why hashkiveinu is not a hefsek between geulah and tefilah

The parsha tells us וְלֹֽא־יִֽהְיֶ֨ה בָכֶ֥ם נֶ֙גֶף֙ לְמַשְׁחִ֔ית בְּהַכֹּתִ֖י בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃ (12:13).  Hashem reassured Bn"Y that they would not be affected by makkas bechoros.  Seforno explains: 

 שמלבד מכת הבכורות שלח בשאר העם ״עברה וזעם וצרה משלחת מלאכי רעים״ (תהלים ע״ח:מ״ט). כי לולא הפסיחה שעשה בחמלתו על ישראל לא היו נמלטים משאר הצרות ששלח על שארית עם מצרים, כענין ״פן תספה בעון העיר״ 

I don't understand the distinction he is drawing. It sounds like there was no danger from the makkah itself, but there was other dangers of עברה וזעם וצרה משלחת מלאכי רעים.  Why should the principle of פן תספה בעון העיר apply to the latter and not the former?  

Be that as it may, the fact that Bn"Y were in fear of being affected has a nafka mina l'halacha.  O.C. 236 M"B 3 quoting Talmidei R"Y on why the bracha of hashkiveinu is not an interruption between geulah (the bracha of ga'al yisrael) and shmoneh esrei:

ואע"ג דקי"ל דצריך לסמוך גאולה לתפלה אף בערבית וכדלקמיה בס"ב מ"מ השכיבנו לא הוי הפסק דכגאולה אריכתא דמיא [גמרא] וכתבו בתר"י הטעם דכשעבר ה' לנגוף את מצרים היו ישראל מפחדים ומתפללים להש"י שיקיים דברו שלא יתן המשחית לבא אל בתיהם לנגוף וכנגד אותה תפלה תקנו לומר השכיבנו הלכך מעין גאולה היא

all about the attitude

In the opening of our parsha Moshe appears before Pharoah and says in the name of Hashem עַד־מָתַ֣י מֵאַ֔נְתָּ לֵעָנֹ֖ת מִפָּנָ֑י שַׁלַּ֥ח עַמִּ֖י וְיַֽעַבְדֻֽנִי׃.  Rashi explains לענות – כתרגומו: לאתכנעא, והוא מגזרת עני, מאנת להיות עני ושפל מפני.  Hashem is asking Pharoah why he refuses to humble himself before Him and free Bnei Yisrael.

The question at first glance seems strange.  Just 2 pesukim earlier we read that Hashem told Moshe  בֹּ֖א אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה כִּֽי־אֲנִ֞י הִכְבַּ֤דְתִּי אֶת־לִבּוֹ֙ וְאֶת־לֵ֣ב עֲבָדָ֔יו לְמַ֗עַן שִׁתִ֛י אֹתֹתַ֥י אֵ֖לֶּה בְּקִרְבּֽוֹ׃.  Pharoah's heart was hardened by Hashem to prevent him from giving in so that Hashem could demonstate his might by bringing the makkos.  How can G-d take Pharoah to task for מֵאַ֔נְתָּ לֵעָנֹ֖ת מִפָּנָ֑י when Hashem is the one hardening his heart and preventing him from doing so?

The gemara (San 102) writes that Rav Ashi once flippantly told the talmidim that the next day he was going to give a shiur about "Menashe our friend," meaning King Menashe.  That night Menashe appeared to Rav Ashi in a dream to put him in his place, and he said to him, "I'm not your friend and I'm not your father's friend.  You don't even know even a basic halacha like where a loaf of bread should be cut when you say ha'motzi."  Rav Ashi then asked him to explain that halacha, and said he would say it over in King Menashe's name in the shiur.  Then Rav Ashi asked the 64 million dollar question and said, "Menashe, if you're so smart, why were you an oveid avodah zarah?"  To which Menashe answered, "Had you been alive when I was, you would have lifted your frock up so that you could run faster to get to the avodah zarah and worship it."  Meaning, the yetzer for idolatry was so strong there was no escaping it.

Why Menashe chose this particular question of where to slice bread for ha'motzi from to prove Rav Ashi's ignorance is a question for another time.  I want to focus on the last line about Rav Ashi lifting up his frock so he won't trip and be able to run faster.  What did Menashe mean by that?  Maharal (Netzach Yisrael ch 3, see Michtav m'Eliyahu vol 4 p 135) explains as follows: you can have an addict who knows what he is doing is bad but can't stop it, and you have an addict who is so entrenched in the addiction that he does not even recognize it as a bad thing.  Let's say someone just loves chocolate cake and can't resist it when he sees it in the store even though he is overweight and has high cholesterol.  If the person recognizes intellectually that it's bad for him, when the store is out of chocolate cake he says, "Baruch Hashem," and breathes a sigh of relief because he knows that he now will be doing the right thing.  However, if the person does not even recognize that he is eating what he shouldn't be eating, he gets frustrated, he will run to the next store, etc. because to him, eating chocolate cake is a good thing, it's like a mitzvah.  Menashe was telling Rav Ashi that in his generation, they knew avodah zarah was bad.  Their seichel stood in the way of temptation, but temptation was just too strong and they ended upgiving in.  However, said Menashe, had you been in my shoes, you would run after the avodah zarah, meaning there would be nothing blocking you, there would be no check on temptation because you would not even recognize it as wrong -- aderaba, you would rush to do it like it was a mitzvah.  

True, Hashem hardened Pharoah's heart and he could not help but keep Bn"Y enslaved.  It's like the addict who can't resist.  However, like the Maharal explained, there is the addict who knows it's wrong, and there is the addict who is happy to wallow in his addiction.  עַד־מָתַ֣י מֵאַ֔נְתָּ לֵעָנֹ֖ת מִפָּנָ֑י means, as Rashi explained, "Why have you not humbled yourself?"  True, Pharoah, you can't free Bn"Y yet, but you don't have to be b'simcha over that fact.  Aderaba, if you knew they should be free but just couldn't resist keeping them back, you would be humbled and contrite, upset at the state of affairs in which you find yourself.  It's Pharoah's attitude which Hashem here is criticizing (sefas Emes 5632).

Even when you have a good excuse for not doing doing a mitzvah or a chessed, or the right thing, whatever it is, there is not a good excuse for not feeling at least a little bit of sadness about it.  Ramban writes (Bamidbar 10:13) that Bn"Y ran away from Sinai, שנסעו מהר סיני בשמחה כתינוק הבורח מבית הספר, אמרו: שמא ירבה ויתן לנו מצות.  Mattan Torah was over; they were free to move on and travel -- but it should be done with some sadness.  On a Monday or Thursday if the gabai gives a klop and announces no tachanun, there doesn't have to be a cheer that goes up in shul (inwardly, if not outwardly.)  

It's all about the attitude. 

onomatopoeia - words in Tanach

Onomatopoeia is where a word is made up of the sound it describes, e.g. buzz, tick-tock.

Iyov 39:30

 וְאֶפְרֹחָ֥ו יְעַלְעוּ־דָ֑ם

Rashi:

ואינן אלא כפי מדת בלעו דם ומים ונראה כבולע הרבה כאומר על על, וכן בלשון חכמים בהשקאת סוטה (בבלי סוטה כ׳.): מערערין אותה ומשקין אותה על כרחה, וכן: זעקת שבר יעוערו (ישעיהו ט״ו:ה׳) – לשון קריאת גרון דומה לכך.

The word עַלְעוּ is a contraction of על על, the sound made when swallowing a lot at once, similar to the word מערערין or  יעוערו, a contraction of ער ער, the sound made by the throat, לשון קריאת גרון

Other examples???

the connection between "kotzer ruach" and avodah zarah

The problem with the kal v'chomer (6:12) of הֵ֤ן בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לֹֽא־שָׁמְע֣וּ אֵלַ֔י וְאֵיךְ֙ יִשְׁמָעֵ֣נִי פַרְעֹ֔ה וַאֲנִ֖י עֲרַ֥ל שְׂפָתָֽיִם is that just four pesukim earlier the parsha tells us that Bnei Yisrael did not listen to Moshe because  וְלֹ֤א שָֽׁמְעוּ֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה מִקֹּ֣צֶר ר֔וּחַ וּמֵעֲבֹדָ֖ה קָשָֽׁה, they were overburdened with hard work.  Pharoah did not face the same challenge of being overworked; he could carve out time to listen csrefully.  Why was Moshe convinced that just because Bn"Y did not listen, Pharoah would not listen either?

Ramban contrasts the reception Moshe got from the people this time around with their reaction to his words in last week's parsha.  There, the Torah tells us that (4:31) וַֽיַּאֲמֵ֖ן הָעָ֑ם, they believed the message.  Here, they seem deaf to what he has to say.

Ramban argues (see Rashbam who disagrees) that we should not conclude that the people no longer believed in Moshe or his message.  He writes:

לא בעבור שלא יאמינו בי״י ובנביאו, רק שלא הטו אוזן לדבריו מקוצר רוח, כאדם שתקצר נפשו בעמלו, ולא ירצה לחיות רגע בצערו, מדעתו שירוח לו אחרי כן.

The people did believe.  However, the promise of the 4 leshonos of geulah, the promise of a future in Eretz Yisrael, seemed a distant dream that had no bearing on the harsh reality of their day to day burden of work and the oppression they labored under.  

This also seems to be the view of Rashi, who explains ולא שמעו אל משה – לא קיבלו תנחומין.  The people did not doubt the truth of Moshe's words; however, the message provided little consolation to them in their present situation.  

The Midrash Rabbah, however, writes that וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ אֶל משֶׁה וגו׳ – הָיָה קָשֶׁה בְּעֵינֵיהֶם לִפְרשׁ מֵעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים.  The people rejected Moshe's words because they remained attached to their belief in idolatry.

The Midrash seems to be not only at odds with Ramban/Rashi, but at odds with the words of the pasuk itself.  The pasuk tells us that it was  מִקֹּ֣צֶר ר֔וּחַ וּמֵעֲבֹדָ֖ה קָשָֽׁה, because of the burden of work that the people did not listen.  Why does the Midrash attribute their not listening to avodah zarah?

My wife's grandfather, R' Dov Yehudah Shochet, quoted from the Baal haTanya that avodah zarah does not simply mean prostrating onself to an idol.  Avodah zarah means having an identity, a will, apart from G-d's.  When all that exists for a person is G-d's will, then no matter how difficult the task, no matter what burdens and obstacles there are, a person will make an effort to get the job done.  When all that exists is ratzon Hashem, then קֹּ֣צֶר ר֔וּחַ and עֲבדָ֖ה קָשָֽׁה  don't get in the way. 

There is no contradiction between the plain meaning of the pasuk and the Midrash's interpretation. The pasuk is telling you the surface symptom; the Midrash is telling you the root cause, the underlying disease.

This approach, I think, also resolves our original question and explains the kal v'chomer Moshe drew.  If Bn"Y, who came from the lineage of the Avos and had a tradition about geulah, still did not listen because the attraction of avodah zarah pulled them in the wrong direction, then surely Pharoah, chief and leader of a culture steeped in avodah zarah, would never listen. 

morasha, not yerusha

At the end of the leshonos shel geulah, Hashem promises Eretz Yisrael to us as a "morasha," וְנָתַתִּ֨י אֹתָ֥הּ לָכֶ֛ם מוֹרָשָׁ֖ה.  Netziv explains:

לא לשעה שאתם תהיו בה לבד, אלא אפילו בשעה שאתם גולים ממנה הרי היא שלכם, וכמו שאדם הפורש משדה ירושת אבותיו, לעולם דעתו עליה, ומשים לב שלא לשכוח הליכות אותה אחוזה אולי יזכהו ה׳ לשוב אליה. כך ארץ ישראל היא לנו ״מורשה״ לעד,

Eretz Yisrael remains ours, whether we are physically present there or not.  

I don't know why the Netziv does not say it there, but Torah is also described as a "morashsa,"  מוֹרָשָׁ֖ה קְהִלַּ֥ת יַעֲקֹֽב.  A Jew has a portion in Torah no matter what.  What he does with that portion, whether he/she chooses to develop it or not, is a different story.

Ohr haChaim asks: קשה כי דברי אל עליון דברו טהור הוא כי יוצאי מצרים הם הנכנסים לארץ דכתיב והבאתי אתכם אל הארץ ולא מצינו שכן היה אלא ואת בניהם הביא שמה אבל כל דור יוצאי מצרים מבן עשרים שנה נפלו פגריהם במדבר  Where is the promise of וְהֵבֵאתִ֤י אֶתְכֶם֙ אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ if those who left Egypt died in the midbar?

HaKsav vhaKabbalah (see R' Bachyei as well) writes that the answer in a word is this idea of "morasha." 

לא אמר ירושה לרמוז שלא יהיו יורשים אותה, לפי שעתידין היו יוצאי מצרים למות במדבר, אבל יהיו מורישים אותה לבניהם אשר יכנסו לארץ לכן אמר מורשה

A yerusha is something you inherit; a morasha is something you pass on to others to inherit. Chazal tell us that when it came to divide Eretz Yisrael among tribes/families, it was a unique process of המתים יורשׁים את  החיים.  The land was apportioned based on the census of families who left Egypt and only then redistributed to their descendants who actually took possession of the land. 

Torah is מוֹרָשָׁ֖ה קְהִלַּ֥ת יַעֲקֹֽב because what's important is not just what you receive, what you get out of Torah, but also what you give over to the next generation to inherit.  

Agra d'Kallah expands on the link between the morasha of Torah and the morasha of Eretz Yisrael:

תורה וארץ ישראל ירושה הם לנו בלא הפסק, כשם שהגוים אי אפשר להם להתבונן בסודי התורה, כן אין להם נחת בארץ ישראל ואינם מתבוננים בטובה, כענין ושממו עליה אויביכם היושבים בה (ויקרא כו לב), התורה אינה מגלה מסטוריה אלא למהולים (חסר ב' תיבות), כענין שנאמר בנתינת התורה (שמות יט ה) ועתה אם שמוע וכו' ושמרתם את בריתי והייתם לי סגולה מכל העמים, שהוא בדרך סגולה ביותר מכל העמים להבין מסטורין (שלי, כענין) שפירשנו במקומו, כך ארץ ישראל.  

a chiddush of R' SZ"A on bitul b'rov in hil brachos

If a person said kiddush on a cup of wine intending to drink only that specific cup, but then changed his mind and added a little more wine to drink, the Shemiras Shabbos k'Hilchisa (footnote 115 end of ch 48) quotes from R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that the added bit of wine does not require its own bracha because it is bateil to the wine already in the cup.  

(Parenthetically, this is a bit of an unusual type of bitul.  The classic case of bitul is a piece of issur that is nullified in some larger percentage of heter.  Here, there is no issur/heter involved.  The bitul is a bitul of metziyus that tells you to treat the added wine as non-existent.)

Vol 3 of the SS"K quotes R SZ"A as having retracted that psak and says what sounds like a brilliant chiddush.  We know that the rule of bitul b'rov does not apply in dinei mamonos (Beitzah 37).  To take a crazy example to illustrate the point, if I take a dollar of your money and put it in my wallet with my own money, I can't say your dollar is bateil b'rov and I therefore don't have anything of yours.  R' SZ"A suggests that since the gemara (Brachos 35b) says  א"ר חנינא בר פפא כל הנהנה מן העוה"ז בלא ברכה כאילו גוזל להקב"ה וכנסת ישראל that not saying a bracha is like gezel, we should therefore treat the issue of bitul viz a viz whether a bracha is needed as a dinei mamonos issue.  You therefore would not say bitul b'rov on the bit of wine added to the cup and it does require a new bracha.  

To connect dinei brachos as mamonos is genius, but I don't get it.  How do you explain the principle of ikar and tafeil?  As the Mishneh Berura writes (OC 212:1) אפילו שניהם עיקרים אלא שהאחד מרובה מחבירו הרוב הוא העיקר כמ"ש סימן ר"ח ס"ז ואפילו כל מין ומין עומד בפני עצמו וניכר נמי בתר רוב אזלינן  Is the use of rov vs miyut to define ikar and tafeil when you have a mixture not the same principle as bitul b'rov?  

"zeh lecha ha'os" -- the sign Moshe was given

Moshe was reluctant to assume the mantle of leadership.  He said to G-d:

 וַיֹּ֤אמֶר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־הָ֣אֱלֹקים מִ֣י אָנֹ֔כִי כִּ֥י אֵלֵ֖ךְ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה וְכִ֥י אוֹצִ֛יא אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִמִּצְרָֽיִם

The Midrash comments:

רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים, כְּשֶׁיָּרַד יַעֲקֹב לְמִצְרַיִם לֹא כָּךְ אָמַרְתָּ לוֹ:: אָנֹכִי אֵרֵד עִמְּךָ מִצְרַיְמָה וְאָנֹכִי אַעַלְךָ גַּם עָלֹה (בראשית מ״ו:ד׳), וְעַכְשָׁיו אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לִי: לְכָה וְאֶשְׁלָחֲךָ אֶל פַּרְעֹה, לֹא אָנֹכִי הוּא שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ לוֹ: וְאָנֹכִי אַעַלְךָ גַּם עָלֹה

Moshe said to G-d, "You promised that you would be with the people in their exile and that you would redeem them.  I am not you!  It is not my place to take on this task."

To which G-d answered,  כִּֽי־אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה עִמָּ֔ךְ.  I, אָנֹ֔כִי, am the redeemer, but I will act through you.  

The pasuk (3:21) then continues that Hashem gave Moshe a sign:

 וְזֶה־לְּךָ֣ הָא֔וֹת כִּ֥י אָנֹכִ֖י שְׁלַחְתִּ֑יךָ בְּהוֹצִֽיאֲךָ֤ אֶת־הָעָם֙ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם תַּֽעַבְדוּן֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱלֹקים עַ֖ל הָהָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה׃

How does this sign help Moshe prove his bona fides or prove that G-d is with him?  The fact that mattan Torah will take place 50 days after yetzias Mitzrayim will not help Moshe up front, before yetzi'as Mitzrayim takes place, when he has to convince the people to follow him?!

Meshech Chochma and Ohr haChaim say an amazing pshat here.  You have to put the period in the right place in the pasuk.  וְזֶה־לְּךָ֣ הָא֔וֹת כִּ֥י אָנֹכִ֖י שְׁלַחְתִּ֑יךָ -- period, full stop.  This is the sign!  What is the "this" they are talking about?  It's the previous sentence.  There are a lot of people who, if offered the chance to become the leader of a nation, would jump at the chance.  There are people who would demur, but out of a false sense of humility.  That works when you are speaking to a human being, but it does not work when you are speaking to G-d, as He is able to tell exactly what is in your heart and can tell whether you really want the job or not.  False modesty does not work.  It's only a Moshe Rabeinu who can say b'lev shalem, with sincerity and in absolute truth, מִ֣י אָנֹ֔כִי כִּ֥י אֵלֵ֖ךְ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה, I really don't think I am worthy of the job. Hashem told Moshe, "That is the only sign you need."  People can detect true humility and sense sincerity.  They will recognize that only someone of your caliber, only someone who would turn down the job, could possibly be the one chosen by Hashem.

The proof that humility is the quality that defines who the go'el is בְּהוֹצִֽיאֲךָ֤ אֶת־הָעָם֙ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם תַּֽעַבְדוּן֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱלֹקים עַ֖ל הָהָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה. The same זֶה, the same humility, that characterized Moshe's response, is the same זֶה -- the mountain of הָהָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה--  that made Har Sinai into the mountain where mattan Torah would take place.  As Chazal tell us, it's not because Har Sinai was the tallest or greatest mountain that it was chosen; it's because it was the lowest mountain, symbolizing the humility necessary to be a conduit of dvar Hashem.

what Moshe did to merit seeing the burning Moshe

When Moshe sees the burning bush, he turns towards it to see what is going on.  

וַיַּ֥רְא ה׳ כִּ֣י סָ֣ר לִרְא֑וֹת  וַיִּקְרָא֩ אֵלָ֨יו אֱלֹקים מִתּ֣וֹךְ הַסְּנֶ֗ה וַיֹּ֛אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֥ה מֹשֶׁ֖ה וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הִנֵּֽנִי׃

As a result, a Hashem appears and calls to him.

What's so special about Moshe turning to see what's going on that elicits this call from Hashem to make him the leader of Klal Yisrael?  Wouldn't any of us who came across an inexplicable phenomenon, הַמַּרְאֶ֥ה הַגָּדֹ֖ל הַזֶּ֑ה מַדּ֖וּעַ לֹא־יִבְעַ֥ר הַסְּנֶֽה, come closer to take a look?

Says the Midrash:

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, מַהוּ כִּי סָר לִרְאוֹת – אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא סָר וְזָעֵף הוּא זֶה לִרְאוֹת בְּצַעֲרָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִצְרַיִם,

It's not Moshe's turning his attention to look at the burning bush which the pasuk is referring to; it's referring to Moshe's having turned his attention to the suffering of his bretheren in Mitzrayim.  The words סָר לִרְאוֹת is talking about what we read in the previous chapter (2:11),  וַיִּגְדַּ֤ל מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֵּצֵ֣א אֶל־אֶחָ֔יו וַיַּ֖רְא בְּסִבְלֹתָ֑ם.

The tnai rishon to be zocheh to see hashra'as haShechina, to be zocheh to וַיִּקְרָא֩ אֵלָ֨יו אֱלֹקים, is to first open your eyes and see the suffering and needs of your fellow Jew.

Mi Anochi?

When Hashem charged Moshe with the mission of acting as the go'el of Bnei Yisrael, Moshe responded (3:11)

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־הָ֣אֱלֹקים מִ֣י אָנֹ֔כִי כִּ֥י אֵלֵ֖ךְ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה וְכִ֥י אוֹצִ֛יא אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִמִּצְרָֽיִם

To which Hashem responded:

וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ כִּֽי־אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה עִמָּ֔ךְ וְזֶה־לְּךָ֣ הָא֔וֹת כִּ֥י אָנֹכִ֖י שְׁלַחְתִּ֑יךָ בְּהוֹצִֽיאֲךָ֤ אֶת־הָעָם֙ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם תַּֽעַבְדוּן֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱלֹקים עַ֖ל הָהָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה

How does that answer the question?  How does the fact that there will be a kabbalas haTorah serve as a response to מִ֣י אָנֹ֔כִי? 

Moshe later complained that Bn"Y will not believe his message (4:1)

וַיַּ֤עַן מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֹּ֔אמֶר וְהֵן֙ לֹֽא־יַאֲמִ֣ינוּ לִ֔י וְלֹ֥א יִשְׁמְע֖וּ בְּקֹלִ֑י

Why did he doubt them?  Yosef had told them before he died (Braishes 50:24)

 וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יוֹסֵף֙ אֶל־אֶחָ֔יו אָנֹכִ֖י מֵ֑ת וֵֽאלֹקים פָּקֹ֧ד יִפְקֹ֣ד אֶתְכֶ֗ם וְהֶעֱלָ֤ה אֶתְכֶם֙ מִן־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֔את אֶל־הָאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר נִשְׁבַּ֛ע לְאַבְרָהָ֥ם לְיִצְחָ֖ק וּֽלְיַעֲקֹֽב

The people had this tradition that the use of the code words פָּקֹ֧ד פָּקֹ֧דתי would be a sign that the go'el was legitimate.  So why would they not believe if Moshe had the right code?

R' Mordechai Greenberg, the nasi ha'yeshiva of Kerem b'Yavneh, explains based on the writings of R' Kook, that  Bn"Y is singled out from the nations of the world in two respects: 1) we are a moral, law abiding people, not like the primitive tribes of the past; 2) we have a spiritual connection with Hashem beyond what other nations have.  Even if other nations attain culture, abide by laws, become civilized, and become our equal with respect to #1, we still excel above them with respect to #2.

This double-blessing is the meaning of Hashem's promise to Yaakov (Braishis 46:4) 

אָנֹכִ֗י אֵרֵ֤ד עִמְּךָ֙ מִצְרַ֔יְמָה וְאָנֹכִ֖י אַֽעַלְךָ֣ גַם־עָלֹ֑ה

The double-אָנֹכִ֗י is a two fold promise.  One is the promise that Hashem will be with Bn"Y even in the tumah of Mitzrayim and preven them from descending to the level of primitiveness and lawlessness of a backward society. Secondly, there is the promise that redemption will bring them close to Hashem, to spiritual heights like no other people have reached.

And this is the meaning of the promise of פָּקֹ֧ד פָּקֹ֧דתי, also doubled.  A redemption that just releases the people from the chains of bondage without giving their lives spiritual content and meaning is insufficient -- the go'el must deliver both.  

This was Moshe's challenge to Hashem.  "You Hashem promised אָנֹכִ֗י אֵרֵ֤ד עִמְּךָ֙ מִצְרַ֔יְמָה וְאָנֹכִ֖י אַֽעַלְךָ֣ גַם־עָלֹ֑ה.  That role can only be fulfilled by You, but מִ֣י אָנֹ֔כִי, I or any other human being cannot be that אָנֹ֔כִי." 

And this is why Moshe doubted that the people would believe.  There was no magic to saying the right code words.  Those words reflected the double promise, the promise of both physical and spiritual redemption.  That is what Moshe thought he would be unable to fulfill.  To break the shackles of slavery is one thing, but to give the nation a spiritual identity -- that's a different story.

Hashem's response to Moshe is that indeed He is the One who will fulfill the promise of אָנֹכִ֖י אַֽעַלְךָ֣, but it will be done through Moshe, כִּֽי־אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה עִמָּ֔ךְ.  

The culmination of that promise of אָנֹכִ֖י אַֽעַלְךָ֣ will take place at Sinai, where the people will hear אָֽנֹכִ֖י֙ ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ אֲשֶׁ֧ר הוֹצֵאתִ֛יךָ מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרַ֖יִם מִבֵּ֣֥ית עֲבָדִֽ֑ים.   

ChatGPT and human bias

One of the sites I check out now and then is fivebooks.com, where experts are asked to recommend the five best books in their field of expertise.  Their first piece this year was the most interesting one I have ever read on that site.  Unless you've been living under a rock by now you've heard of ChatGPT, the AI that can supposedly write like a person.  Fivebooks.com asked ChatGPT to recommend five books on AI, and they had a discussion with the AI about its choices.  You can read the whole "interview" here.  

As far as the writing goes, I found what ChatGPT produced to be mechanically and technically correct.  However, I would not call it good writing.  The writing lacks color, tone, charm, warmth -- all the qualities that makes good writing worth reading.  My wife tested the site out and she compared it to cooking.  There are some people who can throw together a dish that is nutritious and makes for a balanced meal, but that you would not want to eat unless you are starving.  It's food, but it's food sapped of whatever joy and flavor food gives you when eaten.

The reports in the news the past few days suggesting that ChatGPT will force schools to do away with student writing assignments since they can be done by AI to me says more about the poor quality of student writing these days than the quality of the AI.  

Anyway, back to fivebooks.  Here is the part of the interview that really grabbed caught my attention.  The interviewer asked the AI:

Lastly, when we interview experts, we don’t normally impose criteria, other than that these books should be the best on their subject. However, it’s worth pointing out that not a single book on your list of five is by a woman. Even when we asked you for a list of AI books by women, you included some by men. 

The AI then gave a list of five books by women authors, and then the interviewer follows up:

These books look excellent. Why didn’t you choose some of them as the best AI books?

I did not mention these books specifically as the “best” AI books because I was trying to provide a more general list of recommendations that would be suitable for readers who are new to the field and want to get a broad overview of AI.

Are most AI books written by men?

It is difficult to say definitively whether most books on artificial intelligence (AI) are written by men, as it would be necessary to conduct a detailed analysis of the publishing industry to determine the gender breakdown of authors in this field. However, it is worth noting that the tech industry in general has historically been male-dominated, and it is possible that this may be reflected in the authorship of books on AI. It is also important to recognize that the gender of an author does not necessarily reflect the quality or importance of their work, and that there are many excellent books on AI written by both men and women. It is always a good idea to consider a diverse range of perspectives and viewpoints when reading about any subject, including AI.

It's fascinating to see the interviewer trying to tilt the scales, as the "best" group of anything these days has to include the "right" mix of women, blacks, LGBT, etc so that the requisite number of diversity boxes get checked.  The interviewer tries to float the idea that most AI books are written by men as an excuse for the list being dominated by men, but the AI, however, is not willing to have it, and replies with some general truisms that say and mean nothing.

I sadly have no doubt given the cultural climate in which we live that the AI will eventually be tweaked so that it too, like it's leftist human counterparts, will take "diversity and inclusion" into account when making its future selections.  

shenayim mikra or pesukei d'zima -- which takes precedence

The Baal haTurim has a cute remez on the first pasuk of the parsha about the importance of shenayim mikra v'echad targum (=Shmot).

An interesting question that was posed to R' Shach: l'chatchila shenayim mikra is supposed to be done before seudas shabbos.  When R' Shmuel David Munk, who went on to become Av Beis Din in Haifa, was a bachur in the yeshiva he was behind in shenayim mikra, and because of scheduling, would not have time to finish before the seudah.  He asked whether it would it be better for him to skip pesukei d'zima (except for maybe ashrei and nishmas) and do shenayim mikra in the time gained since m'dina d'gemara most of pesukei d'zima is not obligatory but shenayim mikra is, or should he not change the tzurah of tefilah?

R' Shach paskened that shenayim mikra takes precedence; the Chazon Ish disagreed.  (see here and here #129)  

don't be deceived by sweetness

  וַיְחִ֤י יַעֲקֹב֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם שְׁבַ֥ע עֶשְׂרֵ֖ה שָׁנָ֑ה  Rashi comments:

  למה פרשה זה סתומה? לפי שכיון שנפטר יעקב אבינו נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל מצרת השיעבוד, שהתחילו לשעבדם.

Forget about the question of whether this Rashi is a stira to other Rashis that say the shibud did not begin until after the shevatim died.  Rashi is a stira to the pasuk itself!  The Torah here is describing the great life Yaakov had in Egypt.  As Netziv writes, אלא הפירוש ״ויחי יעקב״, שהיה חי חיים טובים ומתוקנים, מה שלא הורגל כזה בארץ ישראל.  The stuma that hints to  נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל shouldn't be here -- it should come after Yaakov's death, at the start of parshas Shmos, when the situation changes.  As the Shem m'Shmuel writes (5678, also see the Kozhiglover):

ויש לדקדק שכתוב זה איננו מדבר מפטירתו של יעקב עדיין, אדרבה, שמדבר מחייו שהי' עיקר שני חייו, ..., א"כ יש להבין למה הרמז ממה שנהייתה אחר פטירתו ניתן כאן

There is a Zohar that says that these 17 years of goodness that Yaakov experienced were a payback for the years of suffering he experienced when Yosef was lost -- 17 years because Yosef left home at age 17.  The obvious question: Yosef was away from home for 22 years, so why not give Yaakov 22 years of joy?  What does how old he was when he left home have to do with anything?  The Kozhiglover answers that it was the 17 years of pleasure that Yaakov had during those first 17 years of Yosef's life that made the next 22 years so miserable.  Pain and loss are a response to being deprived of joy and pleasure that one has become accustomed to.  Without the latter, the former is meaningless.  

It could be that Rashi means the same here, i.e. the goodness Yaakov experienced in Egypt set the stage for the pain of galus that was to follow because it made the fall that much more dramatic and painful.  But I think Rashi means much more than that.  I think the goodness itself is the first step into the galus.  

In my neighborhood there are yeshivos, there are kollelim, there is also every type of kosher restaurant and eatery and gashmiyus thing you could think of.  וַיְחִ֤י יַעֲקֹב֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם!  We are on a high, whether you measure our material well being or even our spiritual health.  But that high masks a sad truth, and that is  נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל.  Not because we are not learning Torah, davening with a minyan, giving out kids a good Jewish education, etc. but because we have deluded ourselves into thinking that's all that matters, that's all that being a Jew is all about.  Does it even enter anyone's mind when they are eating a great steak dinner at one of the local fancy restaurants in town, or l'havdil, when they are listening to a shiur in a local shul, that this is not where we are supposed to be, that our whole existence here is just a b'dieved?  I think not. That's  נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל  That's being blinded by the חיים טובים ומתוקנים, מה שלא הורגל כזה, to use the Netziv's language. 

What happened later in parshas Shmos is that the  נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל  that started here from all the goodness was transformed into נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל מצרת השיעבוד.  Once Yaakov, who carried with him the memory of where the family originated, was gone, a different phase of the galus began, a more painful phase, but that phase was an extension of the forgetting that began in our parsha.  Therefore it is our parsha, not parshas Shmos, which is the פרשה זה סתומה.