Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Metzorah

Due to this being the last Thursday Night shiur before Pesach, R' Frand did not deliver his live shiur. However R' Frand did post a pre-recorded Parsha vort on OU Torah which I have summarized here. This week's vort can be found at https://outorah.org/p/190665, but I have attempted to reproduce the vort to the best of my ability in this post.  Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to the maggid shiur.

R' Frand began the vort by noting that Tzaraas is translated as leprosy, but that is not accurate as it is not a physical ailment and can even be found on inanimate objects such as clothing and the walls of a house.

Rashi comments on Vayikra 14:35 that the Kohain's advising that Tzaaras on a home is a "Besorah Tova" - good news! The reason is that Canaanite prior occupants of the home hid gold and silver in the walls and now that the Jews were there the Tzaraas exposes that there is a pot of gold in the home.

R' Frand asked - there are easier ways for Hashem to give someone money? Why put in the walls and have them knock down the walls?

R' Frand quoted the first Gerrer Rebbi who comments on the directive from Moshe to the Jews in Shemos to ask ("V'Yishalu) for golden and silver vessels from the Egyptians. Why was this the language of borrowing when it was not going to be returned? He answers that this was the Jews first experience with money after being slaves in Egypt for 210 years. The first rule of money is that the money is Hashem's and he is just loaning it to you for you to use it properly. But you should always keep in mind that the money is on loan from Hashem.

R' Frand said that he was told by someone who was looking for a job that he had asked Mr. Germazian (sp?) why did you become so rich? He responded because Hashem knows that I know what to do with the money.

R' Frand quoted the Sefer Milchamos Yehuda who explains that the reason that Hashem gave gold & silver this way is to teach a lesson that gold & silver can destroy a person's home, because if money takes ahold of a person, it can destroy the family. R' Frand suggested that if someone wants to hear horror stories they can ask an Estates attorney about how an inheritance destroys families.

Therefore Hashem gave the money this way as a warning that gold & silver can destroy the home if a person allows it to take over.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Tazria

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

In Vayikra 13:52, the Torah states - וְרָאָ֨ה הַכֹּהֵ֜ן אַֽחֲרֵ֣י | הֻכַּבֵּ֣ס אֶת־הַנֶּ֗גַע וְ֠הִנֵּ֠ה לֹֽא־הָפַ֨ךְ הַנֶּ֤גַע אֶת־עֵינוֹ֙ וְהַנֶּ֣גַע לֹֽא־פָשָׂ֔ה טָמֵ֣א ה֔וּא. Translated literally, the Pasuk is telling us that since the Nega has not changed its appearance, it is Tamei.

But the Chiddushei HaRim explains that עֵינוֹ֙ can refer to the eye of the person. There is a Mesorah that Tzaraas comes as a result of speaking Lashon Hara and while Tehillim 34:13-14 tells us that one who wants life should נְצֹ֣ר לְשֽׁוֹנְךָ֣ מֵרָ֑ע וּ֜שְׂפָתֶ֗יךָ מִדַּבֵּ֥ר מִרְמָֽה, Lashon Hara does not begin with the tongue. Instead, its results from the person's view about another. He may feel haughty and want to show his superiority, or he may feel jealous and want to belittle the other person to make himself feel important, but Lashon Hara is spoken because a person has negative views about the other person. 

R' Frand quoted R' Weinberg (and also noted that R' Shlomo Kluger said the same thought) who explains that we learn about Lashon Hara from the Meraglim. The punishment for the Meraglim was that the Jews would spend 40 years in the desert as equivalent to the 40 days they were in the land of Israel. But they did not speak Lashon Hara for 40 days - it probably took only a few minutes! They were only in the land for 40 days.

He explains that they were punished one year for one day because when they walked around the land they viewed the land negatively. Chazal tell us that they had a negative view and said אֶ֣רֶץ אֹכֶ֤לֶת יֽוֹשְׁבֶ֨יהָ֙ הִ֔וא (Bamidbar 13:32) based on all the funerals they saw. However they could have looked at the positive - because the people of the land were so preoccupied with the funerals, they did not see the Meraglim.

Thus the sin of Lashon Hara began with the eye - the way that they viewed the land. It was only at the very end that they spoke the words that had been in their minds.

The message of the Tzaraas is that because this person has not changed his eye, he is Tamei because he will perpetuate the Lashon Hara.

R' Frand also noted that the word Nega and Oneg have the same letters, the only difference is where the Ayin is placed. If the Ayin is moved to the front so that a person has a positive outlook, he will not be Tamei.

R' Frand also observed that if a person can refrain from speaking Lashon Hara he can live a happier life. R' Frand quoted the a story in the gemara about a peddler. The peddler would announce that he was selling the elixir of life and that anyone who wanted the elixir of life should come to him. The peddler was approached by R' Yannai who asked to buy the elixir. The peddler responded to R' Yannai - you are a tzadik, you don't need this. However, R' Yannai persisted. Finally the seller said to him - look in the book of Tehillim - it is written in 34:12-13 -מִֽי־הָ֖אִישׁ הֶֽחָפֵ֣ץ חַיִּ֑ים אֹ֘הֵ֥ב יָ֜מִ֗ים לִרְא֥וֹת טֽוֹב. נְצֹ֣ר לְשֽׁוֹנְךָ֣ מֵרָ֑ע וּ֜שְׂפָתֶ֗יךָ מִדַּבֵּ֥ר מִרְמָֽה.

Following this conversation, R' Yannai was heard to say, all my life I would say these pesukim, but I never understood this until now.

R' Frand asked the obvious question - what was it that the peddler was able to teach R' Yannai about the pesukim in Tehillim which he did not know previously? 

He answered that R' Yannai always knew that not speaking Lashon Hara would be a key to getting Olam Haba. What the peddler taught him is that by not speaking Lashon Hara he could also enjoy this world as well.

R' Frand closed with a story about R Lazer Silver who served as a chaplain in the US Army after WWII. He was successful in organizing a room in a DP camp where people could make a minyan. One day they were short one man for the minyan and R' Silver sent someone out to ask a man who was outside to join them. The messenger returned and said that the man had refused and said that he does not want to see a siddur, or a shul or another frum Jew. R' Silver then went out and asked personally and received the same response. He asked - why do you feel that way? The man responded  that when he was in the camps, there was a frum Jew who had a siddur which he used to daven before the men went out to work every day. But the man did not only use the siddur, he "rented" it out to others in exchange for half their daily ration of bread. The man was disgusted by this and did not want to see another siddur, or shul or frum Jew.

When the man had finished explaining himself, R' Silver said to him - but why don't you look at all the Jews who were willing to give up half their meager rations just so that they could daven with a siddur. The man accepted this and joined them.

Thirty years later, a man spoke at a conference of major Jewish leaders and told that story. He said that he was the man who had refused to join the minyan before speaking to R' Laizer Silver. His name is Simon Wiesenthal.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up! 

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Shmini

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand noted that when the sacrifices were brought at the inauguration of the Mishkan, Aharon brought two Karbanos on his own behalf and three were sacrificed on behalf of the Jewish people. The Torah writes in Vayikra 9:3 that the Jews' Karbanos were a calf, a lamb and a goat. 

R' Frand quoted the Sifra which states that one might have thought that only Aharon required atonement, so the Torah tells us that the Jews did as well. But why did they need to bring more animals than Aharon? The Sifra answers that it is because they sinned at the beginning and at the end. In the beginning they slaughtered a goat which they used to convince Ya'akov that Yosef was dead. And they sinned in the end with the Egel. Therefore they brought a goat to atone for Mechiras Yosef and a calf to atone for the Egel. 

But what is the connection between Mechiras Yosef and the Mishkan? And why did they bring the lamb as a Karban?

R' Frand quoted the Targum Yonasan which explains that the lamb was brought in the Zechus of Yitzchak. But this begets another question - what is the connection between Yitzchak and the Mishkan?

R' Frand next cited the Pesikta Rabbasi which states that the Mishkan was completed on the 25th of Kislev, but was not actually inaugurated until Nissan. During the intervening time it sat in storage, but the Jews questioned - what was wrong with the Mishkan that they could not use it now? The response was that it would be inaugurated in Nissan - the month that Yitzchak was born.

R' Frand then quoted R' Emanuel Bernstein who tied these concepts together. He explains that the sin of the Egel was not worshipping Avodah Zara as the Egel was meant to be an intermediary and not a deity. The Jews came to Aharon and asked him to construct an intermediary as they felt that they were lost without Moshe.

But if they were coming to Aharon, why not ask him to be the leader? Or at the very least, ask him what to do! The answer is that they did not come to ask any question - they dictated what they wanted. And this is not a Jewish trait, as when we have questions we ask a Shaila - we don't decide for ourselves.

This hearkens back to the sale of Yosef. The brothers had concerns that perhaps Yosef was a Rodef and that he should be killed. But instead of asking the Gadol HaDor (Ya'akov) what to do, they made their own decision based on what they thought was appropriate.

Thus the root of the sin of the Egel was the actions of the brothers in acting, rather than asking what to do. But Yitzchak stands in sharp contrast. When Avraham told him that Hashem had told Avraham to bring Yitzchak as a sacrifice, Yitzchak did not question, he followed the directions of his father , the Gadol HaDor, who had heard directly from Hashem. 

This is why we invoked the Zechus of Yitzchak at the inauguration of the Mishkan - to atone for our sins in not asking questions and instead making our own uninformed decisions. And this is why the Mishkan was left until Nissan before it was inaugurated.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up! 

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Tzav

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

Although Parshas Vayikra contains most of the Karbanos, the Karban Todah is found in Parshas Tzav, which is mostly about the Kohanim. R' Frand then asked - why was this Karban mentioned in Tzav and not Vayikra?

Before answering the question, R' Frand quoted the Gemara which sets forth the four categories of people who are obligated to bring a Karban Todah: (1) someone who recovered from an illness; (2) someone who traveled across the sea; (3) someone released from prison, and (4) someone who traveled across the desert. Rashi explains that these people bring a Karban Todah because a miracle was performed for them. But are these truly miraculous? Certainly all four categories had some element of danger, but is the recovery from surgery or the completion of a sea journey, miraculous?

R' Frand quoted R' Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld who explains that - yes these are miracles, but they are miracles of nature. He explains that there are many things that happen daily which are miracles, but because they are part of nature, we don't recognize them as miracles. This can include major events such as childbirth, or even the fact that a person is capable of producing speech.

The reason that the Karban Todah is mentioned in Tzav, which is dedicated to the Kohanim is to remind them that miracles are truly miraculous. R' Frand quoted Pirkei Avos which states that there were ten daily miracles in the Beis Hamikdash. Because the Kohanim saw and lived these miracles every day, they needed a reminder that these were miraculous and that they should thank Hashem for them.

R' Frand mentioned a Shayla that was once asked to Rav Shach by a young couple who had been married for a year and then had a baby girl. They wanted to know whether they should make a Kiddush. He answered them - if you had been married for 7 years without children and then had a baby, would you be asking the same question?

R' Frand next quoted the Rabbeinu Bechaye who cited the Gemara about the four categories of people who are obligated to bring a Karban Todah, but then also mentioned a Chassan and Kallah, quoting a pasuk in Yirmiyah. But why would they bring a Karban Todah?

R' Frand first quoted the Imrei Emes who cited the famous Gemara that making a Shidduch is as difficult as Kriyas Yam Suf - a miraculous event. 

R' Frand said a second answer that a person is half a person before meeting one's mate, much like a sick person who is not whole when ill.

R' Frand quoted R' Shamai Gross who states that there are two forms of Todah - those brought because there is an obligation and those brought voluntarily. And a Chassan and Kallah who find each other is a miracle in nature and can count themselves in the category of bringing a voluntary Todah.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up! 

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Pikudei

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

In Shemos 38:24, the Torah writes כָּל־הַזָּהָ֗ב הֶֽעָשׂוּי֙ לַמְּלָאכָ֔ה בְּכֹ֖ל מְלֶ֣אכֶת הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ וַיְהִ֣י | זְהַ֣ב הַתְּנוּפָ֗ה תֵּ֤שַׁע וְעֶשְׂרִים֙ כִּכָּ֔ר וּשְׁבַ֨ע מֵא֧וֹת וּשְׁלשִׁ֛ים שֶׁ֖קֶל בְּשֶׁ֥קֶל הַקֹּֽדֶשׁ . R' Frand commented that he does not know the weight in pounds, but he is sure that it was very significant.

He then quoted a Medrash on Parshas Terumah which states that Hashem had no need to create gold as the world would have been fine without it. (R' Frand quipped We could have used silver as gifts for our spouses). The reason that Hashem created it was to beautify the Mishkan and the Beis Hamikdash. 

R' Frand commented that we learn from this that there are many things which are not truly necessary, but Hashem created them only for a specific purpose.

R' Frand quoted the sefer Yismach Yehuda which writes that the Choftez Chaim said that the reason that Hashem put in the mind of a person to create trains was to make it faster and easier for bochurim to get to yeshiva. Prior to the train, people travelled by horse and buggy and the buggies often got stuck in the mud when it rained. R' Frand theorized that in our generation, if one needed to take a horse and buggy to go to yeshiva he would probably not go.

R' Frand connected this with a Gemara (although he did not mention which mesechta) which told of a man who would travel three months to get to yeshiva and then he would stay and learn for a day, before commencing a three month walk back to his home.

R' Frand also said in the name of R' Aryeh Leb Gurvitz of Gateshead that the seforim today are so plentiful and the print is so beautiful, whereas a few generation back the seforim were scarce and the print was not as clear. R' Frand mentioned that in Slobodka there was one copy of the Ohr Sameach and the boys would take turns learning it. When it was R' Ruderman's turn it was nice and he went out to learn it by moonlight. 

R' Frand also told of R' Birnbaum who when he was learning in the Mirrer Yeshiva in Europe was thought of as having come from a wealthy family since he had a Kitzos HaChoshen. But the truth was that his mother sold her silver candlesticks to buy it for him.

Again, in our generation there would not be this level of Mesiras Nefesh.

R' Frand told a second vort based on a Medrash which states that Hashem said that gold that was donated for the Mishkan was an atonement for the gold donated for the Egel. Hashem said - when you created the Egel you angered Me, as you stated in Shemos 32:8 -אֵ֤לֶּה אֱלֹהֶ֨יךָ֙ יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר הֶֽעֱל֖וּךָ מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם. But when you built the Mishkan and said in Shemos 38:21 - אֵ֣לֶּה פְקוּדֵ֤י הַמִּשְׁכָּן֙ מִשְׁכַּ֣ן הָֽעֵדֻ֔ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר פֻּקַּ֖ד עַל־פִּ֣י משֶׁ֑ה you made Me happy.

What is the connection other than the use of the same word? 

R' Frand answered by quoting the pasuk in Bereishis 2:4 - אֵ֣לֶּה תֽוֹלְד֧וֹת הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ בְּהִ֣בָּֽרְאָ֑ם. This was Hashem's expression of pride in creating the world. When the Jews used the same term in describing the Egel it showed their level of pride about its creation and that angered Hashem. But when they built the Mishkan and again used that term, Hashem granted them atonement.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up! 

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Vayakhel

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

In Shemos 35:30, the Torah writes רְא֛וּ קָרָ֥א יְהֹוָ֖ה בְּשֵׁ֑ם בְּצַלְאֵ֛ל בֶּן־אוּרִ֥י בֶן־ח֖וּר לְמַטֵּ֥ה יְהוּדָֽה.

R' Frand noted that the Torah does not generally mention someone's grandfather and he asked why was Hur referenced in the pasuk. He also observed that at the time that Betzalel was selected to work on the Mishkan he was 13 years old! Lastly, he quoted Rashi who states that Hur was the son of Miriam. R' Frand then asked why did Rashi need to tell us this now, after having given the same commentary twice before?

R' Frand first addressed the mention of Hur by quoting the well known Medrash on Vaykhel which states that Betzalel received the honor in the merit of his grandfather who refused to bow to popular pressure when there was a swell of support for building the Golden Calf.

R' Frand then asked - in hindsight, was it proper for Hur to stand up against the masses when they did not listen to him and ultimately killed him for saying no? R' Frand answered that Hur did do the right thing, because sometimes a person needs to stand up for what he believes in, and even if he does not think that others will listen to him.

Where did Hur learn this from? The answer is that he saw this in his mother Miriam.

R' Frand identified four specific moments that Miriam stood up for ideas, even though unpopular and they seemed unlikely to succeed.

The first event was when Amram divorced Yocheved because Amram saw all the Jewish babies being killed by the Egyptians. Although Amram was the lead Rabbi for the Jews in Egypt, his toddler daughter Miriam reproached him for divorcing Yocheved and told him he was worse than Pharaoh. Although Miriam could not have believed that she would succeed in convincing her father, she knew that he was wrong and that she needed to try to influence him.

The next event took place when Moshe was placed by Miriam in the basket in the water. After Miriam saw that the daughter of Pharaoh had retrieved Moshe, Miriam approached her and told her that she should give the baby to a Jewish midwife. Again, this must have seemed like a longshot - why would the daughter of Pharaoh listen to a slave girl? Still Miriam stood up and spoke about what she believed in.

The third event involved the singing after the Jews crossed the Yam Suf. The women were upset and expressed to Miriam their displeasure in not being able to sing. The Tosafos Harosh explains that Miriam picked up a tambourine and encouraged them to sing - because she knew that they wanted to sing and that the noise of the tambourine would drown out their singing.

The final event involved the spinning of thread for the Mishkan. The gemara relates that the women spun thread into wool while it was still on the sheep. Miriam actually taught them to do this because the women wanted to participate, but were concerned that they would be unable to do so if they were niddos. To solve the problem, Miriam taught them to spin thread while it was still on the sheep and not capable of becoming tamei.

This is what allowed Betzalel at the tender age of 13 to become the architect of the mishkan - because he was the grandson of Miriam and lived her message. 

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!