Join our weekly Peninim on the Torah list!

Category

Back to Home -> Shemini ->


“Wine and strong drink you shall not drink … when you go into the Ohel Moed.” (10:9)

This halacha similarly applies to any intoxicating drink which the kohen imbibes. The punishment of death is incurred, however, only in the event the kohen drinks an intoxicating quantity, which Chazal have determined is even a reviis of undiluted wine. There is obviously no question of the kohen actually being drunk, since this small amount would not cause intoxication. There is, however, a fear that his mind will not be totally clear and tranquil. To transmit Hashem’s charge, one’s mind must be sharp, his intelligence, clear. Only then can he maintain the proper focus in order to guide and inspire…

Continue Reading

“And the Chasidah (stork).” (11:19)

It seems strange for a bird to have a name which is connected with chesed, kindness. The Talmud in Chullin 63a remarks on the bird’s name and states that, indeed, it is a bird which demonstrates kindness towards members of its own species. One may wonder why the Torah saw fit to prohibit such a “compassionate” bird from human consumption.  After all, if we are what we eat, is compassion not a character trait everyone should seek to possess ? There are a number of answers to this question.  Probably the most notable is one attributed to the Imrei Emes. …

Continue Reading

“This is the thing which Hashem commanded that you should do, that there may appear to you the glory of Hashem.” (9:6)

This pasuk seems enigmatic. Bnei Yisrael had already performed everything that was demanded of them. What else were they expected to do? Chazal comment that Moshe said to Bnei Yisrael, “Remove the yetzer hora from your hearts so that you will be imbued with one common awe with which to serve Hashem. As He is one, so, too, should your service to Him be one.” This Midrash begs clarification. The Netziv z.l. offers a classical explanation which carries with it a timeless message. He explains that during Moshe’s tenure as leader, some individuals already charted their own path for experiencing…

Continue Reading

“And the sons of Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, each took his pan… and they offered before Hashem a strange fire.” (10:1)

Nadav and Avihu brought a “strange fire” on the mizbayach, an offering that Hashem had not commanded them to bring. This violation resulted in their immediate death. The Yalkut Shimoni points out that this erroneous offering was the result of their not consulting with Moshe or with each other. This criticism seems questionable. Indeed, they should have consulted with their Rebbe, Moshe prior to offering the fire, but why were they censured for not consulting one another? Indeed, if such erudite and righteous men as Nadav and Avihu reached the same conclusion independently, it would seem obvious that consulting each…

Continue Reading

“The camel, because she chews the cud, but parts not the hoof, she is unclean to you… and the pig, because he parts the hoof… but chews not the cud, he is unclean unto you.” (11:4,7)

The Midrash notes that even when Hashem describes the impure characteristics of the unclean animals, He identifies their pure features before mentioning the reason for their uncleanliness. This seems enigmatic! The Torah is listing the various unclean animals, such as the camel and the pig. Why does the Torah specify their pure characteristics altogether?  What purpose can be served by this? Horav Yerachmiel Shulman z.l. derives an important lesson from this seeming verbosity. The Torah teaches that when we are about to render the pig, camel, or any other unclean animal unacceptable for Jewish consumption, we must be considerate not…

Continue Reading

“Whatever has a split hoof and is wholly cloven footed and chews its cud among the beasts, you may eat.” (11:4)

The two features stated in this pasuk are signs which identify permitted animals. No reason is stated as a rationale for their permissibility. The Abarbanel suggests that animals which chew their cud are not capable of crushing and chewing up bones.  Consequently, they feed on plants, and they do not have the ferocity of wild animals.  Their split hooves do not have claws, suggesting that these are peaceloving and relatively harmless animals. Indeed, these animals reflect the traits of compassion and mercy, which are the hallmarks of the Jewish personality. In a similar sense, Rabbi S.R. Hirsch z.l. explains that…

Continue Reading

“And it was on the eighth day, Moshe summoned Aharon and his sons.” (9:1)

Horav E. Munk, z.l., poignantly explains the significance of that glorious day, the eighth day of the inauguration services. It was Rosh Chodesh Nissan, the day the Mishkan was erected, a day crowned with ten crowns of distinction. On this particular day, Klal Yisrael was to attain an unprecedented level of communion with the Divine Presence. Moshe, however, knew that this exalted state of intimacy would require strict discipline from every member of the nation, especially its leadership. The slightest act of desecration would be punished, even if it were committed by those who were closest to Hashem. The Mishkan…

Continue Reading

“And there came forth a fire from before Hashem and devoured them (Nadav and Avihu).” (10:2)

The Midrash explains that the death penalty had previously been decreed against Nadav and Avihu at the time of Matan Torah. At that time, Nadav and Avihu, together with the elders, ascended Har Sinai to receive the revelation of the Shechinah. Upon experiencing this unique revelation, however, they derived personal pleasure from it and did not respond with proper reverence. They were all judged to be guilty by Hashem. Hashem refrained from meting out their punishment immediately. One reason suggested is that Hashem bestows prophecy only on one who is happy and at peace. Had a national tragedy such as…

Continue Reading

“And the sons of Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, took… and they brought before Hashem an alien fire that He had not commanded them.” (10:2,3)

The catastrophe which befell Nadav and Avihu is one of the great tragedies of the Torah. It begs for explanation. Each in his own way, the various commentators offer an orientation for understanding their sin and its ensuing punishment. Horav S.R. Hirsch, z.l., suggests that they had acted on impulse, in an outburst of enthusiasm. This impassioned act of pride in approaching the altar proved fatal to them. Joyful emotions, regardless of their sincerity, may not be used to serve as a pretext to break the discipline established by law. Alteration of Hashem’s law cannot be tolerated, especially on the…

Continue Reading

“Any earthenware utensil into whose interior one of them will fall everything within it shall become contaminated and you shall break it.” (11:33)

An earthenware vessel can contract impurity only through internal ritually unclean contact. Horav E. Munk, z.l,. cites Rav Mendel Mi’kotzk who distinguishes between a metallic vessel, whose intrinsic value is based upon the metal from which it is made, and an earthenware vessel, whose value is based upon what it contains. This is the reason that an earthenware vessel is contaminated only from the inside and cannot be purified by immersion in a mikveh, as a metallic vessel can. Consequently, an earthenware vessel which has become tamei, ritually contaminated, must be broken. The vessel is like a man formed from…

Continue Reading

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our weekly Peninim on the Torah list!

You have Successfully Subscribed!