Parshas Vayechi 5779

Why Wasn't Joseph in Goshen?

The Torah writes (Genesis 48:1):

Some time afterward, Joseph was told, “Your father is ill.” So he took with him his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim.

HaEmek Davar writes:

I have heard from Rabbi Sh’muel of blessed memory that the reason that Joseph did not frequently visit his father was that he was afraid that Yaakov would ask him how he had come to be in Egypt in the first place, in which case he would have had to tell him that his brothers had sold him, etc., as a result of which his father would have cursed the brothers. This in turn would have spelled the destruction of the civilized world, seeing that when he had cursed Rachel quite unintentionally, Rachel died prematurely as a result, although the teraphim of Lavan had never even been found. We cannot even imagine what the result of Yaakov cursing ten of his twelve sons would have meant.

However later on, when he blesses Shimon and Levi, it implies that he knew. Some answer that Yosef thought that his father would curse them, but he would never do it once he found out about it via ruach hakodesh.

Ephraim before Menashe

The Torah writes (Genesis 48:17):

When Joseph saw that his father was placing his right hand on Ephraim’s head, he thought it wrong; so he took hold of his father’s hand to move it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s.

However, we find even earlier that the order was switched (see Genesis 48:5):

Now, your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, shall be mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine no less than Reuben and Simeon.

Shadal (ibid) writes:

He put Ephraim before Menashe for in his mind [he knew] that Ephraim was greater than Menashe

(see also HaEmek Davar here who explains that Yosef didn't grasp the switch initially, and only realized it during the placing of the hands)

Parshas Mikeitz 5779

Why Didn't Joseph Eat with His Brothers?

The Torah writes (Genesis 43:32):

They served him by himself, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves; for the Egyptians could not dine with the Hebrews, since that would be abhorrent to the Egyptians.

There are two things happening here:

1. Joseph not sitting with the brothers while eating.
2. The brothers not eating together the Egyptians.

Bechor Shor answers #1:

Because of his greatness for it is not right to eat at the king's table unless you are a great person ... but they were seated close to him

HaEmek Davar explains similarly why regular people don't eat with the king:

... He should be demeaned in their eyes, or they should not be able to pass a knife to him and fight with him; but he did sit the brothers with the Egyptians because they were abhorrent...

 There are also multiple answers for #2 which answers #1 as well. Rashi (ibid) writes:

it is a hateful thing to the Egyptians to eat together with the Hebrews. Onkelos states a reason for this.

Onkelos explains:

They served to him by himself, and to them by themselves, and to the Egyptians eating with them by themselves because Egyptians cannot eat bread with Hebrews for the domesticated animals that the Egyptians worship, the Hebrews eat

The Torah writes similarly later on (Exodus 8:22)

But Moses replied, “It would not be right to do this, for what we sacrifice to the LORD our God is untouchable to the Egyptians. If we sacrifice that which is untouchable to the Egyptians before their very eyes, will they not stone us!

Rashi explains there:

The act of sacrifice which we practise is a hateful thing to the Egyptians seing that we sacrifice their god

However, Radak explains differently:

Egyptians did not eat sheep or goats, and the only reason they raised these animals was for their wool and their milk.

Chizkuni explains:

Egyptians detested eating at the same table as aliens, as they felt that they were a superior race and everyone else was way inferior.

Rashbam explains in a similar fashion:

The Egyptians’ attitude to people whose vocation was to tend flocks was one of utter disdain, as we know from 46,34. They had contempt for sheep and goats, hence their contempt transferred itself to the people raising such animals. This attitude to sheep and goats is mirrored when Moses asks Pharaoh how he could expect the Israelites to slaughter such animals while in Egypt without running the risk of the local populace stoning them to death for doing this. (Exodus 8,22) Stoning someone to express one’s disgust with his conduct is nothing new; we encounter it in Samuel II 16,5-6 when Shimi ben Geyrah, not only cursed (king) David publicly, but also threw stones at him.

Shadal explains this was because the Egyptians had their own religious customs for eating like the Greeks, and their religion wouldn't allow them to sit with people from other religions

Shape of the Menorah

Interesting article from Chabad.org addressing the discrepancy between the shape of the Menorah as described by the Rambam and archeological evidence

Parshas Vayishlach 5779

Who Fought with Yaakov?

The Torah writes (Genesis 32:25):

Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the break of dawn.

Sforno explains that this was an angel:

This was the work of an angel at the instigation of G’d (that is why he is called איש)

We find similarly in Tanach (Hosea 12:5):

He strove with an angel and prevailed— The other had to weep and implore him. At Bethel [Jacob] would meet him, There to commune with him.

Rashi (ibid) writes:

Our Rabbis of blessed memory explained that he was Esau’s guardian angel (Genesis Rabbah 77:3)

Kli Yakar explains that this was the angel Samael

Targum Jonathan explains that this was the angel Michoel

Radak explains this was Gavriel:

the same type of איש as in Joshua 5,13, i.e. an angel. This was the angel Gavriel, described as איש par excellence in Daniel 9,21. The reason why these angels are called איש is because they appear to the people with whom they converse in human guise. The types of angels who speak with man are referred to as איש, as they appear either in a vision or while the person to whom they appear is fully awake.

Parshas Vayeitzei 5779

The Three Cities Called "Beth-El"

The Torah (Genesis 28:19) writes):

He named that site Bethel; but previously the name of the city had been Luz.

HaKsav veHakabalah explains (ibid):

Three places did Yaakov call "Beth-El": here he called it "Beth El" only, and later on (35:7) he called it "El Beth El", and with a different name he blessed it (35:15) "Elokim Beth El", and so we find by Shaul (Samuel I 14:3) "they went up to Elokim Beth El" ...

What is the Land of the Easterners?

The Torah writes (Genesis 29:1):

Jacob resumed his journey and came to the land of the Easterners.

Chizkuni (ibid) writes:

“to the land of Aram,” as we know from Isaiah (9:11) [where it says "Aram from the east And Philistia from the west"]

Ohr HaChaim (ibid) explains:

The reason the Torah describes these people as בני קדם, easterners, instead of referring to their city, i.e. Charan, is to tell us that only the district came towards him. Jacob himself walked to Charan ...

Radak (ibid) explains somewhat similar:

that land lies to the east of the land of Israel, Charan being the first town after one crosses the border into that country. The Torah does not mention the political name of the country but describes it as “the land of the people of Kedem,” in more general terms. Yaakov left the land of Canaan and crossed into this land, and while being close to Charan, he saw a well in the field.

Tur HaAruch explains (ibid) differently:

It is a mystery why Yaakov should go to the land of the people of the East, seeing the Torah already wrote that he was heading for Charan, (28,10). On the other hand, according to the tradition that Yaakov had reached Charan on the day he set out in that direction, but that he had turned back to pray at Moriah, not having been aware at the time that he had inadvertently gone past that site without doing so, the meaning of the verse becomes abundantly clear. From Moriah he went forth to the land of the people of the East, where he remained for 14 years before again going to Charan and joining the household of Lavan.

HaEmek Davar explains that the the verse implies that they dabbled in magic like the people of "Kedem" (i.e. the children of Keturah), and this is why it says that he "raised his feet" for he was afraid he may get drawn after it.

Parshash Vayera 5779

What Questions is Rashi Trying to Answer?

There are several instances in this Parsha, where Rashi's commentary seems to be addressing a specific issue in the text. When we contrast his commentary with other commentators, we can see the underlying question

1. The Wife of Lot

Rashi (Genesis 19:26) explains that when Lot's wife was punished by being turned into a pillar salt because she sinned with salt. However, the Ralbag disagrees and explains the same verse as referring to the city of Sodom turning into a pillar of salt instead of Lot's wife. The Ralbag also explains what the underlying question is: Lot's wife is listed as having left the city but when Lot goes into caves later on, she is no longer present. That is the question that Rashi also addresses - her disappearance from the story is explained by being turned into a pillar of salt.

2. Ishmael and the Guests of Avraham

When the guests come to Avraham, he orders a man to slaughter a calf for them (Genesis 18:7). Rashi explains there that this was Ishmael who was being trained in the mitzvos. Bartenura explains the underlying question - everything that Avraham did was done by him directly except this (and the kneading of the dough by Sarah). If Avraham strives to do everything himself, then handing off this job to a mere servant would sound derogatory to Avraham. Therefore, Rashi explains that this was no mere servant but Ishmael who was being trained.

3. Angels or Men?

As explained in previous years (see here), there is a disagreement among the commentators as to whether these visitors are angels or men (or a dream according to the Rambam). Rashi explains that these were angels but because of that he is forced to explain why there are initially called "men" in regards to Avraham but "angels" when they arrived at Sodom. Additionally, Rashi also explains why the number of visitors goes down from three to two.

Parshas Lech Lecho 5779

What is Ur Kasdim?

The Torah writes (Genesis 15:7):

Then He said to him, “I am the LORD who brought you out from Ur Kasdim to assign this land to you as a possession.”

It also states earlier (ibid 11:28):

And Haran died in the lifetime of Terach his father, in the land of his birth, Ur Kasdim.

And (ibid 11:31):

Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot the son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and they set out together from Ur Kasdim for the land of Canaan; but when they had come as far as Haran, they settled there.

This is also mentioned later on (Nehemiah 9:7):

You are the LORD the God, who choose Abram, and brought him forth out of Ur Kasdim, and gave him the name of Abraham;

Rashi (ibid 11:28) says

The Midrashic explanation is that he died through his father. For Terah accused his son Abram before Nimrod of haying smashed his idols to pieces, and he cast him into a fiery furnace. Haran waited and said to himself, “If Abram proves triumphant I will be on his side; if Nimrod wins I shall be on his”. When Abram was saved they said to Haran, “Whose side are you on?” Haran replied, “I am on Abram’s side”. They therefore cast him into the fiery furnace and he was burnt to death. It is to this that the name of the place Ur-Kasdim (fire of the Chaldees) alludes (Genesis Rabbah 38:13).

Targum Jonathan (ibid) elaborates that it refers to the makers of the furnace:

And it was when Nimrod had cast Abram into the furnace of fire because he would not worship his idol, and the fire had no power to burn him, that Haran's heart became doubtful, saying, If Nimrod overcome, I will be on his side: but if Abram overcome, I will be on his side. And when all the people who were there saw that the fire had no power over Abram, they said in their hearts, Is not Haran the brother of Abram full of divinations and charms, and has he not uttered spells over the fire that it should not burn his brother? Immediately (min yad, out of hand) there fell fire from the high heavens and consumed him; and Haran died in the sight of Terah his father, where he was burned in the land of his nativity, in the furnace of fire which the Kasdim made for Abram his brother.

Metzudas Dovid (Nehemiah ibid) cites a similar explanation but Kasdim refers to the location:

Our Sages tell us that it was because Nimrod threw him into a fiery furnace while in the land of Kasdim and G-d saved him

Ramban (ibid) also explains this is regarding the location but differently:

In the land of his birth. Only Haran was born in Ur Kasdim. Terach was originally from Aram where his older sons Avram and Nachor were born. Afterwards Terach took Avram with him to Ur Kasdim while Nachor remained behind. That is why when Terach left to return to Aram (v. 31) Nachor is not mentioned.

Rabbeinu Bachya (ibid) explains in a similar fashion:

 It is a fact that Avraham’s birthplace was not Ur in the land of the Casdim, but that he was born on the west side of the river Euphrates. We have direct confirmation of this in Joshua 24,2 where we are told מעבר הנהר ישבו אבותיכם מעולם, “your ancestors have lived on the far side of the river Euphrates from time immemorial.” The word מעולם in that verse is clear proof of the fact that Avraham was not born in Ur. This is also why he was known as אברם העברי, in 14,13, “Avraham from across the river.” Had he been born in Ur Casdim he should have been known as אברם הכשדי, “Avram from the land of the Chaldaens.” Another proof for our contention is the fact that Nachor, Avraham’s brother is reported as living in Charan, a place well west of the river Euphrates. If we find in verse 31 that Terach took his son Avram and Lot the son of Haran with him as well as Sarai his daughter-in- law on his way from Ur Casdim in order to go to the land of Canaan and that they got as far as Charan, this suggests that Nachor was the only one who remained in Ur Casdim at the time. However, the truth is that Nachor had never left his birthplace in the first place. This is also the reason the Torah writes the word “in the land of his birth” in the middle of the verse instead of at its end. The word מולדתו, “his birthplace,” refers to Aram which was well to the west of the river Euphrates. We find that our sages in Baba Batra 91 mention that Avram was a prisoner for ten years, three of them in a place called Kuta, and seven years in a place called Kardo. According to some scholars the former place is identical with Ur Casdim. Others hold that it was west of the river Euphrates.

You should know that Terach begat his sons Avram and Nachor on the west side of the river Euphrates, the land of his fathers, and that subsequently he migrated to Ur Casdim to join his son Avram where his younger son Haran was born. Nachor had stayed in his birthplace in Charan all that time. The words בארץ מולדתו refer to Haran, who had indeed been born in Ur Casdim.

Maimonides, in his Moreh Nevuchim 3,29, writes that there is a record in Egyptian books about agriculture that Avram was born in a place called Kuta and that he disagreed with all the local people concerning their worshiping the sun. The king therefore imprisoned him where he remained for many years. Some time later the king feared that Avram would cause destruction to his country and that he would sway his subjects into changing their religion so that he decided to expel Avram to the borders of the land of Canaan.Thus far Maimonides.

The Malbim (ibid) explains that this refers to the fire itself:

For the Kasdim worshiped sun and fire, and they had a fire that was always lit as part of fire worship ... Ur Kasdim was on the other side of the river and Nimrod was also the ruler there ... and the furnace was also on the other side of the river, except that in Haran there was no ruler. And now you will understand what it means that "our forefathers lived on the other side of the river" ... and that was on the other side of the river and not the land of Kasdim ... it must be that Ur Kasdim refers to the fire of the furnace ...

Radak (ibid) says its name wasn't called that at the time:

 באור כשדים, a place known nowadays as Ur Kasdim, It could not have had that name at the time Terach and Avraham lived, as כשד the son of Nachor had not been born until later (Genesis 22,22) The offspring of this Kessed became were known as the Kasdim.

Rashi (ibid) cites another reason that it refers to valleys (also cited by the Radak):

Menachem ben Seruk, however, explains that אור means a valley, as (Isaiah 24:15) “Glorify ye the Lord in the valleys (באורים)”, and as (Isaiah 11:8) “the den (מאורת) of the basilisk”. Every hole or deep cleft may be called אור.

Rabbeinu Bachya (ibid) explains this may also refer to a mountain:

As to the meaning of the word אור in our verse. The word appears in three meanings. 1) valley or depression; 2) fire; 3) mountain. The reason that it may mean valley is based on Isaiah 11,8 מאורת הצפעוני, ”the den of an adder.” The prophet calls the den of that viper מאורה, and a valley is a depression in the earth. Our verse then would mean: “from the valley of the Casdim.” The reason the word may mean “mountain,” is based on Isaiah 24,15 באורים כבוד ה', “for the glory of the Lord is in the mountains,” and the reason the word was used to symbolise mountains was that the Israelites used to light flares on the mountains to inform the people that the new moon had been sighted so that the people who lived far from Jerusalem would observe the next day as New Moon. This is what is meant in Isaiah 24,15 באיי הים שם ה' אלוקי ישראל, “the name of the Lord G’d of Israel is (even) in the islands of the sea.” The prophet urges the people to proclaim the mighty miracles of G’d by honouring G’d with lights, as if the meaning of the words הר כשדים were “fire.” We encounter this word in Isaiah 44,16 חמותי ראיתי אור “I am hot, I can feel the fire (heat).“

Parshas Noach 5779

Why Did Noach Send the Raven?

The Torah writes (Genesis 8:6-7):

At the end of forty days, Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made and sent out the raven; it went to and fro until the waters had dried up from the earth.

1: Simplest explanation from the Sforno:

וישלח את העורב, to find out if the atmosphere had dried out after the tops of the mountains had become visible. Noach wanted to know if the atmosphere in the meanwhile was such that the raven could tolerate it.

ויצא יצוא ושוב, this proved that the atmosphere was not yet dry enough for the raven to tolerate it for any extended period of time.

2: The Bartenura cites a different reason:

I found that the reason for Noach sending out the raven more than other birds was because ravens eat dead bodies and if it would find one of those that died in the Flood, it would bring from their flesh back to the Ark; and he [Noach] would know that the waters dried up ...

3 - The Chizkuni gives a similar reason:

the reason Noach chose one of the impure birds for this mission, was that since that bird feeds on carcasses, the chances that it would find something to eat were far greater than if he had sent a pigeon which is more circumspect in what it chooses as its food. Do not question how Noach could have dispatched any creature from the ark seeing that at that time it was totally dark outside? While it is true that there was no sunshine or moonlight, and the light of the stars is insufficient to know thereby whether it is day or night, there was some light, as we know from when the Torah wrote in verse 5 that the mountain tops had become visible at the beginning of the tenth month. Furthermore, there is an opinion cited in B’reshit Rabbah 33,5, according to which light of sun and moon was usable, but was not usable by Noach for astronomical calculations. Unless this was so, how would Noach have been able to tell day from night?

Bechor Shor seems to disagree:

It went to and from for the waters were still high and it was afraid to fly far lest it gets weak and falls to the water but it still went out and ate from the bodies of people, animals and birds that it saw floating in the water and came back to its nest in the Ark, and it kept doing so until the waters dried up completely, and then he [Noach] sent the dove ...

4: HaEmek Davar cites another reason:

We need to understand why he sent these two birds specifically: the raven and the dove, for there are many other birds that can fly better than these two. Also, how did he have permission to let them leave the Ark before the time came for all of them leave? Therefore, it seems that these (the raven and the dove) were not from the pairs that entered [the Ark] in order to keep the species alive according to Hashem's command. It must be that before the Flood, Noach was like one of the noblemen that are accustomed to raise ravens and doves, and these came with him as part of his household like it is stated above, for it is a custom to raise ravens inside the house and not to send them away. However, doves are taught to carry letters far away and bring things back in their beaks. therefore when Noach sent the raven and it saw the water around the Ark, it did not fly far but went and came back near the Ark. But the dove was taught to bring things even from afar and this is why he sent it for it flew far away.

5: Ohr Chaim gives another reason:

.... The entire verse must be understood in light of the aggadah (Sanhedrin 108) that the raven mated while in the ark and that Noach knew about it. This is why he expelled the raven from the ark as soon as he opened its window. This is why the Torah does not mention that the raven was dispatched in order to examine the extent to which the waters had receded. The raven was forced to remain outside the ark though it tried to return to it. This situation continued until the waters on the earth had dried out. .....

Why Did the Raven Keep Coming Back?

1: As per Bechor Shor above, it was afraid of falling in the water

2: Rashi provides another reason why it kept coming back:

It (the raven) flew in circles round and round the Ark and did not go on its errand for it suspected that he (Noah) intended to injure its mate, just as we learn in the Agada of Chelek (Sanhedrin 108b)

Chizkuni explains this further:

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in Sanhedrin 108 claims that the raven accused Noach with an ironclad argument of hating it, else he would have used a bird of which there were seven species rather than endanger the species of the raven of which he had only a single pair. As a result, the raven did not fly far away from the ark to ensure it would find its way back, and could protect its mate if need be.

The Malbim explains what Noach thought:

Since the raven, alone among the birds, produced offspring in the ark, Noach felt secure in sending it out knowing that the species would not perish. The raven was also the only bird that would have abandoned its nest to go on the mission.

However, Tur HaAruch disagrees:

Noach concluded at that point not to endanger the species of which only one pair was in the ark, and to dispatch birds of the “pure” species of which he had seven pairs each at his disposal.

3: Another reason - as per HaEmek Davar above,  it could be the raven stayed close because it was not accustomed to fly far like the dove

Succos 5779

Eating in the Succah on the First Night

Rabbia Doniel Neustadt discusses this issue in his Weekly Halacha series and comes out with the following conclusions:

Since there are different rulings on all of these issues, the following, then, is a summary of the majority opinion:

• If it is raining steadily and there is a reliable weather forecast for rain all night, one should make Kiddush [with shehecheyanu] and eat a k’zayis [or a k’beitzah] in the succah. No blessing over the succah is recited. The rest of the meal is eaten inside the house.

• If there is no reliable weather forecast and there is a possibility that the rain will stop [e.g., it is drizzling or it is raining on and off], it is proper to wait an hour or two for the rain to subside. The poskim agree, however, that if the delay will disturb the dignity and pleasure of the Yom Tov, or if the family is hungry and/or tired, there is no obligation to wait.

• If the rain stops while the meal is being eaten inside the house or even after the meal has finished, one is obligated to eat at least a beitzah of bread in the succah. Even if the rain stops after midnight, a beitzah of bread must be eaten in the succah. If one has already gone to bed and then the rain stops, there is no obligation to get out of bed in order to eat in the succah.

Shaking Lulav and Esrog on Shabbos

We do not shake the Lulav and Esrog on Shabbos today, but during the times of the Temple, this was done on the first day of Succos even on Shabbos. This is explained by the Rambam (Hilchos Shofar Sukkah veLulav 7:16-18):

While the Temple was standing, the lulav would be taken [in the holy place even] when the first day of Sukkot fell on the Sabbath. The same applies in other places where they were certain that this day was celebrated as a holiday in Eretz Yisrael. However, the places which were distantly removed from Jerusalem would not take the lulav on this day because of the doubt involved.

When the Temple was destroyed, the Sages forbade even the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael who had sanctified the new month to take the lulav on the Sabbath on the first day of Sukkot.

[This was instituted] because of the inhabitants of the distant settlements, who were not aware of when the new month had been declared. Thus, a uniform guideline was established, rather than having some take the lulav on the Sabbath and some not. [The guiding principle was] that the obligation [of taking the lulav] on the first day applies in all places, and there is no longer a Temple to use as a point of distinction.

At present, when everyone follows a fixed calendar, the matter remains as it was, and the lulav is not taken on the Sabbath in the outlying territories or in Eretz Yisrael even on the first day [of the festival]. [This applies] even though everyone knows the actual day of the month.

Finishing the Torah in Three Years and Simchas Torah

The Talmud (Megillah 29b) writes:

However, according to the one who said that the portion of “Command the children of Israel, and say to them, My offering” is read as Shekalim, does that portion ever occur at that time of the year? That portion usually occurs much later in the year, in the summer. The Gemara answers: Yes, it sometimes occurs that this portion is read during the beginning of Adar, for the people of the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, who complete the cycle of reading the Torah not in one year but in three years.

In Sefer Maasos Rabbi Benyamin (page 63) there is a mention of a similar custom in Egypt (in the 12th century):

... there are two congregations - one for those from the Land of Israel and one for those from Babylonia ... and they do not observe the same custom for reading the portions and sections of the Torah, for those from Babylonia are accustomed to read one portion every week like we do in Spain and according to our custom. [Thus], every year and year they finish the Torah. And those from the Land of Israel do not do that but they make every portion into three sections and finish the Torah in the end of the three years. However, they have a custom to come together and pray as one on the day of Simchas Torah and the day of giving the Torah (Shavous) ...

Parshas Nitzavim 5778

Nature of the Covenant

The Torah writes (Deuteronomy 29:12):

You stand this day, all of you, before the LORD your God—your tribal heads, your elders and your officials, all the men of Israel, your children, your wives, even the stranger within your camp, from woodchopper to water drawer— to enter into the covenant of the LORD your God, which the LORD your God is concluding with you this day, with its sanctions; to the end that He may establish you this day as His people and be your God, as He promised you and as He swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Rashi explains (ibid 29:12):

SINCE HE MUST BE UNTO THEE A GOD, because He has promised it unto you and has sworn unto your fathers not to exchange their descendants for another nation. For this reason He binds you by these oaths not to provoke Him to anger since He, on His part, cannot dissociate Himself from you. — Thus far I have given an exposition according to the literal sense of the chapter.

and:

An Agadic explanation, however, is: Why is the section beginning with the words, “Ye are standing this day” put in juxtaposition to the curses in the previous chapter? Because when Israel heard these ninety-eight curses besides the forty-nine that are contained in Torath-Cohanim (Leviticus 26:14 ff.), their faces turned pale (they were horrified), and they exclaimed, “Who can possibly stand against these?!” Therefore Moses began to calm them: “See, you are standing today before the Lord!” — many a time have you provoked the Omnipresent to anger and yet He has not made an end to you, but you still continue in His presence (Midrash Tanchuma, Nitzavim 1).

We tend to think of a covenant like a contract - where either side can break it, but it is really more like a treaty where the sides cannot exit the treaty unless it itself includes such provisions.

Why Did G-d Exile the Jewish People?

The Torah writes (Deuteronomy 29:21-25):

And later generations will ask—the children who succeed you, and foreigners who come from distant lands and see the plagues and diseases that the LORD has inflicted upon that land, all its soil devastated by sulfur and salt, beyond sowing and producing, no grass growing in it, just like the upheaval of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the LORD overthrew in His fierce anger—all nations will ask, “Why did the LORD do thus to this land? Wherefore that awful wrath?” They will be told, “Because they forsook the covenant that the LORD, God of their fathers, made with them when He freed them from the land of Egypt; they turned to the service of other gods and worshiped them, gods whom they had not experienced and whom He had not allotted to them.

Daas Zekeinim explains (ibid 29:23-24)

“what has caused the Lord to do this to this land?” If there were murderers and adulterers among the Jews, this is a world wide phenomenon and G–d has not reacted similarly against them? Why has only their land been laid waste?

and

“then they will say, etc.” even the gentiles will come to the conclusion that the G–d of the Jews had done to them was justified; they had entered into a covenant with their G–d voluntarily, and had abandoned their part of the bargain without reason. It is therefore no more than just that they had to pay the price for their treachery.

The Parshas and the Years

There is a tradition from the Vilna Gaon that each of the 5 books of the Torah correspond to 1,000 years of creation, with the last one (Devarim) corresponding to years 5000 - 6000. Each of the Parshios in Devarim (a total of ten) correspond to 100 years. Thus Parshas Ki Savo corresponds to 5600 to 5700 (1840 to 1940), and Nitzavim-Vayelech to 5700 - 5800 (1940 - 2040). There are 70 verses - 40 in Nitzavim and 30 in Vayelech, thus making every 7 verses correspond to 10 years. This means Nitzavim is roughly 5700 - 5757 (1940 - 1997), and Parshas Vayelech is 5758 - 5800 (1998 - 2040).

Parshas Ki Savo 5778

There is an incident described the the Book of Jeremiah concerning the writing of Megilas Eichah. It is written (Jeremiah 36:21-25):

The king sent Jehudi to get the scroll and he fetched it from the chamber of the scribe Elishama. Jehudi read it to the king and to all the officials who were in attendance on the king. Since it was the ninth month, the king was sitting in the winter house, with a fire burning in the brazier before him. And every time Jehudi read three or four columns, [the king] would cut it up with a scribe’s knife and throw it into the fire in the brazier, until the entire scroll was consumed by the fire in the brazier. Yet the king and all his courtiers who heard all these words showed no fear and did not tear their garments; moreover, Elnathan, Delaiah, and Gemariah begged the king not to burn the scroll, but he would not listen to them.

Rashi expands on the story (Jeremiah 36:23):

Our Sages tell us that this was the Scroll of Lamentations [i.e. Eichah] that was read in front of him. [When they read the first four verses ] "Alas", "Bitterly she weeps", "Judah has gone to exile", "Zion's roads are in mourning" - for all of these he didn't care since he said "I will be the king of the remaining people". One he read [the verse] "Her enemies are now her masters", he said "from now I am not king?" and immediately he cut it up with a knife.

Why did the king not care about the first four verses? He felt safe in his palace and did not feel like any of these things applied to him.

Something similar applies in this week's portion. If we read through most of the Tochacha, it seemingly doesn't apply to us. A lot of the punishments are very specific and we are not affected by them. However, when we get to the end of the portion, we find an interesting thing. It is written (Deuteronomy 28:66):

Thy life shall hang before thee; you shall be in terror, night and day, with no assurance of survival.

This seems to describe someone who cowers in fear, afraid for his life - seemingly not applying to us. But Rashi cites a surprising explanation (ibid):

THY LIFE SHALL HANG BEFORE THEE: ... Our Rabbis interpreted this to refer to one who is obliged to buy produce in the market (who does not possess any of his own), ... WITH NO ASSURANCE OF SURVIVAL — this they refer to one who must rely on the baker (cf. Menachot 103b).

What this means, that even though we may be safe in our houses like the king was, and assured in our safety, this is merely an illusion since the food and bread we need comes from someone else.

Parsha Vayeschanan 5778

What is "Lebanon" that Moshe references?

The Torah writes (Deuteronomy 3:25):

Let me, I pray, cross over and see the good land on the other side of the Jordan, the mountain and the Lebanon.

Rashi (ibid) explains:

AND LEBANON — this is a term for the Temple (Siphre).

Bartenura (ibid) explains why the Temple is called "Lebanon":

This is the Holy Temple because it whiteness the sins of the Jewish nation

Chizkuni (ibid) explains differently:

The word: הלבנון here is a simile for the permanent Temple. (Ibn Ezra) Seeing that Solomon used the cedar wood of that region to line the inner walls of the Temple that he built, this interpretation is not as far fetched as it might appear to some.

Haktav veHakaballah (ibid) explains:

... Some add a reason for this name because it is always covered with snow which is white ... and some add because of the myrrh and frankincense that grows there ...

What was Moshe pleading for?

The Torah writes (Deuteronomy 3:25):

Let me, I pray, cross over and see the good land on the other side of the Jordan, the mountain and the Lebanon.

Sforno (ibid):

in order to get rid of all the inhabitants of the land of Canaan so the people will never be exiled from that land. 

Chizkuni (ibid):

the question asked by most commentators is if Moses really only wanted to cross the Jordan for the mundane purpose of enjoying the fruit that grew in the Holy Land. It appears unbelievable to them that this could be the correct interpretation of this verse. They therefore conclude that the meaning of Moses’ plea was that he wished to be able to fulfill the many commandments of the Torah that can be fulfilled only while the person doing so is on the soil of the Holy Land.

Ohr HaChaim (ibid):

... Perhaps Moses wanted to rebut reasons which had prevented him from entering the Holy Land. Our sages say that there had been two such reasons:

1. The time for Joshua to reign had arrived, and the rule of one monarch must not overlap with the rule of a second monarch by as much as a hair's breadth (Berachot 48).
2. G'd foresaw that the Israelites would sin in the future and He would have to pour out His wrath at them. He therefore preferred to use the Holy Temple as the object on which to pour out His wrath rather than on the people themselves ... We explained that if Moses had crossed the Jordan the Temple he would have built would have stood forever, and whenever the Israelites would sin G'd would have to vent His wrath on them rather than on the Temple ...

This is why Moses referred to these two scenarios with his words:

1. Concerning the fact that the time of his reign must not overlap with the time assigned to Joshua, he said "let me cross," i.e. he did not ask to cross in his capacity as the leader but was content to cross as a simple citizen; he did not expect to be given any special honour.
2. Concerning the eventuality of the Temple becoming the excuse for G'd venting His wrath on the people in any future sinfulness by the people, he said: ואראה, "in order that I may see the land," i.e. he had no aspirations to build the Temple. Moses was thus careful to forestall any argument against granting his wish. As to his using the expression נא, this means that he was ready to abdicate his position as king immediately.

another reason:

It is also possible that Moses pleaded for the Israelites to cross the Jordan river immediately before the end of the day so that he could cross at a time when his crossing would not interfere with the period G'd had ordained for Joshua's reign. If you accept my interpretation that the words בעת ההיא referred to the time immediately after G'd decreed that the generation of the spies would not enter the Holy Land, there would not have been any problem with the time, as that event took place 38 years prior to the period when Moses addressed the people here. From Moses' words it is easy to surmise that he prayed on behalf of the whole people seeing that G'd had only decreed that they would die in the desert. He had not decreed that they would die prematurely, i.e. before reaching the age of 60 which would have meant that they died by the karet penalty. If Moses were to enter the Holy Land at that time (38 years ago) it would be understood that the people would enter with him as G'd had not decreed that they had to die prior to age 60.

another reason:

There is another way of explaining Moses' choice of words based on Bamidbar Rabbah 19,13 that the redeemer for the people of the generation of the Exodus would be Moses himself. ... Moses knew of this as G'd had revealed to him that it would be part of his role in the future [in the time of Redemption] to cross the river Jordan to the Holy Land. In view of this knowledge he merely begged to fulfil his role now instead of in the distant future. The words אעברה נא therefore mean: "let me cross now (we are speaking about 38 years ago)."

another reason:

The words אעברה נא may also be part of Moses' answer to something we have learned in Midrash Rabbah that the reason that Moses had to die outside the boundaries of the Holy Land was to enable him to lead his generation to their hereafter, as we have already explained. Moses used the term אעברה, i.e. a temporary crossing rather than a permanent crossing of the Jordan indicating he was quite willing to die and be buried on the East Bank after having first crossed the Jordan, so as to be able to play his appointed role of helping the people of his generation to attain their share in the hereafter.

another reason:

Yet another meaning of the term אעברה may be connected to the statement in Ketuvot 111 that any person who has had the good fortune to walk four cubits inside of ארץ ישראל has thereby assured himself of a share in the hereafter. Moses wanted to assure himself of that by crossing the Jordan even temporarily.

 

Tisha Bav 5778

The Destruction of the Mishkan in Shilo

In the first Kinna of the morning (#6) we find the following:

... the fear of the sin of Shiloh ...

The Rambam (Beis HaBechira 1:2) writes (based on the Talmud Zevachim 118b):

Once [the Israelites] entered the Land, they set up the tabernacle at Gilgal [where it remained fourteen years while] they conquered and divided the land. From there it went to Shiloh, where they built a stone building without a ceiling and spread the sheets from the [original] tabernacle over it. It stayed in Shiloh for 369 years until Eli [the High Priest] died and it was destroyed and moved to Nob. When Samuel died, it moved to Gibeon, and from there it came to the Eternal House. The period of Nob and Gibeon [together] was 57 years.

The Mishkan in Shiloh stood for almost as long as each of the Temples, yet we find very little information about how it was destroyed. It is mentioned in three places on Tanach:

1. Jeremiah (7:12-15)

Just go to My place at Shiloh, where I had established My name formerly, and see what I did to it because of the wickedness of My people Israel. And now, because you do all these things—declares the LORD—and though I spoke to you persistently, you would not listen; and though I called to you, you would not respond—therefore I will do to the House which bears My name, on which you rely, and to the place which I gave you and your fathers, just what I did to Shiloh. And I will cast you out of My presence as I cast out your brothers, the whole brood of Ephraim.

(Rashi and Metzudas David explain there that it was destroyed in the days of Eli haCohen)

2.  Jeremiah (26:4-6)

Say to them: Thus said the LORD: If you do not obey Me, abiding by the Teaching that I have set before you, heeding the words of My servants the prophets whom I have been sending to you persistently—but you have not heeded—then I will make this House like Shiloh, and I will make this city a curse for all the nations of earth.”

(Radak explains there that when the Ark was taken by the Philistines, they also destroyed the Mishkan at Shiloh)

3. Psalms (78:60-65)

He forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent He had set among men. He let His might go into captivity, His glory into the hands of the foe. He gave His people over to the sword; He was enraged at His very own. Fire consumed their young men, and their maidens remained unwed. Their priests fell by the sword, and their widows could not weep. The Lord awoke as from sleep, like a warrior shaking off wine.

However, the when Tanach is describing the end of the period of Eli haCohen and the capture of the Ark, there is no mention of the destruction of the Mishkan in Shiloh. See Samuel I (https://www.sefaria.org/I_Samuel.4.17-5.3):

The bearer of the news replied, “Israel fled before the Philistines and the troops also suffered a great slaughter. Your two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, are dead, and the Ark of God has been captured.” Then he mentioned the Ark of God, [Eli] fell backward off the seat beside the gate, broke his neck and died; for he was an old man and heavy. He had been a chieftain of Israel for forty years. His daughter-in-law, the wife of Phinehas, was with child, about to give birth. When she heard the report that the Ark of God was captured and that her father-in-law and her husband were dead, she was seized with labor pains, and she crouched down and gave birth. As she lay dying, the women attending her said, “Do not be afraid, for you have borne a son.” But she did not respond or pay heed. She named the boy Ichabod, meaning, “The glory has departed from Israel”—referring to the capture of the Ark of God and to [the death of] her father-in-law and her husband. “The glory is gone from Israel,” she said, “for the Ark of God has been captured.” When the Philistines captured the Ark of God, they brought it from Eben-ezer to Ashdod. The Philistines took the Ark of God and brought it into the temple of Dagon and they set it up beside Dagon. Early the next day, the Ashdodites found Dagon lying face down on the ground in front of the Ark of the LORD. They picked Dagon up and put him back in his place;

Parshas Korach & Parshas Chukas 5778

Why Did Korach Rebel Now?

Rabbi Josh Yuter cites three reasons (in his parsha blog) (from Rabbi Yonasan Eibshutz):

1. Because instead of 11 days until they enter Eretz Yisroel, it would now be 40 years.
2. Because he was afraid of dying from carrying the Aron for 40 years.
3. And here: He took advantage of the sitituation because the people were upset (Shadal)

There is a fourth reason possible also - some midrashim explain earlier that when the people listened to the spies, they wanted to appoint a new leader and return to Egypt. Those midrashim cite Dasan and Aviram as those alternate leaders proposed by the people, or even Korach (because he was rich). Based on that, it may be possible that is where these three people got the idea of leadership from in this week's parsha.

Many Spies

There are several sets of spies described in Tanach:

1. Sent by Moses to spy out the Land in Parshas Shlach
2. A set of spies sent by Moses to the city of Jazer (Numbers 21:32).
3. Two spies sent by Joshua to spy on the city of Jericho (Joshua 1 and 2).
4. Spies sent by Joshua to spy out Ai (Joshua 7).
5. The spies sent to spy out the city of Luz (Judges 1).
6. The Tribe of Dan sent to spy out the land who took Micah's idol (Judges 18).

Parshas Behaaloscha 5778

The Lineage of Eldad and Medad

The Torah writes (Numbers 11:26):

Two men, one named Eldad and the other Medad, had remained in camp; yet the spirit rested upon them—they were among those recorded, but they had not gone out to the Tent—and they prophesied in the camp.

Daas Zekeinim (Numbers 11:27, also cited in Paneach Raza) writes:

These two men were (half) brothers of Moses. When the Torah was given, and certain types of family members were no longer allowed to live in married union together, such couples separated in accordance with the law. This caused sorrow among such families as we know from verse 10 in our chapter where Moses is portrayed as listening to the weeping of families which had been broken up as a result of the new laws. Amram, Moses’ father, was also affected by these new laws, as when Pharaoh had decreed that all male Jewish babies were to be downed, he had divorced his wife Yocheved, who was his aunt. He had remarried and Eldod and Meydod were sons sired by him from this marriage. Their named reflected that they were compensations for a marriage broken up as a result of the prohibition to marry one’s aunt .... Our author claims to have found a manuscript of a certain Rabbi Amram, son of a Rabbi Hillel, who had lived in the land of Israel, in which the author writes as follows: “I have personally seen the graves of Eldod and Meydod brother of Aaron through his father’s side but not from the same mother.”’

Another opinion (ibid):

... Some scholars claim that Eldod is identical with a certain Elidod son of Kisslon, mentioned in Numbers 34,21. Meydod is supposed to be identical with Kemuel son of Shifton in verse 24 in that chapter. ... The author finds it difficult to believe that these two men had been half-brothers of Moses seeing that according to the Torah in Numbers chapter 34, Elidod and Kisslon were members of the tribe of Binyamin. Kemuel is described there as a member of the tribe of Ephrayim.

(the connection with Numbers 34:21-24 is also quoted in Bamidbar Rabbah 15 - these were the heads of tribes that helped to divide the land with Yehoshua; this also would fit with what Rashi writes about 2 tribes lacking one elder and they were from two different tribes but they didn't necessarily go through the lottery)
 
 Targum Jonathan (ibid) writes:

But two men had remained in the camp; the name of the one Eldad, and the name of the second Medad, the sons of Elizaphan bar Parnach [the prince of Tribe of Zebulun], whom Jochebed the daughter of Levi bare to him when Amram her husband had put her away; and to whom she had been espoused before she gave birth to Moshe.

Rabbi Frand asks why Yocheved got remarried against Amram's halachic opinion, and answers that since she was closer to the Patriarchs she understood the will of Hashem much clearer.

Additional Notes

• According to the Midrash (Bamidbar Rabbah 3), Eldad and Medad outlived Yehoshua
• As per Rashi there are opinions that Eldad and Medad continued to receive prophecy after this day and even after Moshe died
• Rabbi Jonathan Sacks asks about the difference between Korach and his desired to power, vs. Eldad and Medad, specifically in regards to how Yehoshua reacted. He answers that Moshe served two roles: prophet and king, and Korach wanted the kingship, but in the case of Eldad and Medad, it wasn't about power but prophecy
• Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky cites sources that Eldad and Medad were the elders after Yehoshua or that it was the Tribe of Levi
• Midrash haGadol (Numbers 11:26) states that Bezalel was the one who suggested to Moses the idea of picking the Sanhedrin through a lottery
• See our earlier post about who inspected the tzaraas on Miriam
• See our earlier post about who the elders were

Parshas Naso 5778

The Missing Targum

Rabbi Josh Waxman points out in his post that the Targum Onkelos in older and Yemenite manuscripts and Targum Yonasan is missing on the verses of Birchas Cohanim. Based on the Shadal on Sefer Ohev Ger, he connects this phenomenon with the Talmud in Megilah 25b:

Birchas Cohanim is read but not translated because it says "May He Turn"

An additional reason is provided based on the Yerushalami:

It was given for blessing and not given for reading

The Connection Between the Haftarah for Parshas Naso and Shavuos

The Haftorah discusses the story of Manoach and his wife who were childless and were blessed with a son who grew up to be Shimshon. The Gemara (Bava Bathra 91a) states that Boaz (who appears in Megilas Rus which is read on Shavuos) lost of all his children because he didn't treat Manoach right:

Apropos the story of Ruth the Gemara adds: Rabba bar Rav Huna says that Rav says: The judge Ibzan of Bethlehem (see Judges 12:8–10) is Boaz. The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us? The Gemara explains that this comment is in accordance with the other statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna, as Rabba bar Rav Huna says that Rav says: Boaz prepared one hundred and twenty feasts for his children at their weddings. As it is stated, concerning Ibzan: “And he had thirty sons, and thirty daughters he sent abroad, and thirty daughters he brought in from abroad for his sons. And he judged Israel seven years” (Judges 12:9). The verse indicates that he had sixty children.  And at each and every wedding he prepared for his children, he made two feasts, one in the house of the father of the groom and one in the house of the father-in-law of the groom. And he did not invite Manoah, the future father of Samson, whose wife was barren (see Judges 13:2) to any of them, as he said: It is not worth inviting him; he is a sterile mule, how will he pay me back? Manoah will never invite me in return, as he has no children.  

Sotah at a Distance

The Talmud (Sotah 27b) states that the adulterer dies at the same time as the woman:

Just as the water evaluates her fidelity, so too, the water evaluates his, i.e., her alleged paramour’s, involvement in the sin, as it is stated: “Andthe water that causes the curse shall enter into her” (Numbers 5:24), and it is stated again: “And the water that causes the curse shall enter into her and become bitter” (Numbers 5:27). It is derived from the double mention of the phrase “and…shall enter” that both the woman and her paramour are evaluated by the water.

However, the Midrash Tanchuma (5:2) brings a story of twin sisters where the non-guilty sister went and drank the water, and nothing happened until she came home and kissed her sister who then died. While the Talmud implies that Sotah works at a distance, it doesn't seem to work unless the water is actually drank.

Parshas Acharei Mos/Kedoshim 5778

Moloch and Azazel

Two enigmatic characters show up in this weeks parsha - Moloch and Azazel. Worshipping Molech is a special commandment separate from the general prohibition of idolatrous practices and Azazel was the name of the second goat that was dispatched and thrown off a cliff on Yom Kippur. What are they?

Moloch

The worship of Moloch consisted of a parent giving over his child to the priests of Moloch, and having that child either pass through the fires or put on hands of the idol which was heated up. The priests of Moloch would bang loud drums to distract the parents. There is also disagreement whether the child actually died or if the ritual was merely the passing in the fire, but no death occurred. It is not clear was the motivation of the parents was, but perhaps they gave up one child to Moloch so the rest of their family may live, somewhat similar to how a first born used to be dedicated to serve G-d.

According to the Ramban (Lev. 18:12), Moloch was an idol worshipped originally by Ammonites, also known as Milkom (as mentioned in Tanach in regards to Shlomo, see I Kings 11:7 and II Kings 23:13). However, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 64a/b) cites opinions that Moloch itself is not a specific idol, but rather it refers to the ritual of having his/her children passing through the fire. The name "Moloch" is related to the word "Melech", meaning "king" and as the Talmud explains, it can be anything that a person considers as a "king" over himself.

There are several reasons why a person is punished for this ritual:

• The simplest is because it is murder if the child dies or because it is idolatry.
• The Sforno also explains that animals are sacrificed to G-d and not people, so someone who does this obviously considers Moloch greater than G-d since he is offering something more precious than animals.
• There is also an opinion in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 64a), that this ritual was not idolatry but rather is a decree without a reason ("chok").

Azazel

The "goat of the Azazel" is the name of the second goat sent away on Yom Kippur:

• According to Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Bechor Shor and the Talmud (Yoma 67b) this is a reference to the place where the goat was brought.
• Yalkut Shemoni (44:1) and the Talmud (ibid) cite another opinion that it is intended to atone for the sins of the fallen angels Uzza and Azael (the Nephilim in the end of Parshas Bereishis).
• Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer, Bereshis Rabba and the Ramban are of the opinion that refers to a demon or Samael.
• According to the Abarbanel it describes someone who is defiant against G-d

The purpose of sending the goat is:

• R' Saadia Gaon and Sforno explain that this is a sin offering but cannot be brought in the Bais haMikdash because it is too impure.
• According to the Abarbanel, Daas Zeikinim and the Rashbam, it is symbolic.
• Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer learns that this is a bribe for Samael (some learn Azael) so he won't prosecute. Ramban adds that this was a gift to Samael and is allowed because we are simply sending a gift to one of G-d's servants.
• The Daas Zeikinim based on the Ibn Ezra, makes a connection between Azazel and a later commandment not to sacrifice to goat-demons. He learns that we destroy the goat to show how idolatry has no truth (instead of bringing it as a sacrifice)

(see our earlier posts here and here, see also this source sheet from AlHaTorah.org)

Parshas Tazria-Metzorah 5778

Why Did Elisha Get Sick?

The Haftoras of Tazria and Metzorah discuss Gehazi, the servant of Elisha and his fall from power. One of the interesting things about this is that the Talmud (Sanhedrin 107b) states that Elisha got sick three times:

1. After he cursed some youngsters and bears came out of the woods, and killed them.
2. After he pushed away Gehazi.
3. The last sickness that caused him to die.

Sefer Nachlas Shimon explains that the reason why Elisha got sick the first time was because he should have prayed for them to repent instead (like the story of Rabbi Meir and Beruriah in Mesechet Shabbos). Even though he was justified in cursing them, G-d treats the righteous by a stricter standard.

Regarding Gehazi, Sefer Nachlas Shimon cites several opinions why Elisha got sick (see here):

• Because he also cursed his sons (Ben Yehoadah)
• Because he did not go back to Gehazi after a few days and try to get him to repent (Ben Yehoadah)
• Because he cursed Gehazi with having tzaaras forever (Margilous haYam)
• Because when he used the language "forever", it sounded to Gehazi like he will never be able to repent (Shtei Lechem)

Regarding the third time, the Malbim (II Kings 13:14) cites another reason:

For Elisha anointed Hazael as the king over Aram (in accordance to the prophecy of Elijah), and prophesied about him that he would do harm to Israel, and that [decree] could not be overturned during his lifetime

(see last year''s post for why Gehazi was punished)

Why Don't We Have Tzaaras Today?

The Rambam (Tumas Tzaras 9:2-3) writes:

Even though everyone is acceptable to assess blemishes, the designation of a person as impure or pure is dependent on a priest.

What is implied? If there is a priest who does not know how to assess blemishes, a sage should observe them and instruct him: "Say 'You are impure,'" and the priest says: "You are impure;" "Say 'You are pure,'" and the priest says: "You are pure." "Isolate him," and he isolates him. The pronouncement must be made by a priest, because Deuteronomy 21:5 states: "Their statements will determine every quarrel and every blemish." Even if a priest is a minor or intellectually or emotionally incapable, the sage instructs him and he declares the person definitively impure, releases him from the inspection process, or isolates him.

When does the above apply? When the priest relies on the words of the sage. If, however, the priest assesses the blemish and relies on his own understanding, it is forbidden for him to assess any blemish unless he is instructed by a master and is thoroughly versed in all the blemishes and their names, including the blemishes that affect a person and those that affect clothes and houses.

A priest who declared a person who was pure as impure or a person who was impure as pure does not affect his status, as can be inferred from Leviticus 13:44: "He is impure and the priest shall deem him impure" and ibid.:37: "He is pure and the priest shall declare him pure." When a person who contacted tzara'at is healed, either after isolation or after having been deemed definitively impure, he remains impure even for several years,until a priest tells him: "You are pure."

It seems to imply that this requires knowledge of what tzaraas actually is, and without that knowledge it doesn't work

(See also this article that cites sources that tzaraas stopped after the Temple was destroyed)

Parshas Shemini 5778

Reasons for Kosher Laws

The Torah writes (Lev. 11:1-2):

The LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them:
Speak to the Israelite people thus: These are the creatures that you may eat from among all the land animals:

There are many reasons why we keep kosher, but they generally fall into three general categories:
1. Logical reasons such as health, not teaching cruelty, etc.
2. Mystical reasons such as damage to the soul, etc.
3. Decree without reason (חוק) - we don't eat non-kosher food, not because it is bad or tastes bad, but because G-d decreed so.

(For a list of actual reasons and additional resources, see this excellent source sheet from Ner L'Elef)
 

Passover 5778 - Part 1

Makkos Trivia

Some interesting trivia on the 10 makkos:

• Blood:
• Pharoh was not personally affected by this as a reward for letting Moshe grow up in his house (Mesecha Chochma, Midrash HaGadol, Mishnas Rabbi Eliezer). Same applied to the last Makkah (Bechoros) - Pharoh did not die while his firstborns did.
• According to some opinions, the Egyptians dug around the river to get drinking water as opposed to buying it (Ibn Ezra, see here)
• Frogs - according to some opinions these were crocodiles (Rabbeinu Chananel and Malbim, see here)
• Lice - Rashi explains that the magicians were not able to replicate these due to the way magic works (through a demon). The Ramchal also explains in his sefer Derech Hashem other ways it works (through incantation and names of Hashem).
• Plague - the death of animals also affected people who work in close contact with the animals
• Boils - some learn that this was not done through dust but through smoke (Rabbeinu Avraham ben haRambam)
• Locusts - Ibn Ezra cites an opinion that this was done through some sort of magic by having the locust tied to the staff
• Hail and Darkness - these did not last the entire 7 days like others, and the extra days were saved for later (the Sea or time of Joshua).

The Date of the Counting of the Omer
There is a famous disagreement documented between the Sadducees and the Chazal during the times of the Second Bais Hamikdash regarding counting of the Omer (this also applies to Samaritans, Karaites and other groups that don't follow the Oral Torah). The Torah tells us the following (Lev. 23:15):

And from the day on which you bring the sheaf of elevation offering—the day after the sabbath—you shall count off seven weeks. They must be complete:

The disagreement revolved around the definition of which Shabbos this referred to.  According to Chazal, this refers to the first day of Pesach, thus resulting in the counting of the Omer starting from the second night of Pesach and Shavuos being 50 days later. However, Sadducees interpret this to be the first Shabbos following the first day of Pesach with the Omer always starting on the first Sunday after the beginning of Pesach. This results in the counting of Omer and the date of Shavuos being off by as much as a week.

However, this year being that the first day of Pesach falls out on Shabbos, the counting of the Omer starts on the second night of Pesach which is Motzoi Shabbos and is the same.

(The Essenes would start counting on the Sunday after Pesach finished, and some years the date of Pesach itself would be different as well according to groups that don't follow the Oral Torah)

Parshas Tzav 5778 / Shabbos haGadol

Removing the Ashes

The Torah writes (Leviticus 6:2-4)

Command Aaron and his sons thus: This is the ritual of the burnt offering: The burnt offering itself shall remain where it is burned upon the altar all night until morning, while the fire on the altar is kept going on it. The priest shall dress in linen raiment, with linen breeches next to his body; and he shall take up the ashes to which the fire has reduced the burnt offering on the altar and place them beside the altar. He shall then take off his vestments and put on other vestments, and carry the ashes outside the camp to a clean place.

The Talmud (Pesachim 26a) explains that the ashes were forbidden:

The Sages derive from the phrase: “And he shall put them” that he may not scatter these ashes; rather, they should be placed gently. “And he shall put them” also indicates that one may not derive benefit from these ashes.

Chizkuni explains who can do it:

The absence of the word “the priest,” here is an indication that even a priest who is disqualified from performing other procedures in the Temple due to physical blemishes, may perform this procedure.

(see also Jerusalem Talmud 8:4 where a non-priest, if he removes the ashes, is not killed) 
 
and where they are taken to:

a ritually pure location” seeing that these ashes had originated in sacred precincts. This is distinct from the stones of a house whose stones were afflicted with tzoraat, which have to be removed to a ritually unclean location, a location which people carrying objects that require ritual purity may not be brought to.

Mizrachi explains it wasn't done everyday:

There is a difference between the commandment of removing the ashes and one of carrying the ashes away, for removing the ashes [from the Altar] was done everyday but carrying out was only when the amount got large

Bechor Shor explains it was done at night:

like our Rabbis explained, this is a service of the night

The Talmud (Yoma 23b) cites an opinion that only two garments of the priest are enough instead of four:

Do you have any Temple service that may be performed with only two garments rather than the full set of four vestments worn by the priests? In the Torah’s description of the garments worn to remove the ashes it says: “And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen trousers shall he put on his flesh”

Tur HaAruch adds about the clothing:

Even when engaged in just הרמת הדשן, the removal of the ash, or incompletely consumed incense, from the golden altar in the Sanctuary itself, an activity that is rated as part of the Temple service, priestly garments must be worn, though they may be of an inferior quality. There is an opinion according to which the word אחרים that we understood as “alternate, others,” but sacred garments, does not refer to inferior priestly garments, but to ordinary garments such as the ones worn by non-priests. The carrying of the ashes outside the Temple precincts was simply not considered as part of the Temple service.

The Talmud (Shabbos 114a) explains changing the clothing is honorable:

From where is it derived that changing clothes is a display of honor? As it is stated: “And he will remove his garments and will don other garments, and he will bring the ashes outside of the camp to a pure location” (Leviticus 6:4). The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The Torah taught you etiquette. The clothes in which one prepared food for his master, one does not wear to pour his master wine. Since cooking makes one’s clothes dirty, he should wear fresh clothes when serving his master.

(It is interesting to note that other times that they cleaned the Temple such as washing the floors by flooding, whitewashing the Altar, cleaning the vessels, were not considered a priestly service. We also find that the Menorah can be cleaned by a non-priest)

Parshas Vayikra 5778

The reason for Korbanos

The Torah writes (Leviticus 1:2):
Speak to the Israelite people, and say to them: When any of you presents an offering of cattle to the LORD, he shall choose his offering from the herd or from the flock.

The Rambam explains (Guide 3:32):

Many precepts in our Law are the result of a similar course adopted by the same Supreme Being. It is, namely, impossible to go suddenly from one extreme to the other: it is therefore according to the nature of man impossible for him suddenly to discontinue everything to which he has been accustomed ... But the custom which was in those days general among all men, and the general mode of worship in which the Israelites were brought up, consisted in sacrificing animals in those temples which contained certain images, to bow down to those images, and to burn incense before them; religious and ascetic persons were in those days the persons that were devoted to the service in the temples erected to the stars, as has been explained by us. It was in accordance with the wisdom and plan of God, as displayed in the whole Creation, that He did not command us to give up and to discontinue all these manners of service; for to obey such a commandment it would have been contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used; it would in those days have made the same impression as a prophet would make at present if he called us to the service of God and told us in His name, that we should not pray to Him, not fast, not seek His help in time of trouble; that we should serve Him in thought, and not by any action. For this reason God allowed these kinds of service to continue; He transferred to His service that which had formerly served as a worship of created beings, and of things imaginary and unreal, and commanded us to serve Him in the same manner

The Ramban argues (Leviticus 1:9):

Since the deeds of people are determined by thought, speech and action, God, may He be blessed, commanded that when he sins, he brings a sacrifice and place his hands upon him corresponding to the deed, and confess with his mouth corresponding to the speech, and burn the innards and the kidneys, as they are the instruments of thought and desire. And the limbs [of the sacrifice] correspond to the hands and feet of a person that does all of his work. And he sprinkles the blood on the altar corresponding to the blood of his soul, so that a person think in doing all of this that he sinned to God with his body and his soul, and it is fit for him that his blood be spilled and his body burnt; were it not for the kindness of the Creator, who took an exchange and ransom from him [in] the sacrifice - that its blood be instead of his blood and its soul be instead of his soul. 

Sforno explains (ibid 1:2):

... G’d is not interested in the fools who offer sacrificial animals if they have not first humbled themselves...By means of this symbolic act, the humility with which the owner of the sin offering is to approach G’d prior to gaining a chance of acceptance and forgiveness, has been demonstrated.

Sefer HaIkarim (3:25) explains:

Or if we say that the purpose of the sacrifices is to bring together and unite the upper powers with the lower,

Shadal (ibid 1:2) explains that these were like food and gifts given to a king