public life vs private life

The meforshim are bothered by the contradictory reactions of Bn"Y when they discovered the Egyptian army in pursuit.  On the one hand, וַיִּצְעֲק֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל אֶל ה׳ (14:10), they turned to Hashem, and yet on the other hand, וַיֹּאמְרוּ֮ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה֒ הֲֽמִבְּלִ֤י אֵין־קְבָרִים֙ בְּמִצְרַ֔יִם לְקַחְתָּ֖נוּ לָמ֣וּת בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר מַה־זֹּאת֙ עָשִׂ֣יתָ לָּ֔נוּ לְהוֹצִיאָ֖נוּ מִמִּצְרָֽיִם (only one pasuk later! 14:11) they complained that they were going to die and should have never left Egypt. Ramban writes that the two different reactions are evidence that there were two different groups at Yam Suf. There was a group who turned to Hashem in tefilah, and there was a group that rebelled and pinned blame for the situation on Moshe.

R' Yosef Shaul Nathanson in Divrei Shaul writes based on a Zohar that there is in fact no contradiction between the two pesukim. The term וַיִּצְעֲק֥וּּ, says the Zohar, indicates a cry inside a person's heart. On the outside, a person might be screaming at Moshe in anger, but inside his heart he is crying out to Hashem for help. On the outside, a person might be defiant, rebellious, but on the inside, he remains connected to Hashem and longs for Him.

Later in the parsha, when the people go out to collect the mon on Shabbos even after being warned not to do so, Hashem tells Moshe (16:28)

וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה עַד אָנָה מֵאַנְתֶּם לִשְׁמֹר מִצְוֺתַי וְתוֹרֹתָי

Malbim comments on the use of the term מֵאַנְתֶּם:

יש הבדל בין מאן ובין לא אבה, שהבלתי אובה הוא בלב והממאן הוא בפה אף שיאבה בלבו, וכל אדם יאבה בלבו לקיים מצות ה׳ רק שימאן בפה כי יהיה עליו לטורח

The word מאן refers to a public display of rebelliousness, but it doesn't reflect what's on the inside. A person may be a mechalel Shabbos for whatever reason, but that's just on the outside. In his heart of hearts, he wants that connection to Shabbos.  

The actions and words that you see and hear on the outside do not always reflect what is in a person's mind and heart.

Too bad we didn't have this Malbi"m last week, because now we have a deeper insight into Hashem's words to Pharoah (10:3)

עַד מָתַי מֵאַנְתָּ לֵעָנֹת מִפָּנָי שַׁלַּח עַמִּי וְיַעַבְדֻנִי

Pharoah, I know you are have to put up a brave front so as to not lose face in front of your people -- it's מאן, public posturing -- but you know and I know that your heart is not really in it and you want to buckle under.

Coming back to the Divrei Shaul, I think this yesod can help explain another pasuk later in the parsha (17:3-4)

וַיִּצְמָא שָׁם הָעָם לַמַּיִם וַיָּלֶן הָעָם עַל מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמֶר לָמָּה זֶּה הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם לְהָמִית אֹתִי וְאֶת בָּנַי וְאֶת מִקְנַי בַּצָּמָא

וַיִּצְעַק מֹשֶׁה אֶל ה׳ לֵאמֹר מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לָעָם הַזֶּה עוֹד מְעַט וּסְקָלֻנִי

Aside from the word לֵאמֹר being redundant, the pasuk is a stirah minei u'bei. On the one hand, it talks about וַיִּצְעַק מֹשֶׁה, a lashon of tefilah, אֶל ה׳, Y-K-V-K, the midas ha'rachamim. Yet in the very same pasuk, Moshe sounds like he throws the people under the bus and complains that they are out to get him מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לָעָם הַזֶּה עוֹד מְעַט וּסְקָלֻנִי. Netziv asks: אין לשון ״ויצעק״ מורה כי אם על תפלה, וכאן לא כתיב אלא דברי תרעומות, והכי מיבעי ׳ויאמר משה׳ כמו בספר במדבר (יא,יא) במעשה דמתאוים

Netziv answers (see also haKsav veHaKabbalah) that Moshe did pray for the people, but at the same time, he felt his own life was in danger, and therefore was forced to ask Hashem for protection from the mob at the same time:

אלא מכאן למדו חז״ל במכילתא שהתפלל משה על המים, כמשמעו, והכי תניא: ״ויצעק משה״ – ללמדך שבחו של משה, שלא אמר הואיל שהם מדיינין עמי איני מבקש עליהם רחמים, אלא ״ויצעק משה״ (עכ״ל). אלא בתוך התפלה היו גם דברים אלו שיעשה למענו, שהרי הוא מסוכן, ובאו הדברים בכתוב מפני התשובה של ה׳

Based on the Divrei Shaul, I would say that even as Moshe was in fact verbally (hence the לֵאמֹר) chastising the people, in his heart, וַיִּצְעַק מֹשֶׁה אֶל ה׳ (and this is why it deliberately uses that phrase of וַיִּצְעַק ַand not ויאמר משה like in Bamidbar), he was crying out to Hashem to have mercy on them.

The Rambam writes in Hil Deyos (2:3)

וְאִם רָצָה לְהַטִיל אֵימָה עַל בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵיתוֹ, אוֹ עַל הַצִּבּוּר - אִם הָיָה פַּרְנָס וְרָצָה לִכְעֹס עֲלֵיהֶן כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ לְמוּטָב - יַרְאֶה עַצְמוֹ בִּפְנֵיהֶם שֶׁהוּא כוֹעֵס כְּדֵי לְיַסְּרָם וְתִהְיֶה דַּעְתּוֹ מְיֻשֶּׁבֶת בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ, כְּאָדָם שֶׁהוּא מִדַּמֶּה כוֹעֵס בִּשְׁעַת כַּעְסוֹ וְהוּא אֵינוֹ כוֹעֵס.

A leader sometimes has to put on a public face of anger and disapproval, but in his heart, he must remain calm. In Moshe's case, it went beyond that. His heart remained filled with love for his people, filled with prayer on their behalf, even has he verbally chastised them for their misdeeds.

What is the take away for us? That rebellious teenager may not be as rebellious on the inside as he seems on the outside. And the anger a parent/teacher may be showing on the outside may not really reflect the deep love that exists on the inside.

the chronology of the makkos and the mitzvah of kiddush ha'chodesh

Apologies for writing a bit b'kitzur this week.

The challenge of figuring out the chronology of the makkos is getting three facts to fit together:

1) The mishna in Ediyot that tells us that the judgment of the Mitzrim took place over one year.

2) The gemara in Rosh haShana tells us that the shibud let up on Rosh haShana

3) Rashi quotes from Chazal that each makkah lasted a week after which there was a three week break = 1 month in total.

10 makkos of 1 month each = 10 months, not a year, so what do you do with the mishna in Ediyot?  If the makkos forced the Mitzrim to end the shibud, then shouldn't Pesach coincide with Rosh haShana, since acc to the gemara in R"H that is when slavery ended?  The facts at hand seem to contradict each other.

One approach is that of Tos/Maharasha in Rosh haShana.  According to this view, Moshe came to Pharoah in Nissan, but the Egyptians continued to subjugate the Jews, despite their being hit with makkos.  The forced labor of shibud only ended on Rosh haShana, and culminated with total freedom being granted in Nissan.  Even though each makkah took 1 month to run its course, the makkos did not follow back to back -- there was a gap of a few days between them, so that 10 makkos were spread over 12 months in total.

Ramban has a different view.  He writes in our parsha that the last three makkos all took place in Nissan.  Barad destroyed the early blossoms on the trees in Adar, but the trees themselves were still unharmed until arbeh came and finished them off in Nissan.  (According to Tos view that the makkos were at least a month long, barad would have to have happened in Teives.  Teivis is in the middle of winter and nothing is growing, so what crops and blossoms could have been destroyed?)  Chasam Sofer explains that according to this view, the makkos began on Rosh haShana, and that is what forced the Egyptians to terminate the shibud then.  The idea of the judgment of the Mitzrim taking a full year (the mishna in Ediyot) is counting from the first time Moshe came before Pharoah, not from the start of the makkos.  How do you fit 7 makkos in the 6 months between R"H and Nissan?  Chasam Sofer answers that it must have been a leap year, and so there would have been seven months in between those dates.

This Chasam Sofer puzzles me.  The reason we have a leap year is in order to keep the lunar and solar calendars in sync.  More specifically, because there is a din that Pesach must fall out in "chodesh ha'aviv," the spring.  If you have a lular calendar that is not synced with the solar calendar by adding leap months (e.g. if I am not mistaken, this is the calendar of the Islamic religion), then lunar months can drift between different seasons.  By adding a leap month approximately once every three years, we ensure that Nissan is always in the spring.  What sense does any of this make before yetzi'as Mitzrayim has happened, before we have been commanded "shamor es chodesh ha'aviv" to make sure to celebrate Pesach in the spring?!  Chasam Sofer is disussing the chronology of the year prior to yetzi'as Mitzrayim.  There is not yet a holiday of Pesach to schedule in any season, so why should there have been any concern about keeping the two calendars, lunar and solar, in sync?

If someone has a better approach, I would appreciate hearing it, but here is my thought: Had you asked me, I would have said that before we were given the mitzvah of kiddush ha'chodesh, there was no such thing as a halachic calendar.  We could have followed the Mayan calendar, the Chinese calendar, the Julian calendar, or made up something from scratch.  However, this does not seem to be the case.  There is a Pirkei d'Rabbi Elazar (ch 8) which writes that the sod ha'ibbur was given to Adam haRishon:

בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁמוֹנֶה בֶּאֱלוּל נִבְרְאוּ חַמָּה וּלְבָנָה. וּמִנְיָן שֶׁהוּא שָׁנִים וְחֳדָשִׁים וְיָמִים וְלֵילוֹת שָׁעוֹת וְקִצִּים וּתְקוּפוֹת וּמַחְזוֹרוֹת וְעִבּוּרִין הָיוּ לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, וְהָיָה מְעַבֵּר אֶת הַשָּׁנָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְסָרָן לְאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּגַן עֵדֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ה, א): ״זֶה סֵפֶר תּוֹלְדֹת אָדָם״, מִנְיַן עוֹלָם לְכָל תּוֹלְדוֹת בְּנֵי אָדָם.

And it was then passed b'mesorah until it got to the Avos.  So there was a halachic calendar, with leap years, etc. even before the mitzvah of kiddush ha'chodesh was given.  What then was the chiddush of the mitzvah?  I think what you have to say is that the mitzvah did not create the calendar we use, but rather the chiddush of the mitzvah is that we, Klal Yisrael, have been granted control over the calendar.  Whether there will be a leap year or not is entirely up to us to decide.  The mitzvah empowered us as a people, which is the first step in the transition from slavery to freedom.  It is that idea of empowerment which is why this mitzvah is in our parsha, as part of the story of yetzi'as Mitzrayim. 

a question that need not be answered

Last week's parsha ended with Moshe questioning Hashem: לָמָה הֲרֵעֹתָה לָעָם הַזֶּה לָמָּה זֶּה שְׁלַחְתָּנִי.

Why, wondered Moshe, did Hashem send him to demand the release of Bn"Y when the time was not yet ripe for that to happen? Why send him now when things are only going to get worse before they can become better?

Our parsha opens with Hashem's reaction and response:

וָאֵרָא אֶל אַבְרָהָם אֶל יִצְחָק וְאֶל יַעֲקֹב בְּקל שַׁדָּי וּשְׁמִי ה׳ לֹא נוֹדַעְתִּי לָהֶם

How does that address Moshe's question of why he was sent prematurely?

We find another question in this week's parsha that also seems to go unanswered. When Bn"Y reject Moshe and his message, he turns to Hashem and makes a kal v'chomer (6:12):

הֵן בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא שָׁמְעוּ אֵלַי וְאֵיךְ יִשְׁמָעֵנִי פַרְעֹה וַאֲנִי עֲרַל שְׂפָתָיִם

The parsha then continues:

וַיְדַבֵּר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן וַיְצַוֵּם אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶל פַּרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרָיִם לְהוֹצִיא אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם

What is the answer to Moshe's argument? It sounds like Hashem just reiterates what Moshe's mission is. As Ohr haChaim puts it:

עוד קשה היכן תשובת אל עליון לדברי שלוחו, ומה גם שטען טענה הנשמעת, ולו יהיה שטעה וק״ו אינו ק״ו, היה לו לסתור דבריו,

Rashi sounds like he tries to deal with this issue: לפי שאמר משה: אני ערל שפתים (שמות ו׳:י״ב), צירף הקב״ה את אהרן עמו להיות לו למליץ It's not clear what Rashi means, as already in last week's parsha Hashem had designated Aharon to serve as Moshe's spokesman to help convey his message, and still Moshe complained that he was not being heard (see Malbim).

R' Aharon Soloveitchik writes that in fact Hashem here does not offer any answer Moshe's kal v'chomer. Kal v'chomer is a law of logic. It is one of the 13 midos that a person can darshan without a mesorah, based solely on deductive reasoning. Using the kelim of logic, of reasoning, Moshe's argument makes perfect sense and is entirely justified. Yet, at the same time, his argument is also immaterial. The destiny of Bn"Y transcends logic and reasoning. It takes place on a different plane altogether, as we have seen time and again in our history.

Rav Kook writes in a famous letter (555) to the Ridbaz that there are two forces that guide Jewish  destiny: segulah and bechira

ידע הדר"ג, ששני דברים עיקריים ישנם שהם יחד בונים קדושת-ישראל וההתקשרות האלהית עמהם.

הא' הוא סגולה, כלומר טבע הקדושה שבנשמת ישראל מירושת אבות, כאמור: "לא בצדקתך וגו'" "רק באבותיך חשק ד' לאהבה אותם ויבחר בזרעם אחריהם", "והייתם לי סגולה מכל העמים"; והסגולה הוא כוח קדוש פנימי מונח בטבע-הנפש ברצון ד', כמו טבע כל דבר מהמציאות, שאי-אפשר לו להשתנות כלל, "כי הוא אמר ויהי", "ויעמידם לעד לעולם".

והב' הוא ענין-בחירה, זה תלוי במעשה הטוב ובתלמוד-תורה.

Moshe was looking at the world through the lens of bechira. Would the people choose to listen to him? Would Pharoah choose to listen to him and free Bn"Y? Or as he asked in last week's parsha, would the people deserve redemption? But that is only half the picture. The fate of Klal Yisrael is governed by segulah, but a mystical connection with Hashem that bends history to its arc and goal irrespective of the choices or actions we ourselves make or the choices others make and impose upon us.

Shem m'Shmuel (5671) suggests that this is the answer Hashem was giving Moshe at the opening of our parsha. The Avos sought to reveal Hashem's presence in the material world of teva. "Who is the baal ha'birah, asked Avahram, "The creator of the universe, the world and everything in it?" In other words, Avraham was out to prove that G-d is the one who governs this thing called teva. But, “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” וּשְׁמִי ה׳ לֹא נוֹדַעְתִּי לָהֶם to introduce Hashem as beyond teva. That was the role of Moshe Rabeinu. The experience of additional suffering by Bn"Y was not in spite of Moshe's arrival, but it was because of Moshe's arrival. The new giluy of Hashem as transcendent, as not just baal ha'teva but l'maaleh min ha'teva, requires tikkun, requires Bn"Y earning that realization, the suffering became more intense rather than less.

geulah delayed is geulah denied

Hashem told Moshe that if the people ask him what G-d's name is, he should reply (3:14):

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקים אֶל מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה תֹאמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם.

Why the repetition of וַיֹּאמֶר in the pasuk when only Hashem is speaking?  Rashi explains that between the lines there was actually a debate between Hashem and Moshe. Hashem revealed his name as אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, meaning that He will be with Bn"Y not just now, but in future times of distress as well. Moshe was not happy with this esponse. אמר לפניו: רבונו של עולם, מה אני מזכיר להם צרה אחרת, דים בזו. Why mention future problems when the people have enough on their plate right now? Hashem agreed with Moshe's argument and said to tell the people just אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם and omit any mention about the future.

Of course Moshe was not smarter than Hashem and didn't have a better read on the people than Hashem. Moshe's question was based on a misunderstanding of Hashem's response (see Gur Aryeh, Rashbam). Hashem first revealed to Moshe for the sake of Moshe's own private understanding what the essence of His "name" (whatever that means) is: וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקים **אֶל מֹשֶׁה** אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה. Hashem knew that this would not fly with the masses. The response to the people is therefore different: וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה תֹאמַר **לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל** אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם. The shakla v'terya between Moshe and Hashem is not Moshe correcting G-d, but rather Moshe clarifying what G-d's message really was.

R' Nosson Ra'anan, son in law of Rav Kook, suggested a deeper meaning to Moshe's question (quoted here ). Earlier this year we discussed the question of whether it is better to do a mitzvah with zerizus right away even imperfectly or whether it is better do the mitzvah b'hidur even if it comes at the price of a delay. A halacha l'maaseh example: Is it be better to do the mitzvah of netilas lulav first thing sukkos morning even if it means using a less perfect lulav and esrog, or is it better to wait until later in the day if a more perfect esrog will be available only then? We discussed the Chasam Sofer on VaYeira who explains that Avraham told Sarah to prepare bread as quickly as possible for the guests that came to be mevaker choleh after his milah even if it meant using a less fine flour, but Sarah felt it was better to take the time to grind the flour properly and make better quality bread even at the cost of a bit of delay. R' Nosson suggested that this is the "debate" between Moshe and Hashem in our parsha. Moshe was bothered מה אני מזכיר להם צרה אחרת because there need not be a צרה אחרת. Bn"Y were supposed to be in Mitzrayim 400 years. Hashem knocked that down to 210 at the cost of the galus being incomplete and requiring successive galuyos to make up the difference. Moshe argued against doing this half baked job. Why rush -- zerizus -- a geulah that is not fully ready to happen? Why not wait whatever extra time it might take for the ideal geulah, one that could take place b'hidur, and do away with any need for future galuyos?

This approach to the argument sheds light on the episode of milah that took place as Moshe was en route back to Mitzrayim. Moshe stopped at an inn and delayed the milah of his son, placing his (or his son's, as the meforshim discuss) life in danger. R' Nosson explained that Moshe's delay was not because he did not take the mitzvah of milah as a serious priority. To the contrary, it was because he valued the mitzvah that Moshe delayed. What kind of bris milah would it ve when you just arrived at the motel, the luggage isn't even unpacked, and you haven't had even a moment to freshen up from the trip much less order the bagels? Better to take a few minutes to properly prepare and do the mitzvah b'hidur! The fact that Moshe is punished shows that Hashem rejected this thinking. Zerizus to bring a baby into the bris outweighs other considerations. Better to do the milah without the bagels, even before getting settled, then to delay even a moment.

This was Hashem's answer to Moshe's earlier argument as well. Zerizus sometimes is better than hidur. A partial geulah that provides immediate relief is still better than no geulah even it is only a temporary remedy. In terms of PR, maybe the people don't want to hear about future troubles, but they do want to hear, and are desperate to hear, that help and hope is on the way.

My wife's uncle, R' Immanuel Shochet z"l, was once asked what makes the Lubavitcher Rebbe's emphasis on moshiach special? There have been many other gedolim who yearned for moshiach and taught others to year for moshiach, e.g. the Chofetz Chaim was known to keep a suitcase packed, ready to go. Uncle Immanuel responded (and I'm paraphrasing, so blame any error in this on me) by saying that while he can't speak for the Rebbe, he thinks the difference is the following: Imagine there was a bas kol that came out from shamayim that told everyone that moshiach would be here in an hour. What would rabbonim do? Everyone would want to prepare in his own way for the monumental moment. Some gedolim would run to say Tehillim. Some would run to go to mikveh and put on Shabbos clothes and finery to greet moshiach. The real Litvishe would probably keep learning for that hour. "You know what the Rebbe would do?" asked Uncle Immanuel. "He would turn to Hashem and ask why we have to wait that extra hour.  The Rebbe would cry to Hashem to bring moshiach now."

All the preparations to greet moshiach b'hiddur cannot make up for having to suffer even just one more hour, or even one more moment, in galus. When the Jewish people need a yeshu'a, Hashem told Moshe, responding b'zerizus is more important than delaying even for the sake of a more perfect outcome.

bris k'rusa li'sefasayim -- words shape reality

וְעַתָּ֗ה אֶֽעֱלֶה־נָּ֛א וְאֶקְבְּרָ֥ה אֶת־אָבִ֖י וְאָשֽׁוּבָה׃... (50:5)  Why stick in the extra word וְעַתָּ֗ה?  We have a concept of "al tiftach peh l'satan."  Don't tempt fate.  If you show that you are not concerned with a potential kitrug, then you are inviting that kitrug.  There is another similar concept called "bris kerusa l'sefasayim."

   מנין שברית כרותה לשפתים – שנאמר (בראשית כ''ב, ה'): וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אֶל נְעָרָיו שְׁבוּ לָכֶם פֹּה עִם הַחֲמוֹר וַאֲנִי וְהַנַּעַר נֵלְכָה עַד כֹּה וְנִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה וְנָשׁוּבָה אֲלֵיכֶם: ואיסתייעא מלתא דהדור תרוייהו. (M"K 18a) 

 

Avraham and Yitzchak returned unharmed from the akeidah just as they said they would, or, to be more exact, because they said they would.  The idea of ברית כרותה לשפתים is, writes Maharasha, like nevuah.  The words that come out of your mouth have tremendous power because they reflect truth.  Therefore, unlike "al tiftach peh l'satan," here it even works to a person's benefit.  R' Shlomo Kluguer in Imrei Shefer writes that this is why Yosef did not want to say just  the words אֶֽעֱלֶה־נָּ֛א ... וְאָשֽׁוּבָה׃  I'm going to go to Eretz Yisrael and will come back -- period, full stop.  You mean that's it?  I come back here, "home" to Egypt, and this where I am going to stay?  ברית כרותה לשפתים  Don't even say such a thing!  Words carry weight.  Instead, וְעַתָּ֗ה אֶֽעֱלֶה־נָּ֛א... וְאָשֽׁוּבָה׃.  Right now, ְעַתָּ֗ה, I will go and will have to come back, but, one day in the future I will go to Eretz Yisrael and not have to come back.  

You know you when you go on your vacation to Eretz Yisrael that you already have a return ticket booked to come "home," but at least when you talk about it, let the trip be וְעַתָּ֗ה אֶֽעֱלֶה־נָּ֛א... וְאָשֽׁוּבָה׃, now I am going and will return. The future hopefully holds something different, a time when we will all go and not have to return anywhere else.  

Yosef's care in his every word is something he got from his father. Earlier in the parsha, Yaakov has Yosef swear that he will ensure that he is buried in me'aras ha'machpeila. Yaakov tells Yosef וַאֲנִ֣י׀ בְּבֹאִ֣י מִפַּדָּ֗ן מֵ֩תָה֩ עָלַ֨י רָחֵ֜ל בְּאֶ֤רֶץ כְּנַ֙עַן֙ בַּדֶּ֔רֶךְ בְּע֥וֹד כִּבְרַת־אֶ֖רֶץ לָבֹ֣א אֶפְרָ֑תָה וָאֶקְבְּרֶ֤הָ שָּׁם֙ בְּדֶ֣רֶךְ אֶפְרָ֔ת הִ֖וא בֵּ֥ית לָֽחֶם. Some read this as Yaakov asking forgiveness of Yosef for not ensuring that his mother is buried there. Meshech Chochma connects Yaakov's words here with the Midrash which explains the reason for Rachel's death is because Yaakov did not make haste to fulfill the vow to return home that he had made when he departed for Lavan's home 

 ורבנן אמרי כל מי שנודר ומשהה נדרו קובר את אשתו הה״ד: ״ואני בבואי מפדן מתה עלי רחל.

Yaakov was hinting to Yosef that he should not delay fulfilling the vow to bury him in Eretz Yisrael as he knows first hand that the danger that can come from such action. You make a promise -- keep your word and take care of it right away.  On an even simpler level, Rashi at the end of VaYeitzi gives a different reason for Rachel's death. Since Yaakov said to Lavan עִ֠ם אֲשֶׁ֨ר תִּמְצָ֣א אֶת־אֱלֹהֶ֘יךָ֮ לֹ֣א יִֽחְיֶה֒, he inadvertently invited trouble. וְלֹֽא־יָדַ֣ע יַעֲקֹ֔ב כִּ֥י רָחֵ֖ל גְּנָבָֽתַם says the pasuk, because, as the Bechor Shor explains, had Yaakov known, those words לֹ֣א יִֽחְיֶה֒ would have never come out of his mouth. ברית כרותה לשפתים! Perhaps Yaakov meant to tell Yosef that if this is the power of words, kal v'chomer he should be extra careful to make sure to fulfill his promise to bury Yaakov. Now, when the time has come for Yosef to fulfill that promise, he remembers the lesson ברית כרותה לשפתים that his father was trying to impart.  He is therefore extra careful with his own words.

I think this sheds light on the penultimate pasuk in the parsha, וַיַּשְׁבַּ֣ע יוֹסֵ֔ף אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר פָּקֹ֨ד יִפְקֹ֤ד אֱלֹקים֙ אֶתְכֶ֔ם וְהַעֲלִתֶ֥ם אֶת־עַצְמֹתַ֖י מִזֶּֽה (50:25). Rabeinu Bachyei is medayek that the pasuk doesn't say וַיַּשְׁבַּ֣ע יוֹסֵ֔ף אֶת אחיו, but rather it refers to בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל. Yosef meant to include in his oath anyone who would in the future be part of Bnei Yisrael, not just his immediate brothers. So who is the לֵאמֹ֑ר speaking to? There is a Midrash interprets לֵאמֹ֑ר to mean that the Yosef's brothers would administer this same oath their children, and their children to their chidren, etc. until it could be fulfilled. According to Rabeinu Bachyei, all those future generations are automatically be included in the original oath.

 היה הכתוב ראוי לומר וישבע יוסף את אחיו אלא מלמד שהשביע לכל מי שהוא מבני ישראל ואפילו העתידים להיות.

So why do you need the לֵאמֹ֑ר in the pasuk? I think that even according to Rabeinu Bachyei, the Midrash's interpretation, that Yosef was telling his brothers to speak to future generations, works. Yosef's goal was not just to bind future generations to keep the promise he made them give.  Yosef's goal was to enable them to do so.  Yosef wanted to give future generations the hope and inspiration to survive the galus so that one day there would be a Klal Yisrael who would fulfill their promise to him.  Therefore, he not only had them promise וְהַעֲלִתֶ֥ם אֶת־עַצְמֹתַ֖י מִזֶּֽה, to take his bones out with them, but he had them promise לֵאמֹ֑ר פָּקֹ֨ד יִפְקֹ֤ד אֱלֹקים֙ אֶתְכֶ֔ם, to keep saying to their children, to keep saying to themselves, that they would be redeemed.  It's not enough to believe it.  Yosef wanted them to make that promise into a mantra, לֵאמֹ֑ר, to keep repeating it gain and again.   ברית כרותה לשפתים If you say it, it will become the reality.  That was the message Yosef took from Yaakov as Yaakov's life drew to a close, and that is the message he passed on as his own life ended as well.

is there an ethical taint to chochma achieved through the motivation of kinas sofrim? Chazon Ish vs Rav Kook

 (45:22):לְכֻלָּ֥ם נָתַ֛ן לָאִ֖ישׁ חֲלִפ֣וֹת שְׂמָלֹ֑ת וּלְבִנְיָמִ֤ן נָתַן֙ שְׁלֹ֣שׁ מֵא֣וֹת כֶּ֔סֶף וְחָמֵ֖שׁ חֲלִפֹ֥ת שְׂמָלֹֽת 

The gemara (Meg 16) asks how could Yosef make the very same mistake his father had made in giving him the kesones pasim by giving Binyamin more than what he gave the other brothers:

 אפשר דבר שנצטער בו אותו צדיק, יכשל בו, דאמר רבא בר מחסיא א״ר חמא בר גוריא אמר רב בשביל משקל שני סלעים מילת, שהוסיף יעקב ליוסף משאר אחיו, נתגלגל הדבר וירדו אבותינו למצרים, [עביד בה איהו מילתא בבנימן כי היכי דמקנו ביה אחוה.] א״ר בנימין בר יפת רמז רמז לו שעתיד בן לצאת ממנו, שיצא מלפני המלך, בחמשה לבושי מלכות, שנאמר (אסתר ח׳:ט׳). ומרדכי יצא בלבוש מלכות תכלת וגו׳ 

The gemara answers that the extra portions given to Binyamin allude to the royal garments of Mordechai. 

Everyone asks: how does this answer the question? Is alluding to Mordechai's future position a heter to arouse jealousy?! 

There is a hesber given by the GR"A. When speaking about the gifts to the brothers, the torah spells the word חֲלִפ֣וֹת malei, with a vav in the word. When it speaks about the gift to Binyanim, it is written chaseir, without the vav. The GR"A explains that it is written chaseir to indicate that the clothes given to Binyamin were of inferior quality to those that were given to the other brothers. Years ago I heard this GR"A said over by R' Pelcowitz z"l, and the way he put it is the brothers each got a Brooks Brothers suit. Binyamin may have gotten 5 suits, but they were Syms suits (I guess this makes sense only if you are old enough to remember shopping at Syms). 

Ok, so there is a GR"A, but the question is still a good question. 

I want to raise a different question on this same gemara.  In last's week's parsha of Mikeitz we read a very similar pasuk to what we have this week: (43:34): וַיִּשָּׂ֨א מַשְׂאֹ֜ת מֵאֵ֣ת פָּנָיו֮ אֲלֵהֶם֒ וַתֵּ֜רֶב מַשְׂאַ֧ת בִּנְיָמִ֛ן מִמַּשְׂאֹ֥ת כֻּלָּ֖ם חָמֵ֣שׁ יָד֑וֹת וַיִּשְׁתּ֥וּ וַֽיִּשְׁכְּר֖וּ עִמּֽוֹ  Why did Chazal wait to ask their question until our parsha? Why didn't they jump in last week and ask on that pasuk אפשר דבר שנצטער בו אותו צדיק, יכשל בו,? 

Furthermore, take a look at Seforno there who comments: תרב משאת בנימין – לראות אם יקנאו בו. Didn't the Seforno know the gemara? Why does he need to come up with his own explanation of what Yosef was trying to accomplish by giving Binyamin extra when Chazal already give a perfectly good explanation? (Of course one can say the gemara is derash and the Seforno is explaining peshuto shel mikra.  If you like that answer, by all means stick with it as that is the answer I would give if I didn't have something else I want to say here : )

For all the bad rap the kinah gets -- הַקִּנְאָה וְהַתַּאֲוָה וְהַכָּבוֹד, מוֹצִיאִין אֶת הָאָדָם מִן הָעוֹלָם (Avos ch 4) -- there is also something to be said for jealousy. The gemara (Baba Basra 21) tells us קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה. If you see your neighbor driving a Lamborghini and you are so jealous that you run out and buy an even better sportscar just to show him up, that's not a good thing. But if you hear someone say a great shiur and you say to yourself, "I wish I had that person's yediyos," and it gets you to sit and learn an extra hour or two every day or every week, that's קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה. Kinah can be a motivator for ruchniyus, not just gashmiyus. 

We've seen an example of this in previous parshiyos. וַתֵּרֶא רָחֵל כִּי לֹא יָלְדָה לְיַעֲקֹב וַתְּקַנֵּא רָחֵל בַּאֲחֹתָהּ (30:1)  Rashi comments that Rachel was not jealous because Leah had children and she did not, but rather קנאה במעשיה. אמרה: אילולי שצדקת ממני לא זכתה לבנים. Maharal comments in Gur Aryeh: דחלילה בצדקת להיות מקנאת, שהקנאה מוציא את האדם מן העולם.

R' Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi uses this idea to explain the gemara in Megillah. If bestowing a bigger gift on Binyamin would have aroused the brothers to be jealous of his wardrobe, of the number of suits he had in his closet, then Yosef indeed should have known better. But that's not the sort of petty jealously we are talking about here. The suits given to Binyamin were a siman that Binyamin has in his spiritual DNA the trappings of malchus:  רמז לו שעתיד בן לצאת ממנו, שיצא מלפני המלך בחמשה לבושי מלכות  If Binyamin's great-great... grandson Mordechai would some day exhibit those traits of malchus, it means those same traits are already latent in Binyamin himself.  If the brothers would be jealous because Binyamin had that midah, then קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה, let the brothers be aware of it and let them covet it and aspire to it themselves. 

Worth noting in passing: The L. Rebbe explains (  תורת מנחם התוועדויות תשמ''ה - חלק ב p870 ) that the jealousy the brothers had for Yosef -- וַיְקַנְאוּ בוֹ אֶחָיו (37:11) -- was this type of קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה jealously, and that is exactly what Yaakov was trying to arouse in them by giving Yosef the kesones pasim.

We can now answer our other questions as well. Why didn't Chazal make this derasha in last week's parsha? Because in last week's parsha the brothers still thought they were dealing with an Egyptian viceroy. In that context, a wardrobe of suits is just a wardrobe of suits.  They could not have possibly seen it as  רמז רמז לו... Any kinah aroused from Binyamin getting such a gift would be the negative form of kinah, which there can be no excusing.  Why then did Yosef tempt fate and give Binyamin a larger portion? Seforno gives us the answer: as a test to see whether the brothers had this base emotion within them. 

All the questions are answered, but I can't leave well enough alone. I think there is a deeper understanding possible. 

There is a teshuvah of the Minchas Yitzchak (4:75) which discusses the terms under which a teacher can be dismissed.  Aside from purely halachic sources, he cites a section from the Chazon Ish's kuntres on Emunah u'Bitachon to address the ethical issues in the discussion.  The C.I. writes that if outsiders were to come into a neighborhood and open a school to compete with the institutions that already exist in that community, the result would probably be that the existing schools a would wage a PR campaign against the new guys infringing on their turf. They would probably bad mouth the new school and question the newcomer's right to encroach on their turf. Had the halacha said that the newcomer was guilty of unfair encroachment, then the existing schools would not be guilty of sinah or lashon ha'ra or anything like that. To the contrary, their battle would be a milchemes Hashem, a holy fight to preserve the existing communal institutions.  But the halacha is in fact קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה.  There is no issur of encroachment here. Since the halacha says the new guys are within their rights, those who would wage a campaign to shut them down are not fighting for what's holy and right, but are violating the issur of sinas chinam, of lashon ha'ra, etc. The question of whether a negative reaction to the new school opening is justified or not is completely and solely dependent on the halachic question of whether the new school has a right to open.  Meaning, you cannot have a scenario where they are allowed to open, קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה, but it is nonetheless considered the wrong thing to do which would justify protest against it.

While Rav Kook does not address this case in particular, his understanding of קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה could not be more different.  He writes in Orot haTechiya 38:

 החכמה שמתרבה מתוך קנאת סופרים, כיון שבאה מתוך קנאה סופה להרקב (משלי יד, ל), וכל רקבון יש בו סרחון, וזאת היא חכמת סופרים שתסרח בעקבתא דמשיחא ועל ידי סרחון זה תתבטל צורתה הקודמת, ויוחל להיות מאיר אור הנשמה של החכמה העליונה מכל קנאה, שהיא למעלה מחכמת סופרים, היא החכמה שתצא לאור על ידי שיר חדש ושם חדש אשר פי ד' יקבנו (ישעיה מב, י; סב, ב). "וִיהִי כַזַּיִת הוֹדוֹ וְרֵיחַ לוֹ כַּלְּבָנוֹן" (הושע יד, ז). 

As R' Moshe Mordechai Epstein is quoted as putting it, קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה, so you gain chochma, but what about the taint of kinah? There is an instrumental good to using kinah in this way, but that doesn't mean you are immune from the ethical stain that comes with it. Rav Kook is making the same point. Ultimately, chochma earned through kinah is subject to רְקַב עֲצָמוֹת קִנְאָה. This is what the Mishna in Sotah means when it tells us that as we get closer to the ultimate geulah וחכמת סופרים תסרח. We will aspire to a higher level of chochma that does not need competition and jealousy as a means to being acquired. To Rav Kook, to baalei mussar like R'MM Epstein, the ethical taint cannot be overcome by purely halachic arguments alone. תרבה חכמה may justify the קנאת סופרים, but it cannot whitewash it or erase its effects. The CI, I think, would beg to differ. 

This sugya of kinas sofrim is a snif of the larger, far reaching question of whether halacha determines ethical norms or whether there exists an ethic independent of halacha, a question which many have addressed. 

For my purposes, I think in light of Rav Kook's approach, the Seforno and the gemara's derasha go hand in hand. Was there a justification, a "heter," for Yosef to tempt fate and arouse the jealousy of the brothers by giving more to Binyamin? R' B.M. Ezrachi reads Chazal as telling us that this type of jealousy for malchus falls under the umbrella of קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה and therefore is permitted. Yet at the same time, for the brothers and for Yosef who had been stung in the past by jealously, especially given the Rebbe's interpretation that the giving of the kesones pasim, which led to this whole tragedy, was itself a permissible means of קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה, there was a challenge here, a test, as the Seforno writes. Would they in fact fall prey to jealousy of Binyamin, even if justified, even if for a good cause?  Or were they beyond even that "noble" form of jealousy? The unification of the brothers, of Yehuda and Yosef, portends the day when we will all be unified, when instead of קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה pushing us and motivating us, we will instead be inspired, as Rav Kook writes, by אור הנשמה של החכמה העליונה מכל קנאה, שהיא למעלה מחכמת סופרים, היא החכמה שתצא לאור על ידי שיר חדש ושם חדש אשר פי ד' יקבנו.

rosh chodesh Teives / Chanukah -- 1 chiyuv to say full hallel, or 2 independent chiyuvim, full hallel + chatzi hallel

When we daven b'tzibur the custom is for the chazan to say out loud the last sentence or two of each section of hallel, similar to other parts of davening when the chazan reads aloud the last line of a bracha or section of tefilah. When chatzi hallel is recited on rosh chodesh, that means the chazan says the concluding sentence of the paragraph that starts "Hashem zicharanu yevareich..." and the concluding sentence of the paragraph that starts "mah ashiv." When we say full hallel, the chazan also says the concluding lines in the paragraphs before these as well, i.e. the paragraph that starts "lo lanu..." and the paragraph that starts "ahavti..." 

I don't understand why we do things this way. "Lo lanu" is the start of a perek.  That perek concludes "v'anachnu nevareich K-h." Why doesn't the chazan read straight through the entire perek and only say out loud that last line, not the last line before "Hashem zicharanu yevareich...?"  "Hashem zicharanu yevareich..." is an independent unit only when we say half hallel because when we say half hallel we skip "lo lanu" and start in the middle of the perek.  But why create that artificial break when we are saying full hallel?   

The simple answer of course is that the chazan is just following the pattern he is used to from the times we say half hallel. But maybe there is more to it than that. 

I saw the following chakirah: when we say full hallel, is there also a chiyuv of half hallel lurking in the shadows, or does the chiyuv of full hallel eclipse the chiyuv of half hallel and so that doesn't exist at all? For example, on rosh chodesh Teives, are there two independent chiyuvim of hallel, i.e. a chiyuv of full hallel because it's Chanukah, and a chiyuv half hallel because of rosh chodesh, or would you say that since there is a chiyuv full hallel, there can't possibly exist a separate chiyuv of half hallel? 

Nafka minos: if someone only knows part of hallel, should they at least say that, even if they don't know the whole thing? If someone said a bracha and omitted a part of hallel, is it a bracha l'vatala?

The same chakira can even come into play on a day like the first days of Pesach. Is there only a chiyuv of full hallel -- all or nothing -- or can you argue that the first days cannot be worse than chol ha'moed, where there is a chiyuv of half hallel?  Just because there is an additional chiyuv of saying full hallel does not negate the lesser chiyuv -- or does it? 

Minhag Sefard is to say the bracha "ligmor es ha'hallel" when reciting full hallel and "likroh" when reciting half hallel, but minhag Ashkenz follows the Maharam Rutenburg who writes that we should always say "likroh." Tur (488) explain that Mahram Rutenburg was concerned lest one leave out a word in hallel, which would render saying "ligmor" a bracha l'vatala. Mishna Berura asks: if the mitzvah is to say full hallel, even if one said the bracha "likroh," wouldn't it be a bracha l'vatala anyway?  Since you missed a word, you didn't do the mitzvah, and the bracha is therefore l'vatalah?  

The MB's question hinges on the chakirah we raised. If there still exists in the shadows a chiyuv of half hallel even on days when there is a greater chiyuv of full hallel, then if one missed a word, one would still be yotzei the lesser chiyuv of half hallel and the bracha would be chal on that chiyuv.  MB must have assumed like the other side of the chakirah, namely, that when there is a chiyuv full hallel, it eclipses and negates the chiyuv half hallel. 

I think the nusach ha'tefilah indicates that even when there is a chiyuv to say full hallel, the chiyuv of half hallel still exists in the shadows and that's why the chazan still sticks in those breaks in the middle to demarcate the same section breaks that are used when we say half hallel.