Tag: Parshas Emor

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

Emor – Gadlus Ha’adam: Realizing You are a Whole Miniature World


At the end of this week’s Torah portion of Emor we find the story of the “Mekalel,” the one who cursed Hashem: “The son of an Israelite woman went out, and he was the son of an Egyptian man, among the Children of Israel; they fought in the camp, the son of the Israelite woman and an Israelite man. The son of the Israelite woman pronounced the Name and blasphemed, so they brought him to Moshe; the name of his mother was Shelomis bas Divri, of the tribe of Dan. They placed him in custody to clarify for themselves through Hashem. Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying: Remove the blasphemer to the outside of the camp, and all those who heard shall lean their hands upon his head: the entire assembly shall stone him” (Vayikra 24:10-13). 
Why did Mekalel do this despicable act? We have to first understand the background of what happened. Rabbeinu Bachye has a pasuk-by-pasuk explanation of what took place. Quoting a Medrish Tanchuma (parshas Emor, paragraph 23) he explains why the Torah at this portion begins, “The son of the Israelite woman went out;” where did he go? Rebbe Levi said he went out from his world. (The Etz Yosef quoting the Yefeh Toar on this Medrish Tanchuma said that not only did he lose his life in this world, but he lost his share in the World To Come because he died without repenting). Rabbeinu Bachye points out that the word before the beginning of this sentence is “world,” and what it means is that “he left his world” is that a person is a miniature world.

A few lines later Rabbeinu Bachye explains the pasuk, “He was a son of an Egyptian man whom Moshe had killed.” This man was the taskmaster who was in charge of Shlomis’s husband. This son of Shlomis had converted [and was living amongst the converts]. (There is an opinion, which we don’t hold like nowadays, that the son of a non-Jewish man to a Jewish woman is in the category of a convert and must do something to complete his conversion to a full-status Jew). There is another Chaza”l that says he left the court of Moshe guilty, for he had wanted to set up camp in the tribe of Dan. They asked him what’s your place here? He said to them, I am from the daughter of Dan. They quoted a pasuk (Bamidbar 2:2) back to him, “a man according to his flag, with signs from the house of his father” but not from the house of his mother. He entered the court of Moshe, was found guilty (meaning he lost the case), and he then left the courtroom and cursed Hashem. Rabbeinu Bachye, upon discussing the argument between the son of the Israelite woman and the Israelite man, asks: if they were arguing with each other, why did he choose to curse Hashem; he should have spoken out against Moshe or gone to hit or kill the person he was arguing with? However, it makes sense that he cursed Hashem for the Israelite man must have reminded this person that his father had been killed and how he was killed, for Moshe had used Hashem’s Holy Name, therefore this son of the Israelite woman said out that Holy Name and cursed it.

Rabbeinu Bachye then proposed a question: What forced the Torah to tell over this story? It should have been hidden for the sake of Hashem’s honor, and not revealed it at all. Rather, the Torah should have just mentioned the law to the Jews and said any person who curses Hashem and carries out this sin and spells out Hashem’s Holy Name shall surely die. For we already know that even non-Jews have the mitzva of not cursing Hashem as one of the seven Noahide laws, and of course Jews would have the same mitzva? Rabbeinu Bachye has two answers to this question. Number one, the intent of the Torah in telling over this story was first to inform everyone that no one else in the generation of the desert had the audacity to commit this despicable sin. Only this decisively evil indignant who was bad to the core due to his conception coming from an adulterous act (his mother consented to an Egyptian taskmaster, who Moshe found beating her husband the next day, and murdered).

At first glance one might ask what he did wrong? Isn’t he a victim of societal oppression? The poor guy was born into a dysfunctional situation; why is he blamed for his mother’s adulterous act? He just wanted to be integrated into society; why can’t he rely on his mother’s side to do that? Just because the Torah excludes that option and Moshe’s court reinforced the decision to be true (that one’s portion in a tribe is based on the father’s side), why should that be fair? Furthermore, he let out all his anger on Hashem because it was through His Holy Name that his father was murdered by Moshe; so why was he so severely punished and ostracized by society?

The truth is that he is responsible for his actions and decisions; there are no excuses. This is because of what Rabbeinu Bachye said earlier, that when the Torah says he went out, it was referring to leaving himself, that he is a miniature world which he abandoned. (Click here for Hebrew text.)

What does this mean? The Etz Yosef quotes a Matnas Kehuna explaining Rabbeinu Bachye saying that by the time he decided to curse out Hashem he was already compared to an animal, or even worse than an animal. To the point that he had no connection to mankind who are small worlds equivalent to the World in Heaven. (Click here for Hebrew text.) What the Matnos Kehuna is saying is that this person lost his human identity; he chose to leave it and lower himself even lower than an animal. If he would have sat down and realized how valuable he was, gadlus ha’adam, he is a precious world, a complete illustrative world with greatness built-in inside him, which can emulate and spark greatness as incredible as the Celestial Heavens. If he would have realized that he has his own unique purpose in the world and can be great at doing and being what he was created to be then he would not have sunken so low as giving up on himself and His Creator.

 A person who focuses on gadlus ha’adam, the greatness of man, in general and the potential heights he can personally achieve, will feel encouraged to strive for greatness in whatever situation he is put into.

In this manner we can understand the second reason why Rabbeinu Bachye says this episode was recorded in the Torah: “for from here it’s understandable to us a major tenant and a deep cornerstone in the concept of blessings and how a person is obligated to bless Hashem. For this blasphemer first said out Hashem’s name then went on to curse Him, as it says ‘the son of the Israelite woman pronounced Hashem[‘s Holy Name and then] he cursed’ and he was liable capital punishment for this. But the opposite is true regarding blessing Hashem and the reward for doing so, that one needs, when he is blessing Hashem, to focus in his heart the meaning of His Holy Name, each letter, what they reflect and have proper intent in one’s mind [when pronouncing His name] and then bless Hashem and verbalize it. With this one will receive reward and live long. A hint to this is what we say [in Ashrei every day] ‘ארוממך אלוקי המלך ואברכה שמך לעולם ועד’ ‘I will exalt You, My G-D the King and I will bless Your name forever and ever’ (Tehillim 145:1). It says ‘I will exalt You’ first and afterwards ‘I will bless…’ Just as they (Chaza”l) say: One should always enter [the shul] the amount of two doorways inside and then start praying.”

The message here is that if one actively puts effort into focusing himself and thinking about what he stands for, and what his role in life is, and how he can be the greatest servant of the King Of All Kings, then he can overlook all his frailties and disappointments which are worthless in the grand scheme of things, and he can then be quite successful in life.

Posted on

Emor – Normal Paranoia

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

The mitzvah of lighting the menorah in the Mishkan is reiterated towards the end of this week’s Torah Portion of Emor. It was first enumerated in the beginning of the Torah portion of Tetzave. The Baal HaTurim as well as others found a discrepancy between the two portions. For in this week’s portion it writes “Outside the dividing curtain of the testimony in the Tent of Meeting, Aharon shall set it up before Hashem from evening to morning continually. [This shall be] an eternal statute for your generations” (Vayikra 24:3).  But in Tetzave it writes “In the Tent of Meeting, outside the dividing curtain that is in front of the testimony, Aharon and his sons shall set it up before Hashem from evening to morning; [it shall be] an everlasting statute for their generations, from the children of Israel” (Shemos 27:21). Why are Aharon and his sons commanded to light the menorah in Tetzave, but only Aharon in Emor?

The Baal HaTurim answers that after Nadav and Avihu died when they entered the Sanctuary, Aharon did not allow his sons to enter alone; rather he would enter with them. However, when they would sacrifice the incense, he would leave.(Click Here for Hebrew text.)
It would seem that only Aharon was told in Emor what to do because he was always there, but others in his family performed the services in the Mishkan as well.

The conclusion of the the Baal HaTurim was referring to a Mishna at the end of the first perek of Mishnayos Keilim. There it says “and the people must keep away from the area between the porch and the altar when the incense is being burned” (Keilim 1:9). This means when the incense is being burned on a daily basis, the people must leave both the Sanctuary and the area between the porch and the altar.

Aharon’s children and rest of the family were righteous people who served as Kohanim in the Mishkan. We can assume whatever mistake Nadav and Avihu had done, the rest of them had learned a lesson, and clearly understood all the rules of being a Kohen, one example being not doing the service while inebriated, which was clearly enumerated after the incident. We can also assume they had an immense amount of Yiras Shamayim, fear and trepidation of Heaven, and certainly of Divine punishment, when they performed the Holy Service daily. Furthermore, we know Aharon fully accepted the Heavenly decree of his children, Nadav and Avihu’s passing, and he was even rewarded for his unquestionable allegiance to Hashem. As Rashi pointed out in the pasuk of “and Aharon was silent” (Vayikra 10:3), after their death. Why then did Aharon feel the need to accompany his children into the Mishkan on a daily basis?

What is even more astonishing is that the one service Aharon did not stay for was the incense offering, which the Torah says is when Nadav and Avihu died, trying to offer incense on the Alter. If Aharon was ready and able to not be there for the very service that “killed” his sons, then why must he feel he must be there at every other time?

There is a term in modern psychology called PTSD – Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It is possible on some miniscule level that Aharon Kohen Gadol, someone who was a rodef shalom, ran after peace and therefore was well liked and respected by everyone, who was also ready and did accept the decree from Hashem without any hesitations or qualms whatsoever, on such a high level of emuna and bitachon, faith and trust in Hashem, with a strict adherence to Torah and mitzvos, as proven from the fact that he would not be in the Mishkan when the incense was offered because that was against halacha, Jewish law – still in all he was concerned for the lives of his children and felt he must be there every other time they did the service in the Mishkan, just to ensure nothing went wrong. It sounds a tiny bit like paranoia but it would seem that on some level it is normal and natural, and that is why Aharon even on his level acted in this manner.

The gadlus, or greatness of Aharon Kohen Gadol, was that he controlled the stress. He didn’t allow the stress to overtake him, and therefore he did what was right according to halacha and was not present at the service of the incense even though one would think he would for sure be there since at that time Nadav and Avihu died. But his unnerving trust in Hashem kept him strong.

Posted on

Emor – Just One Shabbos


The Torah, in this week’s portion of Emor, requires a newborn animal set aside to be an offering to be 8 days old before it is allowed to be sacrificed, as it says: “When an ox or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall remain under its mother for seven days, and from the eighth day onwards, it shall be accepted as a sacrifice for a fire offering to the Lord” (Vayikra 22:27).


The Medrish Rabba brings a parable as to why one must wait 7 days before bringing a newborn animal as a sacrifice which, it says, is also the reason why the bris milah is on the 8th day. “‘It shall remain under its mother for seven days.’ Rebbe Yehoshua of Sechnin said in the name of Rebbe Levi, a parable to a king who entered one of his provinces and decreed and said, ‘Which ever citizen here who would like to see my face must first see the face of the matron.’ So to, Hashem said, ‘You shall not bring before me an offering until Shabbos has passed, for there isn’t 7 days without Shabbos, and there isn’t a bris milah without a Shabbos, therefore the pasuk continues,‘and from the eighth day onwards’” (Vayikra Rabba 27:10).

The Yefeh Toar observes that the reason why Shabbos is compared to a matron is because Shabbos is referred to as the Shabbos Queen. The lesson learned from this comparison is that Shabbos is a testimony to the fact that G-D created the world, something from nothing, and that Hashem watches over and is involved in His lower species. This belief must come before everything. Therefore, those that bring an offering to burn before The Great Hashem without belief in the nuance of the world and Hashem’s constant involvement has an untruthful belief. For this reason, one Shabbos should pass before the mitzvah of bringing an offering and the mitzvah of bris milah. (Click here for Hebrew text.)


What kind of a person is this medrish referring to? If it is someone who does not have any belief at all then why is he bringing a sacrifice or giving his son a bris? Even if he is just doing what his family does because that is the Jewish thing to do, then what does one Shabbos do for him? He has no clue how or why to keep Shabbos properly, so one Shabbos passing won’t make him a believer? Yet, if this is referring to someone who is already a believer in Hashem and he is bringing a peace offering, burnt offering, or even a sin offering for accidentally sinning, then he is already a believer and he even has observed many Shabbosim until now; so what does this add? It can’t be for the sake of the animal or baby’s belief who were just born because they don’t have the intellectual capacity to think in these terms?!

It must be referring to a believer who until now, if you would ask him, of course he would say that Hashem created the world from nothing and has, is, and always will be consistently involved in its existence and in minor and minute details that exist in what He created. However, the experience of observing a Shabbos reinforces this belief before such a momentous event as a father connecting his son to the Jewish covenant with Hashem or a person bringing an offering on the altar of Hashem to more closely connect or reconnect with Him for whatever reason he or she is bringing the offering. This could be one of the reasons why we have a shalom zachor the first Shabbos after a baby boy is born, to acknowledge and reinforce this belief in Hashem, (see Sefer Taamei HaMinhagim: Inyanei Milah).

 Without the experience or observance of the first Shabbos when the baby boy or animal is born then whatever belief, as strong as it was, won’t be the same and in fact it’s as if the previous belief is nothing.  

There are infinite levels of belief in Hashem and all the facets of His involvement in this world. These beliefs must be constantly reinforced but there are specific auspicious times like when bringing an offering or bris milah where one is creating a special connection with Hashem so at these times Hashem requires one to experience a Shabbos in order to create a deeper impression of belief in preparation to connect with Hashem.

Good Shabbos,
Rabbi Dovid Shmuel Milder

Vayikra 22:27).

The Medrish Rabba brings a parable as to why one must wait 7 days before bringing a newborn animal as a sacrifice which, it says, is also the reason why the bris milah is on the 8th day. “‘It shall remain under its mother for seven days.’ Rebbe Yehoshua of Sechnin said in the name of Rebbe Levi, a parable to a king who entered one of his provinces and decreed and said, ‘Which ever citizen here who would like to see my face must first see the face of the matron.’ So to, Hashem said, ‘You shall not bring before me an offering until Shabbos has passed, for there isn’t 7 days without Shabbos, and there isn’t a bris milah without a Shabbos, therefore the pasuk continues,‘and from the eighth day onwards’” (Vayikra Rabba 27:10).

The Yefeh Toar observes that the reason why Shabbos is compared to a matron is because Shabbos is referred to as the Shabbos Queen. The lesson learned from this comparison is that Shabbos is a testimony to the fact that G-D created the world, something from nothing, and that Hashem watches over and is involved in His lower species. This belief must come before everything. Therefore, those that bring an offering to burn before The Great Hashem without belief in the nuance of the world and Hashem’s constant involvement has an untruthful belief. For this reason, one Shabbos should pass before the mitzvah of bringing an offering and the mitzvah of bris milah. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
What kind of a person is this medrish referring to? If it is someone who does not have any belief at all then why is he bringing a sacrifice or giving his son a bris? Even if he is just doing what his family does, because that is the Jewish thing to do, then what does one Shabbos do for him? He has no clue how or why to keep Shabbos properly, so one Shabbos passing won’t make him a believer? Yet, if this is referring to someone who is already a believer in Hashem and he is bringing a peace offering, burnt offering, or even a sin offering for accidentally sinning, then he is already a believer and he even has observed many Shabbosim until now; so what does this add? It can’t be for the sake of the animal or baby’s belief who were just born because they don’t have the intellectual capacity to think in these terms?!

It must be referring to a believer who until now, if you would ask him, of course he would say that Hashem created the world from nothing and has, is, and always will be consistently involved in it’s existence and in minor and minute details that exist in what He created. However, the experience of observing a Shabbos reinforces this belief before such a momentous event as a father connecting his son to the Jewish covenant with Hashem or a person bringing an offering  on the alter of Hashem to more closely connect or reconnect with Him for whatever reason he or she  is bringing the offering. This could be one of the reasons why we have a shalom zachor the first Shabbos after a baby boy is born, to acknowledge and reinforce this belief in Hashem, (see Sefer Taamei HaMinhagim: Inyanei Milah).

 Without the experience or observance of the first Shabbos when the baby boy or animal is born then whatever belief, as strong as it was, won’t be the same and in fact it’s as if the previous belief is nothing.  

There are infinite levels of belief in Hashem and all the facets of His involvement in this world. These beliefs must be constantly reinforced but there are specific auspicious times like when bringing an offering or bris milah where one is creating a special connection with Hashem so at these times Hashem requires one to experience a Shabbos in order to create a deeper impression of belief in preparation to connect with Hashem.

Posted on

Emor – The Focus of Life in This World

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

The Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat 26:2 enumerate ways of how and when a Jew is allowed to use non-Jewish courts to settle a case in distinctive circumstances. There is, however, a very important lesson that we must appreciate at the end of this week’s Torah portion of Emor regarding the ideal state the Jews should be able to live.
The Torah states: “And one who injures an animal shall pay for it. And one who strikes a person shall be put to death. One judgement shall be exacted for you, convert and resident alike, for I am the Lord, your God” (Vayikra 24:21, 22).


Rabbeinu Bachye says in pasuk 21 that the reason why “one judgement shall be exacted” was placed next to the previous pasuk is to teach us that the same laws for cross-examining witnesses apply for both capital punishment and monetary cases. He goes on to say that “one judgement shall be exacted” means the judgement of The One, The Holy One Blessed Be He. That judgement, which was given to you at Har Sinai, [shall be used]; they are not like the judgements of the non-Jews and their courts.

Then, on pasuk 22, Rabbeinu Bachye says: “For I am the Lord, your G-D” is only if you do His judgement, ‘I am the Lord, your G-D.’ We can infer from the positive the negative; for anyone that does not act according to His judgements it is as if he excludes himself from His G-dliness, and denies Hashem. This is because it is a known thing that all the beliefs of the nations and their judgements are offshoots of the Torah, while the judgements of the Torah are the main part of the Torah. When we are not engrossed in them, it creates a chillul Hashem, a profanity of Hashem’s Holy Name. Those that can protest, and don’t, also create a chillul Hashem. Those who delegate honor to non-Jews are making a chillul Hashem, disgrace the Torah that was given to us through Moshe Rabbeinu, and they waste Jewish money. The whole world is dependent on laws, and Hashem only gave laws to the Jewish people, as it says: “He relates His word to Yaakov, His statutes and judgements to Israel. He did not do so for any other nation, such judgements, they know them not. Hallelukah” (Tehillim 147:19, 20, the end of the second Hallelukah in Pesukei DiZimra). (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Based on these two pesukim there is a very strong stance against Jews resolving their issues in non-Jewish court. Rabbeinu Bachye lists some reasons why it is a problem; you might cause your fellow Jew a bigger financial loss than he deserves; you are showing more respect to non-Jews than to Jews; you are disgracing Hashem’s Torah. However, the first thing, and what seems to be the most important factor mentioned, is the chillul Hashem of us not being engrossed in Torah. What does that have to do with taking a case to the non-Jewish courts, and why is that the biggest issue and greatest disgrace of Hashem’s name?

We see from here that the ultimate purpose of existence and the greatest sanctifier of Hashem’s Holy Name is the in-depth study and proliferation of Torah. By deferring to the non-Jewish courts, one is causing Jewish judges to lose the opportunity to be engrossed in Hashem’s Torah through deliberating judgement, which is a chillul Hashem!  

By going to Jewish courts and causing the Jewish judges to be engrossed in the nuances of Torah in order to figure out the correct halacha one is making a Kiddush Hashem. What this also means is through just fully observing the mitzvos anyone can make a Kiddush Hashem by being engrossed in Torah learning in order to be sure he is observing them correctly.