PHILOTORAH


T'tzaveh - Zachor


May HaShem protect our soldiers; may He send Refu'ah Sh'leima to the many injured; may He console the bereaved families and all of Israel; may He end this war with success and peace for Medinat Yisrael and Klal Yisrael wherever we are.



YERUSHALAYIM in/out times for Shabbat Parshat T'TZAVEH-ZACHOR


11 Adar 5786 <> February 27-28, '26


5:00PM <> PLAG 4:24PM  <<>>  6:13PM <> R' Tam 6:48PM


Use the Z'MANIM link for other locales



CALnotes


ZACHOR


Parshat ZACHOR is the Shabbat before Purim. It is the second of the Four Parshiyot.


It partners with Parshat T'tzaveh most often - 58.84% of years; with Vayikra 30.17% of the time; with Tzav 6.66% of the time; with T'ruma 4.33%.


Parshat Zachor is the last three p'sukim of Parshat Ki Teitzei. It contains of three mitzvot -


The mitzva to Remember...


The mitzva to eradicate Amalek


and the mitzva (prohibition) of not forgetting.


LO TISHKACH, Do not forget, is directed at the heart and the mind. It is "fulfilled" when you think of Amalek or its ilk, when you read or see a video about the Holocaust or any subject that fits into the Amalek mindset. It is an "each to his own" kind of mitzva.


ZACHOR, on the other hand, is very specific in its way of being observed. It is considered a fulfillment of the Torah command to Remember what Amalek did... specifically, by hearing the public reading, from a Sefer Torah, of Parshat Amalek, on the Shabbat before Purim. 


However, the timing of the mitzva was instituted by Chazal to link Amalek with Haman and the Purim Story. Essentially, the mitzva is not linked to a specific time, and hence women are not exempt from ZACHOR because it is not a time related positive mitzva (even though it has become one).


The issue of women's obligation - or not - depends upon another factor of ZACHOR.


Do the three mitzvot mentioned above form a package deal or are they viewed a distinct mitzvot.


If they are linked to each other, then anyone who is commanded TIMCHEH, wipe out Amalek, is also commanded to ZACHOR. That would exempt women from ZACHOR because TIMCHEH is directed at men (of military age?) who would be part of the fighting force to destroy Amalek.


If, on the other hand, each mitzva stands on its own, then women would be obligated on ZACHOR.


We next have to look at another detail of ZACHOR. Can one fulfill the mitzva to Remember by hearing the Torah reading of the other portion of the Torah that deals with Amalek? That portion being VAYAVO AMALEK, the last nine p'sukim of Parshat B'shalach, that tells of the first attack and battle between Amalek and the Israelites who had just emerged from Egypt. This portion is the Torah reading of Purim morning.


The answer to this question depends upon linkage. If ZACHOR is linked to TIMCHEH, then ZACHOR is fulfilled only with the Ki Teitzei portion, the one that contains both ZACHOR and TIMCHEH. 


If the mitzvot are not dependent on each other, then either Amalek portion would satisfy the mitzva of Remembering. 


A man ideally fulfills the mitzva of Zachor with Parshat Zachor. Vayavo Amalek would not ideally be acceptable because of the issue of linkage. If a man misses hearing Zachor on the Shabbat before Purim, then he should have intention to fulfill the mitzva of Zachor on Purim morning, but that would only be a 'maybe'.


But for a woman, it is a different story. Ideally, a woman should also hear Zachor on Shabbat Parshat Zachor. This is so regardless of whether she is obligated or not. But if she misses Zachor, then Purim morning is acceptable without a problem. A woman's obligation exists if each mitzva stands on its own. So Purim morning's Torah reading for her is as good as Zachor of the previous Shabbat. If Zachor and Timcheh are tied together, then she is exempt anyway.


Bottom line (actually, see the PTDT for the significant bottom line of Zachor) is that women should hear Zachor on the Shabbat designated by Chazal - the Shabbat before Purim, this coming Shabbat. And shuls go out of their way to facilitate women's hearing of Zachor, often scheduling a reading of Parshat Zachor right after davening in the morning and/or later in the afternoon before Mincha.


Being exempt from a mitzva does not mean that one should not voluntarily observe it. Remembering Amalek is important - despite the technicality of its obligatory nature.



T'TZAVEH <> ZACHOR


20th of 54 sedras; 8th of 11 in Sh'mot


Written on 179.2 lines (ranks 33rd)


10 Parshiot; 2 open, 8 closed


101 p'sukim (35th - 8th in Sh'mot)


1412 words (35th - 8th in Sh'mot)


5430 letters (32nd - 7th in Sh'mot)


MITZVOT


7 mitzvot; 4 positives, 3 prohibitions


There are other mitzvot in the sedra besides those seven. These numbers don't always give an accurate "Mitzva-Picture" of a sedra.



Aliya-by-Aliya Sedra Summary


[P> X:Y (Z)] and [S> X:Y (Z)] indicate start of a parsha p'tucha or s'tuma. X:Y is Perek:Pasuk of the beginning of the parsha; (Z) is the number of p'sukim in the parsha.


Numbers in [square brackets] are the Mitzva-count of Sefer HaChinuch AND Rambam's Sefer HaMitzvot. A=ASEI; L=LAV (prohibition). X:Y is the perek & pasuk from which the mitzva comes.


Zachor on T'TZAVEH (58.84%), VAYIKRA (30.17%), Tzav (6.66%), T'RUMA (4.33%)



Kohen - First Aliya - 14 p'sukim - 27:20-28:12


[S> 27:20 (2)] Moshe (his name conspicuously missing from this sedra) is told by G-d to command the people to take pure olive oil in order to light the Menora's lamps. The Menora, to be located in the main section of the Mishkan, outside the Parochet, shall be tended and kindled on a daily basis [98, A25 27:21 - Note: Rambam combines tending the Menorah, that is, all the setting up in the morning, and the lighting before evening into this one mitzva. Other mitzva-counters separate the two tasks into two mitzvot]. The lights shall shine from evening until morning, this being a perpetual law throughout the generations.


SDT: The People of Israel are likened to the Olive - just as the olive shows its greatness (its oil) only after being crushed and squeezed, so too does Israel show its special qualities after being subjected to the trials and tribulations of Jewish History. And Israel is also compared to the oil of the olive - just as oil does not mix with other liquids, but rather floats above them, so too Israel does not (should not) mix with the nations of the world. And if we remain faithful to G-d, we will rise above the nations (or groups) who seek to hurt us.


[S> 28:1 (5)] Moshe is next told to bring Aharon and his sons "front and center" to serve G-d as Kohanim. Special garments are to be made for the Kohen Gadol's glory and honor [99, A33 28:2].


SDT: Some say that glory and honor refer to G-d's and the People's, not (just) the Kohen Gadol's. There are different meanings to the Torah's phrase "for honor and splendor". Ramban gives it a straightforward meaning - that the garments of the Kohen Gadol were for his glory. They were royal/noble garments befitting the position of the Kohen Gadol, whose status was that of royalty. With his special garments, the Kohen Gadol projected a perfect image. The garments helped present the Kohen Gadol to the People with great and appropriate dignity. This would help the People understand and relate to the Kohen Gadol as the vehicle of the Divine Presence among them.


On a different level, we can say that the objects of glory were G-d and/or the People themselves. When the Kohen Gadol wore his special garments, and the people see him in his splendor, then there is an increase in honor to G-d. The special garments also increase our awareness of the Sanctity of the Beit HaMikdash, and we are inspired to repent.


Talented artisans are to do the work. The garments are: the CHOSHEN (Breastplate), EIFOD (decorative apron or cloak), ME'IL (robe or poncho), KUTONET (linen tunic), MITZNEFET (turban), and the AVNEIT (belt/sash).


The TZITZ (forehead plate) and MICHNASAYIM (short pants worn under the Kutonet) are among the garments but are not mentioned at this point in the Torah. This can be explained. The pants are for modesty, not glory and honor. And, perhaps, the Tzitz is for G-d's honor and to humble the Kohen Gadol, so it too isn't part of the list of the garments that are for the KG's honor and glory.


The artisans were to take the gold, dyed wools, and linen (for the purpose of making the garments).


[P> 28:6 (7)] The Eifod is to be woven from yarn made of threads of gold, three colors of dyed wool (blue, purple, crimson - the colors and shades are the subject of centuries of debate) and linen in an intricate style. The Eifod has two shoulder straps. The belt of the Eifod is made in the same manner as the Eifod itself, and is an integral part of it (not a separate piece that was attached).


It is interesting to note that some of the furnishings of the Mishkan and some of the garments were explicitly to be "of a single piece", rather than attached. Not all the items of the Mishkan, nor all the garments, but the point is emphasized in the Torah for those items to which the rule must apply. Often, the symbolism in this kind of rule is the unity of Bnei Yisrael - every part of the nation is not just important, but integrally connected - no, more than that, an inseparable part.


Two onyx stones (Shoham) were set on the shoulders, and engraved with the names of the tribes. These stones, with the names, serve as an eternal reminder for the KG (of whom he serves).


SDT: Talmud Yerushalmi states that the name of Binyamin was engraved on both shoulder-stones, BIN on one and YAMIN on the other. This idea is supported by the language of the Torah - "From six of their names..." rather than "six of their names". In V'ZOT HABRACHA, when Moshe is blessing the tribes, the Torah says of Binyamin that "he will dwell between the shoulders, U'VEIN K'TEIFAV SHACHEN.



Levi - Second Aliya - 18 p'sukim - 28:13-30


 [S> 28:13 (2)] Gold settings and chains are to be made for the Eifod.


[S> 28:15 (16)] The Choshen is made in the same intricate style and manner of the Eifod. It is rectangular (double square) which when folded (which was the way it was worn) made a square measuring one ZERET (a span, which is half an Ama) on a side. Gold settings were woven into the Choshen to receive the twelve precious stones in four rows of three stones each. Straps and fasteners were made to firmly attach the Choshen to the Eifod. They must not be detached from each other [100, L87 28:28]. The Urim V'Tumim (parchment with the Divine Name(s) on it) was inserted into the fold of the Choshen, and gave the Choshen its miraculous powers.


SDT: The letters of CHOSHEN rearrange to spell NACHASH, meaning "snake" but also meaning divination through the occult and black magic, powers in this world which are anathema to Torah and Judaism. L'havdil, the Choshen is one of our legitimate tools for revealing hidden things. Significant that these opposite "forces" are actually two sides of the same coin (i.e. anagrams).


CLARIFICATION: The yarn for the Eifod and Choshen was produced as follows: Six strands of T'cheilet-dyed wool (blue, opinions vary as to the shade) were twisted with a strand of gold to produce a thread. The same was done with Argaman-dyed wool (purple, blue-purple, other opinions) and gold, Shani-dyed wool (red, crimson, orange) and gold, Sheish (white linen) and gold. Each thread was made of 7 strands, i.e. six of the fiber and one of gold. Then the four threads were twisted together to form the yarn from which the Eifod and the Choshen were woven.


Another CLARIFICATION: Note that these garments (and some others) were Shaatnez. Yet rather than be forbidden, it was a mitzva (and a requirement) for the Kohen Gadol to wear these garments. No contradiction here. He Who said not to wear Shaatnez, commanded the KG to wear these garments. Similarly, He who said that it is forbidden to slaughter an animal on Shabbat, commanded that the daily korbanot and the Musaf be done on Shabbat. He is the Boss. Forbidding something in general and commanding the same thing in a specific situation, underscores the idea of G-d's mastery of all. (That's not the reason, but...)


Here's an idea about Shaatnez in general, and its use in the Kohen's garments in particular. This is not a reason for the prohibition, nor for its use in Bigdei K'huna. It's just a point to ponder. Wool is the chief fiber from the animal kingdom. Flax is (or at least was) the chief fiber from the plant kingdom. Garments are the chief use of fibers. If so, we can say that one of the manifestations of human dominance over nature is our ability to take fibers from both plants and animals, process them and use them for our own benefit, comfort, and adornment. And taking the most prestigious of each kingdom, and weaving them together, and wearing garments made from the combination of wool and linen is one of the ultimate signs of our top position on Nature's pyramid. Comes the Torah and tells us that we have limits. Yes, we may take from nature to clothe ourselves. But not limitlessly. Not the ultimate demonstration of complete dominance. Because WE do not completely dominate. Only G-d does. Perhaps, the prohibition of Shaatnez is a mitzva meant to humble us, and rein us in, if just a little with this token reminder.


But when G-d commands us to fashion garments for the Kohen Gadol for G-d's (and the KG's) splendor, then the opposite is seen. G-d told us to purposely go "all the way".


It might be similar to not building a private dwelling (or shul!) that matches or surpasses the beauty of the Beit HaMikdash. 


It also might be similar in message to giving Bikurim and T'ruma, etc. Think about it.


On another note... There are different opinions as to how the names of the tribes (really, it's the sons of Yaakov, since Levi and Yosef appear, rather than Efrayim and Menashe) were engraved on the Choshen (and the Eifod's shoulder stones).


Want a headache? Read through Rav Aryeh Kaplan's footnotes in The Living Torah on the stones of the Choshen and then go to the Temple Institute's website and read about the stones there. So many opinions that it is impossible know what the Choshen actually looked like.


This arrangement of the stones on the Choshen is the opinion of Chizkuni, a Rishon from France who lived more than 700 years ago. He wrote a commentary on the Torah based on Rashi. He says that all of Leah's sons were first, then Bilha's, then Zilpa's, and finally Rachel's. Rashi, however arranges the names in order of birth, so Reuven, Shimon, Levi, and Yehuda are on the same stones as Chizkuni has them, as are Yosef and Binyamin. Rashi says that Dan, Naftali, Gad, and Asher were before Yissachar and Zevulun.


Note that in addition to the names of the tribes, there are additional letters that spell the names Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov, and SHIVTEI YESHURUN (another name for Bnei Yisrael). These additional letters are added to each successive stone so that each stone will end up with six letters engraved on it (according to Chizkuni).


Furthermore, all letters of the ALEF-BET are now represented, so that the Kohen Gadol can receive Divine messages via the Urim V'Tumim and the letters on the stones of the Choshen, which were illuminated and then interpreted by the KG (with Ru'ach HaKodesh?).


Rambam has the same arrangement as Chizkuni, but he puts the names Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov on the Reuven stone, and the words SHIVTEI KAH on the Binyamin stone.



Shlishi - Third Aliya - 14 p'sukim - 28:31-43


[S> 28:31 (5)] The Me'il was made of T'cheilet wool (some shade of sky blue - at what part of day or night? Good question. That's why there are different opinions). Its neck was especially reinforced to prevent tearing, which is prohibited [101, L88 28:32]. This prohibition applies to all Kohen garments, but is commanded in the context of the Me'il. The hem of the Me'il was adorned with gold bells and multi-colored RIMONIM (pompoms) of wool and linen.


[S> 28:36 (8)] The TZITZ was to be made of pure gold with the words KODESH LASHEM, Holy unto G-d, hammered out as raised letters from the Tzitz. The Tzitz was secured to the Kohen Gadol's head by bands of T'cheilet wool.


The Kutonet - tunic and the Mitznefet (or Migba'at) - turban - were made of pure linen.


The Avneit, belt was woven from the wools and linen. There is a dispute as to whether only the Kohen Gadol's belt was Sha'atnez or those of all Kohanim. 


SDT: The Avneit (of all kohanim) was 32 amot long, approx. 16m of sash. Think about that for a moment. For people still stuck in non-metrics (perhaps you are from one of only three countries in the world that are not metricated: Liberia, Myanmar, and the good old United States of America), that's more than 52 feet. It took a long time to put on and it produced a large bulge that the Kohen always felt when he put his arms at his sides. Similarly, the Kohen's turban was wound from 16 amot of linen strip and "sat heavy" on the kohen's head. Sources say that a kohen saw his turban whenever he raised his eyes. Similarly, the Kutonet was long sleeved and almost floor length, so the kohen always noticed his garments during Avoda. This assured that the kohen was always reminded to have proper Kavana during his sacred service.


For Aharon's sons (and all active kohanim), there are four garments - tunic, turban, belt, pants. The regular kohen's garments were also for honor and glory. Aharon and his sons were to be dressed in their garments and anointed to serve as kohanim. The linen pants of the kohanim, from waist to knees, was for modesty. Rambam says there were loops at the waist for a rope-belt. Rashi says the Michnasayim resembled boxer shorts in that they were not tight-fitting.



R'vi'i - Fourth Aliya - 18 p'sukim - 29:1-18


[S> 29:1 (37)] The consecration ceremony for Aharon and his sons is described in this portion. Sacrificial offerings included a bull (this very first offering in the Mikdash is the symbolic father of the Golden Calf and came as an atonement for his son / that sin) and two rams, various types of matza-crackers made from flour and oil (and water - almost always an ingredient, but not mentioned in the text). The kohanim-to-be immersed in a mikve, were dressed in their special garments, and were anointed with special oil. 



Chamishi - 5th Aliya - 19 p'sukim - 29:19-37


The intricate details of the seven-day ceremony for the Mishkan are presented. The Kohanim are required to eat the meat of the sin- and guilt-offerings (Chatat and Asham). This command applies not only during the consecration ceremony, but is a mitzva for regular Temple service [102, A89 29:33] which is why it is counted a one of the 613. Many procedures of the first week were "one-shot-deals"; those are not counted as mitzvot of the Torah. Other practices became standard procedure in the Mikdash (and are often counted among 613 or as part of mitzvot).



Shishi - Sixth Aliya - 8 p'sukim - 29:38-46


[S> 29:38 (9)] Daily procedures on the Altar are to include the sacrificing of two lambs as Burnt-Offerings, one in the morning and the second one in the late afternoon. These daily sacrifices are accompanied by flour and oil "mincha" and wine for libation. This mitzva of the T'midim is #401 to be found and counted in Parshat Pinchas (not counted here).


In response to our consecration of the Kohanim, HaShem Himself will sanctify the Mishkan, Altar, and Kohanim.


"And I will dwell among the People of Israel and be their G-d" (29:45). 


This pasuk is the companion of the pasuk that began the whole portion of the Mikdash. In that earlier pasuk, the idea of G-d living among us, so to speak, and not merely in the Sanctuary that we make, is alluded to by the grammar of B'TOCHAM, back at the beginning of Parshat T'ruma. In this pasuk (almost) at the end of the instructions for making the Mikdash and everything in it and about it - the matter is spelled out. 


R' Yaakov Auerbach z"l points out in L'ORA SHEL TORAH (an amazing gimatriya-filled sefer) that the Gimatriya of this whole pasuk (29:45, quoted above) is 2449, the year from Creation in which the Mishkan was first dedicated.



Sh'VII - Seventh Aliya - 10 p'sukim - 30:1-10


[P> 30:1 (10)] The Incense Altar is to be constructed of acacia wood, 1 ama wide by 1 ama long by 2 amot tall. It is to be plated with gold and adorned with a decorative border of gold. Two gold rings were attached to opposite edges for the carrying poles, themselves made of wood covered with gold. This Altar was placed in front of the Parochet and was used essentially for the daily offering of incense [103, A28 30:7] (and for some of the Yom Kippur Avoda), in the morning when the Menorah was tended. Incense was offered towards evening too. No other use of the Golden Altar was permitted [104, L82 30:9] (except for some things on Yom Kippur - as mentioned earlier).



Maftir - 2nd Torah - 3 p'sukim; D'varim 25:17-19


A single parsha p'tucha from the end of Ki Teitzei. Written on 6 lines in a Sefer Torah. 3 p'sukim, 47 words, 178 letters. Smallest of the special maftirs. Contains 3 mitzvot of Taryag; 2 positive, 1 prohibitions


Generally, the mitzva to hear Torah reading is rabbinic. ZACHOR is the only portion of the Torah the hearing of which (with Kavana) is the fulfillment of a mitzva from the Torah. (Some say that Para is d'Oraita too, but not on the same level as Zachor). The 3-pasuk portion contains the mitzvot to Remember what Amalek did, to destroy the remnant of Amalek from "under the heavens", and never to forget.



Haftara - 33 p'sukim - Shmuel Alef 15:2-34


S'faradim begin one pasuk earlier


The Haftara consists of G-d's command through the prophet Shmuel to King Sha'ul to destroy Amalek, and of Shaul's incomplete compliance with his orders. The Maftir tells us what we must do. The Haftara shows us what happens when it isn't done properly. Purim and Megilat Esther show us what happens when it is done right. But the battle goes on... until the time of Mashiach. G-d too "fights", so to speak. And we must do our part.



Bringing the Prophets to Life


Weekly insights into the Haftara by Rabbi Nachman (Neil) Winkler


Author of Bringing the Prophets to Life (Gefen Publ.)



The Righteous Virtue of King Sha'ul


ZACHOR - 33 p'sukim - Shmuel Alef 15:2-34


S'faradim begin one pasuk earlier


This week's haftara, a selection taken from Sefer Shmuel Alef, relates the well-known account of Israel's challenge to fulfill Hashem's demand TIMCHEH ET ZE(I)CHER AMALEK - to obliterate the very memory of Amalek. Chazal's decision to have this episode recited on the Shabbat before Purim, as was their choice for the Maftir reading, revolves around the Megila's revelation that the archenemy of Purim story, Haman, was a descendant of Agag, the leader of Amalek. 


However, we might be perplexed by our Rabbis decision to have us read of the failure of Israel to fulfill Hashem's charge as commanded, i.e. to 'obliterate' Amalek and his memory. The text chronicles G-d's anger and Shmuel's disappointment over the army's reluctance to fully carry out Hashem's charge to destroy Amalek.  Indeed, we need simply to turn to the 30th perek of Shmuel Alef, to find out how Amalek was not at all decimated and, to the contrary, remained an ongoing torment to Israel. It is there that we discover that the Amalekites attacked and kidnapped David's family and did the same to the families of David's army!


It is also true, however, that one can offer a number of logical reasons as to why this episode was meant to be read - despite our discomfort with it - but it is not my purpose to do so here. Rather, it is the following that perplexes me.


The navi makes it clear that the failure to fulfill Hashem's command lay upon the shoulders of the King, Sha'ul. Given that fact, the challenge that faces me at this time is in understanding why, after Sha'ul's failure as the King of Israel, after he disregarded Hashem's command and Shmuel's directive, after he gave in to the desires of his soldiers and then denied committing any sin - after all of this, we find that Chazal refer to him as righteous: "Sha'ul HaTzadik"! The Talmud states [Yoma 22:] "Sha'ul was as innocent as a one-year-old child, never having "tasted" sin"; while the P'sikta Rabba [15:50] commends him as "a modest man who ate even non-sanctified food only in purity; who distributed his wealth to Israel, who gave honor to his servants as much as he gave to himself. AND he was a "ben Torah"! 


Unquestionably, there also are negative rabbinic statements about Sha'ul, but I am curious about these very positive depictions of one who lost his reign due to his surrender to the demands of his officers and those of G-d.


I do realize that the "righteousness" of Sha'ul that was seen by rabbinic scholars might have been based upon the earlier years of his reign. This was a time when the people recognized the deep modesty of the newly appointed King, when he was praised by his removal of the widespread sorcery of OV and YID'ONIM worship and was loved by the population for his great victories over their enemies. 


All of these were, indeed, laudable accomplishments.


But I would submit that there was one success that surpassed all of his achievements. It was a "triumph" that changed the nation for centuries and yet, is often ignored. Consider this:


King Sha'ul built an army!


So what? 


So, it became the first organized national military, the army of Israel, since the time of Yehoshua!


For over 300 years, Israel had no national army!


Throughout the era of the Sho-f'tim, despite the many battles fought against the numerous enemies, ISRAEL COULD NEVER ORGANIZE ONE UNITED FORCE!


Not one SHOFEIT succeeded in organizing a national army:


<> Not Ehud ben Gera


<> Not Devora Ha'N'vi'a


<> Nor Gideon


<> Nor Yiftach


<> Nor Shimshon


And, it is for this reason, that the effect of Sh'aul's act is unequalled! For the first time in over 300 years, the nation of Israel was UNITED!


Yes. It is true. He sinned, he was punished, he lost his throne.


But he united Israel, and made them realize that they were one nation.


And, I charge, there could be no greater accomplishment than that! o



ParshaPix explanations


The fun way to go over the weekly sedra with your children, grandchildren, Shabbat guests



T'RUMA


<> three new Unexplaineds


Okay, so there are four.


5.625 is the cubic meterage of the Aron. It measures 2.5 amot long, 1.5 amot wide, and 1.5 amot tall. Do the math. 


FJEJF with an arrow pointing from and back is for a palindrome. The word VAYIHYU is a palindrome. VAV (6th letter F), YUD (10th letter J), HEI (5th letter E), YUD, VAV.


76 Iyar is from the haftara, where Iyar, the second month, is called ZIV - ZAYIN (7) VAV (6).


And then there was a car in a cove for KARKOV, the decorative border or moulding that went around the external Mizbei'ach about three amot from the top.



T'TZAVEH-ZACHOR


The sedra begins with the command to take pure olive oil... there is a picture of olives with a pitcher of oil and a check mark <> in contrast there is Popeye's Olive Oyl with an X, indicating that the Torah was not referring to her <> below Olive Oyl is a Chanukiya, a.k.a. a menorah, but not the one the Torah is referring to in Parshat T'tzaveh. Hence, the X <> but below the real olive oil is a Davka Graphic of the Menorah of the Mishkan, with a check mark. That's the one <> then there is a shell of a snail, the Murex Trunculus, to be specific, which is the source of the T'cheilet dye used extensively in the garments of the Kohein Gadol - check mark <> but opposite it is an Xed out plant, indigo, the source of a chemically identical blue dye, which is NOT allowed as T'cheilet. (Very serious. Rambam writes that when we have T'CHEILET, we have to trust the one we buy it from, because the cheaper indigo looks exactly like T'CHEILET - is exactly like it, but it is not halachically acceptable) <>  12 gemstones in an arrangement of four rows of three gems each, just like the CHOSHEN of the Kohein Gadol (not matching the actual CHOSHEN gemstones) <> Davka Judaica Graphics Kohen Gadol <> Mizbei'ach HaZahav is also from Davka - the Golden Altar, a.k.a. the Incense Mizbei'ach and the Inner Altar. The command to make this Mizbei'ach does not appear in T'ruma with the other main furnishings of the Mishkan, but in T'tzaveh <> the gemstones are also represented by the lipstick (ODEM) <> a baseball diamond, representing the gem called YAHALOM <> Sapphire Stevens (Ernestine Wade) from Amos & Andy, standing for the Sapphire gemstone, SAPIR <> the heart with the graduation cap represents the CHACHMEI LEIV, the skilled weavers, etc. who did the work on the garments and other Mikdash requirements. CHOCHMA is not only in the brain but also in the heart. The Torah talks of G-d having instilled the wisdom within these artisans <> there is a seven-volume set of Tur Shulchan Aruch, one of which is CHOSHEN MISHPAT <> and take all together and you have the ARBA'A TURIM, as in the four rows of gemstones on the CHOSHEN <> the dresser is for Moshe Rabeinu who was the dresser of the kohanim during the inaugural week of the Mishkan <> two lambs for the daily t'midim mentioned in the sedra <> bell and pomegranate and bell and pomegranate are for the bottom of the ME'IL of the Kohein Gadol <> the crossword is TASHBEITZ in Hebrew, the word in the Torah for the weave of the linen garments <> the dominos are all double sixes. The word SHEISH (meaning linen, not 6) occurs 6 times, represented by the three black-on-white double six dominos. Twice we find the word SHISHA, which does mean 6 - represented by the white-on-black domino <> emblem is that of Yale University, with the words printed on the open book purposely covered up, to test you before reading these explanations. The words are URIM V'TUMIM, in Hebrew, which are also rendered into Latin in the banner below the crest as Light & Truth <> NER TAMID is a term borrowed by our shuls from the Torah's description of the Menora <> Seat belt logo is for the word V'CHAGARTA, re the AVNEIT <> a hand fully opened. The distance from the tip of the thumb to the tip of the pinky is called a SPAN. In Hebrew it is the unit of measure called a ZERET (which is also Hebrew for pinky), which equals one-half an AMA. The CHOSHEN was made one by two ZERETs and folded in half when worn by the Kohein Gadol to become a square, zeret by zeret <> the picture of R' Aryeh Leib Heller, author of K'TZOT HACHOSHEN, a phrase used three times in the sedra <> IDF flak jacket is called SHACH-PATZ or in Hebrew, an EIFOD, one of the garments of the KG <> one of the bad guys from 101 Dalmations. His name is Jasper, as in YOSH'FEI, one of the gemstones on CHOSHEN <> a flower bud, in Hebrew NITZAN and also TZITZ, as in the TZITZ of the KG <> Elephants never forget and the knot in the trunk is to remember - ZACHOR and LO TISHKACH <> the lake measuring 6 t'fachim, which is an ama is for AMA-LEIK <> The IDF emblem  for the YAHALOM - The special unit of  the Combat Engineering Corps, the  spearhead of the corps. As such, the unit is trained to deal with special engineering tasks that are unique to it,  such as the underground and hidden terror tunnels as well as sabotage <> above the bells and pomegranates are a pair of kidneys, mention in the sedra <> and then the duck-like bird is a COOT, followed by a TOE, followed by a NET - together: KUTONET <> and three new Unexplaineds



In Memory of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks z"l


Prophet & Kohein


T'TZAVEH


The sedra of T'tzaveh, as commentators have noted, has one unusual feature: it is the only sedra from the beginning of Sh'mot to the end of Bamidbar that does not contain the name of Moshe. Several interpretations have been offered.


The Vilna Gaon suggests that it is related to the fact that in most years it is read during the week which follows the seventh of Adar falls: the day of Moshe's death. During this week we sense the loss of the greatest leader in Jewish history - and his absence from T'tzaveh expresses that loss.


The Baal HaTurim relates it to Moshe's plea, in next week's sedra, for God to forgive Israel. "If not", says Moshe, "blot me out of the book you have written" (Sh'mot 32:32). There is a principle that "The curse of a sage comes true, even if it was conditional" (Makot 11a). Thus, for one week his name was "blotted out" from the Torah.


The Panei'ach Raza relates it to another principle: "There is no anger that does not leave an impression". When Moshe, for the last time, declined God's invitation to lead the Jewish People out of Egypt, saying "Please send someone else", God "became angry with Moshe" (4:13-14) and told him that his brother Aharon would accompany him. For that reason, Moshe forfeited the role he might otherwise have had, of becoming the first of Israel's kohanim, a role that went instead to Aharon. That is why he is missing from the sedra of T'tzaveh, which is dedicated to the role of the Kohen.


All three explanations focus on an absence. However, perhaps the simplest explanation is that T'tzaveh is dedicated to a presence, one that had a decisive influence on Judaism and Jewish history.


Judaism is unusual in that it recognises not one form of religious leadership but two: the Navi and Kohen. The figure of the prophet has always captured the imagination. He or she is a person of drama, "speaking truth to power", unafraid to challenge kings and courts or society as a whole in the name of high, even utopian ideals. No other type of religious personality has had the impact as the prophets of Israel, of whom the greatest was Moshe. The kohanim, by contrast, were for the most part quieter figures, a-political, who served in the Sanctuary rather than in the spotlight of political debate. Yet they, no less than the prophets, sustained Israel as a holy nation. Indeed, though the Children of Israel were summoned to become "a kingdom of kohanim" they were never called on to be a people of prophets. 


Let us therefore consider some of the differences between a prophet and a kohein:


<> The role of kohanim was dynastic. It passed from father to son. The role of prophet was not dynastic. Moshe's own sons did not succeed him; Yehoshua, his disciple, was chosen instead.


<> The task of the kohein was related to his office. It was not inherently personal or charismatic. The prophets, by contrast, each imparted their own personality. "No two prophets had the same style." 


<> The kohanim wore a special uniform; the prophets did not.


<> There are rules of kavod (honour) due to a Kohen. There are no corresponding rules for the honour due to a prophet. A prophet is honoured by being listened to, not by formal protocols of respect.


<> The kohanim were removed from the people. They served in the Temple. They were not allowed to become defiled. There were restrictions on whom they might marry. The prophet, by contrast, was usually part of the people. He might be a shepherd like Moshe or Amos, or a farmer like Elisha. Until the word or vision came, there was nothing special in his work or social class.


<> The kohen offered up sacrifices in silence. The prophet served God through the word.


<> They lived in two different modes of time. The kohein functioned in cyclical time - the day (or week or month) that is like yesterday or tomorrow. The prophet lived in covenantal (sometimes inaccurately called linear) time - the today that is radically unlike yesterday or tomorrow. The service of the kohein never changed; that of the prophet was constantly changing. Another way of putting it is to say that the kohein worked to sanctify nature, the prophet to respond to history.


<> Thus the kohein represents the principle of structure in Jewish life, while the prophet represents spontaneity.


The key words in the vocabulary of the Kohen are kodesh and chol, tahor and tamei, sacred, secular, pure and impure. The key words in the vocabulary of the prophets are tzedek and mishpat, chessed and rachamim, righteousness and justice, kindness and compassion.


The key verbs of the kehuna are l'horot and l'havdil, to instruct and distinguish. The key activity of the prophet is to proclaim "the word of the Lord" The distinction between priestly and prophetic consciousness (torat kohanim and torat nevi'im) is fundamental to Judaism, and is reflected in the differences between law and narrative, halacha and aggada, creation and redemption. The kohein speaks the Word of God for all time, the prophet, the Word of God for this time. Without the prophet, Judaism would not be a religion of history and destiny. But without the kohein, the Children of Israel would not have become the people of eternity. This is beautifully summed up in the opening verses of T'tzaveh:


Command the Israelites to bring you clear oil of pressed olives, to keep the lamp constantly burning in the tent of meeting, outside the curtain that is in front of the Testimony, Aharon and his sons shall keep the lamps burning before the Lord from evening to morning. This is to be a lasting ordinance among the Israelites for the generations to come.


Moshe the prophet dominates four of the five books that bear his name. But in T'tzaveh for once, it is Aharon, the first of the kohanim, who holds centre-stage, undiminished by the rival presence of his brother. For whereas Moshe lit the fire in the souls of the Jewish people, Aharon tended the flame and turned it into "an eternal light".



Around the Shabbat Table:


How do the roles of Prophet and Kohein complement each other in a community? 


How do you experience keeping to routines alongside moments of significant change in your life? 


Can you think of other pairs in Tanach where different leadership styles are highlighted? What can we learn from their dynamics?


Y'HI ZICHRO BARUCH




Message from the Haftara 

Rabbi Katriel (Kenneth) Brander, President and Rosh HaYeshiva


Ohr Torah Stone Institutions



The Exception that Defines the Rule of Jewish Morality


ZACHOR


On October 15th, 1982, in the shadow of the First Lebanon War, Rav Aharon Lichtenstein published an open letter to Prime Minister Menachem Begin in the Religious Zionist newspaper Hatzofeh. In it, he emphasized the importance of the State of Israel taking responsibility for its part in the massacres in Sabra and Shatila, two Beirut neighborhoods where IDF-backed Lebanese Christian militias had killed thousands of Palestinian civilians. Begin was initially unwilling to conduct any investigation into the affair, and Rav Lichtenstein strongly criticized him for what he saw as an un-Jewish refusal to confront difficult truths. 


Rav Lichtenstein's argument was not an accusation against the IDF, rather a moral call for those entrusted with power to uphold the highest standards of ethical accountability. 


In the letter, he invoked the story of Shaul and Amalek, which we read this week as the haftara for Shabbat Zachor. Why, Rav Lichtenstein asked, was King Shaul punished for sparing the life of Agag, king of Amalek? Was it simply that he had left an Amalekite - any Amalekite - alive? Rather, Rav Lichtenstein suggested, the identity of the one victim spared was significant. Shaul had left Agag alive because he identified with him, as one king to another. He had used his own human logic and values to decide whom to kill and whom to spare.


By doing this, Shaul did not merely become guilty of disobeying a difficult divine command to kill all of the Amalekites; he assumed personal responsibility for all the Amalekites he had killed in the course of the battle. Shaul had been commanded to destroy an entire people. Such an act cannot be justified on ordinary moral grounds; it can only be understood as obedience to an explicit and unambiguous divine command. Precisely because such a command lies outside of ordinary moral reasoning, it cannot serve as a model for human judgment in any other context. Thus, the minute that Shaul decided to make an exception, all the other killings ceased to be part of the divine command, becoming his own moral responsibility instead. 


This is the great tradeoff in the story of Amalek and its destruction, and it contains an important lesson for today. Once we step outside the established moral framework of a situation, and let emotions guide our decisions, like Shaul does, we put ourselves and our society at risk of heading down an immoral or unjustified path, of losing our moral legitimacy, of causing more harm than good. 


In any historical context, including ours today, it is necessary and justifiable to decisively defeat enemies sworn to our destruction. But the moment we allow our righteous indignation or the power of our own judgment to seep even the smallest bit past defensive strategy - the moment military action spills over into vigilantism, when civilian life and property are endangered one iota more than absolutely necessary - we run the risk of our just and necessary war being transformed into an abandonment of our values.


While military strength and valor are critical to our national survival, they cannot lead to victory or peace if we abandon our values.


This is an obligation that goes beyond the brave soldiers who are on the front lines. Community and political leaders, educators and rabbis need to call out the behavior of those in our own camp who jeopardizes the justice of our cause. In recent months, there have been repeated criminal incidents in which a small minority of misguided Israeli youth have attacked Palestinians and vandalized their properties in Judea and Samaria, as well as attacking fellow Jews for the "crime" of simply working with or employing Palestinians. Tragically, these young Israelis have embraced a hate-filled, racist worldview. They take out their anger violently on innocent people, solely because of the victims' religious and cultural identities.


In the face of these crimes, we cannot remain silent. Despite all the challenges that we face, and notwithstanding the unfathomable hate and vitriol directed at the Jewish people and the State of Israel, we dare not allow fear and victimhood to eat away at our own mores and principles. This is the central message of the story of Amalek, the flip side of the commandment to destroy. 


In sharp contrast to the lawless extremist youth, in the most recent conflict we have seen the heroic soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces uphold the values of Judaism with justice and mercy. We've seen our soldiers enter damaged residential buildings in Gaza to rescue Palestinian families. We've seen units helping and protecting Palestinian children caught in the crosshairs of fire from an enemy that deliberately hides amongst civilians. 


Our sons and daughters on the front lines have made brave decisions that have put themselves and their comrades at risk because they follow the values of the Torah. Because they understand that the command to wipe out Amalek was the exception - and that Amalek no longer exists. For the enduring rule of Jewish life is to act, even at times of war, with compassion and moral restraint toward all human beings. 



<PTDT> - PhiloTorah D'var Torah


Zachor, What?


Amalek? Of course. But actually, it is what Amalek did that we are commanded to remember.


Is that it? Once upon a time, a long time ago...


No, obviously there is more. Because, as the Torah declares, the fight against Amalek is MIDOR DOR, from generation to generation.


Haman and the Holocaust used to be the big examples of our Amalek experiences. So too the Inquisition, many pogroms, and so on. And sadly, we need not only look into the past. Hamas and Iran and its other terror proxies - AD HAYOM HAZEH, until this very day.


But it is much more than remembering things that happen. There is another important angle to explore. And to ponder. And to resolve. And to do something about.


What our mitzva of Zachor should include is to remember what we were lacking, so that an Amalek can threaten us in the first place. What makes us vulnerable to be threatened and attacked by our enemies?


To see that this is part of Zachor, should be part of Zachor - we should note the passages that immediately precede the two Amalek portions in the Torah. 


Vayavo Amalek at the end of B'shalach, tells of the original attack. Right before that, we read of the episode at Mei M'riva, when the people bitterly complain about the lack of water to drink. And it was not just, "Help us; we are thirsty. Look at their very harsh words they used in their complaint. Why did you take us out of Egypt to kill us and our children and our animals with thirst. They seem to be saying, says the Torah, Is God in our midst or not?


Lack of faith, Emunah, trust in G-d - BOOM! Amalek comes...


Then, to Parshat Zachor at the end of Ki Teitzei - right before that, we find the commands of having true weights and measures (and not cheating in business) - about which the Torah says - "For whoever does these things, whoever perpetrates such injustice, is an abomination to HaShem, your God." Sin on Bein Adam LaChaveiro - interpersonal - matters - BOOM! Remember what Amalek did. And also remember what makes you vulnerable to the Amaleks of the world.


Do we really know what makes us vulnerable to Amalek. No. But this is a good and challenging guess  PTDT



MicroUlpan


SAMLIL - Another example of an official Hebrew word for something that everyone calls by its English name - and probably thinks that it is the Hebrew word. SAMLIL is LOGO.



Walk through the Parsha with Rabbi David Walk


PURIM


This is Your Moment


Megilat Esther is the only adventure story in our Bible. It is fully self-contained. It has a beginning, middle and end. It also neither references any other part of Tanach, nor relies on material elsewhere in Tanach. It also has a dramatic turning point, and that's what I want to discuss in this piece.


And, here it is: For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another quarter, but you and your father's house will perish. And who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this? (Esther 4:14)


The JSP translation renders the words B'EIT HAZOT ('at this time') more dramatically as 'in this crisis'. And, indeed, it was crunch time. The Jewish people, probably all of whom lived in the 127 provinces of the Persian Empire, were certainly facing an existential emergency. 


So, what 'time' was it? According to our tradition, it was Pesach. Haman, Persia's chief minister and our national nemesis, had just executed his PUR (casting of lots), which determined that the Jews' demise would take place in eleven month's time. To almost everyone in the vast empire, nothing had changed. The Sun rose in the east and would set in the west, but Mordechai, a minor official in the Empire's bureaucracy, knew that everything had changed and doom loomed for the Jewish people. In spite of the joyous Festival of Freedom, he donned the sackcloth and ash of mourning.


But Mordechai did not sink into despair. He was determined to activate Esther, the reluctant queen and hidden Jewess, to represent her people before the King. A mole, in deep cover, hiding in the palace. But to activate her would require a powerful argument. Our verse is that argument.


He was dramatically declaring that this was Esther's moment, and she couldn't miss the opportunity. But how did he know that this was her time, her opportunity? 


According to the Pachad Yitzchak (Rav Yitzchak Hutner), he knew this because of what God told the Jewish people at the moment of the Splitting of the Sea. God declared to the Jews (and Moshe) to be 'silent' (ATEM TACHARISHUN (Sh'mot 14:14), just like our fourteenth verse). Why should the Jews 'be silent'? Shouldn't they be praying?


Rav Hutner explains: The matter depends upon Me and not upon you, 'Concerning My children and the work of My hands, you command Me' (Yeshayahu 45). From here we learn that wherever the world itself stands in danger of annihilation, there applies the claim of 'Why do you cry out to Me?' to every person who prays. In such a case, the claim of God is forceful: The matter depends upon Me and not upon you. 


There is a time for prayer, and a time for action. Mordechai is telling Esther that it is a time for action, but the action at this point is for her to plead the Jewish cause before her husband  the King. 


But how did Mordechai know that 'relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another quarter', in other words a back up plan? Rav Steinzaltz suggests: The decree does not go into effect for another eleven months, and I have faith in God that He will deliver us before then.


This 'faith' is based upon the reality that the wise Woman from Tekoa tells King David about his banished son Avshalom, as reported by Rabbeinu Bechaye: when she spoke about certain calculations which God makes in His administering of His Justice. God calculates all this in order to ensure that as few souls as possible will be consigned to eternal oblivion (Shmuel Bet 14:14, again verse 14).


King David is being told that he should let Avshalom come back home, because that is Divine behavior: Forgive others. But our situation is much bigger, because the fate of the entire nation is in the balance. Mordechai is sure that 'salvation will arise from another quarter.' All of our covenants with God and promises to the Patriarchs are based upon the assurance of the eternal survival of the Jewish people.


Rav Hutner emphasizes that there are occasionally times for action which trump the time for prayer. And I'm sure that's true for Y'CHIDEI SEGULA (the few chosen individuals), like Moshe Rabbeinu and Esther HaMalka. However, for the bulk of the Jewish nation we must cry out when the situation is dire, we should listen to the S'fat Emet: Yet this is the way of all the righteous: even though they know that salvation will come, they are still able to cry out with a completely whole heart, as if they did not know at all. One who is not capable of this is not truly shown the salvation. This attitude depends upon complete faith - that each one of us nullifies all intellect before God and knows and believes that there is no contradiction in the fact that salvation comes through a person's cry, even though God will certainly not abandon the people of Israel in any case. 


Mordechai is teaching Esther (and us!) about emergency behavior in emergency situations. Then he adds a difficult addendum: but you and your father's house will perish, if we decide to ignore our responsibility (either to pray or to act), then God initiates the Divine opt out plan: obliteration for the recalcitrant individual (and their gene pool). The Ralbag insists that God means that if for even one second you think that your position will save you when the rest of the Jewish nation is being slaughtered; think again. The salvation will come from another quarter, but your progeny and their DNA will not benefit from this deliverance.


Mordechai is adamant: Don't think that you are immune from the fate of the nation! Instead, you must think: Hey, this is what I'm here to do! Then go do it!


Happy Purim!



Rav Kook Torah


by Rabbi Chanan Morrison <> www.ravkooktorah.com



Amalek - Constructive Destruction


Remember what Amalek did to you on your way out of Egypt. When they encountered you on the way, and you were tired and exhausted, they cut off those lagging to your rear, and they did not fear God. Therefore... you must obliterate the memory of Amalek from under the heavens. (D'varim 25:17-18)


True Erasing


The Torah prohibits 39 categories of melacha - activities which are forbidden on Shabbat. One of the melachot is to erase writing. There are, however, different forms of erasing. Erasing merely to blot out what is written is a destructive act, and destructive acts are not forbidden on Shabbat by Torah law. Melacha is constructive activity, similar to God's creative acts when forming the universe.


So what form of erasing is prohibited on the Shabbat? MOCHEIK AL M'NAT LICHTOV - erasing with the intention of writing again. One's intention must be to clean the surface in order to write over the original letters. This type of erasing is a positive, constructive activity, and therefore is incompatible with the special rest of the Sabbath day.


Restoring God's Name and Throne


Rav Kook explained that this principle may also be applied to the mitzva of "erasing" Amalek. The mitzva is not simply to obliterate Amalek so that there will no longer be any more Amalekites in the world. That would be a purely destructive act.


What then is the true mitzva of destroying Amalek?


Amalek's goal was to eradicate the nation which bears God's Name in the world. Amalek could not tolerate the idea of a people with whom God made a special covenant, a people whose very existence implies ethical obligations and holy aspirations. The complete expression of the mitzva to destroy Amalek is accomplished when we "erase in order to write". It is not enough to wage war against Amalek. The destruction of Amalek must have a productive goal. We must obliterate Amalek, and all that this evil nation represents, with the intention of "transforming the world into a kingdom of the Almighty".


As the Midrash explains:


God's Hand is raised on His throne: God shall be at war with Amalek for all generations. (Sh'mot 17:16)


Why is the word for 'throne' shortened, and even God's Name is abbreviated?


The verse uses the word KEIS instead of the more common word KISEI for 'throne'. And it uses the shorter, two-letter Name of God, as opposed to the regular four-letter Tetragrammaton.


God swore that His Name and His Throne are not complete until Amalek's name will be totally obliterated. (Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 11; Rashi ad loc)


We are charged to replace Amalek with the holy letters of God's complete Name. We must restore God's complete throne - i.e., God's Presence in the world, through the special holiness of the Jewish people, who transmit God's message to the world.


Sapphire from the Land of Israel. Adapted from Mo'adei HaRe'iyah, pp. 241-242



Rav Kook on T'hilim


from an unpublished work by Rabbi Chanan Morrison


T'hilim 13 - Trust, Happiness, and Song


Summary: True bitachon is trust in God's kindness, recognizing that we are under His protective care. When we realize that we have been rescued from some danger, the heart is filled with relief and joy.


VA'ANI B'CHASD'CHA BATACHTI... I trust in Your kindness; my heart will rejoice in Your deliverance. I will sing to God, for He has rewarded me. (T'hilim 13:6)


At first glance, the parts of this verse appear to be disjointed. What is the connection between its three sections: trusting in God, joy in deliverance, and thankful song?


Stage 1: Trust in God's Kindness


The three parts of the verse are in fact three levels. Each level is based on the previous one, expanding and extending it.


The first stage is a fundamental outlook of bitachon, trust in God. Curiously, the psalmist refers specifically to trusting God's kindness, as opposed to trusting God. Why?


Some mistakenly interpret bitachon to mean a confidence that whatever we want, whatever we think we need - God will provide. However, what we think is for the good is sometimes the exact opposite.


True bitachon is complete trust in God's kindness. A person with bitachon relies on God, Who created the universe and watches over His world with profound kindness. There is no need for anxious worries, no place for apprehension and despair. We know that God's compassion extends toward all of His creatures. At all times, we are under the protective wings of God's kindness.


Stage 2: Relief in Rescue


That is the first stage, an overall attitude of implicit trust in the Creator and Divine providence. A second stage takes place when we realize that we are the beneficiaries of some form of deliverance. We have been rescued from some danger, whether physical or spiritual.


At this point, the heart experiences relief and an inner joy. The hidden resources of bitachon are expressed in heartfelt emotion: "My heart will rejoice in Your deliverance."


Stage 3: Outburst of Song


This second stage, however, is still insufficient to stir the soul to an elated spirit of song. By nature, we are uncomfortable with undeserved kindness. Ultimately, we recognize that true success and happiness depends on our own choices and free will. We know that God governs the universe with the attribute of justice.


We are forced to conclude that God must have found in us some merit or worthy deed, so that we deserved this assistance. Despite the infinite degree of Divine compassion in the world, the attribute of justice cannot be completely absent.


This realization reassures our sense of ethical propriety. Our conscience demands that we work to perfect ourselves. We cannot feel true happiness unless we feel that we have attained some measure of spiritual achievement. Then we are able to recognize that, to some degree, we are deserving of this reward. As the psalmist expresses this perception:


God rewarded me according to my righteousness, according to the purity of my hands (T'hilim 18:21).


With this insight, the soul is filled with the splendor of life. We are able to express our joy in an outburst of jubilant song. We have progressed, from an overall outlook of trust, to the inner emotions of relief, on to the third stage: an outward expression of joy and elation. "I will sing to God, for He has rewarded me."


Adapted from Olat Re'iyah, vol. I, pp. 220-221



The Daily Portion - Sivan Rahav Meir


When Mishlo'ach Manot becomes Mislo'ach Manot


Translation by Yehoshua Siskin


A week before Purim, Esti Sheinfeld YItzhaki sent me the following poignant message:


"Shalom Sivan, 


You once wrote about Mislo'ach Manot, a Mishlo'ach Manot that asks forgiveness and seeks reconciliation. (Mislo'ach incorporates LISLO'ACH, meaning "to forgive".) You mentioned individuals who sent Mishlo'ach Manot not only to neighbors and friends but to people with whom they had experienced a serious rift.


So I did exactly that. On Purim morning, after reading the Megila, I traveled with my husband to another city with my Mislo'ach Manot. With a trembling heart, I left my basket outside the door of the recipient's apartment. Immediately, I felt tremendous relief.


The previous evening I had tearfully written to this dear former friend. I had poured my heart out and it had truly felt like Yom Kippur. I wrote in great detail about everything I had learned from her in my life and asked forgiveness from the depth of my heart - forgiveness from her and from God for having hurt her. I ended the letter with warm words of affection and many blessings.


Three tense days passed and then I received a short, but beautiful WhatsApp message. At that moment I knew there was great joy in heaven and that angels were dancing. We did not return to being close friends but my overall mood improved and I was blessed with great abundance in many areas of my life.


Next week Purim will arrive. If there is someone in your life with whom you have had a falling out, a mitzva is waiting for you. I entreat you to be the one who takes the first step. Prepare a lavish "Mislo'ach Manot" with a heartfelt letter. 


May we all experience a truly joyful Purim."


Send your friends this link so that they can receive Sivan Rahav-Meir's content too: tiny.cc/DailyPortion



OzTORAH by Rabbi Dr Raymond Apple z"l


T'TZAVEH


Giving God Light


The portion opens with the olive-oil lampstand (Menorah) in the Mishkan (Sh'mot 27:20).


Who is meant to benefit from the light?


The Midrash puts into God's mouth the words, "Do I need your light? Does it not say, 'Light dwells with Him?'" (Daniel 2:22).


No; the light is meant for us; there is a verse that says, "The spirit of man is the light of the Lord" (Mishlei 20:27).


With light we can see our way - we can discern our goals in life and follow them.


With light we can read the Torah - we can discern the truths about life and the world that can give meaning to what we do.


With light we can see other people - we can discern that every human being is, like us, a child of the Divine, with a precious soul and a unique dignity.


Why then doesn't God provide us with light Himself and not need us to exert ourselves: to use the Torah's words, "to cause the lamp to burn continually"?


Because God expects us to be His partners in the work of creation, even the creation of light. He endows us with all the means and material to produce light, and empowers us to utilise our potential and turn the ingredients into a result.



Aharon's Heart


The duties of the Kohen Gadol were highly onerous.


Not only were there ritual obligations in the Mishkan and Beit HaMikdash, but ethical duties, pedagogic tasks and spiritual obligations.


For instance, "Aharon shall bear the judgment of the Children of Israel on his heart before the Lord" (Sh'mot 28:30).


One of the commentators says that this shows that Aharon was like the people's heart. Whatever situation they were in, he felt it in his heart before there was any outward manifestation.


It's not an easy burden to be a leader, because all leadership - of whatever kind - must take its cue from this aspect of Aharon. The leader has to feel what is going on within the people, and has to know what is going to happen before it happens.


The moment that the heart of the leader loses this instinct, it is time to step down and retire from office.



PURIM


Taanit Esther


The day before Purim is called Ta'anit Esther, the Fast of Esther.


Despite the popular view, it does not commemorate the three-day fast described in the Megila (Esther 4:16).


Three days cannot be telescoped into one day, and in any case our Fast of Esther is not mentioned in the Megila or ordained in the Talmud.


The late tractate Sofrim (21:1) does state that the sages of the Land of Israel did fast for three days before Purim, but not on consecutive days because such a long period of fasting would constitute a danger to life.


According to the Bet Yosef (Orach Chayim 686), the one-day fast was introduced by the medieval ge'onim to recall a pre-Purim fast of the entire Jewish people, ordained to pray for protection from antisemites like Haman.


The name Ta'anit Esther is said to have come about like this: those who were involved in the fight with Haman's supporters had to eat and drink in order to keep up their strength; Esther, safe in the royal palace, did not fight and was able to fast, which she did for the sake of her fellow Jews.


So Purim benefited everyone, but the fast was Esther's fast.



Every Right to Expect Miracles


Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz regards the festival of Purim as the festival of the Diaspora and the Book of Esther as "the scroll of the Jewish people in its exile".


In the Diaspora the challenges were sometimes physical, sometimes spiritual, and sometimes both. What preserved us was centuries of sheer miracles.


Rabbi Steinsaltz writes, "This book (the Megila) is the essence of Jewish life in exile, and of the faith that, behind all external causes, hides the 'guardian of Israel'.


"The Megila teaches us that the Jewish people must learn to live this sort of life, expecting miracles… not miracles like the parting of the Red Sea, done 'by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm', but rather miracles hidden within the tortuous, winding ways of history."


It is an inspiring thought, but how does it square with the rabbinic notion, "We do not rely on miracles"?


Perhaps the answer is that we should never consciously place ourselves in a situation of peril, asserting blithely, "Don't worry; God won't let us down."


We have to opt for the least risky Jewish environment and exert ourselves to be the best possible Jews we can be, maintaining the faith that God will operate through "the tortuous, winding ways of history" to preserve us and protect His heritage.


It may not always happen in open, obvious and immediate fashion: God has to work in His way, even if it takes longer than we expect.



Religion Absurdly Performed


When Samuel Pepys visited the Sephardi Synagogue in London on Simchat Torah, he was highly unimpressed. He said the frivolity of the occasion was "religion absurdly performed".


The congregational elders took steps to create more decorous conditions from then onwards, and many Anglo-Jewish communities followed their lead in preferring stateliness to celebration.


This was still the norm three centuries later, to the extent that some-one said of the Hampstead Synagogue that Simchat Torah was as mournful as Tish'a b'Av.


My own Hampstead incumbency was the time when some quite restrained dancing with the Torah was introduced, though not without the stern disapproval of some of the congregation.


It is a good job that Pepys did not attend a Purim service; I have no idea what Purim was like at the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue in his day but we are all well aware that in most places it is marked with considerable exuberance. Some say it is the time when people let their hair down, but I personally find that a problem now that I have hardly any hair left.


The serious question is of course whether there is a case for religion being "absurdly performed".


There are two answers. The first is that we are not without our solemn occasions, probably outweighing the times of frivolity.


The second is that religion is a dimension of the life of a people, and people have to be able to articulate the whole range of human emotions. -OZ



Y'HI ZICHRO BARUCH




Sedra Highlight - Dr Jacob Solomon


T'TZAVEH


This is what you shall offer on the Mizbei'ach… one lamb in the morning and another lamb in the morning… it is a regular burnt offering before G-d… where I, G-d, will set my place of meeting for speaking to you (29:38-42).


The long and elaborate details of the ceremonies that were to inaugurate the completed Mishkan into regular service finish by telling us about the daily proceedings there: the Korban Tamid, the twice-daily communal offering. Though what we read here is virtually identical with the p'sukim in Parashat Pinchas that we say daily in the early part of Shacharit. The Ha'amek Davar observes that this passage differs in two essentials. Here, the Torah links it with the Ohel Mo'ed, the place where G-d will rest His presence in the most intense form. There, but not here, it describes the Korban Tamid as LACHMI - My food. The Ha'amek Davar suggests that in this parasha the emphasis is on the Korban Tamid's role in maintaining the closeness between G-d and Israel as they move from place to place encamped in the wilderness. In contrast, in Parashat Pinchas, the emphasis was that the twice daily offerings would bring wealth to the nation. Am Yisrael, in parting with wealth for such worship in order to maintain 'My food' - G-d's twice-daily service, will in turn be blessed with even greater riches. 


In addition, the introduction to the Ein Ya'akov quotes an unattributed Midrashic source which opens with R. Akiva's claim that V'AHAVTA L'REI'ACHA KAMOCHA - you shall love your neighbour as yourself is a general rule in the Torah. But it then proceeds to consider other general rules in the Torah that some hold to be even greater. The final one on that list is Shimon ben Pazi claim for ET HAKEVES ECHAD TA'ASEH BABOKER, V'EIT HAKEVES HASHEINI TA'ASEH BEIN HA'ARBAYIM - one lamb in the morning, one lamb in the evening. Up jumped an unnamed Tanna instantly declaring: "The Halacha goes according to Ben Pazi!" Not V'AHAVTA L'REICHA KAMOCHA, but ET HAKEVES ECHAD TA'ASEH BABOKER. 


This could be explained in the following way. Checking in with G-d and mitzva observance is not something you do when the mood or circumstances feel right, but something that you do every day, whether you're ready for it or not. That is the great general rule in the Torah, exemplified by ET HAKEVES ECHAD TA'ASEH BABOKER. Not only at special occasions, stunning inaugurations, great tensions, or spectacular yeshuot, but daily, persistently, whether your mood is aligned or not. Particular difficult with Mincha in the fast-paced working day or Arvit coming home exhausted after a hard day's graft. Impressive as the inauguration of the Mishkan would be, it would not be an end in itself. The Mishkan was to be fully active and operational from that moment onwards, as a place of regular meeting with G-d who was at the elbow of the people as they travelled through hostile territory and depended on Providence to get them through lands with: "snake, fiery serpent, and scorpion, and thirst where there was no water… bringing  water out of the rock of the flint" (D'varim 8:15). Once they were secure in settled lands, they had a firm experience of G-d at their elbow which they would pass on to future generations. This is where the repeat ET HAKEVES ECHAD comes in. It was not spectacular miracles, but a covenant with G-d guaranteeing prosperity to His people as long as they follow His ways. His ways include regular service. Then it was the daily korbanot, now it is Shacharit, Mincha and Arvit. Not just remembering Him when you happen to feel like it. Regular Torah study, regular t'fila, constant g'milat chasadim… the importance of ET HAKEVES TA'ASEH implies the impact of our traditions on us and our communities as we engage in them daily, year in year out, from generation to generation, 'come rain or shine'.



Dvar Torah by Rabbi Chanoch Yeres


to his community at Beit Knesset Beit Yisrael, Yemin Moshe


Graciously shared with PhiloTorah



ZACHOR


This Shabbat, we read Parshat Zachor, "Remember what Amalek did to you..." (D'varim 25:17). The question that always arises is why must we still remember Amalek? Why is there a mitzva to remind ourselves of what Amalek did then?


Many discuss the idea of Amalek's actual existence in our time through direct descendants or through nations who hate the Jewish people just for whom they are. Many try to analyze their surrounding nations to see and judge if their character traits align with those infamous acts of Amalek of old. We try to beware of them and be wary of these foreign threats to our way of life.


Yet, another striking answer to this question may give us a better insight to why the mitzva of remembering Amalek is as essential to us as a people as well as on an individual basis. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in his book Darash Moshe, felt that the point of this mitzva is to remind us now that it is possible for any human being to become as wicked as Amalek, in denying the existence of G-d even in the face of irrefutable evidence, even us. Just as Amalek was purview to the miracle of crossing the Yam Suf as well as hearing all the other Exodus-related miracles by G-d, Amalek made an about face and ignored His presence. The Rabbis in the Midrash (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 9) compared Amalek to someone, seeing a bath of boiling water, which all others are afraid to touch, nonetheless leaped into it. Despite the fact that he himself badly scalded, he cooled the bath water to a degree where others could then also take the plunge of bathing in it.


Similarly, all the miracles G-d had done for the Israelites did not deter Amalek from attacking and showing others that they too can attack. Rabbi Feinstein's lesson goes even deeper. Any person, even us, no matter how great his spiritual accomplishments, must worry that he himself might be fooled into committing the most despicable sins, just as Amalek fell to such a low level, any one of us can equally fall. We learn from the mitzva of remembering Amalek that not only must we mistrust our ability to be persistent in our good practices but also, we must always be on the guard against faltering and doing wrongs.


The Gemara in Megila discusses how the catastrophe of Haman began specifically because of the Jews fraternizing with the foreign culture celebrating the destruction of the Jewish Temple, which Achashverosh had organized. All they wanted to do was to be part of the party and yet, were unaware of the meaning of their actions. The reading of Parshat Zachor is a warning not only of an outside threat but also rather of the one that comes from within. We are all made from the same flesh and blood and that is why we need to remember what an Amalek did to us to stand eternally vigilant and not to loosen our guard so that we will stand firm first on a personal level and then on a national level. It is we who need to be strengthened so we can celebrate the open as well as the hidden miracles of G-d before us.



The Weekly 'Hi All' by Rabbi Jeff Bienenfeld


ZACHOR 5786


Although we are in the week of Parshat T'tzaveh, for an important message about Parshat Zachor, let us revisit the first verse in Parshat Yitro. 


Sh'mot 18:1 reads, "And Yitro, priest of Midyan, Moshe's father-in-law, heard all that Gd had done for Moshe and for Yisrael, His people, that HaShem had brought Israel out of Egypt." 


The question, of course, is what exactly did Yitro hear? The simple reading of the text would indicate that he heard how an entire slave people were liberated from a land whose regime prided itself on never allowing anyone to escape. Yet the Talmud (Zevachim 116a) still asks the same question, seemingly ignoring the p'shat meaning.


The answer is in one phrase mentioned in the Talmudic text: "What did Yitro hear that inspired him to come and want to convert?" In other words, unquestionably, the Exodus from Egypt was a spectacular event, one that would have fascinated anyone and impelled a person to investigate the event. But to actually abandon one's previous belief system and life-style would require a more powerful motivator. Yet, why wasn't the Exodus story sufficient? Why was something else necessary to convince Yitro to leave everything behind and come?


To answer this question, we must first understand who Yitro was. Far from being some ordinary desert sheik, Yitro was quite an impressive figure. He was among the three advisors to Pharaoh (Sota 11a). In addition, there was not a deity in the world that he did not worship, and an idolatry with which he was not familiar (Mechita, Yitro 1:1, D'varim Rabba 2:28). In Midyan, he was a revered and respected leader (Mishnat R. Eliezer 16). Thus, Yitro was a sophisticated, highly knowledgeable, political head of state who clearly was no one's fool. No wonder, Moshe and the Elders accord Yitro great honor when he arrives (Sh'mot Rabba 27:2). Therefore, for Yitro to give all this up: the prestige and position, the influence and power - all to join up with a raggedly mass of freshly redeemed slaves begs the question: What made him do it?


Thus, the Talmud is constrained to offer three different opinions to explain Yitro's motivation.


The opinion of R. Eliezer that the motivating event was the miracle of the Splitting of the Sea, and that of R. Eliezer HaModai that what inspired Yitro was the Giving of the Torah, are both easy to understand. What, however, is difficult is the explanation of R. Yehoshua who asserts that it was Amalek's war with Israel that convinced Yitro to leave all behind and join the Jewish people. First, Amalek was far from the most powerful nation in the ancient world at that time, at most a backward, second-rate power. The fact that Israel won this skirmish against them was not at all so remarkable. Second, Israel did not even defeat Amalek. As the Torah testifies (Sh'mot 17:13), "And Yehoshua [simply] weakened Amalek and its people… " What then was so impressive about this battle that so influenced and persuaded Yitro to convert?


To begin to appreciate the significance of this event, we must first appreciate who Amalek was: his ideology and objective. Only then can we understand why, upon hearing about this clash, Yitro was won over to the Jewish people.


Both our classic and modern commentators have remarked that Amalek's hatred for Israel was the first instance of pure antisemitism. To explain: Generally, when one hates another, the enmity can usually be traced to some underlying reason: envy, revenge, anger, etc. However, when the hatred is without any cause, when it is unprovoked and insidious, it can only mean one thing: that the object of the hatred is intolerable in the extreme, so much so that its very existence is called into question with the result that it must be eliminated.


Amalek had no reason whatsoever to attack the Jewish people. Neither their land nor wealth were threatened. Likewise, they had no unresolved grievances against Israel. Their assault was driven by one malicious obsession: to exterminate every last one of the people of Israel. The toxic venom of their pure antisemitism would call into question the very existence of the Jew. Much like Haman, a descendent of Amalek, who could not help but bemoan upon simply seeing Mordechai (Esther 5:13), for Amalek, the very presence of the Jew was unbearable.


In the wake of K'ri'at Yam Suf and the complete destruction of the Egyptian forces, the Jewish people appeared invincible. Who would dare engage them in battle? When Amalek attacked, even knowing they could never achieve total victory, they nevertheless sought to demonstrate that Israel was not all that supreme. They could be bloodied. They were vulnerable. This is exactly how the Midrash (Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 9) portrayed their diabolical scheme: "[Amalek] made you cold and lukewarm after the boiling heat you [Israel] had before. For all the nations were afraid to war against you and this one [Amalek] came and began to point out the way for others. A parable! It may be compared to a boiling hot bath into which no living creature could descend. A good-for-nothing came, and sprang down into it; although he scalded himself, he made it appear cold to others."


But what was at play here was something far more consequential and ominous. When the Torah states that Amalek was V'LO YAREI ELOKIM - that they had no fear of Gd (D'varim 25:18), the characterization was not to underscore Amalek's atheism. Quite to the contrary, Amalek believed that there was a Gd, but - and this is critical, they were convinced He could be fought along with those allied with Him, namely, the Jewish people. What was it, though, that Amalek schemed to fight against? The answer to this question brings us to the very root of the perennial conflict between HaShem and Amalek. "There shall be a war of HaShem against Amalek from generation to generation" (Sh'mot 17:16).


Amalek was more than a people; it was indicative of an ideology, one radically different and at complete and absolute odds with our Jewish weltanschauung. When we delve more deeply into the basics of that ideology, we turn to the Zohar (I, 39b on B'reishit 1:2) where we read, as Rav Soloveitchik summarizes the text (Before HaShem, p. 77), "When Gd created the earth from TOHU VA'VOHU, chaos and void (B'reishit 1:2), He did not replace the chaos entirely. Some of this primordial entropy was allowed to remain, so that man, through his own effort, could strive to eliminate it. Amalek represents this leftover chaos… " In this atmosphere of radical confusion and emptiness, of mayhem and vacuity, Amalek enters to restore order and stability. How? Through the raw wielding and execution of power.


To define Amalek in modern terms, we would depict as their motto with "might makes right" insignia. If the philosophy of Social Darwinism espoused the belief that only the fittest in society are entitled to rule, and if by "the fittest", much like in the jungle - the most powerful is meant, then indeed, "might makes right!" If, as the Greek Thucydides asserted that in a society where, "… the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" (History of the Peloponnesian War), then in the face of "might", the "right" is at best compromised and at worst, silenced! In more recent times, pure antisemitism metastasized into the Machiavellian amoral doctrine of Nazism of which Hitler's Mein Kampf was its best and infamous "bible". 


Now consider: This Amalekian doctrine was the polar opposite of the then revolutionary ethical/political/ religious system as legislated and championed by Gd at Sinai and given to the Jewish people to implement. To believe that power had to submit to truth and virtue, that "might" had to bow to compassion and forgiveness was an anathema to the Amalek worldview of the supremacy of power. As such, this nascient moral enterprise had to be weakened if not utterly destroyed, which is exactly what Amalek set out to do. All contemporary counterparts of Amalek attempted to do the very same. Driven by a worldview which maliciously rejected any and all value systems which promoted "soft" ethical ideas - those which protected the weak and sick, had compassion for the underdog, and placed morality above strength as the highest virtue - the Amaleks of the world elevated the traits of crushing power and force as the sole and ultimate determining factors to ensure what is best for the world. Mastery not equality, dictatorship not theocracy are emblazoned upon the marque of Amalek.


And our hashkafa: all in one beautiful and eternal principle. OLAM CHESED YIBANEH, "Forever will the world be built upon chesed!" (T'hilim 89:3)


Therefore, when Yitro heard about this battle between Amalek and Israel, he was smart and perceptive enough to see what was behind this relatively small and local fight. His personality and ethical attributes had already predisposed him to recognize the superiority of the sacred ideology and mission that HaShem was entrusting to Israel. When he heard about Amalek's brazen attack on Israel, he quickly became aware of the presence of a far more momentous and far-reaching dynamic taking place. What he realized, writ small at this juncture in history, was nothing short of the epic struggle between good and evil. And with the stakes that high, Yitro wisely chose to align himself with the good - with Israel (Sh'mot Rabba 27:6).


The war between the Almighty and Amalek rages still. As the Torah predicted (Sh'mot 17:16), MILCHAMA LASHEM BAAMALEIK MIDOR DOR, HaShem will battle against Amalek from generation to generation." And in the end, as the Torah also promises, we will be vindicated and triumph! ASHRECHA YISRAEL MI CHAMOCHA... "Fortunate are you, O Israel! Who is like you, O people whose salvation is through the Lord, whose Shield is your help, your majestic Sword! Your enemies will betray you, but you will tread upon their heights" (D'varim 33:29).


V'CHEIN Y'HI RATZON.



Insights into Halacha - Rabbi Yehuda Spitz


Ohr Somayach (yspitz@ohr.edu)


The Mishlo'ach Manot Conundrum: The Complicated Case of the Glass Cases


I recently received an interesting sheilah from my old chaver,Chester 'Zeke' Meyerfeld, one that surprisingly actually impacts many of us. It seems his creative daughter, always with an eye to the aesthetic, started a Pre-Purim business of baking and delivering artistically decorated and designed, delicious Mishlo'ach Manot. In order to deliver these home-baked goodies, proper glass containers are needed in abundance. The issue is that the only semi-local store that can fit the bill for selling such copious amounts of jars and jugs is IKEA, which, as Swedish-sourced, does not have a Jewish owner.


This would mean that all of these dishes, certainly as they are being used for food consumption, would require Tevila, being dipped in the Mikve. The only questions here are - by whom and at what point? Would she be required to pre-dip all of these keilim in the Mikve before packaging her 'Sweet Shoppe' baked goods in them? Or is the obligation truly on the receiver? If the latter is correct, would it even help if she decided to do Tevilat Keilim?


It actually turns out that there is no one correct solution to this interesting dilemma. But first some background is in order.


It is important to note that this sheilah is exclusively about upon whom the obligation of Tevila is incumbent. As many Poskim emphasize, this sheilah does not affect the permissibility of the actual food that is placed in the kli, even one iota.


Kashering and Tevilat Keilim


The Biblical source for requiring the kosherization of used pots from a non-Jew is in Parshat Matot after the War with Midyan, when Klal Yisrael was commanded to kasher their spoils of war that were used for food preparation. "This is the rule that Hashem commanded Moshe: As far as the gold, silver, copper, iron, tin and lead are concerned, whatever was used over fire must be made to go through fire and purged, V'TAHEIR - and they will become pure (kosher). Yet, it must also be purified in Mikve water. In addition, that which was not used in fire must pass through water."


The Gemara in Avoda Zara explains that the extra word V'TAHEIR teaches us that there is additional type of "koshering" needed for new (unused) utensils obtained from a non-Jew that does not involve purging with fire or boiling water, but rather only dipping in a Mikve. Although there is some debate among the Rishonim whether this obligation is d'Oraita or d'Rabbanan, all agree that Tevila is necessary, not only for metal utensils, but according to the Gemara's conclusion, for glass utensils as well (d'Rabbanan), since they can be melted and reshaped into new utensils.


Only Klei Seuda Need Tevila


However, there are certain qualifications that the Gemara establishes for this Tevila, including that only KLEI SEUDA - utensils used in food preparation, serving, and dining require Tevila, as well as only when there is an actual change of ownership from the non-Jew to the Jew. Meaning, new cutlery that was loaned or borrowed from a non-Jewish neighbor or even purchased pinking shears do not need Tevila.


Tosafot and the Rosh cite Rashbam, who qualifies the qualification: If one borrows a food utensil from a Jewish friend who had purchased it from a non-Jew, the first Yid is the one who needs to Tovel the utensil. He explains that although the second Yid borrowed it, nonetheless, once the first Yid purchased it for a food-related purpose, he already had a chiyuv to Tovel it.


However, the Hagahot Ha'Ashiri points out that this is only true if the first Yid intended it 'L'Tzorech Seuda' - for food-related purposes, otherwise, if he used it for cutting parchment (presumably the utensil under discussion was a knife), it does not need Tevila. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch codify this as the halacha. The Rama points out that if he purchased said knife to cut parchment and therefore it was exempt from Tevila, but later decided to use it for his food prep, at that point it must be immediately Toveled - prior to using it L'Tzorech Seuda.


The Beis Yosef, and ruled accordingly by later Poskim, including the Taz and Pri Chodosh, paskens that the same Tevila exemption applies to Kli S'chora - utensils purchased from a non-Jew in order to sell, i.e. merchandise - that the original Jewish buyer/seller does not need to Tovel it. The reason is since the utensil is only in his possession temporarily, and he does not intend to use it, but rather exclusively to sell it to another, it only becomes obligated in Tevila upon its purchase L'Tzorech Seuda. Hence, in such a case, the final purchaser - meaning the one who intends to use it for food prep, is mandated to perform the Tevila.


Borrowing From a Yid


Complicating matters, there is some debate among the Poskim in the following scenario. What would the halacha be if we add a lender to the case? The Shach and Taz cite the Isur v'Heter, who although agreeing that when one purchases a knife for parchment cutting it does not require Tevila, nonetheless differentiates when referring to a case with a lending middleman. In such a case, where the first Jew purchased it from a non-Jew for parchment purposes and then the second borrowed it L'Tzorech Seuda, the Isur v'Heter maintains that since the first one could have decided to use it L'Tzorech Seuda, it creates somewhat of an obligation for Tevila, and the second one (the borrower) should do Tevila - as he is the one who is now actively using it L'Tzorech Seuda.


However, as this notion is not so clear-cut, both the Shach and Taz maintain that this Tevila should be performed without a bracha. The Taz advises that when lending this kli out, he should inform the borrower that he now needs to Tovel it.


On the other hand, the Pri Chodosh argues against this approach entirely, pointing out that while the utensil was in the lender's possession it was exempt from Tevila due to its being used for parchment purposes, and later on, although being used by the borrower L'Tzorech Seuda, as it was merely borrowed, and not actually his, it is still exempt from Tevila.


Later Poskim disagree as to practical halacha in this case. The Pri To'ar, Aruch HaShulchan, and Zivchei Tzedek side with the Pri Chodosh, maintaining that no Tevila is necessary in the case of a borrower L'Tzorech Seuda, whereas the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, Chochmat Adam, Pischei Teshuva, and Ben Ish Chai hold that we should be machmir and Tovel it without a bracha. However, they are more lenient concerning glassware (than regarding metal utensils), as everyone holds they are only mandated in Tevila d'Rabbanan. Hence, they conclude that in case of need, or where one is concerned it may break, etc. we can rely upon the more lenient opinion.


With all of this in mind, we can attempt to address our original sheilah.


Chassan Tisch


Perhaps the closest and most widely-quoted precedent to our case is a teshuva from Rav Chaim Segalovitch, Moreh Tzedek in Vilna in the late 1800s, in his Shu"t Mekor Chayim. He addresses the sheilah of one who buys and intends to gift a Chatan a sterling silver Kiddush cup (becher) at a Sheva Brachot, and places it proudly on the table in front of the Chatan - whether it can be used without Tevila as the Kos shel Bracha for the Sheva Brachot. The Mekor Chayim rules that it may indeed be used without Tevila.


His reasoning is that the one who originally purchased it from the non-Jew did so with the sole intention of gifting it to the Chatan as a "Drasha Geshank", and hence, was never obligated to Tovel it. As he gave it as a present at the Sheva Brachot and placed it out for all to admire, it still has not yet become the property of the Chatan. As such, he maintains that not only is it similar to the case of one who borrowed it from another Jew, but halachically actually better.


He explains that the Isur v'Heter mandated Tevila in the case of the borrower because the earlier buyer, although he technically used the knife for parchment purposes, nonetheless could have changed his mind at any time, and actually used it to cut his meat if he so wished. Hence, the Isur v'Heter was machmir that Tevila needed to be done. Yet, in the case of the Chosson becher, as it was purchased exclusively to give as a specific gift, there is no possibility that the buyer may come to first use it, the Mekor Chayim maintains that even the Isur v'Heter would agree that Tevila is not mandated at that time, but rather only once the Chatan takes it home from the Sheva Brachot.


Selling and Gifting


Based on the precedent of the Mekor Chayim's ruling, several contemporary Poskim, including Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, the Minchas Yitzchak, and Rav Shmuel HaLevi Wosner, rule that one who sells or gifts (new) items, should not Tovel them before selling or gifting them. Rav Shlomo Zalman and the Minchas Yitzchak add that even if one would decide to do so, the Tevila would not work, as at the time it was exempt from Tevila, and hence the recipient would need to Tovel it again anyway. This is also how Rav Tzvi Cohen, in his classic sefer Tevilat Keilim, concludes l'maaseh.


Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv is widely quoted as holding this way as well, with a slight qualification regarding glassware. In his opinion, in that specific case, if the purchaser/gifter decided to pre-Tovel it, then the recipient would not need to re-Tovel it, as Tevilat Keilim for glassware is d'Rabbanan. However, his son-in-law, Rav Chaim Kanievsky, citing the Chazon Ish, maintains that there should be no difference between types of utensils, and if the gifter Toveled it, it would need to be re-Toveled by the recipient (just without a bracha).


Other Poskim who rule this way, that the recipient is the one who would need to Tovel it, include Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl, Rav Pesach Eliyahu Falk, Rav Yisroel Belsky, Rav Ezriel Auerbach, Rav Sroya Delilitzky, and the Rivevos Efrayim.


Canned Goods and Pickle Jars, etc.


There is another potential precedent for this ruling. Around seventy years ago, Rav Baruch Lazerovsky, Rav in Philadelphia, wrote a brief teshuva in Kovetz HaMaor regarding jars of food that people purchase, heat-up and eat the food straight out of the container. He maintained that since they are being purchased to eat, these cans and jars should be considered L'Tzorech Seuda, and hence mandate Tevila. Why then, he asked, does no one Tovel these containers? He concluded that he is writing this in a public forum in order to trigger public debate on the topic from the Rabbanim of the time, a goal in which he succeeded. Rabbanim weighed in on the topic in several major Torah Journals of the time, including Kovetz HaMaor and Kovetz HaPardes.


In fact, the very next issue of Kovetz HaMaor featured a teshuva on the subject from Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, the renowned Seridei Eish. In it, he makes several prudent points, including asking rhetorically at what point are these food canisters to be Toveled. Meaning, they were purchased sealed with food inside. Then, after the food is finished, they are thrown out. If so, when are they to be Toveled, if it is indeed mandated?


Citing precedent from several authorities from previous generations discussing similar cases, such as the Pri Hasadeh and the Maharshak, the Seridei Eish additionally points out that people purchase these food products exclusively in order to partake of the food inside, not to actively enjoy the containers. As such, there is no actual problem with eating the food inside these containers, as the containers are not intended L'Tzorech Seuda, but rather L'Tzorech S'chora.


Although in his original teshuva he writes that this rationale is merely a Limud Zechus (justification), as many at the time were purchasing and eating food in this manner, yet when he later printed this teshuva in his responsa, the Seridei Eish added an addendum, citing support for his shita from a brief teshuva of the Maharil Diskin, who rules that it is permitted to drink from a bottle purchased from a non-Jew, as such is not called 'shimush' - personal use L'Tzorech Seuda (but rather L'Tzorech S'chora). He concludes that Rav Mordechai Gifter, Rosh Yeshivas Telz, agreed with him, as did Rav Yaakov Breisch, the Chelkas Yaakov of Zürich, Switzerland.


In his teshuva, the Chelkas Yaakov wrote that these food dishes are considered Klei Otzar - storage containers, and not Klei Seuda, as they are only used to hold the food. Hence, it is only if the purchaser wishes to use them again, after finishing their initial packaged contents, when these containers would become obligated in Tevila. The Tzitz Eliezer and Rav Moshe Sternbuch rule accordingly, offering similar assessments.


Other Poskim who pasken similarly (although they differ on specific nuances) include Rav Moshe Feinstein, the Shearim Metzuyanim b'Halacha, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, and Rav Ben Tzion Abba-Shaul. Rav Moshe and Rav Braun maintain that regarding such food containers, since the buyer is truly interested in the food, its packaging is deemed insignificant. Rav Auerbach and Rav Abba-Shaul hold that since the purchaser only intends to use the dish as long as the original food packaged with it remains extant, and then it is thrown out once the food is eaten, proves that it was not meant as a Kli Seuda. All of them agree that in such a case Tevila is not necessary, unless one intends to re-use them.


The Steipler Gaon ruled in the same vein as well, basing his psak on the Maharil Diskin, explaining that even when eating or drinking from said containers in small amounts at a time is fine, as the edible contents are still from the non-Jew's original filling it, and hence not the recipient Jew's own 'Shimush' to mandate Tevila.[26]


Another salient point that many Poskim make regarding this scenario is that the non-Jewish factory sealed the food inside the packaging and since it is not useable in its current format, it is not considered an actual kli. Hence, when the Jew first opens it and makes it useable, it is as if the the Yid 'created' the kli, and hence it does not require Tevila. Several authorities cite precedent to this from the Chazon Ish in Hilchos Shabbos (O.C. 51:11), as to his reasoning why one cannot open certain sealed packages on Shabbos, as doing so would be akin to 'creating a kli'. Others argue that Hilchot Shabbat and Tevilat Keilim are non-analogous. Either way, although deserving mention, as this point is not relevant to our discussion regarding glass dishes for Mishlo'ach Manot, it is not cited in the main body of the article, but rather delegated to a footnote.


Following this understanding and applying it to our case would come out similar to the first precedent of the Mekor Chayim. As long as these food containers contain their initial food contents, they as a whole, are still considered merchandise - Klei Otzar and L'Tzorech S'chora, and hence, Tevila is not required, unless the buyer wishes to re-use the container for his own personal use after finishing its original contents.


Use It First


Although the above seems to be the majority opinion, nonetheless, there are other opinions among the Poskim. For example, Rav Moshe Sternbuch raises the issue that as many are unaware of these nuances, when receiving a gift, one may mistakenly think that the gifter was supposed to Tovel it, and hence, the recipient will not actually do so, and instead continue using it without Tevila. As such, the gifter may unwittingly transgress Lifnei Iver, causing a fellow Jew to stumble in his Mitzva observance. Therefore, Rav Sternbuch maintains that it is preferable that before one gifts or sells a utensil to another Jew, he should first Tovel it and use it a bit as his own (meaning he first personally acquires it), and only then gift or sell it.


Gifter May Tovel


An alternate viewpoint is that in these cases the Jewish gifter or seller may indeed Tovel the kli. Rav Menashe Klein highlights that Tevila is mandated due to and at the time when a utensil exits the ownership of non-Jew. As such, even if the first Yid may have been exempt from performing this Tevila, that fact should not keep the Tevila from working. He points out that technically speaking, even if a kli accidently fell into a Mikve, it is still considered Toveled.


This psak of a kli falling into a Mikve by itself being considered Toveled is first cited by the Bach, citing Teshuvot Moreinu Harav Menachem from Rav Menachem Me'il Tzedek, a late Rishon. Although it seems that this sefer is no longer extant, a collection of his psakim has recently been published titled Nimukei Rabbeinu Menachem M'Mirzburk. Although the Bach argues on this psak, maintaining that Tevila needs kavana, and the Taz implies that it may only work B'dieved, nonetheless, the Shach, Pri Chodosh, Ba'er Heitiv, Bi'ur HaGr"a, Chochmat Adam, Chatam Sofer, and Zivchei Tzedek all rule that this is indeed the halacha.


Rav Ben Tzion Abba-Shaul rules similarly, that once the kli left the non-Jew's possession, it may be Toveled, even if it is intended to be sold.


Rav Asher Weiss maintains a comparable stance, explaining that essentially these dishes are actually considered Klei Seuda (as their purpose is to eventually be used L'Tzorech Seuda), but the seller/ gifter is technically exempt from Toveling them as his intention in possessing them is merely for selling or gifting them. Ergo, if he decides to Tovel them, it should certainly work. Rav Nissim Karelitz, Rav Ovadiya Yosef, Rav Nosson Gestetner, the Avnei Yashpei, the Mishnat Yosef, and Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl are quoted as holding similarly.


Long footnote here; anyone interested in the extensive footnotes of this article should check the website.


This is also the opinion of Mv'R Rav Yaakov Blau, who differentiates between stores in a predominantly Jewish area versus a non-Jewish one. He explains that in a place where the merchandise is almost guaranteed to be sold to a Jew L'Tzorech Seuda, as it has already left the possession of non-Jews, it may already be considered a Kli Seuda. Therefore, the seller may Tovel it for them. He adds that the same would apply to a gifter. Since his intention is for it to be used by the recipient as a Kli Seuda, he may already be Tovel it.


According to the understanding of these Poskim, the seller/gifter would be allowed to Tovel keilim before selling or gifting them, as either way, the bottom line is that the 'cheftza' of the kli (the utensil itself) was indeed Toveled after leaving the non-Jew's possession.


However, as Rav Karelitz and Rav Weiss point out, if following this logic, the seller will not be able to make a bracha on this Tevila, as he is currently not the one actually obligated to do it. Indeed, as stressed to this author in person by Rav Weiss (as well as borne out from Rav Nebenzahl's teshuvot), this 'Pre-Toveling' is merely a solution, not necessarily a preferred option (unless dealing with someone whom you know will not Tovel it either way), Rav Karelitz adds that when dealing with a non-religious person, whom you know will not Toivel the utensil, this becomes the preferred option - as these Poskim still maintain that the Ikar Chiyuv Tevila is still incumbent on the recipient, and not the seller or gifter.


Gifter's Obligation


However, there are other opinions among contemporary Poskim as well. For example, Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky, Rosh Yeshivat Philadelphia, differentiates between a seller and a gifter. He maintains that when a seller purchases merchandise from a non-Jew in order to sell it to another, he has no personal stake to whom he sells it, and it therefore is classified as a Kli S'chora. On the other hand, when one purchases a utensil specifically to gift it to another, it is already considered his own personal property. Although he decided to give it away as a present, it already was his first. Therefore, Rav Shmuel maintains, the gifter would be obligated to first Tovel the kli - with a bracha, before presenting it to his friend.


Several other contemporary Poskim, including Rav Menashe Klein, Rav Dovid Feinstein, and Rav Shlomo Miller, are cited as ruling accordingly when the gifter places food inside the kli to gift along with it.


However, regarding the bracha on Tevila, Rav Shlomo Miller differentiates whether the food item actually needs the kli (e.g. applesauce), when a bracha would certainly be mandated in his opinion, as opposed to where it merely serves to store it (e.g. candies or cake), when he holds it should be Toveled without a bracha.


They explain that the fact that one placed food inside proves that it was already considered his own personal property, as well as L'Tzorech Seuda - all before giving it as a present. Hence, in this case, they mandate the gifter Tovel the utensil prior to gifting it. Several of these Poskim state so specifically regarding Mishlo'ach Manot.


Pondering Practicality


With so many varied shitot in the Poskim, with some holding that the seller/gifter must do Tevila first, and others maintaining that the giver may do Tevila first, and others asserting that even if they did, it would accomplish nothing and the recipient would need to Tovel the containers again, what should our 'Sweet Shoppe' supplier of Mishlo'ach Manot do? The potential solution of pre-using the containers (and then performing Tevila) would probably not go over too well with the buyers.


Although this author has seen some raise the idea that if one lined the container and only placed the food item in a wrapping, in order that it should not directly touch the container, then it would exempt it from the Tevila issue entirely, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (among others) strongly asserts to the contrary. He rules that this would not work in our case, as that exception exclusively applies when the utensil does not come into direct contact with food when fulfilling its primary use, not when serving as a simple lining that is anyway supported by the kli itself. Hence, this idea may not be a proper solution on its own merit. If so, what is the preferred option?


Although there is no one-size-fits-all solution to our conundrum, - Indeed, when posed this question, Rav Chaim Kanievsky replied simply that it is not worth it to send Mishlo'ach Manot in non-Toveled containers, potentially due to the complications inherent in the question. On the other hand, as we know he held akin to his father (the Steipler Gaon) and father-in-law (Rav Elyashiv) that Tevila is incumbent upon the recipient, Rav Chaim may have been referring to the issue of the recipient not realizing that the container still requires Tevila, and possibly unwittingly re-using it. Hence, he likely may have meant that it is not worth doing so, certainly without properly notifying the recipient -  nonetheless, as mentioned previously, when faced with a complex issue regarding who would be required to do Tevila, the Taz wrote a psak that has echoed through the generations, that the giver should make sure to notify the receiver that the kli has not yet been Toveled and that Tevila still needs to be performed.


With this precedent in mind, and as it seems that in our case the majority opinion is that Tevila should be (if not mandated to be) performed by the recipient, this author recommends following Rav Nissim Karelitz and Rav Pesach Eliyahu Falk's sage advise that the Mishlo'ach Manot seller/ gifter notify the recipients (with a small note or otherwise) that as per the psak of many contemporary Gedolim the container is not yet-Toveled, and if the recipient would like to use it again, Tevila would then be required. As noted previously, this would not affect the food's status either way.


Utilizing this method would mitigate potential mix-ups and misunderstandings, as well as foster the friendship highlighted by the Mitzva of Mishlo'ach Manot.


For any questions, comments or for the full Mareh Mekomot & sources, please email the author: yspitz@ohr.edu


Rabbi Yehuda Spitz serves as the Sho'el U'Meishiv and Rosh Chavura of the Ohr Lagolah Halacha Kollel at Yeshivas Ohr Somayach in Yerushalayim. He also currently writes a contemporary halacha column for the Ohr Somayach website titled "Insights Into Halacha".


ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/


Disclaimer: This is not a comprehensive guide, rather a brief summary to raise awareness of the issues. In any real case one should ask a competent Halachic authority.


Rabbi Yehuda Spitz's English halacha sefer, "Food: A Halachic Analysis" (Mosaica/Feldheim) containing over 500 pages featuring over 30 comprehensive chapters discussing the myriad halachic issues pertaining to food, is now available online and in bookstores everywhere."


Ed. note: The footnotes are extensive and that I only included a few of them. Interested parties should find Rabbi Spitz's article online.



GM - T'TZAVEH


Sh'mot 28:2 tells us of the launch of Aharon's career as the first Kohen Gadol.


You shall make holy garments for your brother Aharon, for honor and glory.


The regular gimatriya of 2713 matched two other p'sukim in Tanach - with nothing exciting to say.


But the NISTAR gimatriya of this pasuk is 4232. There are seven p'sukim in Tanach whose regular gimatriyas are 4342 - including Bamidbar 20:26 (in Chukat) -


Moshe then stripped Aharon of his garments and dressed Elazar his son in them, and Aharon died there on the top of the mountain. [Then] Moshe and Elazar descended from the mountain.


This pasuk marks the end of Aharon's life and the end of his tenure as Kohein Gadol.


Hidden (so to speak) in the pasuk from T'tzaveh, where Aharon became Kohein Gadol, is this pasuk from Chukat, telling us of his death.



GM - ZACHOR


Parshat Zachor contains three mitzvot: the command to remember what Amalek did - by voice and hearing. This is the mitzva we fulfill on Shabbat Parshat Zachor, with the reading of the 3-pasuk portion from the end of Ki Teitzei.


The third mitzva of the Amalek-set (so to speak) is LO TISHKACH, not to forget Amalek and its types, in one's heart and mind. These are two sides of the same coin. 


Sandwiched between these two mitzvot is the command to destroy Amalek - D'varim 25:19 states:


"Therefore, when God gives you peace from all the enemies around you in the land that HaShem your G-d is giving you to occupy as a heritage, you must obliterate the memory of Amalek from under the heavens. (You must not forget.)"


LO TISHKACH is in parentheses because this GM uses the NPP (neat partial pasuk) that contains the command to wipe out Amalek, which is this pasuk, not counting the last two words.


The search for a GM of 5518, returned a pasuk in Megilat Esther (9:25), which tells of a partial fulfillment of the mitzva of TIMCHEH: 


"And when she (Esther) came before the king, he commanded through letters that his evil device that he had devised against the Jews return upon his own head, and to destroy him and his sons on the gallows."


May we be privileged to not only fulfill the mitzvot of ZACHOR & LO TISHKACH - but also TIMCHEH by doing our share to fight the heirs of Amalek who abound in our time - anti-Semitism, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel that sadly fill much of the world.



USFUNEI T'MUNEI CHOL is the title of my book of Gimatriya Matches - IY"H and BE"H. The title translates to Hidden in the Sand. That's how I feel about my Gimatriya searches. Like walking along the beach with a metal detector. Beep-beep-beep. Lean down and find something. Usually, nothing of note. But sometimes you find something special.



RED ALERT!


T'TZAVEH


by Rabbi Eddie Davis (RED) of the Young Israel of Hollywood - Ft. Lauderdale (Florida)


DIVREI TORAH


<> The bulk of this Sidra is the description of the special garments that the Kohanim and the Kohen Gadol wore in the Mishkan, and later in the Beit HaMikdash. Prior to this discussion, the Torah will give us a couple of verses to tell us about the importance of the olive oil. The olive oil was required for several purposes in anointing matters, as well as the illumination of the Menorah and in the sacrifices themselves. The Midrash (Sh'mot Rabba 36) presents some interesting ideas about the significance of the olive oil when it comes to our religious viewpoint. The Midrash states that Bnei Yisrael is compared to the olive. Most liquids can be mixed together successfully, but oil does not mix with other liquids; it stays on its own. Similarly the nation of Israel does not mix well with the non-Jewish world. Another statement is that when someone attempts to mix liquids you might not know which liquid will settle at the bottom, and which will stay on top. Oil will stay at the top. This is an indication that when the Jewish people are observing the Will of the Almighty then we will be like oil and be on top of the mixture. Lastly (for this column) the Midrash says you need to squeeze the olive to extract its oil. Similarly does the non-Jewish world throughout history beat and squeeze and persecute the Jewish people from place to place, and afterwards there is a need to repent.


<> One of my favorite Rashis exists here in the beginning of the parsha to explain the meaning of the word Tamid. Rashi states that actually there are two definitions of this word in Hebrew: constantly and consistently. If the fire had to exist on the Altar Tamid it meant that it had to exist constantly. When it was required to bring a Sacrifice Tamid each day twice a day, Tamid in this context would mean consistently. The same two terms can be applied to the Jewish person as he/she maintains his Jewishness throughout the day, every day. Some things must be performed constantly and other things only consistently. I pray consistently, and I am supposed to have my belief and awareness of God around me constantly. This is a good reminder to all of us, for we are never permitted to "take a vacation" from our Jewishness and Jewish identity.


<> When the Kohen Gadol wore all his garments, only then was he allowed to perform the ritual service in the Mishkan or Beit HaMikdash. This included the stones which bore the names of all the tribes of Israel. This meant that for the Kohen Gadol to serve in the Mikdash, he had to constantly have in mind that he was the representative of all the people of Israel. He was to think of them all the time and understand that the type of regal clothing that he was wearing was not for his own virtue or glory, but rather for the honor and glory of the people of Israel. He had to constantly remember the people and seek God's blessing for their benefit. Only when this was foremost in his mind could he be allowed and be successful in serving in the Mikdash. In essence, as our Sages eloquently state in the name of Hashem: "I am not giving you a position of authority; I am giving you a position of service!" Only then would the Kohen Gadol's voice be heard and accepted by the Almighty.


<> "Place the Urim and the Tumim in the Breastplate of Judgment" (28:30). We are not sure exactly what the Urim and Tumim were, but we realize that this was an exceptional addition to the clothing which enabled the Kohen Gadol to gain divine inspiration and be able to answer certain questions with divine guidance. The Ramban explained the operation of the Urim and Tumim according to the Talmud in Yoma 77. Hashem's name illuminated certain letters from the names on the Breastplate and the Kohen Gadol would arrange them to compose words. For example, when the Israelites asked, "Who shall go up for us against the Canaanite?" (Sho-f'tim 1:1), the letters of the word YEHUDA lit up, along with the letters YUD from the word Levi and AYIN from the word Shimon, the LAMED of Levi, and the HEI of Avraham, spelling out the word YA'ALEH - YEHUDA will go up. [Our Sages state that the names of the Patriarchs, Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, were included on the Breastplate, together with the words SHIVTEI YESHURUN - "the Tribe of Yeshurun", since the letters CHET, TET, TZADI and KUF do not appear in the names of the twelve tribes.]


According to the Ramban, interpreting the letters that were lit up on the Urim and Tumim involved divine inspiration. This was a level very close to prophecy. Following the Ramban's direction, the Vilna Gaon offered a remarkable interpretation of the argument between Chana and Eli, the Kohen Gadol at the time, when she came to pray to Hashem for children (Sh'muel Alef 1). When Eli chided her for being intoxicated, she responded, "No, my lord, I am a woman of sorrowful spirit." Eli saw a woman weeping silently so he asked the Urim and Tumim about her and the letters SHIN, KAF, REISH, HEI lit up. The proper arrangement of these letters would spell the word K'SHEIRA, meaning acceptable, as in the word Kosher. Eli, though, combined the letters differently and derived SHIKORA, which means intoxicated. So after this error Chana tactfully informed Eli that he did not have Ru'ach HaKodesh, divine inspiration, right then, for he should have known how to combine the letters properly.


<> We must remember that bringing sacrifices does not mean automatic spiritual elevation. That is because the act of bringing an offering can be quite mechanical without intellectual and emotional effort in serving Hashem. When we engage in a Seudat Mitzva, a festive meal marking a religious occasion, we rise spiritually. The reason this is accomplished is because it is not just a banquet meal. Feeding ourselves in an elegant fashion is not a spiritual elevation. It is only when we make an effort to combine spirituality, for example in adding Zemirot and Divrei Torah, can we elevate a delicious culinary opportunity to spiritual heights. The Jewish people can bring Temple offerings with proper intent. The result, according to the Torah, is that the Divine Presence will descend and be part of the sacrificial offering. It is not because of the act itself but because of the spiritual elevation that accompanies it. This is what the Akeida, a late 15th century commentary by Rav Yitzchak Arama, explained in greater detail. 


<> The Tzitz was a gold Head Plate placed on the Kohen Gadol's  forehead. It was engraved with the words KODESH LASHEM - - Holy to God. The question that appears among our commentators is: why does this ornament have the KODESH LASHEM on it and not the Menora or any other utensil of the Mishkan or vestment of the Kohen? The Rambam explained this piece of "jewelry" to be similar to what people, women especially, would have in those days as ornaments. The Rambam explained in his commentary on Mishna that the women would tie a head plate on their forehead from ear to ear and place an embroidered piece of cloth underneath it in order to make sure the jewelry would not hurt them or damage the skin. In order to uniquely identify the ornament used by the Kohen Gadol, something had to be added in order to make sure it did not look like a piece of jewelry that people wore. Hence only this head plate was adorned with the statement of the words Holy to Hashem. 


<> Under normal conditions when the Kohen Gadol died, the position went to his proper heir, his son. That was true in the succession of kings within the Davidic line, and consequently the question arose as to other positions of religious authority. Would they come under the same category of the position being inherited by an heir? In most cases we would apply this same reasoning to the rabbinical position in a community. A case once came to the Chofetz Chayim in Poland. In one city the rabbi passed away and a difference of opinion ensued among the people. Some wanted to automatically appoint the rabbi's son, and others felt he was not worthy and the people should have the ability to choose somebody else. The Chofetz Chayim came up with an interesting idea. He felt that when a king or Kohen Gadol passed away, it did transfer automatically to the son. But in the Laws of Kings by the Rambam it states that the Kohen that was appointed specifically for wartime did not have that capacity in his position to transmit his authoritative position to his son. The Chofetz Chayim concluded that in modern rabbinics the rabbi's position is likened to a wartime Kohen. He wages battle on behalf of tradition and is always at work trying to raise the level of observance among the people of his community. Hence he is more likened to a wartime Kohen than the Kohen Gadol or king. In this case the Chofetz Chayim decided that the position of modern day rabbinics was to not automatically transmit to the rabbi's heir and son. [This halacha is more controversial than designated here in this paragraph.]



Questions by RED


From the text


1. In the first five verses of this sidra, Moshe is given three tasks to perform. What are they? (27:20. 28:1. 28:3)


2. How many articles of clothing did the Kohen Gadol wear? And how many did the regular Kohen wear?


3. What color was the Robe of the Eifod? And what was it made out of? (28:31)


4. What did Moshe do to Aharon and sons in order to inaugurate them as Kohanim? (28:41)


5. What was written on the gold Head-plate (the Tzitz)? (28:37)


From Rashi


6. The Torah commanded Moshe to kindle the "lamp" - Tamid. How does Rashi define Tamid? (27:20)


7. What was written on the Urim V'Tumim? And where was it placed? (28:30)


8. What was the punishment for the Kohen Gadol if he entered the Holy Temple without one of his vestments? (28:35)


9. What kind of satisfaction did Hashem receive when He smelled the fragrance of a sacrifice? (29:18)


10. Where was the Incense Altar positioned in the Sanctuary? (30:6)


From the Rabbis


11. No olive trees were in the desert. Where did they get the olive oil for the Mishkan? (Ramban)


12. Why are the Kohen's pants not itemized along with the other vestments in 28:4? (It is mentioned separately in verse 42) (Rashbam)


13. During the end of the First Temple Period, the King of Judah feared that Eretz Yisrael would be conquered. He hid the Urim V'Tumim and the Holy Ark. Which king did this?


Haftara of Zachor - Sh'muel Alef


14. What part of God's instructions to Sha'ul via Sh'muel, did Sha'ul fail to do?


Relationships


a) Lemech - No'ach (2 answers)


b) Naama - Sheim


c) Chur - Miriam


d) Shlomo - Rechav'am


e) Rachav - Nun 



ANSWERS


1. a) The preparation of the oil. b) The designation of the Kohanim. c) The selection of wise, talented people who would make the clothing for the Kohanim and construct the Mishkan.


2. The Kohen Gadol wore 8 vestments; the ordinary Kohen wore 4.


3. T'cheilet wool.


4. He dressed them in their vestments and anointed them with oil.


5. Kodesh LaShem.


6. Consistently, as in every night. The other definition for Tamid is constantly. (The Ramban favors "constantly" because it could refer to the western lamp of the Menorah which had to be lit all the time.)


7. It was a piece of parchment with the Holy Name of Hashem written on it. (According to Ramban, there was more than one name on it.) It was placed within the Breastplate (the Choshen).


8. Death by the Hand of Heaven.


9. It was the satisfaction of seeing the fulfillment of His command.


10. Outside the Holy of Holies - directly opposite the Holy Ark that was inside the Holy of Holies.


11. They brought olive oil with them from Egypt. Moshe would inspect the oil and decide which could be used.


12. Because the pants are worn for modesty rather than as a visible garment of honor.


13. King Yoshiyahu.


14. He left king Agag alive and the livestock.


Relationships


a) There are two men named Lemech. One was No'ach's father and one was his father-in-law


b) Mother & Son


c) Son & Mother


d) Father & Son


e) Daughter-in-law & Father-in-law