On Shavuot we read Megillat Ruth.

The Medresh (Ruth Rabbah, 2;23) relates that Naomi attempted to dissuade Ruth from converting to Judaism by telling her that she would be required to perform the mitzvah of mezuzah. Why did Naomi attempt to dissuade Ruth by reminding her specifically about the mitzvah of mezuzah?

Rabbi Yochanan Zweig explains that a home is a place where a person feels their sense of sovereignty. In fact, the Gemara (Pesachim, 86b) states that when one is a guest they are obligated to follow everything their host says. We see from there that a home is a place where a person has control over everything. However, there is a big downside in feeling in complete control at home as a person could then come to abuse their power (e.g. scream at their wife). A person feels like a king in their home as they are actually able to determine the rules and could therefore come to abuse their powers on others. If a person has a need for power or domination then their feeling of kingship at home could be very damaging as it could cause them to become distanced from Hashem. Therefore, we must always remember that the real owner of our house is Hashem (as He created the whole world and owns everything).

Similarly, Rabbi Zweig that the underlying purpose of placing a mezuzah in our home is to constantly remind us when we walk in that Hashem is the real owner of our house. By putting up a mezuzah in our home we are affirming that it is Hashem’s home-not ours. Thus, we could now understand that Naomi warned Ruth concerning the mitzvah of mezuzah as she grew up in a society where people felt they were in complete control when in their house and Ruth needed to know that she would be required to give up that sense of control by putting up a mezuzah.

In closing, Rabbi Zweig explains that it is very important for us to utilize our power at home properly. If one doesn’t implement Jewish values at home then the message they are relaying is that one could escape from Hashem when at home. If one fails to continue their Jewish values at home then they will never be able to truly change themselves. Rabbi Zweig explains that the strongest influence on a child is what they see inside their home. Therefore, it is very important for parents to have their kids experience proper Jewish values at home in order so that they could grow up and follow in the ways of Hashem.

“Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying: But you shall not count the tribe of Levi, and you shall not take their census among the Children of Israel” (1;49).

Rashi (49;1) explains: “The Holy One, Blessed is He, foresaw that a decree was destined to go into effect upon all those who were counted from the age of twenty and up that they would die in the wilderness. He said: “Let not these Levites be included for they are Mine because they did not err with the Golden Calf.”

However, why is that a reason to count them separately? The tribe of Levi weren’t worthy of death as they didn’t sin by the Golden Calf so Hashem could have simply not punished them! Why did Hashem need to count the tribe of Levi separately from the rest of the nation in order so that they should not be included in the decree?

Rabbi Yochanan Zweig explains that after the sin of the Golden Calf Hashem wanted to destroy the whole nation of Israel, including the Levites, and it was only because of Moshe crying out in prayer that the whole nation was saved (see: Shemos, 32;11-13). We see from there that even though the tribe of Levi didn’t participate in the sin of the Golden Calf they were nevertheless going to be destroyed due to the actions of the rest of the nation. Similarly, the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva, 3;1) states that the judgment of a person, a community and the whole world go according to the majority. As a result, in order to exempt the Levites from the punishment of the nation for creating the Golden Calf Hashem needed to make some sort of separation between them. By counting the Levites separately Hashem in effect gave them the elevated status of managers (instead of mere employees) who are subject to different laws and regulations. Meaning, in all companies there are different rules for employees, members, managers, etc. Therefore, by counting the tribe of Levi separately and giving them the status of managers Hashem was successfully able to keep them from being subject to the laws of the employees-who make up the majority. If the tribe of Levi would have been counted together with the rest of the nation then they would have been considered part of the corporate entity of the Jewish people. By counting the tribe of Levi separately Hashem made them part of the Jewish entity-that entity being the managerial entity, not the employee entity. Thus, we could now understand that Hashem counted the Levites separately from the rest of the nation as a means of elevating them from the status of employees to the status of managers in order so that they wouldn’t be subject to all the punishments of the people.

“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.

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.

“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.

“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.

“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).

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.

“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.

“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.