revenge is not a mitzvah

Way back over 10 years ago we discussed the difference between the two words the Torah has for "maybe" -- פּן vs אולי.     The word פּן is used when the outcome is not desired.  When you see פּן  expect the English translation to be something like "lest..."  The word אולי is used when the outcome is desired.  HaKsav v'haKabbalah writes that we know Eliezer was secretly hoping that his mission to find a wife for Yitzchak would end in failure and Yitzchak would marry his daughter because Eliezer says to Avraham אוּלַי לֹא תֹאבֶה הָאִשָּׁה לָלֶכֶת אַחֲרַי (24:5).  He doesn't use the word פּן , i.e. "What will happen if/lest the girl not come with me," but rather the word אוּלַי because that is what he wanted to happen.  Similarly, Yitzchak argues with his mother than he cannot impersonate Eisav because  אוּלַי יְמֻשֵּׁנִי אָבִי (27:12).  Yitzchak does not say  פּן, "lest he be discovered," because in his heart of hearts he did not want to fool his father and he wantde to be discovered. 

 

Given that background, let's turn to our parshsa.  According to one opinion in Chazal (Makkos 11a) there is a mitzvah for the goel ha'dam to pursue a murderer and avenge the blood that was spilled.  Why then, asks R' Yosef Shaul Nathanson , does our parsha use the word פּן in the pasuk  פֶּן יִרְדֹּף גֹּאֵל הַדָּם אַחֲרֵי הָרֹצֵחַ כִּי יֵחַם לְבָבוֹ וְהִשִּׂיגוֹ (19:6) and not the word אולי?  Isn't having a goel ha'dam something we should want and encourage if he is fulfilling a mitzvah?

 

Malbi"M in his peirush reads the pasuk in a way that gets out of the problem:

 

פן ירדוף גואל הדם והשיגו – ר״ל פן ישיגו והכהו נפש. ומלת פן אינו בא על הרדיפה, שהרדיפה מצוה לשטת הספרי

 

I'm not sure I understand what he is saying. Is the mitzvah only the chase?  When the goel ha'dam catches the guilty party, isn't the mitzvah for him to carry out the penalty of misa?  

 

R' Yosef Shaul Nathanson offers his own answer based on a yesod we've discussed before: 

Ramban in P' Lech Lecha asks why it is that the Mitzrim were punished for enslaving Bn"Y when Hashem had told Avraham that his children would be punished by being forced into servitude.  The Egyptians were fulfilling the nevuah, the ratzon Hashem!  Ramban explains that ain hachi nami, had they done so lishma, that excuse would work.  However, the reality is that they enslaved Bn"Y for their own ends alone.  Without the l'shem shamayim, it's not a kiyum of ratzon Hashem -- it's abuse and torture.  The Chofetz Chaim similarly explains that when Shaul haMelech failed to kill Agag, the navi Shmuel accuses him, "VaTa'as ha'ra b'einei Hashem," of doing wrong.  You would think that Shaul's sin was in NOT doing what he was supposed to -- killing every member of Amalek -- not what he actually did do. Yet, that's not what the navi tells us.  The sin is "VaTa'as," what Shaul did, because once he allowed his own cheshbonos and thoughts of right and wrong to enter into the equation, he was following his own agenda, and not purely the ratzon Hashem.  To wipe out a nation based on your own agenda is genocide, not a mitzvah.  We also find by the cheit ha'eigel, before the Leviim took up arms Moshe told them, "Mi l'Hashem ei'lei," (32:26, see Netziv), as only those motivated l'shem shamayim had a right to participate.  You see from these sources and more that even when there is a heter, even when there is a mitzvah to cause harm, it has to be done carefully for the right reasons.

He bases the same idea on a SM"A (CM 425) that writes that the permissibility of killing a rodef to save a nirdaf applies only when the person intervening acts l'shem shamayim.  If he has an axe to grind against the rodef and steps in for his own ulterior motive of settling some other score, that is not allowed.

 

Coming back to our pasuk, the Torah not only to tell us that the goel ha'dam was in pursuit, but also WHY he was in pursuit: כִּי יֵחַם לְבָבוֹ.  Netziv comments that the Torah is just telling us the metziyus.  The reason why the goel ha'dam is able to catch up to the person he is chasing is because he is in hot pursuit, כִּי יֵחַם לְבָבוֹ.  When you are motivated, you have an advantage. שאע״ג שהרוצח נס ובורח במהירות, מ״מ קרוב הדבר שהגואל הדם לא ייעף ולא ייגע בחמימותו עד שישיגו Since according to Netziv it is not a din but just a metziyus, it still begs the question of why mention it.  

According to the Divrei Shaul, the pasuk is in fact telling us a din. The pasuk is talking about פן ירדוף, something we don't want to happen, because we are dealing with a situation of כִּי יֵחַם לְבָבוֹ, a goel motivated by his own lust for revenge and not l'shem shamayim. There is no kiyum mitzvah in revenge for revenge's sake.

does lo techanem apply to aku"m only? heter mechira, land for peace

Shu"t v'Darashta v'Chakarta (vol 1 OC 54:3) responds to someone who claimed that lo techanem applies only to ovdei avodah zarah by saying that this is a chiddush gadol that requires proof to be believable, especially given that Tos seems to say otherwise. Tos in A"Z 20a interprets the issur broadly, writing that it applies not only to the 7 umos, but to all ovdei aku"m. The chesronos ha'shas quotes the girsa of Tos as reading "kulhu umos," not just ovdei a"z. Why narrow the issur when you see the reverse trend in Tos?

B'mechilas kvodo, not so fast. Ralbag in last week's parsha comments on the pasuk (14:21) לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כׇל נְבֵלָה לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ אוֹ מָכֹר לְנׇכְרִ that the reason the pasuk speaks of giving away neveilah to a ger but when it comes to an aku"m is specifies selling it is because:

והנה לא רצה השם יתעלה שתתן אותה לנכרי לפי שהוא עובד עבודה זרה ולזה לא רצתה שנהנה אותו מתנת חנם.

According to Ralbag, the issur of lo techanem is limited to ovdei a"z.

While the Rambam's view in Hil A"Z 10:3-4 is less clear, in Sefer haMitzvos he refers specifically and only to ovdei a"z:

הזהירנו מהושיב עובדי ע"ז בארצנו כדי שלא נלמוד כפירותם, באמרו לא ישבו בארצכם פן יחטיאו וגו', ואילו רצה העכו"ם לעמוד בארצנו אינו מותר לנו עד שקבל עליו שלא לעבוד ע"ז ואולם עובדי ע"ז לא ישכנו עמנו ולא נמכור להם נחלה ולא נשכיר להם בית, ובבאור אמרו לנו הפירוש לא תתן להם חנייה בקרקע

And finally, Ramban in our parsha (20:18) writes as well:

והנה בתורה הזהיר: לא ישבו בארצך פן יחטיאו אותך לי כי תעבוד את אלהיהם כי יהיה לך למוקש (שמות כ״ג:ל״ג), והיא אזהרה בעבודה זרה, כי אם תכרות להם ולאלהיהם ברית, ישבו בארצך הרבים מהם יפתוך לעבוד עבודה זרה.

It is not outlandish at all, and in fact, seems to be the dominant view in Rishonim, that the issur of lo techanem is limited to ovdei a"z.

This is not a trivial issue.  It impacts two major contentious issues:

1) Land for peace -- can we trade control over territory in Eretz Yisrael for peace (assuming the theoretical possibility of such an agreement holding water) with the Muslim population, who are not ovdei a"z?  I am surprised that R' Hershel Shachter (RJJ Journal #16 )in discussing this issue writes, "Although such an act [trading land for peace] would be a violation of the injunction of lol techanem... it is permissible in the interest of avoiding a situation of sakanat nefashot." Before getting to the question of whether there is a heter pikuach nefesh, one can question the fundamental premis of whether lo techanem even applies when not dealing with ovdei aku"m. (Aside from the issur of lo techanem, according to Ramban, there is also a mitzvas aseh of kibush ha'aretz.  Whether when the Torah mandates milchama, which by definition entails casualties, there is any heter pikuach nefesh is another major issue that is not my topic here.)

2) Heter mechira -- can we sell/lease land to Muslims for the duration of the shemita year so that farming can continue? The Chazon Ish writes that doing so constitutes an issur d'oraysa of lo techanem, but R' Ovadya points out that before getting into the nitty gritty of whether sheviis is d'oraysa or whether a temporary sale actually amounts to ceding control and is a violation of lo techanem, the fundamental flaw in the C.I.'s position is that according to many Rishonim lo techanem cannot apply unless you are dealing with ovdei a"z.

Doesn't everyone have free choice? Why does the pasuk call it a gift given just to us?

I'm afraid I don't have much to say this week.

1) נָת֤וֹן תִּתֵּן֙ ל֔וֹ וְלֹא־יֵרַ֥ע לְבָבְךָ֖ בְּתִתְּךָ֣ ל֑וֹ כִּ֞י בִּגְלַ֣ל׀ הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֗ה יְבָרֶכְךָ֙ ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ בְּכׇֽל־מַעֲשֶׂ֔ךָ וּבְכֹ֖ל מִשְׁלַ֥ח יָדֶֽךָ׃

R' Ben Tzion Aba Shaul raises a safeik whether וְלֹא־יֵרַ֥ע לְבָבְךָ֖ בְּתִתְּךָ֣ ל֑וֹ is a bracha or an issur. He quotes the Minchas Chinuch (479:3) who writes that the word הַזֶּ֗הIt in the phrase בִּגְלַ֣ל׀ הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֗ה is not referring back to the act to giving, נָת֤וֹן תִּתֵּן֙ ל֔וֹ, but rather refers back to doing so b'lev shaleim, וְלֹא־יֵרַ֥ע לְבָבְךָ֖ בְּתִתְּךָ֣ ל֑וֹ. The implication is that this is not a bracha, but a command to the one who gives. It's hard enough to give, but the Torah demands more than that -- you have to feel good about it too.

The Maggid of Dubno told the story of the man who lost $100 and was quite upset. Next day he found $200, but he was still upset because he thought to himself that if he hadn't lost the original $100 he would now have $300, not just $200, in his pocket. Contrast that with the story of the farmer who was carrying a bag with $100 of grain from the field back to his home and didn't realize there was a hole in the bag. By the time he got home the bag was empty, leaving him pretty upset. Not too long afterwards that same farmer noticed all along the path he took home through his fields there were now new stalks of wheat that had started to spring up, promising an even greater crop than he had originally harvested. The sadness at the loss of his original bundle was now replaced by the joy of the prospect of greater abundance.

When we give tzedakah, we often feel like the man who lost that $100. Even if we receive bracha and get something more in return, we still feel like we lost something. ְלֹא־יֵרַ֥ע לְבָבְךָ֖ בְּתִתְּךָ֣ ל֑וֹ means feeling like the farmer. Whatever we gave up was the seed from which sprang the bracha in return.

2) רְאֵה אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לִפְנֵיכֶם הַיּוֹם בְּרָכָה וּקְלָלָה 

B'shlama according to Rashi who explains that the ְּבְּרָכָה וּקְלָלָה which the pasuk is referring to are the brachos and klalos that will be given on Har Grizim and Har Eival, neicha, that the pasuk is speaking only to us. But not everyone learns like Rashi. Ralbag, for example, explains the pasuk to mean that we have free choice זכר שכבר נתן השם יתעלה לפני ישראל ברכה וקללה והענין הוא בבחירתם וזה שאם ישמעו אל מצות השם יתעלה תבא להם הברכה והקללה אם לא ישמעו אל מצותיו. Well, doesn't everyone have free choice?  Doesn't an aku"m have the choice to do good or do wrong?

The GR"A in Aderet Aliyahu answers this question as does the CH haRI"M. GR"A writes:

ושמא תאמרו הבחירה ניתן לאדם בימי בחרותו אבל לא אחר שהורגל במעלליו הקשים לכן אמר היום בכל יום ויום הרשות נתונה והבחירה בידו לילך בדרך טובים

The key word in the pasuk is הַיּוֹם. Everyone has free choice to some degree, but it gets harder and harder to break bad habits the more time they have to become entrenched. Hashem gives us an opportunity each and every day to start anew, irrespective of the choices of the past.

The Ch haRI"M, quoted in the first piece in Sefas Emes, says that the key word in the pasuk is לִפְנֵיכֶם:

אא"ז מו"ר ז"ל הגיד פי' ראה אנכי נותן לפניכם. שנקבע בכל איש ישראל שיוכל להבחין ולבחור רק בהברכה.

I've written before that choosing right vs wrong is not such a big challenge for most people. True, a person can succumb to temptation, but that amounts to a passing moment of weakness, not a fundamental character flaw. Most people will not deliberatly choose the wrong thing to so.  The real challenge is figuring out in any given situation what the right vs wrong thing to so is. For example, the Jews I wrote about recently who cry about "starvation" in Gaza think they are choosing to do the right thing, but their whole concept of right/wrong is distorted.  They think that are choosing bracha, but they are supporting the enemy, supporting evil. It's not enough to have free choice between right and wrong; a person needs a compass to point them to what the right thing is. Hashem put that compass לִפְנֵיכֶם, inside each one of us. The outside world is like a magnetic field that pulls the compass in a wrong direction, but so long as we remain true to ourselves, it will show us the right path.

R Tzadok haKohen in Pri Tzadik points out that the pasuk uses the word נֹתֵן, meaning that it is speaking about a gift that Hashem gives us. Bracha is of course a gift, but the word  נֹתֵן applies to the וּקְלָלָה as well.  How is that a gift?  If you understand the pasuk like the CH haR"IM's reading, it makes perfect sense. The gift which Hashem gives us is not בְּרָכָה or קְלָלָה themselves, but rather is the ability to discern between them and find the correct path in a muddled, befuddling world of confusion.

you can't play innocent if your behavior proves otherwise; limud haTorah trumps ahavas haTorah

In 9:7-21 in our parsha Moshe recounts the cheit ha'eigel and the smashing of the luchus. From pasuk 25 until the end of the perek Moshe recounts his prayer to Hashem for forgiveness for the eigel. Sandwiched in the middle, Moshe switches gears and starts talking about other sins that happened in the midbar:

בְעֵרָה וּבְמַסָּה וּבְקִבְרֹת הַתַּאֲוָה מַקְצִפִים הֱיִיתֶם אֶת ה׳

וּבִשְׁלֹחַ ה׳ אֶתְכֶם מִקָּדֵשׁ בַּרְנֵעַ לֵאמֹר עֲלוּ וּרְשׁוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לָכֶם וַתַּמְרוּ אֶת פִּי ה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶם וְלֹא הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם לוֹ וְלֹא שְׁמַעְתֶּם בְּקֹלוֹ.

Why didn't Moshe finish speaking about cheit ha'eigel before getting sidetracked, seemingly, by these other topics?

The Abarbanel and Akeidas Yitzchak answer that Bn"Y might have argued that they deserve a pass for cheit ha'eigel. They might argue that had Aharon not made the golden calf, they would have had no part in it. Moshe therefore immediately sticks in a rebuttal. Look at all the other wrongdoings that took place in the midbar. The list goes on and on! You can't play innocent when time after time you prove that מַקְצִפִים הֱיִיתֶם אֶת ה׳.

The Beis haLevi has a chiddush din that if there a choleh requires someone to be mechalel shabbos for his sake, e.g. someone needs a doctor to treat them, it is better to have a shomer Shabbos do it than to have a doctor who would otherwise be mechalel Shabbos do so. It sounds counterintuitive. The person who would otherwise be mechalel Shabbos anyway doesn't lose anything, and the shomer Shabbos doctor gets to keep Shabbos, so what's the problem? Says the Beis haLevi, the doctor who is mechalel Shabbos anyway cannot invoke pikuach nefesh as a ptur for his actions. Hashem knows that it's not the pikuach nefesh which is his excuse to break Shabbos. On any given Shabbos he might drive to the mall, turn on his TV or phone, cook a nice meal, etc. vTherefore, even if there is pikuach nefesh, he is chayav for doing melacha because he's proven that he would have done the melacha anyway. It's only the frum doctor who would otherwise keep Shabbos but is forced to not do so in order to save a life who can claim pikuach nefesh as a valid ptur.

This is the same sevara in our parsha. Had Bn"Y demonstrated that they were otherwise on the straight and narrow, they might conceivably have put the blame on Aharon for the cheit ha'eigel. But when all their other behaviors show that they were not interested in doing the right thing anyway, then the excuse doesn't hold water. They would have gotten involved in the eigel with or without Aharon's contribution to the problem.

Perhaps one can add בּדרך צחות that we know that Chazal (Kiddushin 57 and other places) darshen the extra word אֶת as a ribuy that comes to include talmidei chachamim, i.e. ״אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא״ – לְרַבּוֹת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים. We can read that same ribuy into our pesukim. Moshe told Bn"Y: You want to claim that you only sinned because of the great awe, respect, and attachment you had for Aharon and therefore followed him down the wrong path? Sorry, that doesn't fly. מַקְצִפִים הֱיִיתֶם אֶת ה׳ and here too we can darshen "אֶת" - לְרַבּוֹת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים". You were ַתַּמְרוּ אֶת פִּי ה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶם, and here too, "אֶת" - לְרַבּוֹת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים. On other occassions in the midbar you ignored Aharon, you ignored Moshe, you rebelled against the authority of talmidei chachamim. You can't claim to be a loyal, obedient follower of Aharon when it comes to cheit ha'eigel and use that as an excuse when all your other actions prove otherwise. (see also Agra d'Kallah)

The source for the mitzvah of cleaving to talmidei chachamim actually comes from pesukim later in our parsha (11:22-23)

כִּי אִם שָׁמֹר תִּשְׁמְרוּן אֶת כׇּל הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם לַעֲשֹׂתָהּ לְאַהֲבָה אֶתה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶם לָלֶכֶת בְּכׇל דְּרָכָיו וּלְדׇבְקָה בוֹ.

וְהוֹרִישׁ ה׳ אֶת כׇּל הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה מִלִּפְנֵיכֶם וִירִשְׁתֶּם גּוֹיִם גְּדֹלִים וַעֲצֻמִים מִכֶּם

Rashi quotes from Chazal: ולדבקה בו – אי איפשר, והלא אש אוכלה הוא? אלא: הדבק בחכמים ובתלמידים, ומעלה עליך כאילו נדבקת בו.

Interestingly, on the pasuk earlier in our parsha (10:20) אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ תִּירָא אֹתוֹ תַעֲבֹד וּבוֹ תִדְבָּק וּבִשְׁמוֹ תִּשָּׁבֵעַ, the very pasuk where Chazal darshen ״אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא״ – לְרַבּוֹת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, Rashi is silent and offers no comment on the phrase וּבוֹ תִדְבָּק. Why there does Rashi not jump in and say אי איפשר, והלא אש אוכלה הוא? and explain the phrase as speaking about talmidei chachamim, especially since there it would fit perfectly with the ribuy in the first half of the pasuk!?

HaKsav v'haKabbalah (please see the parenthetical note** at the end of this piece!) explains that it's not the explanation of the word דׇבְקָה which is bothering Rashi. We find that word many other places, e.g. אתם הדבקים בה׳ אלוקיכם, and we understand that it means having a close emotional or spiritual connection. The difficulty here arises from the context:

אמנם קשיא להו קרא דקאמר כי אם שמור תשמרון את כל המצוה הזאת וגו׳ לאהבה את ה״א ללכת בכל דרכיו ולדבקה בו, דמשמע שכולם חייבים להדבק במקום ב״ה דבקות הנפש, ולפי שזאת היא מעלת הנביאים וכדומה מאנשי מעלה שזוכים לה בחמלת ה׳ עליהם בתתו רוחו בקרבם, והאיך תלה ירושת הארץ בתנאי שיהיו דבקים בו כל ישראל

How can our taking possession of Eretz Yisrael be contingent upon our having dveikus, this high level of spiritual attachment, when such an achievement is clearly attainable only by the spiritual elite? Therefore, Chazal reinterpreted the mitzvah here to refer to divuk to talmidei chachamim (see Taz in Divrei David who offers a different answer).

In R' Dov Landau's chiddushim on the parsha he quotes, in the context of this mitzvah, the story in Avos about R' Yosi ben Kisma:

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶן קִסְמָא, פַּעַם אַחַת הָיִיתִי מְהַלֵּךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וּפָגַע בִּי אָדָם אֶחָד, וְנָתַן לִי שָׁלוֹם, וְהֶחֱזַרְתִּי לוֹ שָׁלוֹם. אָמַר לִי, רַבִּי, מֵאֵיזֶה מָקוֹם אַתָּה. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ, מֵעִיר גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁל חֲכָמִים וְשֶׁל סוֹפְרִים אָנִי. אָמַר לִי, רַבִּי, רְצוֹנְךָ שֶׁתָּדוּר עִמָּנוּ בִמְקוֹמֵנוּ, וַאֲנִי אֶתֵּן לְךָ אֶלֶף אֲלָפִים דִּינְרֵי זָהָב וַאֲבָנִים טוֹבוֹת וּמַרְגָּלִיּוֹת

אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ, בְּנִי, אִם אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לִי כָל כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב וַאֲבָנִים טוֹבוֹת וּמַרְגָּלִיּוֹת שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם, אֵינִי דָר אֶלָּא בִמְקוֹם תּוֹרָה

In Kallah Rabasi ch 8 there is the following comment on that Mishna:

א״ר יוסי בן קסמא פעם אחת. אמאי לא אהדר ליה סימני עם הארץ חזא ביה. והא אפילו לעובד כוכבים בשוק מותר אלא דהוה פליג הלכתא ועיין בה ולא אמרין לבתר דפרקינהו וידע בה דישראל הוה. וסבר עכשיו מהדרנא

Our girsa in Avos is וְנָתַן לִי שָׁלוֹם וְהֶחֱזַרְתִּי לוֹ שָׁלוֹם, but it seems from Kallah Rabasi that R' Yosei ben Kisma in fact did not greet or respond to the person who he met. That makes the ahavas haTorah of that individual even more remarkable. Most people would feel offended if their Rabbi passed them in the street and did not offer a greeting. This man offered R' Yosi ben Kisma a fortune to move to his city even though R' Yosi ben Kisma didn't so much as offer him a hello! That's "U'bo tidbak." However, it begs the question: If this man was representative of his hometown, why would R' Yosi ben Kisma not want to move to such a place where there is so much love for talmidei chachamim? I am sure many Rabbis would love to have congregants like that! R' Landau answers that ahavas haTorah cannot serve as a substitute for limud haTorah. Living among people who are mechabeid talmidei chachamim, who may love talmidei chachamim, is not the same as living among people who themselves are talmidei chachamim.

(**Parenthetical note on the haKsav vhaKabbalah: He writes that it is impossible to understand dveikus literally ואפי׳ תעלה על דעתך להמשך אחר פשוטי המקראות בשאר המקומות (וכדברי הראב״ד בה׳ תשובה), א״א לך לחשוב כן בענין הדבקות. The Raavad he refers to is the famous one in ch 3 of hil teshuvah:

האומר שיש שם רבון אחד אלא שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה. א"א ולמה קרא לזה מין וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו הלכו בזו המחשבה לפי מה שראו במקראות ויותר ממה שראו בדברי האגדות המשבשות את הדעות:

Clearly Kv"K seems to take Raavad at face value, that a literal reading is at least theoretically possible. This is in contast to the pshat quoted in the name of R' Chaim that Raavad only meant that such a person cannot be labelled an apikores because they are shogeg, not to validate literal reading.)

Someich Hashem l'kol ha'noflim -- T"U b'Av

Brachos 4b

אמר רבי יוחנן מפני מה לא נאמר נו"ן באשרי מפני שיש בה מפלתן של שונאי ישראל דכתיב נפלה לא תוסיף קום בתולת ישראל במערבא מתרצי לה הכי נפלה ולא תוסיף לנפול עוד קום בתולת ישראל אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אפילו הכי חזר דוד וסמכן ברוח הקדש שנא' סומך ה' לכל הנופלים

There is a famous vort of the Apter Rav on T"U b'Av which I thought I had posted once but can't find it. The very last gemara in Taanis, after the sugya that discusses what happened on T'U b'Av, tells us:

אמר רבי אלעזר עתיד הקדוש ברוך הוא לעשות מחול לצדיקים והוא יושב ביניהם בגן עדן וכל אחד ואחד מראה באצבעו שנאמ' ואמר ביום ההוא הנה אלקינו זה קוינו לו ויושיענו זה ה' קוינו לו נגילה ונשמחה בישועתו

We will one day dance in a big circle, with Hashem in the middle, and everyone will point to the middle and say הנה אלקינו זה קוינו לו etc. In a circle every single point is equidistant from the center. In the future, every single person, from the biggest gadol to the average Joe, will see that they made a contribution, that they have a connection to Hashem, that their portion and their avodah is as valuable to Hashem as anyone else's. The Apter Rav explained that this celebration is what T'U b'Av represents. T"U = the 15th letter of the aleph beis, the letter samech, which is round like a circle. On T"U b'Av all the girls would go out and dance in the vineyard, and each would declare a reason why an eligible bachur should marry  them. Everyone has something that makes him/her special. We are each points on a circle.

R' Teichtel in his Mishnas Sachir writes that on 9 Av we mourn the churban caused by machlokes and infighting and strife. This is the greatest nefila of Klal Yisrael. Comes T"U b'Av, the culmination of the shiva for the churban, as R' Tzadok writes, and we want to do away with all that enmity and make a tikun for our sins. The gemara describes how on T"U b'Av the girls  would all borrow clothes from each other כל ישראל שואלין זה מזה כדי שלא יתבייש את מי שאין לו.   No one should feel that they are less valuable than anyone else; no one should feel pain because someone else made them feel less than special.  T"U b'Av is that letter samech, with no start and no end, no one point closer or more distant than any other from the center.  Everyone's cheilek is equally important, so there is no reason to fight.  This is what the gemaa means חזר דוד וסמכן ברוח הקדש שנא' סומך ה' לכל הנופלים  Hshem took the nefilah and connected it with the letter samech, the holiday of T"U b'Av, giving us the means to make things whole, giving us the greatest simcha in the world.

seudas mitzvah for a siyum by a woman or katan

Is a siyum made by a katan enough of a reason to allow eating meat during the 9 days? What about a siyum by a woman? Why am I bringing this up when the 9 days ended last week and we are now approaching T"u b'Av?

I think the answer to this question may hinge on what the source is for the idea of making a siyum. One of the sources is the celebration of T"u b'Av. The gemara (B"B 121b) tells us that 15 Av was the day when the season of cutting of wood for use on the maaracha came to a close because after that day the wood was not dry enough to be usable. Rashbam comments:

ואותו יום שפסקו היו שמחים לפי שבאותו יום היו משלימין מצוה גדולה כזאת:

The completion of a mitzvah, says Rashbam, is a cause for celebration.  This is exactly what a siyum is.

Rabeinu Gershom reads the gemara differently. He comments:

ולפי שעה שהיו עסוקים לכרות עצי המערכה היו מתבטלין בתלמוד תורה אבל אותו יום פסקו ועשאוהו יום טוב שמיכן ואילך היו עוסקין בתורה:

The celebration was not because of the siyum of a mitzvah, but rather because not having to chop wood allowed more time for learning. The motivation behind R' Gershom's reading becomes clear from the next line in the gemara:

מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ, דְּמוֹסִיף – יוֹסִיף, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹסִיף – יְסִיף. מַאי ״יְסִיף״? תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: תִּקְבְּרֵיהּ אִמֵּיהּ.

Since the nights grow longer after 15 Av, a person is required to spend more time at night learning.

According to Rashbam, this is a stand alone statement.  It has nothing to do with wood chopping except in the sense that it's the change in season that is the root cause of both events, i.e. a shortened day means both less sun to dry the wood and a longer night to learn. According to R' Gershom, there is a direct connection between the two statements.  The whole celebration of the cessation of wood chopping was because it allowed for more time to learn.

A second source for the idea of making a siyum quoted in Rishonim has to do with a feast made by Shlomo haMelech. In Sefer Melachim ch 3, Shlomo haMelech is told by Hashem to ask for what he pleases, and he responds by requesting chochma. Hashem was so pleased by that choice that in addition to chochma, Hashem gave Shlomo riches and all the other good things he could have asked for instead. Shlomo responded by celebrating.

וַיִּקַץ שְׁלֹמֹה וְהִנֵּה חֲלוֹם, וַיָּבוֹא יְרוּשָׁלִַם וַיַּעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי אֲרוֹן בְּרִית ה', וַיַּעַל עֹלוֹת וַיַּעַשׂ שְׁלָמִים וַיַּעַשׂ מִשְׁתֶּה לְכָל עֲבָדָיו.

The Midrash (Koheles Rabbah) learns from here אמר רבי יצחק: מכאן שעושין סעודה לגומרה של תורה.

The Ohr Zarua (vol 2 hil sukkah) writes that this is the source for our celebration of Simchas Torah:

בתשיעי ספק שמיני אנו עושין שמחת תורה, ומסיימין התורה ומתחילין בראשית, וחתני תורה עושין סעודה לכבוד גמר תורה. ובמלכותנו בשושני"א עושים חתני תורה סעודה גמורה, ומזמנין מבני הקהל ונותנים להם מאכלים טובים אווזות ותרנגולין. ומצאתי עיקרו של מנהג אני המחבר יצחק ב"ר משה נב"ה בתחילת מדרש שה"ש, ויבוא ירושלים ויעמוד לפני ארון ברית ה', אמר רבי יצחק מיכן שעושין סעודה לגומרה של תורה... הנה כשנתן לו הקדוש ברוך הוא חכמה, לכבוד החכמה עשה משתה, ומיכן למד רבי יצחק שהגומר תורה שכולה חכמה שצריך לעשות סעודה ומשתה

You cannot characterize Shlomo haMelech's celebration as one of משלימין מצוה גדולה, like the Rashbam's sevara. Aderaba, he hadn't done anything yet; there was no mitzvah which he had completed or fulfilled. Shlomo was simply the beneficiary of a gift from Hashem. The reason for his celebration was because he now had achieved a higher level of ruchniyus and could potentially accomplish more. The idea of a siyum, of Simchas Torah, is that the completion of a masechta, or of a cycle of Torah reading, means a person has grown and is a better, more elevated person than they were beforehand. Maybe this is why at a siyum we say "hadran alach," that we will return to our learning. The siyum is not celebrating the past, but rather is celebrating the potential for the future.  The next time around is not just a repeat, but is a deeper, richer experience than before, as we are a different person now encountering the text.

I would be remiss if I did not mention in the list of sources the gemara (Shabbos 118b) that says Abayei would make a siyum when a student finished a masechta.  I think this is the source people are most familiar with:

וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תֵּיתֵי לִי, דְּכִי חָזֵינָא צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן דִּשְׁלִים מַסֶּכְתֵּיהּ עָבֵידְנָא יוֹמָא טָבָא לְרַבָּנַן

The problem with using this gemara as a source for a siyum is that the sugya there is discussing various hidurim of amoraim for which they were rewarded. The implication is that Abayei's practice was not the norm, but was something exceptional done on his part. Secondly, Rashi comments: עבידנא יומא טבא לרבנן - לתלמידים ראש ישיבה היה. The point of telling us Abayei's job - rosh yeshiva - is that it seems that making the siyum was part and parcel of his job function. How do you encourage the students? By celebrating their achievements. It is hard to generalize from there to someone making a seudah to celebrate their own completion of a masechta.

Since a woman or a katan have no mitzvah to learn, I would think that we can't really call their accomplishment being משלימין מצוה גדולה. How can you be mashlim a mitzvah when there is no mitzvah incumbent upon you to do? I do hear the counterargument that even an "aino metzuveh" deserves credit for accomplishment, but I am not entirely convinced.  The source from Shlomo haMelech, however, would include even a woman and even a katan, as it has nothing to do with the mitzvah per se so much as the effect it has on the individual.

when remaining passive is not a choice

I went to a minyan on 9 Av that invites community members to do a little intro and explanation of each of the kinos before it is recited by the tzibur. I knew that the individual who was going to introduce the kinah that speaks of the horrible starvation in Yerushalayim אִם תֺּאכַלְנָה נָשִׁים פִּרְיָם עוֹלְלֵי טִפּוּחִים אַלְלַי לִי has very different hashkafos that I do, but I was still shocked that he or anyone would use this as the opportunity to speak of our obligation to worry about our being the cause of starvation in Gaza. Whether there is in fact starvation is itself subject to debate, but I certainly am not going to worry about the Gazan people any more than their leaders, who obviously think it more important to continue to hold I hostage than to release them and disarm, do. When I see that young Jews overwhelmingly support Mamdani for mayor of NY, I am discouraged, but I figure they are misguided, unaffiliated folks who are tinok she'nishba in secular culture. But when I hear people in an orthodox shul speaking about our need to be concerned about our causing starvation in Gaza and no one gets up and walks out, instead there is shtika k'hodaah, it is frightening. To be fair, I am confident that the vast majority of people at that shul do NOT agree with this individuals sentiments, but sof kol sof, they gave him a platform and very politely listened to what I think are words of poison.

We read in our parsha

וְצַו אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְחַזְּקֵהוּ וְאַמְּצֵהוּ כִּי הוּא יַעֲבֹר לִפְנֵי הָעָם הַזֶּה וְהוּא יַנְחִיל אוֹתָם אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר תִּרְאֶה.

וַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר.

עַתָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁמַע אֶל הַחֻקִּים וְאֶל הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְלַמֵּד אֶתְכֶם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְמַעַן תִּחְיוּ וּבָאתֶם וִירִשְׁתֶּם אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר ה׳ אֱלֹקי אֲבֹתֵיכֶם נֹתֵן לָכֶם.

What is the connection between וַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא and the previous or following pasuk? As Ohr haChaim puts it:

צריך לדעת כונת הכתוב מה בא להודיע במאמר זה, ומה קשר יש לו לא עם מה שלפניו ולא עם מה שלאחריו

The GR"A in Aderes Aliyahu connects it all the way to the beginning of the parsha. Moshe was saying that his tefilos, with all his tzidkus, were not answered, but Bn"Y as a people, despite all their failings, despite ַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר engaging in the most disgusting avodah zarah, are still guaranteed to go to Eretz Yisrael, לְמַעַן תִּחְיוּ וּבָאתֶם וִירִשְׁתֶּם אֶת הָאָרֶץ.  Very uplifting.

The Alshich has a different pshat. Had Bn"Y been worthy, that the zechus of Yehoshua alone would have been enough to guarantee them victory in the conquest of E Yisrael. כִּי הוּא יַעֲבֹר...וְהוּא יַנְחִיל אוֹתָם. That is no longer the case because of the sin of worshipping Baal Pe'or. But, says the Alshich, weren't those who worshipped Pe'or already punished? Wasn't there a plague that wiped out those who sinned? The next pasuk answers that question: וַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר. Pinchas jumped up with his spear and took care of business, but what were the rest of you doing? You were sitting there, you were passive, you didn't do anything. True, you were not the one's who worshipped Baal Pe'or, but you stood by idly while others did. Yehoshua's zechuyos are not enough anymore. עַתָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁמַע אֶל הַחֻקִּים וְאֶל הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְלַמֵּד אֶתְכֶם You all have to do your part, each individual being careful about his shemiras ha'mitzvos. You have to get up and take action and do something meaningful.  

A person cannot sit back and say, "I don't hold that political view, so what do I care what others say?" or "My children are married to the best families, to bnei Torah, to bais Yaakov girls, so I'm not responsible for the 70% intermarriage rate in America," or "I send my kids to the best yeshiva, so what can I do if my neighbor sends his kids to public school?" These are of course different issues that call for different types of reactions and different strategies to address, but the common denominator is that we cannot just be וַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר The Baal Peor is right across from you, staring you in the face, and all you can do is sit passively while this is going on? I am not saying to sit on Twitter  24x6 debating the Israel bashers, or to engage in disruptive or harmful  behavior. That's not healthy or positive either. But do something. Don't sit passively and let others dictate the narrative or the outcome.

So what should we be doing? This shiur of R' Meir Lichtenstein discussing how his grandfather, the Rav, approched kinos, is worth watching in tis entirely, but I want to highlight just one snippit. B'kitzur, RML contends that the Rav used kinos as a springboard to think about and discuss some of the big questions, e.g. How do we relate to Am Yisrael, to Eretz Yisrael? What is our mission? The Rav would spend hours and hours on kinos, giving full shiurim on individual lines of the text. (Parenthetically, RML mentions that his father did not approach kinos that way.) Today, many American Rabbis follow in the Rav's footsteps, and there are programs you can watch online that can fill your entire day of 9 Av. Here is RML's reaction:

I will just add my own editorial 2 cents.  Sometimes feel that every dollar spent on more and bigger institutions that perpetuate J  life in galus is another dollar that is throwing good money after bad.  You are investing in beautifying the lifeboat so you can stay in it longer and be more comfortable there instead of encouraging people to row faster for land. לְמַעַן תִּחְיוּ  is not the end of the pasuk above.  It's   לְמַעַן תִּחְיוּ וּבָאתֶם וִירִשְׁתֶּם אֶת הָאָרֶץ.  Let's not forget the end goal.  Let's not let 9 AV get away from us without at least thinking about what the end goal is.