Behar

“If your brother becomes impoverished and his hand falters in your proximity, you shall hold on to him-proselyte and resident-so that he can live with you. Do not take from him interest and increase; and you shall have fear of your G-d and let your brother live with you. Do not give him your money for interest, and do not give your food for increase. ” (25; 35-37).

The question arises: Why does the Torah tell us not to charge interest after the money has already been lent? Meaning, according to Rashi (25;35) when the Torah tells us “you shall hold on to him” it is teaching us that one should support their fellow as soon as their fortune begins to turn for the worse (and not wait for them to fall). It is only after that which the Torah tells us not to charge interest. We therefore see that the Torah doesn’t tell us not to charge interest until the money has already been lent. However, interest is placed as part of the deal in a loan from before the money is lent-not after!?!

Additionally, what exactly is wrong with charging interest? When one lends money to a fellow without interest they are in effect losing money as they could simply keep their money in the bank and receive interest from there. As a result, a person who borrows without interest really owes the borrower even after they pay back-as they caused the lender to lose out on receiving interest from the bank. Why therefore don’t we allow people to charge interest if many times a borrower will actually want to pay interest in order to not cause the lender a loss of money?

Rabbi Yochanan Zweig explains that when one borrows with interest they feel a huge amount of pressure to pay back as with the passing of every day they have to pay back the lender even more money (as with every day that goes by the lender looses out on more money they could have gained from the bank). It is therefore prohibited for one to charge others interest (even if the borrower has a real desire to borrow with interest) in order so that we should not cause them added stress. Therefore, the Torah waits until after money is lent to tell us not to charge interest as the problem with charging interest (adding stress to the mind of the borrower) doesn’t occur until the money is already lent.

Emor

In this week’s parsha we have the mitzvah of Sefirat HaOmer.

“You shall count for yourselves-from the morrow of the rest day, from the day when you bring the omer of the waving-seven weeks, they shall be complete. Until the morrow of the seventh week you shall count, fifty days; and you shall offer a new meal offering to Hashem” (23;15-16).

The question arises: Why do we count the days of the Omer in ascending order? Wouldn’t it make more sense to count in descending in order to show our great anticipating for since the day of Shavuot-when we received the Torah?

Rabbi Yochanan Zweig explains that Sefirat HaOmer is different than all events in which people show their great anticipating by counting the days until its occurrence in descending order. By other events in which people anticipate its arrival by counting the days in descending order we are dealing with an event which ends at the conclusion of the counting. Sefirat HaOmer in contrast is supposed to be an ongoing event. Meaning, during the 7 week period between Pesach and Shavuot a person is supposed to work on themselves a little bit every day so that at the conclusion of the 7 weeks they will have built themselves up to the level where they would literally be able to receive the Torah. This obligation for a person to work on themselves is a constant ongoing obligation. Even after the whole counting of the Omer a person is still obligated to continue working on themselves and not go back to their old ways. This is the message in which our Sages mean to convey by decreeing that the 49 days of the Omer be counted in ascending order and not descending order. The 49 days of the Omer are simply supposed to be taken as the beginning of the days in which a person works to better themselves. Were we to count the 49 days in descending order then we would not be able to continue counting once we reach Shavuot. We could now understand that our Sages decreed that the 49 days of the Omer be counted in ascending order in order so that we should realize that since we are able to continue counting after the 49 days (50, 51, 52, etc.) we should therefore continue working on ourselves even after the 49 days of the Omer have ended. Thus, we see that even though the Torah (23;16) tells us that the counting of the days of the Omer stop at the end of the seventh week, our obligation to work to improve ourselves as people however does not end at the conclusion of the 49 but is ongoing.

Kedoshim

“You shall not hate your brother in your heart…You shall love your fellow as yourself” (19;17-18).

The question arises: Why does the Torah simply tell us not to “hate” our brother? Why does the Torah not say “you shall love your brother as yourself” like it does by one’s fellow? Surely a person has a great obligation to love their brother more than their fellow!?! Why then does the Torah make it seem like a person is merely obligated not to hate their brother-whereas regarding their fellow’s they are obligated to love them like themselves?

Rabbi Yochanan Zweig explains that as a relationship progresses and people get closer to each other their expectations from each other naturally grow as well. Every time a relationship grows stronger between two parties so does the level of expectations as people naturally expect more from those they are close with. As a result, whenever a relationship grows stronger between two people the relationship then gains a greater possibility of exploding and the two parties risk losing everything they had before. And why is that? Rabbi Zweig explains that whenever two people have a very strong relationship with each other both parties naturally gain great expectations from each other. As a result it then becomes very difficult for the two people to maintain their relationship as they constantly need to do for each other in order to live up to the other person’s expectations. Then, if one of the parties fails to live up to the other person’s expectations of them then the relationship often explodes as the person who feels they didn’t get enough in return feels betrayed by their friend. The greater the relationship the greater the explosion as the person who feels betrayed thinks to themselves that their friend knows how good they are and yet they still didn’t give to them. Additionally, the person who feels they were abused becomes upset that they completely opened themselves up to their friend and their friend in return abused them by just taking from them without giving anything back in return. The person who feels abused naturally then becomes vicious towards the person they once had a strong relationship with as they feel they truly deserved more from them and failed to get it. Thus, we see that the greater a relationship between two people grows, the greater the chance there becomes of the relationship completely exploding.

Now, it is obvious that a person is obligated to love their brother like themselves. If a person is obligated to love their fellow like themselves then surely one is obligated to love their brother like themselves. What then is the Torah teaching us by saying that we should not hate our brother? Rabbi Zweig explains that the Torah is teaching us that since we are obligated to have a close relationship with our brother’s, there will then naturally be great expectations between us. As a result, the relationship will then become at great risk of exploding as both brother’s will have great expectations from the other and it will be very difficult for the both of them to live up to the other’s expectations. The Torah therefore tells us that we should not hate our brother as by our brother (in which we are close with) there is a great chance that the relationship could explode due to one or both parties not feeling that they are receiving everything they deserve from the other side of the relationship. In contrast, by a person’s relationship with their fellow (a person in which one simply has a basic level relationship with) there are very little expectations from both parties and it is therefore easier for both sides to maintain what is expected from them as they a lot less work is expected from them compared to what is expected from them by their brother. Thus, the Torah tells us that we should not hate our brother’s (even though we have much greater obligations by our brother’s-namely, to love them as ourselves) as there are much greater concerns of a relationship turning sour and exploding when the bond between the two parties is strong (as is the case by two brother’s) and there are great expectations from both sides.

Acharei Mos

“You shall observe My decrees and My judgments, which man shall carry out and live by them-I am Hashem” (18;5).

From the language of the pasuk-”and you shall live by them”-the Torah seems to be teaching us that the mitzvot have the power to give a person life.

Now, the Gemara (Yoma, 85a) learns out from here that one is obligated to do work on Shabbat in order to preserve a life.

However, Rashi (18;5) explains that the Torah is referring to life in the World to Come-not this world. The basis for this interpretation is that the Torah can’t be telling us that the mitzvot give life to a person in this world for we are all destined to die. Therefore, how could the Gemara (Yoma, 85a) learn out a law from here that one is obligated to break the Shabbat in order to save a life? The pasuk is referring to life in the World to Come-not this world!?!

Rabbi Yochanan Zweig explains that the Torah is really referring to life in the World to Come, as Rashi explains. However, in order to obtain life in the World to Come a person must properly utilize their life in this world. Meaning, a person is responsible to use their time wisely in this world by doing mitzvot in order to reach eternal life in the World to Come. Temporal life in this world leads to eternal life in the next world. Therefore, although the Torah is referring to life in the World to Come, the Gemara nevertheless learns out from here that one is obligated to break Shabbat in order to preserve a life as it is only through life in this world  that we could reach the next world (if one’s time here is properly utilized). Similarly, the Gemara explains that a person is allowed to break Shabbat in order to save a life because by doing so he allows the other person to continue living and observe the Shabbat. Thus, the Gemara learns out from here that one is permitted to break Shabbat in order to preserve a life as the only way of attaining eternal life in the World to Come is through properly using our time in this world and by saving a person’s life we allow them to continue doing mitzvot in this world.

Metzora

“The Cohen shall command; and for the person being purified there shall be taken two live, pure birds, cedarwood, a crimson (tongue of) wool, and hyssop” (14;4).

Rashi (14;4;) states: “Since afflictions of tzaaras come about because of malicious talk, which is an act of verbal twittering, therefore, there was required for (the sufferer’s) purification, birds that constantly twitter with the chirping of sound.”

However, how does the simple act of birds twittering provide the message to one with tzaaras not to speak lashon hara? 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! Thus, how does the sound of birds chirping properly represent lashon hara and teach one with tzaaras not to speak negatively of others? Lashon hara is about the content-not the sound!?!

Rabbi Yochanan Zweig explains that Rashi 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 simple sounds of birds chirping is effectively able to teach a person not to speak lashon hara as the whole focus of a person when speaking lashon hara is to make noise in order so that others will recognize them for their good qualities.

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 others 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).

Tazria

In this week’s parsha we deal with tzaaras (a spiritual blemish, commonly known as leprosy) which one would receive for speaking lashon hara (negatively of others).

The Torah (13;2) states that anyone who was stricken with tzaaras would be brought to a Cohen. Rashi (13;2) relates that no person could be deemed pure or impure except by the world of the Cohen. What’s the reasoning for this?

Additionally, what is Rashi (13;2) teaching us that we wouldn’t have known from the pasuk (13;2)? The Torah (13;2) states that one with tzaaras would have to go to “Aharon the priest or one of his sons.” Rashi (13;2) then comes and says that only a Cohen is able to give a person the status of “pure” or impure.” However, the pasuk (13;2) clearly said that one could only go to “Aharon the priest or one of his sons” who were all Cohanim! Therefore, what was the need for Rashi to tell us that only Cohanim had the ability to deem people “pure” or “impure”? We knew that from the simple reading of the pasuk!?! What is Rashi adding to the text of the Torah?

Furthermore, the exact words of the Torah (13;2) is that anyone who was stricken with tzaaras “shall be brought to Aharon the Cohen, or to one of his sons the Cohanim.”

Why does the Torah say that one should go to Aharon the priest or one of his sons? If one could go to any Cohen then the Torah should have just said to go to a Cohen? Why did the Torah seemingly waste words by explaining that one could only go to “Aharon the Cohen, or to one of his sons the Cohanim”?

Rabbi Yochanan Zweig explains that the agenda of a person who speaks lashon hara is to create a separation between the person spoken about and the people listening. The purpose of the tzaaras is to then rectify the speaker’s problem of hating someone to the extent where they want that person to be separated from everyone else by reminding them that they spoke lashon hara. Now, the best way of helping a person fix a problem isn’t to tell them that they have a problem-as that simply causes a person to feel bad about themselves. Rather, the best way to help a person fix a problem is to show them you truly care and personally help them through it. This is the role of the Cohen-to talk to the person with tzaaras and give them confidence that they’ll be able to fix their problem. All Cohenim would commit themselves to help any person with tzaaras through their problems.

Now, Rabbi Zweig explains that the Torah (13;3) only mentions the fact that a Cohen could deem another person “impure.” Rashi (13;2) however states that a Cohen is not only able to give a person the status of “impure” but a Cohen is also able to give a person the status of being pure. This is what Rashi (13;2) is adding to the pasuk. We therefore see that the Cohen was not only part of the process of making someone impure (and telling them that they have a problem) but the Cohen was also part of the purifying process (helping the person fix their problem).

Further, Rabbi Zweig explains that the Torah explicitly said that a person with tzaaras should go to Aharon because Aharon was the best role model in terms of making peace between 2 people (see: Pirkei Avos, 1;12). In fact, Rabbi Zweig explains that all Cohanim have the genes of Aharon. A Cohen by definition is a lover of the whole nation of Israel. Similarly, the Chinuch writes that it’s the relationship with the Cohen that’ll pure the one with tzaaras–meaning, by having a relationship with a Cohen, one will be able to establish a connection with the whole nation of Israel. Therefore, the solution for one who receives tzaaras is to start feeling connected to people, for one can only speak lashon hara about others when they don’t feel a connection to them. Then, when you feel part of the congregation, you’ll feel like you’re part of an eternal entity and therefore full of life. Thus, one who has tzaaras must go to a Cohen–even if he’s a fool, for one who has tzaaras lacks a connection with the congregation which every Cohen has genetically.

Shemini

“The sons of Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, each took his fire-pan, they put fire in them and placed incense upon it; and they brought before Hashem an alien fire that He had not commanded them. A fire came forth from before Hashem and consumed them, and they died before Hashem” (10; 1-2).

Rashi (10;2) states that Nadav and Avihu were punished with death for bringing an alien fire that would come down from Heaven and descend upon the Mizbe’ach (altar) because they rendered a halachik decision in the presence of their teacher, Moshe (they didn’t consult Moshe before lighting the fire). The Gemara (Yevamos, 64a) however states that they died because they didn’t have children as a person who doesn’t engage in procreation is liable to the death penalty. How do we reconcile this apparent contradiction?

Rabbi Yochanan Zweig explains that Nadav and Avihu had a tremendous need to give to others. Interestingly, we could even see this from the definition of their names as “Nadav” means “to donate” and “Avihu” means “he is a father.” As a result, they both brought a fire in their service to Hashem without consulting Moshe as they wanted the fire to be solely from them. Meaning, they wanted to be the one’s giving the fire themselves-not agents of Moshe who told them to bring the fire. They had such a tremendous need to give that they wanted to personally give their own fire to Hashem-instead of consulting with Moshe beforehand.

Now, the question arises: How should a person with a tremendous desire to give handle those desires? Rabbi Zweig explains that the people in which one should give most to are their children. Parents should always be giving their love, care, time, etc. to their children. Nadav and Avihu however never had children in which they were able to constantly be giving to. As a result they decided to deal with their desires by giving the most they could to Hashem. They therefore brought a fire of their own to Hashem-without consulting Moshe. We now see that not having children was what caused Nadav and Avihu to bring an alien fire. Thus, the Gemara (Yevamos, 64a) states that Nadav and Avihu died because they didn’t have children as it was a result of their failure to procreate that they felt the need to give to Hashem from a fire of their own without consulting Moshe.

Pesach

“Blessed is He Who keeps His promise to Israel, Blessed is He! For the Holy One, Blessed is He, calculated the end (of the exile), to do as He said to Avraham our father at the Covenant Between the Parts, as it is said, “And He said to Abram, Know that your offspring will be a stranger in a land not theirs, and they will serve them and they will torment them for four hundred years. But also the nation whom they will serve I will judge. Afterward, they will go out with great possessions (Bereishis, 15;13-14).”

The obvious question is: A promise is a personal obligation. If Hashem promised us that He would take us out of the land of Egypt then that means He was obligated to do so. Therefore, why do we praise Hashem for fulfilling His promise to us and freeing us from the land of Egypt?

Rabbi Yochanan Zweig explains that the Medresh (Pska Zuta, Shemos 6;10) relates that when the Jews left the land of Egypt they were on the 49th level of impurity (had they gone down just one more level then they would have not merited to leave the land of Egypt) as they were continuously becoming more and more corrupt. Had Hashem kept the nation of Israel in the land of Egypt for just a little bit longer then they would have reached the lowest level of impurity and not even have had the desire to leave the corrupt land of Egypt. Hashem would have then become absolved from fulfilling his promise as a person is only obligated to uphold a promise if the recipient desires him to do so. Had Hashem left the Jews in the land of Egypt just a little bit longer then they would have become so addicted to all the impurities of the land that their true desire would have become to stay in the land of Egypt forever. It was only due to His great love and commitment towards us that Hashem planned to take us out of Egypt before we would reach that level where we would no longer desire to leave. We therefore praise Hashem for upholding his promise to us (even though he was obligated to) as He went out of His way and made sure that we left the land of Egypt before we had a change of heart to stay in the land of Egypt. Meaning, Hashem could have simply kept us in the land of Egypt a little bit longer and he would have then had no obligation to fulfill His promise. Hashem however had a real desire to fulfill His promise and take us out of the land of Egypt as He has such a tremendous amount of love for us. It is for His planning to take us out before we reached the lowest level of impurity that we praise Him for fulfilling His promise to us.

                     Tzav

“Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying: Take Aharon and his sons with him, and the garments and the oil of anointment, and the bull of the sin offering, and the two rams, and the basket of matzos” (8;1-2).

Rashi (8;2) explains that Hashem was telling Moshe to “take him (Aharon) with words and persuade him (regarding the consecration of the Mishkan).” 

The question arises: The word “take” (“kach”) usually denotes physicality. Therefore, if Moshe was supposed to persuade Aharon then why didn’t Hashem say to “speak” to Aharon or to “command” him? Why does the Torah use the language of “kach” (take) and mislead us into thinking that Moshe was supposed to do a physical action and not a verbal one (like the words “speak” and “command” would suggest)?

Rabbi Yochanan Zweig explains that Hashem was giving Aharon an elevated status. As a result it was especially important that he accept the position willingly without force. Meaning, by persuading Aharon to accept the position Moshe made Aharon feel as though he was being given the position because he was the best person for the job. Had Moshe “commanded” (forced) Aharon to take the position then he would have been implying that the position isn’t one of great honor or importance. As a result Aharon would have then lacked the feeling that he was a great person for being appointed his position. Therefore, Hashem told Moshe to “take” (meaning: persuade) Aharon into taking his new position (instead of “speak” or “command” which connote force) as Hashem wanted Aharon to feel as though he was being appointed a status with great important-not one of little value. 

Vayikra

Rashi (4;22) states: “Fortunate is the generation whose ruler sets his heart to bring atonement for his unintentional sin. All the more so that he regrets over his intentional sins.” However, why is a generation so fortunate if their ruler regrets his sins? Why should it make a difference to the people whether or not their ruler brings atonement for his sins?

Additionally, the torah (4;3) states on a similar note “If the anointed Cohen will sin.” In contrast, by a ruler that sins the torah states (4;22): “When a ruler sins.” Presumably this means that we know that the ruler will sin- we just don’t know when. What exactly is the significance of this message?

Furthermore, the torah (4;22) uses the word “nasi” which could mean the head of a tribe/court, in addition to a king. However, the commentators explain that torah in this case is only referring to a king. Therefore, why didn’t the torah use a shorter and more accurate word, such as ”melech,” which could only be translated to mean a king?

Rabbi Yochanan Zweig explains that many people think leadership is all about leading others. However, Rabbi Zweig explains that leadership is really about sharing your experiences with the people. Meaning, instead of pushing those below you to improve, one should literally work and learn together with them. Leaders are supposed to deal with everyone as being on their same level. Similarly, our sages tell us that we should deal with our children/students with the same amount of respect that we want given to ourselves. Rabbi Zweig explains that when one shares their experiences the other person then feels respected and performs their best.

Similarly, Rabbi Zweig explains that Rashi says (4;22)-fortunate is a generation where a ruler regrets his sins-because that shows that he’s interested in growing together with his nation. Meaning, he wants to improve himself and become a better person-not abuse his powers over the people. Therefore, every generation with a ruler who regrets his sins is considered fortunate because that means they have a real leader whose main interest is for his people.

Further, Rabbi Zweig explains that the position of a king (“melech”) is a position of power. As a result, his position makes him completely separate from the people, as he has complete control over them. A “nasi,” (which could also mean the head of a tribe/court, in addition to a king) however, is a lot more capable of interacting with the people. Rabbi Zweig explains that a leader of a court/tribe is responsible to elevate himself, not just his people. Also, in contrast to a king, a tribe/court leader is allowed to forgo his honor for the people. Therefore, court/tribe leaders naturally have a lot more of a personal relationship with the people than a king. Thus, Rabbi Zweig explains that the torah used the word “nasi” instead of “melech” in order to teach us that all kings must be interactive in leading their people, just like all tribe/court leaders do.

Lastly, Rabbi Zweig explains that the torah said “when a ruler sins,” (implying that the ruler will definitely sin) in order to send a message to all leaders that they shouldn’t view themselves as infallible. All leaders make mistakes and they therefore shouldn’t view themselves so above everyone else that they can’t interact with others. Thus, the torah refers to a king who regrets his sins as a “nasi” in order to teach us that all leaders are responsible to form a relationship with their people, just like court/tribe leaders are.