Rambam, Maharal, the weekly parsha and other topics in Judaism

Chareidim Who Ignore History Are Doomed To Repeat History's Mistakes

2012-01-02T08:42:54-08:00

The events in Beit Shemesh and the general Israeli population's reaction reminds me of a story told over in the Talmud and Josephus. (I am not talking about Kamtza and Bar Kamtza because that is not analogous) I am talking about the story found in Kiddushin 66a and Josephus Antiquities Book 13 section 10 that deals with King Yannai's transformation from a follower of the Pharisees to the Sadducees. First let us see the source in Kiddushin 66a (Translation found here):

It once happened that King Jannai went to Kohalith in the wilderness and conquered sixty towns there. On his return he rejoiced exceedingly and invited all the Sages of Israel. Said he to them, ‘Our forefathers ate mallows when they were engaged on the building of the [second] Temple; let us too eat mallows in memory of our forefathers.’ So mallows were served on golden tables, and they ate. Now, there was a man there, frivolous, evil hearted and worthless, named Eleazar son of Po'irah, who said to King Jannai. ‘O King Jannai, the hearts of the Pharisees are against thee.’ ‘Then what shall I do?’ ‘Test them by the plate between thine eyes.’ So he tested them by the plate between his eyes. Now, an elder, named Judah son of Gedidiah, was present there. Said he to King Jannai. ‘O King Jannai! let the royal crown suffice thee, and leave the priestly crown to the seed of Aaron.’ (For it was rumoured that his mother had been taken captive in Modi'im.) Accordingly, the charge was investigated, but not sustained, and the Sages of Israel departed in anger. Then said Eleazar b. Po'irah to King Jannai: ‘O King Jannai! That is the law even for the most humble man in Israel, and thou, a King and a High Priest, shall that be thy law [too]!’ ‘Then what shall I do?’ ‘If thou wilt take my advice, trample then, down.’ ‘But what shall happen with the Torah?’ ‘Behold, it is rolled up and lying in the corner: whoever wishes to study. Let him go and study!’ Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Immediately a spirit of heresy was instilled into him, for he should have replied. ‘That is well for the Written Law; but what of the Oral Law?’ Straightway, the evil burst forth through Eleazar son of Po'irah, all the Sages of Israel were massacred, and the world was desolate until Simeon b. Shetah came and restored the Torah to its pristine [glory].

The Josephus details are a little different, but overall the idea is the same (Josephus Antiquities 13:10 translation found here):

However, this prosperous state of affairs moved the Jews to envy Hyrcanus; but they that were the worst disposed to him were the Pharisees, who were one of the sects of the Jews, as we have informed you already. These have so great a power over the multitude, that when they say any thing against the king, or against the high priest, they are presently believed. Now Hyrcanus was a disciple of theirs, and greatly beloved by them. And when he once invited them to a feast, and entertained them very kindly, when he saw them in a good humour, he began to say to them, that they knew he was desirous to be a righteous man, and to do all things whereby he might please God, which was the profession of the Pharisees also. However, he desired, that if they observed him offending in any point, and going out of the right way, they would call him back and correct him. On which occasion they attested to his being entirely virtuous; with which commendation he was well pleased. But still there was one of his guests there, whose name was Eleazar, a man of an ill temper, and delighting in seditious practices. This man said," Since thou desirest to know the truth, if thou wilt be righteous in earnest, lay down the high priesthood, and content thyself with the civil government of the people," And when he desired to know for what cause he ought to lay down the high priesthood, the other replied, "We have heard it from old men, that thy mother had been a captive under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes." This story was false, and Hyrcanus was provoked against him; and all the Pharisees had a very great indignation against him. Now there was one Jonathan, a very great friend of Hyrcanus's, but of the sect of the Sadducees, whose notions are quite contrary to those of the Pharisees. He told Hyrcanus that Eleazar had cast such a reproach upon him, according to the common sentiments of all the Pharisees, and that this would be made manifest if he would but ask them the question, What punishment they thought this man deserved? for that he might depend upon it, that the reproach was not laid on him with their approbation, if they were for punishing him as his crime deserved. So the Pharisees made answer, that he deserved stripes and bonds, but that it did not seem right to punish reproaches with death. And indeed the Pharisees, even upon other occasions, are not apt to be severe in punishments. At this gentle sentence, Hyrcanus was very angry, and thought that this man reproached him by their approbation. It was this Jonathan who chiefly irritated him, and influenced him so far, that he made him leave the party of the Pharisees, and abolish the decrees they had imposed on the people, and to punish those that observed them.

In both of these versions there is one common theme, there is a Pharisee that insulted the king inappropriately and this allowed for the king to be swayed by one of the Sadducees to become evil. Obviously, if there was no wicked Sadducee there would have been no problem, but that is the point, there is always a "wicked Sadducee." Had the foolish Pharisee, who was punished in both stories (see commentaries on Kiddushin 66a), not insulted the king based on a foolish assumption NOTHING bad would have happened. His ridiculous attempt at righteousness caused much death and sorrow for the Jewish people.

The question is who should be blamed in a situation like this? Obviously, we give blame to the Sadducee, but that is expected of him. The Sadducee is the antithesis of Torah Judaism, should we have expected him to stay silent when the Pharisees allowed the king to be insulted? No, he was doing what was in his nature. It would be foolish for us to place the true blame on the Sadducee just like it would be ridiculous for us to place blame on a lion released from the zoo for mauling a person. Obviously, you place blame on the lion keeper that freed the lion and not the lion itself. The Sadducee in this case was a malicious animal that was "caged" because King Yannai was an ardent follower of the Pharisees. However, the Pharisee that insulted the King's lineage and status "released" this caged beast and allowed it to maul the Pharisees.

This is exactly what is going on in Israel today. Obviously, there are left wingers that are anti the Chareidi way of life that are waiting to jump on them at every moment. The only way the Chareidim can stave off their criticism is by being completely innocent (which has hardly been the case in the past). However, when you have people that associate with the Chareidim and are not denounced by the Chareidi leadership in Israel that do such disgusting acts what do you expect from the left wingers? It is not their fault that they are criticizing the Chareidi community, that is what they have been doing all along. However, since these acts are SO INCREDIBLY reprehensible everyone is listening to them now. They are able to turn the general public against the Chareidim in a way that was not achievable before.

The only way for the Chareidim to stave this crisis off is by giving these thugs the harshest punishment. In the Josephus story (and in the commentators to the story in Kiddushin) we see that the reason King Yannai was so furious at the Pharisees had nothing to do with this single Pharisee. What upset King Yannai was the reaction of the greater Pharisee community. They did not punish the Pharisee that insulted him harshly enough. If the Chareidi community would disavow this sect with the harshest criticism then the general Israeli public would be much more forgiving. NONE of the Chareidi leadership has done anything to disavow these disgusting thugs. That is what is so frustrating. The Chareidi apologists fail to see this. If you do not punish those within your ranks appropriately, you are at fault. You can cry and cry about how they are not 'REAL" Chareidim (whatever that means), but until you take actions against them your words are meaningless and the "King" (the Israeli Public) will punish you for being complacent with their acts.

Why Shmuel Was Denied Semicha (Ordination)

2011-12-25T15:23:57-08:00

I go to a Gemara Chaburah (group) on Shabbos and during one of the many discussions I found out something very interesting. Someone mentioned a very interesting point about Shmuel and why he was not given semicha. I asked for the source and the doctor who mentioned the idea was kind enough to share with me his sefer "Doros Ha'amoraim."

Translation:
Why was Shmuel not ordained?
This question has brought about different answers.
1) [Shmuel] was an expert in the calendar [for which months were full (30 days) and which months were not (29 days)]. Therefore, if he were ordained it is possible that the people of Bavel would follow after him with regards to when to bless the new month and when the holidays would fall and they would not rely on the institutions in Israel. Perhaps this is why they gave Shmuel the sharp nickname of Yarhinaah (referring to the moon).
2) Shmuel dealt with Mada (secular knowledge), outside knowledge, and foreign languages. He also attached himself to wise men from other nations. These things created a stumbling block in the road for him to get ordained. Even though he had good intentions this was a burden and pain to Rebbi [Yehuda Hanasi].

According to the first opinion I can understand why the Rabbis of Israel did not want to ordain Shmuel. They wanted to keep a center for Torah Judaism. If the Rabbis of Israel came up with one date for the holidays and Shmuel came up with another date, then there would be total chaos. Therefore, they needed to keep Shmuel from getting ordained in order to prevent this potential split within Rabbinical Judaism.

However, the second opinion sounds much more disturbing in my eyes. The reason they refused to give Shmuel ordination was because he was well versed in secular knowledge and associated with non-Jews? That is a reason not to ordain someone, because he knows everything in Torah and secular society? This seems like the Rabbis of Israel were making more of a power play than a just decision. They don't want people associating with non-Jews or learning secular knowledge so they refuse to ordain Shmuel. However, it seems like Shmuel would encourage these things and that is the sole reason they did't want to ordain him.

I prefer to believe the first opinion to be correct for the following inferences that we can draw. According to the first opinion the Rabbis did not ordain Shmuel because they realized Rabbinical Judaism must be united, whether in Israel or Bavel. There must be one law for everyone. Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, etc needs to be on the same day for all Jews no matter where they are in the world. If Jews in Israel kept Rosh Hashana on Sept. 1st and the Jews in Babel kept Rosh Hashana on Sept. 10th, that disparity would cause major problems. That is a unity issue that seems, to me, a very legitimate concern.

However, to disregard someone from the leadership because he is well versed in secular subjects and associates with non-Jews seems ridiculous. If anything it would seem, to me, that associating with non-Jews and having secular knowledge as well as Torah knowledge would make a person MORE capable of being a leader. Shmuel felt that way and so did many Rishonim after him (Rambam, Ralbag, etc).

This is why I believe the first opinion to be correct and the second opinion to be wrong. However, even if the second opinion were true, we clearly have a Mesorah that learning secular subjects and associating with non-Jews is definitely acceptable..

I Had Twin Boys

2011-07-15T12:26:50-07:00

Well, I haven't been posting in a while because my wife gave birth to twin (fraternal) boys last wednesday. It was all very exciting and it has been a crazy week. The bris was on thursday since they were born after shkia.

It is a lot of hard work feeding two babies every two hours, thank G-D we have help.
Oh, and my wife decided to give birth on the second day of my rotations in the hospoital. So, I have been trying to miss as little as possible, but having twins is a lot of work.

I am currently on my pediatric rotation and it has been pretty fun. Little kids are cute and adorable. However, it can be really sad to see these parents that neglect their children or use them to get attention.

Anyway, I hope everyone has a good shabbos.

Aharon's Legacy

2011-06-30T16:01:50-07:00

When one thinks about Aharon Hakohen the image of a priest comes to mind. The most important thing about Aharon was his role as Kohen Gadol. However, what WAS the role of the Kohen Gadol? Was his main purpose to be the connecting force between man and G-D? Or was there a different reason for the Kohen Gadol?

If we look at this week's Parsha I think we can understand what Aharon's true role was among the Jewish people. At the end of Chapter 20 of Bamidbar, we see that Aharon dies and leaves over his high priest garments to his son, Eleazar:

כח וַיַּפְשֵׁט מֹשֶׁה אֶת-אַהֲרֹן אֶת-בְּגָדָיו, וַיַּלְבֵּשׁ אֹתָם אֶת-אֶלְעָזָר בְּנוֹ, וַיָּמָת אַהֲרֹן שָׁם, בְּרֹאשׁ הָהָר; וַיֵּרֶד מֹשֶׁה וְאֶלְעָזָר, מִן-הָהָר. 28 And Moses stripped Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son; and Aaron died there in the top of the mount; and Moses and Eleazar came down from the mount.

כט וַיִּרְאוּ, כָּל-הָעֵדָה, כִּי גָוַע, אַהֲרֹן; וַיִּבְכּוּ אֶת-אַהֲרֹן שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, כֹּל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל. {ס} 29 And when all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead, they wept for Aaron thirty days, even all the house of Israel. {S}

However, at the beginning of Chapter 21 the Torah throws in a quick little story that is three verses long:

א וַיִּשְׁמַע הַכְּנַעֲנִי מֶלֶךְ-עֲרָד, יֹשֵׁב הַנֶּגֶב, כִּי בָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל, דֶּרֶךְ הָאֲתָרִים; וַיִּלָּחֶם, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיִּשְׁבְּ מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁבִי. 1 And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the South, heard tell that Israel came by the way of Atharim; and he fought against Israel, and took a captive.

ב וַיִּדַּר יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶדֶר לַיהוָה, וַיֹּאמַר: אִם-נָתֹן תִּתֵּן אֶת-הָעָם הַזֶּה, בְּיָדִי--וְהַחֲרַמְתִּי, אֶת-עָרֵיהֶם. 2 And Israel vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said: 'If Thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will destroy their cities.'

ג וַיִּשְׁמַע יְהוָה בְּקוֹל יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיִּתֵּן אֶת-הַכְּנַעֲנִי, וַיַּחֲרֵם אֶתְהֶם, וְאֶת-עָרֵיהֶם; וַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם-הַמָּקוֹם, חָרְמָה. {פ} 3 And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they destroyed them and their cities; and the name of the place was called Hormah. {P}

What is the point of this story? Did Arad really have a battle with Israel that ended with only a single captive? Also, why did the Jewish people vow that they would destroy Arad's cities if only G-D would let them defeat them? Why was this such an important fight for the Jewish people? According to Rashi this captive was not even a full fledged Jew, but a slavewoman.

Rashi tells us that the reason Arad attacked at this point was because he heard that Aharon had died and that the protective cloud over the Jewish people disappeared. Arad was not foolish enough to have a war with the Jewish people that would end in disaster for him and his people. He figured that the best course of action was to demoralize the Jewish people. How? Kidnap someone and hope the Jewish people lost their desire to protect each other.

Why would Arad have thought the Jewish people would not care about someone being kidnapped or just allow it to happen? Aharon had died and HE was the glue that held the Jewish people together.

"The rabbis are still more emphatic in their praise of Aaron's virtues. Thus Hillel, who in Herod's time saw before him mainly a degenerate class of priests, selfish and quarrelsome, held Aaron of old up as a mirror, saying: "Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace; love your fellow creatures and draw them nigh unto the Law!" (Abot, i. 12). This is further illustrated by the tradition preserved in Abot deR. N. xii. Sanh. 6b, and elsewhere, according to which Aaron was an ideal priest of the people, far more beloved for his kindly ways than was Moses. While Moses was stern and uncompromising, brooking no wrong, Aaron went about as peacemaker, reconciling man and wife when he saw them estranged, or a man with his neighbor when they quarreled, and winning evil-doers back into the right way by his friendly intercourse. The mourning of the people at Aaron's death was greater, therefore, than at that of Moses; for whereas, when Aaron died the whole house of Israel wept, including the women (Num. xx. 29),"
(Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=4&letter=A#ixzz1Qnn7agQ1)

He was the peacemaker, he was the one that kept the nation together with love. Without Aharon, Arad was hoping, that the Jews would fall apart and not care for one another.

This was a huge mistake. The Jewish people not only stayed together because of the lesson's learned from Aharon about loving each other, but they even cared about a slavewoman. They would not be demoralized, rather they would use this aggression against them to completely conquer Arad and his kingdom.

This is the point of the Kohen Gadol, to be the glue that keeps the nation together. This is, probably, why the Kohen Gadol is held "responsible" when someone is killed by accident. The Kohen Gadol should have imparted a greater concern for others in the man that killed by accident. Aharon's lesson to the Jewish people is simple: Care for your fellow and stay united.

This teaching of Aharon has been strong in the Jewish community for centuries. How many times have we heard of Jews saving other Jews from harm. Jews in Spain redeeming Jews that were captured and sold. Jews airlifting other Jews out of Africa to bring them back to Israel. This is the most important trait that has been engraved in the Jewish people, caring for one another. Without Aharon's legacy the Jewish people would have truly fallen apart without the unity between different groups of Jews when it was truly needed.

Forced Religion In Israel

2011-06-29T18:09:55-07:00

I have always been against forcing anyone to follow the Jewish religion. I think it is counterproductive and leads to enmity for the religion. Obviously, I think that Israel should be a Jewish state run by Jews and represent Jewish values, but I am opposed to forcing the religion on anyone in any way. The food should be kosher, the day off should be shabbos, but we should not force people to keep shabbos, or to keep kosher. That is not only pointless, but it is dangerous.

This attitude, of forcing religion on irreligious people is why there is such a divide between the religious and the secular people in Israel. The Rabbinate tries to control the marriages and the life styles of the secular people in certain ways (at least this is how the secularists see it). Also, they appear to force the secularists (to some extent) to pay for their Yeshivot and their religious lifestyle. Many refuse to serve in the army and this leads to contempt for the religious by the secularists. I don't think the secularists treat the religious any better, but they don't force their way of life on the religious. ( I could be wrong about the extent of the actual push to force religion on the secularists by the Rabbinate, but from what I read in the newspapers and hear from my secular relatives, this seems to be what is going on. Also, see this article http://www.itim.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/AdamFerziger-ReligionfortheSecular.pdf)

This is, surprisingly, not just my opinion, but the opinion of a very great man, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. From the book "Thinking Aloud" (Pg. 141-143)
"I am the one who opposes fully- I have said this at conventions- the whole business of legislating religion in Eretz Yisroel. To me it is ridiculous, it will obtain the reverse effect. You cannot make a Jew pious or observant by having a police force. You can ask many questions, I know. Many questions. It is not here the time, in general, to discuss halachic sanctions. Halacha knows of sanctions, and I have a theory about it, but it is not my job to discuss it now. But, to me, Mizrachi is committing the most terrible historical mistake. We should instead devote all our energies to an educational campaign, to display the beauty of yahadus (Judaism), to show people that we have a comprehensive philosophy, and make them come out of their free will to the fold. Legislating through parliament-- I cannot see it. It will never be as effective as an attempt to educate people.

I cannot see a rabbanut (Rabbinate) which is part of government. A few months ago they approached me about Chief Rabbinate, and I said 'No gentlemenn, I cannot become a part of the government.' A rabbi is sometimes opposed to government. If the rabbi's authority is constituted by legislation, the whole rabbinic dignity is gone."

There is not much else to say. The Jewish religion should not be forced upon anyone. Any type of force from the religion detracts from it more than it serves it. It hurts the credibility and the draw of the religion. Hopeful people will realize this and instead of rioting about parking lots being open on shabbos and instead of yelling about anyone who believes evolution to be true is a kofer, maybe we should be focusing on more important things. Maybe the great minds of the generation should lift their heads up from the Gemara and think real hard about why the vast majority of Jews are not religious and how we can influence them to want to become religious.

Observance of the Jewish religion, at least before the Moshiach comes, must be from love and free will. No one can compell anyone else to observe the commandments. In the notes on page 142 of "Thinking Aloud" Rabbi Holzer says, "The only time halacha seems to set up real coercion is in cases of social services and care for the community. For instance, Beis Din (Religious courts) would be kofeh (force) to collect charity (see Rambam Matanos aniyim 7:10)... The few attempts of certain kings and leaders to coercively uphold morality, as in the time of Yoshiyahu, seem to have been completely ineffective. Yoshiyahu was in fact killed because the nation was not reformed as he believed them to be."

How Could Dasan and Aviram Deny that G-D Spoke to Moshe?

2011-06-25T19:52:42-07:00

Something about this week's Parsha really bothered me. We always learn that the reason the Jewish people's claim to fame (G-D gave us the Torah) is that the entire nation heard G-D speak. This is seen in the Parsha of Yisro. However, this week we have Dasan and Aviram denying the fact that G-D spoke to Moshe. How is this possible? Weren't they witness to Har Sinai? To see this phenomena yourself just check out this week's Parsha (Bamidbar 16:12-15):

יב וַיִּשְׁלַח מֹשֶׁה, לִקְרֹא לְדָתָן וְלַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב; וַיֹּאמְרוּ, לֹא נַעֲלֶה.	12 And Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab; and they said: 'We will not come up;
יג הַמְעַט, כִּי הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ, לַהֲמִיתֵנוּ, בַּמִּדְבָּר: כִּי-תִשְׂתָּרֵר עָלֵינוּ, גַּם-הִשְׂתָּרֵר.	13 is it a small thing that thou hast brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, but thou must needs make thyself also a prince over us?
יד אַף לֹא אֶל-אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ, הֲבִיאֹתָנוּ, וַתִּתֶּן-לָנוּ, נַחֲלַת שָׂדֶה וָכָרֶם; הַעֵינֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָהֵם, תְּנַקֵּר--לֹא נַעֲלֶה.	14 Moreover thou hast not brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey, nor given us inheritance of fields and vineyards; wilt thou put out the eyes of these men? we will not come up.'
טו וַיִּחַר לְמֹשֶׁה, מְאֹד, וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל-יְהוָה, אַל-תֵּפֶן אֶל-מִנְחָתָם; לֹא חֲמוֹר אֶחָד מֵהֶם, נָשָׂאתִי, וְלֹא הֲרֵעֹתִי, אֶת-אַחַד מֵהֶם.	15 And Moses was very wroth, and said unto the LORD: 'Respect not Thou their offering; I have not taken one ass from them, neither have I hurt one of them.'

Also, later on we see straight out the Dasan and Aviram did not believe Moshe was sent by G-D (Ibid:28):

כח וַיֹּאמֶר, מֹשֶׁה, בְּזֹאת תֵּדְעוּן, כִּי-יְהוָה שְׁלָחַנִי לַעֲשׂוֹת אֵת כָּל-הַמַּעֲשִׂים הָאֵלֶּה: כִּי-לֹא, מִלִּבִּי.

28 And Moses said: 'Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works, and that I have not done them of mine own mind.

Dasan and Aviram saw that G-D had chosen Moshe and that G-D was the one that took them out of Egypt. Why, then, do they blame Moshe for taking them out of Egypt and not bringing them to Israel? How can they accuse Moshe of doing anything without G-D? Are they, literally, insane? Did they really require that G-D kill them in order that they and everyone else would know that G-D spoke to Moshe and everything that is happening is from G-D? That seems very silly.

This predicament would have confused me greatly before medical school. However, there were two things that I learned while in medical school. One was from politics and the other was from actual psychology. However, both ideas led to a single point: People believe what they want to believe. It is true, Dasan and Aviram were at Mt. Sinai, they knew that G-D spoke with Moshe and that everything that Moshe did was from G-D (or at least in accordance with G-D's wishes). Still, they had such a warped mentality that they refused to believe that everything Moshe did was from G-D. Dasan and Aviram hated Moshe, they were they ones (the Midrash tells us) that caused Moshe to flee Egypt (they were the two Jews that were fighting in the Beginning of Shemos and said "Are you going to kill us like you killed the Egyptian). Therefore, Dasan and Aviram could never fully allow themselves to believe that Moshe was the ultimate messenger from G-D.

This mentality is seen throughout the world. Every person's bias pushes them towards certain mentalities. There is a reason why 40% of Americans will always vote Republican and 40% will always vote Democrat. They believe the other side is evil and their side is good. Obviously, this is a warped (to some degree) view of reality and some ideas of one side are good and some ideas of the other side are good, but no one will ever admit that except the people in the middle.

There are other examples, especially of the bloggers that are what I call Anti-Slifkinites, that are so bias one way that they refuse to admit to absolute truths. For example, there are obviously Rishonim and achronim that explain the Rambam held the world was not created in six literal days (from http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/03/the-rambam-on-time-during-creation.shtml All translations are from Rav Eidensohn I believe):

Abarbanel(Breishis)
The 9th question concerns that which is mentioned in the Moreh Nevuchim. Rambam notes that time can not exist without the movement of the celestial spheres and the the sun and moon. However this raises the question as how there could be time before the fourth day when the celestial spheres and sun were created? The Rambam answered this question by asserting that in fact the spheres and the sun were created on the first day. Thus time existed for the first 3 days in the same manner as it existed on the subsequent days. He explained that in fact everything — both the Heavens and the Earth — were created on the first day. The Rambam cited Chazal that the word “es” indicated that the creation on the first day included everything associated with the Heavens as well as everything associated with the Earth. He also cited the gemora (Chulin 60a) that everything that was created was created in its final form. He also cited another statement of Chazal that the Heavens and Earth were created simultaneously. Thus the Rambam believed that the work of Creation happened all on one day and was not divided amongst six days. He claimed that in a single moment of creation everything came into existence. He explained that the reason for the Torah stating that there were six days of Creation was to indicate the different levels of created beings according to their natural hierarchy. Thus the Rambam does not understand the word day to be a temporal day and he doesn’t read Bereishis to be describing the chronological sequence of creation…. This is the view of the Rambam which he considered as one of the major secrets of the Creation. In fact he tried hard to conceal this view as can be seen in his words in Moreh Nevuchim (2:30). In spite of his efforts the Ralbag, Navorni and the other commentators to Moreh Nevuchim uncovered his secret and made it known to the whole world…. However, despite the Rambam’s greatness in Torah and the apparent support from Chazal, this view of the Rambam is demonstratably false….

The Abarbanel is clear in question 5 that the Rambam certainly held of creation yeish mei’ayin (ex nihilo), that he was not totally declaring creation an allegory — only the notion of a progression of events over the 6 days of time:

Behold you see that the opinion of the Rav [ie the Rambam -mi] was not that all of the story of creation was an allegory, but only a small part of it. All that is mentioned regarding the activity of the six days, from the creation of the heavens and the earth, and all of the phenomena, and the creation of Adam and his wife, up until “vayechulu” [the first Shabbos -mi], have no allegory whatsoever for everything was literal to him [the Rambam]. Therefore you will see that in this very chapter, no. 30 in the second section, in all which the Rav has explicated regarding the activity of the six days, he did not make an allegory or a hint at all. Rather, he did the exact opposite, for he made a concerted effort to support the doctrine of creation ex nihilo and accepted all of the verses literally…

Shem Tov (Moreh ad loc):
Just as G-d is an absolute unity, His actions are also unified and from His organization came out the sequence of Creation. At the start — time was created simultaneously with the rest of Creation. It is incorrect to say that Creation began at the start of time. Consequently creation consisted of entities that were separate and distinct and prioritized — which is not a reflection of G-d Who is an absolute unity. Their prioritization is the result of their nature as to what their purpose and causal relationship is in combining and interacting with other things. Therefore it only in describing their level in reality that we say Day One, Day Two — but not that they were created in this sequence. Thus the Rambam’s explanation rejects the literal meaning of the Torah verses. He asserts that everything was created simultaneously. It is only as a reflection as to their purpose and importance does the Torah say first second and third and the rest of the days.

Aqeidas Yitzchaq (Bereishis sha’ar 3):
The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim gives the reason for Torah saying that there were days in the Beginning by citing the gemora in Chullin(60a). There it states that the products of Creation were all created complete. In other words all of creations was created at the first instant of creation in their final perfect form. Thus he says that the Creation description is not describing the chronological sequence of events but the days are simply serving to indicate distinctions in their levels and to inform of of the hierarchy of Nature. This was a major esoteric doctrine of the Rambam concerning Creation as those who are understanding can discern from Moreh Nevuchim 2:30) which is devoted to this issue. However the Ralbag publicized it in detail and expounded it thoroughly….

Ralbag (Milchemes Hashem book IV, II8):
You already know from the preceding that the generation of the universe by God occurred in no time, since [its generation] was from nothing to something. Thus, our Rabbis maintain that the heavens and’ the earth were created simultaneously. As it is said in the Chapter [called] “One Does Not Interpret”: “Both were created as one. For it is said, ‘Yea, Mine hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and My right. hand hath spread out the heavens; When I call unto them they stand up together. “‘ It is therefore evident that the description of creation as being completed in six days is not to be construed as [implying] that the first day preceded the second, for example, by one [whole] day [i.e., twenty four hours]. Rather, they said, this is in order to show the priority amongst various created things. For example, the movers of the heavenly bodies are causally and by nature prior to the heavenly bodies, whereas the latter are causally and by nature prior to the elements and to that which is generated from them. Now, the elements are prior to that which is generated from them according material priority, and the compounds of the elements are also [related] to each other by this kind of priority.For example the plant is prior to the animal; and similarly the imperfect animal is prior to the perfect animal. In the same way, an aquatic animal is prior to a flying animal, and the latter is prior to a walking [i.e., terrestrial] animal while the latter is prior to the rational [animal, i.e., man]. For an aquatic animal produces an imperfect egg, whereas the bird produces a perfect egg; the walking animal, however, produces a living animal in its own body. For this reason Aristotle says in The Book, of Animals that the bird is more perfect than the aquatic animal and the walking animal more perfect than the bird. And there is no doubt that man is the most perfect animal amongst the walking animals.

Alschich (Bereishis 1:1):
Bereshit Rabbah 1 comments on the repeated use of the word “es”, i.e. “es hashamayim”. The first “es” is supposed to include the solar system, whereas the second “es” is a reference to all the vegetation on earth. This sounds perplexing, seeing that vegetation is specifically reported as having been created on the third day, and the galaxies are reported as having been created on the fourth day; so how could they have been included by the words “es” at the very beginning? The answer is that the author of the Midrash did not want foolish people to think that what we know as a time-frame was indispensable for the development of the physical universe from its inception to its completion. We must not be allowed to think that G-d required six days to accomplish what He did. This is one reason why G-d did not say in the Ten Commandments that He created the universe in six days The words used are “six days,” as distinct from in six days, etc. 20,11) The idea conveyed in that verse is that G-d created these six day simultaneously with creating heaven and earth. The Midrash goes on to tell us that the word “es” in that verse is to alert us to the fact that heaven already contained all the elements for the galaxies, etc., and that “earth” already contained beneath the surface all the elements of vegetation, etc. These elements became revealed only at a later stage during the creative process.

Rav JB Soloveitchik (unpublished lectures on Bereishis, #7):
Indeed, one of the most annoying scientific facts which the religious man encounters is the problem of evolution and creation. However, this is not the real problem. What actually is irreconcilable is the concept of man as the bearer of a divine image and the idea of man as an intelligent animal in science. Evolution and creation can be reconciled merely by saying that six days is not absolutely so, but is indefinite and may be longer. Maimonides spoke of Creation in terms of phases and the Kabbalah in terms of sefiros, the time of which may be indefinite. However, our conflict is man as a unique being and man as a friend of the animal. Science can never explain how being came into being, for it is out of the realm of science, while the Bible is concerned with the problem of ex nihilo. Aristotle could not accept evolution because he believed in the eternity of forms.

However, even with these obvious sources, there are people that deny this obvious truth (I am not going to name names, but it is someone on a certain anti-slifkinite website that is not talked about later in this post). The lesson we have to take away from this idea is that we should never be so closed minded that we use our bias to deny simple and obvious truths. We shouldn't accept anything and everything, but we should realize when someone has a valid point, it is a valid point that we should not ridicule and debase. We can disagree, but we must disagree like civilized people. Creating a blog strictly to oppose anything and everything someone says, even when it has merit, is at best disgusting and at worst a chillul Hashem.

The worst example of this is how some Arabs deny the holocaust. That is absurd and it is obvious that the holocaust occurred and was a terrible event, but these crazy people will deny it strictly because of their bias. Bias is useful sometimes, but it can be very dangerous. We must all be careful with our bias and make sure that it does not blind us from the truth.

The most damaging, in my opinion, case of bias I have seen comes from the comments here

"Obtaining enough training and experience in order to earn enough to just tread water financially can take years." (Someone said this and FKM responded in the following way)

"Baloney. Anybody with a personality can sell insurance and earn a good living very quickly. Anybody with a good gemara kup can be a lawyer and catch-up very quickly. Anybody with good hands and a natural technological curiosity can be a good technician with minimum training taking apart and re-assembling computers. Anybody good in math can become an accountant or go into banking. Anybody with an entrepreneurial spirit can start up his own business and make his own niche in a global marketplace.
I've seen all this happen in the Chareidi sector. It takes a lot of thinking out of the four-year institutional enrollment box, but its done all the time."

Anyone can earn a good living very quickly???? What the heck is this guy talking about? I guess no one is having a hard time making a living. Oh wait, THAT is baloney! There are so many falsities in the statements here that I can't even imagine how he thinks the world works.

Of course there are a few people that can get lucky and make money quickly, but that is faaaaar from the norm. Again, this is bias at its worst. Obviously people should have faith that Hashem will provide in times of need, but to state that anyone can make a GOOD living quickly is just not living in reality.

This is like Dasan and Aviram, they were not living in reality. They saw G-D speak on Mt. Sinai and they saw that Moshe was the one that G-D spoke through. Their bias got in the way of their perception of reality and that was the real problem.

I'm Back (hopefully for a long time)

2011-06-24T05:08:44-07:00

This past Monday I took the USMLE step 1 and yesterday (thursday) I took the COMLEX (That is, I took the MD boards and the DO boards). I have to say that I am relieved they are over and I hope I did well. Now I have a week off before I start my rotations. I am hoping that, in the future, I will be able to share some of my experiences in the various different hospitals I attend.

There are so many topics that I would like to talk about in the upcoming week that I hope I have enough time to thoroughly engage all of them. This is my aspiration, but we will have to wait and see how much time I really have because I have to get things ready for a baby.

I am starting my 3rd year rotations off at a place called Miami Children's Hospital. It is known as one of the best children's hospitals in Florida. I am excited but also worried. I am worried because I don't know how I am going to feel about seeing very sickly and dying kids, so that worries me. However, I feel privileged to be able to rotate at such a fantastic hospital where my training will be, undoubtedly, top tier.

Ok, have a good shabbos everyone. Maybe later today I will post something on the Parsha if I have a little time after I fulfill all my obligations around the house that I have been neglecting for the past 5 weeks.

Why I have not been posting

2011-05-24T12:36:00-07:00

Hello everyone,

I just wanted to apologize to everyone for not posting recently. I am taking my Step 1 test in a little under a month and I need to study day in and out so I can, hopefully, do really well. I hope to continue writing Divrei Torah and other blog posts after I am done.

I am going to be starting my rotations for 3rd year starting in July and I am unsure what my schedule is actually going to be like. I am kind of excited to see how rotations will work. The first two years of med school I shadowed different doctors and had minimal patient interaction. Third year is gong to be much different and no more sitting in class and reading out of books ( obviously, I am still going to be reading out of books, but not for the majority of the day). It is now going to be hands on stuff.

Right now I am just hoping to do well on the boards and then we will see what happens from there. It is kind of scary to think that so much depends on this one test. If I do well I can basically be whatever I want. If I do poorly, then I might be stuck doing something I do not enjoy. Whatever will be will be. Two things that matter, hard work and faith in G-D, those are the only two things that can help me now.

Hope to post again in the end of June.

What Rashi Meant About the Status of The Son of The Jewish Woman and Egyptian Man

2011-05-05T12:24:25-07:00

In this week's parsha, Emor, there is a very curious incident that takes place all the way at the end of the Parsha. Instead of describing it I am just going to quote the verses that discuss the incident (Vayikra 24:10-16):

י וַיֵּצֵא, בֶּן-אִשָּׁה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית, וְהוּא בֶּן-אִישׁ מִצְרִי, בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיִּנָּצוּ, בַּמַּחֲנֶה, בֶּן הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית, וְאִישׁ הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי.	10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and the son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp.
יא וַיִּקֹּב בֶּן-הָאִשָּׁה הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית אֶת-הַשֵּׁם, וַיְקַלֵּל, וַיָּבִיאוּ אֹתוֹ, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה; וְשֵׁם אִמּוֹ שְׁלֹמִית בַּת-דִּבְרִי, לְמַטֵּה-דָן.	11 And the son of the Israelitish woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed; and they brought him unto Moses. And his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.
יב וַיַּנִּיחֻהוּ, בַּמִּשְׁמָר, לִפְרֹשׁ לָהֶם, עַל-פִּי יְהוָה. {פ}	12 And they put him in ward, that it might be declared unto them at the mouth of the LORD. {P}
יג וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.	13 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
יד הוֹצֵא אֶת-הַמְקַלֵּל, אֶל-מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה, וְסָמְכוּ כָל-הַשֹּׁמְעִים אֶת-יְדֵיהֶם, עַל-רֹאשׁוֹ; וְרָגְמוּ אֹתוֹ, כָּל-הָעֵדָה.	14 'Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.
טו וְאֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, תְּדַבֵּר לֵאמֹר: אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי-יְקַלֵּל אֱלֹהָיו, וְנָשָׂא חֶטְאוֹ.	15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying: Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.
טז וְנֹקֵב שֵׁם-יְהוָה מוֹת יוּמָת, רָגוֹם יִרְגְּמוּ-בוֹ כָּל-הָעֵדָה: כַּגֵּר, כָּאֶזְרָח--בְּנָקְבוֹ-שֵׁם, יוּמָת.	16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him; as well the stranger, as the home-born, when he blasphemeth the Name, shall be put to death.

There are a few things to discuss here, but I want to focus on something Rashi says while quoting a Medrash in Toras Kohanim (Sifra 24 (Parsha 14:1)). Rashi says (Vayikra 24:10):
בתוך בני ישראל -
מלמד שנתגייר:
Within the children of Israel: This teaches that he converted [to Judaism].

Now, everyone goes crazy over this saying of Rashi (and by extension Sifra) and they try to figure out what he means.

Ramban Says (Vayikra 24:10):
וטעם בן הישראלית ואיש הישראלי - להורות כי העו"ג הבא על בת ישראל הולד אינו ישראלי. ואע"פ שפסקנו בגמרא (יבמות מה א): דעו"ג הבא על בת ישראל הולד כשר בין בפנויה בין באשת איש, הרי אמרו מזהמין את הולד שהוא פגום לכהונה, וכל שכן שאינו ישראלי בשמו לעניין היחס בדגלים ובנחלת הארץ, כי "לשמות מטות אבותם" כתוב בהן (במדבר כו נה). ומה שאמר בת"כ (פרשה יד א): בתוך בני ישראל, מלמד שנתגייר, אינו שיצטרך בגירות, אלא ככל ישראל שנכנסו לברית במילה וטבילה והרצאת דמים בשעת מתן תורה (כריתות ט א), אבל נתכוונו לומר שהלך אחרי אמו ונדבק בישראל. וזה טעם "בתוך בני ישראל", שהיה עימהם ולא רצה ללכת אחרי אביו להיות מצרי.
The Reason it says the son of a Jewish woman and a Jewish man:
To teach that Idol Worshipers that impregnate a Jewish woman, that child will not be Jewish. Even though we rule in the Gemara (Yevamos 45a) that a Non-Jew that impregnates a Jewish woman, that child is Kosher (a kosher Jew) whether the woman is married or not, the [gemara] still makes that child unfit to marry a Kohein (priest). How much more so that [the child] should not be considered a Jew with regards to heritage for which tribe he or she belongs to and inheriting the land, for the verse says [according] to the names of their father's tribe (Numbers 26:55). (So, when Ramban says the child isn't Jewish, he means the child isn't Jewish with regard to inheritance.)

This that is written in Toras Kohanim (Parsha 14:1) of from within Israel, to teach us that he converted, it does not mean he needed to actually convert, rather he was like the rest of Israel that entered into the covenant through circumcision, dipping in the mikva (waters of purity), and sprinkling of blood at the time of accepting the Torah (Krisus 9a). The intent (of the Sifra) is that he followed after his mother and joined the Jewish people. This is the meaning of from among Israel, that he was with them (Israel) and he did not desire to become an Egyptian like his father.

This is the Ramban's understanding of the Sifra and is, seemingly, how the Ramban would understand Rashi as well. (At least that is what the Artscroll commentators believe) However, I will show that Rashi could have very easily understood this Sifra in its most basic understanding, that the son of the Jewish woman was an ACTUAL convert.

The Ramban assumes that this Sifra obviously holds that because this son of an Egyptian and Jewish woman was born of a Jewish mother, he must be Jewish. I think that this is faulty thinking and here is why. There is an argument in the Mishna between Rebbe Akiva and Rebbe Yehoshua. (Rav, who wrote the Sifra, is an Amora) What is this argument? I discussed it in this post, but I will sum it up here as well. In the Gemara Yevamos (49a):

MISHNAH. WHO IS DEEMED TO BE A BASTARD?1 [THE OFFSPRING OF A UNION WITH]
ANY CONSANGUINEOUS RELATIVE WITH WHOM COHABITATION IS FORBIDDEN;
THIS IS THE RULING OF R. AKIBA. SIMEON THE TEMANITE SAID: [THE OFFSPRING OF
ANY UNION] THE PENALTY FOR WHICH IS KARETH AT THE HANDS OF HEAVEN; AND
THE HALACHAH IS IN AGREEMENT WITH HIS VIEW, AND R. JOSHUA SAID: [THE
OFFSPRING OF ANY UNION]. THE PENALTY FOR WHICH IS DEATH AT THE HANDS OF
BETH DIN.

Rebbe Akiva says any forbidden relationship makes a child a mamzer. Rebbe Yehoshua says any relationship that would give the death penalty makes the child a mamzer. (Mamzer=bastard for our purposes)

Now, jumping to the Gemara in Kiddushin (68b). There is a discussion there about who is considered a Jew when the father is a Jew and the mother is a non-Jew or if the father is a non-Jew and the mother is a Jew:

How do we know that her issue bears her status? — R. Johanan said on the authority of R. Simeon b. Yohai, Because Scripture saith, For he will turn away thy son from following me: thy son by an Israelite woman is called thy son, but thy son by a heathen is not called thy son. Rabina said: This proves that thy daughter's son by a heathen is called thy son. Shall we say that Rabina holds that if a heathen or a [non-Jewish] slave cohabits with a Jewess the issue is mamzer?

Why does the Gemara immediately jump to the conclusion that Ravina would hold that if a non-Jew cohabits with a Jewish woman her son is a mamzer? What does that debate have anything to do with who the child's status follows? Rashi tells us that if we follow the opinion that the child would be a mamzer (aka Rabbi Akiva) then the child follows after the mother. However, if the child would be considered Kosher (aka Rabbi Joshua), this means the child would follow after the father and kosher means that IF the child converted he or she would NOT be a mamzer.

This is also brought down in Tosfos on 75b of Kiddushin which I discussed in another post which I already linked to. That is another point which the Ramban discusses, but I don't want to go into it right now.

Ramban assumes that no one thinks that once the Torah was given that the status of the child would go after the father. However, as we have seen here by the argument between Rebbe Yehoshua and Rebbe Akiva, that is simply not true, according to Rashi (and Tosfos).

Therefore, I would like to suggest that it is possible when Rashi says that this son of the Egyptian man and the Jewish woman converted, according to the Sifra, it meant he literally converted. Not that he dunked in the mikva, circumcised himself and sprinkled the blood like every other Jew, but that he was an actual convert. He had the status of a Ger (convert) according to Rashi.

This idea, that Rashi and Tosfos believe that the one who holds the child is kosher means the child is a non-Jew and can convert without being a mamzer is also brought down in Rav Elyashiv's Haaros on Kiddushin on daf 75b. Therefore, it would make sense for Rav Elyashiv to argue on the Ramban as well or at least give an alternate understanding.

Rambam Yisodei Hatorah Perek 6 Halacha 5: Names Of G-D That Can Be Erased

2011-05-02T18:46:03-07:00

שאר הכינויין שמשבחין בהן את הקב"ה כגון חנון ורחום הגדול הגבור והנורא הנאמן קנא וחזק וכיוצא בהן הרי הן כשאר כתבי הקדש ומותר למוחקן:
Other nicknames that [people use] to show praise to G-D with them, for example, Gracious and Merciful (Shemos 34:6)

ו וַיַּעֲבֹר יְהוָה עַל-פָּנָיו, וַיִּקְרָא, יְהוָה יְהוָה, אֵל רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן--אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם, וְרַב-חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת.

6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed: 'The LORD, the LORD, God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth;

The Great, The Mighty, and the Awesome (Devarim 10:17)

יז כִּי, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם--הוּא אֱלֹהֵי הָאֱלֹהִים, וַאֲדֹנֵי הָאֲדֹנִים: הָאֵל הַגָּדֹל הַגִּבֹּר, וְהַנּוֹרָא, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יִשָּׂא פָנִים, וְלֹא יִקַּח שֹׁחַד.

17 For the LORD your God, He is God of gods, and Lord of lords, the great God, the mighty, and the awful, who regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward.

The Faithful (Devarim 7:9)

ט וְיָדַעְתָּ, כִּי-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ הוּא הָאֱלֹהִים: הָאֵל, הַנֶּאֱמָן--שֹׁמֵר הַבְּרִית וְהַחֶסֶד לְאֹהֲבָיו וּלְשֹׁמְרֵי מִצְו‍ֹתָו, לְאֶלֶף דּוֹר.

9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, He is God; the faithful God, who keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love Him and keep His commandments to a thousand generations;

Jealous (Shemos 20:4)

ד לֹא-תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לָהֶם, וְלֹא תָעָבְדֵם: כִּי אָנֹכִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, אֵל קַנָּא--פֹּקֵד עֲו‍ֹן אָבֹת עַל-בָּנִים עַל-שִׁלֵּשִׁים וְעַל-רִבֵּעִים, לְשֹׂנְאָי.

4 thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me;

Strong (Yirmiyahu 50:34)

לד גֹּאֲלָם חָזָק, יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת שְׁמוֹ--רִיב יָרִיב, אֶת-רִיבָם: לְמַעַן הִרְגִּיעַ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, וְהִרְגִּיז לְיֹשְׁבֵי בָבֶל.

34 Their Redeemer is strong, the LORD of hosts is His name; He will thoroughly plead their cause, that He may give rest to the earth, and disquiet the inhabitants of Babylon.

and similar names are like other words in the holy [language] and they are permitted to be erased.

The question to ask here is why are these names of G-D allowed to be erased, but the names stated in the second halacha are not allowed to be erased? In short, the names in the second halacha refer to G-D himself. They are descriptions (except yud hey vav hey) of G-D, but they are not admirations or praises.

However, the names referred to in this halacha are purely names associated with praise. No one who speaks with G-D uses these names solely to refer to G-D, but they use these names to praise and show admiration towards G-D. As we see in the Gemara in Berachos (33b):

A certain [reader] went down in the presence of R. Hanina and said, O God, the great, mighty,
terrible, majestic, powerful, awful, strong, fearless, sure and honoured. He waited till he had
finished, and when he had finished he said to him, Have you concluded all the praise of your
Master? Why do we want all this? Even with these three that we do say, had not Moses our Master
mentioned them in the Law and had not the Men of the Great Synagogue come and inserted them
in the Tefillah, we should not have been able to mention them, and you say all these and still go on!
It is as if an earthly king had a million denarii of gold, and someone praised him as possessing silver
ones. Would it not be an insult to him? (Translation from Soncino Gemara)

It seems to me that the names in the second halacha are names we use to refer to G-D either because that is His name (Yud hey vav hey) or they are descriptors of G-D. However, the names in this halacha are how we relate to G-D. We see G-D as Awesome, Merciful, Faithful, Great, Powerful, etc because this is how we perceive Him.

If we were not here G-D would still be Shaddai, Tzivaos, EL, Yud Hey Vav Hey, Elokim, Alef Dalet Nun Yud, Eloka. However, if human's were not around He could not be described as Merciful, Gracious, Mighty, Awesome, Faithful, etc because these are human praises. Therefore, these names are not as inherently descriptive of G-D.

Meaning Behind Pesach (Passover)

2011-04-18T09:55:26-07:00

Throughout Tanach (all the books of the Bible) we see that when the Jews have some type of cleansing processes, the first thing they do is bring the Korban Pesach (the passover offering). Not just that, but they celebrate the holiday of Passover. What is it about Passover that it is the first thing to be done when the nation, as a whole is cleansed?

I think the most appropriate way to begin this discussion is to start off by discussing the genesis of this holiday. In Shemos (12:12-13):

יב וְעָבַרְתִּי בְאֶרֶץ-מִצְרַיִם, בַּלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה, וְהִכֵּיתִי כָל-בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, מֵאָדָם וְעַד-בְּהֵמָה; וּבְכָל-אֱלֹהֵי מִצְרַיִם אֶעֱשֶׂה שְׁפָטִים, אֲנִי יְהוָה.	12 For I will go through the land of Egypt in that night, and will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the LORD.
יג וְהָיָה הַדָּם לָכֶם לְאֹת, עַל הַבָּתִּים אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם שָׁם, וְרָאִיתִי אֶת-הַדָּם, וּפָסַחְתִּי עֲלֵכֶם; וְלֹא-יִהְיֶה בָכֶם נֶגֶף לְמַשְׁחִית, בְּהַכֹּתִי בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.	13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there shall no plague be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

G-D is telling us that it is only because we sacrificed the Passover offering that He is "passing over" our houses. This seems very strange, why should this passover offering grant such great protection and, essentially, be the deciding factor of who is a Jew and who is an Egyptian? Apparently, if a Jew refused to sacrifice the passover offering and smear it's blood on his or her door post they would be considered just like Egyptians and the "plague" would enter their house indiscriminately.

There are many other places in the Torah where the Jews seem to have a mass repentance and then, only once they return to religious observance, do they celebrate the holiday of Passover. The first occurrence of the Jewish people keeping Passover outside of the first five books is found in Joshua (5:2,6-8,10):

ב בָּעֵת הַהִיא, אָמַר יְהוָה אֶל-יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, עֲשֵׂה לְךָ, חַרְבוֹת צֻרִים; וְשׁוּב מֹל אֶת-בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֵׁנִית.

2 At that time the LORD said unto Joshua: 'Make thee knives of flint, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.'

ו כִּי אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה, הָלְכוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר, עַד-תֹּם כָּל-הַגּוֹי אַנְשֵׁי הַמִּלְחָמָה הַיֹּצְאִים מִמִּצְרַיִם, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-שָׁמְעוּ בְּקוֹל יְהוָה: אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע יְהוָה, לָהֶם, לְבִלְתִּי הַרְאוֹתָם אֶת-הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע יְהוָה לַאֲבוֹתָם לָתֶת לָנוּ, אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ.	6 For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the nation, even the men of war that came forth out of Egypt, were consumed, because they hearkened not unto the voice of the LORD; unto whom the LORD swore that He would not let them see the land which the LORD swore unto their fathers that He would give us, a land flowing with milk and honey.
ז וְאֶת-בְּנֵיהֶם הֵקִים תַּחְתָּם, אֹתָם מָל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כִּי-עֲרֵלִים הָיוּ, כִּי לֹא-מָלוּ אוֹתָם בַּדָּרֶךְ.	7 And He raised up their children in their stead; them did Joshua circumcise; for they were uncircumcised, because they had not been circumcised by the way.
ח וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר-תַּמּוּ כָל-הַגּוֹי, לְהִמּוֹל; וַיֵּשְׁבוּ תַחְתָּם בַּמַּחֲנֶה, עַד חֲיוֹתָם. {פ}	8 And it came to pass, when all the nation were circumcised, every one of them, that they abode in their places in the camp, till they were whole. {P}

י וַיַּחֲנוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּגִּלְגָּל; וַיַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת-הַפֶּסַח בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ, בָּעֶרֶב--בְּעַרְבוֹת יְרִיחוֹ.

10 And the children of Israel encamped in Gilgal; and they kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month at evening in the plains of Jericho.

It was only once the Jewish people had a mass circumcision and the generation that had the Sin of the Golden Calf and the Sin of the Spies, that caused the Jews to wander in the desert for 40 years, passed away did the Jewish people once again keep the Passover.

The Kind Hezekiah is found to be a completely righteous king, but he followed a completely wicked king. Therefore, when Hezekiah inherited the kingdom, his subjects were idol worshipers. This can be seen in Chronicles 2 (29:6,7):

ו כִּי-מָעֲלוּ אֲבֹתֵינוּ, וְעָשׂוּ הָרַע בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה-אֱלֹהֵינוּ--וַיַּעַזְבֻהוּ; וַיַּסֵּבּוּ פְנֵיהֶם מִמִּשְׁכַּן יְהוָה, וַיִּתְּנוּ-עֹרֶף.	6 For our fathers have acted treacherously, and done that which was evil in the sight of the LORD our God, and have forsaken Him, and have turned away their faces from the habitation of the LORD, and turned their backs.
ז גַּם סָגְרוּ דַּלְתוֹת הָאוּלָם, וַיְכַבּוּ אֶת-הַנֵּרוֹת, וּקְטֹרֶת, לֹא הִקְטִירוּ; וְעֹלָה לֹא-הֶעֱלוּ בַקֹּדֶשׁ, לֵאלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.	7 Also they have shut up the doors of the porch, and put out the lamps, and have not burned incense nor offered burnt-offerings in the holy place unto the God of Israel.

After King Hezekiah had the Levites cleanse the temple and he destroyed all of the idol worship, he moved on to congregated everyone in Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover holiday (Chronicles 2 30:1):

א וַיִּשְׁלַח יְחִזְקִיָּהוּ עַל-כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל וִיהוּדָה, וְגַם-אִגְּרוֹת כָּתַב עַל-אֶפְרַיִם וּמְנַשֶּׁה, לָבוֹא לְבֵית-יְהוָה, בִּירוּשָׁלִָם--לַעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח, לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

1 And Hezekiah sent to all Israel and Judah, and wrote letters also to Ephraim and Manasseh, that they should come to the house of the LORD at Jerusalem, to keep the passover unto the LORD, the God of Israel.

Also, later in Chronicles 2 we see that King Josiah (Yoshiayahu) inherited the kingdom from the wicked king Menashe. Menashe had completely devastated the religious practices of the Jewish country, but when Josiah came to power he went on a rampage destroying all the idols that his father had erected or allowed to be erected. Once he was finished cleansing the land we are told that he then (Chronicles 2 35:1):

א וַיַּעַשׂ יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ בִירוּשָׁלִַם פֶּסַח, לַיהוָה; וַיִּשְׁחֲטוּ הַפֶּסַח, בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לַחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן.

1 And Josiah kept a passover unto the LORD in Jerusalem; and they killed the passover lamb on the fourteenth day of the first month.

There are more instances, but I think these cases are sufficient to point out that there is something about Passover that connects to the Jewish people only when they are following the Torah. Not only following the Torah, but there is a special emphasis that once the Jewish people are cleansed of some imperfection THEN they celebrate the holiday of Passover. Hezekiah celebrated the Passover only once he had destroyed all of the idols his father, Ahaz (Achaz), and had built and cleansed the Temple. Also, we are only told that Josiah (Yoshiyahu) kept the Passover once he abolished all of the idols in the land and had cleansed the Temple. Joshua and the Jewish people of his time only kept the Passover once they were cleansed from the previous generation that had sinned by the golden calf and the spies and only once everyone was circumcised, another form of cleansing the Jewish people, did they celebrate the Passover. Therefore, we must consider why the Passover offering is so connected to the Jewish people cleansing themselves of sin and returning to the proper service of G-D.

I think the answer can be found in the establishment of the holiday. Passover is all about us becoming the Jewish people solely because we follow G-D's commandments. This is seen by the original Korban Pesach. The Jews were differentiated from their Egyptian neighbors solely because they showed the sign, blood on the door post, that meant they followed G-D's command. There were no other significant factors that separated the Jewish household from the Egyptians household. Even if you were a Jew, if you did not have the sign on the door post, you were treated as a regular Egyptian.

This is why by Joshua, Hezekiah, and Josiah the Jewish people decided to celebrate Passover once they had returned to the service of G-D, because they understood the meaning of Passover.What is the point of the Tanach telling us that, specifically, at these times did the Jewish people keep Passover? There must have been many Passovers that the Jewish people kept that the Tanach does not mention. The point of the Tanach telling us that at this specific time, once the Jews had returned to the service of G-D, the Jews kept Passover is because of what Passover signifies. It is only when we are acting as the people of G-D that we are truly able to understand the meaning of Passover. Passover is all about realizing that you follow G-D because He is G-D. Did the idea that the blood on the door post would separate a Jew from an Egyptian make any reasonable sense? No, it was simply used as a divider of those who listen to G-D versus those who do not.

There might very well be reasons for the Mitzvos, they might all be logically explainable. This idea is a debate among many. (Rambam, Ramban and Maharal being a few) However, the most compelling reason to keep the Mitzvos is because G-D told us to.

This is the essence of Pesach. Pesach is a recognition that G-D is the one who freed us from Egypt. We celebrate the holiday because we recognize that G-D is our leader. Therefore, the Tanach emphasizes the celebration of Pesach only when the Jewish people recognize the reason and significance of this holiday. The Tanach is, in essence, telling us that this is how one should celebrate the holiday, because the commitment and zeal that these people are showing is the essence of the holiday.

Why Does a Metzora (Someone Afflicted With Tzaraas) Bring a Guilt Offering

2011-04-08T11:58:16-07:00

(Corrected and clarified)
This week's Parsha discusses a person who is afflicted with tzaraas (tzaraat for you Israeli's/Sephardim/or random people who say t instead of s for a tav without a dot). We are told that the Metzora needs to bring three sacrifices, one an Guilt-offering (Asham), a sin offering and an Olah (Vayikra 14:12-13):

י  וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי, יִקַּח שְׁנֵי-כְבָשִׂים תְּמִימִם, וְכַבְשָׂה אַחַת בַּת-שְׁנָתָהּ, תְּמִימָה; וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרֹנִים, סֹלֶת מִנְחָה בְּלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן, וְלֹג אֶחָד, שָׁמֶן. 10 And on the eighth day he shall take two he-lambs without blemish, and one ewe-lamb of the first year without blemish, and three tenth parts of an ephah of fine flour for a meal-offering, mingled with oil, and one log of oil.

יב  וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן אֶת-הַכֶּבֶשׂ הָאֶחָד, וְהִקְרִיב אֹתוֹ לְאָשָׁם--וְאֶת-לֹג הַשָּׁמֶן; וְהֵנִיף אֹתָם תְּנוּפָה, לִפְנֵי יְהוָה. 12 And the priest shall take one of the he-lambs, and offer him for a guilt-offering, and the log of oil, and wave them for a wave-offering before the LORD.

יט  וְעָשָׂה הַכֹּהֵן, אֶת-הַחַטָּאת, וְכִפֶּר, עַל-הַמִּטַּהֵר מִטֻּמְאָתוֹ; וְאַחַר, יִשְׁחַט אֶת-הָעֹלָה. 19 And the priest shall offer the sin-offering, and make atonement for him that is to be cleansed because of his uncleanness; and afterward he shall kill the burnt-offering.

The reason for bringing a Guilt-offering with a sin-offering and an Olah seems to be similar to the reason why a woman who just gave birth has to bring a Sin-offering with an Olah. There are a few differences based on the specifics of the case, for example, the woman has to bring the Olah first and the Metzora has to bring a Guilt offering on top of the other two, but I think the reason a Sin/Guilt offering has to be brought AT ALL is similar. As seen in this previous post (http://markset565.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-mother-who-just-gave-birth-has-to.html), a woman needs to bring a Sin-offering because of some sin she committed. The same is true for the guilt and sin offering of the Metzorah, he or she committed some sin, therefore a Guilt-offering must be brought. So, as usual, we must ask the question of "What was his/her sin?"

Most people only relate the affliction of Tzaraas with Lashon hora (slander). This is a popular misconception made so popular because of all the commentaries on the incident in Bamidbar (12) where Miriam slanders Moshe and is afflicted with Taraas. Yes, slander seems to be one way that a person can acquire Tzaraas, but Tzaraas is so much more than just a punishment for slander. The Midrash Tanchuma brings down different reasons for why a person is afflicted by Tzaraas (Metzorah 4):

זאת תהיה תורת המצורע. ילמדנו רבינו, על כמה דברים נגעים באים על האדם. כך שנו רבותינו, על אחת עשרה דברים הנגעים באים על האדם. על עבודה זרה, ועל חלול השם, ועל גלוי עריות, ועל הגנבות, ועל לשון הרע, ועל המעיד עדות שקר, ועל הדיין המקלקל את הדין, ועל שבועת שוא, ועל הנכנס בתחום שאינו שלו, ועל החושב מחשבות של שקר, ועל המשלח מדנים בין אחים. ויש אומרים, אף על עין רעה
This is the Law of the Metzora: Our Rabbis teach us , How many things bring about the affliction of Tzaraas on a man? Our Rabbis have taught that there are 11 things a person can do that brings about Tzaraas on them. Idol worship, Desecration of G-D, Illicit relations, Stealing (hidden), Slander, False testimony, A judge that distorts judgement, A false oath, Entering into an area that is not yours, thinking thoughts of falsehood, causing a rift between brothers and, there are those that say, having an evil eye.

All of these perverse actions have one thing in common, they all constitute a betrayal of someone else by either tricking them into believing something or actually betraying them. The person who worships idols is betraying G-D by turning his or her back on G-D. The person who steals or testifies falsely is betraying the one he or she is causing harm to. The best way to understand why a person gets Tzaraas is to look at examples of it in the Torah, Neviim and Kesuvim.

The first case of Tzaraas in the Torah was when Moshe was speaking to G-D by the burning bush (Shemos (4:6):

ו וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה לוֹ עוֹד, הָבֵא-נָא יָדְךָ בְּחֵיקֶךָ, וַיָּבֵא יָדוֹ, בְּחֵיקוֹ; וַיּוֹצִאָהּ, וְהִנֵּה יָדוֹ מְצֹרַעַת כַּשָּׁלֶג.

6 And the LORD said furthermore unto him: 'Put now thy hand into thy bosom.' And he put his hand into his bosom; and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous, as white as snow.

This was a form of punishment, apparently, because just a few verses earlier Moshe had said: (ibid:1):

א וַיַּעַן מֹשֶׁה, וַיֹּאמֶר, וְהֵן לֹא-יַאֲמִינוּ לִי, וְלֹא יִשְׁמְעוּ בְּקֹלִי: כִּי יֹאמְרוּ, לֹא-נִרְאָה אֵלֶיךָ יְהוָה.

1 And Moses answered and said: 'But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice; for they will say: The LORD hath not appeared unto thee.'

This was inappropriate for Moshe to say. He slandered the Jewish people. How could he claim that they will not listen to him when G-D was sending Moshe? Therefore, he was punished with Tzaraas.

The next case is when Miriam slanders Moshe (Bamidbar 12:10):

י וְהֶעָנָן, סָר מֵעַל הָאֹהֶל, וְהִנֵּה מִרְיָם, מְצֹרַעַת כַּשָּׁלֶג; וַיִּפֶן אַהֲרֹן אֶל-מִרְיָם, וְהִנֵּה מְצֹרָעַת.

10 And when the cloud was removed from over the Tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow; and Aaron looked upon Miriam; and, behold, she was leprous.

She was punished with Tzaraas because she had spoken slanderously against her brother. Therefore, she was punished, just like Moshe was, with Tzaraas.

The next case is found in Melachim 2 (5:1) by Naaman the Aramean:

א וְנַעֲמָן שַׂר-צְבָא מֶלֶךְ-אֲרָם הָיָה אִישׁ גָּדוֹל לִפְנֵי אֲדֹנָיו, וּנְשֻׂא פָנִים--כִּי-בוֹ נָתַן-יְהוָה תְּשׁוּעָה, לַאֲרָם; וְהָאִישׁ, הָיָה גִּבּוֹר חַיִל--מְצֹרָע.

1 Now Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Aram, was a great man with his master, and held in esteem, because by him the LORD had given victory unto Aram; he was also a mighty man of valour, but he was a leper.

The question here is why does this man deserve to be a Metzora? Weren't only Jews punished with Tzaraas because of its close connection to G-D? (meaning G-D places this disease on the Metzora) The truth is that this Naaman was a righteous gentile, as is seen in this chapter. He believed in G-D and his power (ibid:11):

יא וַיִּקְצֹף נַעֲמָן, וַיֵּלַךְ; וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה אָמַרְתִּי אֵלַי יֵצֵא יָצוֹא, וְעָמַד וְקָרָא בְּשֵׁם-יְהוָה אֱלֹהָיו, וְהֵנִיף יָדוֹ אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם, וְאָסַף הַמְּצֹרָע.

11 But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said: 'Behold, I thought: He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place, and recover the leper.

He clearly believed in G-D, but it was this incident that made him realize that the only G-D is the G-D of Israel (ibid:15):

טו וַיָּשָׁב אֶל-אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים הוּא וְכָל-מַחֲנֵהוּ, וַיָּבֹא וַיַּעֲמֹד לְפָנָיו, וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה-נָא יָדַעְתִּי כִּי אֵין אֱלֹהִים בְּכָל-הָאָרֶץ, כִּי אִם-בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל; וְעַתָּה קַח-נָא בְרָכָה, מֵאֵת עַבְדֶּךָ.

15 And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him; and he said: 'Behold now, I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel; now therefore, I pray thee, take a present of thy servant.'

So, what was Naaman being punished for originally? It seems like he was punished for entering into an area where he didn't belong (ibid:2):

ב וַאֲרָם יָצְאוּ גְדוּדִים, וַיִּשְׁבּוּ מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל נַעֲרָה קְטַנָּה; וַתְּהִי, לִפְנֵי אֵשֶׁת נַעֲמָן.

2 And the Arameans had gone out in bands, and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a little maid; and she waited on Naaman's wife.

G-D had granted Naaman power over Israel, but he had no right to abduct a young girl from Israel. This is, apparently, why he was a Metzora.

The next case is found in the same chapter where Elisha's servant, Gehazi, is afflicted with Tzaraas (ibid:27)

כז וְצָרַעַת נַעֲמָן תִּדְבַּק-בְּךָ, וּבְזַרְעֲךָ לְעוֹלָם; וַיֵּצֵא מִלְּפָנָיו, מְצֹרָע כַּשָּׁלֶג.

27 The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever.' And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow.

The reason for this affliction was because Elisha did not want to accept any gifts from Naaman, but Gehazi wanted money. Gehazi chased after Naaman after he had departed from Elisha. He told Naaman that Elisha changed his mind and wanted to accept some gifts after all, a pure lie! Therefore, Elisha informed Gehazi that he would be a Metzora. All because of his greed that caused him to lie.

The next case we have is Azariah (also known as Uzziah) the son of Amaziah, King of Yehuda becoming a Metzorah (Kings 2 15:5):

ה וַיְנַגַּע יְהוָה אֶת-הַמֶּלֶךְ, וַיְהִי מְצֹרָע עַד-יוֹם מֹתוֹ, וַיֵּשֶׁב, בְּבֵית הַחָפְשִׁית; וְיוֹתָם בֶּן-הַמֶּלֶךְ עַל-הַבַּיִת, שֹׁפֵט אֶת-עַם הָאָרֶץ.

5 And the LORD smote the king, so that he was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a house set apart. And Jotham the king's son was over the household, judging the people of the land.

(He is referred to Azariah in Kings because that was his actual name. However, he is referred to Uzziah in Chronicles because the Kohein (Priest) that kicks him out of the temple when he becomes a metzora is named Azariah.)
What did he do to deserve the affliction of Tzaraas? This is told to us in Divrei Hayamim (Chronicles 2 26:16,18,19):

טז וּכְחֶזְקָתוֹ, גָּבַהּ לִבּוֹ עַד-לְהַשְׁחִית, וַיִּמְעַל, בַּיהוָה אֱלֹהָיו; וַיָּבֹא אֶל-הֵיכַל יְהוָה, לְהַקְטִיר עַל-מִזְבַּח הַקְּטֹרֶת.

16 But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up so that he did corruptly, and he trespassed against the LORD his God; for he went into the temple of the LORD to burn incense upon the altar of incense.

יח וַיַּעַמְדוּ עַל-עֻזִּיָּהוּ הַמֶּלֶךְ, וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ לֹא-לְךָ עֻזִּיָּהוּ לְהַקְטִיר לַיהוָה--כִּי לַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי-אַהֲרֹן הַמְקֻדָּשִׁים, לְהַקְטִיר: צֵא מִן-הַמִּקְדָּשׁ כִּי מָעַלְתָּ, וְלֹא-לְךָ לְכָבוֹד מֵיְהוָה אֱלֹהִים.

18 and they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him: 'It pertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the LORD, but to the priests the sons of Aaron that are consecrated it pertaineth to burn incense; go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thy honour from the LORD God.'

יט וַיִּזְעַף, עֻזִּיָּהוּ, וּבְיָדוֹ מִקְטֶרֶת, לְהַקְטִיר; וּבְזַעְפּוֹ עִם-הַכֹּהֲנִים, וְהַצָּרַעַת זָרְחָה בְמִצְחוֹ לִפְנֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּבֵית יְהוָה, מֵעַל, לְמִזְבַּח הַקְּטֹרֶת.

19 Then Uzziah was wroth; and he had a censer in his hand to burn incense; and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy broke forth in his forehead before the priests in the house of the LORD, beside the altar of incense.

Uzziah (Azariah) was trying to enter into a place he did not belong, which was considered to be a betrayal of G-D and the Kohanim (Priests). It was thier right to offer up incense to G-D and G-D designated it for them. Also, the Tzaraas did not actually come upon Uzziah until he was considering evil thoughts against the priests. Thus, when G-D saw Uzziah would not back down until he was made a Metzora, that is exactly what happened.

All of these cases from Tanach teach us that it is obvious that it is more than just Loshon Hara (slander) that causes a person to be afflicted with Tzaraas. Any betrayal that a person commits is deserving of this punishment. However, the only people to ever be afflicted with this "disease" were righteous individuals or people that were close to G-D. This can teach us something very valuable about betrayal. Betrayal is bad, but it is even worse when you are considered to be someone who should know better. Yes, we get upset when someone steals from us, but it is even worse if the person who stole from us turns out to be our best friend! That is possibly the worst feeling ever. Not only that, but it effects our psyche and we are forever unable to trust people.

Why was Moshe's slander so bad? Because he was supposed to become the leader and stick up for the Jewish people even when G-D wanted to destroy them. Why was Miriam's slander so bad? Because she was the one who protected her little brother in the reeds and was supposed to defend him from others. Why was Namaans abduction so bad? Because he was supposed to restrain his own men from kidnapping Jews and he kidnapped one himself. (Notice how the verse tells us the Arameans only kidnapped one young woman and it happened to be that she served in Naaman's house.) Why was Gehazi's lie so bad? Because he was the close confidante of Elisha and he ended up using Elisha's righteous name to get money out of Naaman. Finally, why was Uzziah's attempt to take over the Kohanim's job so bad? Because he was the one who was supposed to defend G-D's Torah through being the king not a priest. The verse tells us that Uzziah was completely righteous, but his success led him to be haughty and that was his betrayal.

This is why a Metzora must bring a guilt offering and an Olah. The guilt offering is to invoke forgiveness for a betrayal and the Olah is an attempt to try and reestablish the relationship with the person who was betrayed. At least, that is how I see it based on these cases in Tanach and the Medrashim.

Rambam Yisodei Hatorah Perek 6 Halacha 4: When Part Of G-D's Name Is Already Written

2011-04-03T09:59:48-07:00

כתב אל"ף למ"ד מאלהים יו"ד ה"א מיהוה אינו נמחק. ואצ"ל יה שהוא שם בפני עצמו. מפני שזה השם מקצת שם המפורש הוא. אבל הכותב שי"ן דל"ת משדי צד"י בי"ת מצבאות הרי זה נמחק:
If the Alef and Lamed from the word Elokim is written or the letters Yud and Hey from the word Hashem (spelled yud kay vav kay) you can not erase them. You don't even need to mention Yud and Hey because it is a name (of G-D) by itself, because it is the shortened version of the explicit name. However, if the Shin and Dalet from Shakai or Tzadi and Beis from Tzivakos (is written) these can be erased (before the name is completed).

This is, seemingly a simple Rambam. The Alef Lamed and Yud Hey can be names of G-D by themselves. However, the SHin Dalet and the Tzadi beis are not names in and of themselves. Therefore, it makes sense that one group, the group that the shortened version is a name of G-D in and of itself, can not be erased. However, the letters that do not refer to G-D by themselves are allowed to be erased.

There is still a question to be asked, why are these two letters Yud Hey or Alef Lamed not allowed to be erased based on the idea that they can refer to G-D in and of themselves? If they are not allowed to be erased they should have been stated in the Rambam's earlier halacha that talks about names that are not allowed to be erased. If they are allowed to be erased then it should not matter that the intention was to complete them to the full name of Hashem (Yud kay vav kay) or Elokim.

I think the answer teaches us something about kedusha (holiness). The whole reason these names are holy is because we have the intention of writing them out in their full name. Yes, the shorthand version should be allowed to be erased because it is not the main name of G-D. However, it is our intentions that give this name holiness. Holiness only comes through the thoughts and actions of people connected with something that has inherent holiness. It is the combination of the two that bring about holiness. If you are lacking any inherent meaning then no matter how much a person wants it to be holy, it is impossible for that object to be holy (like the tzadi beis that has no holy meaning). This is why the Tzadi Beis is allowed to be erased, but the Yud hey is not.

Why A Mother Who Just Gave Birth Has To Bring a Burnt Offering(Olah) and a Sin Offering(Chatas)

2011-04-06T20:57:42-07:00

In this week's Parsha, Tazriah, we see that the Torah commands a woman to bring two Korbanos (sacrifices) by the verse saying (Vayikra 12:6):

ו וּבִמְלֹאת יְמֵי טָהֳרָהּ, לְבֵן אוֹ לְבַת, תָּבִיא כֶּבֶשׂ בֶּן-שְׁנָתוֹ לְעֹלָה, וּבֶן-יוֹנָה אוֹ-תֹר לְחַטָּאת--אֶל-פֶּתַח אֹהֶל-מוֹעֵד, אֶל-הַכֹּהֵן.

6 And when the days of her purification are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtle-dove, for a sin-offering, unto the door of the tent of meeting, unto the priest.

There are two important questions here, both which are asked by the famous Abarbanel. He says, in his commentary on the Torah:
השאלה הד׳ למה חייבה תורה ליולדת להביא
חטאת ועולה כי הנה ענין העולה לא
היה לה צורך במקום הזה והחטאת גם כן
לא היתה ראויה כיון שלא ימצאו לה עון אשר
חטא . ולמה בכל המקומות זכר שיקריבו החטאת
קודם העולה כמו שהתבאר במה שקדם וכאן
זכר ראשונה החטאת :
The fourth question is why does the Torah obligate the woman who gives birth to bring a sin offering and a burnt offering? There is no need for her to bring a burnt offering in this place and also the sin offering is not proper for her since we do not find that she sinned. Also, why is the sin offering mentioned before the burnt offering (Olah) whenever the Torah mentions the bringing of these sacrifices (korbanos), but here the Torah mentions the Burnt offering (Olah) first?

The Abarbanel really hits the nail on the head here. Why on earth should the woman that gives birth have to bring any Korbanos (sacrifices)? It is especially peculiar because she is said to have to bring a burnt offering and a sin offering. Why on earth would she have to bring these two types of sacrifices? What sin did she commit? Also, the reason for bringing an Olah is brought down at the end of the Midrash Tanchuma in Parshat (Parshas) Tzav (13):

זאת תורת העולה וגו'. כך שנו רבותינו, היתה עולה כולה קדושה, מפני שלא היתה באה על עונות. אשם היתה באה על הגזילות. אבל העולה, לא היתה באה לא על חטאת ולא על גזל, אלא על הרהור הלב היא באה. וכן מי שהיה מהרהר בלבו דבר, היה מביא קרבן העולה לשום דברים העולים על הלב

These are the laws of the Olah: The Rabbis taught that the Olah is entirely holy because it was not brought for sins. The guilt offering was brought for theft; but the Olah was not brought for sin or theft, rather it is brought due to thoughts of the heart [to sin] (but no actual sin). Therefore, someone who would think in his/her heart about something would sacrafice an Olah for these thoughts (lit. things) that rose up in his/her heart.

The Abarbanel offers his answers for this question, but I would like to offer my own thoughts. The woman needs to first bring the Olah, even though in every other circumstance the sin offering is brought first. What is unique about this Olah?

The classic answer for what sin this woman committed is that she swore that she would never be with her husband again. Essentially, she was screaming in pain, "You did this to me, YOU (exploitive deleted), I hate you!"

With this in mind I think it is fairly simple to understand why a woman in this situation would have to bring both an Olah and a sin offering. Normally, a person brings the sin offering first because that is the more severe situation. The Gemara in Zevachim goes into the reasons why a sin offering is brought first, but I think it is readily understandable. You bring a sin offering first because actions speak louder than words or thoughts. A normal sin is something that effects a persons relationship with G-D or another person. In order to fix that, a person must first show signs of regret, manifested by the sin offering. Essentially, the sin offering shows, "What I did to you was wrong and I apalogize." Then you can bring an Olah which says I am sorry that I even thought about doing this terrible deed. However, the reason the Olah is brought second is because the action is much worse than the thought.

However, by a husband and wife, the relationship is what creates the bond between them. In essence, the action against the other person in this situation is less severe than the thought. The husband and wife might do things which upset each other, but the connection between them is strong enough that they will still love each other and continue to live together. However, when the woman yells, "I am never going near you again!" She is cutting that relationship status that is so strong. In this situation, it is the Olah that must come first because the thought of destroying that relationship is much more severe. The unspoken bond and the tight intangible connection that husband and wife have is broken once the thoughts of severance pop into her head. Therefore, the sin offering takes the back seat to the Olah in this situation. The Olah is brought to show that the wife really wants the relationship. Once that is settled then the sin offering can be brought and the husband and wife's relationship can be restored.

This allows us to understand why the woman must bring an Olah offering, a sin offering and why they must be brought in this order. The most important part about these korbanos is the reestablishment of the husband and wife's relationship. With this idea, the requirements on the woman can be understood in a meaningful way.

(As a side note, Rashi brings down the Gemara which says the Torah might have written the Olah before the sin offering, but really the sin offering comes first in practice. This answer makes very little sense to me. There is no explanation as to why the Torah would write it this way. If anyone knows the answer please let me know.)

Maharal On The Four Kingdoms Part 3 (Why There Are Specifically 4 Kingdoms and not 3 or 5)

2011-03-30T19:59:21-07:00

This is a continuation of the post found here where I discussed the Maharal's take on why any amount of Kingdoms that take away from the Glory of G-D belong in the fabric of the world. Now we will discuss why there are specifically four kingdoms that take on this role.

Maharal:
Therefore, it is appropriate that there are [specifically] four kingdoms, because they take away from the honor of G-D and He is ONE (Devarim 6:4).

E-man:
The Maharal is going to explain why the number four is appropriate to be in opposition to the number one. He is trying to explain why the four kingdoms, the entities that take away or diminish the glory of G-D in this world, are specifically enumerated as four. Also, the Maharal is pointing out why the number four is the antithesis to the number one.

Maharal:
The middle (or center) is connected to the number one because there is only one exact center.

E-man:
Rav Hartman brings down another statement from the Maharal in Netzach Yisroel in the first chapter that helps clarify this idea. "All unity is in the middle (center) because the edges are separate (many), but there is only one center."

Maharal:
Therefore, there is only one Temple and only one Jerusalem and they are in the center of the world because the center was given as a keepsake for them. So too, the Jewish people, that they are a singular (unique) nation, the land was given to them as a keepsake since it is singular (unique) because it is at the center of the world.

E-man:
The Maharal is saying that all these things are unique: The land of Israel, Jerusalem, the Temple and the Jewish people. They are all unique based on different ideas. The land of Israel is considered the center of the world (there are a million ways to explain this), Jerusalem is considered the center of Israel, and the Temple is considered the center of Jerusalem. The Jewish people are unique in a lot of ways, but suffice it to say that they are the only nation to have spoken with G-D.

Maharal:
The general idea is that anything that is singular (unique) is given, as a keepsake, the (character traits of the) center. Something that is removed from singularity (like complexity) is connected to four, this represents the four directions that travel away from the center. Therefore, there are four kingdoms (that rule in this world and diminish the glory of G-D in this world) that represent the four directions that travel away from the center.

E-man:
The Maharal is trying to explain that something that is unique in the world is connected to the number one. The number one relates to anything in the center. There is only one center of anything and that is the character trait of the number one. However, anything that is diverse (or complex), is connected to the number four, because it represents the four directions that lead away from the center. Therefore, anything that is many or diverse is connected to the number four. I know, it is confusing.

Maharal:
Therefore, we learn out from the words of תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ (unformed and void) about the four kingdoms because this language comes to teach us about the imperfection that exists in the creation [of the world]. It is from the deficit of the creation that these four kingdoms arose. [These four kingdoms] were designated for this, that their rule would take away from [the glory of] G-D to the extent that they would nullify His singularity (uniqueness) in the world.

E-man:
Rav Hartman explains this idea so that it is more readily understandable. The imperfection in the world is that the presence of G-D is not felt and it appears to be that the world was established and exists without G-D. Meaning, the four kingdoms serve to mask the presence of G-D. They allow for man to think there is no G-D and that the world runs on its own. Or, at the very least, the four kingdoms cause people to think that G-D is not the only powerful being.

Maharal:
With the destruction of the four kingdoms the verse says (Zechariah 14:9):

ט וְהָיָה יְהוָה לְמֶלֶךְ, עַל-כָּל-הָאָרֶץ; בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, יִהְיֶה יְהוָה אֶחָד--וּשְׁמוֹ אֶחָד.

9 And the LORD shall be King over all the earth; in that day shall the LORD be One, and His name one.

But, as long as these four kingdoms rule the world the glory of G-D will not be revealed in His world.

E-man:
The point here is that the four kingdoms take away from the oneness of G-D. This means that G-D can not be revealed or understood while the four kingdoms are in control of the world. They mask G-D's presence because the glory of G-D is only realized when people see that G-D is the only all powerful one. However, with the existence of the four kingdoms, it appears that either G-D does not exist, or that He is not the only all powerful one.

Maharal:
Therefore, these four kingdoms come from the imperfection that exists in creation, for it is impossible that the world should be created complete (without imperfection), rather there must be a deficit. However, this imperfection does not stem from G-D, the creator of everything, rather it comes from the fact that the world is a creation. This is alluded to in the verse (Genesis 1:1-2):

א בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.	1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
ב וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ, וְחֹשֶׁךְ, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם; וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים, מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם.	2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

The land is in the lower realm (the realm of physicality and therefore it is far from G-D), therefore it is הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ, וְחֹשֶׁךְ, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם. All of this refers to the imperfection that is connected to one thing (the creation). All of these names תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ [tell us] that the creation is not complete and they teach us about the imperfection that is inherent in the creation.

E-man:
Here the Maharal is just summing up. The point is that there is an imperfection in the world and it is hinted to in Breishis (Genesis). This imperfection does not stem from G-D, rather it comes from the mere fact that the creation is something that is created. The idea of being created means that there is an inherent imperfection in this creation. The Maharal also hints at a much deeper idea here. The idea that since something is physical it is therefore distant from G-D. The world is a physical place and therefore it is far away from G-D. This adds to the barrier between the world and G-D which leads to the ability of the four kingdoms to mask G-D's presence.

Maharal On The Four Kingdoms Part 2 (The Answer of Why There Are Four Kingdoms That Take Away From The Glory Of G-D)

2011-03-30T17:44:21-07:00

In this last post (http://markset565.blogspot.com/2011/03/maharal-on-four-kingdoms-part-1.html) I discussed the opening question of the Maharal. Namely, "Why was the world created with the need to have the four kingdoms." In this post we will (begin to) discuss the reasons that the Maharal gives for the four kingdoms.

Maharal:
There [is a good] explanation of this idea, that it is proper for the four kingdoms to be alluded to in the beginning of creation. These four kingdoms, that rule in this world, [exist] because it is impossible that the world, G-D's creation, be a creation without imperfection, rather we find with it a deficiency. This deficit is the four kingdoms because these four kingdoms reduce the honor of G-D in His world.

E-man:
I feel it is necessary to stop in the middle of this idea of the Maharal in order to explain an idea found all over the Maharal. In Rav Hartman's notes on the Maharal, he points out that this idea, anything created must have a deficiency, is explained in other books of the Maharal. (Netzach Yisroel and Chiddushei Aggados to Sanhedrin) There are two reasons why a created being must contain a deficiency when compared to G-D: 1) Since the creation is created by the hand of G-D, it is impossible that the creation be equal and similar to the creator. It must be that there is a lower level connection [of the created] to the creator. 2) Since the creation is created, before it was materialized into existence there was a lack in its existence. Therefore, even after it is created, this deficit stays with it. (Basically, something that is created is inherently imperfect due to the fact that it needed to be created in the first place.)

Maharal:
From the fact that the world was created by G-D, it is proper that everything be under His command, since G-D created everything. Therefore, it is proper that everything was created to honor Him (lit. for his honor). However, once we see (understand) that the creation is from Him, it is impossible that [the creation] exist without imperfection.

E-man:
The Maharal can seem a little repetitive at times, but I think it is still important. He is explaining every aspect of this idea. One might think that any creation of G-D should reflect honor for G-D. However, since there is this imperfection in the creation, this idea is not immediately possible. If the world reflected honor for G-D immediately, there would be no lack and if there was no lack in the creation, it would be equal to G-D, which is impossible.

Maharal:
This deficit is not from G-D, because lacking and imperfection does not come from the action of the actor at all.

E-man:
Rav Hartman comes to explain this idea in a very clear way. The action (of creation) comes from G-D, but the imperfection of the creation does not come from G-D. For example, when a garment is missing a button one can ask, "Who made this garment?" However, one can't ask "Who made this lacking button." For those who love the Rambam, this idea is found there as well (The Guide for the Perplexed 3:10): "Therefore they say, without any qualification, nonexistence does not require any agent, an agent is required when something is produced."

Maharal:
However, the imperfection is from the deficit of the world, since it is the created. From this (the created) stems forth the imperfection, which is the four kingdoms ruling in the world and taking away from the honor of G-D.

E-man:
Again, Rav Hartman points out that one imperfection leads to a second imperfection. This means that the idea of the world containing the imperfection of the four kingdoms leads to the further imperfection of the diminishment of G-D's honor in this world.

Maharal:
It is proper that this idea (that the imperfection in the world does not come from G-D) is alluded to in the beginning of the creation [of the world]. The idea behind creation is that it is proper that everything should be under the domain of G-D, like it says (in Tractate Yoma 38a), "Everything that G-D created, He created for His honor as it says in Yishaya (Isaiah 43: 7):

ז כֹּל הַנִּקְרָא בִשְׁמִי, וְלִכְבוֹדִי בְּרָאתִיו: יְצַרְתִּיו, אַף-עֲשִׂיתִיו.

7 Every one that is called by My name, and whom I have created for My glory, I have formed him, yea, I have made him.'

[This verse] means to say that since G-D created everything, it is certain that [He] created everything for His glory (honor). For, it is impossible that something comes from one thing and (that which comes from the one thing) is opposed to it (the original one thing) because, if this were so, then we would see this thing (the created being) opposed to itself. This idea (that something would be opposed to itself) is not feasible, rather everything is created for His honor. If this is true, how do we find the four kingdoms nullifying G-D's honor? It must be that there is an imperfection in the creation (the world) itself, that this deficit does not come from the actions of G-D, rather it is an inherent cause [in the creation].

E-man:
The Maharal is explaining to us why the four kingdoms must exist and why it must have been part of the plan of creation. However, the Maharal tells us something very interesting about the four kingdoms. Yes, the four kingdoms were part of the original plan of creation, but the deficit in creation they represent does not come from G-D. He proves this in a very clever way. If G-D creates something, it must be created for His honor. However, we see the four kingdoms take away from the honor of G-D. How could G-D have created the four kingdoms if everything He created was for His honor? It must be that G-D did not directly create the four kingdoms, rather since the world is a creation, it must contain inherent deficits. Why? The mere fact that the creation is a creation means it can not be perfect for the reasons we stated above.

The Maharal is able to explain why the four kings are part of the original plan of creation while also denying G-D's association with this imperfection laced into the fabric of creation. Personally, I think this maneuvering is pure genius if one can understand it. In essence, the Maharal associates the deficit in the world, manifested by the existence of the four kingdoms, with darkness (or the general lack of something). Just like the absence of light is not a creation or the missing button is not a creation, so too the existence of the four kingdoms is not a creation. Once this is understood it is impossible to say G-D created the four kingdoms, rather He created the world which automatically has to be imperfect. That imperfection was manifested as the four kingdoms. This, then, leads to the further imperfection of G-D's honor being nullified by these four kingdoms.

I hope that was clear enough. There are many more explanations that Rav Hartman brings down, either by himself or from other books written by the Maharal, but I can not provide an exhaustive list. Any questions that you might have, feel free to ask and I will try my best to answer.

Next time we discuss this, the Maharal talks about why there are specifically four kingdoms and not three or five.

Read the next part here.

Maharal On The Four Kingdoms Part 1 (The Question of Why Are There Four Kingdoms)

2011-03-30T16:02:23-07:00

In the beginning of Ner Mitzva, the Maharal discusses the four kingdoms that are supposed to rule from the time of Israel's downfall (Approximately 586 BCE) and the coming of the Moshiach (Approximately ....... JUST KIDDING). I would like to go through the Maharal, slowly, and explain the different ideas discussed. (Here is a link if you would like to see the Maharal in Hebrew http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14191&st=&pgnum=7)

I am just going to use a translation from Mechon-Mamre for the verses from The book of Daniel (7:2-7):

ב עָנֵה דָנִיֵּאל וְאָמַר, חָזֵה הֲוֵית בְּחֶזְוִי עִם-לֵילְיָא; וַאֲרוּ, אַרְבַּע רוּחֵי שְׁמַיָּא, מְגִיחָן, לְיַמָּא רַבָּא.	2 Daniel spoke and said: I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven broke forth upon the great sea.
ג וְאַרְבַּע חֵיוָן רַבְרְבָן, סָלְקָן מִן-יַמָּא, שָׁנְיָן, דָּא מִן-דָּא.	3 And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another.
ד קַדְמָיְתָא כְאַרְיֵה, וְגַפִּין דִּי-נְשַׁר לַהּ; חָזֵה הֲוֵית עַד דִּי-מְּרִיטוּ גפיה (גַפַּהּ) וּנְטִילַת מִן-אַרְעָא, וְעַל-רַגְלַיִן כֶּאֱנָשׁ הֳקִימַת, וּלְבַב אֱנָשׁ, יְהִיב לַהּ.	4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings; I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon two feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it.
ה וַאֲרוּ חֵיוָה אָחֳרִי תִנְיָנָה דָּמְיָה לְדֹב, וְלִשְׂטַר-חַד הֳקִמַת, וּתְלָת עִלְעִין בְּפֻמַּהּ, בֵּין שניה (שִׁנַּהּ); וְכֵן אָמְרִין לַהּ, קוּמִי אֲכֻלִי בְּשַׂר שַׂגִּיא.	5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth; and it was said thus unto it: 'Arise, devour much flesh.'
ו בָּאתַר דְּנָה חָזֵה הֲוֵית, וַאֲרוּ אָחֳרִי כִּנְמַר, וְלַהּ גַּפִּין אַרְבַּע דִּי-עוֹף, עַל-גביה (גַּבַּהּ); וְאַרְבְּעָה רֵאשִׁין לְחֵיוְתָא, וְשָׁלְטָן יְהִיב לַהּ.	6 After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the sides of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.
ז בָּאתַר דְּנָה חָזֵה הֲוֵית בְּחֶזְוֵי לֵילְיָא, וַאֲרוּ חֵיוָה רביעיה (רְבִיעָאָה) דְּחִילָה וְאֵימְתָנִי וְתַקִּיפָא יַתִּירָה וְשִׁנַּיִן דִּי-פַרְזֶל לַהּ רַבְרְבָן, אָכְלָה וּמַדֱּקָה, וּשְׁאָרָא ברגליה (בְּרַגְלַהּ) רָפְסָה; וְהִיא מְשַׁנְּיָה, מִן-כָּל-חֵיוָתָא דִּי קדמיה (קָדָמַהּ), וְקַרְנַיִן עֲשַׂר, לַהּ.	7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet; and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.

These verses in sefer Daniel seem wild. What are they talking about? Many people explain that these are the verses that tell us about the four kingdoms that will rule between the time of the destruction of the first Temple and the coming of the Moshiach (Messiah). The Maharal uses these verses as a springboard into this discussion.

Maharal:
The question here is that, there is no doubt that these four kingdoms [referenced in the Book of Daniel] that G-D established in His world are not by chance, rather they are interwoven into the order of G-D's [plan] for His world. If so, why are there specifically four kingdoms?

E-man:
The Maharal's question is twofold, as we will see shortly. He is stating the belief that everything that occurs in this world, at least on a large scale, is guided by G-D and is part of His plan for where the world is supposed to end up. However, the Maharal is asking, why did the world need to have the four kingdoms. In other words, why did G-d need there to be kingdoms that rule the world and, basically, guide the world that were not the Jewish people. Also, the Maharal wonders, why does there need to be specifically four kingdoms, why not 2 or 3?

Maharal:
Behold, you will find that at the time G-D created His world there was an allusion in the verses to these four kingdoms (Genesis 1:2):

ב וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ, וְחֹשֶׁךְ, עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם; וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים, מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם.

2 Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

In Breishis Rabbah (2:4) we find:
Reish Lakish applied the verse to the kingdoms. וְהָאָרֶץ, הָיְתָה תֹהוּ this refers to the kingdom of Babylon for it says in Jeremiah (4:23):

כג רָאִיתִי, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, וְהִנֵּה-תֹהוּ, וָבֹהוּ; וְאֶל-הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵין אוֹרָם.

23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

וָבֹהוּ this refers to the kingdom of Mede for it says in Megilas Esther (6:14):

יד עוֹדָם מְדַבְּרִים עִמּוֹ, וְסָרִיסֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ הִגִּיעוּ; וַיַּבְהִלוּ לְהָבִיא אֶת-הָמָן, אֶל-הַמִּשְׁתֶּה אֲשֶׁר-עָשְׂתָה אֶסְתֵּר.

14 While they were yet talking with him, came the king's chamberlains, and hastened to bring Haman unto the banquet that Esther had prepared.

(supposedly the Medrash is referring to וַיַּבְהִלוּ)
וְחֹשֶׁךְ this refers to the Greek kingdoms since they would darken (חֹשֶׁךְ) the eyes of the Jews with their decrees. They (the Greeks) would say to them (the Jews), "Write on the horn of an ox that you (plural) do not have a portion in the G-D of Israel." עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם this refers to the wicked kingdom for it can not be measured like the deep. Just like the deep can not be measured, neither can the wicked ones. וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים, מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם. this refers to the spirit of the King Moshiach (Messiah). How (do we derive this)? (Based on) what is said in Yishaya (Isaiah) (11:2):

ב וְנָחָה עָלָיו, רוּחַ יְהוָה--רוּחַ חָכְמָה וּבִינָה, רוּחַ עֵצָה וּגְבוּרָה, רוּחַ דַּעַת, וְיִרְאַת יְהוָה.

2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.

In the merit of what will this spirit come? "מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם." In the merit of repentance that is compared to water, like it says in Eichah (Lamentations) ( 2:19):

יט קוּמִי רֹנִּי בליל (בַלַּיְלָה), לְרֹאשׁ אַשְׁמֻרוֹת--שִׁפְכִי כַמַּיִם לִבֵּךְ, נֹכַח פְּנֵי אֲדֹנָי; שְׂאִי אֵלָיו כַּפַּיִךְ, עַל-נֶפֶשׁ עוֹלָלַיִךְ--הָעֲטוּפִים בְּרָעָב, בְּרֹאשׁ כָּל-חוּצוֹת. {ס}

19 Arise, cry out in the night, at the beginning of the watches; pour out thy heart like water before the face of the Lord; lift up thy hands toward Him for the life of thy young children, that faint for hunger at the head of every street.'{S}

(End of Medrash Rabbah and the Maharal continues) Behold, you will find that when G-D created His world He [included in his plan] the order of the four kingdoms. If so, this leads us to ask, "Why [did He include the four kingdoms in his plan] and why is there this order that there should be four kingdoms."

E-Man:
The Maharal makes sure to point out that the four kingdoms idea is not just his own thought, rather it comes straight down from previous generations. It is an idea that is found throughout Jewish thought and believed to be true. I think the Maharal does this to strengthen the need for an explanation. If this was just something he made up then others could say, "Who says there are four kingdoms?" It could be called false just like people are weary of Gematria (using numbers to equate things). However, now that we have a Medrash from Reish Lakish (one of the foremost scholars in the Talmud) such claims would be deemed unworthy challenges.

Next time I discuss this Maharal, we will be going into the idea of why the four kingdoms are necessary and why there needs to be four of them.

For the next part see here.

What Does On the Eighth Day Really Mean?

2011-03-24T22:40:28-07:00

Unfortunately, the hour is late, I have studied much and now I am about to write about a topic that deserves much more time. However, I want to share this idea with you that I came up with, so what can I do. Maybe next year I will go more in depth.

This week's parsha, Shemini, starts off with a very ambiguous phrase (Vayikra 9:1):

א וַיְהִי, בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי, קָרָא מֹשֶׁה, לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו--וּלְזִקְנֵי, יִשְׂרָאֵל.

1 And it came to pass on the eighth day, that Moses called Aaron and his sons, and the elders of Israel;

All of the commentators scramble to try and figure out what eighth day the Torah is talking about. Rashi says (ibid):

ויהי ביום השמיני: שמיני למלואים, הוא ראש חודש ניסן, שהוקם המשכן בו ביום ונטל עשר עטרות השנויות בסדר עולם (פרק ז)
It was on the Eighth Day: The eighth day of the inauguration (of Aharon and his sons into the priesthood), this was the beginning of the month of Nissan, for the Mishkan (tabernacle) was built on that day and (that day) took ten crowns that are listed in Seder Olam.

Ibn Ezra says (ibid):
ויהי ביום השמיני -היה נראה לנו כי ביום השמיני שמיני לניסן, כי המשכן הוקם באחד לחדש,
And it was on the eighth day: It appears to us that the eighth day is the eighth day of Nissan, because the Mishkan (tabernacle) was built on the first of the month.

In the The Sifra (ibid) it says:
ויהי ביום. השמיני קרא . זה אחד מן הכתובים שצריך
לדרוש . נאמר כאן ויהי ביום ה שמיני ונאמר להלן ויהי
ביומ הש ל י ש י . אין אנו יודעים אם שלישי לשבת אם שלישי למנין
כשהוא אומר כי ביום השלישי ירד ה׳ לעיני כל העם על הר סיני ויה•
ביום השלישי בהיות הב קר הוה אומר שלישי למ נ י ן . וכאן נאמרו
ויהי.ביום השמיני אין אנו יודעים אם שמיני למנין אם שמיני לחדש
כשהוא אומר כי שבעת ימים ימלא את ידכם הוה אומר שמיני
למנין ולא שמיני לחדש :
And it was on the eighth day: This is one of the verses that needs to be expounded upon. It says here "And it was on the eighth day" and it says later on "And it was on the third day." We don't know if this refers to the third day of the week, or the third from counting [from an event]. For when [the Torah] says "On the third day G-D went down, [seen by] the eyes of the entire nation, on Mount Sinai or "And it was on the third day in the morning" it is referring to the third day counting [from some event]. And here it says "And it was on the eighth day" and we don't know if it is the eighth day counting [from the building of the Mishkan] or if it is the eighth day of the month. For when it says "For seven days you will fill your hands" it is talking about Eight days counting [from some event] and not the eighth of the month.

Also, it must be pointed out, as stated by the Torah viMitzva commenting on this Midrash, Chazal were of the opinion that the Mishkan (tabernacle) was erected on the 23 of Adar. For, if they held the Mishkan was erected on the first of Nissan, there is no difference between the eigth of the month of Nissan and the eighth day from the building of the Mishkan, they are the same day.

My point here is to show that this verse is very ambiguous and the true meaning seems to be hidden. However, I think that the meaning of this verse is very deep and in order to fully understand it we must first look at a Maharal and the Gemara in Tractate Megila (10b), first the Gemara:

And it came to pass on the eighth day, and it has been taught, ‘On that day there was joy before the Holy One, blessed be He, as on the day when heaven and earth were created. For it is written, And it came to pass [wa-yehi] on the eighth day, and it is written in the other place, And there was [wa-yehi] one day’?

What is the reason this day is connected to the creation of the world? It is simply because G-D did not complete the creation of the world until this point. What do I mean by that? Adam sinned and was banished from the Garden of Eden at twilight of the sixth day. The seventh day came and G-D's connection to Adam was diminished, which led to G-D's connection to the world becoming diminished. It was not until the erection of the Mishkan and the appointment of Aharon and his son's that G-D now had this close connection to the world.

The Maharal tells us about the unique connection that the tribe of Levi, specifically the Kohanim, have with G-D and how it is only through this connection that G-D really connects to the world. In Ner Mitzva, while talking about the 4 kingdoms that rule in this world before the Moshiach (Messiah) comes, the Maharal explains this idea in depth, I will summarize.

Basically, the world is made up of many different entities and is, therefore, unable to communicate with G-D because G-D is singular. (I am not going to go into this concept right now) However, there is one nation that is able to communicate with G-D and that is because they encompass and embody the idea of singularity. However, even this nation (The Jewish people) are unable to communicate and connect with G-D. It is only through the tribe of Levi that the Jewish people are able to connect to G-D, that is why they work in the Temple. The multiplicity of the world is able to be unified through the Jewish people, who are able to be unified even further into the tribe of Levi, who are able to be unified even further by the Kohanim. Through the Kohanim, the world is able to, once again, communicate with G-D in the Temple. (The whole idea of singularity is a long discussion, just think of it as purity. The world is, essentially, purified through the Kohanim.)

Once we realize this idea, the meaning of "The Eighth day" is clear. It is the "Eighth Day" of creation. The day had arrived, finally, where G-D enabled man to reach the level of communication with Him that was intended for Adam before the sin. That is why this Parsha starts off with Aharon being inaugurated into the Priesthood. This is why the Gemara in Megilah connects this verse to the creation of the world, because this was the final chapter in creation, the creation of a people that can connect to G-D and, through this people (the Jewish people), connect the rest of the world to G-D. For, this is what the Maharal tells us, the Jewish people are the prism that connects G-D to the rest of the world. (Granted, the Kohanim are the prism that connect the Jewish people to G-D, but the Kohanim are part of the Jewish people.)

Purim Is Chazal Telling Us The Future Of Judaism

2011-03-18T08:59:58-07:00

If one looks at Megilas Esther they would see that there is no mention of G-D. Also, there are no recognizable miracles talked about in this story. In fact, the only point to this story is to show a series of events that lead to the Jewish people being saved by themselves. The story of Esther is one where, because of human actions, the Jews were saved. Esther intervened and because of her intervention that gave the Jews the strength to defend themselves from their enemies. However, had it not been for Achashveirosh throwing a party in his third year of kingship, had it not been for his getting drunk at that party and had it not been for his wife, Vashti, refusing to dance naked, Esther would have never been in a position to intervene.

It is amazing that the Megillah does not mention G-D at all. Even in the one verse where you would think Mordecahi is about to say how even if Esther does not intervene G-D will find a way to save the Jews, he avoids mentioning G-D (Megillas Esther 4:14):

יד כִּי אִם-הַחֲרֵשׁ תַּחֲרִישִׁי, בָּעֵת הַזֹּאת--רֶוַח וְהַצָּלָה יַעֲמוֹד לַיְּהוּדִים מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, וְאַתְּ וּבֵית-אָבִיךְ תֹּאבֵדוּ; וּמִי יוֹדֵעַ--אִם-לְעֵת כָּזֹאת, הִגַּעַתְּ לַמַּלְכוּת.

14 For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then will relief and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place, but thou and thy father's house will perish; and who knoweth whether thou art not come to royal estate for such a time as this?'

In a way this reminds me of the debate between evolution with G-D and evolution without G-D. There are two ways to look at evolution, either there is a G-D deciding the course of evolution or there is just randomness. No one can prove one way or the other, it is a matter of faith and belief, not evidence. The same holds true for the story of Purim, there could be a G-D guiding the Jewish people's future, or it could just be randomness.

It could have been completely random that Vashti was replaced with Esther and that put her in a position to save the Jews when she did or it could have been the hand of G-D. There were no open miracles to bring as evidence to prove G-D was involved.

It seems to me that the Purim story was incorporated into the Tanach so that we could have a guiding light for our future as a people. It used to be that Jews saw miracles, talked to prophets and did not have issues with faith or belief in G-D. However, once miracles and prophets disappeared, what would allow us to still connect to and believe in G-D? Only through the belief and understanding that G-D is present in natural events as well as the supernatural events could the Jewish religion survive. In the time of the temple people thought G-D was in the temple. That attitude is what led to the temple's ultimate destruction. "G-D is in the temple, but my idols are right here!"

It is for these reasons that I believe this idea of getting drunk on Purim comes about. As the Gemara in Megillah (7b) says:
אמ ר רב א
מ יחי י ב איניש לבםומי בפוריא עד דלא ידע
בין אר ו ר המן לב ר ו ך מר ד כ י

Rava says, Men are obligated to drink (alcohol) to the point that they don't know the difference between cursing Haman and blessing Mordechai.

We need to realize that G-D is behind the scenes protecting us, even when we do not take care of ourselves. That is the significance of getting drunk, it takes away our own will to protect ourselves and make sure our lives work out as planned. Therefore, Rava says that we should get drunk, in order to realize that G-D works behind the scenes, within nature, to make sure everything works out for us. (to see how G-D might work behind the scenes in this world see this post)

However, this idea of getting drunk to the point that one does not know what they are doing is proven to be bad in the Gemara (ibid):
רבה ורבי זירא
עב ד ו סע ו ד ת פורים בהדי הד ד י איבםום
קם רבה שחטיה לרבי זירא למחר בעי
רחמי ואחייה לשנה אמ ר ליה ניתי מר ונעביד
סע ו ד ת פורים בהדי הד ד י אמ ר ליה לא בכ ל
שע ת א וש ע ת א מתרחיש ניסא
Rabbah and R. Zera joined together in a Purim feast. They became mellow, and Rabbah arose and

cut R. Zera's throat. On the next day he prayed on his behalf and revived him. Next year he said,
Will your honour come and we will have the Purim feast together. He replied: A miracle does not
take place on every occasion. (Soncino translation)

This apparently shows that one should not get drunk to the point that one can not control themselves. The point is valid, that G-D is working behind the scenes, but the practical application is not safe and leaves out the second message found in the Megillah.

The second important point, which I think most people miss, is the importance of our own actions. True, G-D is watching over us, but the Megillah is a story that shows how Esther needed to act, if she didn't then what would have happened? The Jewish people still needed to fight off their enemies, if they didn't then what would have happened? Yes, G-D is working behind the scenes, but if we do not play our role in the grand scheme of things then we will be lost and someone else will take over our part.

The story of Purim and the holiday of Purim are Chazal's way of telling us that even though open miracles do not occur anymore that does not mean G-D is not watching. Every year we must be reminded that G-D's actions are hidden, but that doesn't mean they are not there. This is why, I think, the Megillah intentionally avoids mentioning G-D at all.

The future of Judaism, as we have seen, is G-D working behind the scenes. The Jewish people have survived for so long simply because G-D is working behind the scenes to protect us. How many times have "Purim" stories happened that we are not even aware of? How many times have people tried to destroy us, as a people, but their plans were foiled in, seemingly, natural ways?

We must celebrate Purim, but don't let these messages be left out of our Purim celebrations.

Converts In Jewish Thought

2011-03-12T16:50:34-08:00

If we look in the Gemara, Midrashim, Rishonim (Medieval commentators), Achronim (Commentators from the 16th century forward) and the Torah itself we see several different attitudes towards converts. First, let's bring down the positive attitudes because the other attitudes are just depressing.

In this week's Parsha (Vayikra 1:1-2) it says:

א וַיִּקְרָא, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה; וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֵלָיו, מֵאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֵאמֹר.	1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spoke unto him out of the tent of meeting, saying:
ב דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם, אָדָם כִּי-יַקְרִיב מִכֶּם קָרְבָּן, לַיהוָה--מִן-הַבְּהֵמָה, מִן-הַבָּקָר וּמִן-הַצֹּאן, תַּקְרִיבוּ, אֶת-קָרְבַּנְכֶם.	2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: When any man of you bringeth an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd or of the flock.

The Torah Temima brings down a quote from the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 1:4):

[א ד ם . לר ב ו ת א ת הג ר ים [י ר ו ש ל מ י שק ל ים ש״א ה ״ ד

Man: To include converts

The Gemara is coming to teach us that converts are considered part of the Jewish people and are included in this verse. That is very important because this verse seems to be saying that only people who are considered to be "From You (plural)" (from the Jewish people) are allowed to bring Korbanos (sacrifices).

Furthermore, the Midrash Tanchuma (2) on this week's parsha comes to teach us how positive some viewed converts. It says:

אמר רבי יהודה בר שלום:
אתה מוצא ארבעים ושמונה פעמים הזהיר הקדוש ברוך הוא בתורה על הגרים, וכנגדן הזהיר על עבודה זרה.
אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא: דיו שהניח עבודה זרה ובא אצלכם, אני מזהירך שתאהבהו, שאני אוהבו, שנאמר: ואוהב גר לתת לו לחם ושמלה וגו' (דב' י יח:

Rabbi Yehuda the son of Shalom (Shalom means peace, perhaps this is hinting at something) said, you will find 48 times that G-D warns the Jewish people [to be kind to converts] and congruent to this G-D also warns [the Jewish people] about not worshiping Idols 48 times. G-D is saying, "It is enough [that the convert] abandoned his or her idol worship and came to be with you. I am warning you that you should love him or her, for I love him or her." As it says (Devarim 10:18), "G-D loves the convert and gives him (or her) food and clothing."

The last source that is favorable to converts that I will quote (there are many) is found in a Tosfos in Kiddushin (71a). It is humorous, because the name of the Baalei Tosfos (Opinion in the commentary) makes known that this commentator is, in fact, himself a convert.

וה ״ ר
אב ר ה ם גר פי רש לפ י שה ג ר י ן בק י א י ן
במ צ ו ת ומ ד ק ד ק י ן בהם קש י ם הם
לישראל כס פ ח ת דמ ת ו ך כן הק ב ״ ה
מז כ י ר עו נ ו ת י ה ם של ישראל כשאין
עושי ן רצונו וכ ה ״ ג מצינו גבי הצ ר פ י ת
מ ״ א יז) שא מ ר ה מ ה לי ולך איש)
הא ל ה י ם (כי) בא ת אלי לה ז כ י ר א ת
עו נ י שמ ת ו ך שה ו א צד י ק גמ ו ר הי ה
נר א ה לה שמ ז כ י ר הש ם עו נ ה

Rav Avraham the convert explains [the reason converts are difficult to the Jewish people like a boil] is because they are experts in the commandments and they are extremely careful [in performing them]. Therefore, they are difficult to the Jewish people like a boil, for it is because of the converts that G-D recognizes the Jewish people's sins when they are not performing His will. This is seen in the case of the Zarephath woman (Kings 1 17:18) where she says, "And she said unto Elijah: 'What have I to do with thee, O thou man of God? art thou come unto me to bring my sin to remembrance, and to slay my son?'" [She was worried about Elijah bringing her sin to remembrance] because he was a very righteous man and that is why G-D would remember her sins. (Thus, the righteous converts would bring G-D to remember the Jewish people's sins.)

These sources all show a very positive attitude by some of Chazal (sages) towards converts. They view converts as a welcomed addition to the ranks of the Jewish nation. These sources create love and affection for converts because they are seen as people that can only make the Jewish people better. (The Torah itself in many places, one place is quoted by the Midrash Tanchuma (Devarim 10:18), talks about how we are to love converts. I am unsure as to why so many commentators and opinions in the Gemara show what can only be described as disdain for converts. There are opinions in favor of converts in the Gemara and later sources, but there are also opinions that seem to be disgusted by converts.)

However, there is the other side of the coin as well. This, too, is a very long list of sources that do not seem to have the admiration and love for converts. Within this group there are two mini-groups. The first group explains why converts to Judaism are troublesome to the Jewish people, but it is not the converts fault inherently, there is just some other factor that causes their conversion to be difficult for the Jewish people. The second mini-group's opinion is a little more severe. They say that a convert inherently causes many problems for the Jewish people whether he or she is righteous or not. The first mini-group will be discussed first.

Rashi on Kiddushin (70b):
קשין גר י ם . שא י נם זה י ר י ם במ צ ו ת וה ר ג י ל י ם אצלם נמ ש כ י ם אצלם ול ו מ ד י ם מן מע ש י ה ם :
Converts are difficult for the Jewish people: For they are not careful with the commandments and those that are commonly around them learn from their ways (and therefore Jews learn from the converts to be lax in the commandments).

This Rashi seems to be stating an observation. In Rashi's experience, he saw that converts were causing regular Jews to become more lax in the commandments. That is very possible. It shows no disdain or dislike for converts, Rashi was just stating an observation. It is worth noting that, according to Rashi, there is nothing INHERENTLY bad about converts, but many of them cause other Jews to be more lax in commandments.

There is another opinion in Tosfos (70b) that says, "The reason converts are difficult for the Jewish people like a boil is because G-D commanded the Jewish people MANY times to not cause any harm or stress to converts and it is impossible for the Jewish people not to (because of all the requirements that a convert must go through before they become Jewish, I suppose). Therefore, by the mere fact that they want to convert they cause the Jewish people to sin, but that is not their fault.

This explanation by Tosfos is also reasonable. It just states a fact of life. G-D said don't cause stress or discomfort to the convert and that is, seemingly, impossible. No one is really at fault, but it is a fact of life.

The final opinion in this mini-group is the Rambam (Hilchos of forbidden relationships 13:18):
ומפני זה אמרו חכמים קשים להם גרים לישראל כנגע צרעת שרובן חוזרין בשביל דבר ומטעין את ישראל. וקשה הדבר לפרוש מהם אחר שנתגיירו. צא ולמד מה אירע במדבר במעשה העגל ובקברות התאוה וכן רוב הנסיונות האספסוף היו בהן תחלה:

Because of this the Rabbis said that converts are difficult for the Jewish people like a patch of tzraas (mistranslated to mean leprosy) because the majority convert for some reason (like money or love of a Jew) and they cause the Jewish people to err. It is very difficult to separate these desires from the converts after they convert. Go out and learn about what happened in the desert (when the Jews left Egypt the Eirav Rav, People who lived in Egypt that were not descendants of Yaakov that left with the Jews, caused the Jews to sin) with the happening of the Golden Calf etc...

The Rambam is holding like Rashi, it seems. It is hard for anyone to leave their old life behind, even a convert. They are usually going to hold onto something from their previous life and this is very dangerous. It is just the way of human nature. But again, there is nothing INHERENTLY wrong with the convert according to this opinion.

Now we move on to the final group that tells us there is something inherently wrong with a convert. The previous two groups think converts can be righteous. In fact, if you have a righteous convert, there is nothing to worry about. This would be according to both previous groups, but not this third group. Let us start with the Maharal:

The most concise place where the Maharal makes his opinion clear is in his Drashos on the Torah (6a):

All the good that the Jewish people merit is because they are the children of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, or because they are chosen by G-D, but converts nullify this. Therefore, converts are called a boil, because a boil is an extra entity to a man and it nullifies the complete and pure form of a man. This leads to a lack in the man.

The Maharal discusses this idea in several places, but I think his idea is clear: Converts blemish the Jewish people because they were not born Jewish. They are inherently not good for the Jewish people. If anyone can find a different explanation for the Maharal, please let me know. The only thing I can really say for the Maharal is that he was dealing in a time when there were many Jewish people that were working very hard to kill their fellow Jews. There were many heretics and converts to Christianity that tried to destroy the Jewish way of life. Maybe this is why the Maharal says this, because he saw so many Jews that were inherently evil.

The last opinion I will bring down is Tosfos on Kiddushin (71a):

ו ר ״ י
פי ר ש דל פ י כ ך קש י ם שנ ט מ ע ו בישראל
וא י ן ה ש כ נ ה שו ר ה אל א על מש פ ח ה
מי ו ח ס ת
RI explains that therefore, converts are difficult for the Jewish people because they are mixed in with the Jewish people and the presence of G-D does not rest on people unless they are from a family with a good lineage.

This idea of pure lineage makes no sense to me, but I am sure it is based on the idea that it used to be that if you were not of pure lineage that meant you didn't really keep the commandments. Nowadays, that is certainly not the case and no one really knows who is of "pure lineage" and who is not. Either way, these ideas should be better addressed.

The most favorable Gemara I could find for converts is found in Pesachim (87b):

R. Eleazar also said: The Holy One, blessed be He, did not exile Israel among the nations save in order that proselytes might join them, for it is said: And I will sow her unto Me in the land; surely a man sows a se'ah in order to harvest many kor!

Apparently, G-D really loves converts because He exiled the Jewish people just to recruit them. That is a pretty powerful statement.

I think it is interesting to see the various attitudes that exist among the sages of the past. However, I will say this, Korbanos (sacrifices) are considered to be one of the most holiest of things a Jew could do. The mere fact that converts are included among the Jewish nation for this commandment just shows that converts are truly Jews on every level and in every sense of the word. There might be some debate about the nitty gritty parts, but G-D commanded the Jewish people to accept converts as one of their own, who are we to deny that COMMANDMENT?

Rambam Yisodei Hatorah Perek 6 Halacha 3: Erasing a Prefix or Suffix to G-D's Name

2011-03-13T03:50:53-07:00

כל הנטפל לשם מלפניו מותר למוחקו כגון למ"ד מליהוה ובי"ת מבאלהים וכיוצא בהן אינן כקדושת השם. וכל הנטפל לשם מאחריו כגון ך' של אלהיך וכ"ם של אלהיכם וכיוצא בהן אינם נמחקים והרי הם כשאר אותיות של שם מפני שהשם מקדשם. ואע"פ שנתקדשו ואסור למוחקם המוחק אלו האותיות הנטפלות אינו לוקה אבל מכין אותו מכת מרדות:

Anything added infront of the name [of G-D] is allowed to be erased. For example, the letter Lamed in the word "to G-D" (Lamed means to) or a Beis from the word "with G-D" (Beis means with) and similar [additions] are not holy like the name [of G-D itself]. [However,] Anything added on to [G-D's] name at the end, like the kaf at the end of "your G-D (singular)" (kaf means your, singular) and the kaf mem at the end of "your G-D (plural)" (kaf mem means your, plural) and everything like it, are not allowed to be erased and they are like every other letter in [G-D's] name because [G-D's] name makes them holy. Even though they are considered holy and it is forbidden to erase them (the letters at the end, the suffix), a person who does erase them does not receive lashes [from the Torah], but he/she does receive Rabbinic lashes.

The name of G-D is given a special status, a holy status, as we have discussed in the previous halachas of the Rambam. However, what about different letters that come to be added onto the holy names of G-D? The Rambam tells us that if we erase a prefix to the name of G-D, that is allowed, but a suffix is forbidden. Why the distinction?

I think the answer can be derived from the same idea as to why the name of G-D is holy and why it is, therefore, not allowed to be erased. The name of G-D is not allowed to be erased because the one who erases it shows disdain for G-D and a rebelliousness towards G-D. A person who erases a prefix does not show this same disdain. The prefix of a lamed or a beis means to and with, respectively, they are both prepositions. A preposition is a word that shows the spatial (space), temporal (time), or logical relationship of its object to the rest of the sentence. Thus, a preposition does not define G-D in any way, it just allows a sentence to flow. There is no inherent value or meaning to a preposition. However, the suffix of a kaf or kaf mem means your (singular) and your (plural). This suffix defines the word G-D. The word no longer means G-D, but your G-D. It now identifies the idea that you believe G-D is YOUR G-D. A person who erases this suffix is still being rebellious and showing disdain for G-D. The person who erases this suffix is implying that he or she does not want G-D to be his or her G-D. Therefore, it is forbidden to erase the suffix, but not the prefix.

If this is true, why then does a person not get lashes from the Torah? This is because the act that is forbidden by the Torah is to erase the name of G-D. Here, although you are showing disdain, you still are not erasing the actual name of G-D, nor even erasing one letter that, effectively, erases the name of G-D (changes the meaning of the word to not be referring to G-D anymore). The only reason this extra letter is off limits is solely because it is attached to G-D's name. Therefore, there are no lashes from the Torah when erasing this letter. However, the Rabbis recognized the disdain a person was showing and, therefore, proclaimed that such a person would still get Rabbinic lashes.

The Copper Mirrors and the Copper Kiyyor

2011-02-24T16:45:39-08:00

In this week's parsha, Vayakhel, we see that (Shemos 38:8) "He made the Kiyyor of copper and its pedestal of copper with the mirrors of the women who congregated at the entrance of the tent of the meeting." The question here is, why was the kiyyor made with the mirrors? The parsha tells us there was a surplus of materials, yet the kiyyor was made from the women's mirror's? First of all, Rav Moshe Feinstein points out that the kiyyor is very important because most other vessels were purified through the kiyyor. Also, how can you use a vessel, like a mirror, that is used for such a physical thing, like making yourself look good, for the holy temple?

Rashi comes to tell us that Moshe, at first, did not accept the women's donation of the mirrors because he thought they were an inappropriate contribution for the previously stated reason. However, G-D commanded Moshe to accept them. Why? Because it was through these mirrors that the Jewish people were able to be fruitful and multiplied. As the famous Midrash tells us, the women would make themselves look enticing for their husbands after their hard day working as slaves for the Egyptians. This caused the exhausted men to lust after their wives, even though they were exhausted, and more babies were born because of this. Thus, we see that even things that seem unholy can be used and treated as holy objects if the intent behind the use of those objects is holy.

There is at least one other time when an object that is, seemingly, unholy but it is given a holy status. This is the sword of Goliath that David won after killing him. In the book of Samuel 1 (21) when David goes to the city of Nob, where the Mishkan was located, he requests a weapon. The priest tells him "The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom you killed in the Valley of Elah, is here; it is wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod." Why was it located in such a holy place? Behind the Ephod is surly no place for a weapon, especially one that has been used to kill. This teaches the same lesson as the copper mirrors. Obviously, David only used the sword to kill and protect people for the sake of G-D and the Jewish people. He did not kill because he enjoyed killing, or for his own glory. David was completely devoted to G-D and tried his best to follow in the ways of G-D. Therefore, his sword was considered holy because he killed Goliath for G-D and Israel's sake. As the verse tells us (Samuel I 17:26), "And David spoke to the men that stood by him, saying: 'What shall be done to the man that killeth this Philistine, and taketh away the taunt from Israel? for who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should have taunted the armies of the living God?" David wanted someone to stand up for G-D and the Jewish people.

Both Goliath's sword being behind the Ephod and the copper mirrors being used for the kiyyor teach us a very valuable lesson. Anyone can make anything into something holy all that really matters is the intentions a person has when performing that action. Killing and sexual relations are usually considered to be the most base and non-spiritualistic actions a person can do, but even these actions can be elevated to something holy depending on the intentions behind them. If a person is fighting to defend the Jewish people there is nothing more holy than that. If someone has the intention to go out of their way in order to perpetuate the Jewish nation, that is a great act. Almost anything can be turned into something great based on the intentions behind the actions. The right intentions can bring along with them true holiness.

Rambam Yisodei Hatorah Perek 6 Halacha 2: Which Names of G-D are Forbidden to Erase

2011-02-23T13:01:38-08:00

ושבעה שמות הם. השם הנכתב יו"ד ה"א וא"ו ה"א והוא השם המפורש. או הנכתב אדני. ואל. אלוה. ואלהים. ואהיה. ושדי. וצבאות. כל המוחק אפילו אות אחת משבעה אלו לוקה:

There are seven names [that are forbidden to be erased]. The name written with a yud-hey-vav-hey, this is the explicit name (Shem Hamefurash) or if it is written as Alef-dalet-nun-yud, EL, Eloha, Elohim, Eheyeh (In Rambam Frankel), Shadai, and Tzivaos. Anyone who erases even one letter from these seven [names is punished with] lashes.

The Rambam here is quoting the Gemara in Shevuous 35a where it basically says what the Rambam says, verbatim. However, the Rambam (The Guide for the Perplexed Part 1 Chapter 61) discusses the names of G-D a little more in depth. I think it is appropriate to bring down his words here:

IT is well known that all the names of God occurring in Scripture are derived from His actions, except one, namely, the Tetragrammaton, which consists of the letters yod, hé, vau and hé. This name is applied exclusively to God, and is on that account called Shem ha-meforash, "The nomen proprium." It is the distinct and exclusive designation of the Divine Being; whilst His other names are common nouns, and are derived from actions, to which some of our own are similar, as we have already explained. Even the name Adonay, "Lord," which has been substituted for the Tetragrammaton, is derived from the appellative "lord"; comp. "The man who is the lord (adone) of the land spake roughly to us" (Gen. xliii. 30). The difference between Adoni, "my lord," (with ḥirek under the nun), or Adonay (with kameẓ), is similar to the difference between Sari, "my prince," and Saraï, Abraham's wife (ib. xvi. 1), the latter form denoting majesty and distinction. An angel is also addressed as "Adonay"; e.g., "Adonay (My lord), pass not away, I pray thee" (ib. xviii. 3). I have restricted my explanation to the term Adonay, the substitute for the Tetragrammaton, because it is more commonly applied to God than any of the other names which are in frequent use, like dayyan, "judge," shadday, "almighty," ẓaddik, "righteous," ḥannun, "gracious," raḥum, "merciful," and elohim "chief" all these terms are unquestionably appellations and derivatives. The derivation of the name, consisting of yod, hé, vau, and hé, is not positively known, the word having no additional signification. This sacred name, which, as you know, was not pronounced except in the sanctuary by the appointed priests, when they gave the sacerdotal blessing, and by the high priest on the Day of Atonement, undoubtedly denotes something which is peculiar to God, and is not found in any other being. It is possible that in the Hebrew language, of which we have now but a slight knowledge, the Tetragrammaton, in the way it was pronounced, conveyed the meaning of "absolute existence." In short, the majesty of the name and the great dread of uttering it, are connected with the fact that it denotes God Himself, without including in its meaning any names of the things created by Him. Thus our Sages say: "'My name' (Num. vi. 27) means the name which is peculiar to Me." All other names of God have reference to qualities, and do not signify a simple substance, but a substance with attributes, they being derivatives. On that account it is believed that they imply the presence of a plurality in God, I mean to say, the presence of attributes, that is, of some extraneous element superadded to His essence. Such is the meaning of all derivative names: they imply the presence of some attribute and its substratum, though this be not distinctly named. As, however, it has been proved, that God is not a substratum capable of attributes, we are convinced that those appellatives when employed as names of God, only indicate the relation of certain actions to Him, or they convey to us some notion of His perfection.

So we see that the name yud-hey-vav-hey is the true name of G-D that has no KNOWN meaning. However, all other names come to describe some action that G-D performs. With this in mind I will try to explain why these names are specified and not any others.

As Rambam points out, the yud-hey-vav-hey name of G-D is THE true name of G-D with no ulterior meaning, therefore, it is clear why erasing this name should be included in the prohibition of erasing G-D's name.

The truth is, there is one principle guiding this law that is pointed out time and again by the commentators and the Gemara itself. When a person writes the name of G-D it is forbidden to erase it. Why then does it specify these 7 names? Because, these seven names are used, almost exclusively, to refer to G-D. It is true that once and awhile someone might write these names referring to things other than G-D, but since the common usage of these words is to refer to G-D it is forbidden to erase them. I guess the idea of going after the majority (Rov) is the effective rule when dealing with erasing letters of G-D's name.

As will be pointed out in Halacha five of this chapter, other names of G-D are allowed to be erased. Why? Because they are less often used to refer to G-D and are more often used to refer to other things.

The reason for this law, it seems, is because we can not be cavalier with G-D. We need to always have a sense of awe whenever we deal with G-D. Therefore, even when we are writing G-D's name, we must be conscious of what we are doing. Matters dealing with the divine are no light matter. We need to show G-D respect in every aspect possible.

I think that the reason this law is included in the section of the Rambam which deals with the foundation of Judaism is because it teaches us that we need to realize G-D encompasses every aspect of our lives. No matter how minute the situation, we can never forget about G-D.

Why Talk About Counting The People NOW?

2011-02-16T19:39:56-08:00

This week's parsha, Ki Sisa, starts off with a, seemingly, off topic discussion. The past two Parshios of Terumah and Tetzaveh were talking about all the different vessels of the Mishkan and the services. Why does the Torah feel that it is NOW the appropriate time to talk about taking a census?

Actually, this is the PERFECT time to talk about taking a census. If we recall what the Torah says in the beginning of Parshas Terumah (Shemos 25:2-8), I think we will be able to answer why this commandment (how to take a census) is brought up now. I actually discussed the relevant topic in Parshas Terumah two weeks ago, found here. For the sake of being complete, I will briefly mention what was discussed over there. Simply put, at the beginning of Parshas Terumah the Torah tells us that "whoever's heart make him willing" is commanded to give Terumah (tithes) over there. Apparently, only some Jews were commanded to give tithes for the erection of the Tabernacle (Mishkan), but not everyone.

Like most things in the world, one would think that only those involved in building the Mishkan or those who donated money to the building of the Mishkan would feel connected to the Mishkan. Also, people who donate more money would feel they have a greater connection than those who donated less money. This is simple human nature. People who did not donate, or donated less, would not just feel disconnected from the Mishkan, but they would feel like it has little to do with them. Therefore, it is essential that once the description of the Mishkan and its services is completed that the Torah discuss how people who did not donate, or donated less, to the building of the Mishkan still have a strong connection to the Mishkan. This is why the Torah immediately discusses the commandment of how to take a census.

How does the commandment of taking a census make everyone feel connected to the Mishkan? It is found in the simple reading of the Torah (Shemos 30:12-16):

יב כִּי תִשָּׂא אֶת-רֹאשׁ בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, לִפְקֻדֵיהֶם, וְנָתְנוּ אִישׁ כֹּפֶר נַפְשׁוֹ לַיהוָה, בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם; וְלֹא-יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף, בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם.	12 'When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel, according to their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the LORD, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them.
יג זֶה יִתְּנוּ, כָּל-הָעֹבֵר עַל-הַפְּקֻדִים--מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל, בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ: עֶשְׂרִים גֵּרָה, הַשֶּׁקֶל--מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל, תְּרוּמָה לַיהוָה.	13 This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary--the shekel is twenty gerahs--half a shekel for an offering to the LORD.
יד כֹּל, הָעֹבֵר עַל-הַפְּקֻדִים, מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וָמָעְלָה--יִתֵּן, תְּרוּמַת יְהוָה.	14 Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the offering of the LORD.
טו הֶעָשִׁיר לֹא-יַרְבֶּה, וְהַדַּל לֹא יַמְעִיט, מִמַּחֲצִית, הַשָּׁקֶל--לָתֵת אֶת-תְּרוּמַת יְהוָה, לְכַפֵּר עַל-נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם.	15 The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when they give the offering of the LORD, to make atonement for your souls.
טז וְלָקַחְתָּ אֶת-כֶּסֶף הַכִּפֻּרִים, מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְנָתַתָּ אֹתוֹ, עַל-עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד; וְהָיָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְזִכָּרוֹן לִפְנֵי יְהוָה, לְכַפֵּר עַל-נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם. {פ}	16 And thou shalt take the atonement money from the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may be a memorial for the children of Israel before the LORD, to make atonement for your souls.'{P}

Whether a Jew is rich or poor, he or she has the same share in the atonement offering that is offered for the sake of the entire community. This tells us that whether a person contributed a massive amount to the building of the Mishkan or absolutely nothing, they still have the same claim to the Mishkan and its purpose (connecting to G-D). A poor person may feel that they have no share in the Mishkan because they do not have the ability to donate money. However, G-D immediately dispels that feeling by telling us, immediately, that whether or not you had the money to donate, you are still included, with an equal portion, in the communal sacrifices. Whether a Jew is rich or poor, whether they were involved with the building of the Mishkan or not, they still have a right and an obligation to participate in the future.

This idea is not just towards the Mishkan, but every aspect of Jewish life. A person might miss out on an opportunity to be part of anything in Judaism, whether it be Shachris (morning prayer) or Neila of Yom Kippur (the final prayer before the "gates close). However, the message of the Torah is clear, you have not missed your chance. You are part of the Jewish people and, therefore, it is your right and obligation to be part of the community even if you have not contributed until this point.

There is one catch. The poor person or rich person who has not yet contributed can only be part of the community once THEY START TO CONTRIBUTE. A person can not just feed off of the community without any contributions and take part in the community. That is the second lesson that this commandment of taking the census teaches us. Yes, you can become a part of the community at any time. However, you can only be a part of the community once you start to contribute to the cause of the community. This is why even a poor person that can not afford anything else is only included in the census if he or she donates the half-a-shekel (Machtzis Hashekel).

How Does G-D Work In This World?

2011-03-14T19:35:22-07:00

Ever since I can remember I had a simple question, "How does G-D interact with the world?" However, if you think about it, this is probably the most complicated question one can ask about G-D. People always say that "G-D helps" and "G-D caused it to happen," but HOW did He help and HOW did He cause it to happen? There is a scientist/theologian quoted in "Discover" magazine in an article titled "Physics of the divine" in the March 2011 issue that has put forth a new theory about how, MAYBE, G-D interacts with the world. I find his theory very interesting, to say the least. I will try to hit the main points.

(The scientist/theologian is an Anglican priest named John Polkinghorne)

"I started with the statement that I believe G-D acts in the world, but He is not a show-off conjurer who violates the same laws of nature that He made." he says. "My questions was, Is there a way of describing G-D's actions that is consistent with science?"

.....Reviewing the evidence... Russell concluded that the best place to seek scientific support for G-D is in quantum mechanics, the physical laws describing the subatomic realm..... For people seeking a place for G-D in the physical world, the most important of those [peculiar] properties [in the quantum theory] is the uncertainty principle which states that you can never predict the outcome of a quantum experiment with certainty; you can only calculate the probability of getting a particular result.

As a result of the uncertainty principle, quantum events are starkly different from those in the familiar, large-scale world. [For example,] when you toss a coin, you could, in theory, make a foolproof prediction (heads or tales) if you knew every piece of information about the flip-- the speed and height of the toss, the movement of all the air currents in the room and so on. At the quantum scale, in contrast, equivalent events are intrinsically indeterministic: the universe simply does not contain enough information for you to predict a result. This fundamental indeterminism has been repeatedly confirmed in the lab. For instance, physicists have shown that two identical radioactive atoms will decay at different times. There is no way to explain why they behave differently or to predict the precise time of decay.
(There are more complications that are explained, but this is the theory of Polkinghorne of how G-D could intervene in the world. He also goes on to add chaos theory for different reasons.)

This theory is interesting, but there is also another convincing idea put forth by quantum physicist Antoine Suarez of the Center for Quantum Philosophy in Zurich in the same article.

.... G-D seekers are better off pursuing another quantum effect, entanglement. In entanglement, two particles become twinned in such a way that the measurement of one always determines the properties of the other, no matter how far apart they may be. Imagine setting up a pair of entangled "coins" (such as photons with a specific orientation), then giving one to Alice in Oxford and another to Bob in Zurich. When you ask Alice and Bob to flip their coins, they will both get heads or both get tails, even though the results of the tosses should be random and independent..... Suarez claims entanglement tests conducted with real photons in the lab suggest that quantum effects must be caused by "influences that originate from outside of space-time."

[After conducting an experiment that took time out of the equation Suarez discovered that he was wrong when he thought that] "by messing up the time-ordering in this way, it would be impossible for the photons to coordinate their paths." He was proven wrong. On every run, the photons still met the same fate. Whatever causes the twin photons to behave the same way, it must work independently of time.

These two ideas in no way prove G-D. However, it is very difficult to understand how G-D could interact with the world. Before I read about this theory I was always troubled by how G-D intervenes in the world. Everything seemed like it could be explained away through nature or choices of human beings. Rainbows are not the hand of G-D, but a beautiful occurrence that is seen in nature. Tides are natural occurrences. True, we can claim that nature was created by G-D, but at that point we never observe nature changing in a miraculous way, rather we see nature's laws holding tight, unchanging. How does G-D get involved?

I don't understand how people believe G-D just intervenes. In what way does he intervene? G-D influencing quantum events makes a lot of sense to me, especially according to the Rambam and Ralbag. Rambam tells us that G-D relates to the world through His angels (see here). How? Well, the Rambam tells us that when G-D wants to cause something to happen on earth He influences the Chayos (top level angels) and that starts a chain reaction that eventually leads to an action in the physical realm. Sounds like how quantum mechanics works. A teeny tiny event that, through Chaos theory, can affect the physical realm.

This idea allows us to understand the Ralbag and Rambam, I think, in a much clearer way. They say that G-D allows nature to take its course, unless the person is very righteous. So, G-D does not intervene in the world except for the very righteous. If that is true, how does He intervene for the righteous? This theory could, theoretically, allow us to understand how G-D intervenes, but allows the world to work through nature without a constant need for His intervention.

For a related idea see this post http://markset565.blogspot.com/2009/12/hashgacha-pratis-vs-hashgacha-klalis.html