sukkah in the rain

I covered this back in 2009, but figured a little review (with some new addition) doesn't hurt.  We have torrential rains in NY (to quote my wife: the last time it rained this much Noah was putting his zoo together) that are not expected to stop before nightfall.  How does that impact the mitzvah of sukkah?

The Rishonim ask: the gemara (Brachos 49) writes that there is a chiyuv to eat a seudas Y"T with bread, and therefore if one forgets yaaleh v'yavo one has to repeat bentching.  The gemara (Sukkah 27) has another din learned from a gezeira shava of Sukkos to Pesach that one is obligated to eat a kzayis in the sukkah tonight.  Why do we need this latter din when we already know that we have to eat a seudah of bread tonight because it is Y"T?  

A few answers are offered: 1) Tos (Sukkah 27) answers that really on Y"T there is no obligation to eat bread.  The sugya that says you have to is speaking only about the night of Sukkos or Pesach, when we have that gezeira shavah that obligates us.  According to this view, if you leave our yaaleh v'yavo in Y"TNoa bentching you would not repeat. 2) Other Rishonim says the nafka mina is the shiur.  Normally, a person has to eat a k'beitza to be yotzei seudas Y"T.  The gezeira shava elevates the importance of the eating of a k'zayis so that one is yotzei with that. 3) Rosh answers that had we only had the chiyuv to eat because of seudas Y"T, when it rains, you could eat inside.  The gezeira shava teaches us that on the night of Y"T one must eat a k'zayis in sukkah regardless of the weather.

Since the other Rishonim did not give the Rosh's answer (which is quoted l'halacha by the Rama), one can assume that they did not accept his chiddush, and that even on the first night of sukkos one is not obligated to sit in the sukkah in the rain.  

The nekudas ha'machlokes (see the older post for a different hesber): yesh lachkor whether the chiyuv of sukkah on the first night is a mitzvah of achila, like achilas matzah, or a mitzvah of dirah, to live in the sukkah, which you do by eating there.  

If it is a mitzvah of dirah, then when it rains, one should be patur.  You don't live in your house when there is rain pouring through the ceiling -- that's not called dirah.  If it is a mitzvah of achila, then rain makes no difference.  If it rains on leil ha'seder, you still eat a k'zayis of matzah.

There are other issues that may hinge on this same chakira.  If one stole a k'zayis and ate it in the sukkah tonight, is it a mitzah ha'baah b'aveira (R' Baruch Ber's question)?  Is the mitzvah achilas k'zayis, or is the mitzvah sitting in sukkah, and you never stole the sukkah?  The Yerushalmi has a safeik (discussed by Rama as well) whether one must avoid eating a meal after chatzos on erev Sukkos in order to be able to enjoy eating that k'zayis in the sukkah just like you cannot have a meal on erev Pesach in order to relish that first bite of matzah.  Again, the issue seems to be whether the focus is on eating, or on dirah.

Bottom line: even if it rains, to be yotzei the shitas haRosh quoted by Rama you should eat a k'zayis in the sukkah and then continue the rest of the meal inside.

GR"A throws one more wrinkle into the equation.  He holds (Maaseh Rav, also quoted by Chayei Adam) that when it rains on the first night, even if you've eaten your k'zayis to be yotzei the Rosh, if it then stops raining, even at 3:00AM, you have to go out and eat another k'zayis of bread in the dry sukkah.  The M.B. asks why this should be so.  M'mah nafshach: according to the Rosh, you were yotzei with the k'zayis you ate in the rain.  According to the other Rishonim, just like you were exempt because of 'mitzta'ar pature min ha'sukkah' when it rained, you are exempt because of 'mitzta'ar pature min ha'sukkah' from having to wake up at 3:00AM?  

What we see from the GR"A (he has other Rishonim to back it up) is a new chiddush: the gezeira shava does obligate a person irrespective of the weather, irrespective of tzaar, like the Rosh holds; however, a sukkah with rain falling through the roof is not a sukkah.  There is a chovas ha'gavra, but you have no cheftza shel mitzvah to fulfill it with.  Therefore, once it stops raining and you have a livable sukkah, you have to go out and take advantage.

Four lessons from Yonah

1) Lesson #1 posted back in 2009 here.

2) The passengers aboard the ship with Yonah being tossed in the storm cannot understand the cause of the calamity that has befallen them.  Sailors are not known to be the most righteous folks, and one can safely assume that the other passengers were ovdei avodah zarah, but it is Yonah alone who raises his hand and takes full responsibility for the unfolding disaster.  

The Brisker Rav explained that society around us may be wicked and debased, but it's not our job to point the finger at their wrongdoings as the cause of evil in the world.  It's our job to look at ourselves, our own failures.  Relative to what the rest of the world does our wrongs may be trivial, but we have a Torah to learn from and therefore the bar for us in higher.

3) Why did Yonah tell the sailors to cast him into the sea?  He could have quelled the storm by tellimg them to turn around and bring him back to Eretz Yisrael so he could deliver the prophecy he was charged with?  

R' Chaim Kanievsky in Taama d'Kra (based on a Chazal) writes that Yonah knew that if he would deliver that prophecy and Ninveh would do teshuvah, it would look bad for Klal Yisrael.  Therefore, he preferred to be tossed into the sea, to be moseir nefesh rather than go back. Great leaders are those who are willing to give up everything for the sake of the people.

4) When the storm hits, the navi  tells us וַיִּֽירְא֣וּ הַמַּלָּחִ֗ים (1:5) that the *sailors* were afraid.  Yonah then tells them that he is a Jew fleeing G-d and it is because of G-d's anger that they are in danger.  The navi then tells us again of their fear, but this time it says וַיִּֽירְא֤וּ הָֽאֲנָשִׁים֙ יִרְאָ֣ה גְדוֹלָ֔ה, the *people* were afraid.

Malbi"m explains:

מ״ש תחלה וייראו המלחים היתה יראת הסכנה. אבל יראה זו היתה יראת ה׳ שהיא גדולה למעלתה לפי גדולת העצם שהתיראו ממנו

At first, the fear felt by the unsophisticated sailors was simply a fear of the storm.  That type of fear is the same fear even an animal has when it detects a threat.  However, after Yonah spoke with them, the sailors then understood this storm has a cause, that G-d is behind what is taking place.  Their fear them became a fear felt by אֲנָשִׁים֙, people, i.e. thinkers, not just the gross reactive fear of an animal facing danger.

Life has many challengers, some of which are frightening to deal with.  That fear can be elevated to yiras shamayim, to appreciate that there is a cause, that there is purpose to everything.

the immutable core

Last week I wrote about the din as it applies to divrei Torah, with respect to the klal as well as on the prat, תן חלקנו בּתורתך.  

Our parsha compares Torah to drops of rain and dew that fall on the grass:

 יַעֲרֹף כַּמָּטָר לִקְחִי תִּזַּל כַּטַּל אִמְרָתִי כִּשְׂעִירִם עֲלֵי דֶשֶׁא וְכִרְבִיבִים עֲלֵי עֵשֶׂב

Rashi explains the difference between  דֶשֶׁא and עֵשֶׂב is that עטיפת הארץ נקרא דשא, the former is the covering of the ground as a whole, the latter קלח אחד קרוי עשב refers to each blade of grass.  Sefas Emes writes that this reflects the Torah of the klal vs Torah of the prat.  Torah is part of the identity not just of Klal Yisrael the nation as a whole, but each individual also brings something to the table.  This is both a mechayeiv as well as a bracha.  

I thought this may be pshat in Sanhedrim 102a, which talks about Yeravam and Achya haShiloni: 

מאי ושניהם לבדם בשדה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב שכל תלמידי חכמים דומין לפניהם כעשבי השדה 

Meaning, even if you piled up כל תלמידי חכמים, the rest of the world, it was not like everyone against two, it was not like עֲלֵי דֶשֶׁא, but rather the entire rest of the world was like קלח אחד קרוי עשב, like individuals. and Achya and Yeravam's view was superior.

There is a machlokes Rishonim/meforshim whether the mitzvah referred to in the pasuk

כִּי הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם לֹא נִפְלֵאת הִוא מִמְּךָ וְלֹא רְחֹקָה הִוא

is the mitzvah of talmud torah or the mitzvah of teshuvah (which may hinge on whether teshuvah is counted as an independent mitzvah or whether the mitzvah is viduy).  The truth is that these two mitzvos are inseparable. Ohr haChaim writes in P' Bechukosai on the pasuk  וְאִם עַד אֵלֶּה לֹא תִשְׁמְעוּ לִי וְיָסַפְתִּי לְיַסְּרָה אֶתְכֶם שֶׁבַע עַל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם (26:18) that תלה הדבר בשמיעה שהיא התורה, כי הנמנע שיחזרו בתשובה זולת על ידי התורה.  Without Torah, teshuvah is impossible.  

Shem m'Shmuel echoes the same (Vayigash, 5680):

 וכענין אמרם ז"ל בבני עלי שאינו מתכפר בזבח ובמנחה אבל מתכפר הוא בתורה, שהוא בשכל, ויש לומר דהיינו הך שכתב האריז"ל דעיקר תשובה הוא עסק התורה, ולשון עסק התורה בודאי הפירוש העיון שהוא שקיל וטרי בתורה כל איש לפי יכולתו, והוא נוגע בשכל, ולא התמדת הקריאה ולימוד בלבד, ואפי' מי שאין ביכולתו לחדש חידושין דאורייתא נמי צריך עכ"פ לייגע את מוחו להבין בשכלו הטיב עד שיחקקו ד"ת ויקבלם בשכלו כל איש לפי הבנתו ודעתו, וטוב מעט בכוונה מהרבות שלא בכוונה:

It's no coincidence that Yom Kippur, the day set aside for teshuvah and kapparah, is also the day on which mattan Torah of the second luchos occurred.

Sefas Emes in a very short piece (end of 5647) explains the omek of this idea

We read in the haftarah on the second day of R"H (Yirmiyahu 31:19)

הֲבֵן יַקִּיר לִי אֶפְרַיִם אִם יֶלֶד שַׁעֲשֻׁעִים כִּי מִדֵּי דַבְּרִי בּוֹ זָכֹר אֶזְכְּרֶנּוּ עוֹד עַל כֵּן הָמוּ מֵעַי לוֹ רַחֵם אֲרַחֲמֶנּוּ נְאֻם ה׳

Rashi quotes the Midrash:

ומדרש ויקרא רבה די דבורי שנתתי בו שלימדתיו תורתי לרחם עליו.

Learning Torah is not simply something that we do, like other mitzvos.  It's our identity, it's who we are.  דבורי שנתתי בו means it's within us, part of our DNA. We may ignore it, we may sully ourselves to the point that we don't even know ourselves who are what we are all about, but just like a leopard can't change it's spots, we can't undo our makeup.  That's why at the end of the day רַחֵם אֲרַחֲמֶנּוּ נְאֻם ה׳.  When one learns Torah, one returns to that core, which is exactly what the process of teshuvah is all about. 

 קְח֤וּ עִמָּכֶם֙ דְּבָרִ֔ים וְשׁ֖וּבוּ אֶל ה׳ אִמְרוּ אֵלָיו כׇּל תִּשָּׂא עָוֺן וְקַח טוֹב וּנְשַׁלְּמָה פָרִים שְׂפָתֵינוּ

Rashi quotes a number of peshatim to address how to read the pasuk.  On the one hand, we are saying to Hashem  כׇּל תִּשָּׂא עָוֺן, you have to forgive our sins because we have done wrong.  On the other hand, וְקַח טוֹב.  Well, if we've done wrong, then where is the "tov" that Hashem is supposed to take?  So Rashi says וקח טוב – ולמדנו דרך טוב, meaning after you forgive the past, teach us to be better going forward.  Or he suggests דבר אחר: וקח טוב וקבל הודיה מאתנו, take the praise that we offer for forgiveness.  According to Sefas Emes, however, there is no difficulty.  Once you take away the bad, then m'meila,  וְקַח טוֹב because that's what's left, that's the immutable core. As he writes:   וז"ש אמרו אליו כו' תשא עון כו' ועי"ז וקח טוב. הטוב שנמצא בלבות בנ"י  

That's קְח֤וּ עִמָּכֶם֙ דְּבָרִ֔ים.  It doesn't mean to take something external to you, like bringing a gift.  Rather it's עִמָּכֶם֙, something you take out of yourself, the דבורי שנתתי בו שלימדתיו תורתי.  It's already part of you, you just have to clean off the dirt on the surface, and m'meila וְשׁ֖וּבוּ אֶל ה׳.   

yom ha'din -- on Torah

R' Ben Tzion Kook quotes the Rama mi'Pana on the gemara (Shabbos 31a)

אמר רבא בשעה שמכניסין אדם לדין אומרים לו נשאת ונתת באמונה קבעת עתים לתורה עסקת בפו"ר צפית לישועה פלפלת בחכמה הבנת דבר מתוך דבר 

who explains that Chazal are not just speaking here about the future judgment we will all have to undergo after 120 years when we depart from this world, but are speaking about Rosh haShana as well, the judgment we face each and every year.  

The gemara (Kid 41) writes:

דאמר רב המנונא אין תחילת דינו של אדם אלא על דברי תורה 

The first item on the list of things looked at on yom ha'din is how committed and engaged we were to Torah study this year.

We find the centrality of Torah to yom ha'din reflected in halacha as well.  Rama (OC 585) paskens that the baal tokea should stand next to the bima where the Torah is read.  M"B explains כדי שזכות התורה יגן עלינו לעלות זכרונינו לפניו לטובה, so that the zechus of Torah should enable our tekiyos to rise up to heaven.

The Mishna in R"H writes that on Pesach the world is judged as to how much wheat will be produced; on Shavuos we are judged on how much fruit will grow; on Sukkos we are judged on how much rain there will be.  Seems like everything is covered, so what happens on Rosh haShana?  Ran answers that on R"H Hashem decides what our individual portion will be.

Perhaps the same is true when in comes to Torah.  The world cannot exist without Torah, and inevitably 5784 will bring with it new chiddushim, new sevaros, new ideas, new questions.  What we have to ask for on Rosh haShana is תן חלקנו בּתורתך.  We want our portion, our share!  We want that the תחילת דינו של אדם על דברי תורה should come out in a positive way for us an individuals as well as for our communities, and with it should come בּני, חיי, מזוני to enable us to learn with yishuv hadaas, harvacha, and to share that Torah with our children and others.

stolen shofar -- Raavad's view

Rambam and Raavad agree that one can be yotzei tekiyas shofar with a stolen shofar, but they disagree as to why.  Rambam paskens (Shofar 1:3)

שופר של עכו"ם אין תוקעין בו לכתחלה ואם תקע יצא. ושל עיר הנדחת אם תקע בו לא יצא. שופר הגזול שתקע בו יצא שאין המצוה אלא בשמיעת הקול אע"פ שלא נגע בו ולא הגביהו השומע יצא ואין בקול דין גזל. וכן שופר של עולה לא יתקע בו ואם תקע יצא שאין בקול דין מעילה. ואם תאמר והלא נהנה בשמיעת הקול מצות לא ליהנות ניתנו. לפיכך המודר הנייה משופר מותר לתקוע בו תקיעה של מצוה:

Raavad comments:

 ואין בקול דין גזל. א"א ואפילו יהיה בו דין גזל יום תרועה יהיה לכם מ"מ הכי איתא בירושלמי עכ"ל

In truth, both reasons are brought by the Yerushalami (Sukkah perek 3 halacha 1) in the context of explaining why a shofar of avodah zarah or ir ha'nidachas is acceptable, but a lulav with either of those two psulim is not:

 שׁוֹפָר שֶׁלְעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְשֶׁלְעִיר הַנִּידַּחַת, רִבִּי לָעְזְר אָמַר: כָּשֵׁר. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה: כָּשֵׁר. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה: פָּסוּל. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בַּלּוּלָב שֶּׁהוּא פָסוּל. מַה בֵין שׁוֹפָר וּמַה בֵין לוּלָב? אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה: בַּלּוּלָב כְּתִיב וּלְקַחְתֶּם לָכֶם – מִשֶׁלָּכֶם, לֹא מִשֶּׁלְאִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָייָה. בְּרַם הָכָא יוֹם תְּרוּעָה יִהְיֶה לָכֶם – מִכָּל מָקוֹם. אָמֵר רִבִּי לָעְזְר: תַּמָּן בְגוּפוֹ הוּא יוֹצֵא, בְּרַם הָכָא בְקוֹלוֹ הוּא יוֹצֵא, וְיֵשׁ קוֹל אָסוּר בַּהֲנָייָה?

What then is the Raavad objecting to?  Is there some reason the Rambam should favor the reason quoted by Raavad over the one he quotes?

Secondly, while Raavad is consistent with the Ylmi, his comment seems to contradict the Bavli.  The gemara in the opening of perek lulav ha'gazul (Sukkah 30) debates whether the din of לוּלָב הַגָּזוּל  פָּסוּל applies only to the first day of Y"T or to all days of Y"T.  Even though the din of לָכֶם applies only one the first day (ולקחתם לכם בּיום הראשׁון), the gemara writes that the psul of mitzvah habaah b'aveira would invalidate a stolen lulav on the other days as well.

It should therefore follow that even if there is no requirement of לָכֶם with respect to shofar, there should still be a psul of mitzvah habaah b'aveira.

B'shlama according to the Rambam's reasoning, a psul in the shofar does not invalidate its kol, but according to Raavad who does not accept this argument (whatever his reason might be), the psul of mitzvah habaah b'aveira should invalidate the tekiyos.  

Just to make things worse and add icing on the cake, Rambam (Lulav 8:9) actually paskens that a stolen lulav is acceptable outside the first day of Y"T:

כל אלו שאמרנו שהם פסולין מפני מומין שבארנו או מפני גזל וגניבה ביום טוב ראשון בלבד אבל ביום טוב שני עם שאר הימים הכל כשר

But Raavad disagrees because of mitzvah habaah b'aveira.  

 כל אלו שאמרנו וכו'. א"א אין הכל מודים בגזול ויבש שאין פסולים משום הדור אלא גזול ה"ל מצוה הבאה בעבירה יבש מפני שהוא כמת, בירושלמי:

L'shitaso, what then does Raavad do with the idea of mitzvah habaah b'aveira with respect to shofar?

Leaving this hanging for now... 

watchmen over the walls

The haftarah for this past week contains the famous words (Yeshayahu 62:6):

עַל חוֹמֹתַיִךְ יְרוּשָׁלַ͏ִם הִפְקַדְתִּי שֹׁמְרִים כׇּל הַיּוֹם וְכׇל הַלַּיְלָה

Who are these shomrim that stand watch on the walls of Yerushalayim?  Rashi interprets based on Chazal that these are angels appointed by G-d to watch over the city.  Radak similarly writes  דרך הדרוש בזה ידוע, שהשומרים הם המלאכים, והם מתפללים לק-ל על ירושלים שישיבנה לישובה.  The Ibn Ezra puts a slight twist on the same idea and writes that the shomrim are the  אבלי ציון, who sit in mourning all day and all night.  However, what grabbed my attention is the pshat of the Metzudos: אלה השומרים כינוי על אבני ציון שאין להם עסק אחר כי אם יתמידו בבכי ואבל כשומרי החומות שאינם זזים מן השמירה  The watchmen are none other than the stones of Yerushalayim.  What came to my mind when I read that pshat is the huge stones that you see on the south side near the kotel, which remain fallen to the ground exactly as the landed when the Romans tumbled them down 2000 years ago.  Those stones still mourn the churban that they themselves experienced.

All of these interpretations read  שֹׁמְרִים as an analogy.  Just as watchmen never sleep, so too, the angels/mourners/stones never cease mourning.  Radak:  שומרי חומות ירושלים יהיו ערים ביום ובלילה תמיד, והשומרים הם דרך משל.  I think the word שֹׁמְרִים has perhaps a different connotation here, and is akin to its meaning in the pasuk  וְאָבִיו שָׁמַר אֶת הַדָּבָר (Braishis 37:11), which Rashi explains to mean היה ממתין מצפה מתי יבא.  It is not just hashgacha 24x7 which the pasuk is speaking about, but it is the anticipation of return.  The angels, the mourners, even the walls themselves, eagerly await a future where our return in complete, when our control over Yerushalayim is complete.    

the journey is the lesson

1) This is the final shabbos of the year.  Some people get confused because it's not Zos haBracha, but it's the end of the calendar year even thought the leining cycle is not complete.  ברוך אתה בבאך וברוך אתה בצאתך  We see, says Sefas Emes, that there is bracha at the start of something and bracha at the end.  Shabbos starts with kiddush; Shabbos ends with havdalah.  We say a bracha before we begin kri'as haTorah; we say a bracha when we conclude the reading.  So too with respect to the year as a whole.  We hope to start the new year next week with bracha, but there is special bracha this week as well, as the year comes to conclusion.  Take advanatage!

2) Interesting question: For 40 years in the midbar Bn"Y did not do the mitzvah of milah because it would have posed a mortal danger (Yevamos 71b).  Rashi comments that the wood cutters and water drawers mentioned at the beginning of Nitzavim were people who converted while Bn"Y were in the midbar.  Geirus requires milah, tevilah, kabbalas mitzvos, and a korban.  If it was impossible to do milah in the desert, how did they undergo geirus?  (Panim Yafos)

3) Last week I wrote about the silver lining that can be found in at least one of the pesukim of tochacha.  The Chassidic seforim suggest that all the pesukim really are pesukei bracha, but we don't understand how to read it that way in our state of galus.  

Our parsha talks about people who just blow off the tochacha and do not take it to heart:   וְהָיָה בְּשׇׁמְעוֹ אֶת דִּבְרֵי הָאָלָה הַזֹּאת וְהִתְבָּרֵךְ בִּלְבָבוֹ לֵאמֹר שָׁלוֹם יִהְיֶה לִּי כִּי בִּשְׁרִרוּת לִבִּי אֵלֵךְ (29:18). How do you just blow off pesukim describing such horrific things?  The answer is that they absorbed last week's idea a little too well!  They absorbed the idea that everything that comes from Hashem is bracha, everything comes from a place of love, and so they are not afraid of the threats.

The Torah in response tells us  הַנִּסְתָּרֹת ה׳ אֱלֹקינוּ וְהַנִּגְלֹת לָׄנׄוּׄ וּׄלְׄבָׄנֵׄיׄנׄוּׄ עַׄד עוֹלָם.  There may be a hidden meaning of bracha, but that is הַנִּסְתָּרֹת ה׳ אֱלֹקינוּ, k'lapei shemaya galya alone.  Fore us, הַנִּגְלֹת לָׄנׄוּׄ וּׄלְׄבָׄנֵׄיׄנׄוּׄ , we need to focus on the revealed meaning of the words and take to heart their basic meaning.

4) The gemara (Chagiga 3) asks why it is that Hashem commanded us to bring even little children to hakhel, to which the gemara answers so that we can accrue reward for the effort.  Maharasha on the gemara and Kli Yakar on our parsha ask: since we are speaking about children too young to learn anything (otherwise the answer to why bring them is obvious -- to learn Torah!  See Gur Aryeh) and therefore there is no purpose to what we are doing, Hashem might as well have commanded us to carry rocks in our pockets and give us reward for that.  Does Hashem just give us reward for doing senseless things with no purpose?

Tzror haMor has a beautiful diyuk in the pesukim describing hakhel.  

 הַקְהֵל אֶת הָעָם הָאֲנָשִׁים וְהַנָּשִׁים וְהַטַּף וְגֵרְךָ אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ לְמַעַן יִשְׁמְעוּ וּלְמַעַן יִלְמְדוּ (31:12) 

Notice that the verbs at the end are written in future tense.  However, in the next pasuk describes the chiyuv to bring children:

 וּבְנֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעוּ יִשְׁמְעוּ וְלָמְדוּ לְיִרְאָה

Notice that here the verbs are written in past tense - לָמְדוּ and not יִלְמְדוּ.  Why the switch?

Tzror haMor answers that there are tzvei dinim in what can be learned by coming to hakhel.   For most people, the limud that takes places occurs after they get to Yerushalayim, when the king reads the parshiyos of Torah.  Little kids, however, don't understand the pesukim.  They are not coming to hakhel to hear a shiur.  What they do understand, however, and what does make an impression on them, is the fact that their parents packed up the whole family and brought them along, the fact that this is such a "chavaya" that even they get to be there.   For them the main lesson takes place before a single pasuk is read.  The lesson is in being able to be there.  לָמְדוּ is past tense because   שכבר למדו מה שהיה להם ללמד מההבאה שהוא החנוך לפי שלא היו מבינים יותר  

If you shlep your little kid to shul with you (assuming he/she can behave), they may not know every tefilah, they may not understand exactly what is going at every moment, but what they do understand is that if you made a point of bringing them, if you made a point of showing that you want to share this experience with them, then shul is something important.  

If you take your kid to a father/son learning programs on motzei Shabbos in the winter months, that kid may not remember a particular Rashi or sugya you learned together during those sessions, but what they will remember is the fact that you brought them, that you gave up your time, that you bundled up to go out in the cold, and therefore that Torah is important.  

The answer, I think, to the Kli Yakar/Maharasha, is that intellectually, a little kid may be no smarter than a rock.  Some kids remain this way through their teenage years : )  But emotionally, it's a different ball game.  Hakhel is about EQ, not IQ.  The child who is brought along and shares in the experience of hakhel with his parent learns that Torah is something they, and he, should value.  That lesson, hopefully, will last a lifetime.

(See Sefas Emes 5634 for a different answer to this Maharasha.  Bli neder, for another time).  

always another rung to climb

  וְהָיָה כִּי תָבוֹא אֶל הָאָרֶץ  Was just speaking this morning with my daughter in Yerushalayim and told her to look at the first Ohr haChaim on the parsha: והיה כי תבא אל הארץ – אמר והיה לשון שמחה, להעיר שאין לשמוח אלא בישיבת הארץ על דרך אומרו (תהלים קכ״ו) אז ימלא שחוק פינו ו

Later in the parsha we read: וְלֹא נָתַן ה׳ לָכֶם לֵב לָדַעַת וְעֵינַיִם לִרְאוֹת וְאׇזְנַיִם לִשְׁמֹעַ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה (29:3)  Sefas Emes (5634) asks: you mean the dor de'ah that stood by Har Sinai and got the Torah did not have daas, did not see things clearly, did not hear the voice of Hashem?! Of course they did!  They experienced Hashem's revelation in the fullest possible way.  However, what they lacked was the , the עֵינַיִם, the אׇזְנַיִם.  Revelation to them was like an out of body experience. There was a disconnect between the material world, the secular world, of day to day life, and their religious experience.  The generation that was going to enter Eretz Yisrael experienced things differently.  When they learned parshas shoftim about beis din, about malchus and Jewish government, when they heard halachos about fighting wars to defend their borders, laws about agriculture and business, this spoke to their day to day life.  Torah for them was not some abstract construct, but was l'maaseh in all its forms. That's the Torah that we are slowly rediscovering today after so many years in galus.

I was not planning on writing that, but got sidetracked by the call.  What I was planning on writing was about an interesting thing later in the parsha in the section of the tochacha.  When it speaks about the brachos, we read that וּנְתָנְךָ יְהֹוָה לְרֹאשׁ וְלֹא לְזָנָב וְהָיִיתָ רַק לְמַעְלָה וְלֹא תִהְיֶה לְמָטָּה (28:13).  But then later, in the tochacha section, we read that הַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבְּךָ יַעֲלֶה עָלֶיךָ מַעְלָה מָּעְלָה וְאַתָּה תֵרֵד מַטָּה מָּטָּה (28:43).  It does not sound very fair.  When we are on top, it says only once לְמַעְלָה, but when the aku"m have the upper hand, for them it's מַעְלָה מָּעְלָה two times.  And on the flipside, when we are in charge, וְלֹא תִהְיֶה לְמָטָּה, but when they are in charge, וְאַתָּה תֵרֵד מַטָּה מָּטָּה two times.  

I saw R' Ovadya Yosef quoted a mashal from the Ben Ish Chai, whose yahrzeit was this past week, to explain what's going on here.  A man had a dream in which he saw a huge ladder with 1000 rungs pointing up to the sky, and the king of the land began to climb the ladder.  After much time and effort the king made it halfway to the top, 500 steps up, and then vayikatz... v'hinei chalom, the dream ended.  The man told his wife about this fantastic dream, and she encouraged him to go to the king and tell him, and so he did.  Upon hearing the story, the king bestowed upon the man a gift of $1000.  One of the less than honest chambermaids was witness to this event, and figured that if the king paid $1000 for this dream in which he got only halfway up the ladder, imagine how much he would pay someone who told him that he made it to the top.  She made an appontment for her husband to appear before the king, and he related his concocted dream that the king reached the top of the ladder.  When the king heard what the man had to say he screamed for the guards to throw him into the dungeon.  No reward, not even a thank you.  The question on everyone's mind was why the first guy got a reward and the second guy was thrown in jail.  So the king explained: b'shlama according to the first dream, I achieved great things, but there is so much more ahead of me that I can and will yet accomplish.  The rest of my life can be as great as the first part.  But if I've already reached the top, this is the pinnacle of everything I can and will accomplish, that means it's all downhill from here (typical middle age depression : )  That dream does not deserve reward; it's a curse, not a blessing.

R' Ovdaya explained that when we are on top, it's only  לְמַעְלָה, one time, because there is always more in store for us from Hashem.  There are no limits to what we can accomplish and what the reward might me.  And on the flipside, when we are pushed down, it is וְאַתָּה תֵרֵד מַטָּה מָּטָּה, two times, to the very bottom, because that curse is a blessing in disguise.  When you've hit rock bottom, there is no place to go but up.  When it comes to the aku"m, the opposite is true.  הַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבְּךָ יַעֲלֶה עָלֶיךָ מַעְלָה מָּעְלָה, to the very top, and from there, there is no place to go but down.  וְלֹא תִהְיֶה לְמָטָּה like them, meaning only one לְמָטָּה for them, because for them there is always yet another lower level to which they can fall. 

I haven't seen anyone else explain the difference between the pesukim, so wanted to pass on this fantastic vort.

From a comment by Shloma: אלול = אנו למעלה ועוד למעלה

On a different note, just found this list of 1500+ chakiros.  Enjoy!

shome'a k'oneh by mikra bikurim

A few weeks ago I asked why it is that we go out of our way to wear a 4 cornered garment to be able to fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzis but no one makes a point of washing every meal in order to have the opportunity to fulfill the aseh of bentching.

My bad for not remembering that my wife's grandfather, R' Dov Yehudah Shochet, dealt with a similar issue.  He suggested that even though technically one is not required to wear a 4 cornered garment, the way the Torah phrases the mitzvah alludes to the fact that one should do so.  Tzitzis is phrases as a command, gdilim taaseh lecha.  The mitzvah of maakah, by way of contrast, is conditional, ki tivneh bayis.  Same with shiluach ha'kan, ki yikarei...  

I did not pose an answer back then, but was thinking that birchas ha'mazon is different because the mitzvah is to give thanks.  You can't force someone to give thanks or order then to give thanks.  It's an emotional response that a person has to feel.  Therefore, we cannot require someone to fulfill the mitzvah of bentching in the same way we require wearing tzitzis.

Minchas Chinuch and others discuss whether one can fulfill the mitzvah of mikra bikurim through shome'a k'oneh.  One aspect of the debate relates to the disagreement between Beis haLevi and Chazon Ish whether birchas kohanim can be fulfilled through shome'a k'oneh.  Beis haLevi held that since birchas kohanim must be said b'kol ram, it must be heard, therefore shome'a k'oneh does not suffice.  We do not ascribe to the listener the properties of the "voice" of the speaker.  C.I. disagreed.  Here too with respect to mikra bikurim, Rashi comments on v'anisa v'amarta that one has to say the declaration out loud.  However, I think there is an additional issue here.  Avudraham writes that we say modim derabbanan during chazaras hashat"z and do not simply listen to the recitation of modim by the shliach tzibur because modim is an expression of thanks, and thanks has to come from your heart.  It's not about saying the words; it's about feeling the emotion behind them.  Similarly, mikra bikurim is thanks to Hashem for the harvest.  Here too, someone cannot stand in your place to experience that emotion.  The words are just an expression of what one has to feel in one's  heart.

starting off on the right foot

Last week I wrote about the smichus ha'parshiyos of yefat to'ar and ben sorer u'moreh.  There is, however, a parsha that separates the two, namely, the parsha of giving the bechor double.  Shem m'Shmuel explains that the reason this parsha is stuck in the middle is to teach us the importance of firsts.  A bechor has extra rights because he is the first child born; how the parents raise him sets the tone for the way other future children will be raised.  A person might be tempted to downplay or excuse the aveiros of a ben sorer u'moreh, as they are done right after he becomes a gadol.  We don't do that. Davka because these aveiros are done right after the child becomes a gadol they carry extra weight, as these first months of entering adulthood set the tone for the life to come.  Amalek is singled out because they were the first to attack us after we left Egypt. reishis goyim Amalek.  This upcoming week's parsha speaks about bikkurim, the first fruit that we have to bring to the mikdash so that our harvest gets off on the right foot.  

The Midrash Tanchuma on our parsha comments:

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹסִי בַּר חֲנִינָא, בּוֹא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה מִתְחַטְּאִין, וְכַמָּה יֵשׁ לָהֶן פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה לְעוֹשֵׁי מִצְוֹת. אָדָם יֵשׁ לוֹ עֵסֶק אֵצֶל מַלְכוּת, פְּעָמִים שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן כַּמָּה מָמוֹן עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעִין אוֹתוֹ אֵצֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ אֵצֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ, סָפֵק עוֹשֶׂה שְׁאֵלָתוֹ, סָפֵק לֹא עוֹשֶׂה. אֲבָל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֵינוֹ כֵּן, אֶלָּא יוֹרֵד אָדָם לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ, רָאָה אֶשְׁכּוֹל שֶׁבִּכֵּר, תְּאֵנָה שֶׁבִּכְּרָה, רִמּוֹן שֶׁבִּכֵּר, מַנִּיחוֹ בַּסַּל וְהוֹלֵךְ לִירוּשָׁלַיִם וּבָא וְעוֹמֵד בְּאֶמְצַע הָעֲזָרָה וּמְבַקֵּשׁ רַחֲמִים עַל עַצְמוֹ וְעַל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: הַשְׁקִיפָה מִמְּעוֹן קָדְשֶׁךָ וְגוֹ'. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר, אֵינִי זָז מִכָּאן עַד שֶׁתַּעֲשֶׂה צָרְכִּי הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, שֶׁכָּתוּב אַחֲרָיו, הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ מְצַוְּךָ לַעֲשׂוֹת

The Midrash connects the tefilah of הַשְׁקִיפָה מִמְּעוֹן קָדְשֶׁךָ with the bringing of bikkurim.  However, that pasuk is not part of mikra bikkurim.  That pasuk appears later in the parsha in the context of viduy maasros, the declaration made at the end of three years saying that terumos and maasros were properly tithed and distributed.  

The Tanchuma did not misread the parsha.  What the Tanchuma is teaching us is that the viduy maasros that happens years later is the culmination of the reishis, the first steps taken in the right direction, that started with the bringing of bikurim.  

The Ishbitzer writes in Mei haShiloach:

בזה שהאדם מחזיר להקב"ה ראשית פרי האדמה, בזה מברר א"ע כי יוכל לעבוד את ה' בכל מאודו.

Halacha tells us that כל העושה על דעת ראשונה הוא עושה (Shabbos 91).  If a person starts by giving his first fruits, we can be assured he will continue down that path in avodas Hashem of giving of his $ and himself (see here.)

The mussar haskel with respect to Rosh haShana goes without saying.

who is going to be the first to jump in?

John Tierney writes in City-Journal that the maskaholics are back, once again dishing out ineffective Covid restrictions and unwarranted fear mongering:

Never mind that at least 97 percent of Americans have Covid antibodies in their blood as a result of infection, vaccination, or both. Never mind that actual experts—the ones who studied the scientific literature before 2020 and drew up plans for a pandemic—advised against masking the public. Never mind that their advice has been further bolstered during the pandemic by randomized clinical trials and rigorous observational studies failing to find an effect of masks and mask mandates. Scientific evidence cannot overcome the maskaholics’ faith.

It’s tempting to compare them with the villagers in Cambodia who erected scarecrows in front of their huts to ward off the coronavirus—but that’s not fair to the villagers. Their Ting Mong, as the magic scarecrows are called, at least didn’t hurt any of their neighbors. 

So which shul is going to jump in the pool first and require masks, or maybe a Vax ID card to enter the building?  Who will be the first to put up a tent again and daven outside, or maybe put a little shmata on the shofar again lest the breath of the baal tokea travel out of the shofar and c"v infect someone sitting in the same room?  After all, no one ever bothered to quantify what level of risk constitutes a sakana, so whose to say we are not at that point already with the new variant?  

headed down the wrong track

What does the ben sorer u'moreh do that is so wrong?  Because he steals a little food and drink he is chayav skilah?  Ramban explains:

והנה יש עליו שני עונשין, האחד שהוא מקלה אביו ואמו וממרה בהם, והשני שהוא זולל וסובא, עובר על מה שנצטוינו: קדושים תהיו (ויקרא י״ט:ב׳), ונאמר עוד: ואותו תעבודו ובו תדבקון (דברים י״ג:ה׳), כאשר פרשתי (רמב״ן דברים ו׳:י״ג), ושנצטוינו לדעת השם בכל דרכינו, וזולל וסובא לא ידעו דרך י״י.

It's not the stealing of the food and the gluttony per se which does the ben sorer u'moreh in.  It's what that behavior is indicative of.  Someone who lives the ben sorer u'more lifestyle is guilty of violating "kedoshim ti'hiyu," of violating "bo tidbakun," of failing to try "la'daat es Hashem." 

R' Chaim Friedlander in the Sifsei Chaim is bothered by this statement of Ramban.  How many of us in our day to day lives behave in ways that are completely consistent with the ideals of kedusha, dveikus, emulating Hashem's midos?  And I deliberately use the term ideals, because to some extent that's what these are.  We try our best, but for those of us who are not tzadikim, putting these mitzvos into day to day practice is a challenge.  So why are we knocking a 13 year old for not living up to them?  

The Sifsei Chaim answers that it's not the failure to live up to the ideals which is what we take the ben sorer u'moreh to task for.  It's for failing to *aspire* to live up to them, for lacking the desire to live up to them.  He quotes from the mashgiach R' Chatzkel Levenstein that sometimes you miss the train, so you have to take a different train, or a train on a different track, or a train at a different time.  Sometimes you have to transfer once or even multiple times.  Those who take the LIRR from the 5 Towns to NYC know that some trains goes to Penn, some to Grand Central, and so sometimes you have to switch lines at Jamaica or elsewhere to get to your destination.  And if there is a problem that day, sometimes you need to hop on a subway, or make some other change.  No matter what steps you take, there is one ironclad rule -- you will never get to NYC if the train you get on is headed towards Far Rockaway or Long Island.  A train headed eastbound will never get you to a westbound destination.  We all face challenges in living up to the ideals of kedusha, dveikus, etc.  Some of us are on an express and get there quickly, some of us are on a local, some of us need to re-route ourselves a few times along the way.  But we are at least headed in the right direction.  We at least want to get there.  The ben sorer u'moreh is headed the opposite way, and he doesn't want to turn around.  The longer he sits on the train, the further he will get from where he should be.  Mutav she'yamus zakai and not wait until the end of the line.

With this yesod we can better understand the smichus ha'parshiyos between the eishes yefat to'ar and the ben sorer u'moreh.  Rashi at the beginning of the parsha tells us:

אבל אם נשאה, סופו להיות שונאה, שנאמר אחריו: כי תהיינהא לאיש וגומ׳, וסופו להוליד ממנה בן סורר ומורה. לכך נסמכו פרשיות הללו.

This is not magic, but is an inevitable consequence of a less than ideal home structure.  Ibn Ezra points to the fact that elsewhere, e.g. the parsha of the mekalel at the end of Emor, the Torah makes a point of mentioning the mother of someone who does wrong, because a poor motherly upbringing can have a tremendous negative impact.  ונסמכה זאת בעבור אשת יפת תאר (דברים כ״א:י״א). והעד: ושם אמו  The Torah mentions that Aharon married Elisheva bas Aminadav because in that case having a great mother led to Aharon having great children.  

What is it that a good wife brings to a family that a yefat to'ar or a bad wife does not?  Tanna d'Bei Eliyahu (ch 9) tells us אין לך כשרה בנשים אלא אשה שעושה רצון בעלה.  Sometimes a husband comes home from work exhausted from a long, hard day and wants nothing more than to eat some dinner and collapse on the couch.  The last thing on his mind is going to the beis medrash to learn.  He has no רצון!  What he aspires to is relaxation, not a blatt gemara.  The L. Rebbe (Likutei Sichos vol 4 p 1069, end of Balak) explains that this is what Chazal are telling us. אשה שעושה רצון בעלה.  A good wife awakens in her husband the ratzon that he is lacking.  A good wife will kick her husband off the couch and out of the house to go learn.  She will point him in the right direction and give him the push that he needs.

Like the Sifsei Chaim teaches, the ben sorer u'moreh is a person who lacks ratzon, who lacks the desire to do better and grow.  He heads away from, not toward, kedusha and dveikus.  That comes from growing up in a home where there is a lack of אשה שעושה רצון בעלה, a wife, a mother, who can create that desire, that ratzon, in her husband and in her children.   A yefat to'ar, a woman that is taken when a person is overcome with a desire of taavah, the wrong kind of desire, is not such a wife and mother.

We say multiple times a day in ashrei רצון יראיו יעשׂה.  When a person has yiras shamayim, Hashem steps in to help out and give him/her the ratzon to grow and do more.  The Shem m'Shmuel (Pinchas) writes: בגמ' שבת (קי"ח:) כל המענג את השבת נותנין לו משאלות לבו הפי' אצלי שנותנין דעת ללב לידע מה ישאל:  To know what to ask for, what to aspire to, to at least be on the right track headed in the right direction, is one of the greatest gifts Hashem can give us.  We say again and again this time of year אחת שׁאלתי...אותה אבקשׁ.  Even if we are not at this moment holding on the level of שׁבתי בּבּית ה׳, if that is our bakasha and shei'la from Hashem, if that is our ratzon and aspiration, then we are at least headed in the right direction.

"the convergence of the nanny state and the secular state"

"Let me be clear: I don’t believe that New York’s mayors and governors are antisemites. But the New York we inhabit at the moment reflects the convergence of the nanny state and the secular state. There is little deference to individual or parental autonomy, and even less respect for religious activity. The result is government limitations on circumcision, prayer, and religious education."

--Avi Schick, in an article in Sapir

shiluach ha'kan

In the past few years I have seen advertisements offering people the opportunity to fulfill shiluach ha'kan.  I suspect the motivation here is the great weight the kabbalah assigns to this mitzvah.  Whenever you start talking segulos and kabbalah, people pay attention.  

The problem is that it's not a very easy mitzvah to fulfill.  First off, many if not most poskim hold there is no reason to do the mitzvah unless you want to collect the eggs or chicks.  The Chavos Ya'ir disagrees, and presumably if you want to do the mitzvah to be choshesh for that view, or because of the segulah, that purpose overrides the potential tzaar baalei chaim involved.  Still, it seems cruel to take the eggs or chicks for no purpose.  To avoid this problem R' Melamed in his Pninei Halacha suggests in this circumstance one can rely on the view of Chacham Tzvi who holds that there is a kiyum  in chasing away the mother even if one does not take the chicks or eggs.    

The mitzvah only applies to kosher birds, and only applies when the chicks are still too young to fly, and only applies when the mother bird, not the father, is on the nest.  There are birds where the mother and father alternate sitting on the nest at different times.  Good luck to you in being able to tell the difference.

Finally, and most critically, the nest has to be in the wild, ownerless.  A lot of times people discover a nest somewhere on their property, either tucked under a section of roof on a porch, or under an air conditioning unit, or something like that.  A soon as the mother bird flies off that nest for a moment, there is a potential kinyan chatzeir that should kick in and make the nest one's own, no longer in the wild.  Some hold that if you catch the birds in the process of building the nest before it is complete, you can make a tnai in advance that prevents the kinyan chatzeir from being chal.  Others go further and argue that since one does not really want to own a bird's nest, even without a tnai the kinyan is not chal.  Perhaps you can be mafkir the nest after the fact.  R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is not too happy with these solutions.  

minhag to visit cemetery

Rama at the end of OC 581 quotes the minhag of visiting the cemetery before R"H:

ויש מקומות נוהגין לילך על הקברות ולהרבות שם בתחינות

My mother treats this minhag like a yei'hareg v'al yaavor.  Once the calendar hits Elul, she already starts planning when to go to each cemetery that relatives are buried in.

Aliba d'hilchisa, there does not really seem to be any source for this.  The place where we DO find a source for visiting the cemetery is in hil taanis (based on Taanis 16), which is the source for Rama in OC 569 by hil tisha b'av (see here ):

והולכין על הקברות מיד שהולכים מבית הכנסת

What I think may be going on in hil Rosh Hashana is if you look back earlier in that siman you have the din of fasting on erev R"H in seif 2:

נוהגין להתענו' ערב ראש השנה

The SA then follows that by telling us that there is no tachnun on erev R"H (seif 3), and that a person should get a haircut and wash his clothes on erev R"H (seif 4) -- everything is about erev R"H.  The Rama'a quotation of the minhag to visit the cemetery is in that context -- halachos of erev R"H.  Perhaps once the SA lays the groundwork of there being a minhag to fast on erev, the Rama extends the din of visiting the cemetery from hil taanis to this day of fasting as well.  

That doesn't help explain the idea of going during Elul, but I think it fits the words. 

don't go it alone

Our parsha tells us that someone who is יָּרֵא֙ וְרַ֣ךְ הַלֵּבָ֔ב is not allowed to go out to battle.  Rashi quotes from Chazal that this refers to ר׳ יוסי הגלילי אומר: הירא מעבירות שביד, someone who has done an aveira, even something as "small" as talking between putting on tefillin shed yad and she rosh.  Yet a few pesukim earlier in that very same section (20:3) the Torah quotes the mashuch milchama's words as he addressed the nation before battle: ... שְׁמַ֣ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אַתֶּ֨ם קְרֵבִ֥ים הַיּ֛וֹם לַמִּלְחָמָ֖ה עַל־אֹיְבֵיכֶ֑ם.   Rashi comments שמע ישראל – אפילו אין בכם זכות אלא של קריית שמע בלבד, כדיי אתם שיושיע אתכם, that the merit of kri'as shema alone is enough to ensure victory.  So which is it -- does even one aveira put a person in mortal danger and excuse them from battle, or does even just the merit of one mitzvah like krias shema ensure victory, irrespective of whatever other faults a person may have?

Taz in Divrei David answers that there is a difference between the yachid and the tzibur.  The individual solidier who is an avaryan faces a greater risk should he go out to battle.  However, the tzibur as a whole, even if they are not on the highest level, even if they just have the zechus of shema, can rest assured of victory.

The gemara (R"H 18) writes that Hashem will always listen to our cries for help, and even if a gzar din has been issued and signed, it can still be torn up.  וְהָכְתִיב: ״דִּרְשׁוּ ה׳ בְּהִמָּצְאוֹ״?  asks the gemara.  It's only בְּהִמָּצְאוֹ, when He is found, at certain times when Hashem is close, that our cries are heard, but not always?  Answers the gemara, הָתָם בְּיָחִיד, הָכָא בְּצִבּוּר.  When it comes to the tzibur, then  בְּכׇל קׇרְאֵנוּ אֵלָיו, Hashem always responds to our call.  It's the yachid who is limited to times of בְּהִמָּצְאוֹ.

The gemara identifies the period of בְּהִמָּצְאוֹ for the individual as the aseres ymei teshuvah, בְּיָחִיד, אֵימַת? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: אֵלּוּ עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים שֶׁבֵּין רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים.  So what are we doing all chodesh Elul?  Is that just a warm up, a way to get ready for the 10 days during which Hashem listens to the yachid?  I don't think so.  I think Elul is all about the tzibur.  The message of Elul is not to wait for those 10 days and go it alone.  Instead, immerse yourself in the efforts of the community to come close to Hashem, and then you don't have to wait -- בְּכׇל קׇרְאֵנוּ אֵלָיו He hears our prayers.

The Rambam writes in Hil Teshuvah (1:2)

שעיר המשתלח לפי שהוא כפרה על כל ישראל כהן גדול מתודה עליו על לשון כל ישראל שנאמר והתודה עליו את כל עונות בני ישראל. שעיר המשתלח מכפר על כל עבירות שבתורה הקלות והחמורות. בין שעבר בזדון בין שעבר בשגגה. בין שהודע לו בין שלא הודע לו הכל מתכפר בשעיר המשתלח. והוא שעשה תשובה. אבל אם לא עשה תשובה אין השעיר מכפר לו אלא על הקלות. ומה הן הקלות ומה הן החמורות. החמורות הן שחייבין עליהם מיתת בית דין או כרת. ושבועת שוא ושקר אע"פ שאין בהן כרת הרי הן מן החמורות. ושאר מצות לא תעשה ומצות עשה שאין בהן כרת הם הקלות:

Kesef Mishneh on the spot asks:

 ואמרינן דאליבא דרבי אפילו לא עשה תשובה שעיר המשתלח מכפר אבל אליבא דרבנן דוקא בשעשה תשובה שעיר המשתלח מכפר אבל אם לא עשה תשובה אין מכפר, וידוע דאין הלכה כרבי מחביריו ולכך כתב רבינו והוא שעשה תשובה: ומ"ש אבל אם לא עשה תשובה אין השעיר מכפר לו אלא על הקלות. ק"ל דהתם משמע דלרבנן אפילו עבר אעשה אם לא עשה תשובה אין שעיר מכפר ולרבי אפילו על החמורות מכפר בלא תשובה חוץ מפורק עול ומגלה פנים בתורה ומפר בריתו בבשר וצ"ע

There is a machlokes Rebbi and Rabbanan whether Y"K can be mechapeir even without teshuvah.  It seems that the Rambam here paskens with respect to mitzvos kalos like Rebbi, the minority view.  Why did he reject the opinion of Rabbanan, the majority, in this case?

Furthermore, the machlokes Rebbi and Rabbanan pertains equally to all mitzvos and aveiros.  Why does the Rambam distinguish between kalos and chamuros here and what is his source?

R Soloveitchik answered in one of the teshuvah derashos (this is one small point in the larger shiur) that there is a difference between teshuvah of the yachid and teshuvah of the tzibur.  On an individual level, kaparah is not possible without teshuvah.  The Rambam himself in the previous halacha writes that כל מצות שבתורה בין עשה בין לא תעשה אם עבר אדם על אחת מהן בין בזדון בין בשגגה כשיעשה תשובה וישוב מחטאו חייב להתודות .... וכן בעלי חטאות ואשמות בעת שמביאין קרבנותיהן על שגגתן או על זדונן אין מתכפר להן בקרבנם עד שיעשו תשובה. ויתודו וידוי דברים שנאמר והתודה אשר חטא עליה. וכן כל מחוייבי מיתות בית דין ומחוייבי מלקות אין מתכפר להן במיתתן או בלקייתן עד שיעשו תשובה ויתודו. וכן החובל בחבירו והמזיק ממונו אף על פי ששילם לו מה שהוא חייב לו אינו מתכפר עד שיתודה וישוב מלעשות כזה לעולם שנאמר מכל חטאות האדם:  Every sin requires viduy and teshuvah.  Here, in our halacha, the Rambam is not talking to the individual -- he is talking about the community of Klal Yisrael, the tzibur.  When the Rambam says שעיר המשתלח לפי שהוא כפרה על כל ישראל כהן גדול מתודה עליו על לשון כל ישראל he is not telling us a din in kodashim that שעיר המשתלח is a korban tzibur.  We know that from the fact that the momey for it comes from terumas ha'lishka.  What the Rambam is telling us is that the viduy and the korban come to atone for the community, the tzibur.  When we speak about the tzibur, even the Chachamim hold that "iztumu shel yom" is mechapeir; teshuva and viduy are not mandatory.  It is only those sinners who have done crimes like kareis, divorcing themselves from the community at large, who have no part in this kapara.

According to many Rishonim, the tekiyos al seder ha'brachos blown during musaf on Rosh haShana can only be done during tefilah b'tzibur.  If an individual davens on his own, he cannot stop to blow during his amidah and would blow only tekiyos d'meyushav, before musaf.  Here too, the Rav explained that we are dealing with a dual obligation.  The tekiyos d'meyushav come to arouse the individual to do teshuvah.  Tekiyos al seder ha'brachos, however, are a communal obligation, part of the teshuvah of the tzibur.

The baalei musar read these parshiyos that speak about going to war as alluding to our fight against our own evil inclination and baser instincts.  If you fight that battle alone, it's a very risky undertaking.  The tzibur, however, is assured of victory.  

כִּ֣י יִפָּלֵא֩ מִמְּךָ֨ דָבָ֜ר לַמִּשְׁפָּ֗ט בֵּֽין־דָּ֨ם ׀ לְדָ֜ם בֵּֽין־דִּ֣ין לְדִ֗ין וּבֵ֥ין נֶ֙גַע֙ לָנֶ֔גַע דִּבְרֵ֥י רִיבֹ֖ת בִּשְׁעָרֶ֑יךָ וְקַמְתָּ֣ וְעָלִ֔יתָ אֶ֨ל־הַמָּק֔וֹם אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִבְחַ֛ר ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ בּֽוֹ  The Sanz-Klausenberger Rebbe darshened as follows: כִּ֣י יִפָּלֵא֩ מִמְּךָ֨ דָבָ֜ר לַמִּשְׁפָּ֗ט בֵּֽין־דָּ֨ם ׀ לְדָ֜ם בֵּֽין־דִּ֣ין לְדִ֗ין וּבֵ֥ין נֶ֙גַע֙ לָנֶ֔גַע if you suffer from a lack of understanding of Torah, a lack of ability to perceive what Hashem wants, the reason is because דִּבְרֵ֥י רִיבֹ֖ת בִּשְׁעָרֶ֑יךָ, there is fighting and disunity.  The solution? וְקַמְתָּ֣ וְעָלִ֔יתָ אֶ֨ל־הַמָּק֔וֹם אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִבְחַ֛ר ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ בּֽוֹ  The halacha says that  ירושׁלים לא נתחלקה לשׁבטים.  We are all joined together there as one.  There are different rules that apply to the tzibur than to a yachid.  

כִּ֣י יִפָּלֵא֩ מִמְּךָ֨ דָבָ֜ר לַמִּשְׁפָּ֗ט The Yamim Noraim are approaching.  If you can't fathom how the din, how your mishpat, is going to turn out, then  וְקַמְתָּ֣ וְעָלִ֔יתָ אֶ֨ל־הַמָּק֔וֹם אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִבְחַ֛ר ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ בּֽוֹ, and forget about you the individual.  Instead focus on you the member of the tzibur and what you can do to strengthen those ties.

the downward spiral continues

Victor Davis Hanson point by point breaks down the disaster we are living through:

The Biden administration has utterly destroyed the southern border — and immigration law with it.

Biden green lighted 7 million illegal aliens swarming into the U.S. without legal sanction or rudimentary audit.

China spies inside and over the U.S. with impunity. Beijing has never admitted to its responsibility for the gain-of-function COVID virus that killed a million Americans.

President Joe Biden printed $4 trillion at exactly the wrong time of soaring post-COVID consumer demand and supply shortages. No wonder he birthed the worst inflation in 40 years.

In response, interest rates tripled, gas prices doubled.

Our military is thousands of recruits short. It lacks sufficient munitions.

Following Biden's humiliating pullout from Afghanistan, vast troves of arms were abandoned in Kabul. Billions more in scarce weapons were sent to Ukraine.

The Pentagon's woke agenda trumps meritocracy in promotions and advancement.

Our enemies — Russia, China, Iran, North Korea — are on the move, while the U.S. seems listless.

The Biden renegade Department of Justice, CIA and FBI have become weaponized. Ideology, politics, and race — not the law — more often guide their investigations, intelligence operations and enforcement.

The downtowns of our once majestic major cities are becoming unlivable.

They are mired in refuse and trash, violent crime and homelessness. Stores and businesses leave. Millions each year flee the blue urban coasts to the red west and south.

To even say there are still two biological genders, that global warming may not be entirely manmade or necessarily destroying the planet, or that class, not race, is the proper barometer of inequality is to face ostracism and career cancellation.

The public assumes that Biden is severely cognitively challenged, likely corrupt, and a serial fabricator.

Winning an election in this climate should not be that challenging, even given the D voter fraud advantage and the all out rooting of the MSM in their favor.  The average American is now poorer, less safe, less sure of the future, than they were before this buffoon took office.

Sadly, the GOP is once again proving themselves to be incompetent, and I have little hope that they will correct course in time.  

ir ha'nidachas -- a sum greater than its parts

The Ramban in this upcoming week's parsha quotes a machlokes between himself and R' Sadya Gaon whether a beis din of 23 is required for the kabbalas eidus in capital cases, or whether the b"d of 23 is required just for the psak and punishment, but the kabbalas eidus can even be done in the b"d of 3.  Do you need the same # of judges for kabbalas eidus as you need to try the case?  

The Minchas Chinuch raises a question on Ramban from the parsha of ir ha'nidachas that we read this past week.  When there are number of cases of idolatry in the city, b"d first sits in judgment of each case as if it was a din on an individual.  After they figure out that it's not just isolated individuals, but it's the majority of the city that is guilty of idolatry, the case is moved to b"d ha'gadol of 71 (Sanhedrin 112) to judge as an ir ha'nidachas.  If kabbalas eidus always has to be done in a court that has the same # of judges as those that will try the case, why is the kabbalas ha'eidus that was originally done in courts of 23 sufficient for ir ha'nidachas?  Shouldn't it require 71 dayanim from the get-go? 

Yesh lachkor whether a city is just a collection of individuals, or whether a city is a new collective unit?  Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts (same chakira with respect to definition of a tzibur)?  

The M.C. treats ir ha'nidachas as a city where, if there were 100 individuals living there, for example, we have 51 dinei torah going on against the population, and those case have to be transferred to a higher court of b"d ha'gadol.  But it could be that what is transferred to b"d ha'gadol is not 51 cases, but rather 1 case, a case against the entity of the city.  (I'm not sure, but it sounds like this is what R' Shmuel Rozovski quoted here means.)  

In the parsha sheet based on the chiddushim of R' Avrohom Genochovski z"l this past week there was a discussion of a question raised by the Chasam Sofer (I wrote about it 10+ years ago as well): since the children as well as the adults of of an ir ha'nidachat are killed, why isn't the testimony against them considered עדות שׁאי אתה יכול להזימה?  After all, we cannot inflict parallel punishment on an eid zomem and kill his children, because, as we learn in first sugya in Makos, לו - ולו לזרעו?  

Here too, the answer could be that the eidim who come to testify are testifying against individual idolaters.  The reason the children of an ir ha'nidachas are killed is because beis din ha'gadol has its din torah against the city as whole -- a whole greater than the sum of dinei torah against its individuals -- and the punishment that applies to the city extends to the children living there as well.

We once discussed the shitas haRambam that seems to say that an ir ha'nidachas can do teshuvah.  Since when can a person simply do teshuvah to get out of misas b"d?  It could be that what the Rambam means is that the city as a whole loses its status of ir ha'nidachas if enough people do teshuvah, but the individual idolaters who comprise most of the city will still be chayav misas b"d for their actions.

enlarging one's boundaries

The simple reading of the pasuk that allows for eating meat for pleasure and not only meat offered as korbanos, כִּֽי־יִרְחַ֨ק מִמְּךָ֜ הַמָּק֗וֹם אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִבְחַ֜ר ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ לָשׂ֣וּם שְׁמ֣וֹ שָׁם֒ וְזָבַחְתָּ֞ מִבְּקָרְךָ֣ וּמִצֹּֽאנְךָ֗ אֲשֶׁ֨ר נָתַ֤ן ה׳ לְךָ֔ כַּאֲשֶׁ֖ר צִוִּיתִ֑ךָ וְאָֽכַלְתָּ֙ בִּשְׁעָרֶ֔יךָ בְּכֹ֖ל אַוַּ֥ת נַפְשֶֽׁךָ, is that it's a concession of sorts, a bdieved.  Ideally, meat should be consumed only in the context of offering a korban in the mishkan or mikdash.  However, unlike in the midbar when the entire nation camped around the Mishkan and could easily bring korbanos at any time, in Eretz Yisrael people will live further away from the Mikdash, from the spiritual merkaz, and could not do so.  Unless the majority of the nation were to become vegetarians, there had to be a mechanism to allow for meat without being able to offer the animal as a korban.

That this is not the ideal is clearly the position of Netziv. Rashi already takes note of the seeming repitition of  כִּֽי־יַרְחִיב֩ ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ אֶֽת־גְּבֻלְךָ֮ and the following pasuk of כִּֽי־יִרְחַ֨ק מִמְּךָ֜ הַמָּק֗וֹם and suggests that the second pasuk refers to the expansion of physical boundaries of the land while the first refers to the expansion of the wealth of the population, allowing more people to want meat and to enjoy meat.   Netziv, however, writes that כִּֽי־יִרְחַ֨ק מִמְּךָ֜ הַמָּק֗וֹם alludes to spiritual, not physical distance.   ריחוק המעלה, שאינך יכול לעמוד בהר ה׳ ולאכול משולחן גבוה.  The ideal is to be close to the makom mikdash, eating korbanos.  Since not everyone can live on the spiritual level demanded by close proximity to the mikdash, we have hilchos shechita to allow meat to be eaten anywhere.

You get a very different perspective in the Midrash, which has a long series of stories, the first of which is as follows:

כִּי יַרְחִיב ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ  אֶת גְּבֻלְךָ – זֶה שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב (משלי י״ח:ט״ז): מַתָּן אָדָם יַרְחִיב לוֹ וְלִפְנֵי גְדֹלִים יַנְחֶנּוּ. מַהוּ מַתָּן אָדָם יַרְחִיב לוֹ, מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁיָּצְאוּ לִגְבוֹת לְעֵסֶק מִצְווֹת רַבּוֹתֵינוּ, הָלְכוּ לְחֵילָתָהּ שֶׁל אַנְטוֹכִיָּא, וְהָיָה שָׁם אָדָם אֶחָד וְהָיָה נִקְרָא אַבָּא יוּדָן, וְהָיָה לָמוּד לִתֵּן לְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ בְּיַד רְחָבָה, נַעֲשָׂה אוֹתוֹ אַבָּא יוּדָן עָנִי, רָאָה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁהָלְכוּ לִגְבוֹת שָׁם, וְהִטְמִין עַצְמוֹ מִפְּנֵיהֶם וְעָלָה לְבֵיתוֹ, וְעָשָׂה יוֹם וּשְׁנַיִם וְלֹא יָרַד לַשּׁוּק, אָמְרָה לוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא יָרַדְתָּ לַשּׁוּק, הֲרֵי שְׁנֵי יָמִים, אָמַר לָהּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בָּאוּ לִגְבוֹת לְעֵסֶק מִצְווֹת עֲמֵלֵי תּוֹרָה, וְאֵין סִפֵּק בְּיָדִי לִתֵּן לָהֶם, וַאֲנִי מִתְבַּיֵּשׁ לֵירֵד לַשּׁוּק. אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה אוֹהֶבֶת אֶת הַמִּצְווֹת אָמְרָה לוֹ, לֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּר לָנוּ שָׂדֶה אֶחָת, מְכֹר חֶצְיָהּ וְתֵן אוֹתָהּ לָהֶן. הָלַךְ וְעָשָׂה כֵן, מָכַר אוֹתָהּ חֲצִי שָׂדֶה בַּחֲמִשָּׁה זְהוּבִים וְנָתַן אוֹתָן לְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ, וְאָמַר לָהֶן הִתְפַּלְּלוּ עָלָי, הִתְפַּלְּלוּ עָלָיו וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ הַמָּקוֹם יְמַלֵּא חֶסְרוֹנֶךָ. הָלְכוּ לָהֶן רַבּוֹתֵינוּ לִגְבוֹת בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר, אוֹתוֹ אַבָּא יוּדָן חָרַשׁ בַּחֲצִי שָׂדֶה, וּמָצָא שָׁם סִימָא גְדוֹלָה וְנַעֲשָׂה עָשִׁיר יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶּׁהָיָה קֹדֶם, עַד שֶׁרַבּוֹתֵינוּ חוֹזְרִין עָבְרוּ בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם, אָמְרוּ לְאֶחָד חַיֶּיךָ הַעֲמִידֵנוּ עִם אַבָּא יוּדָן, אָמַר לָהֶם אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ, וּמִי יָכוֹל לַעֲמֹד, עִם הַמֶּלֶךְ וְלֹא עִמּוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ אֵין אָנוּ מְבַקְּשִׁין אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹא יֵדַע שֶׁעָבַרְנוּ כָּאן וְלֹא שָׁאַלְנוּ אֶת שְׁלוֹמוֹ. יָדַע אַבָּא יוּדָן וּבָא אֶצְלָם וְנָתַן לָהֶם אֶלֶף זְהוּבִים, אָמַר לָהֶם עָשְׂתָה תְּפִלַּתְכֶם פֵּרוֹת, אָמְרוּ לוֹ אַף אָנוּ הָיִינוּ יוֹדְעִים בְּמַעֲשֶׂיךָ הַטּוֹבִים וְעָשִׂינוּ אוֹתְךָ רֹאשׁ פֶּרֶק, קָרְאוּ עָלָיו רַבּוֹתֵינוּ: מַתָּן אָדָם יַרְחִיב לוֹ וְלִפְנֵי גְדוֹלִים יַנְחֶנּוּ.

Upon which the Midrash comments that you don't need the story to learn the lesson that the mitzvah generates reward, as it can be learned from our parsha, from the smichut of the heter for meat with the previous mitzvah to support the Levi, i.e. to give charity:

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּהוּ מַה לִּי לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר לְמֹד מִמְקוֹמוֹ, מַה כְּתִיב לְמַעְלָה (דברים י״ב:י״ט): הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן תַּעֲזֹב אֶת הַלֵּוִי, וְאַחַר כָּךְ: כִּי יַרְחִיב ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ אֶת גְּבֻלְךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לָךְ.

The Midrash goes on to explain ה׳ מַתִּיר אֲסוּרִים as referring to this allowance to eat meat, אַף לְהַלָּן אָסַר בְּשַׂר תַּאֲוָה וְכָאן הִתִּירוֹ לָהֶן, מִנַּיִן (דברים י״ב:ט״ו): רַק בְּכָל אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ תִּזְבַּח וְאָכַלְתָּ בָשָׂר.  

According to Chazal, we are not talking about a b'dieved situation, but rather a positive reward for doing the right thing.

What is the midash k'neged midah?  What is the relationship between giving charity and the reward of a steak dinner?

What is the nekudash ha'machlokes here between the pshat and the derash?  How can moving away from the Mikdash, moving away from korbanos-centered eating, be something to applaud?

Lastly, what exactly is the reward?  Is it the כִּֽי־יַרְחִיב֩ ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ אֶֽת־גְּבֻלְךָ֮, the expansion of the borders, as implied by the first Midrash's link to the pasuk מַתָּן אָדָם יַרְחִיב לוֹ, or is it the allowance for meat, as implied by the second Midrash's reference to ה׳ מַתִּיר אֲסוּרִים?  Or to put it another way, is the expansion of borders the reward, and the desire for meat an outgrowth of prosperity, or is the reward the steak dinner, and the expansion of the borders and the prosperity just a heichi timtzeh to set the stage, since, as Rashi writes, לימדה תורה דרך ארץ שלא יתאווה אדם לאכול בשר אלא מתוך רחבת ידים ועושר?

What the Midrash is doing is flipping the Netziv's approach on its head.  If the mountain will not come to Muhammad, then Muhammad must go to the mountain.  If you can't come to the Mikdash to offer korbanos, then the solution is not necessarily a b'dieved of meat without Mikdash.  The ideal solution is to bring the Mikdash to the meat, if not in the physical sense, then at least in the spiritual sense.

Both the Midrash and the pshat/Netziv use the redundancy of כִּֽי־יַרְחִיב֩ and כִּֽי־יִרְחַ֨ק as a way to address the conflict between the desire to have meat and the difficulty of being so far from the Mikdash, but they do it in opposite ways.  Netziv places the focus on כִּֽי־יִרְחַ֨ק, on the spiritual distance from Mikdash, and sees having meat as a b'dieved.  The Midrash places the focus on כִּֽי־יַרְחִיב֩ and reads it as spiritual expansion -- enlarging the borders of what we can make holy -- thereby allowing one can have one's spirituality and eat that steak too.  The Sefas Emes writes on  בְּכׇל־אַוַּ֥ת נַפְשְׁךָ֖ תֹּאכַ֥ל בָּשָֽׂר that we read in krias shema every day that we have to love Hashem בּכל לבבך ובכל נפשׁך.  Bring that to the table.  Your eating should be and can be done בְּכׇל־אַוַּ֥ת נַפְשְׁךָ֖, infused and animated by your love for Hashem -- and not be a contradiction to it. 

In the story quoted, the poor man who lost his wealth thought he could no longer give charity.  What did his wife tell him -- and parenthetically, is this not the role of an eishel chayil?  Expand your thinking; reconsider what you think your limits are and go beyond them.  You can give something.  And so the man did, and was rewarded.  That's כִּֽי־יַרְחִיב֩ ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ אֶֽת־גְּבֻלְךָ֮.  Not in a physical sense, but rather in a spiritual sense.  ה׳ מַתִּיר אֲסוּרִים because you are מַתִּיר אֲסוּרִים, releasing yourself from the mental bonds that held you in check and prevented your growth.  That's the midah k'neged midah here.  It's not the piece of steak which is the reward, but it's the ability to enlarge one's spiritual boundaries that the piece of steak, when eaten with this perspective, represents.  

a kashe that personifies R' Shteinman

  כִּ֣י הָאָ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר אַתָּ֤ה בָא־שָׁ֙מָּה֙ לְרִשְׁתָּ֔הּ לֹ֣א כְאֶ֤רֶץ מִצְרַ֙יִם֙ הִ֔וא אֲשֶׁ֥ר יְצָאתֶ֖ם מִשָּׁ֑ם אֲשֶׁ֤ר תִּזְרַע֙ אֶֽת־זַרְעֲךָ֔ וְהִשְׁקִ֥יתָ בְרַגְלְךָ֖ כְּגַ֥ן הַיָּרָֽק (11:10) 

Rashi comments: והשקית ברגלך – ארץ מצרים היתה צריכהו להביא מים מנילוס ברגלך ולהשקותה, וצריך אתה לנדד שנתיךז ולעמול, והנמוך שותה ולא הגבוה, ואתה מעלה מים מן הנמוך לגבוה. אבל זו למטר השמים וגומ׳ (דברים י״א:י״א) – אתה ישן על מטתך, והקב״ה משקה נמוך וגבוה, גלוי ושאינו גלוי, כאחת

When you were in Egypt, you had to get up early and make an irrigation canal so that the water could flow from the Nile to your field.  In Eretz Yisrael, you can stay in bed and Hashem will deliver the water to you, bringing rain everywhere and anywhere that it is needed.

R' Shteinman in his Ayeles haShachar asks: what do you mean stay in bed?  Why would you not get up and take advantage of the extra time to devote to ruchniyus?

No question that this kashe is ראוי הוא למי שׁאמרו and personifies who R' Shteinman was.  The rest of us read this Rashi and did not even bat an eye when we got to those words about staying in bed.  Amazing.

2) That parsha continues

וְהָאָ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר אַתֶּ֜ם עֹבְרִ֥ים שָׁ֙מָּה֙ לְרִשְׁתָּ֔הּ אֶ֥רֶץ הָרִ֖ים וּבְקָעֹ֑ת לִמְטַ֥ר הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם תִּשְׁתֶּה־מָּֽיִם 

The difference between Eretz Yisrael and Egypt is whether you need irrigation, or whether there is rain.  So why does the earlier pasuk refer to אֲשֶׁ֤ר תִּזְרַע֙ אֶֽת־זַרְעֲךָ֔, the planting that was done in Egypt?  You have to plant in Eretz Yisrael too?

Sefas Emes answers that when you plant in Egypt, its זַרְעֲךָ֔, *your* produce, *your* seeds that are going in the ground.  It's all about the prat.  Eretz Yisrael is about the klal.  Whatever happens there is reflective of Hashem's relationship with Klal Yisrael.  As we discussed before, the GR"A writes that the nusach ha'bracha in bareich aleinu should be sabeinu mi'tuvah, not sabeinu mi'tuvecha, because the tov that we get, the shefa that comes into the world, all comes through Eretz Yisrael.  It is the source of goodness that then spreads out to the rest of the world.  When you plant there, it's not זַרְעֲךָ֔, limited to you, but it creates a ripple effect throughout the world.