Yetzer Harah and Yetzer Tov

When you turn 13 (Bar Mitzva) that is when one gets his Yetzer Hatov or Sechel, the ability to make mature logical decisions.
It is said that Benjamin Disraeli said that it is easy to do the right thing, what is hard is to know what the right thing to do is. This is maybe what Chazal referred to when they said, "Ein adam Choteh ela im Kein nichnas bo ruach Shtus".

In this generation which might very well be considered "Dor she'Ben David Bah" it says many thing defining that time, I would like to concentrate on two aspects of the time sheBen David Bah. It says that:1. Haemes Ne'ederes, that truth will be hidden i.e. the truth will not be known as sheker will abound. and 2. Chachmas Hasofrim Tisrach. The Sofrim are generally referred to what is known as the Ma'atikei Shmuah not "Gedolim".

Until not too long ago, the prevailing Yetzer Hara seemed to have been for "Haskala" which led to many Jews non-observance. That still exists. During that time it seemed like the truth was pretty obvious but there were real world forces that were very hard to overcome that were leading people astray from the truth. In a moment of weakness most of the people going astray knew what the truth was. However, it seems that a larger issue facing us today is the problem of  "Haemes Ne'ederes" the truth or the true path to take is hidden.

Rabbi Yerucham Levuvitz, the Mirrer Mashgiach, quotes the Ramban in Shemos who quotes a Shemos Raba that says with regard to the pasuk "Ra'oh Rahisa es ani Mitzraim" that you Moshe see one  thing however I see two things. You Moshe see the Bnei Yisrael coming before Mt. Sinai and getting the Torah but I see another aspect of yitzias mitzraim and that is the sin of the Egel. R' Yerucham says the Ramban means to say that the sin of the Egel was a direct result of Bnei Yisrael getting the Torah. If they would not have recieved the Torah they would also not have had the inclination to sin with the Egel.

The Gemara in Sucah say "Kal Hagadol Meichaveiro Yitzro Gadol Heimenu" and Abye adds "Ubetalmidei Chachamim yoser Mikulam" this does not mean (like we have been taught in cheder) that a greater person with more potential has a greater inclination to sin, rather that the greater a person becomes in actuality the greater his inclination to sin is. That is how R' Yisrael Salanter explains the Gemara in Berachos "Bechal Levavcha Beshnei Yetzarcha" You cannot do battle with the yetzer tov against the yetzer hara because the yetzer hara will co-opt the yetzer hatov and you will think that the yetzer tov is winning but really the yetzer hara is winning because your sechel will just be being used as a tool by the yetzer hara.
"Zacha Na'ases lo sam chaim, Lo Zacha Na'aseis lo Sam hamaves" the ba'alei musar say that zacha is from the root word "Zach" pure, meaning if you are not thinking purely and correctly the torah itself will become "Sam Hamaves" and cause you to sin with the Egel, a sin that you would never have come to if not for the Torah in the first place.

The Gemara in Berachos 5b says that the antidote for the yetzer hara is "Ya'asok Betorah and if that doesn't work "Yikra Krias Shema". The Anaf Yosef bring the Hafla'ah that says that Krias Shema will help you have the right kavana for torah. I would like to add that in saying krias shema you will focus on the pasuk of "beshnei yitzarecha" which will help lead you to learning in a pure way and not be mislead by your yetzer tov.

In a generation where "Emes Ne'ederes" is the prevailing problem the Yetzer Hara has a very easy job, just let the Yetzer Hatov take over and possibly allow for more learning of the Sam hamaves kind.

We must be very careful that our learning is truly a "Sam hachaim" so that it can help lead us back to the right way, maybe we need to focus a little bit more on the krias shema aspect of our life so that not be led astray by our yetzer hatov.

The reason for Karbonos (Kuzari and Rambam View)

The Kuzari has a very innovative view on the reason for korbanos. He analogizes the korban to a human eating. There is seemingly an interesting paradox in that physical material that the physical body intakes somehow manages to keep the spiritual Neshama in the body. The interesting point about it is here you have a physical machine, somehow the spirit resides in the body (as the Rama says that is the bracha in Asher Yatzar of "Mofli La'asos" that a spirit can remain contained in a physical container is a Nes). The spirit will leave the body at its determined time. However, one can cause the spirit to leave by simply not feeding the body its physical needs. So you have a situation where a spiritual entity resides in a physical space and needs some kind of physical nourishment to keep it there.

The Kuzari explains Karbanos this way. The Karbon is physical nourishment for the Shechina and keeps the Shecina in this physical world. When we had the Bais Hamikdash and we didn't bring Karbonos the Shechina would leave the physical world. Just like the body has its physical rules as to what nourishes it so to the Shecina has rules as to what it need to nourish it to keep it in its body which is our universe

Just an interesting point about the Rambams view of karbanos and about the Rambam in general. The Rambam explains the reason for Karbanos in Moreh Nevuchim and the famous Ramban in Parshas Vayikra takes the Rambam to task. Many question the Rambams view and it is very hard to understand how the Rambam could have such a seemingly limited perspective on such a great Mitzva and seemingly important aspect of the Torah. I'm not here to explain the Rambams view or to answer any of the Ramban's or other meforshim's questions. However the Rambam in the end of ספר מעילה where he discusses מצות ן in general and חוקים specifically writes " וכל הקרבנות כולם מכלל החוקים הם, אמרו חכמים שבשביל עבודת הקרבנות העולם עומד. Obviously the Rambam recognized a much broader view of קרבנות than what her writes in מורה. Before we take the רמב"ם to task for anything he writes we must have a full perspective of all his writings and try to reconcile it with what he writes regarding a specific issue when he tries to make a specific point. The Rambam"s veltanschung was very broad and cannot be construed based on a specific explanation about one topic especially in מורה.

Bikurim Vs Teruma

The mishna in Bikurim says that there are various differences between Terumah and Bikurim. I would like to focus on two of them to understand the fundemental difference between the two.

One of the differences is that Terumah has a shiur and Bikurim does not have a shiur. That is to say that you must set aside at least 1/60th for Terumah you do not need to set aside a specific amount for Bikurim.(although we know that the shiur for Teruma is only derabanan and seemingly Bikurim also has a shiur derabanan, there are different answers to this such as one has an asmachta and one doesn't but that is beyond the scope of this discussion).

Another difference is that you may not set aside all your produce for Teruma but you may make your whole field Bikurim.

The reason for both these differences is the same. Teruma is basically a tax. Decreed by God and paid to the Kohen but still a tax. We are obligated to set aside a portion of our earnings and pay them to those who spend their time fully devoted to serving God on our behalf. This is a basic fundamental tenet of the Jewish religion signifying the material/spiritual partnership in which the spiritual enriches the physical by having the physical donate its time/money/resources etc. to the spiritual realm thereby elevating the material to make it be part of the spiritual Godly world and bring God down in to this world. This cannot be accomplished by donating all your produce for Teruma because you would not be bringing the spiritual world into the physical but just be like a kohen where everything is spiritual and that is not the farmers job. The farmers job is to bring God into the physical world. That is the "moleh chal ha'aretz kevodo" vs ha'aretz nason levnei adam.

Bikurim on the other hand is a show of gratitude to God for bringing a Jew to this point where he escaped from Egypt and got the Torah and now finally lives in his own land and is able to plant and grow his own produce in Eretz Yirsoel. A debt of gratitude cannot be forced on someone it must be given by every man based on his personal feeling of gratitude (similar possibly to sipur yetzias mitzraim). Any coercion would be defeating the purpose of showing gratitude. This would apply both to the minimum amount legislated and to the maximum amount legislated. If one feels such gratitude that he would like to set aside his whole field as a offering to God then so be it, he feels it and he should be allowed to express himself. Bikurim is all about self expression.

the "Mitzva" of Tevilas Mikva

The Talmud in Maseches Yoma 30b asks (according to girsas rashi) whether according to R' Yehuda who says that the Tevila of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Hakipurim is only "Mipnei Srach Tevila" meaning that it is not to make him Tahor necessarily but rather to get the Kohen Gadol to think about what he is going to do, if this Tevila has a problem of Chatzitza. The question the Talmud is asking is if the Rabanan established a new paradigm with new technical requirements or they left all the requirements as is, as if the Tevila was De'oraisa.

Why would the Talmud assume that Tevila is any different than anything else with the technical requirements remaining? If the Rabanan required that the Kohen Gadol put on Tefilin for some reason or other should we assume that the Tefilin don't have the requirements of regular Tefilin?


Tosfos in Nida 64b states that you cannot have a lechatchila/b'divevd halacha with regard to tevilas mikva because you are either tahor or not and either the mikva serves its purpose or not, if it does then you are tahor and if not then you are still tameh.

Tosfos says that lechatchila/b'edieved is only by mitzvos where the Torah says  that there is a best way to do something and a less preferred method. However, where we are looking for a result or outcome of a specific ma'aseh then we cannot say one way of doing it is preferred if they both produce the same outcome.

We see from Tosfos that Tevilas Mikva is NOT a mitzva like other mitzvos so if the Rabanan required someone to do a Tevilas Mikva for some reason other than to become Tahor the requirements would be different and we should be able to say lechatchila/b'edieved.

This would explain the Talmud's question in Yoma does the Tevilas Mikva of the Kohen Gadol have a chatziza requirement because it is a whole different Tevila than the Tevela in the Torah which is not a Mitzva just a way for one to become Tahor.

(See also Tosafos in Eruvin 21B regarding Eruv. Very similarly Tosafos says that an Eruv cannot have "Bdiavad" and "Lechatchila". Just like Mikva, Eruv is a "Tikun", meaning it creates a factual situation and is not particularly a mitzva and therefore the concept of "Lichatchila, Bdieved" cannot apply. One cannot walk around alive only bideved but lichatchila be dead. A being is either dead or alive period. You can be "Mikayem" a Mitzva only bdiavad but cannot create facts on the ground which are only bdiavad. Think about it this way. If a person was only Yotzeh mikva bideved then everything he touches would be lechatchila tameh and only bideved tahor and so forth down the line. That makes no sense.