Rav Amiel on how the mavul was midah k'neged midah for the sin of חָמָֽס, means vs end in building the ark, and how even a whiff of Torah makes a difference

1) The dor ha'mabul was punished because  וַתִּמָּלֵ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ חָמָֽס.  What is  חָמָֽס?  The Midrash writes that the issur gezel is when you steal the amount worth a perutah; חָמָֽס is when you steal less than a perutah.  Technically, it's not theft.  The gemara (BK 62) gives a slightly different definition. Gezel is when you don't pay for what you've taken; חָמָֽס is where you paid, but twisted the seller's arm to force the sale and get what you want. The gemara itseld writes that people think that 'lo tahcmod' only applies if you force someone to sell and then never pay, but if you pay, then you did nothing wrong.  True, it's not gezel, it may or may not be lo tachmod, but it is חָמָֽס.  The common denominator of both definitions: obeying the technical details of the law but circumventing the intent and spirit of the law.

What's less than a perutah?  It's a nothing.  What can it hurt to steal it?  And in truth, that's what a person is not chayav for doing so.  But when everyone starts behaving that way, when תִּמָּלֵ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ חָמָֽס, society goes down the drain. 

R' Moshe Avigdor Amiel writes in Hegyonot El Ami that the punishment of the mabul is midah k'neged midah.  What's a single drop of water?  Water can even be a positive thing -- nothing can grow or exist without rain.  But when you put together all those drops, and you keep it up non stop for days, the world is destroyed.

2) וַיֹּאמְר֞וּ אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־רֵעֵ֗הוּ הָ֚בָה נִלְבְּנָ֣ה לְבֵנִ֔ים וְנִשְׂרְפָ֖ה לִשְׂרֵפָ֑ה וַתְּהִ֨י לָהֶ֤ם הַלְּבֵנָה֙ לְאָ֔בֶן וְהַ֣חֵמָ֔ר הָיָ֥ה לָהֶ֖ם לַחֹֽמֶר

וַיֹּאמְר֞וּ הָ֣בָה׀ נִבְנֶה־לָּ֣נוּ עִ֗יר וּמִגְדָּל֙ וְרֹאשׁ֣וֹ בַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וְנַֽעֲשֶׂה־לָּ֖נוּ שֵׁ֑ם פֶּן־נָפ֖וּץ עַל־פְּנֵ֥י כׇל־הָאָֽרֶץ

The process seems out of order.  You would expect the Torah to tell us that the dor ha'palaga wanted to build a city, a migdal, and therefore they began making bricks to accomplish that task.  You first need a goal and then you devise the process to get there.  Instead, we are told that they made bricks first, and then they came up with a goal and decided to make their migdal.

R' Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld (quoted in Binah u'Bracha by R' Baruch Sorotzkin) explained that it's not the desire to make a migdal and rebel against G-d which drove the creation of new technology of brick making, but rather the new technology of brick making, which may have been developed with no nefarious purpose in mind (see Seforno), inflated man's ego and drove him to rebellion.

This was R Y C Zonnenfeld's answer to Franz Joseph as to why the more civilization advances, the weaker religious committment seems to grow.

3) Speaking of pesukim out of order, in 6:14 Noach is given the command to build a teivah, עֲשֵׂ֤ה לְךָ֙ תֵּבַ֣ת עֲצֵי־גֹ֔פֶר קִנִּ֖ים תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֣ה אֶת־הַתֵּבָ֑ה, which is followed by a few pesukim in which the dimensions of the ark and how it should be made are spelled out.  Only after completing that description, Hashem tells Noach that he is going to bring a flood, וַאֲנִ֗י הִנְנִי֩ מֵבִ֨יא אֶת־הַמַּבּ֥וּל מַ֙יִם֙ עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ לְשַׁחֵ֣ת כׇּל־בָּשָׂ֗ר אֲשֶׁר־בּוֹ֙ ר֣וּחַ חַיִּ֔ים מִתַּ֖חַת הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם.  Shouldn't it have been presented in the reverse order, i.e. first tell Noach there is going to be a flood, and then tell him that he has to make an ark to be saved?

R' Yichiel Michel Feinstein quotes the Rashi on 6:14:  הרבה ריוח והצלה לפניו בשבילם.א ולמה הטריחו בבניין זה? כדי שיראוהוב דור המבול עסוק בבניין זהג מאה ועשרים שנה, ושואלים אותו: מה הוא זאת לך, והוא אומר להם: עתיד הקב״ה להביא מבול לעולם, אולי ישובו  It was not the flood which was the cause pushing Noach to build an ark to save himself.  Aderaba, it was the building of the ark, the warning flag Hashem put up and which was ignored by the dor ha'mabul, which sealed their fate caused the flood.

4) See here and here for posts on the Midrash's comment on "Vayarach Hashem es rei'ach ha'nicho'ach" that Hashem was smelling not just the fragrant odor of Noach's korban, but was also smelling Avraham in the furnace of Nimrod, he was smelling Chananya, Mishael, v'Azarya in their oven, he was smelling the sweet scent of all those who sacrifice their lives al kiddush Hashem.  I don't want to repeat everything I wrote before, but b'kitzur, smell is a special sense, the one sense that was uncorrupted by the cheit of Adam haRishon, and therefore is the key to man rehabilitation, his return to Eden, it is the promise of a better future when all seems lost and corrupted.  I was thinking about this topic again this week because my SIL was talking about whether odor can be transmitted electronically.  Ain beit medrash b'li chiddush, so I want to add just one point to those older posts.  The gemara (Zevachim 113) asks how the giant animal called the re'em was saved from the flood.  It was so big, says the gemara, that even its head alone could not fit in the teivah.  Answers the gemara, it stuck just it's nose in and was able to survive.  Rav Ben Tzion Kook writes that even if a person is outside the beis medrash, so long as they are connected to the "reiach haTorah," there is hope.  Even if the rest of a creature is underwater, so long as the nose, the kli for the sense of smell, is still in the teivah, there is hope for survival.  

R' Akiva Eiger's chiddush in a case where one forgot mashiv ha'ruach in Fri night davening

The S.A. paskens (OC 268) that if you accidentally daven a weekday shmoneh esrei on Friday night, you can listen to the chazan say the bracha mei'ein sheva and have in mind to be yotzei because it is like a chazaras hashat"z. 

אם התפלל של חול ולא הזכיר של שבת או שלא התפלל כלל ושמע משליח ציבור ברכה מעין שבע מראש ועד סוף יצא: 

R' Akiva Eiger (quoted in Biur Halacha from RAKE in OC 114) extends this chiddush to someone who forgot to say mashiv ha'ruach in their Friday night shmoneh esrei and is therefore not yotzei.  Here too, RAKE writes that one can just listen to מעין שבע and there is no need to repeat the entire tefilah.  Even though there is no mention of mashiv ha'ruach in the מעין שבע, so you don't gain anything, it doesn't matter, because Chazal were metakein that מעין שבע counts as a tefilah without it.

R' Akiva Eiger in OC 114 (not quoted in BH in 268) goes even a step further and suggests that if you forgot mashiv ha'ruach on Friday night maybe you are yotzei even without hearing מעין שבע.  How can it be, says RAK"E, that the מעין שבע, which is a substitute for the real tefilah, does not need mashiv ha'ruach, but the real tefilah counts for nothing without it?!  The tafeil can't be better than the ikar! He leaves off with a tzarich iyun on whether this argument is correct.  Most Achronim do not seem to accept the point (see Chazon Ovadya Shabbos vol 1, p 386 who quotes a list of mareh mekomos).

why Adam needed Chavah to be complete, the nachash's challenge, and Chanoch the shoemaker

 1) "Lo tov heyos ha'adam levado..."  Why not?  What was missing in his life?  He was living in Gan Eden with all his needs fulfilled!

What was missing is the ability to share with others, to give.  Without that, life has no purpose or meaning (R' Chaim Shmuelevitz).

According to Ramchal, Hashem created the world to be meitiv, to share his goodness with us, to give to us.  Humans are created b'tzelem Elokim.  We have an innate need to share, to give to others.  That is what gives our life meaning and purpose.

2) When the snake first approaches Chavah, the Torah relates:

וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־הָ֣אִשָּׁ֔ה אַ֚ף כִּֽי־אָמַ֣ר אֱלֹקים לֹ֣א תֹֽאכְל֔וּ מִכֹּ֖ל עֵ֥ץ הַגָּֽן׃

The pasuk is a bit cryptic.  Targum translates אַ֚ף as  בְּקוּשְׁטָא, a statement of truth.  It's hard to know (see Mizrachi) whether Targum read the pasuk as a real question being posed by the snake, i.e. "Did G-d tell you...?" or as a statement of fact posed as a rhetorical question, i.e. "Is it not true...?"  Rashi understood that it was a question: אף כי אמר וגו׳ – שמא אמר לכם לא תאכלו מכל וגו׳ – ואף על פי שראה אותם אוכלים משאר הפרות, הרבה עליה דברים כדי שתשיבנו, ויבא לדבר באותו עץ.  The nachash saw Adam and Chavah eating and knew (see Sifsei Chachamim) that they were not prohibited from doing so but he asked anyway as a means of eliciting a response and thereby engaging Chavah in conversation.  

Radak reads the pasuk as a challenge by the snake.  The nachash told Chavah that G-d must despise humans, as He did not allow them to eat all of the fruits in the garden:

באמרו אף שמורה תוספת על הדברים שקדמו, נראה כי דברים אחרים קדמו בין חוה ובין הנחש, ודומה שאמרה חוה לנחש על הכבוד שעשה להם האל שהשכינם בגן עדן, אמר לה הנחש אני רואה שהקב״ה שונא אתכם אף על פי שהגדיל אתכם משאר היצורים שלא יעשה לכם מעלה כך וכך, וכל שכן שאמר אליכם שלא תאכלו מכל עץ הגן בזה תוכלו להכיר שהוא שונא אתכם ואינכם חשובים בעיניו כמו שאת אומרת, והכתוב הניח ראשי הדברים ולקח סופם, וכן הוא מנהג הכתוב במקומות רבות

Remember the cheit ha'meraglim?   בְּשִׂנְאַ֤ת ה׳ אֹתָ֔נוּ הוֹצִיאָ֖נוּ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם (Devarim 1:27).  Once again, just as Bnei Yisrael are prepared to enter Eretz Yisrael, a return to Eden, if you will, the same sin, the same fear that G-d has rejected them, rears its ugly head.  The aleph of alephs of the yetzer ha'ra, the first and best weapon of the nachash, is to tell us that we are rejects, that G-d, or our rebbeim, or our parents, or whoever, does not love us, does not want us.   

Netziv is a contrarian here and reads the pasuk not as questioning why Adam and Chavah were eating, as Rashi assumes, but rather questioning why they were NOT eating.  אַ֚ף כִּֽי־אָמַ֣ר אֱלֹקים – ״מכל עץ הגן אכל תאכל״ (לעיל ב,טז), מכל מקום --לא תאכלו מכל עץ הגן.  Netziv explains that Adam and Chavah were in a state of dveikus with Hashem, and when you are close to G-d, you don't have an appetite, you don't worry about what's for lunch.  Even if you could eat on Yom Kippur, is that really what's on your mind on the holiest of days?  In steps the nachash: על כן בא הנחש בפיתוי — שהרי לא בחנם נברא העולם ומלואו, ואין רצון ה׳ שלא תהיו נצרכים לתענוגי העולם, וא״כ אין ראוי להיות שקוע באהבת ה׳ ובדבקות שהוא מהביל ומפריע כל תענוג גשמי, והוא נגד רצון ה׳ שהרי אמר ״מכל עץ הגן אכל תאכל״  Not only are you permitted to eat, argues the snake, but it's a mitzvah to eat, or why else would G-d have created a world and put you in it.  וכזה הוא פיתוי היצר בכל דור, כידוע, מתחילה משיא את הדבק בתורה ע״י איזה מצוה או דרך ארץ שהוא ישר באמת לשאר בני אדם, ואחר שמושכו מבית המדרש מוסיף והולך לפתות.  This is the argument the snake uses in every generation to draw us out into the world, to draw us away from the beit medrash, and once we are exposed to the tastes and temptations of the world, the slide down the slippery slope is almost inevitable.

3) The Midrash writes that Chanoch was a shoemaker, and with every stich he made on the shoes, he was m'yached yichudim.  Chasidim interpret this to mean that Chanoch's mind was on deep, Heavenly thoughts while he was stitching those shoes,while the aalei mussar (see Michtav m'Eliyahu in vol 1) interpret this to mean that by doing his work faithfully and avoiding gezel Chanoch was fulfilling the ratzon Hashem.  In the Mir yeshiva parsha sheet they quote a different hesber from Rav Shmuel Charkover, one that, as someone who goes to work every day, resonated with me.  R' Shmuel Charkover explained that with every stitch Chanoch made he said to himself, "I am not a shoemaker."  Next stitch, again, "I am not a shoemaker."  This was how he was m'yached yichudim.

People go through life thinking, "I am a <blank>," and that definition of who they are influences their whole approach to their avodas Hashem, to how they live.  Learn more than daf yomi?  "I'm a <blank>, not a masmid!"  Daven a little longer shacharis?  "I'm a <blank>, not a tzadik!"  Chanoch reminded himself constantly that his job was not his identity; it was just something he needed to do at that moment.  

birchas haTorah

The gemara darshens from the pasuk  כִּ֛י שֵׁ֥ם הֹ׳ אֶקְרָ֑א הָב֥וּ גֹ֖דֶל לֵאלֹקינוּ that there is a chiyuv to say birchas haTorah.  (Why does the pasuk use the word הָב֥וּ, which is Aramaic, instead of the Hebrew תנו?  Chazal tell us that the angels do not understand Aramaic.  [see this post]  The Ishbitzer in Ne'os Deshe explains that when there is כִּ֛י שֵׁ֥ם הֹ׳ אֶקְרָ֑א, you can approach Hashem without the need for the intermediary of malachim.)

Bnei Yisrael had been learning Torah for 40 years in the desert.  Why tell us now that there is a din to say a bracha? 

You could answer the question using the chiddush of the Brisker Rav that birchas haTorah is on the cheftza shel Torah, not on the chovas ha'gavra to learn (see Emek Bracha).  Even though the Mechaber paskens that women cannot say a bracha on mitzvos they are not obligated in, the Mechaber paskens that they do say a birchas haTorah because it has nothing to do with the person's obligation to learn, it has to do with the fact that there is a Torah text being studied.  Therefore, until last week's parsha where Moshe received the mitzvah of kesivas sefer Torah and wrote a sefer, there was no text that existed.  It's only now, in our parsha, that there is a cheftza shel Torah to say a bracha on.

Al derech machshava, you can maybe say something more.

 יַעֲרֹ֤ף כַּמָּטָר֙ לִקְחִ֔י  The word כַּמָּטָר֙ written with a 'patach' under the כַּ , which means grammatically it's like there is a ה הידיעה there, it's a definite article.  We're not just talking about any dew, but rather THE dew, something specific.  What specific dew is the Torah being compared to?

In a few short weeks we will be reading Braishis where the Torah tells us (2:5) וְכֹ֣ל׀ שִׂ֣יחַ הַשָּׂדֶ֗ה טֶ֚רֶם יִֽהְיֶ֣ה בָאָ֔רֶץ וְכׇל־עֵ֥שֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה טֶ֣רֶם יִצְמָ֑ח כִּי֩ לֹ֨א הִמְטִ֜יר הֹ׳ אֱלֹקים֙ עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְאָדָ֣ם אַ֔יִן לַֽעֲבֹ֖ד אֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃ -- the dew had not fallen because man was not yet created to work the ground.  Rashi explains:

כי לא המטיר – ומהג טעם לא המטיר? לפי שאדם אין לעבוד,ד ואין מכיר בטובתן של גשמים. וכשבא אדם וידע שצורך הם לעולם, התפלל עליהם וירדו, וצמחו האילנות והדשאים.

Maharal in Gur Aryeh formulates it even more sharply: ואין מכיר בטובתם. כלומר, ואסור לעשות טובה לאיש שאין מכיר בטובה, ולפיכך כל זמן שלא היה האדם - לא המטיר

You are not allowed to do a tovah for someone who will not appreciate it, who does not feel a need for it.  

Until there was a human being who could appreciate the need for dew and rain, G-d did not provide dew and rain.  Only once man was created and could daven and ask G-d for help did the dew fall.

Explains the Shem m'Shmuel: For 40 years there was שׁכינה מדבּרת מתוך גורנו שׁל משׁה, it was like mattan Torah every day because G-d spoke through Moshe's mouth.  Ramban writes in Ki Tisa that the Mishkan was like a mini Har Sinai where the process of revelation continued.

That's not the norm.  Mattan Torah was a one time in history unique experience.  For the rest of time, Torah is meant to be acquired through toil and effort, not received as a gift.  לִקְחִ֔י, like כִּי לֶַֿקח טוֹב נָתַֿ תִּי לָכֶם, means you have to do something to make a kinyan, not passively accept what is handed to you.   כּי יקח אישׁ אישׁה Ran in Nedarim 29 writes that the baal has to be the one to make the kinyan kiddushin but the woman's role is to be passive, to make herself like hefker.  

That's the change Moshe is preparing the people for. יַעֲרֹ֤ף כַּמָּטָר֙ לִקְחִ֔י Don't expect G-d to serve up Torah on a silver platter.  It's like THE dew, the dew of creation, that will only come to those who recognize the need for it, those who ask for it, those who are prepared לַֽעֲבֹ֖ד אֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃, to work for it.  

As Rashi on Braishis writes כשבא אדם וידע שצורך הם לעולם, התפלל עליהם וירדו.  That's birchas haTorah.

Motzei Y"K at Yeshiva in Sderot:

מחה פּשׁענו מנגד עינך

Read k'peshuto, you have to at least admire the brazenness of the statement מחה פּשׁענו מנגד עינך.  We know how bad we are; G-d, You of course know how bad we are, but do us a favor and turn your eyes away and pretend not to notice.  Are sins like Schrodinger's cat, i.e. so long as they are not נגד עינך and noticed, they cease to exist?

There are a lot of ways to get rid of sin.  First and foremost, there is onesh and yisurim.  If you know that when you do wrong you get a smack for it, you are not going to keep doing wrong.  However, there are better ways to go about curing the penchant for wrongdoing.  Says the Sefas Emes, when a person is really close to G-d, it becomes impossible to sin.  Think of your relationship to your wife, to your child, to your parents.  Surely you don't intentionally act in a way to harm them, not because of the negative consequences of having to sleep on the couch or your child hiding in their room, but simply because these are people you are close to and therefore do not want to hurt.  In that same vein, when you are close to someone, it becomes easier to forgive as well.

When we say מחה פּשׁענו מנגד עינך the letter מ in מנגד is the מ indicating a sibah, a cause.  We are asking G-d to forgive not through yisurim, not by punishment, not by demanding other forms of kaparah, but simply because we are נגד עינך, we are close, and when you are close, you don't want to cause harm, you don't want to linger on faults.  That should be the motivation behind and the vehicle for our kaparah.

teshuvah and arvus

The haftarah of Shabbos Shuvah comes from Hoshe'a.  Chazal famously comment:

 אמר לו הקב״ה לראובן מעולם לא חטא אדם לפני ועשה תשובה ואתה פתחת בתשובה תחלה חייך שבן בנך הושע פותח בתשובה שנאמר שובה ישראל.

Yet we know that there were in fact others who did teshuvah before Reuvain.  Kayin did teshuvah.  Adam did teshuvah.  Why do Chazal single out the teshuvah of Reuvain as being the first?

What in fact Reuvain's?  Braishis 35:22 tells us:

וַיְהִ֗י בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֗֔ן וַיִּשְׁכַּ֕ב֙ אֶת־בִּלְהָ֖ה֙ פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֑֔יו וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵֽ֑ל  

yet that very same pasuk ends

וַיִּֽהְי֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יַעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁנֵ֥ים עָשָֽׂר

upon which Rashi comments 

ורבותינו דרשו (בבלי שבת נ״ה:): ללמדנו בא, שכולם שוים וכולן צדיקים, שלא חטא ראובן.

The Yismach Yisrael of Aleksander writes that this is why Reuvain is held up as the paragon of teshuvah.  He did something wrong, but immediately regretted and repented on his actions, such that there is not even a pause between the sin and the tikun of וַיִּֽהְי֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יַעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁנֵ֥ים עָשָֽׂר.  The same cannot be said of Adam and Kayin.

That being said, just a few parshiyos later, when we read about the sale of Yosef, the Torah relates how Reuvain tried to save his brother, but then vanishes from the story while the brothers go and sell Yosef into slavery.  Reuvain comes back to retrieve Yosef and discovers him missing (37:29):

 וַיָּ֤שׇׁב רְאוּבֵן֙ אֶל־הַבּ֔וֹר וְהִנֵּ֥ה אֵין־יוֹסֵ֖ף בַּבּ֑וֹר

Where was Reuvain while the sale was going on?  

Rashi tells us: דבר אחר: עסוק היה בשקו ותעניתו על בילבול יצועי אביו.

You can't have it both ways!  If Reuvain did nothing wrong, or at least immediately repented for whatever slight mistake he made, then why here is he doing teshuvah again?  Why is this moment the time the rehash old wounds?

I think our parsha contains the answer.  In pesukim 10-13 of our parsha we have the mitzvah of hakhel, which, as we've discussed in the past, really would seem to fit better in parshas Shoftim, where we have the laws that pertain to a king, or maybe in the parshiyos of the moadim, since hakhel takes place on Sukkos.  Following that mitzvah we have pesukim which portend sin and galus:

 וְחָרָ֣ה אַפִּ֣י ב֣וֹ בַיּוֹם־הַ֠ה֠וּא וַעֲזַבְתִּ֞ים וְהִסְתַּרְתִּ֨י פָנַ֤י מֵהֶם֙ וְהָיָ֣ה לֶאֱכֹ֔ל וּמְצָאֻ֛הוּ רָע֥וֹת רַבּ֖וֹת וְצָר֑וֹת׃

It sounds like Bnei Yisrael repent: 

 וְאָמַר֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֔וּא הֲלֹ֗א עַ֣ל כִּי־אֵ֤ין אֱלֹקי֙ בְּקִרְבִּ֔י מְצָא֖וּנִי הָרָע֥וֹת הָאֵֽלֶּה׃

But instead of acceptance and forgiveness, the next pasuk (18) follows with a promise of greater hester panim:  

 וְאָנֹכִ֗י הַסְתֵּ֨ר אַסְתִּ֤יר פָּנַי֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֔וּא עַ֥ל כׇּל־הָרָעָ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֑ה כִּ֣י פָנָ֔ה אֶל־אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֲחֵרִֽים

Ramban and everyone asks why it is that Hashem responds to this overture of repentance by hiding?

R' Simcha Bunim Sofer gives a magnificent answer.  He writes that the bris we read about in Nitzavim created the idea of arvus, the idea that no one in Klal Yisrael is an island.  One person's wrongdoing bears not just on the individual, but weighs down the nation as a whole.  

The statement עַ֣ל כִּי־אֵ֤ין אֱלֹקי֙ בְּקִרְבִּ֔י is all about personal wrongdoing, personal repentance.  "B'kirbi" -- it's all about me.  This type of repentance misses the mark because there is no acknowledgment of belonging to something greater, of having caused harm to something greater.

Perhaps that is why the Torah deliberately uses the mitzvah of hakhel as an introduction to this parsha.  Hakhel, the gathering together of men, women, even little children, as one, is the antithesis of the selfish teshuvah where the individual is concerned only with his/her own spiritual plight to the exclusion of others.

Returning to Reuvain,  וַיִּֽהְי֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יַעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁנֵ֥ים עָשָֽׂר certainly proves that Reuvain was in good standing, no different than his brothers, but at the same time, this same pasuk underscores the fact that these were 12 separate individual sons, not one united family.  Reuvain may have regretted moving his father's bed, but his actions opened a Pandora's box and exposed the underlying feeling that not all Yaakov's wives, and by extension not all the brothers, were in fact equal, and hence not united as one.  The result that would play out over time would be the sale of Yosef.  

This leads to the second teshuvah of Reuvain, the teshuvah he comes to when he sees the plot against Yosef playing itself out.  This is not his repentance as an individual for the sin of moving his father's bed, but repentance for the effect of his sin on the community, on the family structure.  This is the repentance of arvus, of feeling for the plight of his brother.

Adam repented, Kayin also repented.  Reuvain had already done his own private repentance as well.  But what we celebrate on Shabbos Shuvah is not just repentance for private wrongdoing, but the repentance for the harms done to the nation, to the community, by our own shortcomings.

sima b'PIHEM vs sim b'OZNEI Yehoshua

In our parsha we have the very last mitzvah in the Torah, "v'Atah kisvu lachem es ha'shirah ha'zos... sima b'PIHEM," to write a sefer Torah and, literally translated, to "place it in their [the people's] mouths," an allusion to Torah shebaal peh. 

This pasuk reminded me of an earlier pasuk.  After the war with Amalek Moshe is told "ksov zos zikaron ba'sefer," to write what happened in a book, "v'sim b'OZNEI Yehoshua," and, literally translated, "place it in Yehoshua's ear," also an allusion to orally transmitting Torah shebaal peh. 

Both pesukim refer to writing a book, both refer to teaching the lessons of Torah orally, so why then does the pasuk we read this week refer to placing Torah in the people's MOUTHs while Moshe is told to place Torah in Yehoshua's EAR?  

Seems to me that leaders are often good at using their mouths to give orders, but sometimes need reminding to use their ears as well, to listen and take advice and guidance from others.  The flipside is that people sometimes get good at just following orders, blind obedience, and need to be reminded that they can, and should, use their mouths to speak up and contribute their own ideas and insights, not just act as automatons or yes men.  

GR"A on why we don't blow shofar Erev Rosh haShana and the piyus of Nitzavim

1) To explain why we don't blow shofar on Erev Rosh haShana, the Vilna Gaon in his commentary to Yonah (3:3) quotes the gemara (Gittin) that relates how Hashem sent a little bug or bird to fly up Titus' nose into his head and bang away there for years.  One day Titus happened to walk past a blacksmith, and when the blacksmith's hammer was banging, the pecking in his brain stopped.  Now finally having a way to get some relief, Titus arranged to have blacksmiths working in his palace, banging away day in and day out.  After 30 days, however, the pecking resumed as usual.  The bird had acclimated itself to the banging, and resumed its pecking at Titus brain.

You see from this gemara that when something happens for 30 straight days, a creature, whether it is a bird or a person, becomes acclimated to it and it makes no impression.

If we blew shofar inclusive of Erev Rosh haShana, then we would have 30 days of blowing before the chag and tekiyas shofar would make no impression on is. Tekiyos have to make a roshem!  Therefore, says the GR"A, we take a break on Erev R"H.

(But we never have 30 straight days -- there are shabbosos in between that break things us?  R' Chaim Kanievski points to the din that when you switch to saying tein tal u'mater, 30 days makes a chazakah and after 30 days you can assume in case of safeik that you said the correct insertion.  Even though you don't say teil tal u'matar on shabbosos so the 30 days are really 26 days, the fact that the change at every possible opportunity to do so during those 30 days makes a chazakah.  Same with teikyas shofar.)

אמרו לפני בראש השנה מלכיות זכרונות ושופרות מלכיות כדי שתמליכוני עליכם זכרונות כדי שיעלה זכרוניכם לפני לטובה ובמה בשופר 

The kashe of  ובמה is not asking "How do we properly fulfill the mitzvah of reciting malchiyos, etc." and telling us that you need to blow in the shmoneh esrei.  The kashe the gemara is asking (see Ritva) is "How to we fulfill the mitzvah of coronating G-d as King?"  And the answer is that you do that with a shofar.

That requires mental activity.

That requires the shofar making a roshem.

2) The Divrei Chaim of Sanz on our parsha quotes the pasuk in Yeshayahu 3:13 נִצָּ֥ב לָרִ֖יב הֹ׳ וְעֹמֵ֖ד לָדִ֥ין עַמִּֽים׃.  The word נִצָּ֥ב there refers to Hashem standing in judgment, as Radak there explains, אמר אל תחשבו כי לא יענישכם האל על הרעות שתעשו כי בכל זמן הוא נצב ועומד לדין כל העמים כל שכן עמו ישראל    We read in Tehillin 82:1  אֱֽלֹקים נִצָּ֥ב בַּעֲדַת־קל.  The word "nitzvav" implies you are coming to pick a fight.  אַתֶּ֨ם נִצָּבִ֤ים הַיּוֹם֙ כֻּלְּכֶ֔ם, we are נִצָּ֥ב לָרִ֖יב, to borrow the phrase from Yishayahu, we are troublesome, quarrelsome, rebellious. That's why we read the tochacha last week.  Nonetheless, says the Divrei Chaim, we are לִפְנֵ֖י הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיכֶ֑ם, there is the shem Havaya, the midas haRachamim, that is extended to us b'pnimiyus of the din.  This is what Rashi means:

 התחיל משה מפייסן אתם ניצבים היום (דברים כ״ט:ט׳) – הרבה הכעסתם למקום ולא עשה אתכם כלייה, והרי אתם קיימים לפניו.  

Despite הרבה הכעסתם למקום , despite אתם ניצבים היום, despite our rebellious quarrels, G-d does not punish us vindictively, and does not reject us.  We are still הרי אתם קיימים לפניו and will always be so.

bikurim, nachala, and kinyan peiros

 וְהָיָה֙ כִּֽי־תָב֣וֹא אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁר֙ הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לְךָ֖ נַחֲלָ֑ה  Chazal tell us that  וְהָיָה֙ at the start of a parsha connotes simcha.  The simcha here is not the fact that the first crops are ready, but, as the Ohr haChaim writes, להעיר שאין לשמוח אלא בישיבת הארץ, the simcha is from the fact that we have Eretz Yisrael.  

The Sifri writes that by fulfilling the words of our parsha, the parsha of bikurim, you will be zocheh to yeshivas ha'aretz (see here). The mitzvah of bikurim can only be done only after you are already in Eretz Yisrael and are harvesting crops there.  How then can Chazal say that it's because of this mitzvah that we will enter the land?

A couple of years ago I quoted from R' Teichtel's Eim haBanim Smeicha: 

Ki tavo'u el Eretz Canann asher ani nosein lachem l'nachala v'nasati nega tzara'as b'veis eretz achuzaschem (14:35).  A strange promise!  Once we finally merit seeing Hashem's promise to give us the land fulfilled, the Torah tells us that our homes will be plagued with leprosy.  Why?  What did we do to deserve that?  (see Rashi)

Rav Teichtel in his classic Eim haBanim Smeicha interprets the pasuk derech derush as saying that if after G-d is "nosein lachem nachala" and gives us a homeland, we still think of the 5 Towns, Boro Park, Englewood, Teaneck, or even Lakewood, NJ as "home," then "v'nasati nega tzara'as," I will bring tzara'as and tzaros to "beis achuzaschem," that place in galus you still mistakenly think of as home.  Sometimes unfortunately we need a wakeup call, a little suffering and discomfort, to appreciate and recognize where home is.

Eretz Yisrael is our nachala, our homeland.  Everyplace else in the world is just a hotel.  

Chasam Sofer uses this same idea to explain the Sifri. Thinking of  Eretz Yisrael as our nachala, as our homeland, doesn't start just when we get there.  Thinking of Eretz Yisrael as our nachala is the precursor to our getting there.  We can't bring bikruim in galus, but we can recognize that Eretz Yisrael, not wherever in the world we find ourselves, is the one place  אֲשֶׁר֙ הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לְךָ֖ נַחֲלָ֑ה.  If we adopt that attitude, then we will be zocheh to physically be able to fulfill the mitzvah.

Notice the repetition throughout our parsha:

וְהָיָה֙ כִּֽי־תָב֣וֹא אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁר֙ הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לְךָ֖ נַחֲלָ֑ה

וְלָקַחְתָּ֞ מֵרֵאשִׁ֣ית׀ כׇּל־פְּרִ֣י הָאֲדָמָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר תָּבִ֧יא מֵֽאַרְצְךָ֛ אֲשֶׁ֨ר הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לָ֖ךְ

 וּבָאתָ֙ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִהְיֶ֖ה בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֑ם וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֵלָ֗יו הִגַּ֤דְתִּי הַיּוֹם֙ לַ הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיךָ כִּי־בָ֙אתִי֙ אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר נִשְׁבַּ֧ע ה׳ לַאֲבֹתֵ֖ינוּ לָ֥תֶת לָֽנוּ

Again and again the parsha reminds us that Eretz Yisrael is the homeland that Hashem promised to us. 

Why do we mention the story of Lavan harassing Yaakov when we bring bikurim?  Malbim reminds us of the Midrash: ועז״א ארמי אובד אבי דכתב המדרש מה שהיה ללבן כח להתאבק כ״כ עם יעקב הוא משום שהוא בח״ל והיה בידו חטא מה שאינו דר בא״י  How could a rasha like Lavan have any power over the bechir ha'Avos?  The Midrash tells us that it's because Yaakov was outside Eretz Yisrael, where he belonged, where his homeland was.   

The Midrash Tanchuma writes that Moshe foresaw that we will be in galus and would not be able to fulfill the mitzvah of bikruim so he instituted tefilah 3x a day.  What's the connection between bikruim and tefilah? (see here, here, and here) When a person davens, he/she must turn to face Eretz Yisrael, to face the Beit HaMikdash.  If it's not possible to physically face that direction, he/she has to turn their heart to Eretz Yisrael.  If we cannot physically bring bikurim to give thanks for the nachala of Eretz Yisrael, we can year to do so, we can remind ourselves 3x a day about the importance and centrality of Eretz Yisrael.

Tos in Gittin (48) puts two halachos together an asks a great kashe: In order to read the parsha of bikurim you have to own the land the produce grew on.  The gemara has a machlokes R"Y and Reish Lakish whether kinyan peiros is k'kinyan ha'guf or not, and we pasken like Reish Lakish, that it is not.  Someone who only has a kinyan peiros cannot read the parsha of bikurim.  We also pasken that brothers who divide up a yerusha are considered lekuchos --- the inherited land is theirs only as a kinyan peiros until the yovel, at which point it reverts to the estate and has to be re-divided.   הקשה רבינו תם ואנו איך מצאנו ידינו ורגלינו!  How can anyone then ever read the parsha of bikurim?  Unless a property was passed from father to his only son generation after generation from the time of Yehoshua, every piece of land was either bought or inherited by a group of brothers and everyone's kinyan in the land of Eretz Yisrael is only a kinyan peiros? 

The Rishonim answer (see Tos 48a, Rashba, see Malbim on our parsha as well) that yerushas Eretz Yisrael is different.  Eretz Yisrael is ours because it is the land promised to the Avos, it is the land those who left Mitzrayim were supposed to conquer.  The farmer who brings bikurim states כִּי־בָ֙אתִי֙ אֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר נִשְׁבַּ֧ע ה׳ לַאֲבֹתֵ֖ינוּ לָ֥תֶת לָֽנוּ.  The land being an inheritance does not diminish our ownership claim and turn it into a kinyan peiros.  Aderaba, viz a viz bikurim, it defines and strengthens our claim and connection to the land.

pruzbul and shemitas kesafim

Some Achronim write that if someone makes a pruzbul, he should make a small loan to a friend and allow shemita to cancel it in order to fulfill the mitzvah of shemitas kesafim.  Another possible solution to accomplish the same thing is to exclude one debt from the pruzbul and allow it to be cancelled.  A third option, which is questionable, is to declare the pruzbul void with respect to one outstanding loan (the use of verbal declaration to cancel a written pruzbul is what makes this questionable).

Yesh lachkor how pruzbul works: does pruzbul allow for the collection of the loan that existed before shemita, or does pruzbul mean the previous loan was cancelled, but thanks to the pruzbul a new loan now exists that can be collected?

All the above solutions assume the former is correct and the previous loan is still outstanding and not cancelled.  See R' Berel Povarski's shiurim on Gittin 36  where he takes the latter approach.  If that is correct, then none of these solutions are needed, as the loans are cancelled by shemitas kesafim and what pruzbul allows for is the collection of a new "refinanced" loan.

the harm in doing wrong

Rashi (21:11) explains the smichus ha'parshiyos of topics at the beginning of our parsha: if you take a yefat to'ar in battle, even if permitted, you will eventually come to hate her, and your offspring will end up being a ben sorer u'moreh.  Why should a person suffer all these horrible outcomes if what he did is permitted?  R' Bloch in Shiurei Daas explains (see post here) that the Torah's commandments function on two levels.  When a doctor tells you smoking is the wrong thing to do, that's a different "wrong" from an IRS agent telling you that it's wrong not to pay taxes.  One is a legal restriction; the other is a metziyus.  When Hashem tells you something is wrong, it's meant in both senses of the word.  To combat the yetzer ha'ra, the Torah lifted the IRS agent element of the yefat to'ar prohibition.  It's not going to cause you to be brought before beis din shel maalah and penalized.  However, the metziyus remains the metziyus.  The element of it being harmful remains in place, and you assume the consequences.

In last week's parsha we had the issur of lo tasur.  Rambam holds that issurim derabbanan fall under the lo tasur umbrella that orders us to listen to Chazal.  Ramban disagrees, and asks if this is true, why is it that sfeika d'oraysa l'chumra but sfeika derabbanan l'kula?  Every derabbanan is implicitly a safeik doraysa of lo tasur?

R' Baruch Sorotzkin uses this same yesod of the Shiurei Daas to answer that question.  The reason sfeika d'oraysa l'chumra is because even though legally you may not be doing anything wrong by taking a gamble, you still risk running into negative consequences b'metziyus.  L'mashal, even if legally you are allowed to smoke outside as opposed to inside your office building, that does not mean you are immune from cancer so long as you remain outside.  That sevara only applies when speaking about issurei d'oraysa, where what the Torah spells out as wrong is both legally wrong as well as b'metziyus wrong.  When Chazal instituted a new issur derabbanan, they did not change the metziyus; they only added legal strictures.  (Compare with R' Yosef Engel in Esvan D'Oraysa who writes that issurei d'oraysa are issurei cheftza, as opposed to issurei derabbanan that are only issurei gavra.  But Shaarei Yosher's hesber of the Rambam in I:3 and in ch 7 top of the page here.)

The Netziv uses this same sevara to explain a difficult Raavad.  If a person's life is in mortal danger, the gemara writes that where there is a choice of different issurim to violate, the rule of thumb is to choose the lesser evil.  Raavad  holds that it is better to violate Shabbos to shecht and animal and eat kosher food rather than eat treif, even though the latter is only an issur lav of malkos.  Netziv (Harchev Davar to Devarim 6:10, see the many proofs he brings) explains that food prepared on Shabbos is a legal violation; treif food is bad for you b'metziyus, like poison.  To save a person's life we can suspend legal restrictions, but b'metziyus, poison is still poison and will cause harm.  

According to this Netziv, it is meduyak why the gemara writes that beis din does not have to intervene to stop a katan from eating neveilah -- katan ocheil neveilos ain beis din metzuvim l'hafrisho.  The same is true of any issur.  Why single out neveilah for special mention?   Netziv answers that one might have thought that with respect to maachalos assuros beis din should intervene because even though a katan is legally not bound to stop eating, there is a harm b'metziyus that the katan suffers by eating treif, kah mashma lan beis din can still remain on the sidelines.

Netziv offers a similar explanation in our parsha for why there is a special command to be careful to protect the sanctity of the camp when going out to war,  כִּֽי־תֵצֵ֥א מַחֲנֶ֖ה עַל־אֹיְבֶ֑יךָ וְנִ֨שְׁמַרְתָּ֔ מִכֹּ֖ל דָּבָ֥ר רָֽע (23:10).  According to Ramban (see post here) it was permissible to eat maachalos assuros during the battles of conquest of Eretz Yisrael. Even the legal restriction against maachalos assuros was lifted, the danger of consuming what b'metziyus poses a danger remains in place.  Netziv writes:

 עוד יש טעם מה שכתב הרמב״ן כאן, באשר במחנה עלול לכל שקץ ותועבה. והוספנו לעיל שם (ו,י) הסיבה לזה, משום שהותרו מאכלות אסורות, והמה גורמים לטמטם נפש הישראלי. וכבר הזהיר הרבה לעיל (ו,יג) על זה ״השמר לך פן תשכח את ה׳ וגו׳⁠ ⁠״ וכל הענין, וכאן כפל הענין משום הוספה שהובאה כאן

With this perspective on issurim, undoing wrong and doing teshuvah is more than just a matter of spiritual rehabilitation, but encompasses restoring the damage done b'metziyus as well.

a question of survival?

I noticed an ad for a Labor Day program featuring some prominant Roshei Yeshiva and Rabbonim speaking on the topic of "Can We Survive in the Medina Shel Chessed?"  

You can say a derasha on almost every word of the title.

Firstly, I've never really liked the term "Medina Shel Chessed."  I mean, I guess if your point of comparison is the threat of government sponsored pogroms, then yes, living here is a great chessed.  But if you were on the St Louis in 1939 and had to turn around and go back to face near certain death in Germany because the US would not allow the ship to dock, then maybe you would not think of this as such a Medina Shel Chessed.  

Secondly, who is the "We" in "Can **We** Survive?" Jews in general?  Orthodox Jews?  Orthodox Jews who identify with a certain movement?  The answer may be very different for each of those groups.

Lastly, and most importantly, the fact that the question "Can We Survive?" even needs to be asked should set off alarm bells.  We are not talking about whether we can build another yeshiva or kollel somewhere, or whether we can get more people involved in yiddishkeit.  The bar is being set at bare bones survival.  Assuming the speakers are not all simply alarmists, the fact that the question needs to be asked should tell you already what dire straits we are in.

If only there were a country with a Jewish majority, a place where Jews could live freely, where they could defend themselves against external physical threats, where they could run their own affairs and not be subject to the whims of a secular, outside government.  Hmmm....   : )

egkah arufah -- what went wrong

The gemara interprets the final pasuk in the parsha of eglah arufah, וְאַתָּ֗ה תְּבַעֵ֛ר הַדָּ֥ם הַנָּקִ֖י מִקִּרְבֶּ֑ךָ כִּֽי־תַעֲשֶׂ֥ה הַיָּשָׁ֖ר בְּעֵינֵ֥י הֹ׳, to mean that if the murdered is found after the eglah arufah is done, he is still executed.  R' Chaim Kanievsky in Taama d'Kra  asks what about the end of the pasuk -- כִּֽי־תַעֲשֶׂ֥ה הַיָּשָׁ֖ר בְּעֵינֵ֥י הֹ׳.  What does that come to teach us?

R' Chaim cites a SHL"AH that quotes a Midrash that if Bn"Y are worthy, there will be worms that crawl out of the eglah arufah and make a beeline straight to the murderers home, exposing the killer.  The last letters of אַתָּ֗ה תְּבַעֵ֛ר הַדָּ֥ם הַנָּקִ֖י spell out the word רימה, alluding to this miracle.  

R' Chaim reads this into the last pasuk: we can be zocheh to אַתָּ֗ה תְּבַעֵ֛ר הַדָּ֥ם הַנָּקִ֖י מִקִּרְבֶּ֑ךָ, to identify the murderer through this special property of the eglah arufah, if כִּֽי־תַעֲשֶׂ֥ה הַיָּשָׁ֖ר בְּעֵינֵ֥י הֹ׳, we are worthy of such a miracle.

R' Chaim is trying to connect כִּֽי־תַעֲשֶׂ֥ה הַיָּשָׁ֖ר בְּעֵינֵ֥י הֹ׳ to the din of killing the actual murdered when found, but al pi peshuto shel mikra, I think the simpler reading follows Ibn Ezra.  As we discussed before, Ibn Erza interprets the confession of the elders where the body is found, יָדֵ֗ינוּ לֹ֤א שָֽׁפְכוּ֙  אֶת־הַדָּ֣ם הַזֶּ֔ה וְעֵינֵ֖ינוּ לֹ֥א רָאֽוּ, not in relation to the specific crime at hand, but rather in relation to other, similar crimes that occurred in their city.  ויתכן, שהשם צוה לעשות כן העיר הקרובה, כי לולי שעשו עבירה כדומה לה, לא נזדמן אדם שיהרג קרוב מהם. ומחשבות השם עמקו וגבהו לאין קץ אצלנו.  This type of outrage -- murder -- does not occur in a vacuum; it occurs in an environment that allows similar crimes to go unpunished and ignored. 

Based on Ibn Ezra, one can answer R' Chaim's question. וְאַתָּ֗ה תְּבַעֵ֛ר הַדָּ֥ם הַנָּקִ֖י מִקִּרְבֶּ֑ךָ is a promise (see Netziv who reads it this way as well), not a din.  The pasuk is teaching that innocent blood will not be spilled in a city where כִּֽי־תַעֲשֶׂ֥ה הַיָּשָׁ֖ר בְּעֵינֵ֥י הֹ׳ in other areas, meaning where there is a general climate of justice.  

Ibn Ezra writes:

 והנכון בעיני, הוא אשר הזכרתי: כי לא ישפך דם נקי בארצך אם תעשה הישר , כסוד ושכר עבירה עבירה ושכר מצוה מצוה 

Where there is justice, שכר מצוה מצוה, but where criminals are free to act as they will in one area, שכר עבירה עבירה and other troubles follow.

 Or, as Ralbag puts it:

, או ירצה בזה שכאשר תעשה הישר בעיני י״י לא יקרה בקרבך כמו זה החטא כי הזקנים יוכיחו העם ויקבלו כלם מוסרם ללכת בדרכי התורה 

Along similar lines, Tzeror haMor makes a nice diyuk in the parsha and places blame on the kohanim for spiritual failure:

וְנִגְּשׁ֣וּ הַכֹּהֲנִים֮ בְּנֵ֣י לֵוִי֒ כִּ֣י בָ֗ם בָּחַ֞ר הֹ׳ אֱלֹהֶ֙יךָ֙ לְשָׁ֣רְת֔וֹ וּלְבָרֵ֖ךְ בְּשֵׁ֣ם הֹ׳ וְעַל־פִּיהֶ֥ם יִהְיֶ֖ה כׇּל־רִ֥יב וְכׇל־נָֽגַע׃

וְכֹ֗ל זִקְנֵי֙ הָעִ֣יר הַהִ֔וא הַקְּרֹבִ֖ים אֶל־הֶחָלָ֑ל יִרְחֲצוּ֙ אֶת־יְדֵיהֶ֔ם עַל־הָעֶגְלָ֖ה הָעֲרוּפָ֥ה בַנָּֽחַל׃

 וְעָנ֖וּ וְאָמְר֑וּ יָדֵ֗ינוּ לֹ֤אשָֽׁפְכוּ֙ אֶת־הַדָּ֣ם הַזֶּ֔ה וְעֵינֵ֖ינוּ לֹ֥א רָאֽוּ׃

Notice the switch between the first pasuk, which speaks about the kohanim gathering, and the second, which speaks about the zekeinim and then goes on to say that they wash their hands and declare that they are innocent of wrongdoing.  Tzeror haMor writes that it is davka the zekeinim and NOT the kohamim who make this declaration because it is only the zekeinim and NOT the kohanim who can truly say they are innocent:

 וכן נראה שהוצרכו בכאן הכהנים לקבל בושה וכלימה. על מה שלא נתכוונו בעבודתם ובתפלתם. כי ידוע שהכהנים נוטלים בשכרם מישראל מתנות כהונה. והכהנים היו עובדים עבודתם בבהמ״ק לכפר על ישראל ולהצילם מכל מכשול ועון. ואחר שנהרג זה בגבולם. לא כיונו בתפלתם ובעבודתם. ואחר שזה כן. ראוי שיבואו לכאן ויקבלו בושה וכלימה על מה שעשו.

The fact that a murder occurred is proof that the avodah of the kohanim was not up to par.  Therefore, they must stand silently, suffering embarrassment, as the elders declare their innocence, but they cannot say the same.

לכן על פיהם יהיה כל ריב וכל נגע. כי מות וחיים ביד לשון

The pasuk davka here describes the kohanim as  עַל־פִּיהֶ֥ם יִהְיֶ֖ה כׇּל־רִ֥יב וְכׇל־נָֽגַע because it is the avodah they do על פיהם with their mouth -- their tefilah -- which has in this case failed.

It's Elul!  Slichos, ymei ha'din, a time of tefilah.   כי מות וחיים ביד לשון.  

fear of battle

There are two opinions Rashi quotes to define יָּרֵא֙ וְרַ֣ךְ הַלֵּבָ֔ב in the pasuk

 וְיָסְפ֣וּ הַשֹּׁטְרִים֮ לְדַבֵּ֣ר אֶל־הָעָם֒ וְאָמְר֗וּ מִי־הָאִ֤ישׁ הַיָּרֵא֙ וְרַ֣ךְ הַלֵּבָ֔ב יֵלֵ֖ךְ וְיָשֹׁ֣ב לְבֵית֑וֹ וְלֹ֥א יִמַּ֛ס אֶת־לְבַ֥ב אֶחָ֖יו כִּלְבָבֽוֹ׃

Rashi comments:

הירא ורך הלבב – ר׳ עקיבא אומר: כשמועו, שאינו יכול לעמוד בקשרי המלחמה ולראות חרב שלופה.

ר׳ יוסי הגלילי אומר: הירא מעבירות שבידו. ולכך תלתה לו תורה לחזור על בית וכרם ואשה, לכסות על החוזרים בשביל עבירות שבידם, שלא יבינו שהם בעלי עבירות, והרואהו אומר: שמא בנה בית או נטע כרם או ארש אשה

The baalei musar point out that the Torah is so concerned with protecting anyone from embarrassment that it even allows extra people, those who אֲשֶׁר־אֵרַ֤שׂ אִשָּׁה֙ וְלֹ֣א לְקָחָ֔הּ, נָטַ֥ע כֶּ֙רֶם֙ וְלֹ֣א חִלְּל֔וֹ,  בָּנָ֤ה בַֽיִת־חָדָשׁ֙ וְלֹ֣א חֲנָכ֔וֹ , to leave the army just before battle, when they are needed most, to avoid shaming a sinner.  

What's the nekudas ha'machlokes between the two views quoted in Rashi?  Mizrachi writes that the issue is whether a person innocent of cheit can be killed (yesh misa b'lo cheit).  R' Yosi holds not, and therefore, only a sinner need worry about going out to war; R' Akiva disagrees. 

Maharal, however, points out that the gemara in Shabbos (55, see this post) rejects the view that ain misa b'lo cheit, so it is hard to build a machlokes around this point (see R Akiva Eiger in the gilyon hasha"s there).  

I still dont get how the Maharal understands the machlokes, but from what I can piece together, he links it to the pesukim earlier in the parsha

 וְהָיָ֕ה כְּקָֽרׇבְכֶ֖ם אֶל־הַמִּלְחָמָ֑ה וְנִגַּ֥שׁ הַכֹּהֵ֖ן וְדִבֶּ֥ר אֶל־הָעָֽם

וְאָמַ֤ר אֲלֵהֶם֙ שְׁמַ֣ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אַתֶּ֨ם קְרֵבִ֥ים הַיּ֛וֹם לַמִּלְחָמָ֖ה עַל־אֹיְבֵיכֶ֑ם אַל־יֵרַ֣ךְ לְבַבְכֶ֗ם אַל־תִּֽירְא֧וּ וְאַֽל־תַּחְפְּז֛וּ וְאַל־תַּֽעַרְצ֖וּ מִפְּנֵיהֶֽם׃

 כִּ֚י הֹ׳ אֱלֹֽקיכֶ֔ם הַהֹלֵ֖ךְ עִמָּכֶ֑ם לְהִלָּחֵ֥ם לָכֶ֛ם עִם־אֹיְבֵיכֶ֖ם לְהוֹשִׁ֥יעַ אֶתְכֶֽם

R' Yosi held that the whole point of the kohen telling the people to be brave and not fear the enemy is to remove that as a justification for not fighting.  Physical fear alone is not a justification to leave the front.  R' Akiva, on the other hand, holds that if despite the kohen's admonition someone is afraid of battle, they should return home.

Maharal writes:

טעמא דרבי יוסי, משום ד״הירא״ משמע יראה בלבד בלב, ואם כן למה יחזור, יאמר לו ״אל תירא כי ה׳ אלהיכם הוא ההולך עמכם״ (ר׳ פסוקים ג, ד), כמו שהיה מזרז אותם השוטרים והכהן (שם), ולמה יחזור בחנם. אבל רבי עקיבא בודאי סובר כיון דהוא ירא ומצטער - יחזור

I dont understand how this works because m'mah nafshach: if after hearing the kohen the person is still afraid, then why not send him home, like R' Akiva holds?  But if there is a chance that hearing the kohen's encouragement would help overcome fear, then why not have the kohen speak to him, like R' Yosi holds?  What exactly is the point of contention between them?

GR"A on repeating insertions of zachreinu l'chaim etc during chazaras ha'shatz

I think in every shul or yeshiva I have ever davened in on the Yamim Noraim or aseres ymei teshuvah, when the shat"z got to the spot where you insert zachreinu l'chaim, mi kamocha, ksov l'chaim tovim, etc., the shat"z would pause and everyone would say those lines out loud together, and then the shat"z would say it and continue.

The GR"A in Maaseh Rav #204 writes that this is incorrect.  According to GR"A, the shat"z should daven straight through with no pause and no interruption by the tzibur.  Like most everything else in Maaseh Rav, there is no explanation as to why the GR"A held this way, but some of the meforshim link it to the GR"A's opposition to the tzibur saying "baruch HU u'baruch Shmo" during chazaras ha'shat"z (Maaseh Rav #43) and suggest that the GR"A treats chazaras ha'shatz as if the shat"z is being motzi the tzibur in the brachos of shmoneh esrei, so no interruptions are allowed.  

I'm not sure that works, because 1) the GR"A does allow piyutim to be inserted, 2) and even if you treat chazaras ha'shatz like something you have to yotzei in, the insertions of zachreinu etc. are part of the shmoneh esrei recited by the shat"z, unlike baruch Hu ub"S.  Even if the tzibur is being yotzei, why can't the they say a section of the bracha themselves instead of relying on shomeh k'oneh?  (I believe whether you can reply on shomeh k'oneh for only part of a bracha is a debate in Achronim, but it would be a chiddush to say the GR"A is taking a stand on that issue here.)  

There is a third minhag that is interesting.  Some are noheig to only recite the last two insertions, the ksov l'chaim tovim etc. out loud during chazaras hashat"z.  The logic here is that the insertions build upon each other.  First we ask zachreinu l'chaim, then we build on that and ask not just l'chaim, but ksov l'chaim tovim.  Once you ask for that in your shmoneh esrei, to go back during chazaras ha'shatz and just ask zachreinu l'chaim again without tovim is a step down, a step backwards.  That we don't want to do.  

shooting yourself in the foot

1. From Tablet Magazine:

In New York, street harassment, minor assaults, and even full-on beatings of visible Jews are almost a banality now, too frequent over too long of a period to be considered an active crisis, even in the communities most affected. The city reported a 76% year-over-year rise in hate crimes during the first three months of 2022—attacks on Jews more than tripled, accounting for much of the spike. When reached for comment by email, the NYPD’s public information office stated that the Hate Crimes Task Force has made 44 arrests related to attacks on Jews so far in 2022 compared to 33 in all of 2021.

Israel Bitton, executive director of Americans Against Antisemitism and one of the co-authors of the report, said the study aimed “to answer a simple question: Are there consequences for anti-Jewish hate crimes?” The document gives a clear answer: “In the majority of trackable cases, prosecution has been effectively nonexistent.” Some unknowable number of the 118 anti-Jewish hate crime suspects whose cases showed up in the state’s WebCrims database since 2018 were sent to state psychiatric institutions for an unknown period of time, instead of being criminally charged, Bitton explained. Fifteen took plea deals, although the study found no evidence that any of these agreements involved jail time. In 23 cases, the charges were dropped. The only conviction was for a relatively high-profile incident, in which the suspect choked and beat a visibly Jewish man in his mid-50s while he walked home from Shabbat day services in Crown Heights.

2. And in other headlines: Gov. Kathy Hochul doubled down on bail reform Monday, saying there is no evidence it has contributed to rising crime rates.

From the same article: According to the NYPD, overall crime was up more than 30% in New York City last month compared to the same period last year. Grand larceny was up over 40%. Critics have blamed bail reform enacted by Democrats for contributing to the increase. But Hochul maintains one has nothing to do with the other.

And finally, given all of the above, our local leaders respond as follows:

3.  Orthodox leaders in Queens and Long Island to endorse Hochul for governor.  

The support from Five Towns and Far Rockaway comes as leaders praise her commitment to fighting antisemitism.

protecting the creditor as well as the debtor

Even though the superficial reading of the parsha of shemitas kesafim sounds like a windfall for borrowers who have overextended themselves and need debt relief, in fact, the Torah is equally concerned with protecting the creditor from financial loss.

Rashi writes that there seems to be a contradiction between the statement (15:4):

 אֶ֕פֶס כִּ֛י לֹ֥א יִֽהְיֶה־בְּךָ֖ אֶבְי֑וֹן כִּֽי־בָרֵ֤ךְ יְבָֽרֶכְךָ֙ יְהֹוָ֔ה בָּאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁר֙ הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיךָ נֹֽתֵן־לְךָ֥ נַחֲלָ֖ה לְרִשְׁתָּֽהּ׃

 and the statement a little later in the parsha (15:11):

כִּ֛י לֹא־יֶחְדַּ֥ל אֶבְי֖וֹן מִקֶּ֣רֶב הָאָ֑רֶץ

It's clear from the question that Rashi read the pasuk אֶ֕פֶס כִּ֛י לֹ֥א יִֽהְיֶה־בְּךָ֖ אֶבְי֑וֹן as referring to those in need.  Ibn Ezra explains (see Seforno, Malbi"M, Abarnanel) understood the pasuk that way as well, and writes that even though the Torah commands that all loans be forgiven during shemitah, potentially wiping out lenders, the Torah wants to reassure:

דע כי זה שצויתיך: שלא תגש לאחיך (דברים ט״ו:ב׳), אין צורך אם היו כל ישראל או רובם שומעין לקול השם, אז לא יהיה בך אביון שהוא צריך אליך להיותך מלוה אותו.

So long as most people are doing mitzvos, there will not be that many people in debt or in need with outstanding loans, and so lenders won't suffer extraordinary losses.  

Netziv, however, read the pasuk as referring to the lender:

שלא תגרום השמטת כספים שתהיה (אתה) אביון,

He does not mean there is some supernatural protection against falling into poverty as a result of forgiving debt, but rather he sees this as an encouragement to Beis Din to institute takanot like pruzbul that protect creditors.  כי ברך יברכך ה׳, G-d wants to bring them blessing as well, not destroy the economy or their livelihood.

a shul in every backyard

One of the interpretations Rashi offers of "lo taasun kein l'Hashem Elokeichem" is that we should not be like the aku"m who have a multitude of forms of worship -- mizbechot, metzeivit, asheirot, etc.  We have one G-d and serve Him in one place, the Beit HaMikdash. 

It struck me how relevant this Rashi is to our times.  Just a few weeks ago I was invited to a simcha on Shabbos and the Friday night davening was in a tent in someone's backyard, Shabbos davening was going to be in someone's house, and this was considered normal.  Just like in the old days where everyone could set up their own bamah or asehirah/matzeivah/mizbeiach in their own backyard, these days you can now do the same, thanks to policies set in place as an overreaction to Covid.  

This is a tragedy. 

On 3/26/2020, day #2 of NY entering lockdown, and I wrote:

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

Maybe I am wrong, but I think doctors in particular have a hard time wrapping their heads around this.

In an interview with the Spectator, Rishi Sunak, a top candidate for British PM, gives us a behind the scenes look at the thinking in England at that time:

Imperial stressed it did ‘not consider the wider social and economic costs of suppression, which will be high’.  This was the crux: no one really did. A cost-benefit calculation – a basic requirement for pretty much every public health intervention – was never made. ‘I wasn’t allowed to talk about the trade-off,’ says Sunak. Ministers were briefed by No. 10 on how to handle questions about the side-effects of lockdown. ‘The script was not to ever acknowledge them. The script was: oh, there’s no trade-off, because doing this for our health is good for the economy.’

If frank discussion was being suppressed externally, Sunak thought it all the more important that it took place internally. But that was not his experience. ‘I felt like no one talked,’ he says. ‘We didn’t talk at all about missed [doctor’s] appointments, or the backlog building in the NHS in a massive way. That was never part of it.’ When he did try to raise concerns, he met a brick wall.

It was the same brick wall that was put up here in the US, where, for example, doctors who signed the Great Barrington Declaration were isolated, dismissed, banned from social media.  Anyone who disagreed, and to this day, anyone who disagrees with the "official" policy, is branded as "anti-science" and dismissed as a quack.  Meanwhile, millions of people have lost jobs, children's education has been set back irreparably, depression and other mental illness is at an all time high, and general public health as suffered due to missed cancer screenings, surgeries, even missed common vaccinations for kids.  

And the effect on religious life?  

You can now have a shul in every backyard.

where were Har Grizim and Har Eival

 וְהָיָ֗ה כִּ֤י יְבִֽיאֲךָ֙ הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיךָ אֶל־הָאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֥ה בָא־שָׁ֖מָּה לְרִשְׁתָּ֑הּ וְנָתַתָּ֤ה אֶת־הַבְּרָכָה֙ עַל־הַ֣ר גְּרִזִ֔ים וְאֶת־הַקְּלָלָ֖ה עַל־הַ֥ר עֵיבָֽל׃

הֲלֹא־הֵ֜מָּה בְּעֵ֣בֶר הַיַּרְדֵּ֗ן אַֽחֲרֵי֙ דֶּ֚רֶךְ מְב֣וֹא הַשֶּׁ֔מֶשׁ בְּאֶ֙רֶץ֙ הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֔י הַיֹּשֵׁ֖ב בָּעֲרָבָ֑ה מ֚וּל הַגִּלְגָּ֔ל אֵ֖צֶל אֵלוֹנֵ֥י מֹרֶֽה׃

You would think that once Bn"Y crossed the Yarden they could just ask for directions, but maybe anticipating the male reluctance to do such things, the Torah has to spell out in exacting detail just where Har Grizim and Har Eival stood.

The chapter then continues and ends

 כִּ֤י אַתֶּם֙ עֹבְרִ֣ים אֶת־הַיַּרְדֵּ֔ן לָבֹא֙ לָרֶ֣שֶׁת אֶת־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁר הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיכֶ֖ם נֹתֵ֣ן לָכֶ֑ם וִֽירִשְׁתֶּ֥ם אֹתָ֖הּ וִֽישַׁבְתֶּם־בָּֽהּ׃

וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֣ם לַעֲשׂ֔וֹת אֵ֥ת כׇּל־הַֽחֻקִּ֖ים וְאֶת־הַמִּשְׁפָּטִ֑ים אֲשֶׁ֧ר אָנֹכִ֛י נֹתֵ֥ן לִפְנֵיכֶ֖ם הַיּֽוֹם

Repeating again that Bn"Y will be entering the land to conquer it, but this time adding that we will be crossing the Yarden, another unnecessary detail that could have been mentioned earlier, before וְהָיָ֗ה כִּ֤י יְבִֽיאֲךָ֙ הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיךָ אֶל־הָאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֥ה בָא־שָׁ֖מָּה לְרִשְׁתָּ֑הּ

There is a strange gemara in Sanhedrin 44 that faults Yehoshua for delaying the giving of brachos on Har Grizim and Har Eival the time it takes to travel 60 mil:

 ויאמר ה' אל יהושע קום לך דריש ר' שילא א"ל הקב"ה שלך קשה משלהם אני אמרתי והיה בעברכם את הירדן תקימו ואתם ריחקתם ס' מיל 

Tos on the spot asks the obvious question: Our parsha gives directions to the mountains to give the brachos on.  Yehoshua had no choice other than to wait until they got there before fulfilling Hashem's command!

In a nutshell (I am oversimplifying), Tos answers that there is a Har Grizim and Har Eival location that is close to the Yarden, and one that is further away.  Yehoshua erred in going to the further one rather than giving the brachos and kelalos at the closer one.

Chasam Sofer suggests a different answer, one that also resolves the difficulties in the pesukim.  There is only one set of mountains called Har Grizim and Har Eival.  However, whether it is one day's journey from the Yarden or not depends.

 כִּ֤י אַתֶּם֙ עֹבְרִ֣ים אֶת־הַיַּרְדֵּ֔ן לָבֹא֙ לָרֶ֣שֶׁת אֶת־הָאָ֔רֶץ, if YOU cross the Yarden of your own accord, intent on the conquest of Eretz Yisrael, committed to Torah and mitzvos, then וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֣ם לַעֲשׂ֔וֹת אֵ֥ת כׇּל־הַֽחֻקִּ֖יםשְׁמַרְתֶּ֣ם לַעֲשׂ֔וֹת אֵ֥ת כׇּל־הַֽחֻקִּ֖ים וְאֶת־הַמִּשְׁפָּטִ֑ים אֲשֶׁ֧ר אָנֹכִ֛י נֹתֵ֥ן לִפְנֵיכֶ֖ם הַיּֽוֹם you will fulfill the chok and mishpat of giving the brachos and kelalos immediately, that same day.  You will get to Har Grizim and Har Eival, even if they are 60 mil away, right away.  

On the other hand, וְהָיָ֗ה כִּ֤י יְבִֽיאֲךָ֙ הֹ׳ אֱלֹקיךָ אֶל־הָאָ֕רֶץ, if Hashem is the one bringing you into the land willy nilly, not because of your zechuyos, not because you are motivated, but in spite of the fact that you don't really deserve it, then הֲלֹא־הֵ֜מָּה בְּעֵ֣בֶר הַיַּרְדֵּ֗ן אַֽחֲרֵי֙ דֶּ֚רֶךְ מְב֣וֹא הַשֶּׁ֔מֶשׁ בְּאֶ֙רֶץ֙ הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֔י הַיֹּשֵׁ֖ב בָּעֲרָבָ֑ה מ֚וּל הַגִּלְגָּ֔ל אֵ֖צֶל אֵלוֹנֵ֥י מֹרֶֽה׃, you have a long way to shlep to get to those mountains.

It is not the 60 mil delay per se that the gemara is faulting Yehoshua for, but rather it is what those 60 mil represented -- a lack readiness and motivation to fulfill the dvar Hashem, for otherwise, it would have been a minor one day journey (see Chasam Sofer d"h v'haya because I am simplifying a lot.)

could the Rambam have forgotten a gemara?

Rambam Shegagos 7:6 writes

עשה תולדה של אב זה ותולדה של אב זה בהעלם אחת. יראה לי שהוא חייב שתי חטאות:

Why does the Rambam need to write "yireh li" for this halacha when it is a black on white gemara on the first daf in Bava Kamma:

נפקא מינה דאילו עביד שתי אבות בהדי הדדי אי נמי שתי תולדות בהדי הדדי מחייב אכל חדא וחדא ואילו עביד אב ותולדה דידיה לא מחייב אלא חדא 

So you can twist yourself into a pretzel and try to spin the gemara as possibly not aliba d'hilchisa, or maybe the Rambam had a different girsa, but the Rambam's son (quoted in Kesef Mishne) gave a far simpler explanation:

אפשר שנתעלם זה המקום ממנו ז"ל בעת שכתב יראה לי ומ"מ הדין אמת ואליבא דהלכתא 

He writes that the Rambam forgot the gemara when he was writing this din, but who cares, so long as he got the din right!

Maybe it's me, but I find that to be pretty astounding.