Rav Yitzchak Breitowitz: Personal Transformation Through the Sacrificial Offerings

You [music] my [music] birthday. [singing] [music] [music and singing] [singing] >> Okay. Hi everybody. Thank you for coming. Uh the share today is dedicated as usual uh praying for the protection of amI Israel, the lasting unity of the people of Israel which will basically to victory and as well as davining for all of those whose health has been affected uh by terror and war. Uh tonight's shar is dedicated by Mark Costelle in appreciation of Riers and in honor of his wife Reena. Uh that's Mark Wel's wife Reena and their 30th 33rd wedding anniversary and Maz may be to uh happiness together at May of uh we have of course we're coming to Roesh Nissan and although there's a mitzvah of stuck the whole year there actually is a special rabbitic obligation uh to contribute money for Pesak so people can can celebrate the yiff of Pesak in a proper way. Uh this is either called mo money for wheat, money for matzah but in everything or which means pes flower and uh it is it goes beyond the general obligation of and will be planning on distributing food coupons to many families during the next two weeks and therefore your support would be very appreciated. uh you can contribute via the link in the description box on YouTube and on andor on the Bonet websites and uh when we sit down at our yumptive table we say in the beginning of the seder called all who are hungry let them come and eat now we're saying it at our seder already so we're not really inviting anybody at that particular point although you never know uh but we make the statement true by what we do ahead of time by by uh giving before Yumpt giving the uh things that people need so we can then sit down at the seder and say all who are hungry let them come and eat because we try to do what we can to help them. So besida uh may this bring a Yeshua to all of those who contribute and to the Jewish people as a whole. Uh we have uh already entered the third of the fiveish uh for many people to be honest might be their least favorite uh part of the kish. Uh I remember I think there's a passage in Janeire forgive me for using a secular reference where little Janeire is quite a Bible scholar as Charlotte Bronte was. Uh and uh when Janeire was asked uh by her uh kind of abusive uh caretaker whether she read her Bible, so she said she greatly enjoys uh Genesis and parts of Exodus, but Leviticus she finds a little bit burdensome. And unfortunately what Jire expressed is true for many many people. Uh and yet I have to say I personally uh get a certain sigh of relief whenever we get to because it's the realm of just it's more comfortable controlling instead of the kind of an open-ended family conflicts of Genesis that never get resolved. And every single year we're going to talk about the same questions. How could Yoseph, you know, how could Yoseph's brothers sell him? How could Yakov steal the pros from Asa? These are eternal questions. What was the sin of the eight sadas? uh and you know we talk about them but next year we'll also talk about them because uh and the questions never get answered when you get into the realm of hala things are a little more definitive they are complicated but they do have a very very definite structure so uh for certain personalities bayra is even a bit of a relief because we're now in the realm of hala maybe it's the lawyer in me or or or whatever whatever it would be but the truth of the matter is I I want to talk about tonight something that really cuts across a lot of paras because the truth is that the last third or more of the book of schmos is all about the construction of the mishkan and then we move to vayikra about what you do in the mishkan which is all the different types of corbanos. So in a sense uh vayikra at least the beginning of vayikra there are other besides corbanos but the beginning of vayikra is very very much connected to uh the mishkan. So I want to talk a little bit about the Mishkan. We actually did not talk that much about the Mishkan uh during the past few weeks because we were talking about Purim and the four parios. So I'm going to kind of make up some lost territory and connect it to Vayikra as well. Uh first there is a mitzvah. The Jewish people were commanded to build a Mishka. Now what is a Mishka? The word Mishka means a dwelling place. The English word tabernacle. I'm not even sure what [clears throat] tabernacle means, but uh the Mishka means a dwelling place and it's based on the verse. God says, "Make for me a holy place so I may dwell, I may live in their midst." So Mishkan comes from I may live in their midst and the idea is as the mfortion points out over and over again that it does not say that God resides in the Mishka. It doesn't say it says I'll dwell in you. Meaning the ultimate goal of the Mishkan is to be a vehicle that Hashem's presence dwells in our heart and in our soul. The true Mishkan of Hashem is in the heart and soul of every Jewish person. And as the Katskarvi famously remarked when someone asked him where does God live his answer was God lives wherever he is welcomed. >> [snorts] >> God is in your heart and soul when you welcome him into your heart and soul. So whenever we talk about the Mishkan or the mikdash now there's all bit of controversy I know if you've been following this where Tucker Carlson has um blamed Kabad for the the war with Iran because Kabad wants to build the third temple and as a result uh they want to stimulate the destruction of the mosque and the dome of dome of the rock. uh etc etc uh and know anti-semmites a lava sof what they will come up come up with but in reality in reality the way we build the bas only mashiach is going to build the third temple and according to rashi the third temple will not even built by will not even be built by mashiach it's going to come down from the heavens so what is our obligation to build a temple to build the temple within our heart to make our heart and soul a mishk for the shina and when enough people do that and we reach the critical mass whatever that is I don't know then the ba mikt will come as that sign that god's shina is within us right so that's the idea of the mishkan generally now what's very interesting is that there's a very fascinating mahlo rashi and the raman regarding when was the commandment ment of the Mishkan even given. You know, if you look in the Torah, uh so all of the commandments about building the Mishkan were given and then we had the sin of the golden calf and then Mosher Rabenu comes down and uh prays for Ben Israel and then after the forgiveness after Yam Kipper when he comes down with the second tablets he then assembles B Israel and he gathers them and gives them the instructions. So if you follow the kish very literally, Hashem actually gave Moshe the commandments about the Mishkan before the sin of the golden calf when Moshe was in hari for the first 40 days. Yes, it's true. He didn't get around communicating to Ben Israel about the Mishkan till after theel. So theel is in parasisa is afterwards but the civo of was before theel and that is the first 40 days when moherenu was in hari for the first 40 days from shuas until the 17th of tamas when he came down and he broke the l and yet rashi does not say that. Rashi says that this is a massive example of a famous rule. The Torah does not follow chronological order that events in the Torah which are recorded before other events actually took place after those events. And here was what Rashi says. Rashi says, "Ben Israel or Moshe, Hashem did not give Moshe a commandment to build a Mishka until the last time Moshe went up to Hari after the [snorts] Truman although written before the is an example of a mtra. What is the radical implication of Rashi's remarks? Although Rashi does not say it explicitly but the implication of Rashi's remarks is had there not been a [snorts and clears throat] there would not have been a Mishkan the commandments about a Mishkan are because [snorts] we sinned with the Ael had we not s in other words it's always like a hypothetical Torah what would the Torah have looked like had there not been a sin of the golden calf. Well, obviously one thing would have been would there wouldn't have been a narrative of the golden calf had there not been a sin of the golden calf. That's obvious. But would there be a change in the commandments? The simple shot is no. The Tory would be the same. According to Rashi, not true. All of the commandments about the Mishk were a response to the ego. And had there not been a there would not have been a Mishka. That's the implication of Rashi invoking the principle. The question is why? Why would there not have been a Mishkan had there not been a sin of the golden calf? So there are three different explanations in Rashi's understanding. Why the Mishkan is a response to the ego. The first is a comment of the sopornoya soperno who doesn't explain rashi. says that on his own but but many will use the soprano's idea to explain rashi and that is although the mishkan and later the basa mikda seems to be a glorious idea in point of fact there's a little bit of a rejection implicit in it because in the ideal state of being every person would be their own coane every person could bring corbanos wherever they want [snorts] they would have access to Hashem with the intensity of the BA mikdash everywhere >> in the ideal state of being had there not been a we wouldn't have needed a special place we wouldn't have needed special people every single person would be a coen every single person would have access to God in your backyard in your kitchen in your living room wherever it is because of the we inc we encountered a certain distance from Hashem. So, Hashem still gives us access. Hashem still gives us a way to connect to him. But now there are rules. Now there are boundaries. Now our connection to the almighty is circumscribed by certain procedures. So Hashem we have that access. We have those procedures. And even today when we don't have a basa mikdash by learning about it it's as if we have that connection but still in many many ways says the saporno the mishkan and the ba mikdash are monuments of failure they come because of our spiritual defeat in succumbing to the so this might be one explanation for rashi. Now the difficulty with this is that um one of the roles of the Malik Mashiach is to rebuild a third temple and that Tucker Carlson happens to be correct at least on that particular detail. Now if the idea is that we need Mishkan and Mikdash only because of the it would seem that when we eventually reach a perfect rectification of sin you would no longer need a particular building. So that concept of soperno seems to be contradicted by the notion of a messianic temple. But nevertheless this is a thought the soperno advances. Now there's a second explanation uh for rashi which is based on the kuzari it was actually before rashi but but nevertheless the famous work on Jewish philosophy by ravuda halevi and you know that the kuzari is based on a true story but it's a fictionalized account of the mass conversion of the khazar nation in Russia uh that the king converted uh the those people to Judaism. Uh and there was an old theory that I think has largely been discarded that the origin of Ashkanazic Jews are not from the people who lived the indigenous people of Arit Israel. Uh because they would be dark-kinned etc. But Ashkanazic stock comes from the Khazars. That's an old again it's largely been discredited but that's what people say it's not the Jews that are smart. It's the Russians it's the Khazars that are smart. you know, whatever whatever it would be. But be it as it may, this tale which was triv this warlike nation converted to Judaism was something that really very much fascinated medieval Jews. So the Kuzeri Rudy used the story to create a framework of a dialogue between the ra a rabbi that he called the and the mel of the Khazars. uh and review made up the questions and the answers meaning the he has them king ask all sorts of questions and the rabbi gives answers and the kuzerie used of course levy added a little story that he found this long lost manuscript somewhere again everyone knows it's a story uh again the event happened but the whole reconstructions review using it as a vehicle a literary vehicle to explore the foundations of Judaism and review makes a very interesting point he makes a point that if you walked into the keshakashim and you saw the ara kodesh uh on top of the ara kodesh were graven images statues of two cherabs now how could there be a vodora I mean god warns us over and over again don't worship statues don't worship images why in the holiest place would there be this type of graven image So that develops an idea that when there is a deep human need, Hashem will give us ways to satisfy that need within a hikic framework and then it's very very important you don't go beyond the framework. Meaning you the great attraction of a vodar and this even goes back to the golden calf was that people needed some tangible way to connect to God. Whether it's a statue, whether it's a person, Moshe was the intermediary. How do you relate to something you cannot see, you cannot touch, you cannot feel, you cannot even directly talk to and get an answer? So people were attracted to tangible objects that they could connect to or even tangible people, let's say Christianity that they can somehow see as a personification of the divine. And therefore our vitazara stemmed from a deep human connection [clears throat] to feel a tangible connection to the intangible God. So because of this because of this need God conceded so so to speak to allow a certain degree of what would otherwise be a vodor within the Mishkan but it's put in a secret place a hidden place a place that's not open to the public but at least we kind of know it's there. So says this was ga a response to the meaning had there not been a ideally God does not need physicality to be worshiped. We would worship God by meditation by prayer by Torah study by good deeds. We don't need sacrifices. We don't need buildings. We don't need statues. [snorts] But theel demonstrated that we had that need. So God conceded so to speak to our Yates or now the Rambam in the Morin doesn't use that for Mishkan as the Kuzeri does but he uses it for carbanos. The Rambam famously says why does God want corbanos? Does God need barbecued meat? Says God doesn't need corbanos but we needed to connect in a physical way. And this was a ritual of idolatry. And if God were to say go cold turkey, we wouldn't have been able to pull ourselves away from idolatry. So corbanos are a concession to the idolatous impulse. Now the kuzi takes it one step beyond that by saying even a mishk and a ba mikt are a concession to our need for for a tangible physical way to connect to a kadesh and had there not been a sin of the golden calf there would not have been that type of need for physicality. So you see the difference according to the soporno the mishkun is God's way of distancing himself from us by saying I can only be approached in a certain way as opposed to unlimited access. According it's a little different. Hashem is giving us what we need within his framework is we need that physicality. We need that tangible connection to God. So God gives it to us. So both the the saporno and allevi are saying that the mishkun is a response to the ego and had there not been a ego there wouldn't have been a mishkan but they have two different lines of reasoning why that's the case now the truth of the matter is the question that I asked about why will there be a basikdash and corbanos when msiah comes are equally difficult according to vari and that is if this is simply a make concession to the idolatrous impulse then why will we need that concession when we're in a time of mashiach that's still going to be a good question now there is a third mahal a third approach to how to understand rashi that we link the mishkun uh to theel and that is the mishkun was simply a tangible sign that god has accepted our chuva and therefore where he shows us that by creating a structure where the divine presence rests. So it's a gift meaning the idea that had there not been a perhaps we wouldn't have needed that reassurance but with theel where God wanted to destroy us and we felt rejected and we felt cut off and we felt that God hated us the building of the Mishkan in the aftermath of the kohgo was the ultimate sign of divine forgiveness. Right? So these are three different explanations in Rashi. Again, Rashi simply makes the chronological observation that had there not been the there wouldn't have been a Mishkan. Rashi does not say what the connection is, but there are these three different approaches as to what the connection is. But all of this is presupposing Rashi that Mishkan was a response to the there is a whole other view and this is the view of Ramban. Now I think I mentioned before in connection with yet another controversy about matan Torah that the Ramban generally does not like to use the principle of right that's a principle of that the Torah is not always in chronological order. Uh now the Ramban cannot argue with that principle because number one the gammorra says it and number two there are places in the kish where it's unavoidable. There are absolutely places in the kish where it's impossible that events are chronological that things are out of order. So, but the Ramban only says it when he has to say it. There is no alternative. The Ramban says we normally presume that the events recorded in the Torah are in the order of their occurrence. And therefore the same thing here parasit where hashem gave Moshe the commandments about building the mishkan and the priestly garments they are before theel right then you have the yakud is when mosha instructs so according to the raan we simply follow the order of the uh [clears throat] the way it's written and that is Moshe was given the commandments of mishka and even had there not been a but he didn't get around to communicating them till he took care of the forgiveness of the so according to Ramban therefore Mishkan is independent of ego and even had there not been ago there would have been a a mishkan and a ba mikdash going to ram therefore it's obvious why even when msiah comes we're going to have a bas mikdash because the bas mikdash is not avid response to sin or failure But the BA mikdash or the Mishkan is exactly what God wants in this world to have a dwelling place in this lowly world a tangible dwelling place as it were. Nevertheless, I want to point out that even according to the Rambadan, the nature of what the Mishkan would have been had there not been the sin of the golden calf. There would have been a Mishkan. Yeah. But what it would have been would have been different than the Mishka as we actually have it. And this is based on a very very fascinating observation of the mesh. And that is if you remember in parasisa when Moshe is still up at Hari the first 40 days and this is before Hashem said go down because the people have sinned, right? This is before the ego. So after all of the instructions are finished and according to the Ramban they were given in the first 40 days we're going with the Ramban at the end Hashem then talks about Shabas after finishing the whole discussion of building the Mishkan uh there's a famous paragraph that many people recite in Davening uh Friday night and uh many people recite in the kdish of Shabas morning and that's V is she'll observe the Shabba to make the shabas uh a sign that God uh created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day. So right after all of the Mishkan which according to the Ramban is the order before the Hashem concludes the discussion of Mishkan with the idea of keeping Shabas. Now similarly but in reverse order when Moshe Rabenu after the forgiveness of the inud is communicating the mitzvah to build a Mishkan and contribute he begins by talking about Shabas and then he talks about Mishkan. So both when Hashem speaks to Moshe and when Moshe speaks to B Israel there is a juxiposition between Shabas and Mishka right that Shabas is always mentioned in connection with Mishka according to Rashi the juxipa juosition in both cases both in terms of Hashem speaking to Moshe and Moshe speaking to Ben Israel is exactly the same message. And that is even though there's a mitzvah to build a Mishkan, you cannot violate the laws of Shabas in building the Mishkan. And indeed as we know the very definition of the 39 activities that are prohibited on Shabas the 39 mus are those that are involved in construction of the Mishka and that's why Hashem tells Moshe that don't build a Mishkan on Shabas and Moshe tells Ben Israel don't build the Mishkan on Shabas and according to Rashi the justosition is exactly the name and it simply means a mishan does not override shabas and as is often expressed mishkun is sanctity of space and shabas is sanctity of time and in Judaism sacred time is more significant than even sacred space okay now that's how rashi understands the juxapositions But the emp is according to Rashi there's a very strong question. So why is the order reversed? Meaning when God speaks to Moshe he first mentions all the details of Mishkan and he ends with Shabas. When Moshe speaks to Ben Israel he starts with Shabas and then goes into the Mishka. Now according to Rashi both have the same meaning. The first time it means even though I gave you Mishkan Shabas is more important. And in Vayak he's saying I'm telling you about Shabas first because Shabas is more important. Okay fine. But if the message is the identical message why is the order inverted in the two cases. So the mesh has a very different approach. The meshma says that the reason that when God speaks to Moshe the first 40 days we're going with the Ramban's opinion he first tells him Mishkan and then he gives him Shabas is under the ideal prego Mishkan building of the Mishkan would have would have overridden Shabas. In other words, Shabas is mentioned second because Shabas would be subordinate to the Mishkan. It's only after the that Shabas overrides Mishkan. And that's why Vake when he's speaking to B is after the he first mentions Shabas and then Mishkan. Now I'll I'll explain why in a moment. But you see the beautiful sequencing. That is why when Hashem speaks to Moshe before the first Mishkan then Shabas because Mishkan has priority over Shabas. When Moshe speaks to Ben Israel after the first Shabas and then Mishkan because Shabas will override Mishkan after the why is that so? So let's consider uh some interesting aspect of the temple service. On one hand, we pin, you cannot build a mishk on shabas [snorts] or bas mikdash on shabas because you're doing malika. On the other hand, if you walked into the basa mikdash on shabas, you would be quite shocked at what you would see. Animals were slaughtered. Corbanos were cooked, burned, manura was lit. Incest was burn incense I'm sorry was burned there were all sorts of malikas the basikas was chock full [clears throat] of malus now it's true that private corbanos are not brought on chabas so if you wanted to bring a burnt offering or a sin offering you could not bring it on chabas but the corbanos were the public offerings the corbentid the musaf the lighting of the monora the ktorus All of that was done on Shabas Shabas kipper every day of the year. So what's the difference? Why would it be so that you can bring all the corbanos on Shabas but you can't bring you can't build the BA mikdash or the mishk on chabas? The answer would be that yes, the actual service of God is done even on Shabas. But building the Mishkan is not a service to God. It is simply an enabler of a service. It is what would be termed mitzvah. Let me give you an example that applies even today. If a child was born on Shabas, a male and the eighth day after birth is Shabas. So the is that we do a bris even on Shabas only if it's an eighth day child. If the bris is being delayed, you cannot do that on Shabas. Right? So a brisma is dha. It pushes aside chabas. Even though a brisma involves maha, you're causing bleeding, etc. So a brisma is dha shabas. Now even though a bris is do shabas the moel is not allowed to drive on shabas to the bris even if he lives far away uh the parents cannot drive the baby cannot be transported that doesn't override chabas only the bris override chabas but not the preliminary activities of the bris right that's a fairly clear example where A mitzvah might override chabas, but the preliminaries to enable you to fulfill the mitzvah does not override chabas. So by the same token, building a mishkan or building the basa mikdash is a means to serve God. So the service of God would override chabas but not the preliminaries to the service of God. Right? The same way a mo cannot drive to a shabas bris we cannot build a ba mikdash on shabas because that is just a preliminary to bringing the corbanos but says the mesh [clears throat] that was true only after the sin of the golden calf had there not been a ideally you shouldn't need the mktash as a way of bringing corbanos as The Saporo said God should be accessible everywhere. So why are we building a Mishkan prea? Because building the mishkun in itself is an act of sacrificial worship. The building of the mishkun itself becomes a carbon to God. It's not just an enabler to bring corbanos, but it itself is a carbon to Hashem. If that's the case, it's going to override chabas. That's what he's saying. Meaning the mishkun changed functions. In a pre-aggo world, the mishkun would have been an act of homage and worship. As a result, it would have overrid over overridden shabas. Which is why when Hashem speaks to Moshe the first time, he first talks about Mishkin and then Shabas because Mishkin would have priority over Shabas. But after the it became an enabler because we were no longer worthy of that unlimited access and therefore it transitioned from being a sacrifice to being a preliminary to enable sacrifices and at that point it would not override chabas. So that's a very fascinating mesh based on the Ramban's idea that you're going chronologically not like Rashi who says there wasn't there wouldn't have been a Mishkan at all and to show that even like the Ramban that there would have been a Mishkan even without a it would have been a different idea. [clears throat] It would have been an idea of that the Mishkan itself is an act of sacrificial worship as opposed to an enabler to bring corbanos and that's why it would be dha shabas again remember that uh communal offerings are brought even on chabas but the preliminary aspects are not so for example we have all sorts of rules that you wouldn't be allowed to carry things in a public nonf place to get them to the basikta to bring corbanos just as you're not allowed to carry things in a place without an a for a brisa you got to do everything ahead of time by the way whole interesting shila uh given the fact that a moel cannot drive uh to a bris uh that's on shabas so let's say you're a moel who lives far away and uh a couple contacts you to do a shabas bris and they live in a place let's say they may not even have a minion What is the moell's responsibility? This is actually a very practical question. Does a moel have to miss domining with the minion, miss being with his family? [snorts] In other words, is it his job to show up at any brisk that he's called to or can the mo basically take the position, I'm sorry, I I can't leave my home on chabas. So, it's a big mlo. I think instinctively we feel the may ought to go. It's a bris on the eighth day. But lisa um there are moim who take the position that they're not m to go I mean it's not their mitzvah per se meaning meaning it's not their son so they don't have to circumcise this child on the eighth day uh they're just being hired by the parents and as a result they're entitled to say that I cannot go if I'm going to miss my family or whatever it is so that's actually is a [snorts] to spend Shabas in a place where there's no minion or he won't be with his family given the fact that he's not allowed to drive. There's also a shila perhaps he might be permitted to take a non-Jewish taxi driver. Again, these are mak exactly what you can do. But the one thing for sure he cannot do is 1,000% he is not allowed to drive uh to the bris ma because that is ma risa with the fire the combustion of fuel and uh even though ma brris override chabas mir the preliminaries of a bris do not override chabas now the mah that I want to point out I don't want to get into the too many details of that this is the and this is the view of rabak Ka. However, there is another view, a minority view in the Mishna, Rabbi Elazzar, who says that once a bris overrides Shabas, every single step that's necessary for the bris override Shabas as well. And this is the example he gives. This is a real far-fetched example. He says you're allowed to cut down trees and make a fire in order to burnish the knife that you're going to need to cut for a brisma that all of that all of those preliminary activities uh even to make a knife by cutting down wood and making a fire uh are going to be shabas. So obviously he takes the position that if the mitzvah override chabas the preparations override chabas but we do not puscan like rabel we pasan like rabaka that only the mitzvah itself override shabas not not the mirim of the mitzvah okay so this is a fundamental makus rashi and the raman about the connection of the mishka to theel and then I also brought in the ram's overall view of corbanos in which the Rambam says corbanos themselves are a concession to avoid a concession to idolatry and they're not inherently desirable by God and here too Ramban argues on that as well by pointing out well wait a second here we find that Arak and Yakov brought corbanos and they certainly were not attracted to idol worship and uh even cayenne and he remember uh brought the choicest. He brought the animals to God and God accepted his offering. And Cayenne also brought Corbanos, but Cayenne brought inferior produce. Now the uh the Yates for idolatry didn't come into the world yet. So what why is God why are they bringing corbanos and why is God accepting their corbanos? So because of this the Ramban has the famous idea that corbanos are not simply a concession to idolatry but rather they represent a symbolic transformation of the worshippers. Again it's not that God likes meat. But when the worshipper kills the animal and recognizes that there but for the grace of God goes me that because of my sins because of my failure I don't deserve to live but God as it were has accepted this corbin in lie of me so what then happens is I become transformed so when it says a corban is a pleasant fragrance to hashem that doesn't mean the physical smell now but it means it's a metaphoric way of speaking the worshipper who has become transformed spiritually through the act of the corban brings hashem pleasure. Hashem sees the transformation of the worshipper and that is described as a pleasant fragrance to Hashem. This would explain a very interesting anomaly. You know, um the prophets, yes, your mo they spend a lot of time knocking corbanos. They're actually they seem they seem to be this is during the time of the temple, first temple. They seem to be very anti-corbanos. Like the no says, well, God doesn't want your offerings. You know, your hands are filled with blood. You oppress the widow. You cheat the orphan. You lie and you steal and you swear falsely. And then you bring your corban. I don't want your corban. I don't want your sacrifices. There's even a language where God says, "All of the offerings you bring me when you are corrupt. I hate them. I despise them." Now, the reform movement sometimes calls itself prophetic Judaism. is actually a term the reform movement has appropriated because they basically say the way they read the message is the Nim didn't care about rituals. They considered rituals to be empty. They only cared about social justice and therefore uh the reformed movement that emphasizes social justice over rituals like Shabas and Kashas they are following the tradition of the prophets. Now, obviously that's a misreading because the truth of the matter is I can show you many prophetic passages where they do talk about Shabas and Kashas. Yes. And they talk about social justice too. 100%. They absolutely do talk about social justice. But it's not to the exclusion of the other mitzvah. So it's only carbonas that they knock. So we have to understand this a little bit. The Nvi doesn't say, "I hate your shab. Why do you keep shabas if you cheat in business?" Because we would actually say, "Well, it's very very bad to cheat in business, but that's not a reason not to keep Shabas." The Ni doesn't say, "If you're dishonest, why do you keep kosher? If you're dishonest, why do you keep Shabas?" Doesn't say that. The only thing the Nim knock is if you live an immoral life, why do you bring corbanos? They do knock that. They say God does not want the corbanos of immoral, unethical people. But you see, that's not true with other mitzvah. With other mitzvah, the basic idea is okay, you're doing something very wrong in your lack of ethical behavior, but you still keep chabas kosher. So if that's so then why do they knock the corban? So there's something very important here because here's the thing. Corbanos were brought in the ancient world as well, right? All idolatrous religions brought sacrifices. The Greeks brought sacrifices. The Romans brought sacrifices. The Babylonians brought sacrifices. Sometimes they were human sacrifices. What did a sacrifice represent in the ancient idolatrous pagan world? In the ancient idolatrous pagan world, I'll just use Greek mythology as an example. The gods were not concerned with morality or ethics. In fact, if you read Greek myths, uh the so-called Greek gods were certainly not paragods of virtue. They were very very evil creatures full of uh incest and violence and everything else. So what was a corban in the ancient idolatrous world? It was simply the equivalent of mafia protection money. It was paying a bribe. I'm going to bribe Jupiter Zeus so he'll protect me from my enemies. You were simply bribing what you thought was a higher power by giving them something, giving them gifts. Now, that is not what a corbin is in Judaism. According to the Ramban, the purpose of the Corbin is not that you're bribing God. The purpose of the Corbin is that it transforms you. So, here's the problem. If you bring a carbon and you continue to live an immoral, unethical, dishonest life, then the carbon is no longer a vehicle for character transformation. It's simply a bribe. At that point, not only is the carbon worthless, the carbon becomes sinful because that's offensive to God. It is an offense to God to think that you can simply buy them off. See, that's the difference. Shabas and kosher have inherent value, spiritual value. So, even if I'm dishonest, okay, I keep chabas, I keep kosher. We're not going to say because I'm dishonest, forget about chabas. Whatever I do is what I do. But a corbin is different. A Corbin only has value because it changes you. So if it doesn't change you, you're viewing the Corbin as mafia protection money. That is a gross insult to the glory of Hashem. So the point I'm making is not only is such a corban worthless, such a corban becomes a sin in and of itself, which would not be true about the shabas or the kosher. Right? If a dishonest businessman keeps kosher, he's still going to get rewarded for keeping kosher. But if a dishonest businessman brings corbanos, the corbanos don't count because in fact now again, not only do they not count, they become a veros. And this is a pussan proverb, a puss mish that says zeim the sacrifice of the evildoer to is an abomination tok. So this is why the nim knock corbanos. They don't knock keeping shabas. They don't knock keeping kashras even if you're unethical and you cheat and you oppress people. But they do say the carbonis of people who live unethical lives are offensive to God. They are repulsive to God. And um if you recall this is actually something we read about even on yam kipper. It's very very fascinating. It's a beautiful powerful haftra >> [snorts] >> uh anam kipper in which uh again is talking about injustice to the widow and the orphan and he says what does god want you to do? Does he want you to bend your head like a reed? You bend your head and you you you know beat your breast, beat your heart and then you go out and lie and cheat. Is that the fast that God wants? And then it's a beautiful point that the purpose of this fast is that you will grow in your compassion and your love and your care. It's a great message. I mean, this is the message on Kipper. It's like the is giving us age. What is the meaning of fasting? What is the meaning of all of these things of sacrifices? That's why yam kipper is yiskar. So ykar we give stucker. So a sh will often often have a major appeal on yum kipper. So this haftra is very good. It ties in very well. I've used it many times myself uh as an appeal for money uh based on the notion of what is a fast other than opening up your heart to be filled with the compassion that hashem has for his creatures. You have it uh you have it as uh as well. Okay. So these are some some thoughts about the Mishkan about Corbanos. They're not necessarily tied to a specific para but there there's ways of looking into all of the details. Now what's interesting about Safer Vayikra which is very complicated I mean uh besides corbanos the laws of leprosy are extremely intricate just very very amazing very very difficult. In fact, I still have occasional nightmares. You know, when I came to Daenerys Israel Yeshiva as a 14-year-old in Baltimore as a 14-year-old 9th grader, uh so our assignment was we were supposed to learn the para of the week uh with Rashi uh on our own, you know, with translations if you needed them. And then on Friday, we were to get a a test. It wasn't the hardest test, but a test on the para of the week. So I remember I had never learned those parts of Vayikra when I was in school. So I remember that for some reason the week of paras Tazria which was the para surah the laws of leprosy. So I didn't get around to uh learning the para till Thursday night. So I figured okay I would stay up a little late. I would learn para's tazria uh Thursday night to take the test Friday morning. Wow was I in for a shock. I don't know how many of you are familiar with tarria, but look at trea. I still I had I had no idea. I had no way of even knowing how to get through how to get through this and I really really really uh panicked you know I thought you know it's I'm going to get kicked out and whatever whatever I think what happened I don't even remember so many years ago but I think what happened was um the rebi just said there there'll be no Friday morning there'll be no bakina there no test in that parade was too uh a little too difficult but I do remember the abject terror of looking at rashis in which I had no possible idea of what that would mean. So, Vayikra is extremely complicated. It is very very very complicated. Uh and the rashis are totally based on gamoras and very intricate tmudic sugas and the like. And yet the medish says a very fascinating thing about vayikra and that is when little children would be initiated into the learning of hum. So we start with gracious we start with the creation of the world. They started their first learning five years old because remember Perkyo says the age in which a child should be initiated to the study of hum is five kindergarten. So at five years old they would start teaching them vayikra because the medra says little children are pure and corbanos are pure. Let those who are pure occupy themselves with pure things. So, it's kind of unbelievable because today there's no uh no school, no yeshiva, no that's going to begin with. It's too difficult. How do you teach it to a 5-year-old? Although, I'll tell you, I remember once years ago, just to digress, I was in a hotel for Pesak and there was an AV from Lakewood and he was learning with his 5-year-old mase oolos, which is in the order of purity. these very very hard very hard complicated things. So I asked the guy afterwards he says you know how can you learn all of these complicated things with a 5-year-old? I mean they're so complicated. I mean most many many people who are even rabbis and don't learn this stuff. So he told me the interesting thing he says you know to a little kid everything's the same. He says the concept that some things are more are harder than something else. That's an artificial thing that adults acquire. At some point we kind of differentiate. Oh, this is hard and this is easy to a kid. Everything is new. Everything is new. So Tyrus is just as new as Brahos. So you start with Tyrus. It's not going to be more difficult for him. He doesn't have any blockage because it's not like he was exposed to something easier and now this is so much harder. It's what it is. So he actually says that if you start learning with children very difficult parts of the Torah, they'll never get the phobia that this is so hard that I have no way of of mastering it. Uh it's an interesting point that he said psychologically the notion that something is hard, it's inaccessible is kind of an acquired uh deficit that we have. It's not something that's intrinsic. They say by the babi and the usami too. You know the tom shami is studied far less than the babling than the Babylonian. The normal gammorra that we learn in yeshivos is the babling and people say oh thei is so hard so difficult it's impenetrable. uh but it's been pointed out that it's impenetrable only because we got used to the bali and the usami is a different work than the the usami is written differently than the babi. If you would start with the usami you would actually find the usami easier. So it's just a question of we get conditioned to a certain norm and anything that deviates from the norm is hard when in fact you could have reversed the sequence and it would have been exactly the opposite. Like people say you know uh you know Hebrew is such a hard language but the truth is English is a hard language. English is truly a hard language. The spellings and the and and and the like. So we say Hebrew is a hard language if if English is your, you know, your native tongue, but if English is not your native tongue, it's English that's going to be much harder than than Hebrew. So it's interesting how we form certain associations of what is difficult, what is not. Uh be it as it may, uh just to end off with the the point that I began with and that is um our job is not to physically build the base of Mikash. Our job is not to destroy the mosque. Our job is not to wage war. And remember, you're not even allowed to build the base of mikdash that way. Remember David, David was not allowed to build the base of mikdash [clears throat] because he was a man of war. Although his wars were commanded by God, only his son Schlomma who was a man of peace was permitted to build the Basa Mikdash because the basikdash has to be a source of shalom in the world and not a source of divisiveness and maklo and even if you look although he conquered he conquered much of he conquered David conquered Jerusalem but the temple mount had to be through a negotiated purchase. If you look at the end of the sec second book of Shmo, uh the temple mount was a threshing floor of a non-Jew whose name was Aravna the Yevusi, Arna the Jebisite. And David collected money from all of the tribes. So all of the tribes have equal connection to the Temple Mount. And David had to buy the temple mount from Aravusi. Now why did he have to buy it? I mean he conquered Jerusaleam was not conquered in Yoshua's time. Was conquered in David Hamel's time. He conquered Jerusalem. He didn't negotiate. He engaged in military conquest. So why didn't he conquer the Harabayat? And the Rambam says it's the same idea. The same idea that David was disqualified from building the temple because he was a man of war also means that the temple mount itself cannot be acquired by war or bloodshed. It can only be acquired by negotiation. So our belief is that when Msiah comes all the nations of the world will recognize [clears throat] there is one God and therefore when the BA mikdash gets eventually built it will not be through compulsion. It will not be by displacing anyone but all the nations of the world will acknowledge the hash. Okay. So yeah uh does Kabad pray for the building of the third temple? They sure do. Uh but to construe that as somehow engaging in some violence. Uh now there may be again I'm not there may be groups in that actually do support that there are radicals uh in religious groups as well as non-religious groups. Uh but in terms of mainstream halaka it's absolutely not the case that the temple will be rebuilt by violence or war. It's the other way around. It'll be built by persuasion and by people acknowledging Hashem is the God of Israel and the God of the whole world. So, may we be to see the bin of the month of Nissan is coming in just another day. And asal say, we were redeemed in the month of Nissan and Nissan will be the month of the future redemption as well. So, may we be za to see that. You [music] my [singing] [music] you [singing] [music] [music and singing] na.