mitzvah of burial; keeping going when the going is tough

1) Rashi comments on Yaakov's request  אַל נָא תִקְבְּרֵנִי בְּמִצְרָיִם that there are three reasons why Yaakov did not want to be buried in Egypt:

 סופן להיות עפרם כנים, ושאין מתי חוצה לארץ חיין אלא בצער גילגול מחילות, ושלא יעשוני מצרים עבודה זרה. 

I saw quoted in the name of R' Shimon Moshe Diskin, R"Y of Kol Torah, that the reason of סופן להיות עפרם כנים is not just because משום צער המת (see Gur Aryeh) and would not be a very nice thing, but it is based on a din.  The gemara (Sanhedrin 46b) learns that burial must be done in soil.  When the plague of kinim came, all of the soil of Egypt turned to lice.  The Midrash (Shmos Rabbah 10:7) writes  לְפִיכָךְ נֶהְפַּךְ עֲפָרָם לְכִנִּים וְחוֹפְרִין אַמָּה עַל אַמָּה וְלֹא הָיָה שָׁם עָפָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: כָּל עֲפַר הָאָרֶץ הָיָה כִנִּים, that even down to the depth of an amah there was only kinim. If so, had Yaakov been buried in Egypt the mitzvah of kevurah would be bateil, as he would no longer be buried in earth.  Therefore, he asked to be carried to Eretz Yisrael.   

It's a brilliant chap, but I have one small question, or maybe it would be better to call it an observation.  The Kli Chemdah points out what seems to be a stirah in Ramban.  Ramban comments in parshas Chayei Sarah on the pasuk  אִם יֵשׁ אֶת נַפְשְׁכֶם לִקְבֹּר אֶת מֵתִי מִלְּפָנַי that מלפני – כי אם לא תעשו כן, אקברנו בארון  Avraham told the Bnei Chais that if they won't sell him a burial plot, he will bury Sarah in an aron and leave her in a coffin.  However, Ramban in Torah haAdam writes that the mitzvah of kevurah m'doraysa can only be fulfilled through burial in soil.  How then could Avraham have left Sarah in an aron?  What about the mitzvah of kevurah?  Kli Chemdah answers that the reason behind buying the body in soil is based on the din of hashavas ha'gezeilah.  Man is created from dust of the earth.  Either he can fulfill his mission and be metakein that dust and elevate it to something holy, or the dust must be returned to its source.  (Nafka mina to this hesber: gezel is prohibited even to a ben noach, so they too have to bury their dead.)  Sarah achieved the goal of sanctifying the dust her body was created from, so she did not need to be returned to the soil.  For her, burial in an aron would have been sufficient.  The same is true, says the Kli Chemdah, of Moshe, as no one knows where the burial place of his body is.  The same is true of Yosef, who was placed in an aron after death and according to some views that aron was sunk into the Nile, not buried in land.  Given all of the above, I don't think it would be a stretch to say the same is true of Yaakov Avinu.  So what if the soil would turn to kinim and he would not have burial in soil?  His body was elevated to a state of holiness and did not need to return to the earth? 

Worth noting as well that the Sifsei Chachamim asks why Rashi quotes three reasons for Yaakov's request -- wouldn't one justification be enough?  He comments: ״ל דצריך לג׳ טעמים הללו דאי משום כנים לחוד היה לו לצוות לעשות ארון מברזל לכך פירש גלגול מחילות etc.  I don't know what the S.C. does with the gemara in Sanhedrin, as לעשות ארון מברזל is not an option if you hold you need burial in land.  

Again, this is not a question, as it is all predicated on the Kli Chemdah.  You can find some other way to answer up that Ramban and avoid the whole issue.  Just thought it was worth pointing out.

2) Yaakov blessed Yissachar (49:15) וַיַּרְא מְנֻחָה כִּי טוֹב וְאֶת הָאָרֶץ כִּי נָעֵמָה וַיֵּט שִׁכְמוֹ לִסְבֹּל וַיְהִי לְמַס עֹבֵד.  A question we've dealt with before: the bracha seems self-contradictory, a stirah minei u'bei.  If Yissachar loved menucha, then what is the meaning of וַיֵּט שִׁכְמוֹ לִסְבֹּל, that he accepted a burden on his shoulders?  There is no menucha in that!

Seforno writes that the מְנֻחָה  referred to here is המנוחה בשלמות המושכלות, achieving spiritual perfection. Midrash Rabbah: וַיַּרְא מְנֻחָה כִּי טוֹב – זוֹ הַתּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ד׳:ב׳): כִּי לֶקַח טוֹב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם.  Menucha does not mean that Yissachar loved indolence or was lazy.  What it means is that in comparison to the lot of Zevulun, who went out to do business and fight wars, Yissachar preferred to toil closer to home, to expend his energy toiling under the yoke of Torah.

Maharam Shick explains the lesson of this pasuk in a way that probably runs counter to everything modern chinuch is all about.  A bit of intro from the Shem m'Shmuel to set the table: the gemara (Brachos 13b) writes 

  אמר לי' רב לר' חייא לא חזינא לי' לרבי דמקבל עלי' מלכות שמים, אמר לי' בר פחתי בשעה שמעביר ידיו על פניו 

Rav remrked to R' Chiya that he was perplexed because he never saw Rebbi accept upon himself עול מלכות שׁמים.  Rav Chiya responded that Rebbi did so when he covered his eyes in the shiur, like we cover our eyes when we say shema.  The Shem m'Shmuel in parshas VaEschanan explains Rav's bewilderment: 

 ופרשנו דשאלת רב היתה דהיות רבי שהי' כל ימיו בדביקות עצומה איך שייך אצלו קבלת מלכות שמים שאצלו איננו עול אלא אהבה רבה [ויש להוסיף ולומר היות רבי מזרעא דדוד קאתי שהיתה מדתו השתוקקת עצומה ואהבה רבה לאלקות כמ"ש (תהלים ס"ג ב') צמאה לך נפשי כמה לך בשרי וכל ספר תהלים מלא מזה, וכן היתה בודאי מדתו של רבי, ואמר על עצמו שלא נהנה מעוה"ז אפי' כאצבע קטנה, ולעומת שלא נהנה מעוה"ז היו כל תענוגותיו רק אלקות כמו שבא ברמז בדבר אמלאה החרבה אם מלאה זו חרבה זו כמו שהארכנו בזה במק"א, איך יתכן שנקרא אצלו עול]

What bothered Rav is that for someone as connected to ruchniyus as Rebbi, is there really such a thing as עול מלכות שׁמים, as the YOKE of heaven?  Yoke means it's a burden, something you have to work hard at.  If someone gave you the job of eating chocolate ice cream or your favorite cake, you wouldn't call that a yoke, you would call it a pleasure!  For Rebbi, serving Hashem was chocolate ice cream.  Where's the burden?

Whatever the answer is (look up the Shem m'Shmuel), you see from Rav's question that there is a tremendous maa'lah to serving Hashem not because doing so is like chocolate ice cream, but because it is קבּלת עול, because it is a necessity even if we wouldn't enjoy it.

 וַיַּרְא מְנֻחָה כִּי טוֹב, Yissachar saw that המנוחה בשלמות המושכלות is the ultimate good besides which nothing can compare or complete. It was better than riches, better than chocolate ice cream.  Nonetheless, וַיֵּט שִׁכְמוֹ לִסְבֹּל  His motivation in avodas Hashem was not just because Torah is enjoyable, but rather he accepted what he had to do as an עול, as service, as something that must be done irrespective or whether it was pleasurable or not.

Today when kids go to school every morah and rebbi wants them to feel "geshmack," not just in first and second grade, but even in high school and beis medrash.  I don't know what people raised in that way do when learning does not feel so geshmack, as is the case many times after a long day of work or when dealing with other difficulties.  We all hope and pray that וַיַּרְא מְנֻחָה כִּי טוֹב, that we should love learning and experience the joy and pleasure in Torah and mitzvos, but we also need the motivation of וַיֵּט שִׁכְמוֹ לִסְבֹּל, to keep going even when the going is tough.

Ezra - Torah for the masses

One of the reasons (it's mentioned in the slichos as well) that we fast on 10 Teves is because this is the yahrzeit (or 9 Teves, but they combined the fasts into one) of Ezra haSofer. Chazal tell us that had the Torah not been given through Moshe, it would have been given through Ezra. The Meshech Chochma in parshas va'yeilech quotes a Yerushalmi (Yevamos 8b) that says that R' Dosa ben Hyrkenus said about R' Elazar ben Azarya that he knows that he is the 10th generation from Ezra and his eyes are similar to the eyes of Ezra.

. ראה את °רבי אלעזר בן עזריה וקרא עליו (תהלים ל"ז, כ"ה) נער הייתי גם זקנתי. מכירו אני שהוא דור עשירי לעזרא. ועינוי דמיין לדידיה

It's hard to take this k'peshuto, as how would R' Dosa have known what Ezra's eyes looked like? The point he was making, explains the Meshech Chochma, is that R' Elazar ben Azarya was like Ezra. In parshas vayeilech is says that Moshe gave the Torah to the kohanim and levi'im: וַיִּכְתֹּ֣ב מֹשֶׁה֮ אֶת⁠־הַתּוֹרָ֣ה הַזֹּאת֒ וַֽיִּתְּנָ֗הּ אֶל⁠־הַכֹּֽהֲנִים֙ בְּנֵ֣י לֵוִ֔י Torah was meant for an elite class of scholars. That's why it was written in ksav ivri. This was a ksav that not everyone could read, and so it prevented the average person from having access to the text. Ezra changed all that. Ezra  changed the ksav to ksav ashuri which allowed everyone easy access to the text.  Ezra understood that although there are risk in allowing every layperson access to Torah, allowing everyone to think all they need is the internet and an Artscroll and they can pasken any shayla, the risks are worth it. Ezra lived in a time of transition, a time when prophecy was ending, and he understood that dissemination of the Torah to the masses was needed if we were to survive.

The gemara in Brachos writes that R' Gamliel only accepted students to the beis medrash who were "tocho b'baro," an elite group. When R' Elazar ben Azraya took over, he opened the doors to everyone. His eyes, his outlook on life, matched that of his ancestor Ezra.

Here's the Meshech Chochma:

ויתנה לכהנים בני לוי – בירושלמי פ״א דיבמות ראה את ראב״ע וקרא עליו נער הייתי כו׳ מכירו אני שהוא דור עשירי לעזרא ועיניו דמיין לדידיה. הענין כי מצאנו בעזרא ששינה הכתב, והוא כי באמת יאות לפי משפטי התורה אשר התורה תהא מסורה ביד הכהנים הלוים והזקנים אשר יש בהם כל מכמני השלמות והפרושים היושבים בירושלים, וכל מי שנדבו לבו להתקרב אל התורה יבא לירושלים, כמו שמצאנו בר״א בן הורקנוס, והיו הישיבות הגדולות אשר נקבצו כל הראוי בהם לפי חכמת בינתם, וכן מצאנו בספרי על קרא דלמען תלמד ליראה את ה׳ [הביאהו תוס׳ ב״ב כ״ה], ומפני זה היה התורה כתובה בכתב עברי למען לא ילמד מי שאינו ראוי ויהיה כזורק אבן למרקוליס, ולא ירהב הנער בזקן לאמר גם אנכי הרואה ויודע סתרי החכמה כמוך. אמנם עזרא ראה בזמנו לפי פזור ישראל בעמים והשכח מאתם עקרי התורה (כאשר מצאנו בנחמיה ודה״י) ונסתם החזון ובטלו הרואים באספקלריא המאירה, יותר נאות לכותבה בלשון מובן לכל הרוצה לדעת וחכמות בחוץ תרונה, ומוטב להגיע אל המטרה הנאותה להרחיב הדעת בארץ [כאשר באמת נתפשטה עד מאד התורה בזמן בית שני, כידוע] ולסבול ההיזק המגיע אשר כבר הגיע מזה בבית שני כידוע מתלמידים שלא שמשו כל צרכן, וזה שפט ברוח הקודש רוח אלהי אשר הופיע עליו ממרום, והפליגו חז״ל זה עד כי אמרו ראוי היה עזרא להנתן תורה ע״י כמו ע״י משה, ואמרו עילם זכתה ללמוד ולא ללמד בבל זכתה כו׳, ערש״י, וכן מצאנו ענין כזה לראב״ע, שר״ג הנשיא היה בדעתו לסתום כל דבר המקובל ולבלי לפרש טעמו, כאשר מצאנו לו בכמה מקומות מקובל אני מאבותי, וכן שלא לקבל רק הנאות להגיע אל מטרת השלמות ולמעט התלמידים, וכל מי שאין תוכו כברו אל יכנס, לא כן ראב״ע מצאנו לו שמיד שישב בנשיאות אמר כל הרוצה לכנוס יבוא ויכנס ואתוספו ה׳ מאה ספסלי בבי מדרשא, וכן בכ״מ תמצא שמפרש טעם כל דבר, עיין בחגיגה טף למה באין אלא כדי ליתן שכר טוב למביאיהן, וכן בכ״מ הפליג בהתפשטות התורה וריבוי לומדיה, והוא שאמר ועינו, ר״ל עינו הצופיה למרחוק, הבטה כללית, כמו עיני העדה וכמו עיניך יונים (עיין מדרש), בהבטה על הנהגת הכלל הוא דומה להנהגת עזרא הסופר. ונכון

I think we can put 2 and 2 together and lump this Meshech Chochma together with an Ohr Sameich in Hil Issuei Bi'ah from this post two years ago.  The Ohr Sameich distinguishes takanos of Chazal instituted for what he calls "tikun ha'dat," strengthening religious law, e.g. don't do X on shabbos lest you come to do a melacha and violate the law of shabbos, and the takanos of Ezra, which were made for "tikun ha'umah," to strengthen our national identity.  

Ezra was not concerned with promulgating the mitzvah of talmud Torah simply because it is an important mitzvah to do.  He was concerned with promulgating Torah because Torah is what gives us our national identity.  In earlier times, it was enough for an elite group to carrier the banner for the national as a whole.  In Erzra's time, in R' Elazar ben Azarya's time, in our time, that is not longer the case.

breaking fast on coffee and cake on shabbos; chatzi shiur by peru u'revu, learning without rischa d'oraysa

1) Many people prefer to break their fast on coffee and cake rather than sit down to a heavy meal.  Is that an option when 10 Teves falls on Friday as it does this year?  Can you say kiddush and then have your coffee and cake and then eat seudas shabbos a bit later?  There are a few hurdles to overcome: 1) Those who do not drink a revi'is of wine from kiddush have a potential safeik bracha rishona on the coffee (Biur Halacha 174:2); 2) You have a potential safeik whether to say bracha achrona on the coffee or whether it would be exempted by birchas ha'mazon of the meal (MB 174:37); 3) Rama writes that seudas shabbos should be eaten immediately after kiddush, and ideally cake does not suffice for kiddush b'makom seudah at night (Shu"t Ein Yitzchak #12).  4) Al pi din one could wash, drink coffee, and then continue with the main fleishig meal (as MB says to do by Shavuos), but there is a Zohar that says not to have milchigs and fleishigs in the same meal.  Given all of the above probably best to ask someone in advance what to do or work out the issues here instead of waiting until you are about to sit down and eat.

2) The sefer Tzlach Rchav quotes a machlokes Chida and Chikrei Lev whether there is any value to a chatzi shiur of a mitzvas aseh, a topic we have discussed before (here, and earlier this year).  Perhaps one could argue that the safeik depends on the source for the issur of chatzi shiur (see Yoma 74a).  If it is learned out from a derasha on the words כל חלב, then the gezeiras ha'kasuv is perhaps limited to issurim like cheilev (there are Achronim who limit chatzi shiur even by issurim only to issurei achila).  If, however, the source is the sevara of כיון דחזי לאיצטרופי, the same sevara can be applied to mitzvos.  

Tzlach Rchav brings this up on the parsha because of a cute remez.  Among those who went down to Mitzrayim is the child of Dan,  וּבְנֵי דָן חֻשִׁים.  This is the only child of Dan.  What about the mitzvah of peru u'revu? The answer is Dan = דכר ונוקבא, and Chushim = חצי שׁיעור יחשׁב  מצוה.  The one child is a chatzi shiur of the mitzvah of peru urevu, but a chatzi shiur also counts as a mitzvah.

Regardless of how convinced you are by this remez, I think it's fair game to ask whether having one child can even be called a chatzi shiur.  The din of chatzi shiur applies to quantities, e.g. eating less than the required k'zayis of matzah.  You still ate matzah, just not enough. If, for example, you put tzitzis on three of the four corners of your garment, that's not a chatzi shiur.  You haven't done the mitzvah of tzitzis, just not enough of it -- you haven't accomplished the miztvah at all.  There is something qualitatively lacking in this case.  Having one child instead of two seems to me to be more akin to the tzitzis case than the matzah case.

3) When Yosef has a send off for his brothers to return home, he tells them  וַיְשַׁלַּח אֶת אֶחָיו וַיֵּלֵכוּ וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם אַל תִּרְגְּזוּ בַּדָּרֶךְ (45:24).  Rashi already alludes to a Midrashic interpretation that the Yalkut Shimoni fleshes out:

 ויאמר אלהם אל תרגזו בדרך א"ל יוסף לאחיו אל תתעסקו בדבר הלכה שמא תרגז עליכם הדרך. איני והאמר ר' אילעאי שני תלמידי חכמים המהלכים בדרך ואין ביניהם דברי תורה ראויין לישרף שנאמר ויהי המה הולכים הלוך ודבר טעמא דאיכא דבור הא ליכא דבור ראויין לישרף לא קשיא הא למיגרס הא לעיוני.

Yosef knew that if his brothers started learning in depth on the road home they would get carried away in the "rishca d'oraysa" of arguing back and forth with each other, so he told them to keep their learning light.

R' Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi asks: Why didn't Yosef just tell them that when they learn b'iyun, not to get carried away and to avoid battling back and forth over each point?  Why change the subject matter?  

The answer is that learning without "rischa d'oraysa," without battling back and forth, is not called עסק, is not called learning with depth and intensity.  The two by definition go hand in hand.  

acharei rabim l'hatos

If a drop of milk fell into my cholent but is bateil b'rov, if I decide that I don't want rely on bitul and would rather give up eating the cholent, would you say that this is a pious act, comparable, for example, to the gemara's derasha (Chulin 44) about Yechezkel that  שלא אכלתי מבהמה שהורה בה חכם, or is it sheer foolishness?

The Minchas Chinuch writes (mitzvah 78) that if rov of beis din decided something is permissible, e.g. beis din decided that a certain cut of meat is not cheilev and may be eaten, if a person wants to be machmir on himself and not rely on that rov, that is a violation of the mitzvah of acharei rabin l'hatos.   

By that same token, would you also say that if the cholent is permissible based on bitul b'rov, which is learned from acharie rabim (Rashi B.M. 53 d"h d'oraysa  שהמעורב מן התורה בטל ברוב דכתיב (שמות כג) אחרי רבים להטות,) choosing to deliberately not rely on rov and not eat it is also a violation of the mitzvah of acharei rabim l'hatos?

Doesn't sound right, does it?

what is the end game in Gaza?

What is Israel's end game in Gaza?  I don't pretend to have the answer to that question.  I'm just spitballing ideas.  It's easy to talk about eradicating Hamas or defeating Hamas, but what exactly does that mean?  Does it mean killing every member of Hamas?  That seems to me to be an impossible task.  Hamas has been compared to the Nazis.  We did not kill every single Nazi in defeating Germany.  There were many even high ranking Nazis who escaped, and certainly many Germans knew and/or were complicit in the Nazi atrocities yet were allowed to resume life as normal after the war.  The same probably will hold true in Gaza.  

Is the goal demilitarizing Gaza, irrespective of whether Hamas or some other entity remains in charge?  The problem is Gaza is not an independent, isolated regime the way Nazi Germany was.  Gaza is one of the many arms of Iran.  So long as the Iranians have funds and weapons to supply Hamas, Hamas will remain in business.  Sealing the Gazan borders completely is nearly impossible, as there are simply too many avenues open to smuggle arms.  To cut off Iran's access to funds and arms requires the cooperation of the US and other international players, and long as Biden remains president (Obama term 3), the US does not seem moved to do anything about the situation.   

Is the end goal removing Hamas from political power?  Polls indicate that a majority of Palestinians support Hamas' actions.  Were elections to be held in Gaza, Hamas would win.  This goal therefore seems to necessitate imposing control by some outside authority on the area.  Who has the trust of Israel and credibility to assume that role?  Does Israel itself really want to become mired in a long term investment of troops patrolling Gaza?

Lots of questions, with no answers.  Glad I'm not in charge making decisions.

zos chanukah; a beautiful diyuk from R' BenTzion Mutzafi that teaches us how to settle arguments

1) Today is the last day of Chanukah, known as "zos Chanukah."  Rashi in parshas Matos comments on the pasuk at the beginning of that parsha  זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁ֖ר צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ that משה נתנבא בכה אמר ה׳ כחצות הלילה וגו׳ (שמות י״א:ד׳), והנביאים נתנבאו בכה אמר, מוסף עליהם משה שנתנבא בלשון זה הדבר.  What's the difference whether the word כה or the word זה is used?  Maharal explains in Gur Aryeh: 

ונראה, כי ענין זה הוא תולה בנבואת משה רבינו עליו השלום ומדריגתו, כי הנבואות הם שתים; האחת הוא שנתנבאו בה כל הנביאים על מעשה ה׳ והנהגתו בעולם, לכל אשר נעשה בעולם. והמדריגה של משה היה כולל זה, וכולל גם כן להתנבאות על המצות והתורה שצוה לו השם יתברך מפיו. וזאת המדריגה היא אינו דומה לראשונה, כי המדריגה הראשונה בדברים אשר יחדש ויעשה בעולם, והמדריגה של משה רבינו עליו השלום היא התורה מה שהשם יתברך רוצה שיהיה נוהג תמיד בעולם מבלי שינוי, והוא סדר מציאות כללי בעולם. כי בתורה אשר נתן השם יתברך על ידי משה, סידר את ישראל בסדר כללי, לא בענינים המתחדשים בפרטים מן הסבה הראשונה, שזה אין המדריגה כל כך. 

The word זֶ֣ה means you can always point to the thing; it's axiomatic, true for all eternity, in all times and places. כה is what is true in a particular context, based on circumstance.  

וזאת התורה אשׂר שׂם משׂה.  Only Moshe had the level of nevuah of זה and not just כה that was needed to gives us זאת התורה , a Torah that is eternal.  

Chanukah is not just about what happened centuries ago when we needed to be saved from the Greeks.  זאת חנוכּה, it is an eternal truth, it's about the salvation of the Jewish people in all times and in all places, now as well and then.

2) R' BenTzion Mutzafi has a beautiful diyuk in Rashi in our parsha.  The parsha tells us that Yosef imprisoned Shimon and allowed the other brothers to return home (42:24).   וַיִּקַּח מֵאִתָּם אֶת שִׁמְעוֹן וַיֶּאֱסֹר אֹתוֹ לְעֵינֵיהֶם  Rashi explains that it was only in the other brother's presence, לְעֵינֵיהֶם, that Shimon was locked up, but once the brothers were gone, Yosef released him and gave him food and drink לא אסרו אלא לעיניהם, וכיון שיצאו, הוציאו ומאכילו ומשקו.  We understand that Yosef would release Shimon from jail once the coast is clear, but why does Rashi add that Yosef also fed him and cared for him?  Why are those details important and deserving of mention here?  Rashi is based on the Midrash: רַבִּי חַגַּי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר לְעֵינֵיהֶם אֲסָרוֹ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצְאוּ לָהֶם הָיָה מַאֲכִילוֹ וּמַשְׁקוֹ מַרְחִיצוֹ וְסָכוֹ.  I am not sure why Rashi cut off the last words מַרְחִיצוֹ וְסָכוֹ, but the point remains the same.  Furthermore, did Yosef really need to be personally involved?  Didn't Yosef, as the head of Egypt, have servants who could take care of preparing the food, or bathing Shimon?  Later in the parsha when Yosef hosts all the brothers, the Torah tells us that Yosef told others prepare the food  וַיֹּאמֶר לַאֲשֶׁר עַל⁠ בֵּיתוֹ הָבֵא אֶת הָאֲנָשִׁים הַבָּיְתָה וּטְבֹחַ טֶבַח וְהָכֵן כִּי אִתִּי יֹאכְלוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים בַּצׇּהֳרָיִם, so why not here as well?   

We learned 2 years ago a yesod from R"Y Salanter, which the Netziv develops as well, on the pasuk (Mishlei 17:13)  מֵשִׁיב רָעָה תַּחַת טוֹבָה לֹא תָמוּשׁ רָעָה מִבֵּיתוֹ.  The way most people understand that pasuk is not to repay a kindness by doing wrong to someone.  The Netziv, however, says that's not the pshat.  The idea of 'hashava' means returning something owed, like the Torah says in the case of theft, "v'heishiv es ha'gezeilah" -- you stole something, you have to repay it back.  If someone does you a favor, you obviously don't owe it to them to wrong them in return.  What the pasuk is talking about, explains Netziv, about is a case where someone wronged you.  In that case, tit-for-tat, you do owe them back wrongdoing, just like they gave you.  You might even think that this is the way to end the fight -- you wronged me, I wrong you back, now we're even and life goes on.  But it doesn't work that way.  What happens in that case is that the first party sees it as an escalation and responds in kind, and the cycle continues.   

The way to settle things is instead of responding to wrongdoing in kind, respond by doing a kindness.  Do something good for the other person who harmed you and their animosity will melt away and that will mend the broken bridges. 

This is what Mishlei is teaching us: you might think that מֵשִׁיב רָעָה, repaying a wrongdoing tit-for-tat in kind, evening the score, is the way to settle things תַּחַת טוֹבָה, instead of following this strategy of doing kindness; kah mashma lan לֹא תָמוּשׁ רָעָה מִבֵּיתוֹ, if you do that, the fight will never end.  The score will never be perceived as even and the argument will continue.

Shimon was one of the ringleaders in selling Yosef. Therefore, Yosef went out of his way to personally do good by him.  Yosef wanted to settle the quarrel and have peace.

R' Chaim's chiddush re: al ha'nissim said alongside yaaleh v'yavo instead of in its proper place

The Pninei Halacha from the Mir Yeshiva quotes the following shayla that R' Moshe Shapira heard the GRI"Z quote b'shem R' Chaim: someone in their davening on Rosh Chodesh Teives accidentally said al ha'nissim alongside yaa'eh v'yavo before v'techezena eineinu... and wanted to know whether they have to repeat shmoneh esrei or not.  R' Chaim told the person to ask his FIL R' Raphael Shapira, and to mention that he holds that yaaleh v'yavo is in place of retzei.  

R' Raphael Shapira paskened that since the person said yaaleh v'yavo first and then al ha'nissim, he has to repeat.  Had it been the other way around, he would be yotzei.

The whole thing sounds like a riddle.  The shayla was whether al ha'nissim is a hefsek, but R' Chaim's response was about yaaleh v'yavo being part of the bracha of retzei.  Somehow that led R Raphael Shapira to say it depends on what was said first, with no further explanation.

What's going on?

Here is the mehaleich that they put together to unravel the conundrum:

Since al ha'nissim is not part of the bracha of retzei, it would seem to be a hefsek (see O.C. 108).  

As a result of the hefsek, it is as if the beginning of the bracha is cut off from the end.  

If in theory the end of the bracha could stand on its own, then this would be like an interruption in between two brachos, which b'dieved does not negate the entire shmoneh esrei.  

However, since v'techezena... onward does not reflect the theme of avodah or korbanos, which is the essence of the bracha, it therefore cannot stand on its own -- it's an end with no beginning.  The entire shmoneh esrei is therefore lost.

What R' Chaim was mechadesh to his FIL was that in the case where you say yaaleh v'yavo, things are different. See Rashi (Shabbos 24a) who writes אומר מעין המאורע בעבודה. לבקש רחמים על ישראל ועל ירושלים להשיב עבודה למקומה לעשות קרבנות היום:  Yaaleh v'yavo does reflect the essence of the bracha.  So long as you can attach it to v'techenza... onward, you have a complete bracha.  

Therefore, concluded R' Raphael Shapira, if al ha'nissim was recited first, you are left with yaaleh v'yavo + v'techezena... and have a complete bracha and are yotzei.  If, however, yaaleh v'yavo was recited first and then al ha'nissim, it creates a break in the middle of a bracha, in which case the bracha is lost and shmoneh esrei must be repeated. 

putting stock in dreams

Dreams play a prominent role in this week's and next week's parsha.  There has been some interesting discussion in the Torah world recently about dreams because of a fantastic story that has been making the rounds (see here, R' Asher Weiss' psak, here quoting R' Zilberstein).  There is a chozeir be'teshuvah who, on the advice of his very close rebbe, remained living in the south even though the community was not a religious one.  On the night of 10/7 his rebbe appeared to him in a dream and told him he was in grave danger and had to flee. He did not put much stock in a bad dream and attempted to go back to sleep, but his rebbe appeared to him again and forcefully told him that he must flee immediately.  Like we read in next week's parsha,  וְעַל הִשָּׁנוֹת הַחֲלוֹם ... פַּעֲמָיִם כִּי נָכוֹן הַדָּבָר מֵעִם הָאֱלֹקים.  Now he was awake and paying attention.  Having no one to really ask what to do and feeling that the dream was real, he got in his car with his family and took off, and as a result, his family escaped the events of 10/7 (no idea if he alerted others and what their reaction was, but let's be real -- would you pay attention if someone woke you in the middle of the night and told you they had a dream like that?)  But did he make the right decision?  Does the threat of sakana revealed by a dream allow for chilul shabbos or y"t?  Does the fact that after the fact we know his actions did result in saving lives excuse them?

This is a big topic, and I will just touch the surface regarding three points:

My initial reaction was that the individual is patur on chilul shabbos.  Menachos 64a tells us

 דאיתמר שמע שטבע תינוק בים ופרש מצודה להעלות דגים והעלה דגים חייב להעלות דגים והעלה דגים ותינוק רבא אמר חייב ורבה אמר פטור

A baby fell into a river on shabbos.  Someone was mechalel shabbos to go fishing and just happened to catch the baby into his net and save him.  We pasken like Rabbah and hold in this case the individual is not liable for chilul shabbos.  L'maaseh the fisherman saved the baby's life, whether or not that was his intention when he cast out his nets.  Here too, lmaaseh, the person who drove away saved his family's life, whether or not he intended or was justified in taking action l'chatchila.

Upon further review, however, the cases are not parallel.  When the fisherman cast his nets, the baby was already in danger and floating downstream.  The act of catching fish occurred simultaneously with the act of saving the baby.  When the person got into his car to drive away, there was no danger at that moment and no way (aside from his dream) that he could have anticipated the danger.  

Second issue: Kiddush 81b writes

דתניא אישה הפרם וה' יסלח לה במה הכתוב מדבר באשה שנדרה בנזיר ושמע בעלה והפר לה והיא לא ידעה שהפר לה בעלה והיתה שותה יין ומטמאה למתים רבי עקיבא כי הוה מטי להאי פסוקא הוה בכי אמר ומה מי שנתכוין לאכול בשר חזיר ועלה בידו בשר טלה אמרה תורה צריכה כפרה וסליחה מי שנתכוין לאכול בשר חזיר ועלה בידו בשר חזיר על אחת כמה וכמה 

It would seem that someone who intends to do wrong but things work out right still needs kapara.  

Does the fisherman in the previous case from Menachos 64 need kapara?  When the gemara there says  פטור does it mean exempt from chiyuv misa or korban for chilul shabbos but still requiring some kapara, or does not mean off the hook completely?  Does the fact that the outcome was a mitzvah of saving a life and not just eating a kosher piece of meat change things?  

Last point: how seriously should we take dreams?  Sanhedrin 30a

 הרי שהיה מצטער על מעות שהניח לו אביו ובא בעל החלום ואמר לו כך וכך הן במקום פלוני הן של מעשר שני הן זה היה מעשה ואמרו דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין:

A father who comes to his son in a dream and reveals the location of $ but tells his son the funds are maaser sheni money is not believed about the funds being maaser -- dreams are not evidence.  As Rashi on our parsha puts it, אין חלום בלא דברים בטלים.  

R' Akiva Eiger in the gilyon sends you to a Shu"T Tashbetz because things are not so simple.  Nedarin 8:

אמר רב יוסף נידוהו בחלום צריך י' בני אדם להתיר לו

Why should a person who is put in נדוי in a dream pay any attention?  What happened to דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין?

Tashbetz answers that it depends.  A dream that comes from a malach is likely true, but a dream inspired by a sheid is false.  The problem is that we can't really tell the difference, and so as a rule of thumb we treat everything as a safeik.  The gemara in Sanhedrin is talking about a safeik in dinei mamonos, and so we apply the rule that muchzak wins absent clear proof and so the son can keep the $.  The issue in Nedarim is one of issur v'heter, and so we invoke the rule of safeik issura l'chumra.  (See R' Chaim Kanievsky's comments in Derech Emunah questioning whether maaser sheni is really a safeik mamon and not a safeik issur.)

The Hafla'as Nedarim offers a different answer based on Ch haRaN.  When it comes to $, real proof is needed, and a dream is no more proof than nevuah -- lo ba'shamayim hi.  However, when it comes to נדוי, an umdena is enough proof.  Also, there is a concept of נדוי given by beis din shel maalah.  Therefore, it is an exception to the rule. 

According to both these views, dreams are not full proof, but are at least enough proof to create a safeik, and a safeik sakana is enough to justify chilul shabbos.

Ritva in Taanis 12 goes to the opposite extreme and does not see any value in dreams:

 אף על פי שבדברים בעלמא אמרו חכמי׳ דברי חלומו׳ לא מעלין ולא מורידין ואפי׳ בזה שיש צורך איסור מ״מ כשבא לו התעוררו׳ בחלום על עניני עצמו ראוי לו לחוש לדבר אם רואה עצמו נבהל ונפחד שזה ודאי הערה מן השמים הוא שבא עליו שיחפש במעשיו ויחזור בתשובה ועל הדרך הזה אמרו בנדרים בפ״ק במי שנדוהו בחלום שילך לפני עשרה דהיינו הלכתא ויתירו לו והטעם לענין שאמרנו כי הערה הוא מן השמים שעשה נסתרות והיה צריך לנדות או היו נגלות או שעשה עבירו׳ חמורו׳ שהוא נזוף לשמים ומתוך שיטרח בכל זה יפשפש במעשיו ואותן חכמים יורוהו דרכי תשובה ולפי׳ כל שרואה חלום שמפחידו ראוי לו להתענות ולחזור בתשוב

Ritva holds that a dream is just a psychological tool by which Heaven sends a person a message to wake up and do teshuvah.  To the extent a person is bothered by his dreams, he should do something in response, like accept upon himself נדוי, like the sugya in Nedarim.  Beyond that, a dream is not evidence of anything.  It certainly would not be a justification for chilul shabbos.

There are other issues to unpack, as we know that there have been shu"t written based on revelations in dreams, malachim have appeared to teach people torah.  Like I said, this barely scratches the surface. 

Yaakov's identity crisis

From the moment Yaakov uttered the words "Anochi Eisav bechorecha" I think he was faced with an identity crisis.  The challenge to Yaakov was to remain the "ish tam yosheiv ohalim," yet at the same time step into the shoes of Eisav for the sake of taking the bechora, for the sake of taking the brachos of הֵ֣ן גְּבִ֞יר שַׂמְתִּ֥יו לָךְ֙ וְאֶת־כׇּל־אֶחָ֗יו נָתַ֤תִּי לוֹ֙ לַעֲבָדִ֔ים, which does not sound like something a yosheiv ohalim needs, and for the sake of taking not just Rachel as a wife, but Leah as well.  As we read last week  עֵינֵ֥י לֵאָ֖ה רַכּ֑וֹת because, as Rashi explains, לפי שהיתה בוכה, שהיתה סבורה לעלות בגורלו של עשו. שהיו הכל אומרים: שני בנים לרבקה ושתי בנות ללבן, גדולה לגדול וקטנה לקטן.  This destiny was in fact fulfilled, because the katan, Yaakov, had usurped the role of Eisav in addition to his own role, and stood in his place. 

The Bas Ayin interprets the battle of Yaakov with the angel, the sar of Eisav, represents Yaakov's struggle to remain true to the midah of anavah, humility.  וַיֵּאָבֵ֥ק אִישׁ֙ עִמּ֔וֹ means Yaakov struggled to avoid thinking of himself as an אִישׁ֙, as a gavra, as someone of importance.  וַיִּירָ֧א יַעֲקֹ֛ב מְאֹ֖ד What Yaakov was afraid of, explains the Bas Ayin, is losing his midah of מאד מאד הוי שׁפל רוח.  I think this is the same struggle I described above, the struggle of Yaakov to maintain his own identity as the ish tam.  וְרַ֖ב יַעֲבֹ֥ד צָעִֽיר only works to Yaakov's benefit so long as he remains true to his identity as the צָעִֽיר and does not get swallowed up and become the רַ֖ב.

In light of this, the crucial words in Yaakov's tefilah at the beginning of the parsha are קָטֹ֜נְתִּי מִכֹּ֤ל הַחֲסָדִים֙ וּמִכׇּל־הָ֣אֱמֶ֔ת אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשִׂ֖יתָ אֶת־עַבְדֶּ֑ךָ. This is not stam a thank you to Hashem for all he has done, but it a statement by Yaakov of who he is.  The crucial words uttered by Eisav when he meets his brother are וַיֹּ֥אמֶר עֵשָׂ֖ו יֶשׁ־לִ֣י רָ֑ב אָחִ֕י יְהִ֥י לְךָ֖ אֲשֶׁר־לָֽךְ.  Rashi writes כאן הודה לו על הברכות.  Perhaps derech derush one can suggest that the first half of Eisav's sentence is no less significant to making that admission than the second half.  יֶשׁ־לִ֣י רָ֑ב remains Eisav's identity, and therefore וְרַ֖ב יַעֲבֹ֥ד צָעִֽיר will remain his lot.

All this brings me to a piece by R' Yaakov Abuchatzeira in Machsof HaLavan.  Rashi and Ramban struggle to make sense of the word  וַיֵּאָבֵ֥ק.  This is the only context in Tanach where אבק appears as a verb.  Why would the Torah use this strange form of the word and not some other, more common word, to desribe Yaakov's struggle?  In Machsof HaLavan he points out that the word אבק has the same letters as the root of Yaakov's own name, עקב, with the exception of א in place of ע.  The word עקב stands of anavah, kedusha, and bracha. The battle of the sar shel Eisav revolved around that one letter ע and the midah of anavah -- would Yaakov remain true to his humility, to who he was?  The substitution of א represents the word אחיות. The sar shel Eisav accused Yaakov of violating the issur of marrying two sisters.  What I think this means is that so long as Yaakov remained humble, the personality of Eisav could coexist within himself without causing damage and he could walk in the shoes of Eisav to take the bechora, the brachos, take Leah as his wife on top of Rachel.  However, were he to allow that personality of Eisav to consume and transform him were he too lose sight of his own identity, were the two personalities incapable of coexisting, then he should have but one wife and not two.  Hence, the sar she Eisav's argument.  The conclusion of the story is that Yaakov is give the name Yisrael.  Says R' Yaakov Abuchatzeira, this is roshei teivos: יעקב ראוי לישׂא שׁתי אחיות.  Yaakov remained true to himself, true to the midah of anavah, and therefore was worthy of Rachel and Leah both.

Sometimes we must put on the garments of Eisav, but that is just a tool.  Our core personality remains that of Yaakov, filled with bracha, kedusha, anavah.