Many nations have attacked and oppressed Am Yisrael throughout its history. Yet, for some reason, Amalek is singled out as Israel's 'arch enemy.' What was so terrible about Amalek's attack that requires a battle 'for all generations'? To answer this question, we examine some very interesting details in the Torah's description of this event (that are often overlooked) in attempt to determine if Amalek is something 'genetic' or 'generic'. INTRODUCTION The details of Amalek's attack on Israel in Parshat Besalach are quite scant. However, by considering when this battle takes place, as well as the parallel source in Sefer Devarim, a more complete picture emerges - that can help us understand why Amalek remains Israel's 'eternal' enemy. We begin our study with a discussion of 'who is where' when Amalek first attacks. WHO'S IN REFIDIM? Note how the Torah begins the story of Amalek, immediately after the story of "massa u'meriva": "And Amalek came, and attacked Israel at REFIDIM..." (see Shmot 17:8, after 17:1-7) From this pasuk alone, it would seem as though ALL of Bnei Yisrael are encamped in Refidim when Amalek attacked. However, when we consider what took place during the previous event (i.e. the story of "massa u'meriva"), a very different picture emerges. Let's review those events: "And Bnei Yisrael traveled from MIDBAR SIN... and encamped in REFIDIM, and there was no water for the people to drink... and they quarreled with Moshe..." (17:1-3) To solve this water shortage, God instructs Moshe to take his staff hit the rock etc. However, recall where that rock is located: "God said to Moshe, PASS BEFORE the people, TAKE with you SOME OF THE ELDERS, and take the staff... I will be standing before you at the ROCK at CHOREV; strike the rock [there] and water will issue from it..." (17:5-6) The rock that Moshe hits is NOT in Refidim - rather, it is located at Har Sinai! Therefore, to drink this water, the entire nation will now need to travel from Refidim to Har Sinai (as we discussed in our first shiur on Parshat Beshalach). Imagine the resulting situation: The entire nation, who had suffered several days of life-threatening thirst in a hot desert, must now first quench its immediate thirst, and then move its camp to the new water source at Har Sinai. Those who still had strength probably went first to the water source to bring supplies back to those who were too weak to travel. One could also assume that this journey was not very organized, with the stronger men advancing ahead to set up the new campsite, while those who were 'weak and tired' lingered behind. AMALEK ATTACKS It is precisely at this point when Amalek attacks: "Amalek came, and attacked Israel at REFIDIM..." (see 17:8). But who is in Refidim? - Only a remnant of the camp - the weak and the tired - most probably, primarily the women and children. Agreed, our interpretation thus far has been based on conjecture and 'reading between the lines.' However, in the parallel account of this story in Sefer Devarim, we find precisely these missing details: "Remember what Amalek did to you BA'DERECH (on your journey) when you left Egypt - for he surprised you BA'DERECH [i.e. while you were traveling] and cut down ALL THE STRAGGLERS IN YOUR REAR, while you were FAMISHED & WEARY..." (see Devarim 25:17-18) Amalek capitalizes on Bnei Yisrael's disadvantage. [They break the laws of the 'Geneva Convention.'] Even in war there are accepted norms of conduct; men fight men, armies engage armies. Amalek's attack is outright unethical, even by wartime standards. [See Rashi & Ibn Ezra on "ayeif v'yagaya" on Devarim 25:18.] YIRAT ELOKIM Further support of this interpretation may be drawn from the conclusion of the pasuk cited earlier from Sefer Devarim: "...v'LO YA'RAY ELOKIM - and he (Amalek) did not fear God." (Devarim 25:18, see Rashi & Ibn Ezra in contrast to Chizkuni) This phrase - YA'RAY ELOKIM - in the context of unethical (or immoral) behavior is found numerous times in Chumash. For example, Avraham offers Avimelech the following explanation for lying about his wife: "And Avraham explained (to Avimelech), for I said (to myself) there is no YIRAT ELOKIM in this place, and therefore they will kill me (to take my wife)?" (Breishit 20:11) In this context, a lack of "yirat Elokim" describes one who would kill a visitor in order to take his wife. [Quite unethical according to even the lowest moral standards.] Similarly, Yosef - pretending to be an Egyptian official - tells the brothers that he will release them from jail, allowing them a chance to prove that they are not spies. He prefaces his decision to his brothers with the phrase: "... ET HA'ELOKIM ANI YA'RAY..." (see Breishit 42:15-18). From this conversation, we see once again how the phrase "yirat Elokim" in the Bible seems to be 'internationally' understood as a description of ethical behavior. We find yet another example at the beginning of Sefer Shmot, as the Torah describes how the midwives 'feared Elokim' by not obeying Pharaoh's command to kill the male babies: "v'ti'rena ha'myaldot et ha'Elokim..." (see Shmot 1:21). [Note as well Yitro's comment in Shmot 18:21, suggesting to appoint judges who are "yirei Elokim", among a list of other 'ethical' characteristics. / See also our TSC shiur on the Akeyda. (www.tanach.org/breishit/vayera.doc), which discusses this phrase in greater detail.] All of these examples support our interpretation of the phrase "v'lo yarey Elokim" by Amalek - as reflective of their unethical behavior - waging war on the weak and unprotected. Based on this analysis, we conclude that Torah may have singled out Amalek as Israel's 'arch enemy' not merely because they were the first nation to attack Israel, but rather due to the unethical nature of that attack. In this sense, one could suggest that "zecher Amalek" - the remembrance of Amalek - could be understood as a 'generic' term describing any aggressive nation that would act in a similar unethical manner, and not necessarily a 'genetic' term, describing any family descendent of those people who attacked Israel at Refidim. Let's attempt to support this conclusion, and its underlying logic. AMALEK IN THE BIBLE The commandment to remember what Amalek did (see both Shmot 17:16 and Devarim 25:17) seems to apply to every generation, even after the original ('genetic') Amalek is wiped out. The eternal nature of this law - to 'remember Amalek' - suggests that Amalek may also represent any similar ('generic') type of enemy that may emerge in future generations. To support this understanding, note how Amalek emerges in mass numbers during the time of David (see Shmuel Aleph 27:7-9 and 30:1-3!), only a short time after they were 'totally wiped out' by Shaul (ibid. chapter 15). Note as well how Amalek attacked the 'women and children' of David's camp in Tziklag, taking them captive - at the same time when David and his men had left on a mission. [It is recommended that you read that entire account (see 30:1-19).] Here, we find not only the name Amalek, but a very similar manner of ('unethical') warfare. In fact, if one follows Amalek's whereabouts in Chumash - we find them all over: * In the western Sinai desert - when Bnei Yisrael leave Egypt (Parshat Beshalach). * in the northen Negev (near Kadesh Barnea) when the spies return (in Parshat Shlach / see 14:25). * east of the Dead Sea (in Jordan), when Bilam 'blesses' them in Parshat Balak (see 24:20). Then, in Sefer Shoftim, we find them joining in battle against Israel, no matter who the primary enemy was: * joining the Moabites in battle in the time Ehud (see Shoftim 3:13) * attacking in the area of Efraim in the time of Devora) (see Shoftim 5:14, precise context unclear) * attacking Emek Yizrael, joining Midyan, in the time of Gidon (see Shoftim 6:3 & 6:33) [Not to mention the battles of Shaul and David against Amalek, as mentioned above.] Yet in all of these battles, we never find Amalek living in any specific land, rather a nomadic tribe - roaming the desert, looking for easy prey. Furthermore, we never find a mention of their god. Even when Sefer Shoftim mentions the gods of the other nations that Bnei Yisrael worshiped, we find the gods of Aram, Tzidon, Edom, Moav, Amon, and Phlishtim (see Shoftim 10:6), we never find even a mention of the god of Amalek. Amalek emerges as a nation with no god, and no land. Their primary goal appears to be the denial of Israel's right to exist. At any time of Israel's weakness, they swoop in and attack. Another proof that Amalek must be destroyed because of their deeds, and not only because of their 'genes' is found in Sefer Shmuel when God commands Shaul to destroy them. Note how Shmuel describes Amalek (at that time) as a nation who had sinned against God (see Shmuel Aleph 15:18). Furthermore, from the commandment not to take any booty from that battle (see again 15:18 and context of that entire chapter), we find a parallel to Avraham's attitude to the city of Sedom. Recall from Breishit 14:22-23, how Avraham shunned the very thought of taking anything that once belonged to Sedom - the city of iniquity. Therefore, it is not incidental that it becomes the mitzvah of the King of Israel to defeat Amalek (see I Shmuel 15:1-2 and Rambam Hilchot Melachim 1:1). Recall how the king of Israel should be known for his ability to establish a nation characterized by acts of "tzedaka & mishpat" - see Shmuel Bet 8:15, Melachim Aleph 10:9, and Yirmiyahu 22:1-5,13- 16 & 23:5-8. From that perspective, it also becomes his responsibility (when capable of doing so) to pursue nations such as Amalek, who wage war in unethical ways - taking advantage of the weak and helpless. [Note as well at the end of Parshat Ki-teyze, immediately before the mitzvah to 'remember Amalek', we find a set of laws that emphasize the enforcement of "tzedek u'mishpat" - see Devarim 25:13-16).] In summary, there definitely appears to be something 'genetic' about Amalek, at least in Am Yisrael's first encounter with that nation. However, the unethical nature of that attack, and the Torah's immediate command to remember that event for all generations, suggests a 'generic' understanding as well, for by remembering what Amalek had done wrong - Am Yisrael is encouraged to remember their own national goal - to do what is 'right and just'. shabbat shalom, menachem FOR FURTHER IYUN ================= PRO'S & CON'S There are certain pro's & con's that come with this 'generic' understanding of Amalek. The obvious advantage, is that it would solve the 'ethical' problem of how and why would God command us to kill any descendant of that nation, even if those later generations did nothing wrong. After all, Chumash itself teaches us that: " parents should die for the sins of their children, nor children for the sins of their parents, each man is responsible for his own sin" (Devarim 24:16). The obvious disadvantage is that the simple pshat of the psukim suggests that this commandment applies specifically to the people Amalek, the descendants of Esav's grandson (see Breishit 36:12). Furthermore, this nation appears again several times in Tanach, which supports the 'genetic' interpretation. For example, in Bilam's blessings, he sees Amalek, in a manner very similar to how he sees Israel, and the Kenites etc. (see Bamidbar 24:20-22). Later on, the books of Shoftim and Shmuel, the nation of Amalek appears numerous times, and appears to a nation like any other in the Bible. Therefore, in our shiur, we have tried to find the 'middle ground'. THE COUNTER ATTACK This interpretation also explains an enigmatic detail in the Torah's description of the counterattack, as presented in Parshat Beshalach. When Moshe hears of Amalek's attack, he instructs Yehoshua to launch a counteroffensive - machar - on the next day: "Go fight Amalek... MACHAR - TOMORROW - I (Moshe) will be standing at the top of the hill with the MATEH ELOKIM..." (17:9/ See Ibn Ezra - "givah" = Har Sinai!) Should not Yehoshua engage Amalek immediately? Why wait for another day of hostilities to pass before mobilizing the nation's defense? According to our explanation, the leaders (Moshe & the elders) and most of the men are already at Har Sinai. It will therefore take a full day for Yehoshua to organize the troops and march them back towards Refidim. THE WATER AT SINAI The Moshav Zekeinim (Ba'alei Tosfot on the Torah) cites the question as to how the water-producing rock in Chorev (Sinai) gave water to Bnei Yisrael in Refidim. However, the Ramban (17:5) claims, as we mentioned in the shiur, that the gushing water formed several rivers and streams that flowed to Refidim. As for the significance of the water flowing specifically from Har Sinai - this point is developed at length by the Abarbanel, in his commentary to this parsha. He writes that as water symbolizes Torah, Hashem had intended all along to provide the nation's water needs from Sinai, the site of the giving of the Torah. Refidim was to have been a brief, preparatory stopover before the nation's arrival at Sinai. The Abarbanel adds that for this reason Hashem ordered Moshe to bring the elders along with him to Sinai. The presentation of water was to correspond to the presentation of the Torah, which also required the presence of the zekeinim (Shmot 24:9). The Abarbanel also notes that the Beit Hamikdash, which, like Har Sinai, is the place where Torah is given ("ki mi'Tzion tetze Torah" - Yeshayahu 2:3; Michah 4:2), is also destined to serve as a source of water - Yoel 4:18; Zecharya 14:8. SPOILING HAR SINAI Up until this point we have discussed the particularly unethical nature of Amalek's attack. Yet, the eternal mitzvah to 'erase the memory of Amalek' for all generations may also suggest a spiritual theme. Recall from Part I that the entire journey from Egypt to Har Sinai served as a 'training mission' of sorts to spiritually prepare Bnei Yisrael for Matan Torah. At Refidim, the 'stage has been set' for Matan Torah - but Amalek's attack 'spoils' this encounter. [See Shir Ha'shirim 1:4.] In effect, Amalek attempts to prevent Am Yisrael from achieving their Divine destiny. The nature of this struggle remains throughout our history. Even once Am Yisrael conquers its internal enemy and is finally prepared to follow God, external, human forces of evil, unwilling to allow God's message to be heard, will always make one last attack. Am Yisrael must remain prepared to fight this battle against Amalek for all generations: "ki yad al kes Kah, MILCHAMA l'HASHEM b'AMALEK, m'dor dor." (17:16) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: purim.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 77720 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: purim.doc Type: application/msword Size: 91135 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 09:54:28 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 09:54:28 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Kitisa - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kitisaq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 35516 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kitisaq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 28092 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Mar 16 01:47:11 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 01:47:11 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Kitisa - shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kitisa1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 71207 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kitisa.doc Type: application/msword Size: 85950 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Mar 16 16:53:39 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:53:39 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Parah Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* "ZOT CHUKAT HA'TORAH" [For Parshat Chukat & Parshat Parah] WHAT'S A CHOK, AND WHAT'S A TORAH? How should one translate the phrase "ZOT CHUKAT HA'TORAH" (see 19:2) in the opening psukim of Parshat Para? [Note how just about every English translation slightly varies in their attempt to interpret this verse, e.g. "the Torah's decree" (Stone & Living Torah), "a ritual law" (JPS), etc.] Many students of Chumash innocently assume that the word "torah" refers to the entire Torah, while the word "chok" implies a specific law that has no obvious reason; and hence - this opening pasuk informs the reader that the laws of Parah Adumah (that will follow) will be the quintessential example in the entire Bible of a law that doesn't make any sense. In the following shiur, we will consider an alternate understanding of the words "chok" and "torah" in this pasuk, based on their meaning elsewhere in Chumash. While doing so, we will attempt to arrive at a clearer understanding of this special set of laws, and the purpose of this enigmatic opening phrase. INTRODUCTION Today, in common conversation, the word 'Torah' is used to describe either the entire Bible, or even the entire corpus of Jewish law. In fact, even the study of the Oral Law, such as the Mishna and Talmud is referred to 'Torah study'. However, when we examine the use of the word "torah" in Chumash, we find that it has a very different meaning. Instead of referring to the entire book, the word "torah" in the books of Vayikra and Bamidbar usually refers to a specific type of law, usually one of a procedural nature. For example, in our study of Parshat Tzav, we saw how each paragraph (in the section describing how to offer the various korbanot / chapters 6 thru 7) began with the phrase "zot torat ha' -----" - ['this is the procedure for the ------ offering: ..." Hence, the phrase "zot TORAT ha'mincha..." (see 6:7-10) is translated: "this is the PROCEDURE for how to offer the korban mincha" - followed by the details concerning how the kohanim are to offer it. Similarly, "zot TORAT ha'chatat" introduces the laws of how to offer the "korban chatat" (see 6:18 and 7:1, etc.). An even better example is found in Sefer Bamidbar, at the conclusion of the laws concerning the procedure that the priest must conduct to test whether the "sota" [a wife accused by her husband for 'cheating'] was innocent or guilty. Note the use of the word "torah" in the pasuk that summarizes this lengthy process: "zot TORAT ha'knaot - this is the torah [the procedure] for this case of 'jealousy', when a wife... or when the spirit of jealousy comes upon a man, and he be jealous over his wife.. and the priest shall execute upon her all this TORAH" - i.e. this procedure! (see Bamidbar 5:29-30 in its context) With this background, we can begin our attempt to understand the word "torah" in Parshat Para - to show that here as well, it refers to a specific procedure (and not to the entire Chumash)! THE LAWS OF TUMAT MEYT To appreciate what procedures are discussed in Bamidbar chapter 19, we must first provide a short overview of the basic laws of "tumat meyt" [spiritual uncleanliness, caused by contact with a dead body]. According to Jewish law, if a person touches (or is in the same room with) a dead body, he becomes "tamey" [spiritually unclean] for period of at least seven days, during which time he is not permitted to enter the Temple courtyard. To 'cleanse' himself of this "tumah", a special 'procedure' is required. The kohen [priest] must sprinkle upon him from a special solution consisting of spring water mixed with specially prepared ashes of a "para Adumah" - a 'red heifer'. The first sprinkling can only be performed after three days, and then needs to be repeated four days later, i.e. on day seven. At sunset of that seventh day, he becomes "tahor" [spiritually clean] and hence permitted once again to enter the Temple. TWO PROCEDURES IN THE PROCESS Obviously, before the kohen can perform this 'sprinkling procedure' - someone has to first make the 'ashes'. Hence, the first procedure [="torah"] that Chumash will describe will be how to make these ashes. As only a small amount (of ashes) is needed to make this special solution, the ashes collected from the burning of each "para aduma" could suffice for decades. After the explanation of this first procedure, Chumash will explain the details for the second "torah" - i.e. the procedure whereby the kohen sprinkles this solution of the "tmey meyt". Therefore, as we study chapter 19, we should expect to uncover the details of two procedures: PROCEDURE #1 - Making the 'ashes' of the parah adumah. [as detailed in 19:2-9!) PROCEDURE #2 - Sprinkling these ashes (mixed with water). [as detailed in 19:17-19!] As we study these psukim, we will show how these two procedures also contain several consequential laws, which we identify as "chukim"! Therefore, before we begin our detailed study, we must first explain the Biblical meaning of the word "chok". WHAT'S A CHOK? Contrary to popular opinion, a "chok" is not the name for a Biblical law that doesn't make sense (or has no reason). Indeed, we will find "chukim" that have no obvious reason, and that may even be 'characteristic' of a "chok" - but it is not the definition of a "chok"! Instead, a "chok" is a statute - i.e. a set law or ordinance that doesn't change. To clarify this point, let's take an example from a law that you are all familiar with: the Korban Pesach. Everyone knows why we offer the Korban Pesach - to commemorate how God saved Am Yisrael from the Tenth Plague. Certainly, this mitzvah makes a lot of sense, but to your surprise - Chumash refers to this law as a CHOK and gives a reason! Let's take a look: "... and you should keep this commandment (of Korban Pesach) as a CHOK for you and your children for ever. When you come into the Land that God shall give you... keep this ritual. And when your children will ask: What is this ritual for you? Tell them it is the Pesach offering, for God passed over the houses of Bnei Yisrael when He smote the Egyptians..." (see Shmot 12:24-27!) In fact, Chumash refers to all of the Jewish Holidays as CHUKIM (see Parshat Emor - Vayikra 23:14,21,31 & 41) - because they are set in the yearly calendar, and repeat themselves every year! Chumash also uses the word "chok" to describe statutes that are not mitzvot. For example, when Sefer Breishit describes how Yosef purchased of the land from the Egyptians, we are informed that he cannot acquire the land belonging to the priests - because: "... it is the CHOK of the priests by Pharaoh, that they eat their portion [lechem CHUKAM] that Pharaoh had given them..." (see Breishit 47:20-22 and its context) Two psukim later, we find another example, where Chumash describes the 20% set land tax imposed on Egyptian produce as a "chok" (see Breishit 47:26) For a similar reason, when Bnei Yisrael are required to produce a certain daily output of bricks, Sefer Shmot describes this set quota as a CHOK: "...and the taskmasters of Bnei Yisrael scolded them saying - Why did you not complete CHOK'CHEM [your quota] to make bricks as before..." (see Shmot 5:14 and its context) Note also how Yirmiyahu refers to the laws of astronomy, i.e. the constant and unchanging cycles of the sun and moon around the earth, as "CHUKOT shamayim v'aretz" (see Yirmiyahu 33:25 and even better, see Yirmiyahu 31:35-36!). For this reason, the holidays in Parshat Emor are referred to as CHUKIM for they celebrated on a REGULAR basis, once a year based on the solar (agricultural) calendar. Hence, a "chok" implies something constant that doesn't change - a statute. THE CHOK OF TUMAT MEYT Let's see now how the word "chok" would apply to the laws of "tumat meyt". The law that a person who touches a dead body becomes "tamey" for seven days should definitely be considered a "chok" - for it is a law that never changes - it remains constant. [In modern Hebrew we find a similar use, where the 'laws of nature' are called CHUKEI ha'TEVA. Take for example Newton's laws of motion - they are set and don't change.] Based on this definition, a CHOK can be logical, but it doesn't have to be! Certain CHUKIM may be beyond our comprehension, however many other CHUKIM can actually make a lot of sense. Therefore we find some "chukim" that are quite logical, while others are not - however, the fact that a certain law is not logical, does not define it as a CHOK! In contrast, a MISHPAT, as its name implies, is a JUDGEMENT - based on reason. The very concept of a MISHPAT relates to a decision or judgment that must be made between two claims that come before the court. Hence, the Torah refers to the entire set of civil laws relating to damages etc. in Shmot chapters 21->23 as MISHPATIM (see Shmot 21:1 & 24:3). With this background, let's read through Parshat Parah and attempt to identify more precisely where we find a TORAH and where we find a CHOK, and how they relate to one another. As we read, we will notice how the chapter neatly divides into two sections, according to the two procedures that we mentioned above. [As a teacher's note - to explain this concept of TORAH as a procedure, take the word 'recipe' as an example. A recipe demands a certain procedure to attain a certain goal, i.e. a sponge cake recipe requires that we take 4 eggs, flour, water, sugar; mix them into a batter, and bake it etc. The result - a cake - and hence the recipe card is titled: Sponge cake. In a similar manner, the Parshat Parah informs us of the proper 'recipe' [i.e. the TORAH] to make the ashes for "efer parah"!] PROCEDURE #1 & its CHUKIM We assumed above that the first "torah" (or procedure) would describe how to prepare the "efer ha'parah" [the ashes of the heifer], that will later be used for sprinkling). As you review 19:2-6, note how these psukim describe precisely this procedure: 19:2-3 - Take a red heifer (one without a blemish) and give it to Elazar (the deputy high priest) who must slaughter it outside the camp. 19:4 - Sprinkle the blood of the heifer seven times opposite the entrance to the Ohel Moed. 19:5-6 - Burn the carcass of the heifer together with branches from both a hyssop and cedar tree, etc., until in turns into ashes. Now that the 'ashes' have been prepared, the Torah informs us of two special CHUKIM that accompany this process: 19:7 - The kohen who PERFORMS this procedure becomes "tamey" [that's a CHOK], therefore he must wash his clothes and remains "tamey" until the evening ["tumat yom"]. 19:8 - The kohen who BURNS the animal becomes "tamey" [that's also a CHOK], and must wash his clothes etc. Then Chumash continues with the final stages of this procedure: 19:9 - A clean person must COLLECT the ashes and stores them outside the camp. This is actually the final stage of the procedure [i.e. part of the TORAH]. 19:10 - This person who collects the ashes also become "tamey" [just like the other two]. That's yet another CHOK! Hence, we find that this specific procedure of making the "efer" is accompanied by several special CHUKIM. Note how these CHUKIM, even though they are not an integral part of the procedure, they are a direct consequence - and therefore should be defined as related "chukim" [statutes], but not an integral part of the procedure. [If we use again our "mashal" from the cake recipe, the person mixing the batter must later wash his hands, but that does not affect how the cake comes out!] To prove these definitions, let's take a more careful look at this last pasuk, as it explains the purpose of this procedure. i.e. for these ashes must be used for the CHOK of "tumat meyt":. "The person who collects the ashes must wash his clothes, and [these ashes] are to be [used] for Bnei Yisrael for a CHUKAT OLAM - an everlasting statute: [i.e. introducing the CHOK of:] - One who touches a dead body becomes "tamey" for seven days. If he is sprinkled upon on the third & seventh day, he becomes "tahor"; if not he remains "tamey"... and should he enter the Mikdash, he is to be cut off from Israel." (see 19:10-13) These psukim end the first section of Parshat Parah, as the ashes are prepared, and we are also informed of what they will be needed for. Now that the "efer" is prepared, we are ready to discuss the second TORAH [procedure] found in this chapter, i.e. the precise details of this 'sprinkling process' - known in Hebrew as "torat ha'haza'ah". PROCEDURE #2 and its CHUKIM Let's take a look now at 19:14. Note how this pasuk (at first glance) seems to contradict our definition of a TORAH: "And this is the TORAH - a person who dies in a tent, everything in the tent becomes tamey [unclean] for seven days. And any open vessel... it too becomes tamey..." (19:14-15) Based on our above definitions of CHOK & TORAH, this law [of how one contracts "tumat meyt"] should be considered a "chok" for it describes a set law that never changes! Why then does 19:14 introduce this law as a TORAH? The answer to this question is quite simple. If one reads the next set of psukim carefully, it becomes clear that the phrase "ZOT HA'TORAH" in 19:14 is INTRODUCING the procedure that is defined later on 19:17-19. In other words, we need to add the word 'for' in 19:14 [i.e. a "lamed" after "zot ha'torah L'adam asher yamut b'ohel..." [which is implicit based on the context - see also Rashbam on 19:2!]. In this manner, 19:14-16 should be translated as follows: "This is the TORAH - FOR: a) the case when a person dies in a tent, then everything in the tent becomes "tamey" (19:14), [and for...] b) any open vessel in that tent (19:15), or c) any person who touched a dead body in the field or bone or grave (who also becomes "tamey" (19:16) THEN: for any of these "tamey" persons or objects, we must take from the "efer" [the ashes of the heifer] and put it into a vessel with water (see 19:17) in order to perform PROCEDURE #2 [i.e. "torat ha'za'ah"], as explained in the next set of psukim: "A person who is TAHOR [clean] shall take a hyssop branch, dip it in the water [mixed with the ashes], and then sprinkle it on (either) the tent and vessels, or on the person who touched the bones... or who touched a grave..." (see 19:18). This procedure, as described in 19:18, was first introduced by the phrase "zot ha'TORAH" in 19:14. The next pasuk (19:19) informs us that this procedure must be repeated on both the third and seventh days (see 19:19). THE CHUKIM OF PROCEDURE #2 This second procedure, just like the first procedure, is also accompanied by certain consequential "chukim": a) he who sprinkles the solution becomes "tamey" (see 19:21, see also Rashi who quotes Chazal's understanding that it refers to only someone who carries this solution, but not actually the one who sprinkles it); b) anyone who touches this solution also becomes "tamey" (see 19:22). [i.e. "tamey for one day, he must wash his clothes and then he becomes "tahor" at sunset.] Note how both Procedures #1 and #2 carry with them very similar consequential CHUKIM, i.e. anyone who is involved in this process of either making the "efer", or sprinkling it upon someone else, becomes "tamey". CHUKAT ha'TORAH Based on these definitions, we can suggest an explanation for the opening phrase "CHUKAT ha'TORAH" that introduces these laws (see 19:1). As we have shown, this chapter contains many special CHUKIM that relate to the TORAH (procedures) of "tahara" from "tumat meyt", i.e. (1) making the ashes; and (2) sprinkling the "mei chatat" - water w/ashes solution. Each of these two procedures carry special "chukim" that accompany these procedures: The special chukim all have one common denominator. Anyone involved in these procedures for cleansing one who is "tamey" - he himself becomes "tamey". This strange CHOK that by making someone else TAHOR you become TAMEY is an 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: chukat3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 39043 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: chukat3.doc Type: application/msword Size: 57856 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon Mar 20 15:33:11 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 15:33:11 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Vayakhel Pekudei - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* PARSHAT VAYAKHEL 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayakq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 30436 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayakq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 43008 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pkudq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 50176 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pkudq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 41829 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Mar 23 03:29:16 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 03:29:16 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Vayakhel Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayak1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 56925 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayak1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 60416 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Mar 23 03:30:39 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 03:30:39 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Pekudei Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pkud1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 37446 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pkud1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 41984 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 14:26:16 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:26:16 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Sefer Vayikra - Intro Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayikpre.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 41024 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayikpre.doc Type: application/msword Size: 39424 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 14:27:26 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:27:26 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Vayikra Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayik1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 59736 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayik1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 81408 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Apr 5 13:34:41 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 13:34:41 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Tzav - questions for self study Message-ID: i can do the evening program i just booked my ticket to fly out of cleveland on early Monday morning, so i'm avaiable for that Sunday evening. - What time frame would be ideal? also, would it be ok to given two shiurim, One classic type shiur - at the main time slot- [i'm assuming something like starting from 8 or 8:30 for 60 -75 minutes] and beforehand, a higher lever - smaller interactive shiur from like 6 or 6:30 till 8pm - that i can use to teach the sugya Maamad Har Sinai- please let me know if that sounds realistic, and if so, we can take it from there -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tzavq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 28226 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tzavq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 20786 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Apr 5 14:11:12 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:11:12 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] mistaken email Message-ID: please disregard the last email was sent by mistake to the list -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Apr 5 14:12:32 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:12:32 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Tzav - questions for self study Message-ID: this was what should have been sent ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tzavq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 28226 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Apr 5 15:34:35 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 15:34:35 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For shabbat ha'Gadol & Pesach - questions to prepare for MAGID Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* For self study on Shabbat ha'Gadol LEIL HA-SEDER --Understanding MAGGID [Questions for self-study and preparation] Looking for something to study on Shabbat ha'Gadol, or to do a little more than just 'prepare a little vort' for the Seder? The following questions should keep you 'plenty busy'! INTRODUCTION Sometimes, we find ourselves so involved in studying the various commentaries on the Haggada, that we never get around to studying MAGID itself! The following battery of questions will attempt to do just that, i.e. to help you understand how we tell the story of the Exodus in the section of the Haggada called MAGID [To prepare these questions, it would be helpful if you have handy a Haggada, a Chumash, and Mishnayot Pesachim. As you will notice, we will be analyzing the text of MAGGID using a methodology similar to the approach that we have employed in our study of Chumash.] In the first section, we will explore the psukim in Chumash that command us to tell the story of the Exodus, while the second section will focus on the "mishnayot" in Mesechet Pesachim that provide 'the framework' for the Seder. Based on those questions, our third battery of questions will analyze the actual text of MAGID, and its internal structure, as found in our Haggada. --- b'hatzlacha! PART I - THE SOURCE FOR 'MAGGID' IN CHUMASH 1. Ask almost anyone, and they'll tell you that our obligation to tell the story of the Exodus at the Seder is based on the pasuk: "ve-higadta le-bincha..." (see Shmot 13:8). However, ask them to carefully translate the meaning of every word in that pasuk, and as you'll see for yourself, it's not so easy to understand. For a start, take a quick read of that pasuk (Shmot 13:8), noting how it cannot be understand without knowing what the words "ha-hu" and "zeh" refer to, as well as the context of the phrase "assa Hashem li". Therefore, to appreciate the context of 12:8, you must carefully study from 13:3 thru 13:8, as they include the entire command to 'remember the Exodus'. [To appreciate the fuller context of 13:3-8, you should review all of the parshiot from 12:1 thru 13:8, paying special attention to 12:14 (noting how it relates to 13:3, as well as to 12:3-13) - 12:17, 12:24-27, and the story in 12:33-39.] 2. In regard to 13:3, does this pasuk imply two separate mitzvot - i.e. to 'remember' the day of the Exodus, and not to eat "chametz"; or did you understand this as one commandent, i.e. to 'remember' the day of the Exodus - by not eating "chametz"? In your opinion, which interpretation makes more sense. Similarly, in 13:5 - what does the phrase "ha'avodah ha'zot" refer to? Does this introduce the pasuk that follows (and hence it refers to eating matza) or does it refer back to 12:24-27 (and hence refers to offering the korban pesach). [See how the various commentators argue in this regard.] 3. Return now to 13:8. Based on the context from 13:3-7 what do the words "ha'hu" and "zeh" refer to? Did you translate the word "ba'avur" - as 'because', or 'for the sake of', (or something else)? How does that translation affect your understanding of 13:8? According to your understanding of 13:8, does this pasuk instruct us to explain to our children: (1) why we are eating matza, or (2) why God took us out of Egypt? Then, study the classical commentators on this pasuk, noting how we find an amazing argument between Rashi (& Ibn Ezra sides with him!) against Rashbam & Ramban. In your opinion, which commentary makes more sense? Is it possible that both opinions could be correct? 4. Based on your study, would you say the source and underlying reason for our obligation to tell the story of the Exodus is based only on 13:8, or also on 13:3? [Note also Rambam Hilchot Chametz u'Matza 7:1.] Finally, note as well Shmot 10:1-2, noting how that pasuk as well may relate to the reason for how and why we must tell the story of the Exodus at the Seder! 5. As you review the psukim cited above regarding the Biblical command to 'tell the story of the Exodus', is it clear precisely how we are to tell the story? Assuming that you've read the Bible, in your opinion, at what point in Jewish History should that story begin? [e.g. - would you begin with the enslavement, or would you begin back with Yaakov going down to Egypt, or with Yosef & his brothers, or with Avraham Avinu, or with Terach, or with Noach, or maybe even the story of Creation?] Similarly, and at what point should the story end? [e.g. - with the Exodus? the splitting of the sea?; Matan Torah?; Conquering Israel?, building the Temple?] Finally, in your opinion, would you say that the primary focus of our 'story' should be to explain WHAT happened, or should the story also discussed WHY it happened? If so, explain why! Relate your answer to this question, to your answers to the questions above (and to underlying theme of Sefer Breishit). Keep your answers in mind, as we will discuss them in our study of MAGID. PART TWO - MASECHET PESACHIM 1. Review the mishnayot in the tenth perek of Masechet Pesachim, noting how they provide the guideline for how we are supposed to tell the story. Focus on the "mishnayot" from the 'four questions' until the blessing on the second cup. Note how these mishnayot provide only a 'framework' for how to tell the story - and explain that framework (and format). In your opinion, why does this framework leave so much latitude for the person telling the story to decide for himself how to tell the story? MATCHILIN B'GNUT... 2. The mishna provides us with a format for how to begin and end the story - i.e. we begin our story with a 'derogatory' statement, and conclude with 'praise'. See Mesechet Pesachim 116a, where we find two opinions for how to fulfill 'matchilin bi-gnut': Shmuel suggests that we begin with "avadim hayinu" - we were once slaves... Rav suggests - "m'tchila ovdei kochavim hayu Avoteinu" - that our forefathers were once idol worshipers... In your opinion, does this an argument concern WHEN the story beings (i.e. Rav begins the story with our enslavement/ and hence Sefer Shmot, while Shmuel begins with Terach/ and hence Sefer Breishit) - OR - does their argument simply reflect what is considered a more 'derogatory' statement (i.e. that our forefathers were once slaves, or that they once didn't believe in God)? To the best of your recollection, in the Haggada (when we tell the story of the Exodus), what opinion do we follow? 3. As you probably remember, we find both Rav & Shmuel in our Haggadah; however both of their original short statements - are completed by longer statements. Refer to your Haggada, and attempt to understand why we 'lengthen' these statements. In relation to Shmuel's opinion - be sure to compare with Devarim 6:20-24, noting our direct quote of Devarim 6:21. [In your opinion, was this Shmuel's original intention when he suggested "avadim ha'yinu"?] In relation to Rav's opinion, be sure to see not only Yehoshua 24:1-4; but also Yechezkel 20:1-10! Based on both souces, do you think that Rav's original opinion refers to the fact that Avraham Avinu's father (Terach) was an idol worshiper; or that Bnei Yisrael in Egypt (immediately prior to their redemption) were still involved in idol worship (and nevertheless, God redeemed us)? MSAYMIM b'SHVACH 4. According to the Mishna, we are supposed to conclude the story with 'praise'. In your opinion, where and when do we do this in our Haggadah? In your answer, relate to how we discuss the Plagues, the song of Dayenu, and the first two psalms of Hallel. LFI DAATO SHEL HA'BEN AVIV m'LAMDO 5. The next statement of the Mishna provides yet another 'format' for how to 'tell the story' - i.e. the parent must tell the story based on the 'educational level' of the child. In your opinion, when and how in MAGGID do we apply this principle? [Do we apply this principle in 'practice' as well?] In Part Five (of these questions) you will find an additional battery of questions that will help you appreciate how the section of the Four Sons in the Haggada relates to this Mishna. V'DORSHIM m'ARAMI OVED AVI... 6. Review Devarim 26:1-10 - based on those psukim, be sure that you understand the meaning of this portion of the Mishna, which basically provides us with a format of how we are supposed to tell the story. In our Haggada, do we follow this format? If so, where and when (and how do we accomplish "v'dorshim")? 7. According to the Mishna, it would seem that we should quote from Devarim 26:5-9; while in reality - our Haggada only quotes thru 26:8, but does not include 26:9. Can you explain why? Do you think that our custom follows the original intention of the Mishna, or that our custom changed due to certain historical events? 8. Note how this commandment (in Devarim 26:1-10) to 'bring our first fruits' includes the annual recitation of a special declaration (be every individual in Am Yisrael) - better known as "mikra bikurim". In your opinion, what is the purpose of this annual declaration (see 26:3-10), and why can't we fulfill this obligation when there is no Bet ha'Mikdash? Based on your answer, could you suggest any special significance for why the Mishna prefers that we quote from the psukim of "mikra bikurim" to fulfill our annual obligation of "sipur Yetziat Mitzraim"? 9. Compare Devarim 26:5-9 (in its context) with Breishit 15:7-18 (in its context). In your opinion, what is the relationship between these two sources? In general, how does Breishit chapter 15 relate to "brit Avot"; and how does Devarim chapter 26 relate to "brit Sinai" (see Devarim 26:16-19!). THE RAMBAM in Hilchot chametz u'matza 10. See Rambam, Sefer Zemanin, Hilchot Chametz u-Matza, chapter 7. Read the first six halachot, noting how Rambam understood the psukim in Chumash and the Mishnayot. Note how he understood Shmot 13:1-8, and whether he follows Rav's opinion or Shmuel's. 11. Note as well how the Rambam records his own 'nusach' (text) for MAGGID at the conclusion of Hilchot Chametz u-Matza (immediately after chapter 8). If you have time, compare Rambam's nusach to that in your own Haggada, noting the sections that Rambam did not include. Can you suggest a reason why? ====== PART THREE - ANALYZING MAGGID - step by step... [THE 'BIGGER PICTURE'] 1. Now it's time to see how we tell the story in the Haggada. Our first task is to construct an outline. [Basically, we are going to carefully create a table of contents for MAGGID.] To do so, open to the MAGGID section of your Haggada, and (if it's not Shabbat or Yom Tov) take a blank sheet of paper and pencil. Give a short title for each paragraph or section in Maggid (i.e. beginning with 'Ha lachma anya' until Hallel). Record each title on the left margin of your paper, i.e. create a vertical list. [If it is Shabbat, then keep this list in 'memory'.] This may appear to be rather tedious, but as you continue, you'll see how helpful this will be. To help your study, you can download a one page Haggada at the following link - www.tanach.org/haggada.pdf . 2. Next, turn your list into an outline by grouping together the paragraphs that carry a common topic. For example, the five paragraphs that describe the 'four sons' could be grouped together, so too Raban Gamliel's statement concerning PESACH, MATZA, & MAROR. Re-work your outline several times, attempting to organize it into main topics and subtopics. When you are finished, make sure that you can follow the flow from one topic to the next. In essence, you should have created an 'outline' of MAGID. 3. Study your outline once again, and attempt to ascertain how (and where) the story of the Exodus is actually told. Should you come across any section of MAGGID that does not 'tell the story' of the Exodus, attempt to explain why it is nonetheless included in this section of the Seder. 4. Based on your outline, where in MAGGID do we actually tell the story of the Exodus ['sippur yetziat Mitzrayim'] in its entirety? Relate your conclusions to the 'framework' for MAGGID, as discussed in the mishnayot of Masechet Pesachim (and in our questions in Part Two, above). To better understand what we say in MAGGID, we will now review each section (or paragraph), to determine how it relates (or doesn't relate) to how we tell the story of the Exodus. By doing so, we will better understand how we fulfill (or don't fulfill) the mitzva of "sippur yetziat Mitzrayim" at our Seder. HA LACHMA ANYA 1. Read the "ha lachma anya" paragraph. - In your opinion, does this section serve as the beginning of the story? If not, what is its purpose and why do we recite it? [Are you sure that this paragraph should be considered the first part of MAGID, or could it be considered the last part of YACHATZ (when we break the middle matza). Explain!] In the first line of this paragraph ['This is the bread of affliction...'], the leader of the Seder is clearly speaking to the people who are gathered at the table. However, the second sentence - "kol dichfin..." - appears to be an invitation to anyone in need to join in the offering of a korban pesach, while including some words of hope for a better future next year. In your opinion, is the leader of the Seder now extending an invitation to outsiders (if so, it's a bit late), or is he quoting words that were spoken in a previous generation? If so, what generation is he quoting, and why? [Relate to Shmot 12:3-14, especially 12:14.] 2. From this opening statement, it appears as though the reason for eating MATZA is to remember what our forefathers ate when they were slaves in Egypt. Is that the same reason that the Torah gives? If so, where in the Torah do we find that reason? Are there any other reasons (in Chumash) for why we eat matza? [See Shmot 12:14-20; 12:34-39, 13:3-8 and Devarim 16:1-4.] For what reason were Bnei Yisrael commanded to eat matza with the original 'korban Pesach' in Egypt (see Shmot 12:8 in its context). Was it because they were in a rush? [For a more detailed study, see the TSC shiur on Parshat Bo concerning the two reasons for eating matza - www.tanach.org/shmot/bo.txt .] MA NISHTANA - The Four Questions 1. Clearly, the 'ma nishtana' is not the story, but can you explain why these questions are recited at the beginning of Maggid? Relate your answer to Shmot 13:8. 2. In your opinion, would you consider the "mah nishtana" as four questions or one? If the latter, what is the 'one question' and how does it relate to the 'four questions'? Use your answer to explain why we never (directly) answer these four questions at the Seder. How and when do we answer the 'one question'? To appreciate that 'one question', and how we answer it in the Haggada - see Devarim 6:20-22! AVADIM HAYINU 1. At first glance, this paragraph certainly sounds like the beginning of a story. But carefully read the entire paragraph (that begins with 'avadim hayinu') and ask yourself what is/are its primary point(s)? Are you sure that the story begins here? If not, can you explain the purpose of this paragraph? Does the text of "avadim hayinu" come from a pasuk? If so, where is that pasuk and what is its context? [When you give up, see Devarim 6:20-25.] 2. As you read those psukim, make sure that you understand the meaning of the 'question' in 6:20, and how 6:21-25 (that begins with avadim hayinu) answers this question. How does this answer (in 6:21-24) explain why we are obligated to keep ALL of the mitzvot of the Torah? 3. Based on Devarim 6:20-22, can you explain why the Haggada may have chosen specifically this pasuk to explain WHY we are obligated to tell this story every year. [Note as well how 6:20-21 can explain why the MA NISHTANA comes before AVADIM HAYINU.] 4. There is a popular song sung at the Seder, "avadim hayinu, ata bnei chorin". Are the words for this song in the Haggada? If not, can you find a source for this song? In your opinion, does this song correctly reflect the main theme of MAGGID? [Keep this question in mind as your continue your study.] 5. Does the paragraph of "avadim hayinu" also explain WHO is obligated to tell this story? If so, can you explain why? [Relate to a possible 'misunderstanding' of who would be obligated, based on the opening phrase of Shmot 13:8.] MA'ASEH R. ELIEZER bi-BNEI BRAK 6. In your opinion, does this section tell the story of yetziat Mitzrayim? If not, what is its purpose? As you read this paragraph, be sure that you understand how this section directly relates to the primary point of "v'afilu kulanu chachamim..." in the "avadim hayinu" section that preceded it - in relation to WHO is obligated to tell the story (and to what extent). 7. The next paragraph records a conversation among those Rabbis who gathered in Bnei Brak - concerning the daily commandment to 'remember' the story of the Exodus. Clearly, this in not the story of the Exodus; however, attempt to explain how this discussion of the daily mtizva of "'zechira" [to remember] relates to our yearly obligation of "sipur" [to tell the story] . THE FOUR SONS 1. Clearly, this section doesn't tell the story. However, can you explain its purpose in Maggid? In your answer, relate once again to Shmot 13:8 as well as to the Mishna's statement of 'lfi da'ato shel ha-ben, aviv melamdo' - based on the level of the child, the father should teach his son. 2. You may have also noticed that the answers to the four sons provided in the Haggada are quite different from those recorded in Chumash. First, verify this. Can you explain why? The reason for this will be discussed in a separate battery of questions, found at the end of these questions. [See Part Five.] YACHOL me-ROSH CHODESH 1. This section is short, and easy to understand; but try to explain why it is recited at this point in MAGGID. Does it tell the story? Does it discuss WHEN our obligation to tell this story begins? 2. As you probably noticed, this section is simply one of many that discuss 'secondary' topics before we actually begin to tell the story of yetziat Mitzrayim? Note which sections that we have discussed thus far answer the following questions: A. WHY are we obligated to tell the story? B. WHO is obligated to tell the story? C. HOW we are obligated to tell the story? D. WHEN we are obligated to tell the story? Can you identify a pattern? Did you notice that the 'story' of the Exodus itself has yet to be told? Can you explain why? MI-TCHILA 1. This paragraph certainly sounds like a story. If so, can you explain why the Haggada prefers to begin the story of Exodus from the time period of Terach? Is it simply to fulfill the opinion in the mishna that we begin the story with a derogatory statement? 2. Read this section once again, and decide whether it is indeed telling a story, or possibly making a 'statement'. If the latter, be sure that you can differentiate between the statement and its proof! [With what word does the proof-text begin? If so, what is the primary point made by this paragraph! Would you consider this one statement, or two? 3. Review Yehoshua 24:1-4, noting how these psukim form the 'proof-text'. Note as well how the following psukim, i.e. Yehoshua 24:5-7, actually tell the story of yetziat Mitzrayim. Can you explain why the Haggada does not quote them, but instead only the first four psukim of that chapter? 4 Return to the statement of 'mi-tchila', noting that it contains two primary points. Which of these points is proven by the psukim that are quoted, and which is not! Then, read Yehoshua chapter 24 once again, this time noting 24:14-26! Note how many times the phrase "la'avod et Hashem" is repeated, as well as the main topic of Yehoshua's challenge to the people - if they are willing to 'serve God'! [Rather amazing!] How do these psukim 'prove' the second half of the opening statement? Would it be logical to assume that when this section of the Haggada was first written, it was assumed that the reader would be aware of the continuation of Yehoshua chapter 24? 5.. If the primary point of the paragraph that begins with mi-tchila is to make a 'statement', explain the importance of this statement, and how the reason for why God chose our forefathers relates to our obligation to tell the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim. Relate this statement as well to the popular song of 'avadim hayinu, ata bnei chorin'! [Be sure you that understand the difference. - i.e. how this is the very opposite point!] BARUCH SHOMER HAVTACHATO 1. After reading this paragraph, decide if this is part of the story, or yet another 'statement'. If the latter, can you explain how it relates to the statement of the previous paragraph? Explain as well how it relates to the story of yetziat Mitzrayim. Be sure that you understand why this section quotes from the first covenant between God and Avraham Avinu [better known as 'brit bein ha-btarim' (i.e. Breishit 15:13-18)]. To refresh your memory, it is recommended that you read that entire chapter in Sefer Breishit, noting how this covenant forecasts the framework for the events that later unfold in the Exodus story. [Note especially Breishit 15:13-18.] 2. Note that in MAGGID we are thanking God for keeping His promise to Avraham Avinu to redeem Am Yisrael from slavery. Note, however, that in that same covenant - God had also promised Avraham Avinu to put his offspring into slavery! Can you explain why God found it necessary for this process of becoming God's Nation to include 'affliction & slavery in another land' followed by a miraculous redemption - and only afterward conquest of the land and the establishment of a sovereign nation! In your answer, relate to the numerous commandments in the Torah in regard to how we must be kind and considerate to the stanger, widow and orphan, etc. - which are consistently followed by the 'reminder' that we were once slaves/strangers in Egypt! How does this relate to the concept that God chose the Jewish people to serve Him as His 'model nation'? In what manner can this 'framework' of affliction be considered a 'training process' in order to become God's nation? In your answer relate to the concept of "kur ha'barzel", as discussed in Devarim 4:20. 3. If indeed "brit bein ha'btarim" forecasts our slavery and the ensuing redemption from Egypt - explain why the story of the Exodus must begin with a mention of that covenant. Based on the above questions, would it make sense to conclude that we must tell the story every year not only to remember what happened, but also WHY that story took place? 4. In your opinion, why are we obligated to thank God for yetziat Mitzrayim - even though this event took place over 3500 years ago? How do these last two paragraphs in MAGGID relate to this question? How many other times during MAGGID do we mention our need to feel as though we ourselves experienced the Exodus. Based on the above questions, can you explain why? 5. Based on this covenant, it appears that God wanted Am Yisrael to be enslaved in Egypt in order to later redeem them from that bondage. If so, does it make sense that we should thank God for saving us from a calamity that he purposely put us in? In your opinion, is there anything that we say in Maggid that relates to this question? 6. Return once again to the statement: 'mi-tchila ovdei avoda zara hayu avoteinu..' noting the precise meaning of the statement: 've-achshav kirvanu ha-Makom le-AVODATO'! Explain the thematic importance of this statement, and how it relates to 'brit avot'. [Relate once again to Yehoshua 24:1-23.] 7. Was there a divine purpose for Bnei Yisrael's enslavement in Egypt? If so, how does this relate to our thanking God for yetziat Mitzrayim and the mitzva of MAGGID? Would you say that we are thanking God for the event of yetziat Mitzrayim, the process, or the purpose of that process? Explain how each possibility relates to the questions above. 8. Review Shmot 13:8 once again, paying careful attention to the translation of the phrase 'ba'avur zeh asa Hashem li be-tzeiti mi-Mitzrayim'. See the machloket between Ibn Ezra (& Rashi) and Ramban on the meaning of 'ba'avur ZEH'.... Relate Rashi and Ibn Ezra's interpretation to the above questions! VE-HI SHE-AMDA 9. What does the word 'HI' in the paragraph of 've-HI she-amda...' refer to? How does this paragraph relate to brit bein ha-btarim and to the two previous paragraphs? Again, would you consider this paragraph part of the story of yetziat Mitzrayim, or yet another 'statement'? If the latter, explain its thematic importance. 10. Does this paragraph explain WHY God saves in every generation (when we may be in trouble)? Is the answer implicit, based on the previous two paragraphs? Why do you think that we raise the cup of wine when we recite this section? TZEH U-LEMAD or ARAMI OVED AVI 1. Review the section that begins with "tzeh u'lmad..." noting how it forms a complex "drasha" on the psukim of "arami oved avi" from Devarim 26:5-8. To appreciate why the Haggada quotes this Midrash, study Devarim 26:1-11, i.e. the mitzva of "mikra bikurim".. Carefully study those psukim, and attempt to understand the reason for this mitzva. 2. In your opinion, would you say that the purpose of "mikra bikurim" is to thank God for our first fruits, or to thank God for the Land (that He gave us as He promised to our forefathers in "brit Avot")? If the latter (which better be your answer), explain why the first fruits serve as an appropriate 'token of our appreciation'. [For 'extra credit', relate this to the sin of Cain in Breishit 4:1-5.] 3. Note how the proclamation in 26:5-8 - through which we thank God for the land - begins with the story of yetziat Mitzrayim (i.e. from 'arami oved avi...'), and follows the pattern set by brit bein ha-btarim. Be sure you understand this by comparing Devarim 26:5-8 with Breishit 15:13-18. Based on this parallel, explain why 'mikra bikkurim' could be understood as a yearly proclamation through which we thank God for His fulfillment of brit bein ha-btarim. [Note the use of the word 'yerusha' in both! Note also God's promise of the Land in Breishit 15:18] 4. If so, explain why Chazal may have included 'arami oved avi' in the Haggada, and use it as the vehicle by which we tell the story. Relate this to Mishnayot Pesachim 10:4 - "ve-doresh me-arami oved avi..." (or Pesachim 116a). Relate also to the verb 'higadeti' (in Devarim 26:3) and the command 've-higadeta' in the source for Maggid in Shmot 13:8 ! Note also Rambam in Hilchot Chametz u-Matza 7:4! 5. As you review the 'drasha' of 'arami oved avi' in the Haggada, be sure that you understand how the Haggada quotes each word [or phrase] from Devarim 26:5-8, and elaborates on each quote (usually with psukim from elsewhere in Tanach). Be sure that you can follow how the Haggada uses this as the mechanism by which we actually tell the story! Would you agree that the obligation to 'tell the story' [sippur yetziat Mitzrayim] is fulfilled by the recitation of this "drasha"? If so, would it make sense that this section should be explained in a manner that everyone understands? [Do most people pay attention to this part of the Haggada? Should they?] 6. Where does this "drasha" of "arami oved avi" end? Expalin how it leads into our discussion of the Ten Plagues! THE TEN PLAGUES 1. Note as well how the Haggada introduces the topic of the Ten Plagues, i.e. how it flows from the drasha of 'arami oved avi'. Can you explain why this is the last pasuk that the Haggada quotes from arami oved avi (i.e. we only read thru 26:8, but don't read 26:9 - attempt to explain why). 2. In your opinion, are the 'multiplication tables' [i.e. the plagues x5; x4, x5, etc.] an integral part of this story or simply an 'add-on'? Be sure that you understand how they are based on a mathematical factor of five derived from the comparison between Shmot 8:15 & 14:31. See also Tehillim 78:49, and how that entire Psalm relate to the Plagues in Egypt. How does this explain the second "derasha" that arrives at up to 250 plagues? 3. Note that the Rambam does not include these 'multiplication tables' in his version of MAGGID. Can you explain why? DAYENU 1. Review the section titled DAYENU. Would you consider this part of the story, or a form of 'shevach' [praise] after the story is complete? 2. If we have completed telling the story of yetziat Mitzrayim, what is the song of DAYENU coming to add? How does it relate to the recitation of Hallel at the conclusion of MAGGID? [Relate to the phrase "al achat kama v'kama...".] 3. What does the word DAYENU imply? Do we really mean that it would have been enough for Am Yisrael, had we only been taken out of Egypt and not received the Torah or the Land of Israel?! [In other words, does dayenu imply that it 'would have been enough', or what it 'would have been enough to thank God' for?] In your answer, relate to the meaning of 'al achat kama ve-kama...' (i.e. the kal va-chomer') in the next paragraph. 4. In what manner could the Dayenu section be considered not only 'praise', but also a 'continuation' of the story of the Exodus. If the latter, with what event does the story of the Exodus end? RABBAN GAMLIEL 1. Review Rabban Gamliel's statement, noting how we are quoting the mishna in Pesachim. Which obligation is not fulfilled unless we mention 'pesach matza u-maror': the obligation of sippur yetziat Mitzrayim? the obligation of korban pesach? the obligation of achilat matza? the obligation of "v'higadta l'bincha"? Explain your answer. 2. Would you consider this part of the story, or another 'add on'? If the latter, what is its purpose? 3. In your opinion, how did Rabbban Gamilel understand the meaning of "ha'avoda h'azot" in Shmot 13:5, and now did that affect how he understood "baavur ZEH" in 13:8! BE-CHOL DOR VA-DOR 1. How does the statement of 'be-chol dor va-dor' relate to our question of why we thank God for saving us from a situation that He put us into? How does it relate to brit bein ha-btarim? 2. Finally, note how (and why) we prove this statement with a quote from 've-otanu hotzi mi-sham' which is taken from Devarim 6:22. To appreciate why, review Devarim 6:20-24 once again, and attempt to explain the thematic connection between this paragraph and the 'avadim hayinu' paragraph that we recited at the beginning of Maggid. Relate this as well to the 'strange' statement made by Moshe Rabeinu to the new generation in Devarim 5:2-3! 3. Note that in our "nusach" of the Haggada we prove this point with two psukim: V"higadta l'vincha [See Shmot 13:8.], and V'otanu hotzi m'sham [Devarim 6:22] Can you explain why both psukim are necessary? [Relate to the words "li" and "otanu". 4. Why is the statement of 'be-chol dor va-dor' so critical towards understanding the theme of Maggid? Why do you think that if forms the conclusion of Maggid, prior to our recitation of the Hallel? HALLEL 1. Be sure that you understand how the paragraph of 'lefichach' ties between the story and Hallel that we are about to recite. In your opinion, why do we recite only the first two paragraphs of Hallel now, and save the remaining paragraphs of Hallel for after the meal? 2. Note the opening psukim of Hallel - Tehillim 113, especially - "ha'lelu AVDEI Hashem, ha'lelu et SHEM Hashem..." Relate this opening pasuk to the theme of MAGID and the purpose of Yetziat Mitzraim. [Relate to the 'statement' of "m'tchila ovdei avada zara hayu avoteinu, discussed above!] 3. The reason why we recite Tehillim 114 should be rather obvious. But make sure that you understand why. 4. Review the final blessing of 'ga'al Yisrael', noting how it relates to the overall theme of Maggid. === PART FOUR - THE THEME OF MAGGID 1. Based on your outline and your answers to the above questions, what would you say is the primary purpose of the mitzva of MAGGID? Would you say that we tell the story in order to remember HOW God saved us from Egypt, or WHY He saved us? Did God provide us with freedom from slavery simply for the sake of 'freedom' itself, or in order that we become free to 'serve God' instead? 2. How does the story in MAGID relate to the connection between God's choice of Avraham Avinu to become the forefather a His special nation, and the historical process through which we became that nation? How does this answer the basic question concerning why we are obligated to thank God in every generation for a set of events that took place over three thousand years ago? 3. What would you say is the difference between the daily mitzva of 'zechirat yetziat Mitzrayim' (REMEMBERING the Exodus - fulfilled when we read the third parsha of kriyat shma) and the special mitzva on the Seder night of 'sippur yetziat Mitzrayim' (TELLING THE STORY of the Exodus)? How could the yearly mitzva of 'sippur' be understood as the basis for our daily mitzva of 'zechira'? 4. What is the importance of passing on a tradition from one generation to the next? How does the mitzva of MAGGID help accomplish this goal? How does this explain the involvement of children in the Seder, and special mitzvot such as MATZA and MAROR etc.? 5. Could Korban Pesach and the mitzvot of the Seder night be considered a yearly commemoration not only of yetziat Mitzrayim, but also a yearly reminder of God's promise and our covenantal commitment to brit avot and its purpose? Explain your answer! Relate this to Devarim 26:1-3, the purpose of bringing our first fruits to Hashem. ========== PART FIVE - THE FOUR SONS & SHMOT PEREK 12->13 1. Read the section in the Hagada concerning the four sons: 'kenegged arba banim dibra Torah'. Note how the Haggada is quoting the Midrash [Mechilta]. [Note also how 'baruch ha-Makom...' serves as a 'birkat ha-Torah' in preparation for the study of this drasha!] 2. Try to explain the opening statement: 'kenegged arba...' What assumption is the Midrash making in regard to why there are four sons (and not three or five)? Be precise! 3. Next, look up the source in Chumash for each of these four questions. Should you need help, see Shmot 12:26-27, 13:8, 13:14-15 & Devarim 6:20-21; but as your review these sources, note the context of these psukim. Do the answers to these questions in the Haggada match the answers given in the Torah? Did you ever notice this before? [If not, why?] Do you have a simple explanation why most of the answers that the Haggada gives are different than the answers found in Chumash? 4. Now, scan the four sources once again, this time paying careful attention to the general topic that Chumash is discussing that leads up to each question. Did you find four questions concerning the same topic or do you find four different topics? If so, explain what those topics are. Note how the answers that Chumash provides for each question relate directly to each respective topic; while the answers that the Haggada provides relate to questions concerning the Seder! Can you explain why? Can you explain why this is a drasha and not pshat of these psukim? 5. What do you think the Midrash is coming to teach us? Why do you think this message is so important for the Seder night that Chazal decided to include this Midrash in the Haggada? How does this relate to the statement in the Mishna in the tenth perek of Pesachim -'lefi da'at ha-ben, aviv melamdo - based on the level of the child, the parent should teach him'? be-hatzlacha menachem -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: magidq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 91058 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: magidq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 107520 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Apr 6 09:24:15 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:24:15 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Shabbat ha"Gadol / Pesach - MAGID Message-ID: ************************************************** 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 Expression of Gratitude or Recogniton of Destiny Should Passover be understood as our 'holiday of freedom' - a special time set aside to thank God for taking us out of slavery? Certainly, the popular song of "avadim hayinu... ata benei chorin" ['We were once slaves, but now we are free'] - seems to state exactly that point. However, if you read your Haggada carefully, you'll notice that those words never appear (in that combination). And if you study the Haggada, you'll notice that it states quite the opposite, i.e. that we remain 'servants', but we simply have a new 'boss'! In the following 'Guide for Maggid', we attempt to arrive at a better understanding of how and why we tell the story of the Exodus - and how that story explains why Passover is such an important holiday. Hopefully, it will ask help make your Seder evening a little more interesting (and life - a bit more meaningful). THE SOURCE FOR MAGGID in Parshat Bo Even though we are all familiar with the pasuk "ve-higadta le-bincha..." (Shmot13:8) - the Biblical source for our obligation to recite MAGID - when one reads that pasuk in Chumash, it's not very easy to translate. [Try it yourself, and you'll immediately notice the difficulty.] So let's begin our study by taking a careful look at this 'source pasuk' within its context - as it will be very insightful towards understanding what MAGID is all about. Towards the end of Parshat Bo, Bnei Yisrael have already left Egypt and set up camp in Succot. For food, they have just baked "matzot" from the dough that they had taken with them (in their rush to leave Egypt - see Shmot 12:37-39). After the Torah concludes this narrative, Moshe commands Bnei Yisrael to remember these events in the following manner: "And Moshe told the people - Remember this day that you left Egypt, from the House of Slavery, for God has taken you out with a strong hand... [Then, when you come to the land of Israel...] Eat matza for seven days... and don't see any chametz..." (see Shmot 13:3-7) With this context in mind, note how Moshe concludes these instructions with the following commandment: "ve-HIGGADETA le-bincha ba-yom ha-hu leimor" - And you must TELL your son on that day, saying: BA'AVUR ZEH - for the sake of this - ASA Hashem li BE-TZEITI mi-MITZRAYIM - God did for me [?] when he took me out of Egypt" (see Shmot 13:8). Even though we all know this last pasuk by heart, it is not so easy to translate. In our above transliteration, we have highlighted the difficult words - which we will now discuss: Let's begin with the meaning of the word 'zeh' [this]. Based on its context (see 13:6-7), 'zeh' most probably refers to the matzot that we eat, for the previous psukim describe the mitzva to eat matza for seven days. Hence, this pasuk implies that we must tell our children: 'for the sake of this matza - God did for me [these miracles ?] - when I left Egypt'. Indeed, this commandment instructs us to 'remember' this day by telling something to our children; however, it is not very clear what the Torah wants us to explain. There are two possible directions of interpretation. Either we must explain to our children: * Why God took us out of Egypt - i.e. to eat matza! - Or, * Why we eat matza - because God took us out of Egypt! Even though we are most familiar with the latter reason, the first interpretation seems to be the simple meaning of the pasuk. As you'd expect, the classical commentators argue in this regard. Ramban (on 13:8) explains (as most of us understand this pasuk), that we eat matza to remember HOW God took us out of Egypt. However Rashi (and Ibn Ezra) disagree! In his commentary, Ibn Ezra explains (as 'simple pshat' implies) - that we are commanded to explain to our children that God took us out of Egypt IN ORDER that we can eat matza; implying that God intentionally placed Bnei Yisrael in slavery in order to redeem them - so that we would keep His mitzvot! Rashi provides a very similar explanation, but widens its scope by stating that God took us out of Egypt in order that we would keep ALL of His mitzvot, such as pesach matza & maror. [Chizkuni offers a similar explanation, with a slightly different twist - i.e. in the ZCHUT (in merit) for our readiness to perform the mitzvot of pesach matza & maror for all generations - God redeemed us from Egypt.] According to Rashi and Ibn Ezra's understanding of this pasuk, the primary mitzvah at the Seder should be not only to explain to our children what happened, but also why it happened. In our study of Maggid, we will show how this specific point emerges as a primary theme - but first must consider where that story - that we are commanded to tell over - should begin. WHERE SHOULD WE BEGIN? Let's contemplate for a moment where would be the best (or most logical) point to start the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim from. One could entertain several possibilities. The simplest and most obvious approach would be to begin with Bnei Yisrael's enslavement in Egypt. In fact, this is precisely where Sefer Shmot begins! On the other hand, one could start a bit earlier with the story of Yosef and his brothers, for that would explain how Bnei Yisrael first came to settle down in Egypt. However, if we continue with that logic, we could go back another generation to the story of Yaakov, or even back to story of Avraham Avinu. [Or maybe even back to the story of Creation!] This dilemma appears to be the underlying reason behind the Talmudic dispute between Rav and Shmuel. Let's explain: THE MISHNA in Mesechet PESACHIM The Mishna in the tenth chapter of Mesechet Pesachim sets some guidelines concerning how to fulfill this obligation 'to tell the story', including one that deals with its format: "matchilim bi-gnut u-mesaymim be-shevach" - - We begin our story with a derogatory comment, and conclude it with praise. In the Gemara's subsequent discussion (see Pesachim 116a), we find two opinions concerning what this opening comment should be: * Rav - "Mi-tchila ovdei avoda zara..." - At first. our ancestors were idol worshipers..." * Shmuel - "Avadim hayinu..." - We were once slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt..." At the simplest level, it seems that Rav & Shmuel argue concerning what is considered a more derogatory statement- i.e. the fact that we were once slaves, or the fact that we once idol worshipers. However, this dispute may also relate to a more fundamental question - concerning where the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim actually begins - from our slavery in Egypt (Shmuel), or from the time of our forefathers (Rav). In our study of Maggid, we will show how we actually quote both of these opinions, but not as the starting point of the story, but rather as important statements of purpose. So where does the story begin? We will now begin our detailed study MAGGID not only to answer that question, but also in an attempt to better understand HOW we fulfill this mitzva of "sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim" when we read the Haggada. HOW WE [DON'T] TELL THE STORY IN MAGGID Even though the primary obligation of the Seder evening is to 'tell the story' of Yetziat Mitzrayim, when we read Maggid at the Seder, it is not very clear where that story actually begins (or ends). To determine when, where, and how we actually fulfill this mitzva, we will examine Maggid - one paragraph at a time. As we study each paragraph, we will ask ourselves: is this part of the story? If it is, then we can determine how we tell the story. If it's not, then we must explain why this paragraph is included in Maggid nonetheless. 'HA LACHMA ANYA' The opening paragraph of MAGGID - 'ha lachma anya..' is definitely not the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim, but rather a quick explanation to the guests about the MATZA on the table. Let?s explain why: In the opening sentence, the leader of the Seder explains how this ?special bread? on the table is what our forefathers ate in Egypt; then he quotes what our forefathers said to one another in Egypt as they prepared to partake in the first Korban Pesach. ?kol dichfin?? - reflects how they invited one another to join a common group to eat the korban Pesach (see Shmot 12:3-6); ?hashta hacha?? reflects their expression of hope that by next year they would no longer be slaves in Egypt, but rather a free people living in the land of Israel. As we will explain later on, this quote of what our forefathers said to one another in preparation for the very first ?seder? in Jewish History is thematically very important, for at the end of Maggid, we will express our need to feel as though ?we were there? (?bchor dor v?dor??)! Nonetheless, this section is not the story itself ? however, it forms a very meaningful introduction. [See Further Iyun Section for a discussion of the meaning of ?lechem oni?. Re: how the matza eaten with the 'korban Pesach' had nothing to do with being in a rush, but rather reflected a 'poor man's bread' ["lechem oni"], see TSC shiur on Parshat Bo regarding ?two reasons for matza?.] MAH NISHTANA Similarly, the 'ma nishtana' is not part of the story. Rather, we want the children to ask questions to ensure that they will take interest in the story that we are about to tell. As our obligation to tell this story is based on the pasuk ?ve-higgadeta le-BINCHA? - and you must tell your children... (see Shmot 13:8), it makes sense that we try to capture their attention before we tell the story. However, as you have surely noticed, this section contains only questions, but no answers. It should also be noted that these ?four questions? are really one question; i.e. ? the one question is: ?Why is this night different?? Afterward, the child brings four examples/questions to support his claim that tonight is indeed different. It is for this reason that we never answer these ?four questions?; Rather, Maggid continues with the answer to the ?one question? ? of why this night is special. 'AVADIM HAYINU' At first glance, the next paragraph: 'avadim hayinu...' seems to begin the story. [In fact, it appears that we have followed Shmuel's opinion (in Pesachim 116a) that we should begin the story with 'avadim hayinu'.] However, if you take a minute to carefully read this entire paragraph, you'll immediately notice that this paragraph does NOT begin the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim. Instead, the 'avadim hayinu' section makes two very important statements, which provide the answer the ?one question? of WHY this night is so special. Hence we explain: * WHY we are obligated to tell this story ? for had it not been for this story of how God saved us from Egypt, we would still be slaves till this day; And, then we explain: * WHO is obligated to tell this story - i.e. 've-afilu kulanu chachamim..' - and even if we [who gather] are all very wise and learned and know the entire Torah, it remains incumbent upon us to tell that story; and the more we elaborate upon it, the better! >From this paragraph, it appears that before we actually tell the story, the Haggada prefers to first discuss some fundamentals relating to the nature of our obligation! The first statement deals with a fundamental question regarding why this story is meaningful to all future generations, even though we will be discussing an event that took place thousands of years earlier. The second statement comes to counter a possible misunderstanding, based on the source-text of "ve-higgadeta le-bincha..." - that this mitzva applies only to teaching children [i.e. those who never heard this story]. Therefore, before we tell the story, the Haggada must remind us that everyone is obligated to discuss the story - even 'know it alls'. [See Further Iyun section for a more detailed discussion of how to understand this section in light of Devarim 6:20-25.] MA'ASEH BE-R. ELIEZER... To prove this second point of the 'avadim hayinu' paragraph (that even ' know it alls' are obligated to tell the story), the next paragraph in MAGGID quotes a story of five great Torah scholars (in fact Tannaim) who gathered for the Seder in Bnei Brak. Even though they certainly knew the story; nonetheless they spent the entire evening (until dawn the next morning) discussing it. [This reflects a classic format for a Rabbinic statement. First the Rabbis state the obligation [in our case, that everyone is obligated to tell the story - even 'know it alls'] - afterward they support that ruling by quoting a story [in our case, the story of the five scholars who spent the entire evening discussing the story of the Exodus, even though they surely knew it.] Even though the Haggada does not quote their entire conversation of that evening, the next paragraph does quote one specific discussion. Let's explain why: AMAR RABBI ELIEZER BEN AZARYA... The specific discussion that we quote concerns the Biblical source for our daily obligation to 'mention' the story of the Exodus (see Devarim 16:3). In Hebrew, this obligation is commonly referred to as "zechira" [to passively remember], in contrast to our 'once a year' obligation at the Seder of "sippur" - to actively tell the story of the Exodus. Most likely, the Haggada chose to quote this specific discussion as it relates to the obvious connection between these two mitzvot ("zechira" & "sippur"). One could suggest that the story we tell at the Seder ("sippur") serves as the reference point for our daily mention ("zechira") of the Exodus - when we recite the third 'parshia' of keriyat shema (see Bamidbar 15:41), every morning and evening. To mention this story on a daily basis only becomes meaningful if we first 'tell the story' in full (at least once a year). We should note as well that the very pasuk: "I am the Lord your God who took you out of the Land of Egypt to be for you a God" (Bamidbar 15:41) supports the opinion of Rashi & Ibn Ezra (quoted above) that God took us out of Egypt in order that we keep His commandments. Notice however, that we are still discussing the nature of our obligation - but the story itself has not yet begun! THE FOUR SONS The next section of MAGGID - beginning with 'baruch ha-Makom', discusses the Four Sons. Here again, we do not find the actual story of Yetziat Mitzrayim, rather another aspect of 'defining our obligation', as this section discusses HOW we should tell the story. This section reflects the statement in the Mishna: '"l'fi da'ato shel ha-ben, aviv melamdo" - based on the level of the child, the parent should teach [the story]. [See Pesachim 116a.] Based on this dictum, the Haggada quotes a Mechilta, which offers four examples of how to tell the story to different types of children - each example based on a pasuk in Chumash (where the father answers his son). The opening statement of this section: 'baruch ha-Makom...' serves as a 'mini' "birkat ha-Torah" [a blessing recited before Torah study], as we are about to engage in the study of a Mechilta - the Midrash on Sefer Shmot. The quote itself begins with "keneged arba banim dibra Torah..." [For a deeper understanding of this Mechilta, see the TSC shiur on 'The Four Sons' - tanach.org/special/4sons.doc] This section certainly teaches us HOW to be a 'dynamic' teacher as we tell this story, and adapt it to the level of our audience. However, note once again that the story has yet to begun! "YACHOL ME-ROSH CHODESH" In the next section, beginning with: 'yachol me-rosh chodesh...' we discuss yet another aspect of our 'obligation to tell the story' - this time concerning WHEN we are obligated. Here, the Haggada quotes an analytical discourse which arrives at the conclusion that the story must be told on evening of the Seder. Once again, we find another definition relating to our obligation to tell the story, but we haven't told the story yet! [In case you'd like to follow the logic behind this discourse: Because the Torah's first command to remember this day is recorded in Shmot 12:14, as part of a set of commands given to Moshe on Rosh Chodesh Nisan (see 12:1-2), one might think that the phrase "v'haya ha'yom ha'zeh l'zikaron" (in 12:14) refers to Rosh Chodesh [that's the "hava amina"]. However, when Moshe relays these laws to Bnei Yisrael in chapter 13, he informs that they must remember this day that they left Egypt, not eat chametz & eat matza for seven days (see 13:3-7), and then they must tell the story to their children on that day "ba'yom ha'hu" (see 13:8) - which may refer to the day time, i.e. when they first offer the Korban on the 14th in the afternoon [based on Shmot 12:6 and hence "yachol m'b'od yom..."]. The drasha rejects that possible understanding based on the next phrase in 13:8 - "ba'avur zeh" - where "zeh" in its context must be referring to the matza - hence the story must be told at the same time that we eat matza and the korban Pesach, i.e. on the evening of the 15th.] Once again, we find another definition relating to our obligation to tell the story, but we haven't told the story yet! [At most Seders, probably at least an hour has gone by, but we haven't even begun to tell the story!] "MI-TCHILA OVDEI AVODA ZARA..." After defining the various aspects of our obligation, it appears that MAGGID finally begins telling the story with the paragraph that begins with "mi-tchila ovdei avoda zara..." (apparently following Rav's opinion in Pesachim 116a). If so, it would seem that we actually begin the story with the story of our forefathers [the Avot] and how Avraham grew up within a family of idol worshipers. However, if you read this paragraph carefully, you'll notice it isn't a story at all. Instead, the Haggada is making a very important statement, and then proves that statement with a text-proof from Yehoshua chapter 24. To appreciate what's going on, let's take a closer look at this statement and its proof. The Statement: "Mi-tchila ovdei avoda zara.hayu.avoteinu, ve-achshav kirvanu ha-Makom le-avodato" At first, our forefathers were servants to strange gods - but now, God has brought us closer to Him - [in order] to serve Him! The Proof: "And Yehoshua said to the people: 'Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Your fathers dwelt in the past - beyond the River, even Terach - the father of Avraham, and the father of Nachor - and they served other gods. And I took your father Avraham from beyond the River, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Yitzchak. And I gave unto Yitchak Yaakov and Esav; and I gave Esav mount Seir, to possess it; and Yaakov and his children went down into Egypt" (Yehoshua 24:2-4). This statement should not surprise us, for once again we find the Haggada emphasizing the point (discussed above) that God chose the people of Israel for a purpose - i.e. to serve Him! However, if you study the quoted text-proof, you'll notice that it only proves the first half of our statement, i.e. that we were once idol worshipers, but it doesn't proves the second half - that God brought us close in order to serve Him. RE-AFFIRMING BRIT SINAI in Sefer Yehoshua The solution to this problem is very simple. To show how this quote from Yehoshua proves the second point as well, we simply need to read the continuation of Yehoshua chapter 24. In that chapter, after teaching a short 'history lesson' (see 24:2-13), Yehoshua challenges the people saying: "Now - fear the LORD, and serve Him in sincerity and in truth; and put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom you will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD" (Yehoshua 24:14-15). The entire reason why Yehoshua gathered the people in Shchem and reviewed their history was in order to challenge them with this goal - i.e. their willingness to truly serve God. After all, as Yehoshua explains, it was for this very reason that God chose Avraham Avinu. Thus the proof on the second half of the opening statement comes from the continuation of that chapter! Note as well how the chapter continues, emphasizing over and over again this same theme: "And the people answered: 'Far be it from us that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods; for the LORD our God, He it is that brought us and our fathers up out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage, and that did those great signs in our sight... therefore we also will serve the LORD; for He is our God.' And Yehoshua said unto the people: 'You cannot serve the LORD; for He is a holy God; He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgression nor your sins.... And the people said: 'Nay; but we will serve the LORD.' And Joshua said unto the people: 'You are witnesses that you have chosen God to serve Him. - And they said: 'We are witnesses.'-- And the people said unto Yehoshua: 'The LORD our God will we serve, and unto His voice will we hearken.' So Yehoshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem." [See Yehoshua 24:16-25!] Hence, the proof for the entire statement of 'mi-tchila...' is found in the continuation of Yehoshua chapter 24. Most probably, when this section was first composed, the Haggada assumed that its readers were well versed in Tanach, and knew the continuation of that chapter. [Note as well how psukim that we do quote from Yehoshua (see 24:2-4) form a beautiful summary of Sefer Breishit, as they focus on the key stages of the 'bechira' process. Should you be looking for something novel to do at your Seder, you could have the participants read from this section. Note as well that Yehoshua 24:5-7 is an excellent (albeit short) review of the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim. ] This background can help us appreciate how this statement of 'mi-tchila' sets the stage for the story that we are about to tell - for it explains why God originally chose Avraham - i.e. to become the forefather of a nation that will serve Him. The next paragraph of MAGGID will explain its connection to the story that we are about to begin. "BARUCH SHOMER HAVTACHATO" In the next paragraph we find yet another 'statement' (and not a story) followed by a proof-text, that relates once again to God's original choice of our forefathers. We will now show how this section explains why the story must begin with Avraham. Statement: "Baruch shomer havtachato... - Blessed is He who keeps His promise [of redemption] to Am Yisrael, for God had calculated the end [time for redemption] as He had promised Avraham Avinu at brit bein ha-btarim. As God stated: Proof: 'Know very well that your offspring will be strangers in a foreign land which will oppress and enslave them for four hundred years. But that nation who will oppress them I will judge, and afterward they will go out with great wealth" [See Breishit 15:13-18]. In this statement, we thank God for keeping His promise to Avraham Avinu, at ?brit bein ha-btarim?, to ultimately redeem Bnei Yisrael from their affliction, after some four hundred years. At first glance, this statement sounds like yet another expression of gratitude. However, when considering its position in Maggid, one could suggest a very different reason for its mention specifically at this point. Recall how the previous paragraph explained that God had chosen our forefathers to establish a nation to serve Him. In order to become that nation, God entered into a covenant with Avraham Avinu ? i.e. "brit bein ha?btarim" - which forecasted the need for Avraham?s offspring to first undergo suffrage in ?a land not theirs? in order to become that nation. In other words, this historical process of slavery, followed by a miraculous redemption, was to serve as a ?training experience? that would facilitate the formation of that nation. [See concept of "kur ha'barzel" and its context in Devarim 4:20.] Hence, this paragraph explains why the story of the Exodus must begin with ?brit bein ha?btarim? - for our slavery in Egypt was not accidental, rather it was part of God's master plan. In a certain sense, God put us into Egypt - in order to take us out! [This does not imply that every event that happened to Am Yisrael was already predetermined since the time of Avarham Avinu. Rather, this overall framework of becoming a nation in someone else's land - followed by oppression and servitude - then followed by redemption - was forecasted. How exactly it would play out, who would be the oppressor, and how intense that oppression would be- was yet to be determined. See Rambam Hilchot Teshuva chapters 5 & 6; see also Seforno's introduction to Sefer Shmot as his commentary on the first chapter.] As we thank God for fulfilling His promise to Avraham, we are in essence thanking God for His covenant and its very purpose, not just for taking us out of Egypt. Therefore in this section of Maggid, before we tell the story of WHAT happened - we must first explain WHY it happened. This point is proven in the next paragraph: "VE-HEE SHE-AMDA" As we lift our cups and recite the "v'hee sh'amda" - we declare yet another important statement, connecting that covenant and the events of the past with today: "ve-HEE she-amda la-avoteinu ve-LANU " - And it is THIS [Promise that was part of the COVENANT, i.e. brit bein ha-btarim] which stood for our fathers, AND for us as well. For not only once [in our history] did our enemies try to destroy us; but in EVERY generation we are endangered, but God comes to save us [for the sake of His covenant]." The word "hee" in this statement obviously refers to the promise ['havtacha'] of brit bein ha-btarim (mentioned in the previous paragraph). This statement is so important that our custom is to raise the cup of wine before reciting this proclamation! Here we explain that "brit bein ha-btarim" was not merely a 'one-time coupon' promising one major redemption, but rather it defined an eternal relationship between God and His people. The events of Yetziat Mitzrayim are only the initial stage of this everlasting relationship. Therefore, anytime in our history, whenever we are in distress - God will ultimately come to redeem us. However, the reason why God redeems us is in order that we can return to serve Him (that's why He chose us). This provides us with a deeper understanding of why every generation must tell-over the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim. At the Seder, we are not simply thanking God for the 'event' but rather for the entire 'process'. Yetziat Mitzrayim was not simply a 'one-time' act of redemption. Rather, it was a critical stage in an on-going historical process in which God desires that Am Yisrael become His special nation. As this purpose is eternal, so too the need to remind ourselves on a yearly basis of the key events through which that process began. This understanding explains why redemption requires spiritual readiness, for in every generation Bnei Yisrael must show their willingness to be faithful to that covenant. [In our TSC shiur on Parshat Bo, we explained how this concept explains the symbolism of why we must rid ourselves of chametz, prior to and during the time when we thank God for Yetziat Mitzrayim. This may also explain why we invite Eliyahu ha-navi, when we begin the final section of the Haggada, where we express our hope for our future redemption. According to the final psukim of Sefer Mal'achi (the Haftara for Shabbat ha-Gadol!), Eliyahu will come to help the nation perform proper 'teshuva' - to become worthy for redemption.] At most Seder's - surely, over an hour has passed; yet we still haven't told the story!] "TZEY U-LMAD" / "ARAMI OVED AVI" With this thematic background complete, the Haggada is finally ready to tell the story (for those who are still awake). However, as you may have noticed, we do not tell the story in a straightforward manner. Take a careful look at the next section of MAGGID, noting how the Haggada takes four psukim from Devarim 26:5-8, and quotes them one word (or phrase) at a time. Each quote is followed by a proof of that phrase, usually from either the story of the Exodus in Sefer Shmot or from a pasuk in Sefer Tehillim. [To verify this, be sure to first review Devarim 26:1-9 before you continue.] This section begins with "tzey u-lmad: ma bikesh Lavan...." which is simply a drasha of the opening phrase 'arami oved avi', and then continues all the way until the 'makkot' -the Ten Plagues. In a nutshell, this section constitutes a rather elaborate Midrash on four psukim from 'mikra bikkurim' (Devarim 26:5-8). The reason why MAGGID chooses this format to tell the story is based once again on a statement in the Mishna in the tenth chapter of Masechet Pesachim: "ve-dorshin me-arami oved avi ad sof ha-parasha" - and then we elaborate on the psukim from 'arami oved avi' until the end of that unit - and that is exactly what the Haggada does! In other words, the Haggada uses Devarim 26:5-8 - beginning with 'arami oved avi' - as the 'framework' for telling over the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim. Even though 'technically' it would suffice to simply quote these psukim, we elaborate upon them instead, in an effort to make the story more interesting and meaningful. [In fact, we are quoting a Sifrei - the Midrash on Sefer Devarim, which most probably was composed for this very purpose.] >From a 'practical' halachic perspective, this is critical to understand - for in this section we finally fulfill our obligation to TELL THE STORY - and hence this section should be treated as the most important part of MAGGID! [Unfortunately, this section is usually one of the most neglected parts of the Haggada, since we are usually 'out of steam' by the time we reach it. Also, if one is not aware of the elaborate nature of these quotes, it is quite difficult to understand what's going on. Therefore, it's important that we not only pay attention to this section, but we should also be sure at this point to explain the details of the story to those who don't understand these psukim.] WHY MIKRA BIKKURIM? It is not by chance that Chazal chose to incorporate a Midrash of "mikra bikkurim" - even though it is rather cryptic - as the method through which we fulfill our obligation of sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim. Let's explain why. Recall from our shiur on Parshat Ki Tavo, that "mikra bikkurim" (see Devarim 26:1-10) serves as a yearly proclamation whereby every individual thanks God for His fulfillment of the final stage of brit bein ha-btarim. [This is supported by numerous textual and thematic parallels between the psukim of mikra bikkurim (Devarim 26:1-9), and brit bein ha-btarim (see Breishit 15:7-18). Note as well the use of the word 'yerusha' in 26:1 and in 15:1-8!] This proclamation constitutes much more than simply thanking God for our 'first fruits'. Rather, it thanks God for the Land (see Devarim 26:3) that He had promised our forefathers (in brit bein ha-btarim / see Breishit 15:18). The 'first fruits' are presented as a 'token of our appreciation' for the fact that God has fulfilled His side of the covenant - as each individual must now declare that he will be faithful to his side of the covenant. As mikra bikkurim constitutes a biblical 'nusach' ['formula'] through which one thanks God for His fulfillment of brit bein ha-btarim, one could suggest that it was for this reason that the Mishna chose these same psukim as its framework for telling the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim. [It very well may be that this custom to tell the story at the Sefer with "mikra bikurim" began after the destruction of the Temple (note that the Tosefta of Mesechet Pesachim does not include this custom, while the Mishna (compiled later) does include it! Without the Temple, the individual could no longer recite "mikra bikkurim". However, we can at least remind ourselves of this yearly need to proclaim our allegiance to God's covenant - by quoting from "mikra bikurim" at the Seder! This may explain why the Haggada only quotes the first four psukim of mikra bikkurim (where it talks about Yetziat Mizraim) but not the pasuk that describes how He bought us into the Promised Land. Finally, note also the word 'higgadeti' in Devarim 26:3 and compare it with the word 've-higgadeta' in Shmot 13:8! See also Rambam Hilchot Chametz u-Matza chapter 7, especially halacha 4.] THE MULTIPLICATION TABLES When you study the "drashot" of these four psukim, note how the drasha of the final pasuk leads us directly into the Ten Plagues. At this point, the Haggada quotes an additional drasha - by R. Yossi ha-Glili - that there must have been 5 times as many plagues at the Red Sea than were in Egypt [based on the ratio - 'etzba' of the Makkot to 'yad' at Kriyat Yam Suf, i.e. hand/finger = 5/1]. Then R. Eliezer and R. Akiva add multiples of 4x and 5x for each plague - based on Tehillim 88:49. [Note in the Rambam's nusach of MAGGID, he skips this entire section. This suggests that this Midrash is an additional 'elaboration', but not a necessary part of the story that we must tell. In other words, if you need to skip something, this section is a 'good candidate'.] DAYENU Now that the story is finished, it's time for 'praise' -following the format of the Mishna "matchilin bi-gnut u-mesaymim be-shevach' - and we will now explain how DAYENU serves as a special form of HALLEL (praise). You are probably familiar with all the questions regarding what we say in Dayenu, for example, how could a Jew say, let alone sing, that -'it would have been enough'- even had God not given us the Torah? And how could a 'zionist' say, let alone sing, that -'it would have been enough'- even if God had not given us the Land of Israel? However, the answer to all those questions is rather simple, once one understands that each time we say the word "dayenu" - it really implies that 'it would have been enough - to say Hallel'. In other words, we say as follows: - Had God only taken us out of Egypt and not punished the Egyptians, it would have been reason enough to say Hallel - Had He split the sea, but not given us the 'manna', that alone would have been reason enough to say Hallel... ... And so on. With this background, the next paragraph of that poem makes perfect sense: "`al achat kama vekhama..." - How much more so is it proper to thank God for He has performed ALL these acts of kindness .. He took us out of Egypt, and punished them, and split the sea, and gave us the manna etc. In essence, this beautiful poem poetically summarizes each significant stage of redemption, from the time of the Exodus until Am Yisrael's conquest of the Land - stating how each single act of God's kindness in that process would be reason enough to say Hallel, now even more so we must say Hallel, for God did all of these things for us. From this perspective, "dayenu" serves a double purpose. First and foremost, it concludes the story with "shevach" [praise]. and qualifies the Hallel that we are about to sing. However, it could also be understood as a continuation of the story of the Exodus. Let's explain why and how: Recall that the last "drasha" [elaboration] on the psukim of "arami oved avi" led into a lengthy discussion of the Ten Plagues. To fulfill our obligation at the Seder' to tell the story', we could (and do) finish right here. But the poem of "dayenu" actually continues that story, picking up from the Ten Plagues ["asa bahem shfatim" refers to the Plagues], and continuing through all the significant events in the desert until our arrival in the Land of Israel and building the Temple. This takes on additional significance, as it concludes in the same manner as the final pasuk of "arami oved avi" - which for some reason we do not include in our Seder (even though according to the Mishna it appears that we really should)! Recall that according to Devarim 26:9, the proclamation should conclude with: "va'yvi'einu el ha'Makom ha'zeh" According to Chazal - he brought us to the Bet ha'Mikdash! "va'yiten lanu et ha'aretz ha'zot" he gave us the land of Israel Even though we don't elaborate upon this pasuk in our version of Maggid, "dayenu" enables us to include it! In this manner, the song of "dayneu" serves as both "shevach" [praise] and "sippur" [story] - at the same time! It is also interesting to note that we find 15 levels of praise in the Dayenu, that most probably correspond to the 15 steps leading to the Bet ha-Mikdash, better known as the 'shir ha-ma'a lot', i.e. the 15 psalms in Tehillim (120-134) / composed for each step. Finally, note how Dayenu discusses fifteen 'stages' in the redemption process. This beautifully reflects the theme that we have discussed thus far - that we are thanking God for the entire process of redemption, and not just for a specific event! [For a full shiur on the topic of Dayenu, see: www.tanach.org/special/dayenu.txt ] "RABBAN GAMLIEL" Even though we have completed our story, before continuing with the Hallel, the Haggada wants to make sure that we also fulfill Rabban Gamliel's opinion (in Masechet Pesachim chapter 10) that we have not fulfilled our obligation of "v'higadta l'bincha" unless we have explained the connection between that story and the commandment to eat PESACH, MATZA & MAROR. [It appears that Ramban Gamliel understands the word "zeh" (in Shmot 13:8) refers to the 'korban Pesach' - probably based on his understanding that the phrase "ha'avoda ha'zot" in 13:5 also relates to 'korban Pesach'. Hence, Raban Gamliel requires that we explain to our children (and whoever is gathered) why we are eating not only matza, but also pesach and maror.] Rabban Gamliel's statement could also imply that our obligation of eating matza and maror is not complete unless we explain how they connect to the story that we just told. This would explain why it is added at the conclusion of the "sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim" section, as we are about to fulfill our obligation to eat matza, and maror. [In our times, this section may also be considered a 'fill in' for the KORBAN PESACH itself. During the time of the Bet ha-Mikdash, MAGGID was said while eating the korban pesach. Nowadays, since the korban cannot be offered, we mention pesach, matza, and maror instead of eating the korban. Thus, this section forms an excellent introduction to the Hallel, which in ancient times was recited as the Korban Pesach was offered, and later when it was eaten.] This section forms the conclusion of "sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim", and sets the stage for our reciting of Hallel - to praise God for our salvation. [See Rambam Hilchot chametz u'matza 7:5, where his concluding remark implies that "haggada" ends here.] "BE-CHOL DOR VA-DOR" Considering the integral connection between the events of the Exodus and "brit avot" (discussed above) the statement of:`"be-chol dor va-dor chayav adam lir'ot et atzmo ke-ilu hu yatza mi-Mitzrayim..." takes on additional significance. Before we say HALLEL, we conclude our story by stating that in every generation - each individual must feel as though HE himself was redeemed from Egypt. As the purpose of this entire historical process of redemption was to prepare Am Yisrael for their national destiny - it becomes imperative that every member of Am Yisrael feels as though they experienced that same 'training mission'. One could suggest that this closing statement complements the opening statement of MAGGID (in the avadim hayinu paragraph) that had God had not taken us out of Egypt we would still enslaved until this very day. Now that we have told the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim, we are supposed to feel as though we ourselves were redeemed. As stated in Devarim 6:20-25, the events of Yetziat Mitzrayim obligate Am Yisrael to keep not only the mitzvot of Pesach but ALL of the mitzvot of the Torah! [See Sefer Kuzari section 1.] [Note how the phrase "ve-otanu hotzi mi-sham" that we recite in this section of MAGGID is quoted from Devarim 6:23! Note as well how Chazal most probably arrived at this conclusion based on Moshe Rabeinu's statement in Devarim 5:2-3 (at the very beginning of his main speech) that God's covenant at Har Sinai was made with the new generation, even though they themselves were not born yet!] LEFICHACH / HALLEL As an introduction to the first two chapters of HALLEL, we recite 'lefichach...'. Note how this section contrasts 'suffering' with 'redemption' (note the numerous examples). This too may reflect our theme that we thank God for the process, and not just for the event. The two chapters of Hallel that we recite at this time are also quite meaningful. The reason for 'be-tzeit Yisrael mi-Mitzrayim' is rather obvious. But note the opening words of the first chapter: "hallelu AVDEI Hashem, hallelu et SHEM Hashem..." In other words, as we are now God's servants ['avdei Hashem'] - and no longer slaves to Pharaoh, it is incumbent upon us to praise our new master. THE 'SECOND CUP' We conclude Maggid with the blessing of "ge'ula" [redemption] on the 2nd cup of wine. As we recite this blessing, note how most fittingly we express our hope that we will become worthy of God's redemption speedily in our own time A CONCLUDING THOUGHT Even though much of our above discussion may seem 'technical', our analysis alludes to a deeper concept, that the Seder is not only about 'gratitude' - i.e. thanking God for what happened; but more so - it's about 'destiny' - i.e. recognizing why it happened! . Let's explain. Many of us are familiar with a concept called 'hakarat ha-tov' - recognition of gratitude. Simply translated, this means that people should express their gratitude for help (or assistance) provided by others. In relation the Seder, by telling the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim [the Exodus] and reciting afterward the Hallel [praise], we express our gratitude to God for our redemption from slavery in Egypt. However, if "hakarat ha-tov" is the sole purpose of Maggid, then a very serious question arises when we pay attention to the details of the story that we have just told. Recall (from the paragraph "baruch shomer havtachato...") how we thank God in the Haggada for the fulfillment of His covenant with Avraham - that he would ultimately save Am Yisrael from their bondage. Yet in that very same covenant, God promised not only our redemption, but also our enslavement! [See Breishit 15:13-15.] If there was a real teenager [or 'chutzpedik'] son at the table, he could ask a very good [but 'cynical'] question: Why should we thank God for taking us out of Egypt, after all - it was He who put us there in the first place! To answer this question, I'd like to introduce the concept of 'hakarat ha-ye'ud' [shoresh yod.ayin.daled] - the recognition of destiny [and/or purpose]; in contrast to "hakarat ha-tov". As we explained above, our obligation to 'tell the story of the Exodus' stems not only from our need to remember what happened, but more so - from our need to remember why it happened. In other words, we are actually thanking God for both putting us into slavery and for taking us out; or in essence - we thank God for our very relationship with Him, and its purpose - as we must recognize the goal of that process and the purpose of that relationship. In our shiur, we have both discussed the biblical background that supported this approach, and shown how this understanding helped us appreciate both the content of structure of Maggid. This point of "hakarat ha-ye'ud" is exactly that we emphasized in our introduction. As our 'ye'ud' - our destiny - is to become a nation that will serve Him, God found it necessary to send us down to Egypt in order that He could redeem us. This could be the deeper meaning of Rashi's interpretation of the pasuk "ve-higgadeta le-bincha ... ba'avur zeh" - that we must explain to our children that God took us of Egypt in order that we keep His mitzvot. [See Rashi & Ibn Ezra 13:8.] Rashi understands that the primary purpose of "magid" is not simply to explain why we are eating matza, but rather to explain to our children why God took us out of Egypt - or in essence, why He has chosen us to become His nation and hence keep His mitzvot. To complement this thought, we will show how this same theme may relate as well to the very purpose of God's first covenant with Avraham Avinu - "brit bein ha'btarim". ETHICS & the EXODUS - Recall that when God first chose Avraham Avinu in Parshat Lech Lecha (see Breishit 12:1-7), He informed him that he would become a great nation and that his offspring would inherit the land, However, only a short time later (in chapter 15), God qualifies that promise by informing Avraham Avinu (at brit bein ha'btraim) that there would be a need for his offspring to become enslaved by another nation BEFORE becoming (and possibly in order to become) God's special nation (see Breishit 15:1-18). Even though some commentators understand this 'bondage' as a punishment for something that Avraham may have done wrong (see Maharal - Gevurot Hashem); nonetheless, the simple pshat of Breishit chapter 15 is that this covenant was part of God's original plan. This begs for an explanation concerning why this framework of 'slavery' was a necessary part of this process. [We should note that according to Seforno (based on Yechezkel 20:1-10), even though God forecasted our slavery, it didn't have to be so severe. Its severity, he explains, was in punishment for Bnei Yisrael's poor behavior in Egypt. (See Seforno's intro to Sefer Shmot and his commentary on Shmot 1:13.) .] One could suggest that the answer lies in what we find in the mitzvot given to Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai, immediately after they leave Egypt. Recall the numerous commandments that include the special 'reminder' of "v'zacharta ki eved ha'yita b'eretz Mitzraim" - to Remember that you were once a SLAVE [or STRANGER] in Egypt. Just about every time we find this phrase, it is not a 'stand alone' mitzvah, but rather as an additional comment following a law concerning the proper treatment of the 'less-fortunate' - i.e. it serves as an extra incentive to keep some of the most very basic ethical laws of the Torah. To prove this, simply review the following list of sources in your Chumash, paying careful attention to when and how this phrase is presented, noting both its topic and context: * Shmot 22:20 & 23:9 (note the type of mitzvot found in numerous laws recorded between these two psukim). Note especially "v'atem y'datem et nefesh ha'ger" in 23:9, that phrase highlights our above assertion. * Vayikra 19:33-36 (concluding "Kdoshim tihiyu"!) * Vayikra 20:26! and 25:55! (note the context of Vayikra 25:35-55, noting especially 25:38.) * Devarim 5:12-15 (shabbos is to allow our servants a chance to rest as well - v'zachrta ki eved hayita...") * Devarim 16:11-12, in regard to "simchat yom tov" * Devarim 24:17-18, noting context from 23:16 thru 24:18 * Devarim 24:19-22, continuing same point as above * Note as well concluding psukim in Devarim 25:13-16 REMEMBER WHAT THEY DID TO YOU In light of these sources (a 'must read' for those not familiar with these psukim), it becomes clear that part of God's master plan (in the need for our enslavement to Egypt before becoming a nation) was to 'sensitize' us, both as individuals and as a nation, to care for the needs of the oppressed and downtrodden. God is angered when any nation takes advantage of its vulnerable population (see story of Sedom in Breishit chapters 18-19, noting especially 18:17-21!). In our shiurim on Sefer Breishit, we suggested that this may have been one of the underlying reasons for God's choice of a special nation, a nation that will 'make a Name for God', by setting an example in the eyes of there nations, of ideal manner of how a nation should treat its lower classes, and be sensitive to the needs of its strangers and downtrodden. [Note also Yeshayahu 42:5-6!] Hence, after Bnei Yisrael leave Egypt, they must receive a special set of laws are Har Sinai that will facilitate their becoming that nation. As they are chosen to become God's model nation (see Devarim 4:5-8), these laws must set reflect a higher standard, to serve as a shining example for other nations to learn from. Note as well how the opening laws of Parshat Mishpatim (which immediately followed the Ten Commandments), begin with special laws for how to treat our own slaves, whether they be Jewish (see Shmot 21:1-11) on non Jewish (see 21:20 & 21:26-27). [Not to mention the laws that follow in 22:20 thru 23:9.] With this background, one could suggest that the suffering of Bnei Yisrael in Egypt, i.e. their being taken advantage of by a tyrant etc., would help teach Bnei Yisrael what 'not to do' when they form their own nation, after leaving Egypt. As anyone who is familiar with the prophecies of Yeshayahu and Yirmiyahu (and just about all of the Neviim Acharonim) knows, it was this lack of this sensitivity to the poor and needy that becomes the primary reason behind God's decision to exile Israel from their land, and destroy the Bet Ha'Mikdash. A YEARLY 'RE-SENSITIZER' Let's return to the very pasuk from which we learn our obligation to tell the story at MAGID -"v'higadta l'bincha... ba'avur zeh asa Hashem li b'tzeiti m'Mitzraim". If we follow the interpretation of Rashi & Ibn Ezra, then this pasuk is commanding us that we explain to our children that God took us out of Egypt in order that we can fulfill His commandments. Or in essence, God orchestrated all the events forecasted in "brit bein ha'btarim" to help us become that nation. Certainly, this approach fits nicely with our explanation thus far. Finally, the very pasuk that Chazal chose that we must recite twice a day to 'remember' the Exodus on a daily basis (see Bamidbar 15:41) may allude as well to this very same point: "I am the God who took you out of Egypt IN ORDER to be your God...". In other words, God took us out of an Egypt in order that He become our God. Our deeper understanding of the purpose of the events (of the Exodus) can serve as a guide and a reminder to assure that we act in the manner that we assure that we will indeed become God's model nation. In summary, when we thank God for taking us out of Egypt, we must also remember that one of the reasons for why He put us there - was to sensitize us towards the needs of the oppressed. Should we not internalize that message, the numerous "tochachot" of the Bible warn that God may find it necessary to 'teach us the hard way' once again (see Devarim 28:58-68 and Yirmiyahu 34:8-22). In this manner, the message of the Seder is not only particular -in relation to the obligations of the Jewish people; but also universal -in relation to their purpose - the betterment of all mankind. Or in the words of Chazal - "ein l'cha ben choriin ele mi sh'osek b'Torah" - 'Who is considered free - one who can dedicate his life to keeping God's laws Freedom - to dedicate one's life to the service of God, both as an individual and a member of God's special nation - to internalize and eternalize God's message to mankind - that's what the Seder is all about! chag sameiach, menachem FOR FURTHER IYUN A. V'ACHSHAV KIRVANU HA'MAKOM L'AVADATO This key statement of the MAGID section (as discussed in our shiur on MAGID), that God chose the Jewish people in order that they could serve Him (by acting as His model nation) - is proven not only from our quote of Yehoshua 24:1-3, but more so from the remainder of that chapter - a 'must read' for anyone not familiar with that chapter! For those of you familiar with Sefer Yehoshua, here's an observation that you may appreciate. One could suggest that the gathering, as described in Yehoshua 24:1-27, may have taken place at an earlier time, even though it is recorded in the final chapter of the book. Based on the content of this speech (and challenge) by Yehoshua for the entire nation to serve God - it would have made more sense for this gathering to have taken place soon after the original wave of conquest, and not at the end of his life. In my opinion, the most logical time for this gathering to have taken place would have been at the same time when Bnei Yisrael first gathered at Har Eival to re-convene their covenant with God, in fulfillment the God's command in Devarim 27:1-8! This covenantal gathering, similar to the original covenantal gathering at Har Sinai (compare w/Shmot 24:3-11) is described in detail in Yehoshua 8:30-35. Note that the city of Shechem - where the events in chapter 24 take place, is located at the foot of Har Eival (where the events in chapter 8:30-35 take place! Even though the events in chapter 24 should have been recorded after the events in 8:30-35, Sefer Yehoshua preferred to 'save' that speech for its concluding section, because of its thematic and everlasting significance. If so, then Yehoshua chapter 23 would have been the last gathering of the people with Yehoshua prior to his death (as seems to be simple pshat of the opening psukim of that chapter), while the events described in chapter 24 were 'saved' for the conclusion of the book (even though they took place much earlier). [Note how the story of Yehoshua's death in 24:28-33 is not an integral part of the story in 24:1-27] Hence, it may not be by chance that the Haggada quotes from this chapter to present its key point - that God chose us, and gave us the special Land, for the purpose that we would be able serve Him. Its thematic importance results in its special placement at the conclusion of Sefer Yehoshua, and similarly, at a key position in MAGID. B. MAGID & SEFER DEVARIM For those of you familiar with our Intro shiur to Sefer Devarim (i.e. in regard to the structure of the main speech), it will be easier to appreciate why the Haggada begins its answer to the "ma nishtana" with "avadim hayinu...". [Or basically, Shmuel's opinion for "matchilim b'gnut" in the tenth perek of Mesechet Psachim"/ see 116a.] Recall how that speech began in chapter 5, where Moshe Rabeinu introduces the laws [the "chukim upmishpatim"] by explaining how they part of the covenant that God had made with Am Yisrael at Har SinaI; while the laws themselves began with the famous psukim of Shema Yisrael that begin in 6:4. In that context, the question in 6:20 concerns the inevitable question of children relating to the very purpose for keeping all of these laws, while the phrase "avadim hayinu" (see 6:21) is only the first line of a four line answer to our children, that explains why God chose us, and why we are obligated to keep all of His laws (see 6:20-25). Hence, it is not by chance that the Haggada uses specifically this pasuk to explain why we are obligated to 'tell the story of the Exodus' every year, as that very pasuk begins the Torah's explanation for why we are obligated to keep all of God's laws. Note as well how the pasuk of "v'otanu hotzi m'sham lmaan. [for the purpose of]..." (see 6:22-23) is quoted at the end of MAGID in the "bchol dor v'dor" section - and not by chance! Recall as well how the final mitzvot of this lengthy speech are found in chapter 26, namely "mikra bikkurim" and "viddui maasrot". In light of our study of Sefer Devarim and the sources in Sefer Shmot for Maggid (relating to how the experience in Egypt served to sensitize the nation - to act properly once they become sovereign in their own land), one can suggest an additional reason for why Chazal chose Mikra Bikurim - from Devarim chapter 26 - as the official 'formula' by which we tell the story. Note not only how the declaration in 26:5-9 constitutes a thanksgiving to God for His fulfillment of brit bein ha'btarim, but notice also the closing line in 26:11, where once again we are called upon to be sure that the stranger and Levite share in our happiness (for they have no Land of their own, and hence not able to bring their own first fruits). It should also not surprise us that the next law, "vidduy maasrot" at the end of every three years, emphasizes this very same theme. Simply read its opening statement in 26:12-13, focusing on the need of the farmer to give the necessary tithes to the poor and needy, the orphans, widows, and strangers. Only afterwards does he have the ethical 'right' to pray to God that He should continue to bless the land and its produce - see 26:15! This law forms a beautiful conclusion for many of the earlier laws in the main speech of Sefer Devarim, again a set of laws originally given to Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai (see Devarim 5:28). One could even suggest that reciting these psukim as well may be what the statement in the Mishna in Pesachim refers to when instructing us to read from Arami oved Avi (from Devarim 26:5) until we finish the ENTIRE Parsha. If we read the entire Parshia, the should certainly should include 26:11, and may even allude to 26:12-15 (|"vidduy maaser"), (and in my humble opinion even to the concluding psukim of the entire speech in 26:16-19!). ["v'akmal"] AVADIM HAYINU & SEFER DEVARIM To appreciate why MAGGID quotes specifically this pasuk of 'avadim hayinu' to begin its discussion of our obligation to tell the story of the Exodus, we must study its source (and context) in Sefer Devarim. Recall from our study of Sefer Devarim how Moshe Rabeinu delivers a lengthy speech (chapters 5 thru 26), in which he reviews the numerous laws that Bnei Yisrael must observe once they enter the land (see Devarim 5:1, 5:28, 6:1 etc.). As part of his introductory remarks concerning those mitzvot - Moshe states as follows: "Should [or when] your child will ask - What [obligates us] to keep these laws and statutes and commandments that God our Lord has commanded? - And you shall tell him - AVADIM HAYINU le-Pharaoh be-Mitzrayim... - We were once slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, but God brought us out with a mighty hand..." (See Devarim 6:20-21, and its context.) In other words, Sefer Devarim used the phrase 'avadim hayinu' to introduce its explanation for why Bnei Yisrael are obligated to keep ALL of the mitzvot. But when we continue to read that explanation in Sefer Devarim, we find the reason WHY God took them out: "ve-otanu hotzi mi-sham, lema'an havi otanu el ha-aretz..." And God took us out in order to bring us to the Land that He swore unto our fathers [='brit avot]. And the LORD commanded us to do all these laws, to fear the LORD our God, for our good... And it shall be the just thing to do, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as He hath commanded us." [See Devarim 6:22-25.] Here again, we find that the Torah states explicitly that God took us out of Egypt for a purpose - i.e. in order to inherit the Land and to serve God by keeping His laws. This statement supports Rashi & Ibn Ezra's interpretation of the pasuk 'ba'avur zeh...' (as we discussed earlier in this shiur), that we are to explain to our children that God took us out of (and put us into) Egypt, in order that we keep His mitzvot. Therefore, it is very meaningful that the Haggada chose specifically this pasuk of 'avadim hayinu' to introduce its discussion of WHY we are obligated to tell the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim on this special evening. In fact, one could suggest that this may have been the underlying reasoning behind Shmuel's opinion (in Pesachim 116a). By stating that we begin the story with the pasuk of 'avadim hayinu', Shmuel is simply stating that before we tell the story, we must explain the reason for this obligation - just as we do in MAGGID! C. BCHOL DOR V'DOR & SEFER DEVARIM Note as well how the pasuk of "v'otanu hotzi m'sham lmaan. [for the purpose of]..." (see 6:22-23) is quoted at the end of MAGID in the "bchol dor v'dor" section - and not by chance! Recall as well how the final mitzvot of the main speech of Sefer Devarim are found in chapter 26, namely "mikra bikkurim" and "viddui maasrot". In light of our study of Sefer Devarim and the sources in Sefer Shmot for Maggid (relating to how the experience in Egypt served to sensitize the nation - to act properly once they become sovereign in their own land), one can suggest an additional reason for why Chazal chose Mikra Bikurim - from Devarim chapter 26 - as the official 'formula' by which we tell the story. Note not only how the declaration in 26:5-9 constitutes a thanksgiving to God for His fulfillment of brit bein ha'btarim, but notice also the closing line in 26:11, where once again we are called upon to be sure that the stranger and Levite share in our happiness (for they have no Land of their own, and hence not able to bring their own first fruits). It should also not surprise us that the next law, "vidduy maasrot" at the end of every three years, emphasizes this very same theme. Simply read its opening statement in 26:12-13, focusing on the need of the farmer to give the necessary tithes to the poor and needy, the orphans, widows, and strangers. Only afterwards does he have the ethical 'right' to pray to God that He should continue to bless the land and its produce - see 26:15! This law forms a beautiful conclusion for many of the earlier laws in the main speech of Sefer Devarim, again a set of laws originally given to Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai (see Devarim 5:28). D. "HA LACHMA ANYA" This opening paragraph of MAGID is difficult to understand not only due to the Aramaic, but also due to its context and content. Let's begin by explaining the problems. After breaking the middle matza for YACHATZ - we begin MAGGID with the following statement: "ha lachman anya..." - 'This [matza that we are now looking at] resembles the poor man's s bread that our forefathers ate in the land of Egypt.' First of all, it would make more sense to understand this statement as the completion of YACHATZ (since it refers to the matza that we just broke), and not necessarily the beginning of MAGGID (for it doesn't tell the story). However, even if this section is not an integral part of Maggid, it will form a significant transition between 'yachatz & maggid'- as we shall soon explain. Secondly, this opening statement leaves us with the impression that we are eating matza at the Seder to remember how Bnei Yisrael ate matza during their slavery. However, Sefer Shmot leaves us with the impression that we eat matza in order to remember the hurried nature in which Bnei Yisrael left Egypt (see Shmot 12:33-40 and subsequently 13:3 & 13:8). In other words, should we be explaining at this time that matza on our table is to remind us of our slavery, or to remind us of our redemption? The simplest answer would be to explain that 'this is the matza that our forefathers ate in Egypt - when they brought the very first korban Pesach'! In other words, we are not stating that this poor man's bread was the 'staple' of the daily diet of our forefathers in Egypt - rather, it is the special bread that God commanded us to eat with the original Korban Pesach (see Shmot 12:8). Furthermore, the reason for calling this bread "lechem oni" [lit. either bread of affliction or bread of poverty] is obviously based on Devarim 16:3 ["shivat yamim tochal alav matzot lechem oni - ki b'chipazon...."]. However, when studying the context of those psukim (see Devarim 16:1-4), the phrase "lechem oni" can be understood as a description of what matza is, and not necessarily as the reason for the commandment to eat it. [The question is whether 'lechem oni' defines for us WHAT matza is, or explains WHY we eat matza.] This returns us to our discussion of the two reasons for matza (see TSC shiur on Parshat Bo) - where we explained that the reason for eating matza with the original Korban Pesach in Egypt had nothing to do with the fact that we later rushed out on the next day. Rather, there had to be some intrinsic reason for eating matza (and not chametz) with that korban; either to remind us of our slavery, or to symbolize our need to reject Egyptian culture to be worthy of redemption. If we continue with our understanding that this is the'matza' that our forefathers ate together with the first Korban Pesach, then the next statement of "kol dichfin" - which otherwise is very difficult to understand - begins to make sense. Let's explain why. The next statement (right after explaining that this matza used to be eaten by our forefathers) - at first sounds like an invitation: "Anyone who is hungry, let him come and eat, anyone who is in need, let him come and join in the Pesach, this year 'here', next year in the Land of Israel; this year - slaves, next year - free men" It can be understood in one of two ways, either: * an open invitation for others to join us. - or * a quote of what our forefathers once said. These two possibilities are a result of how one understand s the word "v'yifsach" in the phrase "kol ditzrich yete v'yifsach" [anyone who needs, let him come and join our Pesach]. If we take the word "va'yifsach" literally, then this must be an invitation to join in the korban Pesach - and hence, it must be a quote from an earlier time period. If "va'yifsach" is not translated literally, and hence it refers to the Seder, then this section was composed to be recited as an invitation (to the Seder). But this wouldn't make much sense at this time, since everyone is already sitting down, and considering that we've already made Kiddush and eaten "karpas" - isn't it a bit late to be inviting people! Let's return therefore to the possibility that "va'yifsach" refers to the actual 'korban Pesach' (which seems to be the simple meaning of this word). If so, then we can easily pinpoint exactly who we are quoting - as it must be from a time when the korban Pesach was offered, but also when we were not yet living in Israel, and still in slavery!. There answer is simple - this must be a quote of what our forefathers said to one another (translated into Aramaic) in preparation for the very first korban Pesach (i.e. the one in Egypt, as described in Shmot 12:1-23). It can only refer to that very first korban Pesach, for that was the only time in Jewish history when the korban Pesach was offered when we were both (1) in slavery (hoping next year to be free) - and (2) living outside the Land of Israel (hoping be next year in the Land of Israel)! If this interpretation is correct, then the flow of topic makes perfect sense. We break the matza, and explain that this was the same type of bread that our forefathers ate with the first korban Pesach in Egypt, and then we quote what they said to one another in preparation for that special evening - fulfilling what God instructed them in Parshat ha'Chodesh (see Shmot 12:3-8!). This quote of our forefathers, from the very first Seder in Jewish History, is quite meaningful - for we begin MAGGID by emphasizing the connection between our own Seder and the very first Seder that Am Yisrael kept thousands of years ago (and its purpose). By quoting from the special atmosphere of that very first korban Pesach family gathering, we highlight the continuity of our tradition and our hope for the fulfillment of its goals. [Note how this would conform to Shmot 12:14, in its context!] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: magid1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 80941 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: magid1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 95744 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: magidWithSources.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 776095 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Apr 6 11:46:02 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:46:02 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Tzav Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tzav1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 47908 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tzav1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 57344 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Apr 19 00:35:17 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:35:17 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Shmini - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shminiq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 35961 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shminiq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 49593 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Apr 20 02:03:54 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:03:54 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Shmini - shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 ashmininimal - 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shmini1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 64090 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shmini1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 63488 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon Apr 24 04:52:44 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 04:52:44 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Tazria - Metzora - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tazmetzq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 26870 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tazmetzq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 24275 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Apr 27 09:44:59 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 09:44:59 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Tazria / Metzora - shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tazmetz.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 56499 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tazmetz.doc Type: application/msword Size: 62464 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Apr 27 09:55:43 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 09:55:43 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Tazria Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tazria.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 37681 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tazria.doc Type: application/msword Size: 54784 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu May 4 04:39:02 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 04:39:02 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Acharei Mot - Ketdoshim - Questios for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: achq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 30390 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: achq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 29916 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kdoshq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 33117 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kdoshq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 40448 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu May 4 09:43:23 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 09:43:23 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Acharei Mot - shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ach1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 32954 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ach1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 50688 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu May 4 17:07:28 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 17:07:28 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Kedoshim - shiur #1 Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kdosh1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 37295 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kdosh1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 41640 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu May 4 17:10:11 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 17:10:11 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Acharei Mot/ Kedoshim - additional shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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" 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kdosh3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 42459 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kdosh3.doc Type: application/msword Size: 62976 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: chiasmsVayikra20.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 166433 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Tue May 9 10:42:39 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 10:42:39 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Emor - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: emorq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 27665 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: emorq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 22711 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu May 11 10:03:02 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 10:03:02 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Emor Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: emor1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 53496 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: emor1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 68608 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed May 17 04:04:48 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 04:04:48 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Behar / Bechukotei : questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bharq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 32808 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bchukq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 22903 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bharq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 31474 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bchukq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 30208 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu May 18 02:27:35 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 02:27:35 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Behar - shiur Message-ID: Dedicated in memory of Shmuel Aharon Ashkenazie .... Haish hakasher vehayshar beenav rav pealim Gomel hasadim . niftar be 24 iyar. Yehi zichro Baruch. ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* PARSHAT BEHAR Shouldn't Parshat Behar be in Sefer Shmot? After all, its opening pasuk informs us that these mitzvot were given to Moshe Rabeinu on Har Sinai! Why then does Chumash 'save' it for Sefer Vayikra instead? To complicate matters, Parshat Behar is only one example of many 'parshiot' towards the end of Sefer Vayikra that appear to belong in Sefer Shmot. Take for example the law to light the menora (recorded at end of Parshat Emor (see 24:1- 3). As you most probably noticed, that parshia is almost a direct quote from Parshat Tetzaveh! [Compare 24:1-3 with Shmot 27:20-21.] To answer these (and many other) questions, this week's shiur investigates the intriguing possibility of a chiastic structure that may explain what otherwise seems to be a random progression of parshiot in Sefer Vayikra. INTRODUCTION Recall our explanation that Sefer Vayikra contains primarily mitzvot, and neatly divides into two distinct sections: 1) Chapters 1->17: laws relating to the mishkan itself, 2) Chapters 18->27: laws relating to living a life of 'kedusha' even outside the mishkan. Even though this definition neatly explained the progression of mitzvot in Parshiot Acharei Mot and Kedoshim, many of the laws in Parshat Emor seem to contradict this definition. As the following summary shows, most of the mitzvot in Parshat Emor relate to the mishkan itself, and hence (according to our above definition) should have been recorded in the first half of Vayikra. Using a Tanach Koren [or similar], scan from the beginning of Parshat Emor to verify the following summary: * Chapter 21 - Laws pertaining to kohanim; * Chapter 22 - Animals not fit for korbanot; * Chapter 23 - Special korbanot offered on the mo'adim. * Chapter 24 - Oil for lighting the menora; and baking the 'lechem ha-panim' for the shulchan. Based on our above definition of the two halves of Sefer Vayikra, just about all of these topics would fit better in the 'first half'. STORY TIME? To complicate matters, at the very end of Parshat Emor we find a different type of difficulty. Review 24:10-23, noting how we find a narrative - i.e. the story of an individual who cursed God's name in public and was subsequently punished. Not only is this story totally unrelated to either half of Sefer Vayikra, it is the only narrative in the entire Sefer! [Aside from the story of the dedication of the mishkan found in chapters 8->10 (that relates to the mishkan itself).] As you review these psukim (and their context), note how this story seems to 'come out of nowhere'! Nor is there any apparent reason why Sefer Vayikra records this story specifically at this point. [See Rashi's question on 24:10 'Me-heichan yatza?' - Where did the 'mekallel' come from!] MORE PROBLEMS! Parshat Behar (chapter 25) is no less problematic! Even though its laws of 'shmitta' and 'yovel' fit nicely into our definition of the second half of Sefer Vayikra (see Ibn Ezra 25:1), the opening and closing psukim of this unit present us with two different problems. The first pasuk of Parshat Behar (25:1) informs us that these mitzvot were given on Har Sinai, and hence suggests that this entire Parsha may really belong in Sefer Shmot! More disturbing (and often not noticed) is the very conclusion of Parshat Behar. There we find three 'powerful' psukim that seem to come out of nowhere! Let's take a look: * "For Bnei Yisrael are servants to Me, they My servants whom I freed from the land of Egypt, I am the Lord your God." (25:55). * "Do not make for yourselves any other gods.." (26:1). * "Keep My Sabbath and guard My Temple, I am your God" (26:2). Indeed, the first pasuk (25:55) forms a nice summary pasuk for the laws of that unit (i.e. 25:47-54);, however the last two laws are totally unrelated! Furthermore, all three of these psukim seem to 'echo' the first four of the Ten Commandments. Why do they conclude Parshat Behar, and why are the first four 'dibrot' repeated specifically here in Sefer Vayikra? [Note the discrepancy between the chapter division (i.e. where chapter 26 begins) and the division of parshiot (note that Parshat Bechukotai begins with 26:3) - which reflects this problem.] The above questions appear to shake the very foundation of our understanding of the two halves of Sefer Vayikra. Should we conclude that Sefer Vayikra is simply a 'random' collection of mitzvot? [The solution that we are about to suggest is based on a rather amazing shiur that I heard many years ago from Rav Yoel Bin Nun, where he uncovers a chiastic structure that ties together Sefer Shmot and Vayikra.] To answer the above questions, we must first 're-examine' each of the parshiot (mentioned above) to determine where each of these 'out of place' parshiot really does belong. As we do so, a very interesting pattern will emerge - that form the basis of a chiastic structure. [If you've never heard of chiastic structure before don't worry, it will be explained as the shiur progresses.] WHERE DO THEY BELONG? Let's begin with the first topics in chapter 24, for it is quite easy to identify where these two mitzvot do 'belong'. THE NER TAMID (24:1-4) As we noted above, these four psukim (describing the mitzva to light the menora with olive oil) are almost an exact repetition of the first two psukim of Parshat Tetzaveh! [See and compare with Shmot 27:20-21.] Hence, this parshia 'belongs' in Parshat Tetzaveh. THE LECHEM HA-PANIM (24:5-9) This parshia describes how Bnei Yisrael were to prepare the lechem ha-panim [show bread] - that were to be placed on a weekly basis on the shulchan [the Table located inside the mishkan]. Even though this is the first time that we find the details of this mitzva in Chumash, the general mitzva to put lechem ha- panim on the shulchan was already mentioned in Parshat Teruma (see Shmot 25:30). Hence, we conclude that this 'parshia' could have been recorded in Parshat Teruma, together with all the other mitzvot concerning how to build the shulchan. THE MEKALLEL - The 'blasphemer' (24:10-23) Even though this parshia begins with a story (see 24:10- 12), this short narrative leads directly into a small set of civil laws ('bein adam le-chaveiro') relating to capital punishment (see 24:13-22). Furthermore, as your review 24:17- 22, note how they are almost identical with Shmot 21:12,23-25 (i.e. Parshat Mishpatim). For example, note how Shmot 21:24 is identical to Vayikra 24:20. -"ayin tachat ayin, shein tachat shein ..." ["an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth..."] Hence, we conclude that the mekallel parshia 'belongs' in Parshat Mishpatim. THE LAWS of SHMITTA & YOVEL (25:1-25:54) As we explained above, the opening pasuk of this parshia states that these mitzvot concerning shmitta & yovel were given to Moshe Rabbeinu at Har Sinai. However, in Sefer Shmot, we find many other laws that were given to Moshe Rabbeinu on Har Sinai, and they were all recorded in Parshat Mishpatim. In fact, in that very same Parsha, the basic laws of shmitta" were already mentioned: "Six years you shall sow your Land and gather your produce and the seventh year..." (see Shmot 23:10-11). Therefore, we conclude that this entire unit of the laws of shmitta & yovel belongs in Parshat Mishpatim, together with all of the other mitzvot that were given to Moshe on Har Sinai. The 'MINI-DIBROT' (25:55-26:2) As we explained above, these three psukim at the very end of Parshat Behar 'echo' the first four Commandments. If so, then we can conclude that these psukim 'belong' in Parshat Yitro (see Shmot 20:1-9). A BACKWARD 'BACK TO SHMOT' In case you have yet to notice, not only do all of these parshiot (from chapters 21 thru 25) thematically belong in Sefer Shmot, they progress in backward order, from Tetzaveh, to Teruma, to Mishpatim, to Yitro! Even though this order may seem to be simply coincidental, the next chapter in Vayikra (i.e. the TOCHACHA in chapter 26) provides us with enough 'circumstantial evidence' to suggest that this pattern may be intentional! Let's take a look: THE TOCHACHA (26:3-46) The 'tochacha' explains the reward (or punishment) that Bnei Yisrael receive should they obey (or disobey) God's laws. This tochacha constitutes an integral part of the covenant (brit) between God and Bnei Yisrael that was agreed upon at Har Sinai (see Devarim 28:69!). [Note that the final pasuk (26:46) is not only parallel to Devarim 28:69, but also includes the phrase 'beino u-bein Bnei Yisrael', which also implies a covenant (based on Shmot 31:15-17)!] Even though this covenant is detailed in Parshat Bechukotai, recall how its basic principles were first recorded in Parshat Yitro in the Torah's account of the events that took place at ma'amad Har Sinai: "And now, if you shall listen to Me and keep My covenant faithfully, then..." (Shmot 19:5-6, see also Shmot 24:4-7) [Compare carefully with Vayikra 26:3,12,23!] Therefore, even though this parshia is thematically consistent with the theme of the second half of Sefer Vayikra (compare chapter 26 with 18:25-29), nonetheless, it was given to Bnei Yisrael on Har Sinai. Hence, it could easily have been included in Parshat Yitro, most probably in chapter 19 (prior to the Ten Commandments). [Note also that the 'dibbur' that began in 25:1 includes chapter 26 and is summarized by the final pasuk of the tochacha (26:46). See also Chizkuni on Shmot 24:7 & Ibn Ezra on Vayikra 25:1. where they explain that this tochacha was actually read at Har Sinai at Ma'amad Har Sinai!] WORKING 'BACKWARDS' Let's summarize all of these 'parshiot' that we have discussed (from the end of Sefer Vayikra) that seem to 'belong' in Sefer Shmot. [Working backwards,] we assign a letter to each 'parshia' for future reference. (A) - THE TOCHACHA (26:3-46) (B) The 'MINI-DIBROT' (25:55-26:2) (C) The laws of SHMITTA & YOVEL (25:1-25:54) (D) Parshat "ha-MEKALLEL" (24:10-23) - The 'Blasphemer'. (E) THE MENORA AND SHULCHAN (24:1-9) And there's more! Let's continue working backwards from chapter 24 to chapter 23, showing how this pattern continues! We'll continue using the letters of the alphabet for 'headers' as well: (F) PARSHAT HA-MO'ADIM (23:1-44) - The holidays in Emor As we explained in last week's shiur, the Torah presents the mo'adim together with the laws of Shabbat. Even though these laws relate thematically to the theme of kedusha in the second half of Vayikra, they also relate to the laws of Shabbat that conclude the parshiot concerning the mishkan. [See Shmot 31:12-17 & 35:2-3.] Note the obvious textual similarities: * "sheshet yamim ta'aseh melacha, u-vayom ha-shvi'i..." [Vayikra 23:3- Compare with Shmot 35:2!]. * "ach et shabtotai tishmoru... ki ani Hashem mekadishchem" [See Shmot 31:13/ compare with 23:3,39.] Therefore, 'parshat ha-mo'adim' (chapter 23) in Sefer Vayikra could have been recorded in Parshat Ki-Tisa as well, together with the laws of Shabbat. (G) ANIMALS THAT CANNOT BE KORBANOT (22:17-33) In this parshia we find the prohibition of offering an animal with a blemish, or an animal less than eight days old. Surely, this mitzva could have been recorded just as well in Parshat Vayikra (i.e. in the first half of the Sefer), for it discusses the various types of animals which one can offer for a korban (see 1:2). (H) KEDUSHAT KOHANIM (21:1-22:16) Parshat Emor opens with laws that explain when a kohen CAN and CANNOT become "tamey" (ritually impure by coming into contact with a dead person). Even though these laws thematically relate to the second half of Vayikra (for they govern the daily life of the kohanim OUTSIDE the mishkan), nonetheless the mitzvot that follow (21:16-22:16) should have been recorded in Parshat TZAV, for they concern who can and cannot eat the meat of the korbanot. In summary, even though each of the above parshiot may be thematically related in one form or other to the theme of the second half of Vayikra, nonetheless each parshia could also have been recorded either in the second half of Sefer Shmot (or early in Sefer Vayikra) as well! Using the letters noted above, the following table summarizes these special parshiot, noting where each 'misplaced parsha' really belongs:. PARSHA OUT OF PLACE WHERE IT BELONGS... ==================== ================= (A) THE TOCHACHA YITRO (pre dibrot) (B) THE MINI-DIBROT YITRO (the dibrot') (C) SHMITTA AND YOVEL YITRO/MISHPATIM (post dibrot) (D) MEKALLEL & mishpatim MISHPATIM (E) MENORA AND SHULCHAN TRUMA /TETZAVEH (F) MO'ADIM IN EMOR KI TISA/ VAYAKHEL (shabbat) (G) ANIMALS FIT TO OFFER VAYIKRA (H) KEDUSHAT KOHANIM TZAV Study this table carefully, noting the correlation between where these parshiot 'belong' and the order of the Parshiot in Sefer Shmot [and the beginning of Vayikra]. THE CHIASTIC STRUCTURE OF SHMOT & VAYIKRA This literary style is known as a chiastic structure (A-B- C-B-A), a literary tool which emphasizes unity of theme and accentuates a central point (C). To uncover the significance of a chiastic structure, it is usually critical to identify its central point. To do so in our case, we must first summarize the basic units of mitzvot (in Sefer Shmot) which Bnei Yisrael receive from the time of their arrival at Har Sinai: (A) BRIT - prior to Matan Torah (perek 19 & parallel in perek 24) (B) DIBROT - the Ten Commandments (20:1-14) (C) MITZVOT - immediately after the dibrot (20:19-23) (D) MISHPATIM - the civil laws in Parshat Mishpatim (21->23) (E) TZIVUI HA-MISHKAN - Parshiot Truma/Tetzaveh (25->31) (F) SHABBAT (31:12-18 followed by 35:1-3) [In the further iyun section, we discuss why we skip chet ha-egel (32->34) in this structure.] (G) LAWS OF THE KORBAN YACHID (Vayikra 1->5) (H) LAWS FOR THE KOHANIM - serving in the mishkan (6->7) (I) THE SHCHINA ON THE MISHKAN: The dedication ceremony of the mishkan (8->10); laws governing proper entry (11->15); the yearly 're-dedication' ceremony on Yom Kippur (16->17) AND ITS AFFECT ON THE NATION Kedushat ha-AM ve-haARETZ climaxing with "KDOSHIM TIHIYU" Using the chart below [I hope your word processor is able to format it, if not try to format it by yourself], note how each of these units corresponds in REVERSE ORDER with the problematic concluding parshiot of Sefer Vayikra (that were discussed above)! The following chart illustrates this structure: A) Brit - before Matan Torah B) Dibrot | C) Mitzvot - after Matan Torah | | D) Mishpatim - civil laws | | | E) Tzivui Hamishkan | | | | F) Shabbat | | | | | G) Korbanot of the individual | | | | | | H) Kohanim - how to offer | | | | | | | / * Shchina on mishkan | | | | | | | | I) Its dedication etc. | | | | | | | | \ * Shchina in the Camp | | | | | | | proper behavior, etc. | | | | | | | H) Kohanim - who can't offer | | | | | G) Korbanot - what can't be a korban | | | | F) Mo'adim | | | E) Menora & Shulchan | | D) Mishpatim in aftermath of the Mekallel incident | C) Mitzvot at Har Sinai, shmitta & yovel (Behar) B) Dibrot (first 4) A) Brit - Tochachat Bechukotai Note how the above chart identifies a chiastic structure (symbolized by ABCDEFGH-I-HGFEDCBA) that connects together all of the mitzvot given to Bnei Yisrael in Midbar Sinai from the time of their arrival at Har Sinai. It should come at no surprise that at the thematic center of this structure - (letter 'I') - lies the dual theme of Sefer Vayikra - i.e., its two sections: (1) the SHCHINA dwelling on the mishkan, and (2) its subsequent effect on the nation. As we explained in our previous shiurim, this model reflects the impact of the intense level of the kedusha in the mishkan on the spiritual character of the entire Nation in all realms of daily life. Furthermore, this 'central point' ties back to the basic theme of ma'amad Har Sinai in Sefer Shmot, which just so happens to be the opening 'bookend' of the chiastic structure (A). Recall how Bnei Yisrael first entered into a covenant before they received the Torah at Har Sinai. Note once again the wording of God's original proposal: "And if you listen to Me and keep my covenant... then you shall be for Me, a - mamlechet kohanim ve-goy kadosh - a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (see Shmot 19:5-6) . The achievement is this goal - to become God's special nation -as detailed in 'bookends' of this structure (letters A), is manifest with the dwelling of God's Shchina in the mishkan (I) -at the center of this structure; and is achieved by the fulfillment of God's mitzvot of kedusha - as detailed throughout this entire unit of Sefer Shmot& Vayikra. In essence, the covenant of Har Sinai, the climax of Sefer Shmot, is fulfilled when Bnei Yisrael follow the mitzvot of Sefer Vayikra! By keeping the mitzvot of both halves of Sefer Vayikra, we become a mamlechet kohanim ve-goy kadosh (Shmot 19:6) - the ultimate goal and purpose of brit Har Sinai. BRIT SINAI & KEDOSHIM TIHIYU The thematic significance of this chiastic structure is strengthened by its closing 'book-end'. Just as brit Sinai - the covenant at Har Sinai - is the opening parsha, the details of that covenant - the tochacha of Bechukotai - constitutes its closing parsha. In that covenant, we find yet another aspect of this 'two- sided' deal. The tochacha explains how the Promised Land will serve as God's agent to reward Bnei Yisrael, should they be faithful to His covenant, while the Land will punish (and ultimately kick them out) should they go astray. Finally, note (from this chiastic structure) how the mitzvot of Sefer Vayikra [GHI]- that were given from the ohel mo'ed (see 1:1) are surrounded by mitzvot that were given "be- Har Sinai" [ABCDEF]. Considering that the entire purpose of the mishkan was to serve as a vehicle to perpetuate the fundamentals of Ma'amad Har Sinai, this unique structure beautifully reflects the eternal goal of the Jewish nation. shabbat shalom menachem FOR FURTHER IYUN ================ A. As you may have noticed, during the entire shiur we have purposely 'neglected' the location of parshat 'erchin' (perek 27) at the end of Sefer Vayikra. This topic will be dealt with iy"H in next week's shiur. [See also Ibn Ezra 27:1.] B. Most all of the commentators deal with the question: Why does Parshat Behar open by mentioning that this parsha was given on Har Sinai? See the commentary of Rashi and Ramban. [25:1 / "ma inyan shmitta etzel Har Sinai?"] 1. Explain the machloket between Rashi and Ramban. 2. How is their approach to this question different than the approach taken in the above shiur. How is their approach to this question different than the approach taken in the above shiur? More specifically: Which fundamental question are they asking? How is it different from the fundamental question raised in the above shiur? Do these different approaches contradict each other, or do they complement one another? C. A careful examination of the chiastic structure developed in the above shiur shows that the parshiot that we have conveniently 'left out' of our chart in both Seforim coincide with the narratives (i.e. chet ha-egel, Vayakhel, Pekudei, Shmini, the mekallel etc.). Thus, we can conclude that the structure focuses on the mitzvot and the covenant, but not on the ongoing story of Chumash. This makes sense, since it is logical to create a chiastic structure within a set of mitzvot, not in an ongoing narrative. This provides an explanation why we skipped over chet ha- egel and its related mitzvot in our chart. [Recall that they were 'repeats' from Mishpatim because of chet ha-egel.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bhar1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 42294 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bhar1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 62464 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu May 18 02:28:47 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 02:28:47 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Bechukotei Message-ID: Dedicated in memory of Shmuel Aharon Ashkenazie .... Haish hakasher vehayshar beenav rav pealim Gomel hasadim . niftar be 24 iyar. Yehi zichro Baruch. ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bchuk1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 49673 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bchuk1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 72704 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed May 24 14:40:02 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 14:40:02 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Bamidbar- questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bamidq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 40745 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bamidq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 54784 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu May 25 02:22:30 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 02:22:30 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Bamidbar - shiur Message-ID: ?************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bamid1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 35985 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bamid1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 55808 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon May 29 18:31:31 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 18:31:31 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Naso - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: nasoq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 29736 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: nasoq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 44544 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon May 29 18:32:49 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 18:32:49 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Naso & Intro to Sefer Bamidbar Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: naso1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 44526 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: naso1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 67584 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon May 29 18:34:14 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 18:34:14 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Shavuot - questions for self study - tikun shavuot Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shavq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 23075 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shavq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 37888 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon May 29 18:35:02 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 18:35:02 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Shavuot Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* SHAVUOT & MATAN TORAH When the Torah wishes to inform us of the 'historical' reason for a holiday, it certainly knows how to do so. Take for example the two other pilgrimage holidays - "chag ha'matzot" & "succot": Even though these holidays are also presented from their 'agricultural' perspective (see Shmot 23:14-17), the Torah informs us of their historical perspectives as well (see Shmot 12:17, 13:3 etc. and Vayikra 23:42-43). Therefore, it is simply baffling that the Torah presents Shavuot ONLY from its agricultural aspect, without mentioning even a word about its connection to events of MATAN TORAH! In this week's shiur, we attempt to understand why. SHAVUOT IN THE BIBLE Before we begin our shiur, let's verify our statement that Shavuot is presented solely from its agricultural perspective by quickly reviewing the five 'parshiot' in which it is mentioned: I. Shmot 23:15 = "v'et chag ha'KATZIR bikurei ma'asecha" [the HARVEST holiday - the first fruits of your work] II. Shmot 34:22 = "v'chag shavuot... bikurei KTZIR CHITIM" [Feast of Weeks, the first fruits of the wheat harvest] III. Vayikra 23:15-21: "u'sfartem lachem..." "And you shall count from the time you offer the OMER offering (from your first harvest/ see 23:10) seven weeks... and you shall offer a new MINCHA to God..." IV. Bamidbar 28:26 = "u'v'yom ha'BIKURIM..." "And on the day of the first fruit offering, when you bring a new MINCHA to God on Shavuot..." V. Devarim 16:9-12 = "...m'ha'chel chermesh b'kamah..." "Count SEVEN weeks, starting when the sickle is first put to the standing grain, then you shall celebrate the holiday of SHAVUOT to God..." As you review these five sources, note how in each instance Shavuot is presented solely as a harvest holiday, when we must thank God for our grain crops; while its connection MATAN TORAH is never mentioned - not even once! However, when we study the above sources, it also becomes quite clear that there is ample reason to celebrate SHAVUOT, even without the events of MATAN TORAH. Considering that grain is man's staple, it is only logical that we are commanded to celebrate its harvest together with God, in order to thank Him for His providence during this most critical time of the year. [Recall also that the custom of the nations of Canaan was to relate the growth of grain to various local gods such as Baal & Ashera and Dagon etc. This made it even more important to celebrate Shavuot, to assure that Bnei Yisrael would thank the proper God and not fall into the traps of AVODA ZARA. For more detail, see Hoshea chapter 2 (which just so happens to be the Haftara for Parshat Bamidbar). See especially Hoshea 2:7,10,14-18 & 23!] Based on these sources, should we conclude that it is only coincidental that Shavuot falls out on the date of Matan Torah? Would that explain why Chumash makes no connection at all between that event and this holiday? To answer this question, we must first take issue with our original assumption that the Biblical date of Matan Torah indeed coincides with the holiday of Shavuot. THE DATE OF MATAN TORAH When the Torah wishes to inform us of the precise date of a certain event, it certainly knows how to do so. Once again, take for example the events of Exodus. Review Shmot 12:6,12-14,17-18 and 13:3-8, noting how the Torah informs us of the precise date (and even the time of day) when the Tenth Plague struck and when Bnei Yisrael left Egypt! Later on, the Torah even records the precise date when Bnei Yisrael arrived at Midbar Sin (on the 15th of Iyar, see Shmot 16:1). However, in regard to Matan Torah, the Torah is quite vague. Indeed we are told that Bnei Yisrael arrive at Har Sinai in the third month (Sivan), but we are not told on what DAY of the month they arrived: "In the third month of Bnei Yisrael's departure from the Egypt, ON THIS DAY, they came to Midbar Sinai." (19:1) Not only is the phrase "on this day" ambiguous, it is quite difficult to determine how many days actually transpire between their arrival at Har Sinai and Matan Torah (see Shmot 19:3 16). Even if we assume that Bnei Yisrael arrived on the first day of the month (see Rashi 19:1-"b'yom hazeh"), the lack of a clear chronology in the subsequent events still makes it impossible to pinpoint that date. Even though it is recorded how Moshe goes up and down the mountain several times, and that three days are required to prepare for that special occasion; we never told how many days elapse in the interim. In the Mechilta (and in Mesechet Shabbat 86b), Chazal calculate that the Torah was given on either the sixth or seventh of Sivan (see also Rashi on 19:2->19), yet the fact remains that the Torah clearly prefers to obscure the precise date of this event. CALCULATING 'BACKWARDS' However, there is an additional manner by which it is possible to calculate the approximate date of Ma'amad Har Sinai. If we assume that tenth of Tishrei was chosen as 'Yom Kippur' specifically because it marks the date when Moshe descended from Har Sinai with the second "luchot" [See further iyun section for a discussion of how we can prove this.], then we can calculate 'backwards', using the three sets of 'forty days' that are described in the story of chet ha'egel in Devarim chapter 9. Working 'backwards' from the tenth of TIshrei; we can arrive at the following approximate dates of these three sets of forty days: The last forty days - from 1 Elul until 10 Tishrei. [when Moshe receives the second Luchot.] The middle forty days - 19 Tamuz until 29 Av [when Moshe's prayer for their forgivenss.] The first forty days - from either 6 or 7 Sivan until 17 Tamuz. [when Moshe receives the first Luchot.] These calculations leads us to the conclusion that the Torah was given on either the 6th or 7th of Sivan (depending if the month of Sivan that year was 29 or thirty days). However, even if all of the above assumptions are correct, the fact still remains that the Torah never explicitly mentions the date of Matan Torah, even though it has ample opportunities to do so! Thus, we really have a double question. Not only is it strange that Torah makes no connection between Shavuot and Matan Torah, it doesn't even tell us WHEN Matan Torah took place! Again, the question remains - why? To answer this question, we must consider a fundamental difference between the very nature of these two monumental events in our history: Yetziat Mitzraim and Matan Torah. MATAN TORAH: AN UNCOMMEMORATED EVENT In the Torah, we find numerous mitzvot through which we commemorate Yetziat Mitzraim, both on the: ANNIVERSARY of the Exodus: e.g. eating matzah, telling of the story of Yetziat Mitzraim, korban Pesach etc.; and ALL YEAR ROUND: e.g. "mitzvat bikkurim" (bringing the first fruits to Yerushalayim), tfillin, shabbat, and the daily recital of "kriyat shma", etc., all of which the Torah relates to the Exodus (i.e. "zecher l'yitziat mitzrayim"). In contrast, in Chumash we do not find even one specific mitzvah whose explicit purpose is to commemorate the events of Matan Torah. [Sefer Devarim does require that we not forget the events that transpired at Har Sinai (see 4:9 16), but does not command us to perform any specific positive mitzvah in order that we do not forget that event! Certainly, those psukim do not require that we commemorate that event on any specific day. See Further Iyun section for additional sources on this topic.] Why does the Torah call upon us to commemorate these two events in such dramatically different ways? One could suggest that by this manner of presentation, the Torah is sending a complex message. Even though the Torah provides us ample information to calculate the approximate date of Ma'amad Har Sinai, its deliberate obfuscation of that date may suggest that we should not treat Matan Torah as a historically bound event. Instead, from a certain perspective, each and every day one should feel as though the Torah has just been given. This concept is reflected by the famous Midrash, quoted by Rashi on 19:1: "... it should have been written: 'ON THAT DAY'. Why does the pasuk say: 'ON THIS DAY'? This comes to teach us that the words of the Torah should be considered new to you - as though they were given TODAY!" (see Rashi Shmot 19:1) In other words, we should not view Matan Torah as a one time event. Rather, every generation must feel as though they have just entered into a covenant with God (see Devarim 5:1 3). Every generation must feel that God's words were spoken to them no less than to earlier generations. To celebrate the anniversary of Matan Torah as a single moment in our history could diminish from that meta-historical dimension. Similarly, in our study of the Mishkan, we showed how the primary function of the Mishkan was to perpetuate the experience at Ma'amad Har Sinai. [See Ramban on Shmot 25:1, and the TSC shiurim on Parshiot Terumah & Tezaveh.] From that source as well, it appears that the Torah would rather we treat Matan Torah as an event that needs to be perpetuated, more than commemorated. In contrast to Matan Torah, the Exodus is not an event that must be re-lived. Rather it is an event that the Torah emphasizes over and over again that we must REMEMBER. Even if we must ACT as though we went out of Egypt on the seder night (See in the Hagada - "b'chol dor v'dor chayav adam lirot atzmo k'ilu..."), it is in order that we put ourselves in the proper frame of mind to praise God and thank Him for our redemption. Yetziat Mitzrayim was, and should remain, a one time event in our history - our national birth. As such, it needs to be commemorated. Matan Torah is totally different! It is an event that must be constantly RE-LIVED, not just remembered, for it is the essence of our daily existence. So is it wrong to commemorate Matan Torah on Shavuot? Did Chazal make a 'mistake' (chas v'shalom) by connecting a 'purely agricultural' holiday with the historical event of Matan Torah? Of course not! Is it possible that the most important event in our national history not be commemorated on its yearly anniversary?! In this regard, Chazal strike a beautiful balance between Torah "sh'bichtav" (the Written Law) and Torah "sh'baal peh" (the Oral Law). Chumash emphasizes one perspective, the inherent danger of commemorating this event, while tradition balances this message by emphasizing the other perspective, the historical significance of remembering that day, by re-living that event. Therefore, Chazal instituted that just like on "leil ha'seder (Passover eve), when we spend the entire evening 're-telling' the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim, on "leil Shavuot", we spend the entire evening engrossed in the study of Torah, 're-living' the experience of Ma'amad Har Sinai! SOME BIBLICAL 'HINTS' Even though the connection between Matan Torah and Shavuot is not explicit in Chumash, we do find several interesting 'hints' to their connection in Parshat Emor. THE SHTEI HA'LECHEM Recall how Parshat Emor is the primary source for the specific details of the special laws of Shavuot (see Vayikra 23:15 21). That parshia discusses the special offering of the "shtei ha'lechem" ? two loaves of bread, baked as ?chametz? from the new wheat harvest -, offered at the conclusion of the 50 days of counting ["sefirat ha'omer"]. As the primary reason for this holiday is to thank God for our wheat harvest, it certainly makes sense for the Torah to command that we offer special korban from wheat. However, together with this ?shtei ha'lechem?, the Torah also instructs the "tzibur" (the community of Israel) to bring some additional sacrifices, including an olah, chatat, & shlamim. [The Olah is 7 sheep, 2 rams, and 1 bull, together with the standard goat for the chatat offering. For the shlamim the tzibur offers 2 sheep, whose meat is waved ('tnufa') together with the "shtei ha'lechem". / See 23:18-20.] Even though similar offerings are brought on every other holiday (see Bamidbar chapters 28 thru 29), Shavuot is unique for it is only time of the year when the ?tzibur? offers a korban shlamim! Let?s summarize these two unique laws regarding the "shtei ha'lechem" - the special korban of Shavuot. 1) It is the only korban 'mincha' offered by the tzibur which is baked 'chametz' (all other flour offerings must be baked 'matzah'). 2) It is the only time during the entire year when the ?tzibur? offers a korban SHLAMIM. We will now explain how these two laws may relate to the fact that the agricultural holiday of Shavuot coincides with the time of year when Bnei Yisrael first received the Torah. 1) CHAMETZ U'MATZAH As we explained in earlier shiurim, matzah symbolizes the initial stage of a process, whereas the fully risen 'chametz' symbolizes its completion. Thus, the mitzvah to bake the shtei ha'lechem as 'chametz' may indicate that Matan Torah should be understood as the culmination of the redemption process which began with Yetziat Mitzrayim. Just as the "shtei ha'lechem' marks the culmination of the wheat harvest, the staple of our physical existence - the historical process which began with the Exodus culminates with Matan Torah, the essence of our spiritual existence. In this manner, the agricultural time of year of Shavuot alludes to an educational message that can help us appreciate the historical event that we commemorate. [In our shiur on Parshat Emor, we provided similar explanations for significance of the agricultural time of year of Pesach & Succot.] 2) KORBAN SHLAMIM As we noted above, Shavuot is the ONLY holiday when the "tzibur" must offer a korban SHLAMIM, i.e. the two kvasim which are offered with the SHTEI ha'LECHEM. To appreciate why this is significant, we must uncover its Biblical precedent. The FIRST instance where we find a korban SHLAMIM is at the end of Parshat Mishpatim (Shmot 24:4 8) when the Torah describes the special covenantal ceremony that takes place at Ma'amad Har Sinai. At this ceremony, Bnei Yisrael proclaim "na'aseh v'nishma" while entering into a covenant to become God's special nation by accepting the laws of Matan Torah. That ceremony included the offering of special korbanot: OLOT and SHLAMIM (see Shmot 24:5). The blood from these korbanot, sprinkled both on the mizbayach and on the people, symbolized Bnei Yisrael's entry into the covenant (24:6 8). [The meat of the shlamim was eaten at the conclusion of the ceremony (24:11).] Thus we find that the very first korban SHLAMIM is offered as a symbol of Bnei Yisrael's acceptance of MATAN TORAH. Recall our explanation (see shiur on Parshat Vayikra) of how a SHLAMIM reflects a joint feast shared by covenantal partners. Therefore, the korban SHLAMIM, which is presented together with the SHTEI ha'LECHEM on Shavuot, may serve a symbolic reminder of MATAN TORAH. In fact, we find two additional instances in Chumash when Bnei Yisrael offer a special collective SHLAMIM offering - and once again, both relate to Ma'amad Har Sinai: 1) During the YOM ha'SHMINI ceremony (see Vayikra 9:1-5) 2) On Har Eival, when the generation that enters the land re-enacts Ma'amad Har Sinai and studies its laws! [see Devarim 27:1-8] 1) In many ways, "Yom ha'Shmini"- the day of the dedication ceremony of the Mishkan - can be considered as an extension of Ma'amad Har Sinai. Considering that God's SHCHINA, which had left Bnei Yisrael in the aftermath of chet ha'egel, now returns to the Mishkan, and God begins once again to teach Bnei Yisrael mitzvot - now from the Ohel Moed instead of from Har Sinai - we can view this event as parallel to the day of MATAN TORAH. Furthermore, this day marks the first time that God appears to Bnei Yisrael (see 9:4-5) since He appeared to them on the day when they first proclaimed "na'aseh v'nishma" (see 24:9-11). Once again, the korban SHLAMIM offered during this ceremony may reflect the re-establishment of the covenant of Har Sinai, which was broken due to chet ha'egel. 2) The purpose of the ceremony which God commands Bnei Yisrael to perform on Har Eival (to teach Bnei Yisrael the Torah and offer korbanot OLOT & SHLAMIM) is clearly to re-create the experience of MATAN TORAH for the new generation (for most of them were not present at the original event). Here once again, we find a thematic connection between the korban SHLAMIM and MATAN TORAH. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that special korban SHLAMIM that the Torah obligates us to offer with the SHTEI ha'LECHEM on Shavuot alludes to the deeper thematic connection between SHAVUOT and MATAN TORAH. If so, these Biblical ?hints? remind us that Shavuot remains as "ZMAN MATAN TORATEINU", even according to Chumash. chag sameyach, menachem ============== FOR FURTHER IYUN 1. Based on the above shiur, can you find a deeper meaning to the popular phrase "im ein kemach - ein Torah" [If there is no flour then there is no TORAH.] 2. In regard to Devarim 4:9-10. Note how these psukim could be understood as an introduction to the prohibition to make any image to represent God, as explained in 4:11-22. Therefore, this may not be considered as an independent mitzvah to remember Matan Torah. Only Ramban counts it as a mitzvah - See his pirush on 4:9 and the Hasagot HaRamban to Sefer HaMitzvot of the Rambam- Lo Ta'aseh #2. Note, that even if it is counted as a mitzvah, it does not require any specific action by which we are to commemorate that event. We are simply commanded never to forget it. 3. Our assumption that the specific date of the tenth of Tishrei was chosen for 'Yom Kippur' because it marks the date when Moshe descended from Har Sinai with the second "luchot" is based on several thematic parallels. First and foremost, the very concept of "kappara" was first introduced when Moshe first petitioned God to forgive Bnei Yisrael for their behavior at chet ha'egel - see Shmot 32:30 - "...u'lie ACHAPRA b'ad chatatchem". Furthermore, during Moshe's forty days and nights on Har Sinai, he did not eat or drink (see Devarim 9:9). This may relate to our need to fast on Yom Kippur. Finally, the specific date of the TENTH of the month would have no logical reason, other than if it commemorated a certain event that happened on that day. [A holiday on the fifteenth of the month (Pesach & Succot) would be because of full moon, or Rosh ha'shana, because it is a new moon. However a holiday on the tenth would require a reason for that specific day.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shav1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 35194 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shav1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 49152 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Sun Jun 4 20:28:45 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 20:28:45 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Bhaalotcha - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bhalq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 27057 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bhalq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 44544 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Jun 7 18:13:02 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Bhaalotcha - shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* PARSHAT BEHA'ALOTCHA Three books in one? So claim Chazal in regard to Sefer Bamidbar! And what's more, one of those three books contains only two psukim! [This statement is based on the 'sugya' in Shabbat 116a (top of the daf) concerning the two psukim of 'va-yehi bi-nso'a ha-aron...' (that we recite when we take out the Sefer Torah / see Bamidbar 10:35-36).] To better appreciate the deeper meaning of this statement, this week's shiur discusses an important thematic transition that takes place in Parshat Beha'alotcha. INTRODUCTION As anyone familiar with Chumash knows, the text of Chumash in the actual Sefer Torah does not contain any symbols of punctuation. Nonetheless, in Parshat Beha'alotcha we find a very peculiar exception, as the two psukim of 'va-yehi bi- nso'a ha-aron ...' are delimited by two upside down 'nun's' - acting like parenthesis, and thus causing these psukim to 'stand out'. For this 'technical' reason alone, we can certainly assume that these two psukim must be special. In an attempt to understand the reason for this phenomenon, the following shiur discusses the thematic importance of these two psukim by considering their location at a very pivotal position in Sefer Bamidbar. HIGH HOPES To appreciate the internal structure of Sefer Bamidbar, we must first consider what its theme ?should have? been. To do so, let?s quickly review the primary themes of the previous three books, as we have discussed in our series of shiurim. Sefer Breishit focused on God?s choice of Avraham (and his offspring) to become His special nation ['bechira']. Sefer Shmot described God?s redemption of His nation from Egypt, their subsequent journey to Har Sinai to receive the Torah, and construction of the mishkan ? the symbol of God?s presence in their midst. Finally, in Sefer Vayikra, Bnei Yisrael received additional laws relating to both the mishkan and 'kedusha' [holiness] in their land and their daily lives. At this point, Bnei Yisrael were now ready to continue their journey from Har Sinai to inherit the 'Promised Land'. Hence, Sefer Bamidbar ?should have? been the story of that journey and their inheritance of the land. Tragically, in Sefer Bamidbar those goals are never attained; however - by considering those high expectations ? we can better appreciate its content and structure. For example, Sefer Bamidbar began by describing how Bnei Yisrael prepared for their journey to Eretz Canaan by organizing the army while establishing the mishkan at the center of their camp. Note how this theme (of Bnei Yisrael's preparation for this journey) continues throughout the narrative in the first ten chapters of Sefer Bamidbar: * The army is organized and counted (chapters 1-2) * The mishkan is placed at the focal point of the camp (2-5) * The national leaders participate in its dedication (7) * The levi'im are appointed to become the spiritual leaders (chapters 3->4 & 8) * The entire nation offers pesach rishon & sheni (chapter 9) * Final instructions are given re: how and when to travel(10) Had nothing 'gone wrong', it would have been precisely at this point (after chapter 10 in Sefer Bamidbar) that Bnei Yisrael should have begun their magnificent journey to the Promised Land. Instead, the next sixteen chapters (i.e. chapters 11-26) discuss exactly the opposite, i.e. how (and why) Bnei Yisrael did not inherit the Land. In those chapters, the Torah describes numerous incidents when Bnei Yisrael rebelled against God, culminating with God's decision not to allow that generation to enter the land. [The final ten chapters of Sefer Bamidbar (27-36) discuss how the second generation prepares to enter the Land.] THREE BOOKS This analysis can help us appreicate the location of the two psukim of 'va-yehi bi-nso'a ha-aron', as they lie at this junction that divides Sefer Bamidbar into two distinct sections: A) Chaps. 1-10 - Bnei Yisrael's preparation for this journey B) Chaps. 11-26 - The actual journey (i.e. what went wrong) The last two psukim of chapter 10 ['va-yehi bi-nso'a ha- aron...'] form the divider between these two sections! With this background, we can appreciate why Chazal consider Sefer Bamidbar as three books. As the first ten chapters - preparation for travel - form a complete unit, they can be considered a 'book'. Similarly, chapters 11-36, describing the failure of the first generation, also form a complete unit, and hence can also be considered a 'book'. However, even though the two psukim of 'va-yehi bi-nso'a ha-aron...' form a divider, we must still explain why Chazal consider them as a book as well. WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN One could suggest that these two psukim serve as more than just a buffer. Albeit their brevity, they do describe the ideal fashion in which Bnei Yisrael should have traveled on their journey to inherit the Land. [For example, compare with Shmot 23:20-27, which describes God's original plan for how Bnei Yisrael would conquer the land.] To emphasize what 'could have been' in contrast to what actually took place, the Torah intentionally delimits these two psukim with upside down nun's. If so, then the 'three books' of Sefer Bamidbar would be: BOOK ONE - Bnei Yisrael's preparation for their journey (1-10) This 'book' is followed by two 'versions' of that journey: BOOK TWO - the ideal (two psukim) - what 'could have been' BOOK THREE - the actual journey that 'failed' (i.e. chapters 11-36) To accent the tragedy of book three, the Torah first presents a 'glimpse' of what 'could have been' in book two - the glorious manner in which Bnei Yisrael could have travelled, had they not sinned. WHAT WENT WRONG? So what went wrong? What caused Bnei Yisrael to sin at the incidents of the 'mit'onenim', the 'mit'avim' and the 'meraglim' etc.? Chazal find a 'hint' in the pasuk (which immediately precedes 'va-yehi bi-nso'a ha-aron') that describes Bnei Yisrael's departure from Har Sinai": "And they travelled from God's mountain..."(see 10:33-34). The Midrash comments: "Like a child leaving school - running away, in the same manner Bnei Yisrael ran away from Har Sinai a three day distance, for they studied [too much] Torah at Har Sinai..." [Quoted in first Tosafot on Masechet Shabbat 116a]. This Midrash compares Bnei Yisrael's stay at Har Sinai to a 'school year' [quite appropriate for this time of year]. Even though they studied God's laws at Har Sinai, it seems as though the spirit of those laws were not internalized. The people were indeed looking forward to leaving Har Sinai, but they were not looking forward to keeping God's laws in Eretz Canaan. Technically speaking, they may have been 'prepared' for this journey, but they most definitely were not spiritually 'ready'. [See further iyun section.] In this manner, the Midrash is highlighting the underlying reason that led to these sins. Once Bnei Yisrael left with the 'wrong attitude', it was inevitable that they would sin. But who is to blame? Certainly, first and foremost the people themselves; but if we follow the ?school? analogy of this Midrash, we should also consider the possibility that the 'faculty' may share some of the responsibility as well. As we study Sefer Bamidbar, we will see how certain incidents may even allude to this possibility. However, the first 'early warning' of teacher 'burn-out' is found already in Parshat Beha'alotcha. HAS MOSHE 'HAD ENOUGH'? Beginning with chapter 11, and in almost every incident when Bnei Yisrael sin in Sefer Bamidbar, we find a growing strain in the relationship between Moshe Rabbeinu and the people. Not only do the people constantly complain to Moshe about their plight in chapter 11, even his own brother and sister criticize him in chapter 12! In chapters 13-14, the meraglim [spies] incite a national rebellion calling for new leadership to take them back to Egypt (see 14:1-5), while in chapter 16 (Parshat Korach) we find yet another rebellion against the leadership of both Moshe and Aharon. So, what went wrong? The first sign of this leadership crisis already surfaces in the case of mit'avim (see 11:4-14), immediately after Bnei Yisrael left Har Sinai. Let's note Moshe's petition to God in reaction to Bnei Yisrael's complaint about the stale taste of the manna: "... And Moshe pleaded to God: Why have You dealt so harshly with Your servant, and why have I not enjoyed Your favor that You have laid the burden of this people upon me? I cannot carry all this people by myself for it is too much for me. If you would deal thus with me, kill me rather..." (11:11-15). In contrast to the Moshe Rabbeinu that we were familiar with from Sefer Shmot - who consistently defends Bnei Yisrael before God when they sin, now in Sefer Bamidbar Moshe's attitude appears to be quite the opposite -he would rather die than continue to be their leader! Note as well the obvious textual parallels that highlight this contrast. Compare: * "lama hareyota le-avdecha..." (Bamidbar 11:11) - with "lama hareyota la-am ha-zeh..." (Shmot 5:22) ["Why have you dealt so harshly with Your people - for what purpose have you sent me, for since I have gone to Pharaoh in Your Name, things have only become worse..."] * "lama lo matzati chein be-einecha..." (Bamidbar 11:11) - with "ve-ata im matzati chein be-einecha..."(see Shmot 33:13,16) ["And now, if I have found favor in Your eyes, let me know Your ways so I can find favor in Your eyes - and see that they are Your people... and how will I know that I and Your people have indeed found favor - when You allow Your Presence to travel with us..."] and * "If this is my plight [to lead them]- I'd rather die..." (11:15) "If You forgive their sin [fine]... but if not erase me from Your book that you have written..." (see Shmot 32:30-32) [In the above comparisons, note as well the Torah's use of key phrases such as 'charon af Hashem', 'ra'a', 'matzati cheyn be-einecha' etc.] Is it not ironic that after the incident of 'chet ha-egel' Moshe is willing to die in order to save his nation (see Shmot 32:32), while now he would rather die than lead his nation! In Sefer Shmot, Moshe was always 'sticking out his neck' to defend Bnei Yisrael, while now he appears to have 'given up'. [Note Rashi on Bamidbar 11:28 where he quotes the Sifri that explains how Eldad's & Meidad's prophecy at this incident was that 'Moshe will die and Yehoshua will lead Bnei Yisrael into the Land instead'. This Midrash suggests as well that the failure of Moshe's leadership already begins with this incident of the mit'avim and is not solely due to his sin at 'mei meriva' in chapter 20. / See further iyun section.] This parallel, suggesting a possible flaw in Moshe Rabbeinu himself, must bother every student of Chumash. Could it be that Moshe Rabbeinu reacted in an improper manner? Is it possible that the greatest prophet of all times, who received the Torah and taught it to Bnei Yisrael, just 'gives up'? Is Moshe Rabbeinu - who took Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt and faithfully led them to Har Sinai - now unable to lead them on the last leg of their grand journey from Har Sinai to Eretz Canaan? To answer yes would be blasphemous, yet answering no would appear to be rather naive. TOO HOLY TO LEAD One could suggest that the contrast between Moshe's reaction to chet ha-egel and his reaction to the mit'avim stems from the motive behind each sin. Despite the severity of chet ha-egel, Bnei Yisrael's sin was the result of a misguided desire to fill the spiritual vacuum created by Moshe's absence. [See shiur on Parshat Ki Tisa.] In contrast, the sin of the mit'avim seems to have been totally physical - an uncontrollable lust for food ['hit'avu ta'ava']. Chet ha-egel presented an educational challenge that Moshe Rabbeinu is willing to accept, i.e. to take this misguided desire and channel it in the proper direction. [Note commentators who understand the building of the mishkan as a 'tikkun' for the misguided intentions that led to chet ha- egel.] However, after the lustful sin of the mit'avim, Moshe Rabbeinu simply 'gives up'. He is unable to fathom how this nation, after spending an entire year at Har Sinai, have become so preoccupied with such mundane desires. Moshe simply does not have the educational tools to deal with such a low level of behavior. [In other words - Moshe was hired to be a teacher, not a baby-sitter!] God's immediate reaction to Moshe's petition may reflect this aspect of Moshe's leadership. God finds it necessary to take some of the ruach (spirit) from Moshe and transfer it to the seventy elders (see 11:16-17). God realizes that Moshe must now share some of his leadership responsibilities with elders who can possibly deal more realistically with this type of crisis. One could suggest an additional insight. In Sefer Bamidbar, Moshe Rabbeinu could be considered 'over qualified' or 'too holy' to lead the people. After spending some six months on Har Sinai, Moshe Rabbeinu is on a spiritual level far higher than that of his nation. It is not that Moshe Rabbeinu is incapable of leading, rather the nation is on too low a level to benefit from his leadership. Quite simply, ?over-qualified? for the job. [Iy"h, we'll return to this topic in our shiur on Parshat Chukat.] Ultimately, Yehoshua will be chosen to lead Bnei Yisrael into the Promised Land. As the dedicated student of Moshe Rabbeinu, and the experienced leader of his own tribe (and of the entire army in the battle against Amalek), Yehoshua possesses the necessary leadership qualities. He is also sufficiently 'down to earth', and therefore will be able to lead Bnei Yisrael into the 'land'. The lesson that we can learn from this Parsha is certainly not 'how to criticize' Moshe Rabbeinu. Rather, it should remind us when teaching - to keep in mind the emotional needs of our students; and when studying - to keep in mind the potential of how much we can gain from our teachers. shabbat shalom menachem =================== FOR FURTHER IYUN 1. See Shmot 34:30-35 in relation to the 'masveh' - the veil - which Moshe wore after his descent from Har Sinai. How does this relate to the above shiur? 2. Considering the parallel between Har Sinai and Gan Eden, why do you think that the sin of the mit'avim ('ta'ava') is significant? [Relate to Breishit 3:6-8!] 3. In relation to the Midrash quoted in the shiur on: 'Va- yis'u me-har Hashem ....' (10:33) : 'ke-tinok ha-boreiach mi- bet ha-sefer' [like a child running away from school] Most children stay in school because they must. Usually, school attendance is not an outcome of total identification with the importance of education, rather a result of parental coercion. A child's joy on the last day of school usually does not stem from recognition of his academic achievements, but more likely from his expectations for having fun during vacation. This, according to Chazal, was the level of Bnei Yisrael after their year at Har Sinai. They did not fully appreciate the privilege of receiving the Torah. Instead of looking forward to transferring the ideals of the Har Sinai into daily life in Eretz Yisrael, they were more interested in just getting on with normal life, while 'running away' from their spiritual obligations. 4. Note how later on in Sefer Bamidbar, Moshe's initial reaction to most every complaint is 'va-yipol al panav' - and "he fell on his face"./ See meraglim, korach and mei meriva. Thus, Moshe's reaction to the mit'avim is not an isolated event. It opens an entire chain of incidents in which Moshe Rabbeinu's leadership appears to falter, concluding with the events of mei meriva (20:7-13) where God decides that Moshe cannot lead Bnei Yisrael into the Promised Land. As we explained, the famous Midrash concerning the 'nevu'a of Eldad and Meidad (the two elders who were not included with the other seventy / read 11:26-29) reflects this connection between Moshe's reaction to the sin of the mit'avim and his ultimate fate of not entering Eretz Yisrael. Even though the Torah does not specify precisely what Eldad & Meidad had said, the Midrash fills it in for us: "Moshe meit ve-Yehoshua machnisam la-aretz" - Moshe is going to die and Yehoshua will lead them into the Land (Rashi 11:26). Although this interpretation is not the obvious 'pshat' of these psukim (as we can discern from Moshe Rabbeinu's reaction to Yehoshua's complaint / see 11:26-29), the Midrash may be alluding to the overall pshat of this parsha in Sefer Bamidbar. In the very same 'parsha' where Moshe is unable to deal with the mundane complaints of the people, the Midrash already sees his ultimate inability to lead Am Yisrael into Eretz Yisrael. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bhal1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 34210 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bhal1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 50176 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Jun 8 11:43:52 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 11:43:52 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Bhaalotcha - additional shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* PARSHAT BHA'ALOTCHA (shiur #2) "CHALSHA DA'ATO SHEL AHARON" Why was Aharon depressed? The first Rashi in this week's Parsha deals with this question as he explains the juxtaposition between the first topic in Parshat Bha'alotcha - for Aharon to light the Menorah (8:1-5), and the last topic in Parshat Naso - the twelve day dedication ceremony of the Mizbayach (7:1-88): "Why is the parsha of the Menorah juxtaposed to ?chanukat ha'nssiim? (the special offering brought by the princes of each tribe)? - When Aharon saw the daily dedication offering by the 'nssiim', he became DEPRESSED, because neither he, nor his shevet, took part in this ceremony. - God assured Aharon saying: Do not worry, YOUR PORTION IS GREATER than theirs, for you are to light and attend to the MENORAH every morning and evening." IS AHARON REALLY 'LEFT OUT'? Ramban immediately questions the basic assumption of this Midrash (as quoted by Rashi): "Could it be that Aharon is depressed because he felt 'left out'? After all, each "nasi" enjoyed only ONE day of special attention, while Aharon was at the center of attention during each of those TWELVE DAYS! Did he not offer all of the korbanot on each of those days, as well as the ktoret and korban tamid? Furthermore, during the miluim ceremony (see Vayikra 8:1-36) that preceded that dedication, he and his children enjoyed seven days of 'exclusive attention'. For what possible reason could Aharon have felt 'left out'? In this commentary, Ramban is unable to find a satisfying explanation of this Midrash according to "pshat". Instead, he suggests that the intention of the Midrash is not to explain the psukim, but rather to show a biblical source for the Hasmonean revolt: "Even though Aharon did not participate in the dedication of the mizbayach of the Mishkan, in the merit of his descendants - the Hasmoneans - the mizbayach of the Second Temple will be dedicated. Furthermore, in commemoration of that event, a Menorah will be lit in every home, even after the destruction of the Temple " (see Ramban 8:1). One could suggest an alternative explanation of the Midrash, without the need of limiting its significance to the events of the Hasmonean revolt.COALITION POLITICS The opening statement of the Midrash - "chalsha da'ato shel Aharon" (Aharon became depressed) - requires explanation. [Note that Ramban had raised this question, but did not answer it directly.] Considering that Aharon is indeed at the center of attention and very busy during each day of the dedication ceremony, why should he have become depressed? To understand Aharon's reaction (according to the Midrash) we must consider the political realities of his predicament. Bnei Yisrael are about to leave Har Sinai and begin their journey to conquer and inherit the Land of Israel. Although Aharon is indeed a very key figure during Bnei Yisrael's short stay in the desert, he is apprehensive about what will most probably take place once Bnei Yisrael leave Har Sinai. The focus of national attention will shift to the excitement of military initiatives and political enterprise. Har Sinai, and maybe even the Mishkan, will soon be 'long forgotten'. Once the conquest of Eretz Canaan would begin, it will be the twelve "nssiim" (the tribal leaders) who will hold the highest positions of national leadership. They will establish economic policy; they will make treaties with foreign dignitaries; they will make the speeches at national gatherings; they will lead the nation in war. [In modern phraseology, they will become the Ministers of Defence and the Treasury; Secretaries of State and Foreign Affairs.] Thus, it is quite understandable why Aharon becomes depressed. When he sees the attention that the twelve "nssiim" receive, he realizes the insignificance of his position within the emerging national leadership. What ministry post will he receive? In his own eyes, he may have begun to view his job as merely the "shamash" (a beadle/ attendant) taking care of the Mishkan. Indeed, a very technical job at best. Will he have any influence lasting influence on the nation? At best, he may possibly be appointed "sar ha'datot" - the Minister of Religion. Within a short time, Aharon fears, he will be distanced from national leadership. AN IMPORTANT CABINET POST Thus far, we have suggested a reason for Aharon's depression (according to the Midrash). What is the significance of God's consolation -that he will light the Menorah? Although the Midrash is well aware of Aharon's numerous responsibilities in the Mishkan, it chooses specifically the Menorah to symbolize an additional aspect of his national duties, i.e. teaching God's laws to the people. This double purpose is mentioned in the blessing to Shevet Levi in Parshat v'Zot ha'bracha: "They shall TEACH Your laws to Yaakov, and your instructions to Yisrael, they shall offer Your incense... and offer the 'olah' ("kalil") on Your mizbayach..." (Devarim 33:10) Once Bnei Yisrael will enter the land, teaching the laws of the Torah will become the PRIMARY duty of the Kohanim and Leviim. Since their work is divided into 24 week shifts, the average kohen or levi would find himself working in the Mishkan only two weeks a year. Therefore, most of their time would be spent teaching and judging the people (see Devarim 17:8-10). It was for this reason that their cities are scattered throughout the twelve tribes of Israel (see Bamidbar 35:1-8 and Yehoshua 21:1-40). Thus, the Menorah may symbolize specifically this duty of the Kohanim - "chinuch", teaching. If the purpose of the Menorah is to spread light, then the purpose of the kohanim is to spread Torah to the entire nation. This understanding can explain why Aharon is consoled when told that it is his job to light the Menorah. If we continue with our parallel to the realm of national politics, one could explain that Aharon and his "shevet" are consoled - for they are given a responsibility similar to the control the Ministry of Education and Justice (in addition to the Ministry of Religion) - a cabinet position no less important than any other! shabbat shalom, menachem ================================== FOR FURTHER IYUN - PART II: 1. According to pshat, one could suggest a simple reason for the juxtaposition of these two parshiot? Notice that the final psukim of perek 7, which summarize the korbanot brought by the nssiim, are actually referring to the first day of the dedication ceremony when all the nssiim brought their korbanot together, at the same time (read 7:10- 11 carefully!). Furthermore, 7:89 - the dibur to Moshe - also takes place on the first day. Therefore, Bha'alotcha opens in the 'afternoon' of the first day of the dedication of the Mishkan. The only avodah left, which did not begin in the morning, is the lighting of the Menorah, for it is lit "m'erev ad boker" - from evening to morning! This may explain why this mitzvah is included at this time. 2. Compare this juxtaposition between the dibur to Moshe (7:89), and his relationship to Aharon (8:1-5) and the Nsiim (7:1-88) to the psukim which describe Moshe descent from Har Sinai- according to Shmot 34:29-32!Relate this to the connection between Har Sinai and the function of the Mishkan! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bhal2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 20249 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bhal2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 31744 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Tue Jun 13 14:29:05 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 14:29:05 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Shlach - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shlachq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 28917 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shlachq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 42496 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Jun 15 12:22:15 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 12:22:15 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] for Parshat Shlach - shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shlach1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 40808 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shlach1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 56832 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Jun 21 20:43:35 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:43:35 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Korach - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Jun 21 20:44:55 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:44:55 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Korach - questions for self study Message-ID: in pdf & doc format attached -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: korachq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 34927 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: korachq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 34672 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Jun 22 13:31:18 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 13:31:18 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Korach - shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: korach1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 53416 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: korach1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 71168 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Jun 28 12:51:47 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 12:51:47 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Chukat - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: chukatq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 36686 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: chukatq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 59392 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Jun 29 08:24:22 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 08:24:22 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Chukat - mei Meriva Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* PARSHAT CHUKAT - Mei Meriva Ask most anyone: * What was Moshe Rabeinu's 'sin' at Mei Meriva? They will answer: He hit the rock instead of talking to it. * What was his punishment? They will answer: He was not allowed to enter Eretz Yisrael. * Does this punishment seem fair? They'll say: No, but God must be extra strict with tzadikim. Even though there is nothing 'wrong' about any of the above answers, they certainly 'oversimplify' a very complex topic. In this week's shiur, as we carefully analyze the story of Mei Meriva, we will see how and why there are many other ways to understand both Moshe's 'sin' and his 'punishment'. In Part One, we undertake a careful textual analysis to explain why there are so many different opinions. In Part Two, we re-examine this entire topic from a 'wider angle' to show how Moshe may not have sinned after all. INTRODUCTION Rashi's explanation - that Moshe is punished for hitting the rock instead of talking to it - is definitely the most popular explanation of Moshe's sin. However, just about every other commentator disagrees and offers a different reason instead. For example: * IBN EZRA - claims that he hit the rock TWICE, instead of once; * RAMBAM - argues that Moshe 'lost his temper' and spoke harshly; * RAMBAN - (quoting Rabeinu Chananel) explains that Moshe was not careful in his speech, for he said: "can WE get water from this rock?" instead of saying: "can GOD get water from this rock?". In fact, Abrabanel (commenting on Devarim 1:37) summarizes some TEN different opinions; and proves why each one is incorrect. There is a very simple reason why we find such a variety of opinion. Even though the Torah tells us WHY Moshe and Aharon were punished, we are never told WHAT they did wrong. To appreciate this distinction, let's carefully note how the Torah informs us of their punishment: "...because you did not 'believe' in Me ["lo he'emantem bi"] to sanctify Me in the eyes of Bnei Yisrael, therefore you will not lead Bnei Yisrael into the land...." (see 20:12) [Note that this is a very difficult pasuk to translate. (Note as well that just about every English translation translates this pasuk in a different manner.] Clearly, this pasuk implies that Moshe & Aharon did something wrong, but it doesn't tell us precisely WHAT that was. Nevertheless, because this pasuk forms the conclusion of the Mei Meriva story, we can safely assume that somewhere within that incident there must be a flaw in their behavior. Therefore, all the commentators scrutinize the psukim that describe that event, in search for some action that would warrant this punishment. To appreciate their various conclusions, let's begin by doing exactly what they did, i.e. let's carefully study those psukim that immediately precede the punishment - Bamidbar 20:7- 11. This is very important methodological point. Our assumption is that the variety of conclusions stems from the analysis of these psukim by each commentator [="parshanut"], and not from a variance in passed down traditions [="mesora"] from generation to generation since the time of Chumash. This assumption not only explains why there are so many different opinions, it also explains why each new generation continues to study Chumash in search of additional possible explanations. THE FIVE COMMANDMENTS! As you review 20:7-11, note how 20:7-8 describes God's command to Moshe and Aharon; while 20:9-11 describes its fulfillment. Therefore, it should be quite simple to figure out what they did wrong. We simply need to compare what God had commanded - to what Moshe actually did! Let's begin with God's instructions to Moshe, noting how they contains several explicit commands: "And God spoke to Moshe saying: TAKE the staff, and GATHER the congregation together, you and Aharon your brother, and SPEAK to the rock before their eyes that it should give water, and TAKE OUT for them water from the rock, and GIVE DRINK to the people and their animals." (20:7-8) Review these psukim one more time, paying attention to the FIVE commands that Moshe (and Aharon) must execute: (1) TAKE the staff; (2) GATHER the congregation; (3) SPEAK to the rock... and it will give water; (4) TAKE OUT for them water from the rock; (5) GIVE DRINK to the people. Note how each of these five commands contains an active verb, and hence requires that Moshe take a specific action. [In other words, Moshe must (1) TAKE the staff, (2) GATHER the people, and (3) SPEAK to the rock, etc.] However, there appears to be a contradiction between the third and the fourth command (concerning how the water would be taken out of the rock). According to command #3, Moshe should speak to the rock, whereupon it should immediately start giving its water. But the next command (#4) is for Moshe to 'take water out of the rock' (without explaining HOW he should do it). But if by SPEAKING to the rock (3) the rock will already be giving its water, how can Moshe fulfill command (4) to TAKE OUT water from the rock? The rock is already giving its water - so what would command (4) entail? As we continue our analysis, keep this question in mind. FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS The next step of our analysis will help us understand the underlying reason for the various opinions. We begin our analysis (of 20:9-11) to see how Moshe fulfilled (or didn't fulfill) each of these five commands. We will compare each command to its execution in search of any slight variance that could be considered a lack of "emunah" that would warrant such a severe punishment (as described in 20:12). COMMAND #1 - "TAKE the staff"; (20:8) MOSHE'S EXECUTION: "And Moshe TOOK the staff from before the Lord, as God had commanded him..." (20:9) Nothing seems to be wrong here, after all the pasuk itself testifies: "as God commanded him". Certainly, this could not be a sin. [Later in the shiur we will return to this pasuk.] ==== COMMAND #2 - GATHER the "eydah" (congregation)... (20:8) MOSHE'S EXECUTION: "And Moshe and Aharon GATHERED the "kahal" (congregation) people together in front of the rock..." (20:10) Here again, nothing appears to have been done wrong. [There is slight discrepancy between "kehal" and "eydah", but these two words in Chumash are usually synonymous. [It should be noted that Malbim disagrees.] ===== COMMAND #3 - SPEAK to the rock that it should give water... MOSHE'S EXECUTION: "...And he [Moshe] said to THEM (i.e. to the people): Listen here you rebellious people, is it possible that WE can take water from this rock?" (20:10) Here we finally find our first major problem. Even though God had instructed Moshe to speak TO the rock- so that it would give water; instead Moshe speaks to the PEOPLE - ABOUT the rock (that it would give water)! Therefore, most of the commentators [Rashi, Rambam, Ramban, Rashbam] will find fault with some aspect of Moshe's behavior in this pasuk (which will be discussed below). ==== COMMAND #4 - TAKE OUT for them water from the rock... (20:8) MOSHE'S EXECUTION: "... and Moshe lifted his hand and HIT the rock with his staff TWO times, then much water came out..." (20:11) Even though RASHI claims that this is Moshe's primary transgression [for he hit the rock INSTEAD of 'talking' to it], based on this careful comparison it becomes clear why other commentators disagree. After all, God commanded him to 'take out water', but didn't tell him HOW to accomplish this. It seems as though Moshe understood that he was supposed to use his staff to do so (as he had done forty years earlier). Furthermore, God had commanded him to 'take his staff' (i.e. command #1) -if he wasn't supposed to hit the rock, why was he commanded to take his staff? Ibn Ezra advances this argument, and concludes instead that Moshe erred by hitting the rock TWICE instead of once. ====== COMMAND #5 - Give drink to the people and their animals. (20:8) MOSHE'S EXECUTION: "...and the people and their animals drank. (20:11) Clearly, Moshe does nothing wrong in this final stage. After all, we surely don't expect Moshe to 'pour drinks' for everyone; rather he fulfills this command by allowing the people to gather the water for their needs. ===== This analysis shows that the primary problem in Moshe's behavior lies somewhere between his execution of commands 3 & 4. Let's return to our discussion of command #3. Recall how God had instructed Moshe: "SPEAK to the rock and [or that] it should [or will] give water..." [Note the two possible translations.] Considering that we never find that Moshe actually talked to the rock (and based on the above parallel comparison), we must conclude that the following phrase is Moshe's execution of this command: "...And he [Moshe] said to THEM (i.e. to the people): Listen here you rebellious people, is it possible that we can take water from this rock?" (20:10) At first glance, it even appears as though there may have been a small 'misunderstanding'. As we explained above, even though God had instructed Moshe to speak TO the rock, instead Moshe speaks to the people ABOUT the rock. At this point, there are three different approaches that one can follow: a) Moshe indeed misunderstood what God wanted. Hence his transgression would fall under the category of "shogeg" - an unintentional sin / see Rashbam. b) Moshe understood God's command; but acted differently. In other words, he acted defiantly [="mayzid" - an intentional transgression]. This leads Rashi to his conclusion that Moshe hit the rock instead of speaking to it. c) Moshe acted properly (in this regard), and understood God's command. In other words, speaking to the people about the rock was precisely what God commanded. As Ramban explains, in the phrase "v'dbartem EL ha'sela" - the word "el" should be understood as "odot" (about). God commands Moshe to speak to the people ABOUT the rock THAT it should give water; and that is exactly what Moshe does! Even though this third possibility (that this was indeed God's intention) may seem a bit 'stretched', it definitely can be supported from the next commandment: "And you shall TAKE OUT water for them from the rock" (see 20:8). As we pointed out earlier, this fourth command implies that Moshe must now do something to 'take out' water from the rock. Therefore, it is possible that hitting the rock was exactly what God expected Moshe to do. After all, this is exactly how God had instructed him to take water from the 'rock at Chorev' many years earlier (see Shmot 17:6). Furthermore, once Moshe understands that 'speak TO the rock' means 'speak ABOUT the rock' then obviously "take out water" must imply to take a certain action to extract the water - i.e. to hit the rock! Certainly, it would be no less of a miracle now than it was forty years earlier! Because of these considerations, all of the commentators (except Rashi) must search elsewhere for a flaw in Moshe's behavior. For example, Rambam and Ramban take issue with how Moshe's words his rebuke: "...And he [Moshe] said to them: Listen here you rebellious people, is it possible that WE can take water from this rock?" (20:10) Rambam takes issue with the TONE of this rebuke, while Ramban takes issue with its CONTENT. RAMBAM claims that the tone of Moshe's statement - "listen you rebels..." - reflects an unnecessary anger which caused a "chillul Hashem" (a desecration of God's Name). [See Rambam in "shmoneh perakim", or simply see its quote by Ramban in his pirush to 20:7.] RAMBAN claims that Moshe caused a "chilul Hashem" by saying 'we' in their rhetorical question - "is it possible that WE can take out water from this rock". This 'careless' statement may have caused the people to conclude that it was Moshe and Aharon (and not God) who cause the water to come out from the rock. [See Ramban 20:7 in name of Rabeinu Chananel.] Nonetheless, it remains possible to understand that Moshe's rebuke in this pausk was entirely in order. This leads Ibn Ezra to find fault in the next stage: "... and Moshe lifted his hand and HIT the rock with his staff TWO times, then much water came out..." (20:11) After refuting all of the other opinions, Ibn Ezra finds Moshe's flaw in the fact that he hit the rock TWICE instead of only once. [It seems that according to Ibn Ezra, this reason 'wins by default'. Note that Ramban (towards the end of his commentary) also supports this opinion - to a certain extent.] Thus, by careful comparing Moshe's execution of each of God's commands, we are able to find the underlying reason for the opinions of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Rambam, Rashbam, Ramban, etc. Nonetheless, no matter how we explain WHAT Moshe's sin was, a more fundamental question remains - i.e. WHY was his punishment so severe? PART TWO -- DID MOSHE DO ANYTHING 'WRONG' ? From the above analysis, a very interesting possibility arises. If we combine all of the reasons advanced by each commentator to reject the other interpretations - we could conclude that Moshe did nothing wrong at all! [See the commentaries of Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and Abrabanel on this sugya. Each of them present very convincing arguments why all of the other opinions are wrong.] In fact, Abrabanel himself raises this possibility, then he advances his own opinion (based on Devarim 1:37) that Moshe & Aharon are really being punished for earlier sins - Moshe for "chet ha'mergalim" and Aharon for "chet ha'egel". Mei Meriva, he explains, serves as a kind of 'cover-up' to differentiate between Moshe & Aharon's punishment, and the punishment of the nation. Nonetheless, his interpretation remains difficult because the text states explicitly that Moshe is punished because of the events that took place at MEI MERIVA! [See not only here in 20:12-13, but also in 20:24, 27:14 and Devarim 32:51.] Therefore, we should be quite reluctant to look for the PRIMARY reason elsewhere. But, where else can we look to find Moshe's sin? On the one hand, it must be related to the events of Mei Meriva, but when we examined those psukim, it was very hard to pinpoint a 'sin'; and certainly not a sin severe enough to deserve such a harsh punishment. To answer this question, we must first take a closer look at precisely WHAT their punishment was. CRIME & PUNISHMENT It is commonly understood that Moshe and Aharon's punishment is that they are forbidden from ENTERING the land of Israel. However, this popular assumption is not precise. Let's take a look once again how the Chumash explains their punishment: "And God told Moshe... because you did not trust Me enough to sanctify Me... therefore you shall NOT LEAD THIS NATION into the LAND which I promised them... " (20:12) Note, that God doesn't say that they cannot enter the Land; rather they cannot LEAD the people into the Land. In other words, Moshe and Aharon are not being punished as INDIVIDUALS, rather as NATIONAL LEADERS. As such, their 'sin' must relate in some manner to a flaw in their leadership traits. In fact, the very pasuk that explains their punishment already hints to a flaw in leadership: "...BECAUSE you did not trust in Me enough TO SANCTIFY ME in the eyes of Bnei Yisrael... (20:12) God's statement implies that He had expected Moshe and Aharon to take the rebellion at Mei Meriva and somehow create from it a "kiddush Hashem" - a sanctification of God's Name. Therefore, to find that 'sin', we must examine the Mei Meriva once again, in search of leadership crisis. But this time, we must begin by studying those events from their onset. LET'S START FROM THE VERY BEGINNING Recall that the Mei Meriva incident began when Bnei Yisrael encountered a terrible water shortage immediately upon their arrival at Midbar Tzin. Let's begin our study by taking a closer look at how the Torah described that crisis: "And Bnei Yisrael arrived at Midbar Tzin... but there was not enough water for the people, and they gathered against Moshe and Aharon. They argued with Moshe saying: It would had been better had we died with our brethren "lifnei Hashem" [before God]... So - why did you bring us to this desert to die?...and why did you take us out of Egypt to bring us to this terrible place... - there are no fruits here and there is no water to drink." (see 20:1-5) Not only did Bnei Yisrael ask for water, they expressed their total disgust with the entire process of Yetziat Mitzraim. Even though they direct these harsh complaints to Moshe and Aharon, they can be understood no less as a complaint against God; questioning not only His ability to save them, but also the very purpose of their special relationship. How should Moshe and Aharon respond to these blasphemous complaints? Should they not argue by defending God? Should they not encourage the people to remain faithful? Instead, Chumash describes what appears to be a rather 'pathetic' reaction: "And Moshe and Aharon came to the Ohel Moed [in fear] from the congregation, and they fell on their faces..." (20:6) One could suggest that already at this stage a leadership crisis has unfolded. To clarify this point, let's compare this event to the parallel incident that took place when Bnei Yisrael complained for water at Refidim many years earlier (see Shmot 17:1-7). Note Moshe's immediate response (at that time) to an almost identical complaint: "mah trivun iy'madi, mah t'nasun et Hashem" -Why are you arguing with me, why are you TESTING God? (see 17:2) At Refidim, Moshe immediately challenged the people - reprimanding them how their complaint reflected a lack of faith in God. Afterward, when the people continued to complain, Moshe cries out to God, begging for a solution (see 17:4). In contrast, at "Mei Meriva" Moshe's reaction is quite different. Instead of confronting these almost identical complaints, Moshe & Aharon immediately 'run away' to the Ohel Moed and 'fall on their faces' (20:6). [Even if this means that they prayed - is this a time for prayer? Compare with Shmot 14:15 and its context!] Was 'running away' the proper reaction? Should they not have assured the people that God will indeed take care of their needs. Should they not have challenged the people's irreverent statement that "it would have been better had they remained in Egypt"? One could suggest that already at this early stage in the narrative - Moshe & Aharon have already 'failed' as national leaders, for they do not SANCTIFY God's name when the opportunity arose. In fact, this may be precisely what God is referring to when He states: "because you did not trust Me enough to sanctify Me in the eyes of Bnei Yisrael..." (20:12). Even though God immediately gives Moshe & Aharon specific instructions on how to deal with the situation, it is already too late. As soon is the incident is over, even though Moshe & Aharon may have properly fulfilled all of God's instructions when hitting the rock, God informs them that their days as the nation's leaders are numbered. Before Bnei Yisrael will begin their conquest of Eretz Canaan, it will be necessary to appoint new leadership. [Note that later in Sefer Devarim when Moshe begs that he be allowed see the land (3:23-26), he does not ask to LEAD, only to ENTER and see for himself.] However, if this interpretation is correct, why do we need the story of 'hitting the rock' (20:7-11) in between? Let the Torah first inform us of Moshe's punishment, and then let God provide water for the people. To answer this question, and to understand this entire incident in its wider perspective, we must turn back a few pages to a related event in Parshat Korach. WHOSE STAFF IS IT? To our surprise, the key to understanding this complicated sugya lies in its connection to Parshat Korach! To appreciate that connection, let's pay careful attention to how the narrative continues (after Moshe & Aharon run away to the Ohel Moed): "And God spoke to Moshe saying: "kach et ha'mateh" - take THE STAFF and gather the people..." (see 20:8) It is commonly assumed that Moshe is instructed to takes his own staff, i.e. the very same staff with which he brought the plagues; split the sea; and brought forth water from the rock at Chorev; etc. However, it cannot be Moshe's own staff, for the pasuk states explicitly: "And Moshe took the staff - M'LIFNEI HASHEM - from before God, as God had commanded him..." (20:9) In Chumash, "lifnei Hashem" usually refers to in front of the ARON, i.e. the ark of the covenant located in the holiest domain of the Mishkan (see Shmot 29:11,42;30:8; etc.). Surely, Moshe would not keep his staff "lifnei Hashem"! [The "kodesh kedoshim" is not his personal closet!] [Note that God commands Moshe -"kach et HA'mateh" - THE staff, not -"matecha" - YOUR staff. Compare with Shmot 14:16, 17:5.] If it is not his own staff that Moshe must take, then what staff is it? Is there someone else who keeps his staff in the "kodesh ha'kedoshim"?! The answer, as Rashbam and Chizkuni so beautifully explain (see their commentaries to 20:8), is quite simple - it is AHARON's special staff! Recall from Parshat Korach that God had commanded Moshe to conduct a test between the staffs of each of the tribal leaders (see 17:16-24) - to establish that the tribe of Levi is indeed chosen. Carefully note God's command to Moshe after Aharon's staff wins that test: "... return the STAFF OF AHARON - "lifnei ha'eydut" - [in front of the 'tablets of testimony', i.e. the ARON ] for safe keeping, in order that it be a SIGN FOR ANY REBELLIOUS GROUP ["ot l'bnei meri"]- so that they will stop complaining and not die..." (17:25-26) In other words, God tells Moshe - NEXT TIME that Bnei Yisrael complain or rebel, take out Aharon's staff from the Ohel Moed and REMIND them of what happened to Korach's rebellion. And sure enough - the next complaint in Chumash is the incident at Mei Meriva! This not only explains Rashbam's pirush, but it also neatly explains why the Torah (in 20:9) must inform us that Moshe takes specifically the staff "m'lifnei Hashem" - from before God. Moshe doesn't take his own staff - he takes the staff of AHARON that was kept "lifnei Hashem" - for it was set aside for specifically for this purpose. In other words, in 20:8 God instructs Moshe to do exactly what Moshe should have done on his own! This also beautifully explains why Moshe prefaces his rebuke with: "shimu na ha'MORIM" [listen o' you rebellious ones /see 20:10]. Considering that God had instructed Moshe to take the "mateh Aharon" which was set aside for an "ot l'bnei MERI", it is only appropriate that he would rebuke the people by saying: "shimu na ha'MORIM"! [See Chizkuni on 20:10, note also that "meri" & "morim" are derived from the same shoresh.] In a similar manner, the Torah's use of the word GAVANU in both these parshiot provides additional (textual) support for this interpretation. Recall how the complaints at Mei Meriva first began: "And the people quarrelled with Moshe saying: 'loo GAVANU B'GVA acheinu...' - if only we had perished with our brothers" (20:3) This complaint echoes the cry of Bnei Yisrael in the aftermath of Korach's rebellion (immediately after Aharon's staff is set aside/ see 17:25-27): "And Bnei Yisrael said to Moshe: 'heyn GAVANU avadnu' - lo, we perish, we are lost... anyone who comes close to the Mishkan will die, alas we are doomed to perish..." (17:27- 28) [Compare also 20:4-5 with 16:13-14.] MAKING NO MISTAKES Once we explain that Moshe was commanded to take MATEH AHARON - almost every following action that he takes makes perfect sense. Let's explain why: As we explained earlier, because MATEH AHARON is an "ot l'bnei meri", it is only logical that Moshe understands "speak to the rock" as "speak ABOUT the rock" and therefore begins his rebuke with "SHIMU NA HA'MORIM". Then, Moshe's next statement: "Can we take water from this rock?" can be explained as precisely what God commanded him to do: i.e. to speak about (or at) the rock - "v'natan meimav" - THAT IT SHOULD give water. In other words, God instructs Moshe is to challenge the people's belief, to ask them - is it possible for a rock to give water? - And that's exactly what he does! This also explains why Moshe hit the rock. Once he understands that "speak TO the rock" means "speak ABOUT the rock", then God's next instruction: "v'hotzeita" [you shall TAKE OUT water] must imply that Moshe himself must cause the water to come out. How? Exactly as he did forty years earlier by the rock in Chorev, using his OWN mateh (not Aharon's / read 20:11 carefully -"matey'hu"). [This implies that there were actually TWO staffs at Mei Meriva: (1) The staff of Aharon - was taken by Moshe and most probably given to Aharon to hold up in front of the people during this entire event. And (2)- the staff of Moshe - which he himself used to hit the rock to bring forth water.] The only detail that remains to be explained is why Moshe hit the rock twice (see Ibn Ezra'). However, as Ramban asks, could it be that hitting the rock twice instead of once makes the miracle any less impressive? Furthermore, God did not tell Moshe to hit the rock ONCE or TWICE! He just commanded him to 'take out water'. Certainly, Moshe should have the leeway to hit the rock as many times as he feels necessary. [Even at Chorev, it never mentions how many times Moshe hit the rock. And even if this action was incorrect, could this slight 'transgression' warrant such a severe punishment?] This explanation of "mateh AHARON" only strengthens our claim that Moshe indeed followed God's instructions properly - but he and Aharon are punished for not sanctifying God's Name earlier - when Bnei Yisrael FIRST complained at Mei Meriva. With this background, it becomes easier to understand why their punishment relates to this leadership crisis. Failure in leadership is not necessarily because the leader does something 'wrong', nor is it a sin. Leadership, as its name implies, must LEAD the people - i.e. it must do something right, it must take an initiative. As individuals, Moshe & Aharon never 'sinned' at Mei Meriva, but as leaders they failed. Therefore, God reaches the conclusion that they will not be able to succeed should they be the leaders who will take Bnei Yisrael into the Promised Land. BELIEVING or SUPPORTING Based on this interpretation, we can suggest an alternate understanding of the word "EMUNAH" (used in the pasuk which explains the reason for their punishment): "ya'an lo he'EMANTEM BI" - because you did not have FAITH IN ME in the EYES of Bnei Yisrael" (see 20:12). The word "emunah" in this pasuk may not refer to belief in God in the theological sense. Surely, Moshe and Aharon 'believe' in God. However, they were not 'supportive' enough of God in the eyes of the people. The Hebrew word "emunah" stems from the shoresh aleph.mem.nun which means to support or sustain. [For example, in Shmot 17:12 - "v'haya yadav emunah..." in the war against Amalek, when Aharon & Chur support Moshe's arm, or in Megilat Esther (2:7) -"va'yehi OMEYN et Hadassah..." - i.e. Mordechei supported (or adopted) Esther, or "omnot ha'bayit" the pillars supporting the Beit Ha'Mikdash (II Melachim 18:16), or the word "amen", which confirms or supports a bracha or statement made by others, etc.] . In hindsight, the reason for Moshe's 'punishment' may even be quite logical. Considering the many difficulties that will face Bnei Yisrael once they begin conquest of the Land, it is only inevitable that many more rebellious situations such as these will arise. Leadership, which can deal with such complaints, is essential. THE FINAL STRAW Had this been the only incident where Moshe & Aharon's leadership faltered, their punishment may not have been so harsh. However, this problem of leadership had already surfaced numerous times in Sefer Bamidbar. In fact it could almost be considered its secondary theme. Recall, that from the time Bnei Yisrael leave Har Sinai, almost every event which Chumash records reflects this pattern of faltering leadership: * At "kivrot ha'taaveh" Moshe himself claims that he can longer lead the people (11:11-15). * Later, even Miriam, Moshe's own sister, complains about his leadership (12:1-3). * When the "meraglim" return, Moshe and Aharon fall on their faces (14:5); Kalev and Yehoshua take leadership positions. * In the rebellion of Korach (chapter 16), again Moshe and Aharon's leadership is challenged, again they fall on their faces (16:4,22). [This approach also explains why later in Sefer Devarim, Moshe claims that it was because of "chet ha'meraglim" that he could not enter the land (see Devarim 1:37).] As we have explained, surely as individuals, Moshe and Aharon are "tzadikim"; they do nothing 'wrong'. However, as happens over and over again in Sefer Bamidbar, their leadership fails. At Mei Meriva, possibly a personal example of patience, stamina, confidence, and calm rebuke may have able to create the necessary "kiddush Hashem"; but this did not happen. Can we be critical of Moshe and Aharon for their behavior? Should we consider their actions as sinful? Not necessarily! This leadership crisis does not have to be considered a question of 'good or bad' behavior. Rather, it could be considered a tragedy - a problem of compatibility. As we explained in our shiur on Parshat Shlach, already when Bnei Yisrael first left Har Sinai, there we signs of a lack of compatibility between Moshe Rabeinu and Bnei Yisrael. After all, Moshe had spent months on Har Sinai with the SHCHINA, and was no longer capable of dealing with complaints concerning mundane manners. [Note also Shmot 34:35. See also commentary of the Sfat Emet on the Mei Meriva incident.] To meet the challenges of taking Am Yisrael into the Promised Land, new leadership was essential. Not necessarily because Moshe and Aharon did anything 'wrong', rather because Am Yisrael were not worthy of their leadership. shabbat shalom, menachem ======================= FOR FURTHER IYUN A. One could even go one step further and suggest that Moshe, even before God's command, should have taken MATEH AHARON and shown it to the people and rebuked them. If so, then God's first command to Moshe - "kach et ha'mateh" may simply be a reminder to Moshe of what he SHOULD HAVE DONE on his own (as he was instructed in Parshat Korach)! This could explain "ka'asher tzivahu" in 20:9. It may imply: as God commanded him - not just now, but earlier - in PARSHAT KORACH!] B. Later in the Parsha, a similar situation where the people need water, arises at "B'ey'rah" (21:16-18). There Moshe gathers the people together, God provides water, and the people respond with a song of praise! This shows that given the proper circumstances, such a situation can result in a "kiddush Hashem". Moshe may have learned his lesson, however, by then it is already too late for God to change His decision.] C. REASONS OR INDICATORS Our interpretation in the shiur (part two) does not necessarily have to conflict with the various opinions raised by the "rishonim" which we discussed in Part One. One could suggest that each of those reasons can be understood as INDICATORS of this faltering leadership, not just REASONS for Moshe's punishment. For example, Moshe and Aharon's use of a harsh tone; their quick anger; their lack of patience hitting the rock twice instead of once; their running away to the Ohel Moed, etc. All of these opinions point to the same general problem of leadership. D. According to our explanation above, the most difficult pasuk to explain is 20:24, in relation to Aharon's death at Hor haHar: "... al asher m'ritem et pi, lmei m'riva" "meri" implies more than not doing something right, it seems as though something of a rebellious nature was done. 1. Explain why this pasuk led many commentators to explain the sin as hitting the rock instead of speaking to it. 2. How else can one explain this pasuk? 3. Explain the "lamed" in "l'mei mriva". 4. Read Devarim 32:51. What does "m'altem" mean? ( What is "me'ilah", in general)? Relate this pasuk to Bamidbar 20:24 and 20:12-13, and use it to explain your answer to 1 & 2 above. E. See the Netziv's pirush in Emek Davar to Bamidbar 20:8-11. Note how he insists that the mateh is Moshe's mateh, and hence he must explain that "ka'asher tzivayhu" - is that God had sometime earlier commanded Moshe to take his "mateh" and put it next to the Aron. He also solves the problem of the contradiction between command 3 and 4 by explaining that God gave Moshe TWO options for bringing water: 1) speak to the people that they should pray for water, and it that didn't work, as a back up - he could alternately hit the rock, and that would also bring forth water. Even though our shiur has followed a very different approach, it is interesting to note the originality of the Netziv's approach, and how he deals with many of the questions that we raised in the above shiur. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: chukat1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 125725 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: chukat1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 100352 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Jun 29 08:29:52 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 08:29:52 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Chukat - Parah Aduma Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* "ZOT CHUKAT HA'TORAH" [For Parshat Chukat & Parshat Parah] WHAT'S A CHOK, AND WHAT'S A TORAH? How should one translate the phrase "ZOT CHUKAT HA'TORAH" (see 19:2) in the opening psukim of Parshat Para? [Note how just about every English translation slightly varies in their attempt to interpret this verse, e.g. "the Torah's decree" (Stone & Living Torah), "a ritual law" (JPS), etc.] Many students of Chumash innocently assume that the word "torah" refers to the entire Torah, while the word "chok" implies a specific law that has no obvious reason; and hence - this opening pasuk informs the reader that the laws of Parah Adumah (that will follow) will be the quintessential example in the entire Bible of a law that doesn't make any sense. In the following shiur, we will consider an alternate understanding of the words "chok" and "torah" in this pasuk, based on their meaning elsewhere in Chumash. While doing so, we will attempt to arrive at a clearer understanding of this special set of laws, and the purpose of this enigmatic opening phrase. INTRODUCTION Today, in common conversation, the word 'Torah' is used to describe either the entire Bible, or even the entire corpus of Jewish law. In fact, even the study of the Oral Law, such as the Mishna and Talmud is referred to 'Torah study'. However, when we examine the use of the word "torah" in Chumash, we find that it has a very different meaning. Instead of referring to the entire book, the word "torah" in the books of Vayikra and Bamidbar usually refers to a specific type of law, usually one of a procedural nature. For example, in our study of Parshat Tzav, we saw how each paragraph (in the section describing how to offer the various korbanot / chapters 6 thru 7) began with the phrase "zot torat ha' -----" - ['this is the procedure for the ------ offering: ..." Hence, the phrase "zot TORAT ha'mincha..." (see 6:7-10) is translated: "this is the PROCEDURE for how to offer the korban mincha" - followed by the details concerning how the kohanim are to offer it. Similarly, "zot TORAT ha'chatat" introduces the laws of how to offer the "korban chatat" (see 6:18 and 7:1, etc.). An even better example is found in Sefer Bamidbar, at the conclusion of the laws concerning the procedure that the priest must conduct to test whether the "sota" [a wife accused by her husband for 'cheating'] was innocent or guilty. Note the use of the word "torah" in the pasuk that summarizes this lengthy process: "zot TORAT ha'knaot - this is the torah [the procedure] for this case of 'jealousy', when a wife... or when the spirit of jealousy comes upon a man, and he be jealous over his wife.. and the priest shall execute upon her all this TORAH" - i.e. this procedure! (see Bamidbar 5:29-30 in its context) With this background, we can begin our attempt to understand the word "torah" in Parshat Para - to show that here as well, it refers to a specific procedure (and not to the entire Chumash)! THE LAWS OF TUMAT MEYT To appreciate what procedures are discussed in Bamidbar chapter 19, we must first provide a short overview of the basic laws of "tumat meyt" [spiritual uncleanliness, caused by contact with a dead body]. According to Jewish law, if a person touches (or is in the same room with) a dead body, he becomes "tamey" [spiritually unclean] for period of at least seven days, during which time he is not permitted to enter the Temple courtyard. To 'cleanse' himself of this "tumah", a special 'procedure' is required. The kohen [priest] must sprinkle upon him from a special solution consisting of spring water mixed with specially prepared ashes of a "para Adumah" - a 'red heifer'. The first sprinkling can only be performed after three days, and then needs to be repeated four days later, i.e. on day seven. At sunset of that seventh day, he becomes "tahor" [spiritually clean] and hence permitted once again to enter the Temple. TWO PROCEDURES IN THE PROCESS Obviously, before the kohen can perform this 'sprinkling procedure' - someone has to first make the 'ashes'. Hence, the first procedure [="torah"] that Chumash will describe will be how to make these ashes. As only a small amount (of ashes) is needed to make this special solution, the ashes collected from the burning of each "para aduma" could suffice for decades. After the explanation of this first procedure, Chumash will explain the details for the second "torah" - i.e. the procedure whereby the kohen sprinkles this solution of the "tmey meyt". Therefore, as we study chapter 19, we should expect to uncover the details of two procedures: PROCEDURE #1 - Making the 'ashes' of the parah adumah. [as detailed in 19:2-9!) PROCEDURE #2 - Sprinkling these ashes (mixed with water). [as detailed in 19:17-19!] As we study these psukim, we will show how these two procedures also contain several consequential laws, which we identify as "chukim"! Therefore, before we begin our detailed study, we must first explain the Biblical meaning of the word "chok". WHAT'S A CHOK? Contrary to popular opinion, a "chok" is not the name for a Biblical law that doesn't make sense (or has no reason). Indeed, we will find "chukim" that have no obvious reason, and that may even be 'characteristic' of a "chok" - but it is not the definition of a "chok"! Instead, a "chok" is a statute - i.e. a set law or ordinance that doesn't change. To clarify this point, let's take an example from a law that you are all familiar with: the Korban Pesach. Everyone knows why we offer the Korban Pesach - to commemorate how God saved Am Yisrael from the Tenth Plague. Certainly, this mitzvah makes a lot of sense, but to your surprise - Chumash refers to this law as a CHOK and gives a reason! Let's take a look: "... and you should keep this commandment (of Korban Pesach) as a CHOK for you and your children for ever. When you come into the Land that God shall give you... keep this ritual. And when your children will ask: What is this ritual for you? Tell them it is the Pesach offering, for God passed over the houses of Bnei Yisrael when He smote the Egyptians..." (see Shmot 12:24-27!) In fact, Chumash refers to all of the Jewish Holidays as CHUKIM (see Parshat Emor - Vayikra 23:14,21,31 & 41) - because they are set in the yearly calendar, and repeat themselves every year! Chumash also uses the word "chok" to describe statutes that are not mitzvot. For example, when Sefer Breishit describes how Yosef purchased of the land from the Egyptians, we are informed that he cannot acquire the land belonging to the priests - because: "... it is the CHOK of the priests by Pharaoh, that they eat their portion [lechem CHUKAM] that Pharaoh had given them..." (see Breishit 47:20-22 and its context) Two psukim later, we find another example, where Chumash describes the 20% set land tax imposed on Egyptian produce as a "chok" (see Breishit 47:26) For a similar reason, when Bnei Yisrael are required to produce a certain daily output of bricks, Sefer Shmot describes this set quota as a CHOK: "...and the taskmasters of Bnei Yisrael scolded them saying - Why did you not complete CHOK'CHEM [your quota] to make bricks as before..." (see Shmot 5:14 and its context) Note also how Yirmiyahu refers to the laws of astronomy, i.e. the constant and unchanging cycles of the sun and moon around the earth, as "CHUKOT shamayim v'aretz" (see Yirmiyahu 33:25 and even better, see Yirmiyahu 31:35-36!). For this reason, the holidays in Parshat Emor are referred to as CHUKIM for they celebrated on a REGULAR basis, once a year based on the solar (agricultural) calendar. Hence, a "chok" implies something constant that doesn't change - a statute. THE CHOK OF TUMAT MEYT Let's see now how the word "chok" would apply to the laws of "tumat meyt". The law that a person who touches a dead body becomes "tamey" for seven days should definitely be considered a "chok" - for it is a law that never changes - it remains constant. [In modern Hebrew we find a similar use, where the 'laws of nature' are called CHUKEI ha'TEVA. Take for example Newton's laws of motion - they are set and don't change.] Based on this definition, a CHOK can be logical, but it doesn't have to be! Certain CHUKIM may be beyond our comprehension, however many other CHUKIM can actually make a lot of sense. Therefore we find some "chukim" that are quite logical, while others are not - however, the fact that a certain law is not logical, does not define it as a CHOK! In contrast, a MISHPAT, as its name implies, is a JUDGEMENT - based on reason. The very concept of a MISHPAT relates to a decision or judgment that must be made between two claims that come before the court. Hence, the Torah refers to the entire set of civil laws relating to damages etc. in Shmot chapters 21->23 as MISHPATIM (see Shmot 21:1 & 24:3). With this background, let's read through Parshat Parah and attempt to identify more precisely where we find a TORAH and where we find a CHOK, and how they relate to one another. As we read, we will notice how the chapter neatly divides into two sections, according to the two procedures that we mentioned above. [As a teacher's note - to explain this concept of TORAH as a procedure, take the word 'recipe' as an example. A recipe demands a certain procedure to attain a certain goal, i.e. a sponge cake recipe requires that we take 4 eggs, flour, water, sugar; mix them into a batter, and bake it etc. The result - a cake - and hence the recipe card is titled: Sponge cake. In a similar manner, the Parshat Parah informs us of the proper 'recipe' [i.e. the TORAH] to make the ashes for "efer parah"!] PROCEDURE #1 & its CHUKIM We assumed above that the first "torah" (or procedure) would describe how to prepare the "efer ha'parah" [the ashes of the heifer], that will later be used for sprinkling). As you review 19:2-6, note how these psukim describe precisely this procedure: 19:2-3 - Take a red heifer (one without a blemish) and give it to Elazar (the deputy high priest) who must slaughter it outside the camp. 19:4 - Sprinkle the blood of the heifer seven times opposite the entrance to the Ohel Moed. 19:5-6 - Burn the carcass of the heifer together with branches from both a hyssop and cedar tree, etc., until in turns into ashes. Now that the 'ashes' have been prepared, the Torah informs us of two special CHUKIM that accompany this process: 19:7 - The kohen who PERFORMS this procedure becomes "tamey" [that's a CHOK], therefore he must wash his clothes and remains "tamey" until the evening ["tumat yom"]. 19:8 - The kohen who BURNS the animal becomes "tamey" [that's also a CHOK], and must wash his clothes etc. Then Chumash continues with the final stages of this procedure: 19:9 - A clean person must COLLECT the ashes and stores them outside the camp. This is actually the final stage of the procedure [i.e. part of the TORAH]. 19:10 - This person who collects the ashes also become "tamey" [just like the other two]. That's yet another CHOK! Hence, we find that this specific procedure of making the "efer" is accompanied by several special CHUKIM. Note how these CHUKIM, even though they are not an integral part of the procedure, they are a direct consequence - and therefore should be defined as related "chukim" [statutes], but not an integral part of the procedure. [If we use again our "mashal" from the cake recipe, the person mixing the batter must later wash his hands, but that does not affect how the cake comes out!] To prove these definitions, let's take a more careful look at this last pasuk, as it explains the purpose of this procedure. i.e. for these ashes must be used for the CHOK of "tumat meyt":. "The person who collects the ashes must wash his clothes, and [these ashes] are to be [used] for Bnei Yisrael for a CHUKAT OLAM - an everlasting statute: [i.e. introducing the CHOK of:] - One who touches a dead body becomes "tamey" for seven days. If he is sprinkled upon on the third & seventh day, he becomes "tahor"; if not he remains "tamey"... and should he enter the Mikdash, he is to be cut off from Israel." (see 19:10-13) These psukim end the first section of Parshat Parah, as the ashes are prepared, and we are also informed of what they will be needed for. Now that the "efer" is prepared, we are ready to discuss the second TORAH [procedure] found in this chapter, i.e. the precise details of this 'sprinkling process' - known in Hebrew as "torat ha'haza'ah". PROCEDURE #2 and its CHUKIM Let's take a look now at 19:14. Note how this pasuk (at first glance) seems to contradict our definition of a TORAH: "And this is the TORAH - a person who dies in a tent, everything in the tent becomes tamey [unclean] for seven days. And any open vessel... it too becomes tamey..." (19:14-15) Based on our above definitions of CHOK & TORAH, this law [of how one contracts "tumat meyt"] should be considered a "chok" for it describes a set law that never changes! Why then does 19:14 introduce this law as a TORAH? The answer to this question is quite simple. If one reads the next set of psukim carefully, it becomes clear that the phrase "ZOT HA'TORAH" in 19:14 is INTRODUCING the procedure that is defined later on 19:17-19. In other words, we need to add the word 'for' in 19:14 [i.e. a "lamed" after "zot ha'torah L'adam asher yamut b'ohel..." [which is implicit based on the context - see also Rashbam on 19:2!]. In this manner, 19:14-16 should be translated as follows: "This is the TORAH - FOR: a) the case when a person dies in a tent, then everything in the tent becomes "tamey" (19:14), [and for...] b) any open vessel in that tent (19:15), or c) any person who touched a dead body in the field or bone or grave (who also becomes "tamey" (19:16) THEN: for any of these "tamey" persons or objects, we must take from the "efer" [the ashes of the heifer] and put it into a vessel with water (see 19:17) in order to perform PROCEDURE #2 [i.e. "torat ha'za'ah"], as explained in the next set of psukim: "A person who is TAHOR [clean] shall take a hyssop branch, dip it in the water [mixed with the ashes], and then sprinkle it on (either) the tent and vessels, or on the person who touched the bones... or who touched a grave..." (see 19:18). This procedure, as described in 19:18, was first introduced by the phrase "zot ha'TORAH" in 19:14. The next pasuk (19:19) informs us that this procedure must be repeated on both the third and seventh days (see 19:19). THE CHUKIM OF PROCEDURE #2 This second procedure, just like the first procedure, is also accompanied by certain consequential "chukim": a) he who sprinkles the solution becomes "tamey" (see 19:21, see also Rashi who quotes Chazal's understanding that it refers to only someone who carries this solution, but not actually the one who sprinkles it); b) anyone who touches this solution also becomes "tamey" (see 19:22). [i.e. "tamey for one day, he must wash his clothes and then he becomes "tahor" at sunset.] Note how both Procedures #1 and #2 carry with them very similar consequential CHUKIM, i.e. anyone who is involved in this process of either making the "efer", or sprinkling it upon someone else, becomes "tamey". CHUKAT ha'TORAH Based on these definitions, we can suggest an explanation for the opening phrase "CHUKAT ha'TORAH" that introduces these laws (see 19:1). As we have shown, this chapter contains many special CHUKIM that relate to the TORAH (procedures) of "tahara" from "tumat meyt", i.e. (1) making the ashes; and (2) sprinkling the "mei chatat" - water w/ashes solution. Each of these two procedures carry special "chukim" that accompany these procedures: The special chukim all have one common denominator. Anyone involved in these procedures for cleansing one who is "tamey" - he himself becomes "tamey". This strange CHOK that by making someone else TAHOR you become TAMEY is an 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: chukat3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 39043 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: chukat3.doc Type: application/msword Size: 57856 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Jun 29 08:30:48 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 08:30:48 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Chukat - Kadesh Midbar Tzin Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: chukat2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 39959 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: chukat2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 57856 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Tue Jul 4 06:15:13 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 06:15:13 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Balak - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: balakq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 30639 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: balakq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 49152 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Jul 6 01:22:57 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 01:22:57 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Balak Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: balak1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 37379 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: balak1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 61440 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Jul 6 01:23:31 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 01:23:31 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Balak Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: balak1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 37379 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Tue Jul 11 15:48:49 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:48:49 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Pinchas- questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pinq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 29907 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pinq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 47616 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Jul 13 09:14:07 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 09:14:07 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Pinchas - the Tmidim uMusafim Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pin2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 33228 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pin2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 51200 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Jul 19 09:32:48 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:32:48 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Matot Masei - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: matmasq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 41760 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: matmasq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 58368 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Jul 20 05:16:08 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:16:08 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Matot/ Masei Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: masei1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 40408 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: masei1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 42796 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Jul 20 05:17:06 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:17:06 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Matot Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: matot2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 52109 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: matot2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 57856 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon Jul 24 04:25:13 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 04:25:13 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Sefer Devarim - Intro Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* SEFER DEVARIM ? Introduction What is Sefer Devarim? Most everyone would answer - a review or repeat of Chumash, just as its 'nickname' - 'Mishneh Torah' - seems to imply. Is this really so? As we now demonstrate, it won't take more than a minute to show how that popular answer is simply incorrect! Let's quickly review the first four books (of Chumash), noting which of their primary topics are either included or missing from Sefer Devarim: * Sefer Breishit: Sefer Devarim makes almost no mention of any of its stories - be it the story of Creation, the Flood, the Avot, or the brothers, etc. * Sefer Shmot: We find only scant details of the Exodus, and not a word about the mishkan; even though we do find the story of Ma'amad Har Sinai & chet ha-egel. * Sefer Vayikra: Here again, Sefer Devarim makes almost no mention of any of its mitzvot or stories, aside from a few laws that 'ring a bell' from Parshat Kedoshim, and some kashrut laws; but hardly a summary. * Sefer Bamidbar: Indeed Sefer Devarim does tell over the stories of the 'spies' and the defeat of Sichon & Og (with some major 'minor changes'). However, there is barely a mention of the remaining stories found in Bamidbar (and there are many), nor do we find a review of any of its mitzvot (e.g. nazir, sota, challa, etc.). Furthermore, Sefer Devarim contains numerous mitzvot that had never been mentioned earlier in Chumash! Certainly, if the book was a summary, then we should not expect for it to contain totally new material. [To clarify this point, simply imagine that you are a teacher who assigns the class to summarize the first four books of Chumash. How would you grade a student who handed in Sefer Devarim as his assignment? ] Even though it took us only a few minutes to prove that Sefer Devarim is not a review of Chumash - it will take us much longer to explain what Sefer Devarim is, and why Chazal refer to it as "Mishneh Torah". INTRODUCTION Like many good books, Sefer Devarim can only be fully understood after you have read it. So for those of you who are not patient enough to read the entire book first (and analyze it), the following shiur will 'spill the beans'. As usual, our shiur will focus on identifying its structure and theme. It is recommended that you study this shiur carefully, as its conclusions will provide the basis for our entire series on Sefer Devarim (in the weeks to follow). A BOOK OF SPEECHES The key to understanding Sefer Devarim lies in the recognition that it contains a very important (albeit long) speech delivered by Moshe Rabeinu, prior to his death; as well as several 'shorter' speeches; one which introduces that 'main speech', and others that form its conclusion. Therefore, the first step of our shiur will be to identify those speeches. To do so, we must first note how the style of Sefer Devarim is unique, as it is written almost entirely in the first person - in contrast to the first four books of Chumash, which are written in 'third person'. [Recall (from when you studied grammar) that speeches are recorded (or quoted) in first person, while narrative (stories) are usually written in third person.] Therefore, to determine where each speech begins (and ends), we simply need to scan the book, noting where the narrative changes from third person (i.e. the regular ?narrator mode? of Chumash) to first person (i.e. the direct quote of Moshe Rabeinu, as he speaks). If you have ample time (and patience/ and of course a Tanach Koren handy), you should first try to do this on your own. On the other hand, if you are short on time - you can 'cheat' by reading at least 1:1-7, 4:40-5:2, 26:16-27:2, 28:69-29:2, & 30:19-32:1, noting the transition from third person to first person, and hence where and how each speech begins. INDENTIFYING SPEECH #1 For example, let's take a quick look at the opening psukim of Sefer Devarim (1:1-7). Note how the first five psukim are written in third person: "These are the devarim (words / speeches) which Moshe spoke to all of Israel... In the fortieth year on the first day of the eleventh month... in Arvot Mo'av, Moshe began to explain this Torah saying..." (see 1:1-5); This introduces the speech that begins (in the next pasuk) with the first sentence of Moshe Rabbeinu's speech: "God, our Lord, spoke to us at Chorev saying..." (see 1:6). [Note how this pasuk, and those that follow are written in first person.] Then, scan the psukim that follow, noting how this speech continues from 1:6 all the way until 4:40 (i.e. the next four chapters). This entire section is written in first person, and hence constitutes Moshe's opening speech. INDENTIFYING SPEECH #2 [the 'main speech'] In a similar manner, note how the first pasuk of chapter five introduces Moshe's next speech. Here again, the opening pasuk begins in third person, but immediately changes to first person, as soon as the speech begins: "And Moshe called together all of Israel and said to them [third person] - Listen to the laws and rules that I tell you today... - [first person]" (see 5:1). Where does this second speech end? If you have half an hour, you could scan the next twenty some chapters and look for its conclusion by yourself; otherwise, you can 'take our word' that it continues all the way until the end of chapter 26! This observation (even though it is rarely noticed) will be the key towards understanding Sefer Devarim - for this twenty chapter long 'main speech' will emerge as the primary focus of the book! After this 'main speech', in chapters 27-30 we find two more short speeches that directly relate to the main speech. Finally, from chapter 31 thru 34, Sefer Devarim 'returns' to the regular narrative style of Chumash, as it concludes with the story of Moshe Rabbeinu's final day. The following table summarizes the division of Sefer Devarim into its four speeches: SPEECH #1 Chaps. 1 4 Introductory speech SPEECH #2 Chaps. 5 26 Main speech SPEECH #3 Chaps. 27 28 Tochacha & Covenant SPEECH #4 Chaps. 29 30 Teshuva THE MAIN SPEECH As this table indicates, Speech #2 is by far the longest, so we'll begin our study by trying to figure out its primary topic. [Afterward, we will show how Speech #1 actually introduces this main speech.] To help us identify the primary topic of the main speech [without the need to read it in its entirety], let's assume that Moshe Rabeinu will employ the 'golden rule' for an organized speech, i.e. he will: (1) 'Say what you're gonna say' - (2) 'Say it' - & then (3) 'Say what you said.' [We'll soon see how Moshe Rabeinu beautifully follows this golden rule in this speech.] Let's take a careful look at how Moshe's begins this main speech, noting how he explains to the people what to expect: "Listen Israel to the chukim & mishpatim which I am teaching you today, learn them and keep them..." (5:1). This 'opener' immediately tells the listener that this speech will contain chukim & mishpatim [laws and rules] that must be studied and observed; and indeed that is precisely what we will find (when we will study the content of this speech). However, these laws - that we now expect to hear (based on 5:1) - don't begin in the next pasuk. Instead, Moshe Rabeinu uses the first section of his speech (chapter five) to explain how and when these laws (that will begin in chapter six) were first given. In other words, instead of beginning his speech immediately with this set of laws, he will preface these laws by first explaining why everyone is obligated to keep them (5:2-5), followed by the story of how he first received them at Har Sinai forty years earlier (5:20-30). To appreciate this introductory chapter, and to understand why it contains a 'repeat' of the Ten Commandments, let's carefully review its flow of topic. INTRO TO THE MAIN SPEECH - OBLIGATION & COVENANT As his first point, Moshe emphasizes how these laws (that he is about to teach) were given as an integral part of the covenant between God and Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai: "Hashem made a covenant with us at Chorev. Not [only] with our forefathers did God made this covenant, but [also] with us - we, the living - here today..." (5:2-3). Even though (and because) most of the members of this new generation were not present at Ma'amad Har Sinai, Moshe must first remind Bnei Yisrael that their obligation to keep these laws stems from that covenant at Har Sinai (forty years earlier)! Recall as well how God had spoken the Ten Commandments directly to Bnei Yisrael as part of that covenant. [Hence - the two tablets upon which they were inscribed are known as 'luchot ha-brit' - i.e. tablets of the Covenant.] It is for this reason that Moshe Rabeinu first reviews the Ten Commandments (in 5:6-19), before he begins his teaching of the detailed 'chukim 'mishpatim' - for they form the key guidelines of this "brit"' between God and His nation. Note however that the Ten Commandments are presented as part of the story of 'how the laws were given' - the detailed laws, referred to in 5:1, don't begin until chapter six (and continue thru chapter 26). WHY MOSHE IS TEACHING THE LAWS Now comes the key story in this introductory section, for Moshe (in 5:20-30) tells the story of how Bnei Yisrael immediately became fearful after hearing the 'Dibrot' and asked Moshe that he become their intermediary to receive the remaining laws. As we shall see, this story explains when and how the laws (that Moshe is about to start teaching) were first given. To clarify this, let's careful study these psukim, for they will help us understand the overall structure of the main speech: "When you heard the voice out of the darkness, while the mountain was ablaze with fire, you came up to me... and said... Let us not die, for this fearsome fire will consume us... you go closer and hear all that God says, and then you tell us everything that God commands, and we will willingly do it..." (5:20-26). [Keep in mind that from this pasuk we can infer that had Bnei Yisrael not become fearful, they would have heard additional mitzvot directly from God, immediately after these first Ten Commandments.] Note how God grants this request (that Moshe should act as their intermediary) by informing Moshe of His 'new plan: "Go, say to them: 'Return to your tents.' But you remain here with Me, and I will give you the mitzvah, chukim & mishpatim... for them to observe in the land that I am giving them to possess..." (5:27-28). Read this pasuk once again, for it is key towards understanding how the 'main speech' first came about. The mitzvot that Moshe will now teach (in this speech) are simply the same laws that God had first given to him on Har Sinai, after Bnei Yisrael asked him to become their intermediary. In fact, Moshe himself states this explicitly in the next set of psukim that clearly introduce this set of laws: "And this ('ve-zot') is the mitzvah, chukim & mishpatim that God has commanded me to teach you to be observed in the land you are about to enter..." (see 6:1-3). Recall from 5:28 that God told Moshe that he should remain on Har Sinai to receive the mitzvah, chukim & mishpatim. This pasuk (6:1), explains how Moshe's lecture is simply a delineation of those mitzvot. THE ELEVENTH COMMANDMENT Based on this introduction (i.e. 6:1-3), we conclude that these laws (that begin with 6:4) are simply those mitzvot that God had given to Bnei Yisrael - via Moshe Rabbeinu - as a continuation of the Ten Commandments at Ma?amad Har Sinai. If so, then the first mitzvah of this special unit of laws is none other than the first parshia of 'kriyat shema': "Shema Yisrael, Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad, ve-ahavta... ve-hayu ha-devarim ha-eileh..." (see 6:4-7). [This can help us appreciate why this parsha is such an important part of our daily prayers - to be discussed in our shiur on Va'etchanan.] This first parshia of kriyat shema begins a lengthy list of mitzvot (and several sections of rebuke) that continues all the way until Parshat Ki Tavo (i.e. chapter 26). [That is why this speech is better known as 'ne'um ha-mitzvot' ? the speech of commandments. Just try counting how many mitzvot are indeed found in these 21 chapters - you'll find plenty!] Note as well that after the first two cardinal mitzvot - belief in God and the commandment to love Him with all your heart - we find a statement that serves as yet another introduction to the mtizvot that will now follow: "ve-hayu ha-devarim ha-eileh..." - And these words [clearly, this refers to the laws that will now follow in the speech] that I am teaching you today must be kept in your heart - (see 6:6-7) We will soon return to discuss this pasuk in greater detail; however, we must first clarify an important point. Even though the core of this speech consists of the mitzvot that Moshe initially received at Har Sinai, it is only natural that Moshe Rabbeinu will add some comments of his own, relating to events that have transpired in the interim. [See, for example, chapters 8->9.] Nonetheless, the mitzvot themselves were first given forty years earlier. Furthermore, as the psukim quoted above explain, these mitzvot share a common theme - for they all apply to Bnei Yisrael's forthcoming entry into the Land of Israel (see 5:28 & 6:1). [In next week's shiur we will discuss how these mitzvot divide into two distinct sections, the mitzva section (chapters 6 thru 11) and the chukim u-mishpatim section (chapters 12 -26).] WHEN THIS SPEECH WAS FIRST GIVEN So when did Bnei Yisrael first hear these mitzvot? If they were given at Har Sinai, then certainly Moshe should have taught them to the people at that time. The answer to this question is found in Parshat Ki Tisa. There, in the story of how Moshe descended from Har Sinai with the second luchot, the Torah informs us: "And it came to pass, when Moshe came down from Mount Sinai with the two tables of the testimony in his hand... and afterward all the children of Israel came near, and he [Moshe] commanded them all of the laws that God had spoken with him on Mount Sinai. (See Shmot 34:29-32) Clearly, Moshe had already taught these laws to Bnei Yisrael when he came down from Har Sinai. Yet, Sefer Shmot only tells the story of when Moshe first taught them, but doesn't record all of the actual laws that he both received and taught at that time. Instead, the Torah prefers to record some of those laws in Sefer Devarim, others in Sefer Bamidbar, and others in Sefer Vayikra. In other words, Moshe Rabbeinu reviews an entire set of laws in Sefer Devarim; laws that he had already taught to the first generation when they were encamped at Har Sinai. Hence, the laws in Sefer Devarim are indeed a review of a set of laws that Bnei Yisrael had already received. However, they are not a review of the laws that Chumash had already recorded. [This point clarifies why so many people misunderstand what is meant when Sefer Devarim is referred to as a 'review of laws'. It is indeed a review of laws that Moshe Rabeinu had already taught Bnei Yisrael, but it is not a review of the first four books of Chumash.] One could also suggest a very logical reason for why the Torah preferred to record these laws in Sefer Devarim, rather than in Sefer Shmot. As we shall see, these mitzvot will focus on how Bnei Yisrael are to establish their nation in the Land of Israel (see 5:28 and 6:1/ 'la'asot ba-aretz' - to keep in the land). Hence, the Torah prefers to record them as they were taught by Moshe to the second generation - who would indeed enter the land; and not as they were given to the first generation - who sinned, and hence never entered the land. This background will now help us understand why Chazal refer to this Sefer as "Mishneh Torah", and why this name is so commonly misunderstood. While doing so, we will also explain the 'simple meaning' of the famous psukim of kriyat shema that we recite every day. MISHNEH TORAH Let's return to the opening psukim of kriyat shema (6:4-8), which form the opening set of commandments that Moshe first received on Har Sinai (to relay to Bnei Yisrael) - soon after the Ten Commandments were given to the entire nation. Moshe begins this set of laws with an opening statement that reflects a tenet of faith: "shema Yisrael Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad" (6:4) This is followed by the most basic mitzva regarding attitude, which in essence is a way of life for every jew: "ve-ahavta ..." - to love God with all your heart... (see 6:5), Then, Moshe introduces the laws that he now plans to teach in a very interesting manner: "ve-hayu ha-devarim ha-eileh... - And these words [i.e. laws that will now follow] that I am teaching you today must be kept in your heart - ve-shinantam - and you must repeat them (over and over) to our children and speak about them constantly, when at home, when you travel, when you lie down and when you get up..." (see 6:5-8). Note the Hebrew word 've-shinantam' - which means more than simply to teach, but rather to 'repeat' [from the 'shoresh' (root) -' leshanen' [sh.n.n.]. Moshe instructs the nation that these forthcoming laws (i.e. the laws of the main speech of Sefer Devarim), need not only to be taught, but they also require constant repetition! Thus, the word 'mishneh' - in the phrase "mishneh Torah" also stems from this same root - "l'shanen" - to repeat. Hence, the name "Mishneh Torah" implies a set of laws that require constant repetition! This explains the confusion in regard to the meaning of this alternate name for Sefer Devarim. Mishneh Torah does not imply that Sefer Devarim is a repeat (or review) of what has been written in Chumash thus far; rather, it refers to a special set of laws that requires constant repetition - i.e. when we sit in our homes etc. / see 6:6-7, In other words, the mitzvot of the main speech of Sefer Devarim are special, insofar as they must be constantly repeated and taught ('ve-shinantam'), as its name - Mishneh Torah - implies. In fact, we fulfill this mitzva each day by reciting the first two parshiyot of kriyat shma. Further proof of this interpretation is found in the sole pasuk in Sefer Devarim that contains the phrase mishneh Torah, in regard to the King in Parshat Shoftim: "And when the King is seated on his royal throne, he must write this mishneh ha-torah in a book... and it must be with him and he must read from it every day of his life, in order that he learns to fear God..." (see 17:18 19). Clearly, in this context, the term "Mishneh Torah" does not refer to a repeat of earlier laws, but rather to a set of laws that need to be repeated. [Similarly, the word 'mishna' (as in Torah she-ba'al peh) has the same meaning. The mishnayot require 'shinun'; they must be repeated over and over again - hence they are called Mishna.] BACK TO PARSHAT DEVARIM This interpretation can help us understand the opening psukim of Sefer Devarim - which otherwise appear to be rather cryptic. Before we continue, it is suggested that you read Devarim 1:1-2, noting the difficulty of its translation. "These are the devarim that Moshe spoke to Bnei Yisrael in Transjordan, in the desert, in the Arava, opposite Suf, between Paran and Tofel, and Di Zahav" (1:1). First of all, what does the word devarim refer to: the entire book? - the first speech? - all the speeches? It's not clear. Secondly, what is the meaning of this long list of places? The location of 'ever ha-yarden' [Transjordan] makes sense, for Bnei Yisrael are now encamped there (see 1:5); but the remaining list of places - ba-midbar, ba-arava, mul suf, bein paran u-tofel etc. - seems to be totally disjoint from the first half of this pasuk. Are these many places, or just one place? What happened at all of these places? Again, it is not clear. The next pasuk is even more enigmatic! "Eleven days from Chorev, via Mount Se'ir, until Kadesh Barnea" (1:2). This pasuk doesn't even form a complete sentence. What does it describe? What does it have to do with the previous pasuk? Nonetheless, the next pasuk appears to be quite 'normal', and could easily have been the opening verse of the book: "And it came to pass in the fortieth year on the first day of the eleventh month, Moshe spoke to Bnei Yisrael in accordance with the instructions that God had given him for them [after he had defeated Sichon?]" (1:3-4). This third pasuk seems to form an introduction to Moshe's speech. But this only strengthens our questions on the first two psukim. Why doesn't the Sefer just begin with the third pasuk? Indeed, one who never studied Sefer Devarim should find himself terribly confused when reading these psukim. However, based on our shiur, it is possible to suggest a very simple explanation (that will find support in Ibn Ezra and Ramban as well). A SUPER INTRO Recall how the main speech (i.e. ne'um ha-mitzvot / chapters 5-26) forms the focal point of Sefer Devarim, including a lengthy set of mitzvot that Bnei Yisrael must keep as they enter the Land of Israel. As we explained, Moshe had first taught these mitzvot to Bnei Yisrael when he came down from Har Sinai with the second luchot (see Shmot 34:32). However, since these laws require constant repetition [mishneh torah], it would only make sense that Moshe would have taught them numerous times. Recall as well that the Torah uses this very same word 'ha-devarim' to introduce the mitzvot of the main speech / see 6:6 -'ve-hayu ha-devarim ha-eileh asher anochi metzaveh?" Therefore, one can assume that the phrase 'eileh ha-devarim' (in 1:1) refers to the same mitzvot that 've-hayu ha-devarim' refers to in 6:6) i.e. to the mitzvot of the main speech! If so, then the first pasuk of the Sefer introduces this main speech! Hence, the first two psukim of Sefer Devarim can be understood as follows: "These are the devarim [i.e. the mitzvot of the main speech] that Moshe delivered in Arvot Mo'av, [just as he had already delivered a similar speech in] the midbar, and arava, opposite suf, between Paran and Tofel, and at Di-zahav. [Furthermore, these mitzvot were also taught by Moshe to Bnei Yisrael during] their eleven day journey from Har Chorev to Kadesh Barnea." [Then] in the fortieth year... Moshe taught these laws (one last time] after the defeat of Sichon..." (see Devarim 1:1-4) [See commentary of Ibn Ezra on 1:1-2.] This explanation fits in beautifully with both Ibn Ezra's & Ramban's interpretation of the word "devarim" in the first pasuk of Sefer Devarim, as both commentators explain that the word "devarim" refers specifically to the mitzvot that Moshe will teach later on in the main speech. [Ramban explains that these devarim begin with the Ten commandments (i.e. from chapter 5), while Ibn Ezra explains that they begin with the chukim & mishpatim in Parshat Re'eh (see 12:1). The underlying reason for this controversy will be explained in our shiur on Parshat Va-etchanan. The reason why Rashi explains that devarim refers to the 'rebuke' will be discussed in our shiur on Parshat Ekev.] When we consider this setting, the Torah's emphasis in the second pasuk on the eleven day journey from Har Sinai to Kadesh Barnea becomes quite significant. Recall, that this eleven day journey was supposed to have been Bnei Yisrael's final preparation before conquering the land (had they not sinned)! As such, Moshe found it necessary to teach and review these important laws several times during that journey. [Again, see Ibn Ezra inside.] Now, in the fortieth year on the first day of the eleventh month, Bnei Yisrael find themselves in a very similar situation - making their final preparations for the conquest of the land. Therefore, Moshe gathers the people in Arvot Mo'av to teach and review these mitzvot one last time. In this manner, the first four psukim of Sefer Devarim actually form the introduction to the main speech (chapters 5-26). However, before Moshe begins that main speech, he first makes an introductory speech that is introduced by 1:5 and continues until 4:40. That speech will be discussed iy"h in our next shiur (on Parshat Devarim). Untill then, shabbat shalom menachem ====================== FOR FURTHER IYUN A. FROM HAR SINAI TO SEFER DEVARIM In our shiur, we showed how the main body of Sefer Devarim contains the mitzvot that Moshe Rabbeinu originally received on Har Sinai. However, Moshe received many other mitzvot on Har Sinai. Therefore, it appears that even though Moshe received all of the mitzvot on Har Sinai, each book of Chumash focuses on a different category. Therefore, the important question becomes - what characterizes the mitzvot found in other books of Chumash? Or, more directly, on what basis were the mitzvot distributed among the five books? To answer this question, we simply need to review our conclusions from previous shiurim. First of all, let's review the main themes of each Sefer that we have found thus far: * BREISHIT - God's creation of the universe and His choice of Avraham Avinu and his offspring to become His special nation. * SHMOT - The Exodus of Am Yisrael from Egypt; their journey to Har Sinai; Matan Torah; chet ha-egel, and building the mishkan. * VAYIKRA - Torat kohanim, the laws relating to offering korbanot in the mishkan, and various other laws that help make Am Yisrael a holy nation. * BAMIDBAR - Bnei Yisrael's journey from Har Sinai (with the mishkan at its center) towards the Promised Land; and why they didn't enter the Land. With this in mind, let's see how the laws in Sefer Devarim may relate to what we have found thus far. Recall that God's original intention was to take Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt, bring them to Har Sinai (to receive the Torah), and then immediately bring them to Eretz Canaan, where these mitzvot are to be observed. At Har Sinai, Bnei Yisrael entered into a covenant and heard the Ten Commandments. As we explained, they should have received many more mitzvot after hearing the first Ten Commandments. However, they were overwhelmed by the awesome experience of Ma?amad Har Sinai and thus requested that Moshe act as their intermediary. It is difficult to ascertain the exact chronological order of the events following their request. However, by combining the parallel accounts of this event in Sefer Shmot (see 20:15-21:1, & 24:1-18) and Sefer Devarim (see chapter 5), we arrive at the following chronology: * On the day of Ma'amad Har Sinai, God gives Moshe a special set of laws, better known as Parshat Mishpatim (i.e. 20:19-23:33), which Moshe later conveys to Bnei Yisrael (see 24:3-4). Moshe writes these mitzvot on a special scroll ['sefer ha-brit' (see 24:4-7)], and on the next morning he organizes a special gathering where Bnei Yisrael publicly declare their acceptance of these laws (and whatever may follow). This covenant is better known as 'brit na'aseh ve-nishma'. [See 24:5-11. We have followed Ramban's peirush; Rashi takes a totally different approach. See Ramban 24:1 for a more detailed presentation of their machloket.] * After this ceremony, God summons Moshe to Har Sinai to receive the luchot & additional laws ['ha-Torah v-hamitzva'; see 24:12-13], and so Moshe remains on Har Sinai for 40 days and nights to learn these mitzvot. It is not clear precisely to what 'ha-Torah ve-hamitzva' refers, but we may logically assume that it is during these 40 days when Moshe receives the mitzvot he later records in Sefer Devarim. [Note the use of these key words in the introductory psukim of Sefer Devarim: Torah in Devarim 1:5, 4:44; ha-mitzva in 5:28 & 6:1.] [Moshe most likely received many other mitzvot as well during these forty days, possibly even the laws of the mishkan. (see famous machloket between Rashi & Ramban - and our shiur on Parshat Teruma.)] * As a result of chet ha-egel, the original plan to immediately conquer the land of Israel requires some modification. Consequently, we never find out precisely which mitzvot were given to Moshe during the first forty days and which were transmitted during the last forty days. Either way, Bnei Yisrael themselves do not hear any of these mitzvot until Moshe descends with the second luchot on Yom Kippur (see Shmot 34:29-33). At this point, Moshe teaches Bnei Yisrael all the mitzvot he had received, though they are not recorded at that point in Sefer Shmot (see again Shmot 34:29-33). * During the next six months, Bnei Yisrael build the mishkan and review the laws they had just received from Moshe. Once the mishkan is built in Nissan and the korban Pesach is offered (in Nissan & Iyar), Bnei Yisrael are ready to begin their ?11 day journey from Har Sinai to Kadesh Barnea', the excursion that was to have begun their conquest of the land. Instead, the people fail with the incident of the meraglim, and the rest is history. This background can help us appreciate how the mitzvot are divided up among the various sefarim of Chumash, even though most all of them were first given to Moshe at Har Sinai, or at the Mishkan in Midbar Sinai. Let's discuss them, one book at a time: SHMOT Sefer Shmot records the Ten Commandments and Parshat Mishpatim since they comprise an integral part of Ma'amad Har Sinai, i.e. the covenantal ceremony in which Bnei Yisrael accept the Torah. Although Sefer Shmot continues with the story of Moshe's ascent to Har Sinai, it does not record the specific mitzvot that he received during those forty days! Instead, the remainder of Sefer Shmot focuses entirely on those mitzvot relating to the atonement for chet ha-egel (34:10-29) and the construction of the mishkan (chapters 25-31, & 35-40 / plus the laws of Shabbat which relate to building the mishkan). The exclusive focus on these laws at the end of Sefer Shmot is well understood. The theme of the second half of Sefer Shmot revolves around the issue of whether or not God's Shchina can remain within the camp of Bnei Yisrael. Whereas the mishkan provides a solution to this dilemma, its taking center-stage in the latter part of Sefer Shmot is to be expected. [See Ramban?s introduction to Sefer Shmot, ve-akmal.] What about the rest of the mitzvot transmitted to Moshe on Har Sinai? As we will see, some surface in Sefer Vayikra, others in Sefer Bamidbar, and the main group appears in Sefer Devarim! VAYIKRA Even though Sefer Vayikra opens with the laws given from the ohel mo'ed (see 1:1), many of its mitzvot had already been presented on Har Sinai. This is explicit in Parshat Tzav (see 7:37-38); Parshat Behar (see 25:1); and Parshat Bechukotai (see 26:46 & 27:34). Certain parshiyot of mitzvot such as Acharei Mot obviously must also have been given from the ohel mo'ed, but there is good reason to suggest that many of its other mitzvot, such as Parshat Kedoshim, were first given on Har Sinai. So why are certain mitzvot of Har Sinai included in Sefer Vayikra? The answer is quite simple. Sefer Vayikra is a collection of mitzvot dealing with the mishkan, korbanot and the kedusha of Am Yisrael. Sefer Vayikra, better known as torat kohanim, simply contains all those parshiyot that contain mitzvot associated with its theme. Some were given to Moshe on Har Sinai, while others were transmitted from the ohel mo'ed. [See previous shiurim on Sefer Vayikra for more detail on this topic.] BAMIDBAR Sefer Bamidbar, we explained, is primarily the narrative describing Bnei Yisrael's journey from Har Sinai towards Eretz Canaan. As we explained in our shiurim on Sefer Bamidbar, that narrative is 'interrupted' by various parshiyot of mitzvot, which seem to have belonged in Sefer Vayikra. [For example: nazir, sota, challa, nsachim, tzitzit, tum'at meit, korbanot tmidim u-musafim, etc.] These mitzvot were probably first given to Moshe on Har Sinai (or some possibly from the ohel mo'ed, as well). Nonetheless, they are included in Sefer Bamidbar because of their thematic connection to its narrative. DEVARIM Now we can better understand Sefer Devarim. The books of Shmot, Vayikra, and Bamidbar contained only a limited sampling of the mitzvot that God had given to Moshe on Har Sinai, each Sefer recording only those mitzvot related to its theme. Sefer Devarim, as it turns out, is really our primary source of the mitzvot taught to Moshe on Har Sinai. As we explained above, this is exactly what chapter 5 indicates. [Recall that chapter 5 is the introductory chapter of Moshe's main speech, the presentation of the mitzva, chukim & mishpatim.] Expectedly, these mitzvot of Har Sinai recorded in Sefer Devarim are presented in an organized fashion and share a common theme. To identify that common theme, let's take a look once again at the introduction to this collection of mitzvot: "And this ('ve-zot') is the mitzva, chukim & mishpatim that God has commanded me to teach you to be observed in the land which you are about to enter..." (6:1-3 / see also 5:28). The mitzvot of Moshe's main speech are simply a guide for Bnei Yisrael?s conduct as they conquer and settle the land. [As we study the Sefer, this theme will become quite evident.] Therefore, practically speaking, this speech contains the most important mitzvot that Bnei Yisrael must follow as they enter the Land and establish their society. As these laws are so important, they must be studied 'over and over' again [= mishneh Torah]. Hence, it is only logical that Moshe decides to teach these mitzvot at a national gathering (as he is about to die and Bnei Yisrael are about to enter the Land). This also explains why these mitzvot will be taught once again on Har Eival, after Bnei Yisrael cross the Jordan (see Devarim chapter 27), and then again thereafter, once every seven years at the hakhel ceremony (see 31:9-13; notice the word Torah once again!). B. BETWEEN THE NARRATIVES IN DEVARIM & BAMIDBAR This understanding of the purpose and theme of each sefer helps explain the many discrepancies between the details of various events as recorded in Shmot and Bamidbar, and their parallel accounts in Sefer Devarim. (A classic example is chet ha-meraglim.) Neither book records all the details of any particular event; instead, each sefer records the events from the unique perspective of its own theme and purpose. In the shiurim to follow, this understanding of the nature of Sefer Devarim will guide our study of each individual Parsha. Our shiur on Parshat Devarim (to follow) will be a direct continuation of this shiur. Till then, C. TORAH SHE-BA'AL PEH In the above shiur, we showed how the various mitzvot that Moshe received on Har Sinai are distributed among the various sefarim of Chumash, based on the theme of each Sefer. What about the mitzvot which Moshe received on Har Sinai that, for one reason or other, 'never made it' into Chumash? One could suggest that this is what we call 'halacha le-Mosheh mi-Sinai' in Torah she-ba'al peh (the Oral Law). This suggestion offers a very simple explanation of how the laws that Moshe received on Har Sinai are divided up between the Oral Law and the Written Law. Based on our shiur, that Moshe must have received many other laws on Har Sinai which were not included in any sefer in Chumash is almost pshat! Obviously, the division between what became the Oral Law and the Written Law was divinely mandated and not accidental. Our above explanation simply makes it easier to understand how this division first developed. It also helps us understand why Torah she-ba'al peh is no less obligatory than Torah she-bichtav. [See also Ibn Ezra to Shmot 24:12, re:"ha-Torah ve-hamitzva...," which may refer to the Written and Oral Laws.] Furthermore, the prominent view in Chazal that all the mitzvot were first given on Har Sinai, repeated from the ohel mo'ed, and then given one last time at Arvot Mo'av. Our discussion shows how this statement actually reflects the 'simple pshat' in Chumash, once one pays attention to the story that Moshe tells as he begins his main speech in Sefer Devarim! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dvarint.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 75329 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dvarint.doc Type: application/msword Size: 93696 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon Jul 24 05:10:11 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 05:10:11 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Devarim - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER www.tanach.org In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Questions for self study - by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************************* Questions 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dvarq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 47835 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dvarq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 75264 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Jul 26 16:34:56 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:34:56 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Devarim Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* PARSHAT DEVARIM Why are there so many details in Parshat Devarim that appear to contradict what was written earlier in Chumash? [For example, the story of: the "meraglim" (1:22-40 vs. Bamidbar 13:1-22), whose idea it was to appoint the judges (see 1:12-18 vs. Shmot 18:13-26), and how we confronted Edom in the fortieth year (see 2:4-8 vs. Bamidbar 20:14-). In contrast to the 'heretical' solutions offered by the 'bible critics' - in the following shiur we suggest a very simple and logical reason for these discrepancies - based on our understanding of the overall theme and structure of Sefer Devarim, as discussed in our introductory shiur. Therefore, we must begin our shiur with a quick review of the conclusions of that shiur - in order to understand the purpose of Moshe Rabeinu's first speech, which comprises the bulk of Parshat Devarim. [If you didn't read that shiur, it is available on the web-site at www.tanach.org/dvarim/dvarint.pdf.] INTRODUCTION In the first four chapters of Sefer Devarim, Moshe Rabeinu delivers a speech to Bnei Yisrael, which serves as an introduction to his 'speech of Mitzvot' - the main speech (chapters 5 thru 26). In that 'main speech', Moshe teaches a complete set of laws that Bnei Yisrael must keep as they conquer the Land, and establish their nation. Even though Moshe first received (and taught) those laws forty years earlier, he must teach them one last time, before his death - as the new generation now prepares to enter the Land. Our shiur will demonstrate how the first speech introduces the main speech, which will then enable us to explain why its details may differ from their parallel accounts in Sefer Shmot and Bamidbar. We begin our study by noting how and where the first speech begins. THE OPENING LINE In our introductory shiur, we explained how the first four psukim of Parshat Devarim (1:1-4) serve as an intro to the entire book, and hence introduce the main speech (that doesn't begin until chapter five). It is specifically the fifth pasuk that introduces the first speech: "In Transjordan in Moav, - "ho'eel Moshe" - Moshe BEGAN explaining this TORAH saying:?" (See 1:5, and Rashi!) [The phrase "ha'Torah ha'zot" refers to the main speech (that begins in chapter five), as Sefer Devarim consistently uses the word "torah" in this context - see 4:44, 17:18 and 27:3 & 8.] Hence, the next pasuk begins the actual speech - with Moshe telling Bnei Yisrael: "Hashem spoke unto us in Chorev [=Har Sinai] saying: 'You have dwelt long enough in this mountain; "turn you, and take your journey, and go to the hill-country of the Amorites and unto all the places... the land of the Canaanites,as far as the great river, the river Euphrates. " Behold, I am giving you the land: go in and possess it, which Hashem swore unto your forefathers..." (see 1:6-8) When Moshe begins his speech by retelling how Bnei Yisrael left Har Sinai, it may appear that he is simply beginning a short historical review of everything that happened during their journey in the desert. However, as we read on, we'll see how the details that Moshe Rabeinu recalls, relate directly to the topic of the main speech. Let's explain why he begins with 'leaving Har Sinai'. DEJA - VU Recall that the mitzvot of the main speech were first given to Moshe at Har Sinai, and they were taught at that time, because Bnei Yisrael were supposed to travel from Har Sinai directly to the Land of Israel. Now, it is forty years later, and the new generation is in a very similar situation, i.e. ready to enter the land. Just as Moshe had taught their parents' generation these laws at Har Sinai - now he is teaching the new generation. As the laws of the main speech relate to what Bnei Yisrael must do when they enter the land, Moshe begins his speech by explaining to the nation why forty years have passed since these laws were first given. This neatly explains why the story of the spies emerges as the primary topic of chapter one (see 1:19-45) - for that sin was the principal reason for this forty year delay. [If Sefer Devarim was a simply a review of Chumash, then there are many other stories that Moshe should have mentioned beforehand!] However, before Moshe retells the story of the spies, he inserts a short 'digression' regarding the appointment of judges, as detailed in 1:9-18, which at first glance appears to be superfluous. Let's take a look at what this 'digression' includes; afterward we will suggest a reason for its inclusion. WHAT DO JUDGES HAVE TO DO WITH ALL THIS? Review 1:6-22, noting how it would have made much more sense for Moshe to go from 1:8 directly to 1:19 (please verify this on your own). Nonetheless, this more logical flow is 'interrupted' by what appears to be an unrelated statement: "And I spoke unto you 'at that time', saying: 'I am not able to lead by myself..." (1:9) Moshe's statement, even though it sounds at first bit negative, does not have to be understood as a complaint. In fact, the next two lines come precisely to counter that impression: "Hashem has multiplied you, and, behold, you are this day a multitdue as the stars of heaven. Hashem, the God of your fathers, should make you a thousand times so many and bless you, as He promised you! (1:10-11) [btw, note the parallels to Breishit 15:5-7!] Moshe's inability to carry the burden of the entire nation stemmed from their population growth, which Moshe now explains was the fulfillment of a divine blessing. In fact, based on the context of 1:6-8, the phrase "b'et ha'hi" [at that time] in 1:9 must relate to the time when Bnei Yisrael first left Har Sinai - as recorded in chapter 11 in Sefer Bamidbar. And sure enough, we find almost that identical wording in a statement that Moshe had made precisely 'at that time': "lo uchal anochi l'vadi la'set et kol ha'am..." - I myself am not able to lead this nation... (see Bamidbar 11:14!) In response to Moshe's 'complaint', God commanded Moshe to share his leadership with the 'seventy elders' (see Bamidbar 11:16-29). That response is reflected in Moshe next statement in his speech in Sefer Devarim, explaining how his burden of leadership was alleviated by the appointment of judges, in a hierarchal system of leadership: "How can I alone bear your cumbrance, and burden, and disputes? [Therefore,] Get you, from each one of your tribes, wise men, and understanding, and full of knowledge, and I will make them heads over you... So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men, and full of knowledge, and made them heads over you, captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds, and captains of fifties, and captains of tens, and officers, tribe by tribe. And I charged your judges at that time, saying: 'Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him... and the case that is too hard, you shall bring unto me, and I will hear it'. (See 1:12-17.) [Note that even though this may sound like a similar account Parshat Yitro (see Shmot 18:13-26), based on the context, the primary parallel is to Bamidbar chapter 11. See also Ibn Ezra (and Rashi) in Shmot 18:13, who explain that this story of the appointment of judges actually took place after the Torah was given, and hence, that chapter is out of place. Note as well how Shmot 18:27 may be parallel to Bamidbar 10:29-33!] But what is the thematic importance of Moshe's discussion about the appointment of these judges? Even if those events took place 'at that same time' [see 1:9], these details don't appear to share any thematic connection to the story of the spies, nor to the laws of main speech! So why does Moshe mention it at all? JUDGES AND/OR TEACHERS The answer to this question lies in the next (and final) pasuk of this 'digression': "And I commanded you [the people] 'at that time' - et kol ha'DEVARIM - all the things which you should do." (see 1:18) Pay attention to the phrase "va'atzave etchem" - which must refer to the people, and not the judges. [You can prove this by simply comparing "v'atzave et shofteichem" in 1:16, to "v'atzave etchem" in 1:18!] This short pasuk, even though it is often 'overlooked', connects everything together. Moshe explains that at that time, i.e. after appointing the judges, as Bnei Yisrael prepared to leave Har Sinai, he had commanded the people in regard to all the - DEVARIM - which they must do. But what are those 'DEVARIM'? Based on our introductory shiur, the answer should be obvious! These are the same 'devarim' that: * the opening pasuk of Sefer Devarim refers to (see 1:1) * "v'hayu ha'devarim ha'eyleh" refers to (see 6:6) * which are none other than the laws of the main speech of Sefer Devarim! [See Ibn Ezra & Chizkuni on 1:18.] This makes perfect sense, for that special set of laws (that require constant repetition /"mishne Torah") relate to what Bnei Yisrael will need to keep when they enter the land. Therefore, when Bnei Yisrael first left Har Sinai forty years earlier, Moshe had taught the people these laws - with the help of these judges; and now forty years later, he reminds the people of those events, as he is about to teach them those laws one last time. As it is the responsibility of the appointed judges to assist with the teaching of these laws (and their implementation /see 27:1-8!), Moshe includes those events at the beginning of his introductory speech. Unfortunately, that generation failed. It is now Moshe's hope [and goal], that this generation will fare much better. As Moshe's introductory speech focuses on Bnei Yisrael's need to be prepared for their conquest of the land, and their need to study the relevant laws, it actually makes sense that he mentions the appointment of judges first - for they will be the key towards the success of this endeavor. [Note as well 16:18 in the main speech.] Finally, this interpretation of the word "devarim" in 1:18, explains why Moshe continues his speech by returning to their journey from Chorev to Kadesh Barnea (see1:19). Based on our understanding that 1:2 describes how the laws of the main speech were taught and studied during the eleven day journey from Chorev to Kadesh Barnea (see Ibn Ezra), then the detail in 1:18-19 refer to this very same point! WHERE'S YITRO? This interpretation can also explain why Yitro himself is not mentioned in this speech. Even though Devarim 1:15-17 may sound very similar to Shmot 18:14-22, the purpose of Moshe's speech is not to give a complete historical review of every event that transpired in the desert. Instead, it focuses on this special set of laws that Moshe is about to teach. Therefore, there is no need to mention (at this time) whose original idea it may have been to set up this hierarchal judicial system. Instead, it is important to know that the judicial system that has been set up is there to serve the people, and it will facilitate their ability to establish themselves as God's nation in the land. [See again 27:1-8, noting again the parallel to Bamidbar chapter 11.] WHO SENT THE SPIES? Moshe continues his speech with the story of the "meraglim" [the spies]. As we explained, his purpose is to explain to the new generation why the first generation failed, in hope that they will fare better. Therefore, Moshe retells those events from that perspective, blaming the people (more than their leaders) for the failure of that generation - for he wants to make sure that the people do not become fearful again (as their parents did). Note how critical this point is; for if one understands Sefer Devarim as a review of Chumash, then he is confronted with unachievable task of resolving the obvious contradictions between these two accounts. However, once it is understood that Moshe is telling over those events as part of a 'pep-talk', it makes perfect sense that he emphasizes only the details that are relevant to the theme of his speech. For example, as leadership is an underlying theme is Sefer Bamidbar, Parshat Shelach highlights the fault of the nation's leaders in those events. In contrast, as Moshe is worried that the nation may 'chicken out' once again, he will emphasize that generation's fear and lack of faith & motivation. [To ascertain what really happened would require a lot of 'detective' work, but recording those events in their entirety was neither the goal of Sefer Bamidbar nor Sefer Devarim! You could compare this to twoTV cameras (one in the end zone and one on the sideline) filming a football game. Even though each camera is filming the same game, each one only shows the game for its own angle.] THE MAAPILIM Moshe includes the story of the "maapilim" (see 1:40-45), for it forms the conclusion of the "mergalim" incident. However that specific story, and those that follow, may have been included for an additional reason. Moshe Rabeinu seems to be quite fearful (and rightly so) that the nation may 'chicken out' once again. In fact, realistically speaking, the people have some very good reasons to worry. Let's review them. First of all, the last time they tried to conquer the land of Israel (see Bamidbar 14:40-45), they suffered a whopping defeat. Now Moshe may have explained that this was because God was not in their midst. However, surely the skeptics among them may have retorted that the very idea of conquering the land of Canaan was futile from the start (see Bamidbar13:31-33). Furthermore, only less than a year earlier, the entire Israelite nation was challenged by the army of Edom, demanding that they not dare trespass their land (see Bamidbar 20:14-21). Instead of fighting, Moshe led them though a lengthy 'by-pass road'. Surely, many of the 'right-wingers' among the people viewed this as a sign of weakness. If they couldn't stand up to the threats of Edom, how could they stand up to the threats of all the nations of Canaan! Finally, it may look a little suspicious that Moshe's encouraging words that the time has now come to conquer the land just so happens to coincide with his announcement of retirement! Any (or all) of the above reasons may have raised doubts among the people. Therefore, in his opening speech, Moshe must allay these fears by explaining the divine reason for those actions: 1) The 'maapllim' lost because God was not in their midst (see 1:42) 2) We didn't trespass Edom, for 'family' reasons (see 2:4-8) 3) We didn't trespass Moav for similar reasons (see 2:9-12) 4) We waited forty years because of "chet ha'mergalim (see 2:13-17) 5) We didn?t' attack Amon for divine reasons as well (see 2:18-23) To summarize, we have shown the underlying logic behind the flow of topic in Moshe's opening speech (through at least the middle of chapter two), by considering the purpose of that speech . THE PEP-TALK Let's show now how the next section of this speech forms a reasonable continuation for this 'pep talk'. In contrast to all the events that people may have viewed as a sign of weakness, Moshe now goes into minute detail of how Bnei Yisrael achieved remarkable success in their military campaign against Sichon & Og (see 2:24 thru 3:20). Note how in Moshe's account of the war against Sichon and Og, we find many more details than were recorded in Sefer Bamidbar. The reason why is simple, for that battle is Moshe's best proof (for this new generation) that God is indeed capable of helping them, and hence - 'no need to fear'. Even the settlement of the two and half tribes in Transjordan (see 3:12-20) is presented in a positive light, for it provides addition support to Moshe's claim that it is indeed possible to successfully conquer the mighty nations of Canaan. Moshe presents those events to show that battle against Canaan has already begun, and thus far has been quite successful! Crossing the Jordan, and entering the land won't be something 'new', but rather a continuation of the task that has already been partially fulfilled. Simply note, how Moshe concludes this section of this speech with these words of encouragement: "And I commanded Yehoshua at that time, saying: 'Your own eyes have seen all that Hashem has done unto these two kings; so shall the LORD do unto all the kingdoms where you go. You shall not fear them; for the LORD your God, He it is that fights for you." (see 3:21-22) In case you didn't notice, we've already reached the conclusion of Parshat Devarim. In Parshat Ve'etchanan, Moshe will continue this speech, by explaining why he himself will not be coming with them (once again, for divine reasons/ see 3:23-27). Iy"h we will continue this study of Moshe's opening speech next week. Till then, shabbat shalom menachem ===================== FOR FURTHER IYUN 1. Based on the shiur, attempt to explain the actual differences between the Torah's account of "chet ha'meraglim" here in Sefer Devarim and in Parshat Shelach. 2. Compare the account of the Bnei Yisrael's battle against Sichon and Og here in contrast to the account in Parshat Chukat. Explain why the account in Devarim lays more emphasis on the nature of these battles as conquest. 3. Recall our study of 1:9, and the phrase "ba'et ha'hee": "And I told you AT THAT TIME saying: 'I can no longer carry the burden of leading you by MYSELF." (1:9) Even though this may sound like Yitro's observation that Moshe is working too hard (see Shmot 18:13-18), it can't be for two simple reasons: 1) Moshe says that it was his own complaint. 2) The pasuk says "b'et ha'hee" - AT THAT TIME, i.e. the time that they left Har Sinai on their journey to Eretz Canaan, and Yitro came almost a year earlier (or at least some six months earlier, see Rashi Shmot 18:13). However, there is a much better source in Parshat B'haalotcha that matches this pasuk not only chronologically, but also thematically and textually! Recall that immediately after Bnei Yisrael left Har Sinai (note Bamidbar 10:33-36), we encountered the sin of the "mitavim" (see Bamidbar 11:1-10). Let's take a look now at Moshe's reaction to that sin: "And Moshe said to God: Why have you been so evil to me by putting the BURDEN of leading this people ("masa ha'am") upon me! Did I give birth to them? I MYSELF CAN NO LONGER CARRY THE BURDEN [to lead] this nation for it is too much for me?" (see 11:11-15) Note how (1) this story takes place "ba'et ha'hee" - at this exact time - as Bnei Yisrael leave Har Sinai on their journey. (2) Moshe Rabeinu himself complains that he can no longer carry the burden of their leadership; and (3) we find the identical Hebrew words "lo uchal anochi L'VADI LA'SET et kol ha'am ha'zeh" (Bamidbar 11:14/ compare Devarim 1:9)! Furthermore, recall God's reaction to Moshe's complaint - He takes from Moshe's spirit ["ruach"] and divides it among the seventy elders of Israel, i.e. the nation's religious leadership. Thematically, this fits in very nicely with Moshe's opening speech, for now (in Sefer Devarim) we find Moshe's leadership being passed on to a new generation of leaders. Furthermore, it is precisely the job of these national leaders to teach and clarify the laws that Moshe will now teach them in his main speech. As noted in 1:18: "And I commanded you at that time - all of the DEVARIM that you must do." =========== A SUMMARY OF THE FIRST SPEECH The following outline reviews the main points of the first speech. It can serve as a review of this week's shiur, and preparation for next week's shiur: A) INTRO 1:1 5 Opening narrative explaining background of the main speech. (what, when, where, etc.). [the 'double introdcution'] B) FROM HAR SINAI TO ARVOT MOAV The reason for the 40-year delay. 1:6 11 The original trip from Har Sinai to Eretz Yisrael, (what should have happened back then, instead of now). 1:12 18 Moshe's leadership shared with the elders etc. (they will help lead, judge, and teach the laws) 1:19 40 "Chet ha'Meraglim" the REASON why that generation did not enter the Land, and why forty years have passed. [Accented in this account is not to fear nations of Canaan like the previous generation had feared them.] 2:1 23 The journey from Kadesh, around Har Seir until Nachal Zared. The death of "Dor HaMidbar" (2:14 16) Explaining why Edom, Moav & Amon were not trespassed. [Edom, Moav, and Amon were not attacked due to a divine command and NOT because Bnei Yisrael were not able to fight them!] 2:24 30 The challenge of Sichon to battle, God's involvement /2:30) 2:31 3:22 The war against Sichon, and Og King of Bashan, Conquest of most of Transjordan, Inheritance of Reuven and Gad, and Menashe', and their promise to assist in the conquest of Canaan. [Note God's assurance to assist the people, based on these events in 3:20 22.] 3:23 29 Moshe's final request to see the Land. C) INTRODUCTION TO THE MITZVOT 4:1 24 General principles regarding mitzvot in forthcoming speech, i.e. not to add or take away, their purpose to be a example for other nations, not to worship God through any type of intermediary after Moshe dies. 4:25 40 a 'mini tochacha', your punishment should you not follow these forthcoming mitzvot, and the eternal option to do 'teshuva'. 4:41 49 - A short narrative explaining how Moshe designated the three cities of refuge in Transjordan, followed by several introductory psukim for the forthcoming main speech.] ========== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dvar1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 46623 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dvar1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 72704 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Sun Jul 30 12:01:48 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2017 12:01:48 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Veetchanan - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: veetq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 50448 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: veetq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 70144 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Aug 2 02:15:29 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 02:15:29 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Veetchanan / Ekev - kriyat shema Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: veet1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 50913 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: veet1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 71168 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Aug 3 05:52:13 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 05:52:13 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Veetchanan Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: veet2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 25412 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: veet2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 39424 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Aug 3 07:37:53 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 07:37:53 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Veetchanan - Dvarim perek daled Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 - 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: veet3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 36001 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: veet3.doc Type: application/msword Size: 55296 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Aug 9 03:08:25 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 03:08:25 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Ekev - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ekevq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 28389 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ekevq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 44032 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Aug 9 12:00:01 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 12:00:01 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Ekev Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ekev1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 49456 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ekev1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 65024 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon Aug 14 16:00:03 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:00:03 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Re'ah - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: reayq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 29519 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: reayq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 51303 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Aug 16 05:28:18 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 05:28:18 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Re'ay - (& Yerushalayim) Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* PARSHAT RE'AY To our surprise, the city of Jerusalem (by that name) is never mentioned in Chumash. However, the underlying concept of that eternal city does emerge as a major theme in Parshat Re?ay. In the following shiur, we uncover the 'foundations of the city of Jerusalem' in our study of the Torah's repeated use of the phrase: "ha'makom asher yivchar Hashem" [lit. the site that God will choose], and its thematic significance within the laws of Sefer Devarim. INTRODUCTION When we speak of Jerusalem, we usually relate to either one of its two aspects: a) its geographic location b) its function as the national center of the Jewish Nation. Even though Chumash never informs us in regard to its precise location, its function as a 'national center' for the Jewish Nation unfolds as a primary theme in Sefer Devarim. To understand how and why, we must begin our shiur by returning to our analysis of the CHUKIM & MISHPATIM section of the main speech of Sefer Devarim. Recall from our introductory shiur how Sefer Devarim includes a lengthy speech delivered by Moshe Rabeinu to Bnei Yisrael (chaps. 5-26) where he reviews the laws that Bnei Yisrael must keep when they enter the land. That speech divides neatly into two distinct sections: I - "ha'MITZVA" (6:4 - 11:31) II- "ha'CHUKIM v'ha'MISHPATIM (12:1 - 26:19) The MITZVAH section, we explained, focused on the proper attitude towards God - such as the mitzvah of "ahavat Hashem" (see 6:5,10:12,11:22), while the CHUKIM & MISHPATIM section focused on the actual mitzvot that Bnei Yisrael must keep when setting up their nation in the Land - laws that will help transform them into a "goy kadosh" [a holy nation]. (See Shmot 19:5-6 & Devarim 5:1-2 & 26:16-19.) These 'practical laws' begin in Parshat Re'ay (see 12:1) and continue all the way until the laws of "bikurim" in Parshat Ki-tavo (see 26:1-15). As this section is the Torah's largest corpus of laws, not only is its content important, but even more so, its manner of presentation, and especially its first topic. We begin our shiur by showing how (and why) the concept of "ha''makom asher yivchar Hashem" emerges as it opening topic. HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM Let's read the opening psukim of the CHUKIM & MISHPATIM section, noting the progression of topic: [introductory pasuk] "THESE are the 'chukim & mishpatim' which you must observe in the LAND WHICH HASHEM IS GIVING YOU... : [first law - to rid the land of idol worship] * You must totally destroy all the sites where the nations worshiped their idols... on the high hills and mountains... you must ERADICATE THEIR NAMES from this place. [second law - where to worship your God] * DO NOT WORSHIP YOUR GOD IN THIS MANNER (in multiple places of worship/ read carefully!). * Rather, at the SITE WHICH GOD WILL CHOOSE - HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM - amongst all your tribes, - LASUM ET SHMO SHAM; - "l'shichno ti'DRSHU u'ba'ta shama" [misc. laws re: this 'place' to worship God] * THERE you must bring all of your offerings and tithes etc. Eat and rejoice there in front of your Lord... * ... After you cross the Jordan and enter the Land and find rest from your enemies and enjoy security, then - HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM L'SHAKEYN SHMO SHAM - bring THERE everything I command... * Be careful not to offer your sacrifices anywhere that you want, rather at HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM, only THERE may you bring your offerings... (see 12:1-14) As you review these psukim, note how the opening commandment [to destroy all places of idol worship] serves as a 'pre-requisite' for the primary commandment that follows -i.e. to establish a central 'SITE IN WHICH GOD'S NAME WILL DWELL'. Note as well how the Hebrew word "shem" [name/reputation] also ties both of these topics together. First Am Yisrael must eradicate the 'names of the other gods' from the land; afterward they must establish instead a place for 'His Name' to dwell. In relation to the framework of the main speech, this opening commandment is quite appropriate, for Bnei Yisrael are about to enter and conquer the Promised Land in order to establish God's special nation. This first obligation - to transform Eretz Canaan from a place of idol worship into a land in which God's Name (i.e. His reputation) becomes known - is accomplished by first ridding the land from 'the names of OTHER gods' (12:2-3), and then by establishing a national religious center ? which Sefer Devarim refers to as "ha'MAKOM asher yichar Hashem l'shakein SHMO sham". A RECURRING THEME As you continue your study of Parshat Re'ay, note how often the phrase - HAMAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM is repeated. Not only several times in the opening "parshia" (i.e. chapter 12), but also some twenty times throughout the entire CHUKIM & MISHPATIM section of the main speech (chapters 12-26)! As illustrated in the following table, not only is it the FIRST topic of this section, it also develops as a recurring theme. The table below summarizes each mention of the phrase "ha'makom asher yivchar Hashem" together with its related topic: PEREK/:pasuk TOPIC =========== ===== 12:5,11,14,18,21,26 The place to bring all "korbanot" 14:23,24,25 The place to eat "maaser sheni" [tithes] 15:20 The place to eat the 'first-born' animal 16:2,6,7,11,15,16 The site for "aliya l'regel" on the holidays 17:8,10 The seat of the Supreme Court 18:6 The service of the Leviim 26:2 The place to bring one's "bikurim" [first fruits] A NATIONAL CENTER A quick glance at this table immediately shows that the purpose of this site is not only to offer 'korbanot'; rather it emerges as a National Religious Center. These various mitzvot (as summarized in the above table) facilitate the establishment of this center. Note as well how often every person must visit this site! First and foremost, every individual is obligated to make a pilgrimage to the site on the three agricultural holidays ("aliyah l'regel" / see chapter 16), and whenever he offers a "korban" (be it "n'dava" [voluntary] or "chovah" [obligatory]). The farmer must bring there not only his first fruits ("bikurim"), but also 10% of his harvest to eat and share at this site ("maaser sheni"). Likewise, the shepherd must bring not only the first born animals ("bchor"), but also 10% of his entire flock ("maaser b'heyma")! Furthermore, the Supreme Court for all judicial and halachik judgment is to be located at this site. Should the people of Israel follow these numerous laws concerning HAMAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM - this site would greatly facilitate the development of Am Yisrael as God's special nation. The establishment of this center, and the obligation of every individual to frequent this site, ensures the unity of the people and of the religion. [Without such a center, within several generations it would be more likely that we would find twelve different religions rather than twelve tribes.] This site would also become a center justice, judgment, Torah education, and culture - enhancing the spirituality not only of the nation, but also of each individual who would come to viist. MAASER SHENI To support this point, let's take a closer look at the mitzvah of "maaser sheni", as described in chapter 14: "You shall set aside every year a tenth of the yield of your field. And you should eat this tithe in the presence of your Lord "baMakom asher yivchar Hashem l'shakeyn shmo sham"... IN ORDER THAT YOU LEARN TO FEAR GOD forever..." (14:22) In other words, each farmer must separate a ten percent tithe of his produce, and then take that produce [or its value] and eat it in Jerusalem - and the purpose of this mitzvah is - 'in order that you learn to fear God'! But why should simply 'eating food' at this site cause one to fear God? To understand why, we must conjecture as to how this site was to develop. Even though it is not explicitly stated, it is implicit that the Bet Ha'Mikdash [Temple] was to become the focal point of this national center - for the simple reason that Devarim commands us to bring all of our "korbanot" there. [These are obviously the same korbanot as described in Sefer Vayikra.] However, "maaser sheni" itself is produce, and not an animal offering (i.e. it doesn't require a mizbayach). Nevertheless; the Torah demands that we eat this "maser" at this site. This implies that there must be an additional area surrounding the Mikdash where this "maser" can be eaten. According to the Halacha, this additional area is defined by the walls of the CITY that surrounds the Bet HaMikdash - and carries the same halachic status as the area within the camp of Israel in the desert, where "kodshim kalim" could be eatern/ i.e. the meat of the "korban shlamim". But when one eats this "maser" within the walls of this city, other people will be there as well. Let's review who else should be in this special city on a daily basis. First of all, the Torah designates 'civil servants' who are to officiate and administer the Bet Ha'Mikdash - i.e. the "kohanim" and "leviim" - whose entire lives are dedicated to the service of God. There will also be the judges and scholars of the supreme court system, populating this 'holy city' surrounding the Temple, infusing it with an atmosphere of "kedusha" (sanctity). Therefore, the experience of eating "maaser sheni" in this 'holy' city, mingling there with the kohanim, leviim, and Torah scholars, while sharing one's food together with family and the needy (see 14:25-27), would create an environment that enhances one's "yirat shamayim" - the fear of God. Note how Chizkuni's interpretation of the pasuk re: "maser sheni" reflects this same idea: "...when you will go up [to this site] to eat your maser sheni, you will see the priests officiating and the levites singing... and the Sanhedrin sitting in judgment and teaching laws..., and thus learn [from them] how to fear your God." (14:23, see also Seforno) A PROOF FROM HAKHEL This obligation to frequent HAMAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM culminates every seven years with the "Hakhel" ceremony, where the entire nation - including the women and children - gather to hear the Torah at this very same site. Here, once again, we find "yirat Hashem" - the fear of God - as the primary purpose: "... every seventh year... when all Israel gathers before Hashem "ba'Makom asher yivchar", you shall read this Torah (Sefer Dvarim) in the presence of all Israel. Gather ("hakhel") the people, men, women and children and the strangers, that they may hear and so learn TO FEAR THE LORD and to observe... Their children too ... shall hear and learn TO FEAR GOD as long as they live on the Land..." (see Devarim 31:10-13) Not only to we find once again the site "hamakom asher yivchar Hashem", we also find the purpose of this gathering to instill the fear of God in those who gather. As you review the above psukim, note as well the similarities to Ma'amad Har Sinai. This beautifully supports Ramban's interpretation that the underlying purpose of the Mikdash was to perpetuate the Sinai experience (see Ramban on Shmot 25:1 /and TSC shiur on Parshat Terumah). To conclude our discussion of the 'function' of this site ["hamakom asher yivchar..."], we return to Torah's special use of the word "makom" in a very similar context in Sefer Breishit. THE SITE / THE TEMPLE / AND JERUSALEM Review the story of Yaakov's dream at the beginning of Parshat Va'yetze (i.e. Breishit 28:10-22), noting not only the word ha'makom" (five times) but also its theme. At the conclusion of this episode, Yaakov vows that upon his return to this site ["ha'makom"], he will establish a Bet Elokim - a House for God. Here, we already find a thematic connection between the word "ha'makom" and the Mikdash. Similarly, in the story of the "akeyda" (see Breishit chapter 22)` the Torah uses the word "makom" to describe that site. [See 22:2,3,4,9,14.] Recall as well how Avraham Avinu names this "makom" - "Hashem yireh" (see 22:14), a site that Chazal later identify as the very same mountain where the Bet Ha'Mikdash was built in Yerushalayim. In fact, in Divrei ha'yamim we are informed that Shlomo ha'melech built the Bet ha'Mikdah on Har ha'Moriah, the site of the "akeyda" (see II D.H. 3:1-3). Even though it is not clear where Yaakov's dream took place, the Torah's use of the word "makom" in both stories, and their common theme certainly support Chazal's conclusion that both events happened at the same site (see Rashi 28:11), which later became the Bet ha'Mikdash in Yerushalayim. HOLY GROUND OR HOLY PURPOSE Our analysis thus far demonstrates how the Torah puts more emphasis on the 'function', than the location, of this site. In fact, the Torah appears to be rather evasive in regard to where this site is actually to be located (see below). However, this very point may be very fundamental towards our understanding of Jerusalem. The site is special because of its function - to serve as a national center, to promote the reputation of God's Name ["shem Hashem"] among all mankind. This emphasis is important, for man is very vulnerable towards focusing on the holiness of a site rather than the holiness of its purpose. [Sort of like dovening TO the "kotel" instead dovening AT the "kotel", or saying tehillim TO "kivrei tzadikim" instead of AT "kivrei tzadikim".] For this reason, most all of the later prophets rebuke the people of Israel for misunderstanding the Temple in this manner. Take for example Yirmiyahu chapter 7 (in case you are not familiar, read 7:1-28, see also the first chapter of Yeshayahu). This rebuke does not imply that there is no value to holy sites. Precisely the opposite, the physical location is important for it provides a vehicle to promote its purpose. Yet, one must always be careful not to allow the holiness of the site to override the holiness of its purpose. [For a nice perspective on the balance between these two ideas, see Tehillim 51. Note how first David ha'melech first explains how "korbanot" or futile, for God seeks man's proper behavior; nonetheless, that chapter concludes with David's prayer that Jerusalem be built, and that God should accept our offerings. As this is a rather 'touchy topic', I'd rather you base your conclusions of David ha'Melech's explanation, rather than my own.] JERUSALEM / SEEK AND FIND As we have shown, Sefer Devarim never specifies the precise geographic location of where this site is to be, i.e. where the permanent Bet HaMikdash is to be constructed. Instead, the site is consistently referred to as "the one which God will choose" ("HaMakom asher yivchar Hashem"). However, in Parshat Reay we do find a very obscure hint regarding how we are to find this site: "l'shichno ti'drshu, u'bata shama" - (see 12:5) God will only show us the site if WE look for it. This 'hide and seek' type relationship is reflective of every Divine encounter. To find God, man must SEARCH for Him. According to these psukim in Parshat Re?ay, this principle applies to the nation in same manner as it applies to the individual. [As we say in the daily Ashrei: "karov Hashem l'chol kor'av" - God is close to those who call out to Him.] When Am Yisrael as a nation, begins a serious search for God, then God will show them the proper location to build the Mikdash. The generation of Yehoshua, despite their military conquests, did not succeed in establishing the permanent Mikdash (after conquering the Land). Instead, they erected the temporary Mishkan in Shilo. There it remained, quite neglected, during the entire time period of the Judges. After the city of Shilo was destroyed by the Phlishtim (during the time of Eli / see Shmuel chapters 4-6), both the Mishkan and the "aron" wandered from site to site. It was only during the time period of David ha?melech that Bnei Yisrael actively aspired to build the Mikdash. For example, when David became king over all of Israel (see II Shmuel 5:1-9), his first act was to conquer the city of Jerusalem. His next project was to gather the nation in order to bring the "aron" (the holy ark) to his new capital city (see II Shmuel chapter 6). Note how Divrei ha'yamim describes how David explained his plan (and the reason) to the nation: "David said to the entire congregation of Israel: If you approve, and this is from God (the events of David's rise to power), let us go forward and invite all our brethren in the land of Israel, together with the KOHANIM and LEVIIM and gather together, IN ORDER TO BRING BACK to us God's HOLY ARK - 'ki lo DRASH'NU'HU b'ymei Shaul' - for during the time of Shaul WE DID NOT SEEK IT" (I Divrei Hayamim 13:2-3) [Note the use of the shoresh "d.r.sh." here and in Devarim 12:5] David Ha'melech notes how the "aron" had been neglected during the generation of Shaul at the national level. In contrast to Shaul, David ha'melech considered bringing the "aron" to Yerushalayim as his highest national priority. After the "aron" finally arrived in Jerusalem, the next step in David's master plan was to build a permanent house for the "aron", i.e. the Bet Ha'Mikdash in Yerushalayim: "When the King was settled in his palace and God has granted him safety from his enemies [he'niach lo m'kol oyvav m'saviv], the King said to Natan the prophet: Here I am dwelling in a HOUSE of cedar wood, while the 'aron' is dwelling only in a TENT!" (see II Shmuel 7:1-2) [Note again the textual parallel to Devarim 12:10-11] Even though God informed David that Am Yisrael would have to wait another generation before the Temple could be built (in the next generation by his son Shlomo, see II Shmuel chapter 7), its precise site was already designated in David's own lifetime (see I Divrei Ha'yamim 22:1). In fact, David ha'melech himself prepared all the necessary building materials (see the remainder of that chapter). If you read the above sources carefully, you'll see that the underlying reason for God's decision to delay its construction for one more generation stemmed from the need to wait until its 'function' - to make a Name for God - could be properly fulfilled. JERUSALEM TODAY As we have seen in our study, according to the guidelines of Sefer Devarim - 'Jerusalem' is destined to become more than just the city that houses the Temple. Ideally, Jerusalem should become the National Cultural and Religious Center of the Jewish people, whose purpose will be to 'make a Name' for God. This aspiration is found in the prophecies of most all of the later prophets. For example: "For Jerusalem will be called the city of Truth ("ir ha'emet"), and the mountain of the Lord of Hosts -"har ha'Kodesh" (see Zecharya 8:3). "For out of Zion will come forth Torah and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem" (see Isaiah 2:3). Today, be it for halachic, technical, or political reasons, we are not yet able to rebuild the Bet HaMikdash. Until the proper time comes, this aspiration remains our national dream and an everlasting prayer. Nonetheless, to rebuild the city of Jerusalem as our National Center - a city of Truth, Justice, and Sanctity - is not only permitted, it is our duty. In our own generation, God has opened for us a window of opportunity. The achievement of this goal remains our national responsibility. shabbat shalom, menachem ================================ FOR FURTHER IYUN A. THE CHAGIM IN RE'AY Even though the chagim have already been presented in Parshiot Mishpatim, Emor, and Pinchas, they are repeated again in Devarim chap 16. Read this chapter carefully. 1. What laws are added which we did not already learn from the earlier sources? 2. What would you say is the primary topic of this perek? (which key phrase repeats itself many times?) 3. Attempt to explain this perek as an expansion of Shmot 23:14 17! 4. How does all this relate to the above shiur? 5. Why aren't Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur mentioned in this parshia? B. "LO TA'ASUN KEYN L'HASHEM ELOKEICHEM" (12:4) In the above shiur, we explained that this pasuk implies that we are commanded not to worship God in multiple places of worship. This is "pshat" of the pasuk based on 12:2 and 12:5, For just as they worshiped their gods on the high places and under mighty trees etc. (12:2) you should not, rather - only in the place which God chooses ("ha'makom...). That is, at ONE place and not at many places. Note the two explanations given by Rashi. The first follows this reading according to "pshat". The second is a Midrash Halacha. Do these two pirushim contradict each other, or can they both be correct? Use your answer to explain the nature of Midrashei Halacha. C. MIKRA BIKURIM - THE FINALE Note the final mitzvot of the chukim & mishpatim are Mikra Bikurim and vidduy maaser (perek 26), again focusing on HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM - (note 27:1 also). 1. Does this parsha belong in Parshat Ki-tavo, or do you think that it would be more fitting to Parshat Reay? Relate to the parsha of maaser sheni (14:22-29)! Why do think it was chosen to conclude the main speech? Relate your answer to the purpose of this speech, and the content of "mikra bikurim" and to Breishit perek 15. D. Even though Sefer Breishit does not mention Jerusalem by name, it does mention the city of 'Shalem' (see 14:18) in relation to Malki Tzedek (note the significance of his name) and Mount Moriah (see 22:2,14), the site of the Akeyda', as Hashem YIREH. Together YIREH -SHALEM, may allude to the final name of this city - YERU-SHALAYIM. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: reay1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 48689 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: reay1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 85934 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Aug 16 06:44:22 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 06:44:22 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] for Parshat Re'ay - part two Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* PARSHAT RE?AY - Part Two Bad influences? Surely we should stay away from them, but how do we identify them? In Parshat Reay, we find an example of how the Torah deals with this problem, as Bnei Yisrael prepare to enter the land. INTRODUCTION Our previous shiur on Parshat Re'ay, discussed how "ha'makom asher yivchar Hashem" - emerged as its primary topic. Even though this holds true for chapters 12 and 15, chapters 13 and 14 appear to form a digression from this topic. To illustrate how the topic of 'bad influences' is sandwiched with the topic of "ha'makom asher yivchar", the following table summarizes the main topics of the Parsha: * HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM 12:1-19 - Establishing the Bet ha'Mikdash as the national center 12:20-28 - Permission for eating meat outside of that center * BAD INFLUENCES 12:29-31 - Don't seek after the gods of the nations of Canaan 13:2-6 - Don't follow the instructions of a false prophet 13:7-12 - Don't follow a family member who may lead you astray 13:13-19 - Ir ha'nidachat - when an entire city goes astray 14:1-21 - Misc. dietary laws (what one cannot eat) * HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM 14:22-27 - Eating "maaser sheni" (there) in years 1,2,4,& 5 14:28-29 - Giving this "maaser" to the poor in years 3 & 6 15:1-18 - The laws of "shmittah" for the 7th year 15:19-23 - Bringing the 'first born' to "ha'makom asher..." 16:1-17 - Celebrating the "shalosh regalim, ba'makom asher..." ==== As you most probably have guessed by now, in our shiur we will search for a theme that ties all of these topics together. FOUR 'BAD EXAMPLES' To begin our shiur, we must first explain why we categorized all of the topics in chapter 13 as 'bad influences'. Note how each topic relates to a certain warning that 'somebody else' will not lead you astray towards following other gods. First we find a warning against following the gods of your 'non-jewish' neighbors (12:29-31). Then we are warned not to follow a charismatic leader (be he a 'prophet' or 'dreamer'), even if he performs a miracle, should he suggest that we worship a different god (13:2-6). Afterward, we are warned against following a family member or close friend who may secretly suggest that we worship a different god. Finally, as a society, we are warned not to allow an entire town to go astray; and if so, that entire town must be destroyed. Note how we find examples of influences from: a) society at large, i.e. our global community b) our leaders, either religious or lay c) our family and close friends d) our city, i.e. our local community These laws are followed by a lengthy list of dietary laws in 14:3-21. Note however that the reason for keeping these laws is given both at the beginning and end of this unit, in 14:2 and 14:21 - for you are an "am kadosh l'Hashem elokecha" - a designated [holy] nation for your God - hence you must separate yourselves from them. Even though the Torah does not explain HOW these laws accomplish this goal, we know quite well from our daily life how the laws of "kashrut" severely limit our cultural contact with people of other religions. Therefore, we find yet another example of how the laws of the Torah protect us from the influences of those who may lead us towards following other gods. With this in mind, we must now consider the connection between this unit of 'bad influences' and the primary topic of "ha'makom asher yivchar Hashem". INFLUENCES - GOOD & BAD When we consider the purpose of "ha'makom asher yivchar Hashem", i.e. the establishment of the city of Yerushalayim and the Bet ha'Mikdash as the nation's vibrant cultural and religious center, we find yet another example of what will influence the society of Am Yisrael, this time from the positive aspect. In other words, Parshat Re'ay discusses all types of influences that will shape the nature of society (as Bnei Yisrael prepare to enter the land). First and foremost, by the establishment of "ha'makom asher yivchar Hashem" and the requirement that every jew frequent that site and eat his "maaser sheni" in Yerushalayim, we assure the proper development of Am Yisrael as an "am kadosh l'Hashem". By warning against bad influences, the Torah attempts to make sure that the fabric of that society won't crumble. In Parshat Shoftim, we will find additional examples of what will provide a 'good influence' upon the nation. The Torah will discuss the judicial system, the priesthood, and the various other institutions of political leadership in their ideal form. Till then, shabbat shalom menachem -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: reay2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 19936 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: reay2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 28160 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Aug 16 11:12:21 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:12:21 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Re'ay - additional shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: reay3.doc Type: application/msword Size: 56320 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: reay3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 74707 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Tue Aug 22 02:11:11 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 02:11:11 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Shoftim - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi 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. 17:18 20? 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 17:14 20 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 17:14 20. 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shofq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 38760 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shofq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 55808 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Aug 24 07:10:47 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:10:47 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Shoftim Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shof1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 42027 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shof1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 57856 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Aug 24 07:12:02 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:12:02 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Shoftim - additional shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* 'What defines what's right?'' For Parshat Shoftim What's considered 'doing what is right in the eyes of God' ["ha'yashar beinei Hashem"]? Sefer Devarim mentions this phrase several times, and assumes that we'll understand what it means; yet the classic commentators can't seem to agree on its precise interpretation. To illustrate this problem, our shiur begins with the final pasuk in Parshat Shoftim - to show how if forms a rather meaningful conclusion for its opening line! INTRODUCTION The last nine psukim on Parshat Shoftim (21:1-9) discuss the laws of "eglah arufa" ? when the leaders of a community must perform a special ceremony in the case of an unsolved homicide. Even though the first eight psukim describe the various stages of this 'ritual' ? the final pasuk is not its last stage, rather ? it appears to be some type of summary, or possibly even an additional commandment. To verify this, review 21:1-9 ? noting how the final pasuk is different, and how it relates to the previous eight psukim. [Make not as well of how you translated the word "ki" in 21:9!] SUMMARY ? OR NOT? Let's begin with the JPS translation of 21:9, noting how it understands this pasuk as a summary for the previous eight (by adding the word 'thus'): "Thus you will remove from your midst guilt for the blood of the innocent, for you will be doing what is right in the sight of the Lord." (21:9 / JPS) [Note similar translation in Rav Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah, and in the Jerusalem Bible ['so' instead of 'thus' - but all view this pasuk as a summary.] In other words, after explaining all the various stages of this ritual ? the Torah concludes by informing us that it will work! However, this explanation forces us to accept two conclusions: 1) That this "dam naki" [innocent blood] refers to the blood of the "chalal" [the slain person/ see 21:1] ? which requires some sort of atonement, ideally with the blood of his murderer, but otherwise with the blood of the "eglah arufa". Without either, it seems that there would be terrible consequences. 2) The phrase "ha'yashar beinei Hashem" refers to these specific procedures of "eglah arufa" (as described in 21:2-8). Hence, when you have done them, the "dam naki" will be atoned. The second conclusion is rather difficult to accept, for why would this ritual of "eglah arufa" fall under the category of doing 'what is correct in the eyes of God'? Usually, this phrase of "ha'yashar b'einei Hashem" refers to something in the realm of moral behavior, but rarely ever to ritual. [See Shmot 15:26, Devarim 6:18, 12:28 and 13:19.] But even the first conclusion is rather difficult to accept, for the pasuk seems to imply some sort of new command ? "v'ata t'vaeyr" [You must get rid of...] ? in contrast to summary. Furthermore, the last phrase of 21:8 ?"v'nikaper la'hem ha'dam" [and (thus) they will be atoned for the blood/ see Rashi] ? in itself seems to be a summary, and hence, there doesn't seem to be a need for an additional summary in 21:9. THE CASE ISN'T CLOSED! Most probably for either one or both of these reasons, Rashi offers a very different interpretation, understanding the pasuk as an additional command (and not a summary): "[This pasuk] tells us that should they afterward find the murderer ? that he must still be put to death; and THAT is [what the Torah refers to] as 'yashar b'einei Hashem'." (see Rashi on 21:9) Rashi's commentary solves both problems, for it understands this pasuk as an additional command ? i.e. to continue to look for the murderer ? EVEN THOUGH the "eglah arufa" ceremony was performed; while this 'continued search for the murderer' is referred to (and rightly so) as 'what is correct is the eyes of God'. To summarize Rashi's approach, this additional pasuk is basically coming to teach us that just because we have performed the ritual ? the case is not closed! Instead, we must continue to pursue justice ? for that is what is 'correct in the eyes of God'. [See English translation of 21:9 in Stone Chumash, which reflects (as usual) Rashi's commentary, and how it differs from the other English translations.] PARTICULAR or GENERAL One small problem remains with Rashi's approach, in relation to our understanding of the phrase "ha'yashar b'einei Hashem". If we consider the other times in the Torah where we find this phrase, we find that it usually refers to a very general category of behavior ? more like a 'way of life' - in contrast to something specific. For example, after Bnei Yisrael cross the Red Sea and arrive at Mara, God challenges the nation to follow him as follows: "If you obey God, and do what is upright in His eyes [v'ha'yashar beinav taaseh], and listen to all of His mitzvot and keep all of His decrees..." (see Shmot 15:26) Earlier in Sefer Devarim as well, we find how this phrase is used in a very general manner: "Keep God's commandments, His 'eidot' & 'chukim' as He commanded you ? and do what is upright and good in God's eyes..." (See Devarim 6:17-18) [See also Devarim 12:28 and 13:19.] Therefore, if we follow the more general usage of this phrase elsewhere in Chumash, especially in Sefer Devarim, it would make more sense if "ha'yashar beinei Hashem" related to a wider range of mitzvot, relating to general moral behavior. PREVENTIVE MEASURES! Most likely, it is this question that caused Ibn Ezra to offer an alternate, and rather create interpretation. After mentioning the two approaches that we discussed above (i.e. either a summary or a command to pursue the murderer), Ibn Ezra continues: "But what seems correct in my eyes ['v'hanachon b'einei' ? note his clever choice of words!], this relates to what I mentioned in my commentary (i.e. in 21:7) that no murder at all would have taken place in the land if [beforehand Bnei Yisrael had] acted in 'a manner that is upright in the eyes of God'. ? following the principle of: 'schar aveira aveira u'schar mitzvah mitzvah' ? the penalty for a transgression is another transgression, and the reward of a mitzvah is another mitzvah." (see Ibn Ezra 21:9 / & 21:7) Note how according to this interpretation, the phrase "ha'yashar beinei Hashem" describes good behavior in general, and not any particular commandment, just as it does earlier in Sefer Devarim (6:18, 12:28 and 13:19). Hence, there is no longer a need to explain this pasuk either as a summary or as an additional commandment; rather Ibn Ezra understands this pasuk as the Torah providing us with some 'good advice' ? to prevent this type of situation (that would require an "eglah arufa") from occurring in the first place. A GOOD TEACHER If we follow Ibn Ezra's approach, this finale pasuk to the laws of "eglah arufa" follows a pattern that emerges throughout Moshe Rabeinu's speech in Sefer Devarim. Quite often, when Moshe Rabeinu is teaching specific laws, he'll take a quick break to provide a reminder, or some good advice ? that relates to good behavior in general, in relation to that specific mitzvah. [If you'd like some examples, see 12:19, 12:28, 13:19, 14:2, 15:11, 16:12,16:20,19:10, not to mention all of chapter 8 thru 10 ? note also 24:9, according to Rashi! I'm sure you can find many more.] HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT'S 'RIGHT IN GOD'S EYES' Before we conclude our short shiur, it is highly recommended that you read the Ramban on Devarim 6:18, where he solves the problem of how we are supposed to figure out what is considered "yashar b'einei Hashem". [Note how (and why) he brings so many examples from Parshat Kedoshim!] It is also recommended that you see the Ramban on Devarim 21:5-8, where he quotes the Rambam's explanation how the laws of "eglah arufa" are not quite ritual, but rather a set of very wise steps to increase the chances that the true murder will be found! In conclusion, note how the opening psukim of the Parsha command Bnei Yisrael not only to appoint judges, but also insists that their primary goal is to pursue justice and set a personal example of moral behavior (see 16:18-20!). With this in consideration, the final pasuk of Parshat Shoftim (according to Ibn Ezra's interpretation) serves not only as an appropriate finale for the laws of "eglah arufa", but also for all of Parshat Shoftim! shabbat shalom, menachem -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shof2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 23301 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: shof2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 37376 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Sun Aug 27 15:07:12 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 15:07:12 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Kiteze - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kiteyq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 36189 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kiteyq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 54784 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Aug 30 06:53:30 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 06:53:30 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Ki-teze Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kitey1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 49503 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kitey1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 55808 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Aug 31 06:38:13 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:38:13 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Ki-teze - additional shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kitey2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 39602 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kitey2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 44311 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Sep 6 03:56:11 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 03:56:11 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Ki-Tavo - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kitavoq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 30756 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kitavoq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 46592 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Sep 7 06:29:44 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 06:29:44 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Ki-tavo - shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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. Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kitavo1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 50250 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kitavo1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 56320 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon Sep 11 04:15:35 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:15:35 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Nitzavim Vayelech - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: nitzvylq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 36516 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: nitzvylq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 27579 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Sep 14 09:36:28 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 09:36:28 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Nitzavim - shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: nitz1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 67072 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: nitz.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 64911 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Sep 14 09:38:03 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 09:38:03 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Vayelech - shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayel1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 31398 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayel1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 39424 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Sun Sep 17 14:45:41 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 14:45:41 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Haazinu - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: haazq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 21687 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: haazq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 35328 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon Sep 18 02:58:45 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 02:58:45 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] for Parshat Haazinu - shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* PARSHAT HA'AZINU - Part One The song and its message Who's to blame when something goes wrong? In regard to tragedy that befalls the people of Israel, Parshat Ha'azinu offers a very bold, yet fundamental answer. In the following shiur, we will study the introduction to 'shirat Ha'azinu' (found at the end of Parshat Vayelech) to show how it can help us understand what that song is 'all about'. INTRODUCTION Even though the words of shirat Ha'azinu are quite difficult to translate, its overall theme and purpose is quite easy to decipher. To do so, our shiur will first discuss the interesting introduction to this 'song' - which explains not only its purpose, but also the important questions that it is supposed to answer. Then, we will show how the 'shira' follows this theme, and answers those questions. THE INTRO IN PARSHAT VAYELECH At the conclusion of Parshat Vayelech we find a new 'parshia' that begins in 31:14. [Before continuing, it is recommended that you first quickly review that entire section, i.e. 31:14-30.] This section begins with a rather depressing prediction, as God summons Moshe and Yehoshua to the 'ohel mo'ed', to inform them that Yehoshua (and whoever may take leadership afterward) can 'expect the worst': "And God said to Moshe, you will soon die, but this nation may thereupon go astray after strange gods of the land... and they will leave Me and [hence] break My covenant... Then [therefore] on that day I will kindle My anger against them, and I will [appear to] abandon them, and hide My face from them, and many terrible things and tragedies will befall them, and they will say on that day, surely - it is because God is not in our midst that these evils have befallen us" (see 31:14-17). Even though God does not want this to happen, He appears to be quite sure that this scenario is inevitable. [God's experience with Bnei Yisrael over the last forty years in the desert may have led to this conclusion.] However, the purpose of God's statement is not simply to depress Moshe and Yehoshua. Rather, it is to provide Am Yisrael with the necessary 'tool' that will help them cope (and properly respond) should such a situation arise. To prove this, simply read the next two psukim, noting how this introduction to the shira continues: "And I will hide My face from them, for they have done evil and turned to other gods. Therefore - write down this shira [song] and teach it to Bnei Yisrael... in order that this poem be My witness against the people of Israel - for when I bring them to the land flowing with milk & honey, as I swore to their forefathers, and they will eat and become satiated and grow fat - and will then turn to other gods and worship them, hence breaking My convenant." Then, when these terrible things befall them, this song shall confront them as a witness, for it shall never be forgotten from their offspring - for I know their yetzer [evil inclinations], even before I bring them into the land..." (see 31:19-21). Based on this introduction, we now know what to expect from shirat Ha'azinu. However, to fully appreciate its purpose, we must return to a key pasuk in this introduction (31:17), whose meaning (at first glance) appears to be unclear. WHO'S TO BLAME? Recall how God not only 'predicted' how Bnei Yisrael will stray after other gods, He also foresaw how they would react: "And I will kindle My anger against them on that day [i.e. at that time] and leave them, for I will hide My face from them, and terrible things will befall them - and they will say on that day [at that time] - it is because God is not in our midst that these evils have befallen us" (31:17). At first glance, the meaning of (Bnei Yisrael's response) : "it is because God is not in our midst" - is not clear. Are Bnei Yisrael blaming God for these terrible events, or are they blaming themselves! In other words, does their statement reflect a sense of: * remorse ['teshuva'], understanding that they are at blame for they have left God. or, * anger with God - blaming Him for abandoning His people. [See Seforno.] However, the answer to this question lies in the next pasuk: "But I will hide My face from them, for they have done evil and turned to other gods" (31:18). God's insistence that He will continue to hide His face from them implies that Bnei Yisrael statement in 31:17 reflected their anger with God (and not their remorse from their deeds). Thus, we appear to have reached an impasse, as God blames His nation for unfaithfulness; while Am Yisrael blames God for not caring. [See also Ramban on 31:17, where he indeed understands Bnei Yisrael's statement as minimal teshuva; however (most probably due to 31:18), Ramban understands this teshuva as superficial, and hence God continues to hide His face, waiting for Am Yisrael to perform more intense teshuva before they can be deserving of redemption.] Therefore, to prepare Bnei Yisrael for this inevitable 'showdown' of 'who's to blame', Moshe charges the nation before his death, teaching them shirat Ha'azinu - so that the 'answer' is ready for any future generation (see 31:22-30). With this background, we can begin our study of the shira, with the goal of showing how it relates directly to the points raised in this introduction. 32:1-3 / THE PREFACE Review the first three psukim (32:1-3), noting how they form a preface. In fact, 32:3 explains who Bnei Yisrael should answer with a 'praise to the Lord' whenever Moshe will mention God's Name (and hence our custom to this day of saying 'baruch Hu u-varuch shmo' - when ever we hear God's Name mentioned in a blessing.] [In regard to the 'shamayim' and 'aretz' being called upon to witness, see Part Two of this shiur.] This observation is important, for if 32:1-3 forms an introduction, then we can conclude that 32:4 forms the opening (and cardinal) statement of the shira. 32:4-6 / THE OPENING STATEMENT [Who's to blame!] To confirm this point, review 32:4-6, noting how these psukim deal directly with the key question of 'who's to blame'! [i.e. God or the people]: The Rock [i.e. God] - His deeds are perfect, all His way are just. A steadfast God ['emuna' - see TSC shiur on 'mei meriva'!] and no injustice. He is just and upright. If so, then who should Bnei Yisrael blame when something goes wrong? Once again, the shira provides the answer: [Do you attribute] injustice to Him? ['shichet lo'] no - ['lo' - with an 'aleph'] It is his children's fault ['banav mumam'] - A generation so crooked and perverse. Shall you blame this on God? - so foolish a nation- and unwise For He is your father who created you He made you and established you. [And therefore, why would He want to cause you harm, unless there was a purpose. Based on our introduction, it is clear why this must be the opening statement - for this is exactly the question that Bnei Yisrael will ask when they are confronted with tragedy. Since they are God's nation, they expect their God to protect them and save them from trouble. However, this question stems from a terrible misunderstanding of the special relationship between God and His people. God did not promise to be a like 'fairy godmother', taking care of every tiny need of a spoiled child. Rather, God entered a covenant with Bnei Yisrael for a purpose - to represent Him before the nations of the world. [See TSC shiurim on Sefer Breishit., Noach, Lech Lecha, Vayera etc.] This covenant contains not only privileges (i.e. promises of protection), but also responsibilities. Because the goal of this covenant is so important, God threatens to punish Bnei Yisrael should they be unfaithful to this covenant, just as he promises to be helpful should they be faithful. [This theme is repeated numerous times in Chumash, especially in the 'tochachot', and throughout Sefer Devarim.] Therefore, the purpose of divine punishment is to remind Bnei Yisrael of their covenantal responsibility should they go astray. [Note the Torah's use of the word 'brit' in 31:16 & 20!] Hence, the shira opens by telling us not to blame God when the nation is plagued by tragedy. Instead, blame yourselves, for God has no reason to punish you - unless you have gone astray. 32:7-12 / REMEMBER WHY & HOW YOU WERE CHOSEN The last point made in this section (i.e. 31:6) forms the introduction to the next section of the shira. Recall God's last remark: "Shall you blame this on God - so foolish a nation- and unwise? For He is your father who created you, He made you and established you." Now, God explains how and why we should remember this point, by providing a quick review of Jewish History, from the time of Creation. Remember the days of old, consider the ages past. Ask your father, and he will tell you, so too your elders. When Elyon [God] gave each nation its land, As He divided up the nations [i.e. Migdal Bavel naarative] He fixed the borders of these nations, According to the numbers of Bnei Yisrael - For God's portion is His people - [The children of] Yaakov - is His allotment (32:7-9). In other words, when God first established mankind, dividing them up into nations, He already had in mind this purpose of Bnei Yisrael to represent Him amongst these nations. [See TSC shiur on Parshat Noach - re: Migdal Bavel.] The next three psukim (32:10-12) describe how God took Bnei Yisrael through the desert, taking care of their needs, and preparing them for their existence in the land of Israel: He found them in the desert land... ... & watched over them as the pupil of His eye. Like an eagle watches over his nestlings... God alone guided them (thru the desert) No other god assisted Him. 32:13-15 / From PROSPERITY to AFFLUENCE At this point, the shira now shifts from past to future, projecting what may happen when Bnei Yisrael will enter the land; i.e. warning how prosperity may lead to affluence, and then to idol worship, and then to divine punishment. In other words, all of the points described in the introduction (see 31:16-20), are now described in poetic detail. He set them up atop the highlands To feast on the yield of the earth He fed them honey from the crag And oil from the flint of the rock... The best lamb, and rams, and goats With the very finest wheat, and foaming grape drink. So Yeshurun [Israel] grew fat and kicked Fat, gross, and coarse. He forsook the God who made him (compare 32:16) And spurned the Rock (see 32:4) of his salvation. 32:16-18 / From AFFLUENCE to IDOL WORSHIP They incensed Him with alien things, Vexed Him with abominations. They sacrificed to demons, no-gods. Gods they had never known, new ones.... You neglected the Rock that gave birth to you Forgot the God who brought you forth. (again, compare with 32:4-6!) 32:19-25 / GOD'S WRATH IS KINDLED As Bnei Yisrael have broken the covenant, God has no choice but to punish them, for what is the point of their existence if they are not fulfilling their covenantal purpose! Therefore, the next section describes this punishment. Once again, we find how the topic of 31:17 (& 31:21) is described in poetic detail. The Lord saw and was vexed He spurned His sons and daughters, saying: I will hide My face from them ['hester panim' (see 31:17-18)] Then see how they will fare in the end! For they are a treacherous breed, Children with no loyalty. They incensed Me with no-gods... I will incense them with a no-folk Vex them with a nation of fools. For a fire has flared in My wrath.... [read the rest on your own] The sword shall deal death without As shall the terror within To young man and maiden alike, The young babies as well as the aged. 32:26-38 / SAVED BY THE BELL In the next section, God continues to explain how and why His anger is kindled, however He also explains why sooner or later, He must come to the aid of His nation (even though they may not be deserving). I might have reduced them to nothing Made their memory cease among men - But, for the fear of the taunts of the foe Their enemies who may misjudge and say - "Our own hand has prevailed; none of this was caused by the Lord A comment is now added, noting how foolish the nation was for not recognizing the Hand of God in these events. Were they wise, they would think upon this (compare 32:7) Gain insight into their future: How could one have chased a thousand, And two put ten thousand to flight. Unless their Rock had sold them.... [32:32-25 continues the rebuke] Then, God explains how and why He will save His nation, so that this disgrace in the eyes of other nations should not become too great. When God will judge His people And have mercy upon His servants For He will see that they are helpless... Lest [the other nations] say - Where is their God? The rock in whom they sought refuge... [See Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Ramban, vs. Rashi] 32:39-43 / A CALL FOR REFLECTION Even though God has promised ultimate redemption, He still calls upon Am Yisrael to recognize that He was the cause for both their punishment and salvation: See, then, that I - I am He There is no god beside Me I bring death, and I cause life I wound and I heel No one can deliver from My Hand... Finally, the shira concludes with a call to other nations to recognize the hand of God in the wake of these events: O nations, acclaim His people - For He will avenge the blood of His servants Bring vengeance on His enemies And His land shall protect [or cleanse] His People. [translation of last phrase is difficult, see commentators.] This final point is important as well, for it reflects back on the very purpose of God's covenant with Am Yisrael, to represent God among the nations. In the 'bottom line', God hopes that even when Am Yisrael (unfortunately) needs to be punished; the manner of that severe punishment may still lead to the recognition of God by other nations, hence serving the same underlying purpose A HARSH CONCLUSION As difficult as the message of shirat Ha'azinu may be, its theme is congruent not only with its introduction at the end of Parshat Vayelech, it also follows the very same underlying theme of Chumash that began with God's choice of His nation back in Sefer Breishit, and the demanding terms of God's covenant with Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai [see shiur on the 13 middot]. Even though Am Yisrael may reach the mistaken conclusion that God is 'hiding His face from them', the primary point of the shira is that God is always there, even though it may appear otherwise. [See 32:29!] It also not by chance that God is consistently referred to (in the shira) as the 'tzur' - a large rock, or bolder, that does not move. It is always there and can even provide protection, even though it often remains unnoticed, or may be taken for granted. [In my opinion, the Torah's use of the word tzur may also relate to the events at 'nikrat ha-tzur' at Har Sinai - where God first explained to Moshe His attributes of mercy / see Shemot 33:19-22, and its context from 33:12-19, as well as our shiur on the 13 midot - 've-akmal' - i.e. a topic for a future shiur.] Obviously, the goal of Chumash is that we should never need to experience the sequence of events described in this song. However, the shira remains as an eternal reminder for Am Yisrael to remember their covenantal purpose, as well as a call for proper teshuva in times of national misfortune. As Yom Kippur approaches after a year of such terrible sorrow and tragic events, we pray to Hashem that He speedily fulfill His promise of ultimate redemption, as well call upon ourselves to fulfill our destiny to become His special nation. [In Part Two will discuss other aspects of the shira.] shabbat shalom, menachem ======================================== PART TWO for PARSHAT HA'AZINU - 3 mini- shiurim Shiur #1 - MOSHE RABEINU'S LAST DAY Parshat Vayelech opens with Moshe's farewell to Bnei Yisrael, in which he informs them that he will soon die and reassures them that Yehoshua will take over and fulfill what God had promised (see 31:1-6). The opening pasuk of the parsha baffled the commentators: "Va'yelech Moshe - and Moshe WENT, and spoke these things to Bnei Yisrael..." (31:1) Where did Moshe go? Where was he coming from? Most commentators suggest that for his final farewell, Moshe left his own tent and 'went' from tribe to tribe to comfort each shevet individually. [See Ramban, Chizkuni, & Ibn Ezra.] Ibn Ezra adds a very interesting insight to this interpretation. He understands that while Moshe visited each shevet to bid farewell, he gave each tribe their individual blessing, i.e. the blessing recorded later in Parshat V'zot Ha'bracha (33:1-29). [See Ibn Ezra on 31:1 inside!] If Ibn Ezra is correct, then SHIRAT HA'AZINU becomes the final message of Chumash! This interpretation is supported by the final psukim of Parshat Ha'azinu, where God commands Moshe to ascend Har Nevo to die (see 32:48-52), which, chronologically, must be the last narrative of Chumash. [See also Ramban on 31:24-26. Even though Ramban disagrees with Ibn Ezra with regard to the actual sequence of events, V'ZOT HABRACHA is still not Moshe's final message to Bnei Yisrael. It is merely his final blessing. The closing 'charge to Am Yisrael' of Chumash is definitely Shirat Ha'azinu, even though Moshe may have administered his blessings to the tribes later on that day.] This observation can provide us with a better appreciation of the final events of Sefer Devarim. After Moshe Rabeinu completed his speeches [i.e. the main speech of mitzvot/ chapters 5->26, and the "tochacha"/ chapters.27->30], Chumash concludes with two mitzvot that guarantee the continuity of Am Yisrael. 1) HAKHEL (31:7-13) 2) SHIRAT HA'AZINU (31:14->32:47) [Note that both these sections include the writing of the Torah, see 31:9 & 31:24-26!] Let's explain: After introducing Yehoshua as his successor (31:1-8), Moshe gives the written Torah to the KOHANIM and the elders (31:9), charging them with the responsibility of continuing what Moshe had begun - i.e. teaching this Torah to the entire nation. As we explained in last week's shiur, the mitzvah of HAKHEL is added in order to 'relive' the SINAI experience every seven years. Note the conclusion of this unit: "And the children, who do not yet know, will listen and learn to fear God all the days that you LIVE on THE LAND THAT YOU ARE NOW CROSSING THE JORDAN TO INHERIT." (31:13) A similar conclusion closes SHIRAT HA'AZINU: "For this is not an empty thing, for it is your life, and by keeping this, you will LIVE many years on THE LAND THAT YOU ARE NOW CROSSING THE JORDAN TO INHERIT." (See 32:47 and its context.) Certainly, the teaching of the Torah guarantees the continuity of Am Yisrael; but wherein lies the importance of SHIRAT HA'AZINU? As we explained in Sefer Breishit, God has set a goal for the Jewish people: to become a nation that abides by His Torah and represents Him by serving as His chosen nation. This stature of a special nation entails not only privileges, but, even more so, responsibility. Therefore, to assure that Bnei Yisrael will keep His laws, it becomes necessary to punish them should they disobey and not fulfill that destiny. [That's what the "tochacha" is all about.] The fact that God's covenant with Bnei Yisrael necessarily includes divine punishment creates an intriguing predicament. Specifically because of our status as His special nation, our plight becomes worse than other nations (see Amos 3:1-2!). When misunderstood, this can lead to a very dangerous conclusion. Instead of understanding punishment as a divine call for "teshuva," Am Yisrael may perceive it as proof that they are no longer chosen, and hence no longer bound by God's covenant. When things go bad, they will blame God rather than themselves. For example: "The ROCK (the Lord)- His deeds are perfect, His ways are just, a faithful God, never false, He is true and upright, [but] SHICHET LO, LOA BANAV MUMAM... - Do you attribute the bad to Him? No! It is His children who are at fault, a crooked and perverse generation. Do you blame God for this, o dull and witless people? Is not He the Father who created you? He made you and fashioned you!" (loose translation of 32:4-6). As SHIRAT HA'AZINU continues, God predicts the inevitable outcome of Bnei Yisrael's settlement in the land. They will become affluent and forget Him (see 32:15). He, in turn, will punish them or hide His face from them, but they will fail to recognize the reason behind their punishment (see 32:16-26). That is why we need the SHIRA. SHIRAT HAAZINU reminds us not only of God, but also of WHY we are chosen, that our stature and accompanying responsibilities remain applicable even when our situation is far from ideal. "ZCHOR Y'MOT OLAM..." - Remember, learn from your history... (see 32:7-13). God tells us how to relate to Him in trying times. If we remember WHY we were chosen, for WHAT PURPOSE, then we will understand why we have been punished. Hopefully, those thoughts will steer Am Yisrael back onto the proper path. Finally, even should we not repent, ultimately God will redeem us (see 32:27-29), but once again, only so that we recognize our purpose. If not, then the awful process of punishment will start all over again. This is how SHIRAT HA'AZINU guarantees the continuity of Am Yisrael. It is an eternal cry not only for TESHUVA, but also for the recognition of our purpose, and hence, it reminds us of the reason for both our reward and our punishment. ========== Shiur #2: THE FIVE SONGS IN TANACH "Shirat Ha'azinu" is one of five 'songs' found in the Tanach. We begin this section by demonstrating that each song marks the end of an important time period. As we will see, this analysis can greatly enhance our appreciation of "Shirat Ha'azinu." THE FIVE 'SONGS' For the purpose of this shiur, a 'song' is defined as a parsha in Tanach written on the Torah scroll in a special pattern. Two songs, Ha'azinu and Yehoshua, exhibit the pattern of: -- -- -- -- -- -- (pattern A) Three others: ha'Yam, Devorah, & David, exhibit the pattern of: -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- (pattern B) The following table summarizes these five songs and the respective time period that each one concludes: SOURCE SONG TIME PERIOD ====== ==== =========== Shmot 15:1 19 "Shirat ha'Yam" Yetziat Mitzraim (the Exodus) Devarim 32:1 43 "Shirat Ha'azinu" Bnei Yisrael in the desert Yehoshua 12:1 24 "Shirat Yehoshua" Defeat of the 31 kings Shoftim 5:1 31 "Shirat Devorah" Complete conquest of north Shm.II 22:1 51 "Shirat David" Establishing the Monarchy Although all five songs mark the conclusion of certain time periods, it appears that the songs following pattern A, i.e. Shirat Ha'azinu and Yehoshua, mark the end of historical periods which fell short of their original expectations. On the other hand, the songs following pattern B - Shirat ha'Yam, Devorah, & David - relate to more ideal situations. One could suggest that the structure of these two patterns reflects this distinction: 'pattern B' reflects a 'stable' existence, while 'pattern A' symbolizes a more 'shaky' reality. YEHOSHUA IN CONTRAST TO DEVORAH Even though Yehoshua conquered the entire land, his conquest was far from complete. The simplest proof is the psukim immediately following this "shira": "And Yehoshua had become old, and God said to him, you have grown old, but there is MUCH MORE LAND which needs to be conquered" (See Yehoshua 13:1 5. See also 18:1 3,23:1 16). Even though the tribes of Yehuda and Yosef were successful in their conquest, the remaining tribes who were to settle in Eretz Canaan (see Yehoshua 18:1-6) had not captured their respective areas. The primary area not conquered at that time centered around EMEK YIZRAEL (the Jezreel Valley), which sat on the major trade route from Egypt to Mesopotamia. It was not until the time of Devorah that the area was finally conquered, through the joint effort of the surrounding tribes. In the war of Barak and Devorah in Emek Yizrael, Israel's enemies in the north were defeated, thus geographically uniting the twelve tribes. This explains the importance of SHIRAT DEVORAH and why it is written according to pattern B. Later, during the time of the Judges, Israel lost control of this area. Only during the period of David did this area come back under Jewish control. David expanded his sphere of occupation to the north, east, and south, thus creating a political environment characterized by a stable monarchy and secure borders. His song - SHIRAT DAVID - also follows pattern B, as it thanks God for His assistance in achieving the most complete conquest of Eretz Canaan. SHIRAT HA'YAM AND SHIRAT HA'AZINU We now turn our focus to the distinction between the two 'songs' found in Chumash - Shirat Ha'Yam and Shirat Ha'azinu. Shirat Ha'Yam marks not only the completion of the Exodus, but also our total independence from Egypt. Recall that Bnei Yisrael were granted permission to leave Egypt just for a few days in order to worship their God in the desert (see Shmot 12:31-2). Therefore, when Pharaoh drove them from his land after "makat b'chorot," he expected them to return after just a few days. Thus, only after "kriyat Yam Suf" did Bnei Yisrael achieve TOTAL freedom. Hence, Shirat Ha'Yam marks the conclusion of the first stage of the redemption process, as promised in Brit Bein Ha'btarim (see Breishit 15:13-20). The generation of the desert, after receiving the Torah, should have conquered the Land within the first year. Had this come true, i.e. had Bnei Yisrael not sinned, then the next "shira" should have been the idyllic one - that of the conquest of the Promised Land with Moshe as their leader. Instead, that generation and the next consistently angered Hashem. Forty years later, as Bnei Yisrael finally prepare to enter the Land, their situation remained far from the ideal. Therefore, the ideal "shira" that should have been sung is now 'replaced' with a more 'realistic' one - "Shirat Ha'azinu," tailored to God's pessimistic forecast of what will happen after Bnei Yisrael enter the Land. We can now better understand the psukim towards the end of Parshat Va'yelech which introduce this "Shira": "...God told Moshe, you will soon die, and this Nation will go astray after the foreign gods in their midst, in the land that they are about to enter. They will forsake Me and break My covenant that I made with them. Then My anger will flare up at them, and I will abandon them ('hester panim')... then they shall say: 'Surely, it is because God is not in our midst that these evils have befallen us'... Therefore, write down this 'shira' and teach it to the people... in order that this 'shira' may be My witness against the Nation, when I bring them into the Land.... For I know the very nature of this people (the way they will act) even before I bring them into the Land..." (Devarim 31:16 21) Moshe later repeats this pessimistic prognosis to the people, prior to teaching them this song: "[Moshe charged the Leviim, saying... ] Gather for me all the leaders, and I will speak to them these words... For I know that after I die you will act wickedly and leave the path which I have commanded you. Misfortune will thus befall you in later generations, because your evil actions will anger God. Moshe then recited this "shira" to the entire congregation..." (See Devarim 31:28 30) Thus, the period of the 'forty years in the desert' ends on a very tragic note. It appears inevitable that Bnei Yisrael will fail to meet the challenge of establishing God's model nation in the Land. Despite this bleak forecast, "Shirat Ha'azinu" remains as an eternal reminder for Bnei Yisrael that the time will ultimately come, should they perform proper teshuva, when a new song will be sung ["v'nomar l'fanav SHIRA CHADASHA..."], a song of praise and recognition of God as the source of our victory, a song similar to "shirat David." ================ Shiur #3 - The witnesses - 'SHAMAYIM VA'ARETZ' In its preface, "shirat Ha'azinu" calls upon shamayim va-aretz ['heaven & earth'] to bear witness. On the one hand, the very mention of this 'Biblical duo' beautifully ties together the end of Sefer Devarim with the very beginning of Sefer Breishit. In the following shiur, we discuss how the mention of "shamayim v'aretz" may also relate to a very interesting relationship between this song and a very basic theme of Chumash. INTRODUCTION Already in the introduction to shirat Ha'azinu (back in Parshat Vayelech), we find the mention 'shamayim va-aretz', as Moshe calls upon them to serve witness: "Gather to Me all the elders of your tribes that I may speak these words to them, and that I may call shamayim va-aretz to testify..." (see 31:28-29 / note also 30:19). Therefore, it should come as no surprise that we find their mention at the very beginning of the song: "Ha'azinu ha-shamayim va-adabera, ve-tishma ha-aretz imrei fi." - Listen heaven, and I will speak, and the aretz should hear the words of my mouth (see 32:1). But why are specifically 'heaven and earth' summoned as witnesses? Although the answer may seem obvious at first, as we will see, there may be far more here than first meets the eye. RASHI'S APPROACH Rashi quotes the two classic answers, based on two Midrashim (Sifrei 306 and Tanchuma 1): 1) An eternal witness: Heaven and earth exist forever and can thus serve as eternal witnesses. Whereas Moshe himself is mortal, he must summon the everlasting forces of nature as his witnesses. (See also Ibn Ezra.) 2) An agent of enforcement: As explained in Devarim 11:13-17, 'heaven and earth' will reward Bnei Yisrael with adequate rainfall and plenty should they follow God's covenant, and punish them with drought should they disobey. (See also Rashbam.) In truth, these two answers are not mutually exclusive. They provide a 'double reason' for God's choice of "shamayim va-aretz": not only do they provide eternal testimony, but they also help enforce the covenant. Nevertheless, according to other commentators, these reasons alone do not suffice. We will now note how both Ramban and Ibn Ezra provide additional comments on this pasuk that point us back to Sefer Breishit. BACK TO BREISHIT Ramban begins his commentary by agreeing with the first reason brought down by Rashi [i.e. everlasting witnesses], and even offers additional proof from a similar incident - where Yehoshua designates a stone as an eternal witness to a covenant (see Yehoshua 24:25-28). However, afterward he adds a very interesting comment: "... these are the original shamayim and aretz that are first mentioned in Breishit. Since they are entering into a covenant with Israel, they are told to listen..." (Ramban 32:1) [Note how Ramban refers to this approach as 'al derech ha-emet' [lit. 'by way of the truth'], as opposed to his assessment of his first peirush, as 'al derech ha-pshat' [lit. 'by way of the simple meaning of the text']. We find this expression al derech ha-emet- quite often throughout the Ramban's commentary, usually when he hints to a much deeper reason for why the Torah chooses a specific phrase, one which relates to a more general theme in Chumash. (See Ramban's introduction to Chumash.)] Here we find that Ramban 'hints' to a thematic connection between shirat Ha'azinu and Bereishit, even though he does not explain the reason or significance behind this relationship. Though somewhat obscure, a connection between Ha'azinu and the beginning of Chumash appears in the comments of Ibn Ezra, as well. First, he quotes Rav Sa'adia Gaon's suggestion that shamayim refers to the 'angels in heaven' and aretz to 'men on earth.' He then continues: "... or the testimony [refers to] the rain that will come from heaven, and earth that will give [the earth's] produce. But what seems most correct to me is that they both exist forever [reason (1) above], and I have earlier alluded to the fact that the neshama (of man) is in the middle - between above and below..." (see Ibn Ezra 32:1). What exactly Ibn Ezra has in mind is far from clear. However, it appears to be an allusion to his lengthy commentary on Breishit 1:26, where he explains the meaning of God's creation of man 'be-tzelem Elokim'. Following this 'lead' alluded to by both Ibn Ezra and Ramban, we will explore a possible thematic connection (on a 'pshat level') between the shamayim va-aretz in the first pasuk of shirat Ha'azinu and the shamayim va-aretz in the first pasuk of Chumash. A 'PROSECUTOR' OR A 'REMINDER'? As we explained earlier, both explanations quoted by Rashi personify shamayim and aretz, treating them as actual witnesses who will enforce the covenant. This understanding implies that the purpose of this summons to shamayim va-aretz is to frighten Bnei Yisrael, so that they realize that 'someone' is always there watching should they break the covenant. However, one could suggest a different function of shamayim va-aretz, based on an earlier instance in Sefer Devarim, where Moshe Rabbeinu summoned shamayim va-aretz to witness his final charge to Bnei Yisrael at the conclusion of his 'finale' speech: "I call upon the shamayim and the aretz as witnesses today, for I am presenting the choice between life and death - the blessing or the curse - and you should choose life..." (see 30:19 & its context). Commenting on this pasuk, Rashi offers a beautiful explanation. After first identifying their function as 'eternal witnesses,' Rashi then cites a different explanation, based on the Midrash: "Hashem tells Bnei Yisrael: look at the shamayim that I created to serve you - do they ever change from their regular pattern? Look at the aretz that I created to serve you..." According to this second interpretation, the shamayim and aretz are not personified; they take no active role. Instead, the pasuk calls upon Am Yisrael, to act! They must look at and contemplate the shamayim va-aretz, who now serve as a constant reminders to man, and thereby help him find purpose in God's creation. In other words, God's selection of shamayim and aretz to witness the covenant is not in order to 'scare' us, but rather to 'teach' us that just as there is a purpose for God's creation of heaven and earth, so too there is a purpose for His covenant with Am Yisrael. [See also Ramban on Breishit 6:18, in his peirush of the word "brit", where he adds al derech ha-emet that brit is connected to 'briya'. In other words, God's covenant with Noach directly relates to the very purpose of His Creation.] This Midrash raises the fundamental question concerning the conclusions that man should reach when he contemplates the very existence of 'heaven and earth'? What does man see in nature - pure coincidence? Or possibly the work of many gods (with a delicate balance between their conflicting powers)? Are these 'forces' beyond human comprehension, or does man perceive an organized universe created by One God - for a definite purpose? It is precisely this question that the first two chapters of Sefer Breishit attempt to answer. They teach us that what we perceive as nature - i.e. shamayim va-aretz and all their hosts (see 1:1, 2:1 & 2:4) - is a willful act of God. Man, the pinnacle of God's creation, was charged to both serve God (see 2:15) and to rule over nature (see 1:28). At the same time, however, it is precisely shamayim va-aretz that may cause man to arrive at the exact opposite conclusion. He may indeed perceive Creation as an act of God, but the vast abyss separating shamayim and aretz seems too wide to bridge. Indeed, God is in heaven - but man remains on earth, with no means by which to connect to the heavens. God may exist, but there may be no 'hashgacha' [divine providence]. Even though man may perceive and recognize divine Creation, he can still question how that Creator relates to his own daily life. The Torah provides the answer, presenting the 'prophetic history' of God's relationship with man, himself a 'mixture' of shamayim and aretz (see 2:4-10, note 'neshama' / this may be what Ibn Ezra is referring to in his commentary to Devarim 32:1). Each brit found in Chumash exemplifies this relationship. In fact, we find a similar use of the words 'shamayim va-aretz' in relation to events that took place when the Torah was given - at Matan Torah - the most intense 'brit' between God and Am Yisrael: "From the shamayim He made his voice heard... and on the aretz He showed you His great fire, and you heard his words from that fire..." (see Devarim 4:36. The beginning of that parshia - 4:26 - is the first time we find shamayim and aretz as witnesses! Find the other parallels between chapters 4 and 30-31.) HASHGACHA We may now, therefore, suggest an additional reason for God's invocation of shamayim and aretz to witness the covenant. Let's return to the psukim in Parshat Vayelech that outline the reason for shirat Ha'azinu: "... and they will leave Me, and I will hide My face from them, and terrible things will befall them, and they will say on that day - it is because God is not in our midst that these terrible things have happened. But I will continue to hide My face... Therefore, write down this shira... and teach it to Bnei Yisrael in order that it be a witness for Bnei Yisrael..." (see 31:16-19). God here threatens 'hester panim' - hiding His face, the most severe punishment Bnei Yisrael can experience. This dreadful reality raises a critical theological question: how can Bnei Yisrael find God if He seems to pay no attention to them? God's answer to this question is the shira. God expects Am Yisrael to find Him by contemplating their history and the reason for their existence. Even when God appears to conceal Himself, He continues to guide our fate - like a parent who 'punishes' a child by ignoring him. The parent does so not because he doesn't care, but rather to educate the child so that he'll come to realize on his own the importance of parents. The same 'self-taught' lesson that shirat Ha'azinu demands of us (see 32:7) may be the lesson of the opening pasuk in particular. Shamayim and aretz are summoned as witnesses to help us recognize God's hashgacha, even when it appears to be hiding from us. [Iy"h, in our shiur on Parshat Breishit we will discuss the meaning of raki'a - created on the second day, that appears to divide between shamayim va-aretz (note the absence of 'ki-tov' on that day). Similarly, in our study of Sukkot, we will discuss how the s'chach, which divides between our sukka on the aretz and the shamayim above, yet needs to remain partially open - so that we can still 'see the stars'!] As you study shirat Ha'azinu, note how this theme of historical perspective emerges as a primary topic. Furthermore, note how it demands that we contemplate not only nature, but even more so - historical events - as it provides an eternal guide for the pattern of God's dynamic relationship with His people. shabbat shalom, menachem -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: haaz1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 83258 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: haaz1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 89600 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Tue Sep 19 15:13:13 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 15:13:13 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Rosh ha'Shana Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rosh1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 47822 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rosh1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 68096 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon Sep 25 04:30:07 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 04:30:07 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] The Thirteen Attributes of Mercy - shiur Message-ID: 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 13mid.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 62833 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 13mid.doc Type: application/msword Size: 82432 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 13mid.ppt Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint Size: 167424 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon Sep 25 14:23:15 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:23:15 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Yom Kippur - shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kip1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 39575 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kip1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 56320 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Tue Sep 26 03:53:57 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 03:53:57 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Vzot ha'bracha - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vzotq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 27344 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vzotq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 29913 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon Oct 2 10:33:28 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 10:33:28 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Succot Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: succot.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 59867 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: succot.doc Type: application/msword Size: 78208 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 00:23:00 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 00:23:00 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Shmini Atzeret Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: atzeret1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 54272 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: atzeret1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 37684 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 00:25:05 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 00:25:05 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Vzot ha'bracha - shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vzot1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 74752 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vzot.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 53773 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 16:14:49 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:14:49 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Noach - Questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: noachq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 36638 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: noachq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 59259 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Oct 19 15:27:38 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:27:38 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Noach - shiur #1 Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* PARSHAT NOACH The Mabul (the Flood) and Migdal Bavel (the Tower of Babel) are undoubtedly the two primary stories in this week's Parsha. However, each of these two stories is preceded by a list of genealogies that appear to be rather irrelevant. Furthermore, at the conclusion of Parshat Noach (see 11:10-25) we find yet another set of genealogies (that introduces the story of Avraham Avinu). In this week's shiur, we explain how these 'sifrei toladot' (lists of genealogies) create a 'framework' for Sefer Breishit and can help us better understand how these stories (i.e the Flood and Migdal Bavel) contribute to its overall theme. INTRODUCTION In our introductory shiur on Sefer Breishit, we discussed the methodology that we employ to uncover the primary theme of each sefer. We begin our shiur with a quick review of those basic steps: 1) To identify the primary topic of each 'parshia' 2) To group the titles of these 'parshiot' into units that share a more common topic. [Each of these units could be considered as 'chapters' of the book .] 3) To group these 'chapter' divisions into larger units that share a common topic or theme [similar to 'sections' of a book]. 4) To suggest an overall theme of the book, by analyzing the progression of theme from one section to the next. In our shiur, we will show how the various sets of "toladot" in Sefer Breishit can help us apply this methodology, and can point us in a direction that may help us uncover its underlying theme. FROM A LIST TO AN OUTLINE In the following table, we list all of the 'parshiot' in the first seventeen chapters of Sefer Breishit, joining together only the most obvious groups of parshiot by noting their specific and then more general topics. Study this list carefully, noting how the specific topics can easily group into more general topics: PSUKIM SPECFIC TOPIC GENERAL TOPIC 1:1-2:3 7 days of Creation Creation of nature 2:4-3:15 The Gan Eden story Gan Eden 3:16 Chava's punishment Gan Eden 3:17-21 Man's punishment Gan Eden 3:22-24 Expulsion from Gan Eden Gan Eden 4:1-26 Cain's sin and punishment Outside Gan Eden 5:1-31 [Toladot:] Adam->Noach Dor Ha-mabul 5:32-6:4 Man's downfall [pre-Mabul] 6:5-8 reason for Mabul / Hashem [pre- Mabul] 6:9-12 reason for Mabul / Elokim [pre-Mabul] 6:13-8:14 Punishment - the Flood The Mabul 8:15-9:7 Leaving the Ark [post-Mabul] 9:8-17 'Brit ha-keshet' [post-Mabul] 9:18-29 Cham cursed/Shem blessed [post-Mabul] 10:1-32 [Toladot:] sons of Noach The 70 Nations 11:1-9 Builders of the Tower Migdal Bavel 11:10-32 [Toladot:] Shem->Terach Avraham Avinu 12:1-9 Avraham's aliya Avraham Avinu 12:10-13:18 Lot leaves Avraham Avraham Avinu 14:1-24 War of 4 & 5 kings Avraham Avinu 15:1-21 Covenant/brit bein ha?btarim Avraham Avinu Chapter 16 Yishmael's birth Avraham Avinu Chapter 17 Brit mila - another covenant Avraham Avinu etc. [To verify this, I recommend that you review this table (and its conclusions) using a Tanach Koren.] As you review this chart, note how the first set of major topics all relate in one form or other to God's 'Hashgacha' [providence], i.e. His intervention in the history of mankind as He punishes man (or mankind) for wayward behavior. In fact, just about all of the stories in Chumash (prior to God's choice of Avraham Avinu) relate in some manner to the general topic of 'sin & punishment' ['sachar ve-onesh']. For example, after Creation we find the following stories: * Adam & Eve sin & hence are expelled from Gan Eden * Cain is punished for the murder of Hevel * Dor ha-mabul is punished for its corruption * 'Dor ha-plaga' is 'punished' for building the Tower Afterward, the focus of Sefer Breishit shifts from stories of 'sin & punishment' to God's choice of Avraham Avinu - and the story of which members of his offspring are chosen. ENTER - 'TOLADOT' However, within this progression of topics, we find a very interesting phenomenon. Return to the table (above) and note how each of these general topics are first introduced by a set of toladot [genealogies]. For example: * The toladot from Adam to Noach (chapter 5) introduce the story of the Mabul (chapters 6->9). * The toladot or Noach's children (chapter 10) introduces the story of Migdal Bavel (11:1-9 / the Tower of Babel). * The toladot from Shem to Terach (chapter 11) introduce the story of Avraham Avinu (chapters 12-...) In fact, as surprising as it may sound, even the story of Gan Eden (chapters 2-3) is first introduced by toladot! "These are the "toladot" of the heavens & earth..." [See 2:4! / note the various English translations.] Furthermore, later on in Sefer Breishit, we continue to find toladot. Note how we later find: toladot of Yishmael (see 25:12); toladot of Yitzchak (see 25:19); toladot of Esav (see 36:1); & toladot of Yaakov (see 37:2). The following table summarizes this pattern, and illustrates how [some sort of] "toladot" introduces each of the main topics in Sefer Breishit. As you review this table note how the first several topics all relate to 'chet ve-onesh', i.e. God's punishment of man (or mankind) for his sins, while the remaining topics relate to the story of our forefathers - the Avot! CHAPTERS TOPIC ======== ====== 2 Toldot shamayim va-aretz 2->4 -> Man in (and out of) Gan Eden 5 Toldot Adam to Noach 6->9 -> ha-mabul - The story of the Flood 10 Toldot Bnei Noach - Shem, Cham & Yefet 11:1-9 -> Migdal Bavel - The Tower of Babel 11 Toldot Shem until Terach 12->25 -> God's choice of Avraham Avinu 25 -35 Toldot Yitzchak - story of Yaakov & Esav 36 Toldot Esav - story Esav's children 37- 50 Toldot Yaakov - story of Yosef & his brothers Although this pattern is rarely noticed, these sifrei toladot actually create a framework for the entire book of Breishit! In this manner, the toladot introduce each and every story in Sefer Breishit. To explain why, we must first take a minute to explain what the word toladot means: WHAT IS A TOLADA? The word toladot stems from the Hebrew word 'vlad', a child or offspring. Therefore, 'eileh toldot' should be translated 'these are the children of...'. For example: 'eileh toldot Adam' (5:1) means - 'these are the children of Adam' - and thus introduces the story of Adam's children, i.e. Shet, Enosh, Keinan, etc. Similarly, 'eileh toldot Noach' introduces the story of Noach's children - Shem, Cham, and Yefet. [See Rashbam on Breishit 37:2 for a more complete explanation.] Some of these toldot in Sefer Breishit are very short; as they simply state that the person lived, married, had children and died (e.g. the generations from Adam to Noach). Other toldot are very detailed, e.g. those of Noach, Terach, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. Nonetheless, every story in Sefer Breishit could be understood as a detail in the progression of these "toladot". This explanation raises a question concerning the first instance where we find toldot - i.e. toldot shamayim va-aretz (see 2:4). How do the heavens and earth have 'children'?! [Note how various English translations attempt to solve this problem when they translate this pasuk!] The answer to this question may be quite meaningful. Recall that the first chapter of Breishit explains how God created shamayim va-aretz (heavens and earth) from 'nothing' (ex nihilo). Then, immediately afterward in the next chapter, we encounter the first use of toldot: "Eileh toldot ha-shamayim ve-ha'aretz be-hibar'am..." (2:4). So what does Chumash refer to as the toladot of shamayim va-aretz, i.e what are the children of heaven and earth? If we follow the progressive pattern of Sefer Breishit (as illustrated by the above table) then 'toldot shamayim va-aretz' must refer to man himself [i.e. Adam ha-rishon], for it is the story of his creation that immediately follows this introductory pasuk! In other words, Adam ha'Rishon is considered the 'offspring' of shamayim va-aretz. This interpretation could help explain the significance of the pasuk that describes how God created man in perek bet (the first topic of this unit): "And Hashem Elokim formed man from the dust of the earth and blew into his nostrils nishmat chayim - the breath of life" (see 2:7). This second ingredient may reflect the aspect of man which comes from (or at least returns to) heaven. In contrast to the story of Creation in perek aleph, which features a clear division between shamayim [note the purpose of the 'rakiya' in 1:6], the special manner of God's creation of man in perek bet may reflect his unique ability to connect between heaven and earth. [See Rashi on 2:5, where he explains that God created man so that he could pray for rain - in order for vegetation to grow. See also last week's shiur on Parshat Breishit.] Similarly, the next set of toladot - from Adam to Noach (see chapter 5) lead immediately into the story of the Flood. Note how 9:28-29 - the psukim that conclude the Noach story, are clearly part of the same literary unit that began with the toladot in chapter 5 (i.e. they follow the same 'template'). This pattern of "toladot" that introduce stories continues all the way until the very end of Sefer Breishit. Therefore, we conclude that these sifrei toladot do more than 'keep the sefer together'; they also help develop the theme of Sefer Breishit. We will now show how these toladot create not only a framework for Sefer Breishit; they can also help us identify its two distinct sections that create its primary theme. Let's explain: THE TWO SECTIONS OF SEFER BREISHIT Despite this successive nature of the toladot in Sefer Breishit, they clearly divide into two distinct sections. 1) God's creation of mankind (chapters 1-11) w/ stories relating to 'sachar ve-onesh' 2) The story of the avot (chapters 12->50) God's choice of Avraham's offspring to become His nation. Even though the majority of Sefer Breishit focuses on the family of Avraham Avinu (Section Two), in the first eleven chapters (Section One), the Torah's focus is on mankind as a whole. For example. even when Section One includes special details about Noach, it is not because he is designated to become a special nation - rather, it is because through Noach that mankind will be preserved. After the flood, the Torah tells us how Noach's offspring evolve into nations, and their dispersing (see chapter 10). Even though we find that Noach blesses Shem and Yefet (see 9:25-27), the concept of a special nation with a special covenant does not begin until the story of Avraham Avinu. In contrast, Section Two (chapters 11 50) focuses on the story of Am Yisrael - God's special nation. In this section, Sefer Breishit is no longer universalistic, rather it becomes particularistic. Therefore, this section begins with toldot Shem till Terach (see 11:10-24) that introduce the story of Avraham Avinu, whom God chooses in chapter 12 to become the forefather of His special nation. The remainder of Sefer Breishit explains which of Avraham's offspring are chosen [= 'bechira'], e.g Yitzchak and Yaakov], and which are rejected [= 'dechiya'], e.g Yishmael and Esav]. This explains why Sefer Breishit concludes precisely when this complicated bechira process reaches its completion - i.e. when all twelve sons of Yaakov have been chosen, and none of his offspring will ever again be rejected. [This may also explain the significance of Yaakov's name change to Yisrael [see TSC shiur on Parshat Vayishlach.] Our final table summarizes how the toladot help define these two sections of Sefer Breishit: I. UNIVERSALISTIC (chapters 1 >11) - Creation of mankind PEREK TOLDOT the STORY OF... ===== ====== =========== 1-4 'shamayim va-aretz' Man in (and out of) Gan Eden 5-9 from Adam to Noach 'dor ha-mabul' - the Flood 10-11 bnei Noach to 70 nations 'dor ha-plaga' - Migdal Bavel II. PARTICULARISTIC (11 >50) - God's choice of Am Yisrael PEREK TOLDOT the STORY OF... ===== ====== =========== 11 Shem to Terach leads up to Avraham Avinu 11-25 Terach God's choice of Avraham & Yitzchak 25 Yishmael *his 'rejection' (dechiya) 25 35 Yitzchak Yaakov and Esav (their rivalry) 36 Esav * his 'rejection' 37 50 Yaakov the 12 tribes/ Yosef and his brothers 70 'nefesh' go down to Egypt However, if our original assumption that each sefer in Chumash carries a unique prophetic theme is correct, then there should be a thematic reason for the progression of events from Section One to Section Two. Therefore, to identify the overall theme of Sefer Breishit, one must take into consideration how these two sections relate to one another. To help uncover that theme, we must take a closer look at the structure created by these toladot. SHEM & SHEM HASHEM Note once again from the above table how each general topic in the first section of Sefer Breishit was first introduced by a set of toladot. In a similar manner, each of these units concludes with an event which in some way relates to the concept of 'shem Hashem' - God's Name, i.e. His reputation. Let's explain how. Our first unit, the story of Adam ha-rishon, concludes at the end of chapter four with a very intriguing pasuk: "And also Shet gave birth to a son and called him Enosh, then he 'began' to call out in the Name of God ['az huchal likro be-shem Hashem'] (see 4:26). [Most commentators explain that 'huchal' implies that man began to 'defile' God's Name (shoresh 'chillul'), i.e. they didn't call in His Name properly - see also Rambam Hilchot Avoda Zara I:1] No matter how we explain the word "huchal" in this pasuk, all the commentators agree that God's intention was for man to 'call out in His Name'. Note, however, how this pasuk concludes the section that began in 2:4 with the story of Gan Eden. Even though man was banished from Gan Eden and Cain was punished for murder, God still has expectations from mankind - man is expected to search for God, to 'call out in His Name'. Despite this high expectation, the next unit of toladot, which leads into the story of the Mabul, shows that man's behavior fell far short of God's hopes. God became so enraged that He decides to destroy His creation and start over again with Noach. This unit which begins in 5:1 concludes in chapter 9 with a special set of mitzvot for Bnei Noach (9:1-7), a covenant ('brit ha-keshet' (9:8-17), and ends with the story of Noach becoming drunk (9:18-29). However, even in this final story (of this unit) we find once again a reference to "shem Hashem": After cursing Canaan for his actions, Noach then blesses his son Shem: "Blessed be God, the Lord of Shem..." (see 9:26-27). Now it is not by chance that Noach named his son - Shem. Most likely, Noach's decision to name his son Shem was rooted in his hope that his son would fulfill God's expectation that man would learn to call out "be-shem Hashem", as explained in 4:26! [It is not by chance that Chazal consider Shem the founder of the first Yeshiva, the house of learning where Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov studied, i.e. 'Yeshivat Shem ve-Ever'.] Noach blesses Shem in the hope that he and his descendants will indeed fulfill this goal. However, once again, we find that the next generation fails. In chapter 10, again we find a unit that begins with toladot - this time the development of the seventy nations from the children of Shem, Cham, and Yefet - and again, just like the two units that preceded it, this unit also concludes with a story where the word "shem" emerges as thematically significant, i.e. the story of Migdal Bavel. As we will now explain, in this story, once again mankind is not looking for God; rather they are interested solely in making a 'name ['shem'] for themselves! MIGDAL BAVEL When reading the first four psukim of the story of Migdal Bavel, it is hard to pinpoint one specific sin: [Note, however, the significant usage of the first person plural.] "Everyone on earth had the same language and the same words. And as they traveled from the east, they came upon a valley in the land of Shin'ar and settled there. They said to one another: Come, let us make bricks and burn them hard... And they said, Come let us build us a city and a tower with its top in the sky, and we will make a name for ourselves - v'naaseh lanu shem - lest we shall be scattered all over the world. Then God came down to see...." (see 11:1 7). >From a cursory reading, it is not clear exactly what was so terrible about the deeds of this generation. After all, is not achieving 'achdut' [unity] a positive goal? Likewise, the use of human ingenuity to initiate an industrial revolution, developing man-made building materials, i.e bricks from clay etc., seems to be a positive advancement of society. Furthermore, there appears to be nothing wrong with simply building a city and a tower. Why was God so angered that He decided to stop this construction and disperse mankind? Chazal focus their criticism of this generation on their antagonistic attitude towards God (see Rashi 11:1). One key phrase in the Torah's explanation of the purpose for the tower reflects the egocentric nature of this generation: "ve-na'aseh lanu shem" [we shall make a name for ourselves] (11:4) [see Sanhedrin 109a]. Instead of devoting themselves to the name of God, this generation devotes all of their efforts for the sake of an unholy end. Their society and culture focused solely on man's dominion and strength, while totally neglecting any divine purpose for their existence. [See Ramban on 11:4!] Although this generation's moral behavior was probably much better than that of the generation of the Flood, God remained disappointed, for they established an anthropocentric society (i.e. man in the center) instead of a Theo-centric one (i.e. God in the center). Their primary aim was to make a 'name for themselves', but not for God. As God's hope that this new generation would 'koreh be-shem Hashem' - to call out in His Name - never materialized - He instigates their dispersion. God must take action to assure that this misdirected unity will not achieve its stated goal (see 11:5-7). Therefore, God causes the 'mixing of languages' - so that each nation will follow its own direction, unable to unify - until they will find a common goal worthy of that unity. AVRAHAM IS CHOSEN FOR A PURPOSE Our analysis thus far can help us identify the thematic significance of the story of Migdal Bavel within the progression of events in Sefer Breishit - for the very next story is God's choice of Avraham Avinu to become His special nation! In a manner similar to the earlier stories in Chumash, the story of God choosing Avraham Avinu is first introduced, and not by chance, by tracing his genealogy back ten generations - so that it will begin with Shem - the son of Noach! The thematic connection to "shem" becomes obvious. >From this perspective, the story of Migdal Bavel should not be viewed as just another event that took place - so that we know how and when the development of language began. Rather, this story 'sets the stage' for God's choice of Avraham Avinu, for it will become the destiny of Avraham, the primary descendent of toldot Shem, to bring God's Name back into the history of civilization; to 'fix' the error of civilization at Migdal Bavel! Therefore, it should come as no surprise to us that upon his arrival in Eretz Canaan, the Torah informs us of how Avraham Avinu ascends to Bet-El and builds a mizbeiach where he 'calls out in God's Name': "And Avraham came to the Land, to Shechem... and God spoke to him saying: 'To your offspring I have given this Land'... and Avraham traveled from there towards the mountain range to the east of Bet-el... and he built there an altar - and CALLED OUT IN THE NAME OF GOD" [See 12:8 (and Ramban), compare 4:26). Similarly, it should not surprise us that when the prophet Isaiah describes the 'messianic age' (see Isaiah 2:1-5) - he speaks of unity of mankind: - when all nations will gather together once again, but this time to climb the mountain of God (not a valley) - arriving at the city of Jerusalem - to its special tower - i.e. the Bet ha-Mikdash - 'the place that God has chosen for His Name to dwell there' [see Devarim 12:5-12] - thus rectifying the events that took place at Migdal Bavel. And when the prophet Tzefania describes ultimate redemption, we find once again an allusion to Migdal Bavel: 'ki az ehpoch el amim safa brura, likro chulam be-shem Hashem le-ovdo shchem echad'. (see 3:9) In our shiur on Parshat Lech Lecha we will continue this discussion, as we will discuss in greater detail the purpose for God's choice of Avraham Avinu. Till then, shabbat shalom menachem ============================= FOR FURTHER IYUN A. In light of our discussion, we can better appreciate a puzzling statement made by Ben Azai: "Zeh sefer toldot ha-adam... It is taught - R. Akiva says, 've-ahavta le-rei'acha kamocha' - love your neighbor as yourself - klal gadol ba-Torah - This is a great principle of the Torah. Ben Azai says, 'zeh sefer toldot ha-adam' (5:1) - klal gadol mi-zeh - is an even greater principle. (Yerushalmi Nedarim 9:4). How could one suggest that the very technical list of the genealogies from Adam to Noach found in Breishit 5:1 32 constitutes even a principle, let alone one more important than the famous dictum that one should love his neighbor as himself!? One could suggest that Ben Azai's statement is not referring specifically to the genealogies, but rather to the overall structure of Sefer Breishit as formed by the toladot, and thus its theme. Although it is very important to 'love thy neighbor', the theme of Sefer Breishit - that Am Yisrael must lead all mankind to a theocentric existence - is an even greater tenet of our faith. B. What other parallels (or contrasting parallels) can you find between Yeshayahu 2:1-6 and the story of Migdal Bavel? [Be sure to relate to 'bik'a' and 'har' as well!] C. See Tzfania 3:8-9 and its context, especially 'ki az ehpoch el amim safa brura, likro chulam be-shem Hashem le-ovdo shchem echad'. How does this relate to our explanation of Migdal Bavel!? Now, see Seforno in his introduction to Sefer Breishit. Note how he explains the progression of events from the Mabul until God's choice of Avraham Avinu! Does it become clear how the Seforno understood this pasuk in Tzfania!! [Be sure to find where he 'quotes' it.] D. Am Yisrael is later commanded in Sefer Dvarim to establish the mikdash 'ba-makom asher yivchar Hashem leshachein shmo sham'! (Dvarim 12:5,11). Relate this to the above. See also Shmuel II 7:22 27 and Melachim I 8:42-44). E. The suggested thematic connection between Migdal Bavel and the bechira of Avraham Avinu is supported by the Midrash that states that Avraham was 48 years old when he recognized God for the first time. Avraham Avinu reached age 48 on the same year that Peleg died (see Rashi on 10:25), which according to Chazal corresponds to the precise year of Migdal Bavel - 1996 to briyat ha-olam. Recall that Avraham was born in year 1948! F. In case you 'can't wait' until next week, some preparation for next week's shiur on Avraham Avinu & shem Hashem. Note that when Avraham Avinu first arrives in Eretz Yisrael, he builds a mizbeiach at Bet El and calls out be-shem Hashem (12:8). After his sojourn in Egypt due to the famine, Avraham returns to this mizbeiach at Bet El and once again calls out be-shem Hashem! (13:4 / see also 21:33). After reading this entire section (12:1-13:4) carefully, try to explain why Bet-El is the focal point of Avraham's aliya. Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: noach1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 57429 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: noach1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 98304 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Oct 19 15:28:41 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:28:41 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Noach - additional shiurim Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: noach2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 35578 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: noach2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 53760 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Tue Oct 24 16:47:46 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 16:47:46 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Lech Lcha - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: lechq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 30564 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: lechq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 56915 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 14:09:28 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 14:09:28 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Lech Lcha Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: lech1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 33456 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: lech1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 48830 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 14:10:42 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 14:10:42 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Lech Lcha - Part Two Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* PARSHAT LECH L'CHA -Part Two How many times must God repeat the SAME promise to Avraham Avinu? In Parshat Lech L'cha alone, God tells Avraham FOUR times that his offspring ("zera") will become a nation in a special land ("aretz")! Would not have one divine promise been sufficient? In the following shiur, we attempt to explain the reason for each of these promises and their relation to the events that transpire in the interim. INTRODUCTION To clarify our opening question, the following table charts the progression of events in Parshat Lech L'cha by providing a short title for each of its seven 'parshiot', while noting in brackets where that 'parshia' includes a "hitgalut" [revelation] to Avraham in regard to the future of his offspring. PARSHIA TOPIC 12:1-9 Avraham's "aliyah" to Eretz Canaan [*12:1-3,7] 12:10-13:18 Lot leaving Avraham [*13:14-17] 14:1-24 Avraham's victory in the war between the kings 15:1-20 Brit Bein ha'Btarim [*15:13-19] 16:1-16 The birth of Yishmael 17:1-14 Brit Milah [*17:7-8] 17:15-27 The promise of the birth of Yitzchak [*17:19] As you review this chart, read those psukim (quoted in the brackets) - noting how often God promises Avraham Avinu that his "zera" (offspring) will inherit the "aretz" (land). In our shiur, we attempt to explain how and why each "hitgalut" is unique, and how it relates to the events that transpire in Parshat Lech L'cha. THE FIRST HITGALUT - BECOMING GOD'S NATION The opening "hitgalut" is the simplest to understand, for in this initial encounter, God must first explain to Avraham the primary purpose for why he has been chosen: "I will make you a GREAT NATION... and through you all the Nations of the world will be blessed..." (see 12:1-3) As we explained in earlier shiurim, God initiates this special relationship with Avraham Avinu to become the 'forefather' of a 'model nation' that will direct mankind toward a more Theo-centric existence. This backdrop explains God's next "hitgalut" to Avraham (in that very same 'parshia') upon his arrival in that land: "To your ZERA [offspring] I shall give this ARETZ [land]" (see 12:7) To develop from an 'individual' into a 'nation', it will be necessary for: Avraham's family will need to multiply - hence the blessing of "ZERA"; A territory is necessary to establish this nation - hence the promise of "ARETZ". Pay careful attention to these two key words: "zera" & "aretz", for they will be repeated quite often in Sefer Breishit, especially when God speaks to the forefathers in regard to the future of their offspring. Theoretically speaking, these two promises could have sufficed. After all, once Avraham had arrived in the land, he simply needs to give birth to many children, settle the land, and establish this special nation. And if Chumash was a 'fairy tale', that may have been a most likely scenario. However, in Chumash, this "bechira" [choosing] process - to become God's special nation - will unfold instead in a rather complex manner. To appreciate that process, we must now consider the thematic significance of each additional "hitgalut" to Avraham Avinu. THE FIRST 'SPLIT' The next 'parshia' (12:9-13:18) describes Avraham's journey to Egypt and upon his return - his quarrel with Lot. Let's examine the next "hitgalut" which takes place immediately after Lot left Avraham: "And God spoke to Avram after Lot had left him: Lift up your eyes from this place and see... for this entire ARETZ that you see I am giving to you and your ZERA forever..." (see 13:14-18) This promise, although a bit more 'poetic' than the first, appears to be more or less a repeat of God's original promise of "zera v'aretz". To understand its purpose, we must consider what transpired in those events. Review 12:10 thru 13:18, noting how this unit discusses two totally different stories, even though they are both included in the same 'parshia': 1) Avraham's journey to Egypt and his subsequent return (12:10-13:4) 2) The quarrel between Lot and Avraham (13:5-18) Indeed, there is loose connection between these two stories, as it was their wealth (which they accumulated during their journey to Egypt /see 12:16-20) that sparked their quarrel (see 13:5-9). Nevertheless, it would have been more logical for each of these stories to form their own 'parshia', as reflected in the chapter division. However, the fact that the Torah records both of these stories in the same 'parshia' - suggests that a deeper thematic connection may exist between these two stories. Let's explore that possibility. LIKE NEPHEW LIKE SON Note once again the opening phrase (in 13:14) which introduces God's second promise: "And God spoke to Avram after Lot had left him..." This short introduction certainly points to a direct connection between Lot's departure and the need for this additional promise. One could suggest that God's promise comes to 'cheer up' Avraham Avinu after this tragic separation from his nephew Lot, whom he treated as his own son. Let's explain why. Recall that at this time, Avraham has no children of his own, while his nephew Lot has no father. For this reason, it seems as though Avraham had practically 'adopted' Lot, treating him like his own son. In fact, from the moment we meet Avraham in Parshat Noach, Lot faithfully follows Avraham everywhere. [See 11:27-31, 12:4-5, and 13:1-2,5! [Recall as well that Haran (Avraham's brother) left three children: Lot, Milka, and Yiskah / see 11:27-29. Nachor (Avraham's other brother) took care of Milka - by marrying her, while Avraham took care of Lot, by treating him like a son. This also explains why Chazal identify Sarah as Yiskah (see 20:12 & Rashi on 11:29).] As he had no children of his own, Avraham may have understood that God's promise of "zera" would be fulfilled through Lot! [See Radak 13:14!] Furthermore, even if God would one-day bless him with his own son, Avraham could still have hoped to include Lot as an integral member of his 'chosen' family. Therefore, Lot's decision to leave (see 13:9-13) could be considered as a personal tragedy for Avraham, and hence the necessity for God to reassure him that His promise of "zera" will still be fulfilled. With this in mind, let's consider a deeper connection between these two stories in this 'parshia', relating to a more fundamental theme of Sefer Breishit. LEAVING AVRAHAM OR LEAVING GOD? In Sefer Breishit, Lot is the first example of a family member who is 'rejected from Avraham's 'chosen' family. Many similar stories (such as the rejection of Yishmael & Esav) will follow. As this "dechiya" [rejection] process will become a pattern within the "behcira" [choosing[ process, we should expect that the Torah's description of these events (in the first section of this 'parshia') will at least allude to WHY Lot is rejected from the 'chosen family'. Even though both Avraham and Lot travel together to and from Egypt, the impact of that visit on each is profoundly different. Avraham, as reflected in the incident with Pharaoh and Sarah, saw corruption in Egypt. He returns to Eretz Canaan inspired with the resolve to preach against such corrupt behavior - to teach morality. Therefore, Avraham returns immediately to Bet-el, where he once again calls out in God's Name. [See Ramban 12:8 and Rambam Hilchot Avodah Zara I:2-3!] In contrast, Lot was impressed by the 'good life' in Egypt; not only by its wealth, but also by its climate - and especially its mighty river. Let's explain how we reach this conclusion. In an attempt to stop the quarrel between their herdsmen, Avraham had suggested a 'split' with Lot, i.e. one of them would travel to the right, the other to the left (see 13:7-9). Even though the words 'right' and 'left' are often understood as 'east' and 'west', Tirgum Unkelos explains that Avraham offered Lot to go either NORTH (left / see Breishit 14:15) or SOUTH (right, "ymin" as in Yemen/ see Devarim 3:27). Considering that they were standing in Bet-el (see 12:4), Avraham offered Lot to choose between the hills of YEHUDA (to the south / i.e. to the right) or SHOMRON (to the north, i.e. to the left), i.e. not a complete separation - only a far enough distance to avoid quarrels. Lot did not accept Avraham's offer. Instead, Lot opted to leave the mountain range of Eretz Canaan altogether, preferring the Jordan Valley "And Lot lifted his eyes and saw the entire JORDAN valley, for it had plenty of water... like the LAND OF EGYPT..." (see 13:10). Lot's logic was quite reasonable. The Jordan Valley had a river, and hence a constant supply of water - in contrast to the mountain range whose water supply was dependent on the rainfall However, Lot's choice carried spiritual ramifications as well. As Parshat Ekev explains: "For the land which you are coming to inherit [i.e. Eretz Canaan] is NOT like Eretz Mitzraim [which has the Nile River as a constant water supply]..., instead it is a land of hills and valleys - which needs RAIN for water. [Therefore] it is a land which God looks after..." (Devarim 11:10-12) Symbolically, Lot's choice reflects his preference for a different life-style. Avraham accepts the challenge of Eretz Canaan - a life dependent on MATAR (rain) and hence - dependent on God (see Devarim 11:13-16!). Lot prefers the 'easy-life' in Sdom. This understanding is reflected in the Midrash: "va'yisa Lot m'KEDEM" - Midrash Agada - "hi'si'ah atzmo m'KADMONO shel olam - Lot lifted himself AWAY from God, saying, I can no longer remain with Avraham - nor with his God." (quoted by Rashi on 13:11) [Sdom is really to the east, therefore the pasuk should say "l'kedem" and not "m'kedem". The Midrash picks up on this to show its deeper meaning. See also the use of "m'kedem" to show a direction away from God, as in 3:24 (leaving Gan Eden), 4:16 and 11:2.] Lot's total divorce from Avraham is indeed tragic for he has lost not only a 'son' but also a disciple. Therefore, God must now not only console Avraham, but also reassure him that despite Lot's departure (13:14/ "acharei hi'pared Lot") His promise of "zera v'aretz" remains. Indeed, Avraham will yet have a child - a son who will follow in his footsteps as well. BRIT BEIN HA'BTARIM - THE FIRST COVENANT The next time God speaks to Avraham is in chapter 15 - better known as "brit bein ha'btarim". There again, God promises "zera v'aretz" (see 15:18), however in this promise, for the first time, we find the framework of a "brit" - a covenant. To appreciate the significance of this covenant and its 'dialogue', we must take note of the events that precede it in chapter 14. The battle of the four kings against the five kings in chapter 14 constitutes Avraham's first military victory in Land. Yet, it is this military victory that leads us directly into the topic of "brit bein ha'btraim". Note how chapter 15 opens as a direct continuation of that victory: "achar ha'dvarim ha'eyleh - After THESE events, God spoke to Avram in a vision saying: Do not fearful... I will shield you, your reward is very great..." (see 15:1-2) Now there are numerous opinions among the commentators explaining why Avraham was fearful (which are not mutually exclusive). However, there is one point that Avraham raises over and over again in his ensuing conversation that definitely relates to his military conquest, as well as his lack of a son: "...Since you have given me no offspring - v'hinei ben beiti YORASH oti - behold my house servant [i.e. Eliezer] he will be my heir..." (see 15:3) Avraham becomes upset as he realizes that without a son, everything that he has just acquired in this battle will be taken over by his servant Eliezer. Considering that to become a nation, his offspring would sooner or later have to secure military conquest of the land (what we call 'sovereignty'). Avraham's military victory at this time could have achieved this goal. But realizing that he has no children of his own at this time, Avraham gave everything away (see 14:16-24). Hence, this military victory only heightened Avraham's awareness that God's promises remained unfulfilled. For a very good reason, Avraham is now worried that maybe he is no longer worthy of God's original promise. (see Rashi 15:1) To support this interpretation, let's note the Torah's use of the verb "yorash" [which is usually understood simply as to 'inherit'] in the above pasuk, and in the psukim that follow: "And God answered: That one [Eliezer] will not YO'RASH you, rather your very own son (yet to be born) - he will YO'RASH you... & then He said to him: I am the Lord who brought you out of Ur Kasdim to give you this land l'RISHTAH... Then Avraham asked - b'mah ay'dah ki i'RASHENAH..." (15:4-8) There is no doubt that "yerusha" is a key word in this conversation, but what does it mean? Throughout Chumash, "YERUSHA" usually implies some sort of conquest (usually military, as in securing sovereignty over land). For example, in Parshat Masei God commandment for Bnei Yisrael to conquer the land is worded as follows: "v'HORSHTEM et ha'ARETZ... - You shall conquer the land and live in it, for I have given you the land - L'RESHET otah.. (see Bamidbar 33:50-53, see also Breishit 22:17! [Note as well the word "morasha" in this context in Shmot 6:5-8. Note also the special context of "morasha" in Devarim 33:4 - implying that Torah also requires a certain type of 'conquest' / see Maharam.] This background can help us understand the ensuing conversation between God and Avraham. First of all, God calms Avraham, promising him once again that the time will come and indeed he will have "zera" - as numerous as the stars in the heavens - that they will one day YORESH (conquer) the land (see 15:4-5). And indeed, Avraham is assured by this promise (see 15:6 "v'he'emin b'Hashem"). Then, God initiates yet another conversation with the powerful statement of: "I am the God who took you out of Ur Kaskim, to give you this land L'RISHTA - to inherit by conquest!" (see 15:7) [Note similarity to Shmot 20:2 (first line of the Dibrot).] In reaction, Avraham asks a rather puzzling question: "b'mah aydah ki i'RASHENAH"! (see 15:8), which includes once again the word "yerusha"! What is the meaning of this question? It would not make sense that Avraham is asking for divine proof of God's promise of "zera"? First of all, the previous pasuk just stated that Avraham believed in God's promise (see 15:6). Furthermore, God does not answer this question with a proof! So what is Avraham's question? To answer this, we must 'cheat' a little by looking at God's answer. Recall once again Avraham's question is: "b'mah aydah ki i'RASHENAH" in response to God's promise that He has taken him out of Ur Kasdim in order that he YORASH the land (see 15:7-8). God's response to this question begins by instructing Avraham to perform a certain ceremony (see 15:9-12), however the actual answer to Avraham's question doesn't begin until 15:13. To understand why, carefully how God's statement of "y'DOAH TAYDAH..." in 15:13 - forms a direct response to Avraham's question of "b'MAH AYDAH..." in 15:8! [The ceremony in 15:9-12 forms the preparation for the covenant that will be defined in 15:18.] NOT IN YOUR LIFTETIME! God's answer to Avraham's question continues from 15:13 thru 15:16. Note how it describes WHEN and HOW the YERUSHA of the Land will ultimately take place: "Surely you should KNOW that your offspring will be strangers in a foreign land, where they will be afflicted and enslaved; four hundred years. But that nation that will enslave will [ultimately] be punished - afterward they [your offspring] will leave [that land] with great wealth. But you [Avraham] will die in peace... [i.e. before this difficult process begins]; only the fourth generation will return here [to inherit/ conquer this land] - for the sin of Emorites will not be complete until that time." (see 15:13-16) To Avraham's total surprise, God's promise of "yerusha" (see 15:7) - sovereignty over the land, and the establishment of a nation - won't take place in his own lifetime, or in his son's lifetime! Instead, before his offspring will attain YERUSHA of the land, they must first undergo some 'basic training' in someone else's land - a process that will include slavery and affliction in 'a foreign land'. Only after some four hundred years will they attain this YERUSHA. [This 'news' comes as such a 'shock' to Avraham Avinu that Avraham must be first 'sedated' - see 15:12 & 15:17!] In answer to Avraham's question of "b'mah eydah" - God informs Avraham that in essence, he is only on a 'pilot trip' to Israel. It may be symbolic that he himself just conquered the land, and that he himself had already made God's Name known by calling out in His Name - for these events foreshadow what his offspring will do (as a nation) in the future ("maase Avot, siman l'banim"). However, the ultimate fulfillment of God's original promise that Avraham will establish great sovereign nation will only be fulfilled after many generations of important preparation. Hence, Avraham's question of "b'mah aydah ki i'RASHENAH" is a request to know WHEN (and possibly HOW) this YERUSHA will ultimately take place. [Recall that the Hebrew word "ki" can also mean 'when'.] A PROOF FROM VA'EYRA To prove that this is God's answer to Avraham's question, we simply need to read the famous psukim in Parshat Va'eyra (see Shmot 6:2-8), when God informs Moshe that the time has come to fulfill this covenant: "And I have heard the cries of bondage of Bnei Yisrael... and I have remembered my COVENANT [i.e. "brit bein ha'btarim"], therefore, tell Bnei Yisrael I am God, and I will take you out of your suffering in Egypt... [the 'four cups' psukim] and I will bring you to the land THAT I lifted up My hand to give to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, and I will then give it to you as a MORASHA [= "yerusha"]!" (see Shmot 6:5-8) Only after the Exodus, will God give the land to Bnei Yisrael as a MORASHA, as He promised to Avraham Avinu at brit bein ha'btarim. The implications of this promise are so far reaching that they require an official covenant between God and Avraham, as described in final psukim of this 'parshia', i.e. in 15:18-20. This explains not only the thematic connection between chapters 14 and 15, but also the necessity of this additional promise of "zera v'aretz" in the form of a covenant. Brit bein ha'btraim includes not only the promise of becoming a nation, but also explains the long historical process of how Avraham's offspring will one day become that nation. LAND - FOR A PURPOSE This order of events that unfolds in Brit bein ha'btarim, explaining HOW Bnei Yisrael will become a nation, is quite significant for it highlights the special nature of our relationship with the land. The histories of all other nations of the world begin in a very different manner. Usually a nation begins when a group of people living in a common land sharing common resources and needs join together for the sake of common interest and form a nation. In other words, FIRST we have people living on a common land, and then those people become a nation. In contrast, Am Yisrael becomes a nation in a very different manner. We don't begin with a common land, rather we begin with a common goal (or destiny), i.e. to become God's model nation. In fact, the Torah emphasizes that we will become a nation in "land that is not ours" [see 15:13). Technically speaking, our initial bonding is caused by a common plight and suffering in a FOREIGN land. Only AFTER we become a nation, and only after we receive the Torah at Har Sinai (the laws that teach us how we are to achieve our goal), only then do we conquer the Land that God has designated for us. In other words, we are not a nation because we have a common land, rather we are a nation because we share a common goal and destiny. The land serves as a vehicle to help our nation achieve that goal. [See first Rashi on Chumash, and read it carefully, noting how he explains a very similar theme.] THE BIRTH OF YISHMAEL The next 'parshia' in Parshat Lech L'cha describes the events that lead to the birth of Yishmael (see 16:1-16). God promises that he too will become a mighty nation, but a rather wild one (see 16:12). For some divine reason, God's intention is that Avraham's only chosen will be born to Sarah, but only after her lifelong struggle with barrenness. However, before Avram and Sarai can give birth to this special child, God must change their names to AvraHam and SarAH and enter into yet another covenant - better known as "brit milah". BRIT MILAH The next 'parshia', describing the covenant of BRIT MILAH (see 17:1-11), contains the fourth and final promise of "zera v'aretz" in Parshat Lech L'cha. As this brit includes the very FIRST MITZVA that Avraham must keep and pass on to his children, its details are very important. In fact they are so important that their thematic significance has already been discussed in three earlier shiurim. 1) The significance of "brit milah" on the 'eighth day' was discussed at length in our shiur for Shmini Atzeret (sent out a few weeks ago/ see TSC archive for Parshat Tazria). 2) The thematic connection between "brit milah" and "brit bein ha'btarim" was discussed in our shiur for Chag ha'MATZOT and on Parshat Bo and on MAGID. 3) The meaning the borders of the Land of Israel as detailed in "brit milah" (and "brit bein ha'btarim") was discussed in our shiur on Parshat Masei (see archive). Therefore, we will not discuss "brit milah" in detail in this week's shiur. Instead, we simply note how this "brit" serves as the introduction to the birth of Yitzchak, and the prerequisite for his conception. The final 'parshia' in Parshat Lech L'cha (see 17:15-27) details how Avraham fulfills this commandment. Yet, at the same time, God informs him that the "bechira" process will continue ONLY thru Yitzchak, who will soon be born (see 17:15-21); and NOT with Yishmael, even though he also fulfilled the mitzva of "brit milah" (see 17:20-24). [Be sure to note the textual parallel between 17:7-8,19 and God's covenant with Noach in 6:18 and 9:8-17; "v'akmal".] We have shown how God's original choice of Avraham Avinu was not in REWARD for his merits, but rather IN ORDER that he fulfill God's mission - to become His nation. As this mission is eternal, so too is God's choice of the Jewish Nation. As we concluded in our first shiur on Parshat Lech L'cha, we find once again a Biblical theme that stresses our need to focus more so on our RESPONSIBILITY to act as God's special nation, and less so on those PRIVILEGES that it includes. shabbat shalom, menachem ============= FOR FURTHER IYUN A. Note Yeshayahu 42:5-6 and its context. Relate this pasuk to our shiurim thus far on Sefer Breishit. [Note that this is the opening pasuk of the Haftara for Parshat Breishit (& not by chance!).] Compare with Devarim 4:5-8. Explain what Yeshayahu refers to when he mentions "brit am" and "or goyim". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: lech2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 42331 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: lech2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 119251 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon Oct 30 17:03:00 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 17:03:00 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Vayera - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 22:15 19). 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 19:30 38, 22:20 24.) Why do you think these stories are an integral part of Sefer Breishit? [Relate to 11:26 32, 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 22:20 24, 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayeraq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 34986 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayeraq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 55296 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Nov 1 04:17:47 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 04:17:47 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] Parshat Va'yera - shiur Message-ID: *E-?l na refa na lo: ?Praying ?for a complete and speedy recovery for ?Meechael Yaacov ben Chava Dvora (Chaplain Michael Bloom) and all those who are ill. Akiva and Shanen Werber and family * *?-? ?? ??? ?? ??: ??????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ????? (????? ????) ???? ???? ?????. * * ???? ?????? ???? ??????? * *************************************************************** * 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 18:17 19)* * 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 (13:1 18) 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" (14:22 23).* * 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:* * "va yikav le mishpat ve hiney 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 22:1 5).* * [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, 16 17, 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 u mishpat - 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayera1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 52863 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayera1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 97991 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 05:21:16 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 05:21:16 -0400 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Va'yera - additional shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayera2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 35756 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayera2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 51712 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Nov 8 13:33:47 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 13:33:47 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] Chaya sara - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: chayaq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 26959 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: chayaq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 22337 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Nov 9 08:26:35 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 08:26:35 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Chaya Sarah - shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: chaya1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 40644 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: chaya1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 60872 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Nov 9 08:27:30 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 08:27:30 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Chaya Sarah - additoinal shiurim Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: chaya2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 46222 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: chaya2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 48342 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Nov 16 02:37:20 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 02:37:20 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] Toldot - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: toldotq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 49665 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: toldotq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 54272 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Nov 16 14:37:09 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:37:09 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Toldot Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: toldot1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 115542 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: toldot1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 440832 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bechiraBrachaHebrew.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 294559 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Nov 16 15:14:03 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 15:14:03 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Toldot - additional shiur Message-ID: ?************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: toldot2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 38177 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: toldot2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 57856 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Nov 16 15:15:07 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 15:15:07 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] Toldot - What Mitzvot did the Avot keep? Message-ID: ************************************************************* THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag ************************************************************* PARSHAT TOLDOT - shiur #3 - 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: toldot3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 23767 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: toldot3.doc Type: application/msword Size: 35840 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Tue Nov 21 07:44:00 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 07:44:00 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Vayetze - questions for self study Message-ID: ?************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayetzq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 29848 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayetzq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 41984 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Nov 23 08:20:46 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 08:20:46 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Vayetze - shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayetze1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 60333 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayetze1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 77824 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: YakkovNederEng.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 110336 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Nov 29 04:33:14 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 04:33:14 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] Vayishlach - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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? Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayishq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 29573 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayishq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 41472 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 05:13:50 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 05:13:50 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Vayishlach - shiur #1 Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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. Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayish1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 53408 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayish1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 40448 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Nov 30 05:15:25 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 05:15:25 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Vayishlach - shiur #2 Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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? Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayish2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 40425 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayish2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 44032 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 11:56:34 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 11:56:34 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] Vayeshev - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 37:5 10) to Yitzchak's blessing of Yaakov (s/b Esav) in 27:28 29. 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 28 29). 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 25:1 4] (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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayeshq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 37309 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayeshq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 42988 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 03:25:55 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 03:25:55 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] Vayeshev - shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 09:27:01 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 09:27:01 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Vayeshev -in word & pdf Message-ID: attached -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayesh1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 74752 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayesh1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 58636 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Mon Dec 11 04:58:04 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:58:04 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] Miketz - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************************* 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 41:38 39! [Note also how Yosef names his children - 41:51 52.] 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 37:5 10, and compare them to Yitzchak's blessing of Yaakov [intended for Esav] in 27:28 29. 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 42:8 10). 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 42:5 8, 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: miketzq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 32937 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: miketzq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 44544 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 08:30:38 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 08:30:38 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Chanuka Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 1:1 8.] 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 Ha mikdash (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 23:7 8). 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 29:10 14). 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 1:1 6). 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 3:2 6). Attempts to begin construction of the new Temple were thwarted by the local non Jewish population (see Ezra 4:1 5). 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 Ha mikdash had been built only after a monarchy had been firmly established and Israel had achieved economic prosperity (see Shmuel II 7:12 13, Melachim I 5:5, 5:16 19, 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 1:8 9, 2:7, 2:15 19). 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..." (2:21 23). 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 2:14 16) 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 Ha Levi, in Sefer Ha Kuzari 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 Ha Makkabim 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, 'le hach'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 Ha Makkabim (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 Ha Makkabim 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 Ha Makkabim, 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 Ha mikdash. 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 be chayil ve lo be koach ki im be ruchi." 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: chanuka1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 61216 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: chanuka1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 72284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 03:36:56 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 03:36:56 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Miketz Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: miketz1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 45956 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: miketz1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 66048 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Tue Dec 19 12:21:42 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:21:42 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] Vayigash - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayigq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 32507 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayigq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 45568 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Dec 21 06:55:17 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 06:55:17 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Vayigash -shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayig1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 65347 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vayig1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 66483 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Tue Dec 26 15:35:36 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 15:35:36 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] Vayachi - questions for self study Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vaychiq.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 31215 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vaychiq.doc Type: application/msword Size: 27503 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Wed Dec 27 11:49:36 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 11:49:36 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Vaychi Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vaychi1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 48003 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vaychi1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 53760 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mleibtag at gmail.com Thu Dec 28 01:52:17 2017 From: mleibtag at gmail.com (Menachem Leibtag) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2017 01:52:17 -0500 Subject: [Par-reg] For Parshat Vaychi - shiur Message-ID: ************************************************************* 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vaychi1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 48003 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vaychi1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 53760 bytes Desc: not available URL: