Questions for Ki Sisa

This week I'm posting the ones that ought to be asked in shul. Separately, I'm putting up the whole thing. 

 

1.  30:12-13

.... ולא יהיה בהם נגף בפקד אתם 

זה  יתנו כל העבר על הפקדים מחצית השקל בשקל הקדש ...

The Torah could have called the half-shekel that averts a plague “chatzi shekel” (חצי) but instead calls it  “machatzis” (מחצית). How does that form of the word show that Tzedaka stands between life and death?

--- The word “machatzis” (מחצית) — “a half” — has five letters, and the middle letter is a "צ", the first letter of the word “tzedakah.” Flanking the "צ" there is a "ח" and a "י", "חי"— “life.” The exterior letters of the word are "מ" and "ת", death. Thus, the Torah is suggesting that "צ" — tzedakah — is the mitzvah which stands between life and death. Tzedakah can distance death and bring life to those who practice it.

(פרדס יוסף)

 

2.  When is a person over an issur deoraysa when he gives tzedaka.

--- 30:15

הֶעָשִׁיר לֹא יַרְבֶּה וְהַדַּל לֹא יַמְעִיט מִמַּחֲצִית הַשָּׁקֶל

Ramban

וְטַעַם הֶעָשִׁיר לֹא יַרְבֶּה וְהַדַּל לֹא יַמְעִיט שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ הַשְּׁקָלִים בַּהַשְׁוָיָה הַנִּזְכֶּרֶת. וְהַנִּרְאֶה מִן הַכָּתוּב הַזֶּה שֶׁאִם הֵבִיא הַדַּל בְּשִׁקְלוֹ פָּחוֹת מִמַּחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל, שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵר בַּלָּאו הַזֶּה, שֶׁהַכָּתוּב הַזֶּה מְנִיעָה. שֶׁאִם נֹאמַר בְּ"הֶעָשִׁיר לֹא יַרְבֶּה" שֶׁיִּהְיֶה שְׁלִילוֹת, לוֹמַר שֶׁבְּכָךְ דַּי לוֹ, לֹא נוּכַל לְפָרֵשׁ כֵּן בְּ"וְהַדַּל לֹא יַמְעִיט". וְאִם כֵּן שְׁתֵּיהֶן מְנִיעוֹת, אִם שָׁקַל הֶעָשִׁיר הַיְּחִידִי יוֹתֵר, וְשָׁקַל הַדַּל פָּחוֹת, עָבַר בְּלָאו. וְשֶׁמָּא מַה שֶׁהָיוּ תּוֹרְמִין בַּקֻּפּוֹת עַל הָאָבוּד וְעַל הֶעָתִיד לִגָּבוֹת (כתובות קח.) יְתַקֵּן לָהֶם זֶה, כִּי הַדַּל הַמַּמְעִיט בַּמּוֹתָר עָתִיד לִגָּבוֹת הוּא, וּמִן הֶעָשִׁיר הַמַּרְבֶּה לֹא יִתְרְמוּ הַגַּבָּאִין בְּיִתְרוֹן, וְלֹא יְהוּ מְזַכִּין בְּמוֹתָרוֹת. וְרָאִיתִי לְבַעַל הֲלָכוֹת וּלְכָל הַמּוֹנִים הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הִזְכִּירוּ הַלָּאו הַזֶּה:

 

 

3.  It should be self-evident that an aveira that is punished with missas Beis Din can not be transgressed to save one's life. This is the case with three famous aveiros, Avodah Zara, Gilui araiyos, and Shfichas damim.  In our parsha, there is one mitzvah for which deliberate transgression is punished by death, but one is permitted, even required, to transgress it where there is any risk of death.

--- Shabbos. See Reb Meir Simcha 31:14 for the reason.

Partial quote:

דלא יהיה לפלא, הלא השבת גופיה נדחית מפני פקוח נפש אחת מישראל, והרי היא קלה אף מפני ספק פקוח נפשו של אדם, ומי שעובר על השבת נהרג ונסקל? אכן באמת קדושת השבת נדחית מפני נפשו של ישראל, כי אם אין ישראל ליכא שבת בעולם ומי יעידו על שביתות השם ממעשיו ועל קדמותו בעולם, אכן אם הישראלי לא שמר את השבת הוא גרוע ונבזה אף מן הבהמה ונסקל וזה כפרתו, כי גם אם אינו נסקל נפשו נכרתת מן הקשר האמיץ אשר קשורה כנסת ישראל בד' ובתורתו ומיתתו טובה גדולה לו וכמאמרם ז"ל כל המומתין מתודין מיתתי תהא כפרה על העון הזה עיי"ש.

 (My axiomatic assumption is not 100% correct. If it were, you would not need "מאי חזית" by שפיכת דמים. But if it's true enough for Reb Meir Simcha, it is true enough to serve as an axiom.)

 

4. In most mitzvos, there is the preparation and there is the mitzva. Shabbos is an exception. The preparation is a mitzvah in itself, to the extent that if possible, it should not be delegated: You should do some food preparation for Shabbos yourself. Where do we see this?

--- 31:16

ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת לעשות את השבת לדרתם ברית עולם

Rabbeinu Bachay:

לעשות את השבת. ע"ד הפשט לתקן לצרכי שבת (בראשית י״ח:ח׳) מלשון וימהר לעשות אותו, וכן (שם יח) ובן הבקר אשר עשה הכל לשון תקון, ובאור הכתוב שיהא אדם זהיר בכבוד שבת להשמר מכל מלאכה ולהשתדל שיכין לצורך השבת כדי שיהא לו מנה יפה לשבת

Targum YbU

וְיִנְטְרוּן בְּנֵי יִשְרָאֵל יַת שַׁבְּתָא לְמֶעֱבַד תַּפְנוּקֵי שַׁבְּתָא לְדָרֵיהוֹן קְיַים עֲלָם

As seen in the Gemara Kiddushin 41a,

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מִצְוָה בּוֹ יוֹתֵר מִבִּשְׁלוּחוֹ. כִּי הָא דְּרַב סָפְרָא מְחָרֵיךְ רֵישָׁא, רָבָא מָלַח שִׁיבּוּטָא.

 

5. Who wrote the Aseres HaDibros on the second luchos.

--- 34:1

ויאמר ה אל משה פסל לך שני לחת אבנים כראשנים וכתבתי על הלחת את הדברים אשר היו על הלחת הראשנים אשר שברת

Many learned people get mixed up because of 34:27

ויאמר ה אל משה כתב לך את הדברים האלה כי על פי הדברים האלה כרתי אתך ברית ואת ישראל

But that is wrong. Everyone (except for one misunderstood Medrash) states emphatically that Hashem wrote the Aseres HaDibros on the second luchos. 

Ramban (34:27-28) answers that Moshe wrote the Sefer HaBris on the Luchos. Others say he wrote other things. But the Aseres HaDibros was without question by Hashem.    Good example, the Netziv here:

כתב לך את הדברים האלה. לפי הפשט למד מעניינו דבכתיבה על הלוחת מיירי. ולא כמש״כ הרמב״ן שצוהו לכתוב על הספר הברית ולקרוא באזני העם כמו שהיה אז בראשונות שהרי לא נזכר ענין הקריאה והירידה בינתים אפילו בצווי. וא״א לפרש כתיבה בס״ת שאינו מדבר בס״ת עד מצות כתבו לכם את השירה הזאת. דשם כתיב על ספר. אלא בכתיבה על הלוחות שמדבר בענינם מיירי. אמנם ודאי לא בעשרת הדברות מדבר. שהרי הקב״ה אמר וכתבתי על הלוחות. ותו דלזה לא היה נצרך לפרש טעם כי ע״פ הדברים האלה וגו׳ שהרי משה עלה בשבילם ואין זה דבר חדש. אלא בכל התורה נצטוה משה שמלבד שיכתוב ה׳ על הלוחות עשרת הדברים יכתוב משה על הלוחות את הדברים האלה מבראשית עד לעיני כל ישראל. וכמו שהיו חקוקים על הלוחות הראשונות כמו שכתוב לעיל כ״ד י״ג. ואתנה לך את לחות האבן והתורה. כך היו חקוקים על הלוחות השניות ע״י משה. וכבר נתבאר שם שאין הפי׳ שהיו כתובים כמו שהתורה לפנינו אלא השמות שבהם נבראו שו״א. והן הן גופי תורה אחר שנתפשטו:

 

 

6. Source that teshuva requires vidui. Not only vidui, but an explicit description of how bad the aveira was.

--- 32:31,

וישב משה אל ה ויאמר אנא חטא העם הזה חטאה גדלה ויעשו להם אלהי זהב

 

*********************************************

 

The whole list of questions:

 

Necessary to answer some questions- not in the Parsha, but common knowledge: 

The Gemara in Pesachim 87b says that when the luchos were broken, the letters flew in the air. לוּחוֹת נִשְׁבְּרוּ וְאוֹתִיּוֹת פּוֹרְחוֹת.  The implication is that the same letters were used to write the second luchos.  

Also: the Gemara in Shabbos 104b says the letters of the luchos went all the way through the stone. 

Also the Gemara Krisus 6b that Chelbena has an unpleasant odor.

 

1.  Two people are introduced in this Parsha. Both of their fathers are mentioned (X son of Y), but only the grandfather of one (X son of Y son of Z.). Why.

 Betzalel and Ahaliav. Betzalel's grandfather Chur is mentioned because Chur died trying to prevent the Eigel, and his grandson built the Mishkan, a kapara for, or a consequence of, the aveira of the Eigel.

 

2.  It should be self-evident that an aveira that is punished with missas Beis Din can not be transgressed to save one's life. This is the case with three famous aveiros, Avodah Zara, Gilui araiyos, and Shfichas damim.  In our parsha, there is one mitzvah for which deliberate transgression is punished by death, but one is permitted, even required, to transgress it where there is any risk of death.

 Shabbos. See Reb Meir Simcha 31:14 for the reason.

Partial quote:

דלא יהיה לפלא, הלא השבת גופיה נדחית מפני פקוח נפש אחת מישראל, והרי היא קלה אף מפני ספק פקוח נפשו של אדם, ומי שעובר על השבת נהרג ונסקל?? אכן באמת קדושת השבת נדחית מפני נפשו של ישראל, כי אם אין ישראל ליכא שבת בעולם ומי יעידו על שביתות השם ממעשיו ועל קדמותו בעולם, אכן אם הישראלי לא שמר את השבת הוא גרוע ונבזה אף מן הבהמה ונסקל וזה כפרתו, כי גם אם אינו נסקל נפשו נכרתת מן הקשר האמיץ אשר קשורה כנסת ישראל בד' ובתורתו ומיתתו טובה גדולה לו וכמאמרם ז"ל כל המומתין מתודין מיתתי תהא כפרה על העון הזה עיי"ש.

   (My axiomatic assumption is not 100% correct. If it were, you would not need "מאי חזית" by שפיכת דמים. But if it's true enough for Reb Meir Simcha, it is true enough to serve as an axiom.)

 

3.  When is a person over an issur deoraysa when he gives tzedaka.

30:15

הֶעָשִׁיר לֹא־יַרְבֶּה וְהַדַּל לֹא יַמְעִיט מִמַּחֲצִית הַשָּׁקֶל

Ramban

וְטַעַם הֶעָשִׁיר לֹא יַרְבֶּה וְהַדַּל לֹא יַמְעִיט שֶׁיָּבִיאוּ הַשְּׁקָלִים בַּהַשְׁוָיָה הַנִּזְכֶּרֶת. וְהַנִּרְאֶה מִן הַכָּתוּב הַזֶּה שֶׁאִם הֵבִיא הַדַּל בְּשִׁקְלוֹ פָּחוֹת מִמַּחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל, שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵר בַּלָּאו הַזֶּה, שֶׁהַכָּתוּב הַזֶּה מְנִיעָה. שֶׁאִם נֹאמַר בְּ"הֶעָשִׁיר לֹא יַרְבֶּה" שֶׁיִּהְיֶה שְׁלִילוֹת, לוֹמַר שֶׁבְּכָךְ דַּי לוֹ, לֹא נוּכַל לְפָרֵשׁ כֵּן בְּ"וְהַדַּל לֹא יַמְעִיט". וְאִם כֵּן שְׁתֵּיהֶן מְנִיעוֹת, אִם שָׁקַל הֶעָשִׁיר הַיְּחִידִי יוֹתֵר, וְשָׁקַל הַדַּל פָּחוֹת, עָבַר בְּלָאו. וְשֶׁמָּא מַה שֶׁהָיוּ תּוֹרְמִין בַּקֻּפּוֹת עַל הָאָבוּד וְעַל הֶעָתִיד לִגָּבוֹת (כתובות קח.) יְתַקֵּן לָהֶם זֶה, כִּי הַדַּל הַמַּמְעִיט בַּמּוֹתָר עָתִיד לִגָּבוֹת הוּא, וּמִן הֶעָשִׁיר הַמַּרְבֶּה לֹא יִתְרְמוּ הַגַּבָּאִין בְּיִתְרוֹן, וְלֹא יְהוּ מְזַכִּין בְּמוֹתָרוֹת. וְרָאִיתִי לְבַעַל הֲלָכוֹת וּלְכָל הַמּוֹנִים הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הִזְכִּירוּ הַלָּאו הַזֶּה:

 

 

4.  30:12-13

.... ולא יהיה בהם נגף בפקד אתם 

זה  יתנו כל העבר על הפקדים מחצית השקל בשקל הקדש ...

The Torah could have called the half-shekel that averts a plague “chatzi shekel” (חצי) but instead calls it  “machatzis” (מחצית). How does that form of the word show that Tzedaka stands between life and death?

The word “machatzis” (מחצית) — “a half” — has five letters, and the middle letter is a "צ", the first letter of the word “tzedakah.” Flanking the "צ" there is a "ח" and a "י", "חי"— “life.” The exterior letters of the word are "מ" and "ת", death. Thus, the Torah is suggesting that "צ" — tzedakah — is the mitzvah which stands between life and death. Tzedakah can distance death and bring life to those who practice it.

(פרדס יוסף)

 

5. The Gemara in Gittin 20a decides that where writing is required, relief carving is not called writing (where  you remove the material outside the letters and leave the letters untouched,) but incising or carving letters out is called writing. Tosfos says the Gemara could have proven that from the Luchos, which were called “written” but were carved out, as it says in 32:26. Can you think of a reason to disagree with Tosfos?

When Moshe threw the luchos down the letters flew into the air. If they were just the absence of stone, there would be nothing to fly. It must be that there were actual letters; but they were purely spiritual, and when placed on the stone they removed the stone in that place. As Benny Singer said, they were “Hole”y letters. If so, Tosfos Raya is off. They were real letters that broke away the stone when placed on the luchos. The point is that they were not formed only by the absence of stone; they were letters that when placed on the luchos removed the stone in their place.

Discussion:

The Maharsha in Pesachim 87b says that being able to see these invisible letters flying off was also a miracle.

אותיות פורחות כו׳. מדלא כתיב ואשברם לפניכם דריש ליה שראו דבר פלא שהעין פונה להסתכל בו כדפירש״י ועי״ל דמשמע לעיניכם שכולם ראו וזה דבר שא״א שיהיו כולם ראו שבירת הלוחות שהיו ישראל מפוזרים ומפורדים במחנה ישראל ג׳ פרסאות על ג׳ פרסאות אבל אותיות פורחות למעלה אפשר שכולם ראו בו וכה״ג אמרי׳ פ״ק דע״ז (דף יז.) בס״ת שנשרפה עם ר״ח בן תרדיון שראו גליון ס״ת נשרפו ואותיות פורחות והתם ניחא טפי שאותיות ס״ת הן שהיו כתובים על הקלף היו פורחות אבל הכא לפי מה שאמרו שהיו חרותים האותיות מעבר לעבר ומ״ס וסמ״ך בלוחות בנס היו עומדין נמצא כשנשתברו הלוחות לא היו ממש באותיות כי אויר היו ויש ליישב דגם זה נס היה ונס בתוך נס היה שראו אותיות אלו שהן אויר היו פורחות ודו״ק:

 The Korban HaEida Yerushalmi Taanis 4:5 says

 הכתב עצמו פרח. אף ע"ג שהיו חקוקים מ"מ היו בדיו שחור ע"ג החקיקה:

All this is not like the Mishna Avos 5:6 about והכתב, והמכתב, והלוחות being created bein hashmashos.

 

6.  The issur deoraysa of writing on Shabbos is only if you write words that make sense. Writing a string of letters that means nothing is not chillul Shabbos deoraysa. Prove that writing Hebrew from left to right is called intelligible writing.

32:15-16

וַיִּ֜פֶן וַיֵּ֤רֶד מֹשֶׁה֙ מִן־הָהָ֔ר וּשְׁנֵ֛י לֻחֹ֥ת הָעֵדֻ֖ת בְּיָד֑וֹ לֻחֹ֗ת כְּתֻבִים֙ מִשְּׁנֵ֣י עֶבְרֵיהֶ֔ם מִזֶּ֥ה וּמִזֶּ֖ה הֵ֥ם כְּתֻבִֽים׃ טזוְהַ֨לֻּחֹ֔ת מַעֲשֵׂ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים הֵ֑מָּה וְהַמִּכְתָּ֗ב מִכְתַּ֤ב אֱלֹהִים֙ ה֔וּא חָר֖וּת עַל־הַלֻּחֹֽת׃

Meaning they were backwards on the other side, and it’s called kesuvim. It’s true, however, that some learn that the words came out from right to left on both sides.

 

7. In most mitzvos, there is the preparation and there is the mitzva. Shabbos is an exception. The preparation is a mitzvah in itself, to the extent that if possible, it should not be delegated: You should do some food preparation for Shabbos yourself. Where do we see this?

31:16

ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת לעשות את השבת לדרתם ברית עולם

Rabbeinu Bachay:

לעשות את השבת. ע"ד הפשט לתקן לצרכי שבת (בראשית י״ח:ח׳) מלשון וימהר לעשות אותו, וכן (שם יח) ובן הבקר אשר עשה הכל לשון תקון, ובאור הכתוב שיהא אדם זהיר בכבוד שבת להשמר מכל מלאכה ולהשתדל שיכין לצורך השבת כדי שיהא לו מנה יפה לשבת

Targum YbU

וְיִנְטְרוּן בְּנֵי יִשְרָאֵל יַת שַׁבְּתָא לְמֶעֱבַד תַּפְנוּקֵי שַׁבְּתָא לְדָרֵיהוֹן קְיַים עֲלָם

As seen in the Gemara Kiddushin 41a,

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מִצְוָה בּוֹ יוֹתֵר מִבִּשְׁלוּחוֹ. כִּי הָא דְּרַב סָפְרָא מְחָרֵיךְ רֵישָׁא, רָבָא מָלַח שִׁיבּוּטָא.

 

 

8. Who wrote the Aseres HaDibros on the second luchos.

34:1

ויאמר ה אל משה פסל לך שני לחת אבנים כראשנים וכתבתי על הלחת את הדברים אשר היו על הלחת הראשנים אשר שברת

Many learned people get mixed up because of 34:27

ויאמר ה אל משה כתב לך את הדברים האלה כי על פי הדברים האלה כרתי אתך ברית ואת ישראל

But that is wrong. Everyone (except for one misunderstood Medrash) states emphatically that Hashem wrote the Aseres HaDibros on the second luchos. 

Ramban (34:27-28) answers that Moshe wrote the Sefer HaBris on the Luchos. Others say he wrote other things. But the Aseres HaDibros was without question by Hashem.    Good example, the Netziv here:

כתב לך את הדברים האלה. לפי הפשט למד מעניינו דבכתיבה על הלוחת מיירי. ולא כמש״כ הרמב״ן שצוהו לכתוב על הספר הברית ולקרוא באזני העם כמו שהיה אז בראשונות שהרי לא נזכר ענין הקריאה והירידה בינתים אפילו בצווי. וא״א לפרש כתיבה בס״ת שאינו מדבר בס״ת עד מצות כתבו לכם את השירה הזאת. דשם כתיב על ספר. אלא בכתיבה על הלוחות שמדבר בענינם מיירי. אמנם ודאי לא בעשרת הדברות מדבר. שהרי הקב״ה אמר וכתבתי על הלוחות. ותו דלזה לא היה נצרך לפרש טעם כי ע״פ הדברים האלה וגו׳ שהרי משה עלה בשבילם ואין זה דבר חדש. אלא בכל התורה נצטוה משה שמלבד שיכתוב ה׳ על הלוחות עשרת הדברים יכתוב משה על הלוחות את הדברים האלה מבראשית עד לעיני כל ישראל. וכמו שהיו חקוקים על הלוחות הראשונות כמו שכתוב לעיל כ״ד י״ג. ואתנה לך את לחות האבן והתורה. כך היו חקוקים על הלוחות השניות ע״י משה. וכבר נתבאר שם שאין הפי׳ שהיו כתובים כמו שהתורה לפנינו אלא השמות שבהם נבראו שו״א. והן הן גופי תורה אחר שנתפשטו:

 

9.  Given a choice to daven with a tzibur that is all tzadikim or a tzibur in which there are some tzadikim and some resha’im, where is it better to daven.

With all tzadikim, of course. The Levona in the Ketores only proves that when reshaim do teshuva they add to Klal Yisrael. Also, the Maharsha there in Krisus says that the hetter is only when they are batteil ten to one. Or twenty to two.

 

10. Show me where Hashem tells Moshe to go and he does not go.

32:17

וידבר יהוה אל־משה לך רד כי שחת עמך אשר העלית מארץ מצרים

(In Eikev, 9:12, it says not only רד, like here, it says רד מהר)

 

1 How many punishments do we find for the people who worshipped the Eigel

Three. 32:20, the effect of drinking the water with gold dust; 32:35 a plague, ויגוף יי' את העם, and 32:27 they were killed by the Leviim, שִׂימוּ אִישׁ־חַרְבּוֹ עַל־יְרֵכוֹ עִבְרוּ וָשׁוּבוּ מִשַּׁעַר לָשַׁעַר בַּמַּחֲנֶה וְהִרְגוּ אִישׁ־אֶת־אָחִיו וְאִישׁ אֶת־רֵעֵהוּ וְאִישׁ אֶת־קְרֹבוֹ׃

  

12. Source that teshuva requires vidui. Not only vidui, but an explicit description of how bad the aveira was.

 

32:31,

וישב משה אל ה ויאמר אנא חטא העם הזה חטאה גדלה ויעשו להם אלהי זהב

 

13.  How many Ohel Moeds were there.

Two. Besides the regular Ohel Moed built by Betzalel and Oholiav, there was also the Beis Medrash of Moshe Rabbeinu that was outside the machaneh, at least for a while; 33:7;

וומשה יקח את האהל ונטה לו מחוץ למחנה הרחק מן המחנה וקרא לו אהל מועד והיה כל מבקש ה יצא אל אהל מועד אשר מחוץ למחנה

14.   Our Parsha mentions the calf/Eigel. Name the four other animals mentioned in the parsha.

שור, כבש וחמור by Bechor in 34:19-20, and גדי in 34:26 by basar b'chalav.

 

15.   Forms of the word "nassa" appear four times in our parsha. How is the word used here? The first is Ki Sisa.

32:32, ועתה אם תשא חטאתם

34:7, נשא עון ופשע וחטאה 

34:31, ויקרא אלהם משה וישבו אליו אהרן וכל הנשאים בעדה 

Extra credit: The Tiferes Yisrael in in Yevamos Perek 7 comment #7 suggests (somewhat tongue in cheek) several explanations of the Hebrew word for marriage, "Nisu'in."  They are:

-Gift (מתנה, כמו וישא משאות מאת פניו),

-Burden (משא עליו),

-Elevation (נס מתנוסס),

-or Oath/promise (לא תשא את שם ה' אלוקיך לשוא).

Here is the Tiferes Yisrael.

בת ישראל שניסת

 [נ"ל לפעמים נקט שנשאת ופעמים שניסת, ע"ש ב' בחינות שבאשה, לעזר וכנגדו, בזמן שהיא לו לעזר. היא לו כמתנה, כמו וישא משאות מאת פניו, ובזמן שכנגדו היא לו לנסיון, או איפכא בזמן שלעזר היא כנס מתנוסס לבעלה, ואם לאו, היא כמשא עליו. או נ"ל דנישאת הוא ע"ש לא תשא שם ד"א לשוא, ובל"א "אנגעשווארען ווארדען", כמ"ד כי ה' העיד בינך ובין אשת נעוריך, וניסת הוא לשון למען ענותך לנסותך, שגם היא מורגלת ע"י הנשואין בדברים קשים, והם אעפ"כ להיטיב באחרית, כדכתיב הרבה ארבה עצבונך. ואח"כ תגל האם בפרי בטנה]:

 

 What do you think the word "Eirusin" (betrothal, the first stage of marriage,) comes from? Good luck. You're on your own with this one.  I have my opinion, for what it's worth. (Hint: it's probably not related to eres/poison.  If  you feel that it is, A., join the club. B.,  talk to my son Rav Mordechai in Marlboro. He has better things to do, but he does counsel many such unfortunates.)

 

 

 

Matanos l'evyonim on Purim

 Is matan b'seiser preferable in Matanos l'evyonim on Purim? 

Someone sent me the following question, and it led to the Meil Tzedakah. 

Good Morning,  R’Eliezer.

      Can I as your opinion on something ?

      If you had two foods in front of you:   one has a small amount of non-kosher ingredient inside, but it is definitely Batul, while the second food has 100% kosher ingredients – I think that most people would choose to eat the food that is completely kosher and not have to rely on the halachic concept of bitul.   (Notwithstanding that famous shita of the Bnei Yissoscher who prefers to use the food with bitul).

 

    So, here is my question.    For Matanot L’Evyonim, when I give $100 to my rabbi to distribute for me, how do I know that he won’t be giving all of my $100 to just one poor man?    But my mitzva is to give to two poor men!    Therefore, my understanding is that we rely on the halachic principle of  ברירה  since this is a D’Rabanan matter.   We’ll assume, halachically, that my $100 that he distributes will wind up going to two poor people.

 

     Maybe it is better for me to instead give $50 to one rabbi and $50 to a different rabbi to ensure that my money really does get into the hands of two different poor people – and not to have to rely on the concept of   ברירה  (just like we prefer to not rely on the concept of ביטול  if we don’t need to).

If I give $50 to Rabbi Hertz, who deals with Chabad folks, and if I give another $50 to Rabbi Matanky – it is extremely unlikely that both rabbis will give my money to the same poor man.

 

Where is the flaw in my logic ?    Would giving to two rabbis for distribution really be a preferred method of giving Matanot L’Evyonim ?

I responded as follows:

Hello.

Chavilos. 

I am sure that a reputable rov will distribute the tzedaka with the explicit intention that each donor's gift will go to as many aniyim as optimal for the donor's kiyum hamitzva. As the gizbor, he has the power to make that condition.  Even if he does not, I think it's fair to assume that this is implicit.

Interesting addtion: From the Torah LiShma:

That one ought to actually do the act of giving to each separately to avoid the problem of Chavilos Chavilos.

Furthermore, here is an important thought. Not well known, but it deserves consideration. From the sefer Me'il Tzedaka, by Rav Eliahu Hakohen, Izmir, the 1700s: On Purim, contrary to the mitzva of Tzedaka the whole year, it is better to hand the matana to the poor man yourself. 

חלק ב, סימן א, סימן רכ

...ועל דרך פשט נראה לתת טעם לשבח, למה בשאר ימות השנה נותנה לארנקי של צדקה, ובפורים יתן לעני מיד ליד

דיש לומר מה שנותנה לארנקי של צדקה, כדי שלא יתבייש העני.

ובפורים, שכולם מקבלים זה מזה, עניים ועשירים, דכתיב "ומשלוח מנות איש לרעהו ומתנות לאביונים" (אסתר, ט, כב), אם כן אינו מגיע בִּיּוּש לעני המקבל, לפי שמתחזק העני באמרו: גם הנותן לי מקבל מתנה מחברו. לכן יתן הצדקה בפורים מיד ליד לקיים מצוַת צדקה בעצמו, דמצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו, שהם גבאי צדקה. 

There you have it. On Purim, he says, it is better to hand the matanah to the poor person directly, not through a gizbar.

Besides his svara of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו, it is possible that the point of the matanos is like the point of the Mishloach Manos, is to be marbeh rei'us. If so, it is possible that you're not marbeh rei'us when you give it to a gizbar, so you davka should give it directly.

Obviously, there are many aniyim who would be ashamed to take even on Purim. But assuming like the Me'il Tzedaka, if you have someone who all year would want mattan b'seser, but on Purim is not embarrassed at all, it would be better to give directly.

UPDATE:

Thank you to R Moish Pollack for his he'ara. He wrote

That is why it says to give to a evyon. Rabbi Moshe Kaufman said in his Sunday morning shiur an evyon is defined as not embarrassed.

I responded 

Thank you very much for that comment!

This is actually a machlokes between the Chavos Yair and the Aruch HaShulchan.

Chavos Yair in his Mekor Chaim:

ידקדק לשלוח לעניים מרודים ומופלגים הנקראים אביונים

Aruch Hashulchan in תרצ'ד ג

יראה לי דאף על גב דבתורה "עני" ו"אביון" שני דברים הם, כדכתיב ב"תצא": "לא תעשוק שכיר עני ואביון", ושני דברים הם כדאיתא בבבא מציעא (קיא ב) ד"אביון" יותר מעונה מעני. ולשון "אביון" הוא האובה ואינו משיג (רש"י שם), ונגד זה "אביון" אין לו בושת לבקש, והעני יש לו בושת. ואמרינן שם לעניין שכיר, דעני קודם לאביון עיין שם. מיהו על כל פנים שני דברים הם, וכיון דבמגילה כתיבא ו"מתנות לאביונים" – נימא דדווקא אביון ולא עני?ומכל מקום אינו כן. וראיה דבפרשת "ראה" כתיב: "כי יהיה בך אביון… כי לא יחדל אביון… פתח תפתח את ידך לאחיך לענייך ולאביונך בארצך" – הרי שפתח ב"אביון" וסיים בשניהם, אלמא דהכל אחד. והא דכתיב "ומתנות לאביונים" – רבותא קאמר: לא מיבעיא עני שיש לו בושה, ובשכר שכיר הוא קודם, אלא אפילו לאביון – יצאת ידי חובתך, ואף על פי שהוא בעצמו מבקש ממך, וכל שכן לעני שמתבייש לבקש, ואתה מקדים ונותן לו – שיש מצוה יותר.

The Me'il Tzedaka I brought down is also on the side of the Aruch HaShulchan. I wish I could find it inside, but I don't have access to the Otzar.

After Shabbos I hope to write a little more.

Good Sheva Brachos vort on Teruma

This was the base of my drasha at my nephew Simcha Feinstein's Sheva Brachos.on 2/24/26.

From Harav Moshe Revach, Rosh Yeshiva at Beis Medrash LaTorah in Skokie.

This week’s parsha opens with the call for donations toward the building of the Mishkan, the portable sanctuary that would accompany the Jewish people in the desert. Gold, silver, copper, fabrics, skins and then atzei shittim omdim, acacia wood that was standing upright.

The Gemara in Sukkah 45b 

[my presentation: gives two explanations of 'omdim." One is that they must be placed in their direction of growth- with the growing point upwards.  Given that the creation of a Jewish home reflects the building of the Mishkan, we understand the significance of דרך גדילתם. This young couple should build a home with their roots planted in the kedusha of the homes from which they come, with their growing points forever heavenward, aspiring, reaching for the greatest accomplishments Hashem wants them to strive for. 

The second explanation is...]

(explains that the Torah could have simply said “acacia wood”, but it emphasized) ...that it was “standing” because these beams are destined to stand forever. One might think that once the Mishkan was dismantled and replaced, its materials were gone for good. The Gemara reassures us to not worry because they are still in existence and will return[1].

How are we to understand this? Once something has fulfilled its function, we normally move on. We do not preserve the scaffolding after the building is complete. We do not hold on to the prototype after the finished model exists. So why must the beams of the Mishkan remain? Why are they not simply part of history?

I saw an answer[2] that the Mishkan was not meant to be the final stage of our relationsip with Hashem. It was not the permanent resting place, what the Torah later calls (Devorim 12:9) “el ha-menuchah ve’el ha-nachalah,” “the place of rest and inheritance,” referring to the Bais HaMikdash. The Mishkan was temporary and transitional. It was, in a sense, a starter home for the relationship between the Jewish people and Hashem, a silhouette of what would one day become the Bais HaMikdash.

However, the Mishkan represented something that even the Bais HaMikdash could not fully replicate. If the Bais HaMikdash is the home after marriage, then the Mishkan represented the engagement period. And while a marriage is deep and textured, nevertheless the engagement carries something else — anticipation. Freshness. Passion. The electricity of something that is about to unfold.

[Hischadshus.]

True, a happily married couple possess a depth and stability that is not there before their shared history. But the intensity, the excitement, the constant anticipation that characterizes an engaged couple is unique. It is filled with longing and forward movement.

The Jewish people knew that there would one day be a permanent and stable Home for their relationship with Hashem. And therefore, in the desert, with the Mishkan, they were living in that earlier stage, the stage of becoming, a relationship still charged with movement.

The Torah preserves the Mishkan, and it will eventually return to us to teach us that the early fire, the original excitement of connection, is not meant to fade. Even as we build stable institutions, communities, and routines, we must protect and rekindle the energy of the desert — the sense that we are still on the way to something greater.

In fact, this language appears explicitly in the haftarah read before Shavuos, from Hoshea. There the verse says, “Ve’erastich li le’olam” — “And I will betroth you to Me forever.” Why are we talking about an eternal betrothal, an engagement and not an eternal marriage?

Like we are explaining, engagement is the stage of promise, of anticipation, of future-oriented love. Yes, there are elements of a long-term marriage that are far deeper and richer than engagement but engagement has the intensity of anticipation, the electricity of becoming, and Hoshea is saying our long term relationship should have the passion of an engaged couple.

If a person ever wants to strengthen his marriage, a very practical exercises is to look carefully at his wedding or engagement pictures. Study the faces. The smiles that are not forced. The way the kallah and chassan are looking at each other — almost with disbelief at their own good fortune. Try to remember that version of yourself. Remember the anticipation. The nervous joy. The sense that something extraordinary was beginning. Revisit those images and ask yourself: can I reawaken even a fraction of that amazement? Can I see my spouse again with the same sense of blessing and gratitude that I felt then? Those feelings do not have to disappear. The pictures can serve as anchors.

The engagement period is not more real than the marriage. But it reveals something true, how deeply we valued the other person before life became complicated. It is a great idea to have these pictures or albums very handy and accessible, displayed privately but prominently, and do this exercise often.

The hidden Mishkan functions in a similar way.

It preserves the engagement energy of our relationship with Hashem. It captures the moment when we first built a home for the Divine Presence — when the nation was filled with longing and anticipation. Even after the Bais HaMikdash was built, even after centuries passed, that early passion was not erased. It was hidden, like a photograph carefully stored, waiting to be revisited.

With this understanding, we can address another question.

Why, when it came to the Mishkan, was there such an insistence that the donations be given willingly? The parsha opens with the words, “Take for Me a contribution from every person whose heart moves him.” The giving had to come from generosity of heart.

Years later, when it came to the Bais HaMikdash, there were communal obligations. Dovid and Shlomo made a tax requiring everyone to donate (Melachim 1:5:2).  When building a Shul, Halacha rules that members of a community can be compelled to contribute (O.C. 150). Why, then, was the Mishkan different that it be built only from voluntary contributions?

We can now explain based on this above insight. In the Mishkan, people did not simply donate money into a general fund. They donated the actual materials that would become part of the structure — the gold that would form the vessels, the silver that would form the sockets, the wood that would stand as beams. Nothing was donated merely to be exchanged for something else. What a person gave was what entered the Mishkan.

Now that we are saying that the Mishkan and its vessels were not destroyed but hidden away, we can understand that those donations themselves are meant to serve as eternal testimony to our initial love and dedication. They are the photograph meant to remind us of our initial feelings, to love freely given. Therefore, it could not be from forced obligations. The picture has to be perfect. Hashem wanted our engagement picture to be of people saying, “I want to give.”

May we learn to revisit the sacred photographs of our beginnings — in marriage and in faith — and allow that original sense of wonder to illuminate the life we are building now.

[I then discussed the Mishna in Megilla about birkas chasanim requiring a minyan, which I have discussed regarding the Davar shebikedusha aspect and something from Reb Sholom Shvadron in the end of this piece  and in this piece.  I ended by giving them a bracha that they should wake up after four hundred years of marriage and say to themselves "Thank God I found this person."]

Rabbi Moshe Revah

Mrevah2@touro.edu

_________________________

[1] See also the Gemara in Sotah 9b that teaches that the Mishkan was not destroyed but hidden away.

[2] I saw this answer by R’ Yisrael Reisman quoting R’ Shaul Alter, but I could not find the original source. 

Questions for Titzaveh

1.   Where do we see in this week’s parsha, for the first time, that members of a tribe should stick together.

2. Three of the Shivas Haminim are mentioned in the parsha.

3. A unique use of the blood of a korban. It appears only here and it was done only once in history.

Alternatively, depending on the crowd. and for people who learned יומא נח ע"ב andנט ע"ב   Althoughit is assur to use things of kedusha for personal needs, once their avoda is done they lose their kedusha, they automatically become chulin and muttar. This is the rule of אין לך דבר שנעשית מצוותו ומועלין בו. A basic application of this rule is that once the blood of a korban has been put on the Mizbei'ach, it loses its kedusha- it is נעשית מצוותו. There is one, and only one, exception to this rule, and it is in our parsha.

4. What in the parsha is described as "constant," tamid? (5 answers)

5. We find that Pinchas became a Kohen much later. Why wasn’t Pinchas, whose father was Elazar the Kohen, automatically a Kohen.

6. Give examples of when it is a mitzva to wear Shatnez.

7.  What do these three things have in common: Everyday Tzitzis, the Choshen of the Kohen Gadol, and the Tzitz of the Kohen Gadol.

8.   Assuming, as Rashi in 28:21 does, that the stones on the Choshen are placed in birth order, what is a good nickname for Reuven. 

9. Ephraim and Menashe should be entitled to separate billing, but only Yosef's name is on the Choshen. But the symbol of Yosef is doubled. Where?

10. There are two places in the Parsha that show that you cannot assume that a four-sided equilateral is a square.  In these cases, we are told that it should be four sided and equilateral and still, the Torah finds it necessary to tell us that it should be a square.  Once we have been told that all the sides are equal length, to be told that it should be square seems unnecessary. 

What are these cases, and why is it necessary?

11. The title "Levi" derives from the fact that before birkas kohanim, the Levi washes the Kohen's hands, as in Latin, to wash is Lavare, so Levi means "washer." 

No, that is just a joke. This is a pure coincidence. But where in this week's parsha do we find a Levi preparing Kohanim for their Avodah by washing them, or seeing them immerse in the mikva.

12.  Most avoda in the Mishkan is done during the day. Name three in the parsha that are done Bein Ha’arbayim.

 

 

 

 

1.   Where do we see in this week’s parsha, for the first time, that members of a tribe should stick together.

-Rav Reuven Chaim Klein points out that the word shevet is used for the first time for a tribe (28:21) in our parsha.  

 I assume that the word shevet for a tribe refers to its legal autonomy- shevet meaning scepter- or the flag that they identified with. In 2003, I was shmuessing with my shiur about whether there is an English equivalent for using a staff or stick to describe a group of people. Yoni Wainhaus said we find it in the word “club.” It’s not true etymologically. Club relates to ‘clump.’ But it was a good thought. 

 

2. Three of the Shivas Haminim are mentioned in the parsha.

-Olives and pomegranates are mentioned in the parsha. Olive oil is used in the Menorah (27:20), woolen pomegranates are attached to the bottom of the Me'il of the Kohen Gadol (28:34). and wheat for the menachos, (29:3).

 

3. A unique use of the blood of a korban. It appears only here and it was done only once in history.

Alternatively, depending on the crowd. and for people who learned יומא נח ע"ב andנט ע"ב   Althoughit is assur to use things of kedusha for personal needs, once their avoda is done they lose their kedusha, they automatically become chulin and muttar. This is the rule of אין לך דבר שנעשית מצוותו ומועלין בו. A basic application of this rule is that once the blood of a korban has been put on the Mizbei'ach, it loses its kedusha- it is נעשית מצוותו. There is one, and only one, exception to this rule, and it is in our parsha.

-Taking blood that had been thrown on the mizbeiach and putting it on Aharon and his sons.

29:21

וְלָקַחְתָּ מִן הַדָּם אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּמִשֶּׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וְהִזֵּיתָ עַל אַהֲרֹן וְעַל בְּגָדָיו וְעַל בָּנָיו וְעַל בִּגְדֵי בָנָיו אִתּוֹ וְקָדַשׁ הוּא וּבְגָדָיו וּבָנָיו וּבִגְדֵי בָנָיו אִתּוֹ.

 Chizkuni says that's the way it was:

ולקחת מן הדם אשר על המזבח לא מצינו הזאה כזו לאסוף הדם אחר שנזרק אלא להאחות אותו למזבח לקח הדם שנתקדש במזבח. והזה עליהם להעיד ולהיות עד ואות לדורות שהם משרתיו ועליו לא יקרבו זרים.

 

Daas Zkeinim finds it hard to believe:

ולקחת מן הדם. צ"ע אם כשנזרק כבר על המזבח אם היה חוזר ולוקח ממנו להזות עליהן:

 

Netziv in Haamek Davar also reads it kipshuto.

 

In any case, it would be subject to Meilah, because even though it was on the Mizbeiach, it was not נעשית מצוותו until it was put on the Kohanim.

 

4. What in the parsha is described as "constant," tamid? (5 answers)

-The following five things are described as being tamid:

(1) The Menorah is lit tamid – this is either the daily lighting or the lamp called the Ner Maaravi (27:20).  

(2) The choshen of the Kohen Gadol is always on the heart of the Kohen Gadol (28:29). 

(3) The tzitz is constantly on the forehead of the Kohen Gadol (28:38). 

(4) The Tamid is brought twice each day (29:38). 

(5) The Ketores is brought every day (30:8).

Side observation:  The word תמיד appears in the Torah exactly 24 times, either as תמיד  or as התמיד. How many of those times are in dinim of Kodshim?  Twenty three.

Of the twenty four in Chumash, twenty three are in dinim of Kodshim.  "HaTamid" appears seven times, every single one in kodshim.  Of the seventeen 'Tamids' in the Torah, sixteen are Kodshim and one is not.  The single, the solitary, the sole exception is in Devarim 11:12.

אֶ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁר ה' אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ דֹּרֵ֣שׁ אֹתָ֑הּ תָּמִ֗יד עֵינֵ֨י  ה' אֱלֹהֶ֙יךָ֙ בָּ֔הּ מֵֽרֵשִׁית֙ הַשָּׁנָ֔ה וְעַ֖ד אַחֲרִ֥ית שָׁנָֽה׃

 

5. We find that Pinchas became a Kohen much later. Why wasn’t Pinchas, whose father was Elazar the Kohen, automatically a Kohen.

-It was only on this day that people were made Kohanim, and the Torah specifies that they were Aharon and his four sons. Nobody else became a Kohen that day. Only after this day were those born to kohanim automatically Kohanim. Any children they had prior to that investiture were not automatically Kohanim.  Pinchas had been born earlier, so he was not automatically a kohen.

 

6. Give examples of when it is a mitzva to wear Shatnez.  

 -Efod: כח, ו.

Choshen:    כח טו.

(Avneit/belt of the Kohen Gadol, and possibly that of the Hedyot as well: שמות לט, כט in parshas Pekudei. It is mentioned in Tetzaveh but the material is not specified. See Yoma 6a.))

 

7.  What do these three things have in common: Everyday Tzitzis, the Choshen of the Kohen Gadol, and the Tzitz of the Kohen Gadol.

-A solitary thread of techeiles.

28:28, the Choshen on the chest,

וְיִרְכְּסוּ אֶת הַחֹשֶׁן מִטַּבְּעֹתָו אֶל טַבְּעֹת הָאֵפוֹד בִּפְתִיל תְּכֵלֶת 

28: 37-8 the Tzitz on the forehead,

 וְעָשִׂיתָ צִּיץ זָהָב טָהוֹר וּפִתַּחְתָּ עָלָיו פִּתּוּחֵי חֹתָם קֹדֶשׁ לַיהֹוָה. וְשַׂמְתָּ אֹתוֹ עַל פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת וְהָיָה עַל הַמִּצְנָפֶת

and Tzitzis, in the end of Parsha Shelach, Bamidbar 15:38,

וְנָתְנוּ עַל צִיצִת הַכָּנָף פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת.

 

8.   Assuming, as Rashi in 28:21 does, that the stones on the Choshen are placed in birth order, what is a good nickname for Reuven. 

-If the stones were in birth order, Reuven's stone was the Odem.    So, Ruby. This works in every major language except Hebrew and Chinese.

French: "Rubis"

Spanish: "Rubí"

German: "Rubin"

Italian: "Rubino"

Portuguese: "Rubi"

Japanese: "ルビー" (Rubī)

Chinese: "红宝石" (Hóng bǎoshí) - meaning "red gemstone"

Korean: "루비 보석" (Rubi boseok)

.

9. Ephraim and Menashe should be entitled to separate billing, but only Yosef's name is on the Choshen. But the symbol of Yosef is doubled. Where?

-Again, assuming that the stones were by birth order, Yosef was the next to last, the Shoham. Besides the twelve stones of the Choshen, there were two additional stones on the shoulders of the Kohen Gadol, on the Eiphod - Shoham stones- the stone associated with Yosef.

It is probably just a coincidence, but it's interesting that in Breishis 48:5, Yaakov tells Yosef that he is giving him a double inheritance:

ועתה שני בניך הנולדים לך בארץ מצרים עד באי אליך מצרימה לי הם אפרים ומנשה כראובן ושמעון יהיו לי

Later in that discussion, in 48:22, Yaakov says

ואני נתתי לך שכם אחד על אחיך אשר לקחתי מיד האמרי בחרבי ובקשתי

Rashi says the word שכם means the city of Shechem. But the Ramban, for example, says it is a description of a portion of Yerusha, that Yaakov had given Yosef an extra portion of the yerusha. So you have that word Shechem describing the extra that is given to Yosef via Ephraim and Menashe, and that is where the Shoham stones were, on the כתפות האפוד, on Aharon's שכם.

 

10. There are two places in the Parsha that show that you cannot assume that a four-sided equilateral is a square.  In these cases, we are told that it should be four sided and equilateral and still, the Torah finds it necessary to tell us that it should be a square.  Once we have been told that all the sides are equal length, to be told that it should be square seems unnecessary. 

What are these cases, and why is it necessary?

-The Choshen is described in 28:16 as being square, a zeres by a zeres.

 רבוע יהיה כפול זרת ארכו וזרת רחבו.

The same is true in the instructions for the Mizbei'ach Hazahav (30:1),

ועשית מזבח מקטר קטרת עצי שטים תעשה אתו.  ב אמה ארכו ואמה רחבו רבוע יהיה ואמתים קמתו ממנו קרנתיו.

So what it the pshat? Why is it necessary to say square if we were already told that the four sides must be equal?

1.    Shina alav hakasuv l’akeiv.

2.    In the name of Reb Chaim- two separate requirements. The specified size, and square.

3.     Malkie- don’t make it a rhombus.

4.     Gary- otherwise, you could make a cylinder into which a square of that size could be inscribed, and just disregard the chords. That would satisfy the requirement of having those measurements.

 

11. . The title "Levi" derives from the fact that before birkas kohanim, the Levi washes the Kohen's hands, as in Latin, to wash is Lavare, so Levi means "washer." 

No, that is just a joke. This is a pure coincidence. But where in this week's parsha do we find a Levi preparing Kohanim for their Avodah by washing them, or seeing them immerse in the mikva.

 -29:4

ואת אהרן ואת בניו תקריב אל פתח אהל מועד ורחצת אתם במים

 Rashi says this is Tevilla in a Mikva. I am pretty sure that the ורחצת means that Moshe Rabbeinu had the mitzva to actually put them into the Mikva, just as והלבשת means that he dressed them, not that he saw to it that they got dressed.

12.  Most avoda in the Mishkan is done during the day. Name three in the parsha that are done Bein Ha’arbayim.

-1, the afternoon Tamid, 29:29

וְאֵת הַכֶּבֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִי תַּעֲשֶׂה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם

2 and 3, lighting the Menora and burning the afternoon Ketores, 30:8

וּבְהַעֲלֹת אַהֲרֹן אֶת הַנֵּרֹת בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם יַקְטִירֶנָּה קְטֹרֶת תָּמִיד לִפְנֵי ה' לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם