ShikkerDovid

Parsha Tazria begins with the process a women undergoes after giving birth. There is a period of separation and then binging sacrifices. Immediately after that is the discussion of the “Metzora”-( the leper) which we are told homilectically is the punishment for lashon hora or gossip…What is the connection between child birth and the leper?

The SD would like to make a comparison. They both progress from hidden to revealed very quickly.

The birth of a child starts with an act that is usually done in extreme privacy. In total seclusion. Only two people are aware of the act. But quickly the act is revealed. A women begins to look pregnant and ultimately a child is the product of the secluded act.

Similarly, lashon hora is usually done by people who think they are having a private or secure communication. They talk of other people secretively. Gossip usually starts with this, “Promise not to repeat this… but did you hear”. The gossipers think they are having a private or secure communication. They thnk no one else will know. Then the metzora hits They get skin lesions all over. The Kohan is called, they are taken out of the camp of Israel and secluded. It is quickly a public humiliation. The sin is revealed.

What is the connection: Everything. eventually is revealed. Both good and bad. All is revealed, if not to man then at least to Hashem. Nothing ever can stay really hidden.

This week’s daf yomi-Sota page 22b talks how the heavenly Court knows all. both hidden and revealed.

When it comes to human events- Nothing stays in Vegas.

The last page of Nair ends with a little irony. The last page has a funny argument. Rav tell his son to grab the cup of wine to lead the bircat hamazon because leading the benching is better. Rabbi Yose disagrees. Then the Talmud says the famous saying that scholars enhance peace in the word. What does grabbing a cup to lead the benching have to do with peace in the world? It would appear to be the opposite. Grabbing leads to disagreement. Furthermore, in the tractate of Nazir, the whole premise and institution of Nazir is a rejection of wine . The Nazir is not allowed to drinke wine. The whole tractate is a rejection of wine.

The Shikkerdovid had a rabbi who said every Tractate comes full circle. Turn back to the front and first page. The first page says one can become a nazir by making references to Nazir or similar to words to Nazir or pointing to a nazir can make you a nazir. The Talmud says, it is like a “handle” or grabbing onto the phrase or grabbing a reference to the person.

What is the connection to the last page and the first page. Nazir is about extreme behavior We can grab in extreme. We can grab to negate something Hashem gave us to enjoy. We can grab and reject despite being permitted. Or the end of the tractate: we can grab and usurp a beautiful mitzvah with wine. The challenge is finding the medium of a controlled and moderate life.

The SD is a monarchist.

One of the commentators on the Queen’s death on the TV this morning mentioned that she always listened to criticism and tried to change. In a famous speech she said “criticism is good for people and institutions.” It’s ironic because she is the last person in the world who needed to listen to anybody. She was the Queen. But she realized that criticism leads to improvement and change.

On Rosh Hashana we are called upon to examine our ways. We are mandated to think about how to improve. We should look at ourselves with a critical eye to be better, kinder, and more generous of spirit.

Let’s be royal and examine ourselves and improve.

At the bottom of page 62b and continuing on 63 is the famous story of R. Akiba and his rise from ignorant shepherd to great sage of the Talmud. We are told that R. Akiba was a shepherd of Calba Savua and he was noticed by the daughter of Calba Savua.

What did she notice? The Talmud says “his great modesty”. She did not see or fall in love with him because of his intellect or his potential for greatness, rather his modesty.

The lesson is obvious.

Ketubot page 49 presents a rather harsh mishna. The mishna says that a father is not obligated to feed or provide for his minor daughter while he is alive. If he dies, the daughter is supported from the assets of the estate.

The Talmud quickly offers the following:. There is no “obligation” (chieuv) to provide for her but it is a” mitzva.” What does that mean? How can you have a mitzva that does not arise out of an obligation? The mechanism for a fulfilling a mitzva is first being obligated either on a torah level or rabbinic level and then doing the act. What is a mitzva without an obligation?

The magid shiur said the following: This”mitzva” is a “good Jewish act.” It arises not our of obligations, statute, rabbinic enactment- rather it arises from our soul- our heart. The mitzva is what we are moved to do out of love, compassion.

The SD would like to weigh in. A Jew is moved to act and respond because the Torah tells him to do certain acts of kindness, but also because the Torah enhances or sensitivity and compassion to the needs of others. We see pain, we see need and despite not technically being “obligated” we are moved to act. The SD thinks that a “Jewish heart” feels everyone’s pain . A mitzva is not limited to obligation. AvJewish heart transcends obligation.

We are finishing the tractate. The first part of the tractate focused on relationships which permit or prohibit the act of Yibum or marrying your dead brother’s wife. The second main theme is when a woman may remarry in the absence of normative proof. We have a Mishna that allows for two different results arising out of one husband. My favorite Mishna is a man takes his two wives oversees. The man did not return but both wives did and one said he is dead and one wife said he is still alive. They are both believed. One wife can remarry and one wife cannot.

The journeys in these cases fascinates me. Travelling in the ancient world was dangerous. Besides being eaten by a lion or a bear, there were marauding soldiers, thieves. Travel was not undertaken lightly. The difference between returning and not returning could be very arbitrary.

Recently a the Metropolitan Musueum of Art there was a bunch of pictures by Winslow Homer who painted sea faring scenes. One picture is very poignant. It is a man in a boat who is clearly in distress. In the foreground of the picture is a small boat…. A chance to be saved! salvation. The problem is his head is turned away from the boat . We don’t know if he will be saved We don’t know if he will be seen or he will see the boat.

Yefvamaos recognizes that life is dangerous. Life is full of tragedy and our job is to make the best of bad situations. The Tractate goes to great lengths to allow marriage, to avoid chained women or agunas. Travel like life is difficult. But it is good to know that Jewish law recognizes this and does its best to avoid bad outcomes. Life is arbitrary, but based upon many of the situations in Yevamaos, the law does its best to soften the pain,

The Mishna on 116 cites a ruling of Hillel who says that if a woman says her husband died and there are specific circumstances which are similiar to a prior ruling- she is believed. Hillel says the circumstances must be identical : ie the grain harvest and in the same county. Shammai disagrees and says we don’t need exact facts such as grain harvest, it could be olive or grape harvest. The big question is how we rule on fact issues. How similar do the facts have to be to rely upon a prior ruling. Ultimately Hillel reverses his position.

In a week with big issues decided in the Supreme Court, this daf is rather timely. The dispute here is one of jurisprudence. How similiar or close to the original content or decision must the facts of current dispute be to one where a ruling has already occurred. In essence, how do we make legal decisions. Do you look expansively? Do we look narrowly?

The facts of the original case are finally discussed in the Gemara. During a wheat harvest a bunch of people where working and a snake bit someone in the field. A woman came to Beis Din and said her husband died. She is believed.

The SD would like to weigh in. The Court is looking at the law, but maybe also the circumstances, the veracity of the woman, the situation. It is not making a dispassionate decision. It is weighing the real life situation. Clearly the Court must base its anaylysis on law, but uses law for just and compassionate outcomes . Jewish law at its best: stare decisis (precedent) and compassion.

Parsha Emor starts with the statement: Tell the Kohanim -sons of Aharon (priests) not to become Tuma-impure by death defilement (contact with dead.).

Ishbitz has a unique understanding of tuma (impurity). He starts by saying “kohanim” refers to all people who understand that all that happens is from God and all that happens is good. Good even if it seems to be painful or detrimental. Isbhitz wisely notes that a person who understands this might become resentful of GD for giving him troubles that he cannot comprehend . Therefore the Torah says dont’ be “tamei” or resentful of what God sends you. Tuma is the product of resentment or even resentment of God’s actions.

This is really the core inner conflict of the religious person- recognizing that God causes pain and suffering. We believe, but the inevitable resentment naturally follows.

The lesson is resentment is like impurity or maybe according to Isbitz resentment is impurity incarnate. Resentment is mars our soul the same as a dead body contaminates.

This is the challenge: Not to allow resentment of Gd’s will mar or bring impurity to our soul.

The parsha of Kedoshim has the famous line: “Love your neighbor as your self”. What is often forgotten is what comes immediately before: -Do not hold a grudge. Interestingly, Yevamos 62 which is the next day after reading of Kedoshim this year, quotes the story of Rabbi Akiva’s students who died According to this page, they died because they lacked respect for each other. A footnote in the Arstscroll quotes a midrash explains that this manifested as an “inner flaw of stinginess of spirit?

It seems that a “grudge” or “stinginess of spirit” is very different than all other sins. It is not an action of hurt; it is not a statement of hurtfullness or offense. A grudge is an inner emotion deep in our consciousness. Grudges are a natural feeling that most humans encounter. A grudge or stinginess of spirit is part of the human condition or an understandable character flaw that all people can succomb to. In essence, it is part of the human condition. At best, we seek to control it.

The SD would like to weigh in. This is exactly where the standard of holiness comes into play. Holiness is NOT merely doing mitzvos or acts of chesed. Holiness is not simply complying with the Torah. Holiness is the transformation of self beyond normal human frailities and conditions. Holiness is doing these mitzos or acts of kindness in a state of true love and respect for others. Holiness is where you transform your soul to use all mitzvos as a springboard to improve your relationship with the neighbor-regardless of what the neighbor says or has or does.

Conquering our inner demons is what true holiness is. Love your neighbor really means, conquer your own demons, eradicate your negative feelings or petty emotions.

The Bostoner Rebbbetzin was quoted as saying:

“May the Simcha of your Purim not get in the way of your Kashrus of your Purim; and the Kashrus of Your Pesach not get in the way of the Simcha of your Passover.”

Despite, the work, the cleaning, the cooking… Lets focus on the happiness. We deserve happiness.