avodas ha'korbanos in the midbar and in the future

Abarbanel in his introduction to Vayikra writes that the focus of our sefer is the kohanim, those who are our leaders and Torah teachers.  We need to ensure this group is supported economically -- korbanos and terumos/maasros to eat -- and they in turn need to follow the many laws in our sefer that have to do with their maintaining a state of kedusha, e.g. not becoming tamei l'meis.  Chazal don't refer to the sefer a "Torah haKorbanos," but rather "Toras Kohanim."

 

Ramban in his introduction has a different view and places his focus on the korbanos, not the kohanim.  He writes that after the building of the Mishkan, which was the culmination of the story of galus and geulah=hashra'as haShechina of sefer Shmos, the Torah now devotes itself to the topic of preserving the gains that were made and ensuring that the Shechina remains with us.  "Yivarechicha Hashem v'yismirecha..." -- meforshim explain that when a person gives a gift, the recipient may squander it, but when Hashem gives us the gift of his bracha, he also gives us the gift of shemira, a way to preserve it so that it is not wasted.  G-d know we are bound to mess up, so he gives us the parshiyos of korbanos in advance as a way to fix the problem. 

 

Shem m'Shmuel asks: The nevi'im speak of korbanos that will be offered in the future, after mashiach comes and we have the bayis shlishi.  Chazal tell us that those will be days where there is no more zechus or chovah, where the world will be united in kabbalas ol of Hashem.  Why will we still need a tikkun for our mistakes when there will be no mistakes?

 

Let me give you an analogy: A person goes on a diet and loses 50 pounds.  He wants to keep the weight off, so he starts exercising for a half hour each day.  After while, the person comes to realize that the exercise that he is doing to keep his weight down is actually beneficial in its own right -- he feels more relaxed after working out, he has more energy, he feels younger, etc.

 

So too with the avodas ha'korbanos.  What was given to us as a means of correcting our mistakes will one day be appreciated as a means of ritzuy, valuable in its own right.  We said in musaf of Rosh Chodesh this past Thursday, "u'seir izim na'aseh b'ratzon."  We look forward to the day that we can offer the seir, the korban chatas, not to correct our deficiencies, but rather "l'rzaton," as a means of ritzuy, simply to find favor in Hashem's eyes.

 

Rashi comments on the first pasuk on our parsha that Hashem told Moshe to say “divrei kivushin” to Bnei Yisrael.  The first Mishna in the second perek of Taanis says that on fast days a chacham would say “divrei kevushim” to the people.  Rashi explains: kovshim es ha’levalos l’hachziram l’mutav.  The chacham would give them musar!  What is the mussar that Moshe gave Klal Yisrael here in our parsha?  Rashi explains that Moshe told Klal Yisrael that “b’shvilchem nidaber imi,”  that it is only because of them that Hashem speaks to him, not for my own sake. 

 

Where is the musar here?  Moshe is telling Klal Yisrael how chashuv they are, how worthy they are!?

 

Chasam Sofer answers: This is musar too.  This is the Slabodka mussar of gadlus ha’adam.  You are great, you are holy – so act like it.  Live up to who you are.

 

Maybe we can explain Rashi in light of the Ramban/Shem m'Shmuel above.  Sefas Emes (5661) explains thst the word “shvil” can mean a path.  “B’shevilchem nidaber imi” –- Moshe was telling Klal Yisrael that the toras ha'korbanos was not given to him on the level he is holding at, but rather on the shvil, on the path, on the level, that they, Klal Yisrael, were holding at.  Had Hashem been speaking to Moshe on his level, then avodas ha'korbanos would be the avodah of ritzyuy, purely l'reiach nichoach, to bring nachas ruach to Hashem, the level the nevi'im who speak about toras ha'korbanos in the time of geulah are describing.  But that's not where we were holding.  For us, we need to hear about the tikunim for chatas, for asham, etc.  We see toras ha'korbanos as a means to correct our mistakes. 

 

That's the little aleph in Vayikra.  There is toras ha'korbanos of gadlus, of the ymos ha'mashiach, but we are not yet zocheh to that.  Instead, we have the toras ha'korbanos of katnus, little aleph, on our level, what we can absorb for now. 

Notes from the Underground - Shabbos edition

You know already Shabbos in the bunker with the family is going to be a challenge -- no way to dress it up any differently.  Fasten your seatbelts!  Perhaps it is a good idea to avoid setting  out sharp knives on the table.

 

Rashi writes that the voice calling to Moshe, "Vaikra el Moshe," was only heard in Ohel Moed, but it did not echo outward.  This was not because Hashem's voice was soft and weak -- aderaba, this is the same "kol Hashem ba'koach, kol Hashem b'hadar, kol Hashem shover arazim" -- but rather because Hashem's so decreed that only in "m'Ohel Moed" would it be audible.

 

Says R' Baruch Sorotzkin derech derush in his haBina v'haBracha): we see a lot of calamity taking place in the word; we also see glimmers of hope and sparks of goodness. So many people don't get that what they are seeing is the yad Hashem, the kol Hashem shover arazim that can break apart the whole world, the kol Hashem b'hadar that brings beauty into the world even in the midst of darkness and chaos.  Part of Hashem's greatness is that He creates a koach ha'hester to hide his presence -- you wont hear about yad Hashem on facebook, in the media, or at a press briefing.  Hashem allows those who want to to ignore him -- the kol Hashem cannot be heard outside Ohel Moed.  It's up to us to step inside to hear it.

 

The challenge we face is to turn our bunkers into Ohel Moed where we hear the kol Hashem. 

Notes from the Undergound - Day 2

Another day in the basement bunker trying to stay sane...

 

I've debated whether to do a this post lest I be accused of being too callous, but since this is Notes from the Underground and not your regularly scheduled program, why not? 

 

So let's talk pandemic... this will be a little more serious than yesterday's notes.

 

Step aleph: What confronts us is not a choice of whether to lock down our cities in order to save some unknown % of people, but rather a choice of whether to lock down our cities to save some unknown % of people AT THE EXPENSE of the cost IN LIVES (literally) of some other unknown % of people.  In other words, this a large scale version of the trolley problem, except here you don't know how many lives it will cost to save how many other lives.

 

Maybe I am wrong, but I think doctors in particular have a hard time wrapping their heads around this.  A doctor I used to go to (I don't anymore for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of his care) would remind me every visit to mind my high blood pressure as it could cause health problems like heart disease, stroke, and all kinds of other unpleasant things that might shorten my life.  This same doctor has recently written that everyone should quarantine for their own safety -- meaning, no one goes to work, opens their business, etc.  Meaning, millions of people unemployed, people suffering the risk of foreclosure, bankruptcy, economic distress, etc. -- all guaranteed to raise blood pressure and send people to an earlier grave!  Talk about cognitive dissonance.  As a result of the total lockdown approach we can look forward to increases in the rates of alcoholism, depression, drug use, family violence, divorce, crime, and even suicide, and who knows what the educational effects of cancelling 1/4 of a school year are.  Do those who will suffer these effects have a right to say "Mi y'eimar d'dama didach sumak tfei?"    

 

No matter what you do in life, there is a degree of risk involved.  We cannot function as a society without risk.  You drive a car?  There are thousands of car accidents each year, some of which are fatal.  You walk outside?  You think pedestrians never get killed?  Yet as individuals and as a society, we accept these risks and don't curtail our lives because of them.

 

So here are the three questions I think anyone in favor of total lockdown needs to answer: 1) A numbers question -- how much risk is OK?  If a few thousand car accidents is OK, a few hundred thousand deaths from flu is OK, at what point (quantity) does it become not OK and we shut cities down?  2) An ethical question -- whatever that quantity is, why are fewer deaths than that # acceptable but more not?  3) A public policy question -- who gets to decide that number for society at large?   Elected officials?  You mean the same folks who used this crisis as a means to give themselves a 25k raise and give more money to "important" institutions like National Endowment for the Arts?  Or maybe Doctors?  Some other bureaucratic agency administrators?  

 

Wanting the world economy to not shut down is not putting economics above human life.  That would indeed be callous.  It is simply taking into consideration the totality of ALL the lives effected in both the short term and long term, which seems to me to be a more fair and just approach to the situation at hand.

 

Anyway, it is the chodesh of hischadshus, and Hashem should give us refuah and yeshu'a so we don't have to grapple with these issues.

 

Tomorrow hopefully an erev Shabbos Note from the Underground. 

 

Notes from the Underground

Since I am an "essential worker," I have been commuting to work in NY as usual until today.  Finally, I too have now been ordered to work from home.  Today marked Day #1 in my basement bunker and I am already on the verge of insanity.

I am thinking of doing a daily podcast of random thoughts from the bunker, but we will see how it goes.  For now, I'll stick to text.  I was going to call this Thoughts from the Bunker, but Wife thought of the much better title of Notes from the Underground.

1) A lomdish chakira: does twitter attract the largest collection of stupid people on earth, or is it that participating in twitter makes one stupid?  Teiku.

2) I took a picture of the subway car I was on Monday night:

Normal commuter traffic was nonexistent.  However, I want to assure you that the subways and the stations were still filled with the usual collection of homeless, drunks, druggies.  In fact, they felt even freer than usual to roam about. 

Can someone please explain to me why we are not seeing the homeless/wino/druggie population, who literally sleep in filth on the floor of subway stations, dropping like flies in the midst of this pandemic?  Just wondering.  Whatever it is in the stuff they are drinking or smoking, maybe it has therapeutic effects?

3) And on that topic, to the three NYC policemen who got in the same subway car as me Monday morning and simply ignored the bums sleeping across the benches at the end of the car -- good job keeping NY safe.  (I like to call the subway cars like that "sleeper cars."  You can close your eyes and imagine the long gone heyday of railroad travel -- that is, if you have an exceptionally good imagination.) 

4) The reason I am deemed an "essential worked" is because I work in IT.  On twitter (see #1 above) there was recently a trending hashtag where people thanked all the workers who continued to do their jobs during this crisis: doctors and nurses, of course, but even truckers, cashiers, etc.  Not ONE single person mentioned IT folks.  Ladies and gentlemen, do you think all this remote access that allows you to "work" (or send out tweets - see #1 again) from your bunker at home just happens by itself? 

5) Pro IT tip: if you intend to work from home and remote into your office computer and your IT staff is finally told they too will be working from home, clicking shutdown on your office computer as you head out the door is NOT a good idea.  When you call support and get put on hold, let me tell you what is going on: either A) everyone is laughing their heads off at your stupidity, or B) everyone is cursing like drunken sailors at you because someone will probably now have to go into the office to deal with your problem, because that's what we unappreciated (see #4 above) IT people do.

That's all for now...  everyone stay healthy and sane in your own bunkers and keep praying for this to end.

ketores: Rambam vs kabbalists

Because the kabbalists hold that it is a segulah to ward off the plague there seems to be a lot of emphasis being placed these days on reciting ketores as part of korbanos or after davening .  The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (3:45) actually gives a far more mundane reason for the offering of ketores in Beis haMikdash: the sweet fragrance of ketores was needed to help overcome the stench of the animals that had to be butchered to offer korbanos.

The Rishonim already have problems with the Rambam's view.  Meshech Chochma argues in their favor against the Rambam based on the pesukim in Pekudei.

Back in P' Titzaveh, when first describing the mizbach ha'ketores, the Torah describes its location as "lifnei ha'paroches" (30:6):

וְנָֽתַתָּ֤ה אֹתוֹ֙ לִפְנֵ֣י הַפָּרֹ֔כֶת 

Similarly, at the end of our parsha (40:26):

וַיָּ֛שֶׂם אֶת־מִזְבַּ֥ח הַזָּהָ֖ב בְּאֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד לִפְנֵ֖י הַפָּרֹֽכֶת:

Yet earlier in that same perek, when describing the hakamas haMishkan, the Torah writes (40:5):


וְנָֽתַתָּ֞ה אֶת־מִזְבַּ֤ח הַזָּהָב֙ לִקְטֹ֔רֶת לִפְנֵ֖י אֲר֣וֹן הָֽעֵדֻ֑ת

Why the switch here to "lifnei aron ha'eidus?"

Meshech Chochma answers that the Torah here is not describing the location of the mizbach ha'ketores, but rather alluding to its function.  It is not merely there as a perfume bottle, but rather just as the aron is a vehicle for hashra'as haShechina, so too, the offering of ketores is a means to bring hashara'as haShechina to the Mikdash.

sometimes it's a mitzvah not to show up

"1) Va'yitzav Moshe... al ya'asu od melacha l'terumas ha'kodesh" -- Moshe commanded the people, "No more donations needed for the Mishkan." 
"Va'yikalei ha'am mei'havi" -- the people stopped bringing. (35:5) 

Chasam Sofer comments that this was a mitzvah like any other mitzvah.  No one said, "Whew, I'm glad they are done hitting me up for donations."  Aderaba, people wanted to give, but they were commanded to stop and so they couldn't.  They said a "l'shem yichud" and put the money back into their wallets l'shem mitzvah just like they would have given it away l'shem mitzvah.

Given our present circumstances, this is where we are holding.  It would be great if we could have minyanim and in-person shiurim and chavrusas.  Is there anyone who is thinking, "Wow, glad I don't have to get up for minyan anymore?"  I don't think so.  But right now our mitzvah is "u'shmarten es nafshoseichem."  Right now our mitzvah is to not go to minyan and to do so l'shem mitzvah.     

controlling the situation

What I think drives people’s fear in the current situation is the feeling of loss of control.

 

A lot of people are familiar with the segulah of the Nefesh haChaim that internalizing “ain od milvado,” that all is in Hashem’s hands, can help a person overcome any and all difficulties.  The (mis)impression that one might walk away with is that man’s job is to simply surrender his fate to Hashem.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

The Nefesh haChaim starts his book by defining “tzelem Elokim” as meaning that like G-d, man is endowed with the ability to control the universe.  The pasuk davka uses the term “Elokim,” the name of G-d that refers to his capacity as “ba’al ha’kochos,” master of all forces in nature, because it is that power which Hashem built into our makeup. 

 

When our ability to control our environment is challenged, jeopardized, it shakes us to our core because that power of control is at the core of who we are.

 

But things are not out of our hands.  Nefesh haChaim writes (1:4):

 

וזאת תורת האדם כל איש ישראל אל יאמר בלבו ח''ו. כי מה אני ומה כחי לפעול במעשי השפלים שום ענין בעולם אמנם יבין וידע ויקבע במחשבות לבו. שכל פרטי מעשיו ודבוריו ומחשבותיו כל עת ורגע. לא אתאבידו ח''ו. ומה רבו מעשיו ומאד גדלו ורמו. שכל א' עולה כפי שרשה לפעול פעולתה בגבהי מרומים בעולמות וצחצחות האורות העליונים.

 

So many people are talking these days about the need for emunah.  It's true we need emunah in Hashem, but we also need emunah in ourselves, in our ability through Torah and tefilah to make a difference.

rav chessed

I don't even know where to begin in terms of thinking about the mess we are currently in.  This is more an exercise in trying to wrap my brain around something that makes sense than anything else. 

 

The Netziv on last week’s parsha comments that when we say Hashem is “rav chessed v’emes,” the vav hachibur means that “rav” modifies both terms –- Hashem is both “rav chessed” and “rav emes.”  Meaning, when a person appears before a judge, the judge may say that while it’s true/emes that the law says that for crime X the punishment is Y, he will be merciful and give a lesser punishment.  Or the judge may refuse to hear any grounds for leniency -– no chessed –- and instead, dispense exactly the punishment on the books.  It's either or: either you get the letter of the law, or the law goes out the window and you get mercy in its place.  Hashem somehow –- and this is beyond our human capacity to understand –- shows both an abundance of mercy, he is “rav chessed,” and at the same time, does not deviate one iota from being “rav emes,” from dispensing exactly what the letter of the law requires (see post here.)

 

It is always nice when we see  b’isgalya the “rav chessed” and the “rav emes” is somehow behind the scenes where we don’t pay attention to it.  But sometimes “rav emes” is b’isgalya; we become painfully aware of the midas ha’din.  At times like these the challenge is to remember that there is always “rav chessed” b’itkasya operating behind the scenes at exactly the same time.

 

There is one thing everyone wants during this crises: for things to back to the way they were.  I leave it to the big gedolim to figure out what we are supposed to take away from this whole situation, but I don't think you need to be an adam gadol to say that the one thing Hashem ***doesn’t*** want is for things to go back to the way they were.  Were that to be the case, or should we make that the case, then this whole crises would be a meaningless exercise in futility and pointless suffering.  It seems to me to be a davar pashut that if something like this happens, it means change is needed.  What needs  to change and how to bring it about is where cheshbon ha'nefesh is needed.

Everyone is talking about the need for tefilah, so let me say something about it too:  We had in last week's parsha “v’chanosi es asher a’chon v’richamti es asher a’racheim.”  The gemara (Brachos 7) darshens on both of these phrases that Hashem will have rachamanus and show chanina “af al pi she’aino hagun,” even if the person does not deserve it.  Is there anything we need more at this time?  How can we be zocheh to that?

 

Seforno asks, Netziv asks: why does the pasuk use the double-language?  Why both “chanosi” and “richamti?”  Tiferes Shlomo answers that the pasuk is speaking about two different people.  If you cry out to me, says Hashem, not for your own problems, not because you are in pain, but you cry out for your neighbor who is suffering, for your community, for others in your city, then “v’chanosi…,” I will take care of your own burdens even if you don’t deserve it.  And not only will I take care of you, says Hashem, but “v’richamti” as well on those for whom you are davening, even if they don’t deserve it either.

The Tiferes Shlomo teaches the same idea on our parsha as well.  The keruvim are "porsei k'nafayim," they have outstretched wings,  "u'pnei'hem ish el achiv," and they face each other.  The Radomsker writes that "porsei k'nafayim" is an allusion to tefilah, like the pasuk of "u'b'parischem kapeichem..." (Yishayahu 15).  Davening has to be done "pneihem ish el achiv," with an eye towards what a chaveir needs.  Put in a good word for someone else.

The Zohar famously looks askance on someone who uses tefilah simply as an opportunity to present Hashem with a laundry list of their needs -- someone who uses tefilah to become a “taker.”  When someone uses tefilah, however, to present Hashem with someone else’s needs, then they are in effect a “giver,” as they are interested in helping others. 

 

So don't just daven -- daven for others.  A tefilah of chessed is, it seems, a very good way to be zocheh to again see "rav chessed" openly.

start off on the right foot

There is a machlokes Tanaim as to exactly how much of the megillah needs to be read.  We pasken to read the entire thing, but there are multiple views that hold that first chapter of even the second chapter can be excluded.  Chasam Sofer asks why indeed is it that we include the early part of the story -– the party of Achashveirosh, what happened to Vashti, etc.  In terms of the miracle of Purim, all that really matters for us is that Haman hatched a plot to get us, thanks to Mordechai and Esther we were saved, and let’s eat.  The party, what happened to Vashti... who cares?

 

It’s no big deal, answers the Chasam Sofer, that after “sak v’eifer yutza la’rabim” and everyone does teshuvah, that Klal Yisrael is saved.  Why should we be worse than Ninveh, which was spared the destruction predicted by Yonah because the people did teshuvah? 

 

What should cause us to sit up and take notice is not the end of the story, but rather the beginning.  How is it that Achashveirosh was able to party for days and days on end and hold his liquor, and suddenly, at the end of the whole celebration he loses it and calls for Vashti to be brought in?  And how could he do something so foolish like actually kill Vashti just because she refused?  Why would his advisors have even suggested this as a punishment in the first place?  None of it makes sense! 

 

It only makes sense when placed in context of the story as a whole, as the first steps in a long chain of events guided by hashgacha to put Esther in place as queen, to bring out Achashveirosh's own weaknesses, to make him suspicious of enemies, all of which would eventually lead to Haman’s downfall.  The miracle of Purim does not begin to unfold only in the second half of the megillah –- the miracle already begins unfolding at the very start of the story.

 

What was Klal Yisrael doing at this time?  This was not a time of teshuvah, a time of “sak v’eifer.”  On the contrary, Klal Yisrael was partying, enjoying the feast of Achashveirosh, partaking of things that they should not have been partaking in.

 

That, says Chasam Sofer, is why we read that first section of the megillah. The lesson of Purim is not that when we do teshuvah and come close to Hashem that hashgacha works in our favor to save us, but rather that even when we are far away from where we should be holding, hashgacha is still working behind the scenes, arranging things for our benefit.  All that remains for us to do is trigger the salvation which is already waiting in the wings. 

dress like a kohen

1) The SA in OC 91 writes (based on Shabbos 10a) that one has to dress properly for tefilah, as the pasuk says, “Hikon likras Elokecha yisrael.”  Aside from this din, there is another din regarding dressing properly for davening based on our parsha. OC 98: just as the kohen had special clothes to do avodah, so too, tefilah b’makom korban and therefore one should have special nice clothes for davening as well.

 

I don’t understand why some people think there is some kind of gezeiras ha’kasuv that says you must wear a jacket for davening, and so they daven (esp mincha and maariv) wearing their winter coat.  The halacha is to dress in a manner of kavod.  If you would put on a suit jacket for an important meeting, then put on a suit jacket.  I don’t know anyone who would come to an important meeting and wear their winter coat, so that doesn't really seem to fit with the din.

 

2) A more technical point: Our parsha tells us that the urim v’tumim had to be placed inside the choshen -– “v’nasata el choshen ha’mishpat es ha’urim v’es ha’tumim.” (28:30)  Rashi (28:30) and Raavad (Beis haBechira 4:1) hold that during bayis sheni there was no urim v’tumim at all; Rambam (see also Klei HaMikdash 10:10) holds that the urim v’tumim was there, but did not function since there was no ruach ha’kodesh.  Rambam holds that urim v’tumim were part of the bigdei kehunah; therefore, without it, the kohen could not do avodah.  Rashi/Raavad holds urim v’tumim was just a note with the shem Hashem placed in the choshen, but not a beged in itself. 

 

The Mishna in Yoma writes that during bayis sheni, when the luchos were hidden away, there was also no aron -– the spot upon which the aron stood was left empty.  Why, asks Rasha”sh, does the din in last weeks parsha of “v’nasata el ha’aron es ha’eidus” (25:16) mean that if there is no luchos ha’eidus, there is no aron, but the same does not hold true of “v’nasata el choshen ha’mishpat es ha’urim v’es ha’tumim,” that if there is no urim v’tumim there can’t be a choshen?

 

The Rashash and the Meshech Chochma on last week’s parsha point out that after describing how to make the keruvim the Torah comes back to the topic of the aron and in pasuk 21 concludes the section by saying “v’el ha’aron titein es ha’eidus.”  Rashi writes that he does not know why this is repeated, as we already have the earlier pasuk (25:16) “v’nasata el ha’aron es ha’eidus.”  (See Ramban, Ohr haChaim.)  Rashash and Meshech Chochma suggest that the repetition is the “shanah alav ha’kasuv l’akeiv” that teaches us that placing of the luchos in the aron is a non-negotiable part of making the aron -- without luchos, it's just a box, not one of the klei ha'mishkan.

 

3) The shem zayis zach that is used to light the menorah represents the pure light of Torah.  How do you bring such a light into the world?  “V’atah titzaveh es Bnei Yisrael…”  Titzveh = tzavsa, companionship.  It has to be a communal effort. 

 

The mitzvos ha'yom of Purim -- mishloach manos, matanos la'evyonim -- bring us all closer together.  "Yeshno am mefuzar u'meforad..."  Haman got it wrong.  "Hadar kibluhu" davka through the tzavsa of Purim, through togetherness.  Even though the yetzer may try to fight it and force people into isolation, gufim muchlakim, but the neshoma of the klal transcends that.

kavanah l'shem mitzvah - mikra megila, seudas Purim

1) The MB in OC 690 s”k 39 on the din of one who reads the megillah while “misnamnem,” half-asleep, quotes the PM”G who holds that one has to be awake enough to have an awareness of kavanah l’shem mitzvah throughout the reading.   In the Shaar haTziyun the MB writes that he is not convinced this chidduh is correct. He argues that so long as one has kavanah at the start of the reading l’shem mitzvah, that is sufficient. 

 

2) The MB in 695:4 quotes the PM”G that you need kavanah to be yotzei the mitzvos ha’yom, including seudas Purim.

 

The Rambam writes that the mitzvah of shofar requires kavanah, yet the Rambam paskens that one is yotzei achilas matzah without kavanah.  Ran famously explains the difference: when it comes to eating, one inevitably derives pleasure from the experience (the halacha is that one is chayav for eating cheilev even as a mitasek because the pleasure received from the food is an inevitable outcome of the act), and the kavanah is therefore automatic. 

 

Why then does the PMG insist that one needs kavanah to be yotzei seudas Purim –- it should be like eating matzah?

 

It seems that it’s not the eating per se which is the mitzvah of seudah, but rather the ikkar mitzvah is the simcha which results from having the meal.  Yesh lachkor according to this a) whether one needs to eat a k’zayis to be yotzei the seudah, or whether some smaller amount would suffice so long as it engenders simcha b) does seudas Y”T require kavanah l’shem mitzvah?  Is it a mitzvas achila (there definitely are shitos Rishonim that define a shiur achila required for the seudah) or a mitzvah of simcha?  c) "ain simcha elah b'basar" -- is meat required for seudas Purim?  (discussed by many Achronim)

taanis esther as a kiyum of simchas purim

Fasting and hesped are prohibited both on the day of, as well as the day before and after holidays recorded in Megillat Taanis.  We pasken that “batlah Megillat Taanis.” We no longer celebrate any of the Megillat Taanis holidays that were observed during the time of Bayis Sheni, with the exception of Chanukah and Purim.

 

The Rishonim ask: since one is not allowed to fast on the day before a holiday mentioned in Megillat Taanis, how are we allowed to fast Taanis Esther, the day before Purim? 

 

The Rosh in Taanis (ch 2) answers:

 

1) Paradoxically, it is only the lesser holidays of Megillat Taanis that need the added safeguard of no fasting before/after around them to grant them significance.  Purim itself is “divrei kabbalah,” i.e. the holiday given to us through a navi (see Shitah Mekubetzet beginning of Bava Kama that kabbalah in this context comes from the root k-b-l = to complain -- the neviim complained to us about the aveiros that we were doing).  Since it is more chamur, it needs no special demarcation on the day before/after.

 

2) Taanis Esther is part and parcel of commemorating the nes of Purim.  Only a fast that is distinct from the holiday being celebrated is precluded, but here, the fast is part and parcel of the Y"T itself.

 

I was wondering if there might be a nafka mina between these answers in the case where someone is a onein on both Taanis Esther and Purim r”l.  An onein is normally exempt from doing all positive mitzvos, but has to keep lavim.  I would assume this extends to the prohibition of eating on a fast day.  However, since according to the second answer of the Rosh the fast of Taanis Esther is actually part of the positive kiyum of celebrating the holiday of Purim, if the onein is exempt from the kiyum mitzvah of celebrating the holiday itself (see OC 666:7), perhaps he should be exempt from the taanis as well. 

yikchu terumah -- you have something to contribute

1. Mi’shenichnas Adar marbim b’simcha.  How?  It’s hard to decipher the Rogatchover, but at least I get the first line (Shu”T II:23) – “ain simcha b'lo achila v'shetiya.”  You can't rejoice and be happy without food.  I guess it's a bad month for dieting.

 

2. Wouldn’t it make more sense to say “V’yikchu li nedava mei’eis kol is hasher yidvenu libo” instead of saying “yikchu li terumah...?” 

 

The Midrash comments: “Ani y’sheina v’libi er,” I am asleep, but my heart is awake (Shir HaShirim 5:2)  Klal Yisrael said, “We are sleep, but Hashem is always awake… we are asleep and not doing mitzvos, but our zechus Avos is awake… we are asleep due to cheit ha’eigel, but Hashem is …. 

 

What can you tell someone when they feel that their avodas Hashem is asleep, when they feel disconnected? 

 

Pshat in “V’yikchu li terumah” is not “make a donation.”  Pshat in "V’yikchu li terumah” is “give -- because you have something to contribute.” 

 

The former is all about the $$$ -- the “nedava”.  The latter is all about the person giving – “terumah” = “haramah,” to lift up, as it lifts up the spirit of the person.  When someone thinks their contribution matters, then they want to be part of the program. 

 

What does the Midrash mean when it says that Hashem is awake, that zechus Avos is awake, if we are asleep?  The answer is that Hashem’s presence is ingrained within us, zechus Avos is ingrained within us.  The Midrash means that there is always something inside of us, deep down, that remains awake.  We just need a little uplift to get back on track.  We need to be reminded that there is something worthwhile inside of us that we can give over, that we need to give over.

 

3. “K’chol asher ani mareh oscha….”  We would have expected the pasuk to say “mareh lecha,” as the vision of the Mishkan was shown to Moshe.

 

The Midrash presents a parable: a Ki   mar  off his daughter, but could not bear to leave her.  He therefore requested that she set aside a little room in her house for him so that he knows there is always a place for him.  So too, Hashem could not part with the Torah, so he asked for us to make a Mishkan for him to be with us.    

 

Everybody is familiar with the derasha of “v’shachanti b’socham” -– it doesn’t say that Hashem will dwell in the Mishkan, but rather that he will dwell within the people.

 

To become a kli for hashra’as haShechina is something that requires a role model to achieve, not something you wake up one morning and figure out.  “Mareh oscha” =  Hashem is showing off Moshe Rabeinu, so to speak, and telling people to look toward him, as he is a model of what a Mishkan means.  

too much to hope for?

There is an organization that run various -yomi programs that recently did a huge PR blitz with pages and pages of ads and articles (i.e. ads in disguise) in all the various Jewish  newspapers about their own grand siyum (separate from the one done at Met Life Stadium) and all the programs they run.  One piece that caught my eye was entitled “[Program Ploni] Women Tell Their Story.”  It consisted of a selection of letters.  One of the women writes as follows: “You want to know how [Program Ploni] has impacted our lives?  Just as an example: my four-year-old daughter recently exclaimed that she wants to be born again [as a boy**] so that she too can learn the heilege Torah!"

 

**brackets were in the original letter

 

Is it worth my hoping that this four-year-old will one day grow up and maybe realize that you don’t have to be born again as a boy to learn the heilege Torah -- you can even do so as a girl?

sipur -- tell me something I don't know

I) Rashi writes that the last chapter of P Mishpatim (Shmos 24) that begins with the words “V’el Moshe amar aleh el Hashem…,” is out of place.  These pesukim are talking about Moshe going up to Har Sinai to get the Torah, and therefore chronologically belong earlier, in P’ Yisro. 

 

Ramban takes issue with this interpretation.  Aside from the difficulty of jumbling the order of the text, Ramban raises two questions in how Rashi reads pasuk 3 of perek, “Vayisaper la’am es kol divrei Hashem v’es kol ha’mishpatim.”  (24:3)

 

1) A question based on sevara: If this perek occurs pre-mattan Torah, then the “mishpatim” must be mitzvos bnei Noach.  Those laws should have already all been known to Klal Yisrael.  Why did Moshe need to repeat them again?

 

2) A question based on language: the word “vayisaper” only is used when relating something new, not old news.  If Moshe is merely reiterating laws that were already known, then the Torah should use a different term here. 

 

I dealt with the first issue back in 2012, but it’s the second point that grabbed my attention this year.

 

Based on this second point in Ramban I better understand the mitzvah of “**sipur** yetzi’as Mitzrayim.”  It’s not enough to sit down Pesach night and talk about what happened once upon a time in Jewish  history.  “Sipur” means talking about yetzias Mitzrayim as if it is something that is fresh and exciting, a new experience.

 

Just a week ago we read “vayishma Yisro kohein Midyan…” –- Yisro knew about yetzi’as Mitzrayim.  Nonetheless, “vayisaper Moshe l’chosno es kol asher asah Hashem…”  Moshe turned what Yisro may have read about in the newspaper into a sipur –- he added a new dimension to the story, a new level of understanding the experience. 

 

II) I don't know who the דרושי וחידושי הרמבא"ד  is, but this is by far one of the most interesting derashos you will ever read on P' Yisro (suitable for sheva berachos, aufrufs, and weddings as well).  Hat tip to my son -- here's the link to his post.

ki tireh chamor sonacha -- lending a helping hand

Two editorial notes: 1) The shtickel torah this week should be l'iluy nishmas my father, whose yahrzeit is this Shabbos.  2) If you have time for nothing else, skip down to the Meshech Chochma at the end because it’s too tremendous to miss.

 

Ki tireh chamor sonacha … azov ta’azov imo (23:5)

 

כִּי-תִרְאֶה חֲמוֹר שׂנַאֲךָ רֹבֵץ תַּחַת מַשָּׂאוֹ וְחָדַלְתָּ מֵעֲזֹב לוֹ עָזֹב תַּעֲזֹב עִמּוֹ:

 

Who is the “sonacha” the pasuk is speaking about?  How can you hate your fellow Jew?  (How do I know, other than the gemara says so, that the pasuk is talking about a Jew?  The Netziv and Malbim in a few places distinguish between an oyeiv and a sonei.  An oyeiv displays animosity openly; a sonei lets it percolate inside.  Had the pasuk been speaking about an aku"m, then it would be an oyeiv -- the animosity would be open -- not a sonei).

 

Answers the gemara (Pesachim 113b): the pasuk is speaking about a ba’al aveira, someone who it is a mitzvah to hate.

 

What exactly does the mitzvah here requires of us?  Does it mean we have to make an exception and put aside the hate and help out, or does it mean to help out in spite of the fact that you are allowed to hate this baal aveira?   

 

It could be that Rashi and the Targum disagree on this point.  Unlike Rashi who learns that “azov” = “ezra,” help unburden the animal, the Targum explains that “azov” here means what we usually think that root means –- to leave/put aside.  The end of the pasuk is not talking about what to do with the animal, but rather what to do with your emotions -– put aside the hatred you may feel towards that sonei and help him out in his time of need (see Ralbag). 

 

This same point may be a machlokes Rambam and Tosfos. 

 

The gemara elsewhere (BM 32) writes that given the choice of unloading the animal of an oheiv or loading the animal of a sonei, it is better to load the sonei’s animal and reap the benefit of overcoming one’s yetzer hara.

 

Tosfos (Pesachim 113) asks: if we are speaking about a baal aveira who one is allowed to hate, then why should one overcome the yetzer to do so? 

 

Before getting to Tosfos’ answer, here’s how the Rambam (end of Hil Rotzeiach)formulates this din:

 

השונא שנאמר בתורה לא מאומות העולם הוא אלא מישראל והיאך יהיה לישראל שונא מישראל והכתוב אומר לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך. אמרו חכמים כגון שראהו לבדו שעבר עבירה והתרה בו ולא חזר הרי זה מצוה לשונאו עד שיעשה תשובה וישוב מרשעו. ואע"פ שעדיין לא עשה תשובה אם מצאו נבהל במשאו מצוה לטעון ולפרוק עמו ולא יניחנו נוטה למות שמא ישהה בשביל ממונו ויבא לידי סכנה. והתורה הקפידה על נפשות ישראל. בין רשעים בין צדיקים מאחר שהם נלוים אל ה' ומאמינים בעיקר הדת.

 

According to the Rambam, Tos question doesn’t even get off the ground.  There is a mitzvah to hate the baal aveira for his specific misdeed, but in this case, failure to help may lead to the sonei’s death.  You are allowed to hate him, not kill him!

 

(How does that fit the gemara’s words that say this is an issue of being koveish the yetzer?  Shu"T Maharam Shi”k (OC 81) explains that the yetzer we are talking about is that of the baal aveira.  You want to prevent the baal aveira from continuing to succumb to his yetzer and doing sins?  Then show him a helping hand.   Show him you care.  That’s the way to bring people back into the fold.)

 

Tosfos Pesachim (113b, see B.M. 32b) explains away the contradiction in gemara’s by positing two levels of hatred.   There is the permitted hatred for the baal aveira due to his specific sin, and then there is the problem of that hate spinning out of control and developing into a vicious cycle of recriminations and hostility between both parties.  You can hate the guy for the specific aveira he did, but you still have to help him out lest that hate turn into something greater if left unchecked. 

 

According to the Rambam, sinah is pushed aside completely because we are dealing with a case that has sakanas nefashos ramifications.  According to Tos, the mitzvah of sinah remains in place, albeit tempered and held in check.

 

Two points of derush:

 

The din is that you only have to help unburden the donkey if it’s “imo,” with the owner's participation.  If the owner of the animal sits down for a coffee break and expects you to unload his animal, you have no obligation to do so.  Kli Yakar writes that this same principle applies to tzedakah.  This serves as an open rebuke, he writes very forcefully, to those who expect others to support them but make no effort to earn their own keep or better their situation.

 

That point is worth a whole post in itself, but it's not my topic.  I want to come back to the Maharam Shi"k.  The chassidishe seforim see the pasuk as alluding to your neighbor who is struggling under the burden of chumriyos, under the burden of aveiros, turning  him into a sonei.  "Imo" has an important lesson here too.  Don’t think you can willy-nilly lift your neighbor up and force him back into the fold against his will.  It only works if happens “imo,” with his participation and cooperation, and that has to be earned. 

 

Second point is an amazing Meshech Chochma, who points out that this same mitzvah appears in Parshas Ki Teitzei with one important difference:

 

 לֹא-תִרְאֶה אֶת-חֲמוֹר אָחִיךָ אוֹ שׁוֹרוֹ נֹפְלִים בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ מֵהֶם הָקֵם תָּקִים עִמּוֹ:

 

Lo tireh es chamor achicha or shoro niflim ba’derch… hakeim takim imo (devarim 23:4)

 

No longer are we speaking about the “sonei.”  Instead, the mitzvah is defined as helping “achicha.”

 

Says the Meshech Chochma: Parshas Mishpatim is pre-cheit ha’eigel.  When Klal Yisrael was unsullied by sin, then a baal aveira can be a sonei.  But we don’t live in that world anymore.  Each and every one of us has our own burdens of cheit.  Therefore, don’t be so quick to look down on the other guy.  Now, everyone is achicha.

Ramban on the mitzvah of remembing ma'amad Har Sinai

1) Ramban in two places writes that there is a mitzvah to remember ma’amad Har Sinai, yet in each place he defines what that mitzvah is a little differently: in Sefer haMitzvos (lavim that the Rambam forgot #2) he counts forgetting ma'amad Har Sinai as a lav, “rak hishamer lecha.. pen tishkach es ha’devarim asher ra’u einecha,” yet in his commentary on the Torah (Devarim ch 4) he focusses on the end of that pasuk, “...v’hodatam li’vanecha,” and counts it as a mitzvas aseh to transmit the memory of ma'amad Har Sinai to the next generation.

 

Ramban is difficult to understand as it seems to be against a Mishna.  In Pirkei Avos (3:8) the Mishna writes that someone who deliberately forgets their learning violates the issur of “pen tishkach.”  According to Ramban, this pasuk is an issur of forgetting maamad har Sinai, not an issur of forgetting Torah. 

 

(I see on my son's blog he raised this same question last August.  Only because he's my son I'll nitpick on one point of his.  It's not really true that "everyone asks on the Ramban" (as he wrote) from this Mishna.  Actually, the surprising thing is that the Megillas Esther on Sefer haMitzvos does NOT raise this question at all.  Instead, he asks on the Ramban from a gemara in kiddushin (30) that darshens from “v’hodatam li’vanecha v’livnei banecha” that there is a mitzvah to teach torah to one’s grandchildren, implying again that this pasuk has to do with limud haTorah, not remembering ma'amad Har Sinai.  Ramban himself notes that difficulty and tries to resolve it, albeit in a way that the Mg"E finds unsatisfactory.  In any case, why are they bothered by this gemara when you have a clear Mishna in Pirkei Avos to ask from?)

 

Rav Eliyahu Bakshi Doron, the former Rishon l'Tzion, in his Shu"T Binyan Av vol 3 addresses this Ramban in two places (#20 and #47) and suggests (my son quotes a similar answer from R’ Povarski) that when you learn torah with an awareness that this is the dvar Hashem received at Sinai, it becomes a different limud –- it becomes something unforgettable.  If the learning is just stam a subject, then it makes less of an impression. 

 

This is how Ramban understood the Mishna in Avos.  If you forget your learning, then that’s a siman that you are missing that awareness of maamad Har Sinai which is a mitzvah to always have in mind. 

 

I think that may be pshat in the gemara (Brachos 22 for those  of you learning the daf) that learns that a ba'al keri cannot learn Torah without going to mikvah based on a hekesh of "v'hodatam levanecha", i.e. talmud Torah, with "yom asher amadita b'Chorev", i.e. ma'amad Har Sinai -- just like the latter was b'yirah and tahara, so too must the fomer be done b'yirah and tahara.  According to Ramban, "v'hodatam livanecha" has nothing to do with limud haTorah -- the whole pasuk is talking about ma'mamad Har Sinai.  What does the gemara mean? 

 

Based on Rav Bakshi Doron's yesod, it makes perfect sense.  The gemara is telling us that you have to pass on not just what was learned at Sinai, but the whole context of the experience, the yirah, the awe, etc.  If you are learning in a state of tumah, than it shows you failed to appreciate what ma'amad Har Sinai was all about.

 

2) The gemara (Brachos 6 - more fodder for those learning the daf) writes that a person who is mesamayach a chasan and kallah through kol sason v’kol simcha will be zocheh to Torah, which was given at sinai through 5 kolos -– 5 times in our parsha the Torah mentions “kol” in connection with mattan torah.  

 

The Iyun Yaakov on the Ein Yaakov explains the midah k’neged midah: a person who invests in bringing simcha to others is himself zocheh to simcha.  What bigger simcha can Hashem give a person other than Torah -– “pikudei Hashem yesharim mi’samchei lev.”  (I haven’t done a search, but it would be nice to find a makor that says it works in the other direction as well, i.e. a source that says someone who is sameich in their learning and needs a shiduch will be zocheh to one.  It would make for a good segulah.)

 

Asks the gemara: if you look through the parsha and count you will actually find 6 mentions of kol, not 5.  Right after the aseres hadibors the Torah writes that the people were “ro’im es ha’kolos,” they had synesthesia and were able to see the thunder sounds with their eyes.

 

Answers the gemara: that pasuk is describing the kolos were experienced before mattan Torah, but is not an additional "kol." 

 

Imrei Emes asks the obvious question: if the pasuk is describing the nature of the "kolos" that took place before or during mattan Torah, why does the pasuk appear only after the aseres ha'dibbros?  Why not put it beforehand, when those other kolos are mentioned? 

 

The answer gets to the heart of what mattan Torah was all about.  It wasn't just a transfer of information from shamayim to us.  It wasn't just a “revelation” of laws.  Mattan torah was a transformation of who we are as a people and who we are as individuals.  Chronologically speaking, “ro’im es ha’kolos” happened before mattan Torah.  However, the people could not digest the experience and appreciate it in the state they were in.  It was only after they received the Torah and their neshomos were transformed that they were able retrospectively to understand those kolos that they had experienced beforehand.   

shvu ish tachtav

1) The Oznayim laTorah suggests that the rock that Moshe was given to sit on during the battle with Amalek, "vayikchu even va'yasimu tachtav vayeishev aleha...," is symbolic of the rock / even we read about earlier in the same parsha in the shirah: "tipol aleihem aimasa va'pachad bigdol zero'acha yidmu k'even..."  Shiras ha'yam was a prophecy of the fear that would overtake Amalek and our future enemies in battle.

My wife suggested that the rock / even that Moshe sat on may allude to another rock.  When Yaakov is fleeing from Eisav, en route to Lavan's house he stops to sleep and rests his head on an even.  Chazal tell us that there were actually many stones there, but they united into one stone under his head to protect him.  Yaakov then takes that rock, "vayikach es ha'even asher sam m'ra'ashosav..." and he makes it into an altar to give thanks to Hashem for the promise of protection that was given to him in a dream.  It is this promise of protection from Eisav, from future enemies, which Moshe drew upon in our encounter with Eisav's descendants, Amalak. 

2) I haven't sorted out this sugya myself, but wanted to pass along the mareh makom.  In O.C. 396 the SA quotes a din based on "shvu ish tachtav" (tachtav = shiur of personal space) that a person who walked outside the techum is free to move around 4 amos, as that is the definition of their personal resting space. 

These 4 amos are measured relative to the person, i.e. if the person is a basketball player, then he gets more space to move around.

Flip back to siman 349 and there is another din based on the same pasuk of "shvu ish tachtav" that you can move an object around within your own 4 amos of personal space even in a reshus ha'rabim (interestingly there is a daas yachid of the Raavad who holds this is only b'sha'as hadechak, not lichatchila, either because moving a lesser amount is a chatzi shiur or because you may come to go past the 4 amah limit.  The other Rishonim may hold that 4 amos is not a shiur, but rather is part of the definition of the issur -- anything less than "tachtav" is qualitatively not part of meleches Shabbos). 

Here too, you would expect the din to be that the  4 amos are relative -- if you are a basketball player, you get more room.  However, the M.B in Shaar haTziyun #3 quotes the Pri Megadim who writes that this is true only if you move the object bit by bit, but if you move an object all 4 amos in one shot, then the 4 amos are "beinoniyos," they are of fixed standard, average size.

Why should this din in siman 349 be different than the din in siman 396?  

(MB asks the question and rejects the Pri Megadim, but it still needs a hesber.) 

choose your battles

Something to think about -- from an article by R' Melamed posted on Arutz Sheva:

Unquestionably, a rabbi’s role is also to stand up against potentially harmful views and attitudes, even if they are voiced with good intentions, however, with two reservations: 1) The majority of effort should be directed to empowering a person to act according to his positive aspects, out of his natural tendency of emunah (faith) and achva (brotherhood) and ma’asim tovim (doing good deeds), and to elevate and perfect his good tendencies through the study of Torah. 2) Even when one has to fight, the correct wars must be chosen, and it is best not to fight against trends that are not so bad.

 

For example, I have heard from some rabbis that they are going to great lengths in the fight against the wishes of some women who want to dance on Simchat Torah with a Torah scroll, or to read the megillah on Purim by themselves. I asked: What’s so bad about that? After all, we’re not talking about profaning Shabbat, or something similar!? They replied: ‘This is a dangerous process stemming from ulterior motives that will eventually lead them to want to be called up to the Torah’. I asked: And what’s so terrible about that? After all, in principle, our Sages said that it’s possible, and only because of k’vode ha’tzibbur (respect for the congregation) we should not do so (Megillah 23a). They responded: ‘Because this leads to reform, and the Gedolei Yisrael (eminent rabbis) have already banned the Reform Jews’. However, in my opinion, this is an unnecessary war. From here until the reform movement, the road is very long, and in the meantime, there are countless important issues a rabbi can deal with.

the gift of shabbos

L'kavod Shabbos a double portion, lechem yomayim, of Sefas Emes:

 

1) The parsha of the mon is the first place where we find an explicit command of shmiras Shabbos.  Hashem told Klal Yisrael to take note that “Hashem nasan lachem es ha’shabbos al kein hu nosein lachem ba’yom ha’shishiu lechem yomayim.”  Chazal, however, tell us that the mitzvah of Shabbos was in fact revealed to Klal Yisrael one week earlier, when they camped at Marah and were tested with its bitter waters. 

 

Tosfos (Shabbos 87b) raises a problem with this interpretation.  The pesukim tell us that despite being told not to, people still went out to gather mon on Shabbos, and the gemara comments that had Klal Yisrael only kept this first Shabbos, they would have been immune from all enemy attacks.  According to Chazal, this Shabbos after the mon fell was not the first Shabbos in the midbar -- the first Shabbos was the Shabbos at marah.  This Shabbos was in fact the second Shabbos.  How do you get the two gemara’s to fit? 

 

Sefas Emes answers that Klal Yisrael was in fact commanded to keep Shabbos already in Marah.  What was given to them in the parsha of mon was not the command to keep Shabbos –- what was given was the gift of Shabbos.  The gemara tells us that Hashem had a precious present in his storehouse that he decided to bestow upon Klal Yisrael.  That present is Shabbos.    

 

The gemara in Baba Basra has a machlokes R’ Akiva and the Chachamim whether one who sells does so “b’ayin yafeh” -– if you sell a pit, is the path to get to the there included automatically, or can the seller be stingy and demand extra for it?  Everyone agrees, however, that if something is being given as a present, then it is given “b’ayin yafeh” –- everything needed is included, both the item and the means to get there and use it. 

 

“Hashem nasan lachem as ha’shabbos” – Shabbos is a gift.  Therefore, “hu nosein lachem… lechem yomayim” –- he gives us the means of access as well.  Everything is included.  You get a double portion of mon in advance and won’t go hungry by not working on Shabbos.

 

This is not just some technical distinction to resolve the two gemaras, but reflects how we approach Shabbos and how we celebrate Shabbos.  If Shabbos is just a day when you have to follow some rules that prevent you from doing a bunch of things that you want to do, then it’s a pretty miserable day.  But if Shabbos is a gift with all the trappings included, then that’s a different story.  Who doesn’t like presents?

 

2) “Ichluhu ha’yom ki Shabbos ha’yom l’Hashem…”  Sefas Emes (5651) asks: the parsha earlier tells us that a person was not allowed to collect more mon than could be consumed in a single day.  Anything leftover would spoil by the next morning.  So on Monday, you could collect only the amount of mon you could eat on that Monday; on Tuesday, you could collect only what you could eat on Tuesday, etc.   Why then do we need a separate, new command of “ichluhu ha’yom,” to make sure to eat the portion of mon that fell on Shabbos on Shabbos and not leave it over  -– Shabbos is no different in this regard than any other day?

 

Sefas Emes answers that when you were told to finish all the mon on your plate on Monday, it was so that there would not be leftovers that would automatically spoil on Tuesday.  When the Torah says to eat all the mon on your plate on Shabbos, it’s not just to avoid leftovers -– it’s because “ki Shabbos ha’yom la’Hashem,” because the day of Shabbos is special and therefore needs a seudah in celebration.  Eat l’shem kedushas Shabbos, for the day’s own sake.