כה תברכו את בני ישראל

“Thus you should bless the bnei Israel”

In Numbers, Chapter 6, verse 23, the Torah Temimah mentions the Gemora Taanit 26b that asks why is the chapter of the Cohanim blessing the Children of Israel written right next to the chapter explaining the laws of Nazir [one who takes vows to be holy unto God]? To teach that just like a Nazir is forbidden from wine, so too a Cohen is forbidden to do the temple service while drunk.

The gemora there expands this teaching to include that a Cohen who will performs the congregational blessing during (synagogue) prayers must also not be drunk. Further the gemora in the same section asks whether a Cohen with a defect (a ‘baal mum’) can also perform the blessings (duchan). The gemora concludes that a Nazir who is a baal mum is accepted, so therefore a Cohen who is a baal mum must also be allowed to perform the blessings during the synagogue service. Tosafot in the same section also agrees.

The Torah Temimah then goes on to say that he is astounded both at the gemora and at Tosafot for even having a question as to whether a Cohen baal mum could duchan or not. Behold, he says, there is a Sifri in Parshas Shoftim that deduces from a verse in Devarim 21,5 “and the Cohanim, the sons of Levi” came to do the service that the extra phrase “sons of Levi” (of course they were the sons of Levi!) teaches that even Cohanim who are baal mum can perform the blessing. If the Sifri concludes that they can perform the blessing, why is the gemora even discussing it??!! [The Sifri was written during the period of the Taanaim which pre-dates the Gemora.]

And furthermore, the Torah Temimah continues, I am astounded that a Gemora Megila 24b and a Mishna there conclude that a Cohen baal mum cannot perform the blessing because the people will stare at his hands (because there are curious about his defects). Later commentaries then conclude that in our day, a Cohen with a blemish should not do the priestly blessing during the synagogue service. The Torah Temimah says that he cannot understand why rabbis are deducing laws to forbid something that is already allowed.

There is a well known midrash that Moshe’s shining face was caused by a little ink that was left over after he finished writing the Torah. There was a little ink that was left over on his hands and when Moshe wiped his brow, the ink went on his face. It was from that ink that Moshe’s face shown. 

This connects with another rabbinic teaching regarding the first word of Sefer VaYikra, Moshe wanted to write it: ויקר instead of ויקרא He wanted to leave out the “a” at the end of the word. This would have changed the meaning from “God called to him” to “God accidentally met him”. Moshe’s desire to leave out the “a” was an indication of his humility. God insisted on having the “a”, but Moshe insisted on not having the “a”. They compromised and made it a small “a”. It is from the small bit of saved ink that Moshe’s face shown. 

The full text of this midrash about why Moshe’s face shown, cites a different opinion. Rabbi Berachiah states that the tablets that the 10 commandments were on were 6 tfakim long. When God handed them to Moshe, God was holding the 2 tfakim closest to Him. Moshe held on to the two tfakim closest to him. Rabbi Berachiah says that Moshe’s shining face came from the two tfakim in the middle that neither he nor God were holding on to. Rabbi Yehuda bar Nachmani then says that the shining face was caused by the ink left over from the small “a” (aleph). 

Rabbi Yosef Yehuda Leib Bloch, one of the founders of Telshe yeshiva, explains this midrash as follows:

Everyone agrees that the light on Moshe’s face came from the amount of inner wisdom that was in Moshe’s soul and which emanated from his whole being, particularly from his face. 

Rabbi Berachiah thinks that this inner wisdom and light came from those aspects of the Torah that are not fully given to man. These are the aspects of Torah that are ephemeral. They can only be intuited and felt rather than fully grasped with our intellect through words and speech. It is these aspects of wisdom that will cause one’s face to shine. 

Rabbi Yehuda bar Nachmani disagreed. He felt that the wisdom that caused Moshe’s face to shine came from the revealed part of Torah. Through Moshe’s dedication and hard work in acquiring and teaching the revealed Torah, Moshe obtained the kind of inner wisdom that made his face shine. 

The message that I get from all of this is: “Different strokes for different folks”. Each of us has different strengths and natural tendencies. We all hold onto different slices of the Torah pie. But if we hold on to our slice strongly, cherish it and work hard on mastering that aspect of Torah for which we have an affinity, we too can merit to have our face shine. 

Exodus – 6:13 – And God said to Moshe and to Aaron to command the Jews and Pharo, the King of Egypt, to let the Jews out of the land of Egypt.

Jerusalem Talmud: Rosh HaShanah – Chapter 3, Halacha 5 – “To command the Jews” – Rav Shmuel the son of Rav Yitzchak taught as follows: “what did God command the Jews about in this verse? God commanded the Jews at that time regarding the law of freeing all the slaves every seven years.” This teaching is in accordance with the teaching of Rabbi Chila who said that the Jews were only punished due to [their lack of adherence to] the commandment of freeing the slaves every seven years.  This is derived from the biblical scripture in Jeremiah 34:14 “At the end of every seven years you shall send free your Hebrew brother”.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #11 and Note 12:

Note 11: This teaching Rav Shmuel’s can be explained by looking at verse 11 just prior to our verse. In verse 11 it says “Go, speak to Pharo, the king of Egypt, to send the children of Israel from his land”. Then afterwards in our verse it says to command the Jews and it doesn’t explain what to command them. The phrase at the end of our verse 13 “to let the Jews go” only applies to Pharo and not to the Jews. Therefore, Rav Shmuel teaches that God was also commanding the Jews regarding the law of sending slaves free. That is to say, the same thing that God was commanding Pharo, he was also commanding the Jews.

Note 12: It appears that the teaching of our Gemora relies on the prior verse in Jeremiah, verse 34:13. “I made a covenant with your forefathers on the day that I brought them out of Egypt, from the house of bondage saying, ‘at the end of seven years you shall send free your Hebrew brother who sold himself to you’. We don’t find anywhere where God makes such a commandment on the day that he is freeing the Jews from Egypt. In our verse, however, we find a commandment without an explanation of what the commandment is. Therefore, we explain one closed verse with another closed verse and teach that it is our verse that hints at where God taught the Jews about the importance of freeing slaves.

Translator’s Note: I think this teaching from the Gemora is wonderful. To me, it stresses the importance of always keeping in mind, no matter what our own circumstances are, the moral imperatives that we have to obey. The Torah Temimah explicitly says “the same thing that God was commanding Pharo, he was also commanding the Jews”.

Genesis – 49:33 – And he said to his brothers, “My money has been returned, and indeed, here it is in my sack! ” Their hearts sank, and trembling, they turned to one another, saying, “What is this that God has done to us?”

Gemora: Taanit 9(a): “What is this that God has done to us?” On one occasion Rabbi Yochanan encountered the son of Reish Lakish as he was sitting and reciting the verse (Proverbs 19:3) “The foolish wrong-doing (אולת) of a man perverts his way, but his heart frets against HaShem” (ie. A person blames God for the misfortune brought about by his own wrong-doing.) Rabbi Yochanan asked: “is there anything written in the Writings that is not alluded to in the Pentateuch?” The boy said to Rabbi Yochanan: Is this verse not alluded to in the Pentateuch? See it is written: (Genesis 49:33) they turned to one another, saying “What is this that God has done to us?” 

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #6:

Look in the Chidushei Aggadot where he explains that foolish wrong-doing (אולת) referred to in the verse is the sale of Joseph; that they are now being punished for. The Chidushei Aggadot’s understanding of the Gemora doesn’t make sense because in the Pentateuch itself it says (in verse 49:21) “but surely we have sinned against our brothers”. Thus we see that the brothers are blaming themselves for their misfortune. This is also shown by their statement to Joseph (44:16) “God has discovered the sin of your servants.” See the Chidushei Aggadot there where he tries to reconcile these issues, but the explanations seem forced, as any reader can see.

See also that even Rashi explains the above Gemora as indicating that the phrase foolish wrong-doing (אולת) mentioned there refers to the selling of Joseph. That is actually the explanation of all the commentaries. But such an explanation doesn’t make sense for the reasons I’ve given above showing that the brothers realized their sin in the selling of Joseph. Also the use of the word “foolish wrong-doing (אולת)” does not apply well to the sin of the selling of Joseph. Rather the phrase, “the sin of man” seems more appropriate.

Therefore, in my opinion, it seems more appropriate and true to follow the words of the Medrash Lekach Tov where it explains that when the brothers cry “What has God done to us?” they were actually referring to the fact that they should have searched their saddle bags even before they left Egypt. They should have checked to see if they had been given wheat or barley (a lower type of grain). That is to say, if they had checked their saddlebags before leaving Egypt, they would have discovered the silver coins that were hidden there and been saved from the troubles that later developed.

This understanding also clarifies another textual difficulty. In verse 34 it states that they discovered the silver when they looked in their saddlebags upon arriving at their father, Jacob’s, house. Yet, when they recount the story after returning to Egypt they say that the discovery occurred when they stopped at an inn on the way out of Egypt. (43:21) No where is this change explained. However, it all makes extreme sense based on our explanation above. The brothers did not say that they had waited until arriving at their father’s home because they were embarrassed to say that they had not checked their saddlebags earlier as they should have done. Nor could they say that they had discovered the silver while they were still in Egypt, because in that case there would be not explanation as to why they had not returned the silver. That is why they explained that they had discovered the silver in an inn on the way to their father’s house.

Translator’s Note: I am hoping that someone can explain this note to me. Clearly the Torah Temimah is not in favor of ascribing the verse in Proverbs to the brothers blaming God for their misfortunes that came to them as being due to their sale of Joseph. They clearly do blame themselves for the sale of Joseph and regret having sold him and hold themselves liable for any misfortune that befalls them because of it. Perhaps the Torah Temimah is saying that the brothers did not feel the same way regarding their oversight in not having checked their saddlebags prior to leaving Egypt. I don’t understand why they should have checked their saddlebags prior to leaving Egypt.  

Genesis – 27:4 – [Yitzchak says to Esav] Make for me tasty dishes that I love, then bring them to me and I will eat them so that my soul will bless you before I die.

Responsum of the Maharam: “From here we know that one who blesses others must be in a state of joy.”

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #3:

Before a person eats, his mood is not completely set within him and his heart is not good within him.  See what is written in Baba Basra 12b. Also, this same teaching is mentioned in the Beis Yosef in his commentary on Orach Chaim, who quotes the teaching in the name of the Rishonim. He also quotes the verse in Kings 1 8:66 “they went to their tents in joy and with happy hearts; and they blessed the king.” In the verse, it mentions blessing right next to joy and being with a happy heart.

This is the reason why the halacha is that a Cohen who is in mourning may not bless the congregation during prayers (duchan). Neither may a Cohen who is not married. This is due to the fact mentioned in Gemora Yevamos 62b that a man who is not married lives without joy. However, our custom is that a Cohen who is not married, does in fact bless the congregation during prayers. This halacha is mentioned in Orach Chaim 128.

See also the Responsum of the Beis Ephraim Section 6 where he quotes the Gemora Yerushalmi to teach a new and amazing halacha. The Beis Ephraim teaches that a Cohen whose wife is a niddah (and therefore forbidden for sexual relations due to her menstrual cycle) may not bless the congregation. This is an amazing law that is stated without a reason. The commentator Pri Chadash states that this is not the halacha because we do not publicize when a woman is or is not a niddah. Rabbi Tzvi Chajes agrees with the Pri Chadash and says that this teaching is not found in the Gemora Yerushalmi and there is no reason for this teaching.

There is, though, some justification for this halacha. Since a Cohen who gives the blessing must be in a state of joy, In fact, there is a similar teaching in Gemora Niddah 31b where it teaches the reason why a ritual circumcision is performed on the eighth day. Rashi there explains that all the other guests will be happy and joyous but if performed before the eighth day, the mother and father would not be joyous at the ceremonial feast (because she would be in a state of niddah.)

However, the above Gemora Yerushalmi also mentions that a Cohen should not duchan if his mother or sister is a niddah. That is certainly astounding. I did see a commentary by the Raavid though which explains this. The Raavid states that the prohibition of the Cohen to duchan if his mother or sister is a niddah was because of concerns of ritual impurity (tumah). This certainly only applies in the times when the temple in Jerusalem was still standing. This law would not apply in our times.

Translator’s Note: This note is am emphatic endorsement of marriage by the Torah Temimah.

Bereishit 25:21 – And Isaac prayed to the Lord opposite his wife because she was barren, and the Lord accepted his prayer, and Rebecca his wife conceived.

According to Gemora Yevamos 64a it should have said that the Lord accepted “their” prayers. Why does it say that the Lord accepted “his” prayer? To teach that the prayer of a “righteous person” who is the child of a “righteous person” is more listened to than the prayer of a “righteous person” who is the child of an “evil person”.

This teaching has always struck me as being counter intuitive. Shouldn’t the prayer of a righteous person who is the child of an evil person be listened to at least as much as that of a ‘tzaddik ben tzaddik’, a righteous person who is the child of a righteous person?

As Rabbi Aryeh Klapper pointed out in his emailed Dvar Torah last week, “Faith in Torah compels the belief that there is a morally acceptable way of reading the Torah’s narratives. It does not guarantee that we will find that reading, and if we look for shortcuts, we’ll end up cutting the Torah to fit our measure. But…it is necessary to search, and fair to treat moral comfort as a ‘plus factor’ when choosing among plausible interpretations. “

In that sense, the above Gemora is counter to our “modern” ears. Or maybe it is just counter to a sensitive person’s sensibilities? This is why I’m thrilled to see that the Torah Temimah points out that this Gemora does not reflect the full range of Torah teachings on this issue.  

First, the Torah Temimah points out that the Taz disagrees with this teaching. The Taz notes that “God desires the heart”. So, when searching for a prayer leader, one should search for the best person, no matter what their family background. (See Taz on Orach Hayim Section 53.)

Additionally, the Torah Temimah notes that a proof to the Taz’s point of view can be brought from the Gemora Taanit 25b which relates a story about Rabbi Eliezer who led the congregation in prayer, but nevertheless rain did not fall. Rabbi Akiva then led the prayers and subsequently it rained. The [other] rabbis were murmuring concerning the slight that had occurred to the honor of Rabbi Eliezer since his prayers were not answered. Suddenly a voice rang out from heaven and stated: “It was not because this person (Rabbi Akiva) is greater than this person (Rabbi Eliezer) but rather it is due to the fact that Rabbi Akiva has conquered his natural tendencies while Rabbi Eliezer has not needed to conquer his natural tendencies.” Behold, it is well known that Rabbi Akiva is the son of converts. Thus, in relation to him, Rabbi Eliezer is a “righteous person, the son of righteous people”. Nevertheless, it was Rabbi Akiva’s prayer that was answered because of the personal struggles and characteristics that he had which Rabbi Eliezer did not have.   

The moral of the story for me is that the “Torah’s ways are ways of pleasantness”. When I feel that is not the case, it means that I need to study the issue more deeply.

The Torah Temimah, Rabbi Baruch Halevi Epstein (1860-1941), has a wonderful comment on a not-so-uplifting verse in our parsha. The verse (Bamidbar 1:15) says: “When the Tabernacle is set to travel, the Levites shall dismantle it; and when the Tabernacle camps, the Levites shall erect it; any outsider (non-Levite) who approaches it shall be put to death.”

TT points out that this is the verse that is quoted in the famous Gemara (Shabbos 31a) where a non-Jew asks Hillel to be converted on the condition that he be made High Priest. Hillel’s initial response is to “first go learn the whole Torah”. As the convert is studying, he comes to our verse regarding a “stranger” being put to death for doing some of the temple service. The convert asks who this verse refers to. Hillel responds, “even to King David.” A cool midrash, but what does it mean?

TT points out that Hillel has several reasons for mentioning King David. The first reason is somewhat technical. The word “stranger” is sometimes used to exclude non-priests and non-kings. This occurs in Exodus 30:33 (“Any person who compounds anything like it [oil] or puts any of it on a stranger shall be cut off from his people.”) In that verse, the Gemara says that the word “stranger” does NOT include a king; after all, a king is anointed with oil from the temple. However, in our verse, the Gemara holds the opposite – that the word stranger even includes a king.

The second reason for mentioning King David, according to the Torah Temimah is that King David is descended from converts. Hillel was obliquely telling the convert that he could become as great as King David, but like King David he would still be a “stranger” vis-à-vis the temple service.

I’ve been thinking that perhaps this whole episode in the Gemara and the fluid meaning of the word “stranger” is meant to teach us something about stranger-ness. We all know the command for us to remember that we were strangers in Egypt. On the other hand, I think that we all feel at home in our “four cubits” of Judaism; no matter how we define that for ourselves. Maybe the lesson from King David is that stranger-ness is ephemeral. Maybe Hillel was telling the convert that he’ll never fully attain the state of “I’ve made it.” In some ways, we’re all “in”, but we should always remember that in some ways, we’re simultaneously “out”. It’s a good way to remind us to always keep our empathy active for strangers, inside our fold and outside of it.