Parshat Shemini Shabbat Mevorchim Chodesh Iyar 27 Nissan 5777 /April 22, 2017 Daf Yomi: Bava Basra 90; Nach Yomi: I Tehillim 113 Weekly Dvar Torah A project of the NATIONAL COUNCIL OF YOUNG ISRAEL

SPONSORED BY THE HENRY, BERTHA AND EDWARD ROTHMAN FOUNDATION ROCHESTER, NY,CLEVELAND, OHIO, CIRCLEVILLE, OHIO The Death of Nadav and Avihu Rabbi Asher Bush Associate Member, Young Israel Council of Rabbis

The punishment Nadav and Avihu received is unique in the Torah, not just in the manner in which they died (the fire that consumed their souls, leaving their bodies intact), but also in the very fact that they died. While punishments of many individuals are recorded in the Torah, in each of those cases they had either violated a stated law of the Torah, as in the case of the m'kalel (blasphemer) [Vayikra 24] and the M'kosheish Eitzim (desecrater of Shabbat) [Bamidbar 15:32], or they received a specific warning to stop, as in the case of Korach or the meraglim (spies). But Nadav and Avihu were killed without any apparent warning. And, despite the fact that the Torah spells out that their deaths resulted from their having brought an inappropriate offering (Aish Zara), this does not seem to be the full story.

Rashi quotes a debate as to whether their primary sin was because they entered the sanctuary while intoxicated or that they had the chutzpah to rule on matters of halacha in the presence of Moshe, their teacher. Apparently, our Sages felt this story could not be understood just at face value. There was something missing. This story becomes even more difficult in light of the words that followed their death, as Moshe told Aharon − that this is what G-d had previously explained to him, that "B'krovai ekadeish" ("through those who are close to Me, I will be sanctified"). That implies Nadav and Avihu were righteous and not actually sinful, strengthening the question as to why they were not warned or even given the chance to do t'shuva (repentance) like their own father Aharon had done at the time of the Golden Calf.

It seems our Sages could not explain this story at face value because, throughout the Torah, G-d does not administer severe punishments for sins without a prior warning. The punishment of the sin of Nadav and Avihu might not have been caused by the gravity of the sin, but from the results and implications of their sin. It was not just a personal failure, but one that could well affect the future of the new mishkan (tabernacle) and of the Jewish people.

According to either of the above mentioned explanations for their punishment, the main point of the story remains unchanged. The Jewish people had just spent significant amounts of time, effort and wealth fulfilling G-d's command to build a sanctuary. It would soon become a regular feature in the lives of the people, and would be their primary manner and location to commune with G-d. The process of inaugurating and using the mishkan had just begun. The nation had started its formal service of G-d.

It was precisely at this moment that the greatest danger existed. There were just five Kohanim in the entire Jewish nation, and now two of them had begun to conduct themselves, in G-d's sanctuary, not very differently from the pagan priests of the other nations. Many pagan cults used drunkenness in their services which led to the frivolity, debauchery and licentiousness that attracted so many of their adherents. For this reason, G-d was compelled to deal harshly with Nadav and Avihu, to kill them in this unusual manner, to teach the Jewish people in the strongest terms that the mishkan was never intended to be a Jewish version of a pagan temple but, rather, a House of G-d.

A similar logic holds for the explanation that their great sin was that they had the chutzpa to rule on matters of halacha in the presence of Moshe and Aharon. From the end of Parshat Yitro through Sh'mini, the overwhelming majority of the laws of the Torah deal with the building of the mishkan and the laws of korbanot (sacrifices). The Torah speaks of these matters in great detail, seemingly being repetitive as it states that the commands were indeed followed as given. And after all this, Nadav and Avihu entered the mishkan ignoring all the many laws, simply following their own ideas and not the laws they were taught. This was not just a simple matter of having the brazen chutzpa to rule on a matter of halacha in the presence of their teacher. They were negating the entire Torah which devoted much attention to each detail of the laws regarding building and serving in the mishkan. At this moment the entire mishkan and all it stood for was in jeopardy of being lost. It was intended to be a House of G-d where if one followed the path laid out in the Torah and came with the proper dedication it would be the ideal way to get close to G-d. Nadav and Avihu ignored all of this, possibly creating an environment where each person would just do whatever they pleased, and not follow the halacha. Therefore, this most unusual act of Divine intercession was required to teach the people that the true path to G- d is to follow the Torah − not to follow one’s own impulses. Shabbat Shalom. The Weekly Sidra “The Relationship Between The Selling Of Yosef And The Egel HaZahav” Rabbi Moshe Greebel Associate Member, Young Israel Council of Rabbis

On this auspicious day, Rosh Chodesh Nisan of 2449, the eighth day of the Milu’im (ordination of Aharon and his sons becoming Kohanim), and the day of erecting the Mishkan (Tabernacle), Aharon and his sons were charged with presenting a calf for a Chatas (sin offering):

“And he said to Aharon, ‘Take a young calf for a Chatas, and a ram for a burnt offering, without blemish, and offer them before HaShem.’” (Vayikra 9:2)

However, the B’nai Yisroel were to bring a calf for an Olah (burnt offering):

“And to the B’nai Yisroel you shall speak, saying, ‘Take a kid of the goats for a Chatas; and a calf and a lamb, both of the first year, without blemish, for an Olah.’” (ibid. 6:3)

Why should there be this difference in the use of the calf? For our answer, we turn to the Kli Yakar (Rav Shlomo Ephraim Ben Aharon Luntschitz- 1550- 1619) of blessed memory, who instructs us with the following.

When Aharon constructed the Egel HaZahav (golden calf) with his own hands, he was only accountable for the production of the idol, not the intention involved. For, in the Midrash Sh’mos Rabbah 37-2 we see this:

“….. The (Sages) said, ‘When Moshe descended from Sinai and beheld Yisroel engaged in that unspeakable act, he looked at Aharon, who was beating it (the calf) with a hammer. The intention of Aharon was really to restrain the people until Moshe came down, but Moshe thought that Aharon was a partner in their crime and he was incensed against him…..’”

Hence, learns the Kli Yakar, since Aharon wanted to restrain and delay the B’nai Yisroel from the Egel, he was only answerable for the production of it, not the intention to create it. In truth, his intentions were L’Shaim Shamayim (for the sake of heaven). However, the B’nai Yisroel not only sinned with their physical production of the Egel by giving so generously to it, they also sinned with their intention of creating an actual idolatry. Now then, continues the Kli Yakar, the following is from the Midrash Tanchuma (Warsaw) Tzav chapter 13:

“….. You should be aware that the Korban Olah comes only (to pardon the sin of) impure thoughts…..”

This is precisely why Aharon and his sons were commanded to bring a calf (symbolizing the building of the golden one) as a Chatas, and not a calf as an Olah. For, the Olah forgives for impure thoughts, which Aharon certainly did not have when producing the Egel. However, when it came to the B’nai Yisroel who sinned with intent and action, they had to bring two Korbanos:

1) A kid of the goats for a Chatas for producing it.

2) A calf for an Olah for the intent.

So conclude the words of the Kli Yakar. From the Midrash Sifra Parshas Sh’mini M’chilta D’Miluyim #1 we have:

“….. Why did Yisroel see fit to bring more (goat, calf, & lamb) on this day than Aharon and his sons (calf and ram)? (The reason for this is that HaKadosh Baruch Hu) said to them, ‘It is in your hands in the beginning, and it is in your hands in the end…..’”

The Midrash continues:

“….. It is in your hands in the beginning as it states, ‘(And they took Yosef’s coat), and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood…..’” (B’raishis 37:31)

The Midrash continues:

“….. And it is in your hands in the end as it states, ‘(They have turned aside quickly from the way which I commanded them;) they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed to it, and said, “These are your gods, Yisroel, which have brought you out of the land of Egypt…..”’”

So then, there is a correlation between the selling of Yosef and the Egel HaZahav. But, let us conclude the Midrash:

“….. Let the goat (Chatas) come and atone for the (golden) calf.”

Now, why is there this connection between the selling of Yosef and the Egel? For an answer to this question we have the Hagahos Maharid (Rav Yitzchak Danzig 1785- 1853 of blessed memory), which supplies us with this very astute and perceptive analysis.

First off, begins the Hagahos Maharid, Yosef and his brothers understood that the future notorious king of Malchus Yisroel who went by the name of Yaravam Ben N’vat would be a descendent of Yosef in time to come. The Hagahos Maharid claims they knew this through N’vuah (prophecy). Of the many wicked things done by Yaravam Ben N’vat, we are told:

“And the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said to them (his subjects), ‘It is too much for you to go up to Y’rushalayim (for the three festivals); behold your gods, Yisroel, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.’” (M’lachim I 12:28)

And, the proof that Yosef and his brothers were aware of the destined Yaravam can be found in the Midrash Rabbah B’raishis 84-10, in which Yosef interpreted the dream of the brothers’ sheaves bowing to his sheave:

“…..Rabbi Levi said that (Yosef told his brothers), ‘You will set up dumb idols before the (golden) Calves of Yaravam are set up and say to them, “This is your god, Yisroel.’” (Sh’mos 32:4).

We can now very plainly comprehend the defense for the brothers’ selling of Yosef. After all, it was their obligation to prevent the arrival of the wicked Yaravam who sinned and caused the masses to do the same. Representing the B’nai Yisroel (of that time), the selling of Yosef could be justified as the attempt to obstruct the Avoda Zara (idolatry) in the time to come with Yaravam.

And, profoundly says the Hagahos Maharid, this justification was a valid one, that is, until the time when the B’nai Yisroel sinned with the Egel HaZahav. For, at that moment it was a confirmed fact that the B’nai Yisroel desired of their own volition to sin through Avoda Zara, which retroactively, destroyed the defense of the brothers of Yosef who desired to prevent Avoda Zara.

That, concludes the Hagahos Maharid, is the most infamous relationship between the selling of Yosef and the Egel HaZahav, and that is why on this auspicious day, the B’nai Yisroel brought an additional goat as a Chatas for the selling of Yosef, the defense of which was no more.

May we soon see the G’ulah Sh’laimah in its complete resplendence- speedily, and in our times. Good Shabbos.

In addition to being a M’chaneich, Rabbi Greebel is the part time Rav of Congregation Children of Israel of Youngstown, Ohio, and delivers a Gemarah Shiur via Skype. He can be contacted at [email protected] or at [email protected] Parshas Shemini: The Power of Restraint Мошиаха Шмини: Мощность пресечения Rabbi Yisroel Yitzchok Silberberg Mara D’asra Young Israel of Mapleton Park, Brooklyn NY

Только представьте себе на самый важный день Президент США, в день его инаугурации. Все готово красиво и просто, как президент начинает давать свою речь вдруг из ниоткуда болт молнии нисходит с неба и поражает два из четырех сыновей президента. Что бедствие !! Что трагедия !!! Мы могли только представить себе скорбь и печаль, которые потребляют президента.

Кроме того, мы можем спроектировать в нашем сознании вопросы и проблемы, президент будет иметь по отношению к Всевышнему, прося вслух, почему это случилось со мной, особенно на этой самой благоприятный день.

В нашем главе, произошло аналогичное мероприятие. Это было восемь день инаугурации Аарона, как первосвященника и инаугурации все регулярные коэнам. День был столь же захватывающим, и праздничный, как в день сотворения. Как сошел огонь и поглотил открытие пожертвовать огонь вдруг перенаправляется свое направление в сторону двух сыновей Аарона, Надава и Авиу. Мы можем только представить себе saddness Аарона потери двух своих великих сыновей на самый важный день жизни Аарона в. Надав и Авиу были, предполагают, чтобы быть следующие лидеры после Моше и Арон.

Можно было бы ожидать реакции Арон, чтобы быть одним из величайших скорби и печали. Unstoppable плакать и допрос Всевышнего. Тем не менее, Тора говорит нам в двух словах реакция Aharo Hatzadik: "Аарон был тихий". Аарон не источают любое эмоциональное горе, ни он озвучить критику в сторону Всевышнего. На самом деле в награду за его реакцией Аарон был награждение Всемогущий говорит Аарону без Моше.

Как Аарон собрать эмоциональные силы, чтобы реагировать молчанием? Как мы можем узнать из Аарону принять трагедии аналогичным образом?

В конце недельной главе Торы предписывает евреям диетическим законам Kashrus. Тора перечисляет, какие животные являются кошерными для потребления, а что запрещено, чтобы поесть. Мидраш рассказывает нам, что нет никакого реального значения между кошерной животных и не-кошерное животное просто Всевышний хотел, чтобы дать нам больше заповеди, чтобы держать, чтобы он дал нам законы питания. Еще один мидраш учит нас, что есть большая разница между кошерных и неправительственных кошерных продуктов. Номера кошерные продукты духовно яд для еврея, как некоторые продукты питания является ядовитым для нашего физического благополучия. Номера Кошерная еда создания духовного целого в наших душах.

Существует история о уважаемым профессором математики, который был глубоко религиозным евреем. Он отметил, в большой раввина, что, хотя он был в состоянии выяснить самые сложные уравнения, он не мог понять, самое основное страницу Талмуда. Раввин спросил его, если он вспоминает, когда-либо ел без кошерной пищи. Подумав некоторое время, он вспомнил, как в детстве 9, что однажды он увидел без еврей ест свинины. Профессор был любопытно попробовать еду, поскольку это пахло хорошо к нему. Затем он взял немного от мяса и не думал об этом. Раввин сказал ему, что, хотя он был только несовершеннолетним в момент, едой без кошерной пищи заставило его потерять свою способность схватывать духовного поиска Торы.

Аарон Hatzadik не зависит от влияния страшного события, которые произошли, как он не дал событие проникнуть в его душу. Это, безусловно, повлияло на его физическое тело, но он духовность не так звучит, что ничто не может повлиять на его веру и любовь Hahsem.

Давайте учиться у Аарона, чтобы не позволить тяготы повседневной жизни влияет на наши чистые души и любви, мы должны Всевышнего.

Хорошие Шаббат! Respect Others, Respect Yourself Rabbi Dov Shapiro Associate Member, Young Israel Council of Rabbis

Speaking respectfully is a trait that we all value and try to imbue in our children. As soon as our children begin to speak we teach them to say “please” and “thank you”, and to express themselves with courtesy, with derech eretz. We generally associate derech eretz with the impact our words have on others. In fact though, the value of refined speech is also intrinsic, often reflecting the character of the speaker.

In this weeks parsha, Parshas Shmini, the Torah describes which animals are kosher and which animals are not kosher. In order for an animal to be kosher it must have two specific physical characteristics – it must have split hooves, and it must chew its cud. The Torah then goes on to list several animals that possess one of these signs and lack the other. A camel chews its cud but lacks split hooves; a pig’s hooves are split, but it doesn’t chew its cud. In all such cases the Torah teaches us: an animal is not kosher unless it possesses both kosher traits. One feature without the other is not sufficient to qualify the animal as kosher.

In describing each of the “one kosher sign” animals the Torah (Vayikra 11:4) first mentions its “kosher sign”, and then points out that it lacks the other “sign” thus rendering the animal non-kosher. Never does the Torah mention the missing sign first. The Midrash highlights this pattern and explains that with this deliberate sequence the Torah is intending to teach us an important, relevant lesson. Although these animals are not kosher and must be identified as such, the Torah wanted to do so in the most gentle, respectful way possible. The Torah accomplished this by first mentioning the quality that is present, acknowledging as it were, that the animal does at least possess one “kosher sign”. Only then does the posuk conclude that nevertheless, since the animal lacks the second “kosher sign”, it may not be eaten.

In his sefer Ohr Hatzafun, the Alter of Slabodka elaborates on this Midrash. The Torah here is making reference not to people, but to animals. Animals have no recognition or appreciation of the manner in which they are described. They don’t care whether they are spoken about respectfully or demeaningly. Furthermore, there is no intention to disparage them, but simply to identify which animals are kosher and which are not. Nonetheless, the Torah makes sure to express its message in the nicest, kindest manner possible.

This Midrash contains an important lesson for us. Often in our daily communications and conversations we have a choice of different words we can use to convey the same message. We can be respectful or demeaning, gentle or curt, and sometimes, kind or cruel. The manner in which we choose to express ourselves not only determines how our words will be received and the impact they will have on the listener, but also reflects the caliber of our own personalities. There is a well known quote “A man never stands as tall as when he kneels to help a child”. True greatness, the Torah is teaching us, is measured by our ability to speak with respect and display courtesy to all, whether we feel they deserve that respect or not, and sometimes even when they won’t know the difference. Certainly when faced with the impulse to utter hurtful words, we would do well to bear in mind the high standard the Torah expects of us. Hashem has given us koach hadibur - the power of speech – and the responsibility to utilize and preserve the beauty of that glorious gift. Because when we speak with sensitivity and refinement we are not only honoring others, we are also honoring ourselves.

Rabbi Dov Shapiro is the Rav of Kehillas Bnei Aliyah in New Hempstead, and a certified mohel. He can be contacted at [email protected] or www.eastcoastmohel.com

Meafar Kumi Rabbi Ronen Shaharabany Graduate, NCYI Rabbinic Training Program

רבו לפני ה אש רה אשר לא וה אות ות א אש כתוב בפרשתנו: "ויקחו בני אהרן נדב ואביהוא איש מחתתו ויתנו בהן אש וישימו עליה קטרת ויק רשב לומי ינימשה ויב" ג( כתוב במדרש פליאה: "ויד אהרן" מה היה לו לומר -מלפני ה ות אכל אות וימתו לפני ה ויד אהרן" ויקרא י א ערתו"? ערלתו" עכ"ל ו ריך עיון מה הקשר בין מיתת בני אהרן לבין "ביו השמיני ימול בשר

כתב ה"יסוד ושורש העבודה" שער פרק ט על ברכת "נודה לך" בברכת המ ון( שמ וות ברית מילה היא אות שהבורא יתברך כרת עמנו ברית אות להיות לנו לאלקי ואנחנו נהיה לו לע קדוש ככתוב ב והר ח"א ג (: כאין ה ישראל שהקב"ה חפץ בה יותר מכל שאר העמי ונתן לה ברית ה עכ"ל

ברית מדוע חות ה המורה על הקשר ביננו לבין ה נקבע באותו מקו ? מבאר הרה"ק מלברטוב "וידבר משה" עניני ברית מילה אות ד ( שאבר ה ודתו ריך להיות במידת שעיקר הקשר שלנו ע ה יתברך וע עב הוא השורש לכל האהבות ובו מתגלה מידת האהבה בגופו של האד ה ללמדנו אהבת ה היא תכלית כל היהדות כולה וענין היראה היא רק כדי לשמור על האהבה ו ה שאמרו ח "ל "שקולה מ ות המילה ככל המ וות האהבה כל המ וות כול שבתורה" עכ"ד ויש להוסיף שמטע ה מ וות המילה היא המ ווה הראשונה שיהודי מקיי בחייו כי היא היסוד והתכלית ל

היא גופא על ידי מ וות המילה שהרי הערלה מסתירה שהדרך להגיע ל"אהבת ה " מבואר בספרי עי "שפת אמת" וירא תרס"ד תרס"ה ד"ה והנה( ה לגשמיות ולגלות וכי לפרוש מהאהב -בהסרת הערלה -ורק על ידי מ וות המילה ומכסה על אהבה ו וגורמת להתגברות אהבה ותאווה לגשמיות את פנימיות אהבתנו לה

בתו אה כלומר במעשה החיתוך ולאחר כריתת הערלה המ ווה הסתיימה או שעיקר המ ווה ישנה חקירה בגדר מ וות מילה: הא המ ווה היא רגע מחיי האד שהרי האד "נימול" כל ולפי ד ה מ וות המילה לא מסתיימת במעשה החיתוך אלא נמשכת ומתקיימת בכל "לומינ" שהאד יהיה מן שהוא חי

מ ווה נמשכת כה ד השני מדברי הגמרא מנחות מג(: בשעה שנכנס דוד המהר"ח "אור רוע" סימן לא( מביא ראיה מפורשת שמ וות מילה היא שרו נתיישבה דעתו עכ"ל מוכח מכאן שמ וות מילה לבית המרחץ וראה ע מו ערו אמר אוי לי שאעמוד ערו בלא מ ווה כיון שנ כר במילה שבב אינה מסתיימת במעשה החיתוך אלא עיקרה התו אה שהאד חתו באות ברית קודש כי א המ ווה הייתה החיתוך למה דוד שמח עליה יותר ה נמשכת המתקיימת בכל רגע ושמח דוד שבאותו מראשו ו רועו וכל גופו שקיי בה מ וות תפילין ו י ית ושאר מ וות אלא מוכח שמילה היא מ וו רגע ממש קיי מ וות מילה ע"ש

כתב ה"שפת אמת" עיין "עיטורי תורה" פרשת שמיני עמ 25( ה דיק אשר נפשו דבוקה בה עושה את המ וות בר ון גמור ובהתלהבות עד כלות אלא ע המ ווה שהוא מקיי שמח ירה לו י אה בדברו" שיר השירי ה ו( הנפש ממש ומרוב דבקותו כמעט נפשו יו את כמאמר הכתוב "נפשי דהיינו שהמ וה נותנת לו חיי ולכן נדב ואביהוא בהקריב אש רה אשר לא וה אות ה ורק מע מ ה חי ארקיו( " הב יחו" את החיות ככתוב לא הייתה כאן מ ווה שתחיה אות עכ"ד כי חשבו את למ ווה ועשו אותה במסירות נפש מתו לפני ה

ולכן אף על פי שלא היה יווי בההקרבה מושרשת ונמשכת ממ וות מילה אהבה ו גופא האש שנדב ואביהוא הקריבו נבעה מאהבת לה יתברך להחיות אות ו ה כוונת המדרש: "ויד אהרן" מה היה לו הייתה כביכול ריכה – שהיא מתקיימת בכל רגע –שיחיה אות בכל את מ וות המילה שהיה יכול לטעון שמ וות מילה הייתה ריכה להחיות את בניו! יהי ר ון שנ כה להגיע לבחינת לאמר "ביו השמיני ימול בשר ערלתו" דהיינו ופי תיבות הפסוק חי" תהלי מב ג( על ידי שמירת קדושת המילה הרמו ה בס ללא לאלקי ינפש האמ "

מאמר החכם שלשה דברי למדתי מתינוק: בכל היו אינו יושב בטל אפילו רגע בבואו לבקש משהו מאביו מיד גועה בבכי משמתמלא חפ ו מתמלא שמחה ואין בו מרה שחורה רבי זושא מאניפולי NCYI Divrei Torah Bulletin - a Project of the Young Israel Council of Rabbis