Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Toronto Torah
How might we reconcile these two identities? Can a Kohen Gadol be a welcoming friend to the broad Jewish population, and yet preserve the monkish separation of a person whose existence is dedicated to G-d? In his eulogy for Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski, Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik further complicated the Kohen Gadol's identity by identifying two polar opposites in the garb of the Kohen Gadol.
On his chest the Kohen Gadol wears a choshen, a breastplate bearing gems representing the tribes of Israel. (Shemot 28:15-30) On his forehead the Kohen Gadol wears a tzitz, a gold plate displaying the words, "Sacred to G-d." (ibid. 28:36-38) As Rabbi Soloveitchik explained, the tzitz represents the head, the seat of the intellect which resolves halachic questions, calculating "Permitted", "Forbidden", "Pure" and "Impure". The choshen rests upon the heart, seat of love and affection and sensitivity, with which the Kohen Gadol sensitively leads the nation in matters of war and public policy. We now see that the Kohen Gadol is split between halachic authority and national leader, as well as between the aforementioned friend and monk. How is he to manage all of these identities? An answer may lie in the Torah's description of that which the Kohen Gadol "carries" with these two garments. With his choshen, the Kohen Gadol carries Divine guidance for the affairs of the Jews. (Shemot 28:29-30)
613 Mitzvot: #350, 353, 354, 355 Commitments to the Beit haMikdash
The Torah provides us with many obligations, but we are also able to create obligations upon ourselves, via verbal declaration. As part of our ability to sanctify via speech, the Torah provides a framework in which a person might dedicate his own value [based on a biblically fixed erech scale] (mitzvah #350), or the value of his animal (#353), home (#354) or field (#355) to the Beit haMikdash. Honouring this verbal commitment fulfills a mitzvah, as though one were fulfilling a Divine command. One might argue that our ability to create obligations which G-d will honour is unusual. We are familiar with externally imposed religious obligations, but why should personally imposed commitments be binding? Sefer haChinuch (mitzvah 350) explains that the authority granted to our speech is a function of our obligation to honour speech, the most spiritual of our natural abilities. "Man does not participate in the upper realms other than via speech, which is his honoured portion. This is what Bereishit 2:7 calls, in Man, "the living spirit", which is translated by Onkelos, "And it was in Man a speaking spirit". The rest of the body is dead, and if one were to ruin this good portion
Visit us at www.torontotorah.com
"And you shall take the second ram, and Aaron and his sons shall lean their hands upon the ram's head" (Shemot 29:19) [Do we see] the two hands [leaning on the ram] as one entity or as two, where both are required? [They are seen as one.] And this may explain why we dont mention in Menachot 25a regarding the left hand, that one may use it to perform the Beit Hamikash's service on Yom Kippur. See Rashi bmachta [who explains that the Talmud describes the Kohen Gadol carrying the spoon in his left hand on Yom Kippur] and on Yoma 48b [where the Talmud concludes that blood that was walked to the altar in one's left hand is disqualified] see Tosfot Yeshanim [who explains that the left-handed service with the spoon on Yom Kippur cannot serve as proof to license general use of the left hand, because there there is no other way to conduct that particular service, since the Kohen Gadol carries the pan in his right hand]. We see that cupping [the incense] was allowed with two hands, for there is a need to use both hands in the act of cupping, and cupping is regarded as a service, as explained there on 48a. You must say [that the reason why the Talmud didnt use cupping as an example of left-handed service is because] where the Torah requires both hands, it is not relevant to speak about a definition of left or right, as both are viewed as one entity [The same may be applied to having multiple people lean their hands on a korban: if they do it together then we see it as the act of a collective, but if they separate their leanings then we see each one of them as leaning on his own.] Indeed, in the Torah there is a shift from Parshat Tetzaveh to Parshat Tzav regarding the description of the act of leaning [for in Shemot 28:10 and 28:19 the singular verb v'samach is used, while in Vayikra 8:18 the plural verb v'samchu is used]. This is because after the deed of the Golden Calf, [the ram recorded in Vayikra] serves also as an atonement for Aharon [and so he needs a separate act of leaning, and he cannot lean together with his sons].
, .
Visit us at www.torontotorah.com
This Week in Israeli History: 12 Adar 1, 1948 - The Bombing of Ben Yehuda
Wednesday is 12 Adar 1 In the months preceding Israels independence, the first phase of what would become the "War of Independence" began. At this time, there were numerous attacks on the Jewish people, killing many innocent civilians. One of the worst and most devastating attacks occurred on February 22, 1948 (12 Adar I, 5708). The plan was organized by Abdel Khader El Husseini, who wished to terrorize the Jews into leaving Jerusalem. He hired two deserters from the British army, Eddie Brown and Peter Madison, and an Arab man, to carry out the attack. (The two British men were also involved in the bombing of the Palestine Post, which had occurred only a few weeks earlier.) The perpetrators packed three armoured cars with explosives and drove towards Jerusalem. Posing as British soldiers, they passed through the Jewish checkpoint
Josh Gutenberg
without having their vehicles searched. At approximately 6:15 AM they parked the cars on Ben Yehuda Street, in the heart of Jerusalem. They picked this location for the attack because Haganah headquarters as well as several hotels were in the area. The site was also a hub for those beginning their morning commute. The three perpetrators fled from their cars and detonated the bombs about fifteen minutes later, destroying many of the buildings in the vicinity. More than fifty people were killed and more than one hundred people were injured in this horrific attack. The Jewish groups did not have a unified response to the attack. The Haganah encouraged their members not to react in a rash and irresponsible manner. However, members of the Irgun and Lechi were not as passive. In the weeks following the bombing, they carried out several attacks against British forces to avenge the death of those murdered in the bombing. jgutenberg@torontotorah.com
Speaker
Topic
Location
Special Notes
Rebbetzin Miriam Milevsky Social Mitzvot: A Closer Look R Mordechai Torczyner Betzalels Destiny, and Ours
R Baruch Weintraub
OUR MISSION: TO ENGAGE, INSPIRE AND EDUCATE THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF THE GREATER TORONTO AREA. WE APPLY OUR TORAH THE like DAILY LIVES OF MODERN JEWS , THROUGH CLASSES , DISCUSSIONS AND CHAVRUTOT IN OUR HOME BEIT WeTO would to thank koshertube.com for filming our shiurim! Visit us at www.torontotorah.com 4 HERITAGE MIDRASH AND OUR BNEI AKIVA SCHOOLS, AS WELL AS THE SYNAGOGUES, CAMPUSES AND WORKPLACES OF THE GTA. We are funded by the Toronto community. To become a supporting member for $36 per year, or to make a general donation, please email info@torontotorah.com or go to http://www.torontotorah.com/members. Thank you for your continued partnership.