a period of transition

The gemara (Sota 34) darshens that the names of the meraglim reveal their flawed character:

תניא, א״ר יצחק, דבר זה מסורת בידינו מאבותינו, מרגלים על שם מעשיהם נקראו, ואנו לא עלתה בידינו אלא אחד, סתור בן מיכאל, סתור – שסתר מעשיו של הקב״ה, מיכאל – שעשה עצמו מך א״ר יוחנן, אף אנו נאמר, נחבי בן ופסי (פ׳ י״ד) נחבי – שהחביא דבריו של הקב״ה, ופסי – שפסע על מדותיו של הקב״ה

It seems that these were not very nice guys.  However, Rashi tells us

כלם אנשים – כל אנשים לשון חשיבות הוא, ואותה שעה כשירין היו.

Indeed, if the meraglim were as bad as their names suggested, it begs the question of why Moshe selected them for the mission. Why invite trouble by choosing the bad apples?

Furthermore, why would Moshe have davened only for Yehoshua if he knew that the other mergalim were going to cause mischief? Aderaba, he should have davened for them, as they were more in need for his tefilos than Yehoshua!  

Transitions are difficult.  Ibn Ezra famously writes that even though Bn"Y at Yam Suf vastly outnumbered the mere 600 chariots Pharaoh had, they would not have been able to fight.  Psychologically, they could not stand up to the people who had been their masters just a short time earlier.  The transition from slavery to freedom is not so simple.  Bn"Y in the midbar were surrounded by the miracles of the mon, the be'er, the ananei ha'kavod.  All their needs were miraculously taken care of.  The transition to life in Eretz Yisrael, a life of working the land, a life that would require their effort, not miracles, to create a all the trappings of a functioning country, was bound to be difficult as well.

The gemara does not mean that the spies were at that moment flawed individuals.  What the gemara means is that the 12 spies were flawed individuals who had managed to overcome the defects inherent in who they were and become better people.  Each one of them, as their name indicates, had a weakness.  Each one of them managed to make the transition to greatness.  

Who better, writes the Tiferes Shmuel (Aleksander), to lead when facing a period of national transition?  Who better to see and explain how a wasteland inhabited by immoral, antagonistic enemies can become gan Hashem?

This is why Moshe prayed for Yehoshua alone.  It was davka Yehoshua's great piety which gave rise to Moshe's concern that he, more than the others, would not be successful.  Not having to overcome any inherent flaw, not having to make a transition to become something better than who he was "meant" to be, was in this case, in Moshe's view, a defect.

entering into a situation of ones

Saw the following question:

The Mordechai holds that if one has a garment missing tzitzis, there is no problem in wearing it on shabbos.  The logic is that there is no issur in putting on a four cornered garment.  Once the garment is on, one becomes obligated to put tzitzis on it, but at that point, since it is shabbos and one cannot tie tzitzis, ones Rachmana patrei.

The first Mishna in Beitza says that if one did not prepare anything to do kiseui ha'dam with, one cannot shecht on Y"T.  Why not apply the Mordechai's logic and say that there is no issur in doing shechita, just once the shechita is done, there is a chiyuv to do kisuei ha'dam; at that point, if one has no dirt prepared that is not muktzah, ones Rachamana patrei? 

What's the difference between these cases?

tzitzis worn without kavanah - lack of kiyum mitzvah or bitul aseh?

The M.B. in Biur Halacha (siman 60) says a big chiddush: if a person puts on tzitzis but fails to have kavanah to be yotzei the mitzvah, they are mevateil a mitzvas aseh.  Therefore, he writes, a person needs to be careful when they are called up for an aliyah and they grab a talis, to make sure to have kavanah l'shem mitzvas tzitzis.  (He then backtracks a bit and suggests that since the talis in this case is being worn momentarily only for the sake of getting an aliya, it may not really be a "levisha" which is chayav in tzitzis.)

I saw some assert that this chiddush contradicts a Minchas Chinuch.  The gemara darshens that "v'asu LAHEM tzitzis" excludes using a stolen item for the mitzvah.  Why do we need a derasha to give us this new din when we already have a principle of mitzvah ha'baah b'aveira?  Minchas Chinuch answers that mitzvah ha'baah b'aveira negates the kiyum mitzvah.  It is as if the person did nothing, and therefore gets no credit.  The derasha goes a step further and teaches us that using stolen goods results in a bitul aseh.  It's worse than doing nothing -- it's like wearing a 4 cornered garment with no tzitzis.  (M.C. says the same chiddush by sukkah where there is a derasha to pasul a stolen sukkah on top of the din of mitzvah ha'baah b'aveira.)  

According to MB, failure to get credit for the kiyum mitzvah, e.g. where there is a lack of kavanah, results automatically in a bitul aseh.

R' Elchanan in Koveitz Shiurim (Kesubos 250) questions whether tzitzis worn without kavanah is doche kilayim.  This safeik should hinge in part on whether you accept the chiddush of the MB.  If a lack of kavanah is equivalent to being mevateil the mitzvah, there is no aseh to be doche the lav of kilayim.  According to MC, however, the gavra may get no credit for the mitzvah, but l'maaseh he wearing a garment with tzitzis, and perhaps the issur of kilayim does not apply to a garment that has proper tzitzis on it.

a gift is a mechayeiv

I work close to midtown Manhattan in a building, one of many in the neighborhood, that has a giant pride flag hanging over the front entrance.  Every morning I am greeted with a colorful flier pasted on the entranceway to our floor encouraging people to join a group that engages in "advocacy" and promotes "visibility" of people engaged in a to'eivah lifestyle.  As part of the celebrations this month, there are conferences and events being held with participation of C-level executives, just to make sure you get the message that toe'aveh is supported at the highest levels in the company.  All this is in addition to the regular barrage of emails I get offering me things like voluntary (for now)  unconscious bias training and the like.  

I remember back in the good ol' days where the biggest issues working in a corporate environment were things like making sure you could leave early on erev Shabbos, or a woman manager offering a handshake after a meeting or interview.  Now, in many companies there is no problem even getting kosher food at meetings (offered alongside vegetarian, vegan, hallal, and a gamut of other selections).  What you put in your mouth may be kosher, but everything else in the environment is treif! 

I'm not surprised that a judge ruled this week that Yeshiva Universtity must recognize a LGBT group.  You can't be a square and claim you are really a circle.  You can't claim to be a "non religious organization" but then exclude LGBT because you want to keep religious values.  Circle or square -- which is it?  Torah u'Mada maybe makes sense if you are dealing with 1950's liberal values, with what was once thought of as the great ideas of Western civilization.  Maybe there is something we can take away from those ideas.  These days, forget it.  To even talk about Western civilization will get you banned.  The world is not interested in our values, and I don't see how we can gain much from being interested in the ones in vogue out there.  

Anyway... something on the parsha:

1. Bn"Y complain about the mon and Moshe is ready to throw in the towel:

הֶאָנֹכִ֣י הָרִ֗יתִי אֵ֚ת כׇּל־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֔ה אִם־אָנֹכִ֖י יְלִדְתִּ֑יהוּ כִּֽי־תֹאמַ֨ר אֵלַ֜י שָׂאֵ֣הוּ בְחֵיקֶ֗ךָ כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשָּׂ֤א הָאֹמֵן֙ אֶת־הַיֹּנֵ֔ק עַ֚ל הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר נִשְׁבַּ֖עְתָּ לַאֲבֹתָֽיו (11:12)

Rashi already asks: when did Hashem ever say that Moshe has to serve as a nursemaid, to be like a kindergarten teacher and baby people?

R' Yerucham Lebovitz answers that the very fact that Hashem gave Moshe the gift of leadership, the power to deal with the people even when they are rebellious, even when they test his patience, is mechayeiv him to do so.  

When Hashem gives a person a talent, a gift, that's Hashem's message to the individual that their mission is to use that ability to its fullest.  

2. How is a leader supposed to react when the flock lets him down?  וּבְעֵינֵ֥י מֹשֶׁ֖ה רָֽע׃ (11:9)  Rather than asking for mercy from Hashem, this time Moshe shows his disapproval (see post here), and in the very next pasuk says to Hashem:

 לָמָ֤ה הֲרֵעֹ֙תָ֙ לְעַבְדֶּ֔ךָ וְלָ֛מָּה לֹא־מָצָ֥תִי חֵ֖ן בְּעֵינֶ֑יךָ לָשׂ֗וּם אֶת־מַשָּׂ֛א כׇּל־הָעָ֥ם הַזֶּ֖ה עָלָֽי

Sounds like Moshe is bemoaning his lot, asking Hashem why he has to put up with the complaints.  The Noam Elimelech, however, k'darko reads the pasuk quite differently.  לָמָ֤ה הֲרֵעֹ֙תָ֙ לְעַבְדֶּ֔ךָ -- why, Hashem, have you made it so that  I see the רָֽע in the people -- וּבְעֵינֵ֥י מֹשֶׁ֖ה רָֽע -- and not the good?  וְלָ֛מָּה לֹא־מָצָ֥תִי חֵ֖ן בְּעֵינֶ֑יךָ לָשׂ֗וּם אֶת־מַשָּׂ֛א כׇּל־הָעָ֥ם הַזֶּ֖ה עָלָֽי -- why have I not found favor to be charged with carrying the people's burdens rather than become a leader who cannot see the good in his people?

As discussed once before, the greatness of Moshe was "temunas Hashem yabit" -- when he looked at a simple Jew, maybe even a rebellious Jew, he saw temunas Hashem.

parshas sotah and mechikas Hashem: hutra or dechuya?

The gemara (Sukkah 53) relates then when David dug the shitin drainpipes for the mizbeyach, the waters below started coming up through the drains and threatened to flood everything.  David thought of a solution: write the shem Hashem on a piece of earthenware and throw it into the drain to stop the water.  However, he did not know whether it would be permissable to erase shem Hashem to do this or not, so he announced that anyone who knows the answer should come forward.  Continues the gemara:

נָשָׂא אֲחִיתוֹפֶל קַל וָחוֹמֶר בְּעַצְמוֹ: וּמָה לַעֲשׂוֹת שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: שְׁמִי שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בִּקְדוּשָּׁה יִמָּחֶה עַל הַמַּיִם, לַעֲשׂוֹת שָׁלוֹם לְכׇל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁרֵי.

Achitofel drew a kal v'chomer: if to make peace between husband and wife the shem Hashem can be erased, as we read in the parsha of sotah, certainly it can be erased to make peace for the whole world.

In the Reshimos Shiurim, R' Soloveitchik is quoted as learning from here that the din of mechikas Hashem by sotah is dechuya, not hutra.  

מכאן מוכח דהא דמוחקין את השם בסוטה אינה מדין הותרה אלא מדין דחויה, שיש במחיקת השם מעשה איסור אלא דשלום בית דוחה את איסור המחיקה, דהא יליף אחיתופל לכל התורה כולה מסוטה, דאילו הותרה למצות סוטה איך אפשר ללמוד לשאר התורה.

Were mechikas Hashem hutra just for the sake of sotah, then that would preclude generalizing from there to other cases.  It must be that there is an issur of mechika even in the sotah case, but the need for shalom pushes it off.  Therefore we can generalize to other contexts.

RYBS brought further proof from the last Rambam in Hil Chanukah:

היה לפניו נר ביתו ונר חנוכה או נר ביתו וקדוש היום נר ביתו קודם משום שלום ביתו שהרי השם נמחק לעשות שלום בין איש לאשתו. גדול השלום שכל התורה ניתנה לעשות שלום בעולם שנאמר דרכיה דרכי נעם וכל נתיבותיה שלום

Rambam learns that just like for the sake of shalom the issur of mechikas Hashem is pushed off, so too, for the sake of shalom lighting shabbos candles takes precedence over kiddush.  Again, we see the principle derived from sotah being generalized to other instances.

Afar ani tachas kapos raglav, but I think the Shu"T haRama (100:10) learns differently.  Rama quotes a teshuvah from Rav Hai Gaon: a husband took an oath to divorce his wife.  Can the husband violate his shevu'a for the sake of shalom bayis and remaining married?  Rav Hai Gaon responded that he may not.  This case is not comparable to the parsha of sotah, Rav Hai somewhat cryptically explains, because there violating the issur of mechikas Hashem is 'motzei mi'dei safeik u'mi'dei issura,' but here, with respect to shevu'a, there is an issur of 'lo tisa." 

What exactly is the chiluk Rav Hai is making between the two cases?  Rama explains that the issur of mechikas Hashem is derived from, "lo taasun kein l'Hashem Elokeichem...," not to destory our holy things the way avodah zarah must be destroyed.  The issur of mechikas Hashem, he writes, only applies when done with a destructive intent.  However, if done for a constructive purpose, e.g. shalom bayis, there is no issur. 

Were shalom bayis **doche** the issur of mechikas Hashem, then shalom bayis should be doche the issur of shevu'a as well.  Rama says this equation does not work because the issur of mechikas Hashem is **hutra**, i.e. there is no issur when done for a constructive purpose.  This does not apply to the issur of shevu'a, which has completely different parameters.  Achitofel could generalize from sotah to his scenario because he was dealing with the same issur of mechikas Hashem done for a constructive purpose.

The proof from hil chanukah is not convincing to me because in that case we are speaking about a din derabbanan of ner shabbos taking precedence over other dinim derabbanan like drinking wine for kiddush, or ner chanukah.  There many takanos derabbanon instituted for sake of darkei shalom, so it's no surprise that one derabbanan would outweigh another for that reason.

I saw quoted b'shem R' Elyashiv a different pshat in this Rav Hai Gaon.  R' Elyashiv suggested that the woman involved suffers tremendous embarrassment by being put through the sotah process to determine her guilt or innocence.  This is why the Torah promises that if indeed she is innocent, meaning she did not have relations with a stranger, she is rewarded and will have a child.  Eevn though she is not truly 100% innocent -- she certainly violated the issur yichud -- the great burden of embarrassment inflicted upon her demands some compensation.  Davka in this instance, where a woman's reputation is on the line, when she is suffering great pains of shame, the Torah allows shem Hashem to be erased.  This is far beyond the normal bounds of ordinary shalom bayis, and therefore, one cannot generalize from here regarding shalom bayis being doche other issurim.

I only saw this quoted second hand in a parsha sheet, but it seems to me that it leaves unresolved how Achitofel could derive anything from the parsha of sotah given that the heter mechikas Hashem there is unique to the special circumstance involved. 

the special meaning of Shavuos for Rav Yosef

(I presented a version of these divrei Torah [took out personal references and some other stuff] at the shloshim siyum for my FIL, Dovid ben haChaveir Yosef.  They should be an aliya for his neshoma)

The gemara (Pesachim 68) writes that Shavuos was Rav Yosef’s favorite holiday:

רב יוסף ביומא דעצרתא אמר עבדי לי עגלא תלתא אמר אי לא האי יומא דקא גרים כמה יוסף איכא בשוקא

We all would be nothing without mattan Torah. What did Rav Yosef have more of an appreciation and make a greater celebration of the day than anyone else’s? And if Rav Yosef was celebrating mattan Torah, why does he not say “mattan Torah?” Why does the gemara refer to “hai yoma,” the day?

The gemara at the end of Horiyos tells us that Rav Yosef was called “Sinai” because he had an unbelievable memory and could recall braisos as if they had been dictated to him word for word from Sinai.

However, at some point Rav Yosef's condition changed (Nedarim 41):

רב יוסף חלש איעקר ליה למודיה אהדריה אביי קמיה היינו דבכל דוכתא אמרינן אמר רב יוסף לא שמיע לי הדא שמעתא א"ל אביי את אמריתה ניהלן ומהא מתניתא אמריתה ניהלן

Rav Yosef forgot his learning. This is why throughout shas we find Abayei reminding his rebbe, Rav Yosef, of sugyos that Rav Yosef had taught him but had now forgotten.

In light of Rav Yosef’s condition, we can appreciate his comment (Menachos 99a)

אשר שברת ושמתם בארון תני רב יוסף מלמד שהלוחות ושברי לוחות מונחין בארון מכאן לתלמיד חכם ששכח תלמודו מחמת אונסו שאין נוהגין בו מנהג בזיון

Rav Yosef himself was the shivrei luchos! He proved that even after he could no longer function on the level he once was able to, his life still had meaning, and his life could still be lived with dignity and respect. Broken luchos can be cherished as much as whole ones.

Rav Yosef celebrated not just the giving of the luchos, mattan Torah, like we all do, but he in particular celebrated the fact that Torah was given through shivrei luchos, through that would be broken, and that even these luchos too would have a place in the aron.

A second reason why the Shavuos had particular meaning for Rav Yosef:

The gemara (Kid 30a) writes that someone who teaches Torah to his grandchildren is as if he received it directly at Har Sinai, like at Shavuos.

אמר ריב"ל כל המלמד את בן בנו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו קבלה מהר סיני שנאמר והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וסמיך ליה יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלהיך בחורב

This idea of ensuring that Torah is passed down to children, and grandchildren as well, is reflected in another statement of Chazal (B”M 85):

ר' יוחנן כל שהוא תלמיד חכם ובנו תלמיד חכם ובן בנו תלמיד חכם שוב אין תורה פוסקת מזרעו לעולם שנאמר ואני זאת בריתי וגו' לא ימושו מפיך ומפי זרעך ומפי זרע זרעך אמר ה' מעתה ועד עולם מאי אמר ה' אמר הקב"ה אני ערב לך בדבר זה מאי מעתה ועד עולם אמר ר' ירמיה מכאן ואילך תורה מחזרת על אכסניא שלה

Rav Yochanan said it, but Rav Yosef lived it. The gemara continues:

רב יוסף יתיב ארבעין תעניתא ואקריוהו לא ימושו מפיך יתיב ארבעים תעניתא אחריני ואקריוהו לא ימושו מפיך ומפי זרעך יתיב מאה תעניתא אחריני אתא ואקריוהו לא ימושו מפיך ומפי זרעך ומפי זרע זרעך אמר מכאן ואילך לא צריכנא תורה מחזרת על אכסניא שלה

(Parenthetically, why does the gemara say that R”Y fasted 40 days for himself, 40 for his children, but 100 [others change the girsa, but this is how the printed text reads and how Maharasha has it] for his grandchildren? I am admittedly a newbie in the role of grandparent, but it seems to me that by the time one’s children are grown and one gets to be a grandparent, one realizes that however many tefilos, fasts, etc. one thought would be enough to ensure the mesorah continues to the next generation, in reality even twice as much is not even enough.)

Rav Yosef’s life was Shavuos, was mattan Torah, because he established that bond across generations.  That's why the day had such special meaning for him.

Shavuos is the time we are judged on “peiros ha’ilan.” It's a time to take stock of one's efforts to pass the mesorah on to the fruits of one’s family tree, children and grandchildren.  Hopefully the effort bears spiritual fruit.

Shavuos - holiday of Torah she'baal peh

Sefas Emes (5633):

ענין קריאת רות בשבועות. שהוא ענין תורה שבע"פ

How is Rus about Torah shebaal peh, and if that is indeed the takeaway from the  book, why do we read it on Shavuos, which at first glance is a celebration of the written Torah, a celebration of receiving luchos which were engraved and written by G-d?

My wife wrote on her blog:

This year, I was thinking about parallels between Megillat Esther and Megillat Ruth. In both, the heroine for whom the book is named has a parental figures who is not her actual parent as a guide. This figure advises her about how to behave in a new environment for her -- Mordechai directs Esther to remain silent about her identity, and Naomi instructs Ruth about halachos and social norms in Jewish society in general and told to stick with the maids working in Boaz's field

Subsequently, though, that same authority figure turns the tables on the heroine due to what has come to light to change her tactics and take a great risk. The heroine then has to act contrary to her nature and take action that would be considered rash and dangerous. She must subjugates her own views to that of the wisdom of the parental figure.

She refers to Mordechai's instruction to Esther to go to Achashveirosh even uninvited in order to thwart Haman's plot, and Naomi's instruction to Rus to go to Boaz and meet him in the field in the middle of the night, seemingly unsuitable behavior for a bas yisrael. My wife ends off:

Interestingly, both heroines thus prove themselves worth of royalty, for the middah of malchus in Jewish thought is not of self-assertion but of receiving. I'd venture to say that Esther (descended from the line of Rachel) may represent the role of Moshiach ben Yosef while Ruth clearly establishes the line leading to David and the Moshiach born of that dynasty.

How does Rus express her commitment to Judaism?   She doesn't pull out a kitzur shulchan aruch, or some other guidebook that tells her how to behave and pledge to follow it.  She tells Naomi, "Ba'asher teileichi eilech, ba'asher taluni alin" -- "Where you go, I go," etc.  It is Naomi's behavior and practice that is her guide.  It is Naomi's instruction that she follows, irrespective of the risk to her reputation, or in Esther's case, to her life. 

These heroines prove worthy of the midah of malchus because "man malchi -- Rabbanan."   Without a concept of mesorah, without Rabbinic interpretation, without role models and tradition, Torah could not endure.  It is the mesorah, the Rabbis, who rule over the text, not the text which rules over the mesorah. 

Even though the Torah says an Amoni may not intermarry into Klal Yisrael, Boaz came along and revealed that an Amonis is excluded from that law.  Boaz = Bo Oz, the Torah was embodied within him, his interpretation and mesorah defined what the rules of the game were.  

That's why the parallel to Rus is the story of Esther, which we read on Purim.  "Hadar kiblu'ha b'ymei Achashveirosh..."  Purim is also a celebration of kabbalas haTorah, and therefore, this same theme of a living, breathing mesorah is a focal point of the megillah story.

The tachlis of mattan Torah, what we celebrate on Shavuos, can be summed up in three words: Lo BaShamayim Hi.  Mattan Torah is in fact all about Torah shebaal peh because at that moment of mattan Torah G-d turned over the reins to us and Torah became more than just words on a page.  

kabbalas haTorah b'simcha

Hashem told Moshe while he was up on Har Sinai that the people below were worshipping the eigel, but that did not stop Moshe from bringing the luchos down with him.  Once he saw what was going on, however, he smashed the luchos.  M'ikara mai ka'savar u'l'bsof mai kasavar?  If he thought Bn"Y did not deserve the luchos, why did he bring them down?  If they did deserve them, why did Moshe smash them?

Seforno (32:19) answers:

וירא את העגל ומחלת, ויחר אף משה – כשראה שהיו שמחים בקלקול שעשו, כענין ״כי רעתכי אז תעלזי״ (ירמיהו י״א:ט״ו), ובזה התקצף ונואש שיוכל לתקן המעוות באופן שיחזרו לתמותם ויהיו ראויים לאותן הלוחות.

Moshe thought that even if the people were worshipping avodah zarah, it was a mistake he could correct.  Ohr she'hah machziran la'mutav once they got the Torah.  

However, once Moshe saw that it was not just that the people had gone astrary, but that they were filled with simcha at their situation, they were rejoicing in the worship of avodah zarah, he lost hope. You can't compare stam an aveira to an aveira done with simcha and hislahavus.

Rav Tzvi Shteinberg points out the Seforno's comment (23:14) on  שָׁלֹ֣שׁ רְגָלִ֔ים תָּחֹ֥ג לִ֖י בַּשָּׁנָֽה:

תחג לי – כענין ״ישמח ישראל בעשיו״ (תהלים קמ״ט:ב׳), על היפך ״וירא את העגל ומחלת״ (שמות ל״ב:י״ט).

 It's not enough to stam do the mitzvos ha'chag.  You have to have the same simcha and hislahavus that you showed when Aharon declared "chag la'Hashem machar" and you worshipped the eigel.

B'frat, this is true on Shavuos.  It's not enough to have a kabbalas haTorah, but it has to be b'simcha, just like the simcha of the eigel which thwarted the initial kabbalah.