inyanei halacha/lomdus for Purim

 1) Women are not obligated in the mitzvah of giving machtzis ha'shekel (see post here).  Therefore, b'pashtus it would seem that MG"A is correct in arguing that women have no obligation to give a zecher to the machatzis ha'shekel.  However, it seems that most contemporary poskim (see Chazon Ovadya on Hil Purim, R' Elyashiv and R' Shlomo Zalman and others quoted in the Dirshu M"B) hold otherwise.  I don't know when or why things shifted away from the MG"A's view (maybe because women are included in the protection of machatzis ha'shekel, as my wife explained, or maybe because as GR"A notes, giving on a taanis is a kiyum of tzedaka, not just a zecher to the shekalim), but kach hava.  

2) The Ran writes that if there is a safeik whether a city is mukaf or not, they should read megillah on the 14th based on rov.  The Shaar haMelech raises the question of why we don't say kol kavu'a k'mechtza al mechtza given that a city is stationary.  

The classic case of kol kavu'a (see end of first perek in Kesubos) is where you have 9 butcher shops selling kosher meat and one selling treif meat and you can't remember which store you bought your meat in.  Even though the odds are greatly in favor of the meat being kosher, there is a gezeiras ha'kasuv not to follow rov in this case since the stores are stationary.  If you found the piece of meat in the street, since the meat must have changed location from inside the store to outside, we say kol d'parish m'ruba parish.  

Some Achronim argue that the case of a city is different.  In the case of the meat, there are multiple butcher shops in the city you could have bought the eat from (kavu'a) or which the meat could have come from (parish).  There is a taaroves of items before us.  In the case of an isolated city, it is just one item standing on its own.  True, it is a stationary item, but that alone does not make it kavu'a.

There is an issur of planting in a nachal eisan where an eglah arufa was offered.  Since we don't know exactly where an eglah arufah might have been offered, why not prohibit planting every nachal eisan because kol kavu'a k'mechtza al mechtza?  Same type of question.  See Ohr Sameiach (ch 6 og Hil Avodah Zarah) 

3) The Megillah tells us (9:27) וְלֹ֣א יַעֲב֔וֹר לִהְי֣וֹת עֹשִׂ֗ים אֵ֣ת שְׁנֵ֤י הַיָּמִים֙ הָאֵ֔לֶּה כִּכְתָבָ֖ם וְכִזְמַנָּ֑ם.  The Rambam in Hil Mamrim (2:2) writes that if Beis Din makes a takanah, a later B"D which has more authority (greater in chochma and minyan) can overturn that gezeira.  Malbi"m explains our pasuk to mean that built into the takanah of Purim was the condition that it be an eternal celebration, not subject to review by any future B"D.

Lulei d'mistafina I would ask how the Malbi"m learned pshat in the first daf in Megillah where the gemara wants to know the source for reading on the additional days of 11, 12, 13 and not just 14 and 15.  Asks the gemara, דאי ס"ד אנשי כנה"ג י"ד וט"ו תקון אתו רבנן ועקרי תקנתא דתקינו אנשי כנה"ג והתנן אין ב"ד יכול לבטל דברי ב"ד חבירו אא"כ גדול ממנו בחכמה ובמנין ?  The implication is that lulei there was a future B"D that was indeed  גדול ממנו בחכמה ובמנין there would be no problem in changing the original takanah -- the takanah of Purim is no different than any other takanot Chazal.

Perhaps the condition was only not to eliminate the celebration on 14 and 15, but in other respects the takanah could be modified by a later, great B"D. 

4) Yesh lachkor whether there is one takanah to celebrate Purim, and whether you have to do so on the 14th or the 15th is just a detail in the kiyum mitzvah, or whether there were two separate takanaot -- a takanah to celebrate 14 Adar for those in unwalled cities; a second, separate takanah to celebrate 15 Adar in walled cities and Shushan.  

The Yerushalmi (2:3), on the one hand, writes that someone who is chayav to read on the 15th is yotzei b'dieved if he read on the 14th. Mashma that there is only one takanah, to celebrate Purim, and the rest is details.  Were reading on the 15th a separate takanah, it obviously can only be fulfilled on that day.   

On the other hand, the Yerushalmi also writes that if someone heard megillah on the 14th in a regular city but then travels to a walled city on the 15th, they have to hear megillah again.  If there is just one takanah to celebrate Purim and read megillah, why should the person have to celebrate 2x?  They already fulfilled the chiyuv on the 14th?  This Yerushalmi seems to suggest that celebrating on the 15th is an independent takanah, and therefore has nothing to do with what was done the day before.

How to get these two Yerushalmis to fit and whether or not the Bavli agrees with these dinim is a discussion in Achronim that you need a clearer head than I have on a fast day to digest : )

This chakira may explains the machlokes Rashi and Rosh with respect to someone who travels between cities.  According to Rashi, if you intend to be in an unwalled city on the morning of the 14th, you must read megillah on the 14th; if you intend to be in a walled city on the morning of the 15th, you must read with them on the 15th.  In theory, according to Rashi if one travels from an unwalled city on the 14th and spends the 15th in a walled city, one would have to read on both days.  Rosh disagrees and writes that the determining factor of when you have to read is what your location is on the morning of the 14th.  If you are in an unwalled city, you read then; if you are in a walled city, you read the next day on the 15th.  

According to Rashi, it would seem there are two separate takanot in play, and therefore one theoretically might have to read on the 14th and the 15th to fulfill each din.  According to the Rosh, there is one takanah to celebrate Purim, and it's just a matter of figuring out which day to do it on, either 14 or 15, but not both.

5) Baruch she'kivanti, I found the Raavyah here supports my suggestion that the Yerushalmi that speaks about bringing children to hear megillah is not a din in chinuch, but applies even to younger children because af hein ha'yu b'oso na'nes of being saved from destruction by Haman.  The GRA disagrees.  

It's not clear to me what the cutoff point or difference is between the age of "yode'i l'havin" (to quote Raavyah) where listening to megillah is meaningful as pirseumei nisa because of af hein as opposed to the age of understanding when the regular din of chinuch kicks in.

R"Sh m'Shantz - learning hil megillah fulfills zechiras Amalek

Don't believe me -- here is a link to his commentary of the sifra at the beginning of Bechukosai (in #3). 

Avnei Nezer references it in passing here (Eh"E 121:16)

Sefas Emes (5653) writes that we defeat Amalek with Torah:

אמרו חז"ל זכור בפה כי בכח הפה שניתן לבנ"י יכולין למחות זכר עמלק והוא בכח התורה. לכן תקנו לקרוא פרשת זכור בשבת שיש בו קריאת התורה שמתגלה כח התורה בשבת

perfection is not an enemy of the good

Why is the mitzvah of preparing oil and lighting the menorah is sandwiched between the command to construct the mishkan and the instructions on how to make bigdei kehunah?  

I think that the type of oil spoken about in the parsha is key to answering that question.  The Torah tells us that  שֶׁ֣מֶן זַ֥יִת זָ֛ךְ כָּתִ֖ית לַמָּא֑וֹר is required.  With respect to the menorah, only the best, first pressed oil can be used.  However, with respect to menachos, Rashi comments  כתית למאור – ולא כתית למנחות.  Here the second pressed, less than perfect quality oil is acceptable.  

Why should we accept second best when it comes to how we do things in the mishkan?  Why should a lesser standard apply to the menachos offerings than the menorah?

Chazal see oil and the light of menorah as representing the ideal of wisdom. 

הרואה שמן זית בחלום יצפה למאור תורה שנאמר ויקחו אליך שמן זית זך (Brachos 57a)

רוצה שיחכים ידרים ושיעשיר יצפין וסימניך שלחן בצפון ומנורה בדרום (Baba Basra 25a)

וישלח יואב תקועה ויקח משם אשה חכמה מאי שנא תקועה אמר רבי יוחנן מתוך שרגילין בשמן זית חכמה מצויה בהן (Menachos 85b)

דאמר רבי יוחנן כשם שהזית משכח לימוד של שבעים שנה כך שמן זית משיב לימוד של שבעים שנה: (Horiyos 13b)

Explains the Shem m'Shmuel, this ideal, abstract, form of wisdom is just that -- an ideal.  In the day to day world, most of us end of cutting corners in some places, fudging here and there, and living by less that the perfect standards we might aspire to.  

The light of the menorah illuminates where we want to be, but it's the oil of the menachos which is nonetheless acceptable which speaks to the l'maaseh.

I think this distinction is what the Torah wants to draw our attention to as we shift gears from the building of the mishkan to the personnel who work in it.  Rashi in parshas Ki Tavo (26:3) comments on וּבָאתָ֙ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִהְיֶ֖ה בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֑ם that  אין לך אלא כהן בימיך, כמות שהוא.  Not every kohen will be like Aharon haKohen (see Ramban there).  Not every person will measure up to our ideals of what an oveid Hashem in a makom kodesh should be.  That's reality.  But perfection should not be an enemy of the good, to paraphrase Voltaire.  כתית למאור – ולא כתית למנחות  The kohen must light the menorah 2x a day to remind himself of the ideals to which he should aspire (see Abarbanel), but even if he falls short, that does not preclude his donning the bigdei kehunah and serving to the best of his ability.

an ongoing relationship

The Midrash opens our parsha:

וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה – הֲדָא הוּא דִּכְתִיב: כִּי לֶקַח טוֹב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם תּוֹרָתִי אַל תַּעֲזֹבוּ (משלי ד׳:ב׳), אַל תַּעֲזֹבוּ אֶת הַמִּקָּח שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לָכֶם, יֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁלּוֹקֵחַ מִקָּח, יֵשׁ בּוֹ זָהָב אֵין בּוֹ כֶסֶף, יֵשׁ בּוֹ כֶסֶף אֵין בּוֹ זָהָב, אֲבָל הַמִּקָּח שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לָכֶם יֵשׁ בּוֹ כֶסֶף, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: אִמְרוֹת ה׳ אֲמָרוֹת טְהֹרוֹת כֶּסֶף צָרוּף (תהלים י״ב:ז׳). יֵשׁ בּוֹ זָהָב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: הַנֶּחֱמָדִים מִזָּהָב וּמִפָּז רָב (תהלים י״ט:י״א). יֵשׁ אָדָם לוֹקֵחַ שָׂדוֹת אֲבָל לֹא כְרָמִים, כְּרָמִים וְלֹא שָׂדוֹת, אֲבָל הַמִּקָּח הַזֶּה יֵשׁ בּוֹ שָׂדוֹת וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּרָמִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: שְׁלָחַיִךְ פַּרְדֵּס רִמּוֹנִים (שיר השירים ד׳:י״ג). יֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם לוֹקֵחַ מִקָּח וּבְנֵי אָדָם אֵינָן יוֹדְעִין מַהוּ, אֲבָל מִשְּׂכַר הַסַּרְסוּר נִתְוַדַּע מַה לָּקַח. כָּךְ הַתּוֹרָה אֵין אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ מַה הִיא, אֶלָּא מִשָּׂכָר שֶׁלָּקַח משֶׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וּמשֶׁה לֹא יָדַע כִּי קָרַן עוֹר פָּנָיו בְּדַבְּרוֹ אִתּוֹ (שמות ל״ד:כ״ט). וְיֵשׁ לְךָ מִקָּח שֶׁמִּי שֶׁמְּכָרוֹ נִמְכָּר עִמּוֹ, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, מָכַרְתִּי לָכֶם תּוֹרָתִי, כִּבְיָכוֹל נִמְכַּרְתִּי עִמָּהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה, מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בַּת יְחִידָה, בָּא אֶחָד מִן הַמְּלָכִים וּנְטָלָהּ, בִּקֵּשׁ לֵילֵךְ לוֹ לְאַרְצוֹ וְלִטֹּל לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ: בִּתִּי שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לְךָ יְחִידִית הִיא, לִפְרשׁ מִמֶּנָּה אֵינִי יָכוֹל, לוֹמַר לְךָ אַל תִּטְלָהּ אֵינִי יָכוֹל לְפִי שֶׁהִיא אִשְׁתֶּךָ, אֶלָּא, זוֹ טוֹבָה עֲשֵׂה לִי, שֶׁכָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה הוֹלֵךְ קִיטוֹן אֶחָד עֲשֵׂה לִי, שֶׁאָדוּר אֶצְלְכֶם, שֶׁאֵינִי יָכוֹל לְהַנִּיחַ אֶת בִּתִּי. כָּךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, לִפְרשׁ הֵימֶנָּה אֵינִי יָכוֹל, לוֹמַר לָכֶם אַל תִּטְלוּהָ אֵינִי יָכוֹל, אֶלָּא בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתֶּם הוֹלְכִים בַּיִת אֶחָד עֲשׂוּ לִי שֶׁאָדוּר בְּתוֹכוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ (שמות כ״ה:ח׳).

The Midrash understands כִּי לֶקַח טוֹב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם תּוֹרָתִי אַל תַּעֲזֹבוּ not simply as a warning not to forget the Torah, but as a warning not to forget the sale, the exchange, the mekach, of the Torah that took place between G-d and Bn"Y.  It's not what was given which is paramount, but it's the relationship forged by the exchange.  This is what the Mishkan was designed to perpetuate.  Ramban in many places writes that the Mishkan was modelled after Har Sinai.  It had an inner section that was off limits just like Har Sinai itself was off limits except to Moshe; Hashem revealed himself and spoke to Moshe from between the keruvim just as he had revealed himself and spoke to Moshe at Sinai.  The mekach is ongoing, not a one time event.

Rav Bakshi Doron points out that in the entire discussion of the building of the mishkan it seems ikar chaseir min ha'sefer.  What are we supposed to do with it?  Where is the instructions about avodah, korbanos, etc.?  Yes, we will get to it all in Sefer VaYikra, but how can we go through these parshiyos witout even a passing reference to any of that?  

If we look back to maamad Har Sinai as our model, there too Moshe was told early on in Shmos that  בְּהוֹצִֽיאֲךָ֤ אֶת־הָעָם֙ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם תַּֽעַבְדוּן֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱלֹקים עַ֖ל הָהָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה׃ (3:12)  No mention is made of kabbalas haTorah, just "avodah."  Again, it seems ikar chaseir min ha'sefer.  What could be more important than kabbalas haTorah; what "avodah" did we actually do at Sinai apart from receiving the Torah?

The answer is that we forged a relationship.

When a chassan gives his kallah a ring, hopefully it's not the ring itself which the kallah is happy to get, but it's the relationship the ring represents that she is happy about.  Korbanos, ketores, all that good stuff will come later in VaYikra.  What our parsha is about is  וְשָׁכַנְתִּ֖י בְּתוֹכָֽם, about the relationship.  The "avodah" of Sinai was our forging a bond with Hashem, a mekach, that is ongoing.

a mussar haskel from the super bowl

When you are about to close your gemara, what if instead  of doing that you push yourself for just one more minute of learning?  Just 60 more seconds?  I know what you're thinking -- what difference can one minute make?  What's one more minute of Torah worth?

Just before maariv tonight I heard someone mention that sponsors pay a million dollars for a minute of super bowl advertising.  The truth is that this person was off by a lot -- a million dollar ad would be a bargain.  Most ads this year cost in the range of six to seven million dollars.

It dawned on me afterwards that this is a tremendous mussar haskel for us.  What is a minute of time really worth?  You know how many minutes I personally waste on a daily basis?  Yet here we have companies willing to give up 7 million dollars just for one minute of our time, just to try to take a shot in that one minute of getting us to buy another beer or bag of chips or something like that.

If a minute of time to get us to buy a beer is worth seven million dollars, what do you think that one minute of Torah is worth?   

both sides of the equation

 וַיִּשְׁמַ֞ע יִתְר֨וֹ כֹהֵ֤ן מִדְיָן֙ חֹתֵ֣ן מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֵת֩ כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֨ר עָשָׂ֤ה אֱלֹקים֙ לְמֹשֶׁ֔ה וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל עַמּ֑וֹ כִּֽי־הוֹצִ֧יא הֹ׳ אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִמִּצְרָֽיִם׃

What did Yisro hear?  The pasuk seems to repeat itself:

1) אֵת֩ כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֨ר עָשָׂ֤ה אֱלֹקים֙ לְמֹשֶׁ֔ה וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל עַמּ֑וֹ 

2)  כִּֽי־הוֹצִ֧יא הֹ׳ אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִמִּצְרָֽיִם

Sefas Emes (in the likkutim) explains that יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל at the end of the pasuk refers to "Yisrael sabba."  Hashem released the Jewish nation, יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל עַמּ֑וֹ, from the Egyptian bondage, but this it was also a release of the Jewish identity, the Jewish spiritual character and essence, that had been forged by Yaakov Avinu.  

Last week we read about the war Bn"Y fought against Amalek.  Moshe designated Yehoshua, from sheivet Ephraim, to lead the people in that battle.  The gemara in Baba Basra writes that we have a tradition that Amalek will fall only at the hands of decedents of Yosef.  Why should this be so?  Once upon a time I suggested that Amalek did not take issue with G-d's power to perform miracles.  The world had heard about the exodus from Egypt and the splitting of the sea.  The Midrash connects "Az Yashir Moshe" with the establishment of G-d's kisa, throne, "Nachon kisa'acha mei'AZ."  The word "AZ" is spelled with a zayin=7, like the seven days of the week, the normal routine cycle, but there is also an aleph=1.  There is a +1, there is something that transcends the routine, the normal cycle of events.  Amalek is OK with that.  G-d can have his throne in Heaven, in the world of miracles.  But if that's all there is, then "ain ha'kisei shaleim," Hashem's throne is not really complete.  Most of life is just the 7 of routine, not the +1 part.  Miracles are few and far between.  Most of life is day to day mundane drudgery and there is no supernatural cavalry on the way to help with the challenges.  Amalek's position is that G-d has nothing to do with that part of life.  Nature runs its course and we don't really see the yad Hashem.  The antidote to Amalek is Yosef, who dressed like an Egyptian, spoke like an Egyptian, managed to rise to the heights of Egyptian society, but behind that façade remained Yosef hatzaddik.  Nature too is just a façade.  Just because you don't see the yad Hashem on the surface doesn't mean it's not there.

Rashi comments וישמע יתרו – קריעת ים סוף ומלחמת עמלק.  The Berdichiver explains that Yisro saw both sides of the equation.  He witnessed the splitting of Yam Suf, the miraculous, the supernatural, the overt yad Hashem, but he also heard of the battle against Amalek, the idea that G-d is present, albeit in a concealed way, in every day life as well.   וַיִּ֣חַדְּ יִתְר֔וֹ עַ֚ל כׇּל־הַטּוֹבָ֔ה -- the word וַיִּ֣חַדְּ, says the Berdichiver, is like we say "l'shem yichud..."  The G-d of miracles is one and the same as G-d hiding behind the scenes in every day life.  

So maybe there is nothing extraneous in that opening pasuk in the parsha, and in fact, maybe it's this doubling which, based on the Berdichiver's reading, Rashi is helping resolve.  כִּֽי־הוֹצִ֧יא הֹ׳ אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִמִּצְרָֽיִם -- Yisro heard about the open miracles that were revealed (as we read in parshas Va'Eira) through the shem Havaya in yetzi'as Mitzrayim, but he also heard about  כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֨ר עָשָׂ֤ה אֱלֹקים֙, that G-d was immanent in nature (Elokim = gematriya of teva), in the mundane and day to day, as well.

2. I'll throw this out there, but it's admittedly a stretch, so consider it al derech derush: the difficulty with Rashi, וישמע יתרו – קריעת ים סוף ומלחמת עמלק, is that the pasuk seems to require no explanation of what Yisro heard since it tells us the answer - כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֨ר עָשָׂ֤ה אֱלֹקים֙ לְמֹשֶׁ֔ה וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל עַמּ֑וֹ.  What is Rashi explaining here?

There is a Gur Aryeh that the Shev Shmaytza discusses in his hakdama (letter cheis, tes) which says that the din of ger she'nisgayeir k'katan she'nolad only applies when there is a choice whether to convert or not.  However, at maamad Har Sinai there was no choice.  The gemara says that Hashem held the mountain over the heads of Bn"Y -- it was accept the Torah or be crushed.  Therefore, relationships and the issurei arayos that stem from those relationships remained intact.

Perhaps what was bothering Rashi is that Yisro here is called חֹתֵ֣ן מֹשֶׁ֔ה.  Yisro converted and get she'nisgayeir k'katan she'nolad, so how can he still be called חֹתֵ֣ן מֹשֶׁ֔ה?  The answer is that an event makes such an impression on a person that they are forced to react in some way.  The gemara writes that in the days of Shlomo they would not accept converts.  People would see the greatness of Shlomo's kingdom and want to convert, but it was not a real kabbalas ha'mitzvos.  What kind of event could elicit such a reaction?  Rashi answerrs --  קריעת ים סוף ומלחמת עמלק.  Yisro saw the greatness of yad Hashem in those events and it hit home in his heart and it forced him to react, it coerced him to react no less than as if a mountain were held over his head.  That's why he is still called חֹתֵ֣ן מֹשֶׁ֔ה.  

bitter waters

1. The WSJ reports that certain "rabbis" have decided they can no longer say the tefilah l'shlom ha'Medinah because they refuse to pray for the success of the new Israeli government.  The article goes on to discuss praying for the secular governments those of us in the diaspora live under.  When Obama y'mach shemo was President, and now continuing under Biden, I thought it best to have them in mind in our prayers every day, not just once a week -- "v'lamalshinim al t'hi tikvah v'kol ha'risha k'rega toveid..."  

2. A well known Rabbi put out a list of halachos pertaining to cruises, some of them specifically aimed at situations that come up on a non-kosher cruise, like whether you can eat food heated in a treif oven, etc.  I think he may have missed an important din that may render all the other questions moot:

 והענין: כי התורה הזהירה בעריות ובמאכלים האסורים, ותתיר הביאה איש ואשתוג ואכילת הבשר והיין, ואם כן ימצא בעל התאוה מקום להיות שטוף בזמת אשתו או נשיו הרבות, ולהיות בסובאי יין בזוללי בשר למו, וידבר כרצונו בכל הנבלות, שלא הוזכר איסור זה בתורה, והנה יהיה נבל ברשות התורה. לפיכך בא הכתוב הזה אחרי שפרט האיסורים שאסר אותם לגמרי, וצוה בדבר כללי, שנהיה פרושים מן המותרות.

3. Ibn Ezra (14:13) famously asks why the 600,000+ of Bn"Y were afraid of the small number of Mitzrim chasing after them.  

 יש לתמוה: איך יירא מחנה גדול משש מאות אלף איש מן הרודפים אחריהם, ולמה לא ילחמו על נפשם ועל בניהם. התשובה: כי המצרים היו אדונים לישראל, וזה הדור היוצא ממצרים למד מנעוריו לסבול עול מצרים ונפשו שפלה, ואיך יוכל עתה להלחם עם אדוניו.

He answers that psychologically, Bn"Y were unable to bring themselves to fight because the years of servitude had conditioned them to respect the Egyptians as their masters.

This explains why Bn"Y had no trouble going to war against Amalek at the end of the parsha.  It was not fear of battle which tied their hands, but fear specifically of the Egyptians, who had held them as slaves.

I noticed that the Seforno does not agree.  He writes (14:8)

ובני ישראל יצאים ביד רמה – כענין ״ידנו רמה״ (דברים ל״ב:כ״ז), היו מתאמצים לנצח את פרעה וחילו שלא היו רבים במספר כמותם. ובזה הודיע שלא היו יודעין ענין המלחמה, כי אמנם היה ראוי לירא מאותם המעטים מלומדי מלחמה יותר ממה שהיה ראוי לירא מכל המון מצרים הנוסע אחריהם אחר כך

He understands that there were two groups of Egyptians, וַיִּקַּ֗ח שֵׁשׁ־מֵא֥וֹת רֶ֙כֶב֙ בָּח֔וּר וְכֹ֖ל רֶ֣כֶב מִצְרָ֑יִם, six hundred crack troops led by Pharoah + a mass multitude of other soldiers.  Bn"Y charged ahead  וּבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל יֹצְאִ֖ים בְּיָ֥ד רָמָֽה with reckless abandon, with no fear of engaging these crack troops in battle.  Had Bn"Y been more experienced in the art of war, they would and *should* have been more afraid, since 600 seasoned troops can put up a fight even if greatly outnumbered.

4. Right after the shiras ha'yam we have the episode of the bitter waters.  Bn"Y went from being surrounded by water to not having a drop to drink.  Moshe responded:

 וַיִּצְעַ֣ק אֶל־ה׳ וַיּוֹרֵ֤הוּ ה׳ עֵ֔ץ וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ֙ אֶל־הַמַּ֔יִם וַֽיִּמְתְּק֖וּ הַמָּ֑יִם שָׁ֣ם שָׂ֥ם ל֛וֹ חֹ֥ק וּמִשְׁפָּ֖ט וְשָׁ֥ם נִסָּֽהוּ׃

The word וַיּוֹרֵ֤הוּ suggests that Moshe was taught a lesson here.  Targum Onkelus translates it as וְאַלְּפֵיהּ; Ramban writes לא מצאתי לשון מורה אלא בענין למוד.  Was this simply a botany lesson, that that particular tree could make the water potable?  Ramban writes that there was more to it than that.  He siggests that the tree was bitter, but it miraculously transformed the bitter water to sweet.  It would be like adding salt to salty sea water to make it drinkable.  Rav Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi explains that the lesson Moshe was giving over here is that there is no direct connection between the means and the end.  Your going to work is not the cause of your getting enough money to take home a salary and have a nice home and be able to go on a cruise.  Your spending hours working on a sugya is not the cause of it going into your brain.  Just like adding salt to salty sea water obviously is not the cause of it becoming sweet -- it's has to be a gift from Hashem -- so too with everything else in life.  We put in effort because we have a chuyuv to do so, but the result ultimately comes from Hashem. 

There is a lot to say on this parsha of the bitter waters, much more than I have time to write about.  Why did Hashem deprive them of water to begin with?  When Hashem responded, why did he not give them potable water right away -- why give them bitter water that then has to be sweetened?  Chazal tell us that water represents Torah.  Bn"Y went from experiencing nevuah, singing shirah, so having what seemed to be no connection.  The Ishbitzer writes that there are moments in life when we experience gadlus ha'mochin, when we feel really connected and spiritually uplifted, but then there are moments when we sink and feel that we have nothing, that we are nothing.  Hashem wanted to show Bn"Y this the down moments are also part of the bigger plan.  There are moments in life filled with "bitter waters," but those too can be sweetened.  

why hashkiveinu is not a hefsek between geulah and tefilah

The parsha tells us וְלֹֽא־יִֽהְיֶ֨ה בָכֶ֥ם נֶ֙גֶף֙ לְמַשְׁחִ֔ית בְּהַכֹּתִ֖י בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃ (12:13).  Hashem reassured Bn"Y that they would not be affected by makkas bechoros.  Seforno explains: 

 שמלבד מכת הבכורות שלח בשאר העם ״עברה וזעם וצרה משלחת מלאכי רעים״ (תהלים ע״ח:מ״ט). כי לולא הפסיחה שעשה בחמלתו על ישראל לא היו נמלטים משאר הצרות ששלח על שארית עם מצרים, כענין ״פן תספה בעון העיר״ 

I don't understand the distinction he is drawing. It sounds like there was no danger from the makkah itself, but there was other dangers of עברה וזעם וצרה משלחת מלאכי רעים.  Why should the principle of פן תספה בעון העיר apply to the latter and not the former?  

Be that as it may, the fact that Bn"Y were in fear of being affected has a nafka mina l'halacha.  O.C. 236 M"B 3 quoting Talmidei R"Y on why the bracha of hashkiveinu is not an interruption between geulah (the bracha of ga'al yisrael) and shmoneh esrei:

ואע"ג דקי"ל דצריך לסמוך גאולה לתפלה אף בערבית וכדלקמיה בס"ב מ"מ השכיבנו לא הוי הפסק דכגאולה אריכתא דמיא [גמרא] וכתבו בתר"י הטעם דכשעבר ה' לנגוף את מצרים היו ישראל מפחדים ומתפללים להש"י שיקיים דברו שלא יתן המשחית לבא אל בתיהם לנגוף וכנגד אותה תפלה תקנו לומר השכיבנו הלכך מעין גאולה היא

all about the attitude

In the opening of our parsha Moshe appears before Pharoah and says in the name of Hashem עַד־מָתַ֣י מֵאַ֔נְתָּ לֵעָנֹ֖ת מִפָּנָ֑י שַׁלַּ֥ח עַמִּ֖י וְיַֽעַבְדֻֽנִי׃.  Rashi explains לענות – כתרגומו: לאתכנעא, והוא מגזרת עני, מאנת להיות עני ושפל מפני.  Hashem is asking Pharoah why he refuses to humble himself before Him and free Bnei Yisrael.

The question at first glance seems strange.  Just 2 pesukim earlier we read that Hashem told Moshe  בֹּ֖א אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה כִּֽי־אֲנִ֞י הִכְבַּ֤דְתִּי אֶת־לִבּוֹ֙ וְאֶת־לֵ֣ב עֲבָדָ֔יו לְמַ֗עַן שִׁתִ֛י אֹתֹתַ֥י אֵ֖לֶּה בְּקִרְבּֽוֹ׃.  Pharoah's heart was hardened by Hashem to prevent him from giving in so that Hashem could demonstate his might by bringing the makkos.  How can G-d take Pharoah to task for מֵאַ֔נְתָּ לֵעָנֹ֖ת מִפָּנָ֑י when Hashem is the one hardening his heart and preventing him from doing so?

The gemara (San 102) writes that Rav Ashi once flippantly told the talmidim that the next day he was going to give a shiur about "Menashe our friend," meaning King Menashe.  That night Menashe appeared to Rav Ashi in a dream to put him in his place, and he said to him, "I'm not your friend and I'm not your father's friend.  You don't even know even a basic halacha like where a loaf of bread should be cut when you say ha'motzi."  Rav Ashi then asked him to explain that halacha, and said he would say it over in King Menashe's name in the shiur.  Then Rav Ashi asked the 64 million dollar question and said, "Menashe, if you're so smart, why were you an oveid avodah zarah?"  To which Menashe answered, "Had you been alive when I was, you would have lifted your frock up so that you could run faster to get to the avodah zarah and worship it."  Meaning, the yetzer for idolatry was so strong there was no escaping it.

Why Menashe chose this particular question of where to slice bread for ha'motzi from to prove Rav Ashi's ignorance is a question for another time.  I want to focus on the last line about Rav Ashi lifting up his frock so he won't trip and be able to run faster.  What did Menashe mean by that?  Maharal (Netzach Yisrael ch 3, see Michtav m'Eliyahu vol 4 p 135) explains as follows: you can have an addict who knows what he is doing is bad but can't stop it, and you have an addict who is so entrenched in the addiction that he does not even recognize it as a bad thing.  Let's say someone just loves chocolate cake and can't resist it when he sees it in the store even though he is overweight and has high cholesterol.  If the person recognizes intellectually that it's bad for him, when the store is out of chocolate cake he says, "Baruch Hashem," and breathes a sigh of relief because he knows that he now will be doing the right thing.  However, if the person does not even recognize that he is eating what he shouldn't be eating, he gets frustrated, he will run to the next store, etc. because to him, eating chocolate cake is a good thing, it's like a mitzvah.  Menashe was telling Rav Ashi that in his generation, they knew avodah zarah was bad.  Their seichel stood in the way of temptation, but temptation was just too strong and they ended upgiving in.  However, said Menashe, had you been in my shoes, you would run after the avodah zarah, meaning there would be nothing blocking you, there would be no check on temptation because you would not even recognize it as wrong -- aderaba, you would rush to do it like it was a mitzvah.  

True, Hashem hardened Pharoah's heart and he could not help but keep Bn"Y enslaved.  It's like the addict who can't resist.  However, like the Maharal explained, there is the addict who knows it's wrong, and there is the addict who is happy to wallow in his addiction.  עַד־מָתַ֣י מֵאַ֔נְתָּ לֵעָנֹ֖ת מִפָּנָ֑י means, as Rashi explained, "Why have you not humbled yourself?"  True, Pharoah, you can't free Bn"Y yet, but you don't have to be b'simcha over that fact.  Aderaba, if you knew they should be free but just couldn't resist keeping them back, you would be humbled and contrite, upset at the state of affairs in which you find yourself.  It's Pharoah's attitude which Hashem here is criticizing (sefas Emes 5632).

Even when you have a good excuse for not doing doing a mitzvah or a chessed, or the right thing, whatever it is, there is not a good excuse for not feeling at least a little bit of sadness about it.  Ramban writes (Bamidbar 10:13) that Bn"Y ran away from Sinai, שנסעו מהר סיני בשמחה כתינוק הבורח מבית הספר, אמרו: שמא ירבה ויתן לנו מצות.  Mattan Torah was over; they were free to move on and travel -- but it should be done with some sadness.  On a Monday or Thursday if the gabai gives a klop and announces no tachanun, there doesn't have to be a cheer that goes up in shul (inwardly, if not outwardly.)  

It's all about the attitude. 

onomatopoeia - words in Tanach

Onomatopoeia is where a word is made up of the sound it describes, e.g. buzz, tick-tock.

Iyov 39:30

 וְאֶפְרֹחָ֥ו יְעַלְעוּ־דָ֑ם

Rashi:

ואינן אלא כפי מדת בלעו דם ומים ונראה כבולע הרבה כאומר על על, וכן בלשון חכמים בהשקאת סוטה (בבלי סוטה כ׳.): מערערין אותה ומשקין אותה על כרחה, וכן: זעקת שבר יעוערו (ישעיהו ט״ו:ה׳) – לשון קריאת גרון דומה לכך.

The word עַלְעוּ is a contraction of על על, the sound made when swallowing a lot at once, similar to the word מערערין or  יעוערו, a contraction of ער ער, the sound made by the throat, לשון קריאת גרון

Other examples???

the connection between "kotzer ruach" and avodah zarah

The problem with the kal v'chomer (6:12) of הֵ֤ן בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לֹֽא־שָׁמְע֣וּ אֵלַ֔י וְאֵיךְ֙ יִשְׁמָעֵ֣נִי פַרְעֹ֔ה וַאֲנִ֖י עֲרַ֥ל שְׂפָתָֽיִם is that just four pesukim earlier the parsha tells us that Bnei Yisrael did not listen to Moshe because  וְלֹ֤א שָֽׁמְעוּ֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה מִקֹּ֣צֶר ר֔וּחַ וּמֵעֲבֹדָ֖ה קָשָֽׁה, they were overburdened with hard work.  Pharoah did not face the same challenge of being overworked; he could carve out time to listen csrefully.  Why was Moshe convinced that just because Bn"Y did not listen, Pharoah would not listen either?

Ramban contrasts the reception Moshe got from the people this time around with their reaction to his words in last week's parsha.  There, the Torah tells us that (4:31) וַֽיַּאֲמֵ֖ן הָעָ֑ם, they believed the message.  Here, they seem deaf to what he has to say.

Ramban argues (see Rashbam who disagrees) that we should not conclude that the people no longer believed in Moshe or his message.  He writes:

לא בעבור שלא יאמינו בי״י ובנביאו, רק שלא הטו אוזן לדבריו מקוצר רוח, כאדם שתקצר נפשו בעמלו, ולא ירצה לחיות רגע בצערו, מדעתו שירוח לו אחרי כן.

The people did believe.  However, the promise of the 4 leshonos of geulah, the promise of a future in Eretz Yisrael, seemed a distant dream that had no bearing on the harsh reality of their day to day burden of work and the oppression they labored under.  

This also seems to be the view of Rashi, who explains ולא שמעו אל משה – לא קיבלו תנחומין.  The people did not doubt the truth of Moshe's words; however, the message provided little consolation to them in their present situation.  

The Midrash Rabbah, however, writes that וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ אֶל משֶׁה וגו׳ – הָיָה קָשֶׁה בְּעֵינֵיהֶם לִפְרשׁ מֵעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים.  The people rejected Moshe's words because they remained attached to their belief in idolatry.

The Midrash seems to be not only at odds with Ramban/Rashi, but at odds with the words of the pasuk itself.  The pasuk tells us that it was  מִקֹּ֣צֶר ר֔וּחַ וּמֵעֲבֹדָ֖ה קָשָֽׁה, because of the burden of work that the people did not listen.  Why does the Midrash attribute their not listening to avodah zarah?

My wife's grandfather, R' Dov Yehudah Shochet, quoted from the Baal haTanya that avodah zarah does not simply mean prostrating onself to an idol.  Avodah zarah means having an identity, a will, apart from G-d's.  When all that exists for a person is G-d's will, then no matter how difficult the task, no matter what burdens and obstacles there are, a person will make an effort to get the job done.  When all that exists is ratzon Hashem, then קֹּ֣צֶר ר֔וּחַ and עֲבדָ֖ה קָשָֽׁה  don't get in the way. 

There is no contradiction between the plain meaning of the pasuk and the Midrash's interpretation. The pasuk is telling you the surface symptom; the Midrash is telling you the root cause, the underlying disease.

This approach, I think, also resolves our original question and explains the kal v'chomer Moshe drew.  If Bn"Y, who came from the lineage of the Avos and had a tradition about geulah, still did not listen because the attraction of avodah zarah pulled them in the wrong direction, then surely Pharoah, chief and leader of a culture steeped in avodah zarah, would never listen. 

morasha, not yerusha

At the end of the leshonos shel geulah, Hashem promises Eretz Yisrael to us as a "morasha," וְנָתַתִּ֨י אֹתָ֥הּ לָכֶ֛ם מוֹרָשָׁ֖ה.  Netziv explains:

לא לשעה שאתם תהיו בה לבד, אלא אפילו בשעה שאתם גולים ממנה הרי היא שלכם, וכמו שאדם הפורש משדה ירושת אבותיו, לעולם דעתו עליה, ומשים לב שלא לשכוח הליכות אותה אחוזה אולי יזכהו ה׳ לשוב אליה. כך ארץ ישראל היא לנו ״מורשה״ לעד,

Eretz Yisrael remains ours, whether we are physically present there or not.  

I don't know why the Netziv does not say it there, but Torah is also described as a "morashsa,"  מוֹרָשָׁ֖ה קְהִלַּ֥ת יַעֲקֹֽב.  A Jew has a portion in Torah no matter what.  What he does with that portion, whether he/she chooses to develop it or not, is a different story.

Ohr haChaim asks: קשה כי דברי אל עליון דברו טהור הוא כי יוצאי מצרים הם הנכנסים לארץ דכתיב והבאתי אתכם אל הארץ ולא מצינו שכן היה אלא ואת בניהם הביא שמה אבל כל דור יוצאי מצרים מבן עשרים שנה נפלו פגריהם במדבר  Where is the promise of וְהֵבֵאתִ֤י אֶתְכֶם֙ אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ if those who left Egypt died in the midbar?

HaKsav vhaKabbalah (see R' Bachyei as well) writes that the answer in a word is this idea of "morasha." 

לא אמר ירושה לרמוז שלא יהיו יורשים אותה, לפי שעתידין היו יוצאי מצרים למות במדבר, אבל יהיו מורישים אותה לבניהם אשר יכנסו לארץ לכן אמר מורשה

A yerusha is something you inherit; a morasha is something you pass on to others to inherit. Chazal tell us that when it came to divide Eretz Yisrael among tribes/families, it was a unique process of המתים יורשׁים את  החיים.  The land was apportioned based on the census of families who left Egypt and only then redistributed to their descendants who actually took possession of the land. 

Torah is מוֹרָשָׁ֖ה קְהִלַּ֥ת יַעֲקֹֽב because what's important is not just what you receive, what you get out of Torah, but also what you give over to the next generation to inherit.  

Agra d'Kallah expands on the link between the morasha of Torah and the morasha of Eretz Yisrael:

תורה וארץ ישראל ירושה הם לנו בלא הפסק, כשם שהגוים אי אפשר להם להתבונן בסודי התורה, כן אין להם נחת בארץ ישראל ואינם מתבוננים בטובה, כענין ושממו עליה אויביכם היושבים בה (ויקרא כו לב), התורה אינה מגלה מסטוריה אלא למהולים (חסר ב' תיבות), כענין שנאמר בנתינת התורה (שמות יט ה) ועתה אם שמוע וכו' ושמרתם את בריתי והייתם לי סגולה מכל העמים, שהוא בדרך סגולה ביותר מכל העמים להבין מסטורין (שלי, כענין) שפירשנו במקומו, כך ארץ ישראל.  

a chiddush of R' SZ"A on bitul b'rov in hil brachos

If a person said kiddush on a cup of wine intending to drink only that specific cup, but then changed his mind and added a little more wine to drink, the Shemiras Shabbos k'Hilchisa (footnote 115 end of ch 48) quotes from R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that the added bit of wine does not require its own bracha because it is bateil to the wine already in the cup.  

(Parenthetically, this is a bit of an unusual type of bitul.  The classic case of bitul is a piece of issur that is nullified in some larger percentage of heter.  Here, there is no issur/heter involved.  The bitul is a bitul of metziyus that tells you to treat the added wine as non-existent.)

Vol 3 of the SS"K quotes R SZ"A as having retracted that psak and says what sounds like a brilliant chiddush.  We know that the rule of bitul b'rov does not apply in dinei mamonos (Beitzah 37).  To take a crazy example to illustrate the point, if I take a dollar of your money and put it in my wallet with my own money, I can't say your dollar is bateil b'rov and I therefore don't have anything of yours.  R' SZ"A suggests that since the gemara (Brachos 35b) says  א"ר חנינא בר פפא כל הנהנה מן העוה"ז בלא ברכה כאילו גוזל להקב"ה וכנסת ישראל that not saying a bracha is like gezel, we should therefore treat the issue of bitul viz a viz whether a bracha is needed as a dinei mamonos issue.  You therefore would not say bitul b'rov on the bit of wine added to the cup and it does require a new bracha.  

To connect dinei brachos as mamonos is genius, but I don't get it.  How do you explain the principle of ikar and tafeil?  As the Mishneh Berura writes (OC 212:1) אפילו שניהם עיקרים אלא שהאחד מרובה מחבירו הרוב הוא העיקר כמ"ש סימן ר"ח ס"ז ואפילו כל מין ומין עומד בפני עצמו וניכר נמי בתר רוב אזלינן  Is the use of rov vs miyut to define ikar and tafeil when you have a mixture not the same principle as bitul b'rov?  

"zeh lecha ha'os" -- the sign Moshe was given

Moshe was reluctant to assume the mantle of leadership.  He said to G-d:

 וַיֹּ֤אמֶר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־הָ֣אֱלֹקים מִ֣י אָנֹ֔כִי כִּ֥י אֵלֵ֖ךְ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה וְכִ֥י אוֹצִ֛יא אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִמִּצְרָֽיִם

The Midrash comments:

רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים, כְּשֶׁיָּרַד יַעֲקֹב לְמִצְרַיִם לֹא כָּךְ אָמַרְתָּ לוֹ:: אָנֹכִי אֵרֵד עִמְּךָ מִצְרַיְמָה וְאָנֹכִי אַעַלְךָ גַּם עָלֹה (בראשית מ״ו:ד׳), וְעַכְשָׁיו אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לִי: לְכָה וְאֶשְׁלָחֲךָ אֶל פַּרְעֹה, לֹא אָנֹכִי הוּא שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ לוֹ: וְאָנֹכִי אַעַלְךָ גַּם עָלֹה

Moshe said to G-d, "You promised that you would be with the people in their exile and that you would redeem them.  I am not you!  It is not my place to take on this task."

To which G-d answered,  כִּֽי־אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה עִמָּ֔ךְ.  I, אָנֹ֔כִי, am the redeemer, but I will act through you.  

The pasuk (3:21) then continues that Hashem gave Moshe a sign:

 וְזֶה־לְּךָ֣ הָא֔וֹת כִּ֥י אָנֹכִ֖י שְׁלַחְתִּ֑יךָ בְּהוֹצִֽיאֲךָ֤ אֶת־הָעָם֙ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם תַּֽעַבְדוּן֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱלֹקים עַ֖ל הָהָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה׃

How does this sign help Moshe prove his bona fides or prove that G-d is with him?  The fact that mattan Torah will take place 50 days after yetzias Mitzrayim will not help Moshe up front, before yetzi'as Mitzrayim takes place, when he has to convince the people to follow him?!

Meshech Chochma and Ohr haChaim say an amazing pshat here.  You have to put the period in the right place in the pasuk.  וְזֶה־לְּךָ֣ הָא֔וֹת כִּ֥י אָנֹכִ֖י שְׁלַחְתִּ֑יךָ -- period, full stop.  This is the sign!  What is the "this" they are talking about?  It's the previous sentence.  There are a lot of people who, if offered the chance to become the leader of a nation, would jump at the chance.  There are people who would demur, but out of a false sense of humility.  That works when you are speaking to a human being, but it does not work when you are speaking to G-d, as He is able to tell exactly what is in your heart and can tell whether you really want the job or not.  False modesty does not work.  It's only a Moshe Rabeinu who can say b'lev shalem, with sincerity and in absolute truth, מִ֣י אָנֹ֔כִי כִּ֥י אֵלֵ֖ךְ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה, I really don't think I am worthy of the job. Hashem told Moshe, "That is the only sign you need."  People can detect true humility and sense sincerity.  They will recognize that only someone of your caliber, only someone who would turn down the job, could possibly be the one chosen by Hashem.

The proof that humility is the quality that defines who the go'el is בְּהוֹצִֽיאֲךָ֤ אֶת־הָעָם֙ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם תַּֽעַבְדוּן֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱלֹקים עַ֖ל הָהָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה. The same זֶה, the same humility, that characterized Moshe's response, is the same זֶה -- the mountain of הָהָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה--  that made Har Sinai into the mountain where mattan Torah would take place.  As Chazal tell us, it's not because Har Sinai was the tallest or greatest mountain that it was chosen; it's because it was the lowest mountain, symbolizing the humility necessary to be a conduit of dvar Hashem.

what Moshe did to merit seeing the burning Moshe

When Moshe sees the burning bush, he turns towards it to see what is going on.  

וַיַּ֥רְא ה׳ כִּ֣י סָ֣ר לִרְא֑וֹת  וַיִּקְרָא֩ אֵלָ֨יו אֱלֹקים מִתּ֣וֹךְ הַסְּנֶ֗ה וַיֹּ֛אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֥ה מֹשֶׁ֖ה וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הִנֵּֽנִי׃

As a result, a Hashem appears and calls to him.

What's so special about Moshe turning to see what's going on that elicits this call from Hashem to make him the leader of Klal Yisrael?  Wouldn't any of us who came across an inexplicable phenomenon, הַמַּרְאֶ֥ה הַגָּדֹ֖ל הַזֶּ֑ה מַדּ֖וּעַ לֹא־יִבְעַ֥ר הַסְּנֶֽה, come closer to take a look?

Says the Midrash:

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, מַהוּ כִּי סָר לִרְאוֹת – אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא סָר וְזָעֵף הוּא זֶה לִרְאוֹת בְּצַעֲרָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִצְרַיִם,

It's not Moshe's turning his attention to look at the burning bush which the pasuk is referring to; it's referring to Moshe's having turned his attention to the suffering of his bretheren in Mitzrayim.  The words סָר לִרְאוֹת is talking about what we read in the previous chapter (2:11),  וַיִּגְדַּ֤ל מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֵּצֵ֣א אֶל־אֶחָ֔יו וַיַּ֖רְא בְּסִבְלֹתָ֑ם.

The tnai rishon to be zocheh to see hashra'as haShechina, to be zocheh to וַיִּקְרָא֩ אֵלָ֨יו אֱלֹקים, is to first open your eyes and see the suffering and needs of your fellow Jew.

Mi Anochi?

When Hashem charged Moshe with the mission of acting as the go'el of Bnei Yisrael, Moshe responded (3:11)

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־הָ֣אֱלֹקים מִ֣י אָנֹ֔כִי כִּ֥י אֵלֵ֖ךְ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה וְכִ֥י אוֹצִ֛יא אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִמִּצְרָֽיִם

To which Hashem responded:

וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ כִּֽי־אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה עִמָּ֔ךְ וְזֶה־לְּךָ֣ הָא֔וֹת כִּ֥י אָנֹכִ֖י שְׁלַחְתִּ֑יךָ בְּהוֹצִֽיאֲךָ֤ אֶת־הָעָם֙ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם תַּֽעַבְדוּן֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱלֹקים עַ֖ל הָהָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה

How does that answer the question?  How does the fact that there will be a kabbalas haTorah serve as a response to מִ֣י אָנֹ֔כִי? 

Moshe later complained that Bn"Y will not believe his message (4:1)

וַיַּ֤עַן מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֹּ֔אמֶר וְהֵן֙ לֹֽא־יַאֲמִ֣ינוּ לִ֔י וְלֹ֥א יִשְׁמְע֖וּ בְּקֹלִ֑י

Why did he doubt them?  Yosef had told them before he died (Braishes 50:24)

 וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יוֹסֵף֙ אֶל־אֶחָ֔יו אָנֹכִ֖י מֵ֑ת וֵֽאלֹקים פָּקֹ֧ד יִפְקֹ֣ד אֶתְכֶ֗ם וְהֶעֱלָ֤ה אֶתְכֶם֙ מִן־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֔את אֶל־הָאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר נִשְׁבַּ֛ע לְאַבְרָהָ֥ם לְיִצְחָ֖ק וּֽלְיַעֲקֹֽב

The people had this tradition that the use of the code words פָּקֹ֧ד פָּקֹ֧דתי would be a sign that the go'el was legitimate.  So why would they not believe if Moshe had the right code?

R' Mordechai Greenberg, the nasi ha'yeshiva of Kerem b'Yavneh, explains based on the writings of R' Kook, that  Bn"Y is singled out from the nations of the world in two respects: 1) we are a moral, law abiding people, not like the primitive tribes of the past; 2) we have a spiritual connection with Hashem beyond what other nations have.  Even if other nations attain culture, abide by laws, become civilized, and become our equal with respect to #1, we still excel above them with respect to #2.

This double-blessing is the meaning of Hashem's promise to Yaakov (Braishis 46:4) 

אָנֹכִ֗י אֵרֵ֤ד עִמְּךָ֙ מִצְרַ֔יְמָה וְאָנֹכִ֖י אַֽעַלְךָ֣ גַם־עָלֹ֑ה

The double-אָנֹכִ֗י is a two fold promise.  One is the promise that Hashem will be with Bn"Y even in the tumah of Mitzrayim and preven them from descending to the level of primitiveness and lawlessness of a backward society. Secondly, there is the promise that redemption will bring them close to Hashem, to spiritual heights like no other people have reached.

And this is the meaning of the promise of פָּקֹ֧ד פָּקֹ֧דתי, also doubled.  A redemption that just releases the people from the chains of bondage without giving their lives spiritual content and meaning is insufficient -- the go'el must deliver both.  

This was Moshe's challenge to Hashem.  "You Hashem promised אָנֹכִ֗י אֵרֵ֤ד עִמְּךָ֙ מִצְרַ֔יְמָה וְאָנֹכִ֖י אַֽעַלְךָ֣ גַם־עָלֹ֑ה.  That role can only be fulfilled by You, but מִ֣י אָנֹ֔כִי, I or any other human being cannot be that אָנֹ֔כִי." 

And this is why Moshe doubted that the people would believe.  There was no magic to saying the right code words.  Those words reflected the double promise, the promise of both physical and spiritual redemption.  That is what Moshe thought he would be unable to fulfill.  To break the shackles of slavery is one thing, but to give the nation a spiritual identity -- that's a different story.

Hashem's response to Moshe is that indeed He is the One who will fulfill the promise of אָנֹכִ֖י אַֽעַלְךָ֣, but it will be done through Moshe, כִּֽי־אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה עִמָּ֔ךְ.  

The culmination of that promise of אָנֹכִ֖י אַֽעַלְךָ֣ will take place at Sinai, where the people will hear אָֽנֹכִ֖י֙ ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ אֲשֶׁ֧ר הוֹצֵאתִ֛יךָ מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרַ֖יִם מִבֵּ֣֥ית עֲבָדִֽ֑ים.   

ChatGPT and human bias

One of the sites I check out now and then is fivebooks.com, where experts are asked to recommend the five best books in their field of expertise.  Their first piece this year was the most interesting one I have ever read on that site.  Unless you've been living under a rock by now you've heard of ChatGPT, the AI that can supposedly write like a person.  Fivebooks.com asked ChatGPT to recommend five books on AI, and they had a discussion with the AI about its choices.  You can read the whole "interview" here.  

As far as the writing goes, I found what ChatGPT produced to be mechanically and technically correct.  However, I would not call it good writing.  The writing lacks color, tone, charm, warmth -- all the qualities that makes good writing worth reading.  My wife tested the site out and she compared it to cooking.  There are some people who can throw together a dish that is nutritious and makes for a balanced meal, but that you would not want to eat unless you are starving.  It's food, but it's food sapped of whatever joy and flavor food gives you when eaten.

The reports in the news the past few days suggesting that ChatGPT will force schools to do away with student writing assignments since they can be done by AI to me says more about the poor quality of student writing these days than the quality of the AI.  

Anyway, back to fivebooks.  Here is the part of the interview that really grabbed caught my attention.  The interviewer asked the AI:

Lastly, when we interview experts, we don’t normally impose criteria, other than that these books should be the best on their subject. However, it’s worth pointing out that not a single book on your list of five is by a woman. Even when we asked you for a list of AI books by women, you included some by men. 

The AI then gave a list of five books by women authors, and then the interviewer follows up:

These books look excellent. Why didn’t you choose some of them as the best AI books?

I did not mention these books specifically as the “best” AI books because I was trying to provide a more general list of recommendations that would be suitable for readers who are new to the field and want to get a broad overview of AI.

Are most AI books written by men?

It is difficult to say definitively whether most books on artificial intelligence (AI) are written by men, as it would be necessary to conduct a detailed analysis of the publishing industry to determine the gender breakdown of authors in this field. However, it is worth noting that the tech industry in general has historically been male-dominated, and it is possible that this may be reflected in the authorship of books on AI. It is also important to recognize that the gender of an author does not necessarily reflect the quality or importance of their work, and that there are many excellent books on AI written by both men and women. It is always a good idea to consider a diverse range of perspectives and viewpoints when reading about any subject, including AI.

It's fascinating to see the interviewer trying to tilt the scales, as the "best" group of anything these days has to include the "right" mix of women, blacks, LGBT, etc so that the requisite number of diversity boxes get checked.  The interviewer tries to float the idea that most AI books are written by men as an excuse for the list being dominated by men, but the AI, however, is not willing to have it, and replies with some general truisms that say and mean nothing.

I sadly have no doubt given the cultural climate in which we live that the AI will eventually be tweaked so that it too, like it's leftist human counterparts, will take "diversity and inclusion" into account when making its future selections.  

shenayim mikra or pesukei d'zima -- which takes precedence

The Baal haTurim has a cute remez on the first pasuk of the parsha about the importance of shenayim mikra v'echad targum (=Shmot).

An interesting question that was posed to R' Shach: l'chatchila shenayim mikra is supposed to be done before seudas shabbos.  When R' Shmuel David Munk, who went on to become Av Beis Din in Haifa, was a bachur in the yeshiva he was behind in shenayim mikra, and because of scheduling, would not have time to finish before the seudah.  He asked whether it would it be better for him to skip pesukei d'zima (except for maybe ashrei and nishmas) and do shenayim mikra in the time gained since m'dina d'gemara most of pesukei d'zima is not obligatory but shenayim mikra is, or should he not change the tzurah of tefilah?

R' Shach paskened that shenayim mikra takes precedence; the Chazon Ish disagreed.  (see here and here #129)  

don't be deceived by sweetness

  וַיְחִ֤י יַעֲקֹב֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם שְׁבַ֥ע עֶשְׂרֵ֖ה שָׁנָ֑ה  Rashi comments:

  למה פרשה זה סתומה? לפי שכיון שנפטר יעקב אבינו נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל מצרת השיעבוד, שהתחילו לשעבדם.

Forget about the question of whether this Rashi is a stira to other Rashis that say the shibud did not begin until after the shevatim died.  Rashi is a stira to the pasuk itself!  The Torah here is describing the great life Yaakov had in Egypt.  As Netziv writes, אלא הפירוש ״ויחי יעקב״, שהיה חי חיים טובים ומתוקנים, מה שלא הורגל כזה בארץ ישראל.  The stuma that hints to  נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל shouldn't be here -- it should come after Yaakov's death, at the start of parshas Shmos, when the situation changes.  As the Shem m'Shmuel writes (5678, also see the Kozhiglover):

ויש לדקדק שכתוב זה איננו מדבר מפטירתו של יעקב עדיין, אדרבה, שמדבר מחייו שהי' עיקר שני חייו, ..., א"כ יש להבין למה הרמז ממה שנהייתה אחר פטירתו ניתן כאן

There is a Zohar that says that these 17 years of goodness that Yaakov experienced were a payback for the years of suffering he experienced when Yosef was lost -- 17 years because Yosef left home at age 17.  The obvious question: Yosef was away from home for 22 years, so why not give Yaakov 22 years of joy?  What does how old he was when he left home have to do with anything?  The Kozhiglover answers that it was the 17 years of pleasure that Yaakov had during those first 17 years of Yosef's life that made the next 22 years so miserable.  Pain and loss are a response to being deprived of joy and pleasure that one has become accustomed to.  Without the latter, the former is meaningless.  

It could be that Rashi means the same here, i.e. the goodness Yaakov experienced in Egypt set the stage for the pain of galus that was to follow because it made the fall that much more dramatic and painful.  But I think Rashi means much more than that.  I think the goodness itself is the first step into the galus.  

In my neighborhood there are yeshivos, there are kollelim, there is also every type of kosher restaurant and eatery and gashmiyus thing you could think of.  וַיְחִ֤י יַעֲקֹב֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם!  We are on a high, whether you measure our material well being or even our spiritual health.  But that high masks a sad truth, and that is  נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל.  Not because we are not learning Torah, davening with a minyan, giving out kids a good Jewish education, etc. but because we have deluded ourselves into thinking that's all that matters, that's all that being a Jew is all about.  Does it even enter anyone's mind when they are eating a great steak dinner at one of the local fancy restaurants in town, or l'havdil, when they are listening to a shiur in a local shul, that this is not where we are supposed to be, that our whole existence here is just a b'dieved?  I think not. That's  נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל  That's being blinded by the חיים טובים ומתוקנים, מה שלא הורגל כזה, to use the Netziv's language. 

What happened later in parshas Shmos is that the  נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל  that started here from all the goodness was transformed into נסתתמו עיניהם ולבם של ישראל מצרת השיעבוד.  Once Yaakov, who carried with him the memory of where the family originated, was gone, a different phase of the galus began, a more painful phase, but that phase was an extension of the forgetting that began in our parsha.  Therefore it is our parsha, not parshas Shmos, which is the פרשה זה סתומה.

Yosef's tochacha; Bnei Yisrael or bnei Yisrael?; choleh on 10 Teves

Chazal famously comment on the pasuk

 וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יוֹסֵ֤ף אֶל־אֶחָיו֙ אֲנִ֣י יוֹסֵ֔ף הַע֥וֹד אָבִ֖י חָ֑י וְלֹֽא־יָכְל֤וּ אֶחָיו֙ לַעֲנ֣וֹת אֹת֔וֹ כִּ֥י נִבְהֲל֖וּ מִפָּנָֽיו׃

that Yosef's words were words of rebuke

אַבָּא כֹּהֵן בַּרְדְּלָא אָמַר, אוֹי לָנוּ מִיּוֹם הַדִּין אוֹי לָנוּ מִיּוֹם הַתּוֹכֵחָה, ... יוֹסֵף קְטַנָּן שֶׁל שְׁבָטִים הָיָה וְלֹא הָיוּ יְכוֹלִים לַעֲמֹד בְּתוֹכַחְתּוֹ, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: וְלֹא יָכְלוּ אֶחָיו לַעֲנוֹת אֹתוֹ כִּי נִבְהֲלוּ מִפָּנָיו, לִכְשֶׁיָּבוֹא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְיוֹכִיחַ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד לְפִי מַה שֶּׁהוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים נ׳:כ״א): אוֹכִיחֲךָ וְאֶעֶרְכָה לְעֵינֶיךָ, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.

Where is the rebuke in Yosef's asking whether his father was still alive?  Why did this question throw the brothers into a state of shock?

The Sheiris Yisrael reminds us of the Rashi at the beginning of P' VaYeishev,  ושהיה זיו איקונין של יוסף דומה לו, that tells us that Yosef looked like Yaakov.  Sometimes a child is the spitting image of his parent; that's how it was with Yosef and Yaakov.

Yehudah's argument to let Binyamin go rested primarily on the effect the loss of Binyamin would have on Yaakov   וְהָיָ֗ה כִּרְאוֹת֛וֹ כִּי־אֵ֥ין הַנַּ֖עַר וָמֵ֑ת וְהוֹרִ֨ידוּ עֲבָדֶ֜יךָ אֶת־שֵׂיבַ֨ת עַבְדְּךָ֥ אָבִ֛ינוּ בְּיָג֖וֹן שְׁאֹֽלָה  It is his father's health and well-being which Yehudah professes is uppermost in his mind.  Even when he brings up the fact that he personally guaranteed Binyamin's safety and put his olam ha'ba on the line, Yehudah does not focus on himself; he again puts the focus on his father,  אִם־לֹ֤א אֲבִיאֶ֙נּוּ֙ אֵלֶ֔יךָ וְחָטָ֥אתִי לְאָבִ֖י כׇּל־הַיָּמִֽים׃.  What dedication to their parent!  What love for Yaakov!

And then Yosef burst the bubble.

How, if Yaakov is uppermost on your minds, could you see his spitting image before you and not make the connection? 

There is a gezeira that one who dies is eventually forgotten. הַע֥וֹד אָבִ֖י חָ֑י?  If he is not, your forgetting about him is understandable, but if he is, and he is uppermost in your thoughts as you claim, how have you not recognized me?

The brothers could not answer כִּ֥י נִבְהֲל֖וּ מִפָּנָֽיו, they saw Yosef's face and it suddenly clicked.  It was the image of their father that they saw, but that image, as Yosef perceived, had retreated to the back recesses of their mind once they were no longer in their father's presence.

I would just add to the Sheiris Yisrael that it was the  דמות דיוקנו של אביו which had appeared to Yosef (39:11 in Rashi) and saved him from sinning with Eishes Potifar.  Yaakov's visage never left Yosef's imagination.  His brothers, however, had not lived up to that same standard.

2) The pasuk describes Bn"Y coming to Mitzrayim (46:5)

 וַיָּ֥קׇם יַעֲקֹ֖ב מִבְּאֵ֣ר שָׁ֑בַע וַיִּשְׂא֨וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶת־יַעֲקֹ֣ב אֲבִיהֶ֗ם וְאֶת־טַפָּם֙ וְאֶת־נְשֵׁיהֶ֔ם בָּעֲגָל֕וֹת אֲשֶׁר־שָׁלַ֥ח פַּרְעֹ֖ה לָשֵׂ֥את אֹתֽוֹ׃

Yaakov is referred to by that name, but his children are referred to as bnei Yisrael -- not as bnei Yaakov.  Why the shift?

The gemara (Chulin 100) has a machlokes Tanaim whether the issur of gid ha'nasheh applied only post-mattan Torah, or did it apply earlier.  The pasuk tells us  עַל־כֵּ֡ן לֹֽא־יֹאכְל֨וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶת־גִּ֣יד הַנָּשֶׁ֗ה.  Does Bnei Yisrael with a capital B refer to the Jewish nation, which only came into existence later at mattan Torah, or is it a lower case b and it refers to the children of Yaakov?  R' Yehudah's view is that the term B/bnei Yisrael applies pre-mattan Torah as well, as we see from our pasuk.  

Seforno comments: 

וישאו בני ישראל – שהיו צריכים מכאן ואילך להיות ״עם בני ישראל״, להשתרר עם אלהים ועם אנשים המתקוממים, בלכתם עתה אל אדמת נכר.

The pasuk deliberately uses the term Bnei Yisrael -- as opposed to Yaakov -- because from this moment onward the shevatim needed to take on the identity of their father that the name Yisrael represented, namely, the ability to wrestle with and fight against outside forces.  

3) The Pninei Halacha put out by Mir Yeshiva discusses the question of someone too ill to fast on 10 Teves but who wants to serve as shat"z and get an aliya because they have yahrzeit on that day.  Would eating less than the shiur help?

This question would seem to hinge on the machlokes between the Marcheshes and R' Chaim that we discussed earlier this year.  According to the Marcheshes, a choleh on a fast day should, if possible, eat less than the shiur and by doing so does not lose the kiyum of the taanis.  The lomdus: the shiur of issurei achila, with respect to a taanis or anything else, is always a k'zayis.  True, chatzi shiur is forbidden, but chatzi shiur is its own independent issur.  Eating chatzi shiur would be like, for example, doing an aveira of speaking lashon ha'ra on a taanis.  The person did an issur, but that does not negate their taanis, as it was not an issur achila.  

R' Chaim held that a choleh is exempt from fasting since b'makom choli lo gazru rabbanan.  If the person chooses not to eat they accomplish nothing; it would be like voluntarily skipping breakfast and lunch on any given day of the week -- no kiyum mitzvah, no shem taanis.  A person who is not included in the chiyuv taanis cannot say aneinu or get an aliya for the kri'as haTorah of a taanis.

safeik sakanah -- why have shuls not reinstated mask mandates?

Per the NYC Dept. of Health:

As New York City enters the holiday season, COVID-19 and other seasonal illnesses are seeing unusually high concurrent spikes. To slow the transmission of these viruses, the New York City Health Commissioner issued a Health Advisory that urges New York City residents to use high-quality masks when indoors and in crowded outdoor settings

The referenced Health Advisory states:

1. Everyone, even if vaccinated and even if they have had COVID-19 or flu before, should wear a mask as follows:

    a. Wear a mask at all times when in an indoor public setting, including inside  stores, offices, lobbies, hallways, elevators, public transportation, schools, child care facilities, and other public shared spaces, and when in a crowded outdoor setting. 

Given the standard set down by certain YU Roshei Yeshiva, i.e. "The Torah absolutely condemns and forbids acting in a way which - under any circumstances [emph mine]- may allow for the death of a Jew," I don't understand why shuls (e.g. Young Israel and the like) which align themselves under the YU umbrella have not brought back mask requirements.  Surely there are elderly, immunocompromised, and others who come to minyan and thereby risk exposure to RSV, Covid, flu, and other illness that can prove life threatening. As R' Meir Twersky wrote elsewhere, "It is self-evident that even if the calculated risk to specific individuals within any given minyan were negligible, this calculation would be entirely immaterial because of the danger posed to the k’lal as a whole by convening minyanim. It is a near-certainty -- if not an absolute certainty -- that amongst the many individuals who will elect to participate in such widespread minyanim, there will be at least a few who will indeed contract this dangerous disease."  

L'shaitaschem, what's the heter to now hold maskless minyanim and create a situation of safeik sakanah?  

Even if one does not want to go as far as cancelling tefilah b'tzibur entirely, surely the slight inconvenience of wearing a mask should not only be recommended, but should be halachically obligatory given the danger?

incongruous facts

It was only after being locked up for three days in prison by Yosef, only after he had told them they could go home, provided they leave Shimon behind and agree to bring back Binyamin, that the brothers said to themselves

 וַיֹּאמְר֞וּ אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־אָחִ֗יו אֲבָל֮ אֲשֵׁמִ֣ים ׀ אֲנַ֘חְנוּ֮ עַל־אָחִ֒ינוּ֒ אֲשֶׁ֨ר רָאִ֜ינוּ צָרַ֥ת נַפְשׁ֛וֹ בְּהִתְחַֽנְנ֥וֹ אֵלֵ֖ינוּ וְלֹ֣א שָׁמָ֑עְנוּ עַל־כֵּן֙ בָּ֣אָה אֵלֵ֔ינוּ הַצָּרָ֖ה הַזֹּֽאת׃ (42:21)

Abarbanel asks (see Shem m'Shmuel as well): why did it take them these three days to come to this realization?  Why didn't it hit them as soon as they were accused of being spies, or from the first moment they were locked up?

Abarbanel answers that when the brothers originally were accused by Yosef, they could easily have dismissed his accusations as those of a lunatic, a crazy dictator who for some reason took a disliking to them.  However, after the three days in lockup, look at how Yosef addressed the brothers:

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֤ם יוֹסֵף֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֔י זֹ֥את עֲשׂ֖וּ וִֽחְי֑וּ אֶת־הָאֱלֹקים אֲנִ֥י יָרֵֽא

 אִם־כֵּנִ֣ים אַתֶּ֔ם אֲחִיכֶ֣ם אֶחָ֔ד יֵאָסֵ֖ר בְּבֵ֣ית מִשְׁמַרְכֶ֑ם וְאַתֶּם֙ לְכ֣וּ הָבִ֔יאוּ שֶׁ֖בֶר רַעֲב֥וֹן בָּתֵּיכֶֽם

First of all, he told them that he is a G-d fearing person, i.e. he is a moral individual.  Then he told them that not only can they return home, but they can also pack their bags with food.  The only condition he set is leaving behind Shimon as a means of guaranteeing their return.  

This is not the rantings of a crazy person or person who just hates them.  אֶת־הָאֱלֹקים אֲנִ֥י יָרֵֽא, these are the words of someone who seems to be a law abiding, ethical person, and who only wants to do the right thing.

The brothers could not in their minds find a way to bridge the incongruity of their having been locked up and wrongly accused and the Yosef who now presented himself as a reasonable, ethical person.  The only conclusion they were left with is that it is not some madness or hatred on Yosef's part, but rather it was their own misdeed in selling Yosef which caused Hashem to visit this strange punishment upon them.

This Abarbanel caught my attention because it is this incongruity that the brothers found so unbelievable which I think characterizes modern antisemitism more than the antisemitism of previous times.  

I just finished reading One Hundred Saturdays: Stella Levi and the Search for a Lost World, and there is one passage that stood out in my mind (I'm sorry I already returned the book to the library and can't quote it exactly).  Stella Levi had a sister who was an intellectual; she used to read anything she could get her hands on, she used to sit and talk late into the night about philosophy, politics, etc.  After the war, when Stella was once relating some of her experiences (she survived Auschwitz) in her sister's presence, she found that her sister had gone off and was sitting alone listening to the 9th symphony.  She could not deal with the incongruity of a "civilized" world, the world of humanism, liberalism, ideas and ideals that she had believed in before the war, and what had actually happened. 

Even when news of the concentration camps seeped out, people found it unbelievable because it was so at odds with the image of German culture and reason.  Surely reasonable, intelligent, ethical people would never behave in such a way. 

And yet, they did.  

a yeshiva built on arvus

I think R' Drukman's own words are the most fitting memorial for him.  

Why of all his children did Yaakov select Yehuda to send ahead to establish a yeshiva in Goshen?  R' Drukman quoted the Tiferes Shlomo of Radomsk as explaining that it was Yehuda who in last week's parsha stepped up to guarantee the return of Binyamin (see this post).  The gemara (B"B 173) derives the principle of arvus from Yehudah's words אָֽנֹכִי֙ אֶֽעֶרְבֶ֔נּוּ (43:9):

אמר רב הונא, מניין לערב [קבלן] שמשתעבד, דכתיב אנכי אערבנו מידי תבקשנו

The bedrock upon which Yaakov wanted a yeshiva built is this concept of arvus, of accepting responsibility for others.  It's not enough to lock oneself away and learn Torah; one must also reach out to others, to engage them in learning, to connect them to Torah.   We have a responsibility for and to the klal.  I think that sums up R' Drukman's life mission perfectly.

it's all one dream

Why was Yosef able to recognize his brothers but they unable to recognize him?  The Sanz-Klausenberger Rebbe, a tzadik who, as a Holocaust survivor, was no stranger to hardship, explains that holiness has a way to etching itself on a person's face.  All 12 of the shevatim were tzadikim, but none of them had suffered the way Yosef had suffered in prison, none of them had been challenged with the trials and tests Yosef had been challenged with, none of them had overcome what Yosef had overcome.  Those experiences gave him an air of holiness that was beyond them, and beyond what they could imagine the brother they last saw as a teenager would attain.

This same idea is reflected in the name of sheivet Dan.  The 12 months of the year correspond to the 12 shevatim, and the incoming month of Teives, according to some, corresponds to sheivet Dan.  Why was Dan given that name?  When Bilha, who Rachel had given to Yaakov as a surrogate because she was unable to have children, had a child, Rachel named him Dan because

דָּנַנִּי וְחִיְּבַנִי דָּנַנִּי וְזִכַּנִּי. דָּנַנִּי וְחִיְּבַנִּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית כ״ט:ל״א): וְרָחֵל עֲקָרָה. דָּנַנִּי וְזִכַּנִּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ל׳:ו׳): וַיִּתֶּן לִי בֵּן.(Midrash) 

It is not just being validated ,  דָּנַנִּי וְזִכַּנִּי, that Rachel celebrates in the name.  She also celebrates her prior suffering, דָּנַנִּי וְחִיְּבַנִי.  The fact that she did not have it easy caused her to grow, and that was the catalyst for her eventually having children.

Like we said last week, ביקש יעקב לישב שלוה קפץ עליו רוגזו של יוסף, the רוגזו של יוסף is not a punishment, but it's a means to an end. True שלוה does not come from avoiding difficulties; it comes from achieving success in dealing with them.  

Yosef stresses to Pharoah the the dream of the skinny cows and the skinny sheaves and the fat cows and fat sheaves, it's all one dream, חלום אחד הוא.  L'mai nafka minah?  What difference does it make if it's one dream or two dreams or four different dreams?

Sefas Emes (5632) teaches:

חלום פרעה שנא' בתורה וגם כתיב חלום אחד הוא. נראה שיש ללמוד ממנו לעבודתו ית' שהוא ממקום האחדות והפנימיות.

We think of the good parts of life as a like a pleasant dream, and the problems are like a nightmare.  Two separate experiences.  Not true --  חלום אחד הוא.  The latter goes hand in hand with the former.

The Ch' haRI"M, like we once discussed, explains the name of the month Teives from the words "hatavas ha'neiros."  When we think of Chanukah what comes to mind is the beautiful light of the menorah.  In order to have that light someone needs to stick their finger in and clean out the greasy old wicks and set everything up for lighting. דָּנַנִּי וְחִיְּבַנִי דָּנַנִּי וְזִכַּנִּי.  That too is part of the lighting, חלום אחד הוא.  

kindling a fire: hil shabbos vs lighting a menorah

A long time ago we discussed R' Chaim Brisker's question on the Midrash Tanchuma that says that in the days of R' Chanina Sgan haKohanim the menorah miraculously burned from Rosh haShana to Rosh haShana.  How then did they fulfill the mitzvah of hadlakas menorah?  R' Chaim posed this question to to the Imrei Emes when they met.  The Imrei Emes responded by quoting the din (Beitzah 32) that if you add a drop of oil to a burning lamp you are chayav on shabbos for mav'ir.  Based on this, even if menorah continued to burn on its own, the kohanim could have fulfilled the mitzvah of hadlakah by simply adding a drop of oil.

R' Chaim was supposedly very taken with this answer, but R' Wahrman's in his She'eiris Yosef (vol 3) raises an objection.  The Rosh writes that since hadlakah oseh mitzvah there has to be enough oil present in the menorah at the time of lighting to burn for the required shiur.  If not, one has to put out the menorah and relight.  Why should this be necessary?  If adding oil counts as an act of hadlakah, all one should need to do is add the needed amount of extra oil that addition itself should count as a new hadlakah, one now done with the proper amount of oil present!

R' Wahrman asks the question on R' Chaim/the Imrei Emes, but I chanced across seeing that the Chidusehi Ben Aryeh, R' Gershon Edelstein's grandfather, flips things around and asks the question on the Rosh.  How did the Rosh deal with the gemara in Beitzah?  It is a longish piece, but the yesod that he tries to develop is that there is a difference between the definition of the melacha of mav'ir with respect to hil shabbos and the definition of mav'ir/hadlakah with respect to menorah, or other areas of halacha.  Adding oil is a melacha of mav'ir, but not more than that.  You would think that this is classic Brisker thinking -- you have what appears to be the same concept of mav'ir in different contexts, but tease out that it's really tzvei dinim chalukim b'yesodam.  That's what makes the fact that R' Chaim applauded the answer of the Imrei Emes so interesting -- instead of distinguishing between the sugyos, it lumps the concepts together into one.  

haste makes waste, Reuvain's response to the mob, and the idea behind the minhag of Chanukah gelt

 וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע רְאוּבֵ֔ן וַיַּצִּלֵ֖הוּ מִיָּדָ֑ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר לֹ֥א נַכֶּ֖נּוּ נָֽפֶשׁ׃

 וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֣ם ׀ רְאוּבֵן֮ אַל־תִּשְׁפְּכוּ־דָם֒ הַשְׁלִ֣יכוּ אֹת֗וֹ אֶל־הַבּ֤וֹר הַזֶּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר וְיָ֖ד אַל־תִּשְׁלְחוּ־ב֑וֹ לְמַ֗עַן הַצִּ֤יל אֹתוֹ֙ מִיָּדָ֔ם לַהֲשִׁיב֖וֹ אֶל־אָבִֽיו׃

Why do we need the words וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֣ם ׀ רְאוּבֵן֮  in the second pasuk when the first pasuk already introduced Reuvain as the speaker, וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע רְאוּבֵ֔ן...  וַיֹּ֕אמֶר opening the quotaton marks, if you will, before the words  לֹ֥א נַכֶּ֖נּוּ נָֽפֶשׁ?  

Netziv explains that the first pasuk was an exclamation, a shout meant to cause everyone to stop and pay attention. Only once the momentum was slowed could the conversation and deliberation which started with the second pasuk, take place.

Seforno adds: ויצלהו מידם – במניעת הפועל הפתאומי המוליד ״מעות לא יוכל לתקן״ (קהלת א׳:ט״ו), שיפול בכמוהו גם הצדיק לפעמים, כענין ראובן עם בלהה, כאמרו ״פחז כמים״ (בראשית מ״ט:ד׳)  Reuvain was the one who spoke out in this way because it was Reuvain himself who knew more than anyone the danger of acting precipitously!  Yaakov blamed Reuvain's sin in moving his bed on ״פחז כמים, Reuvain's haste to take action.

When Reuvain later returns to the pit to pull Yosef out and sees that Yosef is gone, he says in anguish  הַיֶּ֣לֶד אֵינֶ֔נּוּ וַאֲנִ֖י אָ֥נָה אֲנִי־בָֽא׃.  (See Friday's post for one interpretation of these words.)  Abarbanel writes that Reuvain could not have been protesting against the sale of Yosef here.  Rashi earlier interprets the words לְמַ֗עַן הַצִּ֤יל אֹתוֹ֙ מִיָּדָ֔ם לַהֲשִׁיב֖וֹ אֶל־אָבִֽיו׃ above not as Reuvain's words, but as ruach hakodesh testifying as to Reuvain's intentions.  Sifsei Chachamim explains that Rashi must be correct: דקשה לרש״י היאך יתכן לומר שראובן עצמו אמר שישליכו אותו לבור כדי שהוא ישיב אותו אל אביו דאם היו יודעין לא היו מניחין את ראובן  The brothers would surely have rejected any suggestion to simply bring Yosef home and leave him alone, so Reuvain would dare not have voiced his plan aloud.  Therefore, he is not the speaker.  So too in our pasuk, according to Abarbanel, had Reuvain  been protesting what had happened to Yosef, it would give away the game and reveal that everything he had said earlier was merely a ruse, so this cannot be what he meant. 

What then was Reuvain's intent?

Abarbanel explains that Reuvain was saying to his brothers that if they can act so cruelly and plot to destroy Yosef, whom he calls here a יֶּ֣לֶד, just a child, someone immature, someone not fully aware of his actions and words, then what hope is there for Reuvain himself, the eldest?  How can he live among them knowing that if they can turn against innocent Yosef, they can just as easily if not more easily come to turn on him as well?

Oh what a lesson for modern times when various "woke" rabble rousers one day are the leaders of the pack driving the mob against some innocent victim only to find themselves a day later pursued and harasses by the very same mob.  Only a fool tries to stay one step ahead of the hungry alligator that eventually will consume everyone, but we live in a generation of fools.

Lastly a note on Chanukah: What is this minhag of Chanukah gelt all about?  My wife suggested as follows: the Rambam explains that the holiday of Chanukah is about the restoration of Jewish sovreignty.   וגברו בני חשמונאי הכהנים הגדולים והרגום והושיעו ישראל מידם והעמידו מלך מן הכהנים וחזרה מלכות לישראל יתר על מאתים שנים עד החורבן השני:  One of the rights of a king, of a government, is to coin money.  The gemara (Meg 14) writes that Avigail told David that he has no right to judge someone as a moreid b'malchus yet because  אמרה לו עדיין שאול קיים ולא יצא טבעך בעולם .  We once heard from R' Yosef Carmel, Rosh Kollel of Eretz Chemdah Institute, that לא יצא טבעך  means that David's coins were not yet in circulation -- only a true king can mint and circulate his own coins.  There are coins that come from the time of the Bar Kochba rebellion because one of the ways that Bar Kochba showed that Israel was no longer subject to Roman authority was by minting his own money.  Perhaps the Chashmonaim did the same when they won their independence from the Greeks, and Chanukah gelt, chocolate coins and the like, are a zeicher to this statement of independence.

the taint of shelo lishma

1) It's interesting that although Reuvain is the first one to speak out against the killing of Yosef, וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֣ם ׀ רְאוּבֵן֮ אַל־תִּשְׁפְּכוּ־דָם֒ (37:22), it is Yehudah who Yaakov, on his deathbed, gives credit to for saving Yosef, גּ֤וּר אַרְיֵה֙ יְהוּדָ֔ה מִטֶּ֖רֶף בְּנִ֣י עָלִ֑יתָ  (49:9).  Rashi on our parsha comments: אמר: אני בכור וגדול שבכולן, לא יתלה הסרחון אלא בי.  The difference between Yehudah and Reuvain (as the Sifsei Chachamim points out) is that Yehudah had no ulterior motive in mind when he spoke up.  Reuvain, however, knew that ultimately he, as the eldest, would be held responsible for Yosef.  Therefore, he felt compelled to speak out.  It's amazing how just a tinge of she'lo lishma colors what otherwise would be a noble act.

This Sifsei Chachamim stands in stark contrast to R' Amiel's observation (which we've discussed in the past) that it is only Reuvain who gets the credit of  וַיַּצִּלֵ֖הוּ מִיָּדָ֑ם (37:21).  

2) When Reuvain returns and discovers Yosef has been sold, he cries out וַיָּ֥שׇׁב אֶל־אֶחָ֖יו וַיֹּאמַ֑ר הַיֶּ֣לֶד אֵינֶ֔נּוּ וַאֲנִ֖י אָ֥נָה אֲנִי־בָֽא׃ (37:30), wondering how he can return home.  (The repitition of  וַאֲנִ֖י ... אֲנִי is reminiscent of  נָ֛א רְפָ֥א נָ֖א לָֽהּ by Miriam.  Are there other examples of repetition like this?)  There is a fascinating interpretation of R"Y haChassid quoted in the Tur in last week's parsha on the episode of Reuvain's "sin" וַיְהִ֗י בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֗֔ן וַיִּשְׁכַּ֕ב֙ אֶת־בִּלְהָ֖ה֙ פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֑֔יו וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵֽ֑ל  וַיִּֽהְי֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יַעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁנֵ֥ים עָשָֽׂר (35:22)  Here is what he says:

 וה״ר יהודה חסיד פי׳ ויהי בשכון ישראל במקום ההוא וילך ראובן פי׳ שהלך לו וברח משם ולמה וישכב את בלהה פלגש אביו שרצה אביו לשכב עמה וע״ז נתקנא ראובן וברח וישמע ישראל שבשביל זה ברח ראובן ועשה מטתו באהל לאה ואז חזר ראובן ויהיו בני יעקב שנים עשר כבתחלה.

When Reuvain saw that his father had moved his bed to Bilhah's tent, he left home and fled.  He could not tolerate the disrespect that he perceived was shown toward his mother.  When Yaakov heard that, he moved his bed back to Leah's tent (it's not clear whether this was an admission of wrongdoing on Yaakov's part, or did he just want to mollify his son), and Reuvain returned.

Given R"Y haChassid's reading, the words of Reuvain in our parsha, אֲנִ֖י אָ֥נָה אֲנִי־בָֽא, take on added significance.  Reuvain was saying that if he was willing to leave home in protest of the kavod of his mother, then how can he return home now and live in peace with his brothers after they have gotten rid of Yosef and dishonored their father.

3) Seforno comments on וַיָּקֻ֩מוּ֩ כׇל־בָּנָ֨יו וְכׇל־בְּנֹתָ֜יו לְנַחֲמ֗וֹ וַיְמָאֵן֙ לְהִתְנַחֵ֔ם (37:35) that Yaakov accepted on himself lifelong aveilus because he felt that he had a hand in whatever befell Yosef, as he had sent him out to find his brothers.  וַיֵּ֥בְךְּ אֹת֖וֹ אָבִֽיו׃ at the end of that pasuk refers to Yitzchak, who bemoaned the situation.  There was a lot to cry over, especially given (as Rashi explains) that Yitzchak knew that Yosef was alive -- his son Yaakov suffering unnecessarily, the crime the brothers had committed, the breakup of the family.  But that's not why Yitzchak was crying according to Seforno.  He explains

 יצחק בכה על שקבל עליו בנו אבלות לכל ימיו, ובכן לא תשרה עליו שכינה.   

I don't think this means that Yitzchak saw all that transpired solely through the lens of the potential loss of hashra'as haShechina without any regard to the human dimension of loss and suffering.  I think what it means is that davka the acceptance of a lifetime of mourning, as opposed to the normal period of 30 days or a year that halacha mandates, disturbed Yitzchak.  There is a time to mourn, but at some point mourning itself can become debilitating and an obstacle to growth, i.e. hashra'as haShechina.  That is something to cry over.

4) Apropos:

"lei'shev b'shalvah" - something to avoid or something to strive for?

My son wrote last week (lightly edited):

After Yaakov fights with the angel, he is given the name Yisrael כי שרית אם אלקים ואנשים ותוכל.  If the point is that Yaakov was able to even be victorious over angels, shouldn't he have been named תוכל for he was victorious?  Rav Leibel Eger explains that the point isn't the victory, the point is the battle.  Klal Yisrael is named for the fact that they are willing to put up a fight no matter what stands in the way. 

Rashi comments on the opening of our parsha,  וַיֵּ֣שֶׁב יַעֲקֹ֔ב בְּאֶ֖רֶץ מְגוּרֵ֣י אָבִ֑יו, that ביקש יעקב לישב שלוה קפץ עליו רוגזו של יוסף.  R' Moshe Avigdor Amiel points out that the opening pasuk uses davka the name Yaakov, as opposed to 2 pesukim later when we read  וְיִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל אָהַ֤ב אֶת־יוֹסֵף֙ מִכׇּל־בָּנָ֔יו כִּֽי־בֶן־זְקֻנִ֥ים ה֖וּא ל֑וֹ and the name Yisrael is used.  It is Yaakov who desires tranquility, but the role of a Jew is to be a Yisrael, to engage in ongoing toil and battle, as that is the only way to grow.  

Sefas Emes (5635) writes:  ומ"ש קפץ עליו. רוגזו של יוסף לא הי' עונש על זה רק שא"א לתקן הכל בלי נסיונות רבות כאלו.  The trials and tribulations of dealing with the episode of Yosef are not a punishment for asking לישב שלוה.  They are the means of fulfilling that wish.  You can have לישב שלוה by avoiding the difficulties of life; you can have לישב שלוה as a result of successfully managing the difficulties as they come.  Chazal are teaching us that the לישב שלוה of Yaakov/Yisrael is the latter type, and that is what we should strive to emulate. 

An unexpected encounter; the importance of a parent's blessing

1) R' Leible Eiger in Imrei Emes points out that the first nisayon Avraham faced was being told by Hashem, "Lech lecha," to leave his parent's home.  This is considered a major test despite the fact that Avraham's outlook on life was completely different than his father's -- he should have wanted to leave -- and despite the fact that he was being commanded to do so directly by Hashem.

Imagine what was going through Yaakov's head when he left his father's home.  He was not directly told to do so by Hashem; he was compelled to do so as a result of his stealing of the brachos.  Until now had been under the protective and nurturing wing of his parents, who were his guilding lights; he had been "yosheiv ohalim," and now he was forced to flee to parts unknown.  M'igra rama l'beira amikta! 

 

That's the meaning of  וַיִּפְגַּ֨ע בַּמָּק֜וֹם...  The term וַיִּפְגַּ֨ע implies an unexpected encounter, like when you are walking along and suddenly bump into someone you know.  At the very moment when Yaakov thought that he was on a road that would take him far from kedusha, here was the Beis haMikdash, here was the hashra'as haShechina.

 

R' Leible Eiger writes that it was precisely because Yaakov thought that his situation was so dire, that he was on a path that would take him far from ruchniyus, that led to this revelation.  Hashem's dwells among the broken and the downtrodden.  

2) I just want to point out a Seforno that every parent and grandparents should know.  At the end of the parsha, we read: וַיַּשְׁכֵּ֨ם לָבָ֜ן בַּבֹּ֗קֶר וַיְנַשֵּׁ֧ק לְבָנָ֛יו וְלִבְנוֹתָ֖יו וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֶתְהֶ֑ם וַיֵּ֛לֶךְ וַיָּ֥שׇׁב לָבָ֖ן לִמְקֹמֽוֹ  The Torah doesn't dwell on meaningless details.  We don't know what Lavan ate for breakfast, or how many people were in his entourage, or any number of other trivial facts because they are not important to the halacha or moral lesson of the story.  Here, we have a pasuk filled with details that all seem unnecessary. וַיֵּ֛לֶךְ וַיָּ֥שׇׁב לָבָ֖ן לִמְקֹמֽוֹ - obviously at some point Lavan returned home.  Why mention it?  Take a look at the Meshech Chochma, Netziv, and others.  I want to focus on the earlier half of the pasuk.  Why does the Torah go out of its way to tell us that Lavan kissed and blessed his children and grandchilden (see Ibn Ezra) before departing?  Seforno answers:

   להורות שברכת האב אשר היא על בניו בכל נפשו בלי ספק ראוי שתחול יותר בסגולת צלם אלקים המברך

When a parent/grandparent, even one like Lavan, gives a blessing to a child, they put their full heart and soul into it, and therefore it is of special significance and worthy of being fulfilled.