Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Ki Savo

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 first quoted the pasuk in Devarim 26:15 הַשְׁקִ֩יפָה֩ מִמְּע֨וֹן קָדְשְׁךָ֜ מִן־הַשָּׁמַ֗יִם וּבָרֵ֤ךְ אֶת־עַמְּךָ֙ אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל which follows the declaration by the farmer that he has given the tithes that he was required to give. Rashi on this pasuk states that the farmer says to Hashem - we did ours, now You do what you promised to do.

How can we demand that Hashem pay up? To make the question stronger, it is known that Nechemia when he brought the Jews back from Bavel he says to Hashem - I did what I was supposed to do, now its Your turn to take care of me. The Gemara in Sanhedrin notes that the Sefer is called Ezra, but it should have been called Nechemia because its about him. But its called Ezra, because Nechemia demanded that Hashem pay him back for what he did.

So why is this different?

R' Frand quoted the Tolner Rebbi who quotes a Rashi on the previous pasuk in which  the farmer states - עָשִׂ֕יתִי כְּכֹ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוִּיתָֽנִי that the farmer is actually saying Samachti V'Simachti - I was happy and I made other happy. Who did he make happy? The Ger, Yasom, Almanah and Levi. The Tolner Rebbi said that when a person takes care of the people with problems, Hashem says - you did yours - I will do mine.

R' Frand quoted a Rashi on a pasuk in Re'eh that when a person goes up to Yerushalayim he says that he has made Levi, Yasom, Almanah and the Ger happy. Hashem says to him - there are 4 types of people that I care about - if you provided for them, I will make your 4 happy - your son daughter, avdecha and amasecha.

R' Frand closed the vort by quoting the Meshech Chachma which cites a pasuk in Tehillim that Hashem looks after the downtrodden from his Ma'on. This is the same word that is used in 26:15 - if you do what you are supposed to do for those Hashem looks after, He will take care of yours.

R' Frand said a second vort which contrasted the Berachos and Klallos which both the use word וְהִשִּׂיגֻ֑ךָ - and they will come upon you and overtake you. In Devarim 28:2, the Torah writes וּבָ֧אוּ עָלֶ֛יךָ כָּל־הַבְּרָכ֥וֹת הָאֵ֖לֶּה וְהִשִּׂיגֻ֑ךָ - the Berachos will come upon you and overtake you. But in Devarim 28:15, the Torah writes וּבָ֧אוּ עָלֶ֛יךָ כָּל־הַקְּלָל֥וֹת הָאֵ֖לֶּה וְהִשִּׂיגֽוּךָ - the Klallos will do this. 

It is understandable why a person would want to avoid the Klallos and thus they will overtake him, but why would someone want to avoid the Berachos?

R' Frand first quoted the Seforno who explains that a person needs to do his Hishtadlus and then leave it up to Hashem and the Brachos will come on you. Normally, a person needs to do his Hishtadlus, but afterwards he needs to let Hashem bring it to him.

R' Frand next quoted the Degel Machaneh Ephraim which explains that there are times that Hashem will send us a beracha which we do not capitalize on. Maybe because we don't understand that its a blessing or perhaps because our nature is not to jump at potential opportunities which involve change. Hashem says - I will send this beracha and it will overcome you, even if you are trying to avoid it. A couple may go out a few times and then decide its not for them. But a few months later they will reconsider and then it works out. Why? Because they made the wrong decision initially, but the tova chased after them.

R' Frand also quoted R' Bunim M'Parshicha who stated that the true bracha is that the good thing will come upon you, but you will not change as they will meet you where you are. Sometimes a person is different after he comes into money - but here it wont change you. This also explains why the same word is used by the Klallos - you won't change even though you are experiencing this.

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 Ki Seitzei

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 firs vort that Rabbi Frand said related to a pasuk in Mishlei 31:20 (more well known through the Aishes Chayil we say on Friday Nights) - יָדֶיהָ שִׁלְּחָ֣ה בַכִּישׁ֑וֹר. The Yalkut Shemoni says that this pasuk relates to Yael the wife of Chever HaKeini who used a tent peg to kill Sisra. Specifically, it praises Yael for using the tent peg and not a sword. Why did she not use the sword? Because of the pasuk in this week's parsha which prohibits women from wearing men's clothing.

But this was a time of Hatzlas Nefashos! R' Frand further indicated that he believes that if she asked the question she would have been told to use the sword. So why is she praised? Because when we are under pressure we don't think and analyze the halacha. But Yael's instinct was to think of the halacha.

R' Frand tied this into a vort from R' Ruderman ZTL about Manoach the father of Shimshon who the Gemara in Berachos says was an am ha'aretz for walking behind his wife when going to greet the angel. R' Ruderman explained - he was an am ha'aretz because when he heard that there was an angel he should have run to see the angel, rather than walking calmly behind his wife.

R' Frand said a second vort about the interplay of the inyanim in the first aliyah in that the rule of the Bechor inheriting a double portion comes before the law of Ben Sorer U'Moreh. R' Frand quoted the Shem M'Shmuel who explains that a Bechor gets a double portion because he has a special responsibility and sets the tone for the rest of the children who will follow him. 

R' Frand again linked this to R' Ruderman in that he married the oldest daughter of R' Sheftel Kramer. When she started dating, R' Kramer told her that she had to marry a Talmid Chacham, because the guy you marry will set the tone for your sisters.

This is why the Bechor gets double - he sets the tone as the first one, because there is an importance to getting the beginning correct. This is why the Ben Sorer U'Moreh gets the death penalty - because if the beginning is bad, it is very hard to correct.

R' Frand said a third vort related to the law of Shana Rishona which is seen in the pasuk in Devarim 24:5 - וְשִׂמַּ֖ח אֶת־אִשְׁתּ֥וֹ אֲשֶׁר־לָקָֽח. Rashi explains that based on Onkelos that this pasuk means that a man should make his wife happy and that anyone who translates it as being happy with his wife is mistaken.

But the Targum Yonasan Ben Uziel does use that explanation. Could he have been mistaken?

R' Frand answered based on the Shemen HaTov who explains that yes - you must make your wife happy, but the result is that if you make her happy, you will be happy with her. R' Frand said the maamar of the world is - "if Momma ain't happy, you ain't happy."

R' Frand once observed that when a man first goes into marriage he is thinking about himself and his wife is thinking about herself. In order to get to the point where they can be happy together, he needs to stop thinking about himself and start thinking about her happiness.

R' Frand then said a vort from R' Breitowitz based on the bracha said after a child is born that he should be raised L'Torah, U'Lchupa, U'Lmaasim Tovim. He observed that this seems to be out of order. We would understand that Torah is first, but why is good deeds after marriage? If anything it should be right after Torah!

R' Frand answered by giving a mashal - a poor Kollel family sends the husband to the supermarket to buy cereal. He wants to buy Honey Nut Cheerios and she wants Kashi - at $5 a box for cereal, a Kollel husband needs to make the call to only buy one and in R' Frand's (true) observation - Kashi tastes like a box of cardboard. 

R' Frand then said - lets make it less dramatic - she wants Rice Krispies and he wants Cheerios. Both taste good, but he has different preferences than his wife. Until now, he always bought what he wanted. But now he is married and he has to put someone else first. This is the moment when Maasim Tovim come to the forefront - now that he is married will he put her first? If he does, than it truly will be V'Samach Es Ishto.

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 Shoftim

As R' Frand has restarted his Thursday Night shiur I am again providing 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 comparing a pasuk in this week's parsha with a pasuk in Mishpatim. In Shoftim there is a proscription against taking bribes in Devarim 16:19 which warns that  וְלֹֽא־תִקַּ֣ח שֹׁ֔חַד כִּ֣י הַשֹּׁ֗חַד יְעַוֵּר֙ עֵינֵ֣י חֲכָמִ֔ים. However in Mishpatim, the Torah phrases the warning different as the Torah states in Shemos 23:8 that וְשֹׁ֖חַד לֹ֣א תִקָּ֑ח כִּ֤י הַשֹּׁ֨חַד֙ יְעַוֵּ֣ר פִּקְחִ֔ים. 

R' Frand then quoted the Gra to explain the difference between a Chacham and a Pikeach. He stated that a Chacham is someone who knows a lot of Torah. But a Pikeach is not just book smart. Instead, he has a keen power of observation which he can use to discern the truth in a factual dispute.

R' Frand closed this vort by saying that a Dayan needs to have both characteristics. He need to be aware of the Torah, Shas and all the Piskei Halacha. But he also needs to be able to observe and understand the people who bring the Din Torah before him.

R' Frand said a second vort on the concept of bribery. He quoted the Gemara in Kesubos 105 which states that even a bribe of words can cause the disqualification of a judge. He gave the example of telling a judge that he is wearing a nice suit, or telling a Rav that he gave a wonderful shiur can be enough that the person cannot sit as a judge.

R' Frand gave examples from the Gemara, including how Shmuel was crossing a rickety bridge and someone gave him a hand. When he found out that person was supposed to be a litigant before him, he said that he could not hear the case. Similarly Amemar had something on his head and a man came and removed it. Amemar told him that he could not hear his case. A third example involved a man who covered spittle which was on the floor in front of Mar Ukva. He too said that he could not hear that man's case.

R' Frand then asked - were these people so easy influenced that the smallest good deed which was done for them could influence their ability to adjudicate their cases?

R' Frand answered by quoting R' Paam who explained that the problem for these Rabbanim were that they had tremendous HaKaras HaTov for whatever people did for them. After experiencing the good deed, they felt that they needed to recognize the actions of the doer and that would prevent them from impartially hearing the case. R' Paam remarked that if in our generation there was such a high level of HaKaras HaTov, there would be a lot less Shalom Bayis issues.

R' Frand closed the shiur by telling a story about R' Kook. R' Kook used to spend summers in Latvia in an area where other Rabbanim frequented as well. One day he was at a location where R' Bengus (sp?) was trying to gather a minyan as he had Yahrtzeit. When R' Bengus went outside and saw another group gathering for a minyan he asked one of the participants to join him, not realizing that he had reduced the minyan to less than 10. When the person organizing the minyan saw that he was now short he began to berate R' Bengus. R' Kook came outside and smacked the man across the face. The man went to the authorities and asked to have R' Kook arrested. They came to R' Kook and asked him to apologize, but he refused as he felt that this man's haranguing of R' Bengus was an afront to the Torah. 

Eventually the charges were dismissed and R' Kook was never prosecuted. Years later R' Kook came to the United States for a visit and he was met by the same man...who proceeded to give him a gold watch. He asked why? The man replied that after the incident took place he was a marked man and he could not do business with anyone. So he moved to the United States where he was not known and he began to build up a business which was very successful, to the point that he became a millionaire. As a showing of his HaKaras HaTov, he wanted R' Kook to have the gold watch.

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!