bal tigra (II)

Yesterday we saw that the Turei Even understood the Rashba to be saying that failing to fulfill a mitzvah would be a violation of bal tigra.  Turei Even argued that this is incorrect.  It's doing a mitzvah in an incomplete way which is bal tigra, not failing to do the mitzvah at all.

The T.E. raised two questions.  I want to focus on the second one.  He proved his point from a gemara in Sukkah :

אמר מר לא מצא אתרוג לא יביא לא רמון ולא פריש ולא דבר אחר פשיטא מהו דתימא לייתי כי היכי שלא תשכח תורת אתרוג קמ"ל זימנין דנפיק חורבא מיניה דאתי למסרך

The gemara has a hava amina that if there is no esrog available, take some other fruit so that you at least remember that there is a mitzvah of lulav and will do it properly next year.  According to the Rashba, how can you have such a hava amina?  Taking only 3 of the 4 minim does not fulfill the mitzvah, so it would violate bal tigra.  Can you violate a lav just to have a zecher?!

My wife's grandfather quotes a solution to this question in the name of his BIL R' Yosef Holzberg which is echoed by the Sefas Emes in his chiddushim on R"H.  When you have an incomplete mitzvah and are in violation of bal tigra, yesh lachkor the following lomdish chakira: does the issur stem from what you are *doing*, or does the issur stem from what you have *failed to do*?  Is it the mitzvah action which is the problem because it will prove to be defective; or is the piece that you left out which is the issue? 

The answer is black on white if you read the classic case of bal tigra (R"H 28) carefully:

דתנן הניתנין במתנה אחת שנתערבו בניתנין מתנה אחת ינתנו מתנה אחת מתן ד' במתן ד' ינתנו במתן ד' מתן ד' במתן אחת ר"א אומר ינתנו במתן ד' רבי יהושע אומר ינתנו במתן אחת אמר לו ר"א הרי הוא עובר על בל תגרע אמר לו ר' יהושע הרי הוא עובר על בל תוסיף א"ל ר"א לא נאמר בל תוסיף אלא כשהוא בעצמו אמר לו ר' יהושע לא נאמר בל תגרע אלא כשהוא בעצמו ועוד אמר רבי יהושע כשלא נתת עברת על בל תגרע ולא עשית מעשה בידך כשנתת עברת על בל תוסיף ועשית מעשה בידך

 

R' Yehoshua's argument is that bal tigra entails no action:  ועוד אמר רבי יהושע כשלא נתת עברת על בל תגרע ולא עשית מעשה בידך.  If the issue was with what you are doing, the incomplete act, it would be a lav which has a maaseh.  לא עשית מעשה בידך implies that it's what's being left out which is the issue.

 

Coming back to the Turei Even's proof from the gemara in sukkah: Had the issur of bal tigra been the action that will remain incomplete, then taking the lulav, taking the hadas, the arava, would be a problem.  But the issur of bal tigra is in what you are missing, not what you are doing.   In this case, what can you do if no esrog is available?  Ones Rachmana patrei!  Maybe Rashba is right, that missing an entire mitzvah potentially is bal tigra, but in this particular case you would still be off the hook.

I have a thought experiment to help illustrate this point: The halacha says that you only have to spend up to 20% of your money to fulfill a mitzvas aseh and no more, but you have to give up every penny to avoid violating a lav.  Let's say a lulav and esrog will cost more than 20% of my money.  I should be exempt from the mitzvah.  But if I don't fulfill the mitzvah, according to Rashba, won't I be in violation of the lav of bal tigra, and therefore shouldn't I have to give up every penny to avoid the lav?

It must be that since the halacha says that I don't have to spend more than 20%, I'm not in violation of the lav if I don't do the mitzvah.  So too, the same holds true if no esrog is available, I'm not in violation of anything if it is missing because I have a ptur ones.  

 

This chiddush helps us with all kinds of things.  The Minchas Chinuch (see Aruch haShulchan as well) discusses whether there is any value to eating 1/2 a k'zayis of matzah if you don't have enough for a full shiur.  There is a concept of chatzi shiur by issurim.  Is there a similar concept by a kiyum mitzvah?  According to the Rashba, the whole question shouldn't even get off the ground.  If you fail to fulfill the mitzvah, you run the risk of bal tigra! 

 

The Chashmonaim found only enough oil for one day.  The Beis Yosef suggests that having no other choice, they divided what they had into 8 parts.  Miraculously, the oil burned throughout the night on each night even though it was far less than the shiur.  According to the Rashba, what was their hava amina?  Barring the miracle, wouldn't they be violating bal tigra by lighting less than the required shiur and failing to do a proper hadlaka? 

 

The answer is the same for all these examples.  Do what you can because the issur of bal tigra is not in what you are doing, it's in what you are leaving out.  Like in the case of esrog, in these cases you have no other choice than to not complete the mitzvah and leave something out -- you are in a situation of ones.  Therefore, there is no chiyuv bal tigra on what's missing.

 

The final example of the Sefas Emes is wearing tzitzis without techeiles.  There is no bal tigra because you are ones; techeiles is not available.  Therefore, you cannot be chayav for doing an incomplete mitzvah. That argument may have held true in the time of the Sefas Emes, but today, techeiles IS available.  Even if you are not 100% it is the right thing, what's the downside, given that not wearing it might put you in the bind and in violation of bal tigra? 

Turei Even on bal tigra (I)

I'm going to try to do this in two parts this week because the topic is pretty long.

The issur of bal tosif appears both in our parsha and earlier in parshas va'eschanan.  The GR"A (quoted by Torah Temima in va'eschanan) suggests that we have two pesukim because there are two different types of bal tosif: 1) creating/adding a new mitzvah which does not appear in the Torah; 2) changing the parameters of a mitzvah that does appear in the Torah and adding to it, e.g. adding an extra parsha in tefillin. 

 

Rashi does not seem to subscribe to this distinction.  In fact, he seems to not distinguish between the two pesukim at all.  Rashi comments in our parsha (13:1) לא תסף עליו – חמש טוטפות, חמשה מינין בלולב, ארבע ברכות לברכת כהנים and in va'eschanan (4:2) he comments לא תוסיפו – כגון: חמש פרשיות בתפילין, חמשת מינין בלולב, חמש ציציות.  The two comments are *almost* word for word the same.  I highlight *almost* because every stroke of ink in Rashi makes a difference, and here the slight difference in Rashi's words may in fact point to the difference between the two commands.  See Gur Aryeh; the L Rebbe also has a brilliant sicha on this Rashi.

 

Something like 20 years ago I did a post on a machlokes Tos and Rashba with regards to bal tosif.  Tos asks why blowing tekiyos d'meyushav on R"H is not a violation of bal tosif?  Aren't we adding to what the Torah requires?  Tos is mechadesh that that doing a mitzvah repeatedly is not bal tosif.  The Rashba gives what seems a far simpler answer: you can't incur bal tosif when you are fulfilling a takana derabbanan.  The Torah gives license to Chazal (lo tasur -- next week's parsha) to make takanos and gezeiros.  If you are following what Chazal mandate, there cannot be bal tosif.  This is such a fundamental yesod that one has to wonder why Tos did not offer this answer, and for that you can read some of the previous posts.

 

As to why Chazal are not in violation of bal tosif, the Rambam in Hil Mamrim explains that halacha clearly demarcates between Rabbinic law and Torah law.  Since a takana cannot be mistaken to be a Torah law, it is not bal tosif.

 

This year I want to turn to the conclusion of the Rashba and the issur of bal tigra.  Rashba adds that just like a takana to do something cannot be a violation of bal tosif, a takana *not to do something* cannot be bal tigra, e.g. when Chazal mandated that we do not blow shofar on Shabbos, this subtraction from the mitzvah is not a bal tigra problem.

 

The Turei Even asks two questions on this Rashba:

 

1) Bal tigra doesn't mean missing doing a mitzvah once; it means erasing a mitzvah permanently from the list of 613 things to do.  Were that not the case, then any time someone misses doing a mitzvah they would be in violation of bal tigra.  Someone who, for example, neglected to put on tefillin, should get malkos for bal tigra in addition to the bitul aseh.  That obviously can't be. 

 

When Chazal said not to blow shofar on Shabbos, they were not erasing the mitzvah of shofar.  They were telling you to skip it that one time.  Hence, no bal tigra.

 

2) Turei Even argues that bal tigra doesn't mean failing to do a mitzvah.  What it means is failing to do a mitzvah *in a complete way.*  The mitzvah is still valid, just incomplete.  A classic case (R"H 28b):

 

דתנן הניתנין במתנה אחת שנתערבו בניתנין מתנה אחת ינתנו מתנה אחת מתן ד' במתן ד' ינתנו במתן ד' מתן ד' במתן אחת ר"א אומר ינתנו במתן ד' רבי יהושע אומר ינתנו במתן אחת אמר לו ר"א הרי הוא עובר על בל תגרע אמר לו ר' יהושע הרי הוא עובר על בל תוסיף א"ל ר"א לא נאמר בל תוסיף אלא כשהוא בעצמו אמר לו ר' יהושע לא נאמר בל תגרע אלא כשהוא בעצמו ועוד אמר רבי יהושע כשלא נתת עברת על בל תגרע ולא עשית מעשה בידך כשנתת עברת על בל תוסיף ועשית מעשה בידך

 

A korban which requires מתן ד is kosher if you sprinkle only מתן אחת; it just hasn't been performed 100% the way it should have been.  In that case, the issue of bal tigra comes up.  However, let's say you had a korban and didn't do zerikas ha'dam at all.  That's not bal tigra -- that's a pasul korban!  That's a bitul aseh of offering korban. 

 

The Turei Even proves his case from the following gemara (Sukkah 31b):

 

אמר מר לא מצא אתרוג לא יביא לא רמון ולא פריש ולא דבר אחר פשיטא מהו דתימא לייתי כי היכי שלא תשכח תורת אתרוג קמ"ל זימנין דנפיק חורבא מיניה דאתי למסרך

 

The gemara has a hava amina that if there is no esrog available, take some other fruit so that you at least remember that there is a mitzvah of lulav and will do it properly next year.

 

Turei Even asks: according to the Rashba, how can you have such a hava amina?  Taking only 3 of the 4 minim means failing to fulfill the mitzvah, which according to Rashba  bal tigra.  You can't violate a lav just so you have a zecher?!

 

It must be that there is no bal tigra in this case because since you are missing the esrog, you are not fulfilling any mitzvah.  It's not just an *incomplete* kiyum; it's a nothing kiyum.  When you are missing the mitzvah entirely, that’s' not bal tigra. 

 

This question is not only a problem for the Rashba, but is a problem in shitas Rashi as well.  Rashi explains that bal tosif is something like adding a parsha to tefillin; bal tigra is the inverse, i.e. taking a parsha away.  That's not an *incomplete* kiyum; it's a nothing, and like the Turei Even proves, there is no bal tigra on doing a nothing. 

100 brachos

Menachos 43b:

 תניא היה רבי מאיר אומר חייב אדם לברך מאה ברכות בכל יום, שנאמר ועתה ישראל מה ה' אלקיך שואל מעמך

 

The Midrash writes (and this is quoted in the Tur OC 46 in the name of Geonim) that the source for reciting 100 brachos is a takana by David haMelech in response to the plague that afflicted Bn"Y after he counted them.  Somehow you have to square that with the gemara's derasha from our parsha.

 

In any event, someone recently asked me whether you start counting the 100 brachos from nighttime, or whether you start counting from the morning. 

 

B'pashtus, the rule in halacha in that day follows night, so off the cuff my guess was that you start from the night. 

 

However, Rambam in hil tefilah 7:14 writes:

 

חייב אדם לברך מאה ברכות בין היום והלילה ומה הן מאה ברכות אלו ך"ג ברכות שמנינו בפרק זה. ושבע ברכות של קריאת שמע של שחרית וערבית לפניה ולאחריה. וכשמתעטף בציצית מברך ברוך אתה ה׳ אלקינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להתעטף בציצית. וכשלובש תפילין מברך ברוך אתה ה׳ אלקינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו להניח תפילין. ושלש תפלות שבכל תפלה מהן שמנה עשרה ברכות הרי שמונים ושש ברכות. וכשהוא אוכל שתי סעודות של יום והלילה מברך ארבע עשרה ברכות. שבע בכל סעודה. אחת כשיטול ידיו תחלה. ועל המזון אחת בתחלה ושלש בסוף ועל היין לפניו ולאחריו הרי שבע ברכות הרי מאה ברכות בין הכל:

 

The Rambam's expression of היום והלילה implies that night follows day.  Similarly, he talks about שבע ברכות של קריאת שמע של שחרית וערבית , putting shacharis first. אוכל שתי סעודות של יום והלילה, he puts the day meal first. 

 

So much for my off the cuff guess.  The MG"A made me feel a little better.  MG"A 46:8 discusses what to do on a taanis where you miss a meal and are thereby missing brachos, and claims that you still have 100:

 

כתב הרב״י אנן מברכין בכל יום ק״ה ברכות אך בתענית חסרו ח׳ ברכות נמצא יש צ״ח ברכות עכ״ל וטעות סופר הוא דאינן אלא צ״ז ולדידן שמברכין גם הנותן ליעף כח ועל תפילין ב׳ ברכות הרי צ״ט וגם ברכת יראו עינינו לא מנה הרב״י וא״כ הוי ק׳

 

However, when you start fasting from the night before, like Y"K or 9 Av, you have a problem:

 

אף ביום התענית ומי שמפסיק מבעוד יום התעני׳ חסר עוד ח׳ ברכות מסעוד׳ א׳

 

The problem only exists because the MG"A assumes that day follows night, and so you end up missing 2 meals in one period.  If night followed day, there would be no issue.

 

There is literature on this in shu"t.  I just wanted to setup the problem.

 

Achronim are bothered by what the connection is between the pasuk ועתה ישראל מה ה' אלקיך שואל מעמךand the din of 100 brachos.  There is another famous question on this pasuk that the Midrash already touches on.  עתה ישראל מה ה׳ אלקיך שאל מעמך כי אם ליראה את ה׳ אלקיך ללכת בכל דרכיו ולאהבה אתו ולעבד את ה׳ אלקיך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך.  The pasuk sounds like Hashem just wants one thing from us -- yiras Shamayim -- but then it gives a whole laundry list of other items.  Both questions can be knocked off in one shot.

 

What happens when we say a bracha?  A farmer, for example, plants an apple tree and works so hard to tend to it until it finally produces fruit.  Instead of celebrating his success, just before he takes a bite, he does an anti-Al Gore and says, "I didn't build that.  Hashem, you are the one who is borei pri ha'eitz."  All the hard work is just to allow Hashem the opportunity to do things through derech ha'teva and produce that apple.

 

Sefas Emes (5632) explains that all of the midos that the pasuk asks us to achieve are really given to us by Hashem on a silver platter.  For example, we don't have to create love for G-d yesh mei'ayin in our hearts and turn on an emotion that we lack.  We are born with a proclivity to ahavas Hashem; we just have to remove all the impediments in our heart and mind that block it from expressing itself.  We have to just allow ourselves to be who we truly are.  The catch is that the ball starts rolling with yiras Shamayim.  We are just like the farmer.  It seems like we are doing everything, but we are just taking that first step of yiras Shamayim, the step of acknowledging that Hashem is really the one in charge.  If we do that, then He will take care of the rest.  The din of 100 brachos is the explanation for מה ה׳ אלקיך שאל מעמך כי אם ליראה followed by that long list of demands.

 

Once 9 Av and T"u b'Av passed we already start looking toward Rosh haShana.  It's not by coincidence that we blow 100 shofar blasts, same number as 100 brachos (see Yismach Moshe).  Our year has to start by with the acknowledgment that everything that will happen over the next 12 months is all yad Hashem.  It may look like we are doing all the work, but He is really running the show.

there is something worse than getting punished

 (8:19) וְהָיָ֗ה אִם־שָׁכֹ֤חַ תִּשְׁכַּח֙ אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ וְהָֽלַכְתָּ֗ אַֽחֲרֵי֙ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֲחֵרִ֔ים וַֽעֲבַדְתָּ֖ם וְהִשְׁתַּֽחֲוִ֣יתָ לָהֶ֑ם הַֽעִדֹ֤תִי בָכֶם֙ הַיּ֔וֹם כִּ֥י אָבֹ֖ד תֹּֽאבֵדֽוּן:

Chazal tell us אין וְהָיָ֗ה אלא לשׁון שׁל שׂמחה.  B'shlama the first pasuk in our sidra, וְהָיָ֣ה עֵ֣קֶב תִּשְׁמְע֗וּן אֵ֤ת הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים֙ הָאֵ֔לֶּה,the word ְהָיָ֣ה is used to tell us, as the Ohr haChaim explains at length, that true simcha is when we manage to fulfill all the mitzvos top to bottom.  The Ishbitzer connects the simcha to the fact that the pasuk singles out mishpatim, not chukim or eidot:

אֵין וְהָיָה אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן שִׂמְחָה כִּדְאִיתָא בַּגְּמָ' (בראשית רבה פרשה מ"ב,ד'), עֵקֶב הַיְינוּ לַסּוֹף, וְהוּא כִּי לֶעָתִיד יְגַלֶּה הַש"י לְעֵין כֹּל, וְכָל נֶפֶשׁ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל יָבִין כִּי לֹא הָיָה שׁוּם חֻקָּה בְּלִי טַעַם... כִּי הַכֹּל הָיָה בְּמִשְׁפָּט

Meshech Chochma similarly notes that after 40 years in the desert learning Torah and experiencing overt miracles, even chukim seem like mishpatim.  Under those circumstances there is good reason for simcha.   How, however, does simcha make sense in the context of our pasuk?  What kind of simcha is there in אִם־שָׁכֹ֤חַ תִּשְׁכַּח֙ אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ...הַֽעִדֹ֤תִי בָכֶם֙ הַיּ֔וֹם כִּ֥י אָבֹ֖ד תֹּֽאבֵדֽוּן?  We should be weeping, not celebrating! 

 

Just over a week ago before Tisha b'Av I posted the following Midrash ():

 

חֵ֤טְא חָֽטְאָה֙ יְר֣וּשָׁלַ֔͏ִם עַל־כֵּ֖ן לְנִידָ֣ה הָיָ֑תָה (Eicha 1:8)

 

The Midrash asks: ?אומות העולם אינן חוטאים  Do we have a monopoly on sin?

 

Chazal answer: אלא אע"פ שחוטאין אינן כלום, אבל ישראל חטאו ולקו

Is it fair that only we get punished and the umos get off scott free?

 

When a child gets punishment by his parent or his teacher, the child thinks that there is nothing worse than that.  However, the truth is there is something much worse than punishment, and that is indifference. 

 

The child in the moment may be happy to get away with his infraction, but in the bigger picture, he loses out.  He loses out on someone who can celebrate his successes, cry with him on his failures, guide him through difficulties, and someone who will always at least pretend : ) to share his interests.  That's the price of indifference.  In the long wrong, a little punishment now and then for wrongdoing is but a small price to pay for the benefits gained by having someone's attention and guidence.

 

By the rest of the world, אע"פ שחוטאין אינן כלום, Hashem's attitude is one of indifference.  Whether they do wrong or whether they do right, it's all the same. When it comes to us, אבל ישראל חטאו ולקו, because Hashem cares.

 

תנו רבנן הנעלבין ואינן עולבים שומעין חרפתן ואין משיבין עושין מאהבה ושמחין ביסורין עליהן הכתוב אומר ואוהביו כצאת השמש בגבורתו (Gittin 36b)  Chazal heap praise on the person who can rejoice amidst yisurim.  Why should someone rejoice when they are suffering when Chazal elsewhere (Shabbos 55a) tell us אין יסורין בלא עון?  The fact that Hashem brings suffering on a person is an indication that they are on the wrong track, which is not something to be happy about!

 

The Tiferes Banim answers that yisurim may be painful, but there is cause for rejoicing in that Hashem shows that He cares enough to put a person back on the right track.

 

Our pasuk is describing a painful situation of a person who leaves the fold and gets a smack, but we have to accept the smack in the spirit of וְהָיָ֗ה, a lashon of simcha, because indifference would be worse than punishment.

concealed plans

 Yalkut Shimoni 814:

 דָּבָר אַחֵר: אָמַר מֹשֶׁה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, עַצְמוֹתָיו שֶׁל יוֹסֵף נִכְנָסִין לָאָרֶץ וַאֲנִי אֵינִי נִכְנָס. אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, מִי שֶׁהוֹדָה בְּאַרְצוֹ, אֲדוֹנָתוֹ אָמְרַת לוֹ (בראשית ל״ט:י״ד) ״רְאוּ הֵבִיא לָנוּ אִישׁ עִבְרִי״ וְאֵינוֹ כוֹפֵר אֶלָּא אָמַר (שם מ׳:ט״ו) ״כִּי גֻּנֹב גֻּנַבְתִּי מֵאֶרֶץ הָעִבְרִים״, אַתָּה שֶׁלֹּא הוֹדֵיתָ בְּאַרְצְךָ, בְּנוֹת יִתְרוֹ אוֹמְרוֹת (שמות ב׳:י״ט) ״אִישׁ מִצְרִי הִצִּילָנוּ״ וְאַתָּה שׁוֹמֵעַ וְשׁוֹתֵק, לְפִיכָךְ אֵין אַתָּה נִקְבָּר בְּאַרְצְךָ

 

אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אִם אַתָּה נִקְבָּר אֶצְלָן, בִּזְכוּתְךָ הֵן בָאִין עִמְּךָ. מָשָׁל לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה לְאֶחָד שֶׁנִּתְפַּזְּרוּ מָעוֹתָיו בִּמְקוֹם אֲפֵלָה אָמַר אִם אֲנִי אוֹמֵר הָאִירוּ לִי שֶׁאֲלַקֵּט מָעוֹתַי אֵין כָּל בְּרִיָּה מַשְׁגַּחַת עָלַי, מֶה עָשָׂה, נָטַל זָהוּב אֶחָד וְהִשְׁלִיכוֹ בְּתוֹכָן וְהִתְחִיל צוֹוֵחַ וְאוֹמֵר בְּבַקָּשָׁה מִכֶּם, הָאִירוּ לִי, זָהוּב אֶחָד הָיָה לִי וְנָפַל מִמֶּנִּי, בָּאוּ וְהֵאִירוּ לוֹ, מֶה עָשָׂה, מִשֶּׁנָּטַל אֶת הַזָּהוּב לִקֵּט מָעוֹתָיו. כָּךְ אֲמַר לֵיהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אִם נִקְבָּר אַתָּה בַּמִּדְבָּר הֵן בָּאִים בִּזְכוּתְךָ וְאַתָּה בָּא בְרֹאשָׁן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַיַּרְא רֵאשִׁית לוֹ כִּי שָׁם חֶלְקַת מְח(וֹ)קֵק סָפוּן וַיֵּתֶא רָאשֵׁי עָם״.

 

There is not a "davar achier..."  between the first half of the Midrash and the second.  It's all one pshat, one answer as to why Moshe's bones (Moshe himself could not enter Eretz Yisrael because of the cheir of Mei Meriva; his question was why he could not even be buried there) could not be brought into Eretz Yisrael for burial like Yosef's.  How do the two halves here connect?  It sounds like each statement could stand on its own as a reason.

 

Moshe began his prayer to Hashem  אַתָּ֤ה הַֽחִלּ֙וֹתָ֙ לְהַרְא֣וֹת אֶֽת־עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶ֨ת־גׇּדְלְךָ֔ וְאֶת־יָדְךָ֖ הַחֲזָקָ֑ה.  The Baal haTurim points out that the only other occurrence of the term  הַֽחִלּ֙וֹתָ֙ is in Megillas Esther, after Haman was forced to parade Mordechai around on the king's horse:

 

ויאמרו לו חכמיו וזרש אשתו אם מזרע היהודים מרדכי אשר החלות לנפל לפניו לא תוכל לו כי נפול תפול לפניו

 

Interestingly, the word לְהַרְא֣וֹת also appears only in Megillas Esther in two places:

 

להראות העמים והשרים את יפיה (1:11) when Vashti was ordered to appear

 

את פתשגן כתב הדת אשר נתן בשושן להשמידם נתן לו להראות את אסתר ולהגיד לה ולצוות עליה לבוא אל המלך להתחנן לו ולבקש מלפניו על עמה. (4:8) when Mordechai reveals to Esther what Haman is plotting and tells her that she must go and appeal to Achashveirosh.

 

How do the future events of the megillah connect to Moshe's tefillah in our parsha?

 

The Sanz Klausenberger in Shefa Chaim writes that had we been there to witness Esther being taken to the palace, we would have broken down in tears and called a kinus tefillah, a fast day, we would be singing "acheinu..." like for the hostages.  70 years seemed to have passed with no geulah, Achashveirosh's party was to celebrate our hopelessness, and now this happens for the icing on the cake.  Yet that was not Mordechai's reaction at all.  

 

וּבְכׇל יוֹם וָיוֹם מׇרְדֳּכַי מִתְהַלֵּךְ לִפְנֵי חֲצַר בֵּית הַנָּשִׁים לָדַעַת אֶת שְׁלוֹם אֶסְתֵּר וּמַה יֵּעָשֶׂה בָּהּ (2:11)

 

Mordechai every day visited the palace to check on what was going on and that's it.

 

Mordechai understood that as bad as things look, the midas ha'din always has rachamim couched within it.  Something is going to happen.  Something good is going to come out of this.  He may not have anticipated exactly how things would work out, but he trusted that things would work out and it would be through Esther.  What looks like the beginning of a tragedy is really the beginning of yeshu'a.

 

I think in the past I've quoted the Sefas Emes' comment on the pasuk ומרדכי ידע את כל אשר נעשה ויקרע מרדכי את בגדיו וילבש שק ואפר ויצא בתוך העיר ויזעק זעקה גדולה ומרה (4:1).  Says the Sefas Emes, ומרדכי ידע את כל אשר נעשה, he knew that in Shamayim everything that happens is l'tov, everything is part of the yeshu'a.  L'maaseh, the rest of us living on planet earth don't see it.  Therefore, despite knowing that at the end of the day things would somehow work out,  ויקרע מרדכי את בגדיו וילבש שק ואפר, Mordechai had to put on an act and behave like the rest of us and cry out in pain.

 

The gemara at the end of Makkos tells us that while everyone was crying, R' Akiva laughed when he saw foxes coming out of the makom mikdash.  R' Akiva was able to see how behind even the greatest tragedy there is rachamim, even when invisible to everyone else.

 

This is what Moshe was saying as well.  Hashem revealed Himself אֶ֨ת־גׇּדְלְךָ֔ וְאֶת־יָדְךָ֖ הַחֲזָקָ֑ה, with the midsa ha'din, but at the same time and in the very same action, it is את גדלך – זו מדת טובך, as Rashi explains.  On the one hand, Moshe is begging for mercy, for an "out" on the gzar din, yet on the other hand, as the Baal haTurim comments, ואתחנן – בגימטריא שירה, he is singing shirah because he knows that if the gzar din stands, it is l'tovah as well, just in a more concealed way.  Heads he wins, tails he wins.  It's just a matter of how it will play out.

 

Let's get back to the Yalkut Shimoni.  How can Moshe be blamed for the fact that the daughters of Yisro said to their father אִישׁ מִצְרִי הִצִּילָנו?  He wasn't even there when they were speaking! 

 

The Yismach Moshe quotes an amazing pshat from the Zohar on that pasuk of אִישׁ מִצְרִי הִצִּילָנו and even if you don't like anything else I wrote, you have to love this.  The אִישׁ מִצְרִי is not talking about Moshe at all.  The אִישׁ מִצְרִי is talking about the Mitzri in Egypt who raised his hand to strike a Jew, and as a result of that Moshe reacted and killed him with the Shem haMeforash, setting in motion the chain of events that would years later bring him to Yisro's house.  The daughters of Yisro of course didn't realize they were saying this, but a spark of ruach ha'kodesh came into their mouths and the right words came out.  It's that אִישׁ מִצְרִי who deserves the credit, because otherwise Moshe would not be there. 

 

The bnos Yisro didn't know what they were saying, but their words and the real meaning behind them was revealed to Moshe.  The significance of that Mitzri's actions would not be evident to an onlooker and is not even evident to us as we read it in chumash.  From Moshe's perspective at that moment, his life was ruined.  He was forced to leave the palace and become an outlaw.  But in the long run, look at how events unfolded.  Wow, if even this Mitzri who certainly had nothing of the sort in mind gets credit for saving the bnos Yisro, can you imagine the credit someone who goes into things trying to save people gets?

 

This is how the Yismach Moshe fits the two halves of the Yalkut together. For whatever reason, Hashem decided that the concealed rachamim of Moshe remaining outside Eretz Yisrael outweighs the benefit of the revealed rachamim he was requesting.  Although not immediately apparent, this was the greater benefit to Klal Yisrael.  Who are you, Moshe, to argue?  Didn't I reveal to you the true meaning of אִישׁ מִצְרִי הִצִּילָנוּ?  That Mitzri intended to harm, but nonetheless, he was the start of a chain of events that led to bnos Yisro being saved, and so he gets credit.  Kal v'chomer if you stay in chu"l so as to enable future generation to experience redemption, how great will your credit be. 

נַֽחֲמ֥וּ נַֽחֲמ֖וּ עַמִּ֑י יֹאמַ֖ר אֱלֹֽקיכֶֽם.  The ultimate nechama will come from אֱלֹֽקיכֶֽם, the midas ha'din, when we are zocheh to see just how all the events that we experience as tragedies will be revealed as having been l'tovah.