Hamaayan / The Torah Spring Edited by Shlomo Katz Vayikra Volume 19, No. 24 8 Adar II 5765 March 19, 2005 Sponsored by the Katz family on the yahrzeits of Czirel bat Shlomo a"h and Sheindel Rivka bat Shmuel Eliezer a"h Today's Learning: Shevi'it 8:11-9:1 O.C. 328:5-7 Daf Yomi (Bavli): Berachot 19 Daf Yomi (Yerushalmi): Bava Batra 17 One of the mitzvot of this week's parashah is (2:13), "On all of your sacrifices you shall sprinkle salt." The Gemara (Menachot 21) comments: "I might think that you shall fill it with understanding; therefore the Torah says `You shall sprinkle'." Rashi explains: I might think that a sacrifice should be saturated with salt, just as a person is saturated with wisdom and understanding. In order to forestall our making this mistake the Torah says, "You shall merely sprinkle the salt on it." R' Yitzchak Blazer z"l (died 1907) notes that the gemara quoted here demonstrates how different we are from our ancestors of Talmudic times. He explains: When trying to explain something that is not readily apparent, one ordinarily chooses a metaphor whose meaning is obvious. How strange it is that when choosing a metaphor for something that is "saturated" or "dripping" with salt, the gemara would describe a person who is overflowing with wisdom. We can only assume that that description fit the typical person of that period, such that the gemara's metaphor would have been readily understood. In contrast, notes R' Itzele (as R' Blazer was known), common idioms today describe something that makes no sense as "lacking salt" or "lacking taste" (in Hebrew: "chasar ta'am"), rather than saying that something that has no salt is lacking sense. It seems that in our generation, salt is more readily available than wisdom, unlike in Talmudic times, when wisdom was the more common of the two. A similar change in human nature is seen in the Mishnah (Avot ch.2): "One who borrows from man is [bound to pay] just as if he had borrowed from G-d." The language of this Mishnah suggests that, while people of Mishnaic times were sometimes lax in paying their earthly debts, they all recognized clearly their debts to Heaven. Therefore, the Tanna (sage of the Mishnah) teaches us that our obligation to man is no less than our obligation to G-d. How different it is in our times, for we much sooner forget to repay our debts to G-d than we do our debts to our banks and our neighbors. (Kochvei Ohr: chapter 50, Ma'amar "Mah Bein Dorot HaRishonim L'Acharonim") ******** "Vayikra / He called to Moshe . . ." (1:1) Why doesn't the verse say, "Hashem called to Moshe"? R' Moshe Soloveitchik z"l (rosh yeshiva in Switzerland) answers that Hashem sometimes calls to a person without identifying Himself. Only if a person listens carefully will he understand that he is being given a message. He adds: We read regarding Moshe and the "Burning Bush" (Shmot 3:3-4), "Moshe thought, `I will turn aside now and look at this great sight -- why will the bush not be burned?' Hashem saw that he turned aside to see; and G-d called out to him from amid the bush and said, `Moses, Moses'. . ." Says R' Soloveitchik: This teaches us that a person has moments of great opportunity, but they are lost if he does not seize them. Only because Moshe turned to examine the bush that miraculously was not consumed did he merit that Hashem spoke to him. (Quoted in Otzrotaihem Shel Tzaddikim) ******** "Vayikra / He called to Moshe, and Hashem spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, saying." (1:1) Rashi comments: All oral communications of Hashem to Moshe, whether they are introduced by the root "dbr" or by "amr" or by "tzav" were preceded by a call as a way of expressing affection. The word "Vayikra" in our verse is written with a small "aleph." R' Yaakov Moshe Charlop z"l (rosh yeshiva of Yeshivat Merkaz Harav; died 1951) observes that the message of the small aleph is related to Rashi's comment. The small aleph signifies that just as a father brings himself down to his child's level in order to play with and show affection to the child, so Hashem makes Himself "smaller," so-to- speak, in order to teach man on man's own level. This also is alluded to by the fact that Hashem's Name is missing from the opening phrase. Hashem hides His Majesty in order to teach us and show us affection. R' Charlop adds: This is one of the wonders of the Torah. Although the Torah is "compressed" ("metzumtzam") so that it can be understood on our level, this tzimtzum does not limit the Torah's ability to have "everything" within it. This is part of what our Sages meant when they taught (Megillah 31a), "In the same place where you find Hashem's humility, there you find His greatness." (Mei Marom: Nimukei Mikraot) R' Charlop's grandson, R' Zevulun Charlop shlita (rosh yeshiva of Yeshivat Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchanan in New York), quoted the above thought and added: This is the mark of a great teacher as well. He must be able to compress his knowledge and bring it down to his students' level, but without diminishing himself. (Heard from R' Z. Charlop 30 Adar I 5765) ******** Commenting on the opening verse of our parashah, Rashi asks: Why is the Torah broken by hafsakot / breaks, i.e., why is it broken into subsections? He answers: To give Moshe an interval for reflection between one section and another and between one subject and another-- something which is all the more necessary for an ordinary man receiving instruction from an ordinary man. R' Menachem Mendel Taub shlita (the Kaliver Rebbe in Rishon Le'tzion, Israel) observes that in a typical year [i.e., a non-leap year] Parashat Vayikra is read the week that most yeshivot begin their Pesach vacations. What purpose do these hafsakot / breaks serve? he asks. These are the times to review, reflect on, and digest what one has learned in the preceding five or six months. If Moshe need this, surely we do. (Kol Menachem) ******** "When a man / adam among you brings an offering to Hashem . . ." (1:2) Commenting on this verse, Midrash Rabbah states: "`Adam' is an expression of love, an expression of brotherhood, an expression of friendship." What is this midrash teaching? R' Aharon Lewin z"l (the "Reisha Rav"; killed in the Holocaust in 1941) explains: There is a dispute among the Rishonim / early commentaries as to the purpose of animal sacrifices. Rambam z"l writes that when Hashem gave the Torah, He did not attempt to wean His people entirely from the idolatrous ways with which they were familiar. Rather, He instructed Bnei Yisrael to direct to Him the service they otherwise would have performed to idols. Many other commentaries disagree strongly and offer other interpretations. In particular, R' Yitzchak Arama z"l (the "Ba'al Ha'akeidah") explains that Hashem recognizes man's emotional need to repay his debts. Therefore, Hashem instructed us regarding an order of sacrifices, and He acts as if man is thereby giving Him a gift. There is a wide gulf between the explanations of Rambam and the Ba'al Ha'akeidah. According to the former, the inclusion in the Torah of a sacrificial service indicates the lowliness of man; according to the latter, it indicates G-d's love for man. R' Lewin continues: In light of this dispute, we can understand the above midrash. Do not think, says the midrash, that the inclusion in the Torah of a sacrificial service indicates the lowliness of man. No! "It is an expression of love, an expression of brotherhood, an expression of friendship." (Ha'drash Ve'ha'iyun: Vaykira, No. 1) ******** The Midrash Tanchuma states: "In the future, there will be no sacrifices." R' Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook z"l (1865-1935; first Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Palestine) explains: The Arizal taught that Hashem will bring about a change in nature in the future such that animals will be capable of attaining spiritual levels equivalent to what man can attain today. That being the case, R' Kook writes, it is plain to see why man will no longer bring animal sacrifices in the future. For the present, however, writes R' Kook, man should not be concerned about animals' rights. Man himself is on too low a spiritual level to concern himself with that. Indeed, it is disgraceful and is destructive of man's own stature when he acts hastily and rashly in pressing these issues! So long as man needs meat, he not only should eat it, but should sanctify it [e.g., through sacrifices, when the Bet Hamikdash was standing, and by using it at Shabbat and Yom Tov meals]. The sacrifices were a means for man to express his gratitude to Hashem, and having the ability to express gratitude is itself a lofty spiritual level. (Afikim Ba'Negev, reprinted in Otzrot Ha'Rayah p.754) ******** R' Yosef David Sintzheim z"l Part II With the end of the French Revolution, R' Sintzheim came out of hiding and was appointed Chief Rabbi of Strasbourg. He also began to arrange his writings for publication, and, in 1799, he published the first volume of his Talmud commentary, Yad David. In this encyclopedic work, the author arranged questions, explanations and comments from hundreds of earlier Torah works according to the order of the Talmud so that a student can readily find where in those works any particular page of Talmud is discussed. The works that R' Sintzheim indexed for this project included Talmud commentaries, books about Rambam's Code, and even books of derashot / sermons. (The Yad David is currently being reprinted by Machon Yerushalayim in Israel.) During his years in Strasbourg, R' Sintzheim also wrote large portions of his other works: his Torah commentary, Shelal David; a commentary on Shulchan Aruch entitled Da'at David; an encyclopedia of halachic and Talmudic topics called Minchat Ani; and other works. In this same period, R' Sintzheim's influence as a spokesman for Orthodox Judaism also grew. In 1806, when Napoleon convened an "Assembly of Jewish Notables," R' Sintzheim was chosen to be among its leading members. The Orthodox representatives to this body did not necessarily consider the appointment an honor, as they knew that they would be called upon to "reconcile" the position of halachah / Jewish law on various social questions with the "enlightened" law of France. Indeed, at the opening session of the Assembly, Napoleon's representative posed 12 questions that the Emperor wanted the Assembly to address including: "Is a get / Jewish divorce valid if it is not sanctioned by a French court?" and "Is a Jew permitted to lend money to a non-Jew with interest?" As the leading halachic authority in France, R' Sintzheim was caught between the need to give answers that would not misrepresent Jewish law but would not endanger the safety of France's Jews. When the Assembly of Jewish Notables had completed its work and issued its answers to Napoleon's questions, the Emperor convened a "Sanhedrin" to legislate those answers as the law of the Jews. The delegates to this body, of which R' Sintzheim was appointed President, were informed in no uncertain terms that their failure to comply with Napoleon's wishes would result in the expulsion of the Jews from France. To ensure the body's "success," Napoleon stacked it with rich Jews whose economic interests outweighed their Torah scholarship and commitment to halachah. - To be continued -