avakesh

The Empty Tefillin? by Chaim Gershon

 

The mitzvos of the Torah generally became binding as soon as they were given.

If so, since Jews started wearing tefillin while journeying through the desert and two of the chapters of Shema from the book of Devarim that go into tefillin were not written down until the fourteeth years, it follows that for 39 years they wore head tefillin with four compartments but with only the two parshiyos from Shemos in two of the boxes. The other two compartments were empty!

 

This is supported by Rashi's language in parshas Bo, where he explains the word for tefillin, totafos as 4 compartments whereas in parshas veschanan he refers to four parshios. 

 

The Lubavitcher Rebbe discussed this on various occasions. See especially Likutei Sichos 9 , 43 and Sefer HaSichos 5751 Bo p.272  and 5749 Bo p.204, as well as in the Green edition of Likutei Sichos #9,  Eschanan. Some materials are also found here. Other sources include: Sichos Korach Gimmel Tammuz 5724 (in Toras Menachem series), Ohr Hatorah Devarim Volume 1, Tzemach Tzedek, pages 87, 90...327. Online the topic is discussed here: 

http://www.shemayisrael.com/dafyomi2/parsha/archives/bo98.htm

 

http://dafyomi.shemayisrael.co.il/parsha/bo5.htm

 

http://vesomsechel.blogspot.com/2007/01/tefillin-of-rashi-and-rabbenu-tam.html (An interesting analysis of R. Tam's tefillin)

 

Ohr Yisroel 39, 216

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/13617

 

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/22600

Pri Tzadik Elul(2), 92 therein

 

What is the meaning of tefillin with two empty boxes?  The Rebbe discusses the implication that the absence of those two paragraphs (Shema and Vahaya im Shemoa) implies that the avodah expressed by them was not necessary in the dessert. He references the Mittler Rebbe who states that Moshe did not transmit the two parshiyos in Devarim until he realized that he was not leading the Jews into the land of Israel.

 

Moshe's personal avodah was that of revelation from above, experiencing G-dliness as it comes down from above to below, called by Tanya in Shaar Haichud V''Hoemunah- Yichud Ilaah. When Moshe saw that his way will not be the way for the Jews after they enter the Holy Land, he wished to teach Jews to recite Shema and VaHaya im Shemoa which correspond to the more distant, yichud tata, avodah from below,rising to  perceive G-dliness through their own efforts from below to above. These parshiyos from Devarim would be placed in the tefillin once they entered the land. 

 

The history of tefillin teaches us that In our daily lives today a balance between both avodahs is necessary.

 

Avakesh comments:

 

While the most important point of the above teaching is about different ways of serving Hashem, especially through the mitsva of tefillin, it raises several issues previously discussed on this blog. Among them is whether the concept of Progressive Revelation is acceptable within the Tradition, with the proviso that it is restricted to the fourty year period of wandering in the dessert. If yes, many differences between the book of Devarim and the rest of the Chumash can be easily reconciled. There is also the question of whether it allows for admitting the existence of an Editor, as long it is Moshe Rabbeinu who was the Redactor of Biblical critics. There is perhaps some room for a concept that Moshe was given the freedom to arrange parshiot within the Torah, a concept that may be utilized to explain some of the arrangement and construction of its books. The Talmud records a disagreement in Gittin 60: “R. Yochanan in the name of R. Babaya said:” The Torah was given scroll by scroll (Rashi – First the scroll that contained the story of Creation, than the Scroll of Noach, then the scroll of Avraham).R. Shimon ben Lakish says: ”Torah was written as a complete document.” The Chezkuni explains:(Shemos 34,32): "Moshe would hear the commandments from the mouth of the Holy One Blessed be He and write them each one in a separate scroll. When it was his time to leave the world he arranged the Book of Torah and fixed in it contents according to the (significance) of organization (semukhin)  appropriate to it, as our Rabbis have explained”. A similar explanation is offered by R. Yosef Bkhor Shor in his commentary.”

 

These Megilas may have also contained some that were Moshe’s personal diaries or logs and were incorporated into the Torah under direct Divine command. See Ohr Hachaim to Bamidbar 33,1. The Midrash Chateirot V’Yateirot in Wertheimer edition (Jerusalem 1930) (but this passage is not found in other editions) says that Bamidbar10:35-36 are set off in the Torah scroll by inverted Nuns to indicate that it is a part of the prophecy of Eldad and Meided that was inserted in that spot by Moshe.

 

In relation to the book of Devarim, see Abarbanel in Introduction to Devarim, Toldot Yitzhak (R. Yosef Karo), Mizrachi to Devarim1,1;Beit Elokim, Shaar Hayesodot, 33; Alshekh beginning of Devarim, Ohr Hachaim Devarim 1,1. All of these authorities would likely share the opinion of the Abarbanel “The general rule is that this sacred book comes from the mouth of the Almighty, G-d having commanded it to be written word for word, like the rest of the Chumash” (op.cit.). However, this formulation leaves room for the arranging and sequencing of the megillos to be done by Moshe.

Og: two souls in one body

BS”D

 

 

Og is the Giant of who we learned first in parashas Vayera. It is appropriate that Og is also mentioned in parasha Devarim which falls in the middle of the Three Weeks of mourning; we will shortly explan why.  The Tree weeks correspond to the three holy three weeks between Rosh Hashana and Shemini Atzeres/Simchas Torah.

 

Og is the anti-hero of Biblical history. Og is saved by Noach during the Mabul, holding on to the Ark. He is the antithesis of Noach.

He is the Palit (refugee), escaping the first World War (of four kings against five) to inform Avraham that Lot was captured. Midrashim tells us that Og comes to Yitzhak's bris and is present when Yaakov comes down with his family to Pharoah. Moshe kills Og whose kingdom is Bashan, as the Jewish people gets ready to enter Eretz Yisroel. One can compile an entire sefer on Og's impact on Jewish history.

 

Og's mystical connection to the Three weeks is discussed in many sefarim, elaborating on the source in Bnei Yissochar p.339. The gematria of Og + Sichon (who was his brother) is 213 and is the same as the gematria of the letters on the backside of the mezuzah. This reveals to us that Og is the backside of holiness. This follows from the fact that each letter on the back of the mezuzah is the corresponding letter in the Alef-Beis after the ones on the front of the mezuza the klaf, i.e. "Hashem Elokenu HaShem". Hei becomes Vav and Shin becomes Tav etc.

This correspondence is approached differently in the Ishbitz sefer Sod Yesharim Al Hatorah-Tenina, parshas Devarim. The pesukim say that Og’s bed was 9 cubits. We know that the average man’s bed is 4 cubits. The Ishbitzer points out that the bed of Og is 9 by 4 cubits represented respectively by the letters Tes and Daled, which precede the Yud and Hay of HaShem's name in the Alef Beis.

 

Whether we address the encodings of HaShem's four-lettered name  that comes out of the letters that precede or that follow the Yud and Hey and Vav and Hey, which is a misaligment of the energy that this Name brings into the world,  Arizal explains it to be the theme of the mystical intentions of saying the Name during the first three brachas of the Amidah. (see  http://www.scribd.com/doc/33679906/Three-Negative-Weeks-Advanced-Handout and http://www.yeshshem.com/3weeks.htm ).

 

Discussion of the the impact of Og's persona is well covered in on-line sources:

http://dafyomi.shemayisrael.co.il/parsha/chukat5.htm

 

p.117

http://books.google.com/books?id=_1fdxxS26RYC&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=abba+shaul+dwarf&source=bl&ots=iq9nu1FvcZ&sig=rLarwrTvafZCUsYBWbWIIuG4EJo&hl=en&ei=W1Y6TMvzJoW8lQeYv-3SBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=og&f=false

 

http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword_cdo/kid/10729/jewish/Og.htm

http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/98195594.html

 

Og is even cited several times in the gemara and shulchan aruch not only in agada but also for applicationof  his grotesque proportions to practical halacha. 

Kisvei Ari views Og as one of the halves of a body, containing two battling souls, sort of like Tanya' animal adn divine souls. Og is the negative side to Eliezer's holier soul.  Sefarim debate whether Eliezer half get elevated in the end or did both parts perish?

 

We encounter Og in Chumash during the Three weeks. Perhaps this draws our attention to teh duality present within teh Three weeks. Will these Three Weeks become holidays when the Geulah comes or  will they be relegated to oblivion?

On this Tisha B'av- let's put aside our differences

Expressions, numbers and depths by Chaim Gershon

A popular idiom may become so universal that people who never encountered the circumstances on which it is based, easily adapt the jargon into their vocabulary. The Talmud often cites popular expressions as support to its own statements. Perhaps this is because there is a spiritual root to such expressions. There is, for example an expression, “Up to Eleven”. We will now explain this expression.

 

This week’s parasha Devorim says that the Jewish people’s  journey through the desert to the Promised Land was to be but eleven days.  Why eleven?

 

Some simple explanations can be found here but on a deeper level (see also Tzemach Tzedek’s Ohr Hatorah Devarim Volume 1 p.16-19 or here  ( Devarim, first column): the concept is that the Eleventh’s level is beyond the normative 10 sefiros paradigm of the side of Holiness.

This has many years after the Arizal and the first early Chassidic Rebbes been recently encapsulated by the phrase “Up to Eleven”

 

One can similarly propose that the reason why the Douglas Adams chose to write in his Hitchhikers Ultimate Guide to the Unverse that the  “Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything is 42” is the Divine Name of HaShem whose gematria is 42, which is one of the bases for existence !

More on Freud and the Rebbe Rashab

Sometime ago I wrote about Rebbe Rashab's visit to Freud. Now in response to an unfortunate controversy, previousely unpublished letters have been released. They indicate that Rashab visited Freud as a neurologist, not a psychoanalyst. Neurology was Feud's original profession and he prescribed electric stimulation of Rashab's paralyzed hand (not the same as elecroschock therapy which was not yet invented), which cured him. Freud’s treatment of the Rashab’s hand was purely physical. Though they did discuss topics of mutual interest and Freud did advise methods of alleviating the Rashab’s depression, there was no extended psychoanalytical process, and no referral to a junior colleague.

The junior colleague, Steckel, whose case reports are now being adduced as proof, was an unstable individual who broke with Freud and ultimately committed suicide. He was suspected of making up his cases. Here is a quote from his biography"(p. 142, hat tip to a commenter on a CircusTent post): :

“At one session my honor was personally attacked by Victor Tausk. He insinuated that my cases were in­vented. (If I had invented my cases I should undoubt­edly be a greater poet than Shakespeare.) During this speech by Tausk, I wrote to Freud on a scrap of paper, “If you will not rebuke these personal attacks, this is the last time that I shall have been a member of this circle.” In a mild manner Freud asked Tausk to avoid personal remarks.

I don't have to point out that Steckel's cases are unrealistic. No contemporary therapist would give credence to the approaches and lightning fast cures claimed therein.

For me the clincher is Rashab's writings. Anyone who studies his work, especially the famous Hemshech Reish Samech Vov, encounters a giant of sensitivity, psychological insight, a towering intellect and an understanding heart. This perception is incompatible with what was claimed by Steckel, if it is in fact about him.

 

Dropouts do Shakespeare in Yiddish

Explanation here

The return of Korach by Chaim Gershon

Judaism is a religion that stresses redemption. Every individual, even the most wicked, must have a chance for repentance and return. It is not surprising then that we find in our sources theidea that Korach is destined to come up from the earth that swallowed him and to eventually rejoin the Jewish people. 

The gemara (Baba Basra 74a and Sanhedrin 110a) discussses how Rabbah bar Bar Chana were shown the place where Korach and his company were swallowed up. This passage apparently follows the view that Korach was swallowed and not burnt and even now he and his followers still chant that "Moshe and his Torah are true and we are liars."

Tosfos in Kiddushin 31b gives more details. Tosfos brings a different Medrash that 'Osof' was a descendant of Korach, and Osof was happy when he saw that the gates of Yerusholayim sank into the ground, because he then realized that, just as we know that ultimately the ground will open up again and the gates of Yerusholyim will reappear, his ancestor, Korach, will also be brought back. A number of sources, such as Maharsha to Sanhedrin 110 and Yalkut Reuveni on the Haftorah Bamidbar also quote this tradition. They indicate that  Chana prayed for the redemption of Korach when she prayed to have a son, for Shmuel was a descendent of Korach.

This midrashic approach is elucidated by several commentaries,  including the CHIDA and Chasam Sofer as well as Bnei Yissochar Tammuz 3:11. These and other sources are collected in Yalkut Moshiach V`Geulah vol 27 - Shlach - Korach.

One of the early sources for the idea that Korach will yet come up appears to be Tanna Devei Eliyahu Rabbah Chapter 30 or the "ancient" Midrash Conen (p.8 in Yalkut HaRoim Hagadol. The latter says that the Avos, Moshiach ben Yosef, Moshiach Ben David and Eliyahu pray for redemption on Mondays and Thursdays whereas Korach and company make their request on Wednesday.

The Sefer Zera Berach quoted in Yalkut Moshiach V`Geulah (I have the original sefer as well) explains that it is specifically Wednesday that serves as their day for praying for redemption because Wednesday is the day when the machlokes took place between the moon and the sun, the archetype for all disputes. Korach is an emblem of dispute and dissention. Wednesday is also the last day to perform havdala for the previous Shabbas, which alludes to Moshe’s command to separate from the tents of Korach (Bamidbar 16:21).

In contrast, Emek HaMelech (p.508 new edition) based on a different variation of the tradition states that it is on Mondays and Thursdays that Korach's men plead for Moshiach to come to redeem them!  

Emek HaMelech explains that Korach is a soul whose shoresh/rootl is from the world of Tohu. These souls are  expressed in this world through their involvement in non-religiously-productive activites such as philosophy. Tzemach Tzedek in Yahel Ohr explains the connection of Korach to Tohu.” It is based on the passuk in Tehillim 92. The verse states that; “The righthouse shall flourish like a  plam. The end-letters of this verse spell out the word Korach:  צדיק כתמר יפרח. The commentary of Yahel Ohr to this verse goes on to explains that this allusion is based on the a reference is to a palm tree, which in the form of a lulav, together with the Esrog represent the rectified union of the 8th king of Edom: Hadar (esrog) and his wife(lulav). This is contrast to the first 7 kings who all died and thus belong solely to the world of Tohu. Interesting, one of these Kings is named Korach !

Parenthetically, Chasam Sofer questions how Korach's parents were allowed to name him after an evil person, Korach, the King of Edom,  and how could Shaul HaMelech's parents also named him after on of these evil kings: naming after an evil person does not lead to a good mazel!

As I commented on a previous avakesh post,  Likutei Levi Yitchak (Naso p.358) relate the end of Korach to one of the Edomite Kings of Tohu: Bela ben B'or ( literally: Swallower son of Burnt) In this fashion, it is also related to Korach being from Tohu as these judgements are also the names of the Kings of Tohu.

One of the explanations given as to why Korach complained against Moshe’s enactments was that he saw that the Leviim which represent gevurah should really be superior to cohanim,  just like the halacha in future goes according to Shammai who is from gevurah / Tohu over Hillel who is from the world of chesed/Tikkun . However he was wrong because putting the Oros d'tohu into kelim d'tikkun  has not yet taken place and Korach still awaits his rectification.

 

It is fascinating how the same sources can be understood very differently by different people. Subsequent to writing this post I came across a different treatment of some of these sources, and so I attach them here.

 

Download Hamodia__Korach_5770_1[1]

Download Hamodia__Korach_5770_2[1]

Download Hamodia_Korach_5770_3[2]

Download JP_Korach_5770

 

Truth and Falsehood

The seal of the Holy One BLessed be He is Truth (Shabbos 55a).

Why did Hashem select Truth as his seal?

Because an imitation of any other quality is "takkeh" an imitation, but an imitation of Truth is Falsehood!

Rebbe Simcha Bunim in Siach Sarei Kodesh

Kossover Rebbe's Bechina

A child singer at a tish