Submitted by yoniharband on Thu, 02/23/2017 - 15:28

Language Hebrew

על כמה מצוות העולם עומד?

"מִי יַעֲלֶה בְהַר ה'...? – נְקִי כַפַּיִם וּבַר לֵבָב..." (תהילים כד, ג-ד) –

מִזְמוֹר לְדָוִד
ה' מִי יָגוּר בְּאָהֳלֶךָ?
מִי יִשְׁכֹּן בְּהַר קָדְשֶׁךָ?

1. הוֹלֵךְ תָּמִים,
2. וּפֹעֵל צֶדֶק,
3. וְדֹבֵר אֱמֶת בִּלְבָבוֹ[1];
4. לֹא רָגַל (=רכילות ולשון הרע) עַל לְשֹׁנוֹ,
5. לֹא עָשָׂה לְרֵעֵהוּ (=לאדם כמוהו) רָעָה,
6. וְחֶרְפָּה לֹא נָשָׂא (לא קיבל)[2] עַל קְרֹבוֹ;
7. נִבְזֶה [במעשיו], בְּעֵינָיו נִמְאָס,
8. וְאֶת יִרְאֵי ה' יְכַבֵּד;
9. נִשְׁבַּע לְהָרַע (=לשלם), וְלֹא יָמִר (=יחליף)[3];
10. כַּסְפּוֹ לֹא נָתַן בְּנֶשֶׁךְ (=בריבית);
11. וְשֹׁחַד עַל [משפט] נָקִי[4] לֹא לָקָח;

עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה, לֹא יִמּוֹט לְעוֹלָם.

על מזמור נפלא זה נאמרו דברים מופלאים בגמרא (מכות כג עמ' ב - כד עמ' א):
דרש ר' שַׂמלָאי: 613 (=תרי"ג) מצות נאמרו לו למשה...
בא דוד (מזמור טו) והעמידן על 11...
בא ישעיהו (לג, טו-טז) והעמידן על 6:

1. הֹלֵךְ צְדָקוֹת,
2. וְדֹבֵר מֵישָׁרִים,
3. מֹאֵס בְּבֶצַע מַעֲשַׁקּוֹת,
4. נֹעֵר כַּפָּיו מִתְּמֹךְ בַּשֹּׁחַד,
5. אֹטֵם אָזְנוֹ מִשְּׁמֹעַ דָּמִים,
6. וְעֹצֵם עֵינָיו מֵרְאוֹת בְּרָע;

הוּא מְרוֹמִים יִשְׁכֹּן,
מְצָדוֹת סְלָעִים מִשְׂגַּבּוֹ...

...בא מיכה (ו, ח) והעמידן על 3:
הִגִּיד לְךָ אָדָם מַה טּוֹב,
וּמָה ה' דּוֹרֵשׁ מִמְּךָ, כִּי אִם

1. עֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט,
2. וְאַהֲבַת חֶסֶד,
3. וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת עִם אֱ-לֹהֶיךָ.

...בא חבקוק (ב', ד) והעמידן על 1:
...וְצַדִּיק בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ (=ביושרו) יִחְיֶה.

'אמונה' פירושה 'ביטחון' וגם 'יושר'[5] – "אֵ-ל אֱמוּנָה וְאֵין עָוֶל, צַדִּיק וְיָשָׁר הוּא" (דברים לב, ד).

לדעתי, מדובר בהעמדת היכל המצוות (=כל התרי"ג) על 11 עמודי יסוד, ממש כמו בית שעומד על יסודות, ואם מתערערים, ייפול הבית. דוד, ישעיהו ומיכה מדברים על אותם עקרונות, וההבדלים הם בתכנון הקונסטרוקציה.

מהנדס יכול לחשב את עמודי היסוד 11 או 6 או 3, אלא ש-6 או 3 יכילו כמות כפולה ומכופלת של ברזל ובטון, והמיקום שלהם יקבע את יציבות הבית. במו עיניי ראיתי בית בירושלים ניצב על עמוד יסוד אחד.

[1] פיו וליבו שווים.
[2] קבלת לשון הרע חמורה כמו השמעתו.
[3] מקיים התחייבויותיו.
[4] לזַכות איש נקי, וכל שכן להרשיעו.
[5] ראו מאמרי 'אמונה אל מול הפכיה', באתר שלי.

באדיבות אתר 929

Volver al capítulo

Submitted by yoniharband on Thu, 02/23/2017 - 14:35

Language Hebrew

מידות האדם הראוי לגור במקדש

מתוך "אתר תהילים" של ד"ר בנימין גזונדהייט

Volver al capítulo

מוסריות תביא לדבקות בה'

Volver al capítulo

יָבָל, יוּבָל, תוּבַל

כשם שהשם 'כָּלֵב' איננו 'כֶּלֶב', כך 'נָבָל' ממָעוֹן, ממשפחת כָּלֵב (שמואל א כה, ב-ג), אין משמעו רשע מלכתחילה, ומסתבר גם שהיגוי השם היה שונה - בעימות בין נבל לדוד, יש 'מדרש שמות': "כִּשְׁמוֹ כֶּן הוּא, נָבָל שְׁמוֹ, וּנְבָלָה עִמּוֹ"(שמואל א כה, כה).

השמות 'הֶבֶל', 'יָבָל', 'יוּבָל', 'תוּבַל' (בראשית ד, כ-כא), וגם 'נָבָל', היו קשורים בצאן, ובייחוד באילים החזקים, שהקרניים שלהם נקראו במלחמת יריחו"שׁוֹפְרוֹת הַיּוֹבְלִים" (יהושע ו, ד-ה) - "בִּמְשֹׁךְ בְּקֶרֶן הַיּוֹבֵל", פירושו שם"כְּשָׁמְעֲכֶם אֶת קוֹל הַשּׁוֹפָר", ממש כמו במעמד הר סיני; שנת ה'יוֹבֵל' היא שנת הדרור, שמכריזים עליה בתקיעת שופרות מיוחדת (ויקרא כה, ט-י).

הביטוי 'הֶבֶל' (=אוויר חם) קיבל (במיוחד בקהלת) משמעות של חיים שמתפזרים לריק, גם כמדרש לסיפור בתורה על מותו הנורא של 'הֶבֶל', מבלי שהשאיר אחריו מאומה.

הביטוי 'נָבָל' קיבל משמעות של רָשָע, מהסתעפות השורש נ-ב-ל, שפירושו קמילה והתייבשות. "נָבָל" במזמורי תהלים, אין א-לוהים בליבו, ולכן 'אין דין, ואין דיין'.

"ה' מִשָּׁמַיִם הִשְׁקִיף...", זו דרשה על פרשת סדום ועמורה, כשאברהם השכים 'להשקיף', וראה "כְּקִיטֹר הַכִּבְשָׁן" (בראשית יט, כח), כי לא היו שם צדיקים -"אֵין גַּם אֶחָד".

לַמְנַצֵּחַ לְדָוִד

אָמַר נָבָל בְּלִבּוֹ: אֵין אֱ-לֹהִים,
[ולכן] הִשְׁחִיתוּ הִתְעִיבוּ עֲלִילָה,
אֵין עֹשֵׂה טוֹב;

ה' מִשָּׁמַיִם הִשְׁקִיף עַל בְּנֵי אָדָם
לִרְאוֹת הֲיֵשׁ מַשְׂכִּיל, דֹּרֵשׁ אֶת אֱ-לֹהִים?
הַכֹּל סָר [מֵהיוֹשֶר], יַחְדָּו נֶאֱלָחוּ (=נשחתו),
אֵין עֹשֵׂה טוֹב, אֵין גַּם אֶחָד;

הֲלֹא יָדְעוּ (=יֵדעוּ) כָּל פֹּעֲלֵי אָוֶן,
אֹכְלֵי עַמִּי אָכְלוּ [כמו] לֶחֶם,
[ובשֵם] ה' לֹא קָרָאוּ;

שָׁם פָּחֲדוּ (=יפחדו) פָחַד
כִּי אֱ-לֹהִים [יתגלה וישפוט] בְּדוֹר צַדִּיק;
עֲצַת עָנִי תָבִישׁוּ (=תהפכו לבושה),
כִּי ה' מַחְסֵהוּ [של עם עני];

מִי יִתֵּן [ונראה] מִצִּיּוֹן
יְשׁוּעַת יִשְׂרָאֵל,
בְּשׁוּב ה' שְׁבוּת עַמּוֹ,
יָגֵל יַעֲקֹב, יִשְׂמַח יִשְׂרָאֵל.

באדיבות אתר 929

Volver al capítulo

משפט ה' לרשע ולצדיקים

מתוך "אתר תהילים" של ד"ר בנימין גזונדהייט

Volver al capítulo

אויב מבפנים או מבחוץ?

Volver al capítulo

The Weeping of Yosef and Binyamin and the Exiles to Come

After Yosef reveals his identity to his brothers, he reassures them that he harbors no hard feelings towards them for their mistreatment of him, and then embraces them and weeps. The Torah places particular emphasis on his embrace and with his only full brother, Binyamin, mentioning that the two brothers embraced another and cried on each other's shoulder (see 45:14). Rashi, citing the Gemara in Masekhet Megila (16b), comments that Yosef and Binyamin wept because they foresaw the calamities that will befall their descendants in each of their territory. The Sanctuary of Shilo was situated in the territory of Efrayim - Yosef's son - and ultimately destroyed. Similarly, the two Batei Mikdash, built in the region of Binyamin, were both burned to the ground.

Why would this prophetic vision of these calamities arise particularly now, during this emotional reunion between Yosef and Binyamin? Why at this moment would they bring to mind the great tragedies that would later befall the Jewish people?

On one level, this Gemara perhaps emphasizes the brothers' awareness that this entire ordeal marked the beginning of the Egyptian exile. As heartwarming as this family reunion was, the twelve brothers understood that the prophecy to Avraham Avinu of "Your offspring will be a foreigner in a land not their own" (Bereishit 15:13) was unfolding before their very eyes. Chazal saw this exile as the prototype of the tragic exiles Am Yisrael will experience much later in history. Yosef and Binyamin lament the pain and suffering that will unfortunately befall their descendants until they are finally reunited in their ancestral homeland - rather in the foreign, hostile land of Egypt. This is the approach taken by the Yefei Toar on Parashat Vayigash.

We may also suggest a more specific association between the three calamities mentioned by the Gemara and the narrative in Parashat Vayigash. Yosef and Binyamin lament the "sin'at achim," fraternal strife, that will ultimately spell disaster for the Jewish people and bring about their downfall. They look at the current situation that has emerged, the absurdity of ten brothers conspiring to eliminate the eleventh, and weep. Although the wounds of this particular chapter of hatred appear to have mended (to one extent or another), Binyamin and Yosef foresee this story's sorrowful repetition throughout Jewish history. Most famously, Chazal (Masekhet Yoma 9b) attribute the destruction of the Second Temple to sin'at chinam - baseless hatred among Am Yisrael.

There are indications that variations of sin'at chinam led to the other two calamities, as well. In describing the events leading up to the destruction of Shilo, Sefer Shemuel I (chapter 2) tells of the corruption of the kohanim and the high priest's refusal (or inability) to admonish his sons for their misconduct. The kohanim manipulated those who came to bring sacrifices to the Mishkan and took for themselves meat that was not intended for them. This misuse of the priesthood to cheat others led to the destruction of Shilo at the hands of the Pelishtim.

As for the First Temple, the aforementioned Gemara in Masekhet Yoma attributes this tragedy to Benei Yisrael's violation of the three grave sins of idolatry, murder and adultery. Elsewhere, Chazal (Shabbat 119b; Eikha Rabba 1:20) comment that the destruction occurred because Benei Yisrael did not admonish one another. If open lines of communication had existed, had people trusted and respected one another, then perhaps the nation could have formed a healthy society in which people were open to criticism and would accept the counsel and admonition of their peers. But just as Yosef's brothers looked upon him with suspicion and contempt, and did not consider discussing with him their concerns (which were, presumably, entirely legitimate), so were Benei Yisrael at the time of the Temple unable to develop a level of trust and mutual respect that would allow for healthy communication and honest, constructive criticism.

In conclusion, we should point to one broad message the clearly emerges from Chazal's comment on this verse. At this moment of personal emotion and family reunion, Yosef and Binyamin saw before them the long-term, historic implications of what is happening around them. They managed to transcend the limited realm of the personal and appreciate the repercussions of this ordeal that would manifest only centuries later. This perhaps teaches us an important lesson about broadening our perspective, of having the vision and foresight to concern ourselves with the broader implications of what we do. We should not think only in terms of our immediate, personal contexts, but rather see ourselves and what we do in terms of the eternal, historic destiny and responsibility of Am Yisrael.

Volver al capítulo

Binyamin Can See that it is I -What is This, and Why Didn't Yosef Contact his Family?

The Torah tells in Parashat Vayigash of the descent of Yaakov and his family to Egypt. Yosef reveals his identity to his brothers and then sends them back to Canaan to urge Yaakov to resettle in Egypt, where Yosef will care for him and spare him the ravages of the famine that had struck the region. Amidst his command to his brothers to bring Yaakov to Egypt, Yosef utters a somewhat peculiar sentence: "You can see for yourselves, and my brother Binyamin can see for himself, that it is indeed I who am speaking to you" (45:12). What exactly does Yosef mean, and how does this relate to the context at hand?

Rashi explains that Yosef senses his brothers' skepticism as to his identity and seeks to convince them. He shows them his berit mila and emphasizes the fact that he speaks lashon ha-kodesh (Hebrew). He adds that just as he harbors no ill will towards Binyamin, who did not participate in the sale, so has he no hard feelings towards them, either. Rashi's explanation does not, however, explain how this remark fits into context.

The Meshekh Chokhma suggests several different interpretations of the verse, all of which showing how this verse is included in Yosef's plea to his father to come down to Egypt. We present here the third and final explanation proposed by the Meshekh Chokhma. Yaakov may have preferred not to resettle in Egypt and to remain in Canaan, instead. (Indeed, he does not leave Canaan before receiving God's explicit blessing and promise that his offspring will return - 46:3-4; apparently, he was uneasy about this move outside his homeland.) He might have asked Yosef to simply send regular shipments of food and provisions from Egypt to support his father and his family in Canaan. Why must Yaakov move to Egypt? Anticipating this question, Yosef has his brothers impress upon his father "ki fi ha-medaber aleikhem" - literally, "that it is my mouth that speaks to you." Yosef has not become an Egyptian, despite his position of leadership in the country. Over these last, tumultuous twenty-two years, he has remained fully loyal to his heritage, to the teachings of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. It is still "my mouth" - the same Yosef as the one they sold - who speaks to the brothers. Therefore, regular communication with his foreign roots would undoubtedly trigger the suspicion and accusations of the native Egyptians over whom he rules. Given his refusal to abandon his prior cultural identification, establishing close ties with his family in Canaan would not be acceptable to the government and people of Egypt. Yaakov must therefore come to him.

This insightful analysis of the Meshekh Chokhma may shed some light on the famous question posed by the Ramban and others as to why Yosef did not notify Yaakov of his well-being immediately upon his rise to power in Egypt. Granted, his years in slavery and prison did not afford him the opportunity to send a postcard. But once he assumed the position of Egyptian viceroy, why did he not send a note home? We may perhaps suggest, in light of the Meshekh Chokhma's comments, that communicatiwith his father at that point was simply not feasible. Once he insisted on maintaining his Hebrew identity, the Egyptians would not allow him to make contact with his father in Canaan. Such contact would be acceptable only if Yaakov would resettle in Egypt. This presented Yosef with a considerable dilemma: what about his brothers? As far as he knows, they have no regret for what they did to him; they hate him and want nothing to do with him. Without question, under no circumstances would they willfully move to Egypt and come under Yosef's rule. Communication with Yaakov would therefore force Yaakov to decide between Yosef and the rest of the family. He would have to either abandon his ten children and reunite with Yosef in Egypt, or sever all ties with Yosef in order to remain with his brothers. Yosef wanted the family to stay together. Therefore, before summoning his family to Egypt, he ascertains that the brothers regret their mistreatment of him. As the Abarbanel famously explains, Yehuda's insistent appeal on Binyamin's behalf reflected the brothers' complete repentance for their sale of Yosef. Once this has been established, Yosef knew that having overcome their animosity towards him, the brothers would join Yaakov in Egypt, and he could thus invite his family to come under his care and survive the famine.

Volver al capítulo

על כמה מצוות העולם עומד?

מידות האדם הראוי לגור במקדש

מוסריות תביא לדבקות בה'

יָבָל, יוּבָל, תוּבַל

משפט ה' לרשע ולצדיקים

אויב מבפנים או מבחוץ?

The Weeping of Yosef and Binyamin and the Exiles to Come

Binyamin Can See that it is I -What is This, and Why Didn't Yosef Contact his Family?

Pages

📲 Instala nuestra App