Category: Food for Thought

We read sections of this week’s Torah portion of Pinchas throughout the year as maftir of Yomim Tovim and on every Rosh Chodesh, discussing the Musaf offerings brought on every special occasion. For Rosh Chodesh the Torah begins: “And the head of your months, you shall bring a burnt offering to Hashem…” (Bamidbar 25:11).

The Sforno teaches us that it was a custom amongst the Jews to observe Rosh Chodesh as a semi-holy day as testified in the Navi: “Where you hid yourself on the day of the action…” (Shmuel Alef 20:19). This pasuk implies in context that Rosh Chodesh was not a day of work for them. Hence, this day is associated with the Jews as it says: “the head of your new months,” an expression not found by the other special days. It is not written regarding Shabbos, ‘your Shabbos,’ nor regarding Shavuos, ‘your Day of Bikurim,’ or by Sukkos, ‘your Sukkos’. The reason for their custom (not to work on Rosh Chodesh) was because the success of the Jewish people in this world is slightly similar to the cycle of the moon, in that it doesn’t have any light of its own besides what it gets from the sun. (Click here for Hebrew text long version of Sforno)

Today, the Shulchan Aruch says it is a good custom for women not to do any work on Rosh Chodesh, and there is a mitzvah to have extra food at one’s meal for Rosh Chodesh (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 217 and 219). In fact, the Mishna Berura quotes a Medrish Pesikta d’Rav Kahana which says that all of one’s money for the year is set from Rosh HaShanah to Rosh Hashana, besides what is spent on food for Rosh Chodesh, Shabbos, Yom Tov, Chol HaMoed, and extra bonuses or tips that one gives out to children’s rebbeim. However, it seems that in the time of the Book of Shmuel, and possibly before and after, there was a custom for no one to work on Rosh Chodesh, in order to recognize and appreciate the lesson of the day, which is that our destiny and success do not rely on our own mazel (astrology and constellations). Rather, we live our lives above what is predicted by astrology, and rely on Hashem for our light and guidance – just as the moon relies on the sun to give off light. (There are different editions of the Sforno, which elaborate in more detail about the issue on this pasuk.)

The question one can ask is: why was there a need to create a new custom in order to remind us of the lesson of Rosh Chodesh? Isn’t it enough that the Torah calls it “your new month,” and that we read it often, in order to remind us of the lesson of Rosh Chodesh?

We see from here the importance of commemorating or celebrating the lessons that affect our lives. In this way one doesn’t just know them, but rather inculcates them into their very being. One then feels energized to follow through with those lessons, and live by them.

I believe the reason why the lesson of Rosh Chodesh is emphasized above all the other lessons of the Yom Tovim is because the lesson of Rosh Chodesh puts into action all the other lessons of the Yom Tovim. Meaning, the belief that Hashem took us out of Egypt, gave us the Torah, created the world, and is constantly protecting us, is reinforced and put into action with the lesson that we have to live our lives in total reliance on Hashem, assuming that nothing can be predicted as perceived.

I remember my high school days with the special Rosh Chodesh breakfasts, dancing, singing and guest speakers. Those times made a special impression on the students. It was a time to bond with our rebbeim and classmates, and a time of inspiration, to energize us for the coming month.

One does not have to have a lavish Rosh Chodesh breakfast; but to at least get an extra treat to add onto a meal, or at any point during the day, can be a trigger to remind us of the lesson that we are totally dependent on Hashem, which in turn will give us a positive impetus to live our lives in that manner.

The Daas Zekeinim raises what he calls a world famous question, and which is definitely a pretty blatant question! It says in this week’s Torah portion of Balak that Hashem visited Bilaam to speak with him after he offered up seven sacrifices (Bamidbar 23:4). Why did Hashem go to Bilaam but did not go to Moshe Rabbeinu, and rather he called him over to speak with him at the Tent of Meeting, as it says in the beginning of the third book of the Torah: “And Hashem called to Moshe…?”
The Daas Zekeinim answers this question with a parable of a king who is sitting in his palace and a leper comes to the gate(s), demanding to speak with the king. They tell the king about the request, and the king replies saying: don’t let him enter my palace lest he sully it, rather I will go to speak with him outside. However, when a loved one wants to speak with the king, he is welcomed into the throne room . (Click here for Hebrew text.)

The question, however, still remains: why would Hashem go down to visit a lowlife, who wants to destroy His precious children, hence demeaning the honor of His Heavenly Royalty (Kavod Malchus Shamayim) – but to speak with someone who was the closest person ever in the history of the world to Hashem, i.e. Moshe Rabbeinu, Hashem requests of him to step forward and have a conversation, instead of going to personally meet him? If anything it should logically be the opposite; for his loved ones Hashem will personally go out and talk with them, and for His enemies He should make them go through the trouble of meeting at a designated place to converse?

The answer given by the Daas Zeheinim is therefore a bit troubling; what is the big deal if the palace gets defiled, dirtied or spoiled by this “lowly leper?” The servants or janitor can  simply clean up the mess. It is just a building; it is not  as if he  wrecked or damaged the place. There is only a concern of defilement, and when compared to the utter lack of respect needed for a king to leave his throne and palace to speak with  a lowlife,  one would think it would be less of a diminishment of respect to have the “leper” come into the palace, if he must, to speak with the king, rather than to have the king degrade himself by going out to converse with the the “leper”?

We are not talking about the feelings of a human being; this is Hashem teaching us proper respect and honor. It would therefore seem that the dwelling place should be treated with more respect than the individual himself, and it t would seem the reason why is because “the palace” enhances the respect and honor of the individual. That is precisely why the king wanted his loved ones to visit him when conversing, in this case that being Hashem telling Moshe to come to the Tent of Meeting. But on the flip side, any spoilage to the “home” or “palace” is more of a severe degradation to the honor and respect of the individual, like in the case of the leper going into the king’s palace, which is why Hashem went out to speak with Bilaam.

Practically, there are a couple of lessons  that can be learned from here. One is the sensitivity a guest  must have when going into someone else’s home, to treat it with the utmost respect and dignity. Secondly, Hashem’s dwelling places today are the beis medrish and shul; so we  must certainly treat them with the utmost honor and respect when inside them.

As the Jewish People were making their way towards the Land of Canaan at the end of the forty years of wandering in the desert they approached the land of Sichon, the King of Emori.  They sentmessengers requesting to walk peacefully through his land. Sichon refused, gathered his whole nation to attack them, and was annihilated. The Jewish people conquered his land from Arnon to Yabok, as far as the boarder of Ammon (See Bamidbar 21:21-24).

Rashi in pasuk 22 points out that although they were not commanded to offer peace, they nevertheless made the proposal. The Gur Aryeh, which is the Mahara”l’s commentary on Chumash Rashi, explains that the Torah requires the complete annihilation of the Canaanite nations who dwelt in the Land of Israel (Devarim 20:16, 17); yet they proposed peace at this juncture because the requirement only applies when they are in the midst of battle to conquer the land. Here, they only wished to pass through the Emori territory in order to cross the Jordan River. They could have taken the passage by force, but they instead chose to ask permission.

Rashi in verse 23 says that Sichon declined the overtures of peace, as all the Canaani nations paid taxes to him, to protect them from armies passing through his land to wage war against them. When the Jewish People said to him: “Let us pass through your land,” he replied: “My very presence here is to protect them from you and you say this?” The Gur Aryeh observes that earlier the Edomi, who were not paid to protect Canaan, also refused the Jewish People passage (20:18-21). Yet Rashi attributes Sichon’s refusal to the protection payment. What was the difference? The answer is that the Edomi request was based on brotherhood (20:14), thus assuring Edom that the Jews would not wage war if they refused, since they were distant cousins. Sichon certainly understood that his refusal would be met with an attack, yet he accepted the consequence of warfare, because he had been paid to do so. (Click here and here for Hebrew text.)

Sichon, King of the Emori, refused to allow the Jewish people safe passage through his land even though they promised “we will not turn aside into the fields and vineyards, we will not drink well water; we will go by the king’s road until we have passed through your territory” (pasuk 22). Surely he knew the might of the Jewish People and Hashem, the miracles that took place against the Egyptians and Amalek, and that to put up a fight would be useless and very dangerous. Yet, because he was charged to defend the Canaani nations against enemies, he stood up for that cause and even gathered all of his warriors to offensively attack the Jewish Nation.

What was his motivation? Rashi goes out of his way to point out he was being paid to defend the Canaani nations. It would seem, therefore, that if they had not been paid and only treaty or agreement to protect each other had been in place, he would have succumbed to the request of the Jews to peacefully travel through his land (in order to not face guaranteed conquest, which is what, in fact, happened). Yet, because he was paid to defend them, he decided to attack the Jewish people, which was his ultimate downfall. Why did he choose this route, with its guarantee of failure?

I heard firsthand from my Rosh HaYeshiva ztk”l, Rav Henoch Leibowitz, that it is better to hire people to work for you than to find volunteers, because paid workers feel more of a responsibility to get the job done correctly.

This is what Rashi is pointing out in this situation. Because Sichon was being paid, he essentially had a duty to defend the other nations, and he felt a responsibility to live up to this expectation. Although this was ultimately his downfall, the power of money is a fact and can be used in a positive way throughout our lives. Organizations and businesses run better with paid workers. Institutions and schools are more organized and professional with hired help. Even household needs are met more efficiently with hired help, most of the time.

Money, in a positive sense, brings with it a sense of responsibility which potentially could get a lot of good done in the world, if used wisely.

This week’s Torah portion of Korach records the rebellion of Korach and his followers against Moshe and Aharon. It demonstrates how far strife can escalate, to the degree that the Torah named a special negative mitzvah after this episode: “Do not be like Korach and his followers” (Bamidbar 17:5 and see Gemara Sanhedrin 110a).
After the failed rebellion there were those who were still not convinced that Aharon was entitled to the priesthood, so Hashem created a test. A leader from each tribe handed in a staff, and from whoever’s staff blossomed flowers had the Divine right to the priesthood. Of course only Aharon’s staff did so .

The last medrish in the Torah portion details three possible origin stories for Aharon’s staff . The first possibility is that it came from Yehuda,  and was the staff mentioned in the episode of Yehuda and Tamar. According to this view, the medrish  recounts that the staff was then passed down from king to king until the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed. It was then buried, but in the future it will be  wielded by the King Moshiach, speedily in our times. The second view states that it was Moshe’s staff (the one all the miracles in Egypt and the desert were triggered through) and it blossomed by itself.

From the third possibility we learn a very telling lesson on how to diffuse an argument,   the medrish relates::“There are those who say that Moshe took one beam and split it into 12 planks. He told them that your staff came from one source. Why did he do this? ‘It is honor for man to refrain from quarreling, and every fool will be exposed’ (Mishlay 20:3). So that they will not say [Aharon’s] staff was wet and therefore it blossomed. Hashem made a decree on [Aharon’s] staff and Hashem’s Explicit Name was found on its buds as it says “It gave forth blossoms, sprouted buds and produced ripe almonds” (Bamidbar 17:23). It produced fruit for all those who take good care of the Tribe of Levi. Why almonds, why not pomegranates, or tree nuts? Because Jews are compared to those others” (Medrish Rabba on Bamidbar 18:23).

The Mahar”zu, a commentary on the Medrish Rabba says: “Hashem performed this miracle of the staff so that the Jews won’t argue with Moshe anymore. Even though Hashem could have taken care of matters differently, for example, anyone who starts a fight will be punished just as Korach was, He still didn’t do that. From here we should all learn not to sustain strife.” The Mahar”zu next points out, “When taking a staff from a wet tree it might be able to blossom after a while but it cannot sprout buds and produce almonds nevertheless they might have had a slight excuse so in order to remove any excuse, all the staffs came from one beam, making them all equal.” Lastly, the Mahar”zu quotes different pesukim which equates the Jewish people to pomegranates and tree nuts and then adds, “And since these are to praise and glorify them it would be unbefitting for them to be used for something unpraiseworthy like here.” That is why almonds were used. (Click here for Hebrew text)

One would think that after such a fatal attempt at rebellion, with all the drama of the earth swallowing whole families alive, and 250 people being burnt up by a fire from heaven (which, parenthetically, does show that there is a need for force to take care of agitators at times), then definitely the next sign from heaven, by itself, should have been a pretty clear signal to put everything to rest. Yet the Mahar”zu points out three important points to take into account in order to diffuse the argument: (1) It is best not to use force or punishment when  resolving an argument; (2) Everything must be taken into account and addressed, no matter how farfetched it might sound; (3) Be sensitive to other’s pride.

It would seem that taking these three elements into account is a working formula to avoid maintaining strife.

Hashem created the world from nothing, and as testimonial to His awesome display of wonder and power Hashem created Shabbos. In the desert the Jews lived a life above nature – a sign as clear as the blue sky – that Hashem runs the world. They received something from nothing, with food falling from heaven every day, water running from a rock, clouds leading and protecting them during the day and fire leading them at night, and all-around taking care of them throughout their desert journey.

Yet, after the episode of the bad report of the spies (which cost most of the nation with wandering for forty years in the desert and extermination), the Rabbeinu Bachye relates that the episode of the “mikoshesh eitzim” [the one who collected twigs on Shabbos] occurred. The Torah relates: “And it was when the Children of Israel was in the desert and they found a man gathering sticks on the Shabbos day” (Bamidbar 15:32).

The Rabbeinu Bachye observes: “It is known that the issues of the spies, mikoshesh eitzim, and the rebellion of Korach all took place in the desert and yet it is mentioned here, ‘And it was when the Children of Israel was in the desert’. However we must explain according to the simple explanation that this is to emphasize how great the sin of the mikoshesh was. For this reason ‘in the desert’ had to have been mentioned to say that in the desert where all the Jews were and the manna came down from heaven every day, which is one of the open miracles that teach us about the nuance of the world, there we find this mikoshesh profaning Shabbos and coming to be against this nuance.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)

“The nuance of the world,” or chiddush ha’olam, is that Hashem created the world ‘something from nothing.’ Shabbos is the testimony that Hashem created the world out of nothing for it is a day above nature. The entire journey of the Jewish People in the desert was also something from nothing; food came from heaven each day, water came from a rock, The Clouds of Glory by day and fire by night were a force field against outside threats – whether it was scorpions and poisonous snakes, rugged terrain that it flattened, weatherization to keep people comfortable, and even ensured their clothes didn’t wear out or get too small. All of these things were undeniable and explicit examples of Hashem’s ability to create something from nothing.

Yet, with it all, the Mekoshesh had the audacity to break the Shabbos, the quintessential example of something from nothing, the nuance of the world! Indeed this wasn’t any ordinary transgression of Shabbos; this was a “slap in the face” to basic faith in Hashem, which was why the Torah went out of its way to put such an emphasis on the matter.

Whatever this person’s motivations were, even if he had the purest intent, the Torah is teaching us that he still made a wrong decision. We see from this the extent to which a person has free choice. One would think that he would be forced to do the right thing because Hashem’s presence was clear as day and he should have had such gratitude towards Hashem for using what He created from nothing to take care of him. Yet, he still made the wrong choice and profaned Shabbos, the very testimony of something from nothing.

The Rabbeinu Bachye later quotes a medrish that the Mekoshesh was Tzlafchad, the father of Benos Tzalfchad who comes up in the Torah portion of Pinchas. The Gemara in Shabbos 96b calls Tzelafchad a tzadik, a righteous person. Chazal say this is because he just wanted to send a message about the severity of Shabbos and he purposefully transgressed Shabbos, even though he was warned not to and was warned that he would incur the death penalties, which he did. Yet we see from here that even though his sin was different from everyone else, it was still a very severe sin, and even though he is still called a tzadik and had the purest of intent (to send a message to the Jewish People and act as a sacrifice for the sanctity of Shabbos), if he would have thought about his decision a bit longer he would have come to the conclusion that it would have been a bigger sanctification of Hashem’s name to keep the Shabbos, rather than to transgress it.

Making decisions in life is not at all easy, but Hashem endowed us with the ability to always make the proper decision, no matter what the scenario is. That is part of the gift of free will that Hashem gave to us. We have to be extremely careful to use it wisely.

It is well known that Judaism does not proselytize . We do not go door-to-door convincing others to convert, and we certainly do not proclaim ‘convert or die.’ A non-Jew is perfectly accepted by G-D and can even reach the level of a righteous gentile simply by practicing the seven Noahide laws and being a kind person.

However, we do find in this week’s Torah portion of Biha’aloscha a concept of doing everything short of proselytizing; to set everyone in the world onto the right path towards the Guide Book for Life. Yisro, Moshe’s father-in-law,was ready to go back to Midian and his family. Moshe tries to persuade him to stay. “Then Moshe said to Chovev the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moshe’s father-in-law: ‘We are traveling to the place about which Hashem said I will give to you. Come with us and we will be good to you, for Hashem has spoken of good fortune for Israel.’ He said to him, ‘I won’t go, for I will go to my land and my birthplace.’ He said, ‘Please don’t leave us, for because you are familiar with our encampments in the desert and you will be our guide. And if you go with us, then we will bestow on you the good which G-D grants us’” (Bamidbar 10:29-32).

The Ralbag learns a lesson from Moshe’s confrontation with his father-in-law:  “It is befitting for every complete person to direct everyone towards the good as much as he can. For this reason we find that it was not enough for Moshe that he knew his father-in-law’s good heart and that he believed in Hashem, for he (Moshe) was afraid that if he (Yisro) would return to his land his family would stay in a state of faith which is lacking. For this reason Moshe wanted Yisro, his father-in-law to stay with them in order so that his family will join them and all of them will run their lives according to the laws of the Torah. And in order to appease him more, he promised him they will receive the same good that Hashem showers on the Jews. Yisro only did not listen to his advice because he relied on the fact the he would be able to influence his family onto the true faith.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)

Moshe Rabbeinu, with all his responsibility as the leader of the Jewish people, around 3 million men, women, and children, who had just freed the Jewish people from slavery, who was charged with teaching  the entire Torah for the first time –   still understood that it was his own, personal responsibility to take extra measures  to bring Yisro’s family into the camp, even if it  added more responsibility on his part, in order  that they will join the straight path.

It was worth Moshe’s self-sacrifice, even though Yisro was known to be a very influential person. The Medrish says that Yisro was one of Pharaoh’s advisors with Iyov and Bilaam. He ran away to Midian after Pharaoh proposed to enslave the Jews. Bilaam agreed and was punished with death by the sword many years later at the hands of Pinchas. Iyov, who stayed silent, was stricken with much suffering in his lifetime and Yisro was rewarded with Moshe as a son-in-law for making a statement by running away. Once he was in Midian he became a priest for an idolatrous temple. He was no doubt a great orator and attractive to his people, or else he would not have been able to become advisor to Pharaoh or a priest in Midian. When he did see the “light” and decided to convert to the Torah way of life, Moshe had no doubt about Yisro’s deep belief and strong connection to Hashem and to following His Torah. The conviction and passion were fully there. But for some reason, even though Yisro might have had the ability to be the greatest kiruv expert around (because of popularity and charisma and his passion for Hashem and His Torah), still in all, Moshe did not think it was a wise decision to go back to his homeland because the impact on his brethren would not have made as deep of an impression as if they would come to him. Yisro didn’t think so; he thought he could use his talents to inspire them to embrace the true faith, without any lacking. And after all of Moshe’s persuasion, Yisro decided to leave anyways.

This is clear proof that we do not proselytize. The Ralbag says a complete person should do everything within his means to bring every single person on the straight path; yet Moshe did not force Yisro to stay. He left Yisro with a choice; he did present a very attractive, one-sided argument, but he still left Yisro with a choice, and Yisro decided he could influence  his people on his own.

It would seem from here that the reason why we are not into proselytizing and do not have an attitude of “convert or die,” is because in order for a person to have true faith in Hashem and want to follow his Torah and mitzvos, he has to come to that decision on his own. Granted, we can set up situations for them to want to choose this path of life, but they must ultimately make their own, guiltless, decision. We as Jews already made that authentic decision at Mount Sinai; it is now everyone else’s turn to follow suit if they truly want.

“Hashem spoke to Moshe saying: Tell the children of Israel, ‘When a man or woman commits any of the sins against man to act treacherously against G-D, and that person is found guilty, they shall confess the sin they committed, and make restitution for the principle amount of his guilt, add its fifth to it, and give it to the one against whom he was guilty” (Bamidbar 5:5-7).

The Sforno says: “Tradition teaches that this pasuk refers to stealing from a convert in the days of the Bei HaMikdash. For indeed, if one robs him he is making a chillul Hashem (profanes the Name of G-D) in the eyes of the convert who came to find protection under His wings. Therefore, he is called ‘one who trespasses against the sacred’ and is required to bring a guilt offering as is the law regarding all who trespass against Him.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)

The Sforno is teaching us that there is a tradition, dating all the way back to Har Sinai, that these verses are referring to a specific transgression of stealing from a convert. This, in turn, is more severe than normal stealing, since it creates an incredible chillul Hashem, and is therefore treated as if one is מועל בקודש, meaning it is as though a person actually used holy property, which has its own set of rules and severe punishments.

However this is a bit puzzling; because in reality,  what was stolen was not הקדש; rather it was belonging to a convert, and was not designated to be used in the Beis HaMikdash. So how can it be treated in the same manner, even bringing the same sacrifice for committing such a sin?

We see from here how special a convert is in the eyes of Hashem. He sacrificed everything to accept the yoke of Heaven, so Hashem literally takes him under His wing and treats him and his property as literally His own.

Similarly, we find in Gemara Berachos 34b: “Rebbe Abahu said, ‘In a place where baalei teshuva (the penitent) stand completely righteous people don’t stand.” The Chidushei Geonim in the Ein Yaakov clarifies that Rebbe Abahu must be saying baalei teshuva are better than the complete righteous only if they repented out of love of Hashem, as it says in Gemara Yoma daf 86 that his willful sins are transformed into merits but if one repented out of fear then his willful sins are only downgraded to accidents, and if so it does not make sense that this type of baal teshuva is better than a completely righteous person.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)

In any event, we see that when one changes one’s own lifestyle, Hashem will change the world, turning sins into reward (or at least accidents). Those who repent out of pure love for Hashem and  realize that they did wrong and want to be better because they realize how much Hashem loves them and they love Him back, andso only want to express that love for Him –  they are treated better than those who never sinned and are completely righteous.

A person born Jewish who repents out of love for Hashem and a convert have something in common, for a convert is not allowed to convert out of fear. They have made significant changes to their lives for the love and Sake of Heaven. Hashem in turn takes great strides to treat them with extra special attention.

This week’s Torah portion of Bamidbar starts the fourth book of the Torah. It begins: “Hashem spoke to Moshe in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tent of meeting, on the first of the second month, in the second year after their exodus from the land of Egypt saying” (Bamidbar 1:1). The Torah then proceeds to describe one of the many censuses counted in the desert.

Rashi, wondering why Hashem counted His people three times in one year, explains: “Because Bnei Yisrael is beloved to Hashem, He counts them at all times. When they departed from Egypt He counted them. And when they fell at the sin of the golden calf He counted them to determine the number of those remained. And when He came to rest His Divine Presence upon them He counted them. On the first day of the month of Nissan the Mishkan was erected and on the first of Iyar He counted them” (First Rashi in Bamidbar).

The Levush HaOrah, a commentary on Rashi, asks: why was Rashi’s question,which prompted his explanation, placed on this pasuk? The discussion of the census did not start until the second pasuk, which is where this Rashi should be? The Levush HaOrah answers, quoting Rav Shlomo Luria, that the question of Rashi was why did the Torah emphasized the date, the 11^th of Nissan,  more than by any other commandment? Rashi therefore answers that Hashem was displaying his  love through counting his precious people, and since this speech was out of pure love, Hashem’s Presence rested amongst them. This manifestation of his presence was deservingof recognition, it was therefore written on which day it took place, just like a chosson (groom) gives his kallah (bride) a kesuba with the date and location in it. (Click here for Hebrew text.)

The Torah is expressing Hashem’s pure love for his children, that they as beloved as a Kallah to her Chosson. Indeed, the census itself is  an expression of love, in that just as a collector counts his collection constantly, because he loves what he collects, so too Hashem counts his children often.It seems ironic and a bit degrading that Hashem at first expresses his love by comparing our relationship as a chosson giving his kallah a kesuba at their weddingand then laterseems to treat us as an object, comparing the Jewish People to a collector’s item. Why did Hashem’s expression of Love so drastically change, and why is it an appropriate expression of love?

We must say that Hashem is teaching us a lesson about showing one’s love for another. Of course Hashem has the ability to constantly shower us with the ultimate intensity of love , but love does not have to be constantly expressed with the same intensity and exactitude. As long as one genuinely shows continual expressions of love, even if it varies, it is still considered true love, which will be appreciated.

Good Shabbos,
Rabbi Dovid Shmuel Milder

This week’s Torah reading concludes the Book of Vayikra with the double portion of Behar and Bichukosai. In the second parsha we find the first set of blessings and curses for observing and G-D forbid transgressing the Torah at the beginning of Bichukosai.

One of the blessings for completely following Hashem’s Torah is: “I will provide peace in the land and you will lie down with none to frighten you; I will cause wild beasts to rest from the land, and a sword will not cross your land” (Vayikra 26:6).

The Ramban, quoting a Sifra on this pasuk, points out that there is an argument over whether ‘wild beasts resting from the land’ means no wild beast will enter any populated cities, as per Rebbi Yehuda, or, asRebbi Shimon says, that even if wild beast do enter populated areas they will not cause any damage.

The Ramban says that he sides with Rebbi Shimon’s view, and explains why: “For the Land of Israel will be in a state equivalent to the earth before Adam sinned when everyone will be fulfilling the mitzvos, no wild animal or creepy crawler will kill a person, as it says in Berachos 33a, ‘No wild donkey kills rather sin kill.’ This is what the verses in Yeshaya 11:5 and 7 are referring to when it says ‘Righteousness will be the girdle round his loins, and faith will be the girdle round his waist… A cow and bear will graze and their young will lie down together; and a lion, like cattle will eat hay.’ The instinct to prey was originally not within the nature of a wild beast, only because of Adam’s sin, was there a decree of prey on both of them, and the instinct to prey became nature even for an animal to prey on another as it is known, for preying on a man once will make the animal more fierce. And so the pasuk says ‘he learned to attack prey; he devoured men’ (Yechezkel 19:3).

Behold, at the time of creation it says that Hashem gave the wild animals grass to eat as it writes, ‘And for all the animals on the ground and all the birds in the sky and all that crawl on the ground which has an animalistic soul all the vegetation and grass is for them to eat’ (Breishis 1:30).  The pasuk concludes ‘and it was so,’ meaning this was the nature that Hashem placed inside them for all time but afterwards they learned how to prey because of the [first] sin which brought death into the world as we explained earlier. When the slaughter of animals was permitted in the times of Noah after the flood and man was warned by Hashem, ‘But your blood of your souls I will demand an account… I will demand the soul of man’ (Breishis 9:5), but not the animalistic  soul of an animal [spilled] by an animal, which means from then on the nature of the beast to prey stayed in place.

When the Land of Israel will reach its perfection, these bad ways will cease to exist and they will revert back to their original nature that they were originally created with…Therefore the pasuk speaks about the days of redemption through the ‘Trunk of Yishai,’ that peace will return to the world and preying will cease to exist and the will of all wild beasts and creepy crawlers will be as their original nature. Originally this was intended for in the times of King Chizkiyahu who Hashem wanted to appoint as moshiach, (see Gemara Sanhedrin 94a) but they did not merit that, however this will all happen in the future when moshiach comes.” (Click here and here for Hebrew text.)

The Mesilas Yesharim in his first chapter teaches us that Hashem put us into this world to use it; we have the ability to uplift ourselves and our surroundings by using for good what is around us. But we also, G-D forbid, have the potential to destroy ourselves and everything around us by using it for bad: “If you look more deeply into the matter, you will see that the world was created for man’s use. In truth, man is the center of a great balance. For if he is pulled after the world and is drawn further from his Creator, he is damaged, and he damages the world with him. And if he rules over himself and unites himself with his Creator, and uses the world only to aid him in the service of his Creator, he is uplifted and the world itself is uplifted with him. For all creatures are greatly uplifted when they serve the ‘complete man’ who is sanctified with the holiness of the Blessed One.”

The Ramban here seems to be taking the concept of the Mesilas Yesharim one step further. Not only can man uplift or destroy his surroundings, he can even transform their very nature back and forth from the way G-D originally intended to create them!

Not only  Adam HaRishon, someone who was mistaken by the angels as Hashem until Hashem put him to sleep, someone who understood the essence of every animal and was able to name each creature in the world  is it understandable that he could have such a power to transform nature. Yet we see from here that you and I as well, indeed all of us individually  as well as as a collective, have the potential to transform nature and revert it back to its original intention. We, who are living today, have this ability to bring peace to the world, and  usher in the days of moshiach simply by observing Hashem’s mitzvos and doing His will.

It is an awe-inspiring responsibility, but this is the greatness of man;each and every one of us has the ability to live up to it!

In the middle of this week’sTorah portion of Emor we find a discussion  of the yom tovim.  Yet part way through this discussion, the Torah reverts back to the topic of a few mitzvos that were already discussed in last week’s Torah portion of Kedoshim, it says: “And when you reap the harvest of your land you shall not completely remove the corner of your field during your harvesting, and you shall not gather up the gleaning of your harvest. Rather you shall leave these for the poor person and for the stranger. I am Hashem your G-D” (Vayikra 23:22).

The Medrish Toras Kohanim asks the obvious question in the name of Rebbe Avradimus (Avdimi) ben Rebbe Yossi: “Why is this pasuk placed here in the middle of the holidays, with Pesach and Shavuos discussed on one side and Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur and Sukkos on the other side? Rather it is coming to teach us that whoever gives out leket, shichicha, peah, and maser ani is viewed as if the beis hamikdash is standing and he brought offering within it. Whoever does not give leket, shichicha, peah and maasr ani is viewed as if the beis hamikdash is standing and he did not bring his offerings inside it.”

The Malbim explains that one of the intentions and benefits of the holidays is to support the kohanim of Hashem and the poor people. These two categories rely on the table of Hashem for sustenance… He says that even after the holiday it is a mitzvah to support the poor with gifts of the harvest. This is of equal value to the offerings to Hashem brought on the holidays which supported the kohanim. These mitzvos are done throughout the year, even after the beis hamikdash was destroyed. Indeed, one who does not give a due share to the poor people, it is as if he withheld his offerings in the beis hamikdash. (Click here fore Hebrew text)

The Rabbeinu Bachye, quoting Rashi, adds one more step to the equation.  He quotes the Toras Kohanim almost verbatim, which after asking the question of what this verse is doing at this juncture, the Rabbeinu Bachye, quoting Rashi answers: “From here you learn that whoever gives leket, shichicha and peah to the poor in the proper manner the Torah equates it as if he built the beis hamikdash and brought offerings inside it. I am Hashem your G-D trusted to pay up reward.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)

Leket is 1-2 stalks  of produce that falls during harvest; shichicha is bundles  forgotten during harvest;peah is produce at the corner of the field. All these should be left for the poor to collect and eat. Maaser ani is a tenth of the produce one must give on the 3^rd and 6^th year of the shemita cycle. If these mitzvos are fulfilled in exactly the proper manner, it is as if one built the beis hamikdash and brought offerings on the alter, which Hashem concludes in this verse is guaranteed because He is trusted to reward for just deeds.

However if one is to think about it, what is the big deal? One or two stalks fall, a bundle of grain, or the corner of one’s field – they are not so much, especially if many poor people visit the field. Imagine if a person stood outside and gave $1000 to every poor person who came to him; wouldn’t you think that it is a tremendous mitzvah of tzedaka deserving of being equated with bringing an offering in the beis hamikdash? Yet Rashi goes out of his way to emphasize that doing these mitzvos in the proper manner, exactly as Jewish Law prescribes, to its very detail, with all there proper intentions warrants the same reward as building the beis hamikdash and bringing sacrifices on the alter! Anything less or different, even if it looks like a bigger chesed, a better way to benefit the poor, does not have the same rewarding effect. Why?

We are compelled to say that although it might be a tremendous kindness and quite a show of charity to give $1000 to every poor person who passes by, and it is of course deserving of incredible reward, Hashem still runs the world in a systematic way. Therefore, only if that system is running exactly as the Creator created and expects it to run, only then will it function appropriately. Anything different, whether for better or for worse in the eyes of the doer, cannot produce the same results.

Hashem has a plan and gave us insight into the system of how the world runs. It is our job to understand and live by that plan, and not to try to outsmart Hashem and think we can do better, or that we can be good, moral people on our own terms; it won’t produce the desired effects at least in the long run. This doesn’t mean that everything is black or white, all or nothing. There is plenty of gray, and Hashem takes every minute detail into account. But there is a system of how He runs this world, and only living within that system produces perfection.