Torah, Mussar, Chassidus, Stories, and More!

Friday, July 12, 2019

Parshas Chukas Messages 5779

בּ״ה

Parshas Chukas

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

‘This is the Decree of the Torah’ (Bamidbar 19:2)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The fact, says HaRav Moshe Feinstein zt”l, that the Torah uses the language that it does, implies that this Decree -- the Parah Adumah -- is a Decree that encompasses the entire Torah. It is ‘the Decree of the Torah.’ But the question is; in what way is it?

Explains Rav Moshe zt”l; the wording of the verse teaches us that the entire Torah is actually similar in a certain way to the Parah Adumah.

As we know, the ashes of the Parah Adumah purify those who are ritually impure by contact with a human corpse, and yet, the one who burns the specified parts of the cow, and a pure person who touches or carries the ashes get a slight degree of ritual impurity -- מטהר טמאים ומטמא טהורים.

So too, in our lives, every middah (character trait), we must use to keep Hashem’s Mitzvos; but on the other hand, it is also possible to, Chas v’Shalom, use them for bad things. A very good example of this are the traits of anavah, humility, and gaavah, haughtiness: A person must use the trait of humility with themselves, meaning to always be humble, and not very exacting about their own honor; but as for the trait of gaavah, they must utilize it for their fellow people, and be uncompromising about their honor. For another example, think of the traits of generosity and of stinginess. We must be generous in our giving of charity and maaser, but when it comes to the money of our fellow, we should be very tight-fisted, meaning, making sure not to take any money -- not even a penny -- belonging to our fellow unjustly.

But if, Chas v’Shalom, we flip these middos around, and use them in the opposite way, then we will be transgressing the Will of Hashem with both of them.

(Darash Moshe)

~ ~ * ~ ~

HaRav Shlomo Ganzfried zt”l asks very similarly; why does the Torah say ‘This is the Decree of the Torah’, when, seemingly, it is only the Decree of the Parah Admuah?

And he elucidates the matter based on the words of HaRav Tzvi Heller zt”l in his sefer Tiv Gittin on Midrash Rabbah 19:3 (see there for what he says): We Jews must keep the Mitzvos of the Torah because HaKadosh Baruch Hu said to -- not because of reasons we find for them. And this is what we learn from the fact that it says ‘This is the Decree of the Torah’ regarding the Parah Adumah: Just like the Parah Adumah, which is completely impossible to understand the reason behind with our human intellect, so too, even the Mitzvos which we think we know the reasons behind, we should keep like chukim, Commandments which we, as humans cannot understand, and do them only because Hashem commanded us to.

(Apiryon)

<><><><><><><><><><>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

‘One who touches the corpse of any human Soul, and he will be impure for seven days. He shall purify himself with [lit. in] it [the ashes of the Parah Adumah mixed in spring water] on the third day and on the seventh day, [and] be pure; and if he does not purify himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not be pure.’ (Bamidbar 19:11-12)

The Torah teaches us here a fundamental lesson: If one wishes to improve -- to purify themselves, they must put in effort to do so. It will not happen if they do not. But if, indeed, a person puts in the necessary effort to improve, then HaKadosh Baruch Hu Himself will help them to.

(Tal U’Matar)

<><><><><><><><><><>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

‘This is the Law (תורה); if a person will die in a tent. . .’ (Bamidbar 19:14)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Our Sages derive from this verse that ‘Words of Torah will not endure except in one who kills himself over them’ (Gemara Berachos 63b).

What does this seemingly difficult statement mean? Some explanations:

1) ----- HaRav Avi Fertig shlit”a: Acquiring Torah requires absolute dedication. All other drives, all other needs and interests must become secondary. The totality of our beings must be exclusively dedicated to learning Torah (Bridging the Gap). See Chofetz Chaim al HaTorah here.

2) ----- The Nikolsburger Rebbe, HaRav Yosef Yechiel Michel Lebovits shlit”a: The truth of the matter is that everyone can learn Torah. However, if a person truly wants to internalize the Torah’s words, if he wants the Torah he learned to stay with him throughout his life so that he should be a true Torah-person, then he must put “himself” aside. This means that a person who is busy pursuing physical pleasures cannot keep the Torah within himself. He may be learning Torah, but he cannot “keep” it -- he cannot internalize it. Only if a person tries to eliminate [and overcome] their personal [physical] desires and quiet their body’s appetite for more and more pleasure, only such a person can properly keep the Torah within themselves (Nikolsburg.org).

3) ----- The Maggid of Kozhnitz {Rebbe Yisroel Haupstein zt”l}: It means to say that a person must kill the “himself” within them. We must come to realize that the reason we can do things, or understand Torah, is not from our own power, but from the fact that HaKadosh Baruch Hu gives us strength, and understanding, etc. (Avodas Yisroel; and heard from one of my Rebbeim, shlit”a).

4) ----- In response to my question of what the meaning of this Gemara is, HaRav Shmuel Kamenetzky shlit”a explained that we must have self-sacrifice for Torah. (See Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Talmud Torah, 3:12).

5) ----- HaRav Shimon Schwab zt”l: Only if a person kills the “himself” within them -- meaning that he does not learn only for “himself”, but also shares his knowledge and teaches Torah to others, then Torah will endure in him. (Maayan Beis HaSheoeivah).

<><><><><><><><><><>

‘This is the Law: If a person will die in a tent, all who come into the tent, and all that is in the tent will be impure for seven days. And every open vessel that no lid is fastened upon it, it is impure.’ (Bamidbar 19:14-15)

In the plain sense, the Torah speaks here of the rules of Tumas Ohel -- ritual impurity that comes from being under the same roof (or tree) as a human corpse. And the verse is teaching us that an earthenware vessel, which has special laws with regards to tumah (ritual impurity) in the fact that it can only become impure if tumah enters into its interior, as we are taught, becomes ritually impure if it doesn’t have a lid fastened onto it and it is under the same roof as a human corpse. So Rashi zt”l brings from Sifri here.

But explains the Maggid of Kozhnitz {Rebbe Yisroel Haupstein zt”l} homiletically: One who speaks however they want, and doesn’t guard their tongue from speaking slander and bad words -- they leave their mouths as a vessel without a fastened-on lid -- they are surely ‘impure’, because they say forbidden things.

(Avodas Yisroel, and heard from one of my Rebbeim, shlit”a)

<><><><><><><><><><>

In the midst of his commentary to 19:22, Rashi zt”l brings some expositions from Rabbi Moshe HaDarshan zt”l on earlier verses of the Parsha. One of them is a parable on the matter of the Parah Adumah: The son of a maidservant dirtied the palace of the king. They said: Let the mother come and clean the filth. So too, let the cow -- the Parah Adumah -- come and atone for the golden calf. (Tanchuma).

This parable, notes HaRav Shimshon Dovid Pincus zt”l, has in it a great principle for the matter of Teshuva for any aveirah, like it says (Yeshayahu 4:4) ‘When the Lord will wash off the filth from the Daughters of Tziyon’. That verse speaks of HaKadosh Baruch Hu atoning for us in His great mercy, like a mother who cleans her baby.

And Rav Pincus gives us a little illustration: If a baby would soil their clothing with dirt and sand, some nice neighbor might come and kindly clean him and his clothing off. But if the baby would sully itself with excrement, then everyone would find it disgusting, and they wouldn’t wash and clean the baby off. What would they say? Summon the mother! For only the baby’s loving mother is capable of handling the situation and removing the filth off him, since, because of how much she loves him, she doesn’t really feel the disgustingness of the stuff.

So too with our sins, which have multiplied so much, until only HaKadosh Baruch Hu Himself is capable of cleaning off the filth of them. And this is from how dear we are to Him, the One Who removes our impurities, like a mother who washes her beloved son.

This is like what the passuk says (Hoshea 14:2) ‘Return, Yisroel, unto Hashem your G-d, for you have stumbled in your sins’ and (Yirmiyahu 4:1) ‘If you will return, Yisroel -- the Word of Hashem -- return to Me.’ There is nobody who is able to clean off the scum of our aveiros except for Him. [And He will, if we will but do Teshuva and return to Him].

(Tiferes Shimshon)

<><><><><><><><><><>

In the middle of this Parsha, we read about the famous account of HaKadosh Baruch Hu telling Moshe Rabbeinu to speak to a certain rock and it would give water for the Bnei Yisroel. But due to certain things, Moshe Rabbeinu struck the rock instead, and, although Hashem still caused it to give forth water, it was not the proper thing to do, and Moshe Rabbeinu was punished for it1 by not being able to enter Eretz Yisroel.

HaRav Moshe Feinstein zt”l brings out a beautiful lesson within the command to speak to the rock: It comes to teach us that we need to speak words of Torah and Mussar even to those who don’t understand [like a rock], for they will come to understand from all the learning. And a person should not despair of educating their children because they seem like they don’t understand, but rather, they should say things over to them until they come to understand.

(Darash Moshe)

---------------------------------

1 The commentators discuss what exactly was Moshe Rabbeinu’s sin.

<><><><><><><><><><>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

‘And Edom refused to let Yisroel pass through its border’ (Bamidbar 20:21)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Torah uses the word “פן”which is an expression of a possibility, but not a definite. Why did Edom -- the big sword carrier of Esav -- only threaten that “maybe” they would step out with a sword? He sure was happy to do it, so why the doubt?

The Imrei Binah writes that Yitzchok blessed Esav “על חרבך תחיה” that he would live by his sword, killing people, including Yaakov. Nevertheless, he was only allowed to harm Yaakov if Yaakov did not learn and keep Mitzvos. הקול קול יעקב והידיים ידי עשו. Only when there was no ‘Kol Yaakov’ (voice of Yaakov) in the shuls was Esav able to use his sword on us. Otherwise he was unable to harm us. It was for this reason that Edom used an expression of uncertainty. Only if Klal Yisroel would not behave according to how they were supposed to, will Esav have an ability to use his sword on us.

(Shabbos Gems)

<><><><><><><><><><>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

‘And it will be that anyone who was bitten, and he will see it [the copper serpent] and live.’ (Bamidbar 21:8)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Because Hashem said this, explains HaRav Meir Simcha HaKohen of Dvinsk zt”l, then even if someone was sick with some regular illness, and they were close to dying, if they were bitten by one of the snakes, and so they would look at the copper serpent, they would be healed also from the illness they had before, and would return to good health.

Therefore, Rav Meir Simcha continues, a person in such a situation would be happy if one of the snakes bit him, since they would then be able to be healed from their current illness also. And so, the verse uses the word והיה, which, as Chazal tell us, is a language of joy.

(Meshech Chochmah)

<><><><><><><><><><>

‘And the people spoke against G-d and against Moshe; “Why have you brought us up from Egypt, to die in the Wilderness. . .” And Hashem sent in the people the fiery serpents, and they bit the people, and a multitude of people from Yisroel died. And the people came to Moshe, and they said “We have sinned, for we have spoken against Hashem, and against you; pray to Hashem, and He should remove the snake from upon us;” and Moshe prayed on behalf of the people. And Hashem said to Moshe; “Make for yourself a fiery [serpent], and place it upon a pole, and it will be that anyone who was bitten, and he will see it and live.” And Moshe made a copper serpent, and he placed it upon the pole, and it was, if a snake bit a man, and he would gaze at the copper serpent, and live.’ (Bamidbar 21:5-9)

Why, asks the Chofetz Chaim {HaRav Yisroel Meir HaKohen Kagan zt”l}, when Moshe Rabbeinu davened that Hashem remove the frogs in Egypt (see Shemos 8:4-10), his prayer was answered, but when he davened that He take away the fiery serpents, his prayer was not effective?

Explains the Chofetz Chaim; the Bnei Yisroel were punished here for the sin of lashon hara, as they spoke against Hashem and Moshe Rabbeinu. Now, it is known that when a person does a sin, it makes a prosecuting angel. This angel doesn’t need to necessarily prosecute explicitly, but just its very existence is its prosecution. When a person comes up to Heaven for their judgement, this angel appears on the scene, and its very appearance is testimony enough to the aveirah.

However, with the sin of lashon hara, the prosecuting angel made through it can and does speak, because it came into being through speech. And it speaks against the person, and explicitly announces about the aveirah.

We see that the people’s request for Moshe Rabbeinu’s prayer that Hashem remove the snakes was in the singular, ‘the snake’, alluding to the prosecuting angel made by speaking lashon hara (see Arachin 15b), because once the prosecuting angel would be taken away, then automatically, the snakes would also be. And so did Moshe pray.

But to this Hashem answered Moshe, that the prosecuting angel made by the lashon hara -- one that speaks -- is impossible to remove, because it actually demands in speech that the person who did the sin be punished. So what to do? Hashem said that He would give Moshe Rabbeinu a piece of advice on how to save the Jews from the biting snakes. “Make for yourself a fiery [serpent]” and everyone who had been bitten would look at it and live, and not die. What was the significance of this copper serpent? The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 29a) explains: ‘Does a snake put to death or make live? Rather, the main thing was that they would look upwards [at the copper serpent which was placed high on a pole] and subjugate their hearts to their Father in Heaven.’ From Him, no bad comes, and when they realized this, then they could be healed.

(Chofetz Chaim al HaTorah)

<><><><><><><><><><>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

‘About thus,1 those who give parables say: “Come to Cheshbon; let it be built and established. . .’ (Bamidbar 21:27)

Expounds the Gemara (Bava Basra 78b): Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: What does it mean what is written, ‘About thus, those who give parables (המושלים) say, etc.’?

‘המושלים’ -- these are the ones who rule (מושל) over their Evil Inclination. ‘Come to Cheshbon’ -- come and let us consider the reckoning of the world (חשבונו של עולם); the [seeming] loss of the performance of a Mitzvah against its reward,2 and the [seeming] reward of a transgression against its loss. ‘Let it be built and established’ -- if you take such an accounting, you will be built in This World, and you will be established for the World to Come.

------------------------------------------------

1 Rashi zt”l.

2 The classic example for this is refraining from work on Shabbos.

<><><><><><><><><><>

|~Maaseh~| As a young married man, Rebbe Uri Strelisker zt”l would learn in the Beis Midrash (House of Study) in the city of Lemburg, but he was very, very poor.

A very wealthy man of that city saw that Rav Uri was sitting and learning, and he saw that he was really special, so he came to him, and he asked him who he was, etc. and if he had a livelihood. Rav Uri replied to this question, “Ich hob tzvei kee’in,” -- “I have two cows,” as in Yiddish, a kee means a cow.

Now, it is a very big and important thing to support Torah scholars. And the rich man went home, and he told his wife to go to Rav Uri Strelisker’s house, to his wife, and buy milk from them, in order to give them a means of income.

So the next day, the rich man’s wife went to the Strelisker’s Rebbetzin, and told her that she wanted to buy milk from her -- “I hear you have cows,” she said. But the Rebbetzin replied that she didn’t know what she (the rich man’s wife) was talking about; they didn’t have anything like that.

The woman went back to her husband, and told him about what the Rebbetzin had said. So he returned to Rav Uri, and he asked him why he didn’t tell him the truth; he had said that he had cows -- kee’in!

The Strelisker answered and explained that what he meant by kee’in was that his livelihood comes from the verse (Tehillim 33:21), ‘Kee vo yismach libeinu, kee v’Sheim kadsho vatachnu’ -- ‘For in Him our heart will rejoice, for in His Holy Name we have trusted.’

Those two kee’s, kee’in, were the livelihood of Rebbe Uri Strelisker zt”l!

(Heard from one of my Rebbeim, shlit”a)

<><><><><><><><><><>

Gut and meaningful Shabbos to all!

Friday, July 5, 2019

Parshas Korach Messages 5779

בּ״ה

Parshas Korach

Writes the Orchos Tzaddikim (Shaar HaGaavah): Gaavah (haughtiness) brings one to the pursuit of honor to lord it over people. And you already know what happened to Korach and his assembly because of his gaavah, for he sought to make himself great and to take greatness that had not been given to him from Heaven.1 And because of this, he entered into strife, and from the strife went forth jealousy and hatred. And all of these are very inferior traits.

--------------------------------------

1 The greatness mentioned here refers to positions of honor, etc.

<><><><><><><><><><>

If we see somebody getting something in life that we wanted; for example a promotion or a certain position, we must realize that to complain would be to complain against Hashem, because He runs His world, and if we didn’t get something, it is because He knew it wasn’t best for us!

And actually, from this we see a solution to the upsetness we feel at certain things in life: If we understood that everything that Hashem makes happen is truly for our benefit and for the best overall, then why would we complain? Not getting whatever it is we wanted to get was good for us in this scenario, apparently. As Rabbi Akiva zt”l said beautifully (Berachos 60a), “Everything the Merciful One does, He does for the good.” (See there).

(Tal U’Matar)

<><><><><><><><><><>

Rashi zt”l brings (16:7) from Midrash Tanchuma; why did Korach do the foolish thing that he did? The answer is that his eye, עינו, caused him to err, as he saw a chain of great people who would be descended from him. (See there).

In the sefer Likutei Yehoshua, the author tells that he heard an insight from a Gadol regarding the interesting singular language employed in the above Chazal that עינו, ‘his eye’ caused him to err, and not the plural עיניו, ‘his eyes:’

A person must try to serve Hashem with both their eyes. With one eye, they should (figuratively) see and recognize their own lowliness, and with the other, they should perceive the greatness of Hashem.

Korach was a very good person at first; but he was lacking in a major area. While the eye that was supposed to see the magnificence of HaKadosh Baruch Hu did so, and he definitely perceived that Hashem is very great, his other eye, the one with which a person should see their own smallness, he misused, and he thought of himself as very high up. Now we understand the singular expression עינו: It was this eye which caused him to err in the way that he did.

(Likutei Yehoshua)

<><><><><><><><><><>

The Mishnah in Pirkei Avos (ch. 5) tells us: Every dispute that is l’Sheim Shmayaim, for the Sake of Heaven, will endure. And one that is not for the Sake of Heaven, will not endure. What is an example of a dispute that is for the Sake of Heaven? The disputes of Hillel and Shammai. And what is an example of a dispute that was not for the sake of Heaven? The dispute of Korach and his entire assembly.

In what way does a dispute for the Sake of Heaven endure, and in what way does one not for the Sake of Heaven not endure?

Truthfully, it is quite clear: When people debate l’Sheim Shamayim, it means that they are not just arguing to prove their point. They are debating for a higher purpose, in order to bring out the truth of a matter, and each voicing Torah opinions. These words will endure forever; they are words of Torah! Furthermore, since they are debating l’Sheim Shamayim, there is a very good chance that in most cases, they will treat each other with respect, and not come to, Chas v’Shalom, try to insult one another. (See Ye’aros D’vash, vol 2, and Anaf Eitz Avos).

But people who argue merely from their own opinions, and for some selfish reason, whether it be to show that they are right, and the other person is wrong, or whatever it may be, those words are not going to last. Where is the specialness in them? And will this argument even shed light on the truth, or will it just cause unnecessary strife and feelings of enmity between people?

In an interesting, and slightly different tact, we can see another way in which a dispute l’Shem Shamayim will endure, while one that is not will not: Most people who have learned Mishnah probably recall seeing some sort of difference of opinion between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai, whose disagreements were surely l’Shem Shamayim, as well. And as we know, in almost all cases, the Halachah follows the opinion of Beis Hillel. However, according to Kabbalistic teachings, in the days of Moshiach, we will hold like Beis Shammai’s opinions. They both, therefore, endure! It’s amazing!

Whereas for Korach and his assembly, their dispute went down with them into the mouth of the earth. . .

(Tal U’Matar)

~ ~ * ~ ~

Why, asks HaRav Yehuda Lirma zt”l, does the Mishnah not say ‘the dispute of Korach and his entire assembly with Moshe and Aharon’? Afterall, Moshe and Aharon also disagreed with him, and it’s not like Moshe didn’t dispute him!

But, he explains, the Mishnah could not have said thus, as it is giving an example of an argument which was not for the Sake of Heaven, and the arguing which Moshe and Aharon did with Korach and his assembly surely was l’Shem Shamayim! The only people, therefore, whom it could mention, were Korach and his assembly, who weren’t arguing l’Shem Shamayim.

(Lechem Yehuda)

~ ~ * ~ ~

A similar, but different, question is asked by the Noam Elimelech {Rebbe Elimelech of Lizhensk zt”l}: Why does the Mishnah word it ‘the dispute of Korach and his assembly’?

And he elucidates the matter as follows: As we find in Rashi zt”l, all the 250 men of Korach’s assembly also desired the position of Kohen Gadol, just like he did. Thus, we see that their hearts were also separated, and in disagreement. And this is what the wording of the Mishnah hints to us: The hearts of Korach and his assembly were all truthfully disjointed with one another. It was literally the dispute of Korach and his entire assembly!

<><><><><><><><><><>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

‘And Moshe was very distressed,1 and he said to Hashem. . . I have not done bad to one of them.’ (Bamidbar 16:15)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There are those, says HaRav Meir Simcha HaKohen of Dvinsk zt”l, who are praised as being humble, but really aren't very much so. These people behave very, very nicely towards, and humble themselves before, someone who is much lower than them in eminence. But when it comes to someone who is just as eminent as them, or perhaps more so -- where, if they were to humble themselves before them, people could legitimately think that it is not humility, but how they should be treating that person, because so-and-so is really higher than them in stature -- they push them away, degrade them, and glorify in their disgrace.

But Moshe Rabbeinu was not like this. He was actually, truly, humble! And therefore, he was never jealous of, or towards, people who were high up, or doing something that could have appeared like “competition”, like Eldad and Meidad, when they were prophesying in the camp, for example. This is what the words ‘I have not done bad to one of them’ mean: As we find in Rashi zt”l (to Bereishis 26:10), when the term ‘one of them’ is used in conjunction with a lot of people, it can denote the greatest individual among them. Even to such people, who were great in stature, Moshe Rabbeinu did not try to lessen their status -- on the contrary, he attempted to add to it and their honor.

(Meshech Chochmah)

-----------------------------------

1 Rashi zt”l from Tanchuma.

<><><><><><><><><><>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

‘And he will not be like Korach and like his assembly’ (Bamidbar 17:5)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My dear brethren! I beg of you -- and of myself; please, please, let us not be like Korach and his assembly! We musn’t cause unnecessary arguments and strife! Sometimes there will be differences of opinion, yes, but it doesn’t have to become an argument, or much worse, lead to anger and frustration! And if we must dispute something, or debate, it must be l’Shem Shamayim, as we saw above! It is imperative to try to maintain peace!

In Parshas Bechukosai (Vayikra 26:6), Rashi zt”l brings from Chazal that peace is equivalent to everything. And furthermore, the last Mishnah in all of Shas, Uktzin 3:12; the last Mishnah in all of Shas, Rabbosai(!) tells us: ‘Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta said: HaKadosh Baruch Hu did not find a vessel to hold blessing for Yisroel, except for peace, like it says, ‘Hashem will give strength to His People, Hashem will bless His People with peace.’

We find back in Sefer Bereishis, (Parshas Vayeira) the famous story of when the Angels in the guise of wayfarers came to Avraham Avinu and Sara Imeinu, and told them that they would bear a son. Sara laughed, commenting about her physical state, and saying that her husband was old. But when HaKadosh Baruch Hu asked Avraham Avinu about it, He left out the second part, and only mentioned that she had said that she was old. From here the Academy of Rabbi Yishmael (Bava Metzia 87a) says how great peace is, as even HaKadosh Baruch Hu changed the truth, to a certain extent,1 for it! It is incumbent upon us to learn from Hashem’s perfect ways, and go to great lengths to preserve peace!

Rabbosai, it isn’t for naught that we read Parshas Korach close before we enter the Bein HaMetzarim (Three Weeks). Why do we still have Tisha B’Av? Are we not in this long and bitter Galus mainly because of baseless hatred between fellow Jews?! It is incumbent upon each one of us to try to maintain peace as much as we can, and in the merit of this effort, may Hashem redeem us speedily and bring all of His Children back together, in Yerushalayim, Amein!

-------------------------------------

1 Actually, if we look closely, Hashem merely refrained from telling the second thing Sara Imeinu said, but did not alter the truth, Chas v’Shalom, as her comments about herself essentially implied that she was old.

<><><><><><><><><><>

‘And behold! The staff of Aharon, of the House of Levi, blossomed; and it brought forth a blossom, and it sprouted a bud, and it grew almonds.’ (Bamidbar 17:23)

We can glean from this passuk, says HaRav Moshe Feinstein zt”l, that on Aharon’s staff, the blossoms were left, as well as the almonds. In fact, the Gemara itself (Yoma 52b) tells us this, as it says that the staff of Aharon was hidden away with its almonds and blossoms. And the Tosafos Yeshanim notes the difficulty, that once it had almonds, then, by definition, the blossoms would be gone. But he brings that it was a miracle, and the blossoms remained.

Why, though, wonders Rav Moshe, did Hashem perform this miracle? And he explains beautifully: Blossoms represent the things which bring us to the performance of a Mitzvah, while the fruit -- the almonds, in this case, is like the actual act of the Mitzvah itself.

The remaining of the blossoms on the staff as well shows us that the “blossoms of holiness,” meaning all the toil, and all the pain we might go through to perform a Mitzvah or learn Torah, never fades away or is lost. Unlike in mundane matters where we only get paid for the result of what we do, and not the effort we put into it, in spiritual matters, our efforts last forever, just like the Mitzvah itself, and Hashem rewards us for them as well!

(Darash Moshe)

<><><><><><><><><><>

|~Maaseh~| At one point, there was a dispute in the Torah community -- mostly in Eretz Yisroel -- about chickens vs. braekel chickens. Regarding birds, we know which ones are Kosher through Mesorah, transmission from generation to generation, and being that a chicken is a bird, a disagreement arose about which type appeared to be the one which we had a Mesorah was Kosher -- the regular chicken, or the braekel chicken.

I had seen something about this dispute, and I wanted to write a paper or something of the sort on it, so I was going to contact different Rabbanim about it, and get their take on the matter.

In the end, I think I only contacted two regarding it: My Rebbe, HaRav Elyakim Rosenblatt zt”l, and my Rebbe, HaRav Daniel Yaakov Travis shlit”a. They both had very memorable responses: When I asked Rav Rosenblatt what he thought about the whole chicken vs. braekel debate, he asked, “What’s a braekel?” He simply stayed away from arguments and strife. And Rav Travis put an end to my idea of a paper on the subject, if I remember correctly. He replied with two words full of wisdom: “Stay away.”

~ ~ * ~ ~

HaRav Isser Zalman Meltzer zt”l used to give a weekly Talmudic lecture in his Yeshiva. One of the students who usually remained silent during the lecture once spoke up and said, “The Sfas Emes explains this section differently than what was just said.” Rav Meltzer, the Rosh Yeshiva, replied, “If the Sfas Emes explains the Gemara differently, I should really stop my lecture right away. But I ask of you a favor. I worked hard to prepare this lecture. Do me a chesed and give me permission to continue the lecture which I prepared with so much effort.” This statement of the Rosh Yeshiva seemed a bit strange. Even if another scholar explained the passage differently, he had a right to offer his own interpretation. As Rav Meltzer frequently said about similar situations, “He explains his way, and I explain my way.”

Immediately after the lecture, one of the top students ran to the yeshiva’s library and looked up the Sfas Emes’s commentary. He found that the Sfas Emes’s explanation was really consistent with the Rosh Yeshiva’s interpretation. The student ran over to Rav Meltzer and told him this. “I am familiar with what the Sfas Emes wrote,” said Rav Isser Zalman, “and you are right, there is no contradiction there to what I said.”

The student was very curious about the Rosh Yeshiva’s reaction and walked him home. On the way, Rav Isser Zalman explained, “During the lecture, I noticed a businessman who never before came to my lectures. Also, this fellow who asked the question usually does not ask questions during the lecture. I assumed that there might be a possible shidduch (marriage match) between the young man and the businessman’s daughter. I’m not certain that this man has a daughter, but most likely he does. Probably the fellow asked the question to impress the businessman that he knows how to learn. I replied the way I did to raise this student in the eyes of his prospective father-in-law.”

A few weeks later, the young man who had asked the question actually became engaged to that businessman’s daughter.

(Related in B’Derech Eitz HaChaim, vol. 1;

quoted in Growth Through Torah)

<><><><><><><><><><>

Gut and meaningful Shabbos to all!

Friday, July 12, 2019

Parshas Chukas Messages 5779

Friday, July 5, 2019

Parshas Korach Messages 5779

Subscribe To