Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Behar/Bechukosai – Highlighted Addition


It is well known throughout Chaza”l that the way Hashem enforces reward and punishment is measure for measure. An incredible example of this is depicted in the 7th chapter of Tanna D’vei Eliyahu Rabba. Another related factor to take into account is “The measure that a person measures is the way Hashem measures him.” This is elaborated upon in the 11th chapter of Tanna D’vei Eliyahu Rabba.
We find this system of reward and punishment further emphasized and explained in this week’s double portion of Behar and Bechukosai. The Torah portion of Behar begins with discussing the sabbatical and jubilee years (שמיטה ויובל). Then in perek 25, pasuk 17 it discusses the negative commandment of not hurting people with words in personal relationships (לא תונו איש את עמיתו). Then in pasuk 18 it states: “You shall perform My decrees, and observe My laws and perform them; then you shall dwell securely on the land. “
The Chizkuni on pasuk 18 says that “performing My decrees” refers to the mitzvos that have to do with The Land [of Israel] that should be observed during shmittah and yovel. An example of “observing My laws” is this mitzva in pasuk 17 of not aggrieving your fellow Jew. The end of the pasuk is teaching us that the reward for observing Hashem’s mitzvos is that we will not have any fear of being exiled from The Land of Israel. (Click here for Hebrew text.)

In the beginning of the second Torah portion, which is the conclusion of the Book of Vayikra, Bechukosai, it writes: “If you follow My decrees and observe My laws and perform them; then I will provide your rains in their time, and the land will give its produce, and the trees of the field will give its fruit. Your threshing will last until satiety, and you will dwell securely in your land” (Vayikra 26:3-5). The Chizkuni explains, that “if you do what I have put upon you to do, then even the clouds, the land, and the trees that were created for you will do for you what is upon them to do. “Rain will come in its proper time” for if it does not come in their proper, rain can cause the grain to rot. “Your threshing will last until satiety etc.” Just as you will be constantly observing My mitzvos without fail, so too your blessing will come to you without fail and there will not be any delay from one blessing to the next.

Finally, when the pasuk concludes “and you will dwell securely in your land” the Chizkuni observes, “beforehand in parshas Behar (25:18) it had written ‘then you shall dwell securely on the land,’ it now reiterates and highlights its words and adds “in YOUR land” the land that belongs to YOU. But in years of famine people are exiled as it says [by the punishment od Kayin], ‘It (the ground) shall no longer yield its strength to you, you shall be a vagrant and a wanderer on earth’ (Breishis 4:12). It also says in Iyov (15:23), ‘He wanders about for food – where is it?'” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
 In order for the Jews to be deserving of such blessings on a constant and consistent basis, measure for measure, they have to be constantly and consistently fulfilling Hashem’s will with proper intent, love and fear of Hashem. This would take much focus in order to get into the proper habit and rhythm, to be constantly growing in Torah and Mitzvos. If they are so focused, then why does Hashem feel this highlighted addition of “YOUR land” is needed to be emphasized; what would it add to the person who is so focused already in doing good, striving to serve Hashem properly, and live a full and meaningful life? If, on the other hand, the pasuk is specifically talking to those that need to work on themselves to get to the level of deserving constant and consistent blessing, then just highlighting and adding “to dwell in YOUR land” wouldn’t necessarily do anything. Because one has to first work on his proper focus in order to ensure constancy and consistency; it’s not guaranteed that this addition will cause him to focus.

A prerequisite for ensuring consistent and constant blessing for consistent and constant Torah observance is without a doubt a focus on Torah observance and a resolve to make sure one stays on that high level and only tries to grow. However, chizuk, reinforcement of the good that results from the causes that are deserving of the reward, is always healthy to strengthen the commitment. Positive reinforcements highlighted on a personal level, i.e. emphasizing “YOUR land,” is always a positive thing. And it is constructive because just as there are infinite levels one can gain in His relationship with Hashem, there is never enough chizuk to make sure the relationship lasts.

Posted on

Emor – Personalities of Appreciating Wisdom

There is a well know pasuk in Mishlei often quoted in yeshivas, after the rebbe has gone through a long sugya (topic in Gemara or another Torah topic) and was successfully able to answer all the questions clearly and thoroughly. The pasuk in Mishlei (24:26) states, loosely translated:

Lips should kiss him who gives a right answer. כושְׂפָתַ֥יִם יִשָּׁ֑ק מֵ֜שִׁ֗יב דְּבָרִ֥ים נְכֹחִֽים:

 In fact, Rashi in Gitten 9a translates the the pasuk in this fashion. However, Tosfos there has a different interpretation: “When a person says proper words those that are around him will clinch their lips tightly closed, for they are quiet and have nothing to respond.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)

Speaking on the same wave length as  Tosfos, Rabbeinu Bachye in the introduction to this week’s Torah portion of Emor when defining this pasuk on a simple level says: “King Shlomo is teaching here about the quality of a sage that his words are sweet to people and everyone desires to listen to him because he speaks proper speech and answers anyone who asks him a question. The intent of the pasuk is not that he is deserving a kiss on the lips because what kind of lesson can come out of that? Furthermore, if that was the intent the pasuk should have written “שפתים יושק” (that in the passive grammatical form his lips should be kissed). But rather the pasuk is saying that the lips of the listeners, who pay attention to the proper words, will close up tightly. The point being, that the ears of people will follow his words, and their hearts will be correct and complete with him, to listen in a fashion as if he is kissing the lips of those that are listening because he’s desirable to his brethren and his words are heard and accepted by them.” (Click here for Hebrew text.) 
We see three possible interpretations of this pasuk. Rashi asserts that people are so excited to hear words of truth coming out of a wise man’s mouth that they proactively want to kiss him! Tosfos holds that when they hear the words of truth they are speechless, while Rabbeinu Bachye holds that people have a feeling of complete bliss and acceptance when they hear words of truth from a wise man.

Why does Rabbeinu Bachye openly reject Rashi’s interpretation (albeit without quoting Rashi)? According to Rashi, the pasuk is teaching us that a person will get so excited when he hears words of truth that make sense, are clear, and inspiring that he’d want to kiss the person who said it. Why does Rabbeinu Bachye say that there is no lesson from this? Why is it any different than what he said?

It must be that Rabbeinu Bachye holds that it’s possible to get excited about something you hear, and react in a very positive way, but not internalize it. Inspiration is fleeting; not taking it to heart must not be what the pasuk is talking about. Rather, when a person internalized the words that he hears, and it made a deep impact on him, and he feels a feeling of inner bliss, then they make a true impact on the person. Which is a sensible lesson to learn from this pasuk. Along the same lines, Tosfos also holds that the lesson heard must be internalized, and one will then have a feeling of speechlessness, upon hearing something so impactful. Either way, both Rabbeinu Bachye and Tosfos seem to hold that an outer reactions do not mean there is a true understanding and acceptance of what was heard. It’s the inner feeling which is transformative; this is the litmus test of whether something one hears is really impactful or not.

This is a good question on Rashi’s understanding of the pasuk, but Rashi must hold that a person will internalize what he hears, and will then not just have an inner feeling of bliss or be speechless, but will want to react and show his excitement! There are different ways and natures of how one reacts to something positive he or she hears, but whatever type of personality you are, you should be sure it has a transformational effect on you and you don’t fool yourself otherwise.

Happy Lag B’omer & Good Shabbos,
Rabbi Dovid Shmuel Milder

Posted on

Acharei Mos/Kedoshim – A sense of Emuna

This dvar Torah is dedicated in memory of יוסף בן מרי ורחמים
חג’ג’ לילוף

In this week’s double Torah portion of Acharei Mos/Kedoshim we find a very important and fundamental rule about the Torah. In Acharei Mos the Torah states, “Carry out My laws (משפטי) and safeguard My decrees (חקותי) to follow them; I am Hashem, your G-D” (Vayikra 18:4). 
The Sifra (140) comments that carrying out laws refers to the things written in the Torah that even if they would not have been written would have made sense, ethically. For example: stealing, illicit relations, idolatry, cursing G-D, or murder. Even if those would not have been written, it makes sense to have them written down. The decrees, however, are purely moral rules those that the evil inclination can make up excuses against them, and gentiles can make excuses against them as well, for example, eating pig, wearing shaatnez, chalitza to a yevama, purifying a metzora, para aduma, or the goat that was sent off on Yom Kippur. Since the Yetzer Hara and the gentiles make up excuses against them, the Torah states: “I am Hashem;” I decreed them; you are not permitted to make up any excuses against them.

The Malbim explains what the Sifra is highlighting here from this pasuk. “Here they explain the difference between a חק, a decree, and a משפט, a law, even according to the simple explanation. That a decree is dependent on an obligation which is not known by itself through means of nature, mussar (character development), or common sense, rather only the one who made the decree knows the reason behind the matter. A law refers to something which common sense and mussar expects, and for the most part applies to laws between man and his fellow man, which is mainly figured out based on common sense. We also find that the laws of nature that Hashem put together their realistic parameters are called the decrees of the world meaning a חק, a decree. But the way He runs the world, and His intervention according to the ways of His creations are called laws (משפטים). About the decrees of Hashem whose reasonings are unknown, the evil inclination and gentiles make up excuses against them. That is why the pasuk writes ‘I am Hashem,’ the reasons are known to Me and I decreed them. That is why it emphasizes, ‘carry out’ by the laws and ‘safeguard’ by the decrees, because the safeguarding in one’s heart is easy in regard to laws because they are logical, but carrying them out can be hard since though you know their obligations one still lust to steal and take advantage of others because of the desires in their heart. But the decrees are the opposite, that safeguarding them in one’s heart is difficult, since they don’t really sit well in one’s mind and intellect.” (Click here for Hebrew text.) 
The mitzvos of Hashem can be categorized into 2 different types: (1) laws that are logical and basically make sense to any ethical, logically thinking human being, and (2) decrees which are statutes of G-D that aren’t easily understandable, but are moral rules that must be followed because Hashem said so and He has a reasoning behind them. However, it sounds like these decrees, even if the reasoning behind them would be revealed, would still not sit well with the gentiles or the Yetzer Hara, the evil inclination, who both try to come up with excuses or reasonings why they sound silly and makes no sense. So, this is why Hashem emphasized that despite whatever answer or excuse one could make up, to not follow them; still I am Hashem and you must believe in Me and My decrees.

An example of a decree which seems to have thoughtful and reasonable logic expressed by the commentaries is found in the second Torah portion of the week, Kedoshim, there the Torah states, “You shall observe My decrees: You shall not crossbreed your livestock with different species. You shall not sow your field with a mixture of seeds, and a garment which has a mixture of shaatnez shall not come upon you” (Vayikra 19:19).

This pasuk discusses the prohibition of kilayim, forbidden mixtures. Rabbeinu Bachye shares a reason for these prohibitions: “According to the simple understanding the reason for the prohibition of forbidden mixtures is because all the things created in this world whether animal or vegetation has a power source or mazal (fortune) connected on high, and each thing was created in its own species, for this, The Mighty King made a foundation for them in the beginning of creation, so that each one would have their own unique species. So, someone who mixes, or grafts two species together changes and weakens the acts of creation which the Torah writes about them, ‘according to their species’ (Breishis 1:12, 21, 25), and he does the opposite of Hashem who wants to differentiate between each species. It is as if this person makes himself appear that he thinks what The Holy One Blessed Be He has created in this world isn’t enough and he wants to outsmart and add more species, new ones, within what the Eternal One has created. The prohibition of plowing an ox and donkey is for the same reason because it is the custom of farmers after plowing to bring the yoke [with the two animals] into one barn and it would lead into crossbreeding and giving birth to strange breeds resulting in the weakening of creation.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
According to this Sifra, even though Rabbeinu Bachya has compelling reasoning why forbidden mixtures are prohibited, nevertheless gentiles and the yetzer hara would try to convince Jews that these laws are silly, really make no sense, and that there are benefits to cross breeding. So why not use them and enjoy them?
What is the underlying difference between a law and a decree? Why would any commonsense gentile agree that murder, adultery, or stealing are of course forbidden but eating kosher, or not wearing a suit which was made out of a mixture of wool and linen is ridiculous, even if there Divine logic is explained?

It would seem that the difference between a law and a decree is that a law has a sense of logic behind it. It just makes sense, it can’t be questioned, and of course it must be observed; how can there be law and order, a functioning society without it? But a decree doesn’t have the natural sense, that feeling inside oneself, to obligate a person to observe it. Therefore the Torah teaches us, “I am Hashem,” that one must have an incredibly strong sense of emuna, faith and belief in Hashem, in order to fight off all the excuses that may face a person and deter his or her observance.

Ultimately emuna is the key and basis for observing Hashem’s Torah. Either to make sense of His decrees, or to help combat the lust and desires that might stop one from carrying out His laws.

Posted on

Metzora: A Lesson for the Miser


 One of the reasons for contracting the spiritual ailment of tzaraas is tzaras ayin, miserliness, (see Erechin 16a). In the Torah portion of Metzora, when speaking about tzaraas on a house, the Torah states: “The one to whom the house belongs shall come and declare to the kohen saying, ‘Something like an affliction has appeared to me in the house.’ The kohen shall command; and they shall clear the house before the kohen comes to look at the affliction, so that everything in the house should not be contaminated; and afterwards shall the kohen come to look at the house” (Vayikra 14:35, 36).
Rabbeinu Bachya points out from the fact that the Torah uses the term, “’The one to whom the house belongs shall come,’ Chaza”l in Yoma 11b learn out that this house is only his, meaning he doesn’t want to lend out his vessels or host guests in his house, for this affliction can come, for being a miser.”

But Rabbeinu Bachye then points out in the next pasuk that “the Torah is careful with Jewish money, even on earthenware, for these vessels the Torah tells him to get out of the house so that they won’t become contaminated, must be referring to earthenware, for if it was another type of vessel they can just be purified by dipping them in a mikvah, or if it was referring to food and drink he can just eat them while he is contaminated. So rather it must be referring to earthenware which does not become purified in the mikva.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Tzaras ayin, the word for miser in Hebrew, literally means ‘causing pain with one’s eye.’ A miser is a selfish person who is not willing to share his possessions with anyone. If the miser is so obsessed with his possessions that he is unwilling to let others use them, or even bring guests into his house, then wouldn’t it make sense that he deserves, measure for measure, for everything that he owns to be defiled, even if it means needing to destroy the earthenware? Why isn’t that just one of the consequences of not sharing one’s possessions? We find many times where people can’t make use of their possessions in the Torah. Like shmita, tithes, first born flock, or sacrificial offerings, especially burnt offerings that are completely burnt up. Hashem doesn’t consider that a waste; on the contrary it’s an atonement. Why wouldn’t the earthenware be an atonement as well?

We see from here how much Hashem loves even the lowliest of His children the Jewish People, and cares for their possessions, even if the person is not willing to share it with others. Hashem cares for them not because the items are really His, deposited to the owner to take care of and use wisely, even with others, on His behalf, but rather simply because Hashem has mercy on the possessions of a Jew.

 Feeling and seeing Hashem’s love, even when being punished, I humbly believe, Rabbeinu Bachye is pointing this out as an impetus for the miser to change his attitude and ways.

Posted on

Tazria: A Proof Against Equity


 The spiritual ailment of tzaraas had an effect on one’s house, clothes, and/or body. In regards to tzaraas on clothes the Torah in the portion of Tazria states, “If there shall be a tzaraas affliction in a garment, in a woolen garment or a linen garment, or in the warp or the woof of the linen or the wool: or in leather or in anything fashioned of leather; and the affliction shall be deep green or deep red, in the garment or the leather, or the warp or the woof, or in any leather utensil: it is a tzaraas affliction, and it shall be shown to the kohen” (Vayikra 13:47-49).
  The Sifra (162) discussing why the pasuk had to reiterate in detail about “in the garment…or the warp, or the woof, or in any leather utensil: it is a tzaraas affliction,” says, “It would be possible to think that only a garment that both wealthy and poor people wear can receive tzaraas. But a garment that a wealthy person would have but a poor person wouldn’t, or a poor person would have but a wealthy one wouldn’t, or if neither a wealthy or poor person would own, how do we know it can contract tzaraas? Therefore the Torah states, ‘it’s a tzaraas affliction, and it shall be shown to the kohen.’”

The Malbim, while explaining how the Sifra derives this from the pasuk, says: “that Chaza”l is explaining to us that we don’t care about what type of a person it is who owns the garment, whether rich or poor. Granted if the garment was small or thick it’s not befitting for a wealthy person, or if it was expensive it’s questionable whether it belongs to the poor person, or if the garment is fully worn out then it’s not useful to anyone, however the pasuk is informing us that if the garment turned by itself a deep green [or red] then it has a tzaraas affliction, without looking into who it should belong to.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
 When a person would bring his or her garment to the kohen to see if it had an affliction, why would we think to question who it belonged to, if he or she claimed it as his or hers? He or she is obviously not trying to steal anything; on the contrary, they were admitting they had done a wrongdoing and were trying to fix the problem. If the Torah would say any garment with a deep green or deep red hue might be tzaraas, and must be taken to a kohen for inspection, then wouldn’t that mean any garment?

It must be that people have automatic, preconceived notions that things should be universal, and if they aren’t universal for everyone, then rules and laws shouldn’t apply. However, the Torah is teaching us, and feels the need to teach us, that nothing is universal. There can be many different variables and different situations that are not easily discernable but must all be considered. Laws don’t have to only apply to clothing, which are worn by both the rich and the poor. It’s possible for clothes that only belong to the rich or the poor get tzaraas or even if somehow the poor got ahold of something expensive, that garment can receive tzaraas. Even if it is useless to anyone, they are all the same; there is no universal standard.

Posted on

Shemini – Pacing Speed

This week’s Torah portion of Shemini begins with the priestly service of the kohanim in the Mishkan, and the subsequent debacle of Nadav and Avihu. After Aharon and his sons brought the initial offerings, the Torah states: “And Aharon lifted up his hands towards the people and blessed them. He then descended from preparing the sin offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offering. And Moshe and Aharon went into the Tent of Meeting. Then they came out and blessed the people, and the glory of Hashem appeared to all the people. And fire went forth from before Hashem and consumed the burnt offering and the fats upon the altar, and all the people saw, sang praises, and fell upon their faces. And Aharon’s sons, Nadav and Avihu, each took his pan, put fire in them, and placed incense upon it, and they brought before Hashem foreign fire, which He had not commanded them. And fire went forth from before Hashem and consumed them, and they died before Hashem” (Vayikra 9:22-24, 10:1,2).

The Sifra (Torah Kohanim 16) depicts the impact and excitement of the first service in the Mishkan: “At that time, for what they did [the kohanim] merited to get all the priestly gifts and have the opportunity to be the only ones to give the priestly blessings for all generations until the resurrection of the dead. When they finished bringing the sin-offering, burnt-offering, and peace-offering they came down the altar with joy.” In paragraph 23 the Sifra says that when the fire came down from before Hashem, “since they saw a new fire that came down from Heaven and licked up (or scorched) the burnt-offering and fats on the altar, they fell on their faces and gave praises to Heaven.” Then in paragraph 24 the Sifra discusses another interpretation (different than what he had said earlier,) of what happened with Nadav and Avihu. “The children of Aharon also took [pans] with joy, since they saw the new fire. They got up to add love onto love, for the word ‘taking’ shows joy. [The fact the Torah emphasized ‘the sons of Aharon’ after it mentioned Nadav and Avihu teaches us that they did not give proper respect to Aharon. Neither did Nadav and Avihu seek advice to do this from Moshe. ‘Each man with their pan’ means they acted on their own and they didn’t even take advice from each other. ‘They brought a strange fire before Hashem that they were not commanded,’ Rebbe Yishmael says, you might think it was really a foreign fire, therefore it says, ‘that He didn’t command them,’ it was just that they entered without seeking advice.”

The Chofetz Chaim in his commentary on the Sifra explains what happened in the incident of Nadav and Avihu according to this medrish. When it says ‘they wanted to add love onto love,’ that means they wanted to bring an additional, new gift out of love for Hashem, the Blessed One. They took the pans with ‘joy,’ meaning with the zrizus, speed, alacrity, and with joy, as with the first set of offerings. The mistake Nadav and Avihu made was that if this was an appropriate thing to do then they should have let their father, Aharon, do it out of respect for him. But they decided to do it themselves, without asking anyone’s advice, even each other’s, which might have ensured that what they were doing was right. The Chofetz Chaim goes on to explain that the problem was not that they brought the incense using normal fire, rather the sin was that they did not wait until they were commanded to bring it; the act in of itself was appropriate. (Click here for Hebrew text  & Here.)

It would seem that the incense in the pans that Nadav and Avihu brought were accepted by Hashem with fire coming down from Heaven “licking it up.” They did it with zrizus, swiftly and with joy, as a mitzva should be done, with the sole purpose of showing their love to Hashem, for Hashem’s sake, lisheim Shamayim; so what went wrong and why were they considered at fault? It is because they acted too hastily and didn’t wait for orders or at least ask permission from Moshe or their father, which showed a lack of honor to Aharon. But why should they have been held accountable? They had such positive emotions, joy and love focused on Hashem. They also used the attribute of zrizus like how all mitzvos should be fulfilled. They thought this was obviously the next move that should be done based on the love and joy produced for Hashem with the initial offerings, and in hindsight it really was the right thing to do. We see this from the fact that Hashem did send down a fire and singe their offering of incense. So why were they so severely punished, that that very fire from Heaven that accepted their offerings took their lives as well for not giving proper respect to Aharon and not seeking advice or waiting for orders from Moshe. But they did it for all the right reasons, just to enhance the relationship between Hashem and His beloved people; so why fault them?

It would seem that even with all the right intentions, and the act even being appropriate, but because they allowed their emotions to take control of them, even if they were positive emotions, it caused them to act too hastily. Even albeit on a dakei dakos, minute, miniature level. For at the lofty levels they were on, they deserved such punishment. If they had kept focused and weighed when and how to do the right thing, then they would not have faltered, and that was what caused their sin according to this Sifra.

We have to always be very careful to be in control of our emotions, even if what’s driving us are positive emotions. We still have to intellectually make sure we are doing the right thing, at the right time, in the best possible way.

Posted on

Tzav/Passover – Chametz (leavened) = Yetzer Hara (Evil Inclination)


 There is a connection between this week’s Torah portion of Tzav and Pesach which starts right after Shabbos. The connection is chometz. Everyone knows we may not have chometz, “leavened bread,” throughout Pesach, but also most of the different types of korban mincha, meal offerings, were also made without chometz. As it says, “It shall not be baked leavened, I have presented it as their share from My fire-offering; it is most holy, like the sin-offering and like the guilt-offering” (Vayikra 6:10). But there are some meal-offerings where chometz is in fact included, as discussed in the parsha, like the korban todah, the thanksgiving-offering. (Parenthetically that is why we don’t say the paragraph of Mizmor Litodah during pesukei dizimra the entire Pesach – because this paragraph represents the korban todah which was brought during the year with chometz.)

Why is the meal offering of the thanksgiving-offering different than the sin-offering or guilt-offering?
 A korban todah was brought to thank Hashem for saving one’s life in different circumstances. Today we bentche gomel upon recovering from a major illness, traveling overseas or over a desert, and getting out of jail.

The Rabbeinu Bachye in last week’s Torah portion of Vayikra (2:11)  explains why chometz cannot be used in the meal offerings for a korban chatas (sin-offering) or korban asham (guilt offering): “According to the simple understanding, the sacrifice is to atone for our sins, and if not for the inciter and instigator, referring to the yetzer hara, then a person would not sin and would not need to bring a sacrifice at all. Chometz (and honey) are the yetzer hara themselves as Chaza”l say, (Mechilta Pesicha 5), in terms of chometz and matza on Pesach that a person must turn away his heart from the yetzer hara and that is why it says, ‘and you shall not eat upon it chometz’ (Devarim 16:3), referring to the korban pesach (paschal lamb). The korban pesach was atonement for the idolatry they worshiped in Egypt, and therefore He distanced them from the yetzer hara in order to not go back to idolatry… and therefore chometz (and honey) were kept far away from the offering because it’s not possible to have two polar opposites in one package, furthermore it’s like purifying oneself in a mikva while holding an unclean rodent.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
We see from here that by the korban todah, the thanksgiving-offering, which has nothing to do with sin, it is appropriate to use chometz as part of the offering. But the korban chatas, or asham, the sin- and guilt-offerings, which atone for sins, do not use chometz, which is the yetzer hara, evil inclination, as it would be a contradiction to use it to atone for sin.

Why is chometz, leavened bread, the yetzer hara? It can still be kosher and eaten everyday besides on Pesach. And for these offerings, why are they even called the yetzer hara, and not at least referred to as a hint to the yetzer hara, or something to that effect? 
 Rabbeinu Bachye in his Kad HaKemach (chapter on Pesach) explains in more detail that the word chometz comes from the language of “כי יתחמץ לבבי…” (Tehillim 73:21). “When my heart was in ferment though my mind was sharp.” (Parenthetically in Tehillim (71:4) it says אלוקי פרטני מיד רשע מכף מעול וחומץ, “My G-D, deliver me from the wicked one’s hand, from the palm of the schemer and the violent one.”) The heart which is on the verge of sinning is compared to dough on the verge of fermenting (or leavening), also a righteous person on the verge of wickedness is called by Chaza”l as “hechmitz,” one who has fermented, as we see in terms of Koresh in Rosh Hashanah 3b… for this reason the Torah says you shouldn’t be seen or found [with chometz], don’t be seen in action and don’t be found in thought, rather it, [the yetzer hara,] should be nullified in your heart… you can learn that the prohibition of chometz includes the entire mitzva, and since chometz is a hint to the yetzer hara, from here, there is a hint that just as we are commanded by the Torah to nullify chometz in our hearts, so to we are obligated to nullify the evil inclination from the heart and not have it rule over us etc.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
 We see from Rabbeinu Bachye’s Kad HaKemach, that in fact chometz is more of a hint to the yetzer hara, even though in his commentary to the Torah, Rabbeinu Bachye calls chometz the yetzer hara. In fact, the Alshich also treats chometz as the yetzer hara itself, as we find in the beginning of the Migdal Eder HaChodosh Haggada, paraphrasing the Alshich: “Chometz is the yetzer hara for it is sour (חמוץ) and blemished (פגום). So to we also find that the gematria of chometz (חמץ) is פגימה, (blemish, fault, defect). The yetzer hara is the one who ruins (מחמיץ) a person and distracts him from serving Hashem. A person has to overcome him and not let him rule over him at all, only use him when needed, when there is no other choice (like for basic needs of eating, sleeping, clothing etc.), but for all other matters find ways to distance oneself from him, for he is forbidden to get any benefit from when not needed. One might ask why is chometz permitted the entire year and just burned for these days, on the contrary, it should be the opposite, that one should benefit from it for only a small amount of time, and the rest of the year stay far away from it and destroy it? However, this really isn’t a question because all one has to do is stay away from [chometz] a little bit, for there really is no mitzvah where a person is not fighting against and doing whatever he can to stop the one who is trying to stop you from performing that mitzva. This is the intent of Hashem to give you more good, reward for your actions, and because [the yetzer hara] is needed for every part of the existence of this world [in order for us to earn our reward through our tireless efforts], then he can’t be nullified. But a hint was given to anyone with a soul and mind to burn him [the yetzer hara], and therefore one who is of soul and mind should put in all his efforts to do so when appropriate.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Chometz is not forbidden to be eaten all year round like pig, shellfish, and other non-kosher animals, but is only prohibited at certain times of the year and in certain circumstances. However, this ban is indeed because chometz is the yetzer hara; meaning the essence of chometz and the essence of the yetzer hara are the same. Just as grain when fermented or leavened will rise and be distorted, and in fact if you add yeast to flour you might get the perfect rise for a good bread, however if it is left too long it becomes very sour and even inedible. So too, when fermenting any vegetable or fruit, there is a phase of it being edible but if left too long or in too much it’s ruined. So too there is a need for the yetzer hara in the world, for a basic drive for physical needs. Without it a person would not want to eat, sleep, get married, etc. and would not be able to survive. But too much of it, and too lavish, can also be deadly. Therefore Hashem fashioned into this world a week that even the essence of the yetzer hara should be erased from all the Jews, in order to focus us on what’s important in the purpose of our lives. This reinforces our combat skills to fight the unneeded yetzer hara during the rest of the year.

It also makes more sense why chometz was not used for meal-offerings of the sin- and guilt-offerings. Because the essence of the yetzer hara should not even be mentioned or hinted at in those offerings, since they would not have to be even needed if the yetzer hara didn’t exist.

Good Shabbos HaGadol and Happy Pesach,
 Rabbi Dovid Shmuel Milder

Posted on

Vayikra+ – Divine Ingredients to True Love (See Below)


The Book of Vayikra, in this week’s portion begins, “And He called to Moshe and Hashem spoke to him from the Ohel Moed saying” (Vayikra 1:1.) The Sifra, otherwise known as The Toras Kohanim, has a beautiful depiction of the extent and passion of Hashem’s love to His children, Bnei Yisrael.
 The Sifra (1:12) says, “[G-D spoke] from the Ohel Moed (The Tent of Meeting), one would think it was from the entire house, therefore the pasuk indicates that [Hashem’s Holy Presence] was on the kapores (the covering of the Aron). One might think it was atop of the entire kapores, therefore it says from between the two keruvim (cherubs), these are the words of Rebbe Akiva. Rebbe Shimon ben Azai said, I am not trying to question my rebbe but rather adding onto his words: The honor that is being spoken about refers to the fact that [Hashem has said] ‘Behold the Heaven and Earth I fill’. Behold the love for the Jews, where was this love caused to go? Kaviyachol, it was squeezed into the kapores between the two keruvim was when He spoke. Rebbe Dosa says that in a similar vein it says in Shemos (33:20) ‘no one sees Me and lives.’ They don’t see Me when they are alive but they can when they are about to die. So to it says in Tehillim (22:30), ‘Before Him all those that went down into the ground bow and nefesh (animalistic essense) does not live. Rebbe Akiva says ‘For no person can see Me and live’ not even the Chayos Hakodesh (angels) who carry the Throne of Glory cannot see His glory. Rebbe Shimon [ben Azai] said, I am not trying to question my rebbe but, rather, I am adding on to his words. ‘For no one can see and live’ even angels whose lives are eternal do not see the glory.”

The Chofetz Chaim has a running commentary on the Sifra, a lot of it quoting commentary by the Raavad and the Ba’al Tosfos, Rabbeinu Shimshom miShantz. The Chofetz Chaim explains the first half of the Sifra by saying that we might have thought that Hashem’s glory would rest sometimes on the east part of the Ohel Moed and sometimes on the west. However, in order to elevate the Jewish people,  He purposely focused His Glory, out of pure love for the Jewish People. Where did all the Glory go? It was forced in between the 2 keruvim.

The Sifra then brings in the statement of Rebbe Dosa that no one can see the Glory of Hashem besides a person upon passing away. The Chofetz Chaim explains that this statement was brought here because Rebbe Shimon ben Azai again says he is adding to his rebbe, Rebbe Akiva’s, words and not questioning them. The Chofetz Chaim then brings down Rabbeinu Shimshon MiShanz who says that the reason why a person who is about to die has a glimpse at the Glory of Hashem is because when the soul needs to leave the body it has the chance to see the Dwelling On High, just as before it is put into the body when it is hovering right under neath the Throne of Glory (כסא הכבוד). So too there is a bit of time right before a person’s soul leaves its body where one has ruach hakodesh, Divine intervention, infused into them and they are able to tell the future before entering Gan Eden. The Pirkei DiRebbe Eliezer (perek 35) adds that the soul does not leave the body until it sees The Holy Presence (the Shechina). However, the Chofetz Chaim adds onto what Rabbeinu Shimshon MiShantz says, that this is in fact only true only among unique individuals of the generation. Rebbe Shimshon MiShantz goes on to say that Rebbe Shimon ben Azai just added in that even angels aren’t a part of this unique group who sees the Shechina. I might have thought that since they are actually serving Hashem, as one who fulfills his master’s bidding then angels should have even more permission to see Hashem’s Glory. They are His personal servants; therefore, Rebbe Shimon added that even angels cannot see Hashem’s glory. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
 The famous song, “Hashem is here, Hashem is there, Hashem is truly everywhere,” is so, so true! Yet Hashem manifests His glory and Holy Presence (Shechina) in ways that are focused in some places more than others. The Sifra is bothered by, that if Hashem, the King of All Kings, Master of The Universe and Beyond is focusing His Honor and Glory in the Mishkan, amongst the Jewish People, then wouldn’t we think that He would do it as vastly as possible within the central confines of the Mishkan?

Hashem must want to teach us a lesson by specifically talking in between the two Keruvim. That true love, which is what the Sifra says He was showing to the Jews, has to come through belittling oneself and self-sacrifice for the sake of the other. The second part of the Sifra, I humbly believe, also shows an expression of love and connection to the most beloved of Hashem’s dear children. There is a level of Honor and Glory of Hashem which no one is privy to, certainly not in their lifetime. But even the angels, those servants of Hashem that are more directly involved in His will and service, even those that carry His Divine Throne, (whatever that means) are not allowed to look upon Hashem Honor and Glory. However, as the Chofetz Chaim says, only a few in each generation, as we see by Yaakov (who right before he passed away had this gift of seeing into the future till the end of days, witnessing the Shechina and to be able to take a glimpse of Hashem’s Honor and Glory when dying). Something so holy, so important, so awesome, that not even the angels, His most trusted and pure servants could see, even though a servant is known to be able to see things of important and private that no one else is privy to, still in all Hashem didn’t allow them. So why would Hashem let even the unique and few of the generation take a glimpse?

We must say, it would seem, that another aspect of love and connection is treating those loved ones that one feels an extra closeness to, as extra special, above and beyond the normal standards and comfort zone.

This doesn’t only have to apply to Hashem’s love for his children, the Jewish People. It can also make sense that it would apply to any close relationship; that to show true love one has to be ready to go out of their comfort zone or standards, and belittle oneself for the sake of his or her beloved, while also treating her or him as more special than anyone else.
That is an expression of true love.

Good Shabbos,
Rabbi Dovid Shmuel Milder
 Click here for PDF easy print out.

Click below to watch a recording of a class on Prayer and Pesach:
https://us06web.zoom.us/rec/share/ugRe4fDw5HTfhVOHjGPwEPW40sV6FSMZGDk4pucfUZtLEfLFdh1Fp56Cn6GvvyuR.EIwhS7x3SzGpyJCD
Passcode: w@7mZ1Ly

Posted on

Pekudei – Proper Manners to Focus Others 


The Bechor Shor connects the concluding pasuk of the Book of Shemos in this week’s Torah portion of Pekudei, with the beginning pasuk of the next book of Vayikra. It concludes, “For the cloud of Hashem would be on the Mishkan by day and fire would be on it by night, before the eyes of all of the House of Israel throughout their journeys” (Shemos 40:38).
 The Bechor Shor begins by pointing out that the pasuk says “and the Honor of Hashem filled the Mishkan” to emphasize the fact that Hashem’s honor is greater than the Mishkan that fits into it, rather than stating it the more grammatically correct way, and saying ‘The Mishkan was filled with the Honor of Hashem,’ which sounds like the Mishkan is bigger and holding within it the Honor of Hashem. The Bechor Shor goes on to say that that is why the Torah states the following pasuk, which is the beginning of Vayikra, “And He called onto Moshe and Hashem spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting saying” (Vayikra 1:1). As long as the Cloud of Glory was hovering within the Mishkan no one was allowed to enter it without being called upon, which granted them permission to enter. We see similarly by the giving of the Torah it states, “And Har Sinai was inundated with smoke” (Shemos 19:18), and it says in the next pasuk, “And Hashem called to Moshe to the top of the mountain, and Moshe went up.”

The Bechor Shor concludes, which I want to focus on, and says, “Our Rabbis (in the beginning of the Sifra) have explained that in fact for every speech Hashem first called out. This is because it is derech eretz, proper manners, to first call on the person you are speaking to before starting a conversation, so that he will know he is being talked to.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
What kind of derech eretz, proper manners, is needed here? If you are in a big group of people and want to talk to someone specifically, then it has nothing to do with proper manners. A person can get someone’s attention so that he will know that he wants to talk with him. And if there is no one else in the room, or, as in Moshe’s case, Rashi on the first pasuk of Vayikra says that no one else was able to hear G-D and Hashem’s voice went directly and only into Moshe’s ear, then why would it be proper manners to first call him to get his attention; there was no one else He was speaking to?

We must say that even when it is obvious who you are speaking to, either because there is no else around or because you are focusing on the person you want to speak to in a group, it is still proper manners, basic decency, to first call to him in order to focus him, draw him into your conversation, and not rely on the fact that it seems obvious in your mind that he should know that you are speaking to him.

It is basic derech eretz to get the attention of someone before you start a conversation with them to ensure they are ready and focused on listening to your conversation.

 Good Shabbos HaChodesh,
Rabbi Dovid Shmuel Milder

Posted on

Vayakhel -A Tricky Evil Inclination

This week’s Torah portion of Vayakhel singles out one of the thirty-nine melachos, [prohibitions of Shabbos], of mav’ir [burning]; “You shall not kindle a fire in any of your dwellings on the Shabbos day” (Shemos 35:3). Rabboseinu Baalei Tosfos (Daas Zekeinim) suggests why this specific prohibition was singled out: “The Torah warns us about kindling a fire more than all the other melachos because it doesn’t really look like work (melacha). And perhaps they will say I am not doing a melacha but I will light a fire and prepare everything so I can do things with gold and silver immediately after Shabbos, (for the building of the Mishkan) therefore it says ‘You shall not kindle’. And in Maseches Shabbos 70a, Chaza”l argue if this melacha is singled out to teach us that just as if one does this alone he transgresses Shabbos, so to if one does any other melacha by themselves he transgresses Shabbos and he does not need to transgress all 39 melachos at once to be liable. The other opinion holds this was singled out to teach us that only this melacha is liable for lashes but all others are a punishment of kares and stoning.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
What does the Daas Zekeinim mean when he says that kindling a fire doesn’t really look like a melacha, because it’s too easy to do so people will say it’s not really a thing and do it? What about the melacha of borer [separating what you don’t want from what you do want]; that’s pretty easy, it doesn’t take too much effort, and might even be easier than what is permissible, the act of taking what’s good from the bad with your hand for immediate use?

Rather, it must be that kindling a fire is the only melacha that does not look like a job. Think about it; if you go through the different kinds of melachos, they can each be attached to job categories like planting, cooking, sewing, hunting, etc. Even borer, one can choose things by separating merchandise to sell. But kindling a fire is just turning on a light, giving light to a room, or warming it up, heating up an oven; the molding of the silver and gold is many steps later. It could have nothing to do with any job or work, so one might misconstrue it as not a melacha and come to easily do it on Shabbos. But why is that true? If it’s listed as one of the thirty-nine melachos, then it is clearly forbidden, like any other melacha, with the severe consequence of either being cut off from the nation (kares) and potentially stoning, or even, according to the other opinion, getting up to thirty-nine lashes. So why would anyone misconstrue this melacha in particular as something permissible, if it’s clear that it’s forbidden like any other melacha? Why also would the person only light a fire towards the end of Shabbos and not beforehand if it’s not a real melacha?

Therefore, we must say that any knowledgeable, G-D fearing Jew would never think you can transgress anymelacha on purpose, no matter what it is. But, Hashem who created the Yetzer Hara, the evil inclination, with His infinite knowledge emphasizes, out of all the melachos, the prohibition of kindling a fire, in His Holy Torah, because He knows how the Yetzer Hara works. One of the ways the Yetzer Hara gets a person to sin is to make excuses, to confuse a person and in their state of confusion they will rationalize that it is no big deal to do. It might take a whole Shabbos to make a person rationalize away reality, but the evil inclination can get it done.

Excuses, excuses, excuses, the Torah warns us don’t fall for them, be on guard and ready to battle the weaponized Yetzer Hara!

Good Shabbos Para,
Rabbi Dovid Shmuel Milder