Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Biha’aloscha – The Negative Effect Physical Desires for Food Have on Faith

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.

There are two episodes in the Torah which seem to mirror each other but had vastly different outcomes. In this week’s Torah portion Biha’aloscha the Jews complained that they were not given meat to eat which they desired, as the Torah states, “But the multitude among them began to have strong cravings. Then even the Children of Israel once again began to cry, and they said, ‘Who will feed us meat? We remember the fish that we ate in Egypt free of charge, the cucumbers, the watermelons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic. But now, our bodies are dried out, for there is nothing at all; we have nothing but manna to look at’” (Bamidbar 11:4-6).  Hashem responded, “And to the people, you shall say, ‘Prepare yourselves for tomorrow and you shall eat meat, because you have cried in the ears of the Lord saying, ‘Who will feed us meat, for we had it better in Egypt.’ [Therefore,] the Lord will give you meat, and you shall eat. You shall eat it not one day, not two days, not five days, not ten days, and not twenty days. But even for a full month until it comes out your nose and nauseates you. Because you have despised the Lord Who is among you, and you cried before Him, saying, ‘Why did we ever leave Egypt’” (11:18-20)? In the end, “The people rose up all that day and all night and the next day and gathered the quails. [Even] the one who gathered the least collected ten heaps. They spread them around the camp in piles. The meat was still between their teeth; it was not yet finished, and the anger of the Lord flared against the people, and the Lord struck the people with a very mighty blow” (11:32, 33). The Jewish people were in the desert for a couple of years at that point, and were on the way to Israel to possess their Promise Land, before they sent the spies. They had been eating nourishing manna all this time, yet the Ralbag in this week’s Torah portion says that they didn’t lust for something they required, they were simply running after their desires, since the manna was technically enough for them. But there was a group of lowlifes that left with the Jews out of Egypt who had convinced many of the Jews to cry and say that they very much desired that Hashem give them meat to eat, and even though they had a surplus of cattle, as it says, “And also, a great mixed multitude went up with them, and flocks and cattle, very much livestock” (Shemos 12:38), yet they wanted to find some excuse to have Hashem give them meat.

In a similar vein, right after the Jewish people witnessed all the miracles of the Exodus from Egypt and the splitting of the sea, when their belief and trust in Hashem reached such a peak that Hashem testified, “so said the Lord: I remember to you the loving kindness of your youth, the love of your nuptials, your following Me in the desert, in a land not sown” (Yirmiyahu 2:2), an expression of endearment for the Jewish people following blindly Hashem out of Egypt into a barren desert. Yet the Torah relates, “The entire community of the children of Israel complained against Moses and against Aaron in the desert. The children of Israel said to them, If only we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by pots of meat, when we ate bread to our fill! For you have brought us out into this desert, to starve this entire congregation to death…And Moses said, When the Lord gives you in the evening meat to eat and bread in the morning [with which] to become sated, when the Lord hears your complaints, which you are making [the people] complain against Him, but [of] what [significance] are we? Not against us are your complaints, but against the Lord… And Moses said to Aaron, Say to the entire community of the children of Israel, Draw near before the Lord, for He has heard your complaints.…It came to pass in the evening that the quails went up and covered the camp, and in the morning there was a layer of dew around the camp. The layer of dew went up, and behold, on the surface of the desert, a fine, bare [substance] as fine as frost on the ground” (Shemos 16:2-3, 8-9, 13-14). They just left Egypt with such wonderous miracles as eating from fruit trees miraculously grown and producing succulent fruit as they were walking through dryland in the splitting of the Red Sea, as well as drinking fresh water from the walls of salty seawater on either side of them, plus much sheep and cattle which left with them out of Egypt. Yet when they got to the desert of Cin their physical desire of hunger caused them to complain to Hashem. Yet at that point Hashem listened to them but did not punish them; on the contrary, he began giving them manna and quail.

What was the difference between these two episodes? Both times it would seem that the Jewish people were at such great height of belief and trust in Hashem that they should have trusted in Hashem to feed them at first, and later what Hashem had been feeding them; yet they complained that they wanted to go back to Egypt, as the Ralbag in the Torah portion of Bishalach says, since meat was found there in plenty. Both times Hashem listened to their complaints and gave them what they wanted. But the second time they were punished, and many died; what changed?
The Ralbag in his Toaliyos learns a very important lesson from here in this week’s portion, “this is to inform us that it is not befitting of a person to run after his physical desires, for we see what happened to those who ran after their desires and many of them died. However, the Almighty Hashem wanted to fulfill their request to show the nation that the hand of Hashem is not shorthanded so that they will strengthen their faith in the Almighty Hashem. He showed them the He brought for them such an abundance of meat to last a month, for even the least amount a person gathered was ten laden donkeys full. Now, behold The Almighty Hashem did not punish when they asked for meat and bread in the Desert of Cin because then they did not have manna and it was appropriate for them to ask for bread and sustenance. However, now, when they had manna the problem was, they were running after their physical desires or their intent was to test The Almighty Hashem if he can give them meat in such abundance.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
We first learn from here that one’s physical desires, at the very least for food, can cause someone, even at such lofty levels of belief and trust in Hashem, to question their faith.
We also see how two episodes, which at first glance look exactly the same, can have drastically different results. For in the first case in Bishalach, all they wanted was a much-needed well-balanced diet, which Hashem patiently provided when they asked for it, though they did so in the form of a complaint. But in this week’s portion of Biha’aloscha their complaints stemmed from running after a desire that they wanted but did not need. Therefore, even though Hashem did fulfill their request, just to teach them a lesson in strengthening their faith, it came with deadly consequences.

It is very important to get to the root of an issue and to see the subtle differences before concluding that two things might look the same.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 5, halachos 7, 8

Today we concluded the fifth chapter of Sefer Chofetz Chaim.

Halacha 7 discusses how not only you cannot speak lashon hara about your fellow Jew but also about his objects. For example two business competitors cannot speak negative about their competitor’s products. This stems from jealousy and is a Torah level prohibition of lashon hara.

Halacha 8 teaches us that not only speaking loshon hara by yourself even if it is true is prohibited, but all the more so, two or more people speaking lasho hara about someone else is forbidden because the second person is giving credence to the first and the people listening will more likely believe what is said which cause a bigger disgrace to the one being talked about.

The Chofetz Chaim elaborates on this point in his Be’er Mayim Chaim (11) below and makes a very important point of what exactly is lashon hara. He says, not only is it lashon hara if two people are speaking at the same time but if one person speaks after the other, even though the first one already did the damage it is still lashon hara for the second one because lashon hara is speaking negatively about your fellow Jew, as we see by Miriam to Aharon who spoke lashon hara about Moshe, though it was only in private, she loved Moshe, only meant well, and Moshe wasn’t insulted one iota, still in all she got tzaraas because she spoke negatively about her fellow Jew. The insult, and damage that is caused is only a biproduct of lashon hara that just makes it worse.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #119

Question: What is the difference between a sefer Torah on Shabbos found to be invalid but fixable where the Beis Yosef in the name of Rashba (See Taz Orach Chaim 32:18) says one can still use it still since it is fixable it’s as if it’s already fixed but if one hears Kaddish or Kedusha while davening Shemone Esray and waits silently until it is over then it is not as if one said it according to many Rishonim as brought in the Ra”n in Sukkah 38b even though we should apply the same logic that if one has a problem and can potentially fix it it’s as if he did it even before fixing it?

Background:

A.      The Bach says that “Kol Ha raui libila ein bilah mi’akeves” applies by the sefer Torah even if you aren’t allowed to fix it on Shabbos because there is nothing stopping the Torah from being fixed just a scribe cannot violate Shabbos.

B.      Why not say the same by a person davening Shemone esray that the person can really say the kedusha or kaddish but his shemone esray is just stopping him from saying it so by being silent it is as if he said the kedusha or kaddish?

 A2. Only by sefer Torah where nothing is stopping the sefer Torah just the person can’t fix it on Shabbos do we say that it is as if it is fixed but the same person who can’t talk because something is stopping him from doing so can physically talk if he wanted to, so it is not as if he said it.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #118

1.       Question: According to the Ra”n and Rema (Orach Chaim 38:8) who says if one is involved in a mitzvah he is exempt from another mitzvah even if you can fulfill both of them then why should one stop and say kedusha if he is in the middle of reciting the Shema?

Background:

A.      The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 66:1) poskins that one can pause in reciting the Shema to say shalom to a person passing by who he reveres, for example his father or rebbe.

Answer: If one has an obligation to say shalom to a person he fears all the more so he should recite kedusha if the minyan is up to there in order to give honor to Hashem. The Mishna Berura there (19) says that if one pauses to say hello to a person all the more so for the sake of honoring Hashem. Therefore it has nothing to do with the concept of being involved in one mitzvah exempts one from another mitzvah.

Posted on

Naso – Expectations to Appreciate What You Can Have

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 Naso we discuss the status of a nazir. A nazir separates oneself from this world in 3 ways; he or she cannot cut their hair, drink wine or any grape products and cannot come in contact with the dead. An average nazirus [period of being a nazir]  is thirty days. The Torah states, “Speak to the children of Israel, and you shall say to them: A man or woman who sets oneself apart by making a nazirite vow to abstain for the sake of the Lord” (Bamidbat 6:2), and Rashi asks there, “Why is the section dealing with the nazarite placed in juxtaposition to the section dealing with the sotah? To tell you that he who has once seen a sotah in her disgrace should abstain from wine, because it may lead to adultery (Sotah 2a)…Too keep himself aloof from wine for the sake of Heaven. (Nedarim 9b, Sifri Naso 1:84.)”

The nazir is separating oneself from worldly matters for formidable reasons, for the sake of heaven; for example, in order to not fall into sin. Yet the Gemara in Taanis 11a says, “Shmuel said: Whoever sits in observance of a fast is called a sinner, as it is inappropriate to take unnecessary suffering upon oneself. The Gemara comments: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of the following tanna, as it is taught in a baraisa: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Great says: What is the meaning when the verse states, with regard to a nazirite: “And he will atone for him for that he sinned by the soul [nefesh]” (Numbers 6:11). But with what soul did this nazirite sin? Rather, the nazirite sinned by the distress he caused himself when he abstained from wine, in accordance with the terms of his vow. And are these matters not inferred a fortiori (kal vachomer)? And if this nazirite, who distressed himself by abstaining only from wine, is nevertheless called a sinner and requires atonement, then with regard to one who distresses himself by abstaining from each and every matter of food and drink when he fasts, all the more so should he be considered a sinner.”

The Torah says a sacrificial atonement has to be brought by the nazir if he was in contact with the dead and ruined his first nazirus (see Rashi in Nazir 19a that says that a nazir is really liable as soon as he began to abstain from wine but he only is allowed to attain his atonement when he messes up and has to start all over again.) The Torah specifically states, “The kohen shall prepare one for a sin offering and one for a burnt offering and atone on his behalf for sinning on his soul, and he shall sanctify his head on that day” (Bamidbar 6:11).

The Daas Zekeinim explaining what exact sin the nazir has done saying that “sinning on his soul” (מֵֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר חָטָ֖א עַל־הַנָּ֑פֶשׁ) is similar to the language used in Shoftim 20:16, “All these could sling a stone at a hair-breadth and not miss.” (כָּל־זֶ֗ה קֹלֵ֧עַ בָּאֶ֛בֶן אֶל־הַֽשַּׂעֲרָ֖ה וְלֹ֥א יַחֲטִֽא). The Targum says it means “he changed from;” in this case he changed his soul and prevented it from drinking wine. This is similar to the drasha brought by Chaza”L, ‘who distressed himself abstaining from wine.’ (Click here for Hebrew text.)
The Daas Zekeinim is explaining this pasuk based on the gemaras in Nazir and Taanis which say that a nazir deserves an atonement for just abstaining from what he was once permitted. This isn’t a sin per say but it still is deserving of an atonement because he is going against the norm and what he has been accustomed to. Why is this a problem, especially in lieu of the fact that Rashi pointed out earlier that he is doing this for the sake of Heaven, to not indulge too much in worldly matters, and to stay away from sin? Also, wine is known to be something which can cause much harm or inappropriateness, like what happened by Noach and Lot. So it would seem that what a nazir is doing is a very positive thing; so why is he deserving of an atonement even if he did not mess up on his nazirus?

It would seem that forbidding something which G-D permits to you is a problem because you are changing something which  you are allowed to have. The reason why this is a problem deserving of an atonement can be understood from the words of the Mesillas Yesharim and Orchos Tzadikim.
The Mesilas Yesharim in his section on Kedusha, chapter 26, says “Behold, for the man sanctified with the holiness of his Creator, even his physical deeds become actual matters of holiness. A sign of this is in “the eating of temple offerings”, which our sages of blessed memory said: “the priests eat and the owners obtain atonement” (Pesachim 59b)… But for the Holy man who constantly clings to his G-d, whose soul treads freely among true thoughts in love of his Creator and fear of Him, behold, it is considered as if he is walking before G-d in the Land of the Living, while still here in this world. Such a man is himself considered as a tabernacle, a temple and an altar. This is as our sages said (Gen. Rabba 62:6)… For the Shechina (divine presence) dwells within them just as it dwelled in the Temple. Due to this, the food they eat is like a sacrifice offered upon the fire of the altar, for certainly it was a great elevation for those things to be offered on the altar, since they were offered before the Shechina… So too, the food and drink which the holy man eats elevates that food or drink as if it had actually been offered on the altar… and “[if a man wishes to offer a wine libation upon the altar], let him fill the throat of the Torah scholars with wine” (Yomah 71a). This does not mean that Torah scholars were craving for food and drink, G-d forbid, that one fills their throats like one stuffs a glutton. Rather, the matter is according to the intent I explained. That Torah scholars who are holy in their ways and in all their deeds are actually just like the Temple and the altar, for the Shechina (divine presence) literally dwells upon them as it did in the Temple. Thus, what is offered to them is as offered on the altar, and the filling of their throat is as the filling of the basins.”  We see how a righteous person can take something mundane, even wine, and make it holy when being used with proper intentions, and this Nazir wants to lose that potential opportunity by abstaining from wine?! Putting oneself in that potential missed opportunity deserves an atonement! (Click here for Hebrew text.)

Furthermore the Orchos Tzadikim in the Gate of Happiness discusses the pros and cons of drinking, and by the advantages he says: “From all of these citations we can know the praise of wine when it is drunk according to the measure of the wise who drink a specified amount — so that the intelligence may be stronger than the wine and not the wine be stronger than the intelligence, and who drink at a set time, together, and not with those barren of knowledge, vain and empty. For wine adds deep wisdom, a tree of life for those that hold it. And wine adds wisdom to the intelligent person but doubles the folly of the fool. It revives the love of a friend but stirs up the enmity of a foe. It opens the hand of the generous and hardens the heart of a miser. And thus should be the manner of one who drinks wine. He should use the wine as a healing for his worry and thus strengthen himself in Torah to study it with joy, for when a man is plunged in grief he cannot study and even judges of courts of law, when they are grieved, cannot give a clear judgment. Grief also disturbs the concentration of the mind on one’s prayer. Also, when a man is plunged in pain or grief he has not the strength to fulfill the request of someone who is speaking to him or is asking him for a favor. And it is written : “In an acceptable time have I answered you” (Is. 49:8). Therefore, an intelligent person should direct himself in drinking wine in this manner — that he should remember not to drink too much so as to be compelled by his condition to neglect his work and his affairs. And, moreover, he must guard himself from drinking so much that he neglects his study of the Torah and his prayers, or until he becomes too frivolous and lightheaded. And he should not drink to the extent that he reveals his secrets or the secrets of others. And if you will drink in this moderate measure, wine will not become loathsome to you. Even on Holidays and Festivals, of which it is written : “And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God” (Deut. 12:18), one should not prolong his drinking more than is proper, as it is said : “Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joyfulness and with gladness of heart” (Ibid. 28:47). From this you learn that we have not been commanded to rejoice in a manner that the Creator of all is forgotten. For it is impossible to serve the Lord, may He be Blessed, out of lightheadedness, or laughter, or drunkenness.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Ultimately there is a balance that must be made when it comes to indulging in worldly pleasures, especially drinking wine. We cannot deny that Hashem did create a concept of a nazir, as there is a whole portion about it in the Torah and a whole masechta dedicated to it in the gemara. Therefore it must be permitted, and possibly needed, for some people to best stay out of trouble; however we see from here that it is not the ideal situation. One should preferably use drinking wine and other worldly matter for the sake of Heaven, to serve Him  optimally, as Hashem intended for us in this world. For this reason, a nazir, even if he is abstaining for only thirty days and even if he did not break his nazirus, really is in need of atonement.

We see from here how much we must appreciate what Hashem gives us in this world and to use it wisely because that is what Hashem wants us to do.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 5, halachos 5 and 6

Today we learned about the subtleties of speech. A statement can be taken two ways so you have to be very careful with not only what you say but how you say it or about whom you are talking about, time, place, etc. You should be so quick to say I am just trying to help the guy if it might harm him or her. The important rule of thumb that he quotes from the Rambam is that whatever you say that might harm a person physically, monetarily, or cause undo pain and suffering psychologically, or make him terrified of others is lashon hara.

We first discussed that if you call a person weak it might harm him if he is a construction worker, for example, by trait then who will hire him, or if he is weak minded and is a teacher who will hire him? If he is called weak minded maybe people will think he can’t handle a classroom. That is clearly lashon hara. On the other hand if your intent in calling someone weak or not strong is to tell people he is not controlling or over powering then it is not lashon hara, therefore you have to way all the possibilities and ramifications before opening your mouth to speak.

Similarly if you tell people that so and so is not wealthy then it could e really bad because people might not want to work with him or give him alone but on the other hand they might help him and give him tzedakah, so again one has to be careful what he says and t whom he says it to, and how it comes across.

Furthermore, the same statement can be taken two different ways depending on who you talk about. If you say about a guy who is learning in Kollel and being supported by his in-laws that he only learns 3-4 hours a day that is lashon hara. But if you talk about a hard-working entrepreneur who is trying to support a family on his own that he learn Torah 3-4 hours a day that a tremendous praise.

Similarly if you say tell people how a lower income person gives a dollar to anyone who goes over to him and asks for money that is a praise but to say that a millionaire gives a dollar to each person that asks for money, only a dollar, constitutes lashon hara.

One last interesting point the Chofetz Chaim makes is that when the Torah says “Love your neighbor as yourself” and Chazal say “Don’t do something to others which you would hate to be done to you” that does not give you the excuse to say “What’s wrong with saying this guy only learns 3 or 4 hours a day, if people would be saying that about me I would be quite happy!”  That is not what Chaza”l meant, rather you have to view yourself in the other guy’s shoes, and if you were him, you would not want that to be done or said about yourself.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #117

2.       Question: According to the opinion brought in the Magen Avraham (Orach Chaim 637) who says one is allowed to steal from a non-Jew but it is not considered yours, meaning the non-Jew still owns it, why would a lost object of a non-Jew which we poskin a Jew is allowed to keep be any different since the Divrei Chaim and Gilyon Maharsha both say the lost object of a non-Jew is considered ownerless even before he gives up on it. Why is the lost object of a non-Jew owned by the Jew if he finds and takes it but if a Jew steals from a non-Jew even if it is permissible why does it still belong to the non-Jew (as long as he does not give up on it)?

Background:

A. One small hint, but why does it make for a difference: When the non-Jew’s object got into the hands of the Jew by the lost object the non-Jew didn’t have it but when it got into the hands of Jew when stealing it was in the hands of the non-Jew.

 Answer: Because the object was in the non-Jew’s hands that gives him ownership and keeps it with him even after it is stolen since he had control over the object but the lost object, the non-Jew has no control over the object therefore there is nothing to link ownership to him.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #116

1.       Question: It is explained in Bava Metzi’a 33a that if you can only save one lost object flowing down a stream or in a fire etc., either yours or your friend, yours comes first. For the verse “There shall not be a pauper among you” teaches us that your stuff comes before anyone else’s. But why is the mitzvah of returning a lost object different than any other mitzvah where we poskin that we must be willing to spend up to a fifth of our property to perform the mitzvah? The same thing should be true by the mitzvah of returning a lost object, that one should forgo his object if it’s value is less than a fifth of his entire property in order to save and give back his friends object to fulfill the mitzvah!? Why does what obligate the mitzvah of returning a lost object not trigger the obligation of spending up to a fifth but other mitzvos like tzedaka does?

Background:

A. The obligation of spending up to a fifth of one’s property to fulfill a positive mitzvah applies in a case like tzedaka where what obligates a person to give is the poverty of his friend.

B. What obligates the mitzvah of returning a lost object is the loss of Jewish money.

Answer: Loss of money is only an exemption from doing the mitzvah and by giving tzedaka for example that exemption is only applied by spending more than a fifth. But by returning a lost object which the Torah says your lost object is more important than your friends then what is obligating the mitzvah of returning the lost object is not there to require you to spend more than a fifth.

Posted on

Shavuos – No One Published “Understanding G-D for Dummies”

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.

בָּר֥וּךְ כְּבֽוֹד־יְהֹוָ֖ה מִמְּקוֹמֽו
 “Blessed is the glory of the Lord from His place” (Yechezkel 3:12). This pasuk is said, at a minimum, 3 times every morning in our davening, as well as being in every Kedusha. What is the meaning behind this pasuk and why does it conclude the haftorah for the first day of Shavuos?

The Haftorah for the first day of Shavuos comes from the first chapter of Yechezkel which discusses the Maaseh Merkava, Hashem’s “Heavenly Chariot,” because the vision that Yechezkel had in his prophecy is similar to what took place when Hashem gave the Torah to the Jewish people at Har Sinai. The Mishna in the beginning of the second perek of Chagiga says that one may not expound on this subjectexcept with one individual who is a sage and understands of his own knowledge. The Rambam explains the concept of the Maaseh Merkava as trying to understand in detail the reality of Hashem and His description, as well as angels, the soul,  intellect, and what happens after death. The Bartenura argues and says it refers to using “Hashem’s Crown” through mentioning Hashem’s Holy Names, including how exactly angels are arranged in Heaven, and tapping into Divine Intervention, Ruach HaKodesh. Either way, it is a very deep concept which we will not get into. Then the Haftorah seems to randomly conclude with the pasuk in perek 3 pasuk 12 of Yechezkel:

And a wind lifted me up, and I heard behind me the sound of a great uproar: “Blessed is the glory of the Lord from His place.” יבוַתִּשָּׂאֵ֣נִי ר֔וּחַ וָֽאֶשְׁמַ֣ע אַֽחֲרַ֔י ק֖וֹל רַ֣עַשׁ גָּד֑וֹל בָּר֥וּךְ כְּבֽוֹד־יְהֹוָ֖ה מִמְּקוֹמֽוֹ:

The Gemara in Megilla 31a lists which haftorah we read for each Yom Tov, and does not mention this last pasuk. The earliest known source I was able to find was the Tur Orach Chaim, siman 494, which mentions reciting this last pasuk after reading the first chapter of Yechezkel as the Haftorah. It would seem random to throw in a pasuk, two perakim later, to conclude the Haftorah. What seemingly is the connection?
The Yalkut Shimone  puts the pasuk into context, “Rebbe Pinchas the Kohen, the son of Chama said in the name of Rebbe Reuvain, ‘What does and I heard behind me’ mean? After My friends and I praised Hashem I then heard ministering angels praise and declare, ‘Blessed is the glory of the Lord from His place.’ And it says, ‘When the morning stars sing together, and all the angels of G-D shout’ (Iyov 38:7).”  Though very true that “Then the Ofanim, and the Holy Chayos with great noise raise themselves towards the Seraphim. Facing them they give praise saying ‘Blessed is the glory of Hashem from His place,’” as we say every morning in our davening, as alluded to in this medrish; yet  the Radak says on this pasuk that Yechezkel is foretelling through prophecy an appearance of him being lifted by the wind to go into exile, and when he was lifted by the wind he heard a voice from after the place he had his prophesy and the voice said, “Blessed is the glory of the Lord from His place.” This means to say that when Hashem’s Holy Presence removed itself from His place on top of the covering between the Keruvim because the Jewish people were diminishing His honor when He was amongst them, as a sign of His zealotry. It is as if He added to His honor when removing Himself from them. “Blessed” refers to adding on good and honor… And the great sage, the Rambam, explained “From His place” to mean according to His loftiness and His basic role in reality. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
According to the Radak, Yechezkel was prophesizing about Hashem’s Holy Presence leaving the Beis HaMikdash, which led to the destruction of the First Temple. Granted, the Jews did not deserve Hashem’s Presence amongst them with all the miracles that took place daily in the Beis HaMikdash; but why is it considered an added honor for Hashem by acting with zeal to remove Himself from the Holy of Holies? Two wrongs do not make a right! The ideal place for Hashem’s Holy Presence in this world is the Holy of Holies above the Holy Ark, ideally with Hashem’s children following His commands. Why then did the Radak say that by leaving the Jewish people, because they were diminishing His honor, he was then adding honor to Himself?

In reality, the ideal setting for Hashem’s greatness in this world is to rest amongst His children as He did when He initially gave the Torah to us at Har Sinai with all the lightning, thunder, shofar blasts and legions of angels, and as he continued when they erected the Mishkan and eventually the Beis HaMikdash with the Shechina resting above the Aron Kodesh on top of the Keruvim. However, as the Radak concludes, by quoting the Rambam, ultimately Hashem’s greatness and honor is defined by His loftiness and with respect to His basic role in reality, which is in fact a mystery to us, and we can only conjecture using our finite brains.

For this reason it seems very apropos for the haftorah which discussed the Maaseh Merkavah, such a complex concept, to conclude with this pasuk since it is acknowledging how complex the loftiness and very concept and reality in fact is the Almighty, Blessed Be He, King Of All Kings, Master Of The Universe, Hashem.

It is also very apropos for Shavuos itself, because we must appreciate more and more the profundity, depth, and magnitude, of the gift Hashem gave us. By realizing and gaining a better recognition of who the author of the Torah, the blueprints of creation and guidebook for life, is, then we can better appreciate how important it is to serve Him with every detail and minutia as He intended when giving us the Torah at Har Sinai.

Good Yom tov,
Rabbi Dovid Shmuel Milder

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #115

Question: If a bris falls out on a Sunday during the mourning time of the Omer, the Chasam Sofer says one cannot shave Erev Shabbos but if Lag B’omer falls out on Sunday then the Rema says one can shave on Erev Shabbos. What is the difference between a bris and Lag B’omer?

Background:

A.      The Rema (Orach Chaim 493:2) says that one should not cut his hair until Lag B’omer itself, but not by evening, however if it falls out on Sunday there is a custom to cut hair on Friday in honor of Shabbos. And one who is making a bris for his son can cut his hair during sefira in honor of the bris. The Mishna Berura (13) adds that the father, sandek and mohel can get a haircut the night before he goes to shul between mincha and maariv. If the bris is on Shabbos he is permitted to get a haircut the day before even before chatzos, midday.   

Answer: See Dirshu footnote 27 that the difference between a bris and Lag B’omer is that a bris is only a yom tov, joyous occasion for the individual whereas Lag B’omer is a yom tov for everyone.