1. religion and spirituality
2. judaism

`xwie
yceg y`x
3 Kugel Shabbat ycegd
e"dl
1129
Third decade
Second thousand
Subject has no record
d"ryz'd
oqip g"x
March 20-21 '15
OU Israel Center • 22 Keren HaYesod • POB 37015 • Jerusalem • (02) 560-9100
NOTE WELL:
LAST CALL for the SHABBATON HAGADOL - see Back Page
• TT 1130 - Tzav-HaGadol - Pesach supplement in addition to regular TT
Deadlines for ads and submissions: Monday, March 23rd
• TT 1131 - Pesach & Sh'mini - larger issue, day earlier
Deadlines for ads and submissions: Thursday, March 26th
• TT 1132 - Tazri'a Metzora - regular issue
Deadlines for ads and submissions: Monday, April 13th
Also note that we were not left with enough room for a complete
schedule of classes and programs. When in doubt, please call us
yecwd el d`xdy...
zenc dynl `ed jexa
d`x dfk xn`e dpald
.ycwe
(We have a tradition) that G-d
showed Moshe the form of the
moon (at its first visibility) and
said: When you see it like this,
sanctify (the day as Rosh Chodesh).
e:a d"x - zeipynd yexit m"anx
JERUSALEM in/out times for VAYIKRa - R"Ch - HaChodesh
Candles 5:15PM • Havdala 6:28PM • Rabbeinu Tam 7:03PM
PixSorry again; no explanations
ParshaP
With the molad of Nisan Friday noonish,
first op for KL (3-day) is Monday evening, March 23rd and Motza"Sh
HaGadol, March 28th for 7-day people. Last op is all-night Leil
HaSeder. Remember that we usually don't say KL on Shabbat or Yom
Tov (this time it's both), but when it is the last op, we do.
On another note: omitting Yaaleh V'Yavo from the Amida requires
saying it again. Omitting it from Benching does not. Leaving out
R'TZEI for the Friday night meal or the main daytime meal DOES
require repeating. But not Seuda Sh'lishit or other meal.
Candles
VAYIKRa - R"Ch - HaChodesh
Havdala Tzav-HaGadol
5:15
Yerushalayim / Maale Adumim 6:28 6:20 7:32
5:32 Aza area (Netivot, S'deirot, et al) 6:30 6:37 7:35
5:30
6:28 6:35 7:33
Gush Etzion
5:31
Raanana / Tel Mond / Herzliya 6:29 6:36 7:34
5:31
6:28 6:35 7:33
Beit Shemesh / RBS
5:31
6:29 6:36 7:34
Netanya
5:31
6:28 6:35 7:33
Modi'in / Chashmona'im
5:31
6:29 6:36 7:34
Rehovot
5:29
6:29 6:34 7:34
Be'er Sheva / Otniel
5:15
6:29 6:20 7:34
Petach Tikva
5:30
6:28 6:35 7:33
Ginot Shomron
5:30
6:27 6:34 7:32
Gush Shiloh
5:21
6:29 6:26 7:34
Haifa / Zichron
5:30
6:28 6:35 7:33
Chevron / Kiryat Arba
5:30
6:28 6:35 7:33
Giv'at Ze'ev
5:32
6:30 6:37 7:35
Ashkelon
5:19
6:27 6:24 7:32
Tzfat
5:31
6:29 6:36 7:34
Yad Binyamin
R' Tam (Jerusalem) - 7:03pm • next week: 8:08pm
Ranges are 11 days, Wed-Shabbat
27 Adar - 8 Nisan • Mar 18-28
ADD 1 HR from Fri March 27
Earliest Talit & T'filin
Sunrise
Sof Z'man K' Sh'ma
4:56-4:43am
5:46-5:33½am
8:46-8:38am
(Magen Avraham: 8:10-8:02)
Sof Z'man T'fila
9:47-9:40am
(Magen Avraham: 9:17-9:10)
Chatzot
11:47¼-11:44¼am
(halachic noon)
Mincha Gedola
12:18-12:16pm
(earliest Mincha)
Plag Mincha
Sunset
4:33½-4:38¼pm
5:53½-6:00½pm
(based on sea level:
5:49-5:55¾pm
OU Israel and Torah Tidbits do not endorse the
political or halachic positions of its editor, columnists,
or advertisers, nor guarantee the quality of advertised
services or products. Nor do we endorse the kashrut
of hotels, restaurants, caterers or food products that
are advertised in TT (except, of course, those under
OU-Israel hashgacha). Any "promises" made in ads are
the sole responsibility of the advertisers and not that
of OU Israel, the Israel Center or Torah Tidbits
AND ONCE PREVIOUSLY, ON THE SEVENTH DAY
Simchat Torah and rarely, what else?
Common number to origins of salting HaMotzi and Benching
If SHIN-BET and if BET-SHIN
One of them sh/b salt & pepper lokshen kugel, not sweet

To give up is often to indicate one's having relied upon himself and not upon
G-d for success.
 Students have so many chords to respond with. The most precious ones,
however, are rarely struck, so that we remain almost unaware of their existence.
 We must train ourselves to seize, subdue, and tame the thoughts that run wild
through our minds.
from "A Candle by Day" by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein z"l www.createspace.com/4492905
Nationhood is a Partnership
Parshat HaChodesh and the upcoming Pesach both take us back to the
beginning of our Nationhood.
Even though we did not hear the
following words until we were at
Sinai, they still set the tone for our
Nationhood - unique and different
from all other nations.
G-d said to us: V'ATEM TIHYU LI...
And you shall be for Me a kingdom
of kohanim and a holy nation. This
is immediately preceded by: IF you
will listen to My voice and keep My
covenant, then you will be Chosen
to Me...
In B'chukotai, G-d says it this way: I
will walk among you and will be for
you G-d; and you will be My Nation.
Yirmiyahu expresses the same idea
with almost the same words.
Our Nationhood is not declaring our
independence from some other
country, but it is entering into a
partnership with HaKadosh Baruch
Hu.
While we were still in Egypt, G-d
presented the first mitzva to the
soon-to-be nation - that of making
and having our own calendar. The
pasuk that commands it uses the
words LACHEM - for you, twice.
The calendar is ours and it is the
first manifestation of the partnership we have with G-d.
He sanctified time by declaring the
Shabbat is holy. We are commanded
to keep Shabbat in a certain way,
but we did not create Shabbat. He
did. But when it came to the
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 4
calendar, to the months, to the
holidays within the months, WE, the
Jewish People are actively involved
in the sanctification of time.
G-d so much wants (so to speak) our
active participation in the process of
Kiddush HaChodesh, that He
allowed His Shabbat to step aside
(under specific circumstances) so
that we would be able to testify to
the first visibility of the lunar crescent.
Whereas we were bystanders and
observers to the first 9 makot that
the Egyptians suffered, we were
participants (of sorts) in the final
plague and in the Exodus. We had
various tasks related to the first
Korban Pesach and to collecting the
wealth that Avraham Avinu was
promised for his descendants (us).
True, our first encounter with the
pursuing Egyptian
army
was
handled by G-d alone. But from the
first battle against Amalek a couple
of weeks out of Egypt, we were
already active partners, and have
continued to be so ever since.
Our Nationhood came with a "Constitution" and laws. Our founding
fathers did not meet to draw one up.
We are different. As the old commercial went: We answer to a higher
authority.
The calendar was only the beginning. But beginnings are important
and symbolic. We live in a country
that officially recognizes the Jewish
Calendar. Let's use it with pride and
deep appreciation to HaShem.
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
VAYIKRa
24th of 54 sedras; 1st of 10 in Vayikra
Written on 215 lines in a Torah, rank: 19
21 Parshiot; 13 open, 8 closed
111 p'sukim - rank: 26 (2nd in Vayikra)
Same number of p'sukim as Eikev
1673 words - rank: 20 (1st in Vayikra)
6222 letters - rank: 20 (1st in Vayikra)
The sedra is of average length, but its
p'sukim are longer than average for the
Torah.
16 mitzvot; 11 positive, 5 prohibitions
The book of Vayikra has the largest
number of mitzvot among the five
Chumashim - 247, 40% of Taryag
[P> X:Y (Z)] and [S> X:Y (Z)] indicate start
of a parsha p'tucha or s'tuma. X:Y is
Perek:Pasuk of the beginning of the
parsha; (Z) is the number of p'sukim in the
parsha.
Numbers in [square brackets] are the
Mitzva-count of Sefer HaChinuch AND
Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvot. A=ASEI
(positive mitzva); L=LAV (prohibition). X:Y
is the perek and pasuk from which the
mitzva comes.
Kohen - First Aliya
13 p'sukim - 1:1-13
[P> 1:1 (9)] G-d calls to Moshe
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 5
from OHEL MOED and sets down
the general rules of korbanot
(sacrifices).
Note that it does not say
"And G-d called to Moshe", but
rather "And He called..." Vayikra is
not a fresh beginning; it is the
continuation of P'kudei. At the end
of P'kudei, Moshe was temporarily
out of touch (so to speak) with G-d
(a cloud prevented Moshe from
approaching Ohel Moed). Here G-d
reestablishes contact with Moshe
by calling to him and then speaking
to him.
Notice the unique wording in this
first pasuk of Vayikra; the method
by which G-d communicated with
Moshe was different from the
prophets and all others.
First among the korbanot that the
Torah presents is the OLAH (of a
bull), the offering that is completely consumed on the Mizbei'ach. (Almost, but not quite - the
skins of most OLOT were a gift to
the kohanim and were not placed
on the Mizbei'ach.) A common
procedure in the bringing of many
korbanot is leaning upon the
animal (S'micha) before it is
slaughtered. Many details of korbanot have psychological effects
upon the one who brings the
korban. The physical contact with
the animal gives the korbanbringer a sober realization of the
tenuousness of life (his own, not
just the animal's).
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
After slaughter, the blood of
Sh'chita is collected in a sacred
vessel and is then brought to the
Mizbei'ach to be poured on it. This
procedure is essential for (all)
korbanot. The OLAH is skinned
(the skin is a gift to the kohanim, as
mentioned earlier) and cut into
pieces which are placed on the fire
of the Mizbei'ach and there
completely consumed (meaning,
no one eats the meat of an Olah).
[S> 1:10 (4)] Male sheep and goats
can also be brought as OLAH. The
procedures are similar, but not
identical.
Sacrifices from the cow
family are considered to be
atonements for the Sin of the
Golden Calf. That with which the
People sinned can now be used for
sacred purposes as a redemption,
atonement and Tikun - repair. We
often find that the bull is the first
presented, discussed, offered, etc.
This lends credence to its roll as
atonement for the Golden Calf. It is
the father trying to clean up his
son's mess (as the Para Aduma is
spoken of as the mother called
upon to clean up after her son, the
Eigel, calf).
The OLAH is considered by
the Talmud to be an atonement for
improper thoughts. The CHATAT sin offering - is brought for (some)
improper deeds. The Olah is
presented first because usually,
improper thoughts precede (and
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 6
lead to) improper deeds.
The opening command concerning Korbanot is, "A person
(singular) who offers from among
you a sacrifice... they (plural) shall
offer their sacrifice." Toldot Yitzchak
(uncle of Rav Yosef Karo, and the
one who raised him) suggests that
since an individual doing a mitzva
can have a positive effect on all of
Klal Yisrael and the whole world,
then his individual sacrifice is really
ours, hence the switch to plural.
Furthermore, there are aspects of
Korbanot that relate to the
community, even if the korban at
issue is a private one. The wood for
the fire, the salt of each korban, the
kohanim performing the Avoda these are all communal aspects that
make an individual's korban, our
korban.
The Ba'al HaTanya explains,
"A person who brings from you a
korban to HaShem, from the
animal..." as the requirement of a
korban-bringer to sacrifice the
animal within himself upon the
Mizbei'ach. The Korban must be
personalized and internalized for it
to have the effect of bringing us
closer (this is the meaning of
KORBAN-KAROV) to G-d.
Baal HaTurim says that G-d
put Moshe's name before His own
in the opening pasuk of Vayikra, to
tell us all of the close personal
relationship they had.
Daat Z'keinim says that the
fact that animal sacrifices are from
domesticated mammals (B'heimot),
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
and not from wild animals (Chayot),
shows us G-d's concern for His
people - that He spared us the extra
bother of hunting and trapping that
would be necessary if CHAYOT
were among the korbanot. Similarly,
bird-korbanot come only from two
domesticated types of dove, and not
from wild birds.
Levi - Second Aliya
10 p'sukim - 1:14-2:6
[P> 1:14 (4)] OLAH can also be
from birds, specifically, two types
of doves. The unique procedures
for bird offerings are described.
These three categories of OLAH large animal (B'HEIMA GASA),
small animals (B'HEIMA DAKA),
birds (OFOT) - are counted as one
positive command [115,A63 1:3].
Note that the bird offering is
called OLAH LA'SHEM, a Burnt
Offering to G-d. Although no one
eats from an animal OLAH, the skin
is a given to a kohen as one of his
gifts. The dove is completely
consumed on the Mizbei'ach. It is
the only korban that is TOTALLY to
HaShem, so to speak.
The Torah next
describes the MINCHA (not to be
confused with our afternoon
davening of the same name), a
meal offering. It consists of flour
and oil with a bit of frankincense
(L'vona) and differing amounts of
water. (Water as an ingredient is
[S> 2:1 (3)]
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 7
not mentioned in the Written
Word, but is part of our Oral
Tradition.) There are several types
of M'nachot that will be described
in the coming p'sukim. First, some
general procedures that apply to
all types of Mincha are described.
Next the Torah
describes the first specific type of
Mincha - the MAAFEI TANUR,
oven-baked.
[S>
2:4
(1)]
[S> 2:5 (2)] The next type of
Mincha is the pan-fried, the
MINCHA
AL HAMACHAVAT.
Menachot differ in the method of
preparation, amounts and ratio of
ingredients, procedures, treatment
of final product, and more. All
contain the same ingredients.
Until this point in Vayikra, the
Torah has described four different
types of voluntary offerings, each
one less expensive than the one
before it. The bull is most costly,
sheep and goat cost less, but more
than a dove. And a flour and oil
offering is the least expensive. The
person who brings the korban is
referred to as ADAM, a human, the
first time, and then with the pronoun
he, him, his (she, her, hers). Only
with the flour & oil offering is the
bringer referred to as NEFESH, a
soul. This, says Rashi, refers to the
poor person, who is the one who
would most likely bring the Mincha.
It might not cost a lot, but the poor
person puts his soul into his modest
offering, making it no less significant than an expensive PAR (bull).
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
Shlishi - Third Aliya
10 p'sukim - 2:7-16
[S> 2:7 (7)] A fourth type of
MINCHA is described. This one is
called MARCHESHET. (It is to be
deep-fried.) All meal offerings
constitute one positive mitzva [116,
A67 2:1, but also 2:4, 2:5, and 2:7.
This mitzva does not neatly point to
"chapter and verse"]. With meal
offerings, only a small portion is
put on the Mizbei'ach, the bulk of
the offering is shared by the
kohanim on duty in the Mikdash.
MENACHOT may not be Chametz
(the ones described here; there are
a few types of flour-offerings that
are Chametz), nor may they be
prepared with leavening or honey
[117,L98 2:11].
The Sefer HaChinuch hesitates to
offer reasons for the prohibition of
honey on a korban. He considers
this mitzva to be highly enigmatic.
He then does suggest that both
leavening and honey represent loftiness and arrogance, an inappropriate accompaniment for an
experience that must humble the
person who brings the korban. On
the other hand, others suggest that
this is one of the mitzvot which say
to us: Don't think you can figure
everything out. There are some
mitzvot that defy our limited, finite
knowledge and understanding. This
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 8
is one of those mitzvot. We might
think that honey should be put on a
korban in order to enhance it. We'd
be wrong with that logic. We must
realize that we are to do mitzvot - all
mitzvot - just because the Torah
says so. This is so for all mitzvot, not
just the ones that don't easily
accommodate our logic.
To be most effective, so to speak,
the thought expressed in the
previous paragraph must be applied
liberally to all mitzvot. Even a mitzva
(maybe, especially a mitzva) that
“makes perfect sense to us” should
be treated first and foremost as a
Divine Command which we must
follow because "G-d says so!" Any
other reason is secondary to that.
No korban may be offered without
salt [118,L99 2:13]; every korban
must be salted [119,A62 2:13].
An example - there are others - of
a commandment being given in the
positive form as well as a prohibition. Fast on Yom Kippur. Don't eat
or drink. Leave the corner of your
field uncut. Do not cut all of your
field. Do not offer any korban
without salt. Salt all korbanot. Each
form of the mitzva - the ASEI and
the LO TA'ASEI - teaches us
something different and affects the
attitude and kavanot of the particular mitzva.
[S> 2:14 (3)] Another type of
MINCHA is next described. This
one is made from the first grain,
and it involves roasting in a
perforated vessel.
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
Our table is like the
Mizbei'ach. A famous saying with
many different manifestations. We
salt our HaMotzi bread because we
are expected to add an element of
spirituality to an otherwise very
mundane act of eating by connecting it to Temple Service. Salt is a
preservative and salt itself does not
spoil. As such, it represents an
element of the eternal in this
temporal world. This explanation is
borrowed from that which is written
about the mitzva of salting
korbanot, but it applies well to our
everyday minhag regarding salt.
R'vi'i - Fourth Aliya
17 p'sukim - 3:1-17
[P> 3:1 (5)] The next type of
korban presented in the Torah is
the SH'LAMIM, known in English
as a Peace Offering or Complete
Offering. (Both names are based on
a play on the word SHALOM or
SHALEIM.)
The element of completeness that is
special to the Sh'lamim in that part
of the korban is burned on the
Mizbei'ach, part is given to the
kohen as one of his gifts, and part
is returned to the korban's owner
for him and his family to eat.
"Everyone" benefits from a Sh'lamim. In that respect, it is the
complete korban. Sh'lamim can be
brought from male and female
animals, of cow, goat, or sheep. The
Torah outlines the procedures for
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 9
SH'LAMIM, which are basically
similar, but with some differences
from animal to animal.
[P> 3:6 (6)] Sometimes, goats and
sheep are lumped together as
TZON, animals of the flock. They
are referred to as B'HEIMA DAKA,
the smaller livestock, as opposed to
CATTLE. In the case of Korbanot,
there are differences between the
two and therefore, they are treated
separately. The details of the
Sh'lamim of sheep is presented
first. Male or female. S'micha.
What goes on the Mizbei'ach, etc.
[P> 3:12 (6)] Then Sh'lamim from
goats is presented. On close
inspection of the p'sukim (without
checking in Mishna or Gemara),
the only difference between the
sheep and the goat is the ALYA, the
fat of the tail area. In a sheep, it is
offered on the Mizbei'ach and for
the goat, it is not mentioned.
Chamishi 5th Aliya
26 p'sukim - 4:1-26
[P> 4:1 (12)] The next category of
korban presented by the Torah is
the CHATAT, the Sin Offering.
There are different sub-categories.
A Kohen Gadol who inadvertently
caused the people to sin (certain
sins) is required to bring a bull as
an atoning sacrifice. The procedures of this Chatat of the Kohein
Gadol are very elaborate and
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
detailed in the Torah's text. One
realizes how very serious this kind
of mistake is considered.
Chodesh portion is read as SH'VII.
This is followed by the HaChodesh
Maftir in the 3rd Torah.
[P> 4:13 (9)] Similarly (but with
[P> 4:27 (5)]
differences), if the Sanhedrin errs
in a decision which causes widespread sinning (again, only of certain sins), then the leaders of the
people are to bring a bull as a
sacrifice [120,A68 4:13] (and not
necessarily each person who acted
upon the pronouncement of the
Sanhedrin).
[P> 4:22 (5)] A leader of the people
brings a male goat as his CHATAT.
In all cases, the CHATAT is brought
for SHOGEG (inadvertent) violations with some level of negligence
on the sinner's part that resulted in
the sin. A CHATAT is NOT brought
for intentional violations. Nor is a
CHATAT brought for all sins - only
for those whose intentional violation is a capital offense.
When a leader of the people
shall sin... ASHER NASI YECHETA.
The initials of this phase spell ANI (I,
me!) What is likely to lead a leader
astray? His focusing on himself and
his losing sight of his responsibilities to the community he leads.
Shishi - Sixth Aliya
35 p'sukim - 4:27-5:26
Note: On this particular Shabbat,
when we read from 3 Sifrei Torah,
Shishi and Sh'vii of Vayikra are
combined into SHISHI, and the Rosh
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 10
The final subcategory of CHATAT is for the
individual who inadvertently violates certain types of prohibitions
[121,A69 4:27]. For example, a Jew
who violates a Torah prohibition of
Shabbat because he is unaware
that the particular act is forbidden
or because he forgot that it was
Shabbat - this requires the
bringing of a Korban CHATAT. The
CHATAT of an individual is a
female sheep or goat.
Clarification... If a person sees
brown leaves on a house plant and
pinches them off on Shabbat to
enhance the growth of the plant, he
has violated a Rabbinic prohibition.
This Rabbinic prohibition is based
on the fact that the act is essentially
the same as, and for the same
purpose as, pruning leaves on a
bush growing in the ground. Pruning
is a Torah prohibition. The ban on
doing the same with house plants is
one of many protective measures of
the Sages to protect the Torah from
violation. When the person learns of
his error, no Korban is required - just
T’shuva - because the act was not a
Torah violation. But doing the same
with one's rose bushes IS a Torah
violation and would require a
CHATAT, in addition to T’shuva.
Also, if a person mistakingly cooked
meat in butter, thinking it was parve
margarine, this would be a SHOGEG
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
violation of a Torah law, but no
CHATAT, because cooking meat in
milk is not a capital offense (carrying only the punishment of Makot).
also used by Yaakov to deceive his
father, when he posed as Eisav to
receive the bracha.)
[P> 4:32 (4)] In the previous
afford doves, the ASHAM (guilt
offering) is to be brought from
flour. In this case (as opposed to
MENACHOT), no oil [125,L102
5:11] or spice [126, L103 5:11] is
used.
parsha, the "animal of choice" for a
Chatat was presented first. It is a
female goat. This parsha continues with the other acceptable
animal for an individual's Chatat, a
ewe (female sheep).
[P> 5:1 (10)] Another category of
sacrifice is the KORBAN OLEH
V'YORED [123,A72 5:1], a slidingscale guilt offering. An example of
a sin requiring this korban is
suppression of testimony or lying
under oath about it. Testifying is an
obligation [122, A178 5:1].
The form that the korban takes
depends upon the financial means
of the sinner - goat/sheep, doves.
With birds, the kohen must be
careful not to sever the head when
he performs M'LIKA, the birdkorban equivalent of Sh'chita [124,
L112 5:5].
The main animal for a
communal CHATAT (as in the
Musaf of Rosh Chodesh and
Chagim) or an individual CHATAT, is
the goat. This brings to mind the use
of the goat by Yosef's brothers to
deceive their father by dipping
Yosef's coat into goat's blood. The
CHATAT for all times contains a
reminder of the terrible behavior of
brother to brother. (The goat was
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 11
[S> 5:11 (3)] For those who cannot
[S> 5:14 (3)] The ASHAM for sacri-
lege is a ram. In addition, the
violator, who has used the sacred
for his own benefit, must make
restitution and add one-fifth of the
value as a penalty [127,A118 5:16].
Actually, one fourth is added, an
amount that becomes one fifth of
the total amount. E.g. 100 worth of
use + 25 penalty = 125 total payment,
the addition of 25 being one fifth of
the 125. This is how the penalty
called CHOMESH is calculated.
[S> 5:17 (3)] A variation of the
ASHAM is brought when one is not
sure if he violated the particular
prohibition or not. The Conditional
Asham is a ram [128,A70 5:17].
[S> 5:20 (7)] The thief is com-
manded to return that which he
stole [130,A194 5:23].
The bringing of the ASHAM for all
the specific types of violations is a
positive mitzva [129,A71 5:21 there are other p'sukim that input
into this mitzva, since there are
different types and reasons for
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
bringing an ASHAM].
Thus the Torah ends its introduction to the different types of
korbanot.
Sh'VII Seventh Aliya
in 2nd Torah 7 p'sukim
from Bamidbar 28:9-15
Bamidbar 28-29 (in Pinchas) deal
with the daily and Musaf korbanot
in the Mikdash. The two Shabbat
p'sukim followed by the five that
deal with Rosh Chodesh are
combined for the Maftir on
Shabbat Rosh Chodesh.
Notice that the Musaf of Shabbat is
an expanded version of the weekday sacrifices and Rosh Chodesh's
Musaf is like those of the Chagim.
This is logical, when you think
about it. Six days... and on the 7th Shabbat is one of the days of the
week and the unique and special
one among them. The Chagim
belong to the Jewish calendar,
which is based on the months and
Rosh Chodesh.
Note that when any holiday is on
Shabbat, the maftir is only about the
Musaf of the holiday, and Shabbat's
Musaf is not mentioned. The plain
reason is that the two p'sukim about
Shabbat Musaf are not continuous
with any other Musafim but that of
Rosh Chodesh. And the skipping
that would be necessary on any of
those other days is not sanctioned.
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 12
But, perhaps, we can see something
additional in the Shabbat - Rosh
Chodesh situation, namely that
Shabbat Rosh Chodesh is not just
Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh that
coincide, but it is a fusion of the two
days, each of which represents a
different facet of K'dushat Z'man Sanctity of Time. The pasuk that we
read twice at the end of the haftara
for Shabbat Rosh Chodesh (which is
pre-empted this week by HaChodesh) joins Shabbat and Rosh
Chodesh in a way that we do not
find for any of the holidays: "And it
shall come to pass, that every new
moon, and every Shabbat, shall all
flesh come to worship before me,
says HaShem."
Maftir - 3rd Torah
20 p’sukim
Sh'mot 12:1-20
This Maftir adds to the Sedra Stats:
1 parsha (S), 20 p’sukim, 313 words,
1208 letters, 9 mitzvot - you do the
totals for this week (if you want)
Parshat HaChodesh is the fourth of
the Four Parshiyot. It is the Shabbat
of or the Shabbat right before Rosh
Chodesh Nissan. We read of the
mitzva to set up the Jewish
Calendar (the first two p'sukim),
followed by the commands concerning Pesach - Korban Pesach,
Matza, Chametz, etc. (the rest of
this 20-pasuk maftir).
The main theme of the Maftir is
Korban Pesach. KP is different from
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
all other korbanot. All korbanot
were brought in the Beit HaMikdash between the two daily
T'midim, except for KP which was
brought after the afternoon Tamid.
KP can be brought and eaten in a
state of ritual impurity (in certain
circumstances). This can be seen as
a "compromise" by G-d to facilitate
our performance of this mitzva.
(An individual is postponed until
Pesach Sheni because of TUM'A,
but the community brings and eats
KP while TAMEI, rather than wait
the month.)
The Maftir contains several mitzvot
- the Jewish Calendar [4], to
slaughter the KP [5], to eat it [6],
not to eat it rare or cooked [7], not
to leave over any of KP to the
morning [8], to destroy Chametz
from one's possession [9], to eat
matza on Seder night [10], not to
possess Chametz on Pesach [11],
not to eat any foods that contain
Chametz [12]. We also find the
source of SHMURA MATZA and
the source of the permitted
M'LACHOT on Yom Tov. Other
mitzvot related to KP and chametz
are found elsewhere in Parshat Bo
and elsewhere in the Torah.
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 13
Haftara 28 p'sukim
Yechezkeil 45:16-46:18
S'faradim start 2 p’sukim later and
end 3 p'sukim earlier
The Haftara contains the prophecy
of the building of the Beit
HaMikdash and the restoration of
Korban Pesach - hence the
connection to the Maftir. Both the
Torah and Haftara announce the
holiday of Pesach, in very similar
words, and both speak of putting
blood on the doorpost. Not only do
both readings talk about Pesach,
but both focus on Rosh Chodesh
Nissan.
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
mgpn ixac
Divrei Menachem
[email protected]
The first verse of our Parsha tells us that,
"He called out (VAYIKRA) to Moshe and
G-d spoke to him from the Tent of
Meeting" (1:1). But who called to Moshe?
Was it an angel? Was it Moshe musing, as
it were? Or was it the Almighty in all His
grandeur approaching Moshe? Indeed the
verse indicates that Hashem spoke to
Moshe, intimately addressing his loyal
servant.
Yes, there was already no need for the
narrative to tell us that "G-d spoke to
Moshe" and commanded him such and
such. So intimate was the relationship
between Hashem and Moshe that titles,
as it were, became almost superfluous.
The story is told of the Chasidic Rebbe
who went down to his cellar every night
in the wee hours and there laughed and
sang and danced and then retired again
for the rest of the night. His intrigued
Shammes once spied on the rabbi and
secretly entered the sanctum after the
Rebbe left the room. All he found there
was an empty sheet of paper and an
envelope. After confessing to the Rebbe
of his deed, the Shammes asked for an
explanation.
"You see", the Rebbe explained, "my good
friend from overseas sent me this empty
page, and I sent him back a sheet with
nothing written on it. We know each
other's feeling so well, there was no need
to write anything! I know what he
wanted to say to me and vice versa. How
could I not sing?"
So it seems was the nature of the
relationship between Hashem and Moshe.
With wishes that we too could find the
wherewithal to dance and sing through
our relationships with both G-d and our
fellow man.
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 14
Vebbe Rebbe
An Oven Used
for Chilul Shabbat
Question: I want to use an otherwise
kosher oven that was used for cooking food
in a manner of clear chilul Shabbat. Has it
become "treif"?
Answer: Food that is cooked on
Shabbat is one of many examples of
ma'aseh Shabbat (the result of chilul
Shabbat), and as such is forbidden to
be eaten. Your question is a good one:
does such food treif up utensils?
The answer seems dependent on
whether ma'aseh Shabbat regarding
food is a prohibition against benefit
(which, for food, is usually eating) or
whether the food is considered
ma'achalot asurot (what we call nonkosher). If the former, any residue in
the oven will not bring you real
benefit. If the latter, then the food is
like any other that treif up an oven
(we will not discuss how an oven
becomes treif or how it is kashered).
One reason to not consider this food
ma'achalot assurot is that it is prohibited for an external reason - not
because of an intrinsic problem with
the food per se, but due to its
connection to a bad situation. The
Ktav Sofer (Orach Chayim 50)
compares ma'aseh Shabbat food to
bishul akum, as that food is also not
intrinsically problematic but tainted
by a situation. There is a machloket
Rishonim whether bishul akum treifs
up a pot (see Tur, Yoreh Deah 113 Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
the Rashba is strict; the Rosh is
lenient). The Shulchan Aruch (YD
113: 16) cites both positions, but
prefers the stringent one (he is slightly
lenient on how to kasher it).
Indeed, the Magen Avraham (318:1)
cites the Rashba as saying that
ma'aseh Shabbat food treifs the utensil
in which it was cooked, and he and
the Mishna Berura (318:4) accept this
position. Regarding the above fundamental chakira, Rav Orbach (Minchat
Shlomo I:5) sees this Magen Avraham
as a proof that ma'aseh Shabbat food
is ma'achalot assurot.
On the other hand, many disagree.
Besides significant opinions that are
lenient regarding a pot used for bishul
akum, this case includes additional
reasons for leniency. The Mateh
Yehuda (cited by Livyat Chen 42)
says that the Rashba only implies that
according to R. Yochanan Hasandler
(Ketubot 34a) who views ma'aseh
Shabbat as an intrinsic Torah law, a
utensil would become treif. However,
according to the Tanna'im that
ma'aseh Shabbat is a penalty, only the
actual food, which gives real benefit,
is forbidden. Some (see Teshuvot
V'hanhagot II:196) point out that the
GRA rules like R. Meir (Ketubot
ibid.) that even the food itself
becomes permitted after Shabbat.
Finally, there are strong indications
that ma'aseh Shabbat does not create
ma'achalot assurot. According to the
opinion of R. Yehuda, which the
Shulchan Aruch (OC 318:1) accepts,
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 15
the food is forbidden forever only for
the person who was mechaleil
Shabbat. This distinction is difficult if
ma'aseh Shabbat is ma'achalot assurot,
which are generally objective prohibitions (Ktav Sofer, ibid.). I would
add that the fact that ma'aseh Shabbat
applies to many non-food melachot
works more cleanly if they all share
the categorization of prohibitions of
benefit.
It is hard for an Ashkenazi posek to
argue with the opinions of the Magen
Avraham and the Mishna Berura, at
least without other grounds for
leniency (see Orchot Shabbat 25:53).
Rav Ovadia Yosef (Livyat Chen 42),
on the other hand, concludes that the
basic halacha is to be lenient and
views kashering utensils in this case
as only laudable.
In your case, there is little room for
concern. We forbid ma'aseh Shabbat
after Shabbat only when the chilul
Shabbat was intentional, and then
only for the one who was mechaleil
Shabbat. According to most, it is not
even forbidden for a person for whom
it was done (see Magen Avraham
318:4); it is certainly permitted for
others (see Orchot Shabbat ibid.).
Therefore, since you had nothing to
do with the chilul Shabbat, even the
food and certainly its residue in the
wall are permitted. (You did not ask
and we will not discuss the topic of
classic kashrut questions regarding an
oven of one who is not Torah
observant.)
Rav Daniel Mann, Eretz Hemdah Institute
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
Rabbi Weinreb's Weekly Column:
Vayikra
"The Victorious Victim"
I always experience a sense of
excitement when I begin a new
book. I am convinced that most avid
readers feel the same way. This
Shabbat gives us an opportunity to
experience that excitement as we
begin a new book, the book of
Vayikra, and the sedra with the
same name.
The book of Vayikra has historically
had "mixed reviews". On the one
hand, our tradition reveres this
book, calling it Torat Kohanim. The
dominant theme of Vayikra is the
role of the kohanim within the
various rituals connected to worship
in the Mikdash, and their role in
various rituals associated with purity
and holiness.
So special a place does Vayikra
have in our tradition that there was
once a time when schoolchildren
began their study of the Chumash
with this very holy book. "Let those
who are pure and holy be involved
in the study of purity and holiness."
In more recent times, however,
Vayikra has become a "victim" of
negative criticism. I remember
participating in a protest against a
publisher who planned an anthology
of inspiring biblical texts but
deliberately omitted Vayikra from
the table of contents. He felt that
most of the book was irrelevant and
outdated. Only instead of using the
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 16
term "outdated", he called it
"primitive". Those of us who protested his omission adduced many
passages in Vayikra that were not
only relevant, but of great import to
contemporary society - but to no
avail. I realized how futile our
protest was when he asserted that
the verse, "Love your neighbor as
yourself" couldn't have been part of
the original text of Vayikra but must
have been inserted centuries after
the book was first written.
Of course, the source of this
publisher's bias traced back to the
early school of biblical criticism,
which assigned the "author" of
Leviticus the title "P," standing for
"Priestly Code". These critics
maintain that the entire book of
Leviticus was written much later
than the rest of the Bible. As a
believing Jew, I disassociate myself
entirely from this school and its
theories.
It was at one of the public lectures
of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik that I
heard him say that we have a
standard by which to assess the
sanctity and importance of those
matters that we consider holy. "The
more virulent the opposition to one
of our beliefs, the more sacred and
important we can consider that
belief to be." He offered two
examples of this phenomenon. One
was the book we begin to read this
Shabbat, which some so-called
"Bible scholars" consider inferior to
other books of the Bible. This
antagonism, argued Rabbi SoloVayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
veitchik, is in and of itself sufficient
to convince us that Leviticus,
Chumash Vayikra, is especially
important. As a second example, he
pointed to the State of Israel, which
already in his time - forty or so
years ago - faced extreme hostility
in the international arena. This very
hostility, he insisted, demonstrates
the State of Israel's essential
importance.
Viewing the entire book of Vayikra
as a "victim" of misunderstanding
and defamation provides an opportunity for us to consider the very
relevant lessons the book may
actually have for the nature of
victimhood. As I hope to demonstrate, our tradition has many
lessons to teach us about the
relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, between the
pursuer and the one he pursues.
Many of those lessons are rooted
not only in the book of Vayikra, but
in this week's Torah portion,
Vayikra. But first, let me share with
you a verse from another biblical
book that has had its share of
detractors over the centuries, the
book of Kohelet (Ecclesiastes):
"What is occurring now occurred
long since, And what is to occur
occurred long since: and God seeks
the pursued." (Kohelet 3:15)
In this verse, King Solomon, the
author of Kohelet, maintains that
history is cyclical. Today's events
and future events have their
precedents in the past. One aspect
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 17
of this repetitive narrative is
consistent and predictable: God
seeks the pursued. God is on the
side of history's victims, and
ultimately it is they who will prevail.
Here is how the Midrash expands
upon this concept:
"Rabbi Huna said in the name of
Rabbi Yosef, 'God always seeks the
pursued. You will find that when
one righteous person pursues
another righteous person, God
sides with the pursued. When a
villain pursues a righteous person,
God sides with the pursued. When
one villain pursues another villain,
God sides with the pursued. Even
when a righteous person pursues a
villain, God sides with the pursued!
In every case, God sides with the
pursued!" (Vayikra Rabba 27:5)
This Midrashic passage continues
to offer examples throughout history
of this principle: Abel was pursued
by Cain, and God chose Abel.
No'ach was pursued by his society,
and God favored No'ach. Avraham
was pursued by Nimrod, Yitzchak
by the Philistines, Yaakov by Eisav,
Yosef by his brothers, Moshe by
Par'o, David by Shaul, Shaul by the
Philistines. In each and every
instance, God favored the pursued
and eventually vanquished the
pursuer. So too, the Midrash
assures us, although the people of
Israel have been pursued by enemy
nations throughout their history,
God will seek the pursued. He will
favor the victim.
The Talmud takes this theme one
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
step further, recommending that we
consciously strive to be among the
pursued and not join the pursuers.
"Rabbi Abahu preached that one
should always include himself
among the pursued, and never
among the pursuers, for, after all,
no species of fowl is more pursued
than pigeons and turtle doves, and
yet these are the only species of
fowl that are fit for the altar." (Bava
Kama 93a)
Rambam includes Rabbi Abahu's
advice in his description of the
proper demeanor of the Torah
scholar, the talmid chacham: "His
guiding principle should be to
include himself among the pursued
but not among the pursuers. He
should be one of those who forgives
insult but never insults others"
(Hilchot De'ot 5:13).
Do not be misled. Joining the
pursued does not mean that one
should be a pushover, a "nebbish".
The Torah encourages us to stand
up for ourselves and defend ourselves vigorously when necessary.
Rather, joining the pursued means
that we do not always need to win,
that we give others credit and allow
them the limelight. We join the
pursued when we are careful not to
trample others competitively in
order to get ahead, but we work
collaboratively with them. Those are
the qualities that are blessed by the
God who seeks the pursued.
The 19th century commentator and
rabbinic authority, Rabbi Jacob of
Lyssa, offers a brief insight into the
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 18
verse of our focus in this column,
"God seeks the pursued". He points
out that in a certain sense we are
all "pursued". Every human being is
pursued by his or her passions,
moral failings, and selfish egos.
Part of man's existential condition is
that he is pursued by evil urges.
God seeks the pursued, offering
succor to all those who valiantly
struggle to overcome their internal
temptations and strive to live an
ethical and moral life.
As individuals, as a people, and as
human beings, we often are fated to
be victims. Still, our Sages see in
this week's Torah portion the lesson
that we can be victorious victims. 
Guidelines from Nezikin
by Dr. Meir Tamari
The Trade and Commerce of the
Talmid Chacham
AL CHEIT... DECEIPT and
FRAUD (Bava Metzi'a 4:12)
In trade and commerce we are not
often faced with outright theft and
robbery but rather with acts,
seemingly legal and normal, but
actually aimed at stealing from
customers, employers, employees or
competitors. The difficulty of making
a clear distinction between legitimate
marketing practices and those which
defraud blurs the border between
permissible and halakhically forbidden practices. Our Mishna deals with
aspects of this occurring in the
advertisement and presentation of
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
goods and services. Although the
examples used refer to primitive or
simple economies, they are easily
recognized operating even in the most
sophisticated and advanced modern
economies.
RABBI YEHUDA SAYS: A storekeeper may not distribute parched
corn or nuts to the children because he
accustoms them to come to him.' The
Sages permit it."
This form of competition, of distributing free gifts, takes many varied and
ingenious forms limited only by the
creative imagination of the marketers
and the greed of the consumers.
Discounts on certain days or to certain
groups, 2 articles for the price of 1,
participation in lotteries for motorcars, or cruises or flights etc. are the
modern versions of the mishnaic nuts
and sweets. An economics scholar has
argued that since Rabbi Yehuda
HaNasi was a member of the rich aristocracy, he opposed competitive
actions and so ruled against this form
of non-price competition. However,
the Yehuda of our Mishna was not
Yehuda HaNasi but Yehuda bar Illai,
who was notoriously poor, so class
had nothing to do with his opinion.
Furthermore, the preceding mishnayot
deal with aspects of deceit and fraud
in the course of business, which
makes it clear that this one too has
nothing to do with theories of
competition but rather with truth in
trading.
Rabbi Yehuda was concerned that the
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 19
gifts were stealing the customers of
the storekeeper whereas the Sages
were not concerned since he could
simply offer other types of gifts.
"The villagers who are not liable to
pay the communal tax levied by the
Bishop on the liquor trade wish to
market their liquor in town on the
basis of the Sages ruling. However,
the Sages agree with Rabbi Yehuda
where it is impossible for the
shopkeeper to make alternative gifts.
Since the townsmen cannot evade the
tax, I must disallow the competition
and forbid them to bring their produce
to town" (T'shuvot Ma'amar Mordechai, [Harav Ettinger, 19th century
Poland] section 11). Where the seller
is obliged to pay taxes or levies while
the others are not or simply evade
them, the competition is unethical and
really constitutes theft as Rabbi
Yehuda claimed. The buyer becomes
a partner to such theft when
knowingly buying goods on which
customs, VAT, licenses or other taxes
are not paid.
"It is forbidden to cheat people
[halakhically meaning Jews and nonJews alike] in business transactions.
So if there is a flaw in the article
being sold, one is required to disclose
this to the buyer" (Shulkhan Aruch,
Choshen Mishpat 228:6).
In modern economies information,
financial and otherwise, is actually a
commodity, more so today than ever
before, so imaginative and doctored
financial reporting would seem to be a
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
halakhic defect. Yosef Karo requires
the seller to make full disclosure even
though this applies equally to both
parties. He does this because, contrary
to the free marketers theory of equal
access, in real life the seller usually
has better knowledge. Rashi holds that
it is forbidden merely to cover up or
disguise any defect but Tosafot hold
that this is insufficient and that full
disclosure of defects must be made as
the Shulchan Aruch codifies.
The defrauded party can claim
protection of mekach ta'ut, commonly
translated as fraudulent sale but there
does not have to be any intent to
defraud for the sale to become invalid.
He cannot be forced to accept a
discount because of the defect but can
insist on his money back. Neither is
the existence of a warranty or
guaranty essential to warrant the
claim; halacha considers such a lack
as merely a scribe's error. It is
interesting to note that violations of
kashrut require some minimum
quantity whereas chametz is transgressed by any amount, afilu
b'mashehu; defects in contrast to theft,
are likewise not subject to the
minimum requirement of shaveh pruta
to be claimed. Furthermore, protection
against defects may be claimed
irrespective of the elapse of time
unlike in cases of price gouging.
"Why did the meraglim desire not to
enter Eretz Yisrael? After all, they
were all righteous men? They lacked
faith in their own spiritual and
religious capabilities. As long as they
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 20
lived in the desert all their material
needs - food, water, protection etc. were provided from Heaven and they
could devote themselves to Torah and
spiritual matters. However, they knew
that when they crossed the Yarden all
the miracles would cease and they
would have to provide for their needs
through ordinary, everyday and
natural means. They feared that they
would be unable to do so according to
G-d's way, unable to still be religious
and spiritual. They therefore wished
to remain eternally in the religiousity
of the desert" (Shem MiShmuel).
The following is from
Sapphire from the Land of Israel
A New Light on the Weekly Portion
from the Writings of
Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaKohen Kook
by Rabbi Chanan Morrison
website: ravkooktorah.org
The Goal of Korbanot
Adapted from Midbar Shur, pp. 155-158
Korbanot are not an innovation of
the Jewish people. No'ach also
offered sacrifices to God. However,
not all offerings are equal. The
Midrash employs the following
parable to illustrate this idea:
There was once a king who hired
two chefs. The first chef cooked a
meal that the king ate and enjoyed.
Then the second chef cooked a
meal that the king ate and enjoyed.
How can we know which meal the
king enjoyed more? When the king
subsequently
commanded
the
second chef, “Make for me again the
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
dish that you prepared”, we realize
that the second meal was the king’s
preferred dish.
In other words, by the fact that God
commanded the Jewish people to
offer sacrifices, we know that God
prefers their offerings to those
which No'ach initiated on his own
accord.
But how do we evaluate the relative
worth of different sacrifices? What
distinguishes the service of Israel
from that of No'ach?
Two Goals of Offerings
The key to assessing an offering is
to examine its purpose. The more
elevated the goal, the more
acceptable the offering. No'ach’s
objective in offering sacrifices after
the Flood was very different than
that of the Jewish people. No'ach
sought to preserve the physical
world, to protect it from Divine retribution. No'ach’s offerings achieved
their goal - “God smelled the
appeasing fragrance and said to
Himself, ‘Never again will I curse the
soil because of man’” (B'reishit 8:21).
The offerings of the Jewish people
aspire to a far greater objective.
Their goal is to enable Israel to merit
heightened levels of Divine providence and prophecy. The Torah
explicitly sets out the purpose of the
Temple service: “Make for Me a
Sanctuary, and I will dwell in their
midst” (Sh'mot 8:25).
Fragrance and Bread
The difference between No'ach’s
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 21
offerings and those of Israel is
reflected in the metaphors that the
Torah uses to describe them.
No'ach’s had an “appeasing fragrance”, while those of Israel are
referred as “My bread”. What is the
difference between a fragrance and
food?
When an animal consumes vegetation, the plant life is absorbed into
the animal and becomes part of it. In
this way, the plant has attained a
higher state of being. When a
human consumes an animal, the
animal is similarly elevated as it
becomes part of that human being.
This transformation to a higher state
through
consumption
parallels
bringing a korban with the objective
of attaining a higher state of
existence. The offerings of the
Jewish people are called “My bread”,
since the magnitude of change to
which they aspire - perfection as
prophetic beings - is similar to the
transformations of plant to animal
and animal to human.
The offerings of No'ach, on the other
hand, had only an “appeasing
fragrance.” They produced a wonderful scent and appealed to the
natural senses, but they did not
attempt to effect a fundamental
change in nature. Their purpose was
to maintain the world, to refine
humanity within the framework of
its natural moral and intellectual
capabilities.
In fact, the korbanot of the Jewish
people encompass both of these
objectives. They are described both
as “appeasing fragrance” and as
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
“My bread”, since we aspire to
perfection in two areas - natural
wisdom and Divine prophecy. 
Reprinted (with permission) from
Shabbat Shalom
Parsha Booklet (4) by
Rabbi Berel Wein
After all of the tumultuous events of
the book of Sh'mot - the Exodus,
Revelation at Sinai and the granting
of the Torah, the event of the
Golden Calf and of the construction
of the Mishkan - G-d calls out, so to
speak, to Moshe from the inner
recesses of the Mishkan.
What is the significance of this call?
And why does it need to be made at
all? Moshe had already ascended
the mountain of Sinai and been
taught the Torah and its laws
previous to this call. And, as Rashi
points out to us, this call was
personal to Moshe for it was not
addressed to the rest of Israel as
was Revelation at Sinai itself.
Moshe would then have to transmit
the call - the teachings and instructions that were now entrusted to
him by G-d - to the Jewish people
and explain and teach them these
laws and nuances of the G-dly
message.
Vayikra teaches us that henceforth
Torah would be taught by humans
to humans and that the Torah was
"no longer in Heaven". That is the
significance of G-d's call to Moshe
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 22
and to Moshe alone.
The Talmud teaches us that even
the holy prophets of Israel were
forbidden to construct new systems
of halacha. The transmission of
Torah, though certainly requiring
heavenly aid and inspiration, was
now a purely human endeavor.
Moshe heard the Heavenly voice
directly in receiving the Torah's
laws and instructions but the Jewish
people only heard the human voice
of Moshe teaching them God's
Torah.
In the final chapter of Pirkei Avot
(which is not a part of the mishna of
Avot itself) called Perek Kinyan
Torah - the chapter concerning the
acquisition of Torah knowledge one of the methods of acquiring
such Torah knowledge and direction is Emunat Chachamim - belief
in the teachings of the wise Torah
scholars of Israel.
Though there are differing interpretations as to the latitude of this
concept and whether it applies even
to all matters of personal and
national life generally, all agree that
as far as Torah teaching is
concerned it is an applicable and
necessary value and belief. The
basis for this value is what has
been described above in the
previous paragraph - ultimate belief
of the Jewish people in the Divinity
of Torah as transmitted to them by
Moshe.
The Torah at Sinai was given once.
That scene would never again be
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
repeated. Thus the burden of the
transmission and teaching of Torah
now rested with human beings with the Torah scholars of every
age and era.
And one of the tests of Jewish life
would be the trust and faith that the
people as a whole would entrust to
the teachings and direction of those
scholars - Emunat Chachamim if
you will.
This human relationship of generational trust and teaching is the
hallmark of halacha throughout the
history of Israel. Moshe still speaks
to us even if we are unable to hear
the heavenly voice emanating from
the Mishkan itself. This is the basis
of Jewish continuity and vitality till
today. 
With the beginning of Torat
Kohanim, let's examine the word
KORBAN and its variants, as they
occur in Parshat Vayikra.
First of all, the stand alone word for
the sacrifices/offerings in the
Mikdash is oA
¨ x§w’ . Note that the
KAMATZes are printed differently.
The first KAMATZ is KATAN and
the second is GADOL. In the Ashkenazic pronunciation, the word is
KAwRBAwN. In Israeli S'fardit, it is
KORBAN. When the word connects to the following word, it is
KORBAN in both ways to
pronounce it, as KORBAN MINCHA. KORBANO (16 times in the
sedra) is also with two different
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 23
KAMATZes. So too with KORBANECHA and KORBANCHA. But
KORBANCHEM has a PATACH...
Parsha Points to Ponder
by MK Rabbi Dov Lipman
Vayikra
1) Why does the Torah describe the
accidental sinner as someone who
both transgressed FROM ALL OF
G-D's COMMANDS and HE DID
ONE OF THESE (4:2)?
2) Why does only one Kohen spread
the blood around the altar for the sin
offering of the annointed Kohein
(4:6) while the plural is used
indicating many other kohanim
doing the sprinkling for every other
sacrifice (see 1:11 and 3:2 for
example)?
3) Why was it forbidden to put oil on
the meal offering of a poor person
(5:11)?
Suggested answers
1) The Alshich answers that the
second phrase describes how a
person comes to sin by accident.
One who does ONE OF THESE,
meaning a person who sins
intentionally, lowers his spiritual
level and that is what causes the
accidental sin FROM ALL OF G-D's
COMMANDS.
2) The Meshech Chochma explains
that the sprinkling for all the other
sacrifices was open to as many
kohanim as wanted to be involved
in the mitzva because it was done
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
using a vessel. However, since this
particular
sacrifice
required
sprinkling by hand after dipping the
finger into the blood, it would not
have been decent to ask other
kohanim to dip their hands into that
same blood to do the sprinkling.
3) The Sefer HaChinuch teaches
that oil represents loftiness. This is
captured by the fact that it rises to
the top when it mixed with other
liquids and this is why it is used to
anoint kings and kohanim. This
offering is for a sinner and for a
sinner to achieve forgiveness he
must act with modesty and humility.
The
inclusion of oil would
demonstrate the opposite, and,
therefore, it is forbidden.
TtRiDdLeS
Previous (VP"P) TTriddles:
[1] The dotless connection of sedra to
maftir
Maybe better would have been:
Connect the dots from sedra to
maftir - only there are none
Reference to the second sedra
P'kudei. Only if you listen carefully,
it's EILEH F'KUDEI, the DAGESH
drops from the PEI because the
word follows a word within the same
phrase that ends in a HEI. The maftir
was PARA, except the DAGESH in
the PEI of PARA also drops V'YIKCHU EILECHA FARA ADUMA... This time it drops following a
CHAF SOFIT with a KAMATZ, which
is like the word ends in ALEF or HEI.
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 24
This happens often, but there is an
exclusive club of prominent words in
prominent situations. To P'KUDEI
and PARA we can add PURIM, as in
AL KEIN KARU LAYAMIM HAEILEH FURIM... And we like to
include one hard luck fellow whose
name is never said right - PICHOL,
the commander of Avimelech's
army. He's only mentioned three
times - twice in Vayeira and once in
Toldot, always with the conjuctive
prefix VAV (switched to a SHURUK),
which comes out as UFICHOL.
[2] Many plural; singularly unique
PAROT and PARIM (cows and bulls)
occur many times in the Torah. But
the singluar (feminine singular)
PARA occurs only once, in the Maftir
for Parshat Para. Singular male, PAR,
also occurs loads of times.
[3] beauty dragon secure midpair
Four 6-letter words, the fourth of
which tells you where to look in the
first three words. Midpair means the
middle pair of letters, thinking of
each six-letter word as consisting of
three pairs of letters. The midpairs
are Au, Ag, and Cu, the three metals
that were used in constructing the
Mishkan and its furnishings - GOLD,
SILVER, and COPPER.
[4] 00BBFF, 800080, DC143C
(maybe)
These are the hexadecimal values of
the RGB (red-green-blue) colors for
T'CHELET, ARGAMAN, and SHANI,
according to our source at the
Tekhelet Institute. They are only
best guesses, with many factors and
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
opinions resulting in different
values. Decimal RGB values are
0,187,255; 128,0,128; 220,20,60.
OzTorah
The Ethics of Offerings
[5] Also Korach, David and his
grandson
The portion says, "When any of you
brings an offering to the Lord…"
(Vayikra 1:2). The Sages remark that
the verse can be understood as
saying, "When anyone brings an
offering, it shall be his own…"
VAYAKHEL, and he gathered... In
the sedra by that name, it is Moshe
who gathers the people. The word
occurs 7 times in Tanach. The other
people who did the gathering are
Korach, David HaMelech, and his
grandson, Shlomo's son and successor, R'CHAVAM.
[6] FPTL - Held the Ohel together
The OHEL was the goat-hair
covering of the Mishkan. It was the
middle of three layers of coverings,
between the Mishkan below it and
the OROT (combination of red-dyed
ram skins and Tachash skins). The
OHEL was made up of 11 panels of
woven goathair, each 4 amot wide
by 30 amot long. Five panels were
sewn together for one part and six
for the other. The two sections were
joins by KARSEI NECHOSHET,
copper "buttons". KARSEI NECHOSHET = 100+200+60+10 (370) +
50+8+300+400 (758) = 1128, the TT
issue number for VP"P 5775.
[7] MazalPic
The mazal of Nissan is ARIES, the
Ram. In Hebrew, T'LEH, which
means lamb. Same animal, diferent
age. Anyway, since the b in lamb is
silent, we went with the logo of
Mozambique Airlines, LAM.
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 25
A donation to the Sanctuary must
belong to the donor. Someone who
wants to give an offering may not do
so if, for example, he has stolen the
item he wants to donate. Naturally,
people will object and say that such
a thing is quite inconceivable. But in
fact it is not only conceivable but
tempting.
A person’s means can possibly be
the outcome of a situation or deal in
which they have gained resources or
even a reputation at the cost of
other people. If that person now
announces a generous donation to
a good cause, the gift is tainted and
not really his to give. It is not
relevant that the cause is in
desperate need of funds or support.
There is a sentence in Tanach that
says, "The stone cries out of the
wall…" (Chavakuk 2:11). In our context
the message can well be that if, say,
a synagogue is built using an
ill-gotten donation, the bricks and
stones of the building will shout out
and the building will have no peace.
The moral of the story is that it is
better to remain poor but honest,
and if you realise that you will be
even the indirect cause of people
suffering, it is better to live with your
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
own conscience and leave other
people in peace.
Not even for the sake of generosity
to a good cause can Jewish ethics
justify a person transgressing the
rule, "When anyone brings an
offering, it shall be his own". K
The Timely Message
of the Korban Pesach
by
Rabbi Ephraim Sprecher
Dean of Students, Diaspora Yeshiva
The Torah's dietary laws of Kashrut
and those that instruct us to remove all
Chametz on Pesach and to eat Matza,
do not include instructions on whether
our food is to be cooked or be roasted.
The only remarkable exception to this
is the Halacha concerning the Korban
Pesach. The Torah commands us to
roast a lamb (or goat-kid) and to eat it
on Pesach night. This had to be done
in the days of the Beit HaMikdash, in
the exact manner that it was done at
the time of the Exodus from Egypt.
(Sh'mot 12 ,D'varim 16).
While on all other occasions, the
Torah leaves it up to us to decide
whether our food will be cooked or
roasted, in this case the Torah is very
explicit that we must eat the Pesach
lamb only roasted. "Then they shall
eat the meat on this night, roasted
over fire, with Matzot and Maror are
they to eat it. You may not eat it raw
(rare) or boiled in water, but only
roasted over fire" (Sh'mot 12).
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 26
What difference does it make if the
meat is boiled or roasted? Why does
the Torah emphasize in such uncompromising terms the absolute prohibition to boil or to cook the Pesach
lamb?
Maharal in his commentary on the
Hagadah explains that there is a basic
difference between boiling and roasting meat. Boiling is an act that
assimilates while roasting separates.
When boiling we draw several other
ingredients into the object. These
ingredients assimilate into the object,
which absorbs the added components
and even adapts itself to them. When
absorbing the other ingredients, it also
expands, becomes soft and begins to
disintegrate.
Roasting, however, does the reverse.
Its main function is to expel. Not only
does roasting remove all the blood,
but it also separates all the ingredients
that are not essential to the meat. As
such, roasting shrinks the meat and
makes it tough and impenetrable.
The Maharal explains that this idea is
the symbol behind the Korban Pesach.
At the time of the Exodus when the
people of Israel are to become G-d's
nation, it is not possible to allow any
spiritual influence and absorption
from outside. No outer influences that
could compromise our essential,
spiritual nature may be permitted. The
formation of the Jewish nation must
involve both a courageous stand
against the pagan world in which we
endured a 210 year exile and a
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
rejection of its Egyptian culture.
Therefore, we cannot allow any
expansion that will weaken our inner
structure. Our nation must be solid
and impermeable. Pesach is the time
to strengthen our Jewish identity and
reject all foreign influences and
elements.
For this reason, the Korban Pesach
must be only roasted. This symbolizes
the need for inner spiritual strength
and distinctiveness. As the Torah
states, "Behold it is a nation that
dwells alone and is not reckoned
among the other nations [of the
world]" (Bamidbar 23).
MACHON PUAH
Medical Knowledge and Halachic Decisions
Last week we asked whether medical
knowledge can influence and change
halacha. Obviously, there are areas of
halacha that are affected by medical
advances, for example the Gemara
permits one to kill fleas on Shabbat.
The reason given is that fleas do not
procreate in the same way as other
animals but are rather produced by
spontaneous generation. In previous
generations it was widely believed that
fleas came from the humus, decaying
food or animals, but were not
produced by reproduction of a male
and a female.
Of course today we know that fleas do
reproduce in the same way as other
animals and are not born out of putrid
substance. Most poskim therefore are
of the opinion that we are not
permitted to kill such fleas on Shabbat.
In effect the medical and scientific
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 27
knowledge that we have learned has
changed halacha. The reason for this is
that this halacha is based on medical
knowledge and as it changes so does
the halacha to adapt to the changes.
Some halachot do not so obviously
change with medical knowledge. The
Shulchan Aruch does not permit one to
eat meat together with fish and the
reason is that it is considered
unhealthy and to cause certain
illnesses. Today we do not consider it
unhealthy to eat meat together with
fish and some poskim do permit one to
eat fish and meat together. But most
do not and the reason for this is that
while this is the stated reason there
may be other religious reasons why we
are to refrain mixing meat and fish and
therefore it is not purely based on
medical knowledge. As such, halacha
does not automatically change even
when medical advances seem to
indicate that the reason given is
irrelevant today.
Now back to the case that we saw last
week. Modern medical knowledge
shows that during pregnancy there is
significant cellular interchange between
the mother and the baby, with the
mother’s cells and conditions affecting
the baby and the baby’s cells are found
throughout the mother’s body.
Some pointed to this as a potential
proof that pregnancy conveys motherhood and not genetics. Is this another
case of medicine determining halacha?
I would argue that the halachic
definition of motherhood was never
based on medical knowledge. And
therefore the fact that we are now
learning how much pregnancy influences the child does not have any
bearing on the halachic decision as to
who is the mother. There are many
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
poskim who hold that the mother is
the birth mother but not because of
medical knowledge. Therefore this
does not appear to be a convincing or
valid proof.
Medicine can affect halacha but it does
not do so in each and every case.
Rabbi Gideon Weitzman, Director, Puah Institute
Portion
He doesn't know if he
sinned inadvertently
Our portion of Vayikra talks about
the different types of korbanot that
a person may have to bring. Burnt
offerings - Olah - of cattle, smaller
animals and birds. Meal offerings Mincha, that are baked, pan fried,
or deep fried. First grain offerings.
There are also peace offerings
(Sh'lamim), from cattle, sheep, and
goats. Then different type of sin
offerings - chatat are enumerated.
We can't possibly go into all the
details of all these types of
korbanot. This week I chose to talk
a bit about a certain type of ASHAM
offering, the ASHAM TALU'I - guiltoffering in case of doubt. The
ASHAM of one who does not know
whether or not he must bring a
chatat (5:17).
The case refers to a type of sin that
if done intentionally the violation
incurs the punishment of Kareit spiritual excision, and for which an
inadvertent sinner would bring a
chatat - sin offering. In our case the
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 28
person is not sure if he has
committed the sin or not. For
example two pieces of fat are on his
plate. He thinks both are permissible types of fat so he eats one.
Later he learns that one of the
pieces of fat was cheileiv, the type
of forbidden fat, but he still doesn't
know if what he had eaten was the
restricted type of fat or the
permissible type. Hence we are
dealing with a case of questionable
guilt, so he brings a guilt-offering in
case of doubt - ASHAM TALU'I.
Rabbi Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler
(Michtav MeiEliyahu vol.3) says that
we may wonder why the Torah
requires a person to bring a korban
when he transgresses without willful
forethought, without a conscious
intent to transgress. He explains
that a person will not forget or make
mistakes regarding things that are
an integral part of his being. If one
does forget or makes mistakes in
some area, it is usually a sign that
those values are not yet a part of
you. By having to bring a korban
even if it is not sure that the person
has really transgressed, a person
reminds himself to work on internalizing Torah values so he won't be
able to forget anything related to his
Torah observance.
SINCE THE ASHAM TALUI is
brought from a goat - here is a
recipe with goat cheese.
GOAT CHEESE WITH
GREEN BEANS AND POTATOES
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
1 kilo potatoes, cut into bite-size
pieces
1 Tbsp oil
¼ kilo frozen green beans, thawed
1 cup red onion, chopped
4 cloves garlic, minced
½ cup balsamic vinaigrette dressing
1 cup roasted red peppers, drained
and chopped
¼ cup chopped basil
250ml package goat cheese,
crumbled
Cook potatoes for about 10
minutes. Drain then steam dry.
Cook and stir the green and onion
beans in a bit of oil until tender,
about 5 minutes. Stir in the garlic;
cook and stir until garlic is fragrant,
about 1 minute more. Transfer the
green bean mixture into the large
bowl with the potatoes. Add the
balsamic vinaigrette, roasted red
peppers, and basil; toss lightly. Stir
in the goat cheese and serve.
Maharal on the Sedra
The Humble Prince
Vayikra 4:22 - If a leader will sin and
negligently do one of the commands of Hashem which should not
be done, and be guilty...
Rashi - The word for “if” in this verse
is ASHER (related to ASHREI),
which means fortunate or happy.
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 29
Fortunate is the generation whose
leader puts his heart to seeking
atonement for his mistake, ever
more so for his intentional misdeeds.
Gur Arye - The language is different
here than 4:3, 4:13, and 4:27, all of
which begin with IM, meaning if.
Our verse begins with ASHER,
which usually means fortunate. It
certainly does not mean that the
leader who puts his heart to his
error is fortunate, for if he sins he
would not be called fortunate.
Rather the generation, who did not
sin, and has such a leader, is
fortunate. When this leader sins, he
regrets his error. He is not embarrassed to say, “I sinned”, and does
not say that he is too great and too
important to say “I sinned”. His
humility is the good fortune of his
people, and on account of it, his
reign shall endure.
Secular power and honor remove a
person from the world, as it is
written, [D'varim 17:20]: “In order
that he not allow his heart to exult
over his brothers, and in order that
he not turn aside from the commandment to the right or to the left,
so that his days be lengthened
upon his throne, he and his sons in
the midst of Israel.” The leader must
be mindful that if he is arrogant in
his rulership, his arrogance will bury
him. Rulership is not for his
personal benefit, but for turning to
his people to supervise them and
fix what is lacking.
How does it happen that the ruler
acquires this arrogance that
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
shortens his life as ruler? The ruler
is alone when he rules, so separate
and above his people that he
privately considers himself unique.
This way he has less power than he
would if he remained among his
people. It is well-known that water
in a vessel is not long to survive - it
will be lost by pollution or
consumption. However, water in the
middle of a river is bound to
continue to flow. Why did Yosef not
live as long as his brothers? It was
because he acted like a ruler [Sota
13b]. A person gets his life and his
continued existence from Hashem,
may He be blessed, the living God
who provides life to all living things.
When a person makes himself a
mekabel [receiver], by humbling
himself, he is fitting to receive life
from Hashem. But a leader who
exercises rule over someone else is
not acting as a mekabel and cannot
go on receiving life from Hashem.
Column prepared by Dr. Moshe Kuhr
CHIZUK ! IDUD
Divrei Torah from the weekly sedra
with a focus on living in Eretz Yisrael Chizuk for Olim & Idud for not-yet-Olim
As we begin the reading of Chumash
Vayikra, we once again find our
attention drawn towards the world of
Korbanot.
Although the sacrificial order is somewhat foreign to modern man some
things are clear: The bringing of a
Korban, is by definition an attempt to
come closer (Karov) to Hashem. This
desired outcome can be attained only
OU Israel Center TT 1129
page 30
when both sides, G-d and man, are in
synch with one another. For G-d to
find the sacrifice acceptable - V'nirtza
Lo (Vayikra 1:4) - man must bring the
appropriate offering to the proper
Place and have the proper intention.
This, coupled with the meticulous
fulfillment of the detailed laws
surrounding each of the different
sacrifices, can then lead to Kapara and
Hitkarvut.
Although we have become accustomed to life without Korbanot, for
those living in the time of the
Mikdash, life without Korbanot was
almost unimaginable. [Parenthetically,
I am reminded of the request of the
Elders of the Ethiopian community
shortly after their Aliya some 30 years
ago. They turned to me as Rav of the
Absorption Center asking that they be
permitted to offer the Korban Pesach
as was their custom in Ethiopia. Now
that they had returned home they
could not imagine Pesach without the
Korban. [Readers of this column will
remember that the Chief Rabbis at the
time (Rav Avraham Shapira and Rav
Mordechai Eliyahu) gave contradictory responses as to whether this
could be allowed.]
History teaches us that the Ethiopian
community was not the first Diaspora
community to allow sacrifices outside
of the Beit HaMikdash. Indeed, during
the time of the Second Beit HaMikdash, a second, competing, Mikdash was built in Egypt in Heliopolis.
The intriguing story behind this little
Vayikra-R"Ch-HaChodesh 5775
known 'second Second Temple' begins
some 2200 years ago with a struggle
of succession between two brothers
after the death of their father.
Shimon HaTzadik indicated upon his
death bed that his younger son,
Chonyo, should take over. This,
however, was not to be. The older
brother Shim'ei, grabbed hold of the
reigns of leadership and Chonyo was
forced to flee Jerusalem. [The exact
details of the story are unclear, see
Menachot 109b for different versions
of this strange story]. Chonyo did not
give up on his dream, and realizing he
could not continue to live in Eretz
Yisrael he moved to Egypt. Upon
arriving there, he built a Mikdash near
Alexandria offering Korbanot on the
altar erected there. Chonyo received
the permission (and the land itself)
from Ptolemy, the Egyptian ruler, who
was following his own political
interests hoping thereby to deliver a
blow to his enemies in Jerusalem.
Building his edifice on approximately
120 dunams of land, Chonyo hoped it
would serve all those who like himself
had become dissatisfied with the
politicization of the Mikdash in
Jerusalem.
Were these Korbanot offered L'sheim
Shamayim? And if so, how could they
have been offered outside the sacred
precincts of the Temple Mount?
The Talmud records a difference of
opinion amongst the Rabbis, but if we
follow R. Yehuda’s view, Chonyo’s
actions were justified by his reading of
Yeshayahu 19:19 which states that
“The Altar will be built in the land of
Egypt.”
Indeed, the Mishna (Menachot 13:10)
tells us that if a person vowed to bring
a Korban to the Beit HaMikdash, then
it must be offered there. But if he
vowed to offer it in Beit Chonyo he is
permitted to offer it there. This
Temple, known as Beit Chonyo, stood
for about 235 years and was destroyed
by Vespasian after the fall of Masada,
when many Jews escaped to Egypt.
The Romans feared that this spiritual
center could serve as the epicenter of
a future potential rebellion.
What lesson can be learnt from all of
this? Although at first glance the
notion of someone building a second
Mikdash in the Diaspora seems so
strange - is it really so? After all, there
are communities of Jews the world
over who seem to find some sort of
justification for the investment of
huge sums of money building lavish
houses of worship, Mikdashei Me'at,
everywhere and anywhere, outside of
Israel. These individuals, putting heart
and soul into the building project,
would do well to remember Chonyo's
forgotten role in Jewish history:
Jewish history demands we return
home. Those following Chonyo's
model today can only but expect that
their efforts end up like those of
Chonyo eventually falling into
oblivion in the dustbin of Jewish
History.
Rabbi Yerachmiel Roness, Ramat Shiloh, Beit Shemesh
Birkat Ha'Ilanot D zepli`d zkxa
The following bracha is said only once a year, during the month of Nissan, on
fruit trees in blossom. It is not said on flowering trees that do not bear
fruit. Say the bracha ONLY if you are sure that the trees are
fruit-bearing. It is not said on fruit trees that already have fruit;
only on fruit trees when they display the flower blossoms that
precede their fruit. It is preferable to say the bracha on at least
two trees. The bracha should be said with a sense of awe,
appreciation, admiration, and joy of HaShem and the world He created
for us. We specifically acknowledge Him in the presence of fruit trees
which delight our senses with their floral displays, even before they
provide us with their tasty fruit. We realize that this is an extra-s
pecial gift from G-d to us.
,xa¨ c¨ Fn¨lFrA§ xQ© g¦ `ŸNW¤ m¨lFrd¨ K¤ln¤ EpidŸl'
¥ `
¡ 'd dY¨ `© KExA¨
:mc¨ `¨ i¥pA§ md¤ A¨ zFPd§
© l miaFh
¦
zFp¨li`¦ e§ zFaFh zFix¦ A§ Fa `x¨ aE
¨
Some versions have mElM§ instead of xa¨ c¨
Some add these T’hilim (122 and 128)
mi«¦ l© WEx§
¨ i .mi«¦ l¨ WEx§
¨ i K¦ix¨
«©rW§ A¦ ,Epi«l¥ b§ x© Eid¨ zFcnŸ§ r .K¥lp¥ 'd zi¥A ,il¦ mix¦ nŸ§ `A§ iY¦ g«§ n© U¨ ,ce¦ c¨l§ zFl£rO© d© xiW¦
dOǬ
¨ W iM¦ .'d mW¥ l§ zFcŸdl§ ,l`¥ x¨U¦
§ il§ zEc¥r D'¨i ih¥ a§ W¦ mih¨
¦ aW§ El¨r mX¨ W¤ .eC¨g©
§ i D¨N dx¨A§ gª W¤ xir¦ M§ ,d¨iEpA§ d©
,K¥lig¥ A§ mFlW¨ id§
¦ i .K¦i«¨a£dŸ` Ei«l¨ W¦
§ i ,mi«¦ l¨ WEx§
¨ i mFlW§ El£`W© .ce¦ C¨ zi¥al§ zF`q§ M¦ ,h¨RW§ n¦ l§ zF`q§ k¦ EaW¨
§i
.K¨l aFh dW¨ w§ a£
© ` ,Epi«¥dŸl'¡` 'd zi¥A o©rn«© l§ .K¨A mFlW¨ `¨P dx¨A§ c£
© ` ,i¨rx¥e§ ig© `© o©rn«© l§ .K¦i«zFp
¨ n§ x§ `© A§ d¨el§ W©
ot«¤
¤ bM§ LY§ W¤
§ ` .K¨l aFhe§ Lix«¤W§ `© ,lk`Ÿ
¥ z iM¦ Li«¤RM© r© i«b¦ i§ .eik¨ x¨c§ A¦ K¥lŸdd© ,'d `x§¥i lM¨ ix¥W§ `© ,zFl£rO© d© xiW¦
'd Lk§ x¨
¤ai§ .'d `x§¥i ,x¤a«B¨ KxŸ©ai§ ok¥ ik¦ d¥Pd¦ .L«p¤ g¨ l§ Wª l§ aia¦ q¨ ,mizi¥
¦ f i¥lz¦ W§ M¦ Li«p¤ A¨ ,L«¤zi¥a iz¥ M§ x©§ iA§ d¨IxŸ¦ R
.l`¥ x¨U¦
§ i l©r mFlW¨ ,Li«p¤ a¨ l§ mi¦pa¨ d¥`xE§ .Li«¤Ig© in¥ i§ lŸM ,mi«¦ l¨ WEx§
¨ i aEhA§ d¥`xE§ ,oFIS¦ n¦
Trees by Joyce Kilmer
I think that I shall never see A poem as lovely as a tree.
A tree whose hungry mouth is prest Against the earth's
sweet flowing breast;
A tree that looks to God all day, And lifts her leafy arms to pray;
A tree that may in summer wear A nest of robins in her hair;
Upon whose bosom snow has lain; Who intimately lives with rain.
Poems are made by fools like me, But only God can make a tree.
ILAN, ILAN from Taanit 5b-6a: ...To what may this be compared? To a man who was journeying in the desert; he was
hungry, weary and thirsty and he lighted upon a tree the fruits of which were sweet, its shade pleasant, and a stream of
water flowing beneath it; he ate of its fruits, drank of the water, and rested under its shade. When he was about to
continue his journey, he said: Tree, O Tree, with what shall I bless you? Shall I say to you, ‘May your fruits be sweet’?
They are sweet already; that your shade be pleasant? It is already pleasant; that a stream of water may flow beneath you?
Lo, a stream of water flows already beneath you; therefore [I say], ‘May it be [God's] will that all the shoots taken from
you be like you.’ So also with you. With what shall I bless you? With [the knowledge of the Torah?] You already possess
[knowledge of the Torah]. With riches? You have riches already. With children? You have children already. Hence [I
say], ‘May it be [God's] will that your offspring be like you.’