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!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Lech Lecha

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 asked why Avram being told to leave his homeland was a test? He prefaced the vort by stating that in Elul 1939, the Brisker Rav travelled from Brisk to Warsaw and eventually Vilna as he fled the Nazis. The Sefer L'Romeim tells a story about how someone observed the Brisker Rav in Vilna and he appeared pensive. The man asked why he seemed concerned and the Brisker Rav explained that he had always wondered why Avram leaving his home was a test. After all, Avram was promised that he would be made famous and wealthy but leaving his home. But now I understand that when a person leaves his hometown he is in Galus and it is difficult to be in Galus. And even though I am waiting to travel to Eretz Yisrael, I am not in my hometown and the house of my father and its a test.

R' Frand observed that everyone has tests and they are difficult. R' Frand quoted the Sefer R' Yehuda Hachasid who said that the foundation of Yiras Shamayim is the test. When a person does not understand why something is happening it is because it is a test. R' Yehuda further states that when Hashem wants to give a person a gift, the Satan comes before Hashem and says - he is not deserving - have You ever tested him? This is why Hashem gives the test and if the person withstands it, Hashem can answer back to the Satan.

R' Frand also told a story about an orphan who went to the Pnei Menachem and said - Hashem is giving me tests and it is like Hashem is putting sticks into my wheels. The Gerrer Rebbi answered - what travels faster - a car or a tank? A tank is slower because it has tracks, but it is equipped to go over anything. While it might be slower, it is a more powerful vehicle. While a person has challenges, it makes the person stronger. 

Rabbi Frand began the second vort by noting that when Hashem said to Avram, לֶךְ־לְךָ֛ מֵֽאַרְצְךָ֥ וּמִמּֽוֹלַדְתְּךָ֖ וּמִבֵּ֣ית אָבִ֑יךָ אֶל־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אַרְאֶֽךָּ it appears to be out of order in that Avram is told to leave his land, where he was born and the house of his father, when usually a person would first leave his father's house and as he continued to travel would eventually leave the country.

R' Frand answered by quoting the Malbim who explains that this was not merely a physical move - Hashem wanted him to leave the mindset of his environment. In order to change his philosophy, he needed to leave his state, but more than that, his city will have a greater impact on his thinking and he needed to leave that behind. But even more fundamentally is the mindset of his father's house. 

R' Frand also told a story of R' Moshe Turkichinsky who was born in Israel and traveled to learn in Slobodka for the summer z'man. Before Shavuous, the Rosh Yeshiva, R Isaac Sherer asked him whether he would be keeping two days of Yom Tov as he was now in galus. R' Moshe did not answer and this was more of a statement than a question, but still he was confused. The halacha is that someone who intends to return to Israel does not do work on day 2, but also davens as if it is Chol. 

R' Moshe went and asked the Rav of the city what he should do and was told that he should be davening the Chol davening. When asked again by the Rosh Yeshiva about keeping two days he decided that he would daven in his dorm with tefillin first and then go to the Yeshiva when they davened and no one one would know that he had previously prayed. But then as the Yeshiva was going to daven Maariv to begin the second day, the Rosh Yeshiva approached him and asked him to be the Shaliach Tzibbur. Now he was stuck, how could he lead the Yom Tov prayers?

R' Moshe decided that the only solution was to take upon himself not to return to Israel and become a ben Chutz L'Aretz. He then went up and led davening and recited all of the Yom Tov prayers. When he was done, R' Sherer said to him - I know the halacha that you should only keep one day, but I also saw that your head and heart were not in the yeshiva. You may have been physically in Slobodka, but you were thinking about your birthplace and I needed you to commit to being a bochur here.

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 Noach

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 7:11 the Torah writes -  בַּיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֗ה נִבְקְעוּ֙ כָּל־מַעְיְנוֹת֙ תְּה֣וֹם רַבָּ֔ה וַֽאֲרֻבֹּ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם נִפְתָּֽחוּ. Rashi analyzes the word רַבָּ֔ה and explains that the punishment was Middah K'Neged Middah - since the people of the generation sinned with רַבָּ֔ה, they were punished with רַבָּ֔ה.

R' Frand then asked - it is known that the generation of the flood was punished either because they were involved in immorality or because they stole. What is the רַבָּ֔ה referring to?

R' Frand answered by quoting a Sefer by an unidentified Vilna Dayan who explains that the people were involved in in the pursuit of uncontrolled pleasure - this is what is referred to.

R' Frand then tied this to the Yonah bringing the olive branch back to the Ark. R' Frand quoted a Medrash which states that the olive branch was actually from Gan Eden as Hashem opened Gan Eden to allow the Yonah to retrieve it. 

But why did the Yonah need to bring an olive branch from Gan Eden? Wouldn't any olive branch suffice?

R' Frand answered that if a person wants to prevent his pursuit of pleasure from getting out of control, he should connect it with something spiritual. This was the reason that the olive branch was brought from Gan Eden - to show that the spiritual can connected with earthly pursuits.

R' Frand closed this part of the vort by repeating a story from a R' Mattisyahu Solomon ZTL sefer about a Rosh Yeshiva who was a Ba'al Teshuva. In his youth, he had been visiting the seedy sections of Haifa when he saw a Yeshiva Bochur who when he passed an inappropriate venue, had shielded his eyes so as to not see it. This was intriguing to him and he wondered what pleasure the Yeshiva Bochur found superior to this? He came to follow the boy and saw the Yeshiva lifestyle and eventually became a Rosh Yeshiva.

R' Frand told a second vort about the animals which came to the Ark - specifically noting that the non-Kosher animanls came to the Ark on their own and that Noach had to go out and locate the kosher animals. 

R' Frand quoted R' Ya'akov Kaminetsky who explained that that the kosher animals were destined to be sacrifices and that someone involved in a Mitzva needs to make an investment in order for the Mitzva  to be complete. This is similarly why a person pays for a Mi Sheberach after getting an Aliyah - because getting a Mitzva for free creates a blemished Mitzva - only by paying for the Mi Sheberach is the Mitzva complete.

R' Frand closed the vort by quoting R' Simcha Zissel Brody who noted that Sefer Bereishis is called Sefer HaYashar because the Avos were straight and always comported themselves with the nations in a way that they were beyond reproach.

This trickled down to the animals as well. As the Kosher animals were destined to be sacrifices, it would not be appropriate for them to instinctively go to the Ark from which they would be later sacrificed. Only the non-Kosher animals which were not destined for slaughter had the instinct to travel to the Ark on their own.

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!

The Second Part of Rabbi Frand's Teshuva Derasha 5785/2024

The following is second half of the recap of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand in his annual Teshuva Derasha which was broadcast live from Baltimore on the TCN network Thursday Night. This was a very powerful derasha and my attempt to summarize should not be viewed as an exact transcript. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand said that while we won't understand why the attack occurred, but we are aware of the ramifications. The rise of antisemitism is beyond what anyone could have dreamed. 

R' Frand tied this to the Meshecha Chacmah's writing on Galus in Parshas Bechukosai in connection with the Tochacha. He writes that the Jews were destined to be in Galus for 3,000 years and that in order to prepare them, Ya'akov gave his children certain instructions when they went down to Egypt - they needed to be different and not change their clothes, names or language. And he told them that they must bury him in Canaan because if they were buried in Egypt, his children would give up on ever leaving Egypt.

Similarly Daniel enacted certain rules during the 70 years of the Galus after the destruction of the First Temple. He forbade Pas Akum and Shemen Akum and Bishul Akum. Because if they would not be allowed to eat with the Akum they would not be fraternizing with them and there would not be a danger that they would be marrying their daughters. Later Ezra and the Anshei Knesses Hagedolah reinforced this to prevent assimilation.  

But the Meshech Chachma notes that after being in a country for generations there will be assimilation. And then there will be a terrific storm which causes the Jews to leave that country for another country. But after rebuilding Torah and being successful, they will again forget that they are in a foreign country and they will give up on being saved. But then there will be another storm which will be even stronger. And the pattern will continue and continue and the Jews will forget where they had come from and will believe that Berlin is Jerusalem. As he died in 1926, this was well before the Holocaust.

R' Frand recounted the Aggadah in Bava Basra that people were on a boat and they saw an island. They got off the boat and settled and cooked and baked on the island and thought they had made it. But then it was too hot for the fish which actually was under the dirt they were on and it turned over and they all slid off. And if the boat was not close by, they would have drowned. 

The Maharsha says that this story is a parable and the Nesivos writes that this is something like Achris HaYamim like America. But eventually it gets too hot for the fish.

R' Frand said that he saw the Meshech Chachma more than 40 years ago and wondered if it could happen in the USA. And yes it can.

R' Frand quoted Nathan Lewin in an op-ed where he talked about his grandfather who was on the city counsel in Lodz. A Jew was shot and killed in broad daylight and Mr. Lewin's grandfather wanted to mark the event at the city council. But a virulent anti semite got up and said - "If I could I would shoot 1,000 Jews...what are you doing in Poland, go back to Palestine."

And now 86 years on the college campuses, the "River to the Sea" protestors tell the Jews they should "go back to Poland."

So which is it - is it Palestine? Is it Poland? Is it the sea? Where are we to go?

R' Frand said that antisemitism cannot be cured until the Moshiach comes. Because as Rashbi states - Halacha He Esav Soneh L'Yaakov. But this is not a halachic ruling! R' Moshe Feinstein writes that the same way that halacha wont change, this wont change. R' Frand added on that the same way that we don't understand all halachos, we won't understand this.

And it is not logical. Dr Salk saved the country by curing polio and there have been hundreds of Nobel Prize winners. But just like there are laws of nature, the world was set up that Esav Soneh L'Yaakov.

R' Frand quoted a Gemara in Shabbos which writes that the Toah was given on Sinai, but Sinah came down to the world at the same time. And just as inexplicable was the giving of the Torah was the the devolution of antisemitism.

And antisemitism started in the womb with Esav fighting Yaakov. We don't know why this was Hashem's plan, but maybe it has to do with the fact that we would in Galus for so many years and that this is a way that they will reject us and we will not intermarriage with them.

R' Frand said that there is way to survive and thrive and we learn it from Bila'am who tried to curse and kill us. But he said something so profound in Bamidbar 23:9 - הֶן־עָם֙ לְבָדָ֣ד יִשְׁכֹּ֔ן וּבַגּוֹיִ֖ם לֹ֥א יִתְחַשָּֽׁב.

R' Frand quoted the Netziv who writes that the Jews are not like every other nation which assimilates and becomes accepted into the society they are in. When the Jews are separated and are not mixed, they will be able to live in serenity and peace - if they are separate they will leave in peace, but if you want to be with them, they won't consider us a nation.

R' Frand quoted R' Chaim Volozhin who said that if the Jews don't make Kiddush, the Akum will make Havdalah and will separate us. Our job is to be a holy people and to live an exalted existence, then they will leave in peace with us.

R' Frand also quoted the Netziv on the Hagaddah who writes that what stands for us in every generation is that V'hi - "it" - that which was said in Bris Bein HaBisarim (Bereishis 15:13) -  יָדֹ֨עַ תֵּדַ֜ע כִּי־גֵ֣ר | יִֽהְיֶ֣ה זַרְעֲךָ֗ בְּאֶ֨רֶץ֙ לֹ֣א לָהֶ֔ם וַֽעֲבָד֖וּם וְעִנּ֣וּ אֹתָ֑ם - the way to survive and thrive is to be a stranger. But if we think we came over on the Mayflower and this is our country, we won't surive.

So what is there for us to do? Are we not making Kiddush? Are we not learning Daf Yomi? Are we not davening three times a day? Are the women not dressed Tzniously? 

R' Frand said that if there is a positive impact from the events of October 7 it is that Jews on college campuses are flocking to Hillel and Chabad in ways that there never were before. Whether this is because they want to understand what it means to be a Jew or because they are seeking shelter among their own kind, or even if its because they want Jewish comfort food, they are reaching out. And we should be there to satisfy that thirst. In so doing, our mitzvos will become more infused with holiness. And a sure fire way to do is to explain Judaism to an unaffiliated person - and both will become more holy and you will appreciate your Judaism more.

R' Frand quoted a book called Suddenly Jewish by Barbara Kessell, The author writes that if she thinks seriously about possibly being told that she was not Jewish, she would be devastated. She writes that she knows that on Friday Nights she will set her table with a white tablecloth and her best dishes and the family will talk about the week's events. She knows that in the spring her family will visit and have a Seder. And in the fall she will fast 25 hours and think about how she can better herself. And if this was taken from her she would be devastated.

R' Frand said that the Netziv asks - do we feel like we are in Galus, or do we think that Berlin is Jerusalem? But more to the point, we make the Sinah more palpable when we get in the face of Akum neighbors. R' Yaakov Kaminetsky told people in Monsey not to walk in the street with their Tallis on the outside. Why? Because this is Galus and not Jerusalem.

R' Frand said that he was told a story by a man from Lakewood who had been on a flight. He had a conversation with a seatmate who said - I can't get over how many hundreds of houses are going up on Rt 70 - have the Chasidim taken over the zoning board too? There is latent anti-semitism, but we make it worse when we do things people don't like - and driving in a way that is disrespectful to others only adds gas to the fire. So R' Frand suggested that frum Jews take on to drive in a more considerate way.

R' Frand also said that if people want to feel the Galus then when they daven Shemoneh Esreh they should have more Kavanah in V'Leyrushalaim Ircha. He remarked that he was born in the USA and likes baseball and apple pie, but he has had enough with America and its time to daven for Geulah.

R' Frand also quoted the Rabbeinu Yona who said that if you don't reach out to Hashem in this time, its a smack across His face. The Rabbeinu Yona then repeats the parable about a group of prisoners who escape prison, but one stays behind. The warden hits him and says to him - the way to get out is there and you did not use it. R' Frand said that for years he had problems with this medrash. But he heard from R' Gelbwirth in the name of R' Moshe Shapiro that the king knows that the most wonderful place in the world to be is in his country and if you choose to stay in prison you are an idiot and an insult to the king.

R' Frand said that we have a reverse incarceration - we are not locked in, we are locked out of our homeland. And if you are comfortable being here, you are insulting the King as you take the position that you would prefer to be here.

R' Frand talked about the section of the house which when built is supposed to be left empty. Why? Because in Galus you need to know that life is not complete. You may need a large house because you have a large family, but you don't need every convenience.

R' Frand closed by asking - am I advocating that everyone make Aliyah? He answered "Yes,but" sometimes its not feasible, or practical or even possible. But we need to remember that this is not our homeland and we should not treat it as such. So when sitting on Yom Kippur think about what you can do to remember you are in Galus and bring mor Kedushah into your life. Because where we are is not Jerusalem and if we feel that way, then maybe He will bring the Geulah.

R' Frand quoted Yeshaya in the 6th Haftorah after Tisha B'Av where he states that in place of being despised, I will make you an eternal source of joy for generations. Instead of being spat on and called "Jew" - you will be the joy. This will happen - and then they will come running and want to support you, but Hashem will say that it is too late, and I have the record. He quoted R' Pa'am who said - why does the UN exist? Because one day they will come and say - we were always on your side. But all the votes in the UN have been recorded and I have the record.

We should live to see the day when we will be lauded and be the pride of the world from generation to generation soon in our days.

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 Thoughts on Teshuva - Rabbi Frand's Teshuva Derasha 5785/2024 - Part I

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand in his annual Teshuva Derasha which was broadcast live from Baltimore on the TCN network this evening. I have attempted to summarize the first part of the derasha in this post and iyh will do an additional post over the weekend. This was a very powerful derasha and my attempt to summarize should not be viewed as an exact transcript as it is based on my notes. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

Rabbi Frand began by noting that this year there is no need to look for a topic for the derasha as the events of Shmini Atzeres/Simchas Torah (October 7) and the subsequent horrible events needed to be the subject of the derasha. But while the topic is obvious, the message is a daunting challenge. We do not have Nev'im to tell us the message and we live in the fog of Hester Panim.

But even though we don't have Nevi'im, Hashem speaks to us cryptically through events and it is our job to figure it out.

R' Frand noted that the majority of Jews who are not religious are not asking themselves - what does Hashem want. But those who are Frum believe in divine intervention and when a world shattering event occurs - Hashem is not only speaking to us - He is shouting at us.

R' Frand stated that we should not look at the non-religious and say that the events occurred because they are not religious. R' Frand quoted the Brisker Rav who said that this is an incorrect mindset and he brought a proof from the story of Yonah which we will read on Yom Kippur afternoon. When Yonah gets on the boat there was a terrible storm and the boat was going to capsize. During this time, the sailors all worshipped their idols while Yonah slept. But then Yonah said - this is my fault - its not the idol worshippers. The Brisker Rav in his time said that the events which were occurring were not due to the actions or inactions of the Chilonim - it was due to the actions of the frum Jews.

So what is the message? R' Frand said that it is well above his pay grade. But he did note that there was a message from the events of April 13, 2024 when all the projectiles from Iran were shot down and not a single Jew in Israel died. An Israeli general called it a statistical anomaly, as the Iron Dome was only rated as being able to intercept 90% of the incoming projectiles. 

But even if you have forgotten about the events of April 13, 2024, think back to last week when Iran launched not drones or cruise missiles - but ballistic missiles which are much harder to intercept. And not a single Jew was killed.

R' Frand said that this message from Hashem was - this is a miracle to show you that I still love you. And even though I punished you for whatever the reason, I am like a father and I still love you and have not abandoned you.

But R' Frand said that there is another message from this miracle - you still need Me. You can't do this just with your high tech wizardly - that can fail. Just think back to October 7 when the great Israeli army and intelligence and defense was overrun by men on motorcycles and hang gliders. The message was - you can't do this yourself, you still need Me.

R' Frand said that he saw a quote from a female member of the Knesset who by her own admission was not a religious woman. She said that we need the protection of Hashem and the Rabbanim who learn Torah. And she was heckled by members of the Knesset but she stood her ground because she knew she was right.

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 - Parshios Netzavim - Vayelech

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 Chaggigah 5a which states that when R' Yochanan got to the pasuk in Devarim 31:21 וְהָיָ֠ה כִּֽי־תִמְצֶ֨אןָ אֹת֜וֹ רָע֣וֹת רַבּוֹת֘ וְצָרוֹת֒ he would cry out and say - a slave whose master brings this upon him, can he be saved? He is lost!

R' Meir Shapiro in his sefer Imrei Da'as asked - why is that R' Yochanan cried here, but not when he read the Tochacha? 

To answer the question he cited a Gemara in Berachos wherein R' Yochanan says that Yisurin create an atonement for a person. He learns this from the rule of Shen V'Ever - if a master knocks out a tooth or breaks a limb, the servant goes free, how much more so when a person is afflicted on their entire body! But Reish Lakish disagrees, stating that we learn the beneficial effect of Yisurin from salt - just like it has a positive effect on meat, so does Yisurin on the body.

R' Meir Shapiro then noted that when a master knocks out a tooth or breaks a limb, the servant knows where it is coming from. But what bothered R' Yochanan is that וְהָיָ֠ה כִּֽי־תִמְצֶ֨אןָ - the Yisurin appear to the person as something which just "happened." If a person realizes that the Yisurin come from Hashem, then they can create an atonement. But if the event is viewed as happenstance, there is no way that it can create an atonement for him and he is suffering for nothing. 

R' Frand observed that when good things happen, people will say that they saw the Yad Hashem. But people don't have that reaction when negative things occur. 

R' Frand also told a story from R' Tzvi Hersh Meislish which was written in the introduction to the Sefer Shu't Mikadshei Hashem. He writes that he was in the concentration camp on Rosh Hashanah. There were 1400 bochurim who were in a cell block who knew that they were headed to the gas chamber. They asked R' Meislish to blow Shofar for them as they knew that he had a Shofar. And R' Meislish was on the fence about whether he should blow the Shofar as they might catch him and throw him in the gas chambers as well CV'S. When his son heard about the request he begged his father not to blow Shofar, but R' Meislish decided he would blow anyway, even though Halacha would say that a person does not need to put his life in danger for Shofar.

R' Meislish went into the block and he began the introductory Tefillah before blowing Shofar but the Bochurim begged him for a Shmooze. He quoted the pasuk from Tehillim 81:4 תִּקְע֣וּ בַחֹ֣דֶשׁ שׁוֹפָ֑ר בַּ֜כֶּ֗סֶה לְי֣וֹם חַגֵּֽנוּ. He explained it as by saying that we don't know why Hashem is doing this to us, it is hidden why this is happening, but we need to continue.

The Bochurim did not want to hear 9 Kolos - they wanted 100 Kolos and he did blow Shofar in full. After he finished, a Bochut got up and said - we can hope for the best, but we need to prepare for the worst - lets not forget to say Shema Yisrael and then they all said it loud and with fervor. And then each Bochur came to him to wish the best for the new year and that he should survive.

R' Frand closed the vort saying that it was a very difficult year and that he still cannot get his head around why this needed to happen on Shmini Atzeres/Simchas Torah. But we need to know that it is all from Hashem and we need to continue.

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 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.

Rabbi Frand noted that the Torah tells us in Devarim 28:47 that the curses will come תַּ֗חַת אֲשֶׁ֤ר לֹֽא־עָבַ֨דְתָּ֙ אֶת־יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ בְּשִׂמְחָ֖ה וּבְט֣וּב לֵבָ֑ב מֵרֹ֖ב כֹּֽל. But why is the lack of Simcha the reason that the curses come? After all, they did keep all the Mitzvos!

Rabbi Frand quoted the Sefer L'Romem which refers to the story of the Egel in Parshas Ki Sissa. The Seforno teaches that although Moshe had been advised by Hashem that the Jews had created and worshipped the Egel, he did not break the Luchos until Shemos 32:19 -  וַיַּ֥רְא אֶת־הָעֵ֖גֶל וּמְחֹלֹ֑ת. The Seforno explains that Moshe only broke the Luchos because he saw that they were dancing and rejoicing. Because its one thing to sin and another to do one with gusto. The Seforno similar teaches on the words in Shemos 32:30  וַיֹּ֤אמֶר משֶׁה֙ אֶל־הָעָ֔ם אַתֶּ֥ם חֲטָאתֶ֖ם חֲטָאָ֣ה גְדֹלָ֑ה - the great sin was that they made this into a Yom Tov.

R' Frand said if you want to see how committed a person is to religion - look to see if he does the Mitzvos with simcha or if he is just going through the motions.

R' Frand quoted the Arizal who had remarked to his student R' Chaim Vital that the reason he was Zoche was because he did the Mitzvos with Hislahavos - with great enthusiasm.

R' Frand also quoted a story from the Sefer about R' Ya'akov Kaminetsky ZTL who was once at a wedding where he was seated next to a Russian Jew who was not wearing a Kippah. They began speaking and R' Ya'akov asked him about his background. The man said that his father was raised in Russia during the communist era and that he knew nothing about Judaism. The only thing he knew was the pasuk תַּ֗חַת אֲשֶׁ֤ר לֹֽא־עָבַ֨דְתָּ֙ אֶת־יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ בְּשִׂמְחָ֖ה וּבְט֣וּב לֵבָ֑ב מֵרֹ֖ב כֹּֽל which he recited with a Yiddish accent. How did he know this? Because he was in Bergen Belsen and when he went to chop wood he went with a Jew who refused to shave his beard and who with every chop would repeat the pasuk.

The bearded Jew was no less than the Klausenberger Rebbi who said to himself with each chop that these events were occurring because he did not serve Hashem with simcha. This is the same Klausenberger Rebbi who lost his wife and 11 children in the Holocaust and who afterwards rebuilt his Chassidus and brought back countless Jews, besides rebuilding his own family.

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.

R' Frand noted that the inyan of Ben Tzorer U' Moreh ("BTUM") follows immediately after the Torah's discussion in Devarim 21:16-17 of the rules of inheritance in that the first born takes a double portion of the estate. But is the reason for the juxtaposition of the two topics?

R' Frand quoted the Shem M'Shmuel which states that the first born takes a double portion because he sets the tone for the rest of the children who come afterwards. The way that he acts and behaves influences the rest of the family. R' Frand noted that the wife of the Rosh Yeshiva (R' Ruderman) was the first in her family to get married and before she got married, her father told her - you need to marry a Talmid Chacham, because who you choose will set the standard for the rest of the family. As a result, all the other daughters in her family followed her lead to marry Talmidei Chachamim. 

The lesson is that beginnings are very important - the first born child sets the standard for the family and the beginning of the BTUM's life is indicative of how he will behave, which is why the punishment applies when he shows that he is going down that path.

R' Frand also noted that we behave differently during Aseres Yimei Teshuva, whether or not it will continue throughout the year. R' Frand said that this is why people are makpid to eat Pas Yisrael in Aseres Yimei Teshuva. This is not to trick Hashem, CVS. But it is meant to show that beginnings are important and that we want to start the year on the right foot by being Machmir for Pas Yisrael.

R' Frand then noted that the Gemara in Sanhedrin states that there never was a BTUM and that it is taught so that we can receive reward for learning the subject. But immediately thereafter, R' Yochanan states that he saw a BTUM and and sat on his grave. How is this to be understood?

R' Frand quoted the Chasam Sofer who explains that the Gemara is saying that Beis Din never executed a BTUM, but they did exist. R' Yochanan did see a BTUM who himself was killed when he attempted to rob someone in order to feed his desires. And R' Yochanan said - I saw someone who was like a BTUM and like the Gemara predicted, he was killed when he tried to rob someone.

But what is the meaning of the statement that it was taught so that one can receive reward? Learn from the story what can happen if a kid is corrupted at an early stage because its not going to end well. So if you see this occurring, act accordingly.

R' Frand also said a vort on the mitzva of Shiluach HaKen which has a promise of a dual reward of a good life and a long life. R' Frand noted that mitzva of honoring parents has the same dual reward but in the reverse order. But why?

R' Frand quoted the Shemen HaTov who explains that Shiluach HaKen can apply equally to people of any age. But a kid in his 20s being told that he will have a long life won't be that meaningful as he does not see his own mortality. But being told that he will have a good life does.

Meanwhile the mitzva of Kibbud Av does not really become a major issue until the parents are older. When a person is young, he stands up for a parent and speaks nicely to a parent and respects the parent. But when the parent is older and the child is now older as well, it becomes much more difficult. And at that age when the parent is older, the child also is older and now the promise of long life is much more appealing. At this stage, the child is told, you will receive a long life for honoring your parent and the child anticipates that his children will take care of him as a result.

R' Frand closed his remarks by talking about his father who came to the US in 1939 and then brought his wife, son and his own mother over a year later. R' Frand said that his grandmother lived with them until the late 1950s at which point she needed to go to a nursing home following a stroke. And even though the home was a half hour drive from their house and his grandmother did not recognize her son, R' Frand's father drove every night to see her (other than leil Shabbos).

R' Frand said that he wanted to do the same for his mother, even though she lived in Seattle and she had Parkinson's and could not communicate. R' Frand said that every time that he had a speaking engagement on the West Coast he would go to see her. And even though she could not communicate, he would go to see her and to the best of his ability, he would tell her about his life. R' Frand said that one of the last times that he saw her they sat and watched the US Open, even though his mother thought that golf was stupid and she hated it. Still, they sat and he held his mother's hand and they watched it together to spend some time together, to fulfill his father's legacy.

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

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 Devarim 17:18 the Torah provides the law that a king must write a Sefer Torah, stating וְהָיָ֣ה כְשִׁבְתּ֔וֹ עַ֖ל כִּסֵּ֣א מַמְלַכְתּ֑וֹ וְכָ֨תַב ל֜וֹ אֶת־מִשְׁנֵ֨ה הַתּוֹרָ֤ה. R' Frand quoted the Ibn Ezra who explains that the timing of the writing of the Sefer Torah is when the king first takes his position. 

R' Frand next quoted the Medrash Rabbah on Esther which compares a Jewish king and a gentile king. By Achasveros the Megillah states K'Shivto - because he will not have a legacy. But by a Jewish king it states in Sefer Shoftim - B'Shivto - because he will have an enduring legacy.

But then how does one explain the B'Shivto in our parsha?

R' Frand quoted the Chidushei HaRim who notes that the mitzva of writing the Sefer Torah is at the moment that the king ascends the throne - at a time that he has enthusiasm for becoming king. The king should use this Torah as a resource throughout his reign and constantly learn it and remember the feeling when he became king.

R' Frand said that this message is appropriate at this time of year. There are many weddings and much Torah said about how a Chassan is compared to a king. The Chassanim should remember as they continue through marriage the feeling that they had at the time of marriage and the promises they made to consider their spouse's view and be M'Vater.

R' Frand said that similarly as this is the beginning of the Zman and the students are enthusiastic about the start of learning on the first day - they should carry that forward and remember the energy throughout the year.

R' Frand said a second vort on the concept of Ir Miklat. He noted that Ir Miklat is connected to Elul Chazal use the Roshei Teivos of the pasuk in Mishpatim (Shemos 21:13) - אִנָּ֣ה לְיָד֑וֹ וְשַׂמְתִּ֤י לְךָ֙ as a hint to Elul. But what is the connection between Ir Milat and Elul? And why does someone who kills accidentally get sent to an Ir Miklat?

R' Frand answered the second question first by observing that the killer is sent to an Ir Milat because he was not careful about human life and did not consider what a life would be worth.

R' Frand then quoted the Gemara in Avodah Zara about R' Chanina Ben Tradion and his executioner who asked that if he hastened R' Chanina's death would he go to Olam Haba. After receiving confirmation, the executioner did his act and then jumped in the fire with R' Chanina, following which a Bas Kol said - there are those who achieve Olam Haba in one hour.

The Gemara says after that Rebbi cried when he heard this. But why? Did he feel that he wasted his life in that he could have taken one action and earned Olam Haba? Of course not. Rather he cried because he saw what could be accomplished with even one hour of time.

R' Frand said that this is the lesson for the killer - he is sent to an Ir Miklat and live among the Levi'im - people who devote themselves to honoring and serving Hashem. The killer will see what a proper life is and how it can be lived in the utmost spirituality.

R' Frand also tied this to the concept of Ma'aser Sheni from Parshas Re'eh where the Torah states in Devarim 14:23 - לְמַ֣עַן תִּלְמַ֗ד לְיִרְאָ֛ה - that the mitzva of going up to Yerushalaim to eat Ma'aser Sheni is so that one cane learn to fear Hashem.

But how does a purely physical mitzva of eating the food that you grew, teach fear of Hashem?

Tosafos in Bava Basra 22 quotes the Sifri which explains that by going to Yerushalaim and staying there until the food is consumed, the person lives among the Kohanim and Levi'im and observes and learns from their sprituality.

R' Frand remarked that certain cities have famous attributes - Detroit is the Motor City. Los Angeles is the entertainment capitol. L'Havdil, Yerushalaim is the spiritual capitol and by staying there, a person will come to have Yiras Shamayim.

R' Frand closed the vort by quoting the Maggid M'Kelem who told a Mashal about an angel coming to the cemetery and telling the dead they could arise for 1/2 hour. Each person went to do an important Mitzva - to learn Torah or visit the sick or take care of a parent. But no one went to the office. Why? Because having seen the reward in Olam Haba, they knew what was important was doing more mitzvos.

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 - Parshios Matos-Maasei

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parshios 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 from R' Mordechai Druk in his Sefer Derash Mordechai which quotes the Shelah who states that the 42 masaaos are symbolic as each Jew has 42 stations to travel in his lifetime.

R' Frand said that you can have your own interpretation of what the 42 stations means, but R' Druk says that the lesson is that a person should not be resistant to change and should have the flexibility to move.

R' Frand mentioned that he had a child which had a more difficult time with Shidduchim. He said that he kept a notebook of the Shidduch suggestions and he had a thought at some point that he would burn the notebook after the wedding. But he changed his mind and said that there is something to be learned from each encounter, just like the 42 masaaos were part of the Jews' evolution in the desert.

R' Frand said a second vort related to the concept of Ir Miklat in which the Torah says that the murderer must stay until the death of the Kohain who was anointed with the holy oil. The Gemara in Makkos asks - did the murderer anoint him with the oil? The Gemara answers that this refers to the Kohain Gadol who was anointed in his lifetime. Because if a murderer is on trial and during the trial the Kohain Gadol dies and a new Kohain Gadol is appointed, he must wait until the death of the second Kohain Gadol.

R' Frand quoted the Meshech Chachma who states that you see the Hashgacha Pratis in that Hashem has in mind how long the person should be in the Ir Miklat. Hashem picks the replacement Kohain Gadol based on the lifespan of the Kohain Gadol. If the murderer was supposed to be in the Ir Miklat for 5 years, a Kohain Gadol who will live 5 years is selected. The two concepts are inextricably linked.

R' Frand quoted another Gemara from Makkos which states that the mother of the Kohain Gadol would provide food and drink to the murderers so that they would not daven for the death of the Kohain Gadol. R' Frand had two observations about this: 

Thought one -  the people praying are not Tzadikim - they are murderers. Who cares about their prayers? R' Frand answered that we see from this that the more a person cares about his tefillos, the more effective it is. When a person prays that someone should do something for him, there are two aspects - the person you want to act and Hashem who you want to influence him. But with this prayer its just about Hashem.

Thought two - R' Frand asked - because the mother of the Kohain Gadol made brownies for him, the murderer will accept that he needs to stay longer in the Ir Miklat? R' Frand answered from R' Zalman Sorotskin that the murderer will still daven, but not with as much Kavana as the murderer will think - its not so bad, I get care packages. If a tefillah can be influenced in this fashion it will be less powerful and less likely to be accepted.

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 Pinchas

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 vort tonight was about the Haftorah of Parshas Pinchas which is only read when Parshios Matos and Maasei are separate. As this year they are read together, we will not read this Haftorah, but R' Frand felt that the message of the Haftorah was worth discussing.

In the Haftorah we read about Eliyahu and his walking 40 days and nights to Har Horev (aka Har Sinai) where he ascends and stands in the cleft of the rock where Moshe stood when he was receiving the Torah. Thereafter Hashem speak with Eliyahu and he renounces the Jews as complainers. Hashem then tells Eliyahu that he should appoint Elisha to take his place.

R' Frand quoted the Mechilta on Parshas Bo which states that there were three prophets - one who stood for Hashem and the Jewish people, one who stood for Hashem and not the Jewish people and one for the Jewish people and not Hashem. Yirmiayahu stood for Hashem and the Jewish people, while Eliyahu stood for Hashem and not the Jewish people - meaning that he defended Hashem's honor and did not defend the Jews. It was for this reason that Hashem told Eliyahu to appoint Elisha to take his place.

R' Frand next quoted the Radvaz who asked - why did Hashem make Eliyahu walk 40 days and nights without food to get to Har Chorev? He answers that it is because Hashem did not want a prosecutor against the Jewish people. For this reason he wanted Eliyahu to replicate Moshe's ways - by going 40 days without food and going to the site where Moshe received the Torah and specifically where Moshe stood when he received the Torah. Yet after retracing Moshe's steps, Eliyahu stayed as a Kana'i and for that reason Hashem needed him to be replaced.

R' Frand closed the vort by stating that now is not the time for us to be critical of our fellow Jews or those running the land of Israel. For only a prophet truly knows what is correct. But if Eliyahu is chastized by Hashem for constantly finding fault in the Jews, how much more so for us. 

R' Frand said that the Medrash states that the reason that Eliyahu comes to every Bris because he complained that the Jews were Mefer their Bris. By coming to each Bris he can testfiy that the Jews are Shomer their Bris.

This is part of the Avodah of the Three Weeks.

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 Balak

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 discussing Bila'am's discourse with his donkey, the Torah recounts in Bamidbar 22:28 that the donkey said to Bila'am - מֶה־עָשִׂ֣יתִי לְךָ֔ כִּ֣י הִכִּיתָ֔נִי זֶ֖ה שָׁל֥שׁ רְגָלִֽים? Rashi explains the choice of the words  שָׁל֥שׁ רְגָלִֽים, that the donkey was saying to Bila'am how can you curse the Jews who celebrate the  שָׁל֥שׁ רְגָלִֽים?

But why is the Jews' greatest zechus which is being mentioned? He does not talk about Shabbos, or Taharas Hamishpacha, or fasting on Yom Kippur.

R' Frand observed that during the  שָׁל֥שׁ רְגָלִֽים, the Jews are all together as they go up to Yerushalaim together and bring the same sacrifices and daven in the same place.

R' Frand also quoted a Gemara in Chaggigah which states that there are three tradesmen who are exempt from being Oleh Regel - a leather worker, a metal worker and collector of manure. The reason for this exemption is that all three work in trades which have foul odors and no one will want to stand near them.

R' Frand also quoted a Yerushalmi in Chaggigah which states that during the times that the Jews would be Oleh Regel, certain laws would be relaxed. There were certain people who were careful to only eat tahor food all year round. As a result they were not allowed to eat with Amei Ha'aretz so that there was no danger the food would become tamei. But during the  שָׁל֥שׁ רְגָלִֽים, the law was relaxed and they could all eat together.

R' Frand observed that this was why the mitzva of  שָׁל֥שׁ רְגָלִֽים was mentioned as a zechus - because when the Jews are united they are unbeatable.

R' Frand said a second vort related to the Gemara in Berachos which states that Bila'am had a special power that he knew the precise moment when Hashem would be angry. But why does Hashem need to get angry? The answer is that so there would be Yiras Shamayim in the world. However, Hashem did not get angry at that moment while the Jews were in the Midbar.

R' Frand quoted the Belzer Rebbe who explains that Bila'am knew that no matter what, he would succeed. If he was able to provoke Hashem to allow the Jews to be cursed, then he would be successful. And if Hashem did not get angry, then there would be no Yiras Shamayim. And the plan B would kick in as since the Jews had no Yiras Shamayim, they would stray with the Bnos Midyan and then Hashem would punish them.

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 Chukas

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 the juxtaposition of the events at the beginning of the parsha as it begins with Parah Adumah, followed by the death of Miriam and then Moshe's sin at Mei Merivah. He quoted Rashi which explains that reason that Miriam's death follows the Parah Adumah is to teach that just as a Karban atones, so does the death of a Tzaddik. 

After the death of Miriam there is no water as the Be'er of Miriam ceased to give water and after Moshe was told to speak to the rock he hit it and was punished.

R' Frand noted that there are 16 different explanations of what Moshe did wrong. He recalled that when he was in 9th grade each student was given the task to discuss one of the explanations (he was given R' Yosef Albo).

However this year R' Frand said that he saw a sefer from R' Immanuel Bernstein which quoted a Targum Yonasan Ben Uziel which satisfied him in explaining the sin of Mei Merivah.

R' Frand prefaced the explanation by discussing the questions which arise when reading the story. The first is why did he hit the rock instead of speaking to it? The second question is how could Moshe not follow Hashem's instruction? The third question is why did Hashem ask Moshe to take his Mateh if his job was to speak to the rock, Hashem was not out to confuse Moshe? The fourth question is based on Hashem telling Moshe and Aharon in Bamidbar 20:12 -  יַ֚עַן לֹא־הֶֽאֱמַנְתֶּ֣ם בִּ֔י לְהַ֨קְדִּישֵׁ֔נִי לְעֵינֵ֖י בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל . Why are they told that they are being punished for not believing in Hashem?

R' Frand then delved into the Targum which states on 20:14 that Moshe was told to take the Mateh with Aharon and to go to the rock and make it swear with the Shem Hameforash that it will give water. And if the rock did not give water, then hit it to make the water come out.

R' Frand observed that Hashem had a plan A and a plan B. If the rock would not give water based on the swear, then you should use the stick.

So why did Moshe not listen? R' Frand tracked back to the Rashi and quoted Chazal which explain that the death of a Tzaddik only atones if the death causes introspection and people want to change as a result. But if people don't change, there is no atonement.

R' Frand observed that when Miriam died there is no Hesped and no crying. Instead immediately thereafter the people start arguing with Moshe. As opposed to when Aharon died and all the Jews cried and similarly when Moshe died at the end of the Torah - the Jews cried.

R' Frand opined that Moshe must have thought - you are complaining about water now, right after my sister Miriam died and I am an aveil? These people must not be on a high level as his sister died and they just want to complain about water. Moshe then says to himself, Hashem wanted me to speak to the rock (as observed by Rashi) as they will draw Mussar that if I speak to a rock it will listen, surely we should listen. But this will be lost on them and if I speak to the rock and they are not worthy of having the water come out, there will be a Chillul Hashem when nothing happens. So I am going to go straight to plan B and hit the rock, because you are rebellious people.

Hashem then says to Moshe - you jumped to conclusions. There are two million people who need water and their kids are crying and their animals are braying. They probably did feel bad about Miriam's death, but this is their priority because they need water. They could make the Hesped at the Shloshim.

Hashem then says to Moshe - you are being punished because I have a higher opinion of the Jews than you do and you did not believe Me. 

This explains the connection between Miriam's death and Parah Adumah, why he was told to take the Mateh, how he could make that mistake and why he was told he was being punished for not believing in Hashem.

R' Frand said that R' Bernstein observes that Aharon died as a result of this event, but what did Aharon do wrong? He was a bystander. He explains that Aharon as an Ohev Shalom and Rodef Shalom should have told Moshe - you are judging them too sharply. Had Aharon intervened and said that he should give them a break because they were all thirsty, then Moshe might not have jumped to plan B.

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 Shelach

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 famous Rashi which answers the question of why the story of the Meraglim follows the story of Miriam being afflicted with Tzaraas. Rashi answers that the Meraglim who saw that Miriam was punished for speaking Lashon Hara about Moshe but did not derive any Mussar from it and then spoke Lashon Hara about the land of Israel.

R' Frand quoted R' Elya Boruch Finkel who cited a Gemara in Erchin which observes how great a sin Lashon Hara is, in that the Meraglin were punished for Lashon Hara about trees and stones, how much more so for saying Lashon Hara about a person.

R' Elya Boruch asked - if the Kal V'Chomer is that we see how much more problematic it is to say Lashon Hara about a person based on the punishment for speaking Lashon Hara about an inanimate object, then why should the Meraglim have drawn Mussar from Miriam speaking about Moshe?

R' Frand quoted the Rambam in Hilchos Tum'as Tzaraas which states that a person should consider that Miriam who put her life in danger to save Moshe and was his older sister and did not speak negatively about him (she only asked why he needed to separate from his wife) and the Torah goes out of its way to say that Moshe was an Anav and likely was not hurt by her words, yet still she was punished. Kal V'Chomer is we speak negatively about someone else.

R' Frand quoted R' Elya Boruch as stating that the insertion of the fact that Moshe was an Anav in the middle of this story (as opposed to at the end of the Torah when Moshe died) demonstrates that Moshe was like the trees and the stone - he was so unaffected as to be like an inanimate object. But even with all that, Miriam was punished for speaking about him. This is the Mussar that the Meraglim should have taken.

R' Frand closed the vort by quoting R' Weinberg who observes that Lashon Hara only ends with the mouth - but it begins with the eye. If someone observes a circumstance and can draw one of many conclusions, and then speaks negatively about what he saw, it is because his eye led him to draw that conclusion. Miriam saw Moshe and thought - why is Moshe doing this, he is no different than Aharon or me as we are all prophets. But that was her mistake - she saw Moshe and decided that he was no different than anyone else. This is why the Torah needed to insert that Moshe was an Anav "מְאֹ֑ד מִכֹּל֙ הָאָדָ֔ם" - to show that he was different.

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 Behaalosecha

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 Bamidbar 10:11 notes that the Jews left Har Sinai in the second year on the twentieth day of the second month.  Yet, the Torah's discussion of the actual leaving takes place in 10:35 which contains the pasuk said for every Krias HaTorah - וַיְהִ֛י בִּנְסֹ֥עַ הָֽאָרֹ֖ן. 

As these pesukim are surrounded by upside down Nuns, Rashi explains that Bamidbar 10:35 does not actually "belong" where it is found, as this should have been mentioned in Parshas Bamidbar. R' Frand quoted the Rabbeinu Bachya who points out that these pesukim are found 50 parshios after where they should be (with 50 being the gematria for Nun).

Rashi quotes the Gemara in Shabbos which states that the pesukim are found here as they separate between two sets of troubles.

The Gemara in Shabbos elaborates that the first set of troubles was the Jews leaving Har Sinai and the second was the Jews complaining about food. Tosafos explains that the problem with the Jews leaving Har Sinai was that the Jews ran away, like a child running from the last day of school.

But why are there upside down Nuns?

R' Frand quoted the sefer Maskil L'Dovid who explains that the Nun is a sign of trouble which is why it is not mentioned in Ashrei - it connotes falling. 

The Yalkut Me'am Loez provides the last piece of the puzzle, explaining that the Jews reached their pinnacle when they invoked the two Nuns - Na'aseh V'Nishma. But when they ran away from Har Sinai, they overturned their great moment and thus the Nuns are upside down.

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 Thoughts on Shavuous

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on Shavuous 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 noting that the Jews did not say Na'aseh V'Nishma in Parshas Yisro. Instead, the words appear in Parshas Mishpatim (Shemos 24:7) which states וַיִּקַּח֙ סֵ֣פֶר הַבְּרִ֔ית וַיִּקְרָ֖א בְּאָזְנֵ֣י הָעָ֑ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע.

But why is the statement found in Mishpatim? Rashi states that the Jews said it at Har Sinai, on the 4th of Sivan and relies on the concept of Ein Mukdam U'M'uachar B'Torah. However the Ramban and Ibn Ezra disagree and state that the Jews said it on the 7th or 8th of Sivan and it was separate from Matan Torah.

R' Frand next made reference to Shemos 24:9-10 which discusses Moshe, Aharon, Nadav and Avihu and the 70 Zekeinim going up and viewing the Kisei HaKavod. R' Frand first quoted the Rashi on Shemos 24:10  וְתַ֣חַת רַגְלָ֗יו כְּמַֽעֲשֵׂה֙ לִבְנַ֣ת הַסַּפִּ֔יר וּכְעֶ֥צֶם הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם לָטֹֽהַר , explaining that the reason Hashem had brickwork under the Kisei HaKavod was to remind Him of the enslavement in Egypt and that Hashem had great simcha when the Jews left Egypt.

R' Frand observed that Hashem did not need a reminder as He does not forget. Instead, the image was for Moshe and Aharon and the others to see that Hashem was Noseh B'Ol Im Chavero. 

But why was that needed at the time that the Jews received the Torah? In fact, the person that Moshe perceives Hashem at the Sneh, Rashi explains that Hashem chose to appear in the Sneh and not a tree or larger edifice, because Hashem wanted to show that He was with the Jews during their enslavement in Egypt.

R' Frand quoted R' Mattisyahu Solomon Ztl who said that the reason that this was referenced here was to show that part of being able to receive the Torah is to be able to sympathize with other people's troubles. Indeed, Pirkei Avos lists this as one of the 48 qualities needed to learn Torah, yet this has nothing to do with intellectual ability.

R' Frand quoted three explanations of why this is mentioned in Pirkei Avos. The Alter M'Kelem says that a person with a Nefesh Yafeh can acquire Torah and one can achieve that by being Noseh B'Ol. The Maharal explains that the Torah was given to the Clal and therefore to acquire Torah a person must be empathetic to the needs of others. Lastly, R' Chaim Volozhin that in order to acquire Torah you need to be able to really listen to your Chavrusa.

R' Frand closed the vort by noting that the simcha that Hashem showed is also part of being Noseh B'Ol. R' Frand quoted R' Motel Pogramanski who stated that if a person does not feel for others he is not a mench. But to truly join in another person's simcha you need to be a Malach.

R' Frand gave the mashal of two neighbors. One has many children who are looking for shidduchim, while the other has children who quickly find their mates. If the neighbor with single children can truly dance and rejoice with his friend despite his own children being single, he demonstrates his ability to be Noseh B'Ol even at a simcha.

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 Bechukosai

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 first vort that R' Frand said related to the beracha in Vayikra 26:4 that if the Jews listen to Hashem - וְנָֽתַתִּ֥י גִשְׁמֵיכֶ֖ם בְּעִתָּ֑ם. Rashi explains that this means that Hashem will cause rain to fall when people are home and not on the road - on Shabbos and Yom Tom evenings. 

R' Frand quoted the Rama in the sefer Toras Ha'Olah which ties with a different sign of beracha. The Gemara teaches that there were periods that when the Jews were so good, they never saw a rainbow, as we learn that the rainbow comes to show that Hashem is keeping His word and will not destroy the world again. The Rama observed that rainbows are natural phenomena - what does it mean that they never saw a rainbow? He explains that the Jews were so good that it only rained at night and since the rain was at night they did not see a rainbow.

R' Frand said another vort based on the pasuk at the end of the Tochacha in Vayikra 26:42 - וְזָֽכַרְתִּ֖י אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֣י יַֽעֲק֑וֹב. Rashi notes that there are five times that Ya'akov is spelled with a Vuv and Eliyahu is spelled without a Vav. He explains that Ya'akov asked Eliyahu to promise that he would come and tell the world that the Moshiach was coming. As part of this promise he took collateral from Eliyahu - the five Vuvs. 

R' Frand then quoted the Maharal who notes that when a person takes collateral, it is often accompanied by a handshake. And there are five fingers on a hand - so Ya'akov took five Vuvs which are like five fingers, so that they shook on the deal that Eliyahu would come in the future to talk about the Moshiach coming in the future.

R' Frand then quoted a Meshech Chachma which he has previously stated (he observed that tonight completed 42 years of his giving the shiur, B'Ah). The Meshech Chachma talks about the scope of Jewish history and Hashem's hand. Hashem had a Gezeira that the Jews would be in Galus for Millenia. How did we not get assimilated? It is due to the Gedolim who instituted safeguards - the first being Ya'akov who was worried that the Jews would be assimilated in Egypt - so he commanded that he should not be buried in Egypt, because if he was buried there, his children and grandchildren and those who came after would think that this was their land.

These decrees continued by the Anshei Kneses HaGedolah who instituted guardrails such as the 18 rules such as Pas Akum and Stam Yeynam - they are meant to remind us that we are foreigners and that we are like olive branches that cannot be grafted to another a tree. The Gemara in Shabbos states that even Eliyahu HaNavi will not be able to mevatel these safeguards.

The Meshech Chachma continues that Jews will live in lands for hundreds of years and they will not feel like they are foreigners. They will then give up waiting for Moshiach, at which time there will be another greater storm and people will yell - you are a Jew, not a man - get out of here.

And after moving on the Jew will live in another land and adopt the language and feel like a citizen and will think "Berlin is Jerusalem." But then another storm will come and uproot him from that land and he will again realize that he is a foreigner. 

This was written in the 1920s. And while prior to the post October 7 swell of anti-Semitism people might have thought it could not happen in America. But can that still be said? 

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 Behar

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 25:31, the Torah gives the proscription against collecting interest as the Torah states אַל־תִּקַּ֤ח מֵֽאִתּוֹ֙ נֶ֣שֶׁךְ וְתַרְבִּ֔ית. The Gemara in Bava Metzia (which we recently covered in Daf Yomi) quotes R' Shimon who states that more than a person gains from collecting the interest, he loses.

The meforshim struggle with how to understand R' Shimon. How is this different than violating any other negative commandment? 

R' Frand quoted the Klei Yakar who explains that Ribbis was banned because it causes a person to lose Bitachon in Hashem. When a person is involved in business, he recognizes that it is dependent on Hashem. He can buy a product with the hope that he can resell it for a profit, but there is no guaranty. However, someone who lends money on interest (provided that there is a co-signer on the loan or that it is secured by collateral) will sleep well as he knows that he will always have money coming in.

This is R' Shimon's lesson - a person needs to have faith in Hashem even in a time of difficulty. If this person loses his ability to have faith in Hashem that Hashem will provide for him financially, when that person has other trouble he will have lost his feeling of serenity - of knowing that Hashem will be there for him.

R' Frand tied this into a story about R' Dovid Bleisher (sp?) who was the Rosh Yeshiva of the Yeshiva in Navardok. He had raised money to buy flour to bake matza and had stored it in a building. One night there was a significant storm that tore the roof off the building and the flour was then soaked with rain - thus no longer could it be used to bake matza. 

R' Dovid brought the students together and asked 4 questions - who told us that we need to eat matza? And who arranged that we would have flour? And who caused the roof to be ripped off the building? And lastly, who caused the rain to fall? If Hashem wants us to eat matza we will, and if not then we wont. 

Shortly before Pesach a check came into the Yeshiva which allowed them to buy more flour to make matza for Pesach. But the lesson was the serenity to accept that it all came from Hashem. 

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!