Gaea's

Posts Tagged ‘Dvar’

Both Parshat Tazria and Metzora discuss skin ailments on one’s flesh, who to see about it (the Priest), how to treat it (isolate it), what to do if it spreads (isolate yourself), and so on. While we get caught up in the details of the treatments, we might fail to realize how strange all of this is. This is the first time the Torah discusses personal physical hygiene. Why would the Torah spend almost two entire Parshiot (multiple Parsha) on personal hygiene?

Rabbi Munk in The Call of The Torah explains that by giving these afflictions so much attention, the Torah points to them as examples of the spiritual causes at the root of many illnesses (In our case, Tzaraas – the affliction discussed in the Parsha – is caused by one of seven sins: Slander, murder, perjury, debauchery, pride, theft and jealousy (Talmud Arachim 16a)). As the Rambam (Maimonides) asserts, the best medication is based on ethical values, helping to re-establish harmonies between spiritual and physical forces (Guide to the Perplexed 3:27). This discussion in the Torah is meant to remind us that illness is sometimes spiritual, and that it’s connected to our physical well-being. We should feed our bodies, so long as we nurture our souls.

As the Parsha relates the joyous time when the Jews finally started the long-awaited service in the Mishkan, Parshat Shemini abruptly interrupts that with the disturbing death of Aaron’s 2 oldest sons (Nadav and Avihu). Their sin was that they wanted to show their love for G-d SO much that they took it upon themselves to take incense and burn it on their own. The Torah then relates that a fire “came out from before Hashem and consumed them”. It seems strange that the same fire that 2 Pessukim (verses) ago came down to burn the offerings was the SAME fire that came down to kill Aaron’s 2 sons. Why did they specifically die with fire, which is the very method they tried to use to serve G-d?

The Rashbam helps us understand the reason why the sons were wrong by explaining that they weren’t authorized to bring the offering, and that their bringing it minimized the miracle of the fire coming down from the sky. However, although they died, the verse says they died “before G-d”, which commentaries explain to mean that they at least tried to do a good thing, and were worthy of dying before G-d. Trying to preempt G-d’s commandments by burning things themselves minimizes the very essence of those commandments. We too have to follow the guidelines of the Torah, not because they make sense to us and we’d do them anyway, but BECAUSE G-d wants us to do things a certain way. The point of the fire was to show us that G-d would use fire FOR us, unless we make Him use that very fire ON us by altering the “plan”.

The critical lesson from all of this is that we need to observe the commandments correctly, so that we strengthen the fire within us, which in turn will strengthen our bond further.

Parshat Vayikra includes instructions “if a leader has sinned” (4:22).

The Talmud interprets “if” to be derived from the word “fortunate” (asher and ashrei), which would make the Passuk (verse) read, “fortunate is the leader that has sinned”. How does that make any sense?

Rabbi Twerski explains in Living Each Week that it’s referring to the generation being fortunate to have a leader that admits when they make a mistake. As Moshe exemplified, the Torah values truth over all else.

Even though there might be ways to justify being less than truthful, Moshe resisted those temptations, and always spoke the truth, even to his possible detriment (Leviticus 10:20). If our leaders establish a precedent for truth, we would be fortunate to have them as our role models, and would not hesitate to admit when we’re wrong. Truth really does set you free (to correct mistakes, that is).

Parshat Ki Tisa includes the verse: “And his (Moshe’s) attendant, Yehoshua bin Nun, the youth (na’ar) did not leave the tent.” R’ Baruch Simon cites the Ramban and other commentators who raise a question here. Starting from Yehoshua’s age when he passed away and counting backwards, we see that he was over 50 years old at this time. How can the Torah call him a youth? Read the rest of this entry »

Parshat Terumah is the beginning of the building of the Mishkan, where G-d would dwell among the Jews as they traveled in the desert. To build the Mishkan materials had to be collected, and G-d commanded the Jews to collect several types. After listing the need for metals, wools, hairs, skins, and wood, the Torah tells us that they collected “oil for illumination” and “spices for the anointment oil and incense”. Why does the Torah suddenly need to tell us what the materials were to be used for, when it hadn’t discussed it thus far? Read the rest of this entry »

Parshat Mishpatim begins the daunting work of laying the law for the Jews. Hidden among the many laws is a law that states: “if” one lends money, it is required to be interest free (22:24). After detailing broad laws of slavery, injuries and damages, why would the Torah choose to mention a law that would only apply to a few people? Read the rest of this entry »

Parshat Yitro describes Yitro hearing of the travels and trials of the Jews, Yitro being moved to convert, coming to Moshe for the conversion, and then leaving Moshe. If Yitro was so moved, why would he ever leave a situation where he’s surrounded by G-d, clouds, heavenly food, and Moshe as a teacher? And how could Moshe, as a leader, allow Yitro to just leave the camp? After all, he was the only Jew NOT to have witnessed the giving of the Torah! Read the rest of this entry »

Parshat Beshalach includes the famous splitting of the Sea (14:21), where Moshe led them into the water, and the sea split for them.

Psalms 114 offers that “the sea saw, and ran”, and commentators explain that what the sea saw was Yosef’s remains, and withdrew in their merit. As Rabbi Shmulevitz asks, what was so special about Yosef’s remains that the sea split because of them, rather than because of Moshe or the Jews?

Rabbi Shmulevitz answers by introducing a fundamental concept in Judaism: avoiding temptations. Yosef was in a position where he might have been tempted to sin (with Potifar), and rather than be placed in a position to overcome his urges, he avoided those urges altogether, even placing himself in danger by leaving an article of clothing behind. This great act is not only an example for us today, but it’s also the reason why the Jews were faced with crossing the sea in the first place. Had human logic prevailed, the Jews would have headed straight to Israel, which would have taken them 4 days. However, that might have tempted the Jews to consider returning to Egypt, so G-d had them go the long way, which included crossing the sea. The splitting of the sea and Yosef’s life join efforts in conveying a critical

lesson: Avoid conflict as much as you can. Whether it’s our internal temptations, friends, parents, spouses or those we share borders with, the Parsha offers us 3000 year old advice that we still holds true

today: Avoid conflict by minimizing confrontations.

Reading the story of how the Jews became enslaved to Egypt in Parshat Vaeira, and having the benefit of knowing how the story ends, we can wonder why the Egyptians were punished for enslaving the Jews, when we know that the Jews needed to be enslaved, either as part of the decree, or as the process of becoming a cohesive nation? Read the rest of this entry »

Despite being set in the midst of a corrupt Egyptian society, the Jewish community was flourishing with schools, synagogues and social networks, and assimilation was virtually non-existent, and it was because they made a pact amongst themselves not to change their names, style of dress, or language. With these safeguards, they were able to keep a healthy distance. As Rabbi Shraga Simmons explains, at the beginning of this week’s Parsha, Shemot, the tide turned: Immediately after the old generation died, the Jewish People spread throughout Egypt and the assimilation began. They dropped their Jewish customs and blended into secular society. Immediately, verse 8 reports the rise of anti-Semitism in Egypt. What makes this so unusual is that hatred of one group for another is typically due to what sociologists call “dislike of the unlike.” The Egyptians didn’t mind as long as the Jews kept to themselves. It was once they began to resemble “regular Egyptians” that the anti-Semitism began. The dual loyalty issue had reared its ugly head. Anti-Semitism is often generated with the perception that Jews have power and influence. Read the rest of this entry »