(For the riddles, please see back page)
1) R’ Hershel in Chanukas HaTorah (ois 85) explains as follows: The Medrash in Shir HaShirim Rabbah (1:13) writes: Every one of the Aseres HaDibros came from the right hand of Hakodosh Boruch Hu and went to the left side of Klal Yisroel. Since the left ear was the ear to hear “Do not steal” at Har Sinai, one might think that the left ear should be the one that gets pierced, therefore, we need the gezeirah shovah אוזן אוזן, to tell us, that even still we should pierce the right.
2) The Chizkuni offers a novel reason for why we pierce the ear of the slave by the door. He writes: If the slave would run away, the piercing in his ear would prove that he is a slave, and when the piercing matched up the place where there was a piercing in the door, everyone would know who the slave belonged to. Similarly, the owner wouldn’t be able to claim ownership of a different slave, as the piercing in the door wouldn’t match up to the slave, as slaves are all different sizes.
From the words of the Chizkuni it’s clear that both the ear and the door would get pierced. The simply reading of the pasuk would also suggest this, as the pasuk says, באוזן ובדלת – “in the ear and in the door” (Devorim 15:17). In Devorim the Chizkuni says clearly: “Place his ear by the door, the door is made of wood, and it’s easier to pierce wood then stone” (See also Rashbam in this week’s parsha).
However, from the Mechilta it seems they would only pierce the ear. The Mechilta writes: “Through the ear one pierces, and not through the door.”
3) The Reshash in Gittin (21b) is in doubt in a case where the master knocks off the hand of his slave, if the slave gets to keep his hand, or if the master may keep it. The Reshash concludes: “Perhaps since the slave goes free due to this act, the hand belongs to the master”.
The Otzer Palois HaTorah brings an interesting rayah to the Reshash from Maseches Sofrim. It says in Maseches Sofrim (21:9) that Og Melech HaBoshan is Eliezer the slave of Avraham. One time Avraham got angry at him, and Eliezer got a big fright, and one of his teeth fell it. Avraham then took the tooth, and made for himself a bed, and he would sleep on it. Some say, he made for himself a chair and sat on it.
Seemingly, Eliezer was set free after this incident, yet, we find that Avraham took the tooth and made either a bed or a chair for himself. We see like the Reshash that if a slave goes free after losing a tooth, the tooth belongs to the master.
[Although we said that Eliezer went free, the Nachlas Ariel on Maseches Sofrim understands that he wasn’t set free, and he asks why not? He then answer: Since Avraham didn’t do any act to cause the tooth to come out, and Eliezer got scared on his own accord, therefore, he never went free.]
4) i) R' Akiva Eiger Al HaTorah answers: Middos tovos [good attributes] of a doctor are cruelty, as one who has mercy is unable to draw blood and cut limbs etc. Additionally, sometimes a doctor must lie, as he doesn’t want the patient to give up hope and die earlier than he needs to. Therefore, what Chazal mean is, טוב, the middos which make a doctor good, i.e. cruelty, if regular people us them, they are destined for Gehinnom. However, a doctor isn’t, and a doctor must and should use these middos if necessary.
ii) The Otzer Pelois HaTorah suggests: There are two types of doctors, there are doctors who are tzaddikim and know that for everything they do, they are simply messengers from Hashem. About such doctors we don’t say טוב שברופאים לגיהנם. However, sadly, there is another category of doctors who think they know everything, and think they are in charge, and they think it is all their power. About such doctors we say,טוב שברופאים לגיהנם.
R’ Meir MiPremishlan would say: A doctor needs to know that his power of heeling is ultimately in the Hands of Hashem, and without Hashem he can’t do anything. However, a doctor who thinks he is in charge, when he recites the berachah of רפאנו in Shemonah Esrei, he doesn’t have proper kavonah, therefore, it’s as if he never recited the berachah. Therefore, when he davens Shemonah Esrei, he is missing a berachah and only has טו״ב amount of berachos, 17 berachos. And about such doctors, the Tanna says,טו״ב שברופאים לגיהנם, the doctors who only have 17 berachos, they deserve Gehinnom.
5) In this week’s parsha we learn that if an ox gores and kills another person, the ox gets stoned (21:28). The question is, why does the ox get killed, is it a punishment so to speak for the animal, i.e. the animal was naughty, therefore, it gets punished, or is it simply a gezeiras hakasuv as we don’t say there is a concept of reward and punishment by animals?
The Ramban (Bereishis 9:5) is in doubt, if the reason the ox gets killed is a punishment for the ox, or if it is simply a gezeiras hakasuv that if an animal kills a person, the animal also gets killed.
The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (Vol. 3, ch. 17) writes with simplicity, that there is no concept of reward or punishment by animals, he writes: “We don’t find anywhere a concept that animals which can’t speak get rewarded. Even in the Talmud we don’t find any mention of such a thing.”
However, seemingly we find in this week’s parsha that animals do receive reward. The pasuk says: “Any meat which is treife, should be thrown to the dogs” (22:30). The Medrash explains (31:9): As a reward for not barking during Makkas Bechoras, the dogs were rewarded with getting treife meat. From the Medrash it’s clear that animals do get reward and punishment. How can we reconcile this with the Rambam?
The Malbim (22:30) writes on the pasuk: “You shall throw it to the dog” - “Although animals don’t receive reward or punishment as the way they act is based on nature, Hashem said they should be rewarded, and from here Man will learn a lesson in mussar, to go in the ways of Hashem, as if animals get reward, certainly Man which has free choice will get rewarded.”
We see from the Malbim that when animals get reward and punishment it is a lesson for us and not for the animals, therefore, the Rambam is correct in saying that animals don’t receive reward or punishment, however, the reason we find sometimes that animals do receive reward is for Man to learn from the animals, and not for the animal’s sake.
6) They say over (see Pardes Yosef, Vayikra 74) that R’ Yonasan Eibshitz would learn German whilst he was in the beis hakisay. One time he was reading something written by one of the chachmei umois ha’olam [wise sages of the world] and it was written there that if one wants to speed up the growth process of a fruit tree, he should cook meat and milk together and then pour it around the tree in the winter for a period of thirty days, then the tree will give forth fruit quicker then normal.
Immediately after seeing this, R’ Eibshitz said that he now understands the connection between the mitzvah of bikkurim and the prohibition of cooking meat and milk together. Being that there is a mitzvah in the Torah to bring bikkurim, one may think that in order to cause the tree to bring forth fruit quicker, so that one can fulfil the mitzvah quiker, one would be allowed to cook meat and milk together like this wise non-Jew said. Therefore, the Torah says, although, ראשית בכורי אדמתך תביא בית ה' אלקיך, there is a mitzvah to bring bikkurim, לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו, there is no heter to cook meat and milk together, as cooking meat and milk together is forbidden even for a mitzvah purpose.
After having this novel Torah thought, R’ Yonasan Eibshitz was very upset that he had Torah thoughts in the beis hakisay, and he fasted for forty fasts, and he made a geder [safeguard] that he would no longer read non-Jewish articles in the beis hakisay, even when written in a foreign language.
