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 the dialogue between Balak and Bilaam, Rashi identifies three instances where Balak told Bilaam to say one thing to Hashem, but Bilaam said something different to Hashem. In Bamidbar 22:6 Balak tells Bilaam וְעַתָּה֩ לְכָה־נָּ֨א אָֽרָה־לִּ֜י אֶת־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֗ה. But when Bilaam relays this to Hashem in Bamidbar 22:11, Bilaam states   עַתָּ֗ה לְכָ֤ה קָֽבָה־לִּי֙ אֹת֔וֹ. Rashi explains that this is a more severe form of cursing.

Similarly in Bamidbar 22:6, Balak states אוּלַ֤י אוּכַל֙ נַכֶּה־בּ֔וֹ וַֽאֲגָֽרְשֶׁ֖נּוּ מִן־הָאָ֑רֶץ, but in Bamidbar 22:11, Bilaam states אוּלַ֥י אוּכַ֛ל לְהִלָּ֥חֶם בּ֖וֹ וְגֵֽרַשְׁתִּֽיו. Rashi again explains that whereas Balak only wanted the Jews gone, Bilaam's request was to wipe the Jews out from the world.

A further example from Bamidbar 22:6 is the use of אָֽרָה־לִּ֜י אֶת־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֗ה  these people whereas Bilaam states in 22:11 הָעָם֙ which is this nation - the Jewish nation and is a further indicia of a desire to wipe out the Jews.

R' Frand stated that Bilaam was not trying to deceive Hashem as to Balak's request. Rather, his hatred for the Jews colored what he thought that he heard. Balak was the king of Moab and wanted to solve a problem. But Bilaam hated the Jews and he heard greater language of what was stated.

R' Frand said that this is an example of the maxim - you hear what you want to hear. The same way that love can influence a person's views, so too does hatred. Because you hear what you want to hear.

R' Frand made reference to a Gemara in Gittin 45(a) which discussed R' Ilish who was in jail with another person who knew bird language. A crow came and began speaking. R' Ilish asked the other man - what did the crow say? He responded that the crow was saying - Ilish run away. R' Ilish responded - crows are liars, never trust crows. But then a dove came and also chirped. R' Ilish asked - what is the dove saying? He again responded - Ilish run away. This statement was accepted by R' Ilish who noted that the Jews are compared to a dove, so I can trust it and R' Ilish ran away.

R' Frand quoted R Akiva Eger who in turn cited the Aruch who states that R' Ilish did speak bird language as well as Seder HaDoros who said that we see from this that R' Ilish did not speak bird language. R' Akiva Eger said - the Seder HaDoros is wrong - R' Ilish did speak bird language, but you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear. He did not want to believe the crow because crows lie. And when he heard the dove he did hear it, but he thought, maybe I am hearing what I wanted to hear, so he asked the other man to interpret it. R' Ilish thought he knew what the dove was saying, but said - I can't trust myself as I want to get out of here so quickly. Because he recognized that a person's perceptions are influenced by what they think and their preconceived notions.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://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.

In Bamidbar 21:4-10, the Torah recounts the story of the Jews' complaint about the manna and the Jews punishment for speaking out. This is not the first time that the Jews complained about the Manna as they had complained in Parshas Behaalosecha as well. But why did they complain again and why complain about the manna at all? The manna tasted like whatever the consumer wished it to taste. If he wanted meat it would be meat and if he wished for dairy it would taste like dairy. The medrash explains that the manna's miracle also included that it would not become waste in a person's body. So why did the Jews complain about the manna?

R' Frand's next question was --why did Hashem punish the Jews with snakes? There were many other punishments during the time the Jews were in the desert?

R' Frand quoted the Gemara in Yoma which asks why did the manna fall every day (other than Shabbos) instead on once per year. The Gemara answered by way of a mashal about a King who needed to provide for his son. The king would give his son an allowance once a year. Not coincidentally, this was also the only time that the king would see his son. The king changed his habit and began to give his son his needs on a daily basis. As a result, he would see his son much more often.

R' Frand then connected the mashal to the Jews in the desert. Since the manna fell daily and would spoil if kept an extra day, the Jews needed to go out and gather manna every day. The Jews complained about the manna because they did not want to be beholden to Hashem and need to seek Him out for sustenance on a daily basis.

R' Frand next discussed the reason that the snakes were chosen as punishment. He quoted R' Shimshon Refael Hirsch who observed that the Torah uses the word וַיְשַׁלַּ֨ח (Bamidbar 21:6) as opposed to וַיִּשְׁלַ֨ח? He explains that the word וַיְשַׁלַּ֨ח is Pi'el - and the conjugation means that Hashem released the snakes as opposed to sending them. The snakes had always been there, but Hashem held them back and protected the Jews. But once they said that they did not want the connection with Hashem the snakes were released. This is also why they are referred to as הַנְּחָשִׁ֣ים הַשְּׂרָפִ֔ים the snakes (as a definite article) because they were always there.

R' Frand also quoted R' Bukspan from Miami who observed that the snake was previously mentioned in the Torah in Bereishis where he received a curious punishment. As explained by the Sfas Emes, Hashem tells the snake that he will crawl on his stomach and eat dirt. On the surface, this appears to be a blessing as the snake will never want for food. However, on a deeper level it is apparent that it was truly a punishment. Hashem in effect said to the snake - I don't want to see you ever again. You can eat eat all the dirt you want, just don't come back to me. This was the message to the Jews who did not want to have a connection with Him. Hashem was saying to the Jews - you don't want to depend on Me on a daily basis for food? Well, if you want to be like the snake, then I will send the snakes after you.

R' Frand concluded the vort by stating that the cure for the plague of snakes was more than just looking at a copper snake. It was looking at a snake which was raised up on a pole. Hashem was thus hinting to the Jews - if you look up and recognize that it all comes from Me, then you will be saved.

R' Frand closed the vort by telling a story he received by email from a woman who had made Aliyah from Baltimore and lived in a neighborhood in Israel which had both Kollel families and an army base. There was a Kollel husband who was shopping in the supermarket with a cart loaded with 1500 NIS of groceries. An army officer offered to pay for his groceries and the Kollel husband asked why. The officer explained that he had recently gone to Ukraine to install the Iron Dome and that after he returned he received a request to come back. It seemed that in Ukraine the system was intercepting at a 50% rate whereas in Israel it was 95%. He went back and tested the system but it was working fine. The officer then explained to the Kollel husband that the difference was that in Israel the men learning in Kollel were protecting the country and that was why the interception rate was much higher. As such he wanted to thank the Kollel husband and pay for his groceries.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://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 discussed the sin of the Meraglim and focused on Moshe's efforts to convince Hashem not to destroy the Jews after they complained as a result of hearing the report of the Meraglim. Moshe took two approaches - first he said to Hashem in Bamidbar 14:13-15 that the nations of the world would think that He could not bring the Jews into the Land of Israel and then stated in 14:16 - מִבִּלְתִּ֞י יְכֹ֣לֶת יְהֹוָ֗ה לְהָבִיא֙ אֶת־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֔ה אֶל־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־נִשְׁבַּ֣ע לָהֶ֑ם וַיִּשְׁחָטֵ֖ם בַּמִּדְבָּֽר. 

Thereafter Moshe invokes the 13 Middos in Bamidbar 14:18-19, to which Hashem responds in 14:20 וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְהֹוָ֔ה סָלַ֖חְתִּי כִּדְבָרֶֽךָ.

R' Frand said that Meforshim explain that Hashem forgave the Jews because of the first approach - where Moshe said that this would cause the nations to question Hashem's ability.

Immediately afterwards Hashem says in 14:21 וְאוּלָ֖ם חַי־אָ֑נִי וְיִמָּלֵ֥א כְבוֹד־יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶת־כָּל־הָאָֽרֶץ, which seems like a non-sequitur.

R' Frand quoted the Netziv who explains this sequence by linking it to Tehillim 106 which recounts the travails of the Jews in the desert, but also contains a pasuk which seems out of place. In 106:25 it states וַיֵּרָֽגְנ֥וּ בְאָֽהֳלֵיהֶ֑ם לֹ֥א שָֽׁ֜מְע֗וּ בְּק֣וֹל יְהֹוָֽה - the Jews complained and did not listen to Hashem. Thereafter the punishment is stated in 106:26 - וַיִּשָּׂ֣א יָד֣וֹ לָהֶ֑ם לְהַפִּ֥יל א֜וֹתָ֗ם בַּמִּדְבָּֽר. But then in 106:27 it states וּלְהַפִּ֣יל זַ֖רְעָם בַּגּוֹיִ֑ם וּ֜לְזָרֽוֹתָ֗ם בָּֽאֲרָצֽוֹת, however the Jews were not scattered among the nations while they were in the desert!

The Netziv explains that there was a Plan A and a Plan B. If the Jews had not sinned, they would have gone directly into the land of Israel and built the Beis Hamikdash and the entire world would have seen the Kiddush Hashem and said Hashem Hu HaElokim. 

But things did not work out that instead the Plan B was to scatter the Jews among the nations so that they could make Kiddush Hashem wherever they went. This also would cause the nations to recognize Hashem as well. Because they would look at the Jews and see how they acted and survived all the years of Galus (vs the small fraction of time that they were in the land of Israel).

R' Frand quoted the Yaavetz who writes that the greatest miracle is that the Jews are still around and he opines that this is a greater miracle than Yitziyas Mitzrayim.

R' Frand also quoted R' Chatzkel Levenstein who remarked about the Mirrer Yeshiva's travels from Mir to Kobe, Japan to Shanghai and eventually to Brooklyn and Israel as a greater miracle than the Purim story.

R' Frand closed the vort by recognizing the current miracles, including the direct hit on Soroka Hospital which did not kill anyone and the fact that 95% of the missiles from Iran are being intercepted. He mentioned that R' Asher Weiss has instituted that among the Tehillim said after davening is Mizmor L'Todah as a recognition of all that Hashem is doing for us.

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 Beha'alosecha

Although R' Frand did not deliver his live shiur this evening due to a family wedding, R' Frand did post a pre-recorded Parsha vort on OU Torah which I have summarized here. This week's vort can be found at https://outorah.org/p/226333 and I have attempted to reproduce the vort to the best of my ability in this post.  Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to the maggid shiur.

R' Frand began the vort by noting that in this parsha the Torah states that the Levi'im begin their service at age 25. However in Parshas Bamidbar it states that service begins at 30. R' Frand quoted Rashi who asks - is it 25 or 30? Rashi answers that there are 5 years of training which begin at 25, but he can't begin the Avodah until 30.

R' Frand noted that the Kohanim did the lion's share of the work in the Beis HaMikdash, but there is no pasuk that teaches that they have a 5 year training period, even though the role of the Levi is less arduous.

R' Frand quoted R' Berel Weinberger in Shemen HaTov who explains that the Levi'im have only 20 years to work - from 30-50, unlike the Kohanim who don't have an end date. As the Levi'im only have 20 years, they can't afford to learn on the job, they train ahead of their "go" date.

R' Frand observed that when boys come to Yeshiva they think that the learning will last forever, but they don't realize that the time in Yeshiva is finite. Very few people stay in Yeshiva, learning forever. R' Frand said that he tells his students that they should hit the ground running as it will not last forever. 

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 Nasso

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 there are a series of interesting Mitzvos in the fourth Aliyah of the Parsha - Sotah, followed by Nazir, then Birkas Kohanim and then the dedication of the Mishkan in which each tribe brought sacrifices through their Nesiim.

Rashi explains the connection between the Matnos Kehunah in the third Aliyah and the law of Sotah - stating that whomever is stingy and does not want to give their Matnos Kehunah to the Kohain, will need the Kohain's assistance to deal with a suspected Sotah.

The connection between Nazir and Sotah is mentioned in the Gemara in Sotah which states that the person who sees the spectacle of the Sotah will swear off wine, since the wine brought those people to adultery, the Nazir swears that he won't drink wine.

But what is the connection with Birkas Kohanim and thereafter the sacrifices of the Nesi'im? And more fundamentally, why is the Mitzva of Birkas Kohanim in Sefer Bamidbar and not Sefer Vayikra, with all the rules of the sacrifices and Kohanim?

R' Frand quoted R' Immanuel Bernstein who cites R' Shlomo Fisher of Yerushalaim to address these questions. He first observed that the Nazir lives on an elevated spiritual plain as he abstains from wine and being tamei, yet when he finishes his period, he brings a sacrifice to atone. Why? The Gemara explains that he invented a new Issur for himself. While its noble that he wants to improve, but accomplishing this by separating himself is not without fault.

R' Fisher further explains that the Nazir also separated himself from humanity. R' Hirsch explains that this is why the Nazir grows his hair and does not drink wine - to create a barrier between himself and others and not engaging in social drinking. But this is not good - he should control his Yezter Hara, not separate himself from the people as "holier than thou."

So if a Nazir must atone for his separation, the Kohainim who live a separate existence, should also have to atone. Why don't they do so? Because every morning they demonstrate their love of the Jewish people by blessing them and doing so "B'Ahavah." And a Kohain who cannot bless the congregation with a full heart cannot give the Bracha. This is why Birkas Kohanim is here.

But what does this have to do with the sacrifices of the Nesi'im which dominates Parshas Nasso? The answer is that the sacrifices started on Rosh Chodesh Nissan, and each sacrifice had the law of a private sacrifice. How did they bring one on Shabbos - there are no personal sacrifices on Shabbos! The answer is that it is not a private sacrifice as all the Nesi'im agreed that they would bring the same sacrifice as part of a group. This is why it could be brought on Shabbos.

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 Bamidbar

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 Behag and the Gemara in Sotah calls Sefer Bamidbar - Chumash HaPikudim and in English its called the Book of Numbers. Why? Because the Sefer begins with a count of the Jews and in Parshas Pinchas at the end there is another count.

But if you asked the average person, what is the theme of the Sefer, you would not get a response that its about counting. People might mention the various troubles that befell the Jews or the challenges to Moshe. They might call it the Book of Troubles or Challenges, but why the Book of Numbers?

R' Frand quoted the Netziv in his preface to Sefer Bamidbar (as developed by R' Immanuel Bernstein) who states that the counting is fundamental to the entire Sefer Bamidbar. He begins by quoting a Medrash in Sefer Bereishis which states that each of the five Chumashim or hinted to in Sefer Bereishis. The pasuk which defines Sefer Bamidbar is Bereishis 1:4 wherein the Torah states  וַיַּבְדֵּ֣ל אֱלֹהִ֔ים בֵּ֥ין הָא֖וֹר וּבֵ֥ין הַחֽשֶׁךְ.

Why does this define Sefer Bamidbar? Because Torah is Ohr (light) and in Sefer Bamidbar, Hashem separated between light and darkness. When the Jews started their journey in the Sefer, the miracles were open and obvious - they had the Manna and the Clouds of Glory - Hashem's presence was as clear as the light of day. But at the end of the Sefer the Jews returned to normal life. 

The first census in Parshas Bamidbar they were in the period of light and open miracles. But when counted Parshas Pinchas at the end, the Jews were living a normal life. This can be seen even in the way that the Jews were counted as in Parshas Bamidbar, the Jews were counted as part of their formation as they marched in the desert as they escorted the Shechina. But in Parshas Pinchas they were simply counted by number as they were worried about their own protection, fought battles and had to worry about food and water. And the line of demarcation is Parshas Chukas.

The Netziv also observes that the order of counting Ephraim and Menashe were reversed. In Parshas Bamidbar, Ephraim is counted first as he was more spiritual. But in Parshas Pinchas, Menashe is counted first because they needed to get on with normal life.

The Netziv also opined that the Jews troubles in Sefer Bamdibar came from being impetuous - acting in a way that they believed that they were ready to move on and Hashem knew that it was not yet time. The Meraglim only became an issue because the Jews were raring to enter the land of Israel and felt that they needed intelligence.

R' Frand said a second vort on the name of the Nasi for Gad who in the beginning is called אֶלְיָסָ֖ף בֶּן־דְּעוּאֵֽל but later in Bamidbar 2:14 is called אֶלְיָסָ֖ף בֶּן־רְעוּאֵֽל. Why the name change?

R' Frand quoted the Chida who cites the Sefer Imrei Noam which notes that the four leading tribes for the marching in the desert were Yehuda, Reuven, Menashe and Dan. That Yehuda was a leader was due to the Melucha coming from him. Meanwhile, Reuven was the first born of Leah and Menashe was for Rachel (through Yosef). But Elyasaf as the prince of Gad could have complained since Dan was the first born of Bilha and Gad was the first born of Zilpah - why should Dan have that role instead of Gad?

But he did not complain and in so doing he went from someone who "knew" Hashem to someone who is a "friend" of Hashem, because not complaining and questioning Hashem is a way to be even closer ot 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!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshios Behar Bechukosai

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's first vort related to the mitzva of leaving the land fallow during Shemittah. He observed that those who keep Shmitta are called Giborei Koach - men of great strength, because especially in an agrarian economy where if you don't plant you don't eat, they relied on Hashem. He noted that Hashem promises that those who keep Shmitta will receive tremendous blessing, in that their crops from year six will sustain them in years six, seven and eight. It all comes down to a lesson in Bitachon.

R' Frand said that if there is one thing that the Mitzva of Shmitta teaches us, its that Hashem is in charge of our Parnassah, and that when we recite the Gemara that Hashem determines to the dime the Parnassah you will receive, it is 100% accurate. 

So why do people cheat on their taxes or in their businesses? R' Frand quoted a story where a person came in R' Schwalb and said that he wanted to do something in his business which was not quite honest. R' Schwalb then asked him who he was and the man said - "I'm a frum Jew." R' Scwalb responded - you are not a frum Jew if this is what you do.

R' Frand said that this is a great test, whether in overcharging or insurance claims or taxes. But if a person believes that Hashem computes our money from Rosh Hashanah, he would not do that.

R' Frand noted that R' Yaakov Kaminetsky was scrupulously honest and that it was fitting that his sefer is Emes L'Yaakov. He had a son named R' Nosson who wanted to see where his father's community was in Europe pre-war. He went to the community and was amazed to see that the Jews in this community in Lithuania survived the war. 

R' Nosson approached the mayor of the town and asked - can you tell me why the Jews survived the war? The mayor said - I will tell you exactly why. Before I was the mayor, I was the postmaster. I wanted to see whether the clergy members were honest - so when they bought stamps he would always provide more change then required, to see if they would return the change. And R' Yaakov would always return the extra change. The mayor remarked that he learned that Jews were honest, so when he learned that the Nazis would be taking an action, he would warn the Jews. They would run into the forest and hide until the Nazis left.

When R' Nosson came back to America and asked his father about the postmaster, R' Yaakov said, I can't remember the guy, but I do recall that he couldn't count.

R' Frand said another vort based on the pasuk at the end of the Tochacha in Vayikra 26:42 - וְזָֽכַרְתִּ֖י אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֣י יַֽעֲק֑וֹב, which is read out loud. The spelling of Yaakov is different than usual since there is a Vav at the end of his name where it usually does not appear.

Rashi notes that there are five times that Ya'akov is spelled with a Vuv and Eliyahu is spelled without a Vav. A prime example is the pasuk in Malachi 3:23 -הִנֵּ֚ה אָֽנֹכִי֙ שֹׁלֵ֣חַ לָכֶ֔ם אֵ֖ת אֵֽלִיָּ֣ה הַנָּבִ֑יא לִפְנֵ֗י בּוֹא י֣וֹם יְהֹוָ֔ה הַגָּד֖וֹל וְהַנּוֹרָֽא. Rashi 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 quoted the Maharal who highlights in the Gur Aryeh each of the five pesukim. Additionally, R' Frand quoted R' Eliyahu Mizrachi who states that the significance of the taking of the Vuv was like the five Chumshei Torah. But the Maharal 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. Ya'akov wanted a handshake so he took the five Vuvs so that they could shake on the deal that Eliyahu would come in the future to talk about the Moshiach coming in the future.

R' Frand closed the vort by noting that the Maharal explains that Eliyahu's purpose on the Earth is to redeem the Jews. Eliyahu's name cannot be complete until he fulfills his mission to redeem the 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!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Emor

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 22:29, the Torah states וְכִֽי־תִזְבְּח֥וּ זֶֽבַח־תּוֹדָ֖ה לַֽיהֹוָ֑ה לִרְצֹֽנְכֶ֖ם תִּזְבָּֽחוּ. In so doing, the Torah instructs that when offering a Karban Todah, a person should do so voluntarily.

R' Frand questioned why the Torah needed to make this instruction. When a person has something difficult happen to him - by example an illness which he is healed from, he naturally wants to thank Hashem for being healed. In the times of the Beis Hamikdash that would engender a Karban Todah and in our generation, a Seudas HaKaras HaTov. It would be more understandable that a person would be reluctant to bring a Karban Chatas which expiates a sin that he committed.

R' Frand answered by quoting the Ksav Sofer who writes that the Torah is teaching that the person needs to bring the sacrifice voluntarily admitting that he appreciates both the illness and the recovery. The person thus recognized that it is all from Hashem and that Hashem in His mercy gave the person the illness and the recovery.

R' Frand gave an illustration from a personal story where he was approached by someone who said that 17 years prior he had a child with Down's Syndrome. At the time it was very difficult to deal with, but now 17 years later he sees that child and her accomplishments as his greatest source of pride.

R' Frand also told a story about R' Boruch Sorotzkin who had cancer and was then healed from it (he later died when the cancer returned). He said that at the time that he had cancer he would have given a million dollars to be rid of it and that after he was healed, he would not have given away the experience of being sick and then healed for a million dollars.

R' Frand said a second vort about the Lechem HaPanim. The Gemara in Chaggigah states that after people were Oleh Regel on their very last day, the Kohanim would pick up the Shulchan to show them the Lechem HaPanim and its miracle that it stayed fresh and hot from the moment it was placed on the Shulchan until it was eaten a week later. In so doing they said to the people - see how much Hashem loves you.

R' Frand asked - but why was this the illustrative miracle? After all, Pirkei Avos lists many miracles that happened daily in the Beis Hamkidash, so why specifically was this miracle the symbol of Hashem's love for the Jewish people?

R' Frand answered by quoting R' Tzadok HaKohain M'Lublin who observed that the Lechem HaPanim consisted of 12 loaves - one for each tribe. This showed that Hashem loved each tribe equally - whether they were the Leviim who served in the Beis Hamikdash or the tribe of Zevulun who sailed the sea. 

R' Frand closed the vort by saying that this was why the Lechem HaPanim were shown as the Jews were leaving. Because its easy to love everyone when you are in the midst of celebrating as part of being Oleh Regel. But its entirely different to love members of another tribe when you return to your daily life.

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 Acharei Mos - Kedoshim

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 by quoting the Da'as Zekeinim M'Baalei HaTosafos which discusses the death of Nadav & Avihu. They cite a pasuk in Tehillim 78:63 - בַּֽחוּרָ֥יו אָֽכְלָה־אֵ֑שׁ וּ֜בְתוּלֹתָ֗יו לֹ֣א הוּלָּֽלוּ and apply it to the reason Aharon's sons died. They said about themselves - our father is the Kohain Gadol, our uncle is the leader of the Jews and another uncle is the Nasi of the tribe of Levi - we are too good for these women and they did not marry. As a result, they were consumed by fire because they did not praise the Besulos.

R' Frand remarked that there are times that a Bochur will not say yes to a potential Shidduch because they think too much of themselves. This is a Musar Haskel to the contrary.

R' Frand said a second vort on the pasuk in Vayikra 19:15 - לֹא־תַֽעֲשׂ֥וּ עָ֨וֶל֙ בַּמִּשְׁפָּ֔ט לֹֽא־תִשָּׂ֣א פְנֵי־דָ֔ל וְלֹ֥א תֶהְדַּ֖ר פְּנֵ֣י גָד֑וֹל בְּצֶ֖דֶק תִּשְׁפֹּ֥ט עֲמִיתֶֽךָ. Rashi learns from the end of the pasuk the concept of being Dan L'Kaf Zechus. 

R' Frand remarked that sometimes its hard to give the benefit of the doubt. He quoted the famous story in Gemara Shabbos 127b where a person had travelled from the south and had worked for a northern resident for three years. At the end of three years he asked for payment on Erev Yom Kippur so that he could return and provide for his family for the upcoming holiday. The employer had nothing to offer, be it money, produce, land, animals, etc. The employee returned home empty handed. 

Shortly after the holiday, the employer travelled to the south with three donkey laden with food, drink and delicacies, along with money for the employee. When he found the former employee he asked what the employee had thought when he had said that he had nothing to pay with. The Gemara breaks down each requested form of compensation and the excuse the employee had formulated in his head as to why the employer legitimately could not make payment. After the employer confirmed that each excuse was correct, he showered the employee with gifts and said to him - the same way that you gave me the benefit of the doubt, Hashem should do the same for you.

R' Frand then asked how can Hashem be Dan L'Kaf Zechus. When you see someone doing something which appears questionable, you can think about how he might be doing it for a legitimate purpose. But Hashem knows what and why the person is doing, so how can He be Dan L'Kaf Zechus.

R' Frand answered by quoting the Mishna in Pirkei Avos 1:6 - וֶהֱוֵי דָן אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם לְכַף זְכוּת: The Ba'al Shem Tov analyzes the words כָּל הָאָדָם and stated that this means that when judging a person, you need to know the entire story - where he came from, what is his background, what are the issues that he is facing presently, etc. The Bracha that was given by the employer was that Hashem should view the entire body of the employee's life in judging him and being Dan L'Kaf Zechus.

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 Tibits - Parshios Tazria-Metzorah

 Although R' Frand did not deliver his live shiur this evening, R' Frand did post a pre-recorded Parsha vort on OU Torah which I have summarized here. This week's vort can be found at https://outorah.org/p/223834 and I have attempted to reproduce the vort to the best of my ability in this post.  Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to the maggid shiur.

R' Frand began the vort by noting that Tzaraas is not leprosy as it is a spiritual ailment, not a physical one. It can manifest on one's house, or clothing, or body. R' Frand remarked that the Tzaraas is a message from Hashem and that if the person does not get the message when its on the house, it will then appear on the clothing. And if that message is not received, it will then wind up on the body.

R' Frand noted that the Torah's description of the issue begins by stating in Vayikra 13:2 אָדָ֗ם כִּי־יִֽהְיֶ֤ה בְעֽוֹר־בְּשָׂרוֹ֙ שְׂאֵ֤ת אֽוֹ־סַפַּ֨חַת֙ א֣וֹ בַהֶ֔רֶת וְהָיָ֥ה בְעֽוֹר־בְּשָׂר֖וֹ לְנֶ֣גַע צָרָ֑עַת. The use of the word אָדָ֗ם is curious as that is the highest form of reference to a human in the Torah, yet this person has Tzaraas because he did something wrong.

R' Frand quoted R' Nissim Alpert who explains that there are people who retain the title אָדָ֗ם even if that person has done something wrong. Although the Gemara in Erchin 16 lists the various sins that could trigger Tzaraas, this person still retains the supreme title of a human being. How do we see that? Because the end of the pasuk states about this person - וְהוּבָא֙ אֶל־אַֽהֲרֹ֣ן הַכֹּהֵ֔ן - he is brought to Aharon HaKohain. But who is bringing him?

R' Alpert used the example of someone with chest pains. If the person does not want to go to the doctor because he does not want to be told that he has a cardiac issue. Similarly a person with a toothache may not go to the dentist, because he does not want to hear what is really wrong.

The person with Tzaraas is brought to the Kohain, but he is brought by himself. He knows that something is wrong and that he needs to improve himself. This is why he is referred to as an אָדָ֗ם - because he is man enough to admit that he must have done something wrong and as such, he brings himself to the Kohain.

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 Vayikra

 Although R' Frand did not deliver his live shiur this evening, R' Frand did post a pre-recorded Parsha vort on OU Torah which I have summarized here. This week's vort can be found at https://outorah.org/p/221769 and I have attempted to reproduce the vort to the best of my ability in this post.  Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to the maggid shiur.

R' Frand noted that Sefer Vayikra is called Toras Kohanim because so much of it deals with the Karbanos. R' Frand observed that the parsha begins with a discussion of the Karbanos, but in the 5th Perek there is an elaboration on one who sins and his requirement to admit his son and then bring a Karban Asham.

The Torah's description of the Asham is multi leveled as in Vayikra 5:6 there is an option to bring a female sheep or lamb. But if he could not afford an animal, the Torah states in 5:7 the person can bring two birds - one as a Chatas and one as an Olah.

But why does he bring a different set of Karbanos if he cannot afford he animal? The Ibn Ezra explains that the person must have committed a second sin. The man thinks to himself - Hashem, its not fair that I can't afford a lamb. But having ill thoughts of Hashem is a separate sin which requires him to bring an Olah to atone for those thoughts.

But the Torah has a third level which is mentioned in Vayikra 5:11 which states that he brings a Chatas as a flour offering without oil. But this person does not bring an Olah - just the flour offering. 

The question can be asked - if the person who brings the bird offering is required to bring an Olah because of his thoughts, then certainly the man who brings the flour offering should bring as well? 

R' Frand quoted the Chiddah who explains that when a man is in pain, we don't hold his words against him. So the man who is in the intermediate level has to bring the Olah, but for the man who is severely indigent and pained about his position, Hashem says - I won't hold his words against him. Thus the man only brings the flour offering.

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 Pikudei + A Little Relish

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand in his shiur this evening as well a vort he said on this week's parsha last Thursday night. 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.

Last week R' Frand concluded his shiur with a vort on Pikudei - specifically Shemos 38:24 -  כָּל־הַזָּהָ֗ב הֶֽעָשׂוּי֙ לַמְּלָאכָ֔ה בְּכֹ֖ל מְלֶ֣אכֶת הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ. R' Frand quoted the Medrash Rabbah on Tehillim in which Resh Lakish said that there was no reason that gold needed to be created? Why do we need it - just to buy our wife jewelry, we could but something else as a present! The Medrash answered that it was created solely for the Beis Hamikdash. 

Yet, gold was actually first mentioned in Parshas Bereishis. So why were people aware of it from the beginning if it was only needed for the Beis Hamikdash? Because there are certain things in the world that the world can live without, but it has a purpose for something holy and for that it was worthwhile to be created from the beginning.

R' Frand said that we are all aware of the pitfalls of technologically. Why were these created? So that a person can learn Daf Yomi anywhere in the world. And a person with no background can listen to a shiur on any topic. Technologically was not created for us to waste our time - it was created so that people can learn Torah.

R' Frand closed this vort by telling a story about R' Kalefsky (sp?). His wife did not drive and he would drive his wife to the local supermarket (Giant). R' Frand once bumped into him there and R' Kalefsky said - let me tell you a vort. He proceeded to tell the vort as if they were in the Beis Medrash and not the supermarket. R' Kalefsky then said to him "the whole reason that Giant was created was so that I could tell you that vort."

Tonight's vort related to a "neglected" [my word] element of the Seder table - the Charoses. The Mishna in Pesachim quoted R' Elazar B'Rav Tzadok who states that Charoses is a Mitzva. It then provides two reasons for the Charoses - R' Levi states that it is to remember the apples in Egypt and R' Yochanan states that it is to remember the mortar. Abaye then states that you need to add both apples to provide a tang and it needs to be thick to remember the mortar.

The remembrance of the mortar is to recall the Shibud, as the Maharal states that there was no harder work then making the mortar. On the other hand, the apple is a recollection of how the Jewish women delivered their babies in the orchard under the apple trees - as referred to in the pasuk in Shir HaShirim. 

The Rashbam in Sotah discusses how the women would go out to their husbands in the fields and bring them buckets of warm water and fish. They would lie together and the women would become pregnant. They would return home until it was time to deliver, at which point they would return to the fields to deliver. Hashem would send down angels to act as midwives and assist the delivery and then the angels would care for the babies.

R' Frand then quoted R' Yerucham Olshan who asks - how can you have two seemingly contradictory themes represented in the Charoses? He answered by quoting the famous vort on Yosef being taken down to Egypt in a caravan which brought sweet spices. Rashi explains that the reason for this was that Hashem was showing the reward for Tzaddikim. While the merchants usually carried oil, Hashem did not want Yosef to suffer by having that smell with him.

But do you think that Yosef thought that being sold as a slave in Egypt would not be so bad if the trip down the river (literally) had an air freshener? R' Frand compared this to being in prison, but given a great pillow.

R' Frand quoted R' Mordechai Pogromansky who answers that this was a way for Hashem to show that He still loves Yosef, even though Yosef was going down to Egypt as a slave.

R' Olshan states that this is the same reason for the apple and mortar aspects of the Charoses. It may have seemed to them that they had been abandoned during their 210 years in Egypt. But Hashem showed them open miracles to demonstrate that He still cared.

R' Frand closed the vort by saying that we have been seeing this in our time over the last sixteen months. While we have seen the horrible events and how the hostages are still being held. But we are also seeing miracles such as the pagers, the bombs on the buses which did not go off, the downfall of Hezbollah and Syria. The situation seems dire, but we can see the Yad Hashem. This is why R' Elazar states that Charoses is a Mitzva and it is to remember both the mortar and the apples - the sweetness as well as the pain.

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 Vayakhel

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand's first vort related to the concept of Tzedakah. He noted that in Shemos 35:21 the Torah states וַיָּבֹ֕אוּ כָּל־אִ֖ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־נְשָׂא֣וֹ לִבּ֑וֹ. However the following pasuk states וַיָּבֹ֥אוּ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֖ים עַל־הַנָּשִׁ֑ים כֹּ֣ל | נְדִ֣יב לֵ֗ב הֵ֠בִ֠יאוּ חָ֣ח וָנֶ֜זֶם וְטַבַּ֤עַת וְכוּמָז֙ כָּל־כְּלִ֣י זָהָ֔ב וְכָל־אִ֕ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֥ר הֵנִ֛יף תְּנוּפַ֥ת זָהָ֖ב . Rashi explains that the reference to the women in the second pasuk shows their devotion to the Mishkan as they gave up their jewelry. But not only that, but they wore the jewelry until they got to the place to donate.

R' Frand quoted R' Moshe Feinstein who said that the women were trying to emphasize that this is not spare jewelry that had gone out of style. R' Frand quipped that the jewelry people are smart and certain designs go out of style. But here, the women were showing that the jewelry was being worn at the time. 

R' Frand said that when he was first marred and R' Frand was learning in Kollel, his wife made a quilt for his mother-in-law. They did not have money, but they wanted to show that she was important.

R' Frand next quoted Shemos 35:25 - וְכָל־אִשָּׁ֥ה חַכְמַת־לֵ֖ב בְּיָדֶ֣יהָ טָו֑וּ וַיָּבִ֣יאוּ מַטְוֶ֗ה אֶֽת־הַתְּכֵ֨לֶת֙ וְאֶת־הָ֣אַרְגָּמָ֔ן אֶת־תּוֹלַ֥עַת הַשָּׁנִ֖י וְאֶת־הַשֵּֽׁשׁ. There was no fabric store for them to buy fabric, so this was significant. But the next pasuk - וְכָ֨ל־הַנָּשִׁ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר נָשָׂ֥א לִבָּ֛ן אֹתָ֖נָה בְּחָכְמָ֑ה טָו֖וּ אֶת־הָֽעִזִּֽים as interpreted by the Gemara in Shabbos shows that the women spun and weaved while the hairs were still on the goats. This required an entire group as someone had to hold the goat down. There are various meforshim who explain the reason for this - either that there was extra sheen while the hair was still on the goat or so that it could not be Mikabel Tumah. 

R' Frand said that the efforts above show how important giving Tzedakah was to these women. R' Frand tied this to a story written about by R' Mordechai Kaminetsky about an Israel Bonds dinner that was held in Chicago in 1951 at which Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion was to speak. The dinner was attended by the "best and finest" and was pure treif, replete with shellfish. There were no yarmulkes in the room, save for a man standing in the back who was decked out in Chassidish garb. This was R' Mendel Kaplan who was a Rosh Yeshiva in Skokie 

One of the wealthier attendees who was also a donor to the yeshiva asked R' Mendel what he was doing there. He said that I came to see how the children of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov give Tzedakah.

R' Frand said that there is an addendum to the story. When they heard Ben Gurion speak about the dire situation in Israel, they lined up to donate - but the men also took off their gold cufflinks and the women gave their diamond earrings.

R' Frand also said that there were some people who would not be caught dead at the dinner with its tref food. But R' Mendel wanted to be there, just so that he could see how Jews gave Tzedakah.

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 (Non) Purim Torah

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Daniel Glatstein in a shiur on Torah Anytime (https://torahanytime.com/lectures/353913) on Purim a few weeks ago. This is not a literal transcription but just a summary of some of the shiur that I found meaningful. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Glatstein.

The shiur focused on a question about a pasuk in the Megillah (7:4) כִּ֤י נִמְכַּ֨רְנוּ֙ אֲנִ֣י וְעַמִּ֔י לְהַשְׁמִ֖יד לַֽהֲר֣וֹג וּלְאַבֵּ֑ד וְ֠אִלּ֠וּ לַֽעֲבָדִ֨ים וְלִשְׁפָח֤וֹת נִמְכַּ֨רְנוּ֙ הֶֽחֱרַ֔שְׁתִּי כִּ֣י אֵ֥ין הַצָּ֛ר שֹׁוֶ֖ה בְּנֶ֥זֶק הַמֶּֽלֶךְ. Why is it that Esther offered that if only the Jews had been sold into slavery, she would have kept quiet?

To address this, R' Glatstein began with an analysis of why the Jews were punished in the Purim story. He quoted the Gemara in Megillah where R' Shimon Bar Yochai asked his students why the Jews were punished. They offered that it was because they ate at the party, but he responded - then only the Jews of Shushan should have been punished. They suggested that it was because they bowed down to Nevuchadnezzar, but he responded - then they should have killed then. He then answered that they did not mean to serve idols, it was done outwardly, for the same reason the decree in Purim was outwardly.

However there is 3rd sin which was the cause of the Purim story. R' Glatstein quoted the Sefer Zecher Dovid from R' Dovid of Modina - the two in the Gemara and the third is Mechiras Yosef. This concept is also found in Medrash Rabbah on Esther (3:15)  וְהַמֶּ֤לֶךְ וְהָמָן֙ יָֽשְׁב֣וּ לִשְׁתּ֔וֹת וְהָעִ֥יר שׁוּשָׁ֖ן נָבֽוֹכָה. The Medrash states that anyone who thinks Hashem overlooks sin, Hashem will overlook their life. Hashem said to the tribes - you sold Yosef and were eating and drinking - this will happen now. But why? Yosef was mochel them! 

The Yalkut Shimoni gives the same reason as does the Alshich. The Chida explains why now the punishment came for Mechiras Yosef and not at some point during the thousand plus years between Mechiras Yosef and Purim. He begins by noting that the hatzalah had to come from Binyamin (Esther/Mordechai) because they were not involved in Mechiras Yosef. He also quoted the Medrash that when the decree came in the Purim story, Eliyahu HaNavi went to wake up Moshe to ask him to pray for them to be saved, because Moshe is most deeply connected with Yosef. He also observed that when the Jews were saved in the Megillah (7:10) - וַֽחֲמַ֥ת הַמֶּ֖לֶךְ שָׁכָֽכָה - the Gematria of שָׁכָֽכָה is the same as Moshe.

R' Glatstein then went through the numerous parallelisms between Parshas Mikeitz and Megillas Esther. The reason for this connection is that the sin of Mechiras Yosef was the cause of the decree.

But why now? He quoted the Sefer Zera Berech who explains that the meat at the party was Ever Min HaChai and Gilui Arayos was going on at the party. These were the same issues that the brothers had before the sale of Yosef. He also quoted the Shvilei Pinchas who said that while Yosef forgave his brothers, but when the sin which was the cause happens again in the generation - the punishment is reawakened. Haman pointed out in Esther 3:8 - יֶשְׁנ֣וֹ עַם־אֶחָ֗ד מְפֻזָּ֤ר וּמְפֹרָד֙ and when Haman pointed out that the Jews were not getting along it reawakened the punishment.

When Moshe was reawakened by Eliyahu HaNavi he asked whether the decree was written in cement or in blood? Eliyahu responds that it was in cement. R' Glatstein told a story of an Ani who came to R' Chaim Volozhner and asked for Tzedakah. He gave a coin and then the Ani asked for an additional coin and promised a dvar Torah that R' Chaim had never heard. He explained - how do we see that the decree was not in blood - because it states יִכָּתֵ֖ב לְאַבְּדָ֑ם - which can be read Lo B'Dam. And after he gave him the coin, R' Chaim realized that he was Eliyahu HaNavi.

But what was the debate? For over 1000 years the Jews had a question about whether they would be responsible for throwing Yosef into a cement pit or for his blood? Because if someone is sold into captivity it is like killing them. And Eliyahu said no - its only cement.

And this is what Esther tells Achasveros - we know that we should be punished with cement - that we should be sold into slavery for Yosef being sold. But now that the decree is that we should be killed - for that I can't keep my mouth shut. Esther is disclosing to him - we know that we did something wrong by selling him and if we had been sold, it would be deserved. But if they are coming for our blood, for that I can't.

R' Glatstein noted that Haman is also called  מְמֻכָ֗ן which the gematria is the same as Yosef. And when Haman paid his Sheklaim he is reawakening the punishment for Mechiras Yosef. So we give Machtzis HaShekel to show that each person is incomplete and two halves make us whole.

R' Glatstein also quoted a Yerushalmi which quotes Resh Lakish who states that Pidyon Haben is to atone for Mechiras Yosef because each of the tribes took a coin for the sale of Yosef. And similarly Resh Lakish is quoted in Medrash Tanchuma as stating that the Machtzis HaShekel is to atone for the sale of Yosef. These Shekalim that we collect and read about on Rosh Chodesh Adar is to be in advance of Haman's giving of the Shekalim to Achasverosh.

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 Tezaveh

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 Zevachim 88b which teaches that the reason that the laws of the clothing of the Kohain Gadol are near the laws of the sacrifices is to teach that just as the sacrifices atone, so do the clothes. The Gemara notes that the Ketones atones for murder, the Mitznefes for haughtiness, the Avnet for improper desires, the Choshen for improper judgments, the Efod for idol worship and the Me'il for Lashon Hara. R' Chanina then comments that a device with a voice (the bells on the bottom of the Me'il) will atone for sins of the voice.

The Torah tells us that the bottom of the Meil had bells and pomegranates which made the noise when the Kohain Gadol walked. But since the noise came from the bells - and the sound was a lesson that we should be careful with how we use our voice, what was the need for the pomegranates?

R' Frand quoted R' Immanuel Bernstein who cited the Gemara which states that Jews are compared to pomegranates in that even those who seem to be "empty" are as filled with Mitzvos as pomegranates.

R' Frand then noted that Lashon Hara comes from the eye and the heart and not the mouth. If you see someone who appears to be "empty," think about the pomegranate and realize that he is full of Mitzvos.

R' Frand also quoted R' Moshe Galanti who noted that the end of the Parsha contains the Mitzva of making the Mizbeach HaKetores. But why is the construction of this device here in Tezaveh as opposed to in Terumah where the instructions for fashioning the other objects is found? He answered that if any of the other devices were moved and then used in the wrong location in the Mishkan, they would not accomplish their task. This applies to items such as the Mizbeach where sacrifices were brought or the Menorah. But the Mizbeach HaKetores would still be effective, even if was in the wrong place. 

This is why it it seemingly mentioned in the "wrong" Parsha.

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 Mishpatim

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's first vort contained an interesting take on Shemos 21:35 - וְכִֽי־יִגֹּ֧ף שֽׁוֹר־אִ֛ישׁ אֶת־שׁ֥וֹר רֵעֵ֖הוּ וָמֵ֑ת. He quoted the Ibn Ezra which in turn cited "Ben Zuta" who said that the ox referred to as being the victim was not the ox of the owner's friend. Instead the word רֵעֵ֖הוּ referred to the aggressor - this ox was friends with the ox that gored it! To this the Ibn Ezra remarked - Ben Zuta has no friends, only oxen.

R' Frand quoted R' Hutner who explained that the word רֵעֵ֖הוּ is like the word Teruah. In the context of Rosh Hashanah, the Teruah is like a cry and it is the focal point of the shofar blowing as it is bracketed by two Peshutahs - the Tekiyas. Was the connection between רֵעֵ֖הוּ and the Teruah? A friend will not only tell you things that you want to hear. Instead, the friend will tell you when you are mistaken and will help you be a better person. This is why the Ibn Ezra criticized Ben Zuta - because an ox is incapable of being a friend. 

R' Frand tied this into the bracha in Sheva Brochos - Sameach Tisamach Reim HaAhuvim. He said that when a couple marries they become both Ahuvim and Reim (friends). You should be able to rely on your spouse to tell you when something you are doing is wrong (although its not a good idea to tell that to your newlywed spouse during Sheva Brachos).

R' Frand said a second vort on the pasuk in Shemos 22:30 - וְאַנְשֵׁי־קֹ֖דֶשׁ תִּֽהְי֣וּן לִ֑י וּבָשָׂ֨ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֤ה טְרֵפָה֙ לֹ֣א תֹאכֵ֔לוּ לַכֶּ֖לֶב תַּשְׁלִכ֥וּן אֹתֽוֹ. R' Frand commented that this is the source from which we learn about Kashrus, but why is linked to being Kodesh?

R' Frand quoted the Ramban who explains that the laws of Kashrus are not based on health but instead are related to our spiritual health. He next cited the Netziv who explains that the reason we don't eat the Terefah is not health related as the animal was not sickly, it was torn apart by a predator. The reason we don't eat it is that it is bad for our Neshama.

R' Frand also noted that the halachos of Ma'achalos Asuros in the Rambam can be found in Kedusah.

R' Frand closed the vort by quoting R' Shmuel Birnbaum who explains why the laws of Terefah are mentioned with being Kodesh and with throwing the carcass to the dogs. We know that the dog receives the carcass as reward for not barking when the Jews left Egypt, but it should be noted that their silence was not voluntary. But this is the specific reason that we do give them the carcass - because the dogs wanted to bark and they were pained that they could not. We compensate them for their pain by giving them the carcasses, because a Kodesh person is concerned about everyone's feelings, even a dog.

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 Yisro

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 was based on the writings of R' Immanuel Bernstein and related to the last of the Aseres Hadibros - Lo Sachmod. R' Frand quoted the Ibn Ezra who writes that many people have trouble with this mitzva. How can they be told not to be jealous when they see that someone else has something? The Ibn Ezra used a parable - there was a poor villager who sees the princess. He does not desire her, because he knows that it is impossible for a villager to marry the princess. Similarly, a man is not jealous of birds that they can fly. So too, a person who thinks, should realize that everything that he does not have is because Hashem does not want him to have it.

R' Frand said that this mitzva is about Emunah - what you have is what Hashem wants you to have and what you don't - it is because He does not want you to have it.

R' Frand also quoted the Medrash Rabbah on Parshas Kedoshim which provides a different view of this mitzva. The Medrash writes that Kedoshim was said at Hakhel, because the Aseres HaDibros are all contained or referenced in Parshas Kedoshim. But while the first 9 Dibros are easily found in Kedoshim, where do we see Lo Sachmod? וְאָֽהַבְתָּ֥ לְרֵֽעֲךָ֖ כָּמ֑וֹךָ - because if you really love someone, you are not jealous of what they have.

R' Frand compared it to the way that a person feels about their child - a parent is not jealous of what his child has, because he loves the child. And if you really love the other person, you won't be jealous of what they have.

R' Frand next quoted the Kotsker Rebbi who analyzes the Mishna in Pirkei Avos which asks - who is wealthy - one who is happy "B'Chelko." The Kotsker Rebbi reads the word B'Chelko as not referring to a person being happy with his own lot. Instead he reads it as being happy that his friend has his own lot.

R' Frand said a second vort also from R' Bernstein in connection with the miztvos that come after the Aseres Hadibros in Shemos 20:20-23 in which the Jews are told not to use metal to build their Mizbeach, not to make other gods and not to walk on steps to the Mizbeach.

These mitzvos are preceded by the statement  אַתֶּ֣ם רְאִיתֶ֔ם כִּ֚י מִן־הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם דִּבַּ֖רְתִּי עִמָּכֶֽם - Hashem reminds them that He spoke directly to them, unlike any other religion where their "prophet" was the only one to speak with the "god" of that religion. And then the Torah references these three mitzvos, but why these three?

R' Bernstein explains that the Aseres Hadibros could be viewed as something that people deem logical or known. I understand that I should not kill, or worship another deity or commit adultery. But these three mitzvos show the sensitivity that a person should have. Yes - you may know not to kill, but you need to be so sensitive to this, that you don't use metal when cutting the stones that will be used in the Mizbeach.. You may know not to worship other "gods" but Hashem is proscribing making images of other "gods." Similarly, you understand not to commit adultery, but the Torah is saying don't walk on steps up to a Mizbeach so that covered areas are not revealed.

R' Frand quoted Rashi on the last pasuk in which Rashi states that opening up ones steps is being insensitive to the stones. And this is an a fortiori argument - stones don't feel disgrace, but still don't act with them in a disrespectful manner and how much more so with another person.

R' Bernstein asks why Rashi uses this Derush explanation? He answers that the take away from the Aseres Hadibros is not just the actual commandments - its that a person should act in a manner that there is not even a glimmer of this in your daily life. 

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 Beshalach

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 Shemos 14:3, the Torah states וְאָמַ֤ר פַּרְעֹה֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל נְבֻכִ֥ים הֵ֖ם בָּאָ֑רֶץ סָגַ֥ר עֲלֵיהֶ֖ם הַמִּדְבָּֽר - that Pharaoh told the Jewish people that they are trapped in the land. The famous question is - who did Pharaoh tell this to, as the Jews had left already.

The pashut pshat as said by many meforshim (including Rashi) is that Pharaoh said this about the Jews and not to them. But the Targum Yonasan Ben Uziel explains that Pharaoh said this to Dasan and Aviram, who had not left yet.

R' Frand asked - if Dasan and Aviram were such evil people that they did not leave with Moshe, how were they still around? These were Moshe's historical antagonists, yet we read about them later in the Torah so they obviously got out. Why did they merit to get out of Egypt, when 80% of the Jews did not make it out of Egypt (and died in Choshech) because of their evil nature?

R' Frand quoted the Maharal Diskin who explains that Dasan & Aviram's merit was that they were among the nogsim - the taskmaster/enforcers who were in charge of the Jews in Egypt. These were like the Kapos in the concentration camps who had to carry out the orders of the Nazis on their fellow Jews. Except, in Egypt, these people were beaten by the Egyptians when the Jews did not meet their quotas as they refused to take it out on their brothers. The nogsim (elsewhere known as shotrim) not only took it on the chin, they they took it on their back.. In that zechus and because of their empathy for their fellow Jews because they got hit to prevent people from being beaten, they merited getting out of Egypt.

R' Frand next asked - how did Dasan and Aviram make it out of Egypt? When could they have left, if Pharaoh was talking to them and the Jews are already gone?

He answered by quoting the Be'er Mayim Chaim which analyzes Shemos 15:19 which states  כִּ֣י בָא֩ ס֨וּס פַּרְעֹ֜ה בְּרִכְבּ֤וֹ וּבְפָֽרָשָׁיו֙ בַּיָּ֔ם וַיָּ֧שֶׁב יְהֹוָ֛ה עֲלֵהֶ֖ם אֶת־מֵ֣י הַיָּ֑ם וּבְנֵ֧י יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל הָֽלְכ֥וּ בַיַּבָּשָׁ֖ה בְּת֥וֹךְ הַיָּֽם  - that Pharaoh's horse came into the sea and the Jews walked on dry land. This seems to be out of order. First the Jews went into dry land in the sea and then Pharaoh's horse followed them in!

R' Frand explained that according to the Be'er Mayim Chayim that there was a second Krias Yamsuf. When Dasan & Aviram got there, the sea had already closed up after Pharaoh and his horse went in. But because they had a great zechus, Hashem made a second Krias Yamsuf and they walked into the sea on dry land.

So why and when did they meet their end? R' Frand said that Dasan & Aviram challenged Moshe because they thought - he had a Krias Yam Suf which required 600,000 people and we had one which we merit on our own. We have more z'chusim than Moshe. But of course they were wrong.

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 Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Bo

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha last evening (due to being on the West Coast 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.

Rabbi Frand began by quoting the Tolner Rebbi who states that there is a specific aspect of Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim that Hashem wants us to speak about with our families. In Shemos 10:2 the Torah states וּלְמַ֡עַן תְּסַפֵּר֩ בְּאָזְנֵ֨י בִנְךָ֜ וּבֶן־בִּנְךָ֗ אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁ֤ר הִתְעַלַּ֨לְתִּי֙ בְּמִצְרַ֔יִם . The meforshim explain that this is Hashem making a mockery of Egypt and Pharaoh himself. There are numerous times that the meforshim call Pharaoh a Rasha based on certain acts that he took. One of the primary examples is that Pharaoh used to bathe in the blood of Jewish children, which is an extreme beyond even what the Nazis did. Similarly, there is a well known Medrash that when the Egytians ran out of bricks they used Jewish children in place of the missing brick.

In Mishlei there is a pasuk which Rashi translates as referring to Pharaoh as a Letz. Pharaoh would make women do men's work which was a torture for them as the work was back breaking. But he also made men do women's work as it was degrading and it led the children of Egypt to laugh at the men. 

R' Frand quoted a Gemara which states that when Hashem punishes someone, the punishment is Middah K'Neged Middah - it is particularly appropriate for the wrong that was committed.

R' Frand demonstrated the concept of the Middah K'Neged Middah as on the night of Makas Bechoros, Pharaoh went looking for Moshe and the Jewish children would joke with him and tell him that Moshe was in this house and then when he got there, he did not find him and then they told him that Moshe was in a different house.

This was the way that it happened in Mitzrayim and this is the way that it will be in the future.

R' Frand said a second vort related to Makkas Choshech. Rashi explains that the reason that this Makkah came was because there were Jews that did not want to leave Egypt and while Hashem wanted to kill them, He did not want them to die publicly so that the Egyptians could not say that the Jews were dying in the same way.

R' Frand noted that while we don't know who the Jews were who died in Choshech, but we do know that Dasan and Aviram did not. The Rosh states that this a proof that while they were evil, they did want to leave. Instead, the Jews who did not want to leave were "sugar daddies" who received payments and had positions of stature and did not want to lose their power.

R' Frand quoted R' Moshe Shternbuch who observed that the Geulah in the future will be much like the redemption from Egypt. If there are people in the future who don't want to leave, they will also not be the subject of the ultimate Geulah.

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 Vaera

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 noting that the four Leshonos of Geulah are found in Shemos 6:6-8 and that these Leshonos correspond with the four cups of wine at the Seder. R' Frand then highlighted that the first and fourth of the Leshonos are joined with the word סִבְלֹ֣ת although the first time it is mentioned it is spelled סִבְלֹ֣ת it is spelled without a Vuv and the final time its spelled סִבְל֥וֹת with a Vuv.

R' Frand quoted the Sefer Be'er Yosef who explained that when spelled without the Vuv it appears singular and when it is spelled with a Vuv it appears to be multiple sufferings. He then stated that the first suffering that was mentioned was physical - they had pain from the back breaking labor. But at the same time they were suffering spiritually and were losing what it meant to be a descendant of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaa'kov. R' Frand referenced the famous Zohar which states that when the Jews left Egypt they were on the 49th level of Tumah. But while people are aware of their physical pain, they are not aware that they are slipping spiritually, because they don't have the time or bandwidth to be focusing on their spiritual slide.

R' Frand remarked that although there are stories of people in the Holocaust who were Moser Nefesh to observe mitzvos such as lighting Chanukah candles or making Matzos. But these are exceptional people and not the norm.

R' Frand then noted that when the Torah states that the Jews will be taken out - וְהָיִ֥יתִי לָכֶ֖ם לֵֽאלֹהִ֑ים וִֽידַעְתֶּ֗ם כִּ֣י אֲנִ֤י יְהֹוָה֙ אֱלֹ֣הֵיכֶ֔ם הַמּוֹצִ֣יא אֶתְכֶ֔ם מִתַּ֖חַת סִבְל֥וֹת מִצְרָֽיִם - it is indicative that Hashem is aware of the spiritual decline and that He will take them out anyway. 

R' Frand linked this to Shemos 2:23-24 where the Torah states וַתַּ֧עַל שַׁוְעָתָ֛ם אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים מִן־הָֽעֲבֹדָֽה followed by וַיִּשְׁמַ֥ע אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶת־נַֽאֲקָתָ֑ם וַיִּזְכֹּ֤ר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־בְּרִית֔וֹ אֶת־אַבְרָהָ֖ם אֶת־יִצְחָ֥ק וְאֶת־יַֽעֲקֹֽב. Hashem was not only thinking about their physical pain, but Hashem knew that they were suffering a physical and spiritual pain and decline. But only after Hashem took them out did they know that they had slipped.

R' Frand said a second vort on the plague of blood. He noted that in Shemos 7:23 the Torah states that וַיִּ֣פֶן פַּרְעֹ֔ה וַיָּבֹ֖א אֶל־בֵּית֑וֹ וְלֹא־שָׁ֥ת לִבּ֖וֹ גַּם־לָזֹֽאת . But why was Pharaoh not bothered by the plague?

R' Frand quoted the Meshech Chachma who quoted the Medrash which states that when Jews and Egyptians took water from the same source the Jew had water and the Egyptian had blood. And this repeated itself even if they took water from the same basin or even if they both drank from the same cup at the same time. The Medrash further states that the Egyptians did not get to drink water until they paid the Jews for it.

But why did Pharaoh not have a problem? The Meshech Chachma explains that the plague was not in Pharaoh's house. Why? Because the Egyptians had to pay back the Jews, but not Pharaoh, because the Jews owed him money. He raised Moshe from an infant to a teenager and it costs money to raise a child! 

R' Frand gave a parallel to illustrate - a kidnapper takes a child and raises him from an infant until he is rescued 10 years later. Would anyone think that the kidnapper should be released because he paid for diapers and clothes and food for 10 years? Of course not.

Meanwhile, Pharaoh only was raising Moshe because Pharaoh's own decree that the babies would be thrown in the Yam Suf required that Moshe be taken from the home where he was found by Basya. And still he does not have to pay for the water because he raised Moshe.

R' Frand tied this to his thought on last week's parsha that every parsha has an element of HaKaras HaTov, as here we see that even for a kidnapper we have to show HaKaras HaTov.

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 Shemos

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 was based on the Tolner Rebbi and analyzed Moshe's "dialogue" when he observed the Sneh. When Moshe first observes the Sneh, Moshe says in Shemos 3:3 וַיֹּ֣אמֶר משֶׁ֔ה אָסֻֽרָה־נָּ֣א. But who was Moshe talking to? And why did he say נָּ֣א which means please? Who was he asking permission from? And in the next pasuk Hashem observes וַיַּ֥רְא יְהֹוָ֖ה כִּ֣י סָ֣ר לִרְא֑וֹת. But why is it significant that Moshe went to see the Sneh - its not every day that one sees something like that - so of course he went to look.

Before answering these questions, R' Frand quoted the Rabbeinu Ephraim who comments on the pasuk in Shemos 2:14 where Moshe says אָכֵ֖ן נוֹדַ֥ע הַדָּבָֽר - now I understand why the Jews are being treated this way. They are informers and they speak Lashon Hara, so I understand why they are being treated this way and that they will never get out of Egypt.

Following this event which took place when Moshe was between 12-19 according to the Ramban, and Moshe does not return to Egypt until he was 80. During this time Moshe ran to many different countries, because he was convinced that the Jews would die in Egypt and that they would never get out. And for the next 60 years he runs, until he winds up in Midyan. But he is constantly thinking - what is the future of the Jews - it wont be these people.

And then Moshe sees the Sneh and he says - Hashem is talking to me as the Sneh must be a metaphor for the Jews. And when Moshe says that he is going to look, he is saying to himself. maybe I was wrong about the Jews. He says this out loud because he needs to convince himself that he was wrong and this is why he says please. Once he does see it, Hashem observes that Moshe changes his mind and admits that he was wrong - and this requires great will. This is what makes him worthy of being a leader, as he admits that he was wrong.'

We also see this quality in Yehudah as he admits that he was wrong about Tamar. This is why Ya'akov gives the Melucha to Yehuda - because a great leader needs to admit that he was wrong.

R' Frand said a second vort based on a Mechilta which discusses how before Moshe marries Tzipporah, Yisro makes him swear that he will give his first born son to be a priest for idol worshio. And Moshe surprisingly agrees and makes a vow as it says in Shemos 2:21 וַיּ֥וֹאֶל משֶׁ֖ה.

R' Frand quoted R' Elya Svei who wonders why Moshe wanted to marry Tzipporah in the first place as she was the daughter of the pope of Midyan and why Moshe swore that he would give up his first born son.

R' Frand answered by quoting the Targum Yonasan Ben Uziel who says that when Moshe fled Egypt and came to Midyan, Re'uel the father of Yisro throws him in a pit for 10 years, lest Pharaoh find out and think that he had been giving Moshe shelter. During that entire 10 years Tzipporah brought Moshe food and drink morning and night. Once Moshe was released he came to Re'uel and saw the Mateh and took it from Re'uel's garden. And then he married Tzipporah. Why? Because he had HaKaras HaTov for all that she did. And he had no concern with Yisro's vow, because he knew that one day Yisro would come to the Jews after Matan Torah and he would forgive the vow.

R' Frand observed that there are three instances of HaKaras HaTov in this story. Moshe marries Tzipporah out of gratitude. And when Moshe shows up, the daughters say  אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י הִצִּילָ֖נוּ, but this does not refer to Moshe. Its the Egyptian who was beating the Jew who saved us as because of that incident, Moshe fled and came to Midyan. And finally when they tell the story, Yisro says  וְאַיּ֑וֹ לָ֤מָּה זֶּה֙ עֲזַבְתֶּ֣ן אֶת־הָאִ֔ישׁ קִרְאֶ֥ן ל֖וֹ וְיֹ֥אכַל לָֽחֶם. How can you let him save you and leave him outside - bring him in and let him eat.

R' Frand summarized that because of Tzipporah's acts and Yisro's vision and direction, Moshe married "well below his station" and Yisro got "the best bochur in Lakewood as a son in law."

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 Vayechi

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 Gemara in Berachos 13b states that R' Yehuda HaNasi would cover his eyes when he said Shema in order to accept Ol Malchus Shamayim. R' Frand said that this is the standard source for why we cover our eyes while saying Shema - so that we won't be distracted.

R' Frand then quoted a Zohar on Parshas Vayigash relating to Bereishis 46:4. Ya'akov had concerns about going down to Egypt as he saw it as a place teeming with Zima. Hashem said to him אָֽנֹכִ֗י אֵרֵ֤ד עִמְּךָ֙ מִצְרַ֔יְמָה וְאָֽנֹכִ֖י אַֽעַלְךָ֣ גַם־עָלֹ֑ה וְיוֹסֵ֕ף יָשִׁ֥ית יָד֖וֹ עַל־עֵינֶֽיךָ. The first part of the pasuk can be simply understood that Hashem told him that Hashem will accompany him down to Egypt and when he is brought back for burial in Canaan. But what is the meaning of Yosef putting his hand on Ya'akov's eyes?

The Zohar states that these words are the secret of Krias Shema. The Shuut Kol Aryeh explains this cryptic statement by quoting a Gemara in Pesachim 50 which asks what is the meaning of the pasuk in Zecharya 14:9 -  וְהָיָ֧ה יְהֹוָ֛ה לְמֶ֖לֶךְ עַל־כָּל־הָאָ֑רֶץ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֗וּא יִֽהְיֶ֧ה יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶחָ֖ד וּשְׁמ֥וֹ אֶחָֽד? Is there a time that Hashem was not One? 

The Gemara answers in the name of R' Acha Bar Chanina that this world is not like the World to Come. In this world when something good happens we say HaTov V'Hametiv, but when tragedy occurs we say Boruch Dayan HaEmes. But in Olam Haba we will say HaTov V'Hametiv on everything. How is this possible? Because in this world we see good events and bad events, because our perspective on how things occur is limited by time and space.

But in Olam Haba we will have a different perspective and things that seem bad, we will understand why Hashem did certain things. Therefore in Olam Haba it is HaTov V'Hametiv on everything.

In this world we say Shema every morning and night. But the pasuk seems to conflict as we invoke Hashem's names of both mercy and judgment and then we say that it is One. 

The Zohar explains that when a person says Krias Shema he should be thinking that even though I don't understand it, Hashem is both Middas HaDin and Middas HaRachamim. And this is why we cover our eyes, because we say that we believe it, but its too painful right now. 

This is what is meant by Hashem telling Ya'akov that Yosef will place his hand on your eyes. Because Yosef is one person who had many troubles and then became the 2nd in command in Egypt and in so doing saw Hashem's plan and why he had to go through so many troubles. This is the secret of Krias Shema.

R' Frand said he heard this from R' Kalefsky who said it shortly after one of his children was in a car accident which resulted in the death of one of his grandchildren. He was a tremendous Maamin and knew that Hashem is One. But for the rest of us, we need to cover our eyes because we don't understand it.

R' Frand said a second vort on Bereishis 50:16 in which Ya'akov blesses Yosef's sons that וְיִדְגּ֥וּ לָרֹ֖ב בְּקֶ֥רֶב הָאָֽרֶץ. Rashi explains that this was a Beracha that they should multiply like fish.

But a second explanation is that as children of Yosef they would not be influenced by Ayin Hara. Indeed, Ya'akov's beracha to Yosef in Bereishis 49:22 - בֵּ֤ן פֹּרָת֙ יוֹסֵ֔ף בֵּ֥ן פֹּרָ֖ת עֲלֵי־עָ֑יִן - that Yosef will not be influenced by Ayin Hara. (R' Frand referred to the Gemara in Berachos about R' Yochanan sitting outside the Mikva and not being concerned about the influence of Ayin Hara because he is from the offspring of Yosef). The upshot is that because fish are not seen, they cannot be influenced by Ayin Hara.

R' Frand said a second explanation based on the Chizkuni who states that fish are not influenced by Ayin Hara because they are unknown. He notes that Hashem brought all beasts and birds to Adam to be named, but that the fish were not named. This is the way to avoid Ayin Hara - if you are anonymous and do things without drawing attention to yourself, you can avoid Ayin Hara.

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 Vayigash

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 noting that when Yehuda tried to convince Yosef to pardon Binyamin, Yehuda told him that if Binyamin would not return to Ya'akov it could cause Ya'akov's death. However, at this time Binyamin was already the father of ten children. Why didn't Yehuda try to appeal to Yosef's sense that these children could not live without their father?

R' Frand quoted the Sefer Pardes Yosef who linked this to a story involving the Kotsker Rebbi. A man came to him complaining that he was indigent, but had wealthy children who would not assist him. Meanwhile he had sacrificed to pay for their schooling and made sure that they had what they needed when they lived at home. Is there anything that can be done, he asked? The Kotsker responded that the mercy that a father has for his child is much greater than the mercy the child has for the father - as we see from Yehuda's plea to Yosef which invoked Ya'akov and not Binyamin's children.

He further noted that each Middah that a person has can be traced back to Adam HaRishon. Whether it is anger, or humility or jealousy, each Middah finds its genesis in Adam. However Adam lacked one Middah - he had no feeling of mercy towards his father, because Adam had no father. He had children and his feelings for them were implanted in the human DNA. But he had no concept of a father and as such we do not feel the way about our fathers as we do about our children.

R' Frand closed the vort by quoting the Shela who says that a mother can take care of 10 children, but 10 children cannot take care of one mother.

R' Frand said a second vort related to the children of Binyamin. He made reference to a Rashi in Mikeitz which provides the dialogue between Binyamin and Yosef in Bereishis 43:30. In so doing, Rashi relates that Yosef asked about Binyamin's children and he was told that each child was linked to Binyamin's feelings about his "lost" old brother. One of these children was Huppim - because Yosef did not see Binyamin's Chuppa and Binyamin did not see Yosef's. 

R' Frand quoted the Pnei Menachem who cited the Mishna in Pirkei Avos 1:6 which states עֲשֵׂה לְךָ רַב, וּקְנֵה לְךָ חָבֵר. The Rambam explains that the friend who is referred to is someone that a person can share all of his experiences with - be it his triumphs or failures, with no fear that the person will think less of him because of these acts. 

He further explained that we saw this in Parshas Vayeshev 38:20 in that Yehuda sent his "payment" with רֵעֵ֣הוּ הָֽעֲדֻלָּמִ֔י. The Pnei Menachem notes that this is the first time that the word רֵעֵ֣הוּ is used as friend in Chumash and we certainly see how much faith Yehuda had in his friend. This is the meaning of the Mishna in Pirkei Avos which prioritizes "buying" a friend vs "acquiring" a rav. Because a friend can be there for you throughout your life. 

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!