was Trump the one who asked this shayla to R' Dov Lando?

Question: is an aku"m allowed to kill another aku"m who is an Amaleiki?  

bigdei kehunah - kedushas damim or kedushas ha'guf; the price for enjoyment of an aveira

The gemara (Meg 12) tells us that Achashveirosh threw the grand party described at the opening of the megillah because he thought the 70 years of galus had ended. Since the expected date of our redemption had come and gone and nothing had happened, he wanted to celebrate our downfall. At that party, he put on the bigdei kehuna:

בהראותו את עושר כבוד מלכותו א"ר יוסי בר חנינא מלמד שלבש בגדי כהונה כתיב הכא יקר תפארת גדולתו וכתיב התם לכבוד ולתפארת

A little further down on the same amud the gemara tells us that he also took out the klei ha'mikdash to use at this party:

והשקות בכלי זהב וכלים מכלים שונים משונים מיבעי ליה אמר רבא יצתה בת קול ואמרה להם ראשונים כלו מפני כלים ואתם שונים בהם

The two gemaras ae similar, but there is one big difference between them. The second gemara tells us that a bas kol came out to protest what Achashveirosh was doing. Balshatazar had tried the same thing; he also thought the 70 years were up and made a big party, and he was killed. The bas kol cried out, "Achashveirosh, you didn't get the message? You guys want to make the same mistake twice?!" But no such bas kol came out when he put on the bigdei kehunah. Why the difference? Why the protest over using klei ha'mikdash but not over using bigdei kehunah?

The answer to this question may hinge on a machlokes Rishonim. Tos (Kiddushin 54a) equates bigdei kehunah with klei shareis and assumes both have kedushas ha'guf. Ramban and Ritva disagree and hold that the bigdei kehunah have only kedushas damim. Nafka minah: do bigdei kehunah lose their kedusha if someone violates the issur meila and uses them for a mundane purpose? According to Tos, the begadim, like klei shareis, retain their kedusha, but Ritva writes:

והנכון דכתנות כהונה אינם קדושת הגוף ככלי שרת שהרי אין משתמשין בהן בגופן ומכשירי עבודה הם ודינם כקדושת דמים שיוצאין לחולין בשוגג

Sefer haMakneh points out that based on Ritva, we can understand the difference between  the klei shareis and bigdei kehunah. The gemara (A"Z 52b) darshens from a pasuk in Yechezkel ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה that when the Beis haMikdash was destroyed, the gold and silver in its storehouses lost their kedusha. According to Baal haMaor, the mechanism behind this de-sanctification is the din of mei'ila. The same din that applied to the money should also apply to bigdei kehunah, which according to Ritva have only kedushas damin. The meila committed at the time of churban caused the garments to lost their kedusha. When Achashveirosh put on the garments of bigdei kehunah, he was putting on clothes that no longer had any sanctity -- they were, for all halachic intents and purposes, ordinary garments.  The klei shareis, however, have kedusas ha'guf, which cannot be spoiled by meila. They retained their sanctity. Therefore, the bas kol cried out when Achashveirosh defiled that which was still holy.

There wrinkle in this approach is that Ramban is difficult l'shitaso. Unlike Baal haMaor who learns that ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה operates through the framework of mei'ila, Ramban learns that it is a chiddush din which applies across the board even to kedushas ha'guf. L'shitaso, the klei shareis themselves should also no longer have had any kedusha. (See also Rashi in A"Z 52 who has a different understanding of ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה ).

The Chida in his commentary on the megillah Chomas Anach makes a similar point as the Sefer HaMakneh to explain another gemara on that same amud:

שאלו תלמידיו את רשב"י מפני מה נתחייבו שונאיהן של ישראל שבאותו הדור כליה אמר להם אמרו אתם אמרו לו מפני שנהנו מסעודתו של אותו רשע אם כן שבשושן יהרגו שבכל העולם כולו אל יהרגו אמרו לו אמור אתה אמר להם מפני שהשתחוו לצלם אמרו לו וכי משוא פנים יש בדבר אמר להם הם לא עשו אלא לפנים אף הקב"ה לא עשה עמהן אלא לפנים

Why does the gemara focus on the enjoyment of the meal alone, asks Chida? If the dishes were being served in klei ha'midash at this party, shouldn't BnY have been guilty of mei'ila? He answers:

ולא מפני ששתו ישראל בכלי הקדש נתחייבו שהרי ירדו מקדושתן כדכתיב ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה משבאו לידם נעשו חולין וז"ש וכלים מכלים שונים כלומר כלים שנשתנו בידם והיו חולין אכן עונש ישראל שנהנו מסעודת הרשע

Clearly Chida assumed like Ramban and not Baal haMaor that the din of ובאו בה פריצים וחללוה can remove kedusha even from klei shareis, even from kedushas ha'guf.

Derech agav, R' Chaim Elazari in his Nesivei Chaim on last week's parsha quotes a diyuk of the Chasam Sofer on this gemara that I would explain via a quote from a 1971 NY Times interview with R' Meir Kahane.  The Times asked for Kahane's reaction to the US Attorney General, who was Jewish, asking for a high bail for a Jewish defendant accused of shooting  at the Soviet Mission. Didn't he have an obligation, as a US official, to act as he did, even if, as a Jew, he might be sympathetic to the cause of the defendant. Kahane responded:

No, Mr. Morse [the Attorney General] has an obligation to the U.S. Government. Let me try and explain this to you with a bit of a story. During World War I, there was a very very famous rabbi. He was asked by Jewish soldiers who had been drafted in to the Russian Army whether they could eat pork since that was the only thing served. He said, “Yes, if this is the only food served, then eat it—to live. You can eat the pork. But don't suck the bones.”

My point was that Mr. Morse can come into the court and ask for his $100,000 bail. You can ask for it—and you can ask for it. You can say, “We ask for $100,000 bail be cause he's a dangerous crimi nal”—and then shut up. The judge hesitated. He wavered. And Morse kept at it and kept at it and kept at it and ham mered at it as if he enjoyed it. He was sucking the bone.

Says the Chasam Sofer: Achashveirosh demanded everyone come to the party. Whether Ploni Reb Yid  should have gone or not gone is not the issue. You can't really find fault with someone who goes because he has a gun  pointed at his head. But even if you go, even if you have to eat tarfus, you don't have to suck the bones. The punishment is not for going; the punishment is for שנהנו מסעודתו של אותו רשע, for the enjoyment.

R' Chaim Elazari relates the story of a talmid of a yeshiva who had gone off the derech and once bumped into his old Rosh Yeshiva. The R"Y asked him if he retained anything at all from his days in yeshiva. The talmid replied that indeed he did. He may not keep kosher, he may not keep Shabbos, he may do other aveiros, but he cannot enjoy those aveiros the way other people do because of the impression his past left on him.

R' Chaim Elazari writes that we might think this is a trivial thing, but what we see from the Chasam Sofer is that indeed it is not. 

making the aron

The gemara (Yoma 3b) presents a stira in pesukim with regards to who was supposed to make the aron:

אַבָּא חָנָן אָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ לְּךָ אֲרוֹן עֵץ״, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים״, הָא כֵּיצַד?

The gemara answers

כָּאן בִּזְמַן שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם, כָּאן בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם

Rashi explains that when Klal Yisrael are doing the right thing, then they get credit for the aron; if, however, they are not behaving properly, then the credit goes to Moshe alone.

R' Shmuel Kushlevitz in Netivot Shmuel suggests derech derush a take away lesson from this gemara as Rashi reads it. When the tzibur is cooperative, עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם, a leader can sit on the sidelines and inspire and cheerlead and let the people run with the ball on their own, ְוְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים However, where the tzibur does not want to pitch in and is not moved to contribute and work, אֵין עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם, then a leader has to not be afraid to jump in and get his hands dirty. It's not enough to sit on the sidelines and cheerlead; he has to take the reins and ְעָשִׂיתָ לְּךָ אֲרוֹן עֵץ, do the job.

Maharasha, however, explains the gemara exactly in the opposite way. When Bn"Y are עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם, it means that they are living up to and fulfilling the vision of Moshe Rabeinu. In that case, it is correct to say ְעָשִׂיתָ לְּךָ אֲרוֹן עֵץ because their work is imbued with the same spirit as if Moshe himself were doing it. If, however, Bn"Y are אֵין עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם, then it is וְעָשׂוּ אֲרוֹן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים because their work is a far cry from the effort and results that Moshe would have achieved and reflects their own shortcomings.

Ramban and Rashi are bothered by why we need the וְכֵ֖ן תַּעֲשֽׂוּ at the end of the pasuk כְּכֹ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֲנִי֙ מַרְאֶ֣ה אוֹתְךָ֔ אֵ֚ת תַּבְנִ֣ית הַמִּשְׁכָּ֔ן וְאֵ֖ת תַּבְנִ֣ית כׇּל־כֵּלָ֑יו וְכֵ֖ן תַּעֲשֽׂוּ. Rashi comments that it is a mitzvah l'doros that whenever klei ha'mikdash are made, it should be like those shown to Moshe. Ramban writes:

על דרך הפשט אין צורך לכל זה, אבל בא הכפל לחזוק וזירוז, אמר: ועשו לי מקדש (שמות כ״ה:ח׳) – בית וכלים כמקדש מלך ובית ממלכה (עמוס ז׳:י״ג), ושכנתי בתוכם (שמות כ״ה:ח׳) – בבית ובכסא הכבוד אשר יעשו לי שם, ככל אשר אני מראה אותך את תבנית המשכן הזה אשר אמרתי שאשכון בו בתוכם, ואת תבנית כל כליו. וכפל וכן תעשו – כלכם בזריזות וחריצות, והוא כהכפל: ויעשו בני ישראל ככל אשר צוה ה׳ את משה כן עשו (שמות ל״ט:ל״ב), כי מפני שהוא צואה אמר וכן תעשו.

Maharasha I think is in the spirit of this Ramban. Hashem was telling Moshe that כְּכֹ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֲנִי֙ מַרְאֶ֣ה אוֹתְךָ֔, in accordance with your vision of what a makom mikdash should be, your ideals, your goal, וְכֵ֖ן תַּעֲשֽׂוּ, that should be how the people fulfill the task.

Adar, Binyamin, and v'na'hapoch hu

The Shabbos, Shabbos mevorchim chodesh Adar, is the yahrzeit for my father a"h. The Tur writes in hil rosh chodesh that each one of the 12 months corresponds to a sheiveit of the 12 shevatim. There are various opinions as to which sheivet corresponds with each month, but if you simply follow birth order it works out that Adar corresponds with Binyamin. We read in parshas VaYishlach:

וַיְהִ֞י בְּצֵ֤את נַפְשָׁהּ֙ כִּ֣י מֵ֔תָה וַתִּקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ בֶּן־אוֹנִ֑י וְאָבִ֖יו קָֽרָא־ל֥וֹ בִנְיָמִֽין

Ibn Ezra comments: בן אוני – כמו: אבלי. Rachel realized she was dying as she gave birth, and so she named her last child in a way that commemorated aveilus. Yaakov, however, changed the name, or rather, to be more exact, read that name with a different connotation. Tur explains based on Ramban:

פי׳ הוא לפי שאמו קראתו בן אוני וכונה לומר בן אבלי מלשון לחם אונים לא אכלתי באוני ואביו תרגם אותו לטובה מלשון כח כמו ראשית אוני וע״כ קרא אותו בנימין בן הכח כי הימין הוא הכח וההצלה שרצה לקרותו בשם שקראתו אמו כי כן נקראו כלם בשמם שקראתם אמם אלא שתרגם אותו לטובה לגבורה:

The word אוני can refer to aninus, mourning, but can also mean strength, and that's the meaning Yaakov took from his son's name.

When the Tur writes שתרגם אותו לטובה לגבורה perhaps he doesn't just mean that Yaakov reinterpreted the name, but what he means is that Yaakov reinterpreted the meaning of the event. 

Yaakov turned a difficulty, a tragedy, a moment of sorrow, into a source of strength.

This is the essence of Adar. V'nahapoch hu. Challenges shouldn't knock us down; they should lift us up and push us to do better.  They should bring out our inner strength.  The name of the month, Adar, itself means strength, like in the pasuk, "adir ba'marom Hashem."  The great threat of Haman became a moment when Klal Yisrael showed our inner strength and fortitude.

Rashi in Yevamos 122 quotes from the Geonim:

בתשובת הגאונים מצאתי כל הנך ריגלי דאמוראי היינו יום שמת בו אדם גדול קובעים אותו לכבודו ומדי שנה בשנה כשמגיע אותו יום מתקבצים תלמידי חכמים מכל סביביו ובאים על קברו עם שאר העם להושיב ישיבה שם:

A yahrzeit is not a day to wallow in aveilus. It's not about אוֹנִ֑י in the sense of mourning, but rather about ימיני, finding strength. What strength can you draw from the memory of the person who is no longer here? Whether it is להושיב ישיבה, or some other good deed, that should be the goal.

The theme of v'nahapoch hu presents itself in our parsha as well:

וַיַּ֥עַל מֹשֶׁ֖ה וְאַהֲרֹ֑ן נָדָב֙ וַאֲבִיה֔וּא וְשִׁבְעִ֖ים מִזִּקְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל

וַיִּרְא֕וּ אֵ֖ת אֱלֹקי יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וְתַ֣חַת רַגְלָ֗יו כְּמַעֲשֵׂה֙ לִבְנַ֣ת הַסַּפִּ֔יר וּכְעֶ֥צֶם הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם לָטֹֽהַר

וְאֶל־אֲצִילֵי֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א שָׁלַ֖ח יָד֑וֹ וַיֶּֽחֱזוּ֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱלֹקים וַיֹּאכְל֖וּ וַיִּשְׁתּֽוּ׃

Sounds like a party! וַיֶּֽחֱזוּ֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱלֹקים וַיֹּאכְל֖וּ וַיִּשְׁתּֽוּ. But someone didn't get an invitation. נָדָב֙ וַאֲבִיה֔וּא are on the list, but not Elazar and Itamar. R' Shteinman writes that had you been on the scene, you would feel bad for Elazar and Itamar. How come every body else gets to enjoy, but not them? But then if you take a look at Rashi, you see that this "party" had tragic consequences:

נסתכלו והציצו, ונתחייבו מיתה. אלא שלא רצה הקב״ה לערבב שמחת התורה, והמתין לנדב ואביהוא עד יום חנכת המשכן, ולזקנים עד: ויהי העם כמתאננים, ותבער בם אש ותאכל בקצה המחנה (במדבר י״א:א׳) – בקצינים שבהם.

What at the time may have felt like a slight, in the end, was a blessing. Being excluded from the "celebration" meant being excluded from the punishment.

In the case of events in chumash, we see how the whole story plays out.  We see how what seems like misfortune actually results in a positive.  We see the vnahapoch hu happen.  In life, we often don't see how the story will end. We sometimes just feel the pain or sorrow, but don't see how in the larger scheme of things it works out for the good. It's the strength of our convictions, adar=adir, that gives us that perspective.

thoughtful clip from Rav Tamir Granot and Rav Ouri Cherki on dati leumi vs hareidi world view

 

I have always found Rav Tamir Granot and Rav Ouri Cherki to be thoughtful, interesting speakers, and wanted to pass on this clip, which I think makes a number of good points about the hareidi/dati leumi divide.  I think Rav Garnot's understanding of the hareidi world as adopting a defensive posture and retreating from the outside world, consistent with 2000 years of Jewish behavior in galus, is accurate.  I think it is also fair to say that this hashkafa serves our interests less and less in modern times. That being said, it seems to me that  Rav Cherki and Granot are a bit overly optimistic that the hareidi world will come around and change.  There are too many entrenched interests at stake, and change requires thought and reflection.  That is hard.  It is far easier to light garbage cans in the street and block traffic because you think being drafted to defend the Jewish homeland is somehow equal to being conscripted into the Tzar's army. 
 

At around the 5:45  Rav Granot talks about being trapped in a parochial straitjacket (my words, obviously) where one's entire emotional and intellectual world consists of what lies between the covers of masechet kiddushin through bava metztiya and the severe limitations this imposes on one's personality, one's emotions, and one's spiritual growth.  I hate to say it, but unless things have changed drastically, these is essentially not just true of the hareidi world, but is true of YU as well.  Yes, YU offers secular studies, but in terms of the torah one is exposed to in YU, it's about as narrow a world as you can get.  If you are in a shiur from one of the big name roshei yeshiva you will hear a lot of gemara, rishonim, and shulchan aruch, but mussar, machshava, anything outside lomdus, is not even an afterthought.  I could be wrong because I haven't been to the place in decades. but that's my recollection of how it was.  Others may have a different impression. 

For for thought, for whatever it's worth.

we don't want a second hand account -- we want to hear it directly

וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה וַיִּקְרָא לְזִקְנֵי הָעָם וַיָּשֶׂם לִפְנֵיהֶם אֵת כׇּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר צִוָּהוּ ה׳

וַיַּעֲנוּ כׇל הָעָם יַחְדָּו וַיֹּאמְרוּ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה׳ נַעֲשֶׂה וַיָּשֶׁב מֹשֶׁה אֶת דִּבְרֵי הָעָם אֶל ה׳ (19:7-8)

The Radomsker (Tiferes Shlomo) asks: Moshe was talking to the זִקְנֵי הָעָם. However, the response came not from the zekeinim, but rather וַיַּעֲנוּ כׇל הָעָם יַחְדָּו, from the people as a whole. Shouldn't the response have come from the זִקְנֵי הָעָם that he was talking to?

Abarbanel already asks this question. Moshe thought it would be impossible to address and get a response from the entire nation at once, so he used the zekeinim as his intermediary to present Hashem's words to Bn"Y and to glean their reaction. The people, however, bypassed the zekeinim and delivered their unanimous response directly to Moshe. Abarbanel writes:

אבל העם לא רצו לתת תשובתם כזקנים ושהם ישיבו למשה. אבל כלם בערבוביא יחדיו אמרו למשה תשובתם והוא כל אשר דבר ה׳ נעשה וכן אמרו במדרש (שם) ויענו כל העם יחדיו לא ענו בחנופה לא נתנו מקום לזקנים להשיב אלא כלם פה אחד ולב אחד אמרו כל אשר דבר ה׳ נעשה.

Malbim goes a step further:

שכבר בארתי בכ"מ ההבדל בין יחד ובין יחדו, שמלת יחדו מורה על השווי שחשבו א"ע כולם שוים, ואמרו כל אשר דבר ה' נעשה ר"ל גם מה שדבר אל הגדולים שיהיו ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש נעשה כולנו, באין הבדל, כמ"ש ועמך כלם צדיקים (שם ס), ומבואר ממילא שלפי תשובתם לא רצו שמשה ואהרן וכ"ש הזקנים יהיו אמצעיים בינם ובין ה', ולא רצו שיקבלו התורה ע"י משה, רק שכלם יתעלו למדרגת הנבואה ויקבלו התורה מה' בעצמו בלי אמצעי כמ"ש חז"ל שאמרו רצוננו לראות את מלכנו

Bn"Y wanted everyone to have an equal part in kabbalas haTorah -- equal access for all, a request that Malbi"m takes a dim view of (he ends off: וזה היה טעות קרח שאמר כי כל העדה כלם קדושים)

This approach helps resolve another difficulty with the order of the pesukim here. The Brisker Rav points out that Hashem did not immediately give Bn"Y the mitzvah of perisha and the other preparations for mattan Torah. It was only when Moshe conveyed their response to Him that Hashem commanded לֵךְ אֶל הָעָם וְקִדַּשְׁתָּם הַיּוֹם וּמָחָר וְכִבְּסוּ שִׂמְלֹתָם (19:10). Why did Hashem wait for Bn"Y's reply before giving these mitzvos? Why not tell them up front how to prepare for kabbalas haTorah? The Brisker Rav answers that there is something like a hava amina and a maskana here. The hava amina was וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי בָּא אֵלֶיךָ בְּעַב הֶעָנָן בַּעֲבוּר יִשְׁמַע הָעָם בְּדַבְּרִי עִמָּךְ (19:9). Hashem would speak to Moshe, and the people would merely eavesdrop on that conversation and overhear what Hashem was saying. Klal Yisrael, however, demanded more than this. וַיַּגֵּד מֹשֶׁה אֶת דִּבְרֵי הָעָם אֶל ה׳. Rashi comments: תשובה על דבר זה כבר שמעתי מהם שרצונן לשמוע ממך, אינו דומה שומע מפי שליח לשומע מפי המלך, רצוננו לראות את מלכנו. Moshe gave the people's response to Hashem: We don't want to be eavesdroppers -- we want You to speak directly to us. If so, Hashem responded, וְקִדַּשְׁתָּם הַיּוֹם וּמָחָר, you have to prepare.

Why was preparation needed only if Hashem was speaking directly to the people and not if they are overhearing divrei Torah spoken to Moshe? A baal keri is allowed hirhur in divrei Torah; he is just not allowed to speak divrei Torah. The source for this din is mattan Torah (Brachos 20b, see last year's post https://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2025/02/did-bny-recite-birchas-hatorah-on.html). Bn"Y did not just listen to what Hashem was saying; it was as if they were saying the words along with Him and speaking divrei Torah.  The Brisker Rav says a chiddush: If you just overhear what is said by someone, then that's not shome'a k'oneh.  Had Hashem spoken to Moshe and Bn"Y were just overhearing the conversation, that would be hirhur, not shome'a k'oneh, and the halachos of preparation would not come into play, as hirhur is permitted for a baal keri.  Because Hashem consented to the request to speak directly to each member of Bn"Y, it meant there was a din of shome'a k'oneh by mattan Torah, and once the experience of mattan Torah would be as if Bn"Y were saying words of Torah, then it meant a baal keri could not participate and hence the halachos of preparation were required.

What I find interesting about this whole topic is that it's the flip side of the coin of Yisro's plan that we saw earlier in the parsha. Instead of everyone having equal access to have their din torah decided by Moshe, Yisro said it was better to create a bureaucracy of batei dinim. רצוננו לראות את מלכנו means everyone has equal access to the King, with no intermediary and no bureaucracy intervening.

The Radomsker k'darko derech derash offers a different answer to the whole question. The זִקְנֵי הָעָם, he answers, does not mean the leaders of Klal Yisrael. There was not a separate message for the elite (as Malbim and Netziv explain) and a separate one for the masses, or an attempt to filter Hashem's message to/from the people through their leaders. The message was addressed to the people and the response came from the people. But we have to understand where this power to receive such a message from Hashem comes from. This moment in history was set in motion long ago. Chazal tell us that the 2000 year period of the development of Torah began with Avraham Avinu. In a sense, the history of Klal Yisrael is just the unfolding of everything that Avraham and the Avos set in motion. Without the spiritual DNA of the Avos within us, the geulah from Mitzrayim, kabbalas haTorah, and everything else would not follow. The זִקְנֵי ,הָעָם, explains the Radomsker, refers to that DNA of the Avos within each member of Klal Yisrael. Moshe first spoke to that spark of the Avos, and that ignited the fire and passion within the people, and that is what enabled their unanimous response of naaseh v'nishma.

We find the same idea earlier. Parshas Va'Aeira opens וָאֵרָא אֶל אַבְרָהָם אֶל יִצְחָק וְאֶל יַעֲקֹב, and Rashi comments: וארא אל האבות, and the parsha continues with the 4 leshonos of geulah. The geulah is possible only because it was promised to the Avos and we carry within us their spiritual DNA.

We reflect on this idea every day in our davening, as the Radomsker writes:

בעבור אבותינו שבטחו בך ותלמדם חוקי חיים כן תחננו ותלמדנו. פי' בעבור אבותינו שעברו ע"י אבותינו כנ"ל. והוא שאנו אומרי' על אבותינו ועלינו על בנינו ועל דורותינו על אבותינו באה תחלה הקדושה של דבריו חיים וקיימים ומהם בא עלינו ועל בנינו. וזה אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב וכו' וזוכר חסדי אבות ומביא גואל לבני בניהם כל הגאולה וישועה מן האבות בא לבני בניהם

The kabbalas haTorah at Sinai is a model for our ongoing daily kabbalas haTorah, which starts with the recognition that we are worthy of learning and engaging in Torah only by virtue of those who came before us.

public life vs private life

The meforshim are bothered by the contradictory reactions of Bn"Y when they discovered the Egyptian army in pursuit.  On the one hand, וַיִּצְעֲק֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל אֶל ה׳ (14:10), they turned to Hashem, and yet on the other hand, וַיֹּאמְרוּ֮ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה֒ הֲֽמִבְּלִ֤י אֵין־קְבָרִים֙ בְּמִצְרַ֔יִם לְקַחְתָּ֖נוּ לָמ֣וּת בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר מַה־זֹּאת֙ עָשִׂ֣יתָ לָּ֔נוּ לְהוֹצִיאָ֖נוּ מִמִּצְרָֽיִם (only one pasuk later! 14:11) they complained that they were going to die and should have never left Egypt. Ramban writes that the two different reactions are evidence that there were two different groups at Yam Suf. There was a group who turned to Hashem in tefilah, and there was a group that rebelled and pinned blame for the situation on Moshe.

R' Yosef Shaul Nathanson in Divrei Shaul writes based on a Zohar that there is in fact no contradiction between the two pesukim. The term וַיִּצְעֲק֥וּּ, says the Zohar, indicates a cry inside a person's heart. On the outside, a person might be screaming at Moshe in anger, but inside his heart he is crying out to Hashem for help. On the outside, a person might be defiant, rebellious, but on the inside, he remains connected to Hashem and longs for Him.

Later in the parsha, when the people go out to collect the mon on Shabbos even after being warned not to do so, Hashem tells Moshe (16:28)

וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה עַד אָנָה מֵאַנְתֶּם לִשְׁמֹר מִצְוֺתַי וְתוֹרֹתָי

Malbim comments on the use of the term מֵאַנְתֶּם:

יש הבדל בין מאן ובין לא אבה, שהבלתי אובה הוא בלב והממאן הוא בפה אף שיאבה בלבו, וכל אדם יאבה בלבו לקיים מצות ה׳ רק שימאן בפה כי יהיה עליו לטורח

The word מאן refers to a public display of rebelliousness, but it doesn't reflect what's on the inside. A person may be a mechalel Shabbos for whatever reason, but that's just on the outside. In his heart of hearts, he wants that connection to Shabbos.  

The actions and words that you see and hear on the outside do not always reflect what is in a person's mind and heart.

Too bad we didn't have this Malbi"m last week, because now we have a deeper insight into Hashem's words to Pharoah (10:3)

עַד מָתַי מֵאַנְתָּ לֵעָנֹת מִפָּנָי שַׁלַּח עַמִּי וְיַעַבְדֻנִי

Pharoah, I know you are have to put up a brave front so as to not lose face in front of your people -- it's מאן, public posturing -- but you know and I know that your heart is not really in it and you want to buckle under.

Coming back to the Divrei Shaul, I think this yesod can help explain another pasuk later in the parsha (17:3-4)

וַיִּצְמָא שָׁם הָעָם לַמַּיִם וַיָּלֶן הָעָם עַל מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמֶר לָמָּה זֶּה הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם לְהָמִית אֹתִי וְאֶת בָּנַי וְאֶת מִקְנַי בַּצָּמָא

וַיִּצְעַק מֹשֶׁה אֶל ה׳ לֵאמֹר מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לָעָם הַזֶּה עוֹד מְעַט וּסְקָלֻנִי

Aside from the word לֵאמֹר being redundant, the pasuk is a stirah minei u'bei. On the one hand, it talks about וַיִּצְעַק מֹשֶׁה, a lashon of tefilah, אֶל ה׳, Y-K-V-K, the midas ha'rachamim. Yet in the very same pasuk, Moshe sounds like he throws the people under the bus and complains that they are out to get him מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לָעָם הַזֶּה עוֹד מְעַט וּסְקָלֻנִי. Netziv asks: אין לשון ״ויצעק״ מורה כי אם על תפלה, וכאן לא כתיב אלא דברי תרעומות, והכי מיבעי ׳ויאמר משה׳ כמו בספר במדבר (יא,יא) במעשה דמתאוים

Netziv answers (see also haKsav veHaKabbalah) that Moshe did pray for the people, but at the same time, he felt his own life was in danger, and therefore was forced to ask Hashem for protection from the mob at the same time:

אלא מכאן למדו חז״ל במכילתא שהתפלל משה על המים, כמשמעו, והכי תניא: ״ויצעק משה״ – ללמדך שבחו של משה, שלא אמר הואיל שהם מדיינין עמי איני מבקש עליהם רחמים, אלא ״ויצעק משה״ (עכ״ל). אלא בתוך התפלה היו גם דברים אלו שיעשה למענו, שהרי הוא מסוכן, ובאו הדברים בכתוב מפני התשובה של ה׳

Based on the Divrei Shaul, I would say that even as Moshe was in fact verbally (hence the לֵאמֹר) chastising the people, in his heart, וַיִּצְעַק מֹשֶׁה אֶל ה׳ (and this is why it deliberately uses that phrase of וַיִּצְעַק ַand not ויאמר משה like in Bamidbar), he was crying out to Hashem to have mercy on them.

The Rambam writes in Hil Deyos (2:3)

וְאִם רָצָה לְהַטִיל אֵימָה עַל בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵיתוֹ, אוֹ עַל הַצִּבּוּר - אִם הָיָה פַּרְנָס וְרָצָה לִכְעֹס עֲלֵיהֶן כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ לְמוּטָב - יַרְאֶה עַצְמוֹ בִּפְנֵיהֶם שֶׁהוּא כוֹעֵס כְּדֵי לְיַסְּרָם וְתִהְיֶה דַּעְתּוֹ מְיֻשֶּׁבֶת בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ, כְּאָדָם שֶׁהוּא מִדַּמֶּה כוֹעֵס בִּשְׁעַת כַּעְסוֹ וְהוּא אֵינוֹ כוֹעֵס.

A leader sometimes has to put on a public face of anger and disapproval, but in his heart, he must remain calm. In Moshe's case, it went beyond that. His heart remained filled with love for his people, filled with prayer on their behalf, even has he verbally chastised them for their misdeeds.

What is the take away for us? That rebellious teenager may not be as rebellious on the inside as he seems on the outside. And the anger a parent/teacher may be showing on the outside may not really reflect the deep love that exists on the inside.

the chronology of the makkos and the mitzvah of kiddush ha'chodesh

Apologies for writing a bit b'kitzur this week.

The challenge of figuring out the chronology of the makkos is getting three facts to fit together:

1) The mishna in Ediyot that tells us that the judgment of the Mitzrim took place over one year.

2) The gemara in Rosh haShana tells us that the shibud let up on Rosh haShana

3) Rashi quotes from Chazal that each makkah lasted a week after which there was a three week break = 1 month in total.

10 makkos of 1 month each = 10 months, not a year, so what do you do with the mishna in Ediyot?  If the makkos forced the Mitzrim to end the shibud, then shouldn't Pesach coincide with Rosh haShana, since acc to the gemara in R"H that is when slavery ended?  The facts at hand seem to contradict each other.

One approach is that of Tos/Maharasha in Rosh haShana.  According to this view, Moshe came to Pharoah in Nissan, but the Egyptians continued to subjugate the Jews, despite their being hit with makkos.  The forced labor of shibud only ended on Rosh haShana, and culminated with total freedom being granted in Nissan.  Even though each makkah took 1 month to run its course, the makkos did not follow back to back -- there was a gap of a few days between them, so that 10 makkos were spread over 12 months in total.

Ramban has a different view.  He writes in our parsha that the last three makkos all took place in Nissan.  Barad destroyed the early blossoms on the trees in Adar, but the trees themselves were still unharmed until arbeh came and finished them off in Nissan.  (According to Tos view that the makkos were at least a month long, barad would have to have happened in Teives.  Teivis is in the middle of winter and nothing is growing, so what crops and blossoms could have been destroyed?)  Chasam Sofer explains that according to this view, the makkos began on Rosh haShana, and that is what forced the Egyptians to terminate the shibud then.  The idea of the judgment of the Mitzrim taking a full year (the mishna in Ediyot) is counting from the first time Moshe came before Pharoah, not from the start of the makkos.  How do you fit 7 makkos in the 6 months between R"H and Nissan?  Chasam Sofer answers that it must have been a leap year, and so there would have been seven months in between those dates.

This Chasam Sofer puzzles me.  The reason we have a leap year is in order to keep the lunar and solar calendars in sync.  More specifically, because there is a din that Pesach must fall out in "chodesh ha'aviv," the spring.  If you have a lular calendar that is not synced with the solar calendar by adding leap months (e.g. if I am not mistaken, this is the calendar of the Islamic religion), then lunar months can drift between different seasons.  By adding a leap month approximately once every three years, we ensure that Nissan is always in the spring.  What sense does any of this make before yetzi'as Mitzrayim has happened, before we have been commanded "shamor es chodesh ha'aviv" to make sure to celebrate Pesach in the spring?!  Chasam Sofer is disussing the chronology of the year prior to yetzi'as Mitzrayim.  There is not yet a holiday of Pesach to schedule in any season, so why should there have been any concern about keeping the two calendars, lunar and solar, in sync?

If someone has a better approach, I would appreciate hearing it, but here is my thought: Had you asked me, I would have said that before we were given the mitzvah of kiddush ha'chodesh, there was no such thing as a halachic calendar.  We could have followed the Mayan calendar, the Chinese calendar, the Julian calendar, or made up something from scratch.  However, this does not seem to be the case.  There is a Pirkei d'Rabbi Elazar (ch 8) which writes that the sod ha'ibbur was given to Adam haRishon:

בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁמוֹנֶה בֶּאֱלוּל נִבְרְאוּ חַמָּה וּלְבָנָה. וּמִנְיָן שֶׁהוּא שָׁנִים וְחֳדָשִׁים וְיָמִים וְלֵילוֹת שָׁעוֹת וְקִצִּים וּתְקוּפוֹת וּמַחְזוֹרוֹת וְעִבּוּרִין הָיוּ לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, וְהָיָה מְעַבֵּר אֶת הַשָּׁנָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְסָרָן לְאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּגַן עֵדֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ה, א): ״זֶה סֵפֶר תּוֹלְדֹת אָדָם״, מִנְיַן עוֹלָם לְכָל תּוֹלְדוֹת בְּנֵי אָדָם.

And it was then passed b'mesorah until it got to the Avos.  So there was a halachic calendar, with leap years, etc. even before the mitzvah of kiddush ha'chodesh was given.  What then was the chiddush of the mitzvah?  I think what you have to say is that the mitzvah did not create the calendar we use, but rather the chiddush of the mitzvah is that we, Klal Yisrael, have been granted control over the calendar.  Whether there will be a leap year or not is entirely up to us to decide.  The mitzvah empowered us as a people, which is the first step in the transition from slavery to freedom.  It is that idea of empowerment which is why this mitzvah is in our parsha, as part of the story of yetzi'as Mitzrayim. 

a question that need not be answered

Last week's parsha ended with Moshe questioning Hashem: לָמָה הֲרֵעֹתָה לָעָם הַזֶּה לָמָּה זֶּה שְׁלַחְתָּנִי.

Why, wondered Moshe, did Hashem send him to demand the release of Bn"Y when the time was not yet ripe for that to happen? Why send him now when things are only going to get worse before they can become better?

Our parsha opens with Hashem's reaction and response:

וָאֵרָא אֶל אַבְרָהָם אֶל יִצְחָק וְאֶל יַעֲקֹב בְּקל שַׁדָּי וּשְׁמִי ה׳ לֹא נוֹדַעְתִּי לָהֶם

How does that address Moshe's question of why he was sent prematurely?

We find another question in this week's parsha that also seems to go unanswered. When Bn"Y reject Moshe and his message, he turns to Hashem and makes a kal v'chomer (6:12):

הֵן בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא שָׁמְעוּ אֵלַי וְאֵיךְ יִשְׁמָעֵנִי פַרְעֹה וַאֲנִי עֲרַל שְׂפָתָיִם

The parsha then continues:

וַיְדַבֵּר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן וַיְצַוֵּם אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶל פַּרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרָיִם לְהוֹצִיא אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם

What is the answer to Moshe's argument? It sounds like Hashem just reiterates what Moshe's mission is. As Ohr haChaim puts it:

עוד קשה היכן תשובת אל עליון לדברי שלוחו, ומה גם שטען טענה הנשמעת, ולו יהיה שטעה וק״ו אינו ק״ו, היה לו לסתור דבריו,

Rashi sounds like he tries to deal with this issue: לפי שאמר משה: אני ערל שפתים (שמות ו׳:י״ב), צירף הקב״ה את אהרן עמו להיות לו למליץ It's not clear what Rashi means, as already in last week's parsha Hashem had designated Aharon to serve as Moshe's spokesman to help convey his message, and still Moshe complained that he was not being heard (see Malbim).

R' Aharon Soloveitchik writes that in fact Hashem here does not offer any answer Moshe's kal v'chomer. Kal v'chomer is a law of logic. It is one of the 13 midos that a person can darshan without a mesorah, based solely on deductive reasoning. Using the kelim of logic, of reasoning, Moshe's argument makes perfect sense and is entirely justified. Yet, at the same time, his argument is also immaterial. The destiny of Bn"Y transcends logic and reasoning. It takes place on a different plane altogether, as we have seen time and again in our history.

Rav Kook writes in a famous letter (555) to the Ridbaz that there are two forces that guide Jewish  destiny: segulah and bechira

ידע הדר"ג, ששני דברים עיקריים ישנם שהם יחד בונים קדושת-ישראל וההתקשרות האלהית עמהם.

הא' הוא סגולה, כלומר טבע הקדושה שבנשמת ישראל מירושת אבות, כאמור: "לא בצדקתך וגו'" "רק באבותיך חשק ד' לאהבה אותם ויבחר בזרעם אחריהם", "והייתם לי סגולה מכל העמים"; והסגולה הוא כוח קדוש פנימי מונח בטבע-הנפש ברצון ד', כמו טבע כל דבר מהמציאות, שאי-אפשר לו להשתנות כלל, "כי הוא אמר ויהי", "ויעמידם לעד לעולם".

והב' הוא ענין-בחירה, זה תלוי במעשה הטוב ובתלמוד-תורה.

Moshe was looking at the world through the lens of bechira. Would the people choose to listen to him? Would Pharoah choose to listen to him and free Bn"Y? Or as he asked in last week's parsha, would the people deserve redemption? But that is only half the picture. The fate of Klal Yisrael is governed by segulah, but a mystical connection with Hashem that bends history to its arc and goal irrespective of the choices or actions we ourselves make or the choices others make and impose upon us.

Shem m'Shmuel (5671) suggests that this is the answer Hashem was giving Moshe at the opening of our parsha. The Avos sought to reveal Hashem's presence in the material world of teva. "Who is the baal ha'birah, asked Avahram, "The creator of the universe, the world and everything in it?" In other words, Avraham was out to prove that G-d is the one who governs this thing called teva. But, “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” וּשְׁמִי ה׳ לֹא נוֹדַעְתִּי לָהֶם to introduce Hashem as beyond teva. That was the role of Moshe Rabeinu. The experience of additional suffering by Bn"Y was not in spite of Moshe's arrival, but it was because of Moshe's arrival. The new giluy of Hashem as transcendent, as not just baal ha'teva but l'maaleh min ha'teva, requires tikkun, requires Bn"Y earning that realization, the suffering became more intense rather than less.

geulah delayed is geulah denied

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hadlakas menorah as a kiyum of binyan mikdash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This yesod helps explain a few chanukah halachos:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

וַיָּבֹא אֲלֵיהֶם יוֹסֵף בַּבֹּקֶר וַיַּרְא אֹתָם וְהִנָּם זֹעֲפִים

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

kesones pasim and distinctive dress

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

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

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

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

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

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

tefilah makes a world of difference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the amazing answer of the R' Bachyei:

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

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

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

hiding right under Eisav's nose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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