Mitzvah of Challah: Why for Women?

The Hagahos Maimoniyos at the end of Rambam’s Sefer Zeraim collected an interesting set of sources with some of his own comments on the mitzvah of challah. He writes:

The mitzvah of challah is a great and beloved mitzvah.
The Rabbis say:
The world was created for the sake of three things: challah, tithes, and first-fruits, as it is said, IN THE BEGINNING (BE - RESHITH) GOD CREATED. Now reshith alludes to challah, for it is written, Of the first (reshith) of your dough (Num. XV, 20); again, reshith alludes to tithes, for it is written, The first- fruits (reshith) of thy corn (Deut. XVIII,4); and finally, reshith alludes to first- fruits, for it is written, The choicest (reshith) first-fruits of thy land, etc. (Ex.XXIII, 19).
--Breishis Rabbah 1:4

The Gemara says:
R. Eleazar b. R. Judah said: Because of the neglect of challah there is no blessing in what is stored, a curse is sent upon prices, and seed is sown and others consume it, for it is said, I also will do this unto you: I will visit you with terror [behalah], even consumption and fever, that shall consume the eyes, and make the soul to pine away. and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it: read not behalah but be-challah. But if they give it, they are blessed, for it is said, ye shall also give unto the priest the first of your dough, to cause a blessing to rest on thine house.
--Shabbos 32b

The Midrash says:
R. Johanan said: Why was the passage relating to challah juxtaposed with one relating to idolatry?-To inform you that if one fulfils the precept of challah it is as if he abolished idolatry; but if one neglects the precept of challah it is as if he maintains idolatry. R. Eleazar said: It is written, For [one comes to grief] through a harlot even through a loaf of bread (Prov. VI, 26). What causes him to come to grief through a harlot?-The fact that he has eaten of her loaf which was not tithed.
--Vayikra Rabbah 15:6

This mitzvah of challah is charged to women and they are cautioned regarding it more than men. As we learn in the Talmud:

MISHNAH. FOR THREE SINS WOMEN DIE IN CHILDBIRTH: BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT OBSERVANT OF [THE LAWS OF] NIDDAH, CHALLAH, AND THE KINDLING OF THE [SABBATH] LIGHTS.
GEMARA. What is the reason of challah …? — As a certain Galilean lectured before R. Hisda: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: … I designated you the first; wherefore I commanded you concerning the first.
--Shabbos 31b

The Rambam writes regarding lighting Shabbos candles:
This duty is assigned to women rather than men, because women are usually at home doing housework. Nevertheless, the man should caution them, asking them about it and telling them and other members of his household, every Friday before it gets dark: “Light the lights!”
--Hilkhos Shabbos 5:3

Therefore, ChaNnaH, the great, righteous person, had a name that is an acronym for Ch’allah, N’idah, Hadalakas haner. She kept these three mitzvos as they were meant to be kept. That is why God gave her the desirous heart and prolific lips for prayer. And so, a woman should constantly pray when she performs these mitzvos and fulfills them punctiliously, as follows: May the Merciful One give me children who are righteous and God-fearing, and learned in the Torah [literally, Knowers of His Name, Blessed be He, as in the birkas haTorah].

The gematria of Taryag is equal to the gematria of the words: zu he mitzvas ha’challah. This is to teach you that whoever keeps the mitzvah of challah is as if they kept the whole Torah. ChaLlaH in the AB GaD method of interpretation and decoding i.e. replacing the letter in the word with the letter that precedes it in the Alfbeis, spells ZaKhU. For because of challah Bnei Yisrael merited, zakhu, to enter the Land. So also, in Parshas Shelach to teach you that they merited to enter the Land to observe the mitzvah of challah:
…When you come into the land where I bring you, Then it shall be, that, when you eat of the bread of the land, you shall offer up an offering to the Lord. You shall offer up a cake of the first of your dough for an offering; as you do the offering of the threshing floor, so shall you present it. From the first of your dough you shall give to the Lord an offering in your generations.
--Bamidbar 15: 18-21

Aramaic for He Sprinkled Like a Whip: Ke'matzlif or Ke'me'na'gad'na

The Gemara in Yoma 15a says:

…But let him sprinkle one so as to constitute two below, as is prescribed for a burnt-offering and two separate sprinklings above as is prescribed for sin-offerings? — We do not find that any blood is sprinkled, half above, and half below. Not indeed? Have we not learnt: He sprinkled thereof once upwards, and seven times downwards? That was done ke'mazlif’ [like the movement of swinging a whip]. What does ‘ke'mazlif’ mean? Rab Judah showed it by [imitating the movements of] a lasher, ke'me'na'gad'na.

Targum Yonasan (Devarim 25:3): on the words, arbaim yakenu, 40 lashes shall be given translates: arbain yatzleif.

In the Vilna Shas there is a comment in between the margins of the Gemara and Tosafos that points to the above Targum, but says yitzlof.

There is another source in the Targum Yonasan ( Tehillim 74:5): on the words, yi'va'da' ke'mei've le'ma'lah bi'se'vakh 'etz kar'du'mos, They are known as swingers of axes in the thick forest, translates, ke'mei've le'ma'lah as yatz'leif viz. he swings.

Redeeming God – So To Speak

The Gemara in Berakhos 8a says:
What is the meaning of the verse: But as for me, let my prayer be made unto Thee, O Lord, in an acceptable time (Tehillim 69:14)? When is the time acceptable? When the congregation prays… R. Aha son of R. Hanina says: [You learn it] from here: Behold, God despiseth not the mighty (Iyov 36:5). And it is further written: He hath redeemed my soul in peace so that none came nigh me; for they were many with me (Tehillim 55:19)…R. Nathan says: The Holy One, blessed be He, says: If a man occupies himself with the study of the Torah and with works of charity and prays with the congregation, I account it to him as if he had redeemed Me and My children from among the nations of the world.

What does it mean to say HKBH is redeemed? Does He need redemption? Redemption from what?

Rav Dovid Cohen in his Gemara shiur cited Midrash Eichah Rabbah (Pesichta 34. See Tosafos, Ani Vaho, Sukkah 45a) to explain this Kabbalistic idea that HKBH, k’va’yakhol, shadows the Bnei Yisrael:

The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord (Jer. 40:1). What was that word? God said to Jeremiah, ‘If you remain here, I will go with them into captivity, and if you go with them, I will remain here.’ He spoke before Him, ‘Sovereign of the Universe, if I go with them, what good can I do for them? So let their King, their Creator, go with them, for He can do them much good.’ Hence it is written, After that Nevuzaradan the captain of the guard had let him go ' Being bound in chains’: R. Aha said: If it is possible to say so, both He and Jeremiah were bound in chains. As a parallel it is written, I was among the captives means I (Ezekiel) and He were among the captives (Ezek. 1:1).

HKBH is with us in galus and when we perform mitzvos i.e. Torah study, gemilus chasadim and tefillah b’tzibur, that bring about redemption, we not only bring redemption for Bnei Yisrael but also for HKBH who is with us in chains, so to speak. As the pasuk says, Hashem tzilekha ‘al yad yeminekha, The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade (like a shadow) upon your right hand (Tehillim 121:5).

No One is Left Behind

On Shabbos, Parshas Beha’alosekha, Rav Dovid Cohen spoke about the pasuk:
And Miriam was shut out from the camp seven days; and the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in again.
--Bamidbar 12:15

Rashi says: This honor was given to her by Hashem because of the time she waited for Moshe after she cast him into the Nile, as it says, And his sister stood far away, to see what would be done to him (Shmos 2:4).

The Gemara in Sotah 9b
MIRIAM WAITED A SHORT WHILE FOR MOSES, AS IT IS SAID, AND HIS SISTER STOOD AFAR OFF; THEREFORE ISRAEL WAS DELAYED FOR HER SEVEN DAYS IN THE WILDERNESS, AS IT IS SAID, AND THE PEOPLE JOURNEYED NOT TILL MIRIAM WAS BROUGHT IN AGAIN.

Yalkut Shimoni interprets “the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in again”
to mean that HKBH prevented the people from traveling by holding back the Aron, the Shechina, Kohanim, Leviyim, Yisraelim and the seven clouds of glory.

The Israeli army has a policy that no soldier is left behind. Even if an entire regiment is at risk they do not leave until that soldier is brought with them.

What is the basis for this? Is it halakhic?

The Tzitz Eliezer discusses this question. Normally, an individual is not obligated to put his life at risk for someone else. During war a society’s prerogative and obligation is to protect its soldiers and may take on an obligation that is a midas chasidus, an act of piety.

This practice of the Israeli army as a community at war is lifnim mi’shuras ha’din and, therefore: No one is left behind.

Rav Dovid Cohen has a regesh, a feeling, that the act of Miriam keeping an eye on Moshe’s welfare at the Nile inculcated this midah of chasidus into our tradition. So, midah k’neged midah, she was repaid and we are the beneficiaries of her midas chasidus becoming part of our tradition as a nation.

The Legacy of Maimonides: A New Worthwhile Book

The Legacy of Maimonides
Religion, Reason and Community
800th Anniversary Commemorative Collection
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Legacy.html
320 pages, $26.95 Edited by Yamin Levy and Shalom Carmy

Rabbi Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), known as Rambam, is widely known as a profound philosopher and authoritative legal scholar. However, Rambam’s contributions are not merely remnants of medieval scholarship but a vibrant legacy that gives compelling guidance in modern man’s spiritual search. In this book, leading scholars present surveys of Rambam’s thinking and his impact on Judaism, and apply Rambam’s approach to various issues of critical contemporary importance.
The opening essay in the book is by the late Professor Isadore Twersky, dean of intellectual historians working on Rambam, and himself a role model for the combination of Torah and academic scholarship. His subject is the growth of Rambam’s reputation and his impact on later Torah scholarship. Rabbi Norman Lamm, for so many years a productive scholar and leader of American Orthodoxy, discusses a question central to religious life—the love of God—drawing on Rambam’s halakhic works and the Guide. Professor Arthur Hyman, who occupies a prominent place among contemporary interpreters of Maimonides’ philosophy, surveys, with his customary concision and clarity, the broad options in the academic scholarship of the 20th century.
Contributions by Shalom Carmy and David Berger focus on critical questions regarding the ongoing implications of certain Maimonidean doctrines. Rabbi Carmy’s article offers a defense of Rambam’s robust approach to dogma. Dr. Berger explores present day utilizations of Rambam’s naturalistic teachings about the messianic age. The late educator and scholar Rabbi Norman Frimer depicts Rambam’s influence as a role model for intellectual searchers. His son, the legal scholar Dov Frimer, turns to the details of Rambam’s jurisprudence, and produces some unexpected conclusions regarding the halakhic status of non-Jews. Roslyn Weiss devotes her paper to a detailed examination of one text in the introduction to the Guide, communicating the exhilaration of such microscopic study and its more systematic pertinence.
Yamin Levy’s essay looks at the general relationship between Rambam’s championing of rational thought and the kind of community it fosters. Hayyim Angel surveys many of Rambam’s discussions pertinent to Biblical exegesis and their abiding importance for our own study of Tanakh. Elimelekh Polinsky deals with a specific area, honor and respect for parents. His essay, too, exemplifies the integrated study of Rambam’s Halakhah and his philosophy. The essays by Moshe Sokolow and Gerald Blidstein expand the scope of the book. Sokolow demonstrates the significant issues tackled by Rambam in his epistles. Blidstein, much admired for his three analytic and historical monographs on specific topics in Maimonides’ jurisprudence, discusses the idea of Oral Law in Rambam. David Shatz aptly closes the volume with an analysis of the last chapters in the Guide, casting new light on Rambam’s view of human nature, the role of the mitzvot and the goal of human existence, while demonstrating yet again the necessity of painstaking microscopic analysis of the text and its literary organization.

Contributors:
Isadore Twersky
Norman Lamm
Arthur Hyman
Shalom Carmy
David Berger
Norman Frimer
Dov Frimer
Roslyn Weiss
Yamin Levy
Hayim Angel
Elimelekh Polinsky
Moshe Sokolow
Gerald Blidstein
David Shatz

The Upside Down Nuns Around Va’ye’hi bin’so’a and U’ve’nu’cho yo’mar

And it came to pass, when the ark set forward, that Moses said, Rise up, Lord, and let your enemies be scattered; and let them who hate you flee before you. And when it rested, he said, Return, O Lord, to the many thousands of Israel.
--Bamidbar 10:35-36

The Sefer Yachin u’Boaz, the teshuvos of R. Zemach b. Shlomo Duran, was asked about the meaning of these two pesukim being surrounded by the upside down nuns. Rashi says that this is not their proper place but were put here to divide one punishment appearing after another. What does this mean?

The Yachin u’Boaz answers that in Shabbos 115b – 116a it says:

Our Rabbis taught: ‘And it came to pass when the ark set forward that Moses said, [etc.]’: for this section the Holy One, blessed be He, provided signs above and below, to teach that this is not its place. Rabbi said: It is not on that account, but because it ranks as a separate Book. With whom does the following dictum of R. Samuel b. Nahmani in R. Jonathan's name agree: She [Wisdom] hath hewn out her seven pillars (Mishle 9:1): this refers to the seven Books of the Law? With whom? With Rabbi. Who is the Tanna that disagrees with Rabbi? It is R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. For it was taught, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: This section is destined to be removed from here and written in its [right place] viz., in the section dealing with the disposition of the Israelites according to their banners and their traveling arrangements (Bamidbar 2). And why is it written here? In order to provide a break between the first [account of] punishment and the second [account of] punishment. What is the second [account of] punishment? — And the people were as murmurers, [etc.] (Bamidbar 11:1 seq.). The first [account of] punishment? — And they ‘moved away from the mount of the Lord, (Bamidbar 10:33), which R. Hama b. R. Hanina expounded [as meaning] that they turned away from following the Lord. And where is its [rightful] place? — In [the chapter on] the banners. But in the future , when all evil and its consequent retribution has ceased, this section will be inserted in its right place.

These two pesukim count as a sefer by itself. From here we know that a Torah scroll that is erased except for 85 letters, the number of letters in the parsha of Va’ye’hi bin’so’a, still counts as a Sefer Torah regarding tum’as ya’da’yim.

She [Wisdom] hath hewn out her seven pillars: this refers to the seven Books of the Law…
1)Breishis,
2)Shmos,
3)Yayikra,
4)Bamidbar until Va’ye’hi bin’so’a,
5) Va’ye’hi bin’so’a and U’ve’nu’cho yo’mar i.e. until Va’ye’hi ke’mis’on’ne’nim,
6) Va’ye’hi ke’mis’on’ne’nim until the end of Bamidbar,
7) Devarim.


The 7 books are representative of the 7 days of creation and the 7 special days that adorn the Jewish people: Shabbos, Pesach, Shavuos, Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, Sukkos and Shmini Atzeres.

Today I attended the 85th birthday party for my Tante Gertie and Uncle Freddie where their son-in-law, Rabbi Arele Adler, of Ramot Alef, Jerusalem, spoke about these two pesukim based on an explanation that was given by the Rav, R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik.

According to the Rav, there are two distinct mitzvos and two kiyumim in these two pesukim of Va’ye’hi bin’so’a and U’ve’nu’cho yo’mar. In other words, there are two kedushos of the aron, the Ark:
1) The kedusha of the aron outside the mikdash and the kodesh kodashim when it travels in the wilderness at the head of the camp and in future generations in battle. This kedusha is expressed in the verse of Va’ye’hi bin’so’a -- And it came to pass, when the ark set forward, that Moses said, Rise up, Lord, and let your enemies be scattered; and let them who hate you flee before you.

2) The kedusha of the aron in its place, when it is not moving. This is the kedusha when it is stationary and resting in the mikdash as expressed in the verse U’ve’nu’cho yo’mar -- And when it rested, he said, Return, O Lord, to the many thousands of Israel.

These two pesukim are, indeed, a book in their own right because they encapsulate two ideas that encompass many battles, events and periods in the history of the Jewish people. There were times when the aron traveled in front of the camp and, so to speak, did battle. There are other times, as in the present, when the aron rests in the hidden reaches of the mikdash where it bestows the presence of the shechina immutably for all time.

As the Rambam writes:

When Shlomo built the Temple knowing that it would at the end be destroyed, he constructed underneath a place where to hide the Ark in the deep and winding secret tunnels. At the command of King Josiah, it was concealed in the place which Shlomo had built, as it says,
And he said to the Levites who taught all Israel, who were holy to the Lord, Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel built; it shall not be a burden upon your shoulders; serve now the Lord your God, and his people Israel, (Divrei Hayamin II, 35:3)
-- Beis HaBechirah, 4:1

The Rav explains that there are points expressed here:
1) It shall not be a burden upon your shoulders i.e. the mitzvah of carrying the aron is over and so are its travels
2) The hiding of the aron fulfills the mitzvah of the aron at rest, U’ve’nu’cho yo’mar. Therefore, the kedusha of the mikdash still exists. The chalos of the aron at rest is not betelah – it is still there at rest and keeps the presence of the shechina and the kedusha in the mikdash.
-- Shiurim leZekher Abba Mari zal, I, pp.172-173

Links with further discussion of this subject:
http://seforim.blogspot.com/2006/06/inverted-nuns.html

http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2006/06/septateuch.html

Ribono Shel Olam of Birkas Kohanim

On Shabbos, for Parshas Naso, Rav Dovid Cohen spoke about the Ribono Shel Olam that we say in between the pesukim of Birkas Kohanim.

We say a prayer about dreams that says:

…If they are good, strengthen them, fortify them, make them endure in me and in them like the dreams of the righteous Joseph. But if they require healing, heal them like Hezekiah, king of Judah, from his sickness; like Miriam the prophetess from her tzaraas; like Naaman from his tzaraas; like the waters of Marah through the hand of Moses our teacher; and the like the waters of Jericho through the hand of Elisha.

The gemara in Berakhos 55b has a slightly different version of this prayer that deserves some analysis. The gemara says:

… heal them, as the waters of Marah were healed by Moses, our teacher, and as Miriam was healed of her leprosy and Hezekiah of his sickness, and the waters of Jericho by Elisha....

The order of the tefilah in our siddur is based on themes:
Sickness
tzaraas and then
water.

Whereas, the gemara in Berakhos seems to be based on chronological order:
Moshe and the waters at Marah
Miriam and her tzaraas
Hezekiah and his sickness
Elisha and the waters at Jericho.

Also, Na'aman is missing in Berakhos -- why?

The Ramban says (Vayikra 13:47 and 26:1) that when Yisrael are shleimim le’Hashem i.e. completely perfect in their relationship to God, the spirit of Hashem always rests on them and protects them and their clothing and their houses from tzaraaas. When they are less than perfect and sin separates them from God’s protection, they or their clothing or houses become afflicted with the spiritual disease of tzaraas. Yisrael in their perfect state are not subject to the teva, natural course of nature. God blesses their food and water and protects them from illness to the point where they do not need medical treatment. Shmos 15:26 says, I am Hashem your healer. When the tzadikim fell ill in the times of ne’vu’ah they would call upon a navi, not doctor. For example, when Hezekiah (Melakhim II, 20:1-3) took ill they called for a navi, Yeshayah, and Hezekiah prayed to Hashem.

The gemara in Berakhos which follows the chronological order, leaves out Na’aman because he was an Aramean, not a Yisrael, at the time he was healed. Our nusach in the siddur, on the other hand, is arranged according to themes of Divine healing and Na’aman was indeed healed that way through the navi, Elisha.

The Gra says there are three pesukim that start and end with the letter nun that relate to tzaraas, God’s protection in Eretz Yisrael and the role of the navi. These three pesukim are a remez to Na’a’man whose name also starts and ends with a nun.

Nega tzaraas ki si’h’yeh b’adam v’hu’va el ha’kohen
When the disease of leprosy is in a man, then he shall be brought to the priest.
--Vayikra 13:9

Nachnu na’avor cha’lu’tzim li’fnei Hashem eretz ke’na’an v’i’tanu a’chu’zas na’cha’la’seinu me’e’ver le’yarden
We will pass over armed before the Lord into the land of Canaan, that the possession of our inheritance on this side of the Jordan may be ours.
--Bamidbar 32:32

Navi me’kirbekha mei’ache’kha ka’mo’ni ya’kim lekha Hashem Elokekha ei’lav tsh’ma’un
The Lord your God will raise to you a Prophet from your midst, from your brothers, like me; to him you shall listen.
--Devarim 18:15

The gemara excludes Na’a’man because in chronological order Na’a’man was not yet under the Divine protection for healing like Yisrael, shleimim le’Hashem. Our siddur based on the theme of healing from tzaraas, therefore, includes Na’a’man, because he was afforded the same miraculous healing as a Yisrael.

What is the Purpose of Mitzvos? To Teach Us To Be Lenient, Merciful and Kind?

This evening I learned the following chapter in the Guide for the Perplexed with my chavrusa, Rabbi Avraham Garfinkel:

The laws concerning the relation between lender and borrower" (Hilkhos Malveh veLoveh) will be found, on being carefully examined, to be nothing but commands to be lenient, merciful and kind to the needy, not to deprive them of the use of anything indispensable in the preparation of food." No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge: for he taketh a man's life
to pledge" (Deut. xxiv. 6)…

Mercy is also the object of the law," Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant that is escaped from his master" (Deut. xxiii. 15): but it teaches besides a very useful lesson, namely, that we must always practice this virtue, help and protect those who seek our help, and not deliver them unto those from whom they flee; and it is not sufficient to give assistance to those
who are in need of our help: we must look after their interests, be kind to them, and not hurt their feeling by words. Thus the Torah says:" He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not vex him" (ibid. ver. 16). This we owe to the lowest among men, to the slave; how much more must we do our duty to the freeborn, when they seek our assistance ?

But, on the other hand, when sinners and evildoers seek our help, it must not be granted; no mercy must be shown to them, and the course of justice must not be interfered with, even if they claim the protection of that which is noblest and highest: for" Thou shalt take him from mine altar that he may die" (Exod. xxi. 14). Here a person comes to seek the help of God, and claims the protection of that which is devoted to his name; God, however, does not help him, and commands that he be delivered up to the prosecutor, from whom he fled. Much less need any one of us help or pity his fellow-men [under such circumstances]: because mercy on sinners is cruelty to all creatures.

These are undoubtedly the right ways designated" righteous statutes and judgments" (Deut. iv. 8), and different from the ways of the fools, who consider a person praiseworthy when he helps and protects his fellow-men, without discriminating between the oppressor and the oppressed. This is well known from their (i.e. Muslim) words and songs.
--(Guide, III,39)

Rabbi Garfinkel concluded from this that the purpose of the mitzvos is to inculcate in us these character traits of kindness and mercy.

A question I have is based on a discussion of the ta'amei haMitzvos in the book, Halakhic Mind, by the Rav, R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik. The Rav writes in Halakhic Mind that the usual understanding of ta'amei hamitzvos is the attempt to rationalize commandments according to logic or common sense or ethics. The problem is that mitzvos have a logic all their own that may not appear to be rational by any other standards or become oversimplified to the point of unimportance when rationalized. The question should not be: Why is this a mitzva? Or, how is this a mitzva? Rather, the questions should be: What is the halakha? Even if it confounds normal reasoning, what does the mitzva teach?

In the Rav’s words:

For example, should we posit the question: why did God forbid perjury? The intellectualistic philosopher would promptly reply, “because it is contrary to the norm of truth.” Thus he would explain a religious norm by an ethical precept, making religion the handmaid of ethics. Again, when the same philosopher attempts to sanction dietary laws on hygienic grounds, the specific religious content and meaning are supplanted by a principle of foreign extraction. If the Sabbath is to be seen only against the background of mundane social justice and similar ideals, the intrinsic quality of the Sabbath is transformed into something alien. It serves merely as a means to the realization of a “higher” end. Maimonides’ efforts foreshadowed failure from the very outset of his “how” approach.

It is worthy to note that Maimonides, the halakhic scholar, came nearer the core of philosophical truth than Maimonides the speculative philosopher. In contradistinction to the causal method of the philosophical Guide (the Mishne Torah) apprehends the religious act in an entirely different light. The Code does not pursue the objective causation of the commandment, but attempts to reconstruct its subjective correlative. It would seem the Maimonides of the Halakha was not intrigued by the “how” question. He freed himself from the generic purview and employed a descriptive method of expounding the content and symbolic meaning of the religious norm. The “what” question was his guide in the Code.
--R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Halakhic Mind, (New York: Macmillan, 1986), pp. 93-94.

The Brisker's in general claim that one cannot ask "why" about mitzvos but only "what".
The Beis Halevi mentions this idea in Parshas Bo, on verse 12:26 (page 119 in the new edition of the Beis Halevi, starting on paragraph Vihegadita livincha bayom). (In short) He says the wicked son of the Hagadah is someone who will not do a mitzvah until he understands the reason behind it. He contrasts this to the wise son's question about the laws of Pesach (this is the idea of what not why). He says making up reasons for mitzvos is a bad idea because when one of those reasons doesn't apply, people will say the mitzva is obsolete.

Perhaps the original source for this Brisker approach is in Berakhos 33a where the Mishnah says, IF ONE [IN PRAYING] SAYS ‘MAY THY MERCIES EXTEND TO A BIRD'S NEST’ ...HE IS SILENCED. and the Gemara adds: But what is the reason for silencing him if he says ‘THY MERCIES EXTEND TO THE BIRD'S NEST? — Two Amoraim in the West, R. Jose b. Abin and R. Jose b. Zebida, give different answers; one says it is because he creates jealousy among God's creatures, the other, because he presents the measures taken by the Holy One, blessed be He, as springing from compassion, whereas they are but decrees....[emphasis mine]

I believe the Rambam uses both approaches: why? and what? The Rambam is teaching us the value of both approaches to understand the Torah more fully. The questions are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they complement each other.

The Three Kafs: Koso, Kiso and Ka'aso

I just finished learning this gemara in Eruvin 65b with my phone chavrusa. This is the famous gemara about the three kafs: koso, kiso and ka'aso. You can judge a man by three things: 1) How he acts when he drinks, 2) How he reacts when he has to spend or make money and 3) What he does when he loses his temper. The true nature of person is revealed when tested in these three ways.

I think there is a fourth K that has come to the fore in modern times: Kar pool. You can discover the true nature of a person with conflicts of interests in a car pool.

More seriously, the Maharsha says that all human characteristics can be divided into three ctaegories: 1) Man's relationship with the ribono shel olam. 2) Man's releationship with his fellowman and 3) Man's realtionship with himself. Money is indicative of his relationship with others. Drink tells about how he cares for himself. Anger shows the nature of his relationship to Hashem. One who is prone to anger is like an idol worshipper.

Strangely Curious: Toronto Muslim Terrorists Want Torah and Da Vinci Code

Chris Storms reports on his blog, http://www.chrisstorms.com/blog/?p=65 , that the terrorists requested copies of the Torah and the Da Vinci Code.

Studying Mishna at the Tikun Leil Shavuos

There are a variety of minhagim regarding the study of Mishna at the Tikun Leil Shavuos. The parsha sheet published by the Belzer chasidim listed 10 sources on the subject last week. The following are some of them:

1. ...after that begin with the 6 sedarim of the Mishna, from each mesechta learn the first and last mishna.... (Shelah haKadosh, Sahvuos, Ner Mitzvah 4)
2. ...I have seen medakdekim stand all night studying tanach to "make the tent of the Torah one (original: le'chaber es ha'ohel echad)" and studying Torah she'be'al beh most of the night. In my opinion, study seder nashim, and if possible say it by heart; otherwise, read it. Seder Nashim has 7 mesechtos and 71 chapters, appropriate subject matter for a kallah.... (Seder haYom, Chag Shavuos)
3. One must study Torah she'bi'chsav, and not Mishna, since Mishna is the handmaiden to the matron. Since this night is a tikun for the matron there is no place for the handmaiden in place of the matron. (Tur Barekes, Kabbalist R. Chaim haCohen of Aleppo, Orach Chaim, 494)
4. ...It is incorrect to learn Mishna on leil Shavuos regardless, because mishna is the handmaiden of the matron, Torah. Let him study the razei, mysteries, of the Torah. If he is not at that level, then study midrash, but not mishna. This is how the minhag spread in Jerusalem, Hevron and most likely in Tzfat, to not study mishna. (Chida in the name of R. Chaim haCohen of Aleppo and student of the R. Chaim Vital, Lev David, ch. 31 and notes)

The Mishmeres Shalom (39:2) does not believe this is an accurate quote from the Tur Barekes since it is inconsistent with the importance of Torah she'be'al peh and the opinion of the Seder HaYom.

Why is There a Precise Number of 613 Mitzvos?

The Torah is like the Kesubah, marriage contract, between Hashem and the Bnei Yisrael. Just as a contract has to be very specific on the conditions of the agreement so that there can be no misunderstanding, so also, the Torah has to be specific about the obligations of Bnei Yisrael. Therefore, we are told that there are 613 commandments for which we are responsible.