Posted in honor of J.S. who will be studying this text on Shavuot in her quest to discover her Gadlut: “And Manoach prayed to God, and he said, Please God, the man of the Lord whom You sent should please come again to us, and let him teach us what we should do with the boy who will be born.”

Why does Manoach want the Man of the Lord to reappear? He says that he wants the man to teach them what to do with the boy, yet, all the instructions were already given. In fact, when the angel reappears, he says, “as all I have commanded your wife.” And the angel will repeat the wife’s version rather than the original!

Did Manoach not want to rely on his wife? Why should the man appeared to her and not him if she was not reliable? Why does Manoach say, “come again to us,” if the man had not appeared to them but only to her?

If we examine Manoach’s words carefully we will see that he is not asking for further instructions of Samson’s nezirut but rather how to raise the child. It was obvious to him that if God was setting the boy aside even before birth as a Nazir that this would be no typical child. Manoach sensed that his wife was leaving something out; the explanation that the boy would start to save Israel from the hands of the Philistines. Why did Manoach not ask his wife if she had left anything out? Why would he believe that God would send and incomplete message?

Manoach may have understood the appearance of the man to his wife simply as a means of giving instruction to the one presently responsible; her restrictions while pregnant. The angel had left no instructions for the child’s upbringing.

The term used to describe Manoach’s prayer is unusual. We find it when Isaac and Rebeccah were praying for a child. It is a term used to signify that the supplicate her wants to change what has already been set. Why is this term used here?

“And the Lord heard the voice of Manoach, and the angel of the Lord came again to the woman, and she was sitting in the field, and Manoach her husband was not with her.”

Manoach had prayed to the Divine Attribute represented by the Name God, yet his prayers were heard by the Divine Attribute represented by the name Lord. We would expect a special favor to be an expression of kindness, God, meaning it should have said that God heard.

Why is the Angel now described as an Angel of the Lord and not as the Angel of God? It probably has something to do with God referring to Himself as Lord in the beginning of the verse. The name Lord implies that all this was supposed to happen; Manoach asking for a reappearance, and the return of the angel. This would mean that Manoach had to be sensitive on his own to the extra care that would be necessary in the child’s upbringing. Yet, we do not find the angel responding to that request at all.

Why does the verse have to remind us that Manoach was the woman’s husband? Why do we have to know that she was sitting in the field? Why did the angel not appear directly to Manoach if his return was only in response to Manoach’s prayer?

Here it says that the angel “came,” and in the first verse it said that the angel “appeared.”

The angel does not speak until the woman ran to get her husband. This emphasizes that the appearance was only for the sake of Manoach; so why did he not appear directly to the man?

It must have been necessary for everything to go through his wife.

“And the woman hurried and ran and told her husband. And she said to him, Behold, the man has appeared to me, the one who came to me today.”

Why does it say both “ran,” and, “hurried”?

Why does it say that she “told him” and “said” to him? What did she tell him?

Why does she refer to this time as an “appearance” and to the previous visit as a “coming” when the verse does the opposite and refers to the first meeting as an appearance and the second as a coming? There is a difference between the two terms. Appears implies all of a sudden, and came, planned, which fits in with the way the verse describes the two meetings.

Did the woman feel that this one was sudden and the first more planned? It would seem logical for her to assume that everything was covered in the first meeting, which was the only one originally planned. Therefore she would refer to the first as coming. Yet, the second meeting which was only in response to Manoach’s prayer, she considered all of a sudden, and appearance, and not essential. But the verse sees it in reverse. Why?

“And Manoach got up and walked behind his wife, and she came to the man and he said to him, Are you the man who spoke to the woman? And he said, I am.”

Why did Manoah ask him if he was the man if his wife had already said that he was?

Why does the verse say that he came to the man, instead of saying, “they” came?

Why is it important for us to know that he walked behind his wife? It seems to be important for us to know that she was there even though she seems to be ignored in this conversation.

The verse switches from referring to her as “the woman,” to calling her, “his wife.” Yet, Manoach asks if he was the one who spoke to, “the woman,” instead of saying to, “my wife.”

Let us postulate that the term “woman” speaks of her on her own merit, while the term “wife” speaks of her only as the wife of Manoach. We must examine the verses to see if this is consistent, and if it helps us. She is described as “the woman” in all verses except two, 11, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, and reverts to referring to her as “the woman,” in verse 24 with the birth of Samson.

Verse two set Manoach as the main character of the story for whatever reason, so it is reasonable to refer to her as “his wife.” In verse 11 it says that Manoach followed “his wife,” which implies that he would not have followed a woman, only his wife. Perhaps he felt that the angel or messenger is reappearing only for the sake of his wife, to whom the messenger originally spoke. Therefore, it says that he followed “his wife.”

The problem is that the verse makes it clear that the angel reappeared because of Manoach’s prayers.

In verses 19 through 23 the verses are no longer dealing with the message of the angel. It is the story of how they realized that the messenger was an angel. It was at Manoach’s bidding that the Angel reveal his identity, therefore, it is logical for the verses to refer to her as “his wife.” When the child is born, she takes over, as we can see from the fact that she names him;t it was her decision, not Manoach’s. Therefore, the verse reverts to referring to her as “the woman,” on her own merit.

We have said that Manoach assumed that since the messenger had originally appeared to his wife, and even this time came to her so she had to go and get her husband, that the reappearance should be credited to his wife, on her own merit. Therefore the verse says that he followed “his wife,” as he considered himself secondary to her.

He asked the man if he was the one when spoken to “the woman,” again, Manoach is saying that the angel appeared to her when her own merit, not as “his wife.”

When Manoach asked if he was the same man, he was asking if this would simply be a reiteration of the original message, the same one given to his wife, or if Manoach’s question as to how to raise the child, would be answered.

Manoach assumed that his prayers had been effective, otherwise why would the messenger returned? Yet, the man came to the woman not Manoach which sent a contradictory message. That is why Manoach had to ask the man if the message would be the same as the original.

Author Info:

Learn & discover the Divine prophecies with Rabbi Simcha Weinberg from the holy Torah, Jewish Law, Mysticism, Kabbalah and Jewish Prophecies. The Foundation Stone is the ultimate resource for Jews, Judaism, Jewish Education, Jewish Spirituality & the holy Torah.

“And the woman came and she said to her husband saying, ‘A man of the Lord came to me, and his appearance as the appearance of an angel of the Lord, very awesome. And I did not ask him where he was from and he did not tell me his name. And he said to me, ‘Behold you will conceive and bear a son, and now do not drink fresh wine or old, and do not eat any impurity, for a Nazir of the Lord the boy will be from the womb until the day of his death.’”

Tzlalfonit’s version of the angel’s instructions seems inaccurate: She added that the boy was to be a Nazir until the day of his death, and she did not mention the restriction on cutting the boy’s hair, his saving the Jews, and she changed, “anything impure,” to “any impurity.”

Why did she say that his appearance was the appearance of an angel? Was she familiar with angels? If she meant that he was awesome, she says that later, and if she thought that he really was an angel, she should have said that an agnel appeared.

Why does it say that she said to her husband, “saying,” which is usually an expression of, “say it to someone else,” as in, “And God said to Moses, saying”?

There seems to be much more to the angel appearing specifically to her as opposed to Manoach than her being the one with restrictions while pregnant. She sensed that some things were only for her information, and not for her husband. This would mean that it wasn’t necessary for Manoach and others to know that a savior was about to be born. We will find as the story progresses that she, far more than Manoach,  is more sensitive to what is happening.

Why did she say that she had not asked him where he was from instead of saying that she had not asked for his name? She says that he didn’t offer his name, meaning, she knew that for some reason, it would have to come from him. In fact, later in the story, Manoach asks his name and is not answered as Manoach desired.  She realized that there was more to his identity and its significance to what was about to happen. The appropriate question for someone who suspects that he is an angel is to ask where he is from; “Are you from Heaven, an Angel? Or, are you from Earth, a Man of the Lord?” It didn’t matter to her. She was totally focused on the message, not the person; an important theme in the Samson story, a tale of a person impossible to define!

She describes the man as similar to an Angel of the Lord although the verse describes him as an Angel of God. She experienced the message as an expression of Din, Specific Judgment, not as a sign of Divine Compassion for Israel!

We should also wonder why she is never mentioned by name, as if she as an individual was not important, although her husband, Manoach, was!

The verse wants us to appreciate her experience of the news: She was to share some information to be repeated, as in, “Saying.” She knew that not all the message was to be shared because the identity of the messenger would be significant if Israel was to know that this boy would save them; people would want to know the source of the news. She knew not to share that part of the message!

She wanted Manoach to create and protect an environment of purity in the home for the sake of the child, so she adjusted the instructions.

She also picked up from “Begin to save Israel,” that the boy’s life would be incomplete, and that she would outlive him! Otherwise, how could she be instructed that no razor shall touch his head all the days of his life!

Author Info:

Learn & discover the Divine prophecies with Rabbi Simcha Weinberg from the holy Torah, Jewish Law, Mysticism, Kabbalah and Jewish Prophecies. The Foundation Stone is the ultimate resource for Jews, Judaism, Jewish Education, Jewish Spirituality & the holy Torah.

“Now therefore, please be careful, and do not drink fresh wine or old wine and do not eat anything impure. For behold, you will conceive and bear a son, no razor may touch his head, for a Nazir of the Lord, the boy shall be from the womb, and he will begin to rescue the Jews from the hands of the Philistines.”

The commentaries debate as to whether she was ready pregnant or if the angel was telling her that she will conceive.

The literal translation implies that she had yet to conceive, meaning that she had to practice these laws of Nezirut even before Samson was conceived.

The angel says that the boy will be a Nazir of the Lord, the Divine Attribute of Judgment, appropriate for the next Judge of Israel.

“Begin to save the Jews,” only begin, not actually save, meaning that he will start a process. The Talmud teaches that this was because of the covenant made by Abraham with Avimelech, the King of the Pelishtim. The Pelishtim were violating the terms of the covenant, and Samson would begin, or Hacheil, which also means to nullify an oath, to respond for Israel.

Samson’s “beginning to save Israel,” is placed in the same verse as his being a Nazir, as if the two are related. It is interesting to note that the Judge who would anoint the first king of Israel and David who would crush the Pelishtim was also a Nazir; Samuel’s mother promised that her son would be a Nazir. Another mother, introduced after the important father, as in our story. It’s also interesting that Chana the mother of Samuel the Nazir, Judge, appointee and anointer of kings, who would finish off the Pelishtim, was accused by Eli haKohen of drinking too much wine.

Tzlalfonit was not commanded to not become impure, but to not eat anything impure. nothing seems straightforward.

The prohibition against cutting his hair is passive; “no razor may touch his head,” and is a normal part of Nezirut, yet is singled out.

Why does Tzlalfonit not share the most important part of the prediction that the boy would begin to save Israel, with her husband?

Everything seems tied in with beginnings: Conception, begin to save Israel, begin to nullify the oath etc. Samson would have to be conceived, born and raised in an environment of everything is new and just a beginning. Nothing is complete; even the laws of Samson’s Nezirut! Tzlalfonit is a new woman, no longer barren. He would have to be raised with awareness that he would not complete saving the Jews; his process would only be completed by Samuel the Prophet.

Israel had been rescued by one judge after another, only to fall again into sin and, as a result, into the hands of enemies. They had succeeded only at “beginnings,” but never at consistency, constancy, or completion.

They were to see their best and worst reflected in Samson.

Tzlalfonit immediately understood the message, and understood that she could only begin to inform her husband of what would happen and that the Man of the Lord would have to return to continue his message to Manoach.

A regular Nazir is not a permanent state. It is a jump start for a new stage in spiritual development.

Author Info:

Learn & discover the Divine prophecies with Rabbi Simcha Weinberg from the holy Torah, Jewish Law, Mysticism, Kabbalah and Jewish Prophecies. The Foundation Stone is the ultimate resource for Jews, Judaism, Jewish Education, Jewish Spirituality & the holy Torah.

Listen to this friends. The portion of this week is called “Nasso”, and it starts off ‘Nasso Es Rosh B’nei Gershon Gam hem”. Remember the Levi’im themselves were also divided into three tribes: Gershon, Kehas and Merari.

 

Ok, this Shabbos begins ‘Nasso Es Rosh B’nei Gershon Gam Hem’, lift up the heads from the family of Gershon. But everybody knows that Gershon comes from the word to be driven out. So the Shabbos after Shavuos we are reading “Nasso Es Rosh B’nei Gershon,” G-d says lift up the head of those who think they are driven out.

 

Now listen to something very strong here. Reb Leibe’le Eiger:

 

First of all, it should never happen chas v’shalom,when people just don’t stay together it’s called Gerushin, divorce, but Gerushin actually means to be driven out from the house.  So we find the word Gerushin between a husband and a wife, but the first time we see this word is when Adam was driven out from paradise. It says ‘Vayigaresh Es HaAdam’. This can mean he drove him out or also it can mean he divorced him. And then by Kayin when he killed his brother, G-d told him ‘you are going to have to run all over the world, you’ll never find a place’. So Kayin says to G-d ‘Heyn Gerashta Osi hayom’.

 

Okay, I really want you to concentrate.

 

Reb Leibe’le Eiger says there are two kinds of people. If I was never in a certain place, that means you cannot say I was driven out. Here we are talking about one of the families of the Levi’im. The Levi’im were chosen from all the Jewish people, they were the holiest tribe,they were chosen to be there. And yet, one of the families was called Gershon and Gershon means that I was driven out.

 

What was their story? Something always went wrong with them, it just didn’t work out. They wanted so much to connect and it just doesn’t go. So what do you do? So G-d says to Moshe, ‘Nasso Es Rosh’, life up their heads. Reb Leibe’le Eiger says the deepest depths. What does it mean‘lift up my head?’

 

Imagine I am 5 foot 8, so my thoughts are on the level of 5 foot 8, right. If someone says to me ‘lift up your head’ that means suddenly my thoughts should be on the level of 6 foot 2, but this isn’t where it’s at. G-d says to Moshe ‘lift them up high’. What does it mean to lift up my thoughts high? To lift up my thoughts high means to suddenly realize that whatever happens to me is much deeper than I think it is, it’s much higher than I think. A person has to realize one very important thing. Imagine if after G-d drove Adam out from paradise he would have given up. If he would say ‘okay that’s it, G-d doesn’t want me to be in paradise I might as well become an animal’.- Where would we be? Obviously he realized it’s got to be deeper than that, it’s got to be deeper than that.

 

So Reb Leibe’le Eiger says one thing. What are we walking away with from Shavuos? What is a person taking with him after standing on Mt Sinai? The deepest depths there is.

 

 I want you to know something very strong.

Someone came to the holy Rizhiner and he says ‘I’m leaving’. So the Rizhiner says ‘what are you taking with you. What are you taking with you’? So Reb Leibe’le Eiger says after you stand at Mt Sinai what are you taking with you? You see, as strong as it is, maybe you don’t even need Mt Sinai to show you how to get close. Maybe in order to get close I can get myself a little paperback book and here Moshe Rabbeinu tells me to daven strong, keep Shabbos, get strong and get close to G-d, maybe this would be enough. You know what I need Mt Sinai for? I need Mt Sinai for when I am absolutely driven out. When I am mamesh giving up. I’ve tried so hard my whole life; this is the two billionth time I’ve tried to become a Yiddele. I swore to myself I’ll do this, I’ll do this, and I’m giving up all the time. So suddenly,when I stand on Mt Sinai I realize gevalt, who knows what kind of great plans G-d has for his people. Gevalt, what do I know. What do I know? And above all, what makes me think that I’m driven out from G-d, maybe I’m driven in.  

 

You see, the deepest depths of Mt Sinai is that it’s not only that G-d is telling me what to do and what not to do. The deepest depths of Mt Sinai is that I know that G-d is dealing with me. Everything is important, everything is important, what do I know what I am doing in this world. What do I know why I have to be in this world? And even if you don’t know but you are aware that you don’t know of this, ‘Nasso Es Rosh’, lift upyour head, you know you’re whole outlook has to be completely different, your head has to be somewhere else.

 

So Reb Leibe’le says that the essence of the kedusha of Shevet Levi is that this is their holiness. They were on the level to lif tup their heads, and their whole thing was the service in the Beis Hamikdash. What’s the beis Hamikdash all about? You come to the Beis Hamikdash and you think you are driven out and suddenly you realize you were never driven out… you were never driven out. 

 

You see, when Moshiach is coming G-d won’t take us back to paradise but suddenly we will realize paradise was here the whole time.That’s all there is to it.

 So he says something very beautiful.

Let’s put it in a very deep way; you see on one hand the strangest thing is always this tremendous paradox and this tremendous contradiction. On one hand I have to know that if I don’t keep Shabbos I’m in bad shape. If I’m not a Yiddele I’m in bad shape. On the other hand, if I’m trying so hard and I didn’t get there yet, on the other hand I have to know there is something deep going on between me and G-d. Something so deep going on; the deepest depths there is.  

I don’t know if I made myself clear. You know what I want to say is, Shabbos is not just a law. Shabbos is not a good thing. Shabbos is one of the deepest, deepest things, which are going on between me and G-d.And every mitzvah of the Torah means there is something going on between me and G-d. The holiness of Mt Sinai is that this something goes on even while I am not doing it. Even while I am “crechtsing” or while I am crying for it. Obviously I have to cry for it because if I am not crying for it, it’s not that I’m driven out, I just walked out on myself.

 

So the whole portion talks about being driven out. First B’nei Gershon. They thought they were driven out because the other families of the Levi’im, their worship was mamesh inside and Bnei Gershon were mamesh outside, so they felt driven out, like we are not insiders.  

Then it talks about the person who stole and doesn’t know how to give back, when to give back. Then it talks about a woman, and the husband thinks she wasn’t faithful to him and he has to take her to the Beis HaMikdash. Then there’s a nazir, and obviously the Gemara says, he knew just he can’t manage life anymore. He just can’t manage it the way it is. So he decided I am mamesh going to mamesh dry myself up from the world, I won’t have no part in the world no more. I’m going to live far from society, take no part in life,which is also bad.

 

Now imagine I have trouble keeping Shabbos, I have trouble putting on tefilin in the morning. I have trouble not getting angry. I have trouble getting out of talking evil abou tother people. Let’s put it this way, last Shabbos I mamesh swore to myself from now on I will not talk evil about other people anymore. The craziest thing happened to me; right after Havdalah I answered the first phone call and don’t ask questions, don’t ask, someone tells me, did you hear what this one did? And my first reflex is that I should say ‘you know brother, I’m not interested’,but I really was. So right away I’m driven out, I give up. I decided not to talk evil and the first phone call I’m off. So what was my problem, really? You know what my problem was? I just accepted it upon myself I should not talk evil because it says that you shouldn’t do evil. But you know something friends, it just doesn’t work this way. This is obviously not deep enough to get through to my bones. What was missing? You got to connect yourself to another place;“Noseh Es Rosh,” mamesh lift up your head.

 

You know what I want to say? Lift up your head to that place how it was before G-d gave it to you.Imagine what G-d thought, imagine when G-d wrote the Torah for me. Imagine like this. When I read a business letter my connection to the letter is right now the way the letters is here on my desk and I’m reading it. When I’m reading a love letter I’m seeing this person who wrote the letter before me and I even hear their voice the way they write this letter.

 

You see, if you connect yourself to the Torah the way it was when G-d wrote it that’s something else. Sometimes a person gives you a gift, how do you know how much a person waited weeks, or months before they gave it to you, or how long they thought about what they should give to you. What do you know? How do you know how many days they carried it in their pockets and put their hands in their pockets every two minutes to see if it’s still there. And every thought counts, everything is real.

 

Between people this is so deep, it’s so deep. What do you know about the other person? What do you know?The question is not only what do you know about the other person; what do you know about the other person the way they relate to you, what do you know.

 

A Yidele, at one time hewas a chassidishe Yiddele; he was keeping Shabbos all the time. He came to America and he realized I got to make a living. He doesn’t keep Shabbos anymore, that’s it, forget it. And that’s it, live in America, be realistic.Then there’s another Yidele, also a chassidishe Yiddele. He came to America and he can’t make a living and nebech he has to work on Shabbos but the whole Shabbos mamesh his tears are flowing like mad. Gevalt, What happened to me,gevalt, where am I? Gevalt. What’s the difference between these two people? The difference is very simple.

The first one, at one time kept Shabbos, he kept Shabbos five hundred times and stopped keeping it. He was never connected to Shabbos. The second Yidele was not only keeping Shabbos -he was connected to it.So maybe he wasn’t keeping it anymore, but he never gave up the connection. I have seen Yiddelach who have stopped learning but whenever they see a Gemara they start crying. Gevalt. And I’ve seen people who have stopped learning and so….. nothing.

 Let’s put it this way,imagine you were married and then you got divorced. And then you meet your old wife on the street and you say “hi,” and you think ‘wow, was I crazy, how could I ever married her! I have nothing to do with her’. Imagine if you meet your old wife and you cry and say ‘gevalt, I wish I could get together with you’.

 So same as with Shabbos.You meet Shabbos, you meet your old bride Shabbos and you start crying, Oy Ribbono Shel Olam, my holiest bride Shabbos, I wish we could get together again. So you know this connection is deeper than the keeping of Shabbos, because a lot of people are married, how do you know they are connected, how do you know? You know, I don’t say G-d forbid they should get divorced and see how it feels and then get back together but just imagine. Imagine there would be such a thing that every couple who is married for two years has to get away for each half a year.  Like a little Shemittah. I’ll tell you something it would be an absolutely deodorizing thing. Those who mamesh stick together would get together and those who don’t belong together just would not get together. 

 

Ok, so this Shabbos is “Nasso Es Rosh B’Nei Gershon.” G-d says Gevalt, if you are a Yidele who is driven out but you are crying gevalt that means you are okay. So G-d says to Moshe tells those Yidele who are crying because they were driven out you’re ok, you know.“Nasso Es Rosh,” lift your head, you are okay. If you walk around thinking you are driven out that means you are connected, and if you are connected you will get back,I promise you.

 

I want you to know thereis a Torah from the Ishbitser, which is unbelievably deep. Which is the strongest part of my soul? Is the strongest part of my soul all the things I do right or is it maybe that part of me where I always do wrong and I’m still crying I want to do right. So the holy Ishbitzer says a way out Torah. That that part of me where I am always failing, how come I didn’t give up yet? How come I am always trying again? That means this is really the strongest thing inside of me.  You know I have seen some kids, and it just doesn’t go and they leave and some people mamesh always try again and again and again because this is the strongest connection they have.

 

 

So anyway, this Shabbos,the Shabbos after Matan Torah after Mt Sinai, the highness of this Shabbos is like we are really are tasting how it feels to be driven out. Imagine I feel to myself, gevalt, what would I do G-d forbid if I wouldn’t have any holy book.Gevalt, what would I do without holy books. What would I do if suddenly someone would steal from me the holy Ishbitzer sefer, right? Gevalt, you know. And then I’m opening the book like it was taken away from me, that’s real learning,that’s the real thing. Cause the first Shabbos, -I want you to know something very strong.  

There’s a Rizhiner Torah,-I want you to know Rizhin, -sadly enough the world, it looks most of the world have not seen yet really mamesh somebody learning the Rizhiner. Have you everseen people mamesh learning Rizhiner Torah, mamesh learning, you know.  The Alexanderer brings down one Torah, one word from the Rizhiner and he makes a whole long Torahleh, you know. 

 The Rizhiner said that Shabbos “noch Shvuos” is “nocha Shvuas.” You know in Yiddish, “Shabbos NochShvuos” means the Shabbos after can be translated as after or can mean its another one, right. In Yiddish Noch, you know, means more also, right; another one, a second one. So he says the Shabbos after Shavuos is noch, -Shabbos nochShavuos; that means this Shabbos is mamesh the real Shavuos, -noch Shavuos,obviously.

So that means this Shabbos a Yidele has to test themselves really in all honesty how much I am connected to Mt Sinai.

 

I wake up one morning and someone would tell me, you know, the whole thing was a mistake, you were never on Mt Sinai, Moshe was never there, and the bible just is a fake, you know. It never happened, how do you feel about it? You’d say thank G-d, I had a feeling the whole time there is something wrong [laughter from the group] and here I’m, you know, I’m breaking my bones and I thought all those crazy laws, you know really disgusting and creepy and I didn’t want to say it before but now after the truth is out, you know I’m so glad you told me, you know.  

I hate to say bad things,you know; Imagine some Yidele, you’d really tell them, you know, I know you feel bad about Shabbos; I want you to know this was just added by the Union ofOrthodox Congregations; it was never in the bible, you know.

 You are telling me? I knew it all the time, that’s why I didn’t keep Shabbos, you know.

Because, anyway, how could my wife keep Shabbos when she has to go to the beauty parlor, you know.Obviously Moshe Rabbeinu’s wife had to be so ugly, she didn’t go to the beauty parlor on Shabbos, you know.

 -She was very beautiful.

 

But now listen to this.This Shabbos a Yidele has to test himself. How would it feel if suddenly you find out it doesn’t exist, what would you do then?

 

Listen to this way out Torahleh. Someone came to the Kotzker Rebbe; he says my heart is filled with so much doubt that there is one G-d.

So the Kotzker Rebbe says, I don’t remember exactly the wording but he was yelling strongly, he says -ok, so there isn’t; what do you care! So there isn’t, so there is no G-d!

The Yidele says, but if there is no G-d then life has no meaning. 

Ahhh, he says. If this is where you’re at you’re ok, right. It’s ok, right. If G-d means that much to you-then you are ok, right. 

 

So this is this Shabbos. So that’s two things; I want you to think of it. On the one hand I want you to like really to think if someone were to tell you it was a fake, how does it feel or the other, like I told you before, like someone who was married, got divorced and he meets his first wife. Will you stop her on the street, will you think, ahh, I’m crazy?

 

And I want you to know the deepest depths. The Gemara says you have to go over everything you are learning 101 times. You know what that means? On that level, like you walk away, you can’t walk away, you got to back. I just can’t tear myself away. And if you learn something 101 times, then you get to the depths of it, unbelievable.That’s what really learning is. Mt Sinai learning. 101 times.

Here in our parsha there are three groups carrying the Mishkan throughout the desert. The first group is B’nei Kehas, they carried the Holy Ark, gevalt, they carried the light of the Torah.

Do you know how heavy the tablets were? Do you know how heavy those stones were? The Medrash says it must have weighed around ten thousand ton… ten thousand tons. But you know the most unbelievable thing? The moment Bnei Kehas mamesh tried to pick it up, the greatest miracle took place. They didn’t carry it, it mamesh carried them. The Gemara says the Torah is ‘Noseh Es Nos’av’, the Torah carries you; you don’t have to carry the Torah.

The Heilige Chortkover Rebbe mamesh never ate, never slept, but he mamesh picked up the heavy Torah. So he says that the Torah is only heavy when you don’t keep it, but when you keep it, it’s not heavy. What a gevalt.

And here everyone has to ask themselves from the deepest place. Am I keeping Shabbos or is Shabbos keeping me? If you keep Shabbos you are not shabbosdik yet. Shabbos keeps me. Gevalt where would we be without Shabbos. A person can live without Shabbos even if you’re keeping Shabbos. It’s very beautiful, maybe you’ll go to paradise but Shabbos is not yet on the level of the tablets, because you are the one who thinks you are carrying it.

“And an Angel of God appeared to the woman, and he said to her, ‘Behold please, that you are barren, and you have not given birth, and you will conceive and bear a son’.” It must have been important for the woman to realize that the birth of Samson was miraculous. Otherwise, it would be no reason for the angel to tell her that she was barren and had not given birth. She probably already knew.

We must explain the redundancy of “barren” and, “not given birth.” The Commentaries say on this verse that the redundancy was only to stress and clarify that she had always been so. Yet, once it was explained in the previous verse why would it have to be explained again? It certainly was not for the sake of the woman.

We must also note that there is a stress on the woman being barren, meaning that it wasn’t Manoach who could not have children.

Although the verse says that it was an Angel who appeared, the Targum and many Commentaries say that it was actually a profit. They will have to explain why the first chose to describe the prophet as an Angel.

It is also interesting to note that in this verse and others it refers to the Angel as an, “Angel of God,” the Name representing His Attribute of Kindness, while in others it refers to the angel as the, “Angel of the Lord,” referring to His Attribute of Judgment. The birth was a result of mercy, and the rules and regulations regarding Samson’s life were an expression of Judgment. We will have to see if this will be consistent throughout our story.

From the fact that the angel says both, that she will conceive and bear a son, we can see that she was concerned over the viability of the child even if she would conceive. This seems logical when we see that she was instructed to follow certain laws while she was carrying Samson. She may very well have thought that the viability of the baby would be dependent on her following the rules set by this Angel, and, she probably was correct in so assuming, for why else would the Angel separate the conception and the birth into two steps?

When it says that the angel appeared to the woman, instead of saying that he appeared to Manoach’s wife, which is how she was described in the previous verse, we see that the angel appeared to her on her own merit, not because she was the wife of Manoach.

Some Commentaries say that the reason the Angel spoke to the woman was to inform her that it was not her husband’s fault for their not having children. The Angel did not tell Manoach that his wife was barren so that he would not blame her. We see, say they Commentaries, that part of the responsibility of the that part of the responsibility of the Angel was to restore peace in Manoach’s family, so that Samson would grow up in a peaceful household. It is interesting to remember that the laws of Nazir follow the laws of Sotah in our portion, which focus on the restoration of peace between husband and wife. We also find many other allusions to peace in our portion such as the Altar.

Samson was certainly not a person who lived in peace. He could never be a “normal” person because of his extraordinary care and strength, and because of his moments of inspiration. He was also not consistently a holy person, as the Spirit of God would appear and disappear. Samson is described as being bounced back and forth. He lacked inner peace. The lack of inner peace was his own, not because of the household in which he was raised.

Author Info:

Learn & discover the Divine prophecies with Rabbi Simcha Weinberg from the holy Torah, Jewish Law, Mysticism, Kabbalah and Jewish Prophecies. The Foundation Stone is the ultimate resource for Jews, Judaism, Jewish Education, Jewish Spirituality & the holy Torah.

A couple of months ago, I asked a Rabbi a question and he gave me an answer. When I saw him later that week, he said to me, “I was wrong. The answer is something else.” Why did I love that moment?

By telling me he was wrong and giving me the correct answer, he made several statements. He did not care what I thought about his being wrong. He respected my right to have the correct answer. He also showed his integrity by correcting himself and learning from his mistake.

Talmudic learning is done in pairs. Each person discusses his view on what the Talmud said, and many times there is a difference of opinion as to what the Talmud meant. Sometimes one person realizes his explanation is not valid. This happens several times during a study session. The most valuable aspect of this interaction is the ability to acknowledge you were wrong and to accept the correct interpretation. The search for truth involves a bumpy road.

A few weeks ago, I was sitting with my primary care physician and we were having a discussion about doctors. He told me his patients deserve to have a second opinion, because that will provide peace of mind if the first diagnosis is correct. It may also provide a better answer. He then said “A doctor that does not approve of getting a second opinion is a doctor worth leaving. He or she needs to know if the advice was incorrect.”

This week’s Torah reading talks about confessing a sin, saying “I was wrong.” Then you need to do something about it. Correct your mistake.

To quote Rabbi Joseph Telushkin ,“We all need to be more humble.” Saying, “I was wrong,” is humbling, constructive, and endearing. It is a beautiful phrase.

I love Michio Kaku’s books, but I have a problem with his Physics of the Impossible: He discusses phasers, force fields, teleportation and time travel, but he does not even mention the invention for which I am most desperate; a thought grabber. Too many of my thoughts escape through the holes in my brain.

I am not the first to seek such a device. Pascal lamented: “Thoughts come at random, and go at random. No device for holding on to them or for having them. A thought has escaped; I was trying to write it down: instead I write that it has escaped me.”

I empathize with Pascal, but my concern is quite practical: I keep a notebook of all my insights, especially those that miraculously arrive during, and as a result of, my prayers. I can usually remember all the insights I receive over a Shabbat, but a two day holiday often provides too much to recall. I want a device that will capture all my thoughts and insights. I assume that it will be in the shape of a helmet, hopefully not a black hat, battery operated to observe the laws of Shabbat and Yom Tov (Holydays) although it will come in rechargeable form for weekdays. I suspect that the physics will be less difficult than figuring out how to comfortably shape the device to be worn 24 hours a day, even when in the shower when the ideas for my newsletters appear and escape, and to allow a person to wear the headpiece without disturbing Teffilin – phylacteries.

I don’t want to scare you, but I would like to custom order a device that will catch some of the great thoughts that have appeared and disappeared over the ages. I promise not to violate anyone’s privacy. There is one person whose thoughts at a specific moment I must catch in my machine: The guilty Sotah who explodes. This woman obviously does not believe in God, otherwise she would not risk drinking the water. She drinks the water and for just a few seconds before she explodes knows that, oops, she was wrong. The water works. God does have power. (Even our friend Pascal tried to cover his bases: He sewed the following thoughts into the lining of his clothes: “God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob,” not of the philosophers and scientists. Certainty. Certainty. Feeling. Joy. Peace.) In the few seconds before she dies, this woman has absolute clarity that God exists and that her “miraculous” death will prove God’s power to all who are watching.

I want to use my device to catch that absolutely clear that at that moment.

She may have been a sinner, but she serves as a vehicle to prove God’s Power to others, and I suspect that the clarity of that fleeting thought purifies her soul.

So, dear Dr. Kaku, please suspend your work on String Theory and start working on my device. I want that one thought, even more than all the other thoughts that were part of the great escape!

Author Info:

Learn & discover the Divine prophecies with Rabbi Simcha Weinberg from the holy Torah, Jewish Law, Mysticism, Kabbalah and Jewish Prophecies. The Foundation Stone is the ultimate resource for Jews, Judaism, Jewish Education, Jewish Spirituality & the holy Torah.

I quickly fell asleep on the first morning of Shavuot. I was exhausted and exhilarated. I only wanted a few hours of sleep, but a constant and rhythmic “eep,” wouldn’t let me sleep. I first hazily thought it was an insect playing its nightly mating song, the same song I usually hear when going to sleep. I was going to sleep in the morning, so it had to be a bird, but no, it wasn’t that either. It was more of an electronic sound. The constant “eep” was driving me crazy. It wasn’t the smoke alarm signaling a low battery. It was my cell phone. I piled some pillows and blankets over it, but it seemed to increase in volume. The pillows toppled over and knocked the phone (land line) of the hook and soon the horrible ‘eep’ was in stereo. I feel asleep counting ‘eeps’ not sheep. It’s the sound of the microwave when the food is cooked. It’s the note struck by the bar code scanner as it empties your bank account. My fax machine, computer, and, even my car, all speak ‘eep.’ It’s the TSA wand reacting to all the metal in my back. Even my blood pressure seems to be measured by ‘eep!’

The short sound is so ubiquitous that I searched for the Rosseta Stone program for “eep.” They insisted that although their DVDs ‘eep,’ they do not have a special program for ‘eep.’ “We assure you, sir, that there is no language called, ‘eep!’ Are you sure you do not mean ‘Beep?’’” Fools!

I did find a book by Michele Slung, “Hear! Here! and learned that the Chinese don’t say ‘eep,’ or ‘beep,’ but ‘doo.’ It’s ‘boo’ in Japanese, ‘pon’ in Hindi, ‘moc’ in Spanish, ‘dute’ in Danish, and, ‘pwet,’ in French. This is one time I will favor the French: I am now searching for a way to program all the electronics in the house to ‘pwet’ rather than beep.

How can a sound so familiar be so effective at catching my attention and disturbing my sleep? Dissonance. I hear it because the sound is unexpected. That is a terrible shame. I have worked so hard to block out unnecessary noises that I often do not hear what I should.

I spend a good part of my day listening to questions. I wonder if I am missing their beeps, ‘pwets’, and ‘dutes.’ The most important part of a question is usually not in the words, but in the subtle beeps that ‘doo’ just under the surface. A sigh ignored may be an important ‘pon.’ A second’s hesitation can often serve as a warning ‘boo.’

There I was learning a lesson about listening to beeps after spending an entire night of intense Torah learning. Why?

Moshe would listen in to God speaking to Himself. You may think it was a soft sound, but no, it was the same powerful voice used at Sinai. (Rashi, Numbers 7:89) The first part of Rashi seems to describe a whisper, “God speaking to Himself.” Then Rashi says it was the same powerful voice God used at Sinai.

Perhaps it was a beep, a whisper. Once Moshe paid as much attention to the whispers and beeps as he did to The Voice, it was no longer a whisper. The volume increased according to the attention paid by the listener.

Yes, I, thank God, had a night of intense Torah study. The ‘eeps’ taught me that in order to maintain that intensity, I will have to practice listening to the whispers of Torah; its subtle messages. Only when I learn to listen for the beeps, will I hear the Voice of Torah.

beep. pwet. pon. moc.

Author Info:

Learn & discover the Divine prophecies with Rabbi Simcha Weinberg from the holy Torah, Jewish Law, Mysticism, Kabbalah and Jewish Prophecies. The Foundation Stone is the ultimate resource for Jews, Judaism, Jewish Education, Jewish Spirituality & the holy Torah.

The architect Adolf Loos, wrote a story in 1900 entitled, “The Story of A Poor Rich Man.” In it, a wealthy man calls on a famous architect, telling him, “Bring art into my home, regardless of the expense.”

The architect hastens to renovate the apartment of his client. The colors of each room are carefully calculated. Each object has a rigorously determined place. The doorbells chime in tune to musical themes from Wagner and Beethoven. The client is initially thrilled: whether turning a knob, reclining in an armchair, or treading on a rug, he is living in Art.

One day, the architect visits the master of the house and chides him for wearing inappropriate slippers. The host reminds his visitor that the embroidered slippers were custom-made according to the architect’s own design.

“I know that!” thunders the architect. “But they are for the bedroom!”

The client soon commits new blunders by accepting gifts. “You no longer need anything,” the architect sternly tells the poor rich man. “You are complete!”

The poor rich man was reduced to being a spectator of his own clotted and shriveled life.

This week’s portion, Nasso, describes a similar “Poor Rich Man,” the Nazir. At first glance, his vow to become a Nazirite seems holy. He is consumed with a desire to live in sanctity. However, he must bring a sin offering when his vow ends. He chose to wear only the perfect slippers in their proper place. He, too, desired to be complete, and to focus only on the perfection of his world.

This world is our home, and it is filled with the most magnificent art. The Art in our home is not limited to externals; the real Art is in the living and how we use the Art all around us. The complete person lives the Art of Life, he does not live in Art. The complete person honors the Architect of life by vibrantly living in every room, every aspect of life. He finds his completeness in making choices, in sometimes wearing the wrong slippers of clashing colors.

A “Shaleim,” or complete person, is never a spectator, but the most important aspect in each area of his life. It is he, who chooses the colors, design and style. The Nazir chose to be a spectator. It is for that reason that he must bring a sin offering.

Author Info: 



Learn & discover the Divine prophecies with Rabbi Simcha Weinberg from the holy Torah, Jewish Law, Mysticism, Kabbalah and Jewish Prophecies. The Foundation Stone™ is the ultimate resource for Jews, Judaism, Jewish Education, Jewish Spirituality & the holy Torah.