Parshas Tazria-Metzora - Be Kind Too! You're a Web-Rooted Friend

Parshas Tazria-Metzora

Be Kind Too! You're a Web-Rooted Friend

By: Daniel Listhaus

וַיְדַבֵּר ה' אֶל משֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר: אָדָם כִּי יִהְיֶה בְעוֹר בְּשָׂרוֹ שְׂאֵת אוֹ סַפַּחַת אוֹ בַהֶרֶת וְהָיָה בְעוֹר בְּשָׂרוֹ לְנֶגַע צָרָעַת וְהוּבָא אֶל אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אוֹ אֶל אַחַד מִבָּנָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים

“Hashem spoke to Moshe and to Aharon, saying, 'If a person will have on the skin of his flesh a se'is or sapachas or a baheres, and it will become a tzara'as affliction on the skin of his flesh; he shall be brought to Aharon the Kohen, or to one of his sons the Kohanim...'”

-Tazria 13:1-2

וַיְדַבֵּר ה' אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר: זֹאת תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת הַמְּצֹרָע בְּיוֹם טָהֳרָתוֹ וְהוּבָא אֶל הַכֹּהֵן: וְיָצָא הַכֹּהֵן אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה נִרְפָּא נֶגַע הַצָּרַעַת מִן הַצָּרוּעַ: וְצִוָּה הַכֹּהֵן וְלָקַח לַמִּטַּהֵר שְׁתֵּי צִפֳּרִים חַיּוֹת טְהֹרוֹת וְעֵץ אֶרֶז וּשְׁנִי תוֹלַעַת וְאֵזֹב

“Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying, 'This shall be the law of the Metzora on the day of his purification: He shall be brought to the Kohen. The Kohen shall look, and behold! - the tzara'as affliction had been healed from the Metzora. The Kohen shall command; and for the person being purified there shall be taken two live, pure birds, cedarwood, a crimson tongue of wool, and hyssop.'”

-Metzora 14:1-4

וַיְדַבֵּר הֹ' אֶל משֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר: כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן לָכֶם לַאֲחֻזָּה וְנָתַתִּי נֶגַע צָרַעַת בְּבֵית אֶרֶץ אֲחֻזַּתְכֶם: וּבָא אֲשֶׁר לוֹ הַבַּיִת וְהִגִּיד לַכֹּהֵן לֵאמֹר כְּנֶגַע נִרְאָה לִי בַּבָּיִת: וְצִוָּה הַכֹּהֵן וּפִנּוּ אֶת הַבַּיִת בְּטֶרֶם יָבֹא הַכֹּהֵן לִרְאוֹת אֶת הַנֶּגַע וְלֹא יִטְמָא כָּל אֲשֶׁר בַּבָּיִת וְאַחַר כֵּן יָבֹא הַכֹּהֵן לִרְאוֹת אֶת הַבָּיִת

“Hashem spoke to Moshe and Aharon, saying: 'When you arrive in the land of Cana'an that I give you as a possession, and I will place a tzara'as as affliction upon a house in the land of your possession.; the one to who the house belongs shall come to declare to the Kohen, saying: 'Something like an affliction has appeared to me in the house'. The Kohen shall command, and they shall clear the house when the Kohen has not yet come to look at the affliction, so that everything in the house should not become impure; and afterward shall the Kohen come to look at the house....'”

-Metzora 14:33-36

The whole concept of tzara'as is one that is so foreign to us. With tzara'as as part of reality, one could imagine how it would be so much easier to literally see that even non-physical actions could have real bad repercussions, as well as realize that there is indeed a direct connection between the spiritual and physical worlds. Lashon harah (evil speech) is spoken everyday by so many people whether it be verbally or over social networks, with seemingly no consequences. It has become such a focal part of society that the idea does not faze us. Whistle-blowing, art critiquing, ratings, online comments, everyday news. We rush to hear or say negative things about others because deep down it makes us feel better. It is an extremely unfortunate reality that we are so disconnected and unmoved by speaking or listening to lashon harah. Certainly no one would want lashon harah spoken about themselves – after all “it's not their business” or “for what purpose would you want to ruin my reputation” - yet when it comes to others, it comes to us so easy that we rarely even need to rationalize what we are saying, we just say whatever we want whether in speech, text, email, or comment sections. How does this make any sense? Even non-Jews have the principle to treat thy fellow neighbor as yourself. After all it becomes a necessary principle for civilization to succeed. People do not go around physically hurting others, because they would not want to be physically hurt in return. So why do people easily say things which hurt others when they would not want that to be done back to them? What intuition is lacking when it comes to lashon harah which causes us to do it without thinking? How could we work on ourselves to start realizing when we are saying or hearing lashon harah in order to stay away from it?

The passuk¹ (verse) describes that upon seeing tzara'as on one's house, the afflicted person goes to the Kohen and declares, “Something like an affliction has appeared to me in the house”. Rashi² further stresses that even if the person is a talmid chochom (Torah scholar) who knows that what is on his house is certainly a form of tzara'as, still he is not permitted to definitively declare, “An affliction has appeared to me”; rather, he should say, “Something like an affliction has appeared to me”. The reason for this, as the next Rashi³ further explains, is because until the Kohen himself declares it tamei (impure), there is absolutely no law of impurity regarding the affliction.

The Alter of Slabodka⁴ is bothered by this process. Is this all a word game? If the man who received the tzara'as knows for himself that it is indeed tzara'as, why does he need to play dumb with the Kohen? He should be encouraged to explicitly state the facts: “An affliction has appeared to me.” What is the point of this elusiveness by saying, “Something like an affliction has appeared to me”?

The Alter of Slabodka answers by reiterating Rashi in a slightly stronger way. He writes that because it is the Kohen who must declare that the affliction is indeed tamei, it would be sheker (a lie) to declare prior to that point that you have seen tzara'as. Tzara'as must be declared by the Kohen. It is therefore not possible that you have seen tzara'as because tzara'as does not really exist until it is declared tamei by the Kohen. The Alter of Slabodka continues to write that perhaps some people are bothered by the following question. According to this, that we are so careful about not saying sheker, we have not accomplished anything. How could this talmid chochom say to the Kohen, “something like an affliction has appeared to me”, if he knows that it is tzara'as and will ultimately be declared as such anyway? If the Torah is really trying to be so stringent on falsehood, no lesson could be learned from here, he is lying regardless!

However, writes the Alter of Slabodka, one who is bothered by such a question is being caught up in the same fundamental mistake. Before the Kohen comes to declare it tamei, there is absolutely no tzara'as. It is not like we pretend that we do not know what it is and then when the Kohen makes his statement we say, “Told you so!” It is not like that at all. Rather, the tzara'as does not exist as a tamei affliction until the Kohen declares it as such. This is true to the point that if the afflicted is a talmid chochom who recognizes it as tzara'as, and the Kohen is an ignoramus who does not know all the rules of what qualifies as tzara'as, and consequently declares it tahor (pure), the man is indeed pure. The fact that the affliction is not considered tzara'as until the Kohen's say-so is evident from the Torah itself. The passuk⁵ advises that before one calls the Kohen to see the affliction in one's home, one should take some time to clear his house of his possessions in order that they not become contaminated at the time the Kohen determines the tzara'as to be tamei.⁶ There is no retroactive tzara'as. It is clear that no tzara'as existed before the Kohen declares it even if that same spot has been there for a while.

The Alter of Slabodka definitely makes himself clear that it would be incorrect for the talmid chochom to say, “An affliction has appeared to me”, and that the Torah is teaching us a lesson of the requirement to stay away from sheker (falsehood). However, let us stop and rethink through this again. though. There is no doubt that honesty is of utmost importance and a pillar of the Torah. After all, the seal of Hashem is emes (truth).⁷ However, is that really being compromised here? At the end of the day, what is really wrong with the afflicted person calling it tzara'as? Let it be his personal opinion. Imagine that you are sitting watching a court case and, after listening to both sides, you turn to the guy next to you and say, “That man is definitely guilty.” Is there really something so wrong in stating this? Granted, if the person sitting next to you is the Alter of Slabodka he might say, “How could you say he is guilty? The jury has not yet declared him as such!” But, would that really be a valid complaint, or is there in fact a bigger fuss about accuracy when it comes to tzara'as than even the most radical truth-tellers would generally make?

Furthermore, let us take a step back for a moment and recall the bigger picture. The whole reason for this necessity to say, “Something like an affliction has appeared to me”, stems from the fact that the Torah insists that it be only the Kohen who has the ability to declare tzara'as to be tamei. Why is this necessary? The entire parshiyos of Tazria and Metzora are filled with descriptions of the Kohen specifically being the one who is commanding and declaring. Why is it so important and why is there such an emphasis on it? Why not eliminate the middle man and let the people declare tamei for themselves?

The Medrash⁸ relates a story of a certain peddler who was traveling through a few cities near Tzipori. He went around announcing, “Who wants to purchase an elixir of life?” Soon, he had attracted a small crowd around him. Rebbe Yannai happened to be sitting there and said, “I would like to buy some”. The peddler turned to him and said, “You and those like you have no need for this product.” However, Rebbe Yannai kept bothering the peddler to sell it to him. The peddler then took out a Tehillim and showed him the following passukim: “Who is the man who desires life, who loves days of seeing good? Guard your tongue from evil, and your lips from from speaking deceit. Turn from evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it.”⁹

It seems from these passukim in Tehillim that staying away from lashon harah is the recipe for a long life. However, the two elements which are needed to stay away from lashon harah are to come close to Torah¹⁰ and to pursue peace. As a matter of fact, the Kli Yakar¹¹ explains that this is precisely the reason why when it comes to tzara'as, it could only be declared tamei or tahor by a Kohen.¹² One who involves himself in lashon harah is someone who causes fights and mistrust. Such people destroy society by tearing its members apart from each other. Therefore, Aharon's special middah (trait) of shalom (peace) must be the one to set the example.

The mishna¹³ states that Hillel used to say, “Be among the disciples of Aharon, loving peace and pursing peace; loving people and bringing them closer to the Torah.” These two elements of coming closer to Torah and pursuing peace are the two fundamentals of establishing a successful society. Torah is emes (truth). Trust and honesty are needed in order to build real relationships and friendships. Additionally, in order to have a successful culture, just being “un-annoying” is not enough. Passiveness is not real peace. Passiveness would allow for a world where everyone absolutely despises each other, yet no one wants to violently express that hatred. Rather, real peace is the pursuit of peace. Just sitting around being a bobble-head is not enough, one has to go out and be actively kind and helpful to others with the others' best interests in mind.

This was what was so special about Aharon HaKohen. The passuk¹⁴ testifies that at the time that Aharon passed away, the entire B'nei Yisroel cried for thirty days in mourning. Rashi¹⁵ there comments that all the men and women felt a personal connection to Aharon because he was someone who would pursue peace, save marriages, and instill love between two people involved in an argument.

Speaking lashon harah is not something that one wakes up one morning and decides to do. Rather it is something which either feels right or wrong to us depending on the level we are on. The setup for this failure stems from a lacking in emes and a deficiency in pursuing peace. Emes and the pursuit of peace is what keeps society healthy; defining the contrast, however, is where it gets tricky. It is not enough to just not say or not allow for sheker, nor is it enough to simply not get on others' nerves. Instead, we must do as Hillel prescribes in Pirkei Avos – we must pursue peace and bring others closer to the emes of Torah. This means to actively encourage emes and to take action in creating peace.

Perhaps this is why these two points are so specifically stressed throughout the subject of tzara'as. To pure oneself from tzara'as, one must focus on the two middos – emes and shalom – he is deficient in, which allowed for him to feel comfortable speaking lashon harah in the first place. This is why the Torah chooses here to emphasize the distance we must go to stay away from sheker, and why the Torah takes the task of determining whether an affliction is impure away from those who are talmidei chochomim alone, and instead puts it in the charge of those who represent shalom.

Living during a time of “greed is good” and “on the Internet no one knows you are a dog”, it is no surprise that we have become so insensitive to lashon harah. Shalom and emes seem to be the antithesis of what we are influenced with on a daily basis. One would at least think that a culture where one could make up the perfect profile, and where self-made success is encouraged, should consist of the happiest people on Earth. Yet, that is certainly not the case.

People were not created to live lives of sheker or lack of actively pursuing peace, therefore following such paths cannot and do not lead to real happiness. Rather, it is being honest and caring for others which offers a taste of real happiness. A lady by the name of Elizabeth Dunn led an interesting study in 2008. She and her colleagues gathered a group of students and distributed envelopes to them containing cash and instructions on how it should be spent. Each envelope held either five or twenty dollars along with a note, which either instructed the money to be spent on oneself or on someone else. Later, Dunn and her team measured and analyzed the level of happiness that the participants experienced. Their results showed that the ones who spent the money on others felt much better and happier than those who spent the money on themselves – regardless of whether they had spent five or twenty dollars.

The idea of pursuing emes and shalom is something which we must realize works exponentially. Each person is rooted within a web of friends and acquaintances who in turn are each a part of their own network. So it is not enough to just be not unkind, instead we must actively be kind because we are rooted as part of a web in which one person's positive pursuit of peace could change others', causing an exponential chain reaction. At the same time, we must internalize the dangers that a deficiency in these middos could cause. After realizing the mentality which ruins communities and destroys societies, our task is to work on the middos which will prevent us from reaching such disasters.

May we learn from these parshiyos of tzara'as to work on the middos of emes and shalom, and achieve what Hashem tells us in Nach¹⁶, “You shall love truth and peace”.

1Vayikra 14:35

2Ibid.

3Vayikra 14:36

4Ohr HaTzafun: Chelek Gimmel

5Vayikra 14:36

6Rashi ibid.

7Gemara Shabbos 55a

8Vayikra Rabbah 16:2

9Tehillim 13-15

10See Gemara Berachos 5a which says that there is nothing referred to as “good” other than Torah, as the passuk says in Mishlei 4:2, “For a good teaching I have given you – My Torah; do not forsake it.”

11Tazria 13:3

12The Kli Yakar 13:2 actually maintains that there are three possible reasons why someone would receive tzara'as: For speaking lashon harah, being haughty, or running after money. The Kli Yakar (13:3) then explains why it is a Kohen specifically who declares the tzara'as on someone who did one of these three things. We will focus on the lashon harah part, though it could be applied to all three.

13Avos 1:13

14Bamidbar 20:29

15Ibid.

16Zechariah 8:19

Photo Credit: http://www.ereleases.com/prfuel/6-ridiculous-types-of-people-you-meet-at-networking-events/

Parshas Shemini - Half and Half: You Are What You Eat

Parshas Shemini

Half and Half: You Are What You Eat

By: Daniel Listhaus

כִּי אֲנִי ה' אֱלֹקיכֶם וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם וִהְיִיתֶם קְדשִׁים כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אָנִי וְלֹא תְטַמְּאוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ: כִּי אֲנִי ה' הַמַּעֲלֶה אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לִהְיֹת לָכֶם לֵאלֹקים וִהְיִיתֶם קְדשִׁים כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אָנִי: זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָעוֹף וְכֹל נֶפֶשׁ הַחַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת בַּמָּיִם וּלְכָל נֶפֶשׁ הַשֹּׁרֶצֶת עַל הָאָרֶץ: לְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הַטָּמֵא וּבֵין הַטָּהֹר וּבֵין הַחַיָּה הַנֶּאֱכֶלֶת וּבֵין הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֵאָכֵל

“For I am Hashem your G-d – you are to sanctify yourselves and you shall become holy, for I am holy; and you shall not make your souls impure through any creeping thing that creeps on the earth. For I am Hashem Who brings you up from the land of Egypt to be a G-d unto you; you shall be holy, for I am holy. This is the law of the animal, the bird, every living creature that swarms in the water, and for every creature that creeps on the ground; For distinguishing between the impure and the pure, and between the creature that may be eaten and the creature that may not be eaten.”

-Shemini 11:44-47

The second half of this week's parsha provides the basis of the laws of kashrus – defining which animals are tahor (pure) and which are not. The Torah describes that as far as land animals are concerned, the way to tell if they are tahor is if they have split hooves and also chew their cud. One sign does not suffice.¹ When it comes to describing the necessary signs for fish, the Torah seems to be more generous requiring only fins and scales – resulting in a much larger variety of delicacies than we are allowed by land animals. Additionally, there is a leniency by fish, compared to land animals, which is that the Torah does not require fish to be slaughtered in order to render them kosher. The Torah continues by listing the non-kosher birds, which is also not as long as the list of non-tahor land animals. The Torah then goes on to forbid any type of insect that flies² and continues to forbid any type of insect which creeps on the ground.

The parsha concludes with the summary quoted above – that we must differentiate between that which is pure for us and that which is not. During this summary, the Torah seems to throw in an unnecessary piece of information: “For I am Hashem Who brings you up from the land of Egypt to be a G-d unto you; you shall be holy, for I am holy”.³ Why is it that Hashem reminds us this at this particular point? Did we need another dose of memory pills to realize that Hashem was bringing us into Eretz Yisroel? Why now is the Torah mentioning us coming out of Mitzrayim?

Rashi⁴ on this passuk is bothered by this and offers two explanations. Rashi's first answer is that the passuk is teaching us that the reason Hashem brought us up from Mitzrayim was solely on the condition that we accept His mitzvos. This explanation is extremely vague and does not seem to address the issue at all. Still, why is it written here? It makes sense to mention it in the parsha of tzitzis, for example, which represents all mitzvos. What purpose, though, does this reminder serve specifically here?

Before we further ponder this first answer of Rashi, let us take a look at the second explanation he offers. Rashi writes that if you notice, the passuk (verse) says that, “I am Hashem Who brings you up from Mitzrayim” as opposed to the regular, “I brought you out of Mitzrayim”. The reason for this is, as Rashi brings from Tana D'vei R' Yishmael, that it would be worth it for Hashem to take us out of Mitzrayim for this mitzva alone – of not becoming impure through creeping things. Although this explanation is more specific it is still hard to understand. What is so special about this particular mitzva that the merit of keeping this mitzva alone is enough of a reason for Hashem to take us into Eretz Yisroel?

The Kli Yakar⁵ is also bothered by this Rashi so he takes a slightly different angle based on the following observation. There seems to be a positive correlation between the harsher terminology the Torah uses to describe the effect that impure animals have on our souls, and the closer the animal is to the ground. Fish, which live in the water, only require to have fins and scales. They do not even need to be slaughtered. When it comes to birds – which are animals of the air, though they have a deep connection to earth as well, also have few restrictions. However, once the Torah enters the area of land animals, it becomes a new playing field. The strict requirements of an animal needing split hooves and must chew its cud, eliminates most animals. Even with this limitation, however, a proper slaughtering is still necessary before a four-legged animal becomes fit to eat. As we get into the territory of creeping and crawling insects, the borders close completely, allowing almost no insect to be eaten for any reason.

The Kli Yakar takes this observation and explains that the area which creatures live in tell a lot about their purity or impurity. The closer an animal lives to the ground, the more impure it is and the worse the effect will be on one's soul if the creature is consumed. This is why even kosher animals require shechita (to be slaughtered), whereas fish, which come from a pure place – water – do not require shechita.⁶ The Kli Yakar then continues to explain that this is the reason why people do not walk on “all-fours”. The reason we walk on two feet is because although half of us is made of dirt and has a pull towards mundane activities and desires, the other half of us is spiritual and turns upward, seeking a closeness with Hashem.

Perhaps with this Kli Yakar we could understand the Rashi better as well. The ultimate purpose of living is to use the mitzvos to live a life of taharah (purity) and become closer to Hashem through them. However, every person must remember that we are constantly in a struggle between the two parts that make up every human being. Part of us knows we are made of dirt and therefore wants to follow impure desires and lifestyles. The other half of us realizes its potential as a tzelem Elokim and seeks the highest levels of taharah. Our job is to acknowledge these two aspects of man and channel our desires away from things which are detrimental to the neshama and instead focus on things which help us grow spiritually in ways we could become closer to Hashem.

This yesod (fundamental idea) is perhaps what the Torah is teaching us by specifically choosing this mitzva to say that for this alone it would be worth bringing us up to Eretz Yisroel. Realizing that man in made of half ruchniyos and half gashmiyos and that we must choose which side we will activate and turn our attention towards with extreme care and concern, is of utmost importance for man to live a proper life. This delicate balance, which each person maintains, could be effected at every level. Even the type of food we allow into our system has the ability to favor the gashmiyos part of us and pull us in that direction.

The world and its effects on man are so intricate and part of the deep secrets of the world we do not understand. However, the one thing we must understand is that Hashem gave us a Torah to guide us on how to live life properly. The Torah tells us that there is a intrinsic difference between tahor and non-tahor animals. Our job is to realize that not only is it true that 'You are what you eat', but even more, that it is our task to realize what is tahor and what is not in order to make sure that we are constantly feeding the ruchniyos half of us, and not the half which is trapped in gashmiyos.

1Such as in the case of a camel, which only chews its cud, or a pig which only has split hooves.

2Except for a few flavors of grasshoppers.

3Vayikra 11:45

4Ibid.

5Vayikra 11:45

6The obvious question on this, which the Kli Yakar discusses, is if so that water indeed represents a place of taharah (as a matter of fact, we become tahor in a mikvah of water), then why is it that in order for foods to be susceptible to tumah (impurity), they must be wet from water? The Kli Yakar discusses this in parshas Chukas (19:21) and gives a fascinating answer which answers this as well as offers insight into the way parah aduma works.

Photo Credit: http://www.strangehistory.net/2012/07/27/the-cow-man-of-wicklow-and-his-sad-end/

Parshas Vayikra - The Art of Listening

Thoughts on The Parsha

Parshas Vayikra

The Art of Listening

By: Daniel Listhaus

וַיִּקְרָא אֶל משֶׁה וַיְדַבֵּר ה' אֵלָיו מֵאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֵאמֹר: דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אָדָם כִּי יַקְרִיב מִכֶּם קָרְבָּן לַה' מִן הַבְּהֵמָה מִן הַבָּקָר וּמִן הַצֹּאן תַּקְרִיבוּ אֶת קָרְבַּנְכֶם

“He [Hashem] called to Moshe and Hashem spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, saying: Speak to the B'nei Yisroel and say to them: When a person from among you will bring an offering to Hashem: from the animals – from the cattle and from the flocks you shall bring your offering.”

-Vayikra 1:1-2

Rashi¹ on this passuk (verse) describes that throughout the Torah there are many breaks.² The purpose of these breaks was to give Moshe time to digest and understand what he had been taught by Hashem. Rashi then ends by saying a kal v'chomer: If Moshe, who learned from Hashem, needed breaks for contemplation, then certainly ordinary people such as ourselves who learn from ordinary people must stop to take breaks in order to properly understand what the other is teaching.

The Sifsei Chachomim³ explains that the kal v'chomer that Rashi is saying is quite clear: If Moshe, an incredible student, was learning from Hashem, Who is certainly the best teacher available, still required breaks in order to try to understand what was being taught. How much more so must we take many breaks to digest what is being taught to us from ordinary people.

Let us zoom out a little in order to appreciate what is being said here. There are two main reasons why a person would need to take breaks during a learning session. One is because it is hard for some people to sit for long periods of time. It is therefore wise and healthy to take breaks and recesses to clear one's mind to be able to be more productive. The other reason a person may need a break is because one might simply not understand the material being taught, and therefore require extra time in order for him to think about what is being said. It sounds from Rashi and the Sifsei Chachomim that this latter type of break is what is being referred to. For some reason, Moshe actually needed breaks in order to understand what Hashem was teaching him.

The Nachalas Yaakov⁴ is very bothered by this Rashi and asks the following two questions. First of all, surely there is no better teacher than Hashem. The Creator, with infinite wisdom and Who knows His creations the best, certainly has the ability to convey any message or teaching to man in the clearest of ways. If so, how could it be that Moshe needed breaks in order to understand what was being taught to him? Why did Moshe experience confusion if he had the best teacher possible?

Second of all, what is the kal v'chomer that Rashi is trying to present? It would make sense if Moshe really was able to understand it himself but Hashem gave him the breaks to teach him not to rely on his sharpness, so then there would be a kal v'chomer to us that certainly we should not rely on our own sharpness. However, it seems from Rashi that Moshe really did need the breaks; but if so, why is a kal v'chomer necessary? Even without a kal v'chomer it should be obvious that we need breaks to understand things when learning from ordinary people, simply because we would not understand it otherwise!

The Nachalas Yaakov ends without an answer to his problems with this Rashi. However, perhaps the explanation is as follows. If one stops to think about the process that everyone goes through when communicating, one will realize how complicated simple-communication really is. When two people are having a conversation, what is being said is really going through a five step process. The idea trying to be conveyed begins its journey in one person's head. The person decides what he wants, or more precisely, what he means to say. Then, he must choose the words he will use to express his idea. This is followed by the time and space the words travel between the ones having the conversation. Then, the listener hears what is being said to him, followed by the last step in the process which is digesting the information and interpreting what he heard.

This last step in the process is the hardest of them all. It is easy to hear what someone else has said and it is also generally easy to interpret what one has heard, but that is not enough. In order to fully understand and appreciate a message trying to be conveyed, one must remove the built-in filter which shapes the way one hears things and instead focus on what the communicator was trying to relate.

The Mishna in Pirkei Avos⁵ says that Antignos from Socho used to teach, “Do not be like servants who serve their master on the condition of receiving a reward; instead be like servants who serve their master not on the condition of receiving a reward; and let the fear of Heaven be upon you.” Antignos was teaching that although the reward in Olam Habbah (the World to Come) which awaits those who follow the ways of Hashem are endless and greater than anything imaginable, when we serve Hashem it should be out of complete love and fear of Him, and not just because we will receive reward for doing the right thing.

The Rashbam in Bava Basra⁶ brings from the Avos D'rebbe Nosson⁷ that Tzadok and Beisus were talmidim (students) of Antignos. One time they were teaching this mantra of their rebbe, Antignos, but their students confused what they said and took the message of to not be like workers who work in order to get paid, to mean that people who do mitzvos and work for Hashem do not get rewarded.

The students of Tzadok and Beisus did not take the time to listen to the message that their rabbeim were trying to convey. They simply allowed their default hearing skills to kick in. Tzadok and Beisus knew what they themselves wanted to say, they said it, it reached the ears of their talmidim, but the talmidim just did not stop to think what their rabbeim meant, rather they merely depended on what they thought they heard – or perhaps what they wanted to hear.

With this in mind, perhaps we could now answer the questions of the Nachalas Yaakov and better understand the Rashi in this week's parsha. Of course Hashem is the best teacher of the world and could convey any message as clear as crystal. However, even as great of a talmid as Moshe rabbeinu needs time to understand the underlying reasoning and message of what is trying to be conveyed.

We say in Shema, “Im shamoa tishm'u” - you shall surely listen. The Gemara in Berachos⁸ makes a drasha from here: If you listen, then you will listen. But if you will not listen, then you will not understand. Only if one listens to what the Torah and the chochamim (sages) are trying to tell us, will one gain a true understanding of what was said.

Many misunderstandings and arguments stem not from disagreement, but rather from mis-communication. It is not easy to pause our own thoughts and opinions in order to realize the idea that someone else is trying to convey. Unless we consciously decide to listen the right way, we will not even notice that what we are hearing is going through our own heads without taking account what was meant to be said.

This is exactly what Rashi is teaching us. Even Moshe Rabbeinu needed to take breaks to put himself in Hashem's head – so to speak – in order to comprehend what was being taught to him. So certainly we, who are normal people learning from ordinary people, must take breaks in order to be able to put ourselves in others' minds. Only then will the communication process be complete and allow for the possibility of im shamoa tishm'u. This is the real art of listening.

1Vayikra 1:1

2These breaks in the Torah could take one of two forms – either pesucha (literally: open) or s'tumah (literally closed). Pesucha is when the spaces go to the end of the line,

whereas s'tumah is when the space is a break in a line                                 but the text continues further on in the same line.

3Vayikra 1:1

4Ibid.

5Avos 1:3

6Bava Basra 115b

7Avos D'rebbe Nosson 5:2

8Berachos 40a

Photo Credit: Compiled and Edited from: http://moorecoinc.com/product-view.php?category=easels-064&series=wood-presentation-easel-b08, http://www.discover-how-to-draw.com/how-to-draw-ears.html,

Parshas Vayakhel-Pekudei - There's a Reason to Give... Even if They Don't Give a Reason

Parshas Vayakhel-Pekudei

There's a Reason to Give... Even if They Don't Give a Reason

By: Daniel Listhaus

וְהַנְּשִׂאִם הֵבִיאוּ אֵת אַבְנֵי הַשֹּׁהַם וְאֵת אַבְנֵי הַמִּלֻּאִים לָאֵפוֹד וְלַחשֶׁן

“The princes brought the shoham stones and the filling stones for the Eiphod and for the Choshen.”

-Vayakhel 35:27

Rashi¹ quotes Rebbe Nassan who points out that when it came to the dedication of the mizbeach (alter),² the Torah relates that the Nesi'im (“princes”) were the first to volunteer whatever they could to ensure that the grand opening of the mizbeach would be a tremendous event with plenty of (karbanos) offerings. However, earlier, when the Mishkan (Tabernacle) was being constructed in this week's parsha, the Nesi'im appear to have been very lazy in their offering to help. By the time the Nesi'im came around to ask how they could help in the building of the Mishkan, everything had already been taken care of. The contributions from every individual of B'nei Yisroel added up to a fund with more than enough needed to meet the expected cost of the Mishkan. The Nesi'im begged for to be something thought up of that was still needed in order that too should have a share in directly contributing the items needed for the Mishkan. They were told that the shoham and me'luim stones for the Eiphod (robe) and Choshen (breastplate) had not yet been contributed, and happily they donated exactly that.

As Rashi explains, the Nesi'im at the time of the construction of the Mishkan were not trying to get out of their dues, rather they had a very good reason as to why they did not contribute immediately. Their calculation was as follows. They were very wealthy individuals and figured that they would wait and let the B'nei Yisroel cover as much as they can – and they would pledge the rest. Rashi continues, though, and writes that because of this laziness to donate right away to the Mishkan, a letter was taken out of their name.³

This Rashi is difficult to understand. The Nesi'im's offer does in fact seem to have been made immediately and also appears to be the most generous offer of them all. After all, if the B'nei Yisroel would as a whole only be able to collect one-percent of the total needed, the Nesi'im were guaranteeing that they would make sure the other ninety-nine percent of expenses would be taken care of. What was wrong with their method? Imagine for a moment that you go out of town for one week in order to collect for an organization which is suffering from a one-million dollar deficit. You knock on the first door and you start describing to the man who answers about the organization you are collecting for and how they are in need of one-million dollars. He responds that you should work hard collecting money for the week and then come back to him and he will be happy to supplement the rest of the funds needed to reach the one-million dollar goal. Certainly one cannot argue that this person is not the most generous – even if it turns out that you were able to collect all the money needed without needing to return to him. Still, he was essentially willing to give you whatever you needed. He was willing to guarantee that your goal would be met no matter what. This seems to be precisely what the Nesi'im did. How could such a method be called lazy and considered as if they were not willing to give anything from the onset?

The Sifsei Chachomim⁴ brings from the Nachalas Yaakov that even though the Nesi'im's intentions were good, they made a fundamental mistake. They assumed that even after collecting from the B'nei Yisroel, there would still be something that would need to be taken care of. However, they underestimated B'nei Yisroel's incredible quality of nedivos (generosity). Jews are rachmanim (merciful) and gomlei chasadim (ones who perform acts of kindness. We are a people who have a desire to help others. The tremendous amount of chesed (kindness) and tzedakah (charity) that we are not only expected to give, but want to give is something that is a unique part of us as a nation. B'nei Yisroel share a deep connection with each other in such a way that we really view ourselves each as a part of the tzubbur (community). Each of us is really only a part of a bigger picture and the things that we are blessed – whether wisdom, skills, money, or any characteristic – are not meant for us alone but for the benefit of the entire B'nei Yisroel. Certainly this is something that we experience during this time of year between Purim and Pesach with mitzvos such as machatzis hashekel (half-shekel) – the idea that each of us is only a part of a bigger picture - matanos l'evyonim (gifts to the poor on Purim) and maos chittim (money given to the poor to buy matza for Pesach). The Nesi'im's mistake was that they assumed that after collecting funds from the B'nei Yisroel to construct the Mishkan, that there would still be some opportunities remaining. However, this was not the case. With the money collected, there was even more than was necessary to complete the Mishkan.

This lesson that we must be like the B'nei Yisroel in the midbar (desert) and view our G-d given abilities – whatever they may be – as things that we must bring to the table to help the tzibbbur, is something that is very true and must be internalized. However, the problem with this Sifsei Chachomim and Rashi is that they seem to conveniently forgetting about the outcome of the story. The story continues that the Nesi'im's donations were actually very much needed because not only had the B'nei Yisroel not gathered the shoham stones, but they as a whole could not even afford to do so if they tried. These precious stones were so expensive, only the Nesi'im had the means to get them.⁵ If so, what was wrong with their method of donation? It all worked out perfectly!

When Hashem decided it was time to bring the makkos (plagues) upon Mitzrayim, the Torah⁶ relates that Aharon had to be the one who brought the makkos because, as Rashi⁷ explains, Moshe was unable to hit the water or sand. The water had protected him as a baby floating in a basket on the Nile River, and the sand had cooperated with him when he needed its help to bury the mitzri that he had killed. In order to express proper hakaras hatov (literally – “recognition of the good [deed]”) to the water and sand, he could not be the one to hit them to bring forth the makkos.

The obvious question on this is two-fold. First, neither the water nor the sand did anything extraordinary. The water just did its job of flowing and the sand did nothing more than just be there on the ground. Why did Moshe need to show hakaros hatov to the sand and water when they really did nothing for him particularly? Furthermore, why was Moshe expected to show gratitude to inanimate objects which do not know that anything is being done for them?

Perhaps the lesson to be learned from here is an insight as to what hakaras hatov really is. Hakaras hatov means recognizing the good. Not necessarily what your friend had to do in order to do the good deed for you, because it is very possible that he did not have to do anything extra at all. For example, imagine someone sees you walking in the rain on the way to shul – where he is heading anyway – and picks you up in his car. In such a case no excertion was necessary on his side, but for you an incredible favor was done nonetheless. So rather, the hakaras hatov comes from recognizing what you received and the fact that he was the one who brought the favor to you. How easy or hard it was for the person to do you a favor is not a reason to appreciate it less, only more. The fact that it may have been easy for him to do you the favor should be independent to the value that you place on having received it.

The Torah⁸ tells us that the Mishkan was built through the highest form of giving – nediv leebo (generous of heart). The B'nei Yisroel did just that and put forth the effort to give what they wanted to give, regardless of what was on the sponsorship opportunity list for the Mishkan. As a matter of fact, the Torah tells us that more than was needed was given. Each person gave all he was able, whether it be his time, advice, or money. The Nesi'im, though, with their approach were perhaps lacking slightly in their nedivos lev. They were more concerned on being able to collect all the funds, when they should have just given according to what they felt they were able to give. How could one give less? Just like when expressing hakaras hatov it is a reflection not on what the other party went through, but rather what you are thankful for and the benefit you received, so too a gift given purely from the heart does not change in size even if others are giving as well. The money towards the Mishkan was more of an expression of love of Hashem and building a house where his shechina could dwell. Such a reason to give resources should have been unaffected by the amount others chose to give.

The Nesi'im, who were the leaders of the shevatim (tribes), were called to task that they should have better understood what was expected of them to be nedivei lev. Fortunately, they learned from this experience and when it came time later for the Chanukas Ha'mizbeach (dedication of the alter), they were the first to volunteer everything that they could.

May it be the will of Hashem to quickly bring the third Beis HaMikdash so that we could all have the ability to join as a world-wide tzibbur and each contribute whatever we can with nedivos lev.

1Shemos 35:27

2Bamidbar 7:1-3

3This is why the word for princes here in the Torah is spelled asנשאם instead of the conventional way of spelling it as follows:נשיאם

4Shemos 35:27

5See Kli Yakar 35:27

6Shemos 7:19, and Shemos 8:12

7Ibid. in both places.

8Shemos 35:5
Photo Credit: http://free-bitsela.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=2716