Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Metzora – Signs are Overrated


This week’s Torah portion of Metzora discusses the purification of a metzora, one who received spiritual leprosy for one of seven reasons listed in Erechin 16a: lashon hara (slander), murder, swearing falsely, illicit relations, haughtiness, stealing, and stinginess (tzaras ayin). The Torah then relates part of the process of purification: “Then the kohen shall order, and the person to be cleansed shall take two live, clean birds, a cedar stick, a strip of crimson [wool], and hyssop. The kohen shall order, and one shall slaughter the one bird into an earthenware vessel, over spring water. [As for] the live bird, he shall take it, and then the cedar stick, the strip of crimson [wool], and the hyssop, and, along with the live bird, he shall dip them into the blood of the slaughtered bird, over the spring water. He shall then sprinkle seven times upon the person being cleansed from tzara’as, and he shall cleanse him. He shall then send away the live bird into the [open] field” (Vayikra 14:4-7).

The Tur HaShalem explains that after the first bird is slaughtered, we sprinkle its blood on the altar seven times, representing the seven types of sins for one can contract tzaraas. The Tur goes on to explain the reason why the metzora has to bring two birds; the bird that is sent away alludes to his tzaraas being sent away, and the slaughtered bird is an indication that the tzaraas shouldn’t come back (Vayikra Rabba 16:9). However, the bird that is sent away also hints to the fact that if one reverts back to his or her prohibitive ways then the tzaraas will come back, just as the bird can fly back. (Click here for Hebrew text.)

The Rokeach elaborates a bit more on this subject and suggests, “Why does the pasuk say, ‘and the live bird shall be sent away? Hashem gave a sign, that just as the bird that was slaughtered and buried in the ground cannot move from its place, so to the tzaraas cannot return upon him anymore. But don’t say that since [the tzaraas] has left it’s impossible for it to come back so now I will go back to my old bad ways [therefore] focus on the live bird, just as it can come back, so to if you stray away from your repentance, in the end [the tzaraas] will come back upon you. That is why one was slaughtered and one was sent away.” (Click here fore Hebrew text.)
 There is a need for a sign or hint from Heaven through the slaughtered bird, as the poor person just went through a very traumatizing experience, albeit a deserved one. He had this painful, ugly ailment on his body, was shunned from society, and even had to leave his family. He was in a state of mourning and excommunication by Heaven, so the slaughtered bird is a comfort; knowing that Hashem has sent a sign that tzaraas, which afflicted him, is gone and not coming back. But why is the second bird that was let go needed? Isn’t it obvious that if a person sins again he will be repunished? There is no doubt that if a person sins he deserves the punishment of lashes; for example if he eats non-kosher, or wears shaatnez, etc. then he was deserving of lashes each time, even if he repeats the sin. These acts are punishable by the Jewish courts if done on purpose; so why would these circumstances be any different? Why would anyone think that once they are punished once, no matter how severe it was, that they now have an exemption and can do the sin again without any repercussions?

It would seem, though, that what’s different in this circumstance is the hint, or “sign from Heaven,” that the tzaraas is gone. People get all caught up in watching for signs and relying upon them that they come to actually think that they can’t be punished again. They then rationalize that they are doing nothing wrong if they go back to their old ways.

The first sign is needed to comfort the penitent who was so severely traumatized, and the second bird is needed as a hint and reminder that the person can get tzaraas again, which will hopefully be an impetus to not revert back to his old bad ways.

Posted on

Tazria –

Advertising Makes an Impact
The Gemara in Eruchin 16a lists 7 reasons why a person would receive the spiritual ailment of tzaraas, “Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Leprous marks come and afflict a person for seven sinful matters: For malicious speech (lashon hara), for bloodshed, for an oath taken in vain, for forbidden relations, for arrogance, for theft, and for stinginess.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)

There is an entire process one must go through while in the state of impurity and to cleanse oneself of the ailment, which is spelled out in this week’s Torah portion of Tazria and continued into next week’s Torah portion. It says in this week’s portion, “And the person with tzara’as, in whom there is the lesion, his garments shall be torn, his head shall be unshorn, he shall cover himself down to his mustache and call out, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’” (Vayikra 13:45).

The Bechor Shor explains that by all types of spiritual ailments that are listed in the Torah the one afflicted is in mourning, for he is as if excommunicated by Heaven. His wife and children must separate from him, he must announce to everyone “tamei tamei” I am contaminated, I am contaminated, so that everyone will distance from him. This ailment was also contagious, so he or she had to be quarantined and sit alone outside of civilization. Our Sages have taught (Shabbos 67a) that he must announce his plight to the public so that the public will pray for mercy upon him. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Why should proclaiming to the world one’s contamination with your plight arouse mercy? Either way, one can either say this person is a terrible person, look what they did, whether it was murder, adultery, or even slander; why does he or she deserve for people to ask mercy on their behalf from G-D? On the other hand, one can really empathize with the sufferer and their family. He or she must be separated from their entire family, they must be devastated and worried, while he or she is in a state of mourning, showing genuine remorse for the sin committed. This ailment is also very painful, so no one should really wish it on anyone. If that is the case, then many people might feel bad and will be praying for their welfare. Either way, why should announcing the individual’s suffering to the world be the impetus to trigger feeling empathy and arouse others to ask for mercy from Hashem?

We see from here the power and effectiveness of announcements or advertising. The people who already feel bad will be inspired with even more mercy and compassion to pray harder. Indeed, it would seem that even those who had no interest in showing any compassion can be aroused and inspired to pray for mercy on the individual’s behalf.

Hashem wants the best for all his creatures, even for those who do wrong (as long as they show signs that they want to change for the better.) ,

Posted on

Torah Riddle #242

Question: what would be the reason why kitniyos is muktza on Yom tov and Shabbos of Pesach in a community which has no sfardim and are far away from any sfardim? Background:

1. The Mishna Berura (308:52:169-170) says that which is muktzah for the wealthy is muktzah, and even the poor cannot carry them. That means that which is owned by the wealthy, which is a size less that 3 tefachim × 3 tefachim is normally considered absolutely useless to the rich person, like a rag (a rope would not count) so he takes it out of his mind and is muktzah on Shabbos for everyone.

2. Vice versa, anything less than 3×3 in a poor person house is not considered muktzah even for a wealthy person since it’s owned by the pauper and he has a use for it.

3. When it comes to prohibitions, the fact that you own it and deem it useless for you does not make it muktzah, for example if you swear never to eat bread, bread is not muktzah because you can still handle it and give it out to others.

4. The Rema (612:10) poskins that one may handle food on Yom Kippur in order to give to children. But Rav Elyashiv poskins that if one is on an army base far away from any settlement then food is muktzah on Yom Kippur.

Answer: Because there are no Sfardim around in your community on Pesach then kitniyos should be muktzah since they are taken out of your mind and useless like food on the army base on Yom Kippur, though Rav Elyashiv in general holds kitniyos is not muktzah on pesach. (See Dirshu footnote 179 in siman 308.)

Posted on

Torah Riddle #241

Question: Why is it halachically permissible to tell a non-Jewish store owner to provide chometz food to your workers and you’ll pay for it on Pesach but you can’t tell him to give chometz pet food to your cow, etc. on the farm that you can slaughter?

Background:

A. Mishna Berura (448:7:29-33) it says that it’s forbidden to give your animal to a non-Jew on Pesach to feed it if you know he’ll feed it barley chometz. It doesn’t make a difference whether he gave it to the non-Jew for free or is paying him to feed his animal it’s forbidden because he is getting benefit from the chometz that’s being used to fatten up his animal. Chometz, even belonging to a non-Jew is forbidden to benefit from. However if the non-Jew did feed the cow chometz, the meat from the cow isn’t forbidden to the owner after it is slaughtered.

 B. The Mishna Berura (550:6:16-19) says that halachically one may pay a grocery store belonging to a non-Jew for providing food to his slaves/workers on Pesach even if it’s chometz even though the Jew is supposed to be supporting his workers and benefits from them being healthy and strong to be able to work for him. (Those that argue only say it’s forbidden because one is paying his workers/slaves with forbidden benefits.)

Answer: The Nishmas Adam says (see Dirshu footnote 104) the point of feeding the slave isn’t to fatten him up but to give him energy to work therefore the benefit the master gets isn’t from him being filled with the chometz but the work that the slave does for the master, where as technically the animal is being fattened by the chometz and therefore it’s a juicier meat which one will benefit from when he eats it therefore it’s forbidden. However the reason why the meat is edible if done is because of the rule of “ze vinegar gorem” if both permissible food and forbidden food was used to fatten the the animal then it is permissible because can get benefit from both, you just shouldn’t ideally work in that fashion.

Posted on

Shemini-Personal Profession


For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.

In the beginning of this week’s Torah portion of Shemini, we find the tragedy of Nadav and Avihu who were killed by Hashem through a fire coming down from Heaven for sinning in the Mishkan. “Moshe summoned Mishael and Eltzaphan, sons of Aharon’s uncle Uziel, and said to them, ‘Approach, carry your brothers out of the sanctuary to the outside of the camp'” (Vayikra 10:4).
 The Moshav Zekeinim points out that it mentions that Uziel was the uncle of Aharon because he was very close to Aharon. Just as Aharon pursued peace and loved peace, so did he. The Moshav Zekeinim then asked an obvious question. Wasn’t Moshe Rabbeinu as righteous as Aharon? Why wasn’t Moshe known as one who pursues peace and loves peace? He answered, that because Moshe was a judge he couldn’t just compromise but rather he was only able to minimize the mountainous judgement, as it says in Sanhedrin 6b, he would first listen to each side of the argument, and he knew who the judgement sided with and he couldn’t just tell them go and split it, and He wasn’t able to make peace. But Aharon was good at making peace and that is why he was known for peace and running after peace. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
 Remember that Moshe Rabbeinu had an incredible love for the Jewish People and was willing to sacrifice his own life for their sake. He also listened to their plight and arguments day in day out to try to resolve all issues amongst them before Yisro advised him to make a court system to split up all the cases. And it’s very clear in halacha that part of the court system is compromise. Before deciding who is guilty and who is innocent the judges give each litigant a chance to compromise, so why wasn’t Moshe on the same stature as Aharon running after and loving peace?

 Because his profession of being a judge required him to hear each side of the argument and, at best, compromise, Moshe wasn’t as quick to pursue peace as Aharon who had a natural tendency to just look at a situation and figure out how to resolve it peacefully. We see from here the impact one’s profession can make on one’s essence. Moshe definitely loved peace and would do anything to create peace in Klal Yisrael, but the vigor and way he went about doing it was hindered by his professional thinking as a judge and, therefore, it wasn’t as great as Aharon, his brother.

We see how much of an impression one’s profession has on oneself.

Posted on

Torah Riddle #241

Question: If one went away within 30 days of Pesach and doesn’t get back until during Pesach or even if he is not back until after Pesach is it better for him to check before he leaves or appoint a messenger to check erev Pesach, the night before the seder? And what’s the indication that which one is better?

Background:

A. The Mishna Berura 436:1:1 says that if someone is traveling from land to sea or in a caravan to some far-off place, then he should search his house the night before he leaves without making a blessing on the bedika. If one appoints a messenger to check at the right time, then he does not have to check before going away because a messenger is like himself.

B. There is a concept in halacha that it is better to perform the mitzva yourself more than appointing a messenger to do it for you.

Answer: It is better to appoint a messenger to check for you on erev pesach at night. The proof is that you cannot say a blessing if you checked early but if the messenger checked for you the night of the 14th he would say a blessing. (Shevet HaLevi 9:18, see Dirshu footnote 1.)

Posted on

Tzav -Alacrity After a Long Speech


Around this time of the year, specifically on the 23rd of Adar, which is April 2nd this year, Moshe started practicing erecting the Mishkan according to the Ramban in this week’s Torah portion of Tzav.
The Ramban says, “Rather, the correct interpretation is that we say that Moshe was commanded about the assembly of the Tabernacle (Mishkan) on the twenty-third day of Adar, and he assembled it [on that day]. As soon as the Tabernacle stood in its position, G-D, blessed be He, Who sits upon the Keruvim, called Moshe and commanded him about the actions involved in the bringing of the offerings — all those sections from the beginning of the Book of Vayikra until here. [This was because] He wanted to teach him the actions and statutes of all the offerings before he offered up any of them, since among the initiation-offerings were the sin-offering, burnt-offering and peace-offering, and they could only know all their laws from these sections with which He preceded [to command him]. Afterwards He said to him, Take Aharon and his sons with him etc., to urge him on when the time came for performing what He had told him at first — And this is the thing that you shall do unto them to hallow them, to minister unto Me etc., adding here, And you shall assemble all the congregation at the door of the Tent of Meeting, so that it should be done in the presence of all of them, that they should know that G-D, blessed be He, chose Aharon and his sons [to minister unto Him].
By way of the proper interpretation of Scripture, Moshe was commanded about the building of the Tabernacle prior to the incident of the golden calf [as is the order of these chapters in the Book of Shemos], and when the Holy One, blessed be He, became reconciled to him and promised him that He would cause His Divine Glory to dwell among them, Moshe understood of his own accord that the command concerning the Mishkan remained valid as before, and he then commanded Israel regarding it, as I have explained in the section of Vayakheil. After they had completed the work, he was then told the section of, On the first day of the first month shall you set up the Tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting, and he was then told, And you shall bring Aharon and his sons unto the door of the Tent of Meeting etc. Thus Moshe knew that Aharon and his sons also remained in their esteemed and beloved position before G-d. Here, He urged them again on the first day of the consecration, at the time of performing the command [And you shall bring Aharon and his sons etc.] Thus all the sections of the Torah are in chronological order, except that He placed before its sequence the verse, And the cloud covered the Tent of Meeting (Shemos 40:34), which in the opinion of our Rabbis was on the eighth day of the initiation, in order to arrange in order the whole matter of the assembly of the Mishkan, it being the customary way of Scripture in all places to finish a subject that it has started to explain.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
The Ramban is of the opinion that the Torah for the most part is written in chronological order therefore, Hashem first told Moshe about building the Mishkan (in Ki Sisa) before the sin of the golden calf. Then, after Hashem was appeased by Moshe’s prayers on behalf of the Jewish people and promised to rest his Shechina amongst them, meaning that He wanted the Mishkan built, then the Jews started building the Mishkan (in Vayakhel 35:1). After they finished building it, Hashem told them to put it together and they will start using the Mishkan on the first of Nissan at its consecration (this is mentioned in Pekudei 40:2, 12). Hashem then taught many of the laws about the various types of sacrifices that will be used in the inauguration of the Mishkan, (this is mentioned in Vayikra and the beginning of Tzav.) Finally, at this point (perek 8 in Tzav) on the 23rd of Adar, Moshe anoints Aharon and his family and practices, for the next 8 days, putting together and taking apart the Mishkan, as well as performing parts of the service until the ultimate inauguration of the Mishkan in the beginning of the Torah portion of Shemini, that will be read next week.

Among all this, the Ramban mentions after Hashem told Moshe to teach everyone about the laws of the sacrifices that Moshe should, “Take Aharon along with his sons, and the vestments, the anointing oil, the bull of sin offering, the two rams, and the basket of unleavened bread (Vayikra 8:2). Hashem told Moshe this, according to the Ramban, in order “to urge him on when the time came for performing what He had told him at first.” Meaning, Hashem told Moshe to ensure that Aharon and his sons acted with zrizus, alacrity, when performing G-D’s service. Why did Hashem, at this juncture, have to urge the kohanim to act with alacrity (zrizus) when performing G-D’s service? They were proven to be committed to serving Hashem, as the Ramban himself mentioned right before this request to urge them to perform with alacrity as he said, “Thus Moshe knew that Aharon and his sons also remained in their esteemed and beloved position before G-d.” Also, how can they let anyone down at such an ostentatious time, isn’t it obvious that they should get to work with the utmost speed and alacrity, why do they have to be reminded? If so, what does the Ramban mean when he says, “He urged them again on the first day of the consecration, at the time of performing the command?”

However, if you look at the chronology of events where Hashem just taught a whole slew of laws of how to work in the Mishkan, i.e, the sacrificial service, then it’s the proper thing to refocus and urge them to perform with alacrity. This is because it is human nature for people to become overwhelmed when thrown at them a whole bunch of rules, no matter how great they are, so by reenforcing the resolve to perform with zerizus (alacrity) it refocused them to start off on the right foot.

This is an incredible lesson in communication that, when giving a whole list of instructions, review the general purpose of the instructions at the very end so that the person being instructed can regain his or her baring and quickly get onto fulfilling what they were instructed to do.

Posted on

Vayikra – Using the Trait of Lowliness for Proper Manners


 There is an old saying that the great rabbis in the Slobodka Yeshiva were oft to say, “Anava (humility): yes, shiflus (lowliness): no.” The Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim, Rav Alter Chanoch Henach Leibowitz zt”l, explained the intent behind this saying that it’s forbidden for a person to feel that he is lacking in self-worth since this feeling will lead to depression and giving up hope. 
However, we find an exception to this rule, which undoubtedly the great rabbis of this great mussar yeshiva would certainly agree to, in the introduction by Rabbeinu Bachye in this week’s Torah portion of Vayikra which leads straight into the opening pasuk, “He called to Moshe, and Hashem spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting saying” (Vayikra 1:1). The introduction is a very important outlook into the attribute of humility, but more importantly discusses fundamentals into the very concepts of character development in general.

In summary Rabbeinu Bachye bases the introduction on the pasuk in Mishley (22:4), “The heal of humility is fear of Hashem, wealth, honor and life.” He explains on a simple level, this pasuk is teaching us that what one can reach in this world through humility is four things: fear, wealth, honor, and life. This is because the attribute of humility is a physical attribute amongst people. This is by acting amongst people with bashfulness, patience, respecting people, talking positively about them, and listening to insults and staying quiet. And through this physical attribute one will elevate himself to the intellectual attribute of fear [of G-D] and will also lead to wealth because a humble person is happy with his lot for he doesn’t feel he needs much, doesn’t desire anything extra, and is happy with his lot, which is why he is rich. He is also respected, for when a person is happy with what he has, he doesn’t give into his desires and has a lowly spirit that is honorable. It also leads to life because one who desires extra is always worried when he doesn’t get his way and his life is a life of pain and worry which shortens a person’s life. He is suffering over a world which isn’t his, but if he is happy with his lot, not worried about what he did not acquire, and escapes from worry, then he lives a blissful life.

On a midrashic level, Rabbeinu Bachye explains that just as wisdom makes a crown for the head so too humility makes a heel for the sole. It is known that for every attribute there are two extremes as well as a middle ground. Humility is the middle ground with haughtiness on one extreme and lowliness on the opposite extreme. The middle ground is usually the best median to reach for all attributes and going to the extreme is bad and bitter. However, when it comes to the attribute of humility people are encouraged to go to the extreme of lowliness and not choose to stay in the median of humility, lest one gets too close to crossing the boundaries into haughtiness, which is a despicable attribute that damages a person, which disturbs a person physically and spiritually from life in this world and eternity. This is why Chaza”l say one should be very, very lowly in spirit. Double “very” indicating that it is worthwhile to go away from the median and go to the extreme of lowliness because the attribute of humility is glorified, exulted and apparent to everyone around. This is why King David describes himself as a broken and lowly heart, even though he was a great king, prophet, and the head of the 70 judges of the Sanhedrin.

Then Rabbeinu Bachye goes on to write, “We also find by Moshe Rabbeinu of blessed memory, who was the head of all the prophets and the pasuk didn’t praise him with any other lofty attribute besides the attribute of humility, as the Torah says, ‘And the man Moshe was very humble’ (Bamidbar 12:3). It mentions ‘very’ to emphasize that Moshe Rabbeinu did not want to only stay in the median, which is referred to as humility, but he directed himself from the middle to the side of lowliness, and that is why ‘very’ was mentioned. Part of his humility and lowliness was that he refused to enter the Tent of Meeting while the Tent was hidden and covered by the Cloud of Glory, as it says, ‘And the cloud covered the Tent of Meeting, and the Honor of Hashem filled the Mishkan’ (Shemos 40:35). And even though Hashem already told Moshe ‘and I testify about you from there and I spoke to you from on the kapores, (curtain), between the two keruvim (cherubs)‘ (Shemos 25:22), still in all Moshe didn’t feel comfortable coming into the Tent of Meeting to prophesize inside there, nor to daven there, or to bring a sacrifice, until Hashem gave him permission and called him in [as the opening pasuk in this week’s portion indicates.]” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
What does lowliness have to do with asking permission to come into the Tent of Meeting? It is basic proper manners (derech eretz) to knock before entering and waiting to be let in, especially by a king–and all the more so by The King Of All Kings?! Furthermore, my Rosh Yeshiva zt”l, Rav Henoch Leibowitz (Chiddushei HaLev Sefer Bamidbar, parshas Bihaaloscha 12:3), defined a humble person as one who recognizes all his unique qualities and strengths, and therefore he understands his purpose in life but nevertheless he feels people are better than him. Not that he lies to himself and does not recognize the level he is on because that is a lack of truth, and Hashem’s signature is truth, and He would not want us to lie to ourselves. Rather, for example, Moshe Rabbeinu knew he was the most humble and perfected person in the world, and he understood that his purpose in life was to be the leader of the generation to lead the Jews, but still he felt that each Jew was better than him for their own unique traits that he personally didn’t have. If that’s the case and he knew that Hashem gave him an open door to speak to Him whenever he wished, and it wasn’t for nothing, praying, sending offerings, and receiving prophecy to deliver to the people are very lofty and important matters, so why did he feel he had to lower himself to first wait to be called to enter? Furthermore, if humility is better and lowliness could be dangerously unhealthy, then why take the risk to do something which he seemingly does not have to do? Even if you say it’s dangerous to be in the middle in terms of humility because it’s too close to haughtiness, why can’t the most humble and perfect person in the world be able to keep himself away from haughtiness while staying on a healthy median?

We must say that, of course proper manners trump the open invitation of walking in and addressing Hashem that Moshe had received. Derech eretz kadma liTorah, proper manners precede the Torah (what is technically acceptable to do) therefore, it was right for Moshe Rabbeinu to wait until he was called. However, being the humble person he was, Moshe knew himself very well and knew he was allowed to walk in whenever he wanted or needed and knew he would only do it in an appropriate manner. Therefore, he felt that he might “barge in” at times instead of first “knocking” so, as a form of chinuch hamussar, applying his self-discipline, he lowered himself more than his median state to ensure that he always acted properly with the proper respect and manners.

It is true in general that shiflus, lowliness, can be a damaging attribute leading to depression and a lack of self-worth however, when being used to strengthen another attribute, for example, acting with proper manners, then it’s not only positive but a healthy means to ensure you are constantly acting appropriately.

Good Shabbos
Rabbi Dovid Shmuel Milder

Posted on

Torah Riddles #240

Question: Why does the Mishna Berura (103:2:3) quote in the name of the Chayei Adam that a certain red fruit (similar to strawberries) that grow in forests its blessing is “ha’adama” but technically if you say a “ha’etz” you should eat a little bite so that you won’t waste the blessing and quickly eat another food that is for sure a blessing of “ha’adama” or “shehakol” and have it the red fruit in mind just in case. But if a person had a bunch of fruits in front of him some are “ha’adama” like melon and some are “ha’etz” like apples and he said a “ha’adama” with all of them in mind, where there is an argument whether the blessing can count for the fruit that are “ha’etz”, the Mishna Berura(206:2:10) poskins that when in doubt by blessings one should be lenient and not say anymore blessings, but it is better to decide not to eat the fruit (apples) immediately and wait a while and then make a “ha’etz ” on the apples. Why don’t we say when in doubt don’t make another blessing by this red fruit, and immediately go find another food to make a blessing on?

Background:

A. This same concept applies when one is already in the middle of a meal and breaks to say kiddush. There is a question if the kiddush is a distraction in the meal and one will have to wash again but the Mishna Berura (271:4:18) poskins that when in doubt don’t say a blessing and they can keep on eating without washing and saying a blessing on bread again.

 B. If one is unsure whether he said a blessing of “hamotzi” then he can continue eating and doesn’t need to make any other blessings for the food in the meal because when in doubt one cannot make a blessing and must be lenient. “Safek brachos lihakel.”

Answer: It seems according to the Chaye Adam that the main blessing for this red fruit is really “ha’adama” therefore it might be saying “ha’etz” does absolutely nothing, not even a question therefore it’s best to find another food, vegetable for “ha’adama” or a “shehakol” food and have this red fruit in mind when making the blessing.

Posted on

Pekudei – Precision


 This week’s Torah portion of Pekudei is the conclusion of the Book of Shemos. It continues the discussion from last week of putting together the Mishkan. One of the vessels used in the Mishkan before doing the service in the morning was a water basin, or laver. The Torah stated, “He emplaced the laver between the Tent of Meeting and the Altar, and there he put water for washing. Moshe, Aharon and his sons washed their hands and feet from it. When they came to the Tent of Meeting and when they approached the altar they would wash, as Hashem had commanded them” (Shemos 40:30-32).
 

The Moshav Zekeinim asks a question on this practice. “Rabbeinu Yeshaya asked a quandary, what was the need for washing the feet, they weren’t used to perform the service as much as the hands were? But one can answer, for it writes, ‘Guard your foot when you go to the House of G-D’” (Koheles 4:17). (Click here for Hebrew text.)
 It’s interesting to note that when the Moshav Zekeinim asked his question he wasn’t wondering why the feet should be washed because they are not involved at all in The Service, just as any other body parts don’t have any involvement. The Kohanim didn’t wash any other part of the body upon entering the Mishkan to do The Service. Rather he assumed there was some use during The Service but the feet weren’t as useful as the hands.

It is also interesting to note that the Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 106) mentions that there was a mitzva upon the kohen “to wash his hands and feet whenever he entered the heichal (sanctuary) and to come to do The Service, and this is called the mitzva of sanctifying his hands and feet… The root of the mitzva, the foundation set that has been discussed, is that it’s in order to give greatness to the honor of The House and all the jobs done there. Therefore, it’s befitting to clean his hands, which are doing the job, whenever the kohanim come to do matters in The House.” He mentions nothing about why the feet are cleansed too. (Click here for Hebrew text.)

Rabbeinu Bachye says the reason for washing hands was because any servant of a king would first wash his hands before serving the king at his table because hands are always busy and it is a matter of basic sanitation to first wash them before serving food. He then suggests the feet are cleaned because the kohanim walk around barefoot in the Mishkan. (Click here for Hebrew text.)But this doesn’t really answer the Moshav Zekeinim’s question, because according to the Moshav Zekeinim (and really everyone else agrees) the hands were the ones that did the critical service in the Mishkan. Therefore out of proper respect hands should be washed before working; but just because the kohanim take off their shoes and walk barefoot in the Mishkan, why is that a reason to specifically wash them? And if you want to say their feet are the second most useful part of their body during The Service, because they get them from place to place, then why isn’t that enough of a reason to wash the feet or at least stringently wash the feet as opposed to any other body part besides the hands? Why is the Moshav Zekeinim so puzzled about why the feet should be washed, and only after stumbling upon a pasuk in Koheles is satisfied with an answer?

The answer must be that Hashem would not require just anything to be done stringently when setting up the rules of His Palace; on the contrary, to conduct oneself with doubt but in a stringent manner is not as respectful as knowing the halacha – what exactly Hashem wants from you and applying it properly, with precision. Therefore, the Moshav Zekeinim couldn’t understand why the feet met the proper criteria needed to be washed more than any other part of the body beside the hands in order to perform the Service in the Mishkan, until he understood this verse to be teaching this very law.

Parenthetically, it is not so simple to apply this pasuk to these circumstances because all the commentaries on the pasuk say it refers to outside people bringing sacrifices to the Temple, not the kohanim. For example, the medrish Yalkut Shimone on this pasuk in Koheles says, “‘Guard your legs when you walk to the House of G-D,’” Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rebbe Yochanan, it’s better to Guard your legs from going to sin then to sin and bring an offering [as atonement.] It was only because the Moshav Zekeinim, one of the Baalei Tosfos’, had a sharp mind that can realize this profundity that the pasuk could also be applied to the very service of the Kohanim in the Mikdash, was he able to arrive at such a conclusion. (Click here for Hebrew text.)

That takes in-depth precision to figure out!