Aish Kodesh on Parshat Yitro

וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ כֹהֵן מִדְיָן חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אֱלֹקִים לְמֹשֶׁה וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַמּוֹ כִּי הוֹצִיא יְקֹוָק אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרָיִם: (שמות יח:א)

Yitro, the minister of Midian, the father-in-law of Moshe, heard everything that G-d did to Moshe and to Yisrael, His people—that Hashem had taken Yisrael out of Egypt. (Shemot 18:1)

The Torah tells us that it was after Keri’at Yam Suf, when Bnei Yisrael had officially begun their journey to Eretz Yisrael, that Yitro all of a sudden came to join the nation, bringing Moshe’s wife and children with him . The pasuk which relates Yitro’s arrival is tells us that he heard of what Hashem did and afterwards he came. One of the famous questions amongst the mefarshim is what exactly was it that Yitro heard which enticed him to come join Moshe and become an oveid Hashem? Rashi explains that Yitro heard about Keri’at Yam Suf and Milchemet Amalek. HaRav Elimelech of Grodzhinsk asks, why does Rashi even have the question of what was it that Yitro heard that brought him to Bnei Yisrael? The pasuk itself says “that Hashem had taken Yisrael out of Egypt.” Also, if this is the case, why does Rashi answer Keri’at Yam Suf and Milchemet Amalek when the pasuk gives us the answer that Yitro heard of Hashem taking Bnei Yisrael out of Mitzraim?

The Torah says “שמע ישראל ה' אלקינו ה' אחד. ואהבת את ה' אלקיך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך ובכל מאדך. ”(Devarim 6:5) Rashi explains that when it says to “love Hashem with all your heart,” it means to say that your heart should not be divided with Hashem (מקום= Omnipresent) – “שלא יהא לבך חלוק על המקום”. The Beit Aharon understands this to mean that one should not say “in this place (מקום) it is possible for me to serve Hashem and in this place it is not possible.” Rather it is incumbent upon a person to keep the Torah and serve Hashem in whatever place or predicament in which he may find himself. Bnei Yisrael received the Torah in the Midbar; the Piaseczner Rebbe, HaRav HaKadosh Reb Klonimus Kalman Shapira הי“ד, writes that had the Torah been given in Eretz Yisrael, Bnei Yisrael would have thought that it was only while they were in their native land, their home, the place where they belonged, that they could uphold the Torah. However, while in galut where they are missing the atmosphere of the comfort of home and are distracted by the world surrounding them, they would not be able to properly serve Hashem. Therefore, HaKadosh Baruch Hu gave Bnei Yisrael the Torah in the Midbar, while they were travelling and unsettled, in order to show that they must uphold it wherever they are, be it settled at home or struggling on the road. 

We can now refine our understanding of what Rashi’s question was in order to understand its purpose and how it is answered. Rashi asked on Yitro, “מה שמועה שמע ובא”, what was it that Yitro heard to make him come? The emphasis it seems, is on why he had the desire to pick up from his home and join Bnei Yisrael where they were. Had he so desired, Yitro could have simply sent a request to Moshe to send some person from amongst Bnei Yisrael to Midian to teach Yitro the Torah and to help him convert, just as Yitro later did himself for his own family. 


This is the logic behind Rashi’s answer of Keri’at Yam Suf and Milchemet Amalek. Amalek wanted to “cool down” Bnei Yisrael, even though it would negate all logic to have gone up against them right after Keri’at Yam Suf when they were on the level that “even a maidservant saw that which even Yechezkel and Yeshaya didn’t see.” (Mechilta Beshalach 3) But Amalek thought that since Bnei Yisrael were “on the road” at the time and not yet in Eretz Yisrael, they could overcome them chas v’chalilah, even though the nation was on such a high spiritual level. This this is the meaning of the pasuk by Amalek “אשר קרך בדרך... ”, that they happened upon Bnei Yisrael on the way, for they were depending on this for victory. But it was Bnei Yisrael who were victorious! It didn’t matter that they were in the midst of journeying, for they still kept the Torah and retained their holiness even while they remained in such a state outside the borders of Eretz Yisrael.

With this in mind, Yitro realized that it was not sufficient to simply receive the Torah while relaxing at home; rather he had to go into the Midbar and also receive it there while on the road, ba’derech, by which means he could be proper Jew at home as well. Meaning that when Yitro heard of Amalek’s absurd assumption and attempt to attack Bnei Yisrael, he realized that to truly receive and internalize the Torah in a way that would remain true and strong even in the face of adversity and even on foreign soil, he had to receive the Torah for himself as the rest of Bnei Yisrael did– on foreign ground, while in the midst of a journey, outside of Eretz Yisrael.

Bnei Yisrael in the Midbar were not just mekabel the Torah for themselves but for all future generations as well. If so, then the Torah we have today is rooted within us in the same manner. We cannot be divided on Hashem and say that only in such-and-such a place can we be proper ovedei Hashem; no matter where we are in galut we have the obligation to uphold our the mitzvot and fend off the attacks of “Amalek” which try to weaken us while we are away from home. May we soon return home to Eretz Yisrael where we will no longer have to face adversity against our Torah b’yemot HaMashiach b’meheira b’yameinu.  

Trip to Poland

And as long as I'm at the computer I'll just say that I'm looking forward to my trip to Poland in a  couple of weeks. I'm gonna be in Warsaw, Lublin, Lizhinsk, Gur, Kotzk, and some other places, all the while stopping by certain kevarim of tzaddikim. Awesome. As well as some concentration camps; incredibly saddening but still important in its own way.

Tefillin Kiddush Hashem

Everyone is hearing about the incident of the 17 year old boy who inadvertently cause a plane to land midflight in Philly due to his wearing tefillin. I have to comment on this just because I'm friends with him and he is in my class. This is insanely awesome! Foist of all, I don't like all the negative comments going on with the websites which shall go unnamed. he is a tzaddik'le of a 17 and brilliant. This is the last person I would expect to hear was handcuffed and put into a van. But now everyone knows about tefillin. Yay! Baruch Hashem the news coverage was all nice and positive.

This is definitely going in the yearbook.

And I was also happy that nothing bad happened to him (except for all the comments on all the news websites.)

גר הייתי בארץ נכרי'ה: Being in Chutz La'aretz

ויקרא את שמו גרשום כי אמר גר הייתי בארץ נכרי'ה. (שמות ב:כב)

The Torah tells us that Moshe Rabbeinu named his firstborn Gershom because, as Moshe said, “I have been a stranger in a foreign land.” This is all plain and straightforward, and seemingly doesn’t tell us anything more than what is seen at face-value. However, Rav Shlomo Zevin points out that there is indeed what to pick up in the language of the text. From the fact that Moshe spells out that he had been a “stranger in a foreign land,” it would seem to be implied that it is also possible for one to be a stranger in a land which is not foreign. Similarly, we find that it says elsewhere “כי גר יהי'ה זרעך בארץ לא להם”. (Bereishit 15:13) From that fact that the pasuk specifies “in a land that is not theirs,” it seems to imply that they could be strangers in a land that does belong to them.

The Rogatchover Gaon, Rav Yosef Rosen, explains the latter pasuk above in a halachic manner according to Rambam (Hilchot Melachim 5:8) who writes  that if a melech Yisrael conquered Egypt with the approval of the beit din it would be permitted to go there (היא מותרת). When the Torah warns not to return to Egypt, it is only referring to individuals or to dwell there while it is under the control of goyim because then the behavior there will be improper.

Now, why did Rambam have to bother mentioning any of these reasons of justification in regards to conquering Egypt and going there? Does he not already write in one of the preceding halachot (ibid 5:6) that whatever a melech Yisrael conquers al pi beit din is itself then part of Eretz Yisrael? It must be that Egypt is an exception to this halacha. It can never be a part of Eretz Yisrael, rather it is only permitted to return there once it is conquered for the reasons stated by Rambam. The Torah says that Bnei Yisrael will be strangers in a land not theirs, referring to Egypt, for its soil will mamash inherently never be theirs; halachically, Egypt is never considered part of Eretz Yisrael. Following this idea, Rav Zevin explains the pasuk in our parasha, “גר הייתי בראץ נכרי'ה;” Moshe was not being redundant is saying he was a stranger in a foreign land; rather he was a stranger in a land which itself shall always be foreign to Bnei Yisrael.         

However, another explanation of “בארץ לא להם” is that HaKadosh Baruch Hu promised Avraham Avinu that while Bnei Yisrael would be in galut they would not mix in, or make themselves to be as natives, nor feel themselves to be like real residents. They would always feel themselves to like gerim, strangers. Hashem promised that Bnei Yisrael would never lose hope of the geulah and would constantly yearn to be free of their galut. Thus we can also explain the pasuk “גר הייתי בארץ נכרי'ה;” Moshe is saying that in the foreign land he felt himself to be a stranger, not like an established native. The Zohar (Tikunei Zohar 112a) says, “אתפשטותא דמשה בכל דרא”. In every person there is a spark of Moshe Rabbeinu, the imparted strength passed down through the generations the knowledge of recognition of being gerim in an eretz nachri’ah.      

Shlomo Katz- Shiru Lo

Minchat Asher on the din of Mora'at HaMikdash

(An interesting piece from this past Shabbos)

וַיִּיקַץ יַעֲקֹב, מִשְּׁנָתוֹ, וַיֹּאמֶר, אָכֵן יֵשׁ יְדוָד בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה; וְאָנֹכִי, לֹא יָדָעְתִּי. וַיִּירָא, וַיֹּאמַר, מַה-נּוֹרָא, הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה:  אֵין זֶה, כִּי אִם-בֵּית אֱלֹקִים, וְזֶה, שַׁעַר הַשָּׁמָיִם. (בראשית כח:טז-כז)

Rashi explains that what Yaakov Avinu meant when he said that Hashem was there and he did not know was that had he known he would not have slept there. Rabbi Moshe HaDarshan writes, why was Yaakov afraid? Because he acted lightly in the makom HaMikdash and went against what the Torah says, “ומקדשי תיראו”. Rav Asher Weiss writes that these words are very interesting indeed, for they seem to say that the halachah of Morah Mikdash, having fear in the Mikdash, applied even before the actual Beit HaMikdash was built.

Rambam writes in Sefer HaMitzvot (mitzvah 21), we have a mitzvah to be in great fear of the Beit HaMikdash to the extent that we place a weight of fear and awe upon ourselves- and this is Mora’at HaMikdash, which we learn from the pasuk “ומקדשי תיראו”. This mitzvah includes not walking into the Mikdash with your walking stick, with shoes, or with dirt on your feet, and also that one may not sit in the Azarah unless he is a king of Davidic lineage. This is an obligation upon us always, even nowadays during the Churban. The Sifra asks how do we know that this din applies even today? The pasuk says “את שבתתי תשמרו ואת מקדשי תיראו”- just as Shemirat Shabbat is perpetual, so too is Morah Mikdash. Furthermore, it also says there that it is not the Mikdash that we fear, but rather the One Who commands over it.

                However, when we look at what Rambam writes about the mitzvah of Shmirat HaMikdash (mitzvah 22), (to always have people around the Mikdash and guarding it,) it seems that that mitzvah only applies while the Beit HaMikdash stands. The explanation seems simple; the whole idea of shemirah is resultant from the kavod and romemut of the Heichal and from all the denim of the Beit HaMikdash. Morah Mikdash, on the other hand, stems from the sanctity for there dwells the Shechinah.

                Furthermore, Rambam writes (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:1) that it is a mitzvat aseh lirah min HaMikdash, to fear the Mikdash, and then he defines what exactly this means by saying that it is not the Mikdash itself that we fear but rather Hashem who commands fear of it. So this mitzvah is not necessarily in front of the Beit HaMikdash, but in the place of the Hashra’at HaShechinah. It says in Shemot Rabbah that in any place where the Shechinah is revealed it is assur to wear shoes. In fact, we see by Yehoshua that he is required to remove his shoes when a malach is speaking to him. So we see that even before the binyan Beit HaMikdash this halachah of Morah Mikdash was in effect by Yaakov Avinu since Hashem’s Presence was there.

                There is a machloket between Rambam and Ravad as to the status of kedushat HaMikdash today. Rambam holds that the kedushah rishonah of Shlomo HaMelech made the Azarah and Yerushlaim holy from then and forever on. Ravad holds that the kedushah of Yerushalaim and the Mikdash are not deoraita today. The Minchat Chinuch shows from this that according to Ravad there is no din of Morah today as well. If so, why doesn’t he argue this against Rambam by the halachah of Morah Mikdash?

                It seems that there are three categories by Kedushat HaMikdash: Firstly, there are dinim dependent on the Mikdash itself like the mitzvah of Shemirah. Secondly, there are dinim dependent on the Kedushat HaMikdash, which Rambam and Ravad argue on. Thirdly, there are dinim dependent on Hashra’at HaShechinah such as Morah Mikdash according to Ravad. So perhaps it is according to Rambam’s shitah that the makom HaMikdash is holy even today that we practice the mitzvah of Morah; that really it is dependent of the kedushat hamakom. But according to Ravad who holds that there is no kedushah, perhaps there is still Morah for a different reason. Rather than depending of the kedushat hamakom it is dependant on the Hashra’at HaShechinah, which is still there even after the Churban. So really Ravad doesn’t argue with Rambam as to whether or not Moreh Mikdash applies today, not like what the Minchat Chinuch says. Furthermore, without going into too much detail, according to Rambam the din of Moreh Mikdash only applies when there is Hashra’at Shechinah on the level of “Mikdash”, meaning when Hashem dwells amongst 600,000 Jews.

                In summation, Rav Asher Weiss explains that according to Rambam there are two fundamental principles in Moreh Mikdash: Hashra’at HaShechinah and Kedushat HaMikdash. Even according to Ravad that it is dependent only on the Shechinah, from וַיֹּאמֶר, אָכֵן יֵשׁ יְהוָה בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה; וְאָנֹכִי, לֹא יָדָעְתִּי, it seems that Yaakov Avinu knew that this place was destined to be the location of the Beit HaMikdash, but he didn’t know that the Shechinah was already there, so he didn’t think that the din of Moreh Mikdash applied yet. After the Shechinah was revealed to him as he slept, Yaakov became aware of his surroundings. That is why he said that had he known that the place was both kadosh  and that the Shechinah  rested there he would not have slept there. 

Bnei Yisaschar on Marcheshvan: Chanukat Bayit Shlishi

 והנה עיין מה שכתבתי לעיל (במאמרי חדש תשרי מאמר חינוך המקדש דרוש ד') בפסוק לפני אפרים ובנימין ומנשה עוררה את גבורתך ולכה לישועתה לנו [תהלים פ ג] (הוא במזמור שאמרו בני קרח), ונאמר בכאן בקיצור, דהנה קשה א' מהו הנרצה שבחרו בני קרח בתפלתם הנך שלשה שבטים דייקא...וכתבנו עפ"י הקדמה ידועה במדרש [ילקו"ש מ"א פ"ו רמז קפ"ד] המשכן שעשה משה הנה נשלם בכסלו וצוה השי"ת להמתין בחינוכו עד ניסן ירח שנולד בו יצחק והיה כסלו מתבייש ושילם השי"ת שכרו בחינוך בית שני בזמן החשמונאים והוא לדורות ימי חנוכה (והוא היה עיקר חינוך בית שני כי מה שחנכוהו בימי אנשי כנסת הגדולה עדיין היו עבדים למלכי פרס כמו שאמרו שם כי עבדים אנחנו ובעבדותינו וכו' [עזרא ט ט], כנ"ל), והנה בית ראשון שבנה שלמה נשלם בחדש הזה מרחשון כמבואר בכתוב ירח בול [מ"א ו לח] (ופירשו חז"ל שהוא מרחשון ויבואר להלן אי"ה ענין שם בול), והנה עפ"י רוח הקדש לא חינכו שלמה עד ירח האיתנים תשרי, והיה מרחשון מתבייש והבטיח הש"י לשלם שכרו לעתיד ב"ב בבנין הג', ע"כ תוכן דברי המדרש הובא בילקוט מלכים עיי"ש, אם כן נראה מבואר מזה דחינוך בית הג' במהרה בימינו יהיה במרחשון, אם כן חינוך כל השלשה בתים הם באלו הג' חדשים, תשרי (בית ראשון), מרחשון (בנין עתיד), כסלו (בית שני בימי החשמונאים שזה עיקר חינוכו כמש"ל(.

  והנה אלו הג' חדשים עפ"י סדר הדגלים אל השבטים הלא הם מתייחסים תשרי לאפרים מרחשון למנשה כסלו לבנימין, והנה תמצא לפי"ז חינוך כל הג' בתים המה בחדשים המתייחסים לבניה של רחל כי היא נקראת עקרת הבית [במדב"ר פי"ד ז'] הבן, (תמ"ך אשורי במעגלותיך בל נמוטו פעמי [תהלים יז ה], תמ"ך ר"ת ת'שרי מ'רחשון כ'סלו, כשיושלמו חינוך הבתים של אלו הג' חדשים אז לא ימוטו פעמי(.

  יצא לנו מכל זה, חינוך הבית המקווה ב"ב יהיה בחדש הזה מרחשון, וטעמא רבה אית ביה על פי אשר שמעתי מפי כבוד אדומ"ו הרב הקדוש מהרמ"מ זצוק"ל אשר עינינו רואים, כל הגזירות המתחדשות על שונאי ישראל מן המלכיות וכן נתינת המסים וארנוניות, התחלתן תמיד מן מרחשון, ואמר הטעם שבחודש הזה היתה המרידה במלכות בית דוד וימליכו את ירבעם [מ"ב יז כא] (ויעש ירבעם את החג בחדש השמיני בחדש אשר בדא מלב"ו [מ"א יב לג], בו"ל, נ"ל כאשר יתבאר אי"ה), על כן גזירת המלכיות במרחשון, ע"כ דברי קדשו.

  והנה לפי"ז תתבונן, להיות שחטאו ישראל ואמרו אז בחדש זה ראה ביתך דוד [מ"א י"ב ט"ז], על כן בעת התיקון ב"ב הנה ימלוך מלך בית דוד משיח צדקנו ויתחנך הבית במרחשון ויתוקן העולם במלכות, והנה לפי זה סדר החינוך של הבתים היה בתחלה בית ראשון בתשרי המיוחס לאפרים, ובית השני בכסלו חדש המיוחס לבנימין, ובית המקווה במהרה בימינו נזכה לראותו יהיה חינוכו במרחשון חדש המיוחס למנשה.