Parshas Shemini (Kosher Pig / Teshuva)

Question (1):
This parsha states the criteria for kosher animals, they need to chew their cud and have completely split hoofs. The Torah lists four animals that only have one criterion: the camel, hyrax, hare and the pig. Regarding the pig, the Torah says:

“The pig: it (hu) has split hoofs, and they are completely separated,
And it (v’hu), the cud it will not chew (gay-rah lo yi-gar).– It is impure to you. (11:7)”

The second v’hu seems to be extra. The pasuk could have been written more concise as:

“The pig: it (hu) has split hoofs, and they are completely separated,
And the cud it will not chew (gay-rah lo yi-gar). – It is impure to you.”

Why does the Torah need to include the second v’hu ?


Question (2):
Targum Onkelos changes the tense in the translation of this pasuk. He translates “the cud, it will not chew (gay-rah lo yi-gar)” as “the cud, it did not chew (pish-ra law paw-shawr).” Targum Onkelos changes the tense of the pasuk from future tense to past tense.

Why does the Targum Onkalus change tenses?

Background (I):
The medrish Yalkut Reuveni quotes the RaMa MiPano’s sefer Asarah Maamaros (Ma'amar Chikur Ha-Din 2:17, 4:13) who points out that Targum Onkalus alludes to the chazal mentioned by Rabeynu Bachaye on this pasuk (as well as by the Ritva on Kiddushin 49b):

"Why is its (the pig) name called chazir (return)? Because the Holy Name Blessed Be He will return it to the Jews (i.e. it will become kosher when Mashiach comes).

RaMa MiPano explains that since in the future the pig will be kosher, the Targum Onkelos viewed the text of the Torah as if he were in the future. Therefore, he was looking back and explained that “it did not” chew its cud when the Torah was given (but of course it's kosher nowadays since the Mashiach has come).

Question (3):
If Rama MiPano’s explanation is in fact correct, why then does the Torah use a future tense in explaining why the pig is not kosher. If in the future the pig will become kosher then Torah should have used a past tense or present tense phrase but not a future tense phrase. Why did the Torah say, “it will not chew” as opposed to “it did not chew” or “it does not chew”?


Background (II):
The Or HaChaim Hakadosh comments on this pasuk that the Torah is declaring a conditional statement here. The pig, since it currently does not meet all the conditions of a kosher animal, is not kosher. However, in the future it will in fact undergo a physical metamorphous and chew its cut – and it will then become kosher.

Apparently, in the future the pig will actually evolve to a different species. The pig of today will not be the same as the pig of the future. Today’s pig is a non-kosher species but the pig of the future will be a kosher species.

This is similar to what the RaMBaM writes in Hilchos Teshuva (2:4):

“The ways of penitence should be that the penitent continually cries before Hashem in tears with supplications. He gives charity according to his ability. He greatly distances himself from that which caused him to sin. And he changes his name. This means that he says, ‘I am someone else. I am not the same person who did those [evil] actions.’ He changes all his actions for the good and towards the right direction.”

Therefore, here too regarding the pig, its physical attributes have evolved in order to turn it into a completely different species. Its non-kosher attributes have in fact evolved into kosher attributes. It is no longer the same species at all.

Answers to the questions:
1. Why does the Torah need to include the second v’hu ? That which the Torah says: And it (v’hu), the cud it will not chew (gay-rah lo yi-gar). The words “And it (v’hu)” were specifically used to tell us that “it (v’hu)” - this particular species of pig is not kosher, even in the future it will not be kosher as long as it retains these non-kosher characteristics. However, if it undergoes a physical change and becomes a new species, like the penitent, it will be kosher.

2. Why does the Targum Onkelos change tenses? Onkelos viewed the text of the Torah as if he were in the future. Therefore, he was looking back and explained that “it did not” chew its cud when the Torah was given (but of course it's kosher nowadays since the Mashiach has come).

3. Why did the Torah say, “it will not chew” as opposed to “it did not chew” or “it does not chew”? The Torah says it will not chew (gay-rah lo yi-gar) using the future tense. It wants to tell us that even in the future it will not be kosher as long at it maintains its current physical state. In contrast to Targum Onkolus who translates this pasuk using past tense since nevertheless; the pig will in fact change. It will be different. Therefore, the Targum Onkelos chose to translate from the future vantage point.


Our Conclusion:
The Divrei Yoel knows that a pig is an item that repulses the Torah sensitive Jew. A pig is used as the epitome of non-kosher. Something that is definitely 100% non-kosher is commonly referred to as chazer treif – “as non-kosher as a pig”. However, after all is said and done, the pig will ultimately become an accepted delicacy in the kosher home.

The Divrei Yoel wants us to beware of the distinction between an individual before and after teshuva. Before teshuva this person’s deeds are as repulsive as a pig to the Torah sensitive Jew. Nothing is worse than a Jew not living up to his mission in life by not observing the mitzvos of the Torah. However, an individual who repents and turns their life around has expunged the repulsiveness from himself. He indeed has progressed in a spiritual sense to the extent that he should be fully accepted as a most worthy individual.

Furthermore, we should be aware that the massive effort in transforming a non-kosher pig into a kosher pig is much greater than transforming a sinner into a penitent. If a pig could transform – then surely we can transform as well.

These thoughts have been based on page 265 of the Divrie Yoel parshas Shemini.

This drasha can also be viewed on-line at http://divreiyoel.blogspot.com/

For additional insight to the kosher pig chazal see:
http://www.aishdas.org/midrash/5765/shemini.html http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/03/eternity-of-torah-vi.html

Parshas Tzav (Karbon Olah Today)

Divrei Yoel - Parshas Tzav (Karbon Olah Today)

Question(1):
This parsha begins with Hasham’s instruction to Moshe to teach the Kohanim about the olah sacrifice (Karbon olah). The initial directive is,

“Hashem spoke to Moshe saying (lay-mor): Command (tzav) Aharon and his sons, saying (lay-mor): This is the law of the olah sacrifice etc.”

There appears to be a redundancy in these pasukim regarding the multiple uses of the word “saying” (lay-mor). One usage of the word “saying” (lay-mor) should have sufficed. Why did it need to be included twice? It seems that the pasukim could be rewritten as:

“Hashem spoke to Moshe saying (lay-mor): Command (tzav) Aharon and his sons: This is the law of the olah sacrifice etc.”

Question(2):
Rashi references the Toras Kohanim and Tractate Kidushin 29a, that the word “Command” (tzav) is necessary to be used in this context to indicate an urgency for now and the future generations. Rashi says:

“’Command’ (tzav) , can only indicate a expression of urgency, for now and for future generations. [The Tanna] Rabbi Shimon says, ‘the Torah must especially urge (ze'ruz) in situations where there exists a monetary loss (chi-sa-ron kis=lit: empty pocket)’ ”.

Why exactly is urgency (ze'ruz) necessary when a monetary loss exists?

[On a pshat level the loss may be for both the owner of the animal and for the Kohain. It is a physically a loose-loose situation since the entire animal’s flesh is consumed. Hence, there is no meat for either the owner of the animal to eat or for the officiating Kohain to take part in. However, the Divrei Yoel will provide a fascinating drash answer.]


Background:
The Medrish Tanchuma (14) as well as the Medrish Rabba (7:3) list a number of quotes from our sages which emphasize the importance of learning the laws of the Olah offering even nowadays after the destruction of the Bais Hamikdash. The quote from Rabbi Asya concludes:

“Therefore, The Holy one blessed be He says to the Jews: ‘My children, even though the Bais Hamikdash has been destroyed and the sacrifices have ceased, and the Olah offering is no longer practiced…If you are involved in and read the sections of the torah concerning the Olah offering, and learn the sections of the torah concerning the sacrifices, then I will consider it as if you in fact brought the Olah sacrifice to Me.’ ”

At first glance one might think that it is only if one involves himself in the learning and clarification of the laws and regulations of the Olah offering and the other sacrifices that it is considered as if the Olah offering was in fact offered on the Mizbayach (alter). However, someone who does not have the mental capacity or lacks the focus to delve into the understanding of the intricate laws of the Olah offering and the sacrifices, they merely read the verses with minimal comprehension, then they will not be regarded as if they brought the Olah offering.

Furthermore, Rabbi Levi says,(Shir HaShirim Rabbah 2:16):

"In the past when money (lit: a prutah) was available, people would yearn to hear words of mishna, halacha or Talmud. Nowadays, when money is not available and moreover people are ill from the pressure of our oppression [in exile], people yearn only to hear words of blessings and Agada (or consolation)."

If we apply the teaching of Rabbi Levi, who emphasizes the differentiation between a higher and lower level of learning, to our medrish above, then we may speculate that in order to be considered as “if you in fact brought the Olah sacrifice to Me”, one must truly learn the appropriate Torah sections. A mere superficial reading of the pasukim without any comprehension will not suffice.

Answer to the original questions:
Based upon the above ideas we can now answer the original questions.

1) Why is the word “saying” (lay-mor) used twice? It is used twice in order to emphasize the importance of learning or even just “saying” the pasukim containing the instructions of the sacrifices even if one lacks complete comprehension. Nonetheless, even without comprehension it will be “as if you in fact brought the Olah sacrifice to Me”.

2) Why exactly is urgency (ze'ruz) necessary when a monetary loss exists? Chi-sa-ron kis is the idiom used for “monetary loss”. This idiom literally means “lacking contents in ones pocket”, in other words, lacking money. Rabbi Levi teaches that when money is not available then the quality on one’s learning is inferior and it lacks comprehension. Rashi therefore, teaches us that Hashem wants us to know that even when ones learning lacks comprehension, nonetheless one must still read the pasukim concerning the sacrifices and indeed it will be “as if you in fact brought the Olah sacrifice to Me”.

Our Conclusion:
The Divrei Yoel teaches a fascinating chidush, regarding sacrifices. In contrast to most other mitzvos where we say “mitzvos tzrichas kavonoh” (one is required to have the proper intent when doing a mitzvah – and of course one has to know what one is doing), regarding sacrifices the Torah emphasizes the importance of reading and learning about them even if one doesn’t fully comprehend what one is saying. Even with the minimal effort exerted by our reading it will be “as if you in fact brought the Olah sacrifice to Me”. Off course we should strive to maximize our comprehension of what we read and learn.

These thoughts have been based on pages 112 and 113 of the Divrie Yoel parshas Tzav.

Parshas Vayikra (New Perspective)

Question(s):
This third book of the Torah, and our parsha, begins with the pasuk, “And He [Hashem] called to Moshe, and Hashem spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, saying:” Many commentators ask why the pronoun “He” is used to begin this new section of the Torah without explicitly stating who was the one who called. Theoretically, the text should have said, “And Hashem called to Moshe etc.”

Rabbenu Bachya provides a possible answer to this question. He says that the Torah wants to emphasize that the book of Leviticus is a continuation of the book of Exodus which concluded (Ex. 40:34) “The cloud covered the Tent of Meeting and the Glory of Hashem filled the Mishkan.” The pronoun “He” is now used in this parsha to refer to “The Glory of Hashem” which concludes the previous parsha.

If Rabbenu Bachya’s answer is correct, then why does the Torah explicitly state in this first pasuk “Hashem spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting” ? It should have continued to use the pronoun “He” and the text should read: “He spoke with him from the Tent of Meeting”.


Background (Part I) – The dispute between Rashi and Ramban:
In order to obtain clarity to the message of this pasuk, we must first understand the viewpoints of Rashi and Ramban regarding an episode in the end of parshas Mishpatim (Ex: 24:1-12). Hashem instructs Moshe to go up to Hashem and then Moshe first tells (va-yi-sa-pair) the Jewish people“all the instructions of Hashem and all the laws”. And the Jewish people finally proclaim “na-aseh v’nish-mah” - “we will do and we will heed”.

When did this episode take place? And what did Moshe tell (va-yi-sa-pair) the Jewish people at this time?

Rashi teaches us that it occurred on the 4th and 5th of the month of Sivan. In other words, it occurred the day before the giving of the 10 Commandments. And Moshe tells the Jewish people the 7 Noahide Laws, the Laws of Shabbos, honoring parents, the red heifer, and all the other laws which were previously given.

Yet, Ramban maintains, as does Ibin Ezra, that it occurred after the giving of the 10 Commandments and the laws that were taught were all those enumerated in the previous few chapters which comprise parshas Mishpatim. Ramban and Ibin Ezra prove this by stating that it doesn’t make sense that Moshe would have to teach the Jewish people all these laws such as the 7 Noahide Laws and the other laws which were previously presented, since they already know them! Furthermore, the word from the pasuk, “va-yi-sa-pair- tell over,” principally implies that something new is being taught – not a review of previous laws and commandments.


Background (Part II) – Justifying Rashi’s point a view:
On the surface it seems as if Ramban (and Ibin Ezra) assertions prove Rashi wrong. However, that is not necessarily true. Rashi is actually taking an extremely spiritually insightful approach to this episode.

We know that every single word of the holy Torah contains profound concepts and unfathomable mystical secrets. Everyone who studies Torah comprehends it according to their own ability. However, each time someone exerts effort and toils in its study, they uncover and reveal new insights that they had not previously perceived. One of the many similes our sages use to describe the Torah is that of a mother’s breast (Eruvin 54B). Just like each time the baby returns to it, it will find more milk – so too, each time one re-reads or better yet, re-learns a portion of the Torah they will find new insights.

Our sages reiterate this idea as well when explaining the pasuk in Shema (Duet. 6:6) “And these words that I command you today shall be upon your heart”. What is the necessity of emphasizing “today”? Rather, each day the words of Torah should appear refreshed as is today. They should not be viewed as ancient edicts of little importance but rather like new ideas which everyone runs to investigate and learn(see Rashi).

In truth, how can someone view what they have already studied as if it were new? The answer is, that if one attains new insights each time they study, then even what one has learned before and could be considered “old material” it is actually considered “new material” due to the new insights which were gained and the revelations which were discovered.

Rashi agrees with Ramban in his claim that “va-yi-sa-pair- tell over” implies teaching something new. However, even if it is a reiteration of the 7 Noahide Laws, the Laws of Shabbos, honoring parents etc., they are still considered “new material” since Moshe obviously enlightened them with additional insights, which were previously concealed. This was a new learning experience. Therefore, this episode could have occurred before the giving of the 10 Commandments.

An application of the aforementioned ideas:
The Chassidic books ask why the opening paragraph in the Amidah reads, “G-d of Abraham, G-d of Isaac, and G-d of Jacob etc.” Each patriarch has a separate sentence. Wouldn’t it be acceptable to state, “G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”, all in one sentence? The answer presented is that each patriarch gained an additional insight in their own Divine service and relationship to Hashem. Abraham’s insights stemmed from loving-kindness (chesed), Isaac’s via inner-strength (gvurah) and Jacob’s via glory (tiferes). Grouping all the patriarchal references together without this expression of their unique individuality would not be appropriate during our time of prayer and communion with Hashem.

Answer to the original question(s):
Based upon the above ideas we can now answer the original question(s).
Why is Hashem not stated explicitly as the one who called Moshe? His name is not mentioned, as answered by Rabbenu Bachya, in order to emphasize that this book of Leviticus is actually a continuation of the previous book of the Torah, the book of Exodus which concludes with the revelation of the Glory of Hashem. Implicitly, we know that it is the Glory of Hashem, or Hashem himself, who is calling out to Moshe in this very next paragraph of the Torah.

Why then, does the Torah explicitly state in this first pasuk “Hashem spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting” ? It should have continued to use the pronoun “He” and the text should read: “He spoke with him from the Tent of Meeting”.

From a mystical perspective, two revelations of Hashem has occurred a revelation as the “Caller” and a revelation as a “Speaker”. The reason Hashem is mentioned in the second half of the pasuk is because He is perceived by Moshe with more insight than before. It is to convey to us that Moshe continually and constantly underwent a spiritual metamorphous. Due to the mere fact that he was called by Hashem to enter the Tent of Meeting, he became elevated to a higher spiritual plain thereby gaining additional and greater insightfulness, and which in turn intensified his connection with - and insightfulness of - Hashem. Ultimately, when the moment arrived for Hashem to speak with Moshe, he had already attained a new spiritual elevation due to the “calling” that occurred a short time earlier.

It was Hashem’s calling which helped to refine Moshe and elevate him to new heights which caused him to experience Hashem in a more elevated and mature way. The revelation of Hashem as the “Caller” did not achieve the same perception by Moshe as did the revelation of Hashem as the “Speaker”. Moshe intensified his perception of Hashem after the revelation as the “Caller” yet, before the revelation as the “Speaker”. Hence, Hashem as the “Speaker” is now considered like a new entity and cannot be referred to with a pronoun “He” which refers to the Hashem as the “Caller”.


Our Conclusion:
The Divrei Yoel has emphasized the importance of continual spiritual growth. The means to achieve this goal is by actively learning Torah and reviewing what we have learned already. Each new insight stimulates more spiritual growth. Furthermore, just like Moshe gained new insights, between the “Calling” and the “Speaking”, in his comprehending Hashem, we too have gained new insights, since our childhood, in our understanding of Hashem. May we continue to grow on this path.

These thoughts have been based on pages 38 and 39 of the Divrei Yoel parshas Vayikra.