Michael el Chayil

R' Bachya starts his analysis of the sin of eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad with the observation that it would seem that we gained something from that meal. The simple reading of the text is that originally man did not comprehend how to discern between good and bad. The snake proposed that in so many words. If that were the case, though, then we would find that חוטא נשכר/the sinner would have benefited. Mankind would have a new level of understanding that he heretofore lacked. That, declares R' Bachya, is patently impossible. We must therefore re-evaluate how to understand what that tree had to offer. R' Bachya says that until this point, man had absolute clarity about his world: everything went into on of two buckets, (1) אמת/True and (2) שקר/False -- mutually exclusive and there was nothing that didn't fit into one of those buckets. Good and bad (note: it was with intention that I didn't use the usual translation of good and evil) ar

R' Biderman tells over a vort from R' Shmuel Berenbaum, z"tzl, regarding the mission of Yosef HaTzadik. When revealing his identity to the brothers in Mitzrayim, Yosef tells them not to be troubled that they sold him into slavery to Mitzrayim, because HaShem had a plan for him to be there to provide food for his entire family. R' Berenbaum asked: If that was his mission, then why did he have to go through the trials with Potiphar's wife, and then prison before Paroh had his dreams? Why couldn't Paroh have his dreams right away and Potiphar could tell him about his amazing slave and just get to his mission? R' Berenbaum explained: one who has never experienced real hardship himself cannot help others. He can't really feel their pain, he can't understand their distress. All that Yosef went through for all those years was not "and he also had to suffer this and that"; it was training for his job of taking care of his family There are obvious

בורר/selecting is such an interesting Shabbos malacha. One the one hand, it would be nearly impossible to go through an entire Shabbos without running into this malacha. On the other hand, an action can go from perfectly permissible to a Torah violation with very tiny differences. בורר/selecting, of course, is never permitted, as discussed in a previous TftD . There is, though, a unique aspect of בורר/selecting; namely, that what people call the activity plays a role in defining whether or not בורר/selecting is an issue. For example, using a (manual, obviously) carpet sweeper on Shabbos is permissible even though (1) you are using a special device for removing said dirt/grime, and (2) you are removing what you don't want. Seems to open and shut case: forbidden. And it would be forbidden if you were selecting the dirt/grime from the carpet. So why is it allowed? Because you are sweeping the carpet, not selecting out the dirt. Yes, "just" semantics (Shmiras Shabbos k'Hi

After I wrote about how Tamar (according to how I understand the events) had to change her plans on the fly ( TftD Lessons from Tamar and Yehuda ), I started noticing how many times the patriarchs and matriarchs were thrust into a situation and needed to improvise a new plan on the spot. These were not small course corrections, but major upheavals -- all the while keeping their sites firmly on their goals.  There are several famous examples: Yitzchak in giving the brachos to his bechor. Yaakov waking up to find he had been given a different wife. Yaakov in getting his wages from Lavan. And others. Aside that I think you'll appreciate. The Alshich was once giving a shiur in T'zfas on the 100 ways that Lavan used in his attempts to trick Yaakov. The Ari z"l was in attendance and was smiling and nodding at each point. Once, though, the Ari z"l burst out laughing. Afterwards, the Ari z"l was asked what was going on. He said that the Alshich was such an important talm

There is an underlying assumption is that the primary purpose of the Torah is to teach us the mitzvos. The meaning of it's root word is, after all, to document teachings/instructions. Rashi bring from Chazal that R' Yitzchak says the Torah begins with the narrative of Creation is to fulfill: כֹּ֣חַ מַֽ֖עֲשָׂיו הִגִּ֣יד לְעַמּ֑וֹ לָתֵ֥ת לָ֜הֶ֗ם נַֽחֲלַ֥ת גּוֹיִֽם The power of His deeds He tells to His nation, to give to them the inheritance of nations. Rashi goes on to explain the second part of the verse; something the UN ought to heed. R' Bachya, however, takes a different approach. R' Bachya says that our entire system of our belief traces all of its roots to one source of all: the belief in the creation - ex nihilo - of reality. How so? The creation includes: creation of everything ex nihilo/בריאה (but still void and without form), the formation of everything/יצירה (giving form and function; also translated as "creation" by Google), and the running of the s

We know the basic events. Two of Yehuda's sons sinned gravely (yes, pun intended) in their marriage to Tamar. Tamar is told to wait for the third son, but Yehuda is clearly pushing her off and has no intention of putting his third son at risk. Tamar decided to take matters into her own hands by masquerading as a prostitute so she can have children from Yehuda. Tamar takes Yehuda's ID and goes back home; keeping Yehuda's ID. It is discovered that Tamar is pregnant; she is accused of adultery and sentenced to death. Tamar sends Yehuda his ID, with the message that her fate is in his hands. Yehuda admits publicly that he is the father. Everyone is happy. This year I accidentally actually looked at the events and started wondering what Tamar's plan was from the beginning. It's hard to believe that she intended to put herself and Yehuda into such a dangerous and public gambit. Moreover, what's the point? Clearly Yehuda does not intend to have his youngest s

I volunteer once a month or so for ChesedChicago , which is the rebranded name for the Chicago Chesed Fund. In a nutshell, what started as a personal chesed fund project launched by R' Shmuel Fuerst some 40 years ago has grown into much, much more than a fund. Baruch HaShem, the Chicago Jewish community supports this kind of growth. This last Sunday I got an unexpected benefit. The volunteers were invited to an appreciation brunch. That was not the benefit. R' Fuerst himself came to thank us and tell us how important volunteers are to the successful operations managed by ChesedChicago. That wasn't the benefit, but it was why I went -- I felt that since R' Fuerst felt this was important enough to take time from his busy schedule, then it should be important enough for me to attend. The benefit was that R' Fuerst stayed to answer any questions we had. No phones, no "just a minute, other line"; just us. Priceless. In a recent TftD about the meaning and purpos