I can't see what you are saying

Hashem appeared to Miriam and Aharon to respond to their criticism of Moshe. Hashem addressed them:

וַיֹּ֖אמֶר שִׁמְעוּ־נָ֣א דְבָרָ֑י

Rashi comments:

אֵין נָא אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן בַּקָּשָׁה

Why should Hashem have to make a special appeal to them to listen? Isn't it the aspiration of every navi to receive the dvar Hashem?

Ohr haChaim: צריך לדעת למה הוצרך לומר כן ודאי כי ישמעו את אשר ידבר, עוד צריך לדעת אומרו תיבת נא כי לא יוצדק לומר האדון לעבדו לשון בקשה.

He gives multiple answers, among them that by saying "Listen to what I am saying" the implication hinted at is that they had not previously been listening, or had not listened and correctly interpreted the dvar Hashem.

A couple of years ago I quoted a piece from the Tiferes Shlomo (I know it's wrong to play favorites, but this is one of my favorite pieces) that he repeats a few places in chumash. When Hashem asked Adam haRishon אַיֶּֽכָּה, Adam responded אֶת־קֹֽלְךָ֥ שָׁמַ֖עְתִּי בַּגָּ֑ן וָֽאִירָ֛א כִּֽי־עֵירֹ֥ם אָנֹ֖כִי. The Tif Shlomo explains that when Klal Yisrael accepted the Torah, Chazal tell us that we had the ability to be רואים את הקולות. It was a visual as well as an auditory experience. This was the level that Adam was on before the cheit. After the cheit, when Adam experienced אֶת־קֹֽלְךָ֥ שָׁמַ֖עְתִּי בַּגָּ֑ן -- he heard but did not see the kol Hashem -- he realized that he had fallen from the level he had been on beforehand.

Later in Braishis, how did the brothers know that the person speaking to them was indeed their long lost brother Yosef? Yosef told them (45:12) וְהִנֵּ֤ה עֵֽינֵיכֶם֙ רֹא֔וֹת וְעֵינֵ֖י אָחִ֣י בִנְיָמִ֑ין כִּי־פִ֖י הַֽמְדַבֵּ֥ר אֲלֵיכֶֽם: When he speaks, they don't just hear his voice, but וְהִנֵּ֤ה עֵֽינֵיכֶם֙ רֹא֔וֹת, they see it as well. His words are dvar Hashem, not milei d'alma, as their own experience proves.

Here too in our parsha, Hashem was indicating to Miriam and Aharon just how far they had fallen. שִׁמְעוּ־נָ֣א דְבָרָ֑י -- you can hear the words, but you won't experience seeing them the way you should have, the way Moshe does.

I did not see it in the Tiferes Shlomo, but maybe one can suggest that later in parshas Chukas, when Moshe addressed Bn"Y with the words שִׁמְעוּ־נָא֙ הַמֹּרִ֔ים when they were clamoring for water, this was the knock on them.  Since שׁכינה מדבּרת מתוך גורנו, when Moshe spoke they should have not just heard, but they should have seen the dvar Hashem. Because of their rebelliousness, the people were denied this experience.

shaylos based on second hand info

HaKsav vhaKabbalah comments on the words  וַ֠יֹּאמְר֠וּ הָאֲנָשִׁ֤ים הָהֵ֙מָּה֙ אֵלָ֔יו אֲנַ֥חְנוּ טְמֵאִ֖ים לְנֶ֣פֶשׁ אָדָ֑ם of the people who wanted a chance to offer pesach sheni:

 היה ראוי לקצר ויאמרו אליו, מה הוא האנשים ההמה שהוסיף מגיד שאין נשאלים אלא לבעל המעשה (ספרי) אם הוצרך אדם דבר לשאול, הוא בעצמו ילך לשאול, ואם שולח שלוחו אין משיבין לו, כי השליח אינו יודע לסדר הענין היטב לכן הוסיף האנשים ההמה, בעלי המעשה עצמם סדרו שאלתם

 

Davka the people who have a question or an issue to raise are the one who have to come to ask the shayla -- האנשים ההמה -- not messengers or third parties.

 

This applies l'maaseh.  I did not have a chance to look up the sources first hand, but there seems to be some discussion in a case, for example, where your wife is cooking dinner and accidentally mixes up milchig and fleishig, should you be the one calling the Rav to ask the shayla since it's your dinner, or should your wife be the one to ask since she is the בעל המעשה who did the cooking?  Perhaps a better example, which I did not see discussed, would be how to apply this to taharas ha'mishpacha shaylos. 

The obvious takeaway lesson from from this din is that second hand information does not cut it.  Only someone who is involved first hand knows and can convey the facts of a case accurately and only armed with that information can proper decisions be rendered.  

Miriam's wait -- נצב vs עמד

I saw a question raised by R' Moshe Tzvi Neriah that I am going to take the liberty of embellishing on by connecting it to last week's haftarah.  In last week's haftarah an angel comes and tells Manoch's wife that she will have a baby and he instructs her not to drink wine or become tamei since the baby will be a nazir from birth.  Manoach apparently did not buy his wife's story, so the angel came back and repeated the message for him.  Manoach offered the angel food, but the angel declined because angels don't eat.  Manoch asked the angel it's name, and the angel answered that that it has no regular name because it's name reflects its mission and an angel's mission can change from one day to the next.   Manoach then offered the food he prepared as a korban, and the navi tells us that the angel rose back to shamayim through the fire that consumed the korban וַיְהִי֩ בַעֲל֨וֹת הַלַּ֜הַב מֵעַ֚ל הַמִּזְבֵּ֙חַ֙ הַשָּׁמַ֔יְמָה וַיַּ֥עַל מַלְאַךְה׳ בְּלַ֣הַב הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חַ.  Amazing.  You would think that if Manoach had any doubt whether this was an angel or not all bets would be off at this point.  But not so fast!  The navi continues and says: לֹא־יָ֚סַף עוֹד֙ מַלְאַ֣ךְ ה׳ לְהֵרָאֹ֖ה אֶל־מָנ֣וֹחַ וְאֶל־אִשְׁתּ֑וֹ אָ֚ז יָדַ֣ע מָנ֔וֹחַ כִּֽי־מַלְאַ֥ךְ ה׳ הֽוּא:  When the "person" never reappeared, it was then and only then that Manoch knew it was an angel.  Why was that the clincher?  Why was it the fact that the angel never came back again that convinced Manoach that this could not have been a regular person? 

Imagine a person who suggests a shidduch to a young man and gives them a bracha that it should work out and he be zocheh to get married.  The young man accepts, and the shadchan sets up the date.  Don't you think the person who suggested the match would either call the boy afterwards, or even informally, next time they bump into the boy, ask how the date was?  Actually, they would probably make a point of bumping into him to ask.  And if they go out a few times, the person who suggested the match might nudge the parents and ask when they get a mazel tov (and not just because they want to collect their shadchanus :)  And when the wedding comes, don't you think the shadchan will be sure to attend in order to tell everyone how they were the one who introduced the couple?  That's human nature!  We want to see how things work out, we want to monitor the progress of what we put in motion.  R' Eliyahu Baruch Finkel from the Mir explained that the "makeh b'patish" that convinced Manoach that he was dealing with an angel is the fact that the angel lacked this very human quality.  The angel never came back.  The angel was not curious to check in after a few months to see if Manoach's wife was wearing maternity clothes yet; he didn't stop by to ask how the pregnancy was progressing; he didn't show up at the bris to see the new baby his bracha had helped bring into the world and take a bow.  He just walked away and that was it.  A human being doesn't act that way.  Our curiosity and desire to see things unfold is an inescapable part of our nature.

 

Rashi writes at the end of our parsha:

 

והעם לא נסע – זה כבוד חלק לה המקום בשביל שעה אחת שנתעכבה למשה כשהושלך ליאור, שנאמר: ותתצב אחתו מרחק וגו׳ (שמות ב׳:ד׳).

 

Miriam prophesized that her baby brother would be the one to lead Klal Yisrael out of galus.  Isn't it just human nature for her to want to see what would happen to that baby?  Isn't it just human nature for her to want to see if her nevuah would come to fulfillment?  So why, as R' Neriah, does she get a reward for going to watch that basket holding her brother as it floated down the Nile?  What's the big deal?

 

We translate that pasuk ותתצב אחתו מרחק to mean, "His [Moshe's] sister stood afar [and watched]," but that translation does not do justice to the text.  There are two different words in Hebrew for standing: עמד and נצב.  The root עמד is used when we are talking about physical position, i.e. getting up from sitting to  take a standing position.  The root נצב is like the word stand in the expression "stand by."  You don't have to get up out of your chair to stand by.  It's being in a mental state of anticipation, of expectation; it's not about physical position.  When you hear, "stand by," you know something is going to happen, it's just a question of what.  (Compare with Malbim Yeshayahu 3:13)  When Moshe stood at Yam Suf and told Bn"Y הִתְיַצְּבוּ וּרְאוּ אֶת יְשׁוּעַת ה׳ (Shmos 14:13), he didn't mean they all have to get up on their feet.  What he meant was get ready, Hashem is about to do something.  Ramban comments on  אַתֶּם נִצָּבִים הַיּוֹם כֻּלְּכֶם that  שאתם עומדים *ומזומנים* לפני השם כדי לעבור בבריתו,  you are prepared in anticipation of entering Hashem's bris.  And when we read at the beginnng of Parshas vaYeira that Avraham saw  וְהִנֵּה שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים נִצָּבִים עָלָיו, it means, as Seforno writes,  פונים אליו כממתינים לדבר עמו, they were waiting *expectantly* to speak with Avraham, בהיותו פנוי מן המראה הנכבדת, until Avraham finished his conversation with G-d.

 

Yes, it's human nature to want to see how things will turn out.  But that's not what Miriam was doing when she went to follow the basket containing baby Moshe.  When you watch a baseball game, you are watching to see how things will turn out.  Either team can win or lose.  The shadchan who suggests a match, even if they give a bracha, has no idea whether it will work out or not.   But when you watch Mission Impossible, you know the bad guys aren't going to win, and I hope I didn't just spoil all eight movies for anyone.  You know how it will turn out in the end before you even start watching.  But you watch anyway, expectantly, in anticipation of all the stunts, thrills, and action that will bring victory to Ethan's team.  That's what the root  נצב  is all about.  ותתצב אחתו מרחק  Miriam had no doubt that her prophecy would be fulfilled, just like she didn't need Moshe to announce הִתְיַצְּבוּ וּרְאוּ אֶת יְשׁוּעַת ה by Yam Suf; she had her tambourine in hand already from the moment they left Egypt.  וַתֵּתַצַּב אֲחֹתוֹ מֵרָחֹק לְדֵעָה *מַה* יֵּעָשֶׂה לוֹ - not אם יֵּעָשֶׂה לוֹ.  She expected and believed that Hashem would work things out.  It was just a matter of observing to see how it would unfold. 

I'm left with one question.  If what I wrote is correct, then wouldn't it have made more sense in our parsha  ויאמר אלהם משה עמדו ואשמעה מה יצוה ה׳ לכם. for the pasuk to use the word נצב?  Moshe wasn't telling the people to stand on their feet, he was telling them to anticipate an answer from Hashem?

the GR"A's five year plan

Maaseh Rav quotes that the practice of GR"A was to start each day after davening by learning 2 blatt of gemara.  The new editions of Maaseh Rav quote commentaries that look for mekoros for the practices of the Gaon, and on this section they point to the gemara (Chulin 24):

 כתוב אחד אומר (במדבר ח, כד) מבן חמש ועשרים שנה ומעלה וכתוב אחד אומר (במדבר ד, ג) מבן שלשים אי אפשר לומר שלשים שכבר נאמר כ"ה ואי אפשר לומר כ"ה שכבר נאמר שלשים הא כיצד כ"ה ללמוד ושלשים לעבודה מכאן לתלמיד שלא ראה סימן יפה במשנתו ה' שנים שוב אינו רואה

 

These meforshim say by covering 2 blatt a day you can finish shas in 5 years and check to make sure you hopefully see siman bracha.

 

I don't understand this explanation.  First of all, simple math: 365 days a year at 2 blatt a day means covering 730 blatt a year.  At that pace you can finish shas (2711 blatt according to daf yomi cycle, which includes Ylmi Shekalim for whatever reason) in less than 4 years, not in 5 years.  Even if we chop off some time because our lunar calendar has 354 or so days in a year, you gain it back because of the leap years.  If you want a 5 year cycle to finish shas, doing 1.5 blatt a day seems closer to the mark.  Is there some magic to a round number of doing 2 blatt as opposed to 1.5 a day?  Did the GR"A maybe factor in more time to do the masechtos ketanos as well and the mishnayos not covered in the Bavli?  Or is this just a "b'erech" calculation?

 

It also seems that the test of siman bracha comes during the first 5 years of training.  After that, inertia takes over and either you have it or you don't.  Why should one follow a 5 year regime throughout one's life?

 

Putting aside the GR"A, there is a different question asked on that gemara: l'mai nafka minah to whether one sees siman bracha or not?  One has a chiyuv to learn whether one enjoys it or not, whether one finds the material easy or not, whether one sees bracha or not!

 

By way of analogy, the gemara writes that a person should always learn even she'lo lishma.  The gemara also says that someone who learns she'lo lishma deserves to have never come into the world.  Tos resolves the contradiction by distinguishing two types of she'lo lishma: a "neutral" she'lo lishma desire for kavod, money, etc. which is acceptable, and a negative she'lo lishma where one learns in order to argue with others, which is unacceptable.  Maharal and R' Tzadok quoting Mahar"Ch Ohr Zaru'a offer a simpler answer.  Yes, learning she'lo lishma is a terrible thing, but what's the alternative if that's all one is capable of doing at the moment?  Not learning?!  That's not an option.  A person can't live without learning.  So even if it's terrible, learn that way anyway.  Here too, after five years if a person takes stock and realizes they just don't have the brains for a daf gemara and there is no siman bracha in it, what's the alternative?  Not learning!?  There is no such option.  So what's the point of this meimra of Chazal?  

 

Some Achronim cite the gemara (Kid 29b):

 

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הוּא לִלְמוֹד וּבְנוֹ לִלְמוֹד – הוּא קוֹדֵם לִבְנוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם בְּנוֹ זָרִיז וּמְמוּלָּח וְתַלְמוּדוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים בְּיָדוֹ – בְּנוֹ קוֹדְמוֹ.

 

and suggest that if there are limited resources, best to invest in a person who does see siman bracha than the person who is struggling. 

 

I think the simplest pshat is the Meiri:

 

לעולם יהא אדם חרוץ בלמודו בילדותו להשתדל בו כמה שאפשר לו כדי שתהא יגיעת ילדותו מועלת לו לעולם כבר אמרו כל תלמיד שלא ראה במשנתו סימן יפה עד חמש שנים שוב אינו רואה:

 

Chazal are not speaking from the perspective of someone looking back *after* 5 years and taking stock of whether they have had success in learning or not.  Chazal are forward looking, speaking from the perspective of someone about to start this 5 year journey.  The point is to inspire a person *before* the 5 years are up to give it his all, because those initial 5 years determine the trajectory of the future. 

the significance of repetition -- lomdus to answer to a Shaar haMelech posted years ago

A mere sixteen years ago when the daf hayomi was doing Nazir I posted a kashe of the Shaar haMelech that I left unanswered. There are Rishonim who hold that given the choice of shechting meat for a choleh on shabbos or feeding the choleh neveila, it is better to violate shabbos.  Even though shabbos is an issur sekilah and neveila is just an issur lav, you potentially violate the issur neveila with every kzayis eaten, multiple times, but violate shabbos only once if you do the shechita.  It is better therefore to minimize the number of issurim.  R' Yosef Engel has an piece that he devotes to discussing the issue of quantity vs. quality, kamus vs eichus.  Here you have it -- kamus trumps eichus, quantity is more important than quality.

Here's the problem.  The Mishna in Nazir (47) talks about a meis mitzvah found by a kohen gadol and nazir.  Who should bury the body?  Neither one is allowed to become tamei, so which is the lesser evil?  

The Ramban tells us that a nazir who is metamei himself violates four separate issurim (Nazir 5:21):

הא למדת שהנזיר שטמא עצמו לוקה ארבע מלקיות משום לא יטמא ומשום לא יחל דברו ומשום לא תאחר לשלמו ומשום לא יבוא אם היתה ביאה וטומאה כאחת כמו שבארנו:

You would think therefore that the kohen gadol should be metamei himself since he violates only one issur.  Yet that is not how the Chachamim rule, or how the Rambam paskens (Nazir 7:13):

נזיר וכהן שפגעו במת מצוה יטמא נזיר אע"פ שהוא סותר הימים הראשונים ומביא קרבן טומאה. ואל יטמא כהן שזה קדושתו קדושת שעה ואפילו היה נזיר עולם והכהן קדושתו קדושת עולם:

Why in this case, asks Shaar haMelech (Maachalos Assuros 14:17), don't we apply the principle that quantity trumps quality, i.e. that even though the kohen gadol has a more chamur kedusha,  קדושתו קדושת עולם, the fact that the nazir violates multiple lavim make it the greater evil?

The Minchas Chinuch (376:6) has an answer, but I want to share with you my wife's grandfather's (R' Dov Yehudah Shochet) answer since it relates to our parsha and is beautiful amkus in understanding the sugya.

Rashi explains the smichus ha'parshiyos between the gifts of the nesiim and hadlakas hamenorah:

למה נסמכה פרשת המנורה לחנוכת הנשיאים, כשראה אהרן חנוכת הנשיאים, חלשה דעתו כשלא היה עמהם בחנוכה, לא הוא ולא שבטו. אמר לו הקב״ה: חייך, שלך גדולה משלהם, שאתה מדליק ומטיב את הנרות בקר וערב.

Many of the mefoshim are bothered by Rashi's contention that שלך גדולה משלהם.  What makes lighting the menorah greater than the gifts of the korbanos?  How do we weigh one mitzvah against another?

My wife's grandfather (see my wife's post) suggested that what makes lighting the menorah greater is the fact that it was done every day, as opposed to the gifts of the nesiim were a one time deal.  Something done repeatedly outweighs something that is a once time event.  

He proves that sevara from the din we just saw above: the lav of neveila outweighs the lav of shabbos even though shabbos has a stricter punishment because the lav of neveila would be violated repeatedly in eating.  Repetition gives something significance and weight.

[Editorial note: We can learn a yesod in shalom bayis from here as well. What you do repeatedly day in and day out carries more weight in a relationship than a grand gesture of a big present for an anniversary or birthday.]

In that proof lies a subtle difference from the way others, like R' Yosef Engel, understood the sugya.  It's not the number of lavim involved in the issur neveila that makes it more chamur (kamus vs eichus), but rather it's the repetition of the lavim, the fact that the person earing takes bite after bite, repeating the issur again and again.  

M'meila, we can answer the Shaar haMelech's question.  The case of the nazir and kohen gadol who chance upon a meis mitzvah is a one time occurrence.  There (hopefully) will never be a repetition of that same scenario.  Therefore, even though the nazir violates more issurim, that does not outweigh the kedushas kohen gadol.  

Hope this was worth the 16 year wait : )

inner strength

 Chazal tell us that Doeg was a gadol ha'dor, a brilliant talmid chacham, but his Torah was מן השׂפה לחוץ (Sanhedrin 106b).  It was all external trappings, but did not penetrate his soul.  Moshe Rabeinu, on the other hand, was the same on the inside as on the outside.  The Torah writes regarding the aron (Shmos 25:11) וצפית אתו זהב טהור מבית ומחוץ תצפנו, to plate it with gold on the inside, מבית, as well as on the outside.   בְּכׇל בֵּיתִי נֶאֱמָן הוּא Moshe was faithful not just on the outside, for show, but even מבית, even on the inside, throughout the depths of his being. 

The gemara in Taanis tells the story of חוני המעגל who people turned to to pray for rain.  Said Choni, בניך שמו פניהם עלי שאני כבן בית לפניך.  The reason Choni's tefilos were answered is because he had this midah of being faithful through and through, both on the inside, מבית -- he was  כבן בית -- and not just on the outside (Yismach Moshe).

I wanted to add my two cents that with this approach we can understand what the Torah tells (Shmos 1:21) us about the midwives of Bn"Y in Mitzrayim who refused to obey Pharoah's order to drown the babies:  וַיְהִי כִּי⁠ יָרְאוּ הַמְיַלְּדֹת אֶת⁠ הָאֱלֹקים וַיַּעַשׂ לָהֶם בָּתִּים  Through their yiras Shamayim the midwives built up their inner strength -- מבית -- and fortitude.

chiyuv tefilah b'eis tzarah - chovas hatzibur and chovas ha'yachid

Although Ramban disagrees with Rambam's position that there is a mitzvah d'oraysa to pray every day, he does hold (see his hasagos to Sefer haMitzvos) that there is a mitzvah d'oraysa to pray in times of distress, as we read in our parsha  וְכִֽי־תָבֹ֨אוּ מִלְחָמָ֜ה בְּאַרְצְכֶ֗ם עַל־הַצַּר֙ הַצֹּרֵ֣ר אֶתְכֶ֔ם וַהֲרֵעֹתֶ֖ם בַּחֲצֹצְרֹ֑ת וְנִזְכַּרְתֶּ֗ם לִפְנֵי֙ ה׳ אֱלֹֽקיכֶ֔ם וְנוֹשַׁעְתֶּ֖ם מֵאֹיְבֵיכֶֽם׃.  Rambam makes the same point himself at the beginning of Hil Taanis:

מצות עשה מן התורה לזעוק ולהריע בחצוצרות על כל צרה שתבא על הצבור. שנאמר על הצר הצורר אתכם והרעותם בחצוצרות. כלומר כל דבר שייצר לכם כגון בצורת ודבר וארבה וכיוצא בהן זעקו עליהן והריעו:

דבר זה מדרכי התשובה הוא. שבזמן שתבוא צרה ויזעקו עליה ויריעו ידעו הכל שבגלל מעשיהם הרעים הורע להן ככתוב עונותיכם הטו וגו'. וזה הוא שיגרום להסיר הצרה מעליהם:

אבל אם לא יזעקו ולא יריעו אלא יאמרו דבר זה ממנהג העולם אירע לנו וצרה זו נקרה נקרית. הרי זו דרך אכזריות וגורמת להם להדבק במעשיהם הרעים. ותוסיף הצרה צרות אחרות. הוא שכתוב בתורה והלכתם עמי בקרי והלכתי גם אני עמכם בחמת קרי. כלומר כשאביא עליכם צרה כדי שתשובו אם תאמרו שהיא קרי אוסיף לכם חמת אותו קרי:

The mitzvah of chatzotzros is not just a technical chiyuv to blow trumpets, but rather requires that a person call out to Hashem and do teshuvah.

R' Soloveitchik explained that Rambam agrees that fundamentally prayer is a response to tzarah, to distress, need, anxiety.  The chidush of the Rambam is that even in day to day of normal life, man finds himself in a state of existential crisis and must turn to G-d.

Rambam continues later in that same perek:

כשם שהצבור מתענים על צרתן כך היחיד מתענה על צרתו.

What's the source for this statement that an individual has a chiyuv taanis/tefilah at times of personal distress?  Magid Mishne writes that there is no gemara he can point to, but the Rambam makes sense mi'sevara:

מלשון רבינו נראה שהוא סבור שהיחיד חייב להתענות על צרתו כשם שהצבור חייבין להתענות על צרתן ודבר נכון הוא אע"פ שאין לו הכרח מן הגמרא ...אבל דברים נראים הם שכיון שהתענית הוא מדרכי התשובה והכניעה כל יחיד ויחיד מחוייב לחפש בדרכיו בעת צרתו ולשוב אל ה

Bach (OC 5579) however writes that the Rambam does have a source, and it is another pasuk in our parsha: 

 וַיִּצְעַ֣ק מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶל־ה׳ לֵאמֹ֑ר ק-ל נָ֛א רְפָ֥א נָ֖א לָֽהּ׃ 

I think there is an important hashkafa take away from this Bach.  Lichora, the pasuk he quotes is not a makor for a person davening על צרתו.  The person having the tzarah in our parsha is Miriam, not Moshe!  But that's exactly the point -- when you daven for someone else, what you are saying to Hashem is that you empathize with that other person's plight so much that it's a tzarah for you as well.

This is exactly what Aharon told Moshe when he said  אַל־נָ֥א תְהִ֖י כַּמֵּ֑ת אֲשֶׁ֤ר בְּצֵאתוֹ֙ מֵרֶ֣חֶם אִמּ֔וֹ וַיֵּאָכֵ֖ל חֲצִ֥י בְשָׂרֽוֹ׃.  As opposed to Rashi who says the meis Aharon is referring to his Miriam ( אל נא תהי – אחותנו זו.   כמת – שהמצורע חשוב כמת  ), Rashbam learns that the meis is Moshe himself  אל נא תהי כמת – כלומר: לכבודך ובשבילך, אל נא תהיה אתה בעצמך כמת.  In other words, Aharon was telling Moshe that if Miriam is in pain, it's not just an eis tzarah for Miriam -- it's also an eis tzarah for Moshe.  Therefore, he is mechuyav to daven.  

Since when is sushi a substitute for a steak?

The Torah tells us that Bn"Y complained מִ֥י יַאֲכִלֵ֖נוּ בָּשָֽׂר, that they wanted meat, not just mon to eat.  Then the people added, זָכַ֙רְנוּ֙ אֶת־הַדָּגָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־נֹאכַ֥ל בְּמִצְרַ֖יִם חִנָּ֑ם אֵ֣ת הַקִּשֻּׁאִ֗ים וְאֵת֙ הָֽאֲבַטִּחִ֔ים וְאֶת־הֶחָצִ֥יר וְאֶת־הַבְּצָלִ֖ים וְאֶת־הַשּׁוּמִֽים׃ (11:5), that they remembered the free fish and vegetables that they ate while in Egypt.  What's the connection between the desire for meat and remembering the fish and vegetables of Egypt?  A sushi roll and vegetable platter are no more a substitute for meat than the mon was, so why is it relevant?

Secondly, the mon tasted like any food in the world that you could imagine.  If you wanted a steak, you could think of steak when eating the mon and it would taste like steak.  Why then did the people complain?

Alshich writes that the mon could taste like steak, but it wasn't steak.  It did not have the same nutrients and vitamins.  You can dress up and impossible burger to look and taste just like a hamburger, but you probably need to take iron supplements and other vitamins if that's your whole diet.  

Bn"Y were feeling run down -- nafsheinu y'veisha -- and felt it must be due to the diet of mon lacking something.  Kal v'chomer, they said.  We remember eating the poor diet of Egypt, the fish that was so bad they were giving it away for free, and we still had the stamina to do the work of slaves, so why now are we feeling so run down?  It must be that we need real food, not just mon.

Chazal comment that the complaint for meat was not about food per se, but was about the obligations that now came with the food.  They comment on  אֲשֶׁר־נֹאכַ֥ל בְּמִצְרַ֖יִם חִנָּ֑ם that the word חִנָּ֑ם, free, here does not mean it was without cost.  It does not make sense that the Egyptian taskmasters who enslaved the Jewish people would have offered them at no cost good food to eat.  Rather, what it means is that they were free from the obligation to do mitzvos.  

R' Mordechai Eliyahu, whose hilula is coming up, pointed out that you didn't have to take terumos and maasros from mon, you didn't have the shecht mon, you don't do other mitzvos with mon.  The only chiyuv that Bn"Y now had was a chiyuv bracha.  What's the big deal about saying a bracha?

You can only ask that question if you don't think about what a bracha is before saying it.  If you understand that every time you make a bracha you are acknowledging that everything is b'yad Hashem and you are not in control of your life, then yes, it is a big deal.  It's that sense of dependency that Bn"Y found stifling.

R' Levi Yitzchak m'Berdichiv, k'darko, reads the entire complaint in a way that is a zechus for Bn"Y.  The mon could taste like anything you could think of, but obviously, a person can only think of that which he has seen or tasted before.  What could Bn"Y think of?  What foods were they familiar with?  They could think of the fish they had eaten in Egypt, they could think of the vegetables they had eaten, but no one had had ever had cholent before, so how could they think of cholent and turn mon into cholent?!  Or, as the Berdichever puts it, no one in the world had ever tasted meat that was prepared k'halacha, fulfilling the mitzvah of shechita, of melicha, etc.  You can't shecht a fish or a vegetable -- it's  חִנָּ֑ם from mitzvos.  The taam of food that is prepared k'halacha is a different taam, as it is invested with a flavor of ruchniyus.  Bn"Y wanted food with that taam, food that had the flavor of kiyum mitzvos, not  חִנָּ֑ם, and so they asked for real meat so they could shecht and prepare it and add that flavor to their memory banks so they could going forward get it from the mon as well.  (See Sefas Emes for a different limud zechus on the complaint of Bn"Y).   

a gift is a mechayeiv

I work close to midtown Manhattan in a building, one of many in the neighborhood, that has a giant pride flag hanging over the front entrance.  Every morning I am greeted with a colorful flier pasted on the entranceway to our floor encouraging people to join a group that engages in "advocacy" and promotes "visibility" of people engaged in a to'eivah lifestyle.  As part of the celebrations this month, there are conferences and events being held with participation of C-level executives, just to make sure you get the message that toe'aveh is supported at the highest levels in the company.  All this is in addition to the regular barrage of emails I get offering me things like voluntary (for now)  unconscious bias training and the like.  

I remember back in the good ol' days where the biggest issues working in a corporate environment were things like making sure you could leave early on erev Shabbos, or a woman manager offering a handshake after a meeting or interview.  Now, in many companies there is no problem even getting kosher food at meetings (offered alongside vegetarian, vegan, hallal, and a gamut of other selections).  What you put in your mouth may be kosher, but everything else in the environment is treif! 

I'm not surprised that a judge ruled this week that Yeshiva Universtity must recognize a LGBT group.  You can't be a square and claim you are really a circle.  You can't claim to be a "non religious organization" but then exclude LGBT because you want to keep religious values.  Circle or square -- which is it?  Torah u'Mada maybe makes sense if you are dealing with 1950's liberal values, with what was once thought of as the great ideas of Western civilization.  Maybe there is something we can take away from those ideas.  These days, forget it.  To even talk about Western civilization will get you banned.  The world is not interested in our values, and I don't see how we can gain much from being interested in the ones in vogue out there.  

Anyway... something on the parsha:

1. Bn"Y complain about the mon and Moshe is ready to throw in the towel:

הֶאָנֹכִ֣י הָרִ֗יתִי אֵ֚ת כׇּל־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֔ה אִם־אָנֹכִ֖י יְלִדְתִּ֑יהוּ כִּֽי־תֹאמַ֨ר אֵלַ֜י שָׂאֵ֣הוּ בְחֵיקֶ֗ךָ כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשָּׂ֤א הָאֹמֵן֙ אֶת־הַיֹּנֵ֔ק עַ֚ל הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר נִשְׁבַּ֖עְתָּ לַאֲבֹתָֽיו (11:12)

Rashi already asks: when did Hashem ever say that Moshe has to serve as a nursemaid, to be like a kindergarten teacher and baby people?

R' Yerucham Lebovitz answers that the very fact that Hashem gave Moshe the gift of leadership, the power to deal with the people even when they are rebellious, even when they test his patience, is mechayeiv him to do so.  

When Hashem gives a person a talent, a gift, that's Hashem's message to the individual that their mission is to use that ability to its fullest.  

2. How is a leader supposed to react when the flock lets him down?  וּבְעֵינֵ֥י מֹשֶׁ֖ה רָֽע׃ (11:9)  Rather than asking for mercy from Hashem, this time Moshe shows his disapproval (see post here), and in the very next pasuk says to Hashem:

 לָמָ֤ה הֲרֵעֹ֙תָ֙ לְעַבְדֶּ֔ךָ וְלָ֛מָּה לֹא־מָצָ֥תִי חֵ֖ן בְּעֵינֶ֑יךָ לָשׂ֗וּם אֶת־מַשָּׂ֛א כׇּל־הָעָ֥ם הַזֶּ֖ה עָלָֽי

Sounds like Moshe is bemoaning his lot, asking Hashem why he has to put up with the complaints.  The Noam Elimelech, however, k'darko reads the pasuk quite differently.  לָמָ֤ה הֲרֵעֹ֙תָ֙ לְעַבְדֶּ֔ךָ -- why, Hashem, have you made it so that  I see the רָֽע in the people -- וּבְעֵינֵ֥י מֹשֶׁ֖ה רָֽע -- and not the good?  וְלָ֛מָּה לֹא־מָצָ֥תִי חֵ֖ן בְּעֵינֶ֑יךָ לָשׂ֗וּם אֶת־מַשָּׂ֛א כׇּל־הָעָ֥ם הַזֶּ֖ה עָלָֽי -- why have I not found favor to be charged with carrying the people's burdens rather than become a leader who cannot see the good in his people?

As discussed once before, the greatness of Moshe was "temunas Hashem yabit" -- when he looked at a simple Jew, maybe even a rebellious Jew, he saw temunas Hashem.

we have a yerusha

 וַיִּסְעוּ֙ מֵהַ֣ר ה׳ דֶּ֖רֶךְ שְׁלֹ֣שֶׁת יָמִ֑ים  Rashi comments in last week's parsha (10:33) מהלך שלשת ימים הילכו ביום אחד, שהיה הקב״ה חפץ להכניסן לארץ מיד that Bnei Yisrael were on the express train and covered three days distance in one because Hashem was trying to get them into Eretz Yisrael as quickly as possible.  Next chapter the wheels fall off the bus and everything starts to go wrong.    וַיְהִ֤י הָעָם֙ כְּמִתְאֹ֣נְנִ֔ים  Seforno comments: על טורח הדרך  And then we go from one complaint to the next, until we get to our parsha of the meraglim and then it's 40 years in the desert.  

Sefas Emes asks (last piece in 5648): Ha'yad Hashem tiktzar?  Here Hashem was rushing them along, He was kavyachol so anxious to have Bnei Yisrael finally achieve the dream of coming to Eretz Yisrael, so couldn't He make the trip a little more pleasant so there would be no complaints?  My wife and I once flew Aeroflot to go to Eretz Yisrael because the tickets were relatively inexpensive and it made the budget easier, but trust me, when you fly Aeroflot, וַיְהִ֤י הָעָם֙ כְּמִתְאֹ֣נְנִ֔ים you will have what to complain about.  Hashem doesn't have a budget! -- he can bring us first class all the way and even allow an extra bag too with no surcharge.  Ramban comments on וַיְהִ֤י הָעָם֙ כְּמִתְאֹ֣נְנִ֔ים that והנכון בעיני: כי כאשר נתרחקו מהר סיני שהיה קרוב ליישוב, ובאו בתוך המדבר הגדול והנורא במסע הראשון, היו מצטערים בעצמם לאמר: מה נעשה, ואיך נחיה במדבר הזה, ומה נאכל, ומה נשתה, ואיך נסבול העמל והענוי, ומתי נצא ממנו.  When you are flying first class there is no question of ומה נאכל, ומה נשתה, ואיך נסבול העמל והענוי.  True, Bnei Yisrael's complaining was unjustified, but Hashem could have pampered them so that there would not even have been a hava amina of an unjustified complaint.  Why didn't He do that?

This episode reinforces a basic yesod: "Ain Eretz Yisrael nikneis elah b'yissurim."  Chazal tell us that Eretz Yisrael is one of three things that can only be aquired with tribulations, the other things being Torah and olam ha'ba.  Hashem could speed up Bnei Yisrael's journey, but Hashem could not take away the yissurim completely, as without them, it is impossible to be koneh the Land.  

Some people like to hold a mortgage for 30 years and pay off a lot of interest slowly, and other people bite the bullet and take a 10 year payment plan, putting in a little more each month, but getting to the finish line quicker.  Hashem offered us a quick payment plan, all the yissurim wrapped up in one package for just a few days, and then Eretz Yisrael.  We turned it down, and as a result, we ended up on the 40 year payment plan.  

So we get to our parsha and the spies bring back their terrible report.  Kaleiv gets up and responds:   וַיֹּ֗אמֶר עָלֹ֤ה נַעֲלֶה֙ וְיָרַ֣שְׁנוּ אֹתָ֔הּ!  How does that address the concerns of the people or the details of the report?  He says that they can conquer the land, but 11 of his colleagues say that they can't, as they immediately respond וְהָ֨אֲנָשִׁ֜ים אֲשֶׁר־עָל֤וּ עִמּוֹ֙ אָֽמְר֔וּ לֹ֥א נוּכַ֖ל לַעֲל֣וֹת אֶל־הָעָ֑ם כִּֽי־חָזָ֥ק ה֖וּא מִמֶּֽנּוּ.  if it's a screaming match of one against eleven, then the eleven are going to win, so how was Kaleiv hoping to persuade anyone?

Two people finish business school and want to run a giant department store.  One is nervous, wondering how he is going to get the business off the ground, how he is going to compete with established competitors.  The other is cool and calm, his attitude is "We can do it!"  What's the difference between the two?  The difference is that the last name of the latter happens to be Macy, the great-great grandchild of R.H. Macy.  He doesn't need to start building from scratch -- his alter-alter zeyde already got things going.  He is just the latest in the line to take over.  Yes, there will be challenges, but those are the challenges of maintaining a legacy, not the challenges of a startup.

עָלֹ֤ה נַעֲלֶה֙ וְיָרַ֣שְׁנוּ אֹתָ֔הּ -- Eretz Yisrael is a YERUSHA, said Kaleiv.  We may be the start up nation when it comes to business, but as for the country itself, that is an inheritance.  It belongs to us because it belonged to our forefathers.  We are just the ones coming to collect what is due.    

I could not agree with this statement more:

I don’t know if I believe that another Holocaust is possible in America in 2021. But after what I’ve seen in the past few weeks, I do believe that at some point the Jews of the United States will no longer be welcome here. Even if our (very) fragile democracy manages to uphold its basic tenets of freedom for all citizens, it’s almost irrelevant; Americans no longer look to their government for what is true and right. They look to Facebook, to Instagram, to Bella Hadid and Jimmy Fallon. We are governed by public opinion, and the American opinion of Israel – and by turn, Jews – is darkening by the day.  

Fortunately, we have a yerusha.  

korban pesach sheni on rye - Minchas Chinuch vs R' Shach on how to read Rashi

Rashi on chumash quotes the din that there is no issue of having chametz in your house on pesach sheni.  In fact, b'pashtus there is no issur of eating chametz with the pesach sheni.  The mitzvah of eating the korban pesach sheni is fulfilled by eating a k'zayis of meat.  Once you eat that one k'zayis, the rest of the korban has to be consumed to avoid nosar, but the mitzvah of achilah is over.  In terms of everything eaten after the one k'zayis, there should be no problem of eating it on rye or club, whatever you like, as you are just eating to avoid having leftovers.  The one k'zayis eaten to fulfill the mitzvah of achilas ha'korban is a different story.  You can't eat it on bread not based on an issur chametz qua chametz, but based on a different din -- the achilas reshus of the bread would be mevateil the achilah mitzvah of the korban.  This would be true no matter what you eat that k'zayis with, whether it be bread, a potato, quinoa, or something else.  

Based on all this, the Minchas Chinuch does not understand Rashi on our parsha (9:10)

פסח שני, מצה וחמץ עמו בבית, ואין שם יום טוב, ואין אסור חמץ אלא עמו באכילתו.

What does Rashi mean  ואין אסור חמץ אלא עמו באכילתו?  What's the issur of having chametz with the korban pesach?  If Rashi is talking about what's eaten after the first k'zayis, there should be no issur; if he is talking about that k'zayis eaten to fulfill the mitzvas achila, then any food, not just chametz, cannot be eaten with the korban.  See Meshech Chochma who tries to offer a hesber.

Rav Shach answers this question with a pshat in Rashi that is so simple you have to wonder how no one else thought of it.  The way the M.C. reads the word אלא in Rashi אין אסור חמץ אלא עמו באכילתו is that there is no issur of chametz EXCEPT for chametz eaten with the korban pesach.  Rav Shach says that's not pshat.  The way to read Rashi is אין אסור חמץ , there is no issur of chamtez with the korban pesach,  אלא= RATHER,  עמו באכילתו, it may be eaten with the chametz!  Rashi means exactly the opposite of how Minchas Chinuch read it.   

a humble leader

Our parsha tells us that a group of people who were tamei came to Moshe to ask that they too be given a chance to offer korban pesach (9:6).  Moshe responded: Imdu v'eshmi'ah mah yitzveh Hashem lachem -- Hashem will give you an answer.

Rashi comments: כתלמיד המובטח לשמוע דבר מפי רבו. אשרי ילוד אשה שכך מובטח, שכל זמן שהיה רוצה היה מדבר עמו שכינה.  The is tremendous praise of Moshe, who had no doubts that Hashem would not leave him hanging and would give him direction.  How fantastic it is for a person to be able to communicate with G-d whenever needed!  

Rashi then continues: ראויה היתה פרשה זו ליאמר על ידי משה כשאר כל התורה כולה, אלא שזכו אילו שתיאמר על ידם, שמגלגלין זכות על ידי זכאי.  By rights, Moshe should have just been told the halachos of pesach sheni and taught them to the people, like any other parsha.  However, the zechus of those who demanded the opportunity to bring the kroban caused the parsha to be taught through them.

Gur Aryeh explains how this second half of the Rashi follows from the first half: פירוש, אחר שהכתוב מדבר בכבודו של משה, אם כן יקשה למה לא נאמרה הפרשה על ידי משה. בשלמא אם אמרינן שאין הכתוב מדבר בכבודו, יש לנו לומר משום דאמר ״כל הדבר הקשה יביאו אלי״ (ר׳ דברים א, יז), והיה מתפאר בדבר הקשה, לכך נעלמה ממנו ההלכה הזאת, אבל השתא דבכבודו של משה מדבר, והכתוב בא לספר בכבודו בזאת המצוה, אם כן לא נענש בזאת המצוה, אם כן למה לא נאמר על ידו, ותירץ ׳וראויה וכו׳⁠

We find in the first perek of Devarim that because Moshe said וְהַדָּבָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִקְשֶׁ֣ה מִכֶּ֔ם תַּקְרִב֥וּן אֵלַ֖י וּשְׁמַעְתִּֽיו that he would be able to answer any problem thrown his way, he was punished and forgot the halachos of yerusha (Rashi there explains:  על דבר זה נסתלק ממנו משפט בנות צלפחד).  Our parsha, explains Maharal, is not like that.  Moshe did not forget the laws of pesach sheni, his not having the answer in this case is not a punishment.  On the contrary, as the first part of Rashi explains, Moshe is being shown in a positive light, as being able to consult G-d at any opportunity.  The only reason the laws of pesach sheni had not yet been revealed to him is because Hashem wanted that zechus to go to those who had made the request, as the second half of Rashi explains.

Gur Aryeh begs the question: why is it that the pasuk in Devarim of אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִקְשֶׁ֣ה מִכֶּ֔ם תַּקְרִב֥וּן אֵלַ֖י וּשְׁמַעְתִּֽיו is interpreted so negatively, but the similar statement here עִמְד֣וּ וְאֶשְׁמְעָ֔ה what Hashem will command is viewed as a positive?  Maybe here too, Moshe's not knowing is a punishment?

The Shinever in Divrei Yechezkel answers that the crucial difference between what Moshe said in P' Devarim and what he said here is one word.  In Devarim, Moshe is speaking about himself: תַּקְרִב֥וּן אֵלַ֖י וּשְׁמַעְתִּֽיו. I will get an answer from Hashem.  Here, Moshe is speaking about others:  מַה־יְצַוֶּ֥ה ה׳ לָכֶֽם - what Hashem will say in response to you.  

When a leader makes it all about himself, then he loses credibility and his voice.  When it's all about serving the people, then his own greatness is actually enhanced.  Moshe, as we see later in the parsha, is the greatest anav.  He did not claim credit for being able to approach Hashem for answers, but rather told the people that it in the merit of their request, their desire to bring a korban, Hashem would surely respond "lachem," to them.  A leader who thinks like that is a leader who can always approach Hashem for answers.

the election of the Leviim

Rashi comments on 8:19  וָאֶתְּנָ֨ה אֶת־הַלְוִיִּ֜ם נְתֻנִ֣ים׀ לְאַהֲרֹ֣ן וּלְבָנָ֗יו מִתּוֹךְ֮ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ לַעֲבֹ֞ד אֶת־עֲבֹדַ֤ת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בְּאֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֔ד וּלְכַפֵּ֖ר עַל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וְלֹ֨א יִהְיֶ֜ה בִּבְנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ נֶ֔גֶף בְּגֶ֥שֶׁת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל אֶל־הַקֹּֽדֶשׁ that the 5 times Bnei Yisrael are mentioned in this pasuk correspond to the 5 books of chumash and indicate how praiseworthy Bnei Yisrael are.  

Meforshei Rashi all ask: this parsha is speaking about the election of the Leviim.  Why stick praises of Bnei Yisrael davka here, in this context?    

Sifsei Chachamim points out that Rashi interestingly learns that the words "lakachti osam li" a few pesukim earlier כִּי֩ נְתֻנִ֨ים נְתֻנִ֥ים הֵ֙מָּה֙ לִ֔י מִתּ֖וֹךְ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל תַּ֩חַת֩ פִּטְרַ֨ת כׇּל־רֶ֜חֶם בְּכ֥וֹר כֹּל֙ מִבְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לָקַ֥חְתִּי אֹתָ֖ם לִֽי׃ is referring to the bechorim, not the Leviim.  Rashi writes כי לי כל בכור – שלי היו הבכורות בקיוא הדין, שהגנתי עליהם בין בכורי מצרים, ולקחתי אותם לי עד שטעו בעגל, ועכשיו: ואקח את הלוים וגו׳.  One might think mai d'hava hava and who cares about what the role of the bechorim had once been, but apparently rather than focus on the fact that the bechoim had lost their position, the Torah wants to stress the positive, the fact that they too had once been chosen and were special. 

There are two types of selection. Sometimes when we select something it's like borer ochel mtoch psoles, we take the good out and reject everything else as not valuable.  But there is also selection when we pick a yotzei min ha'klal that is melamed al ha'klal.  The choice of one prat, one item, one individual, is meant to be representative of the whole, not a rejection of the whole.   

The Sefas Emes and Gur Aryeh write that the selection of the Leviim is like the yotzei min ha'klal that is melamed al ha'klal.  Their role is  לַעֲבֹ֞ד אֶת־עֲבֹדַ֤ת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בְּאֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֔ד וּלְכַפֵּ֖ר עַל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל -- they are in effect the representatives of Klal Yisrael.  The representative of a bunch of losers is a loser; the representative of a bunch of nobodys is a nobody.  Therefore, the Torah davka here builds up the bechorim, builds up the rest of Klal Yisrael.  The message to the Leviim is that they better take their job seriously and appreciate who they represent, because it takes a winner to represent winners (see Gur Aryeh).  

The Sefas Emes looks at the other side of the coin and writes that the Torah praises Klal Yisrael to give them the message that they should not feel rejected, that they too are valuable and special even though it is the Leviim who are doing the work.  Chazal are critical of Yaakov Avinu for singling out Yosef and giving him special attention, causing the other brothers to feel rejected and hurt.  It is this type of division that ultimately let to churban ha'bayis.  Here, the Mishkan is being setup, it is a time of chanukas ha'bayis and chanukas ha'avodah, so it has to be done right, so that if one group is given a privilige, it does not come at the pain and expense of another.   קַ֚ח אֶת־הַלְוִיִּ֔ם מִתּ֖וֹךְ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל means that whatever special quality the Leviim have, it is just an expression of what is found מִתּ֖וֹךְ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל, within the nation as a whole.   

At age 50 the time the Leviim serve carrying things draws to a close.

וּמִבֶּן֙ חֲמִשִּׁ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה יָשׁ֖וּב מִצְּבָ֣א הָעֲבֹדָ֑ה וְלֹ֥א יַעֲבֹ֖ד עֽוֹד׃ (8:25)

Rashi comments  לא יעבד עוד – עבודת משא בכתף, אבל חוזר הוא לנעילת שערים ולשיר ולטעון עגלות

Why does Rashi say that the levi returns to the job of נעילת שערים, locking the gates?  The gates had to be opened in the morning too, so why not say that the levi returned to the job of opening the gates?  

I think once before I posted that the idea of neilas ha'chag means to lock up (like in parshas Zos haBracha,  בַּרְזֶ֥ל וּנְחֹ֖שֶׁת מִנְעָלֶ֑ךָ, miNAALecha = a lock) the gains made over the chag and not let them go to waste as we return to normal day to day life.  So too, explains the Sefas Emes, when the levi has reached the ripe old age where he retires from having to shlep things, he needs to take more time to reflect on what he accomplished over his lifetime and lock in some of the spiritual gains he has made over the years.

We read in Shir haShirim (7:2) מַה־יָּפ֧וּ פְעָמַ֛יִךְ בַּנְּעָלִ֖ים בַּת־נָדִ֑יב.  Simple pshat in the pasuk is that it is speaking about the beauty of the feet of the beloved, with their perfectly fitted shoes, but you remember how the Torah describes (Braishis 33:8) Pharoah's state of excitement when he woke up from his dreams -- תִּפָּ֣עֶם רוּח֔וֹ.  Here too, the Ch haRI"M explained מַה־יָּפ֧וּ פְעָמַ֛יִךְ, how wonderful it is when a Jew gets excited by his avodas Hashem, by his learning, when there is a תִּפָּ֣עֶם רוּח֔וֹ for ruchniyus!  But as great as that is, a Jew also has to have בַּנְּעָלִ֖ים, there has to be a lock on the door.  You have to know how to channel and contain that enthusiasm and emotion into the right things and not let it escape and lead you elsewhere.

On a totally different note, turning to the end of the parsha, the Torah tells us that Miriam and Aharon spoke against Moshe.  Rashi comments: ותדבר מרים ואהרן – היא פתחה בדבר תחילה, לפיכך הקדימה הכתוב.  It sounds like Rashi is coming to explain why Miriam is mentioned before Aharon in the pasuk.  I don't understand what's bothering Rashi here.  Shouldn't Miriam be mentioned first because she is the eldest of the three siblings?  (see Tosfos Bechoros 4a)  

I don't have an answer yet.

blowing chatzotzros -- to have hargasha

Magid Mishneh at the beginning of hil taanis asks:

וראיתי לרבינו בספר המצות שלו שמנה תרועה זו ותקיעה שבשעת הקרבנות במצוה אחת. ותמה אני למה שהרי שני פסוקים הם בכתוב. ונראה שדעתו ז"ל שהמצוה היא אחת כללית לתקוע בחצוצרות במקדש בעת הקרבנות ובעת הצרות בין במקדש בין בגבולין ואין ראוי למנותן בשתי מצות ועוד צ"ע

Meaning, in P' Beha'aloscha, we have a command (10:9) to blow chatzotzros at a time of danger, such as war:

 וְכִֽי־תָבֹ֨אוּ מִלְחָמָ֜ה בְּאַרְצְכֶ֗ם עַל־הַצַּר֙ הַצֹּרֵ֣ר אֶתְכֶ֔ם וַהֲרֵעֹתֶ֖ם בַּחֲצֹצְרֹ֑ת

There is another command (10:10) to blow chatzotzros when offering korbanos:

וּבְי֨וֹם שִׂמְחַתְכֶ֥ם וּֽבְמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם֮ וּבְרָאשֵׁ֣י חׇדְשֵׁיכֶם֒א וּתְקַעְתֶּ֣ם בַּחֲצֹֽצְרֹ֗ת עַ֚ל עֹלֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם וְעַ֖ל זִבְחֵ֣י שַׁלְמֵיכֶ֑ם

These are two independent commandments, done at two completely different times and circumstances.  Why then does the Rambam lump them together and count them as one mitzvah?

(Some compare it to the mitzvah of blowing shofar on Rosh haShana and the mitzvah of blowing shofar at the start of yovel: same action of blowing shofar, but Rambam counts it as two mitzvos since it is done at two different times.  One could argue that the analogy is false.  Rambam writes that the mitzvah on Rosh haShana is מצות עשה של תורה לשמוע תרועת השופר.  The mitzvah on yovel (hil shemita 10:10) is מצות עשה לתקוע בשופר בעשירי לתשרי בשנת היובל.  One is a mitzvah of listeing to shofar, one is a mitzvah of blowing shofar.  Two different actions, therefore counted as two mitzvos.)

Rav Bakshi Doron has an answer in his sichos on 9 Av that I think is really rooted in the Pri Megadim (O.C. 575 M"Z 2).  In any case, the underlying message immediately brought to mind a vort from R' Bloch of Telz that I've written about before.  The Midrash tells us that Moshe's singing "az yashir" as a tikun for his having used that same word "az" earlier (Shmos 5:23) in questioning G-d's treatment of the Jewish people וּמֵאָ֞ז בָּ֤אתִי אֶל־פַּרְעֹה֙ לְדַבֵּ֣ר בִּשְׁמֶ֔ךָ הֵרַ֖ע לָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֑ה.  Just because both phrases use the word "az" doesn't mean much -- what is the connection Chazal are trying to make?  How does singing "az yashir" make up for Moshe's earlier remark?

Rav Bloch explains (there is a famous Beis haLevi that has a different answerr) that what Chazal are telling us is that when Moshe saw the Jewish people suffering, his question, וּמֵאָ֞ז בָּ֤אתִי אֶל־פַּרְעֹה֙, was not some abstract philosophical dilemma, but was a cry of acute pain and emotional anguish.  He felt the suffering of the Jewish people in the deepest way.    But maybe that's not such a good response -- maybe it would be better to cultivate dispassionate objectivity?  The Midrash answers that argument: someone who is more of a cold fish may not cry out in distress, but a cold fish can't sing shirah either.  Davka because Moshe had the capacity to feel "mei'az basi" and cry out in pain could he also sing out "az yashir" in true elation.  They are two sides of the same coin and go hand in hand.

Blowing chatzotzros is the ma'aseh mitzvah, but the kiyum mitzvah is b'lev, in the heart.  Blowing  chatzotzros is meant to arouse one's heart so that one feels the distress of Klal Yisrael in an eis tzarah.  Blowing chatzotzros when offering korbanos is also meant to arouse the heart, to feel closeness to Hashem in a time of avodah.  It's one and the same mitzvah -- to be an oveid Hashem with hargasha. 

This is perhaps what Chazal mean when they tell us that only one who mourns Yerushalayim can rejoice in its rebuilding.  Chazal are not just talking about whether you wear sneakers instead of leather shoes or sit on the floor instead of a chair on 9 Av.  Anyone can go through the motions.  What Chazal are after is whether you fulfilled the kiyum b'lev of aveilus.  Do you feel anguish that there is no Beis haMikdash?  Do you feel pain at seeing Yerushalayim not yet fully restored to its glory?  Do you have a hargasha?  Because if you are not emotionally invested enough to feel the pain and suffering of what we are missing, then don't expect to feel elation and joy when we get it back. 

marching along

1) "Shuvah Hashem rivivos alphei Yisrael."  (10:36)

Not only is it a pasuk in our parsha, but it's a pasuk we say in davening every time we return the sefer Torah to the aron.  Rabbi Artscroll in his sidur translates: "Return Hashem to the myriad thosands of Israel."  Rabbi Artscroll in his chumash, however, translates it differently, following Rashi's pshat: "Reside tranquilly, O, [can anyone explain why they stick in "O" here?} Hashem, amoung the myriad thousands of Israel."  

I don't know how you resolve shnei Artscrolls ha'makchishim zeh es zeh.  

2) More to say on the parsha below, but first a small interlude.  Apparently some of acheinu either done say those pesukim of "ya'yehi binso'a" or have no idea what they mean.  "V'yanusu mi'sanecha mi'panecha..."  Who are the sonei Hashem that we are talking about?  Chazal tell us: "eilu sonei Yisrael."  We also have this up coming week's parsha to warn us about speaking against Israel, no matter what the motives may be.  So how can it be that "orthodox" Jews, wearing kippot, can walk in a march, can carry signs, in support of a movement that declares that Israel is an "apartheid state" that practices "systemic discrimination?"  It's right there, on the m4BL (am umbrella group that includes BLM and others) website:

"In addition, approximately 3 billion dollars in US aid is allocated to Israel, a state that practices systematic discrimination and has maintained a military occupation of Palestine for decades. "

"Israel is an apartheid state with over 50 laws on the books that sanction discrimination against the Palestinian people.  Palestinian homes and land are routinely bulldozed to make way for illegal Israeli settlements. Israeli soldiers also regularly arrest and detain Palestinians as young as 4 years old without due process. Everyday, Palestinians are forced to walk through military checkpoints along the US­funded apartheid wall."

Is this a platform we should be supporting?

The article I linked to about the march has a quote from a "rising juinor" from a local "yeshiva" high school who was there to represent the "Jewish LGBTQ-plus community."  

Hashem yerachem.  How very sad.

Back to our regular program.

3) לָמָ֤ה הֲרֵעֹ֙תָ֙ לְעַבְדֶּ֔ךָ וְלָ֛מָּה לֹא־מָצָ֥תִי חֵ֖ן בְּעֵינֶ֑יךָ

Moshe says to Hashem, "Why have you done harm to me, and why have I not found favor in your eyes?" (11:11)

Shouldn't the phrases be reversed?  Doing harm is far worse than simply not finding favor -- is this a "lo zu af zu?"  

HaKsav vhaKabbalah says the word "harei'osa" here is not from the root ra, to do bad.  Chas v'shalom that Moshe shou;d say that about G-d.  Rather it is from the same root like the word "ro'eh," a shephard.  (See this post as well.)  Moshe was saying to Hashem, "Why have you made me the shepard to the nation but not given me the tools I need to do my job properly?"

4) We once discussed whether the word "na" in "K-l na refa na lah" means please or whether it means right away.  When I did that post I should have caught that the same issue comes up earlier in the parsha.  Moshe says to Yisro, "Al na ta'azoz osanu."  Rashi says na=bakasha, please.  Ibn Ezra. however (as well as Targum Onkelus), says it means atah=now, and he adds that this is how the word should always be translated.  What Moshe is telling Yisro is that now is a terrible time to leave because we're almost at our destination.  It would be like sitting for hours for a long car ride and then deciding to turn around and head home just as you were approaching your destination.  

5) In complaining to Hashem that he cannot possibly provide the people with meat, Moshe says (11:15)

וְאִם־כָּ֣כָה׀ אַתְּ־עֹ֣שֶׂה לִּ֗י הׇרְגֵ֤נִי נָא֙ הָרֹ֔ג אִם־מָצָ֥אתִי חֵ֖ן בְּעֵינֶ֑יךָ וְאַל־אֶרְאֶ֖ה בְּרָעָתִֽי

Rashi comments on the last word:

׳ברעתם׳ היה ליכתב, אלא שֶכינה הכתוב, וזה אחד מתיקוני סופרים בתורה לכינוי לתיקון לשון.

I'm not going to get into what Rashi means by tikun sofrim.  Simpler question: why is the tikun necessary?  What would be so bad about saying to G-d that he does not want to see "ra'asam" of the people?  

The Taz in Divrei David says a bold chiddush, but without realizing it he is mechavein to the way Sefer haIkkarim quotes our Rashi.  He sets the stage by pointing out a Rashi in Iyov 32:3 on the pasuk וּבִשְׁלֹ֣שֶׁת רֵעָיו֮ חָרָ֢ה אַ֫פּ֥וֹ עַ֤ל אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־מָצְא֣וּ מַעֲנֶ֑ה וַ֝יַּרְשִׁ֗יעוּ אֶת־אִיּֽוֹב׃  

Rashi writes

וירשיעו את איוב – זה אחד מן המקראות שתקנו סופרים את לשון הכתוב וירשיעו כלפי המקום בשתיקותם היה לו לכתוב אלא שכינה הכתוב וכן וימירו את כבודם בתבנית שור כבודי היה לו לכתוב אלא שכינה הכתוב וכן ואל אראה ברעתי (במדבר יא) ברעת׳ היה לו לכתוב אלא שכינה הכתוב וכן הרבה מקומות בספרי ובמסורת הגדולה.

The tikun of the pasuk in Iyov is necessay because the chavrei Iyov were making G-d c"v into a bad guy.  Rashi gives other examples of the same, among them our pasuk.  Taz therefore suggests that the text of our Rashi is corrupt, and the tikun is not to avoid saying  ׳ ברעתם׳ but rather to avoid saying ב,רעתך, referring to G-d.  

Amending the text of a Rashi is no small thing.  The footnotes in the Mosad haRav Kook edition of the Divrei David note that there are no early texts of Rashi that would support the Taz's suggestion. 

it's all about me

1) Yesterday I was walking with my wife and we saw gazebo / tents setup in the chatzeir of a shul for people to daven in.  I said to my wife that maybe people should put up their sukkos for davening.  Afterwards I happened to listen to a speech by Sivan Rahav Meir and she told a story of Chabad sheluchim in Odessa who put up a tent for davening on Shavuos and were approached by Ploni and Plonis who asked to take the 4 minim -- these Jews, so distant from everything, saw a tent and thought it is Sukkos, time for lulav and esrog!  You don't know whether to laugh or cry.  If it's Sukkos, what happened to Rosh haShana, Yom Kippur?  Kashya.  Who knows.  But at least they wanted to do something.  

2) The first Mishna in the last perek of Brachos has a tefilah to say when you enter a big city and when you manage to get out of the city in peace.  See Rashi there, see the poskim, who say the practice is not to say this tefilah because today there is not such a great danger.  I'm beginning to wonder if we should reinstitute this prayer.  When you go into NYC (was there on Monday) and you see all the stores that have not yet been looted all boarded up and closed, when they tell you that the gate to the parking garage will be closed at 3:00 so no one can get in, then I'm not so sure the danger is slight.  If you close down every shul and business because of the .3% mortality rate of those who become infected with Corona, is this less of a sakana?  

3) On to the parsha:

 וַיִּשְׁמַ֨ע מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶת־הָעָ֗ם בֹּכֶה֙ לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָ֔יו אִ֖ישׁ לְפֶ֣תַח אׇהֳל֑וֹ

Not only was Hashem angry when the people began to complain about unchanging diet of mon, but "b'eini Moshe ra," even Moshe thought this was evil.  (11:10)  

Uncharacteristically, Moshe turned to Hashem and complained about the impossible job he had as leader, the no-win situation he was in in trying to constantly satisfy the complaints of the mob.  

What happened to Moshe the defender of Klal Yisrael, the man who could and did carry it all on his shoulders?  Why here was he not only angry at the people, but he turned to Hashem to complain instead of turning to Hashem in prayer on their behalf as he had done so many other times before?

I meant to write about this a few months ago and never got around to it, so let me make up for it now.  Back in Parshas Beshalach there are a number of episodes where Klal Yisrael complained.  

In 16:3 the people complained about the lack of food:

וַיֹּאמְר֨וּ אֲלֵהֶ֜ם בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל מִֽי־יִתֵּ֨ן מוּתֵ֤נוּ בְיַד־יְהֹוָה֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם בְּשִׁבְתֵּ֙נוּ֙ עַל־סִ֣יר הַבָּשָׂ֔ר בְּאׇכְלֵ֥נוּ לֶ֖חֶם לָשֹׂ֑בַע כִּֽי־הוֹצֵאתֶ֤ם אֹתָ֙נוּ֙ אֶל־הַמִּדְבָּ֣ר הַזֶּ֔ה לְהָמִ֛ית אֶת־כׇּל־הַקָּהָ֥ל הַזֶּ֖ה בָּרָעָֽב

In 17:3 the people complained about the lack of water:

 וַיִּצְמָ֨א שָׁ֤ם הָעָם֙ לַמַּ֔יִם וַיָּ֥לֶן הָעָ֖ם עַל־מֹשֶׁ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר לָ֤מָּה זֶּה֙ הֶעֱלִיתָ֣נוּ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם לְהָמִ֥ית אֹתִ֛י וְאֶת־בָּנַ֥י וְאֶת־מִקְנַ֖י בַּצָּמָֽא׃

The reaction to these complaints is strikingly different.  In response to the first complaint, Moshe did not even need to turn to Hashem in prayer.  The very next pasuk tells us that Hashem promised "lechem min ha'shamayim," that the people would get mon to eat.  However, in response to the second complaint, Moshe cried out to Hashem saying that the people were on the verge of stoning him.  No only was there no benevolent response by Hashem, but even Moshe felt threatened this time around.  

Why the difference?

If you read the first complaint carefully, it is written all in the plural: "mi itgein MUSEINU... SHIVTEINU... hotzeisem OSANU...l'hamis es ha'KAHAL."  WE need food, why did you take US out of Egypt, was it to endanger the entire CONGREGATION.

The second complaint, in contrast, speaks about the individual: "l'hamis OSI v'es BANAI v'es MIKNAI."  You are going to kill ME, MY children, MY cattle.

The first complaint is all about the suffering of the community.  The second complaint is about the suffering of the individual and his/her selfish self-interest.  

Chasam Sofer writes on our parsha that it was after seeing the people "bocheh l'mishpichosav," each sitting by his own tent, each concerned only with his own welfare, that Moshe grew angry.  In theory each person might have come up with an excuse for his complaints; he might have said, "If it was just me I wouldn't say anything, but what about others?"  At least this would give the murmuring a window dressing of legitimacy.  However, "bocheh l'mishpichosav" allows for no excuses -- it's just about you, your self-interest, your ego.  That Moshe, who the parsha later calls "anav me'od m'kol adam," had no patience for. 

When people complain that the system is unfair, sometimes it shows true concern for the community at large, but unfortunately sometimes it's just an excuse to advance their own self-interest.  Be careful which complainers you are rooting for.  

it's all about what's inside

וְהָֽאסַפְסֻף֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּקִרְבּ֔וֹ הִתְאַוּ֖וּ תַּאֲוָ֑ה וַיָּשֻׁ֣בוּ וַיִּבְכּ֗וּ גַּ֚ם בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל

Chasam Sofer explains: "V'ha'safsuf asher B'KIRBO" (11:4) there is a little bit of rabble rouser and baal taavah inside each and every one of us.  The key is to keep it under control.  What happened in this episode is that the part of us that should be kept at bay caused "va'yivku gam Bnei Yisrael," the pure Jewish soul, the neshomo Elokis, that is also inside of us, to join in the complaints.  

Based on this Chasam Sofer we have a deeper insight into what Moshe meant when he accuses the people (11:20) of "m'astem es Hashem asher B'KIRBICHEM" -- he means they have soiled the nehoma Elokis that is within.  

And when Hashem then does promise enough meat for people to stuff themselves with for a month, but at the price of a steep punishment for all who partake, Moshe responds:

וַיֹּ֘אמֶר֮ מֹשֶׁה֒ שֵׁשׁ־מֵא֥וֹת אֶ֙לֶף֙ רַגְלִ֔י הָעָ֕ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָנֹכִ֖י בְּקִרְבּ֑וֹ וְאַתָּ֣ה אָמַ֗רְתָּ בָּשָׂר֙ אֶתֵּ֣ן לָהֶ֔ם וְאָכְל֖וּ חֹ֥דֶשׁ יָמִֽים׃

Remember, there's a little bit of me, says Moshe, that has also rubbed off on them and is inside each and every one of those complainers -- "asher anochi B'KIRBO."  Do you really think people that have a little but of me inside of them will sit around and just stuff themselves in an orgy of taavah for a full month?  Hashem, you know your people are better than that.  (see Malbim!) 

There is another point here worth reflecting on.  There are people who "justify" their sins by claiming that they r"l hate G-d, and they will happily provide you with a whole list of complaints, of things G-d has done to wrong them, etc.  

Moshe says to the people, "M'astem es Hashem ASHER B'KIRBICHEM."  When you say you hate G-d, what you are really saying is you hate yourself.  It's not some Supreme Being out there in the Heavens that's making you miserable, but rather it's what's B'KIRBECHEM, what's inside your own hearts that you hate and that is making you angry.  And that's something you have the power to change.