Divrei Chaim

concealed plans

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

Yalkut Shimoni 814:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

singing despite the suffering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevuchadnetzar, of course, did not.

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

open your eyes to reality

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

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

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

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

אַחַ֨ד עָשָׂ֥ר יוֹם֙ מֵֽחֹרֵ֔ב דֶּ֖רֶךְ הַר־שֵׂעִ֑יר עַ֖ד קָדֵ֥שׁ בַּרְנֵֽעַ

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

The Seforno, however, explains the pesukim as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

Moshe responded (1:29-32):

וָאֹמַ֖ר אֲלֵכֶ֑ם לֹא־תַעַרְצ֥וּן וְלֹא־תִֽירְא֖וּן מֵהֶֽם

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

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

וּבַדָּבָ֖ר הַזֶּ֑ה אֵֽינְכֶם֙ מַאֲמִינִ֔ם בַּה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶֽם

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Noam Elimelech answers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The SA writes in 558:

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

The MB comments:

ה״ה שלא לרחוץ במרחץ ולספר ולכבס עד חצות

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

לְאַחַר הַתַּעֲנִית מֻתָּר לְסַפֵּר וּלְכַבֵּס מִיָּד.

The MB there comments on the spot:

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

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

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

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

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

arei miklat and the protection of Torah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

korban musaf on shabbos and lechem mishneh

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ohr haChaim similarly comments:

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

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

The Abarbanel is having none of this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rashi writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moshe's earth shattering request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

which usually connoted tefilah.

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

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

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

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

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

He offers a number of answers to this question.

The gemara (Kesubos 75) relates:

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

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

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

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

Koresh's squandered potential

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

Megillah 12a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can't see what you are saying

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

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

וַיֹּ֖אמֶר שִׁמְעוּ־נָ֣א דְבָרָ֑י

Rashi comments:

אֵין נָא אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן בַּקָּשָׁה

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Platner's appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

the reward of the innocent sota

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

Brachos 31b (see also Sota 26)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what happened on erev rosh chodesh Sivan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

וַיָּבֹ֖א עֲמָלֵ֑ק וַיִּלָּ֥חֶם עִם־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בִּרְפִידִֽם

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

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

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

bentching and the bracha of shalom

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

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

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

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

Rashi comments:

ואכלתם לשובע – אוכל קימעא והוא מתברך במעיו.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, some basics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He concludes:

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

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

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