hidur, zerizus, mitzvah bo yoseir m'bshlucho -- which takes precedence over the other?

What takes precedence, zerizus or hidur? Is it better to do a mitzvah faster, or to do it in a nicer way? For example, if you can take a lulav and esrog and fulfill your mitzvah first thing in the morning or you can wait until later in the day and fulfill the mitzvah with a more beautiful esrog, which is the better choice?  Or to take another example, poskim quote the Terumas haDeshen who writes that it is better to wait until motzei Shabbos to do kiddush levana when one is "mevusam" (hidur) rather than do the it earlier in the week (zerizus). Chasam Sofer finds an answer in our parsha.  Avraham tells Sarah וַיֹּ֗אמֶר מַהֲרִ֞י שְׁלֹ֤שׁ סְאִים֙ קֶ֣מַח סֹ֔לֶת ל֖וּשִׁי וַעֲשִׂ֥י עֻגֽוֹת. Chazal comment: כתיב קמח וכתיב סולת, א״ר יצחק, מכאן שהאשה עיניה צרה באורחים יותר מן האיש. Either you have bread made from kemach, or you have bread made from soles -- kemach is coarse flour; soles is sifted, finer flour.  It can't be both? Chasam Sofer (hakdamah to Chulin, and as a bonus, if you look it up and read the whole piece you will have a nice vort for Chayei Sarah too) explains that Avraham told Sarah to use kemach, as coarse flour does not need to be ground and sifted as much and the bread can be made faster. Sarah, however, decided to use soles instead, as bread made from fine flour may take longer to make, but it is far superior to coarse bread. Avraham preferred the approach of zerizus; Sarah, the approach of hidur.

What about a clash between mitzvah bo yoseir mi'b'shlucho and zerizus or hidur? Is it better to write a sefer Torah yourself even if you have sloppy handwriting (mitzvah bo) or would it be better to delegate it to a sofer who can do a better job (hidur)? Rashi comments on וַיִּתֵּ֣ן אֶל־הַנַּ֔עַר וַיְמַהֵ֖ר לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת אֹתֽוֹ that Avraham gave the cow to Yishmael in order to be mechaneich him in the mitzvah of hachnasas orchim, but gemara (BM 86b) actually writes that there were 3 cows and Avraham gave each one to a different נַּ֔עַר to take care of so that all three could be prepared at once. All things being equal, it would seem that we should apply the rule of mitzbah bo yoseir mi'bshlucho and Avraham should have taken care of things himself. However, all things are not always equal. Had Avraham done everything himself, it would have taken far longer to prepare the food. The advantage of mitzvah bo is offset by the advantage of the hidur of zerizus. Avraham is not content to just serve his guests -- he wants to serve them speedily, with no delay. וַיְמַהֵ֧ר אַבְרָהָ֛ם הָאֹ֖הֱלָה אֶל־שָׂרָ֑ה, he makes haste to tell Sarah to prepare bread; וְאֶל־הַבָּקָ֖ר רָ֣ץ אַבְרָהָ֑ם, he runs to prepare meat. Avraham invented fast food.  The source for the din of zerizus actually comes from Avraham's behavior later in parsha by the akeidah, "VaYashkeim Avraham ba'boker..." (see Pesachim 4 and Tos there).

It's worth noting that Avraham didn't delegate the entire mitzvah of hachnasas orchim; he just delegated one aspect of it. Whether that makes a difference or not may depend on the reason mitzvah bo yoseir mib'shlucho. Rashi explains that the reason is because you get more schar if you do the mitzvah yourself. Ramban in our parsha writes Avraham took care of things himself because of רוב חשקו בנדיבות; if something is important to you, you don't delegate. Investing your own energy and time shows the chashivus of the mitzvah. Others (see Tevuos Shor #28 regarding shlicus by kisuy ha'dam and milah) discuss whether delegating a task shows a lack of respect for the mitzvah. Nafka minah: If it is just a matter of schar or greater hislahavus for the mitzvah, then doing even part of the mitzvah yourself proves that it is something important, something you want schar for. But if delegating the task is a problem if bizayon to the mitzvah, then showing bizayon to even part of a mitzvah would seem to be problematic. One of the classic examples where we apply mitzvah bo is preparing for shabbos. R' Shlomo Zalman held (see Shmiras Shabbos siman 42 footnote 195) that so long as you are not at work or learning, it's not enough to do one thing to prepare for Shabbos and leave the rest to others -- you should take care of everything. Doing part of the mitzvah is not enough.

It's interesting that the gemara writes that whatever Avraham did himself was rewarded directly by Hashem, but what he did via intermediary was rewarded indirectly:

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב, כל מה שעשה אברהם למלאכים בעצמו עשה הקדוש ברוך הוא לבניו בעצמו, וכל מה שעשה על ידי שליח עשה הקדוש ברוך הוא לבניו על ידי שליח. ואל הבקר רץ אברהם – ורוח נסע מאת ה׳ (פ׳ בהעלותך), ויקח חמאה וחלב – הנני ממטיר לכם לחם מן השמים (פ׳ בשלח), והוא עומד עליהם תחת העץ – הנני עומד לפניך שם על הצור בחורב (שם), ואברהם הולך עמם לשלחם – וה׳ הולך לפניהם יומם (שם), יוקח נא מעט מים – והכית בצור ויצא ממנו מים

The example of the latter is drawing water -- יֻקַּֽח־נָ֣א מְעַט־מַ֔יִם, which Rashi explains means יוקח – על ידי שליח. The gemara does not use shechting the cows as an example.

M'inyan l'inyan, I recently saw a discussion in a fascinating sefer called היו דברים מעולם regarding shlichus as opposed to mitzvah bo with regards to another mitzvah in our parsha, that of bikur cholim. R' Leibele Eiger is quoted as saying that his grandfather, R' Akiva Eiger, stopped personally performing the mitzvah of bikur cholim and instead delegated the task to a shliach. According to R' Leibele Eiger it was not lack of time that was the issue, but rather it was the fact that sick people tend to become morose and question why G-d inflicted such pains on them. R' Akiva Eiger did not want to be around people who would voice their complaints about G-d's judgment, so he stayed away. Again, we see mitzvah bo only when all things are equal. Where there are other mitigating factors -- zerizus, hidur, or in this case being exposed to doubts -- you can delegate.

When I told this to my wife, she remarked that allaying people's questions and doubts in their time of suffering rather than avoiding them would seem to fall under the job description of what being a Rav is all about. To be fair, there are other reports written by people (there are two recorded accounts of what the daily schedule of R' Akiva Eiger was like) in which they say that R' Akiva Eiger was meticulous about doing nichum aveilim and bikur cholim for each and every person in need, in direct contradiction to gthe report quoted in the name of R' Leibele Eiger. One also has to wonder if R' Akiva Eiger thought being around doubters was so harmful, how was it fair to send a shliach into such an environment. I don't have answers to these questions.

The book goes on to relate that at the wedding of the young R' Leizer Gordon, who would go on to become the R"Y of Telz (among other accomplishments), the Rav of Kovna was present and he remarked that he usually just hires the "badchanim" for the wedding, i.e he pays for the entertainment, and in this way he is yotzei his mitzvah of being mesameiach chassan v'kallah through shlichus. When the chassan heard this, he immediately raised a kashe. One of the mitzvos for which there is no shiur is mitzvah of hachnasas kallah. If there is no shiur, that means every second the badchan is at the wedding, he has his own mitzvah of simchas chassan v'kallah to fulfill. If he is charged with fulfilling his own mitzvah the whole wedding, how can he also act as the shliach to do the mitzvah for someone else?  You can't do someone else's mitzvah when you have your own chiyuv to fulfill?

The Aderet quotes his brother who answered this kashe by pointing to this story of R' Akiva Eiger. Bikur cholim is also a mitzvah that has no shiur, like hachnasas kallah; therefore, QED, that since RAK"E appointed a shliach, even if a mitzvah has no shiur, shlichus works. (Parenthetically, I recently saw a response that a contemporary Rabbi wrote to a shayla, and in his discussion of the sources, a major one of which happened to be a Shu"T R' Akiva Eiger, this contemporary Rabbi said that they didn't find R' Akiva Eiger's reasoning "persuasive." Now, make no mistake about it -- everyone must call it the way they see it, and if you learn up a sugya and are convinced you are right in your approach, then so be it. That being said, that phrase -- not "persuasive" -- rubbed me the wrong way. The Aderet's whole ra'aya was just from a story about R' Akiva Eiger! He didn't cite a Rambam or a gemara or a din in shulchas aruch. Such is the kavod R' Akiva Eiger deserves. If people like the Aderet who were giants among giants treated a R' Akiva Eiger that way, I would think kal v'chomer a contemporary living in 2025 who finds a teshuvah of RAK"E unpersuasive might consider whether that's a weakness in RAK"E or a weakness in himself.  I guess this Rabbi did and was still convinced he is right, but that phrase still bothered me.)

OK, so you have a story from RAK"E, But what do you do with R' Leizer Gordon's kashe? Two answers: 1) It could be at some point the badchan has "negative kavanah" and has in mind that he does not want to be yotzei the mitzvah himself and can then assign credit to his shliach; 2) When we talk about things that have no shiur, it usually means there is no *minimum* shiur, not that there is no maximum shiur. If so, the badchan just needs to take a moment to fulfill his own mitzvah of simchas chassan v'kallah and can then assign the rest of his time to the mitzvah of his shliach.

(The Aderet goes on to discuss another question that I won't get into now: shlichus does not work for a mitzvah sheb'gufo, e.g. I can't appoint a shliach to do the mitzvah of tefillin for me because the mitzvah is to put tefillin on my arm; the shliach's arm is not my arm. The Aderet suggests in his question that bikur cholim may be a miztzvah sheb'gufo -- tt's your personal presence that is important, not just seeing that the choleh is cared for. Whether or not that is correct is worth looking into).

The sefer has an amazing array of fascinating mareh mekomos from obscure sources, so I am surprised it does not have this RAK"E story which I posted many eons ago from R. Noson Gestetner quoting the Tchibiner Rav: One of R’ Akiva Eiger’s daughters became engaged to someone in another town. RAK”E was already old and could not travel, so he sent R’ Ephraim Zalman Margolias as his shliach to celebrate. Unlike the Beis Ephraim’s usual practice of not lingering at a simcha, in this case he stayed and stayed for the whole party. When asked about it afterwards, R’ E. Z. Margolias explained that shlucho shel adam k’moso, so he wanted to take advantage of every second he could be R’ Akiva Eiger!

Why the need to bring a proof from RAK"E's practice of bikur cholim to the din of simchas chassan v'kallah when you have this story of RAK"E appointing a shliach for gufa the mitzvah of simcha?  I was wondering if it is because this story involves an engagement party, so maybe there is no mitzvah of simchas chassan v'kallah yet at that point, but if so and there is no mitzvah, one wonders how there can be a din of shlichus?  Or why RAK"E would waste time on something that's not a mitzvah?

Let me end off with a final point in machshava. Rashi's view, as I quoted above, is that mitzvah bo yoseir mib'shlucho is so that you can get more schar. The Kozhnitzer Maggid reads Rashi with a twist. The sifrei chassidus explain that the word mitzvah comes from the same root as tzavsa, to be connected. A mitzvah is how we connect and attach ourselves to Hashem. Rashi is not just talking about material reward that one gets from doing a mitzvah, but what Rashi means is that if you delegate the job, you lose out on the schar and the opportunity to make that connection directly with Hashem.  There is no greater reward and nothing as valuable as that.

the reason the malach told Hagar not to flee: how can you leave Eretz Yisrael?!

1) Rashi interprets the angel's question to Hagar, וַיֹּאמַ֗ר הָגָ֞ר שִׁפְחַ֥ת שָׂרַ֛י אֵֽי־מִזֶּ֥ה בָ֖את וְאָ֣נָה תֵלֵ֑כִי (16:8), as a rhetorical device. The angel knew where Hagar had come from and where she was headed to, but wanted an opening to engage her in conversation. Abarbanel, however, reads the pasuk as a statement and not a question:

והנה המלאך אמר לה ראשונה הגר שפחת שרי אי מזה באת ואנה תלכי ר״ל איך לא יעלה על לבך מאין יצאת שהוא בית אברהם עשיר ונדיב לבב אוהב אותך ואנה תלכי במדבר השמם הזה התמצאי בו בית נכבד כבית אברהם הביטי וראי גבול מה שממנו נסוגות וגבול מה שאליו תלכי.

The malach was telling Hagar to think carefully about the fact that she was leaving the home of a rich, benevolent person who loves her to go wander in the desert. For what?  Will the grass really be greener elsewhere?

Seforno also reads the malach's words as a statement, and I think Seforno's reading fits nicelywith theme of our entire parsha, namely the importance of Eretz Yisrael.  Seforno writes that the malach stressed to Hagar that by fleeing she was not just running away from Avahram's home, but also from Eretz Yisrael:  

 והנך הולכת בחוצה לארץ אל מקום טמא ואנשי רשע. 

Such an appeal only makes sense if Hagar could understand the importance of Eretz Yisrael, the kedusha of Eretz Yisrael.  Perhaps it's not by accident that it is davka Hagar's descendants who are fighting us tooth and nail for Eretz Yisrael. 

2) In the last halacha in the last perek of Brachos in the Yerushalmi (67b), there is a sugya that reads as follows:

אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ עָשָׂה יֵצֶר הָרַע טוֹב דִּכְתִיב: וּמָצָאתָ אֶת לְבָבוֹ נֶאֱמָן לְפָנֶיךָ. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא וְהִפְסִיד אֶלָּא וְכָרוֹת עִמּוֹ הַבְּרִית.

It sounds like R' Acha is asking a kashe, but it's not at all clear what the kashe is or what the teirutz is. How can a person lose anything by overcoming their yetzer ha'ra? Isn't that something we should be striving for? The Pnei Moshe must have been struggling with this point.  In order to make sense of things he changes the girsa. Instead of וְהִפְסִיד, he says the word should be והפשיר. It's not a kashe but rather a statement:

והפשיר עמו וכרות עמו הברית וגו׳ – כצ״ל וכן הוא בסוטה היצה״ר עשה פשרה ושלום עמו ודרש וכרות עמו הברית אדלעיל ומצאת את לבבו וגו׳

Chida in his sefer Rosh David (my cousin-in-law R' Avraham Wagner quotes the mareh makom in his sefer Afar Yerushalayim on the Ylmi) on our parsha defends the original girsa and explains what bothered R' Acha. If you don't have a yetzer ha'ra that fights back, then וְהִפְסִיד, because you lose the reward of overcoming the obstacles, challenges, and difficulties that stand in the way of your avodas Hashem.  We may at times bemoan the fact that we have to struggle so hard, but it is that struggle gives value and meaning to what we achieve.

Chazal tell us (Kid 31a) דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: גָּדוֹל מְצֻוֶּוה וְעוֹשֶׂה מִמִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּוה וְעוֹשֶׂה. Even though one might think that doing something voluntarily is greater than obeying a command to do so, Tos explains נראה דהיינו טעמא דמי שמצווה ועושה עדיף לפי שדואג ומצטער יותר פן יעבור ממי שאין מצווה שיש לו פת בסלו שאם ירצה יניח. When you have to do something, when there is a command to do something, the yetzer ha'ra fights back and tries to stop you. When you do something voluntarily, the yetzer ha'ra doesn't get in the way because there is no penalty for just walking away if things get too tough.  When there is no pressure and no obstacles to success, the accomplishment is not as great, and the reward for success, in turn, is diminished.

The teirutz of the Yerushalmi is that Avraham didn't lose, because it is only as a *result* of his pushing to overcome difficulties and do a milah that Hashem rewarded him with that blessing of וְכָרוֹת עִמּוֹ הַבְּרִית. Turning the yetzer ha'ra to good was not a means to enable him to do the mitzvah without any obstacles, but rather was a reward for having overcome the obstacles and done the mitzvah.

(The Chida gets involved in this whole discussion to solve the following problem: some explain that while Avraham did all mitzvos even without a command from G-d, he did not do a milah until commanded because he wanted to do it as a מצווה ועושה and not as an ֶאֵינוֹ מְצֻוֶּוה. Other mitzvos he could do multiple times, but when it comes to milah, you only have one chance.  Asks Chida: if the advantage of being מצווה ועושה is that you have a yetzer ha'ra to fight against, as Tos explains, then what did Avraham gain?  He had eliminated his yetzer ha'ra? It must be, says Chida, that that transformation too place as a result of the milah, but not beforehand.  Ayen sham for other approaches he offers.)

3) A famous gemara in Brachos 10a

הָנְהוּ בִּרְיוֹנֵי דַּהֲווֹ בְּשִׁבָבוּתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וַהֲווֹ קָא מְצַעֲרוּ לֵיהּ טוּבָא. הֲוָה קָא בָּעֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר רַחֲמֵי עִלָּוַיְהוּ כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלֵימוּתוּ. אָמְרָה לֵיהּ בְּרוּרְיָא דְּבֵיתְהוּ: מַאי דַּעְתָּךְ — מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב ״יִתַּמּוּ חַטָּאִים״, מִי כְּתִיב ״חוֹטְאִים״? ״חַטָּאִים״ כְּתִיב.

Beruria tells R' Meir to daven that sin חַטָּאִים, be abolished, but don't pray for the demise of sinners, חוֹטְאִים.

Is there really such a difference between these terms?  Sefas Emes asks: what about the pasuk in our parsha (13:3) ואנשי סדם רעים וחטאים לה' מאד? The word חטאים there refers to the people, not to their actions?  Take a look at the meforshim on the Ein Yaakov.

4) A bit of trivia: a din buried in hilchos brachos that is learned from our parsha. OC 46:4:

צריך לברך בכל יום שלא עשני גוי שלא עשני עבד שלא עשני אשה: הגה ואפי' גר יכול לברך כן

The M"B explains the Rama as follows:

יכול לברך - פי' שיאמר שעשני גר דמיקרי עשייה כדכתיב ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן. ויש חולקין בזה וטעמם דלא שייך לומר שעשני דהגיור לא היתה כ"א מצד בחירתו הטובה שבחר בדת האמת

don't throw the raven overboard

The gemara (San 108b) relates that the raven had an iron clad argument to object to being sent out by Noach (parenthetically: the Brisker Rav asks what was the point of sending out the raven and the dove to check if there was dry land?  Even after he found that there was dry land and the ark made landfall, Noach did not leave the teivah until he had a tzivuy from Hashem to do so?):

וַיְשַׁלַּח אֶת הָעֹרֵב״, אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: תְּשׁוּבָה נִיצַּחַת הֱשִׁיבוֹ עוֹרֵב לְנֹחַ. אָמַר לוֹ: רַבְּךָ שׂוֹנְאֵנִי וְאַתָּה שְׂנֵאתָנִי. רַבְּךָ שׂוֹנְאֵנִי – מִן הַטְּהוֹרִין שִׁבְעָה, מִן הַטְּמֵאִים שְׁנַיִם, וְאַתָּה שְׂנֵאתָנִי – שֶׁאַתָּה מַנִּיחַ מִמִּין שִׁבְעָה וְשׁוֹלֵחַ מִמִּין שְׁנַיִם. אִם פּוֹגֵעַ בִּי שַׂר חַמָּה אוֹ שַׂר צִנָּה, לֹא נִמְצָא עוֹלָם חָסֵר בְּרִיָּה אַחַת? אוֹ שֶׁמָּא לְאִשְׁתִּי אַתָּה צָרִיךְ

אָמַר לוֹ: רָשָׁע! בַּמּוּתָּר לִי נֶאֱסַר לִי, בַּנֶּאֱסָר לִי לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

How does Noach's response address the complaint of the raven?  How did Noach justify sending it out when there was no other raven left for its mate?  Maharasha comments as follows:

מזה דרשו שראה נח תשובתו הנצחת ...ואמר ליה נח רשע וכו' קראו רשע על שעבר על מצות קונו לשמש בתיבה וז"ש במותר לי נאסר בתיבה בנאסר לי עם אשתך לא כל שכן שלא אעבור על מצות קוני והיה לו זה קצת תשובתו דלכך שלחתיך לפי שאתה רשע ושמשת בתיבה ואין לחוש עליך כמו על שאר העופות גם כי אשתך הרה ממך ונמצא שאין עולם חסר בריה ובבריות אחרות שלא שמשו יש לחוש על כך שיהיה חסר במינם

Simple pshat in Maharasha is that Noach was telling the ravan that since he is a rasha, he deserves to be gotten rid of and that's why he is kicking him overboard.

R' Mordechai Kukis (R"Y of Porat Yosef) quotes his son, R' Uriel, in a one line footnote here, who says a brilliant pshat that flips the gemara and Maharasha on its head.  The ravan at this point had nothing going for it. By rights, it had lost its "zechus ha'kiyum," it had forfeited whatever merit it had to be saved in the ark and be spared the plight of all the other creatures.  But Noach wasn't trying to get rid of him.  Aderaba, Noach was throwing the raven a life preserver!  Why did Noach send out the raven?  Because he was giving the raven something positive to do that would benefit everyone -- go out a see if there is dry land and food -- so that the raven could restore that "zechus ha'kiyum" and prove that it still has value, it still deserves a chance to live, despite the fact that it had sinned.  

Chazal are not telling us Dr Doolittle stories. Chazal are trying to teach us a lesson for our own behavior. When someone has done wrong, the solution is not necessarily to throw them overboard. Sometimes the solution is to give them an avenue to build themselves up again, find a way for them to restore their sense of self worth and their sense of brining value within the community.

why is this month different than all other months? A chiddush of the Ba"ch

The gemara on the last daf of R"H has the following din:

 אמר ר"א לעולם יסדיר אדם תפלתו ואח"כ יתפלל

 

You have to prepare your davening in advance.  (The poskim write that if someone davens from a siddur, that is sufficient.  If you daven by heart, you have to look over the tefilah.)

 

The gemara then qualifies that statement:

 

מר רבי אבא מסתברא מילתיה דר' אלעזר בברכות של ר"ה ושל יוה"כ ושל פרקים אבל דכל השנה לא איניוהא רב יהודה מסדר צלותיה ומצלי שאני רב יהודה כיון דמתלתין יומין לתלתין יומין הוה מצלי כפרקים דמי 

It seems like 30 days is the threshold for what constitutes an interval of פרקים.  Does that mean day 30 is already outside the limit, or does that mean going *beyond* 30 days is the limit?  The nafka mina would be tefilah on Rosh Chodesh.  Tur in Siman 100:

 

וצריך להסדיר תפלתו קודם שיתפלל כדי שתהא שגורה בפיו  ודוקא תפלה של פרקים לפי שאינו רגיל בה אבל תפלות התדירות לא וכתב הרמב"ם ז"ל של פרקים כגון של ר"ח ומועדות וא"א ז"ל כתב של פרקים הוא משלשים יום ואילך ולפ"ז ר"ח א"צ

 

For some reason it just dawned on me this year that Rosh Chodesh Cheshvan should be an exception to the above machlokes.  While it is possible for Rosh Chodesh of other months to fall within the 30 day limit, it's impossible when it comes to Cheshvan.  Our tefilah on R'Ch Tishrei is not a Rosh Chodesh tefilah -- it's the tefilah of R"H.  Therefore, when Cheshvan rolls around, it's actually been 2 months since the last R"Ch davening.  I found the point in the Ba"Ch:

 

מיהו אף לפי זה של ראש חדש מרחשון צריך הוא להסדיר שהרי לא התפלל לתפלת ראש חדש בראש השנה ואיכא ח' שבועות מראש חדש אלול עד ראש חדש חשון שלא התפלל תפלת ראש חדש

So there you have it -- something unique to this Rosh Chodesh.

whose tzelem was man created in?

וַיִּבְרָ֨א אֱלֹקים אֶת־הָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמ֔וֹ בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹקים בָּרָ֣א אֹת֑וֹ זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם:

The word צַלְמ֔וֹ is possessive - his tzelem.

Whose?

Is it the tzelem Elokim? That would make the entire next clause, בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹקים בָּרָ֣א אֹת֑וֹ, redundant.

R' Aharon Soloveitchik in his sefer on chumash explains (see Ibn Ezra and Ohr haChaim) that the tzelem of בְּצַלְמ֔וֹ means the tzelem of man himself. Tzelem is the purpose for which every individual is created. It's not by chance that you were put in the world in a particular time and a particular place and given particular abilities. Hashem put you there and gave you the talents you have because that is exactly what you need to fulfill your purpose in creation -- to live up to your tzelem.

Rav Kook makes the same point on the words we said in viduy: עד שלא נוצרתי איני כדאי, ועכשיו שנוצרתי כאלו לא נוצרתי. Before this time and place in history, איני כדאי, there was no need for your neshoma or my neshoma to come into the world.  Now that we are here, עכשיו שנוצרתי, we say viduy and bemoan the fact that in this particular moment in time and space that beckons for our creation and which gives out life purpose, כאלו לא נוצרתי, we fail to live up to who we should be, to the tzelem for which we are created.

If you have the time for it there is a wonderful talk from R' Mordechai Greenberg of Kerem b'Yavneh which captures this idea, among others:

the mystery of the last 8 pesukim, Moshe's seat 8 rows back in the shiur of R' Akiva, and Shmini Atzeret

Menachos 29 relates that Moshe asked Hashem why he was putting crowns on the letters of the Torah.  Hashem answered that in the future there will be a Rabbi Akiva who will darshen halachos from the crowns atop the letters.  Moshe asked to see him, and so Hashem dropped him into R' Akiva's shiur in the 8th row from the front.  Moshe couldn't understand the shiur and was upset until he heard someone ask R' Akiva the source for a din and R' Akiva answered that it is halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai.

Why was Moshe placed davka in the 8th row?

R' Noson Gestetner suggests that this is an allusion to the gemara that speaks about the last 8 pesukim of the Torah.  How could Moshe have written about his own death?  According to one opinion he wrote it "b'dema."  Some interpret that word to mean that he wrote it in tears, but the GR"A interprets it to mean a mixture, like the word dmai.  Ramban writes in his intro to chumash that the Torah in its original, pristine form in shamayim is a code of letters that spell the shem Hashem.  Hashem took those letters and put them in an order to spell the words that we read in olam ha'zeh.  When it came to the last 8 pesukim, Hashem could not leave the Torah incomplete, so he gave those pesukim to Moshe, but he only revealed it to him in the encoded form as Torah appears in shamayimm, but not the actual words that describe Moshe's olam ha'zeh death.  It is those jumbled letters that Moshe wrote. 

The same is true of the torah of R' Akiva.  Moshe was given everything at Sinai, including the halachos R' Akiva taught, but the source was a jumble, it was something he could not make sense of through the prism through which he saw Torah.  He was in the 8th row of the shiur, meaning that for Moshe, the torah of R' Akiva was like those last 8 pesukim.  R' Akiva saw Torah through his own prism and was able to unravel the code.

Everything in the world is contained in Torah.  What happened Shmini Atzeret 2 years ago is somehow also a part of Torah; it's the number 8 like the 8 pesukim that are a jumble that we cannot make sense of, it's like those 8 pesukim written b'dema in the other sense of the word, meaning tears.  We may not be able to unravel the jumble, but that we know contains within it shem Hashem, His presence.   

As I write these words the entire Jewish word is awaiting v'shavu banim l'gevulam, we are awaiting Hashem saying, "kashe alaei p'reidaschem," the seperation of the hostages is too much to bear already and they will return home.  We pray as well that Hashem this year will declare "kashe alai p'reidaschem," the seperation of all of us from Hashem, from our nation, from our homeland, in this galus has gone on too long already. 

the 955 pesukim of Devarim and the 955 gates of Heaven

רְא֣וּ עַתָּ֗ה כִּ֣י אֲנִ֤י אֲנִי֙ ה֔וּא וְאֵ֥ין אֱלֹקים עִמָּדִ֑י אֲנִ֧י אָמִ֣ית וַאֲחַיֶּ֗ה מָחַ֙צְתִּי֙ וַאֲנִ֣י אֶרְפָּ֔א וְאֵ֥ין מִיָּדִ֖י מַצִּֽיל

What exactly did Moshe see at this moment beyond the miracles of the 40 years in the desert that triggered this reaction?

R' Yosef Shaul Nathanson writes as follows:

ְThe Midrash in last week's parsha teaches that when Hashem told Moshe הן קרבו ימיך למות, Moshe responded and said, "How can you say that to me when I used that very word to proclaim הן לה׳ אלקיך השמים?" (Devarim 10:14) Hashem answered that this is the fate of all man from the time of the cheit of Adam, because הן האדם היה כאחד ממנו לדעת טוב ורע ועתה פן ישלח ידו ולקח גם מעץ החיים ואכל וחי לעלם.

What's the magic of the word הן that led Moshe to think that just because he used that word in connection to praising Hashem, Hashem therefore cannot use that word to tell him he is going to die ?

The AR"I has a teaching as follows: There are 955 levels in the heavens, corresponding to the gematriya of שמים (final letters continue the hundreds count after ת=400, so final chaf = 500, final mem = 600, etc). Of those 955, 900 have angels appointed over them, but the last 55 are filled with Hashem's presence alone and no angels may enter. This is the meaning of הן לה׳ אלקיך השמים, i.e. הן = 55 levels of the 955 = השמים belong to Hashem alone.

By coincidence (not), there are 955 pesukim in sefer Devarim. With every pasuk that Moshe recited, he opened another gate in heaven.

With every gate that Moshe opened, he tried to appeal the gezeirah against himself.

The malachim were all sworn not to help Moshe, and so for each of the first 900 gates that Moshe knocked on, so to speak, the malach in charge refused to carry Moshe's tefilos to Hashem and he was turned away.

When do you do when you get bounced from customer service agent to agent and can't get help? You ask for the manager, of course. Finally, after 900 pesukim, after being turned away by 900 angels, Moshe stood at the levels of heaven, the gates of prayer, that even angels had no power over -- only Hashem himself was there.  He could now take his appeal directly to the top.

Pasuk 900 is that pasuk of רְא֣וּ עַתָּ֗ה כִּ֣י אֲנִ֤י אֲנִי֙ ה֔וּא וְאֵ֥ין אֱלֹקים עִמָּדִ֑י אֲנִ֧י אָמִ֣ית וַאֲחַיֶּ֗ה מָחַ֙צְתִּי֙ וַאֲנִ֣י אֶרְפָּ֔א וְאֵ֥ין מִיָּדִ֖י מַצִּֽיל

Moshe Rabeinu now said to Hashem, b'shlama until now, it was angels turning me away, but I recognize that you Hashem have control over these 55 higher levels, הן לה׳ אלקיך השמים. Why then are You slamming the door in my face? Why even on these highest 55=הן levels do I deserve the same message of קרבו ימיך למות?

And the answer is that as great as Moshe is, הן האדם היה כאחד ממנו, no human can access those upper 55 levels lest man turn himself into a deity, as Chazal darshan כאחד ממנו refers to the "Yechido shel olam."

ain ma'avirin al ha'mitzvos - Avnei Nezer's chiddush in when to build your sukkah

The against (Meg 6b) writes that when there is a double Adar, according to R' Eliezer bar Yosi the megillah is read in the first Adar because of the principle of  דְּאֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הַמִּצְוֹת.  When you have one continuous block of time and can do the mitzvah earlier or later within that same block, there is a din of zerizus to do it earlier, but that's not a game breaker.  In his case, it's not a contiguous block of time.  There are days in between 14 Adar I and 14 Adar II when the megillah cannot be read.  Therefore, we come on to the principle of אֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הַמִּצְוֹת. 

Based on this gemara the Avnei Nezer (OC 459)  has a chiddush din that when there is a shabbos in between Y"K and Sukkos, a person must build his sukkah before shabbos.  You cannot build the sukkah on shabbos, so we treat the days before shabbos and days after as two separate time periods and apply the rule of אֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הַמִּצְוֹת.

Is that really true?  The gemara (MK 9a) writes that Shlomo haMelech made a celebration for chanukas Beis haMikdash before Sukkot so as to avoid the problem of מְעָרְבִין שִׂמְחָה בְּשִׂמְחָה.  That year they did not fast on Y"K because of this party for chanukas ha'Bays. The gemara asks: maybe Shlomo just happened to complete the job before Sukkos and that's why he made the celebration then?  How do we know it's because of the issue of מְעָרְבִין שִׂמְחָה בְּשִׂמְחָה?  Answers the gemara: if מְעָרְבִין שִׂמְחָה בְּשִׂמְחָה was not an issue Shlomo would have left a small part unfinished and timed the completion for Sukkos rather than schedule the celebration on Y"K.  (This topic comes up with regards to whether one dan delay a siyum until the 9 days.)

 

According to the Avnei Nezer, if in theory the Mikdash could have been completed either before Y"K or after Y"K, and obviously it could not be built on Y"K itself, wouldn't delaying the completion until after Y"K be a problem of ְאֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הַמִּצְוֹת, just like delaying building the sukkah? 

 

See more here.  The more more fundamental argument against the Avnei Nezer is that not reading megillah in the intervening days between Adar I and Adar II is a din in megillah; not building sukkah on shabbos is not a din in sukkah, it's just an extraneous problem of melacha on shabbos that gets in the way.