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!