A Quick Torah Thought

There were three steps necessary for Aharon to become elevated as the Cohen Gadol who would preside in the mishkan; the first two were being dressed and then annointed by Moshe, the third, Aharon bringing korbanot , or sacrificial offerings.   I have written about this in the past, but I think there was symbolic import to the person serving as the King annointing and dressing the Cohen Gadol; Moshe Rabbeinu was obviously beyond reproach, but similar to the Christian faith in Judaism as well, there would be conflicts between the primacy of the king and the high priest, and a statement, in my humble opinion was being made here that whilst the high priest received authority in a manner of speaking from his royal affiliation (Moshe annointed Aharon), that notwithstanding, in a manner of speaking, dressing someone else shows subservience, and the superiority of the other - think Haman dressing Mordechai in the upcoming reading of Megillat Esther. It would seem thus, in the famous c...

A close friend of mine, Yehoshua Shapira, the son of Rabbi Yaakov Shapira, the Rosh Yeshiva of Merkaz HaRav, gave an interesting twist to a well-known question, when he spoke in shul this Friday night: "How is that the Jews were asked to give out of the generosity of their hearts for the building of the mishkan, while simultaneously being commnaded to give?" It would seem, on the face of it, like he said that the two are polar opposites; if you are commanded to do something, you do not do so willingly, or generously; if you are not, then you can be altruistic, and do so with a free hand.  Among the different answers he gave, the one that struck me the most was the Abarbanel, the 14th century biblical commentator from Lisbon, Portugal, who reconciled the seemingly paradoxical command by averring that Moshe gathered the heads of the tribes and commanded them to make a call-out to their tribe: Whoever would like to give, is welcome to do so. These are the materials we need... Th...

Can you trade a terrorist with blood on his hands for a hostage with none? Is there a price too high to pay, and what if the terrorist himself has already killed the family of that very same hostage? These are questions that were very much on our minds these past few weeks as a hostage deal seemed to take form with a very steep price. Far be it for me to say, but I personally am happy no such deal was made; any deal for that matter would seem to play into the hands of the dealmaker, the same way the dealer always has the upper hand in craps, the house edge.  What then would it be like, or could it be like to make a deal with the likes of Sinwar, himself freed in the Gilad Shalit deal? Tractate Gittin (45.) teaches that "prisoners should not be freed for more than their going price," the reason given being " tikun ha'olam. " This would connote that there seems to be a price that is too much. Warren Buffett famously never agreed to raise his price after any offer;...

A question I couldn't help but wonder about in this week's parsha: Yitro proposes a court system that seems very reminiscent of communism. In China, and notoriously so with the KGB in the Former USSR, everyone had a watchful eye on everyone else. And yet, Yitro recommends an insane arrangement, where every 11th man is a judge in some shape or form! "You shall also seek out, from among all the people, capable individuals who fear God—trustworthy ones who spurn ill-gotten gain. Set these over them as chiefs of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, and let them judge the people at all times. Have them bring every major dispute to you, but let them decide every minor dispute themselves. Make it easier for yourself by letting them share the burden with you." What kind of system entails so many judges? It is really hard to answer for me; I don't fully understand the thinking here. And, the presumption that every 11th man has the acumen, knowhow, and wisdom to be a jud...