you can't play innocent if your behavior proves otherwise; limud haTorah trumps ahavas haTorah

In 9:7-21 in our parsha Moshe recounts the cheit ha'eigel and the smashing of the luchus. From pasuk 25 until the end of the perek Moshe recounts his prayer to Hashem for forgiveness for the eigel. Sandwiched in the middle, Moshe switches gears and starts talking about other sins that happened in the midbar:

בְעֵרָה וּבְמַסָּה וּבְקִבְרֹת הַתַּאֲוָה מַקְצִפִים הֱיִיתֶם אֶת ה׳

וּבִשְׁלֹחַ ה׳ אֶתְכֶם מִקָּדֵשׁ בַּרְנֵעַ לֵאמֹר עֲלוּ וּרְשׁוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לָכֶם וַתַּמְרוּ אֶת פִּי ה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶם וְלֹא הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם לוֹ וְלֹא שְׁמַעְתֶּם בְּקֹלוֹ.

Why didn't Moshe finish speaking about cheit ha'eigel before getting sidetracked, seemingly, by these other topics?

The Abarbanel and Akeidas Yitzchak answer that Bn"Y might have argued that they deserve a pass for cheit ha'eigel. They might argue that had Aharon not made the golden calf, they would have had no part in it. Moshe therefore immediately sticks in a rebuttal. Look at all the other wrongdoings that took place in the midbar. The list goes on and on! You can't play innocent when time after time you prove that מַקְצִפִים הֱיִיתֶם אֶת ה׳.

The Beis haLevi has a chiddush din that if there a choleh requires someone to be mechalel shabbos for his sake, e.g. someone needs a doctor to treat them, it is better to have a shomer Shabbos do it than to have a doctor who would otherwise be mechalel Shabbos do so. It sounds counterintuitive. The person who would otherwise be mechalel Shabbos anyway doesn't lose anything, and the shomer Shabbos doctor gets to keep Shabbos, so what's the problem? Says the Beis haLevi, the doctor who is mechalel Shabbos anyway cannot invoke pikuach nefesh as a ptur for his actions. Hashem knows that it's not the pikuach nefesh which is his excuse to break Shabbos. On any given Shabbos he might drive to the mall, turn on his TV or phone, cook a nice meal, etc. vTherefore, even if there is pikuach nefesh, he is chayav for doing melacha because he's proven that he would have done the melacha anyway. It's only the frum doctor who would otherwise keep Shabbos but is forced to not do so in order to save a life who can claim pikuach nefesh as a valid ptur.

This is the same sevara in our parsha. Had Bn"Y demonstrated that they were otherwise on the straight and narrow, they might conceivably have put the blame on Aharon for the cheit ha'eigel. But when all their other behaviors show that they were not interested in doing the right thing anyway, then the excuse doesn't hold water. They would have gotten involved in the eigel with or without Aharon's contribution to the problem.

Perhaps one can add בּדרך צחות that we know that Chazal (Kiddushin 57 and other places) darshen the extra word אֶת as a ribuy that comes to include talmidei chachamim, i.e. ״אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא״ – לְרַבּוֹת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים. We can read that same ribuy into our pesukim. Moshe told Bn"Y: You want to claim that you only sinned because of the great awe, respect, and attachment you had for Aharon and therefore followed him down the wrong path? Sorry, that doesn't fly. מַקְצִפִים הֱיִיתֶם אֶת ה׳ and here too we can darshen "אֶת" - לְרַבּוֹת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים". You were ַתַּמְרוּ אֶת פִּי ה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶם, and here too, "אֶת" - לְרַבּוֹת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים. On other occassions in the midbar you ignored Aharon, you ignored Moshe, you rebelled against the authority of talmidei chachamim. You can't claim to be a loyal, obedient follower of Aharon when it comes to cheit ha'eigel and use that as an excuse when all your other actions prove otherwise. (see also Agra d'Kallah)

The source for the mitzvah of cleaving to talmidei chachamim actually comes from pesukim later in our parsha (11:22-23)

כִּי אִם שָׁמֹר תִּשְׁמְרוּן אֶת כׇּל הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם לַעֲשֹׂתָהּ לְאַהֲבָה אֶתה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶם לָלֶכֶת בְּכׇל דְּרָכָיו וּלְדׇבְקָה בוֹ.

וְהוֹרִישׁ ה׳ אֶת כׇּל הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה מִלִּפְנֵיכֶם וִירִשְׁתֶּם גּוֹיִם גְּדֹלִים וַעֲצֻמִים מִכֶּם

Rashi quotes from Chazal: ולדבקה בו – אי איפשר, והלא אש אוכלה הוא? אלא: הדבק בחכמים ובתלמידים, ומעלה עליך כאילו נדבקת בו.

Interestingly, on the pasuk earlier in our parsha (10:20) אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ תִּירָא אֹתוֹ תַעֲבֹד וּבוֹ תִדְבָּק וּבִשְׁמוֹ תִּשָּׁבֵעַ, the very pasuk where Chazal darshen ״אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא״ – לְרַבּוֹת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, Rashi is silent and offers no comment on the phrase וּבוֹ תִדְבָּק. Why there does Rashi not jump in and say אי איפשר, והלא אש אוכלה הוא? and explain the phrase as speaking about talmidei chachamim, especially since there it would fit perfectly with the ribuy in the first half of the pasuk!?

HaKsav v'haKabbalah (please see the parenthetical note** at the end of this piece!) explains that it's not the explanation of the word דׇבְקָה which is bothering Rashi. We find that word many other places, e.g. אתם הדבקים בה׳ אלוקיכם, and we understand that it means having a close emotional or spiritual connection. The difficulty here arises from the context:

אמנם קשיא להו קרא דקאמר כי אם שמור תשמרון את כל המצוה הזאת וגו׳ לאהבה את ה״א ללכת בכל דרכיו ולדבקה בו, דמשמע שכולם חייבים להדבק במקום ב״ה דבקות הנפש, ולפי שזאת היא מעלת הנביאים וכדומה מאנשי מעלה שזוכים לה בחמלת ה׳ עליהם בתתו רוחו בקרבם, והאיך תלה ירושת הארץ בתנאי שיהיו דבקים בו כל ישראל

How can our taking possession of Eretz Yisrael be contingent upon our having dveikus, this high level of spiritual attachment, when such an achievement is clearly attainable only by the spiritual elite? Therefore, Chazal reinterpreted the mitzvah here to refer to divuk to talmidei chachamim (see Taz in Divrei David who offers a different answer).

In R' Dov Landau's chiddushim on the parsha he quotes, in the context of this mitzvah, the story in Avos about R' Yosi ben Kisma:

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶן קִסְמָא, פַּעַם אַחַת הָיִיתִי מְהַלֵּךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וּפָגַע בִּי אָדָם אֶחָד, וְנָתַן לִי שָׁלוֹם, וְהֶחֱזַרְתִּי לוֹ שָׁלוֹם. אָמַר לִי, רַבִּי, מֵאֵיזֶה מָקוֹם אַתָּה. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ, מֵעִיר גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁל חֲכָמִים וְשֶׁל סוֹפְרִים אָנִי. אָמַר לִי, רַבִּי, רְצוֹנְךָ שֶׁתָּדוּר עִמָּנוּ בִמְקוֹמֵנוּ, וַאֲנִי אֶתֵּן לְךָ אֶלֶף אֲלָפִים דִּינְרֵי זָהָב וַאֲבָנִים טוֹבוֹת וּמַרְגָּלִיּוֹת

אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ, בְּנִי, אִם אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לִי כָל כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב וַאֲבָנִים טוֹבוֹת וּמַרְגָּלִיּוֹת שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם, אֵינִי דָר אֶלָּא בִמְקוֹם תּוֹרָה

In Kallah Rabasi ch 8 there is the following comment on that Mishna:

א״ר יוסי בן קסמא פעם אחת. אמאי לא אהדר ליה סימני עם הארץ חזא ביה. והא אפילו לעובד כוכבים בשוק מותר אלא דהוה פליג הלכתא ועיין בה ולא אמרין לבתר דפרקינהו וידע בה דישראל הוה. וסבר עכשיו מהדרנא

Our girsa in Avos is וְנָתַן לִי שָׁלוֹם וְהֶחֱזַרְתִּי לוֹ שָׁלוֹם, but it seems from Kallah Rabasi that R' Yosei ben Kisma in fact did not greet or respond to the person who he met. That makes the ahavas haTorah of that individual even more remarkable. Most people would feel offended if their Rabbi passed them in the street and did not offer a greeting. This man offered R' Yosi ben Kisma a fortune to move to his city even though R' Yosi ben Kisma didn't so much as offer him a hello! That's "U'bo tidbak." However, it begs the question: If this man was representative of his hometown, why would R' Yosi ben Kisma not want to move to such a place where there is so much love for talmidei chachamim? I am sure many Rabbis would love to have congregants like that! R' Landau answers that ahavas haTorah cannot serve as a substitute for limud haTorah. Living among people who are mechabeid talmidei chachamim, who may love talmidei chachamim, is not the same as living among people who themselves are talmidei chachamim.

(**Parenthetical note on the haKsav vhaKabbalah: He writes that it is impossible to understand dveikus literally ואפי׳ תעלה על דעתך להמשך אחר פשוטי המקראות בשאר המקומות (וכדברי הראב״ד בה׳ תשובה), א״א לך לחשוב כן בענין הדבקות. The Raavad he refers to is the famous one in ch 3 of hil teshuvah:

האומר שיש שם רבון אחד אלא שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה. א"א ולמה קרא לזה מין וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו הלכו בזו המחשבה לפי מה שראו במקראות ויותר ממה שראו בדברי האגדות המשבשות את הדעות:

Clearly Kv"K seems to take Raavad at face value, that a literal reading is at least theoretically possible. This is in contast to the pshat quoted in the name of R' Chaim that Raavad only meant that such a person cannot be labelled an apikores because they are shogeg, not to validate literal reading.)

Someich Hashem l'kol ha'noflim -- T"U b'Av

Brachos 4b

אמר רבי יוחנן מפני מה לא נאמר נו"ן באשרי מפני שיש בה מפלתן של שונאי ישראל דכתיב נפלה לא תוסיף קום בתולת ישראל במערבא מתרצי לה הכי נפלה ולא תוסיף לנפול עוד קום בתולת ישראל אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אפילו הכי חזר דוד וסמכן ברוח הקדש שנא' סומך ה' לכל הנופלים

There is a famous vort of the Apter Rav on T"U b'Av which I thought I had posted once but can't find it. The very last gemara in Taanis, after the sugya that discusses what happened on T'U b'Av, tells us:

אמר רבי אלעזר עתיד הקדוש ברוך הוא לעשות מחול לצדיקים והוא יושב ביניהם בגן עדן וכל אחד ואחד מראה באצבעו שנאמ' ואמר ביום ההוא הנה אלקינו זה קוינו לו ויושיענו זה ה' קוינו לו נגילה ונשמחה בישועתו

We will one day dance in a big circle, with Hashem in the middle, and everyone will point to the middle and say הנה אלקינו זה קוינו לו etc. In a circle every single point is equidistant from the center. In the future, every single person, from the biggest gadol to the average Joe, will see that they made a contribution, that they have a connection to Hashem, that their portion and their avodah is as valuable to Hashem as anyone else's. The Apter Rav explained that this celebration is what T'U b'Av represents. T"U = the 15th letter of the aleph beis, the letter samech, which is round like a circle. On T"U b'Av all the girls would go out and dance in the vineyard, and each would declare a reason why an eligible bachur should marry  them. Everyone has something that makes him/her special. We are each points on a circle.

R' Teichtel in his Mishnas Sachir writes that on 9 Av we mourn the churban caused by machlokes and infighting and strife. This is the greatest nefila of Klal Yisrael. Comes T"U b'Av, the culmination of the shiva for the churban, as R' Tzadok writes, and we want to do away with all that enmity and make a tikun for our sins. The gemara describes how on T"U b'Av the girls  would all borrow clothes from each other כל ישראל שואלין זה מזה כדי שלא יתבייש את מי שאין לו.   No one should feel that they are less valuable than anyone else; no one should feel pain because someone else made them feel less than special.  T"U b'Av is that letter samech, with no start and no end, no one point closer or more distant than any other from the center.  Everyone's cheilek is equally important, so there is no reason to fight.  This is what the gemaa means חזר דוד וסמכן ברוח הקדש שנא' סומך ה' לכל הנופלים  Hshem took the nefilah and connected it with the letter samech, the holiday of T"U b'Av, giving us the means to make things whole, giving us the greatest simcha in the world.

seudas mitzvah for a siyum by a woman or katan

Is a siyum made by a katan enough of a reason to allow eating meat during the 9 days? What about a siyum by a woman? Why am I bringing this up when the 9 days ended last week and we are now approaching T"u b'Av?

I think the answer to this question may hinge on what the source is for the idea of making a siyum. One of the sources is the celebration of T"u b'Av. The gemara (B"B 121b) tells us that 15 Av was the day when the season of cutting of wood for use on the maaracha came to a close because after that day the wood was not dry enough to be usable. Rashbam comments:

ואותו יום שפסקו היו שמחים לפי שבאותו יום היו משלימין מצוה גדולה כזאת:

The completion of a mitzvah, says Rashbam, is a cause for celebration.  This is exactly what a siyum is.

Rabeinu Gershom reads the gemara differently. He comments:

ולפי שעה שהיו עסוקים לכרות עצי המערכה היו מתבטלין בתלמוד תורה אבל אותו יום פסקו ועשאוהו יום טוב שמיכן ואילך היו עוסקין בתורה:

The celebration was not because of the siyum of a mitzvah, but rather because not having to chop wood allowed more time for learning. The motivation behind R' Gershom's reading becomes clear from the next line in the gemara:

מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ, דְּמוֹסִיף – יוֹסִיף, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹסִיף – יְסִיף. מַאי ״יְסִיף״? תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: תִּקְבְּרֵיהּ אִמֵּיהּ.

Since the nights grow longer after 15 Av, a person is required to spend more time at night learning.

According to Rashbam, this is a stand alone statement.  It has nothing to do with wood chopping except in the sense that it's the change in season that is the root cause of both events, i.e. a shortened day means both less sun to dry the wood and a longer night to learn. According to R' Gershom, there is a direct connection between the two statements.  The whole celebration of the cessation of wood chopping was because it allowed for more time to learn.

A second source for the idea of making a siyum quoted in Rishonim has to do with a feast made by Shlomo haMelech. In Sefer Melachim ch 3, Shlomo haMelech is told by Hashem to ask for what he pleases, and he responds by requesting chochma. Hashem was so pleased by that choice that in addition to chochma, Hashem gave Shlomo riches and all the other good things he could have asked for instead. Shlomo responded by celebrating.

וַיִּקַץ שְׁלֹמֹה וְהִנֵּה חֲלוֹם, וַיָּבוֹא יְרוּשָׁלִַם וַיַּעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי אֲרוֹן בְּרִית ה', וַיַּעַל עֹלוֹת וַיַּעַשׂ שְׁלָמִים וַיַּעַשׂ מִשְׁתֶּה לְכָל עֲבָדָיו.

The Midrash (Koheles Rabbah) learns from here אמר רבי יצחק: מכאן שעושין סעודה לגומרה של תורה.

The Ohr Zarua (vol 2 hil sukkah) writes that this is the source for our celebration of Simchas Torah:

בתשיעי ספק שמיני אנו עושין שמחת תורה, ומסיימין התורה ומתחילין בראשית, וחתני תורה עושין סעודה לכבוד גמר תורה. ובמלכותנו בשושני"א עושים חתני תורה סעודה גמורה, ומזמנין מבני הקהל ונותנים להם מאכלים טובים אווזות ותרנגולין. ומצאתי עיקרו של מנהג אני המחבר יצחק ב"ר משה נב"ה בתחילת מדרש שה"ש, ויבוא ירושלים ויעמוד לפני ארון ברית ה', אמר רבי יצחק מיכן שעושין סעודה לגומרה של תורה... הנה כשנתן לו הקדוש ברוך הוא חכמה, לכבוד החכמה עשה משתה, ומיכן למד רבי יצחק שהגומר תורה שכולה חכמה שצריך לעשות סעודה ומשתה

You cannot characterize Shlomo haMelech's celebration as one of משלימין מצוה גדולה, like the Rashbam's sevara. Aderaba, he hadn't done anything yet; there was no mitzvah which he had completed or fulfilled. Shlomo was simply the beneficiary of a gift from Hashem. The reason for his celebration was because he now had achieved a higher level of ruchniyus and could potentially accomplish more. The idea of a siyum, of Simchas Torah, is that the completion of a masechta, or of a cycle of Torah reading, means a person has grown and is a better, more elevated person than they were beforehand. Maybe this is why at a siyum we say "hadran alach," that we will return to our learning. The siyum is not celebrating the past, but rather is celebrating the potential for the future.  The next time around is not just a repeat, but is a deeper, richer experience than before, as we are a different person now encountering the text.

I would be remiss if I did not mention in the list of sources the gemara (Shabbos 118b) that says Abayei would make a siyum when a student finished a masechta.  I think this is the source people are most familiar with:

וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תֵּיתֵי לִי, דְּכִי חָזֵינָא צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן דִּשְׁלִים מַסֶּכְתֵּיהּ עָבֵידְנָא יוֹמָא טָבָא לְרַבָּנַן

The problem with using this gemara as a source for a siyum is that the sugya there is discussing various hidurim of amoraim for which they were rewarded. The implication is that Abayei's practice was not the norm, but was something exceptional done on his part. Secondly, Rashi comments: עבידנא יומא טבא לרבנן - לתלמידים ראש ישיבה היה. The point of telling us Abayei's job - rosh yeshiva - is that it seems that making the siyum was part and parcel of his job function. How do you encourage the students? By celebrating their achievements. It is hard to generalize from there to someone making a seudah to celebrate their own completion of a masechta.

Since a woman or a katan have no mitzvah to learn, I would think that we can't really call their accomplishment being משלימין מצוה גדולה. How can you be mashlim a mitzvah when there is no mitzvah incumbent upon you to do? I do hear the counterargument that even an "aino metzuveh" deserves credit for accomplishment, but I am not entirely convinced.  The source from Shlomo haMelech, however, would include even a woman and even a katan, as it has nothing to do with the mitzvah per se so much as the effect it has on the individual.

when remaining passive is not a choice

I went to a minyan on 9 Av that invites community members to do a little intro and explanation of each of the kinos before it is recited by the tzibur. I knew that the individual who was going to introduce the kinah that speaks of the horrible starvation in Yerushalayim אִם תֺּאכַלְנָה נָשִׁים פִּרְיָם עוֹלְלֵי טִפּוּחִים אַלְלַי לִי has very different hashkafos that I do, but I was still shocked that he or anyone would use this as the opportunity to speak of our obligation to worry about our being the cause of starvation in Gaza. Whether there is in fact starvation is itself subject to debate, but I certainly am not going to worry about the Gazan people any more than their leaders, who obviously think it more important to continue to hold I hostage than to release them and disarm, do. When I see that young Jews overwhelmingly support Mamdani for mayor of NY, I am discouraged, but I figure they are misguided, unaffiliated folks who are tinok she'nishba in secular culture. But when I hear people in an orthodox shul speaking about our need to be concerned about our causing starvation in Gaza and no one gets up and walks out, instead there is shtika k'hodaah, it is frightening. To be fair, I am confident that the vast majority of people at that shul do NOT agree with this individuals sentiments, but sof kol sof, they gave him a platform and very politely listened to what I think are words of poison.

We read in our parsha

וְצַו אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְחַזְּקֵהוּ וְאַמְּצֵהוּ כִּי הוּא יַעֲבֹר לִפְנֵי הָעָם הַזֶּה וְהוּא יַנְחִיל אוֹתָם אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר תִּרְאֶה.

וַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר.

עַתָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁמַע אֶל הַחֻקִּים וְאֶל הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְלַמֵּד אֶתְכֶם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְמַעַן תִּחְיוּ וּבָאתֶם וִירִשְׁתֶּם אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר ה׳ אֱלֹקי אֲבֹתֵיכֶם נֹתֵן לָכֶם.

What is the connection between וַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא and the previous or following pasuk? As Ohr haChaim puts it:

צריך לדעת כונת הכתוב מה בא להודיע במאמר זה, ומה קשר יש לו לא עם מה שלפניו ולא עם מה שלאחריו

The GR"A in Aderes Aliyahu connects it all the way to the beginning of the parsha. Moshe was saying that his tefilos, with all his tzidkus, were not answered, but Bn"Y as a people, despite all their failings, despite ַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר engaging in the most disgusting avodah zarah, are still guaranteed to go to Eretz Yisrael, לְמַעַן תִּחְיוּ וּבָאתֶם וִירִשְׁתֶּם אֶת הָאָרֶץ.  Very uplifting.

The Alshich has a different pshat. Had Bn"Y been worthy, that the zechus of Yehoshua alone would have been enough to guarantee them victory in the conquest of E Yisrael. כִּי הוּא יַעֲבֹר...וְהוּא יַנְחִיל אוֹתָם. That is no longer the case because of the sin of worshipping Baal Pe'or. But, says the Alshich, weren't those who worshipped Pe'or already punished? Wasn't there a plague that wiped out those who sinned? The next pasuk answers that question: וַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר. Pinchas jumped up with his spear and took care of business, but what were the rest of you doing? You were sitting there, you were passive, you didn't do anything. True, you were not the one's who worshipped Baal Pe'or, but you stood by idly while others did. Yehoshua's zechuyos are not enough anymore. עַתָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁמַע אֶל הַחֻקִּים וְאֶל הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְלַמֵּד אֶתְכֶם You all have to do your part, each individual being careful about his shemiras ha'mitzvos. You have to get up and take action and do something meaningful.  

A person cannot sit back and say, "I don't hold that political view, so what do I care what others say?" or "My children are married to the best families, to bnei Torah, to bais Yaakov girls, so I'm not responsible for the 70% intermarriage rate in America," or "I send my kids to the best yeshiva, so what can I do if my neighbor sends his kids to public school?" These are of course different issues that call for different types of reactions and different strategies to address, but the common denominator is that we cannot just be וַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר The Baal Peor is right across from you, staring you in the face, and all you can do is sit passively while this is going on? I am not saying to sit on Twitter  24x6 debating the Israel bashers, or to engage in disruptive or harmful  behavior. That's not healthy or positive either. But do something. Don't sit passively and let others dictate the narrative or the outcome.

So what should we be doing? This shiur of R' Meir Lichtenstein discussing how his grandfather, the Rav, approched kinos, is worth watching in tis entirely, but I want to highlight just one snippit. B'kitzur, RML contends that the Rav used kinos as a springboard to think about and discuss some of the big questions, e.g. How do we relate to Am Yisrael, to Eretz Yisrael? What is our mission? The Rav would spend hours and hours on kinos, giving full shiurim on individual lines of the text. (Parenthetically, RML mentions that his father did not approach kinos that way.) Today, many American Rabbis follow in the Rav's footsteps, and there are programs you can watch online that can fill your entire day of 9 Av. Here is RML's reaction:

I will just add my own editorial 2 cents.  Sometimes feel that every dollar spent on more and bigger institutions that perpetuate J  life in galus is another dollar that is throwing good money after bad.  You are investing in beautifying the lifeboat so you can stay in it longer and be more comfortable there instead of encouraging people to row faster for land. לְמַעַן תִּחְיוּ  is not the end of the pasuk above.  It's   לְמַעַן תִּחְיוּ וּבָאתֶם וִירִשְׁתֶּם אֶת הָאָרֶץ.  Let's not forget the end goal.  Let's not let 9 AV get away from us without at least thinking about what the end goal is.

inyanei 9 Av: techi'as ha'meisim of Beis HaMikdash

R' Shlomo Fisher (Beis Yishei) quotes from R' Yitzchak Isaac Chaveir and other sources that binyan beis ha'mikdash of the (near) future is like techi'as ha'meisim. This is not just a philosophical idea, but is something which he takes seriously l'halacha. Rashi and Tos (R"H 30) hold that even though there is a din not to build the mikdash at night, that rule does not apply to the bayis shlishi since it will come down from shamayim. The Mikdash David asks: how does the fact that it will come down from shamayim help? The din of not building at night is not like an issue melacha. It's a psul in the din mikdash. No matter how it comes into being, the fact that it happens at night renders the building unfit to serve as the makom mikdash. Furthermore, asks the Mikdash David, there is a din that binyan ha'bayis has to be done lishma. How do you fulfill binyan lishma if the building drops from the sky? The answer to both questions, says R' Shlomo Fisher, is that these are halachos in binyan ha'bayis, but the third beis hamikdash is not a not a new binyan -- it's a techi'as ha'meisim of the binyan which was already done in the past.  Like we discussed two weeks ago, according to many Achronim (except for the Aderet), if a person experiences techi'as ha'meisim and comes back to life they are the same person with the same relationships and same identity that they had beforehand. So too with respect to the beis ha'mikdash. It was already built lishma, it was already built only during the day, and now it is returning as a techi'as ha'meisim and coming back to us.

The Midrashim and Zohar tell us that you can't make something from nothing. You can't make a techi'as ha'meisim where there is nothing left from the original person. That's why we have the luz bone, which according to Chazal is indestructible. It's the luz bone that we nourish when we eat melaveh malkah which ensures that there is something left of us to bring back in techi'as ha'meisim. 

What is the luz bone, so to speak, of the beis ha'mikdash? R' Shlomo Fisher writes that it is our yearning for the mikdash's return. So long as we mourn its absence, so long as the mikdash lives on in our hearts and minds, there is something left that can be rebuilt.

The gemara writes (Taanis 30b)

 כׇּל הָאוֹכֵל בָּשָׂר וְשׁוֹתֶה יַיִן בְּתִשְׁעָה בְּאָב עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר {יחזקאל ל״ב:כ״ז} וַתְּהִי עֲוֹנוֹתָם עַל עַצְמוֹתָם.

Ritva explains: פירש שאין לעצמותיו תחיה בתחיית המתים. Midah k'neged midah: someone who does not mourn the mikdash and therefore does not participate in the techi'as ha'meisim of the mikdash will in turn not be zocheh to their own techi'as ha'meisim either.

It seems to me that this exact idea is reflected in the GR"A at the end of his commentary on the Sifra d'Tzniyusa, quoted in the sefer HaKitzu v'Raninu (by the Chalban) p 31, "Sod haGalus":

כי עת שחרב הבית יצאה עטרת ראשינו ונשארנו רק אנחנו הוא גוף שלה בלא נפש. ויציאה לחוּּּ״ל הוא הקבר, והרימה מסובבת עלינו ואין בידינו להציל מן העובדי כוכבים האוכלים בשרנו. ומּּ״מ היו חבורות וישיבות גדולות, עד שנרקב הבשר והעצמות נפזרו פיזור אחר פיזור. ומּּ״מ היו עדיין העצמות קיימות, שהן התּּ״ח שבישראל, מעמידי הגוף, עד שנרקבו העצמות ולא נשאר אלא תרווד רקב מאיתנו ונעשה עפר, שחה לעפר נפשינו, ואנחנו מקווים עתה לתחיית המתים התנערי מעפר קומי וכוּ ויערה רוח ממרום עלינו

Says the GR"A, we are the remnant of the mikdash! רק אנחנו הוא גוף שלה. As long as we are here to mourn, and long as we are here to yearn, עדיין העצמות קיימות. Soon enough IY"H התנערי מעפר קומי וכוּ ויערה רוח ממרום עלינו!

inyanei 9 Av: saying shiras ha'yam in pesukei d'zimra; women reciting havdalah

1) The Tur (559) quotes a view that on 9 Av in shacharis the shiras ha'yam should be omitted, as 9 Av is not a time of shirah. Beis Yosef comments:

ומ"ש שיש מקומות שנוהגין שלא לומר השירה כ"כ הכלבו והטעם משום דאין לומר שירה לעת כזאת והעולם נוהגין לומר במקומה שירת האזינו :

Rav Ovadya, who sees the Beis Yosef as THE authoritative and accepted source, therefore paskens that shiras ha'yam is said. However, I saw that R' Shlomo Toledano writes in his sefer Divrei Shalom v'Emes (written to defend the preservation of other minhagim against R' Ovadya's use of the Beis Yosef to steamroll over them) that North African communities, e.g. Morocco, do follow this view quoted in the Tur.

What is the hesber of the machlokes? I do not think it is as simple as דאין לומר שירה לעת כזאת, that there is a ban on saying shirah, because what is Ha'Azinu if not shirah? According to many opinions the mitzvah of "kitvu lachem es ha'shirah ha'zos" is speaking about Ha'Azinu. The way Ha'Azinu is written in the Torah, in two parallel columns, is reflective of the structure of shirah and not prose. I think the issue is that saying az shir in particular is a contradiction to the essence of what 9 Av is all about. The Targum translates the pasuk זֶ֤ה ק-לִי֙ וְאַנְוֵ֔הוּ as וְאֶבְנֵי לֵיהּ מַקְדַּשׁ (the word נוה = dwelling). Later in the shirah we have נֵהַ֥לְתָּ בְעׇזְּךָ֖ אֶל־נְוֵ֥ה קׇדְשֶֽׁךָ, and similarly מָכ֧וֹן לְשִׁבְתְּךָ֛ פָּעַ֖לְתָּ ה׳ מִקְּדָ֕שׁ ה׳ כּוֹנְנ֥וּ יָדֶֽיךָ. The shirah expresses not only the joy of Bn"Y at seeing the revelation of gadlus Hashem at that moment, but also the desire to give that revelation a permanent place, a permanent home, in their midst. Shiras ha'yam is a song of aspiration for the binyan hamikdash, and it is that theme which does not fit with 9 Av, the day dedicated to mourning the destruction of the mikdash. Hazinu, which speaks of שִׁחֵ֥ת ל֛וֹ לֹ֖א בָּנָ֣יו מוּמָ֑ם דּ֥וֹר עִקֵּ֖שׁ וּפְתַלְתֹּֽל, reflects a more apropos theme, and is therefore read in its place.

2) The Rama (OC 296) writes that women should not recite havdalah for themselves on motzei shabbos. This avoids a potential safeik bracha l'vatala. The Rama is hedging his bets, as it could be that havdalah should be treated like kiddush and other mitzvos aseh of shabbos which women are obligated in, or it could be that havdalah is not a mitzvah of shabbos, as it designates the departure of shabbos, and it should therefore be treated as any other zman gerama mitzvah which women are exempt from. (Even though minhag ashkenaz is that women can recite a bracha on a mitzvah which is zman gerama, havdalah is different for various reasons as the meforshim there explain.). 

Even though if there is no other option we pasken that women can recite havdalah for themselves on motzei shabbos, this Rama makes a nafka minah for 9 Av which falls on Sunday like it does this year. In this case, where reciting havdalah motzei shabbos is impossible, some Rishonim (Ramban) hold that the chiyuv havdalah is suspended completely and goes out the window; other Rishonim hold that there is a chiyuv havdalah which can be fulfilled Sunday night, or, if one is feeling ill, before one eats (and if one is ill and must be mavdil the poskim discuss whether to use chamar medina or grape juice). We pasken like the latter view; however, when it comes to whether women can say havdalah on Sunday, there is a sfeik sfeik -- the Rama's safeik whether they can ever say havdalah on any motzei shabbos, and the additional safeik whether there is a chiyuv havdalah or not for anyone when 9 Av falls out on Sunday. Therefore, according to many opinions, women should avoid saying havdalah themselves. Either they should hear havdalah from a man and drink thekos (and the man need not repeat havdalah after the fast), or eat without saying havdalah if there is no other solution. Consult your local rav.

If a woman does say havdalah for herself, the Shmiras Shabbos k'Hilchisa (62:48) writes that it would be better to give the wine/grape juice to a katan to drink if possible. I saw R' Chaim Kanievski quoted as disagreeing. A katan as a definite chiyuv in havdalah, albeit only a chiyuv derabbanan. According to the logic above, there is a sfeik sfeika whether women have a chiyuv at all. If she has no chiyuv, everything recited after the "borei pri ha'gafen" is a hefsek.  If the katan answers "amein" to her havdalah, he has been mafsik between the bracha and drinking. (There is a discussion in general whether a katan who eats on 9 Av is should say havdalah or not, but that's a different story.)

mitzvah for a ben noach to bury their dead?

The Chasam Sofer comments (d"h yatz'u) on the pasuk 

וּמִצְרַ֣יִם מְקַבְּרִ֗ים אֵת֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר הִכָּ֧ה ה׳ בָּהֶ֖ם כׇּל־בְּכ֑וֹר וּבֵאלֹ֣הֵיהֶ֔ם עָשָׂ֥ה ה׳ שְׁפָטִֽים

that the Torah tells us that the Mitzrim were involved in burying their dead because there is a mitzvah for an aku"m to do so, and therefore one might have thought the zechus of the mitzvah would protect and aid the Egyptians, kah mashma lan and even with the zechus of that mitzvah the Jewish people left בְּיָ֣ד רָמָ֔ה לְעֵינֵ֖י כׇּל־מִצְרָֽיִם

I have not done any research on the matter, but off the cuff I have no idea where the Chasam Sofer got the idea that there is a mitzvah for an aku"m to bury their dead.  Which one of the 7 mitzvos bnei noach does this fall under?

a war for kedushas yisrael

The Midrash comments on the pasuk וַיִּשְׁלַח אֹתָם מֹשֶׁה אֶלֶף לַמַּטֶּה לַצָּבָא אֹתָם וְאֶת פִּינְחָס בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן לַצָּבָא:

אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמשֶׁה: נְקֹם נִקְמַת, אַתָּה בְּעַצְמְךָ, וְהוּא מְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶת אֲחֵרִים, אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּתְגַּדֵּל בְּאֶרֶץ מִדְיָן אָמַר אֵינוֹ בְּדִין שֶׁאֲנִי מֵצֵר לְמִי שֶׁעָשָׂה בִּי טוֹבָה, הַמָּשָׁל אוֹמֵר בּוֹר שֶׁשָּׁתִיתָ מִמֶּנּוּ אַל תִּזְרֹק בּוֹ אֶבֶן. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁאֵינָהּ זוֹ מִדְיָן שֶׁנִּתְגַּדֵּל בָּהּ משֶׁה, שֶׁזּוֹ בְּצַד מוֹאָב וְהִיא חֲרֵבָה עַד עַכְשָׁו, לָמָּה שָׁלַח פִּינְחָס, אָמַר, מִי שֶׁהִתְחִיל בְּמִצְוָה הוּא גוֹמֵר, הוּא הֵשִׁיב אֶת חֲמָתוֹ וְהִכָּה אֶת הַמִּדְיָנִית, הוּא יִגְמֹר מִצְוָתוֹ.

Why is there a hava amina that Moshe should have personally taken charge of the war against Midian? We don't find, for example, that Moshe was personally responsible to wage war against Amalek. At the end of Beshalach (17:9) the Torah tells us וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּחַר לָנוּ אֲנָשִׁים וְצֵא הִלָּחֵם בַּעֲמָלֵק and Moshe is not criticized for appointing Yehoshua. Why is the battle against Midian different?

When the officers returned from battle, they brought כְלִי זָהָב אֶצְעָדָה וְצָמִיד טַבַּעַת עָגִיל וְכוּמָז as a gift to the mishkan as a kaparah. Targum Yonasan writes:

ובכל דא חס לן למיתלי עינינן ולא אסתכלנן בחדא מנהן דלא למתחייבא בחדא מנהין ולא נמות במיתותא דמייתין בה רשיעיא לעלמא דאתי

The soldiers did not even look at the women of Midian. Considering that yefat to'ar is permissible at time of war, this would seem to be a very stringent and unnecessary chumra. Why was such a standard imposed here? (See Tos Shabbos 65 and this post.)

This past week the Torah world lost R' Avraham Yitzchak Kilav, a dayan, R"Y in Merkaz haRav, and a rosh Kollel. He discusses these questions and explains that the fight against Midian was not a battle over territory, a battle of conquest or in defense of Eretz Yisrael. The battle against Midian was a battle for kedushas Yisrael. The Midrash says:

אָמַר משֶׁה רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים, אִם הָיִינוּ עֲרֵלִים, אוֹ עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים, אוֹ כּוֹפְרֵי מִצְווֹת, לֹא הָיוּ שׂוֹנְאִין אוֹתָנוּ וְאֵינָן רוֹדְפִין אַחֲרֵינוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל תּוֹרָה וּמִצְווֹת שֶׁנָּתַתָּ לָנוּ, הִלְכָּךְ הַנְּקָמָה שֶׁלְּךָ לָתֵת נִקְמַת ה׳ בְּמִדְיָן.

Midian's weapons, so to speak, were giluy arayos and avodah zarah. Their goal was to rip down the seyagim that protect our identity.  Therefore, when it came to this wa,r the normal rules of milchama did not apply. There was no heter of yefat to'ar because the whole point of this battle was to fight against the exposure to arayos that Midian used to undermine us. In this war sheivet Levi had to go out to battle as well, and the soldiers chosen were אנשים – צדיקים (Rashi 31:3), because these are the people who represent and preserve the kedusha of Klal Yisrael. And finally, Moshe himself should have been personally involved in the battle here. Rashi comments on the use of זה הדבר in the parsha of nedarim at the start of our sedra:

– משה נתנבא בכה אמר ה׳ כחצות הלילה וגו׳ (שמות י״א:ד׳), והנביאים נתנבאו בכה אמר, מוסף עליהם משה שנתנבא בלשון זה הדבר.

The neviim see the mitzvos that we have as they are, but Moshe sees beyond that and can grasp the parsha of nedarim, the ability of a person to prohibit that which is otherwise permissible in order to extend seyagim and thereby add kedusha. Midiam sought to undo the boundaries between Klal Yisrael and the outside world, so it is only fitting that Moshe, who was able to perceive that sometimes there is a need to even add boundaries, should be the one to personally deal with them.

which haftara to read on shabbos rosh chodesh av

There is already debate in the gemara (Meg 31) as to which haftarah to recite this shabbos.  Most communities follow the Maharil who writes that we read the haftarah of Yirmiyahu 2, "shimu," the second of the t'lata d'puranusa, and not the haftarah of rosh chodesh. Maharil explains that since there is a remez in the haftarah of "shimu" to rosh chodesh, we cover both bases that way.  The haftarah tells us (2:24)  פֶּ֣רֶה לִמֻּ֣ד מִדְבָּ֗ר... כׇּל־מְבַקְשֶׁ֙יהָ֙ לֹ֣א יִיעָ֔פוּ בְּחׇדְשָׁ֖הּ יִמְצָאֽוּנְהָ׃.  Rashi comments

חדש אחד יש בשנה שהיא ישנה כל החדש ואז היא נלכדת אף אתם חדש אחד הוכן לכם כבר מימות המרגלים שקבעו אבותיכם בכיית חנם בו תלכדו 

Those who disagree with Maharil may not have found this sevara compelling because of you look at Radak on that pasuk you will find two other interpretations of בְּחׇדְשָׁ֖הּ יִמְצָאֽוּנְהָ that have nothing to do with months of the year:

 יש מפרשים החדש שתשלם הריונה, אז היא מלאה וכבדה, ואז יוכלו להשיגה ולמצאה...ויש מפרשים: בחדשה – בחדושה כלומר בכל עת ימצאוה כאלו עתה תחל לרוץ והיא חדשה במרוצה.

 

Shut Divrei Yatziv (183) writes that the debate over which haftarah to read hinges on how seriously you treat rosh chodesh as a holiday.  If you treat it like a yom tov and hold there is a din of simcha (as is mashma from Rambam nedarim 3:9 who lumps it together with shabbos and yom tov and not among days where the issur fasting is only mi'divrei sofrim like chanukah and purim), then you shouldn't read a haftarah of aveilus.  If you treat it like a more minor festival day, not on the same level as yom tov, then the haftarah of "shimu" is appropriate.

when can a kohen become not a kohen? The chiddush of the Aderet and the bracha given to Pinchas

The gemara Zevachim 101b tells us that even though Aharon and his children had been anointed as kohanim and been invested in their job during the days of miluim, Pinchas was not counted among them and it was not until this parsha that he became a kohen:

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לֹא נִתְכַּהֵן פִּינְחָס עַד שֶׁהֲרָגוֹ לְזִמְרִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם 

The gemara quotes a second opinion

 רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: עַד שֶׁשָּׂם שָׁלוֹם בֵּין הַשְּׁבָטִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּשְׁמַע פִּינְחָס הַכֹּהֵן וּנְשִׂיאֵי הָעֵדָה וְרָאשֵׁי אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״. 

Meaning, it was later, in the days of Yehoshua, when Pinchas was sent as an emissary to prevent the people living in Eivar haYarden from breaking away, that he became a kohen.  What does this second opinion do with the pasuk in our parsha  ״וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו״?  The gemara answers that the pasuk is a bracha.  Rashi and Tos disagree how to interpret that answer.  Rashi explains בשרו שלא תפסוק כהונה מזרעו אבל עדיין לא נתכהן:  Pinchas would in the future be blessed with eternal status as kohen, but it did not happen yet.  Tos explains מיד היה יכול להיות כהן אלא שתחילה צריך להלבישו ולמושחו ולחנכו בחביתין כדין הדיוטות המתחנכים בחביתין כדאמרינן בסוף התכלת (מנחות דף נא:) אבל שמא לא נתרצו לו כל ישראל באותה שעה מפני שהרג נשיא שבט עד ששם שלום בין השבטים בימי יהושע ואז נתרצו לו והלבישוהו [ומשחוהו] וחנכוהו בחביתין:   Pinchas was already appointed kohen by Hashem, but there is a process that has to be followed before he could serve and do avodah and that process depends on Bn"Y acquiescing.  At this point, Bn"Y was not yet on board with what Pinchas had done to Zimri, and so the process was delayed until the days of Yehoshua.  (There is actually a third view, quoted in Zohar, that Pinchas became a kohen with Aharon and his children, but because he killed Zimri he would have lost the kehuna status and been barred from avodah if not for Hashem's intervention and renewal of his status.)

 What's the hesber of the machlokes Rashi and Tos?  One approach I saw is that the gemara (Nedarim 35b) has a safeik אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הָנֵי כָּהֲנֵי, שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן הָווּ, אוֹ שְׁלוּחֵי דִשְׁמַיָּא.  The Rishonim ask why this is a question when the gemara (Kid 23b) proves conclusively that they shluchei d'Shemaya:

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הָנֵי כָּהֲנֵי שְׁלוּחֵי דְרַחֲמָנָא נִינְהוּ. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן נִינְהוּ, מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דַּאֲנַן לָא מָצֵינַן עָבְדִינַן וְאִינְהוּ מָצֵי עָבְדִי? 

Ran answers that Rav Huna's conclusion is correct, but the sugya in Nedarim wanted to explore whether there was a proof from a Mishna or braysa to support that conclusion.  Tosfos in Kid answers that Rav Huna is maybe only half right.  Undoubtedly the kohanim are שְׁלוּחֵי דִשְׁמַיָּא, as Rav Huna proved.  The safeik in Nedarim is only whether kohanim ALSO have a status as  שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן.

 

Rashi holds like the Ran, that a kohen's role is purely  שְׁלוּחֵי דִשְׁמַיָּא.  It is up to Hashem alone to appoint someone to that role.  Tos l'shitasam holds that a kohen also fills a role of being שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן; therefore, even if Hashem granted Pinchas the status of kohen, if Bn"Y were not yet prepared to go along with that decision, he was unable to serve. 

 

Ramban explains the bracha to Pinchas  לָכֵן אֱמֹר הִנְנִי נֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת בְּרִיתִי שָׁלוֹם that וצוהו שיודיע לישראל שהוא כהן לעולם.  Isn't every kohen a כהן לעולם?  Is it possible to be a kohen and not be a כהן לעולם? 

 

The gemara (Brachos 46) relates that Rav Zeira became very ill and recovered.  Rabbi Abahu hosted a party to celebrate, and invited Rav Zeira to say ha'motzi to start the meal.  Rav Zeira declined, as there is a din that the baal ha'bayis should be the one to break the bread.  Asks the Rashba: didn't Rabbi Abahu know that?  What was Rabbi Abahu thinking?  Rashba answers that since the meal is in Rav Zeira's honor, it is like he is the baal ha'bayis.  L'halacha, the MG"A paskens based on this Rashba that the baal ha'bayis can defer and choose to honor someone else.  Ad kan the sugya.  The Aderet writes that he doesn't understand how the Rashba's question even gets off the ground. There is a Yerushalmi that indicates that Rav Zeira was a kohen.  Of course Rav Zeira should have been given the honor to be the one to break bread because a kohen always gets first dibs!  To get around this issue the Aderet serves up a big chiddush.  He suggests that perhaps this episode occurred after the famous Purim seudah in which Rabbah became so inebriated that he (if the gemara is to taken literally) killed Rav Zeira, who was his guest, and then, after realizing what he did, davened and brought Rav Zeira back to life.  True, Rav Zeira 1.0 was a kohen, but maybe a person who is reborn, Rav Zeira 2.0, is a different person entirely, and therefore no longer a kohen! 

 

R'  Meir Don Plotzki in Chemdas Yisrael (78:3) writes that if the Aderet is correct, then we understand what the Ramban in our parsha meant.  Pinchas = Eliyahu, and Pinchas 1.0 is just the first iteration of his time on earth.  Although other people may change status when they come back, Pinchas is blessed, as Ramban writes שהוא כהן לעולם  -- even after coming back to our world for another round, no matter how many times around, he remains a kohen and does not lose his status. 

 

When a letter with this chiddush reached Rav Chaim Berlin, he wrote back to the Aderet that surely he meant this as Purim torah, as there is a black on white gemara against him.  Sanhedrin 90b:

 

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִין לִתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּנְתַתֶּם מִמֶּנּוּ [אֶת] תְּרוּמַת ה׳ לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן״. וְכִי אַהֲרֹן לְעוֹלָם קַיָּים? וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִכְנַס לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ תְּרוּמָה! אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעָתִיד לִחְיוֹת, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹתְנִין לוֹ תְּרוּמָה. מִכָּאן לִתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה.

 

How could Aharon eat terumah after techiyas ha'meisim?  According to the Aderet, wouldn't Aharon 2.0 be a different person than Aharon 1.0 and therefore not have the status of a kohen? 

 

This topic became a to-do.  It's hard to believe the Aderet meant this as a joke because he repeats the chiddush in a few places.  Some rallied to defend the Aderet because they could not believe a genius like that missed a gemara.  The Rambam in Sefer haMitzvos (shoresh 3) writes that after techiyas ha'meisim there will be a new miluim process to sanctify the kohanim just like there was the first time around.  This suggests, in line with what the Aderet wrote, that without such a process Aharon 2.0 would not have the same kohen status as Aharon 1.0.  Surely the Ramban did not forget the gemara in Sanhedrin!  One is forced to say that the gemara in Sanhedrin means that Aharon would be able to eat terumah after the new miluim process is completed.

 

R' Meir Don Plotzki elsewhere (in the Kli Chemdah) says that he is not so happy with this chiddush.  What he says reminds me of an old joke, and sadly I have to admit that I wrote this whole shtickel this week just so I could say this old, bad joke.  A guy who came to the Rabbi and said that he wants the Rabbi to make him a kohen.  The Rabbi told him that it's just not possible.  The guy said, "Come on Rabbi, I'll give $10,000 to the shul if you make me a kohen."  Once again the Rabbi brushed him off.  The guy was not to be disuaded and said, "Rabbi, I'll give $100,000, just make me a kohen."  The Rabbi once again refused, but was curious and asked the man why he wanted so much to be a kohen.  The guy responded, "My father was a kohen, my grandfather was a kohen, so I want to be a kohen."  The Kli Chemdah knew the joke and argues that being a kohen is not like a din or a status or like being right or left handed.  It's a function of a person's lineage.  If your father is a kohen, you're a kohen.  If Rav Zeira or anyone else comes back for round 2.0, their "being" must still have had a father, a grandfather, etc. so how can it be that they are not a kohen? 

 

This topic is an even bigger to-do.  Is 2.0 really the son of the same father as 1.0?  Is he chayav in kibud av?  When Elisha haNavi brought the child of the Isha haShunamis back to life, he told her שְׂאִי בְנֵךְ.  Sounds like the parent is still the parent even though the child is on life 2.0  Is his wife still his wife, or does he need to do kiddushin all over again?  Chazal tell us at mattan Torah "parcha nishmasam" of Klal Yisrael, it was like they died and underwent techiyhas ha'mesim.  Nonetheless, afterwards Hashem commanded "shuvu lachem l'ohaleichem," to return to living together as husband and wife, presumably without a new kiddushin being done.  Sounds like the wife/husband of 2.0 remains the same as that of 1.0.  (Don't think this is all pilpul and theory. Maybe it applies l'maaseh to someone r"l pronounced clinically dead on the operating table, for example, but then somehow recovers?) 

There is pilpul on top of pilpul on these issues.  Tein l'chachan v'yechkam od, this is just roshei perakim to whet the appetite.  

Hein Am k'Lavi Yakum -- having a self-image of greatness

Thanks to current events everyone now knows the pasuk  הֶן עָם כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא... (23:24).  HaKsav v'haKabbalah points out that Chazal in a number of places darshan the word הֶן to mean one, e.g. Shabbos 31b

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵין לוֹ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּעוֹלָמוֹ אֶלָּא יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם בִּלְבַד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעַתָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל מָה ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ שׁוֹאֵל מֵעִמָּךְ כִּי אִם לְיִרְאָה וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לָאָדָם הֵן יִרְאַת ה׳ הִיא חׇכְמָה וְגוֹ׳״ — שֶׁכֵּן בְּלָשׁוֹן יְוָנִי קוֹרִין לְאַחַת ״הֵן״

He suggests this is the basis of Targum Yonasan's explanation of הֶן עָם as a standalone phrase: יחידאה הוא עמא הדין, we are one people, a single entity.  The strengh of our nation כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא has its roots in our coming together as one.

 

The Aruch in his explanation of the word הֶן says the same vort and adds that if we pair up the letter of aleph-beis, matching bottom of a unit with the top, e.g. aleph/1 pairs with tes/9, beis/2 pairs with cheis/8, etc. the letter hey has nothing to pair with other than itself.  If you do the same with letters in the units of ten, e.g. yud/10 pairs of tzadi/90, etc. the nun with have nothing to pair with other than itself.  Hey-nun הֶן עָם we stand alone; we do not rely on outsiders for support. 

 

The rest of the pasuk speaks about the strength of Am Yisrael being like that of a lion.  Netziv suggests that כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא is not just repetition common in poetry, but reflects two different ideas. כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם refers to the might of the lion.   וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא means rhat aside from that physical might, the lion also knows it is the king of the jungle, and therefore pushes itself to live up to that image of greatness:

 

אריה יש לו טבע התנשאות הנפש, שעל כן מכונה בשם ׳מלך החיות׳, וזה מועיל לו הרבה להפיק רצונו יותר מכפי כוחו גם כן, באשר אינו רוצה שיגרע כבודו אם לא ימצא ידו לעשות מה שהחל או מה שראוי לפניו שיחוש לכבודו.

 

The Yerushalmi in the first halacha in Brachos describes how David haMelech would get up in the morning:

 

הוּא שֶׁדָּוִד אָמַר עוּרָה כְבוֹדִי עוּרָה הַנֵּבֶל וְכִינּוֹר אָעִירָה שָׁחַר. אִיתְעִיר יְקָרִי מִן קוֹמֵי אִיקָרֵיהּ דְּבָרְאִי. אִיקָרִי לָא חָשִׁיב כְּלוּם מִן קֳדָם אִיקָרֵיהּ דְּבָרְאִי.

 

Meaning, he would say to himself that he must awaken his kavod (יְקָרִי) to stand before the kavod of Hashem, and then he would add that his kavod is nothing compared to kavod Shamayim.

 

My esteemed cousin R' Avraham Wagner recently put out a sefer on Ylmi and he comments on this gemara that there are two steps in the process here: David started with a recognition of his own kavod - וַיִּגְבַּהּ לִבּוֹ בְּדַרְכֵי ה׳ - and only then moved onto the next step of acknowledging that compared to kavod Shamayim, his honor was worth nothing.  This is a common theme among baalei mussar.  A person has to have a sense of self worth and value.  If a person thinks they are worthless and can't accomplish anything, they would never get out of bed in the morning.  The Shulchan Aruch in the first halacha where it talks about starting the day tells us יתגבּר כּארי.  The halacha is not about how strong you are, but like the Netziv explains on our pasuk, it's about your self image.  You have to view yourself as a lion, as the king.  The king has great things to accomplish and doesn't have time to linger in his pajamas.  That's how David haMelech pushed himself out of bed.  You can then move on to step 2 and take that greatness and surrender it to Hashem.  However, if you skip step 2 and think you are a worthless nobody, then what are you surrendering?  What's the big deal of saying Hashem is even greater than you are if you don't think you are anything special anyway?  

 

Part of emerging from galus is to not only become a nation with great ability, but to learn to think of ourselves as a great nation, to develop the self-image of being great.  Ibn Ezra writes that at Yam Suf there were 600,000 Jews  against only 600 of Pharoah's chariots but they couldn't fight.  The people still had the mentality of slaves and could not stand up for themselves.   Baruch Hashem, as we emerge from galus, we will develop not only our abilities, but וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא, a mindet of greatness as well.