Welcome to our new Main Rabbi, Rabbi Ben Keil!
Charles Landsberg, President Emeritus
|
Welcome to our new Main Rabbi, Rabbi Ben Keil!Yitz Gross, President
Charles Landsberg, President Emeritus By Rabbi Michael Macks:
To qualify as a kosher animal, the animal must have split hooves and chew its cud. Absent both signs, we automatically declare the animal as "impure," or not kosher. What's interesting is that when the Torah uses the term for split hooves (Vayikra 11:4-6), it glaringly does so in three different tenses: past (hifrisa- its hoof wassplit), present (mafris- its hoof is split,) and future (yafris- its hoof will be split.) Every minute detail of the Torah was arranged so intentionally, so what are we meant to learn from this? Rabbi Yissocher Frand explains that we learn from here that before declaring another person to be impure, we must know their entire story, past, present and future. When we see somebody act a certain way, all we see is the present, and we can never judge another person purely based on the present without knowing the entire story. Rabbi Michael Macks will be contributing weekly divrei torah as he is able Click the links below to download the Young Israel of Pelham Parkway Jewish Center Pesach Schedule 2018 / 5778. Thank you and Chag Sameach!
By Rabbi Michael Macks:
One of the korbanot described in Parshat Tzav is the korban mincha, the meal offering. One of the laws regarding this offering was that the Kohanim had to eat it on the premises of the Temple. The words the Torah uses to describe this laws is (Vayikra 6:9) "matzot tei'acheil b'makom kadosh," literally translated as: it shall be eaten unleavened in a holy place. The Radomsker Rebbe said that one fulfills this verse by guarding the sanctity of his speech, because the verse means that one should make his mouth a "holy place" by guarding his tongue. It is known that Rabbi Yisroel Salanter used to sigh and say, "I wonder about those people who are so careful about what they put into their mouths but pay no attention what comes out of their mouths." Rabbi Michael Macks will be contributing weekly divrei torah as he is able By Rabbi Michael Macks:
The sin offering (korban chatat,) described in Parshat Vayikra, is brought as a penalty for inadvertentlyviolating certain laws of the Torah. This is intriguing: if a person sins by mistake then he is penalized with a korban chatat, while a person who sins purposefully (though he may have a different punishment) does not need to bring any sacrifice! Why is that so? The Shoel U'Meishiv (Rabbi Yosef Shaul Nathanson, 1808-1875, Poland) gives a fantastic explanation, based on the Ramban (Nachmanides.) The Ramban writes that the reason why a korban chatat is brought in the first place is because really the person should die for his sin, and so he brings an animal to take his place and die instead of him. The Shoel U'Meishiv wonders how an animal can possibly replace a human, being that a a human soul is at a much higher level than an animal soul-? He explains that a sin which is violated by mistake (b'shogeg) is not committed with a person's nefesh ha'sichlit, intellectual soul, but rather with his nefesh ha'behamit, his animalistic soul. Therefore, only if a person sins by mistake can an animal truly take his place. Rabbi Michael Macks will be contributing weekly divrei torah as he is able By Rabbi Michael Macks:
Rashi, in his comments towards the beginning of Parshat Pekudei (Shemot 38:22,) tells us about a strange debate that took place between Moshe Rabbeinu and Betzalel, the person in charge of building the Mishkan. Moshe commanded Betzalel to first make the vessels and only afterwards to build the building-structure of the Mishkan, but Betzalel refused to follow that order, insisting that "the common practice of the world is to first make a house, and afterwards to put furnishings into it." Rabbi Moshe Weinberger explains that this debate was rooted in Moshe and Betzalel's respective opinions on the subject of how to balance bitachon (faith) and hishtadlut (effort.) Of course, there is a wide spectrum of possibilities, but the question becomes which value to prioritize. Moshe believed that that one should primarily live with bitachon, while Betzalel thought one should primarily live with hishtadlut. (In practice, the balance is very personal and individualized.) Rabbi Michael Macks will be contributing weekly divrei torah as he is able By Rabbi Michael Macks:
By Rabbi Michael Macks:
Twice in the Torah is the commandment given to offer two lamb sacrifices- one in the morning and one in the afternoon- once in Parshat Tetzaveh (Shemot 29:39), in the context of the initial dedication of the Tabernacle, and once in Parshat Pinchas (Bamidbar 28:4), in the context of the daily service. In Tetzaveh, the Torah uses the phrase את הכבש האחד (the one lamb,) while in Pinchas, the Torah uses the phrase את הכבשאחד (one lamb.) Why the discrepancy? The Brisker Rav (1886-1959) explains that the Torah is hinting at a halachic difference regarding the two lambs. On a regular day, the two lambs are independent of each other in the sense that even if one becomes blemished or lost and cannot be offered, the other one is not disqualified. However, at the dedication of the Tabernacle, the first time these lamb sacrifices were ever brought, both designated lambs had to be offered together, or else neither would have been permitted. That is why the Torah speaks of "the lamb." The Sefer Shemen HaTov comments that we learn from here the importance of starting an endeavor on the right footing. The way something begins sets the tone for what develops later. If it cannot be done right, it is better that it not be done at all. That is why the halacha governing the dedication of the Mishkan was both or neither. (Based on the Sefer, L'Chaim) Rabbi Michael Macks will be contributing weekly divrei torah as he is able |
FEEDSYIPPJC NEWSMazal Tovs, Updates and all announcements will be posted here. ARCHIVES
September 2019
CATEGORIES
All
SOCIALSEARCHEVENTS |
Brought to you by Kelleny + Berries .