Amalek, Yosef, and bikkurim

1) Yesh lachkor what the geder of kri u'kesiv is, like we have in our parsha.  Does kri u'kesiv mean that we read the word in question שׁלא מן הכּתב, or does it mean that the kri is how to pronounce the word in question, like if you saw the letters ghoti but read it as /fish/ -- the /gh/ like in cough, the /o/ like in women, the /ti/ like in nation?

See PM"G end of siman 141 who says even if wax covers the letters of the word of a krei u'kesiv, it's not a problem because by definition these words are read שׁלא מן הכּתב.  However, I saw R' Elyashiv quoted as disagreeing.

2) What is the connection between the conclusion of last week's parsha which dealt with Amalek and the mitzvah of bikurim at the beginning of this week's parsha?

 Meshech Chochma at the end of this week's parsha quoted the following Midrash:

 

ובמדרש (דברים רבה ז, י) על פסוק זה: כיון שבא ליכנס לארץ ישראל התחיל אומר (לעיל ג, כה): ״אעברה נא ואראה״ וכו׳. א״ל הקב״ה, משה! ביטלת שלי ושלך קיימת. אני אמרתי (לעיל ט, יד): ״ואשמידם״, ואתה אמרת (במדבר יד, יט): ״סלח נא״, ונתקיים שלך. (ואף עכשיו מבקש אני לקיים את שלי ולבטל את שלך!) א״ל הקב״ה למשה, אין אתה יודע מה לעשות, אתה רוצה לאחוז את החבל בשני ראשין?! אם ״אעברה נא״ אתה מבקש לקיים, בטל ״סלח נא״, ואם ״סלח נא״ אתה מבקש לקיים, בטל ״אעברה נא״. (אמר ריב״ל, כיון ששמע משה רבינו כך, אמר לפניו, רבש״ע ימות משה ומאה וכיוצא בו ולא תינזק צפורנו של אחד מהם, עכ״ל המדרש).

  

Why is אעברה נא linked to סלח נא?  Why is this an either/or choice?

 

Chazal (Baba Basra 123) tell us that אין זרעו של עשו נופל אלא בידי זרעו של רחל.  Mesech Chochma explains the reason why this is so.  The Mechilta tells us יבא (עמלק) כפוי טובה ויפרע (מן העם) כפוי הטובה.  Rashi in parshas Beshalach writes:

 

סמך פרשה זו למקרא זה, לומר תמיד אני ביניכם ומזומן לכל צרכיכם, ואתם אומרים היש ה' בקרבנו אם אין, חייכם שהכלב בא ונושך אתכם ואתם צועקים אלי ותדעון היכן אני. משל לאדם שהרכיב בנו על כתפו ויצא לדרך, היה אותו הבן רואה חפץ ואומר, אבא טול חפץ זה ותן לי, והוא נותן לו, וכן שניה וכן שלישית, פגעו באדם אחד, אמר לו אותו הבן ראית את אבא. אמר לו אביו אינך יודע היכן אני, השליכו מעליו ובא הכלב ונשכו:

 

We did not appreciate Hashem's protection, so He had to give us a reminder through Amalek that He is watching over us.

 

In parshas Ki Teizti the story of Amalek follows the prohibition against having unequal weights and measures.  Rashi there comments on the smichus ha'parshiyot: אם שקרת במדות ובמשקלות, הוי דואג מגרוי האויב.  Bn"Y were not running makolot or Rami Levy supermarkets in the midbar.  How would they be cheating on their scales?  

R' Shlomo Fisher explains that this is one and the same yesod as Rashi in Beshalach.  The issur or weights and measures here is not knowing how to properly calibrate events in your life.  Some people only see what they are lacking.  Their scale is always tipped to the negative; they always think they are being shortchanged. 

 

Amalek is the epitome of having your scale tipped too far to the negative.  Amalek cannot be happy so long as someone else, Bn"Y is enjoying life, and they are not the center of attention. 

 

The Eitz Yosef on the Tanchuma suggests that Amalek is called  כפוי הטובה  because Bn"Y was barred from taking their land.  Had they not attacked, there was no reason for us to go to war with them.  R' Moshe Tzuriel goes a step further and says Amalek is called כפוי הטובה because, as we just read in last week's parsha, we were given a mitzvah לא תתעב אדומי כי אחיך הוא (דברים כג, ח).  Where is their brotherly love in response? 

 

The 180 degree inverse of Amalek is Yosef, who instead of holding a grudge against his brothers for what they did to him supported them and cared for them while they were in Egypt.  Therefore, Amalek stands no chance against the descendants of Yosef.

 

Had Moshe been the one to lead Bn"Y and his wish of אעברה נא was granted, given that he was not a descendant of Rachel, Bn"Y would have not had the confidence and trust in Hashem needed to wage war  against Amalek.  They would still be plagued with the fear that held the meraglim back, and there could therefore be no סלח נא for that sin.  It's only because Yehoshua, from sheivet Ephraim, a descendent of Yosef, a descendent of Rachel, was in charge, that Bn"Y felt that they could succeed. 

The essence of the mitzvah of bikkurim is hakaras hatov, appreciating the gift of Eretz Yisrael and its bounty.  Therefore, the Torah juxtaposes this mitzvah with the command to obliterate Amalek.  By giving thanks, we eliminate the sin of being כפוי טובה which mars Amalek's character.

why no nechama after the tochacha -- my 2 cents

I want to add something to what I wrote last post. To review, Shu"T Radbaz (2:769) gives three reason why there are no pesukei nechama at the end of the toachaha in this week's parsha:

A)First answer is that there is nechama. His example is the pasuk גַּ֤ם כׇּל־חֳלִי֙ וְכׇל־מַכָּ֔ה אֲשֶׁר֙ לֹ֣א כָת֔וּב בְּסֵ֖פֶר הַתּוֹרָ֣ה הַזֹּ֑את יַעְלֵ֤ם ה׳ עָלֶ֔יךָ עַ֖ד הִשָּׁמְדָֽךְ׃ Although Rashi interprets יעלם – לשון עלייה, the Zohar interprets it as העלמה, i.e. Hashem will turn aside and ignore the punishments that might be deserved. As Radbaz notes, the pshat is certainly like Rashi (see Sifsei Chachamim who explains grammatically why Rashi is correct), but at least derech remez, we see that behind the scenes there is something positive going on.

B) It is the shem Havaya, the shem of rachamim, that appears throughout the tochacha. The fact that everything done is b'hashgachas Hashem and for our benefit in the nechama. The Chida similarly writes that the total # of letters that appear in the tochacha (I'll take his word for it) is 676, gematriya of רעות. The shem Havaya appears 26 times. 26x26=676. This is what tempers the effect of the tochacha.

C) The bris of the tochacha concludes not in our parsha, but continues in Netzavim. It is there that the pesukei nechama which conclude the discussion of the bris appear. This helps answer the question of why, even though there is a takana to read the tochacha at the end of the year because tachel shana v'kililoseha, we actually read it one shabbos before the end of the year and read Nitzavim next week. R' Tzadok haKohen explains that the blessings of the upcoming week come down to the world on the previous shabbos. Had we ended the year with tochacha, it is tochacha which would come down to the world for the week of Rosh haShana. We therefore insert a break, so that we have a shabbos in which bracha can come into the world for the upcoming week when we will celebrate R"H. According to Radbaz, the question is moot. Ki Tavo goes hand in hand with Nitzavim -- it is one kri'ah spread over two weeks.

On shaboos I saw that the Ohr haChaim also asks this same question as Radbaz and answers that the tochacha in Behukosai is written in the plural and directed at the community, the tzibur. Klal Yisrael as a whole is guaranteed nechama. Our parsha in written (mostly) in the singluar and is directed at the individual. There is no promise that any individual will in fact be granted nechama.

I would like to suggest my own answer to the Radbaz's question. Rashi alludes to Chazal's statement that the tochacha in Bechukosai was given directly by Hashem; the tochacha of Ki Tavo was given by Moshe himself. What Chazal mean by this requires explanation. Sefer Devarim was said by Moshe, but surely Moshe was giving over what was told to him by G-d. Whatever Chazal meant, bottom line is there is that difference.  The Dvar Hashem "digested" through Moshe is not the same as what is given in the other books.

I think this is why there is no nechama in our parsha. We read in the haftarah a few weeks ago (of Shoftim, Yeshyahu 51:12) אנכי אנכי הוא מנחמכם. Only Hashem can provide true consolation to the suffering endured by the Jewish people. As great as Moshe Rabeinu was, he was just a human being (a very holy human being, but still, a human being). He can be the conduit for tochacha, but he cannot give us true nechama. For that, we wait for Hashem alone.

Klal Yisrael has had enough tochacha the past two years. אנכי אנכי הוא מנחמכם. We are eagerly awaiting, and hope to see it this year.

bikkurim -- not just thanks to G-d; why no nechama in this tochacha; choser kol - not if you have a gemara!

1) The Maor v'Shemesh has a striking hesber of the mitzvah of bikkurim that emphasizes the chassidic idea of connecting with the tzadik. At first glance, the mitzvah of bikkurim is about giving thanks.  However, if that's all there is to the mitzvah, then why travel all the way to the Beis haMikdash with a gift of new fruit for kohen? You can give thanks to Hashem at home. Maor vaShemesh therefore suggests that the idea of bringing bikkurim is to connect oneself to the kohen, to the tzadik, to someone on a higher level of avodah, and through that connection to elevate oneself. To quote a taste:

וזהו שפירש"י ז"ל ובאת אל הכהן וכו' ואמרת אליו הגדתי היום וכו' שאינך כפוי טובה אין הפירוש שיצטרך להגיד שאינו כפוי טובה לנגד השם רק הפירוש הוא שאינו כפוי טובה לנגד הכהן ושמכיר שכל הטובה הוא באה לו ע"י המשכת הכהן וזהו שאמר הגדתי היום לה' אלהיך ויחד שמו יתברך על הכהן דייקא להורות מה שאמרנו שמחזיק טובה אל הכהן שע"י ההשפעה שהוא ממשיך בגודל יחודיו הוא אוכל בסבתו

Bikkurim is about hakaras ha'tov, but rather than address our thanks to G-d, Maor v'Shemesh says to address our thanks to the tzadik, as he is the one who enables our tefilos and avodah to do what they need to do.

He emphasizes the point again in the next piece: שענין הבכורים היתה להורות שלא בכוחו ועוצם ידו הוא עושה חיל רק שהברכה באה לו על המשכת השפע שמושכין הצדיקים ע"י ייחודיהם

The next parsha in our sedra deals with viduy maasros. Why is it called viduy? We are not confessing to some crime? Seforno answers that had we not sinned in the cheit ha'eigel then avodah and all the gifts that go with it would belong to the bechorim. When we give away tru"m to the kohanim, we are acknowledging the sin of the eigel that forced us into this position.

The Shem m'Shmuel (5672) offers a different hesber:

ולפי האמור יתפרש בטוב הענין וידוי מעשר שמתודה שמצד עצמינו אין אנו ראויים לדיבוק אלקי ואנו נזקקים לאמצעות הכהנים והלוים ועניים ועדת החסידים כנ"ל:

This piggybacks on the Maor v'Shemesh's idea that we need the help of a kohen/rebbe/rabbi to help us find our way, and bikkurim, terumos, maasros, etc. forges a connection to these people. It's called viduy because of that recognition that we can't get there ourselves. We are acknowledging our limitations, our shortcomings, even as we struggle to reach out and find a way to transcend them.

I'm not so much of a chassid, but I think we can take something away from this idea anyway. When a person is blessed with their bikkurim, with their first taste of success, the reflex of a religious person is to turn to G-d and thank Him. It's purely a bein adam l'Kono interaction. We know our success does not belong to us alone, but comes through siyata d'Shemaya. What our parsha is perhaps telling us is to extend that thanks outward to the world of bein adam l'chaveiro as well. Not because your friend or neighbor directly helped you complete your PhD or close the big deal or put in a good word so that you got that promotion -- that probably was not the case. But do you really think it was entirely your bein adam l'Kono that got you all that? Are your prayers so powerful and effective that they merited Hashem giving you what you asked for? Are your zechuyos so great that they were enough to bring Hashem's blessing? Maybe you got what you wanted because you are part of a community that deserves siyata d'Shemaya.

If it was just about you, then you could stay home, eat your bikkurim, and say a bracha on them to thank G-d. But that's not enough. You have to recognize that you are part of a community, part of a nation, and your success is a product of their tefilos and avodah as much if not more than your own. Therefore, the mitzvah requires that you travel to Yerushalayim, that you connect with the kohen, with the levi, with others who are engaged in avodah which indirectly benefits you as much as themselves.

2) תַּ֗חַת אֲשֶׁ֤ר לֹא־עָבַ֙דְתָּ֙ אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ בְּשִׂמְחָ֖ה וּבְט֣וּב לֵבָ֑ב מֵרֹ֖ב כֹּֽל׃

וְעָבַדְתָּ֣ אֶת־אֹיְבֶ֗יךָ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְשַׁלְּחֶ֤נּוּ יְהֹוָה֙ בָּ֔ךְ בְּרָעָ֧ב וּבְצָמָ֛א וּבְעֵירֹ֖ם וּבְחֹ֣סֶר כֹּ֑ל וְנָתַ֞ן עֹ֤ל בַּרְזֶל֙ עַל־צַוָּארֶ֔ךָ עַ֥ד הִשְׁמִיד֖וֹ אֹתָֽךְ׃ (Devarim 28:47-48)

R' Gershom Eidelstein found a Mechilta (HaChodesh 1:9) that interprets as follows:

. דָּבָר אַחֵר: "וּבְחֹסֶר כֹּל", שֶׁיְּהוּ חֲסֵרִין תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה וּמָמוֹן וְדֵעָה וְחָכְמָה וּבִינָה. דָּבָר אַחֵר: "וּבְחֹסֶר כֹּל", שֶׁנִּטְּלָה מֵהֶן הַדַּעַת.

Mashma that you can be in a state of בְּרָעָ֧ב וּבְצָמָ֛א וּבְעֵירֹ֖ם, but if you still have דַּעַת (R' Gershom said so long as you still have talmud Torah, but that pshat in the midrash lists מָמוֹן alongside t"T, so I am not sure limud really stands on its own) things will not be as bad. See Viktor Frankl's book for an exposition on this point.

The flipside is no less true. תַּ֗חַת אֲשֶׁ֤ר לֹא־עָבַ֙דְתָּ֙ אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ בְּשִׂמְחָ֖ה וּבְט֣וּב לֵבָ֑ב מֵרֹ֖ב כֹּֽל׃׃ַַ֗֗ means you have רֹ֖ב כֹּֽל, you have learning, you have da'as, you are sitting in front of a gemara all day, but you are not filled with simcha, then that's the cause for tochacha. If you weren't "shivti b'beis Hashem" and parked in front of a gemara, neicha that you feel dissatisfied, but if you are blessed to be able to sit and learn, even if you are lacking in the luxuries of life, you should still feel fulfilled.

3) Shu"T Radbaz (2:769) asks why we don't find any pesukei nechama at the end of the tochacha in Ki Tavo like we do in the earlier tochacha in Bechukosai. He gives three answers: 

A) גַּ֤ם כׇּל־חֳלִי֙ וְכׇל־מַכָּ֔ה אֲשֶׁר֙ לֹ֣א כָת֔וּב בְּסֵ֖פֶר הַתּוֹרָ֣ה הַזֹּ֑את יַעְלֵ֤ם ה׳ עָלֶ֔יךָ עַ֖ד הִשָּׁמְדָֽךְ׃ although Rashi interprets יעלם – לשון עלייה, the Zohar interprets it as העלמה, i.e. Hashem will turn aside and ignore the punishments that might be deserved. As Radbaz notes, the pshat is certainly like Rashi, but at least derech remez, we see that behind the scenes there is something positive going on.

B) It is the shem Havaya, the shem of rachamim, that appears throughout the tochacha. The fact that everything done is b'hashgachas Hashem and for our benefit in the nechama.

C) The bris of the tochacha concludes not in our parsha, but continues in Netzavim. It is there that the pesukei nechama which conclude the discussion of the bris appear.

There is a takana to read the tochacha at the end of the year, tachel shana v'kililoseha. We never actually conclude the year with Ki Tavo, but always have Nitzvavim/Vayelech separating it from Rosh haShana. This makes perfect sense according to this final reason, as Nitzavim is really the concluding section of the bris in Ki Tavo.

hakaras ha'tov for the bad as well

 אֲרַמִּי אֹבֵד אָבִי וַיֵּרֶד מִצְרַיְמָה וַיָּגׇר שָׁם בִּמְתֵי מְעָט וַיְהִי⁠ שָׁם לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל עָצוּם וָרָב

One of the lessons of the mitzvah of bikkurim is the need for hakaras ha'tov.  According to Rashi, this pasuk is referring to two separate, unrelated events: 1) Yaakov and family being spared from Lavan, the Arami, who sought our destruction, and 2) in addition -- as Rashi writes, ועוד אחרים באו עלינו לכלותינו -- we were also saved from the Egyptians.

According to Netziv these are not two ideas, but one.  It was decreed in the bris bein ha'besarim that Avraham's descendents would be in galus for four generations, but where that galus would be was not specified.  In theory, Yaakov and his family might have spent the entire galus in Aram.  In reality, because Lavan was was merciless in his treatment of Yaakov and was bent on the destruction of Yaakov's family, Hashem arranged events so that Yaakov would leave Aram and go down to Mitzrayim, and that became our home of the rest of the duration of the exile.

Based on the Netziv's interpretation, we are not thanking Hashem for delivering us from Egypt.  We are thanking Hashem for bringing us to Egypt!  As bad as conditions were there, the alternative was far worse. 

This is a new dimension to hakaras ha'tov.  It's not enough to say thanks for all the obviously good things that Hashem gives us.  We also have to thank Him for what sometimes seems like bad things as well, because there are alternatives that are far worse, alternatives we may not even be able to imagine, that we are being spared from.  

הַשְׁקִיפָה מִמְּעוֹן קׇדְשְׁךָ מִן⁠ הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבָרֵךְ אֶת⁠ עַמְּךָ אֶת⁠ יִשְׂרָאֵל (26:15)

The Midrash observes that the term הַשְׁקִיפָה is always used in reference to seeing something bad, never something good.  For example,  וַיַּשְׁקֵף עַל⁠ פְּנֵי סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה וְעַל⁠ כׇּל⁠ פְּנֵי אֶרֶץ הַכִּכָּר (Braishis 19:28)  Our pasuk is the exception to the rule, because גדול כוחן של מוציאי מעשרות שמהפכין לשון רעה לטובה, in the merit of offering maasros what ordinarily has a bad connotation is transformed to good.

The Torah has different words for seeing things: ראיה, הבּטה, השׁקפה  We need an expended vocabulary for the act of seeing because there are so many different ways of looking at things.  We can look at things from a distance and we can examine things up close; we can take things in in a general way with a glance and we can minutely examine something. השׁקפה is when we put something under a microscope and take a careful look at it.  This is why the term generally has a negative connotation.  Nothing is perfect, and the more carefully one examines something, the more likely one is to find its flaws and defects.

The term הַשְׁקִיפָה in our parsha refers to that same type of examination -- it's not an exception to that meaning -- but in this case the outcome in different  The more carefully one examines the actions of those who are mafrish maasros (Ksav v'ha'Kabbalah), even observing those actions for the extended period of three whole years up to the point of biur (RCK in Divrei Siach), the more perfect and laudatory their behavior seems.  Unlike other things which reveal their flaws under careful inspection, here, careful inspection only highlights the exceptional qualities.      

no hishtadlus required

 וְהָיָה אִם⁠ שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ לִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת⁠ כׇּל⁠ מִצְוֺתָיו אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם וּנְתָנְךָ ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ עֶלְיוֹן עַל כׇּל⁠גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ. וּבָאוּ עָלֶיךָ כׇּל⁠ הַבְּרָכוֹת הָאֵלֶּה וְהִשִּׂיגֻךָ כִּי תִשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ (28:1-2) 

Why do the brachos have to catch up to you, הִשִּׂיגֻךָ?  Would a person run away from bracha so that it has to chase after him?

There is a machkokes Ramban and other Rishonim whether bitachon requires hishtadlus or whether one can just trust in Hashem and that alone is enough, if done properly, to see that one's needs are met.  One can reconcile the two views by positing that the need for hishtadlus is inversely proportional to the degree of bitachon.  Someone who is a bona fide tzadik can sit back and trust that G-d will provide all their needs without their having to lift a finger.  Most of us are not on that level and feel that we must do something active to get results in olam ha'zeh, so Hashem responds in kind by giving us what we need only if we put in hishtadlus.  

Seforno explains our pasuk:  והשיגך – אף על פי שלא תשתדל אתה להשיגם.  Even though normally you make hishtadlus for your needs, the Torah here is promising bracha even where you make no effort and not hishtadlus to attain it.  The bracha will come to you; you don't have to make an effort to acquire it (see Divrei Siach of RCK).

2) Netziv notes that the parsha starts with the condition הָיָה אִם⁠ שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ.  Why does the second pasuk reiterate that this blessing is only  כִּי תִשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ?  

For some people getting a luxury car, going on a cruise, going out to eat in a fancy restaurant, etc. are things that get their heart pumping.  This is what they consider bracha.  For a person whose life is the 4 amos of halacha, these are little, meaningless things.  Can you imagine a gadol -- choose whichever one you like -- having a taavah for such things?  There was a restaurant review of a new place that opened in our neighborhood that touted the five types of cocktails that the reviewer ordered.  What a bracha!  Not one, but five options, and that did not exhaust the menu.  I don't think a cocktail menu would (or should) make a roshem on someone steeped in learning.

That being said, sometimes the olam ha'zeh bracha is so great that even someone who is immersed completely in learning will lift their head and take note.  That, says the Netziv, is the type bracha the pasuk is talking about. וְהִשִּׂיגֻךָ כִּי תִשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ : even if you are immersed completely in the dvar Hashem, כִּי תִשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ , and you take no note of such petty things as the cocktail menu or the new car or the new restaurant, והשיגך, there will be bracha so big that it will even grab your attention. 

always another rung to climb

  וְהָיָה כִּי תָבוֹא אֶל הָאָרֶץ  Was just speaking this morning with my daughter in Yerushalayim and told her to look at the first Ohr haChaim on the parsha: והיה כי תבא אל הארץ – אמר והיה לשון שמחה, להעיר שאין לשמוח אלא בישיבת הארץ על דרך אומרו (תהלים קכ״ו) אז ימלא שחוק פינו ו

Later in the parsha we read: וְלֹא נָתַן ה׳ לָכֶם לֵב לָדַעַת וְעֵינַיִם לִרְאוֹת וְאׇזְנַיִם לִשְׁמֹעַ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה (29:3)  Sefas Emes (5634) asks: you mean the dor de'ah that stood by Har Sinai and got the Torah did not have daas, did not see things clearly, did not hear the voice of Hashem?! Of course they did!  They experienced Hashem's revelation in the fullest possible way.  However, what they lacked was the , the עֵינַיִם, the אׇזְנַיִם.  Revelation to them was like an out of body experience. There was a disconnect between the material world, the secular world, of day to day life, and their religious experience.  The generation that was going to enter Eretz Yisrael experienced things differently.  When they learned parshas shoftim about beis din, about malchus and Jewish government, when they heard halachos about fighting wars to defend their borders, laws about agriculture and business, this spoke to their day to day life.  Torah for them was not some abstract construct, but was l'maaseh in all its forms. That's the Torah that we are slowly rediscovering today after so many years in galus.

I was not planning on writing that, but got sidetracked by the call.  What I was planning on writing was about an interesting thing later in the parsha in the section of the tochacha.  When it speaks about the brachos, we read that וּנְתָנְךָ יְהֹוָה לְרֹאשׁ וְלֹא לְזָנָב וְהָיִיתָ רַק לְמַעְלָה וְלֹא תִהְיֶה לְמָטָּה (28:13).  But then later, in the tochacha section, we read that הַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבְּךָ יַעֲלֶה עָלֶיךָ מַעְלָה מָּעְלָה וְאַתָּה תֵרֵד מַטָּה מָּטָּה (28:43).  It does not sound very fair.  When we are on top, it says only once לְמַעְלָה, but when the aku"m have the upper hand, for them it's מַעְלָה מָּעְלָה two times.  And on the flipside, when we are in charge, וְלֹא תִהְיֶה לְמָטָּה, but when they are in charge, וְאַתָּה תֵרֵד מַטָּה מָּטָּה two times.  

I saw R' Ovadya Yosef quoted a mashal from the Ben Ish Chai, whose yahrzeit was this past week, to explain what's going on here.  A man had a dream in which he saw a huge ladder with 1000 rungs pointing up to the sky, and the king of the land began to climb the ladder.  After much time and effort the king made it halfway to the top, 500 steps up, and then vayikatz... v'hinei chalom, the dream ended.  The man told his wife about this fantastic dream, and she encouraged him to go to the king and tell him, and so he did.  Upon hearing the story, the king bestowed upon the man a gift of $1000.  One of the less than honest chambermaids was witness to this event, and figured that if the king paid $1000 for this dream in which he got only halfway up the ladder, imagine how much he would pay someone who told him that he made it to the top.  She made an appontment for her husband to appear before the king, and he related his concocted dream that the king reached the top of the ladder.  When the king heard what the man had to say he screamed for the guards to throw him into the dungeon.  No reward, not even a thank you.  The question on everyone's mind was why the first guy got a reward and the second guy was thrown in jail.  So the king explained: b'shlama according to the first dream, I achieved great things, but there is so much more ahead of me that I can and will yet accomplish.  The rest of my life can be as great as the first part.  But if I've already reached the top, this is the pinnacle of everything I can and will accomplish, that means it's all downhill from here (typical middle age depression : )  That dream does not deserve reward; it's a curse, not a blessing.

R' Ovdaya explained that when we are on top, it's only  לְמַעְלָה, one time, because there is always more in store for us from Hashem.  There are no limits to what we can accomplish and what the reward might me.  And on the flipside, when we are pushed down, it is וְאַתָּה תֵרֵד מַטָּה מָּטָּה, two times, to the very bottom, because that curse is a blessing in disguise.  When you've hit rock bottom, there is no place to go but up.  When it comes to the aku"m, the opposite is true.  הַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבְּךָ יַעֲלֶה עָלֶיךָ מַעְלָה מָּעְלָה, to the very top, and from there, there is no place to go but down.  וְלֹא תִהְיֶה לְמָטָּה like them, meaning only one לְמָטָּה for them, because for them there is always yet another lower level to which they can fall. 

I haven't seen anyone else explain the difference between the pesukim, so wanted to pass on this fantastic vort.

From a comment by Shloma: אלול = אנו למעלה ועוד למעלה

On a different note, just found this list of 1500+ chakiros.  Enjoy!

shome'a k'oneh by mikra bikurim

A few weeks ago I asked why it is that we go out of our way to wear a 4 cornered garment to be able to fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzis but no one makes a point of washing every meal in order to have the opportunity to fulfill the aseh of bentching.

My bad for not remembering that my wife's grandfather, R' Dov Yehudah Shochet, dealt with a similar issue.  He suggested that even though technically one is not required to wear a 4 cornered garment, the way the Torah phrases the mitzvah alludes to the fact that one should do so.  Tzitzis is phrases as a command, gdilim taaseh lecha.  The mitzvah of maakah, by way of contrast, is conditional, ki tivneh bayis.  Same with shiluach ha'kan, ki yikarei...  

I did not pose an answer back then, but was thinking that birchas ha'mazon is different because the mitzvah is to give thanks.  You can't force someone to give thanks or order then to give thanks.  It's an emotional response that a person has to feel.  Therefore, we cannot require someone to fulfill the mitzvah of bentching in the same way we require wearing tzitzis.

Minchas Chinuch and others discuss whether one can fulfill the mitzvah of mikra bikurim through shome'a k'oneh.  One aspect of the debate relates to the disagreement between Beis haLevi and Chazon Ish whether birchas kohanim can be fulfilled through shome'a k'oneh.  Beis haLevi held that since birchas kohanim must be said b'kol ram, it must be heard, therefore shome'a k'oneh does not suffice.  We do not ascribe to the listener the properties of the "voice" of the speaker.  C.I. disagreed.  Here too with respect to mikra bikurim, Rashi comments on v'anisa v'amarta that one has to say the declaration out loud.  However, I think there is an additional issue here.  Avudraham writes that we say modim derabbanan during chazaras hashat"z and do not simply listen to the recitation of modim by the shliach tzibur because modim is an expression of thanks, and thanks has to come from your heart.  It's not about saying the words; it's about feeling the emotion behind them.  Similarly, mikra bikurim is thanks to Hashem for the harvest.  Here too, someone cannot stand in your place to experience that emotion.  The words are just an expression of what one has to feel in one's  heart.

starting off on the right foot

Last week I wrote about the smichus ha'parshiyos of yefat to'ar and ben sorer u'moreh.  There is, however, a parsha that separates the two, namely, the parsha of giving the bechor double.  Shem m'Shmuel explains that the reason this parsha is stuck in the middle is to teach us the importance of firsts.  A bechor has extra rights because he is the first child born; how the parents raise him sets the tone for the way other future children will be raised.  A person might be tempted to downplay or excuse the aveiros of a ben sorer u'moreh, as they are done right after he becomes a gadol.  We don't do that. Davka because these aveiros are done right after the child becomes a gadol they carry extra weight, as these first months of entering adulthood set the tone for the life to come.  Amalek is singled out because they were the first to attack us after we left Egypt. reishis goyim Amalek.  This upcoming week's parsha speaks about bikkurim, the first fruit that we have to bring to the mikdash so that our harvest gets off on the right foot.  

The Midrash Tanchuma on our parsha comments:

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹסִי בַּר חֲנִינָא, בּוֹא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה מִתְחַטְּאִין, וְכַמָּה יֵשׁ לָהֶן פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה לְעוֹשֵׁי מִצְוֹת. אָדָם יֵשׁ לוֹ עֵסֶק אֵצֶל מַלְכוּת, פְּעָמִים שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן כַּמָּה מָמוֹן עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ אֵצֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ אֵצֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ, סָפֵק עוֹשֶׂה שְׁאֵלָתוֹ, סָפֵק לֹא עוֹשֶׂה. אֲבָל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֵינוֹ כֵּן, אֶלָּא יוֹרֵד אָדָם לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ, רָאָה אֶשְׁכּוֹל שֶׁבִּכֵּר, תְּאֵנָה שֶׁבִּכְּרָה, רִמּוֹן שֶׁבִּכֵּר, מַנִּיחוֹ בַּסַּל וְהוֹלֵךְ לִירוּשָׁלַיִם וּבָא וְעוֹמֵד בְּאֶמְצַע הָעֲזָרָה וּמְבַקֵּשׁ רַחֲמִים עַל עַצְמוֹ וְעַל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: הַשְׁקִיפָה מִמְּעוֹן קָדְשֶׁךָ וְגוֹ'. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר, אֵינִי זָז מִכָּאן עַד שֶׁתַּעֲשֶׂה צָרְכִּי הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, שֶׁכָּתוּב אַחֲרָיו, הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ מְצַוְּךָ לַעֲשׂוֹת

The Midrash connects the tefilah of הַשְׁקִיפָה מִמְּעוֹן קָדְשֶׁךָ with the bringing of bikkurim.  However, that pasuk is not part of mikra bikkurim.  That pasuk appears later in the parsha in the context of viduy maasros, the declaration made at the end of three years saying that terumos and maasros were properly tithed and distributed.  

The Tanchuma did not misread the parsha.  What the Tanchuma is teaching us is that the viduy maasros that happens years later is the culmination of the reishis, the first steps taken in the right direction, that started with the bringing of bikurim.  

The Ishbitzer writes in Mei haShiloach:

בזה שהאדם מחזיר להקב"ה ראשית פרי האדמה, בזה מברר א"ע כי יוכל לעבוד את ה' בכל מאודו.

Halacha tells us that כל העושה על דעת ראשונה הוא עושה (Shabbos 91).  If a person starts by giving his first fruits, we can be assured he will continue down that path in avodas Hashem of giving of his $ and himself (see here.)

The mussar haskel with respect to Rosh haShana goes without saying.

bikurim, nachala, and kinyan peiros

 וְהָיָה֙ כִּֽי־תָב֣וֹא אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁר֙ הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לְךָ֖ נַחֲלָ֑ה  Chazal tell us that  וְהָיָה֙ at the start of a parsha connotes simcha.  The simcha here is not the fact that the first crops are ready, but, as the Ohr haChaim writes, להעיר שאין לשמוח אלא בישיבת הארץ, the simcha is from the fact that we have Eretz Yisrael.  

The Sifri writes that by fulfilling the words of our parsha, the parsha of bikurim, you will be zocheh to yeshivas ha'aretz (see here). The mitzvah of bikurim can only be done only after you are already in Eretz Yisrael and are harvesting crops there.  How then can Chazal say that it's because of this mitzvah that we will enter the land?

A couple of years ago I quoted from R' Teichtel's Eim haBanim Smeicha: 

Ki tavo'u el Eretz Canann asher ani nosein lachem l'nachala v'nasati nega tzara'as b'veis eretz achuzaschem (14:35).  A strange promise!  Once we finally merit seeing Hashem's promise to give us the land fulfilled, the Torah tells us that our homes will be plagued with leprosy.  Why?  What did we do to deserve that?  (see Rashi)

Rav Teichtel in his classic Eim haBanim Smeicha interprets the pasuk derech derush as saying that if after G-d is "nosein lachem nachala" and gives us a homeland, we still think of the 5 Towns, Boro Park, Englewood, Teaneck, or even Lakewood, NJ as "home," then "v'nasati nega tzara'as," I will bring tzara'as and tzaros to "beis achuzaschem," that place in galus you still mistakenly think of as home.  Sometimes unfortunately we need a wakeup call, a little suffering and discomfort, to appreciate and recognize where home is.

Eretz Yisrael is our nachala, our homeland.  Everyplace else in the world is just a hotel.  

Chasam Sofer uses this same idea to explain the Sifri. Thinking of  Eretz Yisrael as our nachala, as our homeland, doesn't start just when we get there.  Thinking of Eretz Yisrael as our nachala is the precursor to our getting there.  We can't bring bikruim in galus, but we can recognize that Eretz Yisrael, not wherever in the world we find ourselves, is the one place  אֲשֶׁר֙ הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לְךָ֖ נַחֲלָ֑ה.  If we adopt that attitude, then we will be zocheh to physically be able to fulfill the mitzvah.

Notice the repetition throughout our parsha:

וְהָיָה֙ כִּֽי־תָב֣וֹא אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁר֙ הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לְךָ֖ נַחֲלָ֑ה

וְלָקַחְתָּ֞ מֵרֵאשִׁ֣ית׀ כׇּל־פְּרִ֣י הָאֲדָמָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר תָּבִ֧יא מֵֽאַרְצְךָ֛ אֲשֶׁ֨ר הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לָ֖ךְ

 וּבָאתָ֙ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִהְיֶ֖ה בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֑ם וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֵלָ֗יו הִגַּ֤דְתִּי הַיּוֹם֙ לַ הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיךָ כִּי־בָ֙אתִי֙ אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר נִשְׁבַּ֧ע ה׳ לַאֲבֹתֵ֖ינוּ לָ֥תֶת לָֽנוּ

Again and again the parsha reminds us that Eretz Yisrael is the homeland that Hashem promised to us. 

Why do we mention the story of Lavan harassing Yaakov when we bring bikurim?  Malbim reminds us of the Midrash: ועז״א ארמי אובד אבי דכתב המדרש מה שהיה ללבן כח להתאבק כ״כ עם יעקב הוא משום שהוא בח״ל והיה בידו חטא מה שאינו דר בא״י  How could a rasha like Lavan have any power over the bechir ha'Avos?  The Midrash tells us that it's because Yaakov was outside Eretz Yisrael, where he belonged, where his homeland was.   

The Midrash Tanchuma writes that Moshe foresaw that we will be in galus and would not be able to fulfill the mitzvah of bikruim so he instituted tefilah 3x a day.  What's the connection between bikruim and tefilah? (see here, here, and here) When a person davens, he/she must turn to face Eretz Yisrael, to face the Beit HaMikdash.  If it's not possible to physically face that direction, he/she has to turn their heart to Eretz Yisrael.  If we cannot physically bring bikurim to give thanks for the nachala of Eretz Yisrael, we can year to do so, we can remind ourselves 3x a day about the importance and centrality of Eretz Yisrael.

Tos in Gittin (48) puts two halachos together an asks a great kashe: In order to read the parsha of bikurim you have to own the land the produce grew on.  The gemara has a machlokes R"Y and Reish Lakish whether kinyan peiros is k'kinyan ha'guf or not, and we pasken like Reish Lakish, that it is not.  Someone who only has a kinyan peiros cannot read the parsha of bikurim.  We also pasken that brothers who divide up a yerusha are considered lekuchos --- the inherited land is theirs only as a kinyan peiros until the yovel, at which point it reverts to the estate and has to be re-divided.   הקשה רבינו תם ואנו איך מצאנו ידינו ורגלינו!  How can anyone then ever read the parsha of bikurim?  Unless a property was passed from father to his only son generation after generation from the time of Yehoshua, every piece of land was either bought or inherited by a group of brothers and everyone's kinyan in the land of Eretz Yisrael is only a kinyan peiros? 

The Rishonim answer (see Tos 48a, Rashba, see Malbim on our parsha as well) that yerushas Eretz Yisrael is different.  Eretz Yisrael is ours because it is the land promised to the Avos, it is the land those who left Mitzrayim were supposed to conquer.  The farmer who brings bikurim states כִּי־בָ֙אתִי֙ אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר נִשְׁבַּ֧ע ה׳ לַאֲבֹתֵ֖ינוּ לָ֥תֶת לָֽנוּ.  The land being an inheritance does not diminish our ownership claim and turn it into a kinyan peiros.  Aderaba, viz a viz bikurim, it defines and strengthens our claim and connection to the land.

connection between bikurim and the 13 midos ha'rachamim

Fascinating Meshech Chochma points out that there are 13 times that the shem Havaya is mentioned in the parsha of bikurim, and he suggests that these correspond to the 13 midos ha'rachamim which Ashkenazim will start saying in slichos this motzei shabbos.  Interestingly, in Ki Tisa, the very last pasuk of the aliya in which the midos are mentioned is  רֵאשִׁ֗ית בִּכּוּרֵי֙ אַדְמָ֣תְךָ֔ תָּבִ֕יא בֵּ֖ית ה׳ אלקיך.  

Here are his words:

בפ׳ בכורים נזכר י״ג פעמים שם הוי׳, לנגד שלשה עשר מדות של רחמנים, ובפרשה דויעבור ה׳ על פניו ויקרא כו׳ הי״ג מדות הזהיר על ראשית בכורי כו׳ תביא בית ה׳ כו׳. ודו״ק.

The root of sin is to be kafuy tovah.  The 13 midos are all about recognizing the chasdei Hashem, that he is rachum v'chanun, and without that we are nothing.  Bikurim is the same idea -- to be makir tovah to Hashem for bringing us into Eretz Yisrael and giving us its peiros. 

asher lo yakim -- do things lishma!

1) Many meforshim talk about why the particular 11 arurim mentioned in the parsha are singled out more than any other aveiros.  You can find this idea in the Sefas Emes, but it really goes back to R' Bachyei: the gemara (Makos 24a) writes that David haMelech took all 613 mitzvos and boiled them down to 11 principles that are mentioned in Tehillim ch 15.  Not that you don't have to keep all 613 mitzvos -- what it means is that a m'eiyn of the level of dveikus that you can achieve by doing all 613 mitzvos can be captured by living these 11 principles (see Maharal in Ch Aggados).  The gemara at the beginning of Sukkah that daf yomi learners hopefully still remember tells us that the Shechina never came down lower than 10 tefachim, and no one ever went up more than 10 tefachim.  There is a boundary between shamayim and aretz.  David haMelech gives us 11 principles to live by, 1 more than 10, so we can break through that boundary.  11 spices are in the ketores -- same idea.  R' Bachyei writes that the 11 arurim are the flipside to these 11 principles.  I didn't try to do a one to one comparison to see how they line up, but it would be an interesting project.

The last one of the arurim on the list is אָר֗וּר אֲשֶׁ֧ר לֹא־יָקִ֛ים אֶת־דִּבְרֵ֥י הַתּוֹרָֽה־הַזֹּ֖את לַעֲשׂ֣וֹת אוֹתָ֑ם.  What does "asher lo yakim" mean?  If, for example, you don't fulfill the mitzvah of not eating neveilah, then you are over the lav of neveilah.  What does "asher lo yakim" add?  We've discussed the Ramban and Chasam Sofer on this in the past.  Abarbanel suggests that the pasuk is talking about someone who does fulfill everything, aleph through taf.  The problem is the motivation.  Sometimes a person does the mitzvos because that's the key to getting the kavod they need, maybe getting $$$, or getting the social recognition and prestige.  A person has to be "yakim," to fulfill the Torah, "...LA'ASOS OSAM," because he wants to do what Hashem told him to do, not as a means to some other end.  It very much sounds like the Abarbanel is bashing she'lo lishma here.  What about l’olam yaasok adam baTorah u’mitzvot af al pi shelo lishmah?  I assume Abarbanel would differentiate between degrees of she'lo lishma, but be that as it may, it is still a very striking statement.

2) We have earlier in the parsha by bringing bikurim  וּבָאתָ֙ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִהְיֶ֖ה בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֑ם.  Rashi comments אשר יהיה בימים ההם – אין לך אלא כהןא בימיך, כמות שהוא.  Ramban asks:  b'shlama in parshas shoftim where we are speaking about zakein mamrei, I understand why the Torah has to say וּבָאתָ֗ אֶל־הַכֹּהֲנִים֙ הַלְוִיִּ֔ם וְאֶ֨ל־הַשֹּׁפֵ֔ט אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִהְיֶ֖ה בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֑ם meaning, as Rashi comments ואפילו אינו כשאר שופטים שהיו לפניו, because otherwise I might have thought that the mitzvah of listening to B"D only applies when the members of BD are talmidei chachamim of stature, but when they are not such brilliant leaders, maybe there is no problem taking issue with their psak, kah mashma lan that it doesn't work that way.   אין לך אלא שופט שבימיך - you have to listen to the B"D in your time even if they are not all Einsteins.  However, what's the hava amina to think that you would not have to bring bikurim to a kohen who is not on such a high level?  Does it take an Einstein to eat a basket of fruit?

R' Baruch Sorotzkin explains that the idea of bringing bikurim is that when you come in contact with a kohen who is oveid in beis ha'mikdash, it makes an impression.  Tos in Baba Basra (21) writes with respect to maaser sheni כדדרשי' בספרי למען תלמד ליראה וגו' גדול מעשר שני שמביא לידי תלמוד לפי שהיה עומד בירושלים עד שיאכל מעשר שני שלו והיה רואה שכולם עוסקים במלאכת שמים ובעבודה היה גם הוא מכוון ליראת שמים ועוסק בתורה: that when you spend time in Yerushalayim to eat maaser sheni and you witness the kohanim doing avodah and engaged in mileches shamayim, it brings you to greater yirah and great closeness to Torah.  You're not just a messenger to drop off a fruit basket.  One might have thought that this is well and good if the kohanim in your time are people from whom there is something to learn and something to gain from being in contact with, but let's be real -- not every kohen in history is like that.  Kah mashma lan Rashi that you still have to go and bring your bikurim to fulfill the mitzvah.

3) The Midrash writes that when Moshe foresaw that the mitzvah of bikurim would end, he instituted davening 3x a day (see this post, and here, here, and here).  The gemara in Brachos tells us that tefilah corresponds to the daily korbanos.  In other words, prayer, coming close to G-d, demands sacrifice.  According to another view, tefilah was instituted by the Avos.  In other words, we do it because it is part of our tradition, because our parents and grandparents prayed.  Our Midrash gives us a different perspective.   וְהָיָה֙ כִּֽי־תָב֣וֹא אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ -- the word "haya" is always an indicator of happiness and joy, as Ohr haChaim explains אמר והיה לשון שמחה, להעיר שאין לשמוח אלא בישיבת הארץ על דרך אומרו (תהלים קכ״ו) אז ימלא שחוק פינו.  ב .  Similarly, וְשָׂמַחְתָּ֣ בְכׇל־הַטּ֗וֹ the halacha is that אין קורין מקרא בכורים אלא בזמן שמחה, מעצרת ועד החג, שאדם מלקט תבואתו ופירותיו ויינו ושמנו you can only bring bikurim during the harvest months when the farmer has the most joy from seeing the fruits (no pun intended) of his labor.  When the farmer comes to the beis ha'mikdash with his bikurim, he is not coming with a sense of sacrifice, he is not coming because his parents and grandparents came, as this parsha is speaking וְהָיָה֙ כִּֽי־תָב֣וֹא אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ to the future generation that will be the first ones in Eretz Yisrael who can fulfill this mitzvah. The farmer is coming to express his joy.  That's what the takanah of tefilah is a substitute for -- the joy we lack because we don't have a beis ha'mikdash and we don't have bikurim.   "ר אין עומדין להתפלל לא מתוך עצבות ולא מתוך עצלות ולא מתוך שחוק ולא מתוך שיחה ולא מתוך קלות ראש ולא מתוך דברים בטלים אלא מתוך שמחה של מצוה (Brachos 31)  I would venture to guess that many people can relate to prayer as an act of sacrifice, a sacrifice of their time, their energy, it's yet another commitment to attend to, and many people can relate to prayer as a continuation of the legacy of the Avos, they think back to parents or grandparents, etc. but the challenge is to be able to come to tefilah with simcha, as an expression of simcha in avodas Hashem.

mesikus haTorah

 How could I not post this when it's the Ohr haChaim in this week's parsha (26:11)!

בכל הטוב אל התורה כאומרם ז״ל (ברכות ה׳.) ואין טוב אלא תורה, שאם היו בני אדם מרגישין במתיקות ועריבות טוב התורה היו משתגעים ומתלהטים אחריה ולא יחשב בעיניהם מלא עולם כסף וזהב למאומה כי התורה כוללת כל הטובות שבעולם.

it's who gives the gift that's important

 V'anisa v'amarta....  

The Tiferes Shlomo writes derech remez that a person has to be an ani b'daas and approach Hashem with humility.  This is the essence of what bringing bikurim is all about -- recognizing that if it wasn't for chasdei Hashem, none of the crops would be there.

(As a general rule, it's probably a good idea to have a little "v'anisa" of humilty before opening your mouth "v'amarta" to voice your opinion.)

The Mishna tells us that the rich would bring bikurim in expensive gold and silver baskets which the kohanim would return, while the poor would bring bikurim in simple baskets which the kohanim would then keep.  There is a similar account brought by the gemara (M"K 27a) with respect to food brought to a mourner's house: the rich would bring the food on gold and silver trays, the poor would bring simple platters. There the gemara says that the Chachamim made a takanah that everyone should bring the same simple platters so as to not embarrass the poor.  Why was there such a takanah made with respect to the beis ha'avel but not with respect to bikurim?

R' Mordechai Eliyahu answers based on the Sefer haChinuch that the whole essence of the mitzvah of bikurim is to recognize that everything -- whether you have a lot of money or a little money -- is yad Hashem.  If you have that perspective, then you can't feel bad about being poor and you can't let being rich go to your head.  Had Chazal made a takanah to level the playing field of gifts, they would be undermining the whole essence of what the mitzvah is all about (he gives other answers in his sefer as well).

"V'samachta b'kol ha'tuv asher nasan lecha Hashem Elokecha..."  The secret to happiness is recognizing the "...asher nasan lecha Hashem Elokecha" in everything.  It's not what you have which is important -- it's who is giving it to you.

The Midrash Tanchuma writes that Moshe saw that there would be a churban ha'bayis and there would be no more bikurim so he made a takana to daven three times a day.  (See Rambam hil tefilah 1:5 who says davening 3x a day was a takanah of Ezra's beis din; see R' Nisim Gaon in Shabbos 30a who does not list tefilah as one of the takanos of Moshe.)  Like bikurim, tefilah is all about the recognition of Hashem as the source of everything we have.

(I think you also see from this Chazal that tefilah is not about asking for things, but rather it's about giving.  When you bring bikurim you have to bring something to the mikdash, not ask for something to take home with you.  Similarly, tefilah is a replacement for korbanos.  A korban is something you bring, not something you ask for or get.  What do we bring when we offer a tefilah?  Foremost, we bring ourselves and our committment.)

back to Mitzrayim in ani-yos

 V'heishivcha Hashem Mitzrayim b'aniyos... (28:68)

The Maor vaShemesh in P' Bo explains the pasuk by mattan Torah (P' VaEschanan)  "anochi omeid bein Hashem u'beineichem" that the human ego, the "anochi" inside each and every one of us, is the biggest obstacle standing between man and G-d.

Similarly, I can't recall who says it, but there is a chassidishe vort on the pasuk in Yirmiyahyu (23:24)

אִם־יִסָּתֵ֨ר אִ֧ישׁ בַּמִּסְתָּרִ֛ים וַאֲנִ֥י לֹֽא־אֶרְאֶ֖נּוּ

as saying that  אִם־יִסָּתֵ֨ר אִ֧ישׁ בַּמִּסְתָּרִ֛ים וַאֲנִ֥י even if a person is b'hisbodedus, locked away in an ivory tower separated from all sin, but he has his "ani," his ego, that is still in place, then Hashem says   לֹֽא־אֶרְאֶ֖נּוּ I don't want to see such a person.    

Maybe that's what our pasuk in the tochacha is telling us.  In galus when we cannot see G-d openly there's more of an opportunity to think we are in control.  Hashem says be careful, or that "Ani"-yos, that ego trip, will put you back in Mitzrayim, alongside Pharoah who though he was the master of the Nile.  (See the Igra d'Kallah for a similar idea.)

recognizing chasdei Hashem

 After recounting the miracles that Bnei Yisrael witnessed in Mitzrayim and then in the midbar, the parsha tells us (29:3) that Moshe said to Bnei Yisrael that Hashem did not give them a  לֵב֙ לָדַ֔עַת וְעֵינַ֥יִם לִרְא֖וֹת וְאׇזְנַ֣יִם לִשְׁמֹ֑עַ until that day.  They did not have the capacity to take it all in an appreciate it earlier.

Rashi comments: לב לדעת – להכיר את חסדי הקב״ה ולדבק בו.

A "lev ladaas" means being able to recognize the chasdei Hashem and respond with dveikus.

But what exactly happened on "that day" that shows that Bnei Yisrael finally reached that level?  Rashi writes:

עד היום הזה – שמעתיא שאותו היום שנתן משה ספר התורה לבני לוי, כמו שכתוב: ויתנה אל הכהנים בני לוי (דברים ל״א:ט׳), באו כל ישראל לפני משה, אמרו לו: משה רבנו, אף אנו עמדנו בסיני וניתנה לנו, מה אתה משליט את בני שבטך עליה, ויאמרו לנו מחר: לא לכם ניתנה. ושמח משה בדבר, ועל זאת אמר להם: היום הזה נהייתב לעם וגו׳ (דברים כ״ז:ט׳) – היום הזה הבנתי בכם שאתם דביקים וחפיצים במקום.

Moshe gave a Torah to sheivet Levi, and the rest of Bnei Yisrael came to him and protested that it was not fair -- they too wanted to receive Torah from Moshe.  Sheiveit Levi does not get a monoploy.

What does demanding Torah have to do with recognizing the chasdei Hashem in all the miracles he performed?  The seifa seems to have nothing to do with the reisha?

The pasuk, I think, is teaching us (see Meshech Chochma) what true recognition and appreciation is.  The "l'davek bo" at the end of Rashi is not an additional detail of what "lev ladaas" means, but rather is a tnai in "l'hakir."  If you truly recognize chasdei Hashem, then that recognition translates into a desire for dveikus and more closeness.  If it doesn't, then it means you don't really get it.  If your wife/mother/whoever prepares dinner for you and you leave over half the meal on your plate, no matter how much you say you appreciated the cooking, no one will believe you.  When you ask for seconds, that shows that you recognize that this is a good meal.   

If the second half of the pasuk is a continuation of the first, then we also see that "l'davek bo" is davka through learning Torah.   

bikurim during shemita year

Rashi writes in parshas Mishpatim (23:19) that even during a shemita year there is a chiyuv to bring bikurim:

ראשית בכורי אדמתך – אף השביעית חייבת בביכורים, לכך נאמרה אף כאן.

Gur Ayreh on the spot (see also Mizrachi, Sifsei Chachamim) comments that this has to be a scribal error in Rashi and cannot possibly be correct.

בודאי טעות סופר הוא, דאיך שייך דיהיה השביעית חייב בביכורים, שאיך קורא אני כאן ״ועתה הבאתי ראשית פרי האדמה אשר נתת לי״ (דברים כו, י), דהא לא לו נתן, ואיך שייך שחייב בביכורים:

How can there be a chiyuv to bring bikurim when the chiyuv bikurim applies only where you can bring fruits from "ha'adamah asher nasata li," your land.  During shemita, the land is hefker, not yours!

The Ohr hachaim similarly comments in our parsha (26:2):

אשר ה׳ אלהיך נותן לך – פירוש לפי ששייר ה׳ לו חלק בארץ והוא שנת השמיטה (ויקרא כ״ה ד׳) דכתיב ובשנה השביעית וגו׳ שבת לה׳, לזה בא דברו הטוב שאינו מצוה אלא על זמן הנתינה לך שהם ו׳ שנים אבל שנת השמיטה אין בה הבאת ביכורים לפי שאינם שלו אלא מופקרת לכל.

Others are not so sure that we should be so quick to dismiss Rashi's comment as a scribal error.  They are medayek that the Rambam may hold the same way.  He writes in hil Matnos Aniyim (6:5):

שנת השמטה כולה הפקר ואין בה לא תרומה ולא מעשרות כלל לא ראשון ולא שני ולא מעשר עני

Rambam paskens that there is no chiyuv terumos, maaser rishon, maaser sheni, maaser ani during shemita, but noticably absent from his list is bikurim.  Does he mean to say that there is a chiyuv of bikurim during shemita, or is this chapter devoted to the halachos of teru"m and therefore that's all that he mentions?

What do you do with the Gur Aryeh/Ohr haChaim argument if you read Rashi/Rambam k'peshuto? 

Minchas Chinuch (mitzvah 84) raises the question of whether there is a chovas ha'gavra to declare one's fields hefker during shemita, or whether the mitzvas haTorah means the cheftza of the land is automatically considered hefker:

ואני מסופק אי המצוה אקרקפתא דגברא הוא דרחמנא ציוהו להפקיר פירותיו בשביעית ומחויב לקיים להפקיר ואם מפקיר ה"ז הפקר אבל אם אינו מפקיר אינו מופקר ונהי דעובר על עשה מ"מ אינו הפקר רק עובר על גזירת השי"ת א"כ אין אחר רשאי ליטלו והרי הוא גזל ביד אחרים כ"ז שלא הפקיר.

See M.C. for many nafka minos.

If one takes the first tzad of the M.C.'s chakira maybe you could learn that Rashi is talking about a case where the farmer violated the issur shemita and was not mafkir his land, and therefore, since he owns the land, he has to bring bikurim.

Rav Mordechai Eliyahu in his sefer on chumash explains that the nekudas hamachlokes here is more fundamental -- how hefker during shemita works: is a person is still considered the owner of his property, just others have a right to enter and take whatever fruits they desire, or does shemita cause the land to become ownerless?

According to Rashi, anyone can take from the field, but the land retains its baalus.  According to Ohr haChaim, the land itself is hefker.

viduy ma'aser

On erev Pesach every third year of the terumos/maasros cycle there is a mitzvah of biyur maasros, to distribute whatever terumah/maaser is left in one's possession. One then makes a declaration known as viduy maser, saying that one has given away the required tithes to support the kohen, the levi, the poor.  
         
This time of year we are all focused on the mitzvah of teshuvah and we are all familiar with the concept of viduy as a confession of sin. Why should the declaration that one gave teru"m properly be called viduy?

The Seforno answers that Hashem's original plan was for the bechorim to do the avodah in the Mikdash and be the recipients of our teru"m. Because of the cheit ha'eigel Hashem took that honor away from the bechorim and gave it to the leviim and kohanim. The declaration is called viduy because even though one fulfills the mitzvah of teru"m by giving to the kohen, the levi, etc., one must still acknowledge that it is a departure from the ideal.

With this idea the Seforno is able to answer a question raised by Rashi. We say to Hashem as part of the viduy, "Hashkifa m'm'on kodshecha...," look down from Heaven and give us blessings. Usually the word "hashkifa" has a negative connotation. Here, it is used in a positive way to make a request for bracha after the fulfillment of the mitzvah. Rashi explains that the Torah is teaching that giving to the poor changes the midas ha'din into rachamim. Seforno, however, gives a much simpler explanation of the negative connotation here: true, the parsha is speaking about the fulfillment of the mitzvah of giving teru"m, but the mitzvah itself is tainted by the change in process caused by the cheit ha'eigel.  Hashem therefore cannot look completely favorably on the way we carry it out.
        
We see a number of chiddushim in this Seforno:

1) Teshuvah is not just for aveiros -- it's for mitzvos as well. The person in this case didn't do any aveira -- he is doing the mitzvah of giving teru"m. Nonetheless, since the mitzvah is not being done in the ideal way the farmer must say viduy.

2) Teshuvah applies even when a person is a victim of long past circumstance. Imagine a farmer at the time of Shlomo haMelech fulfilling biyur maasros. The cheit ha'eigel that caused the transition from avodah by bechorim to avodah by kohanim would have occurred around 400 years in the past. Nonetheless, the farmer has to say viduy for his inability to do the mitzvah in its ideal sense because of that long past circumstance.

3) My wife added another observation: the mitzvah teaches us that there is value to the less-than-ideal. We operate with a full set of mitzvos built around the less than ideal circumstance of avodah done by kohanim instead of bechorim. Hashem did not discard the entire system because of the failure of cheit ha'eigel. The alternative to not being able to do 100% is not doing nothing -- sometimes even the less than ideal has value.

13 midos -- davar she'b'kedusha

1. The gemara tells us that Ezra made a takanah to read the tochacha of Bechukosai before Shavuos and the tochacha of our parsha before Rosh haShana.  Rav Ruderman (see Sichos haLevi on our parsha and on Bechukosai) quotes Ramban's comment that the first tochacha corresponds to churban bayis rishon and the second tochacha corresponds to churban bayis sheni.  The gemara tells us that the nevi'im wondered "al mah avdah ha'aretz," what caused the destruction of the first Mikdash.  Hashem revealed that it was due to a lack of learning Torah lishma.  Therefore, explains Rav Ruderman, it is appropriate to read the tochacha of Bechukosai before Shavuos as the moment when we come to celebrate kabbalas haTorah presents us with the perfect opportunity to make a tikun for the cheit of bitul Torah lishma.  The gemara tells us that churban bayis sheni was caused by sinas chinam, sins bein adam l'chaveiro.  Our teshuvah efforts should be focused on precisely these areas during the month of Elul as we lead up to Yamim Noraim.  Therefore, explains Rav Ruderman, we read the tochacha of our parsha now, as the time is ripe to correct the sins that led to churban.
    
2. This week we will IY"H start saying slichos.  The S.A. paskens that if you are not davening with a minyan then you cannot recite the 13 midos ha'rachamim.  The Rishonim already question why this should be so.  The Mishna in Megillah (23b) lists those things which require a minyan, and conspicuously absent from the list is the recitation of the 13 midos.  The midos are, after all, just a tefilah, a bakashas rachamim -- why should they be categorized as a davar she'b'kedusha that requires a minyan?  What is the source for such a din?
      
Some point to the gemara in Rosh haShana (17b) that says that Hashem wrapped himself in a talis like a shliach tzibur and taught Moshe the 13 midos as the source.  Since the gemara refers to Hashem acting as shliach tzibur, it implies that a tzibur is needed.  As to why this din is left off the list in the Mishna in Megillah, it could be that the Mishna there is listing chiyuvim.  There is no chiyuv to recite the 13 midos -- if you choose to take advantage of their power and add them to your tefilah, then you need a minyan to do so.
    
The Maor vaShemesh (end of Parshas vaYechi) suggests another hesber.  The gemara writes that Hashem told Moshe that whenever Klal Yisrael sins "ya'asu lifanei ka'seder ha'zeh," of the 13 midos, "V'ani mochel lahem."  The Rishonim point out that the gemara does not say "kol ha'omer" -- whoever recites the 13 midos.  It says "kol ha'oseh" -- whoever does the 13 midos.  A person must put those behaviors of rachum, chanun, erech apayim, etc. into practice and live them to benefit from them and be granted mechilah.  (I can't help but think that in the back of the Maor va'Shemesh's mind was the RaMaK's sefer Tomer Devorah, which is devoted to explaining how to put Hashem's midos ha'rachamim as described in the pasuk "Mi K-l kamocha nosei avon..." into practice.  "Mah hu -- af atah" -- we have a concept of imitation Dei.  If G-d reveals to us that he acts with certain attributes of mercy, it obligates us to behave in a similar fashion.)
    
It's impossible for any one individual, says the Maor va'Shemesh, to truly embody all of the 13 midos.  Each one of us has personality quirks that tilt us in the direction of one midah or another.  It's only when we join together as a tzibur and blend all our individual talents together that we can cover all 13 bases. 

Coming back to Rav Ruderman's idea, the tikun of bein adam l'chaveiro is perhaps even more necessary at this time of year because it is what enables us to truly come together as a community so that we can fulfill the 13 midos and merit receiving the bracha of "kol ha'oseh... ani mochel lahem."

3. Lastly, just to put you in the right mood: