K I N D L Y S P O N S O R E D לעילוי נשמת הש"ץ שלמה בן אברהם משה ז"ל לעילוי נשמת חנה בת אלעזר ע"ה
Yerushalayim, Antwerp, Baltimore, Beit- Shemesh, Borehamwood, Chile, Cyprus, Edgware, Elstree, Gateshead, Gibraltar, Hale, Holland, Hong Kong, Ilford, Johannesburg, Lakewood, Las Vegas, London, Los Angeles, Manchester, Melbourne, Miami, Milan, New York, Petach Tikva, Philadelphia, Radlett, Toronto, Vienna, Zurich
פרק ד’see back page
GIVING UP EVERYTHING FOR THE CHANCE TO WORK IN THE BEIS HAMIKDASH
Rabbi Yissochor Frand | Rosh Yeshiva, Ner Yisrael Baltimore
Which of the following Rashis is his first commentary to this week’s Parsha?Try this without looking in a Chumash
a) Korach’s complaint against Moshe was that it was unfair that Elitzofon should be appointed the Nasi ahead of himb) Korach took himself to one side to be separate from the assembly of Yisroelc) Korach’s Yichus does not go up to Yaakov since he did not want to be mentioned in context with Korach but did agree when it came to Korach’s sons.d) Parshas Korach is beautifully explained in the the Medrash Tanchumae) Korach took (persuaded) the heads of the Sanhedrin with wordsf) Korach dressed up his colleagues with cloaks made of Techeiles and asked Moshe what is the Din about Tzitzisg) Korach’s complaint was that he wanted to complain about not getting the Kehuna
Any comments can be directed to [email protected]. Answer on page 7
Riddle of the Week BY BORUCH KAHAN
OnegShabbos
For questions on Divrei Torah please contact the Editor in Chief, Rabbi Yonasan [email protected]
To receive this via email or for sponsorship opportunities please email [email protected]
בס"ד
North West London’s Weekly Torah and Opinion SheetsA Torah publication that enables local Rabbonim and Avreichim to share their insights and Divrei Torah on a variety of different levels, to provide something for everyone
NOW IN
Kids 6-13
summer edition
design-the-cover
See bottom of page 6 for more details
CONTEST 9th July 2016 | ג’ תמוז תשע”ו | פ’ קרח
מוצש’’קLONDON: 10:29 PM
הדלקת נרותLONDON: 9:02 PM
פרקי אבותPirkei Avos
This week’s Oneg Shabbos
Publication has been
sponsored anonymously
Welcome to our new readers in Milan!
The Torah’s narration of the above referenced story with the twelve tribal staffs concludes with the following pasuk: “Moshe brought out all the staffs from before Hashem to all the Children of Israel; they saw and they took each man his staff.” [Bamidbar 17:24]
Rav Zalman Sorotzkin zt’’l asks an interesting question: Why did everyone come back and take their staff? There was a “competition” between 12 tribal leaders. Aharon
“won”. The rest “lost”. What further need did they have for their staffs? To what can we compare this? A person buys a Power Ball lottery ticket. The grand prize is $350,000,000. The winning numbers are announced. Everyone looks at their tickets. “Did I win?” The person who wins is ecstatic. However, the other millions of “losers” take their lottery ticket, rip it up, and throw it away. That is what happened here. Aharon won; they lost. Their staffs were now worthless pieces of wood. Nevertheless, the pasuk makes the point that each man took back his staff. Why?
Rav Sorotzkin offers a beautiful idea. Everyone wanted to become “The Chosen Tribe”. Consider, is it really such a great thing to be a Kohen or a Levi? It was the poorest life amongst all the tribes. They do not own property. They work a couple of weeks a year in the Beis HaMikdash and are supported by the good graces of people’s Terumos and Maasros, the first shearing of the sheep, and the priestly portions of the slaughtered animals (Zeroa, Lechayayim, and Keivah). Essentially, they were given the scraps. It was
a poor life. The Leviim had it hard. The Kohanim
had it hard. However, everyone wanted to become the
“Chosen Tribe”. They want poverty! They want this hard life!
Why did everybody want it? They wanted it because of
the concept that this is the “Chosen Tribe”. This is the Tribe
chosen by Hashem. They are the “Chosen of the Chosen”.
This status had special merit and it was worth more than all
the property and all the real estate in the world. When the
other tribes “lost”, they did not toss away their staffs. They
came home and they mounted them over the fireplace. They
told their children and grandchildren “My sweet children,
you see this staff? I was willing to become a Levi! I was
willing to give up everything to become the Chosen Tribe!
Do you see this beautiful house? Do you see all the beautiful
furniture? I was willing to give this all up for the chance
to work in the Beis HaMikdash. My proudest possession
is this staff, the staff that lost. It is because that staff says
everything. The staff says that I know what is important and
what is trivial. I know that all the real estate in the world is
not worth anything compared to the merit of participating in
the Divine Service in the Beis HaMikdash.”
The staff was not a worthless lottery ticket that one rips
up, throws to the ground, and lets the wind scatter. This was
something to be proud of. It shows who the owner was. It
shows his values.
It is something to
show off, to treasure,
and to show one’s
grandchildren and
great grandchildren:
“I was willing to give
up everything to
become the Chosen
Tribe.”
??livingwithmitzvos.comQ
UIZ
TIME 1. How do women being the deciding factor, both for the good and the bad
in Parshas Korach?
PARS
HAH
Rabbi Chaim Burman | Kollel Darchei Hora’ah L’Rabbonim
WHERE THE HEART IS
2
T H I S P A G E I S K I N D L Y S P O N S O R E D
Deciding HowDecision making is a central activity that we
do all the time. From our most important and
life-changing decisions to how we implement
our daily routine we are constantly making
choices. Some find it more difficult, others
easier, but we all share the commonality of
constantly making decisions throughout
our day.
Nonetheless, there are very different ways
that people can come to a decision, and
everyone has their own unique way of doing
it. For many, this method becomes a recurring
pattern in their lives; they will use the same
methodology to reach desired results, with
minor modifications based upon the specific
circumstances. For some, these patterns are a
source of great success, for others however, it
lays the path for repeated failure.
This week’s Sedra identifies two
very distinct ways that people come to
make decisions.
Korach divides the nation by disputing with
Moshe. What led him to make that decision?
The Parsha begins “va’yikach Korach” – Korach
“took” - a phrase that the commentators are
troubled to explain; what exactly did he take?
The Medrash1 explains that he was “taken” by
the impulses of his heart. Deep down there
was a powerful and emotional passion, and
it was that drive that fueled his decision to
encounter Moshe.
Elsewhere, the Medrash2 (notes that this
kind of decision making is described again
1 Tanchuma, 2 and Rabbah, 18:22 Bereshis Rabbah, Noach, 34 cited by R’ Nosson Wachtfogel
zt’’l)
and again regarding characters that stray far
from the correct path. The Pesukim relate how
Esav, Naval and Yeravam were all driven by
the instinctive impulses of their heart, which
brought them to do terrible evil. These were
people who allowed their innate drives and
whims to become the dominant factor in their
decision making; they became subordinate to
their impulsive wills.
Good DecisionsGood people make good decisions in
positive ways. Their decisions are made
through rational and calculated processes.
Before making a decision they establish what
the ideal outcome of their actions should be:
“What should I want to achieve”, “What is the
best way to get there”? They do not ignore
their heart, but by defining their guiding
principles they are able to consciously redirect
the focus and drives of their innate instinct,
instead “channeling” their heart in a positive
way, the Medrash concludes.
Such people continuously reassess their
decisions based upon their experiences as they
make their journey: “When was I successful,
and why? When did I fail, and how could I do
things differently?” There is a readiness for
continuous and honest self-assessment and
evaluation, with a willingness to do things
differently whenever experience suggests that
an alternative course of action is appropriate.
This is the crucial distinguishing factor
between people who make good decisions and
achieve positive results, and people who make
bad decisions with negative consequences. It
is this message that is the antithesis of the
“feel-good? Do it now,” sentiment so prevalent
today; a position that could send us way off
track from where we aim to be. If we are able
to superimpose reason over our base instincts
we become freed from slavery to our impulses.
Becoming “Free”For this reason Chazal stated that a “free
person” is one who engages (“osek”) in Torah
study3. The verb “osek” denotes an intense
and encompassing form of learning4. The
way to be “osek” is by deeply engaging and
developing one’s intellectual and analytical
capacities in Torah study. When we learn in
this way we develop our skills of reasoning,
we learn to analyse, question, define and
solve. It is these skills, developed in the beis
hamedrash, which are to be employed in our
daily lives and make for positive and effective
decision making, freed from “slavery” to our
whims. We are trained, through our learning,
to become good decision makers.
Every day of life is both a struggle and a
passage. When we are guided by deliberate
reasoning and conscious decisions, we will
make positive decisions and become better
people. Making conscious and good decisions
about how to live a positive life is how great
people reach their potential. They define what
their ideal final goal will be, and then design a
practical and achievable game plan to realise
it, constantly assessing and modifying their
decisions based upon their experiences.
3 Avos 6:24 Taz, O.C. 47:1
??livingwithmitzvos.comQ
UIZ
TIME
2. What lies behind his name Korach that means bald?
07860 017 641SHAILATEXTDO YOU HAVE A SHAILA? ASK THE federation
T H I S P A G E I S K I N D L Y S P O N S O R E D B Y T H E F E D E R A T I O N
HE SAID WHAT ABOUT ME?!
FEDE
RATIO
NTHIS PAGE IS SPONSORED BY
Rabbi Zvi Portnoy | Loughton & Chigwell Federation Synagogue
CORRECTIONChallah should be taken without a bracha from 1.2kg of flour and not as stated in last week’s article.We apologise for any confusion caused.
3
In Parshas Korach, Dasan and Aviram accuse Moshe of usurping power from within the Jewish people. What is fascinating is the way in which Moshe responds to their false accusations. Moshe, in his response, claims “ “I have not taken even a single donkey of theirs”1. A somewhat strange thing to say perhaps, in response? Why didn’t Moshe simply lambast them for their incredibly cynical approach to his difficult and thankless leadership role? Why did Moshe feel compelled to deny having taken even a single donkey? Would anyone accuse Moshe of breaking into somebody’s stable to steal a donkey?! Rashi therefore explains that Moshe sought to make it perfectly clear that his personal benefit was not part of his agenda. When Hashem told him to return to Egypt to save the Jews, he did not take anyone’s donkey nor did he expect to be compensated 1 Bamidbar 16:15
for his expenses. Moshe was never interested in personal gain.
Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l offers a
fascinating insight. He asks why Moshe
was so fearful of taking anything from
anyone. As king of Bnei Yisrael, he was
entitled to impose taxes on the people or
even make use of their property if he so
wished. Yet Moshe seemed determined to
crush any doubts vis a vis his own person
gain. The answer lies in a fundamental
difference between Moshe and other
Jewish kings. When one’s rule is the
result of having been appointed king,
he may feel free to seize the people’s
property at will. However, Moshe’s rule
was based on his Torah knowledge and
Hashem’s will; he was never appointed
by the people as such. Torah may never
be exploited for one’s personal benefit, in
any form whatsoever. Therefore, Moshe
refused to take anything from anyone,
and made it abundantly clear to those
pointing the figure at him.
Rav Yerucham Levovitz, the famed
mashgiach of Mir Yeshiva sees in
Moshe’s reaction an important lesson in
introspection and self-critique. Dasan and
Aviram accused Moshe of seizing power
for himself. Although their criticism
was rooted in their in own insecurities
and jealousy, Moshe felt compelled to
examine whether their words contained
even a mere slither of truth. He could have
brushed the whole ordeal off as nothing
more than a vicious plot from the within
the ranks, a baseless attack
on his character. Yet he gave thought
as to whether he had ever abused his
position for any sort of personal gain.
His careful examination yielded that he
had not. Rav Yisrael Salanter says that
it is this readiness to engage in self-
critique, based upon the criticism of one’s
enemies, that is reflected in the words of
King David, “When those who would
harm me rise up against me, my ears
have heard”2. People are often unable or
unwilling to accept criticism. We create all
types of self-defense mechanisms. When
others offer even constructive criticism,
we rationalise that the person doesn’t
understand our situation and is mistaken
in his assessment of us. Worse yet, we
attribute their comments to jealousy
or resentment. This even occurs when
the critic is a close friend. Yet it is these
friends that we need most, not those who
tell us we are marvelous whatever we do!
It takes a someone with a healthy
self-esteem to differentiate between the
critic and the criticism. The critic may
be an enemy, it may be a friend, but a
great man will not ignore his criticism.
We would do well to listen, even when
our enemies speak, since they might be
saying something that is worth hearing.
2 Tehillim 92:12
??livingwithmitzvos.comQ
UIZ
TIME 3. Who were these trouble makers Dasan and Aviram and why did they not die
already in Mitzrayim, Egypt, with the other four fifths of Jews, during the plague of darkness, for wanting to stay in Mitzrayim?
Kids 6-13
summer editiondesign-the-cover
CONTESTPost your entry to Oneg Shabbos, c/o Jam Events, 314 Regents Park Road, London N3 2JX or email a scanned copy to [email protected] provide your name, age and shul.Entry deadline Thursday 28th July
PARS
HAH
Rabbi Moishe Kormornick | Author, Short Vort
NO GEVUL IN RUCHNIUS
4
רב לכם בני לויIt is much for you, sons of Levi (16:7)
After Korach and his followers came to mock Moshe and Aharon for ‘imposing’ themselves as leaders of the Jewish People, Moshe reprimands Korach by saying “It is much for you, sons of Levi!” It appears that by using these words, Moshe was telling Korach that his dreams of leadership were far beyond his capability, and he should have been happy with the honored position of being a Levi instead.1
Although Korach was
appropriately punished for his
terrible sin, it appears from
the Gemara that Moshe also
1 See Rav Yosef Bechor Shor and the Sifsei Kohen
received a degree of rebuke from
Hashem for answering Korach
in such a way. We see this
from the words that Hashem
uses when He tells Moshe that
despite all of Moshe’s pleading
and prayers, he still cannot enter
into Eretz Yisrael. Hashem says
to Moshe: “It is much for you”2 –
the very same words that Moshe
used to rebuke Korach.
What was wrong with the
words that Moshe used to rebuke
Korach? It seems perfectly
reasonable to tell someone
that they are not suitable for a
position and that they should
be happy with what they have;
so why did Hashem rebuke
Moshe for saying these words?
Perhaps the answer is as
follows: Although Moshe was
2 Devarim 3:26 (Sota 13b)
correct to rebuke Korach and try
to dissuade him from continuing
his destructive machlokes, to
tell him that the leadership is
too much for him to aspire to,
was not Moshe’s place to do.
For when it comes to aspiring
to be great, we can achieve far
beyond our natural potential, as
we see from the Gemara which
tells us that Hashem helps
someone go along the path that
he wants to take.3 Therefore,
if we develop the words of the
Gemara further, we will come
to realize that if someone really
wants to become great, he
will get all the Heavenly help
he needs to achieve his goal,
and if someone merits to have
Hashem’s help, then nothing
can possibly stop him.
3 Makkos 10b
??livingwithmitzvos.comQ
UIZ
TIME
4. How many things did Korach argue against?
Looking for Rabbonim to write in the Oneg Zemiros & Oneg Yomim Noroim Edition.
If you are able to help and submit a Devar Torah for either of these editions please email [email protected]
PARS
HAH
Rabbi Doniel Schonfeld | Dayan, Beis Din Nesivos Chaim, Yerushalayim
KORACH AND COMPANIES
5
I n the Torah we find three central entities capable of ownership; the private individual, the partnership and the
communal. The pesukim outline halachic differences between the various categories, primarily with reference to the sacrificial order of their respective korbanos. See Hirsh at beginning of Vayikra.
Although the structure of private and partnership entities are relatively well understood, the structure of the communal entity is far less clear; does halachah acknowledge the existence of Limited Companies? The poskim who addressed this question over the last century, have struggled to define Companies halachic status with complete certainty. The central problem discussed is whether the structure and ownership of a communal entity, including Limited Companies, and Limited Liability Partnerships (LLP) are intrinsically different from the shared ownership structure of standard partnerships. The exact definition of the categories generates considerable ramifications in areas such as; the lending / investing of moneys for ribis (interest), the ownership of chametz on Pesach, trading in forbidden foods, the prohibition of benefiting from Shabbos earnings, the mitzvah of mezuzah, the mitzvah of arba minim on Succos, amongst others.
For the aforementioned prohibitions / mitzvos to be relevant, the owner must be a halachically recognised person. Taking the view that a company becomes a uniquely separate entity unto itself, would possibility allow for halachically condoning a company to retain ownership over chometz on pesach. It may also exclude buildings owned by the company from the mitzvah of mezuzah.
Traditionally, separate legal entities such as Limited Companies and communal bodies have been viewed by jurists in one of two ways.
1) The Fiction TheoryIn the fiction theory the concept of a company being a separate entity from its investors and shareholders, is merely fictitious, created and sustained by intendment of the law. These entities are endowed with corporate personality simply because this is a convenient form through which the persons behind the company such as shareholders can conduct their business. Accordingly the shareholders are the true owners who use an artificial screen for commercial convenience.
2) The Realist TheoryThe realist theory on the other hand views a company as more than just a legal fiction or artificial idea. The realist contends that a company has the same status as a real person, and as such exists as an objectively real entity in its own right. Since the entity has its own identity the shareholders are seen as investors in the company rather than owners of it.More recently a fresh school of thought has developed amongst academics, which has redefined the nature of
Limited Companies.
3) The Contractual TheoryIn the contract theory, a company is viewed as the product of an agreement entered into by its shareholders to create the company. The entity is no more than a collection of its parts bound by a private agreement. Recognising a company’s existence according to this theory is no different in principle from recognising any other private agreement.
PARTNERSHIP ENTITIES
Contemporary English law also recognises Limited Liability Partnerships (LLP), implying the ability for even a small group of people to create a separate legal entity. (See Kuntrasai Shiurim Nedorim sec. 26 for a discussion on the halachic structure of partnerships).
DOES HALACHAH ALLOW FOR SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITIES?
Rashi’s commentary on parshas Vayikra and on this week’s parsha provides us with a significant insight as to what the Torah’s perspective is concerning communal entities.
WHO CAN HALACHICALLY CREATE A SEPARATE ENTITY?
In Vayikra (1:2) Rashi explains that when the Torah refers to a korban tzibbur- a communal offering, it refers only to the korbanos purchased from public funds. The inference from this is even if a thousand people jointly purchased a korban from their private funds, its status will be that of a korban yachid – a private offering, until they finance the purchase from public funds.
The above inference from the words of Rashi is made by the Ranban (Ibid). He then continues by disputing it. The Ranban maintains that a group of people using their private funds, can create a communal entity which is distinct from those who made it.
WHO HALACHICALLY OWNS COMMUNAL ENTITIES?
Considering Rashi’s opinion, it would appear at first glance that the inability for a group of individuals to create a communal entity is based on conceptualising a communal entity as being entirely different from standard partnerships. However, in his commentary on parshas Korach, Rashi quoting the Midrash, noticeably conflicts with this idea.
In parshas Korach (16:15) the pasuk says “And Moshe became exceedingly disturbed and said to Hashem do not accept their (Korach and his followers) minchah – (gift offering)”.
Rashi is troubled by Moshes reference to a minchah. Korach and his followers had agreed to bring ketores – incense, as a test to their legitimacy for kehunah, they had no intention to offer a korban minchah. Why then is Moshe asking for Korach’s minchah offering to be rejected? (See Maharal in Gur Areyeh)
Rashi suggests two answers to this problem, in the second of which he cites the Midrash Rabbah. The Midrash explains that Moshe was in fact not referring to the ketores which Korach was planning to bring himself. Moshe was instead referring to the daily korban Tomid that was offered up by the Kohanim in the mishkan twice daily, together with a minchah offering. The animal used for this sacrifice as well as the ingredients for its accompanying mincha, were purchased from communal moneys collected during the month of Adar specifically for this purpose. Moshe was requesting that the portion of the minchah purchased with moneys collected from Korach be left unconsumed by the fire on the mizbach, thereby providing a clear indication for Korach that he was longer considered a part of the community. (The Midrash does not inform us as to whether Hashem acceded to Moshes request).
The above cited Midrash demonstrates how even a communal entity is not entirely separate from if parts. Moshe Rabbeinu was able to ask for Korach’s portion in the communal korban to be rejected by Hashem. If by definition a communal entity is irreducible to the sum of its individual members and as such is a phenomenon in its own right, then the entity must be a single indivisible unit. Moshe would therefore be unable to exclude any one portion over another as no portions exist at all. From the Midrash we are forced to define communal entities as containing separate parts that make up a united whole. (see Kovetz Shiurim Bava Basra para. 404)
CONFLICTING GEMORAS
A similar difficulty is apparent when comparing two seemingly conflicting Gemoras.
In general an animal that was sanctified by the owner as a korban chatos – sin offering, cannot be sacrificed if its owners have since died. In the Gemara Temurah (15b), R’ Papa argues that concerning a communal korban chatas this rule does not apply. He proves this from the Torah’s requirement to purchase the korban chatas offered up on Rosh Chodesh, from the above mentioned communal funds which were collected annually during the month of Adar. It was possible if not highly probable that in the interim some of the donors would have died, we are therefore forced to conclude that concerning communal korbanos death of the owner does not invalidate the korban.
The reason provided by R’ Papa for opinion is that “a public community cannot die”. In other words although parts of the community may die, the communal ownership does not change with the death of one of its members. The communal ownership is considered separate from its members and is therefore unaffected by their departure (See Sharei Yosher, Shar 3 chap. 23, this is also the view of the Rogachover Gaon in Responsa 231).
SELLING OF A COMMUNAL SHUL
The Mishnah in Megillah (27b) seems to refute this. The Mishnah discusses a scenario where the community is selling their jointly owned shul. According to R’ Meir a requirement exists to include a clause in the sales contract of the shul, giving rights of repurchase to the community for an unlimited amount of time (this eliminates any dishonour that may appear to be present with the selling of a shul - Rashi).
The Gemara questions the halachic tolerance for such a stipulation. Under the laws of ribis a lender is prohibited from receiving any sort of benefit from a borrower, other than the repayment of his capital. As a consequence a lender may not live in the property of the borrower without paying the full rental cost for the duration of his stay (Gemara Bava Metzia 64b). In the case of the shul, following the sale, the purchaser will utilise the shul for his personal needs. When the community then repurchases the shul as per their agreement, the buyer receives the moneys he originally gave as payment, and as such will have benefited from using the shul for free, constituting ribis. (The Gemara answer is not relevant for this discussion).
Although the halachah does not follow the view of R’ Meir (Shulchan Aruch. O.C. 153: 9), we can surmise form the Gemara’s discussion that the prohibition of lending in return for ribis applies even when the borrower is a community. If a community is a distinct entity in its own right there could not be an issue of ribis, as the prohibition of ribis applies only between individuals. The individual community members must therefore be the owners of the shul and similarly of other communal assets. (See Minchas Yitzchok vol. 3 responsa 1).
In order to synthesise these seemingly conflicting Gemaras and Rashis, we can conclude that a separate entity cannot entirely divorce itself from its inherent parts. The investors or shareholders retain their ownership even after the creation of a separate entity so long as they remain a part of the entity.
Indeed most poskim view the investors and shareholders of communal and corporate entities as having at least some degree of personal ownership over the capital and investments of that entity (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch ribis 65:28, Shoel Umashiv, Beis Yitzchok, Minchas Yitzchok).
In the poskim we find other possible reasons and arguments advanced in favour of allowing lending and / or borrowing from companies with ribis, they are however beyond the scope of this article.
??livingwithmitzvos.comQ
UIZ
TIME 5. Who were these 250 people who joined Korach? Which tribe were they from and
why did they join him?
To order Rabbi Fletcher’s sefarim or to be added to his mailing list please
email [email protected]
torahanytime.com
More than 20,000 Torah videos & over 400 different speakers
SHAB
BOSMOTZA’EI SHABBOS:
CLINGING TO SANCTITYRabbi Michoel FletcherRabbi Fletcher has published several sefarim including Do You Know Hilchos Shabbos? Do You Know Hilchos Brachos? Do You Know Shas? (Berachos - Pesachim), From Strength to Strength, Dancing in our Hearts and other Torah articles
PART FOUR OF FOUR PART SERIESDifferent aspects of Shabbos was first printed in From Strength To Strength by Rabbi Fletcher, Menucha Publishing. It is now printed in the Oneg Shabbos by permission of the copyright holder.
6
Shabbos may have finished, but we are still “on a high.” The pesukim from “Veyiten Lecha” are full of brachos. Let’s quote a few: “May Hashem give you of the dew of heaven and the fat of the earth and corn and wine in plenty” (Bereishis 27:28); “Blessed should you be in the city and blessed shall you be in the field” (Devarim 28:3); “For in simchah shall you go out and in peace shall you arrive. The mountains and the hills will sing joyfully before you and the trees of the field will clap their hands” (Yeshayahu 55:12).
The pesukim we say before Havdallah are also full of ruchnius: “Behold, Hashem is my salvation. I shall trust and not fear, for Hashem is my might and my praise. He has already saved me” (ibid. 12:2); “For the Jews there was light, gladness, joy, and honour (Esther 8:16). So may it be for us.”
Our enthusiasm for the coming of the Mashiach is renewed. He will not come on Shabbos because of a possible infringement of coming from outside the techum Shabbos, the maximum area we are allowed to travel on Shabbos even if we walk (Eiruvin 43b). Now that Shabbos is over we can look forward once more to his arrival. Maybe indeed, after all these years, this week will be the week that Eliyahu Hanavi will announce that the Mashiach will be here soon and the long galus will finally be over.
Yet Havdallah is still a challenge. It brings us to the sad recognition that Shabbos has ended. We say specifically that Hashem distinguishes between the holy and the profane, and the “profane” starts now. What a come down. What a jolt to my neshamah. Shabbos has been so enjoyable, so beautiful, and so inspiring and now it’s finished?
This feeling of disappointment at the end of Shabbos was anticipated by Gemara Beitza (16a). Rebbe Shimon ben Lakish says that Hashem gives a neshamah yeseirah, an extra neshamah, on erev Shabbos and takes it away on motza’ei Shabbos, as it says, “…shavas vayinafash” (Shemos 31:17)—after he has rested, vey that he has lost his nefesh! This unusual expression indicates that every Jew feels pain
at the end of Shabbos, particularly at the loss of his neshamah yeseirah.
Commentaries on Pesachim (102b) quote a well-known but much misunderstood statement that Chazal added sweet-smelling spices to the Havdallah ceremony to counteract our regret as the neshamah yeseirah leaves. How does a fragrance comfort us after the loss of our extra neshamah? We usually assume that the pleasure of smelling the spices is a kind of consolation prize—no more neshamah yeseirah, but at least a few seconds of enjoyment. Perhaps there is more depth to this custom.
At the beginning of Bamidbar we read of the formation of the twelve shevatim around shevet Levi and the ohel moed in the center. They kept the same formation both when they encamped and when they moved on, as it says, “Ka’asher yachanu kein yisa’u— As they encamped, so they journeyed” (2:17).
A well-known chassidish vort on these words pertains to Shabbos. There are different ways to keep Shabbos, each conforming to the strict halachah but involving different levels of sanctity. A person can come home from shul on Friday night, looking forward to a tasty meal. He finishes the meal and goes to sleep. Of course, he’s tired after a whole week’s work so perhaps we cannot blame him. But it happens again on Shabbos morning. He gets up just in time for Shacharis and comes home about two hours later. Again he eats his meal and then…goes to sleep. When does he get up? Just in time for Minchah. He comes home, eats shalosh seudos, and goes back to Maariv. A shomer Shabbos Jew? Yes. How much will he or his family have been inspired by the sanctity of Shabbos? Not much. How different will the following week be because of Shabbos? Not at all.
Another Jew invests much more into his Shabbos observance. At the table he says a short dvar Torah, sings some zemiros with his family, and asks his children a few questions. In shul on Shabbos morning, he concentrates on the words of davening. He listens well to the rav’s drashah, so he will be able to repeat the main points to his family. He also has a long sleep on Shabbos afternoon, but gets up to attend a shiur on Pirkei Avos. At shalosh seudos the family sings
“Mizmor LeDavid” and “Yedid Nefesh” and Shabbos comes to an end. How much will the next week be changed because of this Shabbos? If he remembers the divrei Torah and some of “Nishmas,” maybe there will be a change.
Another Jew prepares for Shabbos well in advance. His divrei Torah are sharp and to the point. He will tell age-appropriate divrei Torah and stories to his younger children. He will lead the singing of those zemiros his family enjoy the most. He’ll praise his eishes chayil warmly for her hard work in preparing such tasty meals and maybe he’ll learn with her when the children are in bed. He’ll get up early to learn before Shacharis. He won’t go to a shul where the davening is rushed or people
chat. After the morning seudah, he might have a short nap but he will try to utilize the hours of Shabbos to learning by himself or with his children. Maybe he’ll make time to learn sefarim like Mesillas Yesharim and Chovos Halevavos so he can improve in his yiras Shamayim and other middos tovos. Sometimes going for a walk with the family may be appropriate. Shalosh seudos will be peppered with divrei Torah, with a special emphasis on emunah and bitachon, and Shabbos will end with beautiful singing of the traditional zemiros until it’s time for Maariv. Will the following week be influenced by the previous Shabbos? Definitely. He and his whole family will have gained greatly from Shabbos and they will think about it all week until they start preparing for the next Shabbos.
“Ka’asher yachanu kein yisa’u— As they encamped, so they travelled.” As we experience Shabbos, so will we experience the weekdays that follow. The more ruchnius on Shabbos, the more ruchnius will there be during the following week.
We asked how smelling spices at Havdallah comforts us for losing our neshamah yeseirah. Perhaps now we can understand. Most foods need spices to make them tasty. With them, every food can be become a delicacy. We are unhappy at losing our neshamah yeseirah because we don’t want to lose all the spiritual inspiration we enjoyed over Shabbos. From the beauty of Shabbos to the mundane, even the profane? The spices remind us that the mundane, even the profane, can be sanctified. It can be “spiced up.” We can take those moments of inspiration from Shabbos and relive them during the weekdays. We can be as enthusiastic about our learning during the week as on Shabbos, even though we have less time. We can concentrate better on davening even though we have to be at work by 9:00 a.m. The yiras Shamayim that we learned on Shabbos can be put to good use as we drive or walk through the spiritual obstacle course of today’s streets.
We need not plummet on motza’ei Shabbos from the holy to the profane. We can still honour Shabbos by eating melaveh malkah, which some call the seudah reviis, the fourth meal. We can sing zemiros asking Hashem to bless the weekdays to come. We can express our yearning for Mashiach, who will herald a time when “as the water covers the seabed, so will the earth be full of knowledge of Hashem” (Chabakuk 2:14), and a time when “people will be hungry but not for bread, thirsty but not for water—but to hear the words of Hashem (Amos 8:11). And for the next six days we can be inspired by our previous Shabbos, while looking forward to the next. We’ll think about it all week even as we’re preparing for the following Shabbos.
??livingwithmitzvos.comQ
UIZ
TIME 6. In Tehilim, psalms, we mention about the Bnei Korach. Are they connected
to Korach? Why are they not mentioned being saved in Parshas Korach but are only mentioned later elsewhere (Bamidbar 26:11)?
PARS
HAHGUARDING THE
SANCTUARY Rabbi Shimon Cohen | Author of The Majesty of Rosh HaShanah (Mosaica press)
Riddle Answerd) Perhaps there is a Mussar
haskel here that Rashi is telling us we should learn Medrash Tanchuma on every Sedra. It
happens to be that in Parshas Korach the Medrash explains
the Pesukim well but you should still learn the Medrash Tanchuma on every Parshah.
All the other 6 comments brought above follow after this but not necessarily in the order
mentioned in the riddle.
7
“Behold! We have perished! We are lost! We are all lost!...” (Bamidbar 17, 28.) This was how Bnei Yisrael responded to the extraordinary events of Parshas Korach. At first glance, it appears as if they just didn’t get it. Didn’t they know full well why Korach and his followers met their doom? Yet we do not find that Bnei Yisrael were reprimanded for their words. Instead, the mitzvah of the Levi’im guarding the Mishkan, which had been given in Parshas Bamidbar, was restated in response. (Now, the Kohanim were to be involved as well - Chizkuni.) Was a lack of adequate Shemirah, guarding the Mishkan, really responsible for what had happened? Hadn’t there been a rebellion? What were Bnei Yisrael so distressed about, and why were their concerns taken so seriously?
What did the 250 men, heads of Sanhedraos – the highest courts - want to achieve? Rashi tells us, quoting the Midrash Tanchuma, that these men were no fools. Why did they come close to the Mishkan, when they had been warned about the consequences? “They sinned against their souls.” Have you ever wondered what that means? What made them do that?
There was a great distinction between the motives of Korach and those of his 250 followers. Korach, afflicted by jealousy, misinterpreted information that was revealed
to him with Ru’ach HaKodesh, as Rashi explains. In a calculating way, he proceeded to take a stand against Moshe and Aharon. The Meshech Chochmah writes that the aims of the 250 men were entirely different to those of Korach. They were genuine seekers of holiness, who believed that they could merit serving as Kohanim and Levi’im. In response to Moshe’s call, they took their fire pans, ready to “receive the flow of holiness from the Source of holiness – Hashem.” In contrast with Korach, Dasan and Aviram, who were driven by jealousy and hatred, the men who took the fire pans did not see themselves as rebels. Although tragically mistaken, they were not influenced by negative attitudes. They merited that the Name of Hashem was sanctified through them, and in recognition of this, their pans were turned into a coating for the copper altar.
The sin of the 250 men was that they risked their own lives in seeking a level of holiness which they had not been granted – they sinned against their own souls. Captivated by the indescribable sanctity of the Mishkan, they were almost inexorably drawn on by their great yearning for kedushah. When Yisroel saw how the magnetic pull of the sanctity of the Mishkan led these tzaddikim to their deaths, they were dismayed. ‘If these leaders, highly intelligent men, could not resist the apparently fatal pull of the Mishkan, is there any hope for us?’ they wanted to know. ‘What will happen to us if we too become more attuned to the Mishkan’s kedushah? What can prevent us from suffering the same fate?’ That was their cry following the conclusion of the Korach episode, and their concerns were legitimate. What was Hashem’s response? The mitzvah of Shemirah – guarding the Mishkan, guarding the Beis Hamikdash. Holiness cannot exist without safeguards – to protect it from becoming defiled, and to ensure that it affects us in ways that are only good.
What is the reason for Shemiras HaMikdash? According to the Rambam (Hil. Beis HaBechirah) and Sefer HaChinuch (388), having the Mikdash guarded constantly ensures that we relate to it with the respect and dignity it deserves. We, in this country, know that the pomp and ceremony that surrounds the guarding of Buckingham Palace has little to do with Her Majesty’s security needs. It was designed to instil respect, even awe, for the monarch. In a similar way, lehavdil, the guarding of Hashem’s Mikdash carries a message that this is an awesome, holy place. This enabled Yisroel to properly absorb the great lessons that were to be learnt from the Beis Hamikdash. Shemirah, instead of defending from external foes, protected us from becoming over-familiar with the Mikdash. Coming and going freely and easily in Hashem’s sanctuary, though it may seem a good
thing, would lead in the end to a dulling of the impression that the Mikdash makes upon us – which would, directly or indirectly, defile the sanctity of the Mikdash itself.
Not only the Mishkan and Beis Hamikdash need protecting. There are, of course, lessons to be learnt here about how we treat our shuls and Botei Medrash. But there are also lessons closer to “home” – for the Jewish home and the Jewish heart. There is a beautiful but little-known sefer called Noam HaMitzvos, by Rav Naftoli Hertz of Ponevez, one of Rav Shach’s Rebbes, which contains beautiful Mussar lessons from all 613 mitzvos. In mitzvah 388, the Noam HaMitzvos writes that the mitzvah of guarding the Mikdash teaches us that our hearts, which are called a Mikdash, must be guarded exceedingly well from the evil inclination’s influence. We must guard our eyes and thoughts, to protect the sanctuary of our hearts from becoming defiled. Where are our hearts described as a Mikdash? He quotes a possuk: “They are the sanctuary of Hashem!” (Yirmiyahu 7, 4 – see Malbim ad loc.) Rav Naftali Hertz explains “They themselves – Am Yisrael – are the main sanctuary of Hashem! Therefore, one must ensure that his heart is holy and pure, so that it is a fitting place for the Divine Presence to rest.”
The 250 men died because they did not take sufficient care with the sanctity of the Mishkan. They were drawn inexorably closer to the source of holiness, failing to appreciate that even Kehunah – Divine service itself, must have Shemirah. It must be performed only by those designated by Hashem, in the exact way that He commands. It is most interesting that Korach, who inspired the 250 men with his philosophy of “holiness for all,” was his own greatest victim. In demanding that leadership and priesthood in Yisroel be abolished – making access to the Mishkan’s holiness freely available, he failed to realise how sensitive kedushah really is. Korach held that holiness has no need for Shemirah (Pri Tzaddik) – consequently he neglected to guard his own heart from negative traits.
Who, in our Parshah, exemplifies the guarding of one’s home and heart? A wise woman, the wife of On Ben Peles. As the Midrash Tanchuma describes, she acted with tremendous wisdom and insight in protecting her husband from Korach’s pernicious influence zealously guarding the sanctity of her home.
May we succeed in guarding the spirituality of those sanctuaries that have been granted us – our shuls, our schools, our homes and our hearts, and thereby merit being granted the privilege of once again guarding Hashem’s great sanctuary, the Beis Hamikdash.
ANSWERS1. The wife of On Ben Peles saves him by getting him drunk and sitting by the doorway and revealing her hair to keep
away Korach’s negative influence on her husband. In contrast, the wife of Korach encourages him to rebel, making fun how as a Levi he was totally shaven, leading to his death. (See Sanhedrin 109b-110a)
2. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 109b) learns that he was called bald to express like a bald man has no hair, Korach had no remembrance.
3. There is a Midrash that says that in Mitzrayim, when Moshe saw the babies being placed instead of the missing number of allocated bricks, he complained to Hashem. Hashem told him that these babies were reshaim and deserved to die. Moshe still persisted that they be saved. Hashem let him save two who went on to become the infamous Dasan and Aviram. With this we can suggest that this is why they were saved and did not die amongst the other four fifths during the plague of darkness. Their continued existence was to prove to Moshe that they were reshaim and should have been left to die as babies.
4. Three things: why the Leviyim were separated from the rest of the Jews; why was Aaron separated from the other Leviyim; Why was Moshe chosen as a king and prophet? (Tosfos Al HaTorah)
5. Ibn Ezra (16:1) says that all 250 people were firstborns. Rashi (ibid) says that most of them were from the tribe of Reuven. The Ramban brings Rabbeinu Chananel who says that they all were from the tribe of Korach.
6. They were his sons. They are mentioned in Tehilim since they prayed at the last moment and did teshuva and found themselves in a special place in the ground, like on a ledge. (Gemara Sanhedrin 110a) What they sang there is what we find in Tehilim (Rashi, Tehillim, 42:1). Afterwards, they went up out of the ground and settled in Eretz Yisrael. The reason why they are not mentioned in Parshas Korach is for Moshe’s honour since his prayers was that there should not be any remembrance of Korach. (Shach)
Please could you ensure that there are ample sheets left in shuls for Shabbos before taking one home -as there have been few left in shuls.
This newsletter contains Divrei Torah and may contain Sheimos - please dispose of accordingly.
Rachel Charitable Trust
פרקי אבותPirkei Avos
I n the following mishnah, Ben Zoma offers the most meaningful definitions of wisdom, strength, and wealth. In doing so, he
elaborates on a prophecy of Yirmiyahu that denigrates wisdom, strength, and wealth, as they are narrowly and selfishly defined and lauded by most people. Ben Zoma offers the counterpoint: Of course Yirmiyahu is right, but these qualities have a loftier role, and it is to that one that people should aspire. Yirmiyahu prophesied as follows:
So says Hashem: “Let not the wise man laud himself with his wisdom, and let not the strong man laud himself with his strength, and let not the rich man laud himself with his wealth. Only with this may one laud himself – discernment in knowing Me, for I am Hashem Who does kindness, justice, and righteousness in the land; for in these in My desire,” the words of Hashem (Yirmiyahu 9:22.23).
Ben Zoma comes to teach that wisdom, wealth, and strength may indeed engender legitimate pride and lead to discernment in knowing Me, which Yirmiyahu states is the only desirable form of pride. This occurs with the understanding that all virtues should ultimately be used in the service of Hashem. One who is “wise” – who learns from all people – will develop a proper fear of Heaven. One who is “strong” possesses the strength of his conviction and is able to rebuff his evil inclination and to quell his anger against his fellow man. One who is wealthy understands that his assets are merely tools for the service of Hashem (R’ Yonah).
Constant search. A Torah scholar is not called a chacham (wise man); rather, he is referred to as a talmid chacham (a wise student or the student of a wise man). A talmid chacham should always think of himself as a student, constantly seeking to learn from others.
Rabbi Shlomo Wolbe, one of the greatest mussar masters of our time, was a student of Rabbi Yerucham Levovitz, the mashgiach of the Mirrer Yeshiva in Poland. He later went on to study with the Rebbe of Ozerov, R’ Moshe Yechiel. When the Ozerover passed away, Rabbi Wolbe was a mature, respected teacher who raised generations of students, but he sought out Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner as a mentor – he was a talmid chacham who valued knowledge too much to be content with his own considerable attainments.
Even someone not endowed with great intelligence can, with hard work, achieve a degree of success in Torah study. A verse in Daniel teaches us this truth: He gives wisdom to the wise (2:21). The verse at first is puzzling; if Hashem gives wisdom only to the wide, what designates them as wise in the first place? Ben Zoma’s dictum provides the answer. A thirst for knowledge and an appreciation of its importance are
prerequisites for the acquisition of knowledge. One who is ready to learn from all persons indicates that he possesses the initial wisdom
– the desire for understanding – that makes him a fitting receptacle for enlightenment. An essential ingredient in this desire is humility; it is key to true wisdom, because it enables someone to admit to ignorance and to be ready to seek answers without regard to the status of the person who can enlighten him.
The author of the Toldos Yaakov Yosef (R’ Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye zy’’a) was originally a vehement opponent of the Baal Shem Tov and the Chassidic movement. Once the Baal Shem Tov told him that one can derive instruction on how to serve Hashem from everything one hears or sees.
As they were speaking, a gentile handyman knocked on the door. “Do you have any broken utensils to be fixed?” he asked, to which the Baal Shem Tov replied, “Thank Hashem, everything in my home is in excellent shape. Nothing needs fixing.”
The man was persistent. “Check carefully. Maybe after looking through everything, you will notice something that needs to be fixed.”
The Baal Shem Tov turned to R’ Yaakov Yosef. “Of course, he is talking about pots, pans, and the like. But from my standpoint he is really a messenger of Hashem, sent to reprove me and to remind me that much in my life is not the way it should be. This repairman has made me realize that I must carefully search my actions and life-style, and make a reckoning of my spiritual condition.”
The Toldos scoffed at what seemed to him to be an outlandish understanding of a rather innocuous statement. Could a simple handyman really be a messenger from Heaven?
After the Toldos took leave of the master, a gentile approached and asked him for help. “Jew, help me pick up my overturned wagon, he demanded brusquely of the Toldos. The rabbi replied, “I’m too weak for this. I can’t help you.”
The ruffian began to shout. “You can help me, Jew. You don’t want to.”
The Toldos’ heart was pierced by this rebuke, for he understood it in a spiritual fashion: Righting the wagon of one’s life is something that one can do – if he only wants to.
He returned to the Baal Shem Tov to admit the truth of the master’s words. “You are right. One can learn from all persons.”
T H I S P A G E I S K I N D L Y S P O N S O R E D B Y
בן זומא אומר: איזהו חכם? הלומד
מכל אדםBen Zoma says: Who
is wise? He who
learns from every
person
פרק ד’ משנה א’
Reproduced with permission from the ArtScroll / Mesorah Heritage Foundation:
The Noé Edition PIRKEI AVOS
Recommended
