A Thought on Parshas Mishpatim

A Thought on Parshas Mishpatim

"...al kol dvar pesha al shor al chamor al seh al salma..."
"...any act of negligence over an ox, donkey, lamb or garment..." (22:8)

This verse pertains to the passage about theft, failure to safeguard other's possessions and a Jew's responsibility and (double) liability for certain negligent acts. It is quite explicit and straightforward, marking a fundamental of our Choshen Mishpat laws of integrity and trust.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel offers another view of the verse, built upon midrashic sources. What else might the Torah being teaching us? There is an allegorical theme, he writes.

He begins with the observation that the words al dvar (any act) equal the numerical value of Aharon. The verse is alluding to our beloved Kohen Gadol, Aharon the brother of Moshe. How does he or his history fit into the verse?

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel then offers that pesha (negligence) hints at the oversight of Aharon at whose hands the egel ha'zahav (golden calf) came about. This was a form of negligence for one as great as the pious Aharon HaKohen.

The next words, al shor (over an ox) is the reference to the egel itself. (I note that we also find that Dovid HaMelech calls the egel a shor (ox) in Tehillim 106:20). The words al chamor (over a donkey) refers to the Egyptian stragglers (eruv rav) who instigated the demand for an inanimate figurehead to replace Moshe. They are compared to donkeys, stubborn and unreliable creatures (see Yechezkel 23:20).

The words al seh are an allusion to those Jews who also strayed at that horrible moment. The prophet Yeshiyah called those troubled Jews seh pazura - scattered lambs (50:17).

Al salma (a garment) hints at the demand for an imposter leader. Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel
traces this to simla lecha katzin ti'he'yeh lanu (Yeshaya 3:6) - where people proclaim outrageously, "You have a garment! Be our leader!"

The next words in our verse say ad ha'elokim yavo dvar shnei'hem - both parties should go to the judge. The judge, he writes, is Moshe who is called a judge (Shmos 7:1). "Both parties" refers to HaShem and Aharon. The Torah hints to us that Aharon was called to task from Above to explain his role in bringing about the egel. Moshe intervened after "hearing both sides."

Our verse concludes asher yarshi'un ha'elokim yishalem shanyim l're'aihu - when justice is served the one at fault must pay double to his companion. Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel notes that HaShem ka'va'yachol is referred to as a "Companion" as it says zeh Dodi v'zeh Re'ie - He is my Beloved and my Companion (Shir HaShirim 5:16). The double payment of our verse alludes to the loss of Aharon's two sons when they brought forth unbidden offerings.

With this profound sequence of observations, Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel once again astounds us with his ingenuity and clarity in bringing to light yet another facet of the Torah's many lessons and messages. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas Yisro

A Thought on Parshas Yisro

"...va'yichad Yisro..."
"...and Yisro reacted..." (18:9)

Although the word chad, which is the root of our verse's term "va'yichad", can be linked to the word chedva which is synonymous with inner joy or happiness, our sages note that the word can also imply sharpness. It is for this reason that there is a familiar drasha cited by Rashi that Yisro's deeper reaction was one of stiffening or tightness. Upon hearing about the downfall of Egypt, Yisro tensed up. The moral lesson of this is that one must always be sensitive towards the ger or stranger. We do not bring up matters reminiscent of his past, and do not speak about the troubles of his ancestors. We learn from Yisro's reaction that "we do not ridicule non-Jews in front of a convert for ten generations!" That is the stiff ruling prescribed by Chazal.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel (a great rishon, contemporary of the MaHaRam of Rottenberg) analyzes this formula for us. What is the significance of saying that one must refrain from such upsetting references for ten generations?

He takes us back in history. Start with Noach. He had a son named Shem, whose son was Arpachshad, then Shelach, then Aiver, then Peleg, then Reu, then Srug, then Nachor, followed by Terach whose son was Avraham. That means that Avraham was born ten generations after Noach, as Chazal tell us in Pirkei Avos. (You can find the above names at the end of Parshas Lech Lecha.)

Now, back track to Noach. He had two other sons. One was named Cham. Cham had four sons (Bereishis 10:6). They were named Kush, Put, Canaan and Mitzrayim. They were two generations after Noach, which would mean that they were eight generations before Avraham. Avraham lived eight generations after Noach's grandson Mitzrayim.

Now, move on to Parshas Chaye Sara (25:2). Avraham took Ketura for a wife. She was born an Egyptian princess. She was a descendant, then, of Mitzrayim son of Cham son of Noach. She bore to Avraham sons named Zimran, Yakshan, Medan, Yishbak, Shuach and Midian. They would have lived nine generations after Noach's son Mitzrayim.

Looking further ahead (BaMidbar 10:29), we discover that Yisro was a son of Midian. And now we do the grand count: Yisro, through Midian, followed ten generations after Mitzrayim. When Yisro learned of the downfall of Egypt, the nation descended from and known as "Mitzrayim", he felt a personal connection dating back ten generations through his father. He was troubled by the news of Egypt's calamities. Even though his great son-in-law Moshe was sharing the miracles of the Jewish nation's rescue and survival, and this felt good to Yisro and made him happy (va'yichad Yisro), we learn from the somewhat atypical usage of that word that Yisro also had a deeper reaction. He felt the pain of his ancestral relative. He identified with the troubles of his distant relatives despite his joy over his adopted people's salvation.

Ten generations separated him from his benei Cham origins, whereas his affiliation with the Torah nation was fresh, new and vibrant. Nonetheless, something resonated within him despite his righteous and sincere commitment. And this is why we must be sensitive to the stranger. This is why a Jew thinks carefully about how his words might impact others. We refrain from hurtful statements even when there is but a trace of a chance that the listener will link our remarks to something within, or within his or her past.

Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought On Parshas BeShalach

A Thought On Parshas BeShalach

"...va'yavo Amalek..."
"...and then came Amalek..." (17:8)

The attack by Amalek came suddenly. Our young nation hardly expected
anyone to challenge them, now that they had successfully fled their
oppressive captors after years of bondage, and had been guided and
protected by Divine Presence. Where did Amalek come from? Why the
attack?

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel takes us through some midrashic thought in
another of his sequences of profound inductive logic.

Our patriarch Yakov Avinu had a brother. Esav had been the nemesis of
Yakov, and had vowed to annihilate him. We are told that when young
Yakov fled to hide out in the home of his mother's family, Esav
dispatched a son, Elipaz, to head him off at the pass and murder him.
It did not happen, however, and Chazal have told us how Elipaz was
content to rob his uncle Yakov as a symbolic fulfillment of "taking his
life." Why did he do that, contrary to the orders of his father?

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel suggests that it was hardly an act of affection
or mercy for his uncle Yakov. Rather, he induces from sources known to
him that Elipaz sought council with his mother Timna, one of Esav's
wives. She told him not to attempt an assault on Yakov, because he was
known to be a mighty warrior, as evidenced through his encounter with
the malach of Esav.

She told him to bide his time. Her intention was not to spare the life
of Yakov. Her intention was to wait for a more opportune time to attack.

Elipaz had a son. His son was named Amalek. Amalek volunteered, at grandfather
Esav's urging, to go find his great-uncle and finish him off. This would avenge the honor of
his great-grandfather Esav, and would one-up his own father Elipaz who
had not been able to complete his mission, owing to grandmother Timna's
interference.

Timna interferred again. She advised Amalek that the great-grandparent
shared by both Yakov and Esav had been Avraham. Avraham had been
forewarned that his descendants would face centuries of oppression in
Egypt. "If you kill Yakov, ", she advised, "that fate will transfer
over to our family. Through Esav, we will be the only remaining
descendants of Avraham, and our race will be enslaved in Egypt. Better
to spare Yakov and let his descendants suffer. Once their exile is
over, they will be fair game. Then you can attack them."

When the Jewish people marched from the Sea towards the Holy Land, they had paid
their dues of bondage and oppression. While the world trembled at the sight of this
new and courageous young nation, Amalek came forth at the urging of that maternal
tradition. The timing was calculated, and was not coincidental. The vendetta of Amalek which
continues from generation to generation over the centuries is the ancient score which Esav
seeks to settle with Yakov.

Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought On Parshas Bo

A Thought on Parshas Bo

"...seh l'bais avos..."
"...a Paschal lamb for every household..." (12:6)

In earlier times, the Pesach festival was celebrated by families and groups of people gathering together, offering a korban Pesach. The young lamb was roasted and shared by members of each group or household. It was important that the offering be eaten "l'bais avos" - among a previously designated group. One young lamb could suffice for a family or household but could clearly not feed a much larger group. Moreover, once brought forth as an offering, the lamb could only be eaten by "it's" group of shareholders. There was no way a latecomer or last-minute guest could partake of a korban Pesach. Every person needed to reserve his or her share in advance of the preparation. In turn, no one could devour a whole lamb on his own. The Pesach offering was not brought by individuals; it was brought by families, or family-like groups.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel raises a question that may be familiar to some of us, or at least to those who have attended a Pesach seder and who are familiar with the above halachic standard. Since the offering must be eaten only by predesignated shareholders, how is it that we declare at the beginning of our contemporary seder, reading from the Passover Hagada - kol di'chfin yesae va'yechol; kol di'tzrich yesae va'yifsach - anyone who is needy come forth and eat with us; anyone who needs to, come forth and join in our Pesach offering.

How can we invite someone to join onto our Pesach offering (if we had one and were living in the times when they were brought in the great Temple)? There were no guests or latecomers allowed, whether needy or wealthy, when it came to the serving of the meal! No one would have ever made such a meal-time invitation! It was forbidden to do so!

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel explains that the Hagada has another intention. The declaration which we make refers to the eating of the matzo which is the remnant which we still have of the ancient Biblical Pesach ritual. The reason that we make the public invitation is because we are permitted, and are encouraged, to bring others in to that aspect of the Pesach observance. No one should eat alone. No one is allowed to eat alone. What we intend is to declare that this is the closest we can come to observing the Pesach spirit. In earlier times too, we would have made overtures to include the needy and other guests, although that would take place far before the actual meal. The way which we should read the declaration, according to Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel, is

"in our times we have only the matzos and we invite all who are in need of
affiliation to join us, to feel that you belong. In earlier times, we also turned
to others, not only to the needy, to gather together and form a family-like group in
order to purchase and share in a korban Pesach."

We preserve that affiliating aspect of the Pesach spirit by inviting others. This was done at a different stage and for different reasons in ancient times. The spiritual theme continues, however, and remains an opening feature of the contemporary Pesach seder.

Wishing you a good Shabbos. D Fox