opening doors

 1) One of the local business in the neighborhood that sells appetizing has the following sign on their door (apologies for the poor quality):

 

The business wants people to place orders for their break fast food ahead of time, and chastises people not to wait until the last minute to do so.  You know Y"K is coming, you know what you want to order and place the same order every year, so why wait -- call ahead of time!

 

When I walked past and saw that sign, I thought to myself that Hashem must have meant this to be put up as a message for aseret y'mei teshuvah. 

 

We all know Y"K is coming.  We do this every year.  We all know what we need to do to clear our slate.  Why wait for the last minute -- for erev Y"K, or for kol nidrei, or for the avodah of mussaf, or for neila, and for those who are real stragglers, for "Hashem hu ha'Elokim" and that last shofar blast?  Take care of things now!

 

Fortunately, Hashem will not slam the door in your face no matter when you decide to contact him, but more on that a few paragraphs from now.

 

2) In haYom Yom for 3 Tishrei the Rebbe quotes from R' Zusha of Anapoli that teshuvah can be broken down to 5 components, with each letter of the word teshuvah corresponding to a pasuk that reflects that component:

 

ת ־ תמים תהי׳ עם ה׳ אלקיך

שׁ ־ שׁזיתי ה׳ לנגדי תמיד

ו ־ ואהבת לרעך כּמוךּ

ב ־ בּכל דרכך דעהו

ה ־ הצנע לכת עם אלקיך

 

R' Leibele Eiger quotes a different pasuk for that last letter.  He understood  that the letter  ה is, as Rashi explains in our parsha, as ה״י לשון תימה.  For that letter hei he quotes a pasuk from our parsha: 

 

ה לה׳ תגמלו זאת עם נבל ולא חכם

 

When a person realizes that he has frittered away his time, wasting the potential that Hashem gave him, he is filled with remorse.  He can then come to the next ה, which is at the conclusion of that pasuk, and is also a question:

 

הֲלוֹא־הוּא֙ אָבִ֣יךָ קָּנֶ֔ךָ ה֥וּא עָשְׂךָ֖ וַֽיְכֹנְנֶֽךָ

 

Hashem is our father, who provides everything for us.  How can we not want to return to Him and do what is right?  That thought takes you back to the beginning of the process, to ת ־ תמים תהי׳ עם ה׳ אלקיך.

The process is circular, drawing a person constantantly closer to Hashem.

 

3) Coming back to signs on doors and not being turned away: On leil Yom Kippur after we say the pasuk ויאמר ה׳ סלחתי כדברך, and next comes the recitation of the bracha of she'hechiyanu.  The Lev Simcha explained that the bracha is not just on the kedushas ha'yom of Y"K.  The Rambam describes a person who does teshuvah (7:6) אמש היה זה שנאוי לפני המקום משוקץ ומרוחק ותועבה. והיום הוא אהוב ונחמד קרוב וידיד.   A baal teshuvah is like a new person.  The old self is gone, and this is the new me.  When Hashem says סלחתי כדברך and accepts our teshuvah, we then say she'hechiyanu on ourselves, on our new identity.  

 

I want to suggest a different answer, also based on Gerrer torah.  We say Hashem is פּותח שׁער לדופקי בּתשׁובה.  Knock on the door, and He will let you in.  Sefas Emes asks: the Midrash tells us (Devarim Rabbah 2:12)

 

רבי חנינא בר פפא שאל לרבי שמואל בר נחמן מהו דכתיב ואני תפלתי לך ה' עת רצון אמר לו שערי תפלה פעמים פתוחים פעמים נעולים אבל שערי תשובה לעולם פתוחים

 

The door for teshuvah is always open, so why do you need to knock?

 

What's the big deal of Hashem opening the door when it's never closed anyway?

 

There are people who want to do teshuvah, but they can't even find the door.  They don't even know how to begin, where to find ruchniyus, where to find themselves.  The door is open, but they keep banging on the walls, the floor, the ceiling, trying different things, looking in different places.

 

Hashem tells such people, "Don't worry -- you can knock on the wall, you can knock on the floor, you can even knock on the ceiling.  Even if that's not the door, even if you're knocking in the wrong place -- for you, I'll make a door.  I'll be ּפּותח שׁער even if that is not the שׁער and show you a way back."

 

The Yerushalmi tells the following story about Menashe:

 

כָּתוּב וַיְדַבֵּר יְי אֶל מְנַשֶּׁה וְאֶל עַמּוֹ וְלֹא הִקְשִׁיבוּ. וַיָּבֵא עֲלֵיהֶם אֶת שָׂרֵי הַצָּבָא אֲשֶׁר לְמֶלֶךְ וַיִּלְכְּדוּ אֶת מְנַשֶּׁה בַּחֹחִים. מָהוּ בַחֹחִים. בְּכֵירוֹ מָנִיקִיָּא. אַמַר רִבִּי לֵוִי. מוּלָא שֶׁלִּנְחוֹשֶׂת עָשׂוּ לוֹ וְנָתְנוּ אוֹתוֹ בְּתוֹכָהּ וְהָיוּ מַסִּיקִין תַּחְתָּיו. כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאָה שֶׁצָּרָתוֹ צָרָה לֹא הִנִּיחַ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בָעוֹלָם שֶׁלֹּא הִזְכִּירָהּ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא הוֹעִיל לוֹ כְּלוּם אָמַר. זָכוּר אֲנִי שֶׁהָיָה אָבִי מַקְרֶא אוֹתִי אֶת הַפָּסוּק הַזֶּה בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת בַּצַּר לְךָ וּמְצָאוּךָ כֹּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּאַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים וְשַׁבְתָּ עַד יי אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְשָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקוֹלוֹ. כִּי אֵל רַחוּם יְי אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹא יַרְפְּךָ וְלֹא יַשְׁחִיתֶךָ וְלֹא יִשְׁכַּח אֶת בְּרִית אֲבוֹתֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לָהֶם. הֲרֵי אֲנִי קוֹרֵא אוֹתוֹ. אִם עוֹנֶה אוֹתִי מוּטָּב וְאִם לָאו הָא כָל אַפְּיָא שָׁוִין. וְהָיוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת מְסַתְּמִין אֶת הַחַלּוֹנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא תַעֲלֶה תְפִילָּתוֹ שֶׁלִּמְנַשֶׁה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. וְהָיוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת אוֹמְרִים לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁלְּעוֹלָם. אָדָם שֶׁעָבַד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְהֶעֱמִיד צֶלֶם בַּהֵיכָל אַתָּה מְקַבְּלוֹ בִתְשׁוּבָה. אָמַר לָהֶן. אִם אֵינִי מְקַבְּלוֹ בִתְשׁוּבָה הֲרֵי אֲנִי נוֹעֵל אֶת הַדֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי כָל בַּעֲלֵי תְשׁוּבָה. מָה עָשָׂה לוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. חָתַר לוֹ חֲתִירָה מִתַּחַת כִּסֵּא הַכָּבוֹד שֶׁלּוֹ וְשָׁמַע תְּחִינָּתוֹ. הָדָא הִיא דִכְתִיב וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל אֵלָיו וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ וַיִּשְׁמַע תְּחִינָּתוֹ וַיְשִׁיבֵיה

 

The angels did not want to accept Menashe's teshuvah.  Maharal (San 102) explains that based on what is just, Menashe did not have a leg to stand on.  However, Hashem doesn't just operate within the lines of justice and the law on the books.  There is pure chessed as well.  Even if every door is closed, even if you have a case where a person has sinned so much that they don't even deserve the door of teshuvah to be open, Hashem says knock anyway.  Knock and I'll make you a door leading right to my kisei ha'hakavod.

(Right at the beginning of Rabeinu Yonah's Shaarei Teshuvah he gives a mashal.  A king locked some prisoners away in a jail.  They managed to tunnel their way out and escape (Shawshank Redemption), with the exception of one prisoner who chose to remain behind.  That one prisoner was singled out for punishment afterwards.  "Why would you not seize the opportunity to escape from prison?!" demanded the king.  The nimshal is our opportunity to do teshuvah and escape the jail of our sins.  If we fail to take advantage, it only adds to our guilt.  My wife always points out that the mashal of a tunnel matches this story of the tunnel Hashem himself made for Menashe.)

 

סלחתי כדברך.  I said a pshat 2 weeks ago in the name of R' Simcha haKohen Kook, but I want to suggest a different pshat.  Most people use the main door.  Some people enter some other way. Your friend may have found a different door; you may have been brought up or learned in yeshiva about some other door.  However, when all is said and done, if none of that works for you, if you can't find or enter any of those doors, then Hashem says, "You use your door.  כדברך -- wherever you want or need the door to be, I'll make sure there is one there."

 

The she'hechiyanu that we say on the night of Y"K is a she'hechiyanu on those new doors, the doors that Hashem has created and opened for each of us. 

 

May each of us find our שׁער, and may Hashem always open all the doors ands gates for us that we need opened, and may this she'hechiyanu of Y"K be followed this year by a she'hechiyanu on bi'as ha'goel.

it is our intent which defines what we hear as kol shofar

The Mishna (R"H 27b) has a din:

התוקע לתוך הבור או לתוך הדות או לתוך הפיטס אם קול שופר שמע יצא ואם קול הברה שמע לא יצא

If you blow shofar into a pit, that halacha says that if you hear the sound of the shofar, you are yotzei; if you just hear an echo, you are not yotzei.

The Mishna continues:

וכן מי שהיה עובר אחורי בית הכנסת או שהיה ביתו סמוך לבית הכנסת ושמע קול שופר או קול מגילה אם כוון לבו יצא ואם לאו לא יצא אע"פ שזה שמע וזה שמע זה כוון לבו וזה לא כוון לבו: גמ' תנו רבנן ארוך וקצרו כשר גרדו והעמידו על גלדו כשר ציפהו זהב במקום הנחת פה פסול שלא במקום הנחת פה כשר ציפהו זהב מבפנים

If you are walking past a shul and hear the shofar, if you have kavanah, you are yotzei; if not, you are not yotzei.

At first glance these are two completely unrelated halachos. The first din is addressing itself to what sound you are hearing. The second din is addressing what is going on in your mind while you are listening. But if that is correct, what is the word וכן doing there in the Mishna? How does the second din follow from the first if they are unrelated points? The Tos Y"T takes out the word out  וכן and so problem solved; however, the girsa we have in our gemara does have וכן.  How does it make sense?

Says the Sefas Emes (Likkutim): Just like hearing an echo is not the same as hearing the actual kol shofar, hearing a shofar sound without intention and thought is not the same as hearing kol shofar. It's a musical sound, it's a noise -- but it's not a shofar blast. A lack of intent changes the cheftza of what you are hearing into something else entirely.

Shofar is our alarm clock that awakens us to teshuvah, that reminds us that Hashem is the Creator, that echoes the sound we heard at mattan Torah. If you just hear a trumpet noise and are oblivious to the message and the mitzvah, you are missing something essential.

We see this reflected in the Rambam, who paskens in hil chameitz u'matzah (6:3):

אכל מצה בלא כונה כגון שאנסוהו עכו"ם או לסטין לאכול יצא ידי חובתו.

The implication is that mitzvos do not require kavanah to be yotzei. However, the Rambam paskens with respect to shofar (2:4)

נתכוון שומע לצאת ידי חובתו ולא נתכוון התוקע להוציאו או שנתכוון התוקע להוציאו ולא נתכוון השומע לצאת לא יצא ידי חובתו. עד שיתכוין שומע ומשמיע:

Here, kavanah is essential.

Matzah is matzah, whether you eat it with intent to fulfill a mitzvah or not. Kol shofar, however, is not the same if your mind is elsewhere.  The medium without the message has no value.

Chazon Ish on Machnisei Rachamim vs Malachei Rachamim mi'sharsei Elyon

My wife was more awake when she was saying slichos than I was, which is why she noticed the piyut that we said yesterday / today (depending on your nusach) in which we address ourselves to מלאכי רחמים משׁרתי עליון.  She asked, "Are we praying to angels?!"  My answer was that this is no different than the prayer of מכניסי רחמים at the end of slichos, which some people skip out of concern for that very issue of avoiding the appearance of praying to angels, and others justify it in various ways, e.g. we are praying to G-d and simply asking the angels not to get in the way.  

Lo and behold, I found in the Divrei Siach sheet from 5782 (#488), R' Chaim Kanievski quoted the Chazon Ish as omitting מכניסי רחמים but having no problem with מלאכי רחמים משׁרתי עליון.  He drew a subtle distinction:

Had my wife not been bothered by the question, I would have never have given it a second thought.

  

salachti ki'devarecha -- you get out just what you put in

The slichos season has started.  We say the 13 middos, we say ashamnu, etc. asking Hashem for forgiveness.  Hashem's response is:

ויאמר ה׳ סלחתי כּדברךּ

I heard a beautiful pshat in the name of R' Simcha haKohen Kook.  

A person can say the slichos, the tefilos of Yamin Noraim, and really take things to heart and pledge to make changes in his life.  But we all know that a person can also just go through the motions, saying the words מן השׂפה ולחוץ without thinking about them or attaching any real meaning to them.  

Hashem's response to us is exactly in proportion to what we put into what we are saying.  סלחתי כּדברךּ!  If our words are heartfelt and meaningful, then Hashem's response to us will be a deep, meaningful response.  

But if we just go through the motions, then Hashem's response will also just be a superficial one, מן השׂפה ולחוץ, without real meaning.

Let's make our words count!

arvus - the ger who was a baal toke'a

Our parsha tells us that the principle of arvus started only after Bn"Y crossed into Eretz Yisrael. 

I want to revisit a post from 20 years ago because of a chiddush my wife wanted to suggest on the parsha.  

 

The gemara in Brachos has a safeik whether women are chayavos in birchas hamazon min hatorah or not. The Rosh writes that since this issue is unresolved, a woman may not be motzi a man in bentching.  The principle that allows one person to be motzi another only works if the two share parallel chiyuvim. Since the woman's chiyuv may only be derabbanan and the man's chiyuv is d’oraysa, it doesn't work.

 

Asks the Rosh, why should this distinction in the levels of chiyuvim matter?  This principle of arvus tells us that even if person A has already fulfilled their chiyuv and no longer has any obligation to do a mitzvah, that person can still be motzi person B.  A man who ate a k’zayis (chiyuv derabbanan) can be motzi a man who ate k’dei seviya (chiyuv d’oraysa) because of this principle.  In fact, in theory, even if person A ate nothing, he should be able to be motzi person B (l'maaseh we don't hold that way for different reasons).  Therefore, by the same token, even if a woman’s chiyuv in bentching is only derabbanan, she should be able to be motzi a man.

 

Rosh answers with a tremendous chiddush: the principle of arvus does not apply to women.

 

The Dagul m’Revava raises a number of questions on this yesod of the Rosh, the most well known (O.C. 271) relating to the mitzvah of kiddush. According to the Magen Avraham, a man is yotzei his mitzvah of kiddush m’doraysa by reciting kiddush hayom in ma’ariv of Shabbos. How can a man be motzi his wife, who is chayeves in kiddush min hatorah, when he has already fulfilled his kiddush m’doraysa and the principle of arvus does not apply?

 

R’ Akiva Eiger disagrees with the Dagel m’Revava’s reading of the Rosh. The Rosh never meant that arvus does not extend to women.  What the Rosh meant is in a case where women might not be obligated in the mitzvah at all, like bentching, then there is no arvus. Where women have a chiyuv, like the case of kiddush, the principle of arvus applies.

 

What is the nekudas ha'mahlokes between them?  Yesh lachkor whether arvus is a din prati, a detail in each and every mitzvah, which allows someone who already was yotzei to do the mitzvah for someone who was not, or whether it is a din klali, a blanket rule that covers all mitzvos?  The SM"G, for example, counts arvus as one of the 613 mitzvos.  It is an independent din its own right, not a detail of each individual mitzvah.  This would fit the Dagul m'Revava's position that either you are included in arvus or not; it's all or nothing.  RAK"E, on the other hand, judges each mitzvah independently, and conditions arvus on whether or not a person has a chiyuv in that particular mitzvah or not, suggesting that it is a din prati.

 

What my wife wanted to suggest is that that arvus is not just linked to coming into Eretz Yisrael, but is linked to having a cheilek in Eretz Yisrael.  The reason women are excluded from arvus is because, barring exceptions like Bnos Tzelafchad, they received no portion in the land.

 

I pointed out that if this is correct, it should also mean that a ger is not included in arvus since a ger has no cheilek in Eretz Yisrael.  This is a machlokes even in Rishonim, see Tos Kiddusin 70b, Tos Nidah 13b. 

 

R' Shternbruch has a teshuvah (Teshuvos v'Hanhagos 3:162) where he tries to soften this conclusion a bit.  The question posed to him was regarding a bal toke'a who was a ger and wanted to go to the hospital on R"H after davening to blow shofar for those who were too sick to make it to shul.  Interestingly, the people asking whether this is a good idea were only concerned with whether it is proper to have a non-meyuchas ger take the lead in this role.  R" Shternbruch brushes that aside and points out that there is a more fundamental problem: if a ger is excluded from arvus, then he cannot be motzi anyone after he has done the mitzvah already!

 

R' Shternbruch comes up with a chiddush that I don't fully understand.  He suggests that there are 2 dinim in arvus: 1) the question of whether a yachid can be motzi another yachid in mitzvos; 2) the question of whether gerim as a collective unit are included in the tzibur of klal Yisrael or not.  He posits that the whole debate about whether gerim are included in arvus only relates to that second din, to the question of whether gerim as a unit are part of the tzibur or not.  The Rashi in our parsha which speaks about arvus is speaking about whether Hashem holds the tzibur as a whole responsible for actions of individuals.  That question hinges on how you define who is or who is not part of the tzibur.  However, when it comes to an individual's right or ability to be motzi another individual in a mitzvah, there is no question that a ger can do so just as much as anyone else.

 

One of the arguments he makes is along the same lines as the point I raised to my wife: Why was RAK"E so convinced that women are included in arvus when Rishonim hold that geirim are not?  I was willing to work with the idea that the machlokes Rishonim maybe parallels the macholes RAK"E and the D"R.  R' Shternbruch's solution, based on his thesis, is that the question mixes apples and oranges.  RAK"E is talking about the ability of a yachid to be motzi a yachid.  The Rishonim are speaking about the question of who is included in the collective tzibur.

 

The Steipler has a piece where he mentions a proof for the D"mR against RAK"E from an unnamed talmid chacham.  The gemara calculates that the number of britot that created arvus was 600,000 yotzei Mitzrayim x 600,000 each individual was responsible for.  The reason geirim are exluded from arvus is because this number -- 600,000 (I'm rounding) -- does not include geirim.  Well, but the same token, it does not include women either.  The Steipler mentions that his son, R' Chaim, was doche this proof based on Tos (Nidah 13) that the number 600,000 is simply the people we know about, who were innumerated, not a grand total.  According to R' Shternbruch (and I think he alludes to this question himself), the whole calculation does not make sense.  The calculation is speaking about the responsibility of each individual member of Klal Yisrael towards each other individual member.  According to R' Shternbruch, the exclusion of geirim means the collective of geirim as a group are not part of the tzibur, but that has no impact on the level of each person's individual arvus for his/her neighbor.

 

This gets to the heart of what bothers me most about this sevara.  If there are two dinim in operation here, then there should be two independent sources for each.  The source for arvus is the pasuk in our parsha that speaks about the brit that took effect after the entrance to Eretz Yisrael.  If that refers only to the issue of defines who is part of the tzibur, then what is the source for the individual's responsibility for arvus on his/her friend? 

Amalek, Yosef, and bikkurim

1) Yesh lachkor what the geder of kri u'kesiv is, like we have in our parsha.  Does kri u'kesiv mean that we read the word in question שׁלא מן הכּתב, or does it mean that the kri is how to pronounce the word in question, like if you saw the letters ghoti but read it as /fish/ -- the /gh/ like in cough, the /o/ like in women, the /ti/ like in nation?

See PM"G end of siman 141 who says even if wax covers the letters of the word of a krei u'kesiv, it's not a problem because by definition these words are read שׁלא מן הכּתב.  However, I saw R' Elyashiv quoted as disagreeing.

2) What is the connection between the conclusion of last week's parsha which dealt with Amalek and the mitzvah of bikurim at the beginning of this week's parsha?

 Meshech Chochma at the end of this week's parsha quoted the following Midrash:

 

ובמדרש (דברים רבה ז, י) על פסוק זה: כיון שבא ליכנס לארץ ישראל התחיל אומר (לעיל ג, כה): ״אעברה נא ואראה״ וכו׳. א״ל הקב״ה, משה! ביטלת שלי ושלך קיימת. אני אמרתי (לעיל ט, יד): ״ואשמידם״, ואתה אמרת (במדבר יד, יט): ״סלח נא״, ונתקיים שלך. (ואף עכשיו מבקש אני לקיים את שלי ולבטל את שלך!) א״ל הקב״ה למשה, אין אתה יודע מה לעשות, אתה רוצה לאחוז את החבל בשני ראשין?! אם ״אעברה נא״ אתה מבקש לקיים, בטל ״סלח נא״, ואם ״סלח נא״ אתה מבקש לקיים, בטל ״אעברה נא״. (אמר ריב״ל, כיון ששמע משה רבינו כך, אמר לפניו, רבש״ע ימות משה ומאה וכיוצא בו ולא תינזק צפורנו של אחד מהם, עכ״ל המדרש).

  

Why is אעברה נא linked to סלח נא?  Why is this an either/or choice?

 

Chazal (Baba Basra 123) tell us that אין זרעו של עשו נופל אלא בידי זרעו של רחל.  Mesech Chochma explains the reason why this is so.  The Mechilta tells us יבא (עמלק) כפוי טובה ויפרע (מן העם) כפוי הטובה.  Rashi in parshas Beshalach writes:

 

סמך פרשה זו למקרא זה, לומר תמיד אני ביניכם ומזומן לכל צרכיכם, ואתם אומרים היש ה' בקרבנו אם אין, חייכם שהכלב בא ונושך אתכם ואתם צועקים אלי ותדעון היכן אני. משל לאדם שהרכיב בנו על כתפו ויצא לדרך, היה אותו הבן רואה חפץ ואומר, אבא טול חפץ זה ותן לי, והוא נותן לו, וכן שניה וכן שלישית, פגעו באדם אחד, אמר לו אותו הבן ראית את אבא. אמר לו אביו אינך יודע היכן אני, השליכו מעליו ובא הכלב ונשכו:

 

We did not appreciate Hashem's protection, so He had to give us a reminder through Amalek that He is watching over us.

 

In parshas Ki Teizti the story of Amalek follows the prohibition against having unequal weights and measures.  Rashi there comments on the smichus ha'parshiyot: אם שקרת במדות ובמשקלות, הוי דואג מגרוי האויב.  Bn"Y were not running makolot or Rami Levy supermarkets in the midbar.  How would they be cheating on their scales?  

R' Shlomo Fisher explains that this is one and the same yesod as Rashi in Beshalach.  The issur or weights and measures here is not knowing how to properly calibrate events in your life.  Some people only see what they are lacking.  Their scale is always tipped to the negative; they always think they are being shortchanged. 

 

Amalek is the epitome of having your scale tipped too far to the negative.  Amalek cannot be happy so long as someone else, Bn"Y is enjoying life, and they are not the center of attention. 

 

The Eitz Yosef on the Tanchuma suggests that Amalek is called  כפוי הטובה  because Bn"Y was barred from taking their land.  Had they not attacked, there was no reason for us to go to war with them.  R' Moshe Tzuriel goes a step further and says Amalek is called כפוי הטובה because, as we just read in last week's parsha, we were given a mitzvah לא תתעב אדומי כי אחיך הוא (דברים כג, ח).  Where is their brotherly love in response? 

 

The 180 degree inverse of Amalek is Yosef, who instead of holding a grudge against his brothers for what they did to him supported them and cared for them while they were in Egypt.  Therefore, Amalek stands no chance against the descendants of Yosef.

 

Had Moshe been the one to lead Bn"Y and his wish of אעברה נא was granted, given that he was not a descendant of Rachel, Bn"Y would have not had the confidence and trust in Hashem needed to wage war  against Amalek.  They would still be plagued with the fear that held the meraglim back, and there could therefore be no סלח נא for that sin.  It's only because Yehoshua, from sheivet Ephraim, a descendent of Yosef, a descendent of Rachel, was in charge, that Bn"Y felt that they could succeed. 

The essence of the mitzvah of bikkurim is hakaras hatov, appreciating the gift of Eretz Yisrael and its bounty.  Therefore, the Torah juxtaposes this mitzvah with the command to obliterate Amalek.  By giving thanks, we eliminate the sin of being כפוי טובה which mars Amalek's character.

Rabeinu Yonah: the one thing teshuvah cannot cure

The Tiferet Shlomo on our parsha comments that the pasuk כי תצא מחנה על אויביך ונשמרת מכל דבר רע derech remez alludes to Rosh haShana, a time when the machanot of angels of the sitra achara gather and try to ruin our upcoming year. How can a person assure that they are zocheh to a good year? He writes:

ועיקר ההכנה על יום הנורא הזה להיות אחוה וריעות בין בני ישראל כמ"ש בחצוצרות וקול שופר הריעו לפני המלך ד' לשון אחוה וריעות

Rosh haShana is a "yom teru'ah," meaning, a dat of re'us, i.e. v'ahavta l'rei'acha. If you get along with others, then you have nothing to worry about. Hashem will make sure that He gets along with you.

How do you do that? By training yourself to to not speak ill of other people. ונשמרת מכל דבר רע means דיבּור רע.

וזה הרמז בפ' שהתחלנו כי תצא מחנה על אויביך ונשמרת מכל דבר רע. לבל ידבר ח"ו רע על חבירו ולא יראה כלל בחסרונו רק במעלות חבירו וז"ש מי האיש החפץ חיים לבקש בר"ה כתבנו בספר החיים. נצור לשונך מרע לבל ידבר על חבירו סור מרע ועשה טוב. וזהו הכנה ליום הדין להוציא משפטינו לאורה. כי אם האדם מחזיק את חבירו בחזקת צדיק אזי גם אותו יכתוב בספרי הצדיקים:

We can use our words to build people up, to spread positivity. You can make the lowest person feel great. If you do that, Hashem then no matter where you are in life, Hashem will inscribe you for a good din and make you feel great too.

Rabeinu Yonah writes something in his Sefer haYirah (and the GR"A references it in his Iggeret) that should make you shake:

לכּל ישׁ רפואה חוץ מלשׁון הרע

(This line needs explanation, as R"Y himself in Shaarei Teshuvah 3:210 based on Archin 15b writes וְאָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ מַרְפֵּא לָשׁוֹן הָרַע לְהִנָּצֵל מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁיַּעֲסֹק אָדָם בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ט"ו:ד') מַרְפֵּא לָשׁוֹן עֵץ חַיִּים. וְזֶהוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהילים ל"ט:ב') אֶשְׁמְרָה לְפִי מַחְסוֹם וְגוֹ' פֵּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה כִּי הַמַּחְסוֹם הוּא הָעֵסֶק בַּתּוֹרָה.

He is quoting the sugya in Archin 15b

מר רבי חמא בר' חנינא מה תקנתו של מספרי לשון הרע אם תלמיד חכם הוא יעסוק בתורה שנא' מרפא לשון עץ חיים ואין לשון אלא לשון הרע שנאמר חץ שחוט לשונם ואין עץ יא] אלא תורה שנאמר עץ חיים היא למחזיקים בה ואם עם הארץ הוא ישפיל דעתו שנאמר וסלף בה שבר רוח רבי אחא ברבי חנינא אומר סיפר אין לו תקנה שכבר כרתו דוד ברוח הקדש שנאמר יכרת ה' כל שפתי חלקות לשון מדברת גדולות אלא מה תקנתו שלא יבא לידי לשון הרע אם תלמיד חכם הוא יעסוק בתורה ואם ע"ה הוא ישפיל דעתו שנאמר וסלף בה שבר רוח

It could be that R"Y paskens like the second opinion, and לְהִנָּצֵל מִמֶּנּוּ means to avoid speaking lashon ha'ra.)

It is a frightening thought that as powerful as teshuvah is, there is some things it won't work for. The Shem m'Shmuel (beginning of Metzora) tries to soften it and say that regular teshuvah is not enough, but teshuvah on some higher level does work, but whatever the hesber, it shows the seriousness of the sin of lashon ha'ra.


We don't need really need to reach for remazim to this idea in our parsha, as the Rishonim spell it out in pshat in the pesukim 24:8-9):

הִשָּׁ֧מֶר בְּנֶֽגַע־הַצָּרַ֛עַת לִשְׁמֹ֥ר מְאֹ֖ד וְלַעֲשׂ֑וֹת כְּכֹל֩ אֲשֶׁר־יוֹר֨וּ אֶתְכֶ֜ם הַכֹּהֲנִ֧ים הַלְוִיִּ֛ם כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוִּיתִ֖ם תִּשְׁמְר֥וּ לַעֲשֽׂוֹת

זָכ֕וֹר אֵ֧ת אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂ֛ה יְקוָ֥ק אֱלֹקיךָ לְמִרְיָ֑ם בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶ֥ם מִמִּצְרָֽיִם

Rashi explains that Miriam was afflicted with tzaraas because she spoke lashon ha'ra; therefore, if you want to be careful to avoid tzaraas, don't speak ill of people.

I've written about these pesukim a few times in the past, but for some reason Rashbam never caught my eye until this year. He offers a different takeaway than Rashi. Where I work, there are policies and procedures, but there are always people who assume those are for everyone else, not them, or they assume that their need is special, their circumstance is special, and so the rules don't apply. Rashbam address himself to the first half of that argument. Our pasuk warns that if someone is afflicted with tzaraas, no matter who it is, no matter how chashuv a person, they are not immune from punishment. We don't play favorites. The policy applies to everyone equally. אפילו הוא מלך כעוזיה לא יכבדוהו, אלא יסגירוהו וישלחוהו ובדד ישב. Look no further than Miriam, who despite being a nevi'ah, despite being Moshe's sister, was forced to sit outside the camp until her tzaraas was cured. (The Netziv here is a peleh, as he explains Rashbam here as follows: ורשב״ם פירש שלא יהיה עליך שמירת דיני צרעת למשא, שהרי גם מרים נהגה כך. I don't understand how he read it that way.)

This fits well with a midrash I quoted over a dozen years ago:

רבנן אמרי:

למה הדבר דומה? למלך שעלה מן המלחמה קילסה אותו מטרונה.

אמר המלך: תיקרי אומן של סנקליטור. לאחר ימים התחילה לערב אוננא של מלך.

אמר המלך: כך עשית?!

תיטרד למטלון!

כך, בשעה שעשה הקב"ה מלחמת הים אמרה מרים שירה ונקראת נביאה, שנאמר: (שמות טו) ותקח מרים הנביאה. כיון, שאמרה לשון הרע על אחיה, אמר הקב"ה תיטרד למטלון! שנאמר: (במדבר יב) ותסגר מרים:

R' Shlomo Kluger in Imrei Shefer explains that Midrash comes to explain why our pasuk needs to mention בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶ֥ם מִמִּצְרָֽיִם. He reads the Midrash in a way that is similar to Rashbam. An important person usually has "protektzia."  The Midrash compares Miriam to an official appointed by the king as a reward for great service. Remember the shirah she sang when Bn"Y left Egypt, בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶ֥ם מִמִּצְרָֽיִם? How great was that! Only a major blunder would cause a person on that level to come under scrutiny or be punished for an infraction. Well, lashon ha'ra is a major blunder on that level.

Ralbag / Abarbanel address the second argument, that due to extenuating circumstances, policy and procedure goes out the window and we can make exceptions. Bn"Y were en route to Eretz Yisrael and anxious to get there. Under those circumstances, you might have said to forget about Miriam's tzaraas so as to keep moving. That's not what happened. Even if everyone had to wait, Miriam's tzaraas had to be addressed and tended to. There is no "emergency" that trumps tzaraas because there is no need that is greater than demonstrating the severity of lashon ha'ra.

I still prefer the interpretation of the Midrash that I posted way back when. The greater the gifts and ability a person has, the greater hi/her responsibility to develop and use those talents wisely and properly. It is davka because Miriam sang shirah and understood the power of words that she is faulted for tripping up and using that power of speech improperly to criticize Moshe.

Bn"Y are lauded for being able to use words correctly. "HaKol kol Yaakov" -- our voice is meant to be used for tefillah and for Torah. That is what brings chiyus to a person. That is why מה תקנתו של מספרי לשון הרע אם תלמיד חכם הוא יעסוק בתורה. Precisely because we have that gift, we are held to account for lashon ha'ra, we are held to account when we improperly using our voice. As the Tif Shlomo says, ונשמרת מכל דבר רע, meaning דיבּור רע, is the key to a kesiva v'chasima tovah.