Havolim

Beshalach, Parshas Ha Man and Segulos

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:37:00 +0000

The minhag of being ma'avir sedra on the Parsha of the Man specifically on the Tuesday of Parshas Beshalach has become popular lately. The idea that saying that parsha is a segula for Parnassa is brought from the Yerushalmi by many poskim, including the Mishna Berura (1:SK 13). The particular focus on Shnayim Mikra and Tuesday of Parshas Beshalach is specifically attributed to the Riminover, and denied, according to the Davar Be'Ito, by all the Riminover elders. In any case, it's popular. I think that Bnei Torah should remember an interesting Noda Be'Yehuda on a similar topic.

I found the Noda Be'Yehuda particularly interesting because of its evolution. The Noda Be'Yehuda quotes the Abudraham, who quotes the Sefer HaManhig. Each of them add a little kneitch, as follows.

Sefer Hamanhig (end of Hilchos Shabbos, right before Hilchos Se'uda):

מנהג כל ישראל לומר במוצאי שבת ויתן לך וכל הפסוקים של ברכות שיתברכו ישראל בשבת הבאה ומעתה ועד עולם, ובפרובינצא אומרים אחריה אין כאלהינו ופטום הקטרת, ונראה הטעם לפי מה דאמר בבבלי ביומא מעולם לא שנה אדם בה מפני שמעשרת ונשלמה פרים שפתינו למען נתעשר ונצליח

Abudraham (end of Hilchos Shabbos):

וכתב אבן הירחי נהגו בפרובנצא לומר אחר אלו הפסוקים אין כאלהינו ופטום הקטורת והטעם
משום דתניא ביומא מעולם לא שנה אדם בה מפני שמעשרת שנאמר ישימו קטורה באפך וסמיך ליה ברך
ה׳ חילו. ונשלמה פרים שפתינו למען נתעשר ונצליח בכל דרכינו ע״כ .

Noda B'Yehuda (OC I:100)

ומה שנהגו לומר חרוזים הללו קודם לכן היינו לפי שמעשרת ולכן אומרים אין כאלהינו שלא נאמר כחי ועוצם ידי עשה החיל רק הכל מה׳ ניתן לנו ולו נאה לברך על העושר. ועי׳ באבודרה״ם

So the Manhig said that in Provence they would say Pitum Haketores Motzei Shabbos because it brings wealth. The Abudraham quotes him and adds the source for the Segula, which is the nexting of the words Ketores and ברך ה׳ חילו, and the word חיל refers to worldly success. The Noda Be'Yehuda quotes the Abudraham, and, focusing on the Abudraham's having noted the word חיל, he adds that the reason we preface the Ketores with Ein Keilokeinu is to remind us that we must never think that כחי ועוצם ידי עשה לי את החיל, to remind us that it is not our efforts and cleverness that makes us wealthy, it is the Ribono shel Olam that makes us successful.

As the Mishna Berura puts it, (OC 1 SK 13),

ופרשת המן כדי שיאמין שכל מזונותיו באין בהשגחה פרטית וכדכתיב המרבה לא העדיף והממעיט לא החסיר להורות שאין ריבוי ההשתדלות מועיל מאומה ואיתא בירושלמי ברכות כל האומר פרשת המן מובטח לו שלא יתמעטו מזונותיו
The Parshas Ha Man is said so that a person will have faith that all his sustenance comes through Hashem's involvement with each person's individual affairs, as it says, he who took more had no extra, he who took less had no shortfall, to teach that excessive effort does not help a bit. In the Yerushalmi in Brachos: Anyone that says Parshas HaMon is guaranteed that his sustenance will not decrease.

great unknown and others, commenting at Chaim B's blog, expressed the idea very well. They said that the primary purpose of saying this parsha is to internalize certain lessons and to inculcate greater bitachon. To view it as a segula alone, gu said "... cheapens it and replaces a kesher with the Ribbono Shel Olam with a mechanical exercise."

I think that the two approaches are not inconsistent or mutually exclusive. It certainly is true that the purpose of saying Parshas Ha Man is to internalize lessons of hashkafa and bitachon. But the Chidush of the Yerushalmi is that the act of focusing on these lessons while reciting the parsha of the Man is a segula for Parnassa. Reciting Parshas Ha Man mindlessly is a mitzva of reading the words of the Torah, but it doesn't improve your parnassa. Contemplating Hashgacha Pratis is a mitzva, but it does not necessarily strengthen your parnassa any more than thinking about Ramban's Dina D'Garmi. Reciting Parshas Ha Man with an intense focus on reinforcing your Emuna and Bitachon, your sincere faith and trust that Hashem provides for your needs, THAT is a powerful segula.

Segulos can be nice, and some have a good yichus, as long as you don't overdo them, as we discussed here. But if do you say Parshas Ha Man, remember that it's not the mere incantation of the parsha that gives you parnassa, it is the Ribono shel Olam, about Whom we say העושר והכבוד מלפניך ואתה מושל בכול. The Urim ve'Tumim is beautiful, and without the Choshen, the Kohen Gadol is a mechusar begadim, but without the Sheim HaMeforash, it's not going to answer any questions. Reciting the Parshas Ha Man as a means of strengthening our dveikus and emuna is the one and only true Segula for Parnassa.

Beshalach. Marriage and the Splitting of the Sea. Drasha for Sheva Brachos (#9)

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:46:00 +0000

Sota 2a:

אמר ר' יוחנן וקשין לזווגן כקריעת ים סוף שנאמר (תהילים סח) אלהים מושיב יחידים ביתה מוציא אסירים בכושרות

Reb Yochanan said, it is as difficult to match couples in marriage as splitting the sea.

Most of the famous pshatim on Kashe le'zavgan k"krias Yam Suf are boring. So here are the ones I like (probably because they're either partly or mostly mine, except for number 4, which is from Harav Moshe Faskowitz, Rosh Yeshiva of Madreigas Ha'adam in Queens, which I like because Rabbi Faskowitz is one of those very rare individuals who is a gadol in both Torah and Rabbanus.)

Note to speakers: As Eli points out in the comments, it is hard to deny the pashtus that this expression refers to second marriages, not first marriages. However, as I respond there, hard, but not impossible. Many many meforshim apply it to first marriages, as indicated by its use in Midrashim. In any case, you should be prepared in case someone comes over later to correct you.

1. Even though Kri'as Yam Suf was preordained and inevitable- the Red Sea was created on the condition that it split for Bnei Yisrael, as taught in Breishis Rabba 5:5, אמר ר' יוחנן תנאין התנה הקב"ה עם הים שיהא נקרע לפני ישראל הדא הוא דכתיב (שמות יד) וישב הים לאיתנו לתנאו שהתנה עמו - the Ribono shel Olam wanted the Jews to cause it to happen with their tefillos and Emuna and mesiras nefesh. This is hard for the Ribono shel Olam because Hakol bidei Shamayim chutz mi'yiras shamayim. Same with shidduch; it's preordained, but the Ribono shel Olam wants hishtadlus and mesiras nefesh and tefilla on your part to make it happen.

2. Kri'as Yam Suf involved midas hadin for the Egyptians and midas harachamim for the Jews. To exercise strict midas hadin and loving midas harachamim in one event is impossible for a shliach, and requires the Ribono shel Olam Himself, just as was the case in Mitzrayim during Makkas Bechoros. in Mitzrayim, though, they had the zechus of doing the korban pesach, which was mesiras nefesh, and that made it easier to save Klal Yisrael, because mesiras nefesh is equivalent to netillas neshama. In married life we need to learn to judge and discipline ourselves with strict midas hadin and our spouses with loving rachamim.

3. The chidush and the symbolism was that after the phenomenal pirud it rejoined as if nothing had happened. The most important rule of marriage is that when, inevitably, there is a strong difference of opinion, that when it passes, it is as if nothing had happened. While Klal Yisrael walked through, the sea became a beautiful path with sides of solid windows made of water, when the Mitzrim came after them, it changed into a churning maelstrom of chaos and destruction. Five minutes later, you could go out in a row boat and you wouldn't notice that anything had happened. (See studies by John Gottman, respected marriage counselor and erstwhile Lubavitcher.)

4. Chazal use the expression "Kashe K'krias Yam suf in two contexts: in Sota 2a on Shidduchim, and in Pesachim 118a on Parnassa. (I've heard shadchanim say that for them to make a living is twice as hard as Kri'as Yam Suf, because both Gemaros apply to them.)

When Hashem told Avraham about Yetzias Mitzrayim, it became a foregone conclusion, and the Yam should have split immediately when the moment came. It was a tnai with the ma'aseh breishis that was applied to the children of Avraham Avinu. The problem was that the Sar shel Yam complained "I would be happy to split for the sake of the children of Avraham Avinu, but who are these people?? They look like Egyptians with Peyos. They're the same ovdei avoda zara as the Egyptians. Why should I split for these people?"

When a person davens for parnassa on Rosh Hashanna and Yom Kippur, he is like an angel, his thoughts are lofty and pure, he is a worthy recipient of the brachos the Ribono shel Olam showers down upon him. A few months later, the bracha of parnassa is supposed to be fulfilled, and the Sar of Parnassa looks down at the person, and looks at his delivery order for the person who got the bracha, and he says "Hey, this is not the same person. Who is this guy, and why should he get the bracha of parnassa? I must have the wrong address."

When a person is going out on dates, he opens the door for the girl, he listens attentively to all her naarishkeit, he notices her tznius and her refined deportment, he is careful to make sure she is comfortable, and he is the perfect suitor. They get married, a few months pass, and they get used to each other and start taking each other for granted, and he's not opening doors any more. The sound of her voice either puts him to sleep or doesn't let him sleep. It's not the same.

Kashe zivugam kikrias Yam Suf; when the promise was made, everything was perfect. But when it comes time to fulfill the promises, they start to look like entirely different people. The chochma, and the challenge, is that when you need the parnassa, you look like you did when you made those promises on the Yamim Nora'im; the challenge of Krias Yam Suf is that the entire year we should look like the descendants of Avrohom Avinu, to whom the promise was made; and the challenge of a good marriage is to make sure that you look and act like the suitor who made the promises to respect your wife yoser mei'gufo even when you're long married.

5. A pshat submitted by lu: Unlike a solid that is split, a divided liquid requires constant effort to maintain that state; no less energy is required to sustain it than was invested in creating it, and that investiture of energy will have to be constant and ongoing. The symbolism is although marriage creates the new entity of a married couple, perpetuating that state requires constant attention and effort. It can never, ever be taken for granted. (This teretz, though very good, was kind of too straightforward and earnest for this post, but then I realized it shtims with the Rogotchover in Tzafnas Pa'anei'ach Hilchos Trumos page 20, and Reb Elchanan in Kovetz Shiurim Kiddushin #61.)

Shemos 4:10. Moshe's Speech Impediment and Tefilla

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:39:00 +0000

This is late for Parshas Shemos, but I like it very much, and I didn't do Parshas Shemos this year, so here it is.

At my son's last Sheva Brachos, an old acquaintance of the family who happened to be in town spoke. This was Rav Shmuel Feivelsohn from Israel, the founder and head of Yeshiva Nachlas Naftoli in Tzfas. When he was a child during WW II, his parents ran to a town right next to the border with Iran, because at that time Iran was a kingdom and the monarch was allowing Jews to go through Iran to Israel. Instead of crossing over the Eretz Yisrael, unfortunately, his father died of Typhus and his mother of cancer, and he was taken in by his aunt and uncle, Reb Avrohom (son of Harav Naftoli) Trop and his wife. Apparently, Reb Chaim Stein was there as well, and he wanted to go back back to Samarkand, where they met up with my parents and the other Bnei Torah. When my parents got married, his aunt cooked for the wedding in Samarkand and his uncle and aunt were my mother's unterfihrers at their wedding. (Reb Chaim Stein and his rebbitzen, Frida, were my father's unterfihrers. That was the deal- whoever got married first would be the unterfirer for the other, and the Steins got married first.) Rabbi Feivelsohn, who was a young man of around fifteen at the time, danced at my parents' wedding, so having him speak at my youngest son's last sheva brachos was a very moving experience, both for him and for us. He said two things, and I will write the first. The second was of a more personal nature in its focus on my father zatza'l.

The Ramban in Shemos 4:10 talks about Moshe's being a chvad peh, having a speech impediment. The question is, why make such a big issue of Moshe Rabbeinu's defect? Why didn't Hashem simply cure cure it and finished? The Ramban has two approaches to this matter.
1. The Ramban's own pshat.

ועל דרך הפשט יאמר כי אני כבד פה גם מתמול גם משלשום, כי מנעורי הייתי כבד פה, אף כי עתה כי אני זקן. וגם מאז דברך היום אל עבדך, כי לא הסירות כבדות פי בצוותך אותי ללכת אל פרעה לדבר בשמך, ואם כן איך אלך לפניו.

והנה משה מרוב חפצו שלא ילך לא התפלל לפניו יתברך שיסיר כבדות פיו. אבל טען אחרי שלא הסירות כבדות פי מעת שדברת לי ללכת, אל תצווני שאלך, כי לא יתכן לאדון הכל לשלוח שליח ערל שפתים למלך עמים. והקב"ה כיון שלא התפלל בכך לא רצה לרפאותו, אבל אמר לו אנכי אהיה עם פיך והורתיך אשר תדבר, שיהיו דברי אשר אשים בפיך במלות נכונות שתוכל לבטא בהן יפה:
Moshe Rabbeinu could very easily have davenned that Hashem should cure him of his problem. The reason he didn't daven was because being cured would make him perfectly fit for the job of confronting Pharaoh and leading Klal Yisrael, and he didn't want the job. So he didn't daven, and he said, Ribono shel Olam, I am still an aral sefasayim, and it's inappropriate that You, the Great King, should send a cripple to speak on Your behalf. Hashem's reaction was that since Moshe didn't daven to be cured, he would not be cured, and Hashem would give Moshe words that he could manage even with his handicap so that he could do his job.

2. The Medrash.

ובאלה שמות רבה (ג כ) אמרו: אמר לו אם אתה אינך איש דברים אל תחוש, הלא אני בראתי כל פיות שבעולם ואני עשיתי אלם מי שחפצתי וחרש ועור ופקח לראייה ופקח לשמיעה, ואם חפצתי שתהיה איש דברים, היית, אלא לעשות כך אני חפץ. ובעת שתדבר יהיו דבריך נכונים שאני אהיה עם פיך. הדא הוא דכתיב (בפסוק ב): ועתה לך ואנכי אהיה עם פיך.

ולפי זה נראה בעיני שלא רצה להסיר ממנו כובד הפה בעבור שהיה בו ממעשה הנס שספרו רבותינו בשמו"ר א כו שאירע לו עם פרעה.

(Based on the Medrash.) Hashem told Moshe that those people that are handicapped and those that are naturally talented are all as they are because of the specific will of Hashem. You, Moshe, have this impediment davka because I want you to have it, and I will make it happen that you will speak perfectly despite your handicap. Why, then, didn't Hashem cure him and make his work easier? The Ramban suggests that according to the Medrash, pshat is that Hashem didn't want to remove the handicap because it bespoke the miracle during Moshe's infancy when his life was saved by putting a hot coal to his lips. Even though it was a disfiguring handicap, even though his scarred and immobile lips and tongue gave him constant pain, Hashem didn't want to remove it because they were the result of a miracle that was intended to save Moshe's life.

3. The Ramban then goes back to his own pshat, different than the Medrash.
והנכון בעיני שאמר ה' למשה מי שם פה לאדם או מי ישום אלם הלא אנכי ה' עושה כל, ובידי לרפאות אותך, ועתה כיון שלא תרצה ברפואתך ולא התפללת לפני על זה, לך אל אשר אני מצווה לך, ואנכי אהיה עם פיך ואצליח שליחותי. גם אפשר שיהיה רמז מ"ויחר אף ה' במשה" שלא רצה לרפאותו ושלחו על כורחו:

Here the Ramban goes back and states his preference for his own pshat, which I numbered 1. Hashem said, I can cure you. But since you aren't praying to be cured, I'm not going to. So go without being cured, and I will make sure that you are successful. Hashem was angry that Moshe intentionally refrained from davening in order to keep his 4-F. But it didn't make a difference, because Hashem sent him as he was.

Rabbi Feivelsohn said that it was Reb Chatzkel Levinstein that pointed this Ramban out to him. It's amazing; Reb Chatzkel said. According to the Ramban, it was important that Moshe be cured, and Hashem wanted Moshe cured, but since Moshe didn't daven to be cured, Hashem did not cure him. Amazing! People think that tefilla is to change Hashem's mind, to convince Him of something, to advocate a point. Here the Ramban is saying that there are things that a man might have coming to him, there are things that are important that he receive, but if the person will not daven for them, then no matter how important it is that he get them, he won't get them. That's the way Hashem created the world for his servants. You might be zocheh to great bracha, but if you don't daven, you're leaving all your brachos on the table. Everyone wishes the Chasan and Kallah bracha and hatzlacha and the building of a bayis ne'eman, and all the brachos will be mekuyam, but you can never forget that you must be mispallel that your brachos should come into your hands, because without your tefilla nothing will happen.

Rabbi Faivelsohn used the Ramban's wording of the Medrash Rabba to make his main point. Having suffered and seen others suffering through the privations of Soviet Asia, losing his parents, starving, being half frozen and desperately alone, he now looks back on the wedding he attended as a child, and with the same eyes he sees that couple's youngest grandchild getting married, and all the suffering that he and the chassan's experienced was like the wound on Moshe Rabbeinu's mouth- it was extremely painful, and the pain remains to this day, but now he sees it as all as a mazkeres haneis, as part of the Ribono shel Olam's plan and will, from the world turned upside down in the privations of far-off Samarkand, across seventy years and thousands of miles and unimaginable changes, all the way to the simcha of the Sheva Brachos.

Bo, Shemos 12:3 and 6. Bikkur of Mitzvos. בעשור לחודש הזה ויקחו

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:05:00 +0000

The Gemara in Pesachim 96a says that there is a concept of ביקור ד' ימים קודם שחיטה, of purchasing a korban four days before it is offered, and examining it on every one of the ensuing four days for blemishes that would render it unfit for avoda. This rule applies only to the Korban Pesach offered in Mitzrayim and to the Korban Tamid. The application to the Pesach Mitzrayim is derived from passuk 3, since they were told to purchase the animals that they would need on the fourteenth on the tenth of the month. Rashi brings it down in passuk 6. The rule by Tamid is derived from a gzeira shava of תשמרו by the Tamid and למשמרת here by the Pesach Mitzrayim. (See Note 1.)

We also find the din of Bikur in Hilchos Rosh Hashanna. Ashkenazim begin Slichos no less than four days before Rosh Hashanna. The Elya Rabba (see MB OC 581:SK6) says this is because by Rosh Hashanna it says (Bamidbar 29:1-2) וּבַחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ, מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם כָּל-מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ: יוֹם תְּרוּעָה, יִהְיֶה לָכֶם. וַעֲשִׂיתֶם עֹלָה לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ, which we interpret to mean that you should make yourselves into a Korban Olah for Rosh Hashanna; since some Olos (namely, the Tamid,) require bikkur, you too should examine yourselves for spiritual blemishes no less than four days before you do your avoda of Rosh Hashanna.

Rav Shternbuch in his Taam VaDaas here suggests that Bikkur is an expression of Chivuv Mitzvos, an expression of our love for the precious mitzvos. In truth, you can examine the korban in one day just as well as you can in four days. The additional days accomplish nothing. (See Note 2.) But the additional examination shows a passion, an infatuation with the mitzva, that drives you to do the mitzva in the best possible way; it quadruples the preparation, and this is meritorious. In fact, that is how Rashi uses the din Bikkur in Passuk 6, where he says that the reason Pesach Mitzrayim needed bikkur while Pesach Doros does not is because the Jews of that time lacked mitzvos or merits that would distinguish them from their Egyptian neighbors and that would justify doing a miracle to redeem them. So Hashem gave them the din of Bikkur so that they would become involved and busy in preparing for the Mitzva four days before. The zechus of that extra effort helped them merit Yetzias Mitzrayim.

What I liked about Rav Shternbuch's observation was that he connects this Din Bikkur to peoples' behavior before Sukkos. I know hilchos Dalem Minim, I've grown Esrogim, and I can confidently pick a Lulav and Esrog in ten minutes. I always found the obsessive and minute checking people do on their daled minim to be odd and peculiar. He says that this is a minhag Yisrael, and it is the equivalent of Bikkur; check again, and again, and again, even though you know exactly what you're going to find, because this is hiddur mitzvah. One might speculate as to why only particular mitzvos have this din; it's easy to surmise that it is found by daled minim because they have a special din of hiddur. Tamid is still tzarich iyun.

By the way, if you are going to accuse me of baalebatisheh thinking because I'm speculating about Taamei Hamitzvos, go and look at the last Rambam in Hilchos Temura, to wit:

אף על פי שכל חוקי התורה גזירות הם כמו שביארנו בסוף מעילה ראוי להתבונן בהן וכל מה שאתה יכול ליתן לו טעם תן לו טעם הרי אמרו חכמים הראשונים שהמלך שלמה הבין רוב הטעמים של כל חוקי התורה

Another place you find the term bikkur is, of course, in Bikkur Cholim. The Gaon (Aderes Eliahu Devarim 1:12) says that the reason the Gemara (Pesachim 30b and Sotah 12) derives Bikkur cholim from the word ילכו is because the tachlis of Bikkur Cholim is the הליכה, the walking, the preparation. I never understood this Gaon. I asked this question on an earlier post on this week's parsha which discusses S'char Halicha, here. But it might be that this is the whole idea of Bikkur- overdo the preparation. The הכנה is very important, the הכנה has independent significance. Do more than would be necessary just to ensure that you can do the mitzva. Plan it out, be super meticulous, ensure that you do it in the most perfect and thorough manner. If this is what Bikkur means, then ילכו is indeed the paradigm of hachana.

Here is the Gaon:
ילכו זה ביקור חולים מפני שבכל המצוות ההליכה אינה תכלית המצוה אבל כאן ההליכה עצמה היא המצוה

My problem is that in every mitzva, going is preparation, and doing is the fulfillment. Here too, going is preparation, and visiting, standing there and commiserating or getting him something, or whatever you do when you're mevaker choleh, is the mitzva. Evidently, the going is a greater part of this mitzva. What does that mean? Why is that true? How does the Gaon know it, and how do Chazal know it?

Michael, in the comments, proposes that because Bikur Cholim is like קבלת פני השכינה, the walking has a special meaning (like by Aliya Le'Regel (see Teshuvos Chasam Sofer ChM 176, and the story with the lady and Reb Yochanan in Sota 22a and Bava Metziah 107a as I mention in the post I cited above, both involving presenting one's self before the Shechina.) I found that Harav Avraham Shapiro is quoted as having taken essentially the same approach, as follows:

בבבא מציעא (ל:) מבארת הגמרא את הפסוק: "והזהרת אתהם את החוקים ואת התורות והודעת להם את הדרך ילכו בה ואת המעשה אשר יעשון". (שמות י"ח, כ'). "דתני רב יוסף... 'את הדרך' זו גמילות חסדים,'ילכו' ביקור חולים". שואל ר' אברום: תינח 'את הדרך - זו גמילות חסדים' זה מובן שהרי הדרך של אברהם אבינו שהודיע לבניו אחריו, זוהי הדרך בכללות אותה משה רבנו צריך להודיע לעם ישראל, אבל מנין לנו לומר ש'ילכו - זה ביקור חולים'? מה הקשר בין הליכה לביקור חולים דוקא

ר' אברום מבאר זאת על-פי דברי המהר"ל מפראג ב'נתיב העבודה' פרק ה', שהביא דברי חז"ל בילקוט שמעוני (משלי תת"ק) שאומר: "לכך אמר שלמה 'אשרי אדם שומע לי' מה כתיב אחריו 'כי מוצאי מצא חיים', אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא אם הלכת להתפלל לבית הכנסת, לא תעמוד לך על פתח חיצון, אלא הוי מתכוין לכנוס דלת לפנים מדלת... ולמה כן? שהקב"ה מונה פסיעותיך ונותן לך שכר". ומבאר המהר"ל שלא על כל מצוה אמרו, שהקב"ה מונה פסיעותיך, אלא דוקא הליכה לבית הכנסת, "שהשם יתברך מצוי בבית הכנסת, ולפיכך כאשר הולך לבית הכנסת הוא נמשך אל השם יתברך להיות לו דביקות בו יתברך". "ולכן אמר שהקב"ה מונה פסיעותיך, כי אף פסיעה אחת יותר רחוק, הקב"ה מונה, כי הכל הוא לפי התנועה יש לו דביקות בו יתברך... ובזה מקבל פני השכינה גם כן". עד כאן מלשון המהר"ל בענין הליכה לבית הכנסת.

על פי זה מחדש מרן, שכיוון שהגמ' אומרת (מסכת שבת יב:): "שאני חולה דשכינה עמו... תניא נמי הכי, הנכנס

לבקר את החולה לא ישב לא על גבי מיטה ולא על גבי כסא, אלא מתעטף ויושב לפניו, מפני ששכינה למעלה מראשותיו של חולה שנאמר ה' יסעדנו על ערש דוי". אם כן גם מצות ביקור חולים, יש לה ערך מיוחד של קבלת פני השכינה, שהרי השכינה נמצאת עם החולה, ובזה ההליכה לביקור חולים מתדמה להליכה לבית הכנסת. אם כן, גם במצוה זו יש לומר שהקב"ה מונה כל פסיעה ופסיעה שאדם הולך למצוה. בזה מובנת הדרשה של רב יוסף: 'ילכו - זה ביקור חולים'. יש ערך מיוחד להליכה לשם ביקור חולים

UPDATE:
I've been thinking about this, and I'm pretty convinced that this is a legitimate approach.

The reason Reb Yochanan agreed that there is special schar halicha for tefilla is because tefilla is the only moment where we are עומדים לפני המלך, where we are standing in the presence of the Ribono shel Olam.
Tefillos, as Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi in Brachos 26b says, כנגד תמידים תקנום, so it stands to reason that this aspect of עומד לפני המלך was present in the Tmidim as well.
As Rav Hirsch says, the Temidim, in a sense, are an extension of the experience of the Pesach in Mitzrayim, which was the moment that Klal Yisrael met the Ribono shel Olam, when the Ribono shel Olam Himself was present to smite the Mitzrim and save the Ivrim.
And perhaps this is the pshat by bikkur cholim as well- that we should view bikkur cholim like aliyah le'regel, as if we're coming into Hashem's presence.

In any case, the idea is be that just as the Kohen Gadol required seven days of Hafrasha (Yoma 2a) before avodas Yom Hakippurim, each experience of עומד לפני המלך requires special hachana, such that the hachana is, as the Gaon says, Tachlis Hamitzva, and should be done as if it were a mitzva itself. Moving toward the Ribono shel Olam is as meaningful as standing before Him.

This is not like Rav Shternbuch's approach.

Notes.

Note 1. Rashi and most mefarshim hold that the four-day-examination rule applies to all Pesachim and not only the Pesach Mitzrayim. The only aspect of bikkur that distinguished Pesach Mitzrayim is that it was made Hekdesh on the tenth, a requirement not found by Pesach Doros, which you can and should be makdish right before you bring it in to the Azara. I believe the Rambam argues and holds that there is no din Bikkur at all by Pesach Doros. Support for this is found in פרי מגדים מש"ז סי' ת'ל,מנחת חינוך מצוה ה, and here.

Note 2. Some honorable mefarshim say that the extra days allow you to decide whether a blemish is temporary or permanent. I seriously don't know what he is talking about; 1. if this were so, it would apply to all korbanos; 2. even a temporarily blemished animal cannot be sacrificed while it is blemished; 3. it would only apply to animals with some blemish.

Note 3. To a lesser extent, the din of Shimur by Matzas Mitzva is very similar: Shimur is not necessary to ensure that it's not chametz, because you can determine that by looking at the grain later. It's just an example of extra chashivus given to hachana.

Bo, Shemos 12:34. משארותם צרורות בשמלותם על שכמם. Respect for Mitzva Leftovers.

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:49:00 +0000

The Pasuk says that they carried their packs on their shoulders. Rashi says that these packs contained the leftover matza from the seudas mitzva; Al shichmam—on their shoulders- even though they had many animals that could have carried the leftover matza, they carried it in their hands because of chivuv mitzva, an expression of love for the precious mitzva of Matza.

The Taz and Magen Avraham at the end of OC 167 bring from the Abudraham that you should not give animals (or goyim or birds, says the Mishna Berura,) the prusa of hamotzi, the bread upon which you had made hamotzi. So what do you do with it? Make a bread kugel, or put it into the cholent next week, I guess. The Taz there says that the Medrash Rashi quotes on our possuk is a good source for the Abudraham’s idea; if the concept of chivuv mitzvo goes to the extent that they carried the leftovers in their hands and did not allow their animals to carry them, then kal vachomer one should not feed the leftovers to animals.

We find a similar idea here: the Gemora in Brachos 39b and Shabbos 117b says that Rav Ami and Rav Assi, when they would have the Eiruv Chatzeiros bread available, would use that for Hamotzi. “ רב אמי ורב אסי כי הוה מתרמי להו ריפתא דערובא מברכין עליה המוציא לחם מן הארץ אמרי הואיל ואתעביד ביה מצוה חדא נעביד ביה מצוה אחריתי ” once it has been used for one mitzvah, let us do another mitzva with it. In fact, the Shibalei Haleket at the end of 246 says you should davka use a shaleim, an unbroken loaf of bread, for eiruv, so you will be able to use it for hamotzi. We see that an item that is left over from being used for a mitzva, even a relatively very minor mitzva such as Eiruv Chatzeiros, should be shown respect and used in the most honorable manner possible.

Of course there is a difference between leftover matza from the Korban Pesach of Yetzias Mitzrayim and leftover bread from hamotzi. Simply saying Hamotzi on a piece of bread is no different than saying Shehakol on a glass of water; we don't find anyone that says that you have to use the leftover water for a mitzva. But in truth, you don't need a makor for this din. As we see from Rav Ammi and Rav Assi, it's a simple svara-- show respect to an object that was used for a mitzva. You don't have to put your leftover Cholent into Geniza. But when you have the opportunity to use it in doing another mitzvah, you should do so. Hamotzi, apparently, is a more significant bracha than others, in that there is a hava amina in Brachos 35 that it is Mid'oraysa; so bread that you made hamotzi on is considered a cheftza shel mitzva.

Please note that these ideas are primarily minhagim; the Gemara in Megilla 26b allows us to throw away items used for Mitzvos. It is on the authority of the Shi'iltos and the Kol Bo and the Maharil that we are machmir beyond the literal meaning of the Gemara. The more commonly known application of this hanhaga is for items that are specifically for mitzvos, which have no meaning outside of the mitzva, and which have some special preparation for that use, such as making them Lishmah. For example, in OC 21 we learn that tzitzis don't need geniza, but should not be subjected to disrespectful use, and even the garment to which the tzitzis were attached should not be used in a degrading manner. Similarly, this is brought in Rama 664:9 on Hoshanos and in Mishna Berura 297 SK 8 on using the Hadas for Besamim for Havdala, and see Magen Avraham in OC 638 SK 2 regarding Schach. The way the idea is used here is far broader than the those cases. Also see Mishna Berura 673 SK 27 to use the wax that dripped from the candles in Shul for Chanuka, and Ritva Shabbos 117b that if you used a pas for hamotzi once, and it is still shaleim, (I guess you used a different piece for eating) you should use it for hamotzi another time, as brought by the Mishna Berura in 527 SK 11 and 48, that bread that was used for eiruv should be placed with the bread for hamotzi and eaten at Seuda Shelishis.

This issue arises in the discussion regarding inviting non-Jewish friends and colleagues to the Seder. It should be obvious that there are many issues that should be discussed on this matter. Besides the basic incongruity of such guests at a seder, about which the Torah says זאת חוקת הפסח כל בן נכר לא יאכל בו, and the oddity of saying and explaining Shfoch Chamascha, one of the more serious problems is the Halacha discussed in OC 512, and see Mishna Berura there SK 6. There is also the matter of teaching Torah to non-Jews, as in Igros YD 2 :132. Of course, an entirely different perspective comes into play if the guest is in the process of conversion, as discussed in Minchas Elazar 3:8. But directly relevant to this question of non-Jewish guests, and giving Matza and items from any Seudas Mitzva to non-Jews, is the following Kaf Hachaim on Siman 167, starting with SK קמ:

וכתב שם הט״ז בשם ס׳ טעמי המצות להרקנטי שמזהיר מאד במצה דמצוה שלא להאכילה

למי שאינו בן ברית ונותן טעם הגון לזה. וכתב שכן ראיתי רבים נוהגים נזהרי׳ מזה בפסח יעו״ש ואני שמעתי

מעשה נורא ע״ז כי בימי הרב משה חיים ז״ל זקנו של מהרי״ח ז״ל בעל המחבר בן יהוידע רב פעלים וכו׳ שזימן

ישראל בפסח את עכו״ם א׳ שהיה שכינו והאכילו מצה על שלחנו ואח״כ סיפר זה לפני הרב משה חיים ז״ל ואמר לו

שיזהר ממנו בזאת השנה כי אפשר שיזיקנו נזק גדול ויהי היום והישראל יושב ובא העכו״ם ההוא וחרבו שלופה בידו

ונעשה לו נס וברח מפניו ר״ל

קמא) וכתב עו״ש הרו״ח ע״ש כלי יקר בפי׳ למלכים ב׳ סימן א׳ שלא

נתן מסעודה מצוה שום דבר מאכל לגוים עע״ז יעו״ש. וסעודות שאומרים בהם ד״ת כולם חשובים של מצוה

וכאילו אוכלים לפני המקום ב״ה כמ״ש בפ״ג דאבוה ג׳ שאכלו על שלחן א׳ ואמרו עליו ד״ת כאילו אכלו משלחנו

של מקום וכו׳ וג׳ ל״ר אלא אפי' א׳ כמ״ש במס׳ ברכות דף ו׳ ע״א יעו״ש

(By the way, many people have the habit of never throwing out bread; they feel that disgracing bread by putting it into the garbage can bring poverty, as indicated in the gemara (Chulin 105b) about the guy who made a picnic and gathered the crumbs. I have a neighbor that throws all of their leftover bread into the alley, the small street behind our houses used for deliveries. It's ironic: to avoid bizayon of bread, they throw it where it will be stepped on and ground into the mud. This is not only stupid but also entertaining. On the other hand, they're still very wealthy, so maybe they're right and I'm wrong.
Another local oddity- a friend, Rav Shimon Kalman Goldstein, told me that he knows a nursing home operator who gives out hand shmura matzos to gentile business acquaintances before Pesach. SK has told him that based on the Kaf Hachaim, this might be a misuse of Matza Shmura, but it didn't seem to have influenced that person. I suggested that he most likely doesn't eat gebrokst, so he probably sprinkled them with water before giving them away and 'deconsecrated' them. Reb Dovid Kronglas once said that every midda can be used for avodas Hashem. How do you use the midda of krumkeit? In being דן את כל האדם לכף זכות. Usually, to be dan people l'kaf zechus, you need to use the midda of saying a krumeh svora.)

A reader wrote in a private correspondence that he once attended a shiur by Rabbi Heinemann on the topic of respect for items used in fulfillment of mitzvos, and another listener asked whether married couples need to show kavod to their mattresses in light of the mitzva of Piriah ve'Rivyah. I assume the audience at that moment thought it a humorous question. However, I would say that the concept applies there no less than it does to bread used at the table on Shabbos of to say hamotzi on. It is, after all, הלחם אשר הוא אוכל, and while some people overeat, or eat with bad manners, or eat because they enjoy eating more than they desire to honor Shabbos with Lechem Mishna, it's still called a cheftza shel mitzva. I would have answered that we are only mechabeid things that are used in fulfillment of mitzvos, while in that case, the item was used in the ma'aseh mitzva, not the fulfillment of the mitzva. Which, of course, raises the question of whether it is a ma'aseh mitzva or a real kiyum hamitzva, and children are just the shiur for petur. This is more something Chaim B. would address; see, e.g., here, third paragraph.
Chaim disagrees in the comments. He says that the bed is no more cheftza shel mitzva than the table at which you're eating the Shabbos meal. To this I respond with Rabbeinu Bachaye in Parshas Teruma, who, in explaining the pasuk in Yechezkel 41:22, 'זה השולחן אשר לפני ה, tells us that the tzadikim of France would be buried in an aron made of the wood of their dining room table. You want to be buried in an object that served you in your kiyum hamitzvos. I remember Rabbi Weinberg telling me that he wanted his shtender, from which he said shiurim, to be buried with him. Unfortunately, when I told this to his family, they didn't believe me. He probably should have told them himself, or left instructions in his tzava'ah. I wonder what I would want buried with me....the computer mouse? Not a good idea. Maybe a daf yomi calendar. Or torah from my children and grandchildren.

Va'eira, Shemos 6:6. Sivlos Mitzrayim. The Chidushei HaRi'm and Martin Luther King

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:43:00 +0000

I was born in 1952, and I have personally seen the enormous change American society has undergone in the relationship between Caucasians and African Americans. It is hard to imagine it now, but there was a time when blacks were considered not fully human- many saw them as part animal and part man, placed somewhere on the continuum between ape and human. The natural thing for a black revolutionary would be to react with violence and anger, as many did. Marin Luther King was the catalyst of such enormous change, change that in other societies would take centuries, or millennia, and he did it within thirty years and with non-violent methods. This is a testament both to Dr. King and, Baruch Hashem, to the unique character of American society.

We were discussing at the table something the Chidushei Harim says on this week's parsha (also quoted in Ma'ayana shel Torah), and someone pointed out that Dr. King had made a very similar observation. (I have a feeling that Abraham Joshua Heschel mentioned it to him, but I certainly can't prove it. See here.)

The passuk says והוצאתי אתכם מתחת סבלת מצרים, I will take you out from beneath the crushing burden of Mitzrayim. The word סבלות means burdens. But it also can mean patience. Over the years, the Jewish People had developed patience, the patience to tolerate their miserable life in Egypt. As terrible as their life was, they had learned to cope with their condition, and it was the only life they knew. They had lost the desire to be autonomous, the desire to breath as free men, the concept that this was not what life should be like. They had lost any desire to be redeemed, they feared the instability and danger freedom might bring. Hashem told Moshe to hint to the Jews that the first prerequisite to their salvation was to become impatient; to say "Enough! This is unacceptable! I refuse to despair; I will do whatever it takes to become free, despite the danger, despite the fear."
Rabbi Oizer Alport (author of "Parsha Potpourri", available by writing to oalport@optonline.net) points out that Rav Gedalya Shorr makes a similar point. Rav Shorr brings a Medrash that prior to Yetzias Mitzaryim, not a single slave had ever escaped from Egypt. One would think this was because of the hermetic efficiency of the Egyptian police state. But Rav Schorr suggests that it was due less to physical control than to mind control. Mitzrayim had such an effective system of mental debilitation, of convincing the slaves that any other life was more dangerous or less meaningful, that by being good slaves that were accomplishing the greatest good that they were born to do. It was their Tafkid! It was a curse of complacency, and Moshe Rabbeinu's first task was to break away this destructive willingness to be subordinated.

In Dr. King's essay, Three Way's of Meeting Oppression, the first paragraphs are as follows:

Oppressed people deal with their oppression in three characteristic ways. One way is acquiescence: the oppressed resign themselves to their doom. They tacitly adjust themselves to oppression and thereby become conditioned to it. In every movement toward freedom some of the oppressed prefer to remain oppressed. Almost 2800 years ago Moses set out to lead the children of Israel from the slavery of Egypt to the freedom of the Promised Land. He soon discovered that slaves do not always welcome their deliverers. They become accustomed to being slaves. They would rather bear those ills they have, as Shakespeare pointed out, than flee to others that they know not of. They prefer the "fleshpots of Egypt" to the ordeals of emancipation.

There is such a thing as the freedom of exhaustion. Some people are so worn down by the yoke of oppression that they give up. A few years ago in the slum areas of Atlanta, a Negro guitarist used to sing almost daily: "Been down so long that down don't bother me." This is the type of negative freedom and resignation that often engulfs the life of the oppressed.

But this is not the way out. To accept passively an unjust system is to cooperate with that system; thereby the oppressed become as evil as the oppressor. Non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. The oppressed must never allow the conscience of the oppressor to slumber. Religion reminds every man that he is his brother's keeper. To accept injustice or segregation passively is to say to the oppressor that his actions are morally right. It is a way of allowing his conscience to fall asleep. At this moment the oppressed fails to be his brother's keeper. So acquiescence-while often the easier way-is not the moral way. It is the way of the coward. The Negro cannot win the respect of his oppressor by acquiescing; he merely increases the oppressor's arrogance and contempt. Acquiescence is interpreted as proof of the Negro's inferiority. The Negro cannot win the respect of the white people of the South or the peoples of the world if he is willing to sell the future of his children for his personal and immediate comfort and safety.

Elsewhere, in an essay titled The Meaning of Non-Violence, he repeats this theme with a slightly different focus:

One method is that of acquiescence there are those individuals who feel that the only way to deal with their oppression is to resign themselves to the fate of oppression. There are those who surrender and find themselves becoming conditioned to things as they are. They feel that it is better to live with these things than to go through the ordeals of changing the old order to the new order. There was a man who lived in one of the Negro communities in Atlanta some years ago; he used to play his guitar and sing various songs, and one day he was heard singing a song that went something like this: "been down so long that down don't bother me." I guess he had achieved a level of freedom-a freedom of exhaustion. He had given up the struggle.

So this is the method of acquiescence- but it is not the way. It may be the easy way at times, but it is not moral way and it is not the courageous way; it is a cowardly way for the individual who adjusts to an evil system, and he must take some of the responsibility for the perpetuation of the unjust system.

Obviously, Dr. King's approach would not have worked in Mitzrayim. But his moral logic, and its success in the milieu within which he championed it, is undeniable.

Va'eira 6:26. Moshe and Aharon

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:31:00 +0000

Rashi says that the Torah sometimes mentions Moshe before Aharon and sometimes reverses the order to teach us that they were Shkulin, of equal weight. This is impossible. Moshe was unparalleled. Obviously, there were some aspects in which they were equal, but that is irrelevant to us. We are interested in Moshe and Aharon in their roles as teachers and leaders of Klal Yisrael and as intermediaries between the Ribono shel Olam and His people, and in those respects, Moshe was greater. So we have to find an interpretation of what Rashi is telling us.

I heard this morning something very nice from the Chozeh of Lublin. He says that it was only because Aharon brought peace to the Jewish People that Moshe was able to experience the level of Ruach Hakodesh that he did. (See note.) Moshe alone would not have been Moshe. In that sense, they were shkulim.

Similarly: R’ Aharon Soloveichikin in “The Warmth and the Light” brings the Rambam in PH that Moshe was the greatest man in history in nevu’ah, in Chochmoh, and in Middos. So it is impossible that he and Aharon were shkulim. He explains on the basis of a Medrash Shmos 4:27 that brings the possuk in Tehillim 85:11 “Chesed v’emes nifgoshu, tzedek v’sholom noshoku,” that Emes and Tzedek refers to Moshe, and Chesed and Sholom refers to Aharon. He says that Moshe represents one side of Torah, while Aharon represents the other. See there for a discussion of why Aharon was chosen to speak to the Jews, while Moshe was to speak to Pharaoh, and the difference between Tzedek and Emes.

When I said this at the table, my just-married-off son Moshe said that this could be pshat in the Gemara (Brachos 32) that reads the passuk in Tehillim 99 to mean that Shmuel was "Shakul" with Moshe and Aharon. Again, that is not possible. It might be that while Moshe and Aharon divided the responsibilities of leadership into pastoral and royal, Shmuel's leadership comprised both elements.

Note:
See, e.g., Shemos 19:2 and Rashi, כאיש אחד, בלב אחד, and Sotah 17a, שלום ביניהם שכינה שרויה ביניהם.

Notice:
Now that I've married off my youngest child, Baruch Hashem, things are going to change around here. I will be moving the divrei Torah to another blog, perhaps another website, this time with my real name.

F. Scott Fitzgerald and Parshas Vayechi

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:30:00 +0000

Fitzgerald once said, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." He may have been a dissipated lush, but, from personal experience, that doesn't mean he couldn't occasionally say a good thing.

Dealing with contradiction is a hallmark of sophistication, and I do not mean that word to reflect its etymological sense of sophistry. The examined life inevitably exposes us to the innumerable inconsistencies of reality, and, I believe, intelligently embracing these contradictions engenders mental flexibility and perspective. Light is a particle and not a wave; light is a wave and not a particle. Time is immutable; time is relative and specific to every particular place. Hashem knows what we will choose: Hashem's knowledge does not mandate that we make any particular choice. Hashem determines whether we have what to eat and wear; we are obligated to do hishtadlus. The universe was created from nothing five thousand seven hundred and seventy two years ago; the universe is 14 billion years old, and the Earth is four and a half billion years old. The mabul wiped out all living creatures; no archaeological record of any such world-wide deluge exists, and the Chinese have uninterrupted bureaucratic records going back to before, during, and after the date of the mabul. Hashem loves Klal Yisrael, His chosen People, and will redeem them, and Hashem rewards good deeds and punishes wickedness; the history of the Jews and the fate of Rav Akiva (כל דעביד רחמנא לטב עביד) and Nachum ish Gamzu (גם זו לטובה) would make Dr. Pangloss run out and swallow poison. שכר מצוה בהאי עלמא ליכא; but you can be sure that עונש עבירה בהאי עלמא איכא. (see Rashi Shemos 6:9)

Yaakov Avinu did not die; Yaakov Avinu was embalmed, mummified, and buried.

That Gemara in Taanis (5b) is the classic illustration of this idea; it has been used for that purpose by many thinkers- believers and apostates and various combinations thereof.

הכי א"ר יוחנן יעקב אבינו לא מת א"ל וכי בכדי ספדו ספדנייא וחנטו חנטייא וקברו קברייא א"ל מקרא אני דורש שנאמר (ירמיהו ל) ואתה אל תירא עבדי יעקב נאם ה' ואל תחת ישראל כי הנני מושיעך מרחוק ואת זרעך מארץ שבים מקיש הוא לזרעו מה זרעו בחיים אף הוא בחיים

I think the lesson of this Gemara is that all such contradictions are only apparent. Every such enigma has an explanation that will resolve the contradiction. A humble man of faith will accept his inability to understand, and the question will not bother him, other than to stimulate thought and a sense of awe at the complexity of Hashem's bri'ah.

I recently talked to a young man that is attending Harvard Law. He said that every good law school has mostly Jewish professors. Harvard has to have a higher quality of professor, so they have not only Jewish professors, but Jewish professors that are Shana U'Piresh, who learned in Yeshivos and went off the derech. He added that from the eight young men and women that entered his class, four had already abandoned the faith of their upbringing. (He, Baruch Hashem, was well raised, with an exemplary father, who gave up a high level legal career in favor of teaching children Torah.)

Why is this? Why is Harvard Law so deadly to faith? I believe that it is because the first thing you learn at Harvard is that you are the intellectual elite: that there is no field of human knowledge, regardless how complex and arcane, that is beyond your ability to research for a week or two and render upon it a wise and expert opinion. You learn that if you have a question that cannot be answered, then the problem is not that you are inadequate; the problem is with the axioms that underlie the problem. If you don't understand it, then it is wrong. If Yaakov was mummified and buried, he was absolutely Dead, and he was not at all alive. Harvard Law cauterizes humility. Without humility, unanswerable questions become impossible; without humility, there cannot be faith.

Here is something from Reb Leib Chasman on the subject, with the usual OCR issues:

ובהקדם גם דברי ספר אור יהל להגר״ל חסמן ז״ל פ׳ ויחי שכותב לבאר

מאמר חז״ל בתענית דף ה׳ ע״ ב דאיתא : רב נחמן ורב יצחק הוו יתבי בסעודתא וכו׳ א״ל הכי א״ר יוחנן

יעקב אבינו לא מת, א״ל וכי בכדי ספדו ספדנייא וחנטו חנטייא וקברו קבריא, א״ל מקרא אני דורש שנא׳ ואתה אל תירא עבדי יעקב נאם ה׳ ואל תחת ישראל כי הנני מושיעך מרחוק ואת זרעך מארץ שבים

מקיש הוא לזרעו מה זרעו בחיים אף הוא בחיים, וכתב לבאר וללמד מזה יסוד נפלא, דהנה אם אדם

יראה בעיניו את ראובן חבירו, ושומע קולו ונדמה לו לקול שמעון, ודאי ישפוט שחוש שמיעתו

הטעהו, ובאמת ראובן הוא ולא שמעון כי חוש הראיה יותר חזק מהוש השמיעה, כ״ש אם יאמת לו על אחד

שמת ורואהו עומד לפניו, מי פתי יחשוב אחרת שאמירה זו אינה מכוונת, והנה ראה זה פלא, שרב נחמן תמה ושואל: וכי בכדי חנטו חנטיה? בא ר״י ומשיב לו מקרא אני דורש, ומה תשובה היא זו? הא ראינו שמת וחנטוהו וקברוהו, אולם חז״ל השמיענו בזה, שאם נסתר חוש הגשמי ע״י מה שמצאנו בתוה״ק איפכא ,

ע״כ מסיקים מזה שחוש הגשמי הטעה, ורק נראים כחונטים, כי מכיון שמקרא אני דורש עפ״י הכללים

האמיתיים שנתנו לנו מסיני, הדי שהקב״ה אומר כן, וממילא ברור שרק נדמה להם שמת, אבל הי היה ,

ככה למדו הז״ל תורה, וזהו ההבדל הגדול והריחוק הנורא שבין דעתנו לדעת חז״ל, מן החיפך אל החיפך ,

שאצלנו בעניותנו העוה״ז: הוא מציאות ״והתורה נדרשת״ , משא״כ חז״ל בעיני קדשם המת ראו את התורח בחושיחם כמציאות, וכשמקרא אני דורש בטלים כל החושים הגשמים

In other words, you can say למה לי קרא- סברא היא, but you can't say סברא היא- מאי איכפת לי קרא

Vayigash. In Retropect, It Wasn't So Bad

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:22:00 +0000

I will post this quickly, and try to come back and fix it up later. My youngest son's aufruf is this Shabbos, and you'll have to forgive me for being a little hasty. But it happens to be a good observation.

Rav Solomon, in his Ma'amarim, cites the Medrash (91:10) that says that Yaakov, the paragon of human spirituality, only once in his life said a ill-considered thing:

והרעב כבד וגו' ויהי כאשר כלו וגו' ויאמר אליו יהודה וגו' אם ישך משלח וגו' ואם אינך משלח וגו' אמרו לו מה הוא אומר לנו דברים של אמת ואנו משיבים אותו דברים של בטלה ויאמר ישראל למה הרעותם לי וגו' רבי לוי בשם רבי חמא בר חנינא מעולם לא אמר יעקב אבינו דבר של בטלה אלא כך אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא אני עוסק להמליך את בנו במצרים והוא אומר למה הרעותם לי היא דהוא אמר (ישעיה מ) נסתרה דרכי מה' ומאלהי וגו' ויאמרו שאול שאל האיש וגו' אמר רבי אבא בר כהנא אפילו עצי עריסותינו גלה לנו ויאמר יהודה אל ישראל אביו מוטב תהא נפש אחת בספק ולא כולם בודאי אנכי אערבנו כל הימים זה העולם הבא שכולו יום:

When the brothers told Yaakov that they had told the Egyptian that they had a brother in Canaan, Yaakov angrily accusing his sons of doing him an evil by revealing what they didn't have to. The point of the Medrash is that Yaakov shouldn't have reacted to this unpleasant news so negatively. He should have realized that a baal bitachon must accept what happens more calmly, since Hashem orders all events, and all that we experience is purposeful and ultimately fulfills the will of Hashem. The Medrash says that Yaakov's words were davar shel batalah, empty words, because Hashem was doing all of this to ensure the survival of Klal Yisrael, and it was not right for Yaakov to call the events "Ra."

In our parsha, too, Yaakov tells Pharaoh that his life was short and "Ra." 47:9- מעט ורעים, היו ימי שני חיי,

Rav Solomon points out that in Parshas Vayechi, from the perspective of his penultimate hour, Yaakov looked back and saw that Hashem had shepherded him from his earliest youth till that very day. Yaakov used the words הרועה אותי. These words, which echo the word הרעותם, indicate that Yaakov realized that while the event elicited despair in the moment of experience, in retrospect he saw that he had spoken hastily, that he now realizes that he was a sheep, and Hashem was his shepherd, and he was being lovingly guided by Hashem toward an ultimate good that required that he experience all those frightening and frustrating moments.

This is exactly the same idea the Beis Halevi says in Parshas Beshalach, when Moshe Rabbeinu said Oz Yashir. He brings a Medrash (Shemos 23:3)

אז ישיר משה. איתא במדרש (שמו"ר כג ג) אמר משה באז חטאתי שאמרתי (שמות ה) ומאז באתי לדבר אל פרעה הרע לעם הזה באז אני אומר שירה.

that Moshe said "I sinned when I complained "mei'oz bosi el Pharaoh": Moshe had said "from the moment (Me'Oz) I came before Pharaoh, he has made it bad for this people," and I do teshuva by singing to Hashem with the word Oz, that I now realize that all the apparent hardship was necessary to bring us to the point of this great Kiddush Hashem of Krias Yam Suf. Please note that in Moshe Rabbeinu's precipitous words he also said Ra, הרע לעם הזה. Later, in retrospect, he realized that what seems like Ra in the moment might actually be the foundation of a great good. Same vort, same words used by the Yaakov Avinu and Moshe Rabbeinu, same ultimate realization.

An Extraordinary Insight into Chanuka

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:28:00 +0000

This is my translation of Eli's Drasha. It is a gem, one of those הכל בחזקת סומין עד שהקדוש ברוך הוא מאיר את עיניהם ideas.

The Lamps of Zechariah

On Chanuka, we read the parsha of the Inaugural Offerings brought by the Tribal Princes, and the Haftara is the Lamps of Zechariah (Zechariah 2:14- 4:7). Rashi explains the relation of the Haftara to Chanuka is the verse "and I saw, behold a golden menorah..." Tosfos Shabbos 23 writes that reading this Haftara publicizes the miracle of Chanuka, and this is why we prefer it over the usual haftara of Hashamayim Kis'i. This is chidush, because it seems that the haftara of Zecharia is completely irrelevant to the idea of Chanuka and it was chosen because of the mere simple mention of the Menora. Also, why would Chazal not have chosen a different chapter in Zecharia, Chapter 9, which says "and I will awaken your sons, Zion, over your sons, Yavan," which directly addresses the central concept of the Chanuka, the victory over the Greeks. In fact, according to Rashi and others this latter prophecy in Chapter 9 was specifically said regarding the victory of the Chashmona'im over Antiochus! Does a mere mention of the word "menora" in an irrelevant context outweigh a direct reference to the victory of Antiochus??

Our Haftara lists many attributes of the menora in the vision.

And the angel who spoke with me returned, and he awakened me as a man who wakes up from his sleep.

And he said to me, "What do you see?"

And I said, "I saw, and behold [there was] a candelabrum all of gold, with its oil-bowl on top of it, and its seven lamps thereon; seven tubes each to the lamps that were on top of it.

And [there were] two olive trees near it; one on the right of the bowl, and one on its left.

So I answered and spoke to the angel who talked with me, saying, "What are these, my lord?"

Pure gold, bowl on top, seven lamps upon seven arms, seven pipes for the lamps, two olives upon it, one to the right and one to the left.

Zechariah did not understand what he was being shown, and the angel explained לֹא בְחַיִל וְלֹא בְכֹחַ כִּי אִם בְּרוּחִי, "not with might, not with force, only with my spirit, so says Hashem, the lord of hosts. How was this prophetic message encapsulated in Zechariah's vision of this menorah?

This prophecy in Zechaiah was said in the second year of the reign of Darius. This was the time during which they began building the second Beis Hamikdash, as explained in the book of Chagai. The entire book of Chagai involves a number of prophecies that were said during four months of Darius' second year, and their message is to encourage and stimulate the building of the mikdash. The last prophecy in the book of Chagai is the following:

On the twenty-fourth [day] of the ninth [month], in the second year of Darius, the word of the Lord came to Haggai the prophet, saying:

So said the Lord of Hosts: Now ask the priests the Torah, saying:

Should a man carry sacred flesh in the skirt of his garment, if it touches in his skirt the bread and the pottage and the wine and the oil, or any food, will it [the food] become contaminated?" And the priests replied and said, "No."

And Haggai said, "If the contamination of a dead body touches all these, will it become contaminated?" And the priests replied and said, "It will become contaminated."

And Haggai replied and said, "So is this people, and so is this nation before Me, says the Lord; and so is all the work of their hands, and whatever they sacrifice there is contaminated.

And now, consider from this day and before-before placing a stone upon a stone in the Temple of the Lord
so that they should not come to a heap of twenty measures, and there would be ten; [similarly,] when one would come to the wine vat to draw off fifty press-measures, and there would be twenty.

I smote you with blast and with yellowing and with hail in all the work of your hands, and you are not [returning] to Me, says the Lord.

Pay attention now, from this day and before-from the twenty-fourth [day] of the ninth [month]- from the day that the Temple of the Lord was founded, pay attention.

The seed is still in the granary, and the grapevines, the fig trees, the pomegranate trees, and the olive trees have not yet borne [fruit]-from this day I will bless."

And the word of the Lord came to Haggai a second time on the twenty-fourth of the month, saying:

Say to Zerubbabel, the governor of Judah, saying: I am shaking up the heaven and the earth.

And I will overthrow the throne of the kingdoms, and I will destroy the power of the kingdoms of the nations. And I will overthrow the chariots and their riders; and the horses and their riders shall come down, each one by the sword of his brother.

On that day, says the Lord of Hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, My servant; says the Lord, and I will make you as a signet; for I have chosen you, says the Lord of Hosts.

This prophecy is very obscure. First the prophet says that because Tuma ruins Kedusha, and not vice versa, the people's sacrifices have no value. Then, immediately, he encourages them to build the mikdash and promises that from this day and on, the day the foundation of the mikdash is laid, the bad times will end and blessings will begin.

The prophet emphasizes three times "pay attention" to this day. The"day" is the twenty fourth of Kislev, the day before a stone was placed on a stone to build the temple. From that day and on, from the foundation day, blessing will come. In other words, the first day of building, in the time of Zerubavel and Yehoshua the Kohen was the twenty fifth of Kislev.

The first to note this remarkable coincidence is the Yaavetz in his Mor Uktziah, OC 670, who writes that the institution of Chanuka on the twenty fifth of Kislev also memorializes the day Chagai proclaimed "pay attention to this day, the day we begin rebuilding the Second Temple." With this he answers the question of the Beis Yoseph that there seems to be no miracle to commemorate on the twenty fifth, since there was enough oil for one day. He says that the holiday on the twenty fifth is not for the miracle of the oil but rather to remember the day the second temple had been begun.

With this, we also can answer the other question of why does Chanuka begin on the twenty fifth: If the Chashmonayim entered the sanctuary on the twenty fifth , as the Rambam says, and as stated in Megilas Chashmonayim, then the lighting of the menora must have been on the eve of the twenty sixth! The answer is, as explained, that the twenty fifth had ancient significance as the day the Anshei Knesses Hagdola laid the foundation of the Bayis Sheini, as was well known to Chazal when they instituted these days of commemoration. (By the way, it was on the twenty fifth that the Greek idolators profaned the altar, as stated in Chashmona'im 1:1:57. They probably chose that day to ridicule the hopes of those few that held on to the vision of the founders of the Bayis Sheini.)

The prophecy of the candles of Zecharya was said on the twenty fourth of Shvat of that year, two months after the founding of the new temple in Kislev. First, Zechariah promises that Jerusalem will be rebuilt and secure, and then the prophet sees Yehoshua the Kohen dressed in filthy clothes, filthied by sin. The Satan finds an opening to accuse. Despite this, Hashem removes the sin and dresses him in clean priestly clothing. No mention is made of repentance at all. Is this not a puzzle? After being told that he was unworthy, he is told, ok, it's fine, go ahead and act as if you were a meritorious Kohen Gadol. What happened, what changed? Perhaps the solution to this puzzle will explain the obscure prophecy in Chaggai, as follows:

Although the Kohen Gadol, and the People he represents, are sullied with sin, still and all, by grace and kindness, and not by merit, Hashem, in a manner of speaking, disregards the sins and removes the sin of the land on that day.

In other words, Chaggai was right. The people are tamei, and they will sully the temple more than the temple will make them tahor.. And despite that, in an exceptional manner, Hashem commands them to build the temple despite their being unworthy. This indeed is miraculous, and Yehoshua Kohen Gadol and his cohort have experienced a singular event. But what is the answer to Chaggai's question? If Israel would sully the Temple, what use is such a Temple? It is here that the vision of the menora comes into play.

Rashi explains that the menora had a large basin atop it, and each of the seven lamps had seven small pipes that brought oil from the basin to the lamps. Next to the menora were two olive trees, and the olives fell from the tree by themselves nad pressed themselves, and the oil ran into the basin and from there to the menora. and the lamps. In other words, the Menora described here is not just the Menora that stood in the Mikdash. This is a Menora that lights itself. What is the import of this vision? How is it connected to the vision of Yehoshua and his dirty clothing? How does it lead to the passuk "not with strength and not with force...?" Perhaps we can say that the prophet was saying that while normally, the mitzva of lighting the Menora is given over to the Jewish People, and it is they that are required to plant olive trees, to harvest, to press, to light, but the Menora of the Second Bayis was a Menora that lit itself without human involvement.

This was the answer to Chaggai's question, the explanation to the conundrum of the disregard of the sins of Yehoshua and his generation- and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day, Zecharia 3:9. Indeed, under normal circumstances, under preferable circumstances, the kedusha of the Mikdash would reflect and stem from the high , spiritual level of the People and it would be we that would light the Menora. But here, in these exceptional circumstances, a Mikdash was built in which Hashem Himself lights the Menora, because Klal Yisrael is not able or worthy to do so. According to this, the passuk should be read thus: If only we would have meritted, the Mikdash would have been built with the strength and force of Klal Yisrael, in other words, with our spiritual merit. But, the prophet tells us, in this case, not with force and not with strangth- this Bayis, the Bayis Sheni, is built not with the spiritual force and strength of the People, it is not בחרבי ובקשתי, as Yaakov Avinu said about his achievements (see Breishis 48:22 and importantly the Targum Onkelos there), but rather B'ruchi, with My Spirit- by My will, exclusively and specifically with divine initiative, in that the status of Klal Yisrael does not in any way justify doing so. And why did this happen? Why did they receive this boon? The Yaaros Dvash explains that "it would have been much better that the Galus continue unabated...but...if had this situation would have continued for too much more time, the Torah would have been utterly and irretrievably forgotten. So Hashem brought us back to His guard at the end of seventy years...and the teachers of Torah to the public flourished and instituted many ordinances and measures to guard the observance and maintenance of the Torah, as Hashem inspired them.

If so, this vision of the Menora is a vision of an autonomously self-lighting menora, and it symbolizes the condition of the second Bayis, that was given to us only by heavenly impetus in order to lift them from their debased condition, as our passuk says, and as similarly said at the end of Chaggai, So said the Lord of Hosts: If you walk in My ways, and if you keep My charge, you, too, shall judge My house, and you, too, shall guard My courtyards, and I will give you free access among these who stand by....behold! I bring My servant, Tzemach, the Shoot. If they would improve their spiritual level, Hashem would change the Mikdash from a undeserved gift made necessary by the spiritual crisis of Klal Yisrael into a Mikdash that stems from the holiness of Klal Yisrael.

And exactly as was shown to these neviim was once again experienced in the day of the Chashmona'im. Then too the Mikdash was tamei and deconsecrated, and many Jews were turning to Greek culture, and all the people were asking the same qeustion as Chaggai asked, and even so they cleansed anew the Mikdash and brought back the Avoda. What Zecharya saw in a vision, they saw in reality- a menora that lit of its own accord! This is exactly the nevua'h of Zecharya! This endlessly burning Menora proclaimed "Not with your force, not with your power, is the Shechina resting in the house, only because of My Ru'ach, My choice, even though you are not yourselves worthy." Both in the first iteration of the second Bayis in the day of Yehoshua Kohen Gadol and Zerubavel, and in the second in the time of the Chashmona'im, Klal Yisrael were not successful in elevating themselves by means of the re-sanctified Temple, and so the prophecies of the end of Zecharya were not fulfilled, and Hashem did not send His servant, Tzemach David, the Shoot.

The importance of the cruse of oil is not that it burned for so long, but in that it expressed with absolute clarity the return of Zecharya's prophecy, that Hashem rested His Shechina on the Mikdash even when Klal Yisrael was on a low spiritual level, so that they could survive the Galus. According to this, the prophecy of the candles of Zecharya is directly on point to the miracle of Chanuka, and we now understand that it publicizes the miracle, as Tosfos in Shabbos says. According to this, the commemoration and celebration of Chanuka is not on the return of the Avodas Hamikdas to its place, because then we would ask, as the Gemara in Rosh Hashanna asks, what is the point of remembering the miracle of Chanuka, when any benefit it brought has long evaporated and replaced with suffering worse than that which preceded it- what good is the memory of grapes to the starving-again fox? Our commemoration of Chanuka is not the actual rebuilding of the Bayis, not by the Anshei Knesses Hagedola and not the renewal by the Chashmona'im. It is the knowledge that even when we don't deserve Hashra'as HaShechina, Hashem goes beyond din and provides grace to Klal Yisrael at a level far beyond what they deserve-- for the purpose of elevating them and giving them the opportunity to work themselves up to a point where they can actually deserve what they have been granted, so that they will be able to light the Menora by themselves, by dint of their own merit, as the Yaaros Dvash explained.

In brief, the miracle of the oil showed us that we needed a divine gift, that we were not yet zocheh to accomplish kedusha on our own. It was a gift - it was לא בחיל ולא בכח. This infusion of kedusha was a great chesed, because we we so desperately fallen that we were inexorably advancing toward the brink of a cliff and totally incapable of saving ourselves without an infusion of Kedusha. Here is a mashal: it was like a government declaring martial law during a crisis in order to preserve a democracy. Hashem said "I will grant you this miracle, this gift of Kedusha, as an emergency measure that will enable you to try, once again, to work yourselves up to a point where you can earn it yourselves." We all look forward to- and work to achieve- the time when we will not need any more such miracles, because we will light the menora, every day, all by ourselves, and we will win our battles בחרבי ובקשתי.

A Guest Post on Chanuka

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:14:00 +0000

This is from Harav Professor Eli. I am grateful that he sent it, and you will be, too, once you've read it. I don't know that there are many professors of advanced theoretical physics that can write a dvar Torah that simultaneously evinces rigorous scholarship and artistic creativity. Actually, I do know one more, but the other one doesn't send me divrei Torah often enough. Also, he's more in the way of a theoretical professor of advanced physics.

For the time being, it's in Hebrew. I just got back from Israel this morning, and face a Sisyphean week. I'll translate it later if I have time.

נרות דזכריה -- דרוש לשבת חנוכה

1. מגילה לא - בחנוכה בנשיאים ומפטירין בנרות דזכריה. ומפרש רש"י שם רני ושמחי על שם ראיתי והנה מנורת זהב כולה וגו'. תוס' שבת כג כתבו שיש בקריאת הפטרה זו משום פרסומי ניסא, ועל כן דוחים הפטרת השמים כסאי מפניה. זה חידוש, שהרי לכאורה ההפטרה בזכריה כלל אינה מענין נס חנוכה ונבחרה רק משום הזכרת מנורה. עוד יש לשאול, מדוע באמת לא תקנו להפטיר בזכריה ט-י, "ועוררתי בניך ציון על בניך יון", שהוא ממש מענינא דיומא, ולפי רש"י שם ועוד מפרשים נבואה זו אכן נאמרה על נצחונות החשמונאים על אנטיוכוס.

2. במראה המנורה נאמרו פרטים רבים - מְנוֹרַת זָהָב כֻּלָּהּ וְגֻלָּהּ עַל-רֹאשָׁהּ וְשִׁבְעָה נֵרֹתֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ שִׁבְעָה וְשִׁבְעָה מוּצָקוֹת לַנֵּרוֹת אֲשֶׁר עַל-רֹאשָׁהּ.וּשְׁנַיִם זֵיתִים עָלֶיהָ אֶחָד מִימִין הַגֻּלָּה וְאֶחָד עַל-שְׂמֹאלָהּ הנביא לא יודע לפרש את המראה, ועונה לו המלאך כי משמעות המראה היא לֹא בְחַיִל וְלֹא בְכֹחַ כִּי אִם-בְּרוּחִי, אָמַר ד' צב'. צ"ב מה השייכות של פסוק זה למראה המנורה על כל פרטיו.

3. נבואה זו של זכריה נאמרה בשנת שתיים לדריוש. זו התקופה בה החלו לבנות את הבית השני כמבואר בספר חגי. ספר חגי כולו כולל מספר נבואות שנאמרו במהלך ארבעה חדשים בשנת שתים לדריוש, ותוכן כולן הוא התעוררות לבנין בית המקדש. הנבואה האחרונה בספר חגי היא הנבואה הבאה:

בְּעֶשְֹרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה לַתְּשִׁיעִי בִּשְׁנַת שְׁתַּיִם לְדָרְיָוֶשׁ הָיָה דְּבַר יי' בְּיַד חַגַּי הַנָּבִיא לֵאמֹר: כֹּה אָמַר יי' צְבָאוֹת שְׁאַל נָא אֶת הַכֹּהֲנִים תּוֹרָה לֵאמֹר: הֵן יִשָא אִישׁ בְּשַֹר קֹדֶשׁ בִּכְנַף בִּגְדוֹ וְנָגַע בִּכְנָפוֹ אֶל הַלֶּחֶם וְאֶל הַנָּזִיד וְאֶל הַיַּיִן וְאֶל שֶׁמֶן וְאֶל כָּל מַאֲכָל הֲיִקְדָּשׁ וַיַּעֲנוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹא: וַיֹּאמֶר חַגַּי אִם יִגַּע טְמֵא נֶפֶשׁ בְּכָל אֵלֶּה הֲיִטְמָא וַיַּעֲנוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים וַיֹּאמְרוּ יִטְמָא: וַיַּעַן חַגַּי וַיֹּאמֶר כֵּן הָעָם הַזֶּה וְכֵן הַגּוֹי הַזֶּה לְפָנַי נְאֻם יי' וְכֵן כָּל מַעֲשֵֹה יְדֵיהֶם וַאֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ שָׁם טָמֵא הוּא: וְעַתָּה שִֹימוּ נָא לְבַבְכֶם מִן הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וָמָעְלָה מִטֶּרֶם שֹוּם אֶבֶן אֶל אֶבֶן בְּהֵיכַל יי': מִהְיוֹתָם בָּא אֶל עֲרֵמַת עֶשְֹרִים וְהָיְתָה עֲשָֹרָה בָּא אֶל הַיֶּקֶב לַחְשֹוֹף חֲמִשִּׁים פּוּרָה וְהָיְתָה עֶשְֹרִים: הִכֵּיתִי אֶתְכֶם בַּשִּׁדָּפוֹן וּבַיֵּרָקוֹן וּבַבָּרָד אֵת כָּל מַעֲשֵֹה יְדֵיכֶם וְאֵין אֶתְכֶם אֵלַי נְאֻם יי': שִֹימוּ נָא לְבַבְכֶם מִן הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וָמָעְלָה מִיּוֹם עֶשְֹרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה לַתְּשִׁיעִי לְמִן הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר יֻסַּד הֵיכַל יי' שִֹימוּ לְבַבְכֶם: הַעוֹד הַזֶּרַע בַּמְּגוּרָה וְעַד הַגֶּפֶן וְהַתְּאֵנָה וְהָרִמּוֹן וְעֵץ הַזַּיִת לֹא נָשָֹא מִן הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה אֲבָרֵךְ: וַיְהִי דְבַר יי' שֵׁנִית אֶל חַגַּי בְּעֶשְֹרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה לַחֹדֶשׁ לֵאמֹר: אֱמֹר אֶל זְרֻבָּבֶל פַּחַת יְהוּדָה לֵאמֹר אֲנִי מַרְעִישׁ אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת הָאָרֶץ: וְהָפַכְתִּי כִּסֵּא מַמְלָכוֹת וְהִשְׁמַדְתִּי חֹזֶק מַמְלְכוֹת הַגּוֹיִם וְהָפַכְתִּי מֶרְכָּבָה וְרֹכְבֶיהָ וְיָרְדוּ סוּסִים וְרֹכְבֵיהֶם אִישׁ בְּחֶרֶב אָחִיו: בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא נְאֻם יי' צְבָאוֹת אֶקָּחֲךָ זְרֻבָּבֶל בֶּן שְׁאַלְתִּיאֵל עַבְדִּי נְאֻם יי' וְשַֹמְתִּיךָ כַּחוֹתָם כִּי בְךָ בָחַרְתִּי נְאֻם יי' צְבָאוֹת:

נבואה זו סתומה. בתחילה אומר הנביא שכיוון שטומאה מקלקלת קדושה ולא להפך, אין ערך לקרבנותיהם של העם, "ואשר יקריבו שם טמא הוא". תוך כדי דיבור הוא ממשיך ומעודד אותם לבנות את הבית ומבטיח שמן היום הזה והלאה, יום יסוד היכל ד', תפסק הקללה -- "מן היום הזה אברך".

4. הנביא מדגיש שלש פעמים "שימו לבבכם" ליום הזה. יום זה הוא כ"ד בכסלו ובו "טרם שום אבן אל אבן בהיכל ד'", ומן היום הזה והלאה, היום אשר יוסד היכל ד', אברך. כלומר, תחילת בנין הבית בימי זרובבל ויהושע היתה בכ"ה בכסלו. כמדומה שהראשון שהעיר בזה בכתובים הוא היעב"ץ (מו"ק, או"ח תר"ע), שכתב כי תקנת חנוכה בכ"ה בכסלו, היתה גם כדי להזכיר את אותו יום שעליו צוה הנביא שימו נא לבבכם אל היום הזה, יום תחילת בנין הבית השני. בזה הוא מיישב את קושיית הב"י, שהיום הראשון של חנוכה, כ"ה כסלו, אינו זכר לנס השמן אלא מזכיר את יום ייסוד היכל ד' ושאר שבעת הימים הם זכר לנס השמן.

בזה גם מיושבת קושיית האחרונים מדוע חנוכה מתחיל בכ"ה בכסלו, הלא החשמונאים נכנסו להיכל בחמשה ועשרים לחודש כסלו, כלשון הרמב"ם (כך גם מבואר בחשמונאים א,ד,נא שחנוכת המזבח היתה בכ"ה ביום). אם כן הדלקת המנורה היתה בליל כ"ו, ומדוע אנחנו מדליקים מליל כ"ה. (אגב, גם חילול המקדש בימי היוונים בקרבנות לע"ז החל בכ"ה בכסלו, כמבואר בחשמונאים א,א,נז: ובחמשה ועשרים יום לחודש זבחו את זבחיהם על הבמה אשר הקימו נוכח מזבח ד', ואולי אף הם כוונו את הדבר ליום ייסוד ההיכל)

5. נבואת נרות דזכריה נאמרה בכ"ד שבט באותה שנה, חדשיים לאחר יום יוסד היכל ד'. ראשית הנביא מבטיח כי ירושלים תוסיף להבנות עוד, שבתי לירושלים ברחמים וגו' פרזות תשב ירושלים מרב אדם וגו' ואז רואה הנביא את יהושע הכהן הגדול בבגדים צואים, כלומר מלוכלך בעוונות (ובסנהדרין צג נתפרש שהעוון כאן הוא שנשאו בניו נכריות, כמבואר בעזרא י,יח), והשטן מוצא מקום להשטינו. למרות זאת, הקב"ה מעביר מעליו את העוון ומלביש אותו מחלצות וצניף, היינו בגדי כהונה. לא מוזכר בפסוק שהיתה כאן חזרה בתשובה כלשהי, ואכן, כמבואר בעזרא, עוון הנשים הנכריות לא נתקן עוד שנים לאחר מכן, כולל כלותיו של יהושע בן יהוצדק. מה אם כן פשר העברת העוון כאן?

אולי אפש"ל שנבואה זו והנבואה בחגי לעיל מפרשות זו את זו. כלומר, אמנם הכהן הגדול, והעם אותו הוא מייצג, מלוכלכים בעוונות אבל למרות זאת, בחסד ולא בזכות, הקב"ה מתעלם כביכול מכך "ומשתי את עון הארץ ההיא ביום אחד". במילים אחרות, אמנם צודק חגי הנביא כי העם טמא, ולכן יטמא את בית המקדש ולא בית המקדש יקדש אותו, אבל למרות זאת, באופן חריג, הקב"ה מצווה אותם לבנות את המקדש אע"פ שאינם ראויים. זו אכן הנהגה פלאית, ויהושע וחבריו "אנשי מופת המה". ועדיין קשה קושיית חגי, הלא בני ישראל מטמאים את המקדש, ומה טעם במקדש כזה?

6. כאן מגיע חזון המנורה. רש"י מפרש כי למנורה היתה גולה (ספל גדול) על ראשה, ולכל אחד מן הנרות היו שבעה צינורות קטנים ("מוצקות") שהוליכו את השמן מן הגולה אל הנרות. על יד המנורה היו שני עצי זית, והזיתים נחבטים מאליהם, ונעצרים מאליהם, והשמן זב אל הגולה ומשם אל הנרות.

במילים אחרות, המנורה שמדובר בה כאן אינה סתם מנורת בית המקדש, אלא זו מנורה הדולקת מאליה. אם נצרף לכאן את נבואת חגי, מדובר במצב בו העם טמא, כל אשר יקריבו טמא הוא, ואז מופיעה לעיני הנביא מנורה הדולקת מאליה. מה פשר המראה הזה, איך הוא קשור למראה על יהושע ובגדיו הצואים, ואיך הוא מתפרש בפסוק לא בחיל וגו'? אולי י"ל שכוונת הנבואה היא שבעוד שבאופן רגיל מצות הדלקת המנורה מסורה לישראל, הם שצריכים לנטוע זיתים, למסוק ולעצור שמן, ולהדליק את הנרות, בבית שני המנורה היא מנורה שדולקת מאליה ללא התערבות אדם, כי אין ביד אנשי הדור להדליק אותה בכוחות עצמם. זו התשובה לשאלת חגי, וההסבר ל"מופת" של ההתעלמות מעוונותיהם של יהושע ובני דורו – "ומשתי את עון הארץ ההיא ביום אחד". לאמר, באופן רגיל, במצב הראוי והרצוי, קדושת המקדש תלויה במצבו הרוחני הגבוה של עם ישראל ונובעת מכוחו, ואז אכן ישראל הם שמדליקים את נרות המנורה (הדלקת המנורה היא סמל להשראת השכינה בישראל ובמקדש, כמבואר בשבת כב: מחוץ לפרוכת העדות יערוך וכי לאורה הוא צריך והלא כל ארבעים שנה שהלכו בני ישראל במדבר לא הלכו אלא לאורו אלא עדות היא לבאי עולם שהשכינה שורה בישראל). כאן, באופן חריג ויוצא דופן, נבנה מקדש שבו המנורה דולקת מאליה, כלומר הקב"ה בעצמו מדליק את הנרות, משום שישראל אינם יכולים ואינם זכאים לעשות זאת.

לפי זה הפסוק המבאר את המראה מתפרש כך: לו זכינו, היה הבית נבנה בחילו ובכוחו של עם ישראל, כלומר בזכותו הרוחנית. אמנם, הנביא אומר כי כאן "לא בחיל ולא בכח" – כלומר הבית הזה, בית שני, נבנה לא בחילו ולא בכחו הרוחני של עם ישראל, "כי אם" רק "ברוחי" – אך ורק באתערותא דלעילא, אף שמצבם של ישראל כלל אינו מצדיק זאת.

7. ומה טעם זכו לבנין במצב כזה, נתבאר היטב ביערות דבש דרוש ד, "שהיה יותר נכון שיהיה הגלות בלי הפסק שבעים שנה...אבל.. אילו התמיד הענין עוד מאה או מאתים שנה ... היה נשכח התורה מכל וכל מבלי זכר כלל... ולזאת... קרבנו לפקודתו בסוף שבעים שנה ... רבו המלמדים תורה ברבים וגדרו גדר וסייגים ומשמרת וכהנה רבות אשר יד ד' עליהם השכיל לבל תשכח התורה" (וקדמו ר"ח קרשקש באור ד', ראה בית-ישי סימן י"ד).

8. ואכן כך מפורש בפסוק אצלנו, שהשראת השכינה בבית שני היא על-תנאי ועל סמך ההתנהגות העתידית אִם-בִּדְרָכַי תֵּלֵךְ וְאִם אֶת-מִשְׁמַרְתִּי תִשְׁמֹר וְגַם-אַתָּה תָּדִין אֶת-בֵּיתִי וְגַם תִּשְׁמֹר אֶת-חֲצֵרָי ... כִּי-הִנְנִי מֵבִיא אֶת-עַבְדִּי צֶמַח אם אכן ישפרו מעשיהם יהפוך הבית הזה לגאולה של ממש. וכעין זה בסיום נבואת חגי: : בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא נְאֻם יי' צְבָאוֹת אֶקָּחֲךָ זְרֻבָּבֶל בֶּן שְׁאַלְתִּיאֵל עַבְדִּי נְאֻם יי' וְשַֹמְתִּיךָ כַּחוֹתָם כִּי בְךָ בָחַרְתִּי נְאֻם יי' צְבָאוֹת היינו, לעת עתה טרם הושלמה הבחירה בזרובבל.

9. אם כן, מראה המנורה הוא מראה של עם טמא שאינו מסוגל להדליק ומקבל מנורה הדולקת מעצמה, ומרמז על מצבו של בית שני, שנמסר לישראל באתערותא דלעילא, כדי לרומם אותם משפלותם.

ממש ככל החזיון הזה נשנה בימי חשמונאים, שאף אז היה המקדש טמא ומחולל, ורבים מישראל היו מתיוונים, ואף עליהם היתה קשה קושיית חגי הנביא, ואעפ"כ טהרו מחדש את המקדש והחזירו העבודה למקומה, ומה שראה זכריה בחזונו ראו הם בפועל – מנורת זהב שדולקת מעצמה, לאמר לא בחילכם לא בכחכם שורה השכינה בבית הזה, כי אם ברוחי, אף שאתם לא ראויים.

10. חשיבותו של נס פך השמן אינה העובדה שדלק השמן יותר מן הצפוי (וכבר הקשו שהלא עשרה ניסים היו תמיד בבית המקדש, ומאי אולמיה האי מהנך) אלא בכך שהוא רומז בשנית לנבואת זכריה, ומלמד כי הקב"ה משרה שכינתו במקדש גם כשישראל במדרגה רוחנית ירודה, כדי לקיים אותם בגלות.

לפי הנ"ל נבואת נרות דזכריה שייכת ממש לנס חנוכה, ומובן היטב מדוע יש בה משום פרסומי ניסא, כדברי התוס' שבת.

11. אמנם, הן במהדורה קמא של בית שני בימי יהושע וזרובבל, והן במהדורא בתרא של בית שני בימי החשמונאים, לא הצליחו ישראל להתרומם כראוי בעזרתו של בית המקדש, ועל כן לא התקיימו הנבואות שבהמשך ספר זכריה, ולא הביא הקב"ה את עבדו צמח. מה היא אם כן החשיבות של החזרת השכינה למקדש על-תנאי, אם בסופו של דבר נכשל הנסיון בשני המקרים?

12. להאמור, זכר הנס וההודאה שבחנוכה אינם על עצם החזרת עבודת המקדש למקומה. על זה אכן יש מקום לטענה שבטלה מגילת תענית (עי' ר"ה יח: ותיבטל איהי ותיבטל מצוותה), אחר שכל התועלת שבנס כבר עברה מן העולם. מה שאנו מציינים בחנוכה אינו עצם הקמת בית שני, לא בפעם הראשונה ולא בפעם השניה. אלא את ההודעה משמים שאף כשישראל אינם ראויים הקב"ה נוטה להם חסד שלא כראוי להם, ומשרה שכינתו ביניהם שלא כפי מידתם כדי לרומם אותם (כדברי היע"ד הנ"ל) להיטיבם באחריתם.

(השווה פני יהושע שבת כא: "וא"כ הדק"ל שהיו יכולים להדליק בשמן טמא דטומאה הותרה בציבור. לכך נראה דעיקר הנס לא נעשה אלא להודיע להם חיבת המקום עליהם... בענין הנרות שהוא עדות לישראל שהשכינה שורה בהם...להודיע שחזרו לחיבתן הראשונה כנ"ל נכון")

Vayeishev: Off to Israel

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:57:00 +0000

I'm going to Israel for a few days to fulfill a promise to the past and to embrace the future. As it happens, I had the Siyata Dishmaya to post several excellent Torah thoughts on this week's parsha.

What Really Matters in a Shidduch
(Staying focused. 2010)

Real Investments: Overcoming Jealousy, Desire, and Arrogance
(Why Yaakov bought land in Shechem and why Yosef was buried there. 2010)

Jewish wives are not and never were chattel.
(How the Torah retained certain pre-Torah forms but entirely redefined their substance. 2008)

A little boy- a Na'ar- at sixty years old.
(Being patronized is not insulting when it is done by your patron. 2008)

The danger of a dream fulfilled.
(Thank G-d you don't always get what you want. 2007)

All the love Yosef Got from Wearing the Kesones Pasim.
(A thought about the strange prayer we say during Birchas Kohanim. 2007)

No good deed goes unpunished.
(Why Yosef's kindness to the sons of Bilha and Zilpa didn't win him any friends. 2007)

Is it appropriate to inscribe your name on the things you donate to a Shul?
(It seems self-serving, but it has ancient roots. 2006)

Book Review: G-d's Favorite Prayers

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 15:14:00 +0000

Several months ago, I purchased a book by Dr. Tzvee Zahavy, G-d's Favorite Prayers, and as I read it, I learned that there is an intentional duality in the title, in that "Prayers" refers both to liturgy and supplicant. Dr. Zahavy offers many fascinating insights into both tefilla and mispallelim. His work evinces a poetic and thoughtful soul, scholarship combined with deep feeling. Here is one example: he points out that the form and environment of the Shirat Kedusha of the malachim seem to be central to its significance. But I sensed what seemed to be a patronizing attitude toward Orthodoxy, a tendency to favor the subjective and the transcendental over precedent and strict theology. In that same discussion of kedusha, he notes what he considers the banal content of the prayer of the malachim. This strikes a false note. I prefer to think that this ostensibly simple beauty simultaneously expresses and hides a deep and profound truth. I was not sure whether my perception was justified, or nothing more than a mirage. I asked a learned friend (who recently, on top of his responsibilities to his family, his work, and the poor of the community, after years of hard labor received Yadin Yadin ordination from Rav Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg) if he would read it and comment, and he has done so. Here is what he wrote (any errors are the fault of my inexpert transcription from his notes.) (For balance, or contrast, here is another review, printed in The Jewish Press.)
Dr. Zahavy's book:http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Favorite-Prayers-Tzvee-Zahavy/dp/0615509495/and Dr. Zahavy's blog:http://tzvee.blogspot.com/

I was recently asked by a colleague as to my thoughts about a book entitled G-d's favorite prayers (Tzvee Zahavy, Talmudic Books July 14, 2011)

His exploration of prayer in its various forms is a lovely premise and his writing style is very approachable and readable. As to literary critique, I would say my personal experience with the book was that when speaking in the first person I found the writing engaging. When veering into discussions of liturgical text the writing became somewhat dry.

As to the core philosophy of the book, I take issue. The writer on page 13 reveals that he is not happy with the segregation of the sexes in the Orthodox synagogue. He lets us know that he does not submit to Halachic theology as defined by the Torah sages of each generation. Inasmuch as no validated Torah sage has allowed co-gender prayers, he clearly establishes his core philosophy outside the halachic community.

This is not shocking, since there are many American Jews who are not observant of the Shulchan Aruch, Mishna Berura, opinions of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein za'l and the like.

What is surprising is the author hanging his hat on his studies and relationship with Rabbi J. B. Soloveichik za'l and Rav Aharon Lichtenstein shlita'h. And even the emphasis on R. Meir Kahane a'h.

While Rabbis Soloveichik, Lichtenstein, and Kahane all were broad minded thinkers who may have pushed Orthodox theology to certain broad limits (being considered left or right of mainstream Orthodoxy respectively) all three of them were and are committed to halachic observance with no compromise. None of them would have considered gender separation in prayer an issue "on the table" for negotiation. (The book The Sanctity of the Synagogue in fact prints the court testimony of Rav Soloveichik on the matter leaving no room for doubt.)

Throughout the book the author veers back and forth with respect for form and disdain for it. Even the expression "the Deuteronomist" suggest a belief system antithetical to the teachers he claims to revere.

While question are part of Judaism, so are answer from sages. One who questions the need to separate the sexes during prayer, despite the problem of hesech hadaas, is either an angel or a fool.

When one had the privilege of being with an intellectual giant like Rav Soloveichik, one should learn the humility to say "even if I have questions, this man is such an intellectual and spiritual giant, and he uses a mechitza, it clearly is the right thing to do."

The chapter on meditation is another example. There is a glaring omission of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's three volumes on meditation which demonstrate the Jewish sources of meditation which predate Kabat-Zinn's frequently idolatrous presumptions.

Even the source list in back, using the Sim Shalom prayer-book, is baffling. The Artscroll translations are far superior to Sim Shalom, which is stuffy and boring. (I have always been amazed and dismayed at the reform and conservative prayer-books, which were supposed to "modernize" prayers. They are consistently flat, stuffy, and boring.)

The Chafetz Chaim used a mashal on occasion of a big delicious cake with one cup or rat poison poured in. This book took a lovely idea and an engaging ability and sadly mixed in just enough poison to make it inedible.

My mechutan, Rav Y. Y. Suber of Yerushalayim is known as a tzaddik. in addition to being a rebbe in Yeshivat Chofetz Chaim in Yerushalayim, an enormous talmid chacham and masmid, he also feeds hundreds of people each week with his network of food gemachs. He also embarked on a one year's journey in Yerushalayim, davening each tefillah in a different shul and learning the suctoms of the various kehillos in Klal Yisrael. He asked Rav Sheinberg many shaylos how to daven in those shuls and not compromise any halacha. He gained enormously from the experience, which broadened him spiritually. He entered the orchard inpeace and exited in peace.

Pluralism can expand or crack boundaries. Dr. Zahavy's experience seems to have done both.

There is much more to say but time doesn't allow. The Chasam Sofer has a famous piece in Beshalach where he establishes that the solidity of halacha and mesora is what, counterintuitively perhaps, makes the system continually refresh itself, because rules solidly establish practices and their weight. Alternatively, loose laws invariably and emprically lead to dissolution of practices over time.

Vayishlach, Breishis 34:2. Matrilineal Descent.

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 21:32:00 +0000

Shechem assaulted Dinah, the daughter of Yaakov. Chazal tell us that this episode resulted in the birth of a daughter, Asnas, who was adopted by Potiphar (and, as in the case of Moshe Rabbeinu, her adoptive family gave her this Egyptian name). Asnas ultimately married Yosef.

Coincidentally, I saw a remarkable idea this week. We are all familiar with the rule of matrilineal descent (Kiddushin 68b and Yerushalmi Kiddusin 3:12 and Bamidbar Rabba 19:3), that Jewish identity descends through the Jewish mother. If a non-Jewish man fathers a child with a Jewish woman, the child is Jewish. (This was not necessarily true prior to Sinai- see Ramban Vayikra 24:10- but that is not the topic of this discussion.)

There might be two major exceptions, or caveats, involving this rule. They are minority opinions: neither is widely accepted.

1. The Mahrshal in Yevamot 16b and the Maharit Algazi in Bechoros 47a. They hold that such a child is only Jewish if he/she was raised as a Jew, i.e., that he/she conducted him/herself as a Jew. Once the Jewish identity vests, it is, of course, permanent.

2. There is one Achron that holds, or at least, proposes, that the child of a Jewish mother and gentile father is Jewish only after the child is born. During pregnancy, the fetus is not Jewish. The child only becomes Jewish at birth.

This is the opinion of Rav Eliahu Poisek (A Ukrainian Rov, see end of post, in his Marbeh Torah on Hilchos Ribbis, end of Siman 159). It is brought down in the Darkei Teshuva there in Yoreh Dei'ah. It can be seen here. This is what he says:

עי׳ מ״ש בסי׳ ק״ס ס״ק מ״א דגם בישראלית

שמת בעלה והניחה מעוברת דיש להסתפק להתיר ללות ולהלות על נכסי העובר ברבית

ע״ש הטעם כ״ש בנתעברה מעכו״ם ואף אם היא אינה מומרת מ״מ י״ל כמ״ש בהסכמתי

לס׳ זבר טוב להרה״ג ר׳ זאב פהפערש בהערותי לכורת הברית (דף ק״ל) דאף

למ״ד דהולד כשר וא״צ גירות דוקא אחר הלידה בישראל . אבל במעי אמו עדיין

אינו כישראל [דחלקיה קרא זרע אדם וזרע בהמה לחוד חולין ה'] וס״ל כרב יוסף

דגם לר׳ יוסי עובר במעי זרה אינו זר עי׳ יבמות ס׳ז ועי׳ רש״י נדה (מ״ד ע״א ) ד״ה

ולאפוק׳ מדר״י והנפ״מ לענין לחלל שבת עבורו ע״ש [וי״ל בזה קושית הבאר שבע

בסנהדרין צ״א מב״ר ע״ פ ויתרוצצו הבנים ע״ש וכן י״ל סתירת הש״ס דביומא צ״ג

קרו עליה זורו רשעים מרחם ויצא שבתא• ובסנהדרין צ״א משמע דיצה״ר שולט רק

משיצא לאויר העולם . די״ל כמ״ש תוס׳ גיטין י״א דשבתאי שם עכו״ם ושם מסתמא

נתעברה מעכו״ם ואסקי ליה בשמה דאבוהו ובנתעברה מעכו״ם שולט היצה״ר במעי

אמו ואף לרבינא בסנהדרין ק״י דמשעה שנזרע בא לעוה״ב י״ל דוקא הבא מזרע

ישראל וכמ״ש ומספר את רבע ישראל ואכמ׳׳ל] וא״כ ה״נ לקולא י״ל דהוא כעכו״ם

עדיין דשרי נכסיו ברבית אף על ידי אפוטרופוס שלו שהוא ישראל וצ״ע:

(This would generate numerous halachic ramifications. Examples: Ribbis to and from his estate; piku'ach nefesh; whether he can be yoreish at that point; and, most importantly, how many chickens you 'd need for kaparos.)

This is obviously only one Rov's opinion, and would not constitute citation to authority. In fact, it's not in the sefer that he says he said it in, his כורת הברית, and I think he regretted saying it and took it out. But I have another surprise for you. You will see that although Rav Poisek is the only person to say this explicitly, it is clear that there are others that will find themselves painted into the corner with him.

There are Achronim that hold that during pregnancy, the mother is not legally denominated as "mother" of the fetus, but the father is called the "father" as soon as the pregnancy becomes evident. I'll bet dollars to donuts that these Achronim didn't realize it, but it seems to me that if you accept their svara, then the chiddush of Reb Eliahu Posek is concomitant. Although the mother's religious identity is dominant over that of the father, that's only once the woman is called the child's mother. According to these Achronim, during pregnancy there is no legal mother, only a father. If the father is a goy, then of course the child is a goy. But once the child is born, and he has a mother and a father, then the mother's religious identity is absolutely determinative.

(I realize that אפקריה רחמנא לזרעיה, Yevamos 98a. But I don't need for the עובר to be misyacheis to the father to make him a goy. All I need is that he's not misyacheis to a father who is a Yisrael. If he has no yichus to a Yisrael father, and he has no mother l'halacha, then by default, he's a non-Jew.)

And who, you ask, are these Achronim? Are they mischievous Poilishe Pilpul People? Or obscure Ukrainian Rabbanim? Nope. They are Reb Yosef Engel and Dayan Fisher.
Reb Yosef Engel is in his Beis Ha'Otzer, Klal 4, Av, and it can be found here. Dayan Fisher is in his Even Yisrael on the Rambam in 16 Ishus 7, and can be found here, in the third paragraph.

If you think about it, you'll realize that the Maharshal wouldn't be shocked, either. If the status of such a child is only fixed if he is raised/acts as a Jew, then there must be a period of pendancy. His status is to be later determined- at which point his status is retroactive. Perhaps it's only retroactive to the moment of birth, but not to the moment of conception.

And if you take this to its natural conclusion, what about a Jewish man who fathers a child by a non-Jewish woman? Would these poskim say that during the pregnancy the fetus is Jewish, and only becomes non-Jewish when it's born?

Anything can happen on Torah Avenue.

Because this is the internet age, and you can find out all different kinds of things about all different kinds of people, here's a paragraph from the Wikipedia article about the Posek family, evidently written by a family member.

Rabbi Hillel Poisic (15.1.1881 Zlatopol, Ukraine – 1953 Tel Aviv, Israel ) was a communal worker and Torah Scholar. He was an expert in releasing agunot from their husbands, who abandoned them without divorce.

The Poisic (also Poisik, Posek, Possek) family is a rabbinical family originated in the Shapira family and connected to it in marriage relationships. The Poisic members were active in Ukraine.

Rabbi Hillel Poisic's father, Rabbi Elijah Poisic (1859-1932), was one of the most important Rabbis in Ukraine. He served as rabbi in Mohlika and in Zlatopol and composed Responsa and halakhic books about Sukkot, Maimonides and the letter of divorce (get). His expertise was in circumcision law. His mother, Matalia, daughter of Zwi Sonik, was the granddaughter of Rabbi Chaim Chaikel Shapira from Kalininblatt (in Kiev district), father of Rabbi Judah Josef Loeb Shapira, president of the rabbinical court in Rakhimstrivka, and R. Israel Volodarsky, president of court in Petrikovna (in Kherson district). Rabbi Hillel studied Torah with his father and grandfather, Rabbi Moshe Zvi Poisic. He received his ordination as rabbi by the most important rabbis in south Russia, Rabbi Moshe Nathan Rubinstein from Vinnitsa and the Rabbi Yosef Halperin, president of the court of the Jewish community in Odessa.

Vayeitzei, Breishis 29:34. Al Kein

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:22:00 +0000

The passuk describes the naming of Levi with the words "ahl kein kara shmo Levi."
Rashi notes the special significance of the words ahl kein:

על כן: כל מי שנאמר בו על כן מרובה באוכלוסין, חוץ מלוי שהארון היה מכלה בהם

על כן/therefore: Anyone about whom it says עַל כֵּן had a large population, with the exception of Levi, because the Ark (which the Leviim carried) destroyed many of them (as a result of some minor spiritual flaw or a moment's lapse of concentration).

This is partly from the Medrash a few pesukim later.

ותהר עוד ותלד בן ותאמר כי שמע ה' כי שנואה אנכי ויתן לי גם את זה ותקרא את שמו שמעון זה עתיד להעמיד שונא ומי מרפא מכתו גם את זה פינחס שהוא עתיד לעמוד מלוי ותהר ותלד בן וגו' על כן קרא שמו לוי ר' יודן אמר לוי זה עתיד ללות את הבנים לאביהן שבשמים ע"כ קרא שמו בכל מקום שנאמר על כן מרובה באוכלסין

Many mefarshim ask that Shevet Levi was small even when they left mitzrayim, for a completely different reason- having been spared the servitude, they were not included in the blessing of fecundity; also that the other shvatim didn't show increases during the midbar years; so Rashi's explanation is difficult. We discussed this in Va'eira, here.

This connotation of al kein is not universal. There are plenty of times that it says al kein in Tanach that have nothing to do with ribui or bracha. For example, the passuk in Tehillim 25,טוב וישר ה' על כן יורה חטאים בדרך.

In any case, the meforshim discuss how you see ribui in ahl kein. The most simple explanation is that the words imply magnification. The literal meaning of al kein is "because of this." Al means because, as we find in Yirmiah 9:12, על עזבם את תורתי, and kein means this, so, as Rashi says in Devarim 15:18, על כן simply means "Because of this." But one can also read the words so that Kein means that which is natural and expected, as it says in Maasei Breishis after each creation, ויהי כן, and al means over or above. Super-normal. Indeed, this is the first of the Gur Aryeh's three pshatim here. Reb Tzadok happens to say just like the Maharal's third pshat.

Maharal:

מרובה באוכלוסין וכו'. ואם תאמר מאי ענין ״על כן״ שיהיה מרובה באוכלוסין
ואפשר כי לשון ״כן״ הוא לשון גבול ושיעור ׳כן וכן יהיה׳, ומי שנאמר לו ״על כן״ שלא יהיה לו שיעור מוגבל, והם יותר משיעור מוגבל, וזהו ״על כן״
ויש לומר בזה ענין אחר, כי בכל מקום שנאמר ״על כן״ שמו יותר עיקר, שנתן טעם לשמו ׳על כן נקרא שמו כ ך , ומאחר ששמו יותר עיקר מן האחר לכן נאמר בו שהוא מרובה באוכלוסין, שזהו השם כאשר יש לו רבוי אוכלוסין ואינו בטל אצל האחרים״, כי השבט שהוא מועט באוכלוסין אין לו שם בפני עצמו, ובטל הוא אצל האחרים, אבל שבט שנותן טעם לשמו שאמר ״על כ ך מורה כי יש לו שם מבורר וידוע אצל הכל, לכך הוא מרובה באוכלוסין.
ועוד יש בזה דבר מושכל, כי כאשר יאמר ״על כך׳ מדבק טעם השם - בשם, לאפוקי במקום שלא אמר על כן אינו מדבק טעם השם בשם, וטעם השם הוא דבר מושכל - שנותן טעם, ומפני שדבק בו המושכל יש לו מעלה יותר עליונה ומשם הרבוי, ודבר זה מופלא ואמת

Reb Tzadok:

אמרו ז"ל (בראשית רבה עא, ד) בשבטים בכל מקום שנאמר "על כן" מרובה באוכלסין, כי השם הוא החיות, וטעם השם הוא מקור החיות, ו"על כן" היינו שהשם דבוק בטעם השם, וכאשר החיות דבוק במקורו, אז הוא בשפע. ולכן אמרו ז"ל (רש"י בראשית כט, לד): חוץ משבט לוי שהארון וכו'... רצה לומר שהדביקות שלהם במקורן במדריגת דכא אתי ולא במדריגת אני את דכא, כמו שנתבאר במקום אחר בביאור גמרא זו דסוטה.

קומץ המנחה חלק ב אות עט דף לה ע"ג

Reb Yitzchak Resnick pointed out that the first iteration of the phrase is associated with multiplication- עַל כֵּן יַעֲזָב אִישׁ אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אִמּוֹ וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ.

While this observation associates the phrase with multiplication, it does not explain the association. But it does present an argument against the pshat of the Maharal and Reb Tzadok, because its use there in pirya ve'rivya has nothing to do with names. Unless, of course, the connotation of multiplication in the first al kein is mere coincidence and unrelated to the similar meaning in other iterations.

In any case, when you next attend a bris, and you hear

על כן בשכר זאת א-ל חי חלקנו, צוה להציל ידידות שארינו משחת,

which is is the nusach brought in the Gemara in Shabbos 137b, you will appreciate the use of these words where the mitzva infixes kedusha to the instrumentality of propagation.

Also, when you say kiddush this Shabbos, and you say the passuk from Shemos 20:11,

עַל כֵּן בֵּרַךְ ה' אֶת יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת וַיְקַדְּשֵׁהוּ,

remember the subtext of these words: Every step, every day of the creation of the world, was ויהי כן. Shabbos is על כן. As we say in Lecha Dodi, Shabbos is the Mekor Habracha, the source of all blessings that come to this world.

As I show from the pesukim by Bri'as Ha'olam, it is absolutely clear that this additional meaning was intended. Speaking for myself, I have enough "adequate explanations" for the connotation of al kein. I'm still waiting to her a geshmakeh reason for how these words indicate Bracha. If you ever think of one, let me know.

Eli found that the Trumas Hadeshen in his pirush on Chumash asks this question and says that it is connected to the כן ירבה וכן יפרוץ of Mitzrayim.

Please don't send in "kein is seventy, and that's ten times seven, and seven is teva, blah blah blah".

Here's something I don't want to post by itself.

Upon reading this Mishna,

בהמה טהורה שילדה כמין בהמה טמאה, מותר באכילה; וטמאה שילדה כמין בהמה טהורה, אסור באכילה: שהיוצא מן הטמא, טמא; והיוצא מן הטהור, טהור.

and then this article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interspecific_pregnancy

one may anticipate the day when a child that is so sweet you could eat him up.

Toldos, Breishis 25:25. Eisav, Man of Peace

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:12:00 +0000

The Baal Haturim points out that Eisav is gematria Shalom. He says that it is only the mitigating influence of the spiritual component of this gematria that prevents Eisav from utterly destroying the world.

In Parshas Naso, Bamidbar 6:27, in Birkas Kohanim, where it says "וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם," the Baal Haturim also mentions this incongruous gematria, and says a different pshat. He says that it teaches us to greet every man civilly and with a friendly mien, even one such as Eisav.

I
I found this particularly relevant in light of a recent and recurring event in Yerushalayim, in which some young men from the Jewish community expressed their disdain of certain non-Jewish religious figures in a base and crude fashion. Ok, this I understand. The Biryonim and Sikariim that plagued us two thousand years ago had children and grandchildren who carry forward their ugly and self-destructive mesora. What bothered me was the statement by an American that this behavior is true Kiddush Hashem, that it unambiguously and bravely expresses our repugnance for beliefs that are antithetical to ours. (See end of the post for a summary of the conversation.) I assumed that for an non-insular American-raised individual to make such an assertion was surely intended for effect, and he wasn't being serious. I was wrong. So if you're not sure who's right in this matter, at least I have the Baal Haturim in my corner. Unless, of course, he's talking about a Ger Toshav, not an Oveid Avodas Kochavim.

But I am reminded of a story involving Harav Reuven Feinstein. For years, as Reb Reuven walked to MTJ Shabbos morning, he would pass a distinguished looking bearded gentleman wearing black, and every Shabbos morning he would greet him with a Good Shabbos. One Shabbos, Rebbitzen Feinstein happened to be walking with Reb Reuven to MTJ, and after he greeted this man, she whispered to him "Reuven! Why did you say good Shabbos to that man?" He answered, "why shouldn't I say good Shabbos to him? I've been saying good Shabbos to him for years." The Rebbitzen said "Do you think he's a Chosid? He's not even Jewish! That's the priest from the Greek Orthodox church!" Reb Reuven said, "Okay, so what's wrong with saying good Shabbos to a Greek Orthodox priest? I say good Shabbos to him, he says good Shabbos to me, and everybody's happy." and he continued to do so each time they met.

Several years later, there was a project the Jewish community wanted done, which ran into opposition from various groups. At a community hearing, that same Greek Orthodox priest was called upon to state his opinion. He said he saw nothing wrong with approving the project. In his experience, he said, the Jewish people on the lower east side were friendly and warm, and if this would strengthen their community, then he was for it.

I am not saying that one ought to be civil because of pragmatic שלח לחמך על פני המים self interest (קהלת רבה יא). I am saying that with our behavior we either contribute to a civil society or we create the opposite. We engineer our environment, and we can pollute it with all kinds of effluvia or we can make it beautiful. I think that there might be a kosher alternative to that fellow's take on the mitzva of Kiddush Hashem.

Summary of the conversation I referred to:

"…they [the holy expectorants] are the very definition of Kiddush Hashem. It's sad that the concept of kiddush and chilul haShem have become so confused nowadays that this question could even be asked. Kiddush Hashem does not mean making nice to the goyim. The Torah tells us explicitly what it means -- raising Hashem's Name and demeaning that of His "rivals" (kiveyachol). We're not told simply to not defile Hashem's altars, etc. Rather we're first told to do so to avoda zara, only then are we told not to do the same to Hashem. Treating "all religions" with respect is by definition chilul haShem, while spitting at avoda zara, and even at its mention, is an ancient minhag Yisrael. The gemara (Megilla 25b) even says that "all mockery is forbidden except that of avoda zara", and proceeds to give some examples of what strikes me as rather puerile humour at the expense of avoda zara. The whole point of Kiddush Hashem is the rejection of relativism; it's a statement that we are not the same.

The difference between us and them is not in any objective measure, but simply that we are right and they are wrong.Not that we believe we are right, but that we are right.Of course they believe that they're right; but they're wrong in that belief. That is what Kiddush Hashem is all about, and the moment you go looking for an objective standard by which to judge both of us equally, a standard that doesn't incorporate the truth of our belief and the falsehood of theirs, then you are being mechalel haShem.

As for worrying about the consequences, that too is the opposite of Kiddush Hashem. Kiddush Hashem by its nature engenders hostility among the idolaters."

[Someone sarcastically responded to the writer that “I am sure that when the media runs such stories the initial reaction of the masses is to say "More glory to Hashem and his Torah"! The writer answered] "They don't say that when they hear that we refuse to marry them either. If you want their approval then that's the first thing you should drop, because from their point of view that is the most bigoted and fanatical thing about us. Kiddush Hashem means making the world aware that we reject them and their ways. Pretending that we don't is chilul Hashem."

In response to comments that were sent in, below, I want to add two points. Eretz Yisrael is surrounded by deadly enemies. Are we going to decide, at this point, that Yoshiyahu (Taanis 22b) was right? Or do we make concessions to reality and attempt, uncharacteristically, to behave with good manners? I understand that in Yerushalayim many people develop severe myopia and see only their rebbes and their neighborhood. But we ought to know better.

Also: that even those that objurgate this kind of behavior should balance their disgust with a thought of the history of the relationship of this particular branch of the church with the Jews and the Jewish state. I admit, though, that the malefactors we're discussing are probably not standing up to defend the Jewish state.

DGS sent me a shiur from Reb Aharon Soloveichik on the topic of Kiddush Hashem and Chillul Hashem. It definitely belongs here, and it definitely should not be translated.



והנה הגמרא אומרת שבמקום חילול השם אבידתו היא אסורה. והפרישה בחושן משפט מביא 
מהרבה ראשונים שזה לא רק שאם יש חילול השם אז אבידתו היא אסורה אלא במקום קידוש השם 
אבידתו היא אסורה. שיכול להיות מצב שיש חילול השם. חילול השם פירושו שכבר ידוע 
ומפורסם אצל הגויים על אבידה זו של העכו"ם ויש אפשרות שאם הוא יקח את האבידה לעצמו 
זה יתפרסם בעתונאות של הגויים שהוא לקח את האבידה לעצמו שהוא לא רצה להחזיר את 
האבידה לבעלים. זה מקום שיש בו חילול השם. מצב אחר הוא שיהודי מוצא חפץ רב שווי 
ששייך לעכו"ם והוא יכול לקחת את החפץ לעצמו שהוא יקח את החפץ וישים את זה בכיס שלו 
בלי שאף אחד יראה וידע מזה. אין בזה אפילו חשש רחוק של חילול השם. אבל אם הוא ילך 
ויפרסם בעיתון שהוא מצא את החפץ כדי לאתר את הבעלים ואז בעיתון יפרסמו שבחור ישיבה 
החזיר אבידה של חצי מליון דולר אז יהיה קידוש השם גדול. והשאלה נשאלת כשהגמרא אומרת 
שבמקום חילול השם אבידתו היא אסורה האם הכוונה היא רק למצב הראשון שיש ממש אפשרות 
של חילול השם שאז אבידתו היא אסורה. אבל במקום שאין חילול השם אלא שיש הזדמנות לקדש 
שם שמים על ידי החזרת החפץ לבעלים אז יהיה מותר לו לקחת את החפץ לעצמו. או שאפילו 
אם זה רק שיש הזדמנות לקדש שם שמים אסור לו לקחת את החפץ לעצמו. הפרישה מביא 
ירושלמי ששמעון בן שטח פעם קנה חמור מעכו"ם ואח"כ הוא מצא יהלומים בתוך החמור אז 
התלמידים מאד שמחו ואמרו לר' שמעון בן שטח הרי יש לך עכשיו כל כך הרבה יהלומים אז 
לא יהיו לאף אחד מאתנו דוחק פרנסה לאורך ימים ושנים טובות. ושמעון בן שטח אמר לכו 
ותמצאו את הישמעאלי העכו"ם הזה ותחזירו לו את כל היהלומים. והם אמרו לו הלא לימדתנו 
רבינו שאבידת עכו"ם היא מותרת. והוא ענה להם אתם סבורים ששמעון בן שטח ברברי הוא. 
רוצה שמעון בן שטח לשמוע בריך אלקא דיהודאי יותר מכל הון דעלמא. והסמ"ג בספר המצוות 
כותב שהוא נסע בעולם להרבה מקומות באפריקה ובארץ ישראל למטרה אחת. שאצל היהודים 
בזמנו היו שתי מצוות שלא קיימו. מצוה אחת היה שהיו הרבה יהודים שלא הניחו תפילין. 
הם קיימו את כל המצוות האחרות אבל הם לא קיימו את המצוה של תפילין. והיו הרבה 
יהודים שהיו מאד רפים בזה שהם היו מרמים את הגויים. שהיו הרבה יהודים שהרושם שלהם 
היה שזה בסדר לרמות ולהונות את הגויים. מפני זה הסמ"ג נסע בכל העולם לחנך את 
היהודים במצוה של תפילין וגם לא לרמות ולהונות את הגויים. והסמ"ג אומר שהוא רוצה 
בזה לזרז את ביאת הגואל. הסמ"ג אומר שאם אנו נמשיך בהרגל שלנו לרמות ולהונות את 
הגויים אנו מרחיקים את הגאולה. כדי לזרז את הגאולה אנו צריכים ליזהר לא לרמות את 
הגויים ואפילו אבידת עכו"ם - והסמ"ג מזכיר את הירושלמי הזה - צריכים להחזיר את 
האבידה משתי סיבות. זה נכון שאבידת עכו"ם מותרת אפילו לאחר דאתא לידיה. אז אין בזה 
איסור גזל. אבל יש ענין של שארית ישראל לא יעשו עוולה ולא ידברו כזב. וגם יש ענין 
של קידוש השם. איך הסמ"ג יודע שזה לא דבר יפה ליהודי להחזיק אבידה של עכו"ם לעצמו. 
איך הסמ"ג יודע את זה? מפני ששמעון בן שטח אמר רוצה שמעון בן שטח לשמוע בריך אלקא 
דיהודאי מכל הון שבעולם. ואם לא היה שום דבר לא טוב בהחזקת אבידה של עכו"ם אז לא 
היה בזה איסור של חילול השם ואפילו לא היה בזה מצוה של קידוש השם. מפני שזה הדבר 
היסודי במצוה של קידוש השם. וזה מאד עצוב לדאבונינו שיותר מדי יהודים חושבים שהמצוה 
של קידוש השם היא לעשות דבר שיהיה רצוי לגויים. ח"ו. אם זה היה המהות של קידוש השם 
וחילול השם אז אנו היינו צריכים לוותר ח"ו על כל התורה. שהגויים מאד לא אוהבים 
כשיהודים מוסרים את נפשם עבור התורה. אז איך זה שהגמרא אומרת שבמקום חילול השם 
אבידתו היא אסורה? אם זה לא היה דבר אי-מוסרי ליהודי להחזיק לעצמו אבידה של עכו"ם 
אז לא היה שיך לדבר על חילול השם. למה הגמרא לא אומרת שבמקום חילול השם ריבית עכו"ם 
היא אסורה? התירוץ הוא שלא איכפת לנו אם הגויים יגידו ביקורת על היהודים על זה שהם 
לא לוקחים ריבית מיהודים והם כן לוקחים ריבית מגויים. זה לא איכפת לנו. לגויים אין 
השקפת התורה ולא איכפת לנו מה הם חושבים על זה. חילול השם אין פירושו כשאתה עושה 
דבר שגוי לא אוהב את הדבר הזה. אולי גוי לא אוהב כשיהודי יש לו זקן ופיאות והוא 
לובש שטריימיל. יש הרבה גויים כשהם רואים רבי עם שטריימיל הם מאד מתרגזים ומאד 
מתעצבנים מזה. האם זאת אומרת שזה חילול השם ללבוש שטריימיל ח"ו? זה חילול השם 
כשיהודי משקר מפני שדבר זה עצמו הוא דבר מכוער. כשיהודי עושה דברים מכוערים זה 
חילול השם. אבל כשיהודי עושה דבר שהוא מצד עצמו דבר הגון ביותר אז זה בעיה של 
הגויים אם הגויים לא אוהבים את זה. אז למה הגמרא אומרת שבמקום חילול השם אבידת 
עכו"ם היא אסורה? אז הסמ"ג אומר - זה דבר פשוט וזה מובן מאליו - שאבידת עכו"ם לאחר 
דאתא לידיה אמנם אין בה איסור גזל. אז הוא לא גזלן. אם מישהו לוקח לעצמו אבידה של 
ישראל הוא גזלן והוא פסול לעדות מפני שהוא רשע דחמס. אבל אם מישהו לוקח לעצמו אבידה 
של עכו"ם הוא בודאי לא גזלן. אבל זה בודאי לא תואם לשארית ישראל לא יעשו עולה ולא 
ידברו כזב כשהוא לוקח  אוצר של עכו"ם שאבד לעכו"ם והוא מחזיק באוצר לעצמו. אז אפילו 
בלי חילול השם זה לא דבר הגון לעשות. ממילא אם הגוי יודע שלקחתי את האוצר של העכו"ם 
לעצמי יש בזה איסור של חילול השם. אבל אם זה לא היה דבר מכוער מצד עצמו לא היה בזה 
איסור של חילול השם רק מפני שהגויים לא אוהבים את זה. כשיהודי לא לוקח ריבית מיהודי 
והוא כן לוקח ריבית מגוי שום ראשון ושום אחרון לא יגיד שיש בזה איסור של חילול השם. 
מכיון שמה שאנו עושים הוא תואם לדיני התורה אז אנו בכלל לא שמים לב אם הגויים 
אומרים ביקורת נגדינו. אז כשהגמרא אומרת שאבידת עכו"ם היא מותרת הפירוש הוא רק שאין 
איסור גזל, אבל זה כן מתנגש עם שארית ישראל לא יעשו עולה ולא ידברו כזב. ממילא 
במקום חילול השם אבידת עכו"ם היא אסורה. והדרישה סובר שלא רק במקום חילול השם אבידת 
עכו"ם היא אסורה. אלא אבידת עכו"ם היא אסורה גם במקום קידוש השם. והראיה שם היא 
מהירושלמי שאף אחד לא היה מגלה ששמעון בן שטח לקח את האוצר שנמצא בתוך החמור. ובכל 
זאת שמעון בן שטח דרש שיחזירו את האוצר לעכו"ם שמכר לו את החמור. למה? מפני שזה היה 
במקום קידוש ה'. אבל הגמרא בב"ק אומרת שבמקום חילול ה' אבידת עכו"ם היא אסורה. 
המשמעות היא שבמקום שאין חילול ה' אז אף שיש הזדמנות לקידוש ה' האבידה היא מותרת. 
אז הפרישה עושה חילוק בין אבידה אחר דאתא לידיה לאבידה קודם דאתא לידיה. באבידת 
עכו"ם לאחר דאתא לידיה האבידה היא אסורה לא רק במקום שיש חילול השם שיש אפשרות 
שגויים ידעו מזה אלא גם אם יש אפשרות להודיע לגויים שיהודי החזיר את האבידה אז אסור 
לקחת את האבידה. אבל אבידה קודם דאתא לידיה אז יהודי מחוייב להטריח את עצמו להחזיר 
את האבידה אם יוודע שיהודי ראה את האבידה והוא לא טרח לקחת את האבידה להחזירנה 
לבעלים. אבל אם זה לא יוודע לגויים אז אף שאם הוא כן יטרח לקחת את האבידה ויחזירנה 
לבעלים הוא כן יקדש שם שמים שהוא יכריז ואח"כ הוא יחזירנה לגוי ויהיה בזה קידוש השם 
גדול שהגויים יראו שיהודי טרח להחזיר אבידת לגוי לבעלים, אבל הוא לא מחוייב לעשות 
את זה. וכשהגמרא אומרת שאם אחד מחזיר אבידה לבעלים עכו"ם עליו הפסוק אומר לא יאבה 
ה' סלוח לו הפירוש הוא שאם אחד מוצא אבידה של עכו"ם והוא מחזיר את האבידה אז אם הוא 
מודיע לעכו"ם שהוא הישראל החזיר לו את האבידה אז הוא מקיים בזה מצוה של קידוש השם 
אף שהוא לא מחוייב לעשות את זה. אבל אם הוא מחזיר את האבידה לעכו"ם באופן כזה 
שהעכו"ם אפילו לא ידע שיהודי החזיר את האבידה אז עליו הכתוב אומר לא יאבה ה' סלוח 
לו. שאם ישראל מוצא שור בעיר שרובה עכו"ם והיהודי יודע למי שייך השור והוא מחזיר את 
השור לרשות הבעלים עכו"ם בלי שהבעלים עכו"ם ידע מי החזיר לו את השור שהוא אפילו לא 
מודיע לעכו"ם שישראל החזיר לו את השור האבוד שאז העכו"ם כשהוא רואה שהשור הוחזר לו 
הוא יסבור שעכו"ם החזיר לו את השור שהרי רוב התושבים של העיר הם עובדי כוכבים אז 
הוא יאמר לעצמו שבודאי עובד כוכבים החזיר לו את השור שהעובדי כוכבים הם כאלו אנשים 
טובים. אז עליו התכוב אומר לא יאבה ה' סלוח לו. לכן הרמב"ם אומר שאם אחד מחזיר 
אבידה לעכו"ם זו עבירה מפני שהוא מחזיק יד פושעי עולם. למה הרמב"ם צריך לומר את זה? 
התירוץ הוא מפני שאם הוא מחזיר את האבידה באופן שהגויים יודעים שהוא החזיר את החפץ 
לבעלים אז הוא מקיים בזה המצוה של קידוש השם. מתי זה עבירה רק אם הוא החזיר את 
האבידה באופן שהגויים לא ידעו שיהודי החזיר את החפץ והגויים יחשבו שגוי החזיר את 
החפץ. אז הוא עושה פעולה של חסד וכל הקרדיט ילך לעובדי כוכבים. זה עבירה גדולה 
ועליו הכתוב אומר לא יאבה ה' סלוח לו

II

The other way to read the Baal Haturim's observation of the Gematria of Eisav is in the words Tacitus puts into the mouth of a Briton facing the Roman army:
Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
They rob, kill and plunder all under the decieving name of Roman Empire, They make a desert and call it peace.

I recently saw an article by Louis Menand about George Kennan, who did not at all a believer in morality based foreign policy.  The article ends by explaining that Kennan's apparent heartlessness was a necessary result of his realism: as he puts it, "professions of benevolence might be masks for self-interest."  Or, as he quotes from James Adams, 
“Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws.” 
One might say the same about the Roman claims to be bringing civilization to the barbarians.  One might also say so about certain wealthy philanthropists.

Chayei Sara. Two from the Tur: No Eulogies for Smokers, and Enduring Love.

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:21:00 +0000

The Baal Haturim on this week's parsha says two things I found interesting.

23:2. ולבכותה Avraham mourned Sara, but the letter Kof in "ve'livkosa" is written small in the Sefer Torah. The Baal Haturim cites a Braisa in Maseches Smachos that states that a person that causes his own death is not to be eulogized. This is not to say that there is no obligation of mourning; the Baal Haturim paskens that there is an obligation to mourn, but there are no eulogies (from Smachos 2:1, ולא מספידין עליו אבל עומדין עליו בשורה ואומרין עליו ברכת אבלים מפני שהוא כבוד חיים). He then quotes the Gemara in Bava Kamma 93a that a person who asks Hashem to judge someone else is closely scrutinized under Middas Hadin and might die as a result. The Gemara derives this from Sara's death here in our parsha:

אמר רב חנן המוסר דין על חבירו הוא נענש תחילה שנאמר (בראשית טז) ותאמר שרי אל אברם חמסי עליך וכתיב (בראשית כג) ויבא אברהם לספוד לשרה ולבכותה

Apparently, Sara complained to Hashem about Avraham Avinu's behavior, and this invoked Middas Hadin, which resulted in her death. Combining the Gemara in Bava Kama with the Braisa in Smachos, the Baal haturim says that because Sara, to some extent, caused her own death- כמו גורמת מיתתה- Avraham did not say a hesped for her. Now, Sara did not commit suicide. But, he says, what she did contributed to her death, and that is reason enough to not eulogize.

Obviously, this is intended as drush, and nobody would bring a raya le'halacha from here, but the concept would seem to extend to anyone whose behavior contributed to their death. If so, if someone knowingly engages in unwarranted risky behavior (that is not דרך כל הארץ), such as one who is very obese due to overeating, or a person that smokes excessively, or a rock climber, may Hashem preserve them all, but if רחמנא ליצלן Hashem does not, one might cite the Baal Haturim as proof that one should not eulogize them. I'm pretty sure that nobody is going to change his behavior for fear of not getting a nice hesped, and acute depressive disorder might remove some of the halachic stigma of suicide (Chasam Sofer on YD 345), but if you want a frum excuse to not go the hespeidim, now you have one.

I didn't put this paragraph in before Friday because I didn't want to spoil a nice Shabbos table vort with morbid musings. But now, what I would like to think about is this: Why are we not maspid a suicide? Is it because of the gravity of the sin, the affront to the will of the Ribono shel Olam, in which case there are other sins for which a person would be similarly punished by silent funeral? Or is it specific to suicide; the person chose to die, and so he doesn't deserve to be honored by being spoken well of at the time of that death. The reason I ask is because if it is because of the gravity of the sin, I find it hard to equate outright suicide with recklessness. I can't imagine that any sort of negligence or recklessness would be viewed with the same severity as specific intent to end one's life. If it is because of choosing to die, it's still hard to equate our case with outright suicide, but at least it is under the same rubric. But in any case, the Baal Haturim's use of the Tosefta is a chidush to me, unless he means that since K'chut hasa'ara, she needed this absence of kavod for kapara.

Tzorich Iyun.

24:67. ותהי לו לאשה ויאהביה

The Baal Haturim here says that in the Mesora there is a Beis on this passuk. He says that it alludes to the passuk in Shmuel II 13:1, ויהי אחרי כן ולאבשלום בן דוד אחות יפה ושמה תמר ויאהבה אמנון בן דוד, that Amnon loved Tamar. He explains that this refers to the idea expressed in Avos 5:16,

כל אהבה שהיא תלויה בדבר--בטל דבר, בטלה אהבה; ושאינה תלויה בדבר, אינה בטילה לעולם. איזו היא אהבה שהיא תלויה בדבר, זו אהבת אמנון ותמר.

Love that derives from physical attraction quickly comes to nothing, while the elevated love that does not stem from physical attraction endures forever. Amnon's love was no more than an animalistic impulse, and as soon as his desire was sated, his burning "love" turned into hatred and disgust- וישנאה אמנון שנאה גדולה מאוד כי גדולה השנאה אשר שנאה מאהבה אשר אהבה. Yitzchak's love stemmed from the realization that Rivka was the perfect wife and soulmate-ותהי לו לאשה - and then ויאהביה, their love endures forever.

Vayeira, Breishis 18:5. A Guest Post from the Shvilei Pinches, Translated by Rabbi Dr. Baruch Fox

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:53:00 +0000

A Tremendous Insight from the Chatam Sofer

The Dispute between Avraham and Sarah Regarding Meal versus Fine Flour
Concerns Two Methodologies of Teaching Yisroel Torah

In this week’s parsha, parshat Vayeira, we read about Avraham Avinu’s encounter with the three malachim sent by HKB”H to visit him (18, 5): "ואקחה פת לחם וסעדו לבכם אחר תעבורו כי על כן עברתם על עבדכם, ויאמרו כן תעשה כאשר דברת, וימהר אברהם האהלה אל שרה ויאמר מהרי שלש סאים קמח סלת לושי ועשי עוגות"—he says to them, “I will fetch a morsel of bread that you may sustain yourselves, then go on—inasmuch as you have passed your servant’s way.” They said, “Do so, just as you have said.” So Avraham hastened to the tent to Sarah and said, “Hurry! Three se’ahs of meal, fine flour! Knead and make cakes!”

Concerning this passage, we have learned in the Gemarah (Bava Metzia 87a): "כתיב קמח וכתיב סולת, אמר רבי יצחק, מכאן שהאשה צרה עיניה באורחים יותר מן האיש"—it is written meal (kemach) and it is written fine flour (solet); Rabbi Yitzchak said: From here we see that a woman is stingier than a man toward guests. Rashi explains: "היא אמרה קמח והוא סולת"—in other words, Sarah instructed to give the guests “kemach,” which is coarse flour referred to as meal, whereas Avraham instructed to give them “solet,” which is fine flour that has been sifted thoroughly. Seemingly, this suggests that Sarah was stingier concerning the guests, since she did not wish to prepare them cakes from fine flour, solet, but rather from meal, kemach.

This is surely surprising in light of the fact that we find that HKB”H instructs Avraham (Bereishit 21, 12): "כל אשר תאמר אליך שרה שמע בקולה"—Whatever Sarah tells you, heed her voice. Rashi enlightens us: "בקול רוח הקודש שבה, למדנו שהיה אברהם טפל לשרה בנביאות"—we learn from here that Sarah’s gift of prophecy surpassed that of Avraham. If so, how can we even imagine that Sarah was being stingy and did not wish to entertain the guests as graciously as Avraham did?

Furthermore, the Midrash Tanchuma (Chayei Sarah 4) teaches us that Avraham eulogized Sarah in the following terms (Mishlei 31, 1): "אשת חיל מי ימצא"—Who can find a woman of valor? The Midrash elucidates the subsequent pesukim as follows (ibid. 19): "ידיה שלחה בכישור, שהיתה נותנת מאכל לעוברים ושבים, כפה פרשה לעני, שהיתה נותנת צדקות ומלבשת ערומים"—she provided food for those who passed by, was charitable and clothed those in need. We see, in fact, that Avraham praised Sarah for the gracious manner in which she welcomed guests. So, how is it possible to describe her as being stingy toward guests?

It is also worth noting, Chazal’s revelation in the Midrash (S.R. 28, 1): "ומשה עלה אל האלקים... באותה שעה בקשו מלאכי השרת לפגוע במשה, עשה בו הקב"ה קלסטירין של פניו של משה דומה לאברהם, אמר להם הקב"ה, אי אתם מתביישין הימנו, לא זהו שירדתם אצלו ואכלתם בתוך ביתו". In the merit of the gracious manner in which Avraham welcomed the three malachim, his three heavenly visitors, HKB”H silenced the malachim’s accusations against Yisroel at the time of Matan-Torah.

Therefore, we must clarify the following: (a) what is the impact of HKB”H’s rebuke to the malachim: "אי אתם מתביישין הימנו, לא זהו שירדתם אצלו ואכלתם בתוך ביתו"—aren’t you embarrassed to treat him in this manner, after he welcomed you and fed you so graciously, when you went down to his home? Why does the fact that they dined by Avraham, compel them to forego their intense desire to receive the Torah? (b) Why did the malachim wish to harm Moshe when he ascended to the heavens to receive the Torah? They must have known that he only did so at HKB”H’s command. So, why would they dare harm the King of Kings loyal agent?

“Kemach” Represents Torah Dialectics
“Solet” Represents a Clear-cut Teaching

Let us begin with the illuminating insight of our incomparable teacher, the Chatam Sofer. He interprets this dispute between Avraham and Sarah—as to whether to serve the guests bread baked from refined flour or from meal—as a practical and philosophical debate concerning the ideal method of relaying Torah knowledge. In Derashot Chatam Sofer (Part 2, p. 403, column 1) he writes:

"ידוע כי הכנסת אורחים של אברהם אבינו ע"ה היתה בשני דברים, אחד באכילה גופנית ועליה יתפרש קמח סולת כפשוטו, והשניה דבר ה' זו הלכה, שלימד דעת את אורחיו. והנה מצינו (נדרים לח.) שהקב"ה לא מסר פלפול התורה אלא למשה רבינו ע"ה, והוא נהג בה טובת עין ומסרה לישראל".

The matter of Avraham Avinu welcoming guests can be viewed on two levels. First of all, he provided them with physical nutrition; in this context, “kemach solet” simply refers to meal and fine flour. Secondly, he nourished them spiritually by enlightening his guests in the ways of Hashem. Now, the Gemarah (Nedarim 38a) teaches us that HKB”H only gave the gift of “pilpul haTorah,” Torah dialectics, to Moshe Rabeinu; Moshe graciously shared this gift with all of Yisroel.

Let us try and understand the debate, as it were, between HKB”H and Moshe as to whether to give the valuable tool of “pilpul” to Yisroel or not. Concerning this issue, the Chatam Sofer explains that HKB”H wished to give Yisroel the Torah in a precise, refined and unambiguous form:

"והנה רצה הקב"ה שימסור לישראל הלכה ברורה, מנופה בשלוש עשרה נפה כמות שהיא, מבלי שיצטרך לפלפל עד שיבוא אל האמת, מילפותא פלונית או מהיקש פלוני, אמנם משה רבינו ע"ה רצה לזכות את ישראל גם במצוה ההיא כי רבה היא, ועל ידיה הולכים ממדרגה למדרגה ולא יעמוד במקום אחד.

אמנם מצד אחד נראה יותר טובה במה שרצה ה', שלא ימסר להם הפלפול רק הלכה ברורה כמות שהיא, כדי שלא יתערב בה שקר ח"ו על ידי סברת אנושית. וזה בעצמה היה פלפולו של אברהם אבינו ע''ה עם שרה הגדולה בנביאה יותר ממנו, הוא אמר לתת לפניהם סולת מנופה, הסברא המחודשת ממנו [כלומר מסקנת הלכה] מבלי שילמדם אופן העיון, ואיך ידעו לחדש לבנות ולסתור על מנת לבנות.

אמנם היא אמרה קמח ינתן לפניהם, וילמדם להוציא ממנו סולת נקיה. וזה נראה ח''ו כצרת עין מאמנו שרה, שלא להודיעם מיד הסברה נכונה, אמנם הפסוק מפארה על זה ואמר (משלי לא כז) צופיה הליכות ביתה, שהיתה צופה ומביט טוב יותר ללמוד להם הליכות, להלך ממדרגה למדרגה, ולחם עצלות לא תאכל, כי זהו לחם עצלות לומר ההלכה כמות שהיא בלי בירור כלל, הגם שהיא ברורה מכל מקום עצלות היא".

HKB”H wished to give Yisroel “halachah berurah”—thoroughly refined laws and lessons—not requiring involved debates and discussions, “pilpul,” in order to arrive at the truth of the matter. On the other hand, Moshe Rabeinu, a”h, wanted Yisroel to have the merit of the mitzvah of laboring and toiling to refine the laws and lessons; in this manner, they would not remain stagnant, but, rather, would steadily rise spiritually.

In truth, the benefit of HKB”H’s intent not to give Yisroel the power of “pilpul” but only “halachah berurah” is apparent; the risk of introducing human error and incorrect interpretations of Torah law is avoided. This, in fact, is the dispute that Avraham Avinu, a”h, was having with Sarah—whose prophetic powers were greater than his. He wanted to present the guests with “solet”—the thoroughly refined halachic conclusion—without teaching them the methodology necessary to arrive at said conclusion.

Sarah, on the other hand, wished to present them with “kemach,” meal, and to teach them how to refine the flour to achieve the desired final product. At first glance, her actions could be misinterpreted as representing stinginess. The passuk in Mishlei (31, 27) praises her and teaches us otherwise. She foresaw that it was best to teach them how to rise from one spiritual level to the next.

We see from the Chatam Sofer that the debate, as it were, between HKB”H and Moshe Rabeinu at the time of Matan Torah is the very same debate that we find here going on between Avraham Avinu and Sarah Imeinu. HKB”H wanted to give Yisroel “halachah berurah,” without the element of “pilpul,” in order to avoid the introduction of human error and incorrect interpretations into the realm of Torah study; whereas, Moshe Rabeinu felt that “pilpul,” delving into Torah issues analytically, was essential for a Jew.

Avraham Avinu was a proponent of HKB”H’s methodology—to present Yisroel with “halachah berurah,” resembling “solet,” finely-sifted flour. Sarah, on the other hand, shared Moshe Rabeinu’s view that it was preferable to present Yisroel with “kemach,” the unrefined halachah—necessitating Torah dialectics in order to achieve the true meaning of the Torah.

Sarah’s Methodology Prevails: “She Does Not Eat the Bread of Laziness”

In the end, Sarah Imeinu prevails; the guests are given Torah in the form of “kemach,” meal, unrefined flour. For, it is apparent from the Chatam Sofer’s commentary, that Moshe Rabeinu also determined that this methodology was preferable, as illustrated by his decision to share the power of “pilpul haTorah” with Yisroel—a decision to which HKB”H acquiesced. Furthermore, even Avraham Avinu, in his eulogy of Sarah, praises her for her choice of this methodology, as he proclaims: "צופיה הליכות ביתה ולחם עצלות לא תאכל"—She anticipates the ways of her household, and does not eat the bread of laziness.

Additionally, the Torah testifies to the fact that Avraham Avinu was himself a prophet. For, HKB”H says to Avimelech (Bereishit 20, 7): "ועתה השב אשת האיש כי נביא הוא"—But now, return the man’s wife for he is a prophet. Thus, Avraham surely foresaw that HKB”H would instruct him: כל אשר תאמר אליך שרה שמע בקולה"—follow whatever Sarah tells you to do. As we have learned, he was inferior to Sarah as a prophet. So, he accepted her opinion, even at this juncture, to present the guests with Torah in the form of “kemach,” forcing them to utilize the power of “pilpul” to refine the lessons that they would learn.

Before proceeding, it is worth addressing one obvious question. How is it possible that HKB”H chose not to give Yisroel the gift of “pilpul,” but only “halachah berurah,” yet Moshe Rabeinu defied HKB”H’s will and gave Yisroel the power of “pilpul” anyway? In reality, the answer to this question is quite clear. From the very onset, HKB”H wanted Moshe Rabeinu, Yisroel’s trustworthy shepherd, to be the one to make this decision—whether or not to bestow this essential gift upon Yisroel; it was up to Moshe Rabeinu to determine that this was indeed HKB”H’s will.

“Without ‘Kemach’ There Is No Torah”

In the final analysis, we see that the decision was made in accordance with the opinions of Sarah Imeinu and Moshe Rabeinu. They held that it is preferable to deliver the Torah to Yisroel in the form of “kemach”--an unrefined, somewhat ambiguous halachah—to insure that Yisroel would toil in their Torah study, employing dialectics and in-depth analysis to refine the halachah into “solet.” The reason that this method of Torah study is essential is suggested by the following Gemarah (Berachot 63b): "מנין שאין דברי תורה מתקיימין אלא במי שממית עצמו עליה, שנאמר (במדבר יט יד) זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל"—from where do we know that words of Torah are not retained except by one who kills himself over the Torah? For it is stated (Bamidbar 19, 14): This is the Torah of a man who dies in a tent.

The Turei Zahav (O.C. 47, 1) explains the matter as follows: "שהתורה אינה מתקיימת אלא במי שממית עצמו עליה, דהיינו שעוסק בפלפול ומשא ומתן של תורה, כמו שכתב [רש"י] על (ויקרא כו ג) בחקותי תלכו, על מנת שתהיו עמלים בתורה, מה שאין כן באותם שלומדים דברי תורה מתוך עונג ואינם יגעים בה אין התורה מתקיימת אצלם". In order for a Jew to retain the Torah that he has learned, and for it to become a part of him, he must figuratively kill himself on its behalf; he must adopt an intense methodology of learning characterized by dialectics. Rashi (Vayikra 26, 3) comments that those who do not labor in their Torah study, but rather learn in a leisurely fashion, will not retain their Torah.

How beautifully this coincides with the maxim of the Tanna Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah (Avot 3, 17): "אם אין קמח אין תורה, אם אין תורה אין קמח"—if there is no “kemach” there is no Torah; if there is no Torah, there is no “kemach.” He is teaching us a very important lesson. If one does not toil and extend oneself in one’s Torah study, one will not acquire Torah knowledge. It is necessary to engage in Torah study in the form of “kemach,” delving into each halachah in depth and clarifying even the minutest details, in order to achieve a true understanding of the subject. If one receives the material already refined and prepared, in the form of “solet,” without laboring and exerting oneself, then "אין תורה"—one will fail to acquire what the Torah has to offer. For, we have learned: "אין דברי תורה מתקיימין אלא במי שממית עצמו עליה"—the words of Torah are not retained except by one who kills himself over it. Conversely, we can deduce that "אם אין תורה"—if one realizes that he has failed to retain the Torah that he has learned, this is an indication that "אין קמח"—he did not expend sufficient effort in his studies; he did not work to refine the “kemach.”

Based on this concept, I would like to propose an interpretation of the dialogue that took place between Avraham and the malachim (Bereishit 18, 9): "ויאמרו אליו איה שרה אשתך, ויאמר הנה באהל"—they asked him, “Where is Sarah, your wife?” He replied, “She is here in the tent.” What prompted the malachim to inquire as to Sarah’s whereabouts? Our blessed sages address this issue as follows (Bava Metzia 87a): "יודעים היו מלאכי השרת ששרה אמנו באהל היתה, אלא מאי באהל כדי לחבבה על בעלה"—the malachim knew that Sarah Imeinu was in the tent; they contrived to elicit this response, “in the tent,” in order to endear her to her husband.

Based on what we have established thus far, we can suggest that the malachim were aware of the dispute going on between Avraham and Sarah—whether to present the guests with Torah in the form of “solet” or Torah in the form of “kemach.” Upon seeing that Avraham had conceded and had prepared for them bread made of “kemach,” they asked him: "איה שרה אשתך"--“Where is Sarah, your wife?” They were not inquiring as to her physical whereabouts, but rather wanted to understand her reasoning. "איה שרה"—why does she believe that it is preferable to serve her guests Torah in the form of “kemach” rather than serving them “solet”—halachah berurah, unambiguous, precise lessons?

Avraham’s response--"הנה באהל"—alludes to the concept of "אדם כי ימות באהל". Sarah chose to serve “kemach,” to insure that Yisroel would figuratively kill themselves in order to acquire Torah. They would struggle and labor tirelessly “in the tent of Torah,” to refine and purify the “kemach,” in order to produce clean, pure “solet.” [We can embellish this idea with a small addendum: the numerical value of the two Hebrew words קמ"ח סל"ת as they appear in the Torah, i.e. סלת is spelled without a “vav,” 148+490=638, equals אברה"ם יצח"ק יעק"ב. This gimatriah alludes to the fact that all three of the Patriarchs agreed to this methodology and adopted it for all of their future generations.]

It Is Impossible to Achieve Clarity in a Torah Issue Without Stumbling Along the Way

Continuing along this path, let us rise to the occasion and reconcile the commentary of the Chatam Sofer cited above:

"והנה רצה הקב"ה שימסור לישראל הלכה ברורה, מנופה בשלוש עשרי נפה כמות שהיא, מבלי שיצטרך לפלפל עד שיבוא אל האמת... אמנם מצד אחד נראה יותר טובה במה שרצה ה', שלא ימסר להם הפלפול רק הלכה ברורה כמות שהיא, כדי שלא יתערב בה שקר ח"ו על ידי סברת אנושית".

HKB”H wished to give Yisroel “halachah berurah”—thoroughly refined laws and lessons—not requiring involved debates and discussions, “pilpul,” in order to arrive at the truth of the matter. . . In truth, the benefit of HKB”H’s intent not to give Yisroel the power of “pilpul” but only “halachah berurah” is apparent; the risk of introducing human error and incorrect interpretations of Torah law is avoided.

This raises an obvious question. In the final analysis, Moshe Rabeinu determined, along with HKB”H’s blessings, to impart the power of “pilpul haTorah” to Yisroel—so that they would labor over the Torah in the form of “kemach,” in order to clarify the halachah and arrive at the truth of the matter in the form of “solet.” How, then, do we avoid the possibility: "שלא יתערב בה שקר ח"ו על ידי סברת אנושית"—that false interpretations, chas v’shalom, will not be introduced into halachah due to errors of human logic?

To resolve this issue, let us introduce a phrase from Yisroel’s sweet psalmist (Tehillim 85, 12): "אמת מארץ תצמח"—truth will sprout from the earth. What does it mean that truth will sprout from the earth? Let us suggest an interpretation. When a person plants a seed in the ground in order to grow grain or fruit, he must first plow the soil and water it; then he must clear the land of the thorns and debris; only then will the earth give forth healthy produce worthy of consumption.

Similarly, it is impossible for a mere physical being of flesh and blood to ascertain the truth of a matter without first laboring and evaluating all aspects of the subject. Along the way, he is sure to make several logical mistakes until HKB”H ultimately enlightens him to arrive at the truth. This process is reflected by the Gemarah’s (Gittin 43a) elucidation of the passuk (Yeshayah 3, 6): "והמכשלה הזאת תחת ידיך - אין אדם עומד על דברי תורה אלא אם כן נכשל בהן"—“and this stumbling-block is under your hand”; here the Torah is referred to as a stumbling-block, because a person does not achieve a true understanding of a Torah-related issue without first stumbling several times in its interpretation.

This, then, is the meaning of the phrase: "אמת מארץ תצמח"—the truth of a matter will only be revealed by following a process similar to growing produce from the earth; all of the thorns, which are the errors in reasoning and logic, must first be eliminated. We find, therefore, that all of the ideas and theories entertained along the way, before arriving at the truth of the matter, although many of them were invalid, are, nevertheless, an inseparable part of the final conclusion. Without them, the truth of the matter would never have been ascertained.

It is now much clearer why Moshe Rabeinu elected to give over the gift of “pilpul” to Yisroel. He intended for them to clarify the truth of halachic matters by laboring in their Torah studies. Despite the false interpretations and logical errors that were likely to arise, he understood that the correct interpretations were unachievable without these snags along the way. As such, they were all an integral part of the ultimate truth.

The Incorrect Elements of Torah Related Disputes Form the Neshamah’s Surrounding Light

Now, come and see, a fascinating insight regarding this subject that I found in the Derashot Chatam Sofer (Part 2, p. 403, column 2), and must be publicized among all Torah scholars. A light is formed from Torah study that is sincere and focused on arriving at the truth of the matter; this light becomes an integral part of the neshamah. Elements of the dialectics that do not touch upon the truth of the matter do not become one with the neshamah. Rather, they form a surrounding light, akin to a Rabbinical cloak for the neshamah, "חלוקא דרבנן". Just as the garment surrounds a man’s body externally, so, too, the erroneous elements of Torah debates form an external, surrounding light for the neshamah.

The Chatam Sofer adds another tremendous insight concerning these erroneous elements of “pilpul haTorah”: "כי היגיעה רבה בפלפולא דאורייתא מכפר עוונות ומסלק הפסולת יותר מן הקרבנות"—the tremendous effort expended in “pilpul haTorah” atones for sins even more so than do korbanot. He applies this idea to interpret the passuk (Shir HaShirim 4, 11): "וריח שלמותיך כריח לבנון"—the scent of your garments resembles the scent of Levanon. In other words, the scent arising from the “pilpul haTorah,” which forms a surrounding light like a garment for the neshamah-- כריח לבנון"—resembles the scent of the Beit HaMikdash, which is referred to as Levanon, because it cleanses Yisroel of their sins. (The word “levanon” comes from the word “lavan,” meaning white; hence the allusion to the whitening and cleansing of sins.)

Thus, it is not difficult to comprehend Moshe Rabeinu’s motivation in transferring the gift of “pilpul” that HKB”H gave him to Yisroel, despite the possibility of introducing erroneous reasoning and conclusions into their learning. Since the purpose of these erroneous elements was to arrive at the true meaning of the Torah-issue under debate, they ultimately formed a protective, surrounding light for the neshamah. Furthermore, the effort exerted related to these elements atones for Yisroel’s sins.

“Is He Not the One You Went Down to Visit and Whose House You Dined at?”

We have now achieved a better understanding of the Midrash concerning Moshe’s ascent to the heavens to receive the Torah: "באותה שעה בקשו מלאכי השרת לפגוע במשה, עשה בו הקב"ה קלסטירין של פניו של משה דומה לאברהם, אמר להם הקב"ה, אי אתם מתביישין הימנו, לא זהו שירדתם אצלו ואכלתם בתוך ביתו"—at that moment, the ministering angels wished to harm Moshe; HKB”H transformed his facial appearance to resemble that of Avraham; then HKB”H said to them, “Are you not embarrassed to treat him this way? Is he not the one you went down to visit and whose house you dined at?” We raised the question as to why the malachim would want to harm Moshe, who was merely acting as HKB”H’s loyal agent, sent to receive the Torah on Yisroel’s behalf. Additionally, why were the malachim compelled to relinquish their claim and yen to receive the Torah on account of having eaten by Avraham?

Based on what we have learned, we can propose that the malachim longed to receive the Torah only because they intended to receive it in the form of “solet”—where everything is clear, precise and illuminated from above, without any ambiguities or disputes. Therefore, they claimed that they were worthier recipients for the Torah, since they were more capable of comprehending the Torah, on a deeper more precise level, than human beings.

Yet, had they realized that HKB”H intended to give Yisroel the Torah in the form of “kemach”--unrefined meal, requiring Yisroel’s laborious efforts to clarify all the ambiguities and search for the true meaning of the halachot—they would have also understood that they were not suitable to receive the Torah. After all, malachim have the status of "עומדים"—literally, those who always stand in the same place. They are static--incapable of rising above the level on which they were created; thus, they are incapable of comprehending issues to any greater degree than they did when they were created.

Proof of this fact is found in the prophet’s statement (Zechariah 3, 7): "ונתתי לך מהלכים בין העומדים האלה"—he refers to “mehalchim” and “omdim.” The Shela hakadosh explains (Chullin): "מהלכים הן בני אדם שאינם נולדים בשלימות, רק צריך להיות מהלך משלימות לשלימות, והמלאכים נקראים עומדים, שמתחילת יצירתן הם בשלימות האחרון עומדים במעמדם". “Mehalchim”—literally, those who can move--refers to human beings, who are born imperfect and incomplete; they must move spiritually to achieve a greater level of perfection. “Omdim” refers to malachim; they cannot alter their spiritual level; they always remain as they were created. Therefore, since the Torah was given in the form of “kemach”—requiring exertion in order to clarify the details of a halachah and transform it into “solet”—malachim were unsuitable to receive the Torah. Their level of comprehension is static; they are incapable of changing and elevating to a higher level; they understand things as they were given—no more, no less.

The malachim saw that HKB”H endowed Moshe and not Yisroel with the gift of “pilpul.” This led them to believe that HKB”H wanted Yisroel to receive the Torah in a refined, unambiguous form, with precise, clearly-defined halachot, so as to avoid the necessity of human reasoning which might be fraught with error. When they witnessed that Moshe generously bequeathed his gift of “pilpul” to Yisroel—forcing them to toil and exert themselves in their Torah studies—they attempted to harm him. For, they mistakenly believed that he had deviated from Hashem’s will and intent, and, as a result, cost them the precious gift of Torah.

At that point, HKB”H devised to transform the appearance of Moshe’s face to resemble that of Avraham. This ploy was designed to convey the fact that Moshe Rabeinu had not, chas v’shalom, deviated in any which way from Hashem’s will. In fact, he had done just the opposite; he had accurately perceived the true will of Heaven. This is the message inherent in Hashem’s statement to the malachim: "אי אתם מתביישין הימנו, לא זהו שירדתם אצלו ואכלתם בתוך ביתו"--“Are you not embarrassed to treat him this way? Is he not the one you went down to visit and whose house you dined at?” In other words, I sent you to visit Avraham, on the third day after his “brit milah,” intending that you would eat bread there in the form of “kemach,” in accordance with Sarah’s point of view. This was meant to indicate that I concurred with her point of view to deliver the Torah in the form of “kemach.” Knowing this, aren’t you embarrassed to request the Torah? After all, you do not possess the capacity to clarify ambiguous halachot as necessary.

Sarah Was Stingy with the Guests—the Angels Requesting to Receive the Torah

Now, let us accept the noble task of deciphering the sages’ enigmatic statement: "כתיב קמח וכתיב סולת, אמר רבי יצחק, מכאן שהאשה צרה עיניה באורחים יותר מן האיש"—both the word “kemach and the word “solet” appear in the passuk; Rabbi Yitzchak said: From here we see that a woman is stingier than a man toward guests. Rashi clarifies for us: "היא אמרה קמח והוא סולת"—in other words, Sarah instructed to give the guests “kemach,” which is coarse flour referred to as meal, whereas Avraham instructed to give them “solet,” which is fine flour that has been sifted thoroughly. It is astonishing to even consider that Sarah Imeinu treated guests stingily.

Based on what we have learned from the Chatam Sofer, however, we can propose a novel idea. Sarah’s intention by giving the guests bread made out of “kemach” rather than “solet,” was to convey the following essential message: the guests must be taught Torah in the form of “kemach,” so that they will be forced to labor strenuously in their Torah study in order to refine each and every halachah until it is in the form of pure “solet.”

We can develop this point one step further. Since Sarah Imeinu’s gift of prophecy surpassed that of Avraham Avinu, she knew that HKB”H had sent the malachim to them as a preparation for Matan Torah. Thus, she concluded that the only way to thwart their claim to the Torah was if the Torah were to be given in the form of “kemach.” In this form, they are unable to process it fully, and clarify its ambiguities due to their static, limited natures. On the other hand, were the Torah to be given in the form of clear, refined “solet,” the malachim could present a valid claim that they were far better suited to understand this precise form of halachah, and, thus, they should be awarded the Torah.

This, then, is the message concealed in the sages’ surprising statement: "כתיב קמח וכתיב סולת, אמר רבי יצחק, מכאן שהאשה צרה עיניה באורחים יותר מן האיש"-- it is written meal (kemach) and it is written fine flour (solet); Rabbi Yitzchak said: From here we see that a woman is stingier than a man toward guests. Their intention was not to suggest, chas v’shalom, that Sarah Imeinu was stingy with regard to the mitzvah of hachnassat orchim. Rather, they were hinting at the fact that she was stingy regarding these particular guests, the malachim. For, she foresaw that they were destined to criticize and condemn the giving of the Torah to Yisroel.

Consequently, she cleverly cautioned Avraham not to present them with “solet”—a form of precise, unambiguous halachah. For, that would allow them the opportunity to claim that they were indeed better suited to receive the Torah. Instead, she instructed him that it was preferable to teach them Torah in the form of “kemach”--ambiguous and requiring clarification in order to ascertain its true meaning. This would successfully invalidate their future claim to the Torah, as reflected by HKB”H’s reproach: "אי אתם מתביישין הימנו, לא זהו שירדתם אצלו ואכלתם בתוך ביתו" --“Are you not embarrassed to treat him this way? Is he not the one you went down to visit and whose house you dined at?”

Interesting Issurim for Shabbos

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 16:18:00 +0000

Halacha is like a Guitar. I do not mean this as David Hamelech said (Tehillim 119:54) that זמירות היו לי חוקיך: I mean it in this sense; Andres Segovia, although a virulent anti-semite, once said a clever thing: "The guitar is the easiest instrument to play, and the hardest to play well." Halacha can be observed on many levels, from well-intentioned bare adequacy to high competence.

In the realm of Halacha, Hilchos Shabbos have a special place. As the Mishna Berura says in his introduction to his volume three, if a person does not invest very serious effort into learning Hilchos Shabbos, transgressing issurim d'oraysa is inevitable. For some of us, even those that think they are keeping hilchos Shabbos properly, it's news that you can't comb your hair on Shabbos, or stir a pot that's on the stove, or put deodorant or perfume on clothing. But except for the highest tier of Talmidei Chachamim, there's always something new. There are poskim that asser everything on the following list, and there are poskim that are mattir some or all of these, but every case highlights an issue that deserves some thought. If you think the halacha is obvious, it is only because you don't know enough. I have to admit, though, that some are really on the far edge of likelihood, and I am not noheg issur on many of them.

1. Sunbathing for the purpose of getting a tan, because of צובע.
2. Catching and locking up an unruly child, because of צד. See תשובות אבני נזר קפ'ט סעיף כ'ב.
3. Wearing a hat with a straight brim larger than a tefach. See Mishna Berura 301 SK 152.
4. Putting up a mechitza so women can daven with a minyan. See MB 315 SK 10.
5. Opening the window shade when the light will fall on a houseplant, because of - זורע- it's not less זורע than זומר
6. Punishing a child on Yomtov, because of the bittul of your asei that obligates you to make the members of your household joyous, and, obviously, because you're being mevatel the child's own mitzva of simcha on Yomtov and Oneg on Shabbos.
7. Using Reddi-Whip whipped cream cans, because of either נולד or בונה
8. Throwing crumbs or water into the wind, and similarly, using any aerosol spray. See Magen Avraham 446:2.
9. Separating freeze-pops, because of מחתך. See Shevet Halevi 1:115.
10. Cooking Cholent in a crock-pot, even if the top is not enclosed, because of הטמנה בדבר המוסיף הבל. See Chazon Ish 37:19 and רש'ז אוערבאך במכתב הנדפס בספר אורחות שבת.
11. While any newspaper that was printed on Shabbos might be muktza and assur to move, the New York Times is doubly muktza, and despite that, it would be muttar to move it anyway. See Comments.

Feel free to suggest more.

Some people have told me that it would be best to not talk about unusual chumros, because it might discourage those who are considering shmiras Shabbos, and mutav she'yihyu shogegin and so forth. I'm not too concerned about that. That's not my demographic.

Vayeira, Breishis 18:17-18. The Novelty and the Power of Tefilla

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 21:25:00 +0000

1המכסה אני מאברהם אשר אני עושה ואברהם היה יהיה לגוי גדול ועצום ונברכו בו כול גויי הארץ

17. Am I hiding from Avraham what I intend to do (to S'dom)? 18. And Avraham will become a great and mighty nation.....

Rashi explains that Passuk 17 presents an implicit reason for Hashem's decision to tell Avraham about the future of S'dom. As Rashi says, the land was promised to Avraham, and he is Av Hamon Goyim, the father of multitudes of nations; if the residents of his land are going to be destroyed, he should be told. But passuk 18, le'goy gadol, that Avraham is the progenitor of a great nation, doesn't seem to have any relevance to Hashem’s decision to let Avraham know about the fate of S'dom.

Rashi offers two possible explanations of passuk 18. 1. That it was simply a bracha to Avraham; having mentioned Avraham, Hashem gave him a bracha, and it has no particular relevance to the matter at hand; or 2. Avraham is dear to Me, so I will not hide anything from him.

The Maharil Diskin explains passuk 18 differently. Until that moment, Avraham didn't realize that tefilla made sense to change a gzeira. If Hashem has made a decree, especially when it is a judgment for sinful behavior, what's the point of tefilla? Many people feel that way about prayer. Are you explaining something to G-d? I recently saw an article in the New Yorker magazine by Professor James Wood, perhaps today's preeminent literary critic, that expresses this perplexity with the usual type of chutzpah that bespeaks a desperate desire to rationalize kefirah. (Is That All There Is?, New Yorker Magazine of August 2011.)

The Bible contains several examples of God… appearing to sanction what seems arbitrary or cruel conduct: the command that Abraham kill his son, the tormenting of Job…. The Old Testament seems to have an apprehension of Plato’s dilemma, when it has Abraham plead with a vengeful [god] to spare the innocent inhabitants of Sodom. Abraham bargains with God: would He spare the city for the sake of fifty innocents? How about forty-five, or forty, or thirty? He gets God down to ten, and almost seems to shame Him, or perhaps teach Him, and hold Him to an ethics independent of His own impulses: “Far be it from You!” he chides [God]. “Will not the judge of all the earth do justice?”

Looking past Professor Wood's hauteur, the question about Tefilla is a legitimate one. But let us assume that Avraham Avinu was intelligent enough to have asked himself the same question; granting the validity of the question,when Hashem told Avraham about S’dom, Avraham Avinu asked himself, “What is the purpose of this information? Why is Hashem telling me what He plans to do?” Avraham, an anav, didn't think it was for the reasons listed in Rashi in 17. Faced with this puzzle, Avraham realized that despite the very good question, the only possible explanation for the Nevuah was that Hashem wanted him to pray on their behalf, and that tefilla might change the gzeira. Having learned this lesson, Avraham immediately prayed for S’dom. The tefilla did not change the g'zeira entirely, but at least it saved his nephew, Lot.

Afterwards, Avraham applied this lesson and prayed for Avimelech, whose sins had resulted in a curse that prevented the women in his household from giving birth. The tefillos were successful and Avimlelech was cured, but more importantly, כל המבקש רחמים על חבירו והוא צריך לאותו דבר הוא נענה תחילה (see Bava Kamma 92a), -one who prays for someone else when he himself suffers from the same problem, he is answered first- it resulted in VaHashem pakad es Sarah, Sara became pregnant and had a child.

This explains 18. In order for Avraham to have children, in order for him to be the father of a great nation, a three step process had to be initiated. 1. He has to learn that a G’zeira is mutable and subject to change through tefilla. 2. Once he learns this lesson, he will pray for Avimelech. 3. His prayer for Avimelech will enable him to have children.

This is why 19 says

כי ידעתיו למען אשר יצווה את בניו ואת ביתו אחריו ושמרו דרך ה' לעשות צדקה ומשפט למען הביא ה' על אברהם את אשר דיבר עליו

Because I know that he will perpetuate in his children his teachings of the way of Hashem- so that what was promised to Avraham would come about.

How do we understand the last phrase, le'maan havi? According to the Maharil Diskin, it is an explanation. I will teach Avraham about the power of Tefilla, so that he will pray for the women in the house of Avimelech, so that his own wife will be able to have the promised children who will carry on his mesorah.

(Does this pshat assumes that Avraham was not aware of the story of kol siach hasadeh (Breishish 2:5), where Rashi says the Hashem held the vegetation back so that Adam would be mispallel for it to grow? No. There, it was not a Gzeira against grass, it was an opportunity to let Adam participate in the creation of the world. Here, where the gzeira was a judgment for sins, it was a big chiddush that tefilla could avert the Gzeira.)

No, the passuk does not explain the mechanism of tefilla, and the question remains a good question. But the point is that the Ribono shel Olam taught Avraham that despite the excellent question, tefilla can change everything. So, Professor Wood, the point of this episode is not that one should try to shame the Ribono shel Olam into changing His mind, or that we need to teach Humanism to G-d. To interpret the pesukim in that manner expresses a desire to see the Chumash as backward and primitive, an assumption that flies in the face of the reality of a sophisticated and peerless ethical and sociological code. If one assumes, instead, that the Author of the Torah is infinitely wise, then one easily finds a deep lesson here. The lesson is the procedural fact that even after the sword has been unsheathed, G-d grants a last resort avenue of appeal. Avraham Avinu, the great Anav, knew although he still did not understand how it could possibly make any difference, the need for and benefit from Tefilla is limitless. He immediately applied the lesson as best he could under the circumstances. After all, there is not a lot one could say to gain clemency for the abominable Sodomites.

I find it interesting that willful obliviousness will obscure even the most obvious intent of the Torah's lessons. Not only does the lesson fall on deaf ears, but ironically, the lesson is so badly misinterpreted as to yield the opposite message.

In our case, the episode makes it clear that the logic of tefilla is beyond human comprehension, and we are left on our own to devise what tefilla we think might be most effective. Our choice of words might be inelegant or even primitive, but whatever approach we use, whether it is a request for consideration of the secondary consequences of enforcing judgment, or a prayer for a second chance, or we simply ask for a gift of clemency, the essence of tefilla as taught to Avraham Avinu is the appeal to Hashem's mercy. Avraham Avinu had a hava amina that tefilla would be of no avail where a gzeira was a well-deserved judgment for terrible sins. Hashem told him that even where you can’t come up with a good argument, Tefilla is a powerful tool that can change reality- Middas Hadin to Middas Harachamim, and, ultimately, barren old age to fresh and fruitful youth. Unfortunately, some people read the story and remain with the Hava Amina.

Here is another interesting example. Julian the Apostate, the last non-Christian Roman emperor, planned to allow the Jews to rebuild the Beis Hamikdash, but delayed putting his plan into effect until he finished a military campaign against Iran. He was mortally wounded during that war and died before he could carry out his plan. Julian was named The Apostate by the Christians for his rejection of Christian belief. He wouldn't count for a minyan, but he seems to have been, for a Roman Emperor, a pretty decent person. Julian recorded some thoughts about the Bible, and his comment about the Bris Bein Habesarim is fascinating; he writes that the reason Avraham Avinu cut the animals in half was so he could divine the future by examining their entrails, and that he was told to go outside and look at the stars so that he could foretell the future by his Astrology. How ironic! Although we know that Avraham Avinu was at one time respected for his prognostications (Bava Basra 16b), this episode is, for us, the source for the idea of Ein Mazal L’yisrael (Nedarim 32a and Shabbos 156a), that astrology is utterly insignificant for the servants of Hashem, and poor Julian saw the opposite.

Just So Story

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 13:50:00 +0000

איש יצא לספארי באפריקה עם כלב התחש שלו.

יום אחד הכלב הקטן הלך לאיבוד ביער.

פתאום רואה הכלב שנמר מתכוון לטרוף אותו.

חושב במהירות "מה לעשות ?! "

הוא רואה עצמות על האדמה, מתיישב לידן עם הגב לנמר, תופס עצם בפה, וכשהנמר מתקרב אומר הכלב בקול,

"‏זה היה נמר ממש טעים, מעניין אם יש עוד כאלה נמרים טעימים באזור...".

שומע הנמר את הכלב, עוצר בשנייה האחרונה ומבט אימה על פניו.

"‏זה היה קרוב... חשב הנמר, הכלב הזה כמעט אכל אותי..." הסתובב וברח משם בזחילה.

על העץ ממעל ראה את הכול הקוף והחליט שזו הזדמנות טובה בשבילו "לתפוס יחסים" טובים עם הנמר.

רדף הקוף אחרי הנמר וסיפר לו איך הכלב עשה ממנו צחוק.

הנמר התעצבן ואמר לקוף לשבת לו על הגב כדי שיבוא איתו ויראה איך הוא עושה מהכלב קציצות...

הכלב עוד לא הספיק להירגע, רואה פתאום מרחוק את הנמר חוזר עם הקוף על הגב שלו.

במקום לברוח החליט שוב להתיישב עם הגב כלפי תוקפיו, ושנייה לפני שהגיעו אליו אמר בקול,

"‏איפה הקוף המעצבן הזה?! כבר לפני חצי שעה ביקשתי ממנו שיביא לי עוד נמר..."

‏חשיבה אחרת ומקורית מובילה לעיתים לתוצאות רצויות!

Lech Lecha, Breishis 14:12-14. Og and Ulterior Motives.

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:25:00 +0000

Rav Meir Bergman, in his Shaarei Orah on Parshas Devarim, has an interesting discussion about Og's interaction with Avraham Avinu. It's not mine, but it's sharp and new to me.

וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת לוֹט.... וַיָּבֹא הַפָּלִיט וַיַּגֵּד לְאַבְרָם הָעִבְרִי.... וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם, כִּי נִשְׁבָּה אָחִיו וַיָּרֶק אֶת חֲנִיכָיו יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ... וַיִּרְדֹּף עַד דָּן

Lot was captured, and the "Palit" came to tell Avraham what had happened, and when Avraham learned that his nephew had been taken captive, he unleashed his army and routed the captors and saved his nephew.

The Medrash in Parshas Devarim says

ויאמר ה' אל משה אל תירא אותו כי בידך אתננו אין כתיב כאן אלא כי בידך נתתי אותו. אמר הקב"ה כבר פסקתי דינו

מימות אברהם כיצד בשעה שנשבה לוט בן אחיו ובא עוג ובישר את אברהם שנאמר (בראשית יד) ויבא הפליט אמר ר"ל משום בר קפרא פליט היה שמו ולמה נקרא שמו עוג שבא ומצא את אברהם עסוק במצות בעוגות הפסח ולא בא לשם שמים אלא לשם נויה של שרה. אמר בלבו הריני מבשר אותו והגדוד הורגו ונוטל אני את שרה אשתו אמר לו הקב"ה אי רשע כך אמרת חייך שאני נותן לך שכר רגליך ומאריך לך שנים ומה שחשבת בלבך הריני הורג אברהם ונוטל את שרה ביד בני בניה עתיד אותו האיש ליפול.

Hashem told Moshe not to fear Og, the king of the Bashan, because he was long fated to fall to Moshe. His fate was sealed from the time that he brought the news of Lot's capture to Avraham. His name was not really Og, it was Palit. Why was he called Og? Because when he came to Avraham, he found him busy making Matzos- Ugos- for Pesach. He did not come with pure motives, but because he was infatuated with Sarah's beauty; he thought, I will tell Avraham about his nephew, Avraham will rashly confront the captors, and he'll be killed, and I will take Sarah! Hashem said, Ay, you piece of filth, that's what you think? I will pay you for having told Avraham about Lot; you will live a long life; and you will long enough to be killed by the descendants of the woman you wanted to steal from her husband.

Why is it so important to know that Avraham was baking matza when Og came? And even if we need to know that, perhaps so we should know that Avraham Avinu kept a form of Pesach, why did this pertain to Og to the extent that the Torah refers to him forever after as Og, in commemoration of the matzos/ugos?

Antibody or DNA testing can determine the presence or absence of yeast in baked products. A laboratory can determine with absolute certainty that a given baked item was totally unleavened. A perfect, beautiful Matza that was baked for general use and was later determined to be totally unleavened can not be used for the Mitzva of Matza. The halacha of Shimur is that the harvest and the milling and the kneading and the baking must be supervised with the intention of avoiding leavening so it can be used for the Mitzva of Matza. Without this specific intent, you certainly could use it on Pesach, but you would not be yotzei the mitzva.

When Og came to Avraham with his evil plan,he found Avraham baking Matza. Matza is the archetype of proper intent; without the proper intent, matza is just a flat piece of bread. If intent matters in a simple thing like a matza, how much more so in something so deeply powerful and beautiful, in a matter of life and death, good intent can make it even more meaningful, and bad intent can pervert and degrade the entire effect. Og could have learned the lesson of the Ugos. Unfortunately for him, he did not. He is like B'tzeikos shel Nachrim (Pesachim 40a), an example of lost potential for greatness. He was not a Matza, he was a Bulkeh. Bulkeh, the King of the Bashan.

Lech Lecha. Journeys and Odysseys. Drasha for Sheva Brachos (#7)

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 16:20:00 +0000

My wife and I just got back from Memphis, where we attended the wedding of a young man with whom our family has been very close. Having driven gave us the autonomy of deciding when to leave, and we chose to stay a second day. We were graciously invited by the eponymous culinary genius of Ricki's Cookie Korner to attend a Sheva Brachos she and her husband hosted that evening. Although I hadn't been asked to speak, my wife strongly suggested that I do so. She felt that because of our long and close relationship with the Chasan, it was important that I say something good and true about him. We stayed at the Peabody hotel, and while the history and ambiance were memorable, the sofa in the room wasn't particularly comfortable, and the options I faced were simple: speech, or sofa.

The morning after I delivered the speech, I was passing by an antiquities and collectibles store in the hotel lobby, the Samuel Nathan Gallery. As it happens, the owner, Ezra, is from Flatbush, and, smart businessman that he is, he blew a shofar as I walked by. It worked as he intended, like a moose call, and I went in to see who would be blowing a shofar in Memphis on a November morning. Ezra, who penetrated what I thought was a good disguise, perceived that I was some sort of rabbi, and asked me the question that I had addressed at the Sheva Brachos the night before. He sincerely thanked me for my explanation, and then, of course, sold me some tzatzkes. I thought that the coincidence implied that the message might be meaningful to someone, and ought to be posted.

Sometimes, a young man and woman go out for the first time in their lives, and they decide to get married. What a mazal bracha, what a gift from the Ribono shel Olam that can be! That is exactly what did not happen to his couple. Both the Chassan and the Kallah had their share of heartbreak and distress over the years. When they finally did meet, a few years ago, each knew that there was something special and unique here, but hope was defeated by anxiety and fear, and nothing came of it. Everyone around them told them that they needed to get together again, and finally, good sense and good mazal triumphed and they did get back together and are now married.

This reminded me of a stylistic distinction between the words 'journey' and 'odyssey'. (This distinction is maintained in the New York Times, but is not to be found in general dictionaries.) A journey is simply a trip from point A to point B. An odyssey is a long and difficult journey that ultimately brings the traveler back home. The Maharal says that Rei'ah means close friend, but is most used to mean spouse. He explains that while the standard etymology of Rei'ah does mean friend, it also alludes to the idea of the Tru'ah by Tekias Shofar, the broken sound. A spouse is more than a close friend. A spouse is a Rei'ah, a piece of the other person. They are two segments of one fundamental unit, the recreated Tzelem Elokim of the original form of Adam Harishon that exists only in a marriage. A long, long time ago, two souls were made one. שמח תשמח ריעים האהובים, rejoice, you two rejoined parts of a unitary soul, as you existed in Gan Eden. You have finally found what was missing from your life, and your teru'ah has become a song of rejoicing. Your long travail of seeking was not a journey, it was an odyssey. You have traveled and traveled, and now you have come home.

This highlights a strange thing we find in our Parsha about journeys and destinations. Hashem told Avraham Lech lecha, go to the land I will show you. Why didn't Hashem tell Avraham where he was going? Why did Hashem only tell him to go to the place He would name later? The answer is that Avraham was being taught a lesson. He was being taught that, as Ezra from the Samuel Nathan's gallery later phrased it, a Jew must know that he must never become part of the landscape. People fool themselves into thinking that life is about destinations, and that everything else is just a way of getting there. Hashem taught Avraham Avinu that this is not true. The purpose of life is growth and change and experience. All of life is a journey, and the journey is not merely a unavoidable precursor to a meaningful goal. Hashem put you in a circumstance so you can learn and grow and incorporate the lessons you learn into your identity. In the Navi Zechariah (3:7), Hashem tells the navi that he is being granted opportunity to grow: ונתתי לך מהלכים בין העומדים האלה I will give you a path among these that are standing. Man is called a הולך, a walker, while malachim, angels, are called עומדים, the stationary ones. A malach is what he is and he remains as he was created. Man walks. לֶךְ לְךָ. He rises, he falls, but he is never stationary. אורח חיים למעלה למשכיל למען סור משאול מטה (Mishlei 15:24, and see Gaon there- – שבכל דבר שקשור בנפש האדם, אם לא עולים – אז בהכרח יורדים, וכפי שמפרש רש"י על הפסוק: "וַיִּקָּחֻהוּ וַיַּשְׁלִכוּ אֹתוֹ הַבֹּרָה וְהַבּוֹר רֵק אֵין בּוֹ מָיִם" (בראשית לז, כד) – "והבור רק אין בו מים – ממשמע שנאמר והבור רק, איני יודע שאין בו מים, מה תלמוד לומר אין בו מים? מים אין בו, אבל נחשים ועקרבים יש בו".). Life is all about that change, and a wise man will see every segment of life as a classroom and every step of his travels as a lesson. The Chassan and the Kallah intuitively knew this, and they are different for having experienced what they experienced- stronger, wiser, and better. They have finally come home, and their journey of discovery and growth continues. May they use this wisdom and strength to build their Bayis Ne'eman Be'Yisrael.

Noach, Breishis 8:1. Changing Middas Hadin to Middas Harachamim. היפוך מדת הדין למדת הרחמים

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:47:00 +0000

The names of Hashem connote certain middos/traits. For example, Elokim implies Din/Judgment, while YKVK/Havaya implies Rachamim/Mercy. Although at various times one trait or the other might be dominant, we find that tzadikim can turn Din into Rachamim, and resha'im can turn Rachamim into Din. We find this in our parsha; in 8:1, it says ויזכור אלוקים את נח, and Rashi says

זה השם מדת הדין הוא, ונהפכה למדת רחמים על ידי תפלת הצדיקים, ורשעתן של רשעים הופכת מדת

רחמים למדת הדין, שנאמר (בראשית ו ה) וירא ה' כי רבה רעת האדם וגו' ויאמר ה' אמחה, והוא שם מדת רחמים.

Human Tefilla and ma'asim tovim have great power, and human sinfulness has, lehavdil, great power too. Our behavior influences worlds beyond number, elevating or corrupting the entire creation, even to the extent of changing the middah with which Hashem relates to the world.

But there's one case where it seems that this idea is applied in a very different way. Some of us are familiar with it from the tefilla on Rosh Hashanna, some from the pre-psukei d'zimra parshios that we say every day:

ותראה לפניך העקידה שעקד את יצחק בנו על גבי המזבח וכבש רחמיו לעשות רצונך בלב שלם כן יכבשו רחמיך את כעסך ויגולו רחמיך על מדותיך וישוב חרון אפיך מעמך ומעירך ומנחלתך

This, it seems to me, is very strange. Just as Avraham Avinu repressed and overcame his quality of mercy to do Your will at the Akeida, so too, Hashem, may Your Mercy vanquish Your anger. From the usual perspective of our behavior being mirrored with resonant and harmonious actions from heaven, how can Avraham Avinu's vanquishing of his mercy elicit the opposite from Hashem, that Hashem should vanquish His Middas haDin in favor of Rachamim?

This tefilla is ancient. It is brought in the Tur from the siddur of the Geonim in Hilchos Ta'anis, in Siman תקעט. The language of the Tur is as follows:

וכו' עד כי אתה ה' עונה ומציל פודה ומרחם בכל עת צרה וצוקה וקיים לנו ה' אלהינו את הברית ואת החסד והשבועה שנשבעת לאברהם אבינו בהר המוריה ותראה לפניך העקידה שעקד את יצחק בנו על גבי המזבח וכבש רחמיו לעשות רצונך בלב שלם כן יכבשו רחמיך את כעסך ויגולו רחמיך על מדותיך וישוב חרון אפיך מעמך ומעירך ומנחלתך מי שענה לא"א בהר המוריה הוא יענה אתכם וישמע קול צעקתכם ביום הזה בא"י גואל ישראל ועונים אמן ותוקעין תר"ת

This, in turn, probably stems from a Yerushalmi. The Yerushalmi in Taanis 2:4 says:

דף י,ב פרק ב הלכה ד גמרא מכיון שנגאל יצחק כמו שנגאלו כל ישראל. רבי ביבי אבא בשם ר' יוחנן אמר אברהם לפני הקב"ה רבון העולמים גלוי וידוע לפניך שבשעה שאמרת לי להעלות את יצחק בני היה לי מה להשיב ולומר לפניך אתמול אמרת לי (בראשית כא) כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע ועכשיו את אומר (בראשית כב) והעלהו שם לעולה. ח"ו לא עשיתי כן אלא כבשתי את יצרי ועשיתי רצונך כן יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלהי שבשעה שיהיו בניו של יצחק בני נכנסים לידי צרה ואין להם מי ילמד עליהם סניגוריא אתה תהא מלמד עליהם סניגוריא. ה' יראה את נזכר להם עקידתו של יצחק אביהם ומתמלא עליהם רחמים מה כתיב בתריה (שם) וישא אברהם את עיניו וירא והנה איל אחר וגו'. מהו אחר א"ר יודה בי ר' סימון אחר כל הדורות עתידין בניך ליאחז בעונות ולהסתבך בצרות וסופן להגאל בקרניו של איל הזה שנאמר (זכריה ט) וה' אלהים בשופר יתקע והלך בסערות תימן. רבי חונה בשם ר' חיננה בר יצחק כל אותו היום היה אברהם רואה את האיל נאחז באילן זה וניתור ויוצא נאחז בחורש זה וניתור ויוצא נאחז בסבך זה וניתור ויצא אמר לו הקב"ה אברהם כך עתידין בניך נאחזים בעונות ומסתבכין במלכיות מבבל למדי ממדי ליון ומיון לאדום. אמר לפניו רבון העולמים יהיה כן לעולם א"ל וסופן להגאל בקרניו של איל הזה וה' אלהים בשופר יתקע והלך בסערות תימן

We also find this in the mekubalim in regard to Shiluach Hakan, which doesn't make it easier to understand. The fact is that we're asking for Rachamim on the basis of supressing Rachamim: שם כבישת רחמים, וכאן בקשת רחמים.

I have seen and heard six ways to understand this tefilla. After discussing them, I am going to introduce another interpretation.

1. It means overcoming a middah, or hipuch/היפוך. Through determined strength of will, Avraham Avinu overcame the primary Midda that defined his identity and his life's work, the Midda of Chesed. We ask that Hashem should overcome the midda of Din, which was originally intended to be Hashem's primary midda in relation to mankind. I've seen this in some mefarshim, and I am not worthy to criticize them, but this does not really appeal to me. If this is true, then the tefilla has nothing to do with rachamim per se, but instead with overcoming a middah, whatever middah it happens to be.

2. Another approach is that of the Dubner Maggid in his Ohel Yaakov., where he says that Avraham's actions didn't involve any diminishment of his love for his son, it actually involved his focusing and strengthening his overriding love for the Ribono shel Olam. Avraham Avinu overcame his natural resistance by intensifying his love for the Ribono shel Olam. You, too, Hashem, through our zechus avos, let your love for Klal Yisrael overcome any anger against them. Ahava and Rachamim are synonymous: in Aramis, Rachim means love. As a Rabbi david lau from Modi'in writes, echoing the Dubner,

אנו מבקשים מהקדוש ברוך הוא שיכבוש את כעסו, ושיעשה מעשה זה או מאהבתנו או מזכות האבות שבנו או למען

שמו הגדול.כך שההשואה אינה בין רחמים לרחמים, אלא בין כבישת רצון מפני דבר נעלה יותר

It means overcoming ahava for one because of greater ahava for the other. Hashem should overcome din out of ahava for klal yisrael, due to the zechus of Avraham Avinu and zechus avos.

3. We don't understand what Rachamim and Din mean; they may be fundamentally contextual and subjective, as the Rambam says in 11 Sanhedrin 7:

הַמַּסִּית, אֵין דִּינָיו כִּשְׁאָר דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת: מְכַמְּנִין לוֹ הָעֵדִים, וְאֵינוּ צָרִיךְ הַתְרָאָה כִּשְׁאָר הַנֶּהְרָגִין. וְאִם יָצָא מִבֵּית דִּין זַכָּאי, וְאָמַר אֶחָד יֵשׁ לִי לְלַמַּד עָלָיו חוֹבָה--מַחְזִירִין אוֹתוֹ; יָצָא חַיָּב, וְאָמַר אֶחָד יֵשׁ לִי לְלַמַּד עָלָיו זְכוּת--אֵין מַחְזִירִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאֵין טוֹעֲנִין לַמַּסִּית. וּמוֹשִׁיבִין בְּדִינוֹ סָרִיס וְזָקֵן וּמִי שְׁאֵין לוֹ בָּנִים, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְרַחֲמוּ עָלָיו: שֶׁהָאַכְזָרִיּוּת עַל אֵלּוּ שֶׁמַּטְעִין אֶת הָעָם אַחַר הַהֶבֶל--רַחֲמִים הִיא בָּעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר לְמַעַן יָשׁוּב ה' מֵחֲרוֹן אַפּוֹ, וְנָתַן לְךָ רַחֲמִים

What appears to us to be Achzarius might be a form of rachamim, or vice versa. Doing the will of Hashem could define Rachamim, just as constructive and well motivated prevarication might be characterized as Emes. (Yevamos 62b גדול השלום שאף הקדוש ברוך הוא שינה בו, and Bava Metzia 23b תלת מילי עבידי רבנן דמשנו במלייהו. See note 1, below.)
UPDATE: As Eli points out in the comments, this approach doesn't seem to make sense. Saying that there is a commonality among middos does not explain our saying "Just as Avraham vanquished his Rachamim to do Your will, so too, Hashem, vanquish Your Din to do Rachamim." The point of the tefilla is that they are different and just as Avraham put the one aside to do the other, so too Hashem should.
Sometimes, the ideas that occur to me have some element of truth, although it takes time to divine what that truth is. But working on a post facto rationalization motivated by a presumption of infallibility is repugnant, so I'm putting this on the side. From what I've seen, this repugnance diminishes with increasing age, so maybe I'll come back to it.

4. One who does a mitzva at a cost of damage to a midda is granted repair of that middah, as we see in Devarim 13:18. After setting forth our obligation to destroy an Ir Hanidachas, the Torah says ונתן לך רחמים. I heard from my father in the name of the Alter of Slabodka, and later saw in the Chafetz Chaim ahl Hatorah, that after such a wretched and horrible event, it is inevitable that the souls and middos of the soldiers will be irreparably brutalized. Therefore Hashem grants a miracle, a special bracha of an infusion of Rachamim. Here, too, in order to do the Akeida, Avraham Avinu had to quash a midda that he had spent his life nurturing. To repair the result of that effort, Hashem granted him a special infusion of Rachamim, which we invoke here to be applied to Hashem's relationship with us.

5. The Talmidim of the Baal Shem Tov, with a Kabbalah oriented interpretation: I usually stay away from this sort of thing, but as you'll see, this one comes in handy later. The basic idea here is that Avraham Avinu cast away his "garment of Chesed," and Hashem took it and dresses Himself with that same garment.

וביאר הענין בהקדם מה שאפשר לדקדק בנוסח התפלה של זכרונות בראש השנה, וכן בהתפלה אחר פרשת העקידה שאומרים בכל יום אנו מתפללים "כמו שכבש אברהם אבינו את רחמיו מבן יחידו כן יכבשו רחמיך את כעסך מעלינו ויגולו רחמיך על מדותיך", ולכאורה תמוה דהלא המשל אינו דומה להנמשל, שהרי אברהם אבינו כבש את רחמיו ונעשה אכזרי על בנו, ואנו מבקשים ההיפוך שהשי"ת יכבוש את כעסו ויתנהג עמנו ברחמים.

אלא הענין יובן על פי מה שפירשו תלמידי בעש"ט הק' את הפסוק ה' מלך גאות לבש (תהלים צ"ג) דהכוונה כי הנה תועבת ה' כל גבה לב, וכשהאדם משליך מעליו כל גדולה וכבוד והוא בענוה ובשפלות, אז כביכול השי"ת עושה לעצמו מלבוש מהגיאות הזה שהשליך האדם מעצמו, כמו איש שעושה לעצמו מלבוש מדבר החביב אליו, וזהו שאמר ה' מלך גאות לבש, שלובש עצמו בגיאותן של ישראל שהשליכו מעצמם עכת"ד תלמידי הבעש"ט זי"ע.

ופירש הוא ז"ל בזה מה שאמרו חז"ל (עירובין י"ג ע"ב) שכל המשפיל עצמו הקב"ה מגביהו וכל המגביה עצמו הקב"ה משפילו, כל המחזר על הגדולה גדולה בורחת ממנו וכל הבורח מן הגדולה גדולה מחזרת אחריו, דכיון שמשליך מעליו הכבוד והגדולה, הקב"ה מתלבש עצמו במדה זו ונותן אותו בחזרה לאיש ההוא לגדלו ולנשאו, וכן אמרו חז"ל (זוהר בראשית קכ"ב) מאן דאיהו זעיר איהו רב ומאן דאיהו רב איהו זעיר, דמי שמקטין עצמו השי"ת חוזר ונותן לו הגיאות שהשליך מעליו ונעשה גדול ורב, וכן להיפוך.

וכתב עוד שם שכן הוא בכל המדות, כגון האדם שהוא בטבעו איש טוב ורחמן ובעבור כבוד שמו ית' הוא זורק את כל הרחמנות שלו ומתלבש במדת אכזריות כדי לעשות רצון קונו, אז השי"ת מתלבש באותו הרחמנות שזרק ומרחם בה על האדם הזה. ומפרש בזה מה שמבואר בתיקוני זהר על הפסוק מי יעלה לנו השמימה (פ' נצבים) דהר"ת הוא מיל"ה והסופי תיבות הוי', דהנה מצות מילה הוא מעשה אכזרי, כי עם ישראל בטבעם הם רחמנים בני רחמנים, ולקיים מצות הבורא ית"ש הוא כובש את רחמיו, ולכן מתלבש הקב"ה ברחמנות זו שהשליך מעליו, ואח"כ בעת הצורך הקב"ה מחזירו לו ומרחם עליו, ועל כן סופי תיבות הוי' דמורה למדת רחמים וחסד, כי מצות מילה מעוררת רחמים וכנ"ל.

ומיישב בזה דברי המדרש (פ' בשלח) אז ישיר משה, א"ז בגימטריא ח', בזכות מילה שניתנה לשמונה, כי מצות מילה סייע שיתלבש ה' במדת הרחמים שהשליכו בני ישראל עבור כבוד ה' ולהחזירם להם לרחם עליהם בשעת דוחקם. וזהו הכוונה במה שאנו מבקשים, כמו שכבש אברהם אבינו את רחמיו ורצה לשחוט את בנו, שהשליך מעצמו מדת הרחמנות ונעשה אכזרי על בנו, כן יכבשו רחמיך את כעסך מעלינו, אותו הרחמים שהתלבש בו הקב"ה אז, יחזור ויתן לנו ויכבוש את כעסו מעלינו.

6. The Belzer Rebbe's interpretation: The Satan accosted Avraham Avinu on the way to the Akeida and presented perfectly valid reasons that Avraham should not actually sacrifice his son. Avraham responded that he was on a mission which he received from Hashem directly and he would not stop till he heard from Hashem directly. He said, "My fundamental mission is clear, and I will ignore anything that interferes with that mission." So, too, we ask that Hashem disregard the accusations and lashon hara that Satan brings against us, because of the fundamental covenant of love between us and Hashem. I am unworthy to comment, and it is beautiful drush, but I don't think it was intended as pshat.

מה שאנו מתפללין במוסף לראש השנה ״ותראה לפניך עקידה שעקד אברהם אבינו את

יצחק בנו ע״ג המזבח וכבש רחמיו לעשות רצוניך בלבב שלם, כן יכבשו רחמיך את

כעסך מעלינו וכו׳״ דלמה לן הדמיון ויותר קשה וכי אפשר לדמות רחמיו של בן אדם,

גם אם הוא היותר גדול בעולם לרחמי הקב״ה שהוא אין סוף, ורחמיו הם בלי תכלית

וגבול בלי דמיון כלל. ואמר מרן הקדוש רי״ד זי״ע מבעלזא דאיתא במדרש דכשנצטווה

אברהם אבינו קח נא את בנך וכו׳ והעלהו לעולה בא השטן בטענות שונות לפתותו

שלא יקיים מצוותו מפני שראה שמסתעף מזה זכות גדול לזרע אברהם עד סוף כל

הדורות, גם אמר לו למה לך לשחוט את בן יחידך והלא לא נאמר לך רק והעלהו שם

לעולה, ולא נאמר לך שחטהו, ואין אתה מחויב כלל לשחטו רק להעלהו לעולה ולהורידו,

וזה באמת דרש אמיתי וטענה צודקת כמו שפירש״י, אך אברהם אבינו לא רצה להכנס

בשום דרשות ואמתלאות אפילו הם דרשות נכונות ולא ביקש שום תחבולה להמנע

מלקיים מצותו יתברך ולא שת לבו לפתויי של השטן גם אם בא בטענות נכונות, ועד

שלא שמע מהקב״ה ע״י המלאך שיקרב איל במקומו לא רצה בשום היתר ואמתלא

בעולם, וכמו כן אנו מתפללים להשי״ת ביום הדין הנורא שיכבשו רחמיו את כעסו אף

אם המקטריגים יקטריגו עלינו בטענות אמתיות כמו שכבש אברהם אבינו את רחמיו

לעשות רצונך אעפ״י שהי׳ יכול להפטר בטענות אמתיות ודפח״ח

7. My contribution. I think the assumption that we based the question on was wrong. The question was that "Just as A, so, too, B" didn't make sense where B is diametrically opposed to A, and it certainly flies in the face of the idea of Midah Keneged Midah. I believe, however, that the focus on מדה כנגד מדה is misleading. Korbanos work on an entirely different principle: What we are Makriv becomes enhanced and receives a blessing.

Rosh Hashanna 16a:

תניא א"ר יהודה משום ר"ע מפני מה אמרה תורה הביאו עומר בפסח מפני שהפסח זמן תבואה הוא אמר הקב"ה הביאו לפני עומר בפסח כדי שתתברך לכם תבואה שבשדות ומפני מה אמרה תורה הביאו שתי הלחם בעצרת מפני שעצרת זמן פירות האילן הוא אמר הקב"ה הביאו לפני שתי הלחם בעצרת כדי שיתברכו לכם פירות האילן ומפני מה אמרה תורה נסכו מים בחג אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא נסכו לפני מים בחג כדי שיתברכו לכם גשמי שנה ואמרו לפני בראש השנה מלכיות זכרונות ושופרות מלכיות כדי שתמליכוני עליכם זכרונות כדי שיעלה זכרוניכם לפני לטובה ובמה בשופר אמר רבי אבהו למה תוקעין בשופר של איל אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא תקעו לפני בשופר של איל כדי שאזכור לכם עקידת יצחק בן אברהם ומעלה אני עליכם כאילו עקדתם עצמכם לפני

This is a visual teretz, so try to read it that way. Here, Avraham Avinu was commanded to be makriv his middas harachamim to Hashem. Being makriv the middas harachamim brings bracha to middas harachamim.

As it turns out, this might be what Rabbeinu Bachay means in Breishis 18:33, where he says

ואברהם שב למקומו - ...ועל דרך הקבלה, מדת החסד חזרה למקומה כשלא מצאה זכות, ופעלה מדת הדין. וזהו סוד הכתוב ויקח בידו את האש וגו', שמדת הדין עקודה לפני מדת הרחמים, שאלמלא כן תחריב את העולם, וזהו ביאור "רב חסד", שהיא מתגברת

And upon reflection, it's possible that this might just be another way of saying the pshat of the Talmidim of the Baal Shem Tov above in #5.

(I know this really belongs in Vayeira. I had to post it to get it out of my head so I could think about something else.)

NOTES:
1. See also Rav Kook's Ein Ayah, where he says

כמו שכבש אברהם אבינו את רחמיו מבן יחידו, ורצה לשחוט אותו, כדי לעשות רצונך, בלבב שלם

הפלא הנצחי של נסיון העקדה, והשפעתו על העולם בכלל, הוא, מפני שהארת החיים באה שמה בכל מלואה. לא היה אצל האב שום רגש טבעי של המית אב שנכחד, להיפך, הכל היה פורח והכל חי. אבל בידיעה הברורה, שכל החי, וכל המתעלה, הכל נכון הוא ומוכרח הוא להבטל, ולהקשר קשר עליון, ברצונו ודברו של אל עליון קונה שמים וארץ, השופט כל הארץ, אבי כל המעשים, בהבנה קדושה, שכל מעשה וכל מצוי כלא הוא נחשב מצד עצמו, וכל שיווי ערכו וגדלות מציאותו איננו כ"א מצד מציאותו באלהי עולם קונה הכל, בשביל כך גם הרחמים כלפי הבן היחיד, שיש להם כ"כ ערך עדין מוסרי ומפואר, עם כל חזקת מציאותם, הם מוכרחים היו להכבש כדי למלא את דבר ד' ולעשות רצונו בלבב שלם. ובזה הרחמים בעצמם קנו להם את המקום היותר עליון, את מקומם במציאות העליונה, ברצונו של מקום, ששום דבר משם לא יכחד ולא יעדר. ועשית רצונו של מקום, בהחלט, או לפי הנוסחאות האחרות בלבב שלם, זוהי התכונה המקימת את הכל, את כל החיים ואת כל הרגשות. וגם את הרחמים הנכבשים עצמם, בהעלותם אל רום מעלתם.

כן יכבשו רחמיך את כעסך מעלינו

הכעס האלהי הלא הוא צדק העולמים, מקיים ומבסס את המציאות בגבורתו הקדושה. אבל זאת התכונה בעצמה, במקורה האלהי, איננה משחיתה, אינה מהרסת וגם איננה זועמת, כ"א מלאה היא גבורה מפוארה לרומם את המעשים, להדרם לשכללם ולפארם. וכאשר לא הוכנו הנפשות לאותה הקליטה הרוממה, של כוון מהותם לעומת השרש העליון של הגבורה, ששם רחמי הקודש הם הם ההומים ומתגברים, אז נפגשות הן ונכשלות בהזעם החצוני ההורס ומכלה. אבל ההכנה הקדושה של העלאת הרצון האנושי למרום גובה קדשו, בשרש הצור של האומה, היא היא אשר פעלה, ופועלת בנו, את ההתכוונות כלפי שרש הקודש העליון של מדת הגבורה והצדק האלהי, המתגלה בחצוניותו בתור כעס. והננו בזה נושאים עין להתקדש במרום הקודש, באחיזת מדותיו של האב הקדוש, ע"פ האפשריות שלנו, והכנת יניקת קדשו. וכן יכבשו רחמיך, במרום עזם, את כעסך מעלינו, שיתעלה כח קדוש זה למקור תפארתו, שיביא בכנפיו מרפא וגבורת חיים וברכת עולמים.

Sukkos in the Fall

noreply@blogger.com (Barzilai) — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 02:22:00 +0000

The Tur (OC 625) asks, if on Sukkos we re-enact our sojourn in the eponymous Sukkos in the desert, why does it occur in the Fall, when the event took place when we left Egypt, in the Spring. He answers that after a wet and cold Winter, many people find it pleasurable to eat outdoors as the weather improves. If we made the holiday in the Spring, it would not have the symbolic force that it does now. We make it in the Fall, when nobody else eats or sleeps outdoors, so that we should be emphatically reminded of our reason for doing so. As the Bach says, the mitzva of Sukkos requires a specific awareness of the reason for the commandment. (I apologize to my friends in the Southern Hemisphere for the Hemispheric chauvinism.)

The Rambam (Moreh 3:43) says exactly the opposite of the Tur: that this season was picked because it's neither too hot nor too cold for a Succah (in Eretz Yisrael's climate, of course).

These are unsatisfying answers. We are taught that our holidays are not mere tableaux vivants re-enactments, but instead a re-experience of the mazal and segula of the moment, a wellspring from which we draw spiritual strength. It is hard to accept the Rambam's and the Tur's assertions that Sukkos has no inherent temporal/spiritual relation to its place in the calendar.

Addressing this issue, the Vilner Gaon (born 1720) and the Chasam Sofer (born 1762) say identical answers. The Vilner Gaon is in Shir Hashirim 1:4, here. The Chasam Sofer is in his Drashos, page 29a, in the Drasha for Shabbos Shuva of תקצ"ד, D'H B'Yalkut, here.

Thank you, Heather H., for pointing out that today, October 17, is the Gaon's Yahrtzeit, 19 Tishrei Tof Kuf Nun Ches/1797. The Chasam Sofer's Yahrtzeit, 25 Tishrei Tof Reish/1839, is next Sunday, October 23. May they be meilitzei yosher for us and all Klal Yisrael.

They answer that the Clouds which (according to Rebbi Eliezer) the Sukkos represent, departed upon the sin of the Eigel. The Clouds only returned after we did teshuva and began building the Mishkan. When was that? Our teshuva was accepted on Yom Kippur, the tenth. On the eleventh, Moshe Rabbeinu gave us the commandment to build the Mishkan; on the twelfth and thirteenth, we collected the material and money we needed; on the fourteenth, the calculations, assignments and disbursements were made, and on the fifteenth of Tishrei, the work began. It is not just the Ananim we are celebrating- we're celebrating Hashem's return of the Ananei Hakavod as a sign of His love after we did teshuva. The Teshuva did not merely erase our sins, it reinstated Hashem's love. It is the great joy of the return of the ananei hakavod that we are celebrating.

The problem with this teretz is the pessukim in Nechemiah 9:19-20, which say
יח אף כי עשו להם עגל מסכה ויאמרו זה אלהיך אשר העלך ממצרים ויעשו נאצות גדלות. יט ואתה ברחמיך הרבים לא עזבתם במדבר את עמוד הענן לא סר מעליהם ביומם להנחתם בהדרך ואת-עמוד האש בלילה להאיר להם ואת-הדרך אשר ילכו בה

Even when they made the Eigel and said "This is your god that took you out of Egypt", and they did great blasphemies, You, in Your great mercy, did not leave them in the Desert. The Pillar of Cloud did not move away from them in the day to lead them on the path, nor the Pillar of Fire to illuminate the road they walked upon.

It appears that these pesukim, which clearly state that the sin of the Eigel did not cause the Cloud to go away, contradict the assertion of the Gaon and the Chasam Sofer.

The answer is, of course, that there is a difference between the Amud Ha'anan and the Ananei Hakavod. The Pillar of Cloud remained with them, but the Clouds of Glory, which covered and protected them, did disappear, and only came back when they began building the Mishkan.

You might disagree with this distinction. After all, the Aruch Hashulchan seems to commingle the two Ananim:

ותניא (סוכה יא ב): "כי בסוכות הושבתי את בני ישראל" – ענני כבוד היו, דברי רבי אליעזר. רבי עקיבא אומר: סוכות ממש עשו להם.

והנה לדברי רבי אליעזר – וודאי דשייך לעשות זכרון לדבר הגדול הזה, שהקיפן בענני כבוד. וכמו שהתוודו בעלותם מן הגולה בנחמיה (ט), שאמרו: "אף כי עשו להם עגל מסכה... ואתה ברחמיך הרבים לא עזבתם במדבר, את עמוד הענן לא סר מעליהם..., ואת עמוד האש בלילה...". דבענני כבוד היתה התגלות אלקות ממש, כמו שאמר משה רבינו בעניינא דמרגלים: "אשר עין בעין נראה אתה ד', ועננך עומד עליהם, ובעמוד ענן אתה הולך לפניהם יומם, ובעמוד אש לילה"

Also, we find that Chazal equate the Amud Ha'anan and the Ananei Hakavod, in Medrash Bamidbar Rabbah II:

וכמה ענני כבוד היו מקיפין את ישראל במדבר

ר' הושעיה ור' יאשיה, ר' יאשיה אמר: חמישה. ארבע לארבע רוחות, וא' מהלך לפניהם. ר' הושעיה אמר: שבעה. ארבעה לארבע רוחות השמים, וא' מלמעלן, וא' מלמטן, ואחד שהיה מהלך לפניהם רחוק ג' ימים, והיה מכה לפניהם את הנחשים, ואת העקרבים, ואת השרפים, ואת הסלעים, ואם היה מקום נמוך היה מגביהו, ואם היה מקום גבוה היה משפילו, ועושה אותם מישור, שנאמר (ישעיה מ): כל גיא ינשא וכל הר וגבעה ישפלו.

Also, see (sorry about the transcription errors: my secretary stepped out for a moment...) Mechilta D'Rebbi Yishmael in Beshalach, 13:20, where it says very clearly

וה׳ הולך לפניהם יומם בעמוד ענן מלמד ששבעה ענני כבוד היו עם ישראל

י ו מ ם בע מ ו ד ענ ן הרי אחד . וע נ נ ך עו מ ד על י ה ם (ב מ ׳ יד יד ) הר י שנ י ם . וב ע מ ו ד ענ ן את ה הו ל ך לפ נ י ה ם י ו מ ם (שס ) הר י שלש>ה<. וב ה א ר י ך הע נ ן (ב פ ׳ ס יס ) הר י ארבע>ה<. וב ה ע ל ו ת הע נ ן (שמ׳ פ לו ) הר י המש>ה<. וא ם לא יע ל ה הע נ ן (שם לז ) הר י שש>ה<. כי ענ ן ה׳ על המ ש כ ן י ו מ ם (ש ם לה ) הר י שב ע ה . אר ב ע ה 15 מא ר ב ע רו ת ו ת ו א ח ו מל מ ע ל ה וא ח ד םל מ ס ד . וא ח ד שמ ק ד י ם לפ נ י ה ם פ ת ק ן לה ם את הד ר כ י ם מג ב י ר . לה ם את הש פ ל ומ ש פ י ל לה ם את הג ב ו ה וע ו ש ה לה ס דר ך ס ר ס ומ י ש ו ר כע נ י ן שנ א י כל ני א י נ ש א וכ ל הר וג ב ע ה יש פ ל ו וה י ה הע ק ב לפ י ש ו ר וה ר כ ס י ם לב ק ע ה (ישע׳ פ ד) וא ו ם ׳ והיתד. פס ל ה לש א ר עפ ו אש ר יש א ר מא ש ו ר כא ש ר הי ת ה לי ש ר א ל כי ו ם על ו ת ו מא ר ץ פצ ר י ם (ישע׳ י א שז). הד י זה נ א כפ ל מ ד ו נ מ צ א למ ד מה לע ת י ד לב ו א כל גיא יג ש א וכ ל ה ר וג ב ע ה יש פ ל ו כך היד, לה ן בע ל י י ת ן 20 פא ר ץ מצ ר י ם . די א והי הל ך לפ נ י ה ם י ו מ ם ר׳ יו ס י הנ ל י ל י או מ ר אל מ ל א פק ר א כ ת ו ב אי אפ ש ר ל א פ ר ו כא ב שנ ו ס ל סו נ ס לפ נ י בנ ו וכ ר ב שנ ו ס ל פו נ ס לפ נ י עב ד ו . לל כ ת י ו מ ם ול י ל ה פק י ש נס י ע ת ן כי פ י ם לנ ס י ע ת ן בל י ל ו ת פ ה נס י ע ת ן בי פ י ם לא הי ו טח ו ס ר י ן או ר ה אף נס י ע ת ן בל י ל ו ת לא הי ו פח ו ס ר י ן או ר ה . מה נס י ע ת ן בל י ל ו ת לא יר ע ב ו ול א י נ פ א ו ול א יכ ם שר ב וש מ ש (י ש ע ׳ מם י) אף נס י ע ת ן בי מ י ם לא יר ע ב ו ול א יצ מ א ו ול א יכ ם שר ב וש מ ש .

It's possible that some ananim went away and some didn't. But the pashtus of the Passuk in Nechemiah is that all of the Ananim remained after the sin of the Eigel, even before Yom Kippur. So what's pshat in the teretz of Gaon and the Chasam Sofer? We can find the answer to this question in the Chasam Sofer, here, (Drashos, page 53b, D'H Sha'alah).

The Chasam Sofer asks, why does the Gemara in Sukkos 26b not suggest that women ought to be Chayav in Sukka because they were involved in the miracle no less than the men? He answers, as he said earlier, that Sukkos commemorates not the Clouds, but the return of the Clouds after Teshuva. He says that the Clouds did not actually disappear, but they ejected any sinner that attempted to enter into them. The men, who were excommunicated for their sin of the Eigel, remained outside of the cloud until they began building the Mishkan. The women, on the other hand, had never participated in the Eigel, and were never driven away from the Anan. While any man entering the Anan were spit out, the women were able to enter the Anan at will. Since for the women nothing changed, the redemptive experience of Sukkos did not apply to them at all, and we certainly could not say they're chayav on the basis of אף הן היו באותו הנס. They weren't באותו הנס at all.

According to the Chasam Sofer, we can understand the pesukim in Nechemiah to mean that the Anan never went away, and still guided them. But it did not allow the men to enter into it, it was poleit them. Only when they began building the Mishkan were the men allowed to enter into the cloud, and it is this redemptive experience that took place on the fifteenth of Tishrei that we celebrate.

I want to point out an irony. According to the Chasam Sofer, the reason that we wouldn't apply אף הן היו באותו הנס to obligate women to do the Mitzva of Sukka is because they never sinned, they never were kicked out, and they never earned redemption. Sukkos is the holiday that commemorates a fall and a return to Hashem's love. They never fell, and Hashem loved them all the time, so they have no reconciliation to celebrate. Although it sounds strange, it makes perfect sense. The descendants of an alternative Avraham Avinu who never said "Bamah Eida" would never have been redeemed from Mitzrayim. I recently read that a physician lamented how he spends half an hour teaching a patient about lifestyle changes that will ensure that his heart remains healthy, and a cardiac surgeon that repairs a heart damaged by by a bad lifestyle is paid thirty to forty times as much for his half hour. Somehow, that reminded me of the Chasam Sofer's teretz.