In Pesach Mitzrayim the Bnei Yisrael were commanded to take animals for the Korban Pesach. This is mentioned twice in the Torah. First when HaShem told Moshe the laws of Pesach, Shmos 12:3 and Shmos 12:21.
Speak to the entire community of Israel saying, ‘On the tenth [day] of this month they shall take—each man [shall take] a lamb/kid for [his] family, a lamb/kid for each household.
A lamb is a baby sheep and a kid is a baby goat, each under one year of age.
Shmos 12:21:
The second time when Moshe was telling the elders of Israel Pasuk 12: 21 states: וַיִּקְרָ֥א מֹשֶׁ֛ה לְכׇל־זִקְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֑ם מִֽשְׁכ֗וּ וּקְח֨וּ לָכֶ֥ם צֹ֛אן לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתֵיכֶ֖ם וְשַׁחֲט֥וּ הַפָּֽסַח
Moses then summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, Draw forth and take for yourselves one of the flock for your families, and slaughter the pesach offering.
In Shmos 12:3 the Torah does not use the word מִֽשְׁכ֗וּ, while in Pasuk 12:21 it uses מִֽשְׁכ֗וּ. This must be communicating that beyond the Pshut Pshat – plain meaning, there is a deeper understanding.
The simple meaning of the words מִֽשְׁכ֗וּ וּקְח֨וּ לָכֶ֥ם צֹ֛אן is as the Targum Onkelysis says:
נְגִידוּ וְסִיבוּ לְכוֹן (מִן בְּנֵי) עָנָא – translated in the Artscroll by Avrohom Morgenstern as “Draw forth and take lambs for yourselves.”
Comes along the מכילתא and offers four Tannaim who discuss and differ on the deeper meaning of מִֽשְׁכ֗וּ
Mekhilta – Pasha 11 – pages 54 and 55 in my edition:
משכו וקחו לכם. משכו מי שיש לו וקחו מי שאין לו. ר’ יוסי הגלילי אומר, משכו מעבודה זרה והדבקו במצוה. רבי ישמעאל אומר, בא הכתוב ללמד (על כל העולין) למנין על הפסח (ומושכין) [שמושכין] את ידיהם ממנו עד שישחט, ובלבד (שיניח) את הפסח (כל) [כמות] שהוא. ר’ יצחק אומר, בא (הפסח) [הכתוב] ללמדד על בהמה דקה שהיא נקנית במשיכה.
The list of the four interpretations are listed as follows:
1) תנא קמא, משכו וקחו לכם. משכו מי שיש לו וקחו מי שאין לו
2) ר’ יוסי הגלילי אומר, משכו מעבודה זרה והדבקו במצוה.
3) רבי ישמעאל אומר, בא הכתוב ללמד (על כל העולין) למנין על הפסח שמושכין את ידיהם ממנו עד שישחט,
ובלבד (שיניח) את הפסח (כל) [כמות] שהוא.
4) ר’ יצחק אומר, בא (הפסח) [הכתוב] ללמדד על בהמה דקה שהיא נקנית במשיכה.
Analysis:
Rashi who says משכו. מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ צֹאן יִמְשֹׁךְ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ holds like the תנא קמא. Contrast the תנא קמא, to ר’ יצחק. They must argue. What is their disagreement?
The Mishna in Kiddushin 25b and the Yerushalmi has an identical Mishna say:
Clearly, the Chachomin learn like Reb Yitzhcok. How does Reb Yitzchok learn מְשִׁיכָה from the Pasuk? If he translates the Pasuk like the Tanna Kamma that Rashi brings down משכו מי שיש לו וקחו מי שאין לו, how does he learn his Chiddush that בְּהֵמָה דַקָּה נִקְנֵית בִּמְשִׁיכָה. The acquisition is going on the word קחו and not on the משכו.
Comes along the Malbim and explains Reb Yitzchok and also explains Reb Meir who holds that דַּקָּה is acquired by בְּהַגְבָּהָה
Malbim:
משכו וקחו לכם . . . במ”ש משכו וקחו, שהוא לדעת ר’ יצחק שמ”ש משכו הוא שמי שאין לו צריך לקנות הצאן במשיכה, והוא כדעת חכמים בקדושין (דף כה ע”ב), דבהמה דקה נקנית במשיכה, וכן * פרש”י ז”ל * משכו מי שאין לו וקחו מי שיש לו, ומ”ד במכילתא משכו מי שיש לו וקחו מי שא”ל ס”ל כר’ מאיר בקדושין [שס] דבהמה דקה נקנית בהגבהה, ועז”א וקחו מי שא”ל שיקח ויגבהנו, ומי שי”ל ימשך ליחדו למצוה, וריה”ג מפרש ע”ד הרמב”ם שימשכו ידיהם מע”ז, כי עיקר טעם הפסח היה לבטל ע”ז שלהם שהיו עובדים למזל טלה, והוסיף ושחטו הפסח ולא אמר ושחטו אותם ללמד שישחט לשם פסח ואם שחט שלא לשמה פסול כמו שלמד בזבחים (דף ז) בכמה למודים:
*I do not know where this Rashi is located.
The Malbim also explains that the Tanna Kama of the Mekhilta is Reb Meir of the Mishnah in Kiddushin as the Malbim says ומ”ד במכילתא משכו מי שיש לו וקחו מי שא”ל ס”ל כר’ מאיר בקדושין [שס] דבהמה דקה נקנית בהגבהה.
Based on the Malbim משכו וקחו has four different explanations
1) תנא קמא – Quoted by Rashi in our ChumoshTanna Kamma Rashi like the Tannah Kammah of the Mekhilta:
2) Reb Yitzchok who explains these words opposite of the Tannah Kamah/Rashi.
משכו. מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ צריך לקנות הצאן במשיכה
וקחו. מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ ימשך ליחדו למצוה
3) Reb Yose Haglili
מפרש ע”ד הרמב”ם שימשכו ידיהם מע”ז, כי עיקר טעם הפסח היה לבטל ע”ז שלהם שהיו עובדים למזל טלה
4) Reb Yishmael explains these words as referring to allowing the withdrawal from one group and adding yourself to another group before the actual slaughter of the Korban Pesach.
(provided the first sheep has an owner).
However, while Rashi on verse 12:21 says משכו. מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ צֹאן יִמְשֹׁךְ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, in Verse 12:5 Rashi brings down Reb Yose Haglili’s Pshat.
The שפתי חכמים asks and answers this question:
מי שיש לו צאן ימשוך משלו. והא דלא פי’ נמי הכא משכו ידיכם מעבודת אלילים כדפירש לעיל (פסוק ו). י”ל דהתם לאו בפירוש המקרא קאי אלא בטעם המצוה, ובטעם המצוה סגי אפי’ מילתא דאגדתא, אבל הכא מיירי בפירוש המקרא, לכן פי’ אותו היותר לפי פשוטו. [רא”ם]:
I would like to add that answer is that in Verse 12:21 we are learning a halacha from the extra word of מִשְׁכוּ, however, Rashi in Verse 12:6 is explaining why they needed the two Mitzvos of דם מילה and דם פסח. The reason is Reb Yose Haglili.
On Shabbos of the week I said this Torah, I was looking at a new Sefer written by Rabbi Shlomo Morgenstern, Rosh Yeshiva of HTC, on the Targum Yerushalmi and saw a beautiful addition to the above Torah. The Targum Yerushalmi translated in Aramaic the words “משכו וקחו” as אתמנון וסבו . Rabbi Shlomo Morgenstern in his explanation says that the word משכו is to be translated the same way as the Targum Yerushalmi translated the word תָּכֹ֖סּוּ in Pasuk 4 – וְאִם־יִמְעַ֣ט הַבַּ֘יִת֮ מִהְי֣וֹת מִשֶּׂה֒ וְלָקַ֣ח ה֗וּא וּשְׁכֵנ֛וֹ הַקָּרֹ֥ב אֶל־בֵּית֖וֹ בְּמִכְסַ֣ת נְפָשֹׁ֑ת אִ֚ישׁ לְפִ֣י אׇכְל֔וֹ תָּכֹ֖סּוּ עַל־הַשֶּֽׂה׃. The Targum Yerushalmi תָּכֹ֖סּוּ is תִּתְמְנוּן in Aramaic.
Comes out that according to the Targum Yeruchalmi both משכו and תָּכֹ֖סּוּ mean to be counted. Normally משכו means to draw out so why does the Targum change the meaning of משכו to תָּכֹ֖סּוּ .
A) The Targum was bothered by the same question as the other תנאים, why did the Torah add the word משכו in 12:21 and in the simple understanding both words tell us the same thing so why use two verbs to describe the same action. Therefore they understood that they are not to be interpreted as the same verbs and are coming to teach a Halacha, . B) Then how are we to translate the word משכו? I spoke to Rabbi Avrohom Isenberg who told me that whenever the Targum Yerushalmi translates a word differently than the normal Pshat you have to look at Remez and Sod. The Gematria of משכו וקחו is 486, the same Gmatria of תָּכֹ֖סּוּ. The Targum Yerushalmi is therefore learning like Reb Yishmoel of the Mekhilta and they hold that the word משכו means that you can do a counting after you withdraw from an original counting which you can do up until the slaughter of the animal.
Perhaps the reason why Reb Yismoel did not learn like the Tanna Kama and Reb Yitzchok is that this Pasuk is talking about Hilchos Korban Pesach which is the same Inyan while the Tanna Kama and Reb Yitzhcok are in Hilchos Kinyan. Therefore he felt that the word משכו is telling us a halacha in Korban Pesach. Reb Yishmoel did not learn like Reb Yosi Hagelili as the Sefisei Chacomin said that Reb Yossi Hagelili is Aggdata.
I would like to end with a beautiful Pshat in Emunas Chachamim from the Kotzker:.
Tanna Dvie Eliyahu – Second Century – Rabbi Levi Cooper’s Article
Alshich Hakadosh- 1500s
Sunday, February 19, 2023
We started out the week in Boynton Beach.
Went for Daf Yomi in Boca, however, Rabbi Sugerman’s Rosh Yeshiva passed away and he went into New York for the funeral. I went to pay a Shiva call to Rabbi and Rebbetzin Philip Mocowitz who lost their 9 year old daughter. Afterwards I met Amy Gross-Tarlow at the BRS field. Amy is Zlat and David Gross’s daughter from Teaneck, NJ. The Shul has a soccer league for kids and her son Henry is in the league. Amy moved to Boca two years ago when her company relocated to Fort Lauderdale during the pandemic. She loves living in Florida and loves the Shul. She said that the center of her life is the Shul. Later in the afternoon we went with the entire family to Orchid Gardens for the Shloshim of my mother in law, Blanche Janowski.
Amy Gross-Tarlow and myself.
Monday – February 20, 2023
Drove to Miami Beach, FL and settled into Tower 41.
Tuesday – February 21, 2023
At Shacharis, I found the Sefer אפּריון in the bookshelf of the Shul in Tower 41. My Zedi, Rabbi Sholom Sklar, had an earlier edition of the Sefer in his house. I am going back to the 1960s. I remember opening the Sefer as a bochur and could not figure out his Torah. It simply made no sense to me. I could not let this opportunity pass; and during davening I studied his first piece of Torah on Sefer Terumah. Boruch Hashem, I succeeded in understanding his words. I turned to the person sitting at the same table with me and showed him the Sefer. We worked on it together. It came out that this person is Moshe Hirth who is an uncle (father’s brother) to my nephew and niece in Lakewood, Heshie and Chavie Hirth.
Moshe Hirth and myself.
In the afternoon we went to lunch with Michelle and Avi Beer’s kids. Nina and Sam Beer and their beautiful baby Charlotte. We went to 41 Pizza and Bakery. Food was great.
Shabbos Parshas Terumah – February 24 and 25, 2023
Friday night Naftali ate over and it was a treat.
Serka and I sponsored the Kiddush at Chabad of East Lakeview.
Face Page of the Sefer:
I was excited to discover that the person who reprinted the Sefer is Yitzchok Knofler who lived in Santiago, Chile. There was a sizable Sephardi community in Chile after WWII with a number of Sefardi Chacomin.
This is the Torah we worked on and I spoke over at the Shiur in Chabad.
I gave the class at the Dr. Leonard Kranzler memorial Shiur at Chabad and read through and explained this אפּריון and discussed who author was. In the piece of Torah we met Reb Shlomo Ganzfried, the Tanna Dvei Eliyahu and the Alshich. The author of the Aperion, Reb Shlomo Ganzfried lived in the 1800’s, the Tanan Devei Eliyahu goes back to the third century and was first printed in the 10th century, while the Alshich lived in Sefes in the 1500s. Torah spans generations and that is what we have here.
Herb, Peggy, Marcel, Ray, Jeff Flicker, and a young Jeff who had quite the beard going. along with one other person attended. I told them that we are the only people in the world learning the Torah of Reb Shlomo Ganzfried.
Tell the Israelite people to bring Me gifts; you shall accept gifts for Me from every person whose heart is so moved.
The Sefer starts and bring down a Tanna Dvei Eliyahu that says that when the Jewish people said we will do and we will listen, immediately Hashem said וְיִקְחוּ־לִ֖י תְּרוּמָ֑ה. What is the connection?
By explaining the connection in the Tanna Dvei Eliyahu we can answer the Alshich’s question of why didn’t the Torah say, give me a gift.
Answer:
First Step:
Chana and Eli, the High Priest. Eli misunderstood Chana.
The following verses in Shmuel 1:13-15 are explained.
And Hannah replied, “Oh no, my lord! I am a very unhappy woman. I have drunk no wine or other strong drink, but I have been pouring out my heart to the LORD.
Step 2:
Describing people through their actions and why the purpose and result of their actions is the true definition of that person, not the action itself in a vacuum.
Step 3 – Just like Chazal says that if the Omer is brought on the second day of Pesach Hashem will bless the crops, so too the Mishkan and its vessels bring down “Shefah” – goodness
Step 4: The Gemara in Shabbos:
The Gemara relates that a heretic saw that Rava was immersed in studying halakha, and his fingers were beneath his leg and he was squeezing them, and his fingers were spurting blood. Rava did not notice that he was bleeding because he was engrossed in study. The heretic said to Rava: You impulsive nation, who accorded precedence to your mouths over your ears. You still bear your impulsiveness, as you act without thinking. You should listen first. Then, if you are capable of fulfilling the commands, accept them. And if not, do not accept them. He said to him: About us,
88b
who proceed wholeheartedly and with integrity, it is written: “The integrity of the upright will guide them” (Proverbs 11:3), whereas about those people who walk in deceit, it is written at the end of the same verse: “And the perverseness of the faithless will destroy them.”
Step 5 – As it says in the Gemara in Shabbos, when the jews said we will do and we will listen, we understood that everything God does for us is good and we do not hesitate to say, we will do before we will listen.
Step 6 – so too the idea of giving the donations to the Miskan was to receive goods blessing, so it was appropriate for the Torah to use the language of taking. Although we were giving the ultimate Tachlis – the goal was to take.
Introducing the Players:
Shlomo Ganzfried (or Salomon ben Joseph Ganzfried; 1804 in Ungvár – 30 July 1886 in Ungvár) was an Orthodoxrabbi and posek best known as the author of the work of Halakha (Jewish law), the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (Hebrew: קיצור שולחן ערוך, “The Abbreviated Shulchan Aruch“), by which title he is also known.[1]
Ganzfried was born in 1804 in Ungvár, in the Ung County of the Kingdom of Hungary (present-day Ukraine). His father Joseph died when he was eight. Ganzfried was considered to be a child prodigy and Ungvár’s chief rabbi and Rosh yeshiva, Rabbi Zvi Hirsh Heller assumed legal guardianship; Heller was known as “Hershele the Sharp-witted” for his piercing insights into the Talmud. Heller later moved to the city of Bonyhád, and Ganzfried, then fifteen, followed him. He remained in Heller’s yeshiva for almost a decade until his ordination and marriage. After his marriage he worked briefly as a wine merchant.
In 1830, he abandoned commerce and accepted the position of Rabbi of Brezovica (Brezevitz). In 1849, he returned to Ungvár as a dayan, a judge in the religious court. At that time Ungvár’s spiritual head, Rabbi Meir Ash, was active in the Orthodox camp, in opposition to the Neologs. Through serving with Ash, Ganzfried realized that in order to remain committed to Orthodoxy, “the average Jew required an underpinning of a knowledge of practical halacha (Jewish law)”. It was to this end that Ganzfried composed the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch. This work became very popular, and was frequently reprinted in Hebrew and in Yiddish. This work often records more stringent positions.
Rabbi Ganzfried remained in the office of Dayan until his death on July 30, 1886.
The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, first published in 1864, is a summary of the Shulchan Aruch of Joseph Karo with reference to later commentaries. This work was explicitly written as a popular text, in simple Hebrew, and does not have the same level of detail as the Shulchan Aruch itself.
Kesset HaSofer (קסת הסופר), a halachic primer for scribes published in 1835. Ganzfried composed this while he was still engaged in business.
Pnei Shlomo (פני שלמה), an elucidation of portions of the Talmud.
Torat Zevach (תורת זבח), a halakhic handbook for practitioners of shechita, ritual slaughter.
Sefer Apiryon (ספר אפריון), a commentary on the Bible. It contains a piece on every weekly Torah portion except for Parshat Massei, which is also the week in which his yahrzeit falls.
Lechem V’simlah (לחם ושמלה) on the laws of Niddah.
Ohalei Sheim (אהלי שם) on the official spellings of Hebrew names, as pertaining to gittin.
Sefer Galuy A letter written at the time of the Congress of 1869.
Tanna Dvei Eliyahu
Tanna Devei Eliyahu: The divine, legal determination
What was the initial trigger for an unprecedented hasidic commentary on an aggadic work?
By LEVI COOPER Published: APRIL 22, 2021 02:16
THE PROPHET Elijah, as depicted in this 17th-century icon in the Hermitage’s Winter Palace, St. Petersburg
(photo credit: Wikimedia Commons)
Tanna Devei Eliyahu is unlike other nonlegal rabbinic works: As its name suggests, it is attributed to the biblical prophet Elijah.
The work is an eclectic collection of midrashim that does not follow the order of any particular book in the Bible.
The narrative of the source of this work can be found in the Babylonian Talmud: Elijah would regularly visit Rav Anan and study with him. On one occasion, Elijah objected to a ruling of Rav Anan that led to an inadvertent miscarriage of justice. Elijah, therefore, ceased these mystical rendezvous. Rav Anan fasted and prayed until Elijah returned. Alas, the relationship was not as before: Rav Anan was awestruck and frightened by his study partner. Rav Anan’s solution was to construct a box where he would sit while they studied.
Rav Anan’s notes from these study sessions with Elijah were divided into two sections: teachings inside the box and teachings outside the box. The resulting work was comprised, therefore, of two distinct parts. The Talmud identifies this work as Tanna Devei Eliyahu, made up of the longer Seder Eliyahu Raba and the shorter Seder Eliyahu Zuta (Ketubot 106a).
This foundational narrative linking the work to Rav Anan would suggest that Tanna Devei Eliyahu dates to third-century Babylonia. At the very least, the work predates the redaction of the Babylonian Talmud in the second half of the fifth century. Yet the text before us includes passages that are dated to the 10th century. Thus – like many other works of Aggada that have reached us – Tanna Devei Eliyahu has numerous historical layers.
Tanna Devei Eliyahu was first published in Venice in 1597-1598, yet a further distinct aspect of this work is the manner in which the 1676 Prague edition was produced by Rabbi Shmuel Haida (d. 1685). Since the text was corrupt, Rabbi Shmuel Haida fasted and prayed until Elijah appeared to him in a dream and directed him as to how to produce an accurate Tanna Devei Eliyahu text. Thus the production of the 1676 edition reenacted an aspect of the work’s foundational story.
BESIDES ITS mystical origins and inimitable reproduction, Tanna Devei Eliyahu stands out for a third reason: It is the only work of rabbinic Aggada to be published with a commentary from the hasidic school.
The hasidic commentary does not necessarily set out to explain the passages of Tanna Devei Eliyahu; rather, it associatively offers hassidic teachings and ideas that are linked – often tenuously – to the base text.
Tanna Devei Eliyahu with its hasidic companion was first published in Warsaw in 1881 and titled Ramatayim Tzofim – the biblical hometown of the prophet Samuel (I Samuel 1:1) and an allusion to the name of the author, Rabbi Shmuel of Sieniawa (1785-1873).
After serving in Sieniawa, Rabbi Shmuel continued to serve in the rabbinate in other places in Poland: Włodowa, Brok, Siedlce, Łowicz, and Nasielsk.
In addition to hasidic teachings, Ramatayim Tzofim includes invaluable personal recollections of the author. The work contains many teachings from Rabbi Shmuel’s teacher, Rabbi Simha Bunim of Przysucha (d. 1827), whom he first visited in 1803-1804. Even after Rabbi Shmuel took up rabbinic positions, he continued to visit his master in Przysucha.
What was the initial trigger for an unprecedented hasidic commentary on an aggadic work? For Rabbi Simha Bunim, Tanna Devei Eliyahu was key to the curriculum of study (Ramatayim Tzofim on Eliyahu Raba, ch. 1, sec. 34). When Rabbi Simha Bunim lost his eyesight in his old age, Rabbi Shmuel of Sieniawa would read Tanna Devei Eliyahu before his blind master. These study sessions led to a unique hasidic work fashioned around a work of aggada.
THE WORK includes a fascinating passage that relates to the interface between Jewish law and mysticism (Ramatayim Tzofim on Eliyahu Zuta, ch. 16, sec. 17). Rabbi Shmuel of Sieniawa recounted a halakhic ruling of Rabbi Yaakov Yitzhak Halevi Horowitz (1745-1815) – popularly known as the Seer of Lublin.
A married woman had spent private time together with a man other than her husband, raising suspicion of infidelity. The case came before the Seer of Lublin for a determination as to whether Jewish law permitted the husband and suspect wife to continue living together.
The Seer ruled that the husband and wife need not separate. Despite the wife having been in an inappropriate situation, we do not assume she had been unfaithful; hence, there was no divorce requirement.
This determination followed the ruling of Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575) in his code of Jewish law: Without formal advance notification of suspicion by the husband, spending time alone with another man does not automatically lead us to assume that a married woman had an adulterous affair (Shulhan Aruch, EH 178:6).
The permissive ruling of the Seer was questioned. Rabbeinu Nissim – a 14th-century Spanish authority – had suggested that person who cares about his soul should be extra careful and not rely on such a license. Rather, the soul-sensitive husband should assume the worst-case scenario and separate from his wife (Ran, Nedarim 91b). Raising this medieval source as a challenge to the Seer’s ruling assumed that a person from the hasidic milieu who asked the Seer such a question was the type of person who cares deeply about his spiritual well-being. Alternatively, the Seer’s own spiritual insight should have influenced his ruling. Thus the Seer should have advised the couple to separate.
The Seer stood his ground and reiterated: According to the letter of the law, the husband and wife are allowed to continue living together. Only those who are scrupulous about the well-being of the soul need to separate. In such soul matters, I am allowed to rely on my own ru’ah hakodesh, communication by divine holy spirit, and I see – explained the Seer of Lublin – that the married woman was not adulterous.
The Seer added an important postscript: Had the prohibition been rooted in the letter of the law, employing ru’ah hakodesh when determining the law would not have been permitted.
The writer is on the faculty of Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies and is a rabbi in Tzur Hadassah.
Moshe AlshichHebrew: משה אלשיך, also spelled Alshech, (1508–1593), known as the Alshich Hakadosh (the Holy), was a prominent rabbi, preacher, and biblical commentator in the latter part of the sixteenth century.
The Alshich was born in 1508 in the Ottoman Empire, and was the son of Hayyim Alshich. He later moved to Safed (now in Israel) where he became a student of Rabbi Joseph Caro. His students included Rabbi Hayim Vital and Rabbi Yom Tov Tzahalon. He died in Safed in 1593.
Only a few rabbis were granted the title “Hakadosh” throughout Jewish history. Alongside the Alshich were the Shelah HaKadosh, the Ari HaKadosh and the Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh, all of them distinctive personalities in their times.[1] Various reasons have been suggested as to why the Alshich received the “HaKadosh” (“Holy”) title.[2]
His homiletical commentaries on the Torah and the Prophets enjoy much popularity and are still studied today, largely because of their powerful influence as practical exhortations to virtuous life.
He was a disciple of R. Joseph Caro, author of the “Shulchan Aruch“; and his own disciples included the Kabbalist R. Hayim Vital. Although the Alshich belonged to the circle of the Kabbalists who lived at Safed, his works rarely betray any traces of the Kabbalah. He is celebrated as a teacher, preacher, and casuist.
Little is known of his life. In his works he avoids mention of himself, telling only of his course of study; thus in the preface to his commentary on the Pentateuch he says:
I never aimed at things too high or beyond me. From my earliest days the study of the Talmud was my chief occupation, and I assiduously attended the yeshivah where I made myself familiar with the discussions of Abaye and Raba. The night I devoted to research and the day to Halakha. In the morning I read the Talmud and in the afternoon the Posekim (Rabbinic legal decisions). Only on Fridays could I find time for the reading of Scripture and Midrash in preparation for my lectures on the Sidra of the week and similar topics, which I delivered every Sabbath before large audiences, eager to listen to my instruction.
Legend has it that his son was taken as a child and became a Moslem, and the Arizal authored a special prayer for the son’s return.
These lectures were afterward published as “Commentaries” (perushim) on the books of the Holy Scriptures, and Alshich gives a remarkable reason for their publication: “Many of those who had listened to my lectures repeated them partly or wholly in their own names. These offenses will be prevented by the publication of my own work”. These lectures, though somewhat lengthy, were not tedious to his audience. The author repeatedly declares that in their printed form (as “Commentaries”) he greatly curtailed them by omitting everything which was not absolutely necessary, or which he had already mentioned in another place.
Like Abravanel and some other commentators, Alshich headed each section of his comments with a number of questions which he anticipated on the part of the reader; he then proceeded to give a summary of his view, and concluded with answering all the questions seriatim. His Commentaries abound in references to Talmud, Midrash[3] and Zohar, but contain scant references to other commentaries, such as the works of Abravanel, Gersonides or Maimonides. His explanations are all of a homiletical character; his sole object being to find in each sentence or in each word of the Scriptures a moral lesson, a support for trust in God, encouragement to patient endurance, and a proof of the vanity of all earthly goods as compared with the everlasting bliss to be acquired in the future life. He frequently and earnestly appeals to his brethren, exhorting them to repent, and to abandon, or at least restrict, the pursuit of all worldly pleasures, and thus accelerate the approach of the Messianic era. Alshich possessed an easy and fluent style; his expositions are mostly of an allegorical character, but very rarely approach mysticism. In his commentary on the Song of Solomon, he calls peshaִt (literal explanation) and sod (mystical interpretation) the two opposite extremes, while he declares his own method of introducing allegorical exposition to be the safe mean between these extremes. Alshich wrote the following commentaries, most of which have appeared in several editions:
“Torat Mosheh” (Commentary on the Pentateuch), first ed. Belvedere near Constantinople, about 1593. Complete, with Indexes, Venice, 1601.
An abstract of this commentary was prepared by Jos. b. Aryeh Loeb, and has appeared in various forms (entitled: “Qitsur Alshich ‘al ha-Torah”), Amsterdam, 1748.
“Marot ha-Tsobeot” (Collected Visions), on the prophets and their prophecies, Venice, 1803–7.
Extracts from this commentary are included in “Minhah Qe’tannah,” a commentary on the earlier prophets; published in the Biblia Rabbinica (Qohelet Mosheh), Amsterdam, 1724.
“Romemot El” (Praises of God), on the book of Psalms, Venice, 1605.
“Rab Peninim” (Multitude of Pearls), on Proverbs, Venice, 1601.
“Helqat Mehoqeq” (The Lawgiver’s Portion), on Job, Venice, 1603.
“Shoshanat ha-‘Amaqim” (Lily of the Valleys), on the Song of Solomon. This commentary was the first to appear in print, and was edited by Alshich himself in 1591. According to this commentary, the Song is an allegory, and represents a dialogue between God and exiled Israel on the latter’s mission.
“‘Ene Mosheh” (Eyes of Moses), on Ruth. Alshich says of the book of Ruth, “Surely from it we might take a lesson how to serve God”; and illustrates this statement throughout his commentary, Venice, 1601.
“Devarim Nihumim” (Comforting Words), on the “Lamentations of Jeremiah“. The title is not merely a euphemism for Lamentations; the author repeatedly attempts to show that there is no cause for despair, God being with Israel, and though the Temple is destroyed the Shekinah has not departed from the Western Wall, Venice, 1601.
“Devarim Tovim” (Good Words), on Ecclesiastes. Alshich calls Ecclesiastes, on account of its deep thoughts, “Waters without end” (oceans). He endeavors in the commentary to illustrate, as the central idea of the book, the dictum, “All is vain, except the fear of the Lord, which is the essential condition of man’s real existence,” Venice, 1601.
“Massat Mosheh” (Moses’ Gift), on the book of Esther, presented by the author to his brethren as a Purim gift, Venice, 1601.
The commentaries of Alshich on these last-named five books (“megillot“, “scrolls”) appeared in an abridged form, edited by Eleazer b. Hananiah Tarnigrad, Amsterdam, 1697.
“Habatselet ha-Sharon” (The Rose of Sharon), on the book of Daniel, Safed, 1563, and Venice, 1592.
A commentary on the “Hafִtarot” called “Liqqute Man” (Gatherings of Manna), was compiled chiefly from “Marot ha-Tsobeot,” by E. M. Markbreit, Amsterdam, 1704.
“Yarim Mosheh” is the title of a commentary on Abot, gathered from the works of Alshich by Joseph B. M. Schlenker, Fürth, 1764.
A commentary of Alshich on the Haggadah appears in the edition of the Haggadah called “Beit Horim” (House of Free Men). The commentary is full of interesting remarks and earnest exhortations (Metz, 1767). Even in the introduction the laws for Passover and the order for the evening are treated allegorically, and made the vehicle for religious meditation. It is, however, not likely that Alshich wrote these notes for the Haggadah. They were probably gathered from his works long after his death, as otherwise the Haggadah would have been published with his commentary much earlier.
“Responsa“; as a casuist he was frequently consulted by other rabbis, and his decisions were collected in a volume of responsa (Venice, 1605; Berlin, 1766). His contemporaries frequently quote his opinions. During his lifetime Azariah dei Rossi produced his “Meor Einayim” (Light for the Eyes), in which the author rejected some beliefs generally received as traditional; Alshich, at the request of his teacher, R. Joseph Caro, wrote a declaration against the “Meor Einayim” as being contrary and dangerous to the Jewish religion (Kerem Chemed, v. 141).
Alshich wrote also a poem, “Dirge on the Exile of Israel,” in a very simple style in ten rhyming verses. It has been introduced into various earlier morning rituals, such as “Ayelet ha-Shachar” (The Morning Dawn). It is also contained in the collection of prayers and hymns called “Sha’are Zion” (The Gates of Zion).
Why didn’t Hashem take the Jews the shorter route to Israel
What does חֲמֻשִׁ֛ים mean in Shmos Verse 13:18
Verse 13:19 – Moshe took up the bones of Joseph – Pelah Atzum on the Meciltah
On Tuesday January 31, 2023 we drove back from Toronto. The Sheva was over on the previous Thursday, January 26, 2023. Toronto is over.
My mind thinks back to the 2 and a half months Serka and I spent with Bubi Jean with my wife taking care of her mother and giving her a quality of life even in the last few months of life. Look at these pictures with her grandchildren.
February 1, 2023
Went back to Yeshiva and was welcomed by Rabbi Revah. I am out of the Sugya and it was very getting back into the Sugya. I really do not want to go back to Yeshiva but Rabbi Revah keeps motivating me.
February 2, 2023
Went to Purim Spiel practice by Chabad of East Lakeview. They actually want me to be the narrator.
February 3, 2013
Cold day. Davened at the Base Ment Friday night.
Shabbos – February 4, 2023
Davened at Mishne Gemara. It was a great feeling that the Misugayim who were part of the Shul are all gone and normal people are running the Shul. Kiddush was great.
Now when Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although it was nearer; for God said, “The people may have a change of heart when they see war, and return to Egypt.”
Question: How do you understand this Pasuk. Just like Hashem fought with the Jewish people at Yam Suf, so he would fight with them against the Pelishtim. Additionally, the next Pasuk says they left Egypt armed.
So God led the people round about, by way of the wilderness at the Sea of Reeds. Now the Israelites went up חֲמֻשִׁ֛ים out of the land of Egypt.
What does וַחֲמֻשִׁ֛ים mean?
There are at least five explanations of חֲמֻשִׁ֛ים and some variations.
Armed – Onkelys, Rashi, Meciltah, Ba”al HaTurim, Or HaChaim
1a) Armed with 5 weapons – Ba’al Haturim
One of 5; one of 50; one of 500 – Rashi, Meciltah
Every family had five children – Targum Yonasan Ben Uziel
Every person was armed with good deeds – Targum Yerushalmi
Kli Yaker – the merit of the five books of Moses
For the Israelites went out with a high hand (Ex. 14:8), with weapons of war and not like fleeing slaves
This is the Pshat and you will dance.
The word חֲמֻשִׁ֛ים clearly means armed. This Is how Onkelys translate’s it. This Is corroborated by the Pasuk in Joshua 1:14 “ואתם תעברו חמושים”. How do we get other translations? On Shabbos February 11, 2023 as I was walking to Chabed of East Lakeview the answer came to me and I was very excited.
There are three Hebrew words for armed. חֲמֻשִׁ֛ים, חלוצים, and מְזֻיָּנִים. They are synonyms of each other but they have different meanings. As in all Hebrew words, different words that have similar meaning convey different thoughts.
מְזֻיָּנִים means armed with weapons.
חלוצים means armed and being the vanguard of the army.
חמושים means not only armed, but armed with confidence. Armed with the self confidence that you will be successful in future challenges and battles. You are confident because of the arms you carry, your are confident in your training, you have God with you because he has given you the Torah, your leadership is faithful and strong, you have a family with kids to fight for, you have done charitable deeds, that God will look upon you favorably, and you know you are on the right side of history.
This is why the Torah choose חמושים to describe being armed as it means being armed in every sense of the word. This allows for all the different interpretations. It also could be that all the explanations agree that they were armed for battle, but they differ in the source of their confidence. The second Pshat in Rashi that 1 in 5 left Egypt and 4/5ths died in Egypt tells us that the individuals who lacked this awareness and confidence were killed during the three days of darkness, so as not to demoralize the Jewish people.
What is the יִּצְטָרֵך that they would purchase during their travel? I would say it means food, not arms. I do not think that the cities on their route would be able to equip an army traveling to Israel. No one is going to sell 600,000 men arms.Why this big deal about arms?
וּמִקְרָא זֶה לֹא נִכְתַּב כִּי אִם לְשַׂבֵּר אֶת הָאֹזֶן, שֶׁלֹּא תִתְמַהּ בְּמִלְחֶמֶת עֲמָלֵק וּבְמִלְחֶמֶת סִיחוֹן וְעוֹג וּמִדְיָן מֵהֵיכָן הָיוּ לָהֶם כְּלֵי זַיִן שֶׁהִכּוּ אוֹתָם בַּחֶרֶב . This is called a “Kashah Af A Maasah”. We would not have wondered how the Jews got arms. If we wondered about it, we would answer that as Egypt was on its knees after the tenth plague, the Jews took armaments or they got it at the Yam Suf when the Egyptian army was wiped out. The armaments ended up on the seashore along with the riches of Egypt.
The Or HaChaim answers the question why the armaments were important.
וחמושים עלו וגו’. ואולי כי זולת היותם מזויינים בכלי זיין לא יועיל מה שיסב ה’ אותם לבל יחזרו בראותם מלחמה כי על כל פנים ישובו מצרימה כיון שאין בידם כלי זיין לערוך עם אויב מלחמה ויראו עצמן אבודים, לזה אמר וחמושים עלו וגו’ פירוש
מלבד טעם שיסב ה’ היו להם גם כן כלי זיין ובהצטרפות שני הטעמים לא ינחם העם בראותם מלחמה וגו’:
Explanation 1A) Ba’al Haturim:
וחמושים מזויינים על שם חמשה כלי זיין הנזכרים בפסוק מגן וצנה ורומח וחצים ומקל יד
Shield and a buckler, small shield, spear, arrows, mace weapon
Explanation #2:
Rashi’s second Pshat
Focus on Rashi in his second Pshat. What a Churban. Wrap your head around it and we really cannot.
Meciltah – This is the source of Rashi.:
וחמושים – אין חמושים אלא מזויינין, שנאמר “וחמושים עלו בני ישראל” – (יהושע א:14) “ואתם תעברו חמושים”. וכתיב (יהושע ד׳:י״ב) “ויעברו [בני] ראובן ובני גד וחצי שבט המנשה חלוצים ארבעים אלף חלוצי צבא”.
ד”א: וחמושים עלו – אחד מחמשה. ויש אומרים: אחד מחמשים. ויש אומרים: אחד מחמש מאות. רבי נהוראי אומר: העבודה! לא אחד מחמש מאות עלו, שנאמר (יחזקאל טז) “רבבה כצמח השדה נתתיך” וכתיב (שמות א) “ובני ישראל פרו וישרצו וירבו ויעצמו”, שהיתה האשה יולדת ששה בכרס אחד, ואתה אומר אחד מחמש מאות עלו? העבודה! לא אחד מחמש מאות עלו, אלא שמתו הרבה מישראל במצרים. ואימתי מתו? – בשלשת ימי אפלה, שנאמר (שמות י) “לא ראו איש את אחיו”, שהיו קוברים מתיהם, והודו ושבחו להקב”ה שלא ראו אויביהם וששו במפלתם:
(Ibid.) “And chamushim did the children of Israel go up from the land of Egypt”: “chamushim” indicates “armed,” as in (Joshua 1:14) “Then you shall cross over chamushim” (in context, “armed”), and (Ibid. 4:12) “And the children of Reuven and the children of Gad and half the tribe of Menasheh crossed over chamushim … (13) forty thousand armed men, etc.”
Variantly: “chamushim went up from the land of Egypt ” — one out of five ([‘chammishah’] who had been there). Others say: one out of fifty (‘chamishim’). Other says: one out of five hundred (‘chamesh me’oth’). R. Nehorai says: I swear: Not one in five hundred went up. For it is written (Ezekiel 16:7) “(In Egypt) I made you as numerous as the plants of the field,” and (Exodus 1:7) “And the children of Israel were fruitful, and teemed, and multiplied, and became exceedingly strong, and the land was filled with them” — a woman would bear six in one birth — and you say one in five hundred went up! Not one in five thousand, many of the Jews having died in Egypt. When? In the three days of darkness, of which it is written (Exodus 10:23) “One man did not see another.” They (the Jews) were burying their dead, and they gave thanks and praise to the Holy One Blessed be He that their foes did not see and rejoice in their downfall.
But the Lord led the people round by the way of the desert of the sea of Suph; and every one of the sons of Israel, with five children, went up from the land of Mizraim.
And the Word of the Lord conducted the people by the way of the desert of the sea of Suph; armed in good works went up the sons of Israel, free from the land of Mizraim.
Explanation #5:
Kli Yakar
The Kli Yakur says, I do not understand this idea that חֲמֻשִׁ֛ים means armaments. So he explains that it means the five books of Moses.
ויהי בשלח פרעה את העם. ואח”כ נאמר פן ינחם העם ויסב אלהים את העם, ואח”כ נאמר וחמושים עלו בני ישראל, ויש להתבונן למה קראם ג’ פעמים העם וברביעי קראם בני ישראל אצל וחמושים דהיינו כלי זיין, וכפי הנראה שמצד היותם בני ישראל לא היו צריכין לכלי זיין ושלוחו של פרעה היה מצד היותם בני ישראל וא”כ איפכא הל”ל.
ונראה ליישב זה בשני פנים. האחד הוא, על דרך שמסיק בילקוט וחמושים עלו אין חמושים אלא מזויינים בחמשה כלי זיין, וקשה על זה וכי מלחמתן של ישראל תלויה ברבוי כלי זיין, והלא כתיב (שופטים ה ח) מגן אם יראה ורומח בארבעים אלף בישראל. כי הש”י מגן בעדם, והתורה והתפלה כלי זיינם של ישראל שנאמר (תהלים קמט ו) וחרב פיפיות בידם שני פיות כי שניהם תלוין בפה, ואם כן מה תפארת זה לישראל שעלו חמושים מזויינים כאילו לא היו בטחונם בה’ חלילה. ואף אם נאמר שחייב אדם לעשות בדרך הטבע כל אשר ימצא בכחו לעשות ומה שיחסר הטבע ישלים הנס, מ”מ קשה על מה זה הגיד לנו הכתוב שהיה לכל אחד ה’ כלי זיין ומנינא למה לי, ועוד כי קרה בדרך נס או במקרה שהיה לכל אחד ה’ לא פחות ולא יותר הלא דבר הוא, ועוד כי כפי הנראה לא היו ישראל מלומדי מלחמה כלל כי היו עסוקים בעבודת פרך כל הימים וכלי זיין אלו למה להם כי לא נסו באלה והיה להם לילך במקלות ובאבני קלע.
ע”כ נראה לפרש. שבא להודיענו שלא היה בידם שום כלי זיין כי אם ה’ חומשי תורה החלוקים לז’ ספרים למ”ד שפרשת ויהי בנסוע ספר בפני עצמו, וז”ש וחמשים היינו מזויינים הכל רמז לתורה, ונקט לשון חמשים שהלשון נופל על הלשון, וכן מזויינים, כי לשון חמשה וזיין, שמות כלי מלחמה המה, ואצל ישראל ירמוזו גם על התורה או חמשים היינו חמשה חומשי תורה כאמור, ומזויינים היינו התפלה כמ”ש (תהלים קיט קסד) שבע ביום הללתיך.
Tur HaAruch:
וחמושים עלו בני ישראל. פי’ אע”פ שהוליכם אלהים דרך המדבר היו יראים פן יבואו עליהם פלשתים או העמים אשר סביבותיהם והיו חלוצים כמו ההולך להלחם. וי”מ שבא לומר שיצאו ביד רמה כמו גאולים ולא כמו העבדים הבורחים:
“and the Israelites were armed when they went up.” The Torah records that although G’d led the Israelites in the direction of the uninhabited desert, where normally no encounter with sizable hostile forces need to be anticipated, they were armed, enabling them to cope with such unforeseen eventualities. They were still afraid that the Philistines or neigbouring tribes might fight a war of aggression against them, as opposed to defending their territory’s sovereignty. Alternately, the phrase is meant to depict the Israelites as marching with full confidence, not as people with a slave mentality.
Ibn Ezra:
Difficult to understand. However, I like his last line. For the Israelites went out with a high hand (Ex. 14:8), with weapons of war and not like fleeing slaves.
וחמושים. י”א מלאים הון שיש להם כל צרכיהם. והנה כתוב וגם צדה לא עשו להם ומה טעם להזכיר זה עתה. רק פירושו חגורי חומש למלחמה. כמו חלוצים תעברו. שפירושו חגורי חלוצים. והעד הנאמן ואתם תעברו חמושים ובמקום אחר קראם חלוצים. כי מה טעם להוליך צדה לפני אחיהם. וטעם להזכיר הכתוב וחמשים במקום הזה כי למעלה כתוב בראותם מלחמה. כי ביד רמה יצאו בכלי מלחמה. ולא כמו עבדים בורחים:
ARMED. Some say that chamushim (armed) means full of wealth, possessing all that they need. Now Scripture states, neither had they prepared for themselves any victual (Ex. 12:39). Furthermore, what reason is there to mention this now? The only meaning of chamushim is, girded with weapons for war. Compare, chalutzim ta’avoru (ye shall pass over armed) (Deut. 3:18), the meaning of which is: ye shall pass over with girded loins. The fact that Scripture in one place reads, ve-attem ta’averu chamushim (but ye shall pass over before your brethren armed) (Josh. 1:14) and in another place refers to the Israelites as chalutzim (Deut. 3:18) is true witness to the aforementioned. What reason was there for them to carry food before their brethren? The reason Scripture at this point notes that the children of Israel went up armed is that it is previously stated, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt (v. 17). For the Israelites went out with a high hand (Ex. 14:8), with weapons of war and not like fleeing slaves.
Chasam Sofer – Interesting. Not sure if I would agree, but the Chasam Spfer said this and we have to think about his words and make it work for us.
*וחמושים עלו בנ”י מארץ מצרים, ברש”י וחמושים מזוינים, וי”ל כיון שיצאו ישראל מזוינים למלחמה למה בעמדם על הים לא צוה הקב”ה לבנ”י שילחמו עם מצרים וה’ ילחם להם וינצחו ישראל בדרך הטבע ולאיזה טעם עשה הקב”ה נס גדול שלא בדרך הטבע לקרוע להם הים ולנער פרעה וחילו בים סוף אבל באמת מדרך המוסר איננו נכון שישראל בעצמם יעמדו נגד המצרים ללחום נגדם בחרב שבידם כי אכסני’ היו להם ומפני כך צוה הקב”ה לא תתעב מצרי כי גר היית בארצו ובירא דשתית מיא מיניה לא תישדי ביה קלא לכן צוה הקב”ה ויבואו בנ”י בתוך הים ביבשה ויבקעו המים ולא ילחמו בנ”י בעצמם נגדם וזה דמשמיענו קרא הכי מוסר וד”א שחמושים עלו בנ”י ואעפ”כ לא רצה הקב”ה שילחמו עמהם אלא הקב”ה בקע הים לפניהם:
And Moses took with him the bones of Joseph, who had exacted an oath from the children of Israel, saying, “God will be sure to take notice of you: then you shall carry up my bones from here with you.”
Rashi:
והעליתם את עצמתי מזה אתכם. לְאֶחָיו הִשְׁבִּיעַ כֵּן, לִמְּדָנוּ שֶׁאַף עַצְמוֹת כָּל הַשְּׁבָטִים הֶעֱלוּ עִמָּהֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אִתְּכֶם (מכילתא):
The Sefer haYasher page 289 says that all the families brought up their father’s coffins and the coffin of their tribes.
The Mecilta says something that cannot be understood.
ויקח משה את עצמות יוסף עמו – להודיע חכמתו וחסידותו של משה, שכל ישראל עוסקין בבזה – ומשה עוסק במצות עצמות יוסף. עליו הכתוב אומר (משלי י) “חכם לב יקח מצות, ואויל שפתים ילבט”. ומשה, מהיכן היה יודע היכן היה קבור יוסף? – אמרו: סרח בת אשר נשתיירה מאותו הדור, והיא הראתה למשה קבר יוסף. אמרה לו: במקום הזה שמוהו!
Moshe was involved with the Mitzvah of gathering up Yosef’s bones, while the Jews were involved with the spoils of Egypt. What is going on here? First of all you have Rashi and the Sefer haYasher who said that many Jews were involved in the same Mitzvah. Secondly, Hashem asked the people to do him a favor to ask for the gold and silver of Egypt. The Jews were involved in the commandment for m Hashem. How can the Mecilita demean the jewish people with only caring about money.
Pelah Atzum!
Torah #4:
The Mecilta continues:
עשו לו מצרים ארון של מתכת, ושקעוהו בתוך נילוס. בא ועמד על נילוס, נטל צרור וזרק לתוכו, וזעק ואמר: יוסף, יוסף, הגיעה השבועה שנשבע הקב”ה לאברהם אבינו, שהוא גאל את בניו. תן כבוד לה’ אלהי ישראל, ואל תעכב את גאולתך, כי בגללך אנו מעוכבים. ואם לאו – נקיים אנחנו משבועתך! מיד צף ארונו של יוסף ונטלו משה. ואל תתמה בדבר הזה, הרי הוא אומר (מלכים ב ו) “ויהי האחד מפיל את הקורה והברזל נפל למים, ויצעק ויאמר אהה אדוני, והוא שאול!” והרי דברים ק”ו: ומה אלישע, תלמידו של אליהו, הציף הברזל – ק”ו למשה רבו של אליהו.
רבי נתן אומר בקיפוסולין של מצרים the royal cemetery
היה קבור יוסף. ללמדך שבמדה שהאדם מודד בה מודדים לו: מרים המתינה למשה שעה אחת, שנאמר (שמות ב׳:ד׳) “ותתצב אחותו מרחוק לדעה”, והמקום עכב לה במדבר הארון והשכינה, והכהנים והלויים, וכל ישראל – שבעת ימים עם ענני כבוד; שנאמר (במדבר יב) “והעם לא נסע עד האסף מרים”.
יוסף זכה לקבור את אביו, שאין באחיו גדול ממנו, שנאמר (בראשית נ) “ויעל יוסף לקבור את אביו” כתיב שם “ויעל עמו גם רכב גם פרשים”. מי לנו גדול כיוסף, שלא נתעסק בו אלא משה!
משה נתעסק בעצמות יוסף, שאין בישראל גדול ממנו, שנאמר “ויקח משה את עצמות יוסף עמו”. מי לנו גדול כמשה, שלא נתעסק בו אלא שכינה, שנאמר (דברים לד) “ויקבור אותו בגיא”! ולא עוד, אלא שעם יעקב עלו עבדי פרעה וזקני ביתו – ועם יוסף הארון והשכינה והכהנים והלויים וכל ישראל ושבעה ענני כבוד. ולא עוד, אלא שהיה מהלך ארונו של יוסף עם ארון חי העולמים, והיו עוברים ושבים אומרים: מה טיבן של שני ארונות הללו? והם אומרים להם: זה ארונו של מת, וזה ארונו של חי העולמים. ואומרים להם: מה טיבו של מת להלוך עם ארון חי העולמים? – ואומרים להם: המונח בארון זה – קיים מה שכתוב במונח בארון זה.
We could have answered that Yosef was the leader who kept the people alive during the great famine, dedicated to his father, and he represents the best of the Jewish people. Why did the Mecilta say the Yosef kept the commandments?
The answer must be that being a leader is not the criteria for Jewish greatness. It is being faithful to the Torah.
במונח בארון זה כתיב (שמות כ׳:ב׳) “אנכי ה’ אלהיך”, וביוסף כתיב (בראשית נ) “התחת אלהים אני”. במונח בארון זה כתיב (שמות כ׳:ג׳) “לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים”, וביוסף כתיב (בראשית מב) “את האלהים אני ירא”. (שמות כ׳:ג׳) “לא תשא”, וביוסף כתיב (בראשית מב) “חי פרעה”. (שמות כ׳:ח׳) “זכור את יום השבת”, וביוסף כתיב (בראשית מ״ג:ט״ז) “וטבוח טבח והכן”, ואין “הכן” אלא ערב שבת – כתיב הכא והכן וכתיב התם (שמות טז) “והיה ביום הששי והכינו”. (שמות כ׳:י״ב) “כבד את אביך”, וביוסף כתיב (בראשית לז) “ויאמר ישראל אל יוסף הלא אחיך רועים בשכם, לך ואשלחך אליהם, ויאמר לו הנני” – יודע היה שאחיו שונאים אותו, ולא רצה לעבור על דברי אביו. (שמות כ׳:י״ג) “לא תרצח”, לא רצח לפוטיפר. (שמות כ׳:י״ג) “לא תנאף”, לא נאף לאשת פוטיפר. (שמות כ׳:י״ד) “לא תגנוב”, לא גנב פרעה, שנאמר (בראשית מז) “וילקט יוסף את כל הכסף” וגו’. (שמות כ) “לא תענה ברעך”, ויוסף לא הגיד לאביו מה שעשו לו אחיו. והרי דברים ק”ו: ומה דבר של אמת לא ענה, של שקר על אחת כמה וכמה! (שמות כ) “לא תחמוד”, שלא חמד אשת פוטיפר.
On December 29th right after the morning minyan, I plopped down next to Danny Berger and asked him how Rashi in verse 44:18 understood. It happened to be that he was working on the Rashi in 44:13 and the Rashi 44:18. Together we put together a very nice explanation.
Danny Berger:
Parshas Miketz and Vayigash – “Prepared for War While Negotiating Peace”
It was the metropolis and yet Scripture says העירה — an ordinary city! But this is because in their eyes it was regarded as a very medium-sized city of only ten inhabitants if it became a matter of waging war against it (Genesis Rabbah 92:8).
Rashi explains that they were so physically strong that they did not to need to assist each other in loading up their donkeys. Rashi also tells us while they were in fact headed back to a big, well-fortified city, they were so strong and confident that their perception of the city was one that was like a small town which they could easily defeat if they waged war against it.
But what is the relevance of the Torah telling us about their strength specifically here?
Continuing in Parshas Vayigash, the Torah tells us Yehuda appeals to Yoseph for Binyomin’s release. The pasuk states:
Then Yehuda approached him and said, “If you please, my lord, let your servant speak a word in my lord’s ears and may your anger not flare up at your servant – for you who are like Pharaoh. (Bereishis 44:18)
Rashi seems to be bothered why Yehuda has to say “may your anger not flare up” if he was talking respectfully to him. Rashi teaches the following on this pasuk:
ואל יחר אפך. מִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד שֶׁדִּבֵּר אֵלָיו קָשׁוֹת
From here you may infer that he (Yehuda) spoke to him (Yoseph) in harsh terms.
1 – In my opinion you are as important as the king. This is the literal meaning,
2 – but a Midrashic explanation is: You will ultimately be stricken with leprosy for detaining Benjamin even as your ancestor Pharaoh was stricken because he detained my ancestress Sarah one night.
3 – Another Midrashic explanation is: you are as unreliable as Pharaoh — just as Pharaoh issues decrees and does not carry them out, makes promises and does not fulfill them, so also do you. Is this what you meant by “setting your eyes” upon him when you said (Genesis 44:21) “Bring him down and I will set mine eyes upon him”?
4 – Still another Midrashic interpretation of כי כמוך כפרעה FOR THOU SHALT BECOME EVEN AS PHARAOH: if you provoke me I will slay you and your master (Genesis Rabbah 93:6).
Rashi has 4 interpretations for כִּ֥י כָמ֖וֹךָ כְּפַרְעֹֽה. Why?
The simple approach to the narrative leads us to perceive that Yehuda and the brothers were scared and were reacting to this tense situation in a state of weakness. However, Rabbi Elie Teitelman points out this is not so. Considering Rashi’s explanations, what becomes apparent is that Yehuda and the brothers are extremely confident as they are willing and able to act aggressively towards Yoseph and Egypt if they so choose. Rashi is telling us the Torah went out of its way at this juncture to inform us they were strong (“בַּעֲלֵי זְרוֹעַ הָיוּ”) and confident about waging war against Egypt if necessary (“לְעִנְיַן הַמִּלְחָמָה … כְעִיר בֵּינוֹנִית”) even if it meant killing Egypt’s leadership (“אִם תַּקְנִיטֵנִי אֶהֱרֹג אוֹתְךָ וְאֶת אֲדוֹנֶךָ
Therefore, the way to read Rashi on Verse 44:18 is that Yehuda was negotiating with Yosef and outwardly expressed respect, but he was thinking that Yosef is an evil person, one who was a liar and a cheat, and we will fight you on Binyamin. Meaning that if Yosef does not let Binyamin go there will be a war and based on the Rashis in the previous Parsha they were strong and had confidence that they would be successful.
Judah replied, “What can we say to my lord? How can we plead, how can we prove our innocence? God has uncovered the crime of your servants. Here we are, then, slaves of my lord, the rest of us as much as he in whose possession the goblet was found.”
Amazingly, Yehuda knows they are innocent yet s willing to go into slavery with his brothers and says that we have previously sinned to God and we are being punished by God. Despite the fact that they were very strong, he was willing to go into slavery because he assumed that this is G-ds doing. Here he doesn’t mention any specific sin. He may have had the sale of Yoseph in mind.
Yet two Pesukim later, Yehuda is negotiating and willing to go to war. What changed is Pasuk 45:17.
וַיֹּ֕אמֶר חָלִ֣ילָה לִּ֔י מֵעֲשׂ֖וֹת זֹ֑את הָאִ֡ישׁ אֲשֶׁר֩ נִמְצָ֨א הַגָּבִ֜יעַ בְּיָד֗וֹ ה֚וּא יִהְיֶה־לִּ֣י עָ֔בֶד וְאַתֶּ֕ם עֲל֥וּ לְשָׁל֖וֹם אֶל־אֲבִיכֶֽם׃ {ס} But he replied, “Far be it from me to act thus! Only the one in whose possession the goblet was found shall be my slave; the rest of you go back in peace to your father.”
Yehuda realizes that this decree is not from G-d and is not willing to accept Yosef’s demand to keep Binyomin. Binyomin never sinned. Yehuda is now willing to go to war. In his negotiations Yehuda does say that I am willing to be your slave if you agree to let Binyomin go. Verse 44:33 – וְעַתָּ֗ה יֵֽשֶׁב־נָ֤א עַבְדְּךָ֙ תַּ֣חַת הַנַּ֔עַר עֶ֖בֶד לַֽאדֹנִ֑י וְהַנַּ֖עַר יַ֥עַל עִם־אֶחָֽיו׃ Therefore, please let your servant remain as a slave to my lord instead of the boy, and let the boy go back with his brothers.
If Yehuda knew that he was innocent and in the first verse of VaYigash Rashi says that Yehuda was willing to go to war, why would he agree to be a slave. After all, Yosef initially never said he was not going to let Binyomin go. All Yoseeh said was I want to see him.
The answer to this is perhaps go9ng back to the theme of 44:16 that he still felt that he sinned and G-d was punishing him or perhaps he was afraid that some of the brothers would be killed and was not willing to risk a war.
Rabbi Yosef Rothbart talked about these Pesukim in his speech today. He said like what Danny and I said that he negotiated but was prepared for war. Rabbi Rothbart said that the word וַיִּגַּ֨שׁ implies three activities negotiation, prayer, and war, see Yalkut below.. Just like Yaakov when he was about to meet Eisav, rashi says והיה המחנה הנשאר לפליטה. עַל כָּרְחוֹ, כִּי אֶלָּחֵם עִמּוֹ. הִתְקִין עַצְמוֹ לִשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים, לְדוֹרוֹן, לִתְפִלָּה וּלְמִלְחָמָה. Negotiation is equivalent to דוֹרוֹן . Rabbi Rothbart mentioned a Reb Tzadok that when Yehuda said בִּ֣י אֲדֹנִי֒ he was also saying, in me is G-d. Yehuda had faith in Hashem and this faith would carry him in battle. This is why Jews are called Yehudim. Because we have to always feel that Hashem is within us – בִּ֣י אֲדֹנִי֒.
This explains beautifully why in Verse 44:16 Yehuda was willing for all the brothers to be slaves. He when he could not say בִּ֣י אֲדֹנִי֒. He felt that Hashem was punishing the brothers and that G-d was not with them. Now that Yosef was going to keep Binyomin and let the brothers leave, he realized that this was not a punishment from G-d, he felt בִּ֣י אֲדֹנִי֒ and that he could fight Yosef.
Yalkut Shimoni on 44:18 –
ויגש אליו יהודה רבי יהודה אומר הגשה למלחמה כמה דאת אמר ויגש יואב והעם אשר אתו למלחמה. רבי נחמיה אומר הגשה לפיוס כמה דאת אמר] ויגשו בני יהודה אל יהושע לפייסו ורבנן אמרי הגשה לתפלה ויגש אליהו.
ד”א ויגש אליו יהודה נכנסו לתוכחות אמר יהודה לנפתלי קפוץ וראה כמה שווקים יש במצרים קפץ וראה אמר שנים עשר שווקים אמר כל אחד ואחד יחריב שלו ואני אחריב שלשה. א”ל יוסף מצרים לא כשכם אם תחריב מצרים תחריב את כל העולם דכתיב כגן ה’ כארץ מצרים. כי כמוך כפרעה אם אשלוף חרבי אהרוג את כל מצרים אמר יוסף אם אתה מוציאה אכרוך אותה על צוארך. א”ל יהודה אני פותח פי ובולעך א”ל יוסף אם תפתח את פיך אני סותמו באבן.
There Are three explanations as to who will die: Binyamin, Yaakov, or both of them.
Rashi says- ועזב את אביו ומת. אִם יַעֲזֹב אֶת אָבִיו, דּוֹאֲגִים אָנוּ שֶׁמָּא יָמוּת בַּדֶּרֶךְ, שֶׁהֲרֵי אִמּוֹ בַּדֶּרֶךְ מֵתָה:
Rashi is saying that Binyomin will die. However, the Rashbam says that Yaakov will die as a result. (Mesudah).
Sferno – says that both Yaakov and Binyamin will die and explains – מאז שיעזוב את עגועגי אביו והסברת פניו יתעצב ונפל למשכב ואז ימות: לא יוכל הנער לעזוב את אביו, from the moment he will have left his father, he will pine for his father and become sick or die. Furthermore
ועזב את אביו ומת. ועם זה אביו ימות בלי ספק: ועזב את אביו ומת, also his father will die without question if the lad leaves him.
Further expanaiotn of thethree explanation of Pasuk וַנֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־אֲדֹנִ֔י לֹא־יוּכַ֥ל הַנַּ֖עַר לַעֲזֹ֣ב אֶת־אָבִ֑יו וְעָזַ֥ב אֶת־אָבִ֖יו וָמֵֽת׃
The translation of the pasuk like Rashi is – We said to my lord, ‘The boy cannot leave his father; if he were to leave him, his father would die.’
The translation of the pasuk like the Rashbam is “And we said to my lord, The lad cannot leave his father: for if he should leave his father, his father would die.” (Koren and JPS)
The translation of the pasuk like the Sferno is”And we said to my lord. The boy cannot leave his father because Biyomin will so miss his father, that he will get sick or die and if the boy leaves his father, his father will also die,
These Pasukim repeat the same thing and are redundant. One was בְּרָעָ֖ה – with evil and 6 the second בְּיָג֖וֹן – with sorrow.
Comments/Question #3:
Verse 45:2
וַיִּתֵּ֥ן אֶת־קֹל֖וֹ בִּבְכִ֑י וַיִּשְׁמְע֣וּ מִצְרַ֔יִם וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע בֵּ֥ית פַּרְעֹֽה – Yosef is crying , so loud that everyone heard him.
What is the difference between Egypt and the house of Pharah? How could the entire Egypt hear him? If anything, say the house of Pharaoh first as that is limited and then Egypt heard him.
Verse 45:3
וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יוֹסֵ֤ף אֶל־אֶחָיו֙ אֲנִ֣י יוֹסֵ֔ף הַע֥וֹד אָבִ֖י חָ֑י וְלֹֽא־יָכְל֤וּ אֶחָיו֙ לַעֲנ֣וֹת אֹת֔וֹ כִּ֥י נִבְהֲל֖וּ מִפָּנָֽיו׃ – was Yosef still crying?
Yosef said אֲנִ֣י יוֹסֵ֔ף הַע֥וֹד אָבִ֖י חָ֑י all in one breath. He did not pause after אֲנִ֣י יוֹסֵ֔ף, but it seemed as if he said both of these ideas in one stream of consciousness.
Did say הַע֥וֹד אָבִ֖י חָ֑י to rebuke them saying, you said that if Binyomin does not go back to our father, our father will die. Why didn’t you worry about our father when you sold me?
As i look at the Sedra, I doubt if he meant to rebuke them. He was crying. Just saying, “I am Joseph” is enough rebuke. Besides, he was one of the holy founders of 2 tribes. He had to see G-d’s hand in all the events. And the best revenge is success.
Rashi in verse 45:4 has to be explained. Rashi says that he saw them backing up and Joseph said to himself, “Now, I see that they are embarrassed.”Then he called to them in a soft voice and conciliatory voice, and showed that he is circumcised. It seems that when Yoseph said “I am Joseph, is my father alive” he was rebuking them.
Fred Weingust
At Kiddush I spoke to Fred Weingoth at length. Comes out he worked for IBM for years and worked on 5/3rds accounts. He understood their problems when I related to him their customer service issues. Every summer he would load his 5 kids in their Caravan minivan and go cross country in Canada. One year they drove route 66, first stopping off at Romanian in Chicago and loaded up with salami, hot dogs, etc. The Levy family from Florida is also driving Route 66 in May.
This week on Wednesday, December 21, 2022 went to Anshei Minsk for their Chanukah party. I parked my car by the Yorkdale Shopping Center and took the train. Anshei Minsk is in the Kensington Market Area, the old Jewish area of Toronto and is considered downtown. There are numerous schools and hospitals nearby. Dundas Street, one block to the South is China town.
David Atlman and myself. He went to the Diaspora Yeshiva and spent two years at Aish in Jerusalem. He heard classes from Rabbi Noah Weinberg. His family Shul was Beth Emet Kol Yehuda, a relatively strong Conservative Shul. He confirmed what I suspected that the Shul in the later half of the 20th century had the highest concentration of Holocaust survivors davening in the Shul
My mother in law is critical but stable. She is just not eating.
Shabbos Chanukah at the BAYT:
What a Shabbos. I got to Shul at 8:15 AM. It was 8 degrees outside. I wore the coat my kids got for me and was warm. The Minyan started at 7:45 AM and I arrived in time for Hallel. I davened Hallel and heard Leining at this Minyan, and went next door to the Turk Bais Medrash for Shacharis. I then grabbed Robert Benmurgy, David Fishman, and Nosson Weissreich and told him my Torah of Verse 41:12 as detailed below, I schmoozed with Nosson Westreich and discovered that his wife is a Siegal from Baltimore and is a third cousin to my cousin in Baltimore,, Elya Caplan. We talked for about 45 minutes, talking about Rabbi Price and many other topics. I then went into the Turk Bais Medrash for Kiddush and told my Torah to a Mr. Romain from South Africa. I then went upstairs to the main Minyan for Musaf. The Rabbi spoke excellently.
Rabbi Korobkin spoke about his recent trip with Shul members to Dubai. His speech is at the end of this Blog Post.
My Torah
I copied all the Verses in Chapter 41 Verse 1 – 57 and my Torah is in blue.
A Hebrew youth was there with us, a servant of the chief of the slaughters, and when we told him our dreams, he interpreted them for us, telling each of the meaning of his dream.
I saw a Pshet and do not remember who said that either Pharaoh ignored this law when it came to Joseph or that he discovered that Joseph was stolen by his brothers who sold him. They had no right to sell so Yoseph was never really a slave and therefore despite being a foreigner could be royalty in Egypt.
Rashi 3) עברי. אֲפִלּוּ לְשׁוֹנֵנוּ אֵינוֹ מַכִּיר – a Hebrew, who does not even know our language.
What was the שַׂ֣ר הַמַּשְׁקִ֔ים per Rashi trying to do? If you read the word of the Chumash it seems that the שַׂ֣ר הַמַּשְׁקִ֔ים was reporting the facts and there was no evil intent. However, all four Rashis on this Pasuk tell us that this was not the case. He purposely meant to denigrate Yoseph. The שַׂ֣ר הַמַּשְׁקִ֔ים was one of the officers of Egypt, a cabinet minister. He knew that Yosef would present well and knew that Yosef was talented, successful, and a leader of men. He was afraid that Yosef would be promoted into a leadership role, into a cabinet minister position and even into royalty. The שַׂ֣ר הַמַּשְׁקִ֔ים was protecting his turf. Rashi 2 the word גְדֻלָּה and Rashi 4 uses the word מוֹלֵךְ. He was trying to preempt this and effectively was saying that although Yosef will interpret your dream, do not be impressed. Yosef is still immature, just a lad (even though Joseph was 30 at the time) and cannot rise to greatness. Yes Pharaoh, Yosef has a talent but it is a unique, limited talent. Rashi 2 says that נער as in שׁוֹטֶה. I think Rashi is saying that because Yosef is immature he is a fool. Or you can say that Joseph was an idiot savant. All three things that the שַׂ֣ר הַמַּשְׁקִ֔ים said was to preempt Pharosh from making Yoseph a cabinet minister like himself or even higher. Despite his efforts, not only did Joseph rise to a high level, he became the #2 man in Egypt.
Rashi 2) נער. שׁוֹטֶה וְאֵין רָאוּי לִגְדֻלָּה – a lad, unwise and unfitted for a high position.
See above. Rashi is not translating נער as a fool, but rather he is a lad and immature, foolish.
Rashi 3) Let us now analyze this Rashi. עברי. אֲפִלּוּ לְשׁוֹנֵנוּ אֵינוֹ מַכִּיר – a Hebrew: who does not even know our language.
Rashi says that the Sar Hamashkim was denigrating Yoseph by saying he does not know our language! Huh! Yoseph spoke to the שַׂ֣ר הַמַּשְׁקִ֔ים, assumingly in Egyption. Yosef was in Egypt for twelve years at this point.
I would think that the translation of Rashi should be that he is a foreigner. How can he be a leader in Egypt? It is like the President of the US has to be born in America and not an immigrant.
I asked this question to an 11th grader from Darchai Torah who answered that perhaps it does not mean that Yosef could not speak Egyption; rather, that the Sar Hamashkim was saying he is not part of our culture. Language is culture. Rashi is telling us in a sophisticated way that the Sar Hamashkim was saying that Yosef is a foreigner, is not sensitive to our concerns, and doesn’t truly understand us. We can now understand Rashi as the Sar Hamashkim is saying that Yoseph will never be one of us and cannot be a leader in Egypt..
This fits in perfectly with the following Midrash Tanchuma quoted below from Rabbi Poliakoff of The Schwartz Institute Kollel, Jerusalem, Israel
When you look closely at this Medrash, there is a question. Did Pharaoh change any of the facts? Did he say there were 6 or 8 cows, there were sheep. No, all he changed was the order of how the cows and sheaves were described. Pharaoh dreamt the cows were good looking and healthy. He related to Yoseph they were healthy and good looking. Is this really a test? The facts were the same. Yospeh could have chosen to ignore this slight discrepancy of how Pharoh perceived them. This would not change the interpretation of the dream.
As Rabbi Poliakoff said – “The Midrash Tanchuma says that the reason for the inconsistent reporting of the dreams is that פרעה was testing יוסף. Nevertheless, there must be a reason that Pharaoh chose the particular details as his test.”
I think that the MedreshTanchuma is explaining the dialogue just like Rashi. The Sar Hamshkim told Pharaoh that Joseph does not understand our culture. This test is to see if the Sar Hamashkim is correct or if he is wrong that Yoseph understands Egyptian culture and can be an Egyptian leader. Pharaoh dreamt יְפוֹת מַרְאֶה וּבְרִיאֹת בָּשָׂר – good looking first and then healthy. Pharaoh’s initial reaction to these cows were beauty and then strength – healthy. This is because Egyptian culture worshiped beauty. His first reaction was יְפוֹת מַרְאֶה and only afterwards was he thoughts on וּבְרִיאֹת בָּשָׂר .
This is similar to Greece – Athanians who worshiped beauty vs. Spartans who worshiped war.
Pharaoh was testing Yosef to see if he understood Egyptian culture. Yoseph undersood this and told Pharoh you dreamt יְפוֹת מַרְאֶה וּבְרִיאֹת בָּשָׂר . Same thing when Pharaoh changed the language of the bad cows. The sheaves are a little more difficult to fit in.
Rabbi Elya Caplan from Baltimore, married to my cousin Chani added a beautiful Pasuk which I believe supports my Torah.
In Yirmiyahu 46:20 the Pasuk says: עֶגְלָ֥ה יְפֵה־פִיָּ֖ה מִצְרָ֑יִם קֶ֥רֶץ מִצָּפ֖וֹן בָּ֥א בָֽא
Rashi translates as – עגלה יפהפיה. מלכותא יאייא – a fair heifer – A beautiful kingdom.
Fascinating Medresh and Rashi.
We can have a deeper level of understanding in Rashi. Rashi is talking about the Jewish experience in Galus.
Throughout history Jews were always loyal to the country they lived in. Yet they were in most countries rejected as foreigners. There is a quote from Chaim Weitzman I found in Wikipedia:
The assimilatedJewish community in Germany, prior to World War II, has been self-described as “more German than the Germans”. Originally, the comment was a “common sneer aimed at people” who had “thrown off the faith of their forefathers and adopted the garb of theirFatherland“.[1] The German assimilation, followingthe Enlightenment, was “unprecedented”.[2]The quote is sometimes ascribed toChaim Weizmann.[3]
By extension Rashi is also alluding to us that we may know the language and the culture, but we are always considered as foreigners.
Jews by nature are good hearted and just want to do good. When the Jews are living in a foreign land they want to survive, raise their families, and live a Jewish life; be productive citizens and help the country. Be part of the solution.
The Meshech Chochma in Bechukosai talks about the phenomena when Jews try to assimilate and drop their Jewishness. However, that is not the subject of this Vort.
וְהָיָ֨ה הָאֹ֤כֶל לְפִקָּדוֹן֙ לָאָ֔רֶץ – Implies a security that the people will get back. However, Yoseph made them pay a steep price, made the Egyptians purchase it and impoverished the entire country.
Pharaoh is setting up his ministers. He got them to acknowledge that Joseph’s plan is excellent. In the next two verses Pharaoh pulls a major surprise. All of his ministers are thinking that one of them will be appointed to be in charge of gathering all the grain. They will have Yoseph be the brains of the operation. Pharoah does not do this, but rather to their shock appoints Yospeh, the slave, the Hebrew, not only to be in charge of the crops but to be the second in command of Egypt. Their mouths open in shock. You can bet that they had their knives out for Yoseph. They were waiting for him to slip up, so they could destroy him. Yospeh always had to watch his back. Perhaps this is why he never contacted his father because he would be accused of plotting to overthrow the government.
The Midrash says that Osnas was the daughter of Dina. Perhaps this is why she is called the daughter of פּ֥וֹטִי פֶ֛רַע and not Potiphar because she was an adopted daughter.
What is the first thing Yoseph does? He goes out and inspects the land. Similar to Moshe when he was appointed over the house of Pharaoh. Exodus 2:11 וַיְהִ֣י ׀ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֗ם וַיִּגְדַּ֤ל מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֵּצֵ֣א אֶל־אֶחָ֔יו וַיַּ֖רְא בְּסִבְלֹתָ֑ם וַיַּרְא֙ אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י מַכֶּ֥ה אִישׁ־עִבְרִ֖י מֵאֶחָֽיו׃ . I have to work on this.
Nothing new to report in Toronto. We are taking it day by day. It is cold and snow has fallen.
Friday night my mother in law came to the table and had some Kiddush. On Shabbos morning I davened at Chabad of Flamingo, a 1.8-mile walk. The Rabbi is Rabbi Mendel Kaplan and his son was being Bar Mitzvahed. Rabbi Kaplan Spoke beautifully before each Aliyah for 3 to 5 minutes and then gave a 20 minute speech. Davening was over at 12:40 PM. Kiddush afterwards, then walked to Victor and Debbi Janowski who live one block from the Shul.
Rabbi Mendel Kaplan:
My Torah:
First Vort:
Background:
In last week’s Sedra Pasuk 35:7 we read that Yaakov arrived to Chevron by his father
Chapter 36 is the story of the family of Eisav, which the Torah dispatches in 37 verses covering hundreds of years.
Opening of this week’s Sedra:
Verse 37:1:
וַיֵּ֣שֶׁב יַעֲקֹ֔ב בְּאֶ֖רֶץ מְגוּרֵ֣י אָבִ֑יו בְּאֶ֖רֶץ כְּנָֽעַן׃ – Now Jacob was settled in the land where his father had sojourned, the land of Canaan.
AND JACOB ABODE — After it (Scripture) has described to you the settlements of Esau and his descendants in a brief manner — since they were not distinguished and important enough that it should be related in detail how they settled down and that there should be given an account of their wars and how they drove out the Horites (see Deuteronomy 2:12) — it explains clearly and at length the settlements made by Jacob and his descendants and all the events which brought these about, because these are regarded by the Omnipresent as of sufficient importance to speak of them at length. Thus, too, you will find that in the case of the ten generations from Adam to Noah it states “So-and-so begat so-and-so”, but when it reaches Noah it deals with him at length. Similarly, of the ten generations from Noah to Abraham it gives but a brief account, but when it comes to Abraham it speaks of him more fully. It may be compared to the case of a jewel that falls into the sand: a man searches in the sand, sifts it in a sieve until he finds the jewel. When he has found it he throws away the pebbles and keeps the jewel (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 1).
: Analysis
Seemingly Rashi is not telling us a Pshat in the first Pasuk. Rashi is giving us an overview of why in the Torah the storyline of Esiav and other nations of the world are given short shrift. In fact Rashi did not have to put a heading – Divrei Hamaschil. Rashi could have labeled it Introduction.
Question #1 – Do we need Rashi to tell us this fact? We could easily figure it out. The storylines of the other nations of the world are simply not our storyline. The Bible is the story of the Jewish nation. The Torah’s purpose is to tell the story of how the Jewish nation came into being, the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai, our formative years and the great closeness of our ancestors to Hashem. It is important to Hashem due to our special relationship with Him.
Question #2 – A) what does the מָשָׁל of the person searching for a jewel add to Rashi’s answer. Rashi’s answer is clear and does need a parable and B) it does not fit. Rashi’s answer is not that we are searching for anything. Also, the parable says that once we find the jewel, we throw away the pebbles. This is not at all what Rashi explained.
Answer
The answer is that Rashi is telling us something very important. Not only wasn’t their history important and G-d did not include it in the Torah, but their history is rubble, useless. We have to learn our history, our Tanach, how our righteous leaders led, and how we failed. The history of the world is one of brutality. death, and destruction. The history of the world is about man’s domination of man by brute force. Even the Greek empire from which the world got democracy, was harsh. The Romans were brutal. This includes all the way into the 20 century where three madmen of the world killed over 100 million people. Read the real story of the British exploitation and domination of India. This Is the one truth consistent about history.
There is a great story that illustrates this in the book by Herman Wouk, “The Will to Live On: This is Our Heritage” published in February 2001. He writes that when his father died, his philosophy professor who was a secular Jew, Professor Elbaum, came to pay a Shiva call. Herman Wouk introduced his grandfather, Rabbi Abraham Issac Wouk, to his college professor. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Wouk came from Minsk and lived in the south Bronx, was a Posak, and spoke little English. I believe he was a Lubavitcher Chasid. Professor Elbaum quoted Marcus Auerlous to impress Herman Wouk’s grandfather. Rabbi Wouk asked in Yiddish, Ve is dous Marcus? Professor Elbaum responds, a Roman. Rabbi Wouk says a Roman, phe, phe! I do not think Professor Elbaum or Herman Wouk understood what his grandfather was saying. He was saying, don’t quote me philosophy from a Roman; they were brutal, enslaved and killed millions of people. They have nothing to teach the world about morality.
Rashi says that learning in depth about their wars, conquests, and society is useless; especially since most of these societies discriminated against Jews, suffocated us, made us second class citizens, and threw us out of the country. European history led to the holocaust. I am sure that there is some worth but it is crucial for us to understand our history,
I admit I love Gettysburg and have studied the three day battle in depth where in my mind’s eye, I can see the entire three day battle. I could go to the battlefield site which is a huge empty tract of land, with many monuments and “see” the battle unfolding. Understanding Gettysburg did lead me to understand the greatness of the Kotzker. However, I do not know Tanach, which is terrible. I know Jewish history and I am conversant about the founding of the State of Israel, but do not have deep knowledge.
Moshe Revah
Dec 16, 2022, 2:28 PM (2 days ago)
Reply
Beauty!!
Great Vourt!
I really like it!
Have a great Shabbos!
elliott.baral@gmail.com
Dec 16, 2022, 1:22 PM (2 days ago)
Reply
Mitch, excellent! Very good observation. Thank you for sharing that with me. Have a great Shabbos! – Elliott
Rashi brings down another explanation of וישב יעקב from the Midrash Tanchuma VaYeshev 1:2
The camels of a flax dealer once came into a city laden with flax. A blacksmith asked in wonder where all that flax could be stored, and a clever fellow answered him, “A single spark caused by your bellows can burn up all of it.” “So, too, when Jacob saw (heard of) all these chiefs whose names are written above he said wonderingly, “Who can conquer all these?” What is written after the names of these chieftains? — and in this may be found the reply to Jacob’s question: These are the generations of Jacob — Joseph. For it is written (Obadiah 1:18) “And the house of Jacob shall be a fire and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau, for stubble: one spark issuing from Joseph will burn up all of these (descendants of Esau) . The passage beginning “Another explanation” is found in an old Rashi text.
This answer is also problematic. If the house of Jacob is a fire, a spark can burn all the straw. Why do we need a flame? Besides that, we had Shimon and Levi.
Why does it say that Potiphar was an Egyptian? Obviously he was an Egyption. Plus why in the first Pasik does it say אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י, using the same word אִ֣ישׁ as in Pasuk 37:15 – וַיִּמְצָאֵ֣הוּ אִ֔ישׁ וְהִנֵּ֥ה תֹעֶ֖ה בַּשָּׂדֶ֑ה וַיִּשְׁאָלֵ֧הוּ הָאִ֛ישׁ לֵאמֹ֖ר מַה־תְּבַקֵּֽשׁ?
Rabbi Mendel Kaplan suggested that the אִ֔יש who was the angel Gavriel who represented Din. Din is harsh and Joseph had to overcome the din of Shamayim and accept it, Joseph also had to overcome his harsh reality with Potipher who also represented the ultimate Egyptian. This is why it says that Potiphar was an אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י an ultimate Egyptian. When you look up the definition of an Egyptian in the dictionary, you saw a picture of Potiphar. Yoseph was able to overcome the harsh and brutal Egyptian culture which treat slaves like dirt, worthless human beings. Yosef was positive despite his circumstances because he had faith in G-d, always mentioned G-ds name in allowing him to be successful. Having faith in Hashem, giving him credit, and having a positive attitude can overcome the worst of times, depression, and other issues that bring one down.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe asks, that Rashi normally explains the plain meaning of the text so why doesn’t he say like the Ibn Ezra that the אִ֔ישׁ was an anonymous person. The Lubavitcher Rebbe explains like the Maskil L’Dovid that the word וימצאהו means that this אִ֔ישׁ was looking for Yoseph. It could not mean that Yoseph encountered any person, but rather it was an angel.
The Rebbe asks, why Gavriel? He answered that Gavriel represents Din. Yosef was facing Din – judgment which was harsh. Yoseph had to overcome Din by accepting it and looking forward to tomorrow, hoping that it would be better.
Vort #2) When the wife of Potiphar ( according to the Sefer haYasher her name was Zulycah) accused Joseph of attacking her, why wasn’t he killed? A slave was accused of attacking the wife of a high official in Egypt.
Rabbi Mendel Kaplan explained that there is a medresh that said Pharaoh did decree on Yoseph death. However, the angel Gavriel dressed as an official said let us investigate and see whose cloak was ripped. If it was the wife of Potiphar then we know the Yospeh attacked her, if it was Joseph’s then we know he has been falsely accused. They looked and saw it was Yoseph gasment that was torn. There was another test and it was clear that Joseph was innocent. Even though they knew Yoseph was innocent, they threw him in jail for life.
Vort #3) The Torah relates the story of the dreams of Pharaoh’s cupbearer and baker in 23 Pesukim in detail when many laws of the Torah are one Pasuk or less. The Rebbe or Rabbi Kaplan answered that all the Pasukim were put for the four words Verse 40:7 – “מַדּ֛וּעַ פְּנֵיכֶ֥ם רָעִ֖ים הַיּֽוֹם” .
Joseph could have been bitter and ignored the two officials of a regime that imprisoned him for life. Yet he did not and showed concern for them and wanted to help. This led to his redemption.
This idea of doing good in the world even one Mitzvah can bring light to the world.
In 1991 there was a hookup from around the world of Menorahs being lit at the same time. This is well before Zoom and it was unique and expensive to do a live hookup from around the world. The Lubavitcher Rebbe spoke and mentioned that we are seeing Menorahs being lit all over the world; in Moscow, Israel and many other locations. The Rebbe mentioned Calcutta, India. Rabbi Mendel Kaplan noted this because there was no official hookup from Calcutta. This mystery was solved about a year ago when someone told him the following story. The Jewish community in Calcutta was once vibrant and strong. In the early 1940s the girls school had 400 kids. By 1991, the community dwindled to a point where it was very difficult to get a minyan. It was Chanukah 1991 and David Ashkenzey, the leader of the Calcutta Jewish community, was depressed and told himself that he will not lite the Chanukah Menorah. It bothered him, gnawed at his heart, and eventually he lit the Menorah. He sat down to watch TV and was channel surfing. He happened upon the channel that was carrying the worldwide lighting ceremony from New York. He heard the Rebbe speaking and thought he heard the Rebbe saying that a menorah was lit in Calcutta. He was not sure if he heard correctly, and the Rebbe mentioned Calcutta a second time. This simple concern of the Rebbe for the act of David Ashkanezy (besides the miracle fact that there was no hookup from Calcutta) reignited the fire in his heart and he renewed his efforts on behalf of the remaining Jews of Calcutta, helping it survive for a number of years afterwards.
The Rebbe’s concern and mention of Calcutta was enough to change this man and Jewish life in Calcutta. This is what Yoseph did when he said to these two government ministers, “מַדּ֛וּעַ פְּנֵיכֶ֥ם רָעִ֖ים הַיּֽוֹם” .
1) Negotiations with Efron – What does וּפִגְעוּ־לִ֖י in Verse 23:8 Mean
2) Where was Avrohom Living?
3) Where was Yitzchok?
4) Eliezer’s Shidduch Mission
5) Success in America
This week was a tough week. On Sunday, November 13, 2022 we drove into Toronto because my mother in law, Blanche Janowski, was not well. Monday night we took her to Mount Sinai. She was not eating and was getting dehydrated. She was in the emergency room for two days. They drained fluid from her lungs and gave her fluids intravenously at my wife’s insistence. She was doing better and went home Thursday night. Once at home she perked up, and her eating and drinking picked up.
Dr. Shoshana Levy and her daughter Tovah came on Thursday afternoon, the 17th. I picked them up from the airport and took them to Dr. Laffa at 78 Gerrard Street East. Delicious. They froze in the cold Toronto weather coming from Florida. We had a great Shabbos.
Friday night at the BAYT Rabbi Chaim Silverstein spoke. He is the founder of Keep Jerusalem – Im Eshkachech – אם אשכחך
Shabbos morning I davened at the BAYT. Rabbi Korobkin spoke and was his usual best.
At the Shalosh Seudos meal, Rabbi Mordechai Becher spoke and his topic was Sarah is My Sister: Does the End Justify The Means. Excellent speech. https://www.yutorah.org/rabbi-mordechai-becher/
On Sunday morning my son Eli came in and we all went to breakfast at Cafe Sheli. I met Rabbi Chaim Silverstein who was having breakfast with his traveling companion. I paid for their lunch and then played Jewish Geography. He told me that he was recently in Chicago and met with Lisa and Sidney Glenner. My head exploded. I told him that Lisa is my sister. They are close to Rabbi Chaim Silverstein and when they are in Israel, Rabbi Chaim Silverstein takes them to hidden places in Yerushalayim.
Rabbi Chaim Silverstien and myself at Cafe Sheli on November 20, 2022
Torah from this Parsha:
I opened up Rabbi Leibush Noble’s חק לישׂראל on Shabbos morning at 4:00 AM to learn Chmosh. Rabbi Leibush Noble was my mother in law’s father and was a Tzadick, founder of the Etz Chaim elementary school in Toronto. The Chok l’Yisrael (Hebrew: חֹק לישראל) is a compendium of Jewish texts designed for daily or weekly study. The Chok was a very popular Sefer in Europe. His Chok was printed in Warsaw in 1898. The Sefer has a Perush on Chumash that is called עניני הסדרה which is a running Perush on the Torah that was compiled from 50 different Seforim. The only other Sefer that has the עניני הסדרה is a Mikros Gedolos published by Lewin-Epstein in the 1950s called Penimim. Notice that the Chok L’Yisrael of Reb Leibush Noble was published in Europe by the same publisher, Lewin-Epstein. Unfortunately, the עניני הסדרה is no longer in print. Rabbi Korobkin spoke out an Alishich, which was quoted in this Perush on this week’s Parsha and I will talk about it later.
I took my granddaughter to meet Dr. Barry Levy and discuss the Chok L’Yisrael with him. I lent this Sefer to Dr. Barry Levy who is writing a book for Urim Publications on the history of the Mikraos Gedolos. Dr. Barry Levy told me that the Chok was first published in Egypt. It only had Rashi and no other commentaries. Its purpose was not for in-depth study. Dr. Levy showed me a Chok published in 1890 that only had Rashi and no other commentators on Chumash. Reb Leibush Noble’s edition had Rashi, Sifsei Chacomin, Rashbam, Daas Zekeinim, Baal Haturim, and the עניני הסדרה. What is great is that when I used the Chok, the above Rishonim takes precedence. Dr. Levy gave my granddaughter two pieces of advice about her future education and career. Tovah wants to go into Jewish History. Dr. Levy said that 1) you have to know the language of the source documents to read them to be able to understand the topic at hand. 2) find a good professor/mentor/teacher who is excellent and you attach yourself to the professor and learn from him/her. There is a Maamer Chazel on a Rebbe/teacher that says this very thought.
Dr. Barry Levy and myself from this past summer.
Description of the Chok from Wikipedia:
Origin
The work is based on the rules of study laid down in the Peri Etz Chaim of Hayyim ben Joseph Vital, in the Sha’ar Hanhagat Limmud (chapter on study habits). In this he recommends that, in addition to studying the Torah portion for the forthcoming Shabbat each week, one should study daily excerpts from the other works mentioned, and lays down a formula for the number of verses or the topic to be studied each day depending on the day of the week.
The compendium was first issued in book form by Rabbi Yitzchak Baruch. Rabbi Chaim Joseph David Azulai added the extracts from books of law and morality and brought the collection to its present form.
Use
The work is often used by busy working people who do not have time for in-depth Talmud study, particularly in Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews. The approved method is to read the section for the day immediately after morning prayers, while still wearing tallit and tefillin. Hayyim Vital, in his Sha’ar Ha-mitsvot, parashat Va-etchanan, states “And this was the custom of my teacher (meaning Isaac Luria): after coming out of synagogue and eating his breakfast, he would wrap himself in tzitzit and put on tefillin, and afterwards read the readings as set out below, with the preliminary meditations set out below.”
Consistent with Wikipedia, on the face page there is a picture of the Ari, Reb Chaim Vital, and the Chida.
and he said to them, If it is your wish that I remove my dead for burial, you must agree to intercede for me with Ephron son of Zohar
What does וּפִגְעוּ־לִ֖י mean? When I first read it, I thought it meant to arrange a meeting. Avrohom was asking the people of Ches to set up a meeting for him with Efron and Avrohom would negotiate directly with Efron. However Rashi says that this is not the meaning rather –
Meaning that Avrohom was asking the people of Chas to ask Efron themselves on behalf of Avrohom. Very smart negotiating tactics. Avrohom was being very smart with his dealings with Efron. He got buy-in from all the people of Ches and had them talk to Efron and urge him to give the Machpelah cave to Avrohom. Avrohom would close the deal.
But Ruth replied, “Do not urge me to leave you, to turn back and not follow you. For wherever you go, I will go; wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God.
Rashi – אַל תִּפְגִּעִי בִי. אַל תִּפְצְרִי בִי:
In Bereshis Rashi uses the word בַּקָּשָׁה – a request and in Rus 1:16 he uses a different word
“אַל תִּפְצְרִי בִי “ which means do not press me, leave me alone.
A request is benign and urging is aggressive. I did not understand Rashi referencing Rus. If they are the same meaning of a request that in Rus, Rashi should have used the word .בַּקָּשָׁה ?
I called Rabbi Avrohom Isenberg, the son of the famous Rabbi Hersh (Adele) Isenberg who was Mr, Dikduk in Chicago, and he gave me the answer. The word פגע means to confront. There are many different types of confrontations. The Contemporary Shilo Dictionary defines פגע as “to meet; to stumble upon; to push; to attack; to entreat,beg; to afflict” Rashi also translates the word as to ask. Rashi is telling us that here in Bereshis that it does not mean like I originally thought “to arrange a meeting”, but is the language of requesting. Similarly by Rus, she is requesting from Noami not to further press Rus. Both Bereshis and Rus express the same idea of requesting. Asking is a benign request and pressing which is a more aggressive request.
Thought:
Life is a series of פגע’s – confrontations. We have to handle every confrontation properly. Facing confrontations properly enhances one’s life, our families, our jobs, and our overall well being. Not handling confrontation appropriately is destructive on all levels. Even if our failure is minor, it still wreaks havoc to one’s own self, one’s equilibrium. Sometimes we have to ask, sometimes we have to urge, cajole; sometimes we need a meeting to express ourselves in person; sometimes we have to be combative; and sometimes it is like Yaakov on his way to Charan, reaching a destination. The destination can just be that, an arrival – we confront the destination. It can be an arrival to somewhere special for us that is associated with joy and unfortunately other times with sorrow. The highest level is an arrival of holiness.
Torah #2) – Why did Avrohom go to Beer Sheva after the Akidah:
There is a question that I have dealt with in the past. Sarah died in Chevron, yet the previous Parsha said that Avrohom went back to Beer Sheva after the Akidah. In fact Rashi on this Parsha in Verse 23:2 says that Avrohom came from Beer Sheva to Chevron to bury Sarah from Beer Sheva. Why would he go to Beer Sheva when his wife was in Chevron? Rashi of Verse 21:34 clearly says that Avrohom and Sarah were living in Chevron when the Akedah happened. Additionally, the end of Rashi on Verse 21:34 says that Avrohom and Sarah went to Chevron 12 years before the Akaidah. You have to say that there was a reason why he went to Beer Sheva, however, the Torah does not tell us why.
The עניני הסדרה brings down a Peshet that in fact Avrohom and Sarah were living in Beer-Sheba before the Akediah. The עניני הסדרה argues on Rashi. The עניני הסדרה holds that they lived in Beer Sheva from the time Avrohom was 99 years old until he was 137, which was his age at the Akedah. Why was Sarah living in Chevron if their home was in Beer Sheva?
The answer is that Avrohom and Sarah were aging. Avrohom wanted to be buried in Chevron, in the cave where Adam and Chava were buried. He felt that if one of them dies and the surviving spouse comes to Chevron to purchase the cave of Machpelah, the people Ches and Efron would be suspicious and either not sell them the Machpelah cave or sell for a price that the surviving spouse did not have. Therefore they decided that Sarah would move to Chevron, establish residence, and then request to purchase the Machpelah cave for a burial spot. I guess that their life was in Beer Sheva and Avrohom could not just pick himself up and abandon the Eishel and their community. Only Sarah moves to Chevron. However, what happened was that Sarah died almost immediately after her move to Chevron. Therefore after the Akediah, Avrohom returned to Beer-Sheva, his place of residence. I assume that when Avrohom returned to Beer-Sheva, a messenger was waiting for him to tell him that Sarah had died. It’s interesting that although Avrohom was a prophet, he was not told about his wife’s death.
Torah #3) – Where was Yitzchok?
The Targum Yonasan Ben Uziel says on Genesis Verse 22:19 in last week’s Parsha “And the angels on high took Izhak and brought him into the school (medresha) of Shem the Great; and he was there three years. And in the same day Abraham returned to his young men; and they arose and went together to the Well of the Seven, and Abraham dwelt at Beira-desheva.”
My question is why did the angels have to take him, Shem was seemingly living in Yerushalayim and his Yeshiva must have been there. Why did angels have to take him when he could have gone there on his own. Now that I am thinking about this, perhaps it does not mean that they carried him and flew him, but they may have told Yitzchok to go to the Yeshiva of Shem and walked with him.
Torah #4) Rabbi Korobkin talked about Shidduchim; how the wrong words, a grimace can ruin a Shidduch.
When Eliezer relates the events, Besual and Levan say ”this is all from God, take Rivka and go.”
The next morning their tune is different. They say let Rivka stay here a year and if not a year, then ten months, as it says in Verse 24:55 וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אָחִ֙יהָ֙ וְאִמָּ֔הּ תֵּשֵׁ֨ב הַנַּעֲרָ֥ אִתָּ֛נוּ יָמִ֖ים א֣וֹ עָשׂ֑וֹר אַחַ֖ר תֵּלֵֽךְ ׃
Eliezer insists that they leave immediately, Verse 24:56 – וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֲלֵהֶם֙ אַל־תְּאַחֲר֣וּ אֹתִ֔י וַֽיהֹוָ֖ה הִצְלִ֣יחַ דַּרְכִּ֑י שַׁלְּח֕וּנִי וְאֵלְכָ֖ה לַֽאדֹנִֽי ׃
Lavan and her mother still want to delay and says, let us ask Rivka
What happened between the night when they said, this is directed by God, take Rivka and go; and the next morning when they wanted to delay?
Rabbi Korobkin gave two answers and I will offer a third.
Answer #1 – My answer
Things always look differently in the night vs. the reality of the next morning. At night when Eliezer recaps the events, they are gung ho, however, after they slept on it, they ask themselves, what did we do? This always happens when I am at a banquet or fundraiser at night and pledge money. The next morning I have buyers remorse and regret what I did.
Answer #2 – Rabbi Korobkin’s first answer.
At night Eliezer was speaking to the men, Besual and Lavan. Men can easily be persuaded and say, Yes this is from God. The next morning Eliezer was talking to the mother. Women are more realistic and more practical. Rivka’s mother says, wait a minute, I want my daughter to stay a little longer with me.
Answer #3 – Alishiach brought down in the עניני הסדרה, modified by Rabbi Daniel Korobkin.
What changed between the night and the morning. Verse 24:53 happened.
Eliezer gave Rivka gold and silver vessels, and clothes. What did the family get? Godiva chocolate! They got מִ֨גְדָּנֹ֔ת – Rashi – ומגדנות. לְשׁוֹן מְגָדִים, שֶׁהֵבִיא עִמּוֹ מִינֵי פֵּרוֹת שֶׁל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל: – dried fruit, other delicacies from Israel. True it was delicacies but not money. Eliezer misread the situation and he should have given all the money to the family, not to Rivka. Lavan was greedy and was only interested in money. He thought to himself Rivka received expensive rings and bracelets just for drawing water, I should get much more gold and silver for feeding the entire caravan and providing lodging. The עניני הסדרה does not say that he wanted Shidduch money. It says that Lavan was greedy and that he was delaying until Eliezer got the hint and gave him big money. When they asked Rivka to stay longer at home, Lavan was hinting to her to agree to stay with the family.
If not for Rivkah’s insistence, the future of Klal Yisroel could have been different.
Torah #5) Success in America
Another thought hit me during Rabbi Korobkin’s speech.
Terach and Avrohom leave the family homestead while Terach’s other son, Nachor, stays in Aram Naharaim. I would guess that Nachor told his father, why are you leaving, we are successful here. You will struggle and Nachor probably told his brother, Avrohom, what is with this spiritual lifestyle? You will be poverty stricken. Avrohom subsequently traveled even further away, living as a sojourner in Canaan. As the Parsha says at the beginning of Lech Lecha that one who constantly travels generally does not have a large family size and is usually not successful monetarily. Rashi on Verse 12:4 says ואעשך לגוי גדול. לְפִי שֶׁהַדֶּרֶךְ גּוֹרֶמֶת לִשְׁלֹשָׁה דְבָרִים, מְמַעֶטֶת פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה וּמְמַעֶטֶת אֶת הַמָּמוֹן וּמְמַעֶטֶת אֶת הַשֵּׁם, לְכָךְ הֻזְקַק לִשְׁלֹשָׁה בְּרָכוֹת הַלָּלוּ, שֶׁהִבְטִיחוֹ עַל הַבָּנִים וְעַל הַמָּמוֹן וְעַל הַשֵּׁם: Additionally, Avrohom opened up an Eishel, spending huge money for good deeds.
Years later, who is greedy and wants money? Lavan, the one who stayed on the farm where his grandfather felt he had financial security, wants money from the Tzaddik Avrohom. Years later who is the rich one and who is the one who is greedy and wants money. Avrohom is the rich one and Lavan has this need for money.
My Zedi, Sholem Sklar came to America in 1923, the last of six siblings. My mother would always tell me that they said “Sholem, in America you cannot be Frum”. When my mother died in 2018 she had 133 living descendents and altogether my grandparents must have over 400 living descendents. They are successful financially, some very wealthy, learning Torah, and doing charity work. From my Zedi’s 5 other siblings, maybe there are 50 living relatives. When my mother’s first cousin was threatened with foreclosure, I stepped forward and made her mortgage payments for a year. The family members of the five siblings did not step up. I am not wealthy, but I could not see her on the street. Those family members whose parents said, in America to make it, one must throw off their religion, did not step up. My Zedi’s grandson stepped up, the descendent of the one who refused to work on Shabbos
Friday night I davened by Sidney Glenner at the Base Ment Minyan. I wore my light blue jacket I purchased from the Brown Elephant for $14. I love the jacket and how it looks on me. I also wore my Rose Gold Fossil watch also purchased from the Brown Elephant.
Shabbos morning davened with Mayer Chase at the Adas. Simi Mandelbaum made a Bar Mitzvah for his son. Cholent was great. Simi’s father TZL was a well known Rebi in Philadelphia for years, loved by everyone. I wanted to get a bracha from Simi’s mother, but she was not yet at the simcha. Spoke to Simi’s brothers, especially Shmuel. I saw Avi Goldfeder who was MC at Keshet dinners for many years. I described my granddaughter, Tiferet, who is autistic and the need to give her respect and told him of my dialogue with Michelle.
Caption for picture – Tammy took Tiferet for a waxing and out to Lunch.
My response – Being clean and neat and sitting with her drink at a restaurant speaks to me.
Michelle’s Answer – I know. She has a lot in her if she’s just respected.
My response – I sent $100
Michelle’s response –Thanks. She looks like such a beautiful young lady. She loves doing this stuff.
At the Bar Mitzvah I met many friends.
I worked on the Sedra and saw beautiful Torah. I always recall that Rabbi Shmuel Bowman of Efrat said that at CUFI events there are signs that say Genesis 12:3, which is the Pasuk וַאֲבָֽרְכָה֙ מְבָ֣רְכֶ֔יךָ – I will bless those that bless you.
I saw the Or Hachaim on Lot and the fight between the shepherds of Lot and the shepherds of Avrohom. I also saw a Pshet that Hashem did not want Lot to go with Avrohom, but that Lot attached himself to Avrohom. I also saw the Orach Chaim on Avrohom going down to Egypt. I saw beautiful Torah from Rabbi Riskin.
This is from Anshei Sholem:
We regret to inform you of the passing of Debra Tillinger, sister of Sara Wolkenfeld. (My cousin’s daughter, Amy Gross-Tarnor, went to school with Sara Wolkenfeld through high school and college at Penn. The funeral will take place this Monday, at 11 AM EST at Gutteran & Musicant Funeral Home (402 Park Street in Hackensack, NJ), followed by burial at Beth El Cemetery (735 Forest Avenue in Paramus, NJ).
Shiva will be observed at the Wolkenfeld home in Chicago (745 W. Buckingham Place) Wednesday 4:00 – 8:00 PM (Mincha/Ma’ariv at 4:20 PM); Thursday 9:00 – 11:00 AM & 4:00 – 8:00 PM (Mincha/Ma’ariv at 4:20 PM); and Friday 9:00 – 11:00 AM.
My Vort I want to take from this week’s Sedra.
In this week’s Parsha the Torah says in Verse 17:20:
Rashi does not say anything on Verse 20 and is rather disparaging that Yishmael’s princes will amount to nothing. We do know that the descendents of Yishmael will be a thorn in Israel’s side. I do not know if Avrohom knew this but in regards to Yishmael, Avrohom in Verse 20 is given a blessing for Yishmael that Yishmael will have a large family, will have 12 princes and be a great nation. If Hashem is giving Yishmael a blessing because Hashem listened to Avorhom it has to be good. The Or Hachaim explains this beautifully.
ולישמעאל שמעתיך וגו’. הכונה להיות שאברהם לא התפלל על ישמעאל אלא לצד שהוא לבדו זרעו מה שאין כן אחר שנתן לו ה’ זרע משרה אז לא יבקש עוד על ישמעאל לזה אמר לו הקב”ה ולישמעאל שמעתיך פי’ קבלתי דבריך והוא על דרך אומרם ז”ל (מכות יא.) קללת חכם אפילו על תנאי מתקיימת ומרובה מדה טובה ממדת וכו’ ולפי מה שפירשתי שתפלת אברהם על ישמעאל היתה שיהיה צדיק רמז לו ה’ שיחזור בתשובה כאומרו הנה ברכתי אותו שיחזור בתשובה שהברכה הוא שיהיה נכלל בברוך וברוך הוא מקור הקדושה. ואמר לשון עבר ברכתי וגו’ הוא מה שרמז באומרו (טו) תקבר בשיבה טובה, וכן היה כאומרם ז”ל (ב”ר 59:7) שעשה תשובה:
Look at Artscroll’s translation on שהברכה הוא שיהיה נכלל בברוך וברוך הוא מקור הקדושה.
The Torah tells us twice that Yishmael was circumcised, even telling us that it was on his Bar Mitzvah day. Looking at this Pasuk and projecting what a father feels when his son puts on Tefillin at his bar Mitzvah and is called up to theTorah, Avrohom must have felt great pride in his son and rejoiced. Avrohom’s joy was complete. This Is the image that Avrohom had of his son Yismael always, the image of Yishmael willingly going through a painful circumcision at the request of Hashem.
Every Pasuk in the Torah is be interpreted in 3D and in “living color”.
We know that Avrohom loved Yishmael. He never gave up on him. I heard a speech on this from Rabbi Zecharya Wallerstein, ZL, who mentioned a magnificent Midrash Tanchuma, which I subsequently saw, that Avrohom went to visit Yishmael twice. This love from Avrohom was felt by Yishmael and was one of the catalysts bringing Yishmael back to Avodas Hashem. The Torah testifies (per Rashi) to us twice; once when Avrohom died and a second time when Yishmael himself died that Yishmael was a Tzadick. Not only that but Avrohom never gave up on Yismael. Perhaps he became a student of Yitzchok in the later part of their lives. Not only that but in this week’s sedra which was during the Bris Bein Habesarim the Pasuk 15:15 says:
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks TZL explains that after Sarah’s death, Yitzchok went and brought Hagar back. Not only did he bring Hagar back but he brought Yishmael back.
Based on a Vort I said that Yismael not only did Tshuva and was a Tzadick, but during his lifetime, his influence impacted his entire family and they were likewise good people.
To answer the question that Yishmael descendents were destructive to the Jews, all I can answer is what Hashem told Chizkiyahu when Chizkiyahu prophesied that his son would be very evil and bring idol worship to Yehuda. Chizkiyahu refused to have children. Hashem told Chiziyahu, you do what you have to do, do not worry about heavenly matters.
Perhaps this can be a hopeful sign that ultimately the children of Yishmael will again become partners with the Jewish people to bring good into this world.
Rabbi Sholom Gold – read his book, Touching History
Wednesday August 10, 2022
We drove to Toronto and arrived at 11:30 PM. Serka drove for 7 of the 10 hours. We ended up not taking a hotel room in Port Huron at 8:00 PM – we drove on.
Thursday August 11, 2022
Serka went to purchase 50 muffins from Amazing Muffins. After Maariv, I was speaking to Rabbi Chaim Metzger about the dating issue with 2 Kings 18. He told me that Rabbi Alex Israel discusses it in his book which is available online on the Gush Etzion website. Rabbi Metzger and his wife are making Aliyah in two weeks. His wife is a daughter of Moshe Lichtman, who translates Seforim into English. He translated Eim HaBanim Semeicha. I recently obtained a copy of his book. I was leafing through it and I was reading tragedy. He is in Hungary in 1943, with the Nazi menace growing daily, wanting to talk about the need to go to Israel and the people just shutting him down.
Teichtal grew up as a staunch anti-ZionistChasid of the Munkatsher Rebbe. However, during the Holocaust, Rabbi Teichtal changed his position from the one he espoused in his youth. The physical product of that introspection is the book, Eim HaBanim Semeicha, in which he specifically retracts his previous viewpoints, and argues that the true redemption can only come if the Jewish people unite and rebuild the land of Israel. Many of his coreligionists viewed the book with skepticism, some going so far as to ban Rabbi Teichtal from their synagogues.
In the book, Rabbi Teichtal strongly criticizes the Haredim for not supporting the settlement of the Land of Israel. When it was written, it was a scathing criticism of the Jewish Orthodox establishment, and Agudat Israel in particular.
He writes:
It is clear that he who prepares prior to the Sabbath will eat on the Sabbath (Avodah Zarah, 3a), and since the Haredim did not toil, they have absolutely no influence in the Land (of Israel). Those who toil and build have the influence, and they are the masters of the Land. It is, therefore, no wonder that they are in control… Now, what will the Haredim say? I do not know if they will ever be able to vindicate themselves before the heavenly court for not participating in the movement to rebuild the Land. (p. 23)
Friday August 12, 2022
Shabbos Nachamu. Friday night davened at the Conservatory. It was outside. Just beautiful.
August 13, 2022 Shabbos Parshas Ve’eschanan and Shabbos Nachamu
Davened at the BAYT. Rabbi Korobkin’s speech was okay, not his normal dynamic speech.
Went back at 7:30 PM for the Pirkei Avos Shiur and for Mincha.
He is in Toronto because his wife is sitting Shiva for her mother, Mrs. Sylvia Spiegel. About 18 months ago, Sylvia Spiegel got Parkinsons, so her daughter moved from the east coast into her apartment to take care of her mother. Syliva Spiegel was just shy of her 97th birthday when she passed away. Sylvia Spiegel’s sister was Gilda Spiegel-Nussbaum. Gilda was best friends with my mother-in-law Blanche Janowski. David (Max) Spiegel is her son and is sitting Shiva. He was my roommate in the Ner Israel Yeshiva in 1973 with Reb Yosef Spiro. The oldest brother, Dr. Shmuel Spiegel, is a radiologist and dated Serka. It was just one date. My wife could have been married to a doctor.
Sunday August 14, 2022
I walked into the Froom wedding at the BAYT and met my nephew.
Tuesday August 16, 2022
I was davening at the Conservatory and afterwards I was talking to David Woolf. I also mentioned to him the dating issues of Nach. He directed me to Dr. Barry Levy.
David Woolf gave me his book, newly publoshed:
Wednesday August 17, 2022
At 11:00 AM I met with Dr. Barry Levy. Dr. Barry Levy was a professor at McGill University, Montreal, CA in Jewish studies, He had a stroke 10 years ago and his left side has been impacted. I asked him my question about Chizkiyahu and he told me that there is no clear answer. I had a delightful conversation with him about Jewish history. Wow. I am in awe of him. He has a collection of Mikraos Gedolos going back hundreds of years and is writing a book on the historical progression of the Mikraos Gedolos on Chumach. He had finished his manuscript and the publisher, Tzvi Mauer of Urim Publications wanted a final chapter discussing, ‘What does the history of the Mikraos Gedolos mean to us today?’ He will send a copy of his final chapter to me.
B. Barry Levy
Emeritus Professor
Areas of Interest – Bible and the History of Jewish Interpretation of the Bible
Education- B.A., M.A., BRE (Yeshiva University), Ph.D. (New York University)
Publications:
Refereed books
LEVY, B. Barry. Jewish Masters of the Sacred Page (Jerusalem: Urim Publishers, forthcoming).
LEVY, B. Barry. Fixing God’s Torah: The Accuracy of the Hebrew Bible text in Jewish Law. Oxford University Press, 2001.
LEVY, B. Barry. Rabbinic Bible Interpretation after the Holocaust. Strange Fire: Reading the Bible After The Holocaust, edited by T. Linafelt, New York University and Sheffield Academic Press, May 2000.
Refereed journal articles
LEVY, B. Barry. Jewish, Christian and Muslim Responses to the Hebrew Bible. ARC, 27, 1999, pp. 161-205.
Dictionary entries, book reviews, commentaries
LEVY, B. Barry. Review: The Bible As It Was, by James Kugel, ARC, 27, 1999, pp. 220-221.
LEVY, B. Barry. Review: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible, Reviews in Religion and Theology, 7, 2000, pp. 118-119.
LEVY, B. Commentary: Decoding the Torah’s secrets: Why can we not accept what the text actually says? Canadian Jewish News, 1-2, 1998.
LEVY, B. Review: The context of scripture. Volume I: Canonical compositions from the Biblical World, edited by William Hallo, Arc, vol. 26, 1998, pp. 147-149.
LEVY, B. Review: Magic and divination in ancient Palestine and Syria, by Ann Jeffers, Arc, vol. 26, 1998, pp. 149-151.
Scholarly Activities:
LEVY, B. Jubilee. Ottawa-Montreal Synod of United Church of Canada, May 1998.
LEVY, B. The History of Jewish Interpretation of the Bible Since the Holocaust. Thirtieth Anniversary Conference of the Department of Jewish Studies, McGill University, May 1999.
LEVY, B. The Ethics of Educational Leadership. Conference on Ethics, Faculty of Management, McGill University, May 1999.
Department and University Information
Department of Jewish Studies
Leacock Building, 7th floor
855 Sherbrooke Street West
Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T7
Tel.: 514-398-6543
Afterwards I saw Ellen Siegel and she showed me the book about Jewish Kitchner. Kitchner is about one hour west of Toronto. Ellen Siegal is married to Allen Siegal. Allen Sigel’s family had a major produce company in Kitchener, Ontario from the 1920s through the 1970s. Ellen’s brother is a relative to Lynn Stone-Borlat’s husband. Aunt Rose Noble-Stone was Lynn’s mother, making her a first cousin to my wife. Rose and Blanche are sisters. Aunt Rose lived in the Conservatory and she would come over for Shabbos meals. Ellen told me that Lynn lives nearby. I called Lynn the next day to invite her over to our Shabbos meal. She is having a wedding in three weeks and her husband’s father is in Hospice at Sunnybrook Hospital.
Shimon Siegel opened a fruit stall which his sons, Louis, Norman and Gerald, expanded into a thriving fruit business located at 270 William Street. Gerald Siegel used to appear on a televised cooking show to discuss fruits and vegetables. Thursday August 18, 2022
I was sitting with my mother in law and my wife in the Conservatory garden. She received a wedding invitation to the Parshan and New wedding. The News are from Montreal. I dealt with Levi New, the older brother of the Chosen in April 2021. anny Levy’s mother in-law passed away, Tzipporah Bas Mordechai, and he arranged to have a Minyan at the funeral and Zoomed us in. It was a bchovidik funeral thanks to Levi New. I had to report the Chesed of Levi New to the Parshans and to his father, Rabbi Moshe New. At 6:30 PM I went over to the Parshans and had them call their Mechutan, Moshe New, in Montreal.. I had to tell his father, Rabbi Moshe New about what his son did for us and I found out I had not given them a donation. This was a sign from Hashem. I would normally not see a wedding invitation that my mother in law would receive and only because I was sitting in the garden with her and that she had her mail brought to her that I was able to thank the New family.
I davened Mincha and Maariv at the BAYT. I picked up the below Sefer that came out in 1981. It was published by “Zecher Naftali”, an institution set up by Naftali Carlebach’s son, Rabbi Eliyahu Chaim Carlbach. Eliyahu Chaim Carelbach’s brother was Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach. Rabbi Eliyahu Chaim was a huge Torah Scholar and wrote Torah for the Bobover Rebbe. Reb Eliyahu Chaim passed away in 1995. I was fortunate to attend a wedding and Sheva Brachos of Rabbi Eliyahu Chaim Carlebach’s grandson’s wedding right before Pesach 2021. The boy was a Citron, whose great – great grandmother was the daughter of Eliyahu Chaim. The Citron boy married the daughter of Rabbi and Nechama Dina Turk. The boy’s grandfather is Rabbi Chaim Citron who is a Rosh Yeshiva at Lubavitch Mesivta in LA and is the Rabbi of Ahavas Chesed, a Shul in LA on LaBrea just north of Melrose. In 2002 when we were cleaning out my father’s apartment in LA, we davened at Ahavas Chesed. Rabbi Citron spoke Friday night and Shabbos. Phenomenal. Shabbos he compared the wording in Parshas Ki Tatzeh Verses 25:13-16 of the laws of proper measures and a similar Parsha in Kedoshim 19:35-36. I remember him saying that in D’varim it says the word Toavah – abomination and not in Kedoshim.
The Choson’s father, Rabbi Naftali Citron is the Rabbi in the Carlebach Shul in the upper west side. I watched a video he did on the Kotzker Rebbe. Rabbi Eliyahu Chaim’s widow is still alive, Hadassah Carlebach and was a Schneerson. She came in for the wedding and gave my family a Bracha at the Sheva Brochos.
Ki Teitzei 25:13-16
לֹֽא־יִהְיֶ֥ה לְךָ֛ בְּכִֽיסְךָ֖ אֶ֣בֶן וָאָ֑בֶן גְּדוֹלָ֖ה וּקְטַנָּֽה׃ You shall not have in your pouch alternate weights, larger and smaller.
לֹא־יִהְיֶ֥ה לְךָ֛ בְּבֵיתְךָ֖ אֵיפָ֣ה וְאֵיפָ֑ה גְּדוֹלָ֖ה וּקְטַנָּֽה׃ You shall not have in your house alternate measures, a larger and a smaller.
אֶ֣בֶן שְׁלֵמָ֤ה וָצֶ֙דֶק֙ יִֽהְיֶה־לָּ֔ךְ אֵיפָ֧ה שְׁלֵמָ֛ה וָצֶ֖דֶק יִֽהְיֶה־לָּ֑ךְ לְמַ֙עַן֙ יַאֲרִ֣יכוּ יָמֶ֔יךָ עַ֚ל הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לָֽךְ׃ You must have completely honest weights and completely honest measures, if you are to endure long on the soil that your God יהוה is giving you.
For everyone who does those things, everyone who deals dishonestly, is abhorrent to your God יהוה.
Kedoshim Verses 19:35-36
לֹא־תַעֲשׂ֥וּ עָ֖וֶל בַּמִּשְׁפָּ֑ט בַּמִּדָּ֕ה בַּמִּשְׁקָ֖ל וּבַמְּשׂוּרָֽה׃ You shall not falsify measures of length, weight, or capacity.
מֹ֧אזְנֵי צֶ֣דֶק אַבְנֵי־צֶ֗דֶק אֵ֥יפַת צֶ֛דֶק וְהִ֥ין צֶ֖דֶק יִהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֑ם אֲנִי֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־הוֹצֵ֥אתִי אֶתְכֶ֖ם מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃ You shall have an honest balance, honest weights, an honest ephah, and an honest hin.I יהוה am your God who freed you from the land of Egypt.
Rabbi Chaim Citron, my Rebbe, and myself at the Citron-Turk wedding, April 2021.
The below are pictures: I showed it to Rabbi Lescher, the assistant Rov of the BAYT.
Friday, August 19, 2022
Went to Dr. Barry Levy’s unveiling for his wife, Cookie Levy, who passed away last year from cancer.
Debbi Krakowski-Janowski’s parents:
Shabbos Parshas Eikev – August 20, 2022
Aleasha and Mordy Rothman
Ateres Mordechai – Rabbi Bitterman’s Shul
Mr. Shiel – cousin to Gary Bajtner
Josh and Allen Gutterman
August and Naomi Maimon – Belmont
Birnbaum and Kushner
Professor Sharon Green and Cantor Jonathan Green
Rabbi Sholom Gold
Friday night:
On Friday night davened in the Conservatory Minyan at their Paleg Minyan. Ate a delicious meal at my mother-in-law’s house. At about 9:30 PM I went to visit Aleasha and Mordy Rothman and their kids. Hillel Janowski was there. Had a good time. Spoke over my Torah on Chizkiyahu. Shimmy listened to some of it. Egg Rolls were great. Went home at about 11:15 PM.
Shabbos Morning:
At 8:45 AM I walked onto Clark Street and it was magnificent. 75 degrees and sunshine. On the way to Shul I met Allan Fink who told me that he has never been to Boca Raton Synagogue, but listens to Rabbi Efreim Goldberg every day. I decided to daven at Ateres Mordechai, Rabbi Bitterman is the Rov. Rabbi Bitterman is the son-in-law of Aaron Grubner, a lawyer from Toronto that has studied with my brother, Pesach, for 40 years. There were only 20 Talisim and I was a little surprised because I thought the Shul is always packed. People must be away at the cottages up North.
The Gemora says that we learn from the word מָ֚ה that one must make 100 blessings every day. What is the purpose? Rabbi Bitterman answered, we should always say thank you Hashem and that should lead us to say thank you to everyone we meet. Today was a beautiful day, thank you Hashem, your wife served you breakfast, thank you. We cannot be complaining and complaining nonstop.
As long as I have known you, you have been defiant toward יהוה.
The Ba’al Haturim says that the Pasuk begins with a Mem and ends with a Mem to say that all forty years in the desert the Jews complained. Non Stop complaining for forty years. What did they have to complain about, yet they did. As human beings we have to condition ourselves to appreciate what we have and say thank you, whether to Hashem or the waiter or to our spouses, and to everyone. This is great rebuke and I decided that I will change my attitude.
Saw Jason Lapidus, the erstwhile South African and gave him a heartfelt hug. Davening was over at 11:30 AM. I talked to the Gabbai, whose last name is Shiel. He is about 62. His aunt is Paula Gassel who grew up in Winnipeg and is married to Arnold Gassel. Arnold’s first wife died of cancer about 25 years ago. Our family has known the Gassel family since the west side 90 years ago. Arnold Gassel is in the high 90s. He is the only person in Chicago that I knew that had Bubi Sklar as a kindergarten teacher. My mother was best friends with Arnold Gassel’s ex sister-in-law. In fact my mother got her a job at Kemper Insurance in the 1960s.
On the walk home met Allen Guttenberg and his son Josh Guttenberg. Two months ago Josh made a Bris that I crashed. I actually was looking for Josh. He spoke for a women’s group about Mechitzas in Shuls which in the 1930, 1940s, and 1950s was a major dividing line between Orthodox and non Orthodox. I told him what Rov said and my comments on it. Please see my blog post at https://kotzk.com/?s=eleff.
Then I met August Belmont and his wife Naomi, whose maiden name was Maimon. She grew up in the Bnei Torah area and knows Abie’s and Sarah’s kids. Belmont’s family name was Blumnekrantz, but his father came to Toronto in the 1930s and wanted to completely assimilate. He loved the Belmont race track and its founder, August Belmont, Jr., so he changed his last name to Belmont and named his son August.
Then I met a young couple in their 20s who had one child in a stroller. His last name is Birnbaum and she is a Kushner. He toldme that his grandfather, Nathan Birnbaum, was a Zionist with Herzel, etc., but became more Othordox, became disillusioned, and ultimately rejected Zionism.
From Wikepedia:
Nathan Birnbaum (Hebrew: נתן בירנבוים; pseudonyms: “Mathias Acher”, “Dr. N. Birner”, “Mathias Palme”, “Anton Skart”, “Theodor Schwarz”, and “Pantarhei”; 16 May 1864 – 2 April 1937) was an Austrian writer and journalist, Jewish thinker and nationalist.[1][2] His life had three main phases, representing a progression in his thinking: a Zionist phase (c. 1883 – c. 1900); a Jewish cultural autonomy phase (c. 1900 – c. 1914) which included the promotion of the Yiddish language; and religious phase (c. 1914–1937) when he turned to Orthodox Judaism and became staunchly anti-Zionist.
The last people I met were Professor Sharon Green and her three children. Her son is Jonathan Green and is Cantor at the Manhattan Davening was over at 11:30 Jewish Center and is friendly with my own nephew, Matt Schwartz. https://ca.linkedin.com/in/sharon-hart-green-764924a
Davening was over at 11:30 AM and I made it back to my mother-in-laws at 12:50 pm.
I read Sholom Gold’s autobiography most of Shabbos afternoon. Mendel Rubinoff lent it to me and I have to return it tomorrow on Sunday.
Went to the BAYT for Daf Yomi, Michas, and Maariv. Josh (?) Stein The speaker at the Shalosh Suedas
He spoke over a Sfas Emes who says that Lev Tov doesn’t mean a good heart but rather someone who controls his heart and his desires to do good. It is about self control.
Coming Home to Zion, a Pictorial History of Pre-Israel Palestine by Abraham Shulman
Chukkas
Verse 20:1
וַיָּבֹ֣אוּ בְנֵֽי־יִ֠שְׂרָאֵ֠ל כׇּל־הָ֨עֵדָ֤ה מִדְבַּר־צִן֙ בַּחֹ֣דֶשׁ הָֽרִאשׁ֔וֹן וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב הָעָ֖ם בְּקָדֵ֑שׁ וַתָּ֤מׇת שָׁם֙ מִרְיָ֔ם וַתִּקָּבֵ֖ר שָֽׁם׃ The Israelites arrived in a body at the wilderness of Zin on the *first new moon Of the fortieth year; cf. Num. 33.36–38. and the people stayed at Kadesh. Miriam died there and was buried there.
Verse 2
וְלֹא־הָ֥יָה מַ֖יִם לָעֵדָ֑ה וַיִּקָּ֣הֲל֔וּ עַל־מֹשֶׁ֖ה וְעַֽל־אַהֲרֹֽן׃The community was without water, and they joined against Moses and Aaron.
In Verse 1, 38 years have passed, and the Torah has moved the narrative to the 40th year in the desert. There was nothing of significance that happened during those 38 years other than the generation of the desert died out. The first event in the 40th year is the death of Miriam. The Torah is very cold in its description, Miriam dies and is buried. None of the emotional descriptions as when Aaron and Moshe died. Rashi adds color to her death that she was a righteous person, equal to that of her sibling and she also died by the kiss of God. It would have given Miriam’s death gravits, but the Torah chose not to because it is not proper to say God kissed a woman. We have to look into the Meforshim to find the greatness of Miriam. Verse 2 starts with a Vav Hachibur or as Rashi said the Smichos of the events tells us that there was no water because of the death of Miriam. Rashi explains that the well that supplied them water came in the merit of Miriam. Rabbinu Bachya further explains that the people had not appreciated this until the well ceased with Miriam’s death.
What was the merit of Miriam? It would seem it was her righteousness. However, as the Sifsei Chacomin asks, if it came because of her righteousness, why didn’t the water come in the merit of Moshe and Aaron, they were great Tzadikim. The Sifsie Chacomin and the Rabbinu Bachya answer that it was because of a specific action of Miriam, that when Moshe was put in a basket in the sea of reeds, she stayed with Moshe.
There is a question. Even if we did not have the merit of Miriam, Hashem would have provided the Jews in the desert with water. He would not take them in a desert without water. Why do we need the merit of Miriam?
We have three statements to consider based on these Pesukim:
1 – Miriam’s merit was not her righteousness, but her staying with Moshe when Moshe was put into the basket in the reed sea.
2 – Even without Miriam, the Jews would have had water. Hashem would have provided water.
3 – The nation did not appreciate Miriam – that through her water came. It was the absence of water that brought them to this realization that they needed to recognize Miriam’s contribution. In other words they did not show Hakaras Hatov. Lack of Hakaras Hatov leads to bad things. It led to a rebellion of sorts and Moshe and Aaron did not go into Israel. While you can argue that Hashem did not have to stop the water, but at the end of the day, the lack of gratitude caused bad things to happen.
Idea #1 is expounded in the below story from Rabbi Yaakov Haber, reprinted from his website.
A true story from the Six Day War:
Many areas of Jerusalem were being shelled, including Mea Shearim, which contained a number of yeshivot. The students of one of these, the famous Mir Yeshiva, just like everyone else, spent their time in a bomb shelter. They were praying, and learning, with great concentration, with the sounds of explosions around them all the time.
The shelter contained a number of people other than the members of the Yeshiva, and one of these, a woman, suddenly cried out: “L-rd of the universe! I have been married and divorced, and during my marriage, my husband treated me terribly for many years, abusing me and humiliating me in public. But now I’m prepared to forgive him, and I pray that You, L-rd, will then, similarly, forgive the Jewish people for whatever sins of theirs are causing this present suffering!”
The Rosh Yeshiva of Mir Yeshiva, Rabbi Chaim Shmuelevitz, one of the great Torah scholars of his generation, overheard this, and exclaimed: “If we get out of this alive, it will be on this woman’s merit!” And they did…
We can expand on these three statements:
Statement 1 and 2 explanation: Every Jew can be a merit and an inspiration for all their fellow Jews and the world. It is an individual righteous act that provides great benefits to the Jewish people. While Hashem would have provided water to the Jews of the desert, Hashem does it through the effort and the merit of man. We want to always do good and it should be through our efforts that individuals and the Jewish nation succeeds. We do not want our actions, even accidental, to produce negative results. At the end of our life we want to have a legacy. This is more of a universalist idea. What do the Tzadikim and Torah Scholars provide? We know that they protect a generation and their death is an atonement. However, individual acts by any Jew provides great benefits and salvation.
The Chovos Halevavos in Shaar Habitachon talks about having faith in God and that everything is directed through him. However, here is always a סובב ומסובב. A cause and an effect. The סובב is an action that a person does that results in a result. This is how Hashem deals with the world. We always want to be a סובב for good. This is what Miriam was. She was the סובב that brought water to the Jews in the desert. We want to be like Miriam bringing good to this world and we want this to be our legacy. We do not want the opposite, to the סובב for bad things to happen; e.g. cause a car accident, be the doctor that misses a diagnosis, make a mistake at work that causes a loss or someone to get fired.
Statement #3 Drahsa: The final idea is that we must always have proper Hakaras Hatov, gratitude to our fellow man. Miriam was the reason why the Jews of the desert had water and we have to properly appreciate her, which the people did not. I read a book, Coming Home to Zion – A Pictorial History of Pre-Israel Palestine which takes us through the history of the building up of Israel by the pioneers who came from 1882 to 1914. The book discusses the pioneers’ struggles, setbacks, and Mesiras Nefesh to create the foundation for the State of Israel. The land was inhospitable; they faced disease, swamps, and many other obstacles, yet they persevered. Their tireless efforts produced first the framework and then the actual State of Israel. We all owe the Hakaras Hatov, whether Frum, Charedi, leftist, secular, or recent immigrant to Israel. We cannot and should not dismiss these heroes. The problem I believe in Israel and the US is that we lack the capacity to give proper thanks.
To all this I want to add Martin Brody’s Torah on this week’s Parsha:
All three: Moshe, Aaron and Miriam taught us something about legacy.
Aaron’s death is reported at length, with great preparation and mourning. Part of that preparation is handing over the mantle of the Priesthood to his son and having the satisfaction of knowing his work will be continued.
Moses will die on the banks of the Jordan just shy of the goal, the Promised Land. Not everyone can cross the river, but as the sage R.Tarfon says in Pirkei Avot Chapter 2, you may not be able to finish the task, but you must not desist from trying.
Three different modes of legacy. What will yours be?
I retract that question. It’s inappropriate.
Instead, I ask myself, what will mine be?
Shabbat Shalom – Martin Brody
Another similar idea by Rabbis Stanley Wagner and Israel Drazin in the translation of Targum Onkelos:
Rabbi Stanley Wagner passed away in 2013.
This past Sunday I tracked down Rabbi Israel Drazin, who lives in Boca Raton, right near BRS.and spoke to him. He is 86 and has been living in Boca for 20 years. Last week I received his 2008 Sefer on Onkelos and used it for the first time this past Shabbos, July 9m 2022. It is a marvelous Sefer and I had to track him down to thank him.
My July 10, 2022 email to Rabbi Israel Drazin and his response.
Israel Drazin
To:
Me:
Thank you very much for your compliment Mitchell. I am very happy that you liked the Onkelos book. It is my favorite among the many books that I wrote. I wish you the very best.
As I mentioned I received your Sefer last week and used it this Shabbos. It enhanced my learning. I love your format and for me it is superior to the Artscroll that was recently published. It is an extra English translation of the Chumash based on Onkelos in a clear format.
I reread the portion I did not understand and now understand..
Next time I am in Boynton Beach where my daughter lives, I will definitely visit.
I arrived in Boca Raton Synagogue in 2012 and while not a regular attendee, I became familiar with the people. My daughter moved out of the area in 2016 so I visit less frequently.
I am diminished because I did not meet you. I became a Talmud of Rabbi Tzvi Yehudah and still miss him to this day.
Thank you again for putting out this scholarly work.
Mitchell A. Morgenstern
773-647-8097
Sources:
Rashi Verse 20:2
ולא היה מים לעדה AND THERE WAS NO WATER FOR THE CONGREGATION — Since this statement follows immediately after the mention of Miriam’s death, we may learn from it that during the entire forty years they had the “well” through Miriam’s merit (Taanit 9a).
The Rabbi Bachya and the Seifsei Chachomin add, specifically Miriam did, and not Moshe and Aaron. It was because Miriam stood by watching what would happen to her infant brother when he was in a basket in the reeds at the edge of the river (Exodus 2:4). G-d had rewarded her for that act of kindness by making her the provider of water for Moses’ people. The people had not appreciated this until the well ceased with Miriam’s death.
Rabbeinu Bachya, Bamidbar 20:2:1 – 2
Rabbeinu Bachya:ולא היה מים לעדה. כשמתה מרים נסתלק הבאר כי היה הבאר בזכות מרים שהיה לה זכות המים ממשה, שנאמר (שמות ב׳:ד׳) ותתצב אחותו מרחוק. ומה שנסתלק עתה במיתתה ראיה שבזכותה היה עמהם, ומכאן שכל ארבעים שנה היה להם הבאר.
ולא היה מים לעדה, “The congregation had no water.” As soon as Miriam died, the well which had traveled with the Israelites all these years ceased providing water. The water which the people had enjoyed all these years was due to the merit of Miriam who had stood by watching what would happen to her infant brother when he was in a basket in the reeds at the edge of the river (Exodus 2,4). G-d had rewarded her for that act of kindness by making her the provider of water for Moses’ people. The people had not appreciated this until the well ceased with Miriam’s death.
Siftei Chakhamim, Numbers 20:2:1
שפתי חכמים, במדבר כ׳:ב׳:א׳
הבאר בזכות מרים. שהרי מיד כשמתה מרים לא הי’ להם עוד מים. וא”ת למה לא היה הבאר בזכות אהרן או משה, וי”ל בזכות שהמתינה למשה על המים לראות מה יעשה לו כשהושלך בתיבה, לכן נעשה לה זכות זה של באר דהיינו מים שנתן הקב”ה מים לעדה בשבילה:
The well in Miriam’s merit. For immediately after Miriam died, they no longer had water. You might ask: Why was the well not in Aharon’s or Moshe’s merit? The answer is that it was in the merit of Miriam waiting for Moshe by the water, to see what would happen to him when he was placed there in the box [as a baby] (Shemos 2:4). In return, this merit of the well, i.e., the water that Hashem provided for the congregation was on her behalf.
Other Meforshim I saw and liked:
Ohr HaChaim:
Verses 20:3-5:
וירב העם וגו’ ולו גוענו. פירוש נתרעמו עליו שהתפלל עליהם שלא ימותו בדבר
ולמה הבאתם וגו’. תרעומת ב’ למה הביאום דרך מדבר שהוא מקום סכנת מיתת צמא שהיה להם להעלותם שלא על דרך המדבר, והכונה בזה כיון שאין כח ביד משה לתת להם מים במדבר על מי סמך להביאם דרך שם.
ואומרם ולמה העליתונו וגו’ פירוש ואם תשיבו אותנו כי אין דרך מובטח להעביר אתכם בו אלא דרך מדבר או הכרח היה הדבר שתעברו דרך מדבר, לזה נתרעמו ואמרו אם כן לא היה לכם להעלותינו ממצרים כיון שהוא מוכרח להביא אותנו אל המקום הרע הזה שיש בו סכנה שאינו מקום זרע וגו’ כאומרם ז”ל (חולין פח:) מדבר אינו מעלה צמחים.
In the above three comments, the Ohr HaChaim explains their complaints as legitimate, and it seems it wasn’t as if they were rebelling. Their complaints did not have the edge that their parents’ had when their parents complained. On the third, why did you bring us up from Egypt, their complaint was, you could have left us in the diaspora, in Egypt, as free men and we would have served Hashem there. Afterwards you could have brought us to Israel, in a way we would not be in danger.
Coming Home to Zion and the Lessons Learned
I purchased the book Coming Home to Zion, a Pictorial History of Pre-Israel Palestine from Half Price Books. The author is Abraham Shulman. Coming Home to Zion is the story of the birth of Israel – a stunning pictorial documentary of the formative years of the Jewsih nation. Coming Home to Zion captures the spirit as well as the heroic deed of the first israel. It also discusses the hardships of establishing a physical, agricultural and business framework for the State of israel. Many people died due to malaria and other diseases. Swamps had to be drained, inhospitable land had to be tamed and farmed. Cities had to be built. Many went back to Europe due to the uncompromising landscape and hardships. Yet the early pioneers succeeded and we have a beautiful state of Israel today, imperfect as it is.
It is easy to talk and pontificate. Hess, Herzl, and Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Klaisher were critical in advancing the idea of a state in Israel, but all they did was produce ideas and talk. And then there is the actual work. The early pioneers had to do the miserable, backbreaking work, and they did. As I said before we owe them gratitude. Maybe this was the thinking of Rabbi Avrohom Yitzxchok HaCohen Kook who understood what the pioneers had done and he tried to influence them with his holiness.
Biography of Abraham Shulman:
Abraham Shulman also Avrom Shulman (20 June 1918 — 1 November 1999) was a Polish-American journalist, author, writer of Yiddish and English short stories and essays. He began publishing poetry in Polish, later writing critical essays and mainly feature pieces in the Yiddish newspapers and periodicals of Warsaw, Paris, and New York.
LIFE AND CAREER
Shulman was born on June 20, 1918, in Warsaw, Poland. After graduating from high school in Warsaw in 1933, he studied at a journalism school there (1933-1935). His studies were interrupted by the Second World War and he and his wife managed to escape to Australia via Vladivostok, Russia, and Kobe, Japan, in 1939. He worked as a journalist in Melbourne for ten years and then moved to France, where he lived with his family for another ten years (1950-1960). His son and daughter were born in Paris during that time.
In 1961, Shulman emigrated to the United States, settling in New York, where he was employed by the Yiddish newspaper “The Forward” and wrote a satirical column.
Alshich’s grave in Safed
Reply
Reply
Exploring Kotzk 