singing the praises of the mishkan

 The Midrash comments on the opening of our parsha:

 אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעֲשִׂיתֶם אֶת הָעֵגֶל הִכְעַסְתֶּם אוֹתִי בְּאֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁעֲשִׂיתֶם הַמִּשְׁכָּן בְּאֵלֶּה אֲנִי מִתְרַצֶּה לָכֶם, הֱוֵי: אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן.

 

What does the Midrash mean that Hashem was angered by the words אֵלֶּה אֱלֹקיךָ by the eigel and אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן is the kapparah?  The problem with the eigel is not a particular word -- it's the fact that the people engaged in idolatry.  

 

Secondly, isn't it the donations that were given toward the mishkan and the effort put in to build it which served as the kapparah?  Our parsha is just the finish line, the end result of all those efforts.

 

The Peirush Mahara"Zu sends you to a passage in Braishis Rabbah 12:1:

 

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר מֶרְיוֹן, כְּתִיב (בראשית ב, ד): אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּרְאָם, בּוֹרְאָן מְשַׁבְּחָן, וּמִי מְגַנָּן. בּוֹרְאָן מְקַלְּסָן, וּמִי נוֹתֵן בָּהֶם דֹּפִי. אֶלָּא נָאִין הֵן וּמְשֻׁבָּחִין הֵם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּרְאָם בְּיוֹם עֲשׂוֹת ה' אֱלֹהִים אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם

 

Chazal undestand that when you say אֵלֶּה it doesn't just mean to identify what you are talking about, i.e. "these" to the exclusion of other things, but it means to connote praise, as if to say, "Take a look at these -- aren't they great?! 

 

The sefer Nachalas Eliezer by the mashgiach of Gateshead, R' Eliezer Kahan, explains that Hashem was telling Bn"Y that it's not just the avodah zarah of the eigel that needed kapparah, but it's the fact that they thought it was a great thing.  We read in Teh 10:3 כִּי-הִלֵּל רָשָׁע, עַל-תַּאֲוַת נַפְשׁוֹ ובֹצֵעַ בֵּרֵךְ נִאֵץ ה׳.  It's not just the fact that the rasha is ensnared by taavah which is a problem, but it's the fact that he boasts and sings the praises of wrongdoing.  They say that while it's possible that there were talmidim who learned by the Alter in Slabodka who went astray, it's impossible that after learning by the Alter that they enjoyed their aveirah the way other people might.  To be a rasha -- maybe; to be כִּי-הִלֵּל רָשָׁע, עַל-תַּאֲוַת נַפְשׁוֹ, that for sure not.  

 

A lot of people say this same vort.   Hashem told Moshe about the eigel when he was on Har Sinai, but it wasn't until he saw the celebration, the enjoyment, that people had that he blew his top   וַיַּרְא אֶת-הָעֵגֶל, וּמְחֹלֹת; וַיִּחַר-אַף מֹשֶׁה (32:19)

 

R' Eliezer Kahan expands on this and writes that the tikun has to fit the crime.  Just like you can have someone who is a rasha but is not  כִּי-הִלֵּל רָשָׁע, עַל-תַּאֲוַת נַפְשׁוֹ and therefore it's a different sin entirely, so too, you can have someone who contributes to a mishkan, who builds a mishkan, who sits say and night in a mishkan, but it's a differnet experience entirely from someone who really enjoys being there.  There are people who come to shul on shabbos morning and it's like a 2 hour jail sentence.  There are people learning in kollel and it's nebach like a lifetime jail sentence.  The kapparah only works if it's  אֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן like  אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּרְאָם, בּוֹרְאָן מְשַׁבְּחָן.  Are you singing the praises of what you are building and where you are at, or are you just there because it's a place to be?

 

In parshas Terumah, there is a description of the amudim: וְעָשִׂיתָ לַמָּסָךְ, חֲמִשָּׁה עַמּוּדֵי שִׁטִּים, וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתָם זָהָב, וָוֵיהֶם זָהָב (26:37).  Those same pillars are described in VaYakhel a bit differently:   וְאֶת-עַמּוּדָיו חֲמִשָּׁה וְאֶת-וָוֵיהֶם, וְצִפָּה רָאשֵׁיהֶם וַחֲשֻׁקֵיהֶם זָהָב (36:38)  Which is it: was the entire pillar coated in gold, or was it only וְצִפָּה רָאשֵׁיהֶם, the head coated on gold?  Chizkuni (see Netziv for a different approach) answers  הוא שפר״ש בפרשת פקודי אפילו דברים שלא אמר לו רבו, alluding to the Rashi in our parsha on the pasuk (38:22) וּבְצַלְאֵ֛ל בֶּן⁠־אוּרִ֥י בֶן⁠־ח֖וּר לְמַטֵּ֣ה יְהוּדָ֑ה עָשָׂ֕ה אֵ֛ת כׇּל⁠־אֲשֶׁר⁠־צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ אֶת⁠־מֹשֶֽׁה that Betzalel figured out that he has to first make a mishkan and only then the kelim even though Moshe had conveyed the message in reverse order (see below).  Whatever the pshat, R' Shaul Alter explains that the Torah is teaching us a lesson in avodah.  If  וְצִפָּה רָאשֵׁיהֶם, your head is focussed on gold=mammon, and וַחֲשֻׁקֵיהֶם זָהָב, your cheishek = desire is all about gold (and gold is lav davka, fill in whatever other taavah you like), that's the entirety of who you are, it's the same as  וְצִפִּיתָ אֹתָם זָהָב, coating everything.  The fact that your body is in shul, or in the beis medrash, doesn't do anything if your mind and heart are somewhere else ,singing the praises of other place and other things. 

 

2) Regarding Rashi's comment that Betzalel was able to intuit what Hashem wanted even when Moshe conveyed the opposite,

 

כי משה צוה לבצלאל לעשות תחלה כלים, ואח״ך משכן. אמר לו בצלאל: מנהג העולם לעשות תחילה בית ואח״ך משים כלים בתוכו. אמר לו כך שמעתי מפי הקב״ה, אמר לו משה: בצל ק-ל היית, כי בודאי כך צוה לי הקב״ה. וכך עשה המשכן תחילה ואח״ך עשה כלים. 

 

How is it possible that Moshe reversed Hashem's instruction and got it wrong?  And if Betzalel somehow knew that Moshe had reversed what Hashem said, why didn't he just say that?  What difference does it make that מנהג העולם לעשות תחילה בית ואח״ך משים כלים בתוכו-- either Hashem said to do it that way or he didn't?

 

Maharal in Gur Aryeh explains that Moshe was the melamed, the rebbe, and he explained the dvar Hashem the way a teacher would, in order of importance of the subject matter.  The kelim were holier and thus more significant than the actual structure of the mishkan, and so Moshe taught those details first.  Betzlalel was the hands-on practicioner who had to translate theory into reality.  In his realm, building the building came before making the kelim.

 

The Sanz-Klausenberger, in Shefa Chaim, explains that the two views represent two different perspectives on avodah.  The mishkan is the place of hashra'as haShechina, where Hashem's presence was manifest.  Moshe thought before that could happen, one first needs kelim for avodah, one needs to put in one's own efforts.  Betzalel took the opposite view.  In theory, and for those on Moshe's level, avodah should come first.  A person should first bring to the table their motivation and hard work and through that earn the hashraas haShechina.  However, not everyone is self-motivated; not everyone is inspired; not everyone can get there.  Betzalel started with the mishkan first.  First give us hashraas haShechina.  First let us feel that Hashem's presence is with us.  That will provide the motivation and the inspiration, and the avodah, the klei ha'mishkan used to serve, will follow. 

 

That's why Betzalel used the argument מנהג העולם...  On Moshe's level, in theory, for those who can do it, of course put the kelim used for avodah first, put effort first.  But that's not how the world at large, unfortunately, operates. That's for the elite, but not for מנהג העולם. 

 

Moshe's response acknowledged the truth of Betzalel's argument.   אמר לו משה: בצל ק-ל היית.  When you are standing in the light of ispaklarya ha'meira, then demanding the kelim first does not seem like such a big deal.  But when you are standing in the shade, בצל ק-ל, where most of us are holding, where things are not so clear and shadows hiding the ratzon Hashem are everywhere, a different standard is required.

Chasdei Lev pre-Pesach food distribution -- chessed in action

Yesterday my wife and I decided to take a walk in the park since it was nice in the afternoon.  As we neared the park, we saw that there was a whole line of cars waiting to get in and it looked like the whole park was taken over by an event.  It turns out that we happened upon the pre-Pesach food distribution run by an organiztion called Chasdei Lev.  I have never seen anything like this.  My wife has participated in the local Tomchei Shabbos food packing before Pesach, which is big endeavor, but that was nothing like this.  There were huge trailers that had been brought in and forklifts running here and there lining up pallet after pallet of goods and an army of adults and kid volunteers coordinating things.  It looked like each order was individually wrapped on a pallet and waiting to be picked up.  There was everything from laundry detergent and paper goods to meat and fish.  If you check their website you will see that this organization allows Rebbeim and Morahs from schools across the country to place orders at super discounted prices so that families can meet all their Y"T needs without breaking the bank and without taking it as a direct handout.  The chessed of giving the food out was incredible enough, but the icing on the cake was when it was all finished I saw them going through the park and picking up the scraps of garbage that had fallen here and there.  I think they may have left the park cleaner than the way they found it.  

Sometimes you give $ to an organization and you scratch your head and wonder where the money goes.  B'einei chazisi that there must have been a small fortune of food given out.  When I got home I checked and found they have a 4 star rating, 94%, on Charity Navigator.  This organization has been around awhile, but I have never been aware of it or seen it in action until my chance park visit.  This is not a paid advertisement, and don't I know anyone involved in this organization, but all I can say is it looked like real chessed to me.  

hava'ra -- one of the 39 melachos with a lesser onesh, or not a melacha?

1)  וַיֹּ֣אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶל⁠־כׇּל⁠־עֲדַ֥ת בְּנֵֽי⁠־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁר⁠־צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ לֵאמֹֽר

Rashi comments:  זה הדבר אשר צוה – לי,⁠ לאמר – לכם.   Moshe was telling Bn"Y that Hashem had spoken to him and he was charged with the task of conveying the information to them.  Isn't that how every mitzvah in the Torah was given?  (See the meforshei Rashi)

I found a pshat in a sefer called Ramat Shmuel by one of the chachmei Morocco that fits the words very nicely.  Moshe was about to ask Bn"Y for donations for the mishkan.  When the Rabbi or the President of the shul makes an appeal for some cause and people give, sometimes they feel like they are giving because the Rabbi or President twisted their arm, or gave a great speech, or maybe they like the Rabbi or think it really is a great cause.  Moshe said to Bn"Y that he doesn't want to hear any of that. "Don't say I am giving because of Moshe."  Rather, Moshe said,  וַיֹּ֣אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶל⁠־כׇּל⁠־עֲדַ֥ת בְּנֵֽי⁠־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל, that  לֵאמֹ֑ר, to say when you give:  זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁר⁠־צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ לֵאמֹֽר "This is what Hashem told Moshe to say."  It's not my arm twisting, the cause is not my idea, don't give because you like me -- I'm just the middleman.  It all comes from Hashem; it's His message.

R' Shimon Sofer says a similar pshat.  Chazal extol the virtues of someone who motivates others to give even more than someone who just gives himself.  Moshe did not just want people to give, but   לֵאמֹ֑ר, tell others about it, tell others  זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר אֲשֶׁר⁠־צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ לֵאמֹֽר, so that word gets out and they will be motivated as well.  

 

2) The parsha singles out for mention the issur of lighting a fire on Shabbos.  לֹא⁠־תְבַעֲר֣וּ אֵ֔שׁ בְּכֹ֖ל מֹשְׁבֹֽתֵיכֶ֑ם בְּי֖וֹם הַשַּׁבָּֽת.  The meforshim offer various reasons in pshat why this issur in particular was singled out, and why davka here when the mitzvah of Shabbos had been given earlier (see R' Chaim Kanievski in Taama d'Kra).  Rashi quotes the halachic derush of Chazal: יש מרבותינו אומרים (בבלי שבת ע׳.): הבערה ללאו יצאת, ויש מהן אומרים: לחלק יצאת.  One view is that this is the source for the rule that you are chayav a chatas on each individual melacha done on shabbos and you don't have to violate all 39 at once to be chayav for chilul shabbos.  The other view is that lighting a fire is an exception and is only an issur lav, not kareis/chatas. 

 

Yesh lachkor: according to the view that hava'ra is a lav, does that mean it is not one of the 39 melachos, or it is a melacha, just it has a lesser punishment?

 

Nafka minos:

 

1) Would the hasra'ah for violating hava'ra be "lo taaseh kol melacha" (putting aside the Minchas Chinuch's discussion of whether one needs to include the specific melacha being violated in the hasra'ah), or would it be "lo tiva'aru eish?"

 

2) Is there an issur of hava'ra on Yom Tov?  The 39 melachos carry over to Y"T, but if hava'ra is a seperate issur, maybe not (similar question is asked about the issur of shevisas b'heima.)

 

The gemara in Pesachim (5a-b) quotes R' Akiva as proving that "ba'yom ha'rishon tashbisu chametz" must mean erev Pesach and not the first day of chag because burning one's chametz on Y"T itself is assur.

 

רבי עקיבא אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר אך ביום הראשון תשביתו שאור מבתיכם וכתיב כל מלאכה לא (תעשו) ומצינו להבערה שהיא אב מלאכה

 

The gemara deduces from this proof that R' Akiva holds that hava'ra is singled out l'chaleik, not because it is a lav.  How do we see that from the proof?  Rashi explains that since R' Akiva refers to hava'ra as an אב מלאכה, it must be the same as any of the other 39 melachos.   Tos quotes a Riv"a that the proof is from the fact that hava'ra is prohibited on Y"T.  Had it been a lav, it would be a specific din in hil shabbps (point 2 above).

 

Why didn't Rashi accept the interpretation of Riv"a?  It could be that according to Rashi the din הבערה ללאו יצאת just means the punishment is diminished, but hava'ra still has a shem melacha and therefore would be assur on Y"T too.

 

Rabeinu Chananel has a different pshat entirely in the sugya.  He writes that R' Akiva must hold havra'ra is like any other melacha because if הבערה ללאו יצאת the mitzvas aseh of biur chametz would be doche the lav and it would be allowed on Y"T.  This just begs the question -- even if hava'ra is a melacha like any other, why isn't the aseh of biur chametz doche the lav of doing melacha?  And if you  tell me it's because on Y"T there is not only a lav but an aseh of shabbason as well that goes with it, why can't you say the same thing if הבערה ללאו יצאת and there would be no dechiya?

 

The R'Ch apparently holds (this is the shitas haRashba in Yevamos 6) that the aseh of shabbason only goes hand in hand with items that fall in the basket of the issur melacha of Y"T.  It does not come into play when dealing with other issurim, whether it is mechamer achar be'hemto, or the lav of hava'ra.

GR"A on Mordechai -- "chibas Eretz Yisrael alav"

1) The Rama miPana notes that the name of Haman is mentioned 54 times in the megillah, which corresponds to הגוי אשׂר יעבודו ד״ן אנכי.  Yaakov prayed הציליני נא מי״ד אחי מי״ד עשׂו which also is 54.  The Tiferes Banim says the same regarding שׁומר נפשׁות חסידיו מי״ד רשׁעים יצילם.  I wonder why he doesn't quote the pasuk from לַמְנַצֵּחַ עַל אַיֶּלֶת הַשַּׁחַר, Teh 22, which was said by Esther: הַצִּילָה מֵחֶרֶב נַפְשִׁי מִ"יַּד כֶּלֶב יְחִידָתִי.

2) אִ֣ישׁ יְהוּדִ֔י הָיָ֖ה בְּשׁוּשַׁ֣ן הַבִּירָ֑ה וּשְׁמ֣וֹ מׇרְדֳּכַ֗יא בֶּ֣ן יָאִ֧יר בֶּן⁠־שִׁמְעִ֛י בֶּן⁠־קִ֖ישׁ אִ֥ישׁ יְמִינִֽי׃

אֲשֶׁ֤ר הׇגְלָה֙ מִיר֣וּשָׁלַ֔יִם עִם⁠־הַגֹּלָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הׇגְלְתָ֔ה עִ֖ם יְכׇנְיָ֣ה מֶֽלֶךְ⁠־יְהוּדָ֑ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר הֶגְלָ֔ה נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּ֖רא מֶ֥לֶךְ בָּבֶֽל

 

The repetition and redundancy of the shoresh גלה so many times in the pasuk is glaring.  GR"A writes as follows:

 

אמר כאן הגלה ג׳ פעמים: ״אשר הגלה מירושלים״, ״אשר הגלתה״, ״אשר הגלה״ להודיע חיבת ארץ ישראל עליו, שבכל פעם חזר לירושלים והיה נגלה ג׳ פעמים וזהו שאמרו (בגמרא יג, א) שגלה מעצמו כלו׳ מדעתו שחזר לארץ ישראל משום כך נגלה פעם שנית, וכן פעם שלישית ואמר כאן ד׳ פעמים לשון של גלות להורות שכל הד׳ גליות יזכרו את גאולתו, כמו שנאמר (ט, כח) וזכרם לא יסוף.

 

You kicked Mordechai out of Eretz Yisrael again, and again, and yet again, but each time he kept trying to get back.  

Mashal l'mah h'dava domeh -- imagine going on a safari and bringing home some exotic bird to keep as a pet.  You're not happy with just a goldfish, guinea pig, or dog -- you want something more exciting.  Inevitably, the day will come when you leave the cage door open by accident and there goes your pet, flying off into the wild.  Even though you cared for it, fed it, put little toys in its birdcage, all that doesn't matter.  You can't change the teva of the creature.

 

The teva of a Jew is to be in Eretz Yisrael.  It's like a magnet that draws us back.  You can put us in the 5 Towns with more than a dozen kosher restaurants, shuls, yeshivos, etc., but at the end of the day, you've just decorated the cage nicely and provided better birdfood.  A Jew who is true to his teva should want to run off as soon as he can.

 

Maharal in Ohr Chadash adds as follows:

 

כתב זה שלא תאמר שיצא חוץ לארץ ישראל מדעתו, ודבר זה אינו ראוי לצדיק. ועל זה אמר ״אשר הגלה״, ולא יצא חוץ לארץ מדעתו. ושלא יקשה כיון שהיה מרדכי מוכן לגאולה באחרונה, אם כן היה ראוי שלא ילך בגולה הוא בעצמו.

 

You can’t say, "I love it here in galus, but don't worry – when the time comes, I'll be ready to leave."  That’s not מוכן לגאולה.  That's being comfortable where you are until you are forced to leave.  And by forced, I don't necessarily mean in a negative sense.  When mashiach comes we will all be "forced" to change in a positive sense.  מוכן לגאולה means the opposite.  You are ready to leave now.  For whatever reasons, circumstance forces you to stay, not by choice --  ולא יצא חוץ לארץ מדעתו, 

 

Later in the megillah we read  ויהי [כאמרם] (באמרם) אליו יום ויום ולא שמע אליהם ויגידו להמן לראות היעמדו דברי מרדכי כי⁠ הגיד להם אשר⁠ הוא יהודי.

 

The Midrash writes:

 

ולא עוד אלא, שאנו איסגנסירין של הקב״ה, שכל השבטים נולדו בחוצה לארץ, וזקני נולד בארץ ישראל. אמרין* ליה ונימר ליה, מיד ״ויגידו להמן וגו׳⁠ ⁠⁠״. אמר להון המן, אמרינן ליה זקנו הלא הוא השתחוה לזקני, הדה הוא דכתיב (בראשית לג, ו-ז) ״ותגשן השפחות וגו׳ ואחר נגש יוסף ורחל וישתחוו״. היתיב, ועדיין לא נולד בנימין. אמרין ליה הדה הוא דכתיב ״ויגידו להמן

 

Binyanim was the only one of the shevatim born in Eretz Yisrael.  Maharal comments עוד, כי הוא נולד בארץ ישראל, שמזה תראה כי הוא שכן אל השם יתברך, וקשה להוציא אותו משם.   

 

Maharal is alluding to Moshe's bracha to Binyamin of וּבֵ֥ין כְּתֵפָ֖יו שָׁכֵֽן (Devarim 33:12).  Rashi there comments that Beis haMikdash was built in Binyamin's portion.  Maharal is adding that it's the fact that Binyamin was born in Eretz Yisrael that gives him this segulah. 

 

The megillah needs to be read against the backdrop of events in Sefer Ezra.  The 10 sons of Haman according to Chazal were those who claimed the Jews were rebelling and wanted to put a stop to the reconstruction of the Beis haMikdash.  Achashveirosh offered Esther "ad chatzi ha'malchus" but no more, which Chazal take to mean he excluded binyan haMikdash.  The Shem m'Shmuel writes that just as at daybreak, "ayales ha'shachar," the sun has not risen yet but its rays are peeking over the horizon, so too, the nes of Purim really stems from the power of Bayis Sheni that was just over the time horizon in the future.  The great challenge to those who lived then was to not get distracted by the lavish party of Achashveirosh, to remain מוכן לגאולה, as Maharal puts it, and not to forget who they were and where they came from.  The end was just over the horizon, if only they could hold on.

lomdus of the chiyuv/kiyum of ben mukaf chomah reading megillah on 14 Adar erev Shabbos

Since 15 Adar falls on Shabbos this year cities that are mukaf chomah will celebrate Purim on Fri, 14 Adar, along with everyone else.  Yesh lachkor: is the chiyuv of megillah for mukaf chomah moved to 14 Adar, or is their chiyuv really on 15 Adar, but since the megillah cannot be read then because of gezeirah d'Rabbah, they get a makeup day on the 14th?  If the former is true, a ben mukaf chomah can read for a ben ir because they share the same chiyuv.  If the latter is true, perhaps not.

A similar issue is debated by the Rishonim.  Rashi writes that when the bnei kfarim read on earlier dates like 11,12, 13, it is the bnei ha'ir who read for them.  Tos (Yevamos 14) disagrees based on a Yerushalmi that says a ben ir whose chiyuv is on the 14th cannot read for a ben mukaf chomah whose chiyuv is on the 15th.  How then can a ben ir who has to read on the 14th be motzi a ben kfar who reads earlier?  (I thought I posted on this issue before, but can't find it - lots of Purim material on the blog).  The hesber for shitas Rashi (Steipler, Brisker Rav) is that while Chazal allowed the possibility for the kiyum mitzvah on earlier days, the chiyuv for kfarim is the same as that of the ben ir.  It's the same chiyiv of "arei perazos."  However, for someone living in a walled city, however, it's not just the kiyum mitzvah which is on the 15^th – it's the chiyuv which is different.

 

Based on this lomdus, it would seem that while a ben ir and a ben mukaf chomah might this year share a kiyum mitzvah on the 14^th, they are fulfilling different chiyuvim and therefore cannot be motzi each other.    

 

A few other potential nafka minot (many of these were discussed in the Pninei Halacha sheets put out by Yeshivas Mir):

 

1) Some suggest that the reason for the BH"G's shita that women cannot be motzi men in megillah is because men are chayav m'divrei kabbalah but women are only chayavos mi'derabbanan because af hein ha'yahu b'oso ha'nes.  Those chiyuvim are not parallel.  This year, when the bnei mukaf chomah read on the 14th, can a women be motzi a man?  If the chiyuv mi'divrei kabbalah of reading on the 15th is effectively cancelled because of gzeirah d'Rabbah, men are left with a chiyuv derabbanan makeup day of the 14th.  That is parallel to the chiyuv derabbanan which women have.   However, if the chiyuv on the 15th remains in place and just the kiyum is moved to the 14th, the disparity between the chiyuv of men and women remains in place.  

2) According to Rama we say a bracha of she'hechiyanu on the megillah reading of the day (Rambam holds that there is only one she'hechiyanu said at night -- reading during the day is an encore performance of the same mitzvah).  The Aderet explained that  the reason for 2 birchot she'hechiyanu is because the night reading is derabannan; the day reading is divrei kabbalah. See this post where we discussed this chidduush.  Based on this logic, it should come out that this year even the bnei mukaf chomah who read during the day do NOT recite she'hechiyanu.  They chiyuv mi'divrei kabbalah is on the 15th.  When they read on the day of 14th, it is only a kiyum derabbanan, same as at night.

 

3) The gemara gives a number of reasons why we do not say hallel on Purim, among them that reading the megillah counts as hallel.  Meiri holds that if one does not have a megillah, one must says hallel.  If a ben mukaf chomah does not have a megillah this year, presumably he would say hallel on shabbos, they day he would be theoretically mechuyav  to read megillah, even though had he had a megillah he would lmaaseh read it on Friday.

 

4) R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is quoted as saying that if a baal koreh who is a ben mukaf chomah reads megillah on Friday and then r"l dies before Shabbos, the tzibur was not yotzei.  Since the baal korei never reached the point at which the chiyuv mitzvah kicks in, he only was alive at the time of the kiyum mitzvah, he cannot be motzi anyone. 

 

5) There is a fascinating chiddush of the Maharil Diskin regarding a katan who becomes bar mitzvah on this Shabbos.  The Rishonim discuss why certain cases are exceptions to the rule of gezeirah d'Rabbah, e.g. bris milah.  One answer is that the gezeirah only applies to mitzvos like lulav, shofar, megillah, where the mitzvah is incumbant upon everyone to do.  Since everyone is busy trying doing there own mitzvah, someone who makes a mistake and carries is liable to escape notice and end up violating Shabbos.  Where only one person is involved in doing the mitzvah, e.g. bris milah, all the other people not involved might notice an error and prevent the chilul shabbos.  In our case, the katan who hears megillah on Friday cannot be yotzei since he is not yet a bar chiyuva.  Everyone else was already yotzei by reading on Friday.  Therefore, says Maharil Diskin, the katan should read megillah on Shabbos.  For him it is like the mitzvah of milah -- a mitzvah only a yachid and not everyone is involved in, in which case gezeirah d'Rabbah does not apply.  (See Shu"T Sheivet haLevi 5:83) 

(I wrote this a bit b'kitzur, but hopefull the gist is clear.)

a 4 kugel problem; Chazon Ish on women's obligation to hear zachor; bracha on zachor; why Shaul's fate was sealed; the zechus of yishuv ha'aretz

1) Sherlock Holmes had his three pipe problems.  Apparently zachor is a four kugel problem:

קיים מנהג לאכול בשבת זכור ארבעה סוגים של קוגל, בהתאם לראשי התיבות- "עמלק": 

עפל (ביידיש: תפוחי עץ) מעהל (ביידיש: קמח)  לוקשן (ביידיש: אטריות) קרטופל (ביידיש: תפוחי אדמה).

 ובכך לקיים את מצוות זכירת מעשי עמלק, או מחיית זכר עמלק על ידי אכילת הקוגלים.

My son and I were both wondering where this "minhag" came from.  If you have any info  other than what is on the otzar hachochma forum, pls pass it on.

2) The Chazon Ish brought proof that women are exempt from hearing parshas zachor from the Rosh (Brachos 7:2) that learns the gemara there to mean that R' Eliezer freed his eved to make a minyan for zachor.  An eved has the same chiyuv as women.  If women are obligated in zachor, the eved should have been chayav even without being freed.  R' Chaim Kanievsky countered that even if the eved is chayav, he might not count to make up the minyan.  For example, Rama holds that the bracha of "ha'rav es riveinu" can only be said with a minyan.  Women have a chiyuv to hear megillah, but MB in 690:63 the M"B has a safeik whether they can count for the minyan for purposes of the bracha. 

3) There is no bracha on the mitzvah of tzedaka because the recipient may not accept the gift, in which case the mitzvah is not fulfilled (Shu"T haRashba).  That same concern does not come into play with respect to mishloah manos according to Rama's view that even if the recipient is mochel and does not accept the gift, one is yotzei.  So why no bracha?  Seridei Eish offers a number of sevaros, among them that mishloach manos is really a mitzvah tmidis.  The point of giving gifts is to engender friendship and comradery.  That is not something you should strive for just once a year -- it's something you should aim for every day.  Chazal just formalized a once a year practice to cause us to remember and reflect on what we should be doing every day.  According to Ohr Zarua there is never a bracha on a mitzvah tmidis, and so there is no bracha on m"m.

The same sevara explains why there is no bracha on parshas zachor (a topic we've discussed before).  "Zachor" is a mitzvah tmidis -- every day we should remember what Amalek did.  Tos (Brachos 4) quotes one view that when we say "y'hei shemei rabbah" there is a period after the word "rabbah."  The Torah tells us that Hashem's name is incomplete so long as Amalek exists.  What we are saying is that "yhei shemei," the name of Hashem, "rabbah," should be great=complete again.  We should remember and eliminate Amalek.  Chazal created a formal once yearly reminder of what we should be doing every day.

4) וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו שְׁמוּאֵל קָרַע ה׳ אֶת⁠ מַמְלְכוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵעָלֶיךָ הַיּוֹם וּנְתָנָהּ לְרֵעֲךָ הַטּוֹב מִמֶּךָּ

וְגַם נֵצַח יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יְשַׁקֵּר וְלֹא יִנָּחֵם כִּי לֹא אָדָם הוּא לְהִנָּחֵם

Malbi"M explains:

אומר אל תדמה כי היעוד האלהי דומה כיעוד בני אדם, שלפעמים הוא שקר תיכף שמגזם בפיו להרע ובלבבו לא כן ידמה, ופעמים הגם שחושב כן לעשות יתנחם אחר כך ולא יעשה

What could the possible hava amina be to say otherwise?

Radak explains that the pasuk וְגַם נֵצַח יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יְשַׁקֵּר וְלֹא יִנָּחֵם is not speaking about Shaul, but rather about David.  B'shlama Shaul, there was never any guarantee from G-d that he would reign forever.  The malchus was contingent on his serving Hashem properly.  However, the promise of malcus to David is eternal.  Even though it was taken from Shaul, it would be David's forever.

Rashi and others, however, read the pasuk as speaking about Shaul, and so hadra kushya l'duchta.  The Meshech Chochma quotes a Turei Even to answer this question.  The gemara (R"H 17) writes that once a gzar din is issued, it cannot be retracted.  The only exception is with respect to a tzibur.  Turei Even asks: but the gemara in R"H writes that even after Yeshayahu haNavi told Chizkiyahu (Yesh 38) that there is a gzar din that he is going to die, Chizkiyahu didn't give up hope and was able to change the gzar din through tefilah?  From here we see, says the Turei Even, that a melech is not treated like a yachid.  A melech represents the nation, and therefore has the din of a tzibur.  Shaul therefore might have thought that in his case too, he is the king, he is like a tzibur, and so gzar din or no gzar din, he can beg Hashem for forgiveness.

Why did it work for Chizkiyahu and not for Shaul?

The Meshech Chochma every few parshiyos brings up a yesod from the Rambam in Peirush HaMishnayos to explain some difficulty.  I've quoted two places where he says it here.  The Rambam says that when a navi is shown a vision of something positive that is supposed to happen, there is no guarantee that it will take place.  It is a possible outcome, but not a guaranteed outcome.  That vision may be contingent on people's behavior, on circumstances, on other factors.  However, if the navi is told to prophesize and tell people what is going to take place, you can take it to the bank.  No matter if the circumstances change, the outcome is guaranteed.  The Torah says you can test a navi.  If a navi makes a promise that doesn't come true, you know he is a navi sheker.  If there was no guarantee of fulfillment, the test wouldn't work.  The Meshech Chochma (this is one of his 2 answers) uses that same yesod here.   קָרַע ה׳ אֶת⁠ מַמְלְכוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵעָלֶיךָ הַיּוֹם וּנְתָנָהּ לְרֵעֲךָ הַטּוֹב מִמֶּךָּ.  Hashem didn't just take the malchus away from Shaul -- Hashem promised it to David.  A prophecy for good cannot be retracted.  

5) The Shu"t Oneg Y"T in his intro explains that when Shaul said to Shmuel בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה לַה׳ הֲקִימֹתִי אֶת⁠ דְּבַר ה׳ he was not crazy.  There was a technical halachic justification for what he did (I discussed it in this post).  The lesson of the haftara is that G-d does not want technical obedience.  What he wants is for us to fulfill his ratzon. The Mahari"L Diskin offers his own variation on that same theme.  Shaul did not just start coming up with rationalizations to spare Amalek out of the blue.  The gemara in Makkos (7a) has a din 

 דתניא רבי יהודה בן דוסתאי אומר משום רבי שמעון בן שטח ברח מארץ לחוצה לארץ אין סותרין את דינו מחוצה לארץ לארץ סותרין את דינו מפני זכותה של ארץ ישראל.  

Rashi explains: מפני זכותה של ארץ ישראל. אולי תועיל למצוא לו פתח של זכות.  Shaul held that it is kibush ha'aretz by the king and nation that establishes kedushas ha'aretz.  Therefore, the din on Amalek that was true before he waged war on them.  Once he conquered their land, all bets were off.  Even for an aku"m, even for Amalek, the zechus of Eretz Yisrael can perhaps help, and therefore he wanted to review whether killing was justified. The punchline remains the same: technically, Shaul's argument might have merit, but it nonetheless circumvented the ratzon Hashem.

The point I want to make from this MahariL Diskin is that kal v'chomer hu! if Shaul thought the zechus of Eretz Yisrael might even help Amalek, surely the zechus of Eretz Yisrael should stand in our favor.  May we be zocheh to finally blot out Amalek and bring the shem HavayaH to completion.

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

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

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

Ramban explains:

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

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

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

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

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

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