Korbanos

March 21st, 2010 by arikrak View Comments »

Since we started Sefer Vayikra this past shabbos, I figured I’d publish a draft of Some Kornbanos Q&A’s (based on some post-Yom Kippur notes).

Q: What was the purpose of korbanos? Does God need our animals?

A: The commentaries explain how meaningful the process of bringing a chatas is for teshuva. He leans on the animal and recites viduy and then the animal is burnt up. In a way, he deserved to die for having sinned, and the animal takes his place. Parts of the animal go to the Kohanim who will pray for him.

Q: What’s the purpose of other Korbanos besides a chatas?

A: What’s the purpose of prayers? Does God need our prayers? Rather, it is for us, so we can come close to God through prayer. Yet it is often difficult to have the proper kavana when praying and many people rarely feel close to God. When one brings a korban, he is physically giving, as it were, something to God. This makes a serious impression on him, and helps him have the proper kavana. The very word “Korban” means to come close, and korbanos were often offered to be able to reach a state of nevuah. The shlamim sanctifies one’s meal, and also helps provide for the kohanim, like many korbanos. An olah represents total dedication to God and can help elevate one spiritually.

Q: Fine, so a personal korban helps one connect to G-d, but what to korbanos shel tzibbur do? How do the tamid and mussafin elevate anyone? How does the Yom Kippur avodah provide any kapara? How does it help Yamilee, a Jew in the Galilee, when the Kohen performs the avodah?

A: The kohanim are the Jews’ shluchim* to perform the avodah on their behalf, and when they bring korbanos they are fulfilling the purpose of korbanos for everyone. But each individual has to be connected to it in some way to benefit from it. That’s why they all gave money for the korbanei tzibbur. The kohanim are like a shliach tzibbur being motzei people, where if one doesn’t have kavana, he’s not yotzei. If one doesn’t do teshuva on his own, the avoda of yom kippur won’t help him. The korbanos can help a person, even without him being physically in the Beis HaMikdash. He can still connect with the bringing of the korbanos and the avodah. That is why the Jews would gather in ma’amados in parallel with the bringing of the korbanos. One group would actually go up to the mikdash and experience the Mikdash and the Avodah. But the other group would stay home and fast and pray and read from the torah. In that way they would connect with the korbanos and connect to God.

Even nowadays, when there is no longer a Beis HaMikdash, we can still connect to the korbanos, and benefit in similar ways:

אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר’ יונתן: אלו תלמידי חכמים העוסקים בתורה בכל מקום, מעלה אני עליהן כאילו מקטירין ומגישין לשמי; ומנחה טהורה – זה הלומד תורה בטהרה, נושא אשה ואחר כך לומד תורה. +תהלים קל”ד+ שיר המעלות הנה ברכו את ה’ כל עבדי ה’ העומדים בבית ה’ בלילות – מאי בלילות? א”ר יוחנן: אלו ת”ח העוסקים בתורה בלילה, מעלה עליהן הכתוב כאילו עסוקים בעבודה. +דברי הימים ב’ ב’+ לעולם זאת על ישראל – א”ר גידל אמר רב: זה מזבח בנוי ומיכאל שר הגדול עומד ומקריב עליו קרבן; ורבי יוחנן אמר: אלו תלמידי חכמים העסוקין בהלכות עבודה, מעלה עליהם הכתוב כאילו נבנה מקדש בימיהם. אמר ריש לקיש, מאי דכתיב: +ויקרא ז’+ זאת התורה לעולה למנחה ולחטאת ולאשם? כל העוסק בתורה, כאילו הקריב עולה מנחה חטאת ואשם. אמר רבא: האי לעולה למנחה, עולה ומנחה מיבעי ליה! אלא אמר רבא: כל העוסק בתורה, אינו צריך לא עולה (ולא חטאת) ולא מנחה ולא אשם. אמר רבי יצחק, מאי דכתיב: +ויקרא ו’+ זאת תורת החטאת וזאת תורת האשם? כל העוסק בתורת חטאת כאילו הקריב חטאת, וכל העוסק בתורת אשם כאילו הקריב אשם

תלמוד בבלי מסכת מנחות דף קי עמוד א ]

As mentioned earlier, perhaps this is why the Torah has so much on the Korbanos. We are no longer able to perform them, all we can do is read about them.

  • Share/Bookmark

Drinking on Purim

February 28th, 2010 by arikrak View Comments »

Draft for Purim

Two years ago, a popular blog wrote, claiming to be following the rema, “There is no mitzva to get drunk on purim“. This is the actual halacha in the Shulchan Aruch:

חייב אינש לבסומי בפוריא עד דלא ידע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי.

הגה: ויש אומרים דאין צריך להשתכר כל כך אלא שישתה יותר מלימודו (כל בו) ויישן ומתוך שיישן אינו יודע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי (מהרי”ל). ואחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט ובלבד שיכוין לבו לשמים ויש אומרים דאם הזיק אחד את חבירו מכח שמחת פורים פטור מלשלם (תרומת הדשן סימן ק”י).

Shulchan Aruch [Directly quoting the gemara]: One is obligated to [get drunk] on purim until he doesn’t know the difference between “curse Haman” and “bless Mordechai“.

RemaSome say you don’t need to get so drunk, rather drink more than usual and sleep and  then since you’re sleeping  you won’t know the difference between “arur haman” and “baruch mordechai“. Whether [one drinks] a lot, or a little, as long as long as he is “mekavein libo l’Shamayim“.. And some say if one damages [property of his] friend from the koach simchas purim he is patur.

So the rema actually says is there’s a mitzva either way as long as you have the proper intentions. He quotes a “yesh omrim” at the beginning as a kula to rely on if you don’t want to get so drunk. A yesh omrim at the end says you’re pattur from damage you cause on purim, likely from being drunk!

The gemara and  rishonim are clear on the matter, there is a mitzva to get drink on Purim. How much does one have to drink? This question has caused a lot of confusion. A literal reading of the gemara implies an extreme of drunkenness, one probably impossible to achieve. The rema, quoting the meharil, suggests  that one can just drink a bit extra and then go take a nap and while sleeping he won’t know the difference between “curse haman” and “bless mordechai“. This pshat seems somewhat dochek. The gemara did not need to use such an expression to say you should take a nap, it could have said that much more clearly. And what does your nap have to do with drinking or simcha? A comment on the above-mentioned post suggested that instead you drink a little and then run around a table until you’re dizzy. That seems like another possible interpretation.

Some say the rema’s explanation fits with the Rambam:

הלכה טו
כיצד חובת סעודה זו שיאכל בשר ויתקן סעודה נאה כפי אשר תמצא ידו, ושותה יין עד שישתכר וירדם בשכרות.

“..and drink wine until he’s drunk and falls asleep from his drunkenness.”

Yet the Rambam emphasizes that the sleep is from your drunkenness, which is not what the rema said, and would not happen with just “יותר מלימודו”.

Some point out the gematria of “baruch mordechai” equals the gematria of arur haman. “ad d’lo yada” means you are too drunk to figure that out.Its an interesting gematria, but if they’re equivalent, only a drunk person would think they’re different! It should say “ad shelo yada sh’ein bein arrrur haman l’baruch mordechai“! It also seems slightly unlikely that the gemara meant a gematria. So what is p’shat?

Answer: I think its likely that “ad d’lo yada” was not meant to be taken literally. It doesn’t mean you don’t know the difference, that’s practically impossible. It just means you should get quite drunk, “ad d’lo yada” is a good expression for that.

It could be that is how the Rambam understood it also. The Rambam wanted to give a more exact definition for “quite drunk”. A person who gets properly drunk eventually falls asleep from his drunkenness.

Anyways, being that there’s clearly a mitzva to drink on purim, why do so many people have issues with it? One of the main reasons is they think that drinking is an inherent evil that should always be avoided. This does not seem to be the approach of chazal. For one, drinking was much more common then and people would not always stay 100% sober. It was likely considered a good thing to get somewhat drunk on shabbos and yomim tovim. The gemara in Rosh Hashana discusses the torch-wavings that were done to notify people of the New Month. Yet on motzai shabbos, as explained by rashi,  people might think the reason no torches were waved was because everyone was still too drunk from shabbos. There are other places where rashi mentions this also. It was clearly accepted to get drunk on shabbos. (See also the rashi in chumash which criticizes those who don’t drink.)

I admit that maybe not everyone should get drunk, and that its important to not go too far. But it is very good when Jews gets drunk and say over Torah and Tishbachos. Chazal emphasize this:

ביום השביעי כטוב לב המלך ביין, אטו עד השתא לא טב לביה בחמרא? אמר רבא: יום השביעי שבת היה, שישראל אוכלין ושותין, מתחילין בדברי תורה ובדברי תשבחות. אבל אומות העולם שאוכלין ושותין – אין מתחילין אלא בדברי תיפלות… ן ..

Wine has potential for good and bad. Chazal mention this idea in many places (see Sanhedrin 70a). When drunken at the correct time and place an person, it can be an important mitzva. On purim there’s a mitzva to have a seuda, and part of it involves drinking and getting drunk.

Some say anyone under 21 cannot drink because its illegal, and “dina dmalcusa dina”. Dina d’malchusa doesn’t necessarily apply to all matters, and especially not when up against halacha. But anyways, the law makes exceptions for religious reasons, and as we’ve seen, there are religious reasons to drink on purim! Also, does anyone really think that this law is widely followed?

A more serious issue people raise is the potential health risks. This is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed. I just don’t think calling for an outright ban on drinking is the correct approach. People will still drink anyways, and those who listen will be missing the mitzva. Instead, there should be strong calls for people to make sure they don’t go too far. For example they should just purchase the amount of wine that is safe to drink, and not drink anything else. A balanced approach to drinking will prevent health risks.

Drinking on purim is rare opportunity for a mitzva. In other places and times and nations, people get drunk throughout the year. I don’t see what the big problem is with getting drunk once a year.

  • Share/Bookmark

The Building of the Mishkan – Draft

February 24th, 2010 by arikrak View Comments »

Question: Why does the Torah give such detailed descriptions of the building of the mishkan? It was a one-time event that does not seem to be so relevant to future generations. Are there any fundamental lesson or practical laws that can be learned from it?

Answer: Actually, the largest area of Halacha, the Laws of Shabbos, are learned from the building of the Mishkan. The Torah’s descriptions of the different fundamental acts necessary for its construction help teach the fundamental 39 melachos that are forbidden on Shabbos. We rest from the 39 melachos on Shabbos to remember God’s resting from Creating the world. The melachos are 39 fundemental physical acts of creation that symbolize God’s act of creating the world and were therefore used to create the mishkan. Just as God created the world, we were given the ability to create God’s sanctuary in this world. The fact that God granted us the ability to bring holiness into this world can be considered  greater than the act of creation of heaven and earth:

דרש בר קפרא: גדולים מעשה צדיקים יותר ממעשה שמים וארץ, דאילו במעשה שמים וארץ – כתיב: +ישעיהו מ”ח+ אף ידי יסדה ארץ וימיני טפחה שמים, ואילו במעשה ידיהם של צדיקים – כתיב: +שמות ט”ו+ מכון לשבתך פעלת ה’ מקדש אדני כוננו ידיך.  [תלמוד בבלי מסכת כתובות דף ה עמוד א]

The detailed description of the building of the mishkan teaches more than the fundementals of Hilchos Shabbos. It teaches us the about the purpose of creation, about creating holiness in this world. Nowadays, we no longer have a Mishkan or a Mikdash, but by learning the Torah’s description of the Mishkan, we are able to connect with the sanctity of the mishkan and with the fundamental lessons it teaches.

אלו תלמידי חכמים העסוקין בהלכות עבודה, מעלה עליהם הכתוב כאילו נבנה מקדש בימיהם.. [תלמוד בבלי מסכת מנחות דף קי עמוד א] א

  • Share/Bookmark

The Ox that Gored

February 17th, 2010 by arikrak View Comments »

לה) וְכִי יִגֹּף שׁוֹר אִישׁ אֶת שׁוֹר רֵעֵהוּ וָמֵת וּמָכְרוּ אֶת הַשּׁוֹר הַחַי וְחָצוּ אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ וְגַם אֶת הַמֵּת יֶחֱצוּן
לו) אוֹ נוֹדַע כִּי שׁוֹר נַגָּח הוּא מִתְּמוֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ בְּעָלָיו שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם שׁוֹר תַּחַת הַשּׁוֹר וְהַמֵּת יִהְיֶה לּוֹ: ס

35 And if one man’s ox hurt another’s, so that it dieth; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the price of it; and the dead also they shall divide. 36 Or if it be known that the ox was wont to gore in time past, and its owner hath not kept it in; he shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead beast shall be his own.

Question: When a normal ox gores another ox, the owner is obligated to pay up to half the damage it caused. Yet he need not pay more than the value of his own ox that gored. Why is that?

Answer: When a person takes his ox into the public, he is responsible to watch it from causing normal ox-damage, like eating something. But cannot be fully expected to prevent unusual events such as the ox goring another ox or other violent acts. Therefore he only pays half damage. Even that may be too great a burden for him. What if his $100 ox gores a $1000 ox? He’ll go bankrupt! Since it’s not something he’s fully responsible for anyways, the Torah doesn’t want him to go into economic ruin. All that is certain that we can collect from is the very ox that gored.  That is what he brought into the public domain and it his “guarantor” on any damage it may cause.

An example for modern readers would be if someone driving a cheap car gets into a collision with a much more expensive car. Its unlikely he will be able to pay for the damage, so it would be reasonable to have laws that limited his payments to the value of his own car.

  • Share/Bookmark

4 years.. New Location!

February 14th, 2010 by arikrak View Comments »

I have finally moved my blog from its old address at nebach.blogspot.com to the new one over here. It was time for a more professional sounding name and a more advanced blogging platform. I had owned the Nebach! name since 2003 and had started actually blogging there 4 years ago to the day. I’ll try to publish some new posts in honor of the new location.

  • Share/Bookmark

Science vs. Scientism

June 30th, 2009 by arikrak View Comments »

In a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal entitled “God and Science Don’t Mix”, the cosmologist Lawrence Krauss argued that science implies atheism, or at least Deism. His argument can be summarized as follows:

  • Science tries to explain nature without calling on miracles or Divine Providence.
  • Science has been very successful.
  • This proves there’s no miracles or Divine Providence.
  • The big religions assume there is.
  • Therefore they’re all false.
  • Also, look at Iran to see how bad religion is.

There are many flaws with his argument, and I will discuss some. The fact that science assumes there are no miracles does not mean there never are. Scientists study nature, but their may have been rare, supernatural events in the past. How does science disprove that possibility?

It may be hard to observe Divine Providence, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there. I wrote to the Wall Street Journal:

Lawrence Krauss’s argument is similar to that of the 19th-century Materialists. They claimed everything was made of atoms, and if given enough information, the entire past and future could be predicted. Such a proposition left no room for free will or Divine providence. The development of Quantum Mechanics in the 20th century showed that, in truth, nothing could be predicted with exactitude; the smallest particles operated by apparent randomness. This randomness provides a hidden mechanism for God to intervene in the world.

While the letter isn’t exactly publish-quality, my point is clear: The Deism of the 1800’s cannot be justified when facing the mystery of the Quanta.

It would be helpful to compare the attitudes of the two greatest physicists of all time – Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton. Einstein had a similar attitude as Mr. Krauss’. To quote an article from Time Magazine:

But there was one religious concept, Einstein went on to say, that science could not accept: a deity who could meddle at whim in the events of his creation. “The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God,” he argued. Scientists aim to uncover the immutable laws that govern reality, and in doing so they must reject the notion that divine will, or for that matter human will, plays a role that would violate this cosmic causality.

Einstein strongly believed in absolute determinism, and felt that science precluded both the notion of Divine Providence and of freewill. He felt such an attitude made it easier to forgive both others and himself for wrongdoings. He held these philosophical convictions so strongly that even as the evidence mounted for the new physics, Quantum Mechanics, he refused to accept it. To his dying day he believed that “God does not play dice with the cosmos”. In another case, which Einstein later called his “greatest mistake”, he fudged his relativity equations to maintain a belief in an eternal universe. Einstein may have felt his beliefs were principles of science, but they were just examples of the bias of scientism.

Isaac Newton was, in many ways, the father of science. His theory of gravity united the heavens and the earth. Did this discovery cause him to reject his religion? Actually yes, but he didn’t become an atheist or Deist. After discovering the unity of the universe, Newton rejected the Christian trinity as idolatry, and accepted the One God of Moses. He even risked his career by refusing to take Christian oaths.

Newton realized the order and unity of nature do not point to atheism, but rather to the One Creator. God and science get along just fine, it’s God and scientism that don’t mix.

  • Share/Bookmark

Back to Blogging

June 30th, 2009 by arikrak View Comments »

I haven’t blogged for a while, I think I’ll try to put up some posts in the coming days.
A lot has happened since my last blog post. I finished my 20th lap around the sun, and I thought maybe it’s time to change the name of my blog. I’m considering “The Path from Sinai” at sinaipath.blogspot.com. I’m also thinking of moving my blog to WordPress, they have some features Blogger doesn’t. I put a poll on the side so readers can vote for their preffered name. You can also leave suggestions in the comments section of this post.
I also started a new website, Ezinagro, which in its early stages. Its eventual goal is to help people find the best website on any topic, and it has many sites you may not have even thought of looking for. Readers of this blog are encouraged to visit Ezinagro, click on its links, and maybe buy some advertising links of their own.

  • Share/Bookmark

New Talmudica Post

May 18th, 2009 by arikrak View Comments »

Because this past week’s parsha discussed Jewish slaves, I decided to publish some Talmudica charts on the topic. I also published some selected ha’aros from my old talmudica pages. Just visit Talmudica. The old pages are still at geocities and can also be accessed at theses links: 29-33 34-40.

  • Share/Bookmark

Megillah Shiurim

April 2nd, 2009 by arikrak View Comments »

Talmud used to be actual Bal Peh discussions of the Torah and known halachos. The gemara text is a preserved form of the original live discussion. This shiur is a return to the gemara’s original style. Instead of reading the gemara text, the shiur is the gemara discussion. The best way to prepare for these shiurim is to first read the relevant pesukim, mishnayos and braysos. The main halachik pesukim for all of Meseches Megillah are Esther 9:15-32. Below is the relevant mishna and braysa for this shiur.

מתני – קראו את המגילה באדר הראשון ונתעברה השנה קורין אותה באדר שני. אין בין אדר הראשון לאדר השני אלא קריאת המגילה ומתנות לאביונים:

ברייתא - קראו את המגילה באדר הראשון ונתעברה השנה קורין אותה באדר השני, שכל מצות שנוהגות בשני נוהגות בראשון חוץ ממקרא מגילה. רא ברבי יוסי אומר אין קורין אותה באדר השני שכל מצות שנוהגות בשני נוהגות בראשון. רשבג אומר משום רבי יוסי אף קורין אותה באדר השני שכל מצות שנוהגות בשני אין נוהגות בראשון. ושוין בהספד ובתענית שאסורין בזה ובזה.

The first shiur I’m publishing is similar to Megillah 6b. I already had made chazara shiurim up to daf 6, and I may publish “Torah SheBal Peh” shiurim until daf 8. I tried unsuccessfully to publish this shiur Purim time. I’m publishing it now as a video, because that’s ironically easier than publishing an audio file.

Updates: The next shiur, based on Megillah 7a, is now online, and both files are now in audio!

  • Share/Bookmark

Should A Terrorist Be Released For A Soldier’s Remains?

February 19th, 2009 by arikrak View Comments »

This was YU’s assigned essay choice. Most of the arguments in the essay also apply to the exchange of terrorists for a live soldier.

YU Honors Essay A1

Should A Terrorist Be Released For A Soldier’s Remains?

“Who is wise?” Alexander the Great asked the Jewish Sages.i “He who foresees the consequences of his actions,” they responded. No advice could be more prudent for the leader of any state, from the Greek Emperor of antiquity to the current Prime Minister of Israel. What may seem like a desirable action now, could turn out to have disastrous results in the future. This issue has to be kept in mind when considering releasing a terrorist for a soldier’s remains.

In any moral question, one must compare the potential benefits and losses. Judaism regards the recovery of captives as one of the greatest mitzvoth a person can do. Even so, the Talmudii states that captives should not be redeemed for more than their value. Proper burial is also an important mitzva, but there is no obligation to undertake undue expense,iii and certainly not a high ransom. Recovering the body will also help comfort the soldier’s relatives, surely a worthy cause. The benefits of recovering the body are clear: to respect the dead and to comfort the living. The question remains: is it worth the cost?

Freeing a terrorist for a soldier’s body can cause great harm. The terrorist who is released comes back as a hero, ready to commit more murder.iv In addition, the terrorist groups are encouraged to attempt more kidnappings when they see the rewards they get. This is why the Talmud forbade paying too high a ransom even for living captives.

Releasing terrorists has caused Israel big problems in the past. In 2004, Israel released over 400 terrorists in exchange for Hezbollah releasing one captive and three soldiers’ bodies. Hezbollah considered it a great victory and they promised more kidnappings in the future.v Two years later, they fulfilled their promise, and caused the Second Lebanon War, in which the freed terrorists added to their manpower. The cost of recovering the captives two years earlier was the 160 lives Israel lost in the war.

Proponents of such trades claim Israel has a moral obligation to retrieve the soldiers who fought for their country. They also claim the trades are necessary for boosting soldiers’ morale. When Israeli soldiers see that they will never be abandoned, and that Israel will do anything to rescue even their dead bodies, they will fight with greater courage.

In truth, these arguments raise issues that demonstrate the opposite. Israeli soldiers go out to battle knowing they may not come back. If they die in battle, they know they gave their lives for the security of their country. By risking future lives to recover their bodies, the soldiers’ sacrifice becomes the cause of Israel’s insecurity. It would also harm army morale: soldiers risk their lives to capture a terrorist and then the government releases him for a dead body.

Alexander the Great created a large empire, hoping to unify the world, but he failed to foresee that it would collapse and cause more strife. The Prime Minister of Israel should look beyond the immediate benefit of recovering a soldier’s remains, and recognize that it is not worth the consequences of releasing a terrorist. Only then would he truly be wise.

iTalmud Bavli Tamid 32a

iiibid. Gittin 45a

iiiYorah Deah 357 – Pischei Teshuva s”k 1 citing the Chavos Yair. The case involved a gentile governor keeping a Jewish body ransom for a large sum. The Chavos Yair ruled it was not necessary to give in to the demand.

ivA report by the Almagor Terror Victims Association showed that 14% of released terrorists were later re-arrested for murder, and they were responsible for the death of 123 Israeli civilians. (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/111648) see also (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1184766004268&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull)

vSee http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109812,00.html

  • Share/Bookmark