1

בס''ד

Parashat ‘’Emor’’

מתוך ''ליקוטי שמואל'' Editor: Sam. Eisikovits

[email protected] 2

Chinuch Begins at Home Parshas Emor Yissocher Frand

Parshas Emor begins with the pasuk: “Hashem said to Moshe: ‘Say to the Kohanim, sons of Aharon, and you shall say to them: to a (dead) person he shall not become impure among his people.” [Vayikra 21:1]. There is a redundancy in this pasuk in terms of the verb “to speak” (Emor). If first says “Emor el haKohanim” (speak to the Kohanim) and then “v’Amarta aleihem” (and say to them). The repetitious “and say to them” could have simply been eliminated. The Gemara [Yevamos 114a], cited by Rashi here, derives the fact that the elders (gedolim) must warn the minors (ketanim) to observe these laws (of priests not becoming contaminated through contact with the dead) from that pasuk. This is one of three places where the Torah tells us that not only is an adult commanded to do a mitzvah or prohibited from transgressing an aveirah, but the parents of little Kohanim have a responsibility to make sure that they too should not become impure (tameh). The other two places where the Torah teaches such a lesson are not places where this derivation is based on a redundancy in Scripture. For instance, with the halacha of Sheratzim (forbidden reptiles and creeping creatures) where the pasuk [Vayikra 11:42] says “Lo Tochlum” the Gemara’s exegesis is “Lo Ta-achilum” (rather than “Do not eat”, the pasuk implies “Do not feed” as well), applying this law not only to Sheratzim, but to all kinds of forbidden foods. The third place where we have such a teaching is the pasuk “…Any soul from you shall not consume blood…” [Vayikra 17:12] where the Talmud again teaches “This implies that the adults must warn the children not to violate this prohibition.” Zalman Sorotzkin in his sefer, Oznaim La’Torah asks an interesting question: We see it is possible to teach this principle that “adults must warn their minor children” without resorting to redundancies. This was the case with forbidden foods and the consumption of blood. Why, by the prohibition of Tumas Kohanim, where the father needs to make sure that his young Kohen son also does not become ritually impure – is it necessary to articulate this detail with the redundant expression “Emor el haKohanim v’Amarta …”? 3

Rav Zalman Sorotzkin answers with a great truth of life. When raising children, as we all know, there are two main influences – the parents and “the street”. Parents try to inculcate and educate their children with the right values – the dos and the don’ts of how to behave. Society (“the street”), however, also has an undeniable influence on children. The main influence little children receive is from their parents. But as soon as the children become a little older and they start going to school, the parents are no longer their only influence. As soon as children mature a bit and become subject to peer influence and peer pressure, this too has a tremendous influence on them. In short, two things shape a child: (1) His home, his father and mother; and (2) His surroundings and environment. Rav Zalman Sorotzkin says that when the street and the environment and the peers are teaching the same lesson as the parents, the Chinuch (education) the children receive at home is reinforced in the street and in the external environment. In such a case, the chances of being successful with the Chinuch of children is greatly increased. The children will not be hearing “mixed messages.” The parents are not saying one thing while the street says another. On the other hand, if someone’s society, class, or set friends have different values then parents will be fighting a very difficult war. Parents say one thing and the street says another. The only way to combat this, says Rav Zalman Sorotzkin, is “Emor, v’Amarta” – redoubling our efforts, reinforcement of our words. A person’s Chinuch efforts vis a vis his children will not be reinforced by a society of peers who have different rules to play by. He points out that the father of a Kohen has a much more difficult task than the father of a Levi or the father of a Yisroel. The father of a Kohen tells his son “You need to keep the mitzvos“, “You need to keep Shabbos“, “You need to eat Kosher“. The street also says that. All the children keep Shabbos. All the children eat Kosher. The father tells his son “You cannot speak Lashon HaRah“. All the children’s parents tell them not to speak Lashon HaRah. However, it is different by “Tumas Kohanim“. If the father tells his son “You cannot play ball near the cemetery”, all the other children are playing ball near the cemetery. So, by the prohibition of Kohanim to come into contact with death-impurity, the “street” does not preach the same values as the Kohen. When someone has an eight-year-old child and everybody else is playing near the cemetery, the child will be under significant peer pressure to join his friends in their games. What is he going to do – tell his 8-year-old friends “I cannot go. I am a Kohen?” 4

There, says Rav Zalman Sorotzkin, the father needs to more forceful with his Chinuch. Therefore, the Torah here says “Emor…v’Amarta…” — to teach that the parents must emphasize an added level of education and explanation with their children. When the lesson is not going to be reinforced in the street, it is up to the parent to tell his son (Emor) and then to repeat it once again (v’Amarta). Rav Isaac Bernstein, z”l, takes this lesson of Rav Zalman Sorotzkin one step further. Rav makes an interesting observation in his sefer: The Torah says “If the daughter of a man who is a Kohen will be defiled through having illicit relations, she defiles her father – she will be consumed by the fire.” [Vayikra 21:9]. A Kohen’s daughter who commits adultery – be it as a married woman or even as an halachically “engaged” woman – her death penalty is more intense than others who commit adultery. Whereas others receive “Chenek” (strangulation) for this crime, she receives “Sereifah” (forced drinking of molten lead).The Torah gives the reason for this stringency for a Kohen’s daughter:”For she has profaned her father.”Not only is she committing a sexual crime, but she is also defaming her own father. Rav Yaakov quotes the Gemarah [Succah 56b] which states that the Priestly Family of Bilgah was punished.. When the Lechem Hapanim (Show Breads) were divided among the Kohanim, between the “Mimshmar” that was coming in and the “Mishmar” that was leaving, the Chachomim posed certain penalties and fines on the House of Bilgah. The Talmud explains that a Miriam from the house of Bilgah became an apostate. She married a Greek officer. When the Greeks entered the Bais HaMikdash, she went to the Mizbayach and began kicking it with her sandal. She yelled “You wolf, you wolf! How long will you consume the money of and not stand with them in their time of need. The Temple service is a sham. People bring sacrifices. It is a waste of their money. You don’t help them when they need it.” When the Sages heard about this incident, they fined the entire family of Bilgah and enacted the penalties against them, as mentioned in the Talmud. The Gemara asks why the rest of the family should be penalized for the sin of the daughter. Abaye explains – that this was in fact an appropriate punishment because that which a child says in the street, he or she must have heard at home from either his father or mother. Someone in the family must have been complaining about the fact that the Jews were bringing sacrifices and they were not getting proper “payback” from Heaven. They spend a fortune – what do they get out of it? The daughter 5

did not invent this expression on her own. It was something she picked up at home. So far, we have been quoting from the Talmud [Succah 56b]. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky makes an interesting observation: This halacha – “her father she defiles” and this incident involving the punishment of the family of Miriam daughter of Bilgah – is a phenonium that only exists by daughters! By sons, there is not such a concept of “his father he defiles”, no matter how mischievous or how off the track he may be! Similarly, a young girl who was illicit during her engagement (na’arah ha’meorassah) is “stoned by her father’s home.” Here again, this is only by a daughter. She shames her father and is punished by the entrance to his home. Why do we not find a similar phenomenon by sons? Rav Yaakov answers that this is because in Biblical times (and up until recent history), the only chinuch (education) that a girl received was in the home. There was no “street”. There was no external environment from which she might learn. Think about it –- girls did not go to school! “The honor of the daughter of the King is inward.” [Tehillim 45:14] They spent their time at home. Therefore, if the daughter of a Kohen has illicit relations or speaks in a coarse fashion – it came from something she picked up at home. She has defamed her father! The parents are the clear culprits in her less than perfect upbringing. She did not pick this up at school or while playing baseball on the street. Girls grew up in a hermetically sealed environment called “home.” In the Laws of Nesias Kapayim (the Priestly Blessing), it says “There are those who say that for a Kohen who has a daughter who converted or who engaged in illicit relations, there no longer exists on obligation (on Israelites) to honor him.” In other words, this daughter has “profaned her father” and he loses part of his stature as a Kohen. The Ramo cites this from the Mordechai. The Mordechai lived in the 1400s. In that era, if a girl came to convert or become sexually immoral, the likely source of the problem was from the home! And yet, my friends, the Mishna Berura comments: “The later authorities (Achronim) write that nowadays we do not invalidate a Kohen for the apostasy or immorality of his daughter.” Why not? It is because perhaps in Biblical times and perhaps even in the time of the Rishonim such as the Mordechai in the 1400s, the parents could invariably be blamed for the how their daughter turned out.Today, the situation has changed. There are currently too many outside influences – even for girls – to place all the blame on what goes on in her parents’ home. The influence of the “street” was once limited only to sons. Today it impacts daughters as well. 6

I have one last observation from the Satmar Rav on the previously cited Gemara. The Gemara related the incident involving Miriam, daughter of Bilga, who converted and married one of the Greek officers. She married a Gentile and then verbally attacked the Mizbayach: “Lukas, Lukas.” She called the Mizbayach a money-waster. For this, her father’s family was punished. The Satmar Rav asks:Is this what did her in? For calling the Mizbayach a money-waster we throw the book at her and her family? What about the fact that she had previously converted? What about the fact that she had previously married a Gentile? Something is wrong with this picture! The Satmar Rav made a very thought-provoking point: For her conversion and for her intermarriage, the parents cannot be entirely blamed. Sometimes a girl falls in love with a handsome and charming young man of another faith – it happens, Heaven Forbid. If she leaves Yiddishkeit? That is not necessarily the parents’ fault. But “Lukas, Lukas! How much longer are you going to needlessly consume the money of the Jews?” That is something she picked up at home. A young girl does not pick up such a mantra on her own. It came from her parents! We cannot necessarily blame the parents for the other things – as horrible and as tragic as they are. But the vulgar speech, the blasphemy, a child’s attitude about the Holy Mizbayach – that must have come from the home and for that, the entire family is fined.

One Who Curses The Name of G-d is Not An Atheist Parshas Emor Rabbi Yissocher Frand

The end of Parshas Emor contains the unusual story of the Blasphemer. This son of a Jewish mother and an Egyptian father cursed the Name of G- d. He was brought to Moshe, but Moshe did not initially know what the appropriate punishment was for such a sin. He was told by the Almighty that such a person is deserving of Stoning, the most severe of all forms of the death penalty. Moshe publicized this Divine ruling to the Children of Israel and the Blasphemer was in fact stoned. However, in relating this whole narrative, the Torah seems to contain a redundancy. The final pasuk of the Parsha reads: “Moshe spoke to the Children of Israel and they took the blasphemer to the outside of the camp, and they pelted him with stones; and the Children of Israel did as Hashem commanded Moses.” [Vayikra 24:23] This last phrase repeating 7

the fact that “the Children of Israel did as Hashem commanded Moses” seems entirely superfluous. Furthermore, Chazal are bothered by the introductory phrase to the story: “And the son of an Israelite woman went out” [Vayikra 24:10]. The Sages want to know “Where did he go out from?” There is a very enigmatic Medrash containing several opinions quoted by Rashi: Rabbi Berachya taught that he “came out” from the immediately preceding parsha in the Torah relating to the Lechem HaPanim [Show Bread]: He scoffed and said, “‘On the Sabbath day he shall arrange it’. It is the practice of the king to eat warm, fresh bread every day. Might a king eat cold, nine-day old, bread?” Every week, the Jewish people were instructed to take twelve loaves of bread and place them on the Shulchan [Table]. The bread would stay on the Shulchan for an entire week. After the week was over, they would bring in new bread. The Kohanim were then allowed to eat the bread from the previous week. The Blasphemer was ostensibly disturbed at the fact that the Kohanim were eating stale bread. This idea bothered him so much that he went out and cursed the Name of the Almighty. Does this make any sense at all? Would this be a person’s biggest complaint against – that the Lechem HaPanim sits on the Table a week before it is consumed? This is what caused him to Blaspheme? What is the meaning of this? I would like to share an explanation I saw from the Tolner Rebbe. As a preface, we must understand that Medrashim speak in a different language than the Shulchan Aruch. Medrash speaks in the language of codes and metaphors. Words allude to various things and cannot always be taken literally. In Medrashic literature, bread more than just flour, water, yeast, and salt. Bread is symbolic of the sustenance that a Jew receives from the Almighty. When the pasuk says “For not by bread alone will man live, rather by that which is uttered by the Mouth of G-d will man live” [Devarim 8:3], it is referring to bread as the symbolism for the sustenance received from Heaven by every single Jew. This can help us to understand a Gemara in Tractate Sanhedrin 102. Rav Ashi was sitting with his disciples and he told them “Tomorrow we are going to discuss our friend Menashe.” (Menashe was one of the most wicked Kings in the history of the Davidic Dynasty). That night, Menashe appeared to Rav Ashi in a dream and told him, “You call me ‘friend’? You consider me to be your equal and colleague? You are not in my league at all! You do not come to my ankles! I will prove it to you. I will ask you a halachic question and let’s see if you know the answer: From where is bread cut?” 8

Rav Ashi admitted that he did not know. Menashe told him the halacha that bread is cut from the place that is most well baked. Then Menashe blasted Rav Ashi: “How can you call yourself a Talmid Chochom? How dare you refer to me as ‘your colleague’? You don’t know simple Halachos!” Then Rav Ashi turned the tables and started asking questions to Menashe: “Menashe, if you are such a scholar and so expert even on the laws of breaking bread, then how could it be that you are an idolater? How can you reconcile that?” Menashe responded, “If you would have been there in my era when the evil inclination for idolatry was so great, you would have tripped over your coat running towards the idols to worship them. Do not ask me about Avodah Zarah, you cannot comprehend how strong the urges were to worship them!” The Maharal in Netzech Yisrael, asks on this Talmudic story – why of all the questions in Halacha that might be posed, did Menashe specifically ask about where was the proper place to cut bread? He explains that Menashe was trying to tell Rav Ashi “I believe in the Ribono shel Olam. I know that there is a G-d and He provides ‘Lechem’ — sustenance, livelihood – to everybody; but the yetzer harah [evil inclination] for Avodah Zarah [idolatry] was so great that I could not contain myself. Livelihood [parnassah] came to Klal Yisrael through the Lechem HaPanim. The conduit, the pipe, through which the Almighty funneled parnassah to Klal Yisrael when the Basi HaMikdash was standing, was the Lechem HaPanim. That is why (the Gemara tells us this in Tractates Shabbos and Menachos and the Rambam rules this way in practice) they did not merely remove the old loaves and put down new loaves. There needed to be bread on the Shulchan constantly. The Kohanim slid the old loaves off simultaneously while they were sliding the new loaves on. If for a moment, the Shulchan would remain without Lechem, the conduit of Parnassah to the Jewish people would be broken. This is what Lechem HaPanim is all about. The Blasphemer looked at the Lechem HaPanim and asked “What kind of business is this? The Almighty has stale bread?” The Blasphemer was not bothered by hot and cold bread. He was bothered by what he thought was “this baloney about the Almighty providing our sustenance”. He felt that this was not true. “There may be a G-d, but if you think that He is interested in ensuring that you receive your paycheck, you are crazy!” There may be a G-d, but He does not bother himself with such mundane tasks as providing paychecks to people. The symbolism was “Look the bread is hot one week, but by the time you get to it, it’s cold. There is no direct connection.” 9

The Gemara says that the Blasphemer was wrong. The bread was not removed from the Shulchan cold a week later, but rather “as it was placed on the table so was it removed.” One of the miracles of the Lechem HaPanim was that it remained warm and fresh the entire week. There was constant Providence and the hot bread symbolized the fact that the Almighty does in fact not let it become cold and He does not let the world run on its own. He is involved in people’s making a living. The Blasphemer cursed the Name of G-d. One who curses the Name of G-d is not an atheist. One who curses the Name of G-d is saying there is a G-d but I just do not believe that He is involved. With this we can understand the question of the apparent redundancy that we questioned at the beginning. The Jewish people stoned the Blasphemer as they were told. But the question is, did he have an effect? Did the Blasphemer perhaps cool down the people’s faith in Divine Providence (Hashgocha Pratis)? Did he perhaps cause people to doubt whether maybe HaShem is not involved in guaranteeing the livelihood of every single Jew? In order to answer this question, the Torah ‘repeats’ – “and the Children of Israel did as Hashem commanded Moses”. This teaches that the Blasphemer did not have an effect on them. They continued to believe that the Almighty provides their parnassah and they continued to believe in the lesson of the Lechem haPanim.

Be holy, and . . . Written by Rabbi Moshe Kormornick

They shall be holy to their God, and they shall not desecrate their God’s Name (21:6) This verse commands the Kohanim to be holy; it then commands the Kohanim not to desecrate Hashem’s name. Surely if the Kohanim are holy they would certainly not be desecrating Hashem’s name? If so, the second half of the verse is superfluous? To understand this, Rav Moshe Shternbuch, basing his words on the Rambam answers that the greater a person is, the greater care he must take to ensure that his behavior reflects his elevated status. For if a person who is perceived as great performs an act which is seen in a negative light by people — even if 1 0 it is not a sin at all — this constitutes a chillul Hashem, desecration of Hashem’s name.[1] One Kohen who understood this concept was the Chofetz Chaim. At one point in his life he became very ill. Concerned about the Chofetz Chaim’s intense degree of concentration when learning Torah, the doctors warned him that if he continued to learn Torah before he felt better, the consequences would endanger his life. In order to fulfill the requirement to look after one’s health[2] the Chofetz Chaim acquiesced to the doctor’s advice and did not learn until he recovered. However, at the same time, he was concerned that if people would see him not learning it would cause a great chillul Hashem, because on his great level, a lot more would have been expected of him. Therefore, whenever he was in public, the Chofetz Chaim asked that a Gemora be placed open before him so that it would appear to all as if the he was learning from it.[3] Whatever level we are on, we know the things that do not befit our status on a personal level and as the holy nation. Whether it is aggression behind the wheel, lack of impatience in a store, or something as simple as not saying thank you, we must know that our every action says a great deal to others about whom we are, and if our actions fall below our perceived level — even if no sin is committed — this could constitute a chillul Hashem, the exact opposite of what our purpose in is this world.

[1] The Rambam gives examples of this statement such as someone who takes from a store and intends to pay later, or someone who becomes angry. But in essence, the Rambam writes, everything is dependent on the status of the person, and therefore the greater the person the more he must act in a manner beyond reproach. (Yesodei HaTorah, 5:11). [2] Devarim 4:15. [3] Rav Moshe Shternbuch explains that Rav Yisroel Salanter justified the Chofetz Chaim’s actions by stating that they did not constitude ganeivas daas, a form of tricking other people.

Pesach the 2nd Shabbos?? 1 1

Written by Benjamin A Rose The Pasuk that commands us to count Sefiras HaOmer (VaYikra 23:15) says “U’Sfartem Lachem MiMochoros HaShabbos”; you should begin your count the day after Shabbos. Chazal teach us that this doesn’t mean after Shabbos but rather after the first day of Pesach. If so why does the Torah say MiMochoros HaShabbos? Rav Levi Yitzchok in the Kedushas Levi answers that the whole world was created because of Am Yisroel. Since there was no Am Yisroel before Yetzias Mitzrayim, up until then it was unclear why Hashem created the world. Just like Shabbos was the day Hashem completed the work of building the entire world in deed (Maaseh), so too Pesach was the day that Hashem finished the Machshava of the world. It was on that day that the creation became clear to the entire world. Our Shabbos is the lower Shabbos while Pesach is the upper Shabbos the Shabbos of Machshava and the spiritual completion of the Bria. This explains the Chazal (Shabbos 118b) that says that if Bnei Yisroel keeps two Shabbosos they will immediately be redeemed. One Shabbos refers to the physical Shabbos where we refrain from doing Melacha on the seventh day of the week. The second refers to the “spiritual” Shabbos, which is kept when we perform Hashem’s will, making His name clear and obvious to everyone in the world. your calling Written by d fine The introduction to the perek-long listing of the various festivals tells us that ‘these are the Mo’adim of HaShem which you shall call ‘holy callings…’’ (23:2). What does it mean to ‘call’ a festival? The Rashbam explains that this ‘calling’ means that we must fix the times of the Mo’ed. As the gemarra highlights, the beis din are supposed to fix the day of Yom Tov by declaring and fixing the month. Indeed, this naming/declaring of the date fixes the kedusha of the day in that it allows the kedusha to ‘come down’ on the appointed day – which is why we say mekadesh Yisrael ve’hazmanim in our 1 2

Yom Tov davening. Shabbos, in contrast, is fixed by HaShem – so we say mekadesh haShabbos in our davening; there’s no reference to Yisrael there, for the day of Shabbos is automatically holy, without it being fixed by us. The Sforno gives us another explanation of the ‘calling’ here. He explains that it refers to the gathering of the people together for holy matters. This is similar to the explanation of the Ramban here, that ‘calling’ means that the people are called to gather in the Mikdash on the festival (aliyah le’regel). So amongst the commentators we have seen a good mixture of bein adam le’makom and bein adam le’chaveiro explanations of the word ‘calling.’

Humor

Legal Aid submitted by: David Minkoff Moshe and Shlomo, two friends from their days back in law school where Moshe specialized in corporate law and Shlomo specialized in divorce law, decided to meet for coffee.

“So Shlomo,” asks Moshe. “How’s your law practice doing?”

“Well, could be better,” replied Shlomo. “I feel like I could turn things around with one big client.”

“And you Moshe,” asks Shlomo. “How’s your practice doing? Bringing in all of the big corporate clients?”

"Oy,” replies Moshe “Business is awful. In fact, we’re in such financial trouble, the stress has caused my wife to ask me for a divorce.”

“OK, so good news bad news,” says Shlomo.

“Well bad news about your divorce obviously, but good news that I now have a client!" 1 3

School Romance Rachel went off to New York to get her Master’s degree, and while she was there she met someone special. “Mom, Dad, sit down. I have something very important to tell you,” said Rachel, upon her return home from college after graduation. “I met a guy at school that I really like and we decided we are going to get married!”

“Mazal tov Rachel! I am so happy for you!” gushed her mother giving her a big hug, “I hope you two will be really happy together! I can’t wait to meet him!”

“Tell us more about him” said her Dad, “does he have any money?”

“Oh Dad! You men are all the same.”

“What do you mean?” asked her father.

“That was the first question he asked me about you too!” Packed Like Sardines Rabbi Epstein made an effort to meet with all of his congregants and one day he was having lunch at Izzy’s Restaurant with Chaim Yankel, a congregant who was a little…different.

Rabbi Epstein ordered a pastrami sandwich, and Chaim Yankel ordered sardines. Struggling for conversation topics, Rabbi Epstein said, "You know Chaim Yankel, those little sardines, are sometimes eaten by the larger fish."

Chaim Yankel gazed at the sardines in wonder, and then asked, "But, rabbi, how do the large fish get the cans open?" Who Says Men Don’t Remember Moishe and Miriam Epstein were shopping at the mall. Suddenly Miriam looked around and Moishe was gone. Miriam was quite upset because they 1 4 had a lot of shopping to do. She searched for a while before she decided to call Moishe on his cell phone to ask him where he was.

In a quiet voice he said, “Do you remember the jewelry store we went to about five years ago, when you fell in love with that diamond necklace that we couldn’t afford and I told you one day – one day, I would get it for you?”

Miriam choked up and started to cry. “Yes I remember that store,” she said trembling.

“Good,” replied Moishe, “Because I’m at the ice cream store next door.”