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.