Adar and Binyamin; why the mishkan had to be built lishma

1) As we've discussed many times before, the Tur tells us that the 3 regalim correspond to the Avos and the 12 months of the year correspond to the 12 shevatim.  There are many shitos and variations as to which month matches which sheivet (maybe someone should compile them all into a sefer) but if you simply go by birth order the last month of the year Adar should correspond to Binyamin.

 וַיְהִי בְּצֵאת נַפְשָׁהּ כִּי מֵתָה וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ בֶּן⁠ אוֹנִי וְאָבִיו קָרָא⁠ לוֹ בִנְיָמִין (35:18)

Ramban explains:

והנכון בעיני: כי אמו קראתו בן אוני ורצתה לומר בן אבלי, .. ולכן קרא אותו: בנימין – בן הכח כי החוזק הוא בימין ולכן קראו בן הכח או בן החוזק. כי הימין בו הגבורה וההצלחה כענין: לב חכם לימינו (קהלת י׳:ב׳), ..רצה להיות קורא אותו בשם שקראתו אמו, כי כן כל בניו בשם שקראו אותם אמותם יקראו, והנה תרגם אותו לטובה ולגבורה.

This is the essence of chodesh Adar, the chodesh of v'nahapoch hu.  Yaakov Avinu changed his son's name from that which connotes sorrow to that which represents strength.  

2) Rashi comments at the opening of our parsha ויקחו לי – לשמי, that the collecting of funds for the mishkan had to be done lishma.  Even though by tzedaka there is a din that הָאוֹמֵר סֶלַע זוֹ לִצְדָקָה בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּחְיֶה בְּנִי אוֹ שֶׁאֶהְיֶה בֶּן הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא הֲרֵי זֶה צַדִּיק גָּמוּר and she'lo lishma is praiseworthy, apparently the mishkan was an exception to the rule.  My wife's grandfather, R' Dov Yehuda Shochet, explained that when it comes to avodah zarah, Hashem takes account of machshava as well as deed (Chulin 142).  The mishkan was a kaparah for cheit ha'eigel, an issur avoda zarah.  Therefore, since the cheit was one which involved the sin of tainted machshava, the tikun demands a purity of machshava.  

אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, מָכַרְתִּי לָכֶם תּוֹרָתִי, כִּבְיָכוֹל נִמְכַּרְתִּי עִמָּהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה, מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בַּת יְחִידָה, בָּא אֶחָד מִן הַמְּלָכִים וּנְטָלָהּ, בִּקֵּשׁ לֵילֵךְ לוֹ לְאַרְצוֹ וְלִטֹּל לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ: בִּתִּי שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לְךָ יְחִידִית הִיא, לִפְרשׁ מִמֶּנָּה אֵינִי יָכוֹל, לוֹמַר לְךָ אַל תִּטְלָהּ אֵינִי יָכוֹל לְפִי שֶׁהִיא אִשְׁתֶּךָ, אֶלָּא, זוֹ טוֹבָה עֲשֵׂה לִי, שֶׁכָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה הוֹלֵךְ קִיטוֹן אֶחָד עֲשֵׂה לִי, שֶׁאָדוּר אֶצְלְכֶם, שֶׁאֵינִי יָכוֹל לְהַנִּיחַ אֶת בִּתִּי. כָּךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, לִפְרשׁ הֵימֶנָּה אֵינִי יָכוֹל, לוֹמַר לָכֶם אַל תִּטְלוּהָ אֵינִי יָכוֹל, אֶלָּא בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתֶּם הוֹלְכִים בַּיִת אֶחָד עֲשׂוּ לִי שֶׁאָדוּר בְּתוֹכוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ

Rav Yissachar Meir, R"Y of Yeshivat haNegev, explains that the message of בַּיִת אֶחָד עֲשׂוּ לִי שֶׁאָדוּר בְּתוֹכוֹ is that we have to have a place inside of ourselves that we can retreat into to reconnect with G-d.  L'havdil, the the secular world, when things are going bad people talk about retreating into their "happy place."  I don't know if Judaism places such a priority on having a happy place inside, but it does place a priority on having a G-dly place inside.  

It's not just caution against being sucked into the secular world that the Midrash is speaking about, but it's also speaking about how we perform mitzvos and learn Torah.  Too often we are just going through the motions.  Are we learning Torah only with our head, or with our heart as well?  The Midrash gives a mashal to a king that cannot leave his daughter, and in that same was כָּךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, לִפְרשׁ הֵימֶנָּה אֵינִי יָכוֹל.  A human king, neicha, there are limits to what he can or can't do, but how is that applicable to Hashem?  What does  אֵינִי יָכוֹל here mean?  R' Dovid Povarski explains that the "can't" here is not a din in Hashem's ability c"v, but rather it's a din in Torah. נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, לִפְרשׁ הֵימֶנָּה אֵינִי יָכוֹל because Torah without Hashem's presence is not Torah -- it's just a book.  Without the mishkan, without a life of avodah to accompany the intellectual depths and pursuit of Torah, all you have is a book, not a life, not a lifestyle.  Rav Yissachar Meir spesks in that same way about the mishkan as a space inside ourselves to reconnect our thoughts to our values, to reconnect to ויקחו לי – לשמי the right machshava, so that mitzvos themselves do not lose their meaning.  

Noda b'Yehuda on what to do if one leined shekalim before the kriah of rosh chodesh

There is a machlokes Rama/Taz in siman 684 regarding what to do if on rosh chodesh teves/chanukah the tzibur mistakenly started leining the chanukah kriah first instead of the kriah of rosh chodesh, which should come first.  Rama says to stop immediately and switch to reading rosh chodesh.  Taz disagrees and says that even though rosh chodesh is tadir and therefore should come first, tadir is only a lichatchila and is not m’akeiv. 

 This week we have shabbos shekalim and rosh chodesh together.  Noda b’Yehuda (mh”t 11) was asked what to do in this case if the tzibur mistakenly started leining parshas shekalim before the kriah of rosh chodesh.  Lichora this sounds like it should hinge on exactly like the same machlokes Rama and Taz.  However, Noda b’Yehuda says here l’kulei alma you should continue and not stop.  What’s the chiluk between the cases?

In siman 684 there is another din that if you took out only one sefer and read the leining of rosh chodesh and left out chanukah, you are yotzei.  GR”A points you to meg 29b that “ain mashgichim b’chanukah” (which if you look up the gemara you will see means something else in context).  That’s why Rama holds that when you took out both sefarim but started reading the chanukah leining first, you stop right away.  It’s not just that rosh chodesh is tadir – it’s that chanukah really carries no weight compared with r”c.  

The same is not true of shekalim.  If you didn't take out a sefer to lein shekalim and just leined the kriah of rosh chodesh, you haven't fulfilled your chiyuv properly and have to take out a sefer to read shekalim.  Since we see that shelakim does carry at least as much weight as the reading of rosh chodesh, you cannot stop and cut it off in the middle.

(See further in the teshuvah where the Nb"Y discusses which haftarah to read.)

I understand the proof, but I don’t understand the lomdus/sevara.  Why is the leining of chanukah “ain mashgichim bo” viz a viz the kriah of rosh chodesh but not shekalim?   

I am not sure, but my thinking so far is that when it comes to chanukah and rosh chodesh, it is the kedushas ha’yom that gives rise to the chiyuv of kriah.  For whatever reason, the kedushas hayom of rosh chodesh eclipses that of chanukah, and defines that kriah as the primary one of the day.  

Yesh lachkor: do you read parshas shekalim because it’s Shabbos shekalim, or is it Shabbos shekalim because you lein parshas shekalim?   Obviously, it's the latter.  It's not the kedushas ha'yom which is mechsyeiv the kriah, but aderaba, it is the kriah which gives this shabbos its unique name and character.  Therefore, the kriah of r"c which stems from the kedushas ha'yom cannot substitute for or eclipse the kriah of shekalim, which is an independent chovas ha'gavra.

(Yes, I am aware of the Rav's piece in Shiurim l'Zecher Aba Mari about the function of krias haTorah in establishing the kedushas hayom of chagim.)

why say "eye for an eye" if the intent is to pay damages? -- parshanut and Brisker lomdus that go hand in hand

While Chazal and parshanim spill much ink justifying the reading of עין תחת עין to mean $, the question that begs asking is why the Torah would use this expression instead of simply saying to pay if that is what the pasuk means.  Seforno explains that there is a moral lesson the Torah is trying to convey:

כך היה ראוי כפי הדין הגמור, שהיא מדה כנגד מדה, ובאה הקבלה שישלם ממון, מפני חסרון השערתנו, פן נסכל ונוסיף על המדה לאשמה בה

One shouldn't think that just like when one's ox gores, the solution is to take out the checkbook and pay for the damages, the same is true when dealing with harm to people -- it's just a matter of the amount of $ involved.   The Torah uses the expression עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן to make the moral point that there is a qualitative difference between the two.  When you harm another person, the penalty deserved goes beyond $.  Theoretically one should have one's eye knocked out. 

Ibn Ezra approaches the same question as follows:

והנה יהיה פירוש עין תחת עין – ראוי להיותו עינו תחת עינו, אם לא יתן כפרו.

When he writes אם לא יתן כפרו what he is referring to is the pasuk later in Banidbar 35:31 ולא תקחו כפר לנפש רצח אשר הוא רשע למות כי מות יומת.  A **murderer** cannot pay a fine and be released from punishment.  The implication is that in cases other than murder, i.e. bodily harm, it is enough to pay a fine.  We see that even without getting to torah shebaal peh, the Torah itself does its own parshanut on עין תחת עין and defines it as $.  

Both Ibn Ezra and Seforno see עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן as the theoretically just punishment.  Seforno says on a practical level we cannot carry it out so we read the pasuk otherwise; Ibn Ezra sees the Torah itself as offering the culprit the opportunity of payment as a way out of his crime.  

What is interesting is that we see the echo of these parshanim in the the Rambam (Chovel u'Mazik 1:3):

זה שנאמר בתורה כאשר יתן מום באדם כן ינתן בו אינו לחבול בזה כמו שחבל בחבירו אלא שהוא ראוי לחסרו אבר או לחבול בו כאשר עשה ולפיכך משלם נזקו. והרי הוא אומר ולא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח לרוצח בלבד הוא שאין בו כופר אבל לחסרון איברים או לחבלות יש בו כופר:

If bottom line the halacha defines עין תחת עין as $, why does the Rambam in his sefer halacha, need to give us parshanut?  Just tell us the din!

R' Yehuda Cooperman connected the dots here.  The Rambam saw in the use of  עין תחת עין in place of $ a fundamental yesod: the הגדרה of the payment for חבלות is different than all other monetary payments.  When your ox gores and causes damage, the purpose of the payment is to make the damaged party whole, to compensate them for loss.  When you harm another person, the theoretical עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן that should take place would not make the other party whole or provide compensation.  It's all about punishment of the aggressor.  So too, the $ that are in place of עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן are about punishment, not restitution.  

R' Soloveitchik brought many raayos to this idea, but the basis for it is already found in R' Chaim al HaRambam.  The Rambam writes in To'en v'Nit'an 5:2

 וכן החופר בשדה חבירו בורות שיחין ומערות והפסידוה והרי הוא חייב לשלם בין שטענו שחפר והוא אומר לא חפרתי או שטענו שחפר שתי מערות והוא אומר לא חפרתי אלא אחת או שהיה שם עד אחד שחפר והוא אומר לא חפרתי כלום. הרי זה נשבע היסת על הכל:

There is no שׁבועה of modeh b'miktzas when the claim is for fields because there is a din that אין נשׁבעין על הקרקעות.  

Raavad argues and says that the claim for digging up a field is a monetary claim, not a claim for the property itself.  Why is this case any different than כשאר תביעת ממון וכמי שאמר לו חבלת בי שתים והוא אומר לא חבלתי אלא אחת עכ"ל:?  The Rambam agrees that even though הוקשׁ אדם לקרקעות you can have a  שׁבועה of modeh b'miktzas when dealing with an argument about chovel because the claim is about the $ owed, so why is this case of קרקע any different?

R' Chaim answered that there is a fundamental difference between the claim of relief for damaged land and the claim of relief for chovel.  When it comes to damaged land, the $ is restitution for the land, and therefore the halacha links the payment directly to the קרקע.  When it comes to chovel, the payment is not restitution for the damage caused.  It is punishment for the act of aggression.  Therefore, there is no direct link between the $ and the victim.

Those learning daf yomi are familiar with the limitations on beis din in chutz la'aretz.  Rambam writes (Sanhedrin 5:10)

כל הנישום כעבד אין גובין אותו דייני חוצה לארץ. לפיכך אדם שחבל בחבירו אין גובין הנזק והצער והבשת שהוא חייב בהן דייני חוצה לארץ. אבל שבת ורפוי גובין מפני שיש בהן חסרון כיס. וכן הורו הגאונים ואמרו שמעשים בכל יום לגבות שבת ורפוי בבבל

Is נזק not about חסרון כיס?!  R' Soloveitchik explains that indeed it is not, because the payment is a punishment to the aggressor, not about making the victim whole.

There are many other proofs, but the take away point is that while the expression עין תחת עין at first glance seems to obscure the intent of the halacha, in truth it reveals halacha in a sharper and clearer light.

words are not enough

This is one of the most iconic photos of the Holocaust.  It was taken in 1943 in the Warsaw Ghetto.  The image of the innocent child with guns pointed at him, being taken away to his death, represents the clash of innocence with evil, of Jewish victim and Nazi oppressor.  In this case, a picture says more than any words can.

This is the modern day equivalent of that picture.  

Absent in both pictures because it was absent in real life is any hint of protest by the world to such atrocities.    

did Bn"Y recite birchas haTorah on mattan Torah

1) Every once in awhile there is a dump of new seforim onto hebrewbooks.org and when I see that I start browsing here and there.  In a sefer they just put up called Noam Amarim, the Sassover Rebbe notes that it says by mattan Torah that the people stood  וַיִּֽתְיַצְּב֖וּ בְּתַחְתִּ֥ית הָהָֽר, at the bottom of the mountain.  A person should want to climb and grow in ruchniyus, but sometimes a person falls or finds himself stuck at rock bottom.  Our parsha teaches that Torah is addressed even to that person, to those stuck on the bottom of the mountain.  

The Rebbe also says he was asked an interesting question that he had never thought of before.  If you look in P' Masei, you will see that Sinai is the 13th stop that Bn"Y came to after leaving Egypt.  Why was it on the 13th stop in particular that Torah was given?  I usually don't like these sorts of questions.  If it had been the 12th or 11th of any other number stop, you could ask the same thing.  The Rebbe did like it, and connects it to the 13 midos.

2) On to a more halachic topic.  Did Klal Yisrael says a birchas haTorah before kabbalas haTorah or not?  And if they did, what did they say?

Before answering that question, first point that needs clarification is why a birchas haTorah might be required.  It says in SA 47:4 המהרהר בדברי תורה א"צ לברך.  True, GR"A disagrees, but the question here is not only according to shitas haGR"A.  The gemara (Br 20b) writes that בעל קרי מהרהר בלבו to fulfill the mitzvah of shema.  The gemara comments: מר רבינא זאת אומרת הרהור כדבור דמי because if hirhur was not equivalent to dibur, how could the baal keri be yotzei?  The gemara says perhaps this is no proof.  If הרהור כדבור דמי, why bother with hirhur -- why not just say the words?  The gemara answers כדאשכחן בסיני.  Explains Rashi: שהפרישן מאשה דכתיב אל תגשו אל אשה (שמות יט) ועל פרישה זו סמך עזרא לתקן טבילה לבעלי קריין קודם שיעסקו בתורה.  Saying the words requires a higher level of tahara, as we see from mattan Torah, that hirhur does not.

What words were said by Bn"Y at Sinai?  Tos on the spot answers that when Bn"Y heard mattan Torah, shome'a k'oneh, it was as if they said the words.  We see an interesting chiddush from Tos that the din of shome'a k'oneh is not just a means to be yotzei a bracha, but it counts as if you actually articulated the words.  

Did that kiyum of talmud Torah which Bn"Y fulfilled at mattan Torah via shome'a k'oneh require a birchas ha'Torah?  This question was posed to R' Shteinman, and what bothered R' Shteinman's interlocutor is the text of the bracha.  How can you say אשׁר בּחר בּנו...ונתן לנו את תורתו when the event hasn't happened yet?   

The very same question might be asked regarding the Avos.  Assuming the Avos kept all the mitzvos, which would include birchas haTorah especially according to the shitos that hold it is d'orasya, how did the words make any sense?  Did they have a different nusach ha'bracha?

I would add one detail to strengthen the makshan's question here.  As we've discussed before, the Tur writes that when one recites the bracha of  אשׁר בּחר בּנו...ונתן לנו את תורתו one should have kavanah for the mitzvah of remembering maamad Har Sinai, which Ramban counts as a separate miztvah.  Bach explains that the Tur was bothered by the fact that we have multiple brachos for birchas haTorah.  Why isn't one bracha enough?  It must be that one of the brachos is not on the act of learning, but rather on remembering maamad Har Sinai.  How does it make sense to say such a bracha before maamad Har Sinai had occurred?

R' Shteinman held that perhaps they only recited the first bracha of לעסוק בּדברי תורה since there was no other option. 

I think there is another approach one can take.  The source for the din of birchas haTorah is a pasuk in Haazinu:  אמר רב יהודה, מניין לברכת התורה לפניה מן התורה, שנאמר כי שם ה׳ אקרא הבו גודל לאלקינו.  This appears after the final mitzvah of writing a sefer Torah.  Netziv comments in Devarim 31:32 that it's no wonder that this mitzvah of birchas haTorah appears only after the 40th year in the midbar at the end of Devarim.  Until the entire Torah was put into writing, no birchas haTorah could be recited:

 עיקר הלימוד כתוב להלן (פסוק ל׳) ״וידבר משה באזני כל קהל ישראל את דברי השירה הזאת עד תומם״, וזה היה אחר שנגמרה כתיבת הספר תורה עד תומם (פסוק כ״ד), ואז היה אפשר להקהיל את העם ולומר השירה בברכה, כמו שאמר (להלן לב,ג) ״כי שם ה׳ אקרא״, אבל בספר תורה חסר אי אפשר לברך, וא״כ לא היה יכול משה מיד להקהיל קודם שהודיעו הקב״ה כל פרשת ״וזאת הברכה״ וגמר כתיבת ס״ת עד ״לעיני כל ישראל״

This fits perfectly with R' Chaim Brisker's chiddush that birchas haTorah is on the cheftza shel Torah -- the text -- rather than the chovas ha'gavra of the mitzvah of talmud Torah.  This is why even according to the SA, who paskens that women cannot recite brachos on mitzvos they were not commanded to do like sukkah or shofar, holds that they may recite birchas haTorah.  Even if women lack a chovas ha'gavra to learn, it is the text itself which requires having a bracha recited over it.  Pre-completion of the Torah there was simply no cheftza upon which to recite a birchas haTorah. 

Therefore, at mattan Torah, given that there was no text of Torah in a completed form that yet existed, a birchas haTorah may not have been applicable.

something harder than splitting the sea; attention at all costs; Moshe re-learns a valuable lesson

1) The parsha opens by telling us that Hashem could not lead the people through the land of the Plishtim  פֶּֽן⁠־יִנָּחֵ֥ם הָעָ֛ם בִּרְאֹתָ֥ם מִלְחָמָ֖ה וְשָׁ֥בוּ מִצְרָֽיְמָה, because they were not ready for war and might want to turn back to Egypt in fear.  Instead, they went by way of Yam Suf, which necessitated splitting the sea.  

Hashem always tries to minimize the amount of miracle required.  The mashgiach R' Chatzel Levenstein asked: couldn't Hashem have just stiffened the people's resolve so that they would not fear the Plishtim and in this way they could take the shorter path?  Wouldn't that have been easier than doing kri'as Yam Suf? 

It must be, answered R' Chatzkel, that changing people's attitudes is in fact even harder than splitting the sea.

2) "There is no such thing as bad publicity," goes the saying.  Some people love attention, no matter if it's for good or bad, no matter what the cost of that attention might be.  I think that is the simplest pshat in this Midrash:

 וַיְהִי בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה – כְּשֶׁשָּׁלַח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם מִי צָוַח וַוי, פַּרְעֹה. מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה בְּנוֹ הוֹלֵךְ לִמְדִינָה אַחַת, הָלַךְ וְשָׁרָה אֵצֶל עָשִׁיר אֶחָד וְקִבֵּל הֶעָשִׁיר בְּנוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ בְּעַיִן טוֹבָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁמַע הַמֶּלֶךְ מִי קִבֵּל בְּנוֹ וּבְאֵיזֶה מְדִינָה הוּא, הָיָה מְשַׁלֵּחַ אִגֶּרֶת אֵצֶל אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ וְאָמַר לוֹ שַׁלַּח אֶת בְּנִי פַּעַם אַחַת וּב׳ וְג׳ הָיָה מְשַׁלֵּחַ בְּכָל זְמַן וּבְכָל שָׁעָה וְשָׁעָה, עַד שֶׁהָלַךְ וְהוֹצִיא לִבְנוֹ בְּעַצְמוֹ, הִתְחִיל אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ צוֹעֵק עַל שֶׁיָּצָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ שְׁכֵנָיו לָמָּה אַתָּה צוֹעֵק, אָמַר לָהֶם כָּבוֹד הָיָה לִי כְּשֶׁהָיָה בְּנוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ אֶצְלִי שֶׁהָיָה הַמֶּלֶךְ כּוֹתֵב אִגֶּרֶת לִי, וְהָיָה זָקוּק לִי וְהָיִיתִי סָפוּן בְּפָנָיו, עַכְשָׁו שֶׁנִּמְשַׁךְ בְּנוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ מֵאֶצְלִי אֵינוֹ נִזְקָק לִי בְּדָבָר, לְכָךְ אֲנִי צוֹעֵק. כָּךְ אָמַר פַּרְעֹה, כְּשֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶצְלִי הָיָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא זָקוּק לִי וְהָיִיתִי סָפוּן בְּפָנָיו וְהָיָה מְשַׁלֵּחַ לִי אִגֶּרֶת בְּכָל שָׁעָה וְאוֹמֵר: כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ אֱלֹהֵי הָעִבְרִים שַׁלַּח עַמִּי (שמות ט׳:א׳), וְהָיָה פַּרְעֹה שׁוֹמֵעַ מִפִּי משֶׁה שַׁלַּח אֶת בְּנִי וְלֹא הָיָה מְבַקֵּשׁ לְשַׁלְּחָם, כְּשֶׁיָּרַד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמִצְרַיִם וְהוֹצִיא אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וָאֵרֵד לְהַצִּילוֹ מִיַּד מִצְרַיִם (שמות ג׳:ח׳), הִתְחִיל פַּרְעֹה צוֹעֵק וַוי שֶׁשִּׁלַּחְתִּי אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: וַיְהִי בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה.

Pharoah regretted sending Bn"Y away because he missed getting that "אִגֶּרֶת" from Hashem on a regular basis in his mail.  What was that אִגֶּרֶת?  "Dear Pharoah, Release my people or you will get yet another makkah.  Sincerely yours, G-d."  And then the makkah would come.  You would think a person would get tired of getting letters like that, of suffering one makkah after the next.  Not Pharaoh.  Better to have G-d's attention, to get his letters, even at the cost of makkos, than to be ignored.  Such is the craving for attention.

We find something similar at the end of VaYechi, when the brothers return to Egypt after burying Yaakov, and we read (50:15)

 וַיִּרְא֤וּ אֲחֵֽי⁠־יוֹסֵף֙ כִּי⁠־מֵ֣ת אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ ל֥וּ יִשְׂטְמֵ֖נוּ יוֹסֵ֑ף וְהָשֵׁ֤ב יָשִׁיב֙ לָ֔נוּ אֵ֚ת כׇּל⁠־הָ֣רָעָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר גָּמַ֖לְנוּ אֹתֽוֹ׃

Rashi explains מהו ויראו? הכירו במיתתו אצל יוסף, שהיו רגילין לסעוד עמו על שולחנו של יוסף, והיה מקרבן בשביל כבוד אביו, ומשמת יעקב לא קירבן.

Some of the meforshim (e.g. see Malbim, Ksva vhaKabbalah) learn that the word  ל֥וּ here does not mean  שמא ישטמנו, like Rashi explains, but rather  הלואי.  The brothers wanted Yosef to express whatever anger, whatever hatred, whatever bad feelings he may harbor against them.  Why would they want such a thing?  Because worse than suffering someone's anger is suffering being ignored.  

Pharoah is like a celebrity whose moment in the sun has faded, and as much as they hated being hounded by media and fans in the past, they now miss the limelight.  Pharoah exclaimed "Woe is me!" because worse than suffering G-d's makkos is suffering the fate of being ignored.

3) Even though Moshe told the people that "Hashem yilachem lachem" and they had nothing to fear, he paused and started to daven, as if he was less than confident of the outcome.  Hashem immediately stopped him:

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר ה׳ אֶל⁠־מֹשֶׁ֔ה מַה⁠־תִּצְעַ֖ק אֵלָ֑י דַּבֵּ֥ר אֶל⁠־בְּנֵי⁠־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וְיִסָּֽעוּ׃

וְאַתָּ֞ה הָרֵ֣ם אֶֽת⁠־מַטְּךָ֗ וּנְטֵ֧ה אֶת⁠־יָדְךָ֛ עַל⁠־הַיָּ֖ם וּבְקָעֵ֑הוּ וְיָבֹ֧אוּ בְנֵֽי⁠־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל בְּת֥וֹךְ הַיָּ֖ם בַּיַּבָּשָֽׁה׃

What was Moshe nervous about? 

(Netziv writes that Moshe assumed that Hashem would save Bn"Y b'derech ha'teva.  When things are done b'derech ha'teva, such as fighting a war, the overall outcome may be guaranteed, but there is no guarantee against harm to each individual.  Therefore, Moshe davened.)  

The Midrash comments on the pasuk וּבְנֵ֧י יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל הָלְכ֥וּ בַיַּבָּשָׁ֖ה בְּת֣וֹךְ הַיָּ֑ם וְהַמַּ֤יִם לָהֶם֙ חֹמָ֔ה מִֽימִינָ֖ם וּמִשְּׂמֹאלָֽם that 

היו מלאכי השרת תמהים לומר בני אדם עובדי עבודה זרה מהלכין ביבשה בתוך הים, ומנין שאף הים נתמלא עליהם חמה, שנאמר (שמות י״ד:כ״ט) והמים להם חמה אל תקרי חומה אלא חימה

When the malachim looked down at Bn"Y, they didn't see much difference between them and the Mitzrim.  Why did Bn"Y deserve for the Yam to split for them and for the Mitzrim to drown?

Whether Moshe was aware of their thinking, or whether the same thought occurred to him independently, it clouded his judgment and led him to pause and question whether Bn"Y were deserving of the victory that was promised.  It led him to think that without his tefilos, the Jewish people might not make it.

Hashem's response: וְאַתָּ֞ה הָרֵ֣ם אֶֽת⁠־מַטְּךָ֗ וּנְטֵ֧ה אֶת⁠־יָדְךָ֛ .  You remember back in parshas Shmos, when Moshe was arguing with G-d about whether to accept his shlichus, Moshe questioned the faith of Bn"Y: וַיַּ֤עַן מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֹּ֔אמֶר וְהֵן֙ לֹֽא⁠־יַאֲמִ֣ינוּ לִ֔י וְלֹ֥א יִשְׁמְע֖וּ בְּקֹלִ֑י (4:1)  Hashem responded by telling Moshe that he will give him signs to perform.  First, to cast down his staff and it will turn into a snake.  Rashi explains: רמז לו שספר לשון הרע על ישראל, ותפש אומנותו של נחש.  Secondly, He told him to put his hand inside his cloak and it would turn white.  Rashi  explains: אף באות זה רמז שלשון הרע סיפר באומרו: לא יאמינו לי (שמות ד׳:א׳), לפיכך הלקהו בצרעת, כמו שלקתה מרים על לשון הרע  Never cast aspersions on the Jewish people.  

When the malachim began to voice their doubts, giving Moshe pause, Hashem reminded him of this lesson he learned on day #1 of his appointment as leader. וְאַתָּ֞ה הָרֵ֣ם אֶֽת⁠־מַטְּךָ֗, pick up that staff that turned into a snake when you questioned the faith of Bn"Y; וּנְטֵ֧ה אֶת⁠־יָדְךָ֛ stretch out your hand which turned white because you spoke lashon ha'ra against my people.  How can you question the merits of the Jewish people compared to those of the Egyptians?  (Techeiles Mordechai of the Maharasham).  

Moshe's argument  וְהֵן֙ לֹֽא⁠־יַאֲמִ֣ינוּ לִ֔י וְלֹ֥א יִשְׁמְע֖וּ בְּקֹלִ֑י, was finally put to rest at Yam Suf, וַיַּֽאֲמִ֙ינוּ֙ בַּֽה׳ וּבְמֹשֶׁ֖ה עַבְדּֽוֹ׃.