Pesach Prerequisite

The haggadah begins with the passage "Ha lachma anyah". It starts out with a one line description of the matzah that we eat. "This is the bread of affliction that our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt". Immediately following this, we proceed to extend an invitation to the poor to come join us at our seder. The question has been asked, what is this invitation doing at the start of the haggadah?

I would like to suggest the following explanation:

The Maharal asks, why does kabalas ol malchus shomayim begin with the words Shema yisroel? The point of kabalas ol malchus shomayim is really to proclaim Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad, why do we preface it with the words "Shema yisroel"?

The Maharal explains, the kingdom of any king is only as strong as his nation is. If the people don't accept the monarchy, there is no monarchy. Ain melech b'lo am. The strength of the malchus is proportionate to how unified the nation is in accepting the king. So before we are mekabel the malchus shomayim on ourselves, we proclaim "Shema Yisroel", listen all fellow Jews, as if to say “We are one group, one am yisroel, totally united in accepting You as our King”.

One of the main themes of Pesach in general, and of the haggadah in particular, is the idea of וְלָקַחְתִּי אֶתְכֶם לִי לְעָם, וְהָיִיתִי לָכֶם לֵאלֹהִים . Through the exodus from Egypt we became God's nation. The point of sippur yitziyas mitzrayim is to lead to the realization that we are Am Hashem. But a prerequisite of being an Am Hashem is that we first have to be an Am. A consortium of various splinter groups cannot rightly refer to themselves as an Am.

So before we begin to expound on the various aspects of yetziyas mitzrayim we first invite everyone to our table, thereby proclaiming, now that we are a unified Am, we can begin to discuss being an Am Hashem.

I heard the following vort from my Rosh Yeshiva regarding the above mentioned Maharal:

At the end of the tachnun we say the tefillah of shomer yisrael. In it we ask for Hashem's protection based on three things. 1. ha'omrim shema yisrael 2. hamiyachadim shimcha heshem elokeinu hashem echad 3. hamishalishim b'shalosh kedushas. Now if we examine this list we will see that items 1 and 2 seem to refer to the same thing, namely, kabalas ol malchus shomayim. However, according to the Maharal that we mentioned above it makes a lot of sense. Ha’omrim shema yisroel is not referring to Kabalos ol malchus shomayim. It is referring to the fact that we are a united people.

Making Sense of the Census

Everyone knows that the total number of adult men in the midbar was 600,000. In fact, there are a few specific halachos that are learned from that number. An example would be, the number of people needed [according to most Rishonim] in an area to qualify as a biblical reshus harabbim (See Rashi Eruvin 6b).

However, the results of the census taken in the midbar and recorded in the Torah, indicates that there were more than 600,000 people. The exact number given is 603,550. Why the discrepancy? Why do we not require 603,550 people to create a rishus harabbim?

I heard the following brilliant explanation from Rabbi Yisroel Reissman in his motzai shabbos nach shiur:

In parshas ki setzei the posuk relates regarding Amalek:

אֲשֶׁר קָרְךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ, וַיְזַנֵּב בְּךָ כָּל-הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִים אַחֲרֶיךָ
how he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, all that were enfeebled in thy rear

Who were these "enfeebled" people that Amalek smote? Rashi quotes the medrash that these were the members of the erev rav who were outside the protective cover of the ananey hakavod.

Now if it can somehow be demonstrated that these people numbered 3,550, we would understand why the gemorah refers to 600,000. That would be the total number of people that were actually inside the machaneh.

In this weeks parsha, parshas vayakhel, we read how most of the silver that was collected through the machatzis hashekel, the 1/2 shekel per person donation, was utilized for the construction of the adonim, the bases for the kerashim. There was however a small amount of silver that was left over after all the adonim were completed. This silver was used to make the hooks that held the curtains that surrounded the perimeter of the mishkan.

How did Moshe determine who's donations would go for the adonim and who's donations would be used for the hooks? The hooks were on the outside of the mishkan in an area where there was no kedusha (min ha-klayos v'lachutz). It would be a safe assumption that Moshe would use the donations of the erev rav for these hooks. (The donation of those that were outside ot the machaneh would be used on the outside of the mishkan.)

How much silver was left over and used to fabricate the hooks? The pasuk says:

וְאֶת-הָאֶלֶף וּשְׁבַע הַמֵּאוֹת, וַחֲמִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעִים, עָשָׂה וָוִים, לָעַמּוּדִים
One thousand, seven hundred and seventy five shekalom worth of silver.

If our assumption is correct, that the erev rav were the ones that donated the silver for the hooks, we can now determine the exact census of the members of the erev rav. Bearing in mind that each person donated a 1/2 shekel, it would follow that this silver was received from 3,550 people. 3,550 individuals. 3,550 people who were outside of the machaneh. Which leaves us with exactly 600,000 people inside of the machaneh.

גַּל-עֵינַי וְאַבִּיטָה נִפְלָאוֹת, מִתּוֹרָתֶךָ.

Rabbeinu Yonah on Accepting Truth

In a comment to this post, Barzilai wrote the following:

See Rabbeinu Yonah on Avos 2:4 D'H Ahl Taamin B'atzm'choh. He says precisely the opposite of the oft quoted Rambam.

So last night I looked it up and this is what I found:

The Mishna in Avos says: Al taamin b'atzmcha, Do not be overly confident in yourself.

R. Yonah first explains that this is true in the area of actions, i.e., A righteous person who is careful in his observance of mitzvos and in refraining from avayros for many years should still not delude himself into believing that he is totally immune from sinning, because the yetzer hara does not give up the fight until a person is gone from this world.

He then adds that the Mishna's warning is applicable in another area as well. That is, in the arena of Emunah. He writes the following:

(translation by me, it may be somewhat imprecise but you'll get the gist of it)

We are warned against learning from heretics, and even from their true ideas because all contact with them is bad. It can lead one to believe ideas that are against our laws, because these ideas have the ability to draw at the heart. So do not be overly confident in yourself to say "I will learn from them and I will accept only the good but the bad I will reject". One should not rely on his own intellect as R. Meir did when he studied under Elisha the heretic, as we learn in Chagigah [15b] that it is said regarding R. Meir "He found a pomegranate, he ate the fruit and discarded the shell". But not all people are equal in their ability to do so.

While it seems to me that R. Yonah would certainly reject the way the Rambam's dictum is invoked by many people today, he also is clearly not totally rejecting it either. He does not condemn R. Meir for studying under Elisha. R. Yonah's concern seems to be, how can a person be absolutely sure that the idea that he is about to accept is actually a "truth". Relying on one's own intellect in this regard is faulty because who is to say that he has never been fooled.

In truth, this concern is voiced by at least one of the other major Rishonim.

ולא עבודה זרה בלבד הוא שאסור להיפנות אחריה במחשבה, אלא כל מחשבה שגורמת לו לאדם לעקור עיקר מעיקרי התורה-מוזהרין אנו שלא להעלותה על ליבנו, ולא נסיח דעתנו לכך ונחשוב ונימשך אחר הרהורי הלב: מפני שדעתו של אדם קצרה, ולא כל הדעות יכולות להשיג האמת על בורייו; ואם יימשך כל אדם אחר מחשבות ליבו, נמצא מחריב את העולם לפי קוצר דעתו

Any guesses on which Rishon is being quoted?

If you guessed Rambam.... you are correct!

Clearly the Rambam didn't advocate a total pursuit of the truth by every individual relaying solely on one's own intellect as the only check against error. The Rambam did believe that he himself had the ability to do this - and that's what he is saying in his famous quote. The Rambam selectively quoted the sources that he believed to be true. Now when presenting it to the reader as a finished product, he implores the reader not to question his judgment but rather to accept the what the Rambam himself has already determined to be the truth, regardless of it's source. I don't believe that the Rambam meant for every person to go off on his own search for truth without any checks.

So in short, what it boils down to is - He could say it, we can't.

Rashi on Accepting Truth

The Rambam, in his introduction to his Peirush on Avos, Shemoneh Perakim, famously writes the following:

ודע, שהדברים אשר אומר בפרקים אלו ובמה שיבוא מן הפירוש, אינם עניינים שבדיתים מעצמי, ולא פירושים שחידשתים, אמנם הם עניינים מלוקטים מדברי החכמים במדרש ובתלמוד, וזולתם מחיבוריהם, ומדברי הפילוסופים גם הקדומים והחדשים; ומחיבורי הרבה בני אדם.
ושמע האמת ממי שאמרה.

My translation:

And know, that the words which I will say in these chapters, and in the explanation itself, are not ideas that I originated, nor are they my own novel insights, rather they are ideas that were compiled from the chachamim in the Midrash and the Talmud, as well as from their other writings, and also from the words of the early and later philosophers as well as from the works of many people. And accept the truth from the one who says it.

The Rambam goes on to explain that it is for this reason that he chose not to quote people by name in this work. He did not want the "inexperienced person" (thanks, S.) to disregard the statement because of its source.

In this post I would like to try to demonstrate that the Rambam's view in this matter is not the only view.

In Makos (5b) the gemarah relates the following incident:

ההיא איתתא דאתאי סהדי ואישתקור אייתי סהדי ואישתקור אזלה אייתי סהדי אחריני דלא אישתקור אמר ריש לקיש הוחזקה זו א"ל ר' אלעזר אם היא הוחזקה כל ישראל מי הוחזקו זימנין הוו יתבי קמיה דרבי יוחנן אתא כי האי מעשה לקמייהו אמר ריש לקיש הוחזקה זו א"ל רבי יוחנן אם הוחזקה זו כל ישראל מי הוחזקו הדר חזיה לרבי אלעזר בישות אמר ליה שמעת מילי מבר נפחא ולא אמרת לי משמיה

A woman once brought witnesses, and they were found to be lying. She then brought another pair of witnesses, who were also found to be lying . She then brought a third party. Said Resh Lakish: This woman has established herself [as someone whose purpose is to use false witnesses]. Said R. Elazar to him: Because she he established herself has all of Israel established themselves [to be suspected of testifying falsely]? Such a case happened also before the court of R. Yochanan, and Resh Lakish said "this woman has established herself". But R. Yochanan exclaimed: "Because she he established herself has all of Israel established themselves?" He (Resh Lakish) looked at R. Elazar rebukingly, saying: You have heard your statement from Bar Naf'ha (R. Yochanan), and you have not mentioned his name!

(Translation courtesy of Sacred-Text, edited by me to represent what the gemorah actually says)

What is not clear from this gemorah is why was Resh Lakish upset at R. Elazar? What exactly was his complaint?

There is a very similar gemorah in Kesuvos (25b). While the matter under discussion there is different, it does feature R. Elazar saying something to Resh Lakish which Resh Lakish subsequently heard from R. Yochanan. Again Resh Lakish was upset at R. Elazar and addressed the same rebuke to him. (You have heard your statement from Bar Naf'ha (R. Yochanan), and you have not mentioned his name!)

To this gemorah Rashi comments:

He [RL] turned his head around and stared at R. Elazar with an ayin ra'ah for he [RL] understood that R. Yochanan was the source for R. Elazar's words but when he [R. Elazar] said it [to RL] he didn't say it in the name of R. Yochanan, therefore he did not accept it from him.

Now in all honesty, I don't really understand Rashi's explanation of Resh Lakish's objection. But is there any other way to understand Rashi other than to conclude that Rashi (or perhaps, Resh Lakish) did not subscribe to the Rambam's dictum?

The Message of the Wind

This is a repost of last year's Parshas Bo post.

Right at the beginning of the parsha, Moshe warns Pharaoh of the impending plague of locust. Then the Torah tells us how the plague actually transpired:

יג וַיֵּט מֹשֶׁה אֶת-מַטֵּהוּ, עַל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, וַיהוָה נִהַג רוּחַ-קָדִים בָּאָרֶץ, כָּל-הַיּוֹם הַהוּא וְכָל-הַלָּיְלָה; הַבֹּקֶר הָיָה--וְרוּחַ הַקָּדִים, נָשָׂא אֶת-הָאַרְבֶּה

13 And Moses stretched forth his rod over the land of Egypt, and the LORD brought an east wind upon the land all that day, and all the night; and when it was morning, the east wind brought the locusts.

Why was the wind necessary? The only act that proceeded the earlier plagues was Moshe (or Aharon) hitting the ground or the river with a stick.

It seems like, for some reason, G-d wanted this plague to appear totally natural. The wind blew all night and in the morning they saw that wind was bringing in locust swarms. I assume that that is the way a locust swarm would usually arrive.

Perhaps G-d was saying (to the Egyptians as well as to the Jews), you all realized over the course of the last few months that I am the Master of the Universe, I can change the nature of water at will, I can cause an infestation of frogs to suddenly appear. But maybe you still don't understand that not only can I do all this supernatural stuff, I also control the natural events that happen all the time. Therefore, G-d sent this totally natural plague, complete with gusts of wind, and sandwiched it between two supernatural events to show everyone that from G-d's perspective there is no difference between the supernatural and nature.

The Ramban at the end of the Parsha says that the reason we are commanded to constantly remind ourselves of Yitziyas Mitzrayim (through mitzvos like shabbos, yom tov, teffilin, mezuzah) is not just to remember the shock and awe of the makkos and of yetziyas mitzrayim. The more important point is that through remembering the supernatural events that took place at yetziyas mitzrayim one will come to the realization that G-d controls every aspect of our natural existence as well.

That, I think, may be the message of the wind.