mi va'mi ha'holchim -- sustaining growth

R' Simcha Bunim Sofer quotes a Midrash (which I haven't found, so pls enlighten me if you can locate it) on Pharoah's question (10:8) to Moshe  מִ֥י וָמִ֖י הַהֹלְכִֽים -- why the double מִ֥י וָמִ֖י (see Kli Yakar as well)?  The Midrash comments that Pharoah challenged Moshe's request as unreasonable given that in the future Bnei Yisrael will one day say מי יעלה לנו בהר ה׳ ומי יקום במקום קדשׁו

What's the connection?

My chavrusa once prepared a whole shiur on this idea of "Mi yaaleh... u'mi yakum."  Ascending the mountain is a great achievement, but even harder than making it to the top is sustaining yourself there.  I remember as a teenager in camp that there was someone who went min ha'katzeh el ha'katzeh, what today people call flipping out.  This guy gave up all his hobbies, all his outside interests, switched his wardrobe to dress pants and white shirts, and went from a background of next to no exposure to learning to doing nothing but learning.  It lasted about a year or two, and then he fell back to his old self just as fast as his meteoric rise.  There are a lot of people like that, people who get the mi yaaleh part, but then fail in the mi yakum.  It's like people who go on these crash diets for a few weeks and lose a ton of weight, but then turn into a balloon again as soon as the diet is over.  There is no mi yakum because they focused on the goal of shedding pounds quickly, but not on developing good eating habits that can make the weight loss sustainable.  A person needs to go step by step, to grow gradually and adjust and accommodate to each level before trying to climb higher or it will not last.

This was Pharoah's argument.  "Lchu na ha'gevarim," let those who are giborim=koveish es yitzro, those who have shown themselves already to be religiously committed, those who have been on top of the mountain for awhile, leave Egypt to serve G-d.  But how can you demand that everyone, even those who, until Moshe started making demands, are no different than their Egyptian counterparts -- halalu ovdei avodah zarah v'halalu ovdei avodah zarah -- pick up suddenly and leave?  רְא֕וּ כִּ֥י רָעָ֖ה נֶ֥גֶד פְּנֵיכֶֽם -- they people are still attracted to רָעָ֖ה, their same old ways, their same old lifestyle.  Even if they go out and have a chag l'Hashem, it's a one time deal and they will quickly revert back to who they are now.  Moshe, you are asking for a מי יעלה without considering מי יקום, and it can't work.

Pharoah indeed had a point, as we see time and again from the rebelliousness of Bnei Yisrael in the midbar.  Yetzi'as Mitzrayim was a tremendous opportunity, as Hashem brought us up the ladder in one shot, על כנפי נשׁרים, but at the same time it was a tremendous challenge, as מי יעלה demands מי יקום or it is for naught.

issur melacha as a din in "mikra kodesh"

 An interesting chiddush din which Maharal derives from Rashi:

וּבַיּ֤וֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן֙ מִקְרָא־קֹ֔דֶשׁ וּבַיּוֹם֙ הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י מִקְרָא־קֹ֖דֶשׁ יִהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֑ם כׇּל־מְלָאכָה֙ לֹא־יֵעָשֶׂ֣ה בָהֶ֔ם אַ֚ךְ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֵאָכֵ֣ל לְכׇל־נֶ֔פֶשׁ ה֥וּא לְבַדּ֖וֹ יֵעָשֶׂ֥ה לָכֶֽם׃ (12:16)

Rashi comments: לא יעשה בהם – אפילו על ידי אחרים  

Ramban asks: who is the "acheirim" that Rashi is referring to?  If it is a Jew, then there already is an issur for that person to do melacha; if it is a nochri, then there is no issur d'oraysa of a nochri doing work for a Jew on Y"T or Shabbos, so that can't be what the pasuk is talking about.

Mizrachi answers that the "acheirim" here is a nochri and Rashi is just quoting an asmachta as pshat in the pasuk.  (The issue here may be whether asmachta is just a mnenomic device, or whether there is some connection between the din and the words of the pasuk.)  Maharal in Gur Aryeh, however, learns that "acheirim" is referring to a Jew.  Aside from the issur melacha of doing work yourself on Y"T, there is a separate issur of having a Jew do work on your behalf.  

Why should there be such an issur on Y"T and not on Shabbos?   R' Chaim Elazari explains that aside from the aspect of each individual not doing melacha and observing Shabbos and Y"T as a personal day of rest, Y"T has an additional element of being a "mikra kodesh."  Ramban in P' Emor (23:2) explains this term as meaning that Y"T is a day in which the tzibur gathers for tefilah and hallel and simcha -- it is a public holiday.  (It could be according to Ramban that tefilah b'tzibur on Y"T is a kiyum d'oraysa).    

What Rashi is telling us is that by having someone else do work, although you have not violated the personal aspect of resting on Y"T since you are not doing anything, you have violated the "mikra kodesh" aspect of the day by taking away from it being an all inclusive public celebration.

I don't understand R' Elazari's chiddush.  In the very Ramban he refers to, the Ramban writes with respect to Shabbos: שגם הוא יום מועד, נקרא אותו מקרא קדש,  According to Ramban, Shabbos is also called a mikra kodesh.  So hadra kushya l'duchta, why do we only find this din mentioned with respect to Y"T and not Shabbos?

if time allowed

  וַיֹּאפ֨וּ אֶת־הַבָּצֵ֜ק אֲשֶׁ֨ר הוֹצִ֧יאוּ מִמִּצְרַ֛יִם עֻגֹ֥ת מַצּ֖וֹת כִּ֣י לֹ֣א חָמֵ֑ץ כִּֽי־גֹרְשׁ֣וּ מִמִּצְרַ֗יִם וְלֹ֤א יָֽכְלוּ֙ לְהִתְמַהְמֵ֔הַּ וְגַם־צֵדָ֖ה לֹא־עָשׂ֥וּ לָהֶֽם

We read in the haggadah "Matzah zu she'anu ochlim al shum mah?" and the haggadah goes on to answer, as seems to be pshat in our pasuk (12:39), that the Egyptians were in such a rush to kick us out that they did not even give us time to bake bread for the road.

The Ran in Pesachim (25b in pages of RIF) infers a big chiddush from this statement.  The implication of the haggadah and of the pasuk is that had we had time, we could have baked bread even though it was Pesach -- no problem of bal yera'ah!   

Ramban explains the pasuk differently to avoid this conclusion:  

וטעם ויאפו את הבצק – שאפו אותו מצות מפני המצוה שנצטוו: שאור לא ימצא בבתיכם כי כל אוכל מחמצת ונכרתה

ואמר כי גורשו ממצרים – לומר שאפו אותו בדרך בעבור כי גורשו ממצרים ולא יכלו להתמהמה לאפות אותו בעיר, ולשאת אותו אפוי מצות, ועל כן נשאו אותו בצק ומשארותם צרורות בשמלותם על שכמם (שמות י״ב:ל״ד), ומהרו ואפו אותו טרם יחמץ בדרך או בסכות, כשבאו שם לשעה קלה כדברי רבותינו.

The pasuk speaks about the dough אֲשֶׁ֨ר הוֹצִ֧יאוּ מִמִּצְרַ֛יִם, which they took out of Egypt and baked into matzah on the road.  According to Ramban, two things the require explanation: 1) why they were eating matzah and not bread; 2) why they had to bake it on the road and not at home.  The answer to the first question, the pasul tells is,  is that כִּ֣י לֹ֣א חָמֵ֑ץ, because Hashem had prohibited chametz and commanded Bnei Yisrael to eat matzah.  The answer to the second question is that the Egyptians rushed them out, כִּֽי־גֹרְשׁ֣וּ מִמִּצְרַ֗יִם וְלֹ֤א יָֽכְלוּ֙ לְהִתְמַהְמֵ֔הַּ.  

The difficulty with the Ran (as the Tzlach points out) is that the Mishna (Pesachim 95) lists the differences between Pesach Mitzrayim and Pesach as celebrated in future years and absent from that list is the Ran's assumption that there was no prohibition of bal yera'eh on that first Pesach in Egypt.

The difficulty with Ramban is that the pshat may work well for the pasuk, but it does not fit the haggadah so well. "Matzah zu...al shum mah" sounds like we are offering an explanation for why we eat matzah, not just for why it was baked it on the road.   

what it takes to be a leader

The Yalkut Shimoni (Shmos ch 3) writes:

 וּמֹשֶׁה הָיָה רֹעֶה, כְּתִיב (תהלים י״א:ה׳) ״ה׳ צַדִּיק יִבְחָן״, אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, בַּמֶּה בּוֹחֵן אֶת הַצַּדִּיקִים, בְּמִרְעֶה. דָּוִד נִבְחָן בְּמִרְעֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״מֵאַחַר עָלוֹת הֵבִיאוֹ לִרְעוֹת בְּיַעֲקֹב עַמּוֹ״. [עָמוֹס] נִבְחָן בְּמִרְעֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (עמוס ז׳:ט״ו) ״וַיִּקָּחֵנִי ה׳ מֵאַחֲרֵי הַצֹּאן״. אַף מֹשֶׁה נִבְחָן בְּמִרְעֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּמשֶׁה הָיָה רֹעֶה.

Hashem tests tzadikim to see if they are worthy of leading Klal Yisrael before he turns over the reins to them.  How does he test them?  By seeing how they behave as shepherds.  If they can manage a flock of sheep, then Hashem turns over his flock of Klal Yisrael to them.

Let's look back at how Moshe got that job of being a shepherd.  Moshe was a prince in Egypt, but he threw away his position and intervened when he saw a Jewish slave being abused.  Pharoah wanted to kill him, so he was forced to flee.  When he got to Midyan, he saw the shepherds there treating the daughters of Yisro unfairly, and once again he intervened to set things right and stand up for the underdog when no one else would.  

None of that was sufficient to earn him the job of leader of Klal Yisrael.  Yet if a little sheep ran off on its own away from the flock and Moshe had to chase it down and carry it back, that proved that he was fit to be the leader of Klal Yisrael.  

It's not the one time act of heroism or bravery that proves someone has what it takes to lead.  It's the day in and day out show of caring in doing what seems like a mundane and thankless job that proves it.  (from R' Nissim Yagen)

don't wait for a crisis

 וְגַ֣ם׀ אֲנִ֣י שָׁמַ֗עְתִּי אֶֽת־נַאֲקַת֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר מִצְרַ֖יִם מַעֲבִדִ֣ים אֹתָ֑ם 

So which is it -- was Hashem moved by the cries of Bnei Yisrael, in which case  אֲשֶׁ֥ר מִצְרַ֖יִם מַעֲבִדִ֣ים אֹתָ֑ם is extraneous, or was Hashem moved by the injustice of the Egyptian persecution, irrespective of whether anyone else cried out or objected to it, in which case אֶֽת־נַאֲקַת֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל is extraneous?

The Oheiv Yisrael (also R' Liebele Eiger) explains the pasuk as follows: many people go through life ho-hum without thinking too much about G-d, until one day when the going gets tough, and then suddenly its time to break open the Tehillim and rediscover what avodas Hashem means.  Klal Yisrael in Egypt was pushed until their backs were against the wall, and so they cried out to Hashem for help.  But what they cried about is more than the pain of slavery.  What they cried about is the fact that it took a crisis to bring them to that point.  They cried because  אֲשֶׁ֥ר מִצְרַ֖יִם מַעֲבִדִ֣ים אֹתָ֑ם -- the Egyptians were the ones that drove them to avodas Hashem.  It shouldn't take a crisis to bring the children of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov to speak to their Father upstairs.

a hashkafa of "lo nachon" vs a hashkafa of "assur" -- should we have an innate sense of right and wrong?

When Pharoah finally gave in a little bit and told Moshe that he can offer korbanos provided he do so in Mitzrayim, Moshe turned him down.  "Lo nachon la'asos kein ki toavas Mitzrayim nizbach..." (8:22).  Chasam Sofer notes Moshe's choice of words -- "lo nachon," it's not the right thing to do.  The Egyptian people don't want to see us sacrificing their gods.  It's not menchlishkeit.  Pharoah, you think we are a bunch of barbarians, but that's not who we are.

This diyuk of Chasam Sofer I think speaks to the difference between my father's generation and my children's generation.  The vast majority of Jews of my father's generation were not yeshiva educated and did not think in terms of assur or mutar, what it says in a seif katan somewhere in the mishna berura.  But those old timers knew the words, or the concept, of "lo nachon."  Certain things were just not done because it was not right.  Today, baruch Hashem our kids all know how to dig up all kinds of obscure chumros brought down in all the latest seforim, but the concept of "lo nachon" seems to have vanished.  Too many people seem to have no inner moral compass, no innate sense of right and wrong, no thought as to what is proper before they even get to what it says in Shulchan Aruch.

The Yerushalmi in B"M (8a) relates (I'm quoting the Sefaria translation):

Shimon ben Shetah was dealing with flax [as his profession]. His students said to him: ‘Master, leave it behind and we will buy you a donkey and you won’t need to work so much,’ and they bought him a donkey from an Arab, and it had a jewel hanging from it[s neck]. They came to him and said him: ‘from now on you won’t have to work again.’ He said to them: ‘why?’ They said to him: ‘ We bought you a donkey from an Arab and it had a jewel hanging from it[s neck]!’ He said to them: ‘Did the owner know?’ They said to him: ‘no.’ He said to them: ‘go return it.’ [Later students objected to this story:] But didn’t Rav Huna Bibi bar Gozlon say in the name of Rav, said they responded before Rabbi, even according to the one who says an item stolen from a gentile is prohibited, all agree that an item lost by a gentile is permitted!?’ ‘What, do you think Shimon ben Shetah is a barbarian? Shimon wished to hear ‘blessed be the God of the Jews’ more than all the wages of this world.

The difference between Shimon ben Shetach and his students is the difference between a world view of assur/mutar and a world view of lo nachon.

So which is better -- to know something is wrong and refrain from doing it out of instinct, or to always have to look up the din in Shulchan Aruch to know good from bad?

Sounds like this is exactly the question the Rambam addresses in Shmoneh Perakim (ch 6).  Rambam asks: the Torah is supposed to shape a person to be moral, to not want to steal or harm people, etc., yet Chazal tell us that a person should not say that he doesn't want to eat pig because it is not healthy or tastes bad, but rather because Hashem said not to eat it.  In other words, don't refrain because you think it is wrong, just obey because of what it says in Shulchan Aruch!

The Rambam distinguishes between mitzvos sichliyos and other mitzvos.  It makes rational sense to not steal, so a person should not want to do so.  It makes no sense not to eat pig, so we obey simply because G-d said so.

The distinction is not as clear cut as it seems.  R' Amital in this piece, based on R' Kook, greatly expands the category of rational mitzvos to include things like observing Shabbos.  The Shem m'Shmuel (Parshas Tzav) goes a step further (I recall seeing my wife's grandfather also took this same approach, but can't track down where at the moment):

האומנם כי לכאורה יקשה על הנחה זו מהא דאל יאמר אדם אי אפשי בבשר חזיר אלא אפשי ואבי שבשמים גזר עלי, וידוע דעת הרמב"ם שיצא לחלוק בין עבירות השכליות והשמיעיות, ולדידי הפי' עפ"י דברי הא"ע בלאו דלא תחמוד שרבים תמהו איך אפשר שאדם לא יחמוד לדבר יפה ונחמד לעיניו ונתן משל לזה שהוא כמו שלא יתאוה האיש להיות לו כנפים לעוף למעלה כי דבר הנמנע לא יתאוה לו הטבע, ככה צריך איש הישראלי לידע שכל דבר שלא ניתן לו מן השמים לא שייך אליו כלל כמו כנפים לאיש ולא יכול לקחתו בתחבולותיו והוא נמנע ממנו ע"כ לא יתאוה לו כלל ודפח"ח, ואף אנו נאמר שכ"ש דבר שאסרה תורה היא עוד יותר נמנע מפחמין לאכילה, ומה שאמרו ז"ל אבל אפשי ואבי שבשמים גזר עלי, היינו שבאם לא הי' גזר הי' באמת דבר טוב כי הביט בתורה וברא את העולם, ואם עפ"י התורה הי' זה מותר ומאכל לאיש הישראלי אז הי' לו צורה אחרת והי' באמת טוב, אבל עכשו שהתורה אסרה אין זה רק רע וכפחמין לאכילה ואי אפשר להתאוה לו כלל, וע"ד זה תקיש לכל העבירות שבאם לא אסרה תורה בהכרח שהי' לו צורה אחרת והי' טוב וראוי, אבל עתה שאסרה תורה שוב נמאס ואין ראוי להשתוקק אליו, וע"כ המשתוקק אליו הוא חוטא וצריך כפרה:

The only difference, says Sm"S, between a mitzvah sichlis and a mitzvah like not eating pig, is whether the mitzvah a priori makes sense.  However, once G-d commands us not to eat pig, we have to view eating pig as repugnant, as something we would never want to do.  

He draws an analogy to the Ibn Ezra's interpretation of lo tachmod.  Ibn Ezra asks how the Torah can command a person not to desire something -- can a person control his heart?  You see you neighbor has a nice car and nature takes over and you want it.  Ibn Ezra answers that a pauper would never dream of marrying a princess -- his mind places it so far outside the realm of possibility that it's unimaginable.  It would be like having a desire to flap your arms and fly.  So too, once G-d commands us not to eat pig, to us that act has to become like some unimaginable fantasy, a thought we would never entertain, much less struggle to overcome.

Ibn Ezra is speaking on a psychological level as to what drives a person's attractions and desires.  Sm"S is going a step further: It's not just that psychologically we must view eating pig as unimaginable (irrespective of whether there is really any harm in doing so), but that once G-d commanded it, it actually becomes morally so.

k'zayis matzah -- shiur in the chiyuv or shiur in the kiyum mitzvah?

The Rambam (Chametz u'Matzah 6:1) formulates the mitzvah of achilas matzah as follows:

מצות עשה מן התורה לאכול מצה בליל חמשה עשר שנאמר בערב תאכלו מצות. בכל מקום ובכל זמן. ולא תלה אכילה זו בקרבן הפסח אלא זו מצוה בפני עצמה ומצותה כל הלילה. אבל בשאר הרגל אכילת מצה רשות רצה אוכל מצה רצה אוכל אורז או דוחן או קליות או פירות. אבל בליל חמשה עשר בלבד חובה ומשאכל כזית יצא ידי חובתו:

The Rambam could just as easily have said מצות עשה מן התורה לאכול **כזית** מצה בליל חמשה עשר Why the circuitous מצות עשה מן התורה לאכול מצה...משאכל כזית יצא ?

B'pashtus one would have thought that once you eat your kzayis of matzah, the mitzvah is over and if you continue stuffing your face, that's for your own pleasure alone.  But it seems from the Rambam (and this is also the opinion of Maharal in Gevuros Hashem ch 48) that that's not how it works.   There is a mitzvah to eat, period -- the more, the better.  Every additional bite is a kiyum.  If you want to do the minimum, then the Rambam at the end of the halacha tells us that you are yotzei with a k'zayis. 

The gemara (Pesachim 107) relates that Rava used to drink a lot of wine on erev pesach so that he would have an appetite to eat a lot of matzah during the night.  Rav Wahrman (She'eiris Yosef I:1) brings proof from this gemara to the Rambam's point.  Had the mitzvah been to eat a k'zayis, there would be no point to eating more.  

(Tos in Kiddushin 38 writes that you can't say aseh doche lo ta'aseh when eating a second k'zayis, but that's because dechiya depends on their being a chiyuv, not just a kiyum.)

The gemara (Sukkah 41) similarly writes that there were people who held their lulav and esrog all day, even while davening.  The gemara asks how that can be when there is an issur of holding things in your hand during tefilah, and the gemara answers that taking the lulav is different because it's a mitzvah.  Even though m'ikar ha'din a person is yotzei netilas lulav just by picking it up, we see from the gemara that that's just a minimum, like eating just a k'zayis of matzah, but if you do more, it also counts as a mitzvah.

The gemara (R"H 16) writes that we blow shofar during shmoneh esrei on R"H even though we already did the mitzvah before starting musaf in order to confuse the satan.  Rashi comments that by blowing extra times we demonstrate our love of the mitzvah.  In his sefer on chumash (shmos p50) Rav Noson Gestetner suggests that you see the same chidush from this Rashi.  Had there been a defined shiur beyond which there is no kiyum, by blowing extra kolos we would just be entertaining ourselves.  Rashi is telling us that the additional kolos are a mitzvah, as there is no maximum limit to "yom teru'ah."

persecution is a symptom, not the problem

 וָאֵרֵ֞ד לְהַצִּיל֣וֹ׀ מִיַּ֣ד מִצְרַ֗יִם וּֽלְהַעֲלֹתוֹ֮ מִן־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַהִוא֒ אֶל־אֶ֤רֶץ טוֹבָה֙ וּרְחָבָ֔ה אֶל־אֶ֛רֶץ זָבַ֥ת חָלָ֖ב וּדְבָ֑שׁ אֶל־מְק֤וֹם הַֽכְּנַעֲנִי֙ וְהַ֣חִתִּ֔י וְהָֽאֱמֹרִי֙ וְהַפְּרִזִּ֔י וְהַחִוִּ֖י וְהַיְבוּסִֽי׃

A number of meforshim ask the following question (I took this quote from Maor vaShemesh) in one form or another:

 גם מה לבשר להם תיכף שביאתם תהי לארץ טובה זבת חלב הלא לעת כזאת רב להם אם ינצלו מהעבודה הקשה אשר עובד בם

Klal Yisrael was suffering bitterly under Egyptian slavery.  They were not looking to be brought to a land of milk and honey -- they were just looking for a day that they did not have to wake up and face an Egyptian taskmaster holding a whip over their heads.  Why did Hashem introduce the plan for them to enter Eretz Yisrael  now?  Why not leave that discussion until after the exodus?

One can interpret the question in two ways: 1) Psychologically -- if the goal is to give Klal Yisrael hope to sustain them, then it would be enough to tell them that their slavery would end.  There was no need to add the cherry on the cake of coming to Eretz Yisrael.   2) Existentially -- the response to the threat against Jewish well being should be to save them from danger.  Why introduce coming to the land into the mix?

The answer, I think, can be gleaned from modern Jewish history.  In 1903, when the sixth World Zionist Congress met, Herzl introduced a proposal that neatly caused a rift in the entire Zionist movement.  Russian Jews were in immanent danger; anti-semitism was rampant.  The dream of a homeland in Israel seemed exactly that -- a dream.  So Herzl proposed that they look elsewhere in the interim, to establish a colony in Uganda or some other territory that could be more easily attained, and in this way provide a means of escape for those Jews whose lives were on the line.

רָאֹ֥ה רָאִ֛יתִי אֶת־עֳנִ֥י עַמִּ֖י

וָאֵרֵ֞ד לְהַצִּיל֣וֹ׀ מִיַּ֣ד מִצְרַ֗יִם

Let's talk about saving Jews and put this Israel thing on the back burner.

Herzl's proposal was ultimately rejected.  There were pragmatic flaws that would render the whole plan moot, but what is more significant is the ideological opposition to it.  

Writing a few decades later, Ben Tzion Dinur, who would become one of Israel's education ministers, wrote, "Zionism is a revolution against Exile, a declaration of war on it  The first requirement for victory is to know the enemy, {which is} Jewish life in Exile" (quoted in We Stand Divided - The Rift Between American Jews and Israel, by Daniel Gordis, p61, as translated by Gordis). 

Yetzi'as Mitzrayim is the template for geulah.  Therefore, it is critical, as Dinur wrote, "to know the enemy," to define what geulah hopes to achieve and overcome.  The enemy is not slavery or persecution; redemption is not about getting a respite from work or a respite from being beaten up.  That is but a partial solution, a stop along the way.  Those afflictions are but symptoms of the underlying disease.  The only way to truly fix the cycle that repeats itself over and over during our history in exile, i.e. we find safe heaven in a country for a few decades, maybe even a few centuries, persecution starts, eventually we get kicked out and are forced to take up home elsewhere, and then the process repeats itself all over again, is for us to come back to our own homeland.  

Yes, Hashem could have told Moshe to tell the Jews in Egypt that their suffering would be alleviated and left it at that and the people would have been happy.  But the Torah wants to give us more than that -- it wants to give us the recipe to fix the underlying problem, not just a bandaid.  That can only be done by our return to Eretz Yisrael.  

dissent will not be tolerated

Dennis Prager is often on the mark, but never more so than in his column entitled "Now I Better Understand the 'Good German.'"  Prager writes:

The ease with which tens of millions of Americans have accepted irrational, unconstitutional and unprecedented police state-type restrictions on their freedoms, including even the freedom to make a living, has been, to understate the case, sobering.

The same holds true for the acceptance by most Americans of the rampant censorship on Twitter and all other major social media platforms. Even physicians and other scientists are deprived of freedom of speech if, for example, they offer scientific support for hydroxychloroquine along with zinc to treat COVID-19 in the early stages. Board-certified physician Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, who has saved hundreds of COVID-19 patients from suffering and/or death, has been banned from Twitter for publicizing his lifesaving hydroxychloroquine and zinc protocol.

Half of America, the non-left half, is afraid to speak their minds at virtually every university, movie studio and large corporation — indeed, at virtually every place of work. Professors who say anything that offends the left fear being ostracized if they have tenure and being fired if they do not. People are socially ostracized, publicly shamed and/or fired for differing with Black Lives Matter, as America-hating and white-hating a group as has ever existed. And few Americans speak up. On the contrary, when BLM protestors demand that diners outside of restaurants raise their fists to show their support of BLM, nearly every diner does.

I would add that even if you wanted to speak out, your voice will be quashed.  Witness what happened to Parler this weekend.  If you believe in free speech, you should be appalled.  But if you've been paying attention to the way conservatives, friends of Israel, religious leaders, and others who do not march in lockstep to the groupthink of the democrat-progressive machine have been treated on college campuses for years, you would have expected no less.  Those brainwashed by our education system to cry foul at every "microaggression" and demand that opinions contrary to their own be silenced and who find administrators all too happy to comply eventually enter the workforce, enter civil society, and bring those same attitudes with them.

The incessant left-wing drumbeat of The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and almost every other major newspaper, plus The Atlantic, The New Yorker, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, all of Hollywood and almost every school from kindergarten through graduate school, has brainwashed at least half of America every bit as effectively as the German, Soviet and Chinese communist press did (and in the latter case, still does).

The CEO of the company I work for sent out an email this morning using words like "insurrectionists" and "sedition" and calling on us to be agents for "social change."  This is the workplace of modern times, where the left wing point of view is inescapable.  I just want to do my job and collect my paycheck, not transform society, certainly not in the way you want it transformed.  Gone are the days when a CEO can just run a business, when a company can just sell a product or provide a service.  Now everything is about politics, and you will be made to take a stand -- the right stand -- or be trampled by the mob.

What is tragic is how many of our own brethren see nothing wrong with what is transpiring, and actually root for the thugs that have gained control over our society.  Need I remind people of those from our community who marched in support of BLM this past summer, ignorant of, or perhaps even aware, but not taking seriously, the vicious anti-Israel platform of that movement.  

Sad times indeed that we live in.  

Someone sent me a message over the weekend that it's time for a group of us to move out of NY and establish a community someplace like Florida, a "red" state that allows for more freedom.  

If that's what you think the solution is, than you are not getting the message.  What NY or Portland or Seattle is today, Florida will become tomorrow.  

There is no place Hashem wants us to go other than home.  It's just a question of whether we want to make those plans on our own or wait until events force us to do so.  Does Israel have its problems?   Sure it does.  But better to have to deal with the growing pains of aschalta d'geulah than the death spiral of the diaspora world.  

you can't ignore the little things

You would think after all the pleading Hashem does back and forth with Moshe to get him to accept the role of being the shliach to bring geulah to Klal Yisrael, Hashem would at least let the trip to Egypt go smoothly.  Yet the Torah tells us that's not how it worked out right from the get-go .  Moshe and wife stopped at a hotel along the way, and because he did the check-in, or maybe unloaded the luggage before giving a milah to Eliezer, a malach came and tried to kill him.  It would be like a baseball team that wines and dines a prospect in order to sign him, and then after finally reaching an agreement after some very tense negotiations, on the first day the player shows up at the clubhouse the team gives him a fine for some petty offense.  You worked so hard to get this player in order to boost your club -- why risk upsetting the apple cart over some minor infraction?

The lesson, says R' Shlomo Amar, is that we don't cut corners on the road to geulah.  The end, no matter how important, does not justify not taking the time to make sure to dot the i's and cross the t's and do all the little things right.

We have the same idea in the story of Yehudah and Tamar.  Tamar's children are the progenitors of moshiach.  Yet, when Tamar is being taken to be burned, she does not blurt out that Yehudah is the father of her children.  She simply says that whoever claims the signet ring and other property left with her is the father.  What if Yehudah had not stepped forward to accept responsibility?  

Tamar recognized that you can't take the shortcut of being malbin pnei chaveiro b'rabim and get to mashiach.  The end, no matter how great, does not justify ignoring "niceties" and treating others poorly.