The Midrash Rabbah connects the opening of our parashah, “Speak to Aharon
and say to him, ‘When you kindle the lamps, toward the face of the menorah
shall the seven lamps cast light,” with the verse (Yeshayah 42:21), “Hashem
desires for the sake of [man’s] righteousness that the Torah be made great
and glorious.” What is the connection between the two?
R’ Moshe Gruenwald z”l (rabbi of Chust, Hungary; died 1909) writes: The
Gemara (Shabbat 14b) states that when King Shlomo established the concept of
an eruv, a bat kol proclaimed the verse (Mishlei 23:15), “My son, when your
heart becomes wise, then My heart, too, will rejoice.” R’ Gruenwald
explains: According to Torah law, carrying outdoors on Shabbat is prohibited
in certain types of places and permitted in other types of places.
Subsequently, as a precaution lest one inadvertently violate a Torah
prohibition, the Sages prohibited carrying in some places where, according
to the Torah, carrying is permitted. However, King Shlomo decreed that one
could make an eruv to permit carrying in those places where the Sages had
prohibited carrying. [In effect, building an eruv substitutes as a precaution.]
Was G-d happy with this? One might argue that G-d is not happy that we are
so lax in our performance of mitzvot that all of these extra precautions
above-and-beyond the Torah’s prohibitions are necessary. Says the Gemara:
No! When King Shlomo established eruvin (plural of eruv), Hashem rejoiced.
Why? Because, as the above verse states, “Hashem desires for the sake of
[man’s] righteousness that the Torah be made great [i.e., bigger].” When we
add mitzvot (within proper guidelines), Hashem approves.
Ramban z”l writes that the opening of our parashah hints that, in the
future, the Sages would establish a holiday involving the menorah (i.e.,
Chanukah). It was for this new mitzvah that the midrash says that Hashem
rejoiced. (Arugat Ha’bosem)
“Bnei Yisrael shall make the Pesach-offering in its appointed time.”
The word Pesach refers to the fact that Hashem passed-over (“pasach”) the
homes of Bnei Yisrael when He killed the firstborn of Egypt. After all the
miracles before and during the Exodus, why does the name of the offering
(and the holiday) commemorate this one detail?
R’ Yitzchak Yerucham Borodiansky shlita (Yerushalayim) explains: The fact
that Hashem passed-over the homes of Bnei Yisrael is not a mere detail of
the Exodus. Rather, it is a sign of the hashgachah pratit / Divine
providence with which Hashem relates to the Jewish People. That hashgachah
pratit is the surest sign of the uniqueness of Bnei Yisrael; therefore, it
is appropriate to highlight Hashem’s passing-over the homes of Bnei Yisrael.
(Siach Yitzchak: Shmot p.52)
“We remember the fish that we ate in Egypt free of charge; and the
cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic.” (11:5)
R’ Yosef Gikitila z”l (1248-1310; Spain; author of Sha’arei Orah) writes:
Though it was necessary that Bnei Yisrael be exiled and enslaved as part of
their formative experience, it was an act of kindness by Hashem that He
caused them to be enslaved in Egypt, where food was plentiful. This surely
lessened the suffering compared to what it would have been in a place that
lacked abundant food. Moreover, Hashem decreed that Bnei Yisrael would
multiply rapidly, and Bnei Yisrael had many mouths to feed. Therefore, in
His kindness, He exiled them to Egypt. (Haggadah Shel Pesach Tzofnat
“Yehoshua bin Nun, the servant of Moshe since his youth, spoke up and
said, ‘My master Moshe, incarcerate them!’.” (11:28)
R’ Shabtai Hakohen z”l (the “Shach”; 1622-1663; author of one of the major
commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch) writes that, although one is permitted
to say his Torah teacher’s / rebbe’s name together with a title, that is
only when one is not speaking to his teacher’s face. To the teacher’s face,
even that is prohibited. Later authorities note, however, that the Shach’s
rule appears to be contradicted by Yehoshua’s words in our verse (“my master
Moshe”), which were said to his teacher’s face!
R’ Eliezer Dovid Gruenwald z”l (1867-1928; rabbi of Oyber Visheve, Hungary)
explains: The Gemara (Eruvin 54a) describes how Torah was taught to the
Generation of the Desert: Moshe taught Aharon, he repeated the lesson for
Aharon’s sons, then again for the elders, and once more for all the people.
Then Moshe left, and Aharon repeated the lesson for his sons, then again
for the elders, and once more for all the people. Then Aharon left, and his
sons repeated the lesson, and so on, until every person had heard the lesson
four times. In short, Yehoshua had multiple teachers. Had he said merely,
“My master, incarcerate them,” no one would have known to whom he was
speaking. He had to address Moshe by name! (She’eilot U’teshuvot Keren
Le’Dovid, no. 181)
“Miriam and Aharon spoke against Moshe . . .” (12:1)
R’ Yehuda Loewe z”l (Maharal of Prague; died 1609) writes: The midrash
Yalkut Shimoni cites the verse (Mishlei 10:19), “In an abundance of words,
silence will not be lacking,” and applies it to Miriam who spoke against
Moshe. Regarding the continuation of that verse, “but one who restrains his
lips is wise,” the midrash comments: Because he restrains his lips from
speaking against others, he is wise. The Sage Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel
said, “My entire life I grew up among wise men, and I never found anything
as good for a person as silence.”
The midrash relates: Two courtiers were standing before [the Roman Emperor]
Hadrian. One claimed that speech is preferable to silence, while the other
claimed the opposite. The one who claimed that speech was preferable
presented his arguments first: “Without speech, kings couldn’t be crowned,
the dead wouldn’t be buried, brides couldn’t be praised for their beauty,
and no business would be transacted.”
Then the second courtier began to present his arguments in favor of silence.
Suddenly, his colleague slapped him across the face. “Why did you slap
him?” the Emperor demanded.
“I made my arguments using speech, which I claim is preferable,” he replied.
“Let him make his arguments using silence, which he says is preferable!”
[Likewise, continues the midrash,] King Shlomo said, “I never said one
should muzzle his mouth, only that he should restrain his mouth from
speaking against others.” [Until here from the midrash]
Maharal explains: The middle section of the midrash seems to be teaching
that one should not talk unless it is necessary, as in the examples the
courtier gave. Without speech, one couldn’t accomplish anything, not even
to prove the merits of silence. Nevertheless, silence is preferable when
there is no need to speak, lest one say things which should not be said.
On the other hand, Maharal continues, the earlier part of the midrash seems
to say that all speech is permitted except hurtful speech. To sit quietly
in the company of others is not fitting, Maharal writes. Even so, excessive
talking is definitely prohibited, he adds.
In all, Maharal concludes, there are five types of speech: (1) Speech which
is a mitzvah, such as Torah study; (2) speech which is a sin--for example,
lying and lashon hara; (3) speech which is to be despised, because it serves
no constructive purpose, which is the category into which most of human
speech falls, Maharal writes; (4) speech which is beloved, i.e., extolling
the virtues of good character traits and pointing out the fallacy of bad
character traits; and (5) speech which is permitted, i.e., which is
necessary for engaging in business and other worldly necessities. (Netivot
Olam: Netiv Ha’shetikah ch.1)
Letters from Our Sages
In connection with the section of our parashah relating that Miriam
spoke lashon hara about her brother Moshe and was punished with tzara’at, we
present the following excerpt from “Iggeret Ha’Gra,” a letter that R’
Eliyahu z”l (1720-1797), the “Vilna Gaon,” wrote to his family during his
unsuccessful attempt to reach Eretz Yisrael.
One who succeeds in muzzling his mouth merits an unimaginable abundance of
the hidden light [see Rashi to Bereishit 1:4], as it is written (Tehilim
34:13-14), “Who is the man who desires life, who loves days of seeing
goodness? Guard your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit.”
Such a person’s sin are forgiven and he is saved from gehinnom, as it is
written (Mishlei 21:23), “One who guards his mouth and tongue guards his
soul from troubles.” It is written also (Mishlei 18:21), “Death and life
are within the power of the tongue.” Woe to someone who kills himself using
his tongue! What gain is there from constant speech? . . . Do not speak a
person’s praises excessively, for this leads to speaking about his faults,
and certainly do not speak about a person’s faults, for what gain is there
in speaking of foreign things, about which it is written (Mishlei 22:14)
“The mouth [that speaks] foreign things is a deep pit; those scorned by
Hashem will fall there”? [In his commentary to Mishlei, the Vilna Gaon
writes that the second half of the verse refers to those who listen to the
improper speech of the person referred to in the first half of the verse.]
The primary protection [against speaking and hearing improper speech] is
solitude. . . In shul, sit alone, avoiding other people, because wherever
people are gathered, it’s impossible not to hear idle chatter and lashon
hara. Even one who hears and remains silent is punished, as our Sages said.
Especially on Shabbat and Yom Tov, when multitudes gather in shul, it’s
impossible that there won’t be among them some who chatter idly or speak
lashon hara. Take care not to sit among them. Distance yourselves from
this ugliness. Sit alone in shul, for speaking in shul is a felonious
transgression and a great sin, about which the Zohar says, “One who
converses in shul has no share in the G-d of Israel.” The law is the same
in a bet medrash as in a shul.
The editors hope these brief 'snippets' will engender further study
and discussion of Torah topics ('lehagdil Torah u'leha'adirah'), and
your letters are appreciated. Web archives at Torah.org start with 5758 (1997) and
may be retrieved from the Hamaayan page.
Hamaayan needs your support! Please consider sponsoring Hamaayan in honor of a happy occasion or in memory of a loved one. The low cost of sponsorship is $36. Donations to HaMaayan are tax-deductible.