arch 29,2003 « A°DB'2 TTR "3 vinnrynw Voie re Neier ot It’s in Your Hands Rabbi Eliakim Koenigaburg 1 the surface, Parshat Shemini and Par- ‘shat HaChodesh seem to share litle in ‘common, But a more careful analysis re- vasa striking thematic similarity between the two, Chazal tll us (se Rashi, Vayikra 9:29) that even after Aharon brought his korbanot a the dedica- tion ofthe Mishkan the Divine Presence stil did not descend uponthe Mishkan. Aharon was understanéa- by distressed and he complained to Moshe. “I knew ‘Hashem was stil angry at me foe Cheit HaBigel,andit {is my fault thet Hashem refuses to allow His Presence to dwell ameng the Jewish people” Immediately, ‘Moshe entered the Ohel Moed, begged for mercy on Abaron’s behalf, and then the Shechina descended ‘upon the Mishkan At firt glance, Aharon’ selferitcsm seems ‘unduly harsh, After all, many artisans and workers ‘were involved inthe’ bulding of the Mishkan, Hashem's refisal to allow his Shechina to descend may have been due to some inappropriate gesture or ‘on the part of one of the workers. Altea ‘may have emerged from the fact that Hashem Ss arbored some real anger toward the Jewish people as a whole afier Cheit HaBigel. Why did ‘haron blame imsel for the Miskin fare? ‘The batalei mussar write that we lear a critical lesson. from Aharon. When a person is unsuccessfl in his spiritual endewvors, orin any endeavor for thet matter, hoe shouldn't blame others. Rether, he should look in- ‘wal and take responsiblity fer his failure. This isnot to say thata person should besome depresoed; stil, he should not look elsewhere for the root cause of the problem. ‘This concept - that an individual should take ‘esponsbilty for his situation ~ i reflected in the be- havior of Yonah HaNaui as well, When the sailors on the ship ask Yonah what ther should do in order ta calm the stormy seas, Yonah fells them to throw him. ‘overboard, “Because T Imow that the storm i my ful.” Yonah could have easly rationalized that the storm was due tothe sins of his shipmates who were ‘dol worshipers (see Yonah 15). But he gave no ex ‘uses. He looked inward, found himself lacking, and ‘admitted his mistake, ‘Many Meforshim are troubled by the fact that the very fist mitzah given to Bnet Yisrael is Kiddusht HaChedesh, the obligation of bie dn to procsim the few month, One would have expected a mitzunh ike ‘Shabbos or Tefilin to be the frst mitavah. Why was ‘Kiddush HaChodesh chosen instead? Perhaps the an- ‘swer is that the mitzvah of Kiddush HaChodesh high- 3s central theme in avodas Hashem. pasuk in Parshas Emor (23:4) states: “These are the Festivals that you (Le. bes din) should proclaim,” and Chazal (Rosh Hashana 25a) explain, “You, even by mistake, whether intentionally or unintentionally.” ‘The decision of bei din to establish the new menth on. a given day is binding even iftheir decision is wrong. Infact, the Yerushalmt (Kenubot 1:2) claims that the Comin on et poe zi IN (vey nbvan oe (9) | (3b) | nom [nwa | ane lesérac|ei7em. fizsrem foo PM) 955AM | 951 AM. [9S5AM. [617 AM [sos Am, fe AM [sepa “Teneo New Ya CayBe nw: aaa Sere Sag ag tm canoe See aes eras ta cnn de example, if a girl is raped after her third birthday in eee ae ee her third birthday), then her betulim will return. In Hei gh tm br ne alo sore een tas beer te controlled by their decision. ee vs satin dre eats agua er eB roe eyecare there is an even deeper message here. After all, if beit din is the representative of the Jewish people, then che remit of Soh pape en pre ae one i on ao ‘then, what the Torah might be telling us is that just as ieabesnt keto ila pena ge cate ler ea sede ele ena poh tem eit oa ee Ta spiritual destiny. Hashem might give an individual spl dey Se ne aan i eat br ks ep tea ue a area no aaa eet saan Spear one ah as well. The Midrash, in Tazria, recounts that Tur- te Te a epee tT ‘to be circumcised, why then does he create him with a eS eee ae aii oa a ae sphmporalie tet pollo petetn. sees guia © ergs Se eet at Hee gre ‘even wealth. But if man doesn’t apply himself appro- ee sown, SY en nthe name of the Bel Shen iaeneks fea Adon tat ws oeke rman" (Bereshit 1:26). Why does the Torah use a ph tl form (Naas, Hashem erste man by Mm self (See Rashi there) The Bal Shem Tov explained that Hashem vas not talking to another supreme over; he was talking man himself. "You and" He Said, “Let us join fores and create special. Tl give you the potental the mind andthe hear, the soul and the body ~ erenthing you need to become a mentsch, Butt up t2you to take al ve invested in you, and to make something oft.” ts interesting note tat after each aspect of creation is completed says that Hashem examined theltem and wr“ por that vas god. But ater eee ment anti at at atari explains tht every spect of eatin isa Grished product. An apple or «bind cannot grow in statureafter they are ered they sin ply are what they are Man, on te oer band, i a tor in progress He crested th grest potential, bhutatthe time ofbistrth, no one know wht wll be come ofl that potent. Wil he develop his pital Side and reine fs character, or wllheallow his phys tal drives and desis to contol is fe? Only man Hinsel ean anower that question, The Tora, there for cannot state unequeal that man is god ts upto man to lead hisifein such a way that hose ‘tho come in contact it him wl prod fou" indeed man god "Al of us stat he yar with great goals and as- piratons. But fen, athe year pistes of and month Totows month, we ls some of our inital exstement The Yamin Toko mand each al ut tus to edocover those feeings of commitinent ve exper enced at the beginning of the year. There's stl so ‘uch undeveloped spial potential ef in this year, IRsuptoustorenize at potental Binding Together the Hearts of the People ‘Joey Small n the beginning of this week’s parsha, we learn about the different sacrifices that Aharon brought both for himself and on behalf of Bnei Yisrael. One of the korbanos that both Aharon and B'nei Yis- rael had to bring was the korban chatas, the sin-offering. Hashem commanded Aharon to offer an “egel ben baker” as his personal chatas and a “se‘ir izim” on behalf of B’net Yisrael, | Many Meforshim explain that Aharon’s “egel ber baker” served to rectify the sin of the egel hazahav. But, what con nection does the ‘sel'ir izim’ have to Bnei Yisrael? Why are they commanded to bring that animal as opposed to the “egel ben bakar" required of Aharon? ‘Toras Kohanim offers the following ex- Pear?man owe planation. It states that the ser izim was Prought to atone for the selling of Yosef, re- fering the cident when, te robe finughtered a seein to order to dip ia blood Yoss"s special coat (see Bereishis 37/31). Why specifically at the inauguration af the Misthan must we bring back isto view the sia of mechiras Yosef? "It would see more iting to never again mention that sin after yetzite Mitsrayimy since, sccording to Ghazal, the sale of Yosef Ied to our travails in golus (see Shabbos 108). Why dampen the {ovous inauguration of the Mishkan by recall ing this sind Rav Zalman Sorotzkin in his fantastic Osnayim LeTorah provides a beautiful an= ser.” Oa Vaya 929, he wsites that one of the purposes’ of the Mishkan was to’ unify Brnef Vevae in the desert. Therefore, with its dedicaton, Hashem wanted to purge the Tast vestiges of hatred and divisiveness from His children. By ofering a etn tam at the Mishka'siaopoation, Aharon wae to dive Gut any traces of Jealousy from within the Shevatim. It was at this moment of unity that Hashem sought to cleanse ‘Bel Yisrael of fraternal hatred once and for all, "This message of Parshas Shemini serves a5 4 primer for the entire month of Niesan in which the theme of unity is ever= present, Niesan is no ordinary month, Chazal fell us that "Nissan nigalu ub'Nisson atin Thigael- ie Nissan we were redeemed (rom Egypt) and in the future, Nissan will be our month of redemption. How can we actualize thie ancient statement of Chazal and make their prediction a reality? The Chassidie rebbe Reb Simcha Bunim of Pshishke once made the following abservs- tion. "He noted that the word golus is really just the conjugated form of the word golah, Which means exile. Golah is spelled gimme! av, tamed, hey. What we are tying 10 achieve is geulah, spelled gimmel, alef, ba, famed, hay. He explains tat the sfference between goius and geulah is the alef. This alef represents achdus, the achdus necessary for our redemption Chezal tellus thatthe dey on which the Mish Kan was dedicated, the “yom ha'shmin?™ of our parsha, was rosh chodesh Nissan, Thou Sands of years ago in the month of Nissan, our ancestors dedicated the Mishkan through an act symbolic of national unity, an act meant to bind together the hearts ofthe peo pley an act intended to assemble the sinews tod tims of fagmented family into a sine ie organic. bo ring these difficult times and especialy in the coming month of an we must redouble our efforts in this area, We must devote ourselves to building achdus among Klal Yisrael and hope that Our Tabors will enable us to celebrate the con- struction and dedication of the third Bels Hamikdash, bieman karow. Mesorah: The Key to Survival Uni Burger 'n Vayikra 10:2, the passuk tells us that Nadav and Avibu were killed for sinning. ‘Their cctual mistake remains unclear and all ‘the meforshim give various interpretations {as to what they really did wrong, Rashi explains that they had been posek halacha before Moshe Rabeinu, their rebbe. The Midrash (20:9) dis- agrees and says thatthe sin was how they actually brought the korbon, explaining that they were Grunk, not dressed properly, or married without ids. A third reason, given in the Gemara in San- hhedrin (524), is that, generally, while traveling, ‘Moshe and Aharon would walk in the front, fol. lowed by Nadav and Avibu and then all of Klal Yisroel. However, Nadav and Avihu would dis- ceuss when Moshe and Aharon would die, hoping ‘that soon it would be their turn to lead the Jewish people Disregarding for a moment any specific interpretation, the next pasuk says that Moshe then told Aharon “That is what was meant when Hashem told me ‘Bkrovi Ekadesh,” that the ‘Mishkan would be sanctified by the death of a treat person, Whereas Moshe originally thought Conte on ne popeS50 RWSE ——$§£_ i@@——_—_ -HoH — Coninued rom previo page that it would be himself or Aharon, it turned out to be Nadav and Avihu, implying that only they, specifically, were worthy of warranting the sancti- fieation by thelr deaths. These two p'sukim seem almost contradictory. How could it be that Nadav and Avibu were so great and yet they still sinned the way they did? Or, viewing this question from the other side, how was it that Moshe believed that they were greater than he and Aharon were, when they had just sinned a pasuk before? The Nesivos Shalom answers all of these questions with one general mehalech. Nadav and Avihu were in fact greater than Moshe and ‘Aharon as Moshe had ssid, however, it was this exact fact chat caused them to err. Working ‘within Rashi’s interpretation, it was because of their greatness that they believed they could pposkin on their own and did not need to consult with other authorities. Now, although had they asked Moste, he probably would have told them the exact sime p'sak, but nonetheless their sin was that they did not ask him. ‘They failed to ad- here to the guiding principle in Judaism of the mesorah. We have a basic principle that talmidim must cling to their rebbeim and ask them questions to consult with them about differ- cent matters. Even though Nadav and Avihu may hhave been capable of handling certain problems by themselves, they should have discussed it with Moshe. ‘Similarly, this will explain their sin accord- ing to the Gemara in Sanhedrin as well. Nadav and Avibu felt they could lead the people just as ‘well, if not better, than Moshe and Aharon. After all, they had more potential to be great than ‘Moshe and Aharon. However, they didn't realize the importance of clinging to tzadikim for as long as possible, and while they may have done a bet= ter job as’ leaders, they cidn't recognize that speiding more time learning from their rebbeim was more important. ‘The third explanation, given by the Midrash, ex- plains that Nadav and Avihu brought korbonos ‘without having children or a wife. ‘The Nesivos Shalom explains this pshat in a similar vein. In- stead of their mistake being a failure to valve the ‘past, their problem, instead, was their failure to Took towards the future. Without children, they didn't enable the Mesorak to continue, They lacked someone to pass their knowledge on to af- ter their time had passed. ‘These three interpretations basically come down to one central idea: they falled to view the Jewish people as a continuous people, whose abilities ‘and knowledge need to be passed down from gen- ‘eration to generation. They viewed their own ‘generation as isolated from the ones that pre- ceded them and from the ones that would follow. ‘There is a very important lesson we could learn from the sin of Nadav and Avihu. We must real- fae that it is our responsibility to continue the chain that was started by our forefathers and pass down those lessons to our children as well. But, similarly, we must not forget the importance of clinging to the gedolim ard following their ac~ tions, so their traits can be passed on to future ‘generations as well. Comfort in Difficult Times ‘Zvi Herman ie, Ave: tnd Vital atthe Akeidah, Yaakov ling Shema when efit ose ater _wengawo years in Mznaym, and Mostes anavah ‘when Korad comes to chlenge him forthe leader. thip of Be Yerac.Pashas Shemin! puts Aaron Hakohen' greatness on disp "The fst example sin 9:7. The pasuk says, *VaYorer Noske El Aharon, Krav l Hahtshoyach™ ‘Mose tld Aharon to come near to the ala toring Phere are many accounts of our forefathers’ tess inthe Torah, For exam the neeassary krbanos forthe Charuikas HaMishkan, ‘Why did Moshe have to cll to Aharon to “come neat” to the Mizbeack? If we had the chance to bring a Korban to Hashem, we would jump at the chance! ‘What was the delay? "The Rishonim are quick to point out Aharon's ‘humility. Both Rashi and the 3a'al HaTurim waite that ‘Aharon was embarrassed to bring the Korbanos. Aaron was supposed to atone fr the ete nation ‘with these Korbanos, as the pasuk continues and says Batadcha U'VAd Ha‘Am,” atone for yoursell ‘and for the nation. Alsron felt tht he was not right- (roses> oe ous enough to fil this role. Ramban points out that Aharon was affai that his participation in the Chait ‘H€igel woud tarnish this Kaparah for Brel Yisrael ‘Therefore, Moshe had to call out to Aharon and tell him “LUhack Nivoharta” (Rashi). This is what you hhave been chosen for. = ‘A second, and perhaps better example, is ia 1083 the famous pasuk of "VaYidom Aharon.” When [Nadav and avihu died for bringing an “Aish Zarah,” ‘Aharon “el silent”.Rashbam explains that Aharon ‘completed his Avetius when Moshe comforted him, an Incredible feat. Aharon displayed astonishing Avodas Rasher, in patting aside his own personal flings for Hashemsdasres. What aided Aharon in ceasing his Avellus? Soro explains that Aharon was comforted by the fact that Nadav and Avihu died Al Kiddush Hashem. ven. ‘though Aharon ad tragically lst two sons, he was comforted by the fact that Hashem's Name had been ‘lrifed through them. In these difficult and trying times, we must look to our role models, our ‘orefathers and Gedolet ‘HaDor, for leadership and inspiration. While itis ex {uemely dificult to deal with te fact that many of our brothers and sisters have died in Eretz Yisrael, may we bbe comforted as Aharon was comforted, that they cor tainly died Al Kiddush Hastem. May we look to Afatos Hakhon ano cur bin lea hee. sons that are necessary to faclitate the coming of the ‘Mashiach Teidkeinu, Bimhayrah BYameina, Conte ro ta page sive thematic connections between the weekly To- ‘ah portions and their Haftarot clearly demonstrate thatthe originators of the Haftarah-reading custom ‘were interested in creating more than just a year round “sheva de-nchemta,” Haftarot as Derashot Hypothesis: The most com- Prehensive, and seemingly the most likely, hy- Pothesis is that the practice of Haftarah reading predates the Maccabean period, and possibly ex: tends back tothe time of the prophets themselves (R Hai Gaon, R Yitzhak Palache), orto Ezra (Sefer hha-Makhria #31 quoting R. Tam; R. Hayyim David Halevi. Their purpose: to serve as derashot on the Parashah, epplying themes and messages from cach Torah reading to contemporary religious if, ‘The attractiveness ofthis theory lies in the fact that it accounts for the information we know about Haftarot, The theory explains how reading Haftarot became such a universal Jewish practice, the absence ofthe Antiochus hypothesis before the 14% century, and, most importantly, the reason for the specific connections between each Haftarah and its Parashah. Additionally this hypothesis ineorpo- tates the suggestion that Haftarot offer consolation, since redemption has long been a relevant theme for Jewish communities. And if Hafarah reading also served to combat the faulty beliefs of the Sa- maritans ani promote the sanctity of prophetic lit- erature, all tue beter 7 ‘Toannounce your Simcha please ‘mal us at our new address: EinayimLatorsh@yahoo.com ‘This new section on the weekly Haftarah is @ weloome addition to 3nd wae, With its ception, future contributors will enable us to de- rive further inspiration from both of our weeldy Ti- turgical readings. This publication will help us ap- ppreciate how mich attention we should be paying, to the prophetic derashot (and with them, the To- rah’s messages), applying their eternal teachings to ‘our own contemporary religious lives. ores This extay wag exerted and sapted fom the authors Keview Essay: “Ben Haltorah le-Parastah \k Ginger Ine the Won of Pepi, ger Tadton 34 (Winter, 203), pp: 74-87, Tradion publication o Rabbi aul omen : 2 Fis suggested by Re David Arudarsham (4 centun), Seer Start Shel shabbat. eft Yam fo Ol {£4 Ges this hypothesis inthe name of laa Bars ‘Sefer hast Cage century). Ck Lavush,Orah Hayy 28s, 3 ra sry of mb dgusion ofthe iflien ee teeta fey Hamaysite Toth Sodee ooh ne ae en lent eu of recent rani tnd schon option can be ted ef sma te foher neater ie beget Hata Whee Wer Tey ied es) Set SGSte, riogige. $e ae ce Tae ToL Cel vie Sal Publating oon bo a6 4. All ited in Katz, pp. 10-12; see further opinions in Wein- shiten, pp, 6-18, “ Alleed in Katz, pp. 7-30. 8. See Dora Heshhafah, pp. 90,89-10 J Mekor Hey haShalem, v3, Bo. 359156 4 see Otearha-Gebnim, vl. 5 Meplich sib. 9. R Palache (Yeh Let, Kure harm, 2843) ced in Ram pia; n194. Seale Weingarten p16 10. Quoted in Eneyelopedia Tbr, vl 30,"Haftarah,” Mekor Hayyim harShalem, ol 3, 154=yow HOE HAI en: D Yoma isons of or new retrng tonsa Fe fire Ts schon il ee to as Pom the weedy Heforeh ‘Rabbi Hayyim Angel he study of Hatarot in general, and their correlation to the Parashat ha-shavua in particular, has not been a major focus of Scholars and students. Yet, since we read Haltarot each Shabbat and Yom Tov, and because they seem to display a deliberate pattem of selec: oy tenant Sean pernent deve tention tothem. do we read Hetart in our syagogue ser- weee "the mast Roquenty quoted explation is that Jews began to read prophetic passages when “Antiochus forbade Torah reading, and. we now maintain this practice in the splat of Minhag avotenu be-yadenu. ‘This conjectre ong established though it may be, is iffcul to support. If Antiochus were trying to disengage Jews from Torah study, why would be have permitted them to read from the Prophets? ‘Why is there no mention of this decree anywhere in ‘Macoabees, when so many other anti-Jewish de- crees are enumerated there? Why did all Jewish communities, even those outside Antiochus’ rule, institute the reading of Hafarot? And why did no cone put forward this theory unt the 14% century (David Avadarahamn)? ‘Although a umber of resolutions to these uestions have been offered, the questions appear ‘more compelling than the proposed answers. ‘Asa result, several rabbis have suggested altemate hypotheses regarding the origin of the weekly Haftarah reading: Historical Hypothesis: Haftarot were instituted to ‘combat the erroneous beliefs of the Samaritans, ‘who denied the sanctity of the Prophets (R. Shim- hon Raphael Hirsch; R. Reuven Margalit. This theory has been challenged on the grounds that several Haftarot drav from Sefer Yehoshua, whose sanctity was accepted by the Samaritans (R: Shem- tov Gaguin; R. Yosef Kapah). General Learning Hypothesis: Haftarot were insti tuted in order to promote Torah study Zekukin de- ‘ura; Tosafot Ben Yehie. This theory has been challenged on the grounds that it does not ade- Guately justly the specificity of our Haflarah- reading tradition. I the purpose of the custom were simply to encourage learning, any prophetic Selection would have suffisd: there would be no ‘eavon for our euret system, in which the Hata: ‘ah direlly relates tothe Torah portion ofthe week Soloveitchik). Consolation Hypothesis: Haftart were instituted to inal a conse of messianic hope to the conten porary communi. Asa reslt, most Haft con fain (or atleast end with consolation, as do the blessings following the Hatlarah (R. Soloveitchik R. Hayyim Devid Hales). But this theory, while hore speci than te previous, appears tobe on 2 partial answer, Whi Iris tre tat Haftarot gen tally contain elemeats of consolation, the perva- Continue on previo page if anyone would like to contribute to the Pesach| issue or any other issue, please e-mail us at our| new e-mail address: einayimlatorah @yahoo.com Editors in Chief ARYEHSOVA YONATANSTAVSKY Literary Editors Joe Himsc SHALOM OzAROWSKI Davio BeRceR _RAPHY HULKOWER, [AKIVA STECHLER secutive Staff Monnecial Fast Yossi GOLDIN ‘Tavi GRauMan Avi Hocran AWARONLEIBTAG DAVID LESSIN Distribution DANNY RIEMER Einayim LaTorah — Student Organization of Yeshiva 500 West i8sth iret New York, NY 10033 EinayinLaTorah@yahoocom [Emayim LaTorah can wow be received via e-mail at our| new e-mail addres. E-mail EinayimLaTo-| rak@yahoo.com fora weekly subscription