writing torah shebaal peh / reciting torah sheb'ksav by heart

The gemara (Gittin 60b) darshens that one is not permitted to write down torah sheba'al peh and one is not permitted to recite by heart torah sheb'ksav:

רש רבי יהודה בר נחמני מתורגמניה דרבי שמעון בן לקיש כתיב כתוב לך את הדברים האלה וכתיב כי ע"פ הדברים האלה הא כיצד דברים שבכתב אי אתה רשאי לאומרן על פה דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לאומרן בכתב 

Rash in a few places (e.g. Shabbos 6b, B"M 92) writes that the Tanaim/Amoraim would keep private notebooks of chiddushim that they heard and wanted to remember because the din of not writing torah sheba'al peh applies only to torah that is read b'tzibur, not to one's private notes:

מגילת סתרים. שהסתירוה מפני שלא ניתנה ליכתוב וכששומעין דברי יחיד חדשים שאינן נשנין בב"ה וכותבין אותן שלא ישתכחו מסתירין את המגילה

Why should that be true?  Why should the context or the use being made of the text make any difference?  

Rav Wahrman in his She'eiris Yosef vol 3 (siman 4)quotes a Yerushalmi in Meg 4:1

רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק עָאַל לַכְּנִישְׁתָּא. חַד בַּר נַשׁ קָאִים מְתַרְגֵּם סְמִיךְ לָעֲמוּדָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אָסוּר לָךְ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּיתְנָה בְּאֵימָה וְיִרְאָה כָּךְ אָנוּ צְרִיכִין לִנְהוֹג בָּהּ בְּאֵימָה וְיִרְאָה. רִבִּי חַגַּי אָמַר. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק עָאַל לַכְּנִישְׁתָּא. חֲמָא חוּנָה קָאִים מְתַרְגֵּם וְלָא מֵקִים בַּר נַשׁ תַּחְתּוֹי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אֲסִיר לָךְ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּתְנָה עַל יְדֵי סִרְסוּר כָּךְ אָנוּ צְרִיכִין לִנְהוֹג בָּהּ עַל יְדֵי סִרְסוּר. עָאַל רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי וְעָֽבְדָהּ שְׁאֵילָה. אָֽ֠נֹכִ֠י עוֹמֵד בֵּין־י ֨י וּבֵֽינֵיכֶם֙ בָּעֵ֣ת הַהִיא לְהַגִּ֥יד לָכֶם֭ אֶת־דְּבַ֣ר י ֨י. רִבִּי חַגַּיי אָמַר. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק עָאַל לַכְּנִישְׁתָּא. חֲמָא חַד סְפַר מוֹשִׁט תַּרְגוּמָא מִן גַּו סִיפְרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אֲסִיר לָךְ. דְּבָרִים שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרוּ בַפֶּה בַפֶּה וּדְבָרִים שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרוּ בִכִתָב בִּכְתָב. 

Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac went to a synagogue. A man stood up to translate while leaning on a pillar. He said to him, this is forbidden to you; just as it was given in trembling and fear so we have to treat it in trembling and fear. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac went to a synagogue. He saw Huna standing up translating without putting up another person in his stead. He said to him, this is forbidden to you; just as it was given by an agent, so we have to treat it by an agent. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi went and turned it into a question, I was standing between the Eternal and you at that time to tell you the Eternal’s word. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac went to a synagogue. He saw a teacher delivering the translation from a book. He said to him, this is forbidden to you; matters which were said orally orally, matters which were said in writing in writing.

The Yerushalmi lumps together three halachos: the turgeman is not allowed to lean when translating; there has to be a turgeman; our halacha that torah shebaal peh must be said only baal peh and not from a text.  The first two halachos are based on how Torah was given at Sinai.  Just as Moshe acted as an intermediary, so too, a turgeman is needed as an intermediary; just as the Torah was given with awe and trembling, so too, we must be in a state of awe when it is read.  Rav Wahrman suggests that the third halacha of our sugya, that torah shebaal peh cannot be written, is also rooted in the same idea.  The text and the oral explanation have to be preserved as-is so that the transmission of Torah is done in a way that is consistent with how Torah was given at Sinai.  Therefore, the issur of writing torah sheb'ksav applies only when giving over Torah b'tzibur, as occurred at Sinai, but not to recording notes for private use.

Rama (Shu"T 34) writes that the Rishonim created what we call "ksav Rashi" because the issur of writing torah sheb'ksav only applies when done in ksav ashuri.  Based on Rav Wahrman's hesber, this fits perfectly.  Since Torah was given in ksav ashuri, the issur of writing torah sheb'ksav only applies if done in ksav ashuri.

Rav Wahrman further suggests that the din of כל פסוקא דלא פסקיה משה אנן לא פסקינן ליה (Meg 22), that one is not allowed to read half a pasuk, only applies b'tzibur and not b'yachid, as it also is based on the model of how Torah was given at Sinai.  Some begin kiddush with "Vayehi erev...yom ha'shishi...," which is not a whole pasuk.  If the issur of not breaking a pasuk applies only b'tzibur, this would not be a problem (same issue with saying "v'zos haTorah" during hagba, but that is said by the tzibur.)  

The gemara (Tamid 32) records that the kohanim would read aseres hadibros has part of their davening in the mikdash.  The gemara (Brachos 12) writes that they wanted to institute the same practice even outside the mikdash, but abandoned the idea lest people think the aseres ha'dibros was all that mattered.  אף בגבולין בקשו לקרות כן אלא שכבר בטלום מפני תרעומת המינין There is a debate in poskim (see Rama OC 1 and Shaarei Teshuvah) whether an individual can recite aseres ha'dibros on his own.  It may be that the Chachamim opposed the idea b'tzibur, imitating maamad Har Sinai, but a private recitation would not be a problem.

David's lineage - Moavi v'lo Moavis

One of the reasons we read Rus on Shavuos is because Rus is the great...grandmother of David, who was born and died on Shavuos.  The gemara (Yevamos 76-77) writes that the question of David's lineage came before Shaul.  Doeg opined that David was pasul because a Moavis is not permitted to marry into Klal Yisrael.  Just as the Chachamim were on the verge of being swayed to agree with his position, Amasa stepped forward and said he had a kabbalah from the Beis Din of Shmuel that a Moavis was OK:

מִיַּד ״וַעֲמָשָׂא בֶן אִישׁ וּשְׁמוֹ יִתְרָא הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי אֲשֶׁר בָּא אֶל אֲבִיגַל בַּת נָחָשׁ״, וּכְתִיב, ״יֶתֶר הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִי״, אָמַר רָבָא: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁחָגַר חַרְבּוֹ כְּיִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְאָמַר: כׇּל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ הֲלָכָה זוֹ — יִדָּקֵר בַּחֶרֶב. כָּךְ מְקוּבְּלַנִי מִבֵּית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל שְׁמוּאֵל הָרָמָתִי: ״עַמּוֹנִי״, וְלֹא עַמּוֹנִית. ״מוֹאָבִי״, וְלֹא מוֹאָבִית.

Apologies if this is obvious, but for some reason I never took note of it until this year.  Amasa's mother was Avigael, the daugher of "Nachash."  Rashi on Shmuel II 17:25 quotes the gemara that Nachash here refers to Yishei, David's father:

בת נחש – הוא ישי אבי דוד. רבותינו אמרו: שמת בלא עון, בעטיו של נחש

If so, Amasa himself had a vested interest in the kabbalah that he was testifying about.  If a Moavis was unacceptable, then his own lineage, not just David's would be tainted!

The gemara challenges Amasa's report because it came only after the fact, after the question of David's lineage was before the court:

וּמִי מְהֵימַן? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: כׇּל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁמּוֹרֶה הֲלָכָה וּבָא, אִם קוֹדֶם מַעֲשֶׂה אֲמָרָהּ — שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, וְאִם לָאו — אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ! שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּהָא שְׁמוּאֵל וּבֵית דִּינוֹ קַיָּים.

But the gemara does not seem to have any problem with Amasa being noge'a b'davar to this whole issue.  

Parenthetically, that same pasuk in Shmuel tells us that Avigail was אֲח֥וֹת צְרוּיָ֖ה אֵ֥ם יוֹאָֽב׃.  That would make Yoav ben Tzuru'ya, who was David's general, also his cousin.  

Y"T that comes before Shabbos -- why is lechem mishne enough?

We have lechem mishne on Shabbos because a double portion of mon fell on Friday to make up for none falling on Shabbos.  Tos (Beitzah 2) discusses whether mon fell on Y"T or not.  Assuming it did not, Noda b'Yehudah asks why when Y"T falls on erev Shabbos (or on Sunday), lechem mishne suffices. Wouldn't a triple portion of mon have fallen, enough for Y"T + Shabbos, and therefore shouldn't we have to take 3 chalos?

Meshech Chochma in P' Beshalach answers that the point of having lechem mishne is to demonstrate the miracle of the mon not spoiling from erev Shabbos to the next day.  It's the same miracle whether it was one day's extra worth of mon that did not spoil, or two days extra mon that did not spoil.  Therefore, there is no need to increase the number of chalos that we use.

a piece of infinity is infinity

We learn in Pirkei Avos 6:3

הַלּוֹמֵד מֵחֲבֵרוֹ פֶּרֶק אֶחָד אוֹ הֲלָכָה אַחַת אוֹ פָסוּק אֶחָד אוֹ דִבּוּר אֶחָד אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ אוֹת אַחַת, צָרִיךְ לִנְהוֹג בּוֹ כָבוֹד, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְדָוִד מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁלֹּא לָמַד מֵאֲחִיתֹפֶל אֶלָּא שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים בִּלְבָד, קְרָאוֹ רַבּוֹ אַלּוּפוֹ וּמְיֻדָּעוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים נה) וְאַתָּה אֱנוֹשׁ כְּעֶרְכִּי אַלּוּפִי וּמְיֻדָּעִי. וַהֲלֹא דְבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר, וּמַה דָּוִד מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁלֹּא לָמַד מֵאֲחִיתֹפֶל אֶלָּא שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים בִּלְבַד קְרָאוֹ רַבּוֹ אַלּוּפוֹ וּמְיֻדָּעוֹ, הַלּוֹמֵד מֵחֲבֵרוֹ פֶּרֶק אֶחָד אוֹ הֲלָכָה אַחַת אוֹ פָסוּק אֶחָד אוֹ דִבּוּר אֶחָד אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ אוֹת אַחַת, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִנְהוֹג בּוֹ כָבוֹד

Someone asked me on Shabbos why we don't say the principle of "dayo" here.  We should only be able to learn from the kal v'chomer that you have to honor someone that teaches you two halachos.  How do we see that you owe kavod even if someone teaches you just one letter?

A piece of infinity is also infinity.  You can't speak of differing quantities in that context.  Two halachos, one halacha, one letter -- Torah is infinity, so they are all the same, says the Maharal.

Nice thought to take us into Shavuos.

din klali and din prati

Our parsha opens with the count of the shevatim.  According to Ramban and others this tally was needed in order to asses the size of the army and prepare for conquest of Eretz Yisrael.  Sheivet Levi was not included in that count.  Rashi (1:49) explains: כדיי הוא לגיון של מלך להיות נמנה לבדו.  Sheivet Levi is the "king's legion," they are special, and therefore they get special treatment and are counted seperarely.

R' Chaim Elazari in his Nesivos Chaim wonders:

 איך יכול הוא להיות חשׁוב כּמו היוצא צבא להגנת ארץ 

How can it be that sheivet Levi is more chashuv than soldiers going out to fight for Eretz Yisrael?!  

He does not give an answer, but the point is not to come up with an answer  The point is the attitude raising such a question reflects, and that's something we need to think about and absorb. 

Rashi offers a second explanation as to why Levi was counted apart from everyone else: 

דבר אחר: צפה הקב״ה שעתידה לעמוד גזירה על כל הנמנין מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה שימותו במדבר. אמר: אל יהו אילו בכלל, לפי שהן שלי, שלא טעו בעגל.

Those who were counted were included in the death sentence given to the dor hamidbar for cheit ha'meraglim. Hashem wanted Levi excluded from that punishment, so he did not include them in the count.

M'mah nafshach: if sheivet levi was guilty of the same sin as everyone else, then why should they get off scott free just because they were not included in this count?  And if sheivet levi was not guilty, then even if they were counted, why should they receive punishment?  (See Sifsei Chachamim, also Eretz Tzvi from the Kozhiglover.  Also, see R' Baruch Mordechai Mizrachi's approach.  He  points out that even if you say כיון שניתן רשות למשחית אינו מבחין בין צדיקים לרשעים, one still must explain why honoring Levi by counting them separately removes that chashash. I think one can make a better argument that כיון שניתן רשות למשחית אינו מבחין בין צדיקים לרשעים is with respect to an onesh b'poel, not a gezeirah of what will happen down the road.) 

We find a similar question raised elsewhere by Ramban.  In Parshas Korach, Korach gathers his band of rebels in front of Ohel Moed.  Hashem then appears to Moshe and tells him  הִבָּ֣דְל֔וּ מִתּ֖וֹךְ הָעֵדָ֣ה הַזֹּ֑את וַאֲכַלֶּ֥ה אֹתָ֖ם כְּרָֽגַע׃ (16:21) Meaning, Hashem wanted to punish all of Bnei Yisrael, the entire עֵדָ֣ה.  Moshe responds  ק-ל אֱלֹקי הָרוּחֹ֖ת לְכׇל־בָּשָׂ֑ר הָאִ֤ישׁ אֶחָד֙ יֶחֱטָ֔א וְעַ֥ל כׇּל־הָעֵדָ֖ה תִּקְצֹֽף׃.  Why punish everyone for the bad deeds of the few.  Ramban writes:

 יש לשאול אם ישראל לא חטאו ולא מרדו ברבם, למה היה הקצף עליהם לאמר: ואכלה אותם כרגע. ואם גם הם מרדו כקרח וכעדתו, איך אמרו משה ואהרן: האיש אחד יחטא ועל כל העדה תקצוף.

It's a similar m'mah nafshach: if Bnei Yisrael are not guilty, why would G-d threaten to punish them?  And if they are guilty, how can Moshe argue that Korach alone deserves punishment?

My wife's grandfather, R' Dov Yehuda Shochet, develops the following yesod in a few places to answer questions like this (he discusses it in the context of the Ramban in Korach; I am extending it to the Rashi in our parsha): the Mishna tells us that on Sukkos we are judged by Hashem as to how much rain will fall; on Pesach we are judged as to how much wheat will grow; on Shavuos we are judged on how the fruit will grow; on Rosh haShana every person passes before Hashem and is judged for the year.  If every person's fate is decided on Rosh haShana, asks the Ran, then wouldn't that include (as we say in the Nesaneh Tokef tefilah) whether they will be rich or poor, how their crops will grow, etc.?  What need is there for a seperate period of judgment for each of the other items mentioned?  Ran answers that there are two levels of din -- that of the individual and that of the community.  On Pesach, Shavuos, and Sukkos, there is judgment of the community as a whole, whether in that country or locale they deserve a rainy year, a year with a bountiful harvest, a year with good crops.  On Rosh haShana, each individual passes before Hashem and is judged on an individual basis what his/her portion will be like for that year.  My wife's granfather writes that there are times when an individual may be worthy, but suffers because the community as a whole is judged harshly.  כיון שניתן רשות למשחית אינו מבחין בין צדיקים לרשעים  On the flipside, sometimes the community is unworthy, but the positive din of the individual can lift them up, e.g. Hashem would have spared the entire city of Sdom had there been but 10 tzadikim there.  Somehow, these two aspects of din work together to produce an equitable result.

When Hashem first judged the rebellion of Korach, it was through the lens of communal judgment, din klali, and hence the entire community was lumped together in one basket. Moshe davened for Hashem to look at the rebellion through the lens of din prati, on a more ganular level, allowing the merits of each individual aside from Korach's followers to tilt the scales (it's possible this is what Ramban means in his answer to the question - take a look).

Because sheivet Levi acted as a yotzei min ha'klal by the cheit ha'eigel, Hashem rewarded them midah k'neged midah by allowing the din prati of their sheivet to override the din klali on all others counted between 20 and 60 who died in the midbar. 

thoughts on Yom Yerushalayim -- kerem b'yavneh, a rising tide lifts all boats, sasson vs simcha

1) A few places in shas refer to halachos that were taught "when the Chachamim came to Kerem b'Yavneh," e.g. the famous sugya that everyone just learned on Lag baOmer about Rashb"I entering the cave (Shabbos 33b) starts off כְּשֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ לַכֶּרֶם בְּיַבְנֶה.  The gemara elsewhere tells us that the Sanhedrim bounced around to 10 different places after they were exiled from Yerushalayim.  One of those places that they came to when they were on the run was Kerem b'Yavneh.  Whenever the name appears, Rashi explains why it was called Kerem b'Yavneh: לכרם - זה בית המדרש שיושבין שורות שורות ככרם כך מפורש בירושלמי בברכות.  The place gets its name from the fact that the Chachamim sat in rows, like the way grapes are arranged in a vineyard.

Some batei medrash have tables; some have shtenders.   Does it really make a difference how people are sitting?  Is it really noteworthy that the Chachamim sat in rows as opposed to some other configuration?

I heard on a shiur from R' Shmuel Eliyahu that the reason for the emphasis on how the Chachamim sat is because the gemara has a din that when Sanhedrin is in its proper place, in the Lishkas haGazis, next to the Mikdash, they sit in a half circle so that each member can see all the other members.  When the Chachamim came to Kerem b'Yavneh, they davka did not sit that way.  They davka sat in rows so as to distinguish their current situation from the way things were before they were exiled.  "Tein li Yavneh v'Chachameha" is a consolation prize, but the Chachamim did not want to forget for a moment that it was a pale substitute for the real thing.

Ki miTzion teizei Torah!  Baruch Hashem we have a Yom Yerushalayim and can see the rebirth and resurgence of Torah in Yerushalayim.  Sure, there are yeshivos and batei medrash all over the world, but we should never deceive ourselves into thinking they are anything but a consolation prize that falls far short of the real thing.  

2) Chapter 51 of Tehillim speaks about David's cry to Hashem for forgiveness after Nasan haNavi came to speak to him about what happened with Bat Sheva.  The chapter ends with two pesukim that seem out of place.  Ibn Ezra goes so far as to quote a view that these pesukim were in fact added later אמר אחד מחכמי ספרד: כי אלה השנים פסוקים הוסיפם אחד מהחסידים שהיה בבבל, שהיה מתנפל לפני השם ומתפלל המזמור הזה.   Here are the two pesukim:

הֵיטִ֣יבָה בִֽ֖רְצֽוֹנְךָ אֶת־צִיּ֑וֹן תִּ֜בְנֶ֗ה חוֹמ֥וֹת יְרֽוּשָׁלִָֽם  

אָ֚ז תַּחְפֹּ֣ץ זִבְחֵי־צֶ֖דֶק עוֹלָ֣ה וְכָלִ֑יל אָ֚ז יַֽעֲל֖וּ עַל־מִזְבַּֽחֲךָ֣ פָרִֽים:

What does the rebuilding of the walls of Yerushalayim have to do with David's plea for kapparah?

I think it has everything to do with it.  I remember once hearing or reading a story about a chassan who came to ask R' Tzvi Yehudah what to daven for when he went to the kotel before his wedding.  R' Tzvi Yehudah answered that he should daven for the Shechina to return to Tzion, because if that prayer is answered, everything else will take care of itself.

David haMelech understood that, "A rising tide lifts all boats."  We each have our own pratei pratim of our avodas Hashem that we are concerned with, be it a need for kapparah, a need for refuah, a need for parnasa, etc.  David haMelech had his need that he was davening for.  But David understood that if הֵיטִ֣יבָה בִֽ֖רְצֽוֹנְךָ אֶת־צִיּ֑וֹן תִּ֜בְנֶ֗ה חוֹמ֥וֹת יְרֽוּשָׁלִָֽם, then everything else will take care of itself.  David understood that the geulas ha'nefesh of each prat is in some way or other bound to the geulah of the klal, which centers around Yerushalayim.

3)  שִׂמְח֧וּ אֶת־יְרוּשָׁלִַ֛ם וְגִ֥ילוּ בָ֖הּ כָּל־אֹהֲבֶ֑יהָ שִׂ֤ישׂוּ אִתָּהּ֙ מָשׂ֔וֹשׂ כָּל־הַמִּֽתְאַבְּלִ֖ים עָלֶֽיהָ׃ (Yeshayahu 66:10)  The mashgiach of (the modern day) Kerem b'Yavneh, Rav Rivlin, quotes Chasam Sofer as distinguishing between simcha and sasson.  Simcha is a physical enjoyment, e.g. simchas Yom Tov means you have to have a nice meal and wine.  Sasson is spiritual pleasure, e.g. Chazal darshen "sas anochi al imrasecha" as referring to the joy of bris milah.  Obviously this is a spiritual happiness, as we know minhag Ashkenaz is to not say she'hechiyanu at a bris because the baby has physical pain.  

Those who are מִּֽתְאַבְּלִ֖ים עָלֶֽיהָ and feel the spiritual loss of Yerushalayim will experience the joy of sasson when it is rebuilt, the joy of their spiritual longing being fulfilled.  However, even those who are not מִּֽתְאַבְּלִ֖ים עָלֶֽיהָ, those who do not feel the spiritual pain of Yerushalayim's absence, will rejoice in its rebuilding.  שִׂמְח֧וּ אֶת־יְרוּשָׁלִַ֛ם וְגִ֥ילוּ בָ֖הּ כָּל־אֹהֲבֶ֑יהָ.  Even the restoration of the physical place of Yerushalayim alone is worthy of rejoicing, the joy of simcha, of happiness in physical delight, in its buildings, its streets, even its traffic jams.

We have only just begun to have a taste of the sasson of Yerushalayim's spiritual riches being revealed.  Hopefully one day we will have a Beis haMikdash and see it in its full glory.  For now, let us at least have simcha and gratitude for the physical place of Yerushalayim being ours.

I have a bridge to sell you

To quote from the Wall Street Journal's summary of the Durham report and why it matters:

1) "The FBI lacked “any actual evidence of collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russia when it violated its standards and jumped over several steps to initiate a full investigation, including probes into four members of the Trump campaign."

2) "The Durham report makes clear that partisan hostility played a role in the probe. The report cites a “clear predisposition” to investigate based on a “prejudice against Trump” and “pronounced hostile feelings” by key investigators, including former agent Peter Strzok, and former FBI attorneys Lisa Page and Kevin Clinesmith."

3) "The report lays out numerous examples of the FBI ignoring evidence that it was being used by the Clinton campaign to execute a political dirty trick." 

What the WSJ does not get into is the responsibility the Democrat party leaders have for the lies they foisted on the American people.  For example,  former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, once said, "Ample evidence of collusion in plain sight."  No one from the complicit press ever called him out and asked the follow up question of where that evidence was.  What in fact was in plain sight and buried was evidence of one party willfully engaging in election interference and using government agencies to undermine the President of the United States.  While Hillary Clinton and the no one from the Democrat party will ever spend a day in jail for these heinous crimes, folks who did no more than trespass in the US Capitol on Jan 6 continue to rot in prison or receive unduly harsh sentences.  Truly we have become a banana republic.

The Durham report is just one slice of the pie.  The FBI has had Hunter's laptop for 3 years now with no progress in its investigation.  Incredible, isn't it?

I have a simple question: after seeing the lies exposed, after seeing evidence of the collusion of government and the mainstream press, after seeing the weaponizing of government agencies to advance the agenda of one party and one narrative, do you still believe the government was honest with all the facts about Covid?  You still believe it was all about "following the science?"  

If you do, please let me know how I can contact you.  I have a bridge you may be interested in buying.

not dependent on anyone

 וְכִ֣י תֹאמְר֔וּ מַה־נֹּאכַ֖ל בַּשָּׁנָ֣ה הַשְּׁבִיעִ֑ת הֵ֚ן לֹ֣א נִזְרָ֔ע וְלֹ֥א נֶאֱסֹ֖ף אֶת־תְּבוּאָתֵֽנוּ

 וְצִוִּ֤יתִי אֶת־בִּרְכָתִי֙ לָכֶ֔ם בַּשָּׁנָ֖ה הַשִּׁשִּׁ֑ית וְעָשָׂת֙ אֶת־הַתְּבוּאָ֔ה לִשְׁלֹ֖שׁ הַשָּׁנִֽים

Apparently the concern for having enough food during shemita is not something trivial, as Hashem responds with a promise that miraculously there will be a bumper crop the previous year.  But why should people worry?    Couldn't they just import produce from neighboring countries?  

Most if not all countries are rich in some resources but lack others.  They are dependent to some degree or other on trade with their allies and neighbors to make up the difference.  You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

Rav Charlap writes that Eretz Yisrael is different.  The only dependency Eretz Yisrael has is on Hashem.  Even at the cost of making miracles, Hashem does not allow for a situation where Eretz Yisrael would have to rely on its neighbors.

(26:5)  וְהִשִּׂ֨יג לָכֶ֥ם דַּ֙יִשׁ֙ אֶת־בָּצִ֔יר וּבָצִ֖יר יַשִּׂ֣יג אֶת־זָ֑רַע וַאֲכַלְתֶּ֤ם לַחְמְכֶם֙ לָשֹׂ֔בַע וִֽישַׁבְתֶּ֥ם לָבֶ֖טַח בְּאַרְצְכֶֽם Abarbanel, Netziv, and others interpret the end of the pasuk not as a bracha for protection against enemies attacking, but rather as a continuation of the beginning bracha for prosperity.  As a result of having all that you need in Eretz Yisrael proper, you won't have to travel elsewhere to seek out resources that are lacking.  As Ksav v'haKabbala puts it:

אינו יעוד השלום שלא ילחמו בהם אויביהם, רק הבטחה, שמפני רוב השובע שתהיה בארצם לא יצטרכו ללכת נע ונד בארץ אחרת לבקש מאכל כמו שכתוב נודד הוא ללחם איה

Hopefully we will be zocheh to see this bracha fulfilled in our lifetimes.

kudos to Speaker McCarthy for standing with Israel

From the Washington Free Beacon:

McCarthy told the Free Beacon that he intervened late Tuesday to reserve the Capitol Visitor Center space where Tlaib was set to host a Wednesday event to mourn Israel’s founding as a "catastrophe.' In its place, the speaker will lead a bipartisan briefing celebrating the 75th anniversary of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

"It’s wrong for members of Congress to traffic in anti-Semitic tropes about Israel," McCarthy told the Free Beacon. "As long as I’m Speaker, we are going to support Israel’s right to self-determination and self-defense, unequivocally and in a bipartisan fashion."

Kudos to Kevin McCarthy, and I would encourage people to contact the Speaker to express your support.  

The gall of holding a "Nakba Day" event while Israel is being bombarded with rockets says all you need to know about Tlaib and the Democrat party.  Remember the days of Pelosi's "leadership" when we were treated to headlines like this one?   House Democrats fail to condemn anti-Semitism.  

R' Gershon Edelstein on how to spend Lag ba'Omer

Printed in the parsha sheet "Mi'Meged Geresh Yerachim," which is based on the thought of R' Gershom Edlestein:

a lesson in sensitivity

Rashi tells us that the mevareich shem Hashem discussed at the end of the parsha took place at the same time as the episode of the mekoshesh, yet they were each locked up in separate jail cells:

ויניחוהו – לבדו, ולא הניחו המקושש עמו, ששניהם היו בפרק אחד, ויודעין היו שהמקושש במיתה, שנאמר: מחלליה מות יומת (שמות ל״א:י״ד). אבל לא פורש להם באיזו מיתה, לכך נאמר בו: לא פורש מה יעשה לו (במדבר ט״ו:ל״ד). אבל במקלל הוא אומר לפרוש להם, שלא היו יודעין אם חייב מיתהא אם לאו.

What was the point of keeping them apart?  Oznayim laTorah has an amazing answer. 

Rashi makes a point of telling us that the fate of the mekoshesh was known.  He was going to get some form of misa, the only question was what form.  

The fate of the mevareich, on the other hand, was in doubt; it was not clear yet that he would in fact get misa.  

Imagine what would happen if these two convicts shared the same death row cell.  Comrades in arms!  Yet what if the mevareich were to walk out of that jail cell scot free while the mekoshesh remained, doomed to await his inevitable death sentence?  Could there be anything more galling than seeing that comrade in arms, someone in the same boat, in the same cell, walk away free knowing that you on the other hand face certain death?  It would be like rubbing salt in the wound.

Therefore, the Torah mandated that they be kept apart.

We all know that we have to be respectful of other people's feelings, but who are we talking about here?  We are talking about someone sitting on death row, someone who was mechalel shabbos the very first shabbos in the desert.  Who cares whether he suffers a little more or not?  Yet af al pi kein, we have to care...

(The gemara in a few places learns some of the halachos of how misas beis din is carried out from the din of v'ahavta l'reiacha kamocha, which requires giving a respectful death even to those who are guilty of capital offenses. Even if someone is guilty of the most heinous crime, we don't rob them completely of dignity.)

Maharal Tzintz's kashe on the derasha that kibud av is not doche issurim

Some Poilish pilpul for you: Rashi on last week's parsha quotes that we learn from  אִ֣ישׁ אִמּ֤וֹ וְאָבִיו֙ תִּירָ֔אוּ וְאֶת־שַׁבְּתֹתַ֖י תִּשְׁמֹ֑רוּ אֲנִ֖י הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיכֶֽם that if a parent tells a child to be mechalel shabbos, the child doesn't have to listen.  R' Aryeh Leib Tzintz in Meishiv Nefesh (16:5) asks why we need this din -- we can learn the same chiddush from elsewhere.  There is a din that a father can be meifer the nedarim of his daughter.  If hypothetically the mitzvah of kibud av were to be doche other issurim (like shabbos, or like the mitzvah to keep a neder), then there should be no need for hafarah.  Once the father expresses his displeasure with his daughter keeping the neder, kibud av would require her not to fulfill it.  Since the Torah does in fact require hafarah, QED that kibud av alone cannot override an issur.  

an across the board failure

Tucked midway through this article about Stern College's decision (which has since been reversed) to close down some Talmud classes for women is the following eye opening statement: "But while Kahn’s courses sometimes drew up to 20 students, lower-level Talmud classes sometimes had much smaller rosters, according to students and administrators. Many fell below Stern’s threshold to offer a class, eight students."  Eight?!  I live in what I think most people would describe as a modern Orthodox community and there are more nail salons here than there are students registered in these classes.  

Reopening the classes will not fix the problem (assuming you think there is a problem here that needs to be fixed.)  The root of the problem is that the Torah shebaal peh education for girls in the elementary and high schools, which in some schools is equal to what the boys are offered in those "subjects," fails to inspire women to want to continue learning.  And let's not kid ourselves -- do you think it's just gemara they are not interested in?  It's an across the board failure.