This shiur is based on the writings of Rav Tzadok HaCohen.
This shiur is dedicated anonymously.
Parshat Tetzaveh is basically a listing of the various garments worn by the Cohanim and the Cohen Gadol.
Rav Tzadok asks three questions on Parshat Tetzaveh:
1. Why is Moshe's name missing from this parsha?
2. Why is the golden altar listed in this parsha, rather than in the previous parsha which dealt with all the other vessels of the Mishkan?
3. Why are there references to lighting the menorah at both the beginning and end of this parsha?
He explains that this is the parsha of Aharon. Aharon has the ability to bring out the Oral Torah in every Jew through his love for every Jew and his understanding of their soul and essence.
With this Rav Tzadok explains the unity of the parsha. He also connects it to the snake in the Garden of Eden, Amalek, and Eliyahu HaNavi on Mount Carmel.
I look forward to your comments.
Here is the audio shiur (and the pdf sheets to download if you want).
Parshat Tetzaveh - Aharon and Kiruv
(Right click and then 'download as')
Parshat Tetzaveh - Aharon and Kiruv
Your feedback is welcome and appreciated. I would love to continue giving a shiur to this group on a weekly basis, but to do that I would need some kind of sponsorship. If anyone is interested in sponsoring a shiur (either l'ilui nishmat someone, or just for no reason) please contact me.
Because of the specific language of the mishnah, I have a difficulty with R' Tzadoq's interpretation.
ReplyDeleteAharon is described as "oheiv as haberios, umeqarvan latorah -- loves all who were created, and brings them close to the Torah." The term "berios" isn't limited to Jews. So, it would seem to me that the reference isn't to Oral Torah and the extrapolation of new Torah from the old, but to some aspect of Torah that applies to Jew and non-Jew alike. Succh as serving and emulating the Creator.
Second question was with R' Tzadoq's take on the notion that David sinned only to model teshuvah, to give hope to future sinners that full forgiveness is possible.
According to Izhbitz (starting with the Mei Shiloach, but including R' Tzadoq and Radzin), actions are predestined and it's the intent and aattitude that are free willed and judged. A sin for the sake of heaven (aveirah lishmah) is no different than a mitzvah -- assuming it too was for the sake of heaven.
In which case, what is it David was guilty of? The near-murder and adultery were not really his choice, and the reasons he assigned to them were positive ones.
And, paradoxically, wouldn't that mean that by sinning in order to demonstrate the power of repentance, he didn't really need repentance and thus didn't demonstrate anything?