Delicacies from Yechezkel’s Shabbos Table: Parshas Pinchas and the Yichus of 17th of Tamuz

Every year, Parshas Pinchas falls out just before or just after the 17^th of Tamuz. Here in Eretz Yisroel, this year was a direct hit. In Chutz L’Aretz, Parshas Pinchas won’t show up until next Shabbos, but regardless, these two occasions are always within a week. In a post that I wrote eight years ago, I emphasized the relationship between Parshas Pinchas and the 17^th of Tamuz. I hope to discuss that post again at the end of this one. But for now, I want to point out another fascinating correlation. (Hat Tip - This vordt was inspired in part by remarks made by the Rebbe of Tolna, Shlita during his weekly parsha shiur last Thursday night. - YH).

The first Rashi in Parshas Pinchas is evidently bothered by why the pasuk needs to restate the lineage of Pinchas back to Aharon HaKohen. After all, didn’t the pasuk already do this a few pasukim earlier at the end of Parshas Balak?

I guess an easy answer may be that after a whole week passes by, we may forget the lineage from last week, so the Torah needs to remind us. Nevertheless, this is not the answer that Rashi gives. Rashi quotes an aggadeta in Sanhedrin (82b) that the tribes (i.e., the masses) were deriding Pinchas since on his mother’s side he was descended from the convert Yisro (Putiel). They said, “Have you seen this son of ‘Puti’ whose mother’s father would fatten calves for idol worship and he has the temerity to kill a tribal Prince in Israel?!” For this reason the pasuk comes and expressly affirms his lineage to Aharon HaKohen.

The question is obvious: Were the “tribes” not fully aware that on his other side he is descended from Aharon? If they still felt it was appropriate to deride him for the ignobility of his mother’s lineage, what is gained by the fact that the pasuk is telling us that he has noble ancestors on his father’s side? In what way does this remedy the defect?

Let’s look at a well-known anecdote from those ancient Jewish folklore books:

A couple approached the Rabbi to settle a dispute. The wife had just given birth to a baby boy and they could not agree on what name to give. The wife wanted to name the child after her late father and the husband wanted the child named after his late father.

The Rav asked the wife, “What was your father’s name?” “Nachum”, came the response. He then asked the same question to the husband. “Also, Nachum”, was the husband’s response.

“So, what are you arguing about?”, asked the Rav.

“Well, you see”, the wife began, “my father was a big Yarei Shamayim and Talmid Chacham but my husband’s father was a horse-thief. I do not want the baby to be named after his father, only after mine.”

The Rav thought for a minute and said, “We will have to leave this matter in the hands of the Ribbono Shel Olam. You must name the boy Nachum and wait and see. If he grows to be a Talmid Chacham you will know that he was named after the wife’s father. If he grows to be a horse-thief, we will know that he was named after the husband’s father.”

All students of genetics know that we get physical and personality traits from both of our parents and these traits are embedded “in our genes”. When the traits of two genes conflict, one is dominant and one is recessive. The dominant one overpowers the recessive one and takes control of the person’s character. We are always looking at people’s positive or negative traits and we say, “That humor and wittiness comes from his mother’s side.” Or “He is so stubborn and feisty, he is a true Galumphenstein”.

When the “tribes” saw the behavior of Pinchas they focused on what appeared to them to be an act of wildness and hefkeirus. An act of acting on a whim and losing control. To them it seemed that he took after his grandfather “Nachum the Horse-thief”. Thus they branded him as a descendent of Putiel (Yisro) who stuffed calves for idol worship. But HKBH was telling us otherwise. Pinchas hadn’t lost control. To the contrary, he was doing things that went against his own true nature for the betterment of the nation, just as his other grandfather, Aharon HaKohen had done during the turmoil of the Egel Hazahav. Thus, he was really taking after his grandfather, “Nachum the Tzaddik.”

We seem to have a similar problem of “Yichus” when it comes to the 17^th of Tamuz. The 17^th of Tamuz likewise has a conflicting dual “Yichus”. On the one hand it was originally a special day of simcha and celebration because it was the day that the first set of luchos were given to Moshe. And this is what it was meant to be for generations. But it also turned out to be the day that the luchos were broken. And for this we have been fasting and mourning for all those generations.

Perhaps we can say that the Torah is hinting at this conflict with the first pasuk of Parshas Pinchas. Since this parsha always falls out on the week of the 17^th of Tamuz and, this year in Eretz Yisroel, sometimes on 17^th of Tamuz proper, the Torah is telling us that this day, which is being called "Pinchas", has two lines of yichus. One goes to those who fattened calves for idol worship – to the sin of the Golden Calf. The other line goes to Aharon HaKohen, he who is designated to enter the Kodesh Hakadoshim every Yom Kippur and to sprinkle the blood One Above and Seven Below and to atone for our sins. (Note that Yom Kippur is the day that we received the second luchos, those that replaced the ones we were meant to receive on 17th of Tamuz!)

For all the past generations we, the “tribes”, have looked upon this day as the anniversary of the Egel Hazahav and have fasted for this calamity. We view the dominant yichus as that that goes to Putiel who stuffed calves for idol worship. But, hopefully, very soon the “Kasuv” is going to come and redefine the yichus of this day. The Kasuv will tell us that this day will go back to the “lineage” of Aharon HaKohen who will once again reinstate the Avodas HaKodesh in the Bais HaMikdash.

And the 17^th of Tamuz will once again become a day of rejoicing.  

במהרה בימנו אמן!  

א-ל קנא בהתאפק במקניאיך דשנים רטובים. מחכים תקים עומדים לעולמים. כנטיעים מחטבים באהבים. האמת והשלום בצומות חטובים. נצח היותם לשמחה ולששון ולמועדים טובים:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As long as I mentioned my previous post from way back in 2008, I want to add one point to it.

To refresh your memory, the question posed is:

Why are the elaborate details for all the Tamidim and Musafim written in Parshas Pinchas?  They were already briefly mentioned in Parshas Tetzaveh and Emor. It makes no sense that the exact details of these korbanos were only first given now after the Mishkan has been in service for almost 40 years!

Here is the answer that I presented then:

Perhaps, HKB"H "foresaw" our mesorah that we read the Torah on a fixed yearly cycle and there is a spiritual relevance between every Parsha and the time of year that it falls on. As such, Parshas Pinchas is always just before or after 17 of Tamuz and always ushers in the 3 weeks of mourning over the loss of the Bais HaMikdash and the korbanos. [Indeed, one of the reasons for the fast is that on this day the Korban Tamid was nullified!] It is a time of sadness and introspection over what we lost and brings the galus more to the forefront. As such, Hashem wanted especially in this time that we usher in the yemei hachurban [and mourn the loss of the korban Tamid] to remind us that the commandment of the TuM (Tamidim U’Musafim) is still in effect and that we are not to be meya'esh (despair) from them despite the fact that the 3 weeks are beginning "again".

To this I want to add that this can explain the odd term "Tishmiru" that is used in the opening line:

את קרבני לחמי לאשי תשמרו להקריב לי במועדו.

All through the Torah, the term Shemira is used to indicate avoiding transgressions on negative commandments, not the fulfillment of positive ones. Even the term את חג המצות תשמור   and ושמרתם את המצות can be understood as an admonition to avoid eating chametz or to guard the matzos from becoming chametz. The term for fulfilling positive mitzvos is Zechira. Why use the term Tishmiru?

In Parshas VaYeshev it says that the brothers were jealous of Yosef but Yaakov, his father, שמר את הדבר. Rashi says there that the term Shamar means he waited and anticipated for his dream to come to fruition. He was yearning for it to happen.

In line with this and what I wrote in 2008 that the reason that the Tu”M are restated in Pinchas is to tell us not to despair from their being returned to us, we can see the pasuk differently:

את קרבני לחמי לאשי : My “bread “ Korban  תשמרו : you must wait for and yearn for even through the long exile  להקריב לי במועדו : that you will once again bring to Me at the time that is called a “Moed” as is written in Megillas Eicha (1:15): קרא עלי מועד לשבור בחורי.

Maybe this Tamuz or this Av can be the

חדש אשר נהפך להם מיגון לשמחה ומאבל ליום טוב!

:נצח היותם לשמחה ולששון ולמועדים טובים

It's About Time!

Some of you may have noticed that I haven't had much to say over the past two months. At least one person did (is that the grand total???). On January 14 he posted a comment to my last post (from Nov 18) as follows:

2 months dude?????

And my response was (for those who are too lazy to go and look themselves):

Well, not for another 4 days.

Still, it is gratifying that there is at least one anonymous person out there who misses my blog. You are so far the first and only person to speak up.

In any case, I currently have been unable to devote much attention to my blog for various reasons. One of which is that since there is no money in it, it takes a back seat to ventures that do. I do hope to revitalize it at some point.

But I did appreciate your comment.

Of course it would be nice if my blog posts were to be profitable (does anybody want my Paypal address??) but it is quite obviously not the main issue. More accurately, when people would hear me explain my 1A7B project, or more recently, if they would look at my posts, I would typically hear (whispered behind my back) the same response:

That fellow's got way too much time on his hands!!

Well, I am happy to report that this is no longer the case. My schedule has gotten much busier of late. So the real story is not that I haven't had what to say as much as that I haven't really had the time to say it. Which brings up another comment I have heard (said to my face):

Your posts are much too long.

And if you think it takes a while to read them, imagine what it takes to write them. A good post is like a good meal. It can take hours to cook up and only minutes to eat.

This being the case, if I have no time to cook, I am left with a few choices for my customers: (1) throw something into the microwave, (2) feed them leftovers, or (3) let them go hungry.

Options 1 and 2 did not seem too appetizing and I really did not want to turn my blog into a series of reruns so for the most part I defaulted to option (3). But since I don't want the blog to go totally defunct (just yet) and this is the week between Parshat Yisro and Mishpatim, I will go into rerun mode and refer my loyal readers (if only the anonymous fellow from Jan 18) to one of the most fundamental and insightful as well as fascinating Torah essays that I have written:

Ad K'dei Kach

It explains what G-d really wants from us in 10 easy lessons. Don't pass it up!

There is some fresh material (on stale topics) that I still hope to write but I need more time (and money!) Yet, there is some light at the end of the tunnel: if we don't see some action from our primary customer and soon, our company may fold.

Then I'll have plenty of time.

Ad K'dei Kach - The Ten Commandments Revisited

I think Orthodoxy is on its way out. Both as a term and as an institution.

The problem is that as a term it is undefinable. It's a Greek word that means: Ortho = straight or correct; dox = opinion or way of thought

So it means someone who has the correct way of thought.

Well, apparently, we now have a variety of "Orthodoxes" or, in other words, we have plenty of "correct ways of thought" to choose from. There is Ultra Orthodox and Modern Orthodox and Ultra-Modern Orthodox and Modern-Ultra Orthodox and I just heard of a new one (courtesy of my friend who is "Centrist" Orthodox): Open Orthodox which obviously implies that there must be a Closed Orthodox (or is it Closet Orthodox?). Everything except just plain Orthodox.

And if they are all Orthodox then they must be all correct. Is that correct?

Evidently, there is nothing Jewish about the term Orthodox and so, there are no Jewish concepts that can be applied to give it a firm definition.

So it doesn't have one.

I wrote about this at length in a post that I actually posted twice (click HERE).

My logic tells me that there cannot be so many different kinds of "correct" and that some varieties must actually be "incorrect" (or a bit un-Orthodox) and as such, they will ultimately self-destruct as is the manner of most incorrect philosophies.

Consequently, a lot of "Orthodoxy" won't last.

So what Orthodoxy will last?

The Orthodoxy that also carries Jewish terms that have clear definitions in Jewish ideals. I wrote all about it in Chapter 9 of my book. These are the Yesharim, Tzaddikim, Chassidim and Kedoshim of our Shabbos prayers at Shochen Ad. The Tzaddikim, Anavim and Yareim in Tehillim, or the "Chareidim l'dvar Hashem" in Yeshaya (and in One Above and Seven Below).

As I wrote in my book and explained to many people who don't feel like reading it, every type of Jew has their opinion of what is the "correct way of thought". What I try to do in my book is to present G-d's opinion. And so I merely quote what G-d tells us in the Torah with a lot of emphasis on Parshat Bechukosai.

It appears that many Jews that fall somewhere in wide range of "Orthodox" aren't ready to handle Parshat Bechukosai. Why don't we just stick with the Ten Commandments? The essence of Judaism is the Ten Commandments so we can safely say that somebody who keeps the Ten Commandments is Orthodox.

Well, last week we read about the Ten Commandments and this week we have a bit of a follow through on the great event including the grand declaration: Naaseh V'Nishma.

But how many of us really understand what we are reading in these two Parshiot? And how many of us understand the chareidi perspective of the Ten Commandments themselves?

To clarify this, I wrote a fascinating Torah essay about the true meaning of the connection between Parshat Yisro and Parshat Mishpatim and what is going on between the two parts of the story of Mattan Torah. It is titled Ad K'dei Kach - The Ten Commandments Revisited and it is presented here as an iPaper document. Parts of it I heard from various darshanim, parts of it are posited by the Ramban at the beginning of Parshat Mishpatim and the rest of it is what I built out of all the parts.

It is meant to answer the following questions:

• What is the meaning of the short list of unrelated mitvos at the end of Parshat Yisro?
  
• Why is the narrative of Mattan Torah interrupted by all of the detailed Halachos in the front of Parshat Mishpatim?
  
• What is Rashi really referring to when he says that the opening "vav" in Parshat Mishpatim is adding it on to the previous words?
  
• Why, as opposed to some "Centrist" thinkers, there is nothing "Orthodox" about "Open" Orthodoxy?

So for your oneg Shabbos, I hereby present Ad K'dei Kach - the Ten Commandments Revisited

Note - I have been encountering difficulties with the embedded document display. If the document does not display in the window, please click on the link to view.
Ad Kdei Kach- The Ten Commandments Revisited

1A7B Excerpt: Youth-at-Risk -- Buyers and Shoppers

I have a hunch that most people who are reading this blog have not read my book (how much self-inflicted punishment can one take?). Even those who have, I presume most have not made it so far as my Youth-at-Risk chapter at the end of the book. I say this because I hold it is such an important chapter yet I have received surprisingly little feedback on it. It must have gotten lost somewhere.

In this chapter, I present a chareidi's-eye-view of the phenomenon of youth from our society going Off the Derech and analyze the causes and suggest preventive measures. The main claim of the chapter is that owing that "chareidi-ism" is an ideological condition, it is not inherent and it must be acquired. Hence, when we see people from chareidi backgrounds who drop out, it typically indicates that they have not truly acquired the ideology, or, in other words, they haven't "bought the product". Accordingly, our job as parents and teachers is to properly "sell the product". Inversely, a most important first step in preventing fallout is to avoid "botching the sale" and thus "losing the customer".

These are the preventive measures that I was alluding to and they are enumerated toward the end of the chapter in the guise of 12 "Sales Tips". One of these - Sales Tip #9 - embodies a lesson that we learn from the juxtaposition of Yisro's visit to Moshe to the monumental event of Mattan Torah. Even though I wrote in the book that both of these concepts are sourced in Parshat Yisro, the actuality is that the pronouncement of Naaseh V'Nishma that is discussed is really recorded in this week's parsha, Parshat Mishpatim.

To stimulate the taste buds of those of you who have not [yet] read the chapter, I wish to post Sales Tip #9 as an excerpt. Of course it goes without saying that the potency of just one excerpt is greatly diminished if one has not read the entire chapter.

Buyers and Shoppers

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Theses Academic Work one above and seven youth at risk