Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Shelach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Behaalosecha

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

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

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

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

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

But why are there upside down Nuns?

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

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

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Thoughts on Shavuous

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

R' Frand began the vort by noting that the Jews did not say Na'aseh V'Nishma in Parshas Yisro. Instead, the words appear in Parshas Mishpatim (Shemos 24:7) which states וַיִּקַּח֙ סֵ֣פֶר הַבְּרִ֔ית וַיִּקְרָ֖א בְּאָזְנֵ֣י הָעָ֑ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Bechukosai

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Behar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

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 22:31, the Torah states וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם֙ מִצְו‍ֹתַ֔י וַֽעֲשִׂיתֶ֖ם אֹתָ֑ם. This is traditionally translated as - You shall keep My commandments and perform them. But R' Frand quoted a talmid of the Arizal who explained that it means that a person should keep a watch out in anticipation of doing a Mitzva and that when he does do the Mitzva, it should solely be for the sake of Heaven, with no personal or ulterior motive.

R' Frand then quoted the Zohar which comments on this pasuk that a person should do Mitzvos with fear of Heaven and love of Hashem and that any Mitzva performed without these emotions will not make it up to Shamayim.

R' Frand then told a story about someone who approached the Choftez Chaim and complained that he lacked the emotions required by the Zohar. To this, the Chofetz Chaim said to him - let me tell you a story. There was a baker in Rodin who pre-WWI had complained to the Chofetz Chaim that everyone criticized his products. Some people said the bread was too well done, while others said it should have baked longer. Other people complained that the bread was too dense while still other people thought that it was too light. The baker asked the Chofetz Chaim for a Beracha that people should appreciate his products.

A number of years after WWI, the Chofetz Chaim crossed paths with the baker and the baker said to him that his Beracha had come to pass. During WWI food was at premium and now everyone came to his shop happy that there was bread available for purchase. No one complained about the quality of the bread and people were all quite happy.

The Chofetz Chaim then said - the times of the Zohar were different - the Amoraim were capable of performing Mitzvos with those intentions and emotions. But today (end of the 1910s) Hashem is happy that people are performing Mitzvos, given the Haskalah and what it has done to the Jewish people.

R' Frand closed the vort by saying that now, one hundred years later, with all the Jews who are not frum, Hashem is certainly happy when we do His Mitzvos, even if we do not necessarily do them with trepidation and awe or with tremendous love.

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!