Zachor: Zeicher vs. Zecher 4

Originally published 3/7/10, 8:30 PM

Reb Ira Gruscott mentions that, "Of course , what he doesn't say is that prior to and even during the lifetime of R' Y.M. Kagan z't'l, it was never a minhag to repeat....even in Yeshivas Radun."

Check Marc Shapiro's post on this.
This can be spun two ways.Either
A: it's a frum shtick with  no basis either in minhag or grammar or halakha; or
B: Orthodoxy does have a halakha that is -to quote Shapiro- "dynamic" This, of course goes to the post on your blog re: how one "feels" regarding halakha

ISG»

Look, we live in an ambiguous world!

Let's face the facts. Those who can tolerate ambiguity well,  will be fine, while those who cannot, will be frustrated, angry, railing, and dueling the windmills. Most of us fall somewhere in between! ;-)

Indeed I think "minhag Yisrael" is perhaps a poor choice of words.

What I think he was really saying is that Professor Penkower's academic analysis is irrelevant to the Halachah - one way or the other. Only a Poseiq can make that call, not a professor. As to how the Mishnah Brurah's ruling caught on fire - I do not know. I understand Lubavitch does this, and they are not known to be particularly deferential to the MB

Perhaps, as Hacham Sassoon might say: we believe in continuous revelation. Others might see the Hand of Divine Providence.

What bothers me about the Mishnah Brurah's method is that he presents the safeiq as even. It's not. And as Rabbi Noah G. has noted, a Halachic Safeiq is usually approxximately 50-50.
Here it's clearly not a 50-50. For example, I might say that Rabbenu Tam Tefillin might be 50-50, but Catholic Israel did away with that opinion.

R' Mordechai Breuer's article is brilliant on this matter. I have Professor Penkower's article but I have not yet had the pleasure to complete it.

As I understand Rav Halivni and Rabbis Feldblum and Price, we don't follow "science" when it comes to halachic practice, particularly in nusach. For example, This came up regarding "unetaneh toqef" and "kivnei maron" where Albeck and others suggest "kivnumerion" instead. R' Price dismissed this as academic and not halachic, and so subject to the shifting paradigms in science. For instance, is Pluto still a planet?

The story goes that in Breslau Seminary -

Proffessor Graetz read the Haftara with his emendation based upon science

And R' Z. Frankel apparently re-read the entire passage [iirc with brachot] to make the point that we don't emend Tanach on the basis of our scientific point of view - at least not during the liturgy

Anyway, we can safely say this:

• The Masoretes deviated from the Talmud in a number of instances.
• The Kimchi's Grammar deviated from the Tiberian grammatical system on several points.

- I believe segol is one of those areas. Anyway, as far as I know, the Kimchi's PRONOUNCED tzeire and segol the same - obviating any need for repetition. Perhaps our very hakpadah to distinguish the two vowels has led us to this safeiq, though many would claim that this is irrelevant.

'Nuff Said.

Zissen Pesach,
RRW

Zachor: Zeicher vs. Zecher 5

R David Bannett - from the Avodah List

I started learn to read the Torah some 75 years ago in Flatbush and was taught to read both ways. We did not repeat the entire pasuk but only the phrase "timcheh et zeikher Amalek". I don't remember if I was taught the order but, many years later, I decided to read the incorrect zekher first and then correct myself by saying zeikher the second time. Similarly, in the megilla, when the megilla has the incorrect bifneihem and laharog I read as written and then correct myself by repeating the phrase only: v'ish.... lifneihem and k'hashmid.... v'laharog. If the megilla is correct I read only once.

Anyone slightly interested in the subject should read R'Mordekhai Breuer's article. Those very interested should go directly to R' Prof Penkower's article. He gives the entire history, about 45 pages, including statistics on manuscripts from the time of ben Asher as well as customs of reading, etc.
The double reading evidently started slightly before the Hafetz Hayyim made it popular. Penkower cites a ba'al Kriah who was instructed by R' Sh'neur Zalman mi'Lublin to read twice. This R' Sh"Z died in 1902. The Mishna B'rura was printed in 1906.

I was delighted to read that R' Penkower read twice despite his indisputable proofs that zeikher is correct. A few years ago I gave a Friday night talk proving that there is absolutely no justification for double reading. On the following morning I read parashat zakhor and read zekher followed by zeikher. I too do as I was taught and do not allow myself to be confused with facts. I am overjoyed to find that I follow the derekh of the expert.

It should be pointed out that no eidah other than the Ashkenazi ever questioned the correct reading. AFAIK, Yekkes are the only Ashkenazi unaffected by the double-reading syndrome.

As to developments in Israel: One of my grandchildren told me his rosh yeshiva told him to read only once (based on Breuer). On the other hand I davenned this year at a yeshiva where in addition to reading in Abazit, Ashkenoz, Moroccan, and Yemenite they also had Parsi and what might have been Iraqi.

I have also heard a ba'al k'riah reading in mivta Ashkenazi repeat Machlas and Mochlas, and yahalom and yohalom. He told me that he was told to do so by Harav Nebenzahl. At this rate, it won't be long before we'll be hearing hundreds of p'sukim read twice.

David

Important Dead Sea Scroll news

From RRW

From <https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/scientists-finally-read-the-oldest-biblical-text-ever-found-a7323296.html>:

[Go there for video]

==========================

SCIENTISTS FINALLY READ THE OLDEST BIBLICAL TEXT EVER FOUND

The charred lump of scroll sat in an archaeologist’s office,

impossible to read without destroying it – until now

Andrew Griffin

Scientists have finally been able to read the oldest biblical text ever found.

The 2,000-year-old scroll has been in the hands of archaeologists for

decades. But it hasn’t been possible to read it, since it was too

dangerous to open the charred and brittle scroll.

Scientists have now been able to read it, using special imaging

technology that can look into what’s inside. And it has found what was

in there: the earliest evidence of a biblical text in its standardised

form.

The passages, which come from the Book of Leviticus, show the first

physical evidence of a long-held belief that the Hebrew Bible that’s

in use today has is more than 2,000 years old.

The discovery was announced in an article in Science Advances written

by researchers from Kentucky and Jerusalem. It described how the

researchers used a tool called “virtual unwrapping”, which provides a

3D digital analysis of an X-ray scan.

Read more Ancient cemetery could solve one of the Bible’s biggest mysteries

By using that, it was the first time that researchers have been able

to read an ancient scroll without actually opening it.

"You can't imagine the joy in the lab," said Pnina Shor of the Israel

Antiquities Authority, who participated in the study.

The digital technology, funded by Google and the U.S. National Science

Foundation, is slated to be released to the public as open source

software by the end of next year.

Researchers hope to use the technology to peek inside other ancient

documents too fragile to unwrap, like some of the Dead Sea Scrolls and

papyrus scrolls carbonized in the Mt. Vesuvius volcano eruption in 79

CE. Researchers believe the technology could also be applied to the

fields of forensics, intelligence, and antiquities conservation.

The biblical scroll examined in the study was first discovered by

archaeologists in 1970 at Ein Gedi, the site of an ancient Jewish

community near the Dead Sea. Inside the ancient synagogue's ark,

archaeologists found lumps of scroll fragments.

The synagogue was destroyed in an ancient fire, charring the scrolls.

The dry climate of the area kept them preserved, but when

archaeologists touched them, the scrolls would begin to disintegrate.

So the charred logs were shelved for nearly half a century, with no

one knowing what was written inside.

Last year, Yosef Porath, the archaeologist who excavated at Ein Gedi

in 1970, walked into the Israel Antiquities Authority's Dead Sea

Scrolls preservation lab in Jerusalem with boxes of the charcoal

chunks. The lab has been creating hi-resolution images of the Dead Sea

Scrolls, the earliest copies of biblical texts ever discovered, and he

asked researchers to scan the burned scrolls.

"I looked at him and said, 'you must be joking,"' said Shor, who heads the lab.

She agreed, and a number of burned scrolls were scanned using

X-ray-based micro-computed tomography, a 3D version of the CT scans

hospitals use to create images of internal body parts. The images were

then sent to William Brent Seales, a researcher in the computer

science department of the University of Kentucky. Only one of the

scrolls could be deciphered.

Using the "virtual unwrapping" technology, he and his team

painstakingly captured the three-dimensional shape of the scroll's

layers, using a digital triangulated surface mesh to make a virtual

rendering of the parts they suspected contained text. They then

searched for pixels that could signify ink made with a dense material

like iron or lead. The researchers then used computer modeling to

virtually flatten the scroll, to be able to read a few columns of text

inside.

"Not only were you seeing writing, but it was readable," said Seales.

"At that point we were absolutely jubilant."

The researchers say it is the first time a biblical scroll has been

discovered in an ancient synagogue's holy ark, where it would have

been stored for prayers, and not in desert caves like the Dead Sea

Scrolls.

The discovery holds great significance for scholars' understanding of

the development of the Hebrew Bible, researchers say.

In ancient times, many versions of the Hebrew Bible circulated. The

Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to as early as the 3rd century B.C., featured

versions of the text that are radically different than today's Hebrew

Bible.

Scholars have believed the Hebrew Bible in its standard form first

came about some 2,000 years ago, but never had physical proof, until

now, according to the study. Previously the oldest known fragments of

the modern biblical text dated back to the 8th century.

The text discovered in the charred Ein Gedi scroll is "100 percent

identical" to the version of the Book of Leviticus that has been in

use for centuries, said Dead Sea Scroll scholar Emmanuel Tov from the

Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who participated in the study.

"This is quite amazing for us," he said. "In 2,000 years, this text

has not changed."

Noam Mizrahi, a Dead Sea Scrolls expert at Tel Aviv University who did

not participate in the study, called it a "very, very nice find." He

said the imaging technology holds great potential for more readings of

unopened Dead Sea Scrolls.

"It's not only what was found, but the promise of what else it can

uncover, which is what will turn this into an exciting discovery,"

Mizrahi said.

 

Parsha: Shoftim, "To King or Not to King"

Canadians will undoubtedly favour the Royalist Position whilst Americans will surely prefer the Republican Position!

The Torah states that: when you [Bnei Yisrael] ask for a KING,  "'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me" (Devarim: 17:14) you shall surely place one - Even [or especially] when asking to be like the surrounding nations.

Sh'muel [with Hashem's approbation] protests that his people requested a King just like "the Goyim." (Shmuel I 8:5).

Shmuel's protestations all make sense if our Sidrah-Parsha is stating that this royal appointment is optional and subjunctive to a request. In that case, the objection was to the request for appointing a King. Once requested, it must be fulfilled,  according to the law in our Parshah.

However, Rambam Sefer Hamitzvot et. al. states that a king is a requirement.  This implies that the request is also obligatory. Sh'muel's protests then seem difficult to fathom.

I have some answers but I was wondering what you readers might say?

Shalom,

RRW

Shoftim: The False Prophet

From the archives of Nishma's Online Library at http://www.nishma.org/, we have chosen an article that relates to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah but also for the purposes of initiating some discussion.

This week's parsha Shoftim and the topic is the the navi sheker, the false prophet. The issue is not solely the person who lies about speaking in the name of God but the issue is also the message. The issue concerns any distortion of Torah. We invite you to look at an article on this topic at http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5756-22.html

Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof

From RRW

The classic question is why the repetition of Tzedek‎?

I don't recall who said this answer first....

Look at this way:

See the first Tzedek ‎as an adjective

Thus translate it as:

"Just Justice shall you pursue"

It's not enough to seek Just Ends

They must be pursued via Just Means

L'havdil, the US Constitution echoes this

"No one may be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of Law."

Taking the Law into one's own hands is not acceptable. (wth rare exception)

Shooting George Wallace or Yitzchak Rabin is not an OK approach. 

To'eva

From the archives of Nishma's Online Library at http://www.nishma.org/, we have chosen an article that relates to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah but also for the purposes of initiating some discussion.
 
The topic is the the term to'evah, usually translated as abomination. The term is often used by proponents of different ethical perspectives as a further indication of the significance of their ethical stance. The fact is, though, that the use of this term in the Chumash itself may not actually provide support for such assertions. We invite you to look at an article on this topic at http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5754-27.htm.

Parsha: Emor, "Is Sefirat ha'Omer One Mitzva or Two?"

originally posted August 9, 2015

The Rambam firmly construes Sefirat Ha'Omer as one Mitzvah. Sefer HaHinuch concurs with the Rambam's read. Abbaye, however, affirms in the Talmud that just as it is a Mitzva to count days – so it is a Mitzva to count weeks. 

These passages strongly suggest two separate Mitzvot. In Parshat Emor we read, "Tisp'ru Chamishim YOM" (Vaykira:  23: 16), while the text states in Parshat R'eih, "Sheva Shavuot Tispar Lach" . (Devarim: R'eih: 16:9) Doesn't it seem obvious that the two verses in the Torah describe two separate but equal actions?

Problem: How can an individual nowadays simply argue with the Rambam - especially without any further support? Furthermore, must I not construe the silence of so many peer reviews that as implicit acquiescence? 

A rabbinic intern recently provided an informative answer in his shiur. Rabbeinu Yerucham considers Sefirah as two separate Mitzvot! He also posits that as well. My hypothesis now has supporting evidence.

I asked the speaker how he had found this relatively obscure source. He had noted that the new edition of the Minhat Hinuch has this source cited in the footnotes. This indicates that the matter assumed to be a slam dunk by the Hinuch is, in reality, a matter of dispute. Rabbeinu Yerucham had already articulated this voice of opposition, so I need no  longer be concerned about the silence of the peer review.

Case Closed

-------------------------------------------------

Comment On Original Post.

Aside from a bit of Talmud Torah - why did I post this comment?

Sometimes we see something and we assume it to be axiomatic, mutually agreed upon. In attempting to master rational thinking, I came across the concept of "not jumping to conclusions".  After all, if Jews are always questioning,  why was the Rambam's ruling of only one mitzva never questioned? It seemed likely that seeing it as two mitzvoth was an equally good read.

Failing to research this myself, I humbly concluded that Rambam won by acclamation. Case Closed. QED. 

However, after attending a Shiur in which the rabbi found a source that did challenge this Rambam, I had to recant.  Now I realized that my question - my observation - had some validity in classic sources.  It was just unnecessary for other sources to question the Rambam once Rabbeinu Yerucham posed his challenge. I could no longer construe their silence as acquiescence to the Rambam's decision.

In fact, I could now conclude nothing. Although, I now suspect that the silence is possible confirmation that both reads are about 50-50. and therefore no one needs to enter the fray to reject either side as off-target.

This is an important principle to realize: just because we have not seen a competing source does not mean it is not there! I must also confess to not researching the matter in depth. It therefore has also taught me a bit of humility.

Shalom,

RRW

Parsha: Eqev, "Who Wrote the Second Luchot?"

It always seemed Pashut to me that Moshe carved the second set of luchot and that Hashem wrote on them.

Once, a Rav happened to briefly mention that Moshe wrote the latter set of luchot in his drasha. I found this far-fetched at the time. Today, I find it completely untenable.

Just take a look at the parsha. It seems clear that Hashem wrote on the second set of luchot. (Eqev: 10: 2-4)

Shalom,

RRW

Parsha: Equev, "Defining 'Eqev' via the 'Concordance Technique' "

Rashi uses the Concordance Technique  to define some difficult or ambiguous words. A great illustration is the verb "PSCh" as in "Ufasachti alleichem" (Shmoth 12:13) There Rashi offers 2 definitions:

1. "V'hamal." "Hashem will have mercy." Rashi bases this upon Yeshaya 31:5. It matches the Targum "v'Yeihos"
2. "V'dileig" based upon Melachim I 18:21. This matches the modern "passover" to skip over or to jump over

------------------------

Now for the background of "Eqev."

• Targum states Halaf meaning "in exchange." 
• Rashi Midrashically puns: "Those mitzvoth that one tramples with one's heel"

------------------------

Although Rashi himself did not choose to use the Concordance Technique here, Rashi frequently offers a subset of the range of "valid" techniques and definitions.

"Eqev" appears in Humash five times:

1. Eqev asher shama Avraham Beqoli (Breishit 22:18)
2. Eqev asher shama Avraham b'Kqoli (Breishit 26:5)
3.  Eqev hayeta Ruch Achereth imo (Bamidbar 14:24)
4. Appears in Eqev itself, in conjunction with the verb "lishmo'a" totaling four of five instances. (Devarim: 7:12)
5. Again, in Eqev. (Devarim: 8:20)

Cases 1 and 3 are the key for me. Both involve "nisayyon" IE crisis situation

1. The Aqeida
2. This is a generic use of the word "Equev," but since they both refer to Avraham, it is feasible to hook it onto one.
3. The Meraglim

This means that Eqev may be more precisely understood to mean "Halaf," in exchange for listening/obeying - or for being - "UNDER DURESS."

Now four and five can be understood.
4. "And it shall be when you obey Under Duress (you shall be blessed...)" (Devarim: 7:12)
5. "...and when you fail to obey Under Duress..." (Devarim: 8:20)

And abandon Hashem...

Shalom,

RRW

Eqev: Who Inscribed the Second Luchos?

Originally published 8/5/09, 6:45 pm.

Given:
Hashem both carved and inscribed the First Luchos.
Moshe hewed the Second set of Luchos
Who inscribed this second set?

We have some ambiguities in the text.
We can resolve them by means of the 13th principle of Rabbi Yishma'el: 'Vechein sh'nei ch'suvim  amach'chishim ze es zeh..'

First the conflicting bit:
1. Shnei Ch'suvim:
Shmos 34:1, HKBH writes the Second Luchos: "V'chasavti al halluchos"

2. Sh'mos 34 "K'sav lecha.." Moshe is writing on (luchos? Or something else?)

Although the two do not completely contradict each other, they do seem ambiguous.
This week's Parsha, Eqev, to the rescue!
The scale tipper: Hakkatuv hashlishi:

3. Dvarim Eqev Ch. 10:2-4 "v'echtov al halluchos" where it is clear that HKBH wrote on the 2nd Luchos.
I think this structure is clear. Therefore, in #2, Moshe probably wrote something else or wrote the dibros upon something else, like parchment.

KT,
RRW

Parsha: Va'etchanan, "The Perception of Torah"

How does the world view us?

On the one hand, many see our laws as somewhat odd. Rashi  himself writes, in the beginning of parshat Chukkot, that the nations of the world will mock us. Yet, doesn't Devarim 4:6  declare that the nations of the world will also see us, through our laws, as a "wise and understanding people"? So, which is it?

Should we expect the world to mock or praise us and our observance of mitzvot?

We invite you to look at the following Nishma Spark of the Week for a response to this question.

Shalom,

RBH

Yitro Vs. Ruth

originally published on 1/12/14

We read the 10 Dibrot on both P. Yitro and on Shavuot, and technically on vo'Etchanan, too! We also read the Scroll of Ruth on Shavuot so we can easily "connect the dots" between Ruth and the Dibrot
Now let's ask -

What do Yitro and Ruth have in common, and where do they differ?

What they do have in common is the discovery of the ONE TRUE G-D! No denying the sincerity of their common quest for that Holy Grail - so to speak.

Where do they differ?

Yitro found G-d, but - despite his relationship to his daughter and son-in-law - he subsequently abandoned the Jewish People to return to Midian.

Ruth, however, cleaved to Naomi and abandoned Moab to live the life of a beggar in Judea. Her commitment motto? Ameich Ami Veilokayich Elokai!. Her declaration of loyalty to the Jewish Nation preceded her commitment to G-D!

Blasphemy? Adearrabbah - a prerequisite! Yitro is the prototype of the Noahide who has found the True G-d but needs no society.

Ruth is the true convert, the prototypical "Ger Tzedeq" (actually Giyoert of course!). There is one reason to convert to Judaism following one's Spiritual Journey - to join the Priestly Kingdom and the Holy Nation. In truth, to live a life of G-dliness as an individual spiritual seeker needs no Judaism or Peoplehood.

Ruth's progeny? David and Mashiach. Her affiliation to our peoplehood earned her common destiny with us.
Yitro? A good guy to whom we say "fare thee well". Who of Yitro's descendants makes a glorious impact? Not the descendants of Hever haKeini who are allies.

Any sincere spiritual seeker can find G-d as an individual Noahide, but the prototypical Ger/Giyoret shares Jewish Destiny and Torah, as well as G-d.

Shalom,
RRW

Parsha: V'etchanan, "Yashar and Tov"

This week's parsha is Va'etchanan. The topic is the source of ethics, and most specifically,  the terms yashar and tov. In our ethical behaviour, do we search solely for Divine approval? Is there value in human approval? We invite you to look at an article on this topic at Nishma's Online Library.

Shalom,

RBH

Sinat Chinum - Purposeless Hatred

We are told that the churban Bayit Sheni, the destruction of the Second Temple, was a result of sinat chinum. But what does this term mean?
Most define it in the realm of "cause", focusing on a negative cause for hatred -- which is then expanded by many individuals to include any reason for hatred.
Is it true that there are no possible acceptable or even good reasons to hate? More significantly, though, is one able to control this emotional response of hatred?

Reviewing the sources seeming about the concept of sinat chinum brings someone into the general halachic discussion on hatred in general.  This discussion focuses on how one should deal with this emotion, and what is the correct effect of hatred, not on hatred's cause. In this light, the term sinat chinum may not really be describing anarchy in the causes of hatred but rather anarchy in the effects of hatred.

Further on this subject, I invite you to read a further discussion of this issue in Nishma Insight 5757-22,23: Defining Sinat Chinum on the Nishma website.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

JVO Blog: National Despair

Jewish Values Online (jewishvaluesonline.org) is a website that asks the Jewish view on a variety of issues, some specifically Jewish and some from the world around us -- and then presents answers from each of the denominations of Judaism. Nishmablog's Blogmaster Rabbi Wolpoe and Nishma's Founding Director, Rabbi Hecht, both serve as Orthodox members of their Panel of Scholars. Nishmablog, over the years, has also featured the responses on JVO by one of our two Nishma Scholars who are on this panel. 

The Jewish Values Online website now offers a new service -- a blog which presents comments on various topics within Judaism and the Jewish world. See
http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/jvoblog/index?aid=0. Rabbi Hecht is also a blogger on this blog.

His latest post 

National Despair
is now available at http://jewishvaluescenter.org/jvoblog/despair
A link is also up on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/JewishValuesOnline/

Haftara of Tisha b'Av - Hacham, Gibbor, Ashir

ירמיהו פרק ט
כב כֹּה אָמַר ה`, אַל-יִתְהַלֵּל חָכָם בְּחָכְמָתוֹ,
וְאַל-יִתְהַלֵּל הַגִּבּוֹר, בִּגְבוּרָתוֹ;
אַל-יִתְהַלֵּל עָשִׁיר, בְּעָשְׁרוֹ. 

כג כִּי אִם-בְּזֹאת יִתְהַלֵּל הַמִּתְהַלֵּל, הַשְׂכֵּל וְיָדֹעַ אוֹתִי--כִּי אֲנִי ה`, עֹשֶׂה חֶסֶד מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה בָּאָרֶץ:  כִּי-בְאֵלֶּה חָפַצְתִּי, נְאֻם-ה`.

מסכת אבות פרק ד

ד,א  בן זומא אומר, איזה הוא חכם--הלמד מכל אדם, שנאמר "מכל מלמדיי, השכלתי" (תהילים קיט,צט).  איזה הוא גיבור--הכובש את יצרו, שנאמר "טוב ארך אפיים, מגיבור" (משלי טז,לב).  איזה הוא עשיר--השמח בחלקו, שנאמר "יגיע כפיך, כי תאכל; אשריך, וטוב לך" (תהילים קכח,ב):  "אשריך", בעולם הזה; "וטוב לך", לעולם הבא.  איזה הוא מכובד--המכבד את הברייות, שנאמר "כי מכבדיי אכבד ובוזיי ייקלו" (שמואל א ב,ל).


Notice how neatly Ben Zoma in Avot 4:1 darshens the P'sukkim in Yirmiyahu 9:22-23 in such a way as to allow for a genuine Hacham / GIbbor / Ashir to emerge

For sources
See EG Ikkar Tosafot Yom Tov 1 how this works.

Kol Tuv,
RRW

Liturgical Parallels between Tisha B'Av and Purim

Previously posted around Tisha b'av 2009, then reposted March 6, 2011, on Nishmablog.


The following outline lists some of the parallels, primarily liturgical, between Purim and the 9th of Av.

           
1 Maariv - Nighttime 
     A. Only Megillos that are read at night.
          - Eicho
          - Esther
     B. Similar Structure with Kaddish Tiskabel and v'Ato Kodosh

2 Shacharis - Omissions
     A.  Purim - A "miracle" Holiday , no Hallel (Megilloh instead)
     B.  9th of Av -  A Fast Day  without   
          -  Selichos (Kinnos instead)
          -  Tachanun & Ovinu Malkeinu

3 Shacharis - Chazoros Hashatz
     A. Only weekday repetitions of the Amido having Krovos/Krovatz 

at least in the common Ashkenaz / Yekke Litrugy
4 Preceding Shabbos 
     A. Purim preceded by Zachor
     B. 9th of Av preceded by Chazon

5 The Tanach's Pattern - Special Torah and Haftoro readings are read on the Shabbos 

before the event, with the corresponding Megilloh on the day of the event.
     A. Purim - The Amalek Connection
          -  Torah- Zachor 
          -  Navi - Haftoro of Zachor (Shaul's War with Amalek in Shmuel)
          -  Kesuvim Esther
     B. 9 Av - The  Eicho Connection
          -  Torah - Eicho in Devorim
          -  Navi - Eicho in the Haftoro of Chazon (Yeshaya)
          -  Kesuvim - Eicho

6. Month-wide 
     A. Mishenichnos Adar Marbin b'Simcho
     B. Mishenichnos Av M'maatin b'Simcho

7. Miscellaneous
     A. Some Pesukim in Esther are read to Eicho's melody (in particular Asher 
 Heglo)
     B. Chiyuv S'eudo vs. Chiyuv Taanis
     C. Similar Minhogim not to work

Shalom,
RRW

THE MITZVAH TO JUDGE

From the Nishma archives at www.nishma.org, we direct you to an article on this week's parsha:

THE MITZVAH TO JUDGE

Parshah Mas'ei

Train Ride: R Eliyahu Safran

"It is good to have an end to journey toward; but it is the journey that matters, in the end." 
~ Ernest Hemingway

http://www.ou.org/torah/parsha/parsha-from-ou/masei-journey-lives/

 
Kol Tuv,
RRW

P. Matot: Umikneh Rav liv'nai R'uvein, Gad - So How did M'nasheh get Included?

R'uvein and Gad approached Moshe Rabbeinu requesting TransJordan. When Moshe acquiesced, he added Hatzi Shevet M'nasheh. Why?

Below is a an answer based upon the structure of the Tribes throughout Sefer Bamidbar - here is that dynamic at work

When Levi drops out of the "tribes" a shuffle occurs in Parshas Bamidbar, Nasso, B'haalot'cha. *

1. Gad is promoted to Honorary Ben Leah, camping with R'uvein and Shim'on

2. Yosef is divided into Two, Ephraim and M'nasheh to restore the number to 12

The 4 camps now are structured as follows

East - 3 from Leah
South - 2 from Leah plus Gad
West - 3 from Rachel
North - 3 from the "sh'fachot" - 1 from Zilpah, 2 from Bilhah

Levi was now in a circle inside
-------------------

When R'uvein and Gad chose TransJordan, then we have

20% of Leah
25% of the Sh'fachot
0% of Rachel

To Remedy this Moshe takes 1/2 of M'nasheh which comprises about 25% of Rachel - thereby restoring a balance of Imahot. [Counting Bilhah/Zilpah as a unit]

Why M'nasheh and not Ephraim? I'm not sure - but perhaps it is since he is the b'chor and so are R'uvein and Gad.

-------------------

* Note whenever Levi IS counted in the 12, Joseph is reunited.

Shalom,
RRW

Parsha: Matot/Maasei, "How did Hatzi Shevet Menashe Get There?"

The tribes of Gad and Reuven approach Moshe about staying in East Jordan...
- Bamidbar: 32

Question: how did the "half-tribe of Menashe" get in the picture? Why Menashe and not another tribe?

I have a surprise answer....

...OK...

clear your minds.

I taught a parsha class for many years at Congregation Mt Sinai in Washington Heights. I found that many of the tribal dynamics had to do with the Matriarchs, Jacob's four wives. I don't have the time or space to explain it all now, but use that as a prism for viewing these inter-tribal dynamics. Now apply that here.

• Reuven, one of Leah's sons.
• Gad, one of the two maidservants' sons. (Zilpah)

Which matriarch is missing?
Rachel

Now take a loot at the proportions:
Leah gave birth to six sons. However, Levi didn't receive any land,  leaving five to inherit the land of Israel. So Reuven is about 20% of of the inheriting sons of Leah. Gad is about 25% of the maidservants' children.

What's needed?  20-25% of Rachel's children. Half the tribe of Menasseh is about 12.5 to 20% depending on how you compute the population. Shevet Menasseh is much larger than either Shevet Ephraim or Shevet Benjamin.

So Moses' agenda was to assert a matriarchal balance over East-Jordan. Half (or part of) Menasseh did the trick

Proof?

None

Hint?

Look at the configuration of the tribes in pasrshiot Bamidbar and Beha'alotecha. The tribes march along according to matriarch - except one. Gad, who is promoted to replace Levi along with Reuven and Shim'on.

This model "suggests" the Torah had a matriarchal proportion re: tribe vs tribe. Since half-Menasseh seems to jump out of nowhere, I simply plugged them in. Voila! It conformed to a an existing model.

Shalom,

RRW

Parsha: Pinchus - "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?"

We have chosen an article that relates to the week's Parsha from Nishma's Online Library archives, both to direct you to this d'var Torah and in order to initiate some discussion.This week's Parsha is Pinchus and the topic is the generation of the desert. 

The behavour of the generation of the desert is simply perplexing. How can we explain this? We invite you to look at an article on this topic at https://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/insight5768-35.htm .

Shalom, RBH

Parsha: Pinchas, "Leadership"

A local leader of a certain sect recently told me that while their World Leader may no longer walk the earth, he is still there for consultation. After all, no shepherd would leave his flock (צֹאן מַרְעִיתוֹ.) unattended.

I then began to wonder - why couldn't Moshe Rabbenu A"H lead his flock after passing away?  It seems he was very concerned about having a successor appointed before his passing.* What compelled Moshe  to find a LIVING successor instead of relying upon consultations from beyond?

It is also interesting that Shaul required a witch from Ein Dor to help him commune with the departed Sh'muel Hannavi. Why didn't Shmuel just advise Shaul from the afterlife, too?

Shalom,
RW

-----------------------------------------

* במדבר פרק כז

 טז יִפְקֹד ה”, אֱלֹהֵי הָרוּחֹת לְכָל-בָּשָׂר, אִישׁ, עַל-הָעֵדָה.  יז אֲשֶׁר-יֵצֵא לִפְנֵיהֶם, וַאֲשֶׁר יָבֹא לִפְנֵיהֶם, וַאֲשֶׁר יוֹצִיאֵם, וַאֲשֶׁר יְבִיאֵם; וְלֹא תִהְיֶה, עֲדַת ה”, כַּצֹּאן, אֲשֶׁר אֵין-לָהֶם רֹעֶה. 

H. Of Pinchas, is it the rarest?

For the statistical reality see:

Calendar - What is the rarest Haftarah? - Jewish Life and Learning - Stack Exchange
http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/3898/what-is-the-rarest-haftarah

Shalom,
RRW

Parsha: Balak, "Schadenfreude I"

The Torah Claims that Balak hired Bil’am because: “Those whom he blessed were blessed, and those whom he cursed were cursed.”

Rashi objects to a literal read. After all, Balak is seeking only a curse and he considers the blessings just so much flattering blather.

What would happen if this were true and Bil’am was equally capable of blessing as well as cursing? If that were the case, then Balak would have had a choice in how to deal with the Israelite threat to his territory:

1. Curse the Israelites to make them vulnerable
2. Bless the Moabites to make his nation invincible.

What choice did Balak make? Why is that an important Torah lesson?  He did indeed choose to have Bil’am curse the Israelites. Balak's psychology was that it was more important to curse the Israelites than to bless his own people.

What does the Torah tell us about life in general? The Torah teaches us: It is more important for the Anti-Semite to do harm to the Jews than it is for him to obtain his own success. We will, BEH, explore this further on a series of posts

Shalom,
RRW


. Background Information:
Dictionary: schadenfreude (shäd'n-froi'də) n.
Pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others.[German : Schaden, damage (from Middle High German schade, from Old High German scado) + Freude, joy (from Middle High German vreude, from Old High German

Word Overheard: schadenfreude
Columnist George Will, who seems to enjoy the seven deadly sins almost as much as he does baseball, decided to add a pleasurable eighth — schadenfreude. "Sins can be such fun. Of the seven supposedly deadly ones, only envy does not give the sinner at least momentary pleasure. And an eighth, schadenfreude — enjoyment of other persons' misfortunes — is almost the national pastime."
Link: The economics of baseball — George Will
Posted October 15, 2006

Parsha: Balak, "Defining Evil"

We have chosen an article that relates to the week's Parsha from Nishma's Online Library archives, both to direct you to this d'var Torah and in order to initiate some discussion.This week's Parsha is Balak and the topic is the definition of evil. 

How can someone act evilly if he knows absolutely that God exists? Balak clearly knew of God. He chose to defy God even though he clearly understood the repercussions. How can we explain this? We invite you to look at an article on this topic.

Shalom, RBH

Counterfeiter, Rodeif, Hatra'ah

Kitzur SA 184:9
Based upon Rema Cho"M 388:11

Paraphrasing Goldin Translation

«A person who is engaged in counterfeiting money ... Is a "rodeif" ... And should be warned to desist from his practice [lest he jeopardize the community]»

Q1 : If the counterfeiter is indeed deemed a rodeif, why should he even get hatra'ah? What are the Rema and the Kitzur SA teaching us?

Note: Rema adds "v'im eino mashgi'ach" , so we expect that sometimes the counterfeiter will heed that warning.

Q2: Do we have sources re: Pinchas and Zimri? IOW did Pinchas warn Zimri first?

Shalom,
RRW

Parsha Balak -- Three Differences Between Bilaam and Rabbi Yosi ben Kisma

From RRW

  https://torah.org/torah-portion/ravfrand-5771-balak/

Parshah: Huqqat, "Mixed Messages?"

It seems that many think that Moshe Rabbeinu's error at mei meriva was to hit the rock instead of speaking to it. 

That seems pretty pashut! However, when Hashem tells Moshe "aseih lecha saraph,"  Moshe Rabbeinu actually: "Vaya'as Moshe Nechash Nechoshes.."

Now Hashem had said "Saraph" and Moshe instead made "Nechash nechoshes." Is this not, too, a deviation - albeit minor - from Hashem's statement? Does anyone comment on this apparent contradiction?

Shalom, RRW

Parshah: Hukkat, Great Snakes

Given: Hashem asked Moshe to make a "S'raf"

Question: Why did Moshe change that and make a "n'chash n'choshet" instead?

-----------------------------------------

R Seplowitz:

CHUKAS (Numbers, 19:1-22:1) — "Tattle-Snakes & Copperheads" | Torah Talk

«Why copper?  Why the play on words?  By making it out of NECHOSHES, copper, Moses was emphasizing that the snake on the pole was a NACHASH, a snake defending G-d's honor, rather than a SARAF, a fiery serpent defending the honor of Moses. ...»

http://torahtalk.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/chukas-numbers-191-221-%e2%80%9ctattle-snakes-copperheads%e2%80%9d/


Best Regards,
RRW

Re: [Avodah] Prohibition of Eating Blood

Originally published 1/10/08, 11:52 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.

From our Friend, Richard Wolberg:

On Jan 10, 2008 6:47 PM, Richard Wolberg,  cantorwolberg@cox.net, wrote:

It is interesting to note that with modern forensic medicine we have found that once the slightest amount of blood is left on any object, there is no way of removing every trace of it. There is a substance called luminol. Luminol is a versatile chemical that exhibits chemiluminescence, with a striking blue glow, when mixed with an appropriate oxidizing agent. It is a white to slightly yellow crystalline solid that is soluble in water and most polar organic solvents.

Luminol is used by forensic investigators to detect trace amounts of blood left at crime scenes. It is also used by biologists in cellular assays (tests) for the detection of copper, iron, and cyanides . There is no way in eliminating every trace of blood once it has appeared.

It would seem to me that perhaps the prohibition of blood centers around the fact that the tum'ah it conveys can never be fully eliminated.

I see a parallel between the paradox of the ashes of the para aduma and blood. As the ashes can render someone tahor who is tamei, and someone tamei who is tahor, likewise, without blood already inside of you, you would die. And conversely taking blood from the outside in, will cause a spiritual death.

ri

--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

P. Korach Ki Chol Ho'eidah

Originally published 6/24/11, 10:11 am.

Korach to Moshe Rabbeinu -
"Kee Chol Ho'edah Kullam Q'doshim uvtocham Hashem - umadua titnass'u al Q'hal Hashem"?

Rabbi EX [REX] to G'dolim such as R Moshe -
"Kee Chol Yisroel Kullam M"lumadim uvtocham Torat Hashem - umadua titnass'u al Klal Yisrael"?

Could it be that the Yeshivishe devotion to "g'dolim" and the Hassidishe devotion to their respective Rebbes a device to prevent
"Bayamim haheim ein Melech b'yisroel - eesh hayyashar b'einav Yaashe"? [Last verse of Sefer Shoftim]
And that it is better to submit to some authority figure -even if imperfect as opposed to having anarchy.

Shalom,
RRW

P. Korach - Arguments for the Sake of Heaven

«The argument was brewing for five minutes when they all began to smile and instructed me to say the prayer as I had planned. Before I continued the service I sauntered over to the old Shammash who was sitting quietly through the tumult and asked, "what is the minhag (custom) of this shul?"

He surveyed the scene and beamed. "This shul is 100 years old. This is our minhag."»

Drasha - Korach, 5756 - Torah.org
http://www.torah.org/learning/drasha/5756/korach.html#


Shalom,
RRW

P. Korach - John Lennon, and Spiritual Anarchy

Guest Blogger - R David Joseph Mescheloff

«...Korach is the father of spiritual anarchy. Korach argues against all forms of spiritual authority and leadership, and against any proscribed role in the spiritual community. Korach aspires to create a society free from distinctions, borders and categories. We are all divine, and hence we are all one.»

[Apologies to John Lennon's lyrics from "Imagine" ]

Imagine. Imagine there was no Moses, no Aron, no Sanctuary, no Kohanites, Levites or Israelites, and no religious authorities too. It's easy if you try. And the Jews would live as one.»

Korach and John Lennon :: TheYeshiva.net
http://theyeshiva.net/Article/View/132/Korach-and-John-Lennon


-------------------

Also see a related post
For more background -

NishmaBlog: P. Korach Ki Chol Ho'eidah
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2011/06/p-korach-ki-chol-hoeidah.html
and below (there are comments at Nishmablog, though)
-------------------
Comment:

To be fair, John Lennon - unlike Korach - was apparently dreaming of a Utopian Society, somewhat analogous to our own Messianic Age, when no Yetzer Hara would prevail. Even we Torah Jews could imagine anarchy in that kind of society, when we are to become more "angel-like" but not in our current reality.

Shalom,
RRW

Parsha: Korach, "The Motivation of Torah"

This week's parsha is Korach. Why does one follow Torah, observe mitzvot, identify with an Orthodox and/or Jewish lifestyle? There are many possibilities.

This Dvar Torah, The Motivation of Torah, which we have selected from Nishma's Online Library, will present some thoughts and offer itself as a starting point for this discussion.

Shalom,
RBH

Mussar: P. Korach - the Symbol behind the Drash

Rashi quotes a Midrash or Aggadah about how Korach belittled Mosheh Rabbenu using

1 the Tallit shekulo T'echeilet
And
2 the room filled with Sifrei Torah


Korah makes Moshe's reasoning seem silly to require one more thread of T'cheilet for the Tallit - And to require 2 more Parshiyot for the room already filled with Sifrei Torah

-------------------

While the story reads fine as is - many may notice the underlying symbolism and others may tend to overlook it.

The point of Korach's rebellion was madua titnas'u on K'hal Hashem? Meaning he advocated anarchy in order to dispose of the leadership whom he grew to resent due to the appointment of Elizaphan ben Uziel as per Hazal

Thus, the M'zuzah and the P'til T'cheilet are symbolic that EVEN a fully holy garment or room STILL needs a special symbolic "leader". And so, too, a K'hal Hashem - no matter how holy - needed a specific "p'til t'cheileit" or a "m'zuzah" anyway, in this case Moshe and Aharon.

This "chap" is not originally mine, but it is imho the key to reading between the lines of this Midrash for a further tremendous psychological insight of WHY Korach davqa picked these items to underscore his K'tatah.

Shalom,
RRW

Parsha: Shelach, "Meraglim - the Parsha and Haftarah"

"On the other hand, whom did he pick? The successful merageil from last time around - Kaleiv ,  and a known zealot for Hashem - Pinchas.".
- Micha Berger, esteemed moderator of Avodah

True, this is a Midrashic approach.

Here is an alternative from Rabbi Wm. Cohen, the local Orthodox Rabbi when I was growing up. He darshens it thusly:

The meraglim in the parshah were bigshots. They were public figures who went "spying" with a lot of fanfare, and probably packed their egos too! Yehoshua learned this lesson. Regardless of the spies' names, they were sent privately. Their anonymity may have meant that they indeed traveled without their egos.

Beqitzur: This haftara represents both the tiqqun and the lesson learned.

--------------------

The kushiya: why did Moshe send out public figures anyway?

The Hint: What verb(s) describes Moshe's agents?

• In Shelach?
• In Huqqat?
• In Devarim?

Shalom,

RRW

Parsha: Beha’alotkha, "The Whispering Campaign"

Dvar Torah on Parashath Beha’alotkha
Rabbi Chaim G.Z. Solomon

The Whispering Campaign

Our sedra gives us three very puzzling vignettes, back to back.  Bemidbar chapter 11 begins thusly:  “Vayy’hee ha`am k’mithon’neem, r`a b’oznay Hashem - and the people were like murmurers, evil in the ears of the Lord.  The Lord heard and His anger was kindled.  The fire of the Lord burned amongst them, and devoured (those) at the boundary of the encampment.” (Bemidbar 11:1) Curious, as generally when such devouring fires issue forth, action and consequence occur somewhat near the center of the camp.  Also, when the people complained, how was it that the murmurs were heard by God, but perhaps not by Moshe?  Further, the actual complaint is not recorded.

In a curiously connected report, verses 4 and 5, we have more complaints. “V’hasaphsuph asher b’qirbo, And the ‘mixed multitude’ that was among them had craved cravings; and the children of Israel returned to weeping, saying: Who will provide us flesh to eat! We remember the fish, which we would eat in Egypt for nothing (chinam); the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic...And Moshe heard the people weeping. The ‘asaphsuph’, frequently rendered ‘mixed multitude’, is a puzzler.  

So to the complaint of the Children of Israel - first, they ask for meat, but then ‘fondly’ remember the fish and vegetables they ate ‘for free’ in Egypt. What does ‘free’ mean here?  The Israelites were slaves, after all!  At the end of the chapter, God’s anger is again kindled against the People, and God strikes those that lusted and meat-eaters, all the People, with a very great plague.  Interestingly, it is only those who lusted whom Scripture records are there buried.

So ends chapter 11.  Chapter 12 picks up straightaway with yet another curious vignette.   Miryam and Aaron speak against Moshe.  First they complain regarding Moshe’s Kushite wife, though the specific issue is not mentioned.  Then, they turn right around and raise a complaint that can really only be taken as criticizing Moshe as arrogant, “Has the Lord indeed only spoken through Moshe?  Has he not also spoken through us?”  God hears (like the first vignette) and God’s anger is kindled against Miryam and Aaron (as in both previous vignettes).   Here though, only Miryam is punished, and even so, only with tsara`at, not death.  Why is only Miryam punished?  And why is the punishment not death?

The trope ‘yichar aph’, rendered, ‘anger was kindled’ when applied to God with respect to the `Am, the People, appears in Shmot 32 (the Golden Calf), Bemidbar 25 (Ba`al Peor), and foretold in Devarim 6, 7, 11 and 29.  In each of these instances idolatry is the relevant transgression.  In our sedra, the anger of the Lord is kindled against the people, but idolatry is not clearly the transgression.  Our sedra appears to be the only outlier in this pattern, though Moshe applies the trope ‘yichar aph’ to God when recounting in Bemidbar 32 the incident of the Spies (Bemidbar 14).  Rambam (Guide for the Perplexed 1.36) would have us categorize all such usages of this trope applied to the People as caused by the sin of idolatry.  How are we to understand Rambam’s required classification?

In the second pericope we’ve studied, the phrase ‘zakharnu, et haddaga, asher nokhal b’mitsrayim, chinam, we remember the fish, which we would eat in Egypt for nothing’ certainly could do for some unpacking.  What is this ‘chinam’, generally rendered ‘for free’, or ‘for nothing’? Sinat Chinam - baseless or causeless hatred, is a phrase with which we are all familiar, unfortunately.  What is the ‘chinam’ of our verse meant to inform?  Yoma 75a would interpret chinam here as free from the obligations of mitswoth, specifically with respect to physical immoralities, for which ‘fish’ must serve as some manner of euphemism.  Sifre Bemidbar 67 is explicit in this regard, that ‘chinam’ in this verse is to be understood as ‘free from the commandments’.   God’s anger is kindled against the people, for an act signifying a desire to shake off the yoke of Torah.  The implication of Rambam’s classification is staggering.

---------------------

Whispering Campaign.
1.(idiomatic) A method of persuasion in which damaging rumors or innuendo are deliberately spread concerning a person or other target, while the source of the rumors tries to avoid detection.

In our third pericope, the exact subject of Miryam’s calumny is almost immaterial.  That Miryam could be criticizing Moshe for separating from his wife, on account of concerns over ritual purity vis a vis a perceived requirement for prophesy, well, that would be a textbook example of lashon harah.  Onqelos’ understanding of the word ‘Kushite’ as ‘beautiful’ is in consonance with Chazal’s interpretation of Miryam’s actions as in sympathy with a neglected wife, as the excuse for this criticism.  On the other hand,the possibility that Miryam is exhibiting color-consciousness would be even worse. What is curious and quite material is that it is clear from the language that Miryam was the primary speaker of the first complaint (vat’daber, not vay’dabru), and that it was God, not Moshe, that ‘heard’ (parallel to the first pericope).


Onomatopoeia
1. An onomatopoeia is a word that imitates or suggests the source of the sound that it describes.

So now, what do we make of the ‘asaphsuph’?  The difficulties with identifying asaphsuph as ‘elders’, ‘strangers’, ‘foreigners’ has been dealt with elsewhere  and need not be repeated here.  We merely must construct an alternative hypothesis.  For that, though, we have really no guidance from Tanakh itself, for this is an example of a hapax legomenon, a word that appears in Tanakh only this once, so no contextual hints as to its meaning may be drawn from other instances.  The word itself is perhaps a quadriliteral, with a root samekh-peh-samekh-peh. ‘Saph-saph’.  Even if not, it is still very similar to such words as gimgum (גמגום) stuttering tzichtzooach (צחצוח) polishing tiphtooph (טפטוף) dripping shifshoof (שיפשוף) rubbing, and of course baqbooq (בקבוק) a bottle (what is the sound of liquid pouring from a bottle?)

We’ve a word in English

Susurration
1. The sound of whispering

Perhaps the very word used to label these pestiferous miscreants itself is an onomatopoeia?

The pattern begins to come together.  These three vignettes, though not a re-telling of the same story, use several similar devices to tie them together.  In the first pericope, no one really spoke out loud, and the complaint itself was so immaterial it wasn’t even recorded.  It was those who were not central to the camp, those on the ‘outskirts’ bore the brunt of God’s kindled anger.  These, perhaps, were the people on the edge, whispering.  Whatever they were whispering, it was evil enough to warrant death.  In the second, the asaphsuph, the whisperers, goaded the People into their weeping.  The People’s complaints themselves seem logically unconnected, as if the first was merely a pretext for the second.  In their complaint, however, they rebel against God, throwing off the yoke of Torah in a baseless act of disloyalty.  God’s anger is kindled, yet the worse punishment seems to be attached to the whisperers.  In the third and final pericope, Miryam goads Aaron with a primary complaint that seems unspecific as to its nature (parallel to the first vignette) and unconnected to the secondary (parallel to the second vignette).  The secondary complaint does itself smack of an act of disloyalty against Moshe, the most humble of men, though it is God who seems to take it personally.  And who is punished? It is Miryam, the whisperer, the instigator.

So now what is left to us is to understand the severity of God’s response in the first two pericopes.  The third is easily understood as a lesson against one of several possible variations of lashon hara; Chazal and later commentators all seem quite comfortable with tsara’at as the appropriate punishment.   Miryam as the whispering instigator gives us a key to understanding the first two.  (Perhaps as a tool to strengthen the connection between the second and third pericopes Scripture uses as a play on words the root asph, gather, to describe how Miryam is to return to the camp after her seven day exile, instead of several more natural words, e.g. ‘return’, ‘enter’,  ‘come in’.)  Rambam would have us interpret these first two pericopes as instances of idolatry.   How so?  Our other clue is the Report of the Spies.  A principle message of the spies was that of God’s implied inability to see the People of Israel successfully through the settlement of Canaan.  Indeed, echoes of ‘Who can provide us meat’ are heard.  The message is clear.  Denying the omnipotence of God, ‘shorting his hand’ and through that pretext seeking to divest oneself of the yoke of Torah is no other sin than that of idolatry.  Underhanded disloyalty towards Moshe is bad enough to warrant tsara`at. Whispering others into disloyalty towards God will surely bring the severest consequences as the instigation of idolatry.

There is no middle ground between the genuine faith of Caleb and Yehoshua and the rebellious idolatry of the spies, whisperers and goaders.  Ours is to choose the path of genuine faith and loyalty to Torah. Bivrakhah,

- Rabbi Chaim G.Z. Solomon, Ph.D.

Note: Rabbi Solomon is a former student of mine, and is Rabbi in Mt. Dora, Florida

 
Shalom,

RRW

P. Nasso, The Nazir - Living in Moderation

The Nazir: Live in Moderation - Judaism - Israel National News
R Eliyahu Safran:

"Perishut is an attitude to live by, not necessarily a way of life to live with. It is a personal, not a universal, goal. So too Nezirut is a personal and temporary goal, to be used when necessary. It is not a rule to be imposed upon the community. It is not Torah."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/10295

Shalom,
RRW

Naaseh v'Nishma 2 - The D'var Torah

 originally published 1/14/14

The age-old question or issue grappled with by the Midrash is:
"Why did the Israelites precede Nishma with Naaseh"? IOW how could any Naaseh take place without a preceding Nishma to know WHAT to do first? Seems obvious!

There are several beautiful nuggets in Rabbinical Literature on this. This D'var Torah as I recall was originally based upon a Malbim. But in subsequent years, I could not locate it there. So, suffice it to say I didn't make it up but I've forgotten the precise source. Anyone who CAN identify the source is most welcome to fill the gap.

What's the p'shat of a NISHMA that follows a Naaseh? It seems obvious that in order to facilitate any Naaseh, SOME "how- to" handbook is a given - whether oral, mimetic, or even on video, Naaseh presumes a pre-existing prescription. As such, Halachah l'maaseh is a predicate for Naaseh, and therefore Kal vochomer must precede any Nishma.
So the sequence is
Mitzva
Performance [Naaseh]
THEN
Nishma!
So what is the definition of that term Nishma?

Nishma simply may be defined as Torah Lishmah. In fact, it is Torah WITHOUT any pragmatic ramification!
So when we learn Shulchan Aruch in order to Observe Shabbat, that is NOT a function of Naaseh, it is a preparation, a "hechsher mitzvah" for Naaseh.
Nishma goes beyond Observance. It is deeper. It is unique to Israel to go beyond the Divine Command.
As such, there are many implications to this. Most reserved for an upcoming post
The simplest and most straightforward Implication is that Men AND women have an equal obligation in [most of] Naaseh. Thus any "Torah" that teaches practical Halachah is equally required for both genders
However, Nishma is purely a Masculine Obligation of "Torah Lishma"
-----------------

To briefly expand the question of whether this theoretical Torah lishma is merely Optional to or Off-limits to women is the subject of debate.
At any rate, this is the essence of the d'var Torah - that Torah studied BEYOND that which is a prerequisite for Performance THAT is Nishma.
BEH in upcoming posts I will
•.Expound on some of the other ramifications
• Offer some alternative understandings of "NISHMA"

Shalom
RRW

Parshat Bamidbar: THE REALITY OF IGNORED REALITY

From the Nishma archives at www.nishma.org, we direct you to an article on this week's parsha:

THE REALITY OF IGNORED REALITY

Parsha Behar: Land, Identity and Responsibility

From the Nishma archives at www.nishma.org, we direct you to an article on this week's parsah that is also most applicable to the spirit of the day -

Land, Identity and Responsibility

Parsha Bechukotai: Responsibility and Control

From the Nishma archives at www.nishma.org, we direct you to an article on this week's parsha:

Responsibility and Control