Parsha: Ha'azinu, "He Measured the Seas in the Hollow of His Hand"

We chose this article from  Nishma's Online Library  relating to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah and to start some discussion.

We encounter the artistic and poetic within Torah through the reading of Ha'azinu. It is with specifically this in mind that we direct you to the following article. 

Shalom,
RBH

Parsha: Vayelech, "National Torah and Personal Torah"

We chose an article from the archives of Nishma's Online Library 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 is Vayelech, and the topic is the self. We invite you to look at an article on this topic. 

Shalom,

RBH

Parsha: Ki Teitzei, "War and the Innocent Bystander"

This week's parsha is Ki Teitzei and the topic is the response to terrorism. In the response to terrorism, the practical reality is that there is always a great possibility that innocent individuals will also be hurt and killed. How do we understand this action within the Torah's moral perception?

We have chose the article, War and the Innocent Bystander from the archives of Nishma's Online Library both to direct you to the Dvar Torah and to initiate some discussion.


Shalom,

RBH

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

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

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

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

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

CAN Hashem change HIS Mind?

Originally published 10/26//09, 7:43 pm
Preface:
Using can in this context, I am asking if it is possible that The Divine has a mind that is "changeable"? Or does Hashem's eternal nature preclude this? 
The Torah states emphatically that Hashem does NOT change HIS mind in Shemuel I:15: 29

  וְגַם נֵצַח יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֹא יְשַׁקֵּר וְלֹא יִנָּחֵם:  כִּי לֹא אָדָם הוּא, לְהִנָּחֵם.

On the other hand, in Breishit 6:6, it says "Vayinachem Hashem", that Hashem regretted His decision regarding the creation of Adam.
This is apparently a blatant contradiction.

R.S.R. Hirsch, in B'reishit makes an ingenious Diyyuq using Diqduq. In Shemuel, the reflexive Hispael is used, while in B'reishit, the Pi'el construct is used.
As such, in Shemuel the Torah is teaching that Hashem never changes his own mind - meaning in isolation or due to internal ruminations.

However, in B'reishit, Hashem is not altering his internal stance. Rather, He is merely reflecting the external change in Adam-humanity since Creation. Hashem's Mind is actually internally consistent; it is simply that  external circumstances trigger altered responses.

This is different than humans who may indeed change their minds without external stimuli. Human minds can be fickle -
While G-d's mind cannot! However, His mind may appear to change - given a corresponding change in Circumstances - but never due to mood, etc.


Shalom,
RRW