Parshat Shemini Parah 23 Adar ll 5779 / March 30, 2019 Daf Yomi: Chulin 123, Nach Yomi: Tehillim 78 Weekly Dvar A project of the NATIONAL COUNCIL OF YOUNG ISRAEL

SPONSORED BY THE HENRY, BERTHA AND EDWARD ROTHMAN FOUNDATION ROCHESTER, NY,CLEVELAND, OHIO, CIRCLEVILLE, OHIO

Integrity and Humility Rabbi Aharon Ziegler Associate Member, Young Israel Council of Rabbis

On the eighth day of the Miluim (Inauguration of the Mishkan) Aharon HaKohen burned the meat of the Rosh Chodesh korban chatat, instead of eating it. When Moshe Rabbeinu found out he became upset and demanded an explanation. (The Gemara Zvachim (101b) details the entire incident and dialogue). Aharon explained that he burned the korban because he and his children were onanim (since earlier that day two of Aharon’s children, Nadav and Avihu, died) so they were forbidden to eat the korban. Moshe did not accept this explanation because HaShem had specifically commanded that the korban Mincha of that day be eaten- in spite of Aharon’s state of Anninut. Since Moshe had already conveyed HaShem’s commandment to Aharon to eat the Mincha, he criticized Aharon for treating the Rosh Chodesh chatat differently than the mincha.

Aharon replied, that he understood that HaShem’s commandment to eat the Mincha was a Horaat Shaa (a limited one-time leniency), which pertained only to the Kodshei Shaa, (the unique korbanot that were brought especially for the miluim) and not the Rosh Chodesh chatat which is a kodshei dorot (a standard and permanent korban brought regularly. Aharon explained that he deduced the difference from the fact that Moshe had taught him that even maaser sheni, whose laws are less stringent than those of korbanot may not be eaten by an onen.

Upon hearing Aharon’s argument, Moshe immediately agreed that Aharon was correct. The Gemara states that Moshe did not attempt to save face by simply saying, “I never heard of that”, but he said , “I did hear of this , but I forgot” This, by itself, shows the greatness of Moshe Rabbeinu. However, the Chatam Sofer, adds a further dimension. Moshe, like Aharon, was never taught that an onen may not eat from a standard korban ledorot. He was expected to infer it from maaser sheni, as Aharon did. His failure to properly use his deductive reasoning was more humiliating to him than simply forgetting a Halacha. Admitting to such a failure could potentially convince people that Moshe’s logic was faulty and lead them to consider his halachic decisions as unreliable. The Gemara is telling us that in spite of this concern, Moshe admitted his shortcomings and did not ascribe his error to forgetfulness. Moshe is not only our “Rabbeinu”, but our role model in leadership, in integrity and in humility.

Shabbat Shalom.

The Weekly Sidra Rabbi Moshe Greebel Z"L

Hyperbole, the art of extravagant exaggeration, is found in many different literary sources, and, is an effective communication tool that is used to catch the attention and to emphasize a contrast. In The Concord Hymn, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote:

.....Here once the embattled farmers stood, and fired the shot heard round the world.

While musket shots are not generally loud enough to be heard 'round the world,' the author stressed the historical significance of that opening salvo of the Revolutionary War. In Living To Tell The Tale, Gabriel Garcia Marquez wrote:

Well now, one winter it was so cold that all the geese flew backward, and all the fish moved south and even the snow turned blue…..

Now, among our Rabbanim of blessed memory, this art of hyperbole also plays an essential role in catching the attention and emphasizing a contrast. Let us begin with a Gemarah in Airuvin 2b, which speaks of a Mavoy, or, the entrance to a blind alley, which is nothing more than an area surrounded by houses, with an opening alley to the public. In order for the occupants of these houses to carry objects on Shabbos within the three sided enclosure, an above cross beam must span the open area. The Gemarah cites a Mishna which speaks of the height of that cross beam:

“It was in fact taught, ‘(A cross beam spanning the) entrance (to a blind alley) at a height of more than twenty cubits should be lowered. But, Rabbi Y’huda regards (the entrance) as a proper (gateway even if the beam is) as high as forty or fifty cubits. And, Bar Kapara taught that even a hundred…..’”

Quickly interrupting the Mishna, one may very well ask, “Why would anyone in his right mind set a cross beam at the ridiculous height of one hundred cubits?” The Mishna gives us the following answer:

“’….. (The high figure) of Bar Kapara might quite well (be regarded as) a hyperbole.’”

That is, in order to stress that there is no height limit to the cross beam of a Mavoy, Bar Kapara used hyperbole.

Regarding the Tapuach (ash heap- literally [half an apple]) on top of the Mizbai’ach, outer altar), the Gemarah in Chulin 90b has this to say:

“We have learned there (Tamid II, 2, 28b) that there was an ash-heap in the middle of the altar, and sometimes there were on it about three hundred Kor (68,100 liters of ashes). Said Rava, ‘It is an exaggeration.’ They gave (the lamb which was to be) the Daily Offering to drink from a cup of gold. Said Rava, ‘It is an exaggeration.’ Rav Ammi said, ‘The Torah, the prophets, and the Sages sometimes spoke in exaggerated terms. The Sages spoke in exaggerated terms as in the cases we have just quoted. The Torah spoke in exaggerated terms as in the verse “The cities are great and fortified up to heaven.” (D’varim 1:28) The prophets spoke in exaggerated terms as in the verse, “So that the earth ripped apart with the sound of them.”’” (M’lachim I 1:40)

What has all this business of hyperbole and exaggeration to do with this week’s Sidra? Let us begin with the dietary laws mentioned in Shmini:

“What ever goes upon the belly, and whatever goes upon all four, or whatever has a multitude of feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, those you shall not eat; for they are an abomination.” (Vayikra 11:42)

Concerning this ‘Whatever has a multitude of feet,’ Rashi learns the following:

“This is a centipede, an insect with feet from its head to its tail on each side.”

In the Gemarah of Chulin 67b, where the centipede is discussed, Rashi states:

“We refer to (the centipede) as ‘that of one hundred feet (centipede).’”

In truth, centipedes have under 20 to over 300 feet depending on the variety. Hence, for many centipedes, Rashi’s explanation of ‘that of one hundred feet’ is an exaggeration.

The text Pardes Yosef brings us an episode in the life of an un-named Admur (Chassidic master) of Lubavitch, concerning the Gemarah in B’choros 57b, which speaks of exaggeration:

“Once a certain cedar tree fell in our place and sixteen wagons alongside each other passed its width……”

That is, the width of sixteen wagons in a straight line was equal to the width of the fallen cedar, a clear case of hyperbole. We return to the Gemarah:

“….. Once the egg of a Bar Yokani (ostrich) fell, and its contents swamped sixteen cities and destroyed three hundred cedar trees…..”

Yet another situation of hyperbole.

In the Pardes Yosef, a priest asked the above Admur about the purpose of such exaggeration, “Why, posed the priest, did the Rabbis engage in hyperbole?”

The Admur responded in the following manner, “When the Tsar’s government decreed that Russian Jews were compelled to live within a designated area, many Jews from other cities and villages lost their entire ability to earn livelihoods from the previous areas they occupied.”

“When the Russian Jewish community wrote of this tragedy in their public chronicles,” continued the Admur, “they were unable to state that this loss of livelihood was the direct result of the anti-Semitic Russian government. Instead, they wrote, ‘Due to one drop of ink (the Tsar’s signature), countless cities were lost.’”

“That is,” the Admur concluded, “those who lived in the time of this specific evil decree of the Tsar, understood the hyperbole of the one drop of ink. However, those who lived many years after this incident, did not comprehend the hyperbole at all. The same is true with the words of our Rabbanim of blessed memory, who, because of governmental retaliation, were at times, not able to write accurate accounts of history in the Gemarah. Instead, they resorted to hyperbole, which was understood by the generation of that time. In subsequent generations however, this understanding was lost.”

While we may wonder why the Torah and our Rabbanim of blessed memory resorted to exaggeration, the answer to this question will regrettably remain unresolved, even if we search for it till China and Africa meet.

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

HaShem's Will Rabbi Zvi Walkenfeld Associate Member, Young Israel Council of Rabbis

The laws regarding the Parah Adumah (Red Heifer), in this week's special Torah reading, are perplexing and provide an easy target for those who would debate the Torah's truth. All involved in the Parah Adumah’s preparation and application become ritually impure, and those who are ritually impure (from contact with a dead person) become purified through it. There is no similar law in all of Torah. Indeed, the Torah refers to this law as a "chok" (a statute). It is in the class of Torah laws whose reasons are hidden from us.

Rashi teaches us that the first words of Parshat Parah, "Zot Chukat HaTorah” - this is the Statute of the Torah, are there for the challengers. He tells us that, "Since the evil inclination and the nations of the world challenge Israel (regarding the Parah Adumah) saying: “What is this command and what reason is there for it?” Therefore, HaShem, wrote by it ‘statute’ — “it is a decree from me; you have no right to question it." Rashi shows us similar direction in his commentary on the very first word in the Torah. Rashi wonders why the Torah starts with the story of creation. He reasons that the Torah is not a storybook but it is, however, the ultimate legal guide. It would seem the Torah should begin with the first mitzvah, the first command, that HaShem gives us. Rashi explains that, "HaShem told His nation about the power of His actions in order to give them the land of nations." The Torah is preparing us for the inevitable challenge to our claim to the Land of Israel (that was previously settled by seven Canaanite nations and that HaShem promised to Avraham Avinu and to us, his descendants). "In case the nations of the world say to Israel: ‘You are thieves! You conquered the lands of seven nations!’” We could now respond that HaShem created the world and gave the land to whomsoever He saw fit, "When He wanted to, He gave it to them (the seven nations), and when He wanted to, He took it from them and gave it to us." Essentially, it was G-d's will to give the land to the Jewish nation.

It would seem from Rashi that the response to any challenge is always the same. Whether we are accused of stealing the Land of Israel or if we are told the law of the Red Heifer is nonsensical, our response should be: "This is G-d's will."

At first glance, Rashi's approach appears to be somewhat shortsighted. Does Rashi really believe that telling the world that the Land of Israel is ours because HaShem gave it to us is going to work? I can imagine it now, the U.N. is in session. The Arab League finishes delivering a scathing attack and demands sanctions against Israel. The Israeli Prime Minister quietly takes the podium, looks around rather calmly and simply states, “Sorry, but this is G-d’s will.” And, the Secretary-General of the U.N. responds, "Well…if it is G-d's will, then we retract everything we said. No hard feelings, okay?"

Rashi was one of our greatest thinkers and most astute sages. He provided answers to our most perplexing problems and his teachings influence our lives today, nearly one thousand years later. Rashi was anything but shortsighted.

Compare my scenario with the exodus from Egypt. Moshe used a similar approach with Pharaoh and was rebuffed with "Who is HaShem that I should listen to his voice?" So, what are we missing? Let us examine a case history recorded in the Midrash (Midrash Raba; Parshat Chukat, 19:8). An idolater asked Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai. "A ritual that you perform looks like witchcraft. You bring a cow, burn it, grind it down and take its ashes. When one of you becomes defiled from a dead body, you sprinkle him with the ashes two or three times and tell him he is pure." Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai responded, "Did you ever have a Spirit of Madness possess you?" The idolater answers, no. "Did you ever see somebody possessed by a Spirit of Madness?" The idolater answers, yes. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai asks: “And, What did you do to him?” The idolater responds: "We would bring roots, make them smoke beneath him, sprinkle water and the Spirit of Madness would flee." Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai tells him, "Listen to what comes out of your mouth! It's the same with this spirit, the Spirit of Impurity...We sprinkle it with the ashes and it flees."

After the idolater left, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai's students asked: "Our teacher, this one (the idolater) you knocked down with a reed (you brushed him off with a false answer as there isn't any ‘Spirit of Impurity'). What would you say to us?"

He responded, "As you live! The dead do not make (someone or thing) ritually impure and the water (with which the ashes of the red heifer are mixed) does not purify, except that the Holy One, Blessed is He, said: I have made a statute, I decreed a decree. You have no right to violate my decree. As it is written: This is the statute of the Torah."

Amazing! Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, who preceded Rashi (and of whom Rashi must have been aware, having been the penultimate expert in Talmud and Midrash) does not follow Rashi's prescription when answering the idolater. It is only after he answered the challenge with an artificial reason that he returns to the Torah's response ÷ and then he is responding to his very own students.

It seems we have to distinguish between answers and answers. There are two answers we must have when our faith is challenged. The first is the answer to the challenger that stops his attack, the second is the answer we give ourselves. The second answer is the one we tell ourselves when the challenger leaves; it is the reason for our continued faith and it is this answer that Rashi is telling us.

Rashi's answer presupposes a foundation of faith. Rashi is talking to the person who believes in HaShem and His Torah. This is the person to whom the Torah explains the story of creation, of how HaShem created the world, populated it, destroyed the corrupt population and then repopulated the world through a single righteous family. The Torah teaches how HaShem governs the world, how He uprooted the corrupt and evil Sodom and rewarded Avraham Avinu, for his love of HaShem, with the Land of Israel. The Land of Israel was a gift to us from G-d — we did not steal it.

It is to this same person that the Torah addresses certain laws without explaining the whys and wherefores. The person who accepts HaShem's Divinity will also accept not being privy to all of HaShem's thoughts and considerations.

How, you might ask, does one attain this foundation of faith? Consider then that much of what we claim to know is really belief. For example, we believe there was a Spanish Armada. We didn't see it and we don't know anyone who ever did. No one living today has firsthand, eyewitness knowledge of the Spanish Armada, and there is no one alive that ever knew anybody who did have firsthand knowledge of it. But our belief in it is so strong that if anyone would come to us and say, “Spanish Armada? What nonsense! What a hoax! It never existed!” we would dismiss that person as completely ignorant with absolutely no knowledge of what he is saying. We believe that the Spanish Armada existed because it is recorded in the history books, because the details have been transmitted from generation to generation.

Our foundation of faith stems from our being freed from Egyptian slavery by HaShem and from our having witnessed HaShem's presence on Mount Sinai. There were more than one million witnesses to these events, and these witnesses transmitted their testimony to their children, who transmitted it to their children ─ an unbroken chain of testimony that we received and will transmit to our children. No other events in the world have such a solid chain of testimony as do those surrounding Jewish history. It is because HaShem redeemed us from Egypt that we are indebted to Him and follow His Torah.

When Rashi tells us we have no right to question the law of the Parah Adumah because it is HaShem's decree, Rashi is giving us the answer that we must tell ourselves. We have no right to question HaShem's decree because we are indebted to HaShem who redeemed us from Egypt, who appeared to us and gave us the Torah at Mount Sinai and who has thereby earned and gained our trust and faith. The answer Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai gave the idolater was to stop the idolater's challenge. However, he had a very different answer when he had to face his students - he had the truth. Shabbat Shalom.

In Need of Divine Chesed Rabbi David Sochet Associate Member, Young Israel Council of Rabbis

ויקחו בני אהרן נדב ואביהוא איש .This parsha contains the narrative of the death of Aaron the Kohen’s two sons מחתתו ויתנו בהן אש וישימו עליה קטרת ויקריבו לפני ה' אש זרה אשר לא צוה אתם, ותצא אש מלפני ה' ותאכל אותם The“ - וימתו לפני ה', ויאמר משה אל אהרן הוא אשר דבר ה' לאמר בקרבי אקדש ועל פני כל העם אכבד וידם אהרן sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, took a pan and placed fire within it and put incense upon the fire. They brought before Hashem a 'singular' fire which they had not been commanded to bring. Then a fire came out from Hashem and consumed them; they died before Hashem”. said to Aaron, 'This is what Hashem had referred to when He spoke, "I will be sanctified by those close to me, thus will I be honored by the entire people, and Aaron remained silent." [1]. [Meaning, he gave no response to Moses's declaration.]

Rashi in Parshas Mishpotim cites a Medrash [2] that the cause of the death of Nadav and Avihu at the hand of Hashem was not due to their delinquency in their sacred service to Hashem on the day of their death. No, the Medrash claims, the fate of Nadav and Avihu had been sealed on of the day of the giving of the Torah at Mount and they saw the G-d of Israel”. This refers to Nadav and Avihu“ - ויראו את אלקי ישראל Sinai. The pasuk [3] says who "feasted their eyes", so to speak, upon the glory of Hashem without trepidation unlike their uncle Moses who in terror hid his face lest he gaze upon the Lord (when Hashem revealed Himself to Moses in the thorn bush in the wilderness of Sinai).

The children of Aaron were doomed from the moment they regarded Hashem without the shock and awe that was expected from people of their stature. Hashem, however, as He frequently does, postponed execution of His judgement until a future date, a time that would be consistent with His grand plan for His Creation, in accordance with His infinitely sublime Knowledge, Wisdom and Justice.

Other Medrashic and Talmudic sources opine that it was the fact that Nadav and Avihu chose not to marry which led to their deaths. Rabbi Levi said [4], "They were conceited, many woman awaited them eagerly (to marry them) but how did they respond? 'Our uncle [Moses] is King, our other uncle [Nachshon ben Aminadav] is a head of a tribe, our father [Aaron] is High Priest, and we are his two assistants. What woman is worthy of us?' "

no human can“ - חא יראני האדם וחי Both these reasons are actually connected. The pasuk [5] explicitly says that see my face and live”. If so, how did these righteous individuals have the audacity to look at Hashem during the giving of the Torah? The answer to this is that it was the Holiday of Shavuos (the day the Torah was given) and three times during the“ - שלש פעמים בשנה יראה כל זכורך אל פני האדן ה' [there is another pasuk that says [6 year all your males shall appear before the Lord, Hashem”. This is during the festivals one of them being Shavuos.

The simple understanding of this commandment is to ascend to Yerushalayim for these three holidays. However, great and lofty people understood it to mean that they are required to gaze at Hashem’s face (figuratively) during these three holidays. We know that there is a Talmudic concept [7] that when a positive and negative commandment conflict simultaneously, the positive supersedes the negative. They, Nadav and Avihu, therefore felt it incumbent upon themselves to look at Hashem's Glory.

The Ramban [8] explains [9] why when a positive and negative commandment conflict simultaneously, the positive supersedes the negative. Positive commandments include activities such as blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashana, the study of Torah, the wearing of the tzitzis, etc. Negative commandments include the prohibition against eating non-kosher food, the prohibition against promiscuity, the prohibition against desecrating the Sabbath, etc. The positive commandments have their roots in the Divine Chesed - mercy of Hashem, while the negative commandments are from Gevurah - the manifestation of the acute judgment of Hashem. This, he continues, is the reason why when they conflict, the positive commandment which is symbolic of chesed, is the one we actually obey. The desired result is that Chesed - Divine Mercy should be manifest over Gevurah - the execution of Hashem's Divine Judgement. The Yismach Moshe [10] explains that the reason given by Chazal that Nadav and Avihu were not married and therefore deserving of punishment, is related by Rashi in the beginning of Bereishes [11] who asserts that at first Hashem considered creating the world via implementing His attribute (so to speak, since Hashem has no attributes per se) of austere judgment, but He knew that the world would not be able to constantly live up to Hashem's exacting stardards, nor be able to sustain the application of Hashem's perfect justice on a continual basis. He therefore gave precedence to the attribute of mercy and linked it to the attribute of strict judgment, and Hashem created the world with the merging of both attributes.

From Rashi we see that ideally Creation should have been such that strict judgment would always be applied, but in order for the Universe to continue to exist the attribute of mercy must also be able to prevail. However, Nadav and Avihu’s choosing to remain celibate was a manifestation of their lack of concern regarding the continuity of the world. They failed to grasp the urgency of procreation as a fulfillment of Hashem's Divine Plan. Because they deemed themselves worthy of sustaining Hashem ultimate jusice, consequently they were not worthy of being judged mercifully. Hashem exacted from them the full measure of Divine Judgement.

Applying this Rashi one might also suggest that this was the reason why Hashem first created Adam and only later did he create his wife Chava. The Rabbis [12] teach us that the ways of a ‘man’ are to conquer. Conquering and conquest are male attributes which stem from strength- gevurah. Women, on the other hand, are compassionate and merciful; they therefore symbolize chesed. At first only Adam was created because Hashem wanted to create the world with gevurah - strength/ strict judgment. He later created Adam’s counterpart, Chava, who was symbolic of mercy showing us that in order for the world to continue there must be both judgment together with mercy.

Let us now return to where Nadav and Avihu were originally accused of gazing upon Hashem's Glory and were therefore condemned. How can this be just? Did they not reason that the positive commandement - Mitzvahs Aseh - of 'seeing' Hashem on the festival superseded the negative commandment - the LoI Sa-Seh - of no living man may see Hashem? Why then were they condemned? This now becomes clear. As we have stated above that the reason why the positive commandments take precedence over the negative ones is in order for the attribute of Divine mercy to prevail. But this was not the case in regard to Nadav and Avihu. They exhibited no mercy (by not being involved in the continuation of the world), they deemed themselves capable of perfect behavior. Since they felt no need to generate the attribute of mercy to the world, the rule that positive commandment overrules negative ones could not apply to them.

Consequently they were forbidden to look upon Hasherm's Glory and consistent with their opinion of themselves they were subject to Hashem's harsh judgment.

No te: Rabbi Levi of the Medrash also states “They were conceited”. Why are these words necessary? The Gemarah [13] states that Kohanim are emissaries of Hashem and of the Nation. This means that the purpose of their priestly service is to bring shefah - abundance to the world. The reference made by Rabbi Levi to the conceit of Nadav and Avihu even without regard to their failure to enter into marriage, is key to understanding the eventual cause of their demise. Had Nadav and Avihu been properly occupied in their service to the people thus causing hashpooas tovos - a veritable cornucopia to the world, they too would have been judged with mercy regardless of their own miscalculation, because such service itself would have been considered as acting for the purpose of the continuation of the world, which would have further generated mercy on their own behalf.

However, as the Medrash stated, “They were conceited”, they were occupied in bringing an "aish zorah" - a singular sacrifice on their own behalf. Now they lost their final opportunity to provide for the continuation of the world. They thus failed to invoke the attribue of Divine Mercy and unfortunately provoked "gevurah" - Divine Judgement upon themselves. Good Shabbos.

[1] Vayikra / Leviticus 10:1-3 [2] Tanchuma Parshas Behaloscha 16 [3] Shemos 24:10 [4] Medrash Rabbah 20:10 [5] Shemos 33:20 [6] Shemos 23:17 [7] See Tractate Yevamos 3B [8] Rabbi Moshe ben Nahman also known as Nahmanides 1194- 1270. [9] Shemos 20:8 [10] Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum 1759- 1841 [11] Bereishes 1:1 [12] Tractate Kidushin 2B [13] Tractate Nedarim 36A

Meafar Kumi Rabbi Ronen Shaharabany Graduate, Young Israel Rabbinic Training Program כל .הארץ על אשר הבהמה מכל תאכלו אשר החיה זאת לאמר ישראל בני אל דברו .אלהם לאמר אהרן ואל משה אל 'ה וידבר" ,בפרשתנו כתוב ה"הקב מדוע ,כן אם .בתורה שכתוב פרט מכל לקח שיש ידוע .(ג-א ,יא ויקרא) "תאכלו אותה בבהמה גרה מעלת פרסות שסע ושוסעת פרסה מפרסת ?ללמדנו באה זו תכונה מה ?טהורה לבהמה כסימן "גרה מעלה" לש בסימן בחר

מסתפקת שהבהמה ,במועט הסתפקות על מורה "גרה מעלה" של שהתכונה (א"הגר בחומש הובא ,בכורות למסכת בחידושיו) מווילנא הגאון כתב זאת ובכל ,ועוד עוד להשיג רץ ואינו לו שיש במה קשמסתפ אדם יש .דק ענין היא ההסתפקות מידת .ש"ע ,ועוד עוד מחפשת ואינה שבקרבה במאכל להגשים באפשרותו אין שפשוט משום היא ,'וכו קנינים ועוד כסף עוד להשיג רץ שאינו שהסיבה יתכן .במועט מלהסתפק מאוד רחוק שהוא הדבר אפשרי אינו זה אדם .הרצון את מלקיים מתייאש שהוא רק ,תלרצו ממשיך שהוא נמצא .החלום את להגשים רץ שהיה ודאי ,באפשרותו היה אם .חלומותיו את במה שמח שהוא ,פירוש .(א ,ד אבות) "בחלקו השמח ,עשיר איזהו" עליו אומרת שהמשנה זה הוא האמיתי במועט המסתפק .במועט המסתפק בכלל .כלל דבר לעוד רצון שום בלי ,שלם ומרגיש לו שיש

,טז דברים) "שמח אך והיית" ,אומרת התורה ."בחלקו השמח" בבחינת ,אמיתית שמחה להשיג יתןנ ההסתפקות מידת ידי על שרק ,יבין המשכיל התורה זה שבפסוק ,לפרש לי נראה ?מעט רק לשמוח צריכים וכי ,"שמח אך" להיות אומרת התורה מדוע ,כן אם .למעט בא "אך" שהלשון ידוע .(טו "שמח" להיות הוא יכול אז ,במועט שמסתפק דהיינו ,"אך והיית" בבחינת הוא אדםכשה רק :השמחה להשגת האמיתית הדרך את אותנו מלמדת .('ישראל בינת' בספרו מגרודזיסק ישראל רבי לדברי בזה שכיוונתי וברוך)

והיית" בפסוק מרומזת גם זו לשאלה התשובה ?לנו שיש ממה יותר להשיג רצון ללא במועט להסתפק ,בחלקנו לשמוח נוכל כיצד ,עצמינו את נשאל אך שתהיה דהיינו ,"אך והיית" כאשר שרק ('הנצח ממעינות'ב הובא ניץ'מויז מאיר חיים 'ר פירש וכן ,'בינה דברי'ב) מביאלא ר"האדמו מפרש ."שמח אך .בשלמות "שמח" תהיה אז ,עניו

.(יא ,כו דברים) "אלהיך 'ה לך נתן אשר טובה בכל ושמחת" :הפסוק על (תבא כי פרשת) שלמה התפארת שכתב מה לפי הדברים את להסביר נראה לא .נוספת מסיבה לשמוח ניתן אך .רב ששוויו שקיבל החפץ מעצם לשמוח אפשר .סיבות משתי לשמוח יכול הוא ,יקר חפץ ,מתנה מקבל אדם כאשר אלא ,הספר משווי אינו שמחתו עיקר .עורשי לאין שמח הוא ,חומש לאדם נותן הדור גדול כאשר .המתנה נותן מחמת אלא ,שקיבל המתנה וערך משווי שווי מחמת רק לא ,"הטוב בכל ושמחת" ,התורה שאומרת זה .זה חשוב מאדם מתנה מלקבל יותר יקר דבר ואין ,הדור גדול שהוא הנותן מחמת באופן מתנה הוא לו שיש המ שכל מרגיש שהאדם וברגע .הנותן הוא יתברך 'שה ההרגשה ,"אלהיך 'ה לך נתן אשר" מחמת אלא ,שקיבלת הדברים .מזו גדולה שמחה אין ,המלכים מלכי ממלך ישיר

,הנותן הוא ,שבשמים אבינו ,ה"שהקב ההרגשה עם נחיה שאנו ברגע ,אלא .ה"כהקב "נותן"מ מתנה שמקבל מחמת רק השמחה שאין ,יבין המעמיק אותנו שאוהב מישהו .יודעים שאנו ממה יותר ,לנו טוב מה בדיוק שיודע מישהו .צרכינו לכל ודואג שמסדר מישהו שיש ,פנימי ורוגע שלווה להרגשת נגיע להסתפק ניתן ,הללו ההרגשות עם נחיה כאשר .יכול כל הוא הזה "נותן"ושה .קט לרגע לא אף מאיתנו דעתו מסיח ואינו ,ממש רגע בכל לנו ודואג .לנו להיות שיכול ביותר הטוב המצב הוא ומצבינו ,צרכינו קבדיו הוא לנו שיש מה :שלמות להרגשת נזכה .בחלקנו ולשמוח במועט

למידת להגיע התנאי .והענוה .ב ,במועט הסתפקות .א :השמחה להשגת מידות שני שצריכים מלמד "שמח אך והיית" שהפסוק שאמרנו וזה ,הזה החיל את לי עשו ידי ועוצם כוחי של דמיוןב חי גאוה הבעל .הענוה מידת ידי על גופא הוא ,הנותן הוא 'שה מההרגשה הנובעת ,ההסתפקות בודאי ,לו שיש מה כל את לעצמו שהמציא זה שהוא שמרגיש וכיון .שבשמים אביו מאת מתנה הוא לו שיש מה שכל להרגיש מסוגל אינו לעולם ולכן במה להסתפק יזכה בודאי ,הנותן הוא 'שה רגשההה עם וחי ,עולם לבורא עצמותו כל את שמבטל ,העניו כן שאין מה .ועוד עוד וירצה ,חסר שירגיש .בחלקו שמחתו מחמת ,לו שיש

מעלה" של מהסימן הנלמדת ,ההסתפקות מידת ידי על רק כי ,(353) "שמחה" בגימטריא עולה "גרה מעלה" :נפלא רמז לרמוז לי נראה ,דברינו לפי יבוא אדם ,בשר אכילת ידי שעל ,(.קט פסחים) "בבשר אלא שמחה אין" ל"זח שאמרו במה לרמוז לי נראה וכן .אמיתית שמחה להשיג ניתן ,"גרה !אמן ,יתברך 'בה אמיתית לשמחה יזכה וממילא ,ההסתפקות מידת את ללבו ויפנים ,"גרה מעלה" של בסימן להתבונן

החכם מאמר .דיברת אמת – כסף לי אין :תאמר .דיברת שקר– כסף לי חסר :תאמר .ועיקר כלל חסר אינו הכסף מאניפולי זושא רבי

NCYI Divrei Torah Bulletin - a Project of the Young Israel Council of Rabbis