geulah delayed is geulah denied

Hashem told Moshe that if the people ask him what G-d's name is, he should reply (3:14):

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקים אֶל מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה תֹאמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם.

Why the repetition of וַיֹּאמֶר in the pasuk when only Hashem is speaking?  Rashi explains that between the lines there was actually a debate between Hashem and Moshe. Hashem revealed his name as אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, meaning that He will be with Bn"Y not just now, but in future times of distress as well. Moshe was not happy with this esponse. אמר לפניו: רבונו של עולם, מה אני מזכיר להם צרה אחרת, דים בזו. Why mention future problems when the people have enough on their plate right now? Hashem agreed with Moshe's argument and said to tell the people just אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם and omit any mention about the future.

Of course Moshe was not smarter than Hashem and didn't have a better read on the people than Hashem. Moshe's question was based on a misunderstanding of Hashem's response (see Gur Aryeh, Rashbam). Hashem first revealed to Moshe for the sake of Moshe's own private understanding what the essence of His "name" (whatever that means) is: וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקים **אֶל מֹשֶׁה** אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה. Hashem knew that this would not fly with the masses. The response to the people is therefore different: וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה תֹאמַר **לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל** אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם. The shakla v'terya between Moshe and Hashem is not Moshe correcting G-d, but rather Moshe clarifying what G-d's message really was.

R' Nosson Ra'anan, son in law of Rav Kook, suggested a deeper meaning to Moshe's question (quoted here ). Earlier this year we discussed the question of whether it is better to do a mitzvah with zerizus right away even imperfectly or whether it is better do the mitzvah b'hidur even if it comes at the price of a delay. A halacha l'maaseh example: Is it be better to do the mitzvah of netilas lulav first thing sukkos morning even if it means using a less perfect lulav and esrog, or is it better to wait until later in the day if a more perfect esrog will be available only then? We discussed the Chasam Sofer on VaYeira who explains that Avraham told Sarah to prepare bread as quickly as possible for the guests that came to be mevaker choleh after his milah even if it meant using a less fine flour, but Sarah felt it was better to take the time to grind the flour properly and make better quality bread even at the cost of a bit of delay. R' Nosson suggested that this is the "debate" between Moshe and Hashem in our parsha. Moshe was bothered מה אני מזכיר להם צרה אחרת because there need not be a צרה אחרת. Bn"Y were supposed to be in Mitzrayim 400 years. Hashem knocked that down to 210 at the cost of the galus being incomplete and requiring successive galuyos to make up the difference. Moshe argued against doing this half baked job. Why rush -- zerizus -- a geulah that is not fully ready to happen? Why not wait whatever extra time it might take for the ideal geulah, one that could take place b'hidur, and do away with any need for future galuyos?

This approach to the argument sheds light on the episode of milah that took place as Moshe was en route back to Mitzrayim. Moshe stopped at an inn and delayed the milah of his son, placing his (or his son's, as the meforshim discuss) life in danger. R' Nosson explained that Moshe's delay was not because he did not take the mitzvah of milah as a serious priority. To the contrary, it was because he valued the mitzvah that Moshe delayed. What kind of bris milah would it ve when you just arrived at the motel, the luggage isn't even unpacked, and you haven't had even a moment to freshen up from the trip much less order the bagels? Better to take a few minutes to properly prepare and do the mitzvah b'hidur! The fact that Moshe is punished shows that Hashem rejected this thinking. Zerizus to bring a baby into the bris outweighs other considerations. Better to do the milah without the bagels, even before getting settled, then to delay even a moment.

This was Hashem's answer to Moshe's earlier argument as well. Zerizus sometimes is better than hidur. A partial geulah that provides immediate relief is still better than no geulah even it is only a temporary remedy. In terms of PR, maybe the people don't want to hear about future troubles, but they do want to hear, and are desperate to hear, that help and hope is on the way.

My wife's uncle, R' Immanuel Shochet z"l, was once asked what makes the Lubavitcher Rebbe's emphasis on moshiach special? There have been many other gedolim who yearned for moshiach and taught others to year for moshiach, e.g. the Chofetz Chaim was known to keep a suitcase packed, ready to go. Uncle Immanuel responded (and I'm paraphrasing, so blame any error in this on me) by saying that while he can't speak for the Rebbe, he thinks the difference is the following: Imagine there was a bas kol that came out from shamayim that told everyone that moshiach would be here in an hour. What would rabbonim do? Everyone would want to prepare in his own way for the monumental moment. Some gedolim would run to say Tehillim. Some would run to go to mikveh and put on Shabbos clothes and finery to greet moshiach. The real Litvishe would probably keep learning for that hour. "You know what the Rebbe would do?" asked Uncle Immanuel. "He would turn to Hashem and ask why we have to wait that extra hour.  The Rebbe would cry to Hashem to bring moshiach now."

All the preparations to greet moshiach b'hiddur cannot make up for having to suffer even just one more hour, or even one more moment, in galus. When the Jewish people need a yeshu'a, Hashem told Moshe, responding b'zerizus is more important than delaying even for the sake of a more perfect outcome.

bris k'rusa li'sefasayim -- words shape reality

וְעַתָּ֗ה אֶֽעֱלֶה־נָּ֛א וְאֶקְבְּרָ֥ה אֶת־אָבִ֖י וְאָשֽׁוּבָה׃... (50:5)  Why stick in the extra word וְעַתָּ֗ה?  We have a concept of "al tiftach peh l'satan."  Don't tempt fate.  If you show that you are not concerned with a potential kitrug, then you are inviting that kitrug.  There is another similar concept called "bris kerusa l'sefasayim."

   מנין שברית כרותה לשפתים – שנאמר (בראשית כ''ב, ה'): וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אֶל נְעָרָיו שְׁבוּ לָכֶם פֹּה עִם הַחֲמוֹר וַאֲנִי וְהַנַּעַר נֵלְכָה עַד כֹּה וְנִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה וְנָשׁוּבָה אֲלֵיכֶם: ואיסתייעא מלתא דהדור תרוייהו. (M"K 18a) 

 

Avraham and Yitzchak returned unharmed from the akeidah just as they said they would, or, to be more exact, because they said they would.  The idea of ברית כרותה לשפתים is, writes Maharasha, like nevuah.  The words that come out of your mouth have tremendous power because they reflect truth.  Therefore, unlike "al tiftach peh l'satan," here it even works to a person's benefit.  R' Shlomo Kluguer in Imrei Shefer writes that this is why Yosef did not want to say just  the words אֶֽעֱלֶה־נָּ֛א ... וְאָשֽׁוּבָה׃  I'm going to go to Eretz Yisrael and will come back -- period, full stop.  You mean that's it?  I come back here, "home" to Egypt, and this where I am going to stay?  ברית כרותה לשפתים  Don't even say such a thing!  Words carry weight.  Instead, וְעַתָּ֗ה אֶֽעֱלֶה־נָּ֛א... וְאָשֽׁוּבָה׃.  Right now, ְעַתָּ֗ה, I will go and will have to come back, but, one day in the future I will go to Eretz Yisrael and not have to come back.  

You know you when you go on your vacation to Eretz Yisrael that you already have a return ticket booked to come "home," but at least when you talk about it, let the trip be וְעַתָּ֗ה אֶֽעֱלֶה־נָּ֛א... וְאָשֽׁוּבָה׃, now I am going and will return. The future hopefully holds something different, a time when we will all go and not have to return anywhere else.  

Yosef's care in his every word is something he got from his father. Earlier in the parsha, Yaakov has Yosef swear that he will ensure that he is buried in me'aras ha'machpeila. Yaakov tells Yosef וַאֲנִ֣י׀ בְּבֹאִ֣י מִפַּדָּ֗ן מֵ֩תָה֩ עָלַ֨י רָחֵ֜ל בְּאֶ֤רֶץ כְּנַ֙עַן֙ בַּדֶּ֔רֶךְ בְּע֥וֹד כִּבְרַת־אֶ֖רֶץ לָבֹ֣א אֶפְרָ֑תָה וָאֶקְבְּרֶ֤הָ שָּׁם֙ בְּדֶ֣רֶךְ אֶפְרָ֔ת הִ֖וא בֵּ֥ית לָֽחֶם. Some read this as Yaakov asking forgiveness of Yosef for not ensuring that his mother is buried there. Meshech Chochma connects Yaakov's words here with the Midrash which explains the reason for Rachel's death is because Yaakov did not make haste to fulfill the vow to return home that he had made when he departed for Lavan's home 

 ורבנן אמרי כל מי שנודר ומשהה נדרו קובר את אשתו הה״ד: ״ואני בבואי מפדן מתה עלי רחל.

Yaakov was hinting to Yosef that he should not delay fulfilling the vow to bury him in Eretz Yisrael as he knows first hand that the danger that can come from such action. You make a promise -- keep your word and take care of it right away.  On an even simpler level, Rashi at the end of VaYeitzi gives a different reason for Rachel's death. Since Yaakov said to Lavan עִ֠ם אֲשֶׁ֨ר תִּמְצָ֣א אֶת־אֱלֹהֶ֘יךָ֮ לֹ֣א יִֽחְיֶה֒, he inadvertently invited trouble. וְלֹֽא־יָדַ֣ע יַעֲקֹ֔ב כִּ֥י רָחֵ֖ל גְּנָבָֽתַם says the pasuk, because, as the Bechor Shor explains, had Yaakov known, those words לֹ֣א יִֽחְיֶה֒ would have never come out of his mouth. ברית כרותה לשפתים! Perhaps Yaakov meant to tell Yosef that if this is the power of words, kal v'chomer he should be extra careful to make sure to fulfill his promise to bury Yaakov. Now, when the time has come for Yosef to fulfill that promise, he remembers the lesson ברית כרותה לשפתים that his father was trying to impart.  He is therefore extra careful with his own words.

I think this sheds light on the penultimate pasuk in the parsha, וַיַּשְׁבַּ֣ע יוֹסֵ֔ף אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר פָּקֹ֨ד יִפְקֹ֤ד אֱלֹקים֙ אֶתְכֶ֔ם וְהַעֲלִתֶ֥ם אֶת־עַצְמֹתַ֖י מִזֶּֽה (50:25). Rabeinu Bachyei is medayek that the pasuk doesn't say וַיַּשְׁבַּ֣ע יוֹסֵ֔ף אֶת אחיו, but rather it refers to בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל. Yosef meant to include in his oath anyone who would in the future be part of Bnei Yisrael, not just his immediate brothers. So who is the לֵאמֹ֑ר speaking to? There is a Midrash interprets לֵאמֹ֑ר to mean that the Yosef's brothers would administer this same oath their children, and their children to their chidren, etc. until it could be fulfilled. According to Rabeinu Bachyei, all those future generations are automatically be included in the original oath.

 היה הכתוב ראוי לומר וישבע יוסף את אחיו אלא מלמד שהשביע לכל מי שהוא מבני ישראל ואפילו העתידים להיות.

So why do you need the לֵאמֹ֑ר in the pasuk? I think that even according to Rabeinu Bachyei, the Midrash's interpretation, that Yosef was telling his brothers to speak to future generations, works. Yosef's goal was not just to bind future generations to keep the promise he made them give.  Yosef's goal was to enable them to do so.  Yosef wanted to give future generations the hope and inspiration to survive the galus so that one day there would be a Klal Yisrael who would fulfill their promise to him.  Therefore, he not only had them promise וְהַעֲלִתֶ֥ם אֶת־עַצְמֹתַ֖י מִזֶּֽה, to take his bones out with them, but he had them promise לֵאמֹ֑ר פָּקֹ֨ד יִפְקֹ֤ד אֱלֹקים֙ אֶתְכֶ֔ם, to keep saying to their children, to keep saying to themselves, that they would be redeemed.  It's not enough to believe it.  Yosef wanted them to make that promise into a mantra, לֵאמֹ֑ר, to keep repeating it gain and again.   ברית כרותה לשפתים If you say it, it will become the reality.  That was the message Yosef took from Yaakov as Yaakov's life drew to a close, and that is the message he passed on as his own life ended as well.

is there an ethical taint to chochma achieved through the motivation of kinas sofrim? Chazon Ish vs Rav Kook

 (45:22):לְכֻלָּ֥ם נָתַ֛ן לָאִ֖ישׁ חֲלִפ֣וֹת שְׂמָלֹ֑ת וּלְבִנְיָמִ֤ן נָתַן֙ שְׁלֹ֣שׁ מֵא֣וֹת כֶּ֔סֶף וְחָמֵ֖שׁ חֲלִפֹ֥ת שְׂמָלֹֽת 

The gemara (Meg 16) asks how could Yosef make the very same mistake his father had made in giving him the kesones pasim by giving Binyamin more than what he gave the other brothers:

 אפשר דבר שנצטער בו אותו צדיק, יכשל בו, דאמר רבא בר מחסיא א״ר חמא בר גוריא אמר רב בשביל משקל שני סלעים מילת, שהוסיף יעקב ליוסף משאר אחיו, נתגלגל הדבר וירדו אבותינו למצרים, [עביד בה איהו מילתא בבנימן כי היכי דמקנו ביה אחוה.] א״ר בנימין בר יפת רמז רמז לו שעתיד בן לצאת ממנו, שיצא מלפני המלך, בחמשה לבושי מלכות, שנאמר (אסתר ח׳:ט׳). ומרדכי יצא בלבוש מלכות תכלת וגו׳ 

The gemara answers that the extra portions given to Binyamin allude to the royal garments of Mordechai. 

Everyone asks: how does this answer the question? Is alluding to Mordechai's future position a heter to arouse jealousy?! 

There is a hesber given by the GR"A. When speaking about the gifts to the brothers, the torah spells the word חֲלִפ֣וֹת malei, with a vav in the word. When it speaks about the gift to Binyanim, it is written chaseir, without the vav. The GR"A explains that it is written chaseir to indicate that the clothes given to Binyamin were of inferior quality to those that were given to the other brothers. Years ago I heard this GR"A said over by R' Pelcowitz z"l, and the way he put it is the brothers each got a Brooks Brothers suit. Binyamin may have gotten 5 suits, but they were Syms suits (I guess this makes sense only if you are old enough to remember shopping at Syms). 

Ok, so there is a GR"A, but the question is still a good question. 

I want to raise a different question on this same gemara.  In last's week's parsha of Mikeitz we read a very similar pasuk to what we have this week: (43:34): וַיִּשָּׂ֨א מַשְׂאֹ֜ת מֵאֵ֣ת פָּנָיו֮ אֲלֵהֶם֒ וַתֵּ֜רֶב מַשְׂאַ֧ת בִּנְיָמִ֛ן מִמַּשְׂאֹ֥ת כֻּלָּ֖ם חָמֵ֣שׁ יָד֑וֹת וַיִּשְׁתּ֥וּ וַֽיִּשְׁכְּר֖וּ עִמּֽוֹ  Why did Chazal wait to ask their question until our parsha? Why didn't they jump in last week and ask on that pasuk אפשר דבר שנצטער בו אותו צדיק, יכשל בו,? 

Furthermore, take a look at Seforno there who comments: תרב משאת בנימין – לראות אם יקנאו בו. Didn't the Seforno know the gemara? Why does he need to come up with his own explanation of what Yosef was trying to accomplish by giving Binyamin extra when Chazal already give a perfectly good explanation? (Of course one can say the gemara is derash and the Seforno is explaining peshuto shel mikra.  If you like that answer, by all means stick with it as that is the answer I would give if I didn't have something else I want to say here : )

For all the bad rap the kinah gets -- הַקִּנְאָה וְהַתַּאֲוָה וְהַכָּבוֹד, מוֹצִיאִין אֶת הָאָדָם מִן הָעוֹלָם (Avos ch 4) -- there is also something to be said for jealousy. The gemara (Baba Basra 21) tells us קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה. If you see your neighbor driving a Lamborghini and you are so jealous that you run out and buy an even better sportscar just to show him up, that's not a good thing. But if you hear someone say a great shiur and you say to yourself, "I wish I had that person's yediyos," and it gets you to sit and learn an extra hour or two every day or every week, that's קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה. Kinah can be a motivator for ruchniyus, not just gashmiyus. 

We've seen an example of this in previous parshiyos. וַתֵּרֶא רָחֵל כִּי לֹא יָלְדָה לְיַעֲקֹב וַתְּקַנֵּא רָחֵל בַּאֲחֹתָהּ (30:1)  Rashi comments that Rachel was not jealous because Leah had children and she did not, but rather קנאה במעשיה. אמרה: אילולי שצדקת ממני לא זכתה לבנים. Maharal comments in Gur Aryeh: דחלילה בצדקת להיות מקנאת, שהקנאה מוציא את האדם מן העולם.

R' Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi uses this idea to explain the gemara in Megillah. If bestowing a bigger gift on Binyamin would have aroused the brothers to be jealous of his wardrobe, of the number of suits he had in his closet, then Yosef indeed should have known better. But that's not the sort of petty jealously we are talking about here. The suits given to Binyamin were a siman that Binyamin has in his spiritual DNA the trappings of malchus:  רמז לו שעתיד בן לצאת ממנו, שיצא מלפני המלך בחמשה לבושי מלכות  If Binyamin's great-great... grandson Mordechai would some day exhibit those traits of malchus, it means those same traits are already latent in Binyamin himself.  If the brothers would be jealous because Binyamin had that midah, then קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה, let the brothers be aware of it and let them covet it and aspire to it themselves. 

Worth noting in passing: The L. Rebbe explains (  תורת מנחם התוועדויות תשמ''ה - חלק ב p870 ) that the jealousy the brothers had for Yosef -- וַיְקַנְאוּ בוֹ אֶחָיו (37:11) -- was this type of קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה jealously, and that is exactly what Yaakov was trying to arouse in them by giving Yosef the kesones pasim.

We can now answer our other questions as well. Why didn't Chazal make this derasha in last week's parsha? Because in last week's parsha the brothers still thought they were dealing with an Egyptian viceroy. In that context, a wardrobe of suits is just a wardrobe of suits.  They could not have possibly seen it as  רמז רמז לו... Any kinah aroused from Binyamin getting such a gift would be the negative form of kinah, which there can be no excusing.  Why then did Yosef tempt fate and give Binyamin a larger portion? Seforno gives us the answer: as a test to see whether the brothers had this base emotion within them. 

All the questions are answered, but I can't leave well enough alone. I think there is a deeper understanding possible. 

There is a teshuvah of the Minchas Yitzchak (4:75) which discusses the terms under which a teacher can be dismissed.  Aside from purely halachic sources, he cites a section from the Chazon Ish's kuntres on Emunah u'Bitachon to address the ethical issues in the discussion.  The C.I. writes that if outsiders were to come into a neighborhood and open a school to compete with the institutions that already exist in that community, the result would probably be that the existing schools a would wage a PR campaign against the new guys infringing on their turf. They would probably bad mouth the new school and question the newcomer's right to encroach on their turf. Had the halacha said that the newcomer was guilty of unfair encroachment, then the existing schools would not be guilty of sinah or lashon ha'ra or anything like that. To the contrary, their battle would be a milchemes Hashem, a holy fight to preserve the existing communal institutions.  But the halacha is in fact קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה.  There is no issur of encroachment here. Since the halacha says the new guys are within their rights, those who would wage a campaign to shut them down are not fighting for what's holy and right, but are violating the issur of sinas chinam, of lashon ha'ra, etc. The question of whether a negative reaction to the new school opening is justified or not is completely and solely dependent on the halachic question of whether the new school has a right to open.  Meaning, you cannot have a scenario where they are allowed to open, קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה, but it is nonetheless considered the wrong thing to do which would justify protest against it.

While Rav Kook does not address this case in particular, his understanding of קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה could not be more different.  He writes in Orot haTechiya 38:

 החכמה שמתרבה מתוך קנאת סופרים, כיון שבאה מתוך קנאה סופה להרקב (משלי יד, ל), וכל רקבון יש בו סרחון, וזאת היא חכמת סופרים שתסרח בעקבתא דמשיחא ועל ידי סרחון זה תתבטל צורתה הקודמת, ויוחל להיות מאיר אור הנשמה של החכמה העליונה מכל קנאה, שהיא למעלה מחכמת סופרים, היא החכמה שתצא לאור על ידי שיר חדש ושם חדש אשר פי ד' יקבנו (ישעיה מב, י; סב, ב). "וִיהִי כַזַּיִת הוֹדוֹ וְרֵיחַ לוֹ כַּלְּבָנוֹן" (הושע יד, ז). 

As R' Moshe Mordechai Epstein is quoted as putting it, קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה, so you gain chochma, but what about the taint of kinah? There is an instrumental good to using kinah in this way, but that doesn't mean you are immune from the ethical stain that comes with it. Rav Kook is making the same point. Ultimately, chochma earned through kinah is subject to רְקַב עֲצָמוֹת קִנְאָה. This is what the Mishna in Sotah means when it tells us that as we get closer to the ultimate geulah וחכמת סופרים תסרח. We will aspire to a higher level of chochma that does not need competition and jealousy as a means to being acquired. To Rav Kook, to baalei mussar like R'MM Epstein, the ethical taint cannot be overcome by purely halachic arguments alone. תרבה חכמה may justify the קנאת סופרים, but it cannot whitewash it or erase its effects. The CI, I think, would beg to differ. 

This sugya of kinas sofrim is a snif of the larger, far reaching question of whether halacha determines ethical norms or whether there exists an ethic independent of halacha, a question which many have addressed. 

For my purposes, I think in light of Rav Kook's approach, the Seforno and the gemara's derasha go hand in hand. Was there a justification, a "heter," for Yosef to tempt fate and arouse the jealousy of the brothers by giving more to Binyamin? R' B.M. Ezrachi reads Chazal as telling us that this type of jealousy for malchus falls under the umbrella of קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה and therefore is permitted. Yet at the same time, for the brothers and for Yosef who had been stung in the past by jealously, especially given the Rebbe's interpretation that the giving of the kesones pasim, which led to this whole tragedy, was itself a permissible means of קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה, there was a challenge here, a test, as the Seforno writes. Would they in fact fall prey to jealousy of Binyamin, even if justified, even if for a good cause?  Or were they beyond even that "noble" form of jealousy? The unification of the brothers, of Yehuda and Yosef, portends the day when we will all be unified, when instead of קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה pushing us and motivating us, we will instead be inspired, as Rav Kook writes, by אור הנשמה של החכמה העליונה מכל קנאה, שהיא למעלה מחכמת סופרים, היא החכמה שתצא לאור על ידי שיר חדש ושם חדש אשר פי ד' יקבנו.

rosh chodesh Teives / Chanukah -- 1 chiyuv to say full hallel, or 2 independent chiyuvim, full hallel + chatzi hallel

When we daven b'tzibur the custom is for the chazan to say out loud the last sentence or two of each section of hallel, similar to other parts of davening when the chazan reads aloud the last line of a bracha or section of tefilah. When chatzi hallel is recited on rosh chodesh, that means the chazan says the concluding sentence of the paragraph that starts "Hashem zicharanu yevareich..." and the concluding sentence of the paragraph that starts "mah ashiv." When we say full hallel, the chazan also says the concluding lines in the paragraphs before these as well, i.e. the paragraph that starts "lo lanu..." and the paragraph that starts "ahavti..." 

I don't understand why we do things this way. "Lo lanu" is the start of a perek.  That perek concludes "v'anachnu nevareich K-h." Why doesn't the chazan read straight through the entire perek and only say out loud that last line, not the last line before "Hashem zicharanu yevareich...?"  "Hashem zicharanu yevareich..." is an independent unit only when we say half hallel because when we say half hallel we skip "lo lanu" and start in the middle of the perek.  But why create that artificial break when we are saying full hallel?   

The simple answer of course is that the chazan is just following the pattern he is used to from the times we say half hallel. But maybe there is more to it than that. 

I saw the following chakirah: when we say full hallel, is there also a chiyuv of half hallel lurking in the shadows, or does the chiyuv of full hallel eclipse the chiyuv of half hallel and so that doesn't exist at all? For example, on rosh chodesh Teives, are there two independent chiyuvim of hallel, i.e. a chiyuv of full hallel because it's Chanukah, and a chiyuv half hallel because of rosh chodesh, or would you say that since there is a chiyuv full hallel, there can't possibly exist a separate chiyuv of half hallel? 

Nafka minos: if someone only knows part of hallel, should they at least say that, even if they don't know the whole thing? If someone said a bracha and omitted a part of hallel, is it a bracha l'vatala?

The same chakira can even come into play on a day like the first days of Pesach. Is there only a chiyuv of full hallel -- all or nothing -- or can you argue that the first days cannot be worse than chol ha'moed, where there is a chiyuv of half hallel?  Just because there is an additional chiyuv of saying full hallel does not negate the lesser chiyuv -- or does it? 

Minhag Sefard is to say the bracha "ligmor es ha'hallel" when reciting full hallel and "likroh" when reciting half hallel, but minhag Ashkenz follows the Maharam Rutenburg who writes that we should always say "likroh." Tur (488) explain that Mahram Rutenburg was concerned lest one leave out a word in hallel, which would render saying "ligmor" a bracha l'vatala. Mishna Berura asks: if the mitzvah is to say full hallel, even if one said the bracha "likroh," wouldn't it be a bracha l'vatala anyway?  Since you missed a word, you didn't do the mitzvah, and the bracha is therefore l'vatalah?  

The MB's question hinges on the chakirah we raised. If there still exists in the shadows a chiyuv of half hallel even on days when there is a greater chiyuv of full hallel, then if one missed a word, one would still be yotzei the lesser chiyuv of half hallel and the bracha would be chal on that chiyuv.  MB must have assumed like the other side of the chakirah, namely, that when there is a chiyuv full hallel, it eclipses and negates the chiyuv half hallel. 

I think the nusach ha'tefilah indicates that even when there is a chiyuv to say full hallel, the chiyuv of half hallel still exists in the shadows and that's why the chazan still sticks in those breaks in the middle to demarcate the same section breaks that are used when we say half hallel.

the Divrei Chaim's practice of preparing the menorah before havdalah

In the Mishnas Sachir on the Moadim, Rav Teichtel writes that he found in a sefer that quotes the practices of the Sanzer Rav, the Divrei Chaim of Sanz, and it is recorded there that on motzei shabbos chanukah one should prepare the oil and wicks in the menorah first, then say havdalah, and then light the menorah.  Once apparently his gabai messed up the order and the Divrei Chaim yelled at him, "Didn't you learn the sugya of tadir v'she'aino tadir?!" and he referenced the Taz in hil Chanukah regarding havdalah.  The Mishnas Sachir writes that he doesn't understand what the Divrei Chaim meant and how he derived from that sugya that the menorah needs to be prepared first, but he hopes to come back to it one day and figure it out.  Sadly, we know that that was not meant to be.

Since there is a tartei l'teivusa here: 1) the sugyos of tadir are inyana d'yoma of daf yomi and 2) this is the Divrei Chaim blog, I thought it worth mentioning.

hadlakas menorah as a kiyum of binyan mikdash

The Ramban famously asks why the torah puts the parsha of hadlakas ha'menorah after the gifts of the nesiim for the chanukas ha'mishkan. He quotes the midrash that presents the opportunity of lighting the menorah as a consolation prize, if you will, to Aharon, because his sheivet did not participate in giving any gifts. Why is menorah the consolation prize and not avodas ha'korbanos? Ramban answers that menorah alludes to the lighting of chanukah, which we retain even in galus. Avodas ha'korbanos is a gift of limited duration, as the mikdash unfortunately was destroyed.

Back in 2012 I quoted a Kozhiglover (I tried to find the exact mareh makom and couldn't find it - sorry I did not link to it then) that there are 2 dinim in hadlakas ha'menorah: 1) hadlakah as an end in its own right; 2) hadlakah as a kiyum in binyan ha'mikdash, as part of constructing a mikdash fit for a king, fit for THE King, is to have a palace that is illuminated.

A proof to this notion can be found in parshas Terumah, which opens with a list of items that were donated to help in the building of the mishkan, among them שֶׁ֖מֶן לַמָּאֹ֑ר. Daas Zekeinim notes that when speaking about most of the gifts, the torah does not say what the gift was used for or what the need for it was, but when it comes to oil, it does.

תימה שכל הפרשה בצרכי בנין חוץ מפסוק זה שהוא צורך שלחן גבוה ואינו אומר חטים ללחם הפנים וכבשים לתמידין ועצים למערכה וי״ל ששלשתן צורך בנין הן שמן המשחה שבו נמשחו ונתקדשו כל כלי המשכן וקטרת נמי שכן דרך מלכים שמבשמין להם הבית קודם שיכנסו לתוכה וכ״ש לפני ממ״ה הקב״ה וכן מצינו שעל ידי הקטרת שכינה נראית דכתיב וכסה ענן הקטרת וכתיב כי בענן אראה. ושמן למאור שכן דרך המלכים להדליק נר לפניהם קודם שיכנסו לבית ואע״ג דלאו לאורה הוא צריך מ״מ הוא כבוד של מעלה.

Parshas Terumah is about collecting what is needed to build the mishkan.  The difference between oil and other items is that the hadlakas hamenorah is part of the mitzvah of binyan ha'mishkan, not just an avodah done in the mishkan. A king's palace would be incomplete if it was a dark, uninviting building. The building itself would be missing an essential feature.

The notion also helps resolve a few problems with the Rambam's famous view (Bias Mikdash 9:7) that the menorah in the mikdash can be lit by a zar. Rishonin (e.g. Tos Yeshanim Yoma 24b) are bothered by the fact that the Torah refers to the lighting being done specifically by Aharon ha'kohen, not just anyone. Furthermore, as the Minchas Chinuch asks, if a zar lights the menorah, it would have to be done outside the heichel, in a place accessible to the zar. Wouldn't the menorah then have to be moved to its proper place next to the Shulchan? How can one fulfill the mitzah of hadlakah if it is done in the wrong place?

One can answer that the kiyum of hadlakas ha'menorah can in fact take place anywhere and be done by anyone. The fact that the menorah must be placed next to the shulchan is a din in binyan ha'mikdash, the structure of the bayis, not the mitzvah of lighting per se. Aharon's role was to ensure that the binyan ha'mikdash, as fulfilled through lighting, is done properly by seeing that the menorah is placed correctly.

This yesod helps explain a few chanukah halachos:

The Rambam, unlike just about all other Rishonim, holds that there was a mitzvah to light the menorah in the morning as well as in the afternoon. Rashba attacks this view. One of his questions is from the din that the first lighting of the menorah, the chinuch, must be done in the afternoon. If there is a mitzvah to light the menorah even in the morning, why can't the chinuch be done then?

The answer might be that the mitzvah of lighting in the morning is a din in binyan ha'mikdash, not a kiyum in the hadlakas ha'menorah itself.

This would also explain why we light chanukah menorah only at shekiya and not during the day. If we are commemorating the lighting which took place in the mikdash, why not light in the day as well, since according to Rambam the menorah in the mikdash was lit in the day as well as at night? R' Soloveitchik suggested that since שרגא בּטיהרא מאי אהני there is no "shem ner" on such a light (ayen sham for a different answer). This also explains the strange timing of menorah lighting. Usually mitzvos have to be done either during the day, i.e. from sunrise until sunset, or are done at night, i.e. after tzeis ha'kochavim. By ner chanukah we have the strange phenomenon of not lighting during the day, but, according to Rambam/GRA, not waiting for tzeis and true nightfall either to do the mitzvah. Instead, we light at shekiya, just as bein ha'shemashos starts. According the RYBS, the hesber is that there is a chovas ha'gavra is to light during the day, but we wait until it begins to get dark because otherwise the candle does not have a shem ner as it provides no benefit.

If lighting during the day is not a kiyum of the mitzvah of hadlakas menorah but rather a din in binayan mikdash, then question of why we don't light chanukah candles during the day does not get off the ground. Lighting the chanukah menorah commemorates the mitzvah of hadlakas ha'menorah in the mikdash that is connected with the miracle of the oil, not the binyan ha'mishkan.

This same yesod helps explain an anomoly in the text of al ha'nissim.  Although we omit any mention of the nes of the oil in al ha'nissim, there is one line at the end about "hidliku neiros b'chatzros kodshecha." If Chazal wanted to include the nes of the menorah in our tefilah, why sneak it in in passing and not give it a more prominent mention? R' Avraham Gurewicz, R"Y of Gateshead, writes that this line is not about the lighting as a kiyum of hadlakas ha'menorah. The context has to do with the Chashmonaim repairing the mikdash -- "ti'haru es mikdashecha..." That line has to do with the lighting as a kiyum of binyan ha'mikdash, which is the theme of the tefilah.

Coming back to Ramban's question that we started with, it is davka hadlakas neiros which is the "consolation prize" and not avodas ha'korbanos because Hashem wanted to give Aharon a chance to contribute to binyan ha'mikdash, and it is the mitzvah of hadlakas ha'menorah, not avodas ha'korbanos, which fills that role of being a kiyum in binyan ha'mikdash.  

attention to the little things and the little people is the key to greatness

At the end of the parsha we have the story of Yosef's interpretation of the dreams of the Sar haMashkim and the Sar ha'Ofim, but before we get to those dreams, we have a bit of introduction:

וַיָּבֹא אֲלֵיהֶם יוֹסֵף בַּבֹּקֶר וַיַּרְא אֹתָם וְהִנָּם זֹעֲפִים

וַיִּשְׁאַל אֶת סְרִיסֵי פַרְעֹה אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ בְמִשְׁמַר בֵּית אֲדֹנָיו לֵאמֹר מַדּוּעַ פְּנֵיכֶם רָעִים הַיּוֹם

וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו חֲלוֹם חָלַמְנוּ וּפֹתֵר אֵין אֹתוֹ וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם יוֹסֵף הֲלוֹא לֵאלֹקים פִּתְרֹנִים סַפְּרוּ נָא לִי

R' Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi asks: Why do we need all this? Just cut to the chase and get to the dreams and their interpretation?!

He doesn't mention it, but the Abarbanel and Seforno were already bothered by this question. Abarbanel answers (and Seforno says something similar) that Yosef acted like a valet for these two officers, as we read earlier וַיִּפְקֹד שַׂר הַטַּבָּחִים אֶת יוֹסֵף אִתָּם וַיְשָׁרֶת אֹתָם. Like a good valet, Yosef stopped by in the morning to check on his masters and find out if they needed anything. When he saw them looking out of sorts, he was concerned lest he had done something wrong, e.g. perhaps he had not turned down the bed properly the night before, and so he inquired what was bothering them.

Aside from the question of why the Torah would need to go out of its way to inform us that Yosef performed his role as valet faithfully, I find it hard to see Yosef in this role. We read earlier: וַיִּתֵּן שַׂר בֵּית הַסֹּהַר בְּיַד יוֹסֵף אֵת כׇּל הָאֲסִירִם אֲשֶׁר בְּבֵית הַסֹּהַר. It sounds like Yosef was the overseer of the entire prison not just a mere valet to the two officers. As for the words וַיְשָׁרֶת אֹתָם, it doesn't say that Yosef was appointed to this task, but simply that he performed it. As Netziv explains, Yosef took it upon himself to serve these two officers so that by ingratiating himself with them his own position would be more secure מעצמו שרת אותם, כדרך מדת ישראל להשפיל את עצמם לפני שרי אומות העולם, ולהכיר החמלה אשר נדרשים מאד לשימוש לפי הרגלם, ואין איש אחר זולתו

R' Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi is a baal mussar and comes at the question from that angle. Yosef is Yosef hatzadik, and surely had great and holy things on his mind from morning until night.  Yosef was the administrator of the entire prison, something that would consume all the energy and thought of a regular person. How does such Yosef start his day? וַיַּרְא אֹתָם וְהִנָּם זֹעֲפִים  He looks in on each individual. ַיִּשְׁאַל אֶת סְרִיסֵי פַרְעֹה אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ בְמִשְׁמַר בֵּית אֲדֹנָיו לֵאמֹר מַדּוּעַ פְּנֵיכֶם רָעִים הַיּוֹם He asks after their welfare.  "Good Morning, how are you doing?  Everything going OK?  Anything I can do?"   Yosef doesn't start his day with his head in the clouds contemplating devarim ha'omdim b'rumo shel olam, and does not start his day thinking about the prison system as a whole, but rather he starts his day by showing consideration for each individual, no matter now small, no matter that they are just a fellow prisoner trapped in the same dungeon that he is. That's gadlus!  As I've quoted before from R' Kook, great people are not great because they think only about great things; great people are great because they think about and notice even the little things, and even the little people. 

My wife just mentioned to me that she spent some extra hours at work filling in when someone was out and the first thing the person said when they got back was, "Did you take care of ....?"  Had that person been Yosef, the first thing would have been, "Good morning, and thank you for filling in on short notice when I couldn't be here."  Yosef is the CEO who, when he enters the building, thanks the doorman and asks how he is doing, even though he has an entire company to run and probably has other things on his mind.   

Yosef later tells his brothers כּי למחיה שׁלחני אלקים אליכם.  That behavior didn't start then when he was viceroy over all of Egypt . It started  now, when he saw a prisoner, a nobody, who was upset, and Yosef's reaction was an emphathetic, "What can I do to help," כּי למחיה שׁלחני אלקים אליכם, because that is what Hashem put me here for.

kesones pasim and distinctive dress

וַיָּבֹא יַעֲקֹב שָׁלֵם after leaving Lavan's home is interpreted by Chasam Sofer as an acronym for שׁם, לשׁון, מלבּושׁ. Yaakov preserved his Jewish name, his language, and his unique mode of dress in the galus of Lavan's home.  This is the key to survival in exile.

Chasam Sofer interprets Yaakov's instructions in last week's parsha (35:2) וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל בֵּיתוֹ וְאֶל כׇּל אֲשֶׁר עִמּוֹ הָסִרוּ אֶת אֱלֹהֵי הַנֵּכָר אֲשֶׁר בְּתֹכְכֶם וְהִטַּהֲרוּ וְהַחֲלִיפוּ שִׂמְלֹתֵיכֶם in a simlilar vein. While Rashi explains the need to discard the garments as stemming from a suspicion of those clothes having been used for avodash zarah, שמא יש בידכם כסות של עבודה זרה, Chasam Sofer sees it as a restoration of the Bnei Yaakov's unique mode of dress. Having killed the inhabitants of Shechem, Yaakov's family was relatively isolated from the outside world and could dress and they pleased without fear of becoming assimilated into the surrounding culture. Now that they were entering more populated areas, greater care was needed to remain distinctive in dress.

In his derashos (vol 1 p 155) Chasam Sofer quotes Ramban that the kesones passim given to Yosef was a form of royal garb that was common in the court of ancient kings. He then makes the astounding claim that the reason so much tragedy came on the heels of the kesones being given to Yosef is because it imitated the dress of the non Jews. Later in the parsha we read that Eishes Potifar grabs onto Yosef's kesones -- וַתִּתְפְּשֵׂהוּ בְּבִגְדוֹ. Adopting the dress of the outside world allows that outside culture a foothold to latch onto, which then becomes a slippery slope to greater assimilation (derashos p 144).

וַיְהִי כְּדַבְּרָהּ אֶל יוֹסֵף יוֹם יוֹם (39:10) The Vishever Rav explains that Eishes Potifar told Yosef that there is no such thing as a slippery slope, no such thing as aveira goreres aveira. Every day is unique in its own right; every incident stands alone in its own right.  What happens today doesn't influence what might happen tomorrow. Yosef understood this is not the case. A small breach today leads to a larger breach tomorrow.

I thought this C.S. sheds new light on the pasuk in sefer Daniel (3:21) which describes how Chananya, Mishael, and Azarya were thrown into a burning furnace and specific mention is made of their clothes being left on them when this was happening.  ֵּאדַ֜יִן גֻּבְרַיָּ֣א אִלֵּ֗ךְ כְּפִ֙תוּ֙ בְּסַרְבָּלֵיהוֹן֙ פַּטְּשֵׁיה֔וֹן וְכַרְבְּלָתְה֖וֹן וּלְבֻשֵׁיה֑וֹן וּרְמִ֕יו לְגֽוֹא־אַתּ֥וּן נוּרָ֖א יָקִֽדְתָּֽא  Chazal take note and have a pshat here, but perhaps one can explain that Chananya, Mishael, and Azarya remained distinct not only in their belief and refusal to bow to Nevuchadnezer's idol, but in their dress as well, as that was their bulwark against the tide.

The story of Yosef is the story of our descent into galus, and so given C"S's thesis that the kesones passim = a step toward assimilation, it is understandable midah k'neged midah that one of the merits for which Bn"Y is given credit in Mitzrayim is the fact that they retained their distinctive mode of dress even in galus (granted thar there are many different versions in midrash of what Bn"Y is credited for, but this is one that has certainly become popularized, even if it is not one that is found in most versions of that Chazal). If not maintaining distinctive dress started us down the road to galus, undoing that error led us on the road out.

tefilah makes a world of difference

Rashi writes that Yaakov prepared for his meeting with Eisav in three ways, התקין עצמו לג׳ דברים: לדורון, למלחמה, לתפילה.  Ramban mentions the same three things, but he switches the order, התקין עצמו לשלשה דברים: לתפלה, לדורון, ולמלחמה. In truth, both versions have a source in Chazal. However, given Yaakov's personality, doesn't Ramban's version have more appeal? Wouldn't you expect Yaakov Avinu to prioritize tefilah over everything else? Yet according to Rashi, it's last on the list?!

R' Shteinman explained that they key word here is התקין . When you have to do something difficult or something that makes you uncomfortable, it takes time to psych yourself up and prepare for the task. When it's something that is easy to do or an activity you like or that comes naturally to you, that same preparation is unnecessary.

For you and me, when it comes to davening vs going to work, for example, we ideally should be like the chassidim ha'rishonim the gemara describes, who would take an hour just to prepare for tefilah.  It takes effort for us to find meaning in tefilah and to be able to focus on tefilah, so it requires preparation.  Going to work comes more naturally to us, so we should just be able to run out the door to catch the train in the morning. (Lmaaseh, unfortunately we do the reverse, and we run into shul when they are half way through pesukei d'zimra and have one foot out the door by aleinu, but we spend an hour preparing for a presentation at work that lasts 5 minutes. Be that as it may, at least we can appreciate that things should be.)

For Yaakov Avinu, it was Torah and tefilah that required no preparation, because like David haMelech who said, "Ani tefilah," Yaakov embodied tefilah and was ready and focused 24x7. It was דורון and מלחמה which ran against his nature and which he had to psych himself and prepare for. Therefore, when explaining Yaakov's preparations -- the התקין -- Rashi puts these activities first.

2) On the topic of tefilah the Rabeinu Bachyei says an amazing vort at the beginning of our parsha. He quotes many examples to prove that sheep are a chashuv animnal, and if you are going to list your possessions, they should get first billing. For example, when the Torah speaks about the gifts that were given to Avraham (12:16) וּלְאַבְרָ֥ם הֵיטִ֖יב בַּעֲבוּרָ֑הּ וַֽיְהִי־ל֤וֹ צֹאן־וּבָקָר֙ וַחֲמֹרִ֔ים וַעֲבָדִים֙ וּשְׁפָחֹ֔ת וַאֲתֹנֹ֖ת וּגְמַלִּֽים, sheep are mentioned first. In parshas Toldos, when the Torah speaks about Yitzchak's wealth, וַֽיְהִי־ל֤וֹ מִקְנֵה־צֹאן֙ וּמִקְנֵ֣ה בָקָ֔ר וַעֲבֻדָּ֖ה רַבָּ֑ה וַיְקַנְא֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ פְּלִשְׁתִּֽים (26:14), sheep are again mentioned first. Why then in our parsha, when Yaakov tells Eisav about all the possessions he has accumulated, he doesn't mention the sheep first? וַֽיְהִי־לִי֙ שׁ֣וֹר וַחֲמ֔וֹר צֹ֖אן וְעֶ֣בֶד וְשִׁפְחָ֑ה... Why does he mention them only after שׁ֣וֹר וַחֲמ֔וֹר?

There are meforshim that say Yaakov singled out שׁ֣וֹר וַחֲמ֔וֹר because they are an allusion to the shevatim of Yissachar and Yosef. Yaakov calls Yissachar יִשָּׂשכָ֖ר חֲמֹ֣ר גָּ֑רֶם (49:14), and in Zos haBracha we read about Yosef בְּכ֨וֹר שׁוֹר֜וֹ הָדָ֣ר ל֗וֹ (33:15). Yaakov was signaling to Eisav that he would not be able to defeat him because of the power of Torah which is linked to Yissachar and the power of Yosef, who is the flame which can devour Eisav, as Rashi writes in last week's parsha. Since there is special significance to שׁ֣וֹר וַחֲמ֔וֹר beyond their value as animals, perhaps that is why they are listed first. That's all well and good in the world of derash, but it is a far cry from pshat. Eisav was not aware that Yaakov had 12 sons, nor would he have been aware of their character, so I don't see how he would intuit the remez.

R' Bachyei  gives a psychological answer.  Since Yaakov "tricked" his father by using sheep skins to disguise himself as Eisav and by bringing mutton to his father as a substitute for the food Eisav was supposed to bring, he didn't want to bring up sheep first thing in his conversation lest they remind Eisav of their past history.  Yaakov was not even sure the old wounds Eisav felt had healed, so he wanted to make sure he got off on the right foot. Therefore, he snuck in the mention of sheep agav urcha the other items on his list.

ומה שלא הקדימו בכתוב הזה לפי שלא רצה לפתוח לו בצאן לפי שע״י הצאן נתרוקן עשו מן הברכות וזכה יעקב בהן כענין שכתוב לך נא אל הצאן

If so, asks the R' Bachyei on himself, why is it that just a few pesukim later, when the parsha lists the gifts that Yaakov sent to Eisav, the very first item on the list is the sheep! עִזִּ֣ים מָאתַ֔יִם וּתְיָשִׁ֖ים עֶשְׂרִ֑ים רְחֵלִ֥ים מָאתַ֖יִם וְאֵילִ֥ים עֶשְׂרִֽים (32:15)

והנה לפי מה שכתבתי למעלה שלא רצה לפתוח לו בצאן בפסוק ויהי לי שור וחמור, למה פתח עתה במנחה בעזים ותישים,

Here is the amazing answer of the R' Bachyei:

והענין כי קודם שהתפלל תפלתו לא רצה שיפתחו לו המלאכים בלשון צאן, כי יהיה סבה לעורר שנאה ומזכרת חובה להזכיר לו ראשונות, אבל עתה אחרי שהתפלל לא פחד ממנו כלל אבל רצה להפחידו, ופתח לו בעזים לומר אם דעתך להלחם בי לא תוכל, שהרי קבלתי הברכות ע״י שני גדיי עזים, ואמר לי (בראשית כ״ז:כ״ט) הוה גביר לאחיך ולך אמר ואת אחיך תעבוד.

Kan kodem tefilah, kan l'achar tefilah! Before davening, Yaakov was worried about what would happen if he brought up the topic of sheep. He didn't want to trigger Eisav. After davening, he was no longer afraid.  

There is a story of someone who travelled to meet the Chazon Ish to ask whether they should go ahead with a potentially dangerous surgery that might prove fatal, but according to the doctors was the only chance to save the person's life. The person came right before mincha and begged the C.I. to listen to their shayla as it is a question of pikuach nefesh. The C.I. heard the facts and said given the doctor's advice, he must do the surgery. The C.I. then invited the person to join him for mincha. After mincha, the CI asked the person to repeat the shayla. This time, after hearing him out, the C.I. said not to do the surgery. "Why the change?" asked the petitioner. TThe C.I. answered that the difference is that they had just davened mincha and he had the person in mind.  Kan koden tefilah, kan l'achar tefilah.  One tefilah can make a world of difference and completely change the circumstances.

hiding right under Eisav's nose

Rashi in last week's parsha quotes the gemara in Meg 17a that Yaakov spent 14 years in yeshivat Shemv'Eiver before heading to Lavan's house. The events at the beginning of our parsha pick up the story at the point Yaakov is finally leaving yeshiva.

If I had to ask you the address of Yeshivat Shem v'Eiver, where would you say it is located? What zip code do you put on the envelope when you mail in your donation?

Maharasha makes the logical deduction that if our parsha is resuming the story at the point Yaakov leaves the yeshiva, וַיֵּצֵ֥א יַעֲקֹ֖ב מִבְּאֵ֣ר שָׁ֑בַע means that the yeshiva must have been located in Be'er Sheva:

ויש לדקדק דא"כ מבית עבר אחר שהיה שם י"ד שנים הלך לארם נהרים וקרא כתיב ויצא יעקב מבאר שבע וילך חרנה ואמרינן במסכת חולין בפ' ג"ה כי מטא לחרן כו' וחזר למקום שהתפללו אבותיו וכו' וסולם היה עומד בבאר שבע כו' מכל זה מוכח דמבאר שבע הלך לחרן ולא מבאר שבע לבית עבר ואחר י"ד שנים הלך לחרן

Yet as you may recall from parshas Toldos -- וַיִּקְרָ֥א אֹתָ֖הּ שִׁבְעָ֑ה עַל־כֵּ֤ן שֵׁם־הָעִיר֙ בְּאֵ֣ר שֶׁ֔בַע עַ֖ד הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּֽה׃ (26:33) -- Be'er Sheva was where Yitzchak and Rivka were living. No problem, says the Maharasha. It must be that Yaakov never left his hometown, and may even have studied in yeshiva with his father.  The Maharsha throws a little letter jumble in as icing on the cake:

יש ליישב דבית עבר נמי בבאר שבע ולא הלך כלל מבאר שבע לבית עבר אלא שהיה מוטמן בבאר שבע בבית עבר מפני יראת אחיו עד אחר י"ד שנים הלך משם לחרן ותו לא מידי ויש רמז במלות באר שבע שיש בו אותיות עבר וארבע עשרה ועוד נראה דאביו יצחק נמי היה לו בית המדרש כדאמרינן ביומא יצחק זקן ויושב בישיבה היה כו' וכל שלשה מדרשות של שם ושל עבר ושל יצחק בבאר שבע היו ורמז מבאר שבע אותיות ש"ם עב"ר א"ב

How can this be?  If the whole point of Yaakov fleeing home to go to Uncle Lavan was to escape the wrath of Eisav, asks R' Chaim Kanievsky in Divrei Siach, then how could he hang around in his own backyard in Be'er Sheva for 14 years? Why wasn't he afraid that Eisav would catch him during those years?!

R' Chaim answers that Yaakov knew that if there is on place that Eisav won't stop foot, it's inside yeshiva. Therefore, what better place than that to hide?

You can interpret this in a broader sense, as R' Yitzchak Shmuel Gamzu, the AB"D of Haifa does, as implying that when a person is enveloped by the ruchniyus of beis medrash, the Eisavs of the world, the yetzer ha'ra, the various evils out there, cannot disturb that sacred space.   

While R' Chaim focusses on the fact that Eisav would not cross the threshold of beis medrash to enter, the flipside is no less true.  For those fourteen years Yaakov did not cross the threshold to leave the beis medrash. There was no bein ha'zmanim trip to the zoo or the amusement park. It was 24x7 in front of the shetender, no other pursuits.

With this background we can answer a different question posed by all the meforshei Rashi.

לא היה צריך לכתוב אלא: וילך יעקב חרנה, למה הזכיר יציאתו? אלא מגיד שיציאת צדיק עושה רושם, שבזמן שהצדיק בעיר – היא הודה היא זיווה היא הדרה, יצא משם – פינה זיווה פינה הדרה.

Why does Rashi make this point only here? Why not mention it when Yitzchak travelled from place to place, or when Avraham travelled from place to place?

Chazon Ish answered that Avraham was famous and wealthy; he was treated like a king by his contemporaries.  Yitzchak followed in his father's footsteps.  Avimelech, King of Grar, acknowledged that his wealth and success.  It's no chiddush that people took note of their comings and goings.  The paparazzi probably followed them around. Yaakov, however, was different.  Yaakov was a yeshiva bachur through and through, not doing anything other than parking himself in front of a gemara.  Who knew who he was? Who would recognize what he was accomplishing?  Therefore davka here, when Yaakov leaves, the Torah makes the point that יציאת צדיק עושה רושם to show that it has nothing to do with external fame and fortune, with celebrity status, but the "roshem" comes from the intrinsic value of the tzadik's spiritual achievement.  

I would add that Rashi perhaps makes the point here to show that יציאת צדיק עושה רושם is something that is built into the teva. So long as Yaakov was sitting and learning, Eisav was not going to bother him. So why would he want anyone to notice when he picked up to leave? Why wouldn't he want to sneak out, and let Eisav think that he's still inside the yeshiva?  To use my example of the paparazzi, why not put on a disguise to escape notice?  It must be that Yaakov had no choice in the matter. יציאת צדיק עושה רושם is not something you can choose to happen or not happen. It's a psik reisha, it's part of the way things work, that when a tzadik departs, the spiritual energy of the place is automatically drained.

the "minhag" of adding a bit of water to the cup before putting in the oil for your chanukah menorah

I don't buy those pre-filled cups with oil for my menorah.  I do things the old fashioned way and pour in the oil myself.  Unlike the pre-filled cups, which to the best of my recollection, are completely filled with oil, I always add a little water to the bottom of the cup.  

I never thought of this as a minhag; I thought it's just common sense because I don't want the fire to burn down and char and blacken the cup.  Lo and behold, take a look at this Baal haTurim and the notes in the Oz v'Hadar Mikraos Gedolos:

Baal haTurim writes that the three wells which Yitzchak dug correspond to 1) the Babylonian exile; 2) the complaints of Haman against the Jews who were trying to rebuild the Mikdash; 3) the Greeks, who tried to prevent us from fulfilling the mitzvah of p'ru u'revu by banning the use of mikveh.  

The Greeks failed, says Baal haTurim, because a miracle happened and a spring emerged in every person's home so that each person had a personal mikveh to use.  This is why, says the Imrei Emes, the text of the bracha is "she'asah nisim," in the plural, not nes, in the singular.  The bracha commemorates not only the nes of the oil on Chanukah, but also the nes of the mikveh (but we say the bracha on Purim as well?  You got me.)  

And this is why there is a minhag to add a little water to the bottom of the cup before you fill it with oil.  It's not just to prevent the cup from being blackened, but ir's an allusion to this miracle of the mikveh.

Rebbi and Antoninus as the answer to Rivka's worries

Rivka was troubled by the pains she experienced in pregnancy, וַיִּתְרֹֽצְצ֤וּ הַבָּנִים֙ בְּקִרְבָּ֔הּ וַתֹּ֣אמֶר אִם־כֵּ֔ן לָ֥מָּה זֶּ֖ה אָנֹ֑כִי, to the point of regretting the whole thing, as Rashi comments, למה זה אנכי – מתאוה ומתפללת על ההריון. The gemara in Brachos (10) tells us that Chizkiyahu did not want to have children because he saw that Menashe would come from his offspring. Yeshayahu haNavi came to him with the message בַּהֲדֵי כַּבְשֵׁי דְרַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לָךְ? You have no business getting involved in Hashem's plans. It's not your job to make cheshbonos based on what you think the better or worse outcome might be. Your job is to do the mitzvah you were commanded to do and then leave the rest up to Hashem. Yet here we see that Rivka made also made a cheshbon, like Chizkiyahu, and thought maybe it would have been better to not have children.

The Brisker Rav explained that there is a difference between Rivka and Chizkiyahu. Chizkiyahu was metzuveh in peru u'revu, so he had no choice. Rivka, as a woman, was not obligated in peru u'revu. Therefore, she argued that b'shlama Yitzchak Avinu who is metzuveh, he has to do what he has to do, but למה זה אנכי, I have no mitzvah, so why should I have to have anything to do with it.

(You can maybe sharpen this vort of the Brisker Rav a little bit in light of the chiddush of Meshech Chochma in parshas Noach that the reason women are exempt from peru u'revu is gufa because they have tzaar leida. "Derache'ha darkei noam" and the Torah would not command that which inevitably and unavoidably engenders pain.  Since Rivka was in such pain, it only served to underscore the fact that she had no obligation.)

Riva consulted a navi and was told that the explanation of her strange and difficult pregnancy pains is that "shnei goyim b'bitneich."

How did that answer allay Rivka's worries? The simplest explanation is that Rivka assumed she was carrying a single baby, and was concerned with the unusual pains she was experiencing. The navi (they didn't have an ultrasound) revealed that she was having twins, and that's why the pregnancy was more difficult. As Rashbam writes, שני גוים – אל תיראי, כי צער העיבור שלך בשביל ששני תאומים יש בבטנך, שמרובה צער העיבור של שנים מעיבור אחד.

This approach is not very satisfying. Was there no one else in the area who had carried twins or a midwife who had delivered twins who could have advised Rivka that her pains were normal for such a pregnancy? And if the fact that she is carrying twins alone is the answer to her fears, why does the Torah continue and tell us that the two babies will become different nations, etc.? What does that have to do with what Rivka wanted to know? Rashbam addresses the point: ומתוך שהנביא התחיל לומר לה, גמר ופירש לה כל העתידות.

If the answer to Rivka given in the pesukim seems perplexing enough, Chazal go a step further and tell us that "shnei goyim b'bitneich" refers to Antoninus and Rebbe, as the gemara (A"Z 11a) quoted by Rashi relates:

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אַל תִּקְרֵי ״גּוֹיִם״ אֶלָּא ״גֵּיִים״, זֶה אַנְטוֹנִינוּס וְרַבִּי, שֶׁלֹּא פָּסְקוּ מֵעַל שׁוּלְחָנָם לֹא חֲזֶרֶת וְלֹא קִישּׁוּת וְלֹא צְנוֹן, לֹא בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה וְלֹא בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים,

Chazal apparently understood that to answer Rivka's concerns it was not only not enough to tell her that she was carrying twins, not only not enough to tell her that each will become a great nation in its own right, but she had to be given an almost prophetic vision of generations later Rebbi and Antoninus sharing great success and chashivus, as demonstrated by the table they were able to set (see Gur Aryeh).

Clearly Chazal must have understood that Rivka was worried about more than pregnancy aches and pains.

We have what Chazal understand to be the answer to her questions and concerns. It's up to us to play Jeapordy and figure out the question Rivka was asking. I want to explore two possibilities, both of which revolve around the idea of cooperation:

First, the explanation of Chida, who writes that what bothered Rivka was the fact that even if she were carrying twins, it makes no sense that two such completely different children should come from the same womb. When she passed a beis avodah zarah, one baby got excited; when she passed a beis medrash, the other got excited. This is not the pattern of the Avos' family. Yishmael came from a different mother than Yitzchak. Should not Eisav come from a different mother than Yaakov?

Hashem answered Rivka's worry by showing her Antoninus, who served Rebbi with respect and admiration. Eisav and Yaakov are not like Yishmael and Yitzchak. There *can* be cooperation between the two, albeit not in their lifetimes, and perhaps not for generations later, but the fact that there can be this relationship is not coincidence. It's because "shnei goyim b'bitneich," it's because both Yaakov and Eisav come from the same root, the same womb, that there exists the potential for harmony between them. Maharal writes that Chazal single out Rebbi and Anotinus because they were contemporaries, and thus parallel Yaakov and Eisav who were twins. Rivka is being shown the potential that exists in Yaakov and Eisav, even though the reality is, as we know from history, that harmony was more an exception than the rule.

A second approach appears in the Be'er Mayim Chaim from the Chernobeler. In order to get inside his worldview and the framework for his thinking, let me preface how he handles a side question on this gemara raised by Tos. Tos asks: The gemara (Kes 104) tells us that on his deathbed Rebbi said that he did not get one drop of enjoyment from anything in olam ha'zeh. Doesn't this conflict with the portrayal of Rebbi here as sharing a lavish table with Antoninus?

Tosfos answers that the table was set lavishly for the guests and others, but Rebbi himself did not partake. In a similar vein, Maharal in Gur Aryeh suggests that setting the table with the hard to get radishes and lettuce was all for show, but not for consumption:

והשתא נראה מה שאמר רבי בשעת פטירתו שלא נהנה מן העולם הזה אפילו באצבע קטנה, זה אין דומה לזה, דצנון וחזרת אין זה הנאה כלל, אלא שהיה בוחר בזה להחשיב את עצמו, והוא דרך החשובים כאשר ראוי לפי חשיבות הנפש שלהם, אבל שיהיה נוטה אחר הנאתו ותאותו – לא נטה

Here's the Be'er Mayim Chaim's answer:

ובזה אפשר לתרץ קושיות התוספות שם בעבודה זרה (י"א.) שכתבו על הא דאמרינן שלא פסקה מעל שולחנם לא צנון וכו' וזה לשונם: ואף על גב שרבי לא נהנה מן העולם אפילו באצבע קטנה מכל מקום אוכלי שולחנו היו רבים עד כאן. ולדברינו בלא זה ניחא כי יוכל להיות שיאכל האדם כל מעדנים ומטעמים שבעולם ולא יהנה מהם כל עיקר מרוב הפחד והאימה ושבירת התאוה בימים רבים כאמור.

Rebbi did in fact take part in consuming the delicacies that were put out. However, that does not mean he had hanaah. Let me give you a mashal. If you have ever had the experience of having to attend a dinner event for some organization where you have to sit through hours of speeches while eating your food, you know very well what it means to attend a banquet but have no hanaah from any of it : )

For Rebbi, eating was part and parcel of his avodas Hashem. Every piece of food was an opportunity to sanctify gashmiyus. Every piece of food was consumed l'shem Shamayim. If that's what you have on your mind with every bite that you eat, then eating is avodah -- it's not hanaah.

The Be'er Mayim Chaim is so enveloped in this mindset that he cannot fathom why Tos did not give this answer, a point I'll come back to:

ואנכי לא זכיתי להבין דברי קדשם כי האם אפשר שרבי לא אכל כל ימיו והיה מתענה או לא בא אל אשתו מעודו והרי היה לו בנים ומוכרחים אנו לומר שבודאי עסק בכל דברי העולם כבני אדם רק שלא נהנה מהם. והדמיון לזה הוא כמו שאמר רבי אליעזר (נדרים כ':) ודומה עלי כמי שכפאו שד. הרי שלא היה רצונו בשום אופן לתאוה ולא היה חומד ומתאוה אליה כלל כי היה מאוס אצלו בתכלית המיאוס כי הנה תאות אשה לחמת מלא צואה דימוה חז"ל (שבת קנ"ב.).

With this background, coming back to Rivka's worries and pains, he writes:

Yaakov and Eisav were in constant conflict, even in the womb. If one gave an inch, the other pounced on it and grabbed it. Why was Yaakov, wondered Rivka, so intent on capturing what Eisav had? As Chasam Sofer asks, it would seem that Yaakov and Eisav should be able to split things evenly, with one taking olam ha'zeh and the other olam ha'ba, and shalom for all involved.

The chiddush revealed to Rivka s that to be a Yaakov Avinu does not mean giving up olam ha'zeh, but rather utilizing it as a tool l'shem shamayim. "Shnei goyim b'bitneich" -- both Yaakov and Eisav share the same womb, live in the same world of olam ha'zeh. The difference between them is what they want to achieve. You can and will have in the future two people sitting at the same table, Rebbi and Antoninus, each with the same food in front of them, each partaking of the same meal, yet they will be world's apart. One has no personal hanaah from the experience at all; one revels in his enjoyment of the meal. One sees the world through the lens of avodas Hashem; one sees it through the lens of serving himself.

The Chernobeler also see the lesson of Yaakov and Eisav both being בְּבִטְנֵךְ as one of cooperation, but not cooperation between Eisav and Yaakov, like the Chida suggests, but cooperation between Yaakov's own holy neshoma and his guf, which is bound to olam ha'zeh, the same world as Eisav.

The Chernobeler's answer requires accepting an entire framework and view of how to relate to gashmiyus which does not sit very well with the world of Lithuanian mussar. R' Shteinman in Ayeles haShachar notes that despite the Chernobeler's bewilderment at Tos, as he writes לא זכיתי להבין דברי קדשם, the fact still remains that Tos does not offer the Chernobeler's answer. This indicates, says R' Shteinman, that they do not buy into this world view. It is impossible to enjoy all the luscious treats of olam ha'zeh and remain immune from getting any pleasure or enjoyment from the experience. It's a nice theory, but it does not comport with reality.

Lulei d'mistafina to stick my head between these mountains, I would point to the gemara of מתעסק בחלבים ועריות חייב שכן נהנה as a proof to R' Shteinman. A person cannot claim as an out that true, they ate cheilev, but had no enjoyment from the experience and therefore is patur. The enjoyment is inevitable, as we cannot escape our human nature.

Are the Avos in Chevron this Shabbos along with the thousands of others who are there?

Many people make a point of spending this Shabbos in Chevron in commemoration of the episode of Avraham Avinu buying Me'aras haMachpeila recorded in this week's parsha.  I found the following in Koveitz b'Ivkei Siach, a collection of questions posed to R Ch Kanievsky on various topics.  The interlocutor prefaced his question to R' Chaim with a story.  A bachur told R' Dovid Povarsky that he went on a trip to Chevron on Chol HaMoed to visit the Avos.  R' Dovid replied that he shouldn't have bothered, as they are not there.  Shocked, the bachur asked R' Dovid what he meant, as he went to Me'aras haMachpeila where they are buried.  R' Dovid explained that there is a Zohar (don't ask me where) that says from chatzos on erev Shabbos until motzei Shabbos the neshomos go to the makom Mikdash and are therefore are not in Chevron at that time.  (R' Dovid presumably help that this is not a din in Shabbos, but a din in any yom kadosh, including Chol ha'Moed.)  The question posed to R' Chaim is whether the same holds true of other kivrei tzadikim, which would mean there is no point to visiting their graves on erev Shabbos.  For the record, R' Chaim held that this Zohar only applies to the Avos.  Ad kan the story and the question.  What I want to focus on is the footnote added by the interlocutor: If this is correct, then what's the point of spending Shabbos Chayei Sarah in Chevron and davening by Me'aras haMachpeila?  The Avos are not found there on Shabbos!  He ends off, "Yesh l'ayein."

I think perhaps drawing this conclusion misses the point of the parsha and the point of the Shabbos in Chevron, as it assumes the only reason to go to Chevron or Me'aras haMachpeila is because it is a place of kivrei tzadikim.  Obviously there is a huge difference between the Avos and other tzadikim, but in this person's mind, conceptually at least, the idea of being in Chevron is akin to visiting R' Nachman's kever in Ukraine.  The tzadik lived; the tzadik died; his kever becomes a shrine, if you will, to his spirit. 

Our parsha is about much more than that.  This is the coda to Sarah's life, and essentially to Avraham's life.  We can now look back and see the results of that mission which started with the command to go  אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַרְאֶךָּ, with the promise that וְאֶעֶשְׂךָ לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל וַאֲבָרֶכְךָ וַאֲגַדְּלָה שְׁמֶךָ וֶהְיֵה בְּרָכָה.  Would Avraham be able to make a home in that land?  He faced famine in the land, he faced war, he saw the destruction of whole cities in the land, the land caused a breakup between himself and his closest family member, Lot.  Yet, Avraham stuck with it.  We see that Hashem's promise was therefore fulfilled, and Avraham was blessed with riches, he became great, and in our parsha is now referred to as  נְשִׂיא אֱלֹקים אַתָּה בְּתוֹכֵנוּ. He is now as much a תוֹשָׁב as he is/was a גֵּר, with all the rights that that entails.  Avraham's staking a claim in Chevron is not just about making an ohel that will become a place of spiritual pilgrimage, as that could just as well be in the Ukraine or in Cambria Heights, Queens.  The point pf Avraham buying land is proving that not only in life, but in death as well, his attachment, our attachment, to Eretz Yisrael never ceases.  Ibn Ezra puts it succinctly:

 

ונזכרה זאת הפרשה: להודיע מעלת ארץ ישראל מכל הארצות לחיים ולמתים.

ועוד: לקיים דבר השם לאברהם להיות לו נחלה.

 

So even if the Avos are not there at that moment, we still celebrate their title to the land which remains with us to this very day.

 

Even the shlichut to find a wife for Yitzchak, which immediately follows the story of Avraham buying a burial plot in Chevron, underscores this same theme.  Why does Avraham warn Eliezer not to take a wife for Yitzchak from the local Canaani tribes?  Chizkuni answers:

 

מבנות הכנעני – פן יאמרו עלי על ידי ירושה ומתנה נכנס הוא לארץ לפיכך איני רוצה אלא על ידי הקב״ה שיתננה לי בחזקה

 

Even in marrying off his son, Avraham never lost sight of stiving to fulfill that initial command and promise of Eretz Yisrael which Hashem made to him.

hidur, zerizus, mitzvah bo yoseir m'bshlucho -- which takes precedence over the other?

What takes precedence, zerizus or hidur? Is it better to do a mitzvah faster, or to do it in a nicer way? For example, if you can take a lulav and esrog and fulfill your mitzvah first thing in the morning or you can wait until later in the day and fulfill the mitzvah with a more beautiful esrog, which is the better choice?  Or to take another example, poskim quote the Terumas haDeshen who writes that it is better to wait until motzei Shabbos to do kiddush levana when one is "mevusam" (hidur) rather than do the it earlier in the week (zerizus). Chasam Sofer finds an answer in our parsha.  Avraham tells Sarah וַיֹּ֗אמֶר מַהֲרִ֞י שְׁלֹ֤שׁ סְאִים֙ קֶ֣מַח סֹ֔לֶת ל֖וּשִׁי וַעֲשִׂ֥י עֻגֽוֹת. Chazal comment: כתיב קמח וכתיב סולת, א״ר יצחק, מכאן שהאשה עיניה צרה באורחים יותר מן האיש. Either you have bread made from kemach, or you have bread made from soles -- kemach is coarse flour; soles is sifted, finer flour.  It can't be both? Chasam Sofer (hakdamah to Chulin, and as a bonus, if you look it up and read the whole piece you will have a nice vort for Chayei Sarah too) explains that Avraham told Sarah to use kemach, as coarse flour does not need to be ground and sifted as much and the bread can be made faster. Sarah, however, decided to use soles instead, as bread made from fine flour may take longer to make, but it is far superior to coarse bread. Avraham preferred the approach of zerizus; Sarah, the approach of hidur.

What about a clash between mitzvah bo yoseir mi'b'shlucho and zerizus or hidur? Is it better to write a sefer Torah yourself even if you have sloppy handwriting (mitzvah bo) or would it be better to delegate it to a sofer who can do a better job (hidur)? Rashi comments on וַיִּתֵּ֣ן אֶל־הַנַּ֔עַר וַיְמַהֵ֖ר לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת אֹתֽוֹ that Avraham gave the cow to Yishmael in order to be mechaneich him in the mitzvah of hachnasas orchim, but gemara (BM 86b) actually writes that there were 3 cows and Avraham gave each one to a different נַּ֔עַר to take care of so that all three could be prepared at once. All things being equal, it would seem that we should apply the rule of mitzbah bo yoseir mi'bshlucho and Avraham should have taken care of things himself. However, all things are not always equal. Had Avraham done everything himself, it would have taken far longer to prepare the food. The advantage of mitzvah bo is offset by the advantage of the hidur of zerizus. Avraham is not content to just serve his guests -- he wants to serve them speedily, with no delay. וַיְמַהֵ֧ר אַבְרָהָ֛ם הָאֹ֖הֱלָה אֶל־שָׂרָ֑ה, he makes haste to tell Sarah to prepare bread; וְאֶל־הַבָּקָ֖ר רָ֣ץ אַבְרָהָ֑ם, he runs to prepare meat. Avraham invented fast food.  The source for the din of zerizus actually comes from Avraham's behavior later in parsha by the akeidah, "VaYashkeim Avraham ba'boker..." (see Pesachim 4 and Tos there).

It's worth noting that Avraham didn't delegate the entire mitzvah of hachnasas orchim; he just delegated one aspect of it. Whether that makes a difference or not may depend on the reason mitzvah bo yoseir mib'shlucho. Rashi explains that the reason is because you get more schar if you do the mitzvah yourself. Ramban in our parsha writes Avraham took care of things himself because of רוב חשקו בנדיבות; if something is important to you, you don't delegate. Investing your own energy and time shows the chashivus of the mitzvah. Others (see Tevuos Shor #28 regarding shlicus by kisuy ha'dam and milah) discuss whether delegating a task shows a lack of respect for the mitzvah. Nafka minah: If it is just a matter of schar or greater hislahavus for the mitzvah, then doing even part of the mitzvah yourself proves that it is something important, something you want schar for. But if delegating the task is a problem if bizayon to the mitzvah, then showing bizayon to even part of a mitzvah would seem to be problematic. One of the classic examples where we apply mitzvah bo is preparing for shabbos. R' Shlomo Zalman held (see Shmiras Shabbos siman 42 footnote 195) that so long as you are not at work or learning, it's not enough to do one thing to prepare for Shabbos and leave the rest to others -- you should take care of everything. Doing part of the mitzvah is not enough.

It's interesting that the gemara writes that whatever Avraham did himself was rewarded directly by Hashem, but what he did via intermediary was rewarded indirectly:

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב, כל מה שעשה אברהם למלאכים בעצמו עשה הקדוש ברוך הוא לבניו בעצמו, וכל מה שעשה על ידי שליח עשה הקדוש ברוך הוא לבניו על ידי שליח. ואל הבקר רץ אברהם – ורוח נסע מאת ה׳ (פ׳ בהעלותך), ויקח חמאה וחלב – הנני ממטיר לכם לחם מן השמים (פ׳ בשלח), והוא עומד עליהם תחת העץ – הנני עומד לפניך שם על הצור בחורב (שם), ואברהם הולך עמם לשלחם – וה׳ הולך לפניהם יומם (שם), יוקח נא מעט מים – והכית בצור ויצא ממנו מים

The example of the latter is drawing water -- יֻקַּֽח־נָ֣א מְעַט־מַ֔יִם, which Rashi explains means יוקח – על ידי שליח. The gemara does not use shechting the cows as an example.

M'inyan l'inyan, I recently saw a discussion in a fascinating sefer called היו דברים מעולם regarding shlichus as opposed to mitzvah bo with regards to another mitzvah in our parsha, that of bikur cholim. R' Leibele Eiger is quoted as saying that his grandfather, R' Akiva Eiger, stopped personally performing the mitzvah of bikur cholim and instead delegated the task to a shliach. According to R' Leibele Eiger it was not lack of time that was the issue, but rather it was the fact that sick people tend to become morose and question why G-d inflicted such pains on them. R' Akiva Eiger did not want to be around people who would voice their complaints about G-d's judgment, so he stayed away. Again, we see mitzvah bo only when all things are equal. Where there are other mitigating factors -- zerizus, hidur, or in this case being exposed to doubts -- you can delegate.

When I told this to my wife, she remarked that allaying people's questions and doubts in their time of suffering rather than avoiding them would seem to fall under the job description of what being a Rav is all about. To be fair, there are other reports written by people (there are two recorded accounts of what the daily schedule of R' Akiva Eiger was like) in which they say that R' Akiva Eiger was meticulous about doing nichum aveilim and bikur cholim for each and every person in need, in direct contradiction to gthe report quoted in the name of R' Leibele Eiger. One also has to wonder if R' Akiva Eiger thought being around doubters was so harmful, how was it fair to send a shliach into such an environment. I don't have answers to these questions.

The book goes on to relate that at the wedding of the young R' Leizer Gordon, who would go on to become the R"Y of Telz (among other accomplishments), the Rav of Kovna was present and he remarked that he usually just hires the "badchanim" for the wedding, i.e he pays for the entertainment, and in this way he is yotzei his mitzvah of being mesameiach chassan v'kallah through shlichus. When the chassan heard this, he immediately raised a kashe. One of the mitzvos for which there is no shiur is mitzvah of hachnasas kallah. If there is no shiur, that means every second the badchan is at the wedding, he has his own mitzvah of simchas chassan v'kallah to fulfill. If he is charged with fulfilling his own mitzvah the whole wedding, how can he also act as the shliach to do the mitzvah for someone else?  You can't do someone else's mitzvah when you have your own chiyuv to fulfill?

The Aderet quotes his brother who answered this kashe by pointing to this story of R' Akiva Eiger. Bikur cholim is also a mitzvah that has no shiur, like hachnasas kallah; therefore, QED, that since RAK"E appointed a shliach, even if a mitzvah has no shiur, shlichus works. (Parenthetically, I recently saw a response that a contemporary Rabbi wrote to a shayla, and in his discussion of the sources, a major one of which happened to be a Shu"T R' Akiva Eiger, this contemporary Rabbi said that they didn't find R' Akiva Eiger's reasoning "persuasive." Now, make no mistake about it -- everyone must call it the way they see it, and if you learn up a sugya and are convinced you are right in your approach, then so be it. That being said, that phrase -- not "persuasive" -- rubbed me the wrong way. The Aderet's whole ra'aya was just from a story about R' Akiva Eiger! He didn't cite a Rambam or a gemara or a din in shulchas aruch. Such is the kavod R' Akiva Eiger deserves. If people like the Aderet who were giants among giants treated a R' Akiva Eiger that way, I would think kal v'chomer a contemporary living in 2025 who finds a teshuvah of RAK"E unpersuasive might consider whether that's a weakness in RAK"E or a weakness in himself.  I guess this Rabbi did and was still convinced he is right, but that phrase still bothered me.)

OK, so you have a story from RAK"E, But what do you do with R' Leizer Gordon's kashe? Two answers: 1) It could be at some point the badchan has "negative kavanah" and has in mind that he does not want to be yotzei the mitzvah himself and can then assign credit to his shliach; 2) When we talk about things that have no shiur, it usually means there is no *minimum* shiur, not that there is no maximum shiur. If so, the badchan just needs to take a moment to fulfill his own mitzvah of simchas chassan v'kallah and can then assign the rest of his time to the mitzvah of his shliach.

(The Aderet goes on to discuss another question that I won't get into now: shlichus does not work for a mitzvah sheb'gufo, e.g. I can't appoint a shliach to do the mitzvah of tefillin for me because the mitzvah is to put tefillin on my arm; the shliach's arm is not my arm. The Aderet suggests in his question that bikur cholim may be a miztzvah sheb'gufo -- tt's your personal presence that is important, not just seeing that the choleh is cared for. Whether or not that is correct is worth looking into).

The sefer has an amazing array of fascinating mareh mekomos from obscure sources, so I am surprised it does not have this RAK"E story which I posted many eons ago from R. Noson Gestetner quoting the Tchibiner Rav: One of R’ Akiva Eiger’s daughters became engaged to someone in another town. RAK”E was already old and could not travel, so he sent R’ Ephraim Zalman Margolias as his shliach to celebrate. Unlike the Beis Ephraim’s usual practice of not lingering at a simcha, in this case he stayed and stayed for the whole party. When asked about it afterwards, R’ E. Z. Margolias explained that shlucho shel adam k’moso, so he wanted to take advantage of every second he could be R’ Akiva Eiger!

Why the need to bring a proof from RAK"E's practice of bikur cholim to the din of simchas chassan v'kallah when you have this story of RAK"E appointing a shliach for gufa the mitzvah of simcha?  I was wondering if it is because this story involves an engagement party, so maybe there is no mitzvah of simchas chassan v'kallah yet at that point, but if so and there is no mitzvah, one wonders how there can be a din of shlichus?  Or why RAK"E would waste time on something that's not a mitzvah?

Let me end off with a final point in machshava. Rashi's view, as I quoted above, is that mitzvah bo yoseir mib'shlucho is so that you can get more schar. The Kozhnitzer Maggid reads Rashi with a twist. The sifrei chassidus explain that the word mitzvah comes from the same root as tzavsa, to be connected. A mitzvah is how we connect and attach ourselves to Hashem. Rashi is not just talking about material reward that one gets from doing a mitzvah, but what Rashi means is that if you delegate the job, you lose out on the schar and the opportunity to make that connection directly with Hashem.  There is no greater reward and nothing as valuable as that.