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

Posted by Shtikler at 10:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

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

Posted by Shtikler at 10:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

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

Posted by Shtikler at 02:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

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

Posted by Shtikler at 04:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 13, 2006

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.

Posted by Shtikler at 04:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 10, 2006

פרשת זכור- Taking out the males

In the portion read for פרשת זכור we find the commandment "תִּמְחֶה אֶת-זֶכֶר עֲמָלֵק", wipe out the remembrance of עמלק. The גמרא בבא בתרא כ"א relates a rather bizarre incident where Yoav, David HaMelech's general was sent to destroy Amaleik. He returns, having wiped out all of the males. When he is confronted by David HaMelech as to why the others were allowed to live, he declares that he was taught "תִּמְחֶה אֶת-זָכָר עֲמָלֵק," wipe out the males of Amaleik. Needless to say, Yoav was not very happy when he found out he had been taught wrong.

It is indeed quite difficult to understand how the mesorah could be so skewed as to totally misunderstand and misrepresent this pasuk. I heard an interesting insight into this mistake but I have unfortunately forgotten the source. Yoav's rebbe never thought that the word was pronounced "זָכָר." However, many nouns in לְשון הַקודֶש undergo vowel changes when they are used in a possessive form, known as smichus. In fact, the previous sentence contained such an example. I believe the term לְשון הַקודֶש literally means "the language of the holy," rather than the holy language. Therefore, the word "לָשון" becomes "לְשון," indicating the possessive.

The word for smoke is "עָשָׁן" The vowelization of this word is the same as "זָכָר." However, when the Torah describes הר סיני and describes how its smoke rose like the smoke of a furnace, the term used (שמות י"ט:י"ח) is "עֶשֶׁן הַכִּבְשָׁן." Clearly, when the word "עָשָׁן" is used in the possessive, the קמצים are converted to סגולים. Yoav's rebbe read the pasuk "תִּמְחֶה אֶת-זֶכֶר עֲמָלֵק," and understood that זֶכֶר was the possessive form of זָכָר. He therefore mistakenly taught Yoav that the commandment is to wipe out only the males of עמלק.

שבת שלום
!משנכנס אדר מרבים בשמחה

Posted by Shtikler at 02:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 03, 2006

פרשת תרומה - Oil and Spice and everything nice

Last year, I posed the following question and received back a number of suggestions which I would like to share. Additionally, if anyone has any new suggestions, please send them or, even better, post them on the blog:

At the beginning of the parsha Moshe is told to collect numerous different materials for the purpose of building the Mishkan. He is told to collect gold, silver, copper and various other materials without any indication as to what they will be used for. Then he is told to collect oil for lighting, spices for the anointing oil and the Ketores and stones for the Eifod and Choshen. Why is the specific purpose listed for these materials but not for the others?

  1. The relative value of the metals and fabrics was known to be greater and thus their importance was easily understood. It was more difficult for the people to understand the importance of the oil and the spices. They therefore needed to be informed right away of the important tasks for which these items were needed. (This answer would not suffice for the stones, however.)
  2. This week's parsha deals at length with the construction of the Mishkon using the wood, the metals, and the skins. The oil, spices and stones are not dealt with more thoroughly until the next parsha. Since their purpose isn't discussed until later, it is mentioned briefly at the outset.
  3. The other materials were more readily available to B'nei Yisroel. The oil, spices and stones took greater toil to seek out. As in answer 1, they needed to be informed of the special purpose they would serve in order to motivate them to find the materials and bring them in.
Please comment on the above answers or offer your own.

שבת שלום
!משנכנס אדר מרבים בשמחה

Posted by Shtikler at 02:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 24, 2006

פרשת משפטים - To help or not to help

In this week's parsha, we are commanded to come to the aid of our fellow Jew whose donkey is crouching under his burden and needs help to load it on. The Torah chooses a rather interesting way of delivering this mitzvah. The pasuk reads simply (23:5) "If you shall see the donkey of someone you hate crouching beneath his burden and you refrain from aiding him, you surely aid him."

The first point to consider is that the Torah presents the case of a donkey belonging to one who is hated. We learn from here that if we are faced with two such situations, one involving a friend and one involving an enemy, the Torah commands us to help out the one whom you hate in order to suppress your instinctual inclinations and force a friendship to be made.

The second puzzling part of the pasuk is the seemingly gratuitous phrase "vechadalta mei'azov lo," and you will refrain from helping him. What does the Torah mean by this phrase? The gemara learns from here that there are times when you are in fact expected not to help out. For instance, if you are an elderly man and it is not respectful or if you are a kohein and the donkey is in a cemetery. However, this does not seem to fit in as the simple reading of the pasuk. Rashi writes that it is an rhetorical question, "should you refrain from helping him ?!" However, it is also difficult to understand the pasuk in this way.

R' Chaim Kunyevsky writes in Ta'ama D'kra that the reason for this phrase is connected to the aforementioned lesson learned from the pasuk. The Torah tells you to help out your enemy in order to break your hatred. This would therefore only apply if under normal circumstances you would not have helped him. Thus, the Torah says, when you see you enemy's donkey and, under normal circumstances you would have neglected to help him, then and only then do you help him before your friend. If you would have helped him anyway then there is no reason he should precede your friend.

שבת שלום

Posted by Shtikler at 02:17 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

February 17, 2006

פרשת יתרו - Stranger in a Strange Land

At the beginning of this week's parsha we are once again given the reason behind the naming of Gershom : "Ki ger hayisi b'eretz nochria", because I was a stranger in a strange land. Here the explanation of Eliezer's name is given as well, "Ki elokei avi b'ezri, vayatzileini micherev paroah", apparently referring to Moshe's escape from execution at the hands of Paroah. At first glance, these names seem to be out of order. The cause for the naming of Gershom seems to have been preceded by that of Eliezer. Moshe was a stranger in Midyan after he escaped from the hands of Paroah. My Rebbe from Eretz Yisroel, R' Yeshaya Greenwald suggests that perhaps there is a different explanation behind Gershom's name. In the years leading up to Gershom's birth, Moshe realized that although he seemed at home in Egypt as a prince and leading quite a good life, he was nevertheless a stranger in a strange land. So "Ki ger hayisi..." is in fact referring to Moshe's years in Mitzrayim rather than those in Midyan. This explanation is supported by the fact that Moshe says "Ki ger hayisi," in the past tense, even while he is still living in Midyan (2:22).

Another interesting point concerning the naming of Gershom and Eliezer: For Gershom it says "vesheim ha'echad Gershom". And than for Eliezer, "vesheim ha'echad Eliezer". One would have expected the use of ordinal numbers such as "Sheim Harishon... vesheim hasheni" in this case. Why are they both referred to as "ha'echad"? R' Greenwald suggests that the answer may lie in the Midrash on the pasuk (2:22) "Vayoel Moshe" which states that Moshe made a pact with his father-in-law to give his first son to Avodah Zarah (or some manifestation thereof.) Therefore, Gershom was the "ben ha'echad," the one son for Avoda Zarah and Eliezer was the "ben ha'echad" laShem.

Perhaps the answer to the second question could be used to answer the first. Since Moshe had this pact with Yisro, he didn't want to mention any specific praise of HaShem which would convey to Yisro that he had not kept to the deal. Therefore, Gershom was given a more generic, religion-less name while Moshe waited until his second child to mention the praise of HaShem for saving him from Paroah's sword but it indeed did come first.

שבת שלום

Posted by Shtikler at 11:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 10, 2006

פרשת בשלח - Bickering

The second to last of the many episodes that make up this week's parsha is the confrontation at מסה ומריבה. B'nei Yisroel quarrelled with Moshe saying, "Give us water so that we may drink!" Moshe counters "Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test HaShem?"

אבן עזרא explains that there were two distinct groups involved in this episode. The first group were truly in need of water and this led to their altercation with Moshe. However, there was another group that still had water which they brought Alush (their previous stop as per במדבר לג:יד). They wanted to challenge HaShem to see if He would provide water. To the first group, Moshe answered "Why do you quarrel with me?" To the second, he charged, "Why do you test HaShem?"

The site is therefore aptly named מסה ומריבה after the two separate aspects of the confrontation. However, notes אבן עזרא, the second group surely angered HaShem more than the first. Thus, in דברים ו:ט"ז we are warned "Do not challenge HaShem as you did at Masah." Merivah is not mentioned.

שבת שלום

Posted by Shtikler at 12:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 07, 2006

ספר שמות - Moses and the Bush, להבדיל

Moshe proclaims to השם:

כִּי כְבַד-פֶּה וּכְבַד לָשׁוֹן אָנכִי
(ד:י)

An overwhelming majority of the commentaries understand this to mean that Moshe had a speech impedement. There is a well-known approach of דרשות הר"ן as to why this was. He explains that the saviour of בני ישראל was to deliver them through the power of the word of God. Had the deliverance come from a smooth-talking, influential, powerul speaker (like Charlton Heston, perhaps - again - להבדיל) history would look back on the Exodus and attribute the efficiency and success of its execution in some way to the personal qualities of the saviour. Moshe's impedement made it perfectly clear that the only reason why an entire nation recognized him as their leader and marched out of Egypt with him was because he spoke the word of God.

One of the common observations of today's political climate in the United States is how polarized it is. The divide between the two parties seems to be rapidly widening idealogically and diplomatically. One of the common reasons given for this is that the President is so firm and steadfast in his beliefs that one is forced to either strongly agree with him or vehemently oppose him.

I am not coming to argue with this approach. But it recently occurred to me that perhaps the approach of the ר"ן can be used to explain this modern-day phenomenon. It is no secret that the President is not a very smooth public speaker. Previous presidents such as "The Great Communicator", Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton had the power to win people over with their charm, even if they did not particularly care for their politics. Thus their group of supporters would include individuals at all sorts of levels of agreement with their policies. President Bush is not so fortunate. He is often ridiculed for his verbal foul-ups and misspeaks. His delivery, with his Texan style, can be comic at times. However, for this reason, his followers are, for the most part, standing behind him for no other reason other than support for his policies and beliefs. The line between approval and disapproval are more clearly drawn than ever before and perhaps that is a large contributor to our hostile political environment.

Posted by Shtikler at 12:46 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

February 03, 2006

פרשת בא - The good, the bad, and the wonderful

Moshe tells בני ישראל,


וְהָיָה כִּי יאמְרוּ אֲלֵיכֶם בְּנֵיכֶם: מָה הָעֲבֹדָה הַזֹּאת, לָכֶם... וַיִּקֹּד הָעָם וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ

(יב:כו-כז)
רש"י quotes the מכילתא that they bowed in appreciation of three things: the forthcoming exodus, the eventual entrance into ארץ ישראל and the kids they were going to have. What is bothersome about this רש"י is that in the הגדה, we use this passage to refer to the wicked SON of the four sons. Why then were בני ישראל bowing in appreciation of being told of the wicked sons they were going to have?

What I think might be the simple 'פשט' answer is that there is indeed a מחלוקת in the מכילתא on the previous pasuk. One opinion is that IT is referring to the wicked son. This is obviously the opinion that is adopted in the הגדה. But there is another opinion that it is referring to sons in general. Perhaps רש"י is simply in concurrence with that second opinion.

ספר רש"י השלם quotes from the תוספות השלם that the designation of this passage as the one referring to the wicked son comes only in comparison to the other three passages. But this passage, standing alone, does not insinuate wicked children. So, being that the other three passages had not yet been told over, they had what to appreciate from this passage. This explanation teaches us a very special lesson in chinuch. Indeed, as we see in the הגדה, it is important to be aware of the outside influences to guard and protect our children from the negative influences and guide them along the proper path. However, when it comes to the appreciation we have of and for our children, it is not a time to be comparing to other children. Our children must be appreciated for who they are and we must show appreciation to השם for the gift of children regardless.

Posted by Shtikler at 02:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 30, 2006

פרשת וארא - Non-believers

I had an interesting observation on כופרים from this past week's parsha:

For מכת ברד, the pasuk recounts:

ט:כ הַיָּרֵא אֶת-דְּבַר יְהוָה, מֵעַבְדֵי פַּרְעה--הֵנִיס אֶת-עֲבָדָיו וְאֶת-מִקְנֵהוּ, אֶל-הַבָּתִּים

However, the next pasuk, dealing with those who did not listen, reads:
וַאֲשֶׁר לא-שָׂם לִבּוֹ, אֶל-דְּבַר יְהוָה--וַיַּעֲזב אֶת-עֲבָדָיו וְאֶת-מִקְנֵהוּ, בַּשָּׂדֶה

Note that it does not begin וַאֲשֶׁר לא יָּרֵא אֶת-דְּבַר ה. The God-fearing are referred to as those who fear the word of God. However, the ones who did not listen simply did not take the word of God to heart. The way I understand this, it is not that the warning had no effect on him whatsoever. Deep down, there was a fear of the forthcoming plague. However, as many בעלי מוסר often teach, someone who fails to see the proper way is not because the truth is not there for them to see but rather, something inside is influencing them and convincing them not to see it. Likewise, here, inside, everyone knew that this plague was coming just as the first six did. But those who were not belivers at heart were able to convince themselves and turn their heart from the word of השם.

Posted by Shtikler at 05:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 27, 2006

פרשת וארא - Make (some of) it stop!

In the plague of ברד, hail, HaShem brought down hail accompanied by קולות, thunder. The hail also seemed to include rain. However, points out מנחת יצחק, when Paroah demands that Moshe pray that the plague end (ט:כח) he asks him to pray that the thunder and the hail should cease, but he does not mention the rain. This is because, as Rashi has mentioned many times, Egypt did not receive rain and relied solely on the Nile for irrigation. Therefore, Paroah would have been more than happy for the rain to stay. They needed it. However, when Moshe davens to HaShem, the pasuk (לג) recounts that the thunder, the hail and the rain ceased. Thus, when Paroah saw this, as the next pasuk tells us, that he saw that the rain, the hail and the thunder had ceased (note how the order is switched from the previous pasuk), he hardened his heart for he saw that his request wasn't fully carried out.

Posted by Shtikler at 12:58 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

January 26, 2006

פרשת וארא - Whose staff is it anyways?

In order to give Paroah a warning for the plague of blood, (ז:טו) Moshe is told to meet Paroah at the nile and "וְהַמַּטֶּה אֲשֶׁר נֶהְפַּךְ לְנָחָשׁ תִּקַּח בְּיָדֶךָ," the staff that was turned into a snake you shall take in your hand. The question is, who's staff is it?

A staff was turned into a snake twice, once in front of B'nei Yisroel and once in front of Paroah. It would seem that in front of B'nei Yisroel it was done with Moshe's staff as HaShem had demonstrated in front of the burning bush. From pasuk 9, it appears that the staff used in front of Paroah was Aharon's. Which one, then, is being referred to in this pasuk?

The כלי יקר on pasuk 9 points out that Moshe's staff turned into a "נחש" while Aharon's turned into a "תנין." He then goes on to explain the difference between the two. Since our pasuk reads "וְהַמַּטֶּה אֲשֶׁר נֶהְפַּךְ לְנָחָשׁ" and not "וְהַמַּטֶּה אֲשֶׁר נֶהְפַּך לְתַנִּין," it would seem that the staff being referred to is Moshe's.

The אבן אזרא asserts that even the staff that was used in front of Paroah was Moshe's. According to this, it would seem to leave no doubt that the staff was Moshe's. [It is noteworthy, however, that when the signs are in fact performed in front of B'nei Yisroel, (4:30), it seems to be Aharon who performed them. Why this would be is a question unto itself. But if Aharon was the one who performed them, perhaps it is not so simple that Moshe's staff was used.]

Nevertheless, תרגום (המיוחס ל)יונתן here states outright that it was Aharon's staff to be brought to the nile. In תוספות השלם, an interesting reasoning for this is brought. Moshe's staff had the שם השם, HaShem's name, etched on it. Rashi here tells us that Paroah was at the Nile bank to relieve himself. Therefore, taking Moshe's staff with HaShem's name on it would have been like taking a sefer into the bathroom. So, it had to be Aharon's staff, one on a slightly lower level of קדושה that was brought to the nile.

Posted by Shtikler at 12:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 20, 2006

פרשת שמות - The long and the short of it

So, the first week didn't really go too well. I wasn't able to get things out in a timely manner. Hopefully, we'll have better results for פרשת וארא
.
The following observation was told to me by a friend from the sefer Tosafos Brachah. When R' Baruch Epstein, author of Torah Temimah and Baruch She'amar came to America, he delivered a speech in which he brought a reference from the Torah concerning our standards of modesty when it comes to dress, that our clothes are longer and more concealing than those of the gentiles. When HaShem tells Moshe about the forthcoming exodus from Egypt, he is told (3:22) that the women will ask of her neighbours silver, gold and clothing and they will put it on their sons and daughters. Why could the women not wear the clothing themselves? It must be, therefore, that the clothes that the Egyptian women wore were not big enough for the modest B'nos Yisroel and they could not wear them and so, they had to give it to their children to wear. What would have been small on Egyptian children was a perfect fit for theirs.

שבת שלום
Have a good Shabbos.

Posted by Shtikler at 12:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack