SALT | Bo 5785
MOTZAEI
Parashat Bo introduces us, for the first time in Chumash, to the mitzva of tefillin: "And it shall be a sign on your head and a reminder on your forehead" (13:9). The Gemara in Masekhet Menachot (36b) affords halakhic significance to this status of tefillin as a "sign." Since this constitutes the primary function of tefillin, to serve as an "ot" (sign), when this function is served by other means, the mitzva of tefillin does not apply. Therefore, the Gemara concludes that one does not wear tefillin on Shabbat or Yom Tov, which themselves serve as a sign of God's covenant with Benei Yisrael. It remains unclear from this Gemara what exactly is included under the term, "Yom Tov." Namely, does one put on tefillin during chol ha-mo'ed? On the one hand, the days of chol ha-mo'ed are undoubtedly included as part of the festival - Pesach or Sukkot. But on the other hand, the formal prohibition of melakha (forbidden activity) observed on Shabbat and Yom Tov does not apply on chol ha-mo'ed. So what is the status of chol ha-mo'ed with respect to the obligation of tefillin?
This might very well depend on the precise meaning of the "ot" quality of tefillin. Tosefot there in Menachot write that the sign involves not the prohibition of melakha, but rather the mitzvot ha-yom - the special mitzvot applicable on the festivals, such as sukka, lulav, and matza. (Tosefot then proceed to deliberate on this point.) As such, tefillin would seemingly not be required on chol ha-mo'ed, as the mitzvot ha-yom of the festival apply. Other Rishonim, however, claim that the sign does, indeed, evolve from the prohibition of melakha on Shabbat and Yom Tov. Therefore, whether or not the tefillin exemption applies on chol ha-mo'ed depends on the question of melakha on chol ha-mo'ed. In a general sense, melakha is forbidden even on chol ha-mo'ed; however, work that is required to avoid financial loss (known as "davar ha-aveid") is permitted. A basic dispute exists among the Rishonim as to whether the general prohibition applies at the level of de-orayta (Torah law) or was instituted by Chazal. The Rashba, for example, maintains that this prohibition applies de-orayta. Consequently, he writes in a teshuva (600) that one does not wear tefillin on chol ha-mo'ed, since melakha is forbidden on chol ha-mo'ed just as it is on Shabbat and Yom Tov. The Rosh writes precisely the opposite: since no Torah prohibition against melakha applies on chol ha-mo'ed, one must wear tefillin.
Some Acharonim draw an interesting proof to the fact that Rashi held that one must wear tefillin on chol ha-mo'ed. A berayta in Masekhet Sukka (46a) addresses a situation of someone who prepares to perform several mitzvot one right after the other. According to the first view in the berayta, he may recite one, generic berakha ("al ha-mitzvot") over all the mitzvot, whereas the second view, that of Rabbi Yehuda, maintains that each mitzva requires an independent berakha. In describing the case, Rashi there brings an example of one who is about to take lulav, sit in the sukka, wear tefillin and put on tzitzit. When would one wear tefillin on the same day in which he takes lulav and sits in the sukka? Obviously, this can be only on chol ha-mo'ed Sukkot. Apparently, then, Rashi was of the opinion that one wears tefillin on chol ha-mo'ed.
Others, however, have refuted this proof. As we said, this berayta records a dispute between an anonymous first view and Rabbi Yehuda. Generally, Rabbi Yehuda's anonymous disputant is Rabbi Meir. Interestingly enough, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir, in a different context, both maintain that tefillin is worn even on Shabbat and Yom Tov, against the accepted ruling, that of Rabbi Akiva (Eruvin 96b; see the aforementioned Tosefot in Menachot). Rashi, of course, is writing on this berayta which deals with the views of these two Tanna'im. Therefore, his example of wearing tefillin on Sukkot follows their view and reveals nothing of his final ruling on the matter of wearing tefillin on chol ha-mo'ed.
As we know, this issue has become subject to variant customs among the Jewish people. Sefaradim generally follow the ruling of the Shulchan Arukh who forbids wearing tefillin on chol ha-mo'ed; many Ashkenazim, especially those of German descent, follow the Rema's position, that tefillin should be worn with a berakha; others adopt the position of the Mishna Berura, to lay tefillin without a berakha; Chasidim, followers of the Vilna Gaon and many "Briskers" do not wear tefillin at all on chol ha-mo'ed.
(Based on a shiur by Rav Yissachar Frand)
SUNDAY
Amidst the Torah's discussion of the laws of Pesach in Parashat Bo, we find the verse, "U-shmartem et ha-matzot" ("You shall observe/guard the matzot"). Chazal in several places derive various different halakhot from this verse. Among the more famous halakhot extracted from this verse (to which we devoted our entire S.A.L.T. series to this parasha two years ago) involves zeal and promptness in the fulfillment of mitzvot. The Mekhilta rereads this clause as, "U-shmartem et ha-MITZVOT" - literally, "You shall guard the mitzvot." Just as we cannot let the dough sit for too long when we prepare matzot, lest it ferment and become chametz, so may we not allow the opportunity for mitzva fulfillment to pass. This halakha is called, "ein ma'avirin al ha-mitzvot" - one may not pass a mitzva by.
Beyond the general value of zeal and enthusiasm, this passage in the Mekhilta introduces a strict, halakhic concept which has many applications in different areas of halakha.
The Gemara in Masekhet Zevachim (51a) discusses the procedure of the "chata'ot ha-penimiyot," those sin-offerings whose blood is sprinkled on the mizbach ha-zahav - the altar situated inside the Mikdash (as opposed to the mizbach ha-nechoshet, located outside in the courtyard). The Torah explicitly writes (see Vayikra 4:7,18) that the leftover blood of these offerings is poured on the "yesod" of the outer altar. The yesod was a receptacle that ran along the bottom of the altar (Rashi, Shemot 29:12). The Gemara extrapolates from a verse that the leftover blood is poured specifically on the yesod of the western side of the altar. Tosefot there ask why the Gemara felt compelled to derive this halakha from a verse. After all, when the kohen comes from inside the Mikdash, where he sprinkled the blood on the mizbach ha-zahav, and moves outside, towards the mizbach ha-nechoshet to pour the remaining blood, he first encounters the western side of the altar (the courtyard was situated to the east of the roofed area of the Mikdash). Therefore, the principle of "ein ma'avirin al ha-mitzvot" dictates that he should pour the blood there, on the western side, as he must perform the mitzva at the soonest moment possible. Why, then, did the Gemara require a specific Biblical source to establish that the blood is poured on the western side?
Rav Yechezkel Abramsky, in his Chazon Yechezkel, resolves this difficulty through a careful analysis of this principle of "ein ma'avirin al ha-mitzvot." Theoretically, we can explain this concept in one of two ways. Perhaps the simplest approach is to view it as focused exclusively on one's conduct; it determines a sequence for one to follow by establishing that one should fulfill a mitzva at the earliest time it becomes possible. If so, then indeed Tosefot's question is in place; this principle should mandate that the kohen pours the blood at the earliest possible moment - when he arrives at the west side of the altar. However, the Chazon Yechezkel writes, we may suggest a slightly different perspective on this halakha, that it relates not to the "gavra" - the individual's conduct, but rather to the given "cheftza" - the mitzva object. Meaning, this halakha establishes that a mitzva item which becomes practically eligible for the fulfillment of a mitzva demands immediate attention; it deserves to have its mitzva fulfilled before any other. This halakha does not determine one's personal schedule but rather establishes a rule of "first come, first serve."
This approach easily resolves Tosefot's question. For the yesod that ran along the bottom of the altar was a single object. True, it consisted of four sides, but these sides clearly are not to be seen as four distinct mitzva objects. Therefore, the object that demands the kohen's attention as he approaches the altar is not specifically the western portion of the yesod, but rather the entire yesod. As such, the halakha of ein ma'avirin al ha-mitzvot would not dictate pouring the blood specifically on the left side of the altar, and the Gemara therefore required a special limud (extrapolation from a verse) to establish this halakha.
MONDAY
Parashat Bo tells of the culmination of the punishment God brings upon Egypt, which occurs with the plague of the firstborn. Moshe warns Pharaoh that "ka-chatzot ha-layla," at around midnight, God will descend upon Egypt and kill the country's firstborn. The Gemara in Masekhet Berakhot 4a, cited by Rashi in his commentary to this verse, notes the peculiarity in Moshe's prediction. Why did he make a point of saying, "at around midnight"? In fact, later, when the Torah records the plague itself, it indeed writes that the plague occurred "ba-chatzi ha-layla" - precisely at midnight. The Gemara explains that Moshe feared the possibility of a miscalculation on the part of the Egyptian astronomers. If the plague does not take place at the moment they expect based on their incorrect computation, they might deny the authenticity of Moshe's prophecy and accuse him of making it all up. He therefore intentionally predicts that the plague would take effect "at around midnight," so that they could not accuse him of inaccuracy.
The obvious question arises as to why Moshe feared the skepticism of the Egyptian scientists. After all they had already seen, would a few seconds or even minutes change their perspective? Would this feared discrepancy actually have an effect on Moshe's credibility?
Many explanations have been offered for this Gemara. Rav Eliyahu Meir Bloch of the Telshe Yeshiva is cited as explaining that a perceived delay in the onset of the plague could potentially diminish kevod Shamayim (God's honor). If the plague would occur several minutes after the expected moment, several minutes would have passed during which the Egyptian scientists questioned divine power. Those several minutes would have amounted to an infringement on kevod Shamayim which Moshe Rabbenu was not prepared to tolerate. When a person is accused of some crime in a widely circulated newspaper, his reputation suffers even after the retraction. Similarly, Moshe did not want even several short moments to pass while Egyptian astronomers wonder about God's capabilities.
A much different answer appears in the work, "Minchat Yitzchak" by Rav Yitzchak Stollman (20th cent., Detroit). Rav Stollman suggests that Moshe protected not the honor of the Almighty, but rather the honor of Benei Yisrael. Moshe knew that Benei Yisrael were not fully prepared for the Exodus. As we saw last week, several sources indicate that the Hebrew slaves had become so accustomed to their lifestyle that they had reservations about leaving Egypt. Moshe feared that after the plague struck, and Pharaoh would rush to Goshen, where Benei Yisrael lived, to declare their freedom, the king would find Benei Yisrael sleeping soundly in their beds, instead of jubilantly preparing for their departure. This would be a terrible humiliation for Benei Yisrael, whose representatives - Moshe and Aharon - devastated the country on behalf of their freedom. Moreover, Rav Stollman claims, this would undermine the entire mission Moshe had undertaken all these months. The Gemara writes that the Egyptian would have accused Moshe of being a "bada'i" - literally, a prankster. Pharaoh would see that Moshe has no constituency; this entire movement to free the slaves which he allegedly led never even existed. Moshe avoided this situation by deliberately leaving his prediction ambiguous. When Pharaoh would arrive in Goshen and find Benei Yisrael asleep, he would assume that since no specific time for the plague was announced, they had not yet expected to be set free.
We may perhaps suggest a third explanation. Several times throughout the narrative thus far in Sefer Shemot we have seen that the Exodus served not only to free Benei Yisrael, but also to ensure that "Egypt shall know that I am the Lord" (7:5). Moshe's appeal to Pharaoh surrounded not only the issue of personal freedom and civil rights, but a theological argument, as well. Pharaoh denied the existence of an authority higher than himself, and therefore felt justified in subjugating Benei Yisrael. The release of Benei Yisrael had to teach Pharaoh and the world of the existence and power of God. To that end, it could not leave any room whatsoever for misunderstanding. This perhaps explains why, as we read in the Haggada, God smote the Egyptian firstborn "personally," so-to-speak, without any intermediary agent. It had to be made perfectly clear that He Himself intervened to free Benei Yisrael. Therefore, Moshe had to avoid even the slightest, most remote possibility for confusion. There could not be any room for the Egyptian astrologers to deny that it was God who descended to kill the country's firstborn. Moshe therefore left his prediction ambiguous, so that the astrologers had no possibility of questioning the accuracy of his prophecy, and they would indeed come to "know that I am the Lord."
TUESDAY
The final verse in Parashat Bo speaks about the mitzva of tefillin: "It shall be as a sign upon your arm and as a symbol upon your forehead… " The Gemara in Masekhet Menachot (37a) cites Rav Ashi as noting that peculiar spelling of the word "yadekha" ("your arm") in this verse, as it ends with the letters "khaf" and "hei" rather than the usual "khaf sofit." This spelling led Rav Ashi to reread the word as "yad keiha" - or "weak arm," and thus this word becomes the source for the halakha requiring that tefillin be placed on the weaker arm - generally, the left arm.
Just prior to Rav Ashi's comment, the Gemara cites a berayta presenting two different opinions as to from where we deduce this halakha. The first view argued that unless noted otherwise, the word "yad" ("arm") in the Chumash always refers to the left arm. Thus, the Torah here requires that the tefillin be placed on the left arm. The Gemara appears to reject this view, and indeed this position has generally been ignored by the halakhic authorities. The second view is that of Rabbi Natan. He claims that in presenting the mitzva of tefillin in Sefer Devarim (5:8), the Torah alludes to an association between the tying of tefillin on one's arm and writing tefillin ("u-kshartem"; "u-khtavtam"). We may therefore infer that one performs the act of tying tefillin with the same hand with which one writes, such that it is tied onto the weaker hand.
An important halakhic question arises in many situations of left-handed people. As the Gemara explicitly rules, straight lefties (such as myself) lay tefillin on their right arm, their weaker arm. But what does one do if some activities he performs with one hand and others he performs with the other? The authorities indicate that this halakha will depend on from which of the two sources cited above one derives the principle that tefillin is worn on the weaker hand. According to Rav Ashi, it would seem, strength is the determining factor: one lays tefillin on whichever hand is weaker. Therefore, one must determine which of his two hands he uses less and place tefillin on that hand. This is the view of the Sefer Ha-teruma, as cited and adopted by the Rosh. Rabbi Natan, however, derives this principle based on the association between tying and writing. Therefore, he would, presumably, require that tefillin be placed on the arm used for writing. This is the ruling of Rav Yechiel of Paris, as cited in the Tur and other sources.
The Shulchan Arukh (O.C. 27:6) cites both views. Generally, it is assumed that when the Shulchan Arukh cites two different opinions, he prefers the latter of the two. Indeed, as the Rema there observes, common practice follows the second view cited by the Mechaber, namely, that one places tefillin on the arm not used for writing. (The Vilna Gaon disagrees and sides with the position of the Rosh.)
A question, however, arises as to why the Shulchan Arukh felt compelled to cite both views. Generally, the Shulchan Arukh rules on any issue based on the majority view among the three major authorities - the Rif, the Rambam, and the Rosh. On this issue, the Rambam's position is ambiguous, but that of the other two seems perfectly clear. The Rosh, as we have seen, adopts the position that one places tefillin on the generally weaker arm. The Rif in Menachot cites Rav Ashi's inference mentioned earlier, which derives the placement of tefillin from the expression "yad keiha." As we saw, this implies that arm strength in general, rather than specifically the act of writing, is the determining factor. Seemingly, then, both the Rif and Rosh agree that we follow general arm strength. Why, then, does the Shulchan Arukh cites both views, and, even more troubling, why does he mention the opposing view last, which indicates that this is the view he accepts?
Rav Yissakhar Frand suggested that the answer is found in the comments of the Taz on this halakha in the Shulchan Arukh. Commenting on the second view, that writing is the determining factor, the Taz brings Rabbi Natan's association drawn between writing and tying, as we saw, and adds, "Therefore, that arm which is not used for writing is considered 'keiha' in this respect." In effect, the Taz combines the two views in the Gemara - those of Rav Ashi and Rabbi Natan. He apparently maintained that Rav Ashi's view, that we derive this halakha from "yad keiha," does not argue on Rabbi Natan, but rather explains Rabbi Natan. Rav Ashi clarifies that in truth Rabbi Natan derives this halakha from the term "yad keiha"; he invokes the association between writing and tying only to show that we define "strength" and "weakness" in this regard based on the act of writing. Thus, according to this reading of the Gemara, even Rav Ashi agrees that this issue depends on writing.
Given this possible understanding of Rav Ashi, we cannot infer anything about the Rif's position from the fact that he mentions only Rav Ashi's extrapolation from "yad keiha." Therefore, Rav Frand explains, the Shulchan Arukh had no way of deciding based on his usual method, and had to mention both opinions.
As for the final halakha, Sefaradim and most Ashkenazim follow the second view, that tefillin is placed on the arm not used for writing. Some Ashkenazim, however, adopt the Vilna Gaon's position, that one wears tefillin on his generally weaker arm. Many authorities therefore recommend that such a person acquire a second pair of tefillin to place on his generally weaker arm, and put on this tefillin after tefilla.
WEDNESDAY
Yesterday we discussed the halakha requiring that tefillin be placed on one's weaker arm, a rule extracted (according to at least one view in Menachot 37a) from the final verse in Parashat Bo. We came across two basic opinions in approaching this halakha. The Rosh maintains that one places tefillin on his generally weaker hand, whereas according to Rabbenu Yechiel of Paris, tefillin is worn on the hand not used for writing. This debate, as we saw, affects those who perform some activities with one arm and others with the second arm.
Interestingly enough, this debate may also have ramifications for some people who are strictly right- or left-handed. In previous generations, it was common for parents to discourage left-handedness; left-handed children were often trained to use their right hand. When such a child becomes a bar mitzva, on which arm does he wear tefillin? On the one hand, as a natural lefty, he should perhaps place tefillin on his right arm. Practically, however, he uses his right arm more than his left arm, which might warrant his placement of tefillin on his left arm!
The Mordekhai, cited by the Bet Yosef (O.C. 37; see also Magen Avraham 37:9), brings two opinions in this regard, whether we determine one's status based on his natural tendency or current practice. The Dagul Mei-revava (by the author of the Noda Bi-yehuda) qualifies this argument, claiming that it applies only to one who willingly trained himself to switch arms. Only in such a case does one opinion hold that his switch is of no consequence and we follow his natural instinct. When, however, circumstances required the individual to switch hands, for example, he injured one arm and thus had to train himself to use the other, then according to all opinions he places tefillin on the arm he does not use - even if that is his naturally stronger arm.
Rav Moshe Sternbuch (in "Teshuvot Ve-hanhagot") suggested that this entire question hinges on the debate discussed yesterday, as to whether we follow general arm strength or specifically writing capabilities. According to the Rosh, that we determine strength and weakness in this respect based on general arm strength, training oneself to switch hands will have no effect on his placement of tefillin. No matter how accustomed a naturally left-handed person becomes to using his right hand, for example, his right hand will always remain his weaker hand. If we adopt the Rosh's position, then, we would have a naturally born lefty wear tefillin on his right hand even if he learns to switch. By contrast, Rabbenu Yechiel of Paris views writing as the determining factor. Seemingly, in his view, what matters is the practical reality, which arm the individual uses for writing. Therefore, one's natural tendency is insignificant; we determine one's status based on which hand he uses to write. Therefore, if one switched hands, he would place tefillin on the hand he does not use for writing, even if that is his naturally stronger hand.
If we accept Rav Sternbuch's understanding of this debate, then practically speaking, most people would adopt the position that follows the arm used for writing in actuality. Since, as we saw yesterday, most authorities accept the position of Rabbenu Yechiel, whereby writing is the determining factor, then what matters is the bottom line, which hand, practically speaking, is used for writing. Recall, however, that the Vilna Gaon disagrees and rules that one wears tefillin on his generally weaker arm, even if he uses that hand for writing. Accordingly, he would mandate placing tefillin on one's naturally weaker arm, even if he trained himself to use that arm. (Though according to the Dagul Mei-revava, this would depend on the motivation behind the switch.)
THURSDAY
Among the laws presented in Parashat Bo regarding pesach Mitzrayim - the paschal offering brought by Benei Yisrael on the evening before their redemption, is the prohibition against leaving their homes throughout the night: "None of you shall exit the doorstep of his house until morning" (12:22). The Mekhilta explains this prohibition as based on the dictum, "Once permission has been granted to the destroyer to destroy, it draws no distinction between the righteous and the wicked." Moshe warned Benei Yisrael against leaving their homes because this would expose them to the deadly plague that descended upon Egypt. Only within the confines of their homes would they earn God's special protection. But then the Mekhilta adds another passage, which would appear to introduce an entirely different reason for this warning. Namely, a person should generally avoid traveling at night, given the dangers that loom in the dark of night. Apparently, this second view interprets Moshe's warning as emphasizing that the Exodus will not begin until the morning. Given the advantages of daytime travel, Benei Yisrael were to delay their departure from Egypt until daybreak.
In explaining this debate as to the reason behind this prohibition, the Malbim suggests that the two opinions mentioned represent the views of Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan recorded earlier in the Mekhilta. God informs Moshe that as He passes through Egypt on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan, He will see the blood on Benei Yisrael's doorposts, "u-fasachti aleihem" (12:13). This term is commonly translated as, "I will pass over you," thus yielding the word "Passover" generally used as a translation of the Hebrew "Pesach." Indeed, Rabbi Yoshiya in the Mekhilta associates this word with the familiar Hebrew verb "lifos'a," which means to step. Thus, God here promises to step over, or to skip, the homes of Benei Yisrael as He unleashes the plague of the firstborn. All those inside the home, therefore, were spared the ravages of the plague. Rabbi Yonatan, by contrast, interprets "pesach" to mean "have compassion" (see also Targum Onkelos). God promises Benei Yisrael special protection from the destroyer, even without any skipping or "passing over." Therefore, all Egyptians will be affected by the plague, even if they try to seek refuge in a Jewish home.
These two views, the Malbim claims, correspond to the aforementioned debate concerning the reason why Benei Yisrael had to remain in their homes throughout that night. According to Rabbi Yoshiya, the plague of the firstborn spread indiscriminately throughout Egypt, skipping past only Benei Yisrael's houses with the sacrificial blood on the doorposts. It is he, therefore, who explains that Benei Yisrael had to remain indoors in order to protect themselves from the plague. Rabbi Yonatan, however, disagreed. He claimed that there was no need for the plague to "skip" or "pass over" any home. God personally protected Benei Yisrael and cast the plague on the Egyptians; where any given Jew or Egyptian was situated was of no consequence. Thus, Rabbi Yonatan could not accept Rabbi Yoshiya's explanation as to why Moshe forbade Benei Yisrael from leaving their homes. He therefore suggested an entirely different reason, that Moshe deemed it safer for Benei Yisrael to begin their journey by day, rather than during the nighttime hours.
FRIDAY
After instructing Benei Yisrael to perform the paschal ritual, Moshe foresees the time when the children of the current generation will inquire as to the meaning behind this sacrifice: "When your children ask you, 'What do you mean by this rite?' you shall say, 'It is the pesach sacrifice to the Lord… " (12:26-27). According to one view in the Mekhilta, in this verse Moshe conveys to Benei Yisrael a "besora tova" - good tidings, "that they will, in the future, see children and grandchildren." Moshe's prediction that one day this generation's offspring will ask about the korban pesach somehow calmed the nation's fears about ever seeing offspring. The obvious question arises as to why they had such a fear in the first place. Benei Yisrael were exceedingly fertile in Egypt; why wouldn't they continue to propagate after the Exodus, as well?
For this reason, several commentators understood the Mekhila as referring not merely to the birth of children and grandchildren, but to a certain, favorable quality of that progeny.
The Malbim explains based on the underlying reason of the paschal offering. As many Midrashim indicate, the Egyptians worshipped the constellation of the sheep. Benei Yisrael's offering of a lamb expressed their disavowal and outright rejection of this belief. Moshe here foresees the time when monotheism will become so obvious and self-understood among Benei Yisrael's offspring that they will not immediately understand the symbolism underlying this ritual. They will have to ask their parents and grandparents to explain to them the meaning behind the korban pesach.
A much different approach is taken by Rav Barukh Yitzchak Yissakhar Leventhal, in his "Birkat Yitzchak" (published posthumously by his widow, 1946). He explains that the interest expressed by the son itself constitutes the "good tidings" told to Benei Yisrael at this point. They are promised that even years later, generations who did not personally experience the bondage will show interest in their ancestors' traditions and rituals. The korban pesach will long outlive the generation of the Exodus, and that generation's children will ask and inquire as to its meaning and purpose.
As Rav Leventhal himself notes, this idea becomes all the more powerful in light of Chazal's portrayal of the inquiring son in this verse. As we know from the Haggada, this is the question posed by the wicked son. Even this question is viewed by the Mekhilta as a "besora tova" - encouraging news for Benei Yisrael. Although the attitude towards Torah and mitzvot will not always be what it should, the interest will never die. Somehow, even amidst the scorn and derision that even many Jews, tragically, show for their heritage, there remains a spark of curiosity and intrigue that can never be extinguished. This verse, then, indeed becomes the most encouraging piece of news for the Jews of that generation - and certainly for us today. Even the wicked son will show some interest in tradition, our unique Jewish identity will remain even among many who attempt to abrogate it. This is the "good news" concealed deep within the question posed by the wicked son.
***********************************************
Our SALT Archives house decades of divrei Torah. Click here.
More recent SALTs can be found by searching for SALT in our Advanced Search box, along with the parasha name.
***********************************************
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!