At the end of this week’s Torah portion of B’haaloscha Miriam spoke lashon hara (slander), on some level, about Moshe to Aharon.
The last chapter of the medrish, Pirkei diRebbe Eliezer (54) discusses this episode. “The 8th (9th) descent is when Hashem descended upon the Tent of Meeting as it says, ‘And Hashem descended in a pillar of cloud and He stood at the entrance of the tent and He called for Aharon and Miriam, and they both came out.’ Hashem said to him, whoever slanders his friend in secret has no way to heal, all the more so his brother who is the son of his father and mother. Hashem was angry at them and removed Himself from on top of the tent as it says, ‘Hashem was infuriated at them.’ He left and immediately Miriam received spiritual leprosy (tzaraas). Hashem said, if Aharon would also be a spiritual leper (metzora), a high priest with a blemish, may not bring an offering onto the alter, rather he will look at his sister and will feel pained as it says, ‘And Aharon turned towards Miriam.’ Aharon then went to Moshe, said to him, ‘ My master Moshe, siblings only are separated by death… our sister, while she is still alive has been separated from us as if she is dead. Moshe appeased him with kind words and prayed for her as it says, ‘And Moshe screamed out to Hashem saying, G-D please heal her please.'” The Be’ur Maspik adds that the gemara in Shabbos 96a points out that though it sounds like from the pasuk “Hashem was infuriated at both of them” which sounds like they both got spiritual leprosy, yet the gemara qualifies that just Hashem’s wrath was upon both of them. The Maharz”u adds more insight into this medrish, clarifying, that when Aharon saw his sister and was pained, in this way he accepted his punishment for his sin with his pain. This was also the means he atoned for his sin, in the fact that he partnered in her pain.
It is implicit from the medrish and gemara that Miriam and Aharon deserved equal punishment, and in fact received equal punishment. But for Aharon Kohen Gadol, Hashem wasn’t willing to actually make Aharon a leper because he had to serve in the Mishkan, and a kohen with a blemish may not serve in the Mishkan. So, alternatively, he saw what happened to Miriam and was greatly pained upon seeing the state she was in.
But how is this equal to the punishment Miriam received? Chaza”l say that leprosy is physically quite painful, and the embarrassment Miriam must have felt must have been tremendous. So how does Aharon’s feeling bad for Miriam compare or equate to the pain Miriam was in?
It must be that when Aharon internalized the state his beloved sister was in and why it had happened, the tzadik that he was, as well as running after peace, caring for every individual in the Jewish Nation, all the more so for his own sister,someone of that sensitivity level has the ability to actually feel the pain a spiritual leper is feeling, as if he himself has that same pain. For that reason the Torah likened that Miriam and Aharon were equally punished.
We see from here the awesome ability and to what extent a person can relate to his fellow. This takes on a whole new meaning to imagining being in his shoes. In fact, it would seem that one can actually be in the other’s shoes!
Sefer Chofetz Chaim hilchos Rechilus chapter 4
One can transgress the prohibition of rechilus even if you don’t reveal anything new, for example if Reuvain played a trick on Shimon and Levi told 2 people what he saw. Then person A told Shimon Reuvain pulled a trick on him. This is for sure rechilus by person A but if person B then goes and tells Shimon also, that is also rechilus because Shimon might not have thought much about it after he was told once but he will definitely think more into once he was told about it a second time since it will stir hatred in Shimon’s heart for Reuvain. Another example is if Reuvain is found guilty in court and Shimon asks him what your verdict was, Reuvain tells him, and Shimon responds that doesn’t sound right. Even if he is just trying to give his own honest opinion it’s still forbidden, for one thing he only heard one side of the story, but even if he heard both sides of the story and knew all the information there is no point in telling the guilty party that the judges were wrong since the verdict is done and it’s too late. Even if he thinks he can fix the situation then still there is no reason to speak to the guilty party just go over to the judges and try to really fix the situation, maybe they will change their minds after they hear what he has to say but speaking to the guilty party only stokes the coals of hatred inside him. Back to the previous case, if person B adds more information to what Shimon already knows that is certainly forbidden also if Shimon wasn’t sure if what he heard was true and person B clarifies that also makes things worse. The way to fix the sin of rechilus and to repent is to apologize to the one spoken about and to admit your wrongdoing to Hashem, decide to try to never do it again and regret what you had said. Classic steps of repentance between man and man and man and Hashem. However, it should be noted that Rav Yisrael Salanter poskined that if the person spoken about does not know then one should not go over to him and tell him what you did and apologize because it will most likely make him feel bad even if you are trying to apologize. Making a person feel bad is worse. The Chofetz Chaim argues and says you should apologize anyways, however the Chofetz Chaim does give another word of advice which might be helpful for Rav Yisrael Salanter’s view which is if you did speak rechilus to someone then you should strategize and put in much effort to try to reverse the hatred you instilled in the listener’s heart, in that way you fix the sin as if it never happened.
Naso – Humility and Humiliation
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.
The last part of this week’s Torah portion of Naso discusses the dedication of the Mishkan. Each of the heads of the tribe brought a set of offerings at the dedication. The first was Yehuda, (Bamidbar 7:12,13).
| The one who brought his offering on the first day was Nahshon the son of Aminadav of the tribe of Yehuda. | יבוַיְהִ֗י הַמַּקְרִ֛יב בַּיּ֥וֹם הָֽרִאשׁ֖וֹן אֶת־קָרְבָּנ֑וֹ נַחְשׁ֥וֹן בֶּן־עַמִּֽינָדָ֖ב לְמַטֵּ֥ה יְהוּדָֽה: | |
| 13And his offering was one silver bowl weighing one hundred and thirty [shekels], one silver sprinkling basin [weighing] seventy shekels according to the holy shekel, both filled with fine flour mixed with olive oil for a meal offering. | יגוְקָרְבָּנ֞וֹ קַֽעֲרַת־כֶּ֣סֶף אַחַ֗ת שְׁלשִׁ֣ים וּמֵאָה֘ מִשְׁקָלָהּ֒ מִזְרָ֤ק אֶחָד֙ כֶּ֔סֶף שִׁבְעִ֥ים שֶׁ֖קֶל בְּשֶׁ֣קֶל הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ שְׁנֵיהֶ֣ם | מְלֵאִ֗ים סֹ֛לֶת בְּלוּלָ֥ה בַשֶּׁ֖מֶן לְמִנְחָֽה: |
Rabbeinu Bachye says that the tribe of Yehuda came first for all the things, whether the travels in the desert with the flags, the dedication of the Mishkan, or during war, as well as inheriting the land, and the future redemption (may it come speedily in our days.) By the offerings of the tribes, the Torah writes “his offering,” but by Nachshon (here), who was the first, the Torah writes “and his offering,” the reason being that he would not feel haughty above the others and say ‘I am first before everyone else.’ Therefore, pasuk 13 begins “And his offering,” as if he came after everyone else; and by everyone else it says “his offering,” as if each one was first. For this reason, it does not mention the title of ‘prince’ by Nachshon, but by all other tribal leaders who brought their offering after him they are given the title of ‘prince.’ (Click here for Hebrew text.)
We see from this Rabbeinu Bachye that in order to avoid any haughtiness coming from the tribe of Yehuda and their leader, Nachshon ben Aminadav, Hashem added an “and,” which implies he was not first and left out his deserved title of prince whereas everyone received their title.
Isn’t this a game? The Tribe of Yehuda and it’s head certainly knew who they were and would always be first; deserving of the kingship, which wound up coming through the Davidic line leading up to Moshiach. So why should one added letter and one less word in the Torah make an impact to subjugate their potential haughtiness, especially if it’s not totally true, they really were the first to bring the offering and he really was a prince like all the other tribal leaders?
However, it would seem that this is not a game. When a person sees he is different from everyone else and the message is a message of inferiority, even though he knows intellectually it is not true, but the “in your face” message can make an impact on a person psychologically, and someone who knows he is number one will automatically be humbled.
If that is the case for someone who is on top, then all the more so a lowly person, who might not have the greatest self-esteem, will be triggered and tormented even by the slightest and most subtle of remarks regarding subjugation, and that will cause great humiliation. Therefore, others have to be very careful what they say or do, and especially to not purposefully hurt someone’s feelings even with what seem to be a very minor joke or insult.
Sefer Chofetz Chaim hilchos rechilus chapter 3 halachos 2-4
Halacha 2: For example-If David told Chaim that Mike got a C on his test. Then Chaim went to Mike and told him I heard from David that you got a C on your test. Mike can’t now go to David and ask him how could you tell Chaim I got a C? By saying this Mike is also speaking rechilus about Chaim that he repeated what he heard from David. One should make an excuse that because he transgressed the mitzvah of lashon hara you can now tell the person spoken about what you had heard because he is a sinner and deserves to be called out, but that is not so because he is still part of ” Your nation” his sin did not warrant being detached from the Jews. Even if Mike didn’t say Chaim’s name that he heard it from him, but it can be obviously inferred, it is still forbidden to repeat. One shouldn’t make an excuse that I am not trying to give away the name so I can say that someone told me something about you. Unfortunately now adays many people transgress rechilus in this fashion.
Halacha 3: Even if you don’t send a message to the person spoken about, about what you heard from someone else but you tell other what you heard, using the name you heard it from or it’s obvious who you heard it from it is still rechilus because word spreads and it will get back to the person, who was talking about him and be will not be too happy, as we saw in Shabbos 33b by the case of Yehuda ben Geirim who said what he said to his household and it somehow got to the Roman government so Rebbe Shimon bar Yochai turned him into a pile of bones because he should not have told his family anything. Also in Sanhedrin 29a it sounds like you can’t tell anyone the results of each judge after a verdict, not just the guilty party because the guilty party will find out who was on his side and who wasn’t and will have hatred in his heart for those against him. Now even if you tell people don’t repeat what I have said and they are trustworthy then it must mean What was said is not so good even if it has a pareve or possibly positive slant to it, why then would you tell them to keep it a secret therefore it is still lashon hara. All the more so you can’t tell the relatives of what someone said about their son, parents, or even aunts, cousins etc. Because it is the nature of family to feel anguish out of hearing such things and to hate the people who speak about their family which will cause fights. This is straight out rechilus. There is a source in Shir Hashirim Rabba 1:39 that a father never wants to hear anything negative about his children even if told not to repeat. The medrish actually talks about how Hashem does not want to hear lashon hara about His children. Also we find a Sifri in Re’eh (87) that says that even though a child won’t be a messenger to give physical punishment to his parents for any other sin but for the sin of convincing others to do idolatry, if one of his parents try convincing him, he is the first in line who will have to stone them and cannot cover up and have mercy on them even though it’s a natural feeling. All other relatives it’s just logical that you will want to defend them if you hear lashon hara about them. Even though if a burglar is breaking into your house to steal you can kill him before he tries to burglarize you because since you are protective of your money your instinct is to defend it and then the burglar will want to defend himself and kill you so you can kill him first, and this we, assume applies even if the burglar is a relative or even your son, the natural instinct of protecting your property is so strong still in all in general a person is quick to defend his relatives against others attacks. The one exception to the burglary rule is if the father is the burglar because the father has such mercy on his child that even if he is a burglar he would not kill his son to defend himself if his son would try to defend his property, therefore his son cannot kill him.
Halacha 4: If the purpose of telling others how Shimon spoke lashon hara about Reuvain is so that people will rebuke Shimon that was discussed earlier (part 1, chapter 10, halacha 4) how to deal with that issue.
Shavuos – Megillas Rus – Connecting the Dots
I found a fascinating introduction to Megillas Rus in one of my Mikraos Gedolos on the megillas which I want to share with everyone. (Click Here and Here and Here for Hebrew text.)
“Behold in the days that judges were judging, behold there was a famine in the land” (Rus 1:1). It is mentioned in the Medrish Rabba that 10 famines came to the world: 1. In the days of Adam Harishon… 2. In the time of Lemech… 3. In the days of Avraham… 4. In the time of Yitzchak… 5. In the days of Yaakov… 6. In the days of the judges judging… 7. In the time of Dovid… 8. In the days of Eliyahu… 9. In the days of Elisha… and 10. One will roll out and come to the world in the future… Rebbe Shmuel bar Nachmani said the most important famine was in the days of Dovid. It was supposed to come in the days of Shaul but because he would not have withstood the test it came in the days of Dovid. Rav Chisda bar Rav gave a parable to an attendant who had a box full of bottles and glasses and when he wanted to hang up the box he got a peg and fastened it into the wall to hang the box on it. For this reason all the famines did not come in the days where the people were unstable; rather at times when people were strong and able to stand up to the test at hand.
This medrish split the famines in half. Five were before the Torah was given and from Yaakov until the judges judged there was no famine in the world until the time came for the start of King Dovid’s service to spark and shine. For it is known the famous Chaza”l, ‘I found Dovid My servant. And where was he found? In Sedom.’ It is explicit from here that as long as the seed of Moav had not mixed with the House of Yehuda the light of Dovid was hidden and this reality was not revealed yet. However, in the days of this tzadik, Boaz, who took care of Rus the Moabite, who was the wife of Machlon, only then this reality (the line of Dovid Hamelech with the eventual advent of Moshiach) was revealed in the world.
Therefore, there was a place for the next famine to the rest which will return all the Jews. For this reason, this megilla started with the matter of the famine which was in those days and at the end discusses the lineage and birth of Dovid.
The Megilla is called Rus because all three are connected to each other: 1. The story of Rus eventually marrying Boaz, 2. revealing the roots of Dovid Hamelech’s lineage, and 3. the 6th famine that swept through the land. This connects to the 7th famine in the days of Dovid… where Dovid sought out Hashem in repentance, which then lead to the 8th famine in the days of Eliyahu Hanavi (who will herald in Moshiach). Then came the 9th famine in the days of Eliyahu’s student Elisha, and finally the last famine will be in the days of our righteous Moshiach; in his days the pasuk writes: ‘I will send a famine in the land, but not a famine for bread or a thirst for water but rather to listen to the word of Hashem.’
It’s also brought down in Medrish Rabba of Rus that Rebbe Ze’ira said that this megilla has no mention of purity or impurity, prohibitions or permissibility, so why was it written? To teach us how much good Hashem rewards those who act with kindness. For because Boaz saw the good heart of Rus, that she was imbued with a drive to do acts of kindness, which is one of the 3 signs of a Jew: 1. Merciful, 2. Bashful, 3. Doers of kindness, and Boaz saw in her all 3 attributes… Chaza”l say in a gemara in Shabbos 113b he saw modesty (which stems from the attribute of being bashful) by her, also her great humility when she said ‘I am not like one of your maidservants.’ All of these Boaz saw in Rus and recognized that she was the most fit from all the other women, and possibly she was the female Moabite which was prepared to bring into the world the light of the King Moshiach. For this reason he researched into her and thus the prophet Shmuel wrote at length this megilla to tell us who Rus was and how it came about that Rus was brought into the congregation of the Jews, who brought her on her journey. Therefore this megilla was called Rus to show that the main story was about her.
In the end it gives the account of the lineage from Peretz, the son of Yehuda, until the birth of Dovid and no more, because it also seems this megilla was written in order to trace the lineage of Dovid, in how Hashem orchestrated that Dovid would come out of Rus the Moabite. Hashem declared a famine on the land, and He put into the thoughts of Elimelech to move far away from Beis Lechem Yehuda to the land of Moav. His sons then married Moabite women, and Rus who came back with her mother-in-law, and wound up falling in “levirate marriage” to Boaz, to keep up the name of his family. They gave birth to Oved the father of Yishai, who was the father of Dovid. When Dovid came of age and killed Goliath, and King Shaul promised that anyone who would kill Goliath would marry his daughter, there was a huge argument amongst the sages of Israel if Dovid was permitted to enter the Congregation of Israel since it is written in the Torah that an Ammonite or Moabite may never enter the congregation of Hashem. But then Shmuel Hanavi sent word and poskined that only the males from Ammon and Moav were forbidden but the females were permitted (and Dovid came from a female Moabite), and they accepted this halacha. Since Shmuel saw that the main reason why Dovid was permitted to marry a Jewess was because of what he poskined, and if he would have been dead then they would have invalidated Dovid from marrying into the faith, therefore he wrote this megilla at great length to inform and show the world Dovid’s lineage.
In order that this megilla would not get lost through the years it was set into the holy scriptures of Tana”ch amongst the Kesuvim. Since Shavuos is the day we received the Torah, which is called the Torah of Kindness, and Dovid came from Rus the Moabite, one who was imbued with kindness, and he was born on Shavuos and died on Shavuos, and also the Torah and the name of Moshiach were created together before the creation of the world, and Dovid himself is the anointed one of the G-D of Yaakov, as it’s written ‘and Dovid My servant is a prince of theirs’ – therefore we read this megilla on the holiday of Shavuos.
From this introduction to the Book of Rus we see how Hashem has a master plan throughout the history of the world from before its creation to the very end and to see how it’s being orchestrated and played out with such exactitude and precision is an awesome sight to behold! We just must open our eyes, hearts and mind to see how Hashem’s master plan unfolds itself.
Bechukosai – Yerushalayim: Center of Torah Learning
This dvar Torah is dedicated in memory of Todd Miller a”h upon the occasion of his yahretzeit this past week and a continued refuah shleima for my father, Moshe Chaim ben Raizel, may he get better soon.
This week we conclude the book of Vayikra. Towards the end of this Torah portion of Bechukosai we find the mitzvah of maaser biheima, tithing of domesticated animals. This is one of three mitzvos that one has to go to Yerushalayim and eat the food that had been separated. The other two are maaser sheini, second tithes of produce, and nata revai, fruit from the 4th year after a tree was planted. A tenth of one’s herd must be brought to Yerushalayim, the blood and chelev, non-kosher fats, were sacrificed on the alter in the Beis Hamikdash and the meat had to be eaten in Yerushalayim by those who brought it.
The Sefer Hachinuch gives a reason behind this mitzvah (#356): “The root of the mitzvah is that Hashem chose the nation of Israel and desired for the sake of His righteousness that all of them are involved in learning Torah and knowing His Name. In His wisdom He set up this mitzvah so that they will learn to take mussar, for G-D knows that most people are pulled after their lowly physical state, since they are physical, and they don’t give their souls over to the pursuit of toiling in Torah and constant involvement in thereof, therefore He set up with His intellect and at least gave them a central location where everyone knows His words of Torah. Though there is no doubt that everyone sets up their home where they have to earn a living, therefore when every person brings up the tithes of their sheep and cattle every year to the place where people are involved in wisdom and Torah, which is Yerushalayim, the place where the Sanhedrin, high court, those that know knowledge and understand education, and so to tithes of grain are brought there 4 out of 7 years that lead up to shemita, the sabbatical year, as is known that maaser sheni is eaten there, as well as nata revai is also eaten there, therefore the owner of the money that was set aside to redeem and eat these mitzvos, will have a chance to learn Torah or he sends one of his children to learn there while eating from all the produce that must be redeemed. In this way, there will be in every Jewish house a wise person who knows Torah, who learned it with wisdom in every household. Then the whole land will be filled with the knowledge of Hashem. If there would only be one sage in each city or even ten, there would still be many people in each city, especially the women and children who would only visit them maybe once a year, or even if they go to their Torah classes once a week, by the time they get home it goes in one ear and out the other, but if there is a teacher in each and every household who lives there day in and day out evening, morning, and afternoon, who is always being cautious with what they are doing then everyone, men, women and children will be more observant. There won’t be any accidental or purposeful sin found amongst them. They will merit the fulfillment of the pasuk, ‘I will place My dwelling inside you… and you will be for Me a nation and I will be for you G-d.'” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Hashem in His incredibly, deep wisdom set up a system to ensure the continuity of Torah learning on a deep level, with a way for each and every household to be involved and active in such an education and upbringing. But why does it have to revolve around the element of food to ensure its success? Exactly what is the precise teaching and mussar haskel, lesson in character development, that Hashem was trying to teach us?
Today we see that Yerushalayim is the center of Torah education. Many of our children, post high school, attend yeshivas and seminaries for at least one year and hopefully come back changed with a better foundation in Torah observance and appreciation of the Torah, which will be the basis for the rest of their lives when raising a family. However, to ensure this would be a guaranteed life-changer as the Sefer Hachinuch describes, why couldn’t Hashem create a mandatory draft, a mitzvah for at least one person in every household to spend a few years in yeshiva, with mandatory follow-up conventions and refresher courses in Yerushalayim which would produce the same results as bringing the tithes of livestock and produce, as well as fruits from the fourth year of a tree’s growth, to be only eaten in Yerushalayim in order to have a reason to go there to learn? Why is a connection needed between eating these foods and learning in Yerushalayim in order for the continuity of Torah observance to be a success?
However, as the Sefer Hachinuch points out, in Hashem’s infinite wisdom He wanted to ensure that this plan is done correctly and He knows that people on some level, if possible, would look to find ways to dodge a draft. Therefore, as a moral lesson, knowing the ways the physical human being works, and what he is drawn to, Hashem connected one’s livelihood or means of physical survival with his ultimate success in walking in the ways of Hashem and ensuring that one’s family will also properly perform Hashem’s will. Therefore, Hashem created these 3 mitzvos of maaser sheni, maaser biheima, and nata revai, as means to ensure every Jewish family will send household members to Yerushalayim to learn Hashem’s Torah, the guidebook for life, so that they can then go home and lead their families properly in Hashem’s service. It is interesting to note that most yeshivas and seminaries now a days provide food for their students but it would seem back in the day that the parents would provide the food, i.e. the meat from maaser biheima, and the produce from maaser sheni and neta revai, when they sent their children to yeshiva in Yerushalayim as the Sefer Hachinuch points out here and the Moshav Zekeinim points out in parshas Re’eh (14:23) by the mitzvah of maser sheni.
The lesson here is that to ensure success it is a smart thing to recognize our weaknesses and frailties and figure out how to incorporate them into doing what is right in this way one’s plans will be fulfilled, like in this case by the plan of of ensuring every Jew to be a true servant of Hashem.
Sefer Chofetz Chaim hilchos rechilus chapter 3 halacha 1
It is forbidden to speak rechilus even if it is totally true and even if it’s not in front of the person you said you heard it from. All the more so if he is standing there, and you are brazen enough to say what he said about him, even if he already knows that the guy said it, it is still forbidden and considered rechilus. Saying it in front of the person who you heard it from is worse for two reasons: 1. You are causing more hatred and setting up a worse fight if you have the audacity to tell the person spoken about what the other guy said about him in his face, makes it more believable. 2. There are other prohibitions that are very easily applied in this circumstance. There is a gemara in Shabbos 118b which quotes a personal testament of Rebbe Yossi that in his life he never said something behind anyone’s back. This could mean that you can speak rechilus behind someone’s back but the Chofetz Chaim goes into much detail to prove that wrong through gemaras, the Rambam, Sma”g, and Tosfos, many we have seen already. There is a famous Yerushalmi in Peah 1:5 which says 3 people are killed when lashon hara is spoken: the speaker, the one accepting lashon hara and the one talked about. The Rambam quotes this gemara and the Beis Yosef, Rav Yosef Cairo’s commentary on the Rambam makes it sound like it only applies to lashon hara nor rechilus, but the Chofetz Chaim clarifies that the Rambam is arguing on the Raavad , for the Raavad holds the gemara only applies to rechilus like the example given in the gemara but the Rambam in fact holds it applies to both lashon hara and rechilus.
Behar – Attitude of “Love Your Neighbor as Yourself”
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 this week’s Torah portion of Behar we find the mitzvah of supporting the needy. “If your brother becomes destitute and his hand falters beside you, you shall support him [whether] a convert or a resident, so that he can live with you” (Vayikra 25:35). The Yefe Toar observes that there are eight terms for a poor person in Hebrew and the one used in this pasuk, יָמ֣וּךְ, is the last one, the lowliest and most impoverished of poor people.
About this mitzvah, the Medrish Rabba brings a pasuk from Koheles: “On a day of good, be among the good, and on a day of bad, see; God has made one corresponding to the other, to the end that man will find nothing after Him” (Koheles 7:14). The medrish states, “Rebbe Tanchum the son of Rebbe Chiya opened [his lecture with this pasuk] ‘On a day of good, be among the good, and on a day of bad, see; God has made one corresponding to the other.’ If bad comes upon your friend see how you can find merit for him and support him so that you can accept your reward. This is what Rebbe Tanchum the son of Rebbe Chiya did: When his mother told him to buy a litra of meat he bought two, to give the other one to the poor. This fulfilled the second half of the pasuk, ‘God has made one corresponding to the other,’ Hashem made poor and rich so that they can help each other, therefore Moshe warned the Jews, ‘If your brother becomes destitute’” (Vayikra Rabba, Behar, 34:5).
The Matnos Kehuna points out that the Medrish Rabba in Koheles elaborates more on this medrish. There it says that “Rebbe Tanchum the son of Rebbe Chiya explained this pasuk in Koheles in terms of the poor and rich. On a good day of your friend rejoice with him. And on a bad day see; see how to support the poor so that you will receive reward through them. This is what Rebbe Tanchum would do, if he would need to buy a litra of meat he would buy two, one for himself and one for the poor. Two bundles of vegetable, one for himself and one for the poor. ‘One corresponding to the other’ refers to poor and rich that help each other out,” (Koheles Rabba 7:30). The Maharz”u in Vayikra Rabba, after quoting the medrish in Koheles, explains the conclusion of the medrish that the poor take tzedakah, charity, from the rich and in turn the rich get a good reward.
At first glance it seems almost selfish that the reason to help the poor is in order to give yourself Heavenly reward; why does this sound right? Shouldn’t one give charity out of a true feeling of benevolence? Furthermore, why when times are good for another we rejoice with our friend, but in bad times you have to first see what to do, then act? The Rada”l in Koheles Rabba in fact explains that on the day your friend experiences bad tidings, you should see how to do good for him. The word see connotes intellectually looking into, how to do something, as it says, ‘Happy is the one who uses his intelligence for the poor’. Why not also put in effort into making someone happy who is already having a good day?
However, it would seem from these two midrashim that they aren’t just trying to share the secret importance of why it is worthwhile to do chesed and kindly help those who are in need, but rather they are setting up the attitude one should have when helping the needy. It should come naturally to you, just as when you would like something from the grocery store you get double, one for yourself and one for the poor. It’s just part of your shopping list, it’s not an addition, it’s part of your own list, because you are getting for yourself by getting for those in need since you are receiving something when giving to others. I.e. heavenly reward, which is the most important need for anyone in life. This natural attitude even goes as far as for those who are so lowly and destitute that you are turned off from their very presence, still in all, it is inside each and every one of us to be able to have this natural desire to help them, like something part of your own agenda in life.
The Rada”l goes a step further. You don’t necessarily get exactly double of what you get for yourself, you have to put some thought into what you are doing. Make sure you get others what will be beneficial for them; do acts of kindness with intelligence, using your head to think of what they would want, just as you would want to receive what you yourself want.
That is the attitude one should have when helping others who are having a bad day, but those who are having a good day all you need to do is share in their happiness. They don’t need anything else, or in fact probably want something else, because they are enjoying the good that came their way. The best thing for you to do is just to appreciate that good with them. Don’t try to do more for them because that might imply that the good they think they have might not be enough, but in fact it is and they just want you to be happy with it and share it with others.
In fact, it takes a lot of foresight to recognize the good others have and appreciate it with them just as one needs to use his mind to figure out how to help one in need who is having a bad day in the best way fit for him.
Sefer Chofetz Chaim hilchos rechilus chapter 2 halachos 3, 4
We concluded the 2nd chapter of hilchos rechilus today. There is an opinion out there that if lashon hara (or at least something that could be taken negative) was told in a group of at 3 least, one can tell the person being talked about who said it because he will find out anyway since word spreads. However you should not rely on this opinion as we elaborated in the laws of Lashon Hara chapter 2, since the Maharsha”l says that the Rambam, Sma”g, and Tosfos all argue on this opinion and forbade in all circumstances repeating what you hear or who said it even if you heard it in a group and even to tell someone else besides the one being talked about.
There are 3 practical cases listed here which apply to this concept. The theme of each of these cases is that if someone is trying out something or researching something one shouldn’t divulge to anyone what he was doing if it doesn’t happen.
A. If Reuvain was business partners with Shimon and he decided he wanted to go someplace else and tried out becoming partners in Levi’s business. If things don’t work out and he decides to stay with Shimon, then no one can tell Shimon that Reuvain was thinking of leaving his business because that will cause friction. Even if word leaks no individual should tell Shimon what Reuvain wanted to go elsewhere because it never panned out and they stayed together so it’s forbidden to create any friction.
B. A guy was dating a girl and after a couple dates he wasn’t sure he wanted to go on. Someone offered him another shidduch and he looked into and decided it’s not for him, so he decided to continue dating who he is currently and they wind up getting engaged and living happily ever after. Even if multiple people knew he was checking out another girl no one can tell the one he is dating that he checked out someone else but wasn’t interested because that will still cause friction.
C. If a Rav of a shul secretly got an interview with another shul but was turned down no one who knew of the interview can tell people in his current shul about it because, again it will cause friction and distrust. People have a right to look into things and make preparations if they think their current situation isn’t ideal and if nothing happens and they stay where they are then they have a right to privacy and no one else should know what they did, no harm done and life goes on, so why put thoughts into people minds and cause trouble that is rechilus!
Emor – Normal Paranoia
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.
The mitzvah of lighting the menorah in the Mishkan is reiterated towards the end of this week’s Torah Portion of Emor. It was first enumerated in the beginning of the Torah portion of Tetzave. The Baal HaTurim as well as others found a discrepancy between the two portions. For in this week’s portion it writes “Outside the dividing curtain of the testimony in the Tent of Meeting, Aharon shall set it up before Hashem from evening to morning continually. [This shall be] an eternal statute for your generations” (Vayikra 24:3). But in Tetzave it writes “In the Tent of Meeting, outside the dividing curtain that is in front of the testimony, Aharon and his sons shall set it up before Hashem from evening to morning; [it shall be] an everlasting statute for their generations, from the children of Israel” (Shemos 27:21). Why are Aharon and his sons commanded to light the menorah in Tetzave, but only Aharon in Emor?
The Baal HaTurim answers that after Nadav and Avihu died when they entered the Sanctuary, Aharon did not allow his sons to enter alone; rather he would enter with them. However, when they would sacrifice the incense, he would leave.(Click Here for Hebrew text.)
It would seem that only Aharon was told in Emor what to do because he was always there, but others in his family performed the services in the Mishkan as well.
The conclusion of the the Baal HaTurim was referring to a Mishna at the end of the first perek of Mishnayos Keilim. There it says “and the people must keep away from the area between the porch and the altar when the incense is being burned” (Keilim 1:9). This means when the incense is being burned on a daily basis, the people must leave both the Sanctuary and the area between the porch and the altar.
Aharon’s children and rest of the family were righteous people who served as Kohanim in the Mishkan. We can assume whatever mistake Nadav and Avihu had done, the rest of them had learned a lesson, and clearly understood all the rules of being a Kohen, one example being not doing the service while inebriated, which was clearly enumerated after the incident. We can also assume they had an immense amount of Yiras Shamayim, fear and trepidation of Heaven, and certainly of Divine punishment, when they performed the Holy Service daily. Furthermore, we know Aharon fully accepted the Heavenly decree of his children, Nadav and Avihu’s passing, and he was even rewarded for his unquestionable allegiance to Hashem. As Rashi pointed out in the pasuk of “and Aharon was silent” (Vayikra 10:3), after their death. Why then did Aharon feel the need to accompany his children into the Mishkan on a daily basis?
What is even more astonishing is that the one service Aharon did not stay for was the incense offering, which the Torah says is when Nadav and Avihu died, trying to offer incense on the Alter. If Aharon was ready and able to not be there for the very service that “killed” his sons, then why must he feel he must be there at every other time?
There is a term in modern psychology called PTSD – Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It is possible on some miniscule level that Aharon Kohen Gadol, someone who was a rodef shalom, ran after peace and therefore was well liked and respected by everyone, who was also ready and did accept the decree from Hashem without any hesitations or qualms whatsoever, on such a high level of emuna and bitachon, faith and trust in Hashem, with a strict adherence to Torah and mitzvos, as proven from the fact that he would not be in the Mishkan when the incense was offered because that was against halacha, Jewish law – still in all he was concerned for the lives of his children and felt he must be there every other time they did the service in the Mishkan, just to ensure nothing went wrong. It sounds a tiny bit like paranoia but it would seem that on some level it is normal and natural, and that is why Aharon even on his level acted in this manner.
The gadlus, or greatness of Aharon Kohen Gadol, was that he controlled the stress. He didn’t allow the stress to overtake him, and therefore he did what was right according to halacha and was not present at the service of the incense even though one would think he would for sure be there since at that time Nadav and Avihu died. But his unnerving trust in Hashem kept him strong.