A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH SERIES 2 - VOLUME 05: Weeks of Yisro through Tetzaveh 1422605981, 9781422605981

Citation preview

r

' /

/

/

/

/.// / / / / / / /' /

//////,/,/ /

/..

!

/..:

me RLeiNMAN etDlXION

Torah, theme for every day of every week, blending profound perspectives from all areas of Torah literature Scripture, Mishnah, Jewish Law, Mussar/Ethics, Tefillah/Prayer, and Hashkafah/Jewlsh Thought collected for daily study.

ArtScroll Series'

ine RieiNMAN et)iTioN

A TORAH THEME FOR EVERY DAY OF EVERY WEEK FROM ALL AREAS OF TORAH LITERATURE — COLLECTED FOR DAILY STUDY

Rabbi Yosaif Asher Weiss General Editor

VOLUME 5 DAILY STUDY FOR THE WEEKS OF

ni:?n - nn> YISRO - TETZAVEH

FIRST EDITION

First Impression ... January2009 Second Impression ... April2017

Published and Distributed by MESORAH PUBLICATIONS, LTD. 4401 Second Avenue / Brooklyn, N.Y 11232

Distributed in Europe by

Distributed in Australia & New Zealand by

LEHMANNS Unit E, Viking Business Park Rolling Mill Road Jarrow, Tyne & Wear NE32 3DP England

COLDS WORLD OF JUDAICA 3-13 William Street Balaclava, Melbourne 3183 Victoria Australia

Distributed in Israel by

Distributed in South Africa by

SIFRIATI / A. GITLER — BOOKS POB 2351 Bnei Brak, Israel

KOLLEL BOOKSHOP Northfield Centre, 17 Northfield Avenue Clenhazel 2192, Johannesburg, South Africa

ARTSCROLL® SERIES THE KLEINMAN EDITION — LIMUDYOMI / A DAILY DOSE OFTORAH SERIES TWO — VOL. 5: YISRO -TETZAVEH © Copyright 2009, by MESORAH PUBLICATIONS, Ltd. 4401 Second Avenue / Brooklyn, N.Y. 11232 / (718) 921-9000 / www.artscroll.com

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

The text, prefatory and associated textual contents and introductions — including the typographic layout, cover artwork and ornamental graphics — have been designed, edited and revised as to content, form and style. No part of this book may be reproduced IN ANY FORM, PHOTOCOPYING, OR COMPUTER RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS — even for personal use without written permission from the copyright holder, Mesorah Publications Ltd.

except by a reviewer who wishes to quote brief passages in connection with a review written for inclusion in magazines or newspapers. THE RIGHTS OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED. ISBN 10:1-4226-0598-1 (hard cover) ISBN 13; 978-1-4226-0598-1 (hard cover)

Typography by CompuScrIbe at ArtScroll Studios, Ltd. Printed in the United States of America by Noble Book Press Corp. Bound by Sefercraft, Quality Bookbinders, Ltd., Brooklyn N.Y. 11232

t)et)ICATION op THIS VOLUMG

'J'his volume is dedicated to the memory of

A /A\

Rabbi Heshel Ryzman

^"T o”n n"3

win’ ann

v'’v'^^n mm nivx> nm: j-^e was a talmid chacham of monumental proportions. He lived and breathed Torah, wherever he was, whatever he was doing, whether in the beis midrash or in his business. Everything in his world was secondary to his learning. Great rabbis, roshei yeshivah, and admorim in Israel were in awe of his total recall of every area of Torah and commentaries. His many sefarim illuminated subjects rarely studied and even more rarely understood. We are proud that his son. Rabbi Zvi Ryzman — himself a talmid chacham, maggid shiur, and author of renown — is one of our dearest friends. The greatness of Reb Heshel b"T lives on in his children and grandchildren.

THe RLeiNMAN et)ITION

To our fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers, daily Torah study was the first priority. It is fitting, therefore, that we dedicate this Limud Yomi Series in their memory

u"jiyn uaiy a"’ '23

fter years of slave labor and concentration camps — years when he risked ^ ■* ^his life to put on tefillin every day! — he courageously rebuilt. Wherever he Wcis — in DP C£UTips. Poughkeepsie, Borough Park, or Forest Hiils — he was a one-man kiruv movement, before “kiruv rechokim" was a familiar phrase. Everyone Wcis drawn to his enthusiasm for Yiddishkeit. His home was open to anyone in need, even when there was barely enough for family. All his life he felt close to his Rebbe, the Nitra Rav, and to the father-in-law he never knew; their sefarim, Naos Desheh and Lechem Abirim, were part of our Shabbos tabie. He was a caring and gentle man whose life was defined by his love of learning Torah, gemillas chasadim, kiruv work, hachnasas orchim, askanus, and love for his family. He left a noble legacy that we are honored to perpetuate.

r'2 tit omn J"PU>n '2 IIN 'V '23

It was as if a maloch protected us,” he used to say about the dark years of Churban Ipuropa. He lost almost everything — even the tefillin that he put on every day until the very end — but he kept his spirit, his emunah, his dedication to Torah, and his resolve to rebuild. He became a living legend ofTorah, chesed, and service to his Bensonhurst community. His home was open to anyone in need, and there was always enough room for guests. His succah was the largest in the neighborhood, and he always found a way to bring endangered relatives to America and help them become established. After he retired, he devoted himself to learning and bringing others close to Yiddishkeit, especially immigrants from the former Soviet Union, teaching them to put on tefillin and reuniting them with the Judaism of their ancestors. It is our privilege to carry on his glorious legacy.

O

ur m.others and our fathers i7"T planted seeds of Torah in America and produced magnificent doros of children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren following their example. May Hashem continue to bless our mothers with good health and many nachasfilled years.

Elly Kieinman and Family

•.

i. Ui

■-> ■ »

• ^ r*

■ ■* -f

•t. ' v».V

:ir *

.r

• •lY *•"* “

. .>b

:^l,

*• f*.! «

ik

rl.

' ,.-iN|

■r T

,

.

,* r"

'

/

’ 'V

A. .

Ilk ^"^ •

4

t* ■ I.V V 4f «

*■»

■

:rn>'U;Nn3 Mrs. Sara Perlstein Judah and Miriam Peristein

Tzali and Esther Weiss

Shoiie and Bruchi Peristein

and famiiies

In memory of their husband and father b"T

r’2 nnK '>2:i — Heshy Peristein b-'t

T\"wr\ nu^n v’p '23 VOL. 2: CHAYEI SARAH-VAYISHLACH / rib'e^Tmiy '>'>n in honor of Stanley and Ellen Wasserman VOL. 3: VAYEISHEV-VAYECHI / Chaim Yehoshua and DinI Klein in memory of their grandmothers

n"i> □''n min' na KUiP’ N"UU’n T’N U-'S nTO23

n"p nu>a nm^N na □'in nban T"3Tyn nau n"3 mt>23 n"p n’lN fn na K3'3fl K3pn a"burn n3i3n n mu23 and n"bn2nb3 in honor of our dear friend Elly Kleinman VOL. 4: SHEMOS-BESHALACH / nbu^xmaiy dedicated in memory of the Kedoshim of Mumbai ■r"''n Rabbi Cavriel Noach Holtzberg 7"’n Rebbetzin Rivka Holtzberg l"’n Rabbi Aryeh Lelb Teltelbaum *T"’n Rabbi Benzion Kruman

T’^n

Norma Rablnovltch 7"’n Yocheved Orpaz Y"’n VOL. 5: YISRO-TETZAVEH / m^^D'nn’ in memory of b"T D*’n n"3 b’Wn win’ ann — Rabbi Heshel Ryzman b"! ■i:r"pu’n n3P3 miyp 3P23 VOL. 6: Kl SISA-VAYIKRA / K^P>rN•e^n O in honor of Ira and Ingeborg Rennert

rmwst>ose OF toraT) TWO)=====-~rrr~-‘?yt

niyx n na nana — Mrs. Brochoh Biderman n"V

v"Vi>r\ -f-’H

'■> muQ:

VOL. 10: KORACH-PINCHAS / in honor of

Judah Septimus VOL. 11: MATTOS-VA’ESCHANAN / pnnjRmiPn in honor of

ismyna pn«N pns’ n iisin aan — The Tenker Rav VOL. 12: EIKEV-Kl SEITZEI /

O’apy

dedicated by

Eliy Kieinman and famiiy in honor of

their chiidren VOL. 13: Ki sAvo-vEzos HABERACHAH / HDnnn nxTrxun 'a in honor of

the schoiars who created The Kieinman Edition Limud Yomi / Daiiy Dose of Torah VOL. 14: THE RABBINIC FESTIVALS AND FAST DAYS / in tribute to

Raine and Staniey Siiverstein

PATRONS OF LiMLIt) yOM'f /A 6ose OP ---_»_:-With dedication to the principie that Torah study shouid aiways be available, the following generous and visionary patrons have dedicated volumes of this series; VOL. 1: BEREisHis-VAYEiRA / NT’rn’iyNna

Elly Kleinman and family in memory of their fathers

n-

b"T ITJDSbN 1"n pn»K nmnN b"T

bNimy

Avrohom Kleinman b"T

'3Tia T"3 TH uran n - Mendel Indig b"T

and i:>"n'73’ in tribute to their mothers U"'>1N‘7 ’’rirTE^ Ethel Kleinman Rose Indig VOL. 2: CHAYEl SARAH-VAYISHLACH / nbiy^Tmiy ''H

Motty and Malka Klein for the merit of their children nrrriy Esther and Chaim Baruch Fogel

Dovid and Chavie

Elana Leah and Natan Goldstein

Binyomin Zvi

Moshe Yosef and Rikki

Yaakov Eliyahu

in honor of his mother ’’nnu’ Mrs. Suri Klein in memory of his father y'Ptyn -a

T"3 '33 b"T 'ibn in

mm’ '1 - Yidel Klein

In memory of her parents v"wn

'3 '33 b"T

rriyn 3"3

K"P'iyn i3'p i"3 '33 n"j3

'l - Anchel Gross

n”n n ra miy - Suri Gross

And in memory of their grandparents who perished

U>37m b)3 in the Holocaust

■r"’n n"p ’3:s't na t’hpai rt"v ’ibn apy’ n"a in n - Klein T"’n n"j3 ’3bn apy’ 'i na nsbi n"y ’ibn ttt i"a ’amn 'i - Klein T"’n n"y “ra’D ^N’n’ 'i na nabm n"y ’a:^ pa’ia t"3 two't - Gross T"’n o"v nry’bN nabiy n na kpi’i n"y ’ana i"a in’‘?N n”n n - Gartenberg VOL. 3: VAYEISHEV-VAYECHI /

Leon and Agi Goldenberg Mendy and Estie Blau — Efraim, Rivka, and Chava Shiffie Grossman — Chanie, and Rikki Abi and Shoshana Goldenberg — Yehudis Tzvi and Leilie Fertig and Yitzy Goldenberg In memory of their fathers and uncle b"T ’a:; T"3 HOH nmaN '1 - Abba Goldenberg V"T ^"T pn^i’ apy’ a"3 nry’^N

'T - Joseph Brieger b"T

b"! ’ibn nu>a 1"a nn^iy apy’ n - Yaakov Shlomeh Lebovits b"T and •0"nb3’ in tribute to their mothers U"’3Nb '’nniy Chaya (Sicherman) Goldenberg

Malka (Karfunkel) Brieger

and their aunt — Faiga (Sicherman) Lebovits

TIATiklNS OP IlMUb WMI/A_tlAil5? tlOSG OF TORAD *

■■

in

I.•' SERIES ONEj ■"

.

...

..

.

VOL. 4: SHEMOS-BESHALACH /

Yossi and Bella Essas (Los Angeles) Noam Zvi

Hillel Avraham

Adina Batya

Ashira Miriam

In honor of his parents Rabbi Eliyahu and Anya Essas VOL. 5: YiSRO-TETZAVEH / ni^^n-niT*

Edward |. and Rose F. Leventhal in honor of their children, Alison, Martin and Bonnie, and in honor of their parents Eddie and Irma Muller, and Ruth Leventhal, and in beloved memory of his father, '7"t

P

ina

- Bernard E. Leventhal b"!

VOL. 6: K1 SISA-VAYIKRA /

Drs. Mark and Barbara Bell (Shavertown, PA) in honor of their children, Ben, Mory and Adina Kayla, and in honor of their parents Drs. Isadore and Viola Evelyn Kreel Rabbi Tzvi Alexander and Renah Bell and grandparents Rabbi Moses and Magda Mescheloff and in memory of their grandparents n"jj "rn na npm nnn:i '7"t n’bN p r!"y n’JNt?) ^''T

p — Kreel

'im'* — Homstein

3hn p ITV'bN 3hn — Schonfeld

n"v nnoN nn na n"v

na

— Furth '?''t bNprn’ p pint — Bell

VOL. 7; TZAV-METZORA /

Elly Klelnman and family in memory of T’-'n nba>'7N mn p

'ini' n^n nm — Yosef Fischman

b"T n'»n inn: n p ibn^'^N n — Martin Einhom VOL. 8: ACHAREI-BECHUKOSAl / ■>npn3‘>*inN in honor of R* ZvI and Betty Ryzman (Los Angeles) VOL. 9: BAMIDBAR-SHELACH / nb\yT3in3

Mark and ChanI Scheiner Dr. lonathan and Vicki Scheiner in memory of n"v 'ibn an:n p n'2TD nnb^ — Sol Scheiner n"y D’>n n"2 :n>bN — Elihu Brodsky n''p on:>a n nn n::' — Vera (Greif) Brodsky in honor of Rhoda Scheiner

POTIONS OF llMLlt? yOMl /A DMW t>C3^''OF TOrSi VOL. 10: KORACH-piNCHAs / pnra'mp Jeffrey and Leslie Bernstein for the merit of their chiidren Gideon, Hadassah, Josiah, and Isaiah And in memory of ali those who have perished Ai Kiddush Hashem defending the Chiidren of Israel and the Land of israei, with a speciai tribute to Major Ro’i Kiein l">n and Lieutenant Colonel Emanuel Moreno ^">n VOL. 11: MATTOS-VA’ESCHANAN / pnnxrmpn in honor of Jay and Jeanie Schottenstein Joseph and Lindsay — Jacob Meir, Jonah Phiiip, and Emma Biake Jeffrey

Jonathan

VOL. 12: EIKEV-Kl SEITZEl / Clive R. and Eva H. Ginsberg in honor of our chiidren Sacha and Aaron in honor of our mothers Mere Ginsberg and Saida Shamai and in beloved memory of b'fr ra n'laN n’O

- jack Ginsberg V"T

b"T nm3N 13 "IhriN - Haroun Abraham Shamai '7"T VOL. 13: K1 SAVO-VEZOS HABERACHAH / nDniH riNTrKUn >3 in memory of n"V nnas ja

-

Saul Schottenstein n"V

v'wn 3H nnjn T"b ,nNT myrib mip n:w '23 VOL. 14: THE FESTIVALS /

npiQ

The Teichman Family (Los Angeies) In memory of their parents and grandparents b"! an naPP’ T'a bKiaP - Sam Teichman b"T

n"v

’ibn pu’in'' 'n na ^TPna na’'? - Lujza Teichman n"p

n"P aaip niPabN n na bm - Rose Teichman n"P bn D^n nmaK ■i"a

pn:^'* - Isaac Nae bn

and to the memory of our recentiy departed brother bn bKiniy n"a jara Tyibv — Steve Teichman bn

With dedication to the principle that Torah study should always be available, the following generous and visionary patrons have dedicated volumes of this series:

VOL. 1: BEREisHis-VAYEiRA / in honor of Joseph C. Shenker Esq. VOL. 2: CHAYEI SARAH-VAYISHLACH / in memory of

»n

b"T n”n nwn p laiNT njh Ronnie Lipman b"T

n"ou7n ibpp v"o VOL. 3: VAYEISHEV-VAYECHI / ■>n'>rn'(y>i in memory of *101’ ann iinah pjs v"n^a’ na n"y nnos yai»'na Rebbetzin Batsheva Kanievsky n"V VOL. 4: SHEMOS-BESHALACH / nbTyaTiia'e? in memory of n’Nfl inPK aan p ’ay inj aan iikah Hagaon Harav Nosson Trvi Finkel VOL. 5: YISRO-TETZAVEH / mifrTPrT* in memory of 'y"t an a"a pns n”n aan Rabbi Chaim Aharon Weinberg ^"T VOL. 6: KI SISA-VAYIKRA / Nnp'rN'eAn >3 in honor of the twentieth yahrzeit of n"y pan aryPs onas p o«n a’NO apy’ Jerome Schottenstein b"T

3"rpn 'a itn 'n aua^ VOL. 7: TZAV-METZORA / in memory of N"p^n a'>N V’3 '23 b''T n^n P yiyp' inPK - Eliyahu Stern a"PU>n

a-'D '23 n"y

3"3yn rin3a '3 '23 '7"T

3KT na Na'^aa - Frieda Stern '7NaU3> p n>yiy> - Shaje Weiss

VOL. 8: ACHAREI-BECHUKOSAI / 'npna-pnK dedicated in memory of the Kedoshim of Touiouse Rabbi Yonatan Sandler a"»n Aryeh Sandler a"’n Gavriel Sandler a"’n Miriam Monsonego a"’n

PATI^OHS OF LiMtft) yOMl /A tiAllJ? t)OS€ OFTORAll .sa^:-===sc:arT=r-m-=-—-TS=a=/'S»ii’ii»S

VOL. 9:

-------—--

BAMIDBAR-SHELACH / n'?‘iy-n3in3 in memory of ’"J ’Ibn »37na p n"V »3X rn’J3 — Binyamin Klein

Ti’’V

:^"WT\ IP'J T”'* ’2J

VOL. 10: KORACH-PINCHAS / Pra’Q-mp in honor of

Asher David Milstein VOL. 11: MATTOS-VA’ESCHANAN / pnriKrmPP in honor of

Lily Kleinman and family VOL. 12: EIKEV-KI SEITZEl / N2?n >3-3pV in memory of

David H. and Rose Schwartz n"V VOL. 13: KI SAVO-VEZOS HABERACHAH / HDian nNTrNlin >3 in honor of

Elly Kleinman and family

« ^mndi H

- ^

1«f

11

n

•/

ilh jr?

•• r

4» ■ ■'■»V*

'I

*•

^ f -'5

«

MISHNAH OF THE DAY: SUCCAH 5:2

T

he Mishnah describes the festivities at the water-drawing celebration: :iii hp alu al’ — At the conclusion of the first day of the festival of Succos,i^i D’lyJ niTyb nn’ — the Kohanim and Leviim de¬ scended to the Women’s Courtyard,“yna flpn our — where they made an arrangement of great benefitP^ I’n anj bv) nliljwi --- NOTES -

1. I.e., on the night preceding the first day of Choi HaMoed, the intermediate days of the festiual. The same procedure was followed each of the subsequent evenings (except the Sabbath), after the offering of the daily afternoon sacrifice {Rambam, HU. Lulav 8:12). 2. Fronting the main Temple Courtyard to the east was the Ezras Hashim, the Women’s Courtyard. It was in this Courtyard that the water-drawing celebration took place. The Women’s Courtyard was further down the Temple Mount than the main Courtyard, and, was reached by descending fifteen steps; thus, the Mishnah describes the Kohanim and Leviim as “going down” to the Women’s Courtyard {Rashi). 3. What was this “arrangement of great benefit”? Originally, the Women’s Court¬ yard had an unbroken expanse of wall going straight up, but later a balcony was

SUNDAY — PARASHAS YISRO

/3

— There were golden cd.ndel3.bra there to Illuminate the proceedings, ant D’^atp ns/aaNI and there were four golden bowls atop each of them to contain oil,''*' nnKi nlw^p nyaiNi — and there were four ladders for each candelabrum, nana ’naatt youths from among the young Kohanim were assigned to them,'®' ab ontf^yi nKW hp ])3U; hp an? nnn’ai — and in their hands were pitchers containing a totai of one hundred and twenty lugin of oil,'^' ‘jDpi ‘app h'ah inty — which they poured into each bowl. -NOTES ----

built along it for the women to sit on while the men remained below, so that men and women were separated from one another, thereby preventing frivolity (Rau from Qemara 51b). 4. Each candelabrum had four golden bowls on top of it {Rau), and very thick wicks were placed into these bowls (Tiferes Yisrael).

5. One ladder for each bowl {Tiferes Yisrael). The Gemara (52b) states that each candelabrum was 50 cubits high, which is why the ladders were needed. 6. The four youths were assigned to climb the four ladders. Tiferes Yisrael points out that the words nanD ’nns, young priests, adds two dimensions to the terms youths. The word ■’nn? has the connotations flower (ni?) and to fly (nniB). This teaches that they chose young priests who were comely and handsome like beautiful flowers, and light and swift in their actions like a bird that flies. All this was to enhance the joy of the occasion. 7. The Mishnah does not simply state “30 lugin per Kohen,” but gives the total of 120 lugin, as an allusion to Moshe, who lived that number of years, thus suggesting that the light of the Torah Moshe transmitted shines upon the Jewish people as did the light of the candelabra (Tos. Vbm Tov).

4 gems fr
rr ntyya ‘•tyaNi an’pri — Devout men and men of good deeds would dance before them’’’ inn’au? nix bp rripiaxa — with flaming torches in their hands,nli’ty nan anwlKi

-- NOTES —-

1. I.e., before the assembled people (Tbs. Yom Tou; Tiferes Yisrael; Meleches Shlomo). Alternatively, before the Leviim {Piskei Rid). Yet a third interpretation: in the brightly illuminated space before the candelabra {Tiferes Yisrael).

2. They would perform juggling feats with these torches; some were expert enough to juggle four torches at once, and some could juggle eight {Rau; Rashi to 51b).

18 / A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

nlnatyni — and say before them words of song and praises to HashemJ^' a’^aaai nlilaaa D’l^ni “latpM K'ra nlivisfnai — And the Leoiim, with TUESDAY their harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets, and countless PARASHAS other musical instruments,^'^^ n'i'jya ^r?n~hv YISRO nWi nniyw nn-jl^n — stood on the fifteen steps that led down from the Israelites’ Courtyard^^ to the Women’s Courtyard,^^^ a’^rinau; ni'jytttrt “I’ty] Tiyy ntywn nAaa — which correspond to the fifteen [Songs of] Ascents found in Psalms,^^^ nn’ty anniKi Tuy ’‘paa Q’lb Tn’‘?y'y — for on [these steps] the Leoiim would stand with their musical instruments and chant songs.i®' [We will continue the elucidation of this Mishnah tomorrow.]

nn>

- NOTES -

3. [They recited or sang songs of praise.] The Sages taught that some would praise God by saying, “Happy is our youth that has not shamed our old age” — i.e., we did not transgress in our youth and, as such, are not ashamed in our old age. These were the men of piety and of good deeds. Penitents used to say, “Happy is our old age that has atoned for our youth.” All of them would say together, “Happy Is he who did not sin, but if he has sinned let him repent and he will be forgiven” {Rau). 4. There was no set number of instruments (Tiferes Yisrael). Aruch LaNer points out that ‘7’’^nn, the flute, is conspicuously absent from this list of musical instru¬ ments. Perhaps the Tanna felt that it did not have to be mentioned, since it already had been mentioned in Mishnah 1. There, only the flute was mentioned, because it was the main instrument. 5. I.e., the main Temple Courtyard. 6. The length of these steps ran along the width of the [Women’s] Courtyard. Each step was half an amah deep and half an amah in height {Rashi from Middos 2:3). The steps were semicircular in shape (ibid. 2:5). Tiferes Yisrael (ad loc.) suggests that the reason for this shape was so they would be able to accommodate more Levlim during the water-drawing celebration. 7. I.e., Tehillim 120-134, in which each chapter begins with the words: nibyian Tu; (or ni'pjf)?^), A Song of Ascents, or Steps. 8. They performed on the steps only during the Bets HaSho’eivah festivities. Throughout the rest of the year, when they sang and played for the daily sacrifices, they stood on a (pn, platform, near the Altar {Rashi, 51b; Rau).

QUESTION OF THE DAY: What is the difference between a

and a Win]?

For the answer, see page 64.

TUESDAY — PARASHAS YISRO / 19

GEMS FROM THE GEMARA TUESDAY

O

ur Mishnah stated that the fifteen steps leading from the main Courtyard to the Women’s Court¬ yard correspond to the fifteen nl'?yi2n “I’ty, Songs of Ascents, found in Psalms. The Gemara (53a-53b) de¬ scribes the history of these fifteen psalms: The Gemara relates that Rav Chisda asked the following to a certain Rabbi who would recite Aggadic teachings before him: Have you heard anything regarding these Psalms of Ascent; corresponding to what did King David say them? He answered him in the name of R’ Yochanan with the following story: At the time that King David excavated the pits beneath the Altar into which the wine and water libations would flow, the waters of the deep came up and threatened to flood the world. At that moment, David recited the fifteen Songs of Ascent and thereby caused them to subside. Rav Chisda raised an objection to this explanation: Then why are they called fifteen songs of ascent? They should be called songs of descent (as they caused the waters to descend)! The Rabbi responded: Since you have reminded me, 1 now recall that this is how the story was stated: When the waters of the deep rose up and threatened to destroy the world, David asked: Does anyone know if it is permitted to write the Divine Name on a shard and cast it into the deep so that the waters will calm down? [The Divine Name had the power to stop the flood, but the water might erase the Name. Is it permitted to erase the Name in such a circumstance?] Rashi tells us that the shard that King David was referring to was not simply any shard. Rather, when excavating the pits David found a shard on which it was written that it had been in place since the Six Days of Creation. By removing this shard, David allowed the waters of the deep to escape. It was on this shard that David wished to write the Divine Name, which would cause it to return to its place and seal up the deep once again. The Gemara continues its story: No one said anything to David in response. Whereupon David said: Whoever knows how to answer this question and does not answer, let him be choked at the throat! Achitophel, David’s mentor, then reasoned to himself by way of a kal uachomer. Now if simply to make peace between a husband and wife the Torah states that My [God’s] Name, which was written in holiness, may be erased into the water (as part of the sotah ritual — see Bamidbar 5:11 ff.), how much more so is it permitted to erase God’s Name in order to make peace for the whole world! He therefore told David that 20 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

it was permitted. David then wrote the Divine Name on the shard and cast it into the deep. The deep then sub¬ ni sided 16,000 amos. When David saw that the waters TUESDAY had subsided to such a great extent, he said: The higher PARASHAS [and thus the closer to the earth’s surface] the water will YISRO ■ be, the more moist and fertile the earth above will be. He then recited the fifteen songs of ascents and thereby brought the water back up 15,000 amos, until he caused them to settle at a depth of 1,000 amos below the earth’s surface. [Rashi tells us that King David did not want to rule on this matter him¬ self since, as the Gemara related, his mentor Achitophel was present at the time, and it would have been improper for him to issue a ruling in front of his teacher.]

A MUSSAR THOGGHT FOR THE DAY’. .

I

n A Torah Thought for the Day we quoted the verse (19:6): ’T’nn DriNl ‘7KTti7'’ nann "iu/n: onn'in n^N u;nj7 hii 'b, “You shall be to Me a kingdom of ministers and a holy nation” — these are the words that you shall speak to the Children of Israel. Rashi, in a cryptic comment on this verse, quotes Mechilta, “No less and no more.” R’ Moshe Feinstein {Darash Moshe, Volume 11) elaborates on the significance of this qualifier, based on an interpretation of the Shemoneh Esrei for Shabbos Mlnchah. R’ Feinstein begins with a question on the text of the Shemoneh Esrei. We recite: nriis ’la nnx nnis nriK, You are One and Your Name is One; and who is like Your people Israel, a unique nation on earth. It is fundamental that Hashem’s Oneness excludes any possibility of there being a second. In fact, the “One” describing Hashem is a misnomer, as one, be definition, is followed by two. We use the word “One” to describe Hashem — here and every¬ where — due to our lack of a word to better describe Him (see Series I, Parashas Re’eh, Monday, A Closer Look at the Slddur). Since this is so, there appears to be a significant incongruity here — we say that Hashem and His Name are One, and we follow that by saying that the people of Israel — the Jewish nation — are one. The parallel seems deficient: Hashem’s Oneness is Inherent, but Israel’s oneness lies in its being the first of many, being preeminent among all the nations of the world. How can the prayer compare Israel’s oneness to Hashem’s? We must explain that there is a significant difference between the nationhood of all the world’s nations and that of the Jewish people. The

TUESDAY — PARASHAS YISRO / 21

world’s nations are formed by a self-selecting group of people who call themselves by a single name. No na¬ tion has any inherent superiority over another — they TUESDAY all seek their own benefit and gratification in this world. PARASHAS They police themselves to keep order, but one nation YI5RO ^ has no qualms about starting an unnecessary war with another, although thousands of people may die. Such a nation, says R’ Feinstein, has no intrinsic worth as a nation. It is only the Jewish people — who were given the Torah and identi¬ fied as a holy nation — who are truly a nation. They were given the responsibility to teach the world proper conduct, how to judge and how to legislate. From this perspective, we see that only one people can be labeled as a nation. Just as idolaters — who invent a deity — don’t add a “two” to Hashem’s “One,” the nations of the world don’t add a “two” to the Jewish people’s “one.” That is the correspondence in the Shemoneh Esrei between Hashem and the Jewish nation — they are both one, by definition. When Hashem was preparing the Jewish people to receive the Torah, He told them (19:4); nnynb nn’iS"! You have seen what I did to Egypt. R’ Feinstein explains that Hashem was telling the nation, “1 could have left you in Egypt, and just changed your status from captives to rulers. But, instead, ’^is: D5nN NiKi, / brought you to Me— so that you can keep My covenant, something that was not possible for you to do in Egypt. And for what purpose did 1 bring you to Me? So that you can be¬ come iyiij? hii riDbpn, a kingdom of ministers and a holy nation.” This is what Rashi means: The Jewish people can fulfill their pur¬ pose only when each and every Jew — no less and no more — fulfills his obligations to Hashem and to the Torah. This is what separates the Jewish people from all other peoples, gives them the status of a “nation,” and enables them to be an exemplar of holiness to the world. We see from here, concludes R’ Feinstein, how important is each individual’s conduct; each person’s effort is necessary for the Jewish nation to fulfill its mission.

OF TFffi DM-

W

e began yesterday to discuss the question of whether one is to recite a blessing when making use of a communal tallis. Clearly, if one is using the tallis during the morning services in order to fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzis, he would recite a blessing. This is because, as we have seen in the case of a tallis borrowed from a private individual.

22 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

we assume that the congregation grants the tallis to the user as a conditional gift so that he may fulfill the mitzvah. However, what is less clear is the ruling in cases TUESDAY where the tallb is being worn only as a sign of respect. PARASHAS When it is borrowed from an individual for such use, we YISRO have said that a blessing is not recited. However, while this is the ruling in regard to another individual s tallis, some authorities differentiate between borrowing one of a private individual, and using a communal tallis that belongs to the synagogue. These authorities reason that since the synagogue has purchased the tallis specifically for the purpose that it be used by the congregants for whatever need they may have, the understanding is that it becomes the property of the borrower for the time that he is us¬ ing it. This understanding would necessitate that one make a blessing over a communal tallis whenever he uses it. Nevertheless, it is the prevalent custom not to recite a blessing over a communal tallis, except in instances where one utilizes it to fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzis. Now that we have covered many of the various laws involved in ful¬ filling the mitzvah of tzitzis, we will turn our attention to the physical creation of the tzitzis themselves. The Torah commands {Bamidbar 15:38); ’SJa'bv nyy nnb n'bpn bms cijan nyy-bv They shall make for thernselues tzitzis on the corners of their garments for their generations, and they shall place on the fringes of the corner a blue strand. The Talmud derives from this verse that the tzitzis tassels are to be comprised of strands of white fabric, as well as strands of blue fabric known as techeiles. The dye used for the creation of the techeiles was derived from a species called the chilazon, with which we are no longer familiar; the process of creating this dye is therefore no longer known to us. It is for this reason that our tzitzis no longer contain the blue thread spoken of in the verse. [In recent years various authorities have advanced possible identifications of the chilazon, and produced techeiles using the dye from those species; those authorities maintain that techeiles is to be worn even today. For a discussion of the various possibilities, see the Ap¬ pendix to Volume 2 of the Schottenstein edition of Tractate Menachos.] While we have said that the verse requires the tzitzis to have white as well as techeiles strands, the Talmud derives from Scripture that the tzitzis are viable even if they contain only one of the required fabrics. Our tzitzis are therefore fit for the fulfillment of the mitzvah of tzitzis even though we are no longer able to formulate the necessary dye for the creation of techeiles.

iw

TUESDAY — PARASHAS YISRO / 23

r A CLOSER LOOK AT THE SIDDUR TUESDAY

T

he centra! blessing of each Shemoneh Esrei of Shabbos contains a paragraph unique to itself. The special paragraph of the Shabbos Minchah Shemoneh Esrei, which begins triK nriK, You are One, is eluci¬ dated by R’ Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler (in Michtau MeiEliyahu, Volume 3, p.71): nriK, Vbu are One. “One” means true unity, in that there exists nothing but Hashem. This raises the question — if one can address Hashem as “You” (as we do here) then there must be an “1” in addition to Him — so how can we address Hashem as “One”? The answer is that Hashem’s Oneness is — inis and Your Name is One. Hashem’s “Name” refers to His revealing of Himself by creating everything that exists in the world besides Him. The object of this is so that His honor should be revealed to all, and thus in His concealment — meaning in what He created as existing apparently independent of Him — lies His true nature. [The concepts raised here briefly are dealt with at great length by R’ Dessler elsewhere; see, for example, Michtau MeiEliyahu, Volume 3, p. 268.] The prayer continues: yiK? nnx na ’Wi, and who is like Your people Israel, a unique nation on earth. The nations of the world collaborate in making this world an appropriate place for the Jews in which to serve Hashem. It is for this reason that they were commanded with seven mitzvos — chief among them the prohibition of idolatry, which has a harmful influence on this world. Jews can at times fall to the level where they are challenged by the temptation of idolatry. But when they are on their proper level, they serve and cling to Hashem, being His idlnj? ’Ill nobpTo, kingdom of ministers and holy nation. This is what the prayer means by inx ’ll, one nation: that the Jewish people have a purpose unique to them. rib'll rrjKDn, the splendor of greatness — this refers to Israel, who are considered as the tefillin of Hashem. [Tefillin are called “splendor” — see Berachos 1 la.] This is because the purpose of the Jewish people is to reveal the splendor of Hashem’s greatness, as the Gemara {Bera¬ chos 6a) says: “What is written in Hashem’s tefillin? ’ll ’ni Vltta nnjs. And who is like Your people Israel, a unique nation on earth (/Diurei HaYamim 17:21).” [Thus, when the greatness of the Jews is revealed, Hashem’s splendor is also revealed. We see that Hashem is praised when Israel is praised.] nyiiyi n“ipyi, and the crown of salvation. “Salvation” means 24 / A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

recognizing when Hashem saves Jews. As the Zotiar (beginning of Hakdamah) says, the “cup of salvation” is the “cup of blessing.” How so? Because Hashem’s TUESDAY glory is revealed through the heartfelt blessings the PARASHAS Jewish people make when they experience salvation. YISRO By revealing Hashem’s glory with this recognition, they cause salvation in the spiritual worlds, in addition to the physical salvation they experienced. Thus, Israel’s salvation is, itself, the crown of salvation. So that we should be able to recognize all the above, Hashem gives to us nrnjj? nT, the day of rest and contentment— because we can come to these realizations only through calmness of mind; nnj holiness have You given to Your people — because we need to be able to dwell upon these thoughts without being held back by the constraints of our materialistic desires. We will continue with R’ Dessler’s explanation of this prayer later this week.

TUESDAY

PARASHAS YISRO / 25

. A TORAH THOUGHT FOR THE DAY WEDNESDAY

PARASHAS YISKC)

4^

iau7y hvn

I’VV “'I? “'^= “la^n ^ip •'!>'>? "iHn-‘73 m.n’i t^aan itpya ' ‘jlpa laay’ ain^Kni “la-t’ ntyn ixm ptni ■n'pin

All of Mount Sinai was smoking because Hashem had descended upon it in the fire; its smoke ascended like the smoke of the furnace, and the entire mountain shuddered exceedingly. The sound of the shofar grew continually much stronger; Moshe would speak and God would respond to him with a voice {Shemos 19:18-19).

T

he Torah describes to us what the Jewish people experienced as they stood at the bottom of Mount Sinai, ready to receive the Word of Hashem. Rashi (verse 19) notes (citing Mechilta) that unlike the normal shofar sound — which tends to taper off in volume the longer it extends — the sound of the shofar here grew louder and louder. This was so that the people would not be startled by its loud volume, but would gradually get used to its sound. Mechilta D’R’ Shimon Ben Yochai (a different Mechilta than the one mentioned above) makes a comparison between the sound of the sho¬ far at the giving of the Torah — which grew ever stronger — and the lives of Torah scholars. When Torah scholars grow older, their minds become more settled and rooted with wisdom, as it says in lyov (12:12): nnyn M the aged is wisdom. (See also Mishnah Kinnim 3:6.) The verse in our parashah ends: bipy a'’nbNn'] nipn, Moshe would speak and God would respond to him with a voice. R’ Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin (known as the Netziv) maintains in his Haamek Davar that this is not talking about Moshe’s repetition of Hashem’s words to the nation (as Rashi explains), because the Torah has no need to tell us that Moshe retold Hashem’s words to the people — who heard Hashem speak, but were unable to understand Him. The verse, says the Netziv, is referring to the Torah SheBe’al Peh, the Oral Law. Although — unlike the Written Law — the Torah SheBe’al Peh is not in Hashem’s exact words, Moshe was still required to relate it to the nation, and Hashem would give his voice enough strength so that all Israel would hear. In consonance with this interpretation, the Netziv (in his Harchev Da¬ var and in Bircas HaNetziv) explains the symbolism of the ascending shofar blast. He understands it to be a reference to Torah SheBe’al Peh, the Oral Law. Just as the sho/ar blast grew, the Torah SheBe’al Peh, too, continues to become stronger as more time passes. The sound of the

26 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

shofar came from the ll^v, the smoke, which symbolizes the darkness of calamity, when one cannot see what is occurring. Just as the shofar grew in volume even as WEDNESDAY it emerged from the enveloping smoke, so does the hardship of exile strengthen the voice of Torah SheBe’al PARASHAS Peh. In a time of peace, such as in the time of the first Beis HaMikdash, the Torah SheBe’al Peh could not thrive. Indeed, it was only in the time of the second Beis HaMikdash, when the Jewish people became more embattled, that the strength of Torah SheBe’al Peh became apparent. At that time, various groups emerged: the Essenes, ascetics who conducted themselves with holiness, sepa¬ rating from the common folk; the philosophers, who stressed wisdom over Torah; and the Perushim (the Pharisees), who followed the advice of the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah {Auos 1:1): nann n’n^n, develop many disciples. The first two groups did not succeed in ensuring the nation’s survival. Only the Perushim, with their stress on transmit¬ ting the Torah SheBe’al Peh to their students, kept the people alive. It does not make sense, says the Hetziu, that the troubles of Galas should serve to enhance Torah SheBe’al Peh. But it is inescapably so! This is why Hashem saw fit to show the nation that from the awesome smoke came a wondrous sound, ever-rising. That is the strength of the Torah She¬ Be’al Peh that was given to Moshe: “13T nu/ia, Moshe would speak the To¬ rah SheBe’al Peh, and Hashem gave it the power to continue growing.

^ISHNAH OF THE Dm: SOCCAH 5:4(b)

W

e continue yesterday’s Mishnah, describing the water-drawing celebration: "lytpa D’arra two Kohanim stood by the Upper Gate,!’' D’tyJ nity)? Til’tp — which leads down from the Israelites’ Courtyard to the Women’s Courtyard, ’fitpi ]nn’a — and they held two trumpets in their hands. xn;? — When the Crier called out,>2i lynni iy|?n — they sounded a - MOTES -

1. This gate was also known as the Gate of Nikanor (see Yoma 38a and Gems from the Gemara). It was called the Upper Gate because it stood higher on the Temple Mount than the Women’s Courtyard {Tos. Yom Too). 2. This was Gevini, the Temple Crier (Shekalim 13a, 14a), who called out every morning at daybreak: “Arise, Kohanim to your service, and Leviim to your plat¬ form, and Israelites to your stationsl” Alternatively, this refers to the crow of the rooster (see Yoma 20b, where both explanations are presented).

WEDNESDAY — PARASHAS YISRO

/ 27

tekiah, a teruah, and a tekiahP^ nn’tyy r\hvy^h iV’An — When they reached the tenth stepP^ lynni iy|?n lypni — they sounded a tekiah, a teruah, and a tekiah. WEDNESDAY rrity^ lyan — When they reached the Women’s CourtPARASHAS yard,^^^ lypni ly’irf! lyi?!? — they sounded a tekiah, a teruah, and a tekiah. I’y’AJaty ny '[iy;?in I’rt n“)T» Nyl’n ~\vwi — They would continue sounding te/c/ah'®’ until they reached the gate leading out to the nntBia KVi’rt lyty^ — When they reached the gate leading out to the east,i®i anywb n“i|)3>p ’3an — they turned their faces from east to u)esf,i®i n|n nlpjsa I’nty wrilax" nw>:i — and said, “Our fore¬ fathers who were in this place n’lnntpM nwip rni’Aai '?a’nn onnnjs nwip — stood with their backs toward the Sanctuary and their faces toward the east and bowed eastward to the sunj'°i n’^ wxi "iJ’J’y — But as for us, our eyes are toward YAH. nwlN niiH’ ’an — R’ Yehudah says: "W’J’y ri’^l n’b UN" ’[’“lU'iN) I’h — They re¬ peated and said, “We are for YAH and toward YAH are our eyes. ” - NOTES -—

3. The two Kohanim sounded a tekiah, a teruah, and a tekiah [on their trumpets] as a signal to proceed toward the Shiloach spring to draw the water for the water libation {Rao; Tiferes Yisraei). 4. [The Gemara (53b) considers whether this means the tenth step from the top or from the bottom.) The Leviim blew their trumpets while standing on the tenth of the fifteen steps in order to divide their descent into segments of ten steps and five steps, in allusion to the numerical value of the two letters of the Divine Name H"’ [’=10; n=5] (see Maharsha to Saccah 51b). 5. When the two Kohanim reached the floor of the Women’s Courtyard (Rau). 6. l.e., they would prolong these last three blasts (Rashi). 7. That gate led from the Women’s Courtyard to the eastern slope of the Temple Mount; it faced the Gpper Gate (Nikanor’s Gate) mentioned above. Their route of descent was from west to east. When they entered the Temple, they ascended from east to west (Rashi). 8. l.e., when the entire gathering of people led by the two Kohanim reached this gate {Tiferes Yisraei). 9. They [all] turned toward the Temple Courtyards and the Sanctuary {Rashi). 10. Some of the Jews at the end of the First Temple era were sun worshipers (see Yechezkel 8:16), and would deliberately turn their backs to the Temple in an ob¬ scene gesture of derision while bowing down eastward toward the rising son {Rashi to Succah 51b). 11. In the First Temple period the sin of idol worship was prevalent, but in the Second Temple period the temptation to worship powers other than Hashem was removed; [thus, they were truly able to state, “Our eyes are toward Hashem’’] {Yoma 9b).

28 / A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

GEMS FROM THE GEMARA

O

n\ynfl

nn»

WEDNESDAY

ur Mishnah stated that two Kohanim stood at the [’\K'\sins Upper Gate. This gate was also known as the Gate of Nikanor. The Gemara in Yoma (38a) relates the story of Nikanor and the miracles that occurred with his doors. The Gemara cites a Baraisa that tells us that when Nikanor went to bring special doors from Alexandria in Egypt, upon his return, a sea gale threatened to sink the ship. The sailors took one of the doors and threw it into the sea to lighten the load of the ship, but the sea still did not subside from its raging, and the ship remained in danger. The sail¬ ors then sought to throw the second door overboard, but Nikanor stood up against them and hugged the door. He said to them, “If you wish to throw the door into the sea, you will have to throw me into the sea with it!” Immediately, the sea subsided from its raging. Nikanor was then pained about the loss of the first door that had been thrown overboard. Hashem made a miracle for Nikanor, and as soon as he arrived in Eretz Yisrael at the port of Acco, he saw the first door poking out from under the walls of the ship. The Gemara tells us further that some say the door was miraculously saved in another manner: A creature of the sea swallowed it when it was thrown overboard, and spat it up upon dry land. All of the gates of the Temple were later rendered out of gold [Rashi tells us that when the Jews arrived from exile in Babylonia, they had limited means to build the Second Temple. Later, after they became wealthier, they replaced the existing doors in the Temple with new ones made of gold], except for the doors of the Gate of Nikanor, which were left in their original state as a reminder of the miracles that occurred through them. [Yerushalmi states that these copper doors shone more brightly than those of gold; thus, there was no cause to replace them with gold doors.]

QUESTION OF THE DAY: What does the verse mean when it says: All of Mount Sinai was smoking?

’a’p 'irr'|,

For the answer, see page 64.

WEDNESDAY — PARASHAS YISRO /

29

WEDNESDAY

R

J

Shlomo Wolbe {Alei Shar, Volume 2, p. 298) notes that one who fulfills the obligations of regularly remembering the Exodus from Egypt and the giving of the Torah will certainly have a life of emunah, faith in Hashem. [See Series 1: Parashas Metzora, Thursday, A Closer Look at the Siddar, and Parashas Kedoshim, Monday, A Closer Look at the Siddur, for a deeper look at these commandments.] How can one succeed in internalizing the memory of these experiences? R’ Wolbe says that the answer to this is contained in two verses in Deuarim (27:9-10): riBpn DpnPn] nwn "ipmi .. 'n nvW) ■ • ■ Moshe and the Kohanim, the Levilm, spoke to all Israel, saying, “Be attentive and hear, O Israel. . . You shall hearken to the voice of Hashem, your God.” Sforno explains that being attentive means to picture in one’s mind; to hear means to consider. Accordingly, the verses read like this: Moshe and the Koha¬ nim, the Levilm, spoke to all Israel, saying, “Picture In your minds and consider, O Israel, and when you do that. You shall certainly hearken to the voice of Hashem, your God. ” Sforno teaches us here that imagination is so powerful that when used properly it can ensure that one will listen to Hashem’s commands. This is, in fact, the appropriate use of imagination, and is the means by which we should internalize the remembrances of the Exodus and the giving of the Torah. The great masters of mussarwould designate a time during which they would visualize leaving Egypt. They would imagine the pillar of fire going before them, with Moshe (carrying Yosef’s coffin) and Aharon leading the people, and the entire nation following; each of the 600,000 men was leading a drove of ninety donkeys, heavily laden with the spoils of Egypt, and so on. These great men would picture to themselves the ten plagues and the splitting of the Yam Suf in a similar fashion. The Torah itself hints — in the narration of the giving of the Torah — that we should try to visualize the episode. The Torah says (19:18): Tin’i

'PI

“IT’ “iii7K Tap

pip “ini

TKp “inn"‘73. All of Mount Sinai was smoking because Hashem had descended upon it In the fire; its smoke ascended like the smoke of the furnace, and the entire mountain shuddered exceedingly. Rashi explains that the smoke was in fact far greater than the smoke of the furnace — as the Torah tells us elsewhere {Devarim 4:11): “ly'a anni D’ppin nb-iv u/Kp, and the mountain was burning with fire up to the 30 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

heart of the heauerd But here, in describing Maamad Har Sinai, the Torah deliberately uses language that is familiar to us so that we can visualize the giving of the Torah. A person must know, concludes R’ Wolbe, that if he has no mental image whatsoever of the giving of the Torah, his belief in the concept of Torah Min HaShamayim, the Divine origin of the Torah, will be inherently weak. This belief is not an idea independent of our relationship with the Torah, but intrinsic to it, in that the Torah is Hashem’s way of coming close to us in the physical world. If a person doesn’t have a vivid image of the giving of the Torah, he will not be able to appreciate its Divine source, and his closeness to Hashem will suffer.

HALACHAH OF THE DAY

W

e will now discuss the process through which one creates the ac¬ tual tzitzis tassels. [Please take note: The requirements involved in the creation of the strings that are used when making the tzitzis tas¬ sels are beyond the scope of this work. We will give instructions on how to tie and twist the strings in order to create the tassels; however, one must be sure to use specially prepared and certified tzitzis strings.] The method through which the tzitzis tassels are created is as follows: It is first necessary to make a hole near each of the four corners of the tzitzis garment. This hole must be located within three thumbbreadths (a thumbbreadth is the width of one’s thumb at its narrowest, near the tip) of the edge of the garment — both to the bottom of the garment as well as to the side of the garment. The hole should not be located closer to the edge of the garment than the measurement equal to the distance from the topmost knuckle of one’s thumb to the tip of the nail. One then takes specially prepared kosher tzitzis strings, and Inserts four of them into each of the four holes. After they are inserted, the strings hang down so that there are now eight strings hanging from each of the four holes — four on one side of each hole, and four on the other. These eight strings will now be knotted and twisted in the manner prescribed by halachah in order to form a tassel on each of the four corners. This is in fulfillment of the verse {Deuarim 22:12): nia;i3 You shall make tassels for your¬ self on the four corners of your garment.

WEDNESDAY — PARASHAS YISRO

/ 31

The tassel is formed by creating a series of five dou¬ ble knots that are separated from one another by four spaces. These spaces are formed by seven of the strings, while the eighth string is wound around the seven. In order to maintain a uniform length for all the strings, one of the four original strings is longer than the rest, and this string is used to do all of the windings, so that when the tassel is completed it will be similar in length to the rest. The tassel is formed as follows: After inserting the four strings into the hole, one should line up the strings so that the one lengthier string is even with the rest on one side of the hole, and longer than the oth¬ ers on the other side. On the side where this string is longer, take the other three strings and with them form a slipknot near their ends. [This will serve to isolate these three strings so that we can ensure that the same strings remain on each side of the tassel throughout the tying and twisting process. The importance of this will be discussed further on.] We are now ready to begin the actual tying and twisting of the strings to form the tassel. We will describe the process tomorrow.

X

- A CLOSER LOOK AT THE SIDDOR

T

he second of the morning’s blessings that are recited before Krias Shema, nan nnnx, begins by praising Hashem for the love and the compassion that He has for His nation: 'H nan nnriN: irby nbnn n-in’i nbiti nbnn. With an abundant love have You loved us, Hashem, our God; with exceedingly great compassion have You been compassionate to us. But the context of the prayer remains un¬ clear — to which instances of love and compassion are we referring? The question is amplified when we consider that the modifiers nan, abundant, and nTri’l nblni, exceedingly great, imply that the riDnN, love, and nbpn, compassion, referred to are out of the norm, and are specific to our relationship with Hashem. Eitz Yosef, based on Chovas HaLeuavos {ShaarAvodas Elokim, Hakdamah), points out that when a person does something for someone else, there is generally a benefit for himself as well — a father who does something for his son, for example, benefits by being able to rely on his son for support as he ages. A wealthy man might help a pauper, but he benefits as well by receiving heavenly reward. Even so, the person receiving the favor is still obligated — by common sense and by the Torah — to appreciate that assistance. When Hashem does something for humanity — on an individual or on a communal level — He does 32

/ A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

not receive any benefit whatsoever. {Chovas HaLevauos speaks at length about this; see there for his full exposition.) This, explains Eitz Yosef, is what the prayer WEDNESDAY indicates: When You, Hashem, love and care for us. You PARASHAS do so completely and with no ulterior motive. ^YISRO The Netziu offers a different interpretation of this prayer based on a concept we discussed in A Torah Thought for the Day. The Torah SheBe’al Peh is the tool that keeps the Jewish nation together in times of exile. Indeed, it thrives even more in times of the greatest distress. The Netziu says that when we speak of Hashem’s love for us in this prayer, we are thanking Him for giving us the Talmud — the Torah SheBe’al Peh. This leads us to our further prayer: •nonin mn'pn ’inT ‘75 nx... -i irii, instill in our hearts to understand and comprehend all the words of Your Torah’s teaching. Hashem’s closeness with the Jewish people is echoed later, in the prayer’s closing: n3nN3 iJFinipi, And You have brought us close to Your great Name forever in truth, to offer praiseful thanks to You, and to proclaim Your Oneness with love. The Vilna Qaon (in Divrei Eliyahu) explains this phrase based on the Gemara in Chullin (91b), which says that the Jewish people are more beloved by Hashem than are the angels. For the angels may not utter Hashem’s Name unless they preface it with three words of praise. Hence, they say iynj7 Uinj? Holy, holy, holy, and only then do they say niKny 'H, Hashem, Master of legions. But the Jews say Hashem’s Name after just two words: yntp. Hear, Israel, and immediately afterwards, 'Pi, Hashem is our God. This, explains the Vilna Qaon, is the meaning of the prayer: nnK3 n^p ‘^njn And You have brought us close to Your great Name forever in truth — closer even than the angels — fining, to offer praiseful thanks to You, for when we say a blessing of praise, we preface Hashem’s Name with only two words: nriK 'nil?, Blessed are You; nnnNp and to proclaim Your Oneness with love, for when we say the Shema, proclaiming Hashem’s Oneness, we again preface His Name with only two words, Vpty, Hear, Israel — unlike the angels who are required to use three words before pronouncing Hash¬ em’s Name. This demonstrates the closeness and love that Hashem has for His people, the Jewish nation.

nn>

WEDNESDAY — PARASHAS YISRO

/ 33

E A TORAH THOUGHT FOR THE DAY THURSDAY

njax"?

anann-'ja nx

nan’i

God spoke all these statements, saying {Shemos 20:1).

T

his verse, which introduces the Aseres HaDibros, the Ten Com¬ mandments, contains many layers of meaning within its seven short words. We will mention a few points of interest. The commentators note that the word “pa, all, seems extraneous. The Torah could have written □nn'in riK God spoke these statements, saying, without any seeming loss of mean¬ ing. There are a number of things we can learn from this extra word. Ohr HaChaim explains that one who accepts the yoke of Torah upon himself must agree to it all; if his acceptance excludes even one detail, he has not accepted the yoke of Torah at all (see Bechoros 30b). [This, of course, echoes the eighth of the Thirteen Fundamental Principles. See Series I: Parashas Mikeltz, Friday, A Closer Look at the Slddur, and Parashas Vaylgash, Sunday, A Closer Look at the Slddur.] This sentiment is echoed by the Baal HaTurim, who points out that this verse has the exact numerical value (1,332) as the sentence nn ba na ^naa. Everything Included in the Written and Oral [Law]. The Gemara {Chagigah 3b) takes this concept a step further. One would think that contradictory opinions cannot both be included in the Torah — only one can be correct! This verse tells us that even contra¬ dictory opinions are both part of the Torah: Torah scholars sit together, studying Torah. Some say that a thing is KMP, ritually impure; others say it is “ilnu, pure. Some say something is forbidden, while others permit it. Perhaps a man will say, “How can 1 ever learn Torah and understand it precisely, when every issue is subject to debate and dis¬ agreement?” To allay this concern the verse {Koheles 12:11) informs us that all the various Rabbinic opinions: injs nyhn ijrij, were given from one Shepherd: All the Torah was given by one Shepherd, through one leader [Moshe] speaking in the name of the Master of all creation, as the verse says: TWKb nbKii ann-in-ba riN n’nbK -15TI, God spoke all these statements, saying. [See A Mussar Thought for the Day for a discussion of the concept of n^n D-'nbK nni ibKi ibx. Both opinions are the words of the living God.] The last word of the verse also seems extraneous. What is the signi¬ ficance of the word “toxb, saylng;the verse began D’nbx “lai’l, Godspoke. Why does it repeat itself? Ohr HaChaim suggests a novel interpretation. 34

/ A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

In Devarim 26:17-18, the Torah says: n1''n niJOKii 'Pi □i’ii 'HI ..You have distinguished Hashem ^ nn>' today... And Hashem has distinguished you today. The THURSDAY Gemara {Chagigah 3a) explains that Hashem was tell¬ ing His nation, “You have made Me unique [by reciting the Shema, which proclaims Hashem’s Oneness]; 1 will make you unique [as the verse says {I Diurei HaYamim 17:21), nnK ■>1a ini, Who is like Your people Israel, a unique nation on earth]. The word shares the same root as nqnxri and Tjq’nNti. Ohr HaChaim submits that the extra world "i)3N^ in our verse is to underscore this parallel; the benefits of the Ten Commandments are uniquely suited to Israel’s status as Hashem’s unique nation, and the foundation of their everlasting holiness. Chizkuni quotes a Midrash Tanchuma (15) that also addresses this difficulty. The Midrash understands that the inclusion of the word was to indicate that Hashem paused as if to prepare His words, like a speaker reviewing his lecture before its delivery. This was to demon¬ strate the proper method of teaching Torah — one should not, out of haughtiness, teach Torah publicly until one reviews the lesson himself two or three times. Thus, DTrbx “13T1, God spoke these statements to Himself, as if in preparation, only afterwards saying them to the people of Israel.

MISHNAH OF THE DAY: SGCCAH 5:5

T

he previous Mishnah described the trumpet blasts that accompa¬ nied the procession to draw water for the libation; the Mishnah now proceeds to enumerate the trumpet blasts that were sounded in the Temple on various occasions: Ui'ipaa nly’pri nnxi nntyyw T’^inls I’n — On any given day we do not blow less than twenty-one trumpet blasts in the Temple, I’a’plM ’pK) D’yanx hv — nor do we ever exceed forty-eighH^^ vn DV baa tyjpMa niy’pin nn^i antyy oty — Every day there were at least twentyone trumpet blasts in the Temple: nnytp nrnnab — three for -— MOTES -

1. Every day, a minimum of 21 trumpet blasts were sounded in the Temple, and on certain occasions as many as 48 were sounded. The term tekios — which denotes long, unbroken blasts — is used here loosely, and refers to teruos — broken sounds — as well. Every sounding of the trumpets is a set of three blasts: a tekiah, a teruah, and another tekiah. On any given day in the Temple there are no less than seven such sets, for a total of 21 blasts.

THURSDAY — PARASHAS YISRO

/ 35

the opening of the gates,“inu; h]p n’wn^ ytyri) — and nine for the morning fam/d-offering,i^' a’anyn ]’a hp — and another nine for the after¬ THURSDAY noon tamid^' vpn niy i’i7 ]’api)3ai — On PARASHAS days when there was a mussaZ-offeringJ^i they YISRO added with the mussaf another nine. I’H nap; anypi \vp niy I’a’Din — And on Sabbath Eve, i.e., on Fri¬ day, they added another six blasts: naK^MW nyn ‘j’Uprtb pbp — three to stop the people from work,^^^ bn'7 P'fp ]’a tybty') — and three to distinguish between the sacred and the mundaneJ^i ann Tinap; nap; any — On a Sabbath eve that fell during the Succos festival, n3l)3p;i D’yarii;!: Dp; rn — there were a total of forty-eight blasts sounded there: nnyp; nn’np^ Php — three for the open¬ ing of the gates,I®' Ti’^yn “lypt^ Php — three for the Upper Gate,!®' Ilnrinn ~\vpb Pbp'] — three for the Lower Gate,’’®' i^bizb Pbp) - NOTES -

2. When they opened the gates of the Temple Courtyard each morning, they sounded three blasts: tekiah, teruah, and tekiah (Rau). 3. Each morning when they poured the wine libation on the Altar as part of the morning burnt-offering service, the Leviim would chant the Song of the Day. This daily psalm was divided into three parts. Before each part the Kohanim sounded a teruah, a tekiah, and a teruah on their trumpets and the people bowed, for a total of nine blasts (Rau). 4. [The trumpet-blowing was performed here in precisely the same way as at the daily morning burnt-offering. This brought the minimum number of daily trumpet blasts to 21.] 5. Viz., on the Sabbath, Rosh Chodesh, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and the festivals. 6. As the Gemara (35b) explains, the first blast, a tekiah, signaled that work in the field should cease; the second blast, a teruah, indicated that shops should close up; and at the third blast, a tekiah, the people would remove the food that they planned to eat that evening from the fire, wrap the food that they planned to eat the next day in insulating material, and light the Sabbath candles (see Rashi; Tosafos min’ m n"i). 7. Shortly after the last of the aforementioned three blasts, another set of three blasts was sounded to mark the actual advent of the Sabbath and its attendant prohibitions (Rashi). 8. [These are the three blasts blown every day when the gates of the Courtyard were opened.] 9. [These were blown at the outset of the procession led by two Kohanim (see yester¬ day s Mishnah) from the Upper (Nikanor’s) Gate to the Shiloach, to draw water.] 10. [This was the gate that led from the Women’s Courtyard to the eastern slope of the Temple Mount.]

36

/ A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

D’Jan — three for the filling of the water, na|» laa “jy — and three at the side of the Altarf^^^ “inu; b]v ytyri — another nine for the morning THURSDAY tamid-offering, a’a“|yn ^la hf ytyni — nine for the afternoon tamid-offering, I’aDDab ytyrii — and nine for the mussaf-offering; nx b’uart^ iv'bp nax^MH p ayrt — three to stop the people from work, bnb tyhj? ^’a \dbp) — and three to distinguish between the sacred and the mundane, for a total of forty-eight blasts.i^^i

nn>

- NOTES -

11. After filling the gold flask with water, they returned to the Temple and entered the Court through the Water Gate, as described in an earlier Mishnah (4:9). It was at this gate that they sounded three blasts {Rau). 12. When the willow branches were set up against the side of the Altar, as described in the Mishnah earlier, 4:5 (Rashi). 13. [These passages were explained at the beginning of the Mishnah. All in all, the sum of all the blasts sounded on Friday during Succos was 48.]

O

ur Mishnah stated that on a Sabbath eve that fell during the festival, there were a total of 48 trumpet blasts sounded in the Temple. The Mishnah tells us exactly when the trumpets were sounded. However, the Gemara (54b) raises the following difficulty: The previous Mishnah (5:4) mentioned that three blasts were sounded when the trumpeters reached the tenth step. Why does our Mishnah fail to reckon these three blasts? The Gemara answers this question by stating that the Tanna whose view is reflected in our Mishnah is R’ Eliezer ben Yaakov. He says that three blasts were sounded at the side of the Altar (as cited in our Mish¬ nah), but no blasts were sounded on the tenth step. The previous Mish¬ nah, however, reflects the view of the Tanna Kamma, who says that three blasts were sounded on the tenth step (as cited in yesterday’s Mishnah), but no blasts were sounded at the side of the Altar. All Tannaim thus agree that there were twelve special trumpet blasts sounded on Succos. The Gemara then explains the basis for this dispute. R’ Eliezer ben Yaakov reasons that once they had already blown at the opening of the Upper and Lower Gates (see Maharsha), there would be no reason to blow on the tenth step; since it is not a gate, it is not an appropriate place for blowing. Rather, therefore, it is preferable to complete the

THURSDAY — PARASHAS YISRO

/ 37

nwiQ ,1^, nn>

twelve blasts by sounding three blasts at the side of the Altar. The Tanna Kamma, however, maintains that since one blows the trumpets to mark the water-drawing, it THURSDAY is more appropriate to sound these blasts on the tenth step, rather then sounding them at the side of the Altar. Although the choice of this location seems somewhat arbitrary, it has, at least, the virtue of being associated with the water-drawing (see yesterday’s Mishnah, note 4). Rashi (to 53b) also cites a view according to which the blowing at the side of the Altar actually coincided with the arrival of the libation water at the Altar. Rashi explains that, according to this view, the words of the Qemara, since one blows to mark the water-drawing, should be deleted, and the Gemara’s question should read simply: Why blow at the side of the Altar? It should be explained as follows: Since trumpets were sounded at the time of the actual libation of the water on the Altar (Rashi to 53b citing Tamid 7:3), it would be redundant to have them sound the trumpets when the water arrived at the Altar as well.

i

A MUSSAIt THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

I

n A Torah Thought for the Day we mentioned the concept of iVki iVk n‘'’n nnq. Both opinions are the words of the living God. This counterintuitive concept allows us to accept as part of the Torah two mutually exclusive opinions. How can we understand this? R’ Yitzchak Arama (in Akeidas Yitzchak, Shaar 12) gives a hypo¬ thetical situation of two men standing before a king. One, wishing to honor the king, removes his hat. The other, also wishing to honor the king, puts on his hat. To an observer, it might seem that these two men disagree. But the truth is that these men share a common goal — they both wish to honor the king! The apparent disagreement of how to best reach that goal does not separate them — on the contrary, it strengthens their unity toward reaching their shared aim. When Torah scholars argue on the ritual status of an object or the permissibility of an item (as we saw in the Gemara quoted in A Torah Though for the Day), their common intention is to perpetuate the Torah and its mitzvos in the most complete way possible. It is their positive intent that allows the contradictory opinions to all be considered Torah: D^’n n.:?'!, the words of the living God. R’ Shlomo Luria (in his introduction to Yam Shel Shlomo, Bava Kamma), offers a Kabbalistic explanation of this statement. The Kabbalists write that the souls of all Jews were present at the giving of the 38 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

Torah at Mount Sinai. At that time there were forty-nine different spiritual channels through which the Torah was transmitted to all the souls. Each soul received THURSDAY the Torah through a particular spiritual channel, and PARASHAS only to the degree that was suitable to that particular ♦YISRO individual. These differences lead to the possibility that one person can see the Torah as permitting something, another can see it as prohibiting that same thing, while a third will take the compromise position. Still, all these opinions are directly sourced to the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, and all are true — the words of the living God. R’ Ellyahu Eliezer Dessler, in a letter to his students, also addresses this issue {Michtau MeiEliyahu, Volume 3, p. 353). He explains that even in a disagreement of halachah, where one opinion patently con¬ tradicts the other, and one must choose which to fulfill, there is only an apparent conflict — not an actual argument. To explain this, he offers the example of a sheet of paper. Someone looking only at the writing surface of the paper will see what appears to be a dramatically different object than someone looking only at the paper’s edge. Should they attempt to describe the paper to each other, they will find themselves embroiled in what seems to be an irreconcilable disagreement! The truth, though, is that each is absolutely correct, but they are approach¬ ing the problem from two different perspectives. In the service of Hashem, explains R’ Dessler, we have a similar situation. One scholar approaches the Torah from his perspective of Hashem’s service, while the other scholar has his own approach to service of Hashem. Their opinions will differ, but they are only different perceptions of the same object — Hashem’s Torah. They are therefore both the words of the living God.

nn»

hAlachAh of the

AV

_

W

e left off yesterday with our tzitzis strings ready to be tied. We have four strings hanging from one side of the hole, and four strings hanging from the other side. On one side, the four strings are comprised of three strings with a slipknot tied in their end, and one lengthy string hanging free. Now take all four strings from one side of the hole, and together with the four strings from the other side of the hole, tie a double knot, so that the tassel hangs off the side of the tzitzis garment. [When forming these knots, it is advisable to tighten them so that they pinch the garment

THURSDAY — PARASHAS YISRO /

39

somewhat. In this way the tassel will remain hanging off the side edge of the garment, as opposed to sliding off the side and hanging down off the bottom edge of the THURSDAY garment.] We have now created the first of the five sets PARASHAS of double knots. ^^YISRO One should now take the long string and wind it seven times around all seven of the other strings. After com¬ pleting these seven winds, rejoin the long string with the three strings that have the slipknot (thus keeping the original set of four from that side of the hole together) and tie the second set of double knots with the other four strings from the other side of the hole. The long string is then wound around the other seven strings eight times. Gpon complet¬ ing the eight winds we once again tie two double knots using all eight strings, in the same manner as before. This procedure of tying double knots and winding the long string around the others is repeated until there are five sets of double knots separated by four spaces containing seven, eight, eleven, and then thirteen windings respectively. Gpon completion of the final set of double knots, the remaining strings of the tassel are left to hang free. Since we have kept each group of four strings isolated one from the other, the four on each side of the hole represent the original two groups of four strings each that were located on each side of the hole. The part of the tassel comprised of the knots and spaces is known as the while the hanging strings are known as the D’‘7'’ri3. Ideally, the finished tassel should be one-third bna and two-thirds Additionally, all of the hanging strings should be of approximately equal length.

I

n A Torah Thought for the Day we discussed the Ohr HaChaim, which cites a Gemara {Chagigah 3a) that describes the nature of the relationship between Hashem and His chosen people. Tosafos there (3b) quote a Midrash that relates to the Minchah Shemoneh Esrei of Shabbos. The Midrash says that three parties testify for each other: the Jewish nation, Shabbos, and Hashem. The Jewish nation and Hashem bear witness that Shabbos is a day of rest; the Jewish nation and Shabbos bear witness that Hashem is One; and Hashem and Shab¬ bos bear witness that the Jewish nation is unique among the nations of the world. Tosafos explain that it is because of this Midrash that we recite the inis nriK prayer — which stresses these points — in a Shab¬ bos Shemoneh Esrei (at Minchah), even though it is less directly related 40 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

to Shabbos than the evening or morning Shemoneh Esreis. Earlier this week we began elucidating the Shabbos THURSDAY Minchah Shemoneh Esrei’stext according to R’ Eliyahu PARASHAS Eliezer Dossier (in Michtau MeiEUyahu, Volume 3, p. YISRO 71). We now continue with his explanation: pny’ br nnn^is:, Avraham will rejoice, Yltzchak will exult, because in imj;; T>3ni Yaakov and his children will rest on It — and the ultimate purpose of Shabbos is to approach the level of rest and contentment we will experience in the World to Come. But this can happen only if the rest is nniJT nnrjK nniJU, a rest of love and magnanimity — because without the willingness to be generous in the practice of loving one’s fellow, jealousy and strife will dominate one’s Shabbos, and there can be no true rest. One cannot rest properly until one has uprooted his inclination to constantly take; only then is there the possibility of nn>t rinun, a rest of truth, because otherwise, the sparks of falsehood upset our rest. and faith — this means a deep recognition of Hashem’s presence. Faith is, by definition, the heart’s truthfulness, because faith is what a heart perceives when it is unfettered by the taint of falsehood and bias. Then one will have: nu?) Dibu; nmJ)?, a rest of peace and serenity and tranquility and security. This means that after one strives to purify himself in order to rest properly on Shabbos, then Hashem bestows many types of peace upon him, “a shelter of peace,” as it were. It will then be a nnbia nniJn, a perfect rest, without anything impinging on it, as the verse {Shemos 31:17) puts it: n1’53 and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed. Hashem rested on the seventh day, even though the creation of the world was no strain for Him at all; similarly. He commanded that we rest, refrain¬ ing from even the lightest work. The intent behind this rest is that one be refreshed, to be able to celebrate Shabbos unencumbered by weekday concerns and connected to the spirituality in one’s soul — one’s U/D3. Through all this, one will experience a rest n3 nvin nriKia, in which You find favor. We pray that our rest pass Hashem’s inspection. He Who knows our every thought. When we reach this stage, we merit a level of rest comparable to the rest of the World to Come, and then nnniJ)? N’n ’3 ivij) n’3j. May Your children recognize and know that from You comes their rest. This is referring to the appreciation that the Jewish nation will have that Hashem gives them the World to Come. In the merit of this ap¬ preciation they will deserve more good of the World to Come, which

THURSDAY — PARASHAS YISRO

/ 41

they will then appreciate more, and so on, leading to an everlasting cycle of appreciation and further benefits of the World to Come. THURSDAY riK anniM and through their rest, PARASHAS they will sanctify Your Name— because they will know "■ YfSRO a how fortunate is the person who undergoes self-sacrifice to be able to sanctify Shabbos. Also, they will reach the understanding that Hashem’s kindnesses are so great as to be un¬ fathomable, that He is holy, which is another way of saying that Hashem is beyond human comprehension.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: What are we to learn from the fact that the Torah introduces the Ten Commandments with the statement: 'n ’a'ax “iwn'? Dnn‘7n-‘73 ns ain^x God spoke all of these statements, saying: / am Hashem? For the answer, see page 64.

42 / A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

IV.TORAH THOUGHT FOR THE . DAY .

..——...

4

nnK nax^tt'^a nt^yn'x^ ^’■7^^? 'nb naty ’y’atyn dI’i ^nytya “npx ^iruaiiai Ti'nwxi ^jriai ?]jai

T

FRIDAY

But the seventh day is Shabbos to Hashem, your God; you shall not do any work — you, your son, your daughter, your slave, your maidservant, your animal, and your convert within your gates {Shemos 20:10).

he fourth of the Aseres HaDibros is the mitzvah of Shabbos. The Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 32) points out that when describing this mitzvah, the Torah tells us that in addition to our personally refrain¬ ing from performing melachah, forbidden labor, on Shabbos, those who surround us — ^nyipa ntyx ^rinoai your son, your daughter, your slave, your maidservant, your animal, and your convert within your gates — also play a role in our Shabbos observance. The Torah is telling us, explains the Sefer HaChinuch, that the prohibition against performing labor on Shabbos includes these people (and animals) as well. Although the gravity of personal Shab¬ bos violation is much more severe — for the punishment for personal intentional Shabbos desecration, when preceded by the appropriate warning, is death — the Torah is telling us that we must ensure that those surrounding us refrain from performing labor as well. Divrei Yechezkel explains that the order in which the Torah writes these categories — son, daughter, slave, and so on — gives us insight into the nature of our responsibility in ensuring that melachah is not performed in each of these instances. If these categories were being listed in order of the importance of those whose melachah is being prohibited, "ilyx your convert within your gates, should be grouped together with the other people mentioned in this Torah commandment, and only afterwards should your animal, be mentioned. Why, then, is your convert within your gates enumerated as the final category in this verse? The reason for this arrangement is that when telling us of the need to ensure that others beyond oneself refrain from performing melachah on Shabbos, the Torah first speaks of those who are included in the household and are thus the direct responsibility of the person to whom the Torah is speaking — namely, your son, your daughter, your slave, your maidservant, your animal. For any melachah that these people perform is attributed to their father or master. [See A Mussar Thought for the Day for further discussion of

FRIDAY — PARASHAS YISRO

/ 43

this point.] However, your convert within your gates — which, explains Ramban, refers to a ger toshav, a nonJew who has accepted upon himself the seven mitzvos FRIDAY that apply to all of humanity — is not somebody who is PARASHAS included in our personal rest on Shabbos. Rather, Ram¬ .%YlSRd ban explains, the inclusion of your convert within your gates within the mitzvah of rest on Shabbos is telling the Jewish people that although a non-Jew is permitted to work on Shabbos in the manner that he does during the other six days, a Jew is forbidden from requesting that this person perform melachah on his behalf on Shabbos. Accordingly, concludes Divrei Yechezkel, this category is altogether different than the others in the verse, and it is therefore listed alone at the end of the verse.

■ !

MISHWAH OF THE DAY: SOCCAH 5:6

T

he Gemara in Taanis (27a) states thatMoshe established a system of dividing the Kohanim into eight nlnnipn, watches: four from the family of Elazar and four from the family of Issamar. The eight watches took turns being responsible for the service in the Tabernacle. Shmuel and David further divided the Kohanim into twenty-four watches. A watch would be in charge of the Temple service for one week, after which another watch would take its place. This cycle con¬ tinued until each of the twenty-four had a turn, and then the rotation would begin again {Rambam, HU. Klei HaMikdash 4:3). On the three pilgrimage festivals of Pesach, Shavuos, and Succos, however, all the watches shared in the service of the festival mussafofferlngs. But, the regular daily service, as well as sacrifices offered by individuals, belonged to the Kohanim in whose watch the festival fell. Our Mishnah explains how the mussaf-offehngs were divided among the watches on Succos: Ah hp ptttxnn aiu d1i — On the first festival day of Succos Dtp hnx T'ytt;'! a’Jtp aibiKi ana npv rtphp — there were thirteen bulls, two rams, and one he-goat, and each of these sixteen animals was offered by a different watch.I’l Q’tyaa ‘^py nyaaK aty nintya --— NOTES _____

1. The entire mussaf-offering specified by the Torah for the first day of Succos (Bamidbar 29:12-16) is: nna ... nb'v onaipni... ■’yawn wnnb nh “iWy nWnnai riKun And on the fifteenth day of the seventh month !! . you shall offer ]as] a burntoffering . .. thirteen bulls, two rams, fourteen yearling sheep ... and one he-goat

44 / A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

nn)3tf7)3 — There remained fourteen lambs for the re¬ maining eight watches, and they were divided as fol¬ lows; iltyxnn ai»a — On the first day ]’anpw nwp FRIDAY — six of eight watches offered two eac/ii^' nnx — and the rest one eachP^ ’Jtya — PARASHAS YISKO On the second day, when there was one less bull, and so nine watches remained to share in the fourteen lambs,''‘i D’Jtp D’atf; I’ani?)? ntytan — five watches offered two eachf^^ inN nnN — and the rest one eachJ^^ — On the third day, when the number of bulls was again reduced by one, and so ten watch¬ es remained to share in the fourteen lambs,D’Jty I’anpw nyanx U'lip — four watches offered two each,*®' “rrtx "iKtyni — and the rest one eac/iJ®' ’y’3“13 — On the fourth day, when eleven watches remained to share in the lambs,D’Jty D’aty I’anpw nu/bu; — three watches offered two each, “iliK nnx "iKtpni —and the rest one eachJ”! ’ty’Mna — On the fifth day, when twelve watches remained to share in the lambs,D’Jty D’JUt panptt D’JU; — two watches offered two - NOTES -

for a sin-offering. Our Mishnah lists sixteen of them, which were offered by sixteen different watches, leaving fourteen yearling sheep not accounted for (Rau). 2. Each watch would offer two lambs, for a total of twelve lambs (Rau). 3. The last two watches (Rau) [by offering one lamb apiece, brought the number of lambs to fourteen]. 4. The Torah (ibid. vs. 13-32) requires one bull less on each successive day of Succos: twelve for the second day, eleven for the third day, and so on, together with the constant two rams and single he-goat. Thus, on the second day there were a total of fifteen animals, requiring fifteen watches. That left nine watches to offer the fourteen lambs (Rau).

5. Each of these five watches offered two lambs, for a total of ten lambs (Rau). 6. The last four watches (Rau). 7. One less bull was offered on this day, as the Torah (ibid. v. 20) specifies eleven bulls, two rams, and a he-goat for the third day, for a total of fourteen offerings requiring fourteen watches. That left ten watches for the fourteen daily lambs

(Rau). 8. Each offered two lambs for a total of eight (Rau). 9. The last six watches (Rau). 10. Again, one less bull was offered on this day, as the Torah (ibid. v. 23) specifies ten bulls, two rams, and a he-goat for the fourth day, a total of thirteen offerings. This required thirteen watches, leaving eleven watches to offer the fourteen lambs. 11. The last eight watches, by offering one lamb apiece, brought the total to fourteen. 12. Again, one less bull was offered, as the Torah (ibid. v. 26) specifies only nine

FRIDAY — PARASHAS YISRO / 45

each,

inx inx — and the rest one eac/iJ’^i — On the sixth day, when thirteen watches re¬ mained to share in the lambs,an;?)? — one FRIDAY watch offered two lambs, niiK nnK — and the PARASHAS rest one eachM^^ 1’ity T^a ’Vat^a — On the seventh YfSRO day, when fourteen watches remained to share in the lambs, all these fourteen watches'^®’ were equal, and each offered one lambj^'^' ’J’Wtya — On the eighth day,>'®' ntn n’baaaa O’S^ — they reverted to casting lots^^^^ as on the other Yamim Tooim.P®) nl’rr ana anpritc? iw" nwx — They said, “Whoever offered bulls "“iriMV anp’ ia\y v;w Ti^yi

Dnyw vikw Q01k ■’KYin nPa D5'’nl3K'nN nn? “lyw’ iu7k nnyn ttintin w’k yniy Ti?^

TlByn ■’lyan inn^^yi. So says Hashem, God of Israel, “I sealed a covenant with your forefathers on the day I took them out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves, saying, ‘At the end of seven years each of you shall set free his Jewish brother who will be sold to you; he shall serve you for SVC years and then you shall set him free from yourself ’ ” Additionally, Yerushalmi {Rosh Hashanah 3) expounds the verse {Shemos 6:13): DlY’i pnx nv'n'bK m lami □nyp yn.isw N’yin'? anyw Tib)?, "Hashem spoke to Moshe and to Aharon and commanded them regarding the Children of Israel and regarding Pharaoh, king of Egypt, to take the Children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, in the following way: “About what did God command them? Regarding the mitzvah of setting slaves free.” Clearly, the commandment to free Jewish slaves was given in Egypt and re¬ peated later at Sinai. R’ Chaim Shmulevitz asks: Why was it necessary to give the mitzvah of setting Jewish slaves free, in Egypt? The vast majority of mitzvos were not given until Sinai. Why didn’t Hashem wait until then to command this mitzvah as well? R’ Chaim answers: Hashem knew that it is difficult for someone to release his slave to freedom, someone who has been his worker for a long time. Therefore, in order to make it easier for the Jews to accept this law without reluctance, Hashem gave it to them while they were still in Egypt, when the experience of their own slavery — and how powerfully they longed for their own freedom — was fresh in their minds and hearts. Thus, they could easily relate to the plight of the slaves they would have in the future, and resolve to release them joyfully. Otzros HaTorah relates a legend told about Napoleon to elucidate this concept. It is said that during one of Napoleon’s wars, he had lost a

66 / A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

battle and was being chased by his enemies. He ran into the closest home he could find and hid under some blan¬ kets provided by the host. The enemies barged into the SUNDAY house to search for Napoleon, looked everywhere, and PARASHAS even groped through the blankets, but did not find him. MfSHPATlM When they were long gone, Napoleon came out of his hiding place and thanked the man who had provided his shelter and refuge. Since the man had saved his life, Napoleon offered to fulfill his any request. The man said he was not interested in any reward but merely wanted to know how Napoleon felt while he was hiding, with the enemy searching all over the house for him. Immediately, Napoleon ordered that the man be killed for asking such a brazen, impudent question to the emperor. The man would be hung on a high gallows. When the day came for the hanging, Napoleon took the rope and tightened it, readying it to choke the man to death. A split second before the man was to be killed, Napoleon stopped the proceedings and whispered in the man’s ear, “This is exactly the way 1 felt when the enemies were rummaging through the blankets!” Napoleon then released the man, and told him that he had promised to fulfill any request, and the only way to answer the man’s question was to create a situation that would simulate the feelings that Napoleon had had when he was hiding. Relating them in words could never suffice to describe the intense fear that he felt. Napoleon wanted the man to feel the exact feelings that he had felt. Similarly, giving the mitzvah of freeing slaves to the Jewish people while they were still slaves themselves would ensure that they would understand the longing for freedom that the slave experiences; thus, the mitzvah to free the slave in the seventh year would be readily ac¬ cepted and fulfilled.

MISHNAH of the DAY: SGCCAH 5:8

T

he final Mishnah of the tractate continues the discussion of how the panim breads were divided equally among all the Kohanim: D’riJ’a p’ppn^ dI’ nl’nb — If one day intervened between themP - NOTES -

1. That is, if either the first day of a festival was Monday, in which case Sunday intervened between the Sabbath and Yom Tov, or the last day of a festival was Thursday, in which case Friday intervened between the festival and the Sabbath. In either of these cases, in addition to the designated watches that were assigned to the Temple service, there were large numbers of Kohanim who came for the

SUNDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM /

67

^)p^y^3 — the watch whose time wets fixed nl‘?n “itoy *7013 rr’n — would take ten loaves, D’rny bula asyrirarti — and the one that stayed behind SUNDAY would take twoP^ njurn nl)3’ "iNtpai — But during PARASHAS the other days of the year, i.e., on Sabbaths that were MISHPATIM not festival days, Vtp “JUU DHart — the incoming watch would take six loaves, tyty ^laia Kyl’rti — and the outgoing watch would take six. “iMlN n’lin’ ’aa — R’ Yehudah says: yaty “rula oaaan — The incoming watch would take seoen,i''i tynn “jula Nyi’ni — and the outgoing watch would take llara I’pwart — The incoming watch divided the lechem hapanim in the north of the courtyard,— and the outgoing watch in the south.'^' nlnna np^ln D^iy^ na^a — The watch of Bilgah,^^^ however, always divided the lechem hapanim in -

NOTE

-

festival. If the festival was to begin on Monday, many Kohanim would arrive on Fri¬ day instead of Sunday, and if the festival ended on Thursday, many Kohanim would remain for the Sabbath rather than leave for home on Friday (Rashi to 56a; Rau). 2. On an ordinary Sabbath, two watches of Kohanim would be present at the Tem¬ ple, since that is the day when the watches were changed. Thus, the watch whose time was fixed refers to both the incoming and the outgoing watches. Our Mishnah teaches that on a regular Sabbath, the twelve panim breads would be divided equally between these two watches, six for each. If the Sabbath occurred as near to Yom Tov as described here, only ten loaves were given to the fixed watches — five to the outgoing watch and five to the incoming watch {Rashi; Rau). 3. These were the Kohanim who came to the Temple on Friday and remained over the Sabbath, even though they could have come on Sunday, or the Kohanim who could have gone home on Friday but decided to stay over the Sabbath {Rashi; Rau; see note 1). 4. According to R’ Yehudah, the incoming watch is entitled to an extra loaf because that evening it will close the Temple gates that had been opened on the Sabbath morning by the outgoing watch {Rau). 5. Having already received seven loaves the previous Sabbath for closing the Temple gates that night, this time they received only five. 6. They divided their share of the loaves among themselves in the section of the Courtyard north of the Altar, the most important part of the Courtyard, where ’Uthp most-holy offerings, were slaughtered. This symbolized that the group was the incoming watch, dedicating itself to serve in the Temple {Rashi; Rau). 7. They divided their share of the loaves among themselves in the less important area of the Courtyard, where no particular service was designated to be performed, thus symbolizing that they were the outgoing watch {Rashi; Rau). 8. This was the name of the 15th watch. Each watch was named after one of its ancestors {Rashi; Rau; see IDiurei HaYamim 24:7-18).

68 / A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

the south,rtynp nriyaui — and its ring was per¬ manently affixed,nwintp nJi'jni — and its alcove was sealed.^^^^

n»vavs?n SUNDAY

-NOTES-—

9. Even when it was the incoming watch, Bilgah was required to divide its share in the southern part of the Courtyard; consequent¬ ly. Bilgah always seemed to be leaving the Temple {Rabbeina Chananel). This was a fine imposed upon the Bilgah watch. 10. Affixed to the stone floor of the Courtyard, north of the Altar where the slaughter¬ ing was done, were twenty-four rings, corresponding to the twenty-four watches. Each ring resembled a circle with an open section, and was inserted into a semicircular groove in the floor of the Courtyard. When an offering was to be slaughtered, the ring was rotated so that the open section was facing upward; the animal’s neck was placed into the ring, and the ring was then rotated so that the open section was beneath the Courtyard floor; this would lock the animal’s head in place during the slaughter. Each of the twenty-four watches was assigned its own ring to use during its week of service. The ring assigned to Bilgah, however, was permanently fixed, so that it could not be rotated and opened. This, too, was a fine imposed on Bilgah, forcing it to use the ring of another watch and thereby suffer embarrassment {Rashi; Rau). 11. Along the northern and southern walls of the Sanctuary structure there were compartments. The compartments on the northern side of the Sanctuary had alcoves where the Kohanim would deposit their knives. Each watch had its own alcove, except Bilgah, whose alcove was sealed. The reason that Bilgah was penalized is explained by the Gemara (56b; see Gems from the Gemara ).

GEMS FROM THE GEMARA

W

e learned in the Mishnah that the 15th watch of Kohanim that served in the Temple, the watch of Bilgah, was penalized in three ways during its term of service: (1) They always divided their panim bread in the southern section of the Courtyard, the location normally used only for the outgoing watch (see note 9 to the Mishnah). (2) Their ring in the floor of the Courtyard was permanently fixed so that it could not be rotated open, forcing them to use the ring of another watch (see note 10 to the Mishnah). (3) Their alcove on the northern wall of the Sanctuary that normally would have contained their slaughtering knives was sealed (see note 11 to the Mishnah). These were penalties imposed upon the Bilgah watch in order that they should suffer embarrassment. The Gemara (56b) cites a Baraisa that explains why Bilgah was penalized: There was once an incident involving Miriam, the daughter of one of

SUNDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM

/ 69

the members of the watch of Bilgah, who became an apostate and went and married an officer of one of the Greek kings. When the Greeks subsequently entered SUNDAY the Sanctuary in the days of Matisyahu ben Yochanan, PARASHAS she [Miriam] scornfully kicked with her sandal on top of MISHPATIM the Altar and exclaimed: “Wolf! Wolf! how long will you consume the money of Israel, and you do not stand by them in a time of pressing need!” Maharsha explains that she compared the Altar to a wolf because just as a wolf preys on sheep, so too the Altar consumed the two sheep of the tamid-offerings every day. [It is noteworthy that the reference to the Altar as a wolf is not nec¬ essarily demeaning in itself; indeed, there are those who explain that Binyamin, son of Yaakov, was referred to by his father as q'lP'’ 3NT, a wolf that tears {Bereishis 49:27), as an allusion to the fact that the Altar would be built in his portion (see Zevachim 53b and Tzofnas Pane’ach to Bereishis loc. cit.). However, Miriam was deserving of punishment for the disparaging and disrespectful nature of her deeds and words.) The Baraisa continues: When the Sages heard of what Miriam did, they permanently affixed Bilgah’s ring to the floor of the Courtyard and they sealed off its alcove in the Sanctuary wall. The Baraisa now offers an alternative reason for why these penalties were imposed upon the watch of Bilgah: There are those who say that Bilgah’s watch would be tardy in coming to the Temple when it was its week to serve, and as a result the watch of Yeshevav replaced it. Rashi explains that in the sequence of the watches, Bilgah was number 15, following Yeshevav, who was number 14; accordingly, Yeshevav was always the outgoing watch when Bilgah was incoming. Thus, whenever Bilgah was tardy, Yeshevav stayed on to replace it. The Baraisa comments regarding this last explanation: Although in general neighbors of the wicked do not benefit from be¬ ing in proximity of the wicked, [Yeshevav] the neighbors of Bilgah did benefit, because Bilgah was penalized and had to divide the lechem hapanim in the south, even when it was the incoming watch; conse¬ quently the watch of Yeshevav always divided in the north, even when it was the outgoing watch. QUESTION OF THE DAY: Why does this parashah begin with the laws of Hebrew servants? For the answer, see page 133.

70 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

A MQSSAR THOGGHT FOR THEDA

T

n>vau>n

SUNDAY here is no question that when someone undergoes l'XK-\SII\h suffering of his own, he finds it easier to feel an¬ 'iisiirviiN other person’s pain. But how can people who are not currently suffering accomplish the goal mentioned as one of the forty-eight ways to acquire wisdom {Pirkei Auos 6:6): I'T’nn DJ7 'p'v:;! Kti/h, sharing his friend’s burden? R’ Chaim Friedlander instructs us to learn from Moshe Rabbeinu. Moshe did not grow up in slavery like the rest of the Jewish people. He was raised by Pharaoh’s daughter, Bisyah, in the Egyptian ruler’s palace. Yet, Bisyah, a secret convert to Judaism, informed Moshe of his Jewish ancestry, and we know that his mother, Yocheved, was able to nurse him as an infant. When he grew older, the Torah tells us (2:11): K“)^l T’nK’Vx KY’l anbnp:;!. He (Moshe) went out to his brethren and saw their suffering. As Rashi explains, “He placed his eyes and heart to feel pained for them.’’ Moshe went out of his way to feel the suffering of his fellow Jews. He did not sit back and enjoy his luxurious royal lifestyle. His brothers were hurting, and he could not live without feeling their pain. Moshe cried and said to himself: “1 am so pained for them! 1 wish 1 could die for them! There is nothing as difficult as making bricks!” Moshe then offered his own shoulders and helped as many Jews as he could with their work (see Shemos Rabbah 1:27). R’ Friedlander continues by suggesting that we need to strive to emulate Moshe, to step away from dealing only with our concerns and start putting ourselves in the mind-sets and situations of others. We need to see their needs, worries, and pains. We need to become good listeners, and offer comforting and encouraging words. We can’t always do something tangible to solve our friend’s problems, but the fact that he knows that 1 share the pain of his burdens helps him tre¬ mendously. He knows that he does not face his problems alone. The great Tanna, Hillel, told a potential Jewish convert that the Torah can be encapsulated in one directive: “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow” (Shabbos 31a). Sensitivity for others, loving your friends and neighbors, and feeling their pains and burdens is what the entire Torah is all about. The goal of all the 613 mitzvos Is to enable us to break free from the self-serving and selfish attitude with which we were born, and to step into the thoughts and feelings of those around us. This even includes thinking about the pain and anguish of Hashem Himself. As Rashi comments on Hlllel’s statement: Hashem is also our

SUNDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM /

71

“friend,” and we must offer Him our acts of friendship by sincerely attempting to feel His “burdens,” and fulfill all of His instructions for living, the entire Torah. SUNDAY Included in sharing a friend’s burden is the act of PARASHAS praying for him. Thus, the Qemara {Berachos 12b) MISHPATIM states that whoever can pray for another and does not is called a sinner ... If he is a wise and sensitive man, he will make himself sick over his friend’s problems. [R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach once explained that when we recite a chapter of TehilUm and say a Mi SheBeirach prayer for people who are ill, we demonstrate sensitivity, and our care and concern for them. However, people wrongly assume that the main aspect of these prayers is the Tehillim. This is not so. The recital of TehilUm creates merits, but these merits need to be followed by prayer. And the main part of these prayers is the saying of Amen by the minyan, a quorum of ten men, after the Mi SheBeirach is complete! This is when the tefillah of the tzibbur, the group prayer, actually occurs. Thus, it behooves us to be careful to always remain attentive until the end of the Mi SheBeirach prayer after Tehillim is completed, so that we can answer Amen.]

W

e have thus far seen two opinions regarding the status of a tallis gadoloT tallis /catan whose tzitzishave become torn. Each of these opinions requires a heretofore unspecified minimal amount of hanging string on at least one end of all four of the original tzitzis strings. This amount of string is known as nn’JV enough for a bow. The exact measurement of n5'’Jj7 ns is somewhat difficult to ascertain. It may be described as an amount of string long enough to be tied around all the other strings in a slipknot that can be undone by a pull with one hand. Practically speaking, as long as the strings have a remaining length equal to at least two thumb-breadths (approximately three-quarters of an inch), they remain kosher. If their length has become less than that, one should consult a competent halachic authority for a ruling. In actual practice, one may recite a blessing on a tallis that is kosher only according to the first opinion we discussed yesterday, but if an¬ other tallis that is kosher according to both opinions is available, one should recite the blessing over the second tallis. Since tzitzis strings are an item used in the performance of a mitzvah, they should be treated with the respect that such items deserve. For ex¬ ample, one may not use the strings of a tallis in order to tie something. 72

/ A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

If the strings of the tzitzis have become invalid, they may 1 not be disposed of in a disgraceful manner; accordingly, one should not place worn-out tzitzis strings directly into SUNDAY the trash. However, they may be placed into a clean bag PARASHAS or other container and then placed into a garbage can. MISHPATIM While the above ruling may be relied upon, the Rama writes that one who treats the invalid tzitzis in a consci¬ entious fashion and accords them greater respect — such as placing them in sheimos — will be blessed. Still other authorities mention the idea of using torn tzitzis strings as place marks in sefarim, in order to continue using the strings for a mitzvah-oriented use. The above applies to the actual tzitzis strings. The law regarding the garment the tzitzis are attached to is somewhat different. According to some authorities, a tallis gadol that still has its tzitzis attached may not be used for any mundane purpose at all. For example, one may not use his tallis gadol in order to clean his glasses. While this is true of the garment of a tallis gadol, the garment of a tallis katan may be used for mundane purposes as long as it is not used in a degrading manner.

T

.

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE SIDDUR . .....

here is a very comforting thought regarding how Hashem fulfills the ideal of nnn nv sharing another’s burden, with re¬ spect to the suffering of the Jewish people. We express this concept in one of the chapters of Tehillim that we say in Pesukei D’Zimrah each week on Shabbos morning. Hashem tells us {Tehillim91:15): niYn ini25Xl, He will call upon Me and I will answer Him, I am with him in distress, I will release him and honor him. We say here that when we suffer, Hashem is with us in our distress. When we are in pain. He is in pain as well. The Qemara in Berachos (3a) describes how Hashem cries for the Jewish people, and laments ,the fact that He was compelled to drive us out of the Land of Israel and destroy the Temple. Woe to the sons because of whose sins I destroyed My house, and burned My Temple, and exiled them among the nations of the world ... what Is there for the Father Who has exiled his sons! Perhaps an even more powerful example of Hashem feeling the pain of our suffering is found in Rashi to Shemos 24; 10. Commenting on the verse; T-SDn nnb nti/ym nnni riN They saw the God of Israel, and under His feet was a sapphire brick, Rashi cites Midrash

SUNDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM /

73

Rabbah, which states that this brick was in front of Him at the time of the enslavement, so He would remember the pain of Israel, who were enslaved with the work of bricks. SUNDAY Of course, Hashem is not a physical being, and the feet PARASHAS and brick mentioned here are not meant literally. But the MISHPATiM imagery and message is clear: our distress is always fore¬ most in Hashem’s awareness. He never wants to “forget” about our suffering, so He takes a brick, as a way to remind Himself. Another demonstration of this notion is stated by Rashi {Shemos 3:2) when Hashem first appears to Moshe at the burning thornbush. Why did Hashem reveal Himself within a thornbush and not some other tree? Rashi explains that it is an allusion that Hashem is with us in our distress. Mizrachi elaborates on Rashi, explaining that a thornbush in¬ flicts pain on those who touch it or rub against it. By revealing Himself and dwelling within a thornbush, Hashem was relaying the message that He too was in pain at the Jewish people’s suffering. The Rizhiner Rebbe was once imprisoned by the Czar, for the “crime” of being a Torah leader of the Jewish people. He was incarcerated for months and placed in a filthy and repugnant dungeon, with no visitors allowed. Finally, his chassidim were able to establish a connection with one of the guards, who allowed them to visit the Rebbe. When they approached him, they saw that he was crying. Seeing the Rebbe in his plight, they started crying as well. He asked them, “Why are you crying?” Surprised at the question, the chassidim responded, “Rebbe, we’re crying because we see that you are crying. We’re crying because our holy and saintly Rebbe has been forced to endure such terrible circumstances. We’re crying be¬ cause your awful plight forces you to cry!” The Rebbe replied, “That’s not why 1 am crying. The fact that 1 have to live in these conditions is not what is bothering me. You know why I’m crying? I’m crying because when 1 was put into this dungeon, Hashem came along with me, as the pasuk says: nny:? '’bJX'iwv, / am with him in distress. It is for His suffering and the fact that He has to remain in these horrible surroundings that 1 cry!” The Rizhiner Rebbe then interpreted the pasuk {Tehillim 23:4): “>? DJ m)3V noK-’? V-] Kmx-Kb Though I walk in the valley overshadowed by death, / will not fear evil, for You are with me. The simple reading is self-explanatory; the Psalmist has trust in Hashem to carry him through the dark times. The Rizhiner, however, read it differ¬ ently: 1 do not fear facing evil or tragedy, because 1 know that whatever happens to me is for the best. What does bother me is that You, Hashem, have to go to the dungeon with me — •'-iMV nriK ->5, for You are with me! 74 / A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

A TORAH THOUGHT FOR THE DAY^ “ilU7)3 rraa^rr nn Krian K^nin-aK

abty’ a^ip a«ri rt^-ny ^1M|:T-^y

T

D>\73H;n MONDAY 1’\1

If the theft shall be found in his possession — whether a Hue ox or donkey or sheep or goat — he shall pay double {Shemos 22:3).

here is a series of passages in Parashas Mishpatim discussing the laws of reparations that must be paid when someone causes dam¬ age to another person, or to his property. One of the people entitled to reparations is a victim of theft. In addition to returning a stolen object (or its value, in a case where the item has been altered or destroyed) to its owner, the Torah commands that under specific circumstances, the thief is to be fined by being made to pay the victim bps, or double the amount that he stole. Thus, a person who steals an object worth $10, and does not subsequently acknowledge his crime and return the object, but is instead found to be guilty through the testimony of witnesses in bels din, is obligated to pay his victim $20. [Like all Torah fines, the fine of keifel may be administered only by a beis din of semuchln — that is, a bels din ordained by Rabbis ordained in turn through a direct chain of transmission from Sinai; sadly, this is not applicable in our times.] The fine of keifel applies to a thief who steals — and subsequently denies having stolen — any movable item of inherent worth. [The only exceptions to this rule, the Torah tells us in verse 22:37, are the specific scenarios of the theft of a sheep or ox that was subsequently slaugh¬ tered or sold. In this situation, in addition to the value of the stolen animal, the thief pays a fine of four times the value of the ox and three times that of the sheep.] In Torah law, we find two different legal categories involving theft. In one of these, the perpetrator is called a thief i.e., one who steals in secret, such as by breaking into his victim’s house at a time when he calculates that no one will be watching. In the other he is called jbn, a robber, i.e., one who forcefully takes an object from his victim in plain sight. [The Torah in fact mentions these two separate prohibitions in two different verses: nAAin K'b, You shall not steal {Vaylkra 19:11), and bun Rbl, you shall not rob (ibid. v. 13).] Although both forms of taking away someone else’s property are forbidden, the extra fine of keifel is instituted only for committing an act of theft. The Gemara {Baua Kamma 79) offers an insight through which we

MONDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM / 75

may better understand why the punishment of keifel is administered only for the crime of nnJ?, not n^T^. Onlike a robber, who brazenly robs his victim in open daylight, MONDAY a burglar steals secretly. In his act of open banditry, a PAKASHAS robber shows that he fears no one at all — neither God MISMPATIM nor human beings. A thief, however, shows that he in¬ deed fears the law, and for this reason takes great pains not to be seen by anyone when he is committing his crime. However, he forgets that Hashem is watching his every action. As punishment for treating human law as a greater reality than Hashem’s ever-watchful eye, a thief must pay twice for his crime: once to recompense the victim whom he wronged, and the second for his lack of emunah in the basic reality that Hashem is aware of every detail in the world. Although the Gemara explains why a thief is required to pay a fine beyond the amount he stole, we may still ask a question. This Gemara tells us only why a fine must be paid, but does not explain why this fine must be paid specifically to the victim, who has already been re¬ compensed for his loss when his item or its value was returned to him. Why is the fine not given to the poor (as the Gemara in Bava Kamma 38b in fact suggests in regard to a different fine), or to beis din, or to the community? Teshuvos Raduaz (3:624) answers this question by suggesting that since the victim was harmed by this crime, it is appropriate that he be the one to receive the baa fine. Perhaps we may better understand this answer by examining the verse in which the Torah instructs a thief to pay an extra payment: he shall pay double, implying that these two payments are seen as one double unit. [See A Taste of Lomdus.] Sefer Mltzadel Gauer explains that it is only through the added keifel payment that the damage caused by the theft is totally repaired. Maharal {ISetzach Ylsrael, p. 189) states that whenever we find a doubling or repetition of a phrase in a Torah verse, the second — or double — phrase is meant to strengthen the message of the first state¬ ment. For example, when Hashem tells us {Yeshayah 51:12): DDfpnjq Nin, / will surely comfort you, the second ■>3JK is reinforcing the veracity of the first; Hashem — and only Hashem — will ultimately comfort the Jewish people. Perhaps we may understand that the same is true in a thief’s obligation to pay ba?; the purpose of this payment is to reinforce the base payment. In his theft of an object from another person, the thief removed, in essence, the person’s ownership from his object. [It is for this reason, explain many commentaries, that the slaughter or sale of a sheep or ox is fined more heavily, for these actions 76 / A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

further remove this object from the owner’s domain.] We may understand that even when this object is returned, CI»P£l^)3 the person’s ownership in a sense is weaker than it was MONDAY before, for the very fact that a person lost his object HA 1 for a time means that, even when it is returned to him, MISHPATIM people do not see this item as truly “his.” This, then, is the purpose of paying keifel to the victim. The second payment reinforces the reality of the base payment that it accom¬ panies. When returning the stolen object to its owner, the payment of is given to the victim to demonstrate that the object is being returned to its rightful owner. The second payment doubles — or rein¬ forces — the message, meaning, and strength of the first. With this in mind, we may understand that when Teshuuos Radvaz tells us that the victim is to receive the keifel money because he is the one who is harmed by the crime, he is referring not only to the time of the actual burglary, but to the fact that the burglary continues to harm the victim at the present, for even when the object is returned, it is still, in a sense, less than totally in his domain. Thus, the role of the keifel payment is to remove this stigma, and to make it clear to all that the primary obligation is the return of an object to its rightful owner.

MISHNAH OF THE DAY: BEhZf ' 1:1

C

ommonly called HY’?, Beitzah, after the word with which it begins, this tractate is also known as tractate PlU Di’, Yom Tov, as it fo¬ cuses on the laws that are specific to Yom Tov {Iggeres Rav Sherlra Gaon; see Meiri)P^ The tractate opens with a discussion of the topic of muktzeh. The term nYpjp, muktzeh (lit., set aside), refers to any item that was not “prepared” before the commencement of the Sabbath or Yom Tov — i.e., no one anticipated making use of this item on this Sabbath or Yom Tov. As this topic is a recurring theme of this tractate, we have provided an overview of the major categories of muktzeh in Gems from the Gemara to this Mishnah. -- NOTES -

1. The term Yom Tov, as used throughout this tractate, refers to the festival days on which the Torah prohibits melachah, forbidden labor — viz., the first and last days of Pesach, the first day of Succos, Shemini Atzeres, Shavuos and Rosh Hashanah. [Of course, outside Eretz Yisrael a second day of Yom Tov is added to each of these festivals. In the case of Rosh Hashanah, even residents of Eretz Yisrael observe two days.)

MONDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM /

77

The coming Mishnah considers the category of muktzeh known as nolad [lit., Just born]. Nolad is any item that would not normally be classified as muktzeh, MONDAY but became suitable for use only after the onset of the PARASHAS* Sabbath. Since the item was not suitable for use before jMrSHPATIM the Sabbath began, it cannot be said to have been “pre¬ pared” for this Sabbath, and it is therefore muktzeh. [Many of the categories of muktzeh are subject to a dispute between R’ Yehudah and R’ Shimon, and the laws of nolad are no exception (see Gems from the Gemara to our Mishnah). According to R’ Shimon, the prohibition of nolad is limited to those items whose present form and function is radically different from their form and function before the onset of the Sabbath {Tosafos 2a; Eruuln 46a). According to R’ Yehudah, however, the prohibition extends even to certain items whose function has changed on the Sabbath, even though their form has not changed {Shabbos 124b).] alu Di’a nsr’a — An egg that was laid on Yom n’S an»lN ’KWty — Beis Shammai sag: It may be eaten. hbn n’ai ■jaKn sh nnwiN — But Beis Hillel say: It may not be eaten.t^^ - NOTES -

2. I.e., on one of the festival days on which the Torah prohibits melachah (see the previous note). [According to most of the opinions in the Gemara (2a-3a), the same dispute also pertains to an egg that was laid on the Sabbath. The Mishnah nevertheless focuses on the status of the egg on Yom Tov, because even if from the standpoint of muktzeh law eating such an egg would be permitted, it would remain forbidden to cook it on the Sabbath. Since people generally do not eat eggs raw, it is more realistic to present the dispute in the context of Yom Tov, when it would be permitted to cook the egg.] 3. Beis Hillel’s prohibition is based on the fact that an egg that is laid today was already fully developed within the hen the day before. Now, if that “day before” had been the Sabbath (i.e., Yom Tov was on Sunday), and the egg was eaten on Yom Tov, then preparation for Yom Tov had occurred on the Sabbath. Similarly, if an egg was laid on a Sabbath subsequent to Yom Tov (i.e., Yom Tov was on Friday), it was prepared on Yom Tov. Beis Hillel maintain that the Torah itself forbids the preparation of food (or any other item) on Yom Tov for use on the Sabbath, and on the Sabbath for use on Yom Tov — even if the preparation is passive. In the event that such preparation occurred, euen if no forbidden iabor was involved, the prepared item is prohibited on the following day — whether that next day is a Sabbath or a Yom Tov. Rabbah explains that Beis Hillel derive this principle from Shemos (16:5), where it is stated concerning the Sabbath: iK’nyiwtt nx U'’5ni Di’5 mni. And it shall be on the sixth day, they shall prepare what they bring in. This verse teaches us that on account of its special significance, food for a Yom Tov or a Sabbath must be prepared on a weekday. [The verse is not referring to preparation that involves

78 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

The Mishnah now proceeds to record an additional dis¬ pute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. The follow¬ ing Mishnah records yet another dispute between them. MONDAY The preceding dispute and the next two are not related PARASHAS topically. Rather, they are related in that in each of these MISHPATIM cases Beis Shammai’s ruling is uncharacteristically more lenient than Beis Hillel’s ruling {Rau; Rashi; Tosafos). rnna Hictf; aniplx -tnw nn — Beis Shammai say: On Pesach one may not possess soiirdougW^ in the amount of the volume of an olive,n?i^iaaa yam — and chametz in the volume of a date}^^ - NOTES -

a forbidden labor, for that is specifically prohibited by a verse later in the same chapter (v. 23): ibiya nNi ISK nx, that which you must bake, bake [now], and that which you must cook, cook now.] Therefore, according to Beis Hillel all forms of preparation — even those not involving human endeavor (e.g., the formation of an egg) — must be completed before a Sabbath that pre¬ cedes a Yom Tov or vice versa (Gemara 2b). Moreover, according to Beis Hillel, the Rabbis extended this prohibition and decreed that even eggs that are laid on a Yom Tov or a Sabbath that follows a weekday are forbidden — lest one come to be confused and also allow eggs that are laid on a Yom Tov immediately following the Sabbath, or vice versa {Rau; Rashi). Beis Shammai dispute Beis Hillel. There is, however, a difference of opinion as to the point of contention. They either reject this law in its entirety, because they do not accept Rabbah’s derivation (see Tosafos, Eruuin 38a; Rashba and Shitah Mekubetzes here); or, alternatively, while they accept Rabbah’s derivation and agree with Beis Hillel that on a Yom Tov after a Sabbath the egg is prohibited, they reject the assertion that there exists an additional Rabbinic decree prohibiting an egg laid on a Yom Tov following a weekday (see Shitah Mekubetzes; Chasam Sofer). [According to Beis Hillel, not only may one not eat the egg laid on Yom Tov — one may not even move it (see Tosafos, 2a; Meromei Sadeh).] 4. There are two prohibitions that pertain to ynn, chametz, on the Yom Tov of

Pesach — viz., the prohibition to eat chametz and the prohibition to possess chametz (see Shemos 12:19 and 13:7). Both these prohibitions apply to two substances: to actual chametz — i.e., any foodstuff made of leavened grain dough, and "ilxty, sourdough — i.e., dough that has fermented to the extent that it is itself inedible, but instead is used as a leavening agent for other doughs. Both Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel agree that the amount for which one is liable for the prohibition of eating chametz is the same for actual chametz and for sourdough — viz., the volume of an olive. The Mishnah here considers the amount that renders one liable for the prohibition of possessing chametz {Rau from Gemara 7b). 5. The volume of an olive is either half or a third of the volume of an egg. 6. The volume of a date is slightly less than the volume of a whole egg. The mini¬ mum amount for which one is liable for possessing sourdough is smaller (and thus more stringent) than that for actual chametz because r\\b^ ivinn, its leavening is concentrated (see Gemara 7b).

MONDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM /

79

nnaa nti ht nnnlK ‘jVn noi — But Beis Hillel say: Both this and this in the voiume of an o/ioe.i^' MONDAY

NOTES

7. I.e., the minimum amount of both actual chametz and sour¬ dough is the volume of an olive. The Qemara (ibid.) explains that the issue underlying the dispute is whether the amount for which one becomes liable for possessing chametz is derived from the amount for which one becomes liable for eating chametz. Beis Hillel derive the former from the latter. Accordingly, the measure for which one becomes liable for possessing both substances is the volume of an olive (see above, note 4). Beis Shammai, on the other hand, reject this derivation. They infer from the fact that the Torah includes separate prohibitions for the possession of actual chametz and for the possession of sourdough, that the amounts for which one becomes liable for the respective prohibitions is not the same (Rav).

Mrashas MISHPATIM

tOM THE GEMARA

A

knowledge of the basic rules of muktzeh is necessary for an un¬ derstanding of many of the tractate’s Mishnayos. The term nyj?)p, muktzeh (lit., set aside), refers to items whose use on a Sabbath or a Yom Tov had not been anticipated from beforehand by anyone. Accordingly, such items are considered nviJO HYpn, deliber¬ ately set aside, and therefore prohibited (unless they were explicitly designated for a permitted use). For example, sticks or stones are items that are essentially useless, and unless otherwise designated, are muktzeh. Another case in point is that of figs or grapes that are spread on a roof to dry (D^pinv) ninanj). Once the drying process begins, the fruits are unfit for consumption until they are completely dried. Since they are not fit to be eaten, they are considered muktzeh. Although the laws of muktzeh are of Rabbinic origin, they are very ancient. The Talmud {Shabbos 123b) reports that the Rabbis added extra stringencies to the laws of muktzeh (some of which were relaxed at a later date) already in the days of Nechemiah, because of rampant desecration of the Sabbath in Jerusalem (see Nechemiah 13:15). The muktzeh restrictions were intended to preserve the sanctity of the Sabbath by creating a visible distinction between one’s behavior on the Sabbath and on weekdays {Rambam, HU. Shabbos 24:12-13). Alternatively, the laws of muktzeh were intended as a safeguard against carrying items into the public domain; limiting the number of items that may be moved reduces the risk of inadvertent carrying {Raauad ibid.). The basic law of muktzeh is that one may not move or carry items 80 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

that are classified as muktzeh (nyptp An item that was classified as muktzeh at the onset of the Sab¬ bath or a Yom Tov may not be moved from its place for MONDAY the entire duration of the day. (For the laws concerning PARASHAS touching muktzeh, see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim :M1SHPATM 308:3 with Mishnah Berurah.) In addition to the prohibition against moving muk¬ tzeh, there is also a more stringent restriction against eating muktzeh (see Mishnah 3:2) that is rooted in the Torah’s statement {Shemos 16:5): wn Di’3 njni, And it shall be on the sbcth day, they shall “prepare” what they bring in. This statement implies that food for the Sabbath must be prepared in advance. Muktzeh items are considered “unprepared,” and therefore prohibited. Although these basic restrictions of muktzeh are undisputed, there are differences of opinion concerning the extent of the restrictions. In particular, R’ Yehudah and R’ Shimon disagree numerous times: R’ Shi¬ mon is more lenient and permits certain categories of muktzeh while R’ Yehudah is more stringent in the application of the muktzeh restrictions (see, for example, 2a,b and 40a,b). [This discussion will be continued in Gems from the Gemara to the next Mishnah.]

A MGSSAR THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

I

n A Torah Thought for the Day we discussed the Gemara that explains why a thief pays an extra fine beyond simply returning the stolen object to its owner, and why this fine is paid to the victim. Another question may also be asked: Why is this fine specifically the exact value of the stolen item, and not a set amount that every thief must pay equally? In his Moreh Neuuchim (3:41), the Rambam (cited by Rabbeinu Bachya to Shemos 22:37; see also Hilchos Geneivah 1:4) answers this question. A person who harms another person, explains Rambam, in¬ herently deserves to be punished for his misdeed by undergoing suffer¬ ing that is qualitatively similar to that which was caused to the victim. Simply requiring a thief to return the article that he stole, however, in no way punishes him. Since he does not own this object, he is not being deprived of anything that is his when he is forced to return the article to its rightful owner. The Torah thus determined that a thief is to be punished, explains the Rambam, by fining him double the amount that he stole. In this way, the thief will himself be punished in a way that

MONDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM / 81

is commensurate to his crime, for he too will experience the pain of having something of his taken away from him, and suffer the loss of the exact amount that he MONDAY made the other person lose through his act of theft. PARASHAS Rambam explains (see also HU. Chovel CJ’Mazik 1:3) MISHPATIM that this perspective on the fine of keifel is actually part of a larger framework of Torah law mentioned in our parashah, based on the principle that a person deserves to experience the pain or suffer the loss that he caused another person. For example, we are told {Vayikra 24:20): 13 ina’ i? D-IK3 mn in’ just as a man inflicts a wound on a person, so shall be inflicted on him. It is only appropriate, the Rambam explains, that just as a thief is punished by being deprived of the amount that he caused his victim to lose, so too, a person who physically injures a person should be punished by experiencing this pain as well. Yalkut Yehudah explains that the Gemara {Baua Kamma 83b) brings clear Scriptural proofs demonstrating that the punishment of nnn I’y PV, an eye for an eye etc. {Shemos 21:24), is not to be understood literally; rather, the Torah means that the assailant must pay the person whose eye he damaged the price of an eye — and is never to be physi¬ cally punished in return. Rambam reveals the deeper meaning behind this law: The price to be paid is a “I3'3, ransom. [Rambam — based on the Gemara (ibid. 83b) — explains that this law is understood from [Bamidbar 35:31): nyh nab Vbu shall not accept ran¬ som for the life of a killer. From the Torah’s specification that ransom is not to be accepted as a means of sparing the life of a killer, we may deduce that ransom may be accepted for other forms of punishment.] When the Torah tells us that an assailant is to pay the price of an eye, we must realize that although he in truth deserves to lose his own eye in punishment — and to suffer the same agony that he afflicted on his friend — the Torah, in an act of compassion, allowed him to lose the price of his eye instead. Thus, the need to pay for physical damages that were caused to another person is not to be seen as a monetary fine. Rather, this sum is a ransom that the Torah allowed to be paid in place of the pain of losing a limb, just as a thief must suffer the same pain that he caused his victim. [Alternatively, Yalkut Yehudah suggests that this law may be un¬ derstood with the approach of the Ibn Ezra, who points out that it is impossible to inflict on a person the same exact wound that he inflicted on somebody else. For example, if an assailant’s blow caused a person to lose a third of his vision, it is impossible to take away exactly a third of the attacker’s vision as well; any punishment that beis din would 82 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

administer would either be too much — causing unwar¬ ranted pain — or too little — which, since it does not fulfill its goal of appropriate punishment, is also forbid¬ MONDAY den. Or, even if it were possible to administer the exact PARASHAS same blow, it is possible that this beating will affect the MlSliPATlM assailant — who is a different person, with a different constitution — more severely than it affected the vic¬ tim. A monetary payment, therefore, in the unfortunate circumstance in which it is to be paid, is to be viewed as the equivalent of the loss sustained by the victim.]

-

, HALACHAH OF THE DAY

'

~|

W

e will begin today’s study with two final laws pertaining to tzitzis, and we will then proceed to a discussion of the laws of tefilUn. Once the tzitzis strings have been removed from a tallis gadoi or tallis katan, the garment itself has no sanctity at all, and may even be placed directly in a trash receptacle. However, the garment may not be used in a degrading manner. While one may enter a bathroom while wearing a tallis katan, it is improper to do so while wearing a tallis gadoi (as it is worn only during tefillah). This concludes our discussion of the laws of tzitzis, and we will now turn our attention to the laws of teflllin. The laws involved in the manufacture of teflllin are many, and of great complexity. They include laws regarding the materials that are necessary; the preparation of the parchment and ink used in the writing of the scrolls; the leather of the battim (the leather boxes that contain the scrolls); the manner in which the scrolls must be writ¬ ten, and more. These laws are beyond the scope of this work. We will concern ourselves here only with the laws that pertain to the donning and wearing of the teflllin. Questions regarding their manufacture and whether or not the teflllin may be in need of repair must be addressed to a competent halachic authority or safer (scribe), who is trained in these areas and able to render the necessary decisions. The Torah commands {Deuarim 6:8): nDUDV I’n) rilK^ anqu/pi p5. You shall bind them as a sign upon your arm and they shall be for teflllin [on your head] between your eyes. This commandment is repeated in three other Torah verses as well. However, while the com¬ mandment is mentioned in four separate places in Scripture, the Written Law does not give any further explanation of how this mitzvah is to be

MONDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM / 83

fulfilled. Rather, all the details and specifics concerning the mitzvah of teftlUn were transmitted orally to Moshe Rabbeinu at Mount Sinai. MONDAY The mitzvah of teflllin is very precious and of great PARASHAS magnitude. Indeed, we are taught that fulfillment of MISMPATIM this commandment is equated to the entire Torah, as the verse states that one should wear teflllin {Shemos 13:9): ^'’33 'H nnin n’.np in order that the Torah of Hashem shall be In your mouth. One who properly fulfills this mitzvah merits a length¬ ened lifetime, will not be harmed by the flames of Gehinnom, and is assured a place in the World to Come. Moreover, the Gemara states that he will merit to have his sins forgiven.

;

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE SIDDOR

I

n A Torah Thought for the Day we discussed the difference between a thief and a robber, and related an insight offered by the Gemara as to why specifically a thief is fined by paying bas. Kli Yakar suggests another insight for this added payment. As we mentioned, there is a difference between theft (n33a) and robbery (nbn). Robbery is generally a crime of impulse, committed on the spur of the moment when the robber happens to see a susceptible victim pass by. In contrast, theft is a crime that requires preparation; a thief carefully chooses the house he wishes to break into, and determines beforehand the best time and safest way to carry out his plan. Accordingly, says Kll Yakar, since we know that Dinhoa nyl“i njn 1b ■>p. He who has a hundred desires two hundred (see Koheles Rabbah 1:34), a thief who has already success¬ fully stolen once is invariably thinking about his next burglary. Thus, the payment of kelfel punishes him for this thought as well. Since he wishes that he could, and is planning to, rob again, he is doubly punished — once for the crime he actually committed, and the extra payment for his planning and desire to commit a future crime as well. Robbery, however, since it is performed on the spur of the moment without planning, is not something that the robber generally sees as part of his life. No added punishment of kelfel need therefore be paid. We may ask a question on this explanation. If the principle of He who has a hundred desires two hundred is in fact a part of the human psyche, why doesn’t a robber, after successfully robbing a vulnerable passerby, also look for opportunities to find more people to rob? It is true that the first robbery was an act of impulse. However, why does the hundred that he stole not make him desire another hundred, so that 84 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

he plans a way to steal this additional sum, perhaps by positioning himself on a street where he will easily find another victim?

n\5^i£i

o»p£jvyn

MONDAY We may answer this question by understanding that I’AKASllAS the Kli Yakar is giving us a profound insight into how a ''lISlIP^AriM person’s actions and experiences affect his future be¬ havior. The reason why only a thief desires to rob again while a robber does not is not because of the difference in preparing for their next crime. Rather, the distinction is rooted in the difference in the ways that the first crimes were committed. As we have said, theft re¬ quires planning, while open robbery may have been an act of impulse. Only an act that is contemplated before it was performed, says the Kli Yakar, is one that is seen by the person who carried it out as being part of himself, and will lead to the desire to do it a second time. A spon¬ taneous action, performed without planning, however, does not serve to develop or change the person; it has little to do with who he truly is. Thus, the Kli Yakar may be understood to be telling us that money stolen impetuously does not necessarily make the person desire to repeat his crime. It is only when a person accomplishes something in a manner that makes it a part of himself — like investing hours of careful planning needed for a burglary — that the money gained is seen as “his,” and the principle of D’nKn n^1“i ‘>12, He who has a hun¬ dred desires two hundred, arouses him to perform this action again. We may apply this principle to our mitzvah observance. Although the performance of any mitzvah is a service of Hashem and brings some form of reward, a mitzvah performed impulsively or without thinking does little to change the person doing it, or to develop him into a more spiritually refined person who is more aware of Hashem and motivated to perform further mitzvos. Only when a mitzvah is contemplated before it is done will it change the person into desiring to be closer to Hashem. In order to help a person focus on a mitzvah that he is about to do, the formula of nrn is printed in many siddurim, to be recited before performing certain mitzvos, such as tallls, tefilUn, and lulaa Moreover, the Noda BiYehudah {Tinyana, Yoreh Deah 93, see also Ritva, Pesachim 7a) explains that the need to focus before performing a mitzvah is in fact the reason behind the berachah that is recited prior to doing many mitzvos. When we recite a berachah, we think about what it is that we are doing, and how we are about to serve Hashem. In this manner, our mitzvos will not be spontaneous actions that are done without thinking, but will be deeds that we are performing because they are a part of us, and will help us to develop into people who are more motivated toward, and more conscious of, Hashem and His service.

MONDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM

/ 85

v" MONDAY

M

A TASTE OF LOMDOS

uch of Maseches Baua Kamma — which is largely based on the laws stated in Parashas Mishpatim (Chapters 21 and 22) — deals with a person’s obligation to assume financial responsibility for his possessions. It is for this reason that one is required to pay for damages caused by his property or animals. However, the Qemara {Bava Kamma 4a, citing the Mishnah in Yadayim 4:7) tells us that this does not apply to damage caused by a person’s slaves. Although they are legally dependent on their master — which should make him responsible for their actions — the Mishnah tells us that since a slave possesses human intellect and is able to do as he wishes, it is impossible to prevent him from inflicting damage on other people or on their property. Thus, should a slave wish to harm his master, he could deliberately and repeatedly cause great amounts of damage to others, for which his master would — helplessly — be required to pay. Accordingly, the Mishnah tells us, since the master is unable to totally prevent this damage, the Torah absolved him of the obligation to pay for damage that was caused by his slave. When codifying this law, Rambam {HU. Geneivah 1:9) tells us that this principle also absolves the owner of a slave from paying reparations for an object that his slave stole. The reason for the Rambam’s exten¬ sion from the Gemara’s case of damage that a slave caused to his act of theft, explains R’ Chaim Soloveitchik {Chidushei Rabbeinu Chaim HaLeui, Hilchos Gezeilah VaAueidah 9:1), is because theft is also a form of damaging another person. Thus, Rambam informs us that just as the householder is unable to prevent his slave from causing damage, so too he is unable to prevent him from stealing. Accordingly, a householder need not pay for his slave’s act of theft, nor the keifel fine that would be incurred if the slave were to steal. [However, Daas Yosef {Yadayim, §22) points out that in the event the stolen object is still intact, the house¬ holder must ensure that it is returned to its rightful owner.] Why would we have supposed, ask the commentaries, that the slave’s master would be obligated to pay the fine if his slave were to steal (as evident from the fact that the Rambam feels the need to say otherwise)? Although the householder’s financial responsibilities do not obligate him to pay for the damages caused by the slave who is his dependent, keifel is different from the need to pay for damages in the sense that it is a fine, which is incurred for having done some¬ thing wrong. Obviously, the householder is not the one who caused the damage. Why, then, does Rambam see the need to tell us that

86 / A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

he need not pay the keifel fine that his slave incurs? R’ Chaim Soloveitchik (see also Bircas Shmuel, Baua Kamma §33) provides a deeper perspective on keifel, MONDAY through which this question may be answered. When the Torah determined that a thief must pay his victim double, this added fine is not to be understood as an ancillary, unrelated payment that accompanies the primary pay¬ ment of the value of the stolen object. Rather, the double payment is the appropriate value, as it were, that must be paid to a victim of a theft to fully compensate him for his loss. Thus, concludes R’ Chaim, if not for the fact that the householder is absolved from responsibility because he is unable to stop his slave from causing damage, he would be held re¬ sponsible to pay both the value of the stolen object and the keifel fine. Pri Moshe observes that understanding that keifel is not considered a payment that is separate from the need to pay for the value of the object, but is in fact part of one larger payment, allows us to understand a differ¬ ent aspect of the laws of keifel — how it is to be paid. The Qemara {Baua Kamma 11) tells us that if a person steals an object that subsequently breaks, the broken pieces — which still have some value — may not be returned to the owner to be included as part of the payment. Rather, the thief must either buy the owner a new article, or provide him with the money with which he can appropriately replace his object. Rambam {Hilchos Geneivah 1:15) adds to this law: not only may the thief not return the broken pieces as part of his need to pay the owner for his object, but he may also not include these pieces as part of his keifel payment. [The Raauad argues with Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that the Gemara’s specification that the broken pieces not be included in a thief's payment is speaking only about paying for the stolen object; nowhere does the Gemara make mention of this law in regard to paying the 5d3. From this omission, rules the Raauad, we may understand that the pieces of the original object may indeed be included as part of the keifel payment.] Based on what we have learned, explains Pri Moshe, we may un¬ derstand Rambam’s ruling, for these two payments are in fact to be seen as one unit. Thus, when the Gemara tells us that the payment for theft may not be accomplished using the broken pieces of the original article, keifel is included in this law.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: Why does the Torah use the double language of Kiifpn For the answer, see page 133.

MONDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM / 87

:?A TORAH THOUGHT FOR THE DAY TUESDAY

nayri-x‘?'! riv'-th D’an-nnK nwrt^ D’nn nnx nuj^ a‘i'‘7y Do not be a follower of the majority to do evil; and do not respond to a grievance by yielding to the majority to pervert [the law] {Shemos 23:2).

T

he last three words of this verse are expounded by the Sages {Chullin 11a) as the source for the halachic concept of deciding cases on the basis of the majority. For the purpose of this exposition, the words are read as: hpnb nnK, incline after the majority — a separate directive from the instructions earlier in the verse. Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah §78) writes regarding this commandment of following the majority: “When a dispute arises between learned men with regard to one of the laws of the Torah, and likewise concerning private legal matters, for example in a legal dispute between Reuven and Shimon . . . When there will be a dispute between the judges, such as when a few rule that one side is obligated and a few rule that [the same side] is exempt, we always follow after the majority, as the Torah says: □'’31 ■’IDN, incline after the majority. “The roots of this commandment are in order to strengthen the existence of our religion, for if we were commanded the following: ‘Fulfill the Torah only when you are able to uncover its true meaning,’ every individual from Israel would say, ‘In my opinion, the truth of the matter concerning the issue is the following,’ and even if the entire nation believes differently, one would not be permitted to do the op¬ posite of what he believes personally to be the truth. This system would create a catastrophic situation, whereby the Torah would become many Torahs, because everyone would rule according to the limits of his understanding. “But now that we have been explicitly commanded to accept the opinion of the majority of the Torah Sages, we have one Torah for everyone, and we must not move from their [the Torah Sages’] ideas. “Therefore, when we fulfill their [the Sages’] instructions, we are ful¬ filling the commandment of God. Moreover, even if, God forbid, the Sages at times do not direct us to the truth, the onus will be on them and not on us.” Rabbeinu Bachya writes that the simple reading of the phrase

88 / A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

nwin

teaches that even if we see the majority of people act¬ ing incorrectly, we must not follow their ways. Rabbeinu Yonah in Shaarei Teshuvah adds that the Torah com¬ TUESDAY mands here not to strengthen or encourage sinners in PARASHAS their sinful ways. This includes avoiding Joining forces with them even for valid matters that do not involve MISHPATIM sin. Rabbeinu Yonah states that we should not join the wicked even for the purpose of fulfilling a mitzvah! Chofetz Chaim enumerates all the prohibitions that one can violate when speaking lashon hara, slander, and gossip. One of those he lists is our verse: nyT"? nnK Do not be a follower of the majority to do evil. If a group of people is involved in a lashon hara discussion, we must not join them, he says, for we will be violating this commandment.

MISHNAH OF THE DAY: BEITZAH 1:2

T

he coming Mishnah records a third dispute regarding Yom Tov in which Beis Shammai’s position is more lenient than that of Beis Hillel. The Torah {Shemos 12:16) permits labor that is forbidden on the Sabbath to be performed on a Yom Tov — when it is essential for the preparation of food {ochel nefesh). Thus, it is permissible to slaugh¬ ter an animal on Yom Tov — even though slaughtering an animal is one of the thirty-nine categories of labor that are forbidden on the Sabbath. The dispute in this Mishnah centers on the performance of the mitzvah of D’ln ’’ID?, covering the blood with earth, that the Torah requires after slaughtering those animals classified as Di'n, chayos (e.g., deer; see below, note 2) or niQlV, fowl {Vayikra 17:13). Our Mishnah considers the case of one who would like to slaughter such an animal or fowl on Yom Tov, but neglected to properly prepare, prior to the Yom Tov, a suitable substance for covering the blood. Since the covering of the blood is not essential to the preparation of the food, any forbidden labor that may be Involved in this procedure is not permis¬ sible on Yom Tov. Such labor might include digging (which may be classified as a subcategory of either plowing or building); crumbling clods of earth (a subcategory of grinding); and/or the movement and use of muktzeh (see Tosafos 8a; Tos. R’ Akiva Eiger to Mishnah 1:5; Magen Avraham, Orach Chaim 509:15). Accordingly, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel disagree as to which methods of covering are permitted on Yom Tov. TUESDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM

/ 89

unltyn — One who slaughter^^^ alu nl’a qlv) n;n — a chayaH^^ or a fowl on Yom Too, Dn)?'ix ’ioaty n’a noa’i “ipia aati’ — Beis Shammai say: He may dig dirt TUESDAY with a spade and cover the blood.onwlK hhn n’ai PAFIASHAS unttj’ xb — But Beis Hillel say: He may not slaughMlSIfF’ATIM ter^^ Di’ ^iya)p laiw laj; lb njn i? ax xbx — unless he had earth prepared^^ from when it was still daytime prior to the onset of Yom Tov. unty QXty D’llwi — But [Beis Hillel] - NOTES -

1.1.e., one who intends to slaughter. Although the form of the verb in present tense used in this Mishnah normally refers to a fait accompli— i.e., to one who has already completed the act of slaugh¬ tering — since Beis Hillel rule below that “He may not slaughter,” it is obvious that the Mishnah refers to the case of one who would like to slaughter an animal or fowl on Yom Tov, who comes to consult a halachic authority as to whether it is permis¬ sible for him to do so (Rao from Qemara 7b). 2. It is widely assumed that the term nnnn refers to domestic animals and n’n to wild animals. However, the domestic dog is called a njn because it readily adapts to both living with people and living in the wild {Shenos Eliyahu to Kilaylm 8:6; see also Ramban to Bereishls 1:24). As a practical matter, only three species are exempt from the mitzvah of covering the blood: cows, sheep, and goats. 3. I.e., even though he did not properly prepare a substance with which to cover the blood, Beis Shammai nevertheless allow him to slaughter the animal or fowl and to dig up dirt with which to cover its blood (Ran from Gemara 7b). The Gemara (7b, 9b) clarifies that this leniency is contingent on two prerequisites having been met: (a) He has to have stuck the spade into the ground prior to the onset of Yom Tov. He thereby designates the dirt for subsequent use, thus eliminating the problem of muktzeh. Since the act of sticking the spade into the ground constitutes the forbid¬ den labor of digging, in doing it prior to the onset of Yom Tov he has eliminated this problem as well. (b) The dirt in which he stuck the spade must be “crumbled” (i.e., granulated) prior to the onset of Yom Tov so that there is no question of forbidden grinding (see our prefatory remarks to this Mishnah) on Yom Tov (Rau from Gemara ibid.). 4. Beis Hillel maintain that as long as the dirt on the spade is still even partially connected to the surrounding ground, it is not subject to designation for use. Hence, sticking the spade into the ground prior to the onset of Yom Tov does not suffice to eliminate the problem of muktzeh. Therefore, according to Beis Hillel he is not allowed to slaughter the animal or the fowl, for he may not move and use the muktzeh dirt to cover the blood. Beis Shammai maintain, on the other hand, that in order to enhance niu nb nn);iSp, the enjoyment of Yom Tov, the prohibition of muktzeh is overridden here — as long as he performed the “symbolic” designation of sticking the spade in prior to the onset of Yom Tov (Rashba; cf. Tosafos; Rosh; Tos. Rid). 5. I.e., earth that was totally disconnected from the ground and specifically desionated for use.

90

/ A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

concede that if he already slaughtered, that he should dig with a spade and cooer the blood with the earth,Kin pi)3 nn’S nsKic; — for the ashes of a stove are [considered] preparedS^^

TUESDAY

---MOTES ---

6. I.e., if he did not consult a halachic authority (who, accord¬ ing to Beis Hillel, would have forbade slaughtering the animal or fowl), but went right ahead and slaughtered it. If we now prohibit him to acquire earth, he will not be able to fulfill the mitzvah of covering the blood. 7. Although Beis Hillel hold that the enjoyment of Yom Tov Is not reason to permit outright the slaughtering of an animal or fowl whose blood must be covered (when one has not prepared a substance with which to cover the blood), they agree that once one has slaughtered the animal or fowl he may proceed to acquire earth to cover its blood according to the same parameters as those prescribed by Beis Shammai {Maharsha) — i.e., only if the two prerequisites — sticking the spade into the earth and making sure it has crumbled before Yom Tov — have been met (Gemara 7b; see above, note 3). 8. I.e., ashes that are left over from a fire upon which one had cooked before the onset of Yom Tov are not muktzeh (fresh ashes left over from cooking on Yom Tov are muktzeh). The Gemara (8a) emends the word “ipKtp, “because” the ashes, to read “and” the ashes, explaining that this part of the Mishnah is a separate law — not part of Beis Hillel’s reasoning concerning the use of earth for covering the blood. Since the ashes may be used for the mitzvah of covering the blood {Chullin 88b; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 28:23), even according to Beis Hillel one may slaughter on Yom Tov and rely on ashes from an oven for the mitzvah of covering the blood, for these ashes are not considered muktzeh (Rau from Gemara ibid.). [Tosafos and Rosh cite Yerushalmi, which states that to enable fulfillment of the mitzvah of covering the blood the Rabbis waived the law of muktzeh. Accord¬ ingly, once the animal has been slaughtered, one may even use frdsh, muktzeh ashes to cover its blood (see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 498:15).]

GEMS FROM THE GEMARA '-T.'.

;.

.~:7.

T

his is a continuation from Gems from the Gemara to the previous Mishnah. There are numerous other categories of muktzeh. Beis Yosef {Orach Chaim §308) lists several of these categories: (1) D’? ]i“ipn nnnn nyj?)p, set aside for fear of monetary loss. This cat¬ egory includes any utensil whose general use is objected to by the owner for fear it will become damaged — e.g., a barber’s razor. [The normal use of a razor is the cutting of hair. That function is prohib¬ ited on the Sabbath and Yom Tov. Moreover, since the blade must be kept perfectly sharp, the owner objects to its being used for any

TUESDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM / 91

TUESDAY

other purpose, for fear of damaging the cutting edge. Accordingly, it may not be used on the Sab¬ bath even for a secondary, permissible function (e.g., as a table knife).]

PARASHAS MISHPATIM

(2) “Hois'? ’^3, a utensil used pnmarily for work prohibited on the Sabbath. This includes any utensil (such as a hammer) whose primary use (in this case, building) is forbidden on the Sabbath and on a Yom Tov, but which is also occasionally used for permissible activities (e.g., cracking nuts). Items in this category are not easily damaged, and hence the owner does not object to their being used for other purposes. Accordingly they may be used on the Sabbath for sec¬ ondary, permissible functions (e.g., to crack nuts).

(3)

nnnn nypp, set aside because of its intrinsic properties. This refers to anything that is neither a utensil nor a food edible for humans or animals — e.g., stones, money, reeds, wood, beams, earth, sand, a corpse, living animals, figs and raisins in the process of being dried, and anything else not fit for use on the Sabbath or on a Yom Tov.

(4) “HDNn D’pa, a base to a muktzeh object. This refers to any otherwise non-muktzeh articles upon which an item of muktzeh was lying at the time of the onset of the Sabbath — e.g., a barrel upon which a stone is lying, or a pillow upon which money is lying. Even after the muktzeh has been removed (e.g., by a non-Jew), the base remains muktzeh until the end of that Sabbath or Yom Tov. (5) rriir “ipnpi “lann, attached [to the ground] or lacking capture. This refers to any growing item, such as a fruit, vegetable, or wood, which had not yet been harvested or plucked prior to the onset of a Sabbath or a Yom Tov; and to any animal that was not trapped be¬ fore the Yom Tov. [This latter category is relevant primarily to Yom Tov, when animals may be slaughtered and their meat cooked, but when they may not be trapped.] (6)

set aside because of its mitzvah. Such items as the wood of a succah and its ornaments fall into this classification.

(7)

nolad [lit., just born]. Nolad is any otherwise non-muktzeh object that has first achieved its presently useful state on this Sabbath. This category of muktzeh was the topic of the previous Mishnah (see our prefatory remarks to that Mishnah). [On the other hand, a pot left on a fire at the onset of Shabbos, that is therefore too hot to eat at that moment, is not nolad — since one

92 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

may at any time remove it from the fire, allow it to cool, and thereby render it edible (Qemara 26b). According to many authorities, the law in regard to muktzeh on the Sabbath follows the opinion of R’ Shimon, whereas in regard to Yom Tov it follows the opinion of R’ Yehudah {Shulchan Aruch and Rama, 495:4; see Mishnah Berurah 495:17).

TUESDAY

PARASHAS MISMFATIH

A mussAr thought for thBWy

T

he commandment to follow the majority — ripn'p □■’51 n.rjK — is the subject of a famous occurrence that provides a fundamental lesson for our faith. R’ Elchanan Wasserman cites this incident, in which R’ Yonasan Eibeshitz was asked the following by a Christian priest: If the Torah states that you must follow the majority, then since the Jews are the fewest in population among all the nations, all Jews should follow the majority and become Christians! R’ Eibeshitz responded instantly: The Torah tells us to follow the majority when we have a doubt about something. For example, if we find a box of meat in a city and are unsure of its origins, then we re¬ search whether there is a majority of kosher butcher stores in the city. If this is the case, we are allowed to assume that the meat is kosher. However, if something about the box of meat makes it clear that it came from a nonkosher store, then we have no doubts and obviously, we may not eat the meat. Similarly, said R’ Eibeshitz, when it comes to knowing which religion is true, we have no doubts! The Torah tells us to follow the majority when we are unsure, but we are absolutely and 100 percent sure that the Torah is true! Otzros HaTorah cites Chasam Sofer’s interpretation of the afore¬ mentioned verse, which notes that the words ripnb D'’51 preceded by the word n'Ujb,. which means to lean. He explains that only when there is an issue of leaning one way or the other — that is, when there is a doubt and one can lean one way or another — does the rule of following the majority apply. But when we are sure of our¬ selves and there is no uncertainty, it does not matter that the majority thinks otherwise. R’ Wasserman himself offers another answer to the priest’s question. He says that the Torah’s directive to follow the majority applies only when the majority is an educated, worthy, and unbiased group. Just as

TUESDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM

/ 93

in the scientific world, no one would suggest that 1,000 student scientists’ opinion regarding the theory of re¬ lativity would outweigh Albert Einstein’s opinion, so TUESDAY too, the opinion of the majority of ordinary Jews does PARASHAS not prevail over the opinion of the learned rabbis and MISHPATIM leaders of the Sanhedrin. Hence, the fact that most people in the world are of other faiths does not mean that what they believe is true. People are incapable of judging the truths of faith and religion unless they are free from the bias that results from their wish to pursue physical pleasures and desires. Only wise and learned men are on this level. This concept also applies to another question asked by R’ Wasserman: How can we expect a young 13-year-old Bar Mitzvah boy to be obligated in the belief in Hashem, if there are many scientists and people who are considered wise, yet they do not believe in God at all? He answers that the scientists and wise men of the world are not look¬ ing at the world from a fresh and objective perspective. They do not want to believe in a God, because such a belief imposes restrictions upon them with regard to their physical desires and wants. That is why they come to the conclusion that there is no God. In reality, belief in God (the fact that it is highly unlikely that the world came into being by an accident) is quite logical and even simple for the unbiased mind to comprehend. Thus, it can be expected even of a young child of 13.

HALACHAH OF.^JHE DAY

T

he mitzvah of tefillin consists of two independent mitzvos: the T the teflllin of the arm, worn on the forearm; and the U/K“i T’Vari, the tefillin of the head, worn on the upper area of the forehead. [The exact locations where the tefillin are to be worn will be discussed in detail later on in our studies.] Because these are two separate mitzvos, one who has only one of the tefillin must don it, even in the absence of the other. Similarly, if one has both tefillin but is not able to wear one of them for physical reasons, he must don the one that he is able to. According to Torah law, tefillin may worn both by day and by night. However, the Sages decreed that one may not wear teflllin at night. The reason for this decree is the concern of the Sages that a person may experience flatulence while sleeping, and as we shall see, one should not wear teflllin while experiencing flatulence. The proper time for putting on teflllin begins at the time that it 94 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

becomes light enough for one to recognize a casual acquaintance from a distance of four cubits (approxi¬ mately 6-8 feet). This time is commonly known as TUESDAY (mi’she’yakir), which literally translates as from when one can recognize. Some authorities set this time as 40 minutes before sunrise; others, at approximately 60 minutes before sunrise. One who will not be able to put on his teflllin after the arrival of the proper time should consult a halachic authority regarding the permis¬ sibility of putting on the teflllin at an earlier time. One who wears a tallis gadol while praying should don the tallis gadol prior to donning his teflllin. There are a number of reasons for this ruling: (1) There is a Talmudic principle of Whpa we ascend in holiness. When performing mitzvos, we constantly strive to increase our level of holiness. In accordance with this principle, we first wrap ourselves in the sanctity of our tallis, and then increase the level of holiness and ascend to the greater sanctity of donning our teflllin. (2) There is another Talmudic principle: Dllp “int?, [Something that is] frequent and something that is not frequent, the [one that is] frequent takes precedence. Thus, the tallis, which we don every day, is put on before the teflllin, which are not worn on Shabbos or Yom Tov. While this is the general rule, we shall see tomorrow that there are times when it may become necessary to put the teflllin on before the tallis.

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE SIDDGR

D

espite the fact that we have no doubts as to the veracity of our religion, being vastly outnumbered by the nations of the world leads to a diminishing of the honor of the Jewish people. We say in the expanded version of the Tachanun prayer (that is said on Mondays and Thursdays): iJllaa bi nD’an ‘7K, God, look upon the impoverish¬ ment of our honor among the nations. We ask Him to reveal Himself, allowing us to seek our rightful glorified place as the holders of the truth. But the time of redemption has not yet arrived, and we are constantly bombarded with the immoral beliefs and values of all the other nations. As a result, further in the Tachanun prayer, we ask Hashem to grant us merits for managing to observe the Torah in a world that preaches

TUESDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM

/ 95

against it: ... D’ia? D^i?] iJ'”n '>3 nKni D’niyn U3n unsuin bx KJ I3n3e7 i ^YIKTiK TnnrK'?] vr'bw 'n ’JaTiK, no man will covet your land when you go up to appear before Hashem, Your God, three times a year.] What human being can issue such a guarantee? Why would any human author create a law that feeds the Jews into the hands of their enemies? WEDNESDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM

/ 103

However, since Hashem authored these words, they are easily understood. He can provide the guarantee that enemies will not come to destroy. Can a reasonable WEDNESDAY person believe that a human being wrote the laws of PARASHAS the sabbatical year and aliyah I’regeD Only if Hashem MlSHPATiM wrote them can they be understood. R’ Weinberg continues to explain this point from another angle. The Torah makes prophecies that have come true. Now, there are many books that have made prophecies about the future that some claim to have come true. But a close examination of these prophecies reveals them to be ambiguous at best, and it is virtually impossible to prove their accuracy. Any “prophecy” that can be understood only after an event has already taken place cannot be accepted as prophecy. True prophecy is clearly comprehended before an event takes place, and then we can judge for ourselves whether the prophecy comes to fruition or not. We find exactly such prophecies in the Torah, and these prophecies are impossible for a human being to have predicted. The suffering that awaited the Jewish nation, if they were to aban¬ don Hashem and His Torah, is specifically described in horrid detail (e.g., VayikraQh. 26, Deuarim28:15-68, 29:17-28, 30:1-10, 31:16-21, and much of the books of Yeshayah and Yechezkel). Sure enough, all the details of these predictions have indeed occurred throughout history. The Torah writes that the Jews will be exiled from their land, return, and then be exiled again. It then foretells that the Jews will come back to Israel much later, after the years of exile. The Jews held onto their faith in the Torah’s promise of their return to Israel for 2000 years, and now, in modern times, they have indeed returned. It is surely not coincidental that all other nations, after hundreds of years of their own exiles and destructions, have assimilated into their occupying or host nations. But the Jews did not. Moreover, not only did the Jews survive 2000 years of exile spread out across countries all over the world, they did so without sharing a common language or culture. This was all prophesied centuries in advance! The Torah, as received over 3000 years ago, states that the Jews will be dispersed to all cor¬ ners of the world but will maintain their distinct identity. What human being would write such nonsense? How could he expect the Jews to accept it and live with faith in it? But, as Hashem wrote it, it is obviously understandable. He knows that the Jews would never assimilate with the nations of the world. 104

/ A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

Jews have proclaimed for 3000 years that God re¬ vealed Himself at Mount Sinai and presented them with the Torah. An honest study yields many factors that WEDNESDAY indicate the truth of this belief. R’ Weinberg concluded: PARASHAS We don’t take a leap of faith when we choose to believe SH the Torah as truth. Our belief in the Divine authorship of the Torah makes rational sense. We need only inves¬ tigate and we will see what makes Judaism’s claims to truth unique and compelling.

W

e mentioned yesterday that while it is the general practice to don first the tallis and then the tefilUn, there are exceptions to this rule, and there are times when it may become necessary to reverse the order. There is a Talmudic principle: n'lynn by in^yn TiK, we may not by¬ pass mitzuos. This rule teaches that if one is faced with the imminent performance of two mitzvos that are generally performed in a specific order, and he first encounters the mitzvah that should be performed second, he must nevertheless perform that one first; he may not by¬ pass it in favor of the other mitzvah. Because of this rule, if one who is preparing for services encounters his tefillin before his tallis, he would have to put on the teftllin first so as not to bypass the mitzvah of tefillin in favor of the mitzvah of tallis. This ruling holds true even if one did not actually come into physical contact with the tefillin prior to touching the tallis. Even if the tefillin are simply placed closer to him than the tallis, so that in order to reach the tallis it is necessary for him to bypass the tefillin, he must don the tefillin before donning the tallis. In order to prevent this situation from occurring, one should take care to place his tefillin deep in the bag that contains the tallis and tefillin, with the tallis placed, on top of the tefillin. In this way, upon opening the bag, he will be Immediately presented with the tallis, and the tefilUn will not be easily reached until the tallis has been removed. It is important to note that this halachah applies every time the tallis and tefillin are put on. Thus, if one removes his tallis and tefillin during services with intent to put them back on — for example, if one has a need to use the facilities — he must take care to arrange them in such a manner that upon his return he will encounter first the tallis, and only

WEDNESDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM /

105

then the tefillin. If he indeed encounters the tefillin first, he must don them prior to donning the tallis. This halachah only applies, however, when it is one’s WEDNESDAY intent to don both the tallis and the teflllin at that time. PARASff^S If one only has need of the tallis — for example, if one MISHPATIM desires to use it in order to lead the Minchah services — he may don it even if it is placed in a manner that necessitates his bypassing the tefillin in order to access it. ..1,.v-i'.i'

'.TTf'"?VV

A cl6ser look at the siddor

^... .._

I

n the U’Va LeTzion prayer that is recited daily at the end of davening, we say: nnln ijb ]nji a'’Vlnn in ninnb UNnaiy n’nbN Kin “]n3 nn^. Blessed Is He, our God, Who created us for His glory, separated us from those who stray, and gave us the Torah of truth. In order to say this statement with feeling, our belief in the truth of the Torah must be firm; we will demonstrate the truth of the Torah’s veracity from yet another vantage point. Ramban writes that the most important fundamental that should be taught to students is the concept of the uniqueness of the Jewish people and the Jewish religion. Only by doing this can we guarantee that our children will not become swayed by arguments against Juda¬ ism. By raising a generation of proud, appreciative, properly-educated Jews, we will have created a respectable reputation for Judaism. As Ramban points out, the Torah states this in SeferDeuarim (4:6-10):

-‘75 riK iiywif/’ “it^K a'-ayn ’ryb nani’ni n^nnipn Kin ’a Dn’tyyi an“))?\yi ntyh? bnA D’pn

■>? .njn DDn-ny p-i nnKi nbKn D’p'nn bi-ij m -I’bK UK-ij^-bp-i ijinbK -n? T>bK D’nnp D’nbK'ib

PT bs

inJ ’bJK “liyt? nKtri rrilrin b'33

TTDT]?! ^I’^’y ikti^Jk ann^riTiK nKn nniyi 3“i.n:a ^’nbK 'n '’jab rinny “iiyK dI’ ■’jabi ^■’Jab Driyairr] ^■’’n ■’t?'’ D’^’n-ba ’n'K nx-i^b injpb’ na-j-rijs nyniyKi ayn-nx ■’b'bnpn ■’bx -n inabi nrf’ja’nx'i nnihtri'by a^n on aiyts, You shall safeguard and ob¬ serve them (mitzvos), for it is your wisdom and uniqueness in the eyes of the peoples. They shall hear all these decrees and they shall say, “Surely a wise and discerning people is this great nation!” For which is a great nation that has a God Who is close to it, as is Hashem, our God, whenever we call to Him? And which is a great nation that has righteous decrees and commandments, such as this entire Torah that I place before you today? Only guard yourself and greatly guard your soul, lest you forget the things that your eyes have beheld and lest 106 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

you remove them from your heart all the days of your life. And make them known to your children and your grandchildren — the day that you stood before Hashem, your God, at Horeb (Sinai), when Hashem said to me, “Gather the people to Me and I shall let them hear My words, so that they shall learn to fear Me all the days that they live on the earth, and they shall teach their children. ” Ramban derives from here that the rationale and logic underlying the validity and authenticity of the Torah, as stated in these verses, is far superior to the claims of other religions. It is the Sinai Revelation that distinguishes us as the only authentic religion in the world. We are the only religion to make the claim that God appeared to the entire nation in establishing His laws. Ours was a national revelation. Other religions are based solely on one individual person’s account of God’s supposed instructions to him or her; afterward, that one person persuaded the masses to follow him. (See the Introduction to Sefer HaChinuch for further study; see also Rambam, HU. Yesodel Torah, Chapter 8.) The Chofetz Chaim in Chomas HaDas cites the Mishnah in Auos (6:2): nrib ■’Ik n-iniK'i nnln inn riKyi'’ n? dvi ah nnin bip Every single day a Heavenly Voice emanates from Mount Horeb, proclaiming and saying, “Woe to them, to the people, because of their Insult to the Torah. ” He understands it to mean that Heaven is upset that we have neglected our obligation to transmit the Sinai Revelation with proper joy. The significance of recalling Sinai, says the Chofetz Chaim, is amplified by the Torah’s language (ibid. V. 9): ^■’’n ■’O’ ... n?ipn']3 Tkb pi. Only guard yourself and guard your soul greatly, lest you forget... all the days of your life. This verse, according to the Ramban, teaches us that the Torah’s admonition against forgetting Sinai is to be enumerated as one of the negative commandments of the 613 mitzvos.

QUESTION OF THE DAY:

What is the difference between the commands of natjratpri and nntpoai? For the answer, see page 133.

WEDNESDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM / 107

A TORAH THOUGHT FOR THE DAY THURSDAY

PARASHAS MISHPATIM

natpn ’yau/n nvai

ntf/yn d’M’ ntf/ty

“lani Six days you shall accomplish your activities, but on the seventh day you shall desist, so that your ox and donkey may be content, and your maidservant’s son and the sojourner may be refreshed {Shemos 23:12).

W

hat is the purpose of resting on Shabbos? Chazal say that Shabbos is one-sixtieth of the World to Come (Berachos 57b). Our Shabbos rest is designed to allow us to experience a rendezvous with the next world, the world of reward and rest. A more extended Midrash (Osiyos R’ Aklva, Os Aleph) elaborates on the concept: “At the time of the giving of the Torah, Hashem called out to Yisrael and said, ‘My children, 1 have a fantastic item in the world and I am giving it to you forever, if you accept My Torah and observe my ordinances.’ “The Jews questioned, ‘Master of the world, what is this fantastic item that You will give us if we keep Your Torah?’ Hashem replied, ‘It is Olam Haba — the World to Come!’ “Said Bnei Yisrael, ‘Master of the world, please show us an example of what Olam Haba is!’ Hashem responded, ‘Shabbos! Shabbos is one-sixtieth of Olam Haba because Olam Haba is completely {kulo) Shabbos!’ ’’ R’ Yechezkal Sarna offers another reason as to why there needs to be a semb!ance of Olam Haba in this world. In actuality, this world itself, in Gan Eden, was meant to be Olam Haba. However, when Adam and Chavah sinned and were expelled from Gan Eden, Hashem allowed a remnant of Olam Haba to remain, so that people would know of its reality and would be inspired to achieve it. Chazal say that the genera¬ tion of the Flood experienced this remnant; their material life was like an Olam Haba kind of existence (though they squandered their good fortune and used it for sin). R’ Sarna explains that with the continued downward spiral of the world’s inhabitants, the Olam Haba element in the world was destroyed to such an extent that the world became the opposite of Olam Haba. It became more like Gehinnom, with terrible sins, atrocities, and their consequences (punishments) occurring on a regular basis. Although the world was in this terrible spiritual state, there was still a need for a

108 / A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

semblance of Olam Haba, for without it the world would have lost its original form and substance entirely, and would no longer have any connection to Gan Eden. In THURSDAY this state, it would not have been able to continue to PARASl IAS exist. This is why Shabbos maintains its Olam Haba 'IIMIP.M!''! role. On Shabbos, the world returns to its natural and original state, and through this renewal, the world can continue to exist. Hashem chose Shabbos to show us what Olam Haba will be like. This means that on Shabbos we are living in a microcosm of the World to Come. Maharal explains that until Hashem created Shabbos, the world was incomplete and imperfect. The six days of creation had no goal or purpose until Shabbos entered existence. This is because on Shabbos we receive a rrjn’ added soul, and with its help, we touch the true spirituality of the next world and gain the ability to face the spiritual challenges of the week. Without Shabbos, we could not survive the onslaught of the yetzer hara’s temptations, but Shabbos gives us the ability to withstand the challenge of evil in the world.

■MlSHriAH;OF THE DAY: BEITZAH 1:4

I

T

he coming Mishnah continues to consider the laws governing the designation of doves before Yom Tov: aninut Kvai D’h'intp iJaT — One who prior to the on¬ set of Yom Tov designated black doves but on Yom Tov found white doves, or designated white doves but found black doves,I'l n’Jtp designated two and found three,aniox — --- NOTES -

1. The Mishnah cannot be understood literally, as it goes without saying that if before Yom Tov one specifically prepared black doves, and then on Yom Tov finds white ones, or vice versa, these birds are not permitted, since they are obviously not the birds he had designated. Rather, the Qemara (10b) explains that our Mishnah’s ac¬ tual case is one in which prior to the onset of a Yom Tov a person designated both black and white doves, and then placed them in two separate compartments of the dovecote, divided by color. However, when he returns to the dovecote on Yom Tov he finds their positions reversed — viz., the white doves are in the compartment in which he had put the black doves, and vice versa. The question addressed by the Mishnah is whether he may assume that these are the same birds, and that they just switched compartments, or whether he must suspect that the original birds left the dovecote and that these are other birds that he did not prepare before Yom Tov (Rav). 2. And he is unable to pick out the two designated doves from among the group of three (Rav; Rashi).

THURSDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM / 109

THURSDAY PARASHAS MISHPATIM

they are prohibitedP^ onriw matp Kif»3i — However, if one designated three but found only two, they are permitted}^^ ~ designated doves that were in the nest,Pi li?n ’3?“? — but found doves only in front of the nest,i®i n’liDN they are prohibited^ nn art u\p fx ax') Qi-inn — but if there were none therS^^ except those,

then they are permittedP^ ---NOTES-

3. l.e., in the first two cases, he must assume that these are other birds, not the ones he designated. In the last case, he must take into account the possibility that any dove he takes is the unprepared, maktzeh one. Therefore, in all cases all the doves are forbidden (see Rambam Commentary). 4. l.e., he may assume that both birds are from the group that he originally desig¬ nated, and that the third dove left the dovecote (Rau from Gemara 10b). 5. l.e., in a compartment. The compartments into which dovecotes are subdivided are called D^ap, nests (Rashi, 10b). 6. But found no doves in the nest (Rau; Rashi). 7. l.e., as in the first two cases of the Mishnah, here too he must assume that these are other birds, not the ones he designated. 8. l.e., in the dovecote (Rau; cf. Rashi, 11a). 9. l.e., the compartment in which the doves he designated were nesting was the only compartment in this dovecote in which birds were present. Since the desig¬ nated doves were not yet capable of flight (see our commentary to the previous Mishnah), our primary concern is that birds in another compartment of the dove¬ cote changed places with the birds in this compartment that he had designated. Since there were no other doves in any of the other compartments, he may assume that these birds are the ones he designated. The Gemara (11a) adds that if undes¬ ignated doves are known to be nesting in another dovecote that is located within 50 amos (cubits) of the dovecote in question, we also may not assume that the doves found in front of the nest in which he had designated the birds are the same birds — unless the other dovecote is obscured from view of this dovecote (e.g., they were on opposite sides of a house), because birds that can only walk (but not fly) walk only to other dovecotes that they can see. However, if the other dovecote was in full view of this dovecote, then he may assume that the birds found in front of the original nest are the designated ones only if the other dovecote is more than 50 amos distant (Rau from Gemara 11a).

QUESTION OF THE DAY: Why does the version of the Ten Commandments in our parashah state simply that your maidservant’s son shall rest, while in Devarim (5:14) it states that your servant and maidservant shall rest like you? For the answer, see page 133.

110 / A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

nwin

GEMS FROM THE G

T

THURSDAY wo of the tools that the Torah has given us to deter¬ mine the status of a found item are i“i and 3i“ij7. PARASHAS ii, majority, is a tool that requires us to assume that MISHPATIM _______ the found item originated in the same place as the major¬ ity of similar items that may be found in that vicinity, and that it therefore shares their status. Hence, one who finds a piece of meat on the street of a city in which most of the meat that is sold is kosher may assume that the found meat came from a kosher butcher shop and is also kosher. nnjp, proximity, is a tool that requires us to assume that the found item originated in the nearest possible location. For example, in the Courtyard of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem there were thirteen collec¬ tion chests into which donations designated for different purposes were placed. If coins were found between these chests, we assume that they fell out of the nearest one (see Shekalim 7:1). In our Mishnah these two tools come into cqnflict: If we are to apply the tool of karou, then we may assume that the doves that are found in front of the compartment in which he designated doves prior to the onset of the Yom Tov originated in that compartment, and are therefore the same birds that were designated, and are thus permitted. On the other hand, since the majority of doves are not in this dove¬ cote but elsewhere in the world (Knbvjp), then if we are to apply the tool of rov, we will be required to assume that the doves he found in front of the compartment originated elsewhere, and are therefore not the same birds that were designated. They would thus be forbidden. The Gemara (11a) attempts to attribute its ruling to other consider¬ ations. However, in the final analysis, our Mishnah’s stringent ruling is in line with the rule postulated (ibid.) by R’ Chanina — viz., that in cases in which both rov and karou may be applied, and the results would be in conflict, rov prevails — i.e., the tool of karov is not applied when its out¬ come contradicts the rov. Hence, in our case the doves are prohibited.

A MOSSAR THOUGHT t^OR THE DAY A...V

..;

...■■...

: ,

...

W

e must appreciate the mitzvos for the beauty and richness that they add to our life. With regard to Shabbos, R’ Avraham Pam teaches us a great lesson. In his sefer, Atarah LaMelech, he relates the amazing story told in the Gemara {Kesubos 103b) about Rebbi (R’ Yehuda HaNasi). Before Rebbi died, he left instructions that a lit candle.

THURSDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM / 111

set table, and a prepared bed should be left for him. Why, asks the Gemara? Because Rebbi would return to his home from the next world every Erev Shabbos. He would come dressed in his special Shabbos clothes and would even make Kiddush for his family on Shabbos! (R’ Akiva Eiger’s Gilyon HaShas cites this from the Sefer Chassidim). Rebbi continued this practice until one Erev Shabbos, when the maidservant of the house told a neighbor who had knocked on the door to be quiet because Rebbi was there. Once he realized that the secret was revealed, Rebbi stopped coming. He didn’t want earlier tzaddikim to be thought of as inferior to him because they weren’t able to return to the world on Shabbos as he was. R’ Pam derives two lessons from this story. One is tangential to our subject of Shabbos, but important nonetheless. Although Rebbi obvi¬ ously derived great pleasure in being able to return to the world on Shabbos, he stopped doing so because he didn’t want to disparage the reputation of others, even indirectly. We can learn from here how despicable it is to hurt or degrade one’s fellow man. The main lesson R’ Pam teaches through this story is the amaz¬ ing power, holiness, splendor, and sanctity of Shabbos. Think about it. Rebbi was in Olam Haba. He was experiencing the Ziu HaShechinah, the closeness and light of Hashem. He was in the place that every soul yearns to be from the very moment it enters the physical world at birth. Yet, what did Rebbi do? He took his soul and clothed it in his body once again in order to experience the Shabbos of the physical realm. Other tzaddikimwere not able to accomplish this. They didn’t have the merits that would allow them to return to the world on Shabbos. They had to “suffer” and remain in Gan Eden. The lesson is clear, says R’ Pam. Olam Haba is T’Vn, a semblance of, Shabbos; Shabbos is not I’y)? Olam Haba. It is not as simple as we think, or as Chazal say, that the experience of Shabbos is but a mere fraction (one-sixtieth) of the World to Come, and that Olam Haba is a greater and richer encounter than anything we can experience in this world. Apparently, as Rebbi shows us, Shabbos is an even greater ex¬ perience than Olam Haba. Shabbos is where the neshamah des¬ perately wishes to be. Rebbi did not want to be only in Olam Haba; he wanted to be with Shabbos itself, the “main event” of closeness with Hashem. We live in the physical world, says R’ Pam. We still merit to experi¬ ence Shabbos. All of the tzaddikim in heaven are longing to live through 112 / A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

a Shabbos once again! Rebbi would still be returning to the world every Shabbos, if his secret would have been kept. And we? We can keep Shabbos every single week. We can literally be in Olam Haba every week, ex¬ periencing a powerful attachment to Hashem that can potentially be more meaningful than even Olam Haba itself.

-

.

^LACH^’QF THE DAY

THURSDAY MISMPATIM

‘

W

hen donning the tefilUn, the shel yad (the tefillin of the arm) is put on first, before the shel rosh (the tefillin of the head). There are two reasons for this order: The Torah always speaks of the shel yad before the shel rosh. This can be seen in the verse {Deuarim 6:8): n'au'ub vm rilJcb I’a, Vbu shall bind them as a sign upon your arm, and they shall be for tefillin [on your head] between your eyes. Indeed, because the verse itself seems to specify that the shel yad must be put on before the shel rosh, the above mentioned principle of riiyian by ]'’")'’ay)3 I’K does not apply to the order in which the tefillin are put on. Thus, even if one encounters the shel rosh before the shel ysid — even if he takes it in his hand first — he must still don the shel yad first. While the above ruling holds true, one should endeavor to place his tefillin in their bag in a manner that will insure that he will come into contact with the shel yad before the shel rosh. A second reason for the fact that the tefillin are put on in this order is the previously mentioned Talmudic principle of ^byn, we ascend in holiness. Since the shel rosh has greater sanctity than the shel yad, we first put on the shel yad, and only then do we ascend in holiness to the level of the shel rosh. When donning the tefillin, it is important that one take care to do so with the proper intent. Of course, when performing any mltzvah, one should bear in mind that he is fulfilling the will of the Almighty, his Creator. However, when donning the tefillin, one should have this and more in mind (see below). The four portions of Scripture that are placed in the tefllUn boxes speak primarily of the Oneness of Hashem and the miraculous Exodus from Egypt. By remembering the miracles performed by Hashem in Egypt, we remind ourselves that He, and He alone, rules the world, and that He may do as He wills at all times. We are commanded by Hashem THURSDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM / 113

to place the teftllin containing these words on our arm near the heart, as well as on our head near the brain. The Sages tell us that the heart is the seat of man’s THURSDAY thoughts and desires. By placing the tefilUn on our arm PARASHAS near our heart, we remind ourselves of the outstretched MISHPATIM arm of Hashem that took us out of Egypt, and we sub¬ jugate our heart and desires to His will. In placing the teftllin upon our head, we subjugate to Him our soul, which resides in our mind, together with all of our senses and capabilities. When the teftllin are put on with these thoughts in mind, they serve to elevate the heart and mind of the wearer. If we have true intent that the teftllin should serve as a device through which our hearts and minds will become closer to Hashem, we will have greater success in bringing our desires and our values more in tune with those of our Creator. On the other hand, if the teftllin are put on with little or no intent on the part of the wearer, while the mitzvah is nevertheless fulfilled in minimal fashion, it is a cold, weak mitzvah, and one that will have little effect on the one performing it. The opportunity presented to us with teftllin is unique. We have the chance to use tools designed by our Creator, the One Who knows us best. Who knows our every strength and weakness, in order to better ourselves. All that is necessary is a few minutes of clear and sincere intent that the teftllin should do their Divinely inspired work. It is in¬ cumbent on us to take advantage of this Divine gift.

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE SIDDOR

W

e recite Chapter 92 of Tehillim at least three times on Shabbos. We may think we know why; after all, the first verse states: nqti/n n1’’b T’ly “ilntn, A psalm, a song for the Shabbos day. The truth, however, is that if we delve into the words of this chapter of Tehillim, we would be left with one glaring question: What does it have to do with Shabbos? Virtually every commentary addresses this problem. Including Rashi, Radak, Ibn Ezra, and Malbim, as well as the Maharal {Netzach Yisrael, Chapter 19) and Aruch LaNer (Rosh Hashanah 31a). R’ Hutner in Pachad Yitzchak (Shabbos, Maamar 2) describes the quandary beautifully: “This is one of the unique chapters in all of Tehillim in which there is no clear connection between the opening verse and the rest of the chapter.” Radak’s approach as to why this psalm is indeed said on Shabbos is as follows: Since it mentions showing gratitude to Hashem for all 114

/ A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

His kindnesses (e.g., 'rh nllin'p niu, It is good to thank Hashem), we realize that Shabbos is the most appro¬ priate time to give such thanks, given that during the THURSDAY rest of the week we are troubled by our financial worries PAKA.SHAS and problems. On Shabbos, since we actively spend MISHPATIM more time on Torah study and auodas Hashem, and since our souls reach higher levels, we are able to give more meaningful thanks to Hashem. We might call Shabbos the weekly “Thanksgiving.” In addition, one of Hashem’s great acts of kindness is the very insti¬ tution and gift of Shabbos itself, which He granted us. Therefore, we thank Him on Shabbos, for Shabbos. Also, adds the Ibn Ezra, the psalm discusses praising Hashem for His wondrous and complex creations (e.g., 'n ibirnn. How great are Your deeds, Hashem [v. 6]), and we can truly appreciate Hashem’s world only on Shabbos, when we have the time to devote to this spiritual pursuit. Malbim states that this chapter is a broad discussion of Hashem’s involvement with all aspects of the world. His nnau/n, providence, over the world. This includes the way He administers reward and punish¬ ment, and His ongoing acts of creation. Shabbos is itself a testimony to Hashem’s ri’U"!? nnaipn. Divine Providence, because it is a day on which we, as humans, cease to act creatively. With this cessation from work, we declare that Hashem is the Gltimate and Involved Creator. The original source for this chapter being the Song of the Day for Shabbos (besides the opening verse stating so explicitly) is the Mishnah in Tamid (7:4). The Mishnah lists the various chapters of Tehillim that would be recited by the Leviim in the Beis HaMikdash on each of the weekdays. [These are the Songs of the Day that we recite at the end of each day’s Shacharis prayers.] When the Mishnah mentions the chapter to be said on Shabbos, it states: T’tp “ilntn nnwlK I’n naiii? nrnjni nau; niib Knb Dhb, On Shabbos, theg would say: Mizmor Shir L’Yom HaShabbos, a song for the future times, for a day that is a completely restful Shabbos for all of eternity. How does this chapter focus on the ultimate Shabbos of Olam Haba, of eternity? Maharal (Netzach Yisrael, Chapter 19) explains that this psalm is instructing us to thank Hashem for all of creation: fining niu Tib, It is good to thank Hashem; 'H ■’3, For You have glad¬ dened me, Hashem, with Your accomplishments; How great are Your deeds. These are the concepts that are stressed. If we are showing gratitude to Hashem for all of creation in this psalm, says Maharal, then we are testifying that all of creation is perfect and

THURSDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM

/ 115

complete. If so, we need to address an important ques¬ tion, the question that has been asked throughout the ages: How could Hashem have made a world that THURSDAY seems so imperfect? How does Hashem sometimes al¬ PARASHAS low the wicked to prosper and the righteous to suffer? MISHPATIM As the verse here states (v. 8): 1)33 awn n-iD3 ])f< ■’bj/B’ba When the wicked bloom like grass, and all evil-doers blossom. The answer the psalm gives to this question is Olam Haba. There is no way to understand this world as it is. Olam HaZeh by itself is incom¬ plete and imperfect. Sin and evil can and do exist in this world. In order to earn and achieve Olam Haba, man is required to possess free will and as a result, man at times makes mistakes and thus, sin does occur. It is only when we look at Olam HaZeh as the road to Olam Haba that we can see the entirety of existence as perfect and complete. It is only through the nsu; i^3U; dI'’, the ultimate existence of Shabbos in Olam Haba, that our world can be seen as being part of perfection.

116 / A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

A TORAH THOGGHT FOR THE DAY Dyn lama K’ljjn nnan nap n;?’! ytttyji ntyyj -n nan-ntyx Va

T

nis^na

u^vawTD FRIDAY

r\K*\sii\s

He took the Book of the Covenant and MlSIIP/VriM read it in earshot of the people, and they said, “Everything that Hashem has said, we will do and we will obey!” {Shemos 24:7).

hese words uttered by the Jewish people — niyyj, we will do and we will obey, became the phrase that defined the greatness of the Jewish nation. This statement is deemed so significant that the Gemara tells us {Shabbos 88a) that when the Jews said it, 600,000 angels descended from heaven to place two crowns, one for ntyyj and one for vniJ?, upon the head of each Jew. God proclaimed: “Who revealed this secret to my children!? This is the secret of the heavenly ministering angels!” Continuing in this vein, Sifri {Vezos HaBerachah §2) describes Hash¬ em offering the Torah to other nations of the world, and their rejection of it. Each time Hashem came to one of the nations to offer His To¬ rah to them, they asked, “What is in it?” When Hashem proceeded to mention a few of His commandments, all of the nations gave reasons why they could not accept it, why some of the laws would be just too difficult for them to observe. This continued until Hashem came to the Jews, who said, ynu/Jl nSyyJ, We will do and we will obeylThe Midrash sees the difference between the Jewish reaction and that of the nations as revealing the praise of the Jewish people. We may ask: Why is the statement naaseh venishma so special? R’ Yaakov Weinberg explains that the Midrash should be understood as a display of the crowning greatness of the Jewish people, for their agreeing to do anything that Hashem would command, even before they are told what the command might be. This is certainly true. But what is often ignored is the reaction of the other nations. We usually think that while the Jewish response is extremely praiseworthy, that of the nations is understandable. After all, is it not logical that before one enters into an agreement, he should inquire as to what his respon¬ sibilities will be? But in truth, this assumption is wrong. Let us consider: Who was the One doing the offering? Hashem, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. He is the One Who knows each nation’s strengths and weaknesses. If Hashem proposes something to a person, even something that might seem difficult, such as keeping

FRIDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM

/ 117

the 613 mitzvos of the Torah, He knows that the person D»V£IU/r3 is capable of accepting it, and that it is good for him to do so. The very fact that the nations asked Hashem FRIDAY what the Torah contained was a rejection of Hashem. PAF‘?5:p nmnpl pn there exist [the prohibitions of] buiiding and demolishing in regard to vessels, as well as to objects that are fixed to the ground. Moreover, if Beis Shammai forbid the spice peddlers to remove the shutters (despite the need to obtain the spices for the sake of the joy of Yom Tov,

118 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

"I’TOn^ ciK m’nia — But Beis Hillel permit not only the removing of the shutters but even replacing them after usej^' FRIDAY nnipix '»K)3U? n’S — Beis Shammai say: “itya — We may not take the handle PARASHAS of a pestle to chop meat upon itP^ niai MISHPATIM — But Beis Hillel permit this.*'*) [We will continue the elucidation of this Mishnah in tomorrow’s studies.] - NOTES -

see below), because the removal is similar to demolishing a wall, it goes without saying that Beis Shammai also forbid the spice peddlers to replace the shutters, because that act resembles building (Qemara 11b). 2. Beis Hillel maintain that according to Torah law: D’bbb riTnpl I’K, there do not exist [the prohibitions of] buiiding and demolishing in regard to uessels. Nevertheless, it should be forbidden by Rabbinic decree to remove the shutters. Beis Hillel permit the spice peddlers to remove the shutters of their stands only in order to enhance the joy of Yom Tov — i.e., because the wares in the stands are needed on Yom Tov. [As long as they sell only to their acquaintances and do not specify a price (Rashi 10a; cf. Gemara 11b), peddlers are permitted to sell their merchandise on Yom Tov (see below, Mishnah 3:8, and Shuichan Aruch, Orach Chaim 323:4 for details).] However, not only do Beis Hillel permit the spice peddlers to remove the shutters, they even permit them to replace them later. This is because Beis Hillel maintain inVnri mwj? iplD n’nn, they permitted their end because of their beginning — i.e., if a peddler were prohibited to replace the shutters he would not remove them in the first place, lest his wares would later be stolen from his open stand. However, if a stand is located indoors, where the wares can be protected by locking the front door, its shutters may not be replaced (Gemara 10a, 11b). 3. The handle under discussion in our Mishnah is a thick and heavy piece of wood that is used to hold a pestle that is normally used to crush grains. Because of its extreme weight, it is not considered a true vessel, and is therefore muktzeh {Rao; Rambam Commentary; cf. Kafich ed.; cf. Rashi; Tos. Yom Too; Shuichan Aruch, Orach Chaim 30:2). 4. Although normally an object that is not classified as a vessel is considered nypd iDW nnnn, set aside because of its intrinsic properties, and may not be moved for any purpose (see Gems from the Gemara to Mishnah 2), Beis Hillel nevertheless allow the handle to be moved and used in order to enhance the joy of Yom Tov (Rao).

QUESTION OF THE DAY:

Why were the Jews able to make the seemingly illogical commitment ofv'api) we will do and we will obey? For the answer, see page 133.

FRIDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM /

119

Fn«/ia , FRIDAY

GEMS FROM THE GEMARA

I

n regard to the shutters of the spice peddlers’ stands, tthe Gemara (11b) clarifies that the law depends on the type of shutter that is involved: (1) If the shutter in question has no hinges, then no prohibition is involved — not even by Rabbinic decree — and even Beis Shammai agree that it is permitted to remove and replace such shutters. Moreover, if it has no hinges, it is even permis¬ sible to remove and replace the shutter (or door) of a structure that is attached to the ground {Rau; Rambam Commentary; Pnei Yehoshua; cf. Bach to 7ur 5:19). (2) If the shutter in question has hinges on its upper and lower corners, even Beis Hillel agree that it is forbidden to remove and replace such a shutter. (3) The shutter in question in the dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel is a shutter that has its hinge in the middle of its side {Rau from Gemara 11b). Rau explains that Beis Hillel concede the point in the second case because replacing such a shutter is similar to building. This is in con¬ tradistinction to the shutter that is the subject of our Mishnah, in which the hinge is in the middle; such a shutter cannot be secured well, and therefore replacing it is not considered a form of building. Because of the stronger resemblance to building in this case, although the Rabbis waived their own Rabbinic prohibition for the sake of the joy of Yom Tov in a case in which the hinge is in the middle, they did not do so in a case in which the hinges are on the corners. Alternatively, Ramban explains that the Rabbinic prohibition on shutters emerges from an apprehension vprT> Km, lest he may secure the hinges [with nails] — an outright violation of the forbidden labor of building even in regard to portable objects. However, this apprehension exists only when the hinges are located on the upper and lower corners, so that a nail may be driven through each hinge to secure it to the frame of the stand without impairing the ability of the shutter to swing open and shut. In the case of a hinge in the middle of a shutter, a nail driven through the hinge and the frame would have to be removed before opening the shutter, thus greatly hindering the use of the stand. Hence, in this case there is no apprehension lest he may secure the hinges [with nails]. Neverthe¬ less, although they permitted spice peddlers to remove such shutters, and even to replace them in the case of an outdoor stand (for the sake of the joy of Yom Tov), in the case of a stand that is located indoors. PARASHAS MISHPATIM

120 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

the Rabbis forbade the spice peddler to replace such a shutter, out of fear that people would fail to differentiate between the various types of hinges {Milchamos; Chidushei HaRamban 47,102b; cf. Rashi 47b; Ramham, HU. Yom Tov 4:12 and HU. Shahbos 22:25; see also Tos. to Shabbos 102b; see Chidushei HaMeiri; see also Magen Auraham 313:9, 314:10, 519:4).

FRIDAY '-IISIII’MIM

A MGSSAR THOGGHT FOR THE DAY

W

hen the Jewish people proclaimed before they were exhibiting a vital fundamental for spiritual growth: actions are what matter, not merely thoughts. They gave primary focus to performing actions for Hashem. As Auos DRabbi Hassan (22:1) states, the priority of ntpj/J to demonstrates that only wisdom accompa¬ nied by a great commitment to good deeds is enduring. The declaration of ViaWJl nwi/j is cited in Auos DRabbi Hassan (ibid.) as the basis for the teaching that: IriiODn innipnn v\PVmj nn’pnn. Anyone whose deeds are greater (i.e., more numerous) than his wisdom, his wisdom wilt endure. The mvrl can exist only if the priority is the Onlike other moral systems of the world, the Torah teaches us to make sure that our beliefs and sayings, the are always reflected in our actions. True wisdom originates from striving to incorporate one’s values deeply into the self. This can be done only if the wisdom is concretely applied in the world of action. There is another reason why actions are so important, and why thoughts are not enough. Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 21) writes: “Why did Hashem bind us with so many commandments? Know that a man becomes who he is based on his actions. The thoughts of his heart and his intentions always follow the lead of his actions, whether for good or evil. Even a very wicked person who decides to suddenly perform good actions will be transformed into a righteous individual. The same is true for a righteous person who carries out evil actions; he will be¬ come evil.” As the Gemara in Kiddushin (40a) states: Hashem does not take evil intentions into account if they were not carried to fruition. According to Sefer HaChinuch, one of the reasons for this principle is because the soul is not really tainted until the evil action is performed. Intuitively, we usually assume that our actions are affected by our thoughts; Sefer HaChinuch is saying that the opposite is true. Actions affect the heart much more powerfully than the heart influences actions. FRIDAY — PARASHAS MISHPATIM / 121

The classic mussar work, Mesillas Yesharim by R’ Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (Chapter 7), puts it this way: “The man whose soul burns in the service of Hashem FRIDAY will certainly not become lazy in the performance of His PARASHAS commandments, but his movements will be like that of MISHPATIM a rapid fire. He will not rest or be at ease until the deed is completed. In addition, just as zerizus, enthusiasm, can result from an inner burning, so too it will create one. This means that one who perceives a quickening of his outer, physical movements in the performance of a commandment causes himself to experience an inner flaming as well, through which longing and desire will continu¬ ally grow. If, however, he is sluggish in the movement of his limbs, the movement of his spirit and soul will die down and become extinguished. We all know this from experience.” Actions, arouse the sincere y)3U7l

hen is a person obligated to wear teflllin? The mitzvah of teflllin is one that remains in effect through¬ out the day. In an ideal situation, one should wear them for the entire day. However, some of the halachic requirements of wearing teflllin are difficult for many people to maintain throughout the day. For example, one wearing teflllin is required to maintain a clean body at all times. Furthermore, he is required to be mindful of the teflllin that he is wearing on a constant basis. These conditions are difficult to fulfill, especially in our modern world that is so full of distractions. For this reason, it has become the accepted custom to wear teflllin only during the morning services. Minimally, one is required to wear them while reciting the Shema and the Shemoneh Esrei. However, it is important to note that if the proper time frame for the recital of these prayers is coming to an end and one does not yet have access to teflllin, he should not refrain from reciting the prayers. Rather, he should recite them without teflllin, and then put on teflllin when they become available. The requirement to wear teflllin while reciting the Shemoneh Esrei can lead to an interesting halachic dilemma. What is one to do if he has no access to teflllin at the time that the minyan is praying, but he will have them at a later time — prior to the end of the time frame for the recital of prayers? On the one hand, it is preferable that he pray together with the minyan. On the other hand, however, it is preferable that he recite Shemoneh Esrei while adorned with teflllin. Thus, we are 122 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

faced with two halachic principles that are at odds with each other. The authorities conclude that in such a scenario it FRIDAY is preferable for one to postpone his prayers and pray without the minyan in order to recite Shemoneh Esrei while wearing his tefillin. However, once again we must 'Msrii'Mn stress that this is true only if one will not miss the proper time frame to recite either the Shema or the Shemoneh Esrei. If there is a danger that the proper time frame will be missed, then it is better to pray in the proper time, without tefillin.

n»ua\yn

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE SIDDUR

T

he time-honored Jewish custom of reciting the Modeh Ani prayer upon awakening every morning demonstrates our complete trust in Hashem: n3"! nbnnin ’rimj ’in ^'’53‘p nnliD / thank You, Living and Enduring King, for You have returned my soul to me with mercy; great is Your faithfulness! The Jewish people began as a nation with the expression of trust in Hashem, when they said vmJ'i We will do and we will obey. So too, every Jew begins his day, his first waking moments, with an expression of trust in Hashem. This trust stems from that of our ances¬ tors, when they declared naaseh venlshma, which exhibited the fun¬ damental trust that the Torah, even unseen, would be good for us, for Hashem always has our best interests in mind. Similarly, Ramchal ex¬ plains that we declare our trust in Hashem with the statement of Modeh Ani, in which we acknowledge that Hashem removes our souls from our bodies when we sleep, watches over them, recharges our bodies with energy, and returns our souls to us. This idea is also referred to in the Modim blessing of Shemoneh Esrei, when we thank Hashem: Tib nnip3n by, for our souls that are entrusted to You. "in Modeh Ani, we declare that we do not take life for granted. We realize that sometimes people die in their sleep; therefore, when wak¬ ing up, we acknowledge Hashem’s kindness in permitting us to live another day. Even though we all know that one day we are going to die, most of us cannot focus on that reality and we live our lives as if we will exist forever. Facing death is frightful, not only because it means giving up everything we love in this world, but because of fear of the unknown. The Torah, however, has a different perspective on death; it actually says that death is a good thing. The verse states {Bereishis 1:31): Tkn rwv niJtU3Vyi:J the donning of the shel yad and the shel rosh. One may SHABBOS not respond with to any blessing, nor to Kaddish, r^K \sii \v Kedushah, or any other communal prayer. If one does ''iiMii'AUM hear Kaddish or Kedushah while involved in donning his tefillin, he should remain silent and listen to the words of the chazzan. If he did mistakenly respond, he must repeat the blessing of n’Jnb in the manner described above.

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE SIDDOR

T

his week, we will examine sections of the blessings that are recited after the reading of the Haftarah on Shabbos. In the first blessing, we refer to Hashem as; ba “ilY nnnn. Rock of all the worlds, Righteous in all generations. This phrase seems somewhat out of place in the blessing of the Haftarah. What kind of declaration is this? It seems as if we are proclaiming Hashem to be righteous in all generations, in a form of pHY, accepting Hashem’s judgment even when He causes suffering or oppression. The wording of the blessing seems to be derived from the words of the verse {Deuarim 32:4): Kin nipn p'^pY... PBipn T’nnp'bn ■’? ib^s a’nn niYn, The Rock — perfect is His work, for all His paths are justice ... righteous and fair is He. Baruch She’amar explains this wording to be based on the reason for the practice of reading the Haftarah. As we mentioned in last week’s studies, the Abudraham tells us about the edict issued by the Greeks forbidding the reading of the Torah, for which the Jews had to substitute the reading of the Prophets. The berachah for this reading therefore included a pnn pHY, an acceptance of Hashem’s judgment. We may never question Hashem’s righteous ways, although they are not always understood by our limited human intellect. In these blessings, we also declare our full belief in all the prophecies of our holy neuiim, even prophecies that were as of yet not fulfilled, such as the prophecies concerning the coming of Mashiach and the return to Jerusalem. We say in the blessing: Kb liriK p’pYpJ? lliK □pi“i 3^/1, even one word of Your words will never revert back unful¬ filled, whVh means that even a single detail in a prophecy will not be altered or changed. Since most of the prophecies deal with the return of Hashem’s presence to Yerushalayim, we proceed to beseech Hashem to have mercy on Tziyon and Yerushalayim.

SHABBOS — PARASHAS MISHPATIM

/ 131

As we mentioned above, the reason the Sages in¬ stituted the reading of the Haftarah on Shabbos was because of the Greeks’ decree that we not learn Torah SHABBOS publicly. In the blessings, we ask for our speedy re¬ PAKASHAS demption from the nations that continue to oppress us. MiSMPATIM That is what we mean when we say: u/aj irnp nnnna, to the one who is deeply humiliated bang salvation speedily, in our days.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: In this Haftarah, we find the name Yitzchak spelled as pntp’ (33:26). Where else do we find such a spelling of Yitzchak's name? For the answer, see page 133.

132 / A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

ANSWERS TO QUESTION OF THE DAY

Sunday: Since the Jews had just been released from slavery, Hashem told them that they were not to enslave others {Chizkuni).

Monday: Ohr HaChaim explains that two things must happen in order for the thief to be liable to a double payment — he must be found to have the stolen goods, and witnesses must testify that he stole them.

Tuesday: Netziv explains that two things are being taught: if the majority acts incorrectly, one must not follow them; and furthermore, if they challenge you for doing this, you should not fight with them, but remain silent.

Wednesday: refers to the prohibition against plowing or sowing during shemittah, while nnu/UJl expands the prohibition to include even fertilizing or weeding a field (Rashi).

Thursday: The Shemos version is referring to an uncircumcised slave, who may not work for you, but may work for himself. The Deoarim version refers to a circumcised (Hebrew) servant, who must keep Shabbos Just as you do {Metziv).

Friday: The Rebbe of Kotzk suggests that the faith expressed by their declaration gave them the ability to accept anything, no matter how difficult it would be.

Shabbos: This spelling also appears in Tehillim 105:9, which we recite while giving a baby his name after circumcision.

SHABBOS — PARASHAS MISHPATIM / 133

I*"

I .

m

. . *• ■• J‘ .V';^.i^ ;■

••3.

.

«

-f> If j

ri

,*i«V -I'

'■3n‘? as well as niyn bv ]’’‘73ri prior to donning the shel rosh. This is in accordance with the Ashkenazic custom. According to the Sephardic custom, the blessing of p'pDri n’Jnb is completely omitted and the blessing of TVbtii biiyn bv is recited prior to donning the shel rosh. As we shall see, the shel yad is supposed to be covered while it is worn. If one must wear the shel yad on top of a covering, he should still take care to keep the tefillin covered with another garment of some sort. Under no circumstances may the bayis of the shel yad be worn over a shirt-sleeve or any other garment.

198 / A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

-^

A

_TlllfiSIDDdR -

:

..! IJ|

'V

kmsrn ■

SUNDAY t the beginning of each day, after we awaken and say ’JiS iTtin, thanking Hashem for restoring our PARASHAS faculties, we reaffirm our commitment to serving Him by TETZAVEHx reciting the verse (Tehillim 111:10): nN")’ ntJDn rr’i^K") n^inv inVnri 'n, The beginning of wisdom is the fear of Hashem, good understanding [is given] to all their practitioners. His praise endures forever. Metzudas David and others understand this verse to be saying that when one is seeking nnDH, wisdom, he must first instill in himself nx*]’, fear and awe of Hashem, and then he will be deemed to have niu b^v;. As a result, nyb n“[)3y InVnri, he will be praiseworthy in his knowledge, for he will have success in his studies and the knowledge will be enduring. This verse, he says, represents the concept expressed in the Mishnah in Avos (3:11): iKun nxn'U/ bb innipn px Ixpn nx")’^ irin:pniy bbi ;n)3’prit? mnipn irinan^ rimip n^’pnn. Anyone whose fear of sin takes priority over his wisdom, his wisdom will endure; but anyone whose wisdom takes priority over his fear of sin, his wisdom will not endure. Malbim has a similar approach, emphasizing that without nxn’, which he understands as the observance of mitzvos and the laws of the Torah, one cannot come to understand the Torah’s nwDn, its underlying principles and wisdom. Thus, nx“)’ is the beginning and root of nJ03n. The Gemara {Berachos 17a), however, adduces from this verse in Tehillim that the purpose of wisdom is to engender repentance and good deeds, so that a person does not rebel against his parents, teach¬ ers, and those greater than he, thinking that he has a greater under¬ standing of the Torah than they do. For this reason, the verse says nn’ty'y, their practitioners, and not simply Dnnjpl'?, their learners. The Gemara explains that the verse refers to practitioners who fulfill the mitzvos nniyb, for the Torah’s sake. Maharsha explains that while the Gemara certainly concedes that fear of Hashem must precede wisdom, it is emphasizing a different lesson that is also inherent in the verse. For the purposes of this expo¬ sition, it understands the word TT’ipX"! as meaning from the outset, and the verse to be teaching that one must study with the intent of learning how to fear Hashem. As to the idea of nnipb, Maharsha says that it is an additional concept, lauding those who study for the sake of Torah. [Rif (in Bin Yaakov) has a similar approach, but he explains that the Gemara defines n’tyKI as referring to the principal goal, teaching that one’s learning must be to acquire nxT and thereby behave in a suitable

SUNDAY — PARASHAS TETZAVEH

/ 199

manner. Only this type of learning is worthy of the term DIP b'2\u, for the verse limited this term to □n’P/V, those who study with an intent of nm"?, for Torah’s sake, to SUNDAY become a God-fearing person, and not for self-serving PARASHAS reasons.] TKTZAVPH Although in our translation of the verse we rendered the phrase nipy Iri^nn, His praise endures forever, as referring to Hashem, the commentators cited above understand it as referring to the practitioners of the Torah mentioned in the verse. Although the word in^nip is singular while is plural, the com¬ mentators explain that the practitioners mentioned in the verse are considered a single unit that adhere to the word of Hashem. R’ Samson Raphael Hirsch, however, in a lengthy discourse on this verse, suggests that perhaps the singular form of In^nri can be viewed as referring to hyp. In his first interpretation, he defines llu hyp as understanding the goodness of Torah. Thus, riinv in^nin means; Only the under¬ standing of what is good that is gotten by fulfilling Hashem’s Torah will attain true and permanent fame and endure forever. The concept being put forward is that, although there are many seem¬ ingly beneficial ideas that may capture the imagination of people, their worthiness is fleeting and ever-changing. Only an appreciation of the good that is drawn from upholding Torah is constant and fundamentally true. Only a spirit of recognition that fosters faith in one’s obligations in life and from which one derives the impetus for improvement is of any consequence, and is the true foundation of man’s lofty nature. Now that we see some of the thoughts and concepts connected to this verse, we can appreciate that it is certainly appropriate that we recite it as we arise to face each day.

200

/ A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

nwisi

ni>rn

I’aa-nxi ■^I'lnx t“inK ’^-Una^ pnx ’aa “inri’Kl

O

aipn rinxi la? '^inn inK ^^in’aKi ana

MONDAY PARASHAS TKTZAVEH

Now you, bring near to yourself Aharon your brother, and his sons with him, from among the Children of Israel — Aharon, Nadau, Auihu, Eiazar and Isamar, the sons of Aharon — to minister to Me {Shemos 28:1).

ne of the questions addressed by the commentators is why the verse finds it necessary to enumerate the sons of Aharon, since they were already included in the expression iriN’T’aaTiN;!, and his sons with him. Ramban says that had the verse referred to them only as Aharon’s sons, we might have inferred that after their consecration, they and all their children, even those already born, would become Kohanim. It therefore enumerates their names to teach that only they and the sons who would be born afterward would be considered Kohanim. Thus, Pinchas and any other living descendants would not automatically attain that status. In another answer, R’ Yehoshua Leib Diskin also addresses the ques¬ tion of why the verse tells us the obvious fact that Aharon and his children were from among the Children of Israel. He explains that originally, the privilege of performing the priestly ser¬ vice to Hashem was given to the n1“ll33, firstborn. After the episode of the Golden Calf, however, they lost this privilege, and it was given instead to Aharon and his children, from the tribe of Levi, for they did not participate in the sin. Furthermore, they responded to Moshe’s call of ’bx 'Tih ’n. Whoever is for Hashem, Join me (32:26), in order to kill the sinners. However, Nadav was also a niDa, and one might have thought that since he did not sin, he was never disqualified from his position of service, and would therefore not need the n’Nlb’n, conse¬ crating service. Therefore, the verse specifically mentions his name to indicate that he too, like Aharon’s other children, had to go through this process. The reason for this, R’ Dlskin explains, is that the holiness with which they were endowed was not only for themselves, but established their position as priests eternally, son after son. The sons of a however, are not necessarily themseves nlTiD?. Thus, the expression bN'iip'’ T|1nn is inferring that a unique and everlasting consecration

MONDAY — PARASHAS TETZAVEH /

201

was taking place, similar and corresponding to the holiness of Israel itself, which is everlasting. Ksav Safer has a different approach, focusing on why the verse repeats that they were ’iis. He says that some could have made the argument that Aharon was not worthy of attaining such a lofty position, and cer¬ tainly not his children, for they were ’i!? TiriH, and no different than everyone else. Therefore, Aharon must have been appointed in deference to his brother Moshe. In truth, however, Aharon was chosen because of his own greatness, and it was in his merit that his children became the D’Jns. As proof to this, there is a simple calculation. If Aharon was appointed Kohen Gadol only in Moshe’s merit, why were his children also appointed, whereas Moshe’s were not? It would be illogical that Moshe’s merits would be sufficient to gain the appointment of Aharon’s children and not his own. Thus, the understanding of the verse is “bring close Aharon from among Bnei Yisrael” because he is the most worthy, proven by the fact that his children are to go with him. This is testimony that his four sons, who will be the Kohanim, had been so designated because they were the sons of Aharon, and not because of Moshe, their uncle.

;

MtSHMAHlOF THE DAY: BEITZAH 2:4

T

his Mishnah discusses to what extent the permit to perform melachah for food preparation on Yom Tov applies to offerings: annlx ’XMty Ji’a — Beis Shammai say: niat/ bring shelamim on Yom Tov;i'i in’by pattlD — however, we may not lean on themJ^^ nibiy ith — But we may not bring -—- NOTES -

1. Parts of the she/am/m-offering are placed on the Altar and part of the offering may be eaten. Due to its permissibility for human consumption, any melachah for the offering of the shelamim may be performed under the dispensation granted to perform melachah for food preparation on Yom Tov (Rau). 2. Part of the preliminary procedure of most private offerings is na’np, leaning (see Vayikra 3:2). The donor leans both his hands on the head of the animal, with all his might. On Yom Tov, however, there is a Rabbinic injunction against using animals, which would preclude the act of leaning, since by leaning the person would be supported by the animal (Gemara 36b). Since Beis Shammai is of the opinion that the act of leaning does not have to immediately precede the slaugh¬ tering of the animal, they prohibit leaning on Yom Tov, and rule that it should be performed the day before Yom Tov (Rau).

202 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

olosP^ nnwiN‘7‘?nn''ai —BufBeis//i7Ze/sai/; T’ku)? nl'^lyi — We may bring both shelamim and olos on Yom Tov,i‘’i I’aJpiDl — and we may lean on themP^ - MOTES ---

3. An o/ah-offering is completely burned on the Altar, leaving nothing for human consumption. Thus, the labor involved in its offering (slaughtering) does not receive the dispensation granted for the prepa¬ ration of food on Yom Tov. However, the communal o/ah-offerings (“113'’^ i.e., the daily olah and the olos brought as the mussa/-offerlngs) may be offered on Yom Tov [even though their meat is not eaten], for their sacrifice is fixed to a specific day and cannot be postponed. The Mishnah here refers only to private

olos (Rau). 4. Beis Hillel expound Vaylkra 23:41 to derive that any offerings associated with the festival, even olos, are permitted to be offered on Yom Tov (see Rau). [Beis Hillel agree, however, that vowed or donated offerings may not be offered on the festival, since they have no association with the festival and may be offered at a later date (Rashl).] 5. Beis Hillel rule that leaning must immediately precede slaughter. Thus a sacrifice offered on Yom Tov must have leaning performed on the same day. Therefore, the Rabbinic prohibition against using animals is waived in favor of the mitzvah of leaning (Tos. Yom Too).

T

GEMS FROM THE

T

he Qemara quotes a Baraisa that relates to the dispute in our Mishnah: ‘ The Rabbis taught in a Baraisa: There was an incident involving Hillel the Elder, who brought his o/ah-offering to the Temple Courtyard to lean on it on Tom Tov. Disciples of Shammai the Elder gathered against him. They asked him: What is the nature of this animal? [Shammai’s disciples challenged Hillel, asking him whether he was attempting to offer an olah, a prohibited act according to their view in the Mishnah. The issue of leaning was not discussed, because they did not see Hillel lean on the animal {Tosafos to Chagigah 7b).] Hillel the Elder answered them: It is a female animal, and 1 am bringing it as a shelamim. He shook its tail in front of them, and they left. [Though a female animal may be brought as a shelamim, only male animals may be used for olos. Hillel understood that Shammai’s disciples were coming to challenge him. To avoid confrontation, he led them to believe that it could not be an olah that he was offering, but rather a shelamim {Meirl in Beis HaBechirah). (It was permitted to

MONDAY — PARASHAS TETZAVEH / 203

be deceptive in this manner in order to avoid discord.) Hillel shook the tail as if he were going to show the disciples that it was a female animal, but they trusted MONDAY him and walked away {Chidushei HaMeiri).] PAKASHAS The Baraisa continues: TETZAVKM On that day Beis Shammai had the upper hand over Beis Hillel; and Beis Shammai attempted to establish the halachah in accordance with their view. But there was one elder sage from among the disciples of Shammai the Elder whose name was Bava ben Buta, and he knew that the halachah followed Beis Hillel. To enforce this, he sent messengers', and he brought all the sheep of Keidar that were in Jerusalem [these were the finest sheep available {Rashi)] and stood them in the Temple Courtyard, and he announced: Whoever wishes to lean upon an animal and offer it as a sacrifice may come and lean. [Bava ben Buta thus openly declared that the halachah follows Beis Hillel.] And on that day, it emerged that Beis Hillel had the upper hand, and they established the halachah in accordance with their opinion; and there was nobody who pro¬ tested at all. The Baraisa concludes with an Incident that occurred after the one mentioned previously, when the halachah had been established in ac¬ cordance with the opinion of Beis Hillel {Rashi): There was another incident involving one of the disciples of Beis Hillel, who brought his olah to the Temple Courtyard on Yom Tov to lean on it. One of the disciples of Beis Shammai met him. The dis¬ ciple of Beis Shammai said to him: What kind of leaning is this! This is in violation of Beis Shammai’s ruling! The disciple of Beis Hillel retorted: What kind of silence is this! I.e., you should remain quiet! He silenced him with this rebuke and the disciple of Beis Shammai left. [The disciple saw fit to speak out strongly in defense of Beis Hillel’s position, unlike Hillel himself who avoided a confrontation in the previous incident, because when this second Incident took place the halachah had already been established in accordance with Beis Hillel {Hagahos Yaavetz).] The Qemara learns from this disciple’s measured retort: Abaye said: Therefore, a Rabbinic student whose friend improperly criticizes him should not respond to any greater degree than that of his friend’s criticism. For in this instance, the disciple of Beis Sham¬ mai said: What kind of leaning is this! And the disciple of Beis Hillel answered: What kind of silence is this! [Responding in a measured way is effective, and prevents disputes from escalating.]

myn

204 / A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

A WaSSAR thought

I

MONDAY n A Torah. Thought for the Day we cited Ksau Sofer’s PARASHAS explanation of the significance of the expression T|inn TETZAVEH In a second interpretation, Ksao Sofer sheds light on the role of a leader of Israel. One of Aharon’s great attributes was his constant involvement in all aspects of the na¬ tion’s welfare, and his pursuit of peace and harmony among the Jews. This is depicted in the Mishnah {Auos 1:12), in which Hillel stated:

in-ipipi nln:|in nx nriix

dI'^u; anix pnx

b\ij vyobm

■>in

nnin^. Be among the disciples of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them closer to the Torah. Now, how¬ ever, that he was chosen to be the Kohen Gadol, it would seem that his primary obligation would be to purify and sanctify himself, in order to be ready to perform the Divine service in the holiest of states. To accomplish this, he would necessarily have to remove himself from the everyday, mundane affairs of people with their problems and disputes, and concentrate in solitude on his own betterment. However, maintains Ksav Sofer, this was not the will of Hashem, for the pursuit and attainment of peace is invaluable. Rather, the demand on Aharon was that he must incorporate both these tasks: he must be at a lofty spiritual level worthy of approaching Hashem with Divine service, and he must remain among the nation, to tend to their needs as mediator and promoter of harmony. One might add that the task of being a visible, active participant in the daily life of the nation is part of the same main function of Aharon, which’ is to keep Israel cleansed of sins. In this sense, the verse in Malachi (2:6) testifies to the importance of this role and its significance in Aharon’s success. It states: he walked with me in peace and with fairness, and turned many away from iniquity. As the commentators explain, both in his adherence to the mitzvos and in his interaction with the people, Aharon did the will of Hashem, and be¬ cause of that, he was successful in turning many away from iniquity. In his comments to the Mishnah cited above, Tiferes Yisrael explains that Hillel’s message is meant to direct one to behave with the trait of man? npj?, humility in one’s speech, while the two Mishnayos that follow deal with humility in action and in thought. Thus, the Mishnah states that when one is dealing with a person who has attained a higher position than he himself has, he should learn from Aharon, who was elated with Moshe’s designation as the leader of Bnei Yisrael, and greet¬ ed him with the title of “my master,’’ although Aharon was the older

MONDAY — PARASHAS TETZAVEH

/ 205

brother and was deemed to be his equal (see Rashi to Shemos 28:26). In keeping with this idea, he says that we should speak with deference to a communal Rav MONDAY or leader, though he may be less worthy than we are. PARASHAS Regarding one’s friend, one should first and foremost TETZAVEH be an hillx, and not cause any rifts or fights. Nevertheless, if a dispute arises there is an obligation of being a chasing the “peace” even if it seems to be flee¬ ing. Finally, in matters that pertain to those in one’s charge, such as one’s students or congregants, one should be an n1’12n riK 3nlK and try to be helpful to them both materially and spiritually. Furthermore, even when admonishing them, one should speak with courtesy and gentleness, as a merciful father to a child. Only then can one fulfill nhinb bringing them closer to the Torah, for a person only heeds the words of someone who loves him, and not someone who (he perceives) hates him.

HALACHAH OF THE DAY

W

e will now discuss the proper manner in which one should comport himself while wearing teflllin. The Gemara teaches: Rabbah bar Rav Huna said: A person is obli¬ gated to touch his teflllin at all times. This law is derived from a kal uachomer argument from the law of the Tzitz (the golden Head-plate that the Kohen Gadol wore). Since concerning the Tzitz, upon which there is only one mention of Hashem’s Name, the Torah states (28:38): T-nn mni, and it shall be on his (the Kohen Gadol’s) head constantly, which teaches that he should not divert his attention from it, regarding teflllin, in which there are many more mentions of Hashem’s Name, how much more so that he must not divert his attention from them! In accordance with the above Talmudic passage, the ShulchanAruch teaches that one should touch his teflllin constantly so that he should not divert his attention from them. As the commentaries explain, one need not touch his teflllin on a continual basis. Rather, one should touch them whenever he recalls them. In this way, he will always remain mindful of them and not divert his attention from them. As we can see, the authorities stress the need for one to always remain mindful of the fact that the teflllin — which contain many men¬ tions of the Name of Hashem — are upon him. One must therefore take great care not to engage in idle talk or levity while wearing his teflllin.

206 / A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

Eating or drinking while wearing tefillin is a matter of dispute among the authorities. While some permit the eating of a light snack, or the drinking of a non¬ MONDAY intoxicating beverage (or even a moderate amount of PARASHAS an intoxicating beverage), some authorities do not per¬ TETZAVEH mit any eating or drinking at all while wearing teftUin. It is the opinion of these latter authorities that the dis¬ pensation allowing for the eating of a light snack while wearing tefillin applies only to those who wear their tefillin all day. However, we, who anyway remove our tefillin after prayers, should remove them prior to any eating or drinking whatsoever. While wearing tefillin, one must maintain a clean body. Accordingly, the authorities state that one may not pass gas while wearing them. Therefore, one who is suffering from excess gas and will not be able to control himself from passing gas, should not don tefilUn. He should of course don them as soon as his condition will allow him to do so. If one is wearing tefillin and feels the need to pass gas, he should re¬ move them immediately — even in the midst of Shemoneh Esrei; if he cannot remove them entirely, he should at least move them out of their proper place. One may not sleep, even for a short while, while wearing tefillin. •If

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE SIDDGR

T

he subject of peace, plays a prominent role in our prayers, and is one that we have discussed several times. Perhaps the most well-known of these prayers is taken from the verse in lyov (25:2), which states: vnlnna nt/'V lay nnDi bvi'on, Dominion and dread are with Him; He makes peace in His heights. It is the final sentence of the full Kaddlsh, as well as the final phrase of Shemoneh Esrei. As Ibn Ezra points out, it is difficult to fathom what disputes could exist among the members of the Heavens, for they are all good and there is no war there. Metzudas David explains that because of Hashem’s great dominion and the fear of His majesty, all of the celestial bodies maintain peace among themselves by not opposing each other in the employment of their different assignments regarding the lower world, and follow only their prescribed tasks. Rashl says that as each member of the zodiac rises, it believes that it is the first, because it cannot see what came before it, and thus jealousy is avoided. In a second inter¬ pretation, he says that this verse does not refer to heavenly bodies, but to the heavens themselves, which are composed of water and fire

MONDAY — PARASHAS TETZAVEH

/ 207

(the word D’m is a composite of the words WK, fire, and d;!)?, water), yet the fire is not extinguished by the water. Regardless of the precise nature of the peace in the heights, it certainly behooves us to pray for peace in our world, which is full of conflict and divisiveness {Eitz Chaim). This verse is also recited after the blessings of Bircas HaMazon, in the final group of prayers, each of which begins with the word innin. The compassionate One, in supplication to Hashem for a variety of blessings. This prayer consists of three sentences. The first beseeches Hashem that He make us worthy of the days of Mashiach and the life of the World to Come. We then say the verse: niVliy’ ablvny Wntbi nnb ipn nipyi Who magnifies the salva¬ tions of His king, and does kindness to His anointed one, to David and his offspring forever {Tehillim 18:51). However, most siddurim note that this is the proper reading for weekdays, but that on Shabbos and festivals it is customary to recite the opening phrase as niyilP’ Ipbp, which is based on the identical verse found in IIShmuel (22:51). Abudraham explains that the version found in Tehillim is used on weekdays because it was written before David HaMelech became king. The verse in Sefer Shmuel, however, was written when David was a reigning monarch, and is thus an appropriate reflection of the majestic nature of Shabbos (see Eitz Chaim, who cites Abudraham and notes that festivals and Rosh Chodesh in this regard are like Shabbos). Yet another explanation stressing the greatness of Shabbos is offered by Abudraham. He notes that the word (magdil) is deficient on two counts: it is missing the yud after the dalet, and the vowelization of the T is weak. On the other hand, bnip has the full lettering and it has a strong vowelization. It is therefore fitting that Shabbos, which has the status of a great king, have bi'nan associated with it. lyun Tefillah (based on Yalkut Shimoni) suggests that bpap (the verse in Tehillim) conveys the message that the redemption of the nation does not come at once, but is a continuous process, and is therefore fitting for weekdays, which symbolizes the ongoing journey of exile toward redemption. The term (as in Sefer Shmuel), how¬ ever, is referring to Mashiach as a tower, carrying the connotation of a complete salvation. This is closely linked to Shabbos, which signifies the days of Mashiach. Interestingly, Baruch She’amar rejects all these interpretations, and maintains that the correct version is from Tehillim even on Shabbos. As to the widespread custom of using the verse from Sefer Shmuel on Shabbos, he contends that it was a publishing error made by someone

208 / A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

who saw the notation Oii/ '7n:!in on an early manuscript and assumed that it meant: on one should recite In fact, however, it was merely a shorthand, MONDAY alluding to the fact that in 3 bK'i'nw the expression is PARASHAS written as and the error eventually became part TETZAVEH of the custom. Nevertheless, he concedes that either version is acceptable on any day. Nesiu Binah, how¬ ever, rebuts this claim, by noting that Abudraham lived in the early part of the 14th century, 150 years before the advent of the printing press [and more than 200 years before the publishers of the printed Hebrew Bible started to divide Sefer Shmuel into two books], yet in his discussion of the prayer, he says that the custom is one that he heard from his teachers.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: Why was Aharon chosen to be the Kohen? For the answer, see page 256.

MONDAY

PARASHAS TETZAVEH /

209

A TORAH THOaGHT FOR THE DAY TUESDAY

n-iKan^i

u/n'p'n^a n’tyyi

You shall make vestments of sanctity for Aharon your brother, for glory and for splendor {Shemos 28:2).

T

he Torah tells us that Hashem instructed Moshe to make vestments of sanctity, for Aharon his brother. These garments, which are listed in verse 4, included a lip'n, Breastplate, lisx, Apron¬ like garment (worn over the Tunic and Robe, and to which the ]wn was attached), Robe, nJ'na, Tunic, nsjvn. Turban, and an Sash. Additionally, the the golden Head-plate that contained Hashem’s Name, is introduced in verse 36, and the D’ppn, Breeches, are men¬ tioned in verse 42. In the subsequent passages, the Torah details the materials and design of each of these vestments. In addition to making these special garments for Aharon, the Kohen Gadol, Moshe was also commanded to make vestments for the other Kohanim. Toras Kohanim {Tzav, Mechilta D’Miluim 1:11, as under¬ stood by Rambam, Sefer HaMitzvos, Mitzvas Asei 33 and Hilchos Kiel HaMikdash 10:4) states that this second obligation is understood from Hashem’s instructions to Moshe later on in our parashah regarding how he was to inaugurate Aharon and his sons in their role of serving in the Mishkan. The verses (29:8-9) state: .ninp ariipppri'! yapTixi

npnb nanip nnb nn’n) nvpip nob

Ptjx unx nnx nnini

nbiv, Vbu shall cause (Aharon’s) sons to come near, and dress them in Tunics. You shall girdle them with a Sash — Aharon and his sons — and you shall wrap the Headdresses on them. The Priesthood shall be an eternal duty for them. Since Hashem commanded Moshe to dress Aharon’s sons in bigdei Kehunah to allow them to serve in the Mish¬ kan — for it is only when they are appropriately dressed that they may perform their avodah — we may understand that it was necessary to craft such garments for all Kohanim. In contrast to the Kohen Gadol’s eight vestments detailed above, an ordinary Kohen served while wear¬ ing only four vestments — the ri^'nn. Tunic, D’D^n, Breeches, ny?;n. Headdress, and unx. Sash. Although both the Kohen Gadol and ordinary Kohanim wore special garments, the commentaries point out that the Torah speaks of the Kohen Gadol’s vestments differently than it does of the garments worn by an ordinary Kohen. R’ Yerucham Fishel Perla {Sefer HaMitzvos ofR’ Saadiah Gaon 3:62) points out that the bigdei Kehunah of the Kohen 210

/ A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

Gadol are termed U7-i'p-n:)i3, sacred vestments, while the garments worn by an ordinary Kohen are referred to as T’J? '’1A3, the vestments of his sons to minister (see, for example, 35:19). Similarly, Netziv and Rashbam note that the identification of the vestments’ purpose as being n“i.K3ri5i for glory and for splendor, is used only in reference to Aharon’s garments. [This expres¬ sion is also mentioned, however, in verse 40 in relation to an ordinary Kohen. See A Mussar Thought for the Day for an explanation.] Shiurei HaRav Ozer {Siman 46) explains that the differences in the way the Torah describes these respective sets of vestments in fact es¬ tablishes different guidelines for the manner in which they were to be worn. The role that the clothing of an ordinary Kohen played, the Torah is telling us, is na?, the vestments of his sons to minister; it was only when these garments were being worn that a Kohen was permitted 105^, to minister, or serve in the Beis HaMikdash. Just as the Kohen performing the service required the appropriate implements and utensils that were designated for use in the Beis HaMikdash, so too, the clothing he wore was also unique, and added to the prestige and uniqueness of Hashem’s service that was being performed. In contrast, notes R’ Meir Don Plotzki {Chemdas Yisraei, Kuntres Derech Chaim, end of Siman 2), the garments of the Kohen Gadol served an additional role beyond simply allowing him to perform the avodah. This is evident from Rambam {Sefer HaMitzvos, Mitzvas Asei 33), who tells us that the Kohen Gadol was to wear his vestments whenever he was present in the Beis HaMikdash, even when he was not performing any particular service. Thus, the Kohen Gadol’s vestments, besides simply allowing the avodah to be performed, achieved a different purpose as well. Shiurei HaRav Ozer suggests that the reason the Kohen Gadol had to constantly wear his vestments, even when he was not performing the avodah — such as offering korbanos or kindling the Menorah — was because his position was one of great prestige. The Kohen Gadol, Rambam {Hilchos Kiel HaMikdash 4:12) tells us, was a’iDan b^b u/Kh, the chief of the Kohanim; he was the reigning authority over the Kohanim, and over all areas that had to do with the Beis HaMikdash. [The Alter of Slabodka {Ohr HaTzufun, Shemos p. 157) notes that an example of the level of this prestige was that although every person is commanded to rise before a monarch, the Rambam {Hilchos Melachim 2:5) tells us that a Jewish king rises before a Kohen Gadol, and not the other way around.] It is for this reason, explains Ramban, that a Kohen Gadol is inaugurated for his office with anointing oil, just as a king is inaugurated. Furthermore, Ramban also tells us that the

TUESDAY — PARASHAS TETZAVEH /

211

four additional vestments worn by the Kohen Qadol, which were made of gold, gems, and elegantly colored materials, are garments of royalty. In contrast to the TUESDAY vestments worn by an ordinary Kohen, which allowed PARASHy|S him to serve in the Beis HaMikdash, the vestments of the TETZAVEH Kohen Gadol were an indication of his regal position as the one who ruled over the place that was the epitome of kedashah, the Beis HaMikdash. Thus, these garments were u;n'p'’in, vestments of sanctity, for they were a reflection of the inherent sanc¬ tity of the person who wore them, and their purpose was to proclaim niKDrri ntaa, the glory and the splendor of his office. The fulfillment of this aspect of rulership, concludes Shiurei HaRav Ozer, is the reason the Kohen Gadol was commanded to always wear his unique garments while he was in the Beis HaMikdash. It is also for this reason that Rambam {Hilchos Kiel HaMikdash 5:7) tells us that the Kohen Gadol had an office in the Beis HaMikdash, in which he would spend much of his time, always wearing his bigdei Kehunah. Although no auodah was being performed — nor was allowed to be performed — in this office, his very presence there was itself symbolic of his rule over the Beis HaMikdash.

T

his Mishnah presents another dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel with regard to the laws of Yom Tov: anwiK ’xwtp nin — Beis Shammai say: vbnV '[’tan nnx nn’ xb — A person may not warm up hot water for washing his feet on Yom Tovi’i rrjntpb p’lx'i la ni< — unless the water is fit for drinkingf^^ yynn hbn nui — But Beis Hillel permit heating water on Yom Tov for the sole purpose of washing one’s feet.i^’ aanriMi rfinw nnx nttrly -— NOTES --

1. Beis Shammai’s opinion is that the Torah permitted work to be done on Yom Tov only for the purpose of food preparation, not for washing one’s body {Rav). 2. He must actually drink from the water after it is heated. However, he may put up more water than he needs for drinking, and use the rest to wash his feet (Tosafos). 3. This is so even if the person has no intention of drinking the water, because Beis Hillel (see Mishnah 1:5) accept the principle of mitoch (lit., since). This means that since a melachah may be performed for the sake of food preparation, it may also be performed when no food preparation is involved (Ran; cf. Rambam on the Mishnah and in HU. Yom Tov 1:16). Beis Hillel permit the water to be heated only in order to wash one’s feet (and

212 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

— A person may make a bonfire and warm himself before - NOTES -

his face and hands — see Mishnah Berurah 511:9). They agree, however, that water may not be heated to wash one’s entire body, because no labor may be performed on Yom Tov to fulfill a need that is not common to most people (ids;! niid Irtt) [the bathing of the entire body in hot water was not common at that time] (Tosafos). 4. This is a continuation of the permit of Beis Hillel. Since one may light a fire for cooking purposes, so too one may light a fire for physical warmth [if the cold is intense (Tiferes YisraeCj].

GEMS FROM THE GEMARA T

A

s mentioned in note 3 to the Mishnah, Beis Hillel’s view is that melachah permitted for food preparation may also be performed when no food preparation is involved. Beis Hillel’s permit, however, comes with a caveat — that the melachah being performed must be to fulfill a need common to most people. The Gemara in Kesubos (7a) elaborates on this topic and defines the parameters of “a need com¬ mon to most people.” [This topic arises tangentially there, within the Gemara’s discussion regarding the permissibility of a groom cohabiting with his virgin bride for the first time on the Sabbath or Yom Tov. The issue is if the act of cohabitation involves a prohibited act of causing a wound or creation of an opening.]; Rav Yehudah permitted a groom to have relations with his virgin bride for the first time on Yom Tov. The Gemara cites a discussion concerning how to interpret this ruling: Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: It is permitted only on Yom Tov; but on the Sabbath it is forbidden. Rav Pappi said to Rav Pappa: What is your reasoning for distinguishing, in this regard, between the Sabbath and Yom Tov? Presumably, it is because you say: Since wounding is permitted on Yom Tov for a food-related purpose (see Shemos 12:16), it is also permitted without a food-related purpose. But now, if that is so, it should be permitted to make incense burn on Yom Tov in order to perfume one’s utensils and clothes. For since kindling is permitted on Yom Tov for a food-related purpose (i.e., for cooking), it should also be permitted without a food-related purpose! Yet, the Mishnah in Beitzah (22b) clearly rules that it is forbidden to burn incense on Yom Tov in order to perfume one’s clothes or utensils.

TUESDAY — PARASHAS TETZAVEH

/ 213

Rav Pappa responded to Rav Pappi: Regarding you (i.e., regarding your question), the verse states {Shemos 12:16): TUESDAY Q^b, only that which is eaten by any person, that alone PARASHA^' may be performed for you, teaching that only some¬ TETZAVEH thing that is common to all people is permitted on Yom Tov. The permit to perform a food-related melachah on Yom Tov applies solely to such ends as are common to the generality of people. Burning Incense to perfume one’s clothing and utensils, however, is something that is done only by especially fastidious people and, therefore, it is forbidden on Yom Tov (Rashi). The Qemara questions this distinction: Rav Acha the son of Rava said to Rav Ashi: But now, if that is true, then what if a deer became available to him on Yom Tov? Would we say that since it is not common to all people to eat venison, which is expensive and eaten only by rich people, it is forbidden to slaughter it? Rav Ashi replied: “1 say that the requirement is that it must be needed by all people, even if it not common to all people; and deer is needed by all people.” That is, the criterion for applying the permit to perform food-related meiachos on Yom Tov is that the melachah must be done for some purpose that anyone could enjoy. Venison may be expensive, but if it were made available to him, the average person could eat it and enjoy it. Incense, on the other hand, is not appreciated except by very fastidious people (Rashba).

' ni^n

\ "t

A MOSSAR THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

I

n A Torah Thought for the Day we noted that the Netziu and Rashbam point out that the Torah tells us that the bigdei Kehunah are for the purpose of n"i.K9n'i glory and splendor, only when speaking of the Kohen Qadol’s vestments. Although nn.KSnbl Tl33b is in fact mentioned in verse 40 in reference to the vestments worn by an ordinary Kohen, where Moshe was instructed: D’unK nnb pnx “’pp n-iKariV^ niynini. For the Sons of Aharon you shall make Tunics and make them Sashes; and you shall make them Head¬ dresses for glory and for splendor, these commentaries explain that this designation is referring to only one of the vestments, namely, the Headdress, which was a turban worn on the Kohen’s head. The other three garments that an ordinary Kohen wore, however, are nowhere said to be worn in order to achieve glory and splendor. On the other hand, in verse 28:2 the Torah is telling us that the purpose of all the 214

/ A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

vestments worn by the Kohen Gadol is to achieve glory and splendor. The interpretation of verse 40 as meaning that TUESDAY n“i.N3ri‘p hl33‘p- is speaking only about the Kohen’s PAKASHAS Headdress is evident in the rules of Hebrew grammar, for the cantillation mark esnachtah, which denotes a break in the sentence, is found under the word D^UpK, sashes. This implies that the following phrase, nn^ nipj/ri nlvaAPi and you shall make them Headdresses for glory and for splendor, is a new phrase, unconnected to the first half of the verse. Interestingly, Kuntres Tzefiras Tifarah comments that it is clear from the Midrash as well that the designation nnKanbi llaab is speaking only about the vestments worn by the Kohen Gadol, and does not refer to those of an ordinary Kohen. We may understand this from the ex¬ planation of the Midrash {Midrash Rabbah, Esther 2:2): When Megillas Esther states (1:4): in^n? n"iK?n niaa “lU/'vriK InKnna, When [Achashueirosh] displayed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the splendor of his excellent majesty, it means that Achashveirosh displayed (and, according to the Gemara in Megillah 12a, even donned) the sanctified vestments of the Kohen Gadol as an act of mockery, during his lengthy drunken party. We know this, states the Midrash, because the Megillah refers to the treasures that he displayed with the word nnxan, splendor, which is understood as alluding to the vest¬ ments of the Kohen Gadol, which are referred to in our verse as "1133^ niNDri'?!, for glory and for splendor. From the fact that the Midrash assumes that the word is alluding specifically to the vestments of the Kohen Gadol, and not to those of an ordinary Kohen, we may understand that the vestments of the ordinary Kohen are not described as nn.NDn'pi and, as Rashbam explains, the statement in verse 40 is speaking only about the Kohen’s Headdress. Rashbam and Netziu add insight as to why this designation is men¬ tioned regarding the Headdress worn by an ordinary Kohen, although, as we explained in A Torah Thought for the Day, his vestments were unlike those worn by a Kohen Gadol in the sense that their purpose was only to dress him in a special manner to facilitate his service in the Beis HaMikdash. The reason why the Headdress must be one that inspires glory and splendor, explains the Rashbam, is because this vestment is worn on the Kohen’s head. Thus, it is especially appropriate that it, of all the vestments, possess added beauty and epitomize distinction. Netziu adds that a Kohen Gadol was supposed to be a person who embodied the epitome of spiritual perfection. Thus, it was appropriate

TUESDAY — PARASHAS TETZAVEH

/ 215

that his entire wardrobe highlight this spiritual beauty. An ordinary Kohen, however, although he was a per¬ son who served Hashem on the lofty level that the TUESDAY Beis HaMikdash required and inspired, was not required PARASHAS or expected to remain on this apex of kedushah his TL'l'ZAVKH entire life. In fact, the Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 376) points out that a Kohen, when he was not serving in the Beis HaMikdash for the several weeks a year which his duties required, lived an ordinary life in a city which, although in Eretz Ylsrael, was possibly quite far from Yerushalayim. [There are several examples of the Kohen Gadol’s spiritual distinc¬ tion in relation to other Kohanim. He was the one person permitted to enter the Kodesh HaKodashim (Holy of Holies) once a year after a week of spiritual preparation and introspection. Additionally, he was to have no focus other than the spirituality of the Beis HaMikdash. He was to remain in the Beis HaMikdash as much as possible, and leave only when absolutely necessary. Moreover, while even an ordinary Ko¬ hen was not permitted to marry a divorcee, a Kohen Gadol was not permitted to marry any woman who had previously been married to a different man (even a widow). Similarly, while an ordinary Kohen was prohibited from coming in contact with any dead person who was not an immediate relative, the Kohen Gadol was precluded from becoming tamei from immediate relatives as well.] Thus, explains the Netziu, the purpose of the vestments of the Kohen Gadol was to highlight the greatness of the person who was wearing them. Accordingly, each and every one of the Kohen Gadol’s garments proclaimed glory and splendor, for he was a person whose entire body, and entire personality, was totally devoted to a life of kedushah. And although an ordinary Kohen did not wear an entire set of cloth¬ ing that proclaimed his spiritual perfection, he was nevertheless a person who prepared himself to serve in the Beis HaMikdash and flawlessly offer korbanos to Hashem for several weeks a year. Although his entire physical body was not sanctified to the level of a Kohen Gadol, the focus of his mind nevertheless had to be wholly devoted to Hashem on an extremely lofty level when the appropriate time came. It was thus imperative that others realize this aspect of his greatness; and it was for this reason that the Kohen’s Headdress, which was worn on the head, the seat of the intellect, proclaimed a dimension of its wearer’s glory and splendor.

216

/ A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

;' flftLACijlAlf pfe the day

W

ni^n

TUESDAY hen is the proper time for one to remove his PARASHAS tefllliri? It is best not to remove them until after the recital of TETZAVEM the Mourner’s Kaddish that follows Aleinu at the end of Shachans. If it is not practicable for one to wait until that point, he may remove his tefillin after hearing the Kaddish recited after Cl’Va LeTzion. One may not remove his tefillin while responding to Kaddish with nai nnu; KH’, since this response must be uttered with complete concentration. If a Bris Milah is being performed at the end of services, it is proper according to many authorities to wear the tefillin until after the Bns has been completed. One must remove his tefillin prior to using the facilities. Upon re¬ turning from the bathroom, one must recite new blessings prior to putting the tefillin back on. [One should consult a competent halachic authority for a decision on whether new blessings must be recited if one used the facilities only to urinate.] We will conclude our discussion of the laws of tefillin with some ad¬ ditional practical applications. As we have seen earlier, there is a dispute whether a blessing is recited upon the donning of the shel rosh. While it is the Ashkenazic custom to recite the blessing, we have seen that after reciting the blessing we recite the verse of DU; T|n3 in order to safeguard against the possibility of having recited an unwarranted blessing. Due to this uncertainty, some poskim advise that the blessing of rilYp p'psri should be recited in an undertone, so as not to involve others in responding with Amen to a questionable blessing. Nevertheless, if one does hear another recite the blessing he should answer Amen. The verse states {Shemos 13:9) in regard to the tefillin shel yad: nlN^ n^ni. And they shall be for you as a sign. The Sages derive from here that the shel yad is intended to be sign for you, with the im¬ plication being that it be a sign for you but not for others. Accordingly, it is preferable that the tefillin shel yad be covered when worn. We have seen that one may not make any unnecessary interruption between the donning of the shel yad and that of the shel rosh. One may pull his shirt-sleeve down over his shel yad in order to cover it prior to donning the shel rosh. However, one should not put on both

TUESDAY — PARASHAS TETZAVEH /

217

TIE/"151

his shirt-sleeve and jacket sleeve before putting on the shel rosh. Many people have the custom of kissing their tefilTUESDAY lin prior to putting them on. While some authorities permit one to kiss both the shel yad as well as the shel rosh, others consider kissing the shel rosh to be an unnecessary Interruption between the donning of the shel yad and the shel rosh, and therefore discourage the practice.

m^n

V A CLOSER LOOK AT THE SIDDOR

A

s we have learned, Hashem told Moshe that the bigdei Kehunah were to be made nn.Karibi “ilnab, for glory and for splendor, which means that these vestments were to be regal in appearance and beau¬ tiful. We may appreciate their beauty by reading the subsequent Torah passages that describe the materials with which they were made — gold, elegantly colored wool, and precious gems. R’ Yosef Leib Bloch notes that that the reason for this beauty was be¬ cause these vestments were part of the service of the Beis HaMlkdash, which was an arena of spiritual perfection. The services performed in this hallowed edifice — which reflected the very essences of every area of creation — impacted the entire physical and spiritual worlds, for this was the place where Hashem’s relationship with man was felt in its highest and most direct form. Thus, these garments — and the Kabbalistic secrets that were invested in each and every one — were literally spiritual treasures with inner spiritual beauty. [We may appreci¬ ate some of these inner meanings from the Gemara {Arachin 16-17), which relates the various sins for which the very wearing of each of the bigdei Kehunah atoned. Since they were far beyond simple garments, but were exercises in spirituality, wearing them created spiritual reali¬ ties that would repair the damage wrought by sin.] Thus, the spiritual beauty these garments encapsulated was apparent on a physical level as well; just as the bigdei Kehunah embodied and represented inner beauty and perfection, their physical actualization was to be of beauty and perfection as well. R Yosef Leib Bloch points out that this relationship between inner spirituality and outer appearance — and how outer physical perfection is emblematic of inner greatness — is an example of the meaning of a phrase that we recite during our morning tefillah in the berachah before the Shemoneh Esrei: ynx •>pDK hy nbly nn?. 218 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

which is usually translated as: at the zenith of the universe is Your dwelling, and Your justice and Your righteousness extend to the ends of the earth. TUESDAY However, comments R’ Bloch, this translation can¬ PARASHAS not be the full extent of the phrase, for we know that ThTZAVhll the earth in truth has no “ends.” A place we refer to as “the end of the earth” is only termed as such be¬ cause of its distance from the place where we happen to be standing. Hashem, however, is the same “distance” from all parts of His world. What, then, can this phrase (which is based on verses in the Torah and Tanach) mean? The answer is that ’’ppK comes from the word DDK, nothingness; when compared to the sheer spirituality that exists in the higher realms where Hashem is more easily understood, the level of kedushah that is felt on the earth is indeed nothingness. However, we proclaim in our tefillah that although Hashem is so far from us, although obiv m“i3 at the zenith of the universe is Your dwelling, even the •’pDK T"i,K, the areas of spiritual nothingness of the earth, which are so far from the spiritual loftiness of Hashem’s open glory manifest in the heavens, are directly influenced by His decisions — His justice and righteousness. An appreciation of Hashem’s glory — albeit less than what is present in more spiritual realms — can be present in every place that He created. We see this connection between Hashem’s glory and the lowly phy¬ sical worlds in the bigdei Kehunah, for the spiritual perfection and beauty that these vestments embodied was found in the inherent nothingness of the physical world as well, since these aesthetically beautiful garments inspired glory and splendor. Interestingly, R’ Bloch concludes that it is for this reason that al¬ though Hashem instructed Moshe that these vestments were to be mKDn‘71 “iIdd'7, the Torah does not tell us that this instruction was passed on to the artisans when they were told (in 28:3) to craft the bigdei Kehunah. When making these vestments, the artisans were undoubtedly told of the inner meanings on which they were to focus during their labors, and what each vestment represented. Thus, the glory and splendor with which the vestments would be made resulted by itself, as a natural outgrowth of refined spirituality. If, however, the artisans would have been consciously reminded that they were to craft garments of beauty, they may have focused on these physical aspects, and then, although the garments would have Indeed been physically splendid, they would have been totally unconnected to the spiritual meanings contained in them.

nixn

TUESDAY — PARASHAS TETZAVEH /

219

A TASTE OF LOMDGS TUESDAY

S

tudying the materials from which the bigdei Kehunah were made reveals that many of them con¬ tained kilayim, mixtures of wool and linen (shaatnez), that are ordinarily forbidden to be combined together in one garment. [See Deuarim 22:11 for the prohibition against wearing shaatnez.] Vestments that contained kilayim included the Ephod (Apron; see 28:6), the Choshen (Breastplate; see 28:15), and the Avneit (Sash; see 39:29) worn by the Kohen Qadol. In addition, some opinions (see Yoma 12b) understand that the Avneit worn by an ordinary Kohen also contained kilayim. Thus, only the Torah’s directive that these vestments be made in this manner permitted them to be worn. The Shaagas Aryeh {Siman 29) poses an interesting question. How are we to understand the Torah’s license for a Kohen to wear these vestments despite the shaatnez that they contained? Was the permis¬ sion to wear these articles of clothing limited to the specific times when the auodah {Beis HaMikdash service) was being performed, or did the fact that the Torah allowed these vestments to contain kilayim mix¬ tures mean that these articles of clothing are inherently exempt from the prohibition of shaatnez, thereby allowing them to be worn at all times in the Beis HaMikdash, even when no auodah was being carried out? At the end of a lengthy essay analyzing this question, the Shaagas Aryeh concludes that when the Torah permits kilayim to be found in the bigdei Kehunah, we are being told that these vestments are inher¬ ently exempt from the prohibition of kilayim, and may be worn in the Beis HaMikdash even at a time when the mitzvah is not being fulfilled. One of the proofs that the Shaagas Aryeh brings to this conclu¬ sion is from the Kohen Qadol’s permission to perform auodah in the Beis HaMikdash. One of the guidelines that determines how a person is to perform mitzvos is the principle of nt^irn Kb nnll ntpy, a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment. This law tells us that in certain cases, when a person is faced with an action whose performance will simultaneously fulfill a nii/v niyn, positive com¬ mandment, and transgress a nt^irn Kb m.yn, a prohibition, the Torah has determined that the performance of the nivp is the action to be taken, without being concerned for the accompanying prohibi¬ tion that is simultaneously being transgressed. [See the Gemara in Yevamos (5b) for the Scriptural source from which this rule is derived.] In its discussion of the principle of nwyn Kb nnn ntpy, the Gemara 220 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

{Shabbos 133a) tells us that the prohibition may be violated only if it is not possible to fulfill the posi¬ tive commandment in any other manner. However, TUESDAY if another option of performing the rwv nivw exists, PARASHAS such as by allowing a different person (who will not TETZAVEH simultaneously transgress the accompanying prohibi¬ tion) to perform this mitzvah, no license to violate a Torah commandment is given. If the reason why the Kohen Gadol is permitted to wear vestments containing kilayim is because this prohibition is waived in order to allow him to perform the mitzvah of performing the avodah, reasons the Shaagas Aryeh, it should follow that a Kohen Gadol would be per¬ mitted to perform only an avodah that is in his exclusive domain, such as the service of Yom Kippur, and not auodos that could be performed by an ordinary Kohen. The reason behind this is the following: When serving in the Beis HaMikdash, the Kohen Gadol wore eight vestments, and, as we learned, three of these contained kilayim, mixtures of wool and linen — the Ephod, Choshen, and Auneit. In contrast, the Gemara (Yoma 12b) cites opinions that discuss whether the Avneit worn by the ordinary Kohen also contained kilayim, or if it was made only from linen. Thus, it is possible that an ordinary Kohen performed the avodah without wearing any kilayim at all; and, since he served while wearing only four vestments and certainly did not wear a Choshen and Ephod, according to all opinions he wore less kilayim than the Kohen Gadol. If this is the case, argues the Shaagas Aryeh, it should follow that since an ordinary Kohen was able to perform most areas of service in the Beis HaMikdash, and could do so without transgressing the prohibition of wearing kilayim, a Kohen Gadol, who required the principle of nu/yn ab nnn ntyy to override this prohibition, should not be per¬ mitted to do so. However, since it is clear from many sources (see, for example, Tamid 7:3 and Yoma 14a) that this is not true — and in fact, the Kohen Gadol had the prerogative to perform any avodah that he wished — we may conclude that the license to wear the bigdei Kehunah was not dependent on the need to perform avodah. Rather, we may understand the Torah to be telling us that the vestments made for the avodah in the Beis HaMikdash were simply not included in the Torah’s prohibition against wearing kilayim, and were thus allowed to be worn in the Beis HaMikdash even when it was not absolutely necessary to do so. Bahd Kodesh {Shabbos, Siman 40; see also R’ Baruch FrankelTumim’s Ateres Chachamim, Yoreh Deah, Siman 23) disputes this proof. Although it may indeed be true that the permission to wear

TUESDAY — PARASHAS TETZAVEH /

221

the bigdei Kehunah with their inherent kilayim was not given only for when auodah was being performed, the Gemara that tells us a Kohen Gadol may perform TUESDAY any auodah he wishes while wearing kilayim does not PARASHAS prove this principle. The reason behind this distinction TETZAVEH between a Kohen Gadol and an ordinary Kohen is as we have explained in A Torah Thought for the Day; unlike an ordinary Kohen who wore his vestments simply to allow him to serve in the Beis HaMikdash, a Kohen Gadol wore his vestments also for the added reason that his position of authority and grandeur in the Beis HaMikdash required that he do so, and Rambam {Sefer HaMitzoos, Mitzuas Asei 33) in fact tells us that he is to wear his vestments whenever he is able to do so. This being so, it made no difference in a Kohen Gadol’s permission to wear his vestments — which included kilayim — whether he was performing auodah or not, for the very act of wearing these vestments was in itself a mitzvah that could not be performed by anyone else, and thus overrode the prohibi¬ tion against wearing garments containing kilayim. Thus, Bahd Kodesh tells us, we are unable to conclude from this proof alone whether an ordinary Kohen — according to the opinion maintaining that his Auneit contained kilayim — was permitted to wear this vestment of kilayim at a time when he was not performing any auodah.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: The verse tells us that the purpose of the bigdei Kehunah is “for honor and glory. ” To whose honor and glory is the verse referring? For the answer, see page 256.

222

/ A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

nl)3tf7-njnp nnn, my pride has been raised through Hashem {IShmuel 2:1), which Chanah said at the beginning of her song of praise and thanksgiving to Hashem for having been granted a child (the prophet Shmuel) after many years of childlessness. Radak explains the simple understanding of this verse: Chanah is highlighting the fact that, although those for whom all is going well tend to be arrogant, while the downtrodden and un¬ fortunate feel lowly, Hashem, in fact, sees all, and He can both lift up the downtrodden and lower the boastful. Thus, her jlp (a symbol of strength similar to that of the horns of an animal), representing her pride and sense of self-worth, was raised, and she was on equal standing with Peninah. Nevertheless, she acknowledges that this was accomplished only with Hashem’s assistance. Radak and others cite Midrashim and Gemaros that ascribe prophet¬ ic messages to the expression 'Hi ■>np nn-j. Among them is the allusion to the kingdom of David HaMelech, who was anointed with a ]“i.p, a horn of oil, and his dynasty was guaranteed to be everlasting. It is with this concept in mind that the prayer of nny riK was instituted, in the realization that our ultimate welfare and destiny is in the building of the Beis HaMikdash (the subject of the previous blessing) and the arrival of Mashiach. Thus, we pray that the strength of the Davidic dynasty be raised from the shambles in which it finds itself during the lengthy exile. However, this prayer must also be embedded in an acknowledgment of Hashem’s direction of any salvation, as was Chanah’s. 238 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

R’ Shimon Schwab notes that the nnv nx bless¬ ing does not say nnn which would imply that Hashem shall raise his horn, but rather anri Inj?! — it THURSDAY shall be raised. The sense of the expression, then, is that PARASHAS the horn of Mashiach will rise only through Hashem’s TCT2AVK1-I nvw’, salvation. He explains this to mean that at the time of redemption Hashem will empower Mashiach to be successful in his dual roles, both of which are implied in the word Pi?. First he will bring order into the world; however, he will not be some sort of a “superman” who will simply overpower the wicked. Rather, he will use his prayer as his staff, and will ask Hashem that the wicked cease to exist, and they will cease to exist. This understanding is indicated in the verse {Yeshayah 11:4): rnDirri vwn ]-)■>)?:; vnatp nnni v? 051^3 ynx'narr] He will judge the destitute with righteousness, and decide with fairness for the humble of the earth. He will strike [the wicked of] the world with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his Ups he will slay the wicked. However, Tij? also means a ray, as in the verse: ’J? "ilv TiiP {Shemos 34:35), which R’ Schwab translates as: the skin of the face of Moshe radiated light. The people could perceive the spiritual rays of light that emanated from his face. Thus, the prayer is also alluding to the other function of Mashiach, which will be his spiritual influence on the Jewish people. He will purify us and, like Moshe Rabbeinu, he will radiate spiritual light to his people. He will bring us back to Eretz Yisrael and cause a mass movement of teshuuah in our nation to elevate Bnel Yisrael to the level of Your people will ail be righteous {Yeshayah 60:21).

THURSDAY — PARASHAS TETZAVEH /

239

A TORAH THOUGHT FOR THE DAY FRIDAY

nntJp nui?}? naT» You shall make an Altar on which to bring incense up in smoke {Shemos 30:1).

O

ne of the issues discussed by the commentators is why the command to build the nhujpn najn, the Altar for Incense, was not given at the same time as that of the other vessels used for the Mishkan services, like the Menorah and Shulchan. [See Series One of A Daily Dose of Torah, Parashas Tetzaueh, A Torah Thought for the Day, Shabbos, where this is also discussed.] Ramban comments that with the completion of the other vessels, the vestments, and the offerings of the inauguration ceremony, everything needed for the operation of the Mishkan as Hashem’s Sanctuary was finished. This is indicated by the earlier verse (29:43) having already stated: and it shall be sanctified with My glory, followed by (v. 45): / shall rest My Presence among Bnei Yisrael. Nevertheless, there was one more item that still needed to be constructed for the honor of Hashem, and that was the Altar for ketores (incense). It is significant to note that when Moshe ascended to Heaven to receive the Torah, the secret of the ketores was revealed to him — namely, that offering the ketores has the power to stop a plague. Ramban adds that the ketores, which symbolizes Hashem’s 'pin nin. Attribute of Justice, made the nation aware that Hashem would not tolerate their sins, and they would there¬ by be cognizant and fearful of Hashem’s Glory. Commenting on this Ramban, R’ Gedaliah Schorr explains that Ramban does not mean to infer that the Altar was not important to the service of the Mishkan, but that it had an additional, unique importance aside from that function. It is for this reason that it required a separate parashah, removed from the passages regarding the other vessels of the Mishkan. R’ Schorr focuses on the Gemara {Shabbos 89a) alluded to by Ramban, which states that it was the Angel of Death that told Moshe the secret of the power of the ketores to atone for Bnei Yisrael’s sins and halt a plague, for “if the Angel of Death had not told him, how would he have known?” This seems mystifying, for surely Moshe was capable of uncovering this secret, just as he understood the intricacies, symbolism, and secrets of all the other matters pertaining to the Mishkan. R’ Schorr explains (based on the writings of R’ Tzadok HaKohen) that when Adam was created, all of creation contributed a part of itself to his constitution, so that he would have the power to rule over everything. 240

/ A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

However, the Angel of Death did not do so, for had it contributed a part of itself, then “death,” which it rep¬ resents, would have been transformed to “life.” This FRIDAY means, he explains, that the essence of the evil in the PARASHAS world perpetrated by the yetzer hara would have been TETZAVEH revealed to Adam and he would have been able to dis¬ arm and conquer it. But that could not happen, for then the whole purpose of the world — man’s free choice — would have been eliminated, and good and evil must be present until “the end of days” when evil will be eradicated. Nevertheless, at the Revelation at Har Sinai, Israel attained the spiritual level of that utopian time, as indicated in the verse 05^3 ■’pi onx n'’n'‘7K ■’pnnN-’JK, I said, “You are angelic, sons of the Most High are you ail” (fehiilim 82:6), and they were free of the yoke of sin and death. It was at that moment that the Angel of Death revealed the secret of the ketores and its power to prevent death. Elaborating on this idea, R’ Schorr says that the root of the word nnuj? is “lUp, similar to “iwp — to tie or unite. The significance of this idea is that man’s source of life is the O'”!;! nmri, the soul of life, that Hashem gave him, and if man attaches himself to this source, then wickedness and death cannot rule over him, and he has uncovered the lifesaving secret of the ketores.

MISHNAH OF THE DAY: BEITZAH 2:8

T

he Mishnah continues to discuss three acts permitted by yet another Tanna, R’ Elazar ben Azaryah, but prohibited by his colleagues: “I’nw nnty rttyStf; — R’ Elazar ben Azaryah per¬ mitted the following three matters, anpix n’Marjl — but the Sages prohibited them: nyi2f“j3 iiTia — His wouid go out into the public domain with a strap between its hornsf^^ - NOTES -

1. The Gemara (23a) comments that R’ Elazar’s own cows did not go out in this manner. It was his neighbor’s cow that went out like this. However, since R’ Elazar did not restrain his neighbor, it is considered as though he himself had performed the action (Rau). 2. A Jew’s animal may not be allowed to perform any of the thirty-nine melachos for its owner’s benefit (see Shemos 23:12). This includes nxxin, transporting from a pri¬ vate domain to a public domain. Items worn as clothing or for ornamentation are not included in the prohibition against transporting items (Rambam, HU. Shabbos Ch. 19). R’ Elazar ben Azaryah viewed the strap as an ornament, and maintained that it was therefore permitted {Rashito Shabbos 5lh as explained by Pnei Yehoshua). The Sages however, considered it a burden, not an ornament, and therefore prohibited.

FRIDAY — PARASHAS TETZAVEH /

241

nl’3 nwnan nx — and he stated that we may curry an animal with a metal comb on Yom

3lo

roD;i3> o’nna rbfVsh we may grind peppercorns in their grindery^^ ’3*1 PARASHAS nwlK — R’ Yehudah says: nMnsrt mii?’? TETZAVEH Dio Dl’S — We may not curry an animal with a metal comb on Yom Too nnisn ntf/lytp o|» — because it might make a wound; — but we may curry with a wooden comb that has thick teeth that do not wound the animal. nnwlK DiODPTi — But the Sages say: ra^lpJ? It? I’lli?)? rx — We may not curry with a metal comb nor curry with a wooden comb^^ FRIDAY

--NOTES

--—

3. A saw-like metal comb with thin teeth is used to groom animals; due to the thin¬ ness of the teeth, blood is [sometimes] drawn during the currying {Rav). [Though drawing blood is prohibited, since the combing does not always cause bleeding and is unintended, the act is considered liano irxtp nan, something (i.e., a labor) that is unintended and, in the opinion of R’ Elazar ben Azaryah, is permissible {Rambam).] 4. R’ Elazar ben Azaryah’s opinion is that the Biblical dispensation for food prepa¬ ration on Yom Tov applies also to inlu, grinding. 5. The Sages forbid currying with a metal comb, due to the fact that it may draw blood. [The Sages here dispute R’ Elazar ben Azaryah since, in their opinion, even a labor that is unintended is prohibited (Rambam).] The Sages forbid the use of a wooden comb, even though it will not cause bleeding, as a safeguard so that one will not come to use a metal comb (Rav).

jSEjjlS FROM THE GEMARA

A

mentioned in notes 3 and 5 of our Mishnah, the basis for the dispute between R’ Elazar ben Azaryah and the Sages is whether a ll3nn “IDT, something (i.e., a labor) that is unintended (and may result in a melachah being performed) is permissible. The classical Talmudic case of an unintentional act is that of a person who, on the Sabbath, drags a chair across a lawn simply to move it to another location, and in the process may possibly make a furrow in the lawn. (Making a furrow can be a violation of the melachah of plowing.) The Gemara Shabbos cites a dispute between R’ Yehudah (who rules that one is responsible if a violation should actually occur and therefore the act is prohibited) and R’ Shimon (who rules that one is not responsible for a prohibition violated unintentionally and there¬ fore the act is permitted). The Gemara discusses the parameters of R’ Shimon’s permit: S

242 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

The synagogue overseer of Batzrah once dragged a bench over an unpaved surface in the presence of R’ Yirmiyah Rabbah, whereupon R’ Yirmiyah Rabbah said to him: In accord with whose view do you so act? According to the view of R’ Shimon, who permits this dragging on the Sabbath? One could say that R’ Shimon stated his ruling in the case of very large objects, which are impossible to transport except by dragging, [l.e., they are too heavy or bulky to lift and carry (Rashi).] Did he state his ruling in the case of relatively small objects such as a bench, which can be lifted and carried?! He did not! The Qemara notes that R’ Yirmiyah Rabbah’s interpretation of R’ Shimon’s opinion is not unanimous: But R’ Yirmiyah Rabbah’s interpretation conflicts with the under¬ standing of Cilia, for 011a said: The dispute between R’ Shimon and R’ Yehudah concerns relatively small objects, but regarding large objects it is everyone’s opinion that dragging them is permissible. The Gemara challenges R’ Yirmiyah Rabbah’s opinion from a Mishnah in Kilayim (9:5). The Mishnah rules that garment sellers are allowed to wear their shaafnez-containing merchandise in order to model it for cus¬ tomers. Although the Torah prohibits the wearing of shaatnez {Deuarim 22:11), this is solely when the garment is worn for its usual purpose (warmth), and when the covering resembles a forbidden wearing — i.e., it benefits the person (see Vayikra 19:19). In the case of the Mishnah, the garment seller only drapes the shaatnez garment over his shoulders, in which case such enjoyment is not inevitable {Ritua; cf. Rashi). The Mish¬ nah notes that in order to avoid even giving the appearance of wearing shaatnez, particularly discreet individuals would simply hang the clothing on a stick to display their wares. The Gemara presents its challenge: Now here, in the case of the Mishnah regarding shaatnez, it is pos¬ sible for anyone to act like the discreet ones and avoid the shaatnez prohibition altogether. This is analogous to the option of carrying rather than dragging small objects, since by carrying the small object one negates the possibility of creating a furrow. And, nevertheless, when the garment seller does not intend to derive any benefit, R’ Shimon allows him to wear the shaatnez garment normally in the first place. From here we may derive that R’ Shimon would likewise allow one to drag a small object in the first place, as long as one does not intend to make a furrow. This, then, is a refutation of R’ Yirmiyah Rabbah, who said that R’ Shimon prohibits the dragging of small objects. The Gemara concludes: This is indeed a refutation.

FRIDAY — PARASHAS TETZAVEH /

243

A MUSSAR THOOGHT FOR THE DAY FRIDAY

T;

he Torah mandates that the two times the ketores, incense, is offered on the Inner Altar each day should be at the same time that the Menorah service is being performed. Thus, the morning portion of ketores is brought while the Menorah is being cleaned and prepared, while the evening portion is brought when the Menorah is being lit. At first glance, it seems that the two services are very different, in that the Menorah burns brightly and can be seen from afar, syrnbolizing the far-reaching influence and significance of the spiritual life of the nation, while the offering of the ketores is performed in a much more subdued manner, with no one present during the service. Commenting on this halachah, R’ Moshe Feinstein {Darash Moshe) presents two valuable lessons. First, he notes that although the ketores service was subdued, its results were, in fact, public and known to all, for the smell of the incense reached as far as the city of Yericho and its fragrance permeated Yerushalayim {Yoma 39b). The lesson to be drawn is that when one behaves according to the dictates of the Torah and follows its principles to the best of his abilities, then even if he does not publicly preach, the world will learn from his example. As a historical example of this idea, he highlights the episode re¬ corded in Sefer Shmuel (1, 19:18-24), when David fled from Shaul HaMelech to Shmuel HaNavi in Ramah. When Shaul sent messengers to retrieve David, it states (v. 20): bNinipi n‘’N:;i3 D’K’nan npnbTiN N")!i njan-DJ D’nbK nn •>nrn. Dr;i'>bi; dyj in'v. They saw a group of prophets prophesying with Shmuel standing erect over¬ seeing them, and a spirit of God came upon Shaul’s messengers, and they too, prophesied. The same thing happened to the second and the third set of messengers until Shaul went himself, and lo and behold, he too, had the spirit of Hashem come upon him and he prophesied before Shmuel. It was undoubtedly the knowledge of Shmuel’s piety and sterling personal traits that had people flocking to him, and it was this that inspired them and raised their level of spirituality to great heights. This incident illustrates the immense power of a personal, even if silent, example. The second lesson is that a scholar’s main function is to light the world with his Torah knowledge and wisdom (as symbolized by the Menorah). Nevertheless, he must also have a “nose” to detect what is beneficial for Torah and what might be harmful, much as one smells a food that may be nutritious, but is spoiled and must be avoided. PARASHAS TETZAVEH

244

/ A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

This is particularly important in assessing the ideas and proposals of people of questionable faith or credentials. Their ideas often sound reasonable, sensible, and full of FRIDAY goodwill, and carry with them logical solutions to press¬ PARASHAS ing problems. However, they may be, in fact, dangerous TETZAVEH and detrimental to the spiritual welfare of the commu¬ nity, and may have even been suggested to subvert the traditional values of Israel. Thus, concludes R’ Moshe, it was Aharon HaKohen who was assigned both the task of lighting the Menorah, as the teacher of Torah, and of bringing the ketores, to protect the Torah, and thereby fulfill his mission of ’'“'T, They shall teach Your ordinances to Yaakou, and Your Torah to Israel {Deuarim 33:10). And it is the responsibility of the Sages of each generation to distinguish what (and who) is truly advantageous and acceptable and what may possibly be harmful.

HALACHAH OF THE DAY

T

■

he authorities tell us that when the Pesukei D’Zimrah are recited properly, they serve to clear the pathways to Heaven, so that the prayer of Shemoneh Esrei may ascend to the Almighty unimpeded by any obstructions. One should recite the Pesukei D’Zimrah slowly and carefully. The Mishnah Berurah writes that one should take care not to skip or swallow any words, and that one should articulate the words slowly and distinctly, as if he were counting money. [There are authorities who write that the recital of Pesukei D’Zimrah, when done properly, should take half an hour.] It is better for one to recite fewer verses of the Pesukei D’Zimrah with proper concentration than to say the entire Pesukei D’Zimrah quickly with inadequate concentration. It is the custom of most people to recite some parts of Pesukei D’Zimrah while standing and others while seated. Some have the custom to recite the entire Pesukei D’Zimrah standing. It is written in the name of the Zohar that David HaMelech merited ascending to the kingship because he sang praises to Hashem while standing. Indeed, it was the custom of R’ Moshe Feinstein to recite the entire Pesukei D’Zimrah while standing. The Rambam states {HU. Tefillah 7:12): The Sages praised one who recites praises from the Sefer TehilUm each day . . . And they established [that] a blessing [be recited] before the praises, that is, the

FRIDAY — PARASHAS TETZAVEH

/ 245

blessing of "DOKU? ^ina, as well as a blessing after the praises, which is the blessing of narniit'’. Thus, we see that the blessings of and FRIDAY narntp'’ are linked to the recital of the Pesukei D’Zimrah, PAFiASliAS with “inxuf Tini serving as an opening blessing, while TKTZAVKH naritp'’ serves as the closing blessing. Neither of these blessings may be recited except as an accompaniment to Pesukei D’Zimrah. There are two distinct customs regarding the relative placement of Tinii and the lengthy compilation of verses known to all as nin. According to Musach Sefard, the recitation of TTin precedes the recitation of “iHKip Tina. According to Nusach Ashkenaz the opposite is true. The question arises: What is one to do when praying in a synagogue that fol¬ lows the opposite custom of his personal one? Should he follow the cus¬ tom of the synagogue where he is praying and disregard his own personal custom or vice versa? Many authorities rule that in such a scenario one should follow his own personal custom. The chazzan, however, must fol¬ low the custom of the congregation in which he is leading the prayers.

---- .

E

-.

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE SIDDCIR ■

ach morning, in the section of Korbanos that is said before Pesukei D’Zimrah, we recite first the parashah of the korban tamid, the daily offering {Bamidbar 28:1-8), and then the parashah of ketores {Shemos 30:34-36; 36:7-8). It is noteworthy that there are two differ¬ ences between these prayers that bear explanation. First, the tamid is introduced with an (optional) prayer that Hashem forgive our sins and that He rebuild the Bets HaMikdash, so that we may bring actual offerings rather than the recitations that serve as substitutes for them. The section on ketores, however, is introduced with the following state¬ ment: inia D'’)3pn nhuj? nx Tpupiiu; m Kin nriK ^nnln-1 aina? ■>“!’ bv anlN n’lY -i\px3 n’j? n:;n It is You, Hashem, our God, before Whom our forefathers burned the incensespices in the time when the Holy Temple stood, as You commanded them through Moshe Your prophet, as is written in Your Torah. Seem¬ ingly a similar statement might also have been used as a preamble to the parashah of tamid. Yet, this is not the case. Second, the tamid portion consists entirely of verses from the Torah, whereas the ketores portion has verses from the Torah, followed by Rabbinic Baraisos that describe the actual manufacture of the ketores. R’ Yitzchak Hutner explains these differences based on an under246

/ A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

nwisi

standing of why we no longer offer the tamid or the ketores. Although it is often assumed that korbanos are not offered because we are D’DIJN;, unavoidably prevented FRIDAY from offering them, the truth is that the Torah prohibits the bringing of offerings during the time of exile when there is no Beis HaMikdash, as indicated in the verse: nnx K‘7'1, / will not savor your satisfying aromas {Vayikra 26:31). We are thus exempt from any obligation of bringing offerings. Nevertheless, the Qemara assures us that we fulfill some aspect of korbanos and receive atonement through words alone, based on the verse: irnati/ ana and let our lips substitute for bulls {Hoshea 14:3). It is therefore sufficient to recite the verses per¬ taining to the tamid. However, the verse of nnx Kb’i refers only to animal-offerings and not to ketores, which means that there is an obligation even today to offer ketores; unfortunately, though, we cannot discharge this obligation, be¬ cause we have no Bels HaMikdash. That being the case, it is not enough to merely recite verses, for we must depend on the dictum declaring that “Even if a person contemplated doing a mitzvah and was unavoid¬ ably prevented from performing it. Scripture credits him as if he had fulfilled it” (Kiddushin 40a). R’ Hutner explains that what this entails is a complete and genuine desire to perform the mitzvah, in a manner that shows that, except for the unavoidable situation, one is prepared to actually perform it. Furthermore, the Torah study needed to accomplish this is ns bv'sv nnin, the Oral Law, which provides the detailed rules and procedures for the actual performance of mitzvos, which cannot be learned from n“i1n, the Written Law, by itself. Thus, after reading the verses regarding the ketores, we must also recite the Baraisos asso¬ ciated with it and thereby demonstrate that we truly wish to perform the mitzvah. As to the introductory sentence, it serves as an acknowledg¬ ment that we approach the recitation understanding “that it was before Hashem that our forefathers burned the ketores in the time that the Beis HaMikdash stood,” and that therefore this obligation still stands, for we were not exempted by the verse of nnK K'?'). Nevertheless, we hope to discharge our obligation through the study of Scripture and Talmud by niwyb njn — so that we will know how to perform it.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: What allusion is contained in the word nTOp? For the answer, see page 256.

FRIDAY — PARASHAS TETZAVEH /

247

A TORAH THOGGHT FOR THE DAY SHABBOS

T

he first chapter in the Book of Yechezkel describes Hashem’s departure from the Beis HaMikdash f at the time of its destruction. This Haftarah (Ch. 43, verses 10-27), in stark contrast with the first chapter, details the structure of the future Temple and the purification process of the Altar that will be performed in preparation for the return of Hashem’s presence. Additionally, Yechezkel forewarns the Bnei Yisrael against the excesses and moral looseness of the nation and the royalty, but nevertheless promises that Hashem will never completely abandon His children, and will eventually bring them home from exile. The first verse in the Haftarah states: in'pah h’anTiis n-'h-riJS nan Dii’nlJiyn, Tell the House of Israel about the Temple, and let them be ashamed of their Iniquities. Rashi explains that Hashem sent Yechezkel to inspire the Bnei Yisrael to do teshuvah by relating the specifics of the future Beis HaMikdash. Gpon hearing that Hashem would not abandon them despite their sins, they would hopefully accept the message that Hashem still loved them, and be shamed into changing their ways. This prophecy, relative to most of the others in the times preceding the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, is unusual. Whereas most of the prophecies threatened foreign domination, destruction, dispersion, and exile as a means of inspiring teshuvah, Yechezkel’s prophecy here promises the rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdash and a return of Hashem’s presence to Yerushalayim. To understand why Hashem changed His motivational approach from threatening to encouraging, we have to look at the historical setting and generation of Yechezkel’s prophecy. Yechezkel began to prophesy in the year 3330. It was eight years before the Churban and three years since King Yehoyakim — along with the military high command of the Jews, the Sanhedrin, and the Jewish nobility — had been exiled to Babylon. The Jews were in spiri¬ tual turmoil and, despite witnessing the fulfillment of many prophecies, had not repented. Tzidkiah was the king. He was 24 years old. In the Haftarah for Parashas Mishpatim we referenced a conversation between Yechezkel and the elders of Yehudah that took place in the seventh year of Tzidkiah’s reign, four years before the Churban and four years after the time of this Haftarah. By that point, Nebuchadnez¬ zar had decimated the Northern Kingdom and conquered the rest of Israel. To make things even worse, Tzidkiah was secretly negotiating with Egypt to rebel against Babylon, providing Nebuchadnezzar with PAFiASHAS TKTZAVPn

248 /

A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

the excuse to attack Yerushalayim and destroy the Beis HaMikdash. Maadanei Shmuel explains that in desperation, the elders came to Yechezkel to negoti¬ SHABBOS ate breaking their covenant with Hashem, so that they would no longer be Hashem’s Chosen People. They PARASHAS hoped that if they were no longer the Chosen People, TKTZAVeH they would be saved from Nebuchadnezzar’s revenge. R’ Yitzchak Blazer in Kochvei Ohr explains that the Jews of that generation believed that they could no longer do teshuuah. They felt that their sins were so grievous that Hashem would not accept their teshuuah. Overwhelmed with despondency, they furthered the belief in their own incorrigibility by continuing to sin. It was a vicious cycle that had to be broken. According to Malbim, Yechezkel’s vision of the future Beis HaMikdash was intended to break the cycle of their self-fulfilling prophecy. Upon hearing details of the future Temple, the Bnei Yisrael would realize that Hashem still desired them as His Chosen People, and would lovingly accept their teshuuah.

Inisfii*

JyUSHNAH OF THE DAY: BEITZAH 2:9

j

H

aving mentioned a pepper grinder in the previous Mishnah in con¬ nection with the Yom Tov laws, the Mishnah now digresses to elab¬ orate on the status of a pepper grinder in regard to the laws of tumah: mu;)? n>:)?p omnn — The pepper grinder, which is a composite of three utensils, can contract tumah as a result of its status as any of these three utensilsJ^^ “jiap ’ba mu;^ — It can become tamei due to its status as a receptacle (the bottom component of the pepper grinder)nan)? mu;)?l — due to its status as a metal utensil (the uppermost component)^1?? ’V? mu;)?l — and --- NOTES -

1. Ordinarily, the laws of tumah do not apply to broken or disassembled utensils. The grinder, however, is composed of three parts, each of which is itself considered a complete utensil. Thus, even if the grinder loses one of its components, it is still susceptible to tumah-contamination because of the others (Rau; cf. Tosafos). 2. A wooden utensil can contract tumah only when it is a receptacle (e.g., a bowl). The lower component of a pepper grinder, into which the grindings collect after falling through the sieve, is considered a receptacle (Rav). 3. The upper component that contains the grinding mechanism is not a receptacle. Thus, it can contract tumah only if made of metal, but not if made of wood. In Tal¬ mudic times, these were made of wood, with a plating of metal underneath. Since the metal is the primary part of this component, it is viewed as a metal utensil that can contract tumah (Rashi).

SHABBOS — PARASHAS TETZAVEH

/ 249

due to its status as a sieve (the middle component). - NOTES -

4. A pepper grinder has a wooden sieve that is draped across the lower segment to ensure that only the ground pepper falls PARASHAS through. Even though this wooden component does not serve as TETZAVEH a receptacle, since it is woven it can contract tumah because of Rabbinic decree, to avoid confusion with woven cloth [which is susceptible to tumah even if it is not a receptacle (Rashi; cf. Tosafos)]. SHABBOS

GEMS FROM THE GEMARA

A

s mentioned in note 1 to our Mishnah, the laws of tumah do not apply to broken utensils. When a utensil breaks, its status as a utensil is nullified, and it is automatically deemed tahor. The Gemara Shabbos (123a) discusses whether an analogy can be drawn between the laws of tumah and taharah and the laws of muktzeh on the Sab¬ bath. We will cite here one of the two opinions quoted by the Gemara to resolve this question. The discussion commences with the Gemara citing the Mishnah in Shabbos (122b), which states that one may move a sewing needle to remove a splinter with it on the Sabbath (as it is not considered muktzeh for this usage). The Gemara inquires as to the status of a broken needle: Rava the son of Rabbah sent the following inquiry to Rav Yosef: Let our master teach us! What is the law concerning a sewing needle whose eye or point was removed? Does it lose its status as a utensil and become muktzeh? Rav Yosef replied: We learned it in our Mishnah, which states: “One may take ... a hand-needle (i.e., a sewing needle) to remove a splinter with it.” Now, what difference is there, with respect to removing the splinter, between a needle that has an eye and one that has no eye? None! Since the Mishnah considers the removal of a splinter a valid use for a sewing needle, and the needle is fit for this task even after its eye is removed, it retains its status as a utensil and is not muktzeh. Rav Yosef’s opinion is challenged: Rava the son of Rabbah challenged Rav Yosef on the basis of the following Mishnah {Keilim 13:5): A needle whose eye or point has been removed is tahor [i.e., it is not susceptible to tumah, because it is not classified as a utensil]. The Mishnah teaches that since the needle is no longer fit for its previous use, it is not considered a utensil, and is thus not susceptible to tumah. Even if it was actually tamei

250 / A DAILY DOSE OF TORAH

before the breakage, it is now tahor (see Keilim 11:1). Thus, we see that the removal of a needle’s eye nul¬ > 111X11 lifies its status as a utensil, and therefore regarding SHABBOS laws of the Sabbath it should be considered muktzehl PARASHAS The challenge is rebuffed: TETZAVEH Abaye said: Do you attempt to contrast the laws of tumah with the laws of the Sabbath? This is not a valid comparison, for these laws are subject to different criteria. For an item to be susceptible to tumah, we require that it be a fashioned vessel, and once the eye or point of a needle is removed, it does not fit into this category. [In describing the golden vessels that were plundered in the Midianite war — and which were contaminated with corpse-tumah — the Torah states {Bamidbar 31:51): ntajfJo ’ba b3, every fashioned vessel (see Rashi ad loc.). We learn from this that only a vessel that was fashioned for a specific use and still functions in that capacity is susceptible to tumah (see Rashi).] Concerning the matter of the Sabbath, however, for classification of an item as non-muktzeh, we require only something that is fit for use, and this needle whose eye was removed is also fit for use in the removal of a splinter. There is no requirement that a utensil be “fashioned” in order that it be deemed non-muktzeh. Even an ordinary stone that was designated for a common use before the Sabbath is not muktzeh (see Orach Chaim 308:22). It therefore follows that a utensil that no longer functions as it did originally remains classified as non-muktzeh if it can still be used in some other capacity.

A MGSSAR THOOGHT FOR THE DAY

I

magine living in the era of the first Beis HaMikdash. Dominating the skyline of Yerushalayim, Hashem’s home could not be ignored. Magnificently constructed, splendidly appointed, its awesome majesty seemed indomitable. Kohanim and scholars mingled with masses of pilgrims entering and leaving the Temple plaza. The harmonious melo¬ dies of the Leviim accompanied the daily offerings, and mixed with fragrant aromas of incense that drifted across the Judean hills. For four and a half centuries, the Beis HaMikdash stood at the center of the nation’s conscience. Prophets came and went and kings vied to outdo each other’s influence, sometimes bad and sometimes good; yet, Hashem’s home stood as an eternal sentinel protecting the people. No matter how sinful the nation, no matter how many threatening pro¬ phecies came to be, the Beis HaMikdash cast its protective shadow

SHABBOS — PARASHAS TETZAVEH

/ 251

over Hashem’s children. No one believed that the end of this era would ever come. This is the way Malbim explains the incredulity of SHABBOS Yechezkel’s generation. They did not believe that PARASHAS Hashem would ever reach the point of destroying His TKTZAVTM own home and exiling His children. They believed that the Beis HaMikdash protected them and guaranteed that no matter how bad they were, it and they would never be de¬ stroyed. However, by the time Yechezkel began his prophecies, real¬ ity had eroded the fantasy of Jewish invulnerability. The Ten Tribes had been exiled; the royal family and the nation’s leadership had been taken to Babylon; the land had been under attack from Ne¬ buchadnezzar, Egypt, and other regional kingdoms; and the Beis HaMikdash was being threatened. The nation began to accept that Hashem had finally given up on them. However, rather than desper¬ ately doing teshuvah in hopes of averting the impending disaster, they felt abandoned, became despondent, and moved even further away from Hashem. This analysis of the last years before the Churban is supported by the Gemara in Pesachim (87a) that relates Hashem’s criticism of Hoshea the Prophet. Hashem said: “When 1 told you that your children had sinned, you did not argue in their defense that they were My children and the children of the forefathers. Instead, you suggested that 1 give up on them and choose another nation to be Mine!’’ If the great navi Hoshea had already given up on their ability to do teshuvah, how much more so had the Jews given up on themselves! Malbim goes on to explain that Yechezkel’s detailed description of the final Beis HaMikdash was intended to convey to the Jews that the future of the Temple and the nation was up to them. What they thought of as Hashem abandoning them was really a call for them to do teshuvah and return the nation and the Beis HaMikdash to their original glory. Malbim points out that the first verse in this Haftarah, n’3n-nK n’rnis nan. Tell the House of Israel regarding the Temple, is incorrect. Instead it should have said: ”bt