Tetzaveh

The Gemara (Erchin, 16a) relates that all the clothing of the Cohen Gadol atoned for certain sins. Among them, the Gemara explains that the “Me’il” (the Cohen Gadol’s robe) which had golden bells all around it (in order so that the Cohen Gadol could announce himself before entering the Mishkan-Pesachim, 112a) atoned for the sin of lashon hara as it made noise when the Cohen Gadol walked (due to the golden bells on the robe)-just like a person makes noise when speaking lashon hara.

However, lashon hara is about the actual content-not the noise! How could the Gemara learn out that lashon hara is about the noise a person makes when they speak? Even if a person whispers something negative about another it is considered lashon hara. We therefore see that lashon hara receives its definition from the actual content said-not the noise the person makes while saying it! Therefore, how could the Me’il serve as atonement for lashon hara simply because it made noise? Lashon hara is about the content-not the noise!?!

Rabbi Yochanan Zweig explains that the Gemara is teaching us what a person’s motivation is when they speak lashon hara. Meaning, many times a person will speak negatively about another simply because they want to be recognized for their great qualities (and so the speaker puts someone else down so that people could recognize how great he is). The speaker therefore concentrates on using his voice and “making noise” as his main goal is to be noticed. Therefore, the Me’il atoned for the sin of lashon hara as just like the Me’il made noise when the Cohen Gadol walked-so too lashon hara is when a person makes noise in order to be recognized.

We could learn out from here that we shouldn’t take what other people speak negatively about us personally as many times a person will speak lashon hara simply in order so that others could recognize their great qualities. Therefore, when one speaks lashon hara that simply shows a shortcoming in them (that they require more recognition for their abilities as they don’t feel happy with themselves the way they are now)-not you. Thus, we should all be able to control ourselves and not fight back when other speak negatively of us as their negative words don’t necessary prove that we have a shortcoming (since many times a person will simply speak lashon hara in order to be noticed-not because the person being spoken about actually has a shortcoming in which they need to fix).

     Terumah

“Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying: Speak to the Children of Israel and they shall take to Me a portion, from every man whose heart will motivate him you shall take My portion” (25; 1-2).

The question arises: Why does the Torah state: and they shall “take” to Me a portion? The nation of Israel were commanded to “give” a portion of their money-not “take”! Why does the Torah use the language of “take” when it could have gotten its point across much clearer by saying “give”?

Rabbi Yochanan Zweig explains that when the nation of Israel said (24;7) “naaseh v’nishma” (literally, “we shall do and we shall listen”) before receiving the Torah that what they were saying is that they would commit to performing all the mitzvot and then later, through actually doing the mitzvot, they would understand (“v’nishma”) how Hashem actually gave them the mitzvot for their own good (as through doing mitzvot we become better people).

Similarly, Rabbi Zweig explains that the Torah over here (25;2) states that Hashem commanded the nation of Israel to “take” a portion for Him as He wanted the nation of Israel to realize that the commandment to donate money to the building of the Sanctuary was for their own good (to make them into better people). As a result, Hashem told them to “take” a portion to Him as when donating money He wanted them to feel as though they were “taking” since the whole commandment was only for their own benefit. Meaning, the word “give” implies a loss; a person has to “give something up.” In this case however it was for the nation’s own good to donate towards the building of the Sanctuary. As a result they weren’t losing anything by “giving.” Therefore, although the nation of Israel “gave” money the Torah nevertheless states that they “took” money as by giving money they felt as though they were the ones who were taking in the fact that they were the real one’s benefiting (as Hashem commanded them to perform all the commandments for their own good).

Mishpatim

“If you will lend money to My people, to the poor person who is with you, do not act toward him as a creditor; do not place interest upon him” (22;24).

Rashi (22;24) explains that usually the word “im” (meaning: “if”) implies a voluntary act. However, this case is an exception (as over here we are actually obligated to lend the person money). However, if in this case we are obligated to lend the person money then why did the Torah use the word “im” (if)-implying that lending money is merely a voluntary act? The Torah could have simply taken out the word “im” (if) and by doing so not only saved a word but also gotten its point across much clearer (that it isn’t a voluntary act but an obligation)!?!

Additionally, the Gemara (Kiddushin, 40a) states: “you should say to a good tzaddik (righteous person).” The Gemara then asks: What does it mean you should say to a “good” tzaddik? How could there be a “bad” righteous person? The Gemara answers that indeed there is such a thing as a “bad” tzaddik-one who is good to Hashem but bad to man. However, how could one be considered a “tzaddik” if they are bad to people?

Similarly, when you do something bad to man you are also going against Hashem as He commanded us to be good to our fellow men. So how could it even be possible for one to be considered “good to Hashem but bad to people”?

Rabbi Yochanan Zweig explains that if one gives another person tzedaka but tells them that they are only giving them money because Hashem commanded them to then they effectively fulfill the mitzvah of tzedaka-but not in its proper manner. Meaning, by the mitzvah of tzedaka one isn’t simply obligated to give money to the poor but one is also obligated to give the poor person the feeling that they deserve the money. When one gives tzedaka to a poor person and tells them that they are only giving them the money because they have an obligation to then then although the poor person is happy to get some money they nevertheless don’t feel as though the giver really cares about them. Hashem doesn’t just want us to give Tzedaka but He also wants us to give the recipient the feeling that we really care about them.

We could now understand the difference between a “good” tzaddik and a “bad “tzaddik.” Namely, a good tzaddik makes other people feel as though he really cares about them when doing mitzvot for them whereas a bad tzaddik does the mitzvot but doesn’t give their fellow’s the feeling that he really cares about them. In such a case a person is considered “good to Hashem but bad to people” as although he does all the mitzvot he is nevertheless considered “bad to people” as he doesn’t make them feel as though he really cares about them when doing mitzvot for them.

Similarly, Rabbi Zweig explains that the Torah says “if” you lend money in order to tell us that even though there’s an obligation we should nevertheless make the recipient feel as though we are giving them the money because we actually want to give them the money-not because we are obligated to. Meaning, we should lend people money as though the Torah had really meant “if”-that we are simply volunteering to give money. Thus, the Torah uses the word “im” (if) in order to teach us the manner in which the mitzvah of lending money should be done-namely, by making the recipient feel as though you truly care about them.

Yisro

The Torah (Shemos, 18;17-23) relates that Yisro told Moshe that he should appoint a lot of judges and courts so that he shouldn’t have to deal with all the stress involved in dealing with every single court case. Interestingly, the Medresh relates that Yisro got an extra letter (the “vav”) added to his name because of this idea! However, how could no one have ever thought of this idea?

Rabbi Yochanan Zweig explains that any time people argue a judge can’t guarantee that they are going to give the absolute truth as judgment because many people lie. Therefore, even after a court case people are often upset as they feel the other person lied about the facts of the case and that they therefore weren’t judged correctly.

Rabbi Zweig explains that Yisro was telling Moshe that justice isn’t just about deciding who is right and who is wrong-but that the main part of judging a court case is to take care of all the person feelings involved. For example, when people go to court they often come with a lot of hatred and frustration against their fellow. A judge is therefore responsible to make sure that each person walks out of the court case comfortable with the judgment they received and that they no longer have any feelings of anger and hostility towards the other person. Yisro was therefore telling Moshe that although he was the best judge who could judge accurately-nevertheless, by being the only judge and making people wait to be judged he was causing people’s emotions against each other to grow even stronger. As a result, Yisro advised Moshe to appoint even more judges so that when people want to go to court they won’t have to wait and have their anger grow stronger and stronger before being judged. Meaning, the main responsibility of a judge is to make sure that each party is comfortable with the decision reached in court. Therefore, although Moshe was the best at deciding how cases should be resolved-nevertheless, Yisro taught Moshe that it is better to have more judges in order so that people shouldn’t have to wait to be judged and become even angrier at their fellow.