web analytics
December 21, 2014 / 29 Kislev, 5775
 
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Bnei Yisrael’

Parshat Vayakheil-Pikudei

Thursday, March 15th, 2012

May 1864 was one of the bloodiest months in American military history. At what came to be known as the Battle of the Wilderness, General Grant’s Union forces suffered close to 18,000 casualties between May 3 and May 6. It seemed as yet another Union general, even one such as Grant who had been successful out west, lost to General Robert E. Lee. The soldiers in the Union army were convinced that following the battle, Grant, like all the generals before him who had faced Lee in Virginia, would retreat across the Rapidan River to nurse his wounds and rethink his strategy. They fully expected, when they arrived at a fork in the road after they left the Wilderness battlefield, to go left towards the north and the river. It therefore came as quite a surprise to them when they were ordered to march right and south.

Suddenly cheers began to spread throughout the line of march as General Grant and his staff rode by. “In a scene reminiscent of Napoleon’s torchlight march among his troops the night before the Battle of Austerlitz, many Union soldiers lit pine torches and held them aloft as Grant passed. The general remarked that the cheering might alert the Confederates to the army’s movement and sought to have it stopped, but it continued until he was out of sight” (Lee & Grant: Profiles in Leadership from the Battlefields of Virginia by Major Charles R. Bowery Jr., U.S. Army, 2005, pp.104-5).

Indeed, one of the soldiers of 124th New York Volunteers is quoted as exclaiming to his friend when Grant rode by, “I say Joe, this little chap from out West—I don’t believe he knows when he’s whipped. If it hadn’t been for his coming along with us we would have been back to our old camp again by this time.” His friend Joe replied, “I’ll just bet you a plug of tobacco and a briarwood pipe, that this army never re-crosses the Rapidan until we go home to stay!” (p.105).

It would in fact take Grant nearly a year to wear down Lee’s army and force his surrender at Appomattox Court House. Grant would suffer many trials in the process and endure much criticism. Battles such as Cold Harbor, Spotsylvania, The Crater and the siege of Petersburg cost the Union tens of thousands of casualties. But Grant learned from his mistakes and viewed his losses as setbacks, not failures. He understood the fundamental truth that in a war of attrition Lee stood no real chance. During this trying time the biggest obstacle to Union victory was the tired and drained Northern will—not Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia.

Grant had demonstrated this tenacity throughout his military career. In July 1863 Grant had captured Vicksburg—arguably the most important single victory of the war. But it was also a victory that was hard-won after many months and tactical setbacks. Grant changed approaches several times—but never lost faith that he could achieve victory and never lost his focus. He learned from his mistakes as well as from that which occurred beyond his control. Grant’s actions have taught generations of military commanders the importance of never giving up, never looking back and never allowing the enemy to take the initiative. In addition, he taught commanders to learn from mistakes, to adapt tactics when necessary without abandoning the objective, and to view setbacks as learning opportunities to ultimately move forward even further than originally intended.

Chazal had already learned these leadership lessons from a midrash on this week’s parsha. The midrash relates (Tanchuma Parshat Pikudei: 11) that prior to the official dedication and inauguration of the Mishkan, Moshe assembled and disassembled the Mishkan each day throughout the prior week. According to Rav Chiya he did this twice daily while according to Rav Chanina he did it three times daily. The obvious question is why? Why didn’t Moshe build it once and leave it standing?

The anthology Meiyana Shel Torah quotes the following explanation of the Imrei Emes. Historically there were to be seven Temples. The Mishkan of the desert was the first. Then came the one in the Gilgal followed by the one in Shilo. That was followed by the temples in Nov and Givon. Following Givon were the two Batei Mikdash in Jerusalem. Each day Moshe taught Bnei Yisrael how they were to rebuild the Temple following its predecessor’s destruction. Moshe’s efforts were therefore twofold in nature. On the general level he informed Bnei Yisrael that there would be spiritual revivals following spiritual lapses. He also taught them the particulars as to how to go about rebuilding the Temple following its destruction.

The Slonimer Rebbe in Nesivos Shalom (Pekudei p.279) develops a similar idea, but applies it to our individual religious experiences. In life, as we move forward and grow, there will be inevitable setbacks. The lesson Moshe taught was that no matter how much time we have invested in our development and no matter how frustrating the setbacks may be—we must never despair. Rather, we must return immediately to rebuild what we have lost. In fact, the Slonimer Rebbe argues that such setbacks serve a positive and constructive purpose. By constantly assembling and disassembling our personal and inner temples we have the opportunity to look into the recesses of our souls and check to make sure that everything is of the best quality and on the highest level. Each time we rebuild the finished product is that much better.

Innovative Bride Cuts through Funeral Crowd in ZAKA Ambulance

Thursday, March 15th, 2012

A young woman in Bnei Brak, Israel, had a problem Wednesday: she was about to get married, but the streets outside the wedding hall, situated next to Kiryat Vishnitz, also in Bnei Brak, were packed with thousands of Vishnitz Hasidim who came to pay their last respects to the Vishnitzer Rebbe. How would she get to her own wedding on time?

Proving once again that Israelis are nothing if not innovative, the young bride called the ZAKA (a humanitarian volunteer organization) hotline and, within minutes, a ZAKA ambulance arrived at her door to drive her through the crowds and get her to her chupah on time.

ZAKA volunteer Berele Yaacovitz was delighted at this unusual assignment. “I’ve been volunteering as a ZAKA driver for the last ten years and this is the first time I’ve been involved in a joyous event,” he said with a big smile. “It is truly an emotional moment for me to see my vehicle, which has seen such sorrow and tragedy, take a bride to her wedding.”

Daf Yomi

Wednesday, February 29th, 2012

Was Shmuel Not The Greatest?
‘Three Thousand Halachos Were Forgotten’
(Temurah 16a)

The Gemara relates that during the period of mourning for Moshe, 3,000 halachos were forgotten. Bnei Yisrael approached Yehoshua and requested that he recover the forgotten halachos by means of prophesy. Yehoshua responded that Torah laws cannot be retrieved in this manner because, as the pasuk (Devarim 30:12) states, “Lo ba’shamayim hi – [The Torah] is not in the heavens….” All Torah laws must be decided by the sages based upon the Torah that was given to Moshe at Mt. Sinai. Torah laws are not in the province of the heavenly court.

The Gemara relates that Shmuel was also asked to recover these halachos. He responded similarly but cited a different pasuk (Vayikra 27:34): “Eleh hamitzvos asher tzivah Hashem es Moshe el Bnei Yisrael b’har Sinai – These are the commandments that Hashem commanded Moshe to the children of Israel on Mount Sinai.” These are the commandments – nothing else may be added, not even by a prophet. At most a navi, through prophecy, can institute a temporary modification of a Torah law. However, if he seeks to introduce a permanent change in the Torah or to add a new mitzvah, he and his prophecy should be rejected.

The Choice Of Pesukim

The Maharsha (ad loc.) asks why Yehoshua didn’t invoke the rule cited by Shmuel that a prophet is not allowed to introduce a new halacha. Why did he invoke the reason of “it is not in the heavens”?

In A League Of His Own

Rabbi Yosef Shaul Halevi Natanson (Divrei Shaul to our Gemara) answers that the rule of “a navi may not add a halacha through prophesy” didn’t apply to Yehoshua, just as it did not apply to Moshe. Basically Moshe was in a league of his own when it came to prophecy. All other prophets besides Moshe, for example, had to prove themselves by means of an os (a sign as a prediction) or a mofes (a miracle, something supernatural). Moshe was unique because all of Klal Yisrael witnessed Hashem speaking to him.

He Too Was Unique

As regards to Yehoshua, Rabbi Natanson writes that his prophecy was also unique; he too did not need to perform an os or a mofes to establish the credibility of his prophecy because Klal Yisrael witnessed the mantle of leadership being transferred to him by Moshe. Therefore, he was not subject to the rule that “a navi may not add a halacha through prophesy.” Thus, when asked to recover the lost halchos, Yehoshua had to cite the dictum that the Torah is not in the heavens.

Over 600,000 Witnesses

The one difficulty with this answer is that the Gemara (Berachos 31b) derives from the pasuk (Tehillim 99:6) “Moshe v’Aharon b’kohanav u’Shmuel b’kor’ei shemo… – Moshe and Aharon of [Hashem’s] priests and Shmuel who invoke His Name…” that Shmuel was equal in greatness to Moshe and Aharon combined. If so, why didn’t Shmuel cite the same pasuk as Yehoshua? He not only equaled him in greatness but surpassed him!

The answer lies in the fact that, as we noted above, all of Klal Yisrael witnessed Hashem conversing with Moshe and they also witnessed Moshe passing the scepter to Yehoshua. However, Hashem only revealed Himself to Shmuel in the house of Eli. The people accepted Shmuel as a prophet because they saw everything he said in Hashem’s Name came true.

This week’s Daf Yomi Highlights is based upon Al Hadaf, published by Cong. Al Hadaf, 17N Rigaud Rd., Spring Valley, NY 10977-2533. Al Hadaf, published semi-monthly, is available by subscription: U.S. – $40 per year; Canada – $54 per year; overseas – $65 per year. For dedication information, contact Rabbi Zev Dickstein, editor, 845-356-9114 or visit Alhadafyomi.org.

Inside Purim: Insights On Purim And The Megillah

Friday, February 24th, 2012

Click for more Inside Purim.

Ever wonder?

Why is there a custom to dress up on Purim? Chazal explain that the threat on Purim was not really a threat at all. It was only the appearance of a threat, for in the end, Bnei Yisrael were not exterminated. Many years before the story of Purim took place, Nevuchadnetzar, the Babylonian ruler who destroyed the first Beis HaMikdash, forced Bnei Yisrael to bow to his idol (Daniel 3:3). The Jews did so, but only because they were coerced, and only for appearance’s sake. In their hearts, they were with Hashem. As punishment for this sin, middah k’neged middah, as a justified punishment, Hashem made only an appearance of a threat at Purim (Megillah 12a). Just as the hearts of Bnei Yisrael as they bowed to Nevuchadnetzar’s idol were with Hashem, so too the heart of Hashem was with Bnei Yisrael on Purim, and no calamity resulted. We dress up on Purim, often in the garb of goyim, to show that even though we sometimes sin and act like them, it is only an outward appearance. In truth, our hearts are always with Hashem.

(The Bnei Yissaschar)

Why is Purim named after the Persian word for lottery, “pur,” instead of its Hebrew counterpart “goral”? As a reminder of the great redemption from Egypt, the Torah begins the counting of the months from the month in which yetzias Mitzrayim occurred (see Shemos ch.12). Thus each month is called after its number place in the calendar counting from then (i.e. “The First Month,” “The Second Month,” etc…). However, when Bnei Yisrael returned from the Babylonian exile to build the second Beis HaMikdash, they brought with them the Babylonian names for the months (i.e. “Nissan,” “Iyar,” Sivan,” etc.), and we use these names to this day. The Ramban (Shemos 12:2) explains that just as the numerical names for the months were used to remind us of yetzias Mitzrayim, so too were the Babylonian names retained to serve as a permanent reminder of Hashem’s great redemption of Bnei Yisrael from the Babylonian exile. Following through on this idea, the Persian name “Purim” is used as a permanent reminder of the great miracle of Purim that Hashem wrought for us when we were in the exile of Persia-Media, and serves to publicize it as well.

(The Chasam Sofer)

What exactly does Taanis Esther commemorate, and why is it named after Esther? The fast commemorates the fasting Bnei Yisrael undertook before going to battle with their enemies on the 13th of Adar (see Mishna Berurah 686:2(2)). When Am Yisrael heads into battle, they do not rely on their physical might, nor the strength of their weaponry. Instead, they know that their lives and success are in the hands of Hashem, and as such, always fast and appeal to Hashem to grant them mercy and success. However, halachah teaches (Orach Chaim 571:3) that when one actually goes out to battle his enemies, he is forbidden to fast for fear his strength will weaken. Therefore, Bnei Yisrael were forbidden to fast when they were actually engaged in fighting on the 13th of Adar. However, Esther did fast on that day because she was protected in the confines of the palace, and did not have to go out to battle. Since she was the only person able to fast for the Jews while they did battle, the day is named after her.

(Likutei Sichos)

How does Hashem’s Name actually appear in the Megillah numerous times? The story of Megillas Esther is one in which Hashem’s hand is revealed to be manipulating all of the events – from behind the scenes – to bring about the salvation. This fact is alluded to by the Megillah in that Hashem’s Name does not explicitly appear in the text even once, yet it does appear, many times, hidden within the text – in the form of roshei teivos, first letters of words, sofei teivos, last letters of words, and gematrias. One example can be found when Esther invites Achashveirosh and Haman to the first party. There, Hashem’s Name appears in roshei teivos as follows: יָבוֹא הַמֶּלֶךְ וְהָמָן הַיּוֹם – Let the King and Haman come [to the party] today (Esther5:4), indicating that Hashem influenced these events.

(The Rokeach)

Why did the miracle occur through Esther, an orphan? The story of Purim occurred during the period of time following the destruction of the first Beis HaMikdash. Exiled from Eretz Yisrael and suffering at the hands of other nations, Bnei Yisrael felt as if Hashem had, chas v’shalom abandoned them, saying “יְתוֹמִים הָיִינוּ וְאֵין אָב-we became orphans without a father” (Eicha 5:3). Hashem responded by bringing the salvation through an orphan to show that He is in fact the father of orphans, and had not, and will not ever, abandon Bnei Yisrael. The message to all generations is that we should never feel like orphans, because we always have our Father in Heaven.

(Esther Rabbah 6:7)  

Parshat Mishpatim: Location! Location! Location!

Friday, February 17th, 2012

The Inauguration of the President of the United States has become both a complicated and expensive process. It begins with a meeting at the White House between the incoming and outgoing First Families, followed by a joint drive to the Capitol for the actual ceremony. Weather permitting, the inauguration is followed by a parade down Pennsylvania Avenue. At the conclusion of the parade the new First Couple must quickly change attire in order to attend the many galas and balls being held in their honor that evening.

Interestingly enough, much of what transpires is dictated by tradition. The Constitution itself dedicates a very limited amount of space to the inauguration. The current date is set as January 20th, as per the 20th Amendment, ratified in 1933. The text of the oath of office is presented in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution. It is a mere 35 words. Yet this almost matter-of-fact item in the Constitution has become one of the hallmarks of our democracy.

Congressional historian Donald Kennon explained: “It’s probably safe to say that the presidential inauguration is the transcendent ritual associated with the rise to power of a representative government. Unlike the coronation of a monarch or any ritual associated with the rise to power of a dictator or autocrat, the inauguration of the American President is a cyclical, regularly scheduled event held every four years. The regularity of presidential inaugurations lends a sense of reassuring stability, continuity and permanence to a political system that permits turnover in office holders and change in policy agendas. Moreover it is a peaceful change in government, unlike the violence that so often has accompanied a change in head of state elsewhere” (www.fpc.state.gov).

Among the many customs that have developed with respect to the inauguration is its location. Aside from extenuating circumstances, it has almost always taken place at the location of the legislative branch of government. Weather permitting, the President is escorted by a Congressional delegation from within the Capitol confines outside to take the oath in front of the American people. It is this fact, that the president takes the oath at the Capitol which interested me in this topic. My research question was, why?

A Google search found quite a non-scholarly suggestion (who knows? Perhaps it contains a kernel of truth). A person suggested that due to the previous president moving out of the White House and the new president and his staff moving in, the White House would be way too busy of a place to have the ceremony there. Therefore a different venue needed to be chosen – so why not the Capitol. However, Dr. Kennon offers the following possibilities.

The first reason he suggested is precedent. When George Washington took his oath of office, he went to Federal Hall in New York City where Congress was meeting at the time. A second reason Kennon suggested has to do, “with the fact that Congress is the first branch of American government. The first Article of the Constitution created Congress. It was the Continental Congress, after all, which led to the American Revolution. It was a legislative revolution, if you will.” It is held outside, in front of the people, to declare to the world that ultimately the president is answerable to the American people.

This idea, that when it comes to people in power the symbolism of location matters, is highlighted by the commentators at the beginning of this week’s parsha. The Torah begins the parsha with a discussion of the laws that Moshe needs to teach Bnei Yisrael. Rashi, in his commentary on the first pasuk, addresses why the discussion of societal and judicial laws is placed immediately following the Torah’s discussion of the mizbayach at the end of the previous parsha. Rashi explains that with this juxtaposition, the Torah is instructing us that the seat of the Sanhedrin must be established within the confines of the Beit Hamikdash. The anthology Iturei Torah relates the following explanation in the name of the Shlah Hakadosh’s son. Rav Horowitz explains that a major function of the Sanhedrin was to ensure the genetic purity of the Kohanim who served in the Beit Hamikdash. To effectively carry out this responsibility, the Sanhedrin needed to be located in close proximity to the Temple.

The Mei’ana Shel Torah quotes the following explanation from the work Avnei Eizel (which was actually an unpublished manuscript of the compiler of this anthology, Rav Zusha Friedman). For most of the nations of the world, the laws governing interactions between people are conventions set up by citizens to enable their society to function. They are bereft of any Divine influence. However, such laws within a Jewish society are very much religious laws as well. To demonstrate this point the Sanhedrin, which was ultimately responsible for all legal aspects of society, was housed in the Temple. By being there it was made clear to all that, for Jewish society, the interpersonal societal laws were Divine in origin, just as the ritual laws were.

Lechem Mishneh

Thursday, February 2nd, 2012

At the onset of the Bnei Yisrael’s journey through the midbar, we read in this week’s parshah that the Bnei Yisrael’s complaint was for food to eat. Hashem responded that He would send “lechem min hashamayim” (also known as mun), and that the Bnei Yisrael would collect each day’s portion according to the number of members of his household. One was not allowed to leave over any mun for the next day, and if he would it would spoil. On the sixth day a double portion would fall and the second portion was to be saved for Shabbos, as the mun would not fall on Shabbos. This double portion would not spoil, even though it was left over to the next day.

The Gemara in Shabbos 117b derives from the pasuk that mentions the double portion of mun that fell for Shabbos that one is obligated to “break” bread on two loaves of bread on Shabbos. Rashi explains that the obligation is only to recite the berachah of “hamotzi lechem” on two loaves; one need not break both loaves. The Gemara relates a story in which Rav Kehana held two loaves while reciting the berachah and only broke one of the loaves. The Gemara then relates another incident in which Rav Zera broke enough bread for the entire meal. The interpretation of the second incident is the subject of a dispute between Rashi and the Rashba. Rashi explains that it is an unrelated episode that teaches us that Rav Zera would break a bigger piece of bread than usual in honor of Shabbos. The Rashba explains that the Gemara is offering a disputing opinion to the previous one of Rav Kehana. Rav Kehana would only recite the berachah on the two loaves, and Rav Zera would even break both of them.

In other words, according to Rashi, one must only recite the berachah of hamotzi on two loaves and one need not break both of them; in his view this is not a matter of dispute. According to the Rashba, this is the opinion of Rav Kehana. Rav Zera disagrees and says that one must break both loaves as well. The Rashba adds that Rav Hai Gaon ruled that since the Gemara did not rule in this matter between Rav Kehana and Rav Zera, one is free to do as he wishes.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 274:2) rules in accordance with Rashi’s view that one must only recite the berachah on the two loaves, and that one need not break both of them. Also, that it is a mitzvah on Shabbos to break a big piece that would suffice for the entire meal. The Vilna Gaon, in the abovementioned siman, agrees with the Rashba that one should break both loaves of bread. Similarly, the Magen Avraham cites the fact that the Maharshal was accustomed to breaking both loaves of bread as well.

I would like to discuss the basis for this machlokes, and explain on a deeper level where they disagree. According to Rashi everyone agrees that one must only recite the berachah on the two loaves. On this opinion, the halacha that one must have lechem mishneh is similar to that of the daytime Kiddush. There is an obligation that the seudah begins with a berachah on lechem mishneh. Therefore, the following chiddush halacha should result: Just the same as Kiddush Rabbah (by day), only one person is required to recite the berachah, and everyone can fulfill their obligation without even drinking from the wine. So too only one person must recite the berachah on the lechem mishneh, and everyone will have fulfilled the obligation of lechem mishneh. This applies even if they do not eat from the lechem mishneh; rather they can eat from their own bread and make their own birchas hamotzi on it.

The Eishel Avraham (Reb Avraham from Butchatch found this in the back of the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 274) adds that one can even be yotzi his obligation of lechem mishneh if he hears the berachah before he washed his hands, and that the washing and reciting of its berachah will not be an interruption. Even though he will recite his own berachah of hamotzi, it is sufficient that he heard the berachah that was recited on the two loaves.

The Rashba explained that Rav Zera disagrees with Rav Kehana, saying that one must break both loaves. In fact he makes no mention of the berachah at all. In his view one must break both loaves and need not recite the berachah over both of them. According to this opinion the obligation to break both loaves of bread is a part of the seudah, and the seudah should be eaten with both loaves broken. One need not eat from both loaves, but we see that it is a part of the seudah. According to this opinion one would have to eat from one of the two broken loaves. It would not suffice to merely listen to the recitation of the berachah over them.

Who Shechted The Korban Pesach?

Thursday, January 26th, 2012

In this week’s parshah Hashem instructs Moshe to tell the Bnei Yisrael that each household should take for themselves, on the 10th of Nissan, a lamb or a kid within its first year for the korban pesach. They should examine it for four days, until the 14th of the month, to ensure that it does not have any blemishes. On the 14th of the month, the entire k’hal adas Yisrael should shecht their korban pesach in the afternoon.

Rashi explains that the reason that Hashem commanded the Bnei Yisrael to perform this mitzvah, and the mitzvah of bris milah on that night (even though the Torah, in its entirety, was not given until after they left Mitzrayim and stood by Har Sinai), is because the time came for Hashem to fulfill the oath that he swore to Avraham Avinu. However, the Bnei Yisrael would have to merit to be redeemed, and they did not have any mitzvos to perform. Therefore, He commanded them in these two mitzvos to give them the opportunity to be worthy of redemption.

There is a machlokes whether the Bnei Yisrael, before mattan Torah, were considered Bnei Yisrael or Bnei Noach. However, even those who believe that they were considered Bnei Yisrael agree that they lacked some aspect of being Jews. This was only completed at the time of mattan Torah, at which point the Gemara in Krisus 9a says that Bnei Yisrael underwent a geirus (conversion) process. Hence, according to all opinions, the Bnei Yisrael lacked some aspect of being Jews – either completely or partially.

The Tosefta in Chullin, quoted by Tosafos in Chullin 3b, derives from a pasuk that a non-Jew is unfit to shecht. Based on this, the meforshim ask the following question: How were the Bnei Yisrael fit to shecht their korban pesachim, since they were not yet fully considered Bnei Yisrael?

Tosafos Yeshanim, in Yevamos 46b, asks a similar question. Since an arel ben neichar (uncircumcised non-Jew) may not eat from a korban pesach, how were the Bnei Yisrael allowed to eat from their korban pesachim? He answers that on that night the male of Bnei Yisrael performed bris milah and the women immersed in a mikveh, rendering them enough of Bnei Yisrael to be fit to eat the korban pesach. According to this, we can also explain how the Bnei Yisrael were fit to shecht their korbanos; since they had already performed a partial geirus, they were allowed to shecht their korbanos as well.

The abovementioned Tosafos in Chullin explains that the reason that a non-Jew is unfit to shecht is because he is not included in the parshah of eating kosher, and only one who is commanded to eat kosher may shecht. Based on this explanation Tosafos says that even a Jew who has rebelled and eats non-kosher, in spite of Hashem’s command to the contrary, will be unfit to shecht since he no longer associates himself with the parshah of eating kosher.

Based on Tosafos’s explanation we can suggest another explanation as to how the Bnei Yisrael were fit to shecht the korban pesach. Since only one who is not associated with the parshah of eating from the shechita is unfit to shecht, the Bnei Yisrael who were fit to eat the korban pesach – which did not require them to be completely a part of Yisrael – were also fit to shecht it.

According to the Kesef Mishneh’s understanding of the Rambam’s view (Hilchos Shechita 4:11), a non-Jew who does not worship idols is fit to shecht min haTorah – and the meat is only forbidden mi’derabbanan. This is because the Rambam derives from a different pasuk that a non-Jew is unfit to shecht, and that pasuk is referring to idol worshipers. Needless to say that according to this opinion, the question does not begin. However, the Shach (Yoreh De’ah 2:2) understands that the Rambam’s view is that even a non idol-worshiping gentile is unfit to shecht min haTorah – and that according to him the question is applicable.

Some Achronim say that a gentile is fit to shecht his own korban. They prove this from the episode when Bilam and Balak shechted korbanos. Similarly the Gemara, in Nazir 62a, says that a gentile can make a neder to bring a neder or nedavah korban. And the Gemara in Zevachim 116b says that a member of Bnei Yisrael is forbidden to aid them in shechting their nedarim and nedavos outside the Beis HaMikdash. Therefore they must be fit to shecht their own korbanos. Similarly, in Mitzrayim, the Bnei Yisrael – at whatever level of Yisrael they were considered – would be fit to shecht their own korbanos.

For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/parsha/who-shechted-the-korban-pesach/2012/01/26/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: