celebration or commemoration?

Why do we have a mitzvah of mishteh and seudah on Purim but not on Chanukah?  I think most people are familiar with the Levush's answer that on Purim, the threat to Jewish life was irrespective of religious commitment.  Even if someone had agreed to convert, Haman would not have spared them.  Since the threat was one of physical annihilation, the celebration is a physical one of eating and drinking.  On Chanukah, the Greeks did not want to kill us; they wanted to force us to abandon Judaism.  Had we given up Shabbos, milah, Torah, they would have left us alone.  Since the threat was to our spiritual lives, the celebration focusses on the spiritual alone, without the physical party.

The Taz does not like this answer.  גדול המחטיאו יותר מן ההורגו (Bamaidar Rabbah 21, quoted in Rashi).  Spiritual danger is far greater than physical danger.  Therefore, says the Taz, since on Chanukah we faced spiritual danger, we should make the bigger party then.  On Purim we faced the lesser threat of physical danger, and so therefore it should warrant a smaller celebration.  So why is it ונהפּוך הוא?  

Taz answers that instead of looking at the threat, we need to look at the salvation, the miracle.  Everybody was aware of what Haman planned to do and everybody celebrated his defeat and our lives being spared, so we in turn make a big party.  The miracle of the oil for menorah was different.  We got to do a mitzvah properly that we otherwise might have missed out on, and so we have a spiritual celebration, but that does not generate the same public excitement and merriment that having one's life spared does.

R' Shimshon Pincus (Tiferes Torash siman 19) explains the nekudas ha'machlokes here very nicely. According to the Taz, Chanukah and Purim are days of celebration, yamin tovim derabbanan.  The question is why the "shiur" of celebration is greater on one than the other, and so the Taz comes up with a sevara.  According to Levush, Chanukah and Purim are days of commemoration.  The days are inherently ymei chol, but there is a chovas ha'gavra to commemorate the nes.  גדול המחטיאו יותר מן ההורגו is not relevant because גדול המחטיאו יותר מן ההורג speaks to what the threat was, not what the nes was.  On Purim, the nes was physical salvation, so it gets commemorated with a physical party; on Chanukah, it was spiritual salvation, and so there is no physical celebration involved.  

the secular holiday spirit

Currently sitting in midtown looking out of the office window at the throngs of people who have come to NYC (mostly tourists, as most regular working folks take off this week and avoid the city) to celebrate yom eidam.  

Something to keep in mind this time of year: MB 224:3

 כתב הב"ח בשם ספר האשכול השמר לך לראות קנגיאות של כותים וה"ה מחולתם או שום דבר שמחתם ואם תשמע קול כותים שמחים האנח ותצער על חורבן 

dignity for the accused

It's always hard to learn parsha when you are caught up in Chanuka, but I don't want to skip a week of writing something.  

When Yaakov sends his sons back to Egypt with Binyamin, he declares (43:14)

 וְק-ל שַׁדַּי יִתֵּן לָכֶם רַחֲמִים לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ וְשִׁלַּח לָכֶם אֶת⁠ אֲחִיכֶם אַחֵר וְאֶת⁠ בִּנְיָמִין

Abarbanel is medayek in the words לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ, which seem unnecessary. According to one Midrashic interpretation, the word  אִישׁ actually refers to Hashem:

רַבִּי יַאשְׁיָה בֶּן לֵוִי פָּתַר קְרָא בַּגָּלֻיּוֹת: וְאֵל שַׁדַּי יִתֵּן לָכֶם רַחֲמִים (בראשית מ״ג:י״ד), וַיִּתֵּן אוֹתָם לְרַחֲמִים (תהלים ק״ו:מ״ו).

לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ – הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ה׳ אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה ה׳ שְׁמוֹ (שמות ט״ו:ג׳).

וְשִׁלַּח לָכֶם אֶת אֲחִיכֶם – אֵלּוּ עֲשֶׂרֶת הַשְּׁבָטִים.

אַחֵר וְאֶת בִּנְיָמִין – זֶה שֵׁבֶט יְהוּדָה וּבִנְיָמִין.

וַאֲנִי כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׁכֹלְתִּי – בְּחֻרְבַּן רִאשׁוֹן.

שָׁכָלְתִּי – בְּחֻרְבַּן שֵׁנִי. כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׁכֹלְתִּי, בְּחֻרְבָּן רִאשׁוֹן וּבַשֵּׁנִי, לֹא אֶשְׁכַּל עוֹד

This is not pshat, as it is hard to understand what it means that Hashem should give mercy before Hashem, unless you say that the different names refer to different midos.  The point the derash means to convey is that the reunification of the brothers portends a reunification of Klal Yisrael which leads ultimately to geulah.  

Abarbanel explains pshat is that אִישׁ is not just stam "man," but it means something like "gentleman;" it connotes chashivus.  Rashi writes in parshas Shlach (13:3)  כל אנשים שבמקרא לשון חשיבות.   Or you could be medayek from Rashi in our parsha on the pasuk הלא ידעתם כי נחש ינחש איש אשר כמני (44:15) where Rashi writes   הלא ידעתם כי איש חשוב כמוני יודע לנחש - notice that he adds the word חשוב.  Here too in our pasuk, what Yaakov was telling his children is that someone of Yosef's stature cannot but help but be moved by their plight:  כי איש הוא ויתפעל מצרתכם.  Surely someone who is an אִישׁ would not be lacking in empathy.

(Parenthetically, if I remember correctly, the Rav explained that this is what struck Moshe Rabeinu (Shmos 2:12)  וַיִּפֶן כֹּה וָכֹה וַיַּרְא כִּי אֵין אִישׁ.  Egypt was the bastion of enlightenment for its time - -a place of culture, refinement, advanced ideas.  When Moshe saw the beating of a Jew, it struck him that for all the superficial appearances, no one in that society was truly an אִישׁ.  They were barbarians at heart, as they lacked human empathy.  Of course, this was a commentary on German high culture before the war, not just pshat in the pasuk.)

R' Chaim Elazari learned by the Alter of Slabodka and always reads the parsha through the lens of Slabodka mussar and its emphasis on gadlus ha'adam.  He focusses on this same word/idea of אִישׁ/אנשׁים later in the parsha to learn a different lesson.  When Yosef orders his majordomo to run after the brothers and accuse them of stealing his goblet, you have the use of that word אִישׁ/אנשים  again: 

הֵם יָצְאוּ אֶת⁠ הָעִיר לֹא הִרְחִיקוּ וְיוֹסֵף אָמַר לַאֲשֶׁר עַל⁠ בֵּיתוֹ קוּם רְדֹף אַחֲרֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים וְהִשַּׂגְתָּם וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם לָמָּה שִׁלַּמְתֶּם רָעָה תַּחַת טוֹבָה

R' Elazari writes that the pasuk is teaching us that even when it seems like a crime has been committed, don't be so hasty to throw around accusations and debase and degrade the accused.  רְדֹף אַחֲרֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים means treat the accused as אֲנָשִׁים; don't rob them of their dignity.  Don't chase after them through the streets screaming, "Stop thief!" so that everyone turns their heads to take a video of the scene as it unfolds.  Wait until וְהִשַּׂגְתָּם, until you catch up to them and stop them, and only then say, לָמָּה שִׁלַּמְתֶּם רָעָה תַּחַת טוֹבָה.  

One could argue that Yosef's concern stemmed from the fact that he knew that his brothers were not in fact thieves.  On the other hand, if he treated them differently than others, that would give away the game, wouldn't it?  

Tos shita on mehadrin min ha'mehadrin - a question that has me stumped

The gemara writes that there are three possible levels to fulfill the mitzvah of neiros Chanuka:

1) ner ish u'beiso - one candle lit every night for the entire household

2) mehadrin - every person in the household lights one candle each night 

3) mehadrin min ha'mehadrin - add one candle every night.  Tos' and the Rambam disagree whether this level builds on the level of mehadrin, i.e. every person in the house lights and adds an additional candle every night, or whether this level builds on ner ish u'beiso, i.e. one person in the household lights and adds an additional candle each night

Tosfos argues that the latter interpretation must be correct.  The whole point of adding the additional candle each night is to demonstrate which night of Chanuka it is.  If every person in the household lights, there is no way the viewer can figure that out.  If, for example, you see 4 candles burning in the window, does that mean it's the first night of Chanuka and there are 4 people in the house each lighting, or does that mean it is the second night of Chanuka and two people are lighting, or is it the fouth night of Chanuka and there is only one person lighting?  The only way the lighting can reflect the day is if we assume one and only one person in the household lights.

I'm not interested in how to answer this question and justify our minhag.  I'm interested in how minei u'bei Tosfos makes sense.  Even if mehadrin min ha'mehadrin means only one person per household lights, still, how can I know what night of Chanuka it is?  Remember, there are three possible levels of fulfilling the mitzvah.  If I see 4 candles burning in the window, how do I know that that home lit mehadrin min ha'mehadrin and it therefore is day 4 of Chanuka?  Maybe in that household they only keep the mehadrin level.  Mehadrin means every member of the house lights one candle.  4 candles might means four people at home, each lighting one candle like the mehadrin custom?  Tos' hasn't solved their own problem!

I've learned this sugya multiple times over the years and for whatever reason, this never occurred to me before.  It's a simple pshat question and I am stumped.  I keep thinking I must be missing something, but I've asked a few people and so far no one has come up with a real answer.  To say that Tos' assumed everyone lit mehadrin min ha'mehadrin seems like a big dochak.  The gemara gives three levels and Tos' comment has to be taken in that context. Anyone have a good idea?  

entering into safeik sakana to save someone else from vaday sakana

Yaakov was certainly aware of the animosity the brothers had for Yosef, so why did he send Yosef to check on them. throwing him into the lion's den, so to speak?  B'pashtus you could say that Yaakov underestimated the level of animosity and danger.  Sibling rivalry is not uncommon, but it seldom leads to what happened to Yosef.  The Hadar Zekeinim (from the Baalei HaTos') on the parsha quotes another interesting answer from Ibn Ezra:

וא״ת מה ראה יעקב לשלחו לאחיו הלא יודע ששונאים אותו. ואומר אבן עזרא לפי שהלכו במקום סכנה לרעות כי הרגו אנשי שכם. אמר יעקב שמא יענישו לך ספק הוא ושיהרגום אנשי שכם אם ימצאום ודאי הוא ומוטב ליקח הספק מן הודאי לך אמור להם שישובו פן יכום אנשי שכם מכת חרב.

Yaakov perceived the Shechem was a dangerous place for his family to be.  Recall that he did not support the attack on Shechem, fearing that there would be retribution.  When he heard the brothers had taken the sheep to graze near Shechem, he felt that better to send Yosef after them and expose him to some level of risk in order to remove the brothers from certain danger.  

It seems that a person can place himself in safeik sakana to save someone else from a vaday sakana.

This point is debated by others.  The Mishna in Makos (11b) writes that even a great general like Yoav who is needed by the nation is not allowed to leave the ir miklat lest the goal ha'dam attack him  ואפי' ישראל צריכים לו ואפי' שר צבא ישראל כיואב בן צרויה אינו יוצא משם לעולם. The general faces a safeik sakana, but the war is a vaday sakana.  According to the chiddush of Ibn Ezra, why should he not leave the ir miklat?

(Just to add: I don't think the argument advanced by Yehudah in next week's parsha, as explained by Rashi 43:8, to allow Binyanim to travel with the brothers to Egypt is relevant here.    בנימן ספק יתפש ספק לא יתפש, ואנו כולנו מתים ברעב אם לא נלך. מוטב שתניח את הספק ותתפש את הוודאי.  In that case Binyamin was not being put in a safeik sakana to save others, as if he did not go down to Egypt he would be in as much a vaday sakana of dying from hunger as the rest of the family.)  

chisaron in hasbara=chisaron in havana; the power of Yaakov's tears; an amazing Midrash Talpiyot on the identity of Yehuda's wife

1) In yeshivos they like to quote the aphorism from R' Chaim that a chisaron in hasbara indicates a chisaron in havana.  If you can't explain something, it's a sign that you really don't understand it.  (see this post from earlier this year ).  In last week's parsha, Shimon and Levi disagreed with their father Yaakov about how to respond to what happened to Dinah.  When Yaakov chastised his sons, י֮ עֲכַרְתֶּ֣ם אֹתִי֒ לְהַבְאִישֵׁ֙נִי֙ בְּיֹשֵׁ֣ב הָאָ֔רֶץ, they responded and justified their actions,  וַיֹּאמְר֑וּ הַכְזוֹנָ֕הא יַעֲשֶׂ֖ה אֶת⁠־אֲחוֹתֵֽנוּ׃.  In contrast, the brothers never revealed to their father what they did to Yosef and why they acted such.  They didn't even have the courage to directly tell Yaakov their concocted story, but rather  וַֽיְשַׁלְּח֞וּ אֶת⁠־כְּתֹ֣נֶת הַפַּסִּ֗ים וַיָּבִ֙יאוּ֙ אֶל⁠־אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וַיֹּאמְר֖וּ זֹ֣את מָצָ֑אנוּ הַכֶּר⁠־נָ֗אא הַכְּתֹ֧נֶת בִּנְךָ֛ הִ֖וא אִם⁠־לֹֽא׃.  According to Rashbam וַֽיְשַׁלְּח֞וּ means through a messenger על ידי בני אדם שלא יגידו מי השולחים, אלא שיאמרו:⁠א זאת מצאנו so that they could hide their hand in the whole affair.  Why hide behind the veil of secrecy?  Why not explain to their father why they acted against Yosef?  R' Shmuel Birnbaum explains that when it came to Shechem, Shimon and Levi understood crystal clear what they needed to do and why their actions were justified.  Therefore, they were able to answer their father.  When it came to dealing with Yosef, the fact that they could not find the words to justify their actions indicates that the rationale for what they were doing was not really clear in their own minds. 

2) Yosef is taken by the Midyanim and sold into slavery in Egypt  וַיַּֽעַבְרוּ֩ אֲנָשִׁ֨ים מִדְיָנִ֜ים סֹֽחֲרִ֗ים וַֽיִּמְשְׁכוּ֙ וַיַּֽעֲל֤וּ אֶת⁠־יוֹסֵף֙ מִן⁠־הַבּ֔וֹר וַיִּמְכְּר֧וּ אֶת⁠־יוֹסֵ֛ף לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֖ים בְּעֶשְׂרִ֣ים כָּ֑סֶף וַיָּבִ֥יאוּ אֶת⁠־יוֹסֵ֖ף מִצְרָֽיְמָה׃ (37:28).  The brothers present their story to Yaakov, who refuses to be comforted,  וַיָּקֻ֩מוּ֩ כׇל⁠־בָּנָ֨יו וְכׇל⁠־בְּנֹתָ֜יו לְנַחֲמ֗וֹ וַיְמָאֵן֙ לְהִתְנַחֵ֔ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר כִּֽי⁠־אֵרֵ֧ד אֶל⁠־בְּנִ֛י אָבֵ֖ל שְׁאֹ֑לָה וַיֵּ֥בְךְּ אֹת֖וֹ אָבִֽי (37:35)  The Torah then ends that chapter by repeating what happened to Yosef,  וְהַ֨מְּדָנִ֔ים מָכְר֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ אֶל⁠־מִצְרָ֑יִם לְפֽוֹטִיפַר֙ סְרִ֣יס פַּרְעֹ֔ה שַׂ֖ר הַטַּבָּחִֽים.  We then have an entire chapter devoted to the episode of Yehuda and Tamar, and return in Ch 39 to the Yosef narrative,  וְיוֹסֵ֖ף הוּרַ֣ד מִצְרָ֑יְמָה וַיִּקְנֵ֡הוּ פּוֹטִיפַר֩ סְרִ֨יס פַּרְעֹ֜ה שַׂ֤ר הַטַּבָּחִים֙ אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י מִיַּד֙ הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר הוֹרִדֻ֖הוּ שָֽׁמָּה׃.  Alshich asks: why do we need that final pasuk in ch 37 before the episode of Yehuda and Tamar to tell us again about the Midyanim selling Yosef off?  It really belongs to the start of ch 39.  Instead of that chapter starting וְיוֹסֵ֖ף הוּרַ֣ד מִצְרָ֑יְמָה, eliminate those words and start by saying הַ֨מְּדָנִ֔ים מָכְר֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ אֶל⁠־מִצְרָ֑יִם upon which time he was bought by Potifar.  It is more concise, and does away with what seems an extraneous pasuk at the end of ch 37.

The Tzror haMor answers that the final pasuk of ch 37 which tells us וְהַ֨מְּדָנִ֔ים מָכְר֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ אֶל⁠־מִצְרָ֑יִם לְפֽוֹטִיפַר֙ סְרִ֣יס פַּרְעֹ֔ה שַׂ֖ר הַטַּבָּחִֽים is not just there to convey information about what happened to Yosef.  It is actually connected to the description of Yaakov's grief and his refusal to cease crying for his son.  Chazal tell us that even when the gates of tefilah are closed, the gates of tears remain open.  Yosef might have ended up anywhere.  He might have been taken across the sea to a distant land or been carted off to the far reaches of the world.  Were that to happen, the chances of his being reunited with his family would be slim.  Thanks to Yaakov's endless tears, Hashem arranged things so that Yosef did not wind up too far from home.  Of course it would be years before he ultimately was able to see his father again, but the possibility of that happening was already in place and the wheels were in motion from the get-go.

3) Abarbanel comments ואמנם בהפלגת אבלות יעקב הוא מקום תימה רב.  The baalei mussar like the Seforno here: יאמר כי ארד אל בני אבל שאלה – קבל עליו אבלות לכל ימיו, מפני שארעה התקלה על ידו ששלח את יוסף אל אחיו  Yaakov refused to be comforted because he saw himself as being at fault because he was the one who send Yosef to check on his brothers.  It was the guilt that weighed him down.  No wonder he refused at first to send Binyamin down to Egypt.  Even though Shimon was being held captive waiting the brothers return, Yaakov had no hand in Shimon's being held, but were he the one to send Binyamin off to harm, in his mind he would be just as much at fault as when he sent Yosef.

3) I just saw this Midrash Talpiyot (bottom of first column( quoted somewhere this week and what an interesting find it is.  וַיַּרְא⁠־שָׁ֧ם יְהוּדָ֛ה בַּת⁠־אִ֥ישׁ כְּנַעֲנִ֖י וּשְׁמ֣וֹ שׁ֑וּעַ  Rashi tries to explain away כְּנַעֲנִ֖י as meaning a merchant.  The M.T. writes that Yeuhuda married the daughter of Eisav (!), whose name contains the same letters as שׁ֑וּעַ.  How could a tzadik like Yehuda have childen like  עֵ֚ר and אוֹנָ֔ן ?  It must be that their mother's genes from Eisav rubbed off on them.  

why Yaakov was upset at Shimon and Levi

I had a thought as to why Yaakov was angry at Shimon and Levi for attacking Shechem.  We know that David haMelech was prevented from building the Beis HaMikdash because he had engaged in bloodshed and warfare his entire life.  Yaakov was en route to the spot where Hashem had appeared to him in a dream when he left home and where he had taken the neder וְהָאֶ֣בֶן הַזֹּ֗את אֲשֶׁר⁠־שַׂ֙מְתִּי֙ מַצֵּבָ֔ה יִהְיֶ֖ה בֵּ֣ית אֱלֹהִ֑ים.  This is the same idea - יִהְיֶ֖ה בֵּ֣ית אֱלֹהִ֑ים - as building Beis haMikdash!  Yaakov was afraid that if he got bogged down in wars as a result of Shimon and Levi's attack on Shechem it would prevent him from fulfilling his neder.  (It is shortly before shabbos here so I haven't looked to see if any meforshim say this. Just throwing it out there for now.)

Yaakov's mid-life crisis (or so it seems)

  קָטֹנְתִּי מִכֹּל הַחֲסָדִים וּמִכׇּל⁠ הָאֱמֶת אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ אֶת⁠ עַבְדֶּךָ כִּי בְמַקְלִי עָבַרְתִּי אֶת⁠ הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה וְעַתָּה הָיִיתִי לִשְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת

 הַצִּילֵנִי נָא מִיַּד אָחִי מִיַּד עֵשָׂו כִּי⁠ יָרֵא אָנֹכִי אֹתוֹ פֶּן⁠ יָבוֹא וְהִכַּנִי אֵם עַל⁠ בָּנִים

 וְאַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ הֵיטֵב אֵיטִיב עִמָּךְ וְשַׂמְתִּי אֶת⁠ זַרְעֲךָ כְּחוֹל הַיָּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא⁠ יִסָּפֵר מֵרֹב.

I want to first focus on a detail in Yaakov's tefilah, the micro, the prat, and then look at the bigger picture, the klal, the macro.

Rashi comments

כי במקלי – לא היה עמי לא כסף ולא זהב ולא מקנה אלא מקלי לבדו.

ומדרש אגדה: נתן מקלו בירדן ונבקע הירדן.

Whenever Rashi quotes two interpretations, esp if one is pshat and one is derash, the Sifsei Chachamim wants to know why.  The S.C.'s usual methodology is to find plusses and minuses in each interpretation; aware of the shortcomings of one reading, Rashi offers another possibility.  

S.C. explains why Rashi here was not satisfied with pshat and needed to resort to derash:

ומדרש אגדה נתן מקלו בירדן ונבקע הירדן. ולפי זה עשה לי שתי טובות אחד שנבקע לו הירדן והשני ב׳ מחנות משא״כ לפשוטו אין כאן אלא חסד אחד:

The word חֲסָדִים is plural.  If the pasuk means that Yaakov went from a penniless pauper who had nothing other than his staff to a wealthy man, that is only one chessed, not multiple chassadim.  Therefore, Rashi quotes the derash.  The reference to Yaakov's staff has nothing to do with his wealth, but rather refers to a miraculous splitting of the river that Yaakov did on his way to Lavan's house.  וְעַתָּה הָיִיתִי לִשְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת is a second chessed of having a large and well off family. 

If S.C. is correct and Rashi's point is that חֲסָדִים has to refer to multiple chassadim, it begs the question of why the only two items on the list are the miracle of the river splitting, which occurred more than two decades ago when Yaakov was first en route to Lavan's house, and the  ב׳ מחנות, his large family of the present moment.   Nothing else happened in between?  There are no other chassadim that Yaakov could think of to list between the far past and the immediate present?!

Zooming out to look at the tefilah as a whole, Yaakov ends his prayer with a justification as to why G-d should help him: "You, G-d, promised שַׂמְתִּי אֶת⁠ זַרְעֲךָ כְּחוֹל הַיָּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא⁠ יִסָּפֵר מֵרֹב, and therefore you owe me this protection."  We could discuss why Yaakov felt the need to offer any justification at all -- aren't we supposed to ask G-d for help when we are in danger? -- but let's leave that aside and look at the justification itself.  It seems flimsey, and is undermined by Yaakov's own actions.  Yaakov had divided his camp in two.   וַיֹּאמֶר אִם⁠ יָבוֹא עֵשָׂו אֶל⁠ הַמַּחֲנֶה הָאַחַת וְהִכָּהוּ וְהָיָה הַמַּחֲנֶה הַנִּשְׁאָר לִפְלֵיטָה  In this way if Eisav attacked one part, the other could escape.  If so, the promise of שַׂמְתִּי אֶת⁠ זַרְעֲךָ כְּחוֹל הַיָּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא⁠ יִסָּפֵר מֵרֹב would seem to be in no danger of being abrogated.  Even if one part of the camp could not escape, the other part could, and Hashem's promise could be fulfilled through the survivors.  As Netziv puts it:  

ותו, מה זו הוכחה שלא יהרוג חלק מהבנים ותתקיים הברכה בהנשאר.

I saw a thought in the Arugas haBosem here that addresses these issues and I said to myself that even if you don't think it's pshat in the pasuk, it so hit the nail right on the head about how your perspective shifts as you get older.  Do ever find yourself looking back and wishing you could recapture something of how you were in the past?  Don't get me wrong -- I think you do get wiser as you get older, among other advantages to age. But there is something important lost as well, and I don't just mean, using myself as an example, things like no longer being able to throw a baseball the same way or stay up late without feeling tired the next day, or other such loss of physical ability or stamina.  We are coming up to the sugya of Chanukah where the gemara itself (Shabbos 22b) refers to the advantage of "girsa d'yankusa."  When you learn things when you are young, they stick in your head better.  Aside from loss of mental sharpness, I think more importantly one's perspective changes.  There is also a loss of idealism (again, speaking for myself only) as you age.  You age you start to see every issue in shades of grey rather than black and white, which is a good thing most of the time, but sometimes things really are just plain and simple black and white.  I can go on and give other examples, but I'm sure every person can make his own similar, personal list.

The Yaakov Avinu who in our parsha returns home is not the same Yaakov Avinu who left years earlier, and not just because he is now wealthy and has a huge family.  His attitude has shifted as well.  Yaakov is now a man making cheshbonos.  He strategizes before his meeting with Eisav.  He sends gifts, he sends messengers, and most importantly, he divides his camp is the hope that if all else fails, he can at least have half a victory. That's not the Yaakov of decades earlier.  Sticking your staff in the water in the hopes that it will split is not a logical strategy, something you make a cheshbon about.  Walking into a new town and immediately giving mussar to the shepherds and telling them they are not working hard enough is not a sound strategy.  Trying to singlehandedly roll a huge boulder off the well is not a sound strategy.  That's idealism, that's youth, that's trust in Hashem l'maaleh min ha'teva.  That's the Yaakov of old, of youth.

Yaakov looks at himself and says  כִּי בְמַקְלִי עָבַרְתִּי אֶת⁠ הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה וְעַתָּה הָיִיתִי לִשְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת.  Look what's happened to me! I went from the person who splits the river with his staff to the person who splits his camp in the hopes of half a victory being better than none.  Yaakov is not making a list of chassadim here; he is drawing a contrast between what once was and what now is.  

If I didn't know better, I would say this is the mid-life crisis of Yaakov Avinu.

The problem is that Yaakov Avinu is not you and me.  We may become middle aged pragmatists and lose our idealism, we may have a mid-life crisis when thinking about how we have changed, but we are not the bechir ha'Avos.  Yaakov felt that he should be the same as the Yaakov of old -- titein emes l'Yaakov, and emes remains consistent.  Therefore, there must be some other force at play here forcing him to act as he did.  Maaseh Avos siman la'banim -- what the Avos experienced does not just reflect on their personal lives, but reflects the current of Jewish history as well.  That is no less true in this case.

Netziv asks:

אם נפרש שחשש שיכה האם והבנים יחד וכמשמעות החיצוני מסוף התפילה ״ואתה אמרת וגו׳ ושמתי את זרעך וגו׳⁠ ⁠״, קשה, דלפי זה התכוון יעקב לדבר ה׳ אל אברם אחרי הפרד לוט מעמו (לעיל יג,טז) ״ושמתי את זרעך כעפר הארץ אשר אם יוכל איש למנות וגו׳⁠ ⁠״, וא״כ למאי שינה לשון הברכה ואמר ״כחול הים״

Why did Yaaskov add the words  כְּחוֹל הַיָּם which are not part of the blessing given to Avraham (13:16 וְשַׂמְתִּי אֶת זַרְעֲךָ כַּעֲפַר הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אִם יוּכַל אִישׁ לִמְנוֹת אֶת עֲפַר הָאָרֶץ גַּם זַרְעֲךָ יִמָּנֶה), which is what Yaakov is invoking?

The Arugas haBosem points us to the dersha in Yoma 22b:

 ר' יונתן רמי כתיב והיה מספר בני ישראל כחול הים וכתיב אשר לא ימד ולא יספר לא קשיא כאן בזמן שישראל עושין רצונו של מקום כאן בזמן שאין עושין רצונו של מקום 

We can either be as numerous as the stars of the sky -- lofty, heavenly -- or be like sand of the sea, lowly and trodden on.  

When Yaakov reflected on his behavior and thinking at that moment, he realized that his behavior had changed because Hashem wanted through him to give guidence not just to great generations, but to generations that are not exactly up to snuff.  There are generations where we are not in the position to walk into a river with just our staff, confident that it will split on our behalf.  We are not in a position to think we can unstop wells that look blocked, or dictate ethics to others.  We make cheshbonos, we operate strategically, more in tune with what derech ha'teva leads us to think than with pure bitachon.  

Yaakov was praying not for his own sake, but for the sake of those generations.  וְאַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ הֵיטֵב אֵיטִיב עִמָּךְ וְשַׂמְתִּי אֶת⁠ זַרְעֲךָ כְּחוֹל הַיָּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא⁠ יִסָּפֵר מֵרֹב.  Even if we are  כְּחוֹל הַיָּם, nonetheless, אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ הֵיטֵב אֵיטִיב עִמָּךְ.  

Rachel's swap of the simanin and the din of bnei temurah - an amazing Maharal

There is a must-see Maharal on the pasuk  וַיְהִ֣י בַבֹּ֔קֶר וְהִנֵּה⁠־הִ֖וא לֵאָ֑ה (29:25).  It doesn't say that next morning Yaakov *discovered* that he was married to Leah, or that he *saw* that it was Leah.  It says next morning it *was* Leah.  Meaning, at night, it was not Leah --- as Rashi writes, אבל בלילה לא היא לאה -- and then somehow, in the morning, the identity of who Yaakov married changed to someone else.  

How does that work?  Rashi tells us that the switch happened because of the simanin: לפי שמסר יעקב סימנין לרחל. וכשראת שמכניסין לו לאה, אמרה: עכשיו תכלם אחותי, עמדה ומסרה לה אותן סימנין, 

Maharal in Gur Aryeh explains: אלא ודאי הכי פירושו ״והנה היא לאה״ – בבקר, אבל בלילה לא היתה לאה, לפי שמסרה לה הסימנין, וקיימא לן דסימנין דאורייתא, והוי סימן מובהק, ולפיכך בלילה הרי היא רחל לענין דינא לסמוך עליו:

Since the halacha says that a person can rely on simanim to identify his wife, and the simanim Yaakov was given during the night matched the simanim of Rachel, halacha says that the identity of Yaakov's wife that night Rachel!  Came the morning and that same person appeared to be Leah, at that moment, and not before, her identity became Leah. 

The reality of who Yaakov was married to changed from the night to the morning.

Seems to me that this amazing chiddush renders moot a question raised by the MG"A.  MG"A in OC 240 asks on the din of "bnei temurah," when a person has relations with one woman thinking it's another:

תמורה. אפי' שתיהן נשיו, כגון שנתכוין לזו ונזדמנה לו האחרת (טור) וצ"ע דהלא יעקב נתכוין לרחל ובא על לאה

Wasn't Yaakov Avinu in violation of this din on his wedding night when he thought he was marrying Rachel and it was really Leah?  

 MG"A continues:

ובסי"מ כ' שמשום זה לא נטלו שבט ראובן חלק בא"י רק בעבר הירדן ומ"מ צ"ע שיהיו ח"ו מן המורדים והפושעים ובפרט שהיא נתעברה מביאה זו כמ"ש התו' ביבמות דף ע"ו וצ"ל דדוקא כשראה רחל שוכבת במטה ונתכוין לגוף זה ואח"כ נזדמנה לו לאה תחתיו אבל יעקב בשעת כניסתו לחופה ראה לאה ונתכוין לגופה רק שסבר ששמה רחל לית לן בה, וכיוצא בזה חילקו בסנהדרין גבי נתכוין להרוג את זה והרג את זה:

MB in Shaar haTziun suggests that "bnei temurah" is only a problem if your intent is for a different person than the one in front of you, but if your intent is for the individual who is present, just you think it's someone else, that's not a problem.

Based on Maharal, the question doens't even get off the groud.  Yaakov intended to be married to Rachel that night and al pi din it *was* Rachel that night.  It was only the following morning that הִנֵּה⁠־הִ֖וא לֵאָ֑ה, her identity was changed.

returning home and to one's homeland

 וַיִּנְהַג אֶת⁠ כׇּל⁠ מִקְנֵהוּ וְאֶת⁠ כׇּל⁠ רְכֻשׁוֹ אֲשֶׁר רָכָשׁ מִקְנֵה קִנְיָנוֹ אֲשֶׁר רָכַשׁ בְּפַדַּן אֲרָם לָבוֹא אֶל⁠ יִצְחָק אָבִיו אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן

We know that Yitzchak lived in Eretz Canaan.  He never left Canaan.  Why does the Torah need to mention that for Yaakov, going home meant not just a return to his father, but a return to אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן? 

Netziv answers that the pasuk is telling us that in addition to Yaakov's wanting to return to his father, יִצְחָק אָבִיו, he also longed for Eretz Yisrael. אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן. 

This idea is already anticipated in the Midrash.  

וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל⁠ יַעֲקֹב שׁוּב אֶל⁠ אֶרֶץ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ וּלְמוֹלַדְתֶּךָ וְאֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ

What does וְאֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ mean in this context?  Was Hashem not with Yaakov all the years he was in Lavan's home?  Was it not Hashem who protected him from Lavan's trickery?  Was it not Hashem who blessed him with wives and 12 children who would be the shivtei K-h?

The Midrash comments:

 כְּתִיב: זָעַקְתִּי אֵלֶיךָ ה׳ אָמַרְתִּי אַתָּה מַחְסִי חֶלְקִי בְּאֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים (תהלים קמ״ב:ו׳), וַהֲלוֹא אֵין אֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים אֶלָּא צוֹר וְחַבְרוֹתֶיהָ, תַּמָּן שׂוֹבְעָה תַּמָּן זוֹלָא, וְאַתְּ אֲמַרְתְּ חֶלְקִי בְּאֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים, אֶלָּא אֶרֶץ שֶׁמֵּתֶיהָ חַיִּים תְּחִלָּה לִימוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם בַּר קַּפָּרָא מַיְתֵי לָהּ מֵהָכָא: נֹתֵן נְשָׁמָה לָעָם עָלֶיהָ וְרוּחַ לַהֹלְכִים בָּהּ (ישעיהו מ״ב:ה׳), אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ חֶלְקִי בְּאֶרֶץ הַחַיִּים, שׁוּב אֶל אֶרֶץ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ, אָבִיךָ מְצַפֶּה לְךָ אִמְּךָ מְצַפָּה לְךָ, אֲנִי בְּעַצְמִי מְצַפֶּה לְךָ.

The Midrash Tehillim similarly writes:

ד״א מדבר ביעקב זעקתי אליך י״י בשעה שיצאתי מבית אבי מהו אומר אם יהיה אלהים עמדי, אתה מחסי והנה אנכי עמך, חלקי בארץ החיים מתאוה אני לחזור לארץ ישראל, אמר יעקב ברשות יצאתי אף אני איני חוזר אלא ברשות, א״ל הקב״ה רשות אתה מבקש הרי הרשות בידך שנאמר שוב אל ארץ אבותיך.

Yaakov's journey was not just return home, a return to his biological father's house, לְמוֹלַדְתֶּךָ, which Hashem was giving Yaakov permission for, but it was a return to אֶרֶץ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ, the land of the Avos, his homeland.  

R' Bachyei similarly finds an allusion to Eretz Yisrael in the double language of the pasuk:

כי נכסוף נכספתה לבית אביך – כפל הלשון לרמוז כי נכסף לאביו ונכסף לארץ הקדושה כלשון (תהלים פ״ד:ג׳) נכספה וגם כלתה נפשי לחצרות אלקי.

This R' Bachyei at the end of the parsha goes hand in hand with R' Bachyei at the beginning of the parsha. When Yaakov is en route to Lavan's house, in response to Hashem's promise of protection, he takes a neder (28:20-21)

 וַיִּדַּר יַעֲקֹב נֶדֶר לֵאמֹר אִם⁠ יִהְיֶה אֱלֹקים עִמָּדִי וּשְׁמָרַנִי בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי הוֹלֵךְ וְנָתַן⁠ לִי לֶחֶם לֶאֱכֹל וּבֶגֶד לִלְבֹּשׁ. 

וְשַׁבְתִּי בְשָׁלוֹם אֶל⁠ בֵּית אָבִי וְהָיָה ה׳ לִי לֵאלֹקים 

Ramban and Rashi disagree on how to read that last phrase. Ramban writes

איננו תנאי כדברי רבינו שלמה. אבל הוא הנדר, וענינו: אם אשוב אל בית אבי, אעבוד השם המיוחד בארץ הנבחרת במקום האבן הזאת שתהיה לי לבית אלהים, ושם אוציא את המעשר.

While Ramban mentions אעבוד השם המיוחד בארץ הנבחרת, he seems to point to avodas Hashem in general, and in particular, taking maaser as the fulfillment of the neder.  R' Bachyei sees the return to Eretz Yisrael itself as the kiyum ha'neder.  Chazal tell us that כל הדר בחוצה לארץ דומה כמו שאין לו אלוה.  Therefore,  וְהָיָה ה׳ לִי לֵאלֹקים must mean being in Eretz Yisrael:

אין זה תנאי ח"ו כי אם נדר, יאמר שאם ישוב לארץ ישראל אשר שם בית אביו יצחק יהיה השם המיוחד לו לאלהים כי שם יעבדנו בארץ המיוחדת. וזה ע"ד מאמר רז"ל כל הדר בחוצה לארץ דומה כמו שאין לו אלוה

Maaseh avos siman la'banim.  We find many places in Chazal that double language is darshehed to mean that a task should be repeated multiple times.  A person should not just do the mitzvah once and think he is exempt from then after, e.g. נָת֤וֹן תִּתֵּן֙ ל֔וֹ וְלֹא־יֵרַ֥ע לְבָבְךָ֖ בְּתִתְּךָ֣ ל֑וֹ - ומנין (שאם נתת פעם אחת) שאתה נותן לו אפילו מאה פעמים? ת"ל נתון תתן.  (See BM 31a)  I would like to suggest that this is the meaning here as well.  נִכְסֹף נִכְסַפְתָּה לְבֵית אָבִיךָ, even if your hope was dashed once, even if you suffered a setback once, אפילו מאה פעמים continue to hope, continue to dream, continue to long for Eretz Yisrael and try to return.  

kislev - month of geulah

Meant to post for Rosh Chodesh Kislev, but better late than never and it's good the whole month anyway.

The navi Zecharya (ch 7) raised the following shayla in the month of Kislev:

וַיְהִי בִּשְׁנַת אַרְבַּע לְדָרְיָוֶשׁ הַמֶּלֶךְ הָיָה דְבַר⁠ ה׳ אֶל⁠ זְכַרְיָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה לַחֹדֶשׁ הַתְּשִׁעִי בְּכִסְלֵו.

 וַיִּשְׁלַח בֵּית⁠ אֵל שַׂרְאֶצֶר וְרֶגֶם מֶלֶךְ וַאֲנָשָׁיו לְחַלּוֹת אֶת⁠ פְּנֵי ה׳

 לֵאמֹר אֶל⁠ הַכֹּהֲנִים אֲשֶׁר לְבֵית⁠ ה׳ צְבָקוֹת וְאֶל⁠ הַנְּבִיאִים לֵאמֹר הַאֶבְכֶּה בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַחֲמִשִׁי הִנָּזֵר כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי זֶה כַּמֶּה שָׁנִים.

Would he have to fast the upcoming Tisha b'Av?

Radak provides the context:

כי עדיין לא היו מאמינים בבנין הבית מפני האויבים שהשביתו את המלאכה כמה שנים ועתה אף על פי ששמעו כי היו בונים היו קטני אמנה ולא היו רוצים לעלות מבבל כי לא היו מאמינים שישלם בנין הבית ויעמד מפני הצרים אותם ושאלו אם יצומו בתשעה באב כמו שעשו שבעים שנה

The rebuilding of Beis haMikdash had started, but the enemies of the Jewish people had caused work stoppages.  It looked far from certain that the project would ever come to completion.  The vast majority of the Jewish people remained in exile in Bavel, waiting to see what would happen, uncertain as to what the future might hold.  

Zecharya wanted to know whether the fact that there was at least something of a Mikdash standing was enough cause to suspend the fast of Tisha b'Av.

Why did he raise this question in Kislev, months and months before it would be relevant l'maaseh?  Why not wait until the three weeks, or some other time closer to Av? 

The Midrash writes at the beginning of Behaaloscha that Aharon was upset because he was left out of the chanukas haMishkan, as all the nesiim brought gifts and korbanos and he did not participate.  Hashem responded that his portion is even greater, as he is tasked with lighting the menorah.  

Ramban explains that the lighting the menorah in our homes in celebration of nes Chanukah is a continuation of the mitzvah of hadlakas menorah.  Aharon's mitzvah of menorah thus continues even after the churban, while the mitzvah of offering korbanos is no longer practiced.  

R' Noson Gestetner writes that when Kislev rolled around, Zecharya sensed the future holiday of Chanukah that would come in 200 years.  Even though he knew there would be a churban ha'bayis of the second Mikdash, he saw in Chanukah a spark of geulah, a spark of the Mikdash that would remain, as the mitzvah of menorah is still with us.  Since the geulah of Bayis Sheni would not completely be extinguished, he wondered whether Tisha b'Av would still be necessary.