From Purim to Pesach part 2

Need some more brainstorming on this one, but, for starters:

There is an interesting thing about many Letter Tzaddi (or Tzaddik) based words
- they connote some measure of constriction or pressure. For example: "Hinei zeh
omed achar kosleinu mashgi'ach min ha'chalonos MEITZITZ min ha'charackim" - the
word MEITZITZ means to look through a narrow aperture or to squint.

There seems to be a distinction between similar types of words in this category:
Mem-Tzaddi words vs. Tzaddi-Mem words. The M-TZ words, such as Motzatz imply
applying pressure or squeezing (perhaps via the connotation of the Mem prefix -
"From" - i.e., "from something to squeeze") while the TZ-M words, such as
Tzameh, thirsty, imply the void created as a result (i.e., "what is the result
of the squeezing process"). The distinction, however, seems somewhat arbitrary,
and needs some fine-tuning.

All of this likely has to do with the more esoteric concept of a tzaddik
(without getting into the exact appellation of the letter, the Gemara in Shabbos
links it to the tzaddik persona), who is the gibbor ha'kovesh - applies
pressures to - yitzro. I think in the Kabbalistic system also, the "tzaddik
yesod olam" represents the narrowed pathway through which the shefa flows back
and forth from the upper sefiros to malchus and vice versa. 90 is a 10
(shleymus) multiple of 9, and yesod is the ninth sefira.

Phonetically, the pronunciation of the tzaddi also sounds and requires the
tongue to squeeze the palate.

Thus, a word like Matzah probably pertains to the pressure applied to the dough
to prevent its rising - which is why an alternate meaning of the word is an
altercation, in which two parties apply pressure to one another. "Le'matzos"
means to pour out completely - extracting every last drop from a barrel, and, of
course Mitz is the result of Metzitzah, which extracts juice, and Tamtzis is
essence. And, of course, Meitzar is a narrowed space. A Metziah is something
that came through a process of narrowing your search until you hit upon the
found object.

OTOH, Tzameh, as before, means a void experienced because liquid has been
drained from you, and tzom is similar in connotation. Tzimtzum thus is the
result - the void - which occurs after Hashem removed His presence from the
conscious dimension of existence (could be that we speak about Tzimtzum with the
tzaddi preceding the mem because we do not, C"V, which to imply that Hashem
truly extracted His presence from the Beriyah, but rather that our perception is
that that is the case.

Chametz, thus, is either the destruction (ches connoting churban) or
transcendence (ches connoting that which rises above the normal natural process
- 7 vs. 8) of the M-TZ process - the kneading and working the dough is arrested
and the dough is allowed to rise. Metzach is a fascinating opposite, as it seems
to connote that the forehead contains and constrains the brain, but at the same
time expresses it, as in "chochmas ha'partzuf" (BTW, the Peh-Tzaddi combo is
fascinating, as a Peh seems to connote openness - so Peh-Tzaddi is a "busting
out of confines" - "U'poratzto" or "Potzeh" - while the Tzaddi-Peh combo
connotes a narowness - for a vaster purpose - like a "tzofeh" who squints in
order to see further.

So Matzoh is "Lechem Oni" not just because poor people eat it - but because it
is itself afflicted and pounded in order to prevent it from rising. And, the way
Oni is spelled in Devaim 16:10, chaser, it is in gimatriya 130 - the numerical
value of the chasadim (5 x 26) in the Sidduro shel Shabbos's analysis of the
word Kahal that we cited earlier in this series (BTW, the gimatriya of the
gevuros (5 x 86 - shem Elokim - would be 430 - the number the Chumash gives for
our sojourn in Mitzrayim - the land of Meitzar). Were Oni to be spelled with a
vav it would, of course, be the same as Tzom, Kol, Mammon, but it's not.

All of which is leading us to the essence of Matzoh, which brings us, however,
first, to correlate 135 - the gimatriya of Matzoh ( and Kahal) to the gimatriya
of 150 which is metaher the sheretz. I will leave that for a further e-mail, but
make some preliminary points for now:

1. Y-H, Chazal say, is the name with which the Universe was create ("BY-H Hashem
tzur olamim" - this actually leads me to suspect that when Chazal tell us ein
ha'sehm shalem ad she'yimocheh zar'o shel Amalek, it is the *first* heh and vav
that are missing, not the second heh). Olam ha'Boh with a yud and Olam ha'Zeh
with a heh.

2. Reb Tzadok in explaining 150 says that all things are comprised of "rosh, sof
vo'emtza" (BTW, sheer tangent, 50 is also in gimatriya "tameh"). He also notes
there that the yam she'oso Shlomo contained 150 mikva'os tahara, and the teiva
of No'ach contained 150,000 mikva'os (450K cubic amos, and a mikva is three
cubic amos) and, of course, the water rose for 150 days.

3. 150 is the 10 multiple of Y-H, 135 is the nine - tzaddik - multiple of Y-H.

4. On another tangent - those who fight Esav and Amalek - Yosef *ha'tzaddik* and
Yehoshua - both have lifespans of 110 - the missing vav-heh (6+5=11x10=110)?

From Purim to Pesach part 1

(Some of this appears in an earlier post to the blog)

Hama"n in gimatriya is 95 and so is Hamelec"h, and of course zeh l'ummas zeh
osoh Elokim - which is why hamelec"h stam in the Megillah is Melech Malchei
ha'Melochim and why Sofrim are mehadder to make "Hamelech" megillos. The
difference is in the nun sofis - a straight line that goes beneath the line, and
is therefore a straight path to the area called "ragleha yordos movess" - and a
nefila sofis (which is why Dovid *Hamelec"h* excluded nun from Ashrei except in
the context of its tikkun - "somech noflim"). In Hamelec"h, the nun is split ito
lamed-chof sofis. The lamed is unique in that it is the "migdal ha'porei'ach
bo'avir" - the only letter that goes above the line of the other letters (which
is why it caused so much trouble in early Hebrew word processors - there is no
parallel letter in the English language) - and is comprised of a chof topped by
a vav - the vav ha'chibbur of Limmud Torah that connects Elyonim and Tachtonim.
The connection via the lamed allows the final letter to be a chof sofis - as
opposed to a nun, it has a broad top - firmly anchored, as opposed to barely
anchored - the lamed anchors the chof sofis in place, giving it greater capacity
to overwhelm the difficulties of ragleha yordos movess.

Al pi derech tzachus, "Me she'yesh lo monoh rotzeh mosa'im" - "Monoh" = "Haman";
"Mosa'im = "Ama'sa'im" (Two Amos). In the middos of Parashas Terumah the
Shulchan was two amos long, but the Aron was two and a half amos long. The
shulchan alludes to material wealth, but the Aron alludes to the connection
forged by Torah with this world. Haman is interested in the material world, but
we must transcend that.

In the total measurements of the Aron and the Kapporess there are twice two and
a half (2 X 250) and three times one and a half (3 x 150). Although Chazal in
Sukkah learn a midda for the Kappores's thickness, the Torah itself gives no
such measure. Do the math: the total of all meaures of the Aron is 950. The two
250's obviously connotes two neiros (NR = 250), which are the ner of Torah and
the ner Hashem nishmas Adam that the Aron weds together. How is this done? By
three times 150.

Reb Tzadok expands on 150 both in Kometz Ha'Mincha 18a and Dover Tzedek 9a. Of
course, the talmid vosik in Yavneh, IIRC Rabbi *Meir* was able to be metaher es
ha'sheretz with 150 reasons. The teiva held 150 time the 40 se'ah of a mikveh
and so did the Yam she'oso Shlomo.

The Maharal (and, of course, Reb Tzadok) says that the number 300 in Chazal
represents a guzma in matters of Olam ha'Zeh. 400 is beyond (21st vs. 22nd
letter).

Last year we wrote:


R' Tzadok brings that the first time a concept is mentioned in the Torah is
the shoresh of that inyan. The word "Kahal" appears for the first time in the
Torah in Shemos 12, in the context of Korban Pesach.

The Sidduro shel Shabbos at the end of Shoresh 6 Anaf 1 explains the
statement in Tehillim "Tehilaso b'Kahal Chassidim" that through Kahal, the
gevuros become chasadim. He explains that in KH"L the H = the five gevuros,
and the K-L = the five chasadim (5x26 [Shem Havaya"h] = 130. Note the
significance of a other 130's, such as "Tzam' - fasts turn gevuros into
chasadim). He alludes to what is brought in seforim that in davening, a t
least, one should clasp one's left hand with and envelope it in the right -
enveloping the gevuros in the chasadim.

This past Purim I expounded on the idea of "NiKHaLu ha'Yehudim" as the
fundamental concept of Purim, and that many of the incidents in Purim took
place in various forms of "chatzer". Indeed, the first place in Tanach that
Adar is mentioned is in Parashas Mas'ei: "Chatzar Adar".

The Chatzer is the Outer World, removed from the direct presence of the King -
whether it be Achashveirosh or HKB"H.

Chatzer also tells us how to deal with the Hester Panim inherent in that
distance from HKB"H. The R represents Rah, the Evil that springs from the
concealment of HKB"H's presence. CHaTZeR = Chetz Rah, split the Rah in half.
Half Rah = Kahal (270/2 = 135). The response to Rah, and the manner in which
one breaks through that concealment, is by unifying the Kahal (135) in Tzom
(136), Kol (136), Mammon (136) - the KHL plus the agent of yichud (known in
gematriyah as the "Kollel").

Adar is a time of Chatzar, but Nisan is a bechina of "Hevi'ani ha'Melech
Chadarav" - the great Ohr of the Seder night. Lo l'chinam did the actual
event of Purim occur on Pesach! The mitzvos of Kiddush ha'Chodesh and Korbon
Pesach united Am Yisroel: first via the Beis Din concept, then via each and
every individual. The Korbon Pesach is done en masse and eaten b'chaburah. Ho
b'ho talyah. The Ohr only comes to a Kahal and only a Kahal can be zocheh to
the Ohr.

Tein l'Chochom v'yechkam od...

I would like to add (more on this in later e-mails) that Matzah in gimatriya is
also 135, and Oni, as spelled in the Torah (chaser), as in *Lechem Oni* is 130.
As we shall see, lechem oni does not necessarily mean bread of poverty.

The same principle applies here - except that Rah is evil, but Rah plus the
Lamed (270+30) - the connection to the Elyonim - is the total of Olam Ha'Zeh (as
opposed to the last mishna in Shas - each tzaddik gets 310 olamos, VEKM"L). But
half of 300 is the 150 which helps to break open the secret of this world and
see its nature "me yiten tahor me'tmaeh" - the sheretz, too, is a precursor to
tahara - "leika *nehora* k'ha'he d'nofak mego chashocho."

We will get more into this IY"H, but Esther's depair is captured by "lo nikreisi
lavo el ha'Melech zeh Shloshim yom" - thirty is the totality of the lunar cycle
from ebb to ebb - of course, the chiddush of the Adar- Nissan continuum and
"Dovid Melech Yisroel chai v'kayam" is that everything is cyclical and "na'utz
sofan b'techiloson," but Mo'adei Tisroel are generally on the 15th of the month
- the high point of hisgalus, the moon in its fullness.

Why three times 150? This we shall leave for the moment. More on this when we
get to Pesach.

But, of course, 95 or 950 is not complete. The extra Heh is,of course, the Heh
of Olam ha'Zeh that connects to the Hamelec"h - and that is present in the
Megillah in HaMalka"h - which you can follow in Esther after she puts on Malchus
(the middah of this world "Malchus Shad-dai"). And of course if Hamelec"h is
from above, then Hamalka"h is from below - the bechina of "Nekeivah tesovev
gever" - the hisgabrus of dinim mitigated by our supplications from below -
captured in the Megillah by "Tzom" - the "Tzom'o lecho nafshi" that breaks
through the Tzimtzum - and which will, of course bring us to Pesach (and, of
course, the tzomos were on Pesach) because in Matzoh the Tzaddik and Mem are
reversed (and equal 130 as well). We will have to correlate that to Metzach,
Matzaz, Matza as in "Matza u'Meriva" etc. v'od chazon la'mo'ed.

And that is pshat "V'Haman niv'as lifnei Hamelec"h v'Hamalka"h" - the Y-H of
Hamelech, connected by the V - once more - to the H of Hamalka"h. Our "eitz
chamishim amah" - the chamishim she'arim of bina that we add to male up the 1000
to the Aron - overcame his eitz.

Toras Purim 5765 (part 5)

Reb Nosson, talmid of Reb Nachman (another pshat in Nachal in and of himself!) comments on the chesed aspect of Purim (ties into the Radomsker):


(2) ספר ליקוטי הלכות - הלכות העושה שליח לגבות חובו הלכה ג
כ) וְזֶה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּכְּתָבִים וּמוּבָא בְּדִבְרֵי אֲדוֹנֵנוּ מוֹרֵנוּ וְרַבֵּנוּ זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה שֶׁמָּרְדְּכַי בְּגִימַטְרִיָּא רַב חֶסֶד, הַיְנוּ כַּנַּ"ל, כִּי מָרְדְּכַי הוּא בְּחִינַת הַצַּדִּיק הַדּוֹר שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ נִמְשָׁךְ הָרוּחַ חַיִּים וְכוּ' שֶׁזֶּה הַצַּדִּיק הוּא בְּחִינַת רַב חֶסֶד הֵפֶךְ עֵשָׂו שֶׁהוּא אַדְמוֹנִי וְכוּ', כַּמְבֹאָר בְּהַתּוֹרָה הַנַּ"ל שֶׁזֶּה כָּל עִנְיַן פּוּרִים שֶׁנִּמְשָׁךְ הָרוּחַ חַיִּים מֵהָרַב דִּקְדֻשָּׁה בְּחִינַת מָרְדְּכַי, בְּחִינַת רַב חֶסֶד, שֶׁעַל - יְדֵי זֶה נִכְנָע וְנוֹפֵל הָמָן - עֲמָלֵק שֶׁהוּא מִזֶּרַע עֵשָׂו אַדְמוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא הָרַב דִּקְלִפָּה וְכַנַּ"ל:
כא) וְעַל - כֵּן מִצְוָה לְהִשְׁתַּכֵּר בְּיַיִן בְּפוּרִים לְהַכְנִיעַ הָרוּחַ שֶׁל הָרַב דִּקְלִפָּה שֶׁהוּא בְּחִינַת 'וְדָמֵי כְּמָאן דִּמְבַסְּמֵי' - פְּנֵיהֶם צְהֻבּוֹת כִּשְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן שֶׁהוּא בְּחִינַת עֵשָׂו אַדְמוֹנִי, כַּמְבֹאָר שָׁם בְּסוֹף הַתּוֹרָה הַנַּ"ל עַל מַאֲמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָא, עַיֵּן שָׁם. וְעַל - כֵּן עַל - יְדֵי הַיַּיִן דִּקְדֻשָּׁה שֶׁל שְׁתִיַּת פּוּרִים מַכְנִיעִין אוֹתָם בְּשָׁרְשָׁם, כִּי הַיַּיִן דִּקְדֻשָּׁה הוּא בִּבְחִינַת רוּחַ צְפוֹנִית הַמְנַשֶּׁבֶת בַּכִּנּוֹר שֶׁל דָּוִד שֶׁעַל יָדָהּ הָיָה מְנַגֵּן מֵאֵלָיו שֶׁזֶּהוּ בְּחִינַת יַיִן שֶׁמִּשָּׁם כָּל הַשִּׁיר וְהַנִּגּוּן, כִּי אֵין אוֹמְרִים שִׁיר אֶלָּא עַל הַיַּיִן, כִּי רוּחַ צְפוֹנִית נִמְשָׁךְ מִגְּבוּרוֹת קְדוֹשׁוֹת שֶׁהֵם שֹׁרֶשׁ הַנְּפָשׁוֹת (כְּמוֹ שֶׁמּוּבָא בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר ), שֶׁהֵם חִיּוּת שֶׁל כָּל בְּנֵי - אָדָם וְזֶה בְּחִינַת יַיִן שֶׁהוּא גַּם - כֵּן בְּחִינַת גְּבוּרוֹת. וְעַל - כֵּן הַיַּיִן כְּשֶׁהוּא בִּקְדֻשָּׁה, כְּגוֹן בְּשַׁבָּת וְיוֹם - טוֹב, בִּפְרָט בְּפוּרִים עַל יָדוֹ דַּיְקָא מַמְתִּיקִין הַדִּינִים בְּשָׁרְשָׁן וּמְבַטְּלִין הָרַב דִּקְלִפָּה שֶׁהוּא בְּחִינַת עֵשָׂו אַדְמוֹנִי, בְּחִינַת וְדָמֵי כְּמָאן דִּמְבַסְּמֵי שֶׁזֶּה
בְּחִינַת רַב חֶסֶד, שֶׁעַל - יְדֵי זֶה נִכְנָע וְנוֹפֵל הָמָן - עֲמָלֵק שֶׁהוּא מִזֶּרַע עֵשָׂו אַדְמוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא הָרַב דִּקְלִפָּה וְכַנַּ"ל כָּל עִנְיַן פּוּרִים לְהַכְנִיעַ וּלְבַטֵּל הָרַב דִּקְלִפָּה נֶגֶד הָרַב דִּקְדֻשָּׁה שֶׁהוּא מָרְדְּכַי שֶׁהוּא רַב חֶסֶד וְכַנַּ"ל::



(1) ספר ליקוטי הלכות - הלכות ציצית הלכה ה
כו) וְזֶהוּ בְּחִינַת סְעֻדַּת פּוּרִים שֶׁאָז מִצְוָה לֶאֱכֹל וּלְהַרְבּוֹת בִּסְעֻדָּה, כִּי עַל - יְדֵי בְּחִינַת חוּט שֶׁל חֶסֶד הַנַּ"ל נִתְתַּקֵּן הָאֲכִילָה בִּקְדֻשָּׁה, כִּי זוֹכִין שֶׁתִּהְיֶה הָאֲכִילָה בִּבְחִינַת מְזוֹנָא דְּנִשְׁמָתָא עַל - יְדֵי הָרֵיחַ הַטּוֹב שֶׁנִּמְשָׁךְ עַל - יְדֵי הַנִּגּוּן, שֶׁהוּא בְּחִינַת חוּט שֶׁל חֶסֶד הַנַּ"ל כַּנַּ"ל. וְזֶה בְּחִינַת מָרְדְּכַי, כִּי עַל שֵׁם זֶה נִקְרָא מָרְדְּכַי עַל שֵׁם רֵיחַ הַטּוֹב, בְּחִינַת מֹר דְּרוֹר שֶׁהוּא רֹאשׁ לְכָל הַבְּשָֹמִים וְהָרֵיחוֹת, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב (שמות ל'), "וְאַתָּה קַח לְךָ בְּשָֹמִים רֹאשׁ מֹר דְּרוֹר". וְכֵן אֶסְתֵּר נִקְרֵאת הֲדַסָּה, בְּחִינַת הָדָס שֶׁמַּעֲלֶה רֵיחַ טוֹב, כִּי הֵם זָכוּ לְהַמְשִׁיךְ בְּחִינַת הַחוּט שֶׁל חֶסֶד הַנַּ"ל, שֶׁהוּא קוֹל הַנִּגּוּן הַנַּ"ל הַמַּשְׁקֶה אֶת הַגָּן, שֶׁמִּשָּׁם כָּל הָרֵיחוֹת כַּנַּ"ל, כִּי עַל - יְדֵי הַקּוֹל הַמַּשְׁקֶה אֶת הַגָּן נִכְנַע הָמָן - עֲמָלֵק שֶׁהוּא זוּהֲמַת הַנָּחָשׁ, בְּחִינַת עֲקֵב עֵשָֹו, כִּי אָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (חולין קלט), הָמָן מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, "הֲמִן הָעֵץ וְכוּ'". נִמְצָא, שֶׁהוּא עִקַּר זוּהֲמַת הַנָּחָשׁ שֶׁנִּמְשָׁךְ עַל - יְדֵי אֲכִילַת עֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וְרַע וְהַכְנָעָתוֹ וּמַפָּלָתוֹ עַל - יְדֵי הַקּוֹל הַנַּ"ל הַמַּשְׁקֶה אֶת הַגָּן, שֶׁזֶּהוּ בְּחִינַת פָּסוּק אֶת קוֹלֵךְ שָׁמַעְתִּי בגן וָאִירָא, שֶׁנִּסְמַךְ בַּפָּרָשָׁה לַפָּסוּק הָמָן הָעֵץ, כַּמְבֹאָר שָׁם, כִּי בְּחִינַת אֶת קוֹלֵךְ שָׁמַעְתִּי וְכוּ', שֶׁהוּא בְּחִינַת הַקּוֹל הַנַּ"ל הוּא תִּקּוּן אֲכִילַת עֵץ הַדַּעַת, וְעַל - יְדֵי זֶה נוֹפֵל הָמָן שֶׁאֲחִיזָתוֹ מִשָּׁם, שֶׁהוּא בְּחִינַת מְזוֹנָא דְּגוּפָא, וְזוֹכִין לִבְחִינַת מְזוֹנָא דְּנִשְׁמָתָא, שֶׁנִּמְשָׁךְ עַל - יְדֵי הַקּוֹל הַנַּ"ל שֶׁמִּשָּׁם גְּדֵלִים כָּל הָרֵיחוֹת כַּנַּ"ל, שֶׁנִּמְשָׁךְ עַל - יְדֵי מָרְדְּכַי וְאֶסְתֵּר הִיא הֲדַסָּה שֶׁנִּקְרָאִין עַל שֵׁם הָרֵיחַ הַטּוֹב כַּנַּ"ל
:

Toras Purim 5765 (part 4)

To capture the main thrust, for our purpose, of the Radomsker's approach (Tiferes Shlomo, Mosdim, Rimzei Purim (27): The obvious reference is to Shaul's war against Amalek, concerning which it says: Vayarev BaNachal (Shmuel I 15:5). The Radomsker, al pi remez, provides us with an approach. Much of what he writes is heavily Kabbalistic, but for our purposes, he notes that Nachal is the acrostic of N-otzer C-hesed L-iAlafim. This Chesed is the Chesed that the Tzaddikim need to draw from Hashem's ancient will (“Ratzon Elyon”) – the will to do Chesed, which was the reason for Creation (“Nachal Kedumim”). Hence Notzer has the same letters as Ratzon. Moshe in gematria is Ratzon as well, and Chazal equate Mordechai with Moshe. In this light, “Veratzui lirov echav” may be taken to mean that Mordechai drew out the ancient will from the “Nachal Elyon” (which Shaul should have done, but did not as he failed in his mission), which taps into the special relationship of Am Yisroel and Hashem and guards them from Amalek. Thus, indeed, Nachal is the antidote to Amalek. Another approach may be gleaned from the Yaaros Dvash, Hemshech Derush 8.

But if we may forgiven a Purim gematria, Nachalah in gematria equals Vayehi Beyemei – the first words of the Megillah. That could be enough of a link, but yesh lihosif. Chazal in Meseches Megillah and in Esther Rabba tell us that anytime Vayehi Beyemei appears in Tanach it is a language that connotes tzarah. The term Nachalah teaches us the principle that Hashem creates the cure before the disease, and kol d'avid Rachamana l'tav. (BTW, kol d'avid Rachamana l'tav is the gematria of Revach ViHatzalah Yaamod – that not just will there be a Hatzalah, but a gain – a Revach – from all our travails.) As we have noted in the past, Amalek in gematria is Safek. He casts doubt on our relationship with Hashem. We must be secure in our bitachon that Hashem is doing whatever he does for our ultimate benefit. Then we experience the Simchah of Purim – Ein Simchah K'Hatoras Ha'Sefeikos. And that leads back to the ultimate, alternative meaning of the word under consideration – to our Menuchah and Nachalah.

Toras Purim 5765 (part 3)

Another nice mahalach in the message of Nachlah is in the Yaaros Dvash:


ספר יערות דבש - חלק ראשון - דרוש ח (המשך)
ובזה נראה היה טעות שאול, כי אמרו בגמרא [סוטה מ"ו ע"ב] למה עגלה ערופה בנחל, יבוא דבר שלא עשה פירות ויכפר על זה שנהרג שהיה עושה פירות, ופריך הגמרא מאי פירות, אילימא בנים, זקן סריס מאי איכא למימר, ומשני מצות. והנה שאול חשב כסלקא דעתך דגמרא דלכך בנחל, כי נהרג אדם שהיה עלול להעמיד תולדות וזרע קדושים, וכן אמרו [ב"ר כב, כא] בהבל קול דמי אחיך צועקים דמיו ודם זרעיותיו, ולא חש לקושית הגמרא זקן וחולה מאי איכא למימר, כי דברה התורה במצות על הרוב, כמ"ש הרמב"ם בטעמי מצות ע"ש, ולכך שפט כי ידוע [גיטין נז ע"ב] כי מבני בניו של המן למדו תורה בבני ברק, והכל מאגג, ולכך ראה שאול מבלי להמית לאגג, כי אמר הביאו עגלה ערופה בשביל שמת אחד שהיה מוליד תולדות, ואיך אהרוג לנפשות רבות כי גדולים וחכמים יצאו מאגג, ואיך אמית אותו טרם שיוליד כדי ליתן מקום לצדיקים לצאת, וזהו היה טעות לשם שמים, אמנם באמת אילו היה נמחה זכר אגג, היו חכמי בני ברק נולדים על ידי ישראל ולא היה בשביל כך מיעוט צדיקים בעולם ח"ו כנ"ל:


והנה נודע [יבמות עח ע"ב] על שאול שהמית את הגבעונים, דלא הרג גבעונים, רק את הכהנים אשר בנוב, והואיל והם היו מספיקים מזון לגבעונים וה' תובע אונאת גרים כי חביבים גרים לישראל, וזהו למאן דאמר דגרים טובים לישראל, אבל למאן דאמר קשים גרים לישראל, אין זה בכלל טענה מחמת גבעונים, וזהו מאמר חז"ל [יומא כב ע"ב] דעת חיות אגג סבירא ליה לשאול דיש לחוש על נשמת גרים והם מזכים לישראל, ולכך החיה לאגג, ולעומת זה בשעת הריגת עיר נוב לא חמל על מחית גרים, כי חשב שהם קשים לישראל, והרכיב הדבר אתרי רכשי, ולכך נאמר לו בממה נפשך, או אל תצדק הרבה או לא תרשע הרבה:


ובזה יובן מ"ש במדרש, אחר הדברים האלה גדל המלך את המן, כל זמן שלא נשלם ע' שנים היו אומות העולם מגביהים לישראל, נבוכדנצר לדניאל וחנניה מישאל ועזריה, כורש לדניאל והתך, אחשורוש למרדכי, דכתיב ומרדכי יושב בשער, משחשבו שנשלמו ע' שנים הגביהו לשונאי ישראל, שנאמר אחר הדברים גדל המלך את המן. ויש להבין למה מקדם הגביהו לישראל ולא אח"כ. אבל הטעם כך, כי ידעו כי לכך גלו ישראל שיתאספו אליהם גרים, וכל זמן שאין הגרים מתלקטים אין להם להיות נגאל, ואמרינן [עיין יבמות כ"ד ע"ב] אין מקבלין גרים בימי מרדכי ואסתר, שכל זמן שישראל במעלה זמנית, יש לחוש שהגרים מתגיירים לשם מעלה זמנית ולא לשם שמים, וזה היה מתחבולות המלכים שהגביהו לישראל, כדי שלא יוכלו לקבל גרים ולא יהיו נגאלים, אבל לאחר שחשבו בחשבונם כי כבר עבר זמן וקץ ולא נושעו ישראל, לא השגיחו עוד בקבלת גרים והשפילו לישראל והגביהו צוררי ישראל:


אמנם מרדכי ידע שעדיין לא הגיע קץ וראוי לקבל גרים, לכך צוה לאסתר, אשר לא תגיד עמה ומולדתה, דאם תגיד יגיעו ישראל לגדולה ע"י אסתר המלכה, כראוי לעם המלכה אשר נפש המלך קשורה בנפשה, וא"כ לא היה אפשר לגייר גרים כי לשם קורבה לאסתר נתכוונו, לכך צוה לאסתר אשר לא תגיד, כדי שיתגיירו גרים, ואחר כך כאשר נתגדל מרדכי ואסתר היה לכאורה רעה לישראל, כי אם כך לא יהיה סיפוק לקבל גרים, אבל מחסד ה' שרבים מתייהדים מעצמם וקיבלו גירות, וא"כ היתה זו סיבה לקירוב הגאולה, כי על ידי כך היו רבים מתייהדים, וא"כ נתוספו גרים רבים ובא זמן גאולה, וזהו עיקר שמחה של פורים, כי התאספו גוים רבים והיתה זו סיבה לקירוב הגאולה ולבנין בית המקדש כי לקטו גרים כראוי, ולכך השמחה בפורים כי על ידם נגאלו ישראל ונבנה הבית, וכל שמחה שאין בה מענין הבית אינה שמחה, כי היא תכלית שמחה שלנו, כדכתיב [תהילים קלז. ז] אם לא אעלה את ירושלים על ראש שמחתי, וזה אם גרים טובים לישראל, אבל אם קשים לישראל לא שייך כן:


והנה כבר נודע הקושיא, איך נאמר ארור המן, כי מלת ארור נופל גם כן על זרעו, כמו שנאמר ארור כנען וכל זרעו בכלל ארור, והא מהמן יצאו גרים גמורים [גיטין נז ע"ב], ולכך אפשר לא אמרינן ארורים בניו כמו שכתב התוספות הנוסחא [מגילה ז ע"ב ר"ה דלא] דהא בניו היו גרים, אבל עדיין על המן קשה. אבל כבר הדבר מבואר דאנו מאררים להמן, דטוב היה שלא בא לעולם, והגרים היו באים על ידי תולדות ישראל כנ"ל, וזהו מה שאמרו (מגילה ז ע"ב) חייב אינש לבסומי בפוריא, היינו משום תוספת גרים דבאים בפורים, והם היו סבה לבנין בית המקדש, וזהו עד שלא ידע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי, כי עיקר השמחה הוא כעת בפורים על קבלת גרים, ומהמן יצאו גרים ואיך שייך לומר ארור המן, כי זהו שמחה שלנו בפורים, וצריך לומר עד דלא ידע וכו' וא"ש:

Toras Purim 5765 (part 2)

Now we must deal with the Nachal in Nachlah, the word that begins with Haman's Nun, which min ha'stam alludes to Haman's downfall. The obvious reference is to Shaul's war against Amalek, concerning which it says: Vayarev BaNachal (Shmuel I 15:5). The Radomsker, al pi remez, provides us with an approach:


(27) ספר תפארת שלמה על מועדים - רמזי פורים
א"י (אסתר י' ג) ורצוי לרב אחיו וכו' ונקדים מה דכתיב בס' (שמואל א טו, ה) אצל מלחמת שאול בעמלק וירב בנחל ודרשו רז"ל (יומא כב, ב) על עסקי הנחל. ונראה בדרך הרמז עפמ"ש במ"א בפי' הפ' (במדבר לג, נד) לר"ב תרבו נחלתו ולמעט תמעיט את נחלתו. רמז על ד' שמות ע"ב ס"ג מ"ה ב"ן עולה רל"ב והם נגד ד' עולמות אבי"ע וזאת עבודת הצדיקים להמשיך מרצון העליון מימי קדם לז' ימי הבנין הרמוזים לז' ספירות שמתחיל ממדת החסד כיל"ח. וזה (מיכה ז, כ) אשר נשבעת לאבותינו מימי קדם. כי נשבעת לשון שביעה מהשפעות ימי קדם הרמוז במלת נח"ל ר"ת "נוצר "חסד "לאלפים. נחל קדומים. וזה הוא התעוררת רצון העליון נוצר אותיות רצון. משה בגימ' רצון. וכן מרדכי הי' בבחי' משה. הרמוז זה ורצוי לרב אחיו שהמשיך מרצון העליון לד' שמות הנ"ל מנחל העליון אשר שם אין שום מגע נכרי. וז"ש (בראשית מח, טז) וידגו לרב בקרב הארץ. שהמשיך ד' שמות העולים לר"ב בקרב הארץ בעוה"ז. כמ"ש לרב תרבו נחלתו ולמעט תמעיט נחלתו. כי עי"ז המשיך מפלת הרשעים כמ"ש (דברים ז, ז) כי אתם המעט מכל העמים להמעיט השפע מהם ע"י נח"ל עליון כמובן ובפרט נגד קליפת המן הי' צריך התעוררת רצון הקדום מנחל עליון. לכן בשאול שעמד במלחמת עמלק כתי' ג"כ וירב בנח"ל רמז על הנ"ל. ובזה יש להבין פי' הפ' (אסתר ט, כב) כימים אשר נחו בהם היהודים הם י"ד וט"ו דלכאורה עיקר הנס הי' ביום י"ג ביום המלחמה. אך לפי הנ"ל יש לרמז כי היו צריכין לעורר אותו העולם נחל העליון אשר שם הוא נייחא גמורה אשר נחו בהם היהודים כמ"ש (שם ט, טז) ונוח מאויביהם כי שם הוא נייחא גמורה בלי שום מגע נכרי כלל:

Toras Purim 5765 (part 1)

Toras Purim 5765

Chullin 139b: Haman min haTorah menayin? “HaMin HaEitz” (Bereishis 3:11).

It is remarkable that the first place three words appear in Tanach with the Rashei Teivos “Haman” in order is Bamidbar 34:5: “H-aGevu M-eiAtzmon N-achlah.”

The word Atzmon is made up of almost the same letters as “HaMin HaEitz.”

Moreover, the Midrash Tanchuma to “Zachor es asher asah lecha Amalek” (Ki Teitzei #4) states that in the name of R' Levi that Yaakov and Esav were like a hadas and an atzmoni – so long as they were little no one could distinguish between them. When they grew older, however, the one extends its thorns while the other gives off a pleasant fragrance. So too when Yaakov and Esav grew, Yaakov was an Ish Tam Yosheiv Ohalim while Esav became Ish Tzayad Ish Sadeh.

The Midrash becomes even more relevant when we realize that the hadas may well be Hadassah – Esther. We thus have the divide between Yaakov and Esav alluding to the battle of Esther and Haman.

As if to prove the point, the Targumei Yonasan and Yerushalmi to Bamidbar 34:4-5 translate the name of the place, Atzmon, to mean kisam – a splinter – bringing us back to the eitz.

What is the meaning of atzmon? In the Yerushalmi, Bava Basra 32b the word is used to describe a document in which each side imposes upon itself exaggerated penalties (i.e., an asmachta). In the name of R' Samson Raphael Hirsch, the Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language translates the ayin-tzadi-mem root to connote “storing power.” Thus, when the Torah warns us (Devarim 8:17) not to fall into the trap of believing in “Kochi v'Otzem Yadi” it is warning us not to have faith in a perception that we have an exaggerated sense of our own power. An eitz sustains its foliage and fruit; an eitzah sustains a person or other living creature. An eitzah sustains another person. But otzem connotes an exaggerated perception of strength and advantage.

(To be continued)

Adar, Purim, Pesach, Kahal

R' Tzadok brings that the first time a concept is mentioned in the Torah is the
shoresh of that inyan. The word "Kahal" appears for the first time in the Torah
in Shemos 12, in the context of Korban Pesach.


The Sidduro shel Shabbos at the end of Shoresh  6 Anaf 1 explains the statement
in Tehillim "Tehilaso b'Kahal Chassidim" that through Kahal, the gevuros become
chasadim. He explains that in KH"L the H = the five gevuros, and the K-L = the
five chasadim (5x26 [Shem Havaya"h] = 130. Note the significance of a other
130's, such as "Tzam' - fasts turn gevuros into chasadim). He alludes to what is
brought in seforim that in davening, a t least, one should clasp one's left hand
with and envelope it in the right - enveloping the gevuros in the chasadim.


This past Purim I expounded on the idea of "NiKHaLu ha'Yehudim" as the
fundamental concept of Purim, and that many of the incidents in Purim took place
in various forms of "chatzer". Indeed, the first place in Tanach that Adar is
mentioned is in Parashas Mas'ei: "Chatzar Adar".


The Chatzer is the Outer World, removed from the direct presence of the King -
whether it be Achashveirosh or HKB"H.


Chatzer also tells us how to deal with the Hester Panim inherent in that
distance from HKB"H. The R represents Rah, the Evil that springs from the
concealment of HKB"H's presence. CHaTZeR = Chetz Rah, split the Rah in half.
Half Rah = Kahal (270/2 = 135). The response to Rah, and the manner in which one
breaks through that concealment, is by unifying the Kahal (135) in Tzom (136),
Kol  (136), Mammon (136) - the KHL plus the agent of yichud (known in gematriyah
as the "Kollel").


Adar is a time of Chatzar, but Nisan is a bechina of "Hevi'ani ha'Melech
Chadarav"  - the great Ohr of the Seder night. Lo l'chinam did the  actual event
of Purim occur on Pesach! The mitzvos of Kiddush ha'Chodesh and Korbon Pesach
united Am Yisroel: first via the Beis Din concept, then via  each and every
individual. The Korbon Pesach is  done en masse and eaten b'chaburah. Ho b'ho
talyah. The Ohr only comes to a Kahal and only a Kahal can be zocheh to the Ohr.


Tein l'Chochom v'yechkam od...

Hamantaschen

Of course, to begin on a tangent, in Hebrew "Oznei Homon" is zeh l'ummas
zeh of "Oznei Yehoshua" in Parashas Amalek at the end of Beshalach. Why
they have three corners, any bar bei rav d'chad yoma knows, corresponding
to Chabad, as Shlomo ha'Melech says Simcha only comes after Chochmo and
Da'as (Koheles 2:25). Why Shlomo leaves Bina out of the equation is an
interesting question which I will leave to keen minds out there to resolve.
But as we know, in Kabbalah Bil'am is the penimi'us of the Kelipah of
Amalek, and he claimed to be "yodei'ah da'as elyon" - and Chazal deride him
- "afilu da'as behemto lo yoda" - so the true da'as is that which is beyond
human da'as (I know this is not quite accurate, terminologically, but da'as
elyon, *not* da'as tachton) - *ad de'lo yoda*. And this is of course all
merumaz in "ozen she'shom'o al Har Sinai" - which does not require profound
intellectual thought (compare Hakhel: "anashim bo'im lilmod, nashim ba'os
lishmo'ah - please don't take offense at the politically incorrect
reference!) - but to hear the "kol demomo dakka." Amalek, as everyone
knows, casts doubts (gimatriya = safek) but Moshe imbedded ("*sim* b'oznei
Yehoshua") clarity in Jewish hearts (the Besht's teitch in "Bas Kol" for
those willing to hear).


Anyway, nachzor l'inyaneinu, that Hamataschen are clearly meant to serve as
the third breakthrough of the C-O. Ca'aOo is by klapping Haman. CoOo is the
ikkar mitzvas ha'yom, and CiOo (Yiddish: tasch = pocket) is through
Haman-taschen. The filling comes through.


This has, of course, very important halachic ramifications, as clearly one
cannot be yotzei with a sealed or covered Hamantasch.

Toras Purim from 5762 II

"Gedolah hasoras taba'as yoser m'48 Nevi'im she'amdu l'Yisroel."


Why the emphasis on the *removal* of the ring?


"Ki yad al Kes Y-h milchomo l'Hashem b'Amalek me'dor dor."


"Ein ha'Shem shalem v'ein ha'Kisei shalem ad she'yimocheh zar'o shel Amalek."


What is the meaning of an incomplete Kisei?


A "Kes" is the letters Kaf-Samech - transliterated CO. (We will use here CO for
Kes and COA for Kisei).


CO means "like ["keh"] a samech." A samech is the only letter in original Lashon
ha'Kodesh ("Mantzepach tzofim amarum") that is completely closed. It therefore
represents concealment - a lid, as in "Michseh" or "Kisui", and the vacted space
in the mashal of the Arizal for tzimtzum - the Chalal before the Kav of Or
shines in. A chair is me'stomo a COA because while one is sitting it covers one
(also, the seat of a chair is like and O while its back is like a C).


Without the A, the entire world is C-O - like concealment. What is missing is
the yechido shel olam.


(On a tangent, we have two roshei teivos in Kabbalah - the A"O for Ain Sof and
the O"A for Sitra Achra. Lefi devareinu the roshei tevios are k'peshutom - if
the A is before the O then it is the yechido shel olam lifnei ha'tzimtzum, but
put the A on the OTHER SIDE and it is the one who seems R"L to be sholeit below,
after, the tzimtzum, v'duk. BTW, with this mahlach you can understand very well
why he is called the SaMa-el - as the Samech and Mem are the two most closed
letters in the Alef Beis, especially, of course, a Mem Sofis, and why the remez
to Mordechai in the Torah - Mara Dachya - has to do with Samim - and why zeh
l'umas zeh, v'yesh l'hosif.)


"B' shlosho devorim ho'odom nikkar, b'CiOo, b'Ca'aOo u'b'CoOo."


What is unique about these three things - they all have letters that break
through the concealment - come between the C and the O. The sum total of all
those three letters - yud, ayin, vav - is again Kos (86) - but also the shem
Elokim (86) - the name that is manifest even in the tzimtzum - and is therefor
the vav ha'chibur (the kav that pierces the tzimtzum, comes between the C and
the O).


There is another word of the same character that breaks through the tzimtzum:
"Lech CnoO es kol ha'Yehudim."


Ha'Melech stam in the Megilla is Melech Malchei ha'melochim HKB"H - but
Ha'Melech in gimatryia equals Haman (95 - v'im taskil tovin b'zeh the sum total
of the middos of the aron and the kappores). Zeh l'umas zeh - O"A vs. A"O
("Ha'Melech v'Haman"). What is the difference? Haman ends with a nun sofis -
nefila sofis (no nun in Ashrei, v'yesh l'hosif here about the correlation
between nun and samech, and about nun sha'arei bina, ten lchochom v'yechkam
od!). Ha"Melech has a lamed-chof sofis. Lamed is the migdal porei'ach bo'avir -
a chof surmounted by a vav (Havaya'"h) the vav that goes above the line of the
letters into Shomayim - limud. That anchor in Torah - "Hadar Kibluho b'yimei
Achashveirosh" - is what gives the chof sofis its anchor (its top) to survive
even when "ragleho yordos movess" - the end chof goes beneath the line and comes
into contact with the O"A.


"Gedolah *hasoras* ha'taba'as" - "V'ra'u kol afsei aretz es yeshu'as Elokeinu -
eimosai? B'yimei Mordechai v'Esther." (BTW, in modern Hebrew, of course, Efes is
a 0!) - the ta'ba'as, the O was removed - the concealment was peeled back.


The ultimate Ge'ulah is when the vav ha'chibur - the vov extending to the second
heh (bechinas Malchus, b'yesh l'hovin b'zeh bechinas "Ha'Malkah" in the Megilla,
VEKM"L) in the shem is revealed. Then after all of the CO we will perceive how
all was really connected to the A. Purim is a miniature experience of that
ultimate removal of the Hester and the Kisui.


May we be zocheh to perceive that vav in the CoO of Purim and in the CoO
yeshu'os esah hashto ba'agolo u'b'zman koriv!

Toras Purim from 5762

1. R' Tzadok Risisei Lyla p. 139 - Megillas Esther begins and ends with a vav - the vav ha'chibbur. The Likutei Halachos concerning the six levushim that Mordechai wore in Esther 8:15 says there are six bechinos in Torah (kasher/pasul, tamei/tahor, assur/muttar).

2. Based on the Divrei Shmuel of Slonim - Mordechai is ben Shim'i - ozen shoma'as. See also Esther 9:4 - "V'shom'o [Mordechai's] holech bechol ha'Medinos."

3. Chatzi ha'Malchus: Malchus in gimatriya is 496 - half of that is 248 - Ramac"h - if the mitzvos penetrate all of one's 248 limbs, mida k'neged mida Hashem responds (Hashem tzilcha - the Besht - your reflection) and Malchus is complete.

4. The Divrei Yechezkel contrasts Esther 7:2-3 with 6:5 - two leshonos of bakosho vs. four - the first is bechinas Y-H, before the yeshu'ah (ein ha'shem shalem), the latter bechinas Y-H-V-H, shem shalem. It would seem, then, that Tov corresponds to the Yud, chen to the first Heh, Kasher to the Vav, and Tovah to the second Heh. V'duk in 9:13.

5. A fascinating insight from the sefer Pri ho'eitz on why shem Hashem is not in the Megillah: Were there to be shem Hasem b'feirush, there would be a backhanded zechus to Amalek having served as the vehicle for Kiddush Shem Shomayim. The Megillah emphasizes that any such conclusion is incidental, and no zechus accrues to Haman.

Toras Purim from 5763

This evening by Minchah is struck me this year to look at the Megillah through the lens of
the current daf yomi: Hagodas Eydus.

The hinge of the story is "Ein Esther magedes" vs. "Ki higida Esther mah hu la."

Hagodas Eydus comes from the term for speech called Hagada.

Hagada is "devarim ha'kashim k'giddim" (Rashi on "Ko somar l'Bais Yaakov v'sageid
l'Bnei Yisroel" - Shemos 19).

Hagada also is clearly related to the word "Gad," which means "mazal" ("Ha'orchim
la'Gad Shulchan" - Yeshaya 65).

A mazal is a form of hamshacha - of flow from the Heavens.
That is why the Targum for "Mishchu u'kechu lachem" (Shemos 12) is "negidu"
and that is why a king is called a "Nagid" - because he draws and pulls the nation
in a certain direction.

It is interesting, in this respect, that the letters with destructive sounds -
reish and ayin - cut off the hamshacha - gadar and gada',

[I think a beged is called a beged because the type of clothing a person wears
indicates his station - his capacity to be mamshich - which is merumaz in the megillah,
of course in Esther and Mordechai's begadim.
Also, although I can think of Kabblistic reasons why G-D is hamshacha,
I think a pashut reason is that Aleph-Bais is Av, the father,
so Gimmel-Daled is the hamshacha from the Av. Once we're on a tangent,
I would also note the mazal of Adar is Dagim - D-G/G-D.

Still, we have more to cover here before we get to Eydus.

Why is Torah called "devarim ha'kashim k'gidim?"

I am sure we can know with the "pashut" reason, that it is difficult to fulfill
and has many punishments.

But lefi devareinu the peshat is that until Mattan Torah:
"Amudei shomayim yerofafu" (Iyov 26), that the Beriah was not firm until Mattan Torah
- what made the Beriah firm was Mattan Torah.

Also, the Navi says the Avodah Zarah of Gad was to set a table before it, as above.
Rashi brings down at the beginning of Mishpatim that Moseh Rabbeinu was to give
the Torah to Am Yisroel "k'shulchan aruch" - the set tale of the Torah brings
the proper hamshocho or mazal me'meromim instead of the Avodah Zarah
setting of the literal table.

Toras Purim from 5764

Bereishis 3:18

V'KOTZ V'DARDAR TATZMIACH LACH V'ACHALTA ES EISEV HASADEH

V'KOTZ - this is Egypt, concerning which it says VAYAKUTZU MIPNEI BNEI YISROEL
V''DARDAR - this is Amalek, concerning which it says MILCHAMA LA'HASHEM B'AMALEK ME'DOR DOR.
EISEVE HASADEH - these are all other oppressors, concerning which it says BI'FROACH RESHOIM KEMO EISEV

What is the eitzah?

Bereishis 3:19

B'ZEI'AS APECHA TOCHAL LECHEM AD SHUVCHA EL HO'ADAMAH

B'ZEI'AS APECHA TOCHAL LECHEM - this is Torah, which must be learned
b'eima b'yirah b'reses u'B'ZEIAH; and specifically Torah shelomadti b'AF omdo li;
and Lechu lachmu b'LACHMI.

AD SHUVCHA EL HO'ADAMAH - until you return to Eretz Yisroel.

The yesod of Amalek is me'dor dor.

YGB

Kiddush Levanah

Sheilos u'Teshuvos Maharshag 3:5 notes that his son once asked him why the recitation of the Berachah on the new moon is called Kiddush Levanah - exactly what kind of Kiddush is indicated by this Berachah? The Maharshag suggested that the name is, in fact, a typographical error, that initially the Siddurim said Chiddush Levanah - "The Renewal of the Moon" - indicating that the Berachah was to be recited each month when the moon started providing light again.

Minhag Yisroel Torah (426:1), however, finds it hard to believe that this typographical error was repeated so many times - although, in fact, in Shas and in the Rambam and other Rishonim the term Kiddush Levanah does not, in fact appear. After all, the term does appear in the Darchei Moshe, Beis Yosef and Rama. He therefore suggests that the term is used to commemorate the Kiddush HaChodesh - the recitation of the word Mekuddash (Sanctified) by the Sanhedrin at the time that the calendar was set by them each month in turn.

Perhaps we can suggest that the terminology Kiddush is used because the Berachah is extended to include a supplication that Hashem restore the moon to its full size and glory, as it was before it was diminished. It is therefore not a blessing on the moon, but a blessing to the moon. This property of the extended Berachah is underlined by the word Kiddush, in the sense of uplifting and elevating something mundane - in this case, our tefillah is that the moon should be elevated and restored to its ideal state.

Mechitza Argument

Notes from an old shiur, given in a traditional synagogue, as to why they should install a Mechitza in the Main Sanctuary

To address this issue from a proper perspective, we must review the central ideas of each of the six classes that we have held in the course of this lecture series:

Medical Ethics: Halacha is the basis of a Jewish approach to significant issues. God gave us the Torah and its principles at Sinai to guide us in our attempts to navigate the pathways of this world.

Moshiach: It is essential that we seek to follow the proper paths, as the world must be perfected to the point where we merit redemption (Tikkun Olam).

Kashruth: In its attempt to refine humanity, Halacha concerns itself with the minutiae of human experience. Details are of critical importance.

Resurrection: These minutiae impact very significantly and very precisely on the human soul. They affect a person's spiritual essence for all eternity.

Torah to non-Jews: Jews are "hard-wired" with a spiritual affinity to Torah, its study and its fulfillment. Their modalities, therefore, are not comparable to those of other peoples and religions.

Sanctity (Kedusha): A Jew should aspire to designate him or her self to the purpose of emulating God, to be a Giver, and to single mindedly focus on that which advances the Jewish nation in its attempts to fulfill its manifest destiny.

One reason we are so strict in matters of separation:
"The first law given to Adam was a prohibition. The negative precepts are at the core of Judaism, because they require a greater effort and demand a more sacrificial spirit than the positive commandments. William James saw happiness as the goal of religion. Judaism sees greatness as the goal. Not the greatness of business or political or military success, but the greatness of heroism of the spirit. The acid test for moral heroism or cowardice is compliance with the negative precepts, since they compel man to engage in heroic restraint. This is especially true of sexual morality where enormous self control is necessary to control the almost overpowering sexual drive, and where the halacha is almost ruthlessly strict. Judaism is not concerned with what is not heroic." (Rabbi J. B. Soloveichik zt"l)

Other reasons are more directly connected to the nature of Prayer:
"The world holds that they pray before God, but it is not that way. Prayer is actually the essence of divinity." (Rabbi Pinchas of Koritz zt"l)

"And prayer in a community (tefilla b'tzibbur), is when the community prays as well, but they are not minding him and he is not minding them, and though others are present, one must imagine himself alone, as if no others surround him." (Rabbi Tzadok of Lublin zt"l)

"Prayer must be extended like a thread. The slightest interruption, and the thread breaks and rips."
(Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi zt"l)

(The Halacha of Mechitza is derived from a passage in the tractate of Sukkah, 51b-52a: (Our Rabbis have taught: Originally the women used to sit within [the Court of Women] {in the Holy Temple} while the men were without, but as this caused levity, it was instituted that the women should sit without and the men within. As this, however, still led to levity, it was instituted that the women should sit above (Soncino: On the gallery) and the men below. (But how could they do so (Soncino: Alter the original structure of the Temple)? Is it not written, All this [do I give thee] in writing as the Lord hath made me wise by His hand upon me (Soncino: I Chron. XXVIII, 19, referring to the construction of the First Temple)? - Rav answered, the y found a Scriptural verse and expounded it: And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the House of David apart, and their wives apart (Zech. XII, 12). Is it not, they said, an a fortiori argument? If in the future (Soncino: The time alluded to in the text cited) when they will be engaged in mourning and the Evil Inclination will have no power over them (Soncino: So that levity is least to be expected), the Torah (Soncino: Sc. Scripture, in the statement `and their wives apart') nevertheless says, men separately and women separately, how much more so now (Soncino: At the festivities of the Water Drawing) when they are engaged in rejoicing and the Evil Inclination has sway over them (Soncino: And undue levity is most likely).)

Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer 

YGB

A blog for random comments and insights.