Ki Sisa

Divrei Torah on Parshas Ki Sisa

Winged Hollows (2007)
~
Alphabetic and AtBash Palindromes (2008)
~
The Thirteen Middos and the Key to Tefillah (2009)
~
~

Remember, if you have something worthy and original, send it to me at eliezere@aol.com  Original wins more points.  Example: On Shabbos, a young Kollel fellow told me that he had a teretz on a question many people ask:  Assuming that the specific sequence of mitzvos (1. conquest of the land, 2. seating a king, 3. destruction of Amalek, and 4. building the Mikdash) is mandatory, how could Shlomo have built the Mikdash?  They hadn't yet destroyed Amalek, as evidenced by Amalek's later recurrence in the time of Haman.  So what right did they have to build the Mikdash?  You can't do #4 before you've taken care of #3!  (There are a million answers on the question.  That's not the point here.)  He answered that since the only survivor of Amalek was Agag, once Agag was killed, there was no current obligation of Mechiyas Amalek.  Although later Agag's child was born, that child had not yet necessarily been conceived when Agag was killed, so there was a putative time, albeit of short duration, when there was no miztva of Mechiyah, at which point the mitzva of Mikdash was triggered.  Once that mitzva went into effect, it was not removed when Amalek reappeared.
That's an example of a creative teretz that, it could be argued, is less than 100% defensible, but earns points for originality.
ON the other hand, I subtract points for sincerity, earnestness and naivety; in short,
Ingenious- good. 
Ingenuous- bad.
So don't be upset if I don't post it.
~
~

Purim: Chances and Last Chances

A Havolim classic, updated.  Originally posted in February of 2007. 

The haftorah of Parshas Zachor tells us about Shaul Hamelech. More than most figures in Tanach, Shaul is described in an intensely personal manner, and we see many disparate stages in the development of an extremely complex, powerful, and righteous man.

The Haftorah describes Shaul's battle against Amalek, and his failure to completely destroy them when he had a chance to do so, and how Shmuel Hanavi told him that he lost the throne because of that. First we have to remember that Shaul was one of the greatest men of history, even greater than David. Hashem told David that one hundred Davids were not the equal of one Shaul, and that Shaul only lost the malchus for this one specific failing. If he were from Shevet Yehuda, perhaps he would have been forgiven. But there was this one terrible, fatal mistake. As told in the navi, Shmuel confronted Shaul for having left the Amaleiki king Agag alive overnight, and said that Hashem regretted making him king. When Shmuel turned away, Shaul, distraught, desperately grabbed at Shmuel's cloak and it tore, and Shmuel said (Shmuel I 15:28,29)

וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו שְׁמוּאֵל קָרַע ה' אֶת מַמְלְכוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵעָלֶיךָ הַיּוֹם; וּנְתָנָהּ לְרֵעֲךָ הַטּוֹב מִמֶּךָּ 

“Kara Hashem es mamlechus Yisrael mei’alecha hayom u'ne'sanah l’rei’acha hatov mimeka. “God has torn your kingdom from upon you and has given it to your compatriot who is better than you."

וְגַם נֵצַח יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יְשַׁקֵּר וְלֹא יִנָּחֵם  כִּי לֹא אָדָם הוּא לְהִנָּחֵם, 

V’gam neitzach Yisrael... "And the eternity of Israel will not be false or fail.”

There are some questions we need to ask.

• Of course, ‘rei’acha' means David, as it says in perek 28 when Shmuel again told Shaul that the kingdom had been given “l’rei’acha l’david.” But doesn’t rei’acha also mean 'your friend' or your compatriot (as the Gaon notes in Shemos 11:2)? Certainly, David was no friend of Sha’ul’s.
• And what does “hatov mimeka”, who is better than you, mean? What was the point of telling Sha’ul that his successor was better than he? Just to add insult to injury? And was it really so, that David was greater in al ways than Shaul? But Chazal say that Hashem said that Shaul was greater than David (see, e.g., Moed Kattan 16b and the Tosfos HaRosh and the Kosev in the Ein Yakov in the name of the Ra'n)!
• Also, what was the point of “vegam neitzach,” that the eternal hope of Israel will never fail? What does that have to do with what Shmuel had just told him? Why did he have to tell him a hashkafa lesson after telling him about his loss? The meforshim there explain that Shmuel was telling him that teshuva won’t restore the malchus to him, because it has already been given to another, and Hashem will not retract a gift once given.  But we can say another pshat.

To understand the other pshat, we have to look into Megillas Esther. When Memuchan told Achashveirosh that Vashti’s sin needed to have consequences, he said, וּמַלְכוּתָהּ יִתֵּן הַמֶּלֶךְ לִרְעוּתָהּ הַטּוֹבָה מִמֶּנָּה. ”u'malchusah yitein hamelech l’re’usah hatovah mimenah,” the king will give her royalty to her peer who is better  than she.  Memuchan was simply giving Achashveirosh good advice, and the words he used to give that advice to the king were not unusual and had no carefully crafted hidden meaning. Replace Vashti with someone who is better than she, who won't shame the royal house.

Who did this "re’usah" turn out to be? It was Esther. We know from the Gemara (Megilla 13a) that both Esther and Mordechai were direct descendants of Shaul’s.

Now pay attention to the deep meaning in the words of the Megilla and in the words of the navi Shmuel. Shmuel told Shaul “Kara Hashem Malchuscha mei’alecha unesanah l’rei’acha hatov mimeka"-- and Memuchan told Achashveirosh to take away the malchus from Vashti and "yitein Hamelech l’re’usoh hatovoh mimenoh.” When Shmuel told Shaul that the malchus was taken away because he failed to destroy Amolek, he said that malchus would one day be given to his own great grand daughter, Esther. Esther was the “rei’achoh” to whom malchus would be given, and she was “mimeka,” she was Shaul's granddaughter, and she would be given the opportunity to do what Shaul failed to do. And when Memuchan said that the Melech should give royalty to re'usa, who do you think "Hamelech" turned out to be?

Memuchan had no idea of what he was talking about; that is the whole point of Megillas Esther, of hidden movement and manipulation, miracles that happen under our noses while we are completely unaware of what is happening-- we are even unaware of what our own words mean.

Shmuel said "Netzach Yisrael lo yeshaker!" We humans make plans for a day, for a week, for a year— but Hashem makes plans for 520 years. It is nitzchiyus, and Hashem is not a 'person' that is misnacheim. Shaul lost the malchus, but the malchus was not completely lost. There would be another chance.

But Mordechai told Esther that for her and her part of the family, this was their chance to do what their ancestor Shaul had failed to do; but this was their last chance. Her family’s burden through the generations was to remedy that failure. If Hashem could just as well bring about His plan through someone else (as Mordechai told her,) why did Esther have to suffer the disgrace and emotional trauma of being Achashveirosh’s odalisque, his concubine? Why couldn’t someone else have been the catalyst of this event without having to be disgraced and shamed? The answer is that it was for her own family’s sake that Hashem was granting her the opportunity to be the one who brings about the yeshua, and for Esther, the only way to get it done was by becoming Queen; here, the Queen was the pawn. It was a great opportunity for her; but everything hung in the balance. If she wouldn’t seize the opportunity, then “aht uveis ovich toveidu...,” her family would lose forever the opportunity to fulfil their tafkid, forever stigmatized by the chet of Shaul. It was not only she that was on the edge of disaster-- it was "veis avich" as well; the entire family, the legacy, the history of five hundred years of missed opportunity, that stood on the brink.

And when Esther made the decision to risk her life to destroy Haman, the Megillah says "Vatilbash Esther Malchus...." When Esther made her decision, she put on the levush malchus, the royal garb that Shmuel had said had been torn away from her grandfather Shaul--"Kora Hashem malchuscha mei'alecha...." The Melech who had torn away Shaul's royal garb rewarded Esther's courage and allowed her to put it on and do what her grandfather had failed to do.

It is possible that during the intervening centuries there were other opportunities that were not taken advantage of, protagonists we never heard of--because they failed. It may also be that“netzach Yisroel” means that the malchus that Shaul was given did remain in his family and was not completely erased; a balance may tip in one direction or another, but the elements remain in place. Netzach Yisroel, although a God-given gift might submerge for a generation, or two, or even five hundred years, it is still there, and will express itself eventually. “Lo adom Hu l’hinacheim;” Hashem gave you malchus, and you will have malchus, in a different form and a different time.

Perhaps this gives a special insight into the purpose of Shalach Manos Ish L’Rei’eihu. Use this opportunity to give someone who has offended you a second chance, just as Hashem gave Shaul’s family a second chance.

This ORIGINAL INTERPRETATION is based on a dvar torah said by Habochur Hayokor Moshe Eisenberg of Yeshiva of Staten Island, Telz Chicago, and Yeshivas Kodshim of Harav Tzvi Kaplan, Yerushalayim.

 

This idea is alluded to in the Medrash Rabbah 4:9 on Esther in the name of R’ Chaninah brei d’rav Avohu.

 בלשון שנטלה המלכות מזקנה שאמר לו ונתנה לרעך

הטוב ממך בו בלשק חזר לה המלוכה.
הה״ד וּמַלְכוּתָהּ יִתֵּן הַמֶּלֶךְ לִרְעוּתָהּ הַטּוֹבָה מִמֶּנָּה

Please note, however, that the Gemara in Zevachim 102a seems to have a very different point of view. 

An interesting commonality is mentioned in another Medrash, both in Breishis 67:4 and in Esther Rabba 8:

אמר רבי חנין: כל מי שאומר שהקב"ה וותרן (ומוותר לצדיקים), יקרעו בני מעיו, אלא הקב"ה מאריך אפו, אבל גובה את חובו, תדע שהרי זעקה אחת הזעיק יעקב לעשו, דכתיב (בראשית כ"ו) 'ויצעק צעקה גדולה ומרה' והיכן נפרע לו? בשושן, שנאמר: ויזעק זעקה גדולה ומרה 

but I'm not sure what this Medrash means to highlight with this connection.  Harav Dr. Eli E suggests that this is the price of subterfuge as opposed to direct confrontation; but I don't know that any alternative existed for Yaakov or for Mordechai.

A comment that I like from the original posting:

Chosid said...
Interesting vort. I have always wondered about people who speak of yeshuas Hashem Kheref Ayin as meaning immediately. The lesson of your article implies that the RBSHA idea of kheref ayin can mean 520 years or more. How warped our sense of time is compared to the RBSHA! The other interesting thought is that it is never too late for redemption both for ourselves and our offspring even if it spans five centuries.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Agreeing with Chosid, I point out the Gemara in Sanhedrin 38a:

א״ר אחא בר יעקב שמע מינה מהרה דמרי עלמא תמני מאה וחמשין ותרתין הוו

"Fast, for Hashem, is eight hundred and fifty two years."  So five hundred and twenty is, indeed, the blink of an eye.

Why we wear masks and costumes on Purim: The answer you never heard.

A Havolim Classic, originally posted February of '07. It's a good example of Gresham's Law as applied to minhagim: simplistic reasons drive other explanations out of the market.  There are many minhagim that seem trivial only until you learn their true source and their true meaning.

The generally accepted explanation for the costumes we wear on Purim is (Rama OC 696:8) that the Miracle of Purim was not through mighty and obvious changes in nature, through nissim niglim. Instead, God operated behind the 'mask' of nature, and accomplished, through hidden manipulation of natural events, as great a miracle as the splitting of the Red Sea. So we, too, wear masks, to symbolize that "hester panim," the "hidden face." This theme resonates throughout the Megilla, with Esther (Esther/hester, Chullin 139b) hiding her ethnicity, and Mordechai changing his clothing from the glorious vestments of a royal favorite to mourner's sackcloth and back.

And then there is the "mah yafis" poppycock that it stems from mimicry of Christian festivals. In fact, of course the minhag far predated the Venetian Mardi Gras the above alludes to. In Maseches Purim, written by R. Kallonymus ben Kallonymus (1286-1328), he writes ובארבעה עשר לחודש אדר, בחורי ישראל לכבוד ולהדר... זה ילבש שמלת אשה ולגרגרותיו ענקים... וזה יתחקה כאחד הרקים תף ומחול שמחה ושלישים. אלו עם אלו אנשים עם נשים... (Thank you to Eliezer Brodt in the Seforim Blog for the reference.)  (please see end of post for a brief discussion of Cultural Diffusion.)

Those are the explanations that you may have heard. Now, here is an excellent explanation you did not know.

I have a friend, Rabbi Leibel Schwartz, (who, on Purim, should be referred to as “Black Leibel”-- Schwartz=Black,) who was rushing to get his wife to the doctor because she had a high fever and was having trouble breathing. Unfortunately, in his hurry he mis-stepped and fell down the stairs. He broke four ribs and collapsed a lung, and was in a great deal of pain. Next time you inhale, think about four cracked ribs grinding against each other with each breath. Anyway, when we found out about it at our shiur, we called him, and one member of the shiur, who shall remain nameless, told him that our call reminded him of the story about the President of a shul who called his rabbi who had been hospitalized. The Shul President told his Rabbi that the board of directors had voted eleven to nine to wish him a speedy recovery. Telling a joke like that to a man with four broken ribs and a collapsed lung is not a laughing matter. But it was funny anyway, and speaks volumes about the people who come to my shiur.

When I visited him, Leibel showed me a sefer from his grandfather’s uncle, Tshuvos Eirech Shai, from the Dayan of Siget. (Or, Sighet; the town where Eli Weisel was born, which has been said variously as having been in Romania, Hungary, Ukraine, and Transylvania.)  In the section on Orach Chaim, he has remarks on Shulchan Aruch. On Siman 570, in the Laws of Chanuka, he discusses the Taz’s question about why there is no minhag to have special festive meals on Chanukah. The Taz distinguishes between redemption from spiritual threat, which should be commemorated with religious ceremonies, and redemption from existential threat, which should be commemorated with festive meals. The Dayan suggests another answer.

He brings from his book on the Chumash that Yitzchak wanted to save his son, Eisav, from his impending spiritual self-destruction. When Yitzchok told Eisav “sah nah tel’yicha” (pick up the weapons that hang at your side) it was a hint that he hoped to save Haman, Eisav’s descendant, from being hanged. Certainly, a blessing to Eisav would have empowered him and his descendants with strengths beyond what they would naturally have. But Yaakov made a special festive meal for his father Yitzchak, as Yitzchak had instructed, at which he served wine in order to stimulate Yitzchak's spiritual joy and happiness to enhance the blessings-- ויגש לו ויאכל ויבא לו יין וישת, "and he brought him food and he ate, and he brought him wine and he drank.". In order to mislead his father, Yaakov put on a disguise, a disguise that fooled Yitzchak into thinking he was Eisav! The result of the festive meal and the wine and the disguise was that Yitzchak did not realize that the person in front of him was not Eisav. So this was the first case where a festive meal and a disguise resulted in “D’lo yada bein baruch Mordechai l’arur Haman”!

This is a wonderful new perspective on the seudah and minhagim of Purim; we are not only commemorating the events of Shushan. We are remembering and re-enacting the very first victory of Klal Yisrael over Amaleik, which took place one thousand two hundred years before the story of Megilas Esther occurred. So we make a se’udah, and we serve wine, and we wear disguises, and our disguises might be those of pirates or vampires or Arabs. Costumes that look like a Kohen Gadol or (l'havdil) Spongebob are very nice. But that’s not the idea of Purim. We are commemorating the way Yaakov turned the tables on his nemesis by dressing like him- like Eisav/Amaleik/Haman- and got the brachah from Yitzchak, which ultimately expressed itself in the story of Purim.

Here are the words of the Sighetter Dayan, Harav Shlomo Yehuda Leib Tabak:

בטורי זהב פק"ג דהיא קבעו למשתה כפורים 

טעם שקבעו משתה רק בפורים ולא בחנוכה 

באגדות שלי כתבתי (brought below) דשרש הנס של פורים ע"י יעקב שעשה סעודה ליצחק ויבא לו יין ועי"ז היה מפלת המן שהוא עשו כי יצחק רצה להצילו מתליה כשאמר לו שא נא תליך. לכן בפורים עושים סעודה ומשתה ומבסמין עד דלא ידע בין ברוך מרדכי שהוא יעקב לארור אמן שהוא עשו, כמו שלא ידע יצחק אבינו ע"ה כשבירך ליעקב. וע"כ לובשין פרצופין בפורים כאשר עשה יעקב אז נתחפש בבגדי עשו ובעורות גדיי עזים 

 originally from his Megillas Esther.

והנה איתא במדרש רבה פי תולדות על פסוק שא נא כליך תליך וכוי תליך זה מדי שנאמר ויתלו את המן ופירש האלשיך שיצחק רצה לברך את עשו שאותו גלות מדי שעתיד יעקב לגלות יהא תחת עשו ולא יהא המן תחת אחשורוש ולא יתלה עיי"ש והנה יע שנתלבש יעקב בבגדי עשו ונדמה לאביו כעשו ברכו וכסבור שבירך את עשו והמן ובאמת בירך יעקב ומרדכי נמצא לא ידע יצחק בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי בשעה שבירך ליעקב ואמר אררך ארור 

והנה איתא בתרגום יונתן על פסוק ויבא לו יין ויישת שלא היה ליעקב יין ונעשה לו נם והביא לו מלאך יין והנה לא עביד קוב"ה ניסא למגנא וודאי אילו היה מברכו בלא יין לא היה נעשה נם ביין רק ודאי לולא היין לא היה מברכו מחמת שהיה בספק שאין זה עשו וע"י היין לא הכירו עיין באלשיך דלולא היין היה מבחין יע טעם הבשר שאין זה בשר צבי רק גדי והיה מרגיש שהוא יעקב רק יע היין לא הבחין עיי"ש נמצא יע היין בירך את יעקב ואירר את עשו ולא ידע וכסבור שהוא להיפך והם המה מרדכי והמן ולא ידע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי וע"י כן נעשה הנם וגבר מרדכי על המן ונתלה המן ע זכר לנס זה ולסיבתו חייב לבסומי בפוריא עד דלא ידע 

Another very valuable point here is that EVEN IF YOU GET DRESSED UP LIKE EISAV, YOU HAVE TO BE SURE THAT THE ‘KOL KOL YAAKOV.” People can drink, and wear absurd costumes, but they better be sure that they act like Yaakov. As they used to say, "Dress like the British, but think in Yiddish." Don't get inebriated: get in-Ivri-ated.

Everyone knows that people have ancestors, and everyone knows that certain ancestral character traits manifest themselves in their descendants. What not everyone realizes is that events have ancestors as well, and the past creates roots that eventually grow into things that happen five hundred, or a thousand years later. And this is true not only for events that happened in ancient times; what we do today will influence our descendants in unimaginable ways. Just as Shem's covering his father, and Avraham's refusal to accept Melech Sdom's money, changed the nature and significance of the mitzvah of Tzitzis, what you do today will have consequences and ramifications until the end of time.

See, also, the Targum Esther 3:6, which goes like this:

והוה חוך קדמוי לאושטא ידא למקטל ית מרדכי בלחודוהי ארום חויאו ליה דמרדכי

אתי מן יעקב דשקל מן עשו אבא דאבוי ית בכרותא וית ברכתא ויהודאי אינון

עמא דמרדכי ובעא המן לשיצאה ית כל יהודאי בכל מלכות אחשורוש עמא

דמרדכי

Normally, when I repost, I include the comments, but the only worthy comment was from Gvir-Adir, who said that he used it for a Seudas Pidyon Haben in a very creative manner-- the kashe is, why celebrate pidyon, if it commemorates the bechor's loss of kedusha. He answered by saying that it recalls how Yakov took both the bechora and the bracha from Eisav, a chain of events which culminated with the Seuda of Yakov and Yitzchak. The other comments were various refreshing and creative assertions that the vort was 'bogus' and that I am a rotten baal gaava.

UPDATE:

Many scholars say that the minhag to wear costumes stems from cultural diffusion; that Jews saw the Venetian masked balls and parties and adapted the concept to our holiday.  Whether this has any truth to it is not important to me.  Here is a remark I made on the topic on a Jewish news site:

Cultural diffusion only to the extent that a style of celebration was not adopted but instead adapted; not commingled but instead co-opted. It is no different than the minhag of heseiba on Pesach, which was a Greek way of expressing freedom and tranquility at their banquets. Our seder is not at all like a Greek banquet; but we adapted this manner of expressing cheirus. It is no different than using fur hats to express dignity and grandeur. It is no different than standing up for a Chassan and Kallah or using "Italian Lights" for Sukkos in Israel. We adopt/adapt behaviors only when our re-casting serves to emphasize a uniquely Jewish idea. Calling it 'cultural diffusion' creates a false implication of parity, denigrating our minhag by associating it with the louts and hedonists of Venice. What you can say is that the concept of hester panim is fundamental and ubiquitous in the story of Purim.  But only in Venice, where wearing masks was widespread and in the minds of all the citizens, did that seed of symbolism elicit the novel concept of a minhag to wear costumes and masks. 

Parshas Terumah: Shvilei Pinches, from Reb Baruch Fox

"ויקחו לי תרומה" – תורה מ'

Every Jew Is Responsible for Revealing His Portion of the Torah that Was Given to Moshe Rabeinu and then Forgotten

In this week’s parsha, parshas Terumah, it is written: "וידבר ה' אל משה לאמר, דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו לי תרומה מאת כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו תקחו את תרומתי" Our blessed sages expound in the Midrash (S.R. 33,1):

"הדא הוא דכתיב (משלי ד ב) כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם תורתי אל תעזובו, אל תעזובו את המקח שנתתי לכם". “. . . Do not forsake this commodity that I have given you.”



We need to explain: (a) what is the connection between "לקח טוב נתתי לכם", which refers to the holy Torah that the Almighty gave us and the possuk "ויקחו לי תרומה", which is not referring to the Torah? (b) why does Hashem request from us: "כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם תורתי אל תעזובו, אל תעזובו את המקח שנתתי לכם"? It is quite clear that from the moment we received the Torah on Har Sinai, we were obligated to learn, teach, observe and perform.



The Letters תרומה Rearrange to Form מ' תורה

Let us begin our journey, by introducing the words of the Baal HaTurim here: "תרומה אותיות מ' תורה". His source is the Zohar hokadosh (Korach 179.): "אית תרומה מדאורייתא תורה מ', והאי איהו תרומה, תורה דאתייהיבת בארבעים יום". The point is being made that the word תרומ"ה alludes to the fact that the Torah was given over a period of forty days, "תורה מ'". In this light, the Midrash’s exposition on this possuk fits nicely; however, how will we explain the continuation of the possuk: "ויקחו לי תרומה" – תורה מ' - "מאת כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו תקחו את תרומתי"? What lesson are we supposed to learn from the fact that Hashem gave Moshe Rabeinu the Torah over a period of forty days?



Let us introduce a cryptic teaching in the gemorah (Nedarim 38.):

"אמר רבי יוחנן, בתחילה היה משה למד תורה ומשכחה, עד שניתנה לו במתנה, שנאמר (שמות לא יח) ויתן אל משה ככלותו לדבר אתו". The Midrash teaches that Moshe Rabeinu learned directly from the Almighty for forty whole days and kept forgetting what he had learnt, until Hashem gave him the Torah as a gift at the end of the forty days—as it is written: "ככלותו לדבר אתו".



The Alshich hokadosh, in Toras Moshe (Ki Tisa, ibid.) poses the question: Since Hokadosh Boruch Hu knew from the start that Moshe Rabeinu would not be able to remember the Torah unless he received it as a gift, what was the purpose of the entire forty day process—teaching him the Torah, Moshe forgetting the Torah and, finally, bestowing it upon him as a gift?



He explains at length, in his holy words, that the purpose of the Almighty learning Torah with Moshe for forty days, was to purify and refine his nature. It is analogous to the formation of a human embryo, which is a forty day process, as we find in the gemorah (Bechoros 21:): "יצירת הוולד באשה ארבעים יום". Similarly, a forty day purification process was necessary, before he was prepared to receive the Torah as a gift that he would not forget.



For Forty Days Moshe Learned Everything that Future Generations of Scholars Were Destined to Innovate



As is the way of Torah, to be elucidated in seventy aspects, we wish to suggest a novel interpretation for why this forty day process was necessary. We will base our interpretation on the Drashos HaChasam Sofer (part 2,page 406,column 3) explaining a verse in this week’s parsha:

"ויקחו לי תרומה מאת כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו תקחו את תרומתי. פה נרמז מה שאמרו חכמינו ז"ל (ויק"ר כב א), שבאותן מ' יום ניתן למשה רבינו ע"ה כל מה שתלמיד ותיק עתיד לחדש, והיינו בעוסק בתורה לשמה זוכה לכוון חלקו שניתן לנשמתו בסיני... והיינו ויקחו לי תרומה - תורה מ', מאת כל איש, כי כל העוסק בתורה מצליח, (מגילה ו:) ויגעתי ולא מצאתי אל תאמין, ואת אשר ידבנו לבו, ומחדש ומוציא סברא מלבו חידושי תורה, תקחו את תרומתי, כי שלי הוא וכולם ניתנו מרועה אחד".

We are taught a very important principle by the Chasam Sofer. During Moshe’s forty day stay in the heavens, Hokadosh Boruch Hu taught him everything that future generations of scholars were destined to innovate. In addition, we are supposed to understand from this: "מאת כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו תקחו את תרומתי" –it is incumbent upon every individual Jew to reveal his own portion of the Torah that was revealed to Moshe during those forty days.



We can embellish his words based on the Midrash (V.R. 22,1):

"אפילו מה שתלמיד ותיק עתיד לומר לפני רבו כולן נאמרו למשה בסיני, שנאמר (קהלת א י) יש דבר שיאמר ראה זה חדש הוא, חבירו משיב עליו, כבר היה לעולמים" There are no novel interpretations in the Torah, since everything has already been taught to Moshe on Sinai.



This still conflicts somewhat with a teaching of the gaon Chida’s in Dvash L’fee (8,3):

"האחרונים יכולים לחדש מה שלא יכלו הראשונים, כי עדיין לא הגיע זמן החידוש ההוא" Here we are taught that novel interpretations of the Torah are revealed in every generation. So was it instituted from Above that certain interpretations only be revealed by the scholars of that specific generation. Furthermore, these interpretations could not have been revealed even by earlier generations of more heavenly scholars.



We find a similar conflict with the parsha describing the “mahn” (Shemos 16,4). The “mahn” is described as bread from heaven. The possuk continues: "ולקטו העם דבר יום ביומו"—every day, they were to gather and clarify the novel Torah teachings specific to that particular day. How, too, does this coincide with the Midrash quoted above: "אפילו מה שתלמיד ותיק עתיד לומר לפני רבו כולן נאמרו למשה בסיני"?



Forty Days in the Heavens Correspond to the Forty Days of an Embryo’s Formation

We can resolve these conflicts based on a concept found in our holy seforim. Moshe Rabeinu remained in the heavens forty days to receive the Torah, because forty days are necessary to form a new creature. These forty days represented the creation and transformation of the people of Yisroel into the nation of the Torah. We find this idea presented by the Siftei Kohen (Ekev): "ואשב בהר ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה, מה שהיו ארבעים יום כנגד יצירת הולד, כמו שיצירת הגוף בארבעים יום כן היה צריך ארבעים יום לתורה".



It is well- known that all six hundred thousand neshomes of Yisroel were incorporated within Moshe Rabeinu. This is taught in the Midrash Tanchuma (Beshalach): "משה ובני ישראל, משה שקול כנגד כל ישראל". It is now clear why, during those forty days, Moshe was taught the entire Torah, including the novel interpretations of all future generations—since he embodied all the neshomes of Yisroel, he had to receive all of their portions in the Torah.



However, since the time for many of those chidushim to be revealed had not yet arrived—i.e. they would be revealed by various scholars, each in his own time—it was necessary for Moshe to forget them and not present them before their appropriate times. Nonetheless, every Jew’s ability to perceive and comprehend his own portion of the Torah, is only in the merit of Moshe Rabeinu, the root of all Jewish neshomes, who accepted that portion of the Torah on Har Sinai.



We find support for this concept in the gemorah (Nidah 30:) concerning an unborn fetus:

"ומלמדין אותו כל התורה כולה... וכיון שבא לאויר העולם בא מלאך וסטרו על פיו ומשכחו כל התורה כולה". The fetus is taught the entire Torah; yet, as he is born, an angel slaps him on his mouth and he forgets it all. Once again, we might wonder, what purpose does it serve to teach the unborn child the entire Torah, if he is destined to forget it all at birth?



The answer is provided by the Noam Elimelech in Likutei Shoshanah:

"אם לא היו מלמדין אותה, לא היה באפשרי לקבל וללמוד אחר כך את התורה, לכן מלמדין אותה מתחילה כדי שאחר כך בנקל תוכל לקבל וללמוד התורה".

If the neshome would not be taught the Torah initially, prior to birth, it would be impossible for it to achieve and comprehend the Torah by natural means, after birth, from within the confines of its physical, material body.

This also applied in a general sense to Moshe Rabeinu, the embodiment of all Jewish neshomes, during those forty days. Had he not forgotten those portions belonging to future generations, he would have been obligated to reveal them before their time. Had he not learned them at all, we would never have been able to comprehend them and, ultimately, reveal them on our own.



How beautifully this explains the words of Hashem (Malachi 3,22): "זכרו תורת משה עבדי אשר צויתי אותו בחורב על כל ישראל חוקים ומשפטים" Hashem beseeches us to remember the Torah that Moshe spent forty days learning on Har Sinai and then forgot. He did so for the benefit of all future generations. By toiling and endeavoring to study Torah, we successfully return to Moshe Rabeinu those portions which he forgot while on Har Sinai.

This illuminates for us the Chasam Sofer’s elucidation of the possuk: "וידבר ה' אל משה לאמר"—Hashem spoke specifically to Moshe, who accepted all of Yisroel’s portions of the Torah on Har Sinai; "דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו לי תרומה"—the word תרומ"הis the same letters as "תורה מ'", an allusion to the fact that Moshe was only given the Torah as a gift after he had struggled for forty days in the heavens to learn it and, still, forgot it all. The lesson we are supposed to learn: "מאת כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו תקחו את תרומתי"—every Jew must devote his heart and soul to Torah study, in order to return his portion to Moshe Rabeinu, who forgot it.



We can now appreciate the meaning of the Midrash:

"ויקחו לי תרומה, הדא הוא דכתיב כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם תורתי אל תעזובו, אל תעזובו את המקח שנתתי לכם" Based on what we have learned in the gemorah (Menachos 65:): "וספרתם לכם, שתהא ספירה לכל אחד ואחד". Whenever the verse uses the term "לכם", it refers to each individual as a separate entity.



So, when the Almighty says to us: "כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם"—He is telling each and every one of us, individually, that we were each given a special portion of His Torah during those forty days on Har Sinai (when He taught Moshe and Moshe forgot). Therefore, I (Hashem) request from all of you: "תורתי אל תעזובו, אל תעזובו את המקח שנתתי לכם"—it is up to you to reveal the portions of the Torah that Moshe forgot.

Mishpatim, Shemos 24:7. Cost/Benefit Analysis of Mitzvos

To my dear readers:  The current  (2/16/10) news has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that I made a serious error of judgment on this website. 

Earlier Divrei Torah on Mishpatim:

Gadlus in Torah Goes Beyond How Much You Know.  (2009)

The Torah Perspective on Self-Determination.  (2008)

On the Obduracy of First Impressions  (2007)

The Limitations on Majority Rule  (2007)

For 2010:

Klal Yisrael, offered the Torah, responded Na'aseh Ve'Nishma.  It’s amusing to note that this statement, which refers to our commitment to learn and do mitzvos, is in Shemos 24/7. (It’s only amusing, because perek numbers are arbitrary, and because “midvar sheker tirchak is in 23:7, which should mean that you can lie one hour a day.  Maybe that's for when your wife asks you how her sheitel looks on her.)

What was so remarkable about Na'aseh Ve'Nishma?  The Gemara in Shabbos 88 says that Hashem said “mi gila le'banai raz zeh," who revealed to my children this secret that the malochim use, this Seraphic Secret.  If Na'aseh Ve'Nishma means that our learning will be flawed unless we do it with the intention of fulfilling the Mitzvos, ahl me'nas la'asos, what does that have to do with the malachim?  They don't do anything ahl me'nas la'asos.

The Alshich, where the Torah discusses the building of the Mishkan, talks about all the precious wood, stone and metal.  He says says that one might wonder why we need all these luxurious and precious things to bring the Shechina. Wouldn’t purity and simplicity be a better matrix than extravagance? He answers that the Shechina was shoreh not because of the precious things, but because when the people donated them, when they brought these objects, they felt they were giving something extraordinary, something that embodied their desire to do their best, and they brought them with a sense of love and privilege.  It is when a person considers that his kiyum hamitzvos is a privilege, and he does it with love and pleasure, that the Shechina is Shoreh. The objects are simply things that we consider precious, and which are donated by people who honestly and deeply want to do their best for the Mishkan. (Rambam Isurei Mizbei’ach 7:11.)   This actually is not a lesson we only learn from the Alshich; this is something Hevel realized at the dawn of time.

Based on the Alshich, that it is the Ahava that is mashreh the Shchina, we can also say that the Na'aseh means that we will do the mitzvos realizing that it is our privilege to do them, that they show our love and gratitude to the Ribono shel Olam.  We will learn the meaning and significance of the mitzvos as a limud and as a method to advance out actions, but we will do them because Hashem told us to. 

Note, please, that this was a sea change from what Klal Yisrael had been doing until now.  The Avos, we are told, also fulfilled the Torah (Yoma 28b); But the Avos fulfilled the Torah because they understood their underlying reasons, and so every time they did a mitzvah, they had to decide whether under the circumstances it was the most efficient thing to do.  We do something they never did (with the exception of Milah).  We do Mitzvos qua Mitzvos, i.e., tzivuyim of Hashem because we accepted the obligation to follow Hashem's commandments.  We did this because it is Hashem's will that we do so, and we have a natural drive to bring nachas to the One that we love.  That desire for this entirely novel relationship with Hashem is expressed in Na'aseh Ve'Nishma.

When one buys a gift, or does a favor, for someone he loves, he does not stop to scrutinize the economic ramifications of his act.  When one does mitzvos with this attitude, one does not do a cost/benefit analysis.  This is the midda of Chanun, to do things lifnim mishuras hadin, beyond the call of duty.  This, then, is like the ahava that the Malachim have.

Yisro: Kiddush Friday Night- Minhag Avos versus the Arizal's Innovations; Mesora and Kabbala

Or, Custom versus Lurianic Innovation.

Or, Memoria, Curia, and Luria: Minhag, Halacha, and Kabbalah.

The first section is from Rabbi Pinches Friedman, translated and made beautiful by Rav Dr. Baruch Fox.  The item he sent me was longer, but I found this part to be most interesting, in that it highlights the ambivalence of the poskim regarding the Arizal's kabala-centric innovations.  After this section, I begin my discussion.

In this week’s parsha, parshat Yitro, we read about the revelation at Mount Sinai, when the Almighty chose to give Yisrael the Torah and convey the Ten Commandments. In this essay, we wish to focus on the fourth commandment (Exodus 20,8): "זכור את יום השבת לקדשו". -- “Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it.” Our sages of blessed memory expound this verse in the gemorah (Pesachim 106.) as pertaining to the mitzvah of Kiddush: "זכור את יום השבת לקדשו, זוכרהו על היין בכניסתו, אין לי אלא בלילה ביום מנין, תלמוד לומר זכור את יום השבת ביום". We sanctify and remember the Shabbos over wine, both at night and during the day.

Thirty-five Words in "ויכולו" and Thirty-five Words in the Beracha of Kiddush

The Magen Avraham (271,22) writes in the name of the Arizal (Shaar HaKavanot) that the Kiddush formula contains seventy words—thirty-five in the paragraph of "ויכולו" and thirty-five in the actual berocheh. The source for this is found in the Zohar hakadosh (Intro. 5:):

"ויכולו אית ביה תלתין וחמש תיבין, ובקידושא דאנן מקדשין תלתין וחמש תיבין, וסליק כלא לשבעין שמהן דקב"ה, וכנסת ישראל אתעטר בהו".

Translation: “Vayichulu” contains thirty-five words, the kiddush we recite contains thirty-five words; they add up to seventy names of the Almighty, and Yisroel are adorned and protected by them.

The Kabbalists and most Chassidim follow the custom of the Arizal; the customs of the Chasam Sofer mention that the Ksav Sofer, zts”l, also followed this custom, and here is the formula:

"ויכולו השמים והארץ וכל צבאם, ויכל אלקים ביום השביעי מלאכתו אשר עשה, וישבות ביום השביעי מכל מלאכתו אשר עשה, ויברך אלקים את יום השביעי ויקדש אותו, כי בו שבת מכל מלאכתו אשר ברא אלקים לעשות:

ברוך אתה ה' אלקינו מלך העולם, אשר קדשנו במצוותיו ורצה בנו, ושבת קדשו באהבה וברצון הנחילנו זכרון למעשה בראשית, תחלה למקראי קודש זכר ליציאת מצרים, ושבת קדשך באהבה וברצון הנחלתנו, ברוך אתה ה' מקדש השבת".

In Shaar HaKavanot, the Arizal goes on to say:

"ולכן אותם הנוהגין לומר אחר תיבות זכר ליציאת מצרים, כי בנו בחרת ואותנו קדשת מכל העמים ושבת קדשך כו', הם טועים טעות גמור, כי מוסיפין בחשבון התיבות, ואין לומר סדר גירסא זו אלא בקידוש של יום טוב בלבד, והטועים העתיקוהו משם בסדר הקידוש של שבת".

—anyone who customarily adds the words כי בנו בחרת ואותנו קדשת מכל העמים ושבת קדשך כו' is making a big mistake; that formula should only be recited on Yom Tov.

Nevertheless, it is quite clear that every individual is obligated to follow the custom of his father and his Rabbis, as the Magen Avraham, the great possek, writes:

 "ולי נראה שאין לשנות שום מנהג, כי לכל מנהג יש טעם ויסוד דוק ותשכח".

We also find in the Likutei Maharich:

"והנה נוסח סידורי אשכנז, כי בנו בחרת ואותנו קדשת מכל העמים, וכן הוא בסידור רב עמר"ם ורמב"ם ובמחזור ויטרי ובמהרי"ל ובאבודרהם, אך על פי האר"י ז"ל אין לאומרו".

In other words, even though the Arizal instructs us not to include the additional words כי בנו בחרת ואותנו קדשת מכל העמים, they are included in the formula found in Ashkenaz siddurim as well as the siddurim of Rav Amram, the Rambam, the Machzor Vitri, the Maharil and the Avudraham.
(end quote from Rav Friedman; now back to me.)

We find this approach often in the Magen Avraham.  For example: the Magen Avraham says that the two mentions of the word נא  (Na) in Shmone Esrei are incorrect, because the psukim they are drawn from do not have the word na in them.  (Obviously, they were put in there because Moshe Rabbeinu's tefilla for his sister used na twice, and mekubalim say that using na twice empowers a tefilla.)  Nevertheless, the Magen Avraham says that one should daven as his father did; that even though the nusach is wrong, it is better to follow your minhag and say the 'technically' incorrect nusach. 

It goes without saying that there are limits to this rule.  In the balance between accuracy of nusach and fealty to minhag, the Magen Avraham holds that the latter is more important.  When we say tefillos, even though we only perceive our own voice, in truth our voice joins the chorus of the voices of our fathers and grandfathers all the way back to Mattan Torah; we are all speaking as one and Hashem hears us as one (Yafeh tefillas tzadik ben tzadik....).  On the other hand, in matters of issur and hetter, minhag might not be the dominant consideration  (see Maseches Sofrim 14:18 for the oft-quoted statement מנהג עוקר הלכה, and Tosfos, Menachos 20b dh Nifsal ומנהג אבותינו תורה היא, and for a thorough discussion see OC 690 Be'er Heitev sk 15 that begins with a quote from the Magen Avraham regarding the Rama's mention of the minhag that children make noise when the name Haman is read during the Megilla.  Bottom line is, don't be such a curmudgeon, and let the kids have a good time.)

Another interesting point about the Arizal's nusach is the following:
Reb Tzadok in his sefer on the Torah, in Parshas Yisro, #5, points out that the Zohar's formula has thirty five words, while that of the Arizal has forty two words.  Reb Tzadok explains that of the forty two, seven are repeated.  These are ברוך, אתה, ה', בנו, ושבת, באהבה, וברצון.  He says that the repetition means that the Kedusha that Klal Yisrael infuses into Shabbos, is an echo of the Kedusha from Hashem, that they recognize that whatever they can give came from the Ribono shel Olam.  That's the last of the paragraph that I understand.

Here is the rest of the Drasha Reb Baruch sent me.  I put it in small font to make clear the distinction between his words and mine.

The Seventy Nations: אל"ה מול אל"ה


We wish to provide a deeper understanding of the Friday night Kiddush, according to the opinion of the Zohar hokadosh and the Arizal—reciting a formula comprised of two segments, each containing thirty-five words. Let us first introduce a teaching of the Bnei Yissoschar (Shabbos 1,10) explaining a quote from our blessed sages (Shabbos 118:): "אלמלי שמרו ישראל שבת ראשונה לא שלטה בהן אומה ולשון"—“If the people of Yisroel had only kept the first Shabbos, no nation or people would have ever ruled over them.” He bases his teaching on the words of the Megaleh Amukot (Lech Lecha) pertaining to the “covenant of the parts” (Bereishis 15,10):

"ויקח לו את כל אלה ויבתר אותם בתוך".—“He took all of these to Him, and he split them in the center.”

It is known that there are seventy guardian angels above, split into two groups—thirty-five on the left side of kedushah led by סמא"ל, the guardian angel of Eisav, and, opposite them, thirty-five on the right side of kedushah, led by רה"ב, the guardian angel of Yishmoel.

These seventy guardian angels can be represented as אל"ה opposite אל"ה, i.e. ל"ה, thirty-five nations on the right with their leader, their א', opposite ל"ה, thirty-five nations of the left with their leader, their א'. This is the allusion in the verse cited above: "ויקח לו את כל אלה" –he took the two sets of אל"ה comprising the seventy nations and their heads--"ויבתר אותם בתוך"—he split them in two halves and placed Yisroel between them. This is also alluded to in the verse (Tehillim 20,28): "אלה ברכב ואלה בסוסים"-- corresponds to the two sets of אל"ה representing the seventy nations--"ואנחנו בשם ה' אלקינו נזכיר—refers to Yisroel.

The Megaleh Amukot tosses in a wonderful insight. This division between the nations explains why the holy nation of Yisroel’s day of rest is Shabbos kodesh. In stark contrast, the Moslems’, the descendants of Yishmoel, celebrate their holy day on Friday, to the right of Shabbos kodesh; whereas, the holy day of the Christians, descendants of Eisav, is Sunday, to the left of Shabbos kodesh; Yisroel again occupy the central position, having been allotted Shabbos kodesh to sanctify and cherish.

Based on this concept, the Bnei Yissoschar points out that the sanctity of Shabbos, located centrally between these other nations’ holy days, nullifies the negative forces of Yishmoel and Eisav (and the seventy nations beneath them) to its right and its left. This is how he explains the teaching: “If the people of Yisroel had only kept the first Shabbos, no nation or people would have ever ruled over them.” Had they kept the very first Shabbos, they would have nullified the negative forces of Eisav and Yishmoel to the left and right of Shabbos kodesh and the roots of the seventy ministering angels. As a result, no nation would have ever been able to rule over them.

Shabbos Kodesh Separates the Negative Forces of Yishmoel and Eisav

We see that Shabbos kodesh acts like an iron curtain separating the legions of Yishmoel and Eisav and preventing them from joining forces. This is the meaning of the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 71:):

"פיזור לרשעים הנאה להם והנאה לעולם". By separating the forces of evil, the powers of kedushah of Yaakov triumph over them and the entire world benefits.

This in my opinion, is what Yisroel’s sweet psalmist is alluding to in "מזמור שיר ליום השבת" which is entirely based on praise for the holiness of Shabbos (Tehillim 92,10): "כי הנה אויביך ה' כי הנה אויביך יאבדו יתפרדו כל פועלי און".. We can deduce from the repetition of the phrase "כי הנה אויביך" that Dovid homelech is teaching us an important lesson concerning the power of Shabbos and its ability to separate the evil forces of Yishmoel and Eisav. "כי הנה אויביך ה'"

“For behold Your enemies, Hashem” refers to the thirty-five nations on the right side led by Yishmoel;

"כי הנה אויביך יאבדו" , “For behold Your enemies shall perish,” refers to the thirty-five nations on the left side led by Eisav; "יתפרדו כל פועלי און", “All evil-doers shall be dispersed,” due to the sanctity of Shabbos standing between them, they will all be eliminated.

This coincides beautifully with the verses of the poem "אזמר בשבחין" instituted by the Arizal to be sung on Friday night: "ימינא ושמאלא ובינייהו כלה". "ימינא" alludes to the thirty-five nations on the right side headed by Yishmoel’s ministering angel; "ושמאלא" alludes to the thirty-five nations on the left side headed by Eisav’s ministering angel;

"ובינייהו כלה" alludes to the Shabbos kallah and queen standing between them and keeping them apart.

This also sheds light on our understanding of the concept of תוספת שבת –extending the sanctity of Shabbos upon ushering her in and ushering her out. By ushering Shabbos in early on Friday night, and extending Shabbos into the domain of the children of Yishmoel’s holy day, we subdue their negative forces to the right of the kedushah. By delaying the end of Shabbos, we draw kedushah into the domain of the children of Eisav’s holy day and, thus, subdue the negative forces to the left of the kedushah. These two supplements, תוספת שבת, in effect subdue the roots of all the seventy nations.

Yishmoel Is the Negative Aspect of “Chesed” Eisav Is the Negative Aspect of “Gevurah”

Our explanation of this concept that Shabbos possesses the power to negate the two negative forces of Yishmoel and Eisav, can be expanded even further. Let us first explain why Yishmoel’s ministering angel is on the left side, while Eisav’s ministering angel is on the right side, and Shabbos kodesh stands in the middle separating them. The Megaleh Amukot (beginning of Vayeitzei) explains, in the name of the kabbalists, that Yishmoel and Eisav represent the impurities and refuse separated out from the attributes of “chesed” and “gevurah” (severity). Yishmoel represents the impurities of “chesed,” since he utilizes this attribute to pursue inappropriate, illicit relationships and desires of this mundane world. He is, therefore, the impure derivative of Avraham’s “chesed” of kedushah on the right side.

In contrast, Eisav represents the negative side of “gevurah.” He utilizes this attribute to justify murdering those who get in his way. Consequently, his father Yitzchak, upon seeing gehinom enter with him, declares (Bereishis 27,40):

"ועל חרבך תחיה". Eisav, who derives from Yitzchak, gevurah of kedushah, is therefore on the left side. “Chesed” represents the right side and “gevurah” the left. So, Yishmoel, representing the impure aspect of “chesed,” is located on the right; while, Eisav, the impure aspect of “gevurah,” is located on the left.

The gemorah (Shabbos 118.) teaches that Shabbos is the portion and legacy of Yaakov Ovinu. It is well known that his attribute is “tiferet,” the combination and balance of “chesed” and “gevurah.” We can now understand how the kedushah of Shabbos—the portion of Yaakov Ovinu who represents the balance of “chesed” and “gevurah”—possesses the power to nullify both Yishmoel—the negative aspect of “chesed,” on the right—and Eisav—the negative aspect of “gevurah,” on the left.

It is now clear, why the Friday night Kiddush contains seventy words—thirty-five in the paragraph of “Vayechulu” and thirty-five in the Kiddush berocheh. They correspond to the thirty-five nations on the right, led by Yishmoel, and the thirty-five nations on the left, led by Eisav, which are nullified by the kedushah of Shabbos.

This is the meaning of the words of the Zohar hokadosh quoted above:

"ויכולו יש בו שלשים וחמש תיבות, ובקידוש שאנו מקדשים שלשים וחמש תיבות, ועולים לשבעים שמות של הקב"ה, וכנסת ישראל מתעטרת בהם" The seventy names of the Almighty are to vanquish the seventy nations. On Shabbos kodesh the Divine Presence adorns Herself with these seventy names to subdue the thirty-five nations on the left and thirty-five nations on the right.

We can also provide a sweet explanation for the teaching in the Tikunei Zohar (Tikun 24, 69.) that it is customary to add two more words to Kiddush, "סברי מרנן". By doing so, we end up with seventy-two words in kiddush, equivalent to the numerical values of ויכל"ו and also ביי"ן.

"וצריך לברכא לון ולקדש לון בקידוש על היין, בשבעין תיבין דקידוש ויכ"לו כחושבן ביי"ן, וצריך למימר סברי מרנן".

The reason for this custom is easily explained based on what we have learned. The thirty-five nations on the right are led by the ministering angel of Yishmoel; while the thirty-five nations on the left are led by the ministering angel of Eisav. If we include these two ministering angels, we arrive at a total of seventy-two. Therefore, between the thirty-five words of "ויכולו" and the thirty-five words of the berocheh, we add the two words "סברי מרנן" to counteract and eliminate the two leaders, themselves, of the seventy ministering angels.

The Two Parts of Kiddush Correspond to the Written Law and the Oral Law

Following this path, let us develop one more idea concerning our blessed sages’ decision to divide the seventy words of Kiddush in this manner, specifically. The thirty-five words in the paragraph "ויכולו" are found in the written Torah; whereas, the thirty-five words of the Kiddush berocheh were formulated by our sages of blessed memory. We find in the Tikunei Zohar (Intro. 11:) that the written law emanates from the right side, the attribute of “chesed”; while the oral law emanates from the left side, the attribute of judgment.

It turns out, that the written Torah negates the negative forces of Yishmoel which are also affiliated with the right side; whereas, the oral Torah serves to negate the negative forces of Eisav which are, similarly, associated with the left side. This insight sheds light on the deeper purpose of this Rabbinic enactment. They instituted a two-part formula for Kiddush. The first part contains the thirty-five word paragraph of "ויכולו" which appears in the written Torah and is designed to nullify the thirty-five nations on the right side—the negative forces led by Yishmoel.

Additionally, they, the sages of the oral Torah, instituted the Kiddush berocheh, also containing thirty-five words. This formula, an illustration of the oral Torah emanating from the left, is designed to nullify the thirty-five nations on the left—the negative forces of Eisav.

Yisro 18:6. Kabbalas Panim- Greeting a Great Man. אֲנִי חֹתֶנְךָ יִתְרוֹ בָּא אֵלֶיךָ

    Rashi on this passuk says that Moshe and Aharon went out to meet Yisro, and so Aharon’s children came along.  Seeing the family of the leaders of Klal Yisrael going, the Seventy Zkainim came along.  And “who could see such a group going out and not join them?” So Yisro ended up getting a kabbalas panim from all the chashuvim of Klal Yisroel.  This reminds me of what the Chafetz Chaim said about R’ Meir Shapiro.

        In 2005, a dayan from Brussels was visiting the city and he spoke at a siyum on Maseches Brachos.  He said when he lived in London, he had an elderly neighbor named Ziggy Stern (an Oberlander, whose son, I think, manufactures zippers and also put out the Kushios Atzumos from Reb Akiva Eiger.)  Mr. Stern told him a story.

When he was a boy of fifteen, his father sent him a message in the yeshiva that he should come home for a week, because the Chafetz Chaim was coming to Vienna, and would be staying at their house, and he had a chance to be meshameish the Chofetz Chaim for a week.  So he came home and became the Chafetz Chaim’s shamash.

Every rav and gadol and rebbe asked for appointments, and the Chafetz Chaim would share his time very parsimoniously, allowing appointments only at specific times and for very limited amounts of time.  Even the Imrei Emes got the in-and-out treatment (Shalom aleichem, Bo'achem l'shalom, Barchuni l'shalom, Tzeischem l'shalom).   When R’ Meir Shapiro asked for an appointment, Stern conveyed the request to the Chafetz Chaim, saying that a young Rov named R’ Meir Shapiro (Reb Meir was born in 1887, the Chafetz Chaim in 1838, an age difference of 49 years ) would like to come and talk to him, the Chafetz Chaim said he can come.  Stern asked, when should he come?  He answered, “whenever he wants.”  How long can he stay?  “As long as he wants.”  So they arranged that they would meet on a certain day at eleven in the morning.  That morning, the Chafetz Chaim told Stern to bring him his Shabbos clothing.  At ten thirty, the Chafetz Chaim was looking out the window, and when Harav Shapiro came, the Chafetz Chaim walked downstairs to be mekabeil panim, and after the meeting, he walked him out.  Stern gathered his courage, and asked the Chafetz Chaim, why is it that you asked for your bigdei Shabbos, let him come when he wanted, and walked him in and out?  The Chafetz Chaim answered, “do you know who that is?  That is R’ Meir Shapiro, who created the idea of the Daf Yomi.  When he comes to the olam ha’emes, Rabbeinu Hakodosh and Ravina and Rav Ashi and all the tana’im and amora’im are going to go to be mekabeil panim, because “ehr hoht zeir Torah fahrshpreit in der gantzeh velt” (he spread their Torah thoughout the entire world.)  If he is going to have azah kabbalas panim in der olom ho’emes, ich vill ehm eich mekabeil ponim zain” (If he's going to have such a greeting in the world of truth, I also want to be among those who greet him.)

There are a lot of things to think about in that story; the value of harbatzas Torah, the importance of showing respect to a person that has spread Torah to the common man, and the incisive wisdom of the Chafetz Chaim in assessing what truly deserves respect.  But hanogei'a le'inyaneinu, it is a good example of what Rashi mentions.

In January of 2011, I was reminded of this story.  I was sitting and relaxing Motzei Shabbos at 10:50 at night, and the phone rings.  The Caller ID says it's from my bank, MB Financial.  Why on earth would my bank call in middle of the night on Saturday?  Did someone steal my identity?  Am I overdrawn?  I answered the phone, and it was a bank officer who was preparing to say a daf yomi shiur the next morning, and he was stuck on several things in the Gemara, for example, how do we know that the hagasha of a Korban Mincha is to the lower half of the Mizbei'ach.  Why he was preparing the shiur in his office in the bank I don't know.  But I do know that if not for Reb Meir Shapiro's inspiration, I wouldn't have gotten the call, and even if I had, I probably wouldn't know the answer to his questions.