undamental to the idea of the korban, which we begin reading about this week, is the power to change oneself. After all the term korban comes from the word karov, meaning coming closer to God. Yet change is not easily accomplished. On its most basic level, the process involves a belief that one has the capacity to transform.
This capacity is implicit in the Purim story. Note how Queen Esther undergoes a fundamental metamorphosis in chapter four of the Megillah. When told that Mordechai was in sack cloth, she wonders why. (Esther 4:4-5) At that point, Esther does not even know that the Jewish people had been threatened. She had become so insulated in the palace of the King that she did not feel the plight of her fellow Jew. Furthermore, when asked by Mordechai to intercede on behalf of the Jewish people, she refuses, claiming that the rules of the palace did not allow her to come before the King. (Esther 4:7-11)
Yet, when Mordechai rebukes her, declaring that she too would not be able to escape the evil decree, perhaps the most powerful moment of the Megillah takes place. Esther courageously declares that she would come before the King, even if it means that she would perish.(Esther4:13-16)
This issue of Toras Aish is dedicated to
Dina Chana bas Bayla Ziesel & Shoshana Tzippora bas Dina Chana.
As you read these words of Torah please keep them in mind
for a refuah shelaimah.
Esther's Hebrew name was Hadassah. Once she becomes Queen, she adopts the Persian name Esther. This name, which means "hidden," reminds us that at the outset of her rulership, she abides by Mordechai's request to hide her Jewish identity. (Esther 2:20) But, as the narrative in chapter four reveals, she returns to her roots. At a key moment she is ready to speak out powerfully on behalf of her people. Esther provides an important example of how change is possible.
Rabbi David Silber notes that one of the smallest words found in the Megillah, dat, is used often and teaches an important lesson about Purim. Dat means law. In Persia, the law was immutable, it could never change. And so, when Vashti refused to come before the King, Ahaveirosh asks, "according to the law (dat) what shall be done to Queen Vashti. (Megillah 1:15) And when it is decided that a new Queen be selected, the Megillah once again uses the term dat-the law of selection. (Megillah 2:8) And when Haman accuses the Jews of not keeping the King's laws, again the word dat is used. (Megillah 3:8) Indeed, the decree that the Jews be killed is also referred to as dat. (Megillah 3:14-15)
Even when told of Haman's plan to destroy the Jews, Ahaveirosh declares that he cannot change the prior decree that the Jews be killed. (Megillah 8:8) The law, must remain. All Ahaveirosh could do is allow the introduction of a new dat, a new law that stands in contradiction to, but cannot take the place of the first. (Megillah 8:13)
Rabbi Silber points out that not coincidentally, when Esther agreed to come before Ahaveirosh, she declares, "I will go to the king contrary to the law (lo khe-dat)." (Esther 4:16) Esther had been so transformed that she is prepared to defy the immutable law of Persia.
The confluence of this week's portion and the Megillah reminds all of us of capacity to forge a new destiny even in the face of seemingly impossible obstacles. c 2000 Hebrew Institute of Riverdale & CJC-AMCHA
"Don't insult the alligator until after you've crossed the river." - Anonymous
RABBI MORDECHAI KAMENETZKY
Unlimited Partnership
T
he laws of the korbanos are difficult and complex. While the underlying theology and philosophy befuddle modern minds, the enormous symbolism, discipline, and commitment that they encompass leave lessons for the inhabitants of a techno-world to cherish.
One of those lessons is garnered from the sacrifice of the poor man. The first chapter teaches us about the olah offering, one that is totally burned on the altar. The normal offering was a bull or male sheep; however, a pauper could bring a bird.
"He shall split it_with its feathers_he need not sever it; the Kohen shall cause it to go up in smoke on the Altar, on the wood that is on the fire it is an elevation-offering, a fire-offering, a satisfying aroma to Hashem" (Leviticus 1:16-17).
The commentaries explain that as most of a bird's pickings are from someone else's property, and thus stolen, the Torah does not allow the innards to be served on the altar.
Therefore, in order to embellish an otherwise very paltry bird-offering (no pun intended), the wings remain, even though burning feathers emit a terribly foul smell.
What bothers me is the following question: Throughout the entire discussion of offerings, the theme of "a satisfying aroma to Hashem" is reiterated. And through our mortal nostrils we understand the concept of the succulent aroma of roast beef. But nothing smells worse than burning bird-feathers. So why do we end the chapter by seemingly feigning Heavenly pleasure by adding the words, "a satisfying aroma to Hashem"?
Rabbi Abraham Twerski tells the story of his grandfather, the Hornsteipler Rebbe. The custom of the Chassidim was that when gathering for a meal, a large pot would be placed in front of the Rebbe, who would taste a mere morsel of its abundant bounty. He would then pass the rest shirayim to the Chasidim, who would wait anxiously to partake in the leftovers of the Holy Rebbe.
One Shabbos the Rebbe, accompanied by his Chasidim, stayed at the inn of a poor widow. The hostess brought out a sizeable bowl of cholent which was placed in front of the Rebbe.
As was his custom, he tasted a small portion and stopped. He licked his lips and smiled. "This is truly delicious, I must have some more!"
The Chasidim were stunned. The Rebbe never ate more than a half-teaspoon before beginning the distribution. The Rebbe took a larger portion and again commented on its delightful taste. Then he ate more. He continued to eat, and within ten minutes the pot was empty. The Chasidim were shocked at the seemingly uncharacteristic gluttony of such a holy man.
Dismayed, the shammas returned to the kitchen with the empty pot, only to hear in disappointment that there was no more cholent. Coursing the inside of the pot with his index finger, the shammas tried to partake in some of the remnants of the cholent that the Rebbe had just devoured.
When he licked his finger and recoiled. As he rushed to find water, he realized why the Rebbe consumed the pot while singing the praises of its contents. He now understood why the Rebbe did not distribute it to the Chasidim. He did not want to embarrass the poor woman with a possible snide remark made by of one of his flock. For the woman had accidentally added kerosene to the cooking oil. For the Chasidim it may have stank, but to the Rebbe the taste was truly delicious.
When the Torah tells us to leave the feathers on the bird so as not to embarrass the pauper, it tells us as well what the burnt feathers will smell like to the Almighty. They will smell as sweet as the most succulent beef. Sparing embarrassment produces the sweetest smells to the Almighty. In the Philadelphia Yeshiva, a homeless beggar would often visit and stand in the corner of the Bais Medrash. The boys were not able to physically stand near the man because of the terrible odor. But Dr. Shimon Askowitz, would not only cheer the man he would bring him home to give him food and a bath in a most friendly and charming manner. To Dr. Askowitz, it seemed as if the man was bathed in cologne.
Like the pauper's bird's burnt feather, the Doctor smelled a "a satisfying aroma to Hashem." Because to the nose that knows, the smell endured to save the embarrassment of a fellow Jew, is as fragrant as the finest epicurean delight. Copyright c 2000 by Rabbi M. Kamenetzky and Project Genesis, Inc.
"If trees could scream, would be be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed al lthe time, for no good reason."-JScherer
RABBI SHLOMO RISKIN
Shabbat Shalom
W
hat is the real consequence of the sin of eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden? And what do our Sages mean when they link the Scroll of Esther to the original sin of the serpent, when they ask, "What is the source of Haman from the Bible? Is it true that from (Hamin) the tree which I commanded you not eat therefrom, you ate?" (B.T. Hullin 139b).
An easy answer would be based on the Talmudic suggestion that the forbidden fruit was the grape, and the sin of Adam and Eve was their becoming inebriated; indeed, the secular and sacrilegious character of the atmosphere surrounding the Scroll of Esther is punctuated by an unhealthy emphasis on drinking wine, partying and carousing. But this would hardly explain the central commandment of the Purim Festival, that "an individual is commanded to drink on Purim until he no longer knows the difference between cursing Haman and praising Mordecai. "If becoming drunk on wine was Adam's original sin, why eternalize the transgression each year as a Rabbinic command?
A much more profound interpretation is suggested in an article written by Ariel Eitam in "Hadassah is Esther," (a compendium of articles about Purim memorializing Dassy Rabinovitch, a most unusually gifted, dedicated and spiritual young woman of Efrat who tragically died of cancer at the age of 17). The "tree of knowledge of good and evil" is clearly identified with death, first of all because the Almighty warns "that the day you eat of it, you shall surely die," and secondly because in a later Biblical passage life is identified with good, and death with evil_our charge being "to choose life" (Deuteronomy 30:15-20). From this perspective, the counter-weight to the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the tree of life (in later Rabbinic literature, to be identified with Torah; the tree of knowledge of good and evil denies one of the true tree of life.)
Eitam magnificently explains that even before Adam and Eve's transgression, evil did exist; however, it was external to the human personality, it stood outside of humanity much as did the serpent. Eating the forbidden fruit meant that evil would become an intrinsic aspect of the human psyche itself, mixed in together with good to such an extent that it often could not even be identified as the evil which it was. Before the sin of eating the forbidden fruit, the human material impulse and inclination was directed only towards purity and sanctity; hence, "they were naked, the man and his wife, and they were not ashamed." After having sinned, evil became internalized, the human instinctive drive towards evil could lead to its rationalization and even justification, and so the boundary line between good and evil became hopelessly eroded and confused; hence, when man and woman are exiled from the Garden of Eden the Almighty must gift them with outer garments to cover over their nakedness.
The task of Torah, "a tree of life for those who grasp it, and those who uphold it are content," is to provide the clear line of demarcation between good and evil, to clean away the obfuscation and confusion, "to distinguish between the holy and the profane, that which is permitted and that which is forbidden." Before the sin of the fruit, the human being could be trusted, his essence was pure, his emotions were sacred; after the sin of the fruit, the human being had to be commanded, his reason had to overcome his emotions, only Biblical distinctions and lies vigilant adherence to those distinctions could guarantee his proper conduct. Hence, after his sin, "Noah awoke from (the drunken stupor brought about by too much) wine, and he knew what his youngest son had done to him"_either he had committed an act of homosexuality or castrated him. After the forbidden fruit, anything like wine which removes one's capacity to distinguish clearly between good and evil can only doom the human personality to disaster. After the sin, it is forbidden for one who drunk wine to enter the Temple precincts, and "You shall be holy" rules the day!
A careful reading of the first chapters of the Scroll of Esther will reveal a total confusion between good and evil; evil acts are described as being good because of the influence of excessive wine which removes the capacity to discern and distinguish. " The heart of the King is good (Katov) with wine" and he banishes Vashti (1:10,12,19-21); the King rounds up "virgins of goodly appearance"_and thereby justifies mass prostitution and haremization (2:2-4); "if it be good with the King, it shall be written to destroy them"_ and the Jews will be decimated (3:9-11); "and the matter was good (Vayitav) before Haman and he made a tree"_upon which to hang the virtuous Mordecai (5:14).
It is only after Esther emerges as a heroic protector of her people that she succeeds in separating between good and evil_and in isolating evil for what it really is: "....If it is good for the King, let him grant me my soul for my request and my nation for my petition.. the foe and the enemy is this evil Haman" (7:3-7). Haman is evil (8:3), the Jewish people are facing the evil he has wrought (8:7,8), and the victory day of Purim is one of "joy, feasting and a good day_yom tov" (9:19). Indeed, it is Mordecai who "seeks good for his nation and speaks peace to all his progeny" (9:25). Esther has taught Torah, has insisted on the proper distinctions between good and evil, has enabled reason to triumph over base materialism and petty jealousies.
Allow me a final word to explain the nature of our Purim celebration according to this thesis. On the evening of Purim we read the Scroll of Esther_ and it is forbidden to drink to excess. We also read the Scroll again in the morning_and the prohibition against inebriation is still in place. Torah and human reason remain paramount; indeed, we follow each reading with the special Shoshanat Yaakov prayer, emphasizing the necessity to "curse Haman, praise Mordecai, curse Zeresh (Mrs. Haman), praise Esther, curse idolaters, praise Israelites, and even remember Harvona for good."
And then we perform the commandments of gifts to our friends, charity to the poor_commands linking us to Torah and the Tree of Life! It is at this point that we feel that we may have transcended the world of sin and forbidden fruit, that we may be worthy of returning to the pure and pristine state of humanity before the fall, when human nature was only directed to the good, the godly, the glorious. Perhaps this is why we can conclude Purim by drinking until we no longer know the difference between cursing Haman and praising Mordecai," because we no longer have to know how to distinguish, because we have returned to our original purity and have gained the merit of basking in the eternal tree of life. How do we know if we've truly gotten there? If, when we drink to surfeit, what comes out of our mouths is not curses or smut, but rather praises to G-d and novel Torah interpretations. c 2000 Ohr Torah Institutions & Rabbi S. Riskin
"Guys like me, we're like shooting stars. Shining bright one minute and then....crashing to the earth in a ball of fire - Gosh I'm starting to depress myself!" - Johnny Dangerously
RABBI DOVID SIEGEL
Haftorah
T
his week's haftorah, read in conjunction with Parshas Zachor, relates to Hashem's charge to Shaul Hamelech to destroy the entire nation of Amalek. The time had finally arrived to repay our archenemy, in full, for all the torture and indignation he brought unto us. Shaul Hamelech successfully fulfilled his command, for the most part, and annihilated the nation of Amalek save one soul, the Amalekite King, Agag. Shaul also destroyed almost all the animals but acquiesced in the Jewish nation's request and spared choice sheep for sacrificial purposes. The prophet Shmuel was immediately summoned to reprimand Shaul and inform him of the severity of his failings. Shmuel told him that this offense would cost him the kingdom and that his successor had already been chosen.
Shmuel proceeded and summoned Agag to be executed in a most gruesome way. But Shmuel's response came after Agag had remained alive for one complete day. The Talmud teaches us that the Amalekite king managed to take full advantage of Shaul's error. In a most unpredictable set of events Agag utilized his last hours of life in attempt to procure the nation of Amalek. His attempt proved quite successful and, against all odds, the entire nation of Amalek was reborn. A reversal of such proportions suggests that it was now the master plan of Hashem for Amalek to remain. Although only moments earlier Hashem decreed Amalek's total destruction this privilege could no longer be granted the Jewish people. Their recent error warranted that Amalek, the father of anti-Semitism, must continue to exist.
In order to appreciate this development it is important to discover Hashem's purpose for Amalek and what benefit, if any, he brings to mankind. For this, we refer to the Jewish people's initial encounter with Amalek and the strategy used in defeating him. The Torah states, "And when Moshe raised his hand the Jewish people overpowered Amalek and when Moshe lowered his hand Amalek overpowered the Jews." (Shmos 17:11) From these words it seems that the success and defeat of the Jewish people depended heavily on the position of Moshe Rabbeinu's hand?! The Mishna in Tractate Rosh Hashana (chapter 3) raises this problem and answers that Moshe Rabbeinu's hand served as a vehicle and gauge for the Jewish people's devotion.
Chazal teach us that, in actuality it wasn't the literal hand of Moshe that affected the war, rather it was his prayer coupled with the total devotion of the Jewish people to Hashem. As long as their hearts were perfectly focused on Hashem's salvation Hashem was there for them. But the moment the Jewish people deviated from this Hashem's assistance was no longer rendered to them. It seems that the defeat of Amalek required total subjugation and anything short of this could prove fatal. Moshe Rabbeinu's raised hand served as a catalyst and perfect gauge for this devotion. If Moshe's hand remained raised this reflected the Jewish people's total subjugation to Hashem, but if his hand began lowering this indicated the Jewish people's loss of focus on Hashem,
This initial encounter reveals to us the need for Amalek's existence and even the Heavenly purpose for his attacking the Jewish people. Our Chazal (see Rashi to Shmos17:8) address this and explain that Amalek's attack was brought about by the diminishing of the Jewish people's focus on Hashem. In support of this Chazal cite the incident recorded in the Torah immediately before Amalek's arrival. The Torah states, ".....For your testing Hashem and questioning does Hashem dwell in your midst or not?" (Shmos 17:7) Our Chazal (see Rashi ad loc.) explain that the Jewish people had grown accustomed to their special way of life in the desert. All of their needs were miraculously provided to them by Hashem. This lifestyle became so natural to them that they began questioning if Hashem, their perfect and constant provider, was truly amongst them.
A question of such absurdity demonstrates a lack of subjugation to Hashem and a lack of willingness to recognize Hashem's constant involvement and assistance. This unacceptable behavior called for an immediate response and Amalek was therefore sent to shock the Jewish people into reality. Amalek was notoriously infamous for his unwillingness to recognize Hashem and subjugate himself to any supreme power. Amalek therefore reflected, in very extreme proportions, the subtle imperfection of the Jewish people. The Jewish people responded to this attack and quickly learned their lesson. During this attack their focus was completely on Hashem's salvation, thus rectifying their earlier shortcomings. Hashem responded to their proper attitude and delivered them from the hands of Amalek.
With this insight in mind we now return to Shaul's subtle, but serious, deviation from Hashem's command. The Talmud in Mesichta Yoma (22B) explains that Shaul Hamelech found it difficult to accept Hashem's command of annihilating Amalek. He reasoned with compassion, "If the Amalekite men are sinful why must the children perish; why must their cattle be killed?" Concerns like this display a lack of acceptance of Hashem's will and a faint unwillingness to subjugate oneself to Hashem. This error reinstated the earlier problem of the Jewish people and required that the Amalekite nation be reborn and regain its status on the Jewish scene. Unfortunately, the Jewish people, together with their king, had not overcome their problem and needed an Amalakite reminder to keep them in check. Amalek and anti-Semitism would remain and the Jewish people would be constantly reminded of Hashem. This archenemy would once again be there to assist the Jewish people in totally subjugating themselves to their Creator.
This similar pattern reoccurred in the days of Purim. The Jewish people became acclimated to their lifestyle in the diaspora, and diminished their focus on Hashem. They began displaying their trust in the Persian Empire and eagerly attended the royal feast, against the stern warnings of their leading Torah authority, Mordechai. During the feast much immoral practice transpired amongst the many participating nationalities but the Jewish people remained indifferent to this all. Even the sacred vessels of the Bais Hamikdash were revealed and defiled but the Jewish people remained insensitive. This lack of focus and insensitivity towards Hashem demanded an immediate response. Once again a descendent of Amalek, Haman, was called upon who decreed against the Jews a merciless decree of total annihilation. Through the guidance of Mordechai and Esther the Jewish people responded with three full days of prayer and fasting. With this they totally subjugated themselves to Hashem and Amalek was defeated once again. May we learn from them to totally subjugate ourselves to our Creator thereby meriting the final and total destruction of Amalek and his followers. c 2000 by Rabbi D. Siegel & Project Genesis, Inc.
"Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak."
THE RUSHDAS SOCIETY
Purim as Part of the Jewish Year
by Micha Berger
T
he three upcoming holidays_Purim, Pesach and Shavuos_have each been compared to holidays in Tishrei. The Gemara notes that Yom Kippur, or, as the Torah calls it, Yom Hakippurim, could be read as "The day which is like Purim". It is kind of hard to see how the day where one is required to "suppress your nefesh" can be compared to the day where "one is obligated to drink until one can not distinguish between cursing Haman and blessing Mordechai". Yet, the Gemara invites such a comparison.
Similarly, many of the laws of Matzah and Succah are derived by comparing Succos and Pesach. The grounds for this is the hermeneutical rule of "gezeira shava", which is usually a comparison of two things described in the Torah by similar terminology. In this case it is the fact that both are on the 15th of their respective months that invites the comparison.
Last, the Gemara consistently refers to Shavuos as Atzeres, whereas Shmini Atzeres is qualified as Atzeres HaChag, the Atzeres of Succos.
We can therefor look at the fall Yomim Tovim, and how they are structured, and learn something about their spring parallels.
Yom Kippur and Shmini Atzeres share a theme. On Yom Kippur we are judged to determine our fate for the next year. On Shmini Atzeres, the rain, and by extension our finances, are decided. (See Taanis 2b, where the "key to rain" is given as the source of all fiscal blessing.) One could think of Shmini Atzeres as a reprisal of the theme introduced by Yom Kippur. Sandwiched between them is Succos, presenting the mirror image of the same idea. Instead of focusing on earning sustenance, on Succos we celebrate those things Hashem already gave us.
By parallel, we see how Pesach and Shavuos present opposite side of the same idea. On Shavuos we focus on assuming the responsibility of getting and keeping the Torah. On Pesach, we celebrate the special providence Hashem gives us as Jews. This would mean that to find the theme to Purim, we should look at how it would fit into the same pattern, how it shares the theme of Shavuos.
"And they [Bnei Yisrael] stood under the mountain [Sinai]" (Shemos 19) R. Avdimi bar Chama bar Chisa said, "This teaches that Hakadosh Baruch Hu flipped the mountain [Sinai] over them [Bnei Yisrael], like a barrel, and said, 'If you accept the Torah, good, and if not, there will be your graves.'" R. Acha bar Yaakov said, "This provides a major complaint against the Torah." Rava said, "Even so, the [whole] generation accepted it in the days of Achashveiros. For it says (Esther 9), "the Jews fulfilled and accepted", they fulfilled that which they had already accepted. Shabbos 88b
What the Jews accepted by force in the desert, was finally accepted willingly. Just as Yom Kippur is the complete judgment, and Shmini Atzeres is only a part, Purim represents the completion of what was started at Shavuos.
"Where is Esther in the Torah? (Devarim 31) 'I will hide in hiding (hasteir astir) My Face'." (Chullin 139b). This question is particularly valid since when Esther is introduced in the megillah (2:7) we are told her real name is Haddasah (cf Tr. Megillah 13a). Even further, Esther is the name of a pagan goddess. In all likelihood, like many American Jews today, Esther had two names, a religious name of Haddasah, and a legal name of Esther. This is consistent with the fact that we brought back with us from the same exile month names that are clearly pagan in origin. So why is does the megillah choose the name Esther?
A major theme of Purim is the fact that Hashem's role is hidden, there are no overt miracles, just a steady string of what looks like fortuitous coincidences. Hashem is never named in the megillah. The Yom Tov is named after the lots Haman threw to choose a day, and ended up choosing a date as far ahead in the year as possible.
The book and the queen are called Esther because it brings to mind a pun, and recalls the promise that Hashem will never abandon us as a punishment, but merely hide.
But what about Purim and its relationship to Shavuos? Didn't we say that the primary theme should be the acceptance of Torah that started at Shavuos?
Purim happened at a critical time in Jewish history. The last people who remembered the miracles of the first Beis Hamikdash were already old and dying. Until Moshiach, we won't see fire descend from the sky to consume the /karbanos/, the scarlet wool turn white on Yom Kippur, the Urim veTumim, light up prophetically. The last of the prophets (until the return of Eliyahu) were aged. Tzoraas no longer punished those who spoke lashon hara. To a certain extent, until this generation, Hashem still "held the mountain over our heads". The threat of punishment for sinning was tangible.
Then came Purim, with the appearance of happenstance, of /Hester Panim/, the Hidden Face. The Jewish people were taught a new way to relate to G-d. And the reaction_"the Jews fulfilled and accepted". A new level of Torah observance was reached, one of trust and faith instead of miracle and prophecy. c 1995 The AishDas Society
"The 50-50-90 rule: Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something
right, there's a 90% probability you'll get it wrong."
YOUNG ISRAEL OF PASSAIC-CLIFTON
Remembrance
by Rabbi JB Love
T
he verb which means to remember in Hebrew is different from other verbs. For instance, something which is shavur is broken, the broken piece is a shever, which also means the event, i.e. the breaking (also called sh'virah) and the item which has been broken is nishbar. In a similar fashion, that which is sold is machur, the item is the mecher as is the sale (also called m'chirah) and the item has been sold or nimkar. Not so the verb for remember. That which is remembered is, indeed, zachur, but so is the one who is reminded, the remembering itself is zecher (also called z'chirah), and the thing that has been remembered is nizkar. The person who has been reminded, however, has also been nizkar and the item or event mentioned was nizkar as well. And there's the rub. It is this duality which prompted the Chazal to see in the word zachor- remember what Amalek did to you, a command to mention (i.e. remind) what Amalek did to you. "It cannot mean just in thought, for it already says 'do not forget' hence, thought is already covered. What does zachor mean then? Orally."1 The first meaning of zachor, the mental exercise of remembering, having already been covered by the admonition against forgetting, would be redundant, thus the second meaning, to remind, to mention, is meant. Hence the mitzva to read aloud the chapter about Amalek.
If this is so, then what is meant by the further admonition, "Erase the zchr of Amalek from beneath the skies?"2 It doesn't seem logical that the process of remembering of Amalek is meant or even the memory which lingers in the mind. These were just commanded upon us not only passively but actively. Not only must we not forget, but we must remind and remember. The sin of Amalek must be etched into the collective consciousness of our nation. "He cooled the tub for the others."1 What invader or conqueror, Crusader or Inquisitor, dictator, terrorist or tyrant would have dared to touch the anointed of G-D,2 "whose cloud went before them by day and whose fire at night?" Who would have dared to follow Par'oh had not this vile marauder shown them how? This one can and should never be forgotten, no less forgiven, since every drop of Jewish blood ever spilled stains his hands too.
No, it is not the memory of Amalek that must be wiped out, but the memorials, the reminders, the souvenirs. "That there be no child, nor grandchild, no camel nor donkey under the heavens. Let no one say, 'That is Amalek's camel.'"3 The English word remembrance can mean both the recollection of an event or thing or the reminder of that event or thing. When dealing with the verb forms at the beginning of this article, context can usually inform us as to whether someone is remembering or reminding or whether one is being remembered, reminded or mentioned. Not so for the noun remembrance. Since both meanings of remembrance could be indicated by the same word, zecher, a difference was made by the language. The word for mention, recollection or memory is indeed zecher, the word for reminder, memorial or souvenir is zaycher. In the psalm t'hila l'david, the mention or recollection of G-D's immense goodness, "they will utter." zecher rav tuv'cha yabiu. In kiddush, however, shabbos is a reminder, a memorial to the Genesis. Zaycher l'maasei b'raishis. It is thus the zaycher, not the zecher, of Amalek which must be erased from the world.4 In commenting on the Maase Rav, the record of the customs of the Gaon of Vilna zl, Rabbi Naphtali Hertz Halevi zl writes:5zecher rav tuv'cha, in ashrei, [is pronounced] with two segol. Thus did he write in the Gra's specifics of the liturgy, printed at the end of Chapter 241 [of Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim]. It is also stated in the Maase Rav about parashas zachor that he read zecher with a segol under the zayin. And the Great Rav Chayim of Valozhin wrote, "I heard from his holy mouth the reading, [zaycher] with [a total] of five dots. And I do not know if those who heard erred in hearing six dots or if he changed his mind in his old age." So [Rav Chayim] asked the author of Peulas Sachir to establish the truth. And the "Peulas Sachir" said, "We heard while [the Gra] was alive and, after he left for the next world, from all who stood before him, that he read with five dots." "It is certain," concludes Rav Naftali Hertz, "that he revised the halacha in his old age, as [Rav Chayim] mentioned."
We, however, have the text of the Minchas Shai, the testimony of Rav Chayim of Valozhin as to what he heard, at least, in the Gra's early years, and the fact that the meaning of the word in ashrai is not that of the word in zachor. We also have Rav Chayim's alternative suggestion, that those who heard other than he erred. Given these, I would conclude that the correct pronunciation of the word in parashas zachor would be zaycher.
Needless to say, my conclusion will not, nor should it, change the age-old custom of reading both zaycher and zecher to make sure both possibilities are covered. What it may do, however, is influence the order in which the two are read. For those who read the entire last verse over, it would be best to read zaycher the first time, along with rest of the paragraph, since it is probably the more correct version. When repeating the last verse, zecher would be used, "just in case."
On the other hand, for those who follow the old minhag, as corroborated by Rav Moshe Feinstein zl, to only re-read the words "timche es zchr amalek," it would be better to read zecher first and then zaycher. Where both have equal validity this wouldn't make a difference since the repetition would be done in order to have read two possible versions of the text. If, however, only zaycher is really correct, it would be wrong to read the correct version and then interrupt the pasuk for the incorrect. The reverse, being a correction, so to speak, would be fine.
"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish andhe will
sit in a boat drinking beer all day."
THE RUSHDAS SOCIETY
Burning & Churning
by Yitz Weiss
"A
nd the Queen Vashti refused to come...and the king became very angry, and his anger burned within him."
The Gemara in Megillah (12b) asks, Why did he become so angry? The answer given is because Vashti sent back a reply comparing Achashverosh to her father's stable manager & said that the stable manager could hold his liquor better than Achashverosh!
Our question is as follows: What kind of question is the gemara asking? Of course Achashverosh would be upset! Vashti was refusing him (the KING) in from of all his advisors and noblemen. Wouldn't it be proper for him to be a little disturbed?
Here's the deal, there are two types of anger. One is regular (ketzef), out in the open, being upset. The second is anger on the inside (chaima). The gemara is trying to understand why Achashverosh's anger didn't subside after being vented publicly. Normally, when one displays anger, it reduces the internal 'churning' and serves as a form of release. Why would Achashverosh still have his anger 'burning' within him even after releasing it?
To this the gemara responds that the 'burning' anger was caused by the message Vashti sent. All who were present knew that the king was 'turned down' by his wife & as a result he become visibly angry. What no one else knew was what she had actually said to him. That's what 'burned within him.' (G'ra quoted in Kol Eliyahu) c 1995 The AishDas Society
"It might look like I'm doing nothing, but at the cellular level I'm quite busy."
RABBI YISROEL CINER
Parsha Insights
T
his week we begin Sefer Vayikra {the Book of Leviticus} with Parshas Vayikra. "Vayikra el Moshe {And He (Hashem) called to Moshe}. [1:1]" The Ramban explains the connection between Vayikra and the previous Sefer of Shmos. Shmos, the Sefer of Exile and Redemption, concluded with the Shchinah, the Heavenly Presence, filling the Mishkan. Vayikra instructs us as to the spiritual maintenance of the Mishkan-that which needed to be done in order to keep the Shchinah there. This included the daily service and the proper atonement for the eventuality of our errors through the bringing of korbonos {sacrifices}.
The Ramban further explains the concept of a korbon {sacrifice}-how slaughtering an animal atones and thereby brings one closer to Hashem. (We should keep in mind that the root of the word korbon is 'karov' which means drawing close.)
He writes [1:9] that the true atonement comes, not from the physical actions done to the animal, but rather from the process of deep introspection that one must undergo while offering the sacrifice. One must realize that it is really he who should be roasting on that altar! Such a thought process will cause him to distance himself from the materialistic and the physical which led him to sin. He reaches the realization that since his physical existence caused him to distance himself from Hashem as opposed to accomplishing its divine purpose of working together with and becoming uplifted through the spiritual, that physical existence should have been taken from him. This will allow him to henceforth clearly focus on the spiritual and gain this closeness (karov) to Hashem.
In order to fully understand how korbon can correct sin, we must gain an understanding of the way that we were affected and changed by sin. This can be done by examining the first sin committed by mankind-the sin of Adom and Chava {Adam and Eve}.
Adom and Chava were created in a state of pure tov {good}, wanting only to do the will of Hashem. Any inclination to sin came from an external source, personified by the nachash {snake}. Just as we have no desire to harm ourselves physically by jumping into a physical fire, they had no desire to destroy themselves spiritually by entering the searing fire of sin. The external urging therefore had to come in the form of the sin somehow allowing them to serve Hashem even better than before. They misconstrued the sin as actually being tov-a move which would yield positive results. Their test was therefore not a decision of tov versus ra {evil} but a battle to determine what was actually tov.
As a result of their sin they, and the entire world, underwent a fundamental change. Everything became a mixture of tov and ra. Ra became incorporated into who they were. They now had to wage a battle of internal contradictory voices vying for their attention and loyalty. This change was manifested by their sudden awareness that they were naked. Whereas beforehand they "lo yisboshashu {were not embarrassed}," suddenly, after they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they hid "ki airom {because they were naked}."
How can we understand this change in their self-awareness?
Many of us have gone horseback riding. Although the horse that we were sitting on was wearing nothing but a saddle, we riders were not the least bit embarrassed. What's there to be embarrassed about? A horse is a horse, of course, of course! The fact that it is naked bears no reflection on me whatsoever, and I am therefore not the least bit embarrassed.
Adom and Chava had a perfect awareness of who and what they were. They were souls, spiritual beings, the angel's superiors. Their role in creation was to walk on the earth of this world while their stature extended up to the highest points of heaven. But how can a soul walk on earth? It needs a mode of transportation. It needs a horse. They were given horses-bodies-to transport themselves around. The horses were naked. No reflection on them. They had nothing to be embarrassed about. They were naked but "lo yisboshashu {they were not embarrassed}."
Then they ate from the Tree of Knowledge. They changed. Their clarity was forever altered. Am I a soul? Am I a body? Who am I? Confusion. Blurred perception of who and what they were. It's no longer a horse that's running around naked. That just might be ME! They hid "ki airom {because they were naked}."
The first sin-the root of all sins that follow. Confusion. Who am I? An over-association with the body. An over-involvement with the body. How is it corrected? A korbon is brought. The animal's body is burned. It should be my body. That's not who I am. I am a soul. I have to begin to act accordingly. The closeness (korbon) to Hashem is reestablished.
Purim follows in a few days. The custom is to get dressed up-to wear masks. When one sees a mask, one immediately strains to see who is there behind the mask. Purim teaches us to look behind. To look behind all of the 'natural' events of the world and see the hand of Hashem in everything that takes place in this world. To look behind the physical body we are wrapped in and to see the precious soul of our true selves.
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." Bill Gates, 1981.
THE BOLOGNAVA REBBE
Halacha MiDisney
UNFORTUNATELY WE DON'T KNOW THE AUTHOR OF THIS IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS. WE HOPE TO ASSIGN CREDIT AT A FUTURE DATE WHEN HE/SHE BECOMES KNOWN.
W
hile Disney World does maintain daily minyanim throughout the park, many poskim have declared it forbidden to pray with them.
They proclaim that mice cannot serve as shlichei tzibbur, and it is well known that this practice is common at Disney synagogues. However, the chancellor of Disney World has ruled that mice are acceptable as agents, as long as they have taken upon themselves the obligations of daily tfilah. Mishlei states that there are no atheists in mouseholes.
Furthermore, on Shabbat, dwarves receive all seven aliyot. Dwarves reading from the Torah damages k'vod hatzibbur, even if all of the women are asleep (or rather, even if they appear to be dead, after swallowing a restrictive psak). Incidentally, Sleepy maintains that he is a kohen, based on family tradition passed from father to son since the days of Aharon. Other dwarves recall that Sleepy is a descendant of Honi M'agel, and hence cannot be a kohen_ but this is circular reasoning.
However, even those who permit aliyot for dwarves forbid them to serve as shlichei tzibbur. Apparently, dwarves are incapable of reciting the prayers properly, as they always whistle through their avodah_even Grumpy! Someone who hears this whistling and responds "Amen" is not yotze.
Disney synagogues also count mermaids in a minyan, in an obvious end-run around the age-old regulations to keep women barefoot. Since mermaids have no feet, they (technically) cannot stand for the Amidah, even though they remain shoeless. Yesh raglayim ladavar.
Heaping scandal upon scandal, mermaids, crickets, mice and ducks all sit on the same side of the mechitzah with wooden boys_clearly violating the prohibition against kilayim.
Sometimes after a tough day working the crowds through a steamy Florida afternoon, many of the regulars prefer to daven at home over a stiff drink.To ensure a minyan for Minchah, the Disney rabbis even count singing tableware and kitchen implements. Although this pushes the halachic envelope, each piece can cite a klal [general principle] whereby it must be included in the minyan:
The spoon counsels us "dan chaf b'zchut" [judge a spoon with merit].
The knife cites "sakin b'adam shelo b'fanav" [a knife (serves) in (stead of) a person when (a person is) not present].
The candlesticks remind us that "ner mitzvah, v'Torah or" [a candle (can do any) mitzvah,
but the Torah is only leather].
The goblet intones "kos yayin malei k'virkat Adoshem" [a full cup of wine is equivalent to blessing Hashem].
The frying pan sings "laKel yeratzu k'minchah al machavat" [to Hashem it is as pleasing as Minchah davened by a pan].
The teacup refrains "sefel tov l'chol oseihem" [a cup is as good as anyone (who) does (it for) them].
The wine bottle chides "al tistakel b'kankan, elah b'ma sheyesh bo" [don't look at the bottle, rather see what's inside it].
The clock chimes in "tfilah mitzvah shehazman grama" [prayer is a mitzvah that time begins].
Several others declare "va'ani tefilati" [I am my prayer].
[In a place where there aren't (enough) men, strive to be a man].
Several of the most stringent authorities complain that Disney World is open on Shabbat, so all Disney characters who are union members are prohibited from serving in public synagogue roles because they are mechalelei Shabbat b'fantasia. Lenient sources justify their work as melachah she-aynah tzricha l'Goofy. R' Bambi says "hakol kasher l'tzvi" [anything to make a buck].
This Purim Torah is codified in the sefer Iyunei Achbarim v'Anashim [Of Mice and Men] of R' Don Yitzchak Abarvazel. R' Abarvazel was an ancestor of the Katchke Rebbe. To properly grasp the full depth of his insights, one must be at least 40 years old and have raised children_and even then, it is advantageous to first fulfill the mitzvah of ad lo yada yada yada.
M-I-C (See you in costume.)
K-E-Y (Why? Because it's Purim!)
M-O-U-S-E from the diary of Michoel b. Velvel of Anaheim
"When you go into court, you are putting yourself in the hands of twelve
people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty."
PURIM TORAH?
Kosher Computing
T
he Rabbi came over yesterday and we had a bris (ritual circumcision) for my computer, taking a little piece off the tail of the mouse.
If you or a friend are considering a kosher computer, you should know that there were some other changes, such as:
I had to have two hard drives, one for fleyshedik business software and one for milchedik games.
Instead of getting a "General Protection Fault" error, my PC now gets "Ferklempt."
The Chanukah screen savers include "Flying Dreidels".
My PC also shuts down automatically at sundown on Friday evenings.
After my computer dies, I have to dispose of it within 24 hours.
My "Start" button has been replaced with a "Let's go! I'm not getting any younger!" button.
When disconnecting external devices from the back of my PC, I am instructed to "Remove the cable from the PC's tuchus".
The multimedia player has been renamed to "Nu, so play my music already!"
Internet Explorer has a spinning "Star of David" in the upper right corner.
I hear "Hava Nagila" during startup.
Microsoft Office now includes "A little byte of this, and a little byte of that."
When running "scandisk", I am prompted with a "You want I should fix this?" message.
When my PC is working too hard, I occasionally hear a loud "OyGevalt!"
I saw a "monitor cleaning solution" from Manischewitz that advertises that it gets rid of the "schmutz und drek" on your monitor.
After 20 minutes of no activity, my PC goes "Schloffen."
Computer viruses can now be cured with some matzo ball chicken soup.
The Y2K problem has been replaced by "Year 5760-5761" issues."To err is human, to moo bovine."
1 B. Megilah 18a.2 D'varim 25:19.1 V. Rashi B'midbar 25:18.2 Cf.. Sifri, D'varim 25, s.v. baderech.3 Ibid. s.v. mitachas, cf.. Rashi, D'varim 25:19 s.v. timche. Rashi z"l adds to the Sifri, "So that the name Amalek never be MENTIONED even regarding an animal saying, 'this animal was Amalek's.'" It would seem that Rashi sees in the seemingly extra words of the midrash, "let no one SAY..." as a d'rash on the word zecher ie. mention.This would answer the question we ask above, in the text, how could we be commanded to erase the mention if there is a mitzva to mention? The mitzva is to mention the story, the mention of his name on a souvenir of his existence is what must be erased. A careful reading of the Sifri and its parallel in the Mechilta, Sh'mos 17:14, shows that it is the redundancy of the two erasures of zchr that is being explained. G-D will erase the zchr by not allowing a son or grandson to issue forth (Sh'mos) and Israel (D'varim) shall erase the zchr by destroying the animals. The redundancy creates the need for the reading of the second as zecher. Nonetheless, I believe that this is a d'rash, in the spirit of al tikrei, and not p'shat in the text which should read zaycher. Ibn Ezra also brings the Sifri's interpretation of the text but doesn't say anything about "mention" as does Rashi. Whether Rashi, himself saw this as al tikrei or read the text as zecher is up for grabs.
4 This coincides with the text of the Minchas Shai in both D'varim 25 and T'hilim 150. It is, however, in diametric opposition to Rabbi Baruch Epstein zl (Torah Temima, D'varim 25, note 208) who attributes the d'rasha above (at note 5) to the reading zecher.5 In Siddur HaGra, N.Y. Kol Torah Company 1953
