Is One Allowed To Learn In Kollel As A Career?

Over on Rationalist Judaism, Rabbi Slifkin seems to point out that it is actually frowned upon by most Rishonim (Medieval Rabbis) to learn in Kollel as a career (See Here). The reason for this discussion is because of all the poverty found in the Charaidi world because they believe they can only sit and learn all day. They believe that the only proper path for an orthodox Jew is to learn in Kollel, or be a teacher in Yeshiva. 

I would like to point out that there actually is something in the Midrash Tanchuma that seems to allow, or encourage, learning in Kollel (Quoted in Rashi on Breishis 49:13). The Midrash says (Parshas Vayechi:11),

זבולן לחוף ימים
קדם זבולן ליששכר.

Zevulun [will dwell] on the sea coast: 

Zevulun [is mentioned] before Yissachar (even though Yissachar is older)

ולמה?
שזבולן עוסק בפרקמטיא ויששכר עוסק בתורה, עשו שותפות ביניהם, שיהא פרקמטיא של זבולן ליששכר, שכן משה ברכן, שמח זבולן בצאתך ויששכר באהליך (דברים לג).
שמח זבולן בצאתך לפרקמטיא, משום דיששכר באהליך עוסק בתורה.

Why?

[Because,] Zevulun dealt with commerce and Yissachar dealt with Torah. They made a partnership between themselves, that the commerce of Zevulun [would support] Yissachar. [This can be seen in] the blessing of Moshe (Devarim 33:18), "Rejoice, O Zevulun, in your going forth, and Yissachar, in your tents." [Meaning,] rejoice, O Zevulun in your going out to [deal with] commerce because Yissachar is in your tents dealing with Torah.  

למה?
עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה (משלי י), לפיכך הקדים זבולן ליששכר, שאלמלא זבולן, לא עסק יששכר בתורה, ומתוך שנתייחד יששכר בתורה ולא עסק בפרקמטיא, ולא היה לו עמל בדבר אחר, לפיכך כתוב בו: מבני יששכר יודעי בינה לעתים (ד"ה א יב).

Why [should Zevulun be happy that Yissachar is dealing with Torah]?

"It is a tree of life for those who grasp it." (Mishlei 3:18, the hebrew reference is incorrect) Therefore, Zevulun is [mentioned] before Yissachar, because if it was not for Zevulun, Yissachar would not be able to deal with Torah. Since Yissachar was able to focus on Torah and not deal with commerce, and he did not have to bother with anything else, therefore it writes by him (Chronicles 1 12:32), "And of the sons of Yissachar, those who had an understanding of the times[, to know what Israel should do; their chiefs were two hundred, and all their brethren obeyed their word.]" 

This Medrash seems to be very clear that Yissachar was learning all day because Zevulun was supporting him. In fact, Rashi (ibid) is even clearer,

Zebulun will dwell on the coast of the seas: Heb. חוֹף. His land will be on the seacoast. חוֹף is as the Targum renders: סְפַר, marche in Old French, borderland. He will constantly frequent the harbor of the ships, in the place of the port, where the ships bring merchandise, for Zebulun would engage in commerce and provide food for the tribe of Issachar, and they (the tribe of Issachar) would engage in [the study of] Torah. That is [the meaning of] what Moses said,“Rejoice, O Zebulun, in your going forth, and Issachar, in your tents” (Deut. 33:18) Zebulun would go forth [to engage] in commerce, and Issachar would engage in [the study of] Torah in tents. — [From Tanchuma Vayechi 11]

לחוף ימים: על חוף ימים תהיה ארצו. חוף כתרגומו ספר, מרק"א בלע"ז [גבול], והוא יהיה מצוי תדיר על חוף אניות, במקום הנמל, שאניות מביאות שם פרקמטיא, שהיה זבולן עוסק בפרקמטיא, וממציא מזון לשבט יששכר והם עוסקים בתורה, הוא שאמר משה (דברים לג יח) שמח זבולן בצאתך ויששכר באהליך, זבולן יוצא בפרקמטיא ויששכר עוסק בתורה באהלים:

Rashi says, explicitly, that Zevulun was providing the sustenance (translated as food by Chabad.org) of Yissachar in order that Yissachar could learn Torah. That is the very definition of Kollel.

Also, the Medrash points out that because their entire tribe was devoted to Torah study, they were able to produce 200 wise men that were able to guide the nation. It took an entire tribe studying Torah in order to produce 200 wise men! This shows that this Zevulun-Yissachar bond is the best way to create Torah leaders that can guide the community.

Additionally, there is a Gemara in Sotah (21a) that seems to imply this type of Yissachar-Zevulun relationship is acceptable. The Gemara there states,

What means He would utterly be contemned(Shir HaShirim 8:7)?— ‘Ulla said: Not like Simeon the brother of Azariah nor like R. Johanan of the Prince's house but like Hillel and Shebna. When R. Dimi came he related that Hillel and Shebna were brothers; Hillel engaged in [study of] Torah and Shebna was occupied in business. Eventually [Shebna] said to him, ‘Come, let us become partners and divide [the profits]’. A Bath Kol issued forth and proclaimed (Shir HaShirim 8:7). If a man would give all the substance of his house etc.

This seems like an enigmatic piece of Gemara, but it is clearly talking about partnerships between one person learning Torah and another person supporting the learner. In fact, Rashi comes to give a little insight on why Azariah and R. Johanan are mention. He states (ibid),

He (Referring to Shimon the brother of Azariah) is a Tanna in the first Mishna in Tractate Zevachim. He learned Torah on account of his brother (Azariah) who dealt with commerce in order that they should split the merit of Shimon's learning, therefore he is called the brother of Azariah. So too Rabbi Yochanan learned on account of the Prince (Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi), for [the Prince] supported [Rabbi Yochanan.]  

According to Rashi, this Gemara is pointing out that if two people go into a partnership where the other person is knowingly supporting them, then it is fine. If one person is committed to learning and the other person is committed to supporting them, this is considered appropriate. However, in the case of Hillel this was inappropriate, why?

The Eitz Yosef on the Ein Yaakov on this Gemara (Ein Yaakov Sotah 21a) tells us an important difference between Rav Shimon the brother of Azariah, Rabbi Yochanan and Hillel. By Rav Shimon and Rabbi Yochanan, the scholars were only able to learn full time because of their prior arrangements. Neither one would have learned full time had they not had these prior arrangements that they would be supported (note: not throught charity). However, Hillel was already learning full time, he was just in adverse poverty (note again: did not take charity). (My interjection) This can be seen from the Gemara in Yoma (35b),

Hillel the Elder that every day he used to work and earn one tropaik, half of which he would give to the guard at the House of Learning, the other half being spent for his food and for that of his family. One day he found nothing to earn and the guard at the House of Learning would not permit him to enter. He climbed up and sat upon the window, to hear the words of the living God from the mouth of Shemayah and Abtalion — They say, that day was the eve of Sabbath in the winter solstice and snow fell down upon him from heaven. When the dawn rose, Shemayah said to Abtalion: Brother Abtalion, on every day this house is light and to-day it is dark, is it perhaps a cloudy day. They looked up and saw the figure of a man in the window. They went up and found him covered by three cubits of snow. They removed him, bathed andanointed him and placed him opposite the fire and they said: This man deserves that the Sabbath be profaned on his behalf.

(Back to the Eitz Yosef) Therefore, when a rich person came to Hillel and offered to support him full time in order that they split the profits (money and reward in the next world), this was inappropriate.  

These sources seem like irrefutable evidence that Kollel (or more accurately, learning while someone else is supporting) is something that has been around since before the first Temple and even after the second temple. Also, this is how the leaders of the Jewish people were trained. 

However, there are some very important differences between the Zevulun-Yissachar bond, these cases reported in the Gemara, and the current Kollel system. First off, the Medrash's point is to show us that Zevulun is the greater partner because he supports Yissacher, that is why he is mentioned first in the Torah. Second, Yissachar and these Rabbis are not being supported by charity, he has made a partnership with Zevulun and the Rabbis made partnerships with their supporters. This is important because, as the Rambam says in the Laws of Torah Study (3:10),

Anyone who comes to the conclusion that he should involve himself in Torah study without doing work and derive his livelihood from charity, desecrates [God's] name, dishonors the Torah, extinguishes the light of faith, brings evil upon himself, and forfeits the life of the world to come, for it is forbidden to derive benefit from the words of Torah in this world.

Our Sages declared: "Whoever benefits from the words of Torah forfeits his life in the world." Also, they commanded and declared: "Do not make them a crown to magnify oneself, nor an axe to chop with." Also, they commanded and declared: "Love work and despise Rabbinic positions." All Torah that is not accompanied by work will eventually be negated and lead to sin. Ultimately, such a person will steal from others.

The current Kollel system seems to violate the words of the Rambam. Most of the Kollels seem to accept government welfare, which is charity and many other forms of charity (having someone going around collecting for a Kollel, especially when they say Tzedaka). (We can define government welfare as charity because only those who earn less than what the government considers liveable, or people who lie to the government and say they earn less, get it.)

Nevertheless, because of this Zevulun-Yissachar bond and the cases in the Gemara we can see that some Kollels are, indeed, permissible. First off, community Kollels found in the United States are perfectly acceptable for two reasons; 1) Most of the people learning in the Kollel often act as teachers, 2) If they are not teaching anything they are still not accepting charity because the town pays for the Kollel to be there the same way Zevulun supported Yissacher and the people supported the Rabbis. Secondly, a person who has a family member that is willing to support them while they are learning seems to fit in the Zevulun-Yissachar category as well.

The conclusion that I have reached is simple. Kollels that demand other people pay for them after the fact, take government money, or encourage their participants to take welfare seem foolish. That has no basis in the history of the Jewish people. Some Rishonim have allowed people to learn and be supported by charity, but I, personally, do not find their arguments grounded in anything but the "they will starve if you don't" logic. The proper way for a Kollel is, as stated, either be like one of the community Kollels that provide fantastic resources, or have someone make a Zevulun-Yissachar relationship, as seen in the Medrash and Gemara, and avoid charity all together. In these ways, it seems to me, Kollel would be allowed as a career.

Why Does a Metzora (Someone Afflicted With Tzaraas) Bring a Guilt Offering

(Corrected and clarified)
This week's Parsha discusses a person who is afflicted with tzaraas (tzaraat for you Israeli's/Sephardim/or random people who say t instead of s for a tav without a dot). We are told that the Metzora needs to bring three sacrifices, one an Guilt-offering (Asham), a sin offering and an Olah (Vayikra 14:12-13):

י  וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי, יִקַּח שְׁנֵי-כְבָשִׂים תְּמִימִם, וְכַבְשָׂה אַחַת בַּת-שְׁנָתָהּ, תְּמִימָה; וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרֹנִים, סֹלֶת מִנְחָה בְּלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן, וְלֹג אֶחָד, שָׁמֶן. 10 And on the eighth day he shall take two he-lambs without blemish, and one ewe-lamb of the first year without blemish, and three tenth parts of an ephah of fine flour for a meal-offering, mingled with oil, and one log of oil.

יב  וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן אֶת-הַכֶּבֶשׂ הָאֶחָד, וְהִקְרִיב אֹתוֹ לְאָשָׁם--וְאֶת-לֹג הַשָּׁמֶן; וְהֵנִיף אֹתָם תְּנוּפָה, לִפְנֵי יְהוָה. 12 And the priest shall take one of the he-lambs, and offer him for a guilt-offering, and the log of oil, and wave them for a wave-offering before the LORD.

יט  וְעָשָׂה הַכֹּהֵן, אֶת-הַחַטָּאת, וְכִפֶּר, עַל-הַמִּטַּהֵר מִטֻּמְאָתוֹ; וְאַחַר, יִשְׁחַט אֶת-הָעֹלָה. 19 And the priest shall offer the sin-offering, and make atonement for him that is to be cleansed because of his uncleanness; and afterward he shall kill the burnt-offering.

The reason for bringing a Guilt-offering with a sin-offering and an Olah seems to be similar to the reason why a woman who just gave birth has to bring a Sin-offering with an Olah. There are a few differences based on the specifics of the case, for example, the woman has to bring the Olah first and the Metzora has to bring a Guilt offering on top of the other two, but I think the reason a Sin/Guilt offering has to be brought AT ALL is similar. As seen in this previous post (http://markset565.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-mother-who-just-gave-birth-has-to.html), a woman needs to bring a Sin-offering because of some sin she committed. The same is true for the guilt and sin offering of the Metzorah, he or she committed some sin, therefore a Guilt-offering must be brought. So, as usual, we must ask the question of "What was his/her sin?"

Most people only relate the affliction of Tzaraas with Lashon hora (slander). This is a popular misconception made so popular because of all the commentaries on the incident in Bamidbar (12) where Miriam slanders Moshe and is afflicted with Taraas. Yes, slander seems to be one way that a person can acquire Tzaraas, but Tzaraas is so much more than just a punishment for slander. The Midrash Tanchuma brings down different reasons for why a person is afflicted by Tzaraas (Metzorah 4):

זאת תהיה תורת המצורע. ילמדנו רבינו, על כמה דברים נגעים באים על האדם. כך שנו רבותינו, על אחת עשרה דברים הנגעים באים על האדם. על עבודה זרה, ועל חלול השם, ועל גלוי עריות, ועל הגנבות, ועל לשון הרע, ועל המעיד עדות שקר, ועל הדיין המקלקל את הדין, ועל שבועת שוא, ועל הנכנס בתחום שאינו שלו, ועל החושב מחשבות של שקר, ועל המשלח מדנים בין אחים. ויש אומרים, אף על עין רעה
This is the Law of the Metzora: Our Rabbis teach us , How many things bring about the affliction of Tzaraas on a man? Our Rabbis have taught that there are 11 things a person can do that brings about Tzaraas on them. Idol worship, Desecration of G-D, Illicit relations, Stealing (hidden), Slander, False testimony, A judge that distorts judgement, A false oath, Entering into an area that is not yours, thinking thoughts of falsehood, causing a rift between brothers and, there are those that say, having an evil eye. 

All of these perverse actions have one thing in common, they all constitute a betrayal of someone else by either tricking them into believing something or actually betraying them. The person who worships idols is betraying G-D by turning his or her back on G-D. The person who steals or testifies falsely is betraying the one he or she is causing harm to. The best way to understand why a person gets Tzaraas is to look at examples of it in the Torah, Neviim and Kesuvim.

The first case of Tzaraas in the Torah was when Moshe was speaking to G-D by the burning bush (Shemos (4:6):

ו  וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה לוֹ עוֹד, הָבֵא-נָא יָדְךָ בְּחֵיקֶךָ, וַיָּבֵא יָדוֹ, בְּחֵיקוֹ; וַיּוֹצִאָהּ, וְהִנֵּה יָדוֹ מְצֹרַעַת כַּשָּׁלֶג.

6 And the LORD said furthermore unto him: 'Put now thy hand into thy bosom.' And he put his hand into his bosom; and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous, as white as snow.

This was a form of punishment, apparently, because just a few verses earlier Moshe had said: (ibid:1):

א  וַיַּעַן מֹשֶׁה, וַיֹּאמֶר, וְהֵן לֹא-יַאֲמִינוּ לִי, וְלֹא יִשְׁמְעוּ בְּקֹלִי:  כִּי יֹאמְרוּ, לֹא-נִרְאָה אֵלֶיךָ יְהוָה.

1 And Moses answered and said: 'But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice; for they will say: The LORD hath not appeared unto thee.'

This was inappropriate for Moshe to say. He slandered the Jewish people. How could he claim that they will not listen to him when G-D was sending Moshe? Therefore, he was punished with Tzaraas.

The next case is when Miriam slanders Moshe (Bamidbar 12:10):

י  וְהֶעָנָן, סָר מֵעַל הָאֹהֶל, וְהִנֵּה מִרְיָם, מְצֹרַעַת כַּשָּׁלֶג; וַיִּפֶן אַהֲרֹן אֶל-מִרְיָם, וְהִנֵּה מְצֹרָעַת.

10 And when the cloud was removed from over the Tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow; and Aaron looked upon Miriam; and, behold, she was leprous.

She was punished with Tzaraas because she had spoken slanderously against her brother. Therefore, she was punished, just like Moshe was, with Tzaraas.

The next case is found in Melachim 2 (5:1) by Naaman the Aramean:

א  וְנַעֲמָן שַׂר-צְבָא מֶלֶךְ-אֲרָם הָיָה אִישׁ גָּדוֹל לִפְנֵי אֲדֹנָיו, וּנְשֻׂא פָנִים--כִּי-בוֹ נָתַן-יְהוָה תְּשׁוּעָה, לַאֲרָם; וְהָאִישׁ, הָיָה גִּבּוֹר חַיִל--מְצֹרָע.

1 Now Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Aram, was a great man with his master, and held in esteem, because by him the LORD had given victory unto Aram; he was also a mighty man of valour, but he was a leper.

The question here is why does this man deserve to be a Metzora? Weren't only Jews punished with Tzaraas because of its close connection to G-D? (meaning G-D places this disease on the Metzora) The truth is that this Naaman was a righteous gentile, as is seen in this chapter. He believed in G-D and his power (ibid:11):

יא  וַיִּקְצֹף נַעֲמָן, וַיֵּלַךְ; וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה אָמַרְתִּי אֵלַי יֵצֵא יָצוֹא, וְעָמַד וְקָרָא בְּשֵׁם-יְהוָה אֱלֹהָיו, וְהֵנִיף יָדוֹ אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם, וְאָסַף הַמְּצֹרָע.

11 But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said: 'Behold, I thought: He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place, and recover the leper.

He clearly believed in G-D, but it was this incident that made him realize that the only G-D is the G-D of Israel (ibid:15):

טו  וַיָּשָׁב אֶל-אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים הוּא וְכָל-מַחֲנֵהוּ, וַיָּבֹא וַיַּעֲמֹד לְפָנָיו, וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה-נָא יָדַעְתִּי כִּי אֵין אֱלֹהִים בְּכָל-הָאָרֶץ, כִּי אִם-בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל; וְעַתָּה קַח-נָא בְרָכָה, מֵאֵת עַבְדֶּךָ.

15 And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him; and he said: 'Behold now, I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel; now therefore, I pray thee, take a present of thy servant.'

So, what was Naaman being punished for originally? It seems like he was punished for entering into an area where he didn't belong (ibid:2):

ב  וַאֲרָם יָצְאוּ גְדוּדִים, וַיִּשְׁבּוּ מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל נַעֲרָה קְטַנָּה; וַתְּהִי, לִפְנֵי אֵשֶׁת נַעֲמָן.

2 And the Arameans had gone out in bands, and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a little maid; and she waited on Naaman's wife.

G-D had granted Naaman power over Israel, but he had no right to abduct a young girl from Israel. This is, apparently, why he was a Metzora.

The next case is found in the same chapter where Elisha's servant, Gehazi, is afflicted with Tzaraas (ibid:27)

כז  וְצָרַעַת נַעֲמָן תִּדְבַּק-בְּךָ, וּבְזַרְעֲךָ לְעוֹלָם; וַיֵּצֵא מִלְּפָנָיו, מְצֹרָע כַּשָּׁלֶג.

27 The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever.' And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow.

The reason for this affliction was because Elisha did not want to accept any gifts from Naaman, but Gehazi wanted money. Gehazi chased after Naaman after he had departed from Elisha. He told Naaman that Elisha changed his mind and wanted to accept some gifts after all, a pure lie! Therefore, Elisha informed Gehazi that he would be a Metzora. All because of his greed that caused him to lie.

The next case we have is Azariah (also known as Uzziah) the son of Amaziah, King of Yehuda becoming a Metzorah (Kings 2 15:5):

ה  וַיְנַגַּע יְהוָה אֶת-הַמֶּלֶךְ, וַיְהִי מְצֹרָע עַד-יוֹם מֹתוֹ, וַיֵּשֶׁב, בְּבֵית הַחָפְשִׁית; וְיוֹתָם בֶּן-הַמֶּלֶךְ עַל-הַבַּיִת, שֹׁפֵט אֶת-עַם הָאָרֶץ.

5 And the LORD smote the king, so that he was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a house set apart. And Jotham the king's son was over the household, judging the people of the land.

(He is referred to Azariah in Kings because that was his actual name. However, he is referred to Uzziah in Chronicles because the Kohein (Priest) that kicks him out of the temple when he becomes a metzora is named  Azariah.)
What did he do to deserve the affliction of Tzaraas? This is told to us in Divrei Hayamim (Chronicles 2 26:16,18,19):

טז  וּכְחֶזְקָתוֹ, גָּבַהּ לִבּוֹ עַד-לְהַשְׁחִית, וַיִּמְעַל, בַּיהוָה אֱלֹהָיו; וַיָּבֹא אֶל-הֵיכַל יְהוָה, לְהַקְטִיר עַל-מִזְבַּח הַקְּטֹרֶת.

16 But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up so that he did corruptly, and he trespassed against the LORD his God; for he went into the temple of the LORD to burn incense upon the altar of incense.

יח  וַיַּעַמְדוּ עַל-עֻזִּיָּהוּ הַמֶּלֶךְ, וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ לֹא-לְךָ עֻזִּיָּהוּ לְהַקְטִיר לַיהוָה--כִּי לַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי-אַהֲרֹן הַמְקֻדָּשִׁים, לְהַקְטִיר:  צֵא מִן-הַמִּקְדָּשׁ כִּי מָעַלְתָּ, וְלֹא-לְךָ לְכָבוֹד מֵיְהוָה אֱלֹהִים.

18 and they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him: 'It pertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the LORD, but to the priests the sons of Aaron that are consecrated it pertaineth to burn incense; go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thy honour from the LORD God.'

יט  וַיִּזְעַף, עֻזִּיָּהוּ, וּבְיָדוֹ מִקְטֶרֶת, לְהַקְטִיר; וּבְזַעְפּוֹ עִם-הַכֹּהֲנִים, וְהַצָּרַעַת זָרְחָה בְמִצְחוֹ לִפְנֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּבֵית יְהוָה, מֵעַל, לְמִזְבַּח הַקְּטֹרֶת.

19 Then Uzziah was wroth; and he had a censer in his hand to burn incense; and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy broke forth in his forehead before the priests in the house of the LORD, beside the altar of incense.

Uzziah (Azariah) was trying to enter into a place he did not belong, which was considered to be a betrayal of G-D and the Kohanim (Priests). It was thier right to offer up incense to G-D and G-D designated it for them.  Also, the Tzaraas did not actually come upon Uzziah until he was considering evil thoughts against the priests. Thus, when G-D saw Uzziah would not back down until he was made a Metzora, that is exactly what happened.

All of these cases from Tanach teach us that it is obvious that it is more than just Loshon Hara (slander) that causes a person to be afflicted with Tzaraas. Any betrayal that a person commits is deserving of this punishment. However, the only people to ever be afflicted with this "disease" were righteous individuals or people that were close to G-D. This can teach us something very valuable about betrayal. Betrayal is bad, but it is even worse when you are considered to be someone who should know better. Yes, we get upset when someone steals from us, but it is even worse if the person who stole from us turns out to be our best friend! That is possibly the worst feeling ever. Not only that, but it effects our psyche and we are forever unable to trust people.

Why was Moshe's slander so bad? Because he was supposed to become the leader and stick up for the Jewish people even when G-D wanted to destroy them. Why was Miriam's slander so bad? Because she was the one who protected her little brother in the reeds and was supposed to defend him from others. Why was Namaans abduction so bad? Because he was supposed to restrain his own men from kidnapping Jews and he kidnapped one himself. (Notice how the verse tells us the Arameans only kidnapped one young woman and it happened to be that she served in Naaman's house.) Why was Gehazi's lie so bad? Because he was the close confidante of Elisha and he ended up using Elisha's righteous name to get money out of Naaman. Finally, why was Uzziah's attempt to take over the Kohanim's job so bad? Because he was the one who was supposed to defend G-D's Torah through being the king not a priest. The verse tells us that Uzziah was completely righteous, but his success led him to be haughty and that was his betrayal.

This is why a Metzora must bring a guilt offering and an Olah. The guilt offering is to invoke forgiveness for a betrayal and the Olah is an attempt to try and reestablish the relationship with the person who was betrayed. At least, that is how I see it based on these cases in Tanach and the Medrashim.

Why A Mother Who Just Gave Birth Has To Bring a Burnt Offering(Olah) and a Sin Offering(Chatas)

In this week's Parsha, Tazriah, we see that the Torah commands a woman to bring two Korbanos (sacrifices) by the verse saying (Vayikra 12:6):

ו  וּבִמְלֹאת יְמֵי טָהֳרָהּ, לְבֵן אוֹ לְבַת, תָּבִיא כֶּבֶשׂ בֶּן-שְׁנָתוֹ לְעֹלָה, וּבֶן-יוֹנָה אוֹ-תֹר לְחַטָּאת--אֶל-פֶּתַח אֹהֶל-מוֹעֵד, אֶל-הַכֹּהֵן.

6 And when the days of her purification are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtle-dove, for a sin-offering, unto the door of the tent of meeting, unto the priest.

There are two important questions here, both which are asked by the famous Abarbanel. He says, in his commentary on the Torah:
השאלה הד׳ למה חייבה תורה ליולדת להביא
חטאת ועולה כי הנה ענין העולה לא
היה לה צורך במקום הזה והחטאת גם כן
לא היתה ראויה כיון שלא ימצאו לה עון אשר
חטא . ולמה בכל המקומות זכר שיקריבו החטאת
קודם העולה כמו שהתבאר במה שקדם וכאן
זכר ראשונה החטאת :
The fourth question is why does the Torah obligate the woman who gives birth to bring a sin offering and a burnt offering? There is no need for her to bring a burnt offering in this place and also the sin offering is not proper for her since we do not find that she sinned. Also, why is the sin offering mentioned before the burnt offering (Olah) whenever the Torah mentions the bringing of these sacrifices (korbanos), but here the Torah mentions the Burnt offering (Olah) first? 

The Abarbanel really hits the nail on the head here. Why on earth should the woman that gives birth have to bring any Korbanos (sacrifices)? It is especially peculiar because she is said to have to bring a burnt offering and a sin offering. Why on earth would she have to bring these two types of sacrifices? What sin did she commit? Also, the reason for bringing an Olah is brought down at the end of the Midrash Tanchuma in Parshat (Parshas) Tzav (13):

 זאת תורת העולה וגו'. כך שנו רבותינו, היתה עולה כולה קדושה, מפני שלא היתה באה על עונות. אשם היתה באה על הגזילות. אבל העולה, לא היתה באה לא על חטאת ולא על גזל, אלא על הרהור הלב היא באה. וכן מי שהיה מהרהר בלבו דבר, היה מביא קרבן העולה לשום דברים העולים על הלב

These are the laws of the Olah: The Rabbis taught that the Olah is entirely holy because it was not brought for sins. The guilt offering was brought for theft; but the Olah was not brought for sin or theft, rather it is brought  due to thoughts of the heart [to sin] (but no actual sin). Therefore,  someone who would think in his/her heart about something would sacrafice an Olah for these thoughts (lit. things) that rose up in his/her heart.

The Abarbanel offers his answers for this question, but I would like to offer my own thoughts. The woman needs to first bring the Olah, even though in every other circumstance the sin offering is brought first. What is unique about this Olah?

The classic answer for what sin this woman committed is that she swore that she would never be with her husband again. Essentially, she was screaming in pain, "You did this to me, YOU (exploitive deleted), I hate you!"

With this in mind I think it is fairly simple to understand why a woman in this situation would have to bring both an Olah and a sin offering. Normally, a person brings the sin offering first because that is the more severe situation. The Gemara in Zevachim goes into the reasons why a sin offering is brought first, but I think it is readily understandable. You bring a sin offering first because actions speak louder than words or thoughts. A normal sin is something that effects a persons relationship with G-D or another person. In order to fix that, a person must first show signs of regret, manifested by the sin offering. Essentially, the sin offering shows, "What I did to you was wrong and I apalogize." Then you can bring an Olah which says I am sorry that I even thought about doing this terrible deed. However, the reason the Olah is brought second is because the action is much worse than the thought.

However, by a husband and wife, the relationship is what creates the bond between them. In essence, the action against the other person in this situation is less severe than the thought. The husband and wife might do things which upset each other, but the connection between them is strong enough that they will still love each other and continue to live together. However, when the woman yells, "I am never going near you again!" She is cutting that relationship status that is so strong. In this situation, it is the Olah that must come first because the thought of destroying that relationship is much more severe. The unspoken bond and the tight intangible connection that husband and wife have is broken once the thoughts of severance pop into her head. Therefore, the sin offering takes the back seat to the Olah in this situation. The Olah is brought to show that the wife really wants the relationship. Once that is settled then the sin offering can be brought and the husband and wife's relationship can be restored.

This allows us to understand why the woman must bring an Olah offering, a sin offering and why they must be brought in this order. The most important part about these korbanos is the reestablishment of the husband and wife's relationship. With this idea, the requirements on the woman can be understood in a meaningful way.

(As a side note, Rashi brings down the Gemara which says the Torah might have written the Olah before the sin offering, but really the sin offering comes first in practice. This answer makes very little sense to me. There is no explanation as to why the Torah would write it this way. If anyone knows the answer please let me know.)

Why Did Avraham Wait Until After Yitzchak (Isaac) Married Rivkah (Rebecca) To Marry Keturah?

IN this week's Parsha we have the story (Breishis 24) of Avraham's servant, Eliezer, finding a wife for Yitzchak. However, what is interesting is the fact that it is only after Yitzchak finds a wife that Avraham marries another woman, Keturah. At the end of Breishis 24 (verse 67) it says:


סז. וַיְבִאֶהָ יִצְחָק הָאֹהֱלָה שָׂרָה אִמּוֹ וַיִּקַּח אֶת רִבְקָה וַתְּהִי לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וַיֶּאֱהָבֶהָ וַיִּנָּחֵם יִצְחָק אַחֲרֵי אִמּוֹ:
67. And Isaac brought her to the tent of Sarah his mother, and he took Rebecca, and she became his wife, and he loved her. And Isaac was comforted for [the loss of] his mother.

The very next verse (Breishis 25:1) says:

א. וַיֹּסֶף אַבְרָהָם וַיִּקַּח אִשָּׁה וּשְׁמָהּ קְטוּרָה:
1. And Abraham took another wife and her name was Keturah.

The Midrash Tanchuma comments on this (Chayei Sarah 8) and tells us "From here you can learn that if a man's wife dies and he has sons, he should not remarry until he has married his sons off and only then should the father get remarried. [This is learned from Avraham] for he did this after the death of Sarah, he married off Yitzchak (Isaac) and only afterwords remarried." The Midrash Tanchuma goes on to say that it was even Yitzchak's idea that Avraham should remarry. 

I think there is one last piece of the puzzle missing. What is the reason a man should marry of his sons before getting married himself? Is there a halachic reason, psychological reason? What is going on here? 

For this, we bring in the two Rashis on the last verse of Chapter 24. Rashi says:


 האהלה שרה אמו: ויביאה האהלה ונעשית דוגמת שרה אמו, כלומר והרי היא שרה אמו, שכל זמן ששרה קיימת היה נר דלוק מערב שבת לערב שבת, וברכה מצויה בעיסה, וענן קשור על האהל, ומשמתה פסקו, וכשבאת רבקה חזרו
To the tent of Sarah his mother: He brought her to the tent, and behold, she was Sarah his mother; i.e., she became the likeness of Sarah his mother, for as long as Sarah was alive, a candle burned from one Sabbath eve to the next, a blessing was found in the dough, and a cloud was attached to the tent. When she died, these things ceased, and when Rebecca arrived, they resumed (Gen. Rabbah 60:16).    


אחרי אמו: דרך ארץ כל זמן שאמו של אדם קיימת כרוך הוא אצלה, ומשמתה הוא מתנחם באשתו:
For…his mother: It is the way of the world that, as long as a person’s mother is alive, he is attached to her, but as soon as she dies, he finds comfort in his wife. — [Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 32.]  

The first Rashi, combined with the second Rashi is telling us something very interesting about Yitzchak. Both point to the idea that once Sarah died Yitzchak was upset and in anguish. He could not get over the loss of his mother. This is why the second Rashi tells us that a person is comforted by their wife once their mother dies. However, Yitzchak did not have a wife until now. Also, this is alluded to in the first Rashi when it says the miracles that occurred in Sarah's tent ceased until Rivkah came. The picture here is clear, Yitzchak, like most children, was devastated by his mother's death and, without a wife, could not get over this loss. This is why Avraham, after dealing with the burial of Sarah in Chapter 23, immediately dealt with finding Yitzchak a wife. 

Now, we can understand why it is that Avraham could not get remarried until he found his son a wife. It is not a halacha, but rather an appeal to human emotion. Avraham could have gotten remarried before Yitzchak found a wife. However, Yitzchak had suffered a loss, the greatest loss, of his mother. If Avraham would have remarried without first finding Yitzchak a wife, then Yitzchak would have felt abandoned and uncared for. For, as Rashi points out, what really helps a person get over the loss of a parent is a spouse. There are many other things, but the main comfort is having a support system. This is why it was so important for Avraham to find Yitzchak a wife at this time. 

Rashi also points out that, immediately, after Rivkah entered Sarah's tent that she took the place of Sarah. Why does Rashi say that Rivkah "was Sarah his mother?" because she was now Yitzchak's suport system (like every spouse should be). Sarah was the one to stand up for Yitzchak. For example, she saw Yishmael mistreating Yitzchak and immediately insisted that he be thrown out of the house. Rivkah took over this role. Her assuming this role is best seen when Yitzchak is giving out the blessing. Rivkah wanted to protect Yitzchak and thereby she helped Yaakov trick Yitzchak into giving him the bracha. It was only after this occurred that Yitzchak realize how bad it would have been to give Esau the blessing. This is why, after Yitzchak realizes he gave the bracha to Yaakov, he was trembling in fear, because he almost gave the blessing to the wrong child. If it were not from Rivkah's protection of Yitzchak, then he would have made a grave error. 

The lesson, I think, we can take away from this is the role of a spouse. When a person is growing up they are protected by their parents. Their parents look out for their best interests and help them out. However, when a person finds his or her spouse, the spouse is supposed to assume this role. That is why it is so important to find the right spouse because you must now look after each other like your parents looked after you.  

Thoughts On Tisha BiAv

Tonight starts the fast of Tisha BiAv. The culmination of the three weeks (if you don't hold of the three weeks then the nine days). The past three weeks (or nine days) have been a period of mourning. Why? Supposedly, on Shiva Asar Bitamuz (the 17th of the month of Taamuz) the walls of Jerusalem were breached and then the temple was destroyed on Tisha BiAv (The 9th of the month of Av). There are other reasons stated in the Gemora and other places, but this is the most publicized (and I think the most reasonable reason to mourn for). Any other reason stated for this fast and period of mourning other than the destruction of the Temple does not make sense to me. There have been so many tragedies throughout the years that Judaism has existed, why would we choose to mourn some over others? The reason we mourn the Temple, even today, is because it represents the pinnacle of Jewish worship of G-D. Therefore, if we are going to mourn something throughout the generations let it be the destruction of the Temple. For, when it is rebuilt we will again be a "complete" nation.

Also, commemorating different horrific acts against Jews throughout the years would create fast days on every day of the year, so that is not a plausible commemoration. True, we are saddened that so many Jews were killed throughout the generations and our holy scriptures were defiled, but to mourn these events on separate days is untenable. That is why Tisha BiAv is supposed to commemorate all Jewish tragedies. (Why there are other fast days and days of mourning throughout the year, I do not understand, except for Yom Kippur because it is not a day of mourning).  Indeed, these commemorations must be in tangent with Tisha BiAv in order for them to have true meaning. Why? Because what was the reason these people were killed? What was the reason they were hated and their holy books were burned? It was simply because they were Jewish. And, what is the greatest symbol and idea in Judaism? It is the worship in the Temple that represents a Jew's connection to G-D. This idea is stated most clearly in the Midrash Tanchuma (Matos 3):

Moshe told G-D, "If the Jewish people were uncircumcised, idol worshipers, or deniers of the commandments then the Midianites would not hate us (the Jewish people) and they would not run after us. It is specifically because we (the Jewish people) follow your Torah [that they hate us and try to kill us]. Therefore, it is not a "revenge" for us, but for You (G-D)." 

The Jewish people mourn Tisha BiAv because it reminds us that we are removed from G-D and we were spread throughout the nations of the world. Subsequent to that, the nations of the world then killed us, oppressed us and detroyed what we held dear. It is the principle of cause and effect, the Temple was destroyed and thereby other tragedies befell us. Therefore, we mourn, in order to remember the cause and, along with the cause, everything that was an effect of that cause.

Personally, it is very hard for me to relate to Tisha BiAv. Fasting does nothing but make me angry. I can not contemplate the past on an empty stomach, nor can I appreciate all the tragedies that befell my people. All I can focus on is my hunger and my headache. This is especially true when I have to go to school or work on Tisha BiAv. How, then, am I supposed to make Tisha BiAv meaningful? Is it by reading Kinnos that talk about tragedies that I am disconnected from? Is it by listening to Eicha which is written in a language that is difficult for me to understand? I am unsure how this day is supposed to help me remember and commemorate all the tragedies that have befallen my people.

I personally believe that one of the most important things one can do is commemorate the past. Holidays, days of mourning, and just learning history is probably one of the most important things. This is why, I believe, the Torah and many books in Neviim (prophets) and Kesubim (writings) are written in a way that tells the story of Jewish heritage. A person can not understand what they need to do in the future if they do not know what has been done in the past. The Torah is there to teach us life lessons in order that we learn how to act and how not to act. The main argument I would give for this idea is that the Torah could have just been written as a book of laws, like the code of Hammurabi, and the other books could have been written like a mussar sefer, like Mesilas Yesharim, or some other format. This idea is why I find it so necessary (and why the Rabbis instituted the idea) to mourn and commemorate the past.

However, I still do not understand how mourning has anything to do with fasting. Fasting, to me, seems like it is either to inflict pain on oneself or to attempt to grab at a higher "spiritual" position, like we do on Yom Kippur. Why do we fast if the point is commemoration and mourning? Does the person in a house of mourning fast after their relative has past away? (No, in case you were wondering.)

It seems to me that the point of Tisha BiAv is not just to mourn for the Temple, but an attempt to request that G-D allow us to rebuild the Temple. For we can see in many places like in Esther 4:3 it says:

ג  וּבְכָל-מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה, מְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר דְּבַר-הַמֶּלֶךְ וְדָתוֹ מַגִּיעַ--אֵבֶל גָּדוֹל לַיְּהוּדִים, וְצוֹם וּבְכִי וּמִסְפֵּד; שַׂק וָאֵפֶר, יֻצַּע לָרַבִּים.

3 And in every province, where ever the king's commandment and his decree came, there was great mourning among the Jews, and fasting, and weeping, and wailing; and many lay in sackcloth and ashes.

What was the point of fasting, weeping and wailing? I think it is clear from the Gemora in Gittin why someone would fast (56a):

For R. Zadok observed fasts for forty years in order that Jerusalem might not be destroyed

The idea behind fasting has nothing to do with commemoration. The idea behind fasting is that we are requesting from G-D that He observe our desire for something to happen. By Megilas Esther the Jewish people were requesting that G-D save them from death and by the Gemora in Gittin Rav Tzadok was requesting that Jerusalem not be destroyed. On Tisha BiAv why is there a national fast day? Is it solely because we are mourning? NO! It is because it is a national day for us to request G-D's help and compel Him (as if that were possible) to allow us to rebuild or for Him to rebuild the Temple.


The day of Tisha BiAv has a two-fold meaning, remembrance AND requesting. This is what we should take into the day of Tisha BiAv, we are not just supposed to be sad, we are supposed to be requesting the rebuilding of the TEMPLE. One who focuses on just the sadness of the day misses an extraordinary opportunity at supplication of G-D. We are not supposed to do other things than focus on tragedy and the destruction of the Temple for two reasons: 1) We are supposed to commemorate our loses, but 2) We are supposed to be requesting the rebuilding of the Temple.

Hopefully, this will be the year that our prayers and fasting will be recognized in such a way that it will lead to a rebuilding of the Temple. I hope that G-D will act in a similar manner to these verses (Shemos 2:23-25):

כג  וַיְהִי בַיָּמִים הָרַבִּים הָהֵם, וַיָּמָת מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם, וַיֵּאָנְחוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן-הָעֲבֹדָה, וַיִּזְעָקוּ; וַתַּעַל שַׁוְעָתָם אֶל-הָאֱלֹהִים, מִן-הָעֲבֹדָה.	23 And it came to pass in the course of those many days that the king of Egypt died; and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage.
כד  וַיִּשְׁמַע אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-נַאֲקָתָם; וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת-בְּרִיתוֹ, אֶת-אַבְרָהָם אֶת-יִצְחָק וְאֶת-יַעֲקֹב.	24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.
כה  וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיֵּדַע, אֱלֹהִים.  {ס}	25 And God saw the children of Israel, and God took cognizance of them.

Why Was Moshe Commanded to Destroy the Midianite Nation

This week's Parsha, Mattos-(Masei), has a very unique kind of commandment. G-D says to Moshe (Bamidbar 31:2)

ב. נְקֹם נִקְמַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֵת הַמִּדְיָנִים אַחַר תֵּאָסֵף אֶל עַמֶּיךָ:

2. "Take revenge for the children of Israel against the Midianites; afterwards you will be gathered to your people."

There are some very discombobulating ideas being expressed here. First, why does G-D want to take "revenge" against the Midianites? Are the Jewish people at war with them or not? The language of revenge seems strange if we are referring to defending the Jewish people. If G-D was telling us to defend ourselves against the Midianites shouldn't He have said defend? Second, why is it that Moshe is the one that this whole war is contingent upon. Moshe has to fight this war and then he will pass away, but not before?! 

The answer lies within the verses that come later on. First, let us answer why G-D uses the language of revenge. Moshe says, when repeating G-D's command: 

ג. וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל הָעָם לֵאמֹר הֵחָלְצוּ מֵאִתְּכֶם אֲנָשִׁים לַצָּבָא וְיִהְיוּ עַל מִדְיָן לָתֵת נִקְמַת יְ־הֹוָ־ה בְּמִדְיָן:

3. So Moses spoke to the people, saying, "Arm from among you men for the army, that they can be against Midian, and carry out the revenge of the Lord against Midian.

G-D said this was the revenge for the Jewish people, but Moshe says this is the revenge for G-D. What is Moshe telling us that will answer our question of "why does G-D use the language of revenge?" The Midrash Tanchuma tells us (Matos 3) that Moshe told G-D, "If the Jewish people were uncircumcised, idol worshipers, or deniers of the commandments then the Midianites would not hate us (the Jewish people) and they would not run after us. It is specifically because we (the Jewish people) follow your Torah [that they hate us and try to kill us]. Therefore, it is not a "revenge" for us, but for You (G-D)."

The Midrash Tanchuma is telling us a very important point. This dialogue between Moshe and G-D most likely did not happen. However, the idea behind the dialogue is something that Moshe figured out and used to interpreted G-D's words. When G-D told Moshe to take revenge against the Midianites for the sake of the Jewish people, Moshe knew that it was not actually a defense of the physical nation of Jewish people. If G-D truly wanted the Jewish people to attack Midian in order to protect themselves, G-D would have said just that. Through G-D's words Moshe unlocked the true idea hidden behind the word revenge. It was G-D telling Moshe that the Midianites tried to kill the Jewish people, not because they (the Midianites) were afraid of them (the Jews), but because they hated them. Why did the Midianites hate them? Because the Jewish people follow the Torah from G-D. This is why G-D said that the Jewish people NEEDED to take REVENGE on the Midianites, because the language of revenge is a retribution for those who desecrate the divine name. Like it says by what will happen if the Jewish people desecrate G-D's commandments (Vayikra 26:25):

כה  וְהֵבֵאתִי עֲלֵיכֶם חֶרֶב, נֹקֶמֶת נְקַם-בְּרִית, וְנֶאֱסַפְתֶּם, אֶל-עָרֵיכֶם; וְשִׁלַּחְתִּי דֶבֶר בְּתוֹכְכֶם, וְנִתַּתֶּם בְּיַד-אוֹיֵב.

And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall execute the vengeance of the covenant; and ye shall be gathered together within your cities; and I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy.

Therefore, what was happening here in our Parsha, is that the Jews were commanded to eradicate the people who tried to erase and desecrate G-D's name. The Midianite's hatred for G-D manifested itself in the form of trying to kill the Jewish people, G-D's people that represent His will. Therefore, the only way to punish this act and make sure an attack like this would never happen again was to destroy the Midianites as a nation so they could never harm G-D's people again. 

This is why when the Jewish people came back from the war Moshe was so angry with them and commanded them to destroy the Midianites as a nation. As the verses say (Ibid 12-17):

ב  וַיָּבִאוּ אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל-אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶל-עֲדַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶת-הַשְּׁבִי וְאֶת-הַמַּלְקוֹחַ וְאֶת-הַשָּׁלָל--אֶל-הַמַּחֲנֶה:  אֶל-עַרְבֹת מוֹאָב, אֲשֶׁר עַל-יַרְדֵּן יְרֵחוֹ.  {ס}	12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and unto Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp, unto the plains of Moab, which are by the Jordan at Jericho. {S}
יג  וַיֵּצְאוּ מֹשֶׁה וְאֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן, וְכָל-נְשִׂיאֵי הָעֵדָה--לִקְרָאתָם:  אֶל-מִחוּץ, לַמַּחֲנֶה.	13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
יד  וַיִּקְצֹף מֹשֶׁה, עַל פְּקוּדֵי הֶחָיִל, שָׂרֵי הָאֲלָפִים וְשָׂרֵי הַמֵּאוֹת, הַבָּאִים מִצְּבָא הַמִּלְחָמָה.	14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who came from the service of the war.
טו  וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם, מֹשֶׁה:  הַחִיִּיתֶם, כָּל-נְקֵבָה.	15 And Moses said unto them: 'Have ye saved all the women alive?
טז  הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם, לִמְסָר-מַעַל בַּיהוָה, עַל-דְּבַר-פְּעוֹר; וַתְּהִי הַמַּגֵּפָה, בַּעֲדַת יְהוָה.	16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to revolt so as to break faith with the LORD in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD.
יז  וְעַתָּה, הִרְגוּ כָל-זָכָר בַּטָּף; וְכָל-אִשָּׁה, יֹדַעַת אִישׁ לְמִשְׁכַּב זָכָר--הֲרֹגוּ.	17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

The warriors of Israel did not understand why they were going to war. They thought that they were fighting to protect themselves. The Midianites were an enemy that they needed to protect themselves from, therefore, they destroyed the army of Midian and took the spoils of war. Moshe was angry because they were supposed to fight a battle against those who desecrated G-D's name and not for the nation's protection. True, they would both lead to war with Midian, but the requirement to demolish the Midianites as a nation only existed when fighting against them BECAUSE they were trying to desecrate G-D's name by killing the Jewish people. Therefore, Moshe told them to kill the women (because they caused the death of many Jews) AND male children, because this would wipe the Midianites out from ever becoming a nation again. As the Seforno tells us (31:17):

פסוק יז
הִרְגוּ כָל זָכָר בַּטָּף. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאוּיִים לְמִשְׁכָּב, וְזֶה לִנְקָמָה שֶׁלּא יִשָּׁאֵר לְמִדְיָן נִין וָנֶכֶד.


Kill all the male children: Even though they could not have had relations [with anyone from Israel due to their age], still because this is revenge [for G-D, they were told to kill them] in order that there not remain any male children or male grandchildren to the Midianites [which would end their time as a nation]. 
This idea that the Seforno tells us comes from the verse in Yishaya (14:22)

כב  וְקַמְתִּי עֲלֵיהֶם, נְאֻם יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת; וְהִכְרַתִּי לְבָבֶל שֵׁם וּשְׁאָר, וְנִין וָנֶכֶד--נְאֻם-יְהוָה 

And I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon name and remnant, and offshoot and offspring, saith the LORD.  

The Radak on this pasuk tells us:  
נין-הוא הבן
ונכד -הוא בן הבן  

נין-This refers to the son and ונכד, this refers to the grandson. And this happened to the Babylonians, their nation was completely wiped out.

So we see that the whole idea here is that G-D commanded Moshe to take revenge for His sake and wipe out the Midianite nation. 

However, the reason G-D needed Moshe to fulfill this command was that he was the only one who understood the true interpretation of G-D's words. Had anyone else been charged with this command, they would have misunderstood and they would have treated this battle like a regular war of self-defence. Therefore, Moshe needed to take charge of this battle and only then would the Jewish people enter the land and Moshe would pass away in peace.

The warriors in this story did not realize that they represented G-D's will in this world. They thought the Midianites feared them as a military power and that is why they tried to destroy the nation of Israel. However, G-D told Moshe that this was not the case. Those Midianites hated the Jews because of the Torah and the G-D that the Jews represented. Therefore, the Midianites would never be able to live peacefully with the Jews, because they despised their essence.    

I think we can learn a very valuable lesson from this idea. Every Jew, everywhere, that keeps the Torah and commandments represents G-D's will in this world. When people attack us or show hatred towards us, it is because of what we represent and not the physical danger we pose to them. G-D has endowed us with a great role in this world, to make his name great and represent truth and righteousness. There are people, represented here by the Midianites, that hate and despise these ideals and that is why they hate and despise us as a people.

Dealing with Baal-Peor and The Responsibilities of Leaders

At the end of this week's Parsha, Balak, we have a dreadful situation. The people of Bnei Yisroel are acting inappropriately with Moabite women and these women are causing the Israelite men to worship idols, specifically, the Baal-peor. This caused the wrath of G-D to come on the people of Israel in the form of a plague. However, what is intriguing about this situation is how G-D told Moshe to stop the plague and how the plague was ACTUALLY stopped.

The story happens like this (Bamidbar 25:3-9)

	ג וַיִּצָּמֶד יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר; וַיִּחַר-אַף יְהוָה, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.	3 And Israel joined unto the Baal Peor; and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.
	ד וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, קַח אֶת-כָּל-רָאשֵׁי הָעָם, וְהוֹקַע אוֹתָם לַיהוָה, נֶגֶד הַשָּׁמֶשׁ; וְיָשֹׁב חֲרוֹן אַף-יְהוָה, מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.	4 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Take all the heads of the nation, and hang them up unto the LORD in face of the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel.'
	ה וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה, אֶל-שֹׁפְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: הִרְגוּ אִישׁ אֲנָשָׁיו, הַנִּצְמָדִים לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר.	5 And Moses said unto the judges of Israel: 'Slay ye every one his men that have joined themselves unto the Baal Peor.'
	ו וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּא, וַיַּקְרֵב אֶל-אֶחָיו אֶת-הַמִּדְיָנִית, לְעֵינֵי מֹשֶׁה, וּלְעֵינֵי כָּל-עֲדַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְהֵמָּה בֹכִים, פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד.	6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, while they were weeping at the door of the tent of meeting.
	ז וַיַּרְא, פִּינְחָס בֶּן-אֶלְעָזָר, בֶּן-אַהֲרֹן, הַכֹּהֵן; וַיָּקָם מִתּוֹךְ הָעֵדָה, וַיִּקַּח רֹמַח בְּיָדוֹ.	7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from the midst of the congregation, and took a spear in his hand.
	ח וַיָּבֹא אַחַר אִישׁ-יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל-הַקֻּבָּה, וַיִּדְקֹר אֶת-שְׁנֵיהֶם--אֵת אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֶת-הָאִשָּׁה אֶל-קֳבָתָהּ; וַתֵּעָצַר, הַמַּגֵּפָה, מֵעַל, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.	8 And he went after the man of Israel into the chamber, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.
	ט וַיִּהְיוּ, הַמֵּתִים בַּמַּגֵּפָה--אַרְבָּעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים, אָלֶף. {פ}	9 And those that died by the plague were twenty and four thousand.

This seems very interesting because the plague abated for a completely different reason than what G-D had told Moshe. G-D told Moshe that when he hanged "them" (we will see who them is in a minute) then the plague will subside. However, we see that the plague dissipated after Pinchas killed a single sinner. What is going on here. Did the parameters that G-D set forth for the plague to end occur or did they not? In the previous Parsha, Chukas, G-D told Moshe to make a snake and put it on a poll and that would heal anyone affected by the plague of snakes and that is what occurred. However, here it seems like G-D allowed something else to revoke the plague.

Before answering this perturbing question, I think an explanation of who the "them" is in verse 4 is needed. Just to refresh our memories the verse says (Bamidbar 25:4)

ד וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, קַח אֶת-כָּל-רָאשֵׁי הָעָם, וְהוֹקַע אוֹתָם לַיהוָה, נֶגֶד הַשָּׁמֶשׁ; וְיָשֹׁב חֲרוֹן אַף-יְהוָה, מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.	4 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Take all the heads of the nation, and hang them up unto the LORD in face of the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel.'

This verse can be understood in one of two ways: 1) Rashi (ibid) quotes the explanation that this verse means that G-D commanded Moshe to gather the heads of the nation (רָאשֵׁי הָעָם) and that the heads of the nation should hang all the sinners that worshiped the Baal-peor. 2) The Midrash Tanchuma (Balak 19) , Midrash Rabba (Bamidbar 25: 23) and the Yalkut Shemoni (Chapter 25) all contain the opinion Rashi speaks of, but they also have a conflicting opinion. This other opinion seems to read into the words much easier than the "strained" reading of Rashi. This other opinion, in the name of Rabbi Yudan or Yehuda, that is quoted says that Moshe was commanded by G-D to hang the heads of the nation (רָאשֵׁי הָעָם) and this would remove the plague (anger of G-D) from being upon Israel.

If we use the second reading, that the heads of the nation (רָאשֵׁי הָעָם) are the ones that G-D commanded to be hanged, I think it is very easy to answer our question of how could the plague abate if the requirements that G-D put in place do not seem to be fulfilled. The answer is simple, these requirements WERE fulfilled!

In order to understand how the requirements of G-D were, indeed, fulfilled we need to understand what the requirements were in the first place. In order to do this we must dissect the verse already quoted (Bamidbar 25:4):

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, קַח אֶת-כָּל-רָאשֵׁי הָעָם, וְהוֹקַע אוֹתָם לַיהוָה, נֶגֶד הַשָּׁמֶשׁ; וְיָשֹׁב חֲרוֹן אַף-יְהוָה, מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל
And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Take all the heads of the nation, and hang them up unto the LORD in face of the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel.'

The main requirement here is that they be hanged "in the face of the sun." Rashi (ibid), as well as a dozen other commentaries, tells us that this expression means that they are to be hanged in public so that everyone will see them. G-D is not requiring Moshe to kill all of the sinners, only the heads of the nation and to display their executions publicly. Why publicly? In order that everyone see that the nation is sinning and that they must stop immediately and only then will the "anger of G-D," manifested as a plague, go away.

The command of G-D was that Moshe was to make a public spectacle that would cause all of the sinners who were worshiping the Baal-peor to stop. Therefore, Moshe must have thought that another approach might work with even less bloodshed as stated in verse (Bamidbar 25:5) says:

ה וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה, אֶל-שֹׁפְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: הִרְגוּ אִישׁ אֲנָשָׁיו, הַנִּצְמָדִים לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר. 5
And Moses said unto the judges of Israel: 'Slay ye every one his men that have joined themselves unto the Baal of Peor.'

This command seems to be contrary to the command of G-D. However, if we understand G-D's true command then it is not against G-D's command at all. G-D wanted the plague to end, therefore, He suggested that the quickest and least deadly way to end it would have been to hang the leaders of the nation, but Moshe thought that he could input some invaluable ideas here. It seems to me that Moshe must have thought that if he gave the command to kill all of the worshipers of the Baal-peor then only after a single worshiper was killed or even about to be killed, everyone would do teshuva and beg for forgiveness and there would be little to no bloodshed. The reason I believe this is that, it seems like from the pesukim that no one was killed by the judges. The last verse of the Parsha (Bamidbar 25:9) gives a total number of deaths due to plague, but none due to judges killing. This is in contrast to other places in the Torah where it gave the numbers of people killed. For example, by the sin of the Golden Calf (Eigel Hazav) in Shemos 32:28 it tells us that the Levites killed 3,000 men for worshiping the Golden Calf. If anyone was killed here not by the plague, but by the judges, it should have told us.

The reason G-D did not propose this idea in the first place was because He realized what would happen. Had it not been for Pinchas there would have been much more bloodshed and division in the camp of Israel. Thankfully, Pinchas was able to kill Zimri and Cozbi in such a public fashion that the desired effect took hold and G-D's requirements to end the plague were fulfilled. Everyone immediately realized their sins and turned away from serving the Baal-peor. Once this happened G-D's anger went away and the plague ceased. We can see this from the last few verses in the Parsha (Bamidbar 25:6-9):

ו וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּא, וַיַּקְרֵב אֶל-אֶחָיו אֶת-הַמִּדְיָנִית, לְעֵינֵי מֹשֶׁה, וּלְעֵינֵי כָּל-עֲדַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְהֵמָּה בֹכִים, פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד.
And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, while they were weeping at the door of the tent of meeting.

Zimri was committing this sin publicly and everyone knew about it. This was the main requirement that G-D gave Moshe: that EVERYONE sees what happens to these sinners.

ז וַיַּרְא, פִּינְחָס בֶּן-אֶלְעָזָר, בֶּן-אַהֲרֹן, הַכֹּהֵן; וַיָּקָם מִתּוֹךְ הָעֵדָה, וַיִּקַּח רֹמַח בְּיָדוֹ.	7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from the midst of the congregation, and took a spear in his hand.
ח וַיָּבֹא אַחַר אִישׁ-יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל-הַקֻּבָּה, וַיִּדְקֹר אֶת-שְׁנֵיהֶם--אֵת אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֶת-הָאִשָּׁה אֶל-קֳבָתָהּ; וַתֵּעָצַר, הַמַּגֵּפָה, מֵעַל, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.	8 And he went after the man of Israel into the chamber, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.

Then, as we know, the valiant Pinchas shows up and punishes the sinners in the view of everyone fulfilling G-D's requirements for the plague to cease. Pinchas created a public spectacle that showed how G-D's commands are not something to be flaunted and showed disdain. Everyone in the camp of Israel had seen G-D firsthand, how can anyone worship an idol after witnessing G-D? It is the ultimate disgrace! However, even though every worshiper of the Baal-peor was deserving of death, only one person needed to be killed publicly. Everyone else either expired from the plague or repented and was accepted back by G-D.

The most interesting part of this idea comes from the fact that G-D told Moshe to hang the heads of the nation. I could not understand why G-D would kill these, seemingly, innocent people just because some of their followers were sinning. It made me realize something that is true about all types of leadership: if your followers do something wrong it IS your fault. As the Rambam in Hilchot De'os Chapter 6 tells us, "Whoever has the possibility of rebuking sinners and fails to do so is considered responsible for that sin, for he had the opportunity to rebuke the sinner." This is why anyone who is in a position of command is held responsible for what their subordinates do. Whether you are the CEO of a company like BP, the Principal of a school or the Rabbi of a sect of Chassidism, if your followers mess up it is on YOU! This is why one should always enter the role as a leader with fear and trepidation. It is no easy task leading a community, it is hard to convince people that your views are right and that they should follow what you say. However, just like a president is responsible for any misdeeds of his or her country or the general is responsible for his or her army, so too any leader must realize and accept that they have full responsibility and the faults and responsibilities are on them.

Ki Teitzei- Always Make the Right Decision

In this week's parsha the Midrash Tanchuma teaches us a very important lesson.

כי תצא למלחמה. שנו רבותינו, מצוה גוררת מצוה, ועבירה גוררת עבירה. וראית בשביה וגו', וגלחה את ראשה ועשתה את צפרניה, כדי שלא תמצא חן בעיניך. מה כתיב בתריה, כי תהיין לאיש שתי נשים וגו'. שתים בבית, מריבה בבית. ולא עוד, אחת אהובה ואחת שנואה, או שתיהן שנואות. מה כתיב אחריו, כי יהיה לאיש בן סורר ומורה. כל מאן דנסיב יפת תאר, נפיק מנייהו בן סורר ומורה. שכן כתב בדוד, על שחמד מעכה בת תלמי מלך גשור בצאתו למלחמה, יצא ממנו אבשלום שבקש להרגו, ושכב עם עשר פלגשיו לעיני כל ישראל ולעיני השמש, ועל ידו נהרגו מישראל כמה רבבות, ועשה מחלוקת בישראל, ונהרג שמעי בן גרא ושבע בן בכרי ואחיתופל, ולמפיבשת (ולאיש בשת) הרג, והשליט ציבא על כל בית שאול. ותניא, רבי יוסי אומר, וכי מפני שאכל בן סורר ומורה חצי ליטרא בשר ושתה חצי לוג יין חי אמרה תורה יצא לבית דין ויסקל. אלא הגיעה תורה לסוף דעתו של בן סורר ומורה, שסופו לגמר נכסי אביו עם הסריקין שאכל ושתה עמהן, ומבקש למודו ואינו מוצא, ויצא לפרשת דרכים והורג ומלסטם את הבריות, ואמרה תורה, ימות זכאי ואל ימות חייב, שמיתתן של רשעים, הנאה להם והנאה לעולם. בן סורר ומורה, כתיב אחריו, [ו] כי יהיה באיש חטא משפט מות והומת. אם ניצל מזו, לא ניצל מזו. למדנו, שעבירה גוררת עבירה. ומצוה גוררת מצוה, מנין. דכתיב, כי יקרא קן צפור לפניך, שלח תשלח וגו' למען ייטב לך והארכת ימים. אחריו מה כתיב, כי תבנה בית חדש, תזכה לבנות בית חדש ולעשות מעקה. מה כתיב אחריו, לא תזרע כרמך כלאים, תזכה לכרם ולזרוע שדה. מה כתיב אחריו, לא תחרוש בשור ובחמור, תזכה לשורים וחמורים. מה כתיב אחריו, לא תלבש שעטנז, תזכה לבגדים נאים מן צמר ולבגדים נאים מפשתים. מה כתיב אחריו, גדלים תעשה לך, תזכה למצות ציצית. מה כתיב אחריו, כי יקח איש אשה, תזכה לאשה ולבנים. הרי למדנו, שמצוה גוררת מצוה, ועבירה גוררת עבירה. לפיכך נסמכו פרשיות אלו זו לזו:

I am not going to translate the whole Midrash Tanchuma. However, I do want to draw some very important ideas from it.

The Midrash tells us that one who does a mitzva, performs the correct actions and makes the right decisions, will continue to make the right decisions and perform the correct actions. However, someone who sins or performs incorrect actions will be led further astray by making even more bad decisions. The illustrations that the Torah gives are that when one chooses to take a Yifas To'ar they will end up having two wives, one that the man loves and one he hates, or he will hate both. Then he will end up having a wicked son. The progression tells of the idea that bad decisions and choices lead to more problems. On the other hand the Torah points out that if you make the right choices like sending away the mother bird then many good things will happen to you.

I think this idea is very important to how we view life. Life is not a bunch of mini events that are unrelated, but rather an interconnected span. What we do today has consequences for the future. If we choose to lie today then tomorrow we will have to tell another lie. If we choose to sin today, then tomorrow we will commit even more sins. On the flip side, if we choose to tell the truth today, then we are free to tell the truth tomorrow and if we follow the commandments, then tomorrow we will continue to follow the commandments.

Another thing to point out here is that the Midrash Tanchuma is saying that taking a Yifas To'ar, a beautiful hostage, is not considered a good thing to do. The Midrash tells us that this will lead to a man having terrible experiences in his life. What does this teach us about this commandment?

I think that the Midrash is telling us the following. That even though G-D is commanding us in this regard, it is still not a good situation. G-D recognized the need for men, that have been at war for a while, to take a Yifas To'ar. However, it is clearly a very questionable act. This is why there are so many restrictions that are combined with the Yifas To'ar experience, to help prevent a man from ever entering into this union. This shows us that G-D's approach is that one should deal with a problem head on and not ignore it. G-D could have left Yifas To'ar out of the Torah and ignored a man's desire and need in this situation, but He was smart and confronted the problem head on and gained control of the situation. I think that the reason G-D did this in this situation was because He gave us the commandment of going to war. Therefore, G-D felt He should also deal with this need that would arise during war.

How Traditional Judaism Works

It has come to my attention that some people do not actually understand the definition of traditional Judaism. I was having a conversation with someone about what defines traditional Judaism. He was telling me about consensus, a historical consensus. However, when pressed to describe this historical consensus he would not or could not define it or describe anything about it. That means his definition of traditional Judaism being a historical consensus is a meaningless definition since it does not describe anything, at least not for him. This created a desire for me to define what traditional Judaism entails.

On a side note, this is why I think the whole Rabbi Slifkin ban was instituted and why people are so afraid to accept the possibility that Rashi was a corporealist, because there is a lack of understanding of what traditional Judaism entails. Obviously, Judaism in the time of Dovid Hamelech was practiced differently than it is now, but that is ok because times have changed along with halachic decisions. Anyone who says that traditional Judaism has always been the same clearly knows nothing about the subject.

However, there is a big difference in the halachic changes that have been made throughout the generations in traditional Judaism and the breakoffs from traditional Judaism. There are always some basic principles that are kept within traditional Judaism that separates it from other branches of Judaism. The main difference for earlier sectarian sects was the text of the written Torah. The Samaritans and others did not even accept the text of the written Torah. They changed it to follow their beliefs, in our (Judaism's) opinion.

The next breakoffs, the Tzadukim and Karaites, did not believe in an oral tradition. This is where the Pharisees differed from them. Traditional Judaism follows in the steps of the Pharisees. The Pharisees believed that along with the written Torah there was an Oral tradition that explained the words of the Torah. This is where the Mishna, Gemorah and Midrash come from.

This is what traditional Judaism has today, an oral tradition (The Gemara). However, what is this oral tradition manifested as today? Well, we do not seem to paskin directly from the Gemara anymore. This is because there have been many great generations between us and the Gemara as well as many cultural and technological advances. Rabbis still use the Gemara in some ways, but almost every Posek uses Rishonim to back up their decisions. The way to derive halacha in this day and age seems to be by learning the Rishonim, the Rabbis of the middle ages, that comment on the Gemara as well as Achronim, Rabbis that comment on the Gemara and the Rishonim. This is what Rav Moshe Feinstein does in his Iggroes Moshe and this is what most great Rabbis have done for the past several years. Still, this is not the only defining factor, sometimes the idea of tradition (minhagim) comes into play. This is why Ashkenzic Jews do not eat kitniyos (things that look like wheat) on Pesach, even though there is no real halachic basis for this from the Gemara or most Rishonim. There is even a dispute when this Takana (Rabbbinical mandate) was instituted. However, no one is allowed to disagree with the Gemara, not even the Rishonim.

This leads us to the fact that traditional Judaism is a combination of the thoughts of the Rishonim and the traditions (Minhagim) that we have received from our forefathers. This is why Sefardim have their Minhagim that are very different than Ashkenazim. Also, this is why German Jews wait 3 hours between eating meat and milk, people from the Netherlands wait 1 hour and most other Jews wait 5-6 hours. These differences do not alienate these Jews from one another, but allow them all to fit nicely into traditional Judaism.

So, it seems to be that traditional Judaism is a combination of traditions passed on from father to son and Rabbi to student combined with strict halacha that is learned from the Gemara and Rishonim. Yes, the Gemara contained strict halacha, but it also combined that halacha with traditional teachings of its time. So really, the Gemara itself was similar to the Rishonim and current Rabbis in the sense that it created a tradition for its time. This is also why, in the time of Dovid Hamelech, they did not keep halacha in the same way we do now, there were different traditions (minhagim) that existed and a different interpretation of certain laws. There was no such thing as waiting between milk and meat, this tradition was not yet established. However, every generation has to take into account the traditions of the previous generation and maybe add or detract in some ways based on the needs of the community.However, why must we use the previous generations rulings to guide us? Why can't we just look at the Gemara and make our own decisions?

It is possible that a Midrash Tanchuma (Chapter 44:2) can answer this question. The Midrash tells us that when G-D was offering the Torah to the Jewish people He asked them who would be their guarantor that they would keep the Torah. They said Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. G-D said that was not good, because they needed a guarantor themselves. This caused the Jewish people to respond that their children would be their guarantors. Immediately, G-D accepted this idea. From then on, the children of the Jewish people were forever indebted to keep the Torah of their forefathers or suffer the consequences.

This Midrash points out a very important idea, fathers can make commitments that are binding on their sons. This is why traditional Judaism is not just about strict halacha that is learned out from the Torah or even just the Gemara. Every generation can make binding agreements on the subsequent generations. All of the traditions (minhagim) are based on this idea. However, this is why every community has its own traditions and everyone follows their own Rabbi, because these traditions are no longer uniformed throughout the Jewish people, as they were in the times of the Sanhedrin. True, there are some traditions that were accepted by every community, but there are many differences that occurred, because of the diverse situations of every different Jew. The Sefardim created their own traditions while in Spain and that is why many of their halachas are different than the halchas made in Germany and Poland by the  Ashkenazim. Also, the Taymanim (Yemenites) completely follow Rambam, because that is who their tradition is from. It is untenable to claim that there is a uniformed tradition with one set of rules.

With this in mind I think we can explain a couple of things. One is the idea of corporealism and the second is why people who reject the diversity of Judaism and the traditions in Judaism are fools. Firstly, in the time of Rashi there were clearly several Rishonim that held of corporealism. What this actually entails, I will not go into, but the Raavad CLEARLY says (Mishna Torah Hilchos Teshuva 3:7),

 והאומר שיש שם רבון אחד אלא שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה. א"א ולמה קרא לזה מין וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו הלכו בזו המחשבה לפי מה שראו במקראות ויותר ממה שראו בדברי האגדות המשבשות את הדעות:
(The Rambam states) that whoever says that there is One G-D, but he has a [physical] body and an image [is considered a heretic.] The Raavad says, why is this person called a heretic? There are many great and good people among us that go in this way of thinking because of what they saw in scripture and even more so from what they saw in the words of Aggadita (stories of the Rabbis) that confused the mind.

The Raavad seems to not believe in corporealism, but it is obvious that many of his knowledgeable contemporaries did and he considered them part of Orthodox (Traditional) Judaism. This leads us to believe that at this point in time, aka the Raavad's time, corporealism was an idea that was accepted in traditional Judaism. True, there were disagreements on this issue, but that is the same disagreement as Rav Moshe Feinstein saying a Jew can drink chalov stam (regular milk) and another great Rabbi disagreeing with him, according to the Raavad. According to the Rambam, however, these people were 'beyond the pale" of Orthodox Judaism. Nevertheless, just because there is a disagreement does not mean that one is representing the traditional view of Judaism and the other is not. The fact is that this was an idea that was not yet set in stone in traditional Judaism and either view was ACCEPTABLE. This leads me to believe that since Rashi is unclear on the subject, it is very possible that he believed in corporealism. It is also very possible that he did not. Either way, he would still be within the traditional Judaism of his time period.

The second point of the people who reject the fact that there were several opinions and that there are still several opinions within Judaism needs to be explained. There are people that believe there is only one way to follow traditional Judaism. This is a huge mistake because it denies the fact that there is no communal body that decides on what the tradition should be. The truth is that there are many ways to follow traditional Judaism. There are many different theological, philosophical and general ideas that are within the parameters of traditional Judaism. This does not mean that all or even most paths are correct, but there is definitely more than one. For one person to think their Rabbi is the only way, that is narrow minded and foolish. My last example using the great Rav Moshe Feinstein will be this. How could one person say that following Rav Moshe Feinstein is the only way to be part of traditional Judaism while Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's halachic capabilities are just as great? Or how could one invalidate Rav Ovadia Yosef?

Hopefully, one day, all Jews will be able to accept each other and not feel threatened by another group's way of life. We are all traditional Jews that want to serve G-D, now we have to work on our man-man friendship skills, as childish as that sounds. Once that works out and we can stop the ridiculousness and Chilul Hashems (desecrations of G-D's name) hopefully the Moshiach will come.

As a final point, I would like to add that there are several things that push a group outside of Orthodox (Traditional) Judaism. A group that ignores all previous halachas, Minhagim (Customs) and logical arguments can not be said to be part of Traditional Judaism, rather they would be reformers in line with a non-Orthodox or "Reform" type of Judaism. This is exactly what Reform Judaism is, something that decided previous transmission of the Oral Law is worthless and antiquated. 

(Extra source for people who held of G-D's corporealism:
R' Moshe ben Hasdai Taku -- Ktav Tamim ed. Joseph Dan, pp. 7-27

R' Shlomo Simcha miTroyes -- Sefer Hamaskil

R' Joseph Ashkenazi -- "text published in Scholem, 'New Information'" (no I haven't read it)

Shadal -- Peninei Shadal, 316  )

Mattos- Selfishness of the Tribes of Gad and Reuven

In this week's parsha of Mattos-Masei we have the infamous story of the 2 tribes, Reuben and Gad, request to stay on the other side of the river and not enter the land of Israel. This raises the questions of "was this request proper?" Did they really have a right to ask for this? Why did they in fact think that they were entitled to this land on the other side of the river? And if this was an inappropriate request, what was their punishment?

In order to answer these questions we must first understand what Bnei Gad and Reuben were thinking. The pasuk says (Bamidbar 32:1), “Umikneh rav haya livnei Reuben vilivnei Gad atzum miod” (The children of Reuben and the children of Gad had abundant livestock). There is a clear reason here why the pasuk is telling us that Bnei Gad and Reuben had abundant livestock before we are told of their request. Seemingly, because they had a lot of possessions this caused them to think that they could ask to not come and participate in battle alongside with their brethren. This introductory pasuk is showing us the selfishness of Bnei Gad and Reuben. Like a little child that is satisfied with his own portion, Bnei Gad and Reuben decided that they were happy with what they had and since they were happy they did not care about the needs of the other tribes.

The Midrash (Tanchuma 5; Yalkut Shemoni 32; Bamidbar Rabbah parsha 22 siman 7)comes to teach us why they were mistaken with their idea to stay behind and be satiated with their possessions. The Midrash says that there are three gifts that G-D gives to people in this world; Chachma, Gevurah, and Osher (Wisdom, Strength and Richness). And the Midrash tells us that people who have these things only acquire them since G-D has given it to them as a gift, but if they are undeserving of that gift G-D will take that gift away from them.

There are three examples of people who had these gifts and lost them because of their undeserving behavior. The one who lost his wisdom because he acted inappropriately was Achitofel, one of King David’s advisers. He joined the side of Avshalom to rebel against David since he thought it would bring him much fame and glory. Achitofel lost his wisdom because he used it to help Avshalom in rebellion against the king. Shimshon (Samson) was a mighty warrior, but he lusted after what he saw with his eyes, aka women, so because of his sin his might was removed from him along with his eyes. And the final person was Korach. He had more money than everyone, but since he used it to rebel against Moshe and Aharon it was taken from him, along with his life. So we can see from these instances that people who use their gifts inappropriately are bound to lose them.

This idea holds true by Gad and Reuben as well. They were satisfied with their own wealth and did not care about anyone but themselves. They wanted to stay on the other side of the Jordan River and allow the rest of the Jews to fight without them. Because of their selfishness they were ultimately punished and exiled before everyone else. As the pasuk in divrei hayamim 1(Perek 5) says, “Vayiglaim laReuben vilagadi vilachatzi shavet menasheh” (Reuben, Gad and half of the Shavet of Menasheh were exiled).

So we can learn from this parsha the virtue of selflessness. Selfishness is what brought down these tribes so don’t let it get you too. One must always realize the source of everything, G-D. If a person is able to focus on this then they will never be selfish. Once a person realizes that everything is from G-D then they will not assume that they received it by themselves. With this in mind, it is impossible to be selfish.