proper motivation

Ramban asks to why the din of kashering kelim is mentioned only after the war with Midyan and not earlier, after Bnei Yisrael waged war with Sichon and Og.  Ramban answers (based on Chulin 17) that during the battles for kibush ha'aretz, such as the battles against Sichon and Og and the future battles of Yehoshua, there was a heter to eat trief, so there was no need to kasher.  The war against Midyan, however, unlike those others wars, was not a war to take territory, of kibush.  It was a war of nekama, to punish Midyan for the sin of causing Bn"Y to succumb to the temptation for znus.  Therefore, it was only here that the halachos of kashering are mentioned.  (see here, here, here)

Sefas Emes suggests that the din of kashering was taught here because it fits with the larger lesson Moshe weas trying to convey.  The gemara explains why Moshe was angry when he saw the soldiers returning with booty:

יקצף משה – אמר להם, שמא חזרתם לקלקולכם הראשון, אמרו לו, לא נפקד ממנו איש, אמר להם, אם כן כפרה למה, אמרו לו, אם מידי עבירה יצאנו, מידי הרהור לא יצאנו

Even though not a single soldier died in battle, Moshe was not satisfied that something was not rotten, that the grabbing of spoils was not indicative of a rehash of sin.  Even though there was no overt wrongDOING he could point to, Moshe was concerned lest the people be guilty of hirhurei aveira, wrong THINKING.

This is the lesson of giulei Midyan.  Even though there is no visible trief in a pot, it still must be kashered becauase of invisible taam that remains latent within it.  So too, taught Moshe, it's not enough to just look at surface actions -- one must dig deeper and examine the thoughts latent in one's heart.  

I think we've covered this is previous years, and just want to add an additional point this year and try to connect this point with another idea and see how it works.

Hashem commanded Moshe:

נְקֹ֗ם נִקְמַת֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל מֵאֵ֖ת הַמִּדְיָנִ֑ים אַחַ֖ר תֵּאָסֵ֥ף אֶל־עַמֶּֽיךָ

Moshe's own death hinged on the completion of this war against Midyan. Despite knowing this, Moshe immediately jumped into action.  Rashi comments:

 אף על פי ששמע שמיתתו תלוייה בדבר, עשה בשמחה ולא איחר.

Simple pshat in Rashi: even though Moshe could have postponed his death indefinitely by pushing off this war, he didn't do so.  He acted with the same zerizus and alacrity as with any other mitzvah (see Gur Aryeh, Mizrachi).

Asks the Sefas Emes (5650): what's the hava amina that Moshe could have kicked the can down the road and cheated death?  נְקֹ֗ם נִקְמַת֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל מֵאֵ֖ת הַמִּדְיָנִ֑ים is a mitzvah!  Once told by Hashem to avenge Bn"Y and wage war against Midyan, surely Moshe would not deliberately be mevateil a mitzvah and not act on it.  

Sefas Emes answers (and I'm adding my own spin to his approach) that when going to war, when going to take revenge, there is a very important condition that has to be met before you unholster your guns, so to speak.  Ramban in P' Lech Lecha asks why it is that the Mitzrim were punished for enslaving Bn"Y when Hashem had told Avraham that his children would be punished by being forced into servitude.  The Egyptians were fulfilling the nevuah, the ratzon Hashem!  Ramban explains that ain hachi nami, had they done so lishma, that excuse would work.  However, the reality is that they enslaved Bn"Y for their own ends alone.  Without the l'shem shamayim, it's not a kiyum of ratzon Hashem -- it's abuse and torture.  The Chofetz Chaim similarly explains that when Shaul haMelech failed to kill Agag, the navi Shmuel accuses him, "VaTa'as ha'ra b'einei Hashem," of doing wrong.  You would think that Shaul's sin was in NOT doing what he was supposed to -- killing every member of Amalek -- not what he actually did do. Yet, that's not what the navi tells us.  The sin is "VaTa'as," what Shaul did, because once he allowed his own cheshbonos and thoughts of right and wrong to enter into the equation, he was following his own agenda, and not purely the ratzon Hashem.  To wipe out a nation based on your own agenda is genocide, not a mitzvah.  We also find by the cheit ha'eigel, before the Leviim took up arms Moshe told them, "Mi l'Hashem ei'lei," (32:26, see Netziv), as only those motivated l'shem shamayim had a right to participate.  You see from these sources and more that even when there is a heter, even when there is a mitzvah to cause harm, it has to be done carefully for the right reasons.

The Shem m'Shmuel is medayek in Rashi at the beginning of Pinchas that talks about the way the other shevatim slandered Pinchas: הראיתם בן פוטי זה, בן שפיטם אבי אמו עגלים לעבודה זרה יהרוג נשיא שבט מישראל.  Why does Rashi mention specifically that Yisro "FATTENED" cows for avodah zarah?  Why not zero in more directly on the fact that he OFFERED cows to avodah zarah?  Sm"S explains that whether a cow is fat of skinny makes no inherent difference to the offering; it's just a matter of appearances.  The shevatim were accusing Pinchas of being someone superficial, someone lacking depth, someone for whom appearances matter more than anything else.  When you pull out your sword to kill, there has to be more than that.  You have to reflect on your own motives, you have to reflect on the motives of the other party if you are acting with kana'us on the assumption that they are completely in the wrong.  You have to look at more than appearances.  L'shem shamayim is something that comes from deep within, not something found on the surface.  (see more here)

Coming back to our parsha, yes, Moshe was given a mitzvah of  נְקֹ֗ם נִקְמַת֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל מֵאֵ֖ת הַמִּדְיָנִ֑ים, to avenge Bn"Y, but just like in these other cases where the use of violence necessitated 100% being motivated l'shem shamayim with no other agenda, here too, the mitzvah entailed being motivated 100% to avenge what was done to Bn"Y.  It can't be 95 or 98 or 99% nekama -- it's 100% all in or it's stam violance and not a kiyum mitzvah.  How can you be 100% all in for nekama when you know your own life is forfeit if you do so?  No question Moshe would DO the mitzvah, would act if Hashem wanted him to act.  But the mitzvah here required more than action -- it required Moshe's placing the motivation to avenge Bn"Y, to avenge kvod shamayim, beyond any consideration of his own life.  He had to be all in, 100% on board and motivated.  And that is the test that he passed.

Coming back to the mitzvah of kashering kelim and hirhurei aviera, that is why those ideas were so important davka now, davka in this battle against Midyan.  When Moshe presented the mitzvah to Bn"Y, he reformulated it as "la'teit nikmat Hashem b'Midyan."  Moshe had to put even consideration for his own life on the backburner in order to have the proper motivation to fulfill that mitzvah.  Imagine what was going through his mind as he saw those soldiers coming back with the spoils of war.  Is this how soldiers motivated by "nikmat Hashem" alone, with no regard for their own agenda, return from battle?  Does a soldier motivated purely by "nikmat Hashem" stop to collect treasure along the way?  אם מידי עבירה יצאנו, מידי הרהור לא יצאנו.   

why the korbanos were put at the end of Pinchas

What is the parsha of korbanos doing at the end of Pinchas?  Wouldn't this sections better fit somewhere in Vayikra, e.g. in Emor, where the chagim are mentioned?

Ramban answers that the korbanos musafim were not offered in the midbar:

כי אחרי שאמר: לאלה תחלק הארץ (במדבר כ״ו:נ״ג), צוה להשלים תורת הקרבנות שיעשו כן בארץ, כי במדבר לא הקריבו המוספים 

Now that Bn"Y would soon be going into Eretz Yisrael without Moshe, he had to teach them the halachos of the korbanos that they would have to offer there.  Im lo acshav, eimasai?

Abarbanel writes that there is more to it than Moshe teaching halachos that were not yet known.  Moshe's presence, as the adon ha'neviim, made propechy easier to attain.  He knew that once he was gone, there would never be a prophet of similar stature.  Therefore, he gave the parsha of korbanos as a means of helping enable prophecy for future generations.

R' Tzadok haKohen follows in Abarbanel's footsteps of linking korbanos to Moshe's impending death.  The era of transmission of Torah sheb'ksav would come to a close with Moshe's death.  Korbanos served to help enable the growth of Torah shebaa'l peh that would begin with Yehoshua.

I think both ideas share a common denominator.  Moshe was the conduit between G-d and man.  Call it nevuah, call it Torah sheb'skav, it amounts to the same thing -- G-d reaching out to Bn"Y to convey his will.  With Moshe gone, with the conduit of communication gone, G-d would no longer be reaching out in the same way.  Therefore, the burden shifted to us to reach out to Him.  Instead of G-d calling to man, drawing close to us,  it became our responsibility to call to Him, to draw ourselves closer to him.  That's what korbanos are all about; that's what tefilah b'makom korban is all about.  

an ownership stake

1) R' Tzadok haKohen (Pri Tzadik Pinchas #9) writes that the fasts of 17 Tamuz and 9 Av always fallout on the same day as the first of Pesach to teach us that there is a parallel between the days.  Pesach is the chag of redemption that led to kabbalas haTorah. So too, the breaking of the luchos on 17 Tamuz ultimately led to a greater kabbalas haTorah, as had we only had the first luchos, everything would be Torah sheb'skav and we would have no need for ameilus in Torah to figure things out on our own.  Because those luchos were broken, Torah shebaal peh came into the world.  The gemara darshens that Hashem said to Moshe "y'yasher kochacha she'shibarta."  (Parenthetically, when I once mentioned this gemara to sefardim I pointed out that kavyachol Hashem must be an Ashkenazi, otherwise He would have said 'chazak u'baruch' and not 'y'yasher koach.') Because of the churban on 9Av, we will once day have a Beit haMikdash that comes down from shamayim.  These fasts are steps toward greater redemption, just twists in the road to get us to our destination.   

R' Leibele Eiger (Imrei Emes, last piece on the parsha) quotes the pasuk

 הָלוֹךְ יֵלֵךְ וּבָכֹה נֹשֵׂא מֶשֶׁךְ הַזָּרַע בֹּא יָבוֹא בְרִנָּה נֹשֵׂא אֲלֻמֹּתָיו.

and points out that if you take the first letter of each of the first three words, the gematriya = 21, which corresponds to the three weeks of bein ha'metzarim.  We are crying during this time because we don't see the fruits of our labor yet and everything looks barren.  The destruction, however, is part of the process of planting, נֹשֵׂא מֶשֶׁךְ הַזָּרַע, and ultimately we will reap the rewards.

2) Rashi comments (27:1) that the Torah traces the lineage of Bnos Tzelafchad back to Yosef because:

וסף חיבב את הארץ, שנאמר: והעליתם את עצמותי (בראשית נ׳:כ״ה), ובנותיו חיבבו את הארץ.

It's not that they wanted a portion in Eretz Yisrael as an investment, because they knew the housing market would go from expensive and rise to outrageous, but rather they wanted a portion simply because of a tremendous love they had for the land.   

Why was this quality of love of the land felt by the Bnos Tzelafchad more than anyone else?  R' Moshe Tzvi Neriah points out that it was Yosef's children alone who were  raised from birth in galus.  The children of all the other shevatim were born in Eretz Yisrael.  When Eretz Yisrael is home, you take it for granted.  For Yosef, it was not home, and therefore he didn't take it for granted.  He had to make a deliberate effort to teach his children a love of Eretz Yisrael and he didn't assume it would be passed to them by osmosis.  Interestingly, at the end of P' Matos we read that it was Menashe's children and grandchildren who took the initiative in conquering territory assigned to them.  They didn't wait for reinforcements.  They, more than others, pushed ahead with the conquest.  

How does their request for a portion of land in Eretz Yisrael demonstrate their love for the land?  It's not like they faced a choice at this point of going to Eretz Yisrael or returning to Mitzrayim.  Where else were they going to go?  If their petition to Moshe was denied, they still would have gone into Eretz Yisrael!  The only difference is that they would be living with their husband and family in his portion of the land rather than having their own piece of the pie.  

My son last year quoted R' Wagshal from the Mir as addressing this issue, but I want to add my 2 cents.

The simple answer (see Netziv, Malbim) is that for Bnos Tzelafchad who were from sheivet Menashe there was in fact some other place else to go -- Eiver haYarden, where other members of their sheivet settled.  Because they requested davka land in Eretz Yisrael proper, it shows they did not just want any portion to call their own, but they wanted to be specifically in Eretz Yisrael.

But I think there is something more here as well.  Ran Nedarim 28a quotes the view of Tos that dina d'malchusa dina does not apply in Eretz Yisrael:

כתבו בתוספות דדוקא במלכי עובדי כוכבים אמר דדינא דמלכותא דינא מפני שהארץ שלו ויכול לומר להם אם לא תעשו מצותי אגרש אתכם מן הארץ אבל במלכי ישראל לא לפי שא"י כל ישראל שותפין בה

Ran relates dina d'malchusa to the fact that the gvt, as occurred not infrequently in our history in galus, can expel residents who choose to disobey its laws.  We are just vassals of the state, and must therefore obey its dictates.  However, writes the Ran, this sevara does not apply in Eretz Yisrael.  Our right to Eretz Yisrael is not based on having the approval of a benevolent king, Jewish or not, who chooses to allow us to remain there.  We are not subjects of the state, we are partners in the state.    

A lot of companies give stock options or shares to their employees for the simple reason that when employees have an ownership stake in the company, it gives them a vested interested in the company's success and they will therefore work harder.  I say this b'peh malei as someone who is not living in Eretz Yisrael yet: aino domeh showing love for Eretz Yisrael by making it the place you take your vacations, the place you may spend some of the chagim, the place where you have an apartment to use during a midwinter or summer break, to showing your love for Eretz Yisrael by making it the place you call home.  שא"י כל ישראל שותפין בה.  It's different when you are not just a customer of the business, but you are a partner.  

No question that Bnos Tzelafchad would have lived in Eretz Yisrael anyway.  But they wanted more than that -- they wanted to be partners in Eretz Yisrael.  That's what having your own cheilek means. 

Moshe Rabeinu was not able to pasken for the Bnos Tzelafchad because  נתעלמה ממנו הלכה, as Rashi writes.  Moshe received whatever instructions he needed, whatever Torah he knew, directly from Hashem.  He was a subject, so to speak, of the king, the King of Kings, and just followed the rules as given. Yehoshua and the next generation did not have that same benefit -- they had to work to figure things out themselves.  They were  more like partners with the RBS"O, kavyachol, in making Torah shebaal peh, not just copyists.   לפי שא"י כל ישראל שותפין בה, building Eretz Yisrael requires figuring out for yourself how to implement the Divine plan in practice, with all the messy details involved in building a functioning state and society.  We are partners with the RBS"O in working things out.   נתעלמה ממנו הלכה because running a partnership is not the role of a Moshe Rabeinu, it's the role of the next generation.  This is why the parsha of Bnos Tzelafchad is immediately followed by the appointment of Yehoshua, as it server as the signal to Moshe that it was time for a new leader.  (See the last Sefas Emes on the parsha for a much deeper spin on this idea.)

who was Kalba Savua?

Gittin 56a tells us that Kalba Savua, the father in law of R' Akiva, got that name because:

 בֶּן כַּלְבָּא שָׂבוּעַ שֶׁכׇּל הַנִּכְנָס לְבֵיתוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא רָעֵב כְּכֶלֶב יוֹצֵא כְּשֶׁהוּא שָׂבֵעַ

He was one of the three wealthiest people in Yerushalayim, and anyone who entered his home ravenous as a dog would be given a meal and leave satiated.

If you are interested in a trivia tidbit and want to know what his real name was (assuming Kalba Savua was what he was called and not his actual name), see Yadaim 3:5

. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חָמִיו שֶׁל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, כְּדִבְרֵי בֶן עַזַּאי, כָּךְ נֶחְלְקוּ וְכָךְ גָּמְרוּ:

Yachin/Boaz comments:

נ"ל דיהושע זה הוא יהושע בן קפוס שהיה חותנו של ר' עקיבא [כשבת קמ"ז א']. ונ"ל עוד שהוא שם העצם של בן כלבא שבוע שהוה חמיו של ר' עקובא [ככתובות ס"ב ב']. רק שם הכינוי שלו היה בן כלבא שבוע. דכל הנכנס לביתו רעב ככלב יצא שבע [כגיטין נ"ו א']. ונ"ל עוד דאחר מותו גם בן ר' עקיבא נקרא יהושע על שם זקנו כנהוג. ולכן מצינו לרבי עקיבא שהיה לו בן שנקרא יהושע [כפסחים קי"ב א' ושבועות ד"ו א']. אבל אי"ל דיהושע זה לאו היינו כלבא שבוע. רק חמיו אחר של ר' עקיבא. דלא מצינו אשה לר' עקיבא רק בת כלבא שבוע. ואחריה אשת טורנוסרופוס הרשע דנתגיירה ונסבה ר' עקיבא [כע"ז דף כ' ע"א]:

chazon ish on the trolley problem

Chazon Ish (Y.D. siman 69) on the trolley problem:

C.I. distinguishes between the case of deflecting an arrow shot at a group so that it strikes an isolated individual (similar to redirecting the trolley away from a group at the cost of the life of an individual) from the case at the end of Terumos of handing over a single individual to be killed in order to spare the group.  In the latter case, handing over an individual to be killed is an act tantamount to murder.  It's the context which provides a justification.  In the case of the arrow, deflecting the shot is not an act of murder -- it is an act that prevents harm.  It's the context, the fact that is is being deflected at an individual, which transforms it into something else.  The two cases are inverse of each other.

changing klala to bracha

  וַיַּהֲפֹךְ֩ ה׳ אֱלֹקיך לְּךָ֛ אֶת־הַקְּלָלָ֖ה לִבְרָכָ֑ה (Devarim 23:6)

Why the extra לְּךָ֛ in the pasuk?  I saw suggested as follows: all of the klalos of Bilam were flipped to become brachos.  Yesh lachkor do we therefore view Bilam as a m'vareich, or is Bilam a m'kalel, but Hashem fixed the outcome for us?  Nafka minah -- Hashem promised Avraham וַאֲבָֽרְכָה֙ מְבָ֣רְכֶ֔יךָ וּמְקַלֶּלְךָ֖ אָאֹ֑ר.  Does Bilam get credit for giving bracha and deserve bracha in return, or does Bilam deserve condemnation for being a m'kalel, and it's only Hashem's intervention that changed his words?  The pasuk answers וַיַּהֲפֹךְ֩ ה׳ אֱלֹקיך לְּךָ֛ אֶת־הַקְּלָלָ֖ה לִבְרָכָ֑ה, that for us and us alone the k'lala counts as a bracha, but viz a viz Bilam, he is still considered a m'kalel.

I would like to suggest a different answer based on the comment of the Kli Yakar to that pasuk.  Kli Yakar raises three questions. 

1) It's understandable to say that Bilam gave a bracha INSTEAD of a klala, but what does it mean to say that the klala BECAME a bracha?

 2) The gemara darshens that all of the brachos given by Bilam ultimately, later in history, were fulfilled as klalos, as he originally intended.  The one exception is  מַה־טֹּ֥בוּ אֹהָלֶ֖יךָ יַעֲקֹ֑ב מִשְׁכְּנֹתֶ֖יךָ יִשְׂרָאֵֽל, which remained a bracha for all eternity.  That's why the pasuk says  וַיַּהֲפֹךְ֩ ־הַקְּלָלָ֖ה לִבְרָכָ֑ה in the singular -- because only one of the klalos was forever after really transformed.  Why is this bracha different than all the others?  

3) And how did Chazal derive from the pasuk pasuk that it was davka that bracha which never changed?

Kli Yakar says a yesod: G-d does not wantonly change the rules of nature.  For Hashem to do so requires great zechuyos.  If a klala points to something bad happening, if the stars are aligned against a person, if the normal course of events point to a certain bad outcome, the ideal is to find a way within derech ha'teva to arrive at a different outcome, not to suspend the rules entirely.  For example, the gemara says that a person born at the time of a certain mazal may be bloodthirsty.  Derech ha'teva compels him in a certain direction, but that doesn't mean his becoming a murderer is fixed short of uprooting the rules.  He can choose to be a shochet and do good with that talent.  It's possible to work within the system and get a different result.

With respect to the intended klalos of Bilam, Hashem could find no way to redirect Bilam's intentions and his words short of uprooting them, changing the rules of the game.  When Klal Yisrael has great zechuyos, this works, but over our long history, unfortunately that's isn't always the case, and so the klalos came back to bite us.

However, when it came to the klala Bilam wanted to give of destroying our mikdashot, here Hashem did not need to uproot the rules to change the outcome.  

מזמור לאסף וגוּ קינה לאסף מיבעי ליה ודרש כך שאמר אסף שירה על שכילה הקב"ה חמתו בעצים ואבנים שבביתו ומתוך כך הותיר פליטה בישראל שאלמלא כך לא נשתייר משונאי ישראל שריד וכן הוא אומר כלה הּ את חמתו ויצת אש בציון 

The destruction of the Mikdash spared us from destruction.  Because Hashem was able vent his anger on stones, on a building, we were saved.  In this case, and in this case alone, the klala itself, even when fulfilled, led to a positive outcome.

Therefore, davka in this case, the Torah is justified in using the word יַּהֲפֹךְ֩ .  Davka here, the klala itself as Bilam intended was not uprooted, but rather was transformed into something positive.

Getting back to the original question of why the extra word  לְּךָ֛, Chazal tell us that had the nochrim appreciated what the Mikdash did for them, for the world, they would have put up guards to protect it and not destroyed it.  Churban ha'bayis was for them a SELF destructive act, as it cut off a source of bracha that they also derived benefit from.  However, for us, as difficult and painful as the churban was, it was מזמור לאסף.  It ensured the continuity and preservation of Jewish life.    וַיַּהֲפֹךְ֩ ה׳ אֱלֹקיך לְּךָ֛, the benefit was davka only for us, but for the nochrim, for the world that allowed the destruction to take place, there was no upside.

Biden's trip to Israel

 Looking into my crystal ball, I see the Biden trip to Israel resulting in: 

1. Increased "aid" (i.e. $ to subsidize terror) for the PA

2. Demand to block housing development in Yesh"a and parts of Yerushalayim

3. Reiteration endless times of support for a "two state solution" (i.e.  terror state alongside our state)

4. No meaningful statement regarding Iranian terror or the threat of their developing nuclear arms

When you have a weak, feeble brained President and an anti-Israel State Dept always willing to bend to the demands of Jew haters, no good can emerge.  I sooner trust the Saudis to stand up to Iran at this point than I trust the White House, so the need for Saudi oil may be the only thing holding the US back from complete capitulation.

Let's see if I am on the mark and how bad the damage is.

civility or civil war?

1. Even though our parsha tells us that Aharon died in Hor haHar, we read in Devarim (10:6) וּבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל נָ֥סְע֛וּ מִבְּאֵרֹ֥ת בְּנֵי־יַעֲקָ֖ן מוֹסֵרָ֑ה שָׁ֣ם מֵ֤ת אַהֲרֹן֙ וַיִּקָּבֵ֣ר שָׁ֔ם וַיְכַהֵ֛ן אֶלְעָזָ֥ר בְּנ֖וֹ תַּחְתָּֽיו׃

Rashi there explains that the people backtracked when they saw Aharon death: שם מת אהרן – והלא בהר ההר מת? וצאג וחשוב ותמצא שמונה מסעות ממוסרות להר ההר. אלא אף זה מן התוכיחה: עוד עשיתם את זאת, כשמת אהרן בהר ההר לסוף ארבעים שנה ונסתלקו ענני כבוד, יראתם לכם מן מלחמת מלך ערד ונתתם לבד לחזור למצרים, וחזרתם לאחוריכםה שמונה מסעות עד בני יעקן, ומשם למוסירה, שם נלחמו לכם בני לוי והרגו מכם ואתם מהם, עד שהחזירו אתכם בדרך חזרתכם. 

Targum Yonasan expands on the story: ובני ישראל נטלו מן כופרני בירי בני יעקן למוסרה תמן אגח עימהון עמלק כד מלך בערד דשמע דמית אהרן ואסתלקו ענני יקרא ומדעקת על ישראל על קרבא ההוא בעו למתוב למצרים והדרי שית מטלין רדפו בני לוי בתריהון וקטלו מינהון תמני גניסן והדרו לאחוריהון אף מבני לוי אתקטלו ארבע גניסן אמרו דין לדין מאן גרם לנא קטולא הדא אלא על דאתרשלנא במספדא דאהרן חסידא וקבעו תמן מספדא כל בני ישראל כאילו תמן מית אהרן ואתקבר תמן ובכן שמיש אלעזר בריה באתרוי.

According to T.Y., There was a civil war that took place between those who responded to Aharon's death with fear and wanted to return to Mitzrayim and sheivet Levi, who ran after them to bring them back.  8 familes from Bnei Yisrael were killed in that battle and another 4 from Levi.  When they reflected on the root cause of this tragedy, they concluded that it was because they were not maspid Aharon properly.  In Moseira therefore they once again were maspid,  and that is why the pasuk considers it was as if Aharon died there. 

R' Moshe Tzuriel in his Otzros haTorah asks why those families from sheivet Levi deserved to die in this scuffle.  What did they do wrong?  They were just trying to get those who were running away back on track.

Rav Tzuriel answers that even if you are trying to save others from spiritual destruction, it has to be done with love, it has to be done purely l'shem shamayim, not in a spirit of kana'us that leads to strife.  That was the hallmark of Aharon.  When civil war broke out and families were caught up and killed, that itself showed that the lessons of Aharon's life had not been fully absorbed.

It's an interesting point because we know that sheiveit Levi were the ones who rallied to Moshe's side and took sword in hand to strike those who were guilty of cheit ha'eigel.  (Remember too that it was Shimon and Levi who took sword in hand to attack Shechem and defend the honor of their sister Dinah.) Apparently not all civil wars are equal -- some are more justifiable than others.  In the context of the eigel the Leviim were responding to Moshe's cry of "Mi la'Hashem eilay!" which set the tone for that battle being done purely l'shem shamayim.  Also, because Aharon was involved in the cheit ha'eigel, his presence as a force of calm was perhaps somewhat mitigated.  Here, on the heels of his death, his presence should have been more strongly felt, the impact of his influence more profound.  For civil war to break out in this context is a let down.

2. Maharal draws a yesod out of Rashi in our parsha:

Rashi in Behaaloscha comments on the pasuk הֲצֹ֧אן וּבָקָ֛ר יִשָּׁחֵ֥ט לָהֶ֖ם וּמָצָ֣א לָהֶ֑ם:

 ואיזו קשה, זו או: שמעו נא המורים (במדבר כ׳:י׳), אלא לפי שזו לא אמר ברבים – חיסך לו הכתוב ולא נפרע ממנו, וזו של מי מריבה היתה בגלוי – לפיכך לא חיסך לו הכתוב

The implication is that Moshe and Aharon's sin in Mei Meriva was in saying שמעו נא המורים to Bn"Y.  Yet in our parsha it seems that the sin was striking the rock and not believing that it would produce water just by talking to it.  Mizrachi formulates the question as follows:

מהכא משמע שחטאו של משה הי׳ מפני שהוצי׳ המי׳ מן הסלע ע״י הכאה ולא ע״י דבור ואלו בפ׳ מתאוננין גבי הצאן ובקר ישחט להם כתב ר״ע אומ׳ שש מאות אלף רגלי ואתה אמרת בשר אתן להם וגו׳ מי מספיק להם ואיזו קשה זו או שמעו נא המורי׳ ...משמע שחטאו של משה היה בדבור שמעו נא המורי׳ המן הסלע הזה וגו׳ כמו הצאן ובקר ישחט וגו׳ 

Maharal in Gur Aryeh responds that there is no contradiction.  Both שמעו נא המורים and striking the rock share the same root cause:  

אמנם כאשר תדע האמת, כי שני החטאים מה שאמר ״שמעו נא המורים״, וכן מה שהכה את הסלע פעמיים הכל חטא אחד.  

He explains:

  ומי שעושה מצות השם דרך כעס, בפרט כאשר נעשה להם נס כזה, כמו שעשו הם, שאמרו ״שמעו נא המורים״, וכן שהכו אל הסלע, אין זה אמונה. כי האמונה הוא מי שבוטח בו יתברך, אין לו בו רק שמחה  

A person who is filled with emunah will be b'simcha and not react with anger.  The harsh reaction of שמעו נא המורים was therefore a siman of a lack of emunah, יַ֚עַן לֹא־הֶאֱמַנְתֶּ֣ם בִּ֔י לְהַ֨קְדִּישֵׁ֔נִי (obviously on the high level Moshe is judged on). Similarly, the whole reason Moshe was told to speak to the rock and not hit it is to demonstrate כי כאשר יקיים מכח דבור, הנה העשיה היא מרצון ומשמחה, וזהו ענין האמונה  To take a rod and strike the rock sets the wrong tone.

A person who has emunah deals with life's challenges with equanimity, מרצון ומשמחה as Maharal puts it.  

L'Sichon Melech ha'Emori -- Ki l'Olam Chasdo

  לְ֭מַכֵּה מְלָכִ֣ים גְּדֹלִ֑ים כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ׃

 וַֽ֭יַּהֲרֹג מְלָכִ֣ים אַדִּירִ֑ים כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ

לְ֭סִיחוֹן מֶ֣לֶךְ הָאֱמֹרִ֑י כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ

וּ֭לְעוֹג מֶ֣לֶךְ הַבָּשָׁ֑ן כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ

Rashi explains that the מְלָכִ֣ים גְּדֹלִ֑ים and מְלָכִ֣ים אַדִּירִ֑ים refer to the kings of Canaan conquered by Yehoshua. 

Radak, however, explains that the מְלָכִ֣ים גְּדֹלִ֑ים and מְלָכִ֣ים אַדִּירִ֑ים are Sichon and Og. זכרם בכלל, ואחר כך פרט אותם, להגדיל השבח First the pasuk gives shevach in a general sense, and then dives into the specifics and mentions the kings by name.  

Radak goes on to explain  וְנָתַ֣ן אַרְצָ֣ם לְנַחֲלָ֑ה כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ deserves special praise because Sichon and Og are not among the 7 nations of Canaan whose land was promised to Avraham.  Our conquest of those nations is an extra bonus, icing on the cake:

 ועוד חסד גדול מזה, כי לא די שהכה אותם, אלא שנתן להם ארצם לנחלה, שלא באו שאר הגוים, ולא נאספו עליהם להוציאם משם. וזה חסד גדול מאתו, כי חסד הוא תוספת הטובה. ובזו הארץ שנתן להם, הוסיף להם בטובתו, כי לא נתנה לאברהם אבינו אלא מעבר הירדן והלאה שהיא ארץ שבעה גוים ועוד שלשה גוים: קיני וקניזי וקדמוני. ואותם שלשה לא היו להם עד לעתיד לבוא שיהיה מגבול ארץ ישראל

Similarly, R' Tzadok haKohen in Pri Tzadik (Devarim 2) writes:

כי הנה ארץ סיחון ועוג לא נחשבו מכלל שבעת האומות שניתן לישראל כי הלא משרע"ה שלח לו אעברה נא בארצך. וגם עפ"י דין אין עבר הירדן מקודשת בקדושת ארץ ישראל שאין מביאין ממנה בכורים וכמו שנא' ביהושע ואך אם טמאה ארץ אחוזתכם וגו' כידוע שארץ ז' עממין הוא בקליפה זלעו"ז נגד הז' מדות שבקדושה שהם בהתגלות בפועל ועליהם בא המצוה לא תחי' כל נשמה כדי להכניע כל הז' מדות להקדושה. אמנם הג' אומות קני וקניזי וקדמוני שהם אדום ועמון ומואב שהם נגד ג' ראשונות שבקדושה כח"ב אין עוד כח בנו לבררם בעוה"ז בשלימות ולהכניעם עד עת קץ כדאי' מהאריז"ל לכן נצטוו עליהם שלא להתגרות עמם. והנה גם סיחון ועוג המה בקליפה נגד חכמה ובינה שבקדושה לכן דרשו במדרש הפ' הנה כסה את עין הארץ סיחון ועוג שהיו שומרים אותנו וכו' קרא לסיחון ועוג עין הארץ שהם זלעו"ז נגד העיינין שבקדושה שהם מרומזים בחדשים הללו תמוז ואב כידוע מהאריז"ל שתמוז ואב הם בחינת עיינין דמטרוניתא.

According to R' Tzadok, the war against the nations is a spiritual battle as well a physical one.  The seven nations of Canaan can be defeated because we can succeed in the tikun of the seven midos.  Sichon and Og correspond to the klipah of chochma and binah, and their defeat was therefore beyond what might have been expected.

The difficulty with Rashi, which Radak avoids, is that according to Rashi the praises do not follow the chronological order of events, as the defeat of Sichon and Og preceded the conquest of Canaan but is mentioned afterwards.  The difficulty with Radak is the redundancy of first praising Hashem for the defeat of מְלָכִ֣ים גְּדֹלִ֑ים when it could have just mentioned Sichon and Og directly.

Parashas Derachim (derush 7) has an interesting suggestion.  He writes that מְלָכִ֣ים גְּדֹלִ֑ים refers to Edom, Amon, Moav, nations which we were told not to wage war against.  Because Sichon and Og defeated these kings and took part of their land, it made that territory fair game for us to capture.  It is the victory of Sichon and Og over these enemies which we are giving thanks for.

I have no idea what the Sefas Emes (5635) means when he writes that Sichon and Og correspond to the idea of tefillin shel yad and shel rosh.  He then goes on to explain why the mizmor divides וְנָתַ֣ן אַרְצָ֣ם לְנַחֲלָ֑ה כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ׃ and נַ֭חֲלָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵ֣ל עַבְדּ֑וֹ כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ into two separate statements.  I have yet to unravel what he means.

mitzvah bo yoseir mi'bshlucho

Shu"T Mahara"Ch Ohr Zaru'a 128 raises three very fundamental questions:

1. Since there is a din of mitzvah bo yoseir mi'bshlucho, why isn't anyone careful to shecht his own meat or be mafrish challah (apparently the common practice was to appoint a shliach to do so)?

2. How can a shliach say a bracha on shechita or hafrashas challah when the shliach has no mitzvah to shecht the animal or be mafrish challah from that dough -- the mitzvah is on the owner?

3. Why can you appoint a shliach for a mitzvah like hafrashas challah but not for a mitzvah like putting on tefillin or eating matzah?

He makes a few important distinctions:

A. Shechita and hafrashas challah is different than tefillin and matzah because in the former cases all we care about is the end result, i.e. knowing that the food was properly prepared through slaughtering or through hafrasha being done.  In the latter case, it's the process, the putting on of the tefillin, consuming the matzah, which is important.  (See his hesber of why you can appoint a shliach for gittin/kiddushin but not chalitzah and compare with Tos Kesubos 74a d"h tnai.)

B. Mitzvah bo yoseir mi'bshlucho applies in the case of kiddushin because the one performing the mitzvah has everything to gain and nothing to lose, as opposed to the shliach, who gains nothing, and loses the ability to marry the kallah.  It's a one sided deal.  When it comes to shechita, hafrasha, other mitzvos, neither the shliach or the m'shaleiach has a greater or lesser stake in the outcome.     

chut shel chessed

Back in 2012 I wrote:

Rashi writes that Moshe was asking Hashem to not count Dasan and Aviram's portion of the korban tamid, which was a korban tzibur. (It seems from this Rashi that the korban tzibur was a type of large shutfus, a partnership among all members of Klal Yisrael, such that an individual share could be excluded. See Ramban at the beginning of VaYikra who discusses whether this is indeed the case, or whether a tzibur is a whole that transcends its individual parts and cannot be sliced and diced.) 

B'pashtus there is a difference between a shutfus and a tzibur.  A tzibur is like a corporation -- it exists as an entity in its own right, distinct from the individuals of which it is comprised.  How then are we to understand Moshe's request?  10 years later I see R' Moshe Tzvi Neriah in Ner LaMaor writes in a footnote:

תמה מו"ר הגרי"מ חרל"פ זצ"ל: והרי על פי דברי הרמב"ן אין בקרבן ציבור דין שותפין - חלק פרטי - ומהו חלקם של עדת קורח בקרבן? [ועיין משנת ראשונים לחתנו הר"י בארי ז"ל - ירושלים תש"י - עמ' רעג]. אכן המעיין במדרש רבה [יח ט] שהוא מקור דברי רש"י, ימצא תוספת לשון: "הואיל ופירשו מבניך", ונראה לבאר שכיון שעדת קורח פרשו מכלל ישראל, לא היה להם חלק בכלל ישראל, ואם כן נשאר חלקם רק כשותפות, ובכהאי גוונא ניתן לומר שחלקם הנבדל לא יקובל. ומצאתי שכן כתב ב"שם משמואל" [דברים, לקוטים עמ' רנו]: "מאחר שהם פגמו בכללות ישראל ונדבקו בכללות כתרי דמסאבותא, ועל כן הם ממילא נדחין מכלל ישראל, חזר חלקם כחלק שותף, על כן "תניחנו האש ולא תאכלנו".

Korach and his followers chose to cut themselves off from the klal, and therefore, they participated in the korban tamid only as shutfim, as partners WITH the tzibur, rather than members OF the tzibur.  

Perhaps Korach's point in arguing "ki kol ha'eidah kulam kedoshim" is that Klal Yisrael is a partnership of equals.  Everyone gets a say and has a voice.  However, in reality, Klal Yisrael is a tzibur, not a shutfus.  

2) The Midrash writes that as a reward for Avraham telling the King of Sdom that he will not take even "mi'chut v'ad sroch naal," even a single threat from him, his descendents were given the mitzvah of a thread of techeiles.  Avraham chose to do 100% chessed for Sdom; there was no gain at all for him.  Techeiles represents the chut shel chessed that Hashem in turn guarantees us.  No Jew is totally cut off.  He may be hanging by a thread -- the thread of techeiles, that chut shel chessed -- but that thread will not be broken.

This is why we put on tzitzis before tefillin.  First comes the chut shel chessed, the fact that Hashem will hold on to us no matter what.  Only then do we put in tefillin and tackle what we can accomplish ourselves with our ability and brains, the shel yad and shel rosh. 

Korach rebelled against the idea of a chut shel techeiles.  Sefas Emes (5642) explains that Korach argued that there are no free gifts.  The idea of Aharon being chosen simply for who he was rather than what he accomplished was foreign to him.  Korach felt that it was the Leviim who had not sinned in cheit ha'eigel who should be in charge, and he should replace Aharon, as unlike Aharon, who had a hand in making the eigel, his hands were clean.  Moshe's response was that "boker v'yoda Hashem es asher lo v'es ha'kadosh v'hikriv eilav," there certainly is a place for those who were "asher lo," i.e. those responded when he called at at Sinai, "Mi la'Hashem eilay."  They had earned their place and position.  But there was also a place for "es asher yivchar bo yakriv eilav," Hashem sometimes reaches out and chooses someone even if we don't understand or appreciate why.  

a period of transition

The gemara (Sota 34) darshens that the names of the meraglim reveal their flawed character:

תניא, א״ר יצחק, דבר זה מסורת בידינו מאבותינו, מרגלים על שם מעשיהם נקראו, ואנו לא עלתה בידינו אלא אחד, סתור בן מיכאל, סתור – שסתר מעשיו של הקב״ה, מיכאל – שעשה עצמו מך א״ר יוחנן, אף אנו נאמר, נחבי בן ופסי (פ׳ י״ד) נחבי – שהחביא דבריו של הקב״ה, ופסי – שפסע על מדותיו של הקב״ה

It seems that these were not very nice guys.  However, Rashi tells us

כלם אנשים – כל אנשים לשון חשיבות הוא, ואותה שעה כשירין היו.

Indeed, if the meraglim were as bad as their names suggested, it begs the question of why Moshe selected them for the mission. Why invite trouble by choosing the bad apples?

Furthermore, why would Moshe have davened only for Yehoshua if he knew that the other mergalim were going to cause mischief? Aderaba, he should have davened for them, as they were more in need for his tefilos than Yehoshua!  

Transitions are difficult.  Ibn Ezra famously writes that even though Bn"Y at Yam Suf vastly outnumbered the mere 600 chariots Pharaoh had, they would not have been able to fight.  Psychologically, they could not stand up to the people who had been their masters just a short time earlier.  The transition from slavery to freedom is not so simple.  Bn"Y in the midbar were surrounded by the miracles of the mon, the be'er, the ananei ha'kavod.  All their needs were miraculously taken care of.  The transition to life in Eretz Yisrael, a life of working the land, a life that would require their effort, not miracles, to create a all the trappings of a functioning country, was bound to be difficult as well.

The gemara does not mean that the spies were at that moment flawed individuals.  What the gemara means is that the 12 spies were flawed individuals who had managed to overcome the defects inherent in who they were and become better people.  Each one of them, as their name indicates, had a weakness.  Each one of them managed to make the transition to greatness.  

Who better, writes the Tiferes Shmuel (Aleksander), to lead when facing a period of national transition?  Who better to see and explain how a wasteland inhabited by immoral, antagonistic enemies can become gan Hashem?

This is why Moshe prayed for Yehoshua alone.  It was davka Yehoshua's great piety which gave rise to Moshe's concern that he, more than the others, would not be successful.  Not having to overcome any inherent flaw, not having to make a transition to become something better than who he was "meant" to be, was in this case, in Moshe's view, a defect.

entering into a situation of ones

Saw the following question:

The Mordechai holds that if one has a garment missing tzitzis, there is no problem in wearing it on shabbos.  The logic is that there is no issur in putting on a four cornered garment.  Once the garment is on, one becomes obligated to put tzitzis on it, but at that point, since it is shabbos and one cannot tie tzitzis, ones Rachmana patrei.

The first Mishna in Beitza says that if one did not prepare anything to do kiseui ha'dam with, one cannot shecht on Y"T.  Why not apply the Mordechai's logic and say that there is no issur in doing shechita, just once the shechita is done, there is a chiyuv to do kisuei ha'dam; at that point, if one has no dirt prepared that is not muktzah, ones Rachamana patrei? 

What's the difference between these cases?

tzitzis worn without kavanah - lack of kiyum mitzvah or bitul aseh?

The M.B. in Biur Halacha (siman 60) says a big chiddush: if a person puts on tzitzis but fails to have kavanah to be yotzei the mitzvah, they are mevateil a mitzvas aseh.  Therefore, he writes, a person needs to be careful when they are called up for an aliyah and they grab a talis, to make sure to have kavanah l'shem mitzvas tzitzis.  (He then backtracks a bit and suggests that since the talis in this case is being worn momentarily only for the sake of getting an aliya, it may not really be a "levisha" which is chayav in tzitzis.)

I saw some assert that this chiddush contradicts a Minchas Chinuch.  The gemara darshens that "v'asu LAHEM tzitzis" excludes using a stolen item for the mitzvah.  Why do we need a derasha to give us this new din when we already have a principle of mitzvah ha'baah b'aveira?  Minchas Chinuch answers that mitzvah ha'baah b'aveira negates the kiyum mitzvah.  It is as if the person did nothing, and therefore gets no credit.  The derasha goes a step further and teaches us that using stolen goods results in a bitul aseh.  It's worse than doing nothing -- it's like wearing a 4 cornered garment with no tzitzis.  (M.C. says the same chiddush by sukkah where there is a derasha to pasul a stolen sukkah on top of the din of mitzvah ha'baah b'aveira.)  

According to MB, failure to get credit for the kiyum mitzvah, e.g. where there is a lack of kavanah, results automatically in a bitul aseh.

R' Elchanan in Koveitz Shiurim (Kesubos 250) questions whether tzitzis worn without kavanah is doche kilayim.  This safeik should hinge in part on whether you accept the chiddush of the MB.  If a lack of kavanah is equivalent to being mevateil the mitzvah, there is no aseh to be doche the lav of kilayim.  According to MC, however, the gavra may get no credit for the mitzvah, but l'maaseh he wearing a garment with tzitzis, and perhaps the issur of kilayim does not apply to a garment that has proper tzitzis on it.

a gift is a mechayeiv

I work close to midtown Manhattan in a building, one of many in the neighborhood, that has a giant pride flag hanging over the front entrance.  Every morning I am greeted with a colorful flier pasted on the entranceway to our floor encouraging people to join a group that engages in "advocacy" and promotes "visibility" of people engaged in a to'eivah lifestyle.  As part of the celebrations this month, there are conferences and events being held with participation of C-level executives, just to make sure you get the message that toe'aveh is supported at the highest levels in the company.  All this is in addition to the regular barrage of emails I get offering me things like voluntary (for now)  unconscious bias training and the like.  

I remember back in the good ol' days where the biggest issues working in a corporate environment were things like making sure you could leave early on erev Shabbos, or a woman manager offering a handshake after a meeting or interview.  Now, in many companies there is no problem even getting kosher food at meetings (offered alongside vegetarian, vegan, hallal, and a gamut of other selections).  What you put in your mouth may be kosher, but everything else in the environment is treif! 

I'm not surprised that a judge ruled this week that Yeshiva Universtity must recognize a LGBT group.  You can't be a square and claim you are really a circle.  You can't claim to be a "non religious organization" but then exclude LGBT because you want to keep religious values.  Circle or square -- which is it?  Torah u'Mada maybe makes sense if you are dealing with 1950's liberal values, with what was once thought of as the great ideas of Western civilization.  Maybe there is something we can take away from those ideas.  These days, forget it.  To even talk about Western civilization will get you banned.  The world is not interested in our values, and I don't see how we can gain much from being interested in the ones in vogue out there.  

Anyway... something on the parsha:

1. Bn"Y complain about the mon and Moshe is ready to throw in the towel:

הֶאָנֹכִ֣י הָרִ֗יתִי אֵ֚ת כׇּל־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֔ה אִם־אָנֹכִ֖י יְלִדְתִּ֑יהוּ כִּֽי־תֹאמַ֨ר אֵלַ֜י שָׂאֵ֣הוּ בְחֵיקֶ֗ךָ כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשָּׂ֤א הָאֹמֵן֙ אֶת־הַיֹּנֵ֔ק עַ֚ל הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר נִשְׁבַּ֖עְתָּ לַאֲבֹתָֽיו (11:12)

Rashi already asks: when did Hashem ever say that Moshe has to serve as a nursemaid, to be like a kindergarten teacher and baby people?

R' Yerucham Lebovitz answers that the very fact that Hashem gave Moshe the gift of leadership, the power to deal with the people even when they are rebellious, even when they test his patience, is mechayeiv him to do so.  

When Hashem gives a person a talent, a gift, that's Hashem's message to the individual that their mission is to use that ability to its fullest.  

2. How is a leader supposed to react when the flock lets him down?  וּבְעֵינֵ֥י מֹשֶׁ֖ה רָֽע׃ (11:9)  Rather than asking for mercy from Hashem, this time Moshe shows his disapproval (see post here), and in the very next pasuk says to Hashem:

 לָמָ֤ה הֲרֵעֹ֙תָ֙ לְעַבְדֶּ֔ךָ וְלָ֛מָּה לֹא־מָצָ֥תִי חֵ֖ן בְּעֵינֶ֑יךָ לָשׂ֗וּם אֶת־מַשָּׂ֛א כׇּל־הָעָ֥ם הַזֶּ֖ה עָלָֽי

Sounds like Moshe is bemoaning his lot, asking Hashem why he has to put up with the complaints.  The Noam Elimelech, however, k'darko reads the pasuk quite differently.  לָמָ֤ה הֲרֵעֹ֙תָ֙ לְעַבְדֶּ֔ךָ -- why, Hashem, have you made it so that  I see the רָֽע in the people -- וּבְעֵינֵ֥י מֹשֶׁ֖ה רָֽע -- and not the good?  וְלָ֛מָּה לֹא־מָצָ֥תִי חֵ֖ן בְּעֵינֶ֑יךָ לָשׂ֗וּם אֶת־מַשָּׂ֛א כׇּל־הָעָ֥ם הַזֶּ֖ה עָלָֽי -- why have I not found favor to be charged with carrying the people's burdens rather than become a leader who cannot see the good in his people?

As discussed once before, the greatness of Moshe was "temunas Hashem yabit" -- when he looked at a simple Jew, maybe even a rebellious Jew, he saw temunas Hashem.

parshas sotah and mechikas Hashem: hutra or dechuya?

The gemara (Sukkah 53) relates then when David dug the shitin drainpipes for the mizbeyach, the waters below started coming up through the drains and threatened to flood everything.  David thought of a solution: write the shem Hashem on a piece of earthenware and throw it into the drain to stop the water.  However, he did not know whether it would be permissable to erase shem Hashem to do this or not, so he announced that anyone who knows the answer should come forward.  Continues the gemara:

נָשָׂא אֲחִיתוֹפֶל קַל וָחוֹמֶר בְּעַצְמוֹ: וּמָה לַעֲשׂוֹת שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: שְׁמִי שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בִּקְדוּשָּׁה יִמָּחֶה עַל הַמַּיִם, לַעֲשׂוֹת שָׁלוֹם לְכׇל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁרֵי.

Achitofel drew a kal v'chomer: if to make peace between husband and wife the shem Hashem can be erased, as we read in the parsha of sotah, certainly it can be erased to make peace for the whole world.

In the Reshimos Shiurim, R' Soloveitchik is quoted as learning from here that the din of mechikas Hashem by sotah is dechuya, not hutra.  

מכאן מוכח דהא דמוחקין את השם בסוטה אינה מדין הותרה אלא מדין דחויה, שיש במחיקת השם מעשה איסור אלא דשלום בית דוחה את איסור המחיקה, דהא יליף אחיתופל לכל התורה כולה מסוטה, דאילו הותרה למצות סוטה איך אפשר ללמוד לשאר התורה.

Were mechikas Hashem hutra just for the sake of sotah, then that would preclude generalizing from there to other cases.  It must be that there is an issur of mechika even in the sotah case, but the need for shalom pushes it off.  Therefore we can generalize to other contexts.

RYBS brought further proof from the last Rambam in Hil Chanukah:

היה לפניו נר ביתו ונר חנוכה או נר ביתו וקדוש היום נר ביתו קודם משום שלום ביתו שהרי השם נמחק לעשות שלום בין איש לאשתו. גדול השלום שכל התורה ניתנה לעשות שלום בעולם שנאמר דרכיה דרכי נעם וכל נתיבותיה שלום

Rambam learns that just like for the sake of shalom the issur of mechikas Hashem is pushed off, so too, for the sake of shalom lighting shabbos candles takes precedence over kiddush.  Again, we see the principle derived from sotah being generalized to other instances.

Afar ani tachas kapos raglav, but I think the Shu"T haRama (100:10) learns differently.  Rama quotes a teshuvah from Rav Hai Gaon: a husband took an oath to divorce his wife.  Can the husband violate his shevu'a for the sake of shalom bayis and remaining married?  Rav Hai Gaon responded that he may not.  This case is not comparable to the parsha of sotah, Rav Hai somewhat cryptically explains, because there violating the issur of mechikas Hashem is 'motzei mi'dei safeik u'mi'dei issura,' but here, with respect to shevu'a, there is an issur of 'lo tisa." 

What exactly is the chiluk Rav Hai is making between the two cases?  Rama explains that the issur of mechikas Hashem is derived from, "lo taasun kein l'Hashem Elokeichem...," not to destory our holy things the way avodah zarah must be destroyed.  The issur of mechikas Hashem, he writes, only applies when done with a destructive intent.  However, if done for a constructive purpose, e.g. shalom bayis, there is no issur. 

Were shalom bayis **doche** the issur of mechikas Hashem, then shalom bayis should be doche the issur of shevu'a as well.  Rama says this equation does not work because the issur of mechikas Hashem is **hutra**, i.e. there is no issur when done for a constructive purpose.  This does not apply to the issur of shevu'a, which has completely different parameters.  Achitofel could generalize from sotah to his scenario because he was dealing with the same issur of mechikas Hashem done for a constructive purpose.

The proof from hil chanukah is not convincing to me because in that case we are speaking about a din derabbanan of ner shabbos taking precedence over other dinim derabbanan like drinking wine for kiddush, or ner chanukah.  There many takanos derabbanon instituted for sake of darkei shalom, so it's no surprise that one derabbanan would outweigh another for that reason.

I saw quoted b'shem R' Elyashiv a different pshat in this Rav Hai Gaon.  R' Elyashiv suggested that the woman involved suffers tremendous embarrassment by being put through the sotah process to determine her guilt or innocence.  This is why the Torah promises that if indeed she is innocent, meaning she did not have relations with a stranger, she is rewarded and will have a child.  Eevn though she is not truly 100% innocent -- she certainly violated the issur yichud -- the great burden of embarrassment inflicted upon her demands some compensation.  Davka in this instance, where a woman's reputation is on the line, when she is suffering great pains of shame, the Torah allows shem Hashem to be erased.  This is far beyond the normal bounds of ordinary shalom bayis, and therefore, one cannot generalize from here regarding shalom bayis being doche other issurim.

I only saw this quoted second hand in a parsha sheet, but it seems to me that it leaves unresolved how Achitofel could derive anything from the parsha of sotah given that the heter mechikas Hashem there is unique to the special circumstance involved. 

the special meaning of Shavuos for Rav Yosef

(I presented a version of these divrei Torah [took out personal references and some other stuff] at the shloshim siyum for my FIL, Dovid ben haChaveir Yosef.  They should be an aliya for his neshoma)

The gemara (Pesachim 68) writes that Shavuos was Rav Yosef’s favorite holiday:

רב יוסף ביומא דעצרתא אמר עבדי לי עגלא תלתא אמר אי לא האי יומא דקא גרים כמה יוסף איכא בשוקא

We all would be nothing without mattan Torah. What did Rav Yosef have more of an appreciation and make a greater celebration of the day than anyone else’s? And if Rav Yosef was celebrating mattan Torah, why does he not say “mattan Torah?” Why does the gemara refer to “hai yoma,” the day?

The gemara at the end of Horiyos tells us that Rav Yosef was called “Sinai” because he had an unbelievable memory and could recall braisos as if they had been dictated to him word for word from Sinai.

However, at some point Rav Yosef's condition changed (Nedarim 41):

רב יוסף חלש איעקר ליה למודיה אהדריה אביי קמיה היינו דבכל דוכתא אמרינן אמר רב יוסף לא שמיע לי הדא שמעתא א"ל אביי את אמריתה ניהלן ומהא מתניתא אמריתה ניהלן

Rav Yosef forgot his learning. This is why throughout shas we find Abayei reminding his rebbe, Rav Yosef, of sugyos that Rav Yosef had taught him but had now forgotten.

In light of Rav Yosef’s condition, we can appreciate his comment (Menachos 99a)

אשר שברת ושמתם בארון תני רב יוסף מלמד שהלוחות ושברי לוחות מונחין בארון מכאן לתלמיד חכם ששכח תלמודו מחמת אונסו שאין נוהגין בו מנהג בזיון

Rav Yosef himself was the shivrei luchos! He proved that even after he could no longer function on the level he once was able to, his life still had meaning, and his life could still be lived with dignity and respect. Broken luchos can be cherished as much as whole ones.

Rav Yosef celebrated not just the giving of the luchos, mattan Torah, like we all do, but he in particular celebrated the fact that Torah was given through shivrei luchos, through that would be broken, and that even these luchos too would have a place in the aron.

A second reason why the Shavuos had particular meaning for Rav Yosef:

The gemara (Kid 30a) writes that someone who teaches Torah to his grandchildren is as if he received it directly at Har Sinai, like at Shavuos.

אמר ריב"ל כל המלמד את בן בנו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו קבלה מהר סיני שנאמר והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וסמיך ליה יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלהיך בחורב

This idea of ensuring that Torah is passed down to children, and grandchildren as well, is reflected in another statement of Chazal (B”M 85):

ר' יוחנן כל שהוא תלמיד חכם ובנו תלמיד חכם ובן בנו תלמיד חכם שוב אין תורה פוסקת מזרעו לעולם שנאמר ואני זאת בריתי וגו' לא ימושו מפיך ומפי זרעך ומפי זרע זרעך אמר ה' מעתה ועד עולם מאי אמר ה' אמר הקב"ה אני ערב לך בדבר זה מאי מעתה ועד עולם אמר ר' ירמיה מכאן ואילך תורה מחזרת על אכסניא שלה

Rav Yochanan said it, but Rav Yosef lived it. The gemara continues:

רב יוסף יתיב ארבעין תעניתא ואקריוהו לא ימושו מפיך יתיב ארבעים תעניתא אחריני ואקריוהו לא ימושו מפיך ומפי זרעך יתיב מאה תעניתא אחריני אתא ואקריוהו לא ימושו מפיך ומפי זרעך ומפי זרע זרעך אמר מכאן ואילך לא צריכנא תורה מחזרת על אכסניא שלה

(Parenthetically, why does the gemara say that R”Y fasted 40 days for himself, 40 for his children, but 100 [others change the girsa, but this is how the printed text reads and how Maharasha has it] for his grandchildren? I am admittedly a newbie in the role of grandparent, but it seems to me that by the time one’s children are grown and one gets to be a grandparent, one realizes that however many tefilos, fasts, etc. one thought would be enough to ensure the mesorah continues to the next generation, in reality even twice as much is not even enough.)

Rav Yosef’s life was Shavuos, was mattan Torah, because he established that bond across generations.  That's why the day had such special meaning for him.

Shavuos is the time we are judged on “peiros ha’ilan.” It's a time to take stock of one's efforts to pass the mesorah on to the fruits of one’s family tree, children and grandchildren.  Hopefully the effort bears spiritual fruit.

Shavuos - holiday of Torah she'baal peh

Sefas Emes (5633):

ענין קריאת רות בשבועות. שהוא ענין תורה שבע"פ

How is Rus about Torah shebaal peh, and if that is indeed the takeaway from the  book, why do we read it on Shavuos, which at first glance is a celebration of the written Torah, a celebration of receiving luchos which were engraved and written by G-d?

My wife wrote on her blog:

This year, I was thinking about parallels between Megillat Esther and Megillat Ruth. In both, the heroine for whom the book is named has a parental figures who is not her actual parent as a guide. This figure advises her about how to behave in a new environment for her -- Mordechai directs Esther to remain silent about her identity, and Naomi instructs Ruth about halachos and social norms in Jewish society in general and told to stick with the maids working in Boaz's field

Subsequently, though, that same authority figure turns the tables on the heroine due to what has come to light to change her tactics and take a great risk. The heroine then has to act contrary to her nature and take action that would be considered rash and dangerous. She must subjugates her own views to that of the wisdom of the parental figure.

She refers to Mordechai's instruction to Esther to go to Achashveirosh even uninvited in order to thwart Haman's plot, and Naomi's instruction to Rus to go to Boaz and meet him in the field in the middle of the night, seemingly unsuitable behavior for a bas yisrael. My wife ends off:

Interestingly, both heroines thus prove themselves worth of royalty, for the middah of malchus in Jewish thought is not of self-assertion but of receiving. I'd venture to say that Esther (descended from the line of Rachel) may represent the role of Moshiach ben Yosef while Ruth clearly establishes the line leading to David and the Moshiach born of that dynasty.

How does Rus express her commitment to Judaism?   She doesn't pull out a kitzur shulchan aruch, or some other guidebook that tells her how to behave and pledge to follow it.  She tells Naomi, "Ba'asher teileichi eilech, ba'asher taluni alin" -- "Where you go, I go," etc.  It is Naomi's behavior and practice that is her guide.  It is Naomi's instruction that she follows, irrespective of the risk to her reputation, or in Esther's case, to her life. 

These heroines prove worthy of the midah of malchus because "man malchi -- Rabbanan."   Without a concept of mesorah, without Rabbinic interpretation, without role models and tradition, Torah could not endure.  It is the mesorah, the Rabbis, who rule over the text, not the text which rules over the mesorah. 

Even though the Torah says an Amoni may not intermarry into Klal Yisrael, Boaz came along and revealed that an Amonis is excluded from that law.  Boaz = Bo Oz, the Torah was embodied within him, his interpretation and mesorah defined what the rules of the game were.  

That's why the parallel to Rus is the story of Esther, which we read on Purim.  "Hadar kiblu'ha b'ymei Achashveirosh..."  Purim is also a celebration of kabbalas haTorah, and therefore, this same theme of a living, breathing mesorah is a focal point of the megillah story.

The tachlis of mattan Torah, what we celebrate on Shavuos, can be summed up in three words: Lo BaShamayim Hi.  Mattan Torah is in fact all about Torah shebaal peh because at that moment of mattan Torah G-d turned over the reins to us and Torah became more than just words on a page.  

kabbalas haTorah b'simcha

Hashem told Moshe while he was up on Har Sinai that the people below were worshipping the eigel, but that did not stop Moshe from bringing the luchos down with him.  Once he saw what was going on, however, he smashed the luchos.  M'ikara mai ka'savar u'l'bsof mai kasavar?  If he thought Bn"Y did not deserve the luchos, why did he bring them down?  If they did deserve them, why did Moshe smash them?

Seforno (32:19) answers:

וירא את העגל ומחלת, ויחר אף משה – כשראה שהיו שמחים בקלקול שעשו, כענין ״כי רעתכי אז תעלזי״ (ירמיהו י״א:ט״ו), ובזה התקצף ונואש שיוכל לתקן המעוות באופן שיחזרו לתמותם ויהיו ראויים לאותן הלוחות.

Moshe thought that even if the people were worshipping avodah zarah, it was a mistake he could correct.  Ohr she'hah machziran la'mutav once they got the Torah.  

However, once Moshe saw that it was not just that the people had gone astrary, but that they were filled with simcha at their situation, they were rejoicing in the worship of avodah zarah, he lost hope. You can't compare stam an aveira to an aveira done with simcha and hislahavus.

Rav Tzvi Shteinberg points out the Seforno's comment (23:14) on  שָׁלֹ֣שׁ רְגָלִ֔ים תָּחֹ֥ג לִ֖י בַּשָּׁנָֽה:

תחג לי – כענין ״ישמח ישראל בעשיו״ (תהלים קמ״ט:ב׳), על היפך ״וירא את העגל ומחלת״ (שמות ל״ב:י״ט).

 It's not enough to stam do the mitzvos ha'chag.  You have to have the same simcha and hislahavus that you showed when Aharon declared "chag la'Hashem machar" and you worshipped the eigel.

B'frat, this is true on Shavuos.  It's not enough to have a kabbalas haTorah, but it has to be b'simcha, just like the simcha of the eigel which thwarted the initial kabbalah.   

Ramban's chiddush din of cheirem

Commenting on the pasuk  כׇּל־חֵ֗רֶם אֲשֶׁ֧ר יׇחֳרַ֛ם מִן־הָאָדָ֖ם לֹ֣א יִפָּדֶ֑ה מ֖וֹת יוּמָֽת׃ (27:29), Ramban comes up with a new din based entirely on pshat in the pasuk  

ולכך אני אומר כי מן הכתוב הזה יוצא להם הדין הזה, שכל מלך בישראל או סנהדרי גדולה במעמד כל ישראל שיש להם רשות במשפטים, ואם יחרימו על עיר בהלחם עליה, וכן אם יחרימו על דבר העובר עליו, חייב מיתה

He explains:

ועל דרך הפשט: יאמר הכתוב כי כל המחרים משלו, בין אדם בין בהמה ושדה אחוזתו, הוא קדש לשם, שהן חרמי כהנים, ואין להם פדיון, אבל המחרים מן האדם שאינו שלו, כגון הנלחמים על איביהם ונודרים נדר: אם נתון תתן את העם הזה בידי והחרמתי את עריהם (במדבר כ״א:ב׳) – ימיתו כל האדם הנמצא בהם. 

One can take a vow of cheirim that requires killing the muchram, e.g. if one takes a vow to be machrim an enemy city that the army is trying to capture, if victorious, everyone in the city must be killed.  He further writes:

Ramban gives three examples.  The first two: 1) Bn"Y killed the townspeople of Yaveish Gilad because they did not join the rest of the community in battle (Shoftim 21) 2) Shaul was going to kill his son Yehonosan because he violated the cheirem and paused to eat during battle (Shmuel ch 14) 

Netziv (Haamek Sheila 142:9) rejects these proofs.  The reason the people of Yaveish Gilad were guilty is because failure to join Klal Yisrael in battle weakens the entire army.  Someone who does that has the din of a rodef.  Shaul thought the same of Yehonasan -- he thought that by pausing in the middle of battle Yehonsan was guilty of failing to press the enemy to the fullest extent, weaking Bn"Y's position.  

Ramban's third example is a case of a misapplication of the din.  Yiftach declared a cheirim on whatever emerged first from his house if he returned victorious in battle.  Had an animal come out, as he anticipatged, he would have offered it as a korban.  Yet it was his daughter who came out first to greet him, and he therefore was forced to kill her.  Yiftach's error: ולא ידע כי חרם המלך והסנהדרין חל על המורדים לכלותם או על העובר על גזרתם ותקנתם, אבל לחול נדר לעשות עולה מדבר שאיננו ראוי לשם חס ושלום

Ibn Ezra argues and writes that Yiftach did not kill his daughter, as if she was a korban.  What he did was to consecrate her life to G-d, like a korban.  She cloistered herself away and dedicated herself to prayer.  To which Ramban responds: ואם הדבר כן, היתה בתו הבוכה על בתוליה ורעותיה עמה כזונות לקלס אתנן, וחס ושלום שתהיה חוק בישראל לתנות לבת יפתח ארבעת ימים בשנה (שופטים י״א:מ׳) מפני שלא נשאת לבעל והיתה עובדת את השם בטהרה. אבל הדבר כפשוטו וטעותו היה ממה שאמרתי  Why would anyone cry over such a fate?!  Aderaba, it should be lauded.

I say only partially tongue in cheek that were I teaching in a RW girls school or seminary (and I'm not knocking such places -- my own daughters are products of them), I would highlight this Ibn Ezra, because I think Ibn Ezra would give a very "frum" response to Ramban.  Ain hachi nami,  מפני שלא נשאת לבעל והיתה עובדת את השם בטהרה she should cry, as a woman's role is to make the cholent, bake the kugel, raise the children, and support her husband.  To be derpived of being able to fulfill that role, even if one is עובדת את השם בטהרה, is something to bemoan.