Netziv: Torah protects from the punishment of galus even if other sins are committed

כב. וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת כָּל חֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת כָּל מִשְׁפָּטַי וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם וְלֹא תָקִיא אֶתְכֶם הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה לָשֶׁבֶת בָּה

The Netziv understands that "u'shmartem es chukosai" refers to the study of Torah.  He writes that we see a chiddush from this pasuk (21:22): limud haTorah protects against the punishment of galus even if other sins are being committed.  The gemara (Nedarim 81) writes that during the time of bayis rishon the Chachamim and Nevi’im could not figure out the cause of the churban, “al mah avdah ha’aretz,” until Hashem revealed that it was because they did not say birchas haTorah, i.e. (as the Ran explains) they did not learn lishma.  Everyone asks what the gemara means, as we know that during the period of bayis rishon the most serious aveiros of arayos, murder, idolatry were all being violated.  Surely the Chachamim and Nevi’im were not oblivious to reality?!  Some explain that the gemara was after the root cause.  A culture were terrible issurim are tolerated does not spring up out of nowhere.  Were it not for the sin of ignoring Torah, these other aveiros would not have taken hold.  The Netziv, however, explains the gemara differently, based on his yesod in this pasuk: even if all those aveiros were being committed, Klal Yisrael would still not have been sent into galus had they only remained committed to limud haTorah. 

Another important Netziv on the next pasuk:

 וְלֹא תֵלְכוּ בְּחֻקֹּת הַגּוֹי אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מְשַׁלֵּחַ מִפְּנֵיכֶם כִּי אֶת כָּל אֵלֶּה עָשׂוּ וָאָקֻץ בָּם:

“Chukos hagoy,” explains the Netziv, means the laws that the non-Jews setup.  In the secular world things considered immoral one day are championed as “rights” the next.  Social mores and norms are always changing.  The Torah warns that although “ain tzadik ba’aretz” who does not slip up at one point or another and do wrong, although we all at some point fall prey to temptation, that is not a license to change our moral compass.  Doing wrong is bad but making a wrong into a legal “right” and codifying it, institutionalizing it, is far worse.     

kibud av -- a bein adam laMakom din

Chazal explain that the juxtaposition of kibud av with shabbos at the beginning of Parshas Kedoshim teaches that if a parent asks you to violate shabbos you are not allowed to do so despite the mitzvah of kibud av.  The Meshech Chochma has a nice lomdus to explain the hava amina to think otherwise.  After all, fulfilling a mitzvah bein adam l’chaveiro is never license to violate any issur, so why would we think otherwise here?

The gemara (Yevamos 5) raises the possibility of learning from the fact that kibud av is not doche shabbos and from the fact that binyan mikdash is not doche shabbos that no mitzvas aseh is doche a lav that has a punishment of kareis.  The gemara, however, rejects this idea and concludes that the two cases of kibud av and binyan mikdash are exceptions to any rule because they are “hecsher mitzvah.”  What does the gemara mean by that?  Tosfos/Rashba explain that the gemara was speaking of the lav of mechameir, i.e. using an animal to transport goods on shabbos.  Aseh doche lo ta’aseh works only when the violation of the lav is simultaneous with the kiyum of the aseh.  The mitzvah of kibud av or binyan mikdash takes place only after the goods are delivered, not in the process of moving them.  Rashi explains that mechameir is not inevitably necessary to fulfill kibud av/binyan mikdash.  Had the goods been available, these mitzvos could have been fulfilled without violating mechameir.  The Meshech Chochma suggests a different distinction.  According to the M.C., the crucial difference between hechsher mitzvah and other mitzvos is whether the focus is on the act being done or the result being produced.  As we discussed once before, it seems from the Rambam that binyan mikdash was commanded in order for us to have a place to bring korbanos – the end result, the ability to do avodah, is what defines the mitzvah.  Moving a particular brick in place is just a means to that end.  Aseh doche lo ta’aseh may not work in this case because the individual act being done is not singificant in its own right, but is only a means.  So too when it comes to kibud av, the essential point of the mitzvah is to preserve the mesorah from one generation to the next.  How can we value the traditions and lessons of those who came before us if we do not have respect for them?  The particular act of kibud done is just a means to that larger goal.  Therefore, aseh doche lo ta’aseh does not come into play.

Once we define kibud av as a means to preserving the mesorah, it is no longer simply a bein adam l’chaveiro mitzvah, an enhanced “v’ahavta l’reiacha kamocha” din, but is a bein adam laMakom din that is part and parcel of the transmission of Torah.

The Minchas Chinuch independently suggests the possibility that kibud av should be categorized as a bein adam laMakom din.  He writes that perhaps the obligation to a parent as a fellow human being is no greater than the “do no harm” of v’ahavta l’reiacha, and the additional obligations of kibud that go beyond that fall into the bein adam laMakom category.  The nafka minah is that one can get mechila for a bein adam l’chaveiro violation only by asking the other party for forgiveness.  When I saw this Minchas Chinuch what came to my mind was the fact that we say in our “al cheit” on Yom Kippur a request for forgiveness for “zilzul horim u’morim.”  The fact that we address this request to G-d seems to lend support to classifying kavod as a bein adam laMakom.  However, I think we throw in our “al cheit” other sins that seem to fall into the interpersonal aveirah bucket.  Perhaps the assumption is that we are asking G-d for forgiveness having already obtained forgiveness from the other person harmed.

the unique punishment for worship of Molech

The parsha of Molech worship (20:1-8) contains a unique warning:

  וְאִם הַעְלֵם יַעְלִימוּ עַם הָאָרֶץ אֶת-עֵינֵיהֶם מִן-הָאִישׁ הַהוּא בְּתִתּוֹ מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמֹּלֶךְ לְבִלְתִּי הָמִית אֹתוֹ:

וְשַׂמְתִּי אֲנִי אֶת-פָּנַי בָּאִישׁ הַהוּא וּבְמִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ וְהִכְרַתִּי אֹתוֹ וְאֵת כָּל-הַזֹּנִים אַחֲרָיו לִזְנוֹת אַחֲרֵי הַמֹּלֶךְ מִקֶּרֶב עַמָּם:

The Torah threatens that if the “am ha’aretz” ignore the crime of the Molech worshipper, not only will G-d mete out the punishment to the Molech worshipper, but He will also mete out punishment to the entire family. 

 

Why should the family of the Molech worshipper bear responsibility for his crimes or the crime of the “am ha’aretz” who refuse to do justice?

Rashi (20:5) already raises the question, and quotes R’ Shimon who explains that if one member of a family is a cheat, they are all cheaters, as they cover for his crimes.  According to Rashi, it sounds like an inevitable conclusion.  Ibn Ezra softens it somewhat.  He reads the lesson directly into the pesukim by equating the “am ha’aretz” referred to in pasuk 4 with the family of the Molech worshipper threatened with punishment in pasuk 5.  *If* (the choice is their’s to make) the family ignores the crimes of one of their own, they become culpable as well.     

(Parenthetically, Ibn Ezra learns that b’peshuto the parsha refers to one who marries a non-Jew and has a child who is an idolator, an interpretation Chazal explicitly reject (Megillah 25).)

The Seforno preserves the distinction between “am ha’aretz” and “mishpachto” -- one refers to the public at large, one is family – yet draws a similar lesson.  The public’s choice to ignore the Molech worshipper’s wrongdoing is likely due to his family protecting him or protesting against the punishment.  Therefore, they share in his guilt.

At first glance equating “am ha’aretz” with “mishpachto” makes for a weaker reading – why use different words for the same group of people?  Was Ibn Ezra perhaps uncomfortable with Seforno’s assertion that public indifference is automatically an indication of family pressure to cover up the crime?  Or maybe the shift in terminology here helps shed light on the crime.  We use the term “am ha’aretz” to connote ignorance (granted that meforshim here explain it differently).  The family of the Molech worshipper may argue that as far as they are concerned, they prefer to remain in a state of willful ignorance and turn the other way rather than confront the crimes of one of their own.  Why should they get involved in the affairs even of someone close?   The Torah, however, emphasizes in its threat of punishment that they are “mishpachto,” and as family it behooves them, as ones who would be privy to the crime, not to ignore it.

According to any of these approaches, the question that begs asking is why make this point here?  If the lesson is that ignoring a crime or covering up wrongdoing means sharing in the blame, then why does the Torah not warn, for example, that the family of a mechalel Shabbos will be punished, or that the family of a thief will be punished?  Why bring it up only in the context of Molech?

The Rambam (Moreh III:37, also see Abarbanel, R’ Bachyei) addresses this point.  The Molech cult attracted followers by threatening that harm will befall the entire family of the person who does not turn over his children.  It’s one thing to refuse to be involved in idolatry when the risk is only to oneself; it’s quite another when there is a threat or perceived risk to one’s children and family.  The only way to counter this type of threat is to offer an equally compelling counter-incentive.  The Torah therefore warns that not only will the person who worships Molech be punished, but his family, the very ones he wants to protect by getting involved in Molech worship, will come to harm as well. 

It still seems that something is missing.  In addition to the threat of punishment to the family of the Molech worshipper, Ramban points out that phrases like “...eiten as panay...,” “...v’samti es panay...,” come up only here.  No where else do we find kareis couched in such terms, almost as if the sin is a personal offence to G-d kavyachol and therefore he will personally attend to the punishment.  There is a severity to the punishment for Molech worship, perhaps due to the fact that it involves children, that goes above and beyond even other avodah zarah. 

welcome back! - questions and answers left from Pesach

So have you had that first bite of chametz yet? 

Best question I got at the seder: The haggadah darshens the word “amaleinu” in the pasuk “Va’yar es anyeinu v’es amaleinu…” as referring to Pharoah’s decree to throw the Jewish babies into the Nile.  The Kol Bo and some other early meforshim explain that the derush is based on the pasuk’s use of the word “amal,” which they define as work done for naught.  Having children was pointless if they would only be killed.  Daughter #1 asked how this definition of "amal" fits with the concept of "ameilus" in Torah – is the effort we expend on our learning work done for naught?! 

My wife was quick on the draw and immediately answered that what a person gains from studying Torah is a matanah from Hashem.  “Yagati u’matzasi” – it’s like finding something in the street, not a byproduct of the labor put in.  Anyone have any other answer?

Daughter #2 raised the following dilemma: Having woken up late, she was davening musaf on the first day of Pesach well into the afternoon after lunch.  Those of us who davened b’tzibur said mashiv ha'ruach in musaf and would only omit it going forward from mincha.  Daughter #2 knows from past experience that when it is past the zman for mincha, she should daven mincha before musaf based on the principle of tadir.  Question: should she say mashiv ha'ruach in her musaf or not?  The tzibur said it when they davened musaf, but that was before davening mincha.  Does the fact that the tzibur already said tal make a difference even if she wasn’t there?  Would it make a difference if she davened musaf first and then mincha?   

This question is l’shitasa of the Shmini Atzeres dilemma (I, II, III, and IV) caused by her coming to shul late so that she was holding in shacharis when the rest of the tzibur was up to musaf,  She therefore wasn't sure whether to add mashiv haruach in shacharis after hearing it announced by the gabai or not.  It all boils down to the same issue of the interplay between the announcement vs. tefilas hayom as a trigger to stop/start saying the tal/geshem additions.  Obviously if you never hear tefilas tal or never hear the announcement to start saying mashiv haruach, you still need to do so at some point.  The announcement is not the trigger of the switch.  On the other hand, the halacha says that you don’t automatically make the switch in the tefilas hayom – even if you are davening b’yechidus, the M.B. writes that you should time your davening to coincide with that of the tzibur so you make the switch when they hear the announcement.  I still don’t have clear how the factors work together.  My daughter is nice enough to continually put herself in situations where I get to revisit my thinking on the issue.

 

I spent a chunk of time over the chag reading Moshe Halbertal's book Maimonides: Life and Thought, which my public library system was able to get for me.  Excellent, well written study.

The Midrash writes that after kri’as yam suf Bnei Yisrael turned to Moshe and said that they had a list of tasks to do, among them celebrating pesach and singing shirah, and now that the final item was checked off, time to go back to Mitzrayim.  Moshe answered that they still had an outstanding obligation, as they had noy yet received the Torah.  I can’t find it now in my jumbled archives, but I must have discussed this Midrash before because it’s one of my favorites.  How could it be that Bnei Yisrael, after experiencing the geulah, wanted to return to slavery?

The first time I saw this Midrash I thought Chazal knew us all too well.  We are supposed to see ourselves as having experienced geulah, but the clock no sooner strikes time for ma’ariv on the last day of Pesach and people are rushing back to their blackberries, their I-phones, the pizza store, etc.  We are so quick to run back to avdus!  I read Chazal as giving us mussar, projecting our desire to run back onto our forefathers so we see just how absurd our behavior is.

A few years ago I found that R’ Tzadok haKohen reads the Midrash quite differently.  What do your kids do after they get off a roller coaster ride?  They get right back on line to do it all over again.  After experiencing such hisgalus of Hashem’s presence and such closeness to Him during yetzias Mitzrayin, when the ride was over, Bnei Yisrael wanted nothing more than to go back and experience it all over again.  Moshe told them they don’t need Mitzrayim to have that experience again – there will be a kabbalas haTorah that will be even more thrilling.

This year I saw the Shem m’Shmuel has yet another approach.  We know that Hashem had to cut the galus of Mitzrayim short.  Instead of 400 years of slavery, Bnei Yisrael spent only 210 years there because had they remained longer, they would have been lost.  So what happened to those missing years?  We are still making up for them.  We are still working toward the ultimate geulah that would have happened had those 400 years been completed.  Our forefathers who left Mitzrayim knew the burden they would be leaving us with; therefore, after experiencing yetzias Mitzrayim and kri'as Yam Suf they said to Moshe that they wanted to go back.  They assumed that once they had the chizuk of yetzias Mitzrayim and kri'as Yam Suf under their belts they could make it the rest of the way to year 400 and we would be off the hook.  

 

The Shem m'Shmuel stresses the self-sacrifice involved in that decision, but perhaps the greater lesson is in Moshe's response that they had an obligation to receive the Torah.   Perhaps Moshe was addressing himself to those concerns over the galus of future generations.  One way to avoid those problems would be to return to slavery for another 190 years.  Moshe, however, was showing that there was another way as well: Torah could provide redemption.  That lesson is still relevant to us as we count our way down (or up) to Shavuos.

1) more on haseiba and 2) a thought of the Brisker Rav on the closing words of Malachi

1) My son mentioned that he saw R’ Asher Weiss quote the following question from the Aderes: The mitzvah of haseiba is a takkanah derabbanan, so if you eat matzah without haseiba, it means you were yotzei the chiyuv d’orasya and are just missing the kiyum derabbanan.  Why does the Rosh hold in this case that you have to eat all over again?  Just have in mind when you eat the k’zayis matzah in koreich that you also are being yotzei the derabbanan of matzah.  B’shlama if you missed matzah d’oraysa, the mitzvah derabbanan of maror is mevateil the mitzvah d’oraysa of matzah that comes with it.  But the rule is that derabbanans are not mevateil each other, so you should have no problem.

Last week we mentioned the chakirah of the Brisker Rav whether haseiba is a separate kiyum from matzah and 4 kosos or part and parcel of those mitzvos.  I thought this would answer the question of the Aderes.  According to the Rosh, since haseiba is part and parcel of the mitzvah matzah, it means eating without haseiba is not a kiyum of anything.  The chachamim were metakein that if you do not do the mitzvah is the tzurah they enacted of having haseiba, you lose your d’oraysa kiyum of matzah as well.

This answer will not work 1) according to RYBS’s hesber in the Rosh that you are yotzei the d’oraysa of matzah but are missing the additional kiyum of sipur yetziyas Mitzrayim done through matzah; 2) it also will not work if you assume the Brisker Rav meant in the Rosh that you are missing the “mitzvah b’shleimusa,” but have the ikar kiyum, as R’ Sasson commented last week; 3) my son found it strange that Chazal should be mafki’ah your kiyum of matzah just because they want you to do an additional mitzvah of haseiba.  (This does not bother me so much because of Tos Sukkah 3 and the PM”G we discussed once before.)

2) Even though usually it is preferable to daven mincha ketana, I saw a chiddush quoted in the name of R’ Chaim Berlin that on erev Pesach it is better to daven mincha earlier, as we know the afternoon tamid was offered earlier to allow time for the korban pesach to be brought.

3) The haftarah of Shabbos haGadol ends with the charge of “Zichru toras Moshe avdi,” followed by the famous pesukim of “Hinei anochi sholeiach lachem es Eliya haNavi.”  Malachi was the last of the prophets; his closing words literally mark the close of an era.  We cannot imagine what that transition must have been like.  People must have wondered, “How can we live without nevuah – how will we know what G-d wants?”  The Chofetz Chaim explained that Malachi was answering that question with his closing words.  “Zichru toras Moshe avdi” – everything you need is already in Torah.  You just need to learn and you will discover the answers you need.

I saw a slightly different twist on this idea in the Brisker haggadah.  It seems the GRI”Z understood that the close of prophecy at the time of Malachi is not just a metziyus, but a din.  How do you know that the guy standing in Times Square who says G-d spoke to him is not for real?  The answer is because Malachi told us “Zichru toras Moshe avdi,” that all the answers are found in Torah and there is no more prophecy.  Malachi has to add “Hinei anochi sholeich lachem es Eliya haNavi…” not just because he wants to end on an uplifting note, but because he needs to add an exception to the rule.  There is no longer a “din” nevuah, but we still expect and anticipate one additional navi – Eliyahu haNavi, who will herald Moshiach’s coming.

4) On a final note, just to give those of us exhausted from cleaning a better appreciation for why we do what we do, I am going to plagarize a post of my wife's quoting a story from Nor the Moon by Night by Devora Gliksman:

 

On a fundraisng trip for the yeshiva, R' Shliomele visited R' Shimon Wolf Rotschild, of the wealthy and famous Rotschild family. R' Shimon Wolf showed R; Shloimele around his beautiful estate, finally pausing beside a house built of the main house.

"And this," R' Shimon Wolf gestured proudly, "this is my Pesach house. I built it jut to be used on Pesach. The rest of the year it is kept locked."

R' Shloimele just shrugged his shoulders. R' Shimon wondered why he wasn't impressed.
R' Shloimele explained that his holy grandfather -- the Sanzer Rav - though not a wealthy man would have spent anything any amount of money to perform a mitzvah properly. Had he felt hat keeping Pesach properly necessitated building a separate house, he would have done so. Therefore, if he feels he needs it, why shouldn't Baron Rothschild?"

Thinking on the matter further, R' Shloimele saw a downside to a Pesach house:
"The gemara says that chumetz can be interpreted as to the yetzer hu'reh. Our searching for chumetz and destroying it is a mushol for searching out and destroying the yetzer hu'reh, thereby doing teshivah. We know that the only way to do complete teshivah is to put ourselves again in the same situation where we have done an aveirah and, when the opportunity presents itself, not repeat that aveirah. Therefore, it is only fitting that the house where had eaten chumetz be cleaned out and used for mitzvos -- the mitzvos we perform at the seider, the mitzvos we perform during Pesach. Having a separate house set aside for Pesach does not accomplish that purpose."

 Have a chag kasher v'sameiach! 

haggadah on Shabbos haGadol

Yesh lachkor what the relationship between Shabbos haGadol and Pesach is: Is that the upcoming chag of Pesach impacts Shabbos, as the geulah of Pesach is already tangible in some sense, or is it that Shabbos takes on added importance because it impacts the upcoming chag, as it is only through kedusha Shabbos that the kedushas ha’moadim can come into being?

The Shulchan Aruch devotes a siman to telling us that Shabbos is called "Shabbos haGadol."  We expect the Shulchan Aruch to tell us do's and don'ts -- l'mai nafka minah that the Shabbos has a special name?  I saw R' Chaim Kanievsky quotes from R' Elyashiv that you should wish people "Good Shabbos haGadol," not just "Good Shabbos," because of this din.

No matter how hard cleaning is, I think the bigger avodah is figuring out what to do with kids on chol hamoed.  If your kids are in strollers still or are little and you think having to pack a diaper bag or bags and bags of snacks and drinks is hard, just wait until they become teenagers.  I’m too young to start sounding like a grumpy old man, so I’ll leave it at that.

The Rama quotes a minhag to read the haggadah on Shabbos haGadol, but the GR”A objects, as we read in the haggadah itself that sippur yetzias Mitzraim can only be done when you have a chiyuv of matzah and maror (or maybe you actually need matzah and maror physically present – see R’ Zolti’s discussion in Mishnas Ya’avetz).  It’s hard to understand what bothered the GR”A.  One would hope that you are not first cracking open the haggadah on leil haseder and looking through the Artscroll notes on the bottom to try come up with something to say!  You can learn the haggadah any day of the year.  So what’s so bad if on Shabbos before Pesach you take out the haggadah and go through it even if it is not the zman hamitzvah?

 

This GR”A reminded me of the gemara (Megillah 3) that you have to even be mevateil talmud Torah to read the megillah.  Why does the gemara call reading the megillah “bitul Torah” – isn’t reading the text of Tanach also a kiyum of talmud Torah?  Apparently reading b’toras kriah is a different type of engagement with the text than study.  Here too, of course one can learn the haggadah any time.  What the GR”A may have found problematic was formalizing it into an act of recitation rather than talmud Torah.  That smacks of an imitation of the mitzvah of haggdah, which can only take place on leil haseder.

That’s not to say that if you just read the text at the seder it’s enough.  Achronim writes that you get a kiyum mitzvah of talmud torah for reading pesukim even if you don’t understand them, but you get no mitzvah of talmud torah for reading torah sheba’al peh unless you know what it means.  So what if you open a chumash on leil haseder and just read the pesukim that tell the story of yetzias Mitzrayim without understanding what you are saying – are you yotzei?  I find it hard to believe that you are.  The point of reading the haggadah is not talmud torah, but rather is about engendering the feeling of “k’ilu hu atzmo yatzah m’Mitzrayim.”  I haven’t bothered to look for ra’ayos and am just speculating m’sevara.

The Sefas Emes quotes the Midrash that at the time of creation every day had a match – the days come in pairs – except for Shabbos, which was the odd man out.  Hashem said to Shabbos that Klal Yisrael would be its match.  It was not until the geulah from Mitzrayim, when we became a nation, that the day of Shabbos was completed with its match.  True, Shabbos existed beforehand as a commemoration of creation, but that commemoration is incomplete without a Klal Yisrael to reveal it to the world.  (The 10 makkos parallel the 10 ma’amarim of the creation of the world.  The latter conceal G-d’s presence in nature; the former reveal that concealment.  Shabbos allows us time to stop and contemplate, so that we hopefully come to recognize, “Mah rabu ma’asecha Hashem…,” as we say in the shir shel yom for Shabbos.  Yetzias Mitzrayim, geulah, is the culmination of peeling away of the layers of teva so that recognition is obvious to all.)

We end “Ha lachma anya…” with the declaration that next year we hope to be in Eretz Yisrael and celebrating in Yerushalayim.  We have at the end of the seder as well the declaration of “L’shanah haba’ah b’Yerushalayim.”  The halacha is that on leil haseder you bring out your best dishes, your finest silverware.  You might even be sitting on leil haseder in Cancun or the French Riviera in the greatest hotels, waited on hand and foot.  At the start of the seder you look at the beautifully set table, at all that you have, and you think to yourself, "Ah, what could be better than this?"   Therefore, the haggadah sticks in a reminder – don’t forget that you’re still in galus.  As nice a galus as it can be, it’s still not where we belong.  With all the luxuries we may have wherever we are, we still yearn to be in Eretz Yisrael (heard from R’ Meir Goldvicht).

 

In case I don't write anything on Monday (my brain stopped working much earlier this week already) let me wish everyone a wonderful Pesach in advance.

hasieba and the chiyuv 4 kosos for ketanim

A) Rav Soloveitchik pointed out that from the language of the Rambam (Chameitz u'Matzah 7:7):

לפיכך כשסועד אדם בלילה הזה צריך לאכול ולשתות והוא מיסב דרך חירות

 

It seems that the mitzvah of haseiba is a din in seudas Pesach (k'she'soed adam...).

The Rambam and Rosh disagree whether someone who ate matzah or drank the 4 kosos without haseiba fulfills his mitzvah or not.  The Brisker Rav (does everybody have a Brisker Haggdah these days?) explains the underlying issue as follows: is haseiba an independent mitzvah, or just a tnai in how to fulfill the mitzvah of matzah or kosos?  If it is an independent mitzvah, then one can fulfill matzah or 4 kosos without fulfilling the mitzvah of haseiba.  If it is a tnai, then missing haseiba undermines the mitzvah of matzah or 4 kosos itself and you have eat and drink all over again.

Rav Soloveitchik had a tremendous question on this hesber.  The gemara has a din that if bandits force someone to eat matzah, he is yotzei the mitzvah.  If haseiba is an integral part of the mitzvah, how can that be?  It’s one thing to force matzah down someone’s throat – surely the gemara is not speaking of a case where they force the person to sit with haseiba as well?!

As we know from the haggdah, Rabban Gamliel teaches that if you fail to talk about pesach, matzah, and maror you are not yotzei the mitzvah.  What mitzvah?  The Rishonim (Rambam, Tos, Rambam) debate whether Rabban Gamliel meant the mitzvah of matzah, maror, and pesach, or whether he meant the mitzvah of haggadah.  In other words, are pesach, matzah, and maror necessary to fulfill the mitzvah of sipur yetzias Mitzrayim, or is sipur yetzias Mitzrayim a necessary ingredient of the mitzvos of pesach, matzah and maror?

Based on this chakira, the Rav suggested (See Moadei haRav, also R' Genack's sefer Gan Shoshanim siman 20) that eating matzah without haseiba is good enough for a kiyum of matzah qua matzah, but the Rosh holds that one must still eat again in order to fulfill the mitzvah of matzah qua an essential element of the mitzvah of haggdah. 

B) The gemara (108b) quotes a machlokes regarding whether ketanim are chayavim in 4 kosos:

 ת"ר הכל חייבין בארבעה כוסות הללו אחד אנשים ואחד נשים ואחד תינוקות א"ר יהודה וכי מה תועלת יש לתינוקות ביין

Rashbam explains:

 ואחד התינוקות. שגם הם נגאלו

I saw suggested (see here) based on this Rashbam that the hesber of the machlokes is whether the sevara of af hein hayu b’oso ha’nes creates a chiyuv on ketanim or not.  The problem is that the Mishna in Megillah (19b) quotes R’ Yehudah’s view that a katan can even be motzi a gadol in krias hamegillah.  Many Rishonim (Ramban, Tos, see Tos R’ Akiva Eiger there) explain that a katan becomes mechuyav just like a gadol because of af hein.  If so, how does R’ Yehudah’s view there jibe with his view here that af hein does not create a chiyuv in 4 kosos? 

 

I have a simpler question.  On that same amud in Pesachim the gemara writes that women are obligated in 4 kosos because of af hein.  Rashbam explains:

 

שאף הן היו באותו הנס. כדאמרינן (סוטה דף יא:) בשכר נשים צדקניות שבאותו הדור נגאלו 

 

According to Rashbam (as Tosfos on the spot notes and takes issue with) the sevara of af hein involves being a cause of redemption, not just a participant.  This sevara cannot apply to ketanim, so the Rashbam must mean something else entirely when he says  שגם הם נגאלו. 

a father fasting ta'anis bechorim for a katan

1) If a katan is a bechor, the Rama brings down that the child’s father should fast on his behalf.  R’ Chaim Kanievsky was asked whether the child can make/participate in a siyum to exempt his father from the chiyuv and he answered in the affirmative.

I like the lomdus behind the question: does the Rama mean the chiyuv ta’anis is on the katan, but since the katan can’t physically fast the father is mekayeim the ta’anis on his behalf, in which case the katan can make the siyum, or does the Rama mean that the chiyuv ta’anis is on the father, not on the katan, in which case the katan’s siyum doesn’t help?

R’ Chaim seems to assume as a davar pashut that the siyum of a katan is enough of a simcha to override the fast.  I couldn’t find it last night, but I seem to recall that the Rogatchover raises this as a question.  If the idea of a siyum is to celebrate completing a mitzvah, maybe the siyum of a katan who has no chiyuv in mitzvos doesn't count.  Can a woman make a siyum (whether women have to fast ta'anis bechorim seems to depend on stiros in Midrashim) to remove the chiyuv of fasting?   

2) Someone came to R’ Chaim Kanievsky and said that he decided to fast instead of doing the usual siyum for ta’anis bechorim.  R’ Chaim paskened that since he made a siyum in past years, he needs to do a hataras nedarim to break the minhag. 

the pshat that led the Rashba to sing the Meshech Chochma's praises

The Meshech Chochma asks why the Torah writes with respect to the korban of a metzorah who is poor and brings birds instead of sheep that the kapparah takes place “lifnei Hashem” (14:31) – a phrase that is absent in all the other pesukim that deal with the metzorah's korbanos.  He answers by reminding us of a comment of the Ibn Ezra back in parshas Vayikra with respect to korban oleh v'yoreid.  If someone could not afford a sheep, he could bring two birds, one as an olah one as a chatas.  Why does the poor person have to bring two birds, asks Ibn Ezra, but only one korban if he brings an animal?  He answers that an animal korban chatas has two parts: the fats offered on the mizbeiach, and the food portion that is eaten.  A bird chatas has no fats that are offered on the altar; Therefore, it must be paired with an olah bird to make up the difference.  Coming back to our parsha, since a poor metzorah need only offer a chatas bird but not an olah, you might have thought his kapparah is incomplete.  Our pasuk therefore writes that the kapparah is “lifnei Hashem,” and Hashem does not need a portion to grant complete kapparah.

Now for the behind the scenes of what makes this Meshech Chochma special.  If you have the edition with R’ Kopperman’s notes or you take a look before the mafteichos in some editions of the Ohr Sameich, they quote the following story: the Meshech Chochma once had a dream in which he witnessed the giants of Klal Yisrael learning in the yeshiva shel ma'alah.  At that gathering, the Rashba stood up and declared that there is a Jew in Dvinsk who was mechavein l’amito shel Torah more than he was.  The Rashba writes in a teshuvah that it made no sense that there should even be a passing hava amina (see Chulin 22) that an olas ha’of could be brought at night -- it must be a girsa error.  We already know from pesukim that avodah always takes place during the day, no exceptions.  But the Ohr Samayach says the hava amina is a good hava amina.  Based on the Ibn Ezra, we know that an olas ha’of corresponds to the fats of an animal korban.  Since those fats can be burned on the mizbeiach even at night, one might have thought that an olas ha’of could be brought even at night as well, kah mashma lan that it can’t.  The Meshech Chochma then woke up and reportedly was in a good mood that entire day.  After all, it’s not every day that the Rashba sings your praises in the yeshiva shel ma’alah!

Rav Kopperman adds in his notes that this yesod also helps us explain a difficult Rambam.  The Rambam suggests that the reason the entire korban mincha of a kohein is burned on the mizbeiach, as opposed to just a small kemitza portion, is because were only a small portion offered it would look like the kohein is not offering anything – he brings a korban, but the majority of his “gift” amounts to a meal for himself.  The Tur asks: but someone brings a chatas ha’of, he eats the whole thing and the mizbeiach gets nothing – why in that case are we not concerned with it looking like the person’s gift is really just an excuse for dinner?   Based on the Ibn Ezra, the difference is clear.  True, the owner eats the entire chatas bird, but along with that chatas he has to being an olah that is entirely consumed on the mizbeiach to complete the parallel to an animal korban.  The two birds are two halves of a single whole, not two separate parts. 

the most difficult galus to endure?!

The following letter from R' Shalom Gold was posted here with reshus to reprint and pass around given that Hamodia chose not to publish it:

To the Editor, Hamodia

There is what seems to be "a statement of authentic Torah-true hashkafah" that appears occasionally in Hamodia (the most recent on the 4th of Adar II) and in other publications, that I believe must be examined very closely and dispassionately. The pronouncement raises extremely serious problems of a religious nature.

The Hamodia article quoted a rav who said, "The most difficult golus to endure is a golus suffered from other Jews and therefore we plead for a final redemption from this terrible golus." I experienced a great deal of personal anguish just writing that sentence. First of all, it's absolutely false. We are not in Czarist Russia, Inquisitionist Spain, Crusader-ravished Rhineland, Cossack-scorched Poland, nor fascist Nazi Germany, nor assimilation-ridden America. Klal Yisrael in Eretz Yisrael is experiencing the most magnificent era in 2,000 years.

Rav Avraham Pam movingly put the present period in time in its proper Jewish-Torah perspective. He said that a rule in Jewish history is that following every period of suffering comes an era of Hashem embracing His people, comforting them, and pouring out His goodness, just as a father whose son has suffered will embrace him and console him. Rav Pam highlights four such historic episodes. The fourth one, Rav Pam said, was, that following the worst horror of all, the Shoah, Hashem embraced us with "hakomas Medinas Yisroel" (precisely his words).

Hashem does not embrace His people by casting them into the worst golus of all. To say that, is a denial of Hashem's goodness, an ugly rejection of His benevolence, and shameful ingratitude.
Three months after the establishment of Medinat Yisrael, Rav Dessler wrote that he who does not see the dramatic change and the complete reversal of the fate of the Jewish people, "min hakatzeh al Hakatzeh, "from one extreme of six million slaughtered to the other extreme end "the settling of our people in their own medina in our Holy Land" is blind. "Woe to one who will come to the Day of Judgment still blind and not having been able to see something so real." (Michtav M'Eliyahu, Volume 3, page 352)

Rav Dessler wrote this at a time that the infant state was locked in a struggle for its very existence. No one then could predict the outcome, yet he rejoiced. He did not predict that the State wouldn't last for ten years.

The plain facts are that the greatest growth of Klal Yisroel in Eretz Yisroel in just about every conceivable area has been mind-boggling. Little Israel whose air force ranks after the United States, Russia and China. Way up there with the biggest. An army whose might is so clearly the result of the efforts of "He who gives you the strength to be mighty." Agricultural accomplishments of global proportions. Israel is a world agricultural power. It staggers the imagination. (Google Israel – Agriculture and read Wikipedia.) It would help if you have a TaNach handy to see the prophecies fulfilled before your very eyes. Focus on Yechezkel chapters 36, 37 and 38.

For me, every visit to my local fruit and vegetable store is a powerful religions experience. In the middle 50s I learned in Ponovitz and subsisted on tomatoes, cucumbers and watermelon. Today, in my local store I am overwhelmed by the dazzling amounts of produce. If this is golus then I can't begin to imagine what geulah is. I once said that every rabbi is zocheh to one good line in his career. Min is, "If you want to speak to G-d go to the Kotel, but if you want to see Him, go to Shuk Machaneh Yehudah."

Little Israel is a world leader in medicine, science, technology, and so much more.
And – the greatest explosion of Torah learning in Jewish history has taken place here with the generous help of the secular Zionists, and the religious Zionists (the Mizroochnikim).

And this you call "golus by Jews." We have never had it better.

Now take a closer look at that "great article of faith" and you should be struck by the realization that for that statement alone the charedi community should be held in absolute contempt. The ugly assertion that we, your fellow Jews, impose upon you an exile worse than any you have ever experienced, is more than enough reason for us to reject you and all you supposedly stand for. That despicable hashkafah is not Torah.

Furthermore, if the golus you suffer by the hands of fellow Jews is so bad, in fact the "worst golus," why don't you leave, run away, save yourselves from "this terrible exile." Breath the fresh air of France, the tranquility of the Ukraine, join the Moslems of England. Save your souls from enslavement to us. The "goldeneh medina" beckons. Be free of the yoke of tziyonim and mizroochniks, get a green card. Boro Park here we come. Why stay here and suffer. Go be rid of us.

Come to think of it – since the Eritreans and Sudanese like it here so much, so maybe an exchange of populations can be arranged.

I am very surprised that the Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation did not soundly condemn this "hashkafah" which can only be described as mega-loshon hora against Klal Yisrael for subjecting their brothers and sisters to such awful golus.

There is, of course, a secondary gain from this statement that is warmly welcomed. The people of Chutz L'Aretz don't even have to consider aliyah at all. Who would willingly subject his family to the "worst golus of all."

Take note: the ugly "golus by Jews" hashkafah places you right down there with the world's anti-Semites, who accuse Israel of apartheid.
I suspect that the purveyors of that lie have been entrapped in the web of their own extreme rhetoric, "gezeras hashmaed," "destroyers of Torah," "chareidi haters." You have begun to believe that it is really so. What a pity.

I suggest that Hamodia publicly disassociates itself from that abhorrent, poisonous hashkafah, asks for forgiveness from all of us, and expresses thanks and gratitude to Hashem for all His kindness. If you may be in a truly penitent mood, ask yourselves whether you are really the victims of unbridled, undeserved hatred, or have you contributed in great measure to what may be a reaction to your own contempt for everything that is sacred and holy to the "people who reside in Zion." Think about it. Think about it honestly and seriously.

The nation's flag is "a shmatteh on a shteken" ("a rag on a stick"), the national anthem was written by a drunk. As a matter of fact, the flag is beautiful, and a study of Hatikvah will reveal its power to move a nation.

Yom Haatzmaut is nothing, Yom Hazikaron raises the serious issue of, chas v'shalom, standing for two minutes silence of which you have made into some bogus nonsensical crime (you really made many friends with that). Yom Hashoah is all wrong. Even Yom Yerushalayim is unknown in your community. You don't say the Prayer for the Welfare of the State, nor do you pray for the safety of the soldiers who protect you so that you can learn Torah (that one really made you very popular). In fact, I can't think of a single area in which you participate with the rest of Klal Yisrael. In one of my more aggressive moments I asserted that since the State and the IDF have been doing so well for 66 years without your prayers, let's better leave it that way. We don't want to rock the boat, you know.

An absolute rejection of the ugly hashkafah will hopefully signal the beginning of a new era of love and friendship between Jew and fellow Jew. When you truly see the hand of Hashem in action for the past sixty-six years, you will want to say with great kavanah the prayer for the State and for the soldiers who risk their lives day and night so that we can all live safely in G-d's land.

Sholom Gold

16/9 Agassi St.

Jerusalem 98377

goldofjerusalem@gmail.com

the cure for the metzorah -- new chiyus

“Zos ti’hiyeh toras ha’metzorah…”  It’s interesting that we find this special lashon of “toras…” used specifically in connection with parshiyos that deal with tumah, e.g. toras hametzorah, toras ha’zav.  (It is used by korbanos, e.g. “zos toras ha’olah,” to convey that learning the parsha is equivalent to actually bringing a korban.)  It’s also ironic that it is used here, as the Midrash quotes the pasuk of “U’l’rasha amar, ‘Mah lecha l’sapeir chuki’” on our parsha. 

Someone who is tamei and has been kicked out of the machaneh feels like he doesn’t have a place anymore; he feels burdened by aveiros and distant from G-d.  We all sometimes feel that way.  Therefore, explains the Sefas Emes, the Torah stresses that it speaks to us not only when we feel connected, but there is a “toras hametzorah” as well -- even periods of seeming disconnectedness also fall within the framework of Torah.  You never fall outside the borders; there never is true disconnectedness from G-d.  There is a torah of “Mah lecha l’sapeir chuki” when instead of learning a person needs to work on himself and his tikun hanefesh until he is re-energized.

As we mentioned last week, tzara’as is a punishment for lashon ha’ra.  There is a view in Chazal (Archin 15) that the sin of lashon ha’ra is so severe that a ba’al lashon ha’ra cannot even mend his mistakes through teshuvah.  If so, asks the Shem m’Shmuel, what is our parsha all about? How can we speak of the metzorah getting a kapparah and being healed if he cannot fix the mistake of lashon ha’ra?

The Midrash tells the story of a peddler who came to town hawking an elixir for life, a sam hachaim.  Rav Yanai followed him around to see what he was selling.  Finally, the peddler revealed his “wares” – he quoted the pasuk, “Mi ha’ish he’chofetz chaim… netzor leshoncha mei’ra u’sefasecha midabeir mirma sur mei’ra v’asei tov…” Rav Yanai exclaimed that he had never understood the pasuk until he heard it from that peddler.  Surely Rav Yanai knew this pasuk beforehand.  What new insight did he gain from this episode?

The key word in the story, explains the Shem m’Shmuel, is “sam.”  Avoiding lashon ha’ra is like a vitamin.  Combined with doing other right things, “… sur mei’ra v’aseh tov,” it can give a person a long and healthy life.  But a person cannot walk in front of a bullet or a speeding train and then take a “sam,” a vitamin or some other medicine, and get better!  It’s a “sam hachaim” – but it’s not life itself.  That was the chiddush Rav Yanai learned.  “Metzora chashuv k’meis,” a metzorah is like a dead person, Chazal tell us.  A ba’al lashon ha’ra is not in intensive care – he’s c”v in the morgue already.  What he needs is new chiyus, not just a bandaid or an antibiotic.

Two people bring their smashed up cars into the dealer and leave with cars that have no dents.  In one case, the repairmen banged out the dents, did the repairs, and fixed the car so it drives again.  That’s teshuvah – it’s a tikun for the dents in the neshoma.  However, sometimes that’s not enough.  Sometimes the car is so broken that repair is impossible.  The damage from lashon ha’ra can be so great that teshuvah alone can’t fix it.  But that’s not the end of the story.  When you can’t fix the car, you don’t stop driving – you get a new car.  Our parsha teaches that even when teshuvah won’t work, you can still recover and find new chiyus, you can become a new person.  It’s not a cure for the past – it’s a new beginning with no record of the past.  Obviously, this type of renewal is a difficult avodah, but the important point is that it is possible.

Where does this new chiyus come from?  I think the answer goes back to the first chapter of the Torah.  You open the Chumash and the first things you learn about G-d are 1) He speaks; 2) His words create things.  “Vayomer….” followed by “Vayehi…” I take the pasuk of “Vayipach b’apav nishmas chaim,” which the targum translates as a “ruch m’malela,” a soul that can speak, in that context.  Man being created in G-d’s image means that man is endowed with that same capacity to create and to destroy through words (see Nefesh haChaim in the first few chapters who discusses the idea of “tzelem Elokim” as being the capacity to create worlds).  Yosef tells his brothers that their redeemer from Egypt will use the words “pakod pakadti.”  Why wasn’t Yosef afraid that any charlatan would use that formula and pass himself off as a false messiah?  R’ Tzadok explains that it’s not saying the words alone that counted – the words were the vehicle which created the geulah.  Words, when used properly, create new worlds.  (Galus hadibur probably has something to do with that capacity being lost, but that’s another story.)  The metzorah is somewho who has used words to destroy, who by doing so has severed his connection to that “nishmas chaim” within, and therefore is left for dead.  Rediscovering how to use words properly means regaining that nishmas chaim, that capacity to be like G-d, that cpacity to build and create with one's words, starting, of course, with rebuilding and recreating oneself.

"badad yeishev" -- ma'aseh mitzvah or chalos?

I've been working on inyana d'yoma reviewing Pesachim and Rashi on 67a caught my eye since it connects to our parsha.  A metzora is expelled from machaneh yisrael, which would include his not being allowed to enter a walled city.  The gemara quotes a din from R' Chisda (that the gemara will end up saying is a machlokes Tanaim) that if the metzorah violates the issur of entering the machaneh, he does not get malkos because the issur is a lav hanitak l'aseh:

אמר רב חסדא מצורע שנכנס לפנים ממחיצתו פטור שנאמר בדד ישב מחוץ למחנה מושבו בדד ישב לבדו ישב מחוץ למחנה מושבו הכתוב נתקו לעשה

Why is it considered nitak l'aseh when this pasuk of "badad yeishev" is not written anywhere near the lav of "v'lo yitamu es machaneihem?"  Rashi gives two explanations:

 ואע"ג דלאו בתר לאו כתיב ע"כ לנתוקי לאוי אתא דקי"ל לאו שניתק לעשה אין לוקין עליו דאי לאטעוניה עשה ול"ת הא כתב ביה עשה אחרינא וישלחו מן המחנה אבל זבין וטמאי מתים לא נתקו לעשה ואע"ג דעשה יתירי כתיבי כל חד וחד למילתיה מדריש בספרי ועוד דבהאי כתיב כל ימי אשר הנגע בו וגו' משמע כל ימיו בבדד ישב קאי דאם עבר ונכנס יחזור ויצא ואין בו עונש אחר כדדרשינן כל ימיו דאונס את הנערה במס' מכות (דף טו.) כל ימיו בעמוד והחזר קאי ומנתקינא ליה ללאוי:

1) "Badad yeishev" is an extra pasuk because we already have an aseh of "V'ishalchu min hamachaneh..."  The extra words tell us this is a lav hanitak l'aseh.

2) "Badad yeishev" is a continuous chiyuv.  Were the metzorah to walk back into the machaneh yisrael, he is obligated to immediately leave and return to that state of "badad yeishev."

It sounds like the two expanations reflect two different models of the mitzvah in lomdus.  According to the first explanation of "badad yeishev" it seems that once the act of leaving is done, the mitzvah is over.  According to Rashi's second explanation, it seems that the mitzvah is not the one-time act of leaving, but rather is about maintaining the state of being "badad yeishev." 

a lesson in emunas chachamim from "mayim she'lanu"

The gemara (Pesachim 42) tells a story of R' Masna who came to Papunya and taught them the halacha that matzah has to be made with "mayim she'lanu." The next day everyone came to his house to get water. He then had to explain that "mayim she'lanu" does not mean "our water,"i.e. to get the water from him, but rather water that rested outside its source so that it is cool.

Why do Chazal record this episode? Obviously there must be a better reason than giving us a chuckle at the expense of the simpletons in Pupunya?

R' Chaim Kanievsky explains b'shem R' Yisrael Salanter that Chazal are showing us what emunas Chachamim means. We've all baked matzah or seen matzah baked.  Little kids go on trips to the matzah bakery before Pesach.  Imagine a Rav comes into your local shul before Pesach, a visiting scholar in residence, and tells everyone a din in baking matzah that no one has heard of before.  Does anyone really think people will immediately change what they've always done?  Or would the reaction be, "Our parents baked matzah, our grandparents baked matzah, we've been doing this for years and no one has ever heard of such a crazy thing!"  The people of Pupunya must have baked matzah in years past before Rav Masna arrived on the scene.  Nonetheless, after they heard his derasha, they lined up next day for his water, as they misinterpreted "mayim she'lanu."  They were willing to accept on trust that Rav Masna knew what he was talking about even if it flew in the face of their past assumptions.

the Rambam forgot a gemara?

The Rambam writes in Shegagos 7:6:

עשה תולדה של אב זה ותולדה של אב זה בהעלם אחת. יראה לי שהוא חייב שתי חטאות

If you do two different tolados from two different avos, the Rambam says "yireh li" a chiddush din that you are chayav two chata'os.

It's pretty rare for the Rambam to write "yireh li."  I imagine you can find in one of R' Chaim Kanievsky's seforim exactly how many times he says it, but even without knowing the exact number, we all know it's not too common.  The Rambam usually sticks to bringing down only what is explicit in sources in Chazal.  What is striking about this halacha is not only that the Rambam says a chiddush of "yireh li," but that he didn't have to say it -- the halacha he paskens is mefursh in Bava Kamma daf 2.   You could be learning in the slowest moving shiur and would get this far : )

ומאי איכא בין אב לתולדה נפקא מינה דאילו עביד שתי אבות בהדי הדדי אי נמי שתי תולדות בהדי הדדי מחייב אכל חדא וחדא

The meforshim have all kinds of creative solutions as to what the Rambam added that is not in the gemara, or why the gemara does not mean what it seems to say or might not be aliba d'hilchisa.  I don't see how you can say any of those wonderful answers when the Rambam himself was asked by his son what he meant here and he replied.  What he says is remarkable.  Quoting Kesef Mishneh:

ומ"ש עשה תולדה של אב זה וכו' יראה לי שהוא חייב שתי חטאות. מצאתי כתוב שנשאל ה"ר אברהם בנו של רבינו למה אמר יראה לי והלא גמרא ערוכה בריש ב"ק מאי איכא בין אב לתולדה נ"מ דאי עביד שני אבות בהדי הדדי א"נ שתי תולדות בהדי הדדי מיחייב תרתי א"כ מאי יראה לי דקאמר. והשיב לא אמר בגמרא שתי תולדות של שני אבות ולפיכך אמר יראה לי שאפשר לומר דהאי דאמרינן בגמרא שתי תולדות של אב אחד לאו אליבא דהלכתא ואפשר שנתעלם זה המקום ממנו ז"ל בעת שכתב יראה לי ומ"מ הדין אמת ואליבא דהלכתא עכ"ל.

In short, the second answer is that that maybe the Rambam simply forgot!  I can't recall seeing something like this, but maybe those of you who have more bekiyus will point me to other places

What confuses me is that if I'm not mistaken, the Rambam did multiple drafts of Mishneh Torah.  You would think that at some point in looking back at what he wrote he would have remembered and fixed the mistake.  In any case, it's good that the Rambam himself said this, because if you or I had said it we probably would have gotten thrown out of the beis medrash.  Whenever Tosfos asks questions from all over sha"s on Rashi, instead of looking at a Pnei Yehoshua or other meforshim, life would be easier, albeit less intellectually challenging and stimulating, if we could say sevaros like "Rashi forgot."  But that's just not done, unless I guess a Rishon does it for us.

You could highlight a different angle here and emphasize the gadlus of the Rambam: even though he did not have the sugya in mind, he still was mechavein to the right halacha.  There is an intuitive sense of halacha that great talmidei chachamim have that goes beyond knowing sources.  I remembering once hearing that the Chasam Sofer would pasken shaylos between Mincha and Ma'ariv and only afterwards write out the teshuvos.  He trusted his sense of what the outcome would be even before he consciously mapped out how to get there.

yachol mei'Rosh Chodesh

The Lubavitcher Rebbe explains derech derush the line in the haggadah of “Yachol mei’Rosh Chodesh…” is a statement, not a question.  You don’t need to wait until the 15^th of Nissan, but rather, “yachol mei’Rosh Chodesh,” you can already experience the flavor of Yetzi’as Mitzrayim from the start of the month.  “Talmud lomar ‘Ba’yom ha’hu,’” because already from that day, from Rosh Chodesh, Moshe Rabeinu began teaching us the halachos of Pesach.  (He goes through how to read the rest of the paragraph too.)

The gemara (Pesachim 6) has a machlokes whether one must start learning Hil Pesach 30 days before the chag or 2 weeks before, from Rosh Chodesh.  R’ Shimon ben Gamliel’s proves that only two weeks are required from the fact that Moshe started to teach hilchos Pesach to Bnei Yisrael on Rosh Chodesh Nissan.  The Tanna Kamma proves that it must be 30 days because Moshe taught the laws of Pesach Sheni on the first Pesach, 30 days beforehand.  Asks the gemara: what does R’ Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds only 2 weeks are needed, do with this proof?  And the gemara gives an answer. 

The Shem m’Shmuel is medayek that the gemara only asks what the RShb”G does with the Tanna Kamma’s proof.  The gemara is not  bothered by the question of what the Tanna Kamma does with RShb”G’s proof.  Why should that be?

I’m going to put the Shem m’Shmuel’s answer in Brisker terms.  There are two dinim in the parshiyos given at Rosh Chodesh: 1) halachos that had to be studies and absorbed in preparation for Pesach; 2) halachos that served as the soul, the life-energy, needed to create "Klal Yisrael.” 

There is a parallel between Sefer Braishis, which is the story of physical creation, and Sefer Shmos, which is the story of spiritual creation that centers around the geulah of Am Yisrael.  The crowning moment of physical creation is, “Vayipach b’apav nishmas chaim…,” G-d endowing man with a soul.  The equivalent moment in Sefer Shmos is G-d giving over the first mitzvos on Rosh Chodesh, as it is Torah and mitzvos which are the soul of Klal Yisrael.

The gemara needed an explanation according to RShb”G for why Moshe needed to teach halachos of Pesach Sheni 30 days beforehand.   But no explanation is required for why Moshe taught hilchos Pesach from Rosh Chodesh Nissan.  Even were it not for the kiyum mitzvah of learning halachos in preparation for the chag, Rosh Chodesh Nissan is the beginning of the spiritual birth of Klal Yisrael, and that process of creation could only take place through the teaching of Torah.