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 began his vort by discussing Lot's separation from Avraham as mentioned in Bereishis 13:1-12. The Torah states in Bereishis 13:11 וַיִּסַּ֥ע ל֖וֹט מִקֶּ֑דֶם. Rashi explains that Lot did not travel in a direction, he wanted to separate from Hashem who was there from the beginning - מִקֶּ֑דֶם. Lot said that he did not want anything to do with Avraham and Hashem.

R' Frand asked - why did the Medrash interpret this pasuk is such a non-literal term? R' Frand quoted R' Matisyahu Solomon who in turn cited R' Shneur Kotler to explain the Medrash's view of the pasuk. He began by quoting a pasuk in Ekev (Devarim 11:10) which states כִּ֣י הָאָ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר אַתָּ֤ה בָא־שָׁ֙מָּה֙ לְרִשְׁתָּ֔הּ לֹ֣א כְאֶ֤רֶץ מִצְרַ֙יִם֙ הִ֔וא אֲשֶׁ֥ר יְצָאתֶ֖ם מִשָּׁ֑ם אֲשֶׁ֤ר תִּזְרַע֙ אֶֽת־זַרְעֲךָ֔ וְהִשְׁקִ֥יתָ בְרַגְלְךָ֖ כְּגַ֥ן הַיָּרָֽק. Moshe tells the Jews that the Land of Israel is not like Egypt which you left as in Egypt you don't need to worry about irrigation. In Egypt, the Nile overflows and waters the fields. Instead, וְהָאָ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר אַתֶּ֜ם עֹבְרִ֥ים שָׁ֙מָּה֙ לְרִשְׁתָּ֔הּ אֶ֥רֶץ הָרִ֖ים וּבְקָעֹ֑ת לִמְטַ֥ר הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם תִּשְׁתֶּה־מָּֽיִם - the land depends on rain to irrigate the fields.

R' Kotler asks - how is this praiseworthy for the Land of Israel? If you are trying to sell the land, why say that watering was easy in Egypt and that now you need to depend on rain? He answers that the pitch was that the Jews will need to rely on Hashem for rain and will daven to Him and develop a relationship. In Egypt there was no dependence on Hashem or relationship with Him. 

When Lot sees that the land of Sodom is כִּ֥י כֻלָּ֖הּ מַשְׁקֶ֑ה (Bereishis 13:10) he thinks that he will have it easy and he wont need to rely on Hashem for water - just like Egypt. He does not want a relationship with Hashem and this is his way out. After all, Lot was very much into his money and he wanted an easy luscious life.

R' Frand made reference to the pasuk in Bereishis 14:12 when Lot was captured. The Pasuk states - וַיִּקְח֨וּ אֶת־ל֧וֹט וְאֶת־רְכֻשׁ֛וֹ בֶּן־אֲחִ֥י אַבְרָ֖ם וַיֵּלֵ֑כוּ וְה֥וּא יֹשֵׁ֖ב בִּסְדֹֽם. The structure of the Pasuk is odd, since it states Lot, his possessions and only afterwards his relation to Avraham. You would think that it would say that they took Lot the nephew of Avraham and his possessions, but here they come between Lot & Avraham. R' Schwalb explains that this is because Lot's possessions were central to him and defined him.

R' Frand tied this to the prohibition on interest. He asked - why is it that if someone needs money, you cannot lend it to him on interest, but lower than the bank rate? If someone needs a mortgage now, the rate is above 7%. He would be thrilled to borrow from his friend at half the rate, so why can't they enter the transaction? R' Frand quoted the Klei Yakar who explains that a farmer relies on Hashem as there are many challenges to growing produce. Businessmen have similar challenges as they may order stock based on a belief that something will be a hot selling item, but by the time that it arrives, there may be no consumer interest.

Lending with interest, provided the loan is secured, takes Hashem out of the equation. A person does not need Hashem or depend on him if the money is coming in through interest. Thus Hashem banned interest so that he can feel a connection with Hashem.

R' Frand said a second vort related to Avraham's request to Hashem in Bereishis 15:2 - מַה־תִּתֶּן־לִ֔י וְאָנֹכִ֖י הוֹלֵ֣ךְ עֲרִירִ֑י וּבֶן־מֶ֣שֶׁק בֵּיתִ֔י ה֖וּא דַּמֶּ֥שֶׂק אֱלִיעֶֽזֶר. Avraham says he has no children - he has a trusted servant, but no one else. R' Frand noted that the Gemara in Yoma states that Eliezer was a Talmid Muvak of Avraham and he delivered Avraham's Torah to everyone. You could not want a better Talmid as he would perpetuate Avraham's Torah and ensure his legacy. But why should Avraham need anything else?

R' Frand answered by quoting the Rabbeinu Bchaye who cites to the pasuk in Bereishis 15:5 - וַיּוֹצֵ֨א אֹת֜וֹ הַח֗וּצָה וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ הַבֶּט־נָ֣א הַשָּׁמַ֗יְמָה וּסְפֹר֙ הַכּ֣וֹכָבִ֔ים אִם־תּוּכַ֖ל לִסְפֹּ֣ר אֹתָ֑ם וַיֹּ֣אמֶר ל֔וֹ כֹּ֥ה יִהְיֶ֖ה זַרְעֶֽךָ. Hashem was telling Avraham - the stars are multifaceted and no star is like another. Avraham wanted children, not clones. And Hashem told him - look at the stars - the are like the children you will have. Each one will be different with multiple strengths and diversity.

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 6:13, the Torah states קֵ֤ץ כׇּל־בָּשָׂר֙ בָּ֣א לְפָנַ֔י כִּֽי־מָלְאָ֥ה הָאָ֛רֶץ חָמָ֖ס מִפְּנֵיהֶ֑ם. In Bereishis Rabbah, the Medrash states that חָמָֽס is theft of less than a Perutah. The people of this generation would see a person with a basket of lupines [R' Frand quipped that he would not know what a lupine was if it hit him in the face]. A person would take a lupine which was worth less than a perutah. The next person would take as well. And then eventually he would have none left...and he cannot pursue remedies because each lupine was worth less than a perutah and the court would not hear that case.

R' Frand asked - what is worse - stealing someone's car or taking something worth less than a perutah? You would say a car, so why is this a reason that the flood came? And why is the flood the Middah K'Neged Middah punishment?

R' Frand quoted a sefer which cited R' Moshe Amiel who states that there are three words for theft - Geneiva, Gezel and Chamas. Chazal teach that Geneiva is worse than Gezel, since he steals at night and is worried about man and not Hashem. The Gazlan doesn't care about man or Hashem. But why is Chamas worse than the other two? The Ganav thinks he can fake out man, the Gazlan doesn't care about man or Hashem. But the person who commits Chamas thinks he is not doing anything wrong and that is the worst case. We ask for forgiveness on Yom Kippur because we know we have done wrong, but this person thinks that he has not sinned.

He then explains why the flood was Middah K'Neged Middah. The person who takes one lupine has stolen less than a Perutah and Beis Din does not care about it. But it adds up until the person has nothing left. Rain is the same way, a drop of rain is nothing, but a drop followed by another drop by another drop adds up and becomes a flood.

R' Frand then quoted R' Mirski, who notes that on a Biblical level, money can effect a transaction, but D'Rabbanan it does not. Why? Because they were concerned that if money would effect the transaction and the buyer did not take physical possession, if a fire would threaten the item, the seller would not have an incentive to save the object because it was already the buyer's property. R' Frand then connected this to the concept of Mi Sheparah. If someone backs out of a transaction, the Gemara states that he can receive a Mi Sheparah - which is a legitimate curse in Chazal. The language of the Mi Sheparah in the Yerushalmi (unlike the Bavli) is that Hashem will punish you like he did to the generation of the flood. Why is the language - because although Beis Din can't punish you for backing out, Hashem can - much like he did to the generation of the flood.

R' Frand said a second vort related to Noach being 500 years old when he had his children. Rashi notes that prior generations had their children at 100 but Noach at 500. Why? Because if they were born when Noach was older and they turned out to be evil, they would need to die in the flood. And if they were good, Noach would need to build many additional arks for his children's families. Rashi further explains that at the time of the flood, punishment from Heaven was not meted out prior to a person turning 100 years old, so since Noach's sons were less than that at the time of the flood there was no concern.

R' Frand quoted R' Chaim Shmuelevitz who asks - what was the problem that the children might be good and Noach would need to build additional arks? He did not need to build them at all, he could have just hired someone else! Why was this a concern? 

R' Chaim answered that the ark was not physically able to withstand the flood and the torrent of boiling water. It was only able to do so because Noach was Moser Nefesh in order to build it - to deal with all the scoffers who ridiculed him for years and that imbued the ark with the ability to withstand the flood. If someone else had built an additional ark, it would not have survived the flood. 

R' Frand gave multiple examples of this concept - Shmuel had a garment that grew with him. How did this happen? Because Chana had such incredible Tefillos that it imbued the garment. He also noted that the Beis Hamikdash was built on the site where Avraham built the Akeidah...because Avraham was Moser Nefesh.

R' Frand noted the same in more recent generations. He discussed how Lakewood Yeshiva (BMG) was started with only a few students from Kletzk and now has 10,000 students. Similarly Ner Israel was started with only four students and it became what it is today. Why because they were built with Mesiras Nefesh and an ark could not have survived the flood if it was built by Bob's Boat Builders. 

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 Bereishis

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 by noting that the eating from the Etz HaDa'as was a seminal moment in human history and the world changed as a result. R' Frand briefly summarized the punishment of the snake (Bereishis 3:14-15) the punishment for Chava (3:16) and the punishment for Adam (3:17-19). R' Frand noted that at the end of the punishment, Adam is told that he will die, stating כִּֽי־עָפָ֣ר אַ֔תָּה וְאֶל־עָפָ֖ר תָּשֽׁוּב. 

Immediately thereafter, Adam gives his wife a new name as the Torah states in Bereishis 3:20 וַיִּקְרָ֧א הָֽאָדָ֛ם שֵׁ֥ם אִשְׁתּ֖וֹ חַוָּ֑ה כִּ֛י הִ֥וא הָֽיְתָ֖ה אֵ֥ם כׇּל־חָֽי. But why does Adam choose this moment to give his wife a new name?

R' Frand quoted R' Jonathan Sacks who theorized that when Adam was told that he was going to die, it hit him like a ton of bricks. Prior to this point, he thought that his legacy would be himself, since he was going to live forever. But now, he is no longer immortal and he starts wondering about his legacy and what he will leave behind. Adam realized that what he would leave behind is his children as they carry your DNA, your morals and your values. But to have children, I need a wife and I just heard Hashem say that you (Chava) will enable me to have children. In so doing, you - Chava will help me achieve immortality. Previously she was just a help mate, but now she is a fundamental partner as through her, I will have immortality. This is why she called חַוָּ֑ה-- כִּ֛י הִ֥וא הָֽיְתָ֖ה אֵ֥ם כׇּל־חָֽי - she will be the mother of all the children.

R' Frand gave a second reason for the change of name at this point. It might have been logical to call her death, since she brought death into the world. I could call her death and this is how she will be remembered. But I can call her Chava and view the positive. People are not totally bad or totally good and here Adam is teaching the fundamental lesson - don't look at her as death as because of her there will be life for every person.

R' Frand closed this vort with a story about R Lazer Silver who served as a chaplain in the US Army after WWII. He was successful in organizing a room in a DP camp where people could make a minyan. One day they were short one man for the minyan and R' Silver sent someone out to ask a man who was outside to join them. The messenger returned and said that the man had refused and said that he does not want to see a siddur, or a shul or another frum Jew. R' Silver then went out and asked personally and received the same response. He asked - why do you feel that way? The man responded  that when he was in the camps, there was a frum Jew who had a siddur which he used to daven before the men went out to work every day. But the man did not only use the siddur, he "rented" it out to others in exchange for half their daily ration of bread. The man was disgusted by this and did not want to see another siddur, or shul or frum Jew.

When the man had finished explaining himself, R' Silver said to him - but why don't you look at all the Jews who were willing to give up half their meager rations just so that they could daven with a siddur. The man accepted this and joined them.

[When R' Frand told this story previously, he told a related story. Thirty years later, a man spoke at a conference of major Jewish leaders and told that story. He said that he was the man who had refused to join the minyan before speaking to R' Laizer Silver. His name is Simon Wiesenthal].

R' Frand said a second vort related to Kayin and Hevel. The Torah states in Bereishis 4:8 וַיֹּ֥אמֶר קַ֖יִן אֶל־הֶ֣בֶל אָחִ֑יו וַֽיְהִי֙ בִּהְיוֹתָ֣ם בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ה וַיָּ֥קׇם קַ֛יִן אֶל־הֶ֥בֶל אָחִ֖יו וַיַּהַרְגֵֽהוּ׃. The Torah does not tell us what Kayin says to Hevel before he killed him, but there are Medrashim which say that they argued over where the Bais HaMikdash would be built, or they argued over marriage or the division of property.

But why does the Torah not give the reason for the argument explicitly? R' Frand quoted R' Bukspan from Florida who explains that it does not matter what the fight was about. A person can get into a fight and not speak with a sibling for 40 years and no one remembers what the source of the argument was about. What is important is that there was a fight, not what they were fighting over.

R' Frand then observed that Kayin's punishment was נָ֥ע וָנָ֖ד תִּֽהְיֶ֥ה בָאָֽרֶץ (Bereishis 4:12). But how does this fit the crime? How is it Middah K'Neged Middah? R' Frand that people get into arguments because they stand their ground and will not give in to the other person. I am right and you are wrong, its my way or the highway and the person stands on principle. If a person does not know how to bend or move, the punishment is that you will learn how to move.

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!