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.