Honestly, Miraculously: Parashas Chayei Sarah

Posted on November 8, 2012 by tasteofyeshiva

 Taste of Parasha

“He removed the bindings from the camels” (Genesis 24:32).  Who removed which bindings?  According to Rashi, Eliezer, the servant of Avraham, removed the muzzles of his camels.  The camels had muzzles on them in order to stop them from grazing in others fields.  The Ramban disagrees.  The Talmud in tractate Chulin (7b) tells us about the miraculous way in which the donkey of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair would not eat any grain that did not belong to R’ Pinchas even without being muzzled.   Could it be, asks the Ramban, that Avraham Avinu did not merit such miracles with his camels?  Therefore, the Ramban says the camels of Avraham did not have muzzles!  It was actually saddles that were removed; and, it was Lavan, who came from the family of Avraham, who removed them.  He was helping his guest by taking care of the camels.   The Re’eim defends Rashi’s opinion.  He explains that in a place where the preponderance of grain was not their own they could not rely on a miracle.

Taste of Talmud and Halacha

The Talmud in Tractate Bava Metzia (21b) discusses the case of objects that were washed away by a raging sea (i.e. hurricane Sandy). There is a consensus between all of the Ammoraim that when an owner watches his objects being swept away by such a severe storm that he does not expect to get them back.  This is true even if the objects have identification on them.  The terminology that is used is, “Rachmana Sharya,” The Merciful One (in His Torah) permits it.  Where is this idea conveyed in the Torah? The Torah says that a lost object must be returned.  The terminology used is when a lost object is lost, “Mi’menu” (from him)… you must return it to your friend (the owner).  Why is it necessary to add the word Mi’ menu?  From here the Talmud derives that a lost object only needs to be returned if it is lost in a manner that it is likely to be found by others.  If it is lost in a manner that it is inaccessible to all, such as when it is swept away to sea, you do not need to return it to its owner (even if you happen to come across it). What is the Halacha if someone finds an object of minimal value without any identifiable features?  There is one opinion in the Gemara (Rava) that the object in this scenario is also permitted to be kept by the finder. The Ritva compares this case to the case of the raging sea because here too there is no way for the owner to recover it.  The question is: In this case, the object is accessible to others; so, why would the finder be allowed to keep it?  Rabbi Shimon Shkopp explains this opinion by saying that the Sages realized that items of minimal value without a sign are abandoned by their owners.  The owners are happy to have someone else derive benefit from them.  We do not follow this opinion.  We follow the opinion of Abayei that unless we know that the owner relinquished his ownership from an object knowingly, you may not derive benefit from an object that is not yours.

This week’s issue is dedicated as a merit for all those who have suffered losses due to Hurricane Sandy.

Click here to read an article about the “Great Needs in Far-Rockaway”.

Donations may be made on line to: www.achiezer.org

Posted in Chayei Sora | Comments Off on Honestly, Miraculously: Parashas Chayei Sarah

Akeidas Yitzchak – Emunas Chachamim

Posted on November 1, 2012 by tasteofyeshiva

Taste of Parasha

How did Avraham Avinu have the strength to pass all of his difficult tests?  Following the test of Akeidas Yitzchak, G-d tells Avraham, “Now I know that you have Yirah (Genesis 22:12).”   Yirah is commonly translated as fear.  It is clear that Avraham Avinu’s actions and devotion to G-d were motivated by more than simply fear.  Fear of G-d does not engender the alacrity which he showed in going to perform the Akeida.  Fear does not engender a devotion that is able to conquer all of the wily gesticulations of the Yetzer Horah.  Rabbi Y. Y. Kanievsky Zt”l explains that Yirah in this case refers to a properly developed appreciation of the awesome glory of G-d.  This engenders a steadfast, humble, and loving devotion to not only follow the word of G-d but to seek out ways of making a Nachas Ruach, of pleasing G-d.  Is there any way for us to reach a level of appreciation of G-d?  The Sifri (Eikev chap. 49) says, “If you desire to recognize the creator of the world, learn the words of Aggadah”.  Rav Kanievsky explains that this means we must delve into the words of our sages to engender within ourselves a strong Yiras Shamayim. Listening to the Drashos of our Rav and Davening with Kavanah, he says, are also good ways of coming to Yiras Shamayim.  In this way, we too, will be able to stand strong in our tests.

 

Taste of Talmud and Halacha

Even a Prophet who has proven himself to be a true Prophet of G-d is not allowed to permanently annul a law of the Torah.  A prophet is allowed to make an exception to a Biblical law for temporary purposes only.  This is called a Horaas Sha’a (temporary injuncture) (Yevamos 90 b).  On Mount Carmel, Eliyahu merely made a temporary injunction.  Even then, the Prophet must explain the necessity of his actions.  For example, Eliyahu Hanavi explained to the nation why he was offering a sacrifice outside of the Temple.  In this case, it was because it was imperative to immediately disprove the idol worshippers of Ba’al.  Avraham Avinu did not explain to Yitzchak the reason why human sacrifice was being commanded.  Why was a 36 year old, Yitzchak, obligated to allow his father to transgress one of the seven Noachide laws: Do not murder.  Rabbi Fishel Schreiber quotes the words of the Shnei Halechem who says that prior to the giving of the Torah, a Prophet of the caliber of Avraham Avinu actually had the ability to add on to or detract from the accepted laws based on a command from G-d.  Avraham Avinu told Yitzchak that he had received a direct command from G-d that sacrificing Yitzchak was desired by G-d and was not wanton murder.  For Avraham Avinu this was a test of his Love of G-d.  For Yitzchak this was a test of his emunas chachamim, trust in the words of the sages.  The Chasam Sofer (Responsa OC: 208) writes that Avraham Avinu’s test here was akin to accepting the written law while Yitzchak’s test was akin to accepting the oral law.  The latter is the more difficult of the two.  It is for this reason that this event is forever remembered by the name of Yitzchak: Akeidas Yitzchak.  We learn from here that a human can achieve a level of complete connection to G-d while still alive by being wise enough to sacrifice himself and everything that he holds dear to G-d.  From the events of the Purim story, we see how difficult it is to accept the concept of the word of our sages being paramount to the words of G-d.  It was only after the Jews saw how correct Mordechai had been in dealing with Haman that they as a nation willingly accepted the concept of following the advice of our Sages.  We are fortunate to have a rich history that gives us the knowledge of the value of our Sages so that we can work on acting upon this valuable asset.

 

This week’s issue is dedicated L’Iluy Nishmas:

Moreinu HaRav Klonamis Kalman ben R’ Shmuel Zt”l

By: The Community

Have A Great Shabbos!!

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Akeidas Yitzchak – Emunas Chachamim

Maaseh Avos Simman La’ Banim

Posted on October 25, 2012 by tasteofyeshiva

Taste of Prophecy

“And Avraham walked through the land until the place of Shechem.  And Avraham dug wells, and there was a famine in the land and Avraham went down to Mitzrayim”, etc., etc.  The Ramban asks, “What is to be learned from all of these seemingly unimportant details?”  The Ramban answers by saying that herein lays a major principle conveyed by our sages in a short phrase:  Maaseh Avos Simman La’banim: The actions of the Fathers are a sign for the Children.  There are a number of lessons included in this pithy statement.  The Ramban writes that all of these detailed events are ways of solidifying a prophecy.  For example, when G-d tells Avraham that his descendants will go down to Egypt and leave with abundant wealth this is concretized by having Avraham go through that same process on a smaller scale.  The Ran (In the second of his Drashos in Drashos Ha’Ran) asks a question on this approach.  The Prophets are replete with prophesies for good and bad that were canceled due to the sins or repentance of those involved.  Could it be that because the event was mimicked by our forefathers that our actions would not change the fulfillment of the Prophecy?  The Ran does entertain an approach that these actions of our forefathers were only choreographed to concretize prophesies which were so crucial to the Jewish nation that in truth they would not be effected by future actions.  The Ran himself explains the idea of Maaseh Avos Simman La’banim in another way.  In order to understand his approach we need to have a taste of Talmud and Halacha.    The Talmud in Sanhedrin (89b) says: There is a positive commandment in the Torah to listen to the words of a prophet this is derived from the verse, “Eilav Tishmaun” (to him you shall listen).  The Talmud explains that there is an exception to this rule.  A prophet cannot contradict the words of the Torah.  This leads the Talmud to ask: How was Eliyahu Hanavi allowed to offer a sacrifice outside of the Bais Hamikdash on Mount Carmel, and, why did Yitzchak listen to his father and allow himself to be murdered? The Talmud answers that there is an exception for Prophets of the caliber of Avraham and Eliyahu who had proven themselves to be true prophets through their previous actions. Once a prophet has proven himself to be a true prophet we are commanded to follow his directives.  How a Prophet proves himself changed after the Torah was given.  After the Torah was given, the litmus test to see if a prophet was a true prophet of G-d was merely by accurately predicting every exact detail of a future event.  Once the Jewish nation experienced the event of the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, it became known to us that G-d speaks to people through prophets.  That knowledge brought with it the obligation to follow the directives of a true prophet.  Moshe Rabbeinu became the Av Haniviim (father of Prophecy) and with that came the Mitzvah of, “Eilav Tishmaun”, the Mitzvah to heed the words of a prophet.  Prior to the giving of the Torah there was no such Mitzvah.  There was no command to listen to a Prophet.  It was a lot more difficult to be accepted as a Prophet of Hashem.  This is why we do not find commands being given to us through the Avos, for we would not have had an obligation to listen to them as of yet.  This is also why the Rambam, in codifying the laws of Prophets (Yesodei Hatorah Chapters 9 & 10), does not deal with the scenario of the Akeida for that has no bearing on the standards for listening to a Prophet after Matan Torah.   There is a different reason why Yitzchak went along with the act of Human sacrifice.  (Be”H we will discuss that next week). We can now understand the Ran’s explanation of Maaseh Avos Siman La’banim.  If G-d would have merely told the Avos what was going to transpire, it would not necessarily have been binding since the concept of prophecy had not yet been established.  By not only telling them what was to transpire and by having them go through the event itself on a smaller scale it made their prophecies real and binding.  This leads us to three other important messages included in the principle of Maaseh Avos Simman La’banim. If the Avos actually lived through what we are going through in a microcosmic way, then these events hold in them the keys of how to act under those circumstances.  Learning how Avraham Avinu conducted himself with Pharaoh, Avimelech, and Efron teaches us important lessons of how we should conduct ourselves under similar circumstances.  Furthermore, the strength of character which they showed became part of our national character. This too is a benefit for us as it gives us insight as to our potential.  Finally, we now have before us examples of people who represent the way G-d wants a human being to look act and behave.  In these ways the stories of the Avos are replete with lessons for us. We have only to delve into their details to get the messages of the Avos.  In this way we will become true Bonim of the Avos.

This week’s issue is dedicated

In Memory of Rebecca Saltzman:

Rivka Rachel bas Yehuda Leib

Whose Yahrtzeit is on the

13th day of Mar Cheshvan

By:

Harold and Gilla Saltzman

Have A Great Shabbos!!

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Maaseh Avos Simman La’ Banim

Parashas Vayakhel Pikudei/Para 5772- The Purifying Powers of the Para Aduma in our Times

Posted on March 19, 2012 by tasteofyeshiva

Download Vayakhel Pekudei 5772 PDF

The Purifying Powers of the Para Aduma in our Times

Taste of Talmud

Rav Pappa said:  The Halacha is that all food items eaten during a meal as part of the meal are exempt from a blessing (Berachos 41b).  Rashi explains that the reason for this exemption is based on the principle of Ikar V’tafel (the relationship of a sub category to its main category).  All food items, even fruit eaten during a meal are secondary to the bread.  By reciting the blessing on the bread you are thanking G-d for the bread and all that will be eaten with it.  The Talmud asks: If so, when wine is being imbibed as an aperitif it too should be covered by the blessing recited on the bread.  To which the Talmud answers:  Wine is different because it is the cause of a new blessing.  What does this mean?  In the work entitled, “Tosafos Rabbi Yehuda Hachasid” you will find three distinct approaches to explain the unique character of wine.  The first explanation is based on the words of Rashi who explains that in many instances you are required to make a blessing on wine and drink it by itself.  The second explanation is from Rabbeinu Chananel who says that wine is unique in that its blessing exempts you from making a blessing on other drinks. The third explanation is attributed to Rabbeinu Shmuel who says:  The importance of wine can be seen from the fact that our sages instituted a special blessing to be recited on it.  Why do these sages express the uniqueness of wine in different ways?  Is there a nafka mina (a Halachic difference) between them?

Taste of Halacha

In the laws of Berachos (3:5) the Rambam writes: If you need to eat a fish and you eat bread with it, no blessing is recited upon the bread.  The “Lechem Mishna” in his commentary to the Rambam explains that this is only true if you “needed” to eat the fish because you just ate an extremely sweet fruit. The “Kesef Mishna” disagrees and says the Rambam should be taken at face value:  Bread could be secondary to the fish itself.  The Shulchan Aruch sides with the Kesef Mishna while the Magen Avraham sides with the Lechem Mishna.  There is yet a third opinion. According to the previous two opinions the bread is only secondary as long as you are eating it together with the fish. The Taz is of the opinion that the fish could be considered the main dish and exempt the bread from a blessing even after you have finished eating the fish. Indeed, the Mishna Berurah writes that if one was eating crackers with some condiments and he finished the crackers he does not make a blessing on the remaining condiments.  For that matter a blessing is not recited on the milk that remains at the bottom of a bowl of cereal.  It is my opinion that these three opinions with regard to the application of the laws of Ikar V’tafel are based on the opinions of the sages with regard to the law of making a blessing on wine during a meal.  The Lechem Mishna is based on Rabbeinu Chananel, the Kesef Mishna on Rashi, while the Taz is following the logic of Rabbeinu Shmuel.

(This was a continuation from last week’s “Taste of Halacha” and not directly related to the “Taste of Parasha.”)

Taste of Parasha

The Mishkan was completed on the first day of Nisssan.  On the second of Nissan a Para Aduma was prepared and used to purify the Kohanim.  If we are trying to mimic these events with our special Torah readings then why not read the Portion that deals with the events of the first day of Nissan: HaChodesh before reading about the events of the second day: Para?  During the Temple era it was necessary in order to instruct people about the laws of purity prior to their readiness for bringing the Korban Pesach.  In our days, however, the correct chronological order would seem to be more correct.  Furthermore, why does the Medrash compare the reading of the portion detailing the laws of the Para Aduma to the entire Torah, and, what do we gain from reading it if we do not currently have access to the ashes of the Para Aduma?  Rabbi Tzadok Hakohain of Lublin tackles these questions with a piercing Medrash.  The Medrash says that when the Jewish nation reads the Portion of the Para Aduma, G-d, so to speak, reads this portion as well.  That reading brings about a cleansing of the soul which allows the words of Torah to settle comfortably in our heart and soul.  Specifically in our day and age when our minds tend to be so cluttered with silly innuendos it is crucial that we access the purifying powers of the Para Aduma before we attempt to renew ourselves with the Parasha of HaChodesh.

Posted in Pikudei, Vayakhel | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Parashas Vayakhel Pikudei/Para 5772- The Purifying Powers of the Para Aduma in our Times

Parashas Ki Sisa 5772- Is Striving for Perfection an Exercise in Futility?

Posted on March 18, 2012 by tasteofyeshiva

Download Ki Sisa 5772 PDF

Is Striving for Perfection an Exercise in Futility?

Taste of Parasha

Practice makes perfect; but, if no one is perfect, why practice?  Happiness comes from completion; but, since man’s work is never done is man never happy?   The Jewish nation reached the pinnacle of closeness to G-d but then faltered.  Does that mean it was all for naught?   Rav Yerucham Levovits Zt”l describes the sin of the golden calf as an example of the kabbalistic idea termed, “kotzets b’nitios.”  He explains this term to mean attributing the source of matter, events or actions to something other than the true source.  Literally it means to chop down a sapling.  One who chops down a sapling in mid-growth has stunted its potential.  A person is like a tree; the sky is the limit.  Each year he can grow a step closer to maturity and perfection and along the way enjoy many majestic vistas.  Does this mean he is able to be as perfect as G-d? No.  Does this mean that each new plateau affords yet another breathtaking vista? Yes! According to Rav Yerucham, the lesson of the golden calf is: Do not truncate your spiritual growth and do not take a cheap alternative to the real source.  Keep focused on G-d who is the source of all and you will reach a modicum of perfection and happiness.

Taste of Talmud

On the fruit of the tree one makes the blessing, “Borei Pri Haetz, except for wine.  On wine, the blessing of Borei Pri Hagafen is recited. (Berachos 35a) Rashi comments: It is due to its importance that our sages instituted a distinct blessing for it; and, so it is with bread.  The Ritva uses a somewhat different wording to explain the difference between wine and grapes.  The Ritva says it is because it went up a notch through this change.  Then the Ritva adds: If one made the blessing of Borei Pri Haetz prior to drinking wine, the blessing is valid.  It would seem to me that according to Rashi, the blessing would not be valid.  Rashi compares wine to bread in its level of distinction.  Just as if one were to make the blessing of Borei Pri Ha’adama on a piece of bread it would not work because bread is so far removed from that source because of its importance, so too would wine thus inappropriately  be deemed the fruit of the tree (pri haetz).  A close look at Tosafos ibid. (12a) will yield such an opinion.

Taste of Halacha

On 12a of Tractate Berachos, Tosafos asserts that one who erred by reciting a borei pri haetz upon a cup of wine must recite a new blessing unless he corrected himself immediately.  Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks on these words, “I am astounded. The wording of the blessing for wine attributes it to being from the vine, ‘borei Pri Hagafen.’ If so, it should follow that it too is a fruit of the grape vine and the blessing of borei pri haetz is a proper blessing for wine in an ex post facto situation.  Rabbi Akiva Eiger asserts that even though the Magen Avraham  (OC 208:22) sides in favor of Tosafos (and Rashi), it is his opinion that the Halacha should be that one does fulfill his obligation by reciting borei pri haetz on a cup of wine.  To bolster his opinion he quotes the words of the Ginas Veradim (OC: 29) who also follows the opinion of the Ritva that the blessing is valid.  The Mishna Berurah quotes both of these opinions and concludes with the famous dictum: When there is a doubt in matters of Berachos we are lenient – so a new blessing would not be said.

Posted in Ki Sisa | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Parashas Ki Sisa 5772- Is Striving for Perfection an Exercise in Futility?

Parashas Tetzaveh 5772- When is it Permissible to Wear Shatnez?

Posted on March 18, 2012 by tasteofyeshiva

Download Tetzaveh 5772 PDF

When is it Permissible to Wear Shatnez

Taste of Talmud

Rabbi Masna said in the name of Shmuel, “There is no prohibition of wearing shatnez (a mixture of wool and linen) while wearing T’cheiles (Tzitzis).”  Then he added, “Even a Tallis that is exempt from the Mitzvah.” What is he referring to, how far reaching is this leniency and is there an explanation why this should be so?  The Talmud (Menachos 40b) explains that this leniency would even apply if a person attached a second set of Tzitzis made of wool onto a linen garment that already had Tzitzis attached to them.  Tosafos adds that this leniency also allows a person to don Tzitzis made of shatnez at a time when he is not fulfilling the Mitzvah of Tzitzis – at night.  However, this does not allow one to put shatnez on a garment which is not obligated in Tzitzis due to its small size.  Would this leniency apply to a borrowed garment?  Since one is not obligated to place Tzitzis on a borrowed garment, the Halacha should be that it is prohibited to have shatnez in such a garment.  Tosafos, however, makes a distinction: As long as the person who owns the garment is permitted to have shatnez in it, anyone borrowing it may wear it as well.  This is different than a garment which is not a kosher garment for anyone.   In conclusion, the laws of shatnez are waived with regard to a garment having Tzitzis as long as the garment has the required dimensions to be kosher for Tzitzis.

Taste of Talmud II

The Avnet (Belt) used by the Kohanim in the Bais Hamikdash was made of wool and linen.  The Talmud in Tractate Arachin (3b) teaches that although the Kohanim are allowed to wear shatnez in their garments, they are still obligated to wear Tzitzis.  Why would we have thought otherwise?  The Talmud answers: The Torah only gave the obligation to wear Tzitzis to those who are obligated in shatnez; therefore, we could have thought that the Kohanim should be exempt because they, seemingly, are not obligated in shatnez.  The Talmud must teach us, therefore, that the nature of their exemption is  limited.  They are actually obligated in the commandment of shatnez, and it is only the priestly garments that are exempt from the mitzvah of shatnez.    If a Kohain would wear these garments outside of the Bais Hamikdash, would he be transgressing the prohibition of shatnez? Tosafos brings one opinion that says it is prohibited to wear these garments outside of the Bais Hamikdash as the restriction of shatnez would then apply. According to Rabbeinu Tam, a Kohain wearing these garments outside of the Bais HaMikdash is also exempt from shatnez.

Taste of Parasha and Halacha

In the liturgy of the Yom Kippur service, we say that the Kohain Gadol wore a kesones (white tunic) made of shatnez. This seems to be contrary to what we are taught in this week’s Parasha. In this week’s Parasha, the pasuk states that the kesones was made of pure linen.  The Chasam Sofer (Rabbi Moshe Sofer) answers this question based on an interesting Halachic principle.  The Shulchan Aruch (YOD: 300:4) writes that it is permissible to wear an outer garment of wool over an undergarment of linen or visa versa.  The Rama comments on this:  There are those who prohibit wearing socks of two different materials on one’s foot because it is impossible to remove one without the other so they are considered to be attached. The Shach corroborates this opinion based on the Jerusalem Talmud.  The Kohain Gadol wore his white tunic made of pure white linen under a blue coat with bells and pomegranates on its bottom  which is called the “Meil.”  In order for him to remove the garment of linen, it would have been necessary for him to first remove the outer blue Meil made of wool.  Based on the Rama, the Kohain Gadol was indeed wearing a kesones that would otherwise have been prohibited due to the prohibition of shatnez!  My question is: How was Mordechai allowed to wear the garments of Achashvairosh without first checking them for shatnez?

Posted in Tetzaveh | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Parashas Tetzaveh 5772- When is it Permissible to Wear Shatnez?

Parashas Teruma 5772- Reaching a Real Connection to G-d- Deveikus

Posted on March 11, 2012 by tasteofyeshiva

Download Terumah 5772 PDF

Reaching a Real Connection to G-d- Deveikus

Taste of Halacha

“There is a positive commandment to build a house for Hashem:  A place to bring offerings and celebrate three times a year; as it says in Exodus 25:8, “And you shall make for me a holy place” (Rambam Laws of Bais Habechira 1:1). Later in that chapter, the Rambam writes about the laws governing the flooring of the house of G-d.  “The floor of the courtyard should be tiled with valuable stones.  If a stone becomes loose, even if it is still in its place, a kohen may not stand on it while doing the service” (ibid. 1:16). The Raavad adds, “If a stone was removed from its place and a kohen stood in that place, the service is invalid.”  From the Rambam’s discussion of these laws (Laws of the Bais Hamikdash 5:19), it is clear that his opinion is that the service is not invalidated by the kohen standing on a loose tile.  What is the basis for this dispute?

Taste of Talmud

Rabbi Chaim Brisker explains that this dispute is based on their respective understandings of the Talmud in Tractate Zevachim 24a.  The Talmud presents the question about the permissibility of standing on a loose tile in 4 different ways.          1. What is the law if a tile is loose?  2.  What is the law if a tile has been removed?  3.  What is the law if all of the tiles have been removed?  4.  Is it a proper form of service to stand on a loose tile? The Talmud does not directly answer any of these questions. How the Rishonim decide the Halacha depends A) On how they interpret the logical sequence of the Talmudic discussion and B) On their different understandings of the basic principles governing the holiness of the House of G-d.  Rav Chaim Brisker explains that the Rambam, understands from the Talmudic discussion that if even one tile is loose the entire flooring should ideally not be used, but the service will not be invalidated if it is used.  According to the Raavad, standing on a loose tile or standing on a place that is missing a tile will invalidate the service, but only in that spot.

Taste of Parasha

Why does the Torah spend such a long time discussing a law which seemingly does not apply at all times?  ‘You shall build for me a house.’  The Nesivos Shalom answers by saying that the Mishkan and all of the verses in it are the map for us to achieve Devaikus, connection, to G-d. The more detailed a map is the better the chances are that the one following it will reach his destination.  So too, each verse and each law is another detail in attaining Devaikus to G-d.  One example:  There are three main metals that are used in the construction of the Mishkan: Copper, silver, and gold.  There are three main areas: Courtyard, haichal, and holy of holies.  These parallel the three basic levels of existence: The physical world, the world of Torah and Mitzvos, and the highest level of existence being connection to G-d.  In order for man to attain the highest level of existence, he must use the physical world to perform Torah and Mitzvos.  In this way, he will come to connect to G-d.  This is an ongoing template and map for our existence in this world.  Is it any wonder then that the Torah spends so much time detailing the specifications of the Mishkan?  The more we understand about the Mishkan the more connected we will be. We just have to start with our feet on the ground and move forward from there.

Posted in Terumah | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Parashas Teruma 5772- Reaching a Real Connection to G-d- Deveikus

Parashas Mishpatim 5772- The Key to the Garden of Eden- Honesty

Posted on March 11, 2012 by tasteofyeshiva

Download Mishpatim 5772 PDF

The Key to the Garden of Eden- Honesty

Taste of Parasha

A Shochet once came before the saintly Rabbi Yisroel of Salant to inform him that he was having a mid-life crisis.  Although he had been slaughtering animals for many years, he was afraid of the severity of the sin of making a mistake in these matters.  He did not want to carry on his shoulders the sin of feeding non-kosher meat to Jews.  Rav Yisroel asked him, “So, how will you provide for your family?” The Shochet responded, “I am planning on opening a store.”  Rav Yisroel was surprised and said to the Shochet, “I do not understand you. You are leaving a profession for which a mistake carries with it a single negative command: Do not eat the meat of an animal not slaughtered (properly). Going into business, however, is a profession which presents the proprietor with numerous positive and negative commandments which could inadvertently be transgressed.   Of this you are not afraid?”  When a Jew conducts business he must constantly be vigilant to not charge interest, not cheat, not over charge, pay his workers on time and fulfill many other responsibilities discussed in this week’s Torah portion.  The Chofetz Chaim Zt”l wrote that just as a Shochet is required to receive a letter of approbation prior to slaughtering, so too it would be appropriate to require a businessman to pass an examination concerning the laws of conducting business prior to entering into business.

Taste of Talmud

After 120 years, when man returns his soul to his maker, the first question he will be asked will be: Did you deal honestly in business? (Shabbos 31a). The Talmud in Tractate Sanhedrin (7a) says that man will first be judged as to whether or not he made set times for Torah study.  Tosafos asks, “Which question is actually presented first?” Rabbi Avraham Pam Zt”l resolves the question with the following answer: The first matter to be scrutinized will be how he conducted himself in business.  If, however, he was unscrupulous in his business dealings and the reason for this was due to the fact that he was negligent in educating himself in the laws of business according to the Torah, then the retribution for the cause will come before the retribution for the symptomatic result of his impropriety in his business dealings.  On the positive side, the reward for conducting oneself honestly is very great. The commandment to love G-d is fulfilled by causing others to love the ways of the Torah and those who study it.  When one deals honestly in his dealings with people and speaks nicely what do people say?  “Look how beautiful and orderly are the ways of this man who learned Torah (Yoma 86a).”  The Medrash teaches that such a person will be blessed.  Upon him the verse says, “My eyes are focused on the trustworthy ones of the land, they will dwell with me (Tehilim 101:6).”

Taste of Halacha

Rabbi Yehuda ben Besaira once came to a silk merchant looking to buy some silk.  After discussing the various possibilities he decided upon a certain type and quantity that would suit his needs.  Rabbi Yehuda was not yet ready to finalize the deal, so he left without finishing the transaction.  The merchant put aside the silk and waited and waited.  On his next business trip to the town in which Rabbi Yehuda resided, he brought the selected silk with him.  Rabbi Yehuda asked the merchant, “Why did you hold on to the silk for me for so long? We only discussed the matter but no formal acquisition was made.” The merchant responded, “Your words are trusted to me more than money.”  Rabbi Yehuda blessed the man, “Just as you have been trustworthy, you should be blessed with a son as trustworthy as the prophet Shmuel who we are told was trusted throughout the land of Israel,  ‘From Dan to Be’er Sheva’ (Samuel 1: 3:20).” Indeed, this man was blessed with a son whom he named Shmuel.  He became none other than the famous Amora Shmuel, a leader of Babylonian Jewry and a major contributor to the Talmud.  The actions of his father follow the strict letter of the law as set forth by the Rambam (Laws of Sales 5:6) and Shulchan Aruch CM (204).  “Even if the market value changes, it is considered to be a lack of trustworthiness to back out of a deal that was only agreed upon verbally.”

Posted in Mishpatim | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Parashas Mishpatim 5772- The Key to the Garden of Eden- Honesty

Parashas Yisro 5772- Success in Torah Depends on…Compromise

Posted on March 11, 2012 by tasteofyeshiva

Download Yisro 5772 PDF

Success in Torah Depends on Compromise

Taste of Parasha

How did the Jewish nation prepare to receive the Torah?  What are the building blocks for success in Torah?  The verses leading up to the giving of the Torah convey three lessons in response to these questions. Rav Chaim Shmuelevits Zt”l elaborates on each. The first is to uproot the attribute of laziness and to put forth our best effort with enthusiasm and devotion.  The second is to have a healthy dose of humility, which is the corner-stone of all positive attributes.  The third prerequisite for Torah is to have unity, as the verse says: The Jewish Nation camped by the mountain as one.  The Medrash says that when G-d saw the level of unity which they had attained, He said, “Now they are worthy to receive my Torah.”  The Seforno writes that when the Jewish Nation camped at Har Sinai each Jew was looking to make his neighbor more comfortable.  How does one achieve such a level of unity? The Talmud teaches that in the generation of Rabbi Yehudah Bar Ilayi the students were so poor that six students shared one blanket.  How were they able to share one blanket?  If each one was looking out for his own skin it would never work. The reason it worked was because each one pushed the blanket more towards his friend. The only way to have unity and gain from each other’s resources is by looking out for other people by pushing our resources to help those around us.  By caring enough about a fellow Jew that we would prefer that he receive the bigger portion, the bigger honor or the greater recognition. Only when we can think beyond ourselves, are we ready to incorporate a framework of Torah that is greater than ourselves.

Taste of Talmud and Halacha

The Talmud (Bava Basra 106b) presents a case were three brothers inherited a farm from their father. These brothers decided to subdivide their father’s farm into three equal sections and to then take possession of the predefined sections by means of a lottery.   The Talmud asks:  Where do you find that a lottery can be used as a valid act of acquisition? The Talmud’s initial answer is that we derive this from the way the Jews divided the land of Israel.  They used lots.  So too division of land may be effected through lots.  This answer is challenged. How can you compare a simple land division between brothers to a division that was delineated by Moshe and Aharon using the Urim Vetumim and prophecy?  The Talmud answers: The pleasure that each one receives from the fact that the others agreed to civilly resolve their dispute by means of a lottery, is the medium that makes the division binding.  The good feelings that are created from a compromise are of such significant value as to be able to accomplish the division between the brothers.  The Rambam quotes this halacha verbatim from the Talmud and says:  Brothers that divided between themselves (an inheritance) and made a lot; as soon as one of them drew his lot the transaction is complete. The pleasure which was created from the agreement to listen to each other makes each one resolve in his heart to transfer ownership to his friend.  The Raavad disagrees and writes succinctly: These words are not right. The commentaries to the Rambam grapple to find the source for their difference of opinion.

Using his unique style, Rav Chaim Brisker explains that this difference of opinion stems from the two different approaches they had in explaining this section of the Talmud.  By way of introduction he says that the lottery used to divide the land of Israel did not transfer ownership but merely allocated to each tribe what was already theirs.  Now, the question boils down to this: When the Talmud clarified that a lottery is a form of transaction by means of the pleasure that is received, was it an explanation of why a lottery worked to dived the land of Israel, or does this statement stand independently of the initial explanation.  The Rosh in his commentary to the Talmud understands that the subsequent explanation is independent of the division of the land of Israel.  According to this reading of the Talmud, we can derive from this case the principle that the pleasure of an amicable agreement is a valid means of acquisition not just a way to allocate land as the lottery was used in dividing the land of Israel.  The Rambam is following this opinion.  This allows the Rambam to conclude that even in other cases, the pleasure of an amicable agreement is of such great value as to be deemed a means of property transfer.  The Raavad, however, follows the opinion of the Rashbam that the aspect of pleasure was only added to explain how the division of the land of Israel could be used as a template for other allocations of land not requiring an act of acquisition.  Therefore, according to the way the Raavad understands the Talmud, we are not able to derive a new means of acquisition from this section of the Talmud.

Posted in Yisro | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Parashas Yisro 5772- Success in Torah Depends on…Compromise

Parashas Beshalach 5772- Seeing G-d in this World- The Merkavah

Posted on March 11, 2012 by tasteofyeshiva

Download Beshalach 5772 PDF

Seeing G-d in this World- The Merkavah

A Taste of Pardes

What was the most important aspect of the miracle of the splitting of the sea?  The words, “the horse with its rider drowned at sea” are the only words which are reiterated in the song of Miriam.  Although it would seem that this is a seemingly minor detail, the Ramban actually says that this was in fact the greatest miracle of all!  How so?  In addition, we could ask why the introductory line of the song, “Oz yashir Moshe-then Moshe will sing,” is written in the future tense.  Furthermore, our sages teach us that this song was sung as an expression to a prophetic revelation so intense as to be deemed to be akin to and even greater than the prophecy of Ezekiel. How so?

The prophecy of Ezekiel was of a Merkavah (a chariot).  Our sages write that this prophecy cannot be expounded upon to a group but only individually to a Torah scholar.  These prophetic visions hold within them the secrets of G-d’s direction, as if on a chariot, of the world.  Rabbi Moshe Shapiro Shlita, a leading Rosh Yeshiva in Jerusalem, expounds upon a number of relevant passages in the Talmud and through doing so gives us a deeper appreciation for the event of the splitting of the sea and the ensuing song which flowed forth from the lips of our forefathers at that time.  Let us look at his explanations on the Talmud to guide us through this fascinating event.

The Talmud, in Tractate Chagigah (11b) writes that there were four sages who entered into the highest levels of understanding of G-d’s workings of this world.  This area of study is referred to as, “Pardes.”  Rabbi Akiva was one of these scholars.  Rabbi Akiva warned the others that when they reach a point where they could see two separate things that look like water, they should not label them by saying, “water, water.”  What does this mean?  Before we can understand this passage, we must first analyze another cryptic passage in order to come to a proper explanation of this subject.

The Talmud in tractate Succah (48b) says that there were two seduces who were known as “Happiness” and “Rejoicing.”  Rejoicing said to Happiness, “I am greater than you because it says in the Torah that in the end of days the Jews will attain rejoicing first and only then happiness”.  Happiness responded, “to the contrary, I am greater than you because after the Purim story it says that first there was happiness for the Jews and only then rejoicing.”  (The Vilna Gaon is known to have said that the secrets of the future lie in these cryptic words.)  Although we are not privy to the complete understanding of this passage, Rav Moshe Shapiro’s explanation by means of an analogy will also shed light on the song of the sea, “Oz Yashir.”

When a person goes out to work at the beginning of the day, he is happy that he has a job, yet it would be premature to rejoice over his accomplishments as he has not yet begun his work.  Upon his return from having accomplished his objectives and goals he may rejoice in his success.  So too it is with this world.  G-d created this world for a specific purpose.  Our mission is to use the materials of this world such as a horse towards achieving these goals.  At times we put the cart in front of the horse and think we are so powerful and mighty that we could accomplish goals that are contrary to the will of G-d.  We take the reigns of this mighty force and run wild with it.  There may even be times when such individuals are successful to such a degree that it appears that there are two separate powers in this world. The splitting of the sea was one of those rare moments when such a seemingly powerful nation was shown to be completely under the domain of the One and Only true and everlasting power, G-d.  Not only were they drowned but they were drowned in their saddle, “the horse with his rider.” Their ability to turn away from the raging waters was stripped from them.  G-d showed the Egyptians and the Jews that not only is He the creator but the reigns of this world too are firmly in His control.  This is the meaning of why what appears to be two separate powers, represented by two things that look like water, are really all one and should be labeled as water, not: water, water.  All waters, emanations, are from one source.  All events in this world lead to one conclusion.  The happiness which came as a result of the clarity of the hand of G-d that was seen through the miracles of Purim were just the beginning.  The full rejoicing which will come from seeing how everything that transpired throughout history leads to the glorification of G-d’s name will not come to its full expression until “oz – then”, that glorious day when the whole world will see, “Hashem Echad Ushemo Echad.”  His essence and His name (the way we perceive Him) will be One, meaning, that this truth will be recognized by one and all.  This is truly what the verse is referring to when it says that Oz, then, Moshe, together with the entire Jewish nation, will sing a song of exaltation. Only then will we be able to rejoice fully by singing the full version of the song of the sea and the prophesy of Ezekiel.  The guiding hand of G-d will be seen and recognized “Oz” – then, at the time of the final Redemption. May it be speedily in our days.

Posted in Beshalach | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Parashas Beshalach 5772- Seeing G-d in this World- The Merkavah