learning hilchos ha'chag -- a din in talmud torah or a din on Y"T?

The gemara (Pesachim 6a) has a din that one is supposed to start to learn hilchos pesach 30 days before the chag שואלין ודורשין בהלכות הפסח קודם הפסח שלשים יום ר' שמעון בן גמליאל אומר שתי שבתות. The gemara on the last daf in Megillah gives a different time frame and says one is supposed to learn the laws of the chag on the chag itself ת"ר משה תיקן להם לישראל שיהו שואלין ודורשין בענינו של יום הלכות פסח בפסח הלכות עצרת בעצרת הלכות חג בחג. So which is it?

Ran answers, based on the girsa of the RI"F who had the text שואלין and not שואלין ודורשין, that the din of 30 days does not require you to learn hilchos ha'chag. All it means is that if two different peole pose shaylos to a Rav at the same time, one that has to do with the chag and one that does not, from 30 days before the holiday onward all questions that relate to the holiday take precedence. (see Biur Halacha in siman 429 who discusses this Ran at length. Rashi and Tos clearly do not learn this way).

The Beis Yosef answers that the din of 30 days applies only to chag haPesach, as there is a large body of complex laws that are associated with the chag. As I've written before, the laws of Pesach touch on every area. You have your orach chaim halachos of the chag, you have to know choshen mishpat to sell your chameitz properly, you have to know yoreh de'ah to get into the laws of koshering and taaroves. You maybe get off light in the even ha'ezer dept.

The simplest answer to the question I think is that it's not an either/or choice -- embrace the power of "and." You are obligated to learn the halachos 30 days beforehand and are also supposed do so on Y"T itself (see Tos Meg 4a). The only problem with this approach is that it begs the question of why one would need to study the halachos of the chag on the chag if one already covered that material beforehand.

To help resolve this problem Rav Wahrman in Orot Pesach points out that the Rambam does not formulate the gemara in Megilah's din as an obligation to specifically learn halacha. The Rambam in tefilah 13:8 writes:

ומשה תיקן להם לישראל שיהו קוראין בכל מועד ענינו. ושואלין ודורשין בענינו של יום בכל מועד ומועד.

While the gemara refers to הלכות פסח בפסח הלכות עצרת בעצרת הלכות חג בחג, the Rambam just refers to ענינו של יום, a far broader term that encompasses any time of limud.

The Rambam in hil megillah (1:13) gives us another clue to how he understood this din. Rambam tells us that when Purim falls out on Shabbos:

ושואלין ודורשין בהלכות פורים באותה שבת כדי להזכיר שהוא פורים:

The point of learning the ענינו של יום (and I am not sure why he does not use that phrase in hil megillah, which would have bolstered R' Wahrman's argument) is not to familiarize oneself with the halachos. If you don't know what to do after studying the laws for 30 days before the chag, it is a bit too late. Rather, the point is to help in the commemoration of Y"T -- להזכיר שהוא פורים. The same would seem to hold true with respect to learning on the other Yamim Tovim. It is like a pirsumei nisa din.

I would note as well that the Rambam doesn't quote the gemara's din in hil talmud torah, where you might have expected it to be, but rather it's in hilchos tefilah, in the context of telling us what kri'as haTorah should be read on each Y"T. Just like the specific kri'ah of the day reflects and helps establish the character of the day, so too, focusing one's learning on topic matter related to the chag helps establish the character of the day.

Apart from the Rambam's chiddush as to what content matter should be studied, Rav Wahrman suggests a second nafka minah to this approach. Rashi (Meg 4) comments שואלין ודורשין. מעמידין תורגמן לפני החכם לדרוש אגרת פורים ברבים: The learning done on the day of Y"T has to be a public shiur. If the point was simply to study and know halacha, it would suffice to study shulchan aruch in the privacy of one's home. However, if the point is pirsumei nisa, or pirsum ha'chag, it makes sense that it must be a public display.

It is striking to me that Rav Wahrman does not point out that the Yerushalmi seems to say the exact opposite.

שואלין בהלכות פסח בפסח הלכות עצרת בעצרת הלכות חג בחג בבית ועד שואלין קודם לשלשים יום

Pnei Moshe: שואלין בהלכות פסח בפסח. כ״א ואחד בביתו אבל בבית ועד שמתקבצין הרבה בביה״מ ללמוד שואלין קודם לשלשים יום

The Biur Halacha quotes Chok Yaakov as suggesting that this is the resolution to the Ran's question that we started weith. The din of learning 30 days before the chag means that the topic of the chsag is the curriculum in the beis medrash where the pubic gathers to learn. The din of learning hilchos ha'chag on the chag is what one does in private, in one's home.

Rav Wahrman does raise a problem with his chiddush based on the Yalkut Shimoni on VaYakehl, our parsha:

רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בַּעֲלֵי אַגָּדָה אוֹמְרִים. מִתְּחִלַּת הַתּוֹרָה וְעַד סוֹפָהּ אֵין בָּהּ פָּרָשָׁה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּרֹאשָׁהּ וַיַּקְהֵל אֶלָּא זֹאת בִּלְבַד, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, עֲשֵׂה לְךָ קְהִלּוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת, וּדְרֹשׁ לִפְנֵיהֶם בָּרַבִּים הִלְכוֹת שַׁבָּת, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּלְמְדוּ מִמְּךָ דּוֹרוֹת הַבָּאִים לְהַקְהִיל קְהִלּוֹת בְּכָל שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת וְלִכְנֹס בְּבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת לְלַמֵּד וּלְהוֹרוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה אִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּר כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא שְׁמִי הַגָּדוֹל מִתְקַלֵּס בֵּין בָּנַי, מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ, מֹשֶׁה תִּקֵּן לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיִּהְיוּ דּוֹרְשִׁין בְּעִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁל יוֹם, הִלְכוֹת פֶּסַח בַּפֶּסַח, הִלְכוֹת עֲצֶרֶת בָּעֲצֶרֶת, הִלְכוֹת הֶחָג בֶּחָג

The gemara describes Moshe's gathering of Bn"Y on Shabbos to teach them halachos, לְלַמֵּד וּלְהוֹרוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה אִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּר, and extrapolates from that to the chiyuv to do the same on Y"T. Sounds like the din of studying hilchos ha'chag on the chag is to know halacha, and not a pirsumei nisa like din.

Rav Wahrman says אכתי ישׁ לדון בּזה, but he doesn't explain further. My guess is that while his question highlights the words ְלַמֵּד וּלְהוֹרוֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה אִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּר, it does not do justice to the second half of that sentence: כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא שְׁמִי הַגָּדוֹל מִתְקַלֵּס בֵּין בָּנַי. That line suggests a motivation for learning that goes beyond simply knowing issur v'heter. It sounds like the purpose of the study of the halacha was to give shevach to Hashem, not the knowledge for its own sake.

A couple of years ago I suggested that this Yalkut is not a din in talmud torah, i.e. that the mitzvah of talmud torah requires greater committment on shabbos than on a weekday, but rather the Yalkut is a din in Shabbos, i.e. a Shabbos without torah is an incomplete kiyum of mitzvas Shabbos. It would be like Shabbos without kiddush, or Shabbos without cholent. The same is true of Y"T. The chiyuv to learn hilchos ha'chag 30 days before the chag is a din in talmud torah, but learning on the y"t is a kiyum in hil' Y"T. (See this post discussing R' Zolti's chiddush that talmud torah can be a kiyum in simchas Y"T).

a relationship that can endure stress

1) R' Moshe Wolfson suggests that the reason we read parshas parah before ha'chodesh is because parshas hachodesh represents the hischadshus of the new month of Nissan which heralds the geulah. Every time there is a his'orerus for geulah, it arouses a corresponding push back of kitrug. Why are we worthy of geulah?  Who says we deserve it?  We want to get ahead of the curve in responding to the kitrug. Maybe it's true -- maybe it makes no rational sense to say that we are worthy of geulah. But so what? We observe mitzvos like parah adumah that make no sense. Whether something makes sense or not is not the be-all and end-all of everything. 

2) In response to the cheit ha'eigel Hashem told Moshe that in place of His presence, going forward there would now be a malach (33:2-3).

וְשָׁלַחְתִּ֥י לְפָנֶ֖יךָ מַלְאָ֑ךְ ... כִּ֤י עַם־קְשֵׁה־עֹ֙רֶף֙ אַ֔תָּה פֶּן־אֲכֶלְךָ֖ בַּדָּֽרֶךְ

Moshe refused to accept that state of affairs. וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֵלָ֑יו אִם־אֵ֤ין פָּנֶ֙יךָ֙ הֹלְכִ֔ים אַֽל־תַּעֲלֵ֖נוּ מִזֶּֽה (33:14). Rashi explains: וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֵלָ֑יו אִם־אֵ֤ין פָּנֶ֙יךָ֙ הֹלְכִ֔ים אַֽל־תַּעֲלֵ֖נוּ מִזֶּֽה

Hashem agreed: וַיֹּ֤אמֶר ה׳ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה גַּ֣ם אֶת־הַדָּבָ֥ר הַזֶּ֛ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר דִּבַּ֖רְתָּ אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֑ה

Yet in the next perek, Moshe repeats the same request all over again: וַיֹּ֡אמֶר אִם־נָא֩ מָצָ֨אתִי חֵ֤ן בְּעֵינֶ֙יךָ֙ אֲדֹנָ֔י יֵֽלֶךְ־נָ֥א אֲדֹ־נָ֖י בְּקִרְבֵּ֑נוּ כִּ֤י עַם־קְשֵׁה־עֹ֙רֶף֙ ה֔וּא וְסָלַחְתָּ֛ לַעֲוֺנֵ֥נוּ וּלְחַטָּאתֵ֖נוּ וּנְחַלְתָּֽנוּ (34:9)

Hashem had already agreed to Moshe's request. Why is Moshe rehashing the same thing all over again?

Everyone knows the vort that Yom K-Purim is like Purim. In fact, it would seem that Purim is the greater holiday, as katan nitleh b'gadol. But, as my BIL R' Yochanan explained on Purim, there is a difference between them. Y"K is like you are in the dark, and suddenly a light is turned on and you can see everything clearly. That's what we feel like by neilah. At that moment all the petty things in life feel like exactly that -- petty, insignificant things. We rise above it all and the only thing that really matters is out connection to Hashem. The problem is that the light doesn't stay on forever. Eventually -- whether already by motzei Y"K, or maybe if you absorb something more it happens after Sukkos, or maybe it lasts until Chanukah -- the light grows dim and we are back in the same dark world as before, immersed in gashniyus and inyanei ha'guf. Purim is a different kind of experience. On Purim we eat and drink and party and our guf is having a great time too. Purim is not about coming close to Hashem just when the light goes on and we see His presence clearly. Purim is about knowing Hashem is there even when it's dark, even when there is hester panim, even when we are immersed in the gashniyus of olam ha'zeh. Y"K is the day the satan has no power of kitrug; we rise above his realm and escape. Purim we take the battle to the yetzer on his own court. You, yetzer ha'ra, can have your say, can have your olam ha'zeh that you drag us into -- because we can find Hashem even there.

R' Naftali of Ropshitz in Zera Kodesh writes that we always read Ki Tisa the week after Purim and so there must be some connection between the parsha and Purim. Perhaps (this is not his answer, so ayen sham what he has to say) the explanation of why Moshe repeated his request is that connection. Moshe's original request was for Hashem not to be angry with Bn"Y. It's Yom Kippur, so wipe the slate clean, because if that slate is not wiped clean, if You continue to be angry, then we are in deep trouble. We are stuck with a malach, and that's not good enough. So Moshe pleaded for Hashem to change His mood, kavyachol, and put aside the gzar din.

Not only did Hashem respond positively to that request, but He went a step further and taught Moshe the 13 middos. Armed with this new tool in his arsenal, Moshe now revisited his earlier request.  Tzror haMor writes:

ועוד אני אומר כי זה דבר חדש. כי משה קודם שידע שלשה עשר מדות בקש שילכו פנים של זעם ויתנהג עמהם במדת רחמים. ואחר שלמד י״ג מדות שהם כולם רחמים ומעבירין כל מיני מדות הדין ויש בהם כפרת עונות. חזר לומר דבר אחר הפך מהראשון. והוא ילך נא אדני שהוא מדת הדין בקרבנו. כי איני ירא ממנו אעפ״י שהוא דין וזה העם עם קשה עורף. אחר שהוא בטוח בחסד ה׳ ובי״ג מדותיו של רחמים שהם יבטלו כל הגזרות וכל מיני מדות הדין. וזהו כי עם קשה עורף. אע״פ שהוא עם קשה עורף מהטעם כי אתה תסלח לעונם. ולכן תמצא שכתוב בכאן ילך נא אדני באל״ף דלי״ת שהוא לשון אדנות ומדת הדין.

Moshe is not repeating what he said earlier.  He is changing the terms of his earlier request. Not only do we want Hashem's presence with us when the slate is clean, when the light is on, when we are like malachim, like on Y"K, and we won't cause problems, but now Moshe asks for Hashem to be with us even if the slate is dirty, even if כִּ֤י עַם־קְשֵׁה־עֹ֙רֶף֙ ה֔וּא, because we know at the end of the day there are 13 midos ha'rachamim and He will stick with us anyway.   Even though we see hester panim, even though we see midas ha'din, at the end of the day we know He will bail us out anyway. That's what Purim is all about.

There are some relationships where the two parties somehow never have a disagreement, or they tiptoe around things to avoid one, because they know that if they do, it is liable to break the bond between them. Then there are relationships where the two parties sometimes do clash. That doesn't mean the bond between then is weaker.  Aderaba, it shows the relationship is strong enough to survive the disagreement.  Moshe originally asked Hashem to put aside his anger -- we can't have a disagreement, because if we do, then You are going to leave us in the hands of a malach.  Moshe then changed his request, and said to Hashem that even if we have our fights, it doesn't matter -- we will remain bonded together anyway.

act like a winner and you will be a winner

 t the end of the megillah Esther begs Achashveirosh to rescind the decree against Bnei Yisrael (8:5):

יִכָּתֵ֞ב לְהָשִׁ֣יב אֶת־הַסְּפָרִ֗ים מַחֲשֶׁ֜בֶת הָמָ֤ן בֶּֽן־הַמְּדָ֙תָא֙ הָאֲגָגִ֔י

Achashveirish responds that he cannot do that, as once promulgated, the law cannot be rescinded. But what he can do is send another letter allowing the J to fight back (8:8):

אַתֶּ֠ם כִּתְב֨וּ עַל־הַיְּהוּדִ֜ים כַּטּ֤וֹב בְּעֵֽינֵיכֶם֙ בְּשֵׁ֣ם הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ וְחִתְמ֖וּ בְּטַבַּ֣עַת הַמֶּ֑לֶךְ כִּֽי־כְתָ֞ב אֲשֶׁר־נִכְתָּ֣ב בְּשֵׁם־הַמֶּ֗לֶךְ וְנַחְתּ֛וֹם בְּטַבַּ֥עַת הַמֶּ֖לֶךְ אֵ֥ין לְהָשִֽׁיב׃

Everyone is thrilled! Time to celebrate!

לַיְּהוּדִ֕ים הָֽיְתָ֥ה אוֹרָ֖ה וְשִׂמְחָ֑ה וְשָׂשֹׂ֖ן וִיקָֽר׃

R' Chaim Kanievsky asks: why were people already jumping for joy? They weren't out of the woods yet! They would have to fight a war against the Aggagi - Amaleiki. According to some Rishonim the reason we have taanis Esther is because that was the day we gathered for battle. People's lives were still on the line.

R' Chaim answers (Taama d'Kra) that this was a deliberate ploy by Mordechai. If you act like a winner, people think you are a winner.  People treat you like a winner.  Mordechai said to act like the battle was won, like they held all the cards now. It may not have been true, but the point is that it gave the impression that it was true. רַבִּ֞ים מֵֽעַמֵּ֤י הָאָ֨רֶץ֙ מִֽתְיַֽהֲדִ֔ים כִּֽי־נָפַ֥ל פַּֽחַד־הַיְּהוּדִ֖ים עֲלֵיהֶֽם Psychologically, the tide had turned.  One that happens, the battle is in the bag.

A couple of years ago I quoted the SHL"h's interpretation of the midrash

תשורי מראש אמנה

עתידין ישראל לומר שירה לעתיד לבוא, שנאמר: (תהלים צח, א)שירו לה' שיר חדש כי נפלאות עשה.

What's the double language of עתידין ישראל לומר שירה לעתיד לבוא? If it is עתידין then it obviously is לעתיד לבוא? Says the SHL"H: when we reach the ultimate geulah, we won't wait for the miracles to all happen before we start praising Hashem. עתידין in the future we will sing shirah to Hashem לעתיד לבוא, on the miracles that we know and are confident are going to happen, even if they haven't occurred yet (there is a R' Chaim that is against this approach, but not everyone has to agree with R' Chaim.)

Maybe לַיְּהוּדִ֕ים הָֽיְתָ֥ה אוֹרָ֖ה וְשִׂמְחָ֑ה וְשָׂשֹׂ֖ן וִיקָֽר because at that moment we were on the level of celebrating in anticipation of the nes rather than as a reaction afterwards. Maybe it was that bitachon that the nes will happen, that we will be victorious, which itself is the driving force that brought victory to fruition.

the zechus Achashveirosh had that gave him a queen like Esther

The gemara (Meg 12b) explains why it was that Vashti was ordered to appear nude at the party of Achashveirosh . Chazal say that there was a midah k'neged midah at work here:

שבמדה שאדם מודד בה מודדין לו מלמד שהיתה ושתי הרשעה מביאה בנות ישראל ומפשיטן ערומות ועושה בהן מלאכה בשבת

The gemara then brings a source in the pesukim for this derash:

היינו דכתיב אחר הדברים האלה כשוך חמת המלך אחשורוש זכר את ושתי ואת אשר עשתה ואת אשר נגזר עליה כשם שעשתה כך נגזר עליה

There is an amazing Shem m'Shmuel which notes that when the pasuk tells זכר את ושתי ואת אשר עשתה ואת אשר נגזר עליה, we have to keep in mind the context. The megillah is not just relating to us, for our sake, the what and why of what happened. The megillah is telling us **Achashveirosh's understanding** of the what and the why. The pasuk is a window into the goings on in Achashveirosh's mind. He is the one thinking about Vashti. He is the one who was wondering why such a terrible thing should happen to his queen. And he is the one who understood that the answer is שבמדה שאדם מודד בה מודדין לו , that she was paid back exactly in kind for her crime. This was not some random event that occurred because the party got out of hand, but rather it was a precisely calibrated response to Vashti's actions.

Did you even wonder why such a simpleminded, wicked (perhaps) man like Achashveirosh was zocheh to be married to a great tzadekes like Esther haMalkah? OK, so Esther had to be in that position to effect a rescue of Klal Yisrael, but ha'yad Hashem tiktzar to put some other plan into effect?  Revach v'hatzalah yaa'mod la'Yehudim mi'makom acheir had Esther not been queen.  Says the Shem m'Shmuel: it was because of this recognition by Achashveirosh that שבמדה שאדם מודד בה מודדין לו. Esther is all about revealing the yad Hashem that is hidden in the events of history.   Megillah = giluy, to be megaleh and reveal that which is hester/ Esther. Achashveirosh on his own level had something of that midah in recognizing זכר את ושתי ואת אשר עשתה ואת אשר נגזר עליה, that שבמדה שאדם מודד בה מודדין לו.   If something happens, there is a reason behind it, there is yad Hashem that is behind it.

The holiday of Purim is about seeing the yad Hashem in the hester, in the day to day.  This year we are witness to nisim v'niflaos.  You have to be blind to not see it.  Some people are blind, and some people prefer to put on blinders.  

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.