The parsha opens by God asking the Jewish People to donate materials for the building of the Mishkan. It occured to me that unlike modern day projects which often is funded by grants or a single donor or perhaps the government, the Mishkan was actually donated (mostly) by the Jewish People. The corally might or should be that a building donated entirely by fellow Jews evokes a more visceral meaning for visitors than a sanctuary built by an outside source.

The language of the pasuk is famously questioned as it seemingly would make more sense to say- “give me a Truma”.

Rav Leib Chasman in Ohr Yahel gives a parable to answer this question. An infant often refuses to eat what his or her mother wants it to. Eventually, though, the child gives in and opens its mouth for the food. The child might think that it has done a wonderful service for the mother, as she is now finally relieved. However, in actuality the child is one who is recieveing nourishment it needs.

The same is true in our relationship with God. I have often pondered what it means to be called an “eved Hashem, a servant of God”. Does God require our services?

Rather, as the Mesilas Yesharim famously posits, God, as a Giver, created us as a gift of kindness. Life is an opportunity for us to emulate and attain closeness to God by performing mitzvos and studying the Torah. Therefore, we are really taking

Practically, this can relate to being a guest in some one’s home. Unless things are extremely hectic, the host is very glad to have the guest and wants to service him or her. The host might feel that they are being a burden by asking for things, but in reality the host feels a great sense of pride and accomplishment when they can help out their guest. To avoid asking for what one needs would perhaps irritate the host as the host may then feel inadequate to fulfill the guests’s needs.

So sometimes we should be takers, which in a sense may be giving to the host. The flip side is also true, at times. When we give to others, we are really taking a sense of accomplishment from the situation.

This is the meaning of the pasuk. By giving a donation ‘to God’ and our fellow Jews, we really take the experience of that Mitzva, the reward of the Mitzva and the opportunity of being part of something greater.

Have a great Shabbos,

Yaakov

Rashi explains that if one impales another person’s eye, one must pay that person the worth of his eye. [The worth one must pay depends on the worth of the injured person (with his eye) if he were sold in the marketplace.]

So why does the Torah employ the literal phraseology of “an eye for an eye” when it could have said “And you shall pay him (the worth of the eye)” -?

The Chazon Ish explains that the point of the Torah’s punishments lie not always in their actual form but rather in its message. The Gemara says that a “murderous court” is one that puts someone to death every 7 years, or alternatively, every 70 years. With all the laws discussed in the Gemara about the 4 types of capital punishment, one would think that a court would employ them regularly. However, in actuality there are several stipulations for putting someone to death making it highly unlikely that it should happen often. The message of the Torah though still remains- the severity of killing someone else and the subsequent possible punishments for doing so should dissuade the would be murderer from carrying forth his crime.

So too here, the Torah wants to show that really this person that impaled another should have to give up his own eye. That is how serious his crime was.

The Rav explained similarly but added a point. He said that if the Torah said “money for the eye” or the “worth of an eye” it would have diminished the true worth of an eye. An eye is not something that can be monetarily replaced- it is not truly worth $500 or $2000, etc- a notion that one might have took from the phrasing of “money for an eye”.. Therefore it writes that one person’s eye can really only be valued at the worth of his fellow man’s eye.

Do not do Melacha/”work” (on Shabbos) : You, your son, your daughter, etc.

Rashi comments: The simple explination is that this verse refers to minors being warned not to do work on Shabbos. Or [you might claim that it refers] only to adults-!? You must admit that they (the adults) have already been commanded. Thus this [command] comes only to warn adults regarding the Shabbos rest of the minors. This is the implication of that which we learned: A minor who offers to extinguish a fire is not to be listened to (i.e., we do not allow it) because [the responsibility for] his Shabbos rest is upon you.

Asks Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski, why do we need a special pasuk by Shabbos to tell us that parents should not allow their children to do work? The Gemara in Yevamos (114) already quotes a teaching that the pasuk: “Do not eat bugs”- refers to not feeding children bugs (either). If that teaching can be generalized to all cases of warning the parents to disallow their children to sin (to the best of their ability) which it seemingly is, then why do we need a separate pasuk here by Shabbos?

[The basic assumption of the question (based on the Gemara) is that by bugs the prohibition is to be generalized, but by shabbos it is simply a specific one.]

One answer from the Imrei Bina is that by Shabbos we have the concept of “Meleches Mashsheves Assra Torah”- The Torah only prohibited acts on shabbos which are contemplative [meaning having in mind to actually do the sin as opposed havig in mind to do something else, but the sin still happening to occur- a basic understanding of very large sugya as everyone knows] as opposed to acts done unknowingly. Halachically, a minor does not have “knowledge”, as opposed to adults. Therefore, had the Torah not specified that even by Shabbos, a minor will be held responsible for a Melchaa that he does if the parent does nothing to stop it- we would not have known from the pasuk by the bugs that this is so. This is because the case of the bugs one is held responsible even for non-contemplative acts.

Rav Chaim Ozer disagrees with the premise of the Imrei Bina and states that Halachikcally a minor does accomplish contemplative acts. [Many Mishnayos tell us that a child is not considered a "Bar Daas" - e.g. if a child reads the Megila for the shul, no one has fulfilled their obligation, because presumably a child cannot be considered able to keep other people in mind. This might have to do with the "theory of mind" concept I am learning about in my Experimental Psychology, but I digress. So it seems that Rav Chaim Ozer and the Imrei Bina are disagreeing about whether a child has he capability for "Meleches Machsheves" which is unrelated to this concept of Katan Lav Bar Daas-?]

Rav Chaim Ozer gives an alternative answer. By the case of eating the bug and the generalizable concept of this, the father is prohibited from feeding his son a bug, but perhaps if the child took the bug and ate it (and the father was not around or the child was not made aware of the fact that eating a bug is prohibitive) the father (and of course son) is not liable. However, by Shabbos there is a concept laid forth by the pesukimof Shivas Avdo. We cannot let our servants do a Melcha if we . Therefore by Shabbos, we need a specific pasuk to tell us that even if a child does a Melcha on his own (without the father telling him to do so) but with the “daas of his parents” then the parents are liable.

[The big question is what does Rav Chaim Ozer mean by "Daas of the father"/ with the father's knowledge- the father has to warn his children beforehand about all the possible infractions of shabbos or does this simply mean the father did not step in when he saw his little son or daughter was doing melecha on shabbos-- ?

Good shabbos from the Upper West Side of Manhattan (thanks to my wife for encouraging us and arranging for us to forage out of the Heights)

Yaakov

(I used parents and father interchangeably- I believe there is a sugya about a mother’s involvement on the chinuch of the children beyond the scope here)

I do not understand the order of the first two references: “I will take you out from their burden” and then: “I will save you from their service”. Aren’t they very similar?

The Yerushalmi in Pesachim as explained by the commentators tells us that Seder night we drink 4 cups of wine corresponding to these 4 references to redemption.

Why wine? Why not some other drink or some other food?

There are many possible answers. The Meshech Chachma explains that wine not only symbolizes comfort and freedom, but to the Jewish People in particular, wine symbolizes our separation somewhat from the other nations. Wine, in particular, carries with it strict laws in terms of who prepares the wine. Wine made by a non-Jew is rendered non-kosher. A rationale is that wine is a drink that usually accompanies parties, social events. The Rabbis were worried that wining and dining with non Jews could lead to intermarriage as well as possible abandonment of our faith. Symbolically, having certain items serve to keep Jews too themselves allows for closer, unadulterated relationship with God. (I defer to the Rabbis among us for clarification, but I believe that while we are not allowed to eat cooked sole by a non-Jew, once a Jew takes a minimal part in the cooking process, a non-Jew can do the rest and the food is kosher. I am not sure if the same arrangement can be made with regard to wine.)

Achashverush in the Purim story knew this and therefore the Gemara explains that he made strictly kosher wine available to the Jews so that they would join their fellow countrymen in the celebrations. Ironically, it seems the Jews inculcated only the letter of the Law in terms of kosher wine, but not the spirit of the Law, the reason that it was instituted in the first place.

And so we raise our glasses Seder night and proclaim “And this has stood by our ancestors as well as us….”. There are many explanations for what “And this” refers to. The Meshech Chachma offers that we are proclaiming that the wine which we hold- kosher and separate from non-Jews- is what kept us afloat in the tumultuous ‘waters of Egypt”. Indeed, this is echoed in the teaching that what kept Jews standing was that Jews kept their names, language, and modes of dress in Egypt.

Robert Frost wrote: “The best things and best people rise out of their separateness; I’m against a homogenized society because I want the cream to rise.” When no one can focus on studying and living their own particular beliefs and faiths, then greatness eludes us.

This should not be misconstrued as bigotry, rather an expression of Judaism’s wish to keep certain things private. Just as spouses and famalies keep certain things under wraps, so too in our relationship with God, we should also keep things private and ‘holy’. Of course, in most other aspects we are adjured to show all of mankind the utmost respect.

• What did Reuven hear that made him save Yosef?

A number of commentators (Panim Yafos and Pardes Yosef among others) explain based on the Zohar that Reuven heard a message through Ruach haKodesh, a Holy Spirit.

A simple reading of: and we will see what will become of his dreams sounds like the brothers were making a sarcastic remark. As if they were saying: let’s see how true all his dreams come when we are done with him. However, the Zohar says that this line was actually an interjection from Heaven. After the brothers come up with their plot- Heaven interjects and says: “You think you will be successful in getting rid of Yosef but in truth, he will rise to greatness if God rules so. Let us see what happens with his dreams- they will come true!- and then we will see what happens with your plot! God is turning the tables on the brothers. See how it reads in Rashi:

Rabbi Isaac said, This verse says: “Expound on me.” [I.e., this verse demands a midrashic interpretation.] The Holy Spirit says thus: They (the brothers) say, “Let us kill him,” but the verse concludes: “and we will see what will become of his dreams.” Let us see whose word will stand up, yours or Mine. It is impossible that they (the brothers) are saying,“and we will see what will become of his dreams,” because, since they will kill him, his dreams will come to nought.

This is what Reuven hears that the other brothers did not. Perhaps because Reuven is the firstborn he feels more responsibility towards his brother. See Rashi on the next verse:

And Reuben said to them, “Do not shed blood! Cast him into this pit, which is in the desert, but do not lay a hand upon him,” in order to save him from their hand[s], to return him to his father. to save him: The Holy Spirit testifies for Reuben that he said this only to save him, so that he would [be able to] come and take him out of there. He said, “I am the firstborn and the eldest of them all. The sin will be attributed only to me.” [from Gen. Rabbah 84:15]

I thought of a different explaination as to what exactly Reuven heard. Maybe Reuven simply heard what his brothers were actually saying! Maybe he was the only one that internalized the extremist position and pernicious actions they were taking! He realized that they were planning to do something they would regret later and he took a stand. Sometimes (this happens to me) we get hot-headed about something and we cannot think correctly. Especially when we are in a group and everyone is holding a certain position – it is hard for us to deviate and disagree. [Groupthink in Social Psychology.] Reuven, however, was sort of a leader and he kept cool when passions were flaring around him- and he made a wise decision. Even when we rightfully get passionate about something we should stop and think if what we are thinking to do is really sensical in the long run.

Yaakov meets the shepards and sees that they are not doing anything- they claim they are waiting for the rock to be rolled off to get to the water for the sheep.

One might ask, Yaakov is a stranger that just came to town and after some pleasantries he starts questioning the locals’ work habits, by saying- it is the middle of the day, why aren’t you giving the sheep water?! Why are you sitting around doing nothing? Furthermore, the locals surprisingly do not snap back at Yaakov- who are you?! Who do you think you are telling us how to do our work? Rather, they simply responded, we cannot, because of the big rock. They seemingly showed a respect for this newcomer. How was this accomplished by Yaakov?

[Parenthetically, one may ask a few questions about this rock: why today was different than any other day; did they always put the rock on and if so, how did they put it on but not be able to take it off, etc.]

The Ponovezher Rav (Rav Khaneman) quoted by the Yagdil Torah answers that Yaakov’s motivational secret was one simple word. When he met the locals he called them “My brothers” (where are you from). He showed that he felt a strong bond towards them, even though they had never met before.

The lesson is simply that when it comes to reprimanding or critiquing others, we may only be effective when first showing a care and genuine concern for the other person. Only then can we hope to connect to that person and have our suggestions carry some bearing.

Good Shabbos

Yaakov

We are taught that Avraham kept every mitzva in the Torah before he (or anyone else for that matter) was even commended to, with one exception: the commandment to become circumcised. Bris Mila is the only Mitzva he did once he was commanded to do it. [Prophetically, Avraham divined the mitzvos that would only be commanded later – like eating matza and blowing shaofar, for example. ) The question, asked Rav Nissan Alpert, is why not? Why specifically by the mitzva of mila did Avraham wait until God actually commanded him to do so?

Furthermore, the Medrash in next week’s Parsha reveals that actually even after Avraham was commanded to circumcize himself he still was not totally sure. The Medrash recounts that Avraham visited some friends and asked for their advice regarding the circumcision; he wanted to know if it was a good idea. The question is obvious! By the story of the Akeda, Avraham had no qualms about sacrificing his son Yitzchak. There he did not consult with colleagues- he needed no convincing that it was the right thing to do. But here by Mila, Avraham needs to ask his friends for advice-!?

Rav Nissan Alpert offers one approach. The Mitzva of Mila, he says, is categorically different than all the other Mitzvos Avrhaam did up until that point. Circumcision displays a radical physical difference between a Jew and a non-Jew. (Let us put aside one who unfortunately cannot or did not have a circumcision.) It is a sign that the Jewish people are an elevated group. Avraham knew this fact and was concerned that undergoing this radical change would perhaps sabotage his attempts at influencing the pagan worshipers of his time. Once he got the Mila everyone would view him as a Religious Fanatic, or a person with sacrifice for God too great to be mimicked by the mere mortal. People might be intimidated, overwhelmed, or turned off when encountering a person who took his service to God to such an extent as to make an abrasion in his body.

Therefore Avraham did not voluntarily circumcise himself and he even was hesitant when God told him to do so. “Perhaps, Avraham relayed to his friends, Hashem’s message will go unheard if I perform this mitzva. Maybe it is better I do not do it!! Only when his friend Mamre advised Avraham to listen to God did Avraham acquiesce.

Why now, at the age of 99, was God advising Avraham to get a Mila? If Avraham avoided having it done up until this point, why did God feel that now it was the time to get it done? Rav Alpert adds that now God knew that Avraham would become a father soon. Before Avraham could be a proper father and teacher to his child, Avraham need to ‘perfect’ himself through getting the mila.

There are a number of lessons to be derived here. Sometimes we feel that to influence others to more closely follow the ways of Hashem we cannot appear to extreme in our religious behavior. We might turn them off. Indeed, as evidenced by Avraham’s hesitance, this might be a valid approach. We have to be careful not to be overbearing or patronizing when trying to influence others. But Mamre (and God of course) disagree with Avraham and say that no, he should still get the mila. This approach seems to imply that sometimes we should not worry so much about our appearances. We should be ourselves, be proud of our ideals and what we look like. This will create a positive sentiment and impact when displayed properly to others.

Why did the Torah use the language of Anenu Tahora when the simpler “Tameh” could have been used*? [The Torah usually prefers terse language.]

This shows us that we should use only the most pristine of language. (Gemara in Pesachim 3a) The answer is that saying the word Tameh sounds slightly more ‘vulgar’ than Anenu Tahora and the torah also prefers only the most pristine type of language.

Asks the Dubna Maggid: “It says Tameh many times in the Torah! Take a look at Parshas Shmini and you will find many uses of the word Tameh! So what point is the Torah and Gemara making here in Parshas Noach, when in reality the word Tameh is used many times (later) in the Torah!?”

He answers with a parable. There was once a guy who was known by a derogatory name and rightfully so. The man was uncouth. A master once criticized his servant for flippantly referring to this person by a derogatory name, but later on the master used that very name himself in regards to marriage proposal with this third person. What was the discrepancy, the servant wanted to know? The master answered that the servant used the name for no apparent purpose. That is simply wrong. However, the master used the name in regards to a marriage proposal. There the master had a real purpose in stating to the Shadchan exactly the types of behaviors this person exemplified.

The same reasoning applies here, as well. In the Parshiyos later on when the Torah uses “Tameh”, there is a real need to do so. For example, the Torah has a real purpose in saying that a Nidda is Tameh. It is in order to demonstrate exactly we are dealing with, namely, a prohibition of closeness to someone in a certain situation. Therefore, the Torah used the word Tameh. However, by Noach, there is no definitive purpose in stating exactly what condition the animals were in – there were no rules riding on this episode. There is no need to say Tameh, so the Torah uses Anenu Tahora.

The lesson is that we should be careful with our speech. Even words that are not terribly offensive, but have a tinge of ‘dirtiness’ to them should be avoided, except in situations which call for it.

Good Shabbos from the Heights,
Yaakov

*The truth is that in English both words are translated as “impure”, sadly producing no real difference between the distinct Hebrew terms. But you could say it is like saying unclean vs. dirty. It is more pristine to say unclean. Clean and unclean here refer to kosher vs. non-kosher

This is a strange thing to say when you are finishing learning. It would make much more sense to say this when you start learning.

The simple answer to this question is that we are praising the fact that we got up early to learn and are now getting on with the rest of our day. We are grateful for the fact that we were able to toil in our torah learning, and were able to use our time to run (in learning) towards heaven.

I thought of a different understanding. Elsewhere in Brachot Rabbeinu Tam (if I remember correctly) asks why one doesn’t make birchat hatorah (blessings on the torah) every time one learns. He answers that since when you stopped learning and went to work, you were (austenisbly) thinking about your learning the entire time and were working solely so that you could get back to the Beit Midrash. As such, there was no interruption between your first learning, and any subsequent learning in the day, so you would not make a new bracha.

With this in mind, we can understand this Gemarrah differently. When one says “I toil” they could just as well mean in their work. They are saying “I go to work and work hard, and they go to work and work hard” but since my motivation for all the work is to further enable my torah study, I receive reward not just for the torah study, but for the work too! Similarly, “I run and they run” – I run around all day doing whatever I need to take care of, and they do too, but all my running is with the end goal of getting back to my relationship with Hashem, and as such, all the running around I do is getting me closer to the World to Come.

This is why we say this at the end of our learning. It is to remind us when we leave the beit midrash that we are not finishing with our daily dose of religion. Rather that we must imbue the rest of our day with the same drive and holiness that Torah learning provides, and remember that the ultimate goal is to get back to learning and coming closer to Hashem.

What does it mean that God knew them?

The Bais HaLevi (Rav Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveichik) answers by saying that God knew we were innocent from full blame.

The Jews, suffering under the heavy burden of work in Egypt also happened to commit idolatry during that time. The Medrash records that when God decided to take the Jews out of Egypt the angels representing Egypt challenged God and asked why the Jews should be saved and the Egyptians destroyed? Were the Jews any better than the Egyptians? Both committed idolatry the Jews may have committed other sins, although I am not sure about this.) [The following answer of the God also seemed so obvious to me that I wonder what the question of the angels was in the first place!]

God answers there is a big difference! The Egyptians willingly chose to enslave the Jewish People, to beat them and to subjugate them. The Jews, on the other hand, were subject to the whim of these immoral, wicked people! They suffered innumerable pains in Egypt. So even if at some point they did serve idols, if was because they were under duress and persecution. How can you even compare the Jews to the Egyptians?!

[I actually do not know of a source besides for this Medrash that says that the Jews actually served idols. There are sources in the Torah that say that the Jews cried out to God which signifies that they still believed in Him! So, where do we know from the Torah that the Jews actually served idols and fell to the "49th level of impurity"!?]

Still, the Beis HaLevi comments that if not for God knowing intimately that the Jewish People as a whole wished to serve Him if they could, the excuse of being under duress would not apply. The litmus test is seeing whether one would or would not do the same action if they were not under duress. But Gd knew that if the Jews had it differently they would simply not be serving idols. That is why he “remembered his covenant with Abraham…”. God wants the heart, firstly. Judaism values striving, dealing with what you have the best you can, but also measuring where you want to be. The Jews wanted to be in Israel serving God, not in Egypt serving idols, even if that is what they were doing. I can almost guarantee you that.

The dvar Torah was from Rav Rosner, as usual, but I think we add an interpersonal lesson here, as well. We have to be careful not to judge other Jews. Sometimes a person can be in a certain difficult situations, whether with family, school, etc. which causes them to act in a certain way. We have to recognize that if they were in an easier situiation, their behavior may be different. If so, their behavior now is simply a facade. Not that we can pardon everyone and enforce no rules when it becomes necessary, but to do it without judging the person.