Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Vayikra

 Although R' Frand did not deliver his live shiur this evening, 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/221769 and 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 noted that Sefer Vayikra is called Toras Kohanim because so much of it deals with the Karbanos. R' Frand observed that the parsha begins with a discussion of the Karbanos, but in the 5th Perek there is an elaboration on one who sins and his requirement to admit his son and then bring a Karban Asham.

The Torah's description of the Asham is multi leveled as in Vayikra 5:6 there is an option to bring a female sheep or lamb. But if he could not afford an animal, the Torah states in 5:7 the person can bring two birds - one as a Chatas and one as an Olah.

But why does he bring a different set of Karbanos if he cannot afford he animal? The Ibn Ezra explains that the person must have committed a second sin. The man thinks to himself - Hashem, its not fair that I can't afford a lamb. But having ill thoughts of Hashem is a separate sin which requires him to bring an Olah to atone for those thoughts.

But the Torah has a third level which is mentioned in Vayikra 5:11 which states that he brings a Chatas as a flour offering without oil. But this person does not bring an Olah - just the flour offering. 

The question can be asked - if the person who brings the bird offering is required to bring an Olah because of his thoughts, then certainly the man who brings the flour offering should bring as well? 

R' Frand quoted the Chiddah who explains that when a man is in pain, we don't hold his words against him. So the man who is in the intermediate level has to bring the Olah, but for the man who is severely indigent and pained about his position, Hashem says - I won't hold his words against him. Thus the man only brings the flour offering.

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 + A Little Relish

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand in his shiur this evening as well a vort he said on this week's parsha last Thursday night. 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.

Last week R' Frand concluded his shiur with a vort on Pikudei - specifically Shemos 38:24 -  כָּל־הַזָּהָ֗ב הֶֽעָשׂוּי֙ לַמְּלָאכָ֔ה בְּכֹ֖ל מְלֶ֣אכֶת הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ. R' Frand quoted the Medrash Rabbah on Tehillim in which Resh Lakish said that there was no reason that gold needed to be created? Why do we need it - just to buy our wife jewelry, we could but something else as a present! The Medrash answered that it was created solely for the Beis Hamikdash. 

Yet, gold was actually first mentioned in Parshas Bereishis. So why were people aware of it from the beginning if it was only needed for the Beis Hamikdash? Because there are certain things in the world that the world can live without, but it has a purpose for something holy and for that it was worthwhile to be created from the beginning.

R' Frand said that we are all aware of the pitfalls of technologically. Why were these created? So that a person can learn Daf Yomi anywhere in the world. And a person with no background can listen to a shiur on any topic. Technologically was not created for us to waste our time - it was created so that people can learn Torah.

R' Frand closed this vort by telling a story about R' Kalefsky (sp?). His wife did not drive and he would drive his wife to the local supermarket (Giant). R' Frand once bumped into him there and R' Kalefsky said - let me tell you a vort. He proceeded to tell the vort as if they were in the Beis Medrash and not the supermarket. R' Kalefsky then said to him "the whole reason that Giant was created was so that I could tell you that vort."

Tonight's vort related to a "neglected" [my word] element of the Seder table - the Charoses. The Mishna in Pesachim quoted R' Elazar B'Rav Tzadok who states that Charoses is a Mitzva. It then provides two reasons for the Charoses - R' Levi states that it is to remember the apples in Egypt and R' Yochanan states that it is to remember the mortar. Abaye then states that you need to add both apples to provide a tang and it needs to be thick to remember the mortar.

The remembrance of the mortar is to recall the Shibud, as the Maharal states that there was no harder work then making the mortar. On the other hand, the apple is a recollection of how the Jewish women delivered their babies in the orchard under the apple trees - as referred to in the pasuk in Shir HaShirim. 

The Rashbam in Sotah discusses how the women would go out to their husbands in the fields and bring them buckets of warm water and fish. They would lie together and the women would become pregnant. They would return home until it was time to deliver, at which point they would return to the fields to deliver. Hashem would send down angels to act as midwives and assist the delivery and then the angels would care for the babies.

R' Frand then quoted R' Yerucham Olshan who asks - how can you have two seemingly contradictory themes represented in the Charoses? He answered by quoting the famous vort on Yosef being taken down to Egypt in a caravan which brought sweet spices. Rashi explains that the reason for this was that Hashem was showing the reward for Tzaddikim. While the merchants usually carried oil, Hashem did not want Yosef to suffer by having that smell with him.

But do you think that Yosef thought that being sold as a slave in Egypt would not be so bad if the trip down the river (literally) had an air freshener? R' Frand compared this to being in prison, but given a great pillow.

R' Frand quoted R' Mordechai Pogromansky who answers that this was a way for Hashem to show that He still loves Yosef, even though Yosef was going down to Egypt as a slave.

R' Olshan states that this is the same reason for the apple and mortar aspects of the Charoses. It may have seemed to them that they had been abandoned during their 210 years in Egypt. But Hashem showed them open miracles to demonstrate that He still cared.

R' Frand closed the vort by saying that we have been seeing this in our time over the last sixteen months. While we have seen the horrible events and how the hostages are still being held. But we are also seeing miracles such as the pagers, the bombs on the buses which did not go off, the downfall of Hezbollah and Syria. The situation seems dire, but we can see the Yad Hashem. This is why R' Elazar states that Charoses is a Mitzva and it is to remember both the mortar and the apples - the sweetness as well as the pain.

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.

R' Frand's first vort related to the concept of Tzedakah. He noted that in Shemos 35:21 the Torah states וַיָּבֹ֕אוּ כָּל־אִ֖ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־נְשָׂא֣וֹ לִבּ֑וֹ. However the following pasuk states וַיָּבֹ֥אוּ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֖ים עַל־הַנָּשִׁ֑ים כֹּ֣ל | נְדִ֣יב לֵ֗ב הֵ֠בִ֠יאוּ חָ֣ח וָנֶ֜זֶם וְטַבַּ֤עַת וְכוּמָז֙ כָּל־כְּלִ֣י זָהָ֔ב וְכָל־אִ֕ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֥ר הֵנִ֛יף תְּנוּפַ֥ת זָהָ֖ב . Rashi explains that the reference to the women in the second pasuk shows their devotion to the Mishkan as they gave up their jewelry. But not only that, but they wore the jewelry until they got to the place to donate.

R' Frand quoted R' Moshe Feinstein who said that the women were trying to emphasize that this is not spare jewelry that had gone out of style. R' Frand quipped that the jewelry people are smart and certain designs go out of style. But here, the women were showing that the jewelry was being worn at the time. 

R' Frand said that when he was first marred and R' Frand was learning in Kollel, his wife made a quilt for his mother-in-law. They did not have money, but they wanted to show that she was important.

R' Frand next quoted Shemos 35:25 - וְכָל־אִשָּׁ֥ה חַכְמַת־לֵ֖ב בְּיָדֶ֣יהָ טָו֑וּ וַיָּבִ֣יאוּ מַטְוֶ֗ה אֶֽת־הַתְּכֵ֨לֶת֙ וְאֶת־הָ֣אַרְגָּמָ֔ן אֶת־תּוֹלַ֥עַת הַשָּׁנִ֖י וְאֶת־הַשֵּֽׁשׁ. There was no fabric store for them to buy fabric, so this was significant. But the next pasuk - וְכָ֨ל־הַנָּשִׁ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר נָשָׂ֥א לִבָּ֛ן אֹתָ֖נָה בְּחָכְמָ֑ה טָו֖וּ אֶת־הָֽעִזִּֽים as interpreted by the Gemara in Shabbos shows that the women spun and weaved while the hairs were still on the goats. This required an entire group as someone had to hold the goat down. There are various meforshim who explain the reason for this - either that there was extra sheen while the hair was still on the goat or so that it could not be Mikabel Tumah. 

R' Frand said that the efforts above show how important giving Tzedakah was to these women. R' Frand tied this to a story written about by R' Mordechai Kaminetsky about an Israel Bonds dinner that was held in Chicago in 1951 at which Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion was to speak. The dinner was attended by the "best and finest" and was pure treif, replete with shellfish. There were no yarmulkes in the room, save for a man standing in the back who was decked out in Chassidish garb. This was R' Mendel Kaplan who was a Rosh Yeshiva in Skokie 

One of the wealthier attendees who was also a donor to the yeshiva asked R' Mendel what he was doing there. He said that I came to see how the children of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov give Tzedakah.

R' Frand said that there is an addendum to the story. When they heard Ben Gurion speak about the dire situation in Israel, they lined up to donate - but the men also took off their gold cufflinks and the women gave their diamond earrings.

R' Frand also said that there were some people who would not be caught dead at the dinner with its tref food. But R' Mendel wanted to be there, just so that he could see how Jews gave Tzedakah.

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!

Friday's (Non) Purim Torah

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Daniel Glatstein in a shiur on Torah Anytime (https://torahanytime.com/lectures/353913) on Purim a few weeks ago. This is not a literal transcription but just a summary of some of the shiur that I found meaningful. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Glatstein.

The shiur focused on a question about a pasuk in the Megillah (7:4) כִּ֤י נִמְכַּ֨רְנוּ֙ אֲנִ֣י וְעַמִּ֔י לְהַשְׁמִ֖יד לַֽהֲר֣וֹג וּלְאַבֵּ֑ד וְ֠אִלּ֠וּ לַֽעֲבָדִ֨ים וְלִשְׁפָח֤וֹת נִמְכַּ֨רְנוּ֙ הֶֽחֱרַ֔שְׁתִּי כִּ֣י אֵ֥ין הַצָּ֛ר שֹׁוֶ֖ה בְּנֶ֥זֶק הַמֶּֽלֶךְ. Why is it that Esther offered that if only the Jews had been sold into slavery, she would have kept quiet?

To address this, R' Glatstein began with an analysis of why the Jews were punished in the Purim story. He quoted the Gemara in Megillah where R' Shimon Bar Yochai asked his students why the Jews were punished. They offered that it was because they ate at the party, but he responded - then only the Jews of Shushan should have been punished. They suggested that it was because they bowed down to Nevuchadnezzar, but he responded - then they should have killed then. He then answered that they did not mean to serve idols, it was done outwardly, for the same reason the decree in Purim was outwardly.

However there is 3rd sin which was the cause of the Purim story. R' Glatstein quoted the Sefer Zecher Dovid from R' Dovid of Modina - the two in the Gemara and the third is Mechiras Yosef. This concept is also found in Medrash Rabbah on Esther (3:15)  וְהַמֶּ֤לֶךְ וְהָמָן֙ יָֽשְׁב֣וּ לִשְׁתּ֔וֹת וְהָעִ֥יר שׁוּשָׁ֖ן נָבֽוֹכָה. The Medrash states that anyone who thinks Hashem overlooks sin, Hashem will overlook their life. Hashem said to the tribes - you sold Yosef and were eating and drinking - this will happen now. But why? Yosef was mochel them! 

The Yalkut Shimoni gives the same reason as does the Alshich. The Chida explains why now the punishment came for Mechiras Yosef and not at some point during the thousand plus years between Mechiras Yosef and Purim. He begins by noting that the hatzalah had to come from Binyamin (Esther/Mordechai) because they were not involved in Mechiras Yosef. He also quoted the Medrash that when the decree came in the Purim story, Eliyahu HaNavi went to wake up Moshe to ask him to pray for them to be saved, because Moshe is most deeply connected with Yosef. He also observed that when the Jews were saved in the Megillah (7:10) - וַֽחֲמַ֥ת הַמֶּ֖לֶךְ שָׁכָֽכָה - the Gematria of שָׁכָֽכָה is the same as Moshe.

R' Glatstein then went through the numerous parallelisms between Parshas Mikeitz and Megillas Esther. The reason for this connection is that the sin of Mechiras Yosef was the cause of the decree.

But why now? He quoted the Sefer Zera Berech who explains that the meat at the party was Ever Min HaChai and Gilui Arayos was going on at the party. These were the same issues that the brothers had before the sale of Yosef. He also quoted the Shvilei Pinchas who said that while Yosef forgave his brothers, but when the sin which was the cause happens again in the generation - the punishment is reawakened. Haman pointed out in Esther 3:8 - יֶשְׁנ֣וֹ עַם־אֶחָ֗ד מְפֻזָּ֤ר וּמְפֹרָד֙ and when Haman pointed out that the Jews were not getting along it reawakened the punishment.

When Moshe was reawakened by Eliyahu HaNavi he asked whether the decree was written in cement or in blood? Eliyahu responds that it was in cement. R' Glatstein told a story of an Ani who came to R' Chaim Volozhner and asked for Tzedakah. He gave a coin and then the Ani asked for an additional coin and promised a dvar Torah that R' Chaim had never heard. He explained - how do we see that the decree was not in blood - because it states יִכָּתֵ֖ב לְאַבְּדָ֑ם - which can be read Lo B'Dam. And after he gave him the coin, R' Chaim realized that he was Eliyahu HaNavi.

But what was the debate? For over 1000 years the Jews had a question about whether they would be responsible for throwing Yosef into a cement pit or for his blood? Because if someone is sold into captivity it is like killing them. And Eliyahu said no - its only cement.

And this is what Esther tells Achasveros - we know that we should be punished with cement - that we should be sold into slavery for Yosef being sold. But now that the decree is that we should be killed - for that I can't keep my mouth shut. Esther is disclosing to him - we know that we did something wrong by selling him and if we had been sold, it would be deserved. But if they are coming for our blood, for that I can't.

R' Glatstein noted that Haman is also called  מְמֻכָ֗ן which the gematria is the same as Yosef. And when Haman paid his Sheklaim he is reawakening the punishment for Mechiras Yosef. So we give Machtzis HaShekel to show that each person is incomplete and two halves make us whole.

R' Glatstein also quoted a Yerushalmi which quotes Resh Lakish who states that Pidyon Haben is to atone for Mechiras Yosef because each of the tribes took a coin for the sale of Yosef. And similarly Resh Lakish is quoted in Medrash Tanchuma as stating that the Machtzis HaShekel is to atone for the sale of Yosef. These Shekalim that we collect and read about on Rosh Chodesh Adar is to be in advance of Haman's giving of the Shekalim to Achasverosh.

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 Tezaveh

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 the vort by quoting the Gemara in Zevachim 88b which teaches that the reason that the laws of the clothing of the Kohain Gadol are near the laws of the sacrifices is to teach that just as the sacrifices atone, so do the clothes. The Gemara notes that the Ketones atones for murder, the Mitznefes for haughtiness, the Avnet for improper desires, the Choshen for improper judgments, the Efod for idol worship and the Me'il for Lashon Hara. R' Chanina then comments that a device with a voice (the bells on the bottom of the Me'il) will atone for sins of the voice.

The Torah tells us that the bottom of the Meil had bells and pomegranates which made the noise when the Kohain Gadol walked. But since the noise came from the bells - and the sound was a lesson that we should be careful with how we use our voice, what was the need for the pomegranates?

R' Frand quoted R' Immanuel Bernstein who cited the Gemara which states that Jews are compared to pomegranates in that even those who seem to be "empty" are as filled with Mitzvos as pomegranates.

R' Frand then noted that Lashon Hara comes from the eye and the heart and not the mouth. If you see someone who appears to be "empty," think about the pomegranate and realize that he is full of Mitzvos.

R' Frand also quoted R' Moshe Galanti who noted that the end of the Parsha contains the Mitzva of making the Mizbeach HaKetores. But why is the construction of this device here in Tezaveh as opposed to in Terumah where the instructions for fashioning the other objects is found? He answered that if any of the other devices were moved and then used in the wrong location in the Mishkan, they would not accomplish their task. This applies to items such as the Mizbeach where sacrifices were brought or the Menorah. But the Mizbeach HaKetores would still be effective, even if was in the wrong place. 

This is why it it seemingly mentioned in the "wrong" Parsha.

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 Mishpatim

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.

Rabbi Frand's first vort contained an interesting take on Shemos 21:35 - וְכִֽי־יִגֹּ֧ף שֽׁוֹר־אִ֛ישׁ אֶת־שׁ֥וֹר רֵעֵ֖הוּ וָמֵ֑ת. He quoted the Ibn Ezra which in turn cited "Ben Zuta" who said that the ox referred to as being the victim was not the ox of the owner's friend. Instead the word רֵעֵ֖הוּ referred to the aggressor - this ox was friends with the ox that gored it! To this the Ibn Ezra remarked - Ben Zuta has no friends, only oxen.

R' Frand quoted R' Hutner who explained that the word רֵעֵ֖הוּ is like the word Teruah. In the context of Rosh Hashanah, the Teruah is like a cry and it is the focal point of the shofar blowing as it is bracketed by two Peshutahs - the Tekiyas. Was the connection between רֵעֵ֖הוּ and the Teruah? A friend will not only tell you things that you want to hear. Instead, the friend will tell you when you are mistaken and will help you be a better person. This is why the Ibn Ezra criticized Ben Zuta - because an ox is incapable of being a friend. 

R' Frand tied this into the bracha in Sheva Brochos - Sameach Tisamach Reim HaAhuvim. He said that when a couple marries they become both Ahuvim and Reim (friends). You should be able to rely on your spouse to tell you when something you are doing is wrong (although its not a good idea to tell that to your newlywed spouse during Sheva Brachos).

R' Frand said a second vort on the pasuk in Shemos 22:30 - וְאַנְשֵׁי־קֹ֖דֶשׁ תִּֽהְי֣וּן לִ֑י וּבָשָׂ֨ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֤ה טְרֵפָה֙ לֹ֣א תֹאכֵ֔לוּ לַכֶּ֖לֶב תַּשְׁלִכ֥וּן אֹתֽוֹ. R' Frand commented that this is the source from which we learn about Kashrus, but why is linked to being Kodesh?

R' Frand quoted the Ramban who explains that the laws of Kashrus are not based on health but instead are related to our spiritual health. He next cited the Netziv who explains that the reason we don't eat the Terefah is not health related as the animal was not sickly, it was torn apart by a predator. The reason we don't eat it is that it is bad for our Neshama.

R' Frand also noted that the halachos of Ma'achalos Asuros in the Rambam can be found in Kedusah.

R' Frand closed the vort by quoting R' Shmuel Birnbaum who explains why the laws of Terefah are mentioned with being Kodesh and with throwing the carcass to the dogs. We know that the dog receives the carcass as reward for not barking when the Jews left Egypt, but it should be noted that their silence was not voluntary. But this is the specific reason that we do give them the carcass - because the dogs wanted to bark and they were pained that they could not. We compensate them for their pain by giving them the carcasses, because a Kodesh person is concerned about everyone's feelings, even a dog.

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