Chasidut su Levitico 22:78
Kedushat Levi
Leviticus 25,2. “the land shall rest, a ‘Sabbath’ for the Lord.” In order to understand the meaning of the line “the land will rest for G’d,” we must refer to Exodus 31,13 ואתה דבר אל בני ישראל ....את שבתותי תשמורו “as for you, tell the Children of Israel to observe My Sabbath days, etc."
According to the writings of the Ari z’al, in the Tur, 242 on hilchot Shabbat we find the following: [not in my edition, Ed.] “while in Egypt, Moses argued with Pharaoh, suggesting that if he wanted to increase the productivity of the Jewish slaves he should allow them one day of rest each week, this day to be the Sabbath.” [It is not clear if Pharaoh accepted the suggestion. Ed.]
When the Torah commanded the Jewish people to rest on the Sabbath, Moses felt happy for having been the one who had already suggested this while he was in Egypt. He considered himself as having had a share in this legislation. [Probably this is meant when we say in our Sabbath prayers in the morning ישמח משה במתנת חלקו, “Moses may rejoice having received his share (of the Sabbath).”Ed.]
This is the reason why the Torah writes: אתה דבר...את שבתתתי תשמרו, “you tell the Children of Israel you are to observe My Sabbath days.” The Jewish people were to appreciate that the Sabbath rest, even though they may have enjoyed it in Egypt, was not to be a physical rest from the labours of the week, but was something decreed by G’d, to bring them closer to Him. Seeing that it had been Moses who was responsible for their relief on that day in Egypt, it had to be he who told them that the Sabbath now assumed an entirely different dimension.
A similar, non-terrestrial dimension also underlies the legislation of the sh’mittah year introduced in our chapter. The land does not have to rest for reasons of being “tired.” The land which had served man during the preceding six years, having been at man’s disposal, will take out a year and revert to being at G’d’s disposal, so to speak.
According to the writings of the Ari z’al, in the Tur, 242 on hilchot Shabbat we find the following: [not in my edition, Ed.] “while in Egypt, Moses argued with Pharaoh, suggesting that if he wanted to increase the productivity of the Jewish slaves he should allow them one day of rest each week, this day to be the Sabbath.” [It is not clear if Pharaoh accepted the suggestion. Ed.]
When the Torah commanded the Jewish people to rest on the Sabbath, Moses felt happy for having been the one who had already suggested this while he was in Egypt. He considered himself as having had a share in this legislation. [Probably this is meant when we say in our Sabbath prayers in the morning ישמח משה במתנת חלקו, “Moses may rejoice having received his share (of the Sabbath).”Ed.]
This is the reason why the Torah writes: אתה דבר...את שבתתתי תשמרו, “you tell the Children of Israel you are to observe My Sabbath days.” The Jewish people were to appreciate that the Sabbath rest, even though they may have enjoyed it in Egypt, was not to be a physical rest from the labours of the week, but was something decreed by G’d, to bring them closer to Him. Seeing that it had been Moses who was responsible for their relief on that day in Egypt, it had to be he who told them that the Sabbath now assumed an entirely different dimension.
A similar, non-terrestrial dimension also underlies the legislation of the sh’mittah year introduced in our chapter. The land does not have to rest for reasons of being “tired.” The land which had served man during the preceding six years, having been at man’s disposal, will take out a year and revert to being at G’d’s disposal, so to speak.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Leviticus 22,16. “they would make themselves guilty by consuming their holy portions which they should be offering up to Hashem;” (the last three words are taken from the end of the previous verse.) [I am not certain that this is in the author’s manuscript, or an error by the printer or editor. Ed.]
Before proceeding, the reader should remember that in the previous verses non priests have been forbidden to consume certain sacred products such as the terumah from their grain harvest which is one of the gifts the Torah has designated for the priests and members of his household.
[Several editions of the Kedushat Levi have omitted this lengthy paragraph altogether. Ed.]
The word והשיאו in this verse is very difficult to understand. Rashi is hard pressed to give a satisfactory explanation.
We shall therefore attempt to give a satisfactory explanation of why G’d warned us not to consume terumah due to its being sacred. On the face of it, and in accordance with other similar situations, the very fact that it was sacred should have been the reason why it should have been permitted, especially, seeing that meat of the peace offerings, of a higher level of sanctity, is permitted for the non priest, owner of the animal that was offered to be eaten, he is not only commanded to eat it, but he is warned not to leave anything over after a specified period of time.
We will try to explain this by means of a parable. It is customary to bring to the palace of the King people who are intelligent and well mannered and project an image of being respected members of society. Such people are able, due to their genetic and educational background, to entertain the king and put him in a good mood if there is need for this. It is out of the question for the king’s advisors to entrust such tasks to someone lacking the qualities we have just described. While such unqualified people are tolerated by the king outside his palace, he would most certainly not welcome them in his palatial home. If his advisors would dare admitting uncouth people to his presence this would be considered as an unforgivable sin.
If the priests are admitted to the “King of Kings’” presence, the Temple, it is because they represent the elite of the King’s subjects. This is also why they were permitted to share the King’s “food,” i.e. part of the sacrificial meat offered at the king’s Table, the “altar.” None of the non-priests shared in these privileges, as they lacked the prerequisites necessary for keeping the King company. They were not allowed to eat of the kind of food served at the King’s table so that they should not embarrass the king by their lack of “table-manners.” If that were to happen, the resulting embarrassment to the “King” would be greater than that caused by these people’s absence from the King’s palace where their foolish acts did not disturb anyone.
Before proceeding, the reader should remember that in the previous verses non priests have been forbidden to consume certain sacred products such as the terumah from their grain harvest which is one of the gifts the Torah has designated for the priests and members of his household.
[Several editions of the Kedushat Levi have omitted this lengthy paragraph altogether. Ed.]
The word והשיאו in this verse is very difficult to understand. Rashi is hard pressed to give a satisfactory explanation.
We shall therefore attempt to give a satisfactory explanation of why G’d warned us not to consume terumah due to its being sacred. On the face of it, and in accordance with other similar situations, the very fact that it was sacred should have been the reason why it should have been permitted, especially, seeing that meat of the peace offerings, of a higher level of sanctity, is permitted for the non priest, owner of the animal that was offered to be eaten, he is not only commanded to eat it, but he is warned not to leave anything over after a specified period of time.
We will try to explain this by means of a parable. It is customary to bring to the palace of the King people who are intelligent and well mannered and project an image of being respected members of society. Such people are able, due to their genetic and educational background, to entertain the king and put him in a good mood if there is need for this. It is out of the question for the king’s advisors to entrust such tasks to someone lacking the qualities we have just described. While such unqualified people are tolerated by the king outside his palace, he would most certainly not welcome them in his palatial home. If his advisors would dare admitting uncouth people to his presence this would be considered as an unforgivable sin.
If the priests are admitted to the “King of Kings’” presence, the Temple, it is because they represent the elite of the King’s subjects. This is also why they were permitted to share the King’s “food,” i.e. part of the sacrificial meat offered at the king’s Table, the “altar.” None of the non-priests shared in these privileges, as they lacked the prerequisites necessary for keeping the King company. They were not allowed to eat of the kind of food served at the King’s table so that they should not embarrass the king by their lack of “table-manners.” If that were to happen, the resulting embarrassment to the “King” would be greater than that caused by these people’s absence from the King’s palace where their foolish acts did not disturb anyone.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Leviticus 22,16. “they would make themselves guilty by consuming their holy portions which they should be offering up to Hashem;” (the last three words are taken from the end of the previous verse.) [I am not certain that this is in the author’s manuscript, or an error by the printer or editor. Ed.]
Before proceeding, the reader should remember that in the previous verses non priests have been forbidden to consume certain sacred products such as the terumah from their grain harvest which is one of the gifts the Torah has designated for the priests and members of his household.
[Several editions of the Kedushat Levi have omitted this lengthy paragraph altogether. Ed.]
The word והשיאו in this verse is very difficult to understand. Rashi is hard pressed to give a satisfactory explanation.
We shall therefore attempt to give a satisfactory explanation of why G’d warned us not to consume terumah due to its being sacred. On the face of it, and in accordance with other similar situations, the very fact that it was sacred should have been the reason why it should have been permitted, especially, seeing that meat of the peace offerings, of a higher level of sanctity, is permitted for the non priest, owner of the animal that was offered to be eaten, he is not only commanded to eat it, but he is warned not to leave anything over after a specified period of time.
We will try to explain this by means of a parable. It is customary to bring to the palace of the King people who are intelligent and well mannered and project an image of being respected members of society. Such people are able, due to their genetic and educational background, to entertain the king and put him in a good mood if there is need for this. It is out of the question for the king’s advisors to entrust such tasks to someone lacking the qualities we have just described. While such unqualified people are tolerated by the king outside his palace, he would most certainly not welcome them in his palatial home. If his advisors would dare admitting uncouth people to his presence this would be considered as an unforgivable sin.
If the priests are admitted to the “King of Kings’” presence, the Temple, it is because they represent the elite of the King’s subjects. This is also why they were permitted to share the King’s “food,” i.e. part of the sacrificial meat offered at the king’s Table, the “altar.” None of the non-priests shared in these privileges, as they lacked the prerequisites necessary for keeping the King company. They were not allowed to eat of the kind of food served at the King’s table so that they should not embarrass the king by their lack of “table-manners.” If that were to happen, the resulting embarrassment to the “King” would be greater than that caused by these people’s absence from the King’s palace where their foolish acts did not disturb anyone.
Before proceeding, the reader should remember that in the previous verses non priests have been forbidden to consume certain sacred products such as the terumah from their grain harvest which is one of the gifts the Torah has designated for the priests and members of his household.
[Several editions of the Kedushat Levi have omitted this lengthy paragraph altogether. Ed.]
The word והשיאו in this verse is very difficult to understand. Rashi is hard pressed to give a satisfactory explanation.
We shall therefore attempt to give a satisfactory explanation of why G’d warned us not to consume terumah due to its being sacred. On the face of it, and in accordance with other similar situations, the very fact that it was sacred should have been the reason why it should have been permitted, especially, seeing that meat of the peace offerings, of a higher level of sanctity, is permitted for the non priest, owner of the animal that was offered to be eaten, he is not only commanded to eat it, but he is warned not to leave anything over after a specified period of time.
We will try to explain this by means of a parable. It is customary to bring to the palace of the King people who are intelligent and well mannered and project an image of being respected members of society. Such people are able, due to their genetic and educational background, to entertain the king and put him in a good mood if there is need for this. It is out of the question for the king’s advisors to entrust such tasks to someone lacking the qualities we have just described. While such unqualified people are tolerated by the king outside his palace, he would most certainly not welcome them in his palatial home. If his advisors would dare admitting uncouth people to his presence this would be considered as an unforgivable sin.
If the priests are admitted to the “King of Kings’” presence, the Temple, it is because they represent the elite of the King’s subjects. This is also why they were permitted to share the King’s “food,” i.e. part of the sacrificial meat offered at the king’s Table, the “altar.” None of the non-priests shared in these privileges, as they lacked the prerequisites necessary for keeping the King company. They were not allowed to eat of the kind of food served at the King’s table so that they should not embarrass the king by their lack of “table-manners.” If that were to happen, the resulting embarrassment to the “King” would be greater than that caused by these people’s absence from the King’s palace where their foolish acts did not disturb anyone.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Pri HaAretz
However, without his [first reaching a spiritual level at which] the Commandments are nullified and no longer need apply to him, it is impossible for [the great man] to upturn the Decrees into Commandments. For example, all the negative Commandments like do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal - warnings which are not applicable to [the great man] in relation to the breaking of his lustful pursuit of all the physical attributes [since] he'd never use them for his personal needs whatsoever, but [rather] only for God. All actions for his personal needs are abhorrent to him as mud and feces, from which we need not warn any man to distance himself as he would in any case do so out of disgust. In this vein, King David, peace be upon him, said "and my heart is void within me". For a person of this ilk, for whom the Commandments need not apply, to him is revealed the reasoning of the Decrees, and the Decrees thus become as though Commandments. And this is what they of blessed memory meant that in the days of the Messiah the Commandments will be nullified "for the Land will be filled with Understanding of God", and they will possess a different Torah from the Decrees which will become as Commandments. And when a person goes from strength to strength, higher and higher, until he reaches and stands before the root of the whole Torah and Commandments which is "I am HaShem your God...", simple unity and infinite, he then crimps the wings of all the Commandments and Decrees, and they are all nullified. And this is the nullification of the Evil Inclination and elevation of it [back] to prior to the beginning of creation. For from where [else] does the Evil Inclination come? In truth, in the beginning and prior to the creation is the positive [Commandment(s)] "I am HaShem your God..." and [only] afterward the negative [Commandments]. But in [human] perception of the Commandments [the order] must be reversed - in the beginning to 'abandon evil' (negative commandments) and then 'do good' (positive commandments). For a man in his beginning is [in the aspect of] "a wild ass is born a man" - his [spiritual] level is very low and he needs to add from the mundane onto his holiness, higher and higher, until [he reaches] "I am HaShem your God..." And this is [the meaning] of the convert who came to be converted and wanted to learn the whole Torah [standing] on one leg. Meaning, [the whole Torah] in one self-sustaining construct. And in truth his lesson [should have been] that indeed the source of all is "I am HaShem your God" (as above). But the convert could not have understood the apprehension of [the positive] "I am..." if not by way of the negation prior ("And you shall not have"), in order that it be on his level, which begins very low. And this is why he said "The rest is commentary. Go study"; for the [actual] Commandment is [the positive form] "Love thy neighbor..." and the negated [form] "that which is hateful to you, do not do to another" - they are the Commandments "I am..." and "You shall not...", [respectively]. And in accordance with Rashi's understanding, this is "And these are the generations of Isaac the son of Abraham" for it is the order of creation and the meaning is that Isaac, who is the constriction (TzimTzum) and the boundaries (Gevurot), is the son of Abraham who is loving-kindess (Chesed) and simple unity. And from these, they propagated to the entire world. And this is what Rashi of blessed memory explained in that 'the generations are Jacob and Esav who are spoken about in the Section'. For as Rashi explained about Esav "he was made and fully developed with hair" on the day he was born. And as the Zohar states on the verse "When an ox or a sheep or a goat is born", immediately upon the day it is born it is called an Ox, in contrast to a Man. Although in reality [only] a man's materialistic attributes are [in fact] fully developed on the day he's born, as is said 'Sin couches at the door...of the elderly king and the fool'. And so on the day of his birth he was called Esav. Afterward Jacob's hand held onto Esav's heel, the meaning of which is that 'his hand' is [Jacob's] perception which is Lower Wisdom [represented by the letter] YuD - and this is YaDo/Hand. And afterward, from [the Lower Wisdom] he reaches Upper Wisdom and the Commandment "I am..." which is the simple unity. He who is of understanding will understand.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
A different approach to our verse. The Talmud in B’rachot 33 taught that if someone in his prayer for mercy to Hashem includes a line in which he compares G’d’s mercy on the young and helpless birds in the nest, by praying that Hashem should extend His mercy to him likewise, such a person is to be silenced. One of the commentators on that line in the Talmud explains that the reason why the author of the Mishnah considers this such a travesty, is that the worshipper arrogates to himself the right to draw parallels between emotions experienced by us mortal human beings and immortal Hashem. We have to accept Divine legislation, such as the commandment to send off the mother bird, as decrees, without trying to examine G’d’s motivation.
There is a line similar to the one we quoted from B’rachot 33 in Megillah 25, and there Tossaphot question the reasoning offered in the Talmud B’rachot by citing a well known poetical liturgist, Rabbi Eliezer Hakalir, who wrote (in connection with the kedushah we recite on the second day of Passover) suggesting that the commandment not to slaughter the mother animal and its young (Leviticus 22,8) on the same day, by citing G’d’s attribute of Mercy as the reason. [Tossaphot’s point is that surely Rabbi Eliezer Hakalir was not ignorant of both these Mishnayot? Tossaphot do not offer a solution. Ed.]
Perhaps we may resolve this problem when recalling that in Shabbat 151 the Talmud states that anyone who displays mercy and compassion vis a vis any of G’d’s creatures will experience that Hashem in turn will display His Mercy concerning himself. The root for that statement is found in the Zohar Tossephet 308 where it is stated that when a human being displays compassion for other creatures he “incites” the attribute of mercy, as a result of which this attribute will relate with mercy toward him.
It is a well known fact that חסדי ה' לא כלו, “the deeds of loving kindness by Hashem are inexhaustible because His mercy is inexhaustible.” If we sometimes have the feeling that we have been shortchanged by the attribute of Mercy, the reason is never that G’d has run out of Mercy, but the reason is that we do not qualify for it at all times. Nonetheless G’d is able to bring about a radical change within our hearts so that we will have a pure heart and qualify to serve Him loyally and devotedly. When that occurs, we will qualify for additional displays of His mercy. This is why we regularly pray: לא תכלא רחמיך ממנו, “do not allow Your mercy to come to and end as far as we are concerned.”(Psalms 40,12)
When Bereshit Rabbah 14,11 quotes psalm 150,6 [the last verse in psalms, Ed.] the line כל הנשמה תהלל קה יהללו-קה, is understood to mean that “with every breath we draw we praise the Lord with our whole soul,” so that G’d has no difficulty in changing us into a new creature whenever the soul is restored to us. At that time He can supply us with a pure, non-polluted heart.
We have mentioned repeatedly that a tzaddik by means of his prayer can convert what was an evil decree into a beneficial decree, as we have been taught in Moed Katan 16. This is also the meaning of ויכון בחסד כסאך ותשב עליו באמת “when Your throne will be firmly established through loving kindness You will sit on it truly.” [I could not find such a verse. Ed.] When G’d sits so firmly on His throne the righteous will not overturn His decrees, [as there has been no need for harsh decrees. Ed.]
There is a line similar to the one we quoted from B’rachot 33 in Megillah 25, and there Tossaphot question the reasoning offered in the Talmud B’rachot by citing a well known poetical liturgist, Rabbi Eliezer Hakalir, who wrote (in connection with the kedushah we recite on the second day of Passover) suggesting that the commandment not to slaughter the mother animal and its young (Leviticus 22,8) on the same day, by citing G’d’s attribute of Mercy as the reason. [Tossaphot’s point is that surely Rabbi Eliezer Hakalir was not ignorant of both these Mishnayot? Tossaphot do not offer a solution. Ed.]
Perhaps we may resolve this problem when recalling that in Shabbat 151 the Talmud states that anyone who displays mercy and compassion vis a vis any of G’d’s creatures will experience that Hashem in turn will display His Mercy concerning himself. The root for that statement is found in the Zohar Tossephet 308 where it is stated that when a human being displays compassion for other creatures he “incites” the attribute of mercy, as a result of which this attribute will relate with mercy toward him.
It is a well known fact that חסדי ה' לא כלו, “the deeds of loving kindness by Hashem are inexhaustible because His mercy is inexhaustible.” If we sometimes have the feeling that we have been shortchanged by the attribute of Mercy, the reason is never that G’d has run out of Mercy, but the reason is that we do not qualify for it at all times. Nonetheless G’d is able to bring about a radical change within our hearts so that we will have a pure heart and qualify to serve Him loyally and devotedly. When that occurs, we will qualify for additional displays of His mercy. This is why we regularly pray: לא תכלא רחמיך ממנו, “do not allow Your mercy to come to and end as far as we are concerned.”(Psalms 40,12)
When Bereshit Rabbah 14,11 quotes psalm 150,6 [the last verse in psalms, Ed.] the line כל הנשמה תהלל קה יהללו-קה, is understood to mean that “with every breath we draw we praise the Lord with our whole soul,” so that G’d has no difficulty in changing us into a new creature whenever the soul is restored to us. At that time He can supply us with a pure, non-polluted heart.
We have mentioned repeatedly that a tzaddik by means of his prayer can convert what was an evil decree into a beneficial decree, as we have been taught in Moed Katan 16. This is also the meaning of ויכון בחסד כסאך ותשב עליו באמת “when Your throne will be firmly established through loving kindness You will sit on it truly.” [I could not find such a verse. Ed.] When G’d sits so firmly on His throne the righteous will not overturn His decrees, [as there has been no need for harsh decrees. Ed.]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
When G’d commanded us not to remove the mother bird away from her young in the nest, this is not due to considerations of mercy for the mother bird’s feelings, for if it were so the Torah did not have to issue such a commandment, for G’d Himself could have taken care either of the mother bird or its young without leaving their fate to our sense of compassion. G’d has many other ways and means of insuring these birds’ survival. Rather, the decree was issued to teach us mortals to have compassion on G’d’s creatures. When we keep this in mind Rabbi Eliezer Hakalir’s liturgical poem does not contradict the statement we quoted from the Talmud at all. [The reference in his poem to Leviticus 22,8 is so oblique that only outstanding scholars would have detected it. Ed.]
Seeing that every tzaddik, surely has assimilated the mussar contained in either Leviticus 22, 28 or Deuteronomy 22,6-7, so that when he blesses an Israelite he has surely done so with all the generosity his heart is capable of, he himself will also be blessed by heaven. This is the meaning of the line that he who displayed compassion for G’d’s creatures will be rewarded.
Bileam, even when engaged in blessing the Jewish people, was well aware that he was not doing so with a full heart, and that the words uttered by his lips were only words supplied to him by G’d, and did not come forth from his heart; thus he exclaimed that he was aware that the blessings he had bestowed would not accrue to him as a response from heaven.
When he said “I have taken blessing,” he meant that he had borrowed these words from G’d’s vocabulary, but ברך לא אשיבנה, “I am aware that I will not in turn be rewarded with blessing for myself.”
Seeing that every tzaddik, surely has assimilated the mussar contained in either Leviticus 22, 28 or Deuteronomy 22,6-7, so that when he blesses an Israelite he has surely done so with all the generosity his heart is capable of, he himself will also be blessed by heaven. This is the meaning of the line that he who displayed compassion for G’d’s creatures will be rewarded.
Bileam, even when engaged in blessing the Jewish people, was well aware that he was not doing so with a full heart, and that the words uttered by his lips were only words supplied to him by G’d, and did not come forth from his heart; thus he exclaimed that he was aware that the blessings he had bestowed would not accrue to him as a response from heaven.
When he said “I have taken blessing,” he meant that he had borrowed these words from G’d’s vocabulary, but ברך לא אשיבנה, “I am aware that I will not in turn be rewarded with blessing for myself.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
When G’d commanded us not to remove the mother bird away from her young in the nest, this is not due to considerations of mercy for the mother bird’s feelings, for if it were so the Torah did not have to issue such a commandment, for G’d Himself could have taken care either of the mother bird or its young without leaving their fate to our sense of compassion. G’d has many other ways and means of insuring these birds’ survival. Rather, the decree was issued to teach us mortals to have compassion on G’d’s creatures. When we keep this in mind Rabbi Eliezer Hakalir’s liturgical poem does not contradict the statement we quoted from the Talmud at all. [The reference in his poem to Leviticus 22,8 is so oblique that only outstanding scholars would have detected it. Ed.]
Seeing that every tzaddik, surely has assimilated the mussar contained in either Leviticus 22, 28 or Deuteronomy 22,6-7, so that when he blesses an Israelite he has surely done so with all the generosity his heart is capable of, he himself will also be blessed by heaven. This is the meaning of the line that he who displayed compassion for G’d’s creatures will be rewarded.
Bileam, even when engaged in blessing the Jewish people, was well aware that he was not doing so with a full heart, and that the words uttered by his lips were only words supplied to him by G’d, and did not come forth from his heart; thus he exclaimed that he was aware that the blessings he had bestowed would not accrue to him as a response from heaven.
When he said “I have taken blessing,” he meant that he had borrowed these words from G’d’s vocabulary, but ברך לא אשיבנה, “I am aware that I will not in turn be rewarded with blessing for myself.”
Seeing that every tzaddik, surely has assimilated the mussar contained in either Leviticus 22, 28 or Deuteronomy 22,6-7, so that when he blesses an Israelite he has surely done so with all the generosity his heart is capable of, he himself will also be blessed by heaven. This is the meaning of the line that he who displayed compassion for G’d’s creatures will be rewarded.
Bileam, even when engaged in blessing the Jewish people, was well aware that he was not doing so with a full heart, and that the words uttered by his lips were only words supplied to him by G’d, and did not come forth from his heart; thus he exclaimed that he was aware that the blessings he had bestowed would not accrue to him as a response from heaven.
When he said “I have taken blessing,” he meant that he had borrowed these words from G’d’s vocabulary, but ברך לא אשיבנה, “I am aware that I will not in turn be rewarded with blessing for myself.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy