Rabbi Dov Kramer on Shavuot

Taking a Closer Look (Rabbi Dov Kramer)

    “Moshe received the Torah from Sinai.” These opening words of Pirkay Avos are ingrained in the psyche of the Jewish people. It can’t refer to the “Ten Commandments,” as it wasn’t just Moshe who “received” them; the entire nation heard G-d speak those words (even if they couldn’t discern the words of the last eight). In schools and Yeshivos worldwide, these words are taught to mean that G-d taught Moshe the entire Torah, start to finish - the Written Law and the Oral Law and everything they encompass - during the forty days that Moshe spent atop Mt. Sinai. Indeed, this is what the traditional literature seems to teach us as well. “Scripture, Mishnah, Laws, Talmud, Toseftos, Agados, and even what an earnest student is, in the future, going to say before his teacher, all of them were said to Moshe at Sinai” (Vayikra Rabba 22:1).

    Yet, the Talmud (Menachos 29b) tells us that when Moshe saw G-d connecting “crowns” onto the letters of the Torah, he asked why. Upon hearing that there will be a great scholar (Rabbi Akiva) who will learn out “piles of laws” from these crowns, Moshe asked to be shown this scholar. G-d allows him to “sit in” on one of Rabbi Akiva’s shiurim (lectures), but Moshe was unable to follow what was being taught, which caused him to feel weak. After a student questioned Rabbi Akiva about the source for a particular law, with Rabbi Akiva responding that “it is a law that was taught to Moshe on Mt. Sinai,” Moshe’s mind is put at ease. If every law, every piece of Talmud, every valid point raised by every student in history, was taught to Moshe at Sinai, how could Moshe not have understood what Rabbi Akiva was teaching? Additionally, how could Rabbi Akiva claim that it was a law taught to Moshe, if Moshe himself didn’t know it and couldn’t follow the lecture? No matter how Rabbi Akiva arrived at his conclusion, once the law itself was taught, Moshe should have recognized it; why did it take Rabbi Akiva’s saying it came through Moshe to put Moshe’s mind at rest? Not only that, but why did Moshe even have to ask G-d the reason He was putting “crowns” on the letters in the first place? If he had been taught everything, shouldn’t he have already known that there would be “crowns” and why they were there?

    Rashi (in Menachos) sidesteps these questions (whether on purpose or not) by saying that Moshe hadn’t finished learning all that he was going to be taught. Therefore, once he heard that he just hadn’t reached that part of the curriculum yet, his mind was put at ease. This would fit very nicely with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion (Chagiga 6a-b) that only the general categories were taught at Sinai, with Moshe being taught the details in the Mishkan; Moshe saw the “crowns” being added while still on Mt. Sinai, but wouldn’t be taught what they were for, or even the law details derived from them, until his private lessons with G-d continued in the Mishkan. However, Rashi (Vayikra 25:1) clearly follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva who says that all the details were taught at Sinai (and repeated in the Mishkan and then again at Arvos Moav). [The Talmud (ibid) equates Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion with Bais Shammai and Rabbi Akiva’s with Bais Hillel, so it is certainly understandable why Rashi (and the Rambam, Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah 1) follows Rabbi Akiva.] Nevertheless, Moshe seeing G-d adding the “crowns” before he had completed his lessons on Sinai can explain why he hadn’t already known why they were there.

    The Maharsha (in Menachos), however, says that Moshe’s request to be shown the scholar who will learn “piles of laws” from the “crowns” was for G-d to “reveal to him those secrets of the connections (i.e. the crowns, which were connected to all those laws) that will be revealed in the future to Rabbi Akiva.” If they wouldn’t be revealed until Rabbi Akiva learned them out, they must not have been taught at Sinai. The Aitz Yosef (a commentary on the Ein Yaakov) says that although Moshe was taught all of the Oral Law, he wasn’t taught how each and every law that was to be transmitted orally was hinted to in the Written Law. Therefore, it wasn’t the laws Rabbi Akiva was teaching that Moshe was unfamiliar with (as Moshe was taught all of them), but how those laws can be derived or remembered (“connected”) via the “crowns” on the letters. This approach isn’t fully satisfactory, though, as it doesn’t explain Moshe “feeling weak” and then “his mind being put at ease.” Did Moshe know that he wasn’t going to be taught the “connections” between the Written Law and the Oral Law? If he did, then not knowing them wouldn’t have been a surprise. He may have “felt weak” if he wasn’t able to comprehend how the connections were made (although limiting Moshe’s ability to comprehend is a bit hard to accept), but this “weakness” shouldn’t have been resolved when Rabbi Akiva attributed the law to what Moshe was taught at Sinai (as it has nothing to do with his ability to follow the process of connecting the Oral Law to the Written Law). Likewise, if Moshe was not aware of these connections or that he was not going to be taught them, wouldn’t G-d have explained that to him when Moshe asked about the “crowns?” If his “feeling weak” was a result of realizing that he wasn’t going to be taught them, how does Rabbi Akiva’s attributing the law to what Moshe was taught at Sinai alleviate this? More importantly, the Midrash (and its parallel in Koheles Rabbah 5:8) doesn’t say that “any law” that a student brings up to his teacher was taught to Moshe at Sinai, but that anything he “says,” meaning his suggestions for how to understand a concept, how to apply it, or how to connect it to the verse, not (just) the law itself. [It should be noted, however, that the parallel statements in the Yerushalmi (Pe’ah 2;4) and Koheles Rabbah (1:9/10) have it as “anything an earnest student will teach.”] The expression being anything other than “any law taught throughout the generations,” especially when it is not the teacher doing the “saying” but the student, indicates that Chazal were not limiting the things taught to Moshe at Sinai to just the laws themselves.

    In the Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah (1), the Rambam explains what Chazal meant when they said that every detail was taught to Moshe at Sinai. [It should be noted that, from a practical standpoint, it makes absolutely no difference whether this was taught to Moshe at Sinai or in the Mishkan; either way the transmission was directly from G-d to Moshe, who then passed it along to Yehoshua (etc.).] “Here is an example for you: G-d said to Moshe, ‘you shall live in huts for seven days’ (Vayikra 23:42). Afterwards, He made it known that this obligation applies only to males, not females, nor does it apply to the sick or those who are traveling, [he was taught] that its covering (roof) can only be made from materials that grow from the ground and it cannot be covered with wool or silk or with vessels – even those made from materials that grow from the ground, such as pillows and clothing. And He made known that eating, drinking and sleeping in it (the succah) all sever days is mandatory, and that its inner area cannot be smaller than seven hand-breadths long by seven hand-breadths wide, and that the height of the hut cannot be less than ten hand-breadths.” This is true of all 613 commandments, “the commandment in writing and the details/explanation orally.”

    Later (4), the Rambam creates five categories of law: (1) Details/explanations that were transmitted through Moshe that are hinted to in the Written Law and can be extrapolated from them; (2) Laws that cannot be derived from verses, but were transmitted through Moshe; (3) Laws that were not transmitted through Moshe, but can be extrapolated from verses; (4) Decrees made by the prophets and/or sages to ensure that the biblical commandments are not violated; and (5) Decrees made not to protect already existing commandments, but to help facilitate spiritual growth (such as learning the laws of Pesach a month prior) or societal needs (such as “pruzbol”). The latter three categories were not transmitted by G-d to Moshe and then from Moshe to Yehoshua (etc.), although it is theoretically possible that G-d shared them with Moshe but did not command/authorize him to teach it to the nation (possibly to allow for each generation to have an impact, making it a “living Torah”); the Maharsha’s understanding of Moshe’s request to meet Rabbi Akiva indicates that not everything was taught to Moshe, not that it was taught to him but he had to keep it to himself. [Just as there is no difference in the transmission process whether something was taught to Moshe on Mt. Sinai or in the Mishkan, there is no difference in the transmission process whether it was not taught to Moshe or taught to him but not transmitted to others.]

    When articulating the role of the Sanhedrin (Hilchos Mamrim 1:3-4), the Rambam reiterates his position from his Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah that anything that was transmitted through Moshe will never become a matter of dispute. This position is not universally held (see Igeres Rav Sherira Gaon, end of chapter 2); a straightforward reading of the Talmud (Sanhedrin 88b) that the Rambam bases his next halacha (4) on indicates that disputes arose not only regarding new laws enacted, but regarding laws that had been previously transmitted, including those that originated from Moshe who was taught them at Sinai, but had been forgotten. Nevertheless, the Rambam is unequivocal that the disputes in the Talmud arose from differences of opinion about how to enact (or apply) new laws, and these laws did not originate at Sinai. These new laws could fall into any of the three latter categories described above, including the third category, i.e. laws derived from the verses through the system of extrapolation (the “13 attributes” read every morning at the end of “karbanos”). This system of extrapolation was taught to Moshe at Sinai, and he passed it on to be used in every generation to learn out new law details and apply them to any situation that arose (see Maharatz Chiyos on Berachos 5a). [The Ritva (Eruvin 13b) says that Moshe was taught all the possible outcomes using this system, and therefore they are all considered “the words of the Living G-d.”]

    Moshe didn’t have to be taught how electricity works in order to teach him whether it qualifies as something forbidden on Shabbos or not, and if so, how. Once the ground rules were taught to him and put into the halachic system, after electricity was invented they can be used to determine, based on what was taught to Moshe at Sinai, what its status is.

    Included in what Vayikra Rabbah (and Koheles Rabbah and the Yerushalmi) say was taught to Moshe at Sinai was “Scripture.” This is expanded elsewhere to mean not just Chumash, but the Prophets and Writings as well (Berachos 5a), including Megilas Esther (Megila 19b). How could all of Tanach have been taught to Moshe at Sinai if the events hadn’t occurred yet? Did Moshe know that Korach was going to rebel well before he did? How could he send the spies to scout out the Land if he knew what the tragic outcome would be? Did G-d tell Moshe about the nation sinning with the “golden calf” (Shemos 32:7-8) by teaching him Parashas Ki Sisa? Was Moshe taught about the Levi’im assisting the Kohanim in the Mishkan/Temple even before the circumstances that necessitated them replacing the first-born had occurred?

    In Berachos, Rashi doesn’t explain the word “Scripture” to mean the actual text, but that “it’s a mitzvah to read the Torah.” The Maharsha expands on this, adding the guidelines for reading the Torah (i.e. not by heart, with its vowels and cantillation), and says that the Prophets and Writings are a separate category because their laws aren’t the same as for Chumash. I have previously discussed what the Talmud meant when it said that Moshe was taught Megilas Esther at Sinai (www.aishdas.org/ta/5765/tzav.pdf, pg. 4), with the “bottom line” being that it was not the actual text that was taught to Moshe, but the authorization to include a future text about Amalek in the canon of Writings. In doing research for this essay, Baruch Hashem I found that the Maharatz Chiyos (in Megila) says this as well. This doesn’t mean that no part of the biblical text was given to Moshe at Sinai. As I discussed last week, Rashi (Shemos 24:7) says that all of Sefer Beraishis and most of Sefer Shemos was given at Sinai (before the public revelation), and I suggested that the Ramban might agree (albeit after the public revelation). We can add Terumah/Tetzaveh (and part of Ki Sisa) to that text, since the Mishkan was commanded at Sinai (during the first 40 days on Mt. Sinai according to the Ramban and during the third set of 40 days according to Rashi). All, or at least parts, of Parashas Behar was taught at Sinai, so it’s possible that this text was given to Moshe at Sinai as well. Since the Chizkuni says that the “tochacha” was the “Sefer haB’ris” described by Matan Torah, he would add Parashas Bechukosai (or at least a good portion of it) as being a text given at Sinai. (Whatever wasn’t given in text form at Sinai was given to Moshe in the Mishkan, either along the way, or all at once in Arvos Moav, when the complete Torah text was given to the nation.)

    What about Agada, the non-legal parts of the Talmud and Midrash? Much has been written about the nature of Agada, and space is too limited (and time too short) to give it a full treatment (IY”H one day I hope to). For the purposes of our discussion, suffice it to say that the format of Agada, whether it be teaching spiritual messages through story-telling, or reconstructing history using the same system used to either reconstruct or construct law (after all, the law becomes what the Sanhedrin decides, but they can’t decide how old Rivka was when she married Yitzchok), just as Moshe was taught the system of determining laws, he was given the system (and permission) to expound verses that have no (direct) impact on what we should do.

    Based on this, we can easily explain how Moshe did not know the laws Rabbi Akiva was teaching, let alone how they were derived from the “crowns” of the letters, and why he felt better after hearing Rabbi Akiva say that it was based on what was taught to Moshe at Sinai. These were laws that fell into the Rambam’s third category, so had not been taught to Moshe, and Moshe became unsettled when he wasn’t sure that Rabbi Akiva was using the system given at Sinai to figure these laws out. Once Rabbi Akiva explained that his method of learning them from the verses (and letters) was consistent with what was taught to Moshe at Sinai, he felt better.

Rabbi Dov Kramer on the Parsha

Taking a Closer Look (Rabbi Dov Kramer)

 

            “This is the amount [of people] counted by Moshe and Aharon and the twelve leaders of Israel.” “And the total amount of the Children of Israel, by tribe, was of the men who were twenty years and older, all eligible to go to war for Israel.” “And the total amount was 603,550.” These three consecutive verses (Bamidbar 1:44-46) could have been combined into a single verse (“This is the total number of men twenty and older, counted by Moshe, Aharon and the Tribal leaders, by tribe: 603,550”), or, at the very least, into two verses. Based on the Ramban (1:45), the Kesav Sofer explains why the expression of being counted (“pekudim”) is stated three times in these three verses.

 

            The Ramban provides three different reasons for this census: #1) Since it was done “by name” (1:2), it gave everyone the opportunity to meet Moshe and Aharon face to face and grow from their personal meeting with these great and holy leaders, while allowing Moshe and Aharon to meet them one at a time and beseech G-d to help them based on their personal needs. The Kesav Sofer says that this is implied by the verse telling us that “they were counted by Moshe and Aharon (1:44). #2) Just as every king has to know how many soldiers he has before going to war, since G-d operates via natural means and the nation was preparing to conquer the Promised Land (had they not sinned with the spies), those eligible for the army were counted, i.e. “all who go out to battle” (1:45). #3) By taking this census and demonstrating how large the nation had become, they would become more fully aware of G-d’s kindness to them, for they had been just “70 souls” when they went down to Egypt and now they were “as numerous as the stars of the heavens” (Devarim 10:22). This aspect correlates to the third verse, which gives the actual number of men at least twenty years old. By separating them into three verses, each with its own introduction regarding the “counting,” all three of these reasons for the census are highlighted.

 

            The Ramban, when giving the third reason (in the Kesav Sofer’s order; it is the second reason given by the Ramban), puts it in a question form. “I don’t know why [G-d] commanded that they know the actual number [of people counted]; perhaps it was to inform them of His kindness towards them, for their ancestors descended to Egypt with 70 souls, and now they are like the sands of the sea, so many and so many twenty years old and above.” It wasn’t (just) for us to recognize how large the nation had become in a little over 200 years, but for them to become aware of it (consistent with the other two reasons being applicable to that generation) . How did they know how few there had been two centuries earlier? Was there only an oral tradition regarding the nation’s beginnings? Would having this tradition be enough to get them to contrast it with the current reality and bring about mass appreciation of G-d’s kindness to them? Furthermore, why does the Ramban almost quote the verse in Devarim, but switch the metaphor from “stars in the heavens” to “[grains of] sand by the sea?”

 

            When the nation accepted the Torah from G-d, there was a contract agreed to, written down by Moshe, and read to the nation. There are numerous approaches as to precisely what was in this contract (see www.RabbiDMK.posterous.com/Parashas-Mishpatim-5770). Rashi (Shemos 22:7) says it was the text of the Torah from the beginning (Beraishis) until the giving of the Torah (the point in the narrative that was, at that point, the “present”) as well as the commandments they had been given at Marah (shortly before getting to Mt. Sinai; according to many, these commandments make up the bulk of Parashas Mishpatim). Even if the Ramban disagrees with Rashi regarding the contents of this “contract” (very possible, even likely, as the Ramban is of the opinion that this contract was agreed to after the “Ten Commandments,” whereas Rashi says the contract was agreed to beforehand), it would seem that he agrees that this part of the text of the Torah was given to the nation at Sinai (the rest of the document was given to the nation at Arvos Moav, shortly before Moshe’s death; see Devarim 31:9).

 

            Although G-d’s kindness to the nation regarding its growth from “70 souls” to over 600,000 warrior-age men (plus women and children) is summed up nicely in the verse in Devarim (almost) quoted by the Ramban, it can be suggested that the Ramban purposely didn’t quote it exactly because it was part of the Torah that the nation did not receive yet. Instead, he used another metaphor, one that was contained in the part of the Torah they had already been given (Beraishis 22:17 and 32:12); even if the metaphor used in Devarim is employed there as well. [That the family consisted of “70 souls” when it joined Yosef in Egypt is mentioned twice in the part of the Torah given to the nation at Matan Torah; Beraishis 46:27 and Shemos 1:5.)

 

If the nation already had this part of the document to study (besides learning about the mitzvos they now had to keep, including Seder Nezikin), it would be common knowledge, constantly reinforced via textual study, that there were only 70 members of the family when they went down to Egypt. Therefore, after having studied this text for close to eleven months (from the beginning of Sivan, 2448 until the beginning of Iyar 2449), when the census revealed that there were now over 600,000 males above the age of twenty, it made quite an impression.

Israel 1947 Video

http://bit.ly/atmfSv

Great thoughts from Rabbi Dov Kramer

Taking a Closer Look (Rabbi Dov Kramer)

    “And if you’ll say, ‘what will we eat in the seventh year, for we have not seeded nor have we gathered our produce.’ And I (G-d) will command My blessing for you in the sixth year, and it will make [enough] produce [to last] three years” (Vayikra 25:20-21). This promise was made in 2448 (before G-d moved the venue of His communication with Moshe from Mt. Sinai to the Mishkan). This year (5770), a vineyard (Hararei Kedem) won two gold medals and a silver medal at a wine competition; the prize-winning wines were made from grapes grown in the sixth year of the past Shemita cycle, a year (5767) in which the owner (Ariel Ben-Sheetrit) says his vineyard produced three times the usual quantity of grapes (www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/137172). At first glance, this sounds pretty amazing. Having worked in the media for more than two decades, I have a fair amount of skepticism about the accuracy of details in news stories (and I’m not in a position to verify these for myself). Nevertheless, working with the details provided in this story, a few thoughts came to mind.

    First of all, the general consensus is that when there is no “Yovel” (Jubilee year) the prohibition against working the land during the seventh year is not a biblical prohibition, but a rabbinic one (see Rambam, Hilchos Shemita v’Yovel 9:2). Does the biblical promise of triple the amount of produce apply even when the obligation to observe Shemita is not a biblical obligation? The Sema (Sefer Meiras Aynaim, the commentary of Rabbi Yehoshua Falk, a student of the Ramuh, on the Choshen Mishpat section of the Shulchan Aruch, 67:2) says that the blessing only applies when the obligation to keep Shemita is biblical, while the Chazon Ish (Shevi’is 18:4) disagrees. (My thanks to Rabbi Micha Berger for pointing me towards these sources). It would be tempting to suggest that since the Chazon Ish lived (for the final decades of his life) in the Land of Israel, the “reality” of whether or not the blessing would be fulfilled was affected by his being the premiere halachic authority in Israel (whereas Rabbi Falk lived in the Ukraine, 300 years earlier), but I am not that bold. The Chazon Ish himself wrote that the blessing is not arbitrary; it either applies to all of the land or to none of it (he describes the blessing as a promise that is only fulfilled if we are worthy of its fulfillment). Interestingly, whether or not the blessing applies nowadays was apparently part of the discussion when determining if “heter mechira” was a viable option. Although the Chazon Ish wrote that we must do all we can through natural means (“hishtadlus”) to ensure that there is enough food to eat during Shemita, and then, after we do all we can, the blessing can occur, he was opposed to the “heter mechira.”

    Another factor to keep in mind is what the Torah means by the three-year blessing. If we can’t work the land during the seventh year, there is only one “lost” year of crops, so all the sixth year would need to produce to compensate for the (lost) seventh year is double its normal output, not triple. Rashi (25:21) says that the “three years” do not mean three full years, but parts of three calendar years, i.e. the second half of the sixth year, the entire seventh year, and the first half of the eighth year. The Sifra (Behar 4:6) understands the blessing to have a dual meaning (see Raavad). When it is only the seventh year that needs to be compensated for, the “three years” refers to the parts of the three years that the output of the sixth year must be used for; the actual output is only double its norm. However, since the 50th year (“Yovel”) has the same prohibitions against working the land as the seventh/forty-ninth year, there are two years worth of crops that must be compensated for. In those instances, the sixth/forty-eighth year will produce triple its normal output, enough to cover three full calendar years (corresponding to the “seventh, eighth and ninth” years of the seven year cycle). Being that 5769 was not “Yovel,” and it was only in 5768 that Ben-Sheetrit did not work his vineyard, it is interesting that its output in 5767 was triple its normal output, not double.

    On the other hand, had his vineyard produced “only” twice its normal output, would anyone have taken notice? Would Ben-Sheetrit have mentioned it in his acceptance speech, expounding upon Rashi’s commentary to explain how producing double was a fulfillment of the biblical promise? There is much tension in Israel between those that insist that no work be done on the land during Shemita and those that rely on the “heter mechira.” Ben Sheetrit acknowledged that he was under a lot of pressure to not keep Shemita, but decided to keep it anyway. If G-d wanted us to stop and take notice that someone who resisted such pressure was rewarded (there are other unique aspects to his vineyard too), tripling his output was likely much more effective than “just” doubling it.

“[G-d] is standing behind our wall, observing from the windows, glancing through the lattices” (Shir HaShirim 2:9). Even in times of “hester panim,” when G-d’s face is hidden, His involvement with the world and His creations is evident. Even if the biblical blessing only applies when the laws of Shemita are biblically mandated, or apply equally to all of the land (or none of it), blessing Hararei Kedem with a triple output was an effective way of catching our attention.

Lag B'Omer

http://bit.ly/csYA4s

Gilad Shalit's Father on YouTube

http://bit.ly/8YCPOo

Pesach Celebrations

http://bit.ly/ccBmQ2

Purim is almost here

Check out these fun Purim tidbits:

1. Longest verse in the Bible- Chapter VIII of Megilath Esther has the longest verse in the Bible - 43 words.

2. Longest word in the Bible - also in Megilath Esther - eleven letters ( v'ha'achashdarpanim/scribes)

3. The Hadassah organization was founded on Purim 1912 - Hadassah is another name for Esther.

4. Purim in the US - There is a town 'Esther' in Missouri and Louisianna.

5. Not mentioned - The book of Esther is the ONLY book in the Bible that doesn't mention G-d's name. 

6. Purim Shpiel - Historians trace the first Purim shpiel to the 13th and 14th centuries in what is now Germany.

Marriage and the Parsha

Mishpatim
(Exodus 21:1 - 24:18)
Rabbi Yirmiyahu Benyowitz
In this week's portion, the Torah continues the Giving of the Torah with a comprehensive treatise on many laws, especially those involving between a man and his friend.

From the Jewish perspective, the institution of marriage is considered a holy union. Indeed, the act of betrothal is known as Kiddushin - a word whose root comes from Kedushah, holiness. It is through this union that that man and the women becomes a whole and are able to reach spiritual heights. One of the obvious reasons would appear to be that it ensures the continuity of the Jewish nation. There are many Mitzvot that can be accomplished in the marital setting (aside from giving the grandparents nachas by producing grandchildren).

Hashem's connection to the Jewish people is likened to a marriage. Tashbetz (Rabbeinu Shimshon Bar Tzadok a Talmid of Maharam of Rottenberg) writes that many of the customs that surround the marriage ceremony are micro enactments of the giving of the Torah. The Ketubah represents the Tablets upon which the Ten Commandments were written. Hashem's name is mentioned fourteen times in the Sheva Berachot, just as His name is mentioned fourteen times in the Ten Commandments. The Midrash tells us that Hashem lifted mount Sinai above the Jew's heads letting them know that if they did not accept the Torah they would be buried there this too has its counterpart in the wedding Chupah.

There are also the more mundane aspects of marriage. Earning a living, keeping a house clean and in good repair, cooking supper the list goes on and on. How does this fit in with the concept of Kedushah, holiness?

A similar question may be asked of a commentary on this week's parsha. Rashi tells us in the beginning of the parsha (21:1) that the juxtaposition of the portion about the Mizbayach (altar), from last week's parsha, to the portion about monetary laws, in this week's, teaches us that the Sanhedrin, (the highest Jewish court) which was comprised of seventy sages, is to be situated in the Beit Hamikdash (the Holy Temple). The laws mentioned in our parsha include when one mans ox falls into another man's pit and in damaged. What is a court of law, that decides even cases having to do with such seemingly mundane issues, doing located in the holiness site on Earth?

Rabbi Nissan Wolpin in his book Limudai Nissan points out that this arrangement teaches us that all of Hashem's laws are Holy. Even the most mundane of laws are all part of Hashem's Torah. All aspects of marriage are holy. Even taking out the garbage on your way out the door or cleaning the bathroom.

Our Bracha to our Chotton and Kallah is that they see the Kedusha wherever they turn. 

Copyright 2001 Rabbi Yirmiyahu Benyowitz and MyJewishWedding.com

Marriage and the Parsha

Yisro
(Exodus 18:1-20:23)
Rabbi Yirmiyahu Benyowitz
In last week's portion, the Jews leave the Egyptian bondage and are miraculously saved from the Egyptian pursuit. In the meantime, the Al-mighty allows the waters of the Yam Sof (Red Sea) to crash down on their pursuers. The climax of this page in history is reached in this week's parsha. The giving of the Ten Commandments at Sinai is the event that supercedes all others.  The Torah is represented by the Ten Commandments.

Hashem Himself conveys the first two commandments. The other eight were related to Hashem's emissary - Moshe Rabbeinu and then repeated to the Jewish people. The Talmud (tractate Berachos 12A) tells us that the Ten Commandments were read daily along with the Kriat Shema (recitation of Shema). This custom was stopped on account of the Sadducies, who applied very literal understanding to Torah. The Rabbis did not want people to think that they are obligated in keeping only the commandments mentioned in the Ten Commandments.

Nonetheless, we are told that all of the Torah is contained within the Ten Commandments albeit in hidden form. It was for this reason the custom was established in the first place. Why was it necessary to encapsulate the entire Torah in these few words?

When Hashem spoke to us, it forged that special relationship which already existed between the Al-mighty and our forefathers, Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov.  Rabbi Nissan Alpert explains that we are being taught a very important lesson about that relationship. The Torah is a single unit and our relationship with Hashem is only possible when we accept the Torah in its entirety. Observing the "fun" Mitzvot of Pesach and Succah, without the obligations of the don'ts of Shabbat, difficulties of keeping the Sabbatical, etc. is not an option.

Hashem's special bond to His chosen people is often likened to the bond between Choson and Kallah. The Luchot (the tablets) and the Ten Commandments which were engraved on them are the Ketubah (marriage contract). Marriage has many "fun" parts, but, it includes as well some mundane and some drudgery. It is a package deal. The commitment is through thick and thin.

It is our Bracha to you, our Choson and Kallah, that you preserve the optimism and excitement of your wedding to carry you through the boring times and refuel it during the many joyous times together.

Copyright 2001 Rabbi Yirmiyahu Benyowitz and MyJewishWedding.com

Marriage and the Parsha

Beshalach
(Exodus 13:17-17:16)

(For the Chosen)
Rabbi Yirmiyahu Benyowitz
In this week's portion, the Jews are redeemed from Egyptian bondage in a mighty show of ten Makkos (Plagues). They leave at the insistence of Pharoah and his Egyptian cohorts only to be chased nearly into the Yam Suf (the Red Sea). A great miracle occurs and the sea splits and allows them to enter. The Mitzrim continue in hot pursuit only to be miraculously drowned as the sea wall, which had been created only moments earlier, crashes down upon them. In next week's portion, the Jews receive the Torah in a most spectacular way - able to see the sounds that emanate from Mount Sinai.

In subsequent portions, the Jewish People are saved many times in their forty-year sojourn from their enemies. Notably, it is not their military mighty that wins any
wars, but divine intervention. They have food, in the form of Mann (manna), that appears at their doorstep every day.

We are commanded to remember the Exodus every day. The Exodus is mentioned in the Shema prayer we say every morning and every night. There are many events of that era that are commemorated or celebrated in one way or another. Still, this is the only event for which the Jews were commanded to make a constant reminder that is to remain with them twenty-four-seven. This is because this first event was the catalyst for all the subsequent events.

Similarly, the Torah tells us (16:33) that Moshe and Aharon are commanded to take a container and place Mann in the container. This container is to remain "In front of Hashem" (in front of the Ark of the Covenant) forever. Indeed, the container remains with them until the destruction of the Bais Hamikdash (the Holy Temple) at which time it is placed in indefinite hiding along with many of the holy vessels.

Why is this miracle chosen to be represented with a constant reminder? The Iben Ezra, I believe, gives us an insight into the answer. When the Torah tells us about the miracle of the Mann (16:35), he explains that this is the greatest of all the miracles of the forty years the Jews spent in the wilderness because many miracles were contained in it and because it stood by them for forty years. It is this second reason that distinguishes it from all the miracles of the entire era.

There are many events in a person's life which all come together to make him who he or she is. There are many people who are responsible in part for bringing about the miracle of finding a Shidduch (a match). All of these people deserve to be recognized and thanked. There are people who while they may not have done any single remarkable act in the formation of this Shidduch, they are nonetheless the ones who deserve the most
recognition and the greatest thanks. They are the ones that took care of me day in and day out every single day.

Thank you very much Daddy and Mommy!

Copyright 2001 Rabbi Yirmiyahu Benyowitz and MyJewishWedding.com

Marriage and the Parsha

Bo
(Exodus 10:1-13:16)
Rabbi Yirmiyahu BenyowitzThis week’s portion begins with Hashem issuing a warning to Pharaoh, through His messenger Moshe (Moses). The message is that He is about to bring the eighth of the ten Plagues upon his nation. Before elaborating on the detail of the forthcoming event, though, the Torah takes a tangent and gives us an introduction as to the reason and the meaning behind the Plagues. We are told (10:1) that Pharaoh's heart has been hardened "in order for Me to bring these Plagues upon him." Furthermore, the Torah continues (10:2), "I have enabled these plagues to be brought upon Pharaoh in order for you to tell your children and grandchildren how I ‘played’ with Mitzraim (Egypt) and that you can tell about My wonders that I have [afflicted] them with."

What is the significance of telling your children? It appears that without whom to tell the story of Hashem's glory Mitzraim's punishment would not have come about in such a way.

How are we to understand the significance of telling the Pesach story to our children?

The answer lies in the Mitzvah of Sipur Itzias Mitzraim (the commandment to recount the story of the Exodus). We are told in the Hagadah that there are four sons, the wise son, the wicked son, the simple son and the son who cannot ask. Each son had a different question, except the last, of course. We are instructed to teach each son a different lesson. The wicked son is not interested in the Mitzvot; he sees no use in the continuity of the tradition and therefore asks "What are all of these testimonies and laws to you?" The Hagadah tells us that had he been present in Mitzraim, he would not have merited redemption.

The transmittal of the story of the Exodus is an essential part in why we merited redemption. When we tell the story to our children, we create another link in a chain that stretches back to our forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and we create another link to the Al-mighty Himself.

Every link magnifies the Glory of Hashem and carries with it the responsibility of continuity.

Our charge to our Choson and Kallah is to understand the potential they share as they begin this lifelong commitment together. They can add another link to this glorious chain. Thus, they must stand ready to pass on our tradition to the next generation. It our bracha to every Choson and Kallah that they rise to the challenge.

Copyright 2001 Rabbi Yirmiyahu Benyowitz and MyJewishWedding.com

Marriage and the Parsha

Vayerah
(Genesis 18:1-22:24)
Rabbi Y. Benyowitz


 
This week’s portion begins with Avrohom Avinu (Abraham) sitting by the entrance to his tent. Three visitors appear and he quickly runs to performs Hachnasas Orchim (hospitality) by getting them food and water. In reality, Hashem is providing Avrohom with the opportunity to do Hachnasas Orchim and the visitors are angels in disguise.

The angels, though, have other purposeful missions with their visit. The Talmud (Baba Metziah 88B) tells us that they came to tell Sarah that she will be having a child, to turn over the wicked city of Sodom, and to heal Avrohom from the circumcision. Rashi (18:2) points out, (from the Midrash and mentioned in Tosafot Baba Metziah ibid) that it is for this reason three angels were sent since an angel cannot perform two tasks.

Rashi addresses the issue of one more job that was completed, saving Lot. Avrohom Avinu’s nephew Lot had to be evacuated from the city of Sodom before it is overturned. Rashi explains that this was performed by the same angel who healed Avrohom; both jobs, saving and healing, are in essence the same type of job. The Talmud itself appears to answer this question differently by saying that the angel who notified Sarah that she will be having a child is the one who was dispatched to save Lot.

Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetzky in his book Emes L’Yaakov explains that the Talmud is also of the opinion that when the jobs are similar they can be performed by the same angel. Saving Lot was directly related to saving the Jewish Nation since Ruth, the mother of the Davidic Dynasty, was to ultimately come from his progeny. Telling Sarah that she will have a baby also pertains to the continuity of the Jewish Nation. This is so even though we are only speaking about notifying her about the child which she will bear.

The announcement that the Choton and Kallah (Groom and Bride) are engaged carries with it all of the potential of all their future generations. This potential is even more poignant in the wedding ceremony itself.

Our Choton and Kallah are charged with the awesome responsibility to realize all of that hidden potential, not only for themselves and their families, but also for all of the Jewish Nation.

Copyright 2000 Rabbi Yirmiyahu Benyowitz and MyJewishWedding.com

Singing at a Chupah

http://bit.ly/c6eVzf

This week's parsha

Shemot 18:13. Lifnei Haelokim. After slaughtering sacrifices, they feasted in front of Elokim. Where was this – there was no Mishkan yet? See Siporno who explains that the Mizbeiach constructed by Moshe after the decisive victory over Amalek was the Mizbeiach for these sacrifices and that was the location of the seuda with Yisro.

Shemot 18:13-25. It is hard to understand why Moshe would think that he should be the sole source of judging the Jewish people and answering their questions. While it is true that he was the conduit of Torah transmission and seemingly understood the concept of mesorah to be his specific conveyance, we know that Chazal tell us that Moshe would tell the Torah over to Aharon and he would convey it to the broader Jewish people as a miturgimun. Why would this intermediazation be OK for the conveyance of mesorah but not for the first judgements? Also was Yisros idea not something that Moshe thought of, but ruled out? Is it possible Moshe thought that in some way this was Tziyvuy Hashem?