A thoght on Parshas Pimchas

"...va'hikrav'tem olah..." "...and you shall bring a complete offering..." (28:27) Rabbeinu Avigdor observes that the many festival sacrifices are referred to as "temimim" - pure and unblemished. This was a constant standard with all sacrificial offerings, for this was part of our ritual avoda, our serving HaShem. Only pure and unblemished things were fit for this service. Nonetheless, the Torah stresses repeatedly that these festival offerings must also be pure. They were brought at a time of holiness and ingathering of the nation to Jerusalem. Only the purest worship would be appropriate at those times, and in that place. Yet, observes Rabbeinu Avigdor, there seems to be one exception to the scriptural terms. In mentioning the sacrificial offerings brought on Shavuos, the word temimim is mysteriously absent. We know that those offerings also had to be pure, so why the omitted word? Rabbeinu Avigdor offers an interpretation. Shavuos commemorates the giving of the Torah at Har Sinai. When the Jewish nation stood at the foot of the mountain and received the Torah, they were fully purified and free of blemish as a people! Moreover, the Torah which they accepted, which they merged with spiritually, is also temima. Toras HaShem temima (Tehillim 19:8). We were also temimim, as it says (Tehillim 119:1) ashrei temimae derech - fortunate are those whose ways are pure. Since the Torah is pure and we were pure in receiving it, the verse regarding the service of Zman Matan Torah does not need to mention the "purity" requirement. It is understood. Who among us these days can be considered pure? Who can we look at and regard him or her as walking on the path of purity? Which one of us is spiritually unblemished? Which one of us strives for holiness and has a sanctity that is apparent to others? This past erev Shabbos in Jerusalem, I lost my rebbe. The great Chassidic master and posek, av beis din of Yerushalayim the Savranner Rebbe was taken from us. I have had the merit of being close to, and having lost, three great masters of Torah. My late Rosh Yeshiva, HaGaon Rav Simcha Wasserman zt'l, was a mentor to me. My late chavrusa, HaGaon Rav Dovid Brown, opened up paths of understanding Torah and HaShem's world. The Rebbe of Savran, HaGaon v'Tzadik Rav Yissacher Dov Hagar zechuso yagen aleinu, was an uncommon leader. Blessed with a wise understanding of people, a warmth and concern for others, a brilliant clarity in adjudicating complex halachic matters, he drew me close to him as I became his talmid on the Bais Din of Jerusalem and obtained shimush - halachic training as a dayan - from him over the course of nearly nine years. I was welcomed into his home, and sent many people to him for brachos, for aitzos, for prayers and for the experience of interacting with a chassidic rov, posek and mekubal all in one. I have never met anyone with his breadth and rapid clarity. He saw through issues. He saw through me. He will be my model for understanding the lesson which Rabbeinu Avigdor teaches us here: a person can become so pure and unblemished that it is not necessary to remind him that this is what HaShem expects of us. The world is a better place for having had the Savranner Rebbe among us. The world is blemished with his passing. Zecher tzadik v'kadosh li'vracha. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas Balak

"...HaShem Elokav imo u'truas Melech bo..." "...HaShem his Lord is with them and the glory of the King is in them..." (23:21) Many years ago when I studied under Rav Moshe Feinstein zt'l, a young man came to the yeshiva from a small town in New England, where his father was the rabbi. I befriended the student, in part because we were both from the handful of "out of towners" in the big city of New York. I remember him sharing with me that his father had the minhag to say Me'ain Sheva (the Seven-Faceted Bracha) even when davening without a minyan. The Shulchan Aruch (see O.Ch. 268:8) and even the siddurim declare that this blessing is only to be recited when a set minyan prays together. I had never heard of any other practice, nor had my learned peers. Generally a blessing is not recited when there is a halachic doubt about saying it, so I puzzled over this student's father's custom to recite the full blessing without having a minyan present. The only reason that Chazal instituted this blessing which follows the Shabbos evening prayer is because, in centuries past, people gathered to pray on the outskirts of their villages. Those who stayed late immersed in prayer would have to walk alone back to their homes. To help keep the congregants safe and not isolated, this add-on blessing was instituted so that everyone would delay long enough to allow those individuals to finish and walk back with the group. It stands to reason that when one davens alone at home and without a minyan that there would be no grounds to preserve the original practice. I stayed puzzled. Many years later, while preparing a Bar Mitzva drasha for one of my sons, I came across an opinion attributed to Rav Hai Gaon zt'l who may have held that any bracha, when said as a means of praise rather than out of a sense of obligation, might be recited in its full-form bracha format. That would mean that a person could recite "Baruch Ata HaShem" etc. just for the sake of giving praise, even when not doing anything which required one to make that bracha over something specific. The idea of giving praise to HaShem could even utilize the text of one of the obligatory prayers, and would not be regarded as reciting a bracha in vain. That view intrigued me, although I never made a connection to my friend's father. This week, Rabbeinu Avigdor offers a few interpretations of the phrase "the glory of the King is with them." He suggests that one meaning of those words is that when we make a bracha, we must incorporate mention of HaShem as King. This is the flow of our verse: when we declare that HaShem is with us (when we say a bracha) we also state that He is our King. This is why our brachas say Baruch Ata HaShem....Melech..." Rabbeinu Avigdor then states that a blessing which lacks the reference to "King" is not regarded as a bracha. He then explores some of the parameters of his ruling. He notes that the Seven-Faceted bracha begins with "Baruch Ata" but does not include the King reference. He cites a ruling of Rabbeinu Meshulam that since the blessing lacks the King reference, it is not governed by the laws of other brachos. He then brings an objection from Rabbeinu Tam who ruled that the blessing is problematic because it mentions HaShem as "HaKel HaKadosh" - the Holy Lord - which is equivalent to referring to HaShem as King. This would mean that the Seven-Faceted bracha would qualify as a true bracha and could not be recited if various conditions were not present! Rabbeinu Avigdor then writes that "my rebbe learned from his rebbe that Rabbeinu Tam reversed his ruling. This is why my rebbe re-instituted the custom to say the blessing, and so too have I been accustomed." It would turn out, according to this approach, that since the Seven-Faceted blessing lacks the King reference, it is not governed by the rules of brochos. It is to be classified as a statement of praise. Thus, some 40 years after hearing of the practice of my friend's father, I am able to see a halachic justification for his doing so. The prayer can be recited as a statement of praise rather than as a blessing. It can be said without the usual conditions in that it does not include the "HaShem is King" format. Rabbeinu Avigdor the Posek has enlightened me once again. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas Chukas

"...zos chukas ha'para..." "...these are the statutes of the red heifer..." (19:2) Last week's parsha closed with the laws of tithes and gift giving, and we begin this week's parsha with the laws of resolving impurity problems. Is there a connection here? Rabbeinu Avigdor turns to the "Dorshei Reshimos - the Seekers of Meaning. This title (similar to one found in the Talmud), although possibly an unofficial one, refers to the Chasidei Ashkenaz - a movement of pious European rabbis - who had a more mystical perspective on many areas of Torah. One of their approaches was uncovering meaning within the flow of verses and sections of the Torah. They considered the positioning of one Torah idea next to another as non-coincidental. They sought those latent meanings. According to Rabbeinu Avidgor, the Dorshei Reshimos derived from the connection above that when offering gifts, one must prioritize their recipients in order of deservedness, which also includes their level of Torah commitment. Hence, if two persons are equally needy and one is a Torah scholar, the other disinterested in Torah study, the former is given gifts before the latter. This is derived or hinted at by our two adjacent sections. Since the giving of tithes (such as to a Kohen) is followed by the section on purification (such as with the Para Aduma), the Torah is linking the importance of giving those sanctified tithes to those who will preserve their purity (a Kohen and all other people are forbidden to allow those tithes to become ritually impure). Thus, those gifts of food must be given to a learned person who will safeguard their purity. Rabbeinu Avigdor traces this thought to a verse in Divrei HaYamim II 31:4 where the verse also focuses on giving those tithes to those who uphold the words of Torah. He supports this further with a Talmudic adage (Bava Basra 10a) that helping a learned Jew precedes helping a Jew who is disengaged from Torah study. Rabbeinu Avigdor then ponders a familiar verse in Koheles (11:1). "Shlach lach'mecha al pnei ha'mayim ki b'rov yamim timtz'enu" - Cast your bread upon the water for after many days you shall find it. This poetic verse is beautiful and picturesque. However, Rabbeinu Avigdor is an exacting and practical posek as well as a creative darshan. He is puzzled by the literal meaning of the verse, however lovely its image. He asks, "I am confused! Who throws his bread into the water? If he does, will he really ever find it again?!" Now Rabbeinu Avigdor reveals his skill as a darshan. He declares that the words "bread on" equal, in numeric gematria, the word "tzedaka" (charitable gift). The words " cast your bread upon the water" are equal to "to the Torah scholar." He then offers a midrashic view that Torah is compared to water, and if you want to spread your wealth, share it with those who labor in the waters of Torah. This is what is hinted in the verse (Yeshaya 32:20) "how fortunate are you who sow your seeds wherever there is water." Concluding, Rabbeinu Avigdor the Posek then rules that this is our standard, to support those who learn Torah, using our charitable gifts. This is the further message, he says, in the link between giving those gifts and learning about the laws of purity: whoever supports Torah brings purity to himself. The Para helped bring purity and atonement, and so does Torah and tzedaka. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A thought on Parshas Korach

"...va'yakam Moshe va'yelech el Dasan v'Aviram..." "...Moshe got up and went to meet Dasan v'Aviram..." (16:25) The uprising in the desert had begun. Korach and his followers, along with the two nemesis instigators Dasan and Aviram, who had challenged Moshe's authority since their early days in Egypt, had drawn the proverbial line in the sand. Rather than confront or castigate them, Moshe approached them to attempt some resolution. Our sages have emphasized the strong value of avoiding machlokes - divisive fighting - and they use Korach's uprising as the prototype of a wicked and unjust macholokes. Moreover, the Torah instructs us (17:5) not to follow in the ways of Korach, which some consider a formal mitzvah in addition to being a moral standard to aim for. Rabbeinu Avigdor peers into the word machlokes. It is apparent to us that it has as its root the Hebrew work chalak, which means division. What other meaning might lurk within the word? He offers a midrashic acrostic. If we take the letters of the word (mem, ches, lamed, kuf, tof) we find that they represent, in roshei teivos sequence, maka, cherpa, lokin, kala, to'eva which mean "offense, shame, punitive, belittling, and abominable." The word itself thus hints at the deeper impact caused by divisiveness. Machlokes hurts, humiliates, bullies and repulses people. Rabbeinu Avigdor also offers a second perspective of the word's latent meaning. In backwards-acrostic, those same letters stand for, in roshei teivos sequence, tachlis, klala, l'olam cherpa me'via. This time, the acrostic actually forms a complete freestanding sentence, declaring "its ultimate curse is that it brings eternal shame." Thus, the word itself spells out the far reaching damage wrought by machlokes. I think that most of us know about the destruction which stems from interpersonal conflict. There are people, families, neighborhoods and communities that have been infected by contagious machlokes and who still reel from it decades later. When our sages chose to describe Korach and his followers as seeding machlokes, they were attentive to the deeper impact which lingered in our ranks long after the revolt was quelled. Machlokes hurts the individual as well as the group. Anyway you look at it, the word itself spells this out (when you peer through the kabbalistic lens of Rabbeinu Avigdor.) It is time to run from machlokes. Good Shabbos. D Fox