if only everyone had a shovel!

We are all busy shoveling out from the blizzard here in NY.  If you do not have a snow shovel, shame on you.

We have two snow shovels and a booster shovel in the basement.  There is plenty of snow in front of my house, but I am sure had I not had those two shovels and my booster shovel, the snow pile in front of my house would have been even higher.

In fact, the only reason it snowed at all on my block is because there are people who have no shovels.  If everyone had two shovels and a booster shovel, I am sure the street would have been totally snow free.

There is actually tons of data to corroborate this assertion.  Multiple studies to that effect have been carried out by the snow shovel manufacturers, who assure me that their conclusions are correct.  Unfortunately, their notes are so voluminous that it will take 75 years for them to release all the data, so for now, you will just have to take their word for it.  Would you rather risk snow each season, or would you rather follow the science?

There are of course some people who will remain unconvinced.  Some people will claim that everyone on their block has multiple shovels and it still snowed, or claim that their are blocks where no one has a shovel and it did not snow as hard.  These people should be de-platformed from all social media.  These unconfirmed reports taken out of context are misinformation that poses a danger to us all.  Just because you heard of one case where someone had multiple shovels and his home was still buried in snow, is that breakthrough case really a reason to question the data?

I think those streets where people do not have shovels (we can all see your un-shoveled walk!) should not be plowed.  Or perhaps they should be charged an extra surcharge or tax.  Why should we all have to suffer because of some people's selfishness?  They are keeping the snow in the neighborhood, so make them pay.

I've heard that some people from NY have started moving to states like Florida where people have no shovels and they say that it seldom snows.  Even if you could afford to move, do you really want to take a chance?  

And then you have the people who have snow blowers, or pay a service to clear their walk and driveway, and try to use this as an excuse not to buy a shovel.  "The snow is cleared away -- what do I need a shovel for?" that ask.  The way I see it, anti-shovel is anti-shovel.  Not needing a shovel is no excuse not to buy a shovel.  

Or you have the people who go out early in the storm to salt their walk so the snow melts more quickly.  Stop it!   Salt is for meat, not for walkways.  

Look, it's a small thing to do for you neighbors.  Get a shovel.  Or two, or three, actually.  And if you still experience snowfall, it means we may require a fourth  shovel -- we will have to wait and see. It's not that we keep changing our mind.  This is simply how science is done.  As the data comes in, science changes, and we revise our earlier estimates.  Just keep buying those shovels, because we know that is the only safe and effective way to stop it from snowing.  

a promise guaranteed to be fulfilled

This Shabbos is my father's yahrzeit.  Al pi halacha, a yahrzeit is a very serious day and a person should really fast.  Everyone these days seems to be sefardi or chassidic and so they mark a yahrzeit with drink and food.  This idea never really resonated with me either emotionally or intellectually; I don't understand how having a meal or a drink is an appropriate way to commemorate someone's passing or what my eating food and saying a bracha does for the departed in shamayim, but what do I know -- to each his own.  Anyway, poskim quote two reasons to mark a yahrzeit: 1) it is a day of kaparah for the departed, who benefits from our charity and Torah study done l'aliyas ha'neshomo; 2) bad mazal - those who are related to the departed should be a little nervous, as the day has proven inauspicious for them.  There is a potential nafka mina l'dina: let's say a person c"v dies at night, but for their relatives on the other side of the world, it is still the previous day.  Is the date of the yahrzeit fixed based on the date where the meis is, or where the aveilim are?  If the point of the yahrzeit is kaparah for the departed, then it should be fixed relative to the meis.  If it is for the sake of the relatives who are alive, to avoid bad mazal, then the date should be relative to their location.  (Other poskim argue that it is not taluy in the reason, v'ain kan makomo).

It seems to me that when yahrzeit falls on Shabbos, then it is exclusively about kavod ha'meis, to enhance the kaparah and aliyas ha'neshomo.  How can Shabbos, a day where וצווחין אף עקתין בטילין ושביתין, be a day with any danger from bad mazal?  

On to the parsha.

At the end of our parsha (23:20) Hashem tells Moshe that he is going to send a malach to accompany Bnei Yisrael.  Rashi comments that Hashem was telling Moshe that Bnei Yisrael were going to sin and therefore he would have to remove His presence, as we read later in Ki Tisa after the cheit ha'eigel: כִּי֩ לֹ֨א אֶֽעֱלֶ֜ה בְּקִרְבְּךָ֗ כִּ֤י עַם־קְשֵׁה־עֹ֙רֶף֙ אַ֔תָּה

Ramban already asks: although after cheit ha'eigel Hashem threatened to send an angel, Moshe was unwilling to accept that decree and davened for it to be abolished, as we read there  וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֵלָ֑יו אִם־אֵ֤ין פָּנֶ֙יךָ֙ הֹלְכִ֔ים אַֽל־תַּעֲלֵ֖נוּ מִזֶּֽה.  Hashem responded and accepted his plea, גַּ֣ם אֶת־הַדָּבָ֥ר הַזֶּ֛ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר דִּבַּ֖רְתָּ אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֑ה.  Why then would Hashem tell Moshe now about a decree he would threaten in the future but that would never actually come to pass?  Ramban therefore explains that this malach did not appear during Moshe's lifetime.  The parsha is referring to events after Moshe's death, when Yehoshua was the leader, and at that point a malach guided the nation.  

Whether you learn like Rashi or you learn like Ramban, the question that begs asking is what purpose this advanced warning about a malach served.  Why not just wait for the people to sin, and m'meila they would suffer the consequences of being led by a malach?

The Rambam in his introduction to mishnayos zera'im has a yesod that we've discussed before (e.g. here), which the Meshech Chochma brings up every few parshiyos.  The Rambam writes that when G-d makes a promise, it is contingent on the person receiving the promise being worthy of it.  That's why we find that Yaakov Avinu was worried before his encounter with Eisav despite having Hashem's promise of protection.  Yaakov was worried "shema yigrom ha'cheit" -- perhaps he was unworthy of the promise made to him.  However, writes the Rambam, when the promise is articulated by a navi, not revealed by G-d himself, then it is guaranteed to be fulfilled.  If such a promise were to not come to fruition, then people would be liable to question then authenticity of the navi rather than doubt their own worthiness.  To avoid casting aspersions on the navi, the nevuah is guaranteed to be fulfilled no matter what, take it to the bank.  (See Maharal in Gevuros Hashem ch 7.)

This why, explains Meshech Chochma, Hashem appeared to Moshe to tell him that he is giving his bris of shalom to Pinchas, rather than Hashem appearing in a vision to Pinchas himself.  When Moshe said it, it meant fulfillment was guaranteed, irrespective of Pinchas' future merits or chataim.  

And this is why, says Meshech Chochma, when Avraham laughed when he was told that he would have a son, he did not suffer a rebuke from Hashem, but Sarah was rebuked for her laughter. Avraham heard the promise in a vision from Hashem, and he laughed because he doubted he would be worthy of it being fulfilled.  Sarah, on the other hand, heard the promise from a person -- nevuah -- which meant fulfillment was guaranteed.

The Oznayim laTorah explains our pesukim using the same yesod.  Without this parsha, had Bnei Yisrael only had the havtacha of Eretz Yisrael given by Hashem to the Avos, one might have thought that the cheit ha'eigel proved them unworthy of that promise being fulfilled.  Therefore, Hashem gave our parsha to be spoken by Moshe, the greatest navi, so that it would be guranateed that at least a malach, if not Hashem himself, would lead the people into Eretz Yisrael.  Since it was declared by a navi, irrespective of zechuyos, this promise would be fulfilled.  

The parsha is not meant as a besora of sin, a besora of letdown, but to the contrary, it is a guarantee that Klal Yisrael can and will never be abandoned.  

two elements of geirus

Rashi in parshas Bo quotes a hava amina that a ger should bring a korban pesach right after he converts and not wait until pesach.  A few weeks ago my son explained that we see from Rashi that the korban pesach in Mitzrayim was a kiyum not just of the pesach offering, but also a kiyum of a korban geirus, and therefore one could have a hava amina that every ger bring such a korban at the time of conversion.  Similarly, the milah done before pesach Mitzrayim was also a kiyum in geirus, as the mitzvah of milah itself had already been given to Avraham Avinu.

I was not so enamored with this idea.  The gemara learns the need for a korban for geirus from the korban offered at the time of mattan Torah (end of our parsha).  Tevilah and milah are also learned from mattan Torah.  Why would Klal Yisrael need another geirus at mattan Torah, I asked him, if they already had a geirus in Mitzrayim?

My attempt to answer my own question:

Usually a ger has milah first and then tevilah.  Ramban (Yevamos 47) holds that bdieved it can be done the other way around as well.  Both milah and tevilah are steps in the geirus process, and until both are complete, in whatever order, the geirus in incomplete.

Achronim ask: the gemara (Yevamos 97) writes that if a mother pregnant with twins converts, even though ger she'nisgayer is k'katan she'nolad and all former familiar relationships are null and void, her sons born as Jews are considered related as brothers and there would be an issue of eishes ach for one to marry the other's wife.  Why should this be true according to Ramban?  Even though the twins are yotzei tevilah of geirus in utero, they still need milah to complete their geirus.  8 days after they are born, when they have milah and become geirim, their relationship with each other should be void?

Similarly, the gemara (Bechoros 47) writes that if a pregnant woman converts, the baby is a bechor l'kohen.  According to Ramban, the baby is not even Jewish at birth!   Since milah is necessary for complete geirus, it is only on day 8 that the baby even becomes Jewish, and therefore should not be considered a bechor?

R' Naftali Trop (shiur on ger katan in Kesubos) answers that there are two stages of geirus.  Ramban does not mean that before milah the child is an aku"m.  The child is a member of the Jewish nation, he is related to his Jewish brother, he is a bechor l'kohen if he is the first baby to come out of his mother's womb.  However, the child lacks a kedushas yisrael.  That is missing without the added step of milah.  

How could there be geirus for children at mattan Torah when geirus requires daas and a katan has no daas?  The answer is that the children were already part of Klal Yisrael since they were bnei Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov.  What the geirus of mattan Torah added is the element of kedushas yisrael.  That extension of the geirus, of what it means to be part of Klal Yisrael, does not required additional daas or consent to be accepted.

I suggested to my son that perhaps this is why there was a to stage process of geirus, one in Mitzrayim and one at mattan Torah.  The first, in Mitzrayim, forged us into a nation.  The second, at mattan Torah, forged a kedushas yisrael, which is only possible through Torah.  Without that we might have been a distinct nation, separate from Mitzrayim, but we would have not been a holy nation.

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.

too much knowledge is a bad thing?

1. Just a quick follow up to the post yesterday on כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לְבֵ֣ית יַעֲקֹ֔ב וְתַגֵּ֖יד לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃.  Rashi explains the difference between Beis Yaakov and Bnei Yisrael is a matter of gender.  The pasuk uses the term amira, which usually implies a soft tone, when it talks about speaking to the women, and the term tageid, which usually implies harsh language, when it talks about speaking to the men (Rashi, see Ibn Ezra).  The simple pshat (see R' Bachyei, Alshich) is that the women need to be approached in a more gentle manner and have things explained in more simple terms, but the men can absorb more.  Ksav Sofer says exactly the opposite.  Women are more righteous and don't need the fire and brimstone speech to motivate them.  It's enough to tell them gently what they need to do and they will get the message.  Men, on the other hand...

2. The R' Bachyei on this pasuk is a source for women davening for their children when they light Shabbos candles:

 ועוד שהאשה הטובה היא סבה לתורה שהיא יכולה להמשיך את בנה לבית המדרש לפי שהיא מצוייה בבית והיא מרחמת עליו בכמה מיני געגועין כדי להמשיך אותו אחר למוד התורה מנעוריו וגם כי יזקין לא יסור ממנה, ולכך ראויה האשה להתפלל לשם יתברך בשעת הדלקת הנר של שבת שהיא מצוה מוטלת עליה שיתן לה ה׳ בנים מאירים בתורה, כי התפלה יותר נשמעת בשעת עשיית המצוה ובזכות נר שבת שהוא אור תזכה לבנים בעלי תורה הנקראת אור שנאמר (משלי ו׳:כ״ג) כי נר מצוה ותורה אור, וכן דרשו רז״ל האי מאן דרגיל בשרגי הויין ליה בנים תלמידי חכמים.

3. Many meforshim explain the distinction between Beis Yaakov and Bnei Yisrael has nothing to do with gender, but rather the distinction is between the hamon am, the simple uneducated masses, and the educated elite.  

I have no idea what to make of this comment of the Bnei Yisascher (Sivan 2:18) which seems to indicate the for some people, remaining in a state of ignorance is a good thing:

כה תאמר לבית יעק' ותגיד לבני ישראל הנה כפל הלשון אמירה והגדה. בית יעקב ובני ישראל. הנה יתפרש הדבר. כבר ידוע אמיר"ה הוא כפשוטו. והגד"ה הוא המשך הדיבור להבין בחכמ"ה כמ"ש בזהר. וידוע ג"כ עפ"י פשוטו בי"ת יעקב הוא המון העם. ובנ"י ישראל בעלי מדריגה ת"ח גדולים המחבבים את התורה ומצותי באהבתה ישגו תמיד. וז"ש הש"י כה תאמר לבית יעקב. להמון עם. לא תפרש להם בהמשך פירוש שאפילו ח"ו לא יקיימו התורה כבר יש קיום לשמים וארץ ע"י הקבלה בלבד. דילמא עי"ז ח"ו יתעצלו ויתעצלו מלקיימה ומלעשותה. משא"כ להת"ח דהתור"ה חביבה עליהם ביותר אמר ותג"ד לבני ישראל. המשך הפירוש כי באלו אין חשש שהן המה רודפים אחרי התור"ה והמצות כל הימים ובאלה הדברים מובן מ"ש מש"ה:

this time, Chavah comes first

 One of my favorite Midrashim is the comment in this week's parsha on כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לְבֵ֣ית יַעֲקֹ֔ב וְתַגֵּ֖יד לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃.  The Midrash writes:

אָמַר רַבִּי תַּחְלִיפָא דְּקֵיסָרִין, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כְּשֶׁבָּרָאתִי אֶת הָעוֹלָם, לֹא צִוִּיתִי אֶלָּא לְאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִצְטַוֵּית חַוָּה וְעָבְרָה וְקִלְקְלָה אֶת הָעוֹלָם, עַכְשָׁיו אִם אֵינִי קוֹרֵא לַנָּשִׁים תְּחִלָּה, הֵן מְבַטְּלוֹת אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: כֹּה תֹאמַר לְבֵית יַעֲקֹב

The pasuk places "Beis Yaakov," the women, before "Bnei Yisrael," the men, because in Gan Eden when G-d gave the commandment not to eat the eitz ha'daas to Adam and he relayed it to Chavah, things did not work out so well.  This time around, G-d decided to loop in Chavah first.  

Whatever the deeper lesson of the Midrash here is, we should not lose sight of the plain meaning of what Chazal are saying.  Just because a husband or a father, the "Adam" of the family, goes to daf yomi every day, does not by osmosis cause Torah to pass on to his wife and family.  Gone are the days when just being raised in a frum home was enough to ensure that one was knowledgeable in hil shabbos, in kashrus, etc.  Chavah -- our wives, mothers, daughters -- need to hear the dvar Hashem directly, to know and study halacha and mussar and other areas, or we risk spiritual churban.  Those who misquote the Iggeres haGR"A and say tzinuyus for a women is what Torah study is for a man are mistaken -- it is not.  Tzniyus does not give one insight into what Hashem asks of us and wants to teach us.  Only Torah study does that.  

Going beyond the plain meaning, what Chazal I think are trying to tell us is that Torah cannot be studied via a kli sheni, so to speak.  G-d teaches Adam, Adam then teaches Chavah, and along the way in the game of telephone the message is lost.  You need to study text first hand.  There is no substitute for direct engagement with original sources.  The Maharasha was critical of the Shulchan Aruch being published because he thought it would become a substitute for study of the sugyos and Rishonim.  One can only tremble at what he would say in our time when ha'levay people would even open the Shulchan Aruch and not rely on other secondary and tertiary sources.  

Later in the parsha we read:

אַתֶּ֣ם רְאִיתֶ֔ם כִּ֚י מִן־הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם דִּבַּ֖רְתִּי עִמָּכֶֽם׃

לֹ֥א תַעֲשׂ֖וּן אִתִּ֑י אֱלֹ֤הֵי כֶ֙סֶף֙ וֵאלֹהֵ֣י זָהָ֔ב לֹ֥א תַעֲשׂ֖וּ לָכֶֽם

Unlike Ramban who learns that the latter pasuk prohibits avodah zarah b'shutfus (meaning there is some power in addition to G-d that controls things) , Netziv (based on Seforno) learns that it prohibits the worship of Hashem via an intermediary (meaning G-d is the only power, but He can be approached through some intervening medium).  Hashem tells Bnei Yisrael that He spoke with them directly at Sinai -- He did not communicate through an intermediary.  So too, when we speak to Hashem, when we study the dvar Hashem, it should be done directly, not through intermediaries.  Everyone has a direct connection.  

Netziv on who jumped into Yam Suf first: sheivet Yehudah or sheivet Binyamin -- and why it matters

There is a Netziv in parshas Zos HaBracha (Harchev Davar 33:12) that is relevant to our parsha that is worth taking a look at if you did not see it then or don't remember it.  Everyone seems to think that Nachshon was the first one to take the brave leap and jump into the Yam Suf, after which the waters split, but in actuality, Chazal (in Mechilta and Tosefta in Sota) have a machlokes whether sheivet Yehudah went in first or whether sheivet Binyamin jumped in first (see this post where I quoted the hesber of the Degel Reuvain to the mahlokes).  According to the view that Binyamin jumped in first, the gemara writes that the members of Yehudah began to toss stones at them --  how dare the youngest usurp the place of Yehudah!  Chazal give a mashal: a king asked his elder son to wake him at 9:00 in the morning, and also asked his younger son to wake him, but at sunrise.  When the youngest son went in to wake his father, the elder one tried to stop him.  "Father asked me to wake him only later!" he protested.  To which the younger son answered that he was also doing what the father told him to do, and to get out of his way.  Hearing the commotion and noise of the argument, the father woke up.  "Since you both wanted to do my bidding, you both get reward," he declared.  So too, Yehudah is given the reward of malchus; Binyamin is given the reward of Beis HaMikdash being built in his portion.

Why is it that Binyamin was so anxious to take the lead and did not defer to Yehudah, his elder brother?  And what does the mashal add to our understanding here?

Netziv explains that the nature of Binyamin's avodah was to live on the highest level of trust and bitachon in Hashem.  Life need not be constrained by the normal rules and expectations of derech ha'teva.  "Y'did Hashem, yishkon la'vetach alav..."  The Shechina is always close to Binyamin, as the Shechina is always close to a baal bitachon.  This is why Binyamin's bracha given by Moshe appears right after Levi's bracha, and this is why Binyamin was zocheh to have the Beis HaMikdash built in his portion.

Yehudah, on the other hand, accepted G-d's presence as manifest through derech ha'teva, finding G-d in the day to day normal activities of life.  "Yadav rav lo v'eizer mi'tzarav ti'hiyeh..."  You need to fight wars to defeat enemies; you need to take action to avert tzaros.  Don't just sit back and trust G-d to perform miracles.  It is not a lack of kvod Shamayim, but aderaba, it is the greatest kvod Shamayim to see G-d's presence within teva and not just above it.

There is no right and wrong in the choice between Binyamin vs Yehudah, and throughout the ages this same machlokes reverberates though Jewish thought.  If a person, or Klal Yisrael chooses, we can forget about the rules of teva, live as if Hashem's hashgacha will take care of everything, and if we truly believe it, then it will.  Or we can choose to live within the rules of teva and trust that that is the medium through which yad Hashem acts.  

When Shaul falls in battle, David cries a kinah, a lamentation  (Shmuel 2 1:17-18):

 וַיְקֹנֵ֣ן דָּוִ֔ד אֶת־הַקִּינָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את עַל־שָׁא֖וּל וְעַל־יְהוֹנָתָ֥ן בְּנֽוֹ

וַיֹּ֕אמֶר לְלַמֵּ֥ד בְּנֵֽי־יְהוּדָ֖ה קָ֑שֶׁת הִנֵּ֥ה כְתוּבָ֖ה עַל־סֵ֥פֶר הַיָּשָֽׁר

Netziv asks: is this the time to talk about the need for Yehudah to learn archery?  What does that have to do with the death of Shaul?

He answers that David understood that when Shaul, who was from sheivet Binyamin, lead the nation, it was on that high level of expecting the miraculous, of trusting G-d to take care of everything.  With Shaul's death, that level of bitachon would be lost.  The passing of the mantle to Yehudah meant living within derech ha'teva, of needing archers and armies to fight wars, with G-d helping behind the scenes.  לְלַמֵּ֥ד בְּנֵֽי־יְהוּדָ֖ה קָ֑שֶׁת is symbolic of that shift in level of belief and shift in level of hashgacha.

This is the machlokes that took place at Yam Suf.  There was a בְּר֨וּחַ קָדִ֤ים עַזָּה֙ כׇּל־הַלַּ֔יְלָה (14:21), a wind building all night, gaining in intensity, that could have pushed the waters of Yam Suf aside -- a meteorological occurrence, just the way a scientist would explain the event away.  The only difference is that this occurrence was not freak chance, but had yad Hashem behind it.  Sheivet Yehudah was waiting for the wind to pick up enough to split the water and then they would march through.  G-d does not need to reboot teva, to override teva, to make his presence known.  Aderaba, it is a higher level to find G-d within nature and not just beyond it.  

Binyamin, on the other hand, did not want to wait.  Forget nature -- just jump in and the water will split.  If you believe, you don't need to worry about anything else.  That is the ideal.  

The machlokes betweeh shevatim was not just a matter of who gets the kavod of going first, but it reflected different philosophies in avodas Hashem.

Chazal used the mashal of waking the king to convey this idea.  Kings don't normally wake up at sunrise.  They sleep in until later in the morning.  Yehudah followed the derech ha'teva in their avodas Hashem; he is the eldest son who wanted to wake his father the king only at the normal time.  Binyamim wanted to jump the gun, to go outside the norm, as that was their derech in avodah.

Hashem's response is that both approaches have merit.  All that matters in the end is that both intend to be marbeh k'vod Shamayim.

geulah is a chok that defies reason

 מִשְׁכוּ וּקְחוּ לָכֶם צֹאן לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתֵיכֶם וְשַׁחֲטוּ הַפֶּסַח

Rashi comments משכו ידיכם מעבודה זרה וקחו לכם צאן של מצוה

R' Moshe Tzvi Neriah writes that you can learn two lessons from this Rashi.  We learn from Rashi 1) how difficult it is to break old habits and resist temptation, as a person can be on the cusp of geulah and still require warnings and admonishments not to engage in idolatry; 2) and we also learn that even though a person might still be steeped in and tempted by avodah zarah, he can still be worthy of redemption.

It's worth noting (see hesber of Shem m'Shmuel 5675) that when Hashem gave Moshe the command to offer korban Pesach, He said only וְיִקְח֣וּ לָהֶ֗ם אִ֛ישׁ שֶׂ֥ה לְבֵית־אָבֹ֖ת שֶׂ֥ה לַבָּֽיִת׃.  It is Moshe who added  מִשְׁכוּ, meaning משכו ידיכם מעבודה זרה, when he transmitted it to Bnei Yisrael.  

וּפָסַ֤ח ה׳ עַל־הַפֶּ֔תַח.  We know that Hashem says "pischu li pesach shel machat," just give me an opening the size of the eye of a needle, let me into your heart just a little bit, and I will open gates for you that you can drive an 18 wheel truck through.  Sometimes, though, even an opening the size of the eye of a needle is too much to ask for.  וּפָסַ֤ח ה׳ עַל־הַפֶּ֔תַח, Hashem overlooked the need even for that smallest opening.  Hashem himself did not ask for the משכו ידיכם מעבודה זרה.  This was the amazing thing about the geulah from Egypt.  It is moments before geulah and Moshe has to still tell people to give up their idolatry -- they still were not 100% committed to Hashem or bust -- and still, Hashem redeemed us.

After this command to take the korban and shecht it, the Torah goes on to speak about sprinkling the blood on the doorposts to protect against the malach ha'mashchis, and then ends the section  וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֑ה לְחׇק־לְךָ֥ וּלְבָנֶ֖יךָ עַד־עוֹלָֽם.  Ramban and Ibn Ezra are bothered by the fact that this sprinking of the blood on the doorpost is not a mitzvah l'doros.  Where is the חׇק־לְךָ֥ וּלְבָנֶ֖יךָ עַד־עוֹלָֽם?  

(R' Berel Povarsky in his Bad Kodesh writes that there are 2 dinim in the zerikas ha'dam on the doorposts: 1) a unique din by pesach Mitzrayim that there had to be blood there to protect the house; 2) a din zerikas ha'dam like any other korban, as the doorpost was a substitute for the mizbeiach.  Nafka minah: if a person had multiple dwellings, then m'din zerikas ha'dam of the korban, he fulfilled the mitzvah as soon as he put the blood one one house and the korban is became permissible to eat, but m'din having blood on each doorpost of a home that needed protection, he needed to paint the doorposts of the other homes as well.  If so, maybe שְׁמַרְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֑ה לְחׇק־לְךָ֥ וּלְבָנֶ֖יךָ עַד־עוֹלָֽם is talking about the regular din zerikas ha'dam that applies l'doros by other korbanos.  Still a bit of a dochak.)

Ramban answers that you have to explain that this concluding pasuk is speaking only about taking and shechting the korban that had appeared earlier.  R' Shimon Sofer, however, explains that it is talking about the sprinkling of the blood.  "Halalu ovzei avodah zarah v'halalu ovdei avodah zarah," Bnei Yisrael had no merits to speak of to earn geulah.  How does a little blood on the doorpost warrant protection from the malach ha'mashchis when you have nothing else going for you?  The answer is that that's the  חׇק־לְךָ֥ וּלְבָנֶ֖יךָ עַד־עוֹלָֽם.  Geulah is a chok without reason.  There is no logic to explain how a person can still need a warning not to be an oveid avodah zarah and merit geulah, but that's how Hashem decided to make things happen.

There is perhaps another element as to why Moshe added the word מִשְׁכוּ here, which also connects to the idea of this parsha being לְחׇק־לְךָ֥ וּלְבָנֶ֖יךָ עַד־עוֹלָֽם something that should be transmitted for eternity.  Netziv comments as follows:

אבל לפי הפשט, באשר המצוה בפרשה הקודמת נאמרה לכל ישראל ליקח שה לבית אב, והיתה הדעת נותנת שיטפלו בזה האנשים הפשוטים בבית אב מי שרגיל למשוך טלה לשחיטה ולהפשיט, ולא מי שהוא גדול בבית אב ואין עסקו בכך, על כן קרא משה לזקני הדור והזהירם ביחוד ״משכו״ — אתם ״וקחו לכם צאן למשפחותיכם״ — בשביל כל המשפחה תהיו אתם המתעסקים בזה.

Had we just been given Hashem's command, we would have assumed that it should be the shleppers who do menial work who should go out and get the sheep and slaughter and butcher them.  Shlucho shel adam k'moso, so let them do the dirty work for us.  Moshe therefore added in his instructions מִשְׁכוּ וּקְחוּ לָכֶם, this is something you have to do for yourselves, not leave to the shleppers.  The mitzvah needs your hands-on from the first steps.

Why this should be the case is what the Torah is telling us in that last pasuk of שְׁמַרְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֑ה לְחׇק־לְךָ֥ וּלְבָנֶ֖יךָ עַד־עוֹלָֽם. No one in the household pays much attention to what the shlepper does, what the maid does, what the nanny does.  They are there to free up our time so we can carry on with the important things of life.  The Torah is telling us that if you want a mitzvah to be something your children take note of, something they will pass on to their children, then you can't delegate it -- you have to treat it like one of those important things in life, things that you make sure to take care of yourself.  

lost legacy

There is a lot written to try to explain Rashi's comment on  וָאֵרָ֗א אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֛ם אֶל־יִצְחָ֥ק וְאֶֽל־יַעֲקֹ֖ב that וארא אל האבות.  We know Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov are the avos.  Why is that relevant to pshat in this pasuk?

My son dealt with this question last week on his blog and quoted, among other ideas, the L Rebbe who explained that Rashi is highlighting the fact that Hashem appeared to Avraham not only because he embodied the midah of chessed, and to Yitzchak not only because he personified gevurah, and to Yaakov not just because he was an exemplar of tiferes.  Hashem appeared to them because they were avos, they were the forefathers of our nation, they passed those  midos down to future generations.  אבות מכלל דאיכא תולדות  (Bava Kama 2)  R' Meir Goldvicht in his shiurim always likes to say that maaseh avos siman la'banim means the maaseh avos are part of our genes, our spiritual DNA.  Hashem was telling Moshe that it was not time to deal with abstract questions about why the galus was so difficult.  He had to try to connect with the people in a more direct way, in a more emotional way, so that they would be receptive to his message.

It's interesting that the Sefas Emes (last piece in 5637) goes in nearly the opposite direction.  Rashi later in the parsha (pasuk 9) quotes from Chazal that these opening pesukim are a response to Moshe's question of why Bnei Yisrael had to suffer:

ורבותינו דרשוה לעניין של מעלה, שאמר: למה הרעתה וגו׳ (שמות ה׳:כ״ב). אמר לו הקב״ה: חבל על דאבדין ולא משתכחין. יש לי להתאונן על מיתת האבות, הרבה פעמים נגליתי עליהם בקל שדי, ולא אמרו לי: מה שמך, ואתה אמרת: מה שמו מה אומר אליהם

Simple pshat is that Moshe is being told that he is not on par with the avos.  Sefas Emes, however, interprets the point as speaking about Bnei Yisrael, that theywere not connected to the avos.   חבל על דאבדין ולא משתכחין -- the avos are gone and cannot be found because Bnei Yisrael failed to carry on their legacy and live up to it.  The spiritual DNA may be there, but it is not expressing itself.  Therefore, the galus is a harsh one.

yaaleh v'yavo vs tein tal u'matar

Chaim Brisker differentiated between yaaleh v'yavo and teil tal u'matar.  R' Chaim assumed that yaaleh v'yavo is *not* part of the definition of the bracha of avodah, but rather is recited because there is a separate chiyuv of mentioning me'ein ha'meora, what makes the day special, be it rosh chodesh or yom tov.  Nafka minah: according to this approach, if you forget yaaleh v'yavo at mincha today, you would not daven a tefilas tashlumin at night.  You already fulfilled your chiyuv of tefilah at mincha time, and once rosh chodesh is over you can no longer mention me'ein ha'meora, so you gain nothing by davening maariv twice.  Were yaaleh v'yavo part of the definition of the bracha of avodah, leaving it out would be like leaving out a bracha of shmoneh esrei and you would have to daven tashlumin at maariv.  

In contrast to yaaleh v'yavo, R' Chaim assumed that tein tal u'mater is an intrinsic part of the bracha of bareich aleinu.  Leaving it out is like missing part of a bracha in shmoneh esrei.

R' Tzvi Pesach Frank asked: The halacha is that if you miss saying tein tal u'matar, you can add it in the middle of the bracha of shema koleinu.  If mentioning tal u'matar is a separate chiyuv hazkara, like mei'ein ha'meora, this makes perfect sense.  You missed the hazkara in one spot, so you can add it in another spot.  But if tein tal u'matar is part of the bracha of bareich aleinu, then if you are missing part of one bracha, how can you make it up by sticking the words in another?

See R' Eliyahu Bakshi Doron's discussion here.

Moshe Derangement Syndrome

Pharoah's reaction to makkas barad is interesting.   וַיִּשְׁלַ֣ח פַּרְעֹ֗ה וַיִּקְרָא֙ לְמֹשֶׁ֣ה וּֽלְאַהֲרֹ֔ן וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֖ם חָטָ֣אתִי הַפָּ֑עַם. This time -- הַפָּ֑עַם -- he admits he got it wrong.  What's so special about this particular makkah?  Malbi"m explains that Pharoah was warned before barad to take the livestock in and seek shelter.  It's one think to refuse to release Bnei Yisrael from slavery; it's another thing to be so stubborn as to not even take precautions that can save lives and $.  Even Pharoah realized he had gone to far.  Pharoah clearly had MDS -- Moshe Derangement Syndrome. He rejected anything Moshe said, no matter that doing so was cutting off his own nose to spite his face.  R' Baruch Sorotzkin reads הַפָּ֑עַם as indicative of the approach of Pharoah and other reshaim to admitting guilt.  It's always only הַפָּ֑עַם, this one time, this one detail that is wrong. There is no consideration that the prat maybe is melamed on the klal, that being wrong this time may reflect a broader misconception.  That's why once the moment passes, it's back to the usual routine.  (See HaKsav v'haKabbalah who learns the pasuk as meaning exactly the opposite.)   

Moshe comes to Pharoah and tells him that although he knows Pharoah will return to his old ways, makkas barad will come to an end.  The Torah then gives what seems to be a damage report:

 וְהַפִּשְׁתָּ֥ה וְהַשְּׂעֹרָ֖ה נֻכָּ֑תָה כִּ֤י הַשְּׂעֹרָה֙ אָבִ֔יב וְהַפִּשְׁתָּ֖ה גִּבְעֹֽל

וְהַחִטָּ֥ה וְהַכֻּסֶּ֖מֶת לֹ֣א נֻכּ֑וּ כִּ֥י אֲפִילֹ֖ת הֵֽנָּה

And then continues and tells us that Moshe davened for barad to be removed.  

You would expect the damage report to come after the plague was removed, yet the Torah sticks it in before even telling us that Moshe davened for the plague to stop.  Why break up the narrative this way?  As we discussed once before, Ramban and Sadya Gaon explain that these pesukim are not third party narration, but rather are part of the dialogue between Moshe and Pharoah.  Moshe was telling Pharoah that the wheat crop has not yet been ruined, so if he repents now, he can salvage something.

R' Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi brilliantly explains that there was a symbolic message for Pharoah in these particular crops being spared.  Pharoah was stiff necked.  He refused to buckle to Moshe's demands.  He thought that remaining inflexible was the ultimate sign of strength and would lead him to prevail.  Moshe therefore told him to take a look at which crops remained.  Rashi explains כי אפילת – מאוחרות, ועדיין היו רכות ויכולין לעמוד בפני קשה.  Because the wheat crops ripen later, their stalk is not stiff and hard, and therefore, they were were not crushed by the barad.  Sometimes the ability to bend, to show flexibility and give a little, is actually a strength. 

no substitute

I saw in the news that at the Agudah convention Rav Shmuel Fuerst from Chicago decried the fact that it costs 25-30k for girls to go to seminary in Israel, and he suggested that they open a seminary in Chicago run as a non-profit that would charge 15k to offer an alternative solution.

Two points:

1) Can someone please explain to me how you can pay teachers for a full day of teaching and provide room and board (seminaries offer usually at least 1 meal a day even if not all the meals) for only 15k a year?  There are elementary schools that charge more than that these days.

2) I realize that my perspective here is probably different than that of the RW/Agudah world, but I think the point of seminary in Eretz Yisrael is not just to spend another year studying Torah.  Let me quote myself from a few years ago, when one of my daughters was in seminary:

People ask whether a year in seminary in Eretz Yisrael is really worth the thousands of dollars it costs.  Does it really make that much difference if a girl knows one more Ramban, a piece from Michtav, or another perek or sefer of Nach?  If you ask the question that way, you are missing the whole point of going for the year.  It’s not about learning another Ramban, or if you are a boy, another Tosfos, another R’ Chaim.  The point of going is to learn one thing: to love Eretz Yisrael. 

If yeshiva or seminary in Eretz Yisrael is just another place to study Torah, then Chicago or NY or wherever might be a cheaper substitute.  By it's not.  There is an entire experience of being in Eretz Yisrael, of seeing life in Eretz Yisrael, that cannot be replicated anywhere else because no where else is our homeland.  Does it cost a lot of money?  Sure it does.  Is it beyond the reach of some people's budget?  Absolutely.  And therefore there should be alternatives, just like there should be alternatives to the expensive weddings that are the norm in our communities, the expensive pesach and midwinter vacations that are now the norm, the expensive camps that kids "must" attend during the summer.  

from 'ki yarei l'habit' to 'temunas Hashem yabit'

The Midrash writes that because Moshe was afraid to look at G-d's presence in the burning bush, וַיַּסְתֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ פָּנָ֔יו כִּ֣י יָרֵ֔א מֵהַבִּ֖יט אֶל האלקים (3:6), he was rewarded with being zocheh to  וּתְמֻנַ֥ת ה׳  יַבִּ֑יט (BaMidbar 12:8).

R' Izelele m'Volozhin asks why Moshe not wanting to look at Hashem's presence is such a big deal and worthy of reward.  It is basic yiras shalayim to be afraid, to be in awe of G-d, when one is standing directly in His presence.  

In order to understand what our pasuk means we need to review some definitions.  Back in parshas Lech Lech (12:8)Hashem told Avraham to look at the stars, as his descendants will be as numerous as they are.  וַיּוֹצֵ֨א אֹת֜וֹ הַח֗וּצָה וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ הַבֶּט־נָ֣א הַשָּׁמַ֗יְמָה וּסְפֹר֙ הַכּ֣וֹכָבִ֔ים  Rashi there quotes a Midrash: דבר אחר: הוציאו מחללו של עולם והגביהו למעלה מן הככבים, וזהו לשון הבטה – מלמעלה למטה.  The word הַבֶּט, says Rashi, always means looking down from on high.  Hashem raised Avraham above the heavens so that he was looking down on the entire universe of stars.

We once discussed this point in the context of the story at the end of Chukas of the snake that Moshe put on a staff so that anyone who looked at it would be healed from the bite of poisonous snakes.  It seems strange and almost smacks of avodah zarah to have people look toward an image for a cure -- what's going on?  

Look carefully at what Moshe told the people: וְהִבִּ֛יט אֶל־נְחַ֥שׁ הַנְּחֹ֖שֶׁת וָחָֽי (baMidnbar 21:9)  The whole point is not to look up to avodah zarah, but on the contrary, to look down on it.  The word הַבֶּט, again, always means looking down from on high.  We are better than the avodah zarah and stand higher than it.

Hashem in our parsha appeared to Moshe in a low bush because עמו אנכי בּצרה, the Shechina suffers along with us.  If Klal Yisrael are downtrodden slaves, the Shechina itself is kavyachol low and humbled as well.  Bnei Yisrael cried out to Hashem in pain from their work and their suffering, but what they failed to see and cry over was the pain of the Shechina that was suffering along with them.  

The gadlus of Moshe was that he could not bear to see the Shechina so low, so reduced, while he remained standing.  כִּ֣י יָרֵ֔א **מֵהַבִּ֖יט** אֶל האלקים .  He could not stand to be on a higher plane looking down, הַבֶּט, on G-d's presence.  

As we explained once before, when Hashem said  וּתְמֻנַ֥ת ה׳  יַבִּ֑יט, Hashem was telling Aharon and Miriam that they do not compare to Moshe.  When they see an ordinary Jew,  someone who of course is on a lower madreiga than they are, they see all that person's faults and shortcomings.  When Moshe, who stood head and shoulders above everyone else in ruchniyus, sees an ordinary Jew, especially a Jew who is in trouble and in pain, he sees תְמֻנַ֥ת ה׳  יַבִּ֑יט, he sees the presence of the Shechina below him and cannot bear its suffering.  

What our Midrash is telling us is that those same antenna of Moshe that were attuned to the suffering of the Shechina here at the burning bush were also attuned to the suffering of the Shechina within each Jew, and that is what made him the greatest of our prophets.

The Jewish World of Alexander Hamilton and other books I've been reading

I recently finished reading Professor Andrew Porwancher's book The Jewish World of Alexander Hamilton and I have a mixed reaction.  I remain unconvinced by the scant evidence he offers that Hamilton himself was Jewish.  Hamilton's mother, Rachel, married a man named Johan Levine, who his grandson identified as a "rich Danish Jew."  From here, Porwancher makes the leap that Hamilton's mother must have converted, even though there is no evidence of her practicing Judaism.  As evidence that she was Jewish he points to Rachel and Johan's first child, Peter, only having been baptized as an adult, when he chose to join a church, and not as a child.  He also points to the fact that Hamilton, who was born of of wedlock when Rachel ran off with James Hamilton, was enrolled in a Jewish school as a child.  Many assume he was sent there because no school would accept a child born out of wedlock, but Porwancher shows that this was not the case at the time.  That's pretty much all he has.  Yes, Alexander Hamilton may have been more supportive than other founders of equal rights being given to Jews, he may have rubbed shoulders with Jewish clients, he may not have been a churchgoer, but that to me does not even meet the bar of being circumstantial evidence.  Read it and decide for yourself.

The rest of the book is enjoyable if you are interested in Jewish history during the colonial period, but I don't see why he tied that to Hamilton, other than the need to make this a book and not just an article.  Hamilton was involved in every pivotal moment of the Revolutionary period, be it the war against the British, be it crafting the Constitution and arguing for its adoption, be it setting fiscal policy so the new US government did not dissolve into bankruptcy, so to the extent that all these events touched on Jewish life, Hamilton had an impact of Jewish life, but I see that as a grama, not kocho.  

While on the topic of books, The Lincoln Highway by Amor Towles deserves the near 5 star rating over 15k have given it on Amazon, where it is an Amazon Editor's pick for Book of the Year for 2021.  I still think his first book, A Gentleman in Moscow, is better, but it's like comparing gems -- each is wonderful in its own right.  The positive's: amazing character development, pitch perfect dialogue.  The negative: a hefty 500+ pages and there are still loose ends to the story that do not get wrapped up (this bothered my wife more than it bothered me). 

I thought the The Thursday Murder Club was better than its sequel, The Man Who Died Twice: A Thursday Murder Club Mystery Club, which is very, very good, but just shy of great.  Maybe I was spoiled too much by the first one.  It is hard to hit back to back home runs.  (On the topic of mystery books, Anthony Horowitz's A Line to Kill was not worth it.  There are better Sherlock Holmes imitations out there.)

An Odyssey: A Father, A Son and an Epic by Daniel Mendelsohn is moving and beautifully written.  Mendelsohn is a professor of classics.  His father, a retired professor of Comp Sci, sat in on a seminar he taught on the Odyssey.  Mendelsohn weaves together his analysis of the literary work The Odyssey as he takes us on another odyssey, a far more personal one, and discovers things about his father and his father's personality that he never knew or appreciated before.  

Last one for now: Eric Metaxas, known for his biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, has a wonderful autobiography called Fish Out of Water: A Search for the Meaning of Life.  This is  one of those books that takes some time to get going, but then gets better and better as you go along.  It's the story of Metaxas growing up as a child of Greek immigrant parents through his early adult years, ending at the point that Metaxas becomes a committed Xstian.  One point that struck me as odd is how unmoved he seemed to be when a girlfriend he had at one point had an abortion.  He was not religious at that point in his life, but even so, I would have thought given how deeply he reflects on other events in his youth and adolescence, this would have been fodder for deeper soul searching. 

asura na -- turning toward or away from the burning bush?

1)  וּבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל פָּר֧וּ וַֽיִּשְׁרְצ֛וּ וַיִּרְבּ֥וּ וַיַּֽעַצְמ֖וּ בִּמְאֹ֣ד מְאֹ֑ד וַתִּמָּלֵ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ אֹתָֽם

Wouldn't it be grammatically more correct to say  וַתִּמָּלֵ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ מהם and not וַתִּמָּלֵ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ אֹתָֽם?  (See Netziv)

In kri'as shema we pledge to serve Hashem "b'chol levavcha u'bchol nafshecha ub'chol m'odecha."  Chazal darshen that "b'chol m'odecha" means with all of your money, no matter how high the price of kosher food or how much the tuition bill is.  R' Simcha Sofer explains the word "me'od" in our pasuk the same way.  פָּר֧וּ וַֽיִּשְׁרְצ֛וּ וַיִּרְבּ֥וּ וַיַּֽעַצְמ֖וּ בִּמְאֹ֣ד מְאֹ֑ד means that Bnei Yisrael grew wealthy living in Egypt.  They weren't living in cramped apartments on the Lower East Side of Raamses anymore.  They had moved up in the world and had luxurious homes like we have in the 5 Towns, baruch Hashem.  Having a kosher pizza store was not thrilling any more.  Now, it was steak houses and butchers that offered prime cuts of beef on every corner.  

וַתִּמָּלֵ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ אֹתָֽם, "artziyus," mundane pleasure, as opposed to "ruchniyus," is what filled people's lives  This, of course, is a recipe for spiritual disaster and what leads to a deeper, darker galus.

2) Later in the parsha, Moshe sees the burning bush, and he says  אָסֻֽרָה־נָּ֣א וְאֶרְאֶ֔ה אֶת־הַמַּרְאֶ֥ה הַגָּדֹ֖ל הַזֶּ֑ה, "Let me turn away from where I am and go see this amazing sight."  Rashi comments: אסרה – מכאן להתקרב שם.  What does Rashi add to our understanding of the pasuk here?  Is he just translating the word אסרה ?  And before we even get to Rashi, I ask you: don't you always have to move away from where you are now to get someplace else, wherever it may be?  Why does the pasuk itself need to mention אסרה ?

The Taz answers that this second question is what Rashi is coming to answer. להתקרב שם does not mean in the physical sense of coming in closer proximity to the burning bush.  Moshe obviously saw the bush where he was standing, so he didn't need to move in order to see it.  What להתקרב here means is to draw spiritually closer.  Moshe discerned that the burning bush was something miraculous that he was being called to.  You can't just walk up to something like that with all your baggage of chol, of "artziyus," of mundane life.  אסרה – מכאן להתקרב שם  You have to leave all that behind in order להתקרב שם, to draw closer to a spiritual place   There is a sibah and m'sovev here, a cause and effect, between אסרה and להתקרב, not just a chronological sequence of events.  

Perhaps Rashi explains אָסֻֽרָה as Moshe moving away from where he was and moving toward the burning bush because he is coming l'afukei the pshat of the Tzror ha'Mor, who says that it means exactly the opposite.  Moshe thought himself but a simple shepherd who lacked the ability to apprehend a great spiritual manifestation like the burning bush.  Therefore, says the Tzror haMor, he said to himself אָסֻֽרָה־נָּ֣א, let me turn away for now.  Perhaps one day in the future, וְאֶרְאֶ֔ה אֶת־הַמַּרְאֶ֥ה הַגָּדֹ֖ל הַזֶּ֑ה, I might be able to see and appreciate such a sight.  Yet paradoxically, precisely because he turned away, precisely because of his humility, G-d called Moshe back to witness the revelation of His presence,  וַיַּ֥רְא ה׳  כִּ֣י סָ֣ר לִרְא֑וֹת וַיִּקְרָא֩ אֵלָ֨יו אלקים מִתּ֣וֹךְ הַסְּנֶ֗ה.  

3) Moshe was supposed to go to Pharoah with the leaders of Klal Yisrael and declare (3:18) ה׳ אלקי הָֽעִבְרִיִּים֙ נִקְרָ֣ה עָלֵ֔ינוּ .  Rashi comments: נקרה עלינו – לשון מקרה.  G-d "happened" to appear to us, like an accidental meeting.  The Meforshei Rashi ask: Rashi in sefer VaYikra (1:1) writes that this term of "mikreh," happenstance,  is used when describing G-d's revelation to non-Jews like Bilam, but to Moshe and our prophets the term used is "vayikra," a calling, an intentional invitation to speak 

 לכל דברות ולכל אמירות ולכל ציווים קדמה קריאה, זו לשון חיבה, לשון שמלאכי השרת משמשין בו: וקרא זה אל זה (ישעיהו ו׳:ג׳). אבל לנביאי אומות העולם נגלה עליהם בלשון גנאי ועראי, בלשון טומאה: ויקר אלהים אל בלעם 

Why then does our pasuk use this term?

Maharal answers: הכי פירושו, שאמרו לו ״אלהי העברים נקרה עלינו״ בארץ מצרים בטומאה, לפי שכל הארץ מלאה גילולים, לכן ״נלכה במדבר דרך ג׳ ימים״ כדי שיהיה נקרה עלינו בקדושה  

The word "nikrah" is used here because this revelation took place in Mitzrayim, a land filled with tumah and idolatry.  In that environment, any revelation of G-dliness is only a haphazard, temporary affair.  That is why, Moshe was told to tell Pharoah, they needed leave to go outside Mitzrayim to properly worship Hashem.  

Even in galus, a person can experience moments of inspiration -- a great davening, a great shiur, a meaningful chessed project.  But those do not make for a **life** of inspiration.  Those moments of uplift are נקרה עלינו – לשון מקרה, haphazard, almost chance encounters.  

mishna yomit

Public service announcement: the Mishna Yomit is going to be starting a new cycle starting this Shabbos, so if you have never learned through sha"s mishnayos or want to review, it's a perfect time to get onboard.

The Rabbi where I daven makes a yearly Simchas Torah pitch to try to get people to take on learning sha"s mishnayos in a year, and some people have done it more than once.  If you can do that, kol ha'kavod.  However, unless you are davening through the mishnayos, I don't see how you can do it without devoting at least 30 minutes a day to the task.  If you fall behind, you then need an hour the next day to catch up.  Mishna Yomit will take you 5 to 10 minutes a day.  You can download the Kehati Mishnayos app and have access to Kehati and Bartenura wherever you go, and it's a small enough amount of material each day so that you can do it well without rushing through.  The only downside is it takes close to 6 years to finish. 

the uniqueness of the 10 takanos of Ezra: tikun ha'umah vs tikun ha'dat

 Bava Kama 82 quotes 10 takanos that Ezra made:

עשרה תקנות תיקן עזרא שקורין במנחה בשבת וקורין בשני ובחמישי ודנין בשני ובחמישי ומכבסים בחמישי בשבת ואוכלין שום בערב שבת ושתהא אשה משכמת ואופה ושתהא אשה חוגרת בסינר ושתהא אשה חופפת וטובלת ושיהו רוכלין מחזירין בעיירות ותיקן טבילה לבעלי קריין

The Ohr Sameiach (Issurei Biah 4:8 last paragraph) makes an interesting observation.  He writes that the gemara has many takanos, many dinim derabbanan, but these were primarily instituted for "tikun ha'dat."  They preserve and protect the rules of the religion, the halachot d'oraysa.  For example, Chazal made a takanah not to swim on shabbos lest you come to make a raft and violate a melacha.  The takanos of Ezra are different.  They were primarily instituted for the sake of "tikun ha'umah."  The purpose of the takanos was not to prevent a person from a religious failing, but rather the purpose was to strengthen the social and family structure of the nation.  

One of the challenges that Ezra had to deal with when the Jews returned to Eretz Yisrael was the high intermarriage rate.  To put it crudely, marrying a shiksa was the norm.  Ezra responded by trying to strengthen marriage to Jewish women and make it more appealing and attractive.  That's why he instituted selling perfume to the women, that's why there is a takana to eat garlic for the sake of onah on shabbos, counterintuitively, that's why he made the takana of tevilas Ezra, as the gemara writes, so that "talmidei chachamim should not always be with their wives."  Too much familiarity is not always a good thing; a little seperation preserved the desire to be together when allowed.

The Ohr Sameiach reads this into the shakla v'terya of the sugya.  The gemara asks why Ezra needed a takanah for chafifa, combing out the hair before going to mikvah.  Isn't chatziza a d'oraysa problem?  Answers the gemara that the problem of chatzizah can be solved by just examining the hair.  Ezra's takanah was to go the extra mile and comb it out.

Without getting into the technical details, according to the Rambam, knotted hair is only a chatzitzah derabbanan.  Ohr Samaiech explains that the gemara's question is why Ezra needed to make his takanah when we already have a din derabbanan that knotted hair is a problem.

Answers the gemara, the takanah derabbanan of chatzitzah is tikun ha'dat, a religious safeguard to avoid a d'oraysa chatzitzah.  You can just examine the hair and solve that problem.  Erza's takanah is for the sake of tikun ha'umah.  He instituted combing out of the hair as an end in its own right, so that a wife will come back from mikveh with beautifully combed out hair and be more attractive to her husband.

a "left handed" redemption

 On Friday I posted a Meshech Chochma that explains that the right hand, which Yaakov placed on Ephraim's head, signifies hashgacha lma'alah min ha'teva, matching Ephaim's Torah-only focus, and matching the open miracles done for Yehoshua.  The left hand, which Yaakov placed on Menashe's head, signifies Hashem working within teva, matching Menashe's work as Yosef's assistant in administering the affairs of state, and matching the help Hashem have Gidon, which did not manisfest itself in any open miracles. 

I realized afterwards that based on this we have a deeper insight into the gemara (Pesachim 56a):

 דאמר רשב"ל ויקרא יעקב אל בניו ויאמר האספו ואגידה לכם ביקש יעקב לגלות לבניו קץ הימין ונסתלקה ממנו שכינה אמר שמא חס ושלום יש במטתי פסול כאברהם שיצא ממנו ישמעאל ואבי יצחק שיצא ממנו עשו אמרו לו בניו שמע ישראל ה' אלהינו ה' אחד אמרו כשם שאין בלבך אלא אחד כך אין בלבנו אלא אחד באותה שעה פתח יעקב אבינו ואמר ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד

Note the gemara's language: Yaakov wanted to reveal  קץ הימין.  I would say that קץ הימין means (see Rashi) the keitz of the right hand -- a redemption with open miracles, where the world becomes a Torah only world and is completely transformed.

The reason ונסתלקה ממנו שכינה is not an onesh, but rather because that is not the reality of our redemption.  As the Rishonim explain, based on the level we are on the redemption is one that will occur -- that is occurring! -- b'derech ha'teva.  It is not קץ הימין, but rather a left-handed redemption where Hashem does not reveal Himself openly, but is nonetheless guiding history.  

right hand, left hand: rivivos Ephraim and alphei Menashe

1. Yaakov placed his right hand on Ephraim and his left on Menashe in order to give them a bracha.  We find in many other places that bracha is transmitted through the hands, e.g. nisi'as kapayim of the kohanim, Moshe placed his hands on Yehoshua's head, etc.  The fact that Yaakov deliberately switched his hands to place his right hand on Ephraim shows that the placement of the hands, not just the words of the bracha, has a powerful impact.  

The Shulchan Aruch has a din that when you wash netilas yadayim you should wash with more than the bare minimum of water needed for the shiur.  The gemara quotes that R' Chisda would use a lot of water because it brings bracha.  R' Shteinman points out that we don't find such a din anywhere else, e.g. there is no din that it is better to be toveil in a mikveh that has more than the minimum shiur of water.  It is davka when washing one's hands, he suggests, that this idea applies because the hands are the conduit to bracha.

(The Brisker Rav held that physical contact is not needed to transmit a bracha.  We see many places in Chazal that they had the power just by looking at a person to transmit bracha, and the opposite, to even kill a person. The reason Yaakov was so particular about placing his hands on Ephraim and Menashe is because, as we read earlier in the parsha, וְעֵינֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ כָּבְד֣וּ מִזֹּ֔קֶן לֹ֥א יוּכַ֖ל לִרְא֑וֹת, Yaakov could not see very well, and so he could not rely on his sight alone to connect with Ephraim and Menashe.)

2. There are many reasons given for why we bless our children to be davka like Ephraim and Menashe.  R' Eliezer Sorotzkin suggests that when we look at the relationship between the shevatim, we find disharmony and conflict.  Yosef's dreams elicited jealousy from his brothers, the brothers in turn plotted to kill Yosef.  When Yaakov placed his right hand on Ephraim, the younger of the two brothers, Menashe did not react -- not a word.  It was only Yosef who stepped in to object.  Two brothers who could live in such harmony and peace without one objecting to the other getting ahead -- this is the bracha Yaakov wanted for us to pass on for eternity.  

3. At the end of his life Moshe blessed Ephraim and Menashe to be able to defeat their enemies:  וְהֵם֙ רִבְב֣וֹת אֶפְרַ֔יִם וְהֵ֖ם אַלְפֵ֥י מְנַשֶּֽׁה׃.  Rashi explains that the רִבְב֣וֹת are the multitudes killed by Yehoshua, who was from sheivet Ephraim, and the אלפים are those killed by Gidon, who was from Menashe. Meshech Chochma connects Moshe's words the pasuk (Teh 91:7) יִפֹּ֤ל מִצִּדְּךָ֨׀ אֶ֗לֶף וּרְבָבָ֥ה מִימִינֶ֑ךָ אֵ֝לֶ֗יךָ לֹ֣א יִגָּֽשׁ.  He explains that וּרְבָבָ֥ה מִימִינֶ֑ךָ, on the right, because it corresponds to  רִבְב֣וֹת אֶפְרַ֔יִם, and Yaakov placed his right hand on Ephraim's head.  מִצִּדְּךָ֨׀ אֶ֗לֶף, on the left side, corresponds to אַלְפֵ֥י מְנַשֶּֽׁה, and Yaakov placed his left hand on Menashe.  

Meshech Chochma writes that y'min represents the revelation of Hashem derech nes; s'mol represents the revelation of Hashem within teva.  אַף־יָדִי֙ יָ֣סְדָה אֶ֔רֶץ וִימִינִ֖י טִפְּחָ֣ה שָׁמָ֑יִם (Yeshayahu 48:13).  The right hand is used to create the heavens; the left hand to create earth.  We read in Zos haBracha that "mi'mino aish das lamo," that Torah is given with Hashem's right hand, kavyachol, but when we abandon the Torah, "af choveiv amim," Hashem gets is angry with us and as a result the nations are beloved, and "kol kidoshav b'yadecha," we are held in His left hand, kavyachol.  

Ephraim devoted himself exclusively to Torah study.  He lived a life detached from normal day to day events, a "right handed" life.  Therefore, his descendent Yehoshua merited open miracles like the sun stopping in the middle of the sky to help him pursue and defeat his enemies, the rivivos Ephraim.  Menashe helped deal with the mundane affairs that Yosef had to administer.  He was his father's "left hand."  His descendants would work within the derech ha'teva to defeat the enemies of the Jewish people, the alphei Menashe.  

When we take the Torah out we say the pesukim of "va'yehi bi'nso'a" where Moshe davened for Hashem to scatter our enemies.  When we put the Torah back, we say "shuvah Hashem rivivos alphei Yisrael" -- rivivos and alaphim, Ephraim and Menashe, l'maaleh min ha'teva and b'toch ha'teva as one.

should the oleh answer chazak chazak v'nischazeik?

The Ketzos haShulchan writes that when the baal koreh finishes the parsha at the end of a sefer, the oleh should not answer "chazak chazak v'nitchazeik" along with everyone else.  Doing so creates a hefsek between the kriah and the final bracha, and secondly, we are the ones saying "chazak" to the oleh, to give him chizuk.  It makes no sense for him to chime in and say it to himself.  This is also the view of R' Elyashiv, but others disagree (see here).  

not just a hidur

 בֶּן־אָדָ֗ם [כְּתׇב־] (כתוב) לְךָ֙ אֶת־שֵׁ֣ם הַיּ֔וֹם אֶת־עֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה סָמַ֤ךְ מֶֽלֶךְ־בָּבֶל֙ אֶל־יְר֣וּשָׁלַ֔͏ִם בְּעֶ֖צֶם הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה

The Chasam Sofer (Derashos, 8 Teves,  5593) is midayek in the use of the word  סָמַ֤ךְ.  Why not say צר על יְר֣וּשָׁלַ֔͏ִם?  

Derech derush, he interprets the pasuk in Eikev  כִּ֤י תֹאמַר֙ בִּלְבָ֣בְךָ֔ רַבִּ֛ים הַגּוֹיִ֥ם הָאֵ֖לֶּה מִמֶּ֑נִּי that the might of the enemy forces comes מִמֶּ֑נִּי, from our own failures and shortcomings. 

Here too, the navi is telling us that sadly, the enemy was able to rely on us -- סָמַ֤ךְ -- to help them in their destruction of Yerushalayim.

In last week's parsha (45:14) we read that Yosef cried on the neck(s) of Binyamin.  Rashi quotes the Midrash that neck(s) is written like it is plural because the neck alludes to the Beis haMikdash.  Yosef was crying over the destruction of both batei mikdash that stood in Binyamin's portion.

Why is the Beis haMikdash compared to the neck?  R' Shteinman in Ayeles haShachar writes that we shecht an animal by cutting the simanim in the neck; that is the source of the animal's chiyus.  So too, the Beis haMikdash is not just a nice thing to have, a "hidur mitzvah" that lets us serve Hashem better.  Beis haMikdash is our chiyus!  

If only we lived day in and day out with that attitude.

R' Shteinman quotes the din (San 18b) that the kohen gadol cannot sit on the beis din that decides whether to add an extra month and make a leap year because he has a vested interest in the outcome.  Adding an extra month pushes Yom Kippur later, and the k"g would be stuck doing the avodah outdoors in much colder weather.  

Even though the beis din debating whether to make it a leap year or not might be meeting in the middle of the winter, during Teives or Shevat, the kohen gadol's mind is on Yom Kippur.  That is the highlight of his year, the highlight of his life, and so he lives with that experience in mind 365 days a year. 

If Beis haMikdash is our chiyus, it means we should feel its absence 365 days a year.  It's shouldn't just be something to think about on a fast day or when a chassan breaks a glass under the chuppah and then put out of mind the next day or the next minute.  The fast days are just booster shots to help maintain our year round focus.

The enemy is relying on us,  סָמַ֤ךְ מֶֽלֶךְ־בָּבֶל֙ אֶל־יְר֣וּשָׁלַ֔͏ִם, on our indifference and acceptance of status quo.  It's up to us to prove them wrong. 

trolley problem revisited again

On 3/26/2020, right at the start of the initial lockdowns, I wrote:

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....

Dr Scott Atlas, interview 12/13/2021 in the Daily Signal (bolding added by me):

This was an egregious immoral application of public health, because when you’re a public health leader, you are not supposed to say I’m going to stop this one infection at all costs, without regard for all of public health. These people, the advice that was done was directed solely at stopping these cases.

It failed, by the way. But it also inflicted massive harm because you have to remember, we shut down a lot of medical care. It wasn’t just cosmetic surgery or something like that, that was shut down. We had 650,000 people with cancer on chemotherapy. Half of them skipped their chemo just during the spring of 2020 out of fear. We had 85% of living organ transplants did not get done compared to the previous year. We had two thirds of cancer screenings did not get done. These people still have cancer.

They’re going to come back with widespread, what’s called metastatic disease. A lot of them are going to die. We had massive increases in drug abuse, in spousal abuse, in child abuse. 300,000 cases of child abuse were not detected during the spring of 2020, because, why, schools were closed and schools are the number one agency where child abuse occurs. So this was a massive harm and the harm, again, all the losses, we are almost on the verge of destroying a younger generation, by the way, we have a massive rise in anxiety disorder, in depressive disorder.

One out of four college students in 2020 in the United States thought of killing himself. We had tripling of medical visits to doctors by teenagers for self-harm in the United States compared to the previous year. What does that mean? That means these are kids putting out cigarettes on their skin, slashing their wrists out of the isolation. It’s the lockdowns that did this. It’s the isolation. It’s not the virus. The isolation was caused by the grossly wrong public health advice. And this is going to take decades to solve. 

greatness because of the struggles, not in spite of them

I tell my wife all the time that the increasingly prevalent number of grey hairs on my head are a result of aggravation caused by my children, but she reminds me that I am not 20 years old anymore and some people younger than me are much greyer.  I think you see from the parsha that I am right.  When Yaakov comes down to Egypt and meets Pharoah, the Torah (47:9) records just two lines of the conversation that took place between them.  The Torah tells us that Pharoah asked Yaakov how old he was, and Yaakov replied:

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יַעֲקֹב֙ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֔ה יְמֵי֙ שְׁנֵ֣י מְגוּרַ֔י שְׁלֹשִׁ֥ים וּמְאַ֖ת שָׁנָ֑ה מְעַ֣ט וְרָעִ֗ים הָיוּ֙ יְמֵי֙ שְׁנֵ֣י חַיַּ֔י וְלֹ֣א הִשִּׂ֗יגוּ אֶת־יְמֵי֙ שְׁנֵי֙ חַיֵּ֣י אֲבֹתַ֔י בִּימֵ֖י מְגוּרֵיהֶֽם׃

The Daas Zekeinim m'Baalei haTos writes that what elicited Pharoah's question was that he saw how grey Yaakov was.  He assumed that Yaakov must be ancient, and so he was curious as to just how old he was.  Yaakov's response was that he was not as old as he looks.  It's not his age -- 130! -- which caused him to have so much grey in his hair, but rather it's the tzaros he faced.  So if at 130 it was not age that caused Yaakov's grey but rather it was aggravation, I can say the same.

The Daas Zekeinim goes on to quote a Midrash that says that for every word of complaint about his tzaros that Yaakov said, one year was subtracted from his life, assuming he should have lived as long as his father.  R' Chaim Shmuelevitz in Sichos Mussar asks: Yaakov lived 33 years less than his father.  Simply count the words and you will see there are not 33 words in his answer to Pharoah.  

R' Chaim Shmuelevitz answers that to make up the difference you have to also count the words in Pharoah's question.  Why should Yaakov have been punished for the question Pharoah asked?  Because had Yaakov been on an even higher level, he would not have let the tzaros get to him and make him grey.  His appearance would not have elicited a comment from Pharoah.

Obviously, so far I've failed to internalize this part of the lesson or my hair wouldn't be changing color yet.

What are we to make of Yaakov's response?  His answer to Pharoah sound like the words of an old man exhausted by life, which is not how we picture a tzadik who is oveid Hashem.  True, the Midrash takes Yaakov to task, but there must be something to be said to make sense of Yaakov's answer as well.

R' Druk explains (see Netziv as well) that when Pharoah saw Yaakov, he did not just see an old man, he saw a holy man.  The gemara says that Yaakov's appearance was a reflection of the beauty of Adam haRishon.  When you look at such a person, you see greatness in their bearing, in their countenance.  Pharoah assumed that to achieve such a degree of shleimus and spiritual fulfillment in life must take an enormous amount of time.  He thought he was looking at someone who must be as old as Yoda to be on that level, and having never seen someone who lived so long, he was curious as to Yaakov's age.  

Yakov answered Pharoah that in fact he was not that old; he was not even as old as his forefathers.  It need not take centuries to achieve the spiritual level he was on because there was a shortcut and fast track to get there.  The fast track is מְעַ֣ט וְרָעִ֗ים הָיוּ֙ יְמֵי֙ שְׁנֵ֣י חַיַּ֔י.  If you live life resting on a lawn chair in your backyard, then ain hachi nami, you need to live as long as Yoda to become spiritually great.  However, if you face challenges and obstacles and have to struggle and work to overcome them, then you are forced to grow and develop and will become that much greater that much faster.  Bikeish Yaakov la'shevet b'shalvah, but G-d had other plans for him.  Yaakov had to deal with difficulties.  His greatness was not in spite of those difficulties, but because of them. 

just being there is enough

It's simple pshat in the pesukim (Rashbam, Ibn Ezra), but it's a beautiful idea: the brothers returned home and told their father Yaakov that Yosef lived and was the viceroy over Egypt (45:26):

 וַיַּגִּ֨דוּ ל֜וֹ לֵאמֹ֗ר ע֚וֹד יוֹסֵ֣ף חַ֔י וְכִֽי־ה֥וּא מֹשֵׁ֖ל בְּכׇל־אֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם

Two pesukim later, Yaakov himself exclaims that Yosef is alive and he must see him:

וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל רַ֛ב עוֹד־יוֹסֵ֥ף בְּנִ֖י חָ֑י

The brothers latched onto the fact that Yosef had risen to the height of power and was the head man in Egypt.  It's like telling someone that their long lost child has been found and he/she is a prominent doctor or lawyer or has a PhD and has won a Nobel prize.  

Yaakov, however, just says, "Od...B'NI chai."  My SON is alive.  What's important is not that he/she is a doctor or a lawyer or Indian chief.  What's important is simply that BNI, my child, is there.

What convinced Yaakov that it was Yosef was seeing the wagons that he sent.  Earlier this week I wrote about the gifts the nesi'im brought for chanukas hamishkan, which we read on chanukah.  Aside from their individual gifts, the nesiim also jointly donated 6 wagons and 12 oxen to pull them.  There is a Midrash (couldn't find it, but I saw it quoted in the Techeiles Mordechai) that says these are the wagons which Yaakov foresaw that caused him to believe Yosef was still alive.

Jealousy drove the brothers apart, but Yaakov foresaw that in the future the shevatim would jointly donate wagons and would also each individually give identical gifts so that no one sheivet gets singled out.  Yosef lived and was part of the family; the fracture between his sons would heal.

spoken like a true dictator

"I understand and we all understand how people do not like to be told what to do, they want to make their own choice and their own free will, I get that and I respect that, but these are unusual times... I would prefer and we all would  prefer that people would be voluntarily getting vaccinated, but if they're not going to do that, sometimes you gotta do things that are unpopular, but that clearly supersede individual choices."

-Dr Anthony Fauci, "I am the science," Dictator, appearing on MSNBC today

You want to know why people don't want to get vaccinated?  You want to know why people have no trust in the government?   You want to know why people think this is all a conspiracy to rob us of our liberty?

This is why.  

Censorship on social media is why.

55 years to release data is why.

and I could go on and on.

So when do we start holding people down and giving them the jab whether they like it or not... for the greater good, of course? 

It's always for the greater good that these things start.  

Where they end, well, that's another story.

all in

 1. Yosef tells Pharoah that the significance of his dream being doubled, his seeing fat cows/skinny cows and full sheaves of grain/skimpy sheaves of grain, is that the events the dream portend will happen immediately:

 וְעַ֨ל הִשָּׁנ֧וֹת הַחֲל֛וֹם אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֖ה פַּעֲמָ֑יִם כִּֽי־נָכ֤וֹן הַדָּבָר֙ מֵעִ֣ם האלקים  וּמְמַהֵ֥ר האלקים  לַעֲשֹׂתֽוֹ

You can't help but wonder what was going through the back of Yosef's mind when he said those words.  He too had had a double dream of the stars, sun, and moon bowing to him and sheaves of grain bowing to him, and here it was 22 years later  and his dream had still not yet been fulfilled.

(Yes, I know the meforshim all draw distinctions between the double-dream of Yosef and the double-dream of Pharoah, but logic does not necessarily satisfy the emotional frustration of the dream not being realized. )

2. Netziv and Malbim interpret  וְלֹֽא־יִוָּדַ֤ע הַשָּׂבָע֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ מִפְּנֵ֛י הָרָעָ֥ב הַה֖וּא אַחֲרֵי־כֵ֑ן כִּֽי־כָבֵ֥ד ה֖וּא מְאֹֽד (41:31) not that when the famine hits the good years will be forgotten, but rather that the fat years themselves will not be fully enjoyed because the dark clouds of future famine hang over everything.  When you are anxious about the future, it blocks whatever enjoyment you might have from the present.

3. The Taz in Divrei David interprets Reuvain's statement  אֶת־שְׁנֵ֤י בָנַי֙ תָּמִ֔ית אִם־לֹ֥א אֲבִיאֶ֖נּוּ אֵלֶ֑יךָ  (which if read literally, is completely bizarre) to mean that his children will forfeit the double-nachalah that should be their due since their father was the bechor.  

Why did Yaakov accept Yehudah's argument of  אָֽנֹכִי֙ אֶֽעֶרְבֶ֔נּוּ מִיָּדִ֖י תְּבַקְשֶׁ֑נּוּ אִם־לֹ֨א הֲבִיאֹתִ֤יו אֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ וְהִצַּגְתִּ֣יו לְפָנֶ֔יךָ וְחָטָ֥אתִֽי לְךָ֖ כׇּל־הַיָּמִֽים׃, that he would forfeit his olam ha'ba if he failed to bring Binyamin home, but not Reuvain's offer?  

If, as Rashi writes, Yaakov did not want his grandchildren to suffer as that would only compound his losses, why would he accept the possibility of his own son losing olam ha'ba, thereby also compounding his losses?

I saw in the name of the Sefas Emes: Reuvain had 4 sons (46:9).  By putting only 2 of his sons on the line, Reuvain was in effect hedging his bets.  He wanted to bring Binyamin home safely, but hey, you never know.

Yehudah went all in. Either he brings Binyamin home or bust, he loses everything.

A baal bitachon is someone who has wholehearted confidence that Hashem will bring him success, and Hashem in turn midah k'neged midah delivers for such a person.  There is no such thing as a 50% baal bitachon, 75%, or even 90%.  It's all in, or there is no guarantee of the result.  

the holiday of preparation

On Chanukah we lein the parsha that speaks about the gifts the nesi'im brought for chanukhas ha'mishkan, but those gifts were actually brought in Nisan, when the mishkan was dedicated, not now.  Why is this the reading chosen for Chanukah?

In last week's parsha we read how Yosef instructed his household to prepare for the meal he would eat with the shevatim, וטבח טבח והכן.  It seems to be an unnecessary detail -- just tell us they ate together, who cares about the instructions to the staff to prepare? -- yet the Torah goes out of its way to mention it.  According to one view in Midrash the preparations here are preparations for Shabbos.  You can't just waltz into Shabbos; there is a mitzvah on Friday to prepare.  

It's probably not a coincidental that the letters of  טבח והכן spell out chanukah.  According to the Midrash even though the inauguration of the mishkan took place in Nisan, it was finished on 25 Kislev; everything was prepared and ready to go, including the gifts of the nesi'im.  Nisan was like kabbalas Shabbos; what took place in Kislev was like the mitzvah of hachanah for Shabbos.

We don't have a beis ha'mikdash, we don't have the menorah of the mikdash to light.  But, says the Sefas Emes (last section on Chanukah), we can still prepare ourselves to light, we can yearn to light.  וטבח טבח והכן, the mitzvah we have is to make hachanos, to prepare for what we hope the future will bring.  

deja vu all over again

  וַיֹּאמְר֞וּ אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־אָחִ֗יו אֲבָל֮ אֲשֵׁמִ֣ים ׀ אֲנַ֘חְנוּ֮ עַל־אָחִ֒ינוּ֒ אֲשֶׁ֨ר רָאִ֜ינוּ צָרַ֥ת נַפְשׁ֛וֹ בְּהִתְחַֽנְנ֥וֹ אֵלֵ֖ינוּ וְלֹ֣א שָׁמָ֑עְנוּ עַל־כֵּן֙ בָּ֣אָה אֵלֵ֔ינוּ הַצָּרָ֖ה הַזֹּֽאת 

After Yosef accused the brothers of being spies and locked up Shimon, they came to the realization (42:21) that the events that had befallen them must be the result of their having ignored Yosef's pleas for mercy.  

How could the brothers say with such confidence that this was the case?  22 years had passed since the sale of Yosef.  Was there no other sin that they might attribute their troubles to?  

Perhaps not.  Perhaps the brothers were such tzadikim that there was in fact nothing else they could think of that would warrant any tzaros.  Or perhaps through all these years the sale of Yosef preyed on their mind; maybe they had some lingering doubts that refused to go away, and events confirmed their worst fears.

Meforshim suggest that the brothers took their cue from what they read as midah k'neged midah in what was occurring.  They had thrown Yosef in a pit and now they too had been thrown into prison (Rashbam); they had failed to show mercy toward their brother and now the viceroy showed no mercy toward them (Seforno); they had abandoned their brother and now their brother Shimon was taken from them (Malbim).  "It's deja vu all over again," as Yogi Berra once said.

The parsha continues and tells us that Reuvain chimed in:

 וַיַּ֩עַן֩ רְאוּבֵ֨ן אֹתָ֜ם לֵאמֹ֗ר הֲלוֹא֩ אָמַ֨רְתִּי אֲלֵיכֶ֧ם ׀ לֵאמֹ֛ר אַל־תֶּחֶטְא֥וּ בַיֶּ֖לֶד וְלֹ֣א שְׁמַעְתֶּ֑ם וְגַם־דָּמ֖וֹ הִנֵּ֥ה נִדְרָֽשׁ׃

Was Reuvain rubbing salt in their wounds?  They already acknowledged their guilt for the sale of Yosef.  Did he need to add, "I told you so!" and cause them further pain?  We've discussed this before, but want to add a bit more for this year.

Netziv reminds us that if we look back to the sale of Yosef (37:19), we have an echo of the same term אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־אָחִ֑יו that our pasuk uses:  וַיֹּאמְר֖וּ אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־אָחִ֑יו הִנֵּ֗ה בַּ֛עַל הַחֲלֹמ֥וֹת הַלָּזֶ֖ה בָּֽא  It was not everyone who admitted guilt at the sale of Yosef; it was the two brothers, the אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־אָחִ֑יו who were the instigators.  And they did not admit wrongdoing for the sale itself, which they held was justified, but only for failing to show any mercy, for ignoring Yosef's cries.  Reuvain then stepped in and admonished all the brothers, saying that it was not one or two or a select few who bear the burden of guilt.  They all do.  

The Midrash brings out a different element of Reuvain's words that ties nicely with the theme of midah k'neged midah.  The Midrash that explains the end of the pasuk as referring not only to Yosef, but to their father: וְגַם דָּמוֹ הִנֵּה נִדְרָשׁ – דָּמוֹ וְגַם דַּם הַזָּקֵן (the word gam serves as a ribuy).  Reuvain was telling his brothers that they needed to repent not just for the pain they caused Yosef, but also to the pain they caused their father Yaakov by failing to take his feelings into account (see Chasam Sofer as well).  

If this is correct, then the midah k'neged midah is all the sharper.  The brothers have been hoisted by their own petard.  Here they are arguing to the viceroy (Yosef in disguise) that they cannot bring their brother Binyamin down to Egypt because if anything were to happen to him their father would be devastated.  Yet those same brothers gave no thought to their father's reaction to losing Yosef!  Where were you guys, said Reuvain, back then?  Where was your concern then that not bringing our brother home would crush our father and cause him immeasurable grief?  Same situation 22 years later, but how different the tune the brothers were singing then was.