Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Vayeshev

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 began his first vort by quoting Rashi who explains that the reason that the Tamar-Yehuda story interrupts the discussion of the Yosef story is to compare the acts of Tamar and the wife of Potiphar. Rashi explains that both women acted L'Shem Shamayim as even the wife of Potiphar saw through the astrologers that she would be the ancestor of children through Yosef, she just did not know if it would be through her or her daughter.

R' Frand told a story involving R' Shalom Schwardon which connected to this thought. R' Schwadron had been in a shul on Parshas Zachor in which a man had pushed his way to lain. Why? Because he said that it was a Hiddur for the person who read Zachor to have a beard and the young Ba'al Koreh did not. R' Schwadron saw this occur and he left the shul. He remarked - how can we be Mekayem Mechiyas Amalek - this man did an act of Amalek?

R' Frand then made a reference to a story in the Gemara Yoma about two Kohanim who were running up the ramp to have a chance to do the Avodah. One took a sacrificial knife and stabbed the other. The father of the victim came to examine his son and when he realized the son was still alive he remarked that it was fortunate the son had not been killed as the knife could be used for the Avodah.

The Gemara then asks -what motivated him? Was his motivation that they could bring the sacrifice an act of Tzidkus or Rishus? Was the import of bringing the sacrifice paramount? Or was murder not significant in those days?

R' Frand said that R' Schwadron told the Gemara to the person who chased the young Ba'al Koreh away. Did you do so because the mitzva of hearing Zachor from a bearded person is so important? Or is it because you had no regard for the feelings of the Ba'al Koreh.

To return to the story of the two women - the reason that Tamar is viewed favorably is because she was concerned about Yehuda's Kavod - even if it meant that she would die and not have the child, it was more important that Yehuda not be embarrassed. Meanwhile the wife of Potiphar when she met an obstacle was ready to publicly embarrass Yosef.

R' Frand said a second vort in the name of R' Akiva Eger related to the interplay of Yosef and the Sar Hamashikm. When Yosef tells him the butler the meaning of his dream, the Torah recounts in Bereishis 40:13 that Yosef tells him that in three days he will be restored to his old position and that he will place Pharaoh's cup in Pharaoh's hand as was his former practice when he was the cup bearer. 

R' Akiva Eiger asked - why does the Torah need to tell us at the end of the pasuk the mechanics of what the butler did and will do? Why not just say that he will get his old job back? What is added by telling him that he will put the cup back in Pharaoh's hand just like originally?

R' Akiva Eiger also asked on the next pasuk wherein Yosef says "Ki Im Zechartani" - which implies that this is happening so that you will remember me. Why not just say - please remember me?

R' Akiva Eiger answered his questions by stating that if Yosef had just told him that he was getting his job back, the butler would have been a nervous wreck. After all, if he was jailed simply because a fly fell in the wine, what would stop it from happening again. And the next time that the fly was in the wine, he could lose his head. 

In order to calm down the butler, Yosef tells him that he did not do anything wrong. He definitely checked the wine each time. Yosef was telling him that this happened because it is the hand of Hashem. You were put in jail because Hashem wanted this to happen, but it wont happen again. Hashem put you there so that you would meet me and be the vehicle for me to get out of jail. So relax, there wont be another fly in the cup and you will go back to doing all the things that you used to do for Pharaoh. And this is why you should remember me and mention me to Pharaoh.

R' Frand connected this to a story about an Askan named Gary Turgo (sp?) who is involved in many Jewish organizations in Detroit. He told a story of hashgacha pratis which related to Blue Cross-Blue Shield. He had attended a meeting of Blue Cross-Blue Shield where he intended to announce that he was going to resign as he had completed all that he needed to do there. And while he was at the meeting he got a text message from someone who had a loved one in the hospital in NY and needed an operation. 

The problem was that Blue Cross-Blue Shield had not approved the operation and time was of the essence. The person wanted to know of Mr. Turgo knew anyone at Blue Cross-Blue Shield who could help. Since Mr. Turgo was siting next to the head of Blue Cross-Blue Shield, he showed her his phone and within five minutes the operation was approved.

And he did not resign his post.

This was a Ki Im Zechartani situation - this is why he was on the board of Blue Cross-Blue Shield.

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 Vayishlach

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 began his vort by discussing the battle between Ya'akov and the angel of Esav who fought until Alos HaShachar. R' Frand noted that the Torah uses the language "Vayeavek" instead of "Vayliachem." Rashi explains that the work "Vayeavek" refers to the dust which was generated by the battle which went all the way up to the Kisai HaKavod. This obviously must be a metaphor, but what does it connote?

R' Frand quoted R' Immanuel Bernstein who cites the Sefer Be'er Yosef which explains that there was a fundamental difference between Esav and Ya'akov as Ya'akov had a connection to Hashem and Esav did not. He notes that Ya'akov went back to retrieve Pachim Ketanim - small jugs. Why was this important to him? Because Hashem gave them to him and therefore they were intended for a purpose. And this is what the angel of Esav wanted to disabuse him of - there is no such thing as Hashgacha Pratis and He certainly does not worry about Pachim Ketanim. The angel wanted to start him on the path to believing that Hashem does not care or is not involved.

The Be'er Yosef quoted the Arizal who states that Tzaddikim view their resources dearly because they came from Heaven and if Hashem gave them to the Tzaddik, it was for a purpose. The angel of Esav wanted to convince Ya'akov that Hashem did not care about these items. And this is why the dust was rising to the Kisai HaKavod - because dust is worthless, yet it still has a relationship with the Kisai HaKavod.

The Be'er Yosef also quoted the Gra who notes that there is a reference to the Kisai HaKavod in the Beracha of Asher Yatzar. Even the most physical, mundane activity rises to the Kisai HaKavod as we recognize that Hashem gives us the ability to relieve ourselves. 

R' Frand also said a second vort related to the story of Dina and Shechem and how Shimon and Levi took revenge. Ya'akov was unhappy about this act and he chastised them. They then responded to him - HaKizonah Ya'aseh Es Achoseinu. R' Frand noted that this was an early dispute about whether we shoud care about public opinion and what the New York Times will say about us.

R' Frand quoted the Or HaChaim HaKadosh who explains that what Shimon and Levi were saying is that - if we don't react it will be open season on Jews - this will just be the first in a series. We need to go out and put fear into them.

R' Frand tied this into what is going on in Israel - the actions in Gaza, decimating Hezballah and bombing Syrian military sites. 1700 soldiers have lost their lives in the process and Israel has paid a price. But sometimes its necessary to take such actions to prevent the world from trampling on Jews.

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!

Belated Parshas Tidbits - Parshas Vateitzei

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha last evening (due to being at a wedding I was unable to blog this yesterday). 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 began his thoughts by noting that the parsha is completely "Stumah" - there are no paragraph breaks. R' Frand quoted R' Gedalya Shor who explains that this parsha is the parsha of Galus. He quoted the Ramban who explains that the fights in the previous parshios about the building of the wells were references to the Batei Mikdash. But after this, Ya'akov goes into Galus.

R' Shor explains that there are no Pesuchas - openings, because Galus is all Satum - we don't understand why things happen to us in Galus - be it from October 7, the Holocaust, the Pogroms in Europe and further back.

R' Frand quoted R' Chaim Shmulevitz who explains that the breaks in Parshios are meant to give Moshe time to stop and contemplate what the stories or mitzvos are about. But this Parsha as a symbol of Galus has no breaks and until Galus is over, everything is a cloud.

R' Frand noted that the Parsha of Balak also has no breaks. He quoted the Chofetz Chaim who explains that Bila'am never stopped to understand the message, thus there were no breaks and no time to reflect.

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 Toldos

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.

The Parsha begins with the pasuk "וְאֵ֛לֶּה תּֽוֹלְדֹ֥ת יִצְחָ֖ק בֶּן־אַבְרָהָ֑ם אַבְרָהָ֖ם הוֹלִ֥יד אֶת־יִצְחָֽק". The mefarshim ask the obvious question - why does the Torah need to state that Avraham fathered Yitzchak after stating that Yitzchak was Avraham's son? 

R' Frand quoted the Ibn Ezra who gives two answers and specifically mentioned the second answer in which he states that the second description teaches that Avraham raised Yitzchak.

R' Frand quoted the sefer Bei Chiya which observes that Avraham had expressed concern in Bereishis 15:2 that he would be left without a legacy, stating   וּבֶן־מֶ֣שֶׁק בֵּיתִ֔י ה֖וּא דַּמֶּ֥שֶׂק אֱלִיעֶֽזֶר. After being told that he would in fact have a son, Avraham was still concerned that he would not be able to raise the child as he might be too old to be an important part of Yitzchak's life. It is for this reason that the Torah states " אַבְרָהָ֖ם הוֹלִ֥יד אֶת־יִצְחָֽק" - Avraham was a father figure who raised Yitzchak.

R' Frand also quoted the Rashi on the first pasuk in which he quotes the Gemara in Bava Metzia which explains that the Letzanei HaDor questioned if Avraham was Yitzchak's father, therefore Hashem made Yitzchak's face look exactly like Avraham so that no one could question.

R' Frand quoted R' Paam who asked why they were identified as Letzanei HaDor instead of the Risha'im? He answered that a Letz is not just a joker - its a scoffer who looks for the smallest thing in order to ridicule. Indeed - the idea that Avraham could not be the father is nonsense as Avraham was never the reason that they could not have kids, since he had already fathered Yishmael.

R' Paam gave a second explanation - this was done so that in future generations they could not question. Everyone knew that Avraham was the father when Yitzchak was born, but generation later people might have questions. But if he looked identical to Avraham that would not be questioned.

R' Frand noted that when Dwight David Eisenhower liberated the death camps he ordered that everything be documented and required the local residents bury the bodies, so that in the future this could not be questioned. Yet in 2009 the UK considered removing the Holocaust from the curriculum because the Muslims were offended as they don't think the Holocaust ever happened.

R' Frand said a second vort related to Yaakov deceiving his father to get the Brachos. Yaakov resisted this and he was worried that his father would figure it out. To this his mother Rivka said - I am telling you that it will not happen because I have Ruach HaKodesh and I know that Yitzchak would not figure it out.

But was there no other way for Yaakov to get the Brachos without Yaakov needing to lie? R' Yaakov Kaminetsky answers in Emes L'Yaakov that each of the Avos had a Nisayon which against their nature. Avraham was an Ish Hachesed, but he had to leave his father behind, send out Hagar and Yishmael and then bring his son on the Akeidah. But this was test - to go against his nature, because sometimes you need to go against your nature.

Similarly, Yaakov's middah was Emes, but his test was to go against his nature because the situation required it.

But what was Yitzchak's nisayon? Its the Akeidah which will happen in the future. This ties into a Gemara in Shabbos which states that in the future Yitzchak will convince Hashem not to destroy the Jews even when Avraham and Yaakov will not do the same. Even though Yitzchak was straight midas HaDin - this is not the time for it.

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 Chaye Sarah

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 Bereishis 24:15 the Torah writes "וַֽיְהִי־ה֗וּא טֶ֘רֶם֘ כִּלָּ֣ה לְדַבֵּר֒ וְהִנֵּ֧ה רִבְקָ֣ה יֹצֵ֗את" but the Torah does not identify the subject of the "ה֗וּא." The Rabbeinu B'Chaye states that the "ה֗וּא" is an angel, but this seemingly creates additional questions as there is no angel mentioned in the story.

R' Frand also raised the famous question of the use of the word הָעֶ֖בֶד and הָאִ֔ישׁ at differing points in the story as pronouns for Eliezer. Why does the Torah begin with calling him  הָעֶ֖בֶד and then later הָאִ֔ישׁ before returning to  הָעֶ֖בֶד?

R' Frand, again quoting the Rabbeinu B'Chaye explains that after Eliezer came to the well and made the condition that whomever would offer water for his camels would be the woman chosen for Yitzchak - he immediately met Rivkah. This is exactly when the ה֗וּא is mentioned, because Hashem then caused the angel to instigate that Rivkah would appear. It is at this point that Eliezer transitions to הָאִ֔ישׁ, based on his interaction at the well. Only later after the mission is completed in that Rivkah's family agrees that she can travel back with Eliezer that he again is called  הָעֶ֖בֶד.

R' Frand said a second vort from a Sefer written by Nat Lewin's father, R' Aharon Lewin - the Reisha Rav. He began by quoting Rashi which states that all of Sarah's life was equally good. But how is this to be understood? She marries Avraham and then immediately moves to Canaan. Then there is a famine and they travel to Egypt where she is taken captive and later again she is taken captive by Avimelech. Later she has the indignity of seeing Hagar have a child while she is barren and then Hagar treats with her disdain. Finally she has Yitzchak and has the fright of him being offered at the Akeidah. How is this good?

R' Lewin answers that Sarah saw her life with its peaks and valleys, but accepted that it was all for the best.

R' Frand then quoted a Medrash which states that R' Akiva was giving a derasha when he saw that people were Misnamnem (commonly translated as dozing). He wanted to awaken them and he said why did Esther rule over 127 lands? Because she is the granddaughter of Sarah who lived 127 years.

But is this a gezeira shava? What is the connection between the 127? R' Frand quoted R' Lewin who said that the connection was Esther's attitude. She lost both of her parents and was orphaned before being taken in by Mordechai. But then she is forced into the "beauty pageant" for Achasverosh and later taken as his bride. But much like Sarah - she recognized that everything is from Hashem and it is all for the good.

R' Frand then circled back to R' Akiva. He noted that R' Akiva lived at the end of the Beis Hamikdash era and things were going quite poorly for the Jewish people. He saw that they were down and he wanted to wake them up. To do this he remarked about Sarah and Esther and how they did not get depressed over the troubles that befell them and R' Akiva sought to "wake up" the people by giving them a positive outlook as well.

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 Vayera

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 the midst of Avraham's "negotiations" to save Sodom and the other cities from destruction, Avraham stops actively negotiating and says to Hashem in Bereishis 18:27 וַיַּ֥עַן אַבְרָהָ֖ם וַיֹּאמַ֑ר הִנֵּה־נָ֤א הוֹאַ֨לְתִּי֙ לְדַבֵּ֣ר אֶל־אֲדֹנָ֔י וְאָֽנֹכִ֖י עָפָ֥ר וָאֵֽפֶר. Rashi explains that Avraham uses these terms to thank Hashem as he could have become dust when he fought in the war of the four kings vs the five kings and he could have been turned into ash when Nimrod threw him in the Kivshan Ha'Esh. 

R' Frand quoted R' Bukspan (of Parshah Pearls fame) who observes that Avraham was mentioning these things at present even though the events had occurred in the past. In this way Avraham was teaching how to be Makir Tov - by constantly having in focus the good that was done for you.

R' Frand told a story about someone who had been in a massive car accident and walked away without a scratch. The state trooper was amazed and told him that no one walks away from an accident like that. 

The man decided that he would learn Mussar every day as a Hakaras HaTov for being saved. But after a year he was no longer keeping the Mussar seder. 

Avraham's lesson was that you need to constantly remember the good and not relegate it to the past. R' Frand gave the example of a person who was unemployed for a period of time and then found a job. He was ecstatic when he began the job, but at some point later he felt under appreciated and under paid. 

R' Frand also invoked a car commercial for GM from my childhood which asked "What have you done for me lately." He also quoted the late great Pete Rose who famously said - you are only as good as your last at bat.

Avraham was teaching us that this is not the mindset of a Jew.

R' Frand said a second vort related to the Akeidah and specifically the pasuk in Bereishis 22:5 -  וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֶל־נְעָרָ֗יו שְׁבֽוּ־לָכֶ֥ם פֹּה֙ עִם־הַֽחֲמ֔וֹר. The Gemara in Kiddushin remarks that they are compared to a donkey, in the sense that much like a donkey does not have lineage, so too if one has a baby with a shifcha or akum, the child does not have his lineage.

The Beis Halevi asks - why does the Torah choose this point in time to teach this law? He answers that Avraham could have had a doubt when Hashem told him to sacrifice Yitzchak - after all, Avraham had been previously told that Yitzchak would be his lineage. Perhaps Avraham was thinking that Hashem had "changed His mind" and that the lineage would be through Yishmael. To disabuse him of this notion, the Torah chose this moment to teach that a child of Hagar could not be Avraham's lineage.

R' Frand next quoted the Pirkei D'Rebbi Elezer in which R' Yehudah states that when the knife was applied to Yitzchak's neck, his soul departed. It was only when he heard from between the Kruvim that Avraham was told not to harm him that Yitzchak's soul returned. At that point Yitzchak recited the bracha of Mechaye HaMeisim. 

R' Frand then quoted the Ari who writes that Yitzchak previously had a female Neshama, but when it returned to him after the Akeidah it was male. R' Frand (although with the disclaimer that he is not a Kabbalist) said that this was truly the new beginning for the Jewish people. When Yitzchak had a female Neshama he did not have the ability to procreate, but now he could become one of our forefathers. 

R' Frand said that there are times that a person can feel that something is coming to the end, but in reality its a new beginning. He quoted R' Epstein who observed that the Golden Age of Spain ended for the Jews on Tisha B'Av 1492 ... the same day that Columbus set sail for America. And while the Jews of Spain were forced to flee on that day, it was the beginning of the discovery of a nation which would absorb millions of Jews from the 1800s through the Holocaust.

R' Frand closed the vort by observing that the Torah reading on Rosh Hashanah ends with the descendants of Besuel. He said that it always bothered him why the Kriah could not be broken up so that the five Aliyos on Rosh Hashanah could end before this part of Parshas Vayera. But with the understanding of the Ari its clear why the descendants are mentioned. Prior to the Akeidah, Yitzchak was incapable of having children. But after he received a male Neshama he was capable of having children, thus the descendants of Besuel are mentioned because they include Rivka.

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!