וְנָתַתִּי שָׁלוֹם בָּאָרֶץ, וּשְׁכַבְתֶּם וְאֵין מַחֲרִיד. וְהִשְׁבַּתִּי חַיָּה רָעָה, מִן-הָאָרֶץ, וְחֶרֶב, לא-תַעֲבר בְּאַרְצְכֶם

“And I will place peace in the land, you shall repose there; there will be nothing to scare you. I will restrain any dangerous animal from the land, a sword will not cross your land.” (Vayikra 26:6)

This פסוק comes amidst the ברוכות that are promised to בני ישראל if they keep the obligations that are set forth in the Torah. What struck me about this פסוק was the statement  וְאֵין מַחֲרִיד, “nothing will scare you”. One who is fully observant fears only Hashem and is cognizant that any “scary” event or object in this world is a reflection of His will. What one is obligated to fear is that they have not been completely compliant with the מצות and that Hashem will send corrective measures (in order to spur one to fix what they have done incorrectly). Since however the ברוכות describe a state in which all of the מצות are being completely kept, this statement seems redundant. The Jewish people are already fulfilling the mitzvah of ‘יראת ה; nothing external frightens them. Why then is this assurance included?

I think that the answer lies in the root of the verb מַחֲרִיד itself: חרד connotes trembling, a physical manifestation of fear. While it is possible to reach a high level of ‘יראת ה on an intellectual level, the body still has its natural instincts: when confronted by a menacing animal or an enemy soldier, the body’s natural reaction is to tremble. What this pasuk is imparting is that when we are fulfilling our complete potential, Hashem will not cause situations in which physical fear is necessary. Since we are so close to Him already, we do not need an external event to bring us closer.

How do we apply this idea to our lives today when we possess barely an inkling of true יראת שמים? I think one lesson is that the closer we are to Hashem and His מצות, the less the physical world can scare us. The more we can step back from what is initially frightening or frustrating, and consider how Hashem is using it as a vehicle to draw us closer to Him, the more confident and capable עבדי המלך we can become.

Shabbat Shalom, Allison

Credit: Machon Mamre for the Hebrew text. Much of the ideas are based on the book Garden of Emunah, by Reb Shalom Arush.

 

CONCERNING THE JEWS … “If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world’s list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvellous fight in the world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?”

- Mark Twain

  “Keep my decrees and observe my laws and you will live secure in the land (Behar 25:18)   Rashi comments that these laws and decrees are referring to shmeta. If the Jewish People fail to keep the laws of shmeta, they will not live securely in the land (of Israel), rather they will be sent into exile.   Rabbi Yaakov Chai Zareihen, the Av Beis Din (Cheif Justice of the Jewish Court) of Tiberias (quoted in the compilation book on the weekly portion, K’motze Shalal Rav) points out a remarkable connection between the sin of ignoring shmeta laws and the punishment of exile.   Shmeta (Sabbatical year when land is left fallow) is the symbol of Divine Providence over the Land of Israel and the sustence of Israel. How else can a land that lays fallow for year produce fruits for the next three years?! Numerous sources indicate the intimate relationship between God and the Land of Israel; the special Providence afforded to the …land that the LORD your God cares for. The eyes of the LORD your God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year to the end of the year. (Deuteronomy 11:12)   When that Providence is absent due to the neglecting of shmeta laws, the Jewish People are scattered throughout the land. However, God still loves us and cares for us in that exile. The very fact that the Jewish People have existed in exiles for thousands of years displays God’s Providence and Watch over the Jewish People! When God forbid, we do not trust in God’, God must move his providence to a different venue.Thus, our existence in exile is equal to God’ Eye on Israel when we do observe shmeta.   Mark Twain noted our miraculous existence despite our small number. Nations much stronger, by nature, have come and gone.   May we merit to continue observing shmeta and continue to thrive in the exile, both in Israel and abroad.   Good shabbos Yaakov

 

A child comes home from school and tells his father that his Rebbi hit him for misbehaving. The father called up the Rebbi and asked him if that was indeed what had happened. The Rebbi confirmed the reports and mentioned that because he was a Rebbi and like a father to his students, he had the right to hit him. (This is supported by the gemara, but I do not remember where it is) The father then asked the Rebbi- could you hug my son like he was your son? When the Rebbi said no, the father responded that in that case, I do not think you had a right to hit my son.

The parsha deals with the subject of the mekalel, the one who blasphemed God. Before Moshe asked God what should be done with this person, he put the mekalel in ‘jail’ as he awaited God’s decion, as the pasukim below show.

10 Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite. 11 The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses. (His mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.) 12 They put him in custody until the will of the LORD should be made clear to them. 13 Then the LORD said to Moses: 14 “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 Say to the Israelites: ‘If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death. 17 ” ‘If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death. 18 Anyone who takes the life of someones animal must make restitution—life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death. 22 You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.’ ” 23 Then Moses spoke to the Israelites, and they took the blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him. The Israelites did as the LORD commanded Moses. A couple questions. Moshe didn’t know what should be done with such a person!? He learned virtually the entire Torah straight from God! Why did he have to ask? Another question is that right after Moshe asks God about the blasphemer, God tells Moshe some seemingly random laws: if one kills another, he is killed. If one injures another, he must pay restitution. What is the message taught by this interruption?

The answer given is that before we can punish someone we must evaluate our intentions and feelings. If we have a feeling of haughtiness, of hatred, we cannot properly punish someone else. Punishment must come from a sense of love for the other person. Thus, the laws about mortality. God is teaching the Jewish People and Moshe that before a man is rightfully killed, I want to show that a human life is immensely important in My eyes, as My creation. If one is slayed, the murderer must be killed in return to show that the value of a human life is so important. (We see that even in that case, when the murderer himself is put to death, those that kill him must recognize the graveness of the matter.)

Only after Moshe realized the importance of a life and the seriousness of the situation, could he properly administer death to the blasphemer. The Jewish People should throw stones at him because he is deserving of death, but they must do so out of love and respect. One can only hit if he can also hug.

(Rabbi Schneider did not answer the first question, but it seems that perhaps God specifically withheld this Law from him until now to demonstrate this point.)

Yaakov

(Courtesy of Rabbi Avi Schneider of Yeshivat Torat Shraga)

 

Dibur and Emor differ as “speaking” and “informing.” Speaking is the expression of thought in words, without any consideration of its being accepted by the hearer, but informing is always “telling somebody.” One can speak to oneself, but not inform. Dibur is the concise expression of a thought, Emor is addressing the same to the mind and feeling of another person, the complete explanation and development of a thought into genuine understanding.

Hence in the speech of the Torah, Dibur is always the concise, pregnant expression of the Law, as given in the Written Torah, but Emor is the full explanation of it in the Oral Torah. The Torah is written with two types of fire. Black fire makes up the letters, but its teachings are confined to them. White fire is the space between the letters, which has no such limitation.

True understanding of Torah require more than words on a page, it requires conversation, interaction, creative expression of something more intimate than letters can convey.

God spoke the Law in Ten Statements – “Asseres HaDibros,” but He created the world in Ten Utterances “Assarah Ma’amaros.”

 

At the end of this week’s Parsha we come across an interesting story. A man, born to a Jewish mother (from the Tribe of Dan) and an Egyptian father, gets into an argument with one of the other Jews. In the course of the disagreement he pronounces the name of Hashem and curses Him. The people bring the man to Moshe and place him in jail while Moshe asks Hashem for advice. God instructs them to take the man out of the camp, to have the people who heard him curse Hashem place their hands on his head and then stone him to death.

The Midrash, filling in some gaps in the story, tells us that the argument was about whether this man was entitled to place his tent with the rest of the Tribe of Dan, since tribal association is patrilineal. The Dan-ites didn’t want this man camping with them, and are backed by Moshe, who rules that the Dan-ites have the right to not allow him in their camp. The man leaves Moshe in frustration, continues his fight with someone else in the camp, and ultimately curses God.

This Midrash is quite hard to understand. Even if Dan wasn’t obligated count the blasphemer as a member of their tribe, wouldn’t it still have been a good gesture to allow him to stay there? He didn’t really have anywhere else to go, as he surely didn’t belong to any of the other tribes!

Further, even if he wasn’t a particularly nice person and they were justified in not wanting him around, why did the Jew allow the blasphemer to pick a fight with him? It was surely possible for them to handle this situation without getting drawn into one-on-one quarrels with him, and the man’s temper would not have flared to the point of cursing Hashem. There seems, however, to be no criticism levied against Dan or the man who argued with the blasphemer.

Rashi (citing a different Midrash) makes a very insightful comment when analyzing the punishment given. What is the point of having the people who witnessed the event place their hands on the blasphemer’s head? We don’t see this action in other places that stoning is discussed. Rashi says that they placed their hands on his head to tell him “דמך בראשך ואין אנו נענשים במיתתך שאתה גרמת לך” (“Your blood is on your own head! We are not to be punished for your death, for you brought this upon yourself!”).

The lesson here is clear. This is man who comes from a broken family, who was pushed around by the people he considered the members of his Tribe and was provoked further by another individual. Yet ultimately he alone is responsible for his actions and must take full responsibility for them.

How many times do we blame our circumstances for mistakes we make?

Shabbat Shalom and have a great Lag BaOmer!

 

Acharei Mot is notable for a startling contrast: Opening with the laws describing the office of the Kohen Gadol, as he stands before the holy of holies, seeking the atonement of the Jewish people on the most important day of the year – the parsha than turns its attention to our most primal appetites. In fairly abrupt fashion, we move from commandments pertaining to the highest level of man’s spiritual reach, to graphically imagined injunctions against slaughtering sacrifices outside the temple and consuming blood, followed by a long catolog of prohibited and permitted sexual relationships.

What might we make of this contrast?

I think any understanding of this stark juxtaposition begins with a recognition that the parsha is titled Acharei Mot, after the death, and that what follows occurs in some relation to that event. Indeed the parsha opens with the words: G-d spoke to Moshe after the death of Aaron’s two sons, who had drawn close to G-d and died. The laws that immediately follow are commanded as a direct result of the actions of Nadav and Avihu, setting guidelines and strict boundaries for priestly worship and approach to the holy of holies. They seem intended to ensure that such an event would never repeat itself. But can we view the rest of this parsha in the light of the death of Nadav and Avihu? That is to ask, what might be the relationship between the introductory “after the death” motif and the more lowly prohibitions that follow immediately after the commandments to the Kohen Gadol?

The narrative context for Acharei Mot is set up in Parsha Shemini: We recall that Shemini describes the inauguration of the Tent of meeting on its eight and final day. On this day the inauguration period is about to climax with the consecration of Aharon and his sons- as Kohanim. We observe as they perform the offerings according to Moshe’s instructions in an atmosphere of great anticipation before all the camp- and if all goes according to plan, the Glory of Hashem is to make its appearance, sanctifying the work of the mishkan.

What follows is just that: The verse reads: Aharon raised his hands toward the people and blessed them; then he descended from having performed the sin-offering, the elevation –offering, and the peace-offering. Moses and Aharon came to the Tent of the meeting, and they went out and they blessed the people- and the glory of Hashem appeared to the entire people.

Certainly this is an unparalleled moment- the entire nation witnesses the presence of Hashem, directly, as a result of the holy priests successfully translating G-d’s commandments into service. And indeed, Aharon’s offerings are acceptable to Hashem:

The next verse reads:

A fire went forth before Hashem and consumed upon the Altar the elevation offering and the fats.

The response by the people also reflects an unparalleled spiritual height:

The people saw and sang glad song and fell upon their faces.

A pinnacle in our history as a holy people has been reached here.

What follows, in the very next verse, has to be one of the most abrupt descents -from the highest of the high, to the lowest of the lows in all of the torah: at the height of their service, and in the holy mishkan itself, this is what happens next:

The sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, each took his fire pan, they put fire in them and placed incense upon it; and they brought before Hashem an alien Fire that He had not commanded them. A fire came forth before Hashem and consumed them, and they died before Hashem.

Interpretations abound as to what has just occurred here. I want to simply point out that this abrupt and startling descent is echoed in parsha Acharei Mot. In Shemini we witness the towering personalities of Nadav and Avihu loosing their way when acting on the basis of their own instincts and emotions. And this mirrors the structure of Acharei Mot, represented by the spiritual heights sought be the Kohen Gadol in the holy of holies, presented alongside the instincts and drives animating self-devised sacrifices, blood prohibitions and forbidden relationships.

For Nadav and Avihu, extending the boundaries set by discipline and modesty results in loosing themselves to their will and longing to move closer to Hashem. The antidote is an explicit directive that sets the boundaries for service to Hashem. Likewise, in our relationships with those we love: be it sisters and brothers, aunts and uncles etc. These are relationships based on love and affection not unlike that shared between a husband and a wife- But boundaries to will and desire exist that need to be set down and obeyed as explicitly and as rigorously as the boundaries placed on the high priest in his approach to Hashem, regardless of enthusiasm or love. Viewed this way, the construct we find in both these parshiot is not so much a juxtaposition of high and low, but rather one of divine order and human resistance.

What might be learned from such a construct? Perhaps we are to recognize within it the divine order of the world, determined by Hashem, together with the means to navigate our way through it. The path set forth for us is defined but narrow, hard earned but accessible. At stake is Divine Peace, perhaps best understood as the Shalom we evoke in the final blessing of the Shemoneh Esrei and in the Priestly Blessing. Rav Schwab teaches that the word shalom has 3 connotations: peace in the physical sense of well-being, as in absence from war and enemies that endanger us; peace in terms of peaceful relationships between man and man, in terms of absence of strife and discord, and finally the highest and finest form of shalom, that of inner peace, manifested as ones own ability to be at peace with himself and Hashem.

This ideal of divine peace is developed throughout the entire Torah. In Acharei Mot and Shemeni the urge to follow the dictates of ones own heart is held up in contrast to it. We see there that whether in service to Hashem in the holy of holies or in our daily behaviors in the world at large, submission to the Divine order exists in conflict to our unbridled emotion and inclinations. This conflict plays itself out within the contrasts inherent in Acharei Mot, and in the narrative of Nadav and Abihu. From both we learn that to act our part in the divine order of the world we must first recognize that such a Divine system exists, and then take the necessary steps to be part of it. The result can be peace, in all its holy and material aspects.

Shabat Shalom

 

You shall rise in the presence of an old person and you shall honor the presence of an elder and you shall fear your God – I am God (19:32) The Talmud (Kedsuhin 32b) teaches that the Hebrew word for an older person (zaken) can actually be a conjugation of the word ze kana chachma/ one who has aquired wisdom. The Talmud precedes to discuss if one must rise for any old person or even one who is not wise. One opinon quoted is that one must stand in the presence of a Torah scholar, for he has surely acquired wisdom, regardless of his age. [One verse showing that wisdom means knowledge of Torah specifically is found here: The Torah of Hashem is perfect, restoring the soul; the teachings of Hashem are trustworthy, making wise the simple [Psalm 19:8]. Asks the Steipler Gaon (Rav Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky), where did the Talmud get the idea that zaken means one who has acquired wisdom (Torah knowledge) The conjugation of zaken leaves no precedent for adding in the extra word!? Maybe the verse is referring to one who has acquired wealth or honor. He answers quite simply that there is only one true acquisition in this world: Torah knowledge. The talmud teaches: that If he acquires this, what does he lack? If he does not acquire this, what has he acquired? This is what they said in the West (Eretz Yisrael). He who has this within him, has everything within him. He who does not have this within him, what is within him?” (Nedarim 41a- The order of the words is changed) We cannot take our wealth with us. Only Torah and Mitzvos. They are the only real, internal acquistion. Good shabbos. Yaakov (From a shiur of Rav Shalom Rosner)

 

This Shabbat is the 25th day of the Omer. We are exactly half way from Pesach to Shavuot.

Acharei Mot, the first part of today’s double feature, is a “bloody” Parsha. It instructs Aaron on the use of blood in the sacrificial rituals, as a pathway to purity and atonement. At the same time it places an absolute prohibition on eating blood (Lev 17:10): “I (G-d) will direct my anger against the person who eats blood and cut him off from among his people.” The Torah considers eating nonkosher meat to be bloodshed, and in fact the provision of kosher meat does serve to connect people to the Jewish community – it is the one part of a kosher diet we simply cannot grow on our own.

Finally, the Parsha prohibits incestuous marriages and relationships between certain blood relatives. Vayikra (Leviticus) chapter 18 lists many forbidden matings, and the Oral Torah supplies an additional secondary list as a fence around the Torah.

One of the prohibited relationships is with a woman who is married (to someone else!). However, even a woman who is single, divorced or widowed may be a forbidden relative. If she is married, then the man who has an affair with her is guilty on both counts. Further, this Parsha forbids homosexual relationships, and then specifies an additional offense if one has this relationship with one’s own father or uncle.

Among others, a man may not marry or even make a sexual advance to his mother or stepmother (even after his father’s death), his daughter or daughter-in-law, his sister, half-sister or sister-in-law (even after his brother’s death – except in the special case where his brother died childless, in which case he may have to marry her or perform the ceremony of chalitza to release her). A man may not marry a sister of his ex-wife while his first wife is still alive, and he may not ever marry the daughter or mother of his first wife

Verse 6 of chapter 18 begins with a repeated word, Ish ish (literally, a man, a man – or, any man), followed by a plural verb, tikrevu. The plural teaches us that women and men are equally obligated to observe these prohibitions. The repetition of Ish indicates that the mitzvah is commanded to all humans, and is included among the mitzvahs of Noah. Bereishit (Genesis) chapter 5, with all its “begats,” shows that the early generations knew who the father of a child was. This marital morality later broke down, provoking G-d to bring the Flood.

In today’s reading, the Torah describes itself as a way of life (Lev 18:5): “Observe my statutes and judgments by which a person who observes them may live.” On Yom Kippur, when we “reset” our spiritual compass, the service includes both the sacrifices (during Musaf) and the forbidden unions (during the Mincha Torah reading). This highlights the importance of both types of mitzvot in a Jewish lifestyle: “bein Adam laMakom” (between man and the Omnipresent) and “bein Adam lechavero” (between man and his fellow) – or perhaps this week, “bein Adam lechaverato” (between a man and his girl-friend)!

Why are unions between close relatives off-limits? Some may believe it is to prevent genetic disorders caused by inbreeding. However, a study of the details shows this is clearly not the reason. Genetic risks are not increased when marrying a stepmother, a sister-in-law, or the wife of one’s uncle, whom the Torah defines as an aunt (dodah). Also, the Torah prohibits a marriage of an aunt and nephew but not an uncle and niece, although these are genetically equivalent.

Ramban suggests that the forbidden relatives are so close in kinship that they will probably often be present in the family home. We are instructed to conduct ourselves in a way that contains our impulses, protects the family and preserves boundaries. The honor a man shows to his aunt or stepmother should be that of an elder, not that of a wife.

Besides avoiding a kinship relationship between a man and woman in a couple, the Torah apparently also wants to avoid kinship connections between two people who will share one partner. The rivalry of two sisters who have had the same husband may interfere with their sisterly love. A woman who has been married to two brothers or a father and son, and a man who has married both a mother and a daughter, may be tempted to compare them because of their resemblance to each other.

One reason the Torah states for observing these mitzvahs is simply, “I am G-d.” As G-d’s chosen people (chosen to receive the Torah), we are under contract to strive for kedusha (holiness).

The text itself advises us not to imitate the Egyptians and Canaanites who commonly indulged in all the forbidden practices listed, but Rashi explains that being different is not the purpose of the mitzvah. We are expected to avoid specifically those of their practices considered by G-d to be an abomination.

While on the subject of abominations, the Torah interrupts the list of forbidden matings to warn us against child sacrifice as practiced by followers of the idol Molech. This abomination combines two of the three cardinal sins – murder and idolatry; sexual transgressions are the third cardinal sin. Idolatry is also seen as a metaphor for marital infidelity – like “having an affair” with a false god.

Another reason the Torah states for these mitzvahs, appropriate for us to remember in this week of Yom Ha’atzmaut, is that the forbidden acts of perversion defile the Land of Israel, and interfere with our duty to the Land. We are taught that the Promised Land itself has kedusha, and will vomit us out if we commit these sins, as it vomited out the Canaanites before us because of their immorality.

In the haftarah, Ezekiel 22:1-19, the prophet chastises us for the same sins mentioned in the Torah portion, warning that our days in the Land will be numbered if we continue to sin. Just four years later, the prophecy came true, the Temple was destroyed and we were exiled to Babylon. The haftorah ends on a hopeful note, assuring us that eventually, “I (G-d) will gather you into the midst of Jerusalem.” The haftarah blessings ask G-d to help us give joy or nachas to the Land, m’sameach Zion b’vaneha.

Footnote: Some “Points of Pronunciation” from this week’s reading (Ref: The Ohs and Ahs of Torah Reading, by Rivka Sherman-Gold, www.yodanco.com).

Vayikra 16:1, be-kor-va-tam and yo-o-mad-chai. 16:12, chof-nav. 17:4, kor-ban. 17:14, kol-och-lav. 18:20 and 18:23, she-chov-te-cha and le-tom-ah-va (mispronouncing this word changes the meaning). 19:6, oo-mi-mo-cho-rat. 19:20, ve-hof-dei. 19:23, or-la-to. 19:31, le-tom-ah. 20:3, kod-shi. 20:1, she-chov-to.

Ezekiel 22:4, le-tom-ah. 22:6 and 9 and 12, she-foch-dam. 22:8, ko-da-shai (opinions vary for this word).

Prepared in 2004 for the EDOS parsha project in Denver.

 

This shall be the law of the leprous person for the day of his cleansing. He shall be brought to the priest… (Vayikra 14:2)

A Metzora is one who has contracted tzara’as (on his body in this case), a spiritual affliction with physical symptoms, stemming from various sins one may have committed. A well-known sin leading to tzara’as is lashon hara, speaking ill of others.

The Nesivos Shalom and others ask, why does the Metzora need to be brought to the kohen, priest? Can the afflicted person not come on his own?

He answers (in typical fashion of Chassidus) that the ‘negative forces’ surrounding this person due to his sin hold him back from coming to see the kohen. He is mired in spiritual darkness to the extent that he must remain outside of society for an extended period of time. Hopefully the ‘afflicted’ will contemplate the deeper roots of his sin (perhaps insecurity or anger, in the case of slander) and the desire to repent. Yet, according to the Nesivos Shalom, the person is still not able to go to the kohen on his own; he must be brought by others. Only when he comes in contact with a man of holiness (as the kohen hopefully is) do the negative forces leave him; the roots of his sin removed only when left vulnerable to the positive aura of the priest.

Many commentators point out that the metzora’s title is derived from to words “motze rah”/ “removing the negative”. One understanding of this is that the bad traits which must be extracted from the person. This fits nicely with the above understanding the cleansing process.

The Nesivos Shalom elaborates on his idea, but one thing we can take out of it is the following: sometimes to fully repent, we must come in contact and spend time with those on a greater spiritual level than ourselves. Their influence with hopefully cap off our own personal repentance process. Those too deep in spiritual ailments must be brought back into the ‘camp’.

This is outreach, the Biblical way. Even those who are reluctant to try a more vibrant form of Judaism are and should be encouraged to do so. As the verse states, Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the man who takes refuge in him (Psalms 34:12) If someone you knew cooked a great meal, you would encourage others to taste the cuisine.

Good Shabbos Yaakov

 

This Dvar Torah is in honor of my beautiful son, Azariah Simcha, who had is bris yesterday.

This is a very auspicious week to have a Bris, as the third pasuk in the Parsha is:

וּבַיּוֹם, הַשְּׁמִינִי, יִמּוֹל, בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתו

And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised

I would like to focus on two questions: What is the significance of the Bris Mila and why is the Bris on the 8th day?

To start to answer these questions, we first need to understand what the purpose of the Bris Mila is. The Sefer HaChinnuch gives one possible explanation. He says that Hashem created us imperfect physically to teach us that just as we have it in our power to perfect ourselves physically, so too we have to do something to perfect ourselves spiritually.

Explaining the significance of the number 8, the Kli Yakar says that the number 7 represents physicality and nature, while 8 is “l’maalah min haTeva” above nature. In last week’s parsha, we read about how the shechina only entered the mishkan on the 8th day. So too, we do the bris on the 8th day to show the spiritual nature of the bris.

Since we live in the physical world, where there are only 7 days in the week, how can we understand the explanation of the Sefer HaChinuch? Since we can’t just jump into the “8th dimension”, how can the bris be a lesson for us that we can accomplish spiritual improvement.

The Or HaChaim, in a long essay, gives a seemingly different reason. He says in part that the reason the bris is on the 8th day is that Hashem is doing a chesed for the little baby boy by giving him time to get some strength before doing the Bris. However this is not just pure physical strength. Rather, the strength he needs is having lived through one Shabbat. By having the bris on the 8th day, it is guaranteed that the baby will have at least 1 whole shabbat under his belt, so to speak.

If this were the case, however, why would we need to mandate 8 days for every boy? Any time after 1 shabbat has past should be enough?

I think that in reality, the ideas of the Kli Yakar and Or HaChaim are related. We live in this physical world, which is a place of action. We are commanded both to keep Shabbat as well as to work on the other 6 days (as it says “Sheshet Yamim Ta’avod, v’asita kol melachtecha” – for 6 days you should labor and do all of your work.) Hashem has given us this opportunity to do all of the Mitzvot and to develop our relationship with Him. By drawing our strength from Shabbat and maximizing who we are and what we accomplish during the other 6 days of the week, we are able to make ourselves ready to receive our spiritual circumcision on the “8th day.”

© 2012 myDvar.com Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha

Switch to our mobile site