Divrei Chaim

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.

can a kohen be mochel on his kavod? chiddush of the Chasam Sofer

2026-04-30T09:54:00.002-04:00

Can a kohen be mochel on the kavod owed to him? Rambam in Sefer haMitzos #32 writes

היא שצונו לכבד זרע אהרן לפארם ולנשאם ושנשים מדרגתם מדרגה קודמת וראשונה ואפילו ימאנו לא נשמע מהם

Even if the kohen says not to bother, you shouldn't listen.

However, Maharam m'Rutenburg (quoted in the Mordechai) holds that the kohen can be mochel, just like a talmid chacham can be mochel on the kavod due him.

The analogy to a talmid chacham is revealing. The gemara says that a talmid chacham can be mochel because תּוֹרָה דִּילֵיהּ הִיא, it's his honor to do with what he wants, as the pasuk says וּבְתוֹרָתוֹ יֶהְגֶּה יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה. While Maharam opines that the same is true with respect to a kohen, Rambam writes זה כלו הגדלה לאל יתעלה אחר שהוא לקחם ובחרם לעבודתו ולהקריב קרבנותיו. With respect to a kohen, it's not his honor to forgo.

The Rambam's argument makes logical sense, but there seems to be a gemara against it. The gemara (Git 59b) writes that Chazal made a takana that the kohen always should always take the first aliya. He cannot be mochel, because if he is mochel and doesn't take that aliya a fight is liable to break out in shul as to who should get the honor (nice to see that shuls have not changed much in 1500 years). According to the Rambam, why was a takana necessary? Built into the din d'oraysa is the fact that a kohen cannot be mochel!

This issue of mechila comes up in an incident quoted in the Mordechai in Gittin involving Rabeinu Tam and discussed by many of the poskim: there was a kohen who volunteered to draw water for Rabeinu Tam. R"T was asked how he could accept the favor, as it would be in breach of the mitzvah of honoring the kohen. R"T answered by quoting the din בִּזְמַן שֶׁבִּגְדֵיהֶם עֲלֵיהֶם, כְּהוּנָּתָם עֲלֵיהֶם; אֵין בִּגְדֵיהֶם עֲלֵיהֶם, אֵין כְּהוּנָּתָם עֲלֵיהֶם (Zevachim 17b). When a kohen is not wearing bigdei kehuna, he is like a zar and cannot do avodah. Given that no kohen today wears bigdei kehuna, their status is therefore forfeit. Rabeinu Tam was challenged: if so, can a kohen in our times marry a gerusha?! Can a kohen become tamei?! אֵין בִּגְדֵיהֶם עֲלֵיהֶם, אֵין כְּהוּנָּתָם עֲלֵיהֶם is a din in avodah, not a din in the kohen's status viz kedushas kehuna. R"T was silent and offered no response. Mordechai goes on to quote R' Peter (interesting name for a Rishon) as defending Rabeinu Tam. The reason R"T had no problem with accepting the kohen's service is because the kohen was mochel on his kavod.

What are we to make of Rabeinu Tam's argument? Rashi on our parsha writes that the din of v'kidashto applies even to a kohen ba'al mum who cannot do avodah. Is a kohen who is not wearing bigdei kehuna worse than a ba'al mum?!

In defense of R"T the Ksav Sofer quotes his father as saying what sounds like a Brisker sevara. There are 2 dinim in kedushas kehuna: 1) an obligation to honor the kohen because of what he does; i.e. because he performs avodah in the mikdash, avodas Hashem on the highest level; 2) an obligation to honor the kohen because of who he is, i.e. the descendants of Aharon deserve kavod. It's like the joke of the guy who comes and begs the Rabbi to make him a kohen. The Rabbi refuses, but the man doesn't give up and is insistant. The Rabbi can't take it and finally asks him, "Why do you want to be a kohen so badly?" To which the man replies, "My father was a kohen, my grandfather was a kohen, so I want to be a kohen." That's the second aspect to v'kidashto. Simply by virtue of being zera Aharon, you have certain privileges.

Nafka mina between these 2 dinin: it's with respect to the first din that the Rambam writes זה כלו הגדלה לאל יתעלה אחר שהוא לקחם ובחרם לעבודתו ולהקריב קרבנותיו. It's by virtue of avodah to Hashem, לעבודתו ולהקריב קרבנותיו, that the kohen deserves honor, and since the honor in the honor of Hashem, it is not subject to mechila. However, with respect to the second din, honor due to the kohen because of who he is, that is within his right to be mochel.

The was the point R' Tam was trying to make. R' Tam's answer goes hand in hand with what R' Peter said -- it's one answer in two parts. You have to first get past the first din of kavod that stems from the kohen's avodah, the honor that is non-negotiable, before you can begin to talk about mechila. That din, said R"T, is not in play because a kohen without bigdei kehuna cannot do avodah. Once that is out of the way, you can talk about the honor due to the kohn personally because of his lineage. Even a kohen who is a baal mum, a kohen who cannot do avodah, still gets kavod, but that honor is subject to mechila, which was R' Peter's follow up.

This approach is meduyak in the language of the pasuk in our parsha וְקִ֨דַּשְׁתּ֔וֹ כִּֽי־אֶת־לֶ֥חֶם אֱלֹקיךָ ה֣וּא מַקְרִ֑יב קָדֹשׁ֙ יִֽהְיֶה־לָּ֔ךְ כִּ֣י קָד֔וֹשׁ אֲנִ֥י ה׳ מְקַדִּשְׁכֶֽם. There are two halves to the din. קִ֨דַּשְׁתּ֔וֹ כִּֽי־אֶת־לֶ֥חֶם אֱלֹקיךָ ה֣וּא מַקְרִ֑יב, kedusha that stems from the kohen's obligation to do avodah, but then there is an additional element: קָדֹשׁ֙ יִֽהְיֶה־לָּ֔ךְ, irrespective of avodah.

Coming back to the Rambam, perhaps when the Rambam writes that a kohen cannot be mochel he was speaking only about a kohen who can do avodah, in which case both dinim are in play. However, post churban, when we no longer have kohanim b'avodasam, even Rambam would agree that a kohen can forgo his honor. The gemara in Gitin is a post-churban takana, and therefore does not pose a problem for the shitas haRambam.

a katan who becomes bar mitzvah during sefirah: the chiddush of R' Ben Tzion Aba Shaul regarding the mitzvah of chinuch

2026-04-23T10:59:00.002-04:00

The Minchas Chinuch raises the issue, debated among many later Achronim, of whether a katan who becomes bar mitzvah in the middle of sefirah can continue to count with a bracha or not. There are a number of factors that this issue might hinge on:

1) Is each day of sefirah an independent mitzvah to count that day, or is there one mitzvah to count 49 days?

2) Does the act of a katan count as a kiyum mitzvah, or does it not count (no pun intended) for anything?

The nafka mina between these approaches would be a case of someone who converts in the middle of sefirah. If each day is its own mitzvah, then once the covert becomes a Jew he can count with a bracha. If the issue hinges on whether the act of a katan counts as a kiyum mitzvah, obviously in the case of an aku"m, he has no kiyum. These are not mutually exclusive approaches to the question or even the only approaches one can take.

I wanted to call attention to the novel chiddush of R' Ben Tzion Aba Shaul (in Shu"T Or l'Tzion vol 1) in addressing this issue. We usually think of the mitzvah of chinuch as something that applies only to a child. Not so, he argues. He points to the following source m'doraysa for the mitzvah of chinuch (and I believe R' Shachter holds this way as well) from the parsha of shema (Devarim 11:5)

וְשַׂמְתֶּם֙ אֶת־דְּבָרַ֣י אֵ֔לֶּה עַל־לְבַבְכֶ֖ם וְעַֽל־נַפְשְׁכֶ֑ם וּקְשַׁרְתֶּ֨ם אֹתָ֤ם לְאוֹת֙ עַל־יֶדְכֶ֔ם וְהָי֥וּ לְטוֹטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֥ין עֵינֵיכֶֽם

Rashi comments:

ושמתם את דברי וגומ׳ – אף לאחר שתגלו הוו מצויינין במצוות, הניחו תפילין, עשו מזוזות, כדי שלא יהו עליכם חדשים כשתחזרו. וכן הוא אומר: הציבי לך צייונים

As Ramban there and in our parsha of Acharei Mos writes, even mitzvos which are chovas ha'guf are ideally meant to be fulfilled in Eretz Yisrael. The purpose for us continuing to fulfill them in chu"l is training -- chinuch -- so that when we return to Eretz Yisrael and resume living the way J are supposed to live, the practice of mitzvos will not be strange to us.

This pasuk, which is the basis of the entire concept of chinuch stems, is speaking to us as adults!

From here R' Ben Tzion Aba Shaul makes the next leap. Just like a katan, whose kiyum mitzvah is by definition incomplete, must nonetheless do mitzvos because of the chiyuv of chinuch, so that he is prepared to fulfill them properly when he will be able to achieve a full kiyum, so too, a gadol also has a chiyuv of chinuch to carry out a mitzva,h even if under the circumstance he is in he will not get a full kiyum.

The child who becomes bar mitzvah and is now a gadol may not get a kiyum mitzvah of sefirah if he continues and completes his count. Nonetheless, he must continue to count m'din chinuch.

He brings a proof from a famous safeik raised by R' Akiva Eiger (on OC siman 186). A katan ate a full, satiating meal just before he turned bar mitzvah. He said birkas ha'mazon. The sun then set, and he became a gadol. He is still full from that meal that he ate before sundown. Does he have to bentch again?

The "lomdus" behind the question is how to understand the chiyuv of bentching. וְאָכַלְתָּ֖ וְשָׂבָ֑עְתָּ וּבֵֽרַכְתָּ֙. Is the chiyuv of bentching because of the וְשָׂבָ֑עְתָּ, which is the state the now over-bar-mitzvah finds himself in, or is the chiyuv because of the ְוְאָכַלְתָּ֖, which was done while he was a katan and is therefore essentially meaningless? (There are slightly different permutations on this formulation as well, but this suffices for our discussion.)

The Ohr l'Tzion makes a fantastic diyuk that I haven't seen elsewhere. Why does R' Akiva Eiger frame the question as a case where the katan ate -- AND BENTCHED -- and now became a gadol, and now the issue is whether he has to repeat bentching? If what I just wrote in framing the safeik is correct, R' Akiva Eiger could have framed the same question in a simpler way: a katan ate to the point of וְשָׂבָ֑עְתָּ and now became a gadol -- does he have to bentch or not?

It must be, says the Or l'Tzion, that R' Akiva Eiger took for granted that in that simpler case, where the katan had not bentched, there is no safeik. In that simpler case for sure the now over-bar-mitzvah gadol has to bentch. M'mah nafshach. If the chiyuv for bentching is וְשָׂבָ֑עְתָּ, then he is chayav m'doraysa. But even if the chiyuv is for the וְאָכַלְתָּ֖, which was done when he was a katan, he is still chayav to bentch as a gadol, not because of a din in birkas ha'mazon, but because of the din of chinuch. Same with sefirah: even if there is no kiyum mitzvah as a gadol m'din sefirah, you have to count because of chinuch.

I love the diyuk, but I'm not sure I am convinced. To the point of why R' Akiva Eiger opted to set up this question davka using the more complex case, recall that I started the post with two approaches to the safeik of the M.C. One of the potential issues is whether the act of a katan counts as a kiyum mitzvah. R' Soloveitchik and others point out that the Rambam holds that if a katan registered (minuy) to eat a korban pesach, he does not have to bring pesach sheni if he becomes a gadol in between. He fulfilled his mitzvah with the act he did as a katan. The point is open to debate. Maybe R' Akiva Eiger wanted to roll this issue into his safeik. Had he given the simple case of a katan who ate וְשָׂבָ֑עְתּ and did not bentch, one might have gotten the impression that had the katan bentched, there is nothing to talk about. If he bentched, the kiyum mitzvah of a katan suffices. Not so fast, says R' Akiva Eiger. The safeik still stands even in that case. One can still debate the point.

In other words, the reason R' Akiva Eiger uses the more complex case is not because (as the Or l'Tzion argues) the safeik ONLY applies in this case, but because the safeik applies EVEN in this case. R' Akiva Eiger was not convinced that the act of a katan can count as a kiyum mitzvah.

Let me try prove to you that this was on R' Akiva Eiger's mind here. R' Akiva Eiger adds a note to look at the MG"A in 267:1. The MG"A quotes a Mordechai that says you are yotzei the mitzvah of kiddush recited during tosefes Shabbos even if tosefes Shabbos is derabbanan (comes up all the time if you make early Shabbos). Time inevitably passes; Shabbos will inevitably arrive; therefore it being a bit early is not a show stopper. Asks the MG"A: why then can a katan not be motzi a gadol in bentching? So what if he has no chiyuv d'oraysa -- it's just like tosefes Shabbos. Time will inevitably pass and he will ultimately have a chiyuv d'oraysa. However you resolvedthis question of the MG"A, the point I want to make is why R' Akiva Eiger alluded to it here. The issue MG"A is raising is whether a kiyum mitzvah derabbanan (tosefes Shabbos, katan who has no chuiyuv d'oraysa) counts towards a kiyum d'oraysa. I think R' Akiva Eiger chose his complex case deliberately to roll this issue into his safeik.

why support the party of Jew hatred?

2026-04-16T10:35:00.003-04:00

At the end of the day, if you are a committed Jew but don't really care that Pres Biden rewrote FDA reports to disguise the risk to seniors of getting a stroke from the Covid vaccine, or don't really care that he weaponized the DOJ to prosecute pro-life groups, or that his Inspector General for Intel rewrote the existing rules so as to allow hearsay evidence against Trump; if you don't care about Cory Booker's tax plan that will lower GDP and raise debt, not to mention that companies will absorb the cost by laying off the very workers he wants to help; if you don't care about the return of toevah bathhouses approved by the Dem council in a state run by the Dem nominee for VP last year, or don't cafe about a media so biased against ICE that they are all taken in by a sob story about a women being held in custody while in reality she was enjoying a spa day; if you care about none of this (and I have barely scratched the surface! -- this is just a sample of scandals from the past few days) and are happy to see the USA be destroyed, you would think that as a committed Jew you would at least care about the State of Israel. You would think you would at least abhor and be repulsed by a political party that would withhold arms and supplies from your own people while they fight their enemies:

Forty out of 47 Senate Democrats voted in favor of one of the resolutions to block a $295 million sale of bulldozers, which the initiative’s author, Senator Bernie Sanders, claimed would be used to demolish homes in the West Bank, Gaza and Lebanon. Fifty-nine senators — mostly Republicans — voted against blocking the sale.
Thirty-six Democrats backed another resolution aimed at blocking a $152 million sale of 1,000-pound bombs to the IDF, which Sanders argued would be used in Gaza and Lebanon. Sixty-three senators voted against blocking the sale.

We're not talking about a few fringe nuts. We are talking about a majority of the Senators affiliated with a specific party. Aside from Fetterman, the few who do still vote in support of Israel will not dare raise their voice and call out their colleagues.

And yet there are still Jews who think of themselves as committed (not talking about the J Street types) but continue to support the Democrat party.

The same party that criticized a Trump ad because it used a six pointed star that they claim resembled the Star of David but has no problem endorsing a candidate for Senator who has a nazi tattoo and has accused Israel of genocide.

So sad. So misguided.

right hand / left hand balance

2026-04-16T09:30:00.002-04:00

There is a Meshech Chochma in this week's parsha that fits hand in glove with a Meshech Chochma we discussed a mere 5 years ago. In parshas Vayechi, we read how Yaakov reversed his hands and placed his right hand on Ephraim's head, even though he was the younger son, and his left hand on Menashe's head, even though Menashe was older. Why was the placing of the hands so significant? Meshech Chochma writes that right represents the revelation of Hashem derech nes; left represents the revelation of Hashem within teva. אַף־יָדִי֙ יָ֣סְדָה אֶ֔רֶץ וִימִינִ֖י טִפְּחָ֣ה שָׁמָ֑יִם (Yeshayahu 48:13). The right hand is used to create the heavens; the left hand to create earth. We read in Zos haBracha that "mi'mino aish das lamo," that Torah is given with Hashem's right hand, kavyachol, but when we abandon the Torah, "af choveiv amim," Hashem gets is angry with us and as a result the nations are beloved, and "kol kidoshav b'yadecha," we are held in His left hand, kavyachol.

In Zos haBracha, Rashi comments on the words וְהֵם֙ רִבְב֣וֹת אֶפְרַ֔יִם וְהֵ֖ם אַלְפֵ֥י מְנַשֶּֽׁה that רִבְב֣וֹת are the multitudes killed by Yehoshua, who was from sheivet Ephraim, and the אלפים are those killed by Gidon, who was from Menashe. Meshech Chochma connects Moshe's words to the pasuk (Teh 91:7) יִפֹּ֤ל מִצִּדְּךָ֨ אֶ֗לֶף וּרְבָבָ֥ה מִימִינֶ֑ךָ אֵ֝לֶ֗יךָ לֹ֣א יִגָּֽשׁ. He explains that וּרְבָבָ֥ה מִימִינֶ֑ךָ, on the right, because it corresponds to רִבְב֣וֹת אֶפְרַ֔יִם, and Yaakov placed his right hand on Ephraim's head. מִצִּדְּךָ֨ אֶ֗לֶף, on the left side, corresponds to אַלְפֵ֥י מְנַשֶּֽׁה, and Yaakov placed his left hand on Menashe. Ephraim devoted himself exclusively to Torah study. He lived a life detached from normal day to day events, a "right handed" life. Therefore, his descendent Yehoshua merited open miracles like the sun stopping in the middle of the sky to help him pursue and defeat his enemies, the rivivos Ephraim. Menashe helped deal with the mundane affairs that Yosef had to administer. He was his father's "left hand." His descendants would work within the derech ha'teva to defeat the enemies of the Jewish people, the alphei Menashe.

When we take the Torah out we say the pesukim of "va'yehi bi'nso'a" where Moshe davened for Hashem to scatter our enemies. When we put the Torah back, we say "shuvah Hashem rivivos alphei Yisrael" -- rivivos and alaphim, Ephraim and Menashe, l'maaleh min ha'teva and b'toch ha'teva as one.

The gemara (Sota 47a) writes רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר, יצר תינוק ואשה תהא שמאל דוחה וימין מקרבת. The Meshech Chochma in our parsha uses a slightly different formulation, but his basic point in interpreting this Chazal is consistent with this right/left split. We don't believe in eschewing materialism completely. There is a role even for the yetzer, or otherwise we might not procreate. However, we have to always keep in mind what the end goal is. The right-handed l'shem shamyim ימין force should guide us, not the left-handed force of gashmiyus for its own sake.

The gemara (Menachos 25, a recent daf yomi) tells us that while ordinarily the left hand cannot be used for avodah, it is allowed on Yom Kippur, when the kohen carries the ketores into kodesh kodashim using a kli held in that hand. On Y"K we completely separate ourselves from the material world, so on that day even the left hand is empowered for holiness.

What does all this have to do with our parsha? In the process of the taharah of the metzora, the oil to be dabbed on him is placed in the kohen's left hand וְטָבַ֤ל הַכֹּהֵן֙ אֶת־אֶצְבָּע֣וֹ הַיְמָנִ֔ית מִן־הַשֶּׁ֕מֶן אֲשֶׁ֥ר עַל־כַּפּ֖וֹ הַשְּׂמָאלִ֑ית (14:15) The kohen who exemplifies leading a life where the left has its proper place -- his eating is done b'kedusha, e.g. kodshim and terumah; he is barred from marrying certain women; he cannot do avodah when he is tamei -- such a person can serve as the role model for the metzora of how to achieve a proper balance in life. We are not meant to live בּדד ישׁב like a hermit, divorced from the world, but at the same time. That is a temporary measure designed to enable a return to the right balance.

time to burn the chametz

2026-04-01T12:23:00.002-04:00

not knowing whether to dance or cry

2026-03-26T11:51:00.006-04:00

I was struck by the fact that Rashi and Ramban have diametrically opposed interpretations of the last pasuk in our parsha:

וַיַּ֥עַשׂ אַהֲרֹ֖ן וּבָנָ֑יו אֵ֚ת כׇּל־הַדְּבָרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ בְּיַד־מֹשֶֽׁה

Rashi comments:

ויעש אהרן ובניו – להגיד שבחן, שלא הטו ימין ושמאל

The kohanim did exactly as instructed, with no deviation.

Ramban, on the other hands, notes the expression used in our pasuk, אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ בְּיַד־מֹשֶֽׁה, is unusual. Usually we see the phrase כּאשר צוה ה׳ את משה. Why the difference here? He explains:

אבל בכאן מפני שהוסיפו על המצוה, לא אמר כן, כי לא עשו כאשר צוה השם, אבל עשו כל הדברים אשר צוה השם, ועוד נוסף עליהם מה שיאמר באש זרה: אשר לא צוה אותם

The kohanim did exactly as instructed, plus. That plus is a deviation that, as we will read in next week's parsha, would lead to tragedy.

I understand the need to tell us that things did not go according to plan. However, according to Rashi, why does the fact that things did go according to plan warrant a mention? Clearly the Torah does not tell us every time Moshe gave some command or mitzvah that Bn"Y obeyed as instructed. It's assumed. So why would we not make that assumption here? We does the Torah have to spell it out?

This is not the only place we find this phenomenon. One other well known example occurs in the parsha of lighting the menorah (BaMidbar 8:3)

וַיַּ֤עַשׂ כֵּן֙ אַהֲרֹ֔ן אֶל־מוּל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הַמְּנוֹרָ֔ה הֶעֱלָ֖ה נֵרֹתֶ֑יהָ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ אֶת־מֹשֶֽׁה

Rashi: ויעש כן אהרן – להגיד שבחו של אהרן שלא שינה.

Maharal in Gur Aryeh explains why the fact that Aharon did as instructed warrants mention:

וקשה, מאי שבח יש בזה שהיה מדליק המנורה, ויש לתרץ, דהוצרך צמצום גדול לצמצם שיהיו כולם נגד האמצעי ממש, והוצרך לצדד אותם.

Another example that has to do with Pesach, since it is inyana d'yoma (BaMidbar 9:5):

וַיַּעֲשׂ֣וּ אֶת־הַפֶּ֡סַח בָּרִאשׁ֡וֹן בְּאַרְבָּעָה֩ עָשָׂ֨ר י֥וֹם לַחֹ֛דֶשׁ בֵּ֥ין הָעַרְבַּ֖יִם בְּמִדְבַּ֣ר סִינָ֑י כְּ֠כֹ֠ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֤ה ה׳ אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֔ה כֵּ֥ן עָשׂ֖וּ בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

Sifri darshens: ככל אשר צוה י״י את משה – להודיע שבחן של ישראל שכשם שאמר להם משה כן עשו.

Here too, Maharal (on our pasuk) explains why the fact that Bn"Y followed instructions warrants mention: מפני כי הפסח הוא מוטל על כל יחיד ויחיד לעשות הפסח, ולא כמו שאר המצות, כי קרבן זה יש לו שעה ידועה ומוגבלת לכל ישראל:

(Parenthetically, why does Rashi in our parsha and Rashi in the parsha of lighting menorah quote the derash of להגיד שבחו or להגיד שבחן, but he doesn't do so in that parsha of korban pesach? The Sifri has the derasha, but Rashi is silent. I don't have an answer yet.)

The common denominator in these cases is that there was some difficulty to be overcome, and the pasuk tells us that everything was done exactly כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ אֶת־מֹשֶֽׁה despite the difficulty. So what was the difficulty Aharon faced and that he overcame in our parsha? I want to offer three possibilities: a practical difficulty, a psychological challenge/difficulty, and an emotional one.

The miluim were a seven day prep and training period for Aharon and his sons to learn how to do avodah. When you have a period of time set for training, you don't expect a person to perform the same on day #1 as on the final day. Let's say you decide to devote six months to learn to play the piano One would hope that on the last day of month 6 your playing is significantly better than on the day you started. In our case, the praise of שלא הטו ימין ושמאל is not talking about what happened only on day seven of the miluim. It's talking even about day one. Not only did Aharon or his sons not err in a way that would pasel a korban, but, explains the Lubavitcher Rebbe, לא הטו, they did not make the slightest deviation, the slightest error, even something that was not l'ikuva. Despite the practical challenges of performing a task that he had no prior training for, Aharon did a flawless job from the get-go. It would be like sitting down at that piano on day #1 with no prior training and banging out a flawless rendition of Rachmaninoff's Concerto No. 2 (enjoy!). Only someone who is completely connected to what he is doing can pull that off. לֹא יְאֻנֶּה לַצַּדִּיק כׇּל אָוֶן (Mishlei 12:21) That was the special bracha of Aharon.

Maharal offers another answer based on a Chazal:

אלא שעשו זה בשמחה לקיים מה שאמר להם משה כאילו שמעו מפי הגבורה. ... דזה שייך כאן, כי דרך עולם – גדול שנצטווה מאחר, אינו עושה בשמחה שהוא ישמע לאחר, אבל אהרן היה שמח כאילו בעצמו שמע.

Even though the commands were given בְּיַד־מֹשֶֽׁה and not to him directly, and no one, not even the great Aharon, likes to be bossed around -- psychologically, we have an adverse reaction to taking orders -- that didn't diminish Aharon's simcha, that didn't diminish he meticulousness in doing the avodah properly.

I wanted to suggest another reason that the praise warrants mention here. The Tanchuma at the beginning of next week's parsha writes as follows:

זֶה שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב: שׁוֹמֵר מִצְוָה לֹא יֵדַע דָּבָר רָע (קהלת ח, ה). מִי הָיָה. זֶה אַהֲרֹן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וּמִפֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא תֵּצְאוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים, וּפֶתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד תֵּשְׁבוּ יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה. אָמַר לָהֶם מֹשֶׁה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו, שִׁמְרוּ אֲבֵלוּת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַגִּיעַ בָּכֶם. וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת מִשְׁמֶרֶת ה', שֶׁכָּךְ שָׁמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי אֲבֵלוּת עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא אֶת הַמַּבּוּל, כִּבְיָכוֹל. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁנִּתְאַבֵּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיִּנָחֵם ה' כִּי עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם וַיִּתְעַצֵּב אֶל לִבּוֹ (בראשית ו, ו). וְאֵין עֲצִיבָה אֶלָּא אֵבֶל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַתְּהִי הַתְּשׁוּעָה בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לְאֵבֶל עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי אָמַר הָעָם כִּי נֶעֱצַב הַמֶּלֶךְ עַל בְּנוֹ (ש״ב יט, ג). וְכֵן עֶזְרָא אָמַר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיוּ בּוֹכִין אִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו וְאִישׁ אֶל בְּנוֹ, לְכוּ אִכְלוּ מִשְׁמַנִּים וּשְׁתוּ וְגוֹ' וְאַל תֵּעָצְבוּ כִּי חֶדְוַת ה' הִיא מָעֻזְּכֶם (נחמיה ח, י). בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה שָׁמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הָאֵבֶל עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא אֶת הַמַּבּוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיְהִי לְשִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים וּמֵי הַמַּבּוּל הָיוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ (בראשית ז, י). וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּתְאַבֵּל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל עוֹלָמוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא אֶת הַמַּבּוּל, אַף אַתֶּם שִׁמְרוּ אֶת יְמֵי הָאֵבֶל עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַגִּיעַ בָּכֶם. הָיוּ מְשַׁמְּרִים וְלֹא הָיוּ יוֹדְעִים עַל מָה מְשַׁמְּרִים. כְּמַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר: שׁוֹמֵר מִצְוָה לֹא יֵדַע דָּבָר רָע.

Imagine that it's one week to go before the chassunah, and the Rabbi pulls aside the chaosson and kallah and says to them that he has a special task for them to complete in this week before the wedding. He wants them G-d forbid to sit shiva. Can you imagine what the chosson and kallah would think? "The Rabbi has lost his marbles!" is what they would think. Here, it's one week before the grand inauguration of the mishkan, a day of overwhelming simcha, and Moshe comes and tells Aharon and his sons that they need to sit shiva. Emotionally, it's something that is jarring and out of sync with their feelings. לֹא יֵדַע דָּבָר רָע they have no idea what bad thing they are sitting shiva for, they have no idea why that have to do this, but they do so anyway.

The flipside is the episode in Sefer Ezra that the Midrash refers to.. It's Rosh haShana everyone in shul is crying tears of remorse. Each person is in aveilus for himself, because he married a shiksa and he realizes it's the Yom haDin and he is finished, his life is ruined. Ezra gets up and gives a derasha and tells this guy to go out and party, וְאַל תֵּעָצְבוּ כִּי חֶדְוַת ה' הִיא מָעֻזְּכֶם.

R' Zalman Sorotzkin writes in the Oznayim laTorah that Chazal are trying to tell us that a person can have no idea where he is holding. Am I at a chasunah or am I in the beis aveilus? We don't even understand the reality before us. Sometimes we are on the cusp of tragedy and don't even realize what is around the corner, and sometimes we are tearing kri'ah like our life is ruined and we should instead be dancing. That's a very sobering thought.

Since it's shabbos ha'gadol, maybe we can connect this to leil ha'seder. When it comes to the leil ha'seder, on the one hand we recline like kings, we eat the korban pesach al ha'sova, we recline like kings but on the other hand we eat lechem oni, we eat maror, we eat eggs to remind us of 9 Av. What kind of hodge podge is this? Is it a beis ha'mishteh or beis aveil? According to the Abarbanel that's the meaning of mah nishtana. It's the contrast between haseiba and tibul (which is how the rich would eat) with maror and lechem oni that arouses curiosity. We exist in a twilight world and can't make sense of things. But that's an accurate reflection of life, or at least life as we know it now. The Yaavetz, in his commentary, writes that in our galus we are like a chatzi eved chatzi ben chorin. We can (sometimes) find peace and prosperity in foreign lands, but we know that this is not where we belong. We are in a state of "yachatz," a matzah half full, half empty, unsure of which way things will tilt this year. In Eretz Yisrael, there are missiles flying. The danger is real. But we all sense that it's not time for aveilus, that we are on the cusp of something big, something great just out of reach.

haggadas eidus, haggadah shel pesach -- amira, dibur, haggadah: is there a difference?

2026-03-19T11:58:00.004-04:00

The gemara has a derasha on the pasuk וְנֶ֣פֶשׁ כִּֽי־תֶחֱטָ֗א וְשָֽׁמְעָה֙ ק֣וֹל אָלָ֔ה וְה֣וּא עֵ֔ד א֥וֹ רָאָ֖ה א֣וֹ יָדָ֑ע אִם־ל֥וֹא יַגִּ֖יד וְנָשָׂ֥א עֲוֺנֽוֹ׃ (5:1) that כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד, once eidim testify, their testimony cant be changed or retracted. How did Chazal get that from the pasuk? The Ritva in Kesubos 18 already discusses this question and gives three answers:

יש שפירש בתוספת מדכתיב ואם לא יגיד ונשא עונו דאית לן למדרש כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד כדדרשינן ביבם אשר לא יבנה בית אחיו כיון שלא בנה שוב לא יבנה וכיון דכן ע״כ הכי בעי למימר כיון שלא הגיד לכתחלה בענין זה שרצה לומר עכשיו שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד ואחרים פירשו שאת״ל חוזר ומגיד לא תמצא קרבן שבועות עדות דלעולם חוזר ומגיד וקרוב לזה פירש רש״י אינו חוזר ומגיד דגבי עדיות חדא הגדה כתיב ואם לא יגיד ... אבל הנכון דנפקא לן האי פי׳ דלא יגיד מדכתב על פי שנים עדים יקום דבר אלמא על מה שהעידו בב״ד יתקיים הדין לזכות או לחיוב לאלתר ואם יכולים לחזור ולהעיד האיך יקום דבר והיינו דאמר וכ״ת ה״מ על פה כלומר משום דכי כתיב יקום דבר ע״פ שנים עדים כתיב.

R' Chaim Kanievsky writes that his father once met a Polish iluy who distinguished between the terms haggadah, amira, and dibur. Haggadah, he said, applies only to a one time event. The Steipler was very impressed with this vort and relayed it to the Chazon Ish who on the spot came up with 10 exceptions.

Whenever I hear a vort like this my instinct is to grab my concordance and check a few examples to see if it works. Not sure why the Steipler didn't do that, but the Chazon Ish was a walking talking concordance. My second instinct is to take a look at the Malbim. Sure enough, he also distinguishes between these terms in a comment on our pasuk (#300):

אבל הבלתי מגיד הוא במקום שהגדתו מכרעת ושמבקשים לדעתו, שזה אחד ההבדלים בין מגיד ובין יתר לשונות כמו מספר, מדבר, אומר. שספורי דברים בעלמא הבלתי נוגעים להאיש השומע יתפוס לשון ״סיפור״; ״והדובר דברים״ בלתי חדשים מצד עצמם או ״האומר״ דרך ציוי או דבר בלתי מתחייב ממנו דבר חדש יתפוס ״אמירה״. ... כי גדר ההגדה שיגיד אל הנוגע בדבר ומודיע לו דבר נעלם שצריך לדעתו.

You need my input or information that I have to make a decision? That's מגיד.

My hunch is that מגיד is connected to action. Avimelech complains to Avraham (Braishis 12:18)

וַיִּקְרָ֤א פַרְעֹה֙ לְאַבְרָ֔ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר מַה־זֹּ֖את עָשִׂ֣יתָ לִּ֑י לָ֚מָּה לֹא־הִגַּ֣דְתָּ לִּ֔י כִּ֥י אִשְׁתְּךָ֖ הִֽוא׃

Had I had more information, I would have stayed away from Sarah and not taken her.

The brothers tell Yaakov (Braishis 43:7)

וַיֹּאמְר֡וּ שָׁא֣וֹל שָֽׁאַל־הָ֠אִ֠ישׁ לָ֣נוּ וּלְמֽוֹלַדְתֵּ֜נוּ לֵאמֹ֗ר הַע֨וֹד אֲבִיכֶ֥ם חַי֙ הֲיֵ֣שׁ לָכֶ֣ם אָ֔ח וַנַּ֨גֶּד־ל֔וֹ עַל־פִּ֖י הַדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֑לֶּה הֲיָד֣וֹעַ נֵדַ֔ע כִּ֣י יֹאמַ֔ר הוֹרִ֖ידוּ אֶת־אֲחִיכֶֽם׃

They did a haggadah, which prompted the action / response of Yosef demanding that Yosef come to Egypt.

The most striking example is in the parsha of mikra bikkurim (26:2)

וּבָאתָ֙ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִהְיֶ֖ה בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֑ם וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֵלָ֗יו הִגַּ֤דְתִּי הַיּוֹם֙ לַה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ כִּי־בָ֙אתִי֙ אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר נִשְׁבַּ֧ע יְהֹוָ֛ה לַאֲבֹתֵ֖ינוּ לָ֥תֶת לָֽנוּ

There is no decision being made here. It's all about action. The farmer says he did a haggadah by bringing his bikkurim, through his actions.

I think that's what the Ritva means in his last answer. When witnesses testify that Reuvain borrowed $100 from Shimon, that's not just a story they are telling, or information they are passing on. What they are doing is prodding the court to take action. They have in effect set the wheels of justice in motion. In halacha, words can be undone, but action is harder to undo.

M'inyana d'yoma, this all got me thinking about why we call what we do on Pesach "haggadah." You do have the term "sipur yetzi'as Mitzrayim," which we discussed once before, but everybody knows the book we read is a Haggadah and the mitzah is called maggid. Are we testifying to the truth of the events? Maybe. Here too, I think there is a link to action. Firstly, we are not just telling a story. We are re-enacting the events that occurred. Secondly, if you walk away from the table at the end of seder night and say to yourself, "That was a nice story," you missed the point. What does that story inspire you to do? How will you act now that you have the gift of freedom? These are the questions to ask ourselves...

the best korban of them all

2026-03-19T11:48:00.004-04:00

1) R' Shteinmen held that after techiyas ha'meisim we will be obligated to bring all the korbanos that we did not get to bring in our lifetime. The gemara (Shabbos 12b) tells us that Rabbi Yishmael tilted a lamp on Shabbos and put aside money to bring a chatas when the mikdash is rebuilt.

רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר, קָרָא וְהִטָּה וְכָתַב עַל פִּנְקָסוֹ: אֲנִי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן אֱלִישָׁע, קָרִיתִי וְהִטֵּיתִי נֵר בְּשַׁבָּת, לִכְשֶׁיִּבָּנֶה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ אָבִיא חַטָּאת שְׁמֵנָה

When we recite korbanos in the morning there is a custom to add a y'hei ratzon and say the pesukim count "as if" we brought a korban. R' Shteinman must have held that is not to be taken literally, otherwise we have already brought whatever korbanos are needed by reciting those pesukim. (see this post )

This statement of R' Yishmaeil is reflected in the Rama (334:26) ואם עבר וחילל עזצריך להתענות ארבעים יום שני וחמישי ולא ישתה יין עטולא יאכל בשר ויתן במקו' חטאת י"ח פשיטים צדקה ואם ירצה לפדות התענית יתן בעד כל יום י"ב פשיטים לצדקה.

Where did he get that amount from? The M"B explains: וטעם לשיעור זה שכתבו הפוסקים הוא מפני שזה היה פחות שבכבשים או שבעזים באותו העת ולכך צריך ליתן שיעור זה לצדקה שהרי כשהיה בהמ"ק קיים היה חייב להביא חטאת מאלו המינים אם עשה מלאכה דאורייתא ולא יהא חוטא נשכר. ויזהר שלא יאמר שנותן זה עבור חטאת רק שיאמר שבמקום חטאת נותן זה לצדקה [ח"א] וכתבו הספרים שמהנכון שיאמר פרשת חטאת ויבין אופן הקרבתה וכבר אחז"ל כל העוסק בתורת חטאת כאלו הקריב חטאת:

We say in our tefilas mussaf את מוסף יום השׁבּת הזה נקריב לפניך בּרצון. R' Shteinman quoted from the Sefer haPardes that when the mikdash is restored we will resume offering korbanos and we will have to do a make-up for everything we missed. We missed THIS Shabbos, השׁבּת הזה, so we will have to make up the korban for THIS Shabbos.

I don't understand this chiddush. B'shalama by korban chatas, the chiyuv is not time bound. At some point in a person's life they have to make good on the korban they owe. The korban musaf, however, is specific to a point in time. Avar yomo, bateil korbano. You miss the day you are supposed to bring it on, there is no makeup.

2) There is another amazing vort from R' Shteinman, and like I've written before, there are certain answers that are ראוי למי שׁאמרם. This is one of them.

Yalkut Shimoni Shmuel I remez 99:

ת"ר משפחה אחת היתה בירושלים שהיו מתיה מתים בני שמונה עשרה שנה באו והודעו את רבן יוחנן בן זכאי. א"ל שמא ממשפחת עלי אתם, דכתיב וכל מרבית ביתך ימותו אנשים לכו עסקו בתורה וחיו, הלכו עסקו בתורה וחיו והיו קורין אותם משפחת יוחנן על שמו. רב כהנא הוה דאי ומצלי והוה ר' חייא בר אבא מצלי קדמוי כיון דחסל ר' חייא בר אבא כעם דלא בעי נפסוק קומי רב כהנא, א"ל ר' חייא בר אבא נהיגון בבבל מצעקרין רביהון, א"ל לית רבי ידע שאני ממשפחת בית עלי שכתוב בהם אם יתכפר עון בית עלי בזבח ובמנחה, בזבח ובמנחה אינו מתכפר אבל מתכפר הוא בתפלה, וצלי עלוהי והאריך ימים עד דאתעבידא (טו) טופרוי סומקא כהדין רקיקא:

Rav Kahana came from the family of Eli haKohen who were all punished by Hashem to die at a young age. He therefore would daven a long davening, as the pasuk says that the family cannot get a kapparah through korbanos, but, darshens the Midrash, they can get kapparah through tefilah.

The point of davening is ונשׁלמה פּרים שׂפתינו. Tefilah is in place of korbanos. How then can tefilah be more powerful than a korban? If the korban would not bring kapprah, then kal v'chomer tefilah shouldn't work?

R' Shteinman answered that זבחי אלקים רוח נשׁבּרה (Tehi 51:19). A person can bring a korban and still be a baal gaavah, but a person who really is davening properly, who feels dependent on Hashem for his needs, cannot. Tefilah is the ultimate ego deflator, as it forces a person to recognize that he is not in control. רוח נשׁבּרה is the biggest korban, and therefore works even when other korbanos do not.

learning hilchos ha'chag -- a din in talmud torah or a din on Y"T?

2026-03-12T11:12:00.001-04:00

The gemara (Pesachim 6a) has a din that one is supposed to start to learn hilchos pesach 30 days before the chag שואלין ודורשין בהלכות הפסח קודם הפסח שלשים יום ר' שמעון בן גמליאל אומר שתי שבתות. The gemara on the last daf in Megillah gives a different time frame and says one is supposed to learn the laws of the chag on the chag itself ת"ר משה תיקן להם לישראל שיהו שואלין ודורשין בענינו של יום הלכות פסח בפסח הלכות עצרת בעצרת הלכות חג בחג. So which is it?

Ran answers, based on the girsa of the RI"F who had the text שואלין and not שואלין ודורשין, that the din of 30 days does not require you to learn hilchos ha'chag. All it means is that if two different peole pose shaylos to a Rav at the same time, one that has to do with the chag and one that does not, from 30 days before the holiday onward all questions that relate to the holiday take precedence. (see Biur Halacha in siman 429 who discusses this Ran at length. Rashi and Tos clearly do not learn this way).

The Beis Yosef answers that the din of 30 days applies only to chag haPesach, as there is a large body of complex laws that are associated with the chag. As I've written before, the laws of Pesach touch on every area. You have your orach chaim halachos of the chag, you have to know choshen mishpat to sell your chameitz properly, you have to know yoreh de'ah to get into the laws of koshering and taaroves. You maybe get off light in the even ha'ezer dept.

The simplest answer to the question I think is that it's not an either/or choice -- embrace the power of "and." You are obligated to learn the halachos 30 days beforehand and are also supposed do so on Y"T itself (see Tos Meg 4a). The only problem with this approach is that it begs the question of why one would need to study the halachos of the chag on the chag if one already covered that material beforehand.

To help resolve this problem Rav Wahrman in Orot Pesach points out that the Rambam does not formulate the gemara in Megilah's din as an obligation to specifically learn halacha. The Rambam in tefilah 13:8 writes:

ומשה תיקן להם לישראל שיהו קוראין בכל מועד ענינו. ושואלין ודורשין בענינו של יום בכל מועד ומועד.

While the gemara refers to הלכות פסח בפסח הלכות עצרת בעצרת הלכות חג בחג, the Rambam just refers to ענינו של יום, a far broader term that encompasses any time of limud.

The Rambam in hil megillah (1:13) gives us another clue to how he understood this din. Rambam tells us that when Purim falls out on Shabbos:

ושואלין ודורשין בהלכות פורים באותה שבת כדי להזכיר שהוא פורים:

The point of learning the ענינו של יום (and I am not sure why he does not use that phrase in hil megillah, which would have bolstered R' Wahrman's argument) is not to familiarize oneself with the halachos. If you don't know what to do after studying the laws for 30 days before the chag, it is a bit too late. Rather, the point is to help in the commemoration of Y"T -- להזכיר שהוא פורים. The same would seem to hold true with respect to learning on the other Yamim Tovim. It is like a pirsumei nisa din.

I would note as well that the Rambam doesn't quote the gemara's din in hil talmud torah, where you might have expected it to be, but rather it's in hilchos tefilah, in the context of telling us what kri'as haTorah should be read on each Y"T. Just like the specific kri'ah of the day reflects and helps establish the character of the day, so too, focusing one's learning on topic matter related to the chag helps establish the character of the day.

Apart from the Rambam's chiddush as to what content matter should be studied, Rav Wahrman suggests a second nafka minah to this approach. Rashi (Meg 4) comments שואלין ודורשין. מעמידין תורגמן לפני החכם לדרוש אגרת פורים ברבים: The learning done on the day of Y"T has to be a public shiur. If the point was simply to study and know halacha, it would suffice to study shulchan aruch in the privacy of one's home. However, if the point is pirsumei nisa, or pirsum ha'chag, it makes sense that it must be a public display.

It is striking to me that Rav Wahrman does not point out that the Yerushalmi seems to say the exact opposite.

שואלין בהלכות פסח בפסח הלכות עצרת בעצרת הלכות חג בחג בבית ועד שואלין קודם לשלשים יום

Pnei Moshe: שואלין בהלכות פסח בפסח. כ״א ואחד בביתו אבל בבית ועד שמתקבצין הרבה בביה״מ ללמוד שואלין קודם לשלשים יום

The Biur Halacha quotes Chok Yaakov as suggesting that this is the resolution to the Ran's question that we started weith. The din of learning 30 days before the chag means that the topic of the chsag is the curriculum in the beis medrash where the pubic gathers to learn. The din of learning hilchos ha'chag on the chag is what one does in private, in one's home.

Rav Wahrman does raise a problem with his chiddush based on the Yalkut Shimoni on VaYakehl, our parsha:

רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בַּעֲלֵי אַגָּדָה אוֹמְרִים. מִתְּחִלַּת הַתּוֹרָה וְעַד סוֹפָהּ אֵין בָּהּ פָּרָשָׁה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּרֹאשָׁהּ וַיַּקְהֵל אֶלָּא זֹאת בִּלְבַד, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, עֲשֵׂה לְךָ קְהִלּוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת, וּדְרֹשׁ לִפְנֵיהֶם בָּרַבִּים הִלְכוֹת שַׁבָּת, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּלְמְדוּ מִמְּךָ דּוֹרוֹת הַבָּאִים לְהַקְהִיל קְהִלּוֹת בְּכָל שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת וְלִכְנֹס בְּבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת לְלַמֵּד וּלְהוֹרוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה אִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּר כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא שְׁמִי הַגָּדוֹל מִתְקַלֵּס בֵּין בָּנַי, מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ, מֹשֶׁה תִּקֵּן לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיִּהְיוּ דּוֹרְשִׁין בְּעִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁל יוֹם, הִלְכוֹת פֶּסַח בַּפֶּסַח, הִלְכוֹת עֲצֶרֶת בָּעֲצֶרֶת, הִלְכוֹת הֶחָג בֶּחָג

The gemara describes Moshe's gathering of Bn"Y on Shabbos to teach them halachos, לְלַמֵּד וּלְהוֹרוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה אִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּר, and extrapolates from that to the chiyuv to do the same on Y"T. Sounds like the din of studying hilchos ha'chag on the chag is to know halacha, and not a pirsumei nisa like din.

Rav Wahrman says אכתי ישׁ לדון בּזה, but he doesn't explain further. My guess is that while his question highlights the words ְלַמֵּד וּלְהוֹרוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה אִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּר, it does not do justice to the second half of that sentence: כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא שְׁמִי הַגָּדוֹל מִתְקַלֵּס בֵּין בָּנַי. That line suggests a motivation for learning that goes beyond simply knowing issur v'heter. It sounds like the purpose of the study of the halacha was to give shevach to Hashem, not the knowledge for its own sake.

A couple of years ago I suggested that this Yalkut is not a din in talmud torah, i.e. that the mitzvah of talmud torah requires greater committment on shabbos than on a weekday, but rather the Yalkut is a din in Shabbos, i.e. a Shabbos without torah is an incomplete kiyum of mitzvas Shabbos. It would be like Shabbos without kiddush, or Shabbos without cholent. The same is true of Y"T. The chiyuv to learn hilchos ha'chag 30 days before the chag is a din in talmud torah, but learning on the y"t is a kiyum in hil' Y"T. (See this post discussing R' Zolti's chiddush that talmud torah can be a kiyum in simchas Y"T).

a relationship that can endure stress

2026-03-05T19:45:00.001-05:00

1) R' Moshe Wolfson suggests that the reason we read parshas parah before ha'chodesh is because parshas hachodesh represents the hischadshus of the new month of Nissan which heralds the geulah. Every time there is a his'orerus for geulah, it arouses a corresponding push back of kitrug. Why are we worthy of geulah? Who says we deserve it? We want to get ahead of the curve in responding to the kitrug. Maybe it's true -- maybe it makes no rational sense to say that we are worthy of geulah. But so what? We observe mitzvos like parah adumah that make no sense. Whether something makes sense or not is not the be-all and end-all of everything.

2) In response to the cheit ha'eigel Hashem told Moshe that in place of His presence, going forward there would now be a malach (33:2-3).

וְשָׁלַחְתִּ֥י לְפָנֶ֖יךָ מַלְאָ֑ךְ ... כִּ֤י עַם־קְשֵׁה־עֹ֙רֶף֙ אַ֔תָּה פֶּן־אֲכֶלְךָ֖ בַּדָּֽרֶךְ

Moshe refused to accept that state of affairs. וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֵלָ֑יו אִם־אֵ֤ין פָּנֶ֙יךָ֙ הֹלְכִ֔ים אַֽל־תַּעֲלֵ֖נוּ מִזֶּֽה (33:14). Rashi explains: וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֵלָ֑יו אִם־אֵ֤ין פָּנֶ֙יךָ֙ הֹלְכִ֔ים אַֽל־תַּעֲלֵ֖נוּ מִזֶּֽה

Hashem agreed: וַיֹּ֤אמֶר ה׳ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה גַּ֣ם אֶת־הַדָּבָ֥ר הַזֶּ֛ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר דִּבַּ֖רְתָּ אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֑ה

Yet in the next perek, Moshe repeats the same request all over again: וַיֹּ֡אמֶר אִם־נָא֩ מָצָ֨אתִי חֵ֤ן בְּעֵינֶ֙יךָ֙ אֲדֹנָ֔י יֵֽלֶךְ־נָ֥א אֲדֹ־נָ֖י בְּקִרְבֵּ֑נוּ כִּ֤י עַם־קְשֵׁה־עֹ֙רֶף֙ ה֔וּא וְסָלַחְתָּ֛ לַעֲוֺנֵ֥נוּ וּלְחַטָּאתֵ֖נוּ וּנְחַלְתָּֽנוּ (34:9)

Hashem had already agreed to Moshe's request. Why is Moshe rehashing the same thing all over again?

Everyone knows the vort that Yom K-Purim is like Purim. In fact, it would seem that Purim is the greater holiday, as katan nitleh b'gadol. But, as my BIL R' Yochanan explained on Purim, there is a difference between them. Y"K is like you are in the dark, and suddenly a light is turned on and you can see everything clearly. That's what we feel like by neilah. At that moment all the petty things in life feel like exactly that -- petty, insignificant things. We rise above it all and the only thing that really matters is out connection to Hashem. The problem is that the light doesn't stay on forever. Eventually -- whether already by motzei Y"K, or maybe if you absorb something more it happens after Sukkos, or maybe it lasts until Chanukah -- the light grows dim and we are back in the same dark world as before, immersed in gashniyus and inyanei ha'guf. Purim is a different kind of experience. On Purim we eat and drink and party and our guf is having a great time too. Purim is not about coming close to Hashem just when the light goes on and we see His presence clearly. Purim is about knowing Hashem is there even when it's dark, even when there is hester panim, even when we are immersed in the gashniyus of olam ha'zeh. Y"K is the day the satan has no power of kitrug; we rise above his realm and escape. Purim we take the battle to the yetzer on his own court. You, yetzer ha'ra, can have your say, can have your olam ha'zeh that you drag us into -- because we can find Hashem even there.

R' Naftali of Ropshitz in Zera Kodesh writes that we always read Ki Tisa the week after Purim and so there must be some connection between the parsha and Purim. Perhaps (this is not his answer, so ayen sham what he has to say) the explanation of why Moshe repeated his request is that connection. Moshe's original request was for Hashem not to be angry with Bn"Y. It's Yom Kippur, so wipe the slate clean, because if that slate is not wiped clean, if You continue to be angry, then we are in deep trouble. We are stuck with a malach, and that's not good enough. So Moshe pleaded for Hashem to change His mood, kavyachol, and put aside the gzar din.

Not only did Hashem respond positively to that request, but He went a step further and taught Moshe the 13 middos. Armed with this new tool in his arsenal, Moshe now revisited his earlier request. Tzror haMor writes:

ועוד אני אומר כי זה דבר חדש. כי משה קודם שידע שלשה עשר מדות בקש שילכו פנים של זעם ויתנהג עמהם במדת רחמים. ואחר שלמד י״ג מדות שהם כולם רחמים ומעבירין כל מיני מדות הדין ויש בהם כפרת עונות. חזר לומר דבר אחר הפך מהראשון. והוא ילך נא אדני שהוא מדת הדין בקרבנו. כי איני ירא ממנו אעפ״י שהוא דין וזה העם עם קשה עורף. אחר שהוא בטוח בחסד ה׳ ובי״ג מדותיו של רחמים שהם יבטלו כל הגזרות וכל מיני מדות הדין. וזהו כי עם קשה עורף. אע״פ שהוא עם קשה עורף מהטעם כי אתה תסלח לעונם. ולכן תמצא שכתוב בכאן ילך נא אדני באל״ף דלי״ת שהוא לשון אדנות ומדת הדין.

Moshe is not repeating what he said earlier. He is changing the terms of his earlier request. Not only do we want Hashem's presence with us when the slate is clean, when the light is on, when we are like malachim, like on Y"K, and we won't cause problems, but now Moshe asks for Hashem to be with us even if the slate is dirty, even if כִּ֤י עַם־קְשֵׁה־עֹ֙רֶף֙ ה֔וּא, because we know at the end of the day there are 13 midos ha'rachamim and He will stick with us anyway. Even though we see hester panim, even though we see midas ha'din, at the end of the day we know He will bail us out anyway. That's what Purim is all about.

There are some relationships where the two parties somehow never have a disagreement, or they tiptoe around things to avoid one, because they know that if they do, it is liable to break the bond between them. Then there are relationships where the two parties sometimes do clash. That doesn't mean the bond between then is weaker. Aderaba, it shows the relationship is strong enough to survive the disagreement. Moshe originally asked Hashem to put aside his anger -- we can't have a disagreement, because if we do, then You are going to leave us in the hands of a malach. Moshe then changed his request, and said to Hashem that even if we have our fights, it doesn't matter -- we will remain bonded together anyway.

act like a winner and you will be a winner

2026-03-02T20:41:00.001-05:00

t the end of the megillah Esther begs Achashveirosh to rescind the decree against Bnei Yisrael (8:5):

יִכָּתֵ֞ב לְהָשִׁ֣יב אֶת־הַסְּפָרִ֗ים מַחֲשֶׁ֜בֶת הָמָ֤ן בֶּֽן־הַמְּדָ֙תָא֙ הָאֲגָגִ֔י

Achashveirish responds that he cannot do that, as once promulgated, the law cannot be rescinded. But what he can do is send another letter allowing the J to fight back (8:8):

אַתֶּ֠ם כִּתְב֨וּ עַל־הַיְּהוּדִ֜ים כַּטּ֤וֹב בְּעֵֽינֵיכֶם֙ בְּשֵׁ֣ם הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ וְחִתְמ֖וּ בְּטַבַּ֣עַת הַמֶּ֑לֶךְ כִּֽי־כְתָ֞ב אֲשֶׁר־נִכְתָּ֣ב בְּשֵׁם־הַמֶּ֗לֶךְ וְנַחְתּ֛וֹם בְּטַבַּ֥עַת הַמֶּ֖לֶךְ אֵ֥ין לְהָשִֽׁיב׃

Everyone is thrilled! Time to celebrate!

לַיְּהוּדִ֕ים הָֽיְתָ֥ה אוֹרָ֖ה וְשִׂמְחָ֑ה וְשָׂשֹׂ֖ן וִיקָֽר׃

R' Chaim Kanievsky asks: why were people already jumping for joy? They weren't out of the woods yet! They would have to fight a war against the Aggagi - Amaleiki. According to some Rishonim the reason we have taanis Esther is because that was the day we gathered for battle. People's lives were still on the line.

R' Chaim answers (Taama d'Kra) that this was a deliberate ploy by Mordechai. If you act like a winner, people think you are a winner. People treat you like a winner. Mordechai said to act like the battle was won, like they held all the cards now. It may not have been true, but the point is that it gave the impression that it was true. רַבִּ֞ים מֵֽעַמֵּ֤י הָאָ֨רֶץ֙ מִֽתְיַֽהֲדִ֔ים כִּֽי־נָפַ֥ל פַּֽחַד־הַיְּהוּדִ֖ים עֲלֵיהֶֽם Psychologically, the tide had turned. One that happens, the battle is in the bag.

A couple of years ago I quoted the SHL"h's interpretation of the midrash

תשורי מראש אמנה

עתידין ישראל לומר שירה לעתיד לבוא, שנאמר: (תהלים צח, א)שירו לה' שיר חדש כי נפלאות עשה.

What's the double language of עתידין ישראל לומר שירה לעתיד לבוא? If it is עתידין then it obviously is לעתיד לבוא? Says the SHL"H: when we reach the ultimate geulah, we won't wait for the miracles to all happen before we start praising Hashem. עתידין in the future we will sing shirah to Hashem לעתיד לבוא, on the miracles that we know and are confident are going to happen, even if they haven't occurred yet (there is a R' Chaim that is against this approach, but not everyone has to agree with R' Chaim.)

Maybe לַיְּהוּדִ֕ים הָֽיְתָ֥ה אוֹרָ֖ה וְשִׂמְחָ֑ה וְשָׂשֹׂ֖ן וִיקָֽר because at that moment we were on the level of celebrating in anticipation of the nes rather than as a reaction afterwards. Maybe it was that bitachon that the nes will happen, that we will be victorious, which itself is the driving force that brought victory to fruition.

the zechus Achashveirosh had that gave him a queen like Esther

2026-03-02T20:31:00.003-05:00

The gemara (Meg 12b) explains why it was that Vashti was ordered to appear nude at the party of Achashveirosh . Chazal say that there was a midah k'neged midah at work here:

שבמדה שאדם מודד בה מודדין לו מלמד שהיתה ושתי הרשעה מביאה בנות ישראל ומפשיטן ערומות ועושה בהן מלאכה בשבת

The gemara then brings a source in the pesukim for this derash:

היינו דכתיב אחר הדברים האלה כשוך חמת המלך אחשורוש זכר את ושתי ואת אשר עשתה ואת אשר נגזר עליה כשם שעשתה כך נגזר עליה

There is an amazing Shem m'Shmuel which notes that when the pasuk tells זכר את ושתי ואת אשר עשתה ואת אשר נגזר עליה, we have to keep in mind the context. The megillah is not just relating to us, for our sake, the what and why of what happened. The megillah is telling us **Achashveirosh's understanding** of the what and the why. The pasuk is a window into the goings on in Achashveirosh's mind. He is the one thinking about Vashti. He is the one who was wondering why such a terrible thing should happen to his queen. And he is the one who understood that the answer is שבמדה שאדם מודד בה מודדין לו , that she was paid back exactly in kind for her crime. This was not some random event that occurred because the party got out of hand, but rather it was a precisely calibrated response to Vashti's actions.

Did you even wonder why such a simpleminded, wicked (perhaps) man like Achashveirosh was zocheh to be married to a great tzadekes like Esther haMalkah? OK, so Esther had to be in that position to effect a rescue of Klal Yisrael, but ha'yad Hashem tiktzar to put some other plan into effect? Revach v'hatzalah yaa'mod la'Yehudim mi'makom acheir had Esther not been queen. Says the Shem m'Shmuel: it was because of this recognition by Achashveirosh that שבמדה שאדם מודד בה מודדין לו. Esther is all about revealing the yad Hashem that is hidden in the events of history. Megillah = giluy, to be megaleh and reveal that which is hester/ Esther. Achashveirosh on his own level had something of that midah in recognizing זכר את ושתי ואת אשר עשתה ואת אשר נגזר עליה, that שבמדה שאדם מודד בה מודדין לו. If something happens, there is a reason behind it, there is yad Hashem that is behind it.

The holiday of Purim is about seeing the yad Hashem in the hester, in the day to day. This year we are witness to nisim v'niflaos. You have to be blind to not see it. Some people are blind, and some people prefer to put on blinders.

was Trump the one who asked this shayla to R' Dov Lando?

2026-02-27T09:51:00.007-05:00

Question: is an aku"m allowed to kill another aku"m who is an Amaleiki?

bigdei kehunah - kedushas damim or kedushas ha'guf; the price for enjoyment of an aveira

2026-02-26T09:38:00.001-05:00

The gemara (Meg 12) tells us that Achashveirosh threw the grand party described at the opening of the megillah because he thought the 70 years of galus had ended. Since the expected date of our redemption had come and gone and nothing had happened, he wanted to celebrate our downfall. At that party, he put on the bigdei kehuna:

בהראותו את עושר כבוד מלכותו א"ר יוסי בר חנינא מלמד שלבש בגדי כהונה כתיב הכא יקר תפארת גדולתו וכתיב התם לכבוד ולתפארת

A little further down on the same amud the gemara tells us that he also took out the klei ha'mikdash to use at this party:

והשקות בכלי זהב וכלים מכלים שונים משונים מיבעי ליה אמר רבא יצתה בת קול ואמרה להם ראשונים כלו מפני כלים ואתם שונים בהם

The two gemaras ae similar, but there is one big difference between them. The second gemara tells us that a bas kol came out to protest what Achashveirosh was doing. Balshatazar had tried the same thing; he also thought the 70 years were up and made a big party, and he was killed. The bas kol cried out, "Achashveirosh, you didn't get the message? You guys want to make the same mistake twice?!" But no such bas kol came out when he put on the bigdei kehunah. Why the difference? Why the protest over using klei ha'mikdash but not over using bigdei kehunah?

The answer to this question may hinge on a machlokes Rishonim. Tos (Kiddushin 54a) equates bigdei kehunah with klei shareis and assumes both have kedushas ha'guf. Ramban and Ritva disagree and hold that the bigdei kehunah have only kedushas damim. Nafka minah: do bigdei kehunah lose their kedusha if someone violates the issur meila and uses them for a mundane purpose? According to Tos, the begadim, like klei shareis, retain their kedusha, but Ritva writes:

והנכון דכתנות כהונה אינם קדושת הגוף ככלי שרת שהרי אין משתמשין בהן בגופן ומכשירי עבודה הם ודינם כקדושת דמים שיוצאין לחולין בשוגג

Sefer haMakneh points out that based on Ritva, we can understand the difference between the klei shareis and bigdei kehunah. The gemara (A"Z 52b) darshens from a pasuk in Yechezkel ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה that when the Beis haMikdash was destroyed, the gold and silver in its storehouses lost their kedusha. According to Baal haMaor, the mechanism behind this de-sanctification is the din of mei'ila. The same din that applied to the money should also apply to bigdei kehunah, which according to Ritva have only kedushas damin. The meila committed at the time of churban caused the garments to lost their kedusha. When Achashveirosh put on the garments of bigdei kehunah, he was putting on clothes that no longer had any sanctity -- they were, for all halachic intents and purposes, ordinary garments. The klei shareis, however, have kedusas ha'guf, which cannot be spoiled by meila. They retained their sanctity. Therefore, the bas kol cried out when Achashveirosh defiled that which was still holy.

There wrinkle in this approach is that Ramban is difficult l'shitaso. Unlike Baal haMaor who learns that ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה operates through the framework of mei'ila, Ramban learns that it is a chiddush din which applies across the board even to kedushas ha'guf. L'shitaso, the klei shareis themselves should also no longer have had any kedusha. (See also Rashi in A"Z 52 who has a different understanding of ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה ).

The Chida in his commentary on the megillah Chomas Anach makes a similar point as the Sefer HaMakneh to explain another gemara on that same amud:

שאלו תלמידיו את רשב"י מפני מה נתחייבו שונאיהן של ישראל שבאותו הדור כליה אמר להם אמרו אתם אמרו לו מפני שנהנו מסעודתו של אותו רשע אם כן שבשושן יהרגו שבכל העולם כולו אל יהרגו אמרו לו אמור אתה אמר להם מפני שהשתחוו לצלם אמרו לו וכי משוא פנים יש בדבר אמר להם הם לא עשו אלא לפנים אף הקב"ה לא עשה עמהן אלא לפנים

Why does the gemara focus on the enjoyment of the meal alone, asks Chida? If the dishes were being served in klei ha'midash at this party, shouldn't BnY have been guilty of mei'ila? He answers:

ולא מפני ששתו ישראל בכלי הקדש נתחייבו שהרי ירדו מקדושתן כדכתיב ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה משבאו לידם נעשו חולין וז"ש וכלים מכלים שונים כלומר כלים שנשתנו בידם והיו חולין אכן עונש ישראל שנהנו מסעודת הרשע

Clearly Chida assumed like Ramban and not Baal haMaor that the din of ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה can remove kedusha even from klei shareis, even from kedushas ha'guf.

Derech agav, R' Chaim Elazari in his Nesivei Chaim on last week's parsha quotes a diyuk of the Chasam Sofer on this gemara that I would explain via a quote from a 1971 NY Times interview with R' Meir Kahane. The Times asked for Kahane's reaction to the US Attorney General, who was Jewish, asking for a high bail for a Jewish defendant accused of shooting at the Soviet Mission. Didn't he have an obligation, as a US official, to act as he did, even if, as a Jew, he might be sympathetic to the cause of the defendant. Kahane responded:

No, Mr. Morse [the Attorney General] has an obligation to the U.S. Government. Let me try and explain this to you with a bit of a story. During World War I, there was a very very famous rabbi. He was asked by Jewish soldiers who had been drafted in to the Russian Army whether they could eat pork since that was the only thing served. He said, “Yes, if this is the only food served, then eat it—to live. You can eat the pork. But don't suck the bones.”

My point was that Mr. Morse can come into the court and ask for his $100,000 bail. You can ask for it—and you can ask for it. You can say, “We ask for $100,000 bail be cause he's a dangerous crimi nal”—and then shut up. The judge hesitated. He wavered. And Morse kept at it and kept at it and kept at it and ham mered at it as if he enjoyed it. He was sucking the bone.

Says the Chasam Sofer: Achashveirosh demanded everyone come to the party. Whether Ploni Reb Yid should have gone or not gone is not the issue. You can't really find fault with someone who goes because he has a gun pointed at his head. But even if you go, even if you have to eat tarfus, you don't have to suck the bones. The punishment is not for going; the punishment is for שנהנו מסעודתו של אותו רשע, for the enjoyment.

R' Chaim Elazari relates the story of a talmid of a yeshiva who had gone off the derech and once bumped into his old Rosh Yeshiva. The R"Y asked him if he retained anything at all from his days in yeshiva. The talmid replied that indeed he did. He may not keep kosher, he may not keep Shabbos, he may do other aveiros, but he cannot enjoy those aveiros the way other people do because of the impression his past left on him.

R' Chaim Elazari writes that we might think this is a trivial thing, but what we see from the Chasam Sofer is that indeed it is not.

making the aron

2026-02-19T15:11:00.004-05:00

The gemara (Yoma 3b) presents a stira in pesukim with regards to who was supposed to make the aron:

אַבָּא חָנָן אָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ לְּךָ אֲרוֹן עֵץ״, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים״, הָא כֵּיצַד?

The gemara answers

כָּאן בִּזְמַן שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם, כָּאן בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם

Rashi explains that when Klal Yisrael are doing the right thing, then they get credit for the aron; if, however, they are not behaving properly, then the credit goes to Moshe alone.

R' Shmuel Kushlevitz in Netivot Shmuel suggests derech derush a take away lesson from this gemara as Rashi reads it. When the tzibur is cooperative, עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם, a leader can sit on the sidelines and inspire and cheerlead and let the people run with the ball on their own, ְוְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים However, where the tzibur does not want to pitch in and is not moved to contribute and work, אֵין עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם, then a leader has to not be afraid to jump in and get his hands dirty. It's not enough to sit on the sidelines and cheerlead; he has to take the reins and ְעָשִׂיתָ לְּךָ אֲרוֹן עֵץ, do the job.

Maharasha, however, explains the gemara exactly in the opposite way. When Bn"Y are עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם, it means that they are living up to and fulfilling the vision of Moshe Rabeinu. In that case, it is correct to say ְעָשִׂיתָ לְּךָ אֲרוֹן עֵץ because their work is imbued with the same spirit as if Moshe himself were doing it. If, however, Bn"Y are אֵין עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם, then it is וְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים because their work is a far cry from the effort and results that Moshe would have achieved and reflects their own shortcomings.

Ramban and Rashi are bothered by why we need the וְכֵ֖ן תַּעֲשֽׂוּ at the end of the pasuk כְּכֹ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֲנִי֙ מַרְאֶ֣ה אוֹתְךָ֔ אֵ֚ת תַּבְנִ֣ית הַמִּשְׁכָּ֔ן וְאֵ֖ת תַּבְנִ֣ית כׇּל־כֵּלָ֑יו וְכֵ֖ן תַּעֲשֽׂוּ. Rashi comments that it is a mitzvah l'doros that whenever klei ha'mikdash are made, it should be like those shown to Moshe. Ramban writes:

על דרך הפשט אין צורך לכל זה, אבל בא הכפל לחזוק וזירוז, אמר: ועשו לי מקדש (שמות כ״ה:ח׳) – בית וכלים כמקדש מלך ובית ממלכה (עמוס ז׳:י״ג), ושכנתי בתוכם (שמות כ״ה:ח׳) – בבית ובכסא הכבוד אשר יעשו לי שם, ככל אשר אני מראה אותך את תבנית המשכן הזה אשר אמרתי שאשכון בו בתוכם, ואת תבנית כל כליו. וכפל וכן תעשו – כלכם בזריזות וחריצות, והוא כהכפל: ויעשו בני ישראל ככל אשר צוה ה׳ את משה כן עשו (שמות ל״ט:ל״ב), כי מפני שהוא צואה אמר וכן תעשו.

Maharasha I think is in the spirit of this Ramban. Hashem was telling Moshe that כְּכֹ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֲנִי֙ מַרְאֶ֣ה אוֹתְךָ֔, in accordance with your vision of what a makom mikdash should be, your ideals, your goal, וְכֵ֖ן תַּעֲשֽׂוּ, that should be how the people fulfill the task.

Adar, Binyamin, and v'na'hapoch hu

2026-02-12T18:22:00.001-05:00

The Shabbos, Shabbos mevorchim chodesh Adar, is the yahrzeit for my father a"h. The Tur writes in hil rosh chodesh that each one of the 12 months corresponds to a sheiveit of the 12 shevatim. There are various opinions as to which sheivet corresponds with each month, but if you simply follow birth order it works out that Adar corresponds with Binyamin. We read in parshas VaYishlach:

וַיְהִ֞י בְּצֵ֤את נַפְשָׁהּ֙ כִּ֣י מֵ֔תָה וַתִּקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ בֶּן־אוֹנִ֑י וְאָבִ֖יו קָֽרָא־ל֥וֹ בִנְיָמִֽין

Ibn Ezra comments: בן אוני – כמו: אבלי. Rachel realized she was dying as she gave birth, and so she named her last child in a way that commemorated aveilus. Yaakov, however, changed the name, or rather, to be more exact, read that name with a different connotation. Tur explains based on Ramban:

פי׳ הוא לפי שאמו קראתו בן אוני וכונה לומר בן אבלי מלשון לחם אונים לא אכלתי באוני ואביו תרגם אותו לטובה מלשון כח כמו ראשית אוני וע״כ קרא אותו בנימין בן הכח כי הימין הוא הכח וההצלה שרצה לקרותו בשם שקראתו אמו כי כן נקראו כלם בשמם שקראתם אמם אלא שתרגם אותו לטובה לגבורה:

The word אוני can refer to aninus, mourning, but can also mean strength, and that's the meaning Yaakov took from his son's name.

When the Tur writes שתרגם אותו לטובה לגבורה perhaps he doesn't just mean that Yaakov reinterpreted the name, but what he means is that Yaakov reinterpreted the meaning of the event.

Yaakov turned a difficulty, a tragedy, a moment of sorrow, into a source of strength.

This is the essence of Adar. V'nahapoch hu. Challenges shouldn't knock us down; they should lift us up and push us to do better. They should bring out our inner strength. The name of the month, Adar, itself means strength, like in the pasuk, "adir ba'marom Hashem." The great threat of Haman became a moment when Klal Yisrael showed our inner strength and fortitude.

Rashi in Yevamos 122 quotes from the Geonim:

בתשובת הגאונים מצאתי כל הנך ריגלי דאמוראי היינו יום שמת בו אדם גדול קובעים אותו לכבודו ומדי שנה בשנה כשמגיע אותו יום מתקבצים תלמידי חכמים מכל סביביו ובאים על קברו עם שאר העם להושיב ישיבה שם:

A yahrzeit is not a day to wallow in aveilus. It's not about אוֹנִ֑י in the sense of mourning, but rather about ימיני, finding strength. What strength can you draw from the memory of the person who is no longer here? Whether it is להושיב ישיבה, or some other good deed, that should be the goal.

The theme of v'nahapoch hu presents itself in our parsha as well:

וַיַּ֥עַל מֹשֶׁ֖ה וְאַהֲרֹ֑ן נָדָב֙ וַאֲבִיה֔וּא וְשִׁבְעִ֖ים מִזִּקְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל

וַיִּרְא֕וּ אֵ֖ת אֱלֹקי יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וְתַ֣חַת רַגְלָ֗יו כְּמַעֲשֵׂה֙ לִבְנַ֣ת הַסַּפִּ֔יר וּכְעֶ֥צֶם הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם לָטֹֽהַר

וְאֶל־אֲצִילֵי֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א שָׁלַ֖ח יָד֑וֹ וַיֶּֽחֱזוּ֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱלֹקים וַיֹּאכְל֖וּ וַיִּשְׁתּֽוּ׃

Sounds like a party! וַיֶּֽחֱזוּ֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱלֹקים וַיֹּאכְל֖וּ וַיִּשְׁתּֽוּ. But someone didn't get an invitation. נָדָב֙ וַאֲבִיה֔וּא are on the list, but not Elazar and Itamar. R' Shteinman writes that had you been on the scene, you would feel bad for Elazar and Itamar. How come every body else gets to enjoy, but not them? But then if you take a look at Rashi, you see that this "party" had tragic consequences:

נסתכלו והציצו, ונתחייבו מיתה. אלא שלא רצה הקב״ה לערבב שמחת התורה, והמתין לנדב ואביהוא עד יום חנכת המשכן, ולזקנים עד: ויהי העם כמתאננים, ותבער בם אש ותאכל בקצה המחנה (במדבר י״א:א׳) – בקצינים שבהם.

What at the time may have felt like a slight, in the end, was a blessing. Being excluded from the "celebration" meant being excluded from the punishment.

In the case of events in chumash, we see how the whole story plays out. We see how what seems like misfortune actually results in a positive. We see the vnahapoch hu happen. In life, we often don't see how the story will end. We sometimes just feel the pain or sorrow, but don't see how in the larger scheme of things it works out for the good. It's the strength of our convictions, adar=adir, that gives us that perspective.

thoughtful clip from Rav Tamir Granot and Rav Ouri Cherki on dati leumi vs hareidi world view

2026-02-05T19:27:00.004-05:00

I have always found Rav Tamir Granot and Rav Ouri Cherki to be thoughtful, interesting speakers, and wanted to pass on this clip, which I think makes a number of good points about the hareidi/dati leumi divide. I think Rav Garnot's understanding of the hareidi world as adopting a defensive posture and retreating from the outside world, consistent with 2000 years of Jewish behavior in galus, is accurate. I think it is also fair to say that this hashkafa serves our interests less and less in modern times. That being said, it seems to me that Rav Cherki and Granot are a bit overly optimistic that the hareidi world will come around and change. There are too many entrenched interests at stake, and change requires thought and reflection. That is hard. It is far easier to light garbage cans in the street and block traffic because you think being drafted to defend the Jewish homeland is somehow equal to being conscripted into the Tzar's army.

At around the 5:45 Rav Granot talks about being trapped in a parochial straitjacket (my words, obviously) where one's entire emotional and intellectual world consists of what lies between the covers of masechet kiddushin through bava metztiya and the severe limitations this imposes on one's personality, one's emotions, and one's spiritual growth. I hate to say it, but unless things have changed drastically, these is essentially not just true of the hareidi world, but is true of YU as well. Yes, YU offers secular studies, but in terms of the torah one is exposed to in YU, it's about as narrow a world as you can get. If you are in a shiur from one of the big name roshei yeshiva you will hear a lot of gemara, rishonim, and shulchan aruch, but mussar, machshava, anything outside lomdus, is not even an afterthought. I could be wrong because I haven't been to the place in decades. but that's my recollection of how it was. Others may have a different impression.

For for thought, for whatever it's worth.

we don't want a second hand account -- we want to hear it directly

2026-02-05T10:14:00.002-05:00

וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה וַיִּקְרָא לְזִקְנֵי הָעָם וַיָּשֶׂם לִפְנֵיהֶם אֵת כׇּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר צִוָּהוּ ה׳

וַיַּעֲנוּ כׇל הָעָם יַחְדָּו וַיֹּאמְרוּ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה׳ נַעֲשֶׂה וַיָּשֶׁב מֹשֶׁה אֶת דִּבְרֵי הָעָם אֶל ה׳ (19:7-8)

The Radomsker (Tiferes Shlomo) asks: Moshe was talking to the זִקְנֵי הָעָם. However, the response came not from the zekeinim, but rather וַיַּעֲנוּ כׇל הָעָם יַחְדָּו, from the people as a whole. Shouldn't the response have come from the זִקְנֵי הָעָם that he was talking to?

Abarbanel already asks this question. Moshe thought it would be impossible to address and get a response from the entire nation at once, so he used the zekeinim as his intermediary to present Hashem's words to Bn"Y and to glean their reaction. The people, however, bypassed the zekeinim and delivered their unanimous response directly to Moshe. Abarbanel writes:

אבל העם לא רצו לתת תשובתם כזקנים ושהם ישיבו למשה. אבל כלם בערבוביא יחדיו אמרו למשה תשובתם והוא כל אשר דבר ה׳ נעשה וכן אמרו במדרש (שם) ויענו כל העם יחדיו לא ענו בחנופה לא נתנו מקום לזקנים להשיב אלא כלם פה אחד ולב אחד אמרו כל אשר דבר ה׳ נעשה.

Malbim goes a step further:

שכבר בארתי בכ"מ ההבדל בין יחד ובין יחדו, שמלת יחדו מורה על השווי שחשבו א"ע כולם שוים, ואמרו כל אשר דבר ה' נעשה ר"ל גם מה שדבר אל הגדולים שיהיו ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש נעשה כולנו, באין הבדל, כמ"ש ועמך כלם צדיקים (שם ס), ומבואר ממילא שלפי תשובתם לא רצו שמשה ואהרן וכ"ש הזקנים יהיו אמצעיים בינם ובין ה', ולא רצו שיקבלו התורה ע"י משה, רק שכלם יתעלו למדרגת הנבואה ויקבלו התורה מה' בעצמו בלי אמצעי כמ"ש חז"ל שאמרו רצוננו לראות את מלכנו

Bn"Y wanted everyone to have an equal part in kabbalas haTorah -- equal access for all, a request that Malbi"m takes a dim view of (he ends off: וזה היה טעות קרח שאמר כי כל העדה כלם קדושים)

This approach helps resolve another difficulty with the order of the pesukim here. The Brisker Rav points out that Hashem did not immediately give Bn"Y the mitzvah of perisha and the other preparations for mattan Torah. It was only when Moshe conveyed their response to Him that Hashem commanded לֵךְ אֶל הָעָם וְקִדַּשְׁתָּם הַיּוֹם וּמָחָר וְכִבְּסוּ שִׂמְלֹתָם (19:10). Why did Hashem wait for Bn"Y's reply before giving these mitzvos? Why not tell them up front how to prepare for kabbalas haTorah? The Brisker Rav answers that there is something like a hava amina and a maskana here. The hava amina was וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי בָּא אֵלֶיךָ בְּעַב הֶעָנָן בַּעֲבוּר יִשְׁמַע הָעָם בְּדַבְּרִי עִמָּךְ (19:9). Hashem would speak to Moshe, and the people would merely eavesdrop on that conversation and overhear what Hashem was saying. Klal Yisrael, however, demanded more than this. וַיַּגֵּד מֹשֶׁה אֶת דִּבְרֵי הָעָם אֶל ה׳. Rashi comments: תשובה על דבר זה כבר שמעתי מהם שרצונן לשמוע ממך, אינו דומה שומע מפי שליח לשומע מפי המלך, רצוננו לראות את מלכנו. Moshe gave the people's response to Hashem: We don't want to be eavesdroppers -- we want You to speak directly to us. If so, Hashem responded, וְקִדַּשְׁתָּם הַיּוֹם וּמָחָר, you have to prepare.

Why was preparation needed only if Hashem was speaking directly to the people and not if they are overhearing divrei Torah spoken to Moshe? A baal keri is allowed hirhur in divrei Torah; he is just not allowed to speak divrei Torah. The source for this din is mattan Torah (Brachos 20b, see last year's post https://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2025/02/did-bny-recite-birchas-hatorah-on.html). Bn"Y did not just listen to what Hashem was saying; it was as if they were saying the words along with Him and speaking divrei Torah. The Brisker Rav says a chiddush: If you just overhear what is said by someone, then that's not shome'a k'oneh. Had Hashem spoken to Moshe and Bn"Y were just overhearing the conversation, that would be hirhur, not shome'a k'oneh, and the halachos of preparation would not come into play, as hirhur is permitted for a baal keri. Because Hashem consented to the request to speak directly to each member of Bn"Y, it meant there was a din of shome'a k'oneh by mattan Torah, and once the experience of mattan Torah would be as if Bn"Y were saying words of Torah, then it meant a baal keri could not participate and hence the halachos of preparation were required.

What I find interesting about this whole topic is that it's the flip side of the coin of Yisro's plan that we saw earlier in the parsha. Instead of everyone having equal access to have their din torah decided by Moshe, Yisro said it was better to create a bureaucracy of batei dinim. רצוננו לראות את מלכנו means everyone has equal access to the King, with no intermediary and no bureaucracy intervening.

The Radomsker k'darko derech derash offers a different answer to the whole question. The זִקְנֵי הָעָם, he answers, does not mean the leaders of Klal Yisrael. There was not a separate message for the elite (as Malbim and Netziv explain) and a separate one for the masses, or an attempt to filter Hashem's message to/from the people through their leaders. The message was addressed to the people and the response came from the people. But we have to understand where this power to receive such a message from Hashem comes from. This moment in history was set in motion long ago. Chazal tell us that the 2000 year period of the development of Torah began with Avraham Avinu. In a sense, the history of Klal Yisrael is just the unfolding of everything that Avraham and the Avos set in motion. Without the spiritual DNA of the Avos within us, the geulah from Mitzrayim, kabbalas haTorah, and everything else would not follow. The זִקְנֵי ,הָעָם, explains the Radomsker, refers to that DNA of the Avos within each member of Klal Yisrael. Moshe first spoke to that spark of the Avos, and that ignited the fire and passion within the people, and that is what enabled their unanimous response of naaseh v'nishma.

We find the same idea earlier. Parshas Va'Aeira opens וָאֵרָא אֶל אַבְרָהָם אֶל יִצְחָק וְאֶל יַעֲקֹב, and Rashi comments: וארא אל האבות, and the parsha continues with the 4 leshonos of geulah. The geulah is possible only because it was promised to the Avos and we carry within us their spiritual DNA.

We reflect on this idea every day in our davening, as the Radomsker writes:

בעבור אבותינו שבטחו בך ותלמדם חוקי חיים כן תחננו ותלמדנו. פי' בעבור אבותינו שעברו ע"י אבותינו כנ"ל. והוא שאנו אומרי' על אבותינו ועלינו על בנינו ועל דורותינו על אבותינו באה תחלה הקדושה של דבריו חיים וקיימים ומהם בא עלינו ועל בנינו. וזה אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב וכו' וזוכר חסדי אבות ומביא גואל לבני בניהם כל הגאולה וישועה מן האבות בא לבני בניהם

The kabbalas haTorah at Sinai is a model for our ongoing daily kabbalas haTorah, which starts with the recognition that we are worthy of learning and engaging in Torah only by virtue of those who came before us.

public life vs private life

2026-01-29T12:00:00.005-05:00

The meforshim are bothered by the contradictory reactions of Bn"Y when they discovered the Egyptian army in pursuit. On the one hand, וַיִּצְעֲק֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל אֶל ה׳ (14:10), they turned to Hashem, and yet on the other hand, וַיֹּאמְרוּ֮ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה֒ הֲֽמִבְּלִ֤י אֵין־קְבָרִים֙ בְּמִצְרַ֔יִם לְקַחְתָּ֖נוּ לָמ֣וּת בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר מַה־זֹּאת֙ עָשִׂ֣יתָ לָּ֔נוּ לְהוֹצִיאָ֖נוּ מִמִּצְרָֽיִם (only one pasuk later! 14:11) they complained that they were going to die and should have never left Egypt. Ramban writes that the two different reactions are evidence that there were two different groups at Yam Suf. There was a group who turned to Hashem in tefilah, and there was a group that rebelled and pinned blame for the situation on Moshe.

R' Yosef Shaul Nathanson in Divrei Shaul writes based on a Zohar that there is in fact no contradiction between the two pesukim. The term וַיִּצְעֲק֥וּּ, says the Zohar, indicates a cry inside a person's heart. On the outside, a person might be screaming at Moshe in anger, but inside his heart he is crying out to Hashem for help. On the outside, a person might be defiant, rebellious, but on the inside, he remains connected to Hashem and longs for Him.

Later in the parsha, when the people go out to collect the mon on Shabbos even after being warned not to do so, Hashem tells Moshe (16:28)

וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה עַד אָנָה מֵאַנְתֶּם לִשְׁמֹר מִצְוֺתַי וְתוֹרֹתָי

Malbim comments on the use of the term מֵאַנְתֶּם:

יש הבדל בין מאן ובין לא אבה, שהבלתי אובה הוא בלב והממאן הוא בפה אף שיאבה בלבו, וכל אדם יאבה בלבו לקיים מצות ה׳ רק שימאן בפה כי יהיה עליו לטורח

The word מאן refers to a public display of rebelliousness, but it doesn't reflect what's on the inside. A person may be a mechalel Shabbos for whatever reason, but that's just on the outside. In his heart of hearts, he wants that connection to Shabbos.

The actions and words that you see and hear on the outside do not always reflect what is in a person's mind and heart.

Too bad we didn't have this Malbi"m last week, because now we have a deeper insight into Hashem's words to Pharoah (10:3)

עַד מָתַי מֵאַנְתָּ לֵעָנֹת מִפָּנָי שַׁלַּח עַמִּי וְיַעַבְדֻנִי

Pharoah, I know you are have to put up a brave front so as to not lose face in front of your people -- it's מאן, public posturing -- but you know and I know that your heart is not really in it and you want to buckle under.

Coming back to the Divrei Shaul, I think this yesod can help explain another pasuk later in the parsha (17:3-4)

וַיִּצְמָא שָׁם הָעָם לַמַּיִם וַיָּלֶן הָעָם עַל מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמֶר לָמָּה זֶּה הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם לְהָמִית אֹתִי וְאֶת בָּנַי וְאֶת מִקְנַי בַּצָּמָא

וַיִּצְעַק מֹשֶׁה אֶל ה׳ לֵאמֹר מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לָעָם הַזֶּה עוֹד מְעַט וּסְקָלֻנִי

Aside from the word לֵאמֹר being redundant, the pasuk is a stirah minei u'bei. On the one hand, it talks about וַיִּצְעַק מֹשֶׁה, a lashon of tefilah, אֶל ה׳, Y-K-V-K, the midas ha'rachamim. Yet in the very same pasuk, Moshe sounds like he throws the people under the bus and complains that they are out to get him מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לָעָם הַזֶּה עוֹד מְעַט וּסְקָלֻנִי. Netziv asks: אין לשון ״ויצעק״ מורה כי אם על תפלה, וכאן לא כתיב אלא דברי תרעומות, והכי מיבעי ׳ויאמר משה׳ כמו בספר במדבר (יא,יא) במעשה דמתאוים

Netziv answers (see also haKsav veHaKabbalah) that Moshe did pray for the people, but at the same time, he felt his own life was in danger, and therefore was forced to ask Hashem for protection from the mob at the same time:

אלא מכאן למדו חז״ל במכילתא שהתפלל משה על המים, כמשמעו, והכי תניא: ״ויצעק משה״ – ללמדך שבחו של משה, שלא אמר הואיל שהם מדיינין עמי איני מבקש עליהם רחמים, אלא ״ויצעק משה״ (עכ״ל). אלא בתוך התפלה היו גם דברים אלו שיעשה למענו, שהרי הוא מסוכן, ובאו הדברים בכתוב מפני התשובה של ה׳

Based on the Divrei Shaul, I would say that even as Moshe was in fact verbally (hence the לֵאמֹר) chastising the people, in his heart, וַיִּצְעַק מֹשֶׁה אֶל ה׳ (and this is why it deliberately uses that phrase of וַיִּצְעַק ַand not ויאמר משה like in Bamidbar), he was crying out to Hashem to have mercy on them.

The Rambam writes in Hil Deyos (2:3)

וְאִם רָצָה לְהַטִיל אֵימָה עַל בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵיתוֹ, אוֹ עַל הַצִּבּוּר - אִם הָיָה פַּרְנָס וְרָצָה לִכְעֹס עֲלֵיהֶן כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ לְמוּטָב - יַרְאֶה עַצְמוֹ בִּפְנֵיהֶם שֶׁהוּא כוֹעֵס כְּדֵי לְיַסְּרָם וְתִהְיֶה דַּעְתּוֹ מְיֻשֶּׁבֶת בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ, כְּאָדָם שֶׁהוּא מִדַּמֶּה כוֹעֵס בִּשְׁעַת כַּעְסוֹ וְהוּא אֵינוֹ כוֹעֵס.

A leader sometimes has to put on a public face of anger and disapproval, but in his heart, he must remain calm. In Moshe's case, it went beyond that. His heart remained filled with love for his people, filled with prayer on their behalf, even has he verbally chastised them for their misdeeds.

What is the take away for us? That rebellious teenager may not be as rebellious on the inside as he seems on the outside. And the anger a parent/teacher may be showing on the outside may not really reflect the deep love that exists on the inside.

the chronology of the makkos and the mitzvah of kiddush ha'chodesh

2026-01-23T08:03:00.005-05:00

Apologies for writing a bit b'kitzur this week.

The challenge of figuring out the chronology of the makkos is getting three facts to fit together:

1) The mishna in Ediyot that tells us that the judgment of the Mitzrim took place over one year.

2) The gemara in Rosh haShana tells us that the shibud let up on Rosh haShana

3) Rashi quotes from Chazal that each makkah lasted a week after which there was a three week break = 1 month in total.

10 makkos of 1 month each = 10 months, not a year, so what do you do with the mishna in Ediyot? If the makkos forced the Mitzrim to end the shibud, then shouldn't Pesach coincide with Rosh haShana, since acc to the gemara in R"H that is when slavery ended? The facts at hand seem to contradict each other.

One approach is that of Tos/Maharasha in Rosh haShana. According to this view, Moshe came to Pharoah in Nissan, but the Egyptians continued to subjugate the Jews, despite their being hit with makkos. The forced labor of shibud only ended on Rosh haShana, and culminated with total freedom being granted in Nissan. Even though each makkah took 1 month to run its course, the makkos did not follow back to back -- there was a gap of a few days between them, so that 10 makkos were spread over 12 months in total.

Ramban has a different view. He writes in our parsha that the last three makkos all took place in Nissan. Barad destroyed the early blossoms on the trees in Adar, but the trees themselves were still unharmed until arbeh came and finished them off in Nissan. (According to Tos view that the makkos were at least a month long, barad would have to have happened in Teives. Teivis is in the middle of winter and nothing is growing, so what crops and blossoms could have been destroyed?) Chasam Sofer explains that according to this view, the makkos began on Rosh haShana, and that is what forced the Egyptians to terminate the shibud then. The idea of the judgment of the Mitzrim taking a full year (the mishna in Ediyot) is counting from the first time Moshe came before Pharoah, not from the start of the makkos. How do you fit 7 makkos in the 6 months between R"H and Nissan? Chasam Sofer answers that it must have been a leap year, and so there would have been seven months in between those dates.

This Chasam Sofer puzzles me. The reason we have a leap year is in order to keep the lunar and solar calendars in sync. More specifically, because there is a din that Pesach must fall out in "chodesh ha'aviv," the spring. If you have a lular calendar that is not synced with the solar calendar by adding leap months (e.g. if I am not mistaken, this is the calendar of the Islamic religion), then lunar months can drift between different seasons. By adding a leap month approximately once every three years, we ensure that Nissan is always in the spring. What sense does any of this make before yetzi'as Mitzrayim has happened, before we have been commanded "shamor es chodesh ha'aviv" to make sure to celebrate Pesach in the spring?! Chasam Sofer is disussing the chronology of the year prior to yetzi'as Mitzrayim. There is not yet a holiday of Pesach to schedule in any season, so why should there have been any concern about keeping the two calendars, lunar and solar, in sync?

If someone has a better approach, I would appreciate hearing it, but here is my thought: Had you asked me, I would have said that before we were given the mitzvah of kiddush ha'chodesh, there was no such thing as a halachic calendar. We could have followed the Mayan calendar, the Chinese calendar, the Julian calendar, or made up something from scratch. However, this does not seem to be the case. There is a Pirkei d'Rabbi Elazar (ch 8) which writes that the sod ha'ibbur was given to Adam haRishon:

בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁמוֹנֶה בֶּאֱלוּל נִבְרְאוּ חַמָּה וּלְבָנָה. וּמִנְיָן שֶׁהוּא שָׁנִים וְחֳדָשִׁים וְיָמִים וְלֵילוֹת שָׁעוֹת וְקִצִּים וּתְקוּפוֹת וּמַחְזוֹרוֹת וְעִבּוּרִין הָיוּ לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, וְהָיָה מְעַבֵּר אֶת הַשָּׁנָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְסָרָן לְאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּגַן עֵדֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ה, א): ״זֶה סֵפֶר תּוֹלְדֹת אָדָם״, מִנְיַן עוֹלָם לְכָל תּוֹלְדוֹת בְּנֵי אָדָם.

And it was then passed b'mesorah until it got to the Avos. So there was a halachic calendar, with leap years, etc. even before the mitzvah of kiddush ha'chodesh was given. What then was the chiddush of the mitzvah? I think what you have to say is that the mitzvah did not create the calendar we use, but rather the chiddush of the mitzvah is that we, Klal Yisrael, have been granted control over the calendar. Whether there will be a leap year or not is entirely up to us to decide. The mitzvah empowered us as a people, which is the first step in the transition from slavery to freedom. It is that idea of empowerment which is why this mitzvah is in our parsha, as part of the story of yetzi'as Mitzrayim.

a question that need not be answered

2026-01-15T12:29:00.002-05:00

Last week's parsha ended with Moshe questioning Hashem: לָמָה הֲרֵעֹתָה לָעָם הַזֶּה לָמָּה זֶּה שְׁלַחְתָּנִי.

Why, wondered Moshe, did Hashem send him to demand the release of Bn"Y when the time was not yet ripe for that to happen? Why send him now when things are only going to get worse before they can become better?

Our parsha opens with Hashem's reaction and response:

וָאֵרָא אֶל אַבְרָהָם אֶל יִצְחָק וְאֶל יַעֲקֹב בְּקל שַׁדָּי וּשְׁמִי ה׳ לֹא נוֹדַעְתִּי לָהֶם

How does that address Moshe's question of why he was sent prematurely?

We find another question in this week's parsha that also seems to go unanswered. When Bn"Y reject Moshe and his message, he turns to Hashem and makes a kal v'chomer (6:12):

הֵן בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא שָׁמְעוּ אֵלַי וְאֵיךְ יִשְׁמָעֵנִי פַרְעֹה וַאֲנִי עֲרַל שְׂפָתָיִם

The parsha then continues:

וַיְדַבֵּר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן וַיְצַוֵּם אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶל פַּרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרָיִם לְהוֹצִיא אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם

What is the answer to Moshe's argument? It sounds like Hashem just reiterates what Moshe's mission is. As Ohr haChaim puts it:

עוד קשה היכן תשובת אל עליון לדברי שלוחו, ומה גם שטען טענה הנשמעת, ולו יהיה שטעה וק״ו אינו ק״ו, היה לו לסתור דבריו,

Rashi sounds like he tries to deal with this issue: לפי שאמר משה: אני ערל שפתים (שמות ו׳:י״ב), צירף הקב״ה את אהרן עמו להיות לו למליץ It's not clear what Rashi means, as already in last week's parsha Hashem had designated Aharon to serve as Moshe's spokesman to help convey his message, and still Moshe complained that he was not being heard (see Malbim).

R' Aharon Soloveitchik writes that in fact Hashem here does not offer any answer Moshe's kal v'chomer. Kal v'chomer is a law of logic. It is one of the 13 midos that a person can darshan without a mesorah, based solely on deductive reasoning. Using the kelim of logic, of reasoning, Moshe's argument makes perfect sense and is entirely justified. Yet, at the same time, his argument is also immaterial. The destiny of Bn"Y transcends logic and reasoning. It takes place on a different plane altogether, as we have seen time and again in our history.

Rav Kook writes in a famous letter (555) to the Ridbaz that there are two forces that guide Jewish destiny: segulah and bechira

ידע הדר"ג, ששני דברים עיקריים ישנם שהם יחד בונים קדושת-ישראל וההתקשרות האלהית עמהם.

הא' הוא סגולה, כלומר טבע הקדושה שבנשמת ישראל מירושת אבות, כאמור: "לא בצדקתך וגו'" "רק באבותיך חשק ד' לאהבה אותם ויבחר בזרעם אחריהם", "והייתם לי סגולה מכל העמים"; והסגולה הוא כוח קדוש פנימי מונח בטבע-הנפש ברצון ד', כמו טבע כל דבר מהמציאות, שאי-אפשר לו להשתנות כלל, "כי הוא אמר ויהי", "ויעמידם לעד לעולם".

והב' הוא ענין-בחירה, זה תלוי במעשה הטוב ובתלמוד-תורה.

Moshe was looking at the world through the lens of bechira. Would the people choose to listen to him? Would Pharoah choose to listen to him and free Bn"Y? Or as he asked in last week's parsha, would the people deserve redemption? But that is only half the picture. The fate of Klal Yisrael is governed by segulah, but a mystical connection with Hashem that bends history to its arc and goal irrespective of the choices or actions we ourselves make or the choices others make and impose upon us.

Shem m'Shmuel (5671) suggests that this is the answer Hashem was giving Moshe at the opening of our parsha. The Avos sought to reveal Hashem's presence in the material world of teva. "Who is the baal ha'birah, asked Avahram, "The creator of the universe, the world and everything in it?" In other words, Avraham was out to prove that G-d is the one who governs this thing called teva. But, “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” וּשְׁמִי ה׳ לֹא נוֹדַעְתִּי לָהֶם to introduce Hashem as beyond teva. That was the role of Moshe Rabeinu. The experience of additional suffering by Bn"Y was not in spite of Moshe's arrival, but it was because of Moshe's arrival. The new giluy of Hashem as transcendent, as not just baal ha'teva but l'maaleh min ha'teva, requires tikkun, requires Bn"Y earning that realization, the suffering became more intense rather than less.