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's first vort related to the pasuk in Bereishis 32:5 wherein Ya'akov instructs his messengers to tell Esav  כֹּ֤ה אָמַר֙ עַבְדְּךָ֣ יַֽעֲקֹ֔ב עִם־לָבָ֣ן גַּ֔רְתִּי. Rashi famously has two interpretations of Ya'akov's message. The first is that Ya'akov is telling Esav - even though I received the berachos they did not come to fulfilment. The second interpretation was that Ya'akov was telling Esav, even though I lived with Lavan, I kept the Torah and did not learn from Lavan's evil ways.

R' Frand quoted the Klei Yakar who observes that the two interpretations of Rashi seem to be polar opposites. In order to explain the seeming conflict, the Klei Yakar states that what Ya'akov is telling Esav is that the berachos did not come to fulfilment even though I kept the Torah while as at Lavan, because I obtained the berachos through trickery. As such Esav you should not hate me as I have not received the benefit of the berachos because of the method that I obtained them.

R' Frand said a second vort on this Rashi in the name of R' Levi Gurevitz. He explains that Ya'akov was lamenting to Esav that even though he lived with Lavan he did not learn from him. Ya'akov observed that Lavan pursued his evil deeds with passion and excitement. Ya'akov lamented that he had not learned from Esav how to become as passionate in doing mitzvos.

R' Frand connected this with a story involving R' Gifter. He had traveled to Mexico City to collect for the Telshe Yeshiva and had been attempting to collect from a man, but had difficulty finding him at home. After much effort he was able to meet him at work at a very early hour. He asked the man how he found time for his family and the man responded in Yiddish - you have to "live in the business." R' Gifter returned to the yeshiva and told the bochurim in a shmooze that they need to "live in Torah" like he "lived in the business."

R' Frand said a second vort based on the pesukim which compared the Avos to objects in nature. Avraham was compared to the stars in the sky, Yitzchak was compared to the sands of the sea and Ya'akov was compared to the dust of the earth.

Yet when Ya'akov was praying before he met Esav in Bereishis 32:13 he said - וְאַתָּ֣ה אָמַ֔רְתָּ הֵיטֵ֥ב אֵיטִ֖יב עִמָּ֑ךְ וְשַׂמְתִּ֤י אֶת־זַרְעֲךָ֙ כְּח֣וֹל הַיָּ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹֽא־יִסָּפֵ֖ר מֵרֹֽב. But this was Yitzchak's metaphor? 

R' Frand explained that sand has a unique quality. One grain of sand can accomplish nothing, but sand when it adheres to itself can stop the surge of the sea. He was thus saying to Hashem, the only way that the Jews can vanquish Esav is when they are together like many grains of sand.

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 Vayeitzei

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 has often said that you can find the concept of HaKaras HaTov in every parsha and this parshas is a prime example (and the fact that today was Thanksgiving played into the concept as well). R' Frand said a number of vorts related to Leah being the first to publicly thank Hashem.

R' Frand noted that after Leah said thank you to Hashem, she stopped having children, as it states in Bereishis 29:35 - וַתַּ֨הַר ע֜וֹד וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּ֗ן וַתֹּ֨אמֶר֙ הַפַּ֨עַם֙ אוֹדֶ֣ה אֶת־יְהֹוָ֔ה עַל־כֵּ֛ן קָֽרְאָ֥ה שְׁמ֖וֹ יְהוּדָ֑ה וַתַּֽעֲמֹ֖ד מִלֶּֽדֶת. 

But why should her thanking Hashem be a reason that she stops having children?

R' Frand quoted the Tur al HaTorah (written by the Ba'al HaTurim) who explains that the problem was that Leah said thanks but did not make a request for the future. When a person thanks Hashem for what is received, you should keep asking, because without asking for more, you say "I am set." R' Frand gave the example of someone who wins a $300 million powerball lottery and thinks he is set. But the next day he could be diagnosed with cancer, or some other issue that is not addressed with money. No matter how much money a person has, he is never set.

R' Frand quoted the the Rambam in Hilchos Berachos which states the general principle that when he thank Hashem, we should always cry out for the future and thank Hashem for the past. We cannot be complacent and say - its enough, Hashem wants us to ask for more.

R' Frand gave various examples from davening, including that in Hallel we end with Ana Hashem Hoshiah Na, Ana Hashem Hatzlicha Na. Even though we are praising Hashem and thanking Him, we still ask. Because HaKaras HaTov needs to have an element that we still need Hashem.

This is also seen in Shemoneh Esreh - even after after Hoda'ah, we still ask Sim Shalom - because without peace, everything goes down the drain.

R' Frand said a second vort on the Rashi which states that Leah said thank you because she received more than she deserved - so now I have a reason to say thank you. R' Frand quoted in the name of R' Benzion HaKohain Kook that the imahos knew there would be 12 sons - divided by four meant that each would have three. But now that Leah sees that she has four, she realizes that the three is not a given. Maybe someone could have one or two. Now that I see that I have four, I realize that my assumption that I would have three is incorrect. So now I have a reason to say thanks, because there is nothing that is "given."

R' Frand said a third vort based on a Gemara in Berachos which says that from the day of creation until then, no one said thanks before Leah. But that is not accurate. Noach brought sacrifices after the flood and Eliezer bowed to Hashem in thanks for finding Rivka.

R' Frand quoted R' Fisher who observed that Leah did not have an easy life. Everyone had told her that since she was the older she was going to marry Eisav. Although that did not happen, everyone realized that she was switched at her sister's wedding. She cried as a result and felt that she was the Senuah. Her whole life she asked - why am I suffering? After she has her fourth child she has an epiphany and thanks Hashem as she realizes that this was a reward for all of her suffering. This is unique, as everyone else had thanked Hashem for the good things, but she had thanked Hashem for the tzoros. 

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.

R' Frand noted that both this week's parsha and Parshas Noach begin with almost identical words (the only difference being a vuv before the Eileh in Toldos). So why is it that we call Noach by his name and this week's parsha is called Toldos?

R' Frand answered by quoting the sefer L'Romeim who explains that the Avos lived their lives to teach their children and give them guidance in Derech HaEmes. He noted that the pasuk in Lech Lecha in which Hashem states כִּ֣י יְדַעְתִּ֗יו לְמַ֩עַן֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְצַוֶּ֜ה אֶת־בָּנָ֤יו וְאֶת־בֵּיתוֹ֙ אַֽחֲרָ֔יו  (Bereishis 18:19) - Rashi explains that Hashem is using language showing Chiba - why do I love Avraham? Because he teaches his chilldren to following Derech Hashem. 

In contrast, Noach made no lasting impact on his generation and had no legacy among his descendants. Therefore his parsha is named after him, because there is no mesorah. However, because Yitzchak did teach his children and had a lasting impression, the parsha is called Toldos.

R' Frand linked this to a vort by the Alter Zedeh (R' Elya Lopian) who notes that the pasuk in Shma (Devarim 11:19) - וְלִמַּדְתֶּ֥ם אֹתָ֛ם אֶת־בְּנֵיכֶ֖ם לְדַבֵּ֣ר בָּ֑ם בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ֤ בְּבֵיתֶ֨ךָ֙ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ֣ בַדֶּ֔רֶךְ וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ֖ וּבְקוּמֶֽךָ - begins plural and ends singular. Why? Because it demonstrates that if you want to teach your children to follow the Torah, you need to show them that you follow it when sitting at home, travelling on the road, etc.

R' Frand said a second vort which began with a reference to Parshas Vayeitzei, wherein Rachel approaches Ya'akov and asks him to pray for her to have a child, to which he responds,   הֲתַ֤חַת אֱלֹהִים֙ אָנֹ֔כִי? (Bereishis 30:1-2). Rashi there explains that Rachel said - your father prayed for your mother to have children (in this week's parsha) can't you pray for me? To this he responds - its different, there he had no children, but I already have children from my other wives. How can this be viewed as anything but callous? 

To answer the question, R' Frand told two stories. The first involved a man who had been married seven years and had no children. He had been to doctors, rabbanim, mekubalim, but was still childless. He was told to see R' Dovid Abuchatzeira. So he took a bus and got there at 11 AM and was told by the assistant to wait his turn. He sat with a gemara, but by 2 had still not been seen. He asked and was told it was not his turn. He waited until 9 PM and saw many people who had arrived after him being given entry. He was then told that he would have to come back another day. The man had enough and walked out and sat on a bench and cried to Hashem. The assistant approached and said - maybe I can try to get you in now, but the man was not interested. As he was about to leave the assistant came to him again and said R' Dovid wants to see you now. He came in and R' Dovid said - why are you here, you have been answered already?

R' Frand tied this cryptic statement to  a potentially apocryphal story about the Kotsker Rebbi. One day his sister came to him and begged him to daven for her. He told her that he could not do so. She went out the door and wept and said aloud - Hashem, even my brother won't help me, I have only you to rely on. The Kotsker opened the door and embraced his sister and said - that was what I was waiting for. 

This is why R' Dovid said - you have already been answered - and 1 year later they were blessed with a baby boy!

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.

R' Frand's first vort related to the pasuk in Bereishis 24:32 which states that after Eliezer came to Besuel's house - וַיִּתֵּ֨ן תֶּ֤בֶן וּמִסְפּוֹא֙ לַגְּמַלִּ֔ים וּמַ֨יִם֙ לִרְחֹ֣ץ רַגְלָ֔יו וְרַגְלֵ֥י הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר אִתּֽוֹ. Although Rashi states in connection with the story of Eliezer that greater is the discussion of the avadim of the avos than the Torah of their children, in this regard the Medrash states that greater is the washing of the avadim than the Torah of their children.

R' Frand linked this washing to the washing of the feet of the Malachim who came to visit Avraham in last week's parsha. R' Frand quoted the well known Rashi that Avraham was concerned that the Malachim were arabs who worshipped the dust of their feet. Therefore he gave them water to wash off the Avodah Zara when they came to his home.

R' Frand then asked - there are many odd Avodah Zara practices discussed in Tanach and the Gemara. But why would anyone worship the dust of their feet?

R' Frand answered by quoting the Arugas HaBosem which explains that they were not actually worshipping the dust. He explains that a person needs his feet to get to work and earn a parnasah. A person may feel that after he closes a good deal, or has an idea that turns into a great product, that it is his own acumen which caused the financial windfall. In so doing he will forget that Hashem is gozer on Rosh Hashanah the money that the man will earn during the year and that while he needs to do his Hishtadlus, its Hashem who decides if  the business will be a success.

The Arugas HaBosem explains that the arabs were not actually worshipping the dust of their feet. Instead they were lauding themselves for their success and praising themselves feet for getting them there. 

When Eliezer arrived at the home of Besuel he washed off his feet and those of the people who were with him, to show that even in the pursuit of Shidduchim, its not the Hishtadlus that makes the Zivug work out. It is all from Hashem.

R' Frand said a second vort on the pasuk in Bereishis 24:60 - וַיְבָֽרְכ֤וּ אֶת־רִבְקָה֙ וַיֹּ֣אמְרוּ לָ֔הּ אֲחֹתֵ֕נוּ אַ֥תְּ הֲיִ֖י לְאַלְפֵ֣י רְבָבָ֑ה וְיִירַ֣שׁ זַרְעֵ֔ךְ אֵ֖ת שַׁ֥עַר שֽׂנְאָֽיו . R' Frand quoted the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch which states that this was said as a bracha at the Badekin by the Elders. Even today it is said by the father of the Kallah at the Badekin. But why is the bracha of Lavan and Co so prominently mentioned?

R' Frand answered that perhaps the reason is that the beracha was selfless. Lavan was not happy that his sister was marrying Yitzchak. And the language of the beracha specifically demonstrates that Lavan was blessing her that her descendants would triumph over his. Since the beracha was given with no strings attached and purely to her benefit, it has found its way into our wedding practices.

R' Frand further theorized that perhaps the beracha itself is a lesson for the chosson and kallah as to how a marriage can be successful. If you want to succeed, you must think completely about the other person's well being and not about your own.

R' Frand closed the vort by telling a story about R' Ya'akov Twerski of Milwaukee who had been hospitalized with pancreatic cancer. When the doctors came in and told him that there was an experimental treatment, he was unsure about whether to try it. After his wife left the room, he asked his son (who was an MD) whether the treatment had much chance of success and his son said that it would be very painful and unlikely to succeed. When his wife later came into the room and asked - so are you going to try the treatment, he responded "Yes." When his son asked him why, he told him - this is giving your mother a lift and if he did not try the treatment she would forever regret it.

In the end the treatment was not successful and he did succumb to the cancer. But his choice to have the treatment for the sake of his wife's peace of mind is the real lesson.

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 Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Vayera

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha last 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 was from the sefer L'Meromem which he has previously quoted from. He noted that Hashem's choice of salt for the wife of Lot was based on the people of Sodom who were narcissists. Salt is the exact opposite - as its sole purpose is to improve other things. No one eats just salt, it is used to enhance and improve something else. 

R' Frand quoted the introduction to Nefesh HaChaim which notes that people were put on this Earth to help others, not to do things for yourself. Steak, pasta, even cake is improved with the addition of salt. Thus this is a reminder to be the antithesis of Sodom.

R' Frand said a second vort in the name of R' Michoel Forschlager, whose yahrtzeit is this week. R' Frand quoted R' Aharon Kotler Ztl who said that R' Michoel was the great Talmid Chacham in the USA. He was a talmid muvhak of the Avnei Nezer and R' Meir Shapiro wanted to hire R' Michoel to be the Rosh Yeshiva of Chachmei Lublin. 

R' Frand said that he used to a Gemara shiur in Congregation Chizuk Emunah (a shul that broke off from a Reform synagogue) but when that shul went Conservative, he left.

R' Frand quoted the pasuk in Bereishis 22:19 which states that after the Akeidah -  וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב אַבְרָהָ֖ם בִּבְאֵ֥ר שָֽׁבַע. The meforshim ask - where was Yitzchak? The Medrash explains that Yitzchak when to learn by the Yeshiva of Shem V'Ever, where he learned for three years. R' Forschlager asked - it says in Gemara in Yoma that Avraham was teaching Torah and Eliezer was doleh u'mahkeh from his Torah. So why is it that Yitzchak left? Because in order to grow in Torah, you need to be goleh to a place a Torah. But if this is the case, why did Yitzchak stay by Avraham for the first 37 years of his life? R' Forschlager quotes the Ari who quotes the Zohar, which states that until the Akeidah, Yitzchak had a neshama of a nekeiva. During the Akeidah, Yitzchak died and was revived and got up from the Akeidah and said Boruch Mechaye HaMeisim. Since previously he was a nekeivah and now got up and became a zachor, it was time for him to go away and learn Torah.

R' Frand said that the lesson from this is that when Avraham was told to shecht Yitzchak, Avraham must have thought that Hashem had changed his mind that Yitzchak would be source of Klal Yisrael. But in reality, this was actually the event that caused the birth of Klal Yisrael. Had Avraham not brought him and shechted him, he would not have come back with a male neshama and there would not have been a Klal Yisrael. Avraham could not have understood this would happen, but Hashem had a plan and it was not for Avraham to question.

R' Frand closed the vort by noting that the Kriyah on Rosh Hashanah which begins with the Akeidah ends with the birth of the children of Nachor (Bereishis 22:20-24). Why did the Kriyah need to include this on Rosh Hashanah? Couldn't it have ended with the end of the Akeidah? The answer is that there needed to be an Akeidah and Yitzchak to be reborn, as a result of which there was a requirement for his Bas Zug - for Rivkah to be born.

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!