The Torah informs us that a Nazir who defiles his sanctity by coming in contact with a dead body must bring an asham-offering (see Bamidbar 6:12).  At first glance it would appear that this offering serves to atone for his having violated one of the precepts of his vow.  The difficulty with this approach is that the halacha demands this offering even from one who cannot be held accountable for becoming "tamei", as the pasuk itself states: "if a person should die near him with quick suddenness" (Bamidbar 6:11).  The Nazir is deemed guilty of violating the terms of his Nezirut, in spite of the general principle that "Hashem exempts one in extenuating circumstances" (Avoda Zara 54a).  It would appear that the Torah is teaching us that had this Nazir been on a higher level, Hashem would not have brought about a contingency in which his sanctity would be defiled.  The fact that Hashem placed him in a situation in which he became "tamei", albeit not through his choosing, indicates something lacking in the Nazir and it is for this that he must bring this guilt-offering.

It is not only the Nazir who becomes "tamei" who must bring an offering associated with a sin.  The Nazir who successfully completes his Nezirut is required to bring a Korban Chatat (see Bamdibar 6:13-14).  Why should someone who meticulously carried out all the demands placed upon him be required to bring a sin-offering?  Did he not abstain from drinking wine, cutting his hair, and becoming "tamei" as the Torah requires?  Why then must he bring a Korban reserved for one who has sinned?  In the view of one opinion in the Gemara: "'He shall offer atonement for having sinned concerning the soul' (Bamidbar 6:11), and concerning which soul has this Nazir sinned? Rather he has distressed himself from wine" (Taanit 11a).  (The pasuk quoted by the Gemara refers to one who has become tamei in the midst of his Nezirut, yet the same reasoning applies to one who has completed his term of purity as well.  Although one view in the Gemara reserves the term "sinner" for the Nazir who violated the terms of his Nezirut by becoming "tamei", there is an opinion that a Nazir who remains "tahor" is also deemed a sinner. Whether he is referred to as a sinner or not, the fact remains that a Nazir who remains "tahor" until the conclusion of his term of Nezirut must bring a sin-offering.) This approach in Chazal states that becoming a Nazir is in and of itself sinful.  The A-lmighty has provided us with many pleasures in this world one of which is wine - what gave this man the right to deprive himself of this enjoyment of Hashem's creation?  According to the Gemara his sin is simply that he deprived himself of wine, not that he did not recite Kiddush over wine, which he could have fulfilled by hearing from someone else.  (The four cups of wine at the Seder are somewhat more of a problem - perhaps the term of his Nezirut was either before Purim or after Pesach).

The Ramban offers an opposing view: there is nothing wrong with becoming a Nazir, on the contrary his sin lies in his terminating the Nezirut: "the reason for the Korban Chatat brought by the Nazir upon completion of his term of Nezirut ... at first glance, is for having completed his Nezirut, and this is the sin.  He had reached a very high level of holiness and closeness to Hashem, and he then descended from that level.  He should have remained a Nazir for the rest of his life, living out his days as a Nazir sanctified to serving his G-d ... He must atone for having descended once again to the defilement of the vices of this world" (Ramban's commentary to Bamidbar 6:14).  If he was able to reach the high level demanded of a Nazir, why not continue living in this manner?  Why is he regressing to his former state? It is for this sin that the Nazir must atone upon completion of his Nezirut.

This idea is seemingly contradicted by the halacha concerning a "Nazir Olam" - one who accepts upon himself Nezirut for life: "if his hair grows heavy, he may lighten it by trimming with a razor" (Nazir 4a).  Although he is permitted to cut his hair, when he does so he must bring the three sacrifices brought by the Nazir who successfully completes his term, among them a Korban Chatat.  This poses a difficulty because the lifelong Nazir does not descend from his level - he continues his Nezirut until his death.  Why then does he bring a Chatat? Perhaps more was expected of him, maybe he should have become a Nazir Shimshon of whom the halacha states "if his hair grows heavy he may not lighten it" (ibid.)?  The difficulty with that is that from a different perspective, a Nazir Shimshon is not on the same level as a Nazir Olam, for the Nazir Shimshon may come in to contact with the dead while the Nazir Olam may not defile himself in this manner.

The fact is, that whenever Rishonim or Achronim offer reasons for Mitzvot, their reasons are not all-encompassing and there may be specific circumstances that are not explained by their reasoning. The Ramban's explanation may therefore be correct, even if we find a particular case which it does not cover.  Even interpretations found in the Gemara do not always explain the Mitzvah in its entirety.  The Rambam explains that while on the one hand the Torah wished for us to give our own insights into the reasoning behind the Mitzvot, at the same time we must realize that a true and thorough understanding is beyond our limited intellectual capacities. "Only G-d understands its way" (Iyov 28:23) - a human being can never achieve a complete understanding of the Torah.  This applies even to the AR"I HaKadosh and to R' Shimon bar Yochai.  It holds true for the other Sages of the Mishna and Gemara, and even for Moshe Rabenu.  Even the high level he has risen to in the "World of Truth", Moshe Rabenu will never be able to attain a total comprehension of the Torah in its entirety.  Had he achieved a complete understanding, he would have nothing to do in Gan Eden.  Tzaddikim remain in Gan Eden because there is always more to accomplish and further to grow.  Only Hashem knows and understands the Torah to its fullest extent.  This means that suggesting the reasoning behind the Mitzvot is nothing more than an attempt to bring the deep wisdom of the Torah to a level we can relate to.  Inability to account for one detail of a Mitzvah does not render the explanation invalid. Perhaps there is a deep hidden meaning that Hashem has not revealed to us that would explain why the Ramban's reason for the Korban Chatat applies to a Nazir Olam as well.

Although Chazal refer to the Nazir as a "sinner" for having deprived himself of wine, we must understand that Nezirut is indeed a very high level.  The prophet states: "I established some of your sons as prophets and some of your young men as nazirites" (Amos 2:11).  This would indicate that Nezirut is very close to the level of prophecy which is associated with Ruach HaKodesh. I cannot say whether or not the Nazir has the prophet's ability to see into the future, yet what is clear is that the Nazir's level of holiness is not far below that of the prophet's.  It was because Shimshon was on such a level that he had the strength to single-handedly battle the Plishtim.  Other judges were in need of assistance - Barak required the aid of ten thousand men (see Shoftim 4:10), Gideon three hundred (see Shoftim 7:7), etc. Shimshon, however was able to fight the Plishtim on his own - "in the merit of the only child, who thrashed the oppressors, sanctified from the womb as a Nazir ... may You save now and bring salvation now, for You are our Father" (Hoshanot for Hoshana Rabba).  Using the jawbone of a donkey Shimshon was able to smite one thousand people (see Shoftim 15:15), and at a later stage he was able to kill thousands of Plishtim by causing the building to collapse upon them.  Not only did the people of Israel not come to his aid, but they handed him over to the Plishtim (see Shoftim 15:9-13)!  Shimshon may have agreed to be imprisoned by the Plishtim, but the fact remains that his own people were the ones who betrayed him.

Where did Shimshon acquire such strength?  From the holiness of his Nezirut.  Obviously Hashem can choose to give this power to those who are not Nezirim as well, yet Hashem chose the Nezirut as the source of Shimshon's strength.  Hashem sent an angel to Shimshon's mother warning her not to partake of wine and certain other foods, in order that she give birth to a son who "will begin to save Israel from the hand of the Plishtim" (Shoftim 13:5).  The fact that the moment he allowed the Plishtim to cut his hair he lost his strength, is indication of the incredible strength associated with Nezirut.  Immediately following his haircut, the prophet tells us: "the hair of his head began to sprout after he had shaven" (Shoftim 16:22).  Do we not know that after a person shaves his hair it begins to grow back?  The prophet seems to be saying that it was the regrowth of his hair that provided him with the strength needed to knock the house down.  It was because he once again kept to the dictates of his Nezirut (even though it was once violated against his when Delilah cut his hair without his knowledge), that he had the strength to once again defeat the Plishtim.

Chazal tell us regarding Shimshon: "Shimshon judged ('Dan') Israel like their Father in Heaven, as it is stated: 'Dan will judge his people, like one' (Bereishit 49:16)" (Sotah 10a).  Rashi tells us that "like one" refers to "like the Unique One in the world, with a righteous judgment".  Although the Gemara lists Shimshon among the insignificant leaders of the world (see Rosh Hashana 25b), that is only when comparing him to Moshe, Aharon, and Shmuel.  In his own right, however, he was one of the greatest leaders of all time.  Can we refer to one "who judged the people of Israel like their father in heaven" as insignificant?

There is an opinion in the Gemara that Shmuel himself was a Nazir (see Nazir 66a), and in fact this is the ruling of the Rambam (Hilchot Nezirut 3:16 - there is a practical halachic application regarding whether or not Shmuel was a Nazir, for according to the Rambam one who declares: "I will become like Shmuel the Rammati", has taken upon himself to become a Nazir Olam).  Shmuel himself was never commanded to become a Nazir, it was his mother Chana who prayed to Hashem and said: "if You take note of the suffering of Your maidservant, and You remember me, and do not forget Your maidservant and give Your maidservant male offspring, then I shall give him to Hashem all the days of his life, and a razor shall not come upon his head" (Shmuel I 1:11, see commentaries of Rada"k and Metzudot).

Why did Chana take upon herself the vow that her son would become a Nazir?  Chana came to Shilo on the day that Eli HaKohen was appointed as judge (see Rashi Shmuel I 1:9).  This appointment came on the heels of Shimshon's having fallen to the hands of the Plishtim, or perhaps after his death.  Although Shimshon had begun to save the Jewish people from the Plishtim, he was unable to complete his task.  Chana took upon herself the vow that her son would become a Nazir in order that he continue the work that Shimshon had begun.  This is exactly what took place - Shmuel pursued and successfully smote the Plishtim and from that point on our relationship with the Plishtim was a quiet one.  The same high level of Kedusha that began with Shimshon continued with Shmuel (though as we have just quoted in the name of the Rambam, Shmuel was a Nazir Olam and not a Nazir Shimshon).

Not every Nazir was a tzaddik who saved the Jewish nation.   Avshalom too was a Nazir (see Nazir 4b) and he was responsible for the tragic Civil War in which tens of thousands of Jewish people were killed, and he himself sinned as well.  The Nezirut only gives one the potential for great spiritual elevation.  Prophets too have free choice and may sin: "Chananya ben Azor was a true prophet and reverted to being a false prophet" (Sifri to Parshat Re-eh Siman 84).  Although a prophet also has free choice whether or not to sin, this does not detract from the fact that prophecy is a very high level.  The same may be said of Nezirut - although we have seen that even a Nazir can sin, this does not contradict the fact that Nezirut is a spiritual level not far removed from prophecy.

A Nazir is considered on a high level only if he is able to live up to its demands, if one cannot do so that is a different story entirely.  The Gemara makes a comparison between a person who fasts and one who vows to become a Nazir.  From the fact that the Nazir who has deprived himself of wine is referred to as holy (as the Torah states: "holy shall he be" (Bamidbar 6:5)), Chazal also refer to one who fasts as being holy: "if this Nazir who distressed himself by abstaining from only one thing, is called a holy man, one who distresses himself from everything how much more so" (Taanit 11a).  On the other hand, just as the Gemara deduced from the Nazir that one who fasts is regarded as holy, the Gemara also concludes that one who fasts has sinned, as we have seen a Nazir is called a sinner: "'He shall offer atonement for having sinned concerning the soul' (Bamidbar 6:11), and concerning which soul has this Nazir sinned?  Rather he has distressed himself from wine - now do these matters not constitute a kal vachomer, if this Nazir who distressed himself from only wine is called a sinner, one who distresses himself from each and every thing how much more so?" (Taanit 11a).

How are we to resolve this apparent contradiction?  Does the Torah look favorably upon fasting or does it not?  The resolution to this contradiction is: "This is for one who is able to afflict himself, that is for one who cannot afflict himself" (Taanit 11b).  If fasting will not harm one's health and will not detract from his usual level and hours of learning, then fasting can classify one as a "kadosh", how much more so if the fast increases his Yirat Shamayim and spurs one to increase his Torah learning.  In the opposite scenario, however, should the fast weaken him and cause him to lessen his hours of learning, then such a fast is viewed as sinful.  One who cannot stand up to the demands of fasting, may only fast at times mandated by halacha.

Hashem does not wish for us to undergo suffering for its own sake, especially when it impacts negatively on our serving Him.  On the other hand, Hashem does not wish for us to be drawn too much towards all the delights of this world.  We are permitted to enjoy what this world has to offer, and it is for this joy that we recite "Birkot haNehenin", together with this, we must also realize that enjoying life in this world is not a goal in and of itself but only a tool with which to better serve Hashem.  The Messilat Yesharim deals extensively with this subject - when abstinence is encouraged and when is it not.  He writes that refraining from seventy gates of "heter" - permitted behaviors, in order to avoid stumbling into even one gate of prohibition, is an abstinence that Hashem desires.  There may be acts that by the strict letter of the law may be permitted, if we join together the opinions of two poskim to create a "sfek sfeika", etc.  Not to rely on such reasoning is also a recommended abstinence, how much more so must we not pursue pleasure for its own sake.

Chazal tell us "filling the stomach ranks among the types of evils" (Brachot 32a), yet we may not refrain from enjoying this world for no apparent reason, as the Yerushalmi states: "a person is destined to be judged on all that his eyes saw and he did not enjoy" (End of Kiddushin).  The story is cited there of Amoraim who would pool their pennies together in order to purchase each species of fruit at least once a year in order to recite "shehecheyanu" thanking the A-lmighty for this wonderful world He has given us.

I believe it was HaGaon HaRav Yechezkel Sarna Zt"l who had the following comment on the passage in Birkat Hamazon: "Hazan et haolam kulo betuvo bechen, bechesed, uvrachamim" "Who nourishes the entire world in His goodness - with grace, with kindness, and with mercy".  What does it mean that Hashem nourishes the world with grace? Hashem could have created the world in such a way that our daily consumption consists of a particular dosage of vitamin A pills, vitamin B pills, etc. and this would guarantee us good health.  Hashem, however, in addition to vitamin tablets created fruits that are not only nourishing and healthy but beautiful as well - they have "grace".  The banana not only contains vitamins and iron, it is beautiful to look at.  In addition to the orange being rich in vitamin C and possessing the ability to quench our thirst on a hot day, it is also pleasant to behold.  This is the meaning of "He nourishes the entire world in His goodness - with grace".  Although Hashem made eating a pleasurable experience, He did not intend for this pleasure to become a goal.  Our goal in this world must always be to learn Torah, eating is simply a tool to aid us in realizing that task.

I once asked the Rav Zt"l the following question:  When a person is about to eat two vegetables - one very healthy and one very tasty, over which one does he recite the bracha?  The halacha states that he need only recite the bracha over the preferred one - the "chaviv", and the bracha he recites counts for the other vegetable as well (see Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 211:1).  Is the healthier food or the tastier food considered the "chaviv".  The Rav answered that man's purpose in eating is to remain healthy and strong to be able to learn Torah, it is not to fulfill his earthly desires.  If so, the healthy vegetable is the "chaviv" and the bracha must be recited over that one.  Although, just as I can change my mind regarding which one is more "chaviv" from a taste perspective, the expert doctors can change their opinion regarding which is more healthy, "you need not seek to go to any judge other than the one that is in one's own days" (Rosh Hashana 25b).  I thought that perhaps the ruling of the Rav Zt"l only applies to weekdays and not to Shabbat and Yom Tov, for on Shabbat and Yom Tov we have a Mitzvah of "Oneg" and "Simcha" and perhaps one should then specifically choose the food that he enjoys more.

Another thing I heard from the Rav Zt"l: When we recite Kriat Shma on Yom Kippur, we say "Baruch Shem Kvod Malchuto leolam vaed" "Blessed is the Name of His glorious Kingdom for all eternity" out loud (see Shulchan Aruch 619:2).  The Poskim explain that this praise is used by the angels to glorify Hashem.  Given that on Yom Kippur we resemble angels who do not eat and drink, we therefore recite it out loud (see Tur and Mishna Brura 619).  The Rav posed the following question: the first instance of reciting "Baruch Shem Kvod Malchuto leolam vaed" out loud is in the Kriat Shma of Maariv at the start of Yom Kippur. At that point we feel satiated from the "seudah hamafseket" and we certainly do not feel like angels.  On the other hand, in the post Yom Kippur Maariv, after having fasted an entire day, we say the phrase silently as we do the rest of the year. 

Should the opposite not be the case, are we not closer to angels on an empty stomach immediately following Yom Kippur than on a full one at the start of Yom Kippur?  The Rav explained that although following Yom Kippur our stomachs are depleted of food, our minds are on breaking our fast.   At the outset of Yom Kippur the opposite is the case - our stomachs may be full, but our heads are focused on Yom Kippur.  When comparing ourselves to angels, it is not the food inside our system that counts but rather the food in our heads.  We can only compare ourselves to angels when our minds are not on food.

Even on Yom Tov when we are obligated to eat meat and drink wine, and specifically on Shavuot in which "All agree with respect to Shavuot that we require it to be 'for you' too." (Pesachim 68b), we must realize that the "for you" is not a goal but rather a means by which to arrive at true joy.  A true experiencing of simcha is not through the partaking of meat, wine, and even cheese cake on Shavuot, but rather by rejoicing in Hashem and in the Torah he has given us.  After all, on Yom Tov we recite the bracha: "may Israel the sanctifiers of Your holiness rejoice in You", not may they rejoice in meat and in wine.  The joy must only be in Hashem "that He gave us the Torah of truth and implanted eternal life within us".  The problem is that the soul cannot rejoice while the body is hungry.  It is for this reason that the Torah commanded us to feed our bodies the delicacies it enjoys, for not doing so would cause the body to interfere with the joy of the soul.

The idea of rejoicing in Hashem can be found in a pasuk from Hallel: "This is the day Hashem has made let us rejoice and be glad in it" (Tehillim 118:24).  What is the meaning of to be glad "in it"? The obvious interpretation would be that it is referring to the day - ("this is the day Hashem has made, let us rejoice in IT").  Chazal, however, tell us that "in it" refers to "in Hashem" (see Shir HaShirim Rabba 1:32), as the pasuk states "we shall always be glad and rejoice in You" (Shir HaShirim 1:4).  A Jew's true joy is not in the day itself but in Hashem.

Rejoicing in the A-lmighty is what we pray for on Yom Tov: "Bestow upon us, O Hashem, our G-d, the blessing of Your appointed festivals for life and for peace, for gladness and for joy".  Are we asking for joy on Yom Tov or for the entire year?  It would appear that this request is not limited to Yom Tov, for the request for joy is accompanied by a request "for life and peace" as well - no one would dare say that we are in need of life and peace only on Yom Tov!  If we are praying for life and peace for the entire year, then the gladness and joy mentioned in the same sentence must refer to the entire year as well. We are asking Hashem that by virtue of this blessing that we are reciting on Yom Tov may we have life, peace, gladness, and joy after Yom Tov as well.  Is this request for gladness and joy the entire year referring to our being able to eat meat and drink wine every day of the year?  Certainly not!  What we mean is that through the strength of this festival, may we rejoice the entire year in Hashem G-d of Israel, and in His Torah and Mitzvot.  We can conclude from here that even on Yom Tov itself, the joy we must experience is in Hashem and His Torah.  The Yom Tovim are simply a "gas station" at which we refuel with spiritual joy for the entire year.  Similarly, the Simchat Beit HaShoeva is where we draw ("shoev") a vast amount of Ruach HaKodesh which will have an effect on us after the conclusion of the festival as well.

Although "Mitzvot were not given for the purpose of deriving benefit from them" (Eruvin 31a), we pray "please, Hashem, our G-d, sweeten the words of Your Torah in our mouths".  We are asking Hashem that our learning Torah and Mitzvah observance be joyous and sweet.  I once heard the following from my Rebbe HaRav Zolty zt"l. There is a dispute in the Gemara regarding how one should spend his Yom Tov.  R' Yehoshua is of the opinion that the day of Yom Tov must be "half the day for Hashem and half the day for you" (Pesachim 68b), while R' Eliezer's view is that one must choose "either all for you or all for Hashem" (ibid.).  How can one observe Yom Tov "all for Hashem", are we not commanded: "you shall rejoice in your festival" (Devarim 16:14)?  Rav Zolty explained that learning Torah brought tremendous joy to R' Eliezer.  For one on such a high level, learning Torah brings more joy than meat and wine!  Even R' Yehoshua, who rules that Yom Tov must be spent "half the day for Hashem and half the day for you" (which is the view of most halachic authorities), agrees that the resulting joy from Talmud Torah is far greater than that from meat and wine. The difference is, he felt that to experience true simcha at learning Torah, we must feed the body meat and wine to prevent it from interfering with our learning. 

This means that R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua agree that learning Torah is not only a fulfillment of the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah we have the entire year, but a fulfillment of the positive commandment to rejoice on the Yom Tov.

The story is told of the "Divrei Chaim" (the Sanzer Rebbe Zt"l) who after staying up the entire night of Shavuot engrossed in Torah, followed by Shacharit, Hallel, Akdamut, Kriat HaTorah, and Musaf announced "we have just fulfilled the 'half is for you' portion of the Yom Tov, the time has come to carry out the 'half for Hashem'".  The Sanzer Rebbe would probably have preferred to spend the remainder of the day learning, but what can one do - Hashem commanded us to partake in a festive meal on Yom Tov.

Although every Jew must rejoice in Hashem Who has given us the Torah of truth and eternal life, the Yom Tov of Shavuot is a special time for those studying in Yeshiva.  The entire nation has merited receiving the Torah, yet we have the fortune of being able to spend so much time learning it.  This is not just any ordinary Yeshiva, but one located in Eretz Yisrael, not anywhere, but in the holy city of Yerushalayim!  Being a "ben Yeshiva" is a high level in and of itself, as can be demonstrated by Rav Yoseph who was known to have said on Shavuot: "if this day had not caused me to learn Torah, how many Yosephs are there in the market place" (Pesachim 68b).  Had it not been for the Torah being given, I would have been referred to as simply Yoseph - you would not be able to distinguish between me and anyone else with that name.  Now, in the merit of my learning Torah, I am referred to as "Rav Yoseph", I am different from other Yosephs on the street.  These are the words of Rav Yoseph, a man known for his modesty and fear of sin.  We too must understand - had we not had the fortune of being given the Torah and having the opportunity to study it, who knows how we would appear. Anyone who looks at how the streets devoid of Torah look is seized with fear and trembling.  Had it not been for the Torah, had it not been for Yirat Shamayim, who knows how we ourselves would look!  We must rejoice not only because the Jewish nation received the Torah but that we merited receiving the Torah, that we have the fortune of sitting in Yeshiva.  We hope and pray that in the merit of the holy Yeshivot, the entire nation will ascend to a higher level.  If not for the Yeshivot, who knows how the Jewish nation would look today.

HaRabbanit Rachel Sarna O"H spent part of her youth in the German camps, may their names be obliterated.  She once witnessed a German "goy" mercilessly pounding at a Jew.  She said to herself "thank G-d I am not a 'goy', thank G-d I am from the nation of murder victims and not from the nation of murderers."  Now in Israel we try our best to disrupt the work of the murderers.  Let every Shahid who wishes to blow himself up do so alone - he has no need for Jewish company.  We must give thanks to Hashem that we are part of the nation that while it is being murdered and killed continues to declare "Hear O Israel, Hashem is our G-d, Hashem is the One and Only" (Devarim 6:4).  Hashem is "Akhbar", but He does not rule through murder but rather through kindness and compassion.  I am not saying that we must not defend ourselves against the Shahids, yet our main gratitude to Hashem is for having given us the Torah of truth, a Torah of kindness and compassion, a Torah which does good for others.  We try our best to acquire the Torah's good character traits.

As we mentioned, learning in Yeshiva especially one in the holy city of Yerushalayim, obligates us to feel joy the entire year but especially on the upcoming Yom Tov of Shavuot.  We must pray that we will soon be able to fulfill the entire complement of Mitzvot associated with the day - "shtei halechem", "continual offerings in their order and Musaf offerings according to their laws", the Olat Reia, Shalmei Chagiga, and Shalmei Simcha.  This is because true joy of Yom Tov is experienced by partaking in the meat of the Shlamim offerings. Although the Rambam is of the opinion that the Mitzvah of rejoicing on Yom Tov can be fulfilled by eating non-sanctified meat, he would agree that the partaking of Shlamim meat brings greater simcha. Both types of meat taste the same, yet the Shlamim meat is holy and serves to bring man closer to Hashem. Chazal decreed "tumah" on non-sanctified meat (see Rambam Hilchot Avot HaTuma 11:5), because ordinary meat in some manner distances us from Hashem.  Non-sanctified meat is called by the name "basar taava" "the meat of desire" (see Chullin 16b), in keeping with the words of the pasuk: "for you will have a desire to eat meat" (Devarim 12:20).  The sacrificial meat, on the other hand, is filled with simcha and is strictly kosher in every sense of the word. May it be the will of Hashem that He bring us closer to fulfillment of His service speedily in our day. Amen.