In this issue...  lParsha Perspectives
                                                                                                                            lParsha Pointers
                                                                                                                            lParsha Pointers
                                                                                                                            lParsha at a Glance 
                                                                                                                            lPartner Talk 
                                                                                                                            lSoul Talk 
                                                                                                                            lHey I never knew that; Amazing Parsha Insights.
                                                                                                                            lTable Talk; For discussion around the Shabbos Table
                                                                                                                            lLook who made Partner! 

Click to view/print in PDF
Parsha Perspectives By Ozer Alport

(ואם נפש אחת תחטא בשגגה מעם הארץ בעשתה אחת ממצות ד' אשר לא תעשינה ואשם (4:27

“If an individual person from among the people of the land shall sin unintentionally by committing one of the commandments of Hashem that may not be done, and he becomes guilty”

Our verse introduces the laws governing the sin-offering which must be brought by a person who sins unintentionally. It is difficult to understand why the Torah requires a person to repent and receive atonement for an action which was completely accidental, with no intention to transgress whatsoever.

An insight into resolving our difficulty may be derived from a story involving the founder of the mussar movement, Rav Yisrael Salanter (1810-1883). On one of his travels, Rabbi Salanter was in need of money. He requested a small loan from one of the local townsmen. Because the man didn’t recognize Rabbi Salanter, he was suspicious of the request and demanded collateral or guarantors on the loan.

Some time later, Rav Salanter encountered that same man carrying a chicken, attempting to find somebody who could ritually slaughter it for him. The man approached Rabbi Salanter and asked if he was capable of doing so.

Seizing the opportunity, Rav Salanter taught the man an invaluable lesson in priorities and values. He pointed out that with regard to the possibility of losing a small amount of money, the man suspected him of defaulting on the loan. Yet when it came to the risk of eating non-kosher meat if his animal wasn’t properly slaughtered, the man had no problem trusting him.

Based on this story, we can appreciate how Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik answers our original question. He explains that an unintentional sin is the outgrowth of not sufficiently appreciating the value of mitzvos. Rav Soloveitchik discusses a case of a person carrying glass utensils. If they are inexpensive, it is likely that he won’t be particularly careful, and periodically some of the utensils may fall and break. On the other hand, if they are made of fine china and are extremely valuable, he will take extraordinary precautions to ensure their safe transport.

Similarly, if a person recognized the true value of mitzvos, he would take so much care to avoid transgressing them that accidents would be unthinkable. Rav Yitzchok Zev Soloveitchik, commonly known as the Brisker Rav (1886-1959), was renowned for what some perceived as a fanatical approach toward performing mitzvos, constantly worrying if he had properly fulfilled his obligations. He explained that just as a person who is transporting millions of dollars in cash would constantly check his pocket to make sure that the money is still there, his mitzvos were worth millions and he “felt” them constantly to make sure that he didn’t lose them.

Although a person’s transgression may have been completely devoid of intent to sin, it was the lack of proper recognition of the importance of the mitzvah which allowed him to slip up. It is this mistaken understanding which the Torah requires him to repair and correct. return to top
Ozer Alpert can be reached at ozer@partnersintorah.org

Mazel Tov to Steven and Aly Lewis on the birth of their son, Asher Deron Maxwell אשר דרור מתן
May he be a source of joy and Yiddish nachas to all.

talking points - parshas VAYIKRA Rabbi Elazar Meisels

1. No Room for Confusion

“And He called to Moshe, and Hashem spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, saying:” 1:1

• The letter “Aleph” in the word “VaYikra” is written in miniature. This is because Moshe, in his exceptional humility, originally desired to write “VaYikar,” the term used when the Torah describes Hashem’s conversation with the evil prophet Bilaam. This would have meant leaving out the Aleph. Hashem instructed him to use the more affectionate term “VaYikrah” with an Aleph. Too humble to do so wholeheartedly, Moshe wrote the word with a small “Aleph.” – Rosh Al HaTorah
   

It was no secret to the Children of Israel that Moshe communicated with Hashem. This occurred in their presence on numerous occasions. Yet, in his desire to ensure that the focus would be exclusively on G-d, Moshe refused to allow himself to take center stage. His unwillingness to appear different from another person with whom Hashem also communicated is consistent with Moshe’s steady insistence that he was never anything more than a mouthpiece for Hashem. He was only the publisher, not the author. His fervent wish was that each and every Jew would serve his Creator, period. There was no personal agenda.

2. A Different View of the Offerings

• The commentators explain that this verse serves as a general introduction to the subject of animal-offerings and the sages derive from it many laws regarding which animals are eligible for the Altar."

3. Fill in Title

If a person will sin and commit treachery against Hashem by lying to his fellow regarding a pledge or a loan or a theft; or by defrauding his comrade.”5:21

• If he is cheating his fellow, why is it called treachery against Hashem? Rabbi Akiva explained that the verse here refers to a case where the only ones aware of the obligations are the parties and G-d. One who denies the obligation is in effect denying G-d’s omniscience. – Targum Onkelos

The Talmud [Bava Basra 88b] infers from this verse, that the sin of stealing from one’s fellow is even worse than pilfering Temple property. In that scenario, the Torah earlier [verse 15] insists that the mere act of theft, without actually using it, does not render him a thief. He must use it in order to be liable for the fine of a fifth and a guilt-offering. When discussing theft from an individual however, the Torah refers to it as a sin prior to mentioning the issue of misappropriating the funds. The mere act of taking something that belongs to another person is a sin. One of the unique features of Judaism is the emphasis it places on treating people properly in addition to our responsibilities toward the religious establishment. return to top
Rabbi Elazar Meisels can be reached at rabbimeisels@partnersintorah.org

This page is dedicated to, and written for the 6,000 Partners in Torah mentors.

We welcome you to join their ranks by calling 800-STUDY-4-2.
Please send your comments, questions, and suggestions to info@partnersintorah.org

Contact info for Partners in Torah Mentor Advisors*:
Rabbi Reuven Drucker | 732-985-1681 (Sunday – Friday 9:00 am – 12 Noon) rabbidrucker@partnersintorah.org
Rabbi Elazar Meisels | 212-810-2602 (Sunday & Tuesday 8:00 – 11:00 pm) rabbimeisels@partnersintorah.org
Rabbi Pinchos Jung | 845-425-6533 (leave message)

*Kindly reserve use of our advisors for mentor contact.

Parshas VayIKRAH

Hashem teaches Moshe many laws concerning sacrificial offerings. Oxen, sheep, and goats are the animals permitted for for use as korbabos/ sacrafices. Young doves and mature turtledoves are the only birds fit for the altar. One who could afford neither an animal nor a bird substituted a flour offering, called a mincha.

Five kinds of korbanos are discussed in this parsha: The olah (burnt offering) in this pasha is a free-will offering entirely consumed by the altar. The mincha offering is made of flour and oil mixed with incense. There are five types of mincha here, differing in the type of pan used, if any, and whether the portion to be burnt on the altar was removed before or after the mincha was baked. Neither honey nor leavening was permitted in any offering. The shelamim (peace) offering is a free will offering brought by an individual, but only part of it is sacrificed on the altar. The rest is divided between the kohanim/ priests and the donors.

The chatas (sin) offering is an obligatory korban brought by a Jew who inadvertently transgressed a negative mitzvah for which the punishment is kareis when this sin is done deliberately. Three special kinds of chatas are brought for certain errors committed by the Kohen Gadol, the Sanhedrin (Judges), or the king. There are also specific sins in which the animal brought for a chatas varies according to what the transgressor was able to afford.

The asham (guilt) offering was brought for certain sins, two of which are specified in the parsha. If someone may have committed a sin for which a chatas is brought, he must bring an sham called talui (pending). If he later ascertains that he did commit the sin, he brings a chatas. (The asham talui atones not for the sin itself but for the carelessness which allowed it). A person who steals an object must return it plus one fifth of its value, and he must bring an asham. return to top

Talk, Laugh, Learn,

Thrive as a Jew

Call 1-800-STUDY4-2

Please pray for a speedy recovery:
Tova Rivka Bas Esther Rochel, Michael ben Sophie

Dear Shiela:
Thank you for your question. You are indeed correct that the obligation for the Kohanim to remove their shoes is not mentioned in the verse. The Talmud in Tractate Rosh Hashanah 31b, writes,

“Our sages taught, ‘The Kohanim are not permitted to ascend to recite the priestly blessings while wearing their shoes. This is one of nine decrees instituted by Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai…’”

Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai was a leading post-Second Temple era sage, and following the destruction of the Temple he enacted nine major edicts. The Talmud does not provide his reasoning, but some have surmised that this particular ordinance was enacted in order to commemorate the Temple and its destruction, where the Kohanim were prohibited from wearing any form of footwear.

Rashi however, points us in the direction of the Talmud in Tractate Sotah 40a, which asserts that an individual must demonstrate “reverence for the congregation.” The Talmud quotes the rule that the Kohanim must remove their shoes for the priestly blessing as proof of this. Rashi explains that if they wore their shoes, they’d be dishonoring the congregation since the shoes are usually muddy and when they lift their hands, they’d be exposing their muddy shoes to the congregation. Indeed, the Mishnah Brurah [128:15 & 18] rules that they must place their shoes in a location that is not visible to the congregation, and must not wear tattered or soiled stocking wear. Respect for the congregation demands that the Kohanim not appear in a less than respectable manner.

One can argue that nowadays since our roads are paved and people are less likely to enter the synagogue in mud-spattered shoes, this should no longer be necessary. This is not the case, however. For the general rule is that when our sages enacted a prohibition, it was intended to remain permanently in place, unless otherwise specified at the time of the enactment. This includes situations where the original circumstances may no longer exist. To override their enactment, would require a Beis Din [rabbinical court] greater in status and size than the one which originally made the enactment, something that obviously doesn’t exist.

The Talmud mentions another opinion to explain the requirement for the Kohanim to remove their shoes that is unrelated to the obligation to act with “reverence for the congregation.” Rather, explains Rav Ashi, the requirement stems from a fear that “Perhaps his shoelace will become untied [which will cause him ridicule], and when he steps aside to tie it, people will suggest that [the reason he’s not blessing the congregation is because] he is the son of a forbidden relationship [which disqualifies him from reciting the priestly blessings].” This is consistent with the Talmud’s general attitude that one must be very careful never to invite unsavory rumors about his character. Even in a remote case such as this one, our sages were concerned that this would occur and therefore enacted a decree to protect the honor of the individual.

Once again, an argument could be made that if this was their reason for insisting that the shoes be removed, a kohein wearing slip-on footwear should be exempt. Since however, our sages did not differentiate between different styles of shoe, and issued a blanket mandate instead, we may not rely on this distinction. Furthermore, we must recognize that our sages may have had a number of reasons for issuing their mandate and therefore, even where one of the reasons may not apply, the others might. Their ambiguity in issuing their decrees was intended to avoid the otherwise inevitable hair-splitting, and ensure compliance even under less-than convenient circumstances, where the temptation to dismiss the law is greatest. return to top

Soul Talk

Rashi states that the first step in repentance is the acknowledgement that one has acted wrongly. Kli Yakar expands on Rashi’s insight. Human psychology is such that a person, no matter what he does, will never see his actions as wrong. However, since even a thief of course understands that it is wrong to steal, he will justify his actions and convince himself that what he is doing is correct, and in truth not theft. (For example, someone who takes something that belongs to another will rationalize that the person probably owes him money, and this object is being taken in payment. Or, he will convince himself that the person wronged him and thus deserves to have his object “impounded” until he apologizes and makes necessary restitution. Or, he will conclude that the person himself had no right to the object, and that taking it is thus not stealing from him.) Thus, the first step of teshuvah is to admit that these excuses are not the truth, and that the owner did nothing to deserve to lose his item. Taking the item was nothing but theft. It is only this clear realization - that the action he rationalized yesterday as permitted was in truth something through which he sinned and became guilty - that will motivate a person to begin to right the damage he caused, by returning the stolen object and doing teshuvah. Of course, it is often very difficult to objectively look at one’s own actions. The drives, motivations and rationalization that prompted a person to do something in the first place do not fall away on their own. Their is usually no reason why a person will change his mind from the way he felt yesterday and suddenly realize that the way he previously looked at a situation - which served as the basis for his actions - was completely wrong.

In answer to this difficulty which is one that confronts us in every area of life, the balei mussar explain that the only way a person can become aware of the truth is to establish a fixed system of values against which to measure his actions. By doing so, he may compare what he wants to do against what he knows is correct, and use this new guide as the yardstick by which he acts. This, of course, is one of the purposes of studying mussar daily; a person thereby acquires a Torah set of values, so that he can always maintain an awareness of what the Torah prescribes as correct. Rabbi Yechezkel Levenstein (Ohr Yechezkel, Elul p. 15) suggests another approach that will help us realize our faults and stop us from making excuses - reinforcing our emunah and awareness of Hashem in every area of our life. He explains that in accordance with the principal of; בא לטהר מסייעין אותו , When a person attempts to purify himself, he will be helped, (Yoma 38b), if we make an effort to realize His involvement in everything that happens in the world, Hashem will assist us in recognizing our character flaws. This will allow us to improve ourselves and become closer to Him.return to top

Excerpted from The Kleinman Edition of A Daily Dose of Torah: Parshas Vayikra, Vol 6, pg. 247
Artscroll Mesorah Publications, Brooklyn, NY March 2007.
To receive A Daily Dose of Torah at 20% savings, visit www.artscroll.com/pit20.

Hey, I never knew that! By Ozer Alport

Amazing Insights About the Weekly Parsha   

1) Q: In the times of the Beis HaMikdash, a person who sinned at least had the comfort of knowing that he could bring a sacrifice to complete the atonement process prescribed by the Torah. In the absence of this option, how can a person in our times fully repent and cleanse the effects of his transgression?

A: The Mabit (1505-1585) offers us a tremendous consolation. He writes that in the times of the Beis HaMikdash, when Hashem’s presence could be tangibly perceived, the ramifications of a sin were correspondingly greater, thus necessitating the bringing of a sacrifice to fully purify oneself from its spiritual damage. Since its destruction, however, we have been living in an era in which Hashem’s Providence is subtly hidden. While this makes it more difficult to feel and recognize His constant presence, it also effected a change in the amount and level of destruction caused by sin. Because the transgression doesn’t cause as much damage as it did previously, the bringing of a sacrifice is no longer required to effect complete atonement, which may now be fully accomplished through the other steps of the repentance process, namely correcting one’s ways, confessing the sin, and accepting upon oneself never to do so again.

2) Q: Why is the sacrifice prescribed by the Torah (5:17-18) for somebody who is in doubt whether he even sinned, such as a person who ate one of two pieces of meat and subsequently found out that one of them wasn’t kosher, significantly more expensive – 48 times more – than that required of a person who knows with certainty that he sinned? Wouldn’t logic seem to dictate that the opposite be more appropriate?

A: The Chasam Sofer explains: if the smallest bit of dirt would fall onto a bride’s gown, it would be easily detected and removed. If, on the other hand, dirt falls onto an already filthy garment, it would be difficult to locate, blending in with the numerous stains which preceded it. Similarly, if a righteous person needs to find out if he has sinned, he will be able to clarify the matter by simply checking his pure neshama (soul) to see if it has been sullied. If he finds a “stain” on his soul, he will know that he has sinned and will bring the offering of a person who knows that he has sinned. If he finds no stain, he won’t have to bring any sacrifice. Either way, he will never be in doubt. If a person is in doubt and is unable to recognize whether or not he sinned it must be that his originally pristine soul has been repeatedly stained through his prior transgressions. It is for arriving at this pitiful spiritual state that the Torah requires such an expensive sacrifice to effect his atonement!return to top

Ozer Alport can be reached at ozer@partnersintorah.org

LOOK WHO MADE PARTNER
Recent sampling of people who've joined in as Partners
Miriam Schenker, Brooklyn, NY
Sora Steiger, Brooklyn, NY
Michael Hollander, Oakland, CA
Kevin Benenfeld, Fort Lauderdale, FL
Lisa Strum, Valley Stream, NY
Andrew Haven, Davidsonville, MD

Making Partner Has Never Been This Easy!

Parsha Partner™ is a publication of Partners in Torah a division of Torah Umesorah,
the National Society for Hebrew Day Schools
Rabbi Eli Gewirtz, National Director

Honor or remember a loved one by dedicating an issue of Parsha Partner which reaches over 15,000 people each week. Dedications (up to 15 words) for yahrtzeits, refuah shleyma, etc. are $180 an issue.For email subscription, and dedication information, or to have Parsha Pointers sent to your shul please call 732-363-3330, ext. 223 or via e-mail parsha@partnersintorah.org

Share the Gift of Jewish Wisdom with a Fellow Jew.
Call 800-STUDY-4-2 or visit us on the web at www.study42.org

In loving memory of Magda and Hugo Erdohazi ע"ה
Lilian and David Abrams