shaylos based on second hand info

HaKsav vhaKabbalah comments on the words  וַ֠יֹּאמְר֠וּ הָאֲנָשִׁ֤ים הָהֵ֙מָּה֙ אֵלָ֔יו אֲנַ֥חְנוּ טְמֵאִ֖ים לְנֶ֣פֶשׁ אָדָ֑ם of the people who wanted a chance to offer pesach sheni:

 היה ראוי לקצר ויאמרו אליו, מה הוא האנשים ההמה שהוסיף מגיד שאין נשאלים אלא לבעל המעשה (ספרי) אם הוצרך אדם דבר לשאול, הוא בעצמו ילך לשאול, ואם שולח שלוחו אין משיבין לו, כי השליח אינו יודע לסדר הענין היטב לכן הוסיף האנשים ההמה, בעלי המעשה עצמם סדרו שאלתם

 

Davka the people who have a question or an issue to raise are the one who have to come to ask the shayla -- האנשים ההמה -- not messengers or third parties.

 

This applies l'maaseh.  I did not have a chance to look up the sources first hand, but there seems to be some discussion in a case, for example, where your wife is cooking dinner and accidentally mixes up milchig and fleishig, should you be the one calling the Rav to ask the shayla since it's your dinner, or should your wife be the one to ask since she is the בעל המעשה who did the cooking?  Perhaps a better example, which I did not see discussed, would be how to apply this to taharas ha'mishpacha shaylos. 

The obvious takeaway lesson from from this din is that second hand information does not cut it.  Only someone who is involved first hand knows and can convey the facts of a case accurately and only armed with that information can proper decisions be rendered.  

Miriam's wait -- נצב vs עמד

I saw a question raised by R' Moshe Tzvi Neriah that I am going to take the liberty of embellishing on by connecting it to last week's haftarah.  In last week's haftarah an angel comes and tells Manoch's wife that she will have a baby and he instructs her not to drink wine or become tamei since the baby will be a nazir from birth.  Manoach apparently did not buy his wife's story, so the angel came back and repeated the message for him.  Manoach offered the angel food, but the angel declined because angels don't eat.  Manoch asked the angel it's name, and the angel answered that that it has no regular name because it's name reflects its mission and an angel's mission can change from one day to the next.   Manoach then offered the food he prepared as a korban, and the navi tells us that the angel rose back to shamayim through the fire that consumed the korban וַיְהִי֩ בַעֲל֨וֹת הַלַּ֜הַב מֵעַ֚ל הַמִּזְבֵּ֙חַ֙ הַשָּׁמַ֔יְמָה וַיַּ֥עַל מַלְאַךְה׳ בְּלַ֣הַב הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חַ.  Amazing.  You would think that if Manoach had any doubt whether this was an angel or not all bets would be off at this point.  But not so fast!  The navi continues and says: לֹא־יָ֚סַף עוֹד֙ מַלְאַ֣ךְ ה׳ לְהֵרָאֹ֖ה אֶל־מָנ֣וֹחַ וְאֶל־אִשְׁתּ֑וֹ אָ֚ז יָדַ֣ע מָנ֔וֹחַ כִּֽי־מַלְאַ֥ךְ ה׳ הֽוּא:  When the "person" never reappeared, it was then and only then that Manoch knew it was an angel.  Why was that the clincher?  Why was it the fact that the angel never came back again that convinced Manoach that this could not have been a regular person? 

Imagine a person who suggests a shidduch to a young man and gives them a bracha that it should work out and he be zocheh to get married.  The young man accepts, and the shadchan sets up the date.  Don't you think the person who suggested the match would either call the boy afterwards, or even informally, next time they bump into the boy, ask how the date was?  Actually, they would probably make a point of bumping into him to ask.  And if they go out a few times, the person who suggested the match might nudge the parents and ask when they get a mazel tov (and not just because they want to collect their shadchanus :)  And when the wedding comes, don't you think the shadchan will be sure to attend in order to tell everyone how they were the one who introduced the couple?  That's human nature!  We want to see how things work out, we want to monitor the progress of what we put in motion.  R' Eliyahu Baruch Finkel from the Mir explained that the "makeh b'patish" that convinced Manoach that he was dealing with an angel is the fact that the angel lacked this very human quality.  The angel never came back.  The angel was not curious to check in after a few months to see if Manoach's wife was wearing maternity clothes yet; he didn't stop by to ask how the pregnancy was progressing; he didn't show up at the bris to see the new baby his bracha had helped bring into the world and take a bow.  He just walked away and that was it.  A human being doesn't act that way.  Our curiosity and desire to see things unfold is an inescapable part of our nature.

 

Rashi writes at the end of our parsha:

 

והעם לא נסע – זה כבוד חלק לה המקום בשביל שעה אחת שנתעכבה למשה כשהושלך ליאור, שנאמר: ותתצב אחתו מרחק וגו׳ (שמות ב׳:ד׳).

 

Miriam prophesized that her baby brother would be the one to lead Klal Yisrael out of galus.  Isn't it just human nature for her to want to see what would happen to that baby?  Isn't it just human nature for her to want to see if her nevuah would come to fulfillment?  So why, as R' Neriah, does she get a reward for going to watch that basket holding her brother as it floated down the Nile?  What's the big deal?

 

We translate that pasuk ותתצב אחתו מרחק to mean, "His [Moshe's] sister stood afar [and watched]," but that translation does not do justice to the text.  There are two different words in Hebrew for standing: עמד and נצב.  The root עמד is used when we are talking about physical position, i.e. getting up from sitting to  take a standing position.  The root נצב is like the word stand in the expression "stand by."  You don't have to get up out of your chair to stand by.  It's being in a mental state of anticipation, of expectation; it's not about physical position.  When you hear, "stand by," you know something is going to happen, it's just a question of what.  (Compare with Malbim Yeshayahu 3:13)  When Moshe stood at Yam Suf and told Bn"Y הִתְיַצְּבוּ וּרְאוּ אֶת יְשׁוּעַת ה׳ (Shmos 14:13), he didn't mean they all have to get up on their feet.  What he meant was get ready, Hashem is about to do something.  Ramban comments on  אַתֶּם נִצָּבִים הַיּוֹם כֻּלְּכֶם that  שאתם עומדים *ומזומנים* לפני השם כדי לעבור בבריתו,  you are prepared in anticipation of entering Hashem's bris.  And when we read at the beginnng of Parshas vaYeira that Avraham saw  וְהִנֵּה שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים נִצָּבִים עָלָיו, it means, as Seforno writes,  פונים אליו כממתינים לדבר עמו, they were waiting *expectantly* to speak with Avraham, בהיותו פנוי מן המראה הנכבדת, until Avraham finished his conversation with G-d.

 

Yes, it's human nature to want to see how things will turn out.  But that's not what Miriam was doing when she went to follow the basket containing baby Moshe.  When you watch a baseball game, you are watching to see how things will turn out.  Either team can win or lose.  The shadchan who suggests a match, even if they give a bracha, has no idea whether it will work out or not.   But when you watch Mission Impossible, you know the bad guys aren't going to win, and I hope I didn't just spoil all eight movies for anyone.  You know how it will turn out in the end before you even start watching.  But you watch anyway, expectantly, in anticipation of all the stunts, thrills, and action that will bring victory to Ethan's team.  That's what the root  נצב  is all about.  ותתצב אחתו מרחק  Miriam had no doubt that her prophecy would be fulfilled, just like she didn't need Moshe to announce הִתְיַצְּבוּ וּרְאוּ אֶת יְשׁוּעַת ה by Yam Suf; she had her tambourine in hand already from the moment they left Egypt.  וַתֵּתַצַּב אֲחֹתוֹ מֵרָחֹק לְדֵעָה *מַה* יֵּעָשֶׂה לוֹ - not אם יֵּעָשֶׂה לוֹ.  She expected and believed that Hashem would work things out.  It was just a matter of observing to see how it would unfold. 

I'm left with one question.  If what I wrote is correct, then wouldn't it have made more sense in our parsha  ויאמר אלהם משה עמדו ואשמעה מה יצוה ה׳ לכם. for the pasuk to use the word נצב?  Moshe wasn't telling the people to stand on their feet, he was telling them to anticipate an answer from Hashem?

the GR"A's five year plan

Maaseh Rav quotes that the practice of GR"A was to start each day after davening by learning 2 blatt of gemara.  The new editions of Maaseh Rav quote commentaries that look for mekoros for the practices of the Gaon, and on this section they point to the gemara (Chulin 24):

 כתוב אחד אומר (במדבר ח, כד) מבן חמש ועשרים שנה ומעלה וכתוב אחד אומר (במדבר ד, ג) מבן שלשים אי אפשר לומר שלשים שכבר נאמר כ"ה ואי אפשר לומר כ"ה שכבר נאמר שלשים הא כיצד כ"ה ללמוד ושלשים לעבודה מכאן לתלמיד שלא ראה סימן יפה במשנתו ה' שנים שוב אינו רואה

 

These meforshim say by covering 2 blatt a day you can finish shas in 5 years and check to make sure you hopefully see siman bracha.

 

I don't understand this explanation.  First of all, simple math: 365 days a year at 2 blatt a day means covering 730 blatt a year.  At that pace you can finish shas (2711 blatt according to daf yomi cycle, which includes Ylmi Shekalim for whatever reason) in less than 4 years, not in 5 years.  Even if we chop off some time because our lunar calendar has 354 or so days in a year, you gain it back because of the leap years.  If you want a 5 year cycle to finish shas, doing 1.5 blatt a day seems closer to the mark.  Is there some magic to a round number of doing 2 blatt as opposed to 1.5 a day?  Did the GR"A maybe factor in more time to do the masechtos ketanos as well and the mishnayos not covered in the Bavli?  Or is this just a "b'erech" calculation?

 

It also seems that the test of siman bracha comes during the first 5 years of training.  After that, inertia takes over and either you have it or you don't.  Why should one follow a 5 year regime throughout one's life?

 

Putting aside the GR"A, there is a different question asked on that gemara: l'mai nafka minah to whether one sees siman bracha or not?  One has a chiyuv to learn whether one enjoys it or not, whether one finds the material easy or not, whether one sees bracha or not!

 

By way of analogy, the gemara writes that a person should always learn even she'lo lishma.  The gemara also says that someone who learns she'lo lishma deserves to have never come into the world.  Tos resolves the contradiction by distinguishing two types of she'lo lishma: a "neutral" she'lo lishma desire for kavod, money, etc. which is acceptable, and a negative she'lo lishma where one learns in order to argue with others, which is unacceptable.  Maharal and R' Tzadok quoting Mahar"Ch Ohr Zaru'a offer a simpler answer.  Yes, learning she'lo lishma is a terrible thing, but what's the alternative if that's all one is capable of doing at the moment?  Not learning?!  That's not an option.  A person can't live without learning.  So even if it's terrible, learn that way anyway.  Here too, after five years if a person takes stock and realizes they just don't have the brains for a daf gemara and there is no siman bracha in it, what's the alternative?  Not learning!?  There is no such option.  So what's the point of this meimra of Chazal?  

 

Some Achronim cite the gemara (Kid 29b):

 

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הוּא לִלְמוֹד וּבְנוֹ לִלְמוֹד – הוּא קוֹדֵם לִבְנוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם בְּנוֹ זָרִיז וּמְמוּלָּח וְתַלְמוּדוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים בְּיָדוֹ – בְּנוֹ קוֹדְמוֹ.

 

and suggest that if there are limited resources, best to invest in a person who does see siman bracha than the person who is struggling. 

 

I think the simplest pshat is the Meiri:

 

לעולם יהא אדם חרוץ בלמודו בילדותו להשתדל בו כמה שאפשר לו כדי שתהא יגיעת ילדותו מועלת לו לעולם כבר אמרו כל תלמיד שלא ראה במשנתו סימן יפה עד חמש שנים שוב אינו רואה:

 

Chazal are not speaking from the perspective of someone looking back *after* 5 years and taking stock of whether they have had success in learning or not.  Chazal are forward looking, speaking from the perspective of someone about to start this 5 year journey.  The point is to inspire a person *before* the 5 years are up to give it his all, because those initial 5 years determine the trajectory of the future. 

sotah and the sanctity of the machaneh

Sefer Bamidbar opened with the setup of the machaneh in the midbar.  We then jump to a different array of topics -- sotah, nazir, birchas kohanim -- that seems out of place.  About 10 years ago I posted the Ralbag's beautiful explanation that the Torah is working from the macro to the micro.  First, it addresses the sanctity of the camp as a whole.  We have the halachos of sending those who are tamei out of the camp.  Then we turn to the family unit, and we have the parsha of sotah which is designed to restore shalom bayis.  Finally, we have the kedusha of the individual, the greatest heights of which are realized by the nazir. 

In the Sichos of R' Yissachar Meir from Yeshivat HaNegev he proposes that the entire parsha revolves around the one theme of kedushat ha'machaneh.  The springboard for this approach comes from a question raised by Seforno on the parsha of gezel ha'ger.  The Torah describes this sin as follows (5:6):

 

אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי יַעֲשׂוּ מִכׇּל חַטֹּאת הָאָדָם לִמְעֹל מַעַל בַּה׳

 

Why is theft called a מַעַל בַּה׳ when it is a sin bein adam l'chaveiro?  Seforno comments:

 

כבר באה הקבלה (בבא קמא ק״ט.) שזה נאמר על גזל הגר, כי אמנם הגוזל אותו מחלל שם אלקיו בעיני הגר אשר בא לחסות תחת כנפיו. ולכן יקרא מועל בקדש, וחייב אשם כמשפט כל מועל בו.

 

The ger thinks he is joining am ha'nivchar and taking a step up in kedusha.  Ripping him off is liable to make him question that assumption and even question his commitment.  Is that what Judaism  is all about? Is this how a holy nation behaves?  The theft in this case leads to a chilul Hashem, מַעַל בַּה׳.

 

R' Yissachar Meir takes things in a bit of a different direction and suggests that the ganav fears being discovered by the police or his neighbors so he sneaks around to do his dirty work, but he has no fear of G-d seeing what he is doing.  In his mind, G-d's presence is absent from the machaneh.  This is his מַעַל בַּה׳.   

That's why when there is no one else to return the theft to, the payment goes to the kohen.  It's the kohen's job to bring about hashra'as haShechina, through his avodah in the Mikdash, through his teaching Torah.  The tikun for failing to respect the presence of Hashem in the camp is to enable those who safeguard and reveal His presence to do their job. 

 

In that same vein, he reads the parsha of sotah as not just about preserving shalom bayis between husband and wife, but  about preserving standards of tzenius and kedusha in the machaneh as a whole.  Immorality has to be rooted out because G-d is immanant. 

 

R' Yisschar Meir does not quote it, but I think his approach helps explain a midrash later in our parsha.  Commenting on the gift of the nasi of sheivet Yissachar, the Midrash writes:

 

קָרְבָּנוֹ קַעֲרַת כֶּסֶף אַחַת וגו׳ – בָּא נְשִׂיא שִׁמְעוֹן וְהִקְרִיב עַל סֵדֶר מַעֲשֶׂה הַמִּשְׁכָּן, וְלָמָּה הִקְרִיב קָרְבָּנוֹ כְּנֶגֶד מַעֲשֵׂה הַמִּשְׁכָּן, דּוּגְמַת מַעֲשֶׂה שִׁמְעוֹן אֲבִי הַשֵּׁבֶט, לְפִי שֶׁשִּׁמְעוֹן קִנֵּא עַל הַזְּנוּת וְהָרַג כָּל אַנְשֵׁי שְׁכֶם עַל שֶׁעִנּוּ דִּינָה אֲחוֹתוֹ, כְּמָה דְתֵימָא: וַיִּקְּחוּ שְׁנֵי בְנֵי יַעֲקֹב שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי אֲחֵי דִינָה אִישׁ חַרְבּוֹ וַיָּבֹאוּ עַל הָעִיר בֶּטַח וַיַּהַרְגוּ כָּל זָכָר וְאֶת חֲמוֹר וְאֶת שְׁכֶם בְּנוֹ הָרְגוּ לְפִי חָרֶב וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת דִּינָה מִבֵּית שְׁכֶם וַיֵּצֵאוּ (בראשית ל״ד:כ״ה-כ״ו). וְכֵן הַמִּשְׁכָּן הָיָה הוֹרֵג בַּנּוֹאֲפִים וּבַסּוֹטוֹת, כְּמָה דְּתֵימָא: וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מַיִם קְדשִׁים בִּכְלִי חָרֶשׂ וּמִן הֶעָפָר אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן וגו׳ (במדבר ה׳:י״ז), וְאוֹמֵר: וְהִשְׁקָה אֶת הַמַּיִם וְהָיְתָה אִם נִטְמְאָה וַתִּמְעֹל מַעַל וגו׳ (במדבר ה׳:כ״ז), וּלְכָךְ הִקְרִיב שְׁלֻמִיאֵל קָרְבָּנוֹ עַל סֵדֶר מַעֲשֶׂה הַמִּשְׁכָּן, זִכָּרוֹן לְמַעֲשֵׂה שִׁמְעוֹן. קָרְבָּנוֹ קַעֲרַת כֶּסֶף אַחַת וגו׳, קַעֲרַת, כְּנֶגֶד חֲצַר הַמִּשְׁכָּן שֶׁהָיָה מַקִּיף אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַיָּם מַקִּיף אֶת הָעוֹלָם.

שְׁלשִׁים וּמֵאָה מִשְׁקָלָהּ – כְּמָה דְּתֵימָא: אֹרֶךְ הֶחָצֵר מֵאָה בָאַמָּה (שמות כ״ז:י״ח), וְהַמִּשְׁכָּן שֶׁהָיָה בְּתוֹכוֹ שְׁלשִׁים אַמָּה אָרְכּוֹ, הֲרֵי מֵאָה וּשְׁלשִׁים

 

The Midrash goes on to connects all the elements of his gift to the Mishkan, e.g. פַּר אֶחָד בֶּן בָּקָר – כְּנֶגֶד יְרִיעוֹת הַמִּשְׁכָּן שֶׁהָיוּ שֶׁל מִינֵי צִבְעוֹנִין, and עִיר עִזִּים – כְּנֶגֶד הָאֹהֶל שֶׁהָיָה יְרִיעוֹת עִזִּים, etc. 

 

If the parsha of sotah was just a matter between  husband and wife, then what does that have to do with the construction of the Mishkan?  True, וְכֵן הַמִּשְׁכָּן הָיָה הוֹרֵג בַּנּוֹאֲפִים וּבַסּוֹטוֹת, but is that really the essence of what the place is about?  Hypothetically, if not for the korban mincha brought by the sotah, couldn't the entire ceremony just as well have taken place somewhere outside the Mishkan? 

 

If we understand, as R' Yissachar Meir suggests, that the parsha of sotah is not just a personal matter between husband and wife but is really about preserving the sanctity of the machaneh, then the answer is clear.  Bringing about and preserving the hashra'as haShechina in the machaneh is *exactly* what the function of the Mishkan is.  The sotah ceremony is not incidental to the Mishkan, but is part of its very purpose.