singing despite the suffering

1) The Rama paskens that on shabbos Chazon one should wear weekday clothes and not shabbos clothes.  GR"A disagrees, as wearing weekday clothes would constitute public aveilus, which is not allowed on Shabbos.  There are various explanations (e.g. see Aruch haShulchan) offered to try to justify the psak of the Rama.  R' Moshe Shternbruch in his Moadim u'Zmanim suggests derech derush an idea based on a Chasam Sofer.  The C.S., who followed the Rama's psak and wore weekday clothes on shabbos, was asked by a talmid why he did so, given that the AR"I disagrees (I don't know why the talmid thought the C.S. should have followed the AR"I over the Rama, but I'll leave that to those more familiar with minhagei C.S. than I am).  The C.S. answered that the ARI felt the pain for churban in his heart 365x7, even when he was celebrating Shabbos and wearing his Shabbos finery.  I, said the C.S., am not on that level.  I have wear weekday clothes on Shabbos to arouse in myself the feelings of loss.  In our times, says Rav Shternbruch, we are so desensitized to the loss of Beis haMikdash that even wearing weekday clothes on Shabbos will not awaken us, so what's the point in doing so.

I don't know how seriously to take R' Shternbruch's cynicism here.  We have to try our best to be m'orer ourselves to feel something.  Sadly, events like 10/7 have brought the suffering home and have awakened something in people who otherwise were very distant.

 

2) חֵ֤טְא חָֽטְאָה֙ יְר֣וּשָׁלַ֔͏ִם עַל־כֵּ֖ן לְנִידָ֣ה הָיָ֑תָה (Eicha 1:8)

 

The Midrash asks: ?אומות העולם אינן חוטאים  Do we have a monopoly on sin?

 

Chazal answer: אלא אע"פ שחוטאין אינן כלום, אבל ישראל חטאו ולקו

 

What's pshat in the Midrash?  Why should they get away with it and not us?

 

The Divrei Shaul gives a mashal to two garments, one made of cheap polyester and the other made of the finest silk.  If you get a stain on the cheap polyester, first off, you might not even notice if it is a dark color, and second of all, you can throw it in the wash.  EVen the slightest blemish, the slightest wrinkle, is immediately be noticeable in a fine fabric. 

 

Klal Yisrael is like that fine silk garment.  Davka because of its beauty and value, it can be spoiled.  Davka because of its beauty and value, every defect is that much more noticeable.  חֵ֤טְא חָֽטְאָה֙ יְר֣וּשָׁלַ֔͏ִם, which is the greatest city in the world, and therefore, עַל־כֵּ֖ן לְנִידָ֣ה הָיָ֑תָה. 

 

One can perhaps offer a slightly different answer.  Kesubos 66b tells the tragic story of the daughter of the wealthy Nakdimon ben Guryon whose kesubah was worth millions of dollars, but at the time of the churban she was reduced to picking through animal dung to look for food. R’ Yochanan ben Zakai exclaimed, “Ashreichem Yisrael! When the Jewish people obey G-d’s will there is no greater nation, but when they fail to obey G-d's will not only are they subjugated to the lowest nation, but they are lower even than that nation’s animals”.

 

As we've discussed before, Maharal asks: Neicha that R’ Yochanan ben Zakai would exclaim “ashreichem yisrael” at the glory of Nakdimon’s wealth, but why exclaim “ashreichem yisrael” over the tragedy of the downfall of Klal Yisrael?

 

Maharal answers that davka the immensity of the downfall speaks to the greatness of Klal Yisrael.  To go from lofty heights to such depths, a complete 180 m'igra rama l'beira amikta, cannot be by chance.  It must be that our history is guided by yad Hashem.  When we become consumed by gashmiyus, we lose out identity and fall to nothing.  When we are doing what we are supposed to do and are connected to Hashem, we are on top of the world.

 

Because of the greatness of Yerushalayim in being so close to Hashem's heart, kavyachol, therefore, עַל־כֵּ֖ן לְנִידָ֣ה הָיָ֑תָה, it's downfall, like that of the daughter of Nakdimon, was so drastic when punishment was called for.   By the other nations, אע"פ שחוטאין אינן כלום, because it is the whims of history that determine their fate, not hashgacha, not direct up close and personal, kavyachol, schar v'onesh.  Hashem lets the chips fall where they may; He does not take a "personal interest," if you will, in the outcome.  In our case, Hashem takes our fate in hand.  אבל ישראל חטאו ולקו directly through the yad Hashem, not some chance of history. 

 

3) Chazal tell us that when Nevuchatnetzar witnessed Chanaya, Misha'el, and Azarya's escape from the burning oven that he had thrown them into, he began to sing songs of praise to Hashem that rivelled the praises of David haMelech in Tehillim.  When it reached the point that his praise was on the verge of surpassing David's a malach came down from shamayim and slapped him across the face, which put a stop to his song.

 

Is Hashem playing favorites?  So what if Nevuchadnetzar would surpass David?  If his praises are greater, and he deserves the #1 spot, so be it!

 

The Kotzker explained that the malach did not come down to stop Nevuchatnetzar.  The malach came down to test if indeed he was on David's level.  David haMelech's life was filled with tzaros.  He had problems from Shaul, he had problems from his children, his great dream of building the mikdash went unfulfilled.  It was a hard life, but he sang Tehillim throughout. 

 

Nevuchtnetzar witnessed Hashem's greatness in saving Chananya, Mishael, and Azarya from pain.  Under those circumstances, it's easy to sing songs of praise to Hashem.  The malacha came down and gave him a slap, just a little taste of the pain that David experienced, and said, "Let's see if you still sing praises now." 

 

Nevuchadnetzar, of course, did not. 

 

From the suffering of the churban to the suffering of 10/7, we, like David, continue to sing praises to Hashem in spite of our pain, in spite of our suffering, ad bi'as go'el.

difference between meat/wine and laundry/haircuts right after the fast

 The SA writes in 558:

 בְּתִשְׁעָה בְּאָב לְעֵת עֶרֶב הִצִּיתוּ אֵשׁ בַּהֵיכָל וְנִשְׂרַף עַד שְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה בְּיוֹם עֲשִׂירִי, וּמִפְּנֵי כָּךְ מִנְהָג כָּשֵׁר שֶׁלֹּא לֶאֱכֹל בָּשָׂר וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁתּוֹת יַיִן בְּלֵיל עֲשִׂירִי וְיוֹם עֲשִׂירִי. {הַגָּה: וְיֵשׁ מַחְמִירִין עַד חֲצוֹת הַיּוֹם וְלֹא יוֹתֵר

 

The MB comments:

 

ה״ה שלא לרחוץ במרחץ ולספר ולכבס עד חצות

Yet if you look earlier in 551:4 it says you are allowed to do laundry and get a haircut right after the fast ends:

 

לְאַחַר הַתַּעֲנִית מֻתָּר לְסַפֵּר וּלְכַבֵּס מִיָּד.

 

The MB there comments on the spot:

 

עיין לקמן סימן תקנ״ח באחרונים דמצד מנהגא יש ליזהר בזה ביום עשירי עד חצות היום:

 

What he is saying is that the SA in 551 basically neglected to tell us about the minhag of waiting until chatzos that he will mention a few simanim later in 558, but read one in light of the other.

 

There is a simpler solution that reads the SA k'peshuto.  Meat, wine, laundry, and haircuts are not all the same.  In 551, the SA is speaking only about laundry and haircuts; these activities are permitted starting immediately after the fast.  In 558, the SA is speaking about eating meat and drinking wine; one cannot partake of these until chatzos of the 10th. 

 

Why should there be a difference between them? Rav BenTzion Aba Shaul explains (vol 3 of Ohr l'Tzion #29) that the issur to have wine and meat have nothing to do with aveilus.  Someone who is an aveil can eat meat.  The reason we don't eat them is because korbanos were meat; nesachim were wine offerings.  The issur is to help us mark the loss of avodah in beis hamikdash.  Haircuts and washing are nihugei aveilus.  Once 9 Av ends, the aveilus is lifted, but our commemoration of the avodah that was lost continues until the next day, as it was on the night of the 9th and into the 10th that the mikdash was burned.

 

Another nafka minah based on this same idea: when 9 Av falls out on Sunday, if a person has to eat, can he say havdalah on wine?  During the 9 days one is allowed the drink wine for the sake of a mitzvah, including havdalah (the minhag of beer for havdalah is fraught with complications that are a different discussion).  However, Rav Elyashiv and others held that the same is not true on 9 Av itself.  Just like m'dina d'gemara we do not allow wine in seudah ha'mafseket as a remembrance to the korbanos and nesachim, the same is true on 9 Av itself.  Even if the dinim of the taanis are suspended for the choleh, the din of having this remembrance for the korbanos remains in effect.

when remaining passive is not a choice

I went to a minyan on 9 Av that invites community members to do a little intro and explanation of each of the kinos before it is recited by the tzibur. I knew that the individual who was going to introduce the kinah that speaks of the horrible starvation in Yerushalayim אִם תֺּאכַלְנָה נָשִׁים פִּרְיָם עוֹלְלֵי טִפּוּחִים אַלְלַי לִי has very different hashkafos that I do, but I was still shocked that he or anyone would use this as the opportunity to speak of our obligation to worry about our being the cause of starvation in Gaza. Whether there is in fact starvation is itself subject to debate, but I certainly am not going to worry about the Gazan people any more than their leaders, who obviously think it more important to continue to hold I hostage than to release them and disarm, do. When I see that young Jews overwhelmingly support Mamdani for mayor of NY, I am discouraged, but I figure they are misguided, unaffiliated folks who are tinok she'nishba in secular culture. But when I hear people in an orthodox shul speaking about our need to be concerned about our causing starvation in Gaza and no one gets up and walks out, instead there is shtika k'hodaah, it is frightening. To be fair, I am confident that the vast majority of people at that shul do NOT agree with this individuals sentiments, but sof kol sof, they gave him a platform and very politely listened to what I think are words of poison.

We read in our parsha

וְצַו אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְחַזְּקֵהוּ וְאַמְּצֵהוּ כִּי הוּא יַעֲבֹר לִפְנֵי הָעָם הַזֶּה וְהוּא יַנְחִיל אוֹתָם אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר תִּרְאֶה.

וַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר.

עַתָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁמַע אֶל הַחֻקִּים וְאֶל הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְלַמֵּד אֶתְכֶם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְמַעַן תִּחְיוּ וּבָאתֶם וִירִשְׁתֶּם אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר ה׳ אֱלֹקי אֲבֹתֵיכֶם נֹתֵן לָכֶם.

What is the connection between וַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא and the previous or following pasuk? As Ohr haChaim puts it:

צריך לדעת כונת הכתוב מה בא להודיע במאמר זה, ומה קשר יש לו לא עם מה שלפניו ולא עם מה שלאחריו

The GR"A in Aderes Aliyahu connects it all the way to the beginning of the parsha. Moshe was saying that his tefilos, with all his tzidkus, were not answered, but Bn"Y as a people, despite all their failings, despite ַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר engaging in the most disgusting avodah zarah, are still guaranteed to go to Eretz Yisrael, לְמַעַן תִּחְיוּ וּבָאתֶם וִירִשְׁתֶּם אֶת הָאָרֶץ.  Very uplifting.

The Alshich has a different pshat. Had Bn"Y been worthy, that the zechus of Yehoshua alone would have been enough to guarantee them victory in the conquest of E Yisrael. כִּי הוּא יַעֲבֹר...וְהוּא יַנְחִיל אוֹתָם. That is no longer the case because of the sin of worshipping Baal Pe'or. But, says the Alshich, weren't those who worshipped Pe'or already punished? Wasn't there a plague that wiped out those who sinned? The next pasuk answers that question: וַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר. Pinchas jumped up with his spear and took care of business, but what were the rest of you doing? You were sitting there, you were passive, you didn't do anything. True, you were not the one's who worshipped Baal Pe'or, but you stood by idly while others did. Yehoshua's zechuyos are not enough anymore. עַתָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁמַע אֶל הַחֻקִּים וְאֶל הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְלַמֵּד אֶתְכֶם You all have to do your part, each individual being careful about his shemiras ha'mitzvos. You have to get up and take action and do something meaningful.  

A person cannot sit back and say, "I don't hold that political view, so what do I care what others say?" or "My children are married to the best families, to bnei Torah, to bais Yaakov girls, so I'm not responsible for the 70% intermarriage rate in America," or "I send my kids to the best yeshiva, so what can I do if my neighbor sends his kids to public school?" These are of course different issues that call for different types of reactions and different strategies to address, but the common denominator is that we cannot just be וַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר The Baal Peor is right across from you, staring you in the face, and all you can do is sit passively while this is going on? I am not saying to sit on Twitter  24x6 debating the Israel bashers, or to engage in disruptive or harmful  behavior. That's not healthy or positive either. But do something. Don't sit passively and let others dictate the narrative or the outcome.

So what should we be doing? This shiur of R' Meir Lichtenstein discussing how his grandfather, the Rav, approched kinos, is worth watching in tis entirely, but I want to highlight just one snippit. B'kitzur, RML contends that the Rav used kinos as a springboard to think about and discuss some of the big questions, e.g. How do we relate to Am Yisrael, to Eretz Yisrael? What is our mission? The Rav would spend hours and hours on kinos, giving full shiurim on individual lines of the text. (Parenthetically, RML mentions that his father did not approach kinos that way.) Today, many American Rabbis follow in the Rav's footsteps, and there are programs you can watch online that can fill your entire day of 9 Av. Here is RML's reaction:

I will just add my own editorial 2 cents.  Sometimes feel that every dollar spent on more and bigger institutions that perpetuate J  life in galus is another dollar that is throwing good money after bad.  You are investing in beautifying the lifeboat so you can stay in it longer and be more comfortable there instead of encouraging people to row faster for land. לְמַעַן תִּחְיוּ  is not the end of the pasuk above.  It's   לְמַעַן תִּחְיוּ וּבָאתֶם וִירִשְׁתֶּם אֶת הָאָרֶץ.  Let's not forget the end goal.  Let's not let 9 AV get away from us without at least thinking about what the end goal is.

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

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

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

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

The gemara writes (Taanis 30b)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

which haftara to read on shabbos rosh chodesh av

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

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

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

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

 

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

10 Av - why don't we accept R' Yochan's view and fast on this day?

The gemara (Taanis 30) quotes R' Yochanan as saying that had it been up to him, he would have instituted fasting on 10 Av instead of 9 Av because even though the fire started on the 9th, the majority of the mikdash actually burned on the 10th.  Why don't we accept this reasoning?  Back in 2007 I quoted in the name of the Brisker Rav, and it is more famously found in the Chasam Sofer O.C. 33, that ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה (Avodah Zarah 52), as Rashi explains,  מכיון שנכנסו עובדי כוכבים להיכל יצאו כליו לחולין וכיון דנפקי לחולין קנינהו בהפקירא והוו להו דידהו.  Once the aku"m entered the mikdash on the 9th, it lost its sanctity.  What burned on the 10th was sticks and stones, not a place vested with holiness.  Therefore, it only the start of the destruction that has significance.

Did R' Yochanan not hold of this din of ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה?  R' Leizer Silver pointed out that in fact the gemara elsewhere (Nedaim 62) quotes this very sevara in the name of R' Yochanan!   ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן כל המשתמש בכתרה של תורה נעקר מן העולם קל וחומר ומה בלשצר שנשתמש בכלי קודש שנעשו כלי חול שנאמר ובאו בה פריצים וחיללוה כיון שפרצום נעשו חול נעקר מן העולם דכתיב בה בליליא קטיל בלשצר המשתמש בכתרה של תורה שהוא חי וקיים לעולם על אחת כמה וכמה  

See vol 1 of Sheiris Yosef by R' Wahrman where he attempts to resolve this issue.  ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה applies when something has been sanctified by a person.  However, the walls of bayis sheni may not have needed kiddush by Ezra; they may have automatically taken on the kedushas karka that remained from bayis rishon.   

Maharal on free markets; Ishbitzer on the number 9; Og and Yosef

I have an idea that maybe needs some fleshing out and development, but I think the outline is good enough to share.  

Last week I was learning Maharal with my wife and came across the following idea (2:13):

The gemara (Meg 17b) discusses the structure of shmoneh esrei and explains the order in which the brachos were arranged.  With respect to the ninth bracha of "bareich aleinu" the gemara writes

ומה ראו לומר ברכת השנים בתשיעית אמר רבי אלכסנדרי כנגד מפקיעי שערים דכתיב שבור זרוע רשע ודוד כי אמרה בתשיעית אמרה

We ask for a bracha for our crops in this ninth blessing because the ninth chapter of Tehillim (in our text it is the 10th chapter, but the gemara counts the first 2 perakim of Teh as one) contains the pasuk of שבור זרוע רשע which refers to people who jack up the prices of wheat and try to corner the market.  

How do we know that this is what the pasuk of שבור זרוע רשע is referring to?  Rashi explains

וממאי דבמפקיעי שערים כתיב דכתיב בההיא פרשתא יארב במסתר כאריה בסוכו יארוב לחטוף עני וכי הליסטים אורב את העני והלא את העשיר הוא אורב אלא במפקיעי שערים הכתוב מדבר שרוב דעתם לעניים הוא וקא בעי דוד רחמי עלה דמילתא שבור זרוע רשע ותן שובע בעולם ובכך זרועו שבור ורע תדרוש רשעו בל תמצא וזה שהיה בדעתו להיות רשע כשתדרוש רשעו לא תמצא עולה שלא הספיק לעשותה:

The continuation of the pasuk refers to יארוב לחטוף עני, setting a trap to snare the poor. A normal robber aims for a rich target, not the poor.  Chazal therefore interpret the pasuk as referring to those who inflate the market prices, which disproportionally harms poor shoppers.   

Maharal rejects Rashi's pshat.  If Rashi is correct, ikar chaseir min ha'sefer -- the gemara should have cited the end of the pasuk and explained this whole chain of reasoning.  Maharal explains that the word רשע itself, which the gemara quotes, is the basis for the limud.  Maharal in many places talks about the importance of seder.  There is a normal course by which things function, and interfering with that normal seder is wrong and destructive.  He applies the same idea here.  Someone who tries to artificially inflate prices is a rasha because they are interfering with and disrupting the normal seder of the market (free market theorists, rejoice!).

The 9th bracha undermines the disorder of the rasha.  A tzadik is the opposite side of the coin as the rasha.  The word tzadik is rooted in the letter tzadi, gematriya 90, because the tzadik brings order back to creation.

This talk about the number 9 brought to mind an Ishbitzer on our parsha, who speaks about the significance of the 9th pasuk.  בכל מקום בפסוק התשיעי נמצא עומק שלא כפי פשוטו .  The Ishbitzer tells us that the 9th pasuk in a parsha always reflects a depth of meaning beyond the pshat:

ואומר אלכם בעת ההיא לאמר לא אוכל לבדי וכו' הבו לכם אנשים חכמים ונבנים וידעים. כאשר היו קרובים לכנוס לא"י והרגיש מרע"ה כי רצון הש"י הוא שע"י יהושוע יכנסו לארץ, והוא היה רוצה שיתפללו ישראל לה' שאינם רוצים במנהיג אחר, וזה שרמז להם במאמרו לא אוכל לבדי וכו' אף שמצינו שאח"כ בקש מה' שהוא יכניסם, ואומר להם כדי שיבינו שהוא צריך לתפלתם כעת, וזה הפסוק הוא פסוק תשיעי מהתחלת הסדרה ובכל מקום בפסוק התשיעי נמצא עומק שלא כפי פשוטו, וכמו שמבואר בפ' בלק [ד"ה ויאמר בלעם], והם לא הבינו ואמרו טוב הדבר, וע"כ אמר אח"כ ואקח מאתכם אנשים חכמים וידועים וכו' ואמרו חז"ל (נדרים כ':) מה שלא הוזכר נבונים כי נבונים לא מצא וז"ש ונבונים לא מצאתי רומז כי לא מצא מי שיבין כוונתו, כי באם הבנתם את כוונתי והתפללתם אולי הייתם מועילים בתפלתכם.

Here in the 9th pasuk Moshe told the people that he could not lead them alone because the burden was too great to bear.  Moshe was hoping that the people would get the hint and daven to Hashem on his behalf to preserve his leadership.  He was hoping that they would read between the lines and get the message below the surface.  But they didn't, and so they ended up with a bureaucracy of judges.  

What does the Ishbitzer mean that בכל מקום בפסוק התשיעי נמצא עומק שלא כפי פשוטו?  Nine is the sefira of yesod, which corresponds to Yosef haTzadik.  Yosef dressed like an Egyptian, spoke like an Egyptian, the chitzoniyus of his identity was Egyptian.  The pnimiyus, however, was completely different.  Yosef never lost sight of his being on of the shivtei K-h.  Don't judge Yosef by his appearance -- there is an עומק שלא כפי פשוטו to who he is.

Rashi explains that the first pasuk of our parsha alludes to the tochacha Moshe gave Bnei Yisrael for their sins in the desert, but the Ohr haChaim sees an allusion to 9 middos necessary to acquire Torah:   ואפשר לפרש כל הכתוב דרך רמז באופן אחר, והוא כי במקרא מועט למד משה כללות יראת ה׳ ומדות ההגונות הצריכין להולכים בתורת ה׳ והם מדות תשעה.  These midos are not spelled our explicitly, but again, נמצא עומק שלא כפי פשוטו.

My hunch as that just like 9 represents the hidden tzidkus of Yosef, there is a 9 which is the opposite side of the coin that on the surface does not look so bad, but there is great evil lurking below that.  I think you find that in our parsha as well (3:11).  The Torah tells us about Og:  הִנֵּ֤ה עַרְשׂוֹ֙ עֶ֣רֶשׂ בַּרְזֶ֔ל הֲלֹ֣ה הִ֔וא בְּרַבַּ֖ת בְּנֵ֣י עַמּ֑וֹן תֵּ֧שַׁע אַמּ֣וֹת אׇרְכָּ֗הּ וְאַרְבַּ֥ע אַמּ֛וֹת רׇחְבָּ֖הּ בְּאַמַּת־אִֽישׁ  Putting aside the details of whether his bed was literally 9 Amos long, or whether that is 9 regular amos or Og sized amos, what I think is important here is the mention of the number 9 as charactering Og.  (The number 4 may allude to this attribute spreading through all 4 olamos, see Maor v'Shemesh.)  

The Zohar in Chukas (12) writes that Og was among the household of Avraham who undertook the mitzvah of bris milah:

וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה אַל תִּירָא אוֹתוֹ, תְּרֵין אוֹתוֹ אִינּוּן שְׁלֵימִין בְּאוֹרַיְיתָא בִּתְרֵין וָוִי"ן, חַד דָּא, וְחַד, (דברים כ״ב:ב׳) עַד דְּרוֹשׁ אָחִיךָ אוֹתוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא. בְּגִין דְּאִינּוּן אוֹת מַמָּשׁ. עַד דְּרוֹשׁ אָחִיךָ (אחיך ממש) אוֹתוֹ, דְּבָעֵי לְפָרְשָׁא הַהוּא אוֹת, דְּהַהוּא אֲבֵידָה. 

אוּף הָכָא דֵּין אוֹתוֹ, דָּא עוֹג, דְּאִתְדַּבָּק בְּאַבְרָהָם, וּמֵאַנְשֵׁי בֵּיתֵיהּ הֲוָה, וְכַד אִתְגְּזַר אַבְרָהָם מַה כְּתִיב, וְכָל אַנְשֵׁי בֵיתוֹ וְגוֹּ. דָּא עוֹג דְּאִתְגְּזַר עִמֵּיהּ, וְקַבִּיל הַאי אָת קַדִּישָׁא, כֵּיוָן דְּחָמָא עוֹג דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מְקָרְבִין גַּבֵּיהּ, אָמַר הָא ודַּאי אֲנָא אַקְדִּימְנָא זְכוּתָא דְּקָאִים לוֹן, וְדָא שַׁוִּי לְקָבְלֵיהּ.  בֵּיהּ שַׁעֲתָא דָּחִיל מֹשֶׁה, הֵיךְ יָכִיל לְאַעְקְרָא רְשִׁימָא דְּרָשִׁים אַבְרָהָם.

Meaning, the chitzoniyus of Og, his physical body, had a bris, showing that he was someone connected to Hashem, but that outer appearance just was a disguise for Og's true essence.

In parshas Lech Lecha in the war where Lot is taken captive, a survivor of the battle runs to tell Avraham what happened, (14:13) וַיָּבֹא֙ הַפָּלִ֔יט וַיַּגֵּ֖ד לְאַבְרָ֣ם הָעִבְרִ֑.  Chazal tell us that that survivor was Og.  At first glance, this sounds like a heroic act -- in the middle of war, Og's concern is for Avraham's family.  Yet the Midrash tells us otherwise. This נמצא עומק שלא כפי פשוטו in the negative sense!  Og reported Lot captured because he was hoping Avraham would go to battle and be killed and he would have Sarah for his own.  

Who is it that is zocheh to take the land of Og, the anti-9, once he is killed?  Our parsha tells us וְיֶ֨תֶר הַגִּלְעָ֤ד וְכׇל־הַבָּשָׁן֙ מַמְלֶ֣כֶת ע֔וֹג נָתַ֕תִּי לַחֲצִ֖י שֵׁ֣בֶט הַֽמְנַשֶּׁ֑ה  It is none other than Menashe, descendent of Yosef, who personified 9 in the positive sense.

This upcoming week is 9 Av, a tragic day, a day of sorrow, but don't be fooled, as we are dealing with the number 9 and נמצא עומק שלא כפי פשוטו. This is a day which is also called a mo'ed, the day mashiach was born, the day in which when our enemies entered the heichel they found the keruvim intertwined in an embrace of love, showing the great love of Hashem for Klal Yisrael. Our parsha writes that after we spent a lot of time wandering around Har Seir, the land of Eisav, Hashem told us  פְּנ֥וּ לָכֶ֖ם צָפֹֽנָה (2:3)  The Midrash explains the word not as a direction, but like the word צפון in the haggadah, i.e. hidden.  If you want to escape Eisav, go hide in the words of Torah.  The Shem m'Shmuel explains that Eisav is all chitzoniyus. If you want to escape, you have to dig deeper, meaning, you have to live a deeper, more meaningful life, a life of   עומק שלא כפי פשוטו.  When that is the aim, then we no longer need to hang around Har Seir in the orbit of Eisav, and we will be able to experience the  עומק שלא כפי פשוטו of 9 Av as well, celebrating it as a moed, as a day of geulah.  

not too distant

My wife and I have been learning Mishlei with the GR"A and when I came across the GR"A's comments to the pasuk (1:24)  יַ֣עַן קָ֭רָאתִי וַתְּמָאֵ֑נוּ נָטִ֥יתִי יָ֝דִ֗י וְאֵ֣ין מַקְשִֽׁיב I thought of this week's haftarah.  GR"A explains that the pasuk is referring to Hashem reaching out to bring someone back. There pasuk describes two stages: קָ֭רָאתִי is when the person is not too far away and can still hear Hashem's call.  נָטִ֥יתִי יָ֝דִ֗י, when the person is too distant, Hashem kavyachol waves to try to get the person's attention.  

Maybe that's what the navi means when Yeshayahu says  דַּבְּר֞וּ עַל־לֵ֤ב יְרוּשָׁלַ֙͏ִם֙ וְקִרְא֣וּ אֵלֶ֔יהָ. Yeshayahu is saying that we are not so distant, we have not strayed too far.  קִרְא֣וּ אֵלֶ֔יהָ, call to Yerushalayim -- we are still within earshot, we just need to open our ears to listen.

not by chance

We end off Eichah with the pesukim

 לָ֤מָּה לָנֶ֙צַח֙ תִּשְׁכָּחֵ֔נוּ תַּֽעַזְבֵ֖נוּ לְאֹ֥רֶךְ יָמִֽים

הֲשִׁיבֵ֨נוּ הֹ׳  אֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ וְֽנָשׁ֔וּבָה חַדֵּ֥שׁ יָמֵ֖ינוּ כְּקֶֽדֶם

כִּ֚י אִם־מָאֹ֣ס מְאַסְתָּ֔נוּ קָצַ֥פְתָּ עָלֵ֖ינוּ עַד־מְאֹֽד

and then we repeat again

הֲשִׁיבֵ֨נוּ הֹ׳  אֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ וְֽנָשׁ֔וּבָה חַדֵּ֥שׁ יָמֵ֖ינוּ כְּקֶֽדֶם

Why do we repeat the next to last pasuk again?  The simple pshat is that we want to end on an uplifting note.  Rav Teichtel in his derashos Mishnas Sachir offers a different explanation.  The gemara in Brachos (7b) writes:

זמור לדוד בברחו מפני אבשלום בנו מזמור לדוד קינה לדוד מיבעי ליה אמר ר' שמעון בן אבישלום משל למה הדבר דומה לאדם שיצא עליו שטר חוב קודם שפרעו היה עצב לאחר שפרעו שמח אף כן דוד כיון שאמר לו הקב"ה הנני מקים עליך רעה מביתך היה עצב אמר שמא עבד או ממזר הוא דלא חייס עלי כיון דחזא דאבשלום הוא שמח משום הכי אמר מזמור

David said a mizmor of joy when he found out his punishment was not that he would have a child who is a mamzer or an eved, but rather than Avshalom his son would try to get rid of him.  

This is why David was happy and saying a mizmor?!  If his own flesh and blood was trying to do away with him, all the more reason he should be upset!

R' Yehonasan Eibshitz answers that there are two types of punishment.  There is one type of punishment where Hashem simply turns his back on a person or on a nation, and fate has its way with them, and there is another type of punishment where Hashem himself intervenes to afflict the person or people who need to be taught a lesson.  David haMelech was more troubled by the thought of the first punishment than the second.  If he must suffer, he thought, let it be b'yad Hashem and let there at least still be a connection.  Let it be b'yad Hashem so that what happens brings kaparah and is not simply happenstance.  

When David saw that his own son rose against him, he realized that this is something unnatural, outside the bounds of what you would expect b'derech ha'teva.  Mizmor l'David, he said, that Hashem has not tossed me to fate, but is still personally involved.  If he is involved, everything that happens is a kaparah.

We beg Hashem to put aside our wrongdoings and return us to Him because we have been in galus so long, but maybe it's just our fate to be exiles, maybe that's just how history plays itself out.  Maybe Hashem has turned his back on us and left us to the forces of teva, and our suffering has just been happenstance, not kaparah, not a result of leading to some final goal or redemption.  What right do we have to demand הֲשִׁיבֵ֨נוּ ?  Says the navi, that can't be.  כִּ֚י אִם־מָאֹ֣ס מְאַסְתָּ֔נוּ קָצַ֥פְתָּ עָלֵ֖ינוּ עַד־מְאֹֽד.  The amount we have suffered  עַד־מְאֹֽד is not normal, is beyond what any other people in history ever suffered or experienced.  It cannot be simply derech ha'teva, but rather must be yad Hashem.  Therefore, if it is yad Hashem, if everything we have gone through is for the sake of kaparah, we reiterate our request, and have every right to ask  הֲשִׁיבֵ֨נוּ הֹ׳  אֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ וְֽנָשׁ֔וּבָה חַדֵּ֥שׁ יָמֵ֖ינוּ כְּקֶֽדֶם. 

does a choleh have to eat less than the shiur on 9 Av?

Aruch haShulchan writes in 554:7 that someone who is ill on 9 Av does not have to eat little bits at a time, each less than the shiur, like on Y"K

פחות מכשיעור לא שייך בתשעה באב, שהוא מדרבנן.  

This is not the same case as the Biur Halacha (on 554:6) we discussed a few years ago who writes that when there is a danger of cholera, a person should eat less than the shiur.  In that case, the person is not yet ill -- there is just a great potential of them becoming ill in the future.  Therefore, B.H. advises to eat less than the shiur, which is not considered achila, so that the day still has a shem taanis.  The Ah"S is talking about where someone already is ill and therefore cannot fast.

It's not clear exactly what the Ah"S means when he says the difference between Y"K and 9 AV is that 9 Av is derabbanan.  You could read it as suggesting a chiddush that is often quoted in the name of R' Chaim Brisker, namely, that when the Chachamim instituted the taanis, they were never gozeir on those who are sick.  For someone ill, the day does not have a shem taanis, and so they gain nothing by fasting. 

(I saw R' Mutzafi goes so far as to ask whether someone who is ill and exempt from fasting has a chiyuv melaveh malka since the day is not a taanis for them.  He writes that the Chachamim did not institute a chiyuv m"m on 9 Av, but the point is that the question clearly assumes like R' Chaim.)

The Marcheshes (siman 14) disagrees.  He writes that he took ill one 9 Av and he ate in bits less than the shiur because 9 Av, as divrei kabbalah, is as stringent as Y"K.  

The difference between R' Chaim and the Marcheshes could boil down simply to whether we treat divrei kabbalah as more stringent than a regular derabbanan or not, an issue that comes up in other sugyos with respect to krias ha'megillah and halachos of Purim.  

Or it could be that even if you accept that 9 Av is treated as a regular derabbanan, you can still take issue with R' Chaim's chiddush based on the principle that kol d'tikun derabbanan k'ein d'oraysa tikun.  If the d'oraysa of Y"K requires eating less than the shiur when one is ill, the takanah derabannan of taanis may parallel that.

chiddush of netziv regarding shehechiyanu during the 3 weeks

Rama (O.C. 223) paskens that the bracha of shehechiyanu is optional, not a chiyuv. This is based on Eiruvin 40b:

 ואמר רבה כי הוינא בי רב הונא איבעיא לן מהו לומר זמן בראש השנה וביום הכפורים כיון דמזמן לזמן אתי אמרינן או דילמא כיון דלא איקרו רגלים לא אמרינן לא הוה בידיה כי אתאי בי רב יהודה אמר אנא אקרא חדתא נמי אמינא זמן א"ל רשות לא קא מיבעיא לי כי קא מיבעיא לי חובה

The gemara there discusses whether a person has to recite shehechiyanu only on the 3 regalim, or even on R"H and Y"K.  R' Yehudah answers that of course you need to recite shehechiyanu -- if you recite shehechiyanu even on a new fruit, certainly you can recite it on the holidays of R"H and Y"K.  The gemara rejects R' Yehudah's argument.  The shehechiyanu on new fruit is RESHUS, optional.  The question with regards to R"H and Y"K is whether there is a CHIYUV to recite a bracha.  

QED, says Rama, that there is no chiyuv bracha on a new fruit, new clothes, etc.  If you want to celebrate the enjoyment of something new, you CAN say a bracha, but you don't have to.

Netziv in Haamek Sheila on Shi'ilta 171 (p336) disagrees and draws a distinction between shehechiyanu on zman, on reaching a particular milestone in time, and shehechiyanu which is recited on buying new clothes and the like.  Netziv is mechadesh that the bracha on a new fruit is not on the enjoyment of the fruit, like the bracha on a new garment, but rather it is on having reached the season in which that new fruit ripens, a bracha on zman.  

It is only the bracha of shehechiyanu on zman, like a new fruit, which the sugya in Eiruvin proves is RESHUS.  The shehechiyanu on the enjoyment of buying something new is obligatory.

This chiddush of the Netziv leads to a nafka minah during the three weeks.  The S.A. paskens that one should not recite a shehechiyanu on a new garment or a new fruit during this time period.  The logic behind the din is that you don't want to say a shehechiyanu and give thanks for reaching an inauspicious time period.  That sevara makes sense when dealing with the shehechiyanu on zman, on the time period, like the shehechiyanu over a new fruit.  However, the shehechiyanu on a new garment and the like is not a bracha on zman -- it is on the enjoyment from the newly purchased item.  There is a separate din, says the Netziv, not to buy new things during the three weeks so m'meila you have nothing to recite shehechiyanu on, but if a new items falls into someone's lap, e.g. they got an inheritance or won the lottery, then according to the Netziv, a shehechiyanu would be recited.

birchas haTorah, maamad har Sinai, and Eretz Yisrael

The Tur (O.C. 46) writes that one recites the bracha of "asher bachar banu...v'nasan lanu es toraso" one should remember maamad Har Sinai.  The Bach explains that the Tur was bothered by the question of why we have multiple brachos in birchas hatorah, first the bracha of "laasok b'divrei Torah," and then this bracha of "asher bachar banu..."  The Tur's answer is that the first bracha is a regular birchas hamitzvah on the mitzvah of studying Torah; the second bracha is a birchas ha'shevach to thank G-d for the experience of maamad Har Sinai. ( As we discussed once before, according to some Rishonim there is even a separate mitzvah to remember maamad Har Sinai.)

The Shem m'Shmuel (5671 last piece) has a different approach.  Rashi comments in last week's parsha on the pasuk  בַּחֹ֙דֶשׁ֙ הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֔י לְצֵ֥את בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם בַּיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה בָּ֖אוּ מִדְבַּ֥ר סִינָֽי׃ that לא היה צריך לכתוב אלא: ביום ההוא, מהו ביום הזה – שיהו דברי תורה חדשים עליך כאילו היום נתנו.  Every day the study of Torah is supposed to be fresh in one's eyes, as if it is the first time one set eyes on it.  It is the Torah itself which rejuvenates a person and refreshes his outlook.  He quotes the Tana d'bei Eliyahu that when a person learns, Hashem is right there learning alongside the individual.  That experience is what gives a person new chiyus -- today's learning is not just looking at the same old text that one saw yesterday and the day before.

The first bracha of birchas ha'Torah is on the mitzvah of study.  The second bracha is thanks for this rejuvenation, thanks that there is a "nosein haTorah" giving us a new outlook and new insight every day.

The gemara tells us that churban haMikdash and galus happened because Klal Yisrael failed to say birchas haTorah.  In light of his chiddush, Sm"S explains the midah k'neged midah: Eretz Yisrael is the one place where one can experience constant growth, constant hischadshus and renewal in avodas Hashem.  Just ask any of your children who have spent a year in Israel in seminary or yeshiva.  Undoubtedly, that year is a year of growth like no other.  It's not just the age that they go which triggers it, or being away from home which triggers it -- it's being in Eretz Yisrael which is the trigger.  Failing to say birchas haTorah indicated a failure to appreciate the hischadshus and renewal in each day.  People felt that it's the same ongoing chiyuv and the study day in and day out -- לא מפסקי לילות מימים וכחד יומא אריכא הוא (Sukkah 46a) -- so why bother with a new bracha each day?  But we do say a new bracha, because Hashem is constantly "nosein haTorah," because שיהו דברי תורה חדשים עליך כאילו היום נתנו, there is a new chiyus that is given to us each day.

rodef chessed

יְרוּשָׁלַ֥͏ִם הַבְּנוּיָ֑ה כְּ֝עִ֗יר שֶׁחֻבְּרָה־לָּ֥הּ יַחְדָּֽו׃   (Teh 122:3)   Forget Minneapolis and St Paul, it's Yerushalayim which is the original twin city.  Chazal tell us that there is a Yerushalayim upstairs in heaven that is connected with our Yerushalayim down here - chubrah lah yachdav.   

אֵיכָ֣ה יָשְׁבָ֣ה בָדָ֗ד  the navi cries out.  Yerushalayim is all alone and that link has been severed.  This is the churban that we still are trying to repair.  9 Av is all about restoring the connection between Yerushalayim shel matah and Yerushalayim shel maalah, between us and Hashem, between each other.  As Chazal also darshen on chubrah lah yachdav, Yerushalaim brought us together as chaveirim.  

Short of time again this week, but one thought on the parsha:

Moshe sent messengers to Sichon asking permission to pass through his land, adding that there will an economic benefit for Sichon, as Bnei Yisrael will purchase food and drink along the way (2:27-29):

 אֶעְבְּרָ֣ה בְאַרְצֶ֔ךָ בַּדֶּ֥רֶךְ בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ אֵלֵ֑ךְ לֹ֥א אָס֖וּר יָמִ֥ין וּשְׂמֹֽאול׃

אֹ֣כֶל בַּכֶּ֤סֶף תַּשְׁבִּרֵ֙נִי֙ וְאָכַ֔לְתִּי וּמַ֛יִם בַּכֶּ֥סֶף תִּתֶּן־לִ֖י וְשָׁתִ֑יתִי רַ֖ק אֶעְבְּרָ֥ה בְרַגְלָֽי

 כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר עָֽשׂוּ־לִ֜י בְּנֵ֣י עֵשָׂ֗ו הַיֹּֽשְׁבִים֙ בְּשֵׂעִ֔יר וְהַמּ֣וֹאָבִ֔ים הַיֹּשְׁבִ֖ים בְּעָ֑ר

Rashi comments: כאשר עשו לי בניא עשו – לא לעניין לעבור בארצם, אלא לעניין מכר אוכל ומים  Meaning, when the pasuk says, "...like the Bnei Eisav and Moav did," it's not talking about allowing BN"Y to cross their land, as we know from Bamidbar 20:21 that Edom did not grant permission for Bnei Yisrael to cross their territory, וַיְמָאֵ֣ן׀ אֱד֗וֹם נְתֹן֙ אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל עֲבֹ֖ר בִּגְבֻל֑וֹ  Rather, the phrase is referring to the purchase of supplies, which Eisav did offer to sell to the Jewish people.  Moshe was pointing out to Sichon that he can avail himself of that same opportunity to make $.

Maharal asks: our pasuk is speaking about Moav as well as Eisav.  How then can Rashi explain that it is referring to selling Bnei Yisrael food and drink when we read later in 23:5 that  לֹֽא־יָבֹ֧א עַמּוֹנִ֛י וּמוֹאָבִ֖י בִּקְהַ֣ל ה׳, that a convert from Amon and Moav may not intermarry into Bnei Yisrael because עַל־דְּבַ֞ר אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹא־קִדְּמ֤וּ אֶתְכֶם֙ בַּלֶּ֣חֶם וּבַמַּ֔יִם בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶ֣ם מִמִּצְרָ֑יִם וַאֲשֶׁר֩ שָׂכַ֨ר עָלֶ֜יךָ אֶת־בִּלְעָ֣ם בֶּן־בְּע֗וֹר מִפְּת֛וֹר אֲרַ֥ם נַהֲרַ֖יִם לְקַֽלְלֶֽךָּ׃ they did not offer us food when we can to their land?!

Maharal answers ain hachi nami, Moav did sell food to BN"Y just like the Bnei Eisav did.  However, לֹא־קִדְּמ֤וּ אֶתְכֶם֙ בַּלֶּ֣חֶם וּבַמַּ֔יִם.  They did not come out and **offer** the food and drink.  If you happened to wander into a Moabite store and found what you want on the shelves -- there for sure was no Walmart greeter at the door waiting to welcome Jews -- they would sell you what you needed.  If not, your loss.  They would not go out of their way to solicit business or offer to help.  (See Ramban on that pasuk who rejects this pshat, Chasam Sofer on our parsha, and the post here).

We see an amazing thing.  Amon and Moav are rejected for all eternity not because they had signs saying "No Jews or dogs allowed" in the windows of their stores, or because they refused to serve Jews in their restaurants or sell them supplies.  Amon and Moav are rejected for all eternity because even though they sold us supplies, fed us in their restaurants, etc., they did it begrudgingly.  

When you have an opportunity to do something for someone else -- and certainly in this case, when Amon and Moav stood to benefit financially -- and you drag your feet and show that you are not really interested, that's a crime.  

This reminds me of the gemara (Taanis 21) that tells us that Nachum Ish Gam Zu was blind, had his arms amputated, and his legs cut off because of the following incident: 

אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו רַבִּי וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁצַּדִּיק גָּמוּר אַתָּה לָמָה עָלְתָה לְךָ כָּךְ אָמַר לָהֶם בָּנַיי אֲנִי גָּרַמְתִּי לְעַצְמִי שֶׁפַּעַם אַחַת הָיִיתִי מְהַלֵּךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ לְבֵית חָמִי וְהָיָה עִמִּי מַשּׂוֹי שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲמוֹרִים אֶחָד שֶׁל מַאֲכָל וְאֶחָד שֶׁל מִשְׁתֶּה וְאֶחָד שֶׁל מִינֵי מְגָדִים בָּא עָנִי אֶחָד וְעָמַד לִי בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְאָמַר לִי רַבִּי פַּרְנְסֵנִי אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ הַמְתֵּן עַד שֶׁאֶפְרוֹק מִן הַחֲמוֹר לֹא הִסְפַּקְתִּי לִפְרוֹק מִן הַחֲמוֹר עַד שֶׁיָּצְתָה נִשְׁמָתוֹ הָלַכְתִּי וְנָפַלְתִּי עַל פָּנָיו וְאָמַרְתִּי עֵינַי שֶׁלֹּא חָסוּ עַל עֵינֶיךָ יִסּוֹמוּ יָדַיי שֶׁלֹּא חָסוּ עַל יָדֶיךָ יִתְגַּדְּמוּ רַגְלַי שֶׁלֹּא חָסוּ עַל רַגְלֶיךָ יִתְקַטְּעוּ וְלֹא נִתְקָרְרָה דַּעְתִּי עַד שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי כׇּל גּוּפִי יְהֵא מָלֵא שְׁחִין אָמְרוּ לוֹ אוֹי לָנוּ שֶׁרְאִינוּךָ בְּכָךְ אָמַר לָהֶם אוֹי לִי אִם לֹא רְאִיתוּנִי בְּכָךְ

Of course there is no comparison between Amon and Moav's sin and Nachum Ish Gam Zu, but on the level Nachum was on, unloading the donkey first was on some infinitesimally small level a chisaron of אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹא־קִדְּמ֤וּ , of foot dragging and not seizing the opportunity to do good the first moment it presented itself.

We are supposed to be "rodef tzedaka va'chessed." We have to run to do chassadim, not wait for them to come to us, and then only willy-nilly attend to them.  

Rashi says that Leah named her daugher Dinah because (Braishis 30:21) דנה בעצמה, אם זה זכר, לא תהא רחל אחותי כאחת השפחות, ונתפללה ונהפך לנקבה.  Dina is from the word din, which alludes to what was going through Leah's head when she thought about her pregnancy and what would happen if the child was a boy and her sister Rachel would be short changed in the number of shevatim that she would produce.  But who cares what was going through Leah's head?  At the end of the day, what matters is what Leah did.  It's like if a shul has an appeal, and a guy goes home and figures out that if he moves funds from this account to that account and can write off some stock loss and do some other accounting trick, he can donate 2x as much as he had planned.  The shul doesn't give him a big y'yasher koach for his accounting skill, they give him a big y'yasher koach for the check!  Dinah is the cheshbon, it's the accounting.  Why does that matter to be recorded for posterity?

R' Betzalel Rudinsky quoted b'shem R' Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld that there are many women who if they were in Leah's shoes and already had a bunch of boys, would gladly agree if you asked them if they would take a girl instead for the sake of their sister's kavod.  This is not what makes Leah Imeinu special.  What makes Leah Imeinu special is that no one had to ask her.  What makes Leah Imeinu special is that she already thought of doing the right thing for her sister before Rachel or anyone approached her to ask for it.

That's the opposite of אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹא־קִדְּמ֤וּ, of waiting to be approached.  That's what it means to be rodef chessed.

reciting a bracha in advance of a chiyuv

I was thinking about the custom of making havdalah on beer during the 9 days to avoid drinking wine and was wondering if there might be another solution to avoid that problem (assuming you think it is a problem and don't just drink wine, which is permitted l'tzorech mitzvah).  I don't have a copy of the Michtivei Torah of the Gerrer at home, but I saw in Yabi'a Omer (vol 6 33:6) that R' Ovadya quotes that the Imrei Emes writes that when his uncle, the Sifsei Tzadik, the Rebbe of Peltz, was an onein on Shabbos, he davened the motzei Shabbos maariv early and recited havdalah on a kos while it was still day outside.  Since an onein is patur from mitzvos except on Shabbos, had the Rebbe waited until motzei shabbos, he would have not been allowed to daven or drink wine.  By pushing up his maariv, he gained being able to daven and say havdalah. 

This is a chiddush gadol because I would have thought (and there are Achronim who indeed argue this point) you can't have your cake and eat it too -- you can't simultaneously ignore aninus because it's shabbos, but at the time daven a weekday maariv and say havdalah as if it's not shabbos.  

The Imrei Emes has another argument against this chiddush, and this is the point that R' Ovadya devotes his discussion to.  The Imrei Emes draws the following analogy: According to R"T (see Tos in Brachos 11), once you say bichas haTorah in the morning, you no longer have to recite a new bracha for 24 hours until the next morning of the next day.  If you said birchas haTorah Monday morning, for example, you don't need to recite a new bracha until daybreak on Tues.  What happens if you woke up before daybreak on Tues?  Even though according to R"T your learning at that point is still covered by yesterday's bichas haTorah, R"T will still allow you (so argues the I.E.) to recite a new birchas haTorah that will cover Tues going forward.  Says the Imrei Emes, when you recite that bracha, it's not because you have a new chiyuv at that moment, but rather it's because you can fulfill the new chiyuv of Tues in advance and in anticipation of at arriving.  So too, when Chazal allow a person to daven maariv early on Shabbos day and recite havdalah, it's not because those chiyuvim apply before nightfall, but rather it's because a person can fulfill those chiyvim in advance and anticipation of their being chal.  That's well and good if a person will indeed have those chiyuvim later on, but in the case of an onein who will be exempt, the trick doesn't work.

Ad kan that issue b'kitzur.

Nafka minah between these views should be whether you can say havdalah on wine before shabbos ends during the 9 days.  On the one hand, you could say that since it is shabbos you are still permitted to have wine, but on the other hand, you are using wine in anticipation of chol when it would not be allowed and so maybe it should not work.  

What about saying havdalah next shabbos before nightfall in advance of Tisha b'Av?  Would that work?  The Rishonim in fact debate this very point; BaHaG argues that this cannot be done (my son told me he plans to do a post on this BH"G, so see his blog later this week).  Is that machlokes parallel to the issue raised by the Sifsei Tzadik?  Or perhaps there is no comparison between a case where a person has a chiyuv havdalah, just cannot drink the wine, and an onein who has no chiyuv?  

temporary annoyances

Moshe tells Klal Yisrael at the start of Parshas Devarim that "rav lachem sheves ba'har ha'zeh," (1:6) enough dawdling at Sinai, now that the Torah was given and the Mishkan built it is time to move on and head towards Eretz Yisrael.  In between that declaration and the sending the the spies, which would set things back 40 years, Moshe describes how he appointed judges to help manage the burden of leadership. 

The Midrash notes that this episode is out of place.  The appointment Moshe describes is either the appointment of judges that took place immediately after Yom Kippur before the Mishkan was built, or the appointment done after the misonenim story, much later.  Either way, it did not happen after the people broke camp at Sinai to start the journey to Eretz Yisrael.  Why does Moshe in recounting events put things out of order?

Some explain that Moshe was thematically linking the appointment of judges to the journey toward Eretz Yisrael.  Our task is to setup a just society in our homeland.  By appointing judges Moshe was establishing the framework through which that could be accomplished.

Rav Shachter writes that R' Soloveitchik used to have the baal koreh at Shabbos mincha/Mon/Thurs before parshas Devarim stop not at sheni, which is what the sidur says to do, but to read through until after this section describing the appointment of judges.  RYBS said this was the minhag in Brisk.  Not pausing reinforces this link between the journey to Eretz Yisrael at the start of the section and the appointment of judges -- it is one topic.

The Sefono takes a different approach.  He and links the parsha of appointing judges to the theme of Moshe's opening speech -- tochacha.  He ties the parsha not to the road ahead, to Eretz Yisrael, but rather to the sojourn in the midbar:

זֶה סִפֵּר לְהַזְכִּירָם אֶת פִּשְׁעָם, שֶׁאַף-עַל-פִּי שֶׁבִּשֵּׂר אותָם שֶׁיִּכָּנְסוּ לָאָרֶץ בִּלְתִּי שׁוּם מִלְחָמָה, שֶׁהָיָה עִנְיָנָהּ רַב הַתּועֶלֶת וְהַכָּבוד יותֵר מִכָּל נִכְסֵיהֶם וְעִנְיְנֵיהֶם בַּמִּדְבָּר, לא נִמְנְעוּ מִלְּעורֵר דִּבְרֵי רִיבות אִישׁ עַל חֲבֵרו, בְּאפֶן שֶׁהֻצְרַךְ לְמַנּות מַדְרֵגות שׁופְטִים, עַד שֶׁכָּל עֲשָׂרָה מֵהֶם הָיוּ צְרִיכִים לְדַיָּן פְּרָטִי, וְאֵין זֶה כִּי אִם מֵרעַ לֵב.

Am Yisrael was on the road and moving quickly.  It is an 11 day journey from Chorev to Kadesh Barne'a ,but Klal Yisrael was able to do it in a mere three days, as Hashem wanted to help hurry their arrival into Eretz Yisrael.  How long would it be before they arrived in Eretz Yisrael? Moshe did not anticipate more than a few more days of travel.  And yet, Moshe tells the people, I had to appoint judges along the way.  You could not avoid arguing, you could not avoid having disputes that needed to be worked out and resolved, even for that short period of time, even though you knew you would soon be in Eretz Yisrael, each person with his own portion.

It's like a person who wins the lottery and on the way to collect his winnings gets into a fight with the cab driver about the fare.  You're about to become a millionaire -- who really cares whether the ride costs a few dollars more or a few dollars less?  It's not worth fighting about!  Here too, Moshe was telling Klal Yisrael, "You are about to inherit Eretz Yisrael, the greatest land, the holiest land -- is it really worth fighting about things in the midbar, things that are temporary annoyances, until we get there?!"

Anyone who reads this Seforno has to say to himself/herself: We are in the aschalta d'geula! So why do we keep up the petty arguments with each other?   Would anyone get into a fight with their interior decorator about whether this chandelier or that chandelier belongs in their dining room if they knew that tomorrow they would be moving to Yerushalayim?  Or get into a fight with their neighbor about whose fault it was that their car got dinged if tomorrow they were moving to Eretz Yisrael and the car ain't coming along?  If we really believed geulah was just around the corner, so much of what we bicker over would just be so trivial and unimportant. 

Our 2000 year long trip is almost over -- time to start acting that way.

when was the nevuah of shabbos chazon given?

חֲזוֹן֙ יְשַֽׁעְיָ֣הוּ בֶן־אָמ֔וֹץ אֲשֶׁ֣ר חָזָ֔ה עַל־יְהוּדָ֖ה וִירֽוּשָׁלָ֑‍ִם בִּימֵ֨י עֻזִּיָּ֧הוּ יוֹתָ֛ם אָחָ֥ז יְחִזְקִיָּ֖הוּ מַלְכֵ֥י יְהוּדָֽה׃

Rashi and other meforshim explain that the opening pasuk of chazon is an introduction which tells us that Yeshayahu prophesied for the duration of the reign of four kings.  The Metzudah puts it succinctly:

בימי ארבעת המלכים האלה ניבא עד שעמד מנשה והרגו.

When was this particular nevuah that we read on shabbos chazon given?  That's not clear.  At the end of Rashi in parenthesis there is a comment that says it was given at the end of Chizkiyahu's reign, but there is no justification for that claim given nor it is clear that the comment is even from Rashi.

Malbi"m has a different pshat.  He writes:

חזון ישעיהו נבואה זאת נבא בימי עוזיהו ושנה אותה בימי כל מלך ומלך.

The first pasuk is not telling us historically how many years Yeshayahu prophesied for, but rather is telling us when he gave this specific prophecy -- namely, he gave it in the days of Uziyahu, and then again in the days Yosam, and then again in the days of Achaz, and yet again in the days of Chizkiyahu.  Again and again Yishayahu went around giving the same exact message, hoping that this time, in this king's reign, someone would finally listen! 

Yishayahu may have been killed by Menashe, but he is still giving us the same prophecy and the same message, year after year, shabbos chazon after shabbos chazon, hoping someone will finally listen.

rashash vs aruch hashulchan on placement of nacheim

The Yerushalmi writes that the bracha of nacheim should be recited in avodah, similar to the way we recite ya'aleh v'yavo in avodah.  Yet that's not what we do -- we stick it in bonei yerushalayim.  There is no source in the Bavli that says to do that, so why do we disregard the Yerushalmi?

RI"F writes that our practice is based on the Bavli's din that one is permitted to add a bakasha to a bracha so long as it is in keeping with the bracha's theme.  For example, if you know someone is sick, you can add a bakasha for them to be healed into refa'einu.  We therefore add our bakasha for nechamas Yerushalayim to the bracha that deals with binyan Yerushalayim.

Aruch haShulchan is not satisfied with this alone.  He points out that the Yerushalmi may be l'shitaso.  The Yerushalmi's nusach ha'tefilah incorporates es tzemach David into bonei yerushalayim as one bracha. Therefore, since the theme of nacheim does not relate to es tzemach David, it cannot be incorporated into the bracha of bonei yerushalamim/es tzemach as it only fits half the topic.  The Yerushalmi had no choice other than to put it in avodah.  According to the Bavli that es tzemach is its own bracha and bonei yerushalayim is its own bracha, nacheim fits perfectly into bonei yerushalayim, and that is why we put in there.

Even though we reject the Yerushalmi, the Rashash in Taanis (30) comes up with a chiddush l'halacha based on it that is implicitly at odds with this Aruch haShulachan.  Some background: S.A. writes (294:4) that if you omit something from tefilah that you are not required to repeat for, once you finish the bracha you cannot go back.  R' Akiva Eiger adds that you don't even have to finish the bracha -- once you say "baruch ata Hashem..." and say the shem Hashem, you can't go back.  For example, if you forgot havdalah on motzei Shabbos in the bracha of ata chonein, once you said "baruch ata Hashem" to end the bracha, you just go on.  The MG"A (114:8) adds that you cannot even add the missed words in between the bracha you finished and the next bracha either -- i.e. it is not just a matter of avoiding wasting shem Hashem by going back.

Rashash argues that nacheim is different.  If you miss saying it, you can stick it in between the brachos.  Since according to the Yerushalmi es tzemach David and bonei yerushalayim is one bracha, the placement of nacheim where we have it must assume that there is a connection between nacheim and the themes of both brachos (not like Ah"S who says Ylmi l'shitaso would not hold of where we place it!) Therefore, even if you finished the bracha of bonei yerushalayim, you are still holding in the same topic by es tzemach david and may add in nacheim.  (There are a few other wrinkles that he adds to bolster the point, but this is the main argument.)

Aside from the chiddush l'halacha, there is an important idea in hashkafa as well.  According to Rashash, the theme of binyan yerushalayim that we hope and pray for in nacheim does not stand by itself -- it is linked to es tzemach david, to geulah and mashiach.  Even though we may even be able to stand in Yerushalayim on 9 Av under an Israeli flag, we still must recite the tefilah, as the redemption of Yerushalayim remains incomplete so long as we lack full geulah. 

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.