Selected and Adapted by Rabbi Do\l Karon

Quote from the Rosh Yeshiva How do tefillin cause the Torah of God to be "in your mouth?" ... The phrase emphasizes to us the importance of internalizing Torah, of ingesting it, of allowing it to enter not only our heads but also our kishkes, our innards ..... The phrase "in their mouths" appears also in the context of the mitzva of writing a sefer Torah ..... There is a crucial difference between tefillin and a sefer Torah .... We first put on tefillin, accept the Torah as God's Word, unchanging and unchanged by us. Once we have attained this acceptance, we are ready to read from the sefer Torah, to study it intensely, aiming to clarify its concepts, to explain them, and to analyze them, making these divine concepts our own as well. Through this process, we can say that the Torah of God has come to our mouths and has been put in our mouths. -Harav Aharon Lichtenstein zt"I Parashat Bo "This Month Shall Be for You the Head of Months"

Based on a Sicha by Harav Baruch Gigi Based on: https://www.etzion.org.il/en/month-shall-be-you-head-months "The first commandment given to Israel" In our parasha, just before the Exodus from Egypt, we find the commandment of sanctifying the new moon (Sh . 12 :1-2). Rash i's very first comment on the Torah, at the beginning of Sefer Bereishit, cites the view of R. Yitzchak, who notes the importance of this mitzva. Although the Torah begins with the words, "In the beginning God created," R. Yitzchak draws our attention to the fact that the Torah's body of mitzvot actually starts in our parasha, with the command, "This month shall be for you ." While we encounter a number of mitzvot already in Sefer Bereishit, the sanctification of the New Moon is the first mitzva that Bnei Yisrael are given as a nation. Why does this mitzva come first?

Solar calendar and lunar calendar In order to understand the importance of this mitzva, let us consider 2 fundamental disagreements relating to it. a. The first dispute was raised by the Judean Desert sects, who wanted to adhere to a purely solar calendar, because it was fixed and unchanging. This emerges clearly from the Book of Jubilees, which endeavors to negate the commandment of sanctifying the New Moon as familiar to us and as observed in our time. b. A second dispute arose when Hillel II proposed to establish a fixed intercalated calendar that would determine in advance all future dates. Rabbenu Chananel, in his Likkutim al ha-Torah, proves that the calendar was actually known before the time of Hillel II, and in fact there was no need for sanctification of the New Moon on the basis of eye-witnesses in order to know when the month began and when festivals would occur. In the absence of a fixed intercalated calendar, there are 3 possibilities for determining the length of a month: a fixed solar calendar; a fixed lunar calendar; and announcing a new month on the basis of eye-witness reports, as described in Massekhet Rosh Ha-shana. At stake here is more than just the technical issue of the length of the month. The ramifications are far more profound. Clearly, the most convenient option is simply to follow the solar calendar: that way we can know in advance the date of the Seder night, we can plan for festivals long in advance, preparations can be made for Chol Ha-mo'ed outings, etc. Seemingly, a very good arrangement. Why, then, does the Torah require sanctification of dates based on the testimony of witnesses, despite the significant measure of uncertainty that this introduces regarding the approaching festivals? The Gemara ( 12b) notes that a leap year (i.e., an extra month of Adar) may be added even up to the 29th of (the first) Adar. Think of what this means: a household that is in the midst of feverish cleaning, trying to finish of its chametz, suddenly discovers that Pesach is not 2 weeks away, but rather in another 6 weeks! An equally dramatic scenario might occur on Rosh ha-Shana: the family returns home from the synagogue, all dressed in festive finery, following the special evening service. They recite Kiddush with the special holiday tune; they eat apples dipped in honey and exchange new year greetings. The next morning, they discover that "Today is the 30th of Elul; Rosh ha-Shana begins tonight!"

Silent hearts What, then, is the significance of sanctification of the New Moon based on testimony? It seems that are emphasizing the importance of being aware of our surroundings. The Gemara (Shabbat 147b) records what happened when R. Elazar ben Arakh read this verse (12:2) after having forgotten all he had learned: "R. Elazar ben Arakh's ... learning vanished. When he returned, he arose to read from the Torah . He came to the verse, 'This month is for you ...' (ha-chodesh ha-zeh lakhem) but said instead, 'Their heart became silent' [ha-charesh haya libbam - one letter in each word is altered, changing the meaning]. The rabbis prayed for him, and his learning returned to him." What is the significance of R. Elazar ben Arakh's mistake - "ha-charesh haya libbam"? Why did he utter these specific words instead of "ha-chodesh ha-zeh lakhem"? Because these phrases are the inverse of one another. The opposite of the commandment of sanctifying the New Moon is "silence" (or "sealing") of the heart; it is the participation in ordinary, repetitive ritual that has nothing new about it. It is the manifestation of a sealed heart that is deaf and insensitive to the events of the time.

Time is sanctity Often, during the course of their military service, religious soldiers in Israel discover that they are denied what is considered by many to be a fundamental right. While under "Shabbat mode" conditions a non-religious soldier might sleep until noon, a religious soldier will not permit himself to do so. All week he gets up early for his morning routine, but his fantasy of sleeping later on Shabbat is never realized. He must still get up early in order to recite Shema and pray at the proper times. Sometimes we internalize this understanding at various stages in life, in different contexts. A Jew cannot go to sleep at night without an awareness of his obligations and tasks for the following day. He must constantly be aware of himself and pay attention to what is happening and what needs to happen. In contrast to the state of having a fixed calendar and knowing long in advance when Pesach will fall, he must pay attention to the waxing and waning of the moon.

"You are not in its hands" The mid rash (Tanchuma Yashan, 8) graphically describes how time is given into man's hands - "It is given over to you; you are not given over to it" - and man is responsible for his use of time. God gives Chazal control over the calendar and the responsibility for it, and, as the midrash describes, R. Chiyya manages to drive the moon back because it was rising before the time he had intended to declare Rosh Chodesh. How? By virtue of the fact that "It is in his hands." Other midrashim also deal with the power of Am Yisrael. For example, in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer (7), we find a description of the joy expressed by the Divine Presence at the time of sanctification of the month, citing the verse: "Happy is the people that know the joyful note; they shall walk, 0 Lord, in the light of Your countenance" (Tehillim 89:16). The mid rash adds that at the initial sanctification of the moon with Moshe and Aharon, God told them: "From now onwards, the counting will be up to you." May we merit to resemble the moon in its renewal: "To the moon He said that it should renew itself as a crown of splendor for those ... who are destined to be renewed like it, and to glorify their Maker for the Name of His glorious kingdom." (Kiddush Levana) (This sicha was delivered on leil Shabbat parashat Bo 5774 [2014]. Summarized by Binyamin Fraenkel, Translated by Kaeren Fish)

2 Parashat Bo The Korban Pesach - Sacrifice or Feast? By Prof. Yonatan Grossman

Based on: https://www.etzion.org.il/en/korban-pesach-sacrifice-or-feast

One of the central features of this week's parasha is the discussion of the korban pesach, the paschal lamb slaughtered on the fourteenth of Nissan. This is the first detailed mitzva received by the Jewish people, and we shall see that it directly relates to the founding of the Nation of Israel. One fundamental question arises as we study this mitzva: is this a "korban" (sacrifice), or should it be viewed simply as a family meal? When a sacrifice is offered in the Beit Ha-mikdash, God "receives," as it were, two parts of the animal : A) The animal 's blood is sprinkled or placed on the altar. The underlying principle behind this requirement relates to the blood's status as the body's critical life-source. B) Certain limbs of the animal's body ("emurin") are burnt on the altar. Although only a small portion of the body is placed on the altar (as demonstrated by the symbolic nature of this offering), the limbs offered are the choicest parts of the animal's meat. The pesach offered by Bnei Yisrael in Egypt featured neither of these components. Thus, a cursory reading of the verses relating to the pesach gives no indication that it possesses any characteristics of a korban. Rather, the people are bidden to simply take a sheep, slaughter it and partake of the meat. As far as this mitzva is concerned, there is no altar, and thus it involves no "offering" to God at all! How can we call the pesach an offering when nothing is offered? This question relates ONLY to the pesach offered by the Jewish people in Egypt; the pesach which is mandated thereafter in the needs to be brought to the Beit Ha-mikdash (see Devarim 16). The animal's blood is sprinkled on the altar, thus affording "korban status" to the pesach. Regarding the pesach in Egypt, however, it seems quite difficult to categorize it as a "korban." One may be tempted to grant this claim, asserting that the mitzva is not a "sacrifice," but rather a festive, family gathering. Upon further analysis, however, this suggestion is untenable. Three characteristics of the pesach clearly link it with the realm of korbanot: 1) "Your lamb shall be without blemish, a yearling male" (12 :5) . The specific requirements of a one-year-old, unblemished sheep are characteristic of sacrifices. No one would enter a restaurant and ask specifically for meat from an unblemished animal. Certainly, then, this requirement demands that we categorize the pesach in Egypt as a sacrifice. 2) "You shall not leave any of it over until morning; if any of it is left until morning, you shall burn it" (12 :10). This prohibition of leaving meat over to the morning, as well as the requirement to burn the leftovers, are derived from the laws of sacrifices, and could not apply to a mitzva requiring simply a large feast lacking any sacrificial quality. 3) The expression "roasted with its head on its entrails and legs" (12 :9), appears in only one other place in the Chumash - in the laws relating to the "chatat" (sin-offering, Vayikra 4:11). Even if this represents the quickest way of preparing the pesach (see 12 :11), the linguistic parallel to the "chatat" still indicates a clear link to korbanot. How, then, are we to relate to this mitzva? On the one hand, it cannot possibly be viewed as an "offering," as nothing is offered. Yet the Torah presents its laws as parallel to those of the korbanot! In order to properly understand this dialectic of the pesach requirement, we must carefully examine a central component of this service - the laws relating to the sheep's blood. As noted, Bnei Yisrael erected no altars in Egypt and, as such, there was no requirement of sprinkling the blood as would be performed subsequently. The Torah does, however, mandate clear guidelines with regard to the blood of the korban Pesach: "They shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they are to eat it" (12:7) . Surprisingly, the Torah requires a "blood service," with the blood placed on the doorposts rather than on the altar. Can we regard the placement the pesach's blood on the doorframe as paralleling the sprinkling of a sacrifice's blood on the altar? At least one source in Chazal seems to point to such an association. The Gemara (Pesachim 96a) cites the view of Rav Yosef: "Rav Yosef taught: There were 3 altars there [in Egypt] - the lintel and the 2 doorposts." This statement clearly associates these blood services. Furthermore, the verse in the context of the pesach - "And DIP into THE BLOOD that is in the ba sin and apply it to the lintel

3 and to the two doorposts" (12 :22) - reminds us of the service conducted in the Tabernacle on the eighth day of its consecration: "He DIPPED his finger in THE BLOOD and put in on the horns of the altar" (Vayikra 9:9) . In light of this comparison, perhaps we should view the home in which the pesach was eaten as a substitute for the altar on which sacrifices were generally offered. Then we could legitimately classify the pesach as a korban, as the home has assumed the status of the one heretofore missing ingredient - the altar. Based on this identification of the houses in Egypt as "altars," several other details of the korban pesach become clear: 1) The Torah forbids removing the meat of the pesach from the house (see 12:46). If we view the house as the Egyptian pesach's counterpart to the altar, then, understandably, one may not remove the meat from the altar before completing its consumption. 2) Throughout the festival of Pesach, not only is it forbidden to eat "chametz" (leaven), but it is even forbidden to possess chametz in one's home (12 :15-9). This prohibition likely relates to the general proscription against placing "chametz" upon the altar (see Vayikra 2:11-2). Just as one may not offer any "chametz" upon the altar in the Beit Ha-mikdash, so does God forbid the presence of "chametz" in the home, the representative "altar" in Egypt. 3) The requirement of eating matza with the meat of the pesach (see 12:8) may also relate to this principle, as many korbanot were offered together with matzot (most notably the "korban toda," the thanksgiving sacrifice). 4) The strong emphasis on roasting as the method of preparing the pesach (see 12:8-9) can also be understood based on the identification of the Jewish homes in Egypt with the altar. Sacrifices in the Temple were consumed over a flame on the altar; thus, the Jews were to roast the pesach in their homes - the altars of Egypt. It seems to me that we can understand the significance of this transformation of the Jews' homes into altars in 2 ways: 1) Firstly, the altar, throughout Tanakh, signifies a haven securely protected from harm. A fugitive who fears unjustified capital punishment may grab hold of the horns of the altar in the Beit Ha-mikdash, thereby expressing his demand to be judged by divine law, rather than by the human justice system. The Torah therefore emphasizes that this privilege is withheld from the perpetrator of premeditated murder (see Shemot 21 :14). Even the altar cannot protect against retribution for premeditated murder. In less stringent cases, however, the altar does offer asylum for the criminal (contrast Melakhim 11:50-53 with 2:28-34). Herein may lie the significance of the Jews' homes being associated with the altar, as the home protected its inhabitants from the plague which ravaged the Egyptian nation: ". .. and He will not let the destroyer enter and smite your home" (12 :23). However, in order to more fully understand this protective quality of the altar and, by extension, the Jewish homes in Egypt, we need to more sharply develop the connection between the homes of Benei Yisrael and the altar: 2) The moment the Jewish home is defined as an altar, it is transformed into "divine territory," as it were. The house/altar is no longer mere human property; rather, it becomes an island belonging to the Almighty. In this sense, the destroying angel cannot possibly penetrate these walls - this home lies outside the angel's domain. The house has become an altar, and the residents simulate the altar's consumption of the sacrificial meat through their partaking of the korban pesach. This ceremony affords a unique status of sanctity to the home, elevating it beyond the concrete world in which we live. Moshe therefore stresses to his constituents their assured protection so long as they remain inside their homes (see 12:22-3). Only those located upon the altar of God, in His exclusive domain, will be spared the devastation of the plague. Those who leave this sublime territory of sanctity, who leave their homes, expose themselves to the perils of destruction. This approach helps explain the emphasis placed on the home throughout the Torah 's discussion of the korban pesach: "On the tenth of this month each of them should take a lamb to a family, a lamb to a HOUSEHOLD. But if the HOUSEHOLD is too small for a lamb, let him share one with a neighbor who dwells nearby, in proportion to the number of persons: you shall contribute for the lamb according to what each HOUSEHOLD will eat... of the HOUSES in which they are to eat it... And the blood on the HOUSES where you are staying shall be a sign for you" (12 :3-13). Given the paramount importance of the house (and, naturally, the family unit) within the process of the nation's designation as God's special people, it appears repeatedly in the context of the night of the Exodus. The Torah thus stresses that each household was to conduct the pesach service. Given the home's sacred status within the framework of the korban pesach, and the sacred status of its participants as God's agents in the consumption of the sacrificial meat, we should not be surprised to find that throughout Tanakh the pesach ritual plays a central role in national renewal and reinforcement of the covenant. Through the pesach ceremony, the nation dedicates itself to the Almighty, and it thus becomes a critical component within any process of renewing the people's covenant with God.

4 This idea is manifest in the 3 places in Tanach where the Pesach celebration assumes a prominent role: 1) Yehoshua, ch. 5: Bnei Yisrael observe Pesach immediately upon their arrival in the Land of Israel. The Pesach observance appears as a central component of this historic transition from desert nomads to occupants of an independent homeland. At this critical moment, when the nation assumes a new identity and faces a new national reality, the people underscore their primary identity, as a nation dedicated to the service of the Almighty. 2) Divrei Ha-yamim 11, ch. 30: The Judean king, Chizkiyahu, initiates a major Pesach celebration in Jerusalem. Chizkiyahu successfully renews the service in the Temple, purifying it from its previous contamination. He sees, latent in this process, a renewal of the ancient covenant between Bnei Yisrael and God, and as part of this national, religious renewal, ordering the entire nation to come to the Beit Ha-mikdash for the pesach service. In light of our understanding of the korban pesach as a process through which the nation becomes dedicated to the service of God, we understand why Chizkiyahu included this korban as an integral part of his program for religious renewal. 3) Divrei Hayamim 11, ch. 35: King Yoshiyahu also conducts a public Pesach celebration as part of his process of renewal. Upon the discovery of the Torah scroll in the Temple, the king assembles the people and strikes a new national covenant with the Almighty. Following his great-grandfather's lead, Yoshiyahu incorporates a public Pesach ritual into this process of renewing the nation's ancestral covenant with God: Once again, the paschal sacrifice receives added importance as a defining component of the covenant between God and His nation. Through the korban pesach, the nation declares its designation as God's people. They consume the meat of the offering in place of the altar, thereby transforming themselves into the abode of the Shekhina. The Structure and Meaning of the Daily Prayer Shiur #14: The Structure of the Shemoneh Esrei By Rav Ezra Bick Based on: https://www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-14-structure-shemoneh-esrei The Rambam, as is well known, rules that daily prayer is a Torah obligation: There is a positive commandment to pray every day, as is written, "You shall serve Hashem your God"... The number of prayers does not have a Torah basis, and the text of the prayers does not have a Torah basis, and the time for prayer does not have a Torah basis. It would appear from this that the Torah commands a person to pray, but leaves up to him what to say and when to say it. (The Rambam continues to explain that the Sages regulated and ordained these details.) Yet, in the next sentence, the Rambam does include some detailed guidance when formulating the Torah obligation: The obligation of this commandment is thus: that a person should petition and pray every day, and speak the praise of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and afterwards present his needs that he needs in request and supplication, and afterwards give praise and thanks to God for all the good that He poured out on him, each person according to his ability. (HilkhotTefilla 1:1-2) Even though Torah prayer has no fixed time or content, it seems that it does have a fixed sequential form - praise, petition, and thanks. We will try and understand that form in today's shiur. What is the source for the ruling of the Rambam? The gemara ( 34a) states that one is permitted to add personal requests in the Shemoneh Esrei, but only in the middle blessings. One may not add personal requests in the first 3 or the last 3 blessings: R. Yehuda said: One should never make personal requests in the first 3 or in the last 3, but only in the middle [blessings], for R. Chanina said: The first ones are comparable to a servant who arranges praise before his master; the middle ones are comparable to a servant who requests a portion from his master; the last ones are comparable to a servant who has received a portion from his master, and he takes leave [niftar - Rashi: "requests permission"] and departs. The first category basically makes sense, since the first 3 blessings of the Shemoneh Esrei do indeed consist of praise. The middle section similarly indeed consists wholly of requests that one makes of God. But the definition of the third section is less clear. The Rambam called it "praise and thanks," but only the second of these blessings is about thanksgiving. Both "Retzei" and "Sim Shalom" are phrased as requests! The term "praise,"which has already been used to define the first section, is accurate here, but not informative. What is the purpose of praise after the requests have been made? The language of the gemara is different, but, at least for us, remains unclear. What does "taking leave and departing" mean, and how is it expressed in the language of the last 3 blessings?

5 The language used by the gemara to describe the third section is the key, I think. In order to understand it, we must put our minds into a "medieval" state, for the concept is totally foreign to the modern mind, nurtured in a democratic, egalitarian ethos. "Taking leave" is something one does when departing from a superior, from whom one needs permission to depart. Having been "granted" an audience with the king, there is a ritual of departing; just as one needed a grant to enter into his presence, one needs a grant to depart from it. Of course, there is no one today who commands that sort of respect, as we are all basically equal. The social metaphor used by the gemara would be instantly understood by anyone in the ancient world, but is indeed foreign to ours. And I agree that it is foreign for good reason, since indeed we are all basically equal - with one exception. It is still appropriate, even morally mandated, in relation to God. Here we are participating in a totally and radically unequal relationship, where the metaphor repeated by this gemara - a servant before his master - is, if anything, insufficient to wholly express the inequality involved. This is the inner meaning, not only of the "taking leave and departing" of the final section, but of the previous two as well. Why give praise to God before making requests? It is not to"soften Him up,"God forbid! It is proper protocol. To make a request of one who has no obligation to you, but to whom you have infinite obligation and on whom you are totally dependent, is completely different than filling in a form to receive a benefit from some government office (which I suspect is how many of us in fact view prayer). Recognition of the asymmetrical relationship between the servant and the king is crucial to making the request; it is a different type of request when placed in that framework and that recognition. I imagine we look back with mixed amusement and derision at the florid and hyperbolic language used to address "his most august and serene majesty" in ancient times, but I think that it is important to realize that people were not simply crazy then. If you recognize that the members of the aristocracy are indeed better people, a class apart from the common man, then the language is appropriate. Being a democrat who knows that all men descend from a common father, I too find the language ridiculous when applied to flesh and blood no better than myself. But before God, King of kings, true majesty, absolutely apart and infinitely of a better class than myself - that is the way to speak and surely that is the way to make one's requests and demands. Based on this, the three final blessings of the Shemoneh Esrei - the ones we did not understand - are three aspects of"taking leave" of the king. The first, Retzei, is expressing our hope that our experience with God, in which we basically asked for things for ourselves, also was pleasing for God, that our prayers "find favor in His eyes:'The second, Modim, is explicitly an expression of thanks. The third, Shalom, is what one always does when he "takes leave;" it is a blessing and request for shalom, for continued good relations between God and us, even when we are no longer in His presence. It is, simply, a request to "go in peace:' The three-part structure, in general, defines anew the meaning of prayer. Prayer is service, avoda, as we showed in last week's shiur. Service is based on the radically asymmetrical relationship between a master and a servant, between truly unequal partners, unequal in their basic status and not merely in their powers. Making our requests is a very different experience within that context than it would be if it were merely a pragmatic way to get what we want. The context, then, is crucial, and hence we understand why, even though the language of the prayer is not set by the Torah, this context is - for it is the heart and meaning of daily prayer. As I pointed out in the past, there is a different type of prayer, tze'aka, pleading, which is the response to a crisis. It may very well be that tze'aka is free of this framework. When in pain, one can cry out - "And it shall be that when he cries out to Me, I shall hear, for I am merciful:' But daily prayer, obligatory prayer, is an expression of our obligations to the king, our master. It too includes petition and request - in fact, petition may well be the heart of daily prayer - but the context here is different. For that, it was important to understand the structure we examined. In fact, given the difficulty for modern man to understand that context, our lack of experience of any relationship similar to the servant-master relationship, it is even more important for us today to understand and pay attention to the three-part structure in order that our prayer should have the nature that the Sages thought it should. One last point, somewhat unconnected. There is one other detail of daily prayer that the Rambam considers to be Torah mandated. The Rambam concludes his definition ofTorah prayer, after reiterating that there is no fixed text, number or time, with the statement, "and all should pray in the direction of the Temple, wherever he might be:' Facing the Temple is a Torah requirement of even unstructured prayer, according to the Rambam. The Kesef Mishneh, searching for a source for this statement, derives it from the fact that prayer is described as avoda. Avoda, service, is properly speaking first and foremost the service in the Temple. Prayer is called, according to the Rambam, "service of the heart:' If the Kesef Mishneh is correct, then this rule is also based on placing prayer in a framework of service and not gratification. Praying, even as we make requests, is part of the service of the King, daily ministrations, sacrifices and ritual. It is not surprising that additional laws, which are of course rabbinic additions, strengthen this position - bowing, standing humbly, proper dress, etc. To subscribe, or for comments, questions or sponsorship opportunities, please write us at: [email protected]

6