Divrei Chaim

Who are you going to believe -- Sanhedrin or your eyes?

2026-08-13T10:44:43.238-04:00

For better or worse, our worldview of Torah is shaped by chumash and Rashi that we learned as children and that we re-learn every week (sadly often advancing no further in our understanding). We all "know" that Avraham sent Eliezer to fetch Rivka and bring her to his home, but nowhere does it say this in the text. It speaks about Avraham's eved, but Eliezer is not named. We just assume it because Rashi told us that's who the perek is talking about. It's an innocuous example, but not all examples are so innocuous. Rashi in our parsha comments:

לֹ֣א תָס֗וּר מִן־הַדָּבָ֛ר אֲשֶׁר־יַגִּ֥ידֽוּ לְךָ֖ יָמִ֥ין וּשְׂמֹֽאל׃

ימין ושמאל – אפילו אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל, ועל שמאל שהיא ימין, וכל שכן שאומרים לו על ימין ימין ועל שמאל שמאל.

This Rashi is so well known that I think comes as a shock to most people to discover it is against a black on white gemara. The first Mishna in Horiyot has a din: הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין וְיָדַע אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁטָּעוּ אוֹ תַלְמִיד שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהוֹרָייָה וְהָלַךְ וְעָשָׂה עַל פִּיהֶם, בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה עִמָּהֶם בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה אַחֲרֵיהֶם, בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא עָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה – הֲרֵי זֶה חַייָב

The gemara tries to figure out what case this could be talking about. מַתְנִיתָא כְּגוֹן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי יוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵיהֶן. The gemara (I am quoting the Yerushalmi) posits that we are dealing with someone who is a baki b'halacha like Shimon ben Azai. If so, m'mah nafshach: if he made a mistake in the din, then he is not really an expert; if he didn't make a mistake but rather intentionally violated the din, then he is not chayav a chatas because he is not shogeg. Answers the gemara: אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא כְטוֹעֶה לוֹמַר: תּוֹרָה אָמְרָה אַחֲרֵיהֶם אַחֲרֵיהֶם The person is an expert in the case before B"D and knew that they made a mistake, but thought there is a chiyuv to follow them anyway. At this point the Bavli stops, but the Yerushalmi goes a step further and says that can't be the mistake because someone of a R' Shimon ben Azai would not err in something like that:

אֵין זֶה שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי: יָכוֹל אִם יֹאמְרוּ לָךְ עַל יְמִין שֶׁהִיא שְׂמֹאל וְעַל שְׂמֹאל שֶׁהִיא יְמִין תִּשְׁמַע לָהֶם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לָלֶכֶת יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל, שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ לָךְ עַל יָמִין שֶׁהוּא יָמִין וְעַל שְׂמֹאל שֶׁהִיא שְׂמֹאל

Exactly the opposite of the derasha Rashi quotes! If B"D makes the wrong call and you know they are mistaken, of course you don't have to follow them. (The only difference between Bavli and Yerushalmi is the Bavli accepted the thought that following B"D even if they are in error is a potential mistake someone can make; the Yerushalmi thinks a Shimon ben Azai type expert would not make that mistake, but they both agree that it is a mistake. I quoted the Ylmi because it spells out the derasha that stands in sharp contrast to Rashi; the Bavli doesn't quote the derasha.)

If someone starts with Rashi's comment as their baseline, esp if they are not aware of the contradictory sugya, then a person might come to accept all kinds of things as true even if the face of evidence to the contrary. Call it emunah peshuta, call it daas Torah, call it some other name, at the end of the day it means the answer to Groucho Marx's question, "Who are you going to believe -- me or your own eyes? is "me" when that "me" is a Rabbi. That's a dangerous thing. There is no proof that will shake someone out of this state ut of their reverie, as what good is proof when the Torah says you have to believe אפילו אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל, ועל שמאל שהיא ימין? L'havdil, this is the same mindset of people still singing the accolades of Fauci, who still believe Russiagate, and who think Joe Biden had 81 million people who voted for him.

When you start with the Yerushalmi as your baseline, you start with the assumption that reality is reality, left is left and right is right, and there is no reason to listen to anyone, even the Sanhedrin, if they tell you otherwise. G-d does not want us to turn our brains off and unquestioningly accept falsehood.

What should be the baseline we start with? How do we square Rashi with the Yerushalmi? First off, who says we have to? Perhaps the two sources disagree, end of story. See Shu"T Melamed l'Ho'il who wants to be toleh the two derashos on the issue of whether yesh aim l'mikra or yesh aim la'masoret and you don't need to reconcile the two. At the end of the day, Rashi on chumash is a mefareish, not a posek. When it comes to halacha, if I am not mistaken, the derasha he quotes in not brought by the Rambam. This is far from the only place where Rashi's peirush on chumash is not consistent with the maskana l'dina. Rashi's concern is peshutp shel mikra, and if a derasha that is not k'halacha does a better job at explaining the pasuk (see Kli Yakar), that will be what Rashi goes with.

The problem gets sticky when we look at Ramban, who not only quotes Rashi, but expands upon it and holds that this is the normative view:

וענינו: אפילו תחשב בלבך שהם טועים, והדבר פשוט בעיניך כאשר אתה יודע בין ימינך לשמאלך, תעשה כמצותם, ואל תאמר: איך אוכל החלב הגמור הזה או אהרוג האיש הנקי הזה, אבל תאמר: כך צוה אותי האדון המצוה על המצות שאעשה בכל מצותיו ככל אשר יורוני העומדים לפניו במקום אשר יבחר, ועל משמעות דעתם נתן לי התורה אפילו יטעו. וזה כענין רבי יהושע עם רבן גמליאל ביום הכפורים שחל להיות בחשבונו (בבלי ר״ה כ״ה.)

.כי על הדעת שלהם הוא נותן לנו התורה, אפילו יהו בעיניך כמחליף הימין בשמאל. וכל שכן שיש לך לחשוב שהם אומרים על ימין שהוא ימין, כי רוח השם על משרתי מקדשו ולא יעזוב את חסידיו, לעולם נשמרו (תהלים ל״ז:כ״ח) מן הטעות ומן המכשול.

The Ramban is a bit unclear (see the whole thing inside and R' Elchanan in Kuntres Divrei Sofrim in Koveitz Shiurim) as to whether he holds you have to listen to B"D because it's just your impression that they are in error, or whether he holds you have to listen because even if they are in fact wrong, Hashem wants you to listen to them anyway.

I thought Ramban's amguity should be seen in light of Ramban later in our parsha by eidim zomimim, who asks why it is that if eidim are discovered to be zomimim after B"D carries out punishment on the defendant, they get off with no punishment. Why shouldn't they be liable for causing de or pain to the defendant? Ramban answers that if B"D meted out justice based on their testimony, then it means the defendant is guilty of some crime. Hashem would not allow B"D to mete out punishment in error to an innocent party. From that Ramban is would seem that a person might have the *impression* that B"D got it wrong, but in reality, they did not (I found R' Yehuda Herzl Henkin in Shu"T Bnei Banim II:23 also links these two parshiyot). Chasam Sofer goes down this same road. He writes that the reason you have to listen to B"D אפילו אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל is because Hashem would not allow righteous people to make such an error. The Lubavitcher Rebbe writes (Likutei Sichos v 5 end of the second piece on Toldos) that B"D's psak can change reality (see Yerushalmi (Kesubos 1 halacha 2) regarding the regrowth of besulim in response to psak of B"D). Therefore, if they tell you left is right, that will become the reality. All that being said, we know that B"D can make mistakes, otherwise we would not have a parsha of par he'elem davar shel tzibur!

What did Ramban do with the Yerushalmi?

Ramban elsewhere, in Sefer haMitzvos, tries to answer this question. Ramban writes that if B"D makes an error, you can do what you like until you raise the issue with B"D (which is what you should do) and have your day in court. Once you do have your day in court and B"D has heard your side of the story and still rejected it, then from that point onward you are bound to follow their view. Ramban is a but difficult to read into the sugya in the Yerushalmi. מַתְנִיתָא כְּגוֹן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי יוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵיהֶן -- when it says יוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵיהֶן it means someone present in B"D but did not raise their own view for discussion?

Chida goes a step further and writes that there is no obligation to follow B"D unless you are dead wrong. Most things in life, halacha included, are seldom black and white. Chid"a suggests that if you make your argument to B"D and they think you are mistaken, then you have to follow their view. However, if things are not so clear cut -- your argument has merit, but for whatever reason, the majority of B"D feels their position has more merit -- you don't have to follow.

Other Achronim throw their own hat into the ring and offer other suggestions to resolve the discrepancy, but I am not going to do a full review of every shita here as this is as blog post, not a journal article. I do want to make just two other points:

1) Facts are facts. B"D can't pasken against empirical evidence. Yevamos 92a: הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁשָּׁקְעָה חַמָּה, וּלְבַסּוֹף זָרְחָה — אֵין זוֹ הוֹרָאָה, אֶלָּא טָעוּת.

Along the same lines, Ksav v'haKabbalah explains Rashi as follows:

פי׳ דלפי מראה עיניך הם טועין בדין מ״מ תשמע להם; אבל אם ידוע בודאי שהם טועים, כבר אמרו בירושלמי (רשפ״ק דהוריות) אם יאמרו על ימין שהוא שמאל ועל שמאל שהוא ימין אין לשמוע להם

What he doesn't explain is how you know with certainty that you are right and they are wrong. Is it a case of factual error? Or perhaps it is a case where you have a kabbalah ish m'pi ish and B"D doesn't and is trying to figure things out mi'sevara. See end of ch 5 of Ediyot regarding עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל).

2) B"D alone can determine public policy. To use an example from last week's post, if B"D says not to blow shofar on Shabbos, arguing that they are wrong because the Torah allows it is a non-starter. A gezeira or a hor'as sha'ah deliberately upends the din. Yes, B"D is going against what the Torah says, but they have a right to do so for the sake of public policy. You may disagree with their ruling, but that is a matter of perception, not one of clear cut error.

So much for matters of halacha. What can we walk away with from this pasuk? Derech derush the Divrei Shaul explains it as as a warning to follow the Rambam's famous golden mean. Don't become an extremist. (Everyone of course thinks he/she is a centrist and the other guy is the extremist.) ֹֹ֣֣לֹ֣א תָס֗וּר...יָמִ֥ין וּשְׂמֹֽאל׃ Stick to the middle of the road.

I would like to suggest derech derush another interpretation based on Shabbat 63a (I later found that Chasam Sofer also uses this gemara derech derush to explain the pasuk, but takes it in a different direction than I do):

אָמַר רָבָא בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מַאי דִכְתִיב אֹרֶךְ יָמִים בִּימִינָהּ בִּשְׂמֹאלָהּ עֹשֶׁר וְכָבוֹד אֶלָּא בִּימִינָהּ אֹרֶךְ יָמִים אִיכָּא עֹשֶׁר וְכָבוֹד לֵיכָּא אֶלָּא לַמַּיְימִינִין בָּהּ אֹרֶךְ יָמִים אִיכָּא וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן עוֹשֶׁר וְכָבוֹד לַמַּשְׂמְאִילִים בָּהּ עוֹשֶׁר וְכָבוֹד אִיכָּא אוֹרֶךְ יָמִים לֵיכָּא

Rashi comments:

למיימינין. של תורה שמפשפשין טעמיהן בדקדוק ובוררין כימין המיומנת למלאכה

למשמאלין בה. שאין יגעים בה כל צרכן אי נמי מיימינין בה עוסקין לשמה משמאילים שלא לשמה

Sometimes a person thinks he is giving 110% in his learning, but his Rebbe, like a good coach, knows that in reality he has more to give and can work harder. His "yemin" = hard work is in reality "smol." By the same token, sometimes a person thinks that they are doing far less than they should be doing, leading to their feeling depressed. A Rebbe can right the ship and explain that what this person thinks is "smol" is really "yemin." Maybe he is already maxed out and there is no need for stress or depression. Sometimes we need someone who can look a things more objectively to guide us in how we measure ourselves. אפילו אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל, it's a good idea to listen.

bal tigra (II)

2026-08-07T09:15:36.097-04:00

Yesterday we saw that the Turei Even understood the Rashba to be saying that failing to fulfill a mitzvah would be a violation of bal tigra. Turei Even argued that this is incorrect. It's doing a mitzvah in an incomplete way which is bal tigra, not failing to do the mitzvah at all.

The T.E. raised two questions. I want to focus on the second one. He proved his point from a gemara in Sukkah :

אמר מר לא מצא אתרוג לא יביא לא רמון ולא פריש ולא דבר אחר פשיטא מהו דתימא לייתי כי היכי שלא תשכח תורת אתרוג קמ"ל זימנין דנפיק חורבא מיניה דאתי למסרך

The gemara has a hava amina that if there is no esrog available, take some other fruit so that you at least remember that there is a mitzvah of lulav and will do it properly next year. According to the Rashba, how can you have such a hava amina? Taking only 3 of the 4 minim does not fulfill the mitzvah, so it would violate bal tigra. Can you violate a lav just to have a zecher?!

My wife's grandfather quotes a solution to this question in the name of his BIL R' Yosef Holzberg which is echoed by the Sefas Emes in his chiddushim on R"H. When you have an incomplete mitzvah and are in violation of bal tigra, yesh lachkor the following lomdish chakira: does the issur stem from what you are *doing*, or does the issur stem from what you have *failed to do*? Is it the mitzvah action which is the problem because it will prove to be defective; or is the piece that you left out which is the issue?

The answer is black on white if you read the classic case of bal tigra (R"H 28) carefully:

דתנן הניתנין במתנה אחת שנתערבו בניתנין מתנה אחת ינתנו מתנה אחת מתן ד' במתן ד' ינתנו במתן ד' מתן ד' במתן אחת ר"א אומר ינתנו במתן ד' רבי יהושע אומר ינתנו במתן אחת אמר לו ר"א הרי הוא עובר על בל תגרע אמר לו ר' יהושע הרי הוא עובר על בל תוסיף א"ל ר"א לא נאמר בל תוסיף אלא כשהוא בעצמו אמר לו ר' יהושע לא נאמר בל תגרע אלא כשהוא בעצמו ועוד אמר רבי יהושע כשלא נתת עברת על בל תגרע ולא עשית מעשה בידך כשנתת עברת על בל תוסיף ועשית מעשה בידך

R' Yehoshua's argument is that bal tigra entails no action: ועוד אמר רבי יהושע כשלא נתת עברת על בל תגרע ולא עשית מעשה בידך. If the issue was with what you are doing, the incomplete act, it would be a lav which has a maaseh. לא עשית מעשה בידך implies that it's what's being left out which is the issue.

Coming back to the Turei Even's proof from the gemara in sukkah: Had the issur of bal tigra been the action that will remain incomplete, then taking the lulav, taking the hadas, the arava, would be a problem. But the issur of bal tigra is in what you are missing, not what you are doing. In this case, what can you do if no esrog is available? Ones Rachmana patrei! Maybe Rashba is right, that missing an entire mitzvah potentially is bal tigra, but in this particular case you would still be off the hook.

I have a thought experiment to help illustrate this point: The halacha says that you only have to spend up to 20% of your money to fulfill a mitzvas aseh and no more, but you have to give up every penny to avoid violating a lav. Let's say a lulav and esrog will cost more than 20% of my money. I should be exempt from the mitzvah. But if I don't fulfill the mitzvah, according to Rashba, won't I be in violation of the lav of bal tigra, and therefore shouldn't I have to give up every penny to avoid the lav?

It must be that since the halacha says that I don't have to spend more than 20%, I'm not in violation of the lav if I don't do the mitzvah. So too, the same holds true if no esrog is available, I'm not in violation of anything if it is missing because I have a ptur ones.

This chiddush helps us with all kinds of things. The Minchas Chinuch (see Aruch haShulchan as well) discusses whether there is any value to eating 1/2 a k'zayis of matzah if you don't have enough for a full shiur. There is a concept of chatzi shiur by issurim. Is there a similar concept by a kiyum mitzvah? According to the Rashba, the whole question shouldn't even get off the ground. If you fail to fulfill the mitzvah, you run the risk of bal tigra!

The Chashmonaim found only enough oil for one day. The Beis Yosef suggests that having no other choice, they divided what they had into 8 parts. Miraculously, the oil burned throughout the night on each night even though it was far less than the shiur. According to the Rashba, what was their hava amina? Barring the miracle, wouldn't they be violating bal tigra by lighting less than the required shiur and failing to do a proper hadlaka?

The answer is the same for all these examples. Do what you can because the issur of bal tigra is not in what you are doing, it's in what you are leaving out. Like in the case of esrog, in these cases you have no other choice than to not complete the mitzvah and leave something out -- you are in a situation of ones. Therefore, there is no chiyuv bal tigra on what's missing.

The final example of the Sefas Emes is wearing tzitzis without techeiles. There is no bal tigra because you are ones; techeiles is not available. Therefore, you cannot be chayav for doing an incomplete mitzvah. That argument may have held true in the time of the Sefas Emes, but today, techeiles IS available. Even if you are not 100% it is the right thing, what's the downside, given that not wearing it might put you in the bind and in violation of bal tigra?

Turei Even on bal tigra (I)

2026-08-06T11:20:59.455-04:00

I'm going to try to do this in two parts this week because the topic is pretty long.

The issur of bal tosif appears both in our parsha and earlier in parshas va'eschanan. The GR"A (quoted by Torah Temima in va'eschanan) suggests that we have two pesukim because there are two different types of bal tosif: 1) creating/adding a new mitzvah which does not appear in the Torah; 2) changing the parameters of a mitzvah that does appear in the Torah and adding to it, e.g. adding an extra parsha in tefillin.

Rashi does not seem to subscribe to this distinction. In fact, he seems to not distinguish between the two pesukim at all. Rashi comments in our parsha (13:1) לא תסף עליו – חמש טוטפות, חמשה מינין בלולב, ארבע ברכות לברכת כהנים and in va'eschanan (4:2) he comments לא תוסיפו – כגון: חמש פרשיות בתפילין, חמשת מינין בלולב, חמש ציציות. The two comments are *almost* word for word the same. I highlight *almost* because every stroke of ink in Rashi makes a difference, and here the slight difference in Rashi's words may in fact point to the difference between the two commands. See Gur Aryeh; the L Rebbe also has a brilliant sicha on this Rashi.

Something like 20 years ago I did a post on a machlokes Tos and Rashba with regards to bal tosif. Tos asks why blowing tekiyos d'meyushav on R"H is not a violation of bal tosif? Aren't we adding to what the Torah requires? Tos is mechadesh that that doing a mitzvah repeatedly is not bal tosif. The Rashba gives what seems a far simpler answer: you can't incur bal tosif when you are fulfilling a takana derabbanan. The Torah gives license to Chazal (lo tasur -- next week's parsha) to make takanos and gezeiros. If you are following what Chazal mandate, there cannot be bal tosif. This is such a fundamental yesod that one has to wonder why Tos did not offer this answer, and for that you can read some of the previous posts.

As to why Chazal are not in violation of bal tosif, the Rambam in Hil Mamrim explains that halacha clearly demarcates between Rabbinic law and Torah law. Since a takana cannot be mistaken to be a Torah law, it is not bal tosif.

This year I want to turn to the conclusion of the Rashba and the issur of bal tigra. Rashba adds that just like a takana to do something cannot be a violation of bal tosif, a takana *not to do something* cannot be bal tigra, e.g. when Chazal mandated that we do not blow shofar on Shabbos, this subtraction from the mitzvah is not a bal tigra problem.

The Turei Even asks two questions on this Rashba:

1) Bal tigra doesn't mean missing doing a mitzvah once; it means erasing a mitzvah permanently from the list of 613 things to do. Were that not the case, then any time someone misses doing a mitzvah they would be in violation of bal tigra. Someone who, for example, neglected to put on tefillin, should get malkos for bal tigra in addition to the bitul aseh. That obviously can't be.

When Chazal said not to blow shofar on Shabbos, they were not erasing the mitzvah of shofar. They were telling you to skip it that one time. Hence, no bal tigra.

2) Turei Even argues that bal tigra doesn't mean failing to do a mitzvah. What it means is failing to do a mitzvah *in a complete way.* The mitzvah is still valid, just incomplete. A classic case (R"H 28b):

A korban which requires מתן ד is kosher if you sprinkle only מתן אחת; it just hasn't been performed 100% the way it should have been. In that case, the issue of bal tigra comes up. However, let's say you had a korban and didn't do zerikas ha'dam at all. That's not bal tigra -- that's a pasul korban! That's a bitul aseh of offering korban.

The Turei Even proves his case from the following gemara (Sukkah 31b):

The gemara has a hava amina that if there is no esrog available, take some other fruit so that you at least remember that there is a mitzvah of lulav and will do it properly next year.

Turei Even asks: according to the Rashba, how can you have such a hava amina? Taking only 3 of the 4 minim means failing to fulfill the mitzvah, which according to Rashba bal tigra. You can't violate a lav just so you have a zecher?!

It must be that there is no bal tigra in this case because since you are missing the esrog, you are not fulfilling any mitzvah. It's not just an *incomplete* kiyum; it's a nothing kiyum. When you are missing the mitzvah entirely, that’s' not bal tigra.

This question is not only a problem for the Rashba, but is a problem in shitas Rashi as well. Rashi explains that bal tosif is something like adding a parsha to tefillin; bal tigra is the inverse, i.e. taking a parsha away. That's not an *incomplete* kiyum; it's a nothing, and like the Turei Even proves, there is no bal tigra on doing a nothing.

100 brachos

2026-07-31T08:46:29.172-04:00

Menachos 43b:

תניא היה רבי מאיר אומר חייב אדם לברך מאה ברכות בכל יום, שנאמר ועתה ישראל מה ה' אלקיך שואל מעמך

The Midrash writes (and this is quoted in the Tur OC 46 in the name of Geonim) that the source for reciting 100 brachos is a takana by David haMelech in response to the plague that afflicted Bn"Y after he counted them. Somehow you have to square that with the gemara's derasha from our parsha.

In any event, someone recently asked me whether you start counting the 100 brachos from nighttime, or whether you start counting from the morning.

B'pashtus, the rule in halacha in that day follows night, so off the cuff my guess was that you start from the night.

However, Rambam in hil tefilah 7:14 writes:

חייב אדם לברך מאה ברכות בין היום והלילה ומה הן מאה ברכות אלו ך"ג ברכות שמנינו בפרק זה. ושבע ברכות של קריאת שמע של שחרית וערבית לפניה ולאחריה. וכשמתעטף בציצית מברך ברוך אתה ה׳ אלקינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להתעטף בציצית. וכשלובש תפילין מברך ברוך אתה ה׳ אלקינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להניח תפילין. ושלש תפלות שבכל תפלה מהן שמנה עשרה ברכות הרי שמונים ושש ברכות. וכשהוא אוכל שתי סעודות של יום והלילה מברך ארבע עשרה ברכות. שבע בכל סעודה. אחת כשיטול ידיו תחלה. ועל המזון אחת בתחלה ושלש בסוף ועל היין לפניו ולאחריו הרי שבע ברכות הרי מאה ברכות בין הכל:

The Rambam's expression of היום והלילה implies that night follows day. Similarly, he talks about שבע ברכות של קריאת שמע של שחרית וערבית , putting shacharis first. אוכל שתי סעודות של יום והלילה, he puts the day meal first.

So much for my off the cuff guess. The MG"A made me feel a little better. MG"A 46:8 discusses what to do on a taanis where you miss a meal and are thereby missing brachos, and claims that you still have 100:

כתב הרב״י אנן מברכין בכל יום ק״ה ברכות אך בתענית חסרו ח׳ ברכות נמצא יש צ״ח ברכות עכ״ל וטעות סופר הוא דאינן אלא צ״ז ולדידן שמברכין גם הנותן ליעף כח ועל תפילין ב׳ ברכות הרי צ״ט וגם ברכת יראו עינינו לא מנה הרב״י וא״כ הוי ק׳

However, when you start fasting from the night before, like Y"K or 9 Av, you have a problem:

אף ביום התענית ומי שמפסיק מבעוד יום התעני׳ חסר עוד ח׳ ברכות מסעוד׳ א׳

The problem only exists because the MG"A assumes that day follows night, and so you end up missing 2 meals in one period. If night followed day, there would be no issue.

There is literature on this in shu"t. I just wanted to setup the problem.

Achronim are bothered by what the connection is between the pasuk ועתה ישראל מה ה' אלקיך שואל מעמךand the din of 100 brachos. There is another famous question on this pasuk that the Midrash already touches on. עתה ישראל מה ה׳ אלקיך שאל מעמך כי אם ליראה את ה׳ אלקיך ללכת בכל דרכיו ולאהבה אתו ולעבד את ה׳ אלקיך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך. The pasuk sounds like Hashem just wants one thing from us -- yiras Shamayim -- but then it gives a whole laundry list of other items. Both questions can be knocked off in one shot.

What happens when we say a bracha? A farmer, for example, plants an apple tree and works so hard to tend to it until it finally produces fruit. Instead of celebrating his success, just before he takes a bite, he does an anti-Al Gore and says, "I didn't build that. Hashem, you are the one who is borei pri ha'eitz." All the hard work is just to allow Hashem the opportunity to do things through derech ha'teva and produce that apple.

Sefas Emes (5632) explains that all of the midos that the pasuk asks us to achieve are really given to us by Hashem on a silver platter. For example, we don't have to create love for G-d yesh mei'ayin in our hearts and turn on an emotion that we lack. We are born with a proclivity to ahavas Hashem; we just have to remove all the impediments in our heart and mind that block it from expressing itself. We have to just allow ourselves to be who we truly are. The catch is that the ball starts rolling with yiras Shamayim. We are just like the farmer. It seems like we are doing everything, but we are just taking that first step of yiras Shamayim, the step of acknowledging that Hashem is really the one in charge. If we do that, then He will take care of the rest. The din of 100 brachos is the explanation for מה ה׳ אלקיך שאל מעמך כי אם ליראה followed by that long list of demands.

Once 9 Av and T"u b'Av passed we already start looking toward Rosh haShana. It's not by coincidence that we blow 100 shofar blasts, same number as 100 brachos (see Yismach Moshe). Our year has to start by with the acknowledgment that everything that will happen over the next 12 months is all yad Hashem. It may look like we are doing all the work, but He is really running the show.

there is something worse than getting punished

2026-07-31T08:42:25.206-04:00

(8:19) וְהָיָ֗ה אִם־שָׁכֹ֤חַ תִּשְׁכַּח֙ אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ וְהָֽלַכְתָּ֗ אַֽחֲרֵי֙ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֲחֵרִ֔ים וַֽעֲבַדְתָּ֖ם וְהִשְׁתַּֽחֲוִ֣יתָ לָהֶ֑ם הַֽעִדֹ֤תִי בָכֶם֙ הַיּ֔וֹם כִּ֥י אָבֹ֖ד תֹּֽאבֵדֽוּן:

Chazal tell us אין וְהָיָ֗ה אלא לשׁון שׁל שׂמחה. B'shlama the first pasuk in our sidra, וְהָיָ֣ה עֵ֣קֶב תִּשְׁמְע֗וּן אֵ֤ת הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים֙ הָאֵ֔לֶּה,the word ְהָיָ֣ה is used to tell us, as the Ohr haChaim explains at length, that true simcha is when we manage to fulfill all the mitzvos top to bottom. The Ishbitzer connects the simcha to the fact that the pasuk singles out mishpatim, not chukim or eidot:

אֵין וְהָיָה אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן שִׂמְחָה כִּדְאִיתָא בַּגְּמָ' (בראשית רבה פרשה מ"ב,ד'), עֵקֶב הַיְינוּ לַסּוֹף, וְהוּא כִּי לֶעָתִיד יְגַלֶּה הַש"י לְעֵין כֹּל, וְכָל נֶפֶשׁ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל יָבִין כִּי לֹא הָיָה שׁוּם חֻקָּה בְּלִי טַעַם... כִּי הַכֹּל הָיָה בְּמִשְׁפָּט

Meshech Chochma similarly notes that after 40 years in the desert learning Torah and experiencing overt miracles, even chukim seem like mishpatim. Under those circumstances there is good reason for simcha. How, however, does simcha make sense in the context of our pasuk? What kind of simcha is there in אִם־שָׁכֹ֤חַ תִּשְׁכַּח֙ אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ...הַֽעִדֹ֤תִי בָכֶם֙ הַיּ֔וֹם כִּ֥י אָבֹ֖ד תֹּֽאבֵדֽוּן? We should be weeping, not celebrating!

Just over a week ago before Tisha b'Av I posted the following Midrash ():

חֵ֤טְא חָֽטְאָה֙ יְר֣וּשָׁלַ֔͏ִם עַל־כֵּ֖ן לְנִידָ֣ה הָיָ֑תָה (Eicha 1:8)

The Midrash asks: ?אומות העולם אינן חוטאים Do we have a monopoly on sin?

Chazal answer: אלא אע"פ שחוטאין אינן כלום, אבל ישראל חטאו ולקו

Is it fair that only we get punished and the umos get off scott free?

When a child gets punishment by his parent or his teacher, the child thinks that there is nothing worse than that. However, the truth is there is something much worse than punishment, and that is indifference.

The child in the moment may be happy to get away with his infraction, but in the bigger picture, he loses out. He loses out on someone who can celebrate his successes, cry with him on his failures, guide him through difficulties, and someone who will always at least pretend : ) to share his interests. That's the price of indifference. In the long wrong, a little punishment now and then for wrongdoing is but a small price to pay for the benefits gained by having someone's attention and guidence.

By the rest of the world, אע"פ שחוטאין אינן כלום, Hashem's attitude is one of indifference. Whether they do wrong or whether they do right, it's all the same. When it comes to us, אבל ישראל חטאו ולקו, because Hashem cares.

תנו רבנן הנעלבין ואינן עולבים שומעין חרפתן ואין משיבין עושין מאהבה ושמחין ביסורין עליהן הכתוב אומר ואוהביו כצאת השמש בגבורתו (Gittin 36b) Chazal heap praise on the person who can rejoice amidst yisurim. Why should someone rejoice when they are suffering when Chazal elsewhere (Shabbos 55a) tell us אין יסורין בלא עון? The fact that Hashem brings suffering on a person is an indication that they are on the wrong track, which is not something to be happy about!

The Tiferes Banim answers that yisurim may be painful, but there is cause for rejoicing in that Hashem shows that He cares enough to put a person back on the right track.

Our pasuk is describing a painful situation of a person who leaves the fold and gets a smack, but we have to accept the smack in the spirit of וְהָיָ֗ה, a lashon of simcha, because indifference would be worse than punishment.

concealed plans

2026-07-24T11:05:31.696-04:00

Yalkut Shimoni 814:

דָּבָר אַחֵר: אָמַר מֹשֶׁה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, עַצְמוֹתָיו שֶׁל יוֹסֵף נִכְנָסִין לָאָרֶץ וַאֲנִי אֵינִי נִכְנָס. אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, מִי שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּאַרְצוֹ, אֲדוֹנָתוֹ אָמְרַת לוֹ (בראשית ל״ט:י״ד) ״רְאוּ הֵבִיא לָנוּ אִישׁ עִבְרִי״ וְאֵינוֹ כוֹפֵר אֶלָּא אָמַר (שם מ׳:ט״ו) ״כִּי גֻּנֹב גֻּנַבְתִּי מֵאֶרֶץ הָעִבְרִים״, אַתָּה שֶׁלֹּא הוֹדֵיתָ בְּאַרְצְךָ, בְּנוֹת יִתְרוֹ אוֹמְרוֹת (שמות ב׳:י״ט) ״אִישׁ מִצְרִי הִצִּילָנוּ״ וְאַתָּה שׁוֹמֵעַ וְשׁוֹתֵק, לְפִיכָךְ אֵין אַתָּה נִקְבָּר בְּאַרְצְךָ

אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אִם אַתָּה נִקְבָּר אֶצְלָן, בִּזְכוּתְךָ הֵן בָאִין עִמְּךָ. מָשָׁל לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה לְאֶחָד שֶׁנִּתְפַּזְּרוּ מָעוֹתָיו בִּמְקוֹם אֲפֵלָה אָמַר אִם אֲנִי אוֹמֵר הָאִירוּ לִי שֶׁאֲלַקֵּט מָעוֹתַי אֵין כָּל בְּרִיָּה מַשְׁגַּחַת עָלַי, מֶה עָשָׂה, נָטַל זָהוּב אֶחָד וְהִשְׁלִיכוֹ בְּתוֹכָן וְהִתְחִיל צוֹוֵחַ וְאוֹמֵר בְּבַקָּשָׁה מִכֶּם, הָאִירוּ לִי, זָהוּב אֶחָד הָיָה לִי וְנָפַל מִמֶּנִּי, בָּאוּ וְהֵאִירוּ לוֹ, מֶה עָשָׂה, מִשֶּׁנָּטַל אֶת הַזָּהוּב לִקֵּט מָעוֹתָיו. כָּךְ אֲמַר לֵיהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אִם נִקְבָּר אַתָּה בַּמִּדְבָּר הֵן בָּאִים בִּזְכוּתְךָ וְאַתָּה בָּא בְרֹאשָׁן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַיַּרְא רֵאשִׁית לוֹ כִּי שָׁם חֶלְקַת מְח(וֹ)קֵק סָפוּן וַיֵּתֶא רָאשֵׁי עָם״.

There is not a "davar achier..." between the first half of the Midrash and the second. It's all one pshat, one answer as to why Moshe's bones (Moshe himself could not enter Eretz Yisrael because of the cheir of Mei Meriva; his question was why he could not even be buried there) could not be brought into Eretz Yisrael for burial like Yosef's. How do the two halves here connect? It sounds like each statement could stand on its own as a reason.

Moshe began his prayer to Hashem אַתָּ֤ה הַֽחִלּ֙וֹתָ֙ לְהַרְא֣וֹת אֶֽת־עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶ֨ת־גׇּדְלְךָ֔ וְאֶת־יָדְךָ֖ הַחֲזָקָ֑ה. The Baal haTurim points out that the only other occurrence of the term הַֽחִלּ֙וֹתָ֙ is in Megillas Esther, after Haman was forced to parade Mordechai around on the king's horse:

ויאמרו לו חכמיו וזרש אשתו אם מזרע היהודים מרדכי אשר החלות לנפל לפניו לא תוכל לו כי נפול תפול לפניו

Interestingly, the word לְהַרְא֣וֹת also appears only in Megillas Esther in two places:

להראות העמים והשרים את יפיה (1:11) when Vashti was ordered to appear

את פתשגן כתב הדת אשר נתן בשושן להשמידם נתן לו להראות את אסתר ולהגיד לה ולצוות עליה לבוא אל המלך להתחנן לו ולבקש מלפניו על עמה. (4:8) when Mordechai reveals to Esther what Haman is plotting and tells her that she must go and appeal to Achashveirosh.

How do the future events of the megillah connect to Moshe's tefillah in our parsha?

The Sanz Klausenberger in Shefa Chaim writes that had we been there to witness Esther being taken to the palace, we would have broken down in tears and called a kinus tefillah, a fast day, we would be singing "acheinu..." like for the hostages. 70 years seemed to have passed with no geulah, Achashveirosh's party was to celebrate our hopelessness, and now this happens for the icing on the cake. Yet that was not Mordechai's reaction at all.

וּבְכׇל יוֹם וָיוֹם מׇרְדֳּכַי מִתְהַלֵּךְ לִפְנֵי חֲצַר בֵּית הַנָּשִׁים לָדַעַת אֶת שְׁלוֹם אֶסְתֵּר וּמַה יֵּעָשֶׂה בָּהּ (2:11)

Mordechai every day visited the palace to check on what was going on and that's it.

Mordechai understood that as bad as things look, the midas ha'din always has rachamim couched within it. Something is going to happen. Something good is going to come out of this. He may not have anticipated exactly how things would work out, but he trusted that things would work out and it would be through Esther. What looks like the beginning of a tragedy is really the beginning of yeshu'a.

I think in the past I've quoted the Sefas Emes' comment on the pasuk ומרדכי ידע את כל אשר נעשה ויקרע מרדכי את בגדיו וילבש שק ואפר ויצא בתוך העיר ויזעק זעקה גדולה ומרה (4:1). Says the Sefas Emes, ומרדכי ידע את כל אשר נעשה, he knew that in Shamayim everything that happens is l'tov, everything is part of the yeshu'a. L'maaseh, the rest of us living on planet earth don't see it. Therefore, despite knowing that at the end of the day things would somehow work out, ויקרע מרדכי את בגדיו וילבש שק ואפר, Mordechai had to put on an act and behave like the rest of us and cry out in pain.

The gemara at the end of Makkos tells us that while everyone was crying, R' Akiva laughed when he saw foxes coming out of the makom mikdash. R' Akiva was able to see how behind even the greatest tragedy there is rachamim, even when invisible to everyone else.

This is what Moshe was saying as well. Hashem revealed Himself אֶ֨ת־גׇּדְלְךָ֔ וְאֶת־יָדְךָ֖ הַחֲזָקָ֑ה, with the midsa ha'din, but at the same time and in the very same action, it is את גדלך – זו מדת טובך, as Rashi explains. On the one hand, Moshe is begging for mercy, for an "out" on the gzar din, yet on the other hand, as the Baal haTurim comments, ואתחנן – בגימטריא שירה, he is singing shirah because he knows that if the gzar din stands, it is l'tovah as well, just in a more concealed way. Heads he wins, tails he wins. It's just a matter of how it will play out.

Let's get back to the Yalkut Shimoni. How can Moshe be blamed for the fact that the daughters of Yisro said to their father אִישׁ מִצְרִי הִצִּילָנו? He wasn't even there when they were speaking!

The Yismach Moshe quotes an amazing pshat from the Zohar on that pasuk of אִישׁ מִצְרִי הִצִּילָנו and even if you don't like anything else I wrote, you have to love this. The אִישׁ מִצְרִי is not talking about Moshe at all. The אִישׁ מִצְרִי is talking about the Mitzri in Egypt who raised his hand to strike a Jew, and as a result of that Moshe reacted and killed him with the Shem haMeforash, setting in motion the chain of events that would years later bring him to Yisro's house. The daughters of Yisro of course didn't realize they were saying this, but a spark of ruach ha'kodesh came into their mouths and the right words came out. It's that אִישׁ מִצְרִי who deserves the credit, because otherwise Moshe would not be there.

The bnos Yisro didn't know what they were saying, but their words and the real meaning behind them was revealed to Moshe. The significance of that Mitzri's actions would not be evident to an onlooker and is not even evident to us as we read it in chumash. From Moshe's perspective at that moment, his life was ruined. He was forced to leave the palace and become an outlaw. But in the long run, look at how events unfolded. Wow, if even this Mitzri who certainly had nothing of the sort in mind gets credit for saving the bnos Yisro, can you imagine the credit someone who goes into things trying to save people gets?

This is how the Yismach Moshe fits the two halves of the Yalkut together. For whatever reason, Hashem decided that the concealed rachamim of Moshe remaining outside Eretz Yisrael outweighs the benefit of the revealed rachamim he was requesting. Although not immediately apparent, this was the greater benefit to Klal Yisrael. Who are you, Moshe, to argue? Didn't I reveal to you the true meaning of אִישׁ מִצְרִי הִצִּילָנוּ? That Mitzri intended to harm, but nonetheless, he was the start of a chain of events that led to bnos Yisro being saved, and so he gets credit. Kal v'chomer if you stay in chu"l so as to enable future generation to experience redemption, how great will your credit be.

נַֽחֲמ֥וּ נַֽחֲמ֖וּ עַמִּ֑י יֹאמַ֖ר אֱלֹֽקיכֶֽם. The ultimate nechama will come from אֱלֹֽקיכֶֽם, the midas ha'din, when we are zocheh to see just how all the events that we experience as tragedies will be revealed as having been l'tovah.

singing despite the suffering

2026-07-22T18:57:33.208-04:00

1) The Rama paskens that on shabbos Chazon one should wear weekday clothes and not shabbos clothes. GR"A disagrees, as wearing weekday clothes would constitute public aveilus, which is not allowed on Shabbos. There are various explanations (e.g. see Aruch haShulchan) offered to try to justify the psak of the Rama. R' Moshe Shternbruch in his Moadim u'Zmanim suggests derech derush an idea based on a Chasam Sofer. The C.S., who followed the Rama's psak and wore weekday clothes on shabbos, was asked by a talmid why he did so, given that the AR"I disagrees (I don't know why the talmid thought the C.S. should have followed the AR"I over the Rama, but I'll leave that to those more familiar with minhagei C.S. than I am). The C.S. answered that the ARI felt the pain for churban in his heart 365x7, even when he was celebrating Shabbos and wearing his Shabbos finery. I, said the C.S., am not on that level. I have wear weekday clothes on Shabbos to arouse in myself the feelings of loss. In our times, says Rav Shternbruch, we are so desensitized to the loss of Beis haMikdash that even wearing weekday clothes on Shabbos will not awaken us, so what's the point in doing so.

I don't know how seriously to take R' Shternbruch's cynicism here. We have to try our best to be m'orer ourselves to feel something. Sadly, events like 10/7 have brought the suffering home and have awakened something in people who otherwise were very distant.

2) חֵ֤טְא חָֽטְאָה֙ יְר֣וּשָׁלַ֔͏ִם עַל־כֵּ֖ן לְנִידָ֣ה הָיָ֑תָה (Eicha 1:8)

The Midrash asks: ?אומות העולם אינן חוטאים Do we have a monopoly on sin?

Chazal answer: אלא אע"פ שחוטאין אינן כלום, אבל ישראל חטאו ולקו

What's pshat in the Midrash? Why should they get away with it and not us?

The Divrei Shaul gives a mashal to two garments, one made of cheap polyester and the other made of the finest silk. If you get a stain on the cheap polyester, first off, you might not even notice if it is a dark color, and second of all, you can throw it in the wash. EVen the slightest blemish, the slightest wrinkle, is immediately be noticeable in a fine fabric.

Klal Yisrael is like that fine silk garment. Davka because of its beauty and value, it can be spoiled. Davka because of its beauty and value, every defect is that much more noticeable. חֵ֤טְא חָֽטְאָה֙ יְר֣וּשָׁלַ֔͏ִם, which is the greatest city in the world, and therefore, עַל־כֵּ֖ן לְנִידָ֣ה הָיָ֑תָה.

One can perhaps offer a slightly different answer. Kesubos 66b tells the tragic story of the daughter of the wealthy Nakdimon ben Guryon whose kesubah was worth millions of dollars, but at the time of the churban she was reduced to picking through animal dung to look for food. R’ Yochanan ben Zakai exclaimed, “Ashreichem Yisrael! When the Jewish people obey G-d’s will there is no greater nation, but when they fail to obey G-d's will not only are they subjugated to the lowest nation, but they are lower even than that nation’s animals”.

As we've discussed before, Maharal asks: Neicha that R’ Yochanan ben Zakai would exclaim “ashreichem yisrael” at the glory of Nakdimon’s wealth, but why exclaim “ashreichem yisrael” over the tragedy of the downfall of Klal Yisrael?

Maharal answers that davka the immensity of the downfall speaks to the greatness of Klal Yisrael. To go from lofty heights to such depths, a complete 180 m'igra rama l'beira amikta, cannot be by chance. It must be that our history is guided by yad Hashem. When we become consumed by gashmiyus, we lose out identity and fall to nothing. When we are doing what we are supposed to do and are connected to Hashem, we are on top of the world.

Because of the greatness of Yerushalayim in being so close to Hashem's heart, kavyachol, therefore, עַל־כֵּ֖ן לְנִידָ֣ה הָיָ֑תָה, it's downfall, like that of the daughter of Nakdimon, was so drastic when punishment was called for. By the other nations, אע"פ שחוטאין אינן כלום, because it is the whims of history that determine their fate, not hashgacha, not direct up close and personal, kavyachol, schar v'onesh. Hashem lets the chips fall where they may; He does not take a "personal interest," if you will, in the outcome. In our case, Hashem takes our fate in hand. אבל ישראל חטאו ולקו directly through the yad Hashem, not some chance of history.

3) Chazal tell us that when Nevuchatnetzar witnessed Chanaya, Misha'el, and Azarya's escape from the burning oven that he had thrown them into, he began to sing songs of praise to Hashem that rivelled the praises of David haMelech in Tehillim. When it reached the point that his praise was on the verge of surpassing David's a malach came down from shamayim and slapped him across the face, which put a stop to his song.

Is Hashem playing favorites? So what if Nevuchadnetzar would surpass David? If his praises are greater, and he deserves the #1 spot, so be it!

The Kotzker explained that the malach did not come down to stop Nevuchatnetzar. The malach came down to test if indeed he was on David's level. David haMelech's life was filled with tzaros. He had problems from Shaul, he had problems from his children, his great dream of building the mikdash went unfulfilled. It was a hard life, but he sang Tehillim throughout.

Nevuchtnetzar witnessed Hashem's greatness in saving Chananya, Mishael, and Azarya from pain. Under those circumstances, it's easy to sing songs of praise to Hashem. The malacha came down and gave him a slap, just a little taste of the pain that David experienced, and said, "Let's see if you still sing praises now."

Nevuchadnetzar, of course, did not.

From the suffering of the churban to the suffering of 10/7, we, like David, continue to sing praises to Hashem in spite of our pain, in spite of our suffering, ad bi'as go'el.

open your eyes to reality

2026-07-16T12:16:54.356-04:00

A couple of years ago I cited the Malbim's pshat in חֲזוֹן֙ יְשַֽׁעְיָ֣הוּ בֶן־אָמ֔וֹץ אֲשֶׁ֣ר חָזָ֔ה עַל־יְהוּדָ֖ה וִירֽוּשָׁלָ֑‍ִם בִּימֵ֨י עֻזִּיָּ֧הוּ יוֹתָ֛ם אָחָ֥ז יְחִזְקִיָּ֖הוּ מַלְכֵ֥י יְהוּדָֽה׃. The pasuk doesn't mean that Yeshayahu prophesized during the reign of these kings. What it means is that this prophecy, which we read Shabbos chazon, was repeated again and again. He said it in the days of Uziyahu and was ignored; he said it in the days of Yotam and was ignored; he repeated it for Achaz and Chizkiyahu.

This is not a new phenomenon. We have it in our parsha as well.

אֵ֣לֶּה הַדְּבָרִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר דִּבֶּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־כׇּל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל בְּעֵ֖בֶר הַיַּרְדֵּ֑ן בַּמִּדְבָּ֡ר בָּֽעֲרָבָה֩ מ֨וֹל ס֜וּף בֵּֽין־פָּארָ֧ן וּבֵֽין־תֹּ֛פֶל וְלָבָ֥ן וַחֲצֵרֹ֖ת וְדִ֥י זָהָֽב

אַחַ֨ד עָשָׂ֥ר יוֹם֙ מֵֽחֹרֵ֔ב דֶּ֖רֶךְ הַר־שֵׂעִ֑יר עַ֖ד קָדֵ֥שׁ בַּרְנֵֽעַ

The way Rashi explains the pesukim is the first pasuk is the start of the tochacha. Each place name is a rebuke -- look what you did wrong here, and here, and here. Not only that, but -- second pasuk --Hashem rushed you through an 11 day journey in only 3 days to speed you to Eretz Yisrael, and rather than appreciate it, you blew it.

The Seforno, however, explains the pesukim as follows:

זֶה כִּי כָּל ל״ח שָׁנָה שֶׁהֱנִיעָם בַּמִּדְבָּר אָנֶה וָאָנָה לֹא הָלְכוּ בְּדֶרֶךְ יָשָׁר מְכֻוָּן אֶל מָקוֹם נוֹדָע, וּכְשֶׁהָיוּ מַגִּיעִים אֶל מָקוֹם אֲשֶׁר מִשָּׁם הָיוּ נָעִים וְחוֹזְרִים לַאֲחוֹרֵיהֶם אוֹ לַצְּדָדִין וְלֹא בְּדֶרֶךְ יָשָׁר, הָיָה מֹשֶׁה אוֹמֵר לָהֶם: רְאוּ מַה גְּרַמְתֶּם, שֶׁהֲרֵי מַהֲלַךְ ״אַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם״ יֵשׁ ״מֵחֹרֵב... עַד קָדֵשׁ בַּרְנֵעַ...

Meaning, every time Bn"Y took a zig instead of a zag in the midbar and moved further away from Eretz Yisrael, every time there was a revolt, a complaint, a challenge, at each and every stop Moshe repeated the exact same speech: אַחַ֨ד עָשָׂ֥ר יוֹם֙ מֵֽחֹרֵ֔ב דֶּ֖רֶךְ הַר־שֵׂעִ֑יר עַ֖ד קָדֵ֥שׁ בַּרְנֵֽעַ. We just had a few days journey and we could have been there! All the complaints, all the zigging and zagging through the desert, it all could have been avoided. Now, after the fact, deal with it.

Moshe, Yeshayahu, and on and on. We've been hearing the same speech for 2000 years.

2) After the meraglim returned and gave their bad report, the parsha relates that Bn"Y gave up hope:

אָנָ֣ה׀ אֲנַ֣חְנוּ עֹלִ֗ים אַחֵ֩ינוּ֩ הֵמַ֨סּוּ אֶת־לְבָבֵ֜נוּ לֵאמֹ֗ר עַ֣ם גָּד֤וֹל וָרָם֙ מִמֶּ֔נּוּ עָרִ֛ים גְּדֹלֹ֥ת וּבְצוּרֹ֖ת בַּשָּׁמָ֑יִם וְגַם־בְּנֵ֥י עֲנָקִ֖ים רָאִ֥ינוּ שָֽׁם׃

Moshe responded (1:29-32):

וָאֹמַ֖ר אֲלֵכֶ֑ם לֹא־תַעַרְצ֥וּן וְלֹא־תִֽירְא֖וּן מֵהֶֽם

ה׳ אֱלֹֽקיכֶם֙ הַהֹלֵ֣ךְ לִפְנֵיכֶ֔ם ה֖וּא יִלָּחֵ֣ם לָכֶ֑ם כְּ֠כֹ֠ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר עָשָׂ֧ה אִתְּכֶ֛ם בְּמִצְרַ֖יִם לְעֵינֵיכֶֽם׃

וּבַמִּדְבָּר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר רָאִ֔יתָ אֲשֶׁ֤ר נְשָׂאֲךָ֙ ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר יִשָּׂא־אִ֖ישׁ אֶת־בְּנ֑וֹ בְּכׇל־הַדֶּ֙רֶךְ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הֲלַכְתֶּ֔ם עַד־בֹּאֲכֶ֖ם עַד־הַמָּק֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה

וּבַדָּבָ֖ר הַזֶּ֑ה אֵֽינְכֶם֙ מַאֲמִינִ֔ם בַּה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶֽם

What is the ַדָּבָ֖ר הַזֶּ֑ה that the final pasuk is referring to? Rashi, and many other meforshim following in his footsteps, explains שהוא מבטיחכם להביאכם אל הארץ

The problem with that interpretation is that a pronoun needs an antecedent. None of the previous pesukim are speaking about the promise of coming to Eretz Yisrael, so how can הַזֶּ֑ה be referring to that? Abarbanel explains the ָּבדָּבָ֖ר הַזֶּ֑ה is the sending of the spies, and the pasuk means that by sending spies, you have proven your lack of belief. The antecedent is not the immediately preceding pesukim, but is at least closer.

Ohr haChaim connects the phrase to what came just before it:

צריך לדעת כוונת אומרו ובדבר הזה, ורש״י ז״ל פי׳ על הבטחת ביאת הארץ הוא מדבר, ואין נראה כן אלא כפשט הכתוב

שעל ניסי מדבר הוא אשר נשאם ה׳ כאשר ישא איש את בנו שגם בדבר הזה אינם מאמינים

Hashem tended to you like a parent tends to a child, caring for your every need, and yet you ignore it.

There is an amazing Noam Elimelech that, although he doesn't mention it, is the follow up to this pshat of the Ohr haChaim. If the O.C. is right, then what does אֵֽינְכֶם֙ מַאֲמִינִ֔ם mean? B'shlama according to Rashi, you have to have faith that Hashem will deliver the goods and that they will get to Eretz Yisrael. However, if the pasuk is speaking about what happened in the desert, the people saw the ananei ha'kavod, they saw the mon, they drank from the be'er of Miriam. What do they need emunah for? It's like Rav Shach in Avi Ezri who writes that he was always bothered by the question of why there is a mitzvah of emunah when any thinking person who uses his reason can see that G-d exists. Here Bn"Y didn't even need to think -- כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר יִשָּׂא־אִ֖ישׁ אֶת־בְּנ֑וֹ was their lived experience. You don't need to believe what you can see with your eyes.

The Noam Elimelech answers:

אך כשאדם הולך בגשמיות ועניני עוה"ז יום יום, עי"ז הוא נתגשם כ"כ שאפילו הניסים והנפלאות הנגלים והנראים בחוש הראות אינו מאמין, וזהו שהוכיח אותם אף שקלקלתם ואמרתם "אחינו המסו כו'", היה לכם להאמין ע"י הניסים שראיתם בחוש, העמוד אש וענן ההולך לפניכם, "ובדבר הזה אינכם מאמינים", ר"ל ואתם אפילו הניסים הנגלים, דהיינו עמוד אש וענן שאתם רואים, אינכם מאמינים מחמת שאתם מגושמים כ"כ,

A person can become so immersed in olam ha'zeh, in gashmiyus, that he can see miracles right in front of his eyes and still not believe that is the reality. Instead, he will believe his own world of dimyonos.

R' Elchanan answered the question Rav Shach raises by suggesting that of course someone with a thinking head will understand that Hashem exists, but it's not so simple to have a clear, thinking head. A person can be lead astray by temptation. The NE is going even a step further. Not only can a person be led to muddled thinking, but he will call into question even that which he experiences first hand.

"Do you believe the meraglim or your lying eyes?" to paraphrase Marx. Sadly, we believed the meraglim.

The Ar"I writes that the month of Tamuz and Av correspond to the right and left eyes, whatever that means. עַל־אֵ֣לֶּה אֲנִ֣י בֽוֹכִיָּ֗ה עֵינִ֤י עֵינִי֙ יֹ֣רְדָה מַּ֔יִם. We sadly prefer to look away and retreat into the world of dimyonos. The Berdichiver writes that it is called shabbos chazon because on this shabbos each and every one of us is shown vision of what the geulah will look like. ק֥וֹל צֹפַ֛יִךְ נָ֥שְׂאוּ ק֖וֹל יַחְדָּ֣ו יְרַנֵּ֑נוּ כִּ֣י עַ֚יִן בְּעַ֙יִן֙ יִרְא֔וּ בְּשׁ֥וּב ה׳ צִיּֽוֹן (Yeshayahu 52:8). You don't need emunah in geulah. You just need to open your eyes.

difference between meat/wine and laundry/haircuts right after the fast

2026-07-16T11:57:02.196-04:00

The SA writes in 558:

בְּתִשְׁעָה בְּאָב לְעֵת עֶרֶב הִצִּיתוּ אֵשׁ בַּהֵיכָל וְנִשְׂרַף עַד שְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה בְּיוֹם עֲשִׂירִי, וּמִפְּנֵי כָּךְ מִנְהָג כָּשֵׁר שֶׁלֹּא לֶאֱכֹל בָּשָׂר וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁתּוֹת יַיִן בְּלֵיל עֲשִׂירִי וְיוֹם עֲשִׂירִי. {הַגָּה: וְיֵשׁ מַחְמִירִין עַד חֲצוֹת הַיּוֹם וְלֹא יוֹתֵר

The MB comments:

ה״ה שלא לרחוץ במרחץ ולספר ולכבס עד חצות

Yet if you look earlier in 551:4 it says you are allowed to do laundry and get a haircut right after the fast ends:

לְאַחַר הַתַּעֲנִית מֻתָּר לְסַפֵּר וּלְכַבֵּס מִיָּד.

The MB there comments on the spot:

עיין לקמן סימן תקנ״ח באחרונים דמצד מנהגא יש ליזהר בזה ביום עשירי עד חצות היום:

What he is saying is that the SA in 551 basically neglected to tell us about the minhag of waiting until chatzos that he will mention a few simanim later in 558, but read one in light of the other.

There is a simpler solution that reads the SA k'peshuto. Meat, wine, laundry, and haircuts are not all the same. In 551, the SA is speaking only about laundry and haircuts; these activities are permitted starting immediately after the fast. In 558, the SA is speaking about eating meat and drinking wine; one cannot partake of these until chatzos of the 10th.

Why should there be a difference between them? Rav BenTzion Aba Shaul explains (vol 3 of Ohr l'Tzion #29) that the issur to have wine and meat have nothing to do with aveilus. Someone who is an aveil can eat meat. The reason we don't eat them is because korbanos were meat; nesachim were wine offerings. The issur is to help us mark the loss of avodah in beis hamikdash. Haircuts and washing are nihugei aveilus. Once 9 Av ends, the aveilus is lifted, but our commemoration of the avodah that was lost continues until the next day, as it was on the night of the 9th and into the 10th that the mikdash was burned.

Another nafka minah based on this same idea: when 9 Av falls out on Sunday, if a person has to eat, can he say havdalah on wine? During the 9 days one is allowed the drink wine for the sake of a mitzvah, including havdalah (the minhag of beer for havdalah is fraught with complications that are a different discussion). However, Rav Elyashiv and others held that the same is not true on 9 Av itself. Just like m'dina d'gemara we do not allow wine in seudah ha'mafseket as a remembrance to the korbanos and nesachim, the same is true on 9 Av itself. Even if the dinim of the taanis are suspended for the choleh, the din of having this remembrance for the korbanos remains in effect.

arei miklat and the protection of Torah

2026-07-10T09:43:36.554-04:00

Three of the six arei miklat were located in Eiver haYarden. Rashi (35:14) asks: given that the majority of Bn"Y lived in Eretz Yisrael, wouldn't it make sense for a majority of the arei miklat to be located there? Why should fully half of the arei milkat be located in Eiver haYarden when far less than half the population was located there?

Rashi answers that even though Eiver haYarden contained a minority of the population, it contained a greater number of murderers than elsewhere:

אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן תִּשְׁעָה שְׁבָטִים וְכָאן אֵינָן אֶלָּא שְׁנַיִם וָחֵצִי, הִשְׁוָה מִנְיַן עָרֵי הַמִּקְלָט שֶׁלָּהֶם, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְגִלְעָד נְפִישֵׁי רוֹצְחִים, דִּכְתִיב (הושע ו') גִּלְעָד קִרְיַת פֹּעֲלֵי אָוֶן עֲקֻבָּה מִדָּם

Ramban questions how this makes sense. Arei miklat are meant only for those who kill b'shogeg, not for actual murder. If there were more criminal murderers in Eiver haYarden, why would that necessitate more arei miklat?

He answers that although they were killing with intent, the criminals tried to pass themselves off as mere shogegim and ran to the arei miklat for refuge. היו שופכי דמים במרמה ומראין עצמן כשוגגין והוצרך להרבות להם ערי מקלט לקלוט את כולן שלא נודע מי המזיד. Therefore, a greater number of cities were needed.

Maharal does not like this answer. If Ramban is right, adding arei miklat only incentivizes the criminals because now they have a place to turn for refuge to escape. Were there fewer or even no arei miklat, the murder rate would drop, as the criminals, having no place to run, would think twice before acting. It's like providing benefits to illegal aliens. The more you give, the more illegals will enter the country because you are incentivizing the bad behavior.

To explain Rashi, let's backtrack for a moment and define what shogeg means. It does not mean "accident." That would be ones, and a person does not go to miklat for an accident. I don't know if we have a single word in English that captures just what shogeg is. Unintentional or inadvertent is part of it. It is a situation where a person is at least partially at fault, whether due to negligence, not taking proper precaution, or directly through their action, but it does not rise to the same degree of fault as a deliberate, willful act. This is why a person must bring a korban chatas for certain shogeg violations, e.g. a person ate what he thought was kosher meat and it turned out to be cheilev. The Rishonim explain that had the person been more careful, he would have realized the meat is cheilev and not eaten it. The violation was not deliberate, but it was borne out of carelessness and inattention that a persons bears responsibility for and deserves some punishment for. The same is true for cases of dea by shogeg. In those cases, the punishment is banishment to one of the arei miklat.

Maharal says a yesod: a culture of wrongdoing will breed wrongdoing. Because גִּלְעָד קִרְיַת פֹּעֲלֵי אָוֶן עֲקֻבָּה מִדָּם, there was a culture of criminal activity, a culture of murder, human life was cheapened. Even if one is not a crim inal and would not r"l dream of committing murder, a person immersed in that culture inevitably will become careless and callous when it comes even to matters of human life. That is precisely the climate in which shogeg can thrive. That's why more arei miklat were needed.

2) The gemara (Makos 10a) darshes from pesukim later in Devarim that just as the arei miklat are koleit, so too are divrei Torah koltim:

א"ר יוחנן הרב שגלה מגלין ישיבתו עמו איני והא א"ר יוחנן מנין לדברי תורה שהן קולטין שנאמר את בצר במדבר וגו' [וכתיב בתריה] וזאת התורה לא קשיא הא בעידנא דעסיק בה הא בעידנא דלא עסיק בה ואי בעית אימא מאי קולטין ממלאך המות כי הא דרב חסדא הוה יתיב וגריס בבי רב ולא הוה קא יכול שליחא [דמלאכא דמותא] למיקרב לגביה דלא הוה שתיק פומיה מגירסא סליק ויתיב אארזא דבי רב פקע ארזא ושתיק ויכיל ליה

The gemara illustrates the point with a story about the malach ha'maves' inability to touch Rav Chisda so long as he was learning.

R' Akiva Eiger in the gilyos sends you to a gemara in Shabbos 30b about David haMelech, who was told he would die on Shabbos but was also immune from the malach ha'maves so long as he was learning:

כל יומא דשבתא הוה יתיב וגריס כולי יומא ההוא יומא דבעי למינח נפשיה קם מלאך המות קמיה ולא יכיל ליה דלא הוה פסק פומיה מגירסא אמר מאי אעביד ליה הוה ליה בוסתנא אחורי ביתיה אתא מלאך המות סליק ובחיש באילני נפק למיחזי הוה סליק בדרגא איפחית דרגא מתותיה אישתיק ונח נפשיה

RAK"E give you the mareh makom because he is prodding you to ask a question. Why does the gemara in makkos need to illustrate the point with a story about an amora Rav Chisda when it could illustrate the same point from this story with David that happened much earlier?

Maharasha in makkos comments: וה"נ ה"מ לאתויי מהך עובדא דפ' ב"מ דוד כל יומא דשבתא הוה יתיב וגריס כולי יומא כו' ולא יכיל ליה דלא הוה פסק פומיה מגירסא You're right. The gemara could have just as well quoted the story about David haMelech, but it arbitrarily chose the episode with Rav Chisda.

Maharasha does not see any distinction between the stories, but R' Eliyahu Baruch from the Mir suggested that there is a distinction, one that is also suggested by R' Bakst, and which Rav Shach was so impressed with that he was kicking himself for not thinking of it.

The Midrash tells us that Adam haRishon was shown the entire history of humankind. In that vision, he saw the soul of David haMelech, who was destined to come down to the world for just a few hours and then die as a baby. Adam was so moved by the lost potential of David not having the opportunity to leave any mark on the world that he donated 70 years of his life to David. This is why Adam lived only 930 years instead of an even 1000 (my wife makes fun of me because I like round numbers, but here's a Midrash that takes my side. It should be 1000 -- what's with 930?).

When Hashem told David that his time was up on that Shabbos, it was not because David had done anything wrong, certainly nothing that would make him deserving of death. David was on borrowed, undeserved time from day 1 of his life. It just so happened that those 70 years that he had been given as a gift were up on that Shabbos.

The same is obviously not true of Rav Chisda, who lived a normal life and whose death came about based on his own merits/demerits in shamayim.

This is why the gemara uses the story of Rav Chisda, and not David, as its proof. The gemara is establishing that just like the ir miklat affords refuge and protection for someone who has done wrong, so too Torah. That lesson cannot be learned from David, who died only because his 70 year gift was up, not because of any wrongdoing. That lesson can only be learned when speaking about a "normal" person.

R' Elya Baruch proves his sevara from a beautiful diyuk in Rashi, who comments on the gemara in Shabbos:

הוה יתיב וגריס - שלא יקרב מלאך המות אליו שהתורה מגינה ממות כדאמרינן בסוטה (דף כא.)

The gemara in Sotah writes that the protection of Torah exceeds that of mitzvos:

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מִצְוָה, בְּעִידָּנָא דְּעָסֵיק בָּהּ — מַגְּנָא וּמַצְּלָא, בְּעִידָּנָא דְּלָא עָסֵיק בָּהּ — אַגּוֹנֵי מַגְּנָא, אַצּוֹלֵי לָא מַצְּלָא. תּוֹרָה, בֵּין בְּעִידָּנָא דְּעָסֵיק בָּהּ וּבֵין בְּעִידָּנָא דְּלָא עָסֵיק בָּהּ — מַגְּנָא וּמַצְּלָא

But why would Rashi send you to that gemara and not to the sugya in Makkos where the gemara spells out clearly, based on what happened to Rav Chisda, that Torah protects even from the malach ha'maves? Isn't that sugya a perfect fit to what the gemara in Shabbos is talking about?

It must be that there is a distinction between the sugyos. The protection the gemara in Makkos is speaking about is a different type of protection than the one in the sugya in Shabbos.

There is another distinction that is meduyak in the gemara. When speaking about Rav Chisda, the gemara states that the malach ha'maves distracted him for a moment so he stopped learning, and was then able to take him on the spot, he dropped dead right by his shtender. The gemara in Shabbos writes that the malach ha'maves drew David haMelech *away* from his shtender and into the garden and then was able to take him. Apparently the protection afforded David enveloped and sanctified even the spot in which he was learning, so it was only after he moved away from that area, away from his shtender, that the malach ha'maves had power.

We are approaching chodesh Av. "Al mah avdah ha'aretz?" Chazal tell us that the churban happened because Bn"Y did not recite birchas haTorah. The Ran explains that there was a deficiency in their learning lishma. Torah is our shield and protection. Of course we need hishtadlus in all the normal ways, but above and beyond that, we need to envelop ourselves in the great power מַגְּנָא וּמַצְּלָא of Torah.

hate and love that eclipse all else; reward is only when you go the extra mile

2026-07-03T08:52:49.861-04:00

Kozbi bas Tzur was a Midianite princess. Rashi writes that We see the degree of hatred Midian had for Bn"Y from the fact they were willing to sacrifice even their nobility to the goal of causing Bn"Y to be chotei. R' Shtienman in his Ayeles haShachar points out that the people of Midian were maaminim. They accepted that Hashem would be angered at Bn"Y's actions and take care of them. If Midyan believed in Hashem and knew he would be angered by arayos, then doesn't it follow that Hashem would also be angry at them for hatching such a plan?

We see that a person can be so bent on bringing someone else down that they lose sight of the fact that in doing so their own actions are a far cry from causing nachas ruach to Hashem. Apply as you will to current events.

We have almost the flipside of this attitude in the parsha. Pinchas gets a huge reward for curbing Hashem's anger against Bn"Y and bringing a mageifa to a halt. פִּֽינְחָ֨ס בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָ֜ר בֶּן־אַֽהֲרֹ֣ן הַכֹּהֵ֗ן הֵשִׁ֤יב אֶת־חֲמָתִי֙ מֵעַ֣ל בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל בְּקַנְא֥וֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִ֖י בְּתוֹכָ֑ם וְלֹֽא־כִלִּ֥יתִי אֶת־בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בְּקִנְאָתִֽי: The Agra d'Kallah is medayek that 2 times the pasuk mentions ּ בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל, but in the middle it doesn't mention their name, it just says בְּתוֹכָ֑ם. The pasuk could just as well have ended וְלֹֽא־כִלִּ֥יתִי אותם, or could just as well have said in the beginning הֵשִׁ֤יב אֶת־חֲמָתִי֙ מעליהם. Why does it repeat the name of Bn"Y unnecessarily 2x and then leave it out? He answers that the pasuk uses the full name בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל when speaking about Bn"Y being saved in order to emphasize that in essence, Bn"Y is pure and does not deserve punishment. That's their identity. When it comes to the middle of the pasuk where it speaks about בְּקַנְא֥וֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִ֖י for what they did wrong, the pasuk switches to a pronoun, to a kinuy, because when it comes to doing wrong, that's not us, that's not our identity or who we are. Then he adds an additional point:

עוד תתבונן בפסוק אהבת הבורא ית' לישראל, הגם שפנחס קינא קנאת הש"י, לא עשה הש"י מזה עיקר, רק להיות שנמשך עבור קנאתו הצלת ישראל, זה הוחשב לו לעיקר הזכות, וזה יורה באומרו השיב את חמתי מעל בני ישראל בקנאו וכו' ולא כליתי וכו' לכן אמור וכו' (במדבר כה יב), כי זה הוא העיקר אשר מצא חן בעיני, וחש הבורא ית' על כבוד בניו יותר מכבודו

The ַקַנְא֥וֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִ֖י is not the reason for the reward of Pinchas. The reason for the reward is הֵשִׁ֤יב אֶת־חֲמָתִי֙ מֵעַ֣ל בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל and וְלֹֽא־כִלִּ֥יתִי אֶת־בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל. The קַנְא֥וֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִ֖י is just the means to that end.

Hashem kavyachol turns a blind eye to his own kavod and instead places the emphasis on Bn"Y being saved, because His love of Bn"Y kavyachol outweighs all else.

Midian is all about hatred blinding a person to their lack of kavod shamayim. Pinchas' reward speak about Hashem's love outweighing even kavod Shamayim. Opposite attitudes.

2) Pinchas saved Klal Yisrael and got this great reward. Tremendous! But didn't Moshe do that for 40 years? Didn't Aharon in parshas Korach bring a stop to a mageifa by offering ketores? Where is the applause for them, where is the special reward of a bris?

I saw a beautiful answer. Moshe and Aharon were the leaders of Klal Yisrael. As leaders, they are supposed to stand up for their constituents, for the people. That's their job. You don't get extra rewards for doing your job. Pinchas wasn't even a kohen (according to some shitos) yet. He had no responsibility to stand up for anyone. For him to step forward and take the bull by the horns, risking his life along the way, is above and beyond the call of duty. That's why he gets reward.

korban musaf on shabbos and lechem mishneh

2026-07-03T08:41:54.401-04:00

Around 2-3 weeks ago someone asked me whether a double portion of mon fell before Yom Tov and I pointed them to Tos in Beitzah 2b the end of d"h v'haya:

תימה דכאן משמע שהמן לא היה יורד בי"ט כדפי' רש"י הששי הראוי להכנה וזהו בחול והא אמר ויברך ויקדש ברכו במן וקדשו במן שבשבת לא היה יורד מן אבל בי"ט היה יורד וי"ל דמדרשים חלוקין כדאיתא במדרש (מכילתא פ' בשלח) שבת לא יהיה (שמות טז) לרבות יום הכפורים לא יהיה בו לרבות י"ט שלא היה יורד בהן מן ועי"ל דאפי' היה יורד בי"ט מ"מ בי"ט שחל להיות בע"ש לא היה יורד מדכתיב קרא בו ביום הששי ולא כתיב ששי משמע הששי המיוחד שהוא ראוי להכנה ולא בששי שהוא יו"ט

The problem is that there are 2 halachos that we learn from the mon: 1) the requirement to have lechem mishneh to commemorate the double portion of mon; 2) we eat seudah shlishis on shabbos because there were 2 portions of mon left to eat on that day. If a double portion of mon fell for Y"T like shabbos, and therefore we require lechem mishneh on Y"T, then shouldn't we also have to eat seudah shlishis on Y"T?

Be that as it may, the reason I bring this topic up is because of the Daas Zekeinim/Hadar Zekeinim's explanation based on Midrash of why there are 2 sheep offered for the korban musaf on Shabbos:

כל מעשים של שבת כפולים. שירו כפול מזמור שיר ליום השבת. תענוגו כפול וקראת לשבת עונג ולקדוש ה׳ מכובד. עונשו כפול מחלליה מות יומת. לחמו כפול לחם משנה. קרבנותיו כפולים שני כבשים. וזהו שאנחנו אומרים ותצונו ה׳ אלהינו להקריב בה קרבן מוסף שבת כראוי לו.

The Ohr haChaim similarly comments:

טעם שמוסף שבת הוא מועט מכל מוספי ראש חודש ומוספי יום טוב והמועדים, הוא סוד לחם משנה

If you know what he means by "sod lechem mishneh," I guess keep it a secret.

The Abarbanel is having none of this:

ואמנם למה היה מוסף השבת שני כבשים כתמידין כתבו מאחרוני המפרשים שמפני שבשבת דבורו כפול זכור ושמור לכן היה קרבנו שני כבשי׳ כנגד שני הדבורים שנאמרו עליו ואינו נכון. כי הנה זכור ושמור בדבור אחד נאמרו

His explanation is that the 2 sheep correspond to the 2 reasons for shabbos, 1) zecher l'maaseh braishis; 2) zecher l'yetzi'as Mitzrayim, or they correspond to 1) the act of creation; 2) Hashem's hashgacha in maintaining creation.

In the sefer V'Darashta v'Chakarta (telita'ah, question #5 on the parsha), R' Grossman asks: if bringing 2 sheep corresponds to the doubling of the portion of mon, to the "sod lechem mishneh" as the Ohr haChaim puts it, then since a double portion also fell for Y"T shouldn't Y"T have the same korban as Shabbos?

B'mechilas k'vodo, I don't understand the question. Putting aside that whether the double potion fell for Y"T is a machlokes I still don't get it. Maybe ain hachi nami, if there was no other reason for the musafim on Y"T, they would be the same as those of Shabbos. But there are other reasons! Because a double portion of mon fell for Y"T doesn't preclude our offering more korbanos to celebrate and recognize other aspects of Y"T that do not apply on shabbos. Why should the "sod lechem mishneh" be dominant and push off the very good reasons (whatever they are -- see the various meforshim) we might have for offering an increased number of korbanos on Y"T?

To answer his questioh he suggests that there is a difference between the way the mon fell before shabbos vs the way it fell before Y"T. Before shabbos the people would gather one portion of mon which would then miraculously double in size and they would find that they had twice as much as they had gathered. Before Y"T, they would gather a double portion, i.e. twice as much as on a normal day.

It's like l'mashal 2 people who beis din paskens have to pay $200. One has to pay $200 because they stole $100 and now have to pay keifel = $200. The other has to pay $200 because they took a loan and owe $200. That $200 is all keren, not keifel. Shabbos is keifel, is one portion turned into two. Y"T is a double portion k'peshuto, meaning the people gathered twice as much as they did on an ordinary day.

Unfortunately he does not quote any proofs to this assertion in this piece, but references what he wrote elsewhere in a piece that I have been unable to location online.

24x7 protection -- kri'as shema and parshas balak

2026-06-26T09:36:32.301-04:00

Rav Shlomo Fisher (Derashos Beis Yishei) points out an interesting remez in the names Balak ben Tzipor and Bilam ben Be'or. The name Tzipor hints to the morning, like the Aramaic word tzafra. The name Be'or has the same letters as the word erev, evening. Bilam's power was limited to the night. לינו פּה הלילה he tells the messengers who come to ellicit his help. Balak, on the other hand, took charge in the morning. וַיְהִ֣י בַבֹּ֔קֶר וַיִּקַּ֤ח בָּלָק֙ אֶת־בִּלְעָ֔ם וַיַּֽעֲלֵ֖הוּ בָּמ֣וֹת בָּ֑עַל וַיַּ֥רְא מִשָּׁ֖ם קְצֵ֥ה הָעָֽם: (22:41). The Ohr haChaim, whose yahrzeit is this upcoming week, asks why the pasuk specifies the time in which this event happened. He quotes a Zohar that the sorcery of Balak involved birds, and this is why he was called Tzipor. Therefore, he was up early in the morning when the birds start chirping (OC gives a few other explanations). Whether the birds were the sibah of his power or just a siman for the start of the day, either way, we see this link between Balak and the morning. This is why Bilam and Balak wanted to pair up. Each one was the missing that half of the day that the other one needed.

Klal Yisrael fortunately has the antidote to their power. הֶן־עָם֙ כְּלָבִ֣יא יָק֔וּם וְכַֽאֲרִ֖י יִתְנַשָּׂ֑א לֹ֤א יִשְׁכַּב֙ עַד־יֹ֣אכַל טֶ֔רֶף וְדַם־חֲלָלִ֖ים יִשְׁתֶּֽה (24:24). Rashi comments: הֶן־עָם כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם וגו'. כְּשֶׁהֵן עוֹמְדִין מִשְּׁנָתָם שַׁחֲרִית, הֵן מִתְגַּבְּרִין כְּלָבִיא וְכַאֲרִי לַחֲטֹף אֶת הַמִּצְוֹת — לִלְבֹּשׁ טַלִּית, לִקְרֹא אֶת שְׁמַע וּלְהָנִיחַ תְּפִלִּין: We start the morning enveloping ourselves in mitzvos, but we don't stop there. לֹא יִשְׁכַּב. בַּלַּיְלָה עַל מִטָּתוֹ עַד שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֵל וּמְחַבֵּל כָּל מַזִּיק הַבָּא לְטָרְפוֹ, כֵּיצַד? קוֹרֵא אֶת שְׁמַע עַל מִטָּתוֹ וּמַפְקִיד רוּחוֹ בְּיַד הַמָּקוֹם We end the day by connecting ourselves with Hashem as well. Whether it is morning or night, there is not a time that we are separated from Hashem.

The gemara in Brachos (12) says that Chazal thought about requiring us to read parshas Balak every day like kri'as shema: אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ בֶּן זוּטַרְתִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר זְבִידָא: בִּקְּשׁוּ לִקְבּוֹעַ פָּרָשַׁת בָּלָק בִּקְרִיאַת שְׁמַע, וּמִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא קְבָעוּהָ — מִשּׁוּם טוֹרַח צִבּוּר. Our parsha, which shows that special connection to Hashem day and night would be paired with shema read day and night. The gemara explains:

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין, מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ הַאי קְרָא: ״כָּרַע שָׁכַב כַּאֲרִי וּכְלָבִיא מִי יְקִימֶנּוּ״.

Rashi writes:

כרע שכב – דדמי לבשכבך ובקומך שהקדוש ב"ה שומרנו בשכבנו ובקומנו לשכב שלוים ושקטים כארי וכלביא:

Maharasha, however, quotes a different girsa from the Tanchuma:

ושוב מצאתי בתנחומא דמייתי קרא דלעיל מיניה הן עם כלביא יקום וגו' לא ישכב עד יאכל טרף וגו' והוא נכון טפי בדרש זה לענין ק"ש של שחרית וערבית.

As we see from Rashi in our parsha, that pasuk speaks about our alacrity in reading shema. The pasuk our girsa quotes is speaking not about our actions, but rather about Hashem's watchfulness over us. What does that have to do with our obligation to recite shema?

R' Tzadok haKohen (Pri Tzadik Balak 3:3) quotes a question from the Besh"T: Why does our pasuk start by referring to a לָבִ֣יא, a female lion, הֶן־עָם֙ כְּלָבִ֣יא יָק֔וּם, and only afterwards וְכַֽאֲרִ֖י יִתְנַשָּׂ֑א, but in the other pasuk the order is reversed, first we are called an אֲרִי, a male, stronger lion, ָּכָּרַע שָׁכַב כַּאֲרִי, and only afterwards ּכְלָבִיא מִי יְקִימֶנּוּ?

R' Tzadok explains that הֶן־עָם֙ כְּלָבִ֣יא יָק֔וּם וְכַֽאֲרִ֖י יִתְנַשָּׂ֑א is the normal order of things. You start slowly and build to a crescendo. The pasuk of כָּרַע שָׁכַב כַּאֲרִי וּכְלָבִיא מִי יְקִימֶנּוּ is talking about Klal Yisrael c"v on the decline. When we fall, all is not lost. כָּרַע שָׁכַב כַּאֲרִי, we will rise again like a lion. Even if we fall even further and are no longer like the mighty אֲרִי, we are still כְלָבִיא, and can bounce back. And even if we fall further still, all is never lost. מִי יְקִימֶנּוּ. R' Tzadok quotes from the Zohar: דכל אורחין דתיובתא פתיחין מיני' והיינו דמי גימ' נ' שערי בינה והוא תשובה וכמו שנאמר ולבבו יבין ושב. We can never lose our access to the gate of teshuvah. We say in Tehillim אִם־עֲוֺנ֥וֹת תִּשְׁמׇר ק־הּ ה׳ מִ֣י יַעֲמֹֽד. Even if Hashem counts all our sins against us, מִ֣י יַעֲמֹֽד, there is still the 50th gate of teshuvah which allows our return.

Bilam wanted to use this against us. Eat, drink, be merry, because no matter what you do, it won't count against you. That's obviously not the take away lesson. The takeaway lesson is that when it comes time to read shema, to do mitzvos, and a person thinks, "What's the point? I'm a nothing; there is no way for me to fix all the wrong I have done; there is no way my avodah has any value," the answer is מִי יְקִימֶנּוּ. Don't give up. No matter how far you have fallen, ther door is always open for your return and there is value to your mitzvos. That, explains R' Tzadok, is why the gemara in Brachos quoted davka this pasuk:

ופן יפול לב האדם היודע נגעי לבבו כמה קלקל ובאיזו פנים יקבל עול תורה ועול מצות ע"ז רצו לקבוע פ' בלק בק"ש שיהיה להתחזקות שלא יפול בדעתו כמו שהאמת הוא כן שלא ידח ממנו נדח ויתברר לבסוף ועמך כולם צדיקים

The three weeks are almost upon us. We remember the churban of the past, but we also think about 10/7 and all that followed. History constantly tries to do away with us, but we rise again every time. לא יפול בדעתו כמו שהאמת הוא כן שלא ידח ממנו נדח

Moshe's earth shattering request

2026-06-18T19:35:19.535-04:00

1) How could Moshe could have asked for the earth to swallow up Korach and his followers? Even were we not speaking about Moshe, who is always melamed zechus on Klal Yisrael, the gemara tells us (Shabbos 149b) "ר יעקב בריה דבת יעקב כל שחבירו נענש על ידו אין מכניסין אותו במחיצתו של הקב"ה It could be that this is exactly why Bn"Y later complained and accused Moshe and Aharon of causing the death of those who rebelled, thinking that had Moshe been willing to be mochel on his kavod, had he willing to daven for them, they might have lived. Why wouldn't Moshe just leave things up to Hashem?

Secondly, why did Moshe asked for this specific punishment of the earth swallowing up Korach? What's the midah k'neged midah?

To start with a more basic question, what's the earth shattering news about what occurred here? The words וְאִם־בְּרִיאָ֞ה יִבְרָ֣א imply that the punishment Moshe called for upon Korach was something new and unheard of. Is that really true? Were there no earthquakes before this point in time?

Ibn Ezra writes that we shouldn't read the word יִבְרָ֣א here as implying a yesh m'ayin creation that never before existed, but rather, read it like the pasuk in Yechezkel (23:47) וְרָֽגְמ֨וּ עֲלֵיהֶ֥ן אֶ֙בֶן֙ קָהָ֔ל וּבָרֵ֥א אֽוֹתְהֶ֖ן בְּחַרְבוֹתָ֑ם, as meaning cut down. Ramban answers that of course there were earthquakes where the earth opened up and people sank in, but never before was there a situation of וּבָֽלְעָ֤ה אֹתָם֙ וְאֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר לָהֶ֔ם, where the earth closed up again on top of those who sank. R' Yosef Shaul Nathanson in Divrei Shaul offers what he thinks is a better answer. He suggests that the chiddush here is וְיָֽרְד֥וּ חַיִּ֖ים שְׁאֹ֑לָה. The gemara in Baba Basra writes that Hashem allowed the satan to afflict Iyov, but the satan had to make sure to keep him alive. (Kind of like when people say Israel has a right to defend itself, just not to drop bombs and actually kill the bad guys) The satan viewed this as an almost impossible job. The Divrei Shaul doesn't quote that gemara, but it's the same idea. There have always been earthquakes, but in this case Hashem arranged for the earthquake to miraculosuly swallow up Korach and his followers in way that they remained alive.

This perhaps helps explain why Moshe made this request. The Belzer Rebbe (R' Yisachar Dov) is quoted as explaining that Moshe's tefilah was not to call punishment down on Korach, but rather aderaba, to give him the greatest chance possible to change his mind and escape. So long as a person has even a moment of life left, change is possible; therefore, וְיָֽרְד֥וּ חַיִּ֖ים שְׁאֹ֑לָה.

I think therein is the explanation of the midah k'neged midah as well. Moshe argued to Korach וַיַּקְרֵב֙ אֹֽתְךָ֔ וְאֶת־כָּל־אַחֶ֥יךָ בְנֵֽי־לֵוִ֖י אִתָּ֑ךְ וּבִקַּשְׁתֶּ֖ם גַּם־כְּהֻנָּֽה So what if you are not kohen gadol? A glass half full is still something to appreciate. You have riches, you have an honored position; celebrate what you have! Korach didn't get it. For him, it was all or nothing. Therefore, when Korach was falling into the earth, וְיָֽרְד֥וּ חַיִּ֖ים שְׁאֹ֑לָה, he had a chance to appreciate that lesson. When everything is slipping away and you are staring at the abyss, mere existence becomes the most precious thing in the world. Just being alive is a gift, even if you have nothing else.

2) וַיִּחַר לְמשֶׁה מְאֹד. (16:15) Rashi explains נִצְטַעֵר עַד לִמְאֹד. Why was Moshe upset now more than when he first heard Korach's complaints? Earlier (16:4) we read וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע משֶׁ֔ה וַיִּפֹּ֖ל עַל־פָּנָֽיו:, but not more than that.

Hadar Zekeinim, Chizkuni, and others explain that when Moshe heard Korach's complaint he reacted to the challenge: וַיְדַבֵּ֨ר אֶל־קֹ֜רַח וְאֶל־כָּל־עֲדָתוֹ֘... Moshe called for a test with the ketores; וַיֹּ֥אמֶר משֶׁ֖ה אֶל־קֹ֑רַח שִׁמְעוּ־נָ֖א בְּנֵ֥י לֵוִֽי Moshe argued that Korach's followers have the honor of serving as Leviim, etc. Moshe does all the talking, but we don't find any response on Korach's part. The only response came from Dasan and Aviram, but they were just along for the ride whenever there was trouble.

If two people disagree, even if they engage in a heated argument, so long as they are talking, even arguing, there is hope that things will work out. If they are not talking, then things will never be resolved. When Moshe got no response from Korach, when all his words amounted to talking to the wall, then נִצְטַעֵר עַד לִמְאֹד because it meant there was no hope.

why Yehoshua and Kaleiv's insight was greater even than that of Moshe

2026-06-15T18:20:42.917-04:00

After hearing the report of the spies, Moshe and Aharon reacted with nefilas apayim (14:5):

וַיִּפֹּ֥ל משֶׁ֛ה וְאַֽהֲרֹ֖ן עַל־פְּנֵיהֶ֑ם לִפְנֵ֕י כָּל־קְהַ֥ל עֲדַ֖ת בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:

which usually connoted tefilah.

Yehoshua and Kaleiv, on the other hand, reacted by rending their clothes:

וִֽיהוֹשֻׁ֣עַ בִּן־נ֗וּן וְכָלֵב֙ בֶּן־יְפֻנֶּ֔ה מִן־הַתָּרִ֖ים אֶת־הָאָ֑רֶץ קָֽרְע֖וּ בִּגְדֵיהֶֽם:

which is essentially an act of yei'ush, of abandoning hope. You can't tear kri'ah in aveilus before the person is dead. So long as their is any sign of life, there is no kri'ah.

In this case, Kaleiv and Yehoshua got it right. When it came to the sin of the spies, there was no hope of forgiveness. That entire generation was doomed to wander in the wilderness until every last person died.

R' Shlomo Kluger in Imrei Shefer asks: How is it that Kaleiv and Yehoshua were able to intuit what Moshe and Aharon could not?

He offers a number of answers to this question.

The gemara (Kesubos 75) relates:

לציון יאמר איש ואיש יולד בה והוא יכוננה עליון' (תהלים פז, ה), אמר רבי מיישא בר בריה דר' יהושע בן לוי, אחד הנולד בה ואחד המצפה לראותה, אמר אביי וחד מינייהו עדיף כתרי מינן, אמר רבא וחד מינן כי סליק להתם עדיף כתרי מינייהו, דהא רבי ירמיה דכי הוה הכא לא הוה ידע מאי קאמרי רבנן, כי סליק להתם קרי לן בבלאי טפשאי

R' Yirmiyah was not an accomplished scholar, but when he went to learn in Eretz Yisrael and then came back to Bavel, he far surpassed his colleagues. "Avira d'Eretz Yisrael machkim."

Those high school kids who left in September for a year of yeshiva in Eretz Yisrael are now returning home. Some of them at least are not the same people that they were when they left. There learning is a different learning, their interests are different, they suddenly are focused on more important things that the nonsense of high school. Sure, they are a year older, a year more mature, they have had a full year away from their parents to grow up. But that's not the full story. The difference between who they were in Sept and who they are in June is because they had a year of "avira d'Eretz Yisrael." The kedushas ha'aretz has made an imprint.

Says R' Shlomo Kluger: Yehoshua and Kaleiv had spent 40 days in Eretz Yisrael. Moshe and Aharon never stepped foot there. Therefore, Yehoshua and Kaleiv's insight surpassed even that of Moshe and Aharon.

Koresh's squandered potential

2026-06-14T20:03:02.036-04:00

Megillah 12a

דרש רב נחמן בר רב חסדא מאי דכתיב כה אמר ה' למשיחו לכורש אשר החזקתי בימינו וכי כורש משיח היה אלא א"ל הקב"ה למשיח קובל אני לך על כורש אני אמרתי הוא יבנה ביתי ויקבץ גליותי והוא אמר מי בכם מכל עמו ויעל

Hashem wanted to give us the opportunity for geulah in the time of Bayis Sheni, and He did it b'derech ha'teva in such a way that an aku"m, Koresh, might have a piece of the pie and get some credit. So much potential! But instead of carrying through, Koresh walked away from the opportunity. אמר ה' למשיחו לכורש ends up as a testimony not to Koresh's greatness, but to his failure to live up to that potential.

So too in our times. The end result will still be geulah -- I don't know Hashem's plan of how we will get there, but I do know that we will get there -- but the Koresh's of the modern world seem to have squandered their opportunity for greatness and will have no share in the outcome.

R' Yehudah bar Ila'i, Tzelafchad, and the connection between tzitzis and shabbos

2026-06-11T09:05:11.622-04:00

The gemara (Shabbos 25b) records the kabbalat shabbat practice of R' Yehuda bar Ila'i:

דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב כך היה מנהגו של ר' יהודה בר אלעאי ע"ש מביאים לו עריבה מלאה חמין ורוחץ פניו ידיו ורגליו ומתעטף ויושב בסדינין המצוייצין ודומה למלאך ה' צבאות והיו תלמידיו מחבין ממנו כנפי כסותן אמר להן בני לא כך שניתי לכם סדין בציצית בית שמאי פוטרין וב"ה מחייבין והלכה כדברי בית הלל ואינהו סברי גזירה משום כסות לילה

After he would bathe, RYb"I would wrap himself in a cloak that had tzitzis. He resembled a holy angel as he sat, waiting for Shabos to arrive.

It sounds like how we start Yom Kippur -- everyone comes to shul just before nightfall and puts on their talis -- but this was not Yom Kippur; this was a regular Shabbos. Why was donning tzitzis such an integral part of RYb"I's preparations for Shabbos?

The appearance of the parsha of tzitzis at the end of our sedra can be read as a response to the meraglim. The prohibition of "lo tasuru" comes to warn us against making the missteps made in the meraglim's mission "'la'tur ha'aretz." However, Chazal draw another connection as well. Immediately before the parsha of tzitzis we have the story of the mekoshesh who violated Shabbos. The Yalkut Shimoni (see Ohr haChaim as well) writes:

תָּנָא דְּבֵי אֵלִיָּהוּ, (לעיל פסוק לב) וַיִּמְצְאוּ אִישׁ מְקֹשֵׁשׁ עֵצִים, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה, חִלֵּל זֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, אָמַר לְפָנָיו רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ בְּכָל יוֹם תְּפִלִּין בְּרֹאֹשׁוֹ, תְּפִלִּין בִּזְרוֹעוֹ, וְרוֹאֶה אוֹתָן וְחוֹזֵר בּוֹ, עַכְשָׁו שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו תְּפִילִין חִלֵּל זֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה, צֵא וּבְרֹר לָהֶם דָּבָר שֶׁיִּנְהֲגוּ בּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת וּבְיָמִים טוֹבִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְעָשׂוּ לָהֶם צִיצִת לְדֹרֹתָם״ אֵין לְדֹרֹתָם אֶלָּא לְדוֹר תָּם וְאֵין תָּם אֶלָּא יַעֲקֹב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית כ״ה:כ״ז) ״וְיַעֲקֹב אִישׁ תָּם״, תָּם מִגֶּזֶל, תָּם מִגִּלּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, תָּם מִשְּׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים.

Since we lack the protection afforded by tefillin, tzitzis is our protection against chilul Shabbos.

Based on this, the gemara in Sotah 17a takes on a new meaning:

דרש רבא בשכר שאמר אברהם אבינו אם מחוט ועד שרוך נעל זכו בניו לב' מצות חוט של תכלת ורצועה של תפלין בשלמא רצועה של תפלין דכתיב וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה' נקרא עליך ותניא ר"א הגדול אומר אלו תפלין שבראש אלא חוט של תכלת מאי היא דתניא היה ר"מ אומר מה נשתנה תכלת מכל מיני צבעונין מפני שהתכלת דומה לים וים דומה לרקיע ורקיע דומה לכסא הכבוד שנאמר ויראו את אלהי ישראל ותחת רגליו כמעשה לבנת הספיר וכעצם השמים לטהר וכתיב כמראה אבן ספיר דמות כסא

Techeiles is davka paired with tefillin because these two go hand in hand. When one is missing, the other takes its place.

The failure of the mekoshesh to keep Shabbos is not the end of that story. The gemara Shabbos 150b relates:

תנו רבנן מעשה בחסיד אחד שנפרצה לו פרץ בתוך שדהו ונמלך עליה לגודרה ונזכר ששבת הוא ונמנע אותו חסיד ולא גדרה ונעשה לו נס ועלתה בו צלף וממנה היתה פרנסתו ופרנסת אנשי ביתו

The Shaar haGilgulim quotes a tradition that the person this story is speaking about was a gilgul of the mekoshesh brought back to the world to fix that sin of chilul Shabbos.

According to one opinion in Chazal, the identity of the mekoshesh was צלפחד. In the gemara's story, it was עלתה בו צלף that protected the field. צלפחד = צלף חד , a sharp, thorny צלף plant. This is a known characteristic of the caper bush, which is native to Israel.

Who was this "chassid" who was the gilgul of Tzelafchad who came back to the world to fix the mitzvah of Shabbos? Ben Yehoyada writes that it is none other than ר' יהודה בר אלעאי.

Now we can understand why ר' יהודה בר אלעאי was so careful to greet Shabbos by putting on his tzitzis. ר' יהודה בר אלעאי was a gilgul of the mekoshesh, a gilgul of צלפחד. The first time around through history he lacked the protection afforded by the parsha of tzitzis, which was given only after his death, and so he was mechalel Shabbos. The second time around he took full advantage of the mitzvah of tzitzis's special protection and avoided the same transgression.

I can't see what you are saying

2026-06-04T11:29:10.877-04:00

Hashem appeared to Miriam and Aharon to respond to their criticism of Moshe. Hashem addressed them:

וַיֹּ֖אמֶר שִׁמְעוּ־נָ֣א דְבָרָ֑י

Rashi comments:

אֵין נָא אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן בַּקָּשָׁה

Why should Hashem have to make a special appeal to them to listen? Isn't it the aspiration of every navi to receive the dvar Hashem?

Ohr haChaim: צריך לדעת למה הוצרך לומר כן ודאי כי ישמעו את אשר ידבר, עוד צריך לדעת אומרו תיבת נא כי לא יוצדק לומר האדון לעבדו לשון בקשה.

He gives multiple answers, among them that by saying "Listen to what I am saying" the implication hinted at is that they had not previously been listening, or had not listened and correctly interpreted the dvar Hashem.

A couple of years ago I quoted a piece from the Tiferes Shlomo (I know it's wrong to play favorites, but this is one of my favorite pieces) that he repeats a few places in chumash. When Hashem asked Adam haRishon אַיֶּֽכָּה, Adam responded אֶת־קֹֽלְךָ֥ שָׁמַ֖עְתִּי בַּגָּ֑ן וָֽאִירָ֛א כִּֽי־עֵירֹ֥ם אָנֹ֖כִי. The Tif Shlomo explains that when Klal Yisrael accepted the Torah, Chazal tell us that we had the ability to be רואים את הקולות. It was a visual as well as an auditory experience. This was the level that Adam was on before the cheit. After the cheit, when Adam experienced אֶת־קֹֽלְךָ֥ שָׁמַ֖עְתִּי בַּגָּ֑ן -- he heard but did not see the kol Hashem -- he realized that he had fallen from the level he had been on beforehand.

Later in Braishis, how did the brothers know that the person speaking to them was indeed their long lost brother Yosef? Yosef told them (45:12) וְהִנֵּ֤ה עֵֽינֵיכֶם֙ רֹא֔וֹת וְעֵינֵ֖י אָחִ֣י בִנְיָמִ֑ין כִּי־פִ֖י הַֽמְדַבֵּ֥ר אֲלֵיכֶֽם: When he speaks, they don't just hear his voice, but וְהִנֵּ֤ה עֵֽינֵיכֶם֙ רֹא֔וֹת, they see it as well. His words are dvar Hashem, not milei d'alma, as their own experience proves.

Here too in our parsha, Hashem was indicating to Miriam and Aharon just how far they had fallen. שִׁמְעוּ־נָ֣א דְבָרָ֑י -- you can hear the words, but you won't experience seeing them the way you should have, the way Moshe does.

I did not see it in the Tiferes Shlomo, but maybe one can suggest that later in parshas Chukas, when Moshe addressed Bn"Y with the words שִׁמְעוּ־נָא֙ הַמֹּרִ֔ים when they were clamoring for water, this was the knock on them. Since שׁכינה מדבּרת מתוך גורנו, when Moshe spoke they should have not just heard, but they should have seen the dvar Hashem. Because of their rebelliousness, the people were denied this experience.

Platner's appeal

2026-05-31T21:06:20.754-04:00

How can a misogynistic communist like Graham Platner be the Dem frontrunner for Senate in Maine? I agree with the sentiments of Powerlineblog.com:

To be sure, Platner checks the left-wing box with his professed Communist leanings. You can’t get more left-wing than that. But I think the key to Platner’s success is his overt anti-Semitism. At the time he was pulling away from Mills, by far the best-known fact about Platner was his Nazi tattoo. Far from disqualifying him in the eyes of Democratic voters, the tattoo seems to have endeared him to them.

...I think it is fair to say that, during the months when his Senate campaign took off, Graham Platner’s best-known characteristic was his hostility to the Jews.

I think that anti-Semitism is no longer the obsession of an oddball fringe. Rather, it is close to the beating heart of the Democratic Party. At this point it may, in fact, be the defining ideology of the Democratic Party. Far from being a millstone around the neck of a nonentity like Graham Platner, it was the secret to his meteoric rise.

This is the sad state of affairs in America today. To support the Dem party is to support antisemitism. It's as simple as that. The worst members of the party are guilty of overt antisemitism, like Platner. The others are guilty of standing by idly and adopting a stance of implied shtika k'hodaah in an attempt to not be cancelled by the mob. They have no moral backbone or courage. The one exception is Fetterman, and he is the exception that proves the rule.

the reward of the innocent sota

2026-05-28T10:46:11.714-04:00

Brachos 31b (see also Sota 26)

נקתה ונזרעה זרע מלמד שאם היתה עקרה נפקדת דברי ר' ישמעאל א"ל רבי עקיבא אם כן ילכו כל העקרות כולן ויסתתרו וזו שלא קלקלה נפקדת אלא מלמד שאם היתה יולדת בצער יולדת בריוח קצרים יולדת ארוכים שחורים יולדת לבנים אחד יולדת שנים

The Tur takes R' Yishmael's view a step further. The pasuk that follows וְאִם־לֹ֤א נִטְמְאָה֙ הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וּטְהֹרָ֖ה הִ֑וא וְנִקְּתָ֖ה וְנִזְרְעָ֥ה זָֽרַע׃ is זֹ֥את תּוֹרַ֖ת הַקְּנָאֹ֑ת... Commenting on the smichus, he writes: לומר שאם טהורה היא יהיו לה בנים צדיקים בעלי תורה. Not only will the sota have children, but they will be big talmidei chachamim.

What does R' Yishmael do with the argument that אם כן ילכו כל העקרות כולן ויסתתרו? R' Nosson Gestetner in his sefer on chumash suggests that the machlokes here in l'shitasam.

Rashi comments on לֹֽא־תַעֲשׂ֣וּן כֵּ֔ן לַה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶֽם (Devarim 12:4):

דבר אחר: ונתצתם את מזבחותם ואבדתם את שמם, לא תעשון כן – אזהרה למוחק את השם, ולנותץ אבן מן המזבח או מן העזרה.

אמר ר׳ ישמעאל: וכי תעלה על דעתך שישראל נותצין למזבחות? אלא: שלא תעשו כמעשיהם ויגרמו עוונותיכם למקדש אבותיכם שיחרב

Achronim (e.g. Chasam Sofer) point out that the difference between Tana Kamma and R' Yishmael is whether there is an issur of geram mechikas HaShem. According to the Tana Kamma, it is only actively erasing the shem Hashem which is prohibited, but according to R"Y, even causing the shem Hashem or the makom mikdash to be obliterated is assur.

R' Yishmael was perhaps not persuaded by R' Akiva's argument because l'shitaso, an innocent woman would not pretend to be a sotah because in doing so she would be causing shem Hashem to be erased, violating the issur mechikas Hashem through gerama.

Why is it that the sota who is innocent deserves any reward? Isn't this a case of chotei nischar, one who gains from wrongdoing? After all, it's not like the sota is completely innocent. There was kinuy, there was stirah; it is as close to a red line as you can get. Ibn Ezra, interestingly, addresses this question. Most of the meforshei pshat learn that ונזרעה זרע just means she now has a heter to resume living with her husband. Ibn Ezra, who so often rejects derash in favor of pshat, here chooses to defend the derash that it is a reward: ונזרעה זרע – שיתן לה הבורא זרע בשכר הקלון שאירע לה. The public embarrassment of the sota process is so devastating that despite the fact that she is not completely innocent, Hashem promises s reward to make up for what she underwent.

R' Shimon Sofer has a different hesber that helps answer the question of אם כן ילכו כל העקרות כולן ויסתתרו. The sota was warned, but could not resist trouble and violated the issur yichud. However, despite the temptation to do more than that, the sota caught herself and pulled back from that red line. When push came to shove, she resisted! Chazal tell us that someone who overcomes the temptation for aveira is worthy of having a miracle performed. That's why the sota deserves a reward.

The same logic does not hold true for a woman who is wholly innocent and just wants to have children. She really has no temptation to do wrong, and therefore, will earn no credit for overcoming a desire that does not exist.

The juxtaposition of sota and nazir takes on even more interesting color given this interpretation. The nazir climbs to the greatest heights and is called kadosh. The sota has sunken to dangerous depths of misbehavior. Nonetheless, Hashem does not reserve reward only for the nazir. L'fum tzaara agra. For someone in the shoes of the sota, pulling back in the face of the temptation after one has already gone so far is a mighty achievement and garners tremendous reward as well.

deaf to the maggid shiur and blind to what's on the page

2026-05-20T15:44:58.549-04:00

The Mechilta comments on the pasuk וְכָל הָעָם רֹאִים אֶת הַקּוֹלֹת:

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לְהוֹדִיעַ שְׁבָחָן שֶׁלְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁכְּשֶׁעָמְדוּ כֻלָּן לִפְנֵי הַר סִינַי לְקַבֵּל אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, מַגִּיד שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בָהֶן סוֹמִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות כ,יד) "וְכָל הָעָם רֹאִים"; מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בָהֶן אִלְּמִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות יט,י) "וַיַּעֲנוּ כָל הָעָם יַחְדָּו"; מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בָהֶן חֵרְשִׁין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות כד,ז) "כֹּל אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יי, נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע." מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בָהֶן חִגְּרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות יט,יח) "וַיִּתְיַצְּבוּ בְּתַחְתִּית הָהָר." וּמְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בָהֶן טִפְּשִׁין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים ד,לה) "אַתָּה הָרְאֵתָ לָדַעַת".

I don't think the point Chazal want to make here is to amplify the miracles that took place at mattan Torah or to amplify the greatness of G-d, as only He can perform miracles like those recorded here. As far as the first point, mai d'hava hava, and as far as the second, peshita, mai kah mashma lan. Chazal here (and as a general rule) have a didactic aim in mind. There is something we are supposed to learn from this midrash that we can implement.

You might be thinking, "How can this Chazal have anything to do with me? Do I work in a home for invalids? And even if I do, can I cure them?"

I submit to you that if you go to any shiur or listen to any derasha and look around the room, you will see plenty of examples of the "invalids" Chazal are speaking about. Or better, yet, most of us need only look in the mirror. How many times have we been חֵרְשִׁין, deaf to anything a rebbe or Rabbi is trying to tell us? Or סוֹמִין, blind to the words on the page in front of us because our attention is on our phone or elsewhere? Haven't we been אִלְּמִין, silent and afraid to speak out for Torah values, or חִגְּרִין, slow-walking doing what we are supposed to be doing instead of acting with zerizus. And last but not least, טִפְּשִׁין -- this one needs no explanation.

Ramban learns that there is a mitzvah to remember maamad Har Sinai derived from the pasuk “rak hishamer lecha.. pen tishkach es ha’devarim asher ra’u einecha.” That same pasuk is quoted in Avos (3:8) as the source for the issur of forgetting words of Torah. How can the same pasuk be used for both halachos?

As we once explained Ramban learns that the two ideas go hand in hand. If you truly remember and appreciate maamad Har Sinai in all its awesomeness, your learning is as different learning -- it becomes something that sticks in your mind and is unforgettable.

Tiferes Shlomo writes that this is what the gemara means when it tells us

רב יוסף ביומא דעצרתא אמר עבדי לי עגלא תלתא אמר אי לא האי יומא דקא גרים כמה יוסף איכא בשוקא

If there was no day of Shavuos, there wouldn't be other Yosef's in the shuk?! There wouldn't be other Yosefs, period! How would there be a Klal Yisrael?

What Rav Yosef meant is that if not for his awareness of that day of maamad Har Sinai every day, every single time he opened his gemara, he would never have become who he is. His learning would have been a different learning.

Chazal in the Mechilta are giving us a similar message. When you truly experience kabbalas haTorah and feel yourself as if you were standing at Sinai this Shavuos or any Shavous, then you're no longer deaf to the maggid shiur, you no longer slow walk your way to shul, you no longer are mute and can't answer when someone asks you what sugya you are holding in. And last but not least, you no longer go through your day and your life as a טִפְּשִׁ.

what happened on erev rosh chodesh Sivan

2026-05-14T18:30:24.304-04:00

The talmidim of Chasam Sofer bring down that the CS fasted on erev rosh chodesh Sivan and dedicated the day to teshuvah. Chazal tell us that when Klal Yisrael left Refidim they did teshuvah and when they arrived at Sinai the next day on rosh chodesh SIvan they did teshuvah (see post here). Rashi comments (Shmos 19:2)

ויסעו מרפידים – מה ת״ל? לחזור ולפרש מהיכן נסעו, והלא כבר כתוב שברפידים היו חונים (שמות י״ז:א׳), בידוע שמשם נסעו. אלא להקיש נסיעתן מרפידים לביאתן למדבר סיני, מה ביאתן למדבר סיני בתשובה, אף נסיעתן מרפידים בתשובה.

Apparently the day is a special day and an eis ratzon. There is a special tefilah composed by the SHL'H to recite on this day for the sake of one's children. Since erev rosh chodesh this year falls out on shabbos, the question is raised as to whether one can recite this bakasha on shabbos, as normally we refrain from personal bakashos on shabbos. I saw R' Chaim Kamievsky is quoted both ways, so either he gave different answers at different times, changed his mind, or someone got it wrong. On the one hand, this is a once a year opportunity, and one is asking for tzorchei Shamayim, for one's children to grow in Torah and yiras Shamayim, not for mundane needs. On the other hand, a bakasha is still a bakashah, and you can always say a tefilah for your kids before Shabbos or after Shabbos, or every day of the year for that matter.

In general, poskim debate how far to take this rule of no bakashos, as we have many tefilos that do not seem consistent with it. For example (since it's Shabbos mevorchim), the Aruch haShulchan (OC 417:9) has a problem with saying the last paragraph of birchas ha'chodesh:

אך מה שאומרים ה"יהי רצון" מקודם – תמיהני היאך מותר להתפלל בשבת תפילה חדשה, מה שאינה בטופס ברכות, אלא תפילה בפני עצמה? ומבקשים על פרנסה ושארי צרכים, ואיך מותר בשבת?

The GR"A would not say the haRachaman section of bentching on Shabbos because it is bakashos. Others are more lenient when it comes to these things.

When we read וַיִּסְע֣וּ מֵרְפִידִ֗ים וַיָּבֹ֙אוּ֙ מִדְבַּ֣ר סִינַ֔י וַֽיַּחֲנ֖וּ בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר וַיִּֽחַן־שָׁ֥ם יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל נֶ֥גֶד הָהָֽר we have to keep in mind what happened in Refidim: (Shmos 17:8):

וַיָּבֹ֖א עֲמָלֵ֑ק וַיִּלָּ֥חֶם עִם־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בִּרְפִידִֽם

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֤ה אֶל־יְהוֹשֻׁ֙עַ֙ בְּחַר־לָ֣נוּ אֲנָשִׁ֔ים וְצֵ֖א הִלָּחֵ֣ם בַּעֲמָלֵ֑ק מָחָ֗ר אָנֹכִ֤י נִצָּב֙ עַל־רֹ֣אשׁ הַגִּבְעָ֔ה וּמַטֵּ֥ה הָאֱלֹהִ֖ים בְּיָדִֽי

Bn"Y arrived in Sinai on the heels of the battle against Amalek. If they arrived on rosh chodesh, it means that battle took place on erev rosh chodesh, when the moon is invisible. Klal Yisrael is compared to the moon. When the moon is renewed, it represents the renewal and rejuvenation of Klal Yisrael. When the moon wanes, it is a time of din. Rosh haShana, the yearly Yom haDin, is "b'keseh l'yom chageinu," when the moon is hidden. On erev rosh chodesh, the old moon is completely invisible as we wait for the new moon to appear. This is why Amalek chose this time to attack.

Moshe chose Yehoshua to lead the fight because, "Pnei Moshe k’pnei chamah u’pnei Yehoshua k’pnei levana," (B"B 75) Yehoshua is compared to the moon. When Moshe passed away, Klal Yisrael didn't fade away and collapse. The waning of the period of Moshe's life was followed by the waxing of the conquest of Eretz Yisrael. A period of darkness when the old moon fades away is just a preparation for a period of increased light. (Panim Yafos end of Beshalach)

bentching and the bracha of shalom

2026-05-08T09:13:00.003-04:00

Two weeks ago I mentioned R' Akiva Eiger's safeik (on SA OC 188) as to whether a katan who ate to the point of שׂביעה and bentched just before nightfall and then became bar mitzvah after nightfall has to repeat bentching or not. Is the chiyuv of bentching dependent on achila, which took place while the person was a katan and so he was yotzei with his bentching as a katan, or does the chiyuv depend on שׂביעה, and since he is in a state of שׂביעה as a gadol he has to repeat bentching since he did not fulfill his mitzvah as a gadol.

I bring it up again because of a Panim Yafos on our parsha.

וְהִשִּׂ֨יג לָכֶ֥ם דַּ֙יִשׁ֙ אֶת־בָּצִ֔יר וּבָצִ֖יר יַשִּׂ֣יג אֶת־זָ֑רַע וַאֲכַלְתֶּ֤ם לַחְמְכֶם֙ לָשֹׂ֔בַע וִֽישַׁבְתֶּ֥ם לָבֶ֖טַח בְּאַרְצְכֶֽם

Rashi comments:

ואכלתם לשובע – אוכל קימעא והוא מתברך במעיו.

To connect this phrase with the end of the pasuk, Panim Yafos quotes the gemara in Brachos 20b:

דרש רב עוירא זמנין אמר לה משמיה דר' אמי וזמנין אמר לה משמיה דר' אסי אמרו מלאכי השרת לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע כתוב בתורתך אשר לא ישא פנים ולא יקח שחד והלא אתה נושא פנים לישראל דכתיב ישא ה' פניו אליך אמר להם וכי לא אשא פנים לישראל שכתבתי להם בתורה ואכלת ושבעת וברכת את ה' אלהיך והם מדקדקים [על] עצמם עד כזית ועד כביצה

We earn Hashem's special favor of the bracha יִשָּׂא ה' פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם because we go the extra mile for Hashem. Even though the chiyuv bentching applies only when you hit the state of שׂביעה, we do more and bentch even after eating only a k'zayis or a k'beitzah.

If that's the case, when we are in a situation where אוכל קימעא והוא מתברך במעיו and there is שׂביעה even from eating just a little bit, a person is therefore mechuyav to bentch even on that little bit. Doing so is not going the extra mile -- it's simply fulfilling the basic chiyuv required. A person might think therefore that יצאת שׂכרה בּהפסדה because if we can't prove that we go the extra mile we lost the special reward of יִשָּׂא ה' פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם, kah mashma lan the end of the pasuk וִֽישַׁבְתֶּ֥ם לָבֶ֖טַח בְּאַרְצְכֶֽם that Hashem gurantees that we will not lose out.

The Panim Yafos in this shtickel Torah is taking sides in RAKE's safeik, as he assumes mi'doraysa you have to bentch so long as you are satiated, no matter how little you eat.

mah inyan shemita eitzel shiluach ha'kan (and sefira)?

2026-05-07T09:01:00.003-04:00

One of my daughters sent me a picture of a table she left out on her mirpeset upon which a bird had built a nest and laid an egg.

She wanted to know whether there was a mitzvah of shiluach ha'kan. Earlier in the week I was thinking that this week's parsha would be a good opportunity to discuss a shemita sugya, but I ended up getting swept into shiluach ha'kan, which I discovered actually has a link to shemita and sefiras ha'omer, as you shall see.

First, some basics:

1) The mitzvah only applies to the female bird of a kosher species. Does that apply here? My daughter later sent a picture of the bird roosting.

My guess was that it was a mourning dove, but she said ChatGPT told her it was a laughing dove. My original thought was that the difference between my guess and ChatGPT was a matter of personality. I'm not an upbeat guy, so I guessed mourning dove; ChatGPT is more positive, so it said laughing dove. The truth is that in North America, the doves we see are mourning doves. The doves native to Eretz Yisrael are laughing doves. Score 1 for ChatGPT.

2) My daughter has no desire for the eggs. Is there still a mitzvah to send away the mother? This is a big machlokes between Chavos Yair and Chasam Sofer. Chasam Sofer says the mitzvah only applies if you want to get the eggs. If not, why bother the bird? CY says you can do the mitzvah anyway. R' Yaakov Ariel makes two interesting points regarding this machlokes. He suggests that there may be a parallel between these views and the different opinions in Rishonim with regard to the reason for the mitzvah. If the reason is to avoid causing the mother bird pain by taking its young in its presence, as the Rambam suggests in Moreh (3:48), then the view of the Chasam Sofer that there is no reason to disturb the bird if you don't want eggs makes more sense. Why cause the bird any discomfort if you don't have to? However, Ramban rejects the idea that the mitzvah is motivated by rachmanus on animals. The kabbalists and midrashim see great segulos as inherent in the mitzvah. There is a suggested parallel between the cry of the mother bird for mercy on her children and crying by the Shechina on our behalf, our being Hashem's children. CY may be in line with this approach and therefore sees inherent value in the act irrespective of the need for the eggs.

(This view of the Rambam has to be squared away with the din that one is not allowed in davening to cry out to Hashem "whose mercy extends even to kan tzipor." R' Soloveitchik suggested that this is a din specific to tefilah. That is not the appropriate context to give voice to our attempted justification and understanding of Hashem's mitzvos.)

Secondly, he suggests a conceptual difference between the two views. According to CS, what concerns us is the end results, the toza'ah of the mitzvah -- retrieving the eggs without bothering the bird. According to CY who holds the mitzvah applies even if you don't want the eggs, it is the act itself, the maaseh mitzvah, which is important.

When all that concerns us is the totza'ah, then kavanah for the action being done is not a factor. For example, it doesn't matter if you have kavanah l'shem mitzvah when you give tzedakah. You get credit anyway, no matter your intention, because what we are after is helping people. When you put on tefillin, however, you have to have kavanah. The act of donning the tefillin is what is crucial.

Rav Ariel suggests a proof to the CS's position: The gemara (Kid 39b) tells the story of a man who was sent by his father to gather eggs and fell off a ladder in the process of sending away the mother bird and retreiving them. A witness to the event could not understand how could this happen. This individual was engaged in doing two mitzvos -- kibud av and shiluach ha'kan -- where the Torah explicitly promises a blessing of long life! The witness ended up going off the derech. The gemara itself is bothered why the mitzvah did not protect the person from harm, and suggests that the person might have been harboring thoughts of idolatry.

Why did the gemara need to come up with this extreme case as a solution to its question? According to CY, so long as the one doing the mitzvah did not have kavanah for the mitzvah of shiluach ha'kan -- and he probably didn't, because his concern was getting the eggs for his father -- that should be enough to negate the credit for the mitzvah. From the fact that the gemara did not offer this simple solution, it points in favor of CS's position.

3) Last point, which is one a lot of people overlook: the mitzvah of shiluach ha'kan only applies to a bird in the wild, not a domesticated bird or a bird that you own. This makes finding a scenario where this mitzvah applies is exceedingly rare. A person's chatzeir is koneh on behalf of the owner anything that falls within it. Meaning, anything in my daughter's mirpeset is hers. Anything on your windowsill is yours. Anything in your backyard, in your garage rafters, etc. all belongs to you. B'pashtus, this would include a bird living there as well. A bird found in your yard is your bird and is no longer considered a bird in the wild. Based on this, Achronim have a whole debate about whether the mitzvah can be done on a nest found on your property. Even though she probably never thought about it before discovering this nest, my daughter has absolutely no desire to own that bird. Does kinyan chatzeir work against her presumptive will (R' Moshe holds not)? Would being mafkir the nest after it was found help? These and other factors need to be investigated.

So much for the basics. What does any of this have to do with shemita (our parsha) or sefirah?

Rishonim write that the mitzvah of shiluach applies in all places and at all times. However, there is a Rashash (the kabbalist, not the one in the back of the gemara) who writes that it should not be done during sefirah, and it should not be done in shemita years post-churban ha'bayis.

Even if you reject this Rashash is light of the statement in Rishonim to the contrary, the question that still begs asking is what he was thinking. Is there any explanation for his view that we can make sense of?

Rav Yehoshua Van Dyke (RY of Itamar) brings us back to taamei ha'mitzvah, in particular the notion of this mitzvah eliciting rachmei Shamayim. He compares it to saying tachanun. We don't say tachanun on days like Shabbos and Y"T. Ramban in Emor writes that the entirety of sefirah is like a chol ha'moed between Pesach and Shavous. Shemita is like Shabbos on a national level, following a yearly instead of a weekly cycle. Because of the significance and holiness of these days, it is not a time to cry out for rachamim and tachanunim via the instrument of shiluach ha'kan.

While some poskim reject the Rashash outright, R' Van Dyke suggests that perhaps it can be used as an additional snif l'hakeil where there is a doubt as to whether one is obligated to do the mitzvah or not, e.g. if one does not want the eggs.

I was surprised this bird had no fear of making a nest where it did. My daughter said she is more afraid of the bird than it is of her, so she did not want to approach it. According to the CS, she certainly is exempt from shiluach, as she does not want the eggs. Aside from that, there is the question of whether there is any obligation of shiluach here given that by virtue of kinyan chatzeir the bird is no longer considered a wild bird. Lastly, there is the additional snif l'hakeil of the Rashash, for whatever it's worth, since we are in the middle of sefirah, All that adds up to the conclusion: find a practicing Rav to ask what to do : )

For the record, my daugher now reports two eggs in the nest. The bird is making a habit of this and my daughter is not happy about it.

Why support the party of Jew hatred (part 2)?

2026-04-30T19:38:00.002-04:00

(Part 1 is here.) Even the slow-on-the-uptake Alan Dershowitz, who I last wrote about in 2015 in a post entitled "Delusions Undone" on the occasion of his realizing that his statement, "“Obama will be better for Israel on Iran…” was dead wrong (surprise!), has finally woken up and realized that its time to abandon the Democrats. Sadly, there are still people in our community who are still suffering from TDS and cannot face reality. They continue to support Dem politicians, who, when push comes to shove, march in lockstep and never speak out against the antisemites who are have become the mainstream of their party.

Governor Janet Mills of Maine pulled out of her party's primary today, making Graham Platner the Dems nominee for Senate in Maine. John Hinderaker writes:

Platner describes himself as an “economic populist” and a follower of Bernie Sanders. He has also called himself a “communist” and has said that police officers are “bastards.” But he is best known as an anti-Semite. In 2014, he praised a Hamas attack on Israel on social media, and just a couple of months ago he shared a post by a notorious anti-Semitic podcaster named Stew Peters. (Per Google’s AI, Peters “has referred to Judaism as a ‘death cult’ and has called for the mass expulsion of Jewish people from the United States, referring to this as a new ‘final solution.'”)

Many voters may not be aware of those transgressions, but everyone knows about the SS death’s head tattooed on Platner’s chest. That put him in the spotlight as an anti-Semite; he claimed that he didn’t know what it meant, an assertion that was denied by his former campaign director, and he covered up the SS symbol with another tattoo. But I think it is fair to say that the Democratic voters who were prepared to sweep Platner to victory in the upcoming primary were well aware of the SS death’s head, and probably associated it, more than anything else, with Platner’s candidacy.

He concludes:

This year, it appears that the odor of anti-Semitism that surrounds Graham Platner was not just acceptable to Democratic voters, but may have been his chief appeal in an upstart campaign that defeated a two-term sitting governor.

A vote for any Dem is a vote for a party that condones and celebrates people like this. You won't find Schumer or any other big name Dem, with the exception of Fetterman, calling out the odious beliefs of this man. His appeal to the Dem base is not in spite of his antisemitism -- it's because of his antisemitism.