Untitled

Shemini.doc zeke.doc Download this file

Shmuli Gold and Jason Klein on Rabbi Fran

Parshat Metzora.docx Download this file

Avi Strauss: Rav Hirsch on Nadav and Avihu

[Taken from Rav Hirsch on Parshat Shmini]

Question: Parshat Shmini presents the interesting short story of two of Aharon’s sons, Nadav and Avihu.  They were killed by the hand of god even though it appeared they were doing nothing inherently wrong.  They were taking they’re own initiative for serving hashem yet they were dealt the harshest physical punishment imaginable.  So the question arises, what was wrong with what Nadav and Avihu did?

Explanation:

When evaluating the errs of Nadav and Avihu several issues arise.  It wasn’t just some arbitrary punishment given to say don’t enter the kodesh kedashim, but a direct consequence of a series of mistakes compiled into one sin.

            Firstly, right after the nation was presented with the concept of korbanot, Nadav and Avihu were acting in direct violation with one of its core principles; the acceptance of the torah.  Part of the process of korbanot involves bringing the sacrifices in the nation’s vessels and by doing so, accepting the torah and all of its laws that the nation agreed to abide by.  However, Nadav and Avihu brought their korbanot in their own personal vessels.  And while we are not accusing Nadav and Avihu of straying from any mitzvot, their vessels didn’t carry the same status that the national vessels did in terms of acceptance of hashem’s torah.

            Another problem with their personal korbanot was the spirit behind them.  Kohanim are the priests in charge of representing the entire nation with service.  They are the select few that actually carry out the processes involved in direct service to hashem.  But in this case, the spirit of their korbanot was totally wrong.  They were bringing them for themselves, not for the nation.  This blatant shirking of priestly responsibility deserved punishment not only for its mistake, but to teach the important lesson to all the kohanim that their duty is to the nation. 

            Perhaps the most problematic part of their spontaneous service to hashem was its deviation from hashem’s intent.  Judaism and Paganism both believe in bring sacrifices to their gods, but Judaism does so with one important distinction.  Pagans bring sacrifices with the intent of gaining the service of their god with gifts.  In contrast, Jews bring korbanot to demonstrate our unwavering loyalty to hashem.  We bring them to show we our fervent in our beliefs of hashem and to show our dedication to him.  To bring random sacrifices without any specific command to do so is antithetical to their purpose.  In this sense, the seemingly harsh punishment for action out of goodwill was vital to insure the principles hashem wanted to instill with korbanot. 

Parshat Tetzaveh

Yaakov Linder, Elliot Eisenberg

Parshat Tetzvaveh, Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks

Throughout all of Tetzaveh Moshe takes second place to his brother Aaron, the Cohen Gadol of the people; Moshe’s name is not even mentioned at all. There are many ideas of why this job went to Aaron instead of Moshe, but the most obvious is that Moshe tried to refuse the job of leading the people of Israel.

There is a deeper message here though, more than just “Man plans and God laughs”, we learn here the basic premise of the separation of powers. Human authority needs checks and balances in order to not become corrupt, something we can see even in the United States constitution. Specifically, political and religious leadership should not mix, like the Separation of Church and State.

The question is: how does this work out in a personal relationship between two brothers? The Torah never says it specifically, but hints at it numerous times.

The most commonly known hint is in the text after Moshe has talked to Hashem and is already headed back to Egypt. The Torah says that Aaron is “already on his way to meet you, and he will be glad to see you.” While these may seem like simple words, they are really a praise to Aaron. It would have been natural for Aaron to envy his younger brother, three years his junior, because of the position of leadership he was bestowed with, especially after Moshe’s long absence and adoption by Pharaoh. Compared to Aaron, Moshe was a complete and udder stranger among the Jewish people, so why does Moshe get the job instead of Aaron? Yet Aaron is happy for Moshe, despite everything he may want to be jealous about.

Aaron’s ability to be happy for Moshe stands out from the rest of the pairs of brothers in the Chumash, where the brothers were always involved in intense sibling rivalry, Cain and Abel, Yitzchak and Yishmael, Yaakov and Eisav, and Yosef and the other eleven brothers.  Aaron is a true gentleman when it comes to being happy for his brother, no matter the strain.

The Torah goes on to describe another test, this time for Moshe. Moshe has to create the Cohen Gadol position, one that he will never be able to fill, for his elder brother. The test is to see if he will be able to do it with the same happiness that Aaron displayed when Moshe became the leader. Moshe must show the people that he has the humility to share the leadership position with someone whose has strengths that he does not have, and with someone who is closer to the people.

To quote the end of Rav Sack’s dvar torah, because it really cannot be said any other way:
“True leadership involves humility and magnanimity. The smaller the ego, the great the leader. That’s what Moshe showed in the parsha that does not mention his name.”  

1.       The question asked here is: “what is the significance of moshes name not being mentioned throughout the parsha?” This is a great question because it is odd for Moshe to not be in a parsha, considering he is the leader of bnei yisrael. This question is a very interesting one because he is the leader of bnei yisrael, and it doesn’t make sense for moshe not to be spoken about in the parsha.

2.       The authors main points in this dvor torah are that moshe and aharon both are happy for each other while they are having two opposite roles. There was no true evidence brought. All of the evidence was straight from the torah itself.

3.       We learn from this that people should be happy with what they have, and when something good happens to someone else, then you should be happy for them.

4.       This was an excellent shiur. We agreed that it was both interesting and informal.

Shmulie Schwartz Unlocking The Torah Text Rabbi Golden Parsha Shmini 69-72

Shmulie Schwartz
Why does the Torah need to mention that the Kohanim should not do their commandments while intoxicated? Why does the Torah state a difference between wine and other intoxicating drinks? These are very good questions because we can clearly see that a Kohan should be doing the commandments in awe and fear, why does the Torah need to specify being intoxicated. One time at a museum a guide said that in a century when archeologists are digging at the museum, they will not find a no biking sign. They will see a no smoking sign. This is because at this time people biking in a museum is not a problem but smoking is. From here we can learn that back then drinking was a problem. We know that other religions find that being intoxicated or on drugs can make them closer to their G-d. The Torah could have just said do the commandments in awe and fear but, since back then there was a drinking problem with other nations, the Torah says that being intoxicated might be the way the other nations feel closer to G-d the Jews should not feel that way. The Torah even brings a difference between wine and other intoxicating drinks because the Torah has many times that Jews drink wine to help the holiday. The Torah is showing that even with wine a person should have it in moderation and not get intoxicated. This is a very good answer. This answer is very simple, clear, and very understandable. I think this is a good shuir to give right before Purim to people. I would not share this with my family though even though it is very interesting I do not feel it is meant for a family.

R' Grossman on the Hidden Message of the Megilah - Chaim and Gavi Dov

The Hidden Background of Megilat Esther - R’ Grossman

http://www.vbm-torah.org/purim/pur67-yg.htm

R’ Grossman notes that the Megilah begins not framing the narrative in a time period of Judaic notation - ie, 30 years into the Galut of Yehuda, but rather in a Persian time frame - “V’Yihi Bimai Achasveirosh.... HaMolech M’Hodu V’Ad Kush...”

He notes that most scholars identify Achasveriosh as being the Persian King Xerxes, for several textually based reasons, including the Greek Historian Herodotus identifying Xerxes as a king fond of wine and women, who ruled from a magnificent palace in Shushan and who ruled from Ethiopia (Kush) to India (Hodu). 

We found that this parallel of R’ Grossman to be quite compelling, fitting both with historical evidence as well as rather nicely with the Megilah text. 

However, he notes an immediate problem with accepting Achashveirosh as being Xerxes I. Based on historical evidence, this would require that the Megliah take place about 100 years after Churban Beit Rishon, and ~30 years after Chanukah Beit Sheini. 

This implies that Esther, Mordechai and the Jews of Shushan, and indeed all the Jews of Achashveirosh’s Persian Empire were among those who failed to comply with the proclamation of Cyrus to return to Eretz Yisrael - while the Jews of Israel struggle to rebuild the Jewish homeland, the Jews of Persia sit comfortably in Galut, feasting and partying. 

Evidence to the difficulty in Eretz Yisrael is clear in Nechemiah, who notes the heavy taxes and even the end of Terumah to the Cohanim for financial reasons. 

However, at the beginning of the Megliah, while the Jews of Israel are struggling, there is nothing to indicate that anything is going wrong for the Jews in Persia. According to this perspective, the beginning of the Megliah and the focus on Persia is not as benign as we would have thought - it is an expression of almost guilt, as the author (Esther and Mordechai, the leaders of Am Yisrael, who we note write the Megilah as we see at the end of the text) try and shift attention away from the fact that they are not in Israel. 

IN Ezra, the reference to Haman’s decree mentions a danger to all Jews in both Yehuda and Yerushalayim as well as Persia. R’ Grossman notes this as being a rare event in Tanach, of viewing the same event from two different perspectives - the Jews in Shushan see the decree, which as we know only was decreed against them as a danger only to them. The Jews in Israel note that such a decree endangers all of Klall Yisrael, including the rebuilding effort in Israel. 

The two recordings - that of Ezra and that of Mordechai and Esther - highlight the conflict in the Jewish community of the time, and where the center and focus of Jewish life should be - in Persia or in Eretz Yisrael. 

Looking at Midrash, we can see hints to this idea - the Gemara that cites Achashveirosh was waiting the 70 years (or so he thought) until after the Churban Beit Rishon to use the Ci HaMikdash, as well as many of the physical descriptions of the party of Achashveirosh that also line up with the Mikdash - Butz, fine linen, used both in Esther as well as by the Cohamin, Argamon, a color used almost exclusively to the Miskan and Mikdash is referenced here, and other examples that he cites. Even the idea of the palace (described as having an inner palace and outer palace) is meant to parallel the inner and outer levels of the Mikdash. 

The author of the Megilah is hoping to point out the solidarity in a way that the members of Shushan have - by giving the comparison to the Mikdash, the details that bring associations of the Mikdash make this an atmosphere of mourning in a way - a rebuke of the Jews feasting instead of helping those who have returned. 

Obviously, there are many messages in R’ Grossman’s shiur that apply to the situation in Eretz Yisrael today, particularly for us in Galut, and our need to assist those in Eretz Yisrael. The situation in Israel is similar today - Am Yisrael has been given permission to return to Eretz Yisrael after years of exile. His message is two fold for us - 1. That we need to be willing to answer the call, the invitation from H-shem to finally return for the first time in thousands of years to our nation’s homeland, and that 2. If we cannot or will not make this leap, that we must do everything we can to support our brothers and sisters in Israel, and not leave them to their fates while we sit comfortably in Galut. 

In regard to sharing at a Seduah, we found that the Dvar Torah was extremely compelling (although his last point doesn’t entirely fit with his chronology point he was making earlier - the idea of Achaveirosh counting down for 70 years after to flaunt the Churban doesn’t work if the Beit Hamikdash has already been rebuilt.) Aside from that, we felt that the unique interpretation of the chronology of the Megliah to be interesting, and the incredibly pertinent messages to be particularly enlightening and relevant for today. 

Furthermore, it is also “table-friendly” due to it’s lesser reliance on the text, as well as being based on a text that is more widely familiar. 

avi strauss based on vbm-torah

Question: Megilat Esther appears to be the antithesis of classical tanach; a sefer devoid of even a direct reference to hashem.  This retreat from classic tanach style, but inclusion in tanach itself is obviously meant to deliver a certain message.  What are we supposed to learn from the “topsy-turvy” world of the Megilla?

Explanation:  The Megilla seems to blatantly keep Hashem’s name out of its text.  When Mordachai refers to the salvation that will be brought to the Jewish people, he says it will come from a “different source”.  Another example is when Esther is taken for the beauty contest, one would expect the Megilla would portray it as a tragedy, but instead it glorifies it with a description about the lengthy process.  These instance as well as several others indicates a specific intention to remove a direct connection to god. 

            The Megilla is also devoid of mentions of Israel and only mentions Yerushalyaim once.  Its also curious that the Megilla paints Achashverosh and his kingdom a disgrace and farce marked by his physical indulgence.  It only mentions historical events in the 3^rd, 7^th, and 12^th years of his reign albeit barely.  However, modern day historical evidence shows that during Achashverosh’s rule, major events transpired.  Persia was preparing for a major war with the Greeks.  Under Achashverosh’s rule, the Persians built major canals and roads to transport a massive army to conquer Athens that was ultimately defeated.  But these events are totally neglected even when the tanach would sometimes devote space to mention the major historical occurrences of a time period.

            Also, we know the torah to be particular of its language and it generally tries to “cut the fat” of the story when hashem isn’t connecting to the people.  The torah skims over 200 years of slavery and the bulk of the trip through the desert (38 years) because of the absence of hashem.  So why then here would the tanach devote an entire Megilla to a time period without hashem?

            Furthermore, the Megilla seems to exaggerate the physical, unspiritual, antithetical-to-a-divine-kingdom qualities, that the Persian kingdom represents.  Also, the Jews of the time seem totally devoid of god as well.  They are actively a part of this society, totally assimilated from the Jewish ways and enjoying the parties Achashverosh throws.  Even the names of our heroes, Mordachai and Esther seem to be adopted from the Persian culture names of Morodokh and Ishtar.  No one in the whole story can escape the attraction of assimilation.  Moreover, the Jews fate seems to totally be determined by chance.  Haman wants to kill all of Mordachai’s people and decides when to do so based on a lottery.  There is not one mention of a divine intervention in the day chosen, just a by chance, down to earth, “pur” to determine the Jews fate. 

            So with these major differences, the question returns; what are we supposed to learn from this backwards segment of tanach?  The Megilla is written in this secular way to teach us that hashem is everywhere even when his name or presence might not be clearly expressed.  It just takes a deeper understanding to realize his hand in everything that happens both spiritual AND physical.  Without the Megilla, we would just have a tanach of hashem’s control of all that we do, but no example of him moving the strings behind the scenes.  Therefore, the Megilla is the exception to the norm that is there to prove hashem’s omnipotent control in all that happens.