At the end of this week’s Parsha we come across an interesting story. A man, born to a Jewish mother (from the Tribe of Dan) and an Egyptian father, gets into an argument with one of the other Jews. In the course of the disagreement he pronounces the name of Hashem and curses Him. The people bring the man to Moshe and place him in jail while Moshe asks Hashem for advice. God instructs them to take the man out of the camp, to have the people who heard him curse Hashem place their hands on his head and then stone him to death.

The Midrash, filling in some gaps in the story, tells us that the argument was about whether this man was entitled to place his tent with the rest of the Tribe of Dan, since tribal association is patrilineal. The Dan-ites didn’t want this man camping with them, and are backed by Moshe, who rules that the Dan-ites have the right to not allow him in their camp. The man leaves Moshe in frustration, continues his fight with someone else in the camp, and ultimately curses God.

This Midrash is quite hard to understand. Even if Dan wasn’t obligated count the blasphemer as a member of their tribe, wouldn’t it still have been a good gesture to allow him to stay there? He didn’t really have anywhere else to go, as he surely didn’t belong to any of the other tribes!

Further, even if he wasn’t a particularly nice person and they were justified in not wanting him around, why did the Jew allow the blasphemer to pick a fight with him? It was surely possible for them to handle this situation without getting drawn into one-on-one quarrels with him, and the man’s temper would not have flared to the point of cursing Hashem. There seems, however, to be no criticism levied against Dan or the man who argued with the blasphemer.

Rashi (citing a different Midrash) makes a very insightful comment when analyzing the punishment given. What is the point of having the people who witnessed the event place their hands on the blasphemer’s head? We don’t see this action in other places that stoning is discussed. Rashi says that they placed their hands on his head to tell him “דמך בראשך ואין אנו נענשים במיתתך שאתה גרמת לך” (“Your blood is on your own head! We are not to be punished for your death, for you brought this upon yourself!”).

The lesson here is clear. This is man who comes from a broken family, who was pushed around by the people he considered the members of his Tribe and was provoked further by another individual. Yet ultimately he alone is responsible for his actions and must take full responsibility for them.

How many times do we blame our circumstances for mistakes we make?

Shabbat Shalom and have a great Lag BaOmer!

This Shabbat is the 25th day of the Omer. We are exactly half way from Pesach to Shavuot.

Acharei Mot, the first part of today’s double feature, is a “bloody” Parsha. It instructs Aaron on the use of blood in the sacrificial rituals, as a pathway to purity and atonement. At the same time it places an absolute prohibition on eating blood (Lev 17:10): “I (G-d) will direct my anger against the person who eats blood and cut him off from among his people.” The Torah considers eating nonkosher meat to be bloodshed, and in fact the provision of kosher meat does serve to connect people to the Jewish community – it is the one part of a kosher diet we simply cannot grow on our own.

Finally, the Parsha prohibits incestuous marriages and relationships between certain blood relatives. Vayikra (Leviticus) chapter 18 lists many forbidden matings, and the Oral Torah supplies an additional secondary list as a fence around the Torah.

One of the prohibited relationships is with a woman who is married (to someone else!). However, even a woman who is single, divorced or widowed may be a forbidden relative. If she is married, then the man who has an affair with her is guilty on both counts. Further, this Parsha forbids homosexual relationships, and then specifies an additional offense if one has this relationship with one’s own father or uncle.

Among others, a man may not marry or even make a sexual advance to his mother or stepmother (even after his father’s death), his daughter or daughter-in-law, his sister, half-sister or sister-in-law (even after his brother’s death – except in the special case where his brother died childless, in which case he may have to marry her or perform the ceremony of chalitza to release her). A man may not marry a sister of his ex-wife while his first wife is still alive, and he may not ever marry the daughter or mother of his first wife

Verse 6 of chapter 18 begins with a repeated word, Ish ish (literally, a man, a man – or, any man), followed by a plural verb, tikrevu. The plural teaches us that women and men are equally obligated to observe these prohibitions. The repetition of Ish indicates that the mitzvah is commanded to all humans, and is included among the mitzvahs of Noah. Bereishit (Genesis) chapter 5, with all its “begats,” shows that the early generations knew who the father of a child was. This marital morality later broke down, provoking G-d to bring the Flood.

In today’s reading, the Torah describes itself as a way of life (Lev 18:5): “Observe my statutes and judgments by which a person who observes them may live.” On Yom Kippur, when we “reset” our spiritual compass, the service includes both the sacrifices (during Musaf) and the forbidden unions (during the Mincha Torah reading). This highlights the importance of both types of mitzvot in a Jewish lifestyle: “bein Adam laMakom” (between man and the Omnipresent) and “bein Adam lechavero” (between man and his fellow) – or perhaps this week, “bein Adam lechaverato” (between a man and his girl-friend)!

Why are unions between close relatives off-limits? Some may believe it is to prevent genetic disorders caused by inbreeding. However, a study of the details shows this is clearly not the reason. Genetic risks are not increased when marrying a stepmother, a sister-in-law, or the wife of one’s uncle, whom the Torah defines as an aunt (dodah). Also, the Torah prohibits a marriage of an aunt and nephew but not an uncle and niece, although these are genetically equivalent.

Ramban suggests that the forbidden relatives are so close in kinship that they will probably often be present in the family home. We are instructed to conduct ourselves in a way that contains our impulses, protects the family and preserves boundaries. The honor a man shows to his aunt or stepmother should be that of an elder, not that of a wife.

Besides avoiding a kinship relationship between a man and woman in a couple, the Torah apparently also wants to avoid kinship connections between two people who will share one partner. The rivalry of two sisters who have had the same husband may interfere with their sisterly love. A woman who has been married to two brothers or a father and son, and a man who has married both a mother and a daughter, may be tempted to compare them because of their resemblance to each other.

One reason the Torah states for observing these mitzvahs is simply, “I am G-d.” As G-d’s chosen people (chosen to receive the Torah), we are under contract to strive for kedusha (holiness).

The text itself advises us not to imitate the Egyptians and Canaanites who commonly indulged in all the forbidden practices listed, but Rashi explains that being different is not the purpose of the mitzvah. We are expected to avoid specifically those of their practices considered by G-d to be an abomination.

While on the subject of abominations, the Torah interrupts the list of forbidden matings to warn us against child sacrifice as practiced by followers of the idol Molech. This abomination combines two of the three cardinal sins – murder and idolatry; sexual transgressions are the third cardinal sin. Idolatry is also seen as a metaphor for marital infidelity – like “having an affair” with a false god.

Another reason the Torah states for these mitzvahs, appropriate for us to remember in this week of Yom Ha’atzmaut, is that the forbidden acts of perversion defile the Land of Israel, and interfere with our duty to the Land. We are taught that the Promised Land itself has kedusha, and will vomit us out if we commit these sins, as it vomited out the Canaanites before us because of their immorality.

In the haftarah, Ezekiel 22:1-19, the prophet chastises us for the same sins mentioned in the Torah portion, warning that our days in the Land will be numbered if we continue to sin. Just four years later, the prophecy came true, the Temple was destroyed and we were exiled to Babylon. The haftorah ends on a hopeful note, assuring us that eventually, “I (G-d) will gather you into the midst of Jerusalem.” The haftarah blessings ask G-d to help us give joy or nachas to the Land, m’sameach Zion b’vaneha.

Footnote: Some “Points of Pronunciation” from this week’s reading (Ref: The Ohs and Ahs of Torah Reading, by Rivka Sherman-Gold, www.yodanco.com).

Vayikra 16:1, be-kor-va-tam and yo-o-mad-chai. 16:12, chof-nav. 17:4, kor-ban. 17:14, kol-och-lav. 18:20 and 18:23, she-chov-te-cha and le-tom-ah-va (mispronouncing this word changes the meaning). 19:6, oo-mi-mo-cho-rat. 19:20, ve-hof-dei. 19:23, or-la-to. 19:31, le-tom-ah. 20:3, kod-shi. 20:1, she-chov-to.

Ezekiel 22:4, le-tom-ah. 22:6 and 9 and 12, she-foch-dam. 22:8, ko-da-shai (opinions vary for this word).

Prepared in 2004 for the EDOS parsha project in Denver.

MatzaAs Sefer Vayikra begins, we are all keenly aware that Pesach is approaching and the smell of cleaning products is in the air.  We have just completed Sefer Shmot with a month of Torah readings describing the construction of the Mishkan and now we begin to read about all the different Korbanot offered therein.

One of the categories of Korbanot is the Mincha offerings. These offerings are all different flour offerings, and just like on Pesach, chametz (leavening) is forbidden  in them. In describing the prohibition for having chametz in the Mincha, the Torah says:

כָּל-הַמִּנְחָה, אֲשֶׁר תַּקְרִיבוּ לַיהוָה–לֹא תֵעָשֶׂה, חָמֵץ: כִּי כָל-שְׂאֹר וְכָל-דְּבַשׁ, לֹא-תַקְטִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ אִשֶּׁה לַיהוָה.

Every Mincha offering that you bring before Hashem should not be chametz, because all leavening and all honey should not be burnt as a fire offering to Hashem

Yet, I have never seen honey on any of the “not Kosher for Pesach” lists. Why would the Torah use honey as an example of chametz, when we know from experience that it is allowed on Pesach?

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch says that in order to understand this verse, we need to understand what the difference in practice was in the Temple between leavening and honey, as well as what they are meant to represent.

First, the practical difference: When bringing a Mincha offering, chametz was forbidden both in the portion brought on the Mizbeach (altar) as well as the shirayim (left-overs) which were eaten by the Kohanim and the people. With the honey, however, they were permitted to put honey on the matza they ate, they just couldn’t put honey on the sacrificial dough.

Second, what the leavening and honey represent: As we know from the story of Pesach, Matza represents subjugation to another authority. When we were slaves in Egypt we were only allowed to eat the Bread of Affliction. Our eating of Matza in the Korbanot and on Pesach shows our appreciation to Hashem for having removed our yoke of servitude to the Egyptians – replacing it with the ability (and obligation) to serve the Divine. We show that we recognize that if not for the hand of Hashem אָנוּ וּבָנֵינוּ וּבְנֵי בָנֵינוּ מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים הָיִינוּ לְפַרְעֹה בְּמִצְרַיִם (we would all still be slave to Pharaoh in Egypt).

The honey, on the other hand, represents national sovereignty over the Land of Israel (as in “a land flowing with milk and honey”). Honey is a luxury, only acquired when one has a continuous presence in a land undisturbed by ravaging intruders. By refraining from sacrificing the honey, we acknowledge that our right to the excesses of the land is granted by the same mandate that took us out of Egypt. Only by properly serving Hashem do we retain the right to stay in the land and by choosing to burn the honey on the altar we would be showing that the goodness  is due to the work of our own hands.

With these explanations in mind, we can now understand why leavening is entirely forbidden, while honey is only forbidden on the Mizbeach. Hashem has blessed us with the Land of Israel and expects and desires us to benefit from the goodness it provides. We are supposed to enjoy the honey and use it to enhance our food. At the same time, we are supposed to remind ourselves when bringing those sacrifices where all that good comes from.

On the other hand, the leavening is teaching us to be constantly aware that Hashem did not free us from the slavery of Egypt to do whatever we want. We are here for a reason and must always be aware of our obligation to Hashem.

Note: Honey is NOT chametz and is allowed on Pesach – with a Kosher for Pesach certification.

In this week’s parsha, the Torah discusses the laws of eved ivri – a Jew who is sold as an indentured servant to another Jew. If a man steals and cannot afford to pay restitution, he is sold into slavery for up to 6 years. Alternatively, a man can voluntarily, because of severe poverty, choose to sell himself as a slave. After 6 years, he is freed but can choose to stay with his master and continue to be a slave. If he chooses not to go free, he is taken to the Jewish court of law where his ear is pierced, after which he remains a slave until the yovel year, which occurs every 50 years.

Rashi[1] quotes the Gemara in Kiddushin, “let the ear that heard at Mt. Sinai ‘lo tignov – do not steal’, yet went and stole, be pierced. If he sold himself into slavery, let the ear that heard ‘ki li B’nei Yisrael Avadim – Israel shall be servants to Me (God)’ be pierced.”

If we pierce his ear as a punishment for stealing or for selling himself into slavery, why do we not pierce his ear immediately when he stole or sold himself? Why do we wait until 6 years later, when the slave decides that he does not want to go free?

The Kli Yakar[2] explains that Jewish law does not punish someone twice for the same offense. At the time of the theft, the punishment was to either pay restitution or to be sold into slavery. Now, six years later, the eved ivri shows that slavery was not a true punishment for him. In fact, he enjoyed it so much that he now wants to stay for up to 50 more years. His original offense then remains unpunished and piercing his ear serves as that punishment.

Rav Shimon Schwab[3] offers a different explanation. He argues that the sins deserving of piercing an ear (theft and selling oneself into slavery) were not actually committed until the point that the slave decides to renounce his freedom. When it says in the 10 commandments, “lo tignov­ – do not steal,” this refers specifically to “stealing souls,” i.e.  kidnapping. (The prohibition on monetary theft appears later.) The concept of “ki li B’nei Yisrael Avadim – Israel shall be servants to God” is also inherent to the first commandment heard at Sinai, “I am Hashem, your God, who took you out of Egypt, from the house of slavery.” Kidnapping is considered theft because the kidnapper, so to speak, steals the victim’s soul from its rightful owner, Hashem. He takes a person from the freedom to serve God, and imposes human subjugation upon him. So too, when a man voluntarily, not out of poverty or legal requirement, decides to remain a slave to another person, he is, in effect, kidnapping his own soul from God. He is choosing a human master over God and is therefore culpable for violating what his “ear heard at Sinai.”

Though we do not implement the legal structure of eved ivri today, we are still susceptible to rejecting Divine authority in deference to human masters. The eved ivri reminds us to keep our Divine obligations paramount to any responsibility to humans such as professors, bosses, or sfriends .


[1] Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (1040-1105), a classic Torah commentator, who lived in France.

[2] Rabbi Shlomo Efraim of Luntchitz (1550-1619), a Torah commentator from Poland and Czechoslovakia.

[3] (1908-1995) Rabbi and communal leader in Germany and subsequently the United States.

“And Miriam the Prophetess, the sister of Aharon, took the tambourine in her hand and she went out with all the women after her in music and dancing. And Miriam answered them, “Sing to HaShem, for He is greater than the great, horse and rider He has plunged into the sea!” (Exodus 15;20-21)

After Moshe sings the Shiras HaYam (Song of the Sea) celebrating HaShem’s victory over the pursuing Egyptian army, the Torah continues and describes how Miriam and the women of Israel react to the miracle of the Splitting Sea. These two short sentences are unique in their treatment of the women of Israel as a separate entity as opposed to the more standard Torah discussion of the collective male nation-unit. Yet the verses beg some questions.

In the first place, why is Miriam here identified as “the Prophetess”? Moshe is not usually identified as “Moshe the Prophet” nor are most personalities in the Torah that we otherwise know to be prophets identified as such in the text.

Secondly, where did Miriam and her fellow women get their tambourines? Can we really assume that the Jewish people, who were in such a rush to leave Egypt that they could not even wait for their dough to rise and hence made matzos instead of bread, had time to collect their musical instruments while leaving? And what were enslaved women doing with tambourines anyhow?

Thirdly, were the women singing and dancing in full view of the men? How is that considered modest?

Fourthly, the Hebrew language, unlike English, is a gendered language with different word forms for male and female verbs and nouns. The Hebrew words for “and Miriam answered them” are “Vata’an lahem Miriam” – “lahem,” meaning “to them,” is here rendered in the masculine plural form. If Miriam was speaking to the Jewish women, why did she use the male form of the verb and not the female?

The Kli Yakar, a sixteenth century scholar appointed to the Chief Rabbinate of Prague after the death of the Maharal, has some interesting things to say on these two verses that both explain and intensify our original four questions. Miriam, he says, is known as “the Prophetess” here because this is the moment when she finally reached the level of prophecy. First she reached this great spiritual level and then all the women of Israel followed suit. At the point where the women are singing and dancing with Miriam to God, they are all prophetesses! This is indicated in the Rabbis’ observation in the Mechilta that “even a maidservant at the Sea saw more of God’s Shechinah than the great prophet Yechezkel.”

Yet the Kli Yakar wonders why it is noteworthy that all the Jewish women received the gift of prophecy at the splitting of the sea. Did it never happen before? Indeed, he explains that the gift of prophecy can only rest amidst simcha. Simcha is commonly translated as happiness, but really implies a more spiritual tranquility than the simple English word connotes. Because of the pain of childbirth that all women collectively share, no woman had ever been happy enough to receive prophecy from God.

The observation is interesting, even disturbing, but also seemingly inaccurate. We know that the matriarch Sarah was a prophetess; in addition, she is included in the list of the seven most prominent prophetesses of biblical times, thus implying that she was not the only exception to this strange statement about the effect of childbirth pain on Jewish women. The Talmud in Megillah 14a states that twice as many prophets existed in the land of Israel as people who left Egypt. Now 600,000 men of census age left Egypt. That puts a minimum estimate of total Jewish prophets at over a million. Is it really statistically probably that none of those million people were women?

In order to better understand Miriam herself, as well as the Jewish women in Egypt, let us return to slavery. More than eighty years before the Exodus, Pharaoh summoned the Jewish midwives and ordered them to murder all newborn Jewish males. Mothers were faced with two choices: if they gave birth to sons, their sons would either be murdered or, if they miraculously survived, enslaved, and if they gave birth to daughters, what future would those daughters have with no Jewish males to marry? They would likely end up appropriated by the Egyptian men, raped physically and spiritually in an ancient world were women were entirely absorbed into their husband’s families and cultures.

Yet these midwives risked their lives and defied Pharaoh’s orders, purposely arriving late so that they missed their chance at killing the babies at birth as Pharaoh had ordered them to do. Both the midwives and the Jewish mothers acted courageously for years, giving birth to their children in secrecy and silence, desperately hiding their sons, continuing to procreate in the face of depressing and seemingly endless slavery. It adds much romance to the picture when we consider the Midrash that identifies Miriam herself as one of these courageous midwives.

Perhaps what the Kli Yakar is commenting on here is not the permanent and existential harshness of female existence as evidenced by the pain of childbirth, but the essential nature of femininity. The Egyptian slavery was difficult for the entire nation, true, but it was the women who were at risk of losing the children that they carried for nine months. It was the women who sacrificed to keep their marriages active (see the incident of the Kior, Rashi Exodus 28;8), the women who bolstered their husbands’ depressed spirits, and the women who defied Pharaoh’s murderous decree. The women felt the pain of slavery the most, but they also looked forward to redemption the most. They brought their musical instruments, carefully preserved and handed down through the generations, with them out of Egypt despite the rush of the Exodus, because they had complete confidence in God’s miracles. They knew HaShem would continue to protect them and therefore they took instruments of praise with them so that when the time came, they would have music with which to praise and thank God (Rashi 15;20).

The Talmud acknowledges the great role that the Jewish women played in the Exodus from Egypt when they note that it was “in the merit of the righteous women that our ancestors were redeemed from Egypt and in the merit of righteous women that we will ultimately be redeemed.” (The connection between the Exodus from Egypt and the ultimate Redemption at the end of days, particularly vis-a-vis women, will become more apparent as we delve deeper into the Kli Yakar and our understanding of these verses.)

Thus the Kli Yakar is not stating that the fact of “tzaar laidah” – the existence of childbirth pains – precludes any woman from ever becoming a prophetess. Instead, he is saying that the maternal nature inherent to women, the fact that it is only women who can have children, renders them more attuned to suffering and more able to empathize with other’s pain and with their own pain than men.

Indeed, it is the Shechinah that we speak of as being the aspect of God that is “in pain” when Israel suffers and it is the Shechinah that is the feminine representation of Godliness. HaShem is a He, but the Shechinah is a She. And it is the Shechinah that with its femininity and motherliness feels the pain of its people and its children. Women in Egypt could not bring themselves to the point of spiritual tranquility necessary for receiving prophecy because they felt their people’s pain too much, they empathized and internalized emotion too much to be able to feel true simcha. It was only at the miracle of the Sea that Miriam, the courageous midwife, was able to lead the Jewish women out of their people’s pain and into happiness and union with the Shechinah. The women’s song at the sea was feminine meeting feminine as they joined in simcha with the Shechinah manifestation of God and finally merited the spiritual high of prophecy.

The Kli Yakar is then explaining as well why the Torah here uses the masculine verb form “vata’an lahem Miriam” to describe Miriam’s address to the women. It is only at this point in the Exodus that the women are able to shed their pain and put their far-seeing belief in HaShem’s salvation into practice. Their femininity and empathy no longer gets in the way of their ability to connect to God on a simcha level, therefore the Torah highlights this by using a masculine verb form for the collective women of Israel rather than a feminine verb form.

“So it will be at the end of days,” concludes the Kli Yakar, “as it says [in Yirmiyahu 31;22] “and the woman will encircle the man…” The Kli Yakar’s conclusion here answers our final unanswered question vis-a-vis the women’s modesty in dancing in public. The idea of women encircling men at the end of days, meaning the time before Mashiach, is a general indication of the different sort of existence that will occur immediately preceding the ultimate redemption. The music and dancing of the women at the Sea is linked to the ultimate encircling of men by women at the end of days by Rashi himself, who explains that the women were dancing “circle dances” in their celebration at the Sea. Kabbalistically, a circle is the most spiritual of all shapes as there is no one point that can be closer to the center than any other point. It implies ultimate equality of humanity before God, as all people equally encircle God’s central point in the dance of spirituality (The Moon’s Lost Light). Hence the traditional Jewish folk dances being circle dances.

Yirmiyahu’s prophecy implies that in our imperfect world before the coming of Mashiach, women and men are unequal. Yet as the world approaches the end of days, we will start righting ourselves by slowly equalizing the disparity between men and women. The circle dances of the women at the Sea preempted the spiritual and social equality of the end of days, making the women of equal prophetic level with the men and suspending the sexually imposed ideas and standards of modesty, thus allowing the women to dance and sing publicly in pure spiritual gratefulness and communion with HaShem.

(I got this Dvar Torah from HaRav Menachem Leibtag Shlita)
400 years before the Exodus of Egypt, the city of Sdom was celebrating Pesach. According to Rashi, Lot served his guests matzot on Pesach.
Flash forward a couple of parshiot and we are in Sefer Shmot. Moshe speaks to the sneh (burning bush). During that encounter, Hashem gives Moshe two missions.
1.Get Pharaoh to allow the Jewish people to worship Hashem in the desert.
2.To have the Jewish people to recognize that Hashem has come to fulfill his covenant.

The first nine plagues don’t mention any instruction to the Jews. The focus is on the confrontation between Moshe and Pharaoh – or really Hashem and Egypt. The purpose of the first nine plagues is: “v’yadu MITZRAIM ki Ani Hashem” – “And EGYPT will recognize that I am Hashem, when I stretch my hand over Egypt…” (7:5) The first nine plagues are all part of mission 1.

A covenant by nature is two sided. Hashem must follow His promise and take the Jewish people out of Egypt and into Israel, and in turn the Jewish people must show loyalty and servitude to Hashem. During the first nine plagues, Hashem has no problem differentiating the Jews from the Egyptians, but when it come to makkat bechorot, the Jewish people are instructed to smear the blood of the Korban Pesach on their door posts. Hashem in His ultimate perfection doesn’t need the Jewish people to put blood on their door posts so He’ll know which homes are not Egyptian. So why make us do it?

A change of lifestyle, especially that of a nation, cannot be done overnight. If the Jews began their teshuva process prior to the first plague, as Hashem had demanded, they could have been ready for the ideal redemption process. Had we been worthy, the blood on the door posts may not have been necessary. Now that Hashem was about to reveal Himself b’shem Havaya they deserve to be punished with the Egyptians, but Hashem has mercy. (Yechezkel 20:7-9) The fact that Hashem PASSED OVER their homes emphasizes this point- they deserved to be punished with the Egyptians, but Hashem saved them in the last minute.
The Korban Pesach has a dual purpose:
1.The Jewish people recognize that they do not deserve to be saved
2.Offering the Korban Pesach in thanksgiving of Brit Ben Habetarim reminds them that if they are saved, it is in order that they can fulfill the next stage of the covenant → to become His special nation in the Promised Land.

According to pshat, Lot baked matzot instead of bread because his guests came suddenly. Rashi’s drash, that Lot baked matzot because of Pesach thematically links the events leading to the destruction of Sdom to Yetziat Mitzraim. In both events Hashem reveals Himself b’shem Havaya – in Judgement.

Rashi’s commentary point to a deeper biblical theme, that of ‘Yom Hashem’. Yom Hashem is known throughout Tana”ch as the day when Hashem reveals Himself, causing the wicked to be punished , and the righteous to be saved. Yom Hashem is Hashem’s day of judgement.
We see that it is necessary to do teshuva before redemption, otherwise Hashem’s revelation will lead to destruction.
KOS SHEL ELIYAU- The redemption process began with the Jewish people not deserving salvation, but it continued with receiving the Torah and inheriting Israel – which require spiritual readiness. The Korban Pesach was the “first step” in the right direction.

Every year on Pesach, we thank Hashem for the fulfillment of Brit ben Habetarim (Magid) and pray for redemption (Hallel/ Nirtza). Before that prayer, we invite Eliyahu HaNavi to our seder table. This is the same Eliyahu promised to us by Malachi- to remind us that we must do proper teshuva prior to redemption, and warn us of the consequences if we don’t.

Shabbat Shalom u’mevorach!!

וַיִּפֶן כֹּה וָכֹה, וַיַּרְא כִּי אֵין אִישׁ; וַיַּךְ, אֶת-הַמִּצְרִי, וַיִּטְמְנֵהוּ, בַּחוֹל

“And he turned, this way and that and he saw that there was no person. He struck the Egyptian and buried him in the sand.” (Shemos 2:12)

This pasuk occurs after Moshe has left the luxury of Pharoah’s home and goes to see how his Jewish brethren are fairing as slaves. When he sees an Egyptian man beating a Jew, he is unable to bear the injustice and kills him. I have two questions about this pasuk: 1. Since Moshe Rabinu would not have killed someone without them deserving that punishment, why is he looking around to see if anyone will spot him? This type of cautious behavior is usually indicative of someone who is acting inappropriately, and fears he will be caught. Why should Moshe fear someone witnessing his actions when he is killing for just reasons?  2. The Torah never says that the Egyptian died; rather, it just says that he was struck and then he was buried. Is there an explanation for this omission?

The first question is answered by Rashi. He states that וַיַּרְא כִּי אֵין אִישׁ means that Moshe perceived through רוח הקודש (divine insight) that there was no one among this man’s (possible) descendants would convert to Judaism. The Targum of Yonatan ben Uziel* gives a more poetic description: “Moshe gazed into his knowledge of the future, and carefully examined each generation: there would not survive from this Egyptian a person would convert…”  Therefore, Moshe’s wasn’t afraid of being caught, rather, the Torah is telling us that he carefully examined the Egyptian’s lineage to ensure that no Jews would be lost if he died.

While this addresses the “sneakiness” problem, none of the מפרשים (commentators) address the second question of why the Torah doesn’t say outright that the Egyptian died. Rashi’s comment on the previous pasuk however sheds light on this issue: Rashi explains that the Egyptian had, the previous night, committed a terrible sin (raping the wife of the Jewish man he was beating). The Egyptian, having realized that the husband knew what he had done, was now driving him to exhaustion and (hopefully) his death. It is an well-known idea that רשעים, those who use their potential solely for the bad, aren’t truly alive in this world. While they are alive in terms of breathing and having a pulse, they are not really living: they are not using their energies to grow and serve Hashem. This could be the reason why the Torah omits וימות (and he died); since, being a רשע גמר (completely evil person), he wasn’t spiritually alive when his physical body died.

In our generation, in Jewish law, we no longer enact the death penalty or even corporal punishment. In fact, we are not allowed to make even mental judgments or determinations about others which cast them in a bad light. We make every effort to judge for the good, even concocting bizarre stories to that effect. So what is to be learned from this incident, where an Moshe Rabinu judged another and acted upon it immediately? Perhaps the lesson is that only someone like Moshe Rabinu, someone with רוח הקודש is in a position to do that. Anyone lacking רוח הקודש  is by necessity missing crucial parts of the picture (i.e. what the person’s motivations are? what is Hashem attempting to achieve by this situation?) and thus unable to accurately judge someone. While we still have the right to hold others accountable for their actions, we cannot approach rebuke with the undue sanctimony that we completely understand the situation and its background/ramifications.

Credit: Mechon Mamre for the Hebrew text and Chabad Rashi for Rashi-help.

*This translation was made possible by the similarity of the Aramaic roots to the Hebrew.

Parshat VaYigash serves as the climax of the last few weeks of parshiot, wherein Yosef is finally reunited with his brothers and with Yaakov 22 years after being sold away to slavery.

There is a famous question asked about Yosef’s actions during these 22 years. Why didn’t Yosef try and contact his father to let Yaakov know that he was still alive? Even if Yosef didn’t have the ability as a slave or in jail during the first portion of his time in Egypt, he certainly had the ability to contact Yaakov when he was regent of Egypt? How could he have allowed his father to suffer more emotional pain than necessary?

The Ohr HaChaim comes to Yosef’s rescue. He quotes the Gemarrah in Brachot (33b) where it says “נוח לו לאדם שיפיל עצמו לתוך כבשן האש ואל ילבין פני חברו ברבים – it should be more agreeable to a person that he throw himself into a fiery furnace than embarrass others in public.” This is why Yosef first cleared the Egyptian court of all visitors before revealing himself to his brothers and why Yosef allowed the brothers the opportunity to break the news to Yaakov on their own terms.

In addition, Yosef needed the opportunity to show the brothers in practical terms that he harbored no hard feelings by giving them gifts during their two trips to Egypt.  Rashi explains that when Yosef says “וְהִנֵּה עֵינֵיכֶם רֹאוֹת, וְעֵינֵי אָחִי בִנְיָמִין – And, behold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother Binyamin” that Yosef is telling the brothers that just as Binyamin had no part in the sale of Yosef and no negative feelings are harbored against him, so too Yosef feels no ill will towards his other brothers.

The brothers on the other hand needed the opportunity to properly repent from the sale of Yosef. The Rambam in Hilchot Teshuva says that teshuva gemurah (complete teshuva) is only achieved when someone has the opportunity to do the same sin previously committed, yet conquers the temptation. Yosef orchestrates the whole brothers-in-Egypt story to make sure that the brothers have the same chance to get rid of Binyamin as they had with Yosef.

Both of these aspects are important lessons in how true peace is made. The victim must show that he not only forgives the one who has harmed him, but cares about them as well. The victimizer, on the other hand, must accept responsibility for what he has done wrong and repent in full, thus proving that he truly regrets what he has done wrong.

After the brothers have had their opportunity to repent and Yosef successfully reveals himself to his brothers, the brothers are finally called “Bnei Yisrael” instead of “Bnei Yaakov” for the first time. Only now are they able to join together as the founders of the nation of Israel rather than merely a collection of Yaakov’s sons.

In life we all have situations where we have done wrong and been wronged. May we learn the lesson of Yosef and his brothers and realize that by showing care and compassion to those around us can overcome even the most egregious wrongdoings.

One of the famous stories of Channukah is that of Channah, who instructed her seven sons to be killed rather than bow down to Antiochus. Jews, even now, have a very strong aversion to bowing, and are often perturbed when visiting countries in the Far East, or participating in martial arts, where bowing is used as a formal greeting.

When the ten brothers go down to Egypt and meet Pharaoh’s vizier (Yosef) to buy food, however, they all bow down to him. Where was the brothers’ Jewish pride? Was it even an aveirah for them to have bowed down? What’s more, Rashi’s explanation makes things worse. He explains here that it was a complete, full-body bow, with arms and legs spread out. (Ber. 42:6).

To see if Rashi had any consistent thoughts on Jews bowing down to other people, I checked his commentary on a number other instances where similar situations occur: Yaakov bowing down to Eisav, Avraham bowing down to the Children of Heth, and Moshe bowing down to Yisro.

Where Yaakov and his entire family bow down to Eisav upon their return to Canaan (Ber. 33:3, 33:6-7), Rashi says nothing.

When Avraham bows down to the Children of Heth (Ber. 23:7, 23:12), Rashi also says nothing, despite the fact that there is a Midrash Rabbah which comes to explain that he bowed to thank Hashem for the good news (that a burial ground for Sarah could be purchased), and was not, in fact, bowing to the Children of Heth. This is particularly striking, since Rashi clearly demonstrated his awareness of this very Midrash by quoting it to explain why Eliezer bowed down to Hashem after Lavan and Bethuel allowed Rivka to go with him (Ber. 24:52).

When Yisro comes to meet Moshe, the pasuk is not completely clear who bows to whom.

“וַיֵּצֵא מֹשֶׁה לִקְרַאת חֹתְנוֹ וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ וַיִּשַּׁק לוֹ וַיִּשְׁאֲלוּ אִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ לְשָׁלוֹם וַיָּבֹאוּ הָאֹהֱלָה ”
(Ex. 18:7)

Even though Rashi could have easily opted to have Yisro bow down to Moshe, Rashi admits that he doesn’t know who bowed to whom, and then volunteers his suggestion that it was Moshe who bowed down to Yisro!

Despite my initial surprise, Rashi appears to express no concern about Jews in the Chumash bowing to others in greeting.

If bowing to people per se is not a problem, what was the reason behind Channah’s refusal to bow down to Antiochus? The difference was that Antiochus forced the Jews to bow down to him as part of a policy of establishing idolatry and eradicating the Jewish religion. He set himself up as a god to be worshipped instead of G-d.

In answering the question of why Mordechai refused to bow down to Haman, Rashi explains that Mordechai’s refusal was justified because Haman had set himself up as a god to be worshipped. Given the analogous situation with Antiochus, Rashi could very well have agreed with Channah’s decision in the terrible choice she faced.

In Massechet Shabbat (22a), the Gemarrah records a debate between Rav and Shmuel whether or not one can use an already lit Chanukkah candle to light another one of the candles. Rav says that one cannot light another candle, while Shmuel permits it.

In analyzing this debate, the Gemarrah wants to know the reason for Rav’s prohibition. If the reason is Bizzui Mitzvah (disgracing the Mitzvah) there would be no prohibition against lighting one Chanukkah candle from another, as both candles are being used for a Mitzvah. According to Rav, the only prohibition would be lighting another non-Chanukkah candle from the Chanukkah candles.

If, however, the reason is because of Acchushei Mitzvah (diminishing the Mitzvah), Rav would even prohibit lighting from one Chanukkah candle to another.

Practical experience makes the second understanding of Rav to be quite difficult to understand. We know that lighting one candle from another does not cause the first candle to burn any less bright or for a shorter period of time. If so, how could the Gemarrah suggest that Rav might prohibit lighting another candle from the Chanukkah candles for this reason?

Rashi comes to the rescue with an amazing explanation of what Acchushei Mitzvah means. Rashi says that by lighting one candle from another you “appear as if you are saving the flame and pouring off some of the bad oil.”

Even though you are the one lighting the Chanukkah candles, and you know that you are not intending to pour off any of the extra oil, the Gemarrah is still concerned about how taking one of the lights and tilting it over appears.

If appearances are so important in an area like this, where it seems to be obvious that you aren’t doing anything wrong, then we need to be even more careful in other areas of our life! We need to make sure as we walk down the street and when we conduct our business that we are living our lives impeccably.

May the light of the Chanukkah candles inspire us to live our lives as a true Ohr laGoyim – a light unto the nations.

© 2010 myDvar.com Suffusion WordPress theme by Sayontan Sinha