Category Archives: Sefer Devorim

Pesach

The Korban Pesach is unique amongst Sacrifices. From the famous total of 613 Mitzvohs there are no ‎less than eleven commandments associated with this offering; two positive actions and nine negative ‎transgressions. Let us investigate these Mitzvohs:‎

One

The two positive Mitzvohs consist of Slaughtering and Eating the Pascal lamb. With all other Korbonos ‎such as a Chatos, Shlomim etc… the slaughtering and eating are bracketed underneath one ‎commandment. Pesach is the exception; these two functions are designated separately. Why?‎

It is also interesting that each Mitzvah has its own vital time zone. The slaughtering can only be ‎performed on Erev Pesach in the afternoon. The consumption may only take place on the first night of ‎Pesach. All other sacrifices are normally consumed immediately i.e. on the same day they are ‎sacrificed. Why the difference?‎

Two

One of the stark negative precepts is “Do not sacrifice the Pascal lamb whilst still in possession of ‎Chometz”. Meaning, that besides for the classical requirement to dispose of one’s leaven, there is an ‎additional prohibition not to slaughter the Korban before having destroyed one’s Chometz. Why? ‎What is the connection between Korban Pesach and Chometz? ‎

Furthermore, this prohibition is limited to slaughter, but does not preclude the subsequent ingestion ‎of said Korban. Whether one is still in ownership of the old Chometz or even acquired new Chometz, ‎no sin is transgressed by consumption of the Korban. Why? ‎

Solution

This Chag which celebrates our transformation from slaves to aristocrats has a twofold dimension. It ‎represents the ultimate turnaround, first by fleeing evil and secondly by pursuing goodness. This is ‎demonstrated by Chometz and Matzah; Chometz corresponds to the Evil Inclination, and Matzah is the ‎‎‘bread of the Faithful one’. On Pesach we refrain from eating leaven and delight in Matzah. ‎

There is a particular sequence to these two ideas. King David proscribes in Tehillim (34:15) “Shun evil ‎and do good”. Before engaging in health we must first reject the detrimental. Thus we are Biblically ‎mandated to abstain from leaven on Erev Pesach and only later engage in eating Matzah on the following ‎evening. ‎

Just as Matzah has an intrinsic duplicity, we may posit that these two ideas pervade the Korban ‎Pesach. How so? Moshe told the people “Draw and take for yourselves sheep” (Shemos 12:21). ‎Mechilta provides an interesting exposition on the seeming superfluous word ‘Draw’: ‎

The Jews were passionately fond of idolatry. Moshe said to them, “Draw and take for yourselves”. He ‎meant: Withdraw from idolatry, and take for yourselves sheep for the mitzvah. (Rashi 12:6)‎

But what does taking a sheep have to do with distancing from idolatry? ‎

Sheep and goats figured greatly into the local prevalent culture. The young of these species were deified by the ‎Ancient Egyptians. Astronomically, the month of Nissan bears the constellation of young sheep and ‎goats, and in the middle of the month – which correlates to the zenith of the zodiac – the Jews went and ‎sacrificed the lamb. They killed the god of Egypt. The initial sacrifice in Egypt took immense moral ‎fortitude and was the first step in distancing from their depraved descent into Egyptian culture. ‎

A very common Jewish theme is that satisfying the body in not just a necessary evil on the contrary it is a Mitzvah. Food, intimacy and ‎nature are vehicles capable of religious and spiritual growth. Particularly eating of any Korban – an ‎animal offered to Hashem – is an elevating experience. ‎

We now have developed the two components mentioned earlier – shunning evil and doing good. ‎Slaughter of the Korban Pesach was an act distancing from the Evil Egyptians. The subsequent consumption of the lamb is ‎a medium for an inspirational uplift. That is why the two Mitzvohs, Slaughtering and Eating are ‎enumerated separately unlike other Korbonos, because they represent two starkly opposite ‎concepts. In similar vein each commandment has its own time frame – the slaughtering in the ‎afternoon and the eating at night – as they represent two distinct stages. It is only after a period ‎distancing from evil that we can pursue good. ‎

What remains to be explained is why the slaughtering is prohibited whilst in possession of Chometz, ‎but not the eating. The answer is now self explanatory the two notions of Chometz and Slaughter ‎correlate with one another. The slaughter of the Pesach is eradicating evil, by killing the idol of Egypt, ‎and banishing the haughty Chometz conveys a likewise message: how is it possible to kill evil whilst ‎hoarding it in one’s very own larder. This is paradoxical. One runs against the grain of the other. ‎However eating the Korban Pesach whilst in possession of Chometz does not carry a specific ‎prohibition. Many people do good and evil at the same time, not that one excuses the other but the ‎inconsistency is not contradictory. However it is impossible to destroy and eradicate something whilst ‎hanging on to it.‎

Vayeishev

Reuvain did not want to join his brothers in murdering Yosef and contrived a plan to spirit Yosef to safety. In his ruse, he recommended to his brothers that they cast Yosef into a pit, unbeknownst to them, this was only to be a temporary measure; later Reuvain alone would return to the pit, retrieve Yosef and bring him home to their father. The plot failed. After Reuvain departed, Yehuda suggested that they sell Yosef into slavery, thus when Reuvain returned to the pit it was empty. 

Question

We can safely assume that Reuvain was unsuccessful at convincing his brothers to drop the matter completely and leave Yosef be without disposing of him. If so what was Reuvain thinking? Was this only a momentary reprieve? How would returning home later together with Yosef remedy the situation? The brothers still hated Yosef and even if Reuvain successfully rescued him this time, they would wait for the next opportunity to throw him in another pit without Reuvain’s knowledge where he will be unable to save him.

Answer

Reuvain was aware of one thing that the others were ignorant of, and it was this knowledge which motivated and assured him of accomplishing his goal. Reuvain was sensitive to the immense pain and heartache that Yaakov would have due to Yosef’s disappearance. None of the other brothers had calculated the intense suffering this would cause their father and once they realized this, they would never want to harm Yosef, despite their despise and disgust of him.

This theory is borne out from two statements: Firstly, when Reuvain returns to the pit he reacts by saying “The boy is gone! And I where will I go?” Rashi explains this statement ‘Where will I go?’ to mean the following: “Where will I flee from Father’s pain?” Reuvain was so distraught, he was brought to the point of running away from home for having a part in causing his father pain.

Secondly, the verse tells us “about that time, Yehuda was demoted by his brothers” what prompted this demotion? Rashi comments Yehuda’s brothers demoted him from his high position when they saw their father’s distress. They said, “You (Yehuda) told us ‘sell him’ if you had said ‘return him’ we would have obeyed you.” The brothers did not regret the sale of Yosef in the slightest, they still considered their actions righteous and it would be many years till they realized they were mistaken, but they did feel sorry about the anguish they caused their father Yaakov. This alone would have encouraged them to bring Yosef back.

Now we have insight into Reuvain’s plan. Reuvain’s plan was to leave Yosef in the pit, whilst the brothers come home with Yosef’s shirt covered in blood, misleading Yaakov into thinking his son had been mauled. Meanwhile Reuvain would keep Yosef alive making sure he had the necessities to survive the wait. Finally when the Brothers would perceive Yaakov’s grief, Reuvain would return Yosef where he would be safe, protected by the anguish of his disappearance.

Lesson

Pain from a family breakup is worse then the pain in keeping peace. 

Story

Rabbi Chaim of Chernovitz (1760-1816) is famous for having written the Be’er Mayim Chaim a commentary on the Torah. Many of his expositions are based on the kabalistic teachings of the Ari.

Unfortunately for Reb Chaim one of his sons exercised his free will in a negative way and cast off his commitment to a life of Torah and Mitzvohs. The child knowing how deep his father loved him would frequently turn to his father for his needs, which Reb Chaim dutifully would provide, overlooking the anguish his child caused him.

The Be’er Mayim Chaim would use his own life as an example to intercede Heaven. “Hashem” Reb Chaim would beseech “I too have a child who doesn’t behave in the manner I would want; nevertheless I provide all his wants, please act the same way and similarly treat your children providing their requirements even if they don’t act as you would desire”.

Vayishlach

Intriguingly, the two names of our third Patriach – Yaakov and Yisroel – are opposites, and reveal converse strengths and attributes. Let us explore:

Method One – Sly and Straight

Esav, after realizing that he has been beaten to the Brochos exclaims: “Is it for this reason that he was named Yaakov? He has deceived me (Vayakveini) twice; he took my birthright, and behold, now he has taken my blessing.” A clear indication that ‘Yaakov’ is related to subterfuge.

On the other hand Yisroel is a portmanteau blend of Yoshor and E-l  - Straight and G-d – his very essence proclaimed obedience to Hashem, and demonstrated the veracity of Hashem’s ways. He no longer needed to navigate with cunning around evil to get to Hashem, Yisroel could take the direct route to Hashem – Yosher E-l

In the Talmud too, we find different tactics that are to be employed when fighting the Yetzer Hora. Rava, one of the most famous sages of the Babylonian Talmud, married at sixteen years of age. He once commented that had he, Rava, married earlier at the age of fourteen, he would have been able to shoot arrows at the Evil Inclination, that is he could defiantly confront the Yetzer Hora.

Both of these strategies were part of the arsenal belonging to our forefather. At the outset of his spiritual career Yaakov had to shrewdly navigate around Evil. He was not yet spiritually developed to fight headlong with the Yetzer Hora and challenge him directly. After many decades of success; time spent in proximity with Lavan, and his subsequent struggle with Esav’s archangel, his name was changed to Yisroel. He was able to look evil in the eye and still emerge victorious.
(Note: Micha (7:20) says “Give truth to Yaakov” it does not refer to him by Yisroel, implying that Yaakov is to be associated with truth).

Method Two – Follower and Leader

‘Yaakov’ is educed from the word Eikev meaning heel, the lowest part of the foot, this carries the connotation of following, ‘to heel someone’ is to travel close behind that person. At the birth of Yitzchok and Rivka’s twins, Esav emerged first, followed by Yaakov with his hand grasping onto Esav’s heel, this is why he was named Yaakov – heel. Yaakov was born a follower, even in birth he was trailing Esav. Yisroel is borne out of the word Sar meaning a ruler.

The original plan was for Esav and Yaakov to work together as a team. Yaakov would be the ‘tent dweller’ with his spiritual focus turned inward, Esav was ‘a man of the field’ his spiritual direction would  enable him to maneuver through the world and support his brother. Thus Yaakov would need Esav and Esav would need Yaakov, in this arrangement Esav would lead and Yaakov would follow. The plan changed through Rivka’s prophetic intervention and Yaakov had to become self sufficient, he would now have to assume a new role and be the leader. Thus Yaakov went from being a subservient to Esav and needing to grasp onto him, to the other extreme, Yaakov became Esav’s ruler.

Story

Rabbi Shmuel Hanagid (993-c.1056) was a close advisor to Berber King, Habbus al-Muzaffar in Spain. Once, the two were walking together deep in conversation, when a passerby began to scream and curse Rabbi Shmuel. The king was incensed at this insult to his favorite. “This man deserves a severe punishment! Guards cut out his tongue!” Rabbi Shmuel quickly stepped in, and insisted that he himself would ensure retribution. “Very well,” the King agreed, “I leave this in your hands.”

Rabbi Shmuel investigated the man’s situation, discovering that he was but a penniless poet, plagued by his poverty. He immediately sent the man many gifts, and undertook his support for the future. Overcome with gratitude this man became a zealous admirer of Rabbi Shmuel.

The King and Rabbi Shmuel found themselves on a similar walk some time after these events. They passed the very same poet, who this time recited poetry praising Rabbi Shmuel and the King.

“Is this poet still speaking? I thought I ordered his tongue cut out,” questioned the King.

“Yes, Your Highness,” Rabbi Shmuel replied “I did indeed cut out his rotten evil tongue and exchanged it for a fresh virtuous tongue.”

Vezos Habrachah

Moshe Rabbeinu bestowed many blessings upon his beloved people, prior to his ultimate departure. Each tribe a Brochoh appropriate to it’s strengths. In blessing his own tribe of Levi, one of the attributes Moshe chose to single out, is the fact they kept the covenant. Rashi explains that this refers to the covenant of circumcision, Bris Milah:

For the Yisraelim who were born in the desert did not circumcise their sons, whereas the Levi’im were circumcised, and circumcised their sons.

The reason the rest of the nation did not circumcise their sons was in consideration of their nomadic living conditions. The lack of wind in the desert presented an element of danger, and thus out of caution they refrained from circumcising their sons. The Levites on the other hand chose to ignore this risk and enter the covenant.

Question

In contrasting the Levites with the Israelites why does Rashi say that the “Levites” were circumcised? In actual fact both the Levites and Israelites themselves were circumcised, the difference lay only in their offspring; the Levites circumcised their sons whereas the Israelites abstained.

Answer

Let us answer by introducing another query. What merit does a person have by the fact he is circumcised, his Milah took place when he was but an infant incapable of resisting. Answers the Marsham (1835 -1911), in Techiles Mordechai fathers act mercifully towards their sons and try to protect them from pain, equal to and sometimes greater than, the protection they offer themselves. The fact the father tries to bring his children into the Bris, either by performing the circumcision himself or arranging his son’s Bris Milah, the adult now affirms his own commitment to the Bris.

This then is what Rashi is saying “the Levites were circumcised, and circumcised their sons” meaning the Levites were circumcised i.e. they confirmed their entry into the covenant, because they circumcised their sons.

This is true of other ideas, morals, and chinuch which we chose to impart to our children. We ply kids with gifts to encourage them to learn Torah and many times this has the desired effect, however this is an immature dedication to such a priceless but when they bribe their offspring to learn Torah they demonstrate how much value they place in Limmud Torah. In a similar vein on Simchas Torah when we encourage our children to dance with the Torah, and impart the of the day, it bears witness to our own bond with the Torah.

Lesson

Nothing brings a notion home, as when passing it on to your home.

Ha’azinu

Shiras Ha’azinu, is the song that will never be forgotten from the Jewish people. Fundamental and encompassing, it describes the destiny of the Jewish nation. On an individual level, the Kabbalists teach us that the name of every single person is hinted to in Ha’azinu, and every event is likewise alluded to in this song (See story below).

Question

Here is an excerpt from Moshe Rabbeinu’s introduction:

“My teachings will drip like rain, my word will flow like dew, like storm winds on vegetation and like raindrops on grass.”

Moshe starts by saying that his teachings will drip like rain, this denotes showering the people with abundant wisdom, but Moshe concludes by saying that they will be like raindrops on grass, connoting a mere smattering of knowledge. These two statements seem somewhat contradictory. 

Answer

Ha’azinu on a surface level is complex; in addition many secrets lie hidden in its profound words. The multifaceted deeper layers must compound the intricacy of this song. Moshe shared all this knowledge with the people, his teachings were “dripping like rain”, from his perspective his words were “flowing like dew”. This then is the first half of the verse.

There are two possible ways how his words will be received – to us ‘earthlings’ the recipients of his precipitation: One, “like storm winds on vegetation” - the Talmud tells us (Taanis 3b) that the wind that comes after the rain is as beneficial to growing plants as rain itself, thus we can develop and expound Moshe’s teachings, thereby maximizing their meaning in the same way the post wind maximizes the benefit of the rain. Two, “like raindrops on grass” we may only catch a few snippets of his message, like the appearance of grass after rain which grasps and retains a small number of raindrops. Either way we connect to this immortal message.

Lesson

Ha’azinu on an elementary level it is difficult to comprehend, yet even a little bit of the message is worthwhile and Divinely desired.

Story

Rabbi Moses ben Nacḥman Girondi, Bonastruc ça (de) Porta (1194 – 1270) known by his acronym Ramban, was a leading medieval Jewish scholar, philosopher, physician, Kabbalist, and biblical commentator. He was raised, studied, and lived for most of his life in Girona.

One of the Ramban’s, students was a scholar named Avner. Unfortunately, Avner became an apostate, and subsequently in his new secular world he rose to a position of enormous power. One Yom Kippur he sent for the Ramban – his former rabbi – to come to him. When the Ramban arrived, Avner slaughtered a pig right in front of the Ramban, chopped, cooked and the proceeded to eat it. He then asked Ramban how many prohibitions did he transgress that would incur spiritual excision. “Four”, the Ramban responded. Avner, wanting to enter into a debate, said “Five.” Ramban glared at him angrily, indicating to Avner that he wasn’t willing to debate the issue. Avner still retained enough respect for his former mentor not to argue any further. 

“What caused you to abandon the way of the Torah?” asked the Ramban. Avner told him that he had once heard Ramban say that according to the mystical tradition, every Mitzvah, every person who has ever lived and every event that has, or will, occur is hinted to in Parshas Ha’azinu. He simply couldn’t accept such a thing, how could such a small Parsha contain so much information, this led him to reject everything else. Ramban said that he still maintained this to be true, and even offered Avner to find him anything within the Parsha. Avner took the bait and questioned as to where is the allusion to his own name.

The Ramban went into a corner of the room, meditated for a while, came back and told him the Posuk “אמרתי אפאיהם אשביתה מאנוש זכרם” – “I had said ‘I will scatter them, I will cause their memory to cease from man”. The third letter of each word starting with אפאיהם spells out Avner. Avner was astounded, he realized his teacher had been correct all along. He then asked the Ramban how he could repent for his many sins. The Ramban responded that your repentance lies in the verse which your name Avner is encoded “I will cause their memory to cease from man”. Avner understood the message. He got into a boat, headed out to sea alone and disappeared, never to be seen or heard from again.

Weekly Halachah 

One may construct a Succah on Erev Shabbos until Chatzos. (Mishna Berurah 625:2)