 |
Parshat
Metzora/Pesach |
 |
|
|
Parshat
Metzora/Pesach |
|
A Student Publication of the Torah Academy of Bergen County
Parshat Metzora/Pesach
10 Nissan 5763
April 12, 2003
Vol.12 No.26
In This Issue:
Mr. Baruch Speiser
Moshe Zharnest
Rabbi Yosef Adler
Danny Shulman
Rabbi Chaim Jachter
Metzora
Why Are We Reading This?
by Mr. Baruch Speiser- Computer Department
It is most
noteworthy that the Mitzva that is discussed in the most detail in the Chumash
is that of Tzaraat. No other commandment receives the glorious attention
to detail as does this section of the “mystical leprosy” that is listed in this
Parasha and its predecessor. It appears odd; for all the Torah desires to teach
us, it devotes almost one hundred and fifty Pesukim to a set of Mitzvot that are
currently impossible to keep. Why did Hashem not save the many details of the
Metzora for the Torah Shebal Pe? It seems to the average student that the Torah
should have devoted much more of its attention to a Mitzva that seems to be more
central to the core Torah theology, such as the intricate details of Shabbat
(which indeed are presented only in the Torah Shebal Pe). In contrast to the
laws of the Metzora, only three or four of the Avot Melacha are even mentioned
in the Torah Shebichtav.
This phenomenon may be startling, but a better and similar question can be posed
if one considers the textual structure of the Haggada. The method used
to describe the exodus from Egypt during Maggid seems difficult. Instead of
reading the words of the Torah in Sefer Shemot that describe the enslavement and
redemption of our people, the core section of Maggid focuses on the exegesis of
the passage recited during Mikra Bikurim. Rather than start from the
story of Yosef and read through Matan Torah, we devote our time to explaining
Pesukim from Arami Oved Avi, a passage not even presented in the Torah until
forty years after the Exodus when our ancestors where on the verge of arriving
in the land of Canaan.
It is within this framework of queries that we might begin to see an
answer. If one understands the division of the Torah, a possible answer
emerges. This is because the Torah Shebichtav is not an exhaustive “Book of
Laws.” The word “Torah” means “a teaching,” or more precisely, a lesson. The
Torah Shebichtav is not usually preoccupied with the details of laws. For
example, the Chumash should explain all the details of how precisely to perform
the rather important commandment of Shechita. While the Chumash clearly
requires the performance of this ritual for the Bait Hamikdash, as
well as everyday life, it is rather spectacular that the Torah Shebichtav
devotes no more than a breath’s worth of information about Shechita and saves it
for the Torah Shebal Pe. The Torah Shebichtav is primarily concerned with
lessons of morality and a general picture of how to conduct a Jewish life. As
Shechita is a humane way to tend to our needs, the general presentation of this
Mitzva teaches us the need to respect life of all kinds. This is why the Torah
Shebichtav incorporates the stories of Sefer Bereishit, as Maasei Avot
Siman Libanim.
With this in mind, we are presented with a seeming contradiction of terms.
Our Parsha, which should be concerned with morals, is dictating laws; and
our Haggada, which should be recounting the narrative of the Exodus, is
expounding the story akin to the way laws are extracted from verses.
This is not a contradiction, however. In fact, it only supports our theory even
more. Our Parasha is certainly concerned with moral. One merely needs to note
the punishment that Miriam received to see that the Chumash is deeply concerned
with the violation of the laws of Lashon Hara. The Chumash emphasizes these
laws with extreme detail. Even though one may not see the consequences of his
or her actions in today’s times, the notion that the Torah devotes more time
discussing our punishment than any other Mitzva in the entire Chumash should do
nothing less than make us think twice before we parse our lips to speak.
From the opposite angle, the Haggada is doing exactly what it is supposed to
do. The commandment of Sipur Yetziat Mitzrayim is “Vehigadita Levincha,” “And
you should recount the story to your children.” What does this mean? Certainly
it cannot mean to read over the narrative, otherwise the commandment would be,
“Vikarata Levincha,” “to read it to your children.” If so, the deed would be
performed similarly to that of Zechirat Amalek, which is read from the Sefer
Torah with a minyan. This is not the case, nor the objective. The
objective is to tell the story in our own words in order to recap the story, and
be grateful for that which Hashem did for us. It is for this reason that we
read Mikra Bikkurim, the recital of thanks and praise for all of the good that
our Creator has done for us. The recital of the Haggadda must be more than a
recital – it must be extracted, pulled out from the ancient text and into our
own lives. It must be derived and framed within our own perspective; so
logically the narrative text of the Chumash will not suffice.
We see that our Parsha is highly
relevant in our preparation for the upcoming Chag. We should strive to
take its lesson and implement it in our Sedarim, utilizing its message as
a way to make our Sedarim introspective and meaningful.
Cycle of Life
by Moshe Zharnest
The beginning of Parshat Tazria describes the laws
concerning childbirth, to which the Midrash comments, “What wonders God performs
for a child! If a man is in jail for one day he grows impatient and wishes for
his freedom, the child is imprisoned within his mother’s womb for nine months,
yet he does not want to leave, for God protects him there.”
Rabeinu Bechaye writes that a man lives through three worlds. The first world is
within his mother’s womb, where God shows him wondrous things; a candle shines
above his head, and he knows the entire Torah. He is shown Gan Eden and all of
its chambers, and he is told that if he is pious in the world into which he
shall be born, he will ultimately come to Gan Eden and will be honored with the
righteous people there. However, he is also told that if he is wicked he will go
to Gehenom with the other evil men.
Even after hearing this, the child does not want to leave his mother’s womb.
When the time comes for the child to be born he cries, “don’t send me out to
that world full of sorrow.” If he comes out into this world, and develops his
mind and recognizes the Torah and Mitzvot and Hashem’s wonders, his reward will
be very great. When the time comes for him to leave this world, when he must
die, he once again weeps for he does not want to leave.
These two worlds are
each limited in time. In his mother’s womb he may stay for nine months, and the
most this can be extended to is one year. In this world, a man’s time is also
limited. But in the third world, the World to Come, there are no limits for it
is eternal.
Pesach
The Emotion of Yizkor
by Rabbi Yosef Adler
There is a widely accepted practice that we
refrain from reciting Kel Malay Rachamim during the month of Nissan. In many
Shuls, the Shabbat preceding Rosh Chodesh Nissan includes a long line of those
asking to make a Kel Malay Rachamim as they may be observing a Yahrtzeit
sometime during the month. When faced with a Kevura on Chol Hamoed we refrain
from eulogizing. Yom Tov is Mevatel Aveilut and the prohibition to eulogize
even spills over to the rest of the month of Nissan. And yet, we recite Yizkor
on the last day of Pesach. Doesn’t its recitation seem somewhat incongruous
with the spirit of the day?
The Rav, zt”l, often highlighted two different types of Mitzvot. There are some
Mitzvot in which the Kiyum Hamitzva and the Maase Hamitzva are identical. Both
the Maase Hamitzva and Kiyum Hamitzva of Matza is to eat a Kizayit of Matza.
The same is true of Tefillin and Lulav. However, there are some Mitzvot in
which the Maase Hamitzva is not equated with the Kiyum Hamitzva. Regarding
Shofar the Maase Hamitzva is the Tekiya but its Kiyum is one of Tefilla.
Fasting on a Taanit Tzibur is a Kiyum of the Mitzva of Teshuva. When one
observes Purim or Pesach, the Kiyum is the Mitzva of Vinikdashti Bitoch Bnai
Yisrael. So too vis-à-versa the Mitzva of Simchat Yom Tov. The Maase Hamitzva
is manifested by consuming meat and wine but the Kiyum is an internal one:
Lihiyot Sameyach Vitov Lev.
It is difficult for me to say this because I, Baruch Hashem, have not found it
necessary to recite Yizkor as yet. But I would humbly suggest that the inner
feelings associated with Yizkor should be one of Simcha. There are those who
define the Mitzva of Peru Urevu as not only having children but grandchildren.
After the grandchild is born the grandparent fulfills his Mitzva of Peru Urevu.
In relationship to Talmud Torah, our obligation is Vehodatem Livanecha Ulivnei
Vanecha Yom Asher Omedet Bachorev. Similarly, in the context of Sipur Yetziat
Mitzrayim, the Torah states Ulimaan Tisaper Biaznei Bincha Uvein Bincha Et Asher
Hitalalti Bimitzrayim. When parents and grandparents see their children and
grandchildren participate at a Seder and fulfill the Mitzva of Shalosh Regalim
Tachog Li Bashana, they can rest secure in the knowledge that they have
succeeded in their mission of Vihodatem and Ulimaan Tisapru. This knowledge
will assure the fact that Bigan Eden Tihay Menuchatam. Although the Minhag to
recite Yizkor is one of sorrow, the Kiyum of the Mitzva is one of inner Simcha
and joy, and hence is appropriately recited on Pesach.
Additionally, our
collective Kel Malay on behalf of the Kedoshim who perished during the Holocaust
or the Kel Malay recited on behalf of members of Chayalei Tzahal who passed away
Al Kiddush Hashem could be viewed in this light. As they dwell in the Yeshiva
Shel Mala and see that not only has Judaism survived the attempts of Hitler,
Yimach Shimo, but has flourished and prospered and seen a revitalization of
Torah study, this brings a sense of inner joy to
their Neshamot and should bring Simcha and
Nechama to those reciting Yizkor.
Verbal Agreement
by Danny Shulman
The Midrash, in explaining the Pasuk of “Arami
Oved Avi,” states that Lavan did worse for Klal Yisrael than Paroh did because
he tried to destroy all of Bnai Yisrael, and not just the males. The only
source that indicates Lavan tried to destroy all of Bnai Yisrael is a Midrash
that says that Lavan tried to poison Eliezer, however a Malach saved him. This
Midrash, though, is very difficult to understand.
Rabbi Adler, quoting Rav Soloveitchik, explains the statement of “Arami Oved Avi”
that says an episode that appears in Parshat Vayetze, Chapter 31. Lavan
confronts Yaakov about leaving his house suddenly with his daughters and not
even saying goodbye. After a brief argument they make a treaty and build a
monument. Yaakov calls this monument a “galaid” and a Lavan refers to it as
“Yigar Sahaduta.” Rashi explains that these words mean the same type of
monument.
However Rav Soloveitchik offers a different explanation. He says the different
names signify a subtle distinction between two different types of agreements.
One type of agreement is done to unify the parties for a common good and
acceptance of each other, while the other is done to create a separation between
the two. For example, two countries would make the first type of agreement in a
time of peace to ensure that the peace endures in order to help the two
countries grow. On the other hand, the second type of agreement would be made to
end a war in order that the two countries have a minimal
lhisurhgoinldsvjlnnlnllevel of acceptance and coexistence. Yaakov was making an
agreement with Lavan to separate from him in a peaceful way of coexistence.
However, Lavan had different plan. He wanted a completely unifying agreement,
making the families of Lavan and Yaakov into one nation.
The Ramban asserts
that the Avot were not Shomrei Torah outside Eretz Yisrael. Yet, Yaakov
slaughtered the Korban he gave after making this agreement with Lavan. Why
would Yaakov slaughter the animal if he did not follow Halacha outside Eretz
Yisrael? The Ramban answers that Yaakov was really making a statement by
slaughtering his Korban. Kashrut is a distinction between Jews and Gentiles and
is a preventive measure to ensure that the two societies do not intermingle
excessively. By slaughtering the animal, Yaakov, was demonstrating that the
Brit with Lavan was only done as a preventive measure and done to separate the
two nations. Lavan wanted to unify them and combine their cultures, but Yaakov
knew the danger of this. The Midrash is teaching that had Yaakov united with
Lavan and assimilated into his culture, there would be a certain destruction of
Klal Yisrael. Instead, Yaakov saved his nation from assimilation by
demonstrating a distinction between himself and Lavan.
Staff at time of publication:
Editor-in-Chief Emeritus: Josh Dubin
Editors-in-Chief: Shuky Gross, Effie Richmond
Publication Editors: Sam Wiseman, Jerry Karp
Publishing Manager: Ely Winkler
Distribution Managers: Uriel Schechter, Simcha Haber
Business Manager: Andy Feuerstein Rudin
Staff: Orin Ben-Jacob, Moshe Rapps, Danny Shulman
Webmaster: Willie Roth
Faculty Advisor: Rabbi Chaim Jachter
This publication contains Torah matter
and should be treated accordingly.