inyanei 9 Av: techi'as ha'meisim of Beis HaMikdash

R' Shlomo Fisher (Beis Yishei) quotes from R' Yitzchak Isaac Chaveir and other sources that binyan beis ha'mikdash of the (near) future is like techi'as ha'meisim. This is not just a philosophical idea, but is something which he takes seriously l'halacha. Rashi and Tos (R"H 30) hold that even though there is a din not to build the mikdash at night, that rule does not apply to the bayis shlishi since it will come down from shamayim. The Mikdash David asks: how does the fact that it will come down from shamayim help? The din of not building at night is not like an issue melacha. It's a psul in the din mikdash. No matter how it comes into being, the fact that it happens at night renders the building unfit to serve as the makom mikdash. Furthermore, asks the Mikdash David, there is a din that binyan ha'bayis has to be done lishma. How do you fulfill binyan lishma if the building drops from the sky? The answer to both questions, says R' Shlomo Fisher, is that these are halachos in binyan ha'bayis, but the third beis hamikdash is not a not a new binyan -- it's a techi'as ha'meisim of the binyan which was already done in the past.  Like we discussed two weeks ago, according to many Achronim (except for the Aderet), if a person experiences techi'as ha'meisim and comes back to life they are the same person with the same relationships and same identity that they had beforehand. So too with respect to the beis ha'mikdash. It was already built lishma, it was already built only during the day, and now it is returning as a techi'as ha'meisim and coming back to us.

The Midrashim and Zohar tell us that you can't make something from nothing. You can't make a techi'as ha'meisim where there is nothing left from the original person. That's why we have the luz bone, which according to Chazal is indestructible. It's the luz bone that we nourish when we eat melaveh malkah which ensures that there is something left of us to bring back in techi'as ha'meisim. 

What is the luz bone, so to speak, of the beis ha'mikdash? R' Shlomo Fisher writes that it is our yearning for the mikdash's return. So long as we mourn its absence, so long as the mikdash lives on in our hearts and minds, there is something left that can be rebuilt.

The gemara writes (Taanis 30b)

 כׇּל הָאוֹכֵל בָּשָׂר וְשׁוֹתֶה יַיִן בְּתִשְׁעָה בְּאָב עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר {יחזקאל ל״ב:כ״ז} וַתְּהִי עֲוֹנוֹתָם עַל עַצְמוֹתָם.

Ritva explains: פירש שאין לעצמותיו תחיה בתחיית המתים. Midah k'neged midah: someone who does not mourn the mikdash and therefore does not participate in the techi'as ha'meisim of the mikdash will in turn not be zocheh to their own techi'as ha'meisim either.

It seems to me that this exact idea is reflected in the GR"A at the end of his commentary on the Sifra d'Tzniyusa, quoted in the sefer HaKitzu v'Raninu (by the Chalban) p 31, "Sod haGalus":

כי עת שחרב הבית יצאה עטרת ראשינו ונשארנו רק אנחנו הוא גוף שלה בלא נפש. ויציאה לחוּּּ״ל הוא הקבר, והרימה מסובבת עלינו ואין בידינו להציל מן העובדי כוכבים האוכלים בשרנו. ומּּ״מ היו חבורות וישיבות גדולות, עד שנרקב הבשר והעצמות נפזרו פיזור אחר פיזור. ומּּ״מ היו עדיין העצמות קיימות, שהן התּּ״ח שבישראל, מעמידי הגוף, עד שנרקבו העצמות ולא נשאר אלא תרווד רקב מאיתנו ונעשה עפר, שחה לעפר נפשינו, ואנחנו מקווים עתה לתחיית המתים התנערי מעפר קומי וכוּ ויערה רוח ממרום עלינו

Says the GR"A, we are the remnant of the mikdash! רק אנחנו הוא גוף שלה. As long as we are here to mourn, and long as we are here to yearn, עדיין העצמות קיימות. Soon enough IY"H התנערי מעפר קומי וכוּ ויערה רוח ממרום עלינו!

inyanei 9 Av: saying shiras ha'yam in pesukei d'zimra; women reciting havdalah

1) The Tur (559) quotes a view that on 9 Av in shacharis the shiras ha'yam should be omitted, as 9 Av is not a time of shirah. Beis Yosef comments:

ומ"ש שיש מקומות שנוהגין שלא לומר השירה כ"כ הכלבו והטעם משום דאין לומר שירה לעת כזאת והעולם נוהגין לומר במקומה שירת האזינו :

Rav Ovadya, who sees the Beis Yosef as THE authoritative and accepted source, therefore paskens that shiras ha'yam is said. However, I saw that R' Shlomo Toledano writes in his sefer Divrei Shalom v'Emes (written to defend the preservation of other minhagim against R' Ovadya's use of the Beis Yosef to steamroll over them) that North African communities, e.g. Morocco, do follow this view quoted in the Tur.

What is the hesber of the machlokes? I do not think it is as simple as דאין לומר שירה לעת כזאת, that there is a ban on saying shirah, because what is Ha'Azinu if not shirah? According to many opinions the mitzvah of "kitvu lachem es ha'shirah ha'zos" is speaking about Ha'Azinu. The way Ha'Azinu is written in the Torah, in two parallel columns, is reflective of the structure of shirah and not prose. I think the issue is that saying az shir in particular is a contradiction to the essence of what 9 Av is all about. The Targum translates the pasuk זֶ֤ה ק-לִי֙ וְאַנְוֵ֔הוּ as וְאֶבְנֵי לֵיהּ מַקְדַּשׁ (the word נוה = dwelling). Later in the shirah we have נֵהַ֥לְתָּ בְעׇזְּךָ֖ אֶל־נְוֵ֥ה קׇדְשֶֽׁךָ, and similarly מָכ֧וֹן לְשִׁבְתְּךָ֛ פָּעַ֖לְתָּ ה׳ מִקְּדָ֕שׁ ה׳ כּוֹנְנ֥וּ יָדֶֽיךָ. The shirah expresses not only the joy of Bn"Y at seeing the revelation of gadlus Hashem at that moment, but also the desire to give that revelation a permanent place, a permanent home, in their midst. Shiras ha'yam is a song of aspiration for the binyan hamikdash, and it is that theme which does not fit with 9 Av, the day dedicated to mourning the destruction of the mikdash. Hazinu, which speaks of שִׁחֵ֥ת ל֛וֹ לֹ֖א בָּנָ֣יו מוּמָ֑ם דּ֥וֹר עִקֵּ֖שׁ וּפְתַלְתֹּֽל, reflects a more apropos theme, and is therefore read in its place.

2) The Rama (OC 296) writes that women should not recite havdalah for themselves on motzei shabbos. This avoids a potential safeik bracha l'vatala. The Rama is hedging his bets, as it could be that havdalah should be treated like kiddush and other mitzvos aseh of shabbos which women are obligated in, or it could be that havdalah is not a mitzvah of shabbos, as it designates the departure of shabbos, and it should therefore be treated as any other zman gerama mitzvah which women are exempt from. (Even though minhag ashkenaz is that women can recite a bracha on a mitzvah which is zman gerama, havdalah is different for various reasons as the meforshim there explain.). 

Even though if there is no other option we pasken that women can recite havdalah for themselves on motzei shabbos, this Rama makes a nafka minah for 9 Av which falls on Sunday like it does this year. In this case, where reciting havdalah motzei shabbos is impossible, some Rishonim (Ramban) hold that the chiyuv havdalah is suspended completely and goes out the window; other Rishonim hold that there is a chiyuv havdalah which can be fulfilled Sunday night, or, if one is feeling ill, before one eats (and if one is ill and must be mavdil the poskim discuss whether to use chamar medina or grape juice). We pasken like the latter view; however, when it comes to whether women can say havdalah on Sunday, there is a sfeik sfeik -- the Rama's safeik whether they can ever say havdalah on any motzei shabbos, and the additional safeik whether there is a chiyuv havdalah or not for anyone when 9 Av falls out on Sunday. Therefore, according to many opinions, women should avoid saying havdalah themselves. Either they should hear havdalah from a man and drink thekos (and the man need not repeat havdalah after the fast), or eat without saying havdalah if there is no other solution. Consult your local rav.

If a woman does say havdalah for herself, the Shmiras Shabbos k'Hilchisa (62:48) writes that it would be better to give the wine/grape juice to a katan to drink if possible. I saw R' Chaim Kanievski quoted as disagreeing. A katan as a definite chiyuv in havdalah, albeit only a chiyuv derabbanan. According to the logic above, there is a sfeik sfeika whether women have a chiyuv at all. If she has no chiyuv, everything recited after the "borei pri ha'gafen" is a hefsek.  If the katan answers "amein" to her havdalah, he has been mafsik between the bracha and drinking. (There is a discussion in general whether a katan who eats on 9 Av is should say havdalah or not, but that's a different story.)

mitzvah for a ben noach to bury their dead?

The Chasam Sofer comments (d"h yatz'u) on the pasuk 

וּמִצְרַ֣יִם מְקַבְּרִ֗ים אֵת֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר הִכָּ֧ה ה׳ בָּהֶ֖ם כׇּל־בְּכ֑וֹר וּבֵאלֹ֣הֵיהֶ֔ם עָשָׂ֥ה ה׳ שְׁפָטִֽים

that the Torah tells us that the Mitzrim were involved in burying their dead because there is a mitzvah for an aku"m to do so, and therefore one might have thought the zechus of the mitzvah would protect and aid the Egyptians, kah mashma lan and even with the zechus of that mitzvah the Jewish people left בְּיָ֣ד רָמָ֔ה לְעֵינֵ֖י כׇּל־מִצְרָֽיִם

I have not done any research on the matter, but off the cuff I have no idea where the Chasam Sofer got the idea that there is a mitzvah for an aku"m to bury their dead.  Which one of the 7 mitzvos bnei noach does this fall under?

a war for kedushas yisrael

The Midrash comments on the pasuk וַיִּשְׁלַח אֹתָם מֹשֶׁה אֶלֶף לַמַּטֶּה לַצָּבָא אֹתָם וְאֶת פִּינְחָס בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן לַצָּבָא:

אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמשֶׁה: נְקֹם נִקְמַת, אַתָּה בְּעַצְמְךָ, וְהוּא מְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶת אֲחֵרִים, אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּתְגַּדֵּל בְּאֶרֶץ מִדְיָן אָמַר אֵינוֹ בְּדִין שֶׁאֲנִי מֵצֵר לְמִי שֶׁעָשָׂה בִּי טוֹבָה, הַמָּשָׁל אוֹמֵר בּוֹר שֶׁשָּׁתִיתָ מִמֶּנּוּ אַל תִּזְרֹק בּוֹ אֶבֶן. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁאֵינָהּ זוֹ מִדְיָן שֶׁנִּתְגַּדֵּל בָּהּ משֶׁה, שֶׁזּוֹ בְּצַד מוֹאָב וְהִיא חֲרֵבָה עַד עַכְשָׁו, לָמָּה שָׁלַח פִּינְחָס, אָמַר, מִי שֶׁהִתְחִיל בְּמִצְוָה הוּא גוֹמֵר, הוּא הֵשִׁיב אֶת חֲמָתוֹ וְהִכָּה אֶת הַמִּדְיָנִית, הוּא יִגְמֹר מִצְוָתוֹ.

Why is there a hava amina that Moshe should have personally taken charge of the war against Midian? We don't find, for example, that Moshe was personally responsible to wage war against Amalek. At the end of Beshalach (17:9) the Torah tells us וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּחַר לָנוּ אֲנָשִׁים וְצֵא הִלָּחֵם בַּעֲמָלֵק and Moshe is not criticized for appointing Yehoshua. Why is the battle against Midian different?

When the officers returned from battle, they brought כְלִי זָהָב אֶצְעָדָה וְצָמִיד טַבַּעַת עָגִיל וְכוּמָז as a gift to the mishkan as a kaparah. Targum Yonasan writes:

ובכל דא חס לן למיתלי עינינן ולא אסתכלנן בחדא מנהן דלא למתחייבא בחדא מנהין ולא נמות במיתותא דמייתין בה רשיעיא לעלמא דאתי

The soldiers did not even look at the women of Midian. Considering that yefat to'ar is permissible at time of war, this would seem to be a very stringent and unnecessary chumra. Why was such a standard imposed here? (See Tos Shabbos 65 and this post.)

This past week the Torah world lost R' Avraham Yitzchak Kilav, a dayan, R"Y in Merkaz haRav, and a rosh Kollel. He discusses these questions and explains that the fight against Midian was not a battle over territory, a battle of conquest or in defense of Eretz Yisrael. The battle against Midian was a battle for kedushas Yisrael. The Midrash says:

אָמַר משֶׁה רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים, אִם הָיִינוּ עֲרֵלִים, אוֹ עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים, אוֹ כּוֹפְרֵי מִצְווֹת, לֹא הָיוּ שׂוֹנְאִין אוֹתָנוּ וְאֵינָן רוֹדְפִין אַחֲרֵינוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל תּוֹרָה וּמִצְווֹת שֶׁנָּתַתָּ לָנוּ, הִלְכָּךְ הַנְּקָמָה שֶׁלְּךָ לָתֵת נִקְמַת ה׳ בְּמִדְיָן.

Midian's weapons, so to speak, were giluy arayos and avodah zarah. Their goal was to rip down the seyagim that protect our identity.  Therefore, when it came to this wa,r the normal rules of milchama did not apply. There was no heter of yefat to'ar because the whole point of this battle was to fight against the exposure to arayos that Midian used to undermine us. In this war sheivet Levi had to go out to battle as well, and the soldiers chosen were אנשים – צדיקים (Rashi 31:3), because these are the people who represent and preserve the kedusha of Klal Yisrael. And finally, Moshe himself should have been personally involved in the battle here. Rashi comments on the use of זה הדבר in the parsha of nedarim at the start of our sedra:

– משה נתנבא בכה אמר ה׳ כחצות הלילה וגו׳ (שמות י״א:ד׳), והנביאים נתנבאו בכה אמר, מוסף עליהם משה שנתנבא בלשון זה הדבר.

The neviim see the mitzvos that we have as they are, but Moshe sees beyond that and can grasp the parsha of nedarim, the ability of a person to prohibit that which is otherwise permissible in order to extend seyagim and thereby add kedusha. Midiam sought to undo the boundaries between Klal Yisrael and the outside world, so it is only fitting that Moshe, who was able to perceive that sometimes there is a need to even add boundaries, should be the one to personally deal with them.

which haftara to read on shabbos rosh chodesh av

There is already debate in the gemara (Meg 31) as to which haftarah to recite this shabbos.  Most communities follow the Maharil who writes that we read the haftarah of Yirmiyahu 2, "shimu," the second of the t'lata d'puranusa, and not the haftarah of rosh chodesh. Maharil explains that since there is a remez in the haftarah of "shimu" to rosh chodesh, we cover both bases that way.  The haftarah tells us (2:24)  פֶּ֣רֶה לִמֻּ֣ד מִדְבָּ֗ר... כׇּל־מְבַקְשֶׁ֙יהָ֙ לֹ֣א יִיעָ֔פוּ בְּחׇדְשָׁ֖הּ יִמְצָאֽוּנְהָ׃.  Rashi comments

חדש אחד יש בשנה שהיא ישנה כל החדש ואז היא נלכדת אף אתם חדש אחד הוכן לכם כבר מימות המרגלים שקבעו אבותיכם בכיית חנם בו תלכדו 

Those who disagree with Maharil may not have found this sevara compelling because of you look at Radak on that pasuk you will find two other interpretations of בְּחׇדְשָׁ֖הּ יִמְצָאֽוּנְהָ that have nothing to do with months of the year:

 יש מפרשים החדש שתשלם הריונה, אז היא מלאה וכבדה, ואז יוכלו להשיגה ולמצאה...ויש מפרשים: בחדשה – בחדושה כלומר בכל עת ימצאוה כאלו עתה תחל לרוץ והיא חדשה במרוצה.

 

Shut Divrei Yatziv (183) writes that the debate over which haftarah to read hinges on how seriously you treat rosh chodesh as a holiday.  If you treat it like a yom tov and hold there is a din of simcha (as is mashma from Rambam nedarim 3:9 who lumps it together with shabbos and yom tov and not among days where the issur fasting is only mi'divrei sofrim like chanukah and purim), then you shouldn't read a haftarah of aveilus.  If you treat it like a more minor festival day, not on the same level as yom tov, then the haftarah of "shimu" is appropriate.

when can a kohen become not a kohen? The chiddush of the Aderet and the bracha given to Pinchas

The gemara Zevachim 101b tells us that even though Aharon and his children had been anointed as kohanim and been invested in their job during the days of miluim, Pinchas was not counted among them and it was not until this parsha that he became a kohen:

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לֹא נִתְכַּהֵן פִּינְחָס עַד שֶׁהֲרָגוֹ לְזִמְרִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם 

The gemara quotes a second opinion

 רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: עַד שֶׁשָּׂם שָׁלוֹם בֵּין הַשְּׁבָטִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּשְׁמַע פִּינְחָס הַכֹּהֵן וּנְשִׂיאֵי הָעֵדָה וְרָאשֵׁי אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״. 

Meaning, it was later, in the days of Yehoshua, when Pinchas was sent as an emissary to prevent the people living in Eivar haYarden from breaking away, that he became a kohen.  What does this second opinion do with the pasuk in our parsha  ״וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו״?  The gemara answers that the pasuk is a bracha.  Rashi and Tos disagree how to interpret that answer.  Rashi explains בשרו שלא תפסוק כהונה מזרעו אבל עדיין לא נתכהן:  Pinchas would in the future be blessed with eternal status as kohen, but it did not happen yet.  Tos explains מיד היה יכול להיות כהן אלא שתחילה צריך להלבישו ולמושחו ולחנכו בחביתין כדין הדיוטות המתחנכים בחביתין כדאמרינן בסוף התכלת (מנחות דף נא:) אבל שמא לא נתרצו לו כל ישראל באותה שעה מפני שהרג נשיא שבט עד ששם שלום בין השבטים בימי יהושע ואז נתרצו לו והלבישוהו [ומשחוהו] וחנכוהו בחביתין:   Pinchas was already appointed kohen by Hashem, but there is a process that has to be followed before he could serve and do avodah and that process depends on Bn"Y acquiescing.  At this point, Bn"Y was not yet on board with what Pinchas had done to Zimri, and so the process was delayed until the days of Yehoshua.  (There is actually a third view, quoted in Zohar, that Pinchas became a kohen with Aharon and his children, but because he killed Zimri he would have lost the kehuna status and been barred from avodah if not for Hashem's intervention and renewal of his status.)

 What's the hesber of the machlokes Rashi and Tos?  One approach I saw is that the gemara (Nedarim 35b) has a safeik אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הָנֵי כָּהֲנֵי, שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן הָווּ, אוֹ שְׁלוּחֵי דִשְׁמַיָּא.  The Rishonim ask why this is a question when the gemara (Kid 23b) proves conclusively that they shluchei d'Shemaya:

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הָנֵי כָּהֲנֵי שְׁלוּחֵי דְרַחֲמָנָא נִינְהוּ. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן נִינְהוּ, מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דַּאֲנַן לָא מָצֵינַן עָבְדִינַן וְאִינְהוּ מָצֵי עָבְדִי? 

Ran answers that Rav Huna's conclusion is correct, but the sugya in Nedarim wanted to explore whether there was a proof from a Mishna or braysa to support that conclusion.  Tosfos in Kid answers that Rav Huna is maybe only half right.  Undoubtedly the kohanim are שְׁלוּחֵי דִשְׁמַיָּא, as Rav Huna proved.  The safeik in Nedarim is only whether kohanim ALSO have a status as  שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן.

 

Rashi holds like the Ran, that a kohen's role is purely  שְׁלוּחֵי דִשְׁמַיָּא.  It is up to Hashem alone to appoint someone to that role.  Tos l'shitasam holds that a kohen also fills a role of being שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן; therefore, even if Hashem granted Pinchas the status of kohen, if Bn"Y were not yet prepared to go along with that decision, he was unable to serve. 

 

Ramban explains the bracha to Pinchas  לָכֵן אֱמֹר הִנְנִי נֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת בְּרִיתִי שָׁלוֹם that וצוהו שיודיע לישראל שהוא כהן לעולם.  Isn't every kohen a כהן לעולם?  Is it possible to be a kohen and not be a כהן לעולם? 

 

The gemara (Brachos 46) relates that Rav Zeira became very ill and recovered.  Rabbi Abahu hosted a party to celebrate, and invited Rav Zeira to say ha'motzi to start the meal.  Rav Zeira declined, as there is a din that the baal ha'bayis should be the one to break the bread.  Asks the Rashba: didn't Rabbi Abahu know that?  What was Rabbi Abahu thinking?  Rashba answers that since the meal is in Rav Zeira's honor, it is like he is the baal ha'bayis.  L'halacha, the MG"A paskens based on this Rashba that the baal ha'bayis can defer and choose to honor someone else.  Ad kan the sugya.  The Aderet writes that he doesn't understand how the Rashba's question even gets off the ground. There is a Yerushalmi that indicates that Rav Zeira was a kohen.  Of course Rav Zeira should have been given the honor to be the one to break bread because a kohen always gets first dibs!  To get around this issue the Aderet serves up a big chiddush.  He suggests that perhaps this episode occurred after the famous Purim seudah in which Rabbah became so inebriated that he (if the gemara is to taken literally) killed Rav Zeira, who was his guest, and then, after realizing what he did, davened and brought Rav Zeira back to life.  True, Rav Zeira 1.0 was a kohen, but maybe a person who is reborn, Rav Zeira 2.0, is a different person entirely, and therefore no longer a kohen! 

 

R'  Meir Don Plotzki in Chemdas Yisrael (78:3) writes that if the Aderet is correct, then we understand what the Ramban in our parsha meant.  Pinchas = Eliyahu, and Pinchas 1.0 is just the first iteration of his time on earth.  Although other people may change status when they come back, Pinchas is blessed, as Ramban writes שהוא כהן לעולם  -- even after coming back to our world for another round, no matter how many times around, he remains a kohen and does not lose his status. 

 

When a letter with this chiddush reached Rav Chaim Berlin, he wrote back to the Aderet that surely he meant this as Purim torah, as there is a black on white gemara against him.  Sanhedrin 90b:

 

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִין לִתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּנְתַתֶּם מִמֶּנּוּ [אֶת] תְּרוּמַת ה׳ לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן״. וְכִי אַהֲרֹן לְעוֹלָם קַיָּים? וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִכְנַס לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ תְּרוּמָה! אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעָתִיד לִחְיוֹת, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹתְנִין לוֹ תְּרוּמָה. מִכָּאן לִתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה.

 

How could Aharon eat terumah after techiyas ha'meisim?  According to the Aderet, wouldn't Aharon 2.0 be a different person than Aharon 1.0 and therefore not have the status of a kohen? 

 

This topic became a to-do.  It's hard to believe the Aderet meant this as a joke because he repeats the chiddush in a few places.  Some rallied to defend the Aderet because they could not believe a genius like that missed a gemara.  The Rambam in Sefer haMitzvos (shoresh 3) writes that after techiyas ha'meisim there will be a new miluim process to sanctify the kohanim just like there was the first time around.  This suggests, in line with what the Aderet wrote, that without such a process Aharon 2.0 would not have the same kohen status as Aharon 1.0.  Surely the Ramban did not forget the gemara in Sanhedrin!  One is forced to say that the gemara in Sanhedrin means that Aharon would be able to eat terumah after the new miluim process is completed.

 

R' Meir Don Plotzki elsewhere (in the Kli Chemdah) says that he is not so happy with this chiddush.  What he says reminds me of an old joke, and sadly I have to admit that I wrote this whole shtickel this week just so I could say this old, bad joke.  A guy who came to the Rabbi and said that he wants the Rabbi to make him a kohen.  The Rabbi told him that it's just not possible.  The guy said, "Come on Rabbi, I'll give $10,000 to the shul if you make me a kohen."  Once again the Rabbi brushed him off.  The guy was not to be disuaded and said, "Rabbi, I'll give $100,000, just make me a kohen."  The Rabbi once again refused, but was curious and asked the man why he wanted so much to be a kohen.  The guy responded, "My father was a kohen, my grandfather was a kohen, so I want to be a kohen."  The Kli Chemdah knew the joke and argues that being a kohen is not like a din or a status or like being right or left handed.  It's a function of a person's lineage.  If your father is a kohen, you're a kohen.  If Rav Zeira or anyone else comes back for round 2.0, their "being" must still have had a father, a grandfather, etc. so how can it be that they are not a kohen? 

 

This topic is an even bigger to-do.  Is 2.0 really the son of the same father as 1.0?  Is he chayav in kibud av?  When Elisha haNavi brought the child of the Isha haShunamis back to life, he told her שְׂאִי בְנֵךְ.  Sounds like the parent is still the parent even though the child is on life 2.0  Is his wife still his wife, or does he need to do kiddushin all over again?  Chazal tell us at mattan Torah "parcha nishmasam" of Klal Yisrael, it was like they died and underwent techiyhas ha'mesim.  Nonetheless, afterwards Hashem commanded "shuvu lachem l'ohaleichem," to return to living together as husband and wife, presumably without a new kiddushin being done.  Sounds like the wife/husband of 2.0 remains the same as that of 1.0.  (Don't think this is all pilpul and theory. Maybe it applies l'maaseh to someone r"l pronounced clinically dead on the operating table, for example, but then somehow recovers?) 

There is pilpul on top of pilpul on these issues.  Tein l'chachan v'yechkam od, this is just roshei perakim to whet the appetite.  

Hein Am k'Lavi Yakum -- having a self-image of greatness

Thanks to current events everyone now knows the pasuk  הֶן עָם כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא... (23:24).  HaKsav v'haKabbalah points out that Chazal in a number of places darshan the word הֶן to mean one, e.g. Shabbos 31b

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵין לוֹ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּעוֹלָמוֹ אֶלָּא יִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם בִּלְבַד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעַתָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל מָה ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ שׁוֹאֵל מֵעִמָּךְ כִּי אִם לְיִרְאָה וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לָאָדָם הֵן יִרְאַת ה׳ הִיא חׇכְמָה וְגוֹ׳״ — שֶׁכֵּן בְּלָשׁוֹן יְוָנִי קוֹרִין לְאַחַת ״הֵן״

He suggests this is the basis of Targum Yonasan's explanation of הֶן עָם as a standalone phrase: יחידאה הוא עמא הדין, we are one people, a single entity.  The strengh of our nation כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא has its roots in our coming together as one.

 

The Aruch in his explanation of the word הֶן says the same vort and adds that if we pair up the letter of aleph-beis, matching bottom of a unit with the top, e.g. aleph/1 pairs with tes/9, beis/2 pairs with cheis/8, etc. the letter hey has nothing to pair with other than itself.  If you do the same with letters in the units of ten, e.g. yud/10 pairs of tzadi/90, etc. the nun with have nothing to pair with other than itself.  Hey-nun הֶן עָם we stand alone; we do not rely on outsiders for support. 

 

The rest of the pasuk speaks about the strength of Am Yisrael being like that of a lion.  Netziv suggests that כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא is not just repetition common in poetry, but reflects two different ideas. כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם refers to the might of the lion.   וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא means rhat aside from that physical might, the lion also knows it is the king of the jungle, and therefore pushes itself to live up to that image of greatness:

 

אריה יש לו טבע התנשאות הנפש, שעל כן מכונה בשם ׳מלך החיות׳, וזה מועיל לו הרבה להפיק רצונו יותר מכפי כוחו גם כן, באשר אינו רוצה שיגרע כבודו אם לא ימצא ידו לעשות מה שהחל או מה שראוי לפניו שיחוש לכבודו.

 

The Yerushalmi in the first halacha in Brachos describes how David haMelech would get up in the morning:

 

הוּא שֶׁדָּוִד אָמַר עוּרָה כְבוֹדִי עוּרָה הַנֵּבֶל וְכִינּוֹר אָעִירָה שָׁחַר. אִיתְעִיר יְקָרִי מִן קוֹמֵי אִיקָרֵיהּ דְּבָרְאִי. אִיקָרִי לָא חָשִׁיב כְּלוּם מִן קֳדָם אִיקָרֵיהּ דְּבָרְאִי.

 

Meaning, he would say to himself that he must awaken his kavod (יְקָרִי) to stand before the kavod of Hashem, and then he would add that his kavod is nothing compared to kavod Shamayim.

 

My esteemed cousin R' Avraham Wagner recently put out a sefer on Ylmi and he comments on this gemara that there are two steps in the process here: David started with a recognition of his own kavod - וַיִּגְבַּהּ לִבּוֹ בְּדַרְכֵי ה׳ - and only then moved onto the next step of acknowledging that compared to kavod Shamayim, his honor was worth nothing.  This is a common theme among baalei mussar.  A person has to have a sense of self worth and value.  If a person thinks they are worthless and can't accomplish anything, they would never get out of bed in the morning.  The Shulchan Aruch in the first halacha where it talks about starting the day tells us יתגבּר כּארי.  The halacha is not about how strong you are, but like the Netziv explains on our pasuk, it's about your self image.  You have to view yourself as a lion, as the king.  The king has great things to accomplish and doesn't have time to linger in his pajamas.  That's how David haMelech pushed himself out of bed.  You can then move on to step 2 and take that greatness and surrender it to Hashem.  However, if you skip step 2 and think you are a worthless nobody, then what are you surrendering?  What's the big deal of saying Hashem is even greater than you are if you don't think you are anything special anyway?  

 

Part of emerging from galus is to not only become a nation with great ability, but to learn to think of ourselves as a great nation, to develop the self-image of being great.  Ibn Ezra writes that at Yam Suf there were 600,000 Jews  against only 600 of Pharoah's chariots but they couldn't fight.  The people still had the mentality of slaves and could not stand up for themselves.   Baruch Hashem, as we emerge from galus, we will develop not only our abilities, but וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא, a mindet of greatness as well.

tzaar baalei chaim

The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim learns from the fact that the malach admoninished Bilaam for striking his donley that there is an issur d'oraysa of causing tzaar baalei chaim.  Achronim ask why the Rambam quotes this as the source for tzaar baalei chaim instead of the mitzvah of perikah, of unloading a donkey, which seems to be the gemara's source.  Furthermore, the Rambam (hil rotzeiach ch 13) paskens that there is no chiyuv to help a nochri unload his donkey.  If we are concerned about the suffering of the animal, what difference does it make if the owner of the animal is a jew or a nochri?  It seems that the Rambam does not hold that tzaar baalei chaim is a d'oraysa.

The Ohr Sameiach (hil shabbos ch 25) answers that when the gemara speaks about tzaar baalei chaim it is a case where the animal's suffering happens m'meila; it is a result of something else the animal is doing, like carrying a burden.  In that circumstance the sugya debates whether tzaar baalei chaim is d'oraysa or not, and whether/when a person has to do something about it.  The Rambam in Moreh is talking about something else entirely.  The Rambam is speaking about a person directly, deliberately causing pain to an animal, like Bilam did when he hit the donkey.  That, says the Rambam, is for sure an issur d'oraysa. 

 

The meforshei Rashi bring up the topic of tzaar baalei chaim in last week's parsha.  When Bn"Y complained about the lack of water, Hashem promised  וְהוֹצֵאתָ֨ לָהֶ֥ם מַ֙יִם֙ מִן־הַסֶּ֔לַע וְהִשְׁקִיתָ֥ אֶת־הָעֵדָ֖ה וְאֶת־בְּעִירָֽם׃ (20:8)   Rashi there comments: ואת בעירם – מכאן שחס הכתוב על ממון ישראל.  The Taz in his Divrei David asks what the proof is from here that שחס הכתוב על ממון ישראל.  Maybe the reason Hashem promised water to the animals is because of tzaar baalei chaim?  Why doesn't Rashi say that Hashem promised water because of tzaar baalei chaim?

 

The question is really a double problem.  First there is the textual question: what in the text motivated Rashi to ascribe the motive for giving water to חס הכתוב על ממון ישראל and not to tzaar baalei chaim?  Taz answers by noting that the pasuk uses the word בְּעִירָֽם -- THEIR animals.  If tzaar baalei chaim was the issue, then the ownership of the animal is irrelevant.  The stress on it being THEIR animal at risk puts the emphasis on the loss incurred by the owner.  (One could argue that Hashem's response is simply a reflection back of the complaint וְלָמָה הֲבֵאתֶם אֶת קְהַל יְהֹוָה אֶל הַמִּדְבָּר הַזֶּה לָמוּת שָׁם אֲנַחְנוּ וּבְעִירֵנוּ where the people spoke about the suffering of THEIR animals, which in context makes perfect sense.)  But there is second question lurking behind the scenes.  Granted that the words of the pasuk suggest the concern here was חס הכתוב על ממון ישראל, but why was the pasuk not concerned with the issue of tzaar baalei chaim?  Shouldn't the animal's pain be at least as much a cause for concern as what its loss might mean to the owner? 

 

This is not just hypothetical quibbling, but perhaps makes a nafka mina l'halacha.  Is one obligated to try to alleviate an animal's pain that one did not cause?  If the source for tzaar baalei chaim stems from the Torah's obligation to assist in unloading an animal, then perhaps the chiyuv only applies in similar such cases where a person was the cause of the suffering in the first place, e.g. by burdening the animal.  However, if our pasuk can serve as a source for tzaar baalei chaim, the concern extends even to cases where the suffering, in this case the thirst, was not caused by human intervention (see Shabbos 128b בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְאַמַּת הַמַּיִם)

 

R' Moshe in Derash Moshe suggests that the reason tzaar baalei chaim is not an issue here is because the parsha is speaking about the miracle of producing  water from a rock.  It is only humans that merit the level of hashgacha pratis that gives rise to Hashem performing miracles on their behalf.  Animals do not warrant the same.

krias haTorah on 17 Tamuz - chiddush of the Shibolei ha'Leket

The Shibolei Leket (263)  says a chiddush regarding krias haTorah on 17 Tamuz.  On other fast days we start the kri'ah wih "va'yichal Moshe..." and we read until the end of Moshe' tefilah (32:11-14).  We then skip ahead to 34:1-10 where the 13 midos are mentioned.  The theme of the kri'ah is tefilah (va'yichal...) and teshuvah (the 13 midos), which are what you are supposed to be doing on a fast day.  Says the Shibolei haLeket, on 17 Tamuz don't skip those middle pesukim -- read the parsha straight through.  Why?  Those intervening pesukim talk about the eigel and the smashing of the luchos.  The mishna tells us that this is one of the tragedies that occurred on 17 Tamuz. Therefore, it reflects the theme of the day.

 Achronim debate whether kri'as haTorah on a fast day is like kri'as haTorah of Yom Tov, i.e. it is one of the ways we demarcate the day, like a "mei'ein ha'meora" decalation, or whether the krias haTorah is part of the nihugei taanis, i.e. just like on the Y"T of Sukkos we celebrate by shaking a lulav and on Pesach we eat matzah, part of what we have to do on a taanis is read pesukim that arouse us to do teshuvah.  Whether someone who is not fasting can get an aliya on a taanis may hinge on this question.  If the kri'ah is part of the nihugei ha'yom of taanis, then someone who is not fasting cannot get an aliya as they are not involved in the nihugei ha'yom.  If the kri'ah is a din in the day, then whether one is personally fasting or not does not matter, as the status of the day remains the same. 

According to Shibolei ha'Leket, the kri'ah of 17 Tamuz is a reflection of the nature of the day, as we are recounting the historical event of cheit ha'eigel and sheviras ha'luchos that took place.

Was the Be'er in the Zechus of Miriam or the Zechus of Avraham?

Unlike the previous episode at Refidim where Moshe hit a rock and it produced water, in our parsha, 40 years later, Moshe was told to speak to the rock and it would produce water.  Why then was Moshe was told to take his staff?  If he wasn't supposed to hit the rock, what was the purpose in having it? 

Maharasha B"M 86b asks the following:  The gemara there relates that the be'er was given to Bn"Y as a reward for Avraham bringing water for his guests/the malachim to wash with:

 

  דאמר ר' חמא בר' חנינא וכן תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל בשכר שלשה זכו לשלשה בשכר חמאה וחלב זכו למן בשכר והוא עומד עליהם זכו לעמוד הענן בשכר יוקח נא מעט מים זכו לבארה של מרים

 

However, the gemara (Taanis 9a) tells us that the be'er appeared in Miriam's merit:

 

ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר שלשה פרנסים טובים עמדו לישראל אלו הן משה ואהרן ומרים וג' מתנות טובות ניתנו על ידם ואלו הן באר וענן ומן באר בזכות מרים עמוד ענן בזכות אהרן מן בזכות משה מתה מרים נסתלק הבאר שנאמר ותמת שם מרים וכתיב בתריה ולא היה מים לעדה וחזרה בזכות שניהן מת אהרן נסתלקו ענני כבוד שנאמר וישמע הכנעני מלך ערד מה שמועה שמע שמע שמת אהרן ונסתלקו ענני כבוד וכסבור ניתנה לו רשות להלחם בישראל והיינו דכתיב ויראו כל העדה כי גוע אהרן אמר ר' אבהו אל תקרי ויראו אלא וייראו כדדריש ר"ל דאר"ל כי משמש בארבע לשונות אי דלמא אלא דהא חזרו שניהם בזכות משה מת משה נסתלקו כולן

 

Which is it that got us the be'er -- Avraham's merit or Miriams?  Interestingly, the gemara in B"M which tells us that the be'er was in Avraham's merit even calls it בארה של מרים, alluding to her merit!

 

Maharasha answers that it would have sufficed for the be'er to appear for a short period as a reward to Avraham.  It took the zechus of Miriam for it to remain with Bn"Y for all 40 years in the midbar.  Iyun Yaakov answers that to reward Avraham the be'er might have appeared at any time.  It was in Miriam's zechus that it appeared in the midbar when needed by Bn"Y.  Shem m'Shmuel offers an answer that gets to the fundamentals of what the miracle of the be'er was all about.  There are "tzvey denim" is the miracle of the be'er: 1) a water source springing up (no pun intended) in the middle of a rock; 2) the water being able to penetrate through the rock and flow out to the people.  

 

הַהֹפְכִי הַצּוּר אֲגַם מָיִם חַלָּמִישׁ לְמַעְיְנוֹ מָיִם

 

Netziv comments:

 

הוכחה שכך רצונו יתברך, ממה שעשה בשעה שהכה צור להוציא מים לצורך ישראל – כתיב (תהלים קה,מא) ״פתח צור ויזובו מים הלכו בציות נהר״, ביאורו, שמתחילה לא הוציא מים בשפע רב משום דאם כן היו אומרים דאין זו בריאה יש מאין אלא ברכה ביסוד המים שבכל צור, על כן מתחילה ״פתח צור ויזובו מים״ – פירוש, יסוד המים שבו יצאו לחוץ, ונשאר אותו הצור כאבן חלמיש שמוציאים ממנו אש באשר אין בו את יסוד המים, ואחר כך ״הלכו בציות נהר״ וראו הכל את כח הנס.

והן הן הדברים: ״ההפכי הצור״ מתחילה ל״אגם מים״, ואחר כך כשנעשה ״חלמיש״ – ״למעינו מים״. ירדן וההרים דברים נפלאים יותר מהנדרש לצורך הענין.

 

Like Netziv, the Shem m'Shmuel sees the pasuk as reflecting two stages, just in the reverse of the way Netziv presents it.  First the stone had to become an אֲגַם מָיִם, like a marsh, a place where water could penetrate and flow.  Secondly, the stone became לְמַעְיְנוֹ מָיִם, meaning, there was a source within the stone from which water sprang. 

 

Hashem gives us the gift of a neshoma that is לְמַעְיְנוֹ מָיִם, an inner spring of ruchniyus from which we can draw strength.  However, that spring won't do any good if a person has a heart of stone that nothing can penetrate.  It's up to us to soften that inner rock wall and fulfill הַהֹפְכִי הַצּוּר אֲגַם מָיִם.

 

This is why both the zechus of Miriam and the zechus of Avraham were needed for the be'er.  It was in Miriam's merit that there was a spring within the rock; that there was a source of water where none was apparent.  It was in the merit of Avraham that the stone became permeable and those waters were able to flow outward and provide sustenance.  Avraham did not allow his age, his feeling ill and recovering from his milah, or the heat of the day to stop him from serving his guests.  Physical hardship melted away in the face of his perseverance.  So too, the walls of physical rock melted away in the path of the spring inside.

 

At Refidim, the start of Bn"Y's 40 year journey, the people's hearts still needed to be softened up.  Moshe was told to strike the rock, as it takes force to break down barriers.  Only then could the waters work their magic.  Fast forward 40 years later, to the end of the journey, to our parsha.  Hashem tells Moshe that he only need speak to the rock.  By this point, are the hears of Bn"Y not soft enough, not permeable enough, to allow in the dvar Hashem?  And yet Moshe is told at the same time to take his staff.  We have bechira.  If need be, we can choose to seal ourselves off, in which case only the staff will do.

 

Sm"S quotes a Zohar that says that if not for the hitting of the rock, we would not have Torah shebaal peh, with all its kushiyos and teirutzim and difficult sugyos.   וְדִבַּרְתֶּם אֶל הַסֶּלַע לְעֵינֵיהֶם וְנָתַן מֵימָיו -- the water of Torah would just flow naturally and be easily absorbed and understood.  If only our hearts were not still so made of stone...  But because they are, we need to work on ourselves.  We need to toil over every kasha and teirutz, because it is that investment of hard work that pounds away at the rock within, eventually allowing the water to flow.