Friday, December 27, 2024

The Relationship Between Yosef and Leah's Four Oldest Sons

Parshat Miketz

by Rabbi Avi Billet

With the exception of Binyamin, the births of all of Yaakov Avinu’s children are recorded in Parshat Vayetze, in chapter 29 and 30. Half of Yaakov’s sons (the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah and Leah’s two youngest sons) do not have a speaking role in the Torah, and typically appear as part of the Bnei Yaakov, Bnei Yisrael, Achei Dinah, Achei Yosef, etc. Even the exception to this, when Yosef brings five brothers before Pharaoh (47:2) proves the rule. Firstly, they are not even identified in the text. Secondly, none are identified as specifically speaking. 

 [The identities of the five are disputed: One view is that they were Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Yissachar and Binyamin (Pesikta, Rashi on 47:2). The other view is that they were Zevulun, Dan, Gad, Naftali, Asher (Sechel Tov, Targum Yonatan, Rashi on Baba Kama 92a). Everyone agrees that Yehuda was NOT brought before Pharaoh, though for different reasons. Note how the second view includes Leah’s youngest son and the 4 sons of Bilhah and Zilpah] 

Friday, December 20, 2024

Yehuda and Tamar’s Relationship After Discovery

Parshat Vayeshev

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

The story of Yehuda and Tamar is familiar to regular parsha readers. Yehuda marries off his son Er to Tamar. Er dies for being “bad in God’s eyes” and so Yehuda gives the bereaved widow to Er’s brother, Onan. The Torah reports that Onan would spill his seed so as not to impregnate Tamar (hence the term ‘onanism’) so God caused Onan’s death as well. Fearing widowhood and singlehood for the rest of her days, Tamar disguised herself as a harlot on a crossroad, only to meet, by design!, one specific potential customer, her recently widowed father-in-law Yehuda, who does consort with her and impregnates her, all while being unaware of her true identity. 

 Upon discovering her pregnancy, and thus her faithlessness in (not) waiting for Yehuda’s third son, she is slated for punishment, which most assume was to be a capital punishment of burning. 

Friday, December 13, 2024

And Yaakov Was Left Alone

Parshat Vayishlach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

One of the most compelling images in the Torah, which you can easily find in varying artistic renderings through the centuries with a simple Google search, is of the tussle between Yaakov and the “Man” during the night before the anticipated reunion of Yaakov and Eisav after so many years apart. 

The Torah introduces that struggle with the phrase ויותר יעקב לבדו, which is typically translated to mean “Yaakov was left alone/by himself,” and on a simple level, it means he was the last one remaining after everyone had crossed the Yabok safely. 

 The English translation, owing to its idiomatic interpretation, is most ironic and contradictory. Yaakov may have been the last one there, but he surely was not left alone! If someone picks a fight with you, the person is not “leaving you alone.” 

Friday, December 6, 2024

Two Thefts, Exodus, and Survival

Parshat Vayetze

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Chapter 31, verses 19 and 20, present two thefts. The first is Rachel “stealing” her father’s terafim. The second is Yaakov “stealing” Lavan’s heart in that he doesn’t tell him of his departure from Lavan’s home, with his wives, children, and his belongings. 

Were these really both "thefts" in the traditional sense of stealing? Or is there a different kind of message being conveyed, despite the language of stealing being employed.

 Most of the commentaries in the Mikraos Gedolos Chumash focus on Rachel’s deed, ignoring Yaakov’s “theft” simply because Yaakov’s is clearly a figure of speech, but is not a crime, whereas Rachel actually takes objects that belong to her father. 

Friday, November 29, 2024

Diplomacy and Cold Peace is Better Than Open Hatred

Parshat Toldot

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Some of the commentaries suggest that Akedat Yitzchak was, in some way, a reaction to what took place immediately before it in the Torah, the treaty that Avraham made with Avimelekh. That treaty, in which Avraham ceded some of the land promised to him by God, was a treaty Avraham, arguably, had no right to make without God’s instruction. As a result, this approach offers, he was challenged to wonder what the promises to him were worth if he would be tasked by God to take his son’s life. 

All that at least being a possibility, one wonders why Yitzchak would make the same mistake. 

Truth be told, Yitzchak’s similar encounter with Avimelekh is, on the one hand, not really a treaty. Secondly, he is bound by the treaty that his father made. Despite that, Yitzchak does have grievances over how he was treated by Avimelekh’s people, particularly since there had actually been a treaty between Avimelekh and Avraham’s family (note: Avimelekh might be a title similar to Pharaoh, so he might be dealing with a different person than the one Avraham dealt with). 

Friday, November 22, 2024

Avraham's Children (and daughter?)

 Full transparency: I had already decided on this week’s topic, when I accidentally came across an article entitled “Did Avraham Have a Daughter?” - https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/399547 Thankfully, my research did not include the author’s main source (Rav Hirsch) so here we go. 

Parshat Chayei Sarah

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Rabbi Baruch HaLevi Epstein (in his Tosefes Bracha) notes the passage in Yevamos 62a that the mitzvah of reproducing (פרו ורבו) is to have a son and a daughter (according to one opinion) – so the parents essentially replace themselves. Avraham focuses on finding a wife for Yitzchak, which based on his analysis (which includes Baba Basra 141a, Bereshis Rabba 60, and Tosefta Bechoros chapter 6) that a wifeless father should usually find a wife for himself before concerning himself with his son finding a wife, unless he has already fulfilled the mitzvah of פרו ורבו. Therefore, the only way Avraham could concern himself with finding a bride for Yitzchak is if he, in fact, had a daughter as well – thus there is good reason to believe he had a daughter, even though the text makes no mention of one. 

 As noted here Seforno is of the opinion, based on Divrei HaYamim I 1:28 that Avraham only had two sons, Yishmael and Yitzchak, and that the 6 children of Keturah (ibid 1:32 and Bereshit 25:2) were hers from a previous union. Seforno describes Avraham as “raising her children” as he compares the situation to Michal bat Shaul being credited with giving birth to 5 children to Adriel (her sister’s husband) (Shmuel II 21:8), while a different verse tells us Michal never had children (Shmuel II 6:23)! Just as she raised her sister’s children that she didn’t birth, Avraham raised Keturah’s children that he did not father. 

Friday, November 15, 2024

Doing Righteousness and Justice - Learning from Sodom

Parshat Vayera 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Parshas Noach usually raises the question of what Noach’s “righteousness” was – in his generation only? Would he have been considered righteous in a different time period? – and the comparison is often made to Avraham, who defended wicked people. 

The Torah does not report on Noach advocating on behalf of the people of his time, nor does it present him as trying to get others to turn or return to God. 

Avraham advocates on behalf of the people of the five cities – Sodom, Amora, Admah, Tzvoyim, Bela (Tzo’ar). And he clearly walks around the land calling out in God’s name, letting the people know of the existence of God. 

 The many stories the Torah tells us of Avraham indicate a man who is prominent, at times wealthy, who communicates with outsiders (not co-religionists), who cannot be ignored. 

Friday, November 8, 2024

Bondage Makes For the Greatest Bond of the Ages

Parshat Lekh Lekha

by Rabbi Avi Billet

One of the great conundrums we face in understanding the history of our people, going back to Avraham Avinu, is why there was a need for exile? If God wanted Avraham’s descendants to inherit the land He gifted to our forefathers, why not just have it start with the birth of Yitzchak, with some kind of blueprint that as the family grows, they will spread further and further from the center, ultimately occupying the whole land, as promised? 

Perhaps it does not take too much imagination to see that things don’t necessarily work that way. Even in the recent election we saw how Americans have very different ideas as to what direction the country should be headed (to use a bland cliché). Even after only 250 years, the “United” country seems very “divided” over a number of issues. There is a Constitution, which some look at as the founding document behind which all future laws must be scrutinized. Others see it as a living document which was good in its time but needs to be rewritten for the realities of our times. 

Friday, November 1, 2024

Tzohar – Illuminating Where There is Darkness

See here for a different discussion based in explaining Tzohar

Parshat Noach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

One of the early instructions given to Noach is to make a “Tzohar” for the Ark. What is Tzohar? While many people are likely familiar with what Rashi says (which we’ll get back to), it is interesting to note that Rashi’s presentation (though he’s really noting different opinions) is not exhaustive. 

The discussion surrounding what Tzohar (spelled צהר) means is based in the question of what the original Hebrew refers to. For example, צהרים refers to the light of midday, as even in modern Hebrew, whether one is לפני (before) the צהרים (in the morning) or אחר (after) the צהרים (afternoon) is a clear distinction in time that is based on High Noon. Does צהר come from צהרים? 

 The Gemara in Sanhedrin 108b says it does! צהר תעשה לתבה, אמר רבי יוחנן: אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא לנח: קבע בה אבנים טובות ומרגליות, כדי שיהיו מאירות לכם כצהרים. Rabbi Yochanan explains that God told Noach to take precious stones that would illuminate like the day (צהרים). 

Friday, September 27, 2024

Bringing the Children Along

Parshat Nitzavim Vayelekh 

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

 On the rare occasion that I need to make a late-night run to Walmart for some odd or end that we need, while I am (hopefully) obviously going out on this errand by myself, I marvel at how there are sometimes families, with very small children, at the store at the same time. And we’re not talking about the single mom who has no other choice but to bring her children – these are families with two parents present along with their little children. 

 It's not for me to judge, and I certainly don’t say anything. But I imagine that were I to ask, the answer I’d get from the parents is “We had to do this errand together. Do you expect us to leave our children home by themselves? What do you think we are – irresponsible?” I don’t want to get into an argument, so if my guess of an answer were to turn out to be true, it is certainly better that they take their children than leave them home by themselves. I understand that it’s very hard to get a last-minute babysitter. (Nevermind that you could have done what I did – but I guess some items that get picked off the shelf need a discussion in the store…😇) 

Friday, September 20, 2024

The Blessing WITH You

 Parshat Ki Tavo

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Chapter 28 begins with 14 verses of positivity and blessing leading into the long “Rebuke” which is known as the Tokhacha. In those 14 verses, we find the following message. יְצַ֨ו ה' אִתְּךָ֙ אֶת־הַבְּרָכָ֔ה בַּאֲסָמֶ֕יךָ וּבְכֹ֖ל מִשְׁלַ֣ח יָדֶ֑ךָ וּבֵ֣רַכְךָ֔ בָּאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־ה' אֱ-לֹקֶיךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לָֽךְ: 

 Artscroll’s translation is “Hashem will command the blessing for you in your storehouses and your every undertaking; and He will bless you in the land that Hashem, your God, gives you.” 

 Another translation, from Chabad.org’s online full-Tanakh-with-translation is: “The Lord will order the blessing to be with you in your granaries, and in every one of your endeavors, and He will bless you in the land which the Lord, your God, is giving you.” 

Friday, September 13, 2024

Returning Lost Objects, Finding Our True Selves

Parshat Ki Tetze 

 by Rabbi Avi Billet

When counting per parsha, Ki Tetze has the largest number of Mitzvos in the book of Devarim, and in all of the Torah! Some of them have been seen before in the most Mitzvah-prolific parshas such as Mishpatim and Kedoshim, and some have been counted then as Mitzvos, and some are only counted here as Mitzvos by the Sefer HaChinukh. Perhaps the easiest reason for any repetition, in general, is that Moshe is speaking to the next generation, and is reminding them of some of the more important things he has taught over the years while also focusing on the instructions that will fare them best when they enter the Land of Canaan and begin building a new society there outside the realm of the partially supernatural living they’ve experienced in the wilderness (Manna, special water sources, pillars of cloud and fire, etc.) 

 One mitzvah which appears in two places is regarding the returning of a lost (and therefore found) object. In Devarim 22:1 the verse says that “You shall not see the lost ox or sheep of your brother wandering and let it be. [Rather] you should return them to your brother.” The word brother here means “your brother in observance” or “your brother in Mitzvos.” 

Friday, August 30, 2024

The Holiness of Avoiding Milk/Meat Combinations

 Parshat Re'eh

by Rabbi Avi Billet

One theme of Parshas Re’eh focuses on the rules of what an Israelite may and may not eat. We see this first in chapter 12 when we are told about when we may come to eat from certain vows and offerings in “the place God will have chosen” (the place of the Temple in Jerusalem), such as during holidays or really throughout the year. The middle of the chapter speaks of eating meat as part of offering, the rules related to the (non)consumption of blood (12:16, 23-27), and how to eat meat outside of the context of offerings (12:20-22). 

Observing these rules, following a theme of Devarim, is למען ייטב לך (so it will be good for you) (12:28). A similar sentiment is conveyed at the beginning of chapter 14, that you are a holy nation, and you are God’s treasured people (14:2) – and this is the lead-in to the rules of Kosher, as in “which animals you may consume and which animals you may not consume.” Some animals are defined by certain characteristics (split hooves and ruminant is a kosher quadruped, fish need fins and scales), while there is a list of the non-kosher birds. Unfortunately the identity of the birds listed is debated, thus we only eat birds that have a tradition of being kosher. 

Saturday, August 24, 2024

A Bat Mitzvah Address (Week of Eikev)

 This past Shabbos we celebrated our daughter becoming a Bat Mitzvah. The following is the Torah and message components of the sermon I delivered in shul, with the personal parts removed.

"Parshas Eikev," the second installment – in terms of 'Parsha's in Devarim – of Moshe’s 21-chapters-long speech that covers most of the last book of the Torah, contains a lot of repetitive features. So much so, were I to be pushed to find themes in today’s Torah portion, I think they could be brought down to three major classifications.

1. The value of the observance of Mitzvos and what a true connection to Hashem could be 

2. The stubbornness of the Bnei Yisrael and their need to work hard to counter it, a challenge which can be overcome through humility 

3. A love of the land of Israel 

In honor of our celebration in shul this morning, I will touch upon each of these subjects, and conclude with a message for our Bat Mitzvah. 

Friday, August 23, 2024

A Simple Matter

Parshat Eikev

In the “Otzar Chaim” anthology of Divrei Torah, Rabbi Tzukerman (the editor) records a story of a certain man who was aiming to get his certification to be a recognized shochet, so he would be recognized as someone who could slaughter animals for the kosher consumer. The rabbi he went to was a righteous and punctilious man, who would not simply offer his consent to anyone who came his way, but would only put his stamp of approval on a person he felt met all the qualifications, knew all the laws, etc. 

 After several rounds of inadequate tests and not-to-snuff-shechitahs (in the good rabbi’s opinion), the candidate frustratingly asked if the rabbi could hurry up and fulfill his request for the certification. The rabbi hinted to him “Nu, and what about the small matter?” The candidate thought he understood and brought the rabbi a small donation. 

Friday, August 16, 2024

Does Our Life Have a Purpose? Depends on How You Look At It

Parshat Va'Etchanan 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The methodology behind coming up with each topic for a weekly Dvar Torah is a study unto itself. Sometimes the thought is driven by something the writer really wants to say – the message is there, and it’s just a question of attaching it to a verse in the Parsha. Sometimes the writer has a burning question that is personally troubling, so answering that conundrum becomes the driving force behind the research. Sometimes a cursory reading through Midrash will beg the question “what is this telling us?” or “what does this really mean?” and will lead the thought in a different direction. 

 And sometimes one comes across a troubling passage and has a need to “think aloud” but on paper. 

 The following is of the latter variety. 

Friday, August 9, 2024

Timeliness and a Different Kind of Rebuke

Parshat Devarim

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The parsha begins by setting the time and stage for Moshe’s goodbye speech to the Children of Israel, giving us many geographical coordinates while noting that it’s the beginning of the 11th month. The Sifrei (Midrash on Devarim) tells us that “This teaches that Moshe waited to rebuke them until close to the time of his death. He learned this tactic from Yaakov Avinu who gave rebuke to his own children just before he died. Yaakov did this so he wouldn’t have to rebuke more than once. And also, if his words were negative, it would prevent people from having to look him in the face and be embarrassed, since he wouldn’t be around for very long after the rebuke was given.” 

What’s the difference on the timing? What if he would choose to only rebuke once, thinking “I’ve said my piece, I don’t need to repeat it, even though the opportunity may present itself again.” Besides, what’s the benefit anyway, if in the end of the day they won’t listen? 

Monday, August 5, 2024

Nine Days Rules To Wean us INTO Mourning

 Here is a link to the summary of Nine Days rules I shared 6 years ago. It was for a year in which Tisha B'Av was observed on Sunday. [It is a little more comprehensive than what is presented this year, below. But what is below reflects on when Tisha B'Av is observed on a Tuesday - as it is this year.]


Summary of Laws of the Nine Days 

 When Rosh Chodesh Av begins this Sunday night (8/4) (Rosh Chodesh is Sunday night and Monday), the days which follow - through Tisha B’Av - are observed as a time of mourning. Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik compared the mourning of these 9 days to the style of mourning for a Shloshim period – the 30 days following the death of a loved one. As such, the mourning practices of this period are intended to be a little stricter than the days which began on 17 Tammuz, to help us be more prepared for the ultimate day of mourning, Tisha B’Av. 

Friday, August 2, 2024

Fighting the War With Midian - Instruction for Our Time?

As emphasized below, this is NOT to be taken as suggestions for strategy in Israel today. There are parallels in the way the enemy views to destroy Israel and the need to defend your people and even assert your strength. This is a reporting of how things were dealt with in the Torah's narrative, and observations of a few ways in which things are very different now.

Parshat Matot-Masei 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

 With the war in Israel intensifying on different fronts, some of the most important instruction from our Parsha seems rather timely, particularly concerning three specific topics. 

The first is about how to deal with the enemy that is bent on your destruction, in this case Midian. The Israelites were given very detailed instruction of how far they were to go to be sure Midian’s defeat was final. They were told which population demographics were to be killed and which were to be allowed to live. 

While I don’t suggest that this instruction was meant to be utilized beyond that specific war, please note the following theory, about the relevance of killing the young boys of Midian: https://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2011/07/revenge-anything-but-sweet.html 

The second topic is the debate of universal conscription into the army. 

Those who are learning Mishnah Yomis recently learned the Mishnah which speaks of the t’nai kaful, the double edged condition made by the tribes of Gad and Reuven when negotiating for their tribes to be given land outside of Israel proper. Moshe’s initial response to them, perhaps not seeing their intentions completely, was “How can your brothers go out to fight while you remain behind?” (32:6) 

Their response was “We will build certain structures and infrastructure for our families, but then we will go out to war, not returning until all the land of Canaan has been captured and is in Jewish hands.” (32:16-17)

The point Moshe was driving home was that the responsibility to see to it that the land is in the hands of Am Yisrael rests on all members of Am Yisrael. No one can shirk their responsibility and say “I don’t live there.” Or “This is not my fight.” 

As in the previous example, one could argue that the instruction was for the original conquest and that that circumstance was unlikely to repeat itself in the future. 

One of the more relevant arguments I have heard against full conscription for all takes two parts: 1. The army lends itself to people who are “frum” but perhaps on the fences of finding out their true self to find a certain kind of individual freedom while in the military, leading to the dropping of observance, and 2. “If we have to be in the army for three years, then everyone in the army should have to be in yeshiva for 3 years.” [Those who are not in the ‘religious camp’ would likely never agree to this.] 

It’s not an answer to the larger question- and perhaps it’s not my place to opine. But at least it’s a perspective that some are advancing emphasizing the value of Torah, and the ease through which one can be led to drop one’s adherence to Torah (not necessarily automatic, or even by design… but the numbers are not insignificant).

Obviously there are ways to go through the army with a cohesive unit, such as those who study in Hesder, or those who go through a Mechina program, and have a much more supported Army experience that jibes with religious values. So these are generalizations, not necessary reflective of everyone’s experience. But there is a necessary balance that promotes service while supporting Jewish commitment in a way that is certainly not “automatic” when in an army setting. 

And this says nothing about the role Diaspora Jewry should undertake – do our children all need to serve in the IDF, so that our brothers and sisters in Israel not carry the burden alone? 

The third topic is about what it means to have enemies planted within your borders. 33:55 makes the case to the Bnei Yisrael that if you don’t rid yourselves of the enemies in the land, it will come back to haunt you in the most significant ways - “Then those whom you leave over will be as spikes in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they will harass you in the land in which you settle.” 

 This is not to suggest any particular strategy for the IDF, or the State of Israel, going forward. But it does inform us that the Biblical Israelites faced similar problems, and found a way to do what needed to be done, albeit imperfectly, for the sake of the nation. [One can argue that Israel, imperfect as it is, has found a way with the rainbow of ethnicities in Israel… The problem remains with the enemy at the edge of its borders, as well as their sympathizers who live within its borders.] 

May all those directly involved find a path forward for everyone, balancing sensitivities with a sense of responsibility, so the Jewish people in Israel, and by extension abroad, can feel we are doing our part for the sake of bringing about full sovereignty and peace for the Jewish people in the Holy Land.

Friday, July 26, 2024

Different Kinds of Rushing to Judge

Parshat Pinchas

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The first Brisker Rov, Rabbi Yushe Ber Soloveitchik (for whom the 20th century Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik – his great grandson – was named) asked a simple question. 

 When one studies the narratives of the Torah, there are four times when a case comes before Moshe where he has to turn to God for the halakhic answer*. These times are Pesach Sheni (Bamidbar 9), the daughters of Tzlafchad (Bamidbar 27), the blasphemer (Vayikra 24), and the wood gatherer on Shabbos (Bamidbar 15). It is interesting to note that there is debate as to the chronological order of these events, based on an assumption that the Torah is not automatically presented to us on chronological order and because sometimes tales are presented to us in the narrative thematically, connected to tales that are related to one another in their content, message or theme, but not based on their chronology. 

 Rabbi Soloveitchik asked, how is it that for two of these cases, Moshe essentially turned to God for an immediate answer, and in two of them he waited for a few days until God decided to give him the answer that had been evading him? Shouldn't he be looking for resolution as soon as possible in all cases?

He answers that there are two very different things going on in the cases for which Moshe sought an immediate answer than the ones that ended up following a 3-day waiting period. 

 In the cases of Tzlafchad’s daughters and those looking to bring the Korban Pesach, what drove them was a zeal to fulfill mitzvos. The daughters of Tzlafchad had a desire to live in and love the land of Canaan (Eretz Yisrael), and the Korban Pesach people did not want to miss out on this special mitzvah, which only comes around once a year. In these cases, Moshe was inspired to get an answer for them right away. 

 The other two cases involved someone who had done something against the Torah’s rules, and Moshe knew their repercussion would be death – it was just a question of which form of Misas Beis Din would be applicable. 

 Since in the cases of Tzlafchad’s daighters and Korban Pesach they were zerizin who were trying to be makdimin l’mitzvos, doing what they could to rush to fulfill a mitzvah properly, Moshe felt compelled to get them an answer as soon as possible. In the other two cases, Moshe felt no need to rush since rushing a “punishment” would only hasten their deaths. There is no mitzvah to rush something like that. He was happy to wait until God pronounced the judgment for each case in question. 

 An important lesson can be taken from this teaching as to how we relate to our fellow man. Motivation in actions should compel us to be helpful to others when appropriate and should, in other cases, cause us to wish to delay confrontation. Perhaps the delay may even give us the opportunity to be dan kl’kaf zechus (to judge favorably) if we might not have done so otherwise. 

 In all cases described, Moshe was unsure of the path forward, but he saw what was driving the people when the case came before him, and what seemed to be the most equitable solution. In the cases of Pesach and daughters, seeing them for who they were and what brought them to him (of their own accord) rather than their being brought to him for something they had done surely stood in their favor, as they wanted a particular outcome based on what they were experiencing. In both cases, the solution offered to them was quite equitable, reasonable, and fair. 

 I recall learning portions of Choshen Mishpat with Rabbi Moshe Tendler Z”L, and being rather surprised at some of the ways in which the Shulchan Arukh paints litigants in a court room as being understanding, submissive, following the rules, etc. I noted to Rabbi Tendler something to the effect of “I don’t see people conducting themselves this way, certainly not in a secular court, and in many cases not even when dealing with a Bet Din.” The way the Shulchah Arukh describes judges and the respect people are to have for the judges and their judgment seemed a little out to lunch, since it is rather atypical for someone who “loses” in court to be joyous and not to harbor ill will towards the co-litigant or the judges. And Rabbi Tendler told me, “The Shulchan Arukh assumes that Jewish people want to do the right thing and want to conduct themselves in a manner that is dictated by halakha.” 

There is certainly a lot of truth to that in general, as people are careful to fulfill many aspects of ritual correctly. But I don’t know if it is true in practice when it comes to those who are on the losing side of a financial case in court. Many people may find it very difficult to walk away from losing, b’simcha, seeing the other litigant and the judges in a positive light. 

 And yet this is also the challenge that Moshe is sending us in demonstrating how to conduct oneself when one is unsure. When motivations are pure – seek for resolution ASAP. When motivations are not 100% pure, delay a little. Seek for compromise, seek to find a way that makes everyone happy, or at the very least content that a proper process was gone through to get to resolution. Ultimately, when someone is going to suffer, and suffering is something we’d like to delay as much as possible, we want to be aware of that outcome as a possibility and act with sensitivity to that reality.

May disputes, and clarifications in halakha, be met with proper resolution in a timely fashion, hopefully with all parties walking away feeling that justice was served and the word of God was followed. 
 ___________ 
* There are other times when people point out a law to Moshe that he seems to have forgotten. For example, Aharon notes to Moshe that his sons should not be eating meat before their brothers are buried (Vayikra 10); the Rabbis tell us that Pinchas came along and killed Zimri when Moshe was standing around not knowing what to do (Bamidbar 24).

Friday, July 19, 2024

I Can’t Do It

Parshat Balak

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

The parsha is replete with exchanges and dialogue between Balak, King of Moab, and Bilaam, necromancer. At first they communicate through emissaries, and later on they meet in person, carrying on several conversations aimed at Bilaam doing his best to curse the Jewish people. 

 To Bilaam’s credit (though some will suggest it’s an example of Bilaam showing off), Bilaam does declare that “I can not violate the word of God.” Put more succinctly, as he tells both emissaries and Balak personally, “Even if Balak gives me his entire palace filled silver and gold, I still can not violate the word of God for good or for bad on my own – what God tells me is what I will say.” 

 Balak is understandably upset by all this, particularly after the fact, and he tells Bilaam, “Go home! I said I would honor you, but God has made you unworthy of honor!” (24:11). 

Is Balak really “understandably” upset? After all, Bilaam did tell both sets of Balak’s emissaries and Balak in person that he could only say what God might allow him to say! It could be that Balak didn’t accept this excuse because Bilaam had a reputation that he could say or do whatever he wanted. Of course, that could mean that Bilaam’s reputation was based on how he dealt with other nations. The fact that Israel is a different kind of entity, who benefit from a unique form of Divine Protection, seems to be lost on Balak in his mis-understanding Bilaam’s abilities. 

 But is that really the case? The whole reason why Balak hired Bilaam in the first place is because “Balak saw all that Israel had done to the Emorite” (22:2)! Why was he upset at what Bilaam said he couldn’t do, when that had been made clear to him from the get-go… God is on their side! 

Rabbi Baruch Halevi Epstein (in his Tosefes Bracha) explains that there are two motivations for a person to say “I can’t” do something. 

 One is a physical impossibility. I can’t lift a building with my bare hands. I can’t jump across a river. Examples of this kind of incapability appear in the Torah: the angel saw he couldn’t defeat Yaakov (Bereshis 32:26), the spies felt we can’t defeat the strong armies in Canaan (Bamidbar 13:31), etc. 

The other is not physically impossible, but is impossible because of one’s state of the mind or some other emotional preventative barrier, such as it being a commandment. For example: Yosef’s brothers could not speak with him peaceably (Bereshis 37:4), the Egyptians couldn’t eat with the Israelites (Bereshits 43:32), you can’t eat Maaser Sheni at your home as it needs to be eaten in Jerusalem (Devarim 12:17); you can’t neglect a lost object (Devarim 22:3), etc. 

 In this latter category of “can’t,” a feeling might be that if some other factor is thrown into the mix, the person may be able to “get over” the inability and do that which they feel incapable of doing at this time (unless, obviously, bound by a mitzvah). In the former category, no amount of incentive will help a person do that which a person is physically incapable of doing. Other than Superman, no one, for example, could leap tall buildings in a single bound. Even for all the money in the world. 

 Rabbi Epstein suggests that Balak felt Bilaam’s declared inability of “I can not violate God’s word” was of the latter category. He felt Bilaam was not in the right frame of mind, and all he needed was a different perspective from which to view the Israelites, his intended target, which is why they changed mountaintops over and over, or he needed a promise of great honor or more money. Bilaam had to explain to him that money or honor were meaningless. They couldn’t change what Bilaam was capable of doing. His inability was of the former kind – he was physically incapable of saying words that God would not allow him to say. 

 Rabbi Epstein concludes comparing this situation to what Lavan (who many identify as an ancestor of Bilaam) said to Avraham’s servant: “We are unable to speak to you good or bad.” In Lavan’s case, the power of speech had been taken from him and his father to the point that they couldn’t even say good things. They were limited in the kinds of speech they could aim at Avraham’s servant, as per Yevamos 103b “Even the good of the wicked is bad for the righteous.” That is a cautionary reminder to be careful with whom we engage in dialogue. 

 The following illustration is meant to showcase a relatable example of “I can’t” with respect to non-kosher food, and is not looking to paint anyone in a bad light. My wife and I were recently in a mostly empty Kosher sushi restaurant, and the only other customers in the store were a non-Jewish Indian couple. (How they found a Kosher sushi place? I do not know). They were sitting at the counter in front of the sushi bar and talking with the workers behind the counter, one is Korean, the other an Orthodox Jew. They spoke of food they like, and the Indian gentleman (who came across as a secular Muslim) was talking about a new chain of restaurants opening that has Halal meat. And then he mentioned the best food place he’s ever been to. Demonstrating an awareness of the Jewish worker, he said, “but are you strictly Kosher?” The answer was “Yes.” 

 “Well, if you ever change, you gotta check this place out!” His wife gently indicated to her husband to drop it, “Stop it! He’s not changing! Leave him alone.” The guy was friendly though, and he said, “What? My relatives are Muslims. Some of them keep the rules. And others have changed and have decided that they do whatever they want! Maybe he will one day too!” Again his wife told him to drop it, and he did. But the Jewish worker said, “No. I’m not changing!” 

 He didn’t say “I can’t eat non-kosher” but nonetheless he was demonstrating his inability through fealty to the commandments of God. Certainly anyone can physically eat non-kosher should they choose to. But one can’t if one lives by the rules. 

There are times, however, when we say “I can’t do something,” but it’s not because of a physical incapability. We don’t want to do it. 

We don’t want to set more time for Torah study, we don’t want to turn off our phones when we are in shul or engaged in an activity that requires our undivided attention, we don’t want to be more careful with our diets, we don’t want to exercise, we don’t want to give of ourselves, we don’t want to have difficult conversations or talk to people with whom we disagree, we don’t want to give beyond what we think are our means, we don’t want to give compliments and go out of our way to make people feel comfortable or to make people feel appreciated or special, we don’t want to step out of our comfort zone and be helpful when it’s easier to relax or disappear. 

Bilaam’s excuse was legitimate. He knew his limitation was God-sent, and he was truthful and up-front about it. Balak was like the guy in the restaurant and believed that Bilaam could curse the Israelites if he truly wanted to (Bilaam wanted to!), and he couldn’t fathom that Bilaam’s speech in this regard was actually not in his control. 

 Where things are in our control, may we be blessed to do the things we say we can’t, when the barrier is really just our minds, sometimes laziness, and mostly a lack of desire to challenge ourselves to be and do better. We CAN lift ourselves up and bring more meaning to our existence through rising to the challenge of doing the things we’ve told ourselves we can’t do… because really, we can!

Friday, July 12, 2024

The Death of Aharon

Parshat Chukat

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Towards the end of chapter 20, in the aftermath of the infamous events of Mei Merivah (Waters of Strife – which includes the incident where Moshe hit the rock) in which Moshe and Aharon are fated not to lead the people into the Promised Land, Aharon ascends to the top of Mount Hor and dies. 

Aharon’s death is later reported to us in Parshat Masei at the 7th or 8th to last stop, “They traveled from Kadesh,and camped at Mount Hor. Aharon went up the mountain at God’s instruction and died there in the 40th year since the time of the Exodus. This was on Rosh Chodesh (Av) of the 5th month. Aharon lived to 123 years.” (33:37-29) Following the chronology presented to us in the Torah, this makes sense. 

But Aharon’s death is recorded in Parshat Eikev as well, in a context that meets no criteria – either of chronology or of associating Aharon’s death to Mei Merivah, which is part of the explanation given to him at the actual time of his death in our parsha, in 20:24, when Aharon is told “Aharon will die, for he will not come to the land I have promised to the Bnei Yisrael, on account of your rebelling against My word at Mei Merivah.” 

In Eikev, the death of Aharon is recorded in association with events being reviewed for the benefit of those who will be entering the land, in hopes they will not repeat the errors of their parents’ generation, most specifically the Golden Calf. After recounting that God told him to make an ark of wood and to bring two new tablets for God to inscribe upon them the words of the Tablets Moshe had broken, Moshe describes how, armed with the second set of tablets, “‘I turned and descended from the mountain and placed the Tablets in the ark I had made, and they remained there as God had instructed me.’ And the Children of Israel traveled from Beerot Bnei Yaakan to Mosair: there Aharon died and was buried there, and his son Elazar was made Kohen in his place. From there they traveled to Gudgode, and from there to Yatvat, the land of rivers.” (Devarim 10:5-7) 

Those locations are reported on in Masei (Bamidbar 33:30-33), several verses and several stops before the events we saw (2nd paragraph above) which were recorded in the 40th year. [Rashi in Devarim 1:46 notes that they were in Kadesh for 19 years, so even though there aren’t a lot of stops between Yatvat in 33:33 and Aharon’s death 4 pesukim later, their arrival in Kadesh in 33:36 explains the passage of time.] 

Obviously the mention of Aharon’s death in Eikev in that context requires an explanation. Ibn Ezra rejects the need for an explanation, simply accepting that the locations mentioned are different places, and that the place where Aharon actually died had multiple names – which is not an uncommon feature of the Torah. Most views, however, do not accord with that of Ibn Ezra (though R Yosef B’chor Shor agrees with Ibn Ezra!). 

 Taking a number of narrative pieces from Parshas Chukas, stringing them together to form a larger picture of what was going on in the Israelite encampment, Targum Yonatan describes a battle with Amalek which caused a number of groups to return to Egypt. The tribe of Levi pursued them, and a civil war/battle ensued in which 8 families were killed on the Israelite side, and 4 Levite families fell as well. They asked themselves, what caused this to happen? And they realized it was because they did not heed the teachings of Aharon, to love your fellow, and specifically because they didn’t adequately mourn for him. So they decided to eulogize him on that spot, as if he had died and been buried there. [This is brought down in Yerushalmi Sotah 1:10 (8b)] – some of this is hinted to in Divrei Hayamim in that Yerushalmi passage.] 

Rashi’s presentation explains this a little more clearly. After noting a discrepancy in the order of the travels, and asking about the true location of Aharon’s death, Rashi writes (translation from Sefaria): 
“…Go and count and you will find that there are eight stations from Mosera to Mount Hor! — But really this also is part of the reproof offered by Moses. In effect he said, “This, also, ye did: when Aaron died on Mount Hor at the end of forty years and the clouds of Divine Glory departed, ye feared war with the king of Arad and you appointed a leader that ye might return to Egypt, and ye turned backwards eight stages unto Bene Jaakan and hence to Mosera. There the sons of Levi fought with you, and they slew some of you, and you some of them, until they forced you back on the road along which you had retreated. From there (Mosera) ye returned to Gudgodah, — that is identical with Hor Hagidgod (Numbers 33:32). 
“Moses placed this reproof immediately after the mention of the breaking of the tablets to indicate that the death of the righteous is as grievous before the Holy One, blessed be He, as the day on which the tablets were broken, and to tell you that it was displeasing to Him when they said, (Numbers 14:4) “Let us set up a head (another god; see Rashi on that verse) in order to part from Him, as was the day on which they made the golden calf (Leviticus Rabbah 20:12).”
 This approach suggests that Moshe reported on Aharon’s death, not chronologically, but thematically, to present a message of behavior to the Bnei Yisrael not to fall prey to their yetzer Hara – turning from God in spite, such as with the Golden Calf, such as when clouds of glory depart, such as at a time of war – all brings about negativity which is on par with the loss of a righteous leader (consider that the whole Mei Merivah story seems to be triggered by the death of Miriam, and the inability to mourn properly)

 Rashbam intimates a subtle hint Moshe is sending to the people. Aharon could have died at the time of the Golden Calf. But he didn’t die at that time on account of the prayers of Moshe (see also Devarim 9:20). [See here for other reasons too!]

 Ramban notes how Rashi’s comment is taken from a different passage in Yerushalmi (Yoma 1:1), as he suggests that Mount Hor was actually a very big mountain spanning many parasang (one need merely look to the east of Israel, to the mountains of Moab, to see how easily this can be true), and that Moshe is referencing various points on the same mountain range – putting Aharon’s death in a particular context. Aharon’s death WAS in the 40th year, and it WAS in Mosair (or Mosera), which is a geographical point in a larger range of mountains known as Mount Hor. The context of mentioning Aharon’s death related to the aftermath of the Golden Calf is because Moshe prayed on his behalf at that time (see Rashbam in the previous paragraph), and Moshe is talking to the people in Eikev about negative outcomes and positive outcomes that are much dependent on behavior and trust in God. 

The implication in the passage of Eikev, therefore (as Chizkuni spells it out) is as if Moshe is saying “Don’t assume or ever claim that Aharon died at the time of the Golden Calf, because he didn’t die at that time! I prayed for him, and we moved on from that time. Aharon died 40 years later, at the location mentioned… not at the bottom of Har Sinai.”

 Kli Yakar combines all of the components of the narrative of Chukas to demonstrate why Aharon’s death is referenced by Moshe in Eikev – noting that the deaths of the righteous are as difficult for God as the breaking of the Tablets, while also noting that the people are supposed to learn that the merit of the righteous carries through to the Children of Israel even after they have passed. But the Children of Israel must demonstrate that they believe that, in order for it to work. 

There are people in our ranks who are the best at expressing this. And there are people in our ranks who forget that while all is in God’s hands, our own choices and behaviors, and heeding of lessons sent to us if we are only paying attention, all play a significant role in the outcomes our people face. 

 For example, we are grateful for the incredible sacrifices, ethic, and dedication of the IDF. At the same time, many have lost their lives. How much do we attribute their successes and failures to their tactical training (which is of course quite important), and how much do we attribute to our own successes and failures (I speak of each of us as individuals, and all of klal Yisrael in general)? Do we – all of Am Yisrael – see our own hand affecting the tides of battle and the successes of our soldiers in their holy task of protecting the people of Israel, and Jews around the world by extension? 

That is part of the message of Aharon’s death being recorded in a chronological context outside of reality – to remind people that the righteous impact the world in ways we can’t comprehend. And therefore it is incumbent upon each of us to dedicate ourselves to achieve higher levels of righteousness. For the sake and safety of Am Yisrael.

Thursday, July 4, 2024

On July 4th and American Independence

 This is the note I shared with congregation before Shabbos this week - in honor of July 4th weekend

   There is something special about the celebrations surrounding July 4, which includes the reality that overall, the experience of the Jewish people in the United States of America has been a blessing of history. Since the time George Washington wrote his famous letter to the Touro Synagogue, Jews found a freedom of worship in the United States in America that was second to none in the history of the Diaspora. Yes, there were pockets in time and in different lands where Jews went unbothered, and where there was tremendous growth, freedom, scholarship, and even political advancement. But every nation in Europe also, at least once, expelled the Jews from their land over religious intolerance. The founding President of the United States wrote:

May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.

May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy.

The Evilness of Machlokes That Is Not For the Sake of Heaven

Parshat Korach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

In Pirkei Avos 5:17 (or 19 or 20 – different volumes have different breakdowns) we are introduced to the merits of a Machlokes (dispute) that is for the sake of heaven versus a Machlokes which is not for the sake of heaven. A dispute over understanding of Torah, such as between Hillel and Shammai, is viewed as a dispute which endures, for it has merit. Its purpose is a higher calling – getting to the truth (see Meiri). The other kind of dispute which is considered meritless is the “Machlokes of Korach and his congregation.” 

 Many note that the dispute should be presented as one between Korach and Moshe! After all, against whom did Korach address his complaints and direct his confrontation? 

The simple answer is that the real dispute was among the people who seemed to be united, but who weren’t really united. What kept them together as a group was a seeming common cause, and an argument of “all the nation is holy,” which carries the Orwellian implication that “some are more holy than others” if you’d just give the holy position to the “correct” “some” so we would know where we all stand. 

Friday, June 28, 2024

Real Teshuvah = Moving With the Torah

Parshat Shlach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Last week we read the “famous” verse of ויהי בנסע הארון, which essentially describes the ideal form of travel for Israel in the wilderness, with the Ark leading the way accompanied by Moshe saying “Arise God and may Your enemies run from before You.” 

The idea of the Ark leading the people should have forewarned those who tried to take initiative, too little and too late, that their quest to conquer the land would fail especially after they had been told they’d be unsuccessful (14:41-42). The verse actually states (14:44) - וַיַּעְפִּ֕לוּ לַעֲל֖וֹת אֶל־רֹ֣אשׁ הָהָ֑ר וַאֲר֤וֹן בְּרִית־יְקֹוָק֙ וּמֹשֶׁ֔ה לֹא־מָ֖שׁוּ מִקֶּ֥רֶב הַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה: They tried to go up the mountain, but the Ark and Moshe did not move from the Israelite encampment. 

If the Ark does not move, there is nowhere to go! How did they miss this? 

Sunday, June 23, 2024

Some Thoughts On Humility

 This was written to honor a member of our synagogue who passed away this week, but did not want any eulogies recited, nor any kind of public mourning to be done in the wake of his absence. I did not mention his name out of respect for his wishes. 

Parshat B'haalotkha

by Rabbi Avi Billet

One of the more famous statements in the Torah concerns Moshe Rabbenu, and it appears in our parsha in the context of the comments made by Miriam about her youngest brother, in talking, most surely in a concerned manner, with her brother Aharon about their brother Moshe. Without getting into the details, or trying to understand the cryptic nature of her comments, the Torah’s immediate response to what she says is וְהָאִ֥ישׁ מֹשֶׁ֖ה עָנָ֣יו מְאֹ֑ד מִכֹּל֙ הָֽאָדָ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הָאֲדָמָֽה – the man Moshe was exceedingly humble, of all the people on the face of the earth. 

 In truth, we have seen this to be true not moments earlier in the reading when Yehoshua, in defense of his master, tried to instruct Moshe to imprison or worse to Eldad and Meidad who were prophesying in the camp. Moshe’s response was not only that he felt no slight to his own honor in their prophesying, but he wished more people would prophesy as well. If only that were a more widespread phenomenon among the people of Israel. 

Friday, June 21, 2024

What Effected Travel? Let us Count the Things…

Parshat B'haaloskha 

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

The last 9 verses of Chapter 9 give a number of permutations for how the cloud that would hover above the Mishkan would be the instigator for travel beginning, and when they would pause and set up camp. It gives examples of how they might stay in a location a very short time, such as a day or two, or even a month (this instruction is given before the people were doomed to be in the wilderness 40 years – and we know from other sources (Rashi Devarim 1:46) that they stayed in Kadesh for 19 years(!), a very lengthy period of time!). 

 The chapter concludes, telling us that since the cloud was the indicator, “On God’s word they camped, and on God’s word they traveled.” 

This makes what is presented in the following chapter very odd. Chapter 10 begins with instruction to Moshe to make for himself personal silver trumpets to be used “for calling the nation, and for indicating time to travel.” The first use is completely understood. It’s an ancient bullhorn, siren, megaphone, speaker-system… call it what you will, but the point is that the sign is a gathering call. 

But to cause travel? What were those final verses in Chapter 9 all about? The cloud is quite visible, thank you very much. If travel is based on God’s word, and God’s word alone, why would Moshe possibly have a need, or even a right, to use the silver trumpets as a call to gather items because it is a time to travel? 

Friday, June 7, 2024

Inspiration Comes From Your Focus – Not From Where You Stand

Parshat Bamidbar 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Now that the time has come to move from Sinai off into the wilderness, with the Promised Land as a soon-to-be-reached destination, Chapter 2 of Bamidbar focuses on how the Israelites were to encamp and travel, with Mishkan at the center, the families of Levi, the families of Aharon and Moshe directly on the four sides of the Mishkan, and three tribes in each of the 4 directions surrounding the Mishkan as well. 

How were these divisions created – why this tribe with these two? Which group is in the north v the south, etc? 

Perhaps for varying reasons, there are different ways the Midrash presents possible frameworks for how the Israeltites were placed in the encampments and travels surrounding the Mishkan. 

 One version appears in Midrash Rabba 2:3, and records that when God appeared on Sinai, 220,000 angels descended with Him and encamped around the mountain divided by flags. When the Israelites saw this (a miracle they merited to see), they wanted to eventually travel and encamp in the same manner of the angels. God then promised it would happen, and He later instructed Moshe to set them up thus. 

This approach champions a very holy level of setup, unencumbered by any kind of debate – it is a simple mimicking of divine creatures, making the assignment and its follow through easy to understand without much fanfare, discussion, or drama. 

 However, the next two Midrashim follow a different approach, noting a connection to forefather Yaakov, and practical considerations as well. 

 A Midrash recorded in the Otzar Midrashim puts the setup in Yaakov’s mouth shortly before his death. 

 Here is a loose translation of that Midrashic narrative: 

“God, with wisdom, founded the world” (Mishlei 3:19) – He created his world with four directions, east west, north, and south. From the East, light comes to the world. From the West are the storage-places of snow and hail, and from there emerges cold and hot for the world. From the North emerges darkness for the world. From the South comes rain and dew as a blessing. 

 "Just as He created four directions, so He crated four creatures around His throne, with His throne being above all of them. 

 “And so did Yaakov set his sons, in order, at the time he was instructing them to about the four future flags of wilderness [travel]. “Per this order you should carry my coffin…” and he told them that to the East would be Levi, Yehuda, Yissachar and Zevulun; to the South would be Reuven, Shimon, and Gad; to the North would be Dan, Naftali, and Asher; to the West would be Binyamin, Ephraim, and Menashe.” 

 This arrangement assumes Levi the son of Yaakov accompanied his father, while Yosef, son of Yaakov, was elsewhere, perhaps in front of everyone, but not directly around the coffin with his brothers, because his sons were in their positions alongside their Uncle Binyamin. 

“This order was used for the four flagged encampments in the wilderness. 

 “East, from which light emanates to the world: Levi – the light of the Temple, Yehuda – the king of Israel, Yissachar – who [best] know the Torah which is referred to as אור (light), as the verse says “And the children of Yissachar are the best to understand wisdom” (Divrei Hayamim I 12:33)” 

This does not explain the presence of Zevulun, nor how Levi was encamped later on in the wilderness. This will be addressed by the next Midrashic tale – from Tanchuma – presented below.

“South, from which blessed rain emanates: Reuven – who was a Baal Teshuvah (someone who had repented), because on account of the penitent God effectuates blessings to Israel, Gad – who is a master of strength, as blessed rain comes with strength, Shimon – is between them to bring atonement. 

West, the storage-places of snow, cold, heat: Opposite that is Binyamin, Ephraim and Menashe. The Divine Presence is always in the west, as the verse says “The Lord's beloved one shall dwell securely beside Him; He protects him all day long, and He dwells between his shoulders.” (Devarim 33:12) 

North, from which darkness emanates to the world: Dan – whose children brought darkness through bringing idolatry (Shoftim 18), with him are Naftali, and Asher – who bring light into the darkness as the verse says “He will be pleasing to his brothers, and immerse his foot in oil.” (Devarim 33:24)” 

Beyond the absence of Yosef, and a lack of explanation for some of the later realities of the encampments, the above passage leaves much mystery, while it presents depth connected to larger workings of the world influencing the placement of the tribes – the sons of Yaakov specifically, and later their descendants. 

There is another version of this Midrash which presents how Yaakov came to this positioning of the tribes. The verse tells us (Bamidbar 2:2): אִ֣ישׁ עַל־דִּגְל֤וֹ בְאֹתֹת֙ לְבֵ֣ית אֲבֹתָ֔ם יַחֲנ֖וּ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל מִנֶּ֕גֶד סָבִ֥יב לְאֹֽהֶל־מוֹעֵ֖ד יַחֲנֽוּ - The children of Israel shall encamp each man by his flag with the signs of their fathers' house; some distance from the Tent of Meeting they shall encamp. 

 The Midrash Tanchuma presents a question. Why does the verse mention “the signs” – wouldn’t the flag be sufficient? [The Midrash doesn’t state it directly, but it would seem that the narrative which follows references an old “sign” going back to what Yaakov instructed.] 

The Midrash goes on to explain that when Yaakov was about to die, he told his sons that they, and only they (not any Egyptians, or even his own grandchildren who were children of Canaanite women), were to carry his coffin. The translation which follows is from sefaria.org 

“How did he charge them? He said to them, “Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun shall carry my bier on the East; Reuben, Simeon, and Gad, on the South; Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin, on the West; Dan, Asher, and Naphtali, on the North. Joseph is not to carry [at all], because he is a king; and you must impart honor to him. Nor is Levi to carry. Why? Because he will carry the ark (aron), and whoever carries the ark of the One who lives forever is not to carry a coffin (aron) of the dead. If you do this and carry my bier, just as I have charged you, the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to have you encamp by the various standards.” 

 “When Israel went forth from Egypt, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Now is the time for them to make standards, just as their father had proclaimed to them that they were going to make standards.” Immediately the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, “Make those standards for my name.” Immediately Moses began to be concerned. He said, “There is going to be dissension among the tribes. If I tell the tribe of Judah to encamp in the East, they will say, ‘It is impossible for us to encamp anywhere but in the South.’ And so each and every tribe [would act] like that one.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “What concern is that to you? They do not need you in this matter. They will recognize their dwellings by themselves. Why? Because their father's will was in their hand on how to encamp by the standards. I am not establishing something new. They already have their father's arrangements in their hands. Just as they have taken positions around his bier, so let them take positions around the tabernacle.” Where is it shown? Where it is stated (in Numb. 2:2), “Each with his standard, under the banners [for their fathers' house].” 

 The Midrash then notes the blessing of having good neighbors. Because the eastern camp of Yehuda, Yissachar and Zevulun were closest to Moshe, Aharon and their families, they all became great in Torah. [Yehuda’s success is based on Bereshis 49:10, Yissachar’s - Divrei Hayamim I 12:33, and Zevulun’s - Shoftim 5:14 – a reference to the Zebulunites being scribes] 

Then the Midrash notes the curse of having bad neighbors, since in the South, Reuven, Shimon, and Gad were closest to Kehat and, most notoriously, the family of Korach. 

Rounding out the encampment - on the West were the Children of Gershon (son of Levi) with Ephraim, Menashe, and Binyamin being adjacent to them. And on the North were the Children of Merari (son of Levi), with Dan, Naftali, and Asher being adjacent to them. 

 In his Peninim Al HaTorah (vol 20), Rabbi Scheinbaum suggests there was no debate about the placement because debate only comes when a decision is made that benefits the decider. If there is no ulterior motive, except a fair and impartial judgment, it is easy for everyone to accept. Since Yaakov was not going to be alive when his children were to escort him to his final resting place, he had nothing to gain from their assigned locations, they accepted it – and their descendants were happy to follow it into their own times. 

 We could add to this that simply being around the Mishkan is enough of a blessing. Not everyone can be front and center! But we can make the best of our lot, embracing the opportunities we have as being part of the encampment of Israel. When we turn to the Mishkan and the Torah as our inspiration, and make every effort possible to include ourselves in our shared destiny, we earn the stripes of being part of the people of Israel. This is enhanced by surrounding ourselves with good neighbors. 

 As we come to the holiday of Shavuos this week, let us celebrate our connection to Torah on whatever level we are. But let us also take the inspiration from those who are more advanced than we are to remind ourselves that we can always be growing. Whether we sit (proverbially) in the back of the room, somewhere in the middle, or even in the front, our focus should be towards our center, our core, which is the Mishkan, the house of the Torah, and the service of God. When we remember the source of our inspiration, and put aside where we are at personally, we can bask in His goodness and remember that our lives are enriched by how much we challenge ourselves to grow in Torah and in our relationship with God.

Friday, May 31, 2024

Not Being Lost Forever

Parshat Bechukotai 

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

One of the main features of Parshas Bechukosai is the segment that spans most of chapter 26, known as the Tokhacha, the Great Rebuke. Commentaries note that it is divided into 5 segments reflecting degrees of further admonition, repercussion, and punishment for poor choices, poor behaviors, and a general disregard for the observance of the law. 

 After all that is presented, a verse which stands out is v. 38 - וַאֲבַדְתֶּ֖ם בַּגּוֹיִ֑ם וְאָכְלָ֣ה אֶתְכֶ֔ם אֶ֖רֶץ אֹיְבֵיכֶֽם – you will be lost amongst the nations, and the land of your enemies will consume you. 

 This concept, frightening as it sounds, is subject to much scrutiny in those who aim to understand and explain what is being predicted here. 

 Midrash Aggadah says that the idea of being lost simply means “you’ll be in exile.” Targum Yonatan and Onkelos suggest “you’ll be lost among the nations, and you’ll be finished when the enemies defeat them.” Perhaps he is suggesting that there will be no Divine protection when you find yourselves outside of the Land – the fate of your host nations will be your fate. 

Rashi speaks of being separated from one another, from your fellow Jews, when you are in those nations, and that your “being consumed” refers to those who end up dying in those foreign lands. Ibn Ezra looks at the idea of dying in those foreign lands as having been caused by the change in atmosphere and water – different air, different ph-balanced water, etc – which would cause turmoil in your bodies. (Chizkuni and Netziv also go in this direction) 

The supercommentaries on Rashi (Gur Aryeh, Sifsei Chachamim, Eliyahu Mizrachi) all question the notion that Jews in exile will be so separated from one another, particularly because the Torah does say a few verses later, that a. God will remember the Covenants forged with the forefathers (v. 42), and b. despite everything, God will not destroy and will remember, for example, His role in taking Israel out of Egypt – a memory that speaks volumes of our connection to Him forever. 

 More contemporary commentators (though from the 19th century), Netziv and R Samson Raphael Hirsch, look at this concern from a vantage point many of us would likely view as obvious, a question of assimilation. 

 Indeed that is how R Hirsch puts it, “What is spoken of here is a complete disappearance of a portion of our people.” 

 There is a famous story told of a Hassidic Rebbe (likely the Klausenberger Rebbe) who emerged from the Holocaust, who stopped the reader who was following the custom to read the Tokhacha in a whisper. “The Tokhacha has already come true. We don’t need to read it in a manner that could look like Ayin Hora any more.” 

And yet, the reality of assimilation has easily done more damage to our numbers since the Holocaust than it may have done in the centuries preceding the 19th century. 

While there was much assimilation in Europe following the Enlightenment and the Haskalah, and even into the founding of new streams/movements within Judaism, the idea of being unaffiliated or “marrying out” was far less a feature of Jewish life before the 1900s. 

 Some of the fealty to Jews marrying Jews exclusively may have been thanks to racial-like laws that did not allow Jews to marry non-Jews in many lands. And while the degree of observance of people on the fringes may not be calculable, at least when Jew marries Jew, the next generation remains Jewish and is not as easily “lost.” 

While halakha clearly defines a Jew as having been born to a Jewish mother, having a parent who is not Jewish most often leads the offspring down a path of becoming lost to our people. A halakhic definition may paint any number of people in the world as being Jewish, but how they live their lives, who they marry, how they raise their children, all contribute to how quickly they become lost to the Jewish people. 

We have all heard incredible stories of people searching, who rediscover their roots through a journey that brought them to the Promised Land or to their local Bet Din. There are beautiful stories of “coincidental” events and connections that brought people “home” to our People. 

And there are many more stories that haven’t been told and that won’t be told of people who generation after generation became further removed, so much so that even mentioning “I had a Jewish great grandmother” becomes an afterthought, if not a forgotten feature of one’s history altogether. 

 We are not going to all become “Kiruv professionals” in bringing closer all those who seem lost to our people. So where does this leave us? 

I believe there are a few points that can be helpful for us to consider as we look forward. 
1. Believe fully what the Hassidic Rebbe said, that the Tokhacha is behind us. 
2. Understand that nevertheless, we are suffering its aftereffects, and that those aftereffects may continue, due to free choice, the realities of our society and communities, the separation that phones, technology and social media have created in that people communicate more online than in person 
3. We can be grateful that we are not part of the statistics R Hirsch noted of people who disappear completely and are lost to our people 
4. We can champion the cause of the Jewish people through our own enhanced dedication, our continued Torah learning, our maximal Mitzvah observance, and our living storied lives that model what it means to be Torah observant 
5. When opportunities to engage with Jews who are affiliated but not observant arise, we should rise to the occasion. 
6. When opportunities to engage with unaffiliated Jews arise, we should rise to the occasion. 
7. Particularly now, when what’s going on in Israel is bringing Jews out of the woodwork to demonstrate their Jewish pride and their identification with the plight of our people in Israel and around the world, the time is ripe for further engagement 

Whether the words of the Tokhacha reflect a past that has happened, whether it reflects different time periods of exile, persecution, being lost to our People, the reality is that the question raised by the supercommentaries on Rashi is a legitimate one. Despite it all, we are still here. In many places we are thriving. Torah is alive. The Jewish people are making our mark in the world. And we have not been completely lost and assimilated, even in host nations that are not as benevolent and free as the United States. 

 May we be blessed to see our collective efforts through to turning the tide of the aftereffects of Tokhacha so that we, and all of Israel, could merit to experience the blessings laid out at the beginning of Bechukosai, with a return of all of our people to the Holy Land, with a Final Redemption worthy of the greatest of blessings.

Friday, May 24, 2024

The Essence of Shmittah

Parshat Behar

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

Most of Parshat Behar discusses laws and rules surrounding Shmittah and Yovel, the Sabbatical and Jubilee years, during which, among other things, the entire land of Israel was to remain untilled. 

 Kli Yakar notes the different explanations raised by varying commentators.

 Many: the reason is for the land to regain its strength (this is the view of Rambam)

 Others disagree: were that the case, then the repercussion for not observing Shmittah would be that the land would not produce food. But the punishment outlined for not observing Shmittah is exile! He also notes that this would indicate the Shmittah should be called שבת לארץ, while it is referred to in the second verse of the parsha as a 'שבת לה. (The Slonimer Rebbe addresses this noting that Shmittah is referred to as שבת שבתון... לארץ.) Furthermore, what benefit is there for the land if the people are exiled and the gentiles who settle there will work the land endlessly and it surely won’t rest at all! 

Akedah: The purpose of this mitzvah is to remember the renewal of the earth, and to remember the days of yore. The problem with this is that Shabbos, which comes once a week, is supposed to remind us of the renewal of the earth. If Shabbos is unsuccessful in doing so, how could Shmittah, which comes far more infrequently, possibly be successful in conveying a reminder of the renewal of the world? 

Therefore, Kli Yakar feels, the purpose of Shmittah is to implant in Israelites the quality of Emunah (faith) and Bitachon (trust) in the Almighty. God was concerned that when the nation of Israel would enter the land they’d work it as per how people live, and one thing would lead to another, and they’d forget that God runs the world and provides the produce and they’d think it grows from the might of their hands and labors. 

He goes on to say that the custom of farmers throughout the world is that over a 6 year period, they rotate their fields’ usage, planting two years, then having a field rest while utilizing a different part of the land (I recently heard a podcast about people who are trying to regenerate the soil around the world, using methods that aim to reverse damage done by certain types of industrial farming – see kisstheground.com, and the documentary “Common Ground”). [The non-Shmittah approach rotates fields, but is always planting. The Shmittah approach has the entire country laying fallow, all while being unable to plant ANYWHERE within the land for an entire year!] 

God’s promise is that the 6th year will be so productive, it will yield food for 3 years – the 6th, 7th (when nothing is planted), and the 8th (when the land is only starting to produce per new planting after an entire year of not working the land at all). 

The notion of the field producing for three years is indeed the workings of miracles, certainly after working it SIX years, the field then producing three-years-worth of food is even moreso. However, there is an inference, based on the letter ה in the word התבואה, that the amount of food that would be produced in year 6 would be enough for one year, but the amount that people would need to eat in order to be satiated would be much less than usual. Thus the food would last for 3 years. THIS is an even greater miracle - וזה ודאי נס נגלה וגדול מכולם. 

 These miracles will lead the nation to see that “the land is Mine” (כי לי כל הארץ), which would cause people to lift their eyes to God. A similar pattern followed with the manna, when the people turned heavenward to demonstrate their appreciation for the source of their food. The reliance on miracles for our sustenance is the purpose of Shmittah, based in a premise of having faith and trust that God will provide as He promised, conditioned on our keeping our end of the deal of keeping the land unworked during Shmittah. 

 This is why the punishment for ignoring Shmittah is exile. Those who don’t trust in God in order to live in the land on His benevolence do not deserve to live in the land, is essentially what the Torah is telling us. 

 Gentiles will not have such a fallback because their existence in the Land is based on seeing things through the lens of the natural world and science. Our existence in the land is based in miracles. 

 Through the continuing of his commentary on the Parsha, Kli Yakar demonstrates how the verses and phrases support this meta-analysis of the concept of Shmittah. 

 While there is a big push to observe Shmittah these days in the land, and there are other methods utilized for the land to not completely lay fallow for a year (Heter Mechirah, etc), that is in the Land of Israel. 

 Perhaps it goes without saying, but huge admiration is due to those who live in the Land of Israel, who are quite literally on the front lines of the story of the Jewish people, and who most clearly live in the Land on account of a deep faith and trust in the Almighty. 

This does not call anyone else’s faith and trust in the Almighty into question, as every person has reasons for being where we are, and every person has one’s own relationship with God that is based on many factors, including a variety of which are nobody else’s business. 

 However, the notion that we live our lives in a manner that is wholly devoted to God, or that our very existence relies upon our faith in God is something we ought to consider and reconsider. 

How much do we look at our homes, cars, assets, etc. and thank God for what we have? 
How much do we look at our families and thank God for what we have? 
How much do we look at our friends and neighbors, thanking God for what we have? 
How much do we look at our kehillah expressing gratitude to the Almighty for being part of a network of kind people? 

If Shmittah and Yovel are meant to remind us of our connection to God and reliance upon Him for His good graces while me make our own sacrifices to fulfill His will and live according to His precepts, then we need to translate that notion to wherever we live, however we live, and into whatever sacrifices we are willing to make to abide by the laws of His Torah, which give us the direction for living lives of holiness. 

 If life seems easy, we are truly blessed. From a different perspective, perhaps we are not sacrificing enough to demonstrate our love for the Almighty and our appreciation for the role He plays in our lives every single day.

Thursday, May 23, 2024

Hair Cut on Friday When Lag Ba'Omer falls on Sunday

Rama (1530-1572) writes (Shulchan Arukh OC 493:2) that when Lag Ba’Omer falls on a Sunday (as it does this year), the custom is to cut the hair on Friday in honor of Shabbos. This is followed by a parenthetical citation, seemingly quoting Maharil (Rabbi Jacob Moelin – 1360s -1427).

 מיהו אם חל ביום ראשון, ז> נוהגין להסתפר ביום ו' לכבוד שבת (מהרי"ל). 

 Three commentaries on the page of the Shulchan Arukh take up this citation, noting that Maharil DID NOT ACTUALLY SAY THIS! 

 Following the timeline of earliest to latest, we find the Chok Yaakov (Jacob Reischer ~1670-1733, Prague) who writes “This is the opinion of Mahar”i Veil (Yaakov ben Yehuda Weil ~1385-~1455, a student of Maharil) – in Dinim and Halakhos 51, while Maharil forbids this (see below). And such is the opinion of a small number of Acharonim (to forbid it). Nevertheless, where this is a custom to allow it, it is allowed, as we need not be strict about these laws (as he noted in an earlier footnote, that when there is a doubt we need not be strict when it comes to 'Aveilus Yeshana' – commemorative mourning for events from a long time ago).”

 [ז] נוהגין להסתפר מיום ששי לכבוד שבת. זה הוא דעת מהר"י ווייל [דינין והלכות אות נא], ומהרי"ל [שם עמוד קנז] אוסר, וכן דעת מקצת אחרונים. ומכל מקום היכי דנהוג היתר נהוג, ואין להחמיר בדינים אלו, כמו שכתבתי ס"ק ב': 

 Be'er Hetev (Judah Ashkenazi of Tiktin – 1700s) writes using the exact same language as Chok Yaakov 

 זה הוא דעת מהרי"ו, ומהרי"ל אוסר וכן דעת מקצת אחרונים. ומ"מ היכי דנהוג היתר נהוג, ואין להחמיר בדינים אלו, כמ"ש בס"ק ג: 

 In his own footnote cited at the end, he mentions the Chok Yaakov that every place should follow their custom, and that there is no need to be strict when there is a ספק – a.k.a. a doubt. THEN he quotes the Kneset HaGedolah, who noted how when the Shulchan Arukh said “one is not punished” that refers to someone who got married during Sefirah, before Lag Ba’Omer, for that person is fulfilling a mitzvah. However, one who gets a haircut during Sefirah was customarily fined and punished… Note this is on the general comment that the mourning period of Sefirah goes through Lag Ba’Omer, before any “exception” is raised by Rama regarding haircuts, if Lag Ba’Omer falls on Sunday. 

 Chochmas Shlomo (Shlomo Kluger, 1785-1869), s’if 2, raises a similar discussion surrounding if Rosh Chodesh Sivan falls on Sunday, as to whether one may get a haircut on the Friday before. Quoting the Pri Megadim who allows it, arguing it’s the same as the Lag Baomer situation, he wonders how the Pri Chodosh forbade the haircut on Friday if Rosh Chodesh Iyar falls on Sunday. 

 Rabbi Kluger questions the thought process of Pri Chodosh based on the assumption that haircuts are really only allowed on Lag Ba’Omer itself during Sefirah, so if a person misses it on Lag Ba’Omer, the person will end up being scraggly for TWO Shabboses, the one before and the one after Lag Ba’Omer. This is a reason for the allowance on Friday (when Lag Ba'Omer is Sunday), because it would enhance Shabbos, AND Lag Ba’Omer would be a make-up day if the person misses the Friday allowance. Additionally, the Friday allowance in the case of Lag Ba’Omer on Sunday is because it would be shameful to Shabbos that “you can get a haircut the day AFTER Shabbos, but not the day BEFORE?” 

 Two other reasons that the Rosh Chodesh Sivan situation is different than Lag Ba’Omer: 

 1. After Rosh Chodesh there are a number of days during which one could get a haircut prior to Shavuos (the שלשת ימי הגבלה), versus the view that the haircut is only allowed on Lag Ba'Omer 

 2. According to a number of opinions, there isn’t an allowance to get a haircut on Rosh Chodesh Sivan anyway (while on Lag Ba’Omer, virtually everyone agrees that haircuts are permitted), so there could be no extension from "you could get on Sunday anyway" to Friday

 מיהו אם חל ביום ראשון נוהגין להסתפר מיום ששי לכבוד שבת. נ"ב, הנה אם חל ראש חדש סיון באחד בשבת אם מותר להסתפר בערב שבת, ראיתי בפרי מגדים [אשל אברהם אות ה] שכתב שהוא מותר, שהוא כמו בל"ג בעומר, ותמה על הפרי חדש דאוסר בחל ראש חדש אייר באחד בשבת להסתפר ביום ו', וכתב ולא ידעתי טעמו, ע"ש. ולפענ"ד נראה דבראש חדש סיון ודאי לא צדקו דברי הפרי מגדים, דאין ראיה מל"ג בעומר, דהתם כיון דאם לא יסתפר בל"ג בעומר לא יוכל להסתפר אח"כ אף לשבת הבא, ולכך חיישינן לנוול לב' שבתות, ובל"ג בעצמו כיון דהוא יום אחד חיישינן לאונסא וכדומה, ובפרט דבזיון הוא שעל שבת לא יגלח וביום א' אחר השבת יגלח, לכך מותר לגלח בערב שבת, ובפרט דלא לשבת הזה חששו כיון דבו אסרו לגלח ולא חיישינן לנוולו, אך לשבת הבאה חיישינן כיון דבו התירו לגלח קודם לו בל"ג בעומר ולא יהיה בנוול בשבת, ואם לא יגלח עתה אולי בל"ג בעומר יוולד לו אונסא וכדומה, וגם בזיון היא לשבת כנזכר לעיל, לכך התירו לגלח בערב שבת. אבל בראש חדש סיון דאפשר לו לגלח אח"כ כל הימים, לזמן מרובה לא חששו לאונסא, ויכול לגלח קרוב לשבת הבאה ולא יהיה מנוול, ובשביל אותו שבת אין לגלח, דביה לא חששו לניוול דהרי אסרו לגלח עד ראש חדש, יחול אימתי שיהיה. ועוד, דבל"ג בעומר דהוא עצמו מותר מדינא לרוב הפוסקים, לכך אם חל ביום א' מותר בסמוך לו. אך בראש חדש סיון הרי מפורש במג"א [ס"ק ה] דאין היתר, רק בשלשה ימי הגבלה והפרי מגדים [שם] עצמו כתב דלא ידע מנין נמשך המנהג להתיר בראש חדש, א"כ הבו דלא לוסיף עלה, דוקא בראש חדש אבל לא להתיר אף קודם לו. וזה הוי טעמו של הפרי חדש, כיון דבראש חדש אייר רוב האוסרין, והמחבר כתב שטעות הוא בידם, ולכך אף הנוהגין להקל היינו בראש חדש עצמו, ולא להקל אף קודם לו, ואינו דומה לל"ג בעומר דשם מותר לרוב הפוסקים כנזכר לעיל. לכך בין בראש חדש אייר בין בראש חדש סיון יש לאסור לגלח בערב שבת קדש, כן נראה לפענ"ד נכון לדינא: 

 Mishnah Berurah (Yisrael Meir Kagan, 1838-1933) notes in note 11 that if a person feels he will not have the time to properly get one’s haircut in the morning, he could get his hair cut on Thursday night in advance of Shabbos, when Sunday is Lag Ba’Omer. [Not included above in the count, because this commentary appears in its own work, not on the same page as the regular Shulchan Arukh]

 אכן כשחל ל"ג בעומר בע"ש והוא לו שעת הדחק לעשות ביום אפשר שיש להקל לו לעשות בלילה שלפניו: 

 This leaves us to explore what Maharil really said! 

 In the book Maharil (https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14721&st=&pgnum=41) it says that Maharil would not trim his beard at all until Erev Shavuos. And even if Lag BaOmer fell out on Sunday he would not permit shaving on the Friday before it, using the example of a mourner. In that case if the Shloshim falls on Shabbos he is allowed to shave on Friday, but if the Shloshim falls on Sunday he could not wash on Friday.

 אמנם מהרי"ל הוא נהג בעצמו שלא גלח זקנו עד ערב רגל השבועות. וגם אם חל ל"ג בעומר ביום א' לא התיר לגלח בע"ש דלפניו דוגמת אבל שאם חל שלשים שלו בשבת מגלח בע"ש ואם כלו הל' באחד בשבת אסור לרחוץ בע"ש. (ושניהם שוים דשניהם רק מנהגא בספרי מהרי"ל ישן, ול"נ דמלשון מהרי"ל ישן יש להוכיח דטעות נפל בספרי מהרי"ל שלפנינו וצריך להיות לרחוץ ולמחות ולגלח וכך צ"ל לשונו אם חל ל"ג בעומר ביום א' לא התיר לגלח ע"ש דלפניו דוגמות... 

 In this text, this entire analysis is disputed, as to whether he is referring to haircuts or washing at the end of the 30-day mourning period, and he goes on to say that there is a difference anyway between the actual mourning for a relative, and this ancient mourning of Sefiras HaOmer. The former is far more obligatory, and the latter is far less so. The text also goes on the quote Mahari”v (Mahari Veil) who was permissive regarding the haircuts on Friday when Lag Ba’Omer is on Sunday – indicating that a. this book of Maharil was recorded after his passing, and b. Mahari”v disagreed with his teacher. 

 What remains unclear to me is how the citation of the Rama is to the Maharil, if Maharil was clearly against it. But there are at least three possibilities: 

 1. Rama didn’t write "(מהרי"ל)" as a citation – someone else did 

 2. Rama wrote (מהרי"ו) and it was changed by some editor later 

 3. Rama wrote "(מהרי"ל)" but he was referencing the book in which מהרי"ו is quoted, that the idea of this being a custom is recorded there, while he wasn't referencing the actual opinion of Rabbi Moelin.

 Nonetheless, there is certainly grounds to stand on for those who wish to get a haircut this Friday. It has clearly been a practice for over 400 years, if not longer, to get haircuts on Friday in honor of Shabbos when Lag Ba’Omer falls on Sunday. 

 Those who wish to wait until Sunday are certainly welcome to do so. And since the custom most Jews have is to get haircuts even after Lag Ba’Omer, even if one misses the opportunity, one could still get a haircut in time for the following Shabbos.