Table of Contents
- Acharey/Shabbos HaGadol
- Pesach Rishon/First Days of Passover
- Chol HaMoed Pesach
- Acharonim Shel Pesach
- Kedoshim
* * * * *
Please click on image below to download & print
|
THE WEEKLY SIDRA- ACHAREI MOS
Rabbi Moshe Greebel
Theoretically speaking of course, an interesting question in Halacha (Torah law), might be posed along the lines of someone being capable of selling the Mitzvos he accomplished to another. And, for that matter, is one capable of selling his Aveiros (sins) to another? Undoubtedly, questions of this nature are not generally put forward for the purposes of Halacha L’Ma’aseh (practical Halacha), as much as for the sake of comprehending the Torah on as scholarly a level as possible.
This matter is eluded to in this week’s Sidra, which speaks of the Avoda (service) on Yom Kippur, performed solely by the Kohain Gadol (high Kohain). Part of this Avoda would consist of the following:
“And he shall take of the congregation of the B’nai Yisroel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.” (Vayikra 16:5)
Concerning these two goats, the Kohain Gadol is to accomplish the subsequent lottery, by blind selection:
“And Aharon shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for HaShem, and the other lot for Azazel.” (ibid. 16:8)
The goat which has been selected for HaShem, is offered as a Chatas (sin offering):
“And Aharon shall bring the goat upon which HaShem’s lot fell, and offer it for a Chatas.” (ibid. 16:9)
The other goat selected for Azazel however, is not offered at all, but rather, led out to the wilderness and killed there. At no time is it ever a Korban (offering):
“But the goat, on which the lot fell to be for Azazel, shall be presented alive before HaShem, to make an atonement with it, and to let it go to Azazel into the wilderness.” (ibid. 16:10)
Furthermore:
“And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities to a land not inhabited; and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.” (ibid. 16:22)
Basically, all the Aveiros of Yisroel are transferred to this goat selected for Azazel. Now then, regarding these two goats on Yom Kippur, the Midrash B’raishis Rabbah 65-15, has this to say:
“’And the goat (Sa'ir) shall bear upon him (Vayikra 16:22)’ alludes to Aisav, as it says, ‘Behold, Aisav my brother is a man of Sa’ir (hair)…..’” (B’raishis 27:11)
Briefly leaving the Midrash to explain, we have seen countless times in LaShon HaKodesh, the multiple meanings of words. The expression goat is translated as ‘Sa’ir,’ which translates as well into hair, which being smooth skinned, made Ya’akov very concerned in the above Passuk (verse). What this all means, is that on Yom Kippur, the sins of Yisroel are transferred to Aisav, who is Sa’ir, by another Sa’ir, a goat. We return to the Midrash:
“…..’All their iniquities to a land not inhabited.’ (Vayikra 16:22) means the iniquities of the Tam (pure man), as it says, ‘And Ya’akov was a Tam.’” (B’raishis 25:27)
The expression ‘all their iniquities’ in LaShon Hakodesh is ‘Kol Avonosam,’ the latter word broken up into two words would be ‘Avonos Tam,’ or, ‘sins of the Tam.’ That is, on Yom Kippur, the Aveiros of the Tam (descendents of Ya’akov) may have their Aveiros carried off by the Sa’ir, who is Aisav.
Developing this theme, we find in the text Otzar HaChasiddus, that Rav Tzadok Rabinowitz HaKohain of Lublin (1823-1900) of blessed memory, once stated that committing Aveiros does not make an acquisition of a Jew’s life. The reality is that a Jew does not plan to sin for the sake of sin. He sins are due to circumstances and time. That is, T’shuva (repentance) for these Aveiros, may always be accomplished. This, we know from an actual Passuk:
“And He shall redeem Yisroel from all its iniquities.” (T’hillim 130:8)
The expression ‘all its iniquities’ (Kol Avonosam) is used here as well, as it was used in reference to Yom Kippur.
Now, Rav Tzadok HaKohain went on to explain that since Aveiros may be transferred to another entity, a goat, it stands to reason that these Aveiros have the same status as the redemption of Kodesh (things designated to the Bais HaMikdash). For, one may certainly pay out money, to redeem for his own use, an object that is Kodesh. The K’dusha (holiness) of the object then, is transferred to the money going into the Bais HaMIkdash.
In this matter, HaShem redeems Yisroel from its Aveiros, by transferring them on to others. We see this in an actual Passuk:
“Since you were precious in my sight, you were honored, and I have loved you; therefore will I put men in your place, and people for your life.” (Y’shaya 43:4)
‘Men in your place, and people for your life’ designates that others will take the blame for the Aveiros of Yisroel, even when the committing of such Aveiros is punishable by the forfeiture of life. This Passuk, and ‘And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities,’ clearly illustrates a strong Torah theme of Aveiros being transferred from one to another.
Yet, concluded Rav Tzadok HaKohain, when it comes to the accomplishment of Mitzvos, these Mitzvos are a K’dusha of a Jew’s actual self and body, a K’dusha that cannot be separate from him. Hence, regarding the Mitzvos that one accomplishes, no redemption or transfer of them is possible. As Mitzvos are performed by any Jew out of true love for HaShem, that love cannot be redeemed, as we see from the words of Shlomo HaMelech:
“Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it; if a man would give all the wealth of his house for love, it would be utterly scorned.” (Shir HaShirim 8:7)
Not many waters, nor floods, nor all the wealth of one’s house can redeem (transfer) the accomplishment of a Mitzvah done out of pure love to HaShem, from one man to another. Simply put, there is no price tag on Mitzvos.
With a scholarly conclusion, the Otzar HaChasiddus informs us of the Maharam Alshich (Rav Moshe Alshich 1508-1593) of Tz’fat of blessed memory, in the name of the T’shuvos (responses) of Rav Hai Gaon (939-1038) of blessed memory, who once wrote a response which stated that since Mitzvos have no redemption or transfer, Mitzvos could not be sold to another. Aveiros however, which do have redemption and transfer, may be sold to another, if the buyer for whatever reason, is so inclined.
May we soon see the G’ulah Sh’laimah in its complete resplendency- and in our times. Good Shabbos.
* * * * *
Please click on image below to download & print
* * * * *
Please click on image below to download & print
* * * * *
Please click on image below to download & print
* * * * *
Please click on image below to download & print
* * * * *
THE WEEKLY SIDRA- K’DOSHIM
Rabbi Moshe Greebel
Undoubtedly, attaining a good sense of patience in all things, is certainly an admirable Torah attribute. The Gemarah in B’rachos 64a, and Airuvin 13b instructs:
“All who push the hour, are (subsequently) pushed by the hour!”
So essential is it to be enduring and tolerant, that the Midrash Koheles Rabbah 7-15, teaches us of Moshe’s impatience to HaShem, after the Pharaoh’s initial refusal to let the B’nai Yisroel out of Egypt, and his order not to supply the B’nai Yisroel with straw for bricks anymore:
“…..If Moshe had been patient, he would have been saved (from speaking against HaShem), but they (the B’nai Yisroel) provoked him and made him lose his temper, saying to him, ‘May HaShem look upon you and judge, because you have made our spirits to be abhorred in the eyes of Pharaoh….’ (Sh’mos 5:21). He could not endure their words, and he also lost his temper and said in his anger (to HaShem), ‘Since I came to Pharaoh in Your name, he has dealt ill with this people; neither have You delivered Your people at all!’ (ibid. 5:23)’”
As can be seen then, the lack of patience even in the Av HaN’vi’im (Moshe, the father of all prophets), can be devastating. For that deficiency of enduring others, inevitably results in unwarranted anger, one of the most detestable of human responses.
In all honesty nevertheless, it must be understood that Moshe’s anger was not a matter G-d forbid, of his own ego having been insulted, but rather, his inability to see his brothers, the B’nai Yisroel, suffer even more than they had prior.
This wisdom of having patience, is a universal attribute. Leo Tolstoy once wrote, "The two most powerful warriors are patience and time." Benjamin Franklin penned, "He that can have patience, can have what he will." Ralph Waldo Emerson put it, "Patience and fortitude conquer all things."
Now, this week’s Sidra offers us a very interesting, and even surprising perspective of patience, to which we will shortly return, after a brief discussion of time.
The concept of time in the Torah, as would be expected, plays a very integral part when it comes to Issur V’Heter (that which is forbidden and
permitted), where the smallest segment of time humanly imaginable, can make vast differences in Halacha (Torah law). Lighting Shabbos candles at the prescribed time on Friday evening, is considered a Mitzvah, and an honor for the Shabbos. However, lighting these very same Shabbos candles scant moments after this prescribed time on Friday evening, may result in a Chillul Shabbos (desecration of Shabbos).
On Erev Pesach, the eating of Chametz is still permissible until a specific hour of the day. Yet, any Chametz eaten just moments after that specific hour, may be in violation of Pesach. While it is a Mitzvah to eat on Erev Yom Kippur, at a certain time towards evening, moments after the permissible time, eating may violate Yom Kippur. As expected, there are quite a few other instances of the factor of time in Halacha, but these examples given here should suffice.
In this week’s Sidra, we are given to see once again, how important a factor time can be, and how equally important it is for anyone to develop a good healthy sense of patience.
The Issur (prohibition) of Orla, refers to the first three years’ growth of a fruit tree, from which a Jew may derive no Hana’ah (benefit) in any form.
The first three years’ produce, the Orla, must be burned. The Torah states:
“And when you shall come into the land, and shall have planted all kinds of trees for food, then you shall count its fruit as forbidden; three years shall it be forbidden to you; it shall not be eaten.” (Vayikra 19:23)
On this Passuk (verse), there is a very unusual Midrash in Vayikra Rabbah 25-2, whereby Adam HaRishon is castigated for having eaten from the Aitz HaDa’as (tree of knowledge):
“Rabbi Y’huda Ben Pazzi expounded, ‘Oh, that someone had removed the dust from your eyes, Adam! For you were unable to stand firm for an hour in your obedience, and lo, your children have now to wait in regard to forbidden fruit for three years!’”
What exactly, is the relationship between the Issur of Orla and Adam HaRishon having been able to stand firm for only a brief space of time, before eating from the forbidden fruit of the Aitz HaDa’as? In the text D’vash L’Pi, we have a very surprising and equally informative answer.
Directly after the Issur of Orla in the Torah, the Torah writes:
“You shall not eat any thing with the blood; nor shall you use enchantment, nor observe times.” (ibid. 19:26)
Expounding upon the various interpretations of the first clause of this Passuk, the Gemarah in Sanhedrin 63a, has this to say:
“For, it has been taught, ‘Whence do we know that the eating of the flesh of an animal before it has expired, is forbidden by a negative precept? From the verse, “You shall not eat anything with the blood.” Another meaning of You shall not eat anything with the blood is, you shall not eat the flesh (of offerings) while the blood is in the sprinkling bowl.’ Rabbi Dosa said, ‘Whence do we know that the meal of comfort (for mourners after a funeral) is not eaten by (the relatives of) criminals executed by Bais Din? From the verse You shall not eat (i.e., observe the funeral meal) for one whose blood has been shed.’ Rabbi Akiba said, ‘Whence do we know that a Sanhedrin which executed a person must not eat anything on the day of the execution? From the verse, You shall not eat anything with the (shedding of) blood.’”
Now, while all these different meanings of the Passuk are quite remarkable, posed the D’vash L’Pi, why is this Issur of not eating anything with the blood, placed directly in the Torah after the Issur of Orla?
Citing the commentary of the Shach and the Ohr HaChayim on this Passuk of not eating anything with the blood, which resolves why the Passuk of Orla proceeds it, the D’vash L’Pi quotes the text of the Ohr HaChayim:
“’You shall not eat any thing with the blood’…..This Mitzvah (of not eating any thing with the blood) is placed next to the Mitzvah of Orla, to hint at, what Chazal (our Rabbis of blessed memory) stated, that Adam HaRishon sinned by eating from the tree (of knowledge) prior to the time of its being permissible…..”
Leaving the Ohr HaChayim momentarily, we see something very astounding indeed. The prohibition of eating from the Aitz HaDa’as, was not an everlasting prohibition for Adam and Chava. Rather, this prohibition was only valid for three hours. Had Adam and Chava waited three hours, which would have been Shabbos, the fruit of the Aitz HaDa’as would have been permissible. We return to the Ohr HaChayim:
“…..(This eating too early from the Aitz HaDa’as) is a form of Orla. For, had he (Adam HaRishon) waited until Friday night, Shabbos Kodesh, he would have recited Kiddush on wine (The Aitz HaDa’as according to this opinion, was a grape vine (see B’rachos 40a and Sanhedrin 70a)…..”
And here, explained the D’vash L’Pi, is the meaning of the above Midrash, and the relationship between the sin of Adam and the Issur of Orla. For, Adam was commanded in the ninth hour on the Friday of his creation, not to eat from the Aitz HaDa’as for three hours, just as we are commanded not to eat Orla for three years.
In all truth though, there is another opinion in Midrash, in B’raishis Rabbah 18-6, whereby Adam HaRishon had already eaten from the Aitz HaDa’as, prior to the sixth hour:
“Rabbi Eliezer said, ‘There were three who did not remain in their tranquility for six hours. They were Adam, Yisroel, and Sisera…..’”
Nevertheless, according to the version of the above Vayikra Rabbah 25-2, as explained by the Ohr HaChayim, Adam was commanded in the ninth hour not to eat from the Aitz HaDa’as, and should have waited three more hours until Shabbos to do so. Because he did not wait, he and Chava were banished from Gan Eden (garden of Eden) in the 12th hour.
The D’vash L’Pi assumes that this matter was in the mind of the poet who composed for Hoshanah Rabbah (7th day Sukkos), “Hoshanah Shalosh Sha’os!” Or, save us from the three hours! And, because Adam and Chava were ‘divorced’ so to speak, from Gan Eden in the 12th hour of the day, the Midrash B’raishis Rabbah (chapter 21) printed in Worms, France, speaks of the twelve lines of the Get (divorce bill).
Those three hours for which Adam was too impatient to wait, were the cause of our being giving the Issur of Orla according to the above Rabbi Y’huda Ben Pazzi. Because Adam HaRishon was too impatient to wait those three hours, we make up for our ancestor by waiting the three years of Orla.
In conclusion, explained the D’vash L’Pi, now that we see the relationship of the sin of Adam and the Issur of Orla, the close proximity of the Passuk of not eating any thing with the blood, signifies that the punishment for Adam and Chava for their sin, was death:
“But of the Aitz HaDa’as, of good and evil, you shall not eat of it; for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (B’raishis 2:17)
And so, we see the wise council of developing a good sense of patience, and not causing ourselves to rush into unwarranted action. For, if the Av HaN’vi’im could fall victim to a lack of patience, how much more so, must we guard ourselves to be more tolerant and enduring of everyone, and never under any circumstances, to allow unjustified rage to assault others.
May we soon see the G'ulah Sh'laimah in its complete resplendency, speedily in our days.
