April 11, 2006

שבת הגדול - The great promise

Unlike the other four special shabbosos leading up to Pesach, Shabbos HaGadol has no special maftir reading. Rather, there is only a special haftarah. The haftarah comes from the very end of Trei Asar, essentially the very end of the Navi portion of Tanach. It is quite difficult to find a direct connection between the haftarah and the theme of the day. The most clear correlation is the reference to the ultimate redemption and the sending of Eliyah(u) HaNavi as it relates to the great redemption of Pesach. But what of the rest of the haftarah?

There is a section of the haftarah that does bear a remote, yet interesting connection to Shabbos HaGadol. HaShem chastises B'nei Yisroel for their failure to properly fulfill the mitzvos of ma'aser and terumah. HaShem then makes a promise, (Malachi 3:10) "and challenge me with this (terumah and ma'aser), if I will not open for you the windows of the Heavens and bestow upon you never-ending blessing." Usually, we are expected to do mitzvos unconditionally and not to expect any specific reward in return. However, here we are told that we may in fact "test" HaShem with the mitzvos of terumah and ma'aser, that we will receive subsequent reward.

Although this is quite unique, there is another instance of immediate and direct reward in the Torah. Our answer to both the rasha and the eino yodei'a lish'ol reference the pasuk, (Shemos 13:8) "Ba'avur ZEH asah HaShem li betzeisi miMitzrayim," in return for this, the mitzvah of Korban Pesach, HaShem led us out of Mitzrayim. The Korban Pesach were a merit for B'nei Yisroel to be redeemed. Indeed, we rebuke the rasha by asserting that his contemptuous attitude toward the Korban Pesach would have excluded him from the redemption.

Perhaps this may be another interpretation of the term Shabbos HaGadol, referring not only to the great redemption, but to the great promise that the proper execution of the mitzvah of Korban Pesach will lead to the exodus, a comparable promise to that found in this week's special haftarah.

Pesach is a time to reaffirm our emunah. Telling over the story of Yetzias Mitzrayim is quite possibly the most efficient way to reming ourselves that HaShem is running the world. Understanding the unequivocal promise spoken about in the haftarah is a perfect way to prepare ourselves for this task.

שבת שלום

חג כשר ושמח

Shtikle | By Shtikler | 10:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 07, 2006

פרשת צו - Saving from embarassment

In this week's parsha, a number of the different types of sacrifices are discussed. With regard to the chatas offering, it is written (6:18) "In the place where the olah is slaughtered, the chatas shall be slaughtered in front of HaShem. It is Holy of Holies." A similar description is given of the asham sacrifice. "It is Holy of Holies. In the place where you slaughter the olah you shall slaughter the asham..." The obvious discrepancy between the two is that the order is switched around.

Meshech Chachmah addresses this disparity citing a gemara (Sotah 32b) which teaches "R' Yochanan said in the name of R' Shimon ben Yochai: Why was prayer decreed to be said quietly? In order not to embarrass the transgressor (who prays for forgiveness for his sins) for the Torah did not designate different areas for the slaughter of the olah and the chatas." A lesson is learned from the fact that the Torah specifically designated the identical place of slaughter for the olah and chatas (north of the altar). The chatas is brought for the inadvertent transgression of a prohibitive commandment. The olah is brought for improper thoughts of transgression which is considered less embarrassing than having actually transgressed, albeit inadvertently. One who brings a chatas offering is saved embarrassment as the onlooker cannot differentiate between a chatas and an olah for they are slaughtered in the same place.

It appears that this expression of mercy applies also to the asham which is brought for specific actual transgressions. However, writes Meshech Chachmah, the pasuk gives this lesson ultimate priority when describing the chatas by enumerating it as the first criterion for the offering because it is brought for an unintentional misdeed. Since the asham is brought for deliberate offenses, this lesson is not prioritized to the same degree and therefore, the first characteristic of the asham is that it is Holy of Holies.

What remains puzzling, is why the gemara used the chatas as the example for this lesson. Since the asham is, in fact, also slaughtered in the same place, the expression of mercy is prevalent there as well. It seemingly would have been an even stronger lesson had the gemara used the asham as the example.

שבת שלום

Shtikle | By Shtikler | 10:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 24, 2006

פרשת ויקהל - פקודי - Moshe's Presence

In the beginning of parshas Vayakheil Moshe begins to instruct the nation on how they are to proceed with the building of the Mishkan. At the conclusion of Moshe's assembly, the pasuk (ל"ה:כ) recounts וַיֵּצְאוּ כָּל-עֲדַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִלִּפְנֵי משֶׁה ת that the congregation of B'nei Yisroel exited from the presence of Moshe Rabbeinu. R' Lopian, in לב אליהו, comments that it would have been sufficient for the pasuk to say that בני ישראל exited. We knew where they were. Why is it necessary for the pasuk to say that they exited from Moshe's presence?
Imagine a street in a city that contained both a bar and a library. If you were to see a man walking crooked down the street, barely able to stand on his own two feet, explains R' Lopian, you need only take one look at him and you know exactly from which of the two he has just emerged. Likewise, the pasuk here is telling us that when בני ישראל left Moshe's presence, they were fundamentally changed people. They were not simply בני ישראל. They were a nation who had just left the presence of their great leader, Moshe Rabbeinu. Merely being in his midst left its mark on them.
שבת שלום
משנכנס אדר מרבים בשמחה

Shtikle | By Shtikler | 02:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 17, 2006

פרשת כי תשא - Going for gold

When Moshe returns to HaShem to begin his defence of B'nei Yisroel, he opens by stating (32:31) "The nation has sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves a god of gold." Rashi, quoting the gemara (Berachos 32a, Yoma 86:) writes that Moshe's intention with this opening argument was, in fact, to place the blame on HaShem, so to speak, for having showered so much gold upon B'nei Yisroel. Rashi adds a parable that illustrates Moshe's argument. It is assumed that Moshe is referring to the loot that B'nei Yisroel were commanded to collect before leaving Egypt. However, asks my father, Rashi writes (15:22) that the spoils collected at Yam Suf when they Egyptian soldiers were washed onto the shore along with their horses and chariots was far greater than that which was collected before B'nei Yisroel left Egypt. If so, Moshe's point is no longer valid. HaShem may have commanded B'nei Yisroel to collect the gold from the Egyptians in Egypt. But they were never commanded to loot the soldiers after they were washed on the shore of Yam Suf. How, then, can Moshe claim that HaShem was solely responsible for their wealth?

I believe the answer lies in the GR"A's understanding of the two episodes which I will summarize briefly. The gemara (Berachos 9a) relates that HaShem asked in the form of a request that B'nei Yisroel collect the silver and gold from the Egyptians. This was done in order to appease Avraham Avinu, so that he does not claim that the promise that his descendants would be subjugated was kept but the promise that they leave with a large bounty was not.

The GR"A asks that if this was in fact the proper fulfilment of the promise to Avraham, why was it done to "appease" him so that he does not raise a complaint? Avraham Avinu's reaction should not be the issue. It should be a matter of whether or not it is time to fulfill the promise. He answers that in truth, the exodus from Egypt was only ultimately complete at Yam Suf where the Egyptians truly got their deserved punishment for subjugating B'nei Yisroel. It was only then that HaShem's promise to Avraham that his descendants shall leave with a great bounty needed to be fulfilled. However, in case Avraham mistakenly viewed the leaving of Egypt as the ultimate redemption, HaShem had B'nei Yisroel collect a great bounty there before leaving to avoid any possible objections from Avraham.

According to this, although B'nei Yisroel were never commanded to collect the adornments from the horses of the Egyptians at Yam Suf, this too was part the fulfilment of the promise that HaShem made to Avraham Avinu 400 years prior. Therefore, Moshe Rabbeinu's defence was still valid.

שבת שלום

Shtikle | By Shtikler | 04:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 13, 2006

פורים

Click here for more on פורים from previous years.

Miscellaneous | By Shtikler | 05:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

פורים - Giving and Receiving

In general, the מצוות that accompany other festivals bear a logical connection to the festival itself. It is not difficult to understand why we light candles on חנוכה, why we eat matzah on פסח or cheesecake on שבועות. However, משלוח מנות and מתבות לאביונים do not fit that mold. The direct connection to the events of פורים is unclear at best. I believe that as פורים is a celebration of Jewish survival in the face of complete extermination, these מצוות were instituted as a symbol of what keeps us together and therefore a necessary component of our survival. We must recognize the importance of the bond we have with our fellow Jew and פורים, when we all almost didn't make it, is the time to do that. Indeed, this is only example of a "mitzvah of the day" being of "בין אדם לחבירו" nature.
There is an interesting contrast between these two מצוות. The gifts to the poor are referred to only as "מתנות לאביונים" However, משלוח מנות differ as the pasuk makes direct reference to the giver and the receiver, "איש לרעהו." This somewhat superfluous elaboration hints to the fundamental difference in the purpose behind these two מצוות. The purpose of משלוח מנות is to establish camaraderie between fellow Jews. It is more important to send to one's less friendly acquaintance than to one's good friend. It therefore does little toward that end if the receiver is not aware of the giver or vice versa. The pasuk therefore clearly mentions the giver and receiver, to stress this importance.
מתנות לאביונום is quite the opposite. There is a need for the poor to be properly sustained and it is the responsibility of the public to do what they can to sustain them. While it is certainly important for the giver to be aware of the great cause to which he is contributing and for the receiver to know that there are people who care, it is far less important that they are aware of each other's identity. A poor man is generally more emabarassed by direct donations and an anonymous donation is a far more noble deed as there is no recognition or acknowledgement involved. To emphasize this point, the pasuk describes this mitzvah simply as מתנות לאביונים.
We do not make a ברכה on the mitzvah of מתנות לאביונים. In fact, we never make a ברכה on the giving of צדקה. There are varios reasons given for this. However, the above thoughts lead me to another insight regarding the lack of ברכה. In performing חסד, it is all too easy to get caught up in selfish aspects of the deed. It is of utmost importance, yet sometimes challenging, to put complete focus on the needs of the receiver. Perhaps assigning a berachah to the mitzvah of tzedakah would dangerously put too much emphasis on the self. The lack of a ברכה allows us to forget about what this מצוה does for us and helps us focus on what it is we are supposed to be doing for others.
Have a happy and healthy פורים.

Shtikle | By Shtikler | 04:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)